The borough of Richmond

A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1914.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


, 'The borough of Richmond', in A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1, (London, 1914) pp. 17-35. British History Online [accessed 21 May 2024].

. "The borough of Richmond", in A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1, (London, 1914) 17-35. British History Online, accessed May 21, 2024,

. "The borough of Richmond", A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume 1, (London, 1914). 17-35. British History Online. Web. 21 May 2024,

In this section


Richemont (xii cent.).

The ancient borough of Richmond stands upon the left bank of the River Swale some 50 miles northwest of York and 12 south-west of Darlington. It lies in a bend of the river, on steeply sloping ground. The different levels of the town vary from 400 ft. to 500 ft. above ordnance datum, but the hills behind it attain a height of over 1,000 ft. The castle occupies the summit of a projecting spur of hill, which forms a distinct ridge terminating at the edge of the river in a rocky scarp over 100 ft. in height. It was thus practically inaccessible except on the side where the market-place stands, and here it was protected by the strongest portion of the wall, by an extensive moat, of which traces still remain, and by a massive keep. From this natural stronghold it guards the entrance to Swaledale, and its keep commands a wide view over the Plain of York.

The general aspect of the town of Richmond is quaint. It is, indeed, more like a continental than an English market-town. The chief architectural ornaments are the towers—the rugged Norman keep, still in good preservation, contrasting excellently with the graceful 15th-century structure of the Grey Friars. The church towers are not conspicuously beautiful, but they add, nevertheless, to the general effect of the town as viewed from a distance. Richmond was painted by Turner, (fn. 1) and it is still a favourite subject for artists, though disfigured by the gasometers which have been placed between the castle and the waterfall. (fn. 2)

Though Richmond is the birthplace of quite a number of men who attained some distinction in their day, it can boast of but one or two whose names have become household words. The most famous of its sons was undoubtedly Lord Lawrence, who was born in 1811 while his father was stationed here. Henry Greathead, the inventor of the lifeboat, is perhaps next in importance. He was born in 1757. Another well-known name is that of Thomas Chaloner, the regicide, who was born in Richmond in 1595. The town can, moreover, boast of a schoolmaster of exceptional renown in James Tate. He was born in 1771 of poor parents, and was educated at that free grammar school of Richmond on which, as its head, he afterwards conferred so much distinction. Ralph Blegborough, a physician, and Miss Wallis, an actress, both of whom enjoyed a considerable reputation in the beginning of the 19th century, were born in Richmond, while a rector and native of Richmond, Francis Blackburne (1705–87), attained some literary renown. But it was in art and in theology that the natives of Richmond seem to have distinguished themselves most readily. Richmond can claim to be the birthplace of an accomplished engraver, Samuel Buck (1696–1779); a famous etcher, George Cuitt the younger (1779–1854); a water-colour painter of some reputation, George Haydock Dodgson (1811– 80), and four Puritan divines whose names still survive: Francis (1562–1618) and George (1564– 1605) Johnson, Thomas Taylor (1576–1633), and James Tunstall (fn. 3) (1708–62).

The borough of Richmond is co-extensive with the parish. Its boundaries seem to have changed little in the course of its history. On the south side it has extended just across the Swale below the hill known as the Round Howe, and there has also been a slight alteration in the western boundary between Marske and Richmond. The greatest change, however, has been on the north, (fn. 4) and here land is still in dispute between the lord of the manor of Aske and the corporation of Richmond. Every time the boundary of the borough is ridden the owner of Aske makes a protest against the claim of the corporation to the farm of Low Gingerfield and to a piece of ground near Oliver Ducket. The eastern boundary of Richmond runs for a short distance along the ancient rampart known as Scots Dyke.

The area of the parish of Richmond is nearly 2,520 acres, (fn. 5) of which 66¼ are arable land, 2,049½ permanent pasture, and 30½ wood and plantation. (fn. 6) Its subsoil is limestone and its upper soil mixed. Copper, lead, (fn. 7) stone, (fn. 8) lime, (fn. 9) coal, (fn. 10) clay (fn. 11) and sand (fn. 12) would all appear to have been worked at different times in the parish. Stone and sand are still worked.

The town of Richmond divides naturally into three parts, a central portion and two widespread but unsymmetrical wings. These divisions were emphasized for purposes of local government and formed the Bailey Ward, Frenchgate Ward, and Bargate Ward respectively. (fn. 13)

Richmond: The Market Cross

The central part of Richmond consists of little more than the castle, occupying the southern side, the market-place, the houses about it, and the gardens behind them. 'Richemont is pavid,' says Leland, 'Richemont town is waullid, and the castel on the river side of Swale is as the knot of the cumpace of the waulle.' (fn. 14) The stone wall which once inclosed this quarter probably dated from 1313, when Edward II gave John of Britanny a grant of murage for five years on all wares brought into the town. (fn. 15) In 1341 it was said that all the houses on the earl's land near the wall and ditch of the vill had been destroyed to make room for it. (fn. 16) It was greatly needed at that time as a protection against the ravages of the Scots, (fn. 17) but by 1337 it was already in want of repair. In that year 'the bailiffs and good men of Richmond' obtained a grant of murage from Edward III to enable them to restore it, (fn. 18) and in 1400 they procured a similar grant from Henry IV. (fn. 19)

