I THE EAST ANGLIAN. New Series. Vol. IV. ■'i PRINTED BT PAWSET AND HATES, ANCIENT HOCSE, IPSWICH. THE EAST ANGLIAN; $ OR, potes and <5®****® ON HUBJECTR CX>NNECTKI> WITB TBK COUNTIEB OF SUFFOLK, CAMBRIDGE, ESSEX & .NORFOLK. EDITED BY a H. EVELYN WHITE, f.s.a., VICAR or CHRIBT CHCRCB, CREHHAM, rORMERLV Cl’RATE OF BT. MAROARET's, IPSWICH ; MOHliRARV MEMBER, LATE HONORARY SECRETARY OF THE HCFFOLK INSTITUTE OF ARCHAI»LOOY AND NATURAL HISTORY. CORRESPONDINO MEMBER OF THE NEW ENOLAND HISTORIC AND OENKALOOICAL SOCIETY. NEW SERIES. VOL. IV. IPSWICH : PAWSEY AND HAYES, THE ANCIENT HOUSE. LONDON : ELLIOT STOCK, (i2, PATERNOSTER ROW. NORWICH: A. H. GOOSE & Co. CAMBRIDGE: MACMILLAN and BOWES. CHELMSFORD : EDMUND DURRANT A Co. BURY ST. EDMUND’S : P. T. GROOM BECCLES: C. CHASE. 1891—1892. i. '.S' > 1 ■ «■ > • .V ■?'' /:' irih. ip:: : , f hui I r 4lIi if-''* - I. ■ ^ r V .> . :n4 •• . ft.Vlil sHi.v.iiU ijv*^tr,iiit.'. .', I .vii'ii-' . , ('-' ' '-..v iEP i2 ’3P ALLEF ( THE EAST ANGLIAN : UR, ^otf$ and (§ufm$ ON StTBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE COUNTIES OF SUFFOLK, CAMBRIDGE, ESSEX, AND NORFOLK. NEW SERIES. VOL. IV. HADLEIGH CASTLE, ESSEX. Thirty-five miles from London, and crowning the line of hills extending from Benfieet to Leigh, stand the mins of Hadleigh Castle. From its position near the mouth of the Thames, this fortress must have been of great importance, but unfortunately very little exists to tell the tale of its former grandeur. No finer position could possibly have been selected for the site of a baronial castle, whether for the purpose of security and defence, or for the beauty and extent of its scenery. On every side, except where it is approached by a narrow lane from the village, the hill upon which it stands descends with a steep and rapid decline, rendering the approach of any hostile force a most dangerous undertaking. The ruins of two towers form the prin¬ cipal portion of the remains ; they stand respectively at the north-east and south-east comers, and although considerably reduced in height and very crumbling, the northern one being nearly demolished, still sufficient yet remains to show that they were identical in form and construction. They are circular externally, and internally hexagonal. The walls are nine feet thick at the base, and are lined with squared chalk beautifully and compactly worked. These towers were probably about sixty feet high. The southern most one is ornamented by a broad band of flint work above the string course ; while the northern tower is decorated by flint work arranged in alternate squares. Each storey of these towers is pierced with loopholes, widely splayed within, and lined with chalk ; in one or two of these apertures the iron bars still remain. The towers are about sixty feet apart, and were connected by a wall eight feet thick, and apparently about twenty feet high, but very little of its masonry now remains above ground. Although there was probably a gateway in this wall no trace of one is now apparent. The A o THE EAST ANGLIAN ; OR, length of the ballium from east to west is 338 feet, and the extreme width 180 feet; its walls vary from four to six feet in thickness, strengthened at intervals by buttresses of great solidity. On the south side are the foundations of six apartments or offices, the inner walls of which are four feet thick. The principal gateway was upon the north side and near the west end, where undoubtedly the principal apartments were situated ; it w’as dominated by a large circular tower, now utterly destroyed, but its foundations are clearly defined. Westwanl of this tower are indications of apartments on the north side, and alx)ut mid¬ way between it and the north-east tower are the foundations of a small flanking tower. Traces of a similar tower occur exactly oppHJsite on the south side. The entire structure is built of Kentish rag stone, cemented with mortar of great hardness and tenacity, and containing a large quantity of sea shells, principally the cockle. Upon