DOCSLIB.ORG

William Wildash (Publisher) the History and Antiquities of Rochester Rochester 1833

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
William Wildash (Publisher) the History and Antiquities of Rochester Rochester 1833 William Wildash (publisher) The history and antiquities of Rochester Rochester 1833 <1> THE HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES OF ROCHESTER, AND THE VICINITY. ROCHESTER: PRINTED BY W. WILDASH, HIGH-STREET, MDCCCXXXIII. <2> <blank> <3> CONTENTS. PAGE Ancient Walls and Streets1 Civil History9 Government, Privileges, and present state of Rochester 13 The Town-Hall 15 Charities 19 The Castle 24 The Cathedral 42 The Priory; its Dissolution; and the establishment of the Dean and Chapter *60 St. Nicholas Church 77 Bully Hill 87 The Bridge 93 The Bridge Chamber 103 The Grammar School 106 St. Margaret’s Church 109 Strood Church 118 <4> <blank> <5> THE History of Rochester. &c. &c. ROCHESTER is situated on an angle of land form= ed by the current of the river Medway, which coming from the south, runs northward until it has passed by the city, and then turning, proceeds nearly to the east. This city is undoubtedly very ancient. The Romans called it Durobrovis and Durobrovum, and by the Saxons it was denominated Hroffe, and Hrooffe ceaster, from which by contraction it obtained its pre= sent name of Rochester. Bede says it took its name from one Roffe, who first built here, and that it was formerly considered rather as a castle than a city, and accordingly he styles it "the Kentishmens’ Castle." Rochester has never been very extensive, and ap= pears to be larger now than it was formerly. From ancient records there seems no question, but this city was walled before the conquest. Its natural situation on an angle of land, by a large river, and in the direct road from East Kent to London, made it a pass of some importance, and induced the kings and generals of ancient times, to improve it as a security against the invasion of their enemies. Great part of the walls of this city still remain, and there can be no doubt of its being walled in the time of Ethelbert I. king of Kent, about the year 600; for 6 in a grant of certain lands, made by him to support the church which he had built at Rochester, there is mention made both of a wall and gate. There is reason to think that great part of the pre= sent wall of the city is on its original foundation, and that this place was first fortified by the Romans. Several Roman bricks were to be seen in different parts of the wall, particularly one row containing about seven bricks, which was lately very conspicuous towards the west end of the north wall. The walls are built nearly according to the four car= dinal points, and from east to west are about half a mile distant, but from north to south not a quarter of a mile, so that the city was originally in a small com= pass; which will account for its being called, in some grants, the castle, as appears from ancient records. A part of the wall forming the north east angle is still entire, retaining its ancient form, height and em= brasures. The wall in general is about four feet in thickness, and on the east side, where it is entire, the height is about thirty feet. The interior of the small tower situated in the same angle, does not appear to have suffered much from the ravages of time; the en= trance to it is from Mr. Henslow’s garden, through an arched door-way, to the right of which is a stone flight of steps, but little decayed, leading to the top: it has a fire place, and several loop holes; no doubt exists of there having been a similar tower to this at each angle of the wall. On the south the dimensions of the wall nearly correspond with the order of king Edward I. who in the year 1290 gave liberty to the prior and monks of the Convent of Rochester "To pull down part of the south wall, and to fill up the ditch without the wall, on condition that they built a new stone wall five rods and five feet from the former, sixteen feet high and well embattled, to stand on their own ground, and to be repaired by them." This new work is said to have extended from the east gate to= wards Canterbury to the gate of the Prior towards the 7 south, and to have been in length fifty-four perches fourteen feet. It is not easy to determine precisely