In the beginning of the 16th century the walls were, however, in a ruinous state. (fn. 20) Very few vestiges of the old masonry now remain, little more, indeed, than two ancient gateways. The gateway known as the Bar at the south-west corner of the market-place has an outer pointed arch and an inner one, segmental, both restored, but the thickness of the wall forms a three-centred arch which is original. The Friar's Postern is a small round-headed archway at the western end of a considerable length of the town wall in a narrow alley called Friar's Wynd. The arch is made up of old material re-used, but the rebated outer west jamb is ancient. There were originally at least two other gates, one in the north-east corner of the market-place, leading into Frenchgate, and the other in the middle of Finkle Street. (fn. 21) 'The Barr' in Finkle Street was taken down in 1773 to make room for heavy traffic, and Frenchgate Bar is said to have shared the same fate at the same time. It was standing in 1754. (fn. 22)

The market-place or Bailey lies on the north side of the castle. Mistress Celia Fiennes, who visited Richmond during her travels at the close of the 17th century, tells how the 'buildings are all stone, ye streetes are Like rocks themselves, there is a very Large space for the Markets wch are Divided for the ffish market, fflesh market and Corn.' (fn. 23) The most striking feature of the market-place is Trinity Chapel, strangely involved in houses and shops. This crowding of the chapel must go back to an early date, for in February 1429–30 the bailiffs and burgesses made a lease of a parcel of waste in le Baille in the corner next the Fisschamyll abutting on the altar of St. Thomas on the west and a corner of the chapel of the Holy Trinity on the south; on this land was to be built a burgage of oak timbers and stone walls. (fn. 24)

The town hall, a plain, unpretentious building, is on the south side of the market-place near the entrance to the castle, and the market hall is close by. The present Market Cross is not an interesting structure. It was built in 1771 in the open space west of Trinity Chapel and consists of a tall spire-shaped column upon a wide foundation of steps. The building it replaced is said to have been in the eyes of an antiquary 'the greatest beauty in the Town.' (fn. 25) In 1724 there were two other crosses near it, the Barley Cross and the Oats Cross. The pillory either formed part of the Oats Cross or stood close beside it. (fn. 26) The stocks were near the town hall. In 1780 the corporation ordered that the Barley Cross be demolished and the ground levelled and paved. (fn. 27)

The west wing of Richmond consists mainly of Newbiggin, Bargate and the Green. According to Leland they formed two distinct suburbs in the 16th century. He calls them Finkle Street suburb and Bargate suburb respectively. (fn. 28) Though the name of Newbiggin suggests that it was of later origin than the street of Old Biggin in the eastern suburb, there can be little doubt that it was included in the Finkle Street suburb of this date, for a map made about a century later shows it as quite complete. (fn. 29) Newbiggin is now a wide, level street, running due west from the town. It is mainly a residential part, but there are a few scattered shops in it. It is the traditional site of the burning of Richard Snell for his religious opinions on 9 September 1558 (fn. 30); Richmond Gaol, (fn. 31) now only occasionally used for short remands, stands at its south-western corner.

Bargate suburb consists of Bargate, the Green and Bridge Street. Bargate is a very steep street opening out of Newbiggin and running parallel with the western side of the market-place down towards the river, the continuation near the bridge being known as Bridge Street. The date of the first building of a bridge at Richmond is unknown. The bridge in Leland's time was 'sumtime chaynid' and was built with four arches. It, or its successor, was much damaged by a flood in 1771, and in 1789 a new bridge of three arches was made. (fn. 32) Access to Bargate from the market-place was formerly only through the old gate, which is still standing, down a narrow and very steep channel. A new macadamized road was made parallel to this about 1772. (fn. 33) In Chapel Wynd to the north of Bargate Green are some traces of St. James's Chapel, which was already a ruin in 1724. A plain pointed doorway remains in the north wall of no. 6 and a second fronts on the Wynd further west, but it is doubtful if either is in situ, as the houses in which they are incorporated are both of recent date. At the bottom of the hill west of Bridge Street is the triangular space known as 'the Green.' The southern side of the Green was occupied in the 18th and early 19th centuries by the mansion of the Yorke family. The formal garden of this house lay where York Place now stands, and its grounds were those now attached to the Temple. The Temple or Cumberland Tower was built in commemoration of the battle of Culloden, and stands apparently on the site of the old Hudswell Tower, said to have been built in the reign of Edward II by William de Hudswell. (fn. 34)

From the north-west corner of the Green Craven Gate climbs steeply northwards to meet Newbiggin; it appears to have originally formed a sort of 'back lane' to Bargate, with which it is roughly parallel. In 1724 the western side of Craven Gate was partly occupied by the Tenter Banks, reminiscent of the mediaeval dye-works. Just beyond the junction with Newbiggin west of the present Wellington Place were the Nuns' Closes, with the old Beast Market on Pinfold Green at their north-east corner. Here stood St. Anthony's Cross and chapel.

The eastern wing of Richmond consisted of Frenchgate suburb. It was in Leland's time almost as large as the other two put together. In the 17th century it comprised, besides Frenchgate, Old Biggin and the Anchorage Hill beyond. There were also a few houses at the bottom of Gallowgate, while on the east, between Frenchgate and the Swale, lay the rectory, the parish church, and the churchyard, in which stood the free or grammar school. (fn. 35) The present grammar school, which is situated a little to the south of the old site, was opened as a memorial to its most distinguished head master, the Rev. James Tate, in 1850. (fn. 36) Frenchgate, spelt 'Franchegate' in 1431, (fn. 37) is described by Leland as the most occupied part of the town, and it is still a favourite residential quarter; here were the tenements of the Abbots of Egglestone and Easby. (fn. 38) It is a cobblepaved street which makes a rather steep descent from north to south. It is necessary to ascend through what was once the 'Great Channel' to reach the marketplace. It used to be the only approach to the town from the north and east, but it is not at all suitable for wheeled traffic. In 1812, therefore, the corporation decided to cut a way through from the marketplace to the footpaths behind Frenchgate, which used to be known as the Back of the Friars (fn. 39) and vulgarly as the Back Flags. The connecting street was called King Street, and in 1887 the Back Flags were named Queen's Road in honour of the Jubilee. The road was planted with lime trees at the same time, and now forms a broad, straight avenue which runs parallel with Frenchgate and makes a fine entrance to the market-place. North of Frenchgate is Hill House, where Frances I'Anson was staying when her future husband, Leonard McNally, wrote in her honour the well-known song 'The Lass o' Richmond Hill.' (fn. 40) Miss Milbanke, the future Lady Byron, was also at Hill House, and many of the poet's letters were addressed to her there. Across the top of Friar's Closes from Victoria Road to Queen's Road runs Quaker Lane; east of this is the street known as Pottergate, a name recalling the Pottergath once held of Maud de Manfield. (fn. 41)

