My dear Sir
It strikes me that the proper course for the Council of the RS. to have taken respecting your paper <1> would have been to have directed their Secretary to have communicated with you on the subject of it – (ie. supposing they did not – which I think they might advantageously have done in such a case – waive the rigour of their rule about prior communication to another Scientific body) to have directed him in the first place to have expressed their opinion of the merit of the work itself as entitling it to a place in the Transactions – calling your attention to the general practice of the Society in cases where the main substance of any communication has appeared in print prior to the communication itself being made to the Society – (on which supposition they appear to have acted, and which if erroneous would have led to due explanation –) stating their hope which I am sure they must have entertained that by embodying the process in some more detailed form of communication, you would afford them an opportunity of gracing their transactions by a record of this discovery without violating former precedents – and meanwhile, printing in their weekly notices the actual matter before them at length.
That this was not done I think is much to be regretted. It is very important, on every account, for public utility as well as for good feelings’ sake that the really scientific men of this country should understand each other and work together in a spirit of mutual accommodation and good will. But the fact is that the Council of the RS. though composed for the most part of individuals who mean nothing but what is good – are yet as a body strangely apt to get into tempers for want of due consideration of the bearings of cases which come before them. A vast deal of time is frittered away at their meetings in very unimportant points of domestic management while the business of their Committees of papers on which so much of the well being of the Society really depends is put off till the last moment and then hurried through – as it would appear in this case, too carelessly.
I have on a great many occasions felt disposed to complain of the inconsequent and indefinite way in which the business of that council is conducted. It is a body very difficult to keep right without exciting irritation by perpetual remonstrance. Nevertheless as I do not believe they go intentionally wrong, or have any partial bias, I am always grieved at their mistakes and anxious to see them leniently regarded.– On this occasion it is quite impossible that any slight can have been intended – and I would gladly hope that you may be disposed to regard the whole affair as a mere gaucherie.
I have left myself no room to write about your Calotype paper & gallic acid which I duly received and wh I have hitherto been prevented from properly trying by not having by me any xtalised nitrate of 
<2> but only the solution, but shall prepare some in a day or two.
I remain my dr sir Yours vy ty [draft, in JFWH's hand:] Fox Talbot reply to letter of July 1 /41 <3> My dear Sir It strikes me that the proper course for the Council RS. to have taken respecting your paper wd have been to have directed their Secretary to have communicated with you on the subject of it – ie. supposing they did not which I think they might advantageously have done in such a case) waive the rigour of their rule about prior communication to another Scientc body to have directed him in the first place to have expressed their opinion of the merit of the work itself as entitling it to a place in their Transactions – calling your attention to the general practice of the Society in cases where the main substance of any communication has appeared in print prior to the commn itself having being made to the Soy (on wh supposn they appear to have acted and wh if erroneous would have led to due explanation) stating their hope wh I am sure they must have entertained that by embodying the process in some more detailed form of commn you would afford them an opportunity of gracing their transns by a record of this discovery without violatg former precidents and meanwhile printing … notices … at length. That this was not done I think is much to be regretted. It is very important on every account for the sake of good feeling as well as the public interest that the really scientific men of this country should understand each other & work with mutual appretiation & good will… But the fact is that the Council of RS tho’ composed for the most part of individuals who mean only what is good are yet as a body strangely apt to get into tempers for want of due considn of the bearing of cases wh come before them. A vast deal of time is frittered away at their meetgs in vy unimportant points of domestic management while the business of their Comm. of papers on wh the well being of the Socy so much depends is often hurried through; as it would appear in this case too carelessly I have on a great many occasions felt disposed to complain of the inconsequent & indefinite way in wh the business of that council is conducted It is a body very difficult to keep right without exci 1. WHFT read before the Royal Society on 10 June, ‘An account of some recent improvements in Photography’. Only an abstract was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, v.4 n.48, 1841, pp. 312–315. WHFT reprinted the full text of his article in leaflets, first as The Process of Calotype Photogenic Drawing in 1841, and again in 1845 under the title The Process of Talbotype (formerly called Calotype) Photogenic Drawing. It was rejected from publication in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, on the basis that it had previously been published in The Literary Gazette and Journal of belles lettres, science and art. WHFT,‘Calotype (Photogenic) Drawing’, The Literary Gazette and Journal of belles lettres, science and art, no. 1256, 13 February 1841, p. 108; and ‘Fine Arts: Calotype (Photogenic) Drawing’, The Literary Gazette and Journal of belles lettres, science and art, no. 1258, 27 February 1841, pp. 139–140. 2. The alchemical symbol for silver, a small crescent moon. 3. See Doc. No: 04293.ting irritation by perpetual remonstrance. Nevertheless as I do not believe they go intentionally wrong or have any partial bias I am always grieved at their mistakes and anxious to see them leniently regarded. On this occasion it is impossible that any slight can have been intended & I would gladly hope that you may be disposed to regard the whole affair as a mere gaucherie.
Notes: