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 . 747, Frindsbury and Wickham to this church (Rochester) to which was soon after added the manor of Bromley.” Another early reference occurs in Hasted’s History of Kent. He tells us that “ Ethelbert, King of Kent, gave to Bishop Eardulph and the church of Rochester, land in Bromley containing six sulings,” 1 but his authority, given as ‘ Apograph,’ Dering Library, is a doubtful one. Un­ questionably, a .d . 966 or 967, King Eadgar granted to the church of Rochester “ ten hides (of land), called by the Kentishmen sulings, with all liberties and emoluments—except repelling invasions and the repairing of bridges and fortifications, which privileges were granted on account of the great price which Bishop Alfstan had paid for this land ; being no less than eighty marcs of the purest gold, and six pounds of fine silver, and thirty marcs of gold besides to the king’s praefect.” 2 The King’s son Ethelred seized the land and gave it to his minister, Ethelsine, but afterwards repenting, in 998, he restored six out of the ten sulings to the see of Rochester with privileges over woods in the Weald.3 Again, according to Hasted, a Saxon nobleman by name Birtrick (or Byrhtric), with Elfswith his wife, in a will made during the lifetime of Bishop Alfstan, left their land at Bromley to St. Andrew s Priory, Rochester, after the death of one Britware. We do not know if the Saxon Bishops ever lived here, but their ownership of a considerable amount of land rather suggests a dwelling. 1 E. Hasted, Hist. Kent, ed. 1797, Vol. I, p. 552. 2 Ibid., p. 553. 3 Ibid., p. 554, and Text. Koff., p. 130. The Weald of Kent, in ancient umes part of the forest of Andredsweald, is a large wooded district between the chalk downs. In former times it had few inhabitants. Those with the necessary privileges turned out swine and cattle to feed there. 75 76 Bromley, Kent After the Conquest Odo, Bishop o f Bayeux, the King’s half-brother, seized on the possessions o f the church o f Rochester at Bromley,' but Lanfranc, Archbishop o f Canterbury, recovered them at a memorable assembly on Penenden Heath in 1076, and restored them to Bishop Gundulf.1 *3 Passing on to the time o f Domesday, finished a .d . 1086, we are told that the Bishop o f Rochester then held Bromley as Lord o f the Manor, but, although it answered for six sulings in the time o f Edward the Confessor, the amount o f land had been reduced to three sulings. There were thirty villeins (villani) and twenty-six cottiers (bordarii), which, allowing for their families, might imply a population of over two hundred. There was a mill, no doubt a water-mill, where corn was ground for the manor, windmills apparently not coming into use in England until nearly the end o f the twelfth century. No church was mentioned; if the Bishops had a house they had a chapel, which perhaps afforded accommodation enough. But between 1115 and 1124 there was a church.8 Domesday records no landowner except the Bishop. This state of things, however, did not last long. Shortly afterwards, as Dr. Beeby, quoting from Mr. Coles Child’s manuscript, remarks : “ There can be little doubt that the Bishops of Rochester, with or without permission from the Crown, had converted portions of their land in Bromley and elsewhere into knights’ fees, in like manner as the Archbishop had been authorised to do ” ; and from the same source he adds, to our surprise, that “ in less than a century after the Domes­ day Survey twenty-seven persons held of the Bishop by military service.” * It is generally agreed that there was considerable subdivision of land in Bromley. At least one dependent manor was carved out, namely, the rectorial manor, and entries from the court roll of this have survived. Another property which has been called a manor by Hasted and Lysons is Sundridge, as were Simpson’s and Blackbrook. These and other ancient Bromley estates are fully dealt with elsewhere.4 * One of the most famous Bishops of Rochester was Gundulf (1077-1108), and Hasted thought that he built the palace or episcopal manor house. Mr. Coles Child believed it to have been older, arguing that a structure for which 1 E. Hasted, Hist. Kent, ed. 1797, Vol. I, pp. 554-5. Reg. R off., p. 442. 3 In the Registrum Roffense, mention is made of a church being reclaimed with the manor from Odo o f Bayeux in 1076. This, however, was written a long time afterwards. In Arch. Cant., Vol. X III, p. 158, Dr. Beeby records payment for chrism about forty years after the Domesday account. The basin of the font is Norman. 3 Arch. Cant., Vol. XIII, p. 147. „ * Sub-infeudation was prohibited under the statute beginning “ Quia Emptores, 18 Edward I, a .d . 1289, and no manor could be created afterwards, therefore all manors date from before that year. The fact that a piece of land was held by knight service did not make it a manor. As Dunkin says in his Outlines o f the History o f Bromley, 1815, to the grant must be annexed a certain degree of jurisdiction, as court, baron, etc. Bromley and the Bishops of Rochester 77 Gundulf was responsible could hardly have become ruinous in the course of a century, because architectural works with which his name has usually been associated—for instance, the keep of the Tower of London, and that of Rochester Castle— seem almost imperishable. We know that a .d . 1x84, Bishop Gilbert de Glanvill, who had been one of Becket’s scholars, found his house at Bromley so inconvenient and so out of repair that he rebuilt or thoroughly restored it. We may, however, bear in mind that de Glanvill seems to have had a taste for such expenditure; because he also rebuilt or repaired his palace at Rochester, and the manor houses of Lambeth, Hailing, Stone, and Trottescliffe. In iio f this prelate obtained from King John a grant of a weekly market at Bromley on Tuesdays throughout the year, an indication perhaps that the inhabitants had increased in numbers. There was protracted strife between him and the Prior and monks of Rochester. He is said to have plunged them into such costly litigation that they were obliged to turn into money the silver shrine of St. Paulinus which dated from the time of Arch­ bishop Lanfranc, and had been much resorted to by pilgrims. Gilbert de Glanvill died in 1214, and, in spite of their opposition, was buried in Rochester Cathedral, where, on the north side of the presbytery opposite the sedilia, is a fine tomb generally believed to be his. To vent his wrath, one of the monks was said to have composed the following Latin doggerel about the Bishop : “ Glanvill Gilbertus, nulla bonitate refertus, Hie jacet immitis, et amator maxime litis. Et quia sic litem dum vixit solet amare, Nunc, ubi pax nulla est, est aptior inhabitare.” 1 O f these lines the following translation is suggested : “ Here Gilbert Glanvill lies, who in his life Was harsh, unfriendly, loving legal strife. Since peace he hated, now in lowest—well 1 Where there is no peace let him aptly dwell.” In spite of the monument, according to a chronicler, he was buried like Jews and heretics, without the divine office.2 From the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1231-4,0. 371 (where the rolls are printed in full), we get the following glimpse of the distracted state of the country during the reign of King John. The Bishop in 1232 (16 I lenry III), having shown the King, “ that whereas it was the custom to hold a certain market at the said Bishop’s manor of Bromlegh on Tuesday in every' week, 1 History of Rochester, by W. Shrubsole and the Rev. J. Denne, D.D., 2nd ed., 1817, P l2° Cott.