[This draft is part of a complex set of notes that WHFT prepared while he was negotiating with the Executive Committee of the Great Exhibition of 1851. It represents the final 14 leaves of a 17 leaf manuscript - the first 3 leaves are a summary document, transcribed as Doc. No: 15000. See also R. Derek Wood's website for additional context^<1>]

[draft:]

Ld G Nov Dec 1 /51

My L^d, I sh^ll endeavour t lay before y^r lordship in y^e following remarks upon the causes wh^h have impeded y^e execu^t. of y^e plates of the G^t. work on y^e Crystal palace.-

This ph^c w^k was unfort^ly undertakⁿ after y^e 3 fin^st mo^ths of y^e yr (M.J.J^y.) had elapsed.

At y^e end of J^y., & d^ng my abs^ce at Blin y^e Ex^ve C^tee applied to M^r Hⁿ to undertake it. He ent^d into y^e idea w^th ardour, but being a foreigner & hav^g no one at the mom^t. t advise him, he unf^tly did not see how nec^y it was before en^tg into an und^tkg a w^k of such magn^tde, to have a precise written contract drawn up & signed (w^ch w^d h^ve avoided all future diff^ties - by embracing defining ev^y point part of y^e matter).-

As it was, y^e only agreement he made with y^e Ex^tve Com^te in y^e nature of a legal contract He however made a partial contracted to supply the C^tee w^th 200 neg^tve pict^s. on glass of y^e obj^ts they wi^shd for at at y^e rate of 3 gs each, & for w^th 100 neg^ves on paper at y^e rate of 2 gs. each and with 1 pos^ve Copy of each at the rate of 5/- it being und^std that this 1^st pos^ve copy was y^e subseq^t copies were to be made with part^r pains, & ∴ to be paid for at [illegible deletion] a higher price than y^e sub^t furnished at a much lower price.

He imm^y sent to Paris t engage the 2 best French F^ch photo^grs on glass Martens & Ferrier, & finding there was a diff^y in obt^g their services, he started himself, going & returning I believe in 48 36 hours. No one c^d display greater zeal in the matter- He thus secured engaged the services of these Artists at y^e rate of 2 g^s wh^ch was t be paid y^m for each picture, and all their exp^ses connected with tak^g y^e pictures (such as Chemicals app^tus &c) were to be provided & p^d for by H^n.-

But M. Martens nota^bly [illegible] the lucr^tve nature liberal terms of this Eng^t. M. Martens in almost a fortnight threw up his engagem^t & returned to Paris, alleging he was so thwarted & impeded at y^e Crl Pal^ce that he c^d do nothing.- M. Ferrier rem^d & executed y^e contract, but his complaints on y^e same score were continual.-

There was great diff^y exp^ced owing to y^e bad light in y^e building from the calico w^ch covered y^e roof being dirty, & the declining light of y^e Sun in Sept^r., & still more in Oct^r. M. Ferrier also greatly complained that when he had evr^thg prepared to make a fine view of as in a some statue or other ob^t he was freqt^ly prevented from dg it, by the C^tee ph S^vsr who informed him they had not yet procured the owner's leave to have it copied. A thing they S^hd ought to have taken most anx^s pains about.- Under these circ^ces it is marvellous only a wonder th^t such good pict^s sh^d have been obtained:- M^r Henⁿ & M^r Ferrier would undertake to picture photograph the collect^ns of any British noblⁿ in a tenth part of the time (Supposing y^e number of ob pictures made to be y^e same) because of course such y^e noblⁿ w^d himself give ev^y facility for the accompl^nt of y^e work he ordered.

But in this inst^ce M Ferrier cd only work from 6 till 9 in the morng when y^e advent of the public obl^gd him to withdraw w^h his instr^ts.

