Chapter II: Part 2

The Attorney-General—Very well, gentlemen. That is so, and I am very glad you see the point upon which I insist. There will therefore be no need for me to spend any more time about it, for we have plenty to do yet. So much, then, for the ears. The next point we come to is the hands in general. I have little to say about them, but then we come to a most important part of the question, one which my learned friend with great solemnity said more than once he thought was of the greatest importance—that is the question of the thumb. And I ask your attention to the way in which this has arisen, and the charge made in connection with it. It is the thumb of the left hand. You saw the plaintiff in the box. You saw him for a terribly long time—for many days. Did you ever see his left hand ungloved? Now, I ask you that question. Had he not always got a glove on his left hand? Did you ever see his left thumb? That the habit of the man was to sit with a glove on the left hand I am quite certain, and I believe he always did it. The case went on something like seventy days before we heard a word about the thumb, and the first we heard about it was in the re-examination of Mr. Baigent. It is remarkable the terms in which he introduced it, and the terms in which the charge is made, and the persons against whom it was made. “Attend to me carefully,” says Mr. Serjeant Ballantine; “were the photographs shown taken from the daguerreotype?” “Yes, they were.” “Has the daguerreotype been in any way altered since it was taken?” and he answers, “Yes, certainly; it has been tampered with.” Then he is asked, “You say it has been tampered with; what has been done with it?” and his reply was, “The thumb and the greater part of the hand has been smudged out.” Now that is the first time in the case that anything was said about the thumb. The Lord Chief Justice then asked by whom the photograph was produced, when Mr. Serjeant Ballantine said, “You may take it that it has throughout been in the possession of the defendants.” The Lord Chief Justice remarked, “I always thought it was produced by the Court of Chancery.” The witness, however, said, “No, it was produced by Mr. Bowker.” The Lord Chief Justice then asked whether it was meant to be suggested that it had been altered since the adjournment, and my learned friend assents to that. Then Mr. Baigent, in answer to a question, says—“My belief is that it was not in the same state as it is now some few days after the first trial commenced last May”—so that there is no doubt that my learned friend and Mr. Baigent both meant to impute that this daguerreotype had been tampered with by the defendants since the trial began in May. Mr. Baigent further says—“I don’t pledge my oath to that. That is my impression. I did not notice it. I certainly should have noticed it I believe.” Then I say, “As I understood it, it may be taken as a fact that it comes from Mr. Bowker’s possession, and it should also be taken as a fact that from Mr. Bowker it was handed in, and has been in the possession of the Court ever since.” Then Mr. Serjeant Ballantine says—“_De die in diem_ it has been in the possession of Mr. Bowker ever since.” Do not let us have any mistake about it. I don’t think my learned friend can say that I have not dealt fairly by him in calling your attention to this matter. Baigent makes a charge against the attorney in the cause of having tampered with this daguerreotype since the 6th of May. If English words mean anything, they mean that my learned friend says—“There have been suggestions against every human being in the case produced on the part of the plaintiff.” I do not know what he means by that. “I shall not shrink from any imputation.” Nobody has suggested it of my learned friend. Certainly not. “If there is any ground for a charge I will not hesitate to make it,” and then I say, with perhaps a superfluous interposition, “Of that I am quite certain.” Now, what is our answer? In the first place, that Mr. Bowker had himself multiplied copies from the unaltered daguerreotype—that he had himself given the unaltered daguerreotype[1] to Mr. Savage, at Winchester, who had multiplied photographs from it by scores and fifties, and that in every one of the positives from his negatives the thumb or hand remained exactly as it was in the daguerreotype from which it was originally struck off long before the beginning of the trial. Our first answer then was this:—“You accuse Mr. Bowker of having tampered with an original, the original state of which he had secured beyond all possibility of doubt by himself multiplying copies of it. No man in his senses could have been such a fool as to mutilate a thing the different state of which he had already put beyond all doubt and question.” Our second answer was:—“That, from the time of the trial, or, at all events, from the time of the adjournment to the time it was said to be tampered with, Mr. Bowker had no control over it. There were two boxes, of which Mr. Bowker had the key of the small one, containing the daguerreotype, but that small box was enclosed in a larger one, of which Mr. Dobinson had another and a different key, and neither of these gentlemen could get at the daguerreotype without the consent of the other. The large box was never opened from the time it was locked up to the time it was produced here again, and therefore it is practically impossible that Mr. Bowker could have had anything to do with mutilating or interfering with it.” Our answer, then, was complete and overwhelming—we did not know what was the cause of the disappearance of the thumb. That it was not in the same state in which it was when