TALBOT6303

122 Regent S^{t 1}
15 Feb^y 1850

To H F Talbot Esq^r

Sir

M^r Harper ² says "So far as I am concerned it would not suit me at all to pay down any thing like that sum (£500) unless therefore I can have a license on the principle of paying a per centage of the profit I could not enter upon the matter at all".

For M^r Colls and M^r Bingham ³ he asks "Some diminution & modification" of your proposal He adds "From all that is published respecting the glass process I find that ours is the best" and wishes "M^r Talbot to have a knowledge of it before his specification is filed"

Since the receipt of the letter from which the above extracts are taken I have a note containing a direct proposal M^r Colls "on being allowed an assistant is willing to give £300 & take all risks"

M^r Harper "knowing the difficulties attendant on substantiating & protecting a patent" considers it an offer not to be refused M^r Harper thinks "that if M^r Talbot asked only £50 for a license he would get a £1,000 where he now gets £100" as many gentlemen who now use the Talbotype for mere amusement would pay £50 for the additional privilege of selling their productions". -

I cannot agree with M^r Harper. Cheap licenses will not add to the dignity of the Art. M^r Beard ⁴ regrets giving a license to a Miss Wigley The badness of her pictures & the absurdity of her advertisements tends to bring the Daguerreotype into disrepute Such is the opinion of M^r Claudet Kilburn ⁵ & Beard himself

I have employed myself in grinding away the glaze of the Porcelain slabs but unfortunately I worked upon hard baked specimens impervious to moisture even when reduced to half the original thickness.

I think it advisable to go immediately to Wedgwood or Davenport'^s manufactory to make enquiries upon one or two points of difficulty The Air bubbles & want of flatness.

The slabs we have are too much vitrified I cannot get them in London unglazed or less burnt.

I send you the Art Journal It contains an Article written by Hunt ⁶ on Photography on glass plates. Allusion is made to the new patent just now the subject of conversation among those interested in art-science. Hunt promised that I should see the Article before its insertion but has not kept his word He is now out of Town. The Article has made it appear that we have robbed the public of the benefit of the Albumen process by the Patent taken out & this is the general impression Do you think it advisable to reply that the new improvements are perfectly original in their nature & perfectly independent of glass plates.

The Sulphate of Iron paragraph demands your attention.

Willatt has been showing pictures from paper negatives (by Martens) ⁷ for glass productions.

The Ærial perspective is as good in the paper negatives as it is in those of glass. I think better I think Hunt has been misled in this part of his subject

yours obediently
T A Malone

There is not much time to spare If you wish to reply to the Art Journal. What step shall I take respecting the Porcelain?