Some 227 neg^ves were taken in this way but y^e profit derived by M^r Hⁿ from y^e affair was not suff^t to remunerate him for his g^t loss of time & neglect of his own business-

The only part of this orig^l contract betwⁿ M^r H & the Comm^ee & M^r Hⁿ wh^h w^d have been really remune^ve was that for 100 neg^ves upon paper. In this part (being done by M^r H himself) of course he rec^d all the profits of it. But upon M^r Hⁿ his presenting furnishing to the Committee the first 20 pictures under this contract, the C^tee exercised y^e right of rejectⁿ (w^ch they had reserved to th^selves) and rejected 19 of them. Of course M^r H. could not attempt to proceed further. And he made executed no more paper of this that contract theref losing nearly 200 g^s. to which he was w^d h bⁿ fairly entitled. He had most unfort^ly (trusting entirely in y^e Ex^ec Com^tee) neglected to stipulate for himself any right of appeal, or arbitratⁿ or appeal ag^st an unjust decisⁿ.- That it that it was an unjust one in this inst^ce appears f^m what follows. The rejected pict^s were shown to Sir D. Brewster, when he assured me that he thought most of them were excellent, some most beautiful.-

It had all along been intended by y^e Ex^ve C^tee that M^r Hⁿ s^d make y^e pos^ve copies from these the glass neg^ves and it was to that he looked for his remunⁿ. The only questⁿ was as to y^e price to be p^d him.-

M^r Henⁿ since he has bⁿ in business I believe never sold a negative picture to any one, and cert^ly never w^d have sold these to y^e Ex^ve C^tee except that he thought he was dealing with a public body of the highest honour, & they assured him repeated^y these neg^ves would become nat^l property & be deposited most prob^y in the British Mus^m - but that they he w^d be allowed the use of them occas^lly even after they were so deposited. Upon this assurance, he did what he never did before, he cons^ted to parted with y^e neg^ve pict^s.-

On Sept. 29. the neg^ves being nearly finished the Com^tee offered to make with M^r Hⁿ a contract for y^e pos^ve copies, at the rate of 2/6 each, they hav^g to have y^e right of rejecting bad copies &c. He accepted this offer by retⁿ of post Copying their own words respecting the right of rejection &c &c. Never the less they The Com^tee made no ans^r for a consid^ble time, & then w^thdrew their offer, on the ground that M^r H had rejected at refused to comply with other matters cont^d in y^e same letter of 29 Sept.- But what were these matters? One of them was y^e following, w^ch is certainly one of the most ext^y proposals w^ch ever emanated from any Exec^tve public Body.- It was that M^r Owen of Bristol, Sh^d (to whom I had prev^ly given my lic^e suitable to do so) sh^d make a certain n^o of pos^ve Copies, & for send them to M^r Hⁿ & that M^r Hⁿ who should therefore pay M^r O for them offer & forward them to the Com^tee at the same price who w^d sh^d then pay M^r Hn for them the same price he had paid to M^r Owen, leaving M^r Hⁿ (this is expressly stated) to pay all of his out of his own pocket own pocket the any royalty due to myself as patentee I might claim on the said pictures [illegible deletion] (N.B. the Com^tee were evidently not then aware t^t I had relinquished all any such claim to royalty on this occasⁿ). This beneficial arrangement, together with 1 other point viz. that the Com^tee should of y^e letter M^r H refused to comply with. And it was upon that ground that the Com^tee rescinded y^e contract of y^e 29 Sept.

The one other point I here allude to was this. M^r The Committee had promised to M^r Hen^man as the most beneficial part advantageous part of y^e whole transaction to him - that he s^d after y^e completⁿ of y^e work, he sh^d be allowed to make copies, & sell them to y^e Public for his own benefit (see extract No. 2 & y^e same on many prev^s occas^ns)- They now however stated that they w^d impose upon him a max^m price which he must not exceed (without saying what price that w^d be). Hⁿ M^r H replied (A) in reply named 5/ as the price he would sell the pictures to the public for. That was the position not exceed [illegible] to wh^h M^r Hⁿ said

After this no comm.ⁿ was rec^d f y^e C^tee for some time, when we heard to our amaze^t that they were going to have y^e work exec^d in France. A remonstr^ce was sent thro’ D^r L Sir D. B. imm^y undertook to comm.^te w^h Col Reid on y^e subject, but w^ch if he had done I think the subseq^t diff^ties w^d h bⁿ avoided.