photographs were taken from it appeared by the production of the daguerreotypes and photographs; but when the change took place and how it took place we had not the least idea. We made inquiries and nobody could tell us. “We were not in full force at that time, because, as my learned friend Mr. Jeune had gone, on the part of the plaintiff, to Australia, so Mr. Purcell had also gone, on the part of the defendant, to Australia. About the time that the sittings broke up, Mr. Purcell returned from Australia, and among the consultations and discussions which ensued this matter of the daguerreotype turned up. “Oh!” says Mr. Purcell, “I am the person that did that, and they might have known it well.” What happened was this. He went out to execute the Chili Commission, and as one of the things by which to test the Chili witnesses, he took out this very daguerreotype of the real Roger for the purpose of asking them if it was like the man they recollected, and who had been writing to them, and they all of them said they did not recognise it. As part of his luggage he put it in a box that was too big for it. In fact it was not properly secured. It was fixed at the back of the frame by little bits of metal, which were attached to and formed part of the frame, and were bent down—little projecting saw-teeth, which were bent down over the daguerreotype, and held it tightly in the frame. This daguerreotype was placed in a little box, not properly secured, and the little box was in a portion of the luggage; and on the journey from England to Valparaiso, or from Valparaiso to Melipilla, the daguerreotype got out of its case. It got knocked about, and one or two of these little teeth becoming unfastened the daguerreotype was unfastened.[2] When Mr. Purcell arrived at Melipilla he took it out and found it in this state. He then at once went to a photographer and had it refastened down. It was used in the Chili Commission in its present state, and could not have been injured in the Commission. Mr. Purcell will tell you how it took place, and this daguerreotype has never been used for the purposes of photography since its return from Chili. The piece of paper at the back, Mr. Purcell will tell you, was pasted on by himself, and here are the signatures of the Chili Commissioners on the paper as written at Chili, and since then the daguerreotype could not possibly have been interfered with. Therefore there can be no mystery about it, and yet in the face of what I mentioned to you before, that Mr. Bowker had himself photographed the uninjured daguerreotype by scores, and in the face of the other facts of the case, my learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, allowed his case to come to an end with that offensive imputation against the advisers of the defendants, and never explained or withdrew it. Well, is the thumb in the photograph like the plaintiff’s thumb? Nobody ever said it was from the beginning to the end of the case but Mr. Baigent.[3] This point is due entirely to the ingenuity of that gentleman. His attention appears to have been drawn to the condition of the daguerreotype early in May. No one’s attention was drawn to the thumb till late in November, and the first word that is said about it is said by Mr. Baigent in re-examination. Now, you know that in May, just about the time that the attention, as I have said, of Mr. Baigent appears, by his examination-in-chief, to have been drawn to the photograph, I was asking for the inspection of the plaintiff’s person for any marks on him upon which it was intended hereafter to place reliance. My learned friend objected, for the reasons you know, to that proposal. In his own interests he refused to allow that examination to take place, and he must not now complain at the remarks which all the circumstances give rise to in my mind. I don’t for a moment say—and when I say a thing I trust you have learned I mean it—I don’t for a moment say that my learned friend had any reason to think there was any peculiarity about the thumb when he refused inspection. But somebody knew, and that somebody instructed my learned friend to refuse the examination. I point out to you, once more, that no human being ever said a word about the thumb till Mr. Baigent mentioned it. Neither Baigent, nor Hopkins, nor the plaintiff himself in his letter to his mother in which he mentioned the brown mark ever suggested the existence of a peculiarity in the thumb. My learned friend hears of it for the first time only a few days before the end of his case, on the 12th of December. That is a remarkable thing. My learned friend more than once or twice says it is highly important. Sir William Fergusson, when he first examined the plaintiff, did not notice any peculiarity in the thumb, but on the day he appeared in the box he said he made an examination of the thumb of the left hand. He noticed there was a peculiarity in the thumb. It was peculiarly pointed at the extremity. The fleshy part projected beyond the nail more than usual, and more than on the other hand. The nail seemed to be perfectly developed, and it struck him that the plaintiff had been in the habit of biting his nails, which he afterwards learned was the case. Being shown the photograph, he said it was an exact representation of the claimant. Then in cross-examination he says—“I don’t think such a thumb could be made by manipulation. I don’t think any pressure would produce it. The nail is smaller on this thumb than on the other. The whole thumb is smaller at the point. The condition, I don’t think, would be formed or made more marked by biting the nails. I never had my attention called to it until yesterday morning.”

