as containing certain relics of its
predecessor, "with the real Whittington stone (it is said) for a
threshold."

2. Shortly after the removal of this supposed "original," a new memorial
was erected, with the inscription "Whittington's Stone." This was, for some
cause, removed by order of the churchwardens in May, 1821.

3. In his second edition, 1823, Nelson says, "The present stone was set up
in 1821, by the trustees of the parish ways." This is the stone which has
lately been removed.

H. G.

* * * * *

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Photographic Experience._--I send you the Rev. W. Le Mottee's and mine:

W. Le M.

1. 6 minutes' exposure.

2. Sea-side.

{_Iod._--Double iod. sol. from 25 gr. N. A. to 1 oz.
3. {_Exc._--5[minim] 50 gr. A. N. A. 5[minim] G. A. Aq. 2 drs.
{_Dev._--1^o 50 gr. A. N. A. and G. A. part. aeq. 2^o G. A.

4. Turner.

5. 3/8 inch.

6. 3 inches.

7. Diam. lens 3 in. Foc. length parallel rays 12-3/4 in.
Maker, Slater. Picture 8-1/2 x 6-1/2.

T. L. M.

1. 10 minutes.

2. Sea-side.

{_Iod._
3. {_Exc._ As Le M.
{_Dev._

4. Turner.

5. 3/8 inch.

6. 3-1/8 inches.

7. Diam. lens 3-1/4 in. Foc. length 17-1/2 in. Maker,
Slater. Picture 11-1/2 x 9-1/4.

I have given the development according to the plan usually followed, for
the sake of comparison; but where it is desirable to work out the shadows
fully, it is far better to give longer exposure in the camera (three times
that above given), and develop with gallo-nitrate of the strength used to
excite, finishing with gallic acid. The time varies with the subject; a
cottage among trees requiring 12 to 14 minutes. Almost all the statements I
have seen, giving the time, do so absolutely; it is well to remind
photographers, that these convey no _information whatever_, unless the
focal length for parallel rays, and the diameter of the diaphragm, are also
given: the time, in practice as well as in theory, varying (_caeteris
paribus_) directly as the {502} square of the former, and inversely as the
square of the latter; and, without these corrections, the results of one
lens are not comparable with those of another.

When shall we get a good structureless paper? The _texture_ of Turner's,
especially his new paper, is a great defect; and its skies are thin, _very_
inferior to the dense velvety blacks obtained with Whatman's of old date--a
pa