Copyright
Various.

Notes and Queries, Number 169, January 22, 1853 online

. (page 4 of 6)
Online LibraryVariousNotes and Queries, Number 169, January 22, 1853 → online text (page 4 of 6)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


manufactured between the years 1636 and 1655, or between 1696 and 1715, the
Court hand being used in both these cycles: but (as will presently be
mentioned) instead of the lion passant and leopard's head in the former, we
shall find the lion's head erased, and Britannia, denoting the alteration
of the standard during the latter period.

The standard of gold, when first introduced into the coinage, was of 24
carats fine; that is, pure gold. Subsequently, it was 23½ and half alloy;
this, after an occasional debasement by Henry VIII., was fixed at 22 carats
fine and 2 carats alloy by Charles I.; and still continues so, being {91}
called the old standard. In 1798 an act was passed allowing gold articles
to be made of a lower or worse standard, viz., of 18 carats of fine gold
out of 24; such articles were to be stamped with a crown and the figures
18, instead of the lion passant.

The standard of silver has always (with the exception of about twenty
years) been 11 oz. 2 dwts., and 18 dwts. alloy, in the pound: this was
termed _sterling_, but very much debased from the latter end of Henry VIII.
to the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. In the reign of William III., 1697,
an act was passed to alter the standard of silver to 11 oz. 10 dwts., and
10 dwts. alloy: and instead of the usual marks of the lion and leopard's
head, the stamps of this better quality of silver were the figure of a
lion's head erased, and the figure of Britannia: and the variable letter
denoting the date as before. This act continued in operation for twenty-two
years, being repealed in 1719, when the standard was again restored.

A duty of sixpence per ounce was imposed upon plate in 1719, which was
taken off again in 1757; in lieu of which, a licence or duty of forty
shillings was paid by every vendor of gold or silver. In 1784, a duty of
sixpence per ounce was again imposed, and the licence still continued:
which in 1797 was increased to one shilling, and in 1815 to
eighteenpence - at which it still remains. The payment of this duty is
indicated by the stamp of the sovereign's head.

All gold plate, with the exception of watch-cases, pays a duty of seventeen
shillings per ounce; and silver plate one shilling and sixpence;
watch-cases, chains, and a few other articles being exempted.

The letters used as dates in the foregoing list (it must be remembered) are
only those of the Goldsmiths' Hall in London, as denoted by the leopard's
head crowned. Other Halls, at York, Newcastle, Lincoln, Norwich, Bristol,
Salisbury, and Coventry, had also marks of their own to show the year; and
have stamped gold and silver since the year 1423, perhaps earlier.
Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin have had the same privilege from a very
early period: and, more recently, Chester, Birmingham, and Sheffield. Thus
it will be seen that four marks or punches are used on gold and silver
plate, independent of the makers' initials or symbol, viz.:

_The Standard Mark._ - For gold of the old standard of 22 carats, and silver
of 11 oz. 2 dwts.:

A lion passant for England.
A thistle for Edinburgh.
A lion rampant for Glasgow.
A harp crowned for Ireland.

For gold of 18 carats:

A crown, and the figures 18.

For silver of 11 oz. 10 dwts.:

A lion's head erased, and Britannia.

_The Hall Mark._ -

A leopard's head crowned for London.
A castle for Edinburgh.
Hibernia for Dublin.
Five lions and a cross for York.
A castle for Exeter.
Three wheatsheaves and a dagger for Chester.
Three castles for Newcastle.
An anchor for Birmingham.
A crown for Sheffield.
A tree and fish for Glasgow.

_The Duty Mark._ - The head of the sovereign, to indicate that the duty has
been paid: this mark is not placed on watch-cases, &c.

_The Date Mark_, or variable letter, denoting the year as fixed by each
Hall.

W. CHAFFERS, Jun.

Old Bond Street.

The table inquired for by MR. LIVETT, with a most interesting historical
paper on the subject, was published in the last _Archæological Journal_,
October, 1852.

H. T. ELLACOMBE.

* * * * *

EDITIONS OF THE PRAYER-BOOK PRIOR TO 1662.

(Vol. vi., pp. 435. 564.; Vol. vii., p. 18.)

Since the publication of the professedly imperfect list of various editions
of the Prayer-Book, at page 564. of your last volume, which list was
compiled chiefly from liturgical works in my own possession, I have had
occasion to consult the _Catalogue_ of the British Museum, from which I
have gleaned materials for a more full and correct enumeration. All the
editions in the following list are in the library of the British Museum;
and in order to increase its value and utility, I have appended to each
article the press-mark by which it is now designated. In some of these
press-marks a numeral is subscript, thus:

C. 25. h. 7.
- - - - - -
1

In order to save space I have represented this in the following list thus,
(C. 25. h. 7) 1., putting the subscript numeral outside the parenthesis.

