BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

Edited by david J. H. Smith, M.a., F.S.a. and Jill Barlow, M.a.

COnTEnTS

Notes

30. Simon Basset of Uley (d. 1363–4) and lineage adoption Bridget Wells-Furby

31. Myth creation at Berkeley Castle: the Trevisa Bible which never was david Smith

32. a post-medieval pipe tamper from Winchcombe rediscovered alan Saville

33. The Bristol new Church Martin Crossley Evans

34. Table tombs in Berkeley churchyard Gerard Leighton

Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 132 (2014), 237–248

238 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

nOTES

30 Sir Simon Basset of Uley (d. 1364–5) and

lineage adoption

In a paper published in 2007, the author speculated on the paternity of Sir Simon Basset of Uley (d. 1364–5), who was a royal household knight, played a prominent role in Gloucestershire in the mid 14th century and founded a long-lived county family.1 The difficulty with Sir Simon is that, although he bore the Basset name, had sons who were called John and Edmund and eventually came to hold a considerable part of the estate of Sir John Basset and his brother and heir Sir Edmund (d. 1311), he cannot have been a legitimate son of either of them as the heirs on Sir Edmund’s childless death were his three sisters: Isabel, widow of John Punchardoun, Margaret wife of Sir nicholas de Valers (d. c.1315), and Katherine, widow of John Biset (d. 1307). Of these three, Katherine Biset had issue, Margaret de Valers probably did not, and nothing more is known of Isabel Punchardoun.2 according to a 15th-century pedigree, Simon was the son of Isabel, but this seemed unreliable and the author suggested that he may have been a bastard son of either Sir John or Sir Edmund Basset. Since that time further evidence of Simon’s ancestry has come to light and in a lawsuit of 1362 Simon himself described himself as the son of Isabel.3 This would seem to be conclusive. although no longer of interest as a bastard who made a successful career for himself, Simon is still of interest as an example of ‘lineage adoption’.

It was not unusual for individuals of undistinguished background who came into possession of lands belonging to a more prestigious lineage to ‘adopt’ that lineage by taking on its name and arms, as well as the lands. name, arms, and land constituted the three principal elements of the concept of lineage and together bestowed a particular and much-prized lustre on the present representative.4 Such adoptions were made most frequently by sole heirs.5 In some cases, sole heirs might adopt the arms but not the name, thus gaining the benefit of the more visible element

1. B. Wells-Furby, ‘Tenants of the lordship of Berkeley in the late Middle ages’ in J. Bettey (ed.), Archives and Local History in Bristol and Gloucestershire: Essays in Honour of David Smith (BGaS, 2007), 53–9. He died between Easter 1364 and Easter 1365: E. Green (ed.), Pedes Finium … for the County of Somerset, 1347–99 (Som. Rec. Soc. 17, 1902) [Som. Fines 1347–99], 188–9.

2. Margaret and nicholas alienated the reversion of his manor of down ampney in 1313 and in 1318 she granted the reversion of at least part of her Basset inheritance to her sister Katherine and her issue (see below): C.R. Elrington (ed.), Abstracts of Feet of Fines Relating to Gloucestershire, 1300–1359 (Glos. Rec. Series 20, 2006) [Glos. Fines 1300–59], nos. 207, 336.

3. The national archives [Tna], CP 40/411, m. 59.4. For this and other aspects of the adoption of lineages, see B. Wells-Furby ‘The Lineage Culture in

Fourteenth-Century England’ (forthcoming in Nottingham Medieval Studies).5. For instance, nicholas newbaud changed his name to Huntercombe on inheriting the lands of his uncle

Walter de Huntercombe in 1313, and John Hillary adopted the name of Grey (of Sandiacre), he being the grandson of Sir William Grey (d. 1369) and inheriting Grey’s lands on the death of his mother alice, wife of Sir Edward Hillary (d. 1362): Complete Peerage, VI, 167–8, 632–6.

BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES 239

of the previous lineage but retaining their own name,6 and this partial adoption is also found in coheirs who had not inherited the whole of the estate in question.7 nevertheless, full adoptions, i.e. of both name and arms, were made by coheirs. Ralph de Gorges (d. 1334–43), who had three sisters but no son, attempted to settle his entire estate on the younger sons of his sister Eleanor, wife of Sir Theobald Russell (d. 1341), in successive tail male; this failed, probably because of earlier settlements in tail general, but nevertheless his nephew Theobald Russell did come into possession of the manors of Wraxall (Som.), Knighton (Hants.), Braunton (devon) and thereupon adopted the name and arms of Gorges.8

Simon Basset’s position was similar to that of Theobald Russell in that he inherited only a third part of the Basset estate, although there is no evidence that his uncles Sir John or Sir Edmund had tried to ensure that the whole passed to him, nor that he was a younger son of his father. The estate included the manors of Winford, Saltford, High Littleton, Rodney Stoke, and Hinton Blewett (Som.) and lands in Uley, Cam, Coaley, Owlpen, and elsewhere in Gloucestershire. Simon Basset held property which was described as third parts of the manors of Winford, Saltford, and Littleton9 and also held lands in Uley, Cam, Owlpen, and elsewhere. It would seem that Margaret de Valers alienated her purparty, chiefly to her sister Katherine Biset who married secondly Sir Walter Romsey (d. 1333).10 By a fine of October 1318 Margaret settled property in Cam, Uley, and Baunton (Glos.), and in Winford, Ragel, dundry, Cranmore, and Calecote (Som.) on herself for life with remainders to the Romseys.11 Thomas Lord Berkeley registered his claim to these lands at the time in the usual way by an endorsement on this fine. This is not surprising as in the previous June Margaret had granted to Thomas all her property in Cam and Coaley in exchange for a rent of 30s. and a cash sum.12 On 1 October Margaret and Thomas had agreed that she would grant to Thomas all her property in Cam and Coaley which were to be re-granted to her for her life, and on 11 november 1319 Margaret granted to Thomas all the property in Cam and Coaley which she held of Thomas for her life.13 Thomas was close kin to Simon as he was a first cousin of Simon’s mother Isabel and it seems likely that this property later passed to the Bassets as the

6. For instance, the Somerys adopted the Paynel arms, or, two lions passant azure on inheriting the estate of Paynel of dudley: ibid. XII(1), 109.

7. The Gorges adopted the Moreville arms lozengy or and azure in the latter 13th century after the marriage of Ralph (d. 1271) to Ellen, daughter and coheir of Ivo de Moreville, and Sir Walter de Fauconberg (d. 1318), son of the eldest coheir of Peter de Brus of Skelton, adopted the Brus arms, argent, a lion rampant azure: ibid. V, 267; VI, 9.

8. Wells-Furby, ‘The Lineage Culture’. His right to the arms was challenged by Sir John Warbleton and Theobald was obliged to adopt a difference.

9. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem [Cal Inq. p.m.] XV, 465–6; Calendar of Close Rolls [Cal. Close] 1389–92, 134; 1399–1402, 250; Feudal Aids, IV, 347, 357.

10. note that the account of Katherine and her issue given earlier, which followed that given in Victoria County History [VCH] Hants. IV, 583, is erroneous. Katherine Basset married first John Biset and secondly Sir Walter Romsey. Sir Walter’s son and heir John Romsey, evidently by an earlier wife, married Katherine’s daughter Margaret Biset by January 1317; Margaret was the heir of her brother John Biset (d. 1333) and married secondly Robert Martin, but her Biset and Basset lands descended to the Romseys: B. Wells-Furby (ed.), A Catalogue of the Medieval Muniments at Berkeley Castle (Glos. Rec. Series 17–18, 2004) [Berkeley Castle Mun.], a2/65/1 [GC2767]; VCH Hants. IV, 333; Cal. Chart. 1346–9, 20; E. Green (ed.), Pedes Finium … for the County of Somerset, 1307–46 (Som. Rec. Soc. 12, 1898) [Som. Fines 1307–46], 62, 118, 189; E. Green (ed.), Pedes Finium … for the County of Somerset, 1399–1461 (Som. Rec. Soc. 22, 1906) [Som. Fines 1399–1461], 166; Tna, CP 40/411, m. 59.

11. Glos. Fines 1300–1359, 336.12. Berkeley Castle Mun. a1/14/19 [GC2241/2242].13. Ibid. SB10 f. 33d. [no. 699]; a1/14/20 [GC2291].