concerning this new wall; it seems most probable that the whole south wall was carried five rods five feet to the southward, to give the prior and convent more room for gardens, vineyards, &c. and that it partly inclosed what is now called the Vines Field, near the bottom of which, and not many yards from the elm-trees, are marks of the foundation of the east wall. The present south wall within this field seems to be the original wall which the monks had liberty to remove; and the wall without the said field appears to be that which they then built; it is indeed about twice the distance from the old wall which was prescribed by the grant, but the monks might encroach a little on this occasion, or measure from the outward edge of the broad ditch without the wall. They might also think it less trou= ble to build a wall with new materials, than to demo= lish the old one for that purpose; they might therefore permit the old wall to continue as a double security to their property, which being thicker than the new wall still remains, whilst this last is almost entirely demo= lished. Its length in all probability extended from the east gate round the south-east angle of the said field called the Vines, and so on to the south-west angle in the road to St. Margaret’s, near which in the old wall probably stood the Prior’s Gate. The city has no gates at present, but the names of several are on record, viz. Broadgate, afterwards East= gate, which stood in the high-street near the free school, is mentioned in the Textus Roff. Part of the portal on the south side of the street was standing in the memory of several persons now living. Leland in his itinerary vol. 6, p. 10, calls it "a marvellous strong gate," and adds, "no more gates appeared here that were commonly used." Southgate was near Boley-hill, in the road to St. Margaret’s; the gate was about nine feet wide, the arch of which was taken down 8 in the year 1770, when the hooks on which the gates hung were remaining in the wall. There was another gate as appears by the Regist. Roff. p. 565, called Cheldegate, this seems to have been in the north wall of the city leading to the marshes by the side of the river; for it is certain that Cheldegate Lane was on the north side of the great street, and opposite to the gate now called College Gate; as appears also from Regist. Roff. page 565; where it is asserted, that "a gutter, which ran down the College yard into the street, fell afterwards into a little street vulgarly called Bounds Lane or Chel= degate Lane." This street or lane is now called Pump Lane, and it is supposed took the name of Chel= degate Lane from the above mentioned Gate, to which it directly led; this supposition is further confirmed by the north wall of the city being called Cheldegate Wall in Reg. Roff. which appellation doubtless was derived from the gate leading through it. There were no streets of any account within the walls of the city, except the High Street and Chelde= gate Lane before mentioned; Doddingherne or Doding= herne Lane, or, as it implies in english, Deadman’s Lane (a name which it probably obtained from its being a boundary to the cemetery), seems to have led from the principal street to Boley Hill. St. Clement’s street was near St. Clement’s church, now called Horse Wash Lane. What is at present called St. Margaret’s Street, was without the walls, and in the reign of Ed= ward II. A. D. 1317, termed South Gate Street, proba= bly from its leading from the south gate. The whole street of St. Margaret’s is included in that division of the city, which in the court-roll is still called South Gate Borough. There was formerly a spring or well in East Gate, called after the name of St. Augustine, who erected the sees of Canterbury and Rochester; and was probably near where the obelisk pump now stands. 9 CIVIL HISTORY. Having briefly noticed the antiquities, extent, walls, and gates of this ancient city, we now proceed to its civil history; and although there is no doubt of the existence of this city when the Romans possessed the island (it being a Roman Station), yet we do not find it memorable for any particular event in that period: for after Julius Cæsar, in his second expedition, had defeated the united forces of the Britons near Canter= bury, he met with little or no opposition in this county, the Britons retreating to the more interior parts of the island. Though Rochester was undoubtedly a place of some eminence in the time of the Romans, yet it is remarka= ble that no particular mention should be made of it in the historical account which is given of a famous battle that was fought, near fifteen years after their departure, between the Britons and Saxons, about two miles south of the city.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Patronage, Performance, and Reputation in the Eighteenth-Century Church