1552. (?) 4to. B. L. N. Hyll for A. Veale. (3406. c.)
1573. (?) fol. R. Jugge. (C. 24. m. 5.) 1.
1580. (?) 8vo. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3406. a.)
1584. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (1274. b. 9.)
1595. fol. Deputies of Ch. Barker. (C. 25. m. 5.) 2.
1596. 4to. (C. 25 h. 7.) 1.
1598. fol. (C. 25. 1. 10.) 1.
1603. (?) 4to. Imperfect. (1275. b. 11.) 1.
1611. 4to. (1276. e 4.) 1.
1612. 8vo. (3406. a.)
1613. 4to. (3406. c.)
{92}
1614. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3406. c.) 1.
1615. Fol. (3406. e.) 1.
4to. (1276. e. 8.) 1.
1616. Fol. (1276. k. 3.) 1.
Fol. (1276. k. 4.) 1.
1618. 4to. Portion of Prayer-Book. (3407. c.)
1619. Fol. (3406. e.) 1.
1628. 8vo. (3050. a.) 1.
1629. 4to. (1276. f. 3.) 1.
1630-29. Fol. (3406. e.) 1.
1631. 4to. (1276. f. 1.) 1.
1633. 12mo. (3405. a.) 1.
8vo. (1276. b. 14.) 1.
1633-34. Fol. (3406. f.) (With the "Form of Healing," two leaves.)
1634. 8vo. (3406. b.) 1.
1636. 4to. (1276. f. 4.) 2.
1639. 8vo. (3050. b.) 1.
8vo. (1274. a. 14.) 1.
1642. (?) 8vo. (1276. c. 2.) 3.
1642. 12mo. (3405. a.)
1660. 12mo. (3406. b.) 1.

In Latin we have an early copy in addition to those already noted, viz.:

1560. Reg. Wolfe. 4to. (3406. c.)

Of which the British Museum possesses two copies of the same press-mark,
one of which is enriched with MS. notes and sixteen cancelled leaves.
Besides the above we have also

1589. 8vo. London. In French.
1599. 4to. London. Deputies of Ch. Barker. In Welsh.

Allow me to take this opportunity of thanking ARCHDEACON COTTON for his
very valuable communication. I trust that he and others of your many
learned readers will lend a helping hand to the correction of this list,
and its ultimate completion; the notice of the editions of 1551 and 1617
(Vol. vii., p. 18.) is as interesting as it is important. It will be
perceived that editions of the Prayer-Book referred to in former lists are
not enumerated in the present one.

W. SPARROW SIMPSON, B.A.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES.

_Originator of the Collodion Process._ - All those who take any interest in
photography must agree with your correspondent G. C. that M. Le Gray is a
talented man, and has done much for photography. G. C. has given a very
good translation of M. Le Gray's _last published work_, p. 89., which work
I have: but I must take leave to observe, that it is no contradiction
whatever to my statement. The translations to which M. Le Gray alludes, of
1850, appeared in Willat's publication, from which I gave him the credit of
having first suggested the use of collodion in photography. The subject is
there dismissed in three or four lines.

M. Le Gray gave no directions whatever for its application to glass in his
work published in July 1851, wherein he alludes to it only as an
"encallage" for paper, classing it with amidou, the resins, &c., which he
recommends in a similar manner.

I had, four months previous to this, published the process in detail in the
_Chemist_. I never asserted that he had not tried experiments with
collodion in 1849; but he did not give the public the advantage of
following him: and I again repeat that the first time M. Le Gray published
the collodion process was in September, 1852, - a year and a half after my
publication, and when it had become much used.

It is obvious that if M. Le Gray had been in possession of any detailed
process with collodion on glass in 1850, he would not have omitted to
publish it in his work dated July, 1851.

F. SCOTT ARCHER.

105. Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury.

