[This letter is also summarised, in context, in WHFT's manuscript notes on his continuing correspondence with the Executive Committee - see Doc. No: 15000]

[draft:]

Ex^ve Comm^ee

8 9 Nov / 51

Gentⁿ – I am favor^d with y^r l^r of yest’^s date y^e 8^th inst ^{signed by Mr C. T. Thomson} & am glad that y have ment^d y^e reas^ns w^ch h^ve weighed w^h y. in consid^g y^e questⁿ of w^h respect to y^e price w^ch ought to be [illegible deletion] paid for y^e pos^ve copies.

In order to see whether Mr Hennemⁿ has put proposed an exaggerated price upon for y^m let us consid^r some simil^r or anal^gs [illegible deletion] inst^ces

The price of a guinea & more is not unusual for a fine pos^ve copy – I myself gave 20 sh^{gs 25 fr} the other day for one by Martens of Paris, nor do I th^k it was too much, altho’ if the arg^ts made use of in reasoning your letter of y^e 8^th were admitted M^r Martens ought not to have charged more that 6^d for y^e same. –

The principal Daguerreotypists in London charge 2 and or 3 g^s for a portrait if not more, altho’ it only takes y^m 10″ to make it, as they not only acknowledge, but make it a subject of boast

Where th is no pat^t but unlim^td competⁿ Mr Hill of Edinburgh sells albums of Talbotypes photographic views and sketches, very fi portraits and at what price? Forty g^s for the volume. And that this such a price is not unreasonable is shown by the fact of several of our most eminent artists in London having purchased y^e volume. collection it.

If I go into a printshop and ask the price of a fine engraving, I am told ^perhaps 4 or 5 guineas – what w^d be thought if I only tendered the price of the paper, together with the [illegible deletion] cost of the workman’s printing off that impression from the copperplate?

In these instances, what is the reason w^ch justifies the high price demanded? Evidently this, that the price represents not only y^e prime cost of the materials employed, but also y^e remuneratⁿ due to y^e skill of y^e artist _{w^r he call h^self} be he draughtsman engraver or photographer together with interest on y^e capital sunk in the business, w^ch in y^e case of a photog^er may be many thous^d p^ds – Y will please

I can state that ^{it is ye intentn of} my licensees Mess^rs Hennⁿ (nor do I think that Mess^rs Knight & C^o w^d do less) (and I believe I may add of Mess^rs Knight also) in the event of their being directed by the Ex^ve Com^tee to furnish y^e pos^ves to expend at once several hundred pounds in building the proper wkshps in y^e outskirts of London to execute so large a contract properly and ^{in order} to do it within the time named, to adopt the principle of multiplying y^e copying frames beyond anyth^g that has yet been done, so as to have 100 to 200 working at once & following the Sun by being mounted upon revolving stages or platforms

Ex^ve Com^tee 8 9 Nov / 51

2

Your outlay on y^e work may appear large is doubtless large, but what w^d it h^ve been if you had the work had been executed as such were formerly if y^e work h^d bⁿ exec^d on y^e old system of engrav^g or lithography? What w^d have been y^e cost of 100 drawings by first rate artists and as many finished engravings therefrom? made from the drawings? Surely much more it w^d h^ve cost several times as much I do not think th If this questⁿ is fairly ex^nd I do not th^k that any 1 can doubt of the super^r cheapness of the phot^c meth^d of illustⁿ –

P.S.

‘ upon revolving stages or platforms’:

P.S.
Would y^e Com^tee like to see specimens of pos^ves printed off by M^r Henneman from 7 6 to 10 years ago, w^ch have remained ^unaltered?
I sh^d suppose tha In that case I w^d forward a parcel containing perhaps 100 of that age them for [illegible deletion] their inspection.
?where to be put? – Y ought also Y will please to recollect ^moreover that I have waived any all claim to royalty or pat^t dues either from y^rs^ves or f^m my licensees, on y^e ground of this being a nat^l work, and (so to say) part & parcel of the G^t Exh^tn w^ch was an honour to the [illegible deletion] age and country – Had it been Were it a mercantile speculatⁿ the royalty w^d prob^y amount to £500 to or £1000 supposing the work to consist of 100 plates, and 150 _{to 200} copies of it to be printed

Your outlay

[expanded version:]

Executive Committee

8 9 November 1851

Gentlemen,

I am favored with your letter of yesterday’s date the eighth inst., signed by Mr Charles Thurston Thomson ^<1> and am glad that you have mentioned the reasons which have weighed which you in consideration of the question of which respect to the price which ought to be [illegible deletion] paid for the positive copies.