Since 1724 Richmond has expanded slightly to the north and west of Newbiggin, and also north of the town in Quaker Lane and along the Skeeby and Brompton roads. Near the town on the Brompton road stood the Maison Dieu or Charter House, perhaps the property of the Carthusians of Mount Grace, and close by was an old dove-cote. (fn. 42) The first part of this road forms a terrace walk, from which the best general view of the town can be obtained. Another favourite promenade is afforded by the Castle Walk which runs along the top of the bank just below the ruins.

At Gallowgate, or 'Galowbrawghe' as it was called in 1523, (fn. 43) stood the manorial gallows. At the top of Gallowgate are the military barracks, dated 1877, Richmond being a dépôt for the Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own (Yorkshire) Regiment. Beyond the barracks is the race-course. The earliest known mention of races at Richmond occurred in 1576. (fn. 44) They were kept up for many years after this date, and then discontinued owing to a decline of taste for the amusement. They were resumed in 1753, but given up again towards the close of the 19th century, as they no longer paid. They were held on the High Moor until 1765, when the present racecourse was levelled at great expense. (fn. 45)

Besides its parish church and two old chapels Richmond contained other religious foundations. The most considerable of these would seem to have been the hospital of St Nicholas, traces of which still remain in a private house lying on the road to Brompton, some distance from the town. The hospital was in existence in 1173–4, (fn. 46) and is said to have been founded by Henry II; it contained a chapel. (fn. 47) The chantry, free chapel or hospital was granted in fee to Theophilus Adams and Thomas Butler in 1585 (fn. 48); a further grant in fee was made in 1619 to John Buck, Walter Langton and William Willes. (fn. 49) The descent of the property is somewhat obscure, (fn. 50) but St. Nicholas itself seems to have been in the hands of Thomas Wray towards the end of the 16th century, and about 1646 it seems to have passed into the possession of a Thomas Norton. (fn. 51) In 1685 Francis Blackburne bought the premises from Christopher Norton, (fn. 52) and his great-grandson, another Francis Blackburne, sold them to Lord Dundas in 1813. (fn. 53) St. Nicholas has ever since remained in the possession of his family, and it is the property of the present Marquess of Zetland.

The Bowes Hospital, a rectangular stone building, lies at the foot of Anchorage Hill, so named from the woman anchorite who from at latest 1274 was immured in St. Edmund's Chapel. (fn. 54) The hospital was founded in 1618 and incorporates the remains of this chapel, which is mainly of mid-12th-century date. Flat buttresses, some of which are original 12th-century work, divide the north and south walls into three bays, and there are similar buttresses at the angles of the east wall, and a deep string-course ornamented with circular medallions is carried high up on the building. In the east wall is a 14thcentury window of two lights with flowing tracery, now blocked. The west wall was entirely rebuilt, probably in 1607. It has shaped base stones to the gable, each bearing a coat of arms, that on the north Bowes and that on the south Musgrave. Against this wall is a stone chimney-stack with three offsets and bearing a panel inclosing a shield of Bowes impaling Musgrave. The adjoining doorway in the garden wall has a flat pointed arch and a moulded cornice with a triangular stone above inscribed 1607 E. B. (fn. 55) The hospital is entered by two doors on the south side, one with a simple flat pointed head, of early 17th-century date, and the other modern. The windows are all modern, but the plain fireplace in the west wall is Jacobean, and above it is a plaster modelled frieze now papered over. A similar frieze, in two portions, occurs on the east wall, each showing a coat of arms (with charges obliterated) supported by amorini. A painting formerly in this building now hangs in the town hall. It is a contemporary half-length portrait of Queen Elizabeth on a wood panel.

It has been said that there was once a nunnery at Richmond, but this statement rests solely on grants in 1171–82 of alms to 'the nuns of Richmond,' and on the name of 'the Nuns' Closes' being applied to certain plots near Pinfold Green. Land in 'Pinfules Chache,' which was possibly near the Nuns' Closes, was granted to Easby Abbey at an early date; with the site of that house the Closes passed to Ralph Gower, and they were held by Anne Gower in 1569. (fn. 56)