But he sought for him in vain at L. & Wch during 2 days aft^r w^h he was obliged to go to Scotland- and shortly after the Col. departed to Malta.- A private remons^tce was then sent to the C^tee thro’ D^r L. Playfair, but remained unatt^ed to.- The points urged were that this being an inventⁿ a patent^d invⁿ the Com^tee could not legally employ any non lic^sed person to execute y^e photo^c plates nor in England, nor could they legally import them from Fr^ce without taking into acc^t the not to say that this w^d be a most painful retⁿ for y^e courtesy w^h w^ch all their wishes had been met on my part. The Ex^ve Com^tee merely inf^med me by letter 1^st. that the price of 2/6 per copy was too great, 2^dy that M^r Hⁿ made bad copies, w^ch w^d not last possess any perm^ce.

A) replied that he was willing thought 5/ w^d be y^e proper max^m price. The Com^tee did not reply The Com^tee made no reply at y^e time. But they rescinded the contract of 29 Sept^r of 29 Sept^r in cons^qce of this alleged non compliance w^ththeir wishes

To the 1^st point I replied that the price of 2/6 was their own proposal of Sept. 29^th. and that fine spec^ns And to the 2^d. I replied by y^e following offer w^ch I trust your L^dShip will consider a very reasonable one -

"W^d y^e Com^tee like t see spec^s of pos^ves p^td off by M^r Hⁿ f^m 6 to 10 years ago ? which have rem^d unalt^d? In that case I w^d for^d a p^cel con^tg 100 of y^m for their inspection"

Not the slightest notice was taken by the Com^tee of this offer.

M^r H subse^ly informed me that y^e defects in y^e a few copies compl^d of by the Com^tee were caused by their having been done in a hurry by one of his assist^s while he was himself absent at making views at Osb by command of her Majesty,

Finding that M^r Cole was prejudiced ag^st M^r H. had objected as to M^r H's pict^s I advised my other lic^see M^r K of Foster Lane C^hpside, to see M^r C. and offer to take the contract either alone or making M^r H such indemnity as might be agreed on betwⁿ them. M^r K. acc^y waited on M^r C. when M^r C. offered him the contract to make y^e copies at 1/ each- This It seems inconsis^t y^t M^r C. not hav^g seen any copies by M^r K. sh^d should make him offer him y^e contract, and it shows (I may fairly argue) that the price alone was regarded by w^ch H asked was y^e real ground of objectⁿ w^th the Com^tee and that not any real or fancied imperfection in his work.

M^r K. however rejected y^e offer as too low and withdrew. We soon after^ds learnt y^t y^e Committee then had actually made a con^ct with M^r Bingham who has no lic^se from me to execute y^e copies in France, at y^e price of 1/6 per copy, & to furnish them t y^e Com^tee at y^e rate of 80 per diem, w^ch w accd^ly to w^ch at w^ch rate y^e work w^d be executed in 8 months-

I called upon M^r K. w^th ref^ce to this matter and stated it as my opinⁿ where on my pointing out remarking that great exp^ses w^d be incurred by M^r Bingham in establ^sg a phot^c man^fty of this photographer in the S. of France (supposing him to be allowed ever to do so) he informed me that that y^e above named sum of price per Copy did was not y^e whole considⁿ to be p^d to M^r Bingham, for that M^r B w^d not have und^taken y^e contract at y^e price of 1/6 pr Copy, if that had been y^e only considⁿ- but that y^e principle one was that M^r B y^e C^tee had granted to M^r B. the right of making selling to the P^c for his own benefit as many copies as he pleased, after furnishing the stipulated n^o to y^e C^tee- & that as M^r B. intended to sell them in F^ce where whither my patent does not extend it y^e permissⁿ w^d be very valuable to him.