three sides, the north, west, and east, the castle is defended by a deep ditch, now pjirtially filled in. On the south it was protected by the arm of the river passing between Canvey Island and the main land of Essex. It appears probable that at the time the castle was built this stream was navigable to the foot of the hill upon which it stands, because in con¬ structing the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, which passes lietween the castle and the stream, there was found at the depth of twelve feet timbers evidently belonging to sunken vessels enclosing large quantities of rag stone. In 1863 rather extensive excavations were carried out under the supervision of Mr. W. H. King, the learned honorary secretary* to the Essex Archaeological Society, when although much interesting masonry was unearthed, nothing of great moment was discovered. No traces of vaults or undercrofts were observed, and nothing to determine the specific uses to which the apartments whose foundations have been exposed, could lie applied. Perhaps the most interesting find was that of a large leaden pipe entering the castle beneath the wall near the great gateway tower. This pipe was traced to some considerable distance and found to have conveyed water from a spring or reservoir in what is now known as Plum Tree Hill, nearly the eighth’ of a mile from the castle. Some few objects of antiquarian interest were discovered during the course of the excavations. Among them were a number of encaustic tiles, some bearing a Fleur de Lys ; one large key, part of a sword blade, a candle socket with spike for fixing into a wall, some large nails, a horse shoe, and one small silver Edwardian coin ; these with three Nurembnrg tokens and large quantities of the bones of various domestic animals and fragments of crockery ware constituted the “find.” No tradition as to the origin or destruction of the building exists among the villagers, excepting that it xvas built by a great king, and, of course, battered down by Oliver Cromwell ; and that its ruins are haunted by a lady dressed in white anxious to divulge the burial place of vast treasure. NOTES AND gVERIES, BTC. 3 Fortunately, among the rich store of documents contained in the Public Record Office, the whole history of the castle can be worked out, and the difficulty which so long existed in reconciling the Edwardian appearance of the ruins with the known fact of its having been built by Hubert de Burgh about the year 1232, explained away by the particulars of all receipts, costs, payments, and expenses incurred about the repair of the old houses as well as the “new making of the tt)wers, chambers, chapel, and walls,” from the 2nd of December in the 38th year, to the morrow of the Feast of St. Michael in the 42nd year of Edward in. Although the names of various clerks and controllers, viz., Henry de Mammesfeld, Godfrey de la Rokele, Richard Suarry, Nicholas Raunche, and John Barnton are preserved ; no mention is made of the architect, but as a charge of 3s. 4d. is several times entered for the freightage of certain lalwurers from Hadleigh to the “Castle of Shepeye,” designed and built about 1361 by William of Wykeham, “for the strength of the realm, and the refuge of the inhabitants,” may we not fairly conclude that the new castle at Hadleigh owed its design to the same master mind. We know that in 1359, to this great civil and military architect, was entrusted the warden and surveyorship of the king’s castles of Windsor, Leeds, and Dover, in order that they might be put into an efficient stjvte of defence. From its very position Hadleigh could have been of scarcely less importance, and therefore equally required the care and attention of his guiding hand. Added to this, the proximity of the castle to London, and its contiguity to the widely spread h\intiug grounds of Rayleigh and Thumlersleigh rendered it a favourite resort of his royal patron and master, the Third Edward. In the Minister’s Accounts, mention is frequently made of