West of the Queen's Road lie the ruins of the house of the Grey Friars, founded by Ralph son of Randolph of Middleham in 1258. (fn. 57) It was surrendered to Henry VIII in January 1538–9, (fn. 58) and later in the year both house and site were leased to Ralph Gower for twenty-one years. (fn. 59) In 1544 Henry VIII granted the site of the Grey Friars to John Banaster and William Metcalfe and the heirs of John Banaster in fee, (fn. 60) from whom it was seemingly purchased by Gower. Ralph Gower died in 1566 and was succeeded by his son John. (fn. 61) This John was subsequently attainted of treason, whereupon the site of the Grey Friars was granted to Thomas Wray and Nicholas Metcalfe. (fn. 62) Wray died seised thereof in 1587, leaving as his heir his son William. (fn. 63) This William is said to have assigned his lease to a certain Cuthbert Pepper, who, according to the same authority, assigned it to Sir Timothy Hutton of Marske in 1605 or 1606. (fn. 64) In 1610–11 it was apparently in the king's hands. (fn. 65) But it seems to have been the property of Sir Timothy Hutton at a later date, (fn. 66) and in 1632 his son Sir Matthew Hutton sold it to Jeremiah Robinson. (fn. 67) Its later history is uncertain. It possibly again changed hands, for it is said to have been purchased of one Goddard in 1713 by the ancestors of John Robinson, owner in 1821. (fn. 68) In 1895 it was bought by the Marquess of Zetland from the trustees of a descendant of John Robinson, (fn. 69) and it is still in his possession.

Richmond gave its name to an archdeaconry at a very early date, (fn. 70) and it is now the seat of a suffragan bishop.

There is a Church of England mission-room on the Green. The Roman Catholic church of St. Joseph and St. Francis Xavier was opened in Newbiggin in 1868; it replaced one dating from 1748. (fn. 71) The first Congregational chapel, opened in Tower Street, 1835, has been replaced by that in Dundas Street, (fn. 72) which was opened in 1884. The Wesleyan chapel in Ryder's Wynd, superseding one built in 1807, dates from 1841, (fn. 73) and the Primitive Methodist chapel in Bargate from 1863. The Convent of the Assumption was erected in Mill Lane (fn. 74) in 1850. The public elementary schools are near the spot where the free grammar school originally stood, (fn. 75) except the infants' school, which is in Dundas Street. The workhouse is situated at the east end of Mill Lane. Some distance further west is the cemetery; it has a chapel, and dates from 1886.

Richmond seems at one time to have possessed two maypoles, one in the market-place and the other on the Green. (fn. 76) Until very recently a sword dance was regularly danced in the town every New Year's Day. At Christmas time it is still the custom for children to go round with 'vessel cups.' (fn. 77) Groups of masked men, moreover, one of whom wears a horse's head, visit each house in turn and sing an old ballad about a hunter. Sometimes a ram is represented instead of a horse, and the song is varied accordingly. (fn. 78)

There were apparently at least two mills at Richmond in the latter half of the 12th century. (fn. 79) In 1348 these mills, called Church Mill and Castle Mill, belonged to the alien abbey of Begar, but were in the king's hands on account of the war with France. They were said to be so ruinous for want of repair that they were likely to be swept away by the swift current of water. (fn. 80) In or about 1374 the king still held them. (fn. 81) Where the disused papermill now stands was the Castle Mill; John Duke of Bedford died seised of a corn-mill and a fullingmill at Richmond in 1435. (fn. 82) Ten years later two parts of a mill at Richmond and the reversion of the third part, then held by the Duchess of Bedford in dower, were granted to the Earl of Salisbury. (fn. 83) In 1475 this same mill was given to the Duke of Gloucester (fn. 84); with his accession to the throne it doubtless became the property of the Crown. After the king's seizure of the possessions of the abbey (fn. 85) William de Hudswell erected a mill at Richmond 'without right,' this probably occupying the site of the Green Mills that in the 18th century stood west of the bridge (fn. 86); in 1348 he was drawing away the customary suit from the abbot's mill. (fn. 87) In the middle of the 16th century Edward Hudswell died seised of two water-mills and a fulling-mill at Richmond, (fn. 88) and at its close two water-mills were held by John Pepper and his son Christopher in chief of the king. (fn. 89) The mediaeval textile industry here necessitated a fulling-mill, and Peter the Fuller of Richmond is mentioned at the beginning of the 13th century; the mill was in the hands of the lord of the honour, and was let to farm in 1363–4. (fn. 90) At the close of the 16th century a fulling-mill seems to have been held by the Pepper family; a century later a fullingmill was the subject of a fine between Francis Blackburne and Sir John Swinburne, bart., and Isabella his wife. (fn. 91)

The greater part of the river frontage was in the hands of the lord, with the result that the dye-works were situated, not in the borough, but under the castle walls on the river bank. From the fact that in 1278 or 1279 William the Tanner died from a fall by night from a plank of the castle bridge it may perhaps be inferred that there was a tannery in the town (fn. 92); but there may have been a second tannery, for at the same time Peter son of John the Tanner was indicted for making a sewer into the brook of Lundelay, whence the men of the vill took their water for brewing. (fn. 93)

Except for strips along the river bank the town was surrounded by the three open and common fields, the High and Low East Fields, the Gallow Field on the north of the town, and the West Field. These contained in all 344 acres of arable land so situated as almost to surround the town. The commons included 390 acres of moor and 950 acres of stinted pasture at Whitcliffe. (fn. 94) In 1752 the corporation resolved to apply to Parliament for power to inclose and divide the common fields. (fn. 95) They claimed to possess them in fee-simple, excepting only the first crop or pasture of many distinct parts which a variety of persons were entitled to enjoy from 5 April to 10 October each year, the right of common for one horse and one beast in the stinted pasture attached to ancient burgages and the larger stint possessed by the three farms of Applegarth, Jefferson's and Stapleton's. (fn. 96) As a result an Inclosure Act was passed in 1802. In order that the rights of the burgage holders might be respected, it exempted from inclosure the stinted pasture of Whitcliffe and also a part of the common (not more than 50 acres) used for training race-horses. (fn. 97)


Borough of Richmond. Gules a voided scutcheon argent with a bend ermine over all.