Footnote 1:

The Attorney-General is at fault here; for Mr. Savage, as reported in
our issue of the 22nd December, page 603, distinctly said that his
negative was made from a _print_ that had previously been made from
the daguerreotype, and not from the daguerreotype itself.—EDS.

Footnote 2:

Photographers will smile at the idea of the serrated edge of a brass
mount which has been clamped over the _back_ of a plate getting inside
of the picture, between the glass and the surface.—EDS.

Footnote 3:

According to the report of the case that appeared in our pages the
photographic witnesses examined in the case have also asserted
this.—EDS.

The Lord Chief Justice—I don’t understand that Sir W. Fergusson’s evidence was so much directed to the flesh protruding beyond the nail as to the peculiarity in the shape of the thumb. That was the peculiarity which he meant could not be produced.

The Attorney-General—It comes to this: Sir William Fergusson does not think that biting would do it, nor that it could be done artificially. But the plaintiff had not been examined by our medical men then, and I was not in a condition to cross-examine Sir W. Fergusson. Mr. Canton is also examined, and states that his attention was called to the thumb for the first time the day before. There was this peculiarity about it—that the nail was attached to the part beneath to a less extent than it was in the case of the nail on the other thumb. On being asked if such a condition of the left thumb could have been produced by any known process which a man could exercise on himself, Mr. Canton said that the only thing he could conceive would be a person continually biting his nails. It really comes to this, that if the man had let his nail alone, the difference between the two nails would be greatly less. That is the evidence of a witness for the plaintiff. He is of opinion that the nail has been subjected to treatment for the purpose of producing a difference, and that if it had not been there would have been much less difference. Now, what does that show? That the nail has been manipulated, prepared, gone through a process of concoction, and not a word about it was mentioned to any human being, however closely connected or intimate with the plaintiff, until the 13th December, when the thumb had been put in a proper state for examination. When the doctors examined the plaintiff in November, their attention was not called to the thumb. I suppose it was not then in a state to be examined; but in December they were suddenly called out of court, and in some back room of this Sessions-house this thumb was shown to them. Then this astounding charge was made of our having tampered with the daguerreotype for the purpose of destroying evidence which we ourselves had actually preserved. As far as I understand the evidence of the medical men it will be this. They will express a clear and confident opinion, from a scientific examination of the thumb, that it is a non-natural thumb, by which I mean that it presents appearances which show that it has not been allowed to take its natural course, but has been manipulated and treated by the plaintiff or some one in his interest—manufactured, concocted, and got up—for the purpose of this examination, and now we can understand why the glove was always kept on the left hand, and why not a single syllable was said about it until it was ready for inspection. You can also understand why the secret was only committed to Baigent. It was not even communicated to Miss Braine. My learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, said it was an important matter, and indeed it is. Mr. Baigent himself did not venture to say a word about the thumb until the pressure of cross-examination was removed; he reserved it for his re-examination, when the mouth of my learned friend, Mr. Hawkins, was closed. Yet they searched all over the man—they drew attention to wretched little scratches on his ankles, which you could hardly see, and to a little white mark on the middle of his eyelid, which I confess I could not see—these they hunted out for demonstration; but this patent thing, which he could not put his hand on a piece of paper to steady it while he was writing, he could not wash his hands or use a knife and fork at dinner without exhibiting—this most staring and glaring peculiarity was never mentioned to any human being until the 13th December. In any other but the Tichborne case what would have been thought of this? Take a railway accident case. What would a jury say if alleged injury were brought before them at the last hour which neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had ever said a word about before? I know what would have been said of myself and Mr. Hawkins if we had been counsel for the plaintiff. But because this is the Tichborne case it is allowed, and my learned friend, Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, with an air of great solemnity, says—“This is a very important matter, and a great deal more will be heard of it.” I understand my doctors will say the nail does not adhere so closely to the under surface as the nail does on the other hand—that it is perfectly easy to disconnect them—that it may be done by perseverence, by introducing little pins and things of that kind, and by gradually and steadily working them to disconnect the under surface of the nail from the under surface of the flesh, and that in this way you can arrest the “formative growth” of the nail, and they will tell you that that has actually been done. You will look at the photographs for yourselves, and I ask you to come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable pretence for saying that Roger Tichborne had such a thumb. There is no one to suggest that Roger Tichborne had a peculiar thumb—no one till Mr. Baigent suggests it on his re-examination; and I submit that the whole affair has been trumped up to produce an impression when they found that the other marks failed them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meetings of Societies.

-------

MEETINGS OF SOCIETIES FOR NEXT WEEK.

-----------------+----------------+-------------------------------
Date of Meeting. |Name of Society.| Place of Meeting.
-----------------+----------------+-------------------------------
Feb. 7th | Edinburgh | Hall, 5, St. Andrew-square.
Feb 8th | South London | Arundel Hall, Arundel-street.
Feb 8th | Manchester | Memorial Hall, Albert-square.
-----------------+----------------+-------------------------------

EDINBURGH PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.

The second popular meeting of the season was held in Queen-street Hall on the evening of Wednesday, the 24th ult. Every available place in the hall was filled.

The exhibition consisted of a very fine series of views in Ireland, kindly lent by Messrs. Pumphrey Brothers, of Birmingham, and of a number of copies of Erskine Nicol’s pictures of Irish character, prepared from negatives kindly lent for the purpose by Mr. Tunny. The pictures were arranged in the form of a tour, beginning in the north at the Giant’s Causeway, working south to Dublin, and including the Lakes of Killarney and some of the finest scenery in the country.

The descriptive lecture was undertaken by Mr. J. Richard Marquis, R.H.A.; but being evidently new to the business, and unaccustomed to speak in the dark, the lecturer failed to come up to the expectations of the audience. We hope, however, to hear Mr. Marquis again, as he has in him the elements from which good lecturers are formed; and from his ability as an artist, and his thorough acquaintance with what constitutes a good picture, we are certain that with a little practice he will make a capital guide in such exhibitions.

The exhibition was thoroughly successful, and at its close hearty votes of thanks were awarded to Messrs. Pumphrey Brothers, Mr. Tunny, and the lecturer.

We may mention in connection with this that last evening (Thursday) the same pictures were exhibited as one of the series of popular lectures given under the auspices of the Northern District Lecture Association. On this occasion the lecture was delivered by Dr. John Nicol, who stated at the beginning that he was in a position to do what rarely could practically be done by a lecturer—that is, praise his own lecture. He (Dr. Nicol), however, went on to say:—“The lecture is not mine, but has been kindly sent along with the pictures by Messrs. Pumphrey; and it is so much better than anything that I could produce, I shall give it just as it is, except, perhaps, the introduction here and there of a story or anecdote, by way of a ‘mouth-opener,’ as our transatlantic friends would say.” Both lecture and exhibition were very successful, and elicited almost continuous applause.

