458 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[Dec. 8. 1855. 



kindly correcting a vagueness of expression. I should 

 have said that the convergence of the optic axes, when 

 directed to the various parts of a single picture, differs 

 so little in extent, that the fact of its being a plane surface 

 under inspection is revealed ; while with two properly 

 depicted photographs in the stereoscope, the correspond- 

 ing portions of the two pictures tiot being in all parts 

 uiUfonuly distant from each other, the adjustment of tlie 

 optic axes, in order to observe simultaneously each corre- 

 sponding pair of points in succession, has to be altered to 

 an extent considerably exceeding that prevalent when a 

 plane surface is being examined; hence the idea is sug- 

 gested that it is not a plane surface. Geo. Shadbolt. 



The communication of M. TJ. (Vol. xii., p. 351.) re- 

 specting tlie subject of single stereoscopic pictures, requires 

 a few remarks in reply. 



In the first place, M. U. states that I am mistaken in 

 supposing that a picture taken by the method suggested 

 by me would be stereoscopic, or that it would differ from 

 anj' ordinary picture ; but that the picture w;ould be ste- 

 reoscopic if viewed with one eye only. 



Before proceeding farther, I may here state, that the 

 experiment lias hitherto been made only with the camera, 

 and that which I have previously written respecting the 

 stereoscopic effect has only had reference to the picture 

 on the glass screen. But that the picture on the screen 

 is stereoscopic is a fact beyond all dispute, however hard 

 this may clash with the theory of the stereoscope. I 

 should also imagine that if the proper effect is produced 

 on the screen, it is equally possible to produce the same 

 on a prepared plate. 



Moreover, the picture is stereoscopic only wnen received 

 with the two eyes, and not with one, as suggested by M. U. 

 The reason why I have not obtained a photograph by the 

 plan, is simpl3' because the two pictures do not coincide 

 in all their parts alike, which "spoils the effect by pro- 

 ducing everything double when imperfect. Let me 

 recommend the experiment itself to be tried; and if the 

 directions are followed as suggested in my first communi- 

 cation, the stereoscopic effect (at present denied by so 

 manj') will be evident in a moment, even to the most 

 sceptical on the subject. Geo. Norman. 



Hull. 



New Photographic JBooks. — ffardivick's Chemistry of 

 Photography; Photographic Researches, by MM. Niepce 

 de Saint- Victor, Chevreul, and Lacan. We have two new 

 volumes, to which we would direct the attention of our 

 photographic friends. One is the second edition of Mr. 

 Hardwick's book, which is greatly increased in value hj 

 chapters on the fading of positives, on the mode of ob- 

 taining stereoscopic pictures, and on micro-photographj'. 

 Of the other we will give the full title ; it is Photographic 

 Researches, Photography upon Glass, Heliochromy, Helio- 

 graphic Engraving, Various Notes and Processes, by M. 

 Niepce de Saint-Victor, Military Commander of the 

 Louvre, &c. ; folloioed by Considerations, by M. E. Chev- 

 reul, Member of the Institute ; with a Biographical 

 Preface and Notes, by M. Ernest Lacan. This ample 

 title-page will show the importance of the volume to all 

 Avho are interested in that branch of the photographic art 

 which M. Saint-Victor has made peculiarly his own. It 

 is the first time that these processes may be said to have 

 been fully made known to the English photographer, and 

 we cannot doubt that the result of this publication will do 

 much to promote the studj' of Heliographic Engraving in 

 this country, and to bring it to that perfection, combining 

 facilitj' and certainty, of which we believe it to be ca- 

 pable ; and when it will become the only art employed in 

 illustration of works of an antiquarian character. We 

 should add, that for this volume, which is in English, and 



No. 319.] 



which is illustrated by a photograph on steel of M. Niepce 

 de Saint- Victor, photographers are indebted to M. Lacan, 

 the accomplished editor of the French Photographic Jour- 

 nal, La Lumiere, 



IBitpliti t0 Minax ^ntxizi. 



The Running Thursday {Vol. xii., p. 439.). — 

 Mr. Charles Reed, in his explanation of the 

 Runninix Thursday, has omitted to state the precise 

 date (originally queried), which, if in old alma- 

 nacks, can be easily supplied. Whatever was the 

 origin of the term " running " [for in fact at this 

 time the whole nation was, for one cause or an- 

 other, running, and the king at the head of the 

 movement], I still suspect I was right in placing 

 the date as Thursday, Dec. 13, being the day fol- 

 lowing the famous Irish Night, so graphically de- 

 scribed by RIacaulay, when the alarm relative to 

 the Irish papists, and outrages similar to that at 

 Congleton, were spreading contemporarily tlirough- 

 out England ; nor would this date, I conceive, be 

 at variance with Joseph Perry's account. Mr. 

 Rrftd certainly says " in the beginning of King 

 William's reign," which was scarcely the date of 

 the Irish Night ; the Congleton Chapel was, how- 

 ever, destroyed in 1688, and though in the old 

 style this included to March, 1688-9, I am not 

 aware of any panic that took place at the later 

 part of the period. 



I cannfyt deny myself the pleasure of acknow- 

 ledging by this opportunity the obligation I am 

 under to "N. & Q.," for having, through the dis- 

 cussion of this subject, procured for me from the 

 original querist an act of courteous service, which 

 I could not otherwise have anticipated ; and I 

 must add that this is the second instance to me of 

 a personal advantage arising from the facilities 

 which that periodical affords to a literary inter- 

 community. MONSON. 



Pope Pius and the Booh of Common Prayer 

 (Vol. xi., pp. 401. 510.). — Some time since, Mr. 

 Harington stated, that in alluding to the alleged 

 offer from the Pope to Queen Elizabeth to con- 

 firm the Book of Common Prayer, I had omitted 

 the direct testimony of Sir E. Coke. My position 

 was that the rumour was a trick of the Seminary 

 Priests. In the speech or charge to which Ma. 

 Harington alludes, it is broadly asserted that the 

 offer was made in a letter from the Pope to the 

 Queen. It is surprising to me that such an as- 

 sertion should not have led Mr. Harington to 

 discredit the report ; certainly no evidence can be 

 adduced in proof that such a letter was ever 

 written. It is to me clear that all the various 

 accounts were derived from one and the same 

 source, namely, the fabrication of the Missionary 

 Priests. But my object in this Note is simply to 

 inform your readers that Sir E. Coke never ha- 



