Produced by Mary Glenn Krause, Eric Lehtonen, Barry
Abrahamsen, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive)
THE LONDON BURIAL GROUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration: Author’s Mark]
[Illustration: ST. PETER’S, CORNHILL, IN 1817.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The London Burial Grounds
NOTES ON THEIR HISTORY FROM
THE EARLIEST TIMES TO
THE PRESENT DAY
BY
MRS. BASIL HOLMES
“Thou that intendest to the Church to Day,
Come take a turn or two, before thou go’st.
In the Churchyard; the Walk is in the way.
Who takes best heed in going, hasteth most:
But he that unprepared rashly ventures,
Hastens perhaps to seal his Death’s Indentures”
GEORGE HERBERT
ILLUSTRATED
LONDON
T. FISHER UNWIN
MDCCCXCVI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[All rights reserved.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“First learn to love one living man;
Then may’st thou think upon the dead.”
Wordsworth.
TO THOSE
WHO LOVE THE LIVING
I Dedicate
THESE DETAILS OF
THE DWELLINGS OF THE DEAD.
“October sheds the leaf and April brings it;
So one flower fadeth and another springs;
Earth renovates itself.”
H. Bonar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
INTRODUCTION 13
I. BRITISH AND ROMAN BURYING-PLACES 23
II. THE GRAVEYARDS OF PRIORIES AND 30
CONVENTS
III. THE CATHEDRAL, THE ABBEY, THE 53
TEMPLE, AND THE TOWER
IV. THE CITY CHURCHYARDS 74
V. LONDON CHURCHYARDS, OUTSIDE THE 90
CITY
VI. PEST-FIELDS AND PLAGUE-PITS 117
VII. THE DISSENTERS’ BURIAL-GROUNDS 133
VIII. BURIAL-PLACES OF FOREIGNERS IN 153
LONDON
IX. HOSPITAL, ALMSHOUSE, AND WORKHOUSE 171
GROUNDS
X. PRIVATE AND PROMISCUOUS CEMETERIES 187
XI. THE CLOSING OF THE BURIAL-GROUNDS 209
AND VAULTS
XII. GRAVEYARDS AS PUBLIC GARDENS 226
XIII. THE CEMETERIES STILL IN USE 250
XIV. A FORECAST OF THE FUTURE 263
APPENDIX.
A. LIST OF BURIAL-GROUNDS IN EXISTENCE 279
B. LIST OF BURIAL-GROUNDS WHICH HAVE 321
DISAPPEARED
C. CHURCHES AND CHAPELS WITHOUT 329
BURIAL-GROUNDS, BUT WITH VAULTS
UNDER THEM
D. HOW TO LAY OUT A BURIAL-GROUND AS A 331
GARDEN
E. THE DISUSED BURIAL-GROUNDS ACT, 336
ETC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. ST. PETER’S, CORNHILL _Frontispiece_
2. TUMULUS AT HAMPSTEAD 25
3. ROMAN MONUMENT FROM LUDGATE 27
4. BURIAL OF A MONK 34
5. PLAN OF PRIORY OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW 37
THE GREAT
6. CRYPT OF ST. MARTIN LE GRAND IN 39
1818
7. CRYPT OF ST. JOHN’S, CLERKENWELL 45
8. REMAINS OF BERMONDSEY ABBEY ABOUT 48
1800
9. PAUL’S CROSS 57
10. ELM ON SITE OF PAUL’S CROSS 60
11. ST. MARGARET’S, WESTMINSTER, AND 63
THE ABBEY CHURCHYARD ABOUT 1750
12. GREAT CLOISTER, WESTMINSTER 64
13. ST. PETER’S CHAPEL IN THE TOWER 69
ABOUT 1750
14. THREE COFFIN LIDS FROM THE TOWER 71
15. ALLHALLOWS’, STAINING 79
16. CRIPPLEGATE CHURCHYARD ABOUT 1830 80