    PATRONAGE, PERFORMANCE, AND REPUTATION IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CHURCH DANIEL REED OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of Doctor of Philosophy in History SEPTEMBER 2019 1 Lancelot Blackburne, Archbishop of York. After unknown artist. Mezzotint, sold by Thomas Bakewell. 1724 or after. Private collection of Daniel Reed. 2 For Freya 3 Abstract The perceived success of the revisionist programme in dissipating the ‘longest shadow in modern historiography’ calls into question the ongoing relevance of ‘optimistic’ versus ‘pessimistic’ interpretations of the Church of England in the long eighteenth century. And yet, the case of Lancelot Blackburne, Archbishop of York (1724-1743), has not benefitted from the ‘revisionist turn’ and represents an unparalleled problem in accounts of the Georgian episcopate. Whilst Benjamin Hoadly has been the most maligned bishop of the period for his theology, Blackburne is the most derided for his personal imperfections and supposed negligence of his episcopal duties. These references are often pernicious and euphemistic, manifesting in several quasi-apocryphal tales. The most regularly occurring being accounts of Blackburne’s lasciviousness, speculation over the paternity of his chaplain Thomas Hayter, and the Archbishop’s association with piracy. As long as these bastions of resistance to revisionism remain, negative assumptions will linger on in contemporary studies of the Church, regardless of whether they are reframed by current trends. As such, this thesis utilises under-explored archival sources to reorient Blackburne’s case to its historical context. This is achieved through an exploration of the inter-connected themes of patronage, performance, and reputation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rochester Cathedral Heraldry Before A.D. 1800
    http://kentarchaeology.org.uk/research/archaeologia-cantiana/ Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382 © 2017 Kent Archaeological Society ( 113 ) ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL HERALDRY BEFORE A.D. 1800. CompUed by Paymaster Commander A. W. B. MESSENGER, R.N. THERE is very little heraldry of pre-Reformation execution in the Cathedral. The principal examples are the two shields (Nos. 10 and 11) on Bishop Lowe's tomb, whUe the remainder are comprised by the three small shields (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) on the sedilia canopy, to which may perhaps be added the three in the south transept gable (Nos. 76, 77 and 78) and the defaced painted shield (No. 84) now reposing in the slype. AU heraldic brasses have gone. The shields from the Somers tomb (Nos. 79-83) wiU probably be of most interest to genealogists, and I am glad to be able to quote what appears to be the original grant of Richard Watts' arms (No. 28). The arms of the bishops painted on the quire waUs were executed at the time of the restoration work under Sir Gfibert Scott and are therefore outside the scope of the present paper. In the Armorial the blazons are those actually existing or such for which evidence of former existence is available at the time of this survey. Errors and variations whl be found referred to in the Inventory. The manner of blazoning generally follows the sug- gestions of the late Sir W. St. J. Hope (Grammar of Heraldry) and of Mr. Oswald Barron (Enc. Brit., 12th ed.), and, for the sake of uniformity, blazonings taken from other sources are as a rule similarly expressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Journal the Palace Or Manor-House of the Bishops of Rochester at Bromley, Kent, with Some Notes on Their Early Re