In order to see whether M^r Henneman ^<2> has put proposed an exaggerated price upon for them let us consider some similar or analogous [illegible deletion] instances.

The price of a guinea and more is not unusual for a fine positive copy – I myself gave twenty shillings (twenty-five francs) the other day for one by Martens ^<3> of Paris, nor do I think it was too much, although if the arguments made use of in reasoning your letter of the eighth were admitted M^r Martens ought not to have charged more that six pence for the same. –

The principal Daguerreotypists in London charge two and or three guineas for a portrait if not more, although it only takes them ten seconds to make it, as they not only acknowledge, but make it a subject of boast.

Where there is no patent but unlimited competition M^r Hill ^<4> of Edinburgh sells albums of Talbotypes photographic views and sketches, very fine portraits and at what price? Forty guineas for the volume. And that this such a price is not unreasonable is shown by the fact of several of our most eminent artists in London having purchased the volume. collection it.

If I go into a printshop and ask the price of a fine engraving, I am told perhaps four or five guineas – what would be thought if I only tendered the price of the paper, together with the [illegible deletion] cost of the workman’s printing off that impression from the copperplate?

In these instances, what is the reason which justifies the high price demanded? Evidently this, that the price represents not only the prime cost of the materials employed, but also the remuneration due to the skill of the artist whether he call himself be he draughtsman engraver or photographer together with interest on the capital sunk in the business, which in the case of a photographer may be many thousand pounds – You will please

I can state that it is the intention of my licensees Mess^rs Henneman (nor do I think that Mess^rs Knight & C^o would do less) (and I believe I may add of Mess^rs Knight also) in the event of their being directed by the Executive Committee to furnish the positives to expend at once several hundred pounds in building the proper workshops in the outskirts of London to execute so large a contract properly and in order to do it within the time named, to adopt the principle of multiplying the copying frames beyond anything that has yet been done, so as to have one hundred or two hundred working at once and following the Sun by being mounted upon revolving stages or platforms

Your outlay on the work may appear large is doubtless large, but what would it have been if you had the work had been executed as such were formerly if the work had been executed on the old system of engraving or lithography? What would have been the cost of one-hundred drawings by first rate artists and as many finished engravings therefrom? made from the drawings? Surely much more it would have cost several times as much I do not think that If this question is fairly extended I do not think that anyone can doubt of the superior cheapness of the photographic method of illustration –

P.S. Would the Committee like to see specimens of positives printed off by M^r Henneman from seven six to ten years ago, which have remained unaltered? I should suppose that In that case I would forward a parcel containing perhaps one-hundred of that age them for [illegible deletion] their inspection. ?where to be put? – You ought also You will please to recollect moreover that I have waived any all claim to royalty or patent dues either from yourselves or from my licensees, on the ground of this being a national work, and (so to say) part and parcel of the Great Exhibition which was an honour to the [illegible deletion] age and country – Had it been Were it a mercantile speculation the royalty would probably amount to five-hundred pounds to or one-thousand pounds supposing the work to consist of one-hundred plates, and one-hundred fifty to two-hundred copies of it to be printed.

---

Notes:

1. For the letter from Charles Thurston Thompson (1816–1868), engraver & photographer, see Doc. No: 06510. It concerned the eventual publication of 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.

2. Nicolaas Henneman (1813–1898), Dutch, active in England; WHFT’s valet, then assistant; photographer.

3. Friedrich von Martens (1809–1875), German inventor & photographer, active in Paris.

4. David Octavius Hill (1802–1870), Scottish painter & photographer.