17. ST. MILDRED’S, BREAD STREET 83
18. PLAN OF ST. BENET FINK IN 1834 84
19. THE CHURCHYARD OF ST. BENET, PAUL’S 86
WHARF, 1838
20. ALL SAINTS’, WANDSWORTH, ABOUT 1800 93
21. EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TOMBSTONE 96
21A. NINETEENTH-CENTURY TOMBSTONE 97
22. SHOREDITCH VILLAGE 100
23. ST. PANCRAS VILLAGE 101
24. ST. GILES IN THE FIELDS 107
25. SITE OF ST. KATHARINE’S DOCKS 112
26. ST. MATTHEW’S, BETHNAL GREEN, 1818 113
27. TOTHILL FIELDS PEST-HOUSES 123
28. STEPNEY CHURCHYARD 126
29. SITE OF THE BREWER’S GARDEN ABOUT 128
1830
30. DEADMAN’S PLACE BURIAL-GROUND 129
31. UNION CHAPEL, WOOLWICH 137
32. FRIENDS’ BURIAL-GROUND, WHITECHAPEL 143
33. WHITFIELD’S TABERNACLE 145
34. WESLEY’S MONUMENT 149
35. A CORNER OF THE JEWISH CEMETERY, 154
MILE END
36. JEWISH CEMETERY, FULHAM 158
37. JEWISH BURIAL-GROUND BEHIND BETH 160
HOLIM HOSPITAL
38. JEWISH CEMETERY, MILE END 161
39. FLEMISH GROUND, CARTER LANE, ABOUT 163
1817
40. EAST HILL BURIAL-GROUND, WANDSWORTH 169
41. CHRIST’S HOSPITAL CLOISTERS 172
42. THE LONDON HOSPITAL GRAVEYARD 175
43. CHELSEA HOSPITAL GRAVEYARD 177
44. VIEW FROM THE WHITE HORSE STREET 179
ALMSHOUSES, STEPNEY
45. THE BURIAL-GROUND IN NEWGATE GAOL 190
46. PEEL GROVE BURIAL-GROUND 198
47. VICTORIA PARK CEMETERY 199
48. VICTORIA PARK CEMETERY (MEATH 203
GARDENS)
49. ST. ANN’S CHURCHYARD, SOHO, IN 1810 211
50. BATTERSEA CHURCHYARD ABOUT 1830 221
51. ST. JAMES’S CHURCHYARD, PENTONVILLE 223
52. CHURCHYARD OF ST. GEORGE’S IN THE 229
EAST
53. ST. BOTOLPH, ALDGATE 234
54. ST. JOHN’S GARDEN, BENJAMIN STREET 239
55. ALLHALLOWS’, LONDON WALL 243
56. A CORNER OF ST. JOHN’S 247
BURIAL-GROUND, HORSEFERRY ROAD
57. PROPOSED CEMETERY, WORMWOOD SCRUBS 253
58. NORWOOD CEMETERY ABOUT 1851 254
59. TOMB OF PRINCESS SOPHIA 258
60. GROUP OF TOMBSTONES IN KENSAL GREEN 261
CEMETERY
61. SHEEP IN THE SAVOY CHURCHYARD ABOUT 268
1825
62. THE COLUMBARIUM AT KENSAL GREEN 271
63. SPA FIELDS PLAYGROUND 275
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
IN looking one day at Rocque’s plan of London (1742-5) I noticed how
many burial-grounds and churchyards were marked upon it which no longer
existed. I made a table of them, and traced their destiny, and the
result of this research was printed in the First Annual Report of the
Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, which was issued in 1884. I
then went further, and commenced to draw up a list of all the
burying-places, of which I could find any record, still existing, or
that had ever existed in London. It was no easy task. A return drawn up
by the late Sir Edwin Chadwick in 1843, for the use of the Parliamentary
Committee which sat to consider questions relating to the sanitary
condition of the labouring classes, contains a most valuable, though not
perfectly complete, table of the graveyards in actual use at that date.