I replied that the C^tee could not grant such privilege to M^r Bingham, because (apart f^m all other consid^ns) they had already granted it to M^r Hⁿ but M^r K. persisting in y^e correctness of his informⁿ I had an inter^vw w^th M^r Bingham himself when M^r B. fully confirmed y^e statem^t. Nor did it appear that from what he s^d y^t y^e C^tee had taken any security, or in any way tied him down bound him not to sell some of these copies in F^ce even during y^e time he was oemployed by about y^e work of y^e C^tee. I h^ve omitted t mentⁿ y^t [illegible deletion] some days previous to this I was advised

Under these circ^ces the only remedy seemed to be to seek y^e protectⁿ of a Court of Law, and give publicity to all these proceed^gs. But it was thought best to ask for an a personal interv^w w^h y^e C^tee- then consisting of only 2 members in active^y - M^r C & M^r D- Acc^ly I went, accomp^d by my Solic^r & had a conf^ce w^th these gentⁿ in the G^t Exhⁿ Build^g on Monday the 17 Nov

The Comm^ee then stated that they had made such arrange^ts w^h M^r B that it appeared to them the best way of termin^g y^e diff^y w^d be to offer ask me to sanctⁿ their arrang^ts with M^r. B. & to offer me compensⁿ. I replied that I had all along disclaimed any pecuniary compensaⁿ - but that I w^d agree to accept a certⁿ number of copies of y^e phot^c part alone of their g^t work, & on that conditⁿ w^d myself undertake to par^lly compensate M^r H with a present of £200 thus undertaking (quite unnecess^ly I must confess) a portⁿ of y^e past responsibilities justly of y^e Com^tee. M^r C. & M^r D accepted y^e proposal & after a short considⁿ y^e no of Copies was fixed at 15. M^r C. took pen & paper and stated that the cost of each copy to the C^tee w^d be £30, the total therefore of 15 copies £450. I undertook on my part not to sell any of y^e copies but give y^m all away- The C^tee then desired me to put the agreement in writ^g M^r C. & M^r The C^tee then des^d me to put y^e agreem^t in writing, & let y^m have it that same day. I replied I w^d send it as soon as I c^d. I accord^y drew it out as follows & posted it y^e same Eve^g & they of course received it on Tuesd morn^g I must observe that the sentence "I presume [space] was not a part of the agreem^t entered into that day with y^e C^tee but was merely ment^d by me as a thing that had been freq^ly promised (see for inst^ce extract from Corres^ce No. [space] ). Not hav^g an idea at y^e time that they this Sale it had been likewise promised to M^r Bingham, I did not allude to it the subject during that interview. My sol^r who was part of y^e int^vw will bear witness that ye letter my l^r of 17 Nov of w^ch y^e foregoing following is a copy correctly contains precisely y^e same offer w^ch the Com^tee had accepted.

(Letter)

I now consid^d y^e matter settled, and except y^e mere formality of a reply. On Tuesd. & Wed^sy I heard nothing f^m y^e C^tee - But on Thursday came y^e following answer repud^ting y^e contract.

I have only to add that I then for y^e 1^st time heard of y^e exis^tce of y^e "Financ^l Com^tee"- that the gentⁿ of the Ex^ve Com^tee during y^e interview of the 17^th gave no intimatⁿ that they were not fully authorized & empowered to treat with me, that my sol^r & myself consider^d all both parties to be bound in honour by y^e agreement, that for my part I had no idea that I was a liberty to change the terms of that agree^t if on reflectⁿ I sh^d be dissatisfy^d w^th them and that such a proceed^g strikes at the root of all honorable arrangem^t of the difficulties w^ch must occas^ly occur in y^e settlement of all [illegible deletion] important or complicated transact^ns.

The Earl Granville &c &c.

