Archbishop Grindal's birthplace

Cross Hill, St Bees, Cumbria

By John and Mary Todd

“the house wherein I was born, and the lands pertaining thereto, being a small matter, under twenty shillings rent, but well builded at the charges of my father and brother.” (1) So wrote Edmund Grindal, on the point of promotion from bishop of London to archbishop of York, to Sir William Cecil, Secretary of State to Elizabeth 1, in 1570. But where was this house? Antiquarians have been undecided, but it is now possible to say that the house wherein Archbishop Grindal was born still stands on Cross Hill in the village of St Bees, otherwise known as 19 and 20 Finkle Street. As will be shown, Grindal’s letter also enables us to give a date for its construction or rebuilding, namely between 1500 and 1520. The house preserves to this day much of its original structure and has recently been well restored by Mr and Mrs Noel Carr. For its period, it is a surprisingly substantial house for a tenant farmer paying “under twenty shillings rent”. Grindal’s modest words almost give a false impression, for in fact the rent was only 8s. 2d. (2)

Edmund Grindal’s early biographer, Strype, believed that the Archbishop’s birthplace was at Hensingham, which was formerly within the parish of St Bees. Local tradition puts it either at the former farm known as Chapel House, or at Overend Farm, where stones with the initials W. G. and W. R. G. were thought to refer to William Grindal, Edmund’s father. In the last century William Jackson doubted Strype’s opinion. Professor Patrick Collinson, Grindal’s modern biographer, shared those doubts. New evidence from the building on Cross Hill, and from the court book of the manor of St Bees, shows that the doubts were well-founded.(3) Grindal was born between 1517 and 1520.(4) At that time, the main landowner in the parish was the priory of St Bees, a cell of St Mary’s Abbey at York. The demesne lands of the Priory lay on the north-west side of the Pow Beck. On the south-east side of the valley, compactly arranged around the village which bears all the marks of being a planned settlement, were the lands of the Priory’s customary tenants. Other customary lands were to be found in the outlying hamlets of Sandwith and Hensingham. The tenants held by “tenant right”, which was marked by “reasonable” entry fines, moderate rents, light labour services, and the obligation on the tenant “upon his own proper cost and charges [to] attend upon his landlord or his officer in the service of her Majesty, her heirs and successors, on the next marches of England against Scotland”.(5) A rental drawn up for the Priory in 1500 (6) lists 33 tenants in St Bees village, with holdings ranging in size from a cottage with half a customary acre to a messuage of three oxgangs eight acres (equivalent to at least 61, possibly 76 modern acres) (7).The annual rents run from twelve pence to 6s. 6d. In addition to the cash rents, the tenants owed from one to twelve “boon days” of work on the lord’s demesne, and from one hen and ten eggs to five hens and fifty eggs per annum. No single tenant was clearly dominant: there were nine holdings of two or more oxgangs (20 or 26 customary acres, 32 or 42 modem acres). No tenant in 1500 bore the name of Grindal.(8)

In the first twenty years of the sixteenth century, therefore, William Grindal appeared in St Bees, acquired a holding as a tenant of the Priory, and started his house “well-builded” there. Of his two known sons, Edmund was sent to Cambridge and embarked on a clerical career which was to carry him to the highest office in the Church of England. His elder brother Robert stayed at home and ran the family farm.(9) Edmund never forgot “that little angle where 1 was born, called Cowpland, parcel of Cumberland: the ignorantest part in religion, and most oppressed of covetous landlords, of any one part of the realm, to my knowledge”(10) He never forgot the house where he was born. Ignorance in religion he parried by his death-bed resolution to found St Bees School. In three interventions, he also did what he could to protect his family’s security – and he may well have been responsible for saving the tenants of St Bees for all time from the oppression of covetous landlords. The archbishop’s concerns are reflected at each stage in the early history of Cross Hill House.

