276 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 203. 



it. Next Mb. Shadbolt says, and rightly, that 

 when the pictures are seen from a less distance 

 than the focal lenQ;th of the lens, they appear to 

 be increased in bulk. But the "obvious remedy" 

 I pronounce to be wrong, as it must produce 

 error, Tlie remedy is nevertheless obvious, and 

 consists in placing tlie stereographs at the same 

 distance from the eyes as the focal length of tlie 

 Jens. But, if this cannot be done, it wei-e surely 

 better to submit to some trifling exaggeration 

 than to absolute deformity and error. Mr. S. 

 says also, that as we mainly judge of distance, &c. 

 by the convergence of the optic axis of our eyes 

 (Query, How do persons with only one eye judge?), 

 «o, in short or medium distances, it were better 

 to let the camera radiate from its centre to the 

 principal object to be delineated. The result of 

 this must be error, as the following illustration 

 will show. Let the sitter (for it is especially re- 

 commended in portraits) hold before him, hori- 

 zontally, and in parallelism with the picture, 'a 

 ruler two feet long ; and let planes parallel to the 

 ruler pass through the sitter's ears, eyes, nose, 

 &c. The consequence would be that the ruler, and 

 all the other planes parallel to it, would have two 

 vanishing points, and all the features be errone- 

 ously rendered. This, to any one conversant with 

 perspective, should suflice. But, as all are not 

 acquainted with perspective, perhaps the follow- 

 ing illustration may prove more convincing. Sup- 

 pose an ass to stand facing the observer ; a boy 

 astride him, with a big drum placed before him. 

 N'ow, under the treatment recommended by Mr. 

 G. Shadbolt, both sides of the ass would be 

 visible ; both the boy's legs ; and the drum would 

 have two heads. This would be untrue, absurd, 

 ridiculous, and quite as wonderful as Mr. Fenton's 

 twelve-feet span view from across the Thames. 



Once moi'e, and I shall liave done with the pre- 

 sent arguments of Ma. G. Shadbolt. He says 

 that the two pictures should have exactly the 

 same range of vision. This I deny : for, were it 

 so, there would be no stereoscopic effect. Let the 

 object be a column : it is evident that a tangent to 

 the left side of the column from the right eye, 

 could not extend so far to the left as a tangent 

 to the left side of the column from the left eye, 

 and vice versa. And it is only by this difference 

 in the two pictures (or, in other words, the range 

 of vision) that our conceptions of solidity are 

 created. This is not exactly the test to suit the 

 views of Mr. Shadbolt, as I am quite aware ; 

 but I chose It for its simplicity, and because it will 

 bear demonstration ; and my desire has been to 

 elicit truth, and not to perpetuate error. 



Li conclusion, I beg to refer Mr. G. Shadbolt 

 to my definition and solution of the stereoscopic 

 problem — which I then said I believed — but 

 which I now unhesitatingly assert to be correct. 



T. L. Marriott. 



Ammonio-nitrate of Silver. — The inability of 

 your correspondent Philo-pho. to form the am- 

 monio-nitrate of silver from a solution of nitrate 

 of silver, which has been used to excite albu- 

 menized paper, Is in all probability owing to the 

 presence of a small quantity of nitrate of am- 

 monia, which has been imparted to the solution 

 by the paper. 



Salts of ammonia form, with those of silver, 

 double salts ; from which the oxide of silver is 

 not precipitated by the alkalies. 



I cannot however explain how it was that the 

 solution had lost none of its silver, for the paper 

 could not in such case have been rendered sensi- 

 tive. J. Leachman. 



20. Compton Terrace, Islington. 



JRcpItc^ to iMfnor €i\\tviti. 



Sir Thomas Elyot (Vol.viii., p. 220.).— Parti- 

 culars respecting this once celebrated diplomatist 

 and scholar may be collected from Beriiet's Hist. 

 Reformation, ed. 1841, i. 95.; Strype's Ecclesias- 

 tical Memorials, i. 221. 263., Append. No. LXIL; 

 Ellis's Letters, ii. 113.; ArchcBologia, xxxlli. ; 

 Wright's Suppression of Monasteries, 140. ; Le- 

 landi Encomia, 83. ; Leland's Collectanea, iv. 136 

 — 148. ; Retrospective Revieio, ii. 381. ; PrivrjPiuse 

 Expenses of Princess Mary, 82. 230. ; Chamber- 

 lain's Holbein Heads ; Smith's Autogi-aphs ; Ful- 

 ler's Worthies (Cambridgeshire) ; Wood's Athencs 

 Oxonienses, i. 58. ; Lysons' Cambridgeshire, 159. 



The grant of Carlton cum Willingham in Cam- 

 bridgeshire to Sir Thomas Elliot and his wife is 

 enrolled in the Exchequer (Originalia, 32 Hen. 

 VIIL, pars 3. rot. 22. vel 221.) ; and amongst the 

 Inquisitions filed in that Court is one taken after 

 his death (Cant, and Hunt, 37 vel 38 Hen. VHL). 



I believe it will be found on investigation, that 

 Sir Richard Elyot (the father of Sir Thomas) was 

 of Wiltshire rather than of Suffolk. See Leland's 

 Collectanea, iv. 141. n., and an Liqulsition in the 

 Exchequer of the date of 6 or 7 Hen.WII. thus 

 described In the Calendar : " de manerio de Wan- 

 borough com. Wlltes proficua cujus manerii Rlcar- 

 dus EHot perceplt." C. H. Cooper. 



Cambridge. 



Judges styled " Reve7md" (Yol. vill., p. 158.). — 

 As it is more than probable that your pages may 

 in future be referred to as authority for any state- 

 ment they contain, especially when the fact they 

 announce is vouched by so valued a name as that of 

 my friend York Herald, I am sure that he will 

 excuse me for correcting an error into which he 

 has fallen, the more especially as Lord Campbell 

 is equally mistaken {Loid Chancellors, i. 539.). 



York Herald states, that " Anthony Fitz-Hcr- 

 bert was appointed Chief Justice of the Commoa 