(B) Answer. November 19 – I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th Nov. and to say that it shall be submitted to the Finance Committee at their 1st meeting. At the same time I am to say that the proposal as now made submitted in your letter is one which the Executive Committee would not feel themselves justified in recommending for the sanction of the Finance Committee. G. Francis Duncombe for M. D. Wyatt

[expanded version:]

To Lord Granville
December 1^st, 1851

My Lord,

I shall endeavour to lay before your Lordship in the following remarks upon the causes which have impeded the execution of the plates of the Great work on the Crystal Palace.^<2>

This photographic work was unfortunately undertaken after the three finest months of the year (May, June, July) had elapsed.

At the end of July, and during my absence at Berlin,^<3> the Executive Committee applied to Mr. Henneman^<4> to undertake it. He entered into the idea with ardour, but being a foreigner and having no one at the moment to advise him, he unfortunately did not see how necessary it was before entering into an undertaking a work of such magnitude, to have a precise written contract drawn up and signed (which would have avoided all future difficulties - by embracing defining every point part of the matter).-

As it was, the only agreement he made with the Executive Committee in the nature of a legal contract He however made a partial contracted to supply the Committee with 200 negative pictures on glass of the objects they wish for at at the rate of three guineas each, and with 100 negatives on paper at the rate of two guineas each and with 1 positive copy of each at the rate of five shillings, it being understood that this 1st positive copy was to be made with particular pains, therefore to be paid for at a higher price than the subsequent copies were to be furnished at a much lower price.

He immediately sent to Paris to engage the two best French photographers on glass Martens and Ferrier,^<5> and finding there was a difficulty in obtaining their services he started himself, going and returning I believe in 36 hours. No one could display greater zeal in the matter. He thus engaged the services of these artists at the rate of two guineas which was to be paid them for each picture, and all their expenses connected with taking the pictures (such as chemicals, apparatus, etc.) would be provided and paid for by Henneman.

But Mssr. Martens not liking the terms of this engagement in almost a fortnight threw up his engagement and returned to Paris, alleging he was so thwarted and impeded at the Crystal Palace that he could do nothing. Mssr. Ferrier remained and executed the contract, but his complaints on the same score were continual.

There was great difficulty experienced owing to the bad light in the building from the calico which covered the roof being dirty, and the declining light of the sun in September, and still more in October. Mssr. Ferrier also greatly complained that when he had everything prepared to make a fine view of some statue or other object he was frequently prevented from doing it, by the Committee’s photographic supervisor, who informed him they had not yet procured the owner's leave to have it copied. A thing they ought to have taken most anxious pains about. Under these circumstances it is marvellous only a wonder that such good pictures should have been obtained. Mr. Henneman and Mssr. Ferrier would undertake to photograph the collection of any British nobleman in a tenth part of the time (supposing the number of ob pictures made to be the same) however of course such the nobleman would himself give every facility for the accomplishment of the work he ordered.

But in this instance Mssr. Ferrier could only work from six till nine in the morning when the advent of the public obliged him to withdraw with his instruments.

Some 227 negatives were taken in this way, but the profit derived by Mr. Henneman from the affair, was not sufficient to remunerate him for his great loss of time and neglect of his own business.

The only part of this original contract between the Committee and Mr. Henneman which would have been really remunerative was that for 100 negatives upon paper. In this part (being done by Mr Henneman himself) of course he received all the profits of it. But upon his furnishing to the Committee the first twenty pictures under this contract, the Committee exercised the right of rejection (which they had reserved to themselves) and rejected nineteen of them. Of course Mr. Henneman could not attempt to proceed further. And he made executed no more paper of that contract therefore losing nearly 200 guineas to which he was would have been fairly entitled. He had unfortunately (trusting entirely in the Executive Committee) neglected to stipulate for himself any right of appeal or arbitration or appeal against an unjust decision. That it was an unjust one in this instance appears from what follows. The rejected pictures were shown to Sir David Brewster,^<6> when he assured me that he thought most of them were excellent, some most beautiful.

It had all along been intended by the Executive Committee that Mr. Henneman should make the positive copies from the glass negatives and it was to that he looked for his remuneration. The only question was as to the price to be paid to him.