At the close Dr. Nicol exhibited the recently-patented “wheel of life,” as manufactured by Messrs. Pumphrey, and described in THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY a few weeks since. He explained the principle of its construction, and gave much credit to the inventor, who, he said, had succeeded in doing admirably what he (Dr. Nicol) and many others had vainly tried to do for years.

At the termination of the exhibition, votes of thanks were awarded to Dr. Nicol, to Messrs. Pumphrey for the pictures, and to Messrs. Yerbury and Lothian for the admirable way in which they had managed the lantern.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correspondence.

THE CONSTITUTION OF MATTER AND ITS MOTIONS.—UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION
PRODUCED BY THE MOTIONS OF ETHER.—HYPOTHESIS OF M. L’ABBÉ LERAY.—M.
RICHE ON THE NEW CHEMICAL NOTATION.—NEW SENSITIVE PIGMENT PAPER.

In one of my recent letters to this Journal I was deploring the want of some grand hypothesis which would embrace in one general law all the mechanical phenomena of nature—universal gravitation, cohesion, chemical affinity, electricity, magnetism, light, heat, &c.—and lo! just such a hypothesis has turned up and been explained to me by its author—a man whom I am compelled to regard, without any exaggeration, as one of the great geniuses of the present day. I allude to M. L’Abbé Leray, author of a work to which I referred in a recent letter, entitled _Constitution de la Matière et ses Mouvements_.

I will endeavour to give an outline—but it can only be an outline—of this startling hypothesis, which makes universal gravitation an effect of the motions of ether, and dispels the idea hitherto entertained that it is an attractive force inherent in particles of matter, by which they are enabled to exert a pull upon other particles at a distance from them in space.

Sir Isaac Newton, the immortal discoverer of the law of universal gravitation (which asserts that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force which varies directly as the mass and inversely as the square of the distance), himself believed that this law would be found, at some future time, to result from the motions of a subtle fluid which occupied space, the atoms of which, by impinging against ponderable matter, produce the observed effect of weight or gravitation. He could not conceive of ponderable matter possessing any _inherent_ property by which it was enabled to act upon other ponderable matter _at a distance_. He could not really believe in an inherent central force of attraction residing in a material atom, by which it could draw towards itself another such atom situated at a distance, or that it could affect other matter in any way than by the impact of intervening atoms; and he predicted that some day the _cause_ of universal gravitation would be discovered. That day seems now to have arrived, and the discovery to have been actually made.

I had read M. Leray’s extraordinary work with a great deal of interest, but there were still some unexplained points in his hypothesis which remained to be cleared up and some difficulties to be discussed. As he resides at an ecclesiastical institution within an easy walk of Redon, I visited him a few days ago, by appointment, for the express purpose of having a long talk over his hypothesis; and a very pleasant afternoon I had with him, leaving more deeply impressed than ever with a sense of his great abilities and originality. In fact, I seem to have made the acquaintance of a second Sir Isaac or Laplace.

The following is an outline of his theory; but of course no demonstration of any part of it can be made within the limits of this letter:—

Space is filled with a subtle ether, consisting of atoms in motion. These atoms are elastic—a property which they possess in virtue of being able to change their form, though not their volume, during impact and to recover it again. Their form is spherical, they are all equal, and their diameter is very small compared with that of the atoms of ponderable matter, and also with their general distance apart. This ether is, therefore, an exceedingly rare medium. When the atoms impinge against each other they rebound like billiard balls, and in all their motions they obey the common mechanical laws of inertia and impact, and no other laws whatever. They cannot act upon each other at a distance, and therefore no attractive or repulsive force exists between them.

If only one of these atoms were to exist in space it would move in a straight line with uniform velocity until it reached the limit of space; that is to say, the boundary by which creation is limited—the boundary which separates entity from nonentity. Here, being elastic, it would be reflected, and would then follow another rectilinear course until it again encountered in another point the boundary of space, where it would be again reflected; and so on for ever!

If we imagine space filled with an enormous number of such atoms it will follow that _at every point in space there will be small parallel currents of them moving in all directions_. Their distance apart being great in proportion to their size, two contrary currents will not annihilate each other, but by far the greater number of atoms in one current will pass those in the other current without impact. Those atoms which do impinge against opposite atoms, at various angles of incidence, will rebound and join other currents which are moving in their new direction.

The state of things above described constitutes what is called “mobile equilibrium;” for what one current loses by meeting another in an opposite direction will be imparted to surrounding currents, and these, in their turn, will give back equal to what they have acquired, so that compensation will be made, and thus the laws of conservation of force, and of _vis viva_, will be satisfied.

The velocity with which the atoms move is enormous, and millions of times greater than the velocity of light.

The reader will observe that there is a vast difference between the mobile equilibrium of this ether and the equilibrium of air or gas confined in a closed vessel. The reason why particles of a gas appear to repel each other is because the ethereal undulations of heat are vibrating between them. By reducing the temperature and increasing the pressure gases may be liquified or solidified, in which states no repulsion exists between their particles.