    This article was downloaded by: [Northwestern University] On: 03 February 2015, At: 23:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Archaeological Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raij20 The Palace or Manor-House of the Bishops of Rochester at Bromley, Kent, with some Notes on their Early Residences Philip Norman LL.D., F.S.A. Published online: 17 Jul 2014. To cite this article: Philip Norman LL.D., F.S.A. (1920) The Palace or Manor- House of the Bishops of Rochester at Bromley, Kent, with some Notes on their Early Residences, Archaeological Journal, 77:1, 148-176, DOI: 10.1080/00665983.1920.10853350 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00665983.1920.10853350 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architectural History of the Cathedral Church and Monastery of St Andrew at Rochester
    Archaeologia Cantiana Vol. 23 1898 ( 194 ) THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH AND MONAS- TERY OF ST. ANDREW AT ROCHESTER. BY W. H. ST. JOHN HOPE, M.A. THE following account is based,, so far as the architectural history of the cathedral church is concerned, upon two papers communicated by me (1) to the St. Paul's Ecclesiological Society in 1883, and printed in its Transactions,* and (2) to the Society of Antiquaries in 1884, and printed in Archteologia.-f Since the publication of these papers some important additional evidence has come to light with reference to the Norman church and a yet earlier building, J and further discoveries have shewn that certain views put forth in my first paper are untenable. The recent identifica- tion of the Roman wall of the city has also cleared up several doubtful points.§ I have therefore practically re-written the whole of the architectural history of the church, and appended to it my hitherto unpublished researches among the monastic buildings. 1. THE CATHEDRAL CHTJBCH. " In the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 604," says Bseda, "Augustine, archbishop of the Britons, ordained two bishops, namely Mellitus and Justus;" Mellitus was sent to London, " but Justus Augustine ordained bishop in Kent itself in the city of Durobreve/' that is Rochester, " in which long .ZEthilberct made the church of the blessed * Vol. i. 217-230. t Vol. xlix. 322-334. | See a paper on the "Foundations of the Saxon Cathedral Church of Rochester," by the Rev. Greville M. Livett, in ArcJiceologia Cantiana, XVIII. 261-278.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Passenger Lists Student Materials
    To Virginia (Chesapeake), June 23, 1635 (Modified) THESE under-written names are to be transported to Virginia, Embarked in the America, per Certificate of from the Minister of the Town of Gravesend of their loyalty to the orders of the Church of England. Richard Sadd 23 John Yates 20 Thomas Wakefield 17 Richard Wood 36 Thomas Bennett 22 Isack Bull 27 Steven Read 24 Phillipp Remmington 29 William Stanbridge 27 Radulph Spraging 37 Henry Barker 18 George Chaundler 29 James Foster 21 Thomas Johnson 19 Thomas Talbott 20 George Brookes 35 Richard Young 31 Robert Sabyn 40 Robert Thomas 20 Phillipp Parsons 10 John Farepoynt 20 Henry Parsons 14 Robert Askyn 22 John Eeles 16 Samuell Awde 24 Richard Miller 12 Miles Fletcher 27 Symon Richardson 23 William Evans 23 Thomas Boomer 13 Lawrence Farebern 23 George Dulmare 8 Mathew Robinson 24 John Underwood 19 Richard Hersey 22 William Bernard 27 John Robinson 32 Charles Wallinger 24 Edmond Chipps 19 Ryce Hooe 36 Thomas Pritchard 32 John Carter 54 Jonathan Bronsford 21 William Cowley 20 Women. John Shawe 16 Elizabeth Remington 20 Richard Gummy 21 Dorothy Standich 22 Bartholomew Holton 25 Suzan Death 22 John White 21 Elizabeth Death 3 Thomas Chappell 33 Alice Remmington 26 Hugh Fox 24 Dorothie Baker 18 Davie Morris 32 Elizabeth Baker 18 Rowland Cotton 22 Sara Colebank 20 William Thomas 22 Mary Thurrogood 19 Examining Passenger Lists To New England, April 2, 1635 (Modified) THESE under-written names are to be transported to New England, Embarked in the Planter, the passengers have brought Certificate from the Justices of the Peace according to the King’s order.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Act 2009