Mr. Henneman since he has been in business I believe never sold a negative picture to any one, and certainly never would have sold these to the Executive Committee except that he thought he was dealing with a public body, of the highest honour, and they assured him repeatedly these negatives would become national property and be deposited most properly in the British Museum - but that he would be allowed the use of them occasionally even after they were so deposited. Upon this assurance he did what he never did before, he consented to part with the negative pictures.

On September 29 the negatives being nearly finished the Committee offered to make with Mr Henneman a contract for the positive copies at the rate of two shillings/six pence each, they to have the right of rejecting bad copies, etc. He accepted this offer by return of post copying their own words respecting the right of rejection, etc., etc. Never the less they The Committee made no answer for a considerable time and then withdrew their offer, on the ground that Mr Henneman had refused to comply with other matters contained in the same letter of 29 September. But what were these matters? One of them was the following, which is certainly one of the most extraordinary proposals which ever emanated from any Exec public body. It was that Mr. Owen of Bristol^<7> (to whom I had previously given my license suitable to do so) should make a certain number of positive copies and for send them to Mr. Henneman who should therefore pay Mr. Owen for them and forward them to the Committee at the same price who should then pay Mr. Henneman for them the same price he had paid to Mr. Owen, leaving Mr. Henneman (this is expressly stated) to pay out of his own pocket the any royalty due to myself I might claim on the said pictures (NB. the Committee were evidently not then aware that I had relinquished all any such claim to royalty on this occasion). This beneficial arrangement, together with one other point of the letter Mr. Henneman refused to comply with. And it was upon that ground that the Committee rescinded the contract of the 29 September.

The one other point I here allude to was this. The Committee had promised to Mr. Henneman as the most beneficial advantageous part of the whole transaction to him that after the completion of the work, he should be allowed to make copies, and sell them to the public for his own benefit (see extract No. 2 and the same on many previous occasions). They now however stated that they would impose upon him a maximum price which he must not exceed (without saying what price this would be). Mr. Henneman replied in reply named five shillings as the price he would sell the pictures to the public for. That was the position not exceed [illegible] that he was willing thought five shillings would be the proper maximum price. The committee made no reply at the time. But they rescinded the contract of 29 September in consequence of this alleged noncompliance./

After this no comment was received from the committee for some time, when we heard to our amazement that they were going to have the work executed in France. A remonstrance was sent through Dr. Lyon Playfair Sir David Brewster immediately undertook to communicate with Col. Reid^<8> on the subject but which if he had done I think the subsequent difficulties would have been avoided.

But he sought for him in vain at London and Woolwich during two days, after which he was obliged to go to Scotland and shortly after the Col. Reid departed to Malta. A private Remonstrance was then sent to the Committee through Dr. Lyon Playfair,^<9> but remained unattended to. The points urged were that this being a patent involved the committee could not legally employ any non-licensed person to execute the photographic plates in England, nor could they legally import them from France without taking into account the not to say that this would be a most painful return for the courtesy with which all their wishes had been met on my part. The Executive Committee merely informed me by letter ^<10>, first that the price of two shillings/six pence] per copy was too great. Secondly that Mr. Henneman made bad copies which would not last possess any permanence.

To the first point I replied^<11> that the price of two shillings/six pence was their own proposal of September 29th. And to the second, I replied by the following offer which I trust your Lordship will consider a very reasonable one: "Would the Committee like to see specimens of positives produced by Mr. Henneman from six to ten years ago which have remained unaltered? In that case I would forward a parcel containing 100 of them for their inspection"

Not the slightest notice was taken by the Committee of this offer.

Mr. Henneman subsequently informed me that the defects in a few copies complained of by the Committee were caused by their having been done in a hurry by one of his assistants while he was himself absent making views at Osborne House, Isle of Wight, by command of her Majesty.

