Sectional Preface
Other Buildings


English Heritage


Year published


Supporting documents




Comment on this article
Double click anywhere on the text to add an annotation in-line

Citation Show another format:

'Sectional Preface: Other Buildings', An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of Cambridge (1959), pp. LXXXVIII-XCVIII. URL: Date accessed: 18 April 2014. Add to my bookshelf


(Min 3 characters)

Nonconformist Chapels

Architecturally the pre-1850 Nonconformist Chapels in Cambridge are not of particular note; five are now put to other uses and much altered accordingly. Only two are late 18th-century buildings; of these the Friends' Meeting House (Monument (72)) has been almost completely remodelled and the former Emmanuel Congregational Church (Monument (71)), which retains a simple pedimented front of some dignity, has been modernised inside. The rest are of the 19th century and include two of interest in relation to the Evangelical movement. One of the leading evangelicals of the time was the Rev. Charles Simeon (1759–1836), Fellow of King's College, vicar of Holy Trinity for more than half a century, who was the centre of the society which made Cambridge a double star with Clapham. Henry Battiscombe, who became a Fellow of the same College in 1823, was curate to Simeon's co-adjutor, the vicar of St. Giles with St. Peter, an evangelical church; he resigned his curacy and forfeited his Fellowship to become a dissenting minister at the Calvinistic Baptist Providence Chapel (Monument (70)) and thence founded Zion Baptist Chapel (Monument (67)) opened in 1838. The disabilities laid upon Dissenters had been removed only shortly before (fn. 1) and in 1837 it could be said 'in this place (Cambridge) the Dissenters are, by comparison with other towns, numerous, wealthy and influential, witness our Municipal elections, nearly half the Town Council and the Mayor belonging to that body' (Cambridge Chronicle 15 April).

Yet something of the financial difficulty in providing chapel buildings earlier in the decade is shown in the account of Providence in the Inventory. At Zion the property was vested in Battiscombe, money was lent on the security of the property, and thereafter Battiscombe insured his life to provide security; but this in 1837 may perhaps be ascribed as much to an autocratic attitude imbibed with his training for the Establishment and totally at variance with the Baptist democratic tradition as to financial policy. In 1844 he rejoined the Established Church. Herein is an epitome of early 19th-century enthusiasm, in reaction to 18th-century rationalism. Thereafter Zion was vested in trustees and constituted as a Church of 'Evangelical Protestant Dissenters of the Particular Baptist Denomination holding the Principles of Open Communion'. The former Providence and Zion Chapels are also of educational interest, for both contain basements in which Nonconformist schools were held.


The schools in Cambridge earlier than 1850, like the Nonconformist Chapels, are utilitarian buildings generally devoid of much architectural quality and more or less altered and enlarged or alienated to other uses. Of the original structure of the old Perse School (Monument (97)) completed in 1624 the fine timber hammer-beam roof alone remains visible, the only one of its kind in the city. The elementary school buildings, all of the 19th century, are interesting on sociological grounds. In 1808 the undenominational Lancasterian School system, out of which grew the British and Foreign School Society, was established (fn. 2) ; this was rivalled in 1811 when the National Society (fn. 3) adopted a similar system for Church of England teaching, the system consisting of several hundred children being taught by senior pupils in classes of sixty or eighty. Most of the schools were supported by voluntary contributions and low fees. The former Pound Hill School (Monument (99)) built in 1810–1 is illustrative in this context; it was established as a Lancasterian school (fn. 4) ; in 1813 the governors considered uniting it with the National Society (fn. 5) ; across the front is inscribed 'Free School supported by voluntary contributions'. It consists of a large schoolroom 74 ft. by 32 ft. with the former teacher's house at the end, all contemporary. Both the former King Street National School, 1816, and the former Albion Row Infant School, 1826, also have a dwelling-house at one end; that to the first though contemporary may have been incorporated later. The Russell Street National School, 1845, consists of two large classrooms only, boys on the ground floor, girls above. It has a pedimented front of some monumentality, which is false, in a theoretical sense, for a narrow stair-well lies immediately behind it. The School Rooms in Chesterton, 1844, 'in union with the National Society' consist of two classrooms, presumably originally for boys and for girls. State aid for elementary education became available after the Reform Act of 1832.

