9* S. XII. JULY 25, 1903.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
71
of Capt. Charles Lindsay. To this paper
must, on the grounds stated by your corre-
spondent, be assigned the honour of being
the first English newspaper. There is, as he
says, no copy in the British Museum. The
earliest of Butter's papers in my own collec-
tion is dated 7 March, 1623, the thirty-third
number, I believe, in order of date from the
first issue. J. ELIOT HODGKIN.
In ' Domestic Life in England,' published in London, 1835, pp. 109-10, I find :
- ' In England, the first example that occurs of a
newspaper, was a publication printed by order of Queen Elizabeth, three numbers of which are pre- served in the British Museum ; the earliest contain- ing news of the Spanish armada being seen in the British Channel. From the time of this publication being given up, we find no continued vehicle for political intelligence, with a fixed title, for many years."
What is the name of this Elizabethan pub- lication ? The article goes on :
" In the reign of James I. packets of news were published in small square pamphlets, as they were received from abroad; and these occasional pam- phlets were subsequently converted into a regular weekly publication, entitled The Newes of the Pre- sent Week."
JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT.
"CABINET" IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE (9 th S. xii. 7, 31). I regret I did not make my point sufficiently clear. There is, of course, as C. I. C. reminds me, nothing new in Court recognition of Cabinet rank ; but what I wished specially to note was the public and official announcement of the fact in the words : " The following members of His Majesty's Government in the Cabinet attended the Court." The phrasing may have been used before ; but, if so, it would be interesting to trace when it was first employed, because of the general belief that the Cabinet continues to be unrecognized officially in our Constitution. POLITICIAN.
SINGLE TOOTH (9 th S. xi. 488). My library of dental works, including periodical litera- ture, is possibly the most extensive in the froviuces for a private collection, and though have heard of such monstrosities as ME. KUMAGUSU MINAKATA describes, I cannot trace any account of them, and in my endeavours to answer his question I have carefully searched through many hundreds of volumes in my possession, ranging from the seventeenth century up to the present year. If MR. MINAKATA would write to the Secre- tary of the Odontological Society, London, this gentleman might elucidate matters. I am strongly of opinion that what are now separate teeth were at one time a continuous
piece of bone, with, of course, their present
component parts, such as dentine, cemen-
tum, &c. CHAS. F. FORSHAW, LL.D.,
Doctor of Dental Surgery. Baltimore House, Bradford.
CLARE MARKET (9 th S. xi. 309 ; xii. 16). In reply to MR. W. R. B. PRIDEAUX, the piece of sculpture at the corner of Clare Street and Vere Street, Clare Market, is simply the sign
of " Two Negroes' Heads." The initials W S M
relate to the man who put it up in the year 1715. In analogous cases I have observed that the initial letter of the surname is almost invariably above, while that to the right refers to his wife. In the early part of the eighteenth, century few people had two Chris- tian names. Some years ago I took a good deal of pains to find out the history of this sign, even to the extent of trying to commu- nicate with the agents of the property, but I was unsuccessful. I would add that it is mentioned in my book on signs, where the existence of Blackmoor (once Blackamore) Street, in its immediate neighbourhood, is referred to. Mr. W. R. Lethaby has written an interesting volume on lead- work, in which he describes the sign, being evidently under the impression that it is of lead. In order to clear up this point I examined it very closely from a ladder, and was confirmed in my previous opinion that the material is stone ; the occupant of the house believed it to be of plaster.
At the risk of appearing somewhat egotis- tical, I venture to add that with regard to my little book on signs rather hard measure was meted out to me. Published originally in 1893 as one of the " Camden Library " series, it was called by me 'London Sculptured Signs and Inscriptions ' ; but in the process of publication the word "sculptured" was eliminated, so that it appeared as an account of London signs generally, which I never intended it to be. Thus the contents did not fully answer to the title, but, whatever their demerits, I think I can fairly claim for them that, although experts may differ from me in matters of opinion, as regards topographical accuracy I can rarely be found tripping. The only mistake of this kind that I call to mind is a statement that the sign of Charles I.'s gigantic porter and dwarf in Newgate Street had disappeared, whereas it was really let into the balcony in front of a central first- floor window in the modern house numbered 78, Newgate Street, and, being painted the same colour as the balcony, was almost invi- sible, a fact which I discovered after the book had gone to press, but before its publication.