    ———————— Number 46 of 2009 ———————— STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT 2009 ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Miscellaneous amendments to short titles. 6. Savings. 7. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Acts Retained Part 1 Irish Private Acts to 31 December 1750 Part 2 English Private Acts before Union with Scotland (1707) Part 3 Private Acts of Great Britain 1707 to 31 December 1750 Part 4 United Kingdom Local and Personal Acts 1 January 1801 to 31 December 1850 SCHEDULE 2 Acts specifically repealed Part 1 Irish Private Acts to 31 December 1750 1 [No. 46.]Statute Law Revision Act 2009. [2009.] Part 2 English Private Acts before Union with Scotland (1707) Part 3 Private Acts of Great Britain 1707 to 31 December 1750 Part 4 United Kingdom Local and Personal Acts 1 January 1801 to 31 December 1850 ———————— Acts Referred to Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway Amendment 1847 (10 & 11 Vict.) Act 1847 c. cxi Interpretation Act 2005 2005, No. 23 Local Government Act 2001 2001, No. 37 Short Titles Acts 1896 to 2007 Sligo Ship Canal Act 1846 1846 (9 & 10 Vict.) c. ccclxiii Statute Law Revision Act 2007 2007, No. 28 Waterford and Limerick Railway Act 1845 1845 (8 & 9 Vict.) c. cxxxi 2 ———————— Number 46 of 2009 ———————— STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT 2009 ———————— AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE REVISION OF STATUTE LAW BY REPEALING CERTAIN STATUTES OF A SPECIFIED SERIES THAT WERE ENACTED ON OR BEFORE 31 DECEMBER 1750 AND CERTAIN OTHER STATUTES OF ANOTHER SPECIFIED SERIES THAT WERE ENACTED ON OR BEFORE 31 DECEMBER 1850 AND WHICH HAVE CEASED TO HAVE EFFECT OR HAVE BECOME UNNECESSARY, BY IDENTIFYING THOSE STATUTES THAT WERE SO ENACTED BUT ARE NOT BEING REPEALED BY THIS ACT, BY ASSIGNING SHORT TITLES TO CERTAIN STATUTES IN ORDER TO FACILI- TATE THEIR CITATION AND BY AMENDING CERTAIN STATUTES IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO SHORT TITLES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS.
    [Show full text]
  • Palmer 1899 GH Palmer, the Cathedral Church of Rochester, 2Nd
    Palmer 1899 G. H. Palmer, The cathedral church of Rochester, 2nd ed. (London, 1899). <i> BELL’S CATHEDRAL SERIES EDITED BY GLEESON WHITE AND EDWARD F. STRANGE ROCHESTER <ii> <blank> <iii> <blank> <iv> NORTH-EAST VIEW, WITH RUINS OF GUNDULF’S TOWER (FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY MESSRS. CARL NORMAN AND CO.). <v> THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ROCHESTER A DESCRIPTION OF ITS FABRIC AND A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL SEE BY G. H. PALMER, B.A. WITH THIRTY-EIGHT <shield> ILLUSTRATIONS LONDON GEORGE BELL & SONS 1899 <vi> First Published, April, 1897. Second Edition, Revised, 1899. <vii> GENERAL PREFACE. This series of monographs has been planned to supply visitors to the great English Cathedrals with accurate and well illus- trated guide books at a popular price. The aim of each writer has been to produce a work compiled with sufficient knowledge and scholarship to be of value to the student of archæology and history, and yet not too technical in language for the use of an ordinary visitor or tourist. To specify all the authorities which have been made use of in each case would be difficult and tedious in this place. But amongst the general sources of information which have been almost invariably found useful are: – firstly, the great county histories, the value of which, especially in questions of genealogy and local records, is generally recognized; secondly, the numerous papers by experts which appear from time to time in the transactions of the antiquarian and archæological societies; thirdly, the important documents made accessible in the series issued by the Master of the Rolls; fourthly, the well- known works of Britton and Willis on the English Cathedrals; and, lastly, the very excellent series of Handbooks to the Cathedrals, originated by the late Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Hasted's Kent Rochester in 1798