St Bees Priory was dissolved on 16 October 1539.(11) The lands held by the customary tenants went through the hands of Henry VIII’s agent Sir Thomas Leigh to the second husband of Leigh’s widow, the distinguished diplomat Sir Thomas Challoner.(12) It was an anxious time for the tenants. They had enjoyed fixed low rents and light burdens of custom under the monks. Although their tenure was in theory at the will of the lord, it was in practice hereditary. Now, in a time of rapid inflation, landlords everywhere were seeking to raise rents and reduce security of tenure.(13) The courtier Challoner was perhaps in need of ready cash, and may have been influenced by Edmund Grindal, with whom he seems to have been on good terms.(14) He struck a bargain with his tenants in 1560. In return for lump sums totalling £88, he granted them leases for fifty years at rents which (in the incomplete list which survives) were roughly one and three-quarters times as much as the rents of 1500. It was agreed that, at the end of the term, the old customary tenure would apply in default of other provision; and for better security the old customs were written down at a session of the manor court in 1587.(15) Edmund Grindal, then bishop of London, helped his brother Robert to buy his lease.(16) The counterpart (the landlord’s copy) survives at St Bees.(17) For a premium of twenty shillings, Challoner leased to Robert Grindal:

“…..all that one messuage and one oxgang and six acres and an haiff of londe or grounde arrable

altogether … which the said Robert Gryndall now holdeth, together with all suche medowe

grounde as to the same fermolde is incident or apperteyning … payeing therefore yearely … the

some of eight shillings ij d. lawfull Englishe money.”

Only fifteen of the 1560 leases survive, but even these show that Grindal was not the most substantial tenant in St Bees village. There were at least three larger holdings, ranging in size up to three oxgangs (48 or 63 statute acres), compared with Grindal’s one oxgang 6.5 acres (presumed to be equal to 27 or 31.5 statute acres). The rents ran from 2s. to 10s., with Grindal’s the second highest.(18)

Within ten years a double crisis overtook the Grindals of St Bees. Robert Grindal, his wife, and their only surviving son all died within three weeks of each other in 1568.(19) Robert left the farm to his second daughter, Anne. “Her father in his testament willed her in all things to be directed by me”, wrote Edmund Grindal, although the text of Robert’s will does not quite bear this out. (20) Contrary to her uncle’s wishes, Anne married William Dacre, son of Richard Dacre of Aikton near Carlisle, although she was only eighteen and her father not a year dead. Shortly afterwards, in 1569-70, William joined his cousin Leonard Dacre in the northern rising known as “Dacre’s Raid”, which started as a struggle with the Howards over the inheritance of Naworth Castle and the barony of Gilsland. The Dacres were defeated and fled, and their lands were forfeited to the Crown. Hence Edmund Grindal’s begging letter quoted at the head of this article, asking for permission to redeem the St Bees holding for his impulsive niece and her unfortunate husband. It cost him more than the lease of 1560: this time he had to pay £40 to recover the farm and another lease of the tithes of the parish.(21)

Leonard Dacre died three years later, and William was pardoned and settled down at St Bees. It is likely that at this time Anne and her husband had the inside northwest wall of their house decorated with griffins, supporters of the Dacre arms, and carried out other improvements, mentioned below.(22) The painting is possibly out of the same workshop as another in the house which Thomas Dacre converted out of the west range of Lanercost Priory.

William Dacre died in 1583, the same year as Edmund Grindal.(23) Had he lived, he would have been a governor of the grammar school which the Archbishop founded at St Bees. Anne married again, into another gentry family, that of Thomas Wybergh. Although she had issue by Thomas, the Grindal estates in St Bees did not – as Jackson believed – pass to the Wyberghs and thence to the Lowthers.(24) When new leases were granted to the St Bees tenants in 1609 (close to the expiry of the 1560 leases), Anne’s eldest child by William Dacre, Eleanor or Helena Dacre, was holding a messuage or fermhold called Grindall’s tenement containing three and a quarter oxgangs situate in the town of St Bees, late in the occupation of Thomas Wybergh and sometime of Robert Grindal deceased”. The holding had grown since 1560 to 53 or 69 statute acres, but so had others. The areas are shown for only six out of the forty leases, but two of them were larger than Eleanor Dacre’s. The rent was 11s. 7d., and there were two higher rents, in a range from 8d. to 14s. 6d.(25)