240 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

June 1318 charter was in the possession of Simon’s descendent William Basset in 1606.14 The Romseys retained the additional third of Winford and also probably obtained Margaret’s portion of Saltford as they later held two-thirds of these two manors.15 In 1317 Katherine and Walter de Romsey sold a third part of the manor of Rodney Stoke.16 There is no evidence of a later Basset presence in Rodney Stoke or Hinton Blewett, but Simon also recovered the moiety of the manor of Uley which had been granted by Thomas I Lord Berkeley to his daughter Margaret, later wife of Sir anselm Basset, but had been alienated.17

It is not known when Isabel Punchardoun died and Simon inherited her portion of the estate, but he had adopted the Basset name by March 1323 when he was identified as being ‘of Gloucestershire’.18 His father John cannot be certainly identified. He may have been related to Oliver de Punchardon (d. 1323), of Faccombe and Ellingham (Hants.) and Stanford dingley (Berks.),19 but he does not seem to have held any land in his own right and no evidence has come to light that Simon inherited any land from him.20 Probably, therefore, he owed his landed position entirely to his Basset mother. It is not surprising that he adopted her lineage and, in these circumstances, it would be expected that he would also adopt her family’s arms. This he did, but in a curious way. The arms of Sir John Basset and his father Sir anselm were Ermine, on a chief indented gules three mullets or, and those of Sir Edmund were Ermine, on a chief indented gules three escallops or, i.e. a conventionally differenced version for the younger son.21 Simon’s arms appear in the famous east window of Bristol cathedral and on his seal to a charter of 1335.22 The arms (untinctured) on the seal are Ermine, on a canton a mullet while the arms in the window are Ermine, on a canton gules a mullet pierced or.23 He did not bear the Basset arms, nor even a conventionally differenced version, but nevertheless they bore a strong resemblance, simply exchanging the chief and three mullets for a canton and one mullet. Simon’s adoption of the Basset lineage therefore provides an interesting nuance to the phenomenon of lineage adoption.

BRIdGET WELLS-FURBY

14. Property in Cam and Uley was among the Glos. property settled by Simon on his sons and among that held by Eleanor de Romsey in 1386 and 1403: E. Stokes (ed.), Gloucestershire Inquisitions Post Mortem VI, 1359–1413 (Brit. Rec. Soc. 47, 1914), 140–1; Cal. Inq. p.m. XVI, 798; Cal. Close 1385–9, 118; Som. Fines 1399–1461, 166.

15. Glos. Fines 1300–1359, 336; Cal. Close 1385–9, 118; Som. Fines 1307–46, 62, 189; Som. Fines 1399–1461, 166.

16. Som. Fines 1307–46, 62, 64.17. Wells-Furby, ‘Tenants of lordship of Berkeley’, 53, 56–7. 18. Calendar of Fine Rolls 1319–27, 163; Cal. Close 1323–7, 73.19. G.J. Brault, Aspilogia III: The Rolls of Arms of Edward I (London, 1997), II, 354; VCH Berks. IV, 111; VCH

Hants. IV, 315, 563.20. The husbands of Isabel’s two sisters were of very different status, John Biset belonging to a well-established

landed family while nicholas de Valers appears to have held only the manor of down ampney.21. Brault, Rolls of Arms, II, 32–3. The Punchardouns of Faccombe bore sable semy of roundels argent: ibid.

354. 22. Berkeley Castle Mun. a1/14/29 [GC2833]; F. Were ‘Bristol cathedral heraldry’, Trans. BGAS 25 (1902),

103.23. The mullet is not visibly pierced on the seal.

BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES 241

Tho

mas

I L

ord

Ber

kele

y d.

124

3

Tho

mas

II

Lor

d B

erke

ley

M

atth

ew

J

oan

d. 1

321

dsp

130

9

d

sp 1

284–

95

Mau

rice

II

Lor

d B

erke

ley

Sir

Joh

n 1.

m

M

arga

ret B

erke

ley

m.2

S

ir A

nsel

m B

asse

t

d. 1

281

F

itzM

atth

ew

d

. 128

0

d. 1

261

Sir

John

Sir

Edm

und

Isa

bel B

asse

t m.

Mar

gare

t m.

? 1

. Wal

ter

2.m

.

Kat

heri

ne m

. 1

. Joh

n B

iset

Bas

set

B

asse

t

Joh

n P

unch

ardo

un

N

icol

as d

e

R

omse

y

B

asse

t

d

. 130

7

dsp

dsp

1311

V

aler

s

d. 1

333

SIR

SIM

ON

BA

SSE

T

Jo

hn R

omse

y 1.

m.