Then there are the returns of the grounds closed by order in Council in
1853 and 1854, and still open for interments in 1855, which are also
very useful. There is a return, dated June, 1833, purporting to show all
the “Places of Burial belonging to each Parish or Precinct under the
Authority of the Bishop of London,” and all the “Places of Burial
belonging to Dissenting Congregations within the Bills of Mortality,”
&c., with their size, and the annual number of burials in them. This,
when I found it, I thought would be a great treasure, but I soon
discovered such entries as the following: “Three letters have been
addressed to the Officiating Ministers of the parishes of St. Benet,
Gracechurch, St. Martin, Ludgate, and St. Margaret, Westminster,
respectively; but no return has been received from either.” “The united
parishes of Allhallows, Bread Street, and St. John the Evangelist, not
being under the authority of the Bishop of London, I have not any return
to make.” “I beg to add that there are several other places used as
burial-grounds in this parish (Stepney) belonging to Jews, Dissenters,
and others, of which I have no official cognizance, and to which, in
fact, I have no access,” &c. And with regard, generally, to the second
part of the return, the following simple remark is made: “The Secretary
of State is not able to ascertain the Places of Burial belonging to
Dissenting congregations within the Bills of Mortality.” In 1839 Walker
described the condition of 47 of the most crowded metropolitan places of
interment, and the Parliamentary Committee which sat in 1842 heard
evidence about these and some others. In Maitland’s “History of London”
there is a list of 64 burial-places used in the year 1729, and not
included in the Bills of Mortality. Some of these are outside London,
and some are only vaults under buildings. I have also kept a list of
about fifty books which I found of use, although in many of them only a
few burial-grounds are mentioned or described. And this, with the
addition of various ancient and modern maps and plans of London and its
environs, is the material upon which I have had to work. But as it is
never safe to take anything on trust, nothing but actual perambulations
and inquiries on the spot could show the present size and condition of
the burial-grounds, and even several that are marked on the ordnance
maps have been built upon since they were published, as, for instance,
the German ground in the Savoy, the additional ground to St. Martin’s in
the Fields, and Thomas’ ground in Golden Lane, all of which have
disappeared.
I have had some curious experiences while graveyard-hunting. At first I
was less bold than I am now, and was hardly prepared to walk straight
into private yards and look round them until asked my business and
driven to retire. “My business” it is best not to reveal ordinarily. If
one mentions that one is looking at a place because it was once a
burial-ground the fact will generally be stoutly denied, and sometimes
in good faith. But it is not unusual for an employé innocently to
acknowledge that there are bones under the ground upon which he is
standing, whereat his master, if he knew of it, would be very angry. For
it must be remembered that it is to the interest of the owner of a yard
to keep the circumstance of its having been used for interments in the
background, and he is not pleased if, when he wants to put up a wall or
enlarge a shed, he is stopped from doing so by the enforcement of the
Disused Burial-Grounds Act of 1834, as amended by the Open Spaces Act of
1887.
I inquired of an old man once, in a court in Shoreditch, whether he
remembered a graveyard existing by the workhouse.
“No,” he said.
I noticed a newer part of the building, evidently a recently erected
wing, and asked him how long it had been built.
“Oh, I moind,” said he, “when they was buildin’ that, they carted away a
ton of bones.” Here was the evidence I was seeking for.
One day a sleepy old Smithfield butcher, whose work-time was the night,
and whose sleeping-time was the morning, was specially kept awake until
10 o’clock in order to see me, as he could remember the extent of a
certain burial-ground before it was done away with. The information he
was able to supply was very useful, but it was hard to keep him to the
point, as the poor old man, once roused to remember the past, would
persistently revert to the cottages which used to stand on the adjoining
plot of land, and which ought, he said, to have come into his own
possession if he had not been in some way defrauded out of his lawful
inheritance.
It is often necessary, in order to see a graveyard, to go into one of
the surrounding houses and ask for permission to look out from a back
window. Such permission is sometimes refused at once, sometimes it is
most kindly given. I remember arousing a divided opinion upon this
matter by knocking at the door of one of the upper rooms in the
almshouses in Bath Street. I wanted to see the ground used as a garden
by the inmates of the St. Luke’s Lunatic Asylum in Old Street, and which
was at one time a pauper burial-ground for the parish. The old man did
not at all like my invading his room, but the old lady was most affable,
and had much to say upon the subject. At any rate I saw what I wanted,
and made my mental report, but I left the old man grumbling at my
unnecessary intrusion, and the old lady in smiles. I hope she did not
suffer for her kindness.