There can be little doubt that there was a settlement on the site of the present town of Richmond (fn. 98) immediately after if not actually at the time of the Survey of 1086, and it is even probable that it is recorded in Domesday Book under another name. There is, in short, good reason for connecting Richmond with the vanished townships of Hindrelagh. (fn. 99) At the first Hindrelagh Tor had a 'manor' and 5 carucates before the Conquest, and these were held in 1086 by Enisan under the count; at the second vill the carucate which the Tor had held was in 1086 part of the count's demesne and was waste. (fn. 100) The two Hindrelaghs are only mentioned in the Survey and in an extent of 1183–4, from which latter the name of Richmond, though in use forty years earlier, is conspicuously absent. (fn. 101) The fact that the two names do not appear together certainly suggests that the one replaced the other. It is strange otherwise that a place which was important enough to have a church in 1086 should have entirely disappeared in the course of the next century. The situation of the two Hindrelaghs, in so far as it can be gathered from the Survey, (fn. 102) also confirms this view. The first comes in the list next to Easby, which adjoins Richmond on the south-east, (fn. 103) the second after Hipswell and Hudswell and just before Downham. (fn. 104) The two vills, though separate in Domesday Book, were thus to all appearance contiguous in situation. The first, moreover, had a church, (fn. 105) while the site of the second was the obvious position for the castle. (fn. 106) The parish church is in the part of the parish next to Easby, while the castle is nearer the Hudswell side of the town and close to the Hipswell boundary. If this identification be accepted, the position of church and castle would be explained, for the first Hindrelagh would be identical with Frenchgate, and it is significant that Frenchgate, with the Queen's Road on the west and Lombard's and Church Wynds on the east, presents the normal features of a road settlement.

However this may be, the mesne borough as a constitutional entity undoubtedly grew up round the castle of the Counts of Britanny. The descent of the overlordship is practically the same as that of the honour of Richmond (q.v.). The first known charter was granted by Alan III, the fourth lord of Richmond, in or about 1145 (fn. 107); the borough was already established and may have derived its liberties from Count Alan Rufus. (fn. 108)

Though Richmond was enfranchised so early in its history, it is not easy to trace the development of corporate life in the town. The early charters are simple in form and vague in terminology, and there are few supplementary documents before the Tudor period. (fn. 109) But it is clear that the burgesses were holding the town at farm in the 12th century, that they enjoyed the profits of both trade and jurisdiction in the 13th, and that they possessed a seal by the 15th century at latest. There is no mention of a gild-merchant. (fn. 110) The present constitution was established by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835.

The charter of 1145 gave the burgesses of Richmond the borough and the land of Fontenay or demesne, (fn. 111) to hold for ever in fee farm at an annual rent of £29. (fn. 112) The charter granted by Conan fifth lord of Richmond in 1150, though more elaborate in form than that of Alan III, is merely a confirmation of all previous grants, free customs and liberties. (fn. 113) The burgesses of Richmond were tallaged at 15 marks in 1201–2, (fn. 114) and the bailiffs are mentioned in 1207–8. (fn. 115) In 1268 John of Britanny Earl of Richmond confirmed to the burgesses the grant of the borough for ever with the market-place, markets, fairs, tolls, rents, assizes, attachments and pleas, the whole demesne of Richmond called the land of Fontenay and all other liberties, easements and customs thereto belonging within and without the town, except the dye-works of Richmond and 3 acres of land. (fn. 116) John granted to them in addition the whole pasture of Whitcliffe ('Wytleclyf') with its appurtenances, and raised the fee-farm rent to £40. He, however, reserved all escheats to himself as chief lord of the borough. (fn. 117) The earl gave £7 13s. 4d. from the fee farm to Roald son of Roald, lord of Constable Burton, (fn. 118) and in 1285 the burgesses were found to be rendering the remaining sum of £32 6s. 8d. (fn. 119) The charter of 1268 was confirmed by Edward III in 1329, (fn. 120) and by Richard II in 1397. (fn. 121) About forty years later the burgesses petitioned the king for a reduction of their fee farm, pleading poverty through the competition of neighbouring markets and a decreasing population. (fn. 122) They were then paying their farm in three distinct sums: £7 13s. 4d. to Henry 'Lescrop' (Scrope), lord of Bolton, as heir of the estate of Roald son of Roald, £10 15s. 6½d. to Jacquetta Duchess of Bedford as part of her dower, and £21 11s. 1½d. to the king. (fn. 123) In 1441, after a special inquisition, Henry VI reduced the royal portion of the farm to 10 marks during the lifetime of Jacquetta and £12 after her death. The sums due to Jacquetta and to Henry Scrope the burgesses were to pay as before. (fn. 124) Four years later Henry granted his share of the fee farm of Richmond, with the reversion of the part held by the Duchess of Bedford, to Richard Earl of Salisbury and his wife Alice and her issue. (fn. 125) This grant was invalidated to some extent by the Act of Resumption of 1455, which reserved to the king the fee farm of Richmond after the deaths of the Earls of Salisbury and Warwick. (fn. 126) In 1478 the royal part of the farm was granted by Edward IV to his brother Richard Duke of Gloucester, (fn. 127) but with the latter's accession to the throne in 1483 it became once more and still remains the property of the Crown. The Scrope portion of the fee farm passed by marriage with Anabella, one of the daughters of Emanuel Scrope Earl of Sunderland, to the Howes. A descendant of the Howes sold it, it seems, to Ralph Lodge of St. Trinians. In 1780, when his affairs became deranged, it was conveyed to Thomas Kay, rector of Melsonby, and he dying in 1787 left it to University College, Oxford, (fn. 128) with which it still remains. (fn. 129)

University College, Oxford. Azure a cross paty between four marilets or.

