Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 5.djvu/141

. v. FEB. io, 1906.] NOTES AND QUERIES.

74 feet and the piers are 9 feet wide, the pro- portion of width of pier to span is 1 : 8*222. Now, e (j., Southwark Bridge has cast-iron arches of 240 and 210, or 225 feet average span, and piers 24 feet wide ; in this case the proportion is therefore larger, being 1 ; 9-375. Hence Bray ley's statement that the piers of Staines Bridge ''are said to be smaller, in proportion to the span of the arches they sustain than those of any other bridge in England," is not quite accurate, and was not even in 1850, when his book was published, unless iron and steel arches, and brick and stone arches not crossing rivers, are ex- cluded. L. L. K.

MAJOR RICHARD CROMWELL, 1648 (10 th S. v. 69). The entry on the 'Journals of the House of Commons,' 21 Dec., 1648 (vi. 102), quoted by MR. MASON, appears to indicate clearly that Richard Cromwell, son and suc- cessor of Oliver, the Lord Protector, began his career by serving in the array of the Parliament. The 4 Diet. Nat. Biog.' says that he "probably entered the parliamentary army, as did his brothers Oliver and Henry," and this may now be taken as proved by the mention of him in the * Journals,' joined to other evidence. The Lords recommend him for consideration as having been "long em- ployed by the Parliament both in attendance on the person of the king and in several other services, to his great charge and expense." Other arid earlier evidence of his having been in the army is found in the charge brought by John Lilburne in 1647 against the great Oliver for placing his rela- tives in the army, and "amongst them two of his own sons, one a captain in the General's life-guards, the other a captain of a troop of horse in Col. Harrison's regiment, both raw a nd inexperienced soldiers" ('Biog. Britan.,' y. 2949). The two sons thus mentioned in

1647 appear to have been Richard and Henry ; Oliver, an elder brother, who also- had been in the army, had died of small- pox.

I do not find any other Richard of the family fitting time and circumstances. Cer- tainly, as born in 1626, he was a very young, major of only twenty-two years in 1648 ; but commissions were loosely given in the hur- riedly equipped forces of the time ; his brother Oliver is shown in Noble's ' Memoirs ' to have been a captain at the age of twenty. Noble, apparently unaware of the evidence- in the 'Journals,' is positive that Richard! was not in the army at the period in ques- tion, and points to his admission to the ! Society of Lincoln's Inn, 27 May, 1647. But i we must suppose that he then gave up the sword for the law, although in December,, 1648, he is still styled major. It is inter- esting to learn that as an officer he had been in attendance on the king, with whom he is said to have sympathized rather than with the Parliament. W. L. BUTTON.

There were several members of the Crom- well family in the army of Charles I. Four of them (brothers) were the Protector's-

I cousins, but their names were Henry (who-

I was a colonel in the king's army), Thomas* John, and William. If Henry had two- names, he would probably be the Richard referred to, as the latter was presumably promoted about this time ; otherwise he- must have been the Protector's uncle, as he is the only Richard to be found under that name at all corresponding in date with the entry of 1648. There is some confusion of

I Christian names in the Cromwell family, especially on the female side, so that it is- not always possible to identify any individual

i member. The following table shows the

[ relationships :

Sir Henry Cromwell, Knt. I

Sir Oliver Cromwell, K.B. Rob< 1

jrt. Henry.

Richard. Philip.

Ralph.

1

Oliver (Lord Protector).

ry (colonel in king's army).

Thomas (in the king's army).

1 John (in the king's army).

William (in the (king's army).

On the other hand, Richard may have | obliged to MR. LAUNCELOT ARCHER and

been the son of one of the other four brothers j other correspondents of *N & Q.,' as well

of the Protector's father, but the names of i as to some kind friends who have communi-

their sons do not seem to have been recorded. ! cated with me privately, for the text of the

J. FOSTER PALMER, i song I asked for. MR. ARCHER'S version

8, Royal Avenue, S.W. seems pretty complete, except that it does

4 A MEDLEY FINALE TO THE GREAT Ex- not contain the "Centrifugal Railway"

HIBITION ' (10 th S. v. 64). I am excessively stanza, for which I am indebted to MR. JOHN