Archbishop Grindal had a posthumous hand in the granting of the new leases. It was generally believed that he intended the money which he left to endow St Bees School to be invested in the freehold of the St Bees tenants’ lands, so that they might regain the security which “covetous landlords” once threatened, “so to settle their estates that they might hold the same without eviction or hard dealing”. The freehold was in the hands of the Crown, having been surrendered by Challoner to settle a debt to Elizabeth I in 1561. In 1604, Grindal’s executors purchased it from James 1 on behalf of the governors of St Bees School. After much controversy, and a disputed arbitration by Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, the governors granted to the tenants leases at fixed rents, to run for a thousand years from 31 January 1609.(26)

In this manner, Edmund Grindal for a third time benefited the family farm (among others). Thanks to the records of the governors’ manor court, which show changes of leaseholders and sales from one to another, it is possible to piece together the subsequent history of “Grindal’s tenement”, or Cross Hill as it came to be known, up to the present day, so proving that this was indeed the house in which the future archbishop was born.

Eleanor Dacre died unmarried in 1624.(27) The governors’ first court book is missing, and it is not until 1692 that we pick up the name of the next known tenant ‘ Henry Aerey. Henry had died in December 1691, and in April of the following year his widow Jane claimed the succession to the holding in the manorial court.(28) Since the rent of the holding then claimed was the same as Eleanor’s rent in 1609, namely 1s. 7d., since there was no other tenement paying this rent, and since two Aereys have Dacre as their Christian name, the identity of Henry Aerey’s holding is not in doubt.(29)

Anthony Aerey succeeded his brother’s widow in 1701.(30) He left daughters, who divided the holding. Mary and her husband Edward Wilkinson received her portion during her father’s lifetime. They are found tenants of a moiety of the tenement in 1712, paying 5s. 91/2d. rent.(31) Her sister Isabel had to wait until her father’s death in 1723 for her part. In 1724 she is found tenant of a messuage called Cross Hill, the first mention of the name.(32) Isabel had married Richard Preston. Divided ownership resulted in the physical division of the house which persists to this day.

Mary Wilkinson’s half of the house – which later record shows to have been the south-eastern end – passed to her son Anthony (d. 1775). (33) Eventually Anthony’s daughters Mary Coulthard and Ann Bell were admitted in 1802 under the terms of his will.(34)Richard Johnson purchased the holding from the personal representatives of Mary and Ann on 24 March 1832. It was then described as a “messuage or dwellinghouse, barn, stable, cowhouse, piggeries, garden and ground”. Because more leasehold land had been added, the rent was now 10s. 8d.(35) The area, as shown in the 1838 tithe map, was 55 acres.(36) Richard Johnson died in 1834, and his widow had the property until her remarriage the next year, when it passed to trustees for their son.(37) In 1851, their son, the Revd John Richard Johnson, sold the house, with some of the land, paying an apportioned rent of 3s., to Richard Jackson, owner of the other half, so reuniting the ownership (but not the occupation) of the house.(38)

Turning to the history of the north-western part of the house, we find from the court book that Isabel Preston and her husband Richard gave their property during their lifetime to their son Richard.(39) Richard lived to 1802 but gave the property to his daughter Jane in 1798. Because of additions, the rent of this moiety was by now 13s. 7d., and the tithe map in 1838 shows that it comprised 41.5 acres.(40) Jane died in 1837, bequeathing her land to Richard Jackson.(41) Richard’s son Joseph Preston Jackson owned the reunited holding from his father’s death in 1888 until his own in 1928. His wife had it for three more years, and their son sold it almost immediately after his mother’s death to Henry Mawson. The latter died in 1948, and the estate was held by trustees for the benefit of his daughters, who in turn sold it to Noel and Jean Carr in 1983.(42) In 1993, the ownership of the two parts of the property was divided again, when the Carrs moved into 20 Finkle Street (the south-eastern part) and sold no.19.