The charter of Henry VI and the reduction of the fee farm were successively confirmed by Henry VII (1501–2), (fn. 130) by Henry VIII (1512), by Edward VI (1549), by Philip and Mary (1554) and by Elizabeth (1559). (fn. 131)

There is very little evidence to show how the town was governed in this early period of its history. But it appears from indentures in the possession of the corporation of Richmond that the governing body, shortly before it received its charter of incorporation, consisted of four bailiffs and twenty-four burgesses, acting with the consent of the 'communalty of the saide' town. (fn. 132) The first charter of incorporation was granted by Queen Elizabeth in January 1576–7. It ordained that the corporation should consist of an alderman and twelve capital burgesses, a recorder and two serjeants-at-mace, and that they should choose constables and other inferior officers according to custom. The corporation was to be self-electing. When an alderman was required the burgesses were to nominate two of their own number, one of whom was then to be elected by the inhabitants. On a vacancy among the capital burgesses the remainder were to choose a substitute from the inhabitants of the town. The recorder was to be appointed by the alderman and capital burgesses. The charter imposed a fine of 40s. on all who refused to take office and empowered the alderman and capital burgesses to make by-laws with the consent of the free burgesses. (fn. 133)

A second charter of incorporation was granted by Charles II in 1668. It enacted that the mayor, aldermen and free burgesses should be incorporated under the title of 'the Mayor and Aldermen of the Borough of Richmond in the County of York,' and appointed the first mayor and twelve aldermen. The mayor was to hold office for a year and the aldermen for life. The corporation was to be selfelective as before. The appointments of a town clerk and a recorder (fn. 134) were, however, in future to receive the sanction of the Crown. The mayor was to take the place of the alderman in the previous charter. All charitable uses in any of the members of the corporation at the time of the charter were vested in the mayor and aldermen and the charter confirmed all former rights and privileges. (fn. 135)

In 1684 Charles II provided the burgesses with another charter; this reserved to the Crown the right of removing any corporate officer at pleasure and appointed a common council to consist of a mayor, twelve aldermen and twenty-four councilmen. It also increased the fine for refusal of office to £10. (fn. 136) The corporation got rid of this charter by virtue of the Proclamation of Restitution of James II, and that of 1668 has since been regarded as the governing charter of the borough. But the body of twenty-four common-councilmen seems, nevertheless, to have been perpetuated. (fn. 137) The working of the corporation under the governing charter can be gathered from the Coucher Books of the Corporation of Richmond during the 18th and 19th centuries and from the Report of the Commission on Municipal Corporations of 1835.

A record of ancient burgages was made in 1679 and 1696, when 268 claims were admitted; other claims were subsequently acknowledged, making the total in 1769 and 1821, exclusive of the three farms which had rights of pasture, 273. (fn. 138) There are now 274 recognized burgage rights, but three have no registered owners.

The freedom of the borough was carefully restricted. Free burgesses were created by birth, by apprenticeship, and by grant from the council. The eldest son of a burgess was entitled to be admitted a burgess at the age of twenty-one if his father had been a free burgess at the time of his birth. Every person who had served seven years under an indenture of apprenticeship to a free burgess carrying on trade in the borough, provided that both he and his master were members of one or another of the trading companies, could also claim his freedom. The freedom, though frequently given to various persons, was never sold. (fn. 139)

Besides the officials mentioned in the governing charter, the corporation of Richmond employed two chamberlains, two pasture masters, a bellman, a pinder, a cleaner of the castle walks, a cleaner of water grates, a cleaner of flags (paved paths), a sweeper of streets, a weeder of footpaths, an engine keeper, a hall keeper, a cleaner of the chandelier in the town hall, a keeper of the town clocks, a mole-catcher, a keeper of the corporation pews and three constables. (fn. 140)