the king and queen’s chambers ; of the king’s hall, chamber, and chapel. There are also numerous payments for the purchase of iron vessels for the candles in the king’s chamber, for glass for the windows against the king’s coming in the winter, for bran for cleaning the armour of the king, for olive oil for the king’s armour, etc. All this tends to prove that the warlike majesty of England was no infrequent occupant of the castle, and what so natural as that the favourite friend and architect should plan the building destined to be not only a national bulwark, but also one of the royal residences. It is therefore hoped the following abstract translations of some of the documents relating to this castle may not prove uninteresting. From Patent Roll ii., Henry iii., part 1, m. 25, No. 197. a.d. 1227. “ Henr}' by the Grace of God, etc., to the Archbishops, avd ij for Ringing one that night there was Mace with Scottland A payd for Ringeing when my Lord Bishopp was in towne k payd for ringeing uppon 27th March .... (layd to Mr. John Beedingfield Counseller for coming to the Seassons N about certeyne housen in difference in the (xxsupatian Thomas ( Drains Robt Moody & Thomas Leagge whether the say i howsen r did belong to our parish or untayd for wine to Mr. Beedingfield at his being here k to Mr. I William Chapline for drawing of the breuitt k for horse hier V to go for Mr. Beeding^eld wth. his exiiences - - j ]>ayd at the Commissaryes Cort to the procters k ajMiiTittors k the j Register ffor makeing our 2 Verdicts k for putting of them in V k for our absolution being excom • - - j l>ayd for a Cloth as wee weere Inioyned ... 00 13 00 00 06 00 02 06 02 07 03 12 00 12 00 01 00 01 01 00 00 05 00 05 00 14 00 00 14 18 00 01 01 00 01 10 00 01 00 00 01 16 00 00 02 06 S S o: 6 THE EAST ANGLIAN J OR, 1639. payed Mr. Bayliffe Barbur for a Suppena concerning the houses in difference before mentioned .... Gevin to 2 poore ministers for their releife payd for going to Colchester after Kobt. Smyth & his wife who left there child to the parish & the Mayors warrant payd for the carring of Jndith Baxter to London to her father & for her diett ...... 1640. Received of Robert Low for breaking up the ground in the Church for the buriall of his wife ..... Received of Mrs. Crofford for covering her husbande Received for 54 weekes for one of the parish howsen at 9d. p weeke in all - (There are a large number of similar entries). Inprimis Layd out for breade and beare for the boyes going a (leram- bulation and for ten mens diners & for Jeffery Jac Item for 2 bookes on the fast day .... Item to Upson for mending the Church gate k for 2 gimmers for a Stoole & for mending 2 chachings (?) ... Item for ringing when the Knights were chosen ... Item to the painter for whiting and trimming the blake borders Item to Moisiy for mending the Stile .... Item to Mr. Bull for an hower glasse and other thii^ Item to Goodman Tompson for laying the Chancel fiat Item payd for Scouring the plate and washing the lining Item to the fre Mason for mending the North windowes 1641. ! ! ! ’. . ! ! Layd out for bread and beare for the boyes going a (lerambulation Layd out at the Angell more than was gathered ... Layd out for making of the Sounding lioard ... Layd out for painting and gilding the Sounding board Layd out for plate and nayles and other iron work about the Pulpit Item for 5 deale and wood for the Knobs of the Sending bord Layd out to Goodman Hayward for mending the mens Stooles and womens Stoole & for a plank .... .... setting up of the pinicle .... Layd out to Allin Day for mending the fanes Payd to Mr. Balife Brandling for freeing of Swan out of the house that Mrs. Ward might come in . . . . Layd out to the Carjienter for repairing the ruffe of the Church in all Layd out for wrighting of marrages Christnings k burials this yeare Itt for wryhting faire of 700 names of them that took the protestation to deliver to Mr. Bailies - - - - (A like protestation “ according to the direction of the Orde of the