If one asks to go into a burial-ground, it is generally imagined that
one wants to see a particular grave. I have been supposed to have “some
one lyin’ there” in all quarters of the metropolis, and in all sorts of
funny little places. I have been hailed as a sister by the quietest of
Quakeresses and the darkest of bewigged Jewesses, by the leanest and
most clean-shaven of ritualistic Priests, and by the bearded and buxom
Dissenter. I remember, however, knocking at the gate of one Jewish
ground which the caretaker was unwilling to let me enter. She asked me
the direct question, “Are you a Jewess?” I had to say no, but happily I
was armed with the name of a gentleman who had kindly told me to mention
it in any such difficulty. It answered, and I was allowed in. One day I
climbed a high, rickety fence in a builder’s yard in Wandsworth in order
to see over the wall into the Friends’ burial-ground. No doubt the men
in the place thought me mad,—anyhow they left me in peace.
I have often been assured that there is no possibility of a particular
enclosure ever becoming a public garden by those who live, at a low
rent, in the neighbouring cottage, on condition that they keep watch
over the ground. Alas, before many months are over, they find that the
wires have been pulled somehow or other, and that their precious yard is
no longer available for their fowls to run in or for their clothes to
dry in, but is invaded by their neighbours and their neighbour’s
unwelcome children. “They come four times a year to clear away the
weeds.” That is the sort of caretaking that some burial-grounds are
subjected to; and on the other 361 days in the year all sorts of rubbish
is deposited in them.
Twice I have had mud thrown at me, once by a woman in Cable Street, E.,
and once by a man in Silchester Road, W., but these were wholly
unprovoked attacks, in fact mere accidental occurrences. For my general
experience has been of the greatest consideration and politeness. I have
never been out of my way for the sake of idle curiosity, but have not
hesitated to go down any street or court or to knock at any door which
was in my way, and I have never had cause to regret it. An appearance of
utter insignificance and an air of knowing where you are going and what
you want, is the passport for all parts of London; and I have seen young
men and maidens, one moment indulging in the roughest play, the next
moment step off the pavement to let me pass. The clergy and others
always seem to think their own people the very worst. “You don’t know
what this neighbourhood is like,” I have heard over and over again, and
I am thankful I don’t. But as far as a superficial knowledge of the
streets goes they seem to be all much the same—north, south, east, and
west—and their frequenters too. To the children, at any rate, one need
never mind speaking. Poor little souls; they say “Miss,” or “Mum,” or
“Missus,” or “Teacher,” or “Sister,” or “Lady,” but they never answer
rudely.
Gravediggers and gardeners in cemeteries are generally communicative
people, who do not at all mind stopping their work for a bit, and
enlarging on the number of funerals, &c., which they daily witness. They
speak of the actual headstones and monuments by the surnames engraved
thereon, as, for instance, “Brown,” “Smith,” &c., and will point out a
particular grave as “four behind Smith over there, Smith is the tall
stone by the path; or if you look next to Wallace which has the shrub on
it,” and so on.
It is interesting to trace on maps of different dates the rise and fall
of a graveyard. First there is the actual field, which on some
particular day was acquired for the purpose. Then there is the
burial-ground formed and in use. Then the plot appears to be vacant—put
to no purpose, or used as a yard. Lastly buildings are on it, and the
graveyard has quite disappeared. One difficulty to be encountered needs
much study to overcome; it is the different names by which the same
ground is called in different books or plans. For instance, Chadwick
mentions in his list one called St. John’s, Borough, whereas the proper
name for this same ground is Butler’s burial-ground, Horselydown. As
another instance, and there are scores, it may be mentioned that the
Peel Grove burial-ground was called in some returns the North-east
London Cemetery, in others Cambridge Heath burial-ground, and in others
Keldy’s ground. Occasionally a graveyard is described as being “near the
free school,” or in some such vague terms, and it needs a knowledge of
the districts and the buildings in them, past and present, to be able to
locate some of these grounds which I have ventured to call “obscure.”
Since 1883, as complete a list as I could make of the London
burial-grounds has appeared in the Reports of the Metropolitan Public
Gardens Association, and I have, from time to time, been asked for
information about the more obscure ones. In the summer of 1894 the
London County Council instructed its Parks Committee to make a return of
all the burial-grounds existing in the County of London, with their
size, ownership, and condition. Having been applied to for information
and assistance, I offered to undertake the work. It involved some
additional research at the British Museum, and a fresh perambulation.