In 1835 elections to the corporation were, on the whole, carried out in accordance with the terms of the charters. Richmond, like the majority of boroughs of that date, had a close corporation. In other words it was a self-electing body of the usual type. The mayor was always chosen from among the aldermen, a majority of whom nominated two of their own body as 'lights.' The majority of burgesses present thereupon selected one of the two lights as mayor. The two lights were usually chosen in rotation. (fn. 141) In 1822 the retiring mayor objected to the alderman next in rotation as 'a litigious and very indiscreet' man, but he was not supported by his brother aldermen and the candidate was elected. (fn. 142) In early days the votes were given in groups, according to the company or trade of the voters, (fn. 143) but this method of voting seems to have been discontinued in the latter half of the 18th century. (fn. 144) When an alderman was needed the majority chose one from among the common-councillors, (fn. 145) while that body existed, and, after its dissolution, from the free burgesses. Aldermen were required to be resident, and frequent removals for non-residence occurred. (fn. 146) In 1765 the election of a non-resident provoked a heated protest on the part of nineteen common-councilmen. They declared it to be a 'direct violation' of the governing charter. Their remonstrance was sent with an offer of the post to the candidate, who thereupon declined office. (fn. 147) The common-councillors were, however, still dissatisfied and in the following month eleven out of the nineteen resigned. They were excused their fines by the corporation on the ground that their resignations would 'produce and have the desirable effects of peace and good order.' (fn. 148) When a vacancy occurred in the common council, a majority of the councillors nominated two of the inhabitants for the post, one of whom was then chosen by the mayor and aldermen. (fn. 149) In early times corporate members were also, it would seem, either freemen or burgage-holders, but in 1811 it was said that for many years back common-councillors and aldermen had been elected without such a qualification. It was, indeed, no uncommon thing for inhabitants who were not burgesses to be elected as aldermen. This practice was checked by a growing opposition on the part of members and by a threat from the Stamp Office. (fn. 150) Non-freemen were, however, elected in defiance of protest as late as 1832. (fn. 151) But, as a rule, both aldermen and common-councillors were qualified for admission by an ad hoc gift of the freedom of the borough. In 1813, for instance, six common-councillors took office, five of whom had previously been admitted freemen of the corporation, two in the Carpenters' Company, one in the Tailors' Company, and two in the Cordwainers' Company. The sixth claimed his freedom of 'ancient right in the Company of the Taylors.' (fn. 152) In 1830 the election of two common-councilmen to replace two who had been ousted from office by judgement of ouster in the Court of King's Bench was opposed by two members, one of whom had been advised that the council was no longer competent to fill up any vacancies. Although he was out-voted, (fn. 153) eleven members of the common council resigned (fn. 154) under the impression that they could not continue to exercise office without subjecting themselves to legal proceedings. (fn. 155) An inadequate number were left to elect substitutes, and the common council thereupon became extinct. (fn. 156) The borough was subsequently governed by the mayor and aldermen with the consent of the free burgesses. (fn. 157) The free burgesses were not admitted to the meetings of the mayor and aldermen, but were afterwards required to sanction their decisions, proposals and accounts. The number of resident burgesses was then about fifty out of a population of nearly 4,000. There were also fifteen or twenty burgesses who were non-resident. (fn. 158)

But the dissolution of the common council had not the desired effect of restoring harmony to the corporation. The burgesses had no confidence in the mayor and aldermen, and they appear to have suspected the former of using his revenue for private emolument. They wished to deprive him of his income from tolls and to substitute a fixed allowance for official expenses. (fn. 159) Negotiations between the two parties proved of no avail, and the situation remained just as 'divided and discordant' as before. (fn. 160) There were disputes about elections and methods of conducting business. (fn. 161) So seriously, in fact, was the corporation 'at war' that it was sometimes incapable of attending to public affairs. (fn. 162) Its business was delayed, its lands were unlet, and its accounts remained unsanctioned by the burgesses. (fn. 163) Both parties, however, appear to have agreed in desiring popular election and an extended franchise, (fn. 164) and the Municipal Reform Act of 1835 must have relieved the borough from an almost impossible situation. (fn. 165)

In 1755, in accordance with the regulations of the governing charter, the fine exacted for refusal of corporate office was 40s., (fn. 166) and in the case of a first offence not more than 20s. was asked. (fn. 167) As the situation grew more strained, however, the corporation seems to have experienced some difficulty in inducing duly qualified persons to take office and the 'usual fine' was increased to £5 for a common-councillor (fn. 168) and £10 for an alderman. (fn. 169) But when a good excuse, such as 'advanced age' was offered, the fine was remitted altogether. (fn. 170) Immediately after the passing of the Municipal Reform Act a by-law fixed the fine for an alderman at £20 and for a mayor at £40. (fn. 171)

The corporation of Richmond was not singled out by the Commissioners of 1835 as conspicuously defective in any way, and on the whole it seems to have been a liberal and public-spirited body. (fn. 172)

The pleas of the borough are mentioned in 1280, and in 1341 the burgesses had all pleas and perquisites of court within the borough (fn. 173); unfortunately the earliest court leet records of the corporation date only from the 18th century. (fn. 174) Courts leet were held twice in the year in 1821. (fn. 175)

The right of the burgesses to have a prison was recognized by the charter of 1576; the alderman was to be keeper. The alderman and recorder were, moreover, to be ex officio justices of the peace, with power to try felonies not betokening loss of life. (fn. 176)

Queen Elizabeth in her charter of 1576 granted the borough view of frankpledge and a court of record, the jurisdiction of which was not to exceed £100. (fn. 177) Over this court the alderman and several capital burgesses presided. (fn. 178)

Under the charter of Charles II the mayor took the place of the alderman as keeper of the prison and justice of the peace, and received all the fines and profits of the court of record, which was held every other Tuesday. (fn. 179) In 1835 the Municipal Commissioners reported that they found the criminal jurisdiction of the borough to be exclusive, that the quarter sessions were held at the usual periods and that the usual classes of cases were tried there. More heinous offenders were committed for trial at York. The civil jurisdiction of the borough was also in conformity with the charter, the court of record meeting every other Tuesday and taking cognizance of actions not exceeding £100 in amount. (fn. 180)

Richmond received a summons to send representatives to Parliament as early as 1328, and no return was made. (fn. 181) In 1586 it sent two members to Parliament, (fn. 182) and after that date it was generally represented. In 1867 the number of its representatives was reduced to one, (fn. 183) and since 1885 the representation of the borough has been merged in the Richmond division of the North Riding. (fn. 184) By the charter of Elizabeth the election of representatives was vested in the aldermen and burgesses (fn. 185); by that of Charles II in the mayor, aldermen and free burgesses. (fn. 186) The interpretation of the term free burgesses was not, however, consistent, and the inclusion of members of the trading companies in 1727 provoked an appeal to Parliament, which decided that the right of election rested in the holders of ancient burgages. (fn. 187) After this decision the family of D'Arcy began a policy of buying up the burgages in order to control the representation of the town. From Sir Conyers D'Arcy these burgages passed with the manor of Aske (q.v) to the family of Dundas, and in the last years before the Act for Municipal Reform Lord Dundas held more than half the burgages in Richmond and regularly returned members of his own family to Parliament. (fn. 188)