Workhouses, etc.

Only two of the old parish workhouses (fn. 6) survive in the city (Monuments (88), (89)), both now put to other uses; that in the parish of St. Michael is a very simple building of the late 18th century, that in St. Andrew the Great, of 1829, rather more institutional. The Central Union Poor House (Monument (90)), for 250 inmates, that superseded them is now a hospital and much altered. Sociologically the two specialpurpose buildings, the Female Refuge (Monument (91)) and the Union Workshouse, Chesterton (Monument (92)), are of much interest. The first, for fallen women, was built c. 1840 and had a remarkable, possibly unique, plan (see p. 314), with small cells for the inmates. The second, designed in 1836, completed in 1838, has a more bizarre plan (see p. 315) but one familiarised by its adoption for many 19th-century workhouses throughout the country from the prototype plans by Sampson Kempthorne accompanying the First Report of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1835. Kempthorne's workhouse at Abingdon, Berkshire, of 1836 was the first completed under the Poor Law Amendment Act. The two Cambridge buildings no longer serve their original purposes.


No less than eight private and public bridges built before 1850 span the main river Cam between Magdalene College on the N. and Mill Pit on the S.; a ninth, Queens' College bridge, is of 1902 but a copy of its predecessor. They are of wide variety in material and date: timber, stone of several kinds, and cast-iron, and from 1638 to 1841. The earliest, Clare College bridge, 1638–40, was one of the first undertakings in the rebuilding of that College, presumably to facilitate passage of materials to the site from the W., approach from the E. being by the narrow Milne Street (now Trinity Hall Lane) and the narrower gate of the College. It is a remarkable and engaging Classical structure, designed in all probability by Thomas Grumbold, freemason, and, perhaps for that reason, showing an intricacy in its surface articulation redolent of the artificer rather than of the architect. The highly individual design of the balustrading occurs too on the Fellows' Building of 1640–2 at Christ's College; again the parapet cresting of the latter is reminiscent of that on the Library of 1623–5 at St. John's College where a Grumbold, probably Thomas, was also employed. At St. John's College neither Wren's nor Hawksmoor's proposal for a bridge placed axially on the three courts of the College was adopted and the Classical bridge built further S. in 1709–12 is probably to the design of Robert Grumbold, freemason-contractor; again, although more architecturally accomplished than Thomas' work at Clare, it shows an artificer's contrivance. James Essex's Classical bridge of 1763–5 at Trinity College is a simple architectural work, plain and dignified, while that by William Wilkins of 1819 at King's College, also Classical, shows far greater subtlety in design and articulation than at first appears. Henry Hutchinson's Gothic Revival 'Bridge of Sighs' of 1827–31 at St. John's College is a conspicuously successful essay in Romanticism, as effective inside as out.

The public bridges, Magdalene Bridge (Great Bridge), 1823, by A. Browne, Garret Hostel Bridge, 1835–7, by W. C. Mylne, Silver Street Bridge, 1841, cast by C. Finch, are also revived Gothic in style, but the first and last, known to have been cast in Cambridge, show a superficial ornamentation of ribs and tracery-work deriving from the 18th-century use of the Gothic idiom and thus an old-fashioned mode as compared with the contemporary integrated Gothic style of Garret Hostel. The small iron bridge of 1822 over the Bin Brook at St. John's is a delicate piece of filigree; those over Hobson's Conduit (Monument (79)), simple and pleasing, again are local castings.

Waterworks, Public and Private Utilities, etc.

Cambridge is remarkable in its retention of two ancient artificial fresh water supplies still bringing water from the outskirts into the centre of the city. The oldest (see Monument (40), p. 233) contrived in 1327 debouched in the Franciscan friary on the site of Sidney Sussex College and, being piped under King's Hall, was eventually appropriated by Trinity College, where now it continually feeds the Fountain. The second, Hobson's Conduit (Monument (79)), was contrived in 1610; it was always a public utility not only for the provision of water for domestic uses but for scouring the streets and flooding the King's Ditch. This too provides a continuous flow though no longer put to practical uses.