Mar

gare

t m.2

. Rob

ert M

arti

n

Joh

n B

iset

d

sp 1

333

Ped

igre

e of

Bas

set

242 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

31 Myth creation at Berkeley Castle: the Trevisa Bible which never was

John Trevisa was appointed chaplain to Thomas IV Lord Berkeley in 1379. Under his patronage Trevisa translated several standard works from Latin into English, such as Higden’s Polychronicon in 1387. Because he is a figure of national importance, many people have tried (in vain) to find documents about him in the Castle and myths have grown up about what he did while he was there. among these is the idea that he translated the Bible from Latin into English, or even French, for which there is no credible evidence.

The first author to make this claim was William Caxton when he published Trevisa’s translation of Higden’s Polychronicon about a century after its completion. He also introduced the error that it was completed in 1357. John Bale, bishop of Ossory, followed these errors in his Scriptorum Illustrium majoris Britanniae…(1557–9). Bale’s statements were repeated by John Smyth.24 In a further contribution to the burgeoning myth, later denizens of the Castle claimed that Trevisa was responsible for translating into French the version of the apocalypse which was still partly visible on the walls and ceiling of the chapel of St Mary in Berkeley Castle, now the Morning Room, until about 1805. This is impossible on two counts: firstly the ‘translation’ is in fact a commentary which was written before the end of the 13th century, and secondly Trevisa’s known translations are all into English.

another addition to the myth arose from the draft letter of the 1st Earl of Berkeley to Cosimo III de Medici, among the Berkeley castle muniments, appended to this note.25 Cosimo III de Medici, Grand duke of Tuscany, was a noted collector of manuscripts. Tuscany was a key staging-post in trading routes to the East, with which the 1st Earl was deeply involved. The Earl’s hand is difficult to read, and the document on which the letter is written is an excellent example of this, not least because it contains two different drafts intermingled throughout a single bifolium. In the draft of the first letter the only words legible to the inexperienced eye are ‘Bible’ and what appears at first sight to be ‘Treviso’. as a result this draft was thought to be a covering note for a Bible translated by John Trevisa, being presented by the Earl to James, duke of York. This cannot be correct as it mentions Sir William Trumbal’s embassy to Turkey. He left England in april 1687 by which time James was King. also the letter refers to the author’s king as a different person from the one to whom the letter is directed. Furthermore the letter explains that the Bible had been given to the Earl’s grandmother, Elizabeth Lady Berkeley, some 60 years before, so it had not been part of the historic contents of the Castle.

The myth promoted by Smyth and developed by this letter continues to flourish and bear strange fruit. For with no reason that the present writer can discover, the non-existent Trevisa Bible supposedly given to James II was believed later to have been presented to the Pope. Indeed one Gloucestershire historian visited the Vatican Library while on holiday and asked to see the Bible; not surprisingly his request was declined!

daVId SMITH

24. Sir J. Maclean (ed.), Lives of the Berkeleys by John Smyth (BGaS, 1883), 343–45.25. The present writer is indebted to dr Robert Beddard for identifying the intended recipients of these

letters and for information about them.

BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES 243

SLI/27: draft letters from George, 1st Earl of Berkeley [1687]

Words between < > have been inserted above the line. Line breaks are shown by /

1st letter (from halfway down page 1)

May it please your most serene /Highnes /I rejoyce very much to have /so good an opertunity as this is by /Sr William Trumbal who is to /waite of yr highnes before he goes /on his Embassie into Turky to /present my most humble service /to yr most serene Highnes by letter /and to assure yr Highnes that next /to that duty I owe his Gratious /[page 2] Maiestie my Kg and [most cancelled] to whom /I have ye honor to be a sworne /servant and privy Counsellor /I esteeme and honor yr Highnes /above al princes in Chtendome/a prince of yr greate worth /and Exemplary piety can never /be enough valued and honored /besides ye Obligations that I /and my family have received /from yr most serene highnes are /so greate [and numerous cancelled] that /we ought to make it ye study /of our Lives [to cancelled] how we may best /make our acknowledgements, and /be most capable of serving yr /Highnes: Sr I humbly beg /[page 4] yr Highnes pardon for presuming /to make a present to yr highnes. /Tis an ancient [Bib cancelled] collection / of some part of ye Bible wch /was presented to [a cancelled] Grandmother /[of mine cancelled] about 60 years past /and has bin carefully preserved /neare 400 :. I should not have /bin guilty of such a presentation /but that I was assured by [illegible cancellations] / wil be now / Returning for yr owne cuntry yet /I would not omit this opertunity of /presenting my most humble service /to yr lordsp and assuring you of my /readines to serve you upon al /[proper cancelled] occasions: I am sorry Mr Coke /has misdemeaned towards yr lordsp/I believe yr lordsp will find very /sensible of his faultes and [most cancelled] /[ready to cancelled] ask your lordsps pardon in /a very humble manner and having /don so not only our Turky Cumpany /but I doe in particular intercede /for him to your lordsp that you will /be pleased to restore him to yr /[top of page 1] favour and to his Employment /wch I shall esteeme a great /[favour cancelled] donne to my lord /