The offer being accepted I commenced the task in February, 1895, and
sent in the return in June, accompanied by 60 sheets of the ordnance
survey (25 inch to the mile), upon which the grounds were marked in
colours, viz., those still in use blue, those disused green, those
converted into public recreation grounds green with a red border. I gave
the number existing in the County and City of London as 362, of which 41
were still in use, and 90 were public gardens and playgrounds. This did
not include churches and chapels with vaults under them, but without
graveyards. It must also be remembered that the area was strictly
limited (as it is in this work) to that of the metropolitan boroughs, or
the administrative County of London with the City. The cemeteries in the
county do not represent all the parochial ones. There are, for instance,
those of St. George’s, Hanover Square, and Kensington at Hanwell, the
Paddington Cemetery in Kilburn, the Jewish at Willesden, and very many
more just outside the boundary, not to speak of a large number in what
is called “London over the Border,” which to all intents and purposes is
still London, although separated by the River Lea, and governed by the
West Ham Corporation.
The kindly notice taken of the return, which was published by the
Council in October, 1895, has encouraged me to prepare the present
volume, in which there is scope for a general view of the subject, for
further historical details, and for particulars of those grounds which
no longer exist.
The more public interest is brought to bear upon the burial-grounds, the
more likely is it that they will be preserved from encroachments. The
London County Council has special powers to put in force the provisions
of the Disused Burial-grounds Act, and it has the record of their actual
sites on the plans prepared by me. It is for the public to see that
these provisions are carried out, not only for historical, sentimental,
and sanitary reasons, but also because each burial-ground that is
curtailed or annihilated means the loss of another space which may one
day be available for public recreation; and considering that land, even
in the poorest part of Whitechapel, fetches about £30,000 per acre, it
is easily understood of what inestimable value is a plot of ground which
cannot be built upon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER I
BRITISH AND ROMAN BURIAL-PLACES.
“Where now the haughty Empire that was spread
With such fond hope? Her very speech is dead.”
WORDSWORTH.
EVERY chronicler of London history who can lay claim to be called an
antiquarian, from Fitzstephen, Stow, and Pennant, to the Rev. W. J.
Loftie and Sir Walter Besant, has tried to gather up the fragmentary
evidence which from time to time has come to light, and to form some
picture of the condition of London in the earliest times. Many have gone
in largely for invention, and have weaved what they supposed to be
circumstantial stories from discoveries of the most trivial kind, but
these fictions are not worthy of repetition. As it is only with the
evidences of the places of interment in London that this chapter has to
deal, it is not possible to go into the question of the Roman roads,
walls, villas, gardens and camps, of which traces have been found,
although these relics really form the most interesting of the ancient
remains, or “remarkables” as Maitland calls them, belonging to the
several parishes.
A few tumuli scattered over London are supposed to mark the sites of
British burial-places, Stukeley imagined he had discovered one by Long
Acre, but the evidence is not trustworthy. Certainly there are some
artificial mounds in Greenwich Park, which were opened in 1804 by the
Rev. James Douglas, and found to contain spear-heads, beads, pieces of
cloth, hair, &c., and there is the well-known one in Parliament Hill
Fields, Hampstead, which the London County Council excavated in 1894.
From the few broken pieces of human workmanship which were brought to
light in this excavation, it was conjectured that the mound was an
ancient British burial-place of the early bronze period, but no
particular name can be associated with it. It is now railed round for
its better protection, and planted with shrubs.
The Romans buried their dead outside their cities, often on each side of
the highways immediately beyond the walls and gates, and they adopted
this plan, to a certain extent, in Britain. But it must be remembered
that Roman London, as first designed and built, was far smaller than
that which is enclosed within the line of the city wall of which
fragments still remain, and therefore some sepulchral monuments have
been discovered inside this wall and its gates, as, for instance, near
St. Martin’s, Ludgate, in St. Paul’s Churchyard, in Camomile Street and
Lombard Street, and by the churches of St. Mary at Hill and St.
Dunstan’s in the East. Near Dowgate some excavations made by Wren
brought to light what were then thought to be British graves, but as
there were Roman urns at a still lower level the matter was rather
difficult of solution.
[Illustration: THE TUMULUS AT HAMPSTEAD.]