In connection with the Milestones (Monument (83)) beside the Trumpington Road, it is of interest to note that they were the first true milestones to be set up in Britain since Roman times. Perhaps in the context of roads may be mentioned the former toll-house (Monument (322)) of 1828 with slim cast-iron columns supporting the eaves, a mainly decorative conceit that may be seen in T. D. W. Dearn, Designs for Lodges and Entrances, etc., in the Gothic, Cottage and Fancy Styles (London, 1823), pl. 2. The designs of such toll-houses, lodges and cottages ornées were continued by adoption into the railway age for the small dwellings of level-crossing keepers and for signal-boxes, like those near Chesterton Junction of 1845 and 1846 (Monument (321a, b)).

Houses and 19th-century Developments (See diagrams, p. xcii)

The two most ancient domestic dwellings in Cambridge City are Merton Hall, or the School of Pythagoras, the latter name being a 16th-century antiquarianism (Monument (292)), and Chesterton Tower (Monument (305)), the first of c. 1200, the second of the mid 14th century. Both are of exceptional interest. Though differing in size, they had basically much the same standard of accommodation: Merton with a columniated vaulted ground floor, a great room on the first floor, and an embryonic solarwing; Chesterton Tower a vaulted ground-floor room and a single first-floor room, with small closets off them in the turrets (see plans, pp. 377, 382). But the difference in their arrangement is fundamental. At Merton the ground floor, originally with its loop-lights, was an undercroft, and the first floor comprised the hall with its great fireplace and space for the master's table at the W. end adjacent to the solar. At Chesterton the special requirements (see p. lxviii) evidently demanded a presence chamber, or hall, on the ground floor, for the vault over it is elaborated with mouldings and carvings; the first floor comprised the camera of the procurator of Vercelli, with its garderobe, etc. In the different arrangements we also see perhaps a difference in the minor defensive requirements of dwellings at the two dates. At neither building is there evidence of an internal or attached kitchen.

In 1279 the description of Cambridge in the Hundred Rolls (fn. 7) includes 535 messuages, 5 granges, 6 granaries, 3 watermills, 2 windmills and 2 horsemills; of the 76 shops or stalls 48 were in the parishes of Great St. Mary and St. Edward. After the Peasants' Revolt, fires in 1385 and a plague in 1389 many residents seem to have left the town (fn. 8) and in 1446, in petitioning to have their subsidy assessment reduced, the burgesses represented that a number of houses stood empty and craftsmen were leaving because the king's acquisition of property for King's College and the exemption of students' lodgings from tax left the town unduly burdened. (fn. 9) But in 1542 the mayor and aldermen were empowered to build on town sites occupied by decayed houses, if tenants or landlords failed so to do, (fn. 10) and by 1544 the Paving Act describes the town as well inhabited and replenished with people. (fn. 11) Indeed by 1584 the Privy Council was bidding the Vice-Chancellor and Mayor to check private enterprise of builders and landlords 'who divide one house into many small tenements'. (fn. 12) In 1616 the University protested that the Corporation had gone about 'to build and pester every lane and corner of the town with unwholesome and base cottages', (fn. 13) which was again the subject of a Privy Council order in 1619: 'houses have lately been erected... upon the waste or spare grounds in and about the... town, and ... inhabitants... and others..., seeking only their own private gain..., do not only daily increase their... buildings but more usually than heretofore divide one house into divers small tenements' (fn. 14) ; the order was confirmed and ratified in 1623 and 1632. In the latter year some 1,728 additional people were being lodged in six parishes as a result of subdivision of tenements, and in 1636 an order was made forbidding sojourners from outside Cambridge or even from another parish. (fn. 15) In 1662 the fire hearths in Cambridge numbered 1,298 in the University and 4,031 in the town, yielding £532 18s. to the Crown in Hearth Tax annually. In 1672 Jorevin de Rocheford wrote 'there are so many people, and so many rich shop-keepers, that the scholars are scarcely perceived in the town, although they are in great numbers'. (fn. 16) With John Hamond's map of Cambridge of 1592 begins a series of accurate representations of the density of building in the town; David Loggan's plan of 1688 and William Custance's of 1798, whilst showing a far greater density than Hamond, differ little one from another though more than a century divides them.