Finding that Mr. Cole^<12> was prejudiced against Mr. Henneman had objected as to Mr. Henneman's pictures I advised my other licensee Mr. Knight of Foster Lane, Cheapside,^<13> to see Mr. Cole and offer to take the contract either alone or making Mr. Henneman such indemnity as might be agreed on between them. Mr. Knight accordingly waited on Mr. Cole, when Mr. Cole offered him the contract to make the copies at one shilling each. This It seems inconsistent that Mr. Cole should make him offer him the contract, and it shows (I may fairly argue) that the price which Henneman asked was the real ground of objection with the Committee and not any real or fancied imperfection in his work.

Mr. Knight however rejected the offer as too low and withdrew. We soon afterwards learnt that the Committee had actually made a contract with Mr. Bingham, who has no license from me, to execute the copies in France at the price of one shilling/six pence per copy, and to furnish them to the Committee at the rate of eighty per diem at which rate the work would be executed in either months.

I called upon Mr. Knight with reference to this matter and stated it as my opinion when on my pointing out remarking that great expense would be incurred by Mr. Bingham in establishing a photographic manufactory in the south of France (supposing him to be allowed ever to do so) he informed me that Mr. Bingham would not have undertaken the contract at the price of one shilling/six pence per copy if this had been the only consideration, but that the principle one was that Mr. B the Committee had granted to Mr. Bingham the right of selling to the public for his own benefit as many copies as he pleased, after furnishing the stipulated number to the Committee and that as Mr. Bingham intended to sell them in France, where whither my patent does not extend it, the permission would be very valuable undertaking. I replied that the Committee could not grant such privilege to Mr. Bingham, because (apart from all other considerations) they had already granted it to Mr. Henneman: but Mr. Knight persisting in the correctness of his information. I had an interview with Mr. Bingham himself when Mr. Bingham fully confirmed the statement. Nor did it appear from what he said that the Committee had taken any security or in any way tied him down bound him not to sell some of these copies in France even during the time he was employed by about the work of the Committee.

Under these circumstances the only remedy seemed to be to seek the protection of a Court of Law, and give publicity to all the proceedings. But it was thought best I have omitted to mention that some days previous to this I was advised to ask for a personal interview with the Committee - then consisting of only two members in activity - Mr. Cole and Mr. Dilke^<14> Accordingly I went, accompanied by my Solicitor and had a conference with these gentlemen in the Great Exhibition Building on Monday the 17 November.

The Committee then stated that they had made such arrangements with Mr. Bingham that it appeared to them the best way of terminating the difficulty would be to offer ask me to sanction their arrangement with Mr. Bingham and to offer me compensation. I replied that I had all along disclaimed any pecuniary compensation - but that I would agree to accept a certain number of copies of the photographic part alone of their great work, and on that condition would myself undertake to partly compensate Mr. Henneman with a present of £200 thus undertaking (quite unnecessarily I must confess) a portion of the just responsibilities justly of the Committee. Mr. Cole and Mr. Dilke accepted the proposal and after a short consideration the number of copies was fixed at fifteen. Mr. Cole and stated that the cost of each copy to the Committee would be £30, the total therefore of fifteen copies £450. I undertook on my part not to sell any of the copies but give them all away. me to put the offer The Committee then desired me to put the agreement in writing and let them have it that Monday. I replied I would send it as soon as I could. I accordingly drew it out as follows and posted it the same evening and they of course received it on Tuesday morning. I must observe that the sentence "I presume [space] was not a part of the agreement entered into that day with the Committee but was merely mentioned by me as a thing that had been frequently promised (see for instance extract from correspondence No. [blank space]. Not having an idea at the time that their sale had been likewise promised to Mr. Bingham I did not allude to the subject during that interview. My Solicitor who was part of the interview will bear witness that the letter my letter of 17 November of which the foregoing following is a copy correctly contains precisely the same offer which the Committee had accepted. (letter) ^<15>
I now considered the matter settled, except the mere formality of a reply. On Tuesday and Wednesday I heard nothing from the Committee - But on Thursday came the following answer repudiating the contract.
Answer. November 19. I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17^th November and to say that it shall be submitted to the Finance Committee at their 1st meeting. At the same time I am to say that the proposal as now made submitted in your letter is one which the Executive Committee would not feel themselves justified in recommending for the sanction of the Finance Committee. G. Francis Duncombe^<16> for M. D. Wyatt.

