2"4 S. VIII. Nov. 5. '59.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



383 



as Mayor in proclaiminjr Richard Cromwell Pro- 

 tector in September, 1658; and Prestwich, in his 

 Respublica (Lond. 1787) p. 157., marshals the 

 arms of " Sir Richard Chiverton, Lord Mayor of 

 London, 1658," as follows: — " Argent, a tower 

 embattled sable on a mount in base, proper." As 

 a knight he figures among the persons on whom 

 Charles IL proposed to confer the order of the 

 Royal Oak, as being possessed of an income of 

 3000/. in London and Middlesex. The earliest 

 list of Cromwell's Knights is that printed in 

 Walkley's contemporary " Catalogue," from 

 which, as far as it goes, subsequent publications 

 have drawn largely. 7'Ae Perfect Politician, 

 quoted by L. H. at p. 31., was probably the next. 

 Morgan's Phoenix Britannicus (Lond. 1732) con- 

 tains several reprints of pamphlets relating to 

 Cromwell's government; and Prestwich's i?espM&- 

 lica is also full of particulars on the same subject. 

 The list given by Noble in his Memoirs of the 

 Protectoral House of Cromwell, seems to have 

 been derived from some of the above sources, with 

 additions of his own, and is in several respects 

 inaccurate.* The following names do not ap- 

 pear among the Knights mentioned in pp. 32. and 

 114.: — 



Sir William Boteler, in 1653 or 1654. 

 Sir Afchibald Johnston. 

 Sir Heronymous Sankey. 

 Sir Anthony Morgan. 

 Sir Thomas Whitgrave. 



Of these Sir Archibald Johnston, better known 

 by the titular designation of Lord Warriston, 

 borne by him as a Lord of Session in Scotland, 

 has been erroneously inserted, as he was knighted 

 by Charles I. at Holy rood House, 15 November, 

 1641. Sir Anthony Morgan, or one of the same 

 name, was knighted by the same monarch at 

 Southam, 21 Oct. 1642, though from this being 

 subsequent to 4th January, 1641 — 2, he might 

 require a renewal of the honour. The name of 

 Thomas Whitgrave, Esq., occurs among the pi*o- 

 posed Knights of the Royal Oak. All the above 

 are mentioned as Knights in the capacity of Mem- 

 bers of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, Sankey 

 being called " Sir Jeremy." Noble mentions the 

 creation in 1658, by Richard, of two knights, 

 viz. Jolin Morgan f and Richard Beke, and also 

 gives the names of Matthew Tomlinson and John 



of Wauchton. The dates given in the list in question 

 only apply to those knights to whose names they are 

 prefixed. I could now supply those to most of the 

 others. When I wrote I had not consulted the works 

 enumerated in the text. 



* In respect to dates, a confusion sometimes prevails 

 from a disregard of the fact that till 1752 the year com- 

 menced in England on the 25th March. In Scotland, 

 however, this was changed to the 1st January in 1600. 



t Noble saj's he was created a Baronet by Charles II. 

 If 80, Thomas should be substituted for John, as Thomas 

 Morgan of Longattock was so created, 7 Feb. 1660-^61. 



Percival *, as having been knighted by Henry 

 Cromwell, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. 



The same author, in addition to the Baronets 

 whose names have already appeared in " N. & Q.," 

 gives the following : — 



" Sir John Lenthal, Knt. 

 Thomas Willes of Cambridgeshire. 

 Edmund Prideaux, Attornej'-General. 

 William Ellis, Solicitor-General." 



These all appear as Baronets among the Mem- 

 bers of Richard Cromwell's Parliament, but Sir 

 Thomas Willes was not so created by Oliver, that 

 honour having been conferred on him by Charles 

 I., 15 December, 1641. He also was one of those 

 proposed to be nominated a member of the order 

 of the Royal Oak.» 



Between 1653 and the Restoration the names 

 of several individuals are to be met with bearing 

 the designation of baronet or knight, the origin 

 of whose titles cannot be traced. Were a com- 

 plete account of the Cromwellian creations at- 

 tempted, these would fail to be noticed, R. R. 



BIBLICAL COHJECTURE-NOTES I THE EIGHT DATE 

 OP THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 



(2"i S. viii. 247.) 



Avoiding conjecture, except so far as to con- 

 sider St. Paul the author, and taking up the posi- 

 tive evidence, we may affirm that this Epistle was 



written in Roman Italy (^OCTIJJ ]- \ ^] Vn ) 



and was sent by the hand of Timothy to the 

 Hebrews, according to the subscription at the end 

 of it in the Syriac version, substantially the same 

 as the Greek text. Assuming, with both the 

 authors cited by your correspondent, that St. Paul 

 was the author, then it must have been written 

 after February a.d. 61, when St. Paul first ar- 

 rived at Rome. From Heb. v. 12. it must be 

 inferred that this epistle was not written so early 

 as A.D. 52, only seven years after Paul's first mis- 

 sionary journey, for the Hebrews therein ad- 

 dressed had been so long converted that they 

 ought to have been qualified to teach others ; and 

 they had already witnessed the death of their first 

 teachers (xiii. 7.) ; and farther, that it was writ- 

 ten after the author's imprisonment appears from 

 Heb. X. 34., which, in the case of St. Paul, occur- 

 red A.D. 60. As Origen (Euseb. H. E., vi. 25.) 

 and other competent judges declare that the 

 style of this epistle is superior to Paul's acknow- 

 ledged writings, the necessary inference is, that if 

 he wrote this epistle, it must have been after he 

 had improved his style, and after the issue of all 



* He was created a Baronet of Ireland by Charles II. 

 9 September, 1661, and was ancestor of the Earl of Eg- 

 mont. 