Diagrammatic plans showing the growth of Cambridge since c. 1600

Diagrammatic plans showing the growth of Cambridge since c. 1600

The incidence of survival in relation to lapse of time allied with the historical and cartographical data above would point logically to the existence in Cambridge today of few mediaeval dwellings, a greater number of the second half of the 16th century and the 17th, and, in view of the state of the University shown by the graph opposite p. lxxxiii, a measure, no more, of rebuilding or remodelling in the 18th century. So it is. The extension of the town in the 19th century after the Inclosures is more recent history and shown on R. G. Baker's map of 1830, subsequent maps, and Ordnance Surveys (see diagrams, opposite); structural evidence of it survives in abundance and appears in the Inventory (pp. 346, 348, 351–66, 370–9). To the end of the 18th century the built-up area was approximately 1 mile by ½ mile surrounded by town-fields, which stretched E. and W. some 3½ miles. The old settlements at Barnwell and Newnham were absorbed in the 19th century and later expansion, an expansion that extended the built-up area until, today, houses continue 1 mile N. and 2½ miles S.E. of Magdalene Bridge.

In Cambridge the surviving domestic buildings dating from before c. 1630 are almost entirely of timber-framed construction. The mediaeval and early 16th-century houses or remnants of houses stand in Peas Hill (Monument (145)), Market Hill (Monument (149)), Magdalene Street (Monument (205), rear wing), and Trumpington where the 'Green Man' (Monument (336)) is the most complete and remarkable 15th-century house to survive in the City. It is to be observed that the first three are at right angles to the street and some way back from the frontage; the fourth is on an open site. The 'Green Man' follows the typical late mediaeval form, with a ground-floor hall originally open to the roof and cross-wings at each end, but the original hall and solar roofs have recently been ceiled and are not now visible. Other buildings named below may also come within this period.

The accurate dating of small houses built in the traditional vernacular style between the late 15th and early 18th centuries is at present in some doubt, nor does a plan typology alone narrow it down to within close limits. Little exhaustive work has been done on a nation-wide basis on town-houses in particular and some of the dating of them in the Inventory must be considered tentative. The difficulty in Cambridge, as in any other town, is increased by the fact that restrictions of space within long respected boundaries has led to numerous alterations, often to the complete internal remodelling of old buildings. The Inventory includes many houses placed in the 16th century that would hitherto have been assigned to the following century, but a number of features taken more or less together seem to justify the earlier date. These are the long rectangular houses, or ranges of houses, generally parallel with the street, of two storeys, with the upper storey projecting and containing rooms open to the roof; under the projection are often plain curved brackets. Inside, much of the timber is exposed to reveal longitudinal ceiling-beams, less often intersecting ceiling-beams, and wall-posts with thickened heads providing substantial fixing for the roof-timbers. The brackets if not mediaeval are near mediaeval derivatives and internal beams and wall-plates are sometimes moulded or at the least chamfered; size of scantling is often not a criterion of age. Such survive in Botolph Lane (Monuments (175–7)), Mill Lane (Monument (178)), Magdalene Street and Northampton Street (Monuments (201–12)), at Fort St. George (Monument (219)), and in Chesterton (Monument (317)) and elsewhere. The Magdalene Street group is also of high importance on visual grounds. In the most densely thronged areas of the old town, where presumably business was best and a degree of affluence obtained, much the same type of house was built but of three storeys, with both the upper floors projecting, and generally on a bigger scale. The best-preserved of these, much remodelled, damaged and in part derelict though they are, are Nos. 15, 16 Bridge Street (Monument (188)) and, of the same build, Nos. 1–4a Jordan's Yard, and Nos. 32–4 Petty Cury (Monument (153)); they were probably always divided into separate tenements on regular bay dimensions.

In the Bridge Street group each tenement had a large ground-floor room possibly always a shop with a fireplace in the back wall and an entrance-passage to the N.; the original stair is destroyed. A similar division occurred on the first floor, and survives on the second floor; the large room on the first floor was probably the hall and on the second floor the solar, open to the roof as was customary in mediaeval buildings, and with the small slip-room, probably a bedroom, ceiled at tie-beam level. The contemporary Jordan's Yard houses have axial fireplaces, thus the fireplace position is not alone a dating criterion. The Petty Cury houses, so far as the interior arrangement is recoverable, again had main top-floor rooms open to collar-beam level.