Comons howse” was promulgated at St. Matthew’s, Ipswich, gn “the Lords daye 27 June 1641 " but wtis apparently not forwarfed, it lieing entered in Church¬ wardens book, but struck out and without signatures. The “protestation," which was ordered to be signed by the adult mules of every parish throughout England, and attested by the authorities, declared attachment to the principles of the reform^ religion, and the rights and litjerties of the subject. It is said that the original lists still exist among the buried Archives of the House of Lords.] £ 8. d. 6 5 0 8 4 6 4 00 06 08 00 05 00 02 00 06 01 02 00 2 0 2 4 2 6 2 8 0 6 1 6 00 14 02 6 0 00 02 06 16 09 01 00 00 00 18 00 01 17 06 00 04 00 00 09 04 00 03 04 00 05 02 00 00 16 00 02 00 03 858 S £ £88883 NOTES AND QUERIES, ETC. 7 1643. £ 8. d. L»yd owt on the preambel daye for bread and bere and wine for the men and boies - - - - - -00 18 00 Layd owt to Hayward the gyner for mending the font - - 00 00 04 Payd for an Eyren and bason to baptyse children by the Desk syde - 00 06 02 1645. For ringerie ye 22nd May - - - - -00 10 00 For ringen ye 20th of Augt. - - , - -00 05 00 For ringen on a thankes for the taken of - - - 00 06 00 More for ringeng ye 12th March - - - - 00 00 06 Payd ffor Keeping 2 women & 3 Childerin wch. weer at Mrs. Wades ^ the woman being wth. Child & for ther carryng of them away V 00 19 08 out of Towne by the order of Mr. John Brandlin - ) 1647. 5 November for Ringing over and aboue what was gathered of the 1 2 7 parish and for oyell for the brases - - - I 5 november for a man to wach in the Church yard for Keping the ) ^ boyes from brecking the glas windes • - ) 1652. Layd out to Mr. Maing the hatter for mayned Soulders - 00 13 00 Brief accounts of the parish meetings are contained in the book until the year 1770. With the exception of three entries in 1652, of which the latter is one, however, no other accounts are entered. There are several interesting memoranda which shall appear in a future paper. Also, in a further book of accounts there are entries of some interest, which are worth retention, and shall appear later on in these pages. LADIES’ MANOR AND THE FERSFIELD BLOMEFIELDS. The account of Ladies’ Manor, Rockland Tofts, as given by Blome- field, is inexact and will bear amplification. Nor was he descended, as he appeared to think, from its original owners. The harmony of symmetrical statements is often disturbed by incongruous facts. Research tells us that Blomefield’s ancestress was the daughter of the wrong man. The story is a brief one. Late in the fifteenth century the Manor belonged to Robert Moriel. It passed to his grandson, Robert Sibbs. Sibbs’ descendant, another Rolwrt Sibbs, left daughters and co-heirs; one of whom married William Muskett. In 1619 Simon Muskett, of Rockland, second son of this William, sold it out of the family. The Fine of this sale is preserved at the Record Office. Therg was, doubtless, a Recovery also ; but the Manor was recovered, not by 8 THE EAST ANGLIAN ; OR, the vendor, but by John Duffield, the purchaser. What then became of it no one knows. It belonged, however, to Henry Blomefield, of Fersfield, in 1670, when he made his Will. We have yet to learn how he obtained it. Indeed his very paternity is unknown. Now the first wife of this Henry Blomefield was not the daughter of Simon Muskett, the lineal descendant of Moriel and Sibbs, but of John Muskett, of Bressingham — a very different person. Nor was she an heiress, for her brother married and had issue,- whose progeny can be traced for several generations. One fears the Norfolk historian wrote his pedigree in his study, and founded it upon probabilities and the fitness of things. At any rate he had no right to the (juartering of Muskett on his picturesque and very characteristic- escutcheon. He had no claims either to the quartering of Jolly, as we shall endeavour to show in another paper. Once beyond his great grandfather his genealogy is altogether wrong. Davy himself could not have compiled