I have only to add that I then for the first time heard of the existence of the "Financial Committee" that the gentlemen of the Executive Committee during the interview of the 17^th gave no intimation that they were not fully authorized and empowered to treat with me, that my Solicitor and myself consider all both parties to be bound in honour by the agreement, that for my part I had no idea that I was a liberty to change the terms of that agreement if on reflection I should be dissatisfied with them and that such a proceeding strikes at the root of all honorable arrangement of the difficulties which must occasionally occur in the settlement of all important or complicated transactions.

[To] The Earl Granville &c &c.

---

Notes:

1. Deciphering WHFT's drafts is rarely easy or certain, for he had his own shorthand and wrote small and hastily in pencil. An earlier transcription by R. Derek Wood, with notes establishing a broader context, is published at http://www.midley.co.uk/articles/talbot_1dec1851g.htm. Additionally, the first page of the original manuscript is illustrated there, giving a good sense of the appearance of WHFT's shorthand notes to himself.

2. 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 _____'. The present letter reflects WHFT's considerable consternation over this, especially his feeling 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.

3. WHFT wrote to Constance on 20 July from Hanover, having just arrived on his way to observe the 28 July solar eclipse at Marienburg (Doc. No: 06440). He continued his continental travels after that, arriving back at Lacock around 20 August (see Doc. No: 06447). His travel had been cut short upon receiving news of the death of his half-sister, Henrietta Horatia Maria Gaisford, née Feilding; she died on 9 August, a fortnight after childbirth. Unfortunately, it was in the context of this grief that he first saw the 20 August letter from George Francis Duncombe, discussing the plans to use the Talbotype to illustrate the Reports (see Doc. No: 06456).

4. Nicolaas Henneman (1813-1898), Dutch, active in England; WHFT's valet, then assistant; photographer; opened calotype printing studio in Reading in 1843 and transferred to London in 1848.

5. Friedrich von Martens (1809-1875), German inventor & photographer, active in Paris. Claude Marie Ferrier (1811-1889), photographer & photographic publisher, Paris.

6. Sir David Brewster (1781-10 Feb 1868), Scottish scientist & journalist; one of WHFT's closest friends.

7. Hugh Owen (1808-1897), Bristol photographer, Talbotypist, one of WHFT's licensees.

8. Sir William Reid (1791-1858), Scottish man of science and the military. Chairman of the Executive Committee, for which he was knighted after the Great Exhibition, and appointed Governor of Malta.

9. Dr Lyon Playfair, 1^st Baron Playfair (1818-1898), chemist. The Special Commissioner in charge of Juries. the draft of WHFT's 6 November 1851 letter to Playfair is Doc. No: 06505.

10. C. Thurston Thompson, 8 November 1851 (Doc. No: 06510).

11. WHFT's 9 December 1851 draft is Doc. No: 06512.

12. Sir Henry Cole (1808-1882), civil servant, artist an later Director of the South Kensington Museum.

13. George Knight, photographic supplier, London. See WHFT's letter of 16 November 1851 to his solicitor, J. H. Bolton: Doc. No: 06514.

14. Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, the younger (1810-1869); Chairman of the Society of Arts and of the Horticultural Society; Secretary of the Executive Committee. WHFT had long known his father, an editor, critic and antiquary, and through him, in February 1850 offered to sponsor prizes for the best photograph and best daguerreotype to be shown in the Great Exhibition - see Doc. No: 06304.

15. While the final letter has not been traced, WHFT's draft is Doc. No: 06517.

16. George Francis Duncombe, of the Executive Committee; he later participated in the translation of the Catalogue into French.