    Hasted’s Kent Rochester in 1798 Edward Hasted, The history and topographical survey of the county of Kent, second edition, volume 4 (Canterbury, 1798), pages 45–191 THE CITY AND LIBERTY OF ROCHESTER. EASTWARD from Stroud, on the opposite side of the river Medway, lies THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, situated on an angle of land formed by that river, which coming from the south runs northward until it has passed the city, after which it directs its course due east. The jurisdiction of this city was antiently called the hundred of Rochester./q /q See Reg. Roff. p. 49. 46 ROCHESTER was a place of some note in the time of the Romans, owing to its situation at the accustomed pass over the river Medway. It was probably called by the Britons Durobrivæ, from the British word Dour Water, and the termination Briva, which is added to the old names of many places, and might signify among the antient Britons and Gauls, a bridge, or passage over a river; since it is no where used, but in the names of places situated like this at rivers./r Antoninus, in his Itinerary, calls it by the name of Durobrivis, though it is corruptly spelt various ways in the different copies of it. In the Peutingerian military tables, in the decline of the Roman empire, it is writ= ten Roibis; from which contracted, and the addition of the word ceaster (derived from the Latin, castrum, used by our Saxon ancestors to signify a city, town or castle) they called it Hroueceaster, and by a further con= traction, Rochester,/s and here it is to be observed, that all places ending in chester, fashioned in the Saxon times, have arisen from the ruins of the old Roman castra, not that the former were always placed in the very same scite, though they were never very remote from it./t Hence the antient stations about the noted Roman wall, the ruins of many of which are still vi= sible, are called chesters by the country people.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Passenger Lists
    To Virginia (Chesapeake), June 23, 1635 (Modified) THESE under-written names are to be transported to Virginia, Embarked in the America, per Certificate of from the Minister of the Town of Gravesend of their loyalty to the orders of the Church of England. Richard Sadd 23 John Yates 20 Thomas Wakefield 17 Richard Wood 36 Thomas Bennett 22 Isack Bull 27 Steven Read 24 Phillipp Remmington 29 William Stanbridge 27 Radulph Spraging 37 Henry Barker 18 George Chaundler 29 James Foster 21 Thomas Johnson 19 Thomas Talbott 20 George Brookes 35 Richard Young 31 Robert Sabyn 40 Robert Thomas 20 Phillipp Parsons 10 John Farepoynt 20 Henry Parsons 14 Robert Askyn 22 John Eeles 16 Samuell Awde 24 Richard Miller 12 Miles Fletcher 27 Symon Richardson 23 William Evans 23 Thomas Boomer 13 Lawrence Farebern 23 George Dulmare 8 Mathew Robinson 24 John Underwood 19 Richard Hersey 22 William Bernard 27 John Robinson 32 Charles Wallinger 24 Edmond Chipps 19 Ryce Hooe 36 Thomas Pritchard 32 John Carter 54 Jonathan Bronsford 21 William Cowley 20 Women. John Shawe 16 Elizabeth Remington 20 Richard Gummy 21 Dorothy Standich 22 Bartholomew Holton 25 Suzan Death 22 John White 21 Elizabeth Death 3 Thomas Chappell 33 Alice Remmington 26 Hugh Fox 24 Dorothie Baker 18 Davie Morris 32 Elizabeth Baker 18 Rowland Cotton 22 Sara Colebank 20 William Thomas 22 Mary Thurrogood 19 Examining Passenger Lists To New England, April 2, 1635 (Modified) THESE under-written names are to be transported to New England, Embarked in the Planter, the passengers have brought Certificate from the Justices of the Peace according to the King’s order.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacobites Under the Beds: Bishop Francis Atterbury, the Earl of Sunderland and the Westminster School Dormitory Case of 1721
    JACOBITES UNDER THE BEDS: BISHOP FRANCIS ATTERBURY, THE EARL OF SUNDERLAND AND THE WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DORMITORY CASE OF 1721 CLYVEJONES IN British Library, Harleian MS. 7190 there is a list of names which at first glance seems puzzling, even to an historian of early eighteenth-century Britain.-^ The initial clue to its identification comes from the words 'For the Bp of Rochester' and ' Ag[ain]st' at the foot of the two columns of names. A quick check of the numbers of names reveals that this is a division list of those in the House of Lords who voted for and against Bishop Francis Atterbury's appeal against a Court of Chancery decision to proceed to trial over the building of a new dormitory for Westminster School. The vote on 16 May 1721 went in Atterbury's favour by 26 to 24. The curious nature of the list arises from an analysis of those who supported and those who opposed the Bishop. Atterbury (fig. i) was a high Tory and leading (though secret) advocate