All the foregoing two and three-storey houses have been assigned to the 16th century and they may well be within the first half of it. Developed from the former were the houses (e.g. the Old Vicarage, Monument (197), and Fisher House, Monument (158)) with two storeys and semi-attics ab initio, as distinct from those where attic-rooms were contrived in the roof spaces of older houses (e.g. Monuments (203, 206)); the reason for both, and perhaps some indication of their chronology, are revealed by the historical background outlined above.

Further to the reference already made to the position of the fireplace, fireplaces placed on the longer axis of the foregoing houses are commoner than fireplaces in side walls perhaps as an economy of building materials; deep recesses usually flank them, one often containing a stair. To the tall houses in more densely built areas rectangular framed bays the full height of the building are projected from the back wall probably to contain staircases, as at 17 King's Parade (Monument (123)), 8 Benet Street (Monument (134)); Abbey House (Monument (270)), a house of comparatively high status on a free site shows such an arrangement (plan, p. 367). (fn. 17)

Two outstanding three-storey town houses of c. 1600 survive in 14 Trinity Street (Monument (108)) and 25, 25a Magdalene Street (Monument (205) front range). That they are later than those of generally similar form already described is suggested by much elaboration of detail, oriel-windows with flanking strip-like windows, and the form of the timber mouldings. Further, the gabled elevational treatment, as in the Trinity Street house, resulting from running one or more roof ridges from front to back of the building and projecting the gable-ends, for no functional purpose, is seemingly so contrived to give further overall elaboration and variety; it is a treatment, distinct from the logical prominence of the gabled end walls of houses standing at right angles to the street, that continues well into the 17th century, see part of the Central Hotel (Monument (146)), and even to 1661, as demonstrated also in Peas Hill (Monument (145)). Notably the few mediaeval dwellings listed above at right angles to the street all stand some distance back from the present frontages; it would seem, though it is a deduction de minimis, that, as in other mediaeval towns, Lincoln, York, Colchester, Shrewsbury and Chester, buildings were often added later in front, presumably encroaching on the dead ground beside the streets; this would explain the great depth of building back from the modern frontages in Cambridge. From the little surviving evidence, supported by analogy, the development seems to have occurred early in the 16th century. An evident characteristic of the same century here was the building of ranges of tenements pierced at intervals by carriage-ways that led to alleys or yards built up on one or both sides, as in 15, 16 Bridge Street and Jordan's Yard (Monuments (188, 189)).

Most notable in Cambridge are the dormers, as distinct from dormer-windows, in the late 16th and 17th-century houses. They rise off the wall and are roofed generally with the ridge at the level of the main roof-ridge; they are blind or at the most with small lights in the cheeks, though many have been converted into dormer-windows. Internal measurements are about 2½ ft. by 6 ft., long enough for a bed, the recess being enclosed by panelling set on the vertical plane of the purlin of the main roof and returned to meet the roof slope. The occurrence of dormers is listed in the index to the Inventory, but more or less intact survivals are in Peas Hill (Monument (145)), Abbey House (Monument (270)) and, reconstructed but still used for sleeping, at Fisher House (Monument (158)). The one on 3 Free School Lane can be clearly seen from Benet Street.

Good brick houses of the late 16th and 17th century are the Old House (Monument (329)) in Trumpington, Chesterton Hall (Monument (309)), and part of Abbey House (Monument (270)).

