12 s. ii. D EC . 23, 1916.] N OTES AND QUERIES.
515
desired. Sir Thomas's second wife was
Louisa Burroughs, daughter of Sir William
Burroughs, Bart., sister of Letitia, Lady
Ogle (wife of Admiral Sir Charles Ogle,
Bart., of Worthy, Hants), and cousin of
Admiral Sir William Burroughs. My father,
Thomas Britiffe Skottowe (3rd Baron
'Skottowe), was on the most intimate terms
with his cousins the young Stranges and
their parents, but I have lost sight of the
survivors, so am unable to apply to them.
I have a print of Lawrence's portrait of Sir
Thomas as Recorder of Madras, and also
portraits of Lady Strange, Letitia. Lady
Ogle, and Lady Burroughs (nee Skottowe).
The print of Sir Thomas gives merely the
year of his appointment, and adds " after-
wards Chief Justice of Madras." I have no
data as to date and place of his second
marriage. B. C. S.
Sir Thomas married at St. Mary's Church, Fort St. George, on Oct. 11, 1806, Miss Louisa Burroughs, youngest daughter of Sir William Burroughs, Bart. See Mrs. F. E. Penny's ' History of Fort St. George,' Madras, p. 113 ; or her ' Marriages at Fort St. George,' Madras (Genealogist, N.S., vols. xix.-xxiii.).
As to the date of his appointment as
Recorder of Madras, it was reckoned ac-
"cording to the Company's rule from the date
of arrival in Madras, which was in 1798, as
the ' D.N.B.' records. FRANK PENNY.
HENBY FIELDING : Two CORRECTIONS (2. ' Voyage to Lisbon,' 12 S. i. 284). The discovery- by MR. DE CASTRO of the item in The Public Advertiser rioting the arrival of the Queen of Portugal at Lisbon on Aug. 6, 1754, as related by MR. AUSTIN DOBSON, is of great interest, confirming as it does the chronology of the voyage as indicated by internal evidence alone. Fielding's dates from Wednesday, June 26, 1754, when he went aboard ship at Rotherhithe, until Fri'lay, July 19, when he went ashore at Ryde, are manifestly given correctly. Th e next date in the ' Journal,' however, is
Sunday, July 19," and this is as manifestly an error, as in 1754 July 19 was not a Sunday, and the correct date must be either July 14 or 21. To select the later date would be to suggest that he remained in Ryde twelve
- l;i,ys, and that for seven of them his ' Journal'
u^.s not touched. This is most imlikely, x-cially as the text indicates that this Sunday, which he calls the 19th, was obviously the second day at the ale-house. Kii.rly in the morning he summons Mrs. Francis with her bill, whicn on this first occasion he reproduces in full, and when he
settles his final bill he is charged with a
pound of candles, observing " we had only
burnt ten in five nights." This is conclusive
as to the length of his stay, and if we correct
the date of this Sunday to the 14th, as they
leffc on the following Thursday, which was
the 18th, it allows just the five nights re-
quired by the text. The error, however, is
continued until Sunday the 21st, which he
calls the 26th. After that he avoids the day
of the month altogether, giving the weekday
only, save that in the first edition Wednesday
the 24th is called the 20th. If these correc-
tions are made in the text, as they should be
in future editions, they will show that the
vessel cast anchor in the Tagus on Tuesday,
Aug. 6, about noon, and this agrees wholly
with che record in The Public Advertiser.
It is more than likely that when Fielding
went ashore at Ryde he did not take with
him the manuscript of his journal, and hence
had not that reminder of the day of the
month, but continued his writing with fresh
sheets. On the vessel also he would pro-
bably have access to the ship's almanac, a
convenience which we may conclude the
ale-house was without. Fielding must have
discovered his error on his return to the
ship, but being disinclined to correct the
errors at this time he postponed the revision
of the text until he should grow stronger,
and therefore it was never performed at all.
FREDERICK S. DICKSON. 215 West 101st Street. New York.
EYES CHANGED IN COLOUR BY FRIGHT
(12 S. ii. 350, 457). Ocular heterochromia is discussed in a recent volume of the 'American Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Ophthalmology,' viii. pp. 5807-10. Nearer the point in this query was the issue raised in a cause celebre at St. Louis early in 1912 ; on a question of identity, experts testified that there is no case on record wherein the eyes of a man have changed colour, but a deposition was introduced to the effect that the deponent's had changed colour after he had reached maturity. The following item, which I sent to counsel, was stated by them to be very material then, and it seems directly to the point here, to wit : a clipping, indirectly from (London) Mail of about Dec. 10, 1911, runs as follows :
" The possibility of a man's eye changing colour as the result of a mental shock or physic.il ill- treatment was the subject of an intc-n^t intr dis- cussion in the eye ward of one of the great London hospitals. One of the surgeons said : ' 11 is common knowledge that great physical hardship* may suddenly turn the h'lir white. The loss of colour here follows on certdn chemical change's, due to disturbances of nutrition, takii\g place in
