us. iv. NOV. 4, 1911.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
373
be the error, that I cannot refrain from
pointing out that he is wrong in saying that
George Hart (father of Sir Richard) was an
Alderman of Bristol. He was a Common
Councillor without attaining to the higher
dignity, from 1645 till his death in 1658.
And MR. PINK is also in error in saying that
Sir John Knight junior was a Common Coun-
cillor (continuously) from 1674 to 1685.
He declined to accept office when first elected
in 1674, but was again chosen 11 Sep-
tember, 1679, and consented to serve, but
was not sworn till 21 August, 1680.
MR. WELLS, whose dates appear to be taken from my ' Bristol Lists,' is quite accurate in the information which he con- tributes, but I am inclined to doubt the authenticity of the illiterate composition which he ascribes to the younger Sir John. His authority, I presume, is Nicholls's ' History of Bristol,' vol. iii. p. 142, where its original source is given in a foot-note as "Kemy's MS." (whatever that may be), with regard to which my feeling is that of Falstaff's tailor as to Bardolph's security.
MR. AUSTIN quotes Williams' s * Parlia- mentary History of the County of Glou- cester ' as stating that Sir John Knight the younger was a son of the Caroline M.P., but the statement is erroneous.
MR. FAIRBROTHER gives the date of Arthur Hart's death as 1686, which, as he was not Mayor till 1689, is obviously in- correct. MR. WELLS'S date (1705) is the true one.
W T ith regard to the relationships of the Knights, I dealt with that subject exhaust- ively at 9 S. iii. 321-2, and adduced the evidence on which my article was based. I think, however, that one statement therein, and one only, requires modification.
On the authority of Garrard (which I now recognize to be not conclusive), I assumed that George Knight, father of the elder Sir John, was a son of Francis (twice Mayor of Bristol) who died in 1616, and was father of Edward, who was father of Alderman John Knight, the father of Sir John junior. Now against this we have two facts : ( 1 ) Francis in his will does not mention a son George. (2) Le Neve in his ' Pedigrees of Knights (p. 175) makes George the son of " John Knight of . . . .com. Oxon." If this be the case, I should be inclined to suggest that George may have been either a (much younger) half-brother or a nephew of Francis. George's eldest son was named Francis. That George and Francis were nearly related is supported by the fact that George's son John (afterwards the elder knight),
Francis's second son Edward, and Edward's
son John (the father of Sir John the
younger) united in a conveyance of pro-
perty in 1658, as pointed out in the article
referred to above. Francis was a member
of the Bristol Common Council as early as
1579, and George was born in 1570.
ALFRED B. BEAVEN. Leamington.
By an unfortunate slip, I wrote at p. 292*
Sir " Robert " Hart instead of Sir Richard.
I am sorry the error should have been made,.
the more so as I refer in my reply to " a slip."
ROLAND AUSTIN.
"THON": "THONDER" (11 S. iv. 327), There are no examples in Burns of either of these forms, and it is questionable if they were used by Allan Ramsay. William Tarras, from whom Jamieson illustrates " thon " as a word of Northern Scotland, was a Buchan man. His * Poems, chiefly in the Scottish Dialect,' appeared at Edin- burgh in 1804. See William Walker's ' Bards of Bon-Accord,' p. 648.
THOMAS BAYNE.
"Thon" and " thonder," as forms of " yon " and " yonder," are very common in the county Antrim. I have for some time been of opinion (perhaps mistakenly) that " yon " and " yonder " are corrupt forms of " thon " and " thonder " ; the y being the same perversion of the Anglo-Saxon ]? (thorn) as we have in the common forms "ye" and " yt " ("the" and "that"), each of which appears in the inscription on Shakespear's grave, " Good friend for Jesus sake forbeare," &c. }>on is the instrumental case, masculine singular, of the demonstrative pronoun " se " (that) in Anglo-Saxon.
I shall be interested to know if I am mis- taken in this theory. Unfortunately, I know of no use of the th forms in literature, nor have I come across any, so far as I am aware. P. A. MCELWAINE.
Dublin.
[MB. TOM JONES also thanked for reply.]
"THORPSMAN" (11 S. iv. 327). The etymology of " thorpe " or " thrope," dis- cussed at 6 S. xi. 386, 437, may be noticed in connexion with the above.
TOM JONES.
NELSON: " MUSLE " (11 S. iv. 307, 351).
Is it not possible that the word should be
spelt "muzzle," and the meaning be "a fight with confidence of thrashing the-