a worse. The Pedigree, which accompanies this meiuorandum, should be read iu conjunction with Blomefield’s account of Ladies’ Manor, as given in the octsivo edition of his “ History of Norfolk ” (Op. cit. Vol. i., p. 481). It is, the writer believes, entirely new ; there lieing no ancient genealo¬ gies of Muriel, Sibbs, or Blomefield of Fersfield. It is just possible, after all, that the historian was descended from the earlier holders of Ladies’ Manor ; for the exact ancestr\- of Henry Blomefield, who died in 1670, is very uncertain. If the son of John Blomefield and Agnes Jolly, as Blomefield supposes, he had a young wife and a family of small children when well on towards his ninetieth year. Be it far from us to disparage the work of the great county historian. Genealogical inexactness was a fault of his age. His intelligence and industry will claim the gratitude of generations to come. It is fair, however, to amplify his statements and to correct his misbikes. In a future communication we shall endeavour to give the true lineage of this remarkable man. There is reason for rejecting his derivation trom Sir Henry Bromfilde, who lived in the time of King Henry vi., and whose arms he incontinently adopted. We should look rather to (Jilliert Blomfield, citizen and clothier of Ix)ndon, late in the fourteenth century, and to Stoneham Jerningham, in Suffolk, for his real ancestry. This descent, it is onl}- fair to state, is by no means proven as yet. Meanwliile we should lie thankful to the Norfolk antiquary who would give us the history of Ladies’ Manor from its purchase in 1619, by John Duffield, to its ac([ui8ition by Henry Blome¬ field, who died in 1670. The Fines in tlie Record Office might help us, — but it would take some days to look them through. And one quer}- more. From which brother of the Norfolk historian are the Necton Masons descended? In Burke’s “Landed Gentry” they are said to derive from Francis Blomfield, his nephew. Who was the father of this Francis ? J. J. M. I ; 10 THK EAST ANGLIAN ; OR, NOTES AND QUERIES, ETC. « ^ 5 . S *•« i . c S— S'? w ,5^S 2^.2 * 5(S2.5 o II - i|^;i5323 ; c-S* 8;£iSP3S^ ; s| 5‘'‘? I i i « S ■ S-= O S-S 2^ ! S'* a-g c d1S 2 ^gK-5*2 £ ® 2 -s ; S C ■» ,» s ^ •iCS “"V -JS =5 -s-M®* “XiD® .*•-1 K — .'Is >5^"® --..Is ii 2t S'*- i i? ' f "-o e' .'Z — = ® s 3 S'*® * WSSPfitKOCacS &2c -•? S ■3'S-c a s-o _5^'*l2|5 = | "sil!-i?!|l i^'u S'3I'?5^.S.S lifSi . ^ 5 1-0 -sSa^ 8J «9 § * ffl ^ jj sj'i u • “' “ ~ ® >.S c ^ > fl®© pfe &•? a •C^'9 C .-s l^c S ® g’o ® a j* «• 3 WtJS-oMja II — .i = bcsS|2 s ^^'=S--a'a -i t.- ® » ... 5 a I ■ )v^S-§ lS«5.^5.s|“’ ® «; iss-a-i- i; Its G'c5 2*_s*^ ® rrj *^5 S*“ OJS - ‘*.-2 =^2SS5®? '’•S'i'? 5-«2i2 e ® £i 3.® § 2S8£2'-S° a*? S^5-§ ScS Sps •«j4 BtejiSd 5:= - ®.Scr52S o •uPmO , 5*1 S5|-® ,2 2 I ®.* ® S-52H .rj *.5^! Ha. •®-*j.a s 'Sl'iSSo^ -s — S.,' S - 2 »g!; o :« • CQ ® • 13 5^ 82 cl 3 ®.5-g*^ le-fiaiig •-5fe^s.55ooa J3” ^ J ^ £ S ■ - ©£ ^ ® C*G'2i1*P ..£ S'® ii'SS S 5— •orl 3 ©•« 5 '^11 Sill .®^ SS £-5 7.3 "S s © -5 ^CC I i^.2 Jfe a Sws S-f <3 * xog '2 = .£ ® © »«G i©»^ **«2 11 i^ohn Blomfield. | uel Farrow. in Fersfield Ch. | Hon in law. | mother'fl Will. 12 THE BAST ANGLIAN ; OR, Monumental Inscription. — The following epitaph may suitably find a place among the inscriptions relating to East Anglian families. The monument stands in the chapel of the English College at Rome, and is composed of divers marbles ; it has a portrait m^allion w’ith allegorical statuary. D. 0. M. Thomas Dereham de Dereham Magnre Brittanise Baroncttus ob verse religionis amorem Patria ad Catholicos profugus Familise suse postremus A nuptiis abstinuit Ne fides in Deum ac legitimum regem Sancte ab ipso servata Posteris in discrimen veniret Hauc pietatis suse constantiam Sepulcrali lapide testatum voluit. Obiit vii Febru. a.s. mdcc.xxxix. Vixit An lix menses x Dies xi. The arms are invisible. I copied the inscription some three years ago. Hardwick House, Bury St. Edmund’s. G. Milner-Gibson-Cullum. CHURCH GOODS IN SUFFOLK. Reformation Period. No. L. Land Revenue. B^J 1393. AVe 136. No. \. The Inventoryes of Scfp. Original Inventories of the Plate, Ac., and other things appropriated to Religious Uses and also of the Household Goods &c which were delivered by the King’s Commissioners to the Abbatts A Priors, Ac of the following Monasteries to be by them kept for the use and Behoof of the Lord King Hen. 8 — viz. Priory of St Olaves — of Flixton — of the Holy Trinity in Ipswich — Nunnery of Redlyngfeld — Priory of Blyboroughe — of Letheringham — Abbey of Leyston — Priory of Eve — of Ixworth — of Campesse. 