The largest number of sepulchral remains have been found on the east
side of the City, commencing at Bishopsgate and Moorfields, and
extending to Wapping on the south, and Sun Tavern Fields, Shadwell, on
the east; and it is not improbable that a cemetery of considerable size
occupied all this district in Roman times. In 1756 many earthen urns,
containing ashes, burnt human bones, and coins, were dug up in a field
“called Lottesworth, now Spitalfield,” close to the present site of
Christ Church, Spitalfields, together with some stone coffins and
remnants of wooden ones which probably dated from British or Saxon
times; and on many occasions during the last century, urns,
lachrymatories, monumental stones, &c., were discovered in different
spots in the district above mentioned. In many cases the monumental
stones were erected to the memory of soldiers from various legions of
the army, and on a few of them the inscriptions are still legible. Some
of the Roman remains discovered in London are in the Guildhall Museum;
the one represented in the accompanying picture, which was found near
Ludgate, is with the Arundel marbles at Oxford. A few single graves have
been identified among the traces of the gardens and villas which
immediately surrounded the Roman Fort.
The following description of what Sir Christopher Wren found in St.
Paul’s Churchyard, on the north side of the Cathedral, is interesting.
“Upon digging the foundation of the present fabrick of St. Paul’s, he
found under the graves of the latter ages, in a row below them, the
Burial-places of the Saxon times—the Saxons, as it appeared, were
accustomed to line their graves with chalk-stones, though some more
eminent were entombed in coffins of whole stones. Below these were
British graves, where were found ivory and wooden pins, of a hard wood,
seemingly box, in abundance, of about six inches long; it seems the
bodies were only wrapped up, and pinned in woollen shrouds, which being
consumed, the pins remained entire. In the same row, and deeper, were
Roman urns intermixed. This was eighteen feet deep or more, and belonged
to the colony when Romans and Britons lived and died together.” (From
Wren’s “Parentalia.”) The remains found in the north-east corner of the
churchyard were the best preserved.
[Illustration: ROMAN MONUMENT.]
Some evidences of a Roman cemetery have also been discovered on the
south side of the Thames, in Snow’s Fields, Bermondsey, Union Street,
Newington, and the burial-ground in Deverell Street. This district was
probably the place of interment for those who lived in the small suburb
which was growing up on the south side of the Bridge or Ferry. On
Blackheath there have also been found traces of Roman burial, and in
1803 several urns were dug up in the Earl of Dartmouth’s garden, but
they were supposed by some authorities to be the remains of the Danes
who were encamped in that neighbourhood.
Such are the very scanty traces that have hitherto been brought to light
relating to the burial-places of those who were amongst the worthiest
pioneers in the making of London, and who occupied it before the time of
the Christians who founded the earlier priories and churches. For as
soon as these Christian institutions were established, it became the
practice to bury the dead inside them or around them, and the cloisters
and burial-grounds of the priories, and the churchyards and vaults of
the churches, took the place of the more distant cemeteries and the more
scattered graves.
Roman London is buried with British, Saxon, and Danish London, far below
the surface of nineteenth-century London, and Longfellow might have been
writing its epitaph when he described the ruins under the sea—
“Hidden from all mortal eyes
Deep the sunken city lies;
Even cities have their graves!”
The dedications of the London churches mark historical periods, and
there are a few names, such as St. Olave and St. Magnus, which are of
Danish derivation, but of the Danish interments in London very few
traces remain. Beyond the remnants found at Blackheath, and the belief
held by some chroniclers that the church of St. Clement Danes was so
named because it stood in a plot of ground where the Danes were buried,
only one discovery of any importance has been made. On the south side of
St. Paul’s Churchyard, in digging the foundation for a new warehouse a
few years ago, a relic was found with the following Runic inscription on
it, which Mr. Loftie thinks must have belonged to an early stage of the
Danish conquest, “Kina caused this stone to be laid over Tuki.” A
tradition used to prevail in Fulham that human remains, which have been
discovered at different times in the neighbourhood of the river, were
survivals of the Danish invasion, although the actual skeletons found
there in 1809 (on the property of the Earl of Cholmondeley) seemed, from
coins, daggers, &c., which were with them, to belong to the time of
Charles I.
------------------------------------------------------------------------