Professor Collinson begins his account of Grindal’s life with a fine pen-picture of conditions in the Cumberland of his day, including the following:

The “great rebuilding” which transformed the condition of domestic life over much of England in the course of the sixteenth century hardly affected the north-western counties before the reign of Charles II. It was only then that a vernacular stone architecture began to replace the older constructions of clay and wood built on stone footings.(43)

In this, Collinson was but following the received view of northern domestic architecture. Ironically, it is Grindal’s own birthplace that puts a question mark against that view. Robert Grindal, a tenant farmer, “statesman” not gentry, and not even holding the largest farm in the village, paid a rent of 8s. 2d. for which his brother had almost to apologise. Robert and his father built, or rebuilt, early in the sixteenth century, a substantial house of stone, with a lofty hall, parlour and solar.

Either tenant farmers were not so badly housed as has been supposed, or William and Robert Grindal had some additional source of wealth.

It is to be hoped that the research of Mr John Reedy, of Brandon, Florida, will shortly show the early history of the Grindal family, and the other resources outside St Bees that sustained their expenditure. Edmund Grindal was on familiar terms with the Sandys of Rottington, who were gentry, and Robert’s daughter Anne twice married into ancient gentry families, the Dacres and the Wyberghs.(44) They also had the same surnme as the William Grindal who was tutor to the future Queen Elizabeth 1 before Roger Ascham.(45) There was the money to send Edmund Grindal to Cambridge and abroad. The “house well-builded” surely covered a family of substance and, perhaps, of higher status than has been admitted so far.


The fabric of 19/20 Cross Hill, St Bees, by Paul Barker

In early 1983, whilst I was working for Cumbria County Council as a Field Inspector for the then ongoing Accelerated Resurvey of Listed Buildings, I was contacted by the owner of these properties, Mr Noel Carr, regarding some interesting architectural details which had just been revealed during the course of refurbishment works.

Although the property had previously been included on the List of Buildings of Special Historic or Architectural Interest for the area as being “possibly 16th century”, its true nature had effectively been concealed by later alterations, including wet-dash render.

As it appeared prior to the commencement of the refurbishment works of 1983, the building occupied a sloping site aligned on a north-west/south-east axis. Subdivided at the time, the only clues to its age were a semicircular-headed chamfered door surround and a number of stone-mullioned windows with semicircular-headed lights which appeared at three different levels on the property.

The elevated southern end of the building, No. 20, incorporated the majority of these “original” features, some of which had been skillfully remodelled in more recent times, presumably to increase the light to the interior. This end of the building was effectively delineated by the stone coping to the gable end and the chimney stack on the ridge. The semicircular-headed doorway is centrally located on the northeastern elevation with an original two-light window to the ground floor right. This window has been “stretched” and an extra light added to the left-hand side, reusing the original jamb. The two-light stone mullioned window to the left of the door is contemporary with the remodelling of the original window and is similarly detailed. Whilst the simple four-light stone-mullioned window to the first floor right would also appear to be contemporary with the remodelling work, the small chamfered window surround to its left, above the door, appears to be original, although it may have been relocated. On the south-eastern gable end stone-mullioned windows survive to both the ground and first floors. These windows were originally symmetrically arranged around the central vertical axis of the gable, the ground-floor window having three semicircular-headed lights and the first floor two. The latter has, however, been stretched in a manner similar to that used on the north-east elevation. A small, modern bathroom window to first floor completed the lighting arrangements. No window openings are visible on the original south-western wall as it is largely hidden by a later lean-to extension.