G. C., claiming for Le Gray the merit of the first use of collodion upon
glass, states that a pamphlet upon the subject was published in 1850, and
which was _translated into English at the same time_. Will he oblige me by
stating who published this pamphlet, or where it may be obtained? I have
heard this statement before, and have used every endeavour to obtain a
sight of the publication, but without success. Were the facts as stated by
your correspondent, it would deprive MR. ARCHER undoubtedly of the merit
which he claims; but from all I have been able to learn, Le Gray mentioned
collodion as a mere agent for obtaining a smooth surface to paper, or other
substance, having no idea of making it the sole sensitive substance to be
employed. I have been informed that in Vienna, early in 1850, collodion was
tried upon glass by being first immersed in a bath of iodide of potassium;
and it was afterwards placed in a second bath of nitrate of silver. These
experiments had _very limited_ success, and were never published, and
certainly were unknown to MR. ARCHER.

H. W. D.

_Mr. Weld Taylor's Process._ - In your 167th Number (Vol. vii., p. 48.) is a
communication from WELD TAYLOR on photographic manipulation, which, in its
present form, is perfectly unintelligible. At p. 48. he says: "Twenty
grains of nitrate of silver in half an ounce of water is to have half an
ounce of solution of iodide of potassium of fifty grains to the ounce
added." Now this is unnecessarily mystifying. Why not say: "Take equal
quantities of a forty-grain solution of nitrate of silver, and of a
fifty-grain solution of iodide of potassium;" though, in fact, an _equal_
strength would do as well, and be quite as, if not more, economical.

In the next place, he directs that cyanide of potassium should be added
_drop by drop_, &c. It {93} is to be presumed that he means a _solution_ of
this salt, which is a solid substance as usually sold.

What follows is so exceedingly droll, that I can do nothing more than
_guess_ at the meaning. How one _solution_ is to be floated on another, and
then, _after_ a bath of nitrate of silver, is to be _ready for the camera_,
surpasses my comprehension.

Also, further on, he alludes to _iodizing_ with the _ammonio-nitrate_ (I
presume of silver). What does he mean?

GEO. SHADBOLT.

_Dr. Diamond's Services to Photography._ - SIR, We, the undersigned amateurs
of Photography in the city of Norwich, shall be obliged if you will
(privately, or otherwise, at your own discretion) convey to DR. DIAMOND our
grateful thanks for the frankness and liberality with which he has
published the valuable results of his experiments in the pages of "N. & Q."
We have profited largely by DR. DIAMOND'S instructions, and beg to express
our conviction that he is entitled to the gratitude of every lover of the
Art.

We are, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
T. LAWSON SISSON, Clk., (Edingthorpe Rectory).
THOS. D. EATON.
JOHN CROSSE KOOPE.
JAMES HOWES.
T.G. BAYFIELD.
G. BROWNFIELD.
HENRY PULLEY.
W. BRANSBY FRANCIS.
J. BLOWERS (Cossey).
BENJ. RUSSELL.

[Agreeing, as we do most entirely, with the Photographers of Norwich in
their estimate of the skill and perseverance exhibited by DR. DIAMOND
in simplifying the collodion and paper processes, and of his liberality
in making known the results of his experiments, we have great pleasure
in giving publicity to this recognition of the services rendered by DR.
DIAMOND to this important Art.]

_Simplification of the Wax-paper Process._ - At a late meeting of the
Chemical Discussion Society, Mr. J. How read the following paper on this
subject: -

"The easiest way of waxing the paper is to take an iron (those termed
'box-irons' are the cleanest and best for the purpose) moderately hot, in
the one hand, and to pass it over the paper from side to side, following
closely after it with a piece of white wax, held in the other hand, until
the whole surface has been covered. By thus heating the paper, it readily
imbibes the wax, and becomes rapidly saturated with it. The first sheet
being finished, I place two more sheets of plain paper upon it, and repeat
the operation upon the top one (the intermediate piece serving to absorb
any excess of wax that may remain), and so on, sheet after sheet, until the
number required is waxed.

"The sheets, which now form a compact mass, are separated by passing the
iron, moderately heated, over them; then placed between folds of bibulous
paper, and submitted to a further application of heat by the means just
described, so as to remove all the superfluous wax from the surface, and
render them perfectly transparent - most essential points to be attended to
in order to obtain fine negative proofs.

"I will now endeavour to describe the method of preparing the iodizing
solution.

"Instead of being at the trouble of boiling rice, preparing isinglass,
adding sugar of milk and the whites of eggs, &c., I simply take some milk
quite fresh, say that milked the same day, and add to it, drop by drop,
glacial acetic acid, in about the proportion of one, or one and a half
drachm, fluid measure, to the quart, which will separate the caseine,
keeping the mixture well stirred with a glass rod all the time; I then boil
it in a porcelain vessel to throw down the remaining caseine not previously
coagulated, and also to drive off as much as possible of the superfluous
acid it may contain. Of course any other acid would precipitate the
caseine; still I give the preference to the acetic from the fact that it
does not affect the after-process of rendering the paper sensitive, that
acid entering into the composition of the sensitive solution.