All ponderable matter is porous; its ultimate atoms are spheres much larger than the atoms of ether, and much farther apart; the currents of ether can, therefore, pass through a ponderable body in all directions.

When a current of ether passes through a ponderable body some of the atoms of ether strike the atoms of the body and rebound; the current, after passing through the body, will, therefore, be weakened, according to the number of its atoms which have rebounded in altered directions—that is to say, according to the number of atoms of the body which have been struck by atoms of ether. The greater the mass of a body the greater will be the weakening of the currents of ether which have passed through it. A current of ether weakened by passing through a body will gradually regain its original strength by passing through space, since it will be continually reinforced by other atoms moving in the same direction as itself.

A single ponderable atom in the midst of currents of ether will be in equilibrium under their action, because it will be struck equally in all directions.

But the atoms of a ponderable body will be put into vibratory motion by the passage through it of currents of ether; these internal motions may enable us to account for light, heat, magnetism, &c.

When two ponderable bodies exist in space, and currents of ether pass through them, the two bodies will be impelled towards each other, because the currents of ether that are between them and tend to keep them apart are weakened by having passed through the bodies, and are, therefore, weaker than the currents which impel them towards each other. This explains what has been called the “attractive force of gravity.”

It will be observed that since currents of ether pass through the bodies in all directions, the weakened currents between the bodies will be included within a sort of conical space. The law of attraction according to the inverse square of the distance is thus accounted for.

Since the weight of a body is the same, no matter how it is turned about, it follows that the ultimate atoms of all ponderable matter must be spherical. It follows also from the hypothesis that all the spherical atoms of ponderable matter are equal, and that there is, chemically speaking, but one simple substance—the apparent variety depending upon the mode of aggregation of the atoms into molecules.

Crystals are formed by arranging these spheres in the same way as you may arrange marbles or pile up cannon balls.

There is nothing in the hypothesis to interfere with the undulating theory of light, or with any theory that reposes strictly upon observed facts; but this we may discuss on a future occasion.

I need hardly say that it is in consequence of their great velocity that the atoms of ether acquire sufficient momentum to communicate sensible motion to ponderable matter.

Ponderable matter may possibly be composed of the aggregation of ethereal atoms; but M. Leray thinks not. He can see no good reason why it should be so.

Cohesion and chemical affinity may be explained on this hypothesis. Its leading feature is that it explains how such natural phenomena as do not involve vital or mental action may be explained on the simplest mechanical principles, and without involving that “bugaboo,” _action at a distance_. Of course, Dr. Frankland’s ideas of “bonds,” “active and latent atomicities,” &c., are inadmissible on this hypothesis.

The demonstrations are rigorously given, and the work involves a good deal of high mathematics. It is utterly impossible to do justice to the theory in the above brief sketch of it. The theorems of Euclid, if thus stated, would many of them appear improbable and absurd. The work itself can be procured from M. Gauthier Villars, 55, Quai des Grands Augustins, Paris, price three francs. It is copiously illustrated with woodcuts. A new edition has just appeared.

Some idea of the distance between the atoms of ponderable matter, when in the form of gas, may be gathered from a remark of Dr. Mann’s in his _Guide to a Knowledge of Life_, at page 13, where he says:—

“It can be shown to be highly probable that the ultimate atoms
of gases are at least one hundred times their own diameter
asunder even when those gases are held in confined vessels.”

The earth and the moon are, therefore, about three times as near together, in proportion to the diameter of the earth, as two atoms of a gas are, if the above remark be true.

In Sir Isaac Newton’s corpuscular theory of light the atoms emitted from the sun were supposed to follow one another at a distance of about a thousand miles apart! Under such circumstances the impact of two atoms of intersecting rays of light would be a comparatively rare event.

M. Leray asserts that the law of gravitation is only an approximation to the truth, and that it is modified by the volumes of bodies. The proof of this he expects will be found some day in the motions of comets, which rapidly change their volume.

Elective affinity he supposes to depend upon the different forms of crystals, two crystals which present plane faces towards each other being more easily pushed together by the atoms of ether than two crystals in which a solid angle or an edge of one is presented to a plane face of the other.

The sun, planets, fixed stars, nebulæ, &c., are, of course, perpetually riddled through and through, in all directions, by currents of ether. That is why the heavenly bodies gravitate towards each other, as explained in a preceding paragraph.

With respect to reflection at the boundary of space, it is an idea which grows upon you the more you think of it. Enormous as creation is it is impossible to conceive of its having _no_ limit. What, then, is beyond that limit?—Nothing. Not even space in which matter can exist; no _place_ even for matter. On reaching the boundary which separates an entity (for space is an entity) from a nonentity matter must be reflected, if elastic; or it must roll for ever against the boundary of space, if inelastic. This conclusion seems to me inevitable; there is no escape from it.

In the new edition of M. Leray’s book he modifies the theory which I have endeavoured briefly to explain in the foregoing paragraphs by supposing that, instead of one ether, there are two in a state of mixture, the second being a grosser fluid, and its atoms larger than those of the other. It is these larger atoms of the grosser fluid which, by their transversal vibrations, produce the phenomena of light, heat, &c. These larger atoms do not suffer the same swift motion of translation through space as the smaller atoms of the subtler fluid. They have no greater motion of translation than ponderable atoms have.