Cross Hill house

By contrast, No.19 at the lower end of the site retains little of its original fenestration and there is no sign of any original doorway. An essential requirement following the decision to subdivide the property would have been the provision of a separate door to serve this end of the building. Prior to the recent works, the only visible doorway appeared to be of nineteenth century date and was located to the left of centre on the north-eastern elevation. There was a (contemporary) vertical-sliding sash window in a plain surround to the ground-floor the left and one to the first floor centre.

The projecting stair turret added next to the junction with No. 20 would have had a similar, smaller, sash (or fixed window) to the ground floor; the plain surround of the first floor stair “window” may once have beenglazed but this was later blocked and painted with a trompe-loeil window. Thewindows to the north-western gable end were symmetrically arranged around thecentral vertical axis with a paired sash to the ground floor, a single sash to the first floor and an original two-light window to the attic floor. This differs from the other surviving original windows insofar as it was unglazed (although partly-blocked) and had a hoodmould with label-stops. The south-western elevation does not appear to retain any original windows, although there is a stone mullioned three-light window under a hoodmould to the ground floor with a similar two-light window above. These appear to date from the first major internal remodelling. These windows are to the right of a doorway which is itself to the right of a massive projecting chimney stack.

When the render had been stripped off this part of the building a blocked doorway with a four-centred head to its chamfered surround was uncovered to the left-hand end of the north-eastern elevation. An unusual feature was the lintel which was rebated at its right-hand end to take two steps, presumably related to the blocked doorway to the first floor right. This second doorway does not appear to be contemporary with that to the ground floor as it lacks an external surround. The first floor doorway had a multi-light stone-mullioned window to its left although only a fragment survived the later insertion of the first floor sash. At some time, the first floor doorway was part blocked and a two-light stone-mullioned window inserted, only to be blocked in its turn. When the first floor sash window in the gable end was removed, the jambs of an earlier, stone~mullioned window were revealed; this may relate to a number of fragments of stone tracery from an ornate window which were reused in later walls.

Internally, the original arrangement of the property has become clearer as a result of the modern works . Although no major works were undertaken to No. 20 and much was concealed by modern subdivision and decoration, it was apparent that this end of the property was always two-storey.

Subdivided by a thick cross wall aligned internally with the southern jamb of the doorway, the room initially entered retains an inglenook fireplace with a chamfered timber bressummer. The original inglenook would have been considerably deeper than at present, built within the thickness of the property’s main cross wall. To the right of this fireplace is a cupboard which would have been the original entry through to what became No 19. The other ground floor room appears to have been unheated and lit only by the surviving three light gable window.

The location of the original access to the first floor is uncertain as there is no sign of a staircase; the remains of one may be concealed or it may be that a ladder was used. The main difference between the original first floor arrangements and the present is that it would have been opened up to the roof, revealing the king-post roof trusses with their queen struts.

No 19, by contrast, has been subject to a number of extensive campaigns of alteration over the centuries. The most obvious of these was the decision to insert floors as it is apparent that this end of the property was originally undivided and open to the roof with the alternating ornate arch-braced and angle strut roof trusses being fully visible.

It is uncertain as to whether or not there was originally a fireplace in this end of the building as there is no sign of an inglenook in the main cross wall, although a fireplace was added against this wall, probably in the eighteenth century. The large fireplace on the south-west wall, with its four-centred head and moulded surround, was revealed when a later Victorian grate was removed. Masons marks on this fireplace were seen to be identical with those on the doorway uncovered on the north-west elevation and, therefore, it would appear to be a later addition. This is supported by an external examination of the stack itself. This stack also serves a simpler fireplace to the first floor.

It may therefore be that, originally, this end of the property was heated by an open hearth or brazier with any smoke and fumes being voided through the top gable window and/or the splayed slits which originally pierced the walls under the eaves.

The present newel stair which rises the full height of the building is clearly an addition but its date is uncertain, although it clearly relates to the decision to floor in what was originally the open hall end of the building which may (or may not) have coincided with the subdivision of the property.