28 Hen. 8‘h. Monasterm StI Olaui. [20 Aug. 28 Hen. 8.] In the Church, viz. the Qwyer Itm a p3’z sylu poz v Oz at iij» iiij** the oz — xvi, viij^ Itih one chales sylu and guylt poz vi oz at iij" vik-plate of William Windham, of Felbrigg, and to a note concerning him is appended his autograph signature (a.I>. 175^). Mr. G. Milner- Gibson-Cullum, F.8.A., contributes to the same number further Cullum Notes. * • « • « Mr. D. Gurteen, junr., of Haverhill, visited the City of Haverhill, Mass., U.S.A., in July last, bearing an address of fraternal greeting from the Kssex townsfolk, who have recently received a suitable reply. The latter communication was accompanied by a work of art in the form of a m^allion, having as a device a shield of the Arms of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, made from oak grown on the birth place of J G. Whittier ; in the centre the City Seal of Haverhill, in bronze ; underneath the motto of Massachusetts “Esse petit placidum sub libertate quieta.” In the corners are medallions representing the Public Library, City Hospital, City Hall, and Birthplace of Whittier. BOOK REVIEWS. Thb Prthkr, or Prayer Book of the Lay People. Edited by Henry Littlehales. London : Longmans, Green, and Co. — Although complete in itself, this choice volume forms the first part of the work (text), undertaken by Mr. Littlehales, the second part containing Introduction and Notes may in all probability nut be ready for some years, we regret to find. However, Mr. Littlehales has acted wisely in not delaying the publication of Part I. The original is a small quarto of 95 leaves in the possession of St John’s College, Cambridge, jierfect with the exception of one leaf, the text of which has been ingeniously supplied by the Editor in an Appendix. The Calendar prosents many interesting features. The entries relating to Seynt Edmond Pownteneye (8th June and 16th Novr., twice} will have a special interest for our readers, who remember that an ancient chai>el formerly at Ipswich had this dedication. The first pige of the Prymer is re-produced in exact fac-simile as a frontispiece. Mr. Littlehales, it will be seen, has antici{)ated the work of the Henry Bradshaw Society, both in this and in his previously issued “ Fourteenth Century Prayer Book.” If only the Society succeeds in producing publications of uniform excellence and pro|x)rtionate value for the yearly subscription, liturgical scholars and others wilt have good cause to congratulate themselves. Mr. Littlehales’ book, which api>ears to be as faultless with regard to the work of editing as it is in resjiect of its typography, is, especially from a litumological standpoint, of considerable value. The Science ok Fairy Tales; an Inouiry into Fairy Mythology.— By E. S. Hartland, k.s.a. London : Walter Scott. — Of the many “ Series ” of books now being published, none are likely to prove more valuable than the Contemporary Science Series of which this volume is one. The book, true to the science (a designation well and accurately applied), concerns itself with tradition rather than literature, the gradual developement of the Art of Story-telling being skillfully handled. The description given of Lawly Godiva, by the “Captain, Lieutenant and Ancient” of the Norwich Military Company (with whose exploits our readers are familar), is brought forward as one of the earliest remaining accounts of the strange story. Stcdiils in J