"After boiling for five or ten minutes, the liquid should be allowed to
cool, and then be strained through a hair sieve or a piece of muslin, to
collect the caseine: when quite cold, the chemicals are to be added.

"The proportions I have found to yield the best results are those
recommended by Vicomte Veguz, which I have somewhat modified, both as
regard quantities and the number of chemicals employed. They are as follow:

385 grains of iodide of potassium.
60 " of bromide.
30 " of cyanide.
20 " of fluoride.
10 " of chloride of sodium in crystals.
1½ " of resublimed iodine.

"The above are dissolved in thirty-five ounces of the strained liquid, and,
after filtration through white bibulous paper, the resulting fluid should
be perfectly clear and of a bright lemon colour.

"The iodized solution is now ready for use, and may be preserved, in
well-stopped bottles, for any length of time.

"The waxed paper is laid in the solution, in a flat porcelain or gutta
percha tray, in the manner described by M. Le Gray and others, and allowed
to remain there for from half an hour to an hour, according to the
thickness of the paper. It is then taken out and hung up to dry, when it
should be of a light brown colour. All these operations may be carried on
in a light room, taking care only that, during the latter part of the
process, {94} the paper be not exposed to the direct rays of the sun.

"The 'iodized paper,' which will keep for almost any length of time, should
be placed in a portfolio, great care being taken to lay it perfectly flat,
otherwise the wax is liable to crack, and thus spoil the beauty of the
negative. The papers manufactured by Canson Frères and Lacroix are far
preferable, for this process, to any of the English kinds, being much
thinner and of a very even texture.

"To render the paper sensitive, use the following solution:

150 grains nitrate of silver crystals.
3 fluid drachms glacial acetic acid, crystallizable.
5 ounces distilled water.

"This solution is applied in the way described by Le Gray, the marked side
of the paper being towards the exciting fluid. The paper is washed in
distilled water and dried, as nearly as possible, between folds of bibulous
paper. It should be kept, till required for the camera, in a portfolio,
between sheets of stout blotting-paper, carefully protected from the
slightest ray of light, and from the action of atmospheric air. If prepared
with any degree of nicety, it will remain sensitive for two or three weeks:
indeed I have seen some very beautiful results on paper which had been kept
for a period of six weeks. At this time of year, an exposure in the camera
of from ten to twenty minutes is requisite.

"The picture may be developed with gallic acid, immediately after its
removal from the camera; or, if more convenient, that part of the process
may be delayed for several days. Whilst at this section of my paper, I may,
perhaps, be allowed to describe a method of preparing the solution of
gallic acid, whereby it may be kept, in a good state of preservation, for
several months. I have kept it myself for four months, and have found it,
after the lapse of that period, infinitely superior to the newly-made
solution. This process has, I am informed, been alluded to in photographic
circles; but not having seen it in print, and presuming the fact to be one
of great practical importance, I trust I shall be excused for introducing
it here, should it not possess that degree of novelty I attribute to it.

"What is generally termed a saturated solution of gallic acid is, I am led
to believe, nothing of the kind. In all the works on photography, the
directions given run generally as follow: - 'Put an excess of gallic acid
into distilled water, shake the mixture for about five minutes, allow it to
deposit, and then pour off the supernatant fluid, which is found to be a
saturated solution of the acid.'

"Now I have found by constant experiment, that by keeping an excess of acid
in water for several days, the strength of the solution is greatly
increased, and its action as a developing agent materially improved. The
method I have adopted is to put half an ounce of crystallized gallic acid
into a stoppered quart bottle, and then so to fill it up with water as
that, when the stopper is inserted, a little of the water is displaced,
and, consequently, every particle of air excluded.

"The solution thus prepared will keep for several months. When a portion of
it is required, the bottle should be refilled with fresh distilled water,
the same care being taken to exclude every portion of atmospheric air, - to
the presence of which I am led to believe, is due the decomposition of the
ordinary solution of gallic acid.

"It will be needless to detain you further in explaining the
after-processes, &c. to be found in any of the recent works on the
Waxed-paper Process, the translation of the last edition of Le Gray being
the one to which I give the preference."

* * * * *

THE BURIAL SERVICE SAID BY HEART.

(Vol. vii., p. 13.)

Southey has confounded two stories in conjecturing that the anecdote
mentioned by Bp. Sprat related to Bull. It was the _baptismal_ and not the
_funeral_ service that Bull repeated from memory.