Yr lordsps [very cancelled] affectionate

and very faythful servant

Berkeley

244 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

32a post-medieval pipe tamper from Winchcombe rediscovered

When the 1977 excavation of multi-period remains from north Street, Winchcombe, came to be written up and published in this journal, I included the following cryptic note on page 126 under the section ‘The Other Metal Objects’:

... it must be noted that a small (c.60 mm long), anthropomorphic, bronze figurine was recovered during levelling from the fill of context F2, and was apparently a contemporary grave-good accompanying the unidentified burial left in situ ... It is unfortunate to have to record that this figurine was lost soon after being taken off site, before any specialist examination or illustration was possible, and therefore no further comment can be made on this potentially important find.

after having disappeared from sight for over 30 years, the object was rediscovered in 2012 by ann-Rachael Harwood and Terry Moore-Scott during a cataloguing exercise associated with the movement of collections prior to the development of a new extension at Cheltenham art Gallery and Museum. It had retained a label with the code Wn77, which ann-Rachael correctly identified as referring to my 1977 Winchcombe site, and she kindly forwarded the information to me about the surprise reappearance of this ‘lost’ find (Fig. 1).

Having no clear memory of the object, which had not been sketched or photographed, it was a shock to see on screen the image emailed by ann-Rachael. Clearly this was the object referred to in the 1985 report and, if viewed as in Fig. 1, then it can be seen, albeit with some fertile imagination and fresh from the ground, as a schematic human figurine with a flat head, at least one large eye, elongated neck, triangular body, two legs and two feet! Equally clearly, however, this vision of the nature of the artefact did not stand up to any objective scrutiny, especially given the supposed contextual association with a cemetery of the first millennium ad.

Fortunately, two of my colleagues at national Museums Scotland – alice Blackwell and Stuart Campbell – were able very quickly to point me in the direction of the true identity of the object as a pipe tamper or stopper, i.e. an essential pipe-smoker’s tool for packing or tamping-down and adjusting the tobacco in a pipe bowl.26 although any suitably shaped and sized object can be used for the purpose, from the very first spread of clay-pipe smoking throughout Britain in the late 16th and early 17th centuries specially manufactured tampers were produced in various materials and a plethora of designs.

The Winchcombe example (Fig. 2), of cast copper-alloy, is in the three-dimensional form of a set or pair of bellows. The point of the nozzle of the bellows has been expanded into the bulbous foot of the tamper, which has an incised groove just above the base. From there the tube tapers before expanding to a four-ringed section below the boards of the bellows. The central section is triangular in one dimension, with three vertical grooves representing the folded leather or fabric of the actual bellows between the boards, and the boards are oval and plain in the other dimension. Extending from the top of the boards are two handles, now slightly bent out of alignment, which have swollen terminals.

The tamper is in a somewhat corroded state, and is shown in the photographs in an un-conserved condition. The dimensions are: length 54 mm; width 15 mm; thickness 10 mm; and the diameter of the tamper terminal is 9 mm. The weight is 16 g.

26. I. noël Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (new York, 1991), 310–11.

BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES 245

Similar examples of this bellows type of tamper have appeared as recent metal-detected finds on the Portable antiquities Scheme database (http://finds.org.uk) from Buckinghamshire (BH-14C4a2), London (LOn-3E0CF6), and East and West Sussex (HaMP-0B5B01; SUSS-7028a5; SUSS-94d327), though none of these is an exact stylistic match for what must have been a common and popular tamper style, the bellows iconography having an obvious relevance to the function of the tamper in keeping the tobacco in the pipe alight. The bellows tamper form is not, as far as I am aware, closely datable, other than broadly to the period 1600–1750, associated in its use of course with the smoking of clay tobacco pipes. Unlike the fragile pipes, which were easily damaged and readily disposable, the copper-alloy tamper was a ‘smoker’s friend’ which would have remained serviceable for as long as an owner desired and could even become a cross-generational heirloom, before eventual discard or loss.