It may be asked—What is the difference between ponderable and imponderable matter, and why are the atoms of ether imponderable? To this query a satisfactory answer is given; but I must refer the reader to the book for it. Were I to enter upon any demonstrations an entire number of this Journal would not contain half that could be said.

I have proved in an independent manner, and different from that of Père Leray, that two equal, penetrable spheres of ponderable matter, existing in space at a distance apart which is large in proportion to their diameters, will be impelled towards each other by the impact of ethereal matters, according to a law which is approximately that of the inverse square of the distance. When the spheres are brought to within a much shorter distance of each other the law ceases to be approximately true. The law of gravitation may, therefore, be only approximately true for particles of matter at a great distance apart in proportion to their diameters. The only observations which appear to confirm the law are those which have been made upon the heavenly bodies; and here we have a case of a distance apart many times the diameters of the bodies, even between satellites and their primaries.

But before any one can seriously accept this new hypothesis a vast deal more thought and study must be bestowed upon it than I have yet had time to give it.

I will send the demonstration referred to for insertion in a future number of this Journal if our Editors think fit. The subject is not foreign to photography, but intimately connected with it as a science.

According to the new hypothesis, new definitions must be given of MASS and DENSITY. According to M. Leray, “the mass of an atom is equal to its volume, and the mass of a body is equal to the sum of the volumes of its atoms.”

“If we call M the mass of a body, and V its apparent volume, the
fraction M/V is the absolute density of the body. The absolute
density is, therefore, unity for an atom, and varies from 0 to 1
for all bodies.”

If two bodies have the same apparent volume, their densities are
proportional to their masses.

I have been looking through a capital French work on Chemistry, published in 1870, by M. Alfred Riche, lecturer at the Polytechnic School at Paris. He uses the old notation and table of equivalents; but strongly advises a change to the new, which he explains very nicely, and pretty much as our lecturer has done. Whenever the atomic weight of an element is given according to the new table its symbol has a bar drawn across it. Something of this sort should always be observed, in order to avoid confusion between the old and new formulæ.

* * * * *

I have just received a letter from Mr. J. R. Johnson, containing a most beautiful carbon print. He asks me what I think of it. My reply is simply this—that it is the most wonderfully fine print I have ever seen upon paper.

THOMAS SUTTON, B.A.

_Redon, January 26, 1872._

THE RECENT SOLAR ECLIPSE.—NEW PHOTOGRAPHIC VENTURE AT THE
ANTIPODES.—PHOTOGRAPHY IN THE BUSH.

The most interesting event, in a photographic point of view, which I have to report is the departure of the scientific expedition to observe the total eclipse of the sun on the 12th of this month. The place selected for the observations is Cape Sidmouth, some three hundred miles south of Cape York, in Northern Australia.

The expedition has been organised by the Royal Society of Victoria, and the expense is met by private subscriptions, largely aided by grants from the several Colonial Governments. The Queensland Government steamer was also placed at the disposal of the party free of charge.

The various instruments necessary for the observations were sent from England by the Royal Society; but, owing to my absence from Sydney at the time the expedition sailed, I am unable to give any details of the arrangements for taking photographs of the eclipse. I hope, however, soon to be able to give a full description of the results.

The party consists of more than thirty gentlemen, the different branches of science being well represented; for botanists and geologists are taking advantage of the trip to make investigations in their own departments. For the astronomical observations Victoria sends her Government Astronomer, Mr. Ellery, at the head of a large staff of observers, and a photographer, Mr. Walters; while New South Wales sends Mr. Russell, the present, and the Rev. W. Scott, the late, Government Astronomer, and Mr. Merlin, of the “American and Australasian Photographic Company.” From this double staff we may expect a large number of photographs and other valuable results.

The steamer left Sydney on the 27th of November, and will return by Christmas, before which time no news will reach us of the doings of the party. We shall, therefore, look forward to their return with much interest.

* * * * *

Professional photographers here do not now devote their attention so exclusively to portraiture as formerly. The “American and Australasian Photographic Company” has announced its intention of photographing every house in the Australasian colonies! I suppose it finds it a profitable speculation, as it has already photographed a considerable number of towns, house by house. The day for each place is previously advertised, so that the inhabitants may put themselves and their dwellings in holiday attire. The photographs are to some extent used as advertisements.

* * * * *

I lately came across a photographer in the far interior, some 500 or 600 miles from Sydney. He had already travelled a still greater distance from Adelaide, in South Australia, from whence he had started on his tour. He was plying his vocation at the various sheep and cattle stations, and was apparently well patronised. I saw several of his groups of aboriginals, which were very good. The black fellows were highly delighted with their portraits, and were very anxious that copies should be sent to their friends in other districts.

_Sydney, December 1, 1871._ E. B. DOCKER, M.A.

P.S.—The unfortunate wreck of the mail steamer has deprived us of the journals for this month.—E. B. D.

CARBOLIC ACID.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—My attention has been called to an article in your issue of the 19th January, under the head “Correspondence,” by Mr. Thomas Sutton, containing several statements with reference to carbolic acid which it would be wrong to allow to remain uncontradicted.

First: he says carbolic acid is by no means a good antiseptic, and is very poisonous, and then refers to persons being lately poisoned by its _fumes_ at Wolverhampton.

