70
NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. x. JULY 25, im
BLACKMAN== FAIRWAY. John Blackman
of Whitstable married about 1740 Anne
Fairway of Whitstable, who is said to be
connected with the Fairways of London,
stated to be merchants trading with the
East in the eighteenth century. John
Blackman' s father (Christian name unknown)
went to China at the end of the seventeenth
century or early in the eighteenth, and
brought back a large collection of porcelain.
Could any of your readers furnish me with particulars as to the Blackman and Fairway families ? Especially I wish to know (1) the Christian name, parentage, and birth- place of John Blackman' s father ; (2) if he was connected with the firm of Fairway ; (3) whether Anne Fairway was a member of the family of Fairway of London ; (4) lastly, who possesses the porcelain. Most of this passed out of the direct line at the death of Charles Blackman, son of the above-mentioned John Blackman ; while some of it is reported to have been given to a certain Dr. Romsey of Amersham, Bucks, by the Rev. Charles Blackman, grandson of John. A. M. BLACKMAN.
WHITTIER. I find in Marshall's ' Genea- logist's Guide,' 4th ed. : " Whittier, 1882, large sheet Genealogy of W. family." Will any reader kindly tell me where I can see the above ? W. H. WHITEAR.
Chiswick.
ONE-TREE HILL, GREENWICH. Can any reader give me information regarding the tree that stood upon this hill ? I have in my possession two prints of Peter Tilleman's picture treating on this subject : one dated 1746, published according to Act of Parlia- ment, sculp. Canot ; the other dated 1774, published by John Boydell, sculp. J. Wood. The hill is depicted in both cases, but no tree upon it. I have an oil painting of One- Tree Hill showing a huge tree with heavy branches, forming the most important object in the picture. With this exception, it is almost identical with the print of 1746 with regard to the groups of figures and general view. In Mr. A. D. Webster's book on Greenwich Park I read that a tree was blown down in August, 1848 ; but as the tree does not appear in the print of 1746 or 1774, it seems impossible that a tree of such magnitude could have grown in about seventy years.
Was a tree known to exist on this hill previous to 1746, from which it took its name ? and is there any record of its de- struction ? A. W. GOULD.
Staverton, Briar Walk, Putney, S.W.
CONSTABLES AND LIEUTENANTS OF
THE TOWER OF LONDON.
(10 S. ix. 61, 161, 243, 390, 490.)
I OWE apologies to MR. RUTTON, which I render with very sincere regret for the necessity.
1. I overlooked the correct date of Sir T. Fairfax's appointment (1647), as given at the end of 10 S. ix. 243, and (very foolishly) misunderstood the date (1648) as given at the top of p. 244 to refer to his original assumption of office. In this date MR. RUTTON and I am (and were) agreed.
2. MR. RUTTON is quite right in the date (February, 1784) of Lord G. H. Lennox's appointment. I have the date quite cor- rectly in my own MS. list. Unfortunately, I referred to my annotated copy of ' Haydn's Book of Dignities ' (ed. Ockerby), which was at the moment easier of access, in which I thought I had entered all the necessary corrections. In this book the date is given as 1783 simply, and I had added " Feb. 10 " without altering the year a most repre- hensible oversight, of which I am fully conscious.
By the way, Ockerby 's ' Haydn ' is too generally accepted as a safe guide ; not a few writers in the ' D.N.B.' have thought it unnecessary to go behind this authority for a date or fact in the succession of public officials. Some of the lists are accurate, but there are others (notably those of the Secretaries of State as allocated to Northern and Southern departments respectively) of very little value.
3. In plunging in medias res with the assertion that " MR. RUTTON' s lists are open to criticism," I omitted to express (as I now do most fully) my sense of the value of his collection, for which he deserves the thanks of all who take interest in such matters. In helping to make that collection more perfect and accurate, I hope I am doing no disservice either to him or to the readers of ' N. & Q.'
Most of the remaining corrections are admitted by MR. RUTTON ; on others he keeps an open mind, asking for further information, which I proceed to give him.
4. It is quite true that there is a variant to the spelling of Barkstead, though that is the more usual and, I believe, the more correct form. Orthographical variations are common in seventeenth-century names, e.g., Hide and Hyde, Monck and Monk.