In conclusion, it needs to be clarified that, despite the initial supposition (see above), this find obviously was not associated with the unexcavated burial,27 which is almost certainly of the first millennium ad, as were the adjacent excavated graves. The precise find-spot co-ordinates of the object were not recorded; it could have been in the upper fill of the grave, having become incorporated by subsequent disturbance or simply through bioturbation, especially given its relatively heavy weight, but effectively it has to be regarded as an unstratified find, though chronologically in keeping with other post-medieval artefacts from this site.

aLan SaVILLE

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to ann-Rachael Harwood and Terry Moore-Scott for bringing this find to my attention, for supplying the measurement details and initial photograph (Fig. 1), and for arranging

27. F2 on fig. 2 in a.Saville, ‘Salvage recording of Romano-British, Saxon, medieval and post-medieval remains at north Street, Winchcombe, Gloucestershire’, Trans. BGAS 103 (1985), 101–39.

Fig. 1. The Winchcombe pipe tamper viewed as a ‘figurine’. Photo ©Cheltenham art Gallery and Museum.

Fig. 2. The Winchcombe pipe tamper viewed from six directions, with a scale in cm and mm. Image ©Kurt adams.

246 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

for the accompanying multi-view photograph (Fig. 2), which was kindly supplied by Kurt adams. It is very pleasing to have been able to correct the archaeological record in this matter, thanks to the safety-net provided by continuing curatorial expertise at Cheltenham art Gallery and Museum.

33 The Bristol new Church

Emanuel Baron von Swedenborg (1688–1772), a mystic and Swedish polymath, wrote theses on mining, calculus, algebra, smelting, decimalization, sluices, docks, longitude, tides, saltworks, the theory of creation, Opera Philosophica et Mineralia (3 vols, 1734), human anatomy, and physiology. The latter part of his long life was spent on theological speculation, writing, printing and expostulation, in Stockholm, London and amsterdam. His Heavenly Arcana (1749–56) outlines the spiritual background of Genesis and Exodus, and was the basis of his theological teaching. In 1757 he claimed to have witnessed the Last Judgement, whilst in the Spiritual World, which he described as consisting of three heavens and three hells. He denied the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, and believed that he was in constant contact with the dead through the medium of the spiritual world. His theological works were translated from Latin into English and published in 40 volumes during his lifetime.

Swedenborg did not found a church, but one of his disciples, a Clerkenwell bookseller and printer, Robert Hindmarsh (1759–1835), organized his followers into a denomination in 1783 self-styled: ‘The new Church, signified by the new Jerusalem in the Revelation’.

The Bristol congregation or ‘Society’ was one of the first to be established in England and was opened in June 1792. It appointed Revd Robert Brant of Birmingham as its first minister. The Society had a troubled history of debt and theological division, and by the time the church in Silver Street, adjoining the Bridewell, was destroyed in the Bristol riots in 1831, the Society was, in effect, moribund.

at the time of the annual Conference of the new Church held at Bath in 1845, Revd dr Jonathan Bayley (1810–86), one of the Society’s most popular preachers, lectured to an audience estimated at over a thousand, in the assembly Rooms, Prince Street, Bristol. as a result of his efforts the Society was revived and its members opened a place of worship in Lodge Street. From here the members later transferred firstly to rented rooms in the Triangle, Queen’s Road (1860–7), and later to the Odd Fellows’ Hall, Rupert Street. It was not until 1878 that the Society, then numbering some 35 members, opened its first permanent church in Terrell Street. Initially a ‘tin tabernacle’ was erected with a stone façade; vestries were added later. The Society grew slowly until membership reached 50 and by 1891 it was planning to build a new church on the existing site to house 350 worshippers. By 1898 when the membership had reached 70 the Board of the Bristol Royal Infirmary agreed to purchase the site of the church to enable them to enlarge the hospital. With the proceeds the Society purchased a vacant plot of land in Cranbrook Road, Bishopston and erected Immanuel church, which was opened on 25 december 1899.