Of the 18th-century houses, mostly of brick but many with the less conspicuous walls of timber-framing, only about a dozen are noteworthy. In chronological order, Anstey Hall (Monument (325)) of c. 1700 has a fine front elaborated with stone dressings; of the same type are Peterhouse Master's Lodge, 1702, and, on a smaller and simpler scale, 23, 24 Trinity Street (Monument (112)), though the front is a recent rebuilding; this use of brick and stone was then already becoming démodé and the large Trumpington Hall (Monument (324)) of c. 1710 is of plain brickwork. 'Little Trinity' (Monument (222)) of c. 1725 is an outstanding small house of its age; the pedimented design of the front and a subtle use of grey brickwork in header bond with red brick dressings form a distinguished architectural work. The back elevation of 22 St. Andrew's Street (Monument (167)) of c. 1730 is of some distinction and the front of the Central Hotel (Monument (146)) dated 1727 is a fine example of rubbed and moulded brickwork with colossal pilaster-strips. In Jesus Lane, No. 32 (Monument (223)), has a most distinguished elevation to the street depending entirely upon its Classical proportions and fine-quality brickwork. The house, 14 King's Parade (Monument (125)), of 1787, is of note as an early skyscraper of no less than five storeys with cellars and attics, wholly exceptional for its date; Botolph House (Monument (174)) of c. 1790, the next tallest building of any architectural distinction, is only of four storeys with a basement. For some reason the Palladian window motive was not as popular in Cambridge as it was in many other towns: the late 18th-century front of Kenmare (Monument (237)) is one of the few houses where it occurs; an interesting variant is in 32 Trinity Street (Monument (115)) of the mid 18th century. Beginning at the end of the 18th century and continuing through the 19th is the use of mansard roofs.

The 19th-century domestic building of Cambridge, mostly of grey gault brick and with slated roofs, presents a regional architectural achievement of some importance. It includes designs of much originality employing an uncompromising severity of massing, bold articulation and, in a small group of houses of fairly high status, an individual use of wall-arcading. It was an achievement to which the architect William Wilkins sen. seems to have given an early impetus by his houses, 38 Newmarket Road (Monument (276)) and Newnham Cottage (Monument (288)) of c. 1800; it was maintained in architectural quality by the architect-builder Charles Humfrey, who allied it to town-planning of some spaciousness and sensibility; his contributions were the lay-outs, on a large scale, of the area S.E. of Christ's Piece (see Monument (263)) and Doll's Close (Monument (266)) between 1815 and 1828, on a small scale in Tennis Court Road (Monument (247)) in c. 1825 and, by inference, in other parts of Cambridge.

The bulk of the latter part of the Inventory is devoted to the 19th-century houses and the descriptions of them and the accounts of the main development schemes are drafted in sufficient detail to give a picture of the style and progress of this phase of the city's growth. Here attention can be drawn only to a few of the buildings that are important on architectural or social grounds. No. 30 Thompson's Lane (Monument (199)) of c. 1820 may be taken as the exemplar of the houses showing wall-arcading (see drawing, p. 341), and a remarkable monumentality in the recessed treatment of the entrance-doorway. Other houses of the group are Belmont (Monument (166)), Merton Cottage (Monument (294)), Croft Lodge (Monument (291)), and, though without the arcading but linked by other stylistic similarities, the houses (Monuments (198, 200)) flanking 30 Thompson's Lane, Newnham Grange (Monument (287)), 17 Trumpington Street (Monument (235)); all these are of c. 1820 and the following decade. A more idiosyncratic and less architectural use of the arcade motive is seen in Downing Terrace (Monument (252)) of 1819 (see drawing, opp. p. 362). Of the large freestanding 'villas' Grove Lodge (Monument (238)) of 1795 is the forerunner, followed by The Grove (Monument (216)), 1813, Park Lodge and Camden House (Monuments (258, 260)), c. 1830, Brooklands (Monument (281)), c. 1830, and in Trumpington Road (Monument (282)), c. 1835; they are characterised by low-pitched roofs, wide eaves, and polygonal or rounded bays, and possess an air of serene well-being. More stylistically mannered, presenting a synthesis of Greek forms and yet wholly rational values, are Newnham Cottage (Monument (288)) of c. 1805, which had 'two waterclosets and a hot bath' from the first, and The Leys (Monument (283)) of c. 1815; similarly inspired and of much interest but of less distinctive character is 15 Fitzwilliam Street (Monument (246)) of c. 1825.