I quote from his _Life_ by Robert Nelson:

"A particular instance of this happened to him while he was minister of
St. George's (near Bristol); which, because it showeth how valuable the
Liturgy is in itself, and what unreasonable prejudices are sometimes
taken up against it, the reader will not, I believe, think it unworthy
to be related.

"He was sent for to baptize the child of a Dissenter in his parish;
upon which occasion, he made use of the office of Baptism as prescribed
by the Church of England, which he had got entirely by heart. And he
went through it with so much readiness and freedom and yet with so much
gravity and devotion, and gave that life and spirit to all that he
delivered, that the whole audience was extremely affected with his
performance; and, notwithstanding that he used the sign of the cross,
yet they were so ignorant of the offices of the Church, that they did
not thereby discover that it was the Common Prayer. But after that he
had concluded that holy action, the father of the child returned him a
great many thanks; intimating at the same time with how much greater
edification they prayed who entirely depended upon the Spirit of God
for his assistance in their _extempore_ effusions, than those did who
tied themselves up to premeditated forms; and that, if he had not made
the sign of the cross, that badge of Popery, as he called it, nobody
could have formed the least objection against his excellent Prayers.
Upon which, Mr. Bull, hoping to recover him from his ill-grounded
prejudices, showed him the office of Baptism in the Liturgy, wherein
was contained every prayer that was offered up to God on that occasion;
which, with farther arguments that he then urged, so effectually {95}
wrought upon the good man and his whole family, that they always after
that time frequented the parish-church; and never more absented
themselves from Mr. Bull's communion." - Pp. 39 - 41., Lond. 1714, 8vo.

Some few dates will prove that Bull could not have been the person alluded
to. Bp. Sprat's _Discourse to the Clergy of his Diocese_ was delivered in
the Year 1695. And he speaks of the minister of the London parish as one
who "was afterwards an eminent Bishop of our Church." We must therefore
suppose him to have been _dead_ at the time of Bp. Sprat's visitation. Now,
in the first place (as J. K. remarks), "Bull never held a London cure."
And, in the second place, he was not consecrated Bishop until the 29th of
April, 1705 (ten years after Bp. Sprat's visitation), and did not die until
Feb. 1709-10. (_Life_, pp. 410 - 474.)

Southey's conjecture is therefore fatally wrong. And now as regards Bp.
Hacket. The omission of the anecdote from the _Life_ prefixed to his
_Sermons_ must, I think, do away with his claims also, though he was
restored to his parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and was not consecrated
Bishop of Lichfield until December, 1661. Unfortunately, I have not always
followed Captain Cuttle's advice, or I should now be able to contribute
some more decisive information. I have my own suspicions on the matter, but
am afraid to guess in print.

RT.

Warmington.

The prelate to whom your correspondent alludes was Dr. John Hacket, Rector
of St. Andrews, Holborn, cons. to the see of Lichfield and Coventry on
December 22, 1661. The anecdote was first related by Granger. (Chalmers's
_Biog. Dict._, vol. xvii. p. 7.)

Bishop Bull, while rector of St. George's near Bristol, said the Baptismal
Office by heart on one occasion. (Nelson's _Life_, i. § ix. p. 34.;
_Works_, Oxford, 1827.)

MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.

* * * * *


Replies to Minor Queries.

_Mary Queen of Scots' Gold Cross_ (Vol. vi., p. 486.). -

"Would it not facilitate the identification of the Gold Cross of Mary
Queen of Scotts, in the possession of Mr. Price of Glasgow, if a
representation of it was sent to _The Illustrated London News_, as the
publication of it by that Journal would lead antiquaries to the
identification of a valuable historical relic?"

I hope you will insert the above in "N. & Q." in the hope it may meet the
eye of MR. PRICE, and lead to a satisfactory result.

W. H. C.

_Jennings Family_ (Vol. vi., p. 362.). - This family is supposed to have
continued from some time in Cornwall, after the Visitation of 1620; but the
name is not now found there in any great respectability. William Jennings
of Saltash was sheriff of Cornwall, 1678; but his arms differ from those of
the Visitation: argent, a chevron gules between three mariners, plumets
sable.

Francis Jennnings, who recorded the pedigree of 1620, married the daughter
of _Spoure_ of Trebartha; and in a MS. book of that family, compiled about
the latter part of the seventeenth century, the same arms, strange to say,


1 2 4 6

Online LibraryVariousNotes and Queries, Number 169, January 22, 1853 → online text (page 4 of 6)