The final clue to the original form of this end of the building relates to the discovery, during the works, of a series of wall paintings which survived, somewhat fragmented, on the south-western, north-eastern and gable walls. Executed in grisaille on lime plaster, these comprise simple trompe-l’oeil panelling, decorative (foliate?) work and heraldic devices. These latter elements are the most important as they provide the link to Grindall’s niece. They comprise a repetitive frieze of supporters clasping some sort of medallion. Some of these supporters are in the form of sable-beaked griffins, as used by the Dacre family. Further to this, a painting conservator called in to assess their condition noted the presence of what could be a winged bull (the Dacres’ also used a red bull as a badge) and considered them to date from the mid/late sixteenth century.

These paintings predate the paired sash window in the gable wall and the inserted first floor, both of which cut through the frieze. The relationship between the fireplace and the wall paintings is less certain as the remains are more fragmentary at this point.

Taking the above into account therefore, it would appear that the lord’s dais was at the gable-end of the hall, decorated round about with wall paintings including an heraldic frieze incorporating emblems associated with the Dacre family, which probably ran under the sill of a large, ornately traceried, window.

John Todd speaking at the unveiling of the plaque on Grindal’s house.


Round-headed doorway and mullioned windows

Mullioned windows in the souh gable

Please note that the only illustration from the original article was the isometric line drawing of the building. All other images added for this web version. DS.

Notes and References

1. The Remains of Edmund Grindal, D.D., ed. W. Nicholson, Parker Society (Cambridge, 1843), 321-3

2. St Bees School MSS, counterpart lease to Robert Grindal granted in 1560.

3. W. Jackson, Papers and Pedigrees mainly relating to Cumberland and Westmorland (London, Carlisle and Kendal, 1892), vol. ii, 187-8; P. Collinson, Archbishop Grindal, 1519-1583 (London, 1979), 25-7; P. Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), 108.

4. Collinson, Grindal, 25.

5 Susan H. Brightman, “Land-holding in St Bees, Cumbria, 1539-1838” (Unpublished B.Sc. dissertation, University of St Andrews, 1982).

6. C.R.O. Carlisle, MS D/Lons/W/St Bees 13.

7. Conversion of land measurements to modern units presents problems, discussed by B. C. Jones, ‘variations in the length of the perch in Curnbria”, CW2, lxxxiii, 177-8. Blake Tyson has shown that in the seventeenth century the St Bees acre contained 160 square perches of 7 yards (“The perch measure of St Bees Parish”, CW2, lxxxiii, 175-6). On that basis, 8 customary acres equal 13 statute acres, and it is assumed that the same standard applied in 1500. That leaves the problem of estimating the number of acres in each oxgang or bovate. Oxgangs of 7.75, 8, 10 and 14 acres are recorded in Cumberland. J. E. Prescott, The Register of the Priory of Wetheral (London, 1897), 239, 121 and 453; 1. Wilson, The Register of the Priory of St Bees (London, 1915), 396. The 1500 rental measures farms in oxgangs, acres and roods. Since the highest number of acres is 8, it is assumed that the St Bees oxgang contained at least 10 customary acres. The figure of 6.5 acres occurs four times, however, and 3.25 roods also occurs for a half-messuage. It is possible, therefore, that the St Bees oxgang contained 13 customary acres.

8. Two of the holdings in 1500 were the same size as Robert Grindal’s holding in 1560, namely those of John Sandwathe the elder, and John Sandwath, webster, but no identity can be assumed.

9. Collinson, Grindal, 29-30.

10. W. Nicholson (ed.), op. cit., 256-7.

11. P.R.O. SC6 7382 (sale of goods roll for the archdeaconry of Richmond, 30-31 Henry VIII).

12. J. Wilson (ed.), Victoria History of the County of Cumberland, vol. ii, 182-3; W. jackson, op. cit., vol. ii, 5-7.

13. J. Thirsk, The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1967), vol. iv, 291-4; C. M. L. Bouch and G. P. jones, A Short Economic and Social History of the Lake Counties, 1500-1830 (Manchester, 1961), 70-2.