Many of the terraces of houses possess unpretentious grace, some with minor elaboration of detail or contrivance of surface modelling of originality and charm. Among them are Radegund Buildings (Monument (227)), of 1816, Malcolm Street (Monument (229)) of c. 1845, Fitzwilliam Street (Monument (244)) of c. 1820, New Square (Monument (265)) of 1825–35, a spacious and, until spoiled in recent years, a pleasing urban lay-out, Brunswick Place, etc. (Monument (267)), c. 1825. Terrace houses on a grander scale architecturally and of greater spaciousness than the foregoing are St. Peter's Terrace (Monument (239)), c. 1850, to an eclectic design of the kind used with variations for innumerable terraces in English towns, particularly in mid and later 19th-century London development, Scroope Terrace (Monument (240)), 1839, completed 1864, Benet Place (Monuments (248–50)), c. 1820, the houses flanking Warkworth Terrace (Monument (255)), c. 1835, Park Terrace (Monument (259)), 1831–40, an outstanding example of urban design, and Belvoir Terrace (Monument (284)), c. 1825. At the opposite end of the scale are the cottages facing Orchard Terrace (Monument (264)), c. 1825, having a most unusual and distinctive scenic effect. Examples of terrace-house plans are on p. 365.

Of interest in the social-economic field is the record of rents and fines payable upon the Newnham Cottage property (Monument (288)) to Gonville and Caius College. In 1799 Butcher's Piece was exempted from the lease of Newnham Manor. The land was let to William Wilkins sen., the architect, on a building lease of forty years at a rent of 10s., the College being unable, until 1858, to grant a longer term. Soon afterwards, after the imposition of land tax, the rent was raised to 18s. In 1813 on renewal of the lease the tenant paid a fine of £125; he had also built beyond his leasehold and in the new lease the rent was set at £2. In 1827 the fine was £150. In 1841 the fine was the same again and the rent £5; in 1855, fine £90, rent £10; in 1869, fine £140, rent £10. After 1879 the College ceased to accept fines for renewals of leases but increased the reserved rents. In 1883 the rent was £24 18s.; in 1907, £64 3s. (fn. 18)

The 19th-century buildings also include the socially and economically interesting units demonstrably designed ab initio as shops and dwellings (see p. 331 for specimen plans). Outstanding amongst these, on architectural grounds also, is Rose Crescent (Monument (159)) of 1825 consisting of a row of shops with good fronts, mostly surviving, and dwellings over. Of much interest too is the china and glass warehouse with shop and dwelling in St. Andrew's Hill (Monument (171)) of c. 1830. No. 37 Sidney Street (Monument (162)) has an early 19th-century shop-front of distinction, and other examples of the unit are Monuments (104, 127, 129–30, 187).

Cambridge Key Map Showing the Position of Monuments in the Centre of the City

Cambridge Key Map Showing the Position of Monuments in the Centre of the City

Four of the old Cambridge inns, other than the 'Green Man', Trumpington, mentioned above, are of note: the former 'Falcon' (Monument (154)) of the late 16th century retaining a fragment, now remodelled, of the back range originally with open galleries on two upper floors; the 'Lion' (Monument (155)), which though not of architectural distinction, continues its purpose and retains the old plan-form of the central courtyard; the 'Eagle' (Monument (136)) again with an open gallery but here of the early 19th century, and the 'Little Rose' (Monument (231)), an interesting 16th-century building.


1 In 1828 the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed and in 1836 the Registration Bill was passed.
2 Joseph Lancaster had started his Southwark school in 1796.
3 'National Society for the Promotion of the Education of the poor in the principles of the Established Church'.
4 Cambridge Chronicle, 2 March 1811.
5 ibid., 18 Jan. 1813.
6 Workhouses had been established after the Poor Relief Act of 1722 in all the Cambridge parishes, severally and in pairs (see H. P. Stokes in C.A.S. Procs., XV, 94–133).
7 Rot. Hund., II, 356–401.
8 F. W. Maitland and Mary Bateson, The Charters of the Borough of Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1901), 35.
9 C. H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge., I, 197.
10 ibid., I, 401.
11 ibid., I, 409.
12 ibid., II, 398.
13 ibid., III, 110.
14 ibid., III, 126–7
15 ibid., III, 272.
16 Antiquarian Repertory (1809), IV, 618–20.
17 The visual effect of this convenient arrangement was exploited in the 17th-century College buildings at Clare and St. Catharine's, in the staircase 'towers' in continuation of the Hall screens; but alterations in modern times have damaged the external appearance of the first.
18 E.J. Gross in J. Venn, Biog. History of Gonville and Caius College (1912), IV, pt. II, 27–8.