The church flourished for almost 20 years. In 1917 there were 75 pupils in the Sunday School and an active choir. Unfortunately, this period of growth was followed in the 1920s by a decline in the number of young people attending the church, although it still had a Ladies’ League and a Girl Guide troop. In 1939 the Society’s membership stood at 40, but was increasingly elderly

BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES 247

and concentrated around a small number of families. a further decline in the membership in Bristol, and at the Henry Street Chapel in Bath (sold in 1980 to Bath University) led to the creation of a joint pastorate in 1953, which later included Ynysmeudwy in Wales. The Bristol Society was sustained by the work of retired ministers and a small number of dedicated and long-serving officers. Between four and six attendees continued to worship at the church in Cranbrook Road until the autumn of 2013, when some 168 years after the re-founding of the Bristol Society following dr Bayley’s lecture in the assembly Rooms, the church finally closed. The surviving papers of the society and the remains of the library together with its handwritten 19th-century library catalogues were deposited in the Special Collections of the University of Bristol in december 2013 by dr Robert andrew Gilbert (Ba Bristol, 1964), one of the surviving Trustees, where they are available for study (dM 2624).

M. J. CROSSLEY EVanS

Sources:

arrowsmith’s Dictionary of Bristol (1884, 1906).M. J. Crossley Evans, ‘dr. Jonathan Bayley: the Swedenborgian church in accrington’, in B. dobson (ed.),

An Accrington Mixture (Blackpool, 1995), 27–9. n. Marchant, ‘Like a Great River Flowing’: The Story of the Bristol Society of the New Church (privately printed,

Bristol, 1999).

34 Table Tombs in Berkeley Churchyard

On the morning of the 2013 aGM at Berkeley Castle there was an opportunity to see the conservation work carried out on the table tombs in Berkeley churchyard. There are over 140, of which 97 are ‘listed’ by English Heritage and a number date from the 17th century. Graham O’Hare, the specialist stone conservator in charge of the project, conducted a party of some 15 members around the tombs, which have been put in good order, and described their construction, the details of which few were aware. Typically the tombs stand on top of a brick-lined shaft averaging over 12 ft (3.7 m) deep, which is often slightly shaped to follow the pattern of the coffin as the monument itself may have a smaller footprint to that of the shaft. The top of the shaft is sealed by stone slabs and the table tomb erected thereon. The sides of the tomb were originally joined by lime mortar and iron clamps inserted at the corners to give greater stability to which the ledger stone that formed the lid further contributed. When an interment took place the tomb had to be dismantled, the space around the coffin was back-filled with earth and above the coffin iron bars were inserted across the vault to form a base for the next interment. To rebuild the tomb the iron corner clamps on the chest needed to be replaced. Often such replacements were not an exact match with those that had been removed, evidenced by the different holes it had been necessary to drill in the stone sides and ends to take different sized clamps.

The problems that attach to table tombs of this nature are three-fold. Firstly constant dismantling of the tomb meant damage and it was not always rebuilt accurately; secondly the slabs that sealed the top of the vault are not always of sufficient size and quality to take the weight of the tomb, especially when the tomb is smaller than the shaft and the best slabs have been used to

248 BRISTOL and GLOUCESTERSHIRE nOTES and QUERIES

cover the top of the shaft beyond that used for the table tomb and its plinth; and lastly collapse of brickwork within the shaft which might have little support from unconsolidated back-fill. These problems can lead to the tomb becoming destabilized and collapsing inwards.

The conservation work involved dismantling the tomb down to the sealing slabs, ensuring that these are set on sound brickwork and are themselves sound and adequate. The tomb is then re-erected and stainless steel clamps substituted for rusting iron which has or threatens to break the stone into which it is set.

Most interestingly it is clear from damaged fragments in a collapse that have been buried from sight that some tombs were originally brightly painted.

The late Canon Gethyn Jones, for many years vicar of Berkeley and past President and Honorary Member of this Society, regularly visited the Berkeley Settlement area of Virginia USa where he would act as select preacher at Thanksgiving day services. He noticed in an archaeological project on the cemetery at the site of the settlement that there were rows of nails down the centre of burials, presumably from coffins long since decayed. He realised that these showed that gable-lidded coffins were used: such can be seen on the St John Polyptych of c.1619 at Lydiard Tregoze (Wilts.) and on a monument at East Brent (Som.). Presumably this was a custom that the settlers would have brought with them from Berkeley, but the present work on the table tombs has carefully avoided disturbing the burials so no evidence of such practice has emerged to confirm this. One may also ask how many burials there might be in a typical shaft below a table tomb. an inscription on one tomb records six adults – perhaps the maximum for a 14ft-deep shaft.

GERaRd LEIGHTOn