As to its poisonous nature: It is, of course, a poison if taken internally in quantity, but is not a virulent one taken in any reasonable or probable quantity. It is, perhaps, not out of place to say that if it should be taken internally in a concentrated form, by misadventure, large doses of castor and sweet oil immediately administered will materially counteract the poisonous effect of the acid. The fumes of the acid are perfectly harmless and may be breathed with impunity.

Mr. Sutton is labouring under a false impression with regard to the case to which he alludes at Wolverhampton, of which the following is the correct account:—Two dogs (not human beings) were _supposed_ to have died from inhaling the fumes of carbolic acid emanating from a disinfecting powder sprinkled over the floor of a workshop in Wolverhampton, and, the following is an extract from the report of the chemist who examined one of the dogs:—“The disinfecting powder was not a carbolic acid powder, but an imitation; for it contained nothing but lime impregnated with tar, and was entirely innocent of any harm to the animals. Strychnine, however, was discovered in considerable quantity in most parts of the viscera and in the blood. I calculated that at least one grain and a-quarter of this poisonous alkaloid had been administered to the animal by some evil-disposed person or persons unknown.” Thus much for the poisoning of human beings lately at Wolverhampton by the fumes of carbolic acid.[4]

Footnote 4:

The cattle show at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, has for the two
last years been successfully disinfected and kept sweet with carbolic
acid.

Had Mr. Sutton ever seen carbolic acid fumigation, or read about
carbolic acid, he would not have made an assertion so utterly
groundless. The writer has himself many times been for two or three
days together in a room containing a large excess of carbolic acid
fumes without experiencing any injurious effects.

With regard to the action of carbolic acid on the teeth, if Mr. Sutton
will refer to an article in the _British Journal of Dental Science_
for March, 1871, he will find “it is a powerful antiseptic, and
invaluable for the arrest of any decay or decomposition of the teeth.”

Mr. Sutton has quoted from a long letter of Dr. Dougall’s to the
_Lancet_, and I cannot do better than refer him to Dr. Sansom’s able
reply to it in the _Lancet_ of January 13th. Dr. Sansom says that the
white-cloud appearance in albuminous solutions to which carbolic acid
has been added is often really no albuminous precipitate at all, but
is caused by refractile globules of carbolic acid in a fine state of
sub-division; also, that it has been shown that albuminous solutions
are antisepted when carbolic acid exists in them in too feeble a
proportion to cause any precipitate whatever. If carbolic acid acted
as an antiseptic by coagulating albumen, agents which had a greater
coagulating power would, _a fortiori_, be more powerful antiseptics,
which has abundantly been proved not to be the case, and therefore the
antiseptic properties of carbolic acid do not result solely from its
power of coagulating albumen.

With respect to the assertion that the amount of carbolic acid vapour
which could be tolerated in the air of a hospital ward would be
entirely inadequate to act as a disinfectant, Dr. Sansom says his
experiments have shown him that _carbolised atmospheres_ are efficient
in preventing putrefaction and the growth of mouldiness, and more so
than atmospheres impregnated with chloride of lime or sulphurous acid.

Dr. Sansom objects to the experiments recorded by Dr. Dougall, since
tar oil (a crude product weak in carbolic acid, and possessing little
or no volatile disinfectant constituent), and McDougall’s powder (a
mixture of sulphites of lime and magnesia with tar oil) were used.

As to carbolic acid not being a good antiseptic, the following
reports, I think, fully prove the contrary:—

The late Dr. W. Allen Miller, F.R.S., preserved urine and fresh blood
for three months by the simple addition of five per cent. of Calvert’s
carbolic disinfecting powder—a product containing fifteen per cent. of
carbolic acid in a free state.

Mr. Wm. Crookes, F.R.S., says that he took some albumen from fresh
eggs and mixed it with an equal bulk of water. By itself it became bad
after nine days, and at the end of three weeks it smelt very strongly.
He added to four bottles of the fluid respectively 1, 2½, 5, and 10
per cent. of carbolic acid powder (equivalent to 3/20, ⅜, ¾, and 1½
per cent. of free carbolic acid). All kept good at ordinary
temperatures for forty days. Blood with 1/15 per cent. of carbolic
acid remained good for a month. Solutions of size, glue, and gum mixed
with 1/15 per cent. of carbolic acid have remained for two months
without becoming sour. Fresh yeast was washed with water containing
one-tenth per cent. Its power of inducing fermentation was entirely
destroyed.

Dr. F. Crace Calvert, F.R.S., in his paper on comparative
disinfectants, gives the following results with antiseptics upon
solutions of albumen:—

Antiseptic Percentage Time in which
employed. of acquired an
antiseptic offensive odour.
used. Temperature 70° to
80° F.

Chloride of 5 16 days.
lime

Tar oil 2 11 days.

Carbolic acid 2 remained sound six
months

None — 5 days.

The writer preserved meat for ninety days, during a hot summer, by
placing twelve ounces of fresh meat in a bottle containing one pound
of water and five grains of carbolic acid. The mouth of the bottle was
left open, and no offensive smell was emitted till the ninety-third
day. The meat was, of course, unfit for food, and was merely
experimented with to test the antiseptic power of carbolic acid.

