Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 10.djvu/91

 10 s. x. JULY 25, iocs.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

71

By the way, why does MB. RUTTON adhere to the certainly incorrect form " Penning- ton " ?

5. It is true (as MR. BUTTON says) that G. E. C. dates Lord Alington's death as February, 1684, but in his Corrigenda (vol. viii. p. 268) he has corrected it to 1684/5. A contemporary notice of his death is found under date 1 Feb., 1684/5 in Luttrell (vol. i. p. 326).

6. If I wrote " half a century later " in speaking of the Earldom of Dartmouth, it was a pure slip of the pen for " a quarter of a century." Anyhow, MB. RUTTON admits his own error in designating the Constable as Earl. I do not know what is the " good company " in which he errs here.

7. Cadogan was appointed Lieutenant in December, 1706. I believe (but have not the means now of verifying my reference) that the date of the Privy Seal appointing him is 30 Dec., 1706. The intended appoint- ment is announced in The Daily Courant of 17 Dec., 1706, and is referred to as pro- bable by Luttrell under date 23 Nov. in that year (vol. vi. p. 110). Churchill, his predecessor, was transferred to the Governorship of Guernsey (Privy Seal

21 Dec., 1706). In Chamberlain's ' Anglise Notitia ' for 1707 (p. 655) the list of ' Officers of the Tower Garrison ' is headed by " Briga- dier-Gen. Cadogan, esq. [sic], Lieutenant." I hope that MB. RUTTON will now be satisfied that when I ventured to correct him on this date and that of Lord Alington's death, I knew what I was writing about.

8. I am afraid I was technically wrong in saying that Compton was gazetted in 1713. His appointment is announced in No. 2762 of The Postboy (24 Jan., 1712/13), and Oldmixon in his ' History of England ' (vol. ii. p. 512) states that on 12 Dec., 1712, General Cadogan was " turned out of all his employments " which I thought was matter of common knowledge (except for the exact date) to all persons conversant with the party history of Anne's reign, which probably Lord de Ros was not. The announcement of Cadogan' s removal from the Lieutenancy is also given in ' The Political State of Great Britain ' for January, 1712/13 (vol. v. p. 62) ; and in vol. viii. (p. 372) of the same series, under date

22 Oct., 1714, it is recorded that "his Majesty had been pleased to continue the Earl of Northampton in the post of Con- stable of the Tower of London, and Hatton Compton, Esq., in that of Lieutenant of the said Tower." I hope I have satisfied MB. RUTTON on this point also.

9. Col. King. I admit at once that I have no official record of the Christian name of the Col. King who was Lieutenant of the Tower in 1689. 6ut I am fairly familiar with Dalton's ' Army Lists,' though I have not a copy at hand, and I think that a refer- ence to them will show that there was no other Col. King at that time ; but if there was, even then it is an almost certain in- ference that the Lieutenant of the Tower was identical with Col. Thomas King (brother of Dr. John King, Master of the Charterhouse), who was Deputy-Governor of Sheerness from 1690 till his death in 1725, and sat as M.P. for Queenborough 1696- 1708 and 1710-22. I hope MB. RUTTON will agree with me on this point too, although the direct evidence is not so irresistible as in the other cases.

MB. RUTTON thinks I am hard on the ' D.N.B.' in saying that it should have known better than to give currency to the legend about the knighting of Penington and other Aldermen by the Speaker. The 'D.N.B.' is a publication of (from the nature of the case) quite exceptional prestige, and hence each writer in it should have taken exceptional care to ascertain the correctness of the supposed facts and dates which he or she recorded. I am sorry to confess that in my long-delayed ' Aldermen of London ' (now about to appear) I accepted the authority of the ' D.N.B.' for the error as to Penington' s knighthood, the part of the book in which I reproduced it having been printed off some years ago, before I had discovered the blunder, though I have, of course, corrected it in later pages. ^ The ' D.N.B.' is singularly unfortunate in its article on Penington. In the headline a different year is assigned for Penington' s death from that in the body of the article : in order to make them tally, a " correction " has been made in the ' Errata ' volume ; but unfortunately it is the true, and not the erroneous, date that has been altered.

With regard to the date of Penington' s appointment (1643), MB. RUTTON is, as he is justified in being, satisfied with the authority of Whitelock. I believe I may be wrong, as I am unable to verify my impression at this moment that I took my date, direct from the Journals of the House of Commons. As to Penington' s knighthood, it is strange that no one (includ- ing myself, until a few years since, although I have long been familiar with the City records) had noticed that Penington is nowhere styled " Sir Isaac " or " knight " in any contemporary authority. It is an