14. W. Jackson, op. cit., vol. ii, 7.

15. J. P. Steel, “Genealogical Gleanings relating to Cumberland”, CW2, xxiii, 61, giving the terms of the agreement and the names of the tenants, including Robert Grindal.

16. W. Nicholson (ed.), op. cit., 321; Collinson, Grindal, 30.

17. St Bees School MSS.; it is to be hoped that by the time this article is published, these leases will have been deposited in the Record Office at Whitehaven.

18. C.R.O., Carlisle, MS D/Lons/W/St Bees School (two lists of leaseholders drawn up after 1609). One list appears to have been drawn up in the early nineteenth century from the counterpart leases kept by the School: it itemises all the leases granted in 1609, and shows beside them the particulars of the 1560 leases of the corresponding holdings where these were known. The other list is of 1609 leases only, but is useful because it distinguishes more clearly which holdings were in St Bees village and which were in Sandwith or Hensingham. The descriptions of the properties in the surviving counterpart leases are very brief and do not always show the township in which they lay.

19. H. B. Stout (ed.), The Registers of St Bees, Cumberland CWAAS Parish Register Section (Kendal, 1968), Part I: Burials 1538-1837, 15.

20. W. Nicholson (ed.), cp. cit., 321; Lancashire Record Office, Preston, MS WRW(C), Will of Robert Grindal of St Bees, proved 1569.

21. Collinson, Grindal, 31.

22. C. R. Hudleston and R. S. Boumphrey, Cumberland Families and Heraldry CWAAS Extra Series vol. XXIII (1978), 82.

23. H. B. Stout (ed.), op. cit., Part 11, 28.

24. W. Jackson, op. cit., vol. ii, 190.

25. St Bees School MSS, counterpart leases of 1609; C.R.O., Carlisle, MS D/Lons/W/St Bees School. The new rents were, on average, 20% higher than in 1560, to judge by those that survive.

26. W. Jackson, cp. cit., vol. ii, 198-201.

27. H. B. Stout (ed.), op. cit., Part 11, 50.

28. Ibid., 114; Lanes. R. 0. Preston, MS WRW(C), Will of Henry Aerey; St Bees School MSS deposited at C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/4 (Manor Court Book), 15 April 1692.

29. H. B. Stout (ed.), cp. cit., Part 11, 96 (Dacre Aerey of Sandwith, d. 1682), 109 (Dacre, son of Anthony Aerey of St Bees, d. 1688).

30. Ibid., 131.

31. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/4, 4 May 1712.

32. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/4, 9 October 1724.

33. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/5, p. 9, 7 October 1746; Deed of 28 April 1747, cited in an abstract of title among the deeds of the house; H. B. Stout (ed.), cp. cit., Part 11, 184

34. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/5, p. 209, 30 April 1802.

35. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/6, p. 67, 1 May 1832.

36. C.R.O. Carlisle, MS DRC/8/167; it is the Tithe Map which locates the owners of each part of the building.

37. H. B. Stout (ed.), ap. cit., Part 11, 219; Part 111, 208; C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/6, p. 743 28 April 1835.

38. Assignment, 4 September 18 5 1, with the deeds of the house.

39. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/5, p. 49, 29 April 1760: the gift was dated 20 September 1756, but was not registered at the court until 1760.

40. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/5, p. 215, 4 May 1803; C.R.O. Carlisle DRC/8/167.

41. C.R.O. Whitehaven, YDS 60/6, p. 82, 24 April 1838; C.R.O. Carlisle, DRC/8/167. All the evidence is in the deeds of the house.

42. Collinson, Grindal, 28.

43. Hudleston and Boumphrey, op. cit., 81-2, 375.

44. Collinson. Grindal. 26.

Article text: Copyright 1999 – The Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society.

Scroll to Top