in England of the restoration of the Stuart Pretender (James Francis Edward, son of James II). Thus is seems strange that those who voted for him in the hst included several of the high officers of state in the Whig administration, including the 'prime minister', the Earl of Sunderland, while some of Atterbury's opponents were his fellow Jacobites. Was this curious state of affairs merely a result of the peers and bishops voting according to their understanding of the pros and cons of the legal case, putting aside all political considerations; or was this one of those legal cases which occasionally become inextricably entangled with politics? If the latter, then clearly it was a case which caused politicians to break the usual bonds of Whig and Tory, government and opposition.^ It was not unknown for legal cases in the House of Lords to be dominated by party considerations; such cases always aroused considerable contemporary interest.^ As we shall see, however, the Westminster School dormitory case was more interesting and more politically complex than most.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter May 2021
    Church Street, with Pytchley Row on the right-hand side projecting beyond the smaller houses of Calico Yard c.1903. Newsletter May 2021 1 Programme of Speakers - Update It has now been over a year since the first lockdown came into effect and bought about the cancellation of our monthly meetings. At the time of writing (1st April) the committee plan to recommence the monthly speakers programme from Monday 26th July with Susan Lees of the National Trust with a presentation entitled, “Memories of Stone – Historic Graffiti in the Garden Lodge at Lyveden”. This will be dependent upon the circumstances at the time, but the society is making the necessary arrangements in the hope that the Government’s “road map” for us all to return to a “normal” life in June will prove to be effective. Please also see page 19. Our website www.finedonlocalhistorysociety.co.uk and our Facebook page will be updated, closer to the time, with the confirmation (or otherwise) of our intention to hold this talk. For those members who wish to attend this meeting and do not have access to a computer for checking the latest updates please contact Mick Britton on 07988 065010. Membership Subscriptions Thank you to all those members who have paid their subscriptions for this year. Owing to the cancellation of our monthly meetings, at which many members usually pay their subscriptions, the number of paid-up members at the time of writing (1st April) is just over 60% of last year’s membership. If you wish to remain being a member of the Society and receive the newsletter, then please forward the £5 per person annual subscription to our treasurer James Sheehan, Orchard House, 17 Ivy Lane, Finedon NN9 5NE.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MANOR and the PALACE *& -E X 'L IB R IS '<£* PH Lb N O RM an 4 5 , E V E L Y N* GAR: DENS*S
    THE MANOR AND THE PALACE By Ph ilip N orman, LL.D., F.S.A. *&-EX‘LIBRIS’<£* P H l b N O R M A N 4 5 , E V E L Y N* G A R : D E N S * S W* I THE BISHOP’S PALACE, BROMLEY, 1756. From an engraving in the folio edition of Hasted’s “ History of Kent.” 75l J ^>vi- A ^ L C ^ - r r i^ n *Y<t:-« v / . ^ ,7^-r CKmJ-C- 4j £jU*s M auo^ti ^$.A .. Chapter V I BROMLEY AND THE BISHOPS OF ROCHESTER TO THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY A R T of this chapter appeared in the Archeological Journal for 1920, but it has been rewritten with additions and corrections, for several of which I take the opportunity o f thanking Mr. W. Baxter. In my Pefforts to ascertain the main facts I owe much to the able account of Bromley, still in manuscript, which was compiled by the late Mr. Coles Child with the help of various experts. It formed the basis of the paper in Archeologia Cantiana, Vol. X III, 1880, called “ The Church and Manor of Bromley,” by the late Dr. W. T. Beeby. The origin o f Bromley as a place of habitation need here only be referred to in the briefest way. The story of its connection with the Saxon Bishops of Rochester is rather difficult to follow. In Dugdale’s Monasticon, with additions, ed. 1830, Vol. I, p. 154, it is said that “ Offa, King of Mercia, gave jointly with Sigered, King of Kent a .d .
    [Show full text]