The following is an extract from a report in _Compte Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences_ of March 6th, 1871, by Messrs. Nelaton, Langier, and Payen, on experiments made at the Paris Morgue by M. Devergie:—

“During the heat of summer, when putrefying corpses in the
Morgue continually emit a quantity of noxious gases that cannot
be removed by ventilation or destroyed by chlorine or bleaching
powder, we decided to prevent their production by trying to
destroy the vitality of the germs of putrefaction, and thus
prevent decomposition itself. We effected this by dissolving one
litre of carbolic acid in 1,900 litres of water and irrigating
the bodies with the solution thus made. Putrefaction was
completely stopped, and disinfection was even obtained after
reducing the quantity of acid by one-half. M. Devergie points
out that water containing one four-thousandth part of carbolic
acid proved sufficient during the intense heat of last summer to
disinfect the deadhouse, without the aid of any shaft, when six
or seven dead bodies were lying there. * * * * * * * * * * *
Carbolic acid seems well adapted for the disinfection of rooms
which have been occupied by persons suffering from infectious
diseases; therefore, we recommend its use, after being dissolved
in thirty times its weight of water, by sprinkling it on the
floors, pavements, and staircases during the stay of patients in
rooms and for a few days after their departure.”

According to Dr. Sansom carbolic acid is readily taken up by air, so that 159.44 cubic inches of air, at 60° Fah., contain one grain of carbolic acid. Air thus _carbolised_ (currents excluded) entirely annuls putrefaction and fungoid manifestation on the surface of putrescible fluids, and such carbolised air is more permanently efficacious than air charged with the fumes of chloride of lime or sulphurous acid, and it may be breathed with impunity by mammifers.

These few observations will, I think, satisfy your readers that Mr. Sutton’s remarks are erroneous and without foundation. I shall be glad to learn that photographers have tried carbolic acid in the preservative solution for dry plates, and would recommend them to make a solution of carbolic acid, one part to one thousand parts of water, and then add their albumen to this solution to the strength they require it. Above all things it is essential that the carbolic acid be of good quality for photographic purposes; and I would recommend them to use an acid such as Calvert’s No. 1 (gilt label) carbolic acid.—I am, yours, &c.,

REGINALD LE NEVE FOSTER.

_Bradford, near Manchester, January 27, 1872._

THE TEST FOR ALBUMEN.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—It is over two years since I devised the carbolic mixture for detecting traces of albumen. At the time I did not think it of sufficient photographic interest to occupy your space in detailing experiments on the subject; but, as you do not remember the author’s name, I beg to remind you that I am the author. It was published, I believe, as a note by a friend of mine—an eminent chemist and toxicologist—in a medical work.

On one occasion we were talking over the means of detecting albumen, and having experimented with phenol or “carbolic acid” for about eight years, many times in connection with albumen, I knew its properties well, and, on my attention being directed to a test for albumen, I commenced experiments with a mixture of phenol and acetic acid, then with the addition of alcohol, and finally with phenol and alcohol, equal parts by weight. My friend and self then went through a comparative set of experiments side by side—my friend taking his old nitric acid test and I my new phenol mixture—the result being that my test indicated albumen both in plain water and urine, diluted one in ten after the nitric acid failed to indicate any further.—I am, yours, &c.,

F. W. HART.

_8, Kingsland Green, January 29, 1872._

SUGGESTION FOR A PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—The continued complaints which one heard from people after the close of our photographic exhibition, that they had not seen it, did not know when it opened or when it had closed, and the strong interest they felt in it, induce me to believe that a comprehensive exhibition of photography in all its shapes—the new processes, the landscape and humanity of different countries, &c., &c.—might be made of very great interest, and to pay its way as well.

In the spring, and even now, London is filled with collections of paintings, which make photographs look tame. In the International Exhibition they are equally put out; and if they are to be seen and judged properly they must be in an exhibition by themselves. No intelligent collector hangs works in colour with photographs or engravings; and exhibition goers, passing from a gallery of pictures, will not stop to look at photographs. If, therefore, we could, under the direction of the photographic societies, make in October a collection of cosmopolitan photography, and connect with it a display and comparison of lenses of all makers, we should enable the art to claim its just consideration.

Colonel Stuart Wortley’s suggestion as to contributions of negatives would give a photographic exhibition, if adopted, a special technical interest; and we might in this include examples of negatives by the dry processes.

The question of retouching might be decided without difference of opinion by having two classes of works—one touched on the negative, and the other in which no touching other than stopping out pinholes should be permitted. If awards are made—and in this I recall Colonel Wortley’s mention of the medal of the Photographic Society—no award should be made for a touched negative unless a print from it before touching should be submitted _to the judges_ at the same time, but not necessarily for exhibition.

It is clear that when we talk of excellence in photography we mean something other than what a draughtsman may do in the way of supplementing photography. Works which do not enter for an award may omit mention of the distinction I have indicated.

I believe that such an exhibition would excite a very general interest, and do more to improve the knowledge of photographers on practical details than years of casual acquaintance of what other men do.

I am, to a certain extent, an outsider, and cannot do more than suggest; but I hope that some of the influential masters of the camera will take up the question.—I am, yours, &c.,

W. J. STILLMAN.