A fair at Richmond is first mentioned in or about 1155 when Henry II spoke of the liberties which he had granted to it. (fn. 189) A market was possibly held on its present site just outside the castle gates, for some fifty years later the Countess Constance granted to Richard the Butcher all his stone-built booth. (fn. 190) The market, mentioned in 1268, (fn. 191) was held on a Saturday in 1441, (fn. 192) when 'by the constant flocking of men together' the burgesses were able to raise a great part of their fee-farm rents from the market-dues, (fn. 193) though complaints of their methods had been made earlier. (fn. 194)

In 1278 Edward I granted Earl John a yearly fair to be held from 3 to 6 September inclusive. (fn. 195) Soon afterwards the earl claimed to have two fairs yearly, this one and another on the eve of the translation of St. Martin. (fn. 196) Queen Elizabeth granted the burgesses a market every Saturday, a market for animals every fortnight between Palm Sunday and Christmas, a fair each year on the vigil of Palm Sunday, all tolls and customs appertaining to the fairs and markets, a court of pie-powder within the fairs, and all waifs and deodands. (fn. 197) The alderman was clerk of the market under the charter of Elizabeth, the mayor under the governing charter of the borough. (fn. 198) In 1820 a third fair called the Rake Fair was being held on the Saturday before the feast of St. Thomas of Canterbury. (fn. 199) The weekly market is still held on a Saturday and there is a fortnightly market for cattle. But the chief annual fair now begins on 2 November and lasts two days only. There are also two fairs each year for pedlary.

Richmond, owing to its position between the pastoral highlands and the agricultural lowlands, was an important market for corn (fn. 200) and wool; there was also some traffic in lead from the mines up Swaledale. (fn. 201) As a corn market it appears to have been most prosperous in the early middle ages, and by the middle of the 15th century this prosperity had already begun to wane. Its trade in corn had suffered through the establishment of neighbouring markets and the reclamation of waste lands in Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmorland, and its population had been reduced by pestilence. (fn. 202) In the time of the Commonwealth the town was said to be still living by its fairs and markets, though it had also a considerable manufacture of hand-knitted yarn stockings. (fn. 203) 'Here,' it was said in 1727, 'you see all the People, great and small, a knitting; and at Richmond you have a Market for woollen or Yarn stockings, which they make very coarse and ordinary, and they are sold accordingly'; it was the most important industry in 1769. (fn. 204) In 1822, though the stocking industry was still the chief trade of Richmond, the introduction of machinery had apparently already dealt it a fatal blow. (fn. 205) The manufacture of paper was begun about this date, (fn. 206) and there were subsequently two paper-mills at Richmond, one near the castle and the other to the west of the town. The latter alone is now working. Richmond possesses the only railway station for Swaledale. It is, therefore, still of importance as a market.

The number of trading companies was thirteen as late as 1820, (fn. 207) but by 1835 it had been reduced to ten. (fn. 208) Not every trade had its company. It was quite as common, indeed, for two or more to unite to form one gild. The following is a list of the thirteen companies as they were in 1797:—(1) mercers, grocers, and haberdashers; (2) drapers, vintners, and surgeons; (3) tailors; (4) tanners; (5) fellmongers and glovers; (6) butchers; (7) cordwainers (fn. 209); (8) saddlers and bakers; (9) carpenters; (10) fullers and dyers; (11) blacksmiths; (12) slaters, wallers, and lime-burners; (13) cappers. (fn. 210) The only existing archives are those of the mercers, grocers, and haberdashers, and they do not go further back than 1580. The commissioners of 1835 reported that it was not necessary to be a burgess to belong to these societies, and that there was no rule of admission into them. (fn. 211) In 1702, however, it seems that admission to the mercers, grocers, and haberdashers was by seven years' apprenticeship, or as the eldest son of a freeman of the company. (fn. 212) At the present time the United Company of Mercers, Grocers, and Haberdashers alone remains.

Many of the Richmond companies once possessed plate of great interest (fn. 213) and value, but most of this has been dispersed, and is now in private hands. The United Company of Mercers, Grocers, and Haberdashers still, however, retain theirs—a large peg-tankard, a silver bowl and ladle, and two cocoanut cups mounted in silver. All these seem to be of 18th-century work.

The insignia (fn. 214) and plate of the borough of Richmond are of considerable interest. The great mace is of silver-gilt, 4 ft. 7½ in. long. The hallmarks are London 1714–15, and the maker's mark is that of Francis Garthorne. An inscription on the foot-knop shows that it was given in 1714 by 'ye Hble: Henry Mordaunt & Thomas Yorke Esqre ye Representatives in Parliament for ye Corporation of Richmond.' Of the two smaller maces the earlier has no hall-marks. It is of silver, 1 ft. 3 in. long, and may possibly have been made as early as 1576–7. But it was engraved with the royal arms of the Stuart kings in the 17th century. The second of the smaller maces is of silver-gilt, 2 ft. 2¾ in. in length. It was engraved with the royal arms at the Restoration, and the arches of the crown have been added. In other respects it remains as when made in 1650–1 by James Plummer of York. The mayor's chain and badge are of gold, and were purchased by subscription in 1872. They were designed and made by a Richmond goldsmith, Mr. W. Robinson.

The 15th-century circular silver seal is 1½ in. in diameter, with a device representing the Holy Trinity between shields of the king's arms and those of Britanny. Another small round seal of silver, 1 in. wide, bears a Tudor rose with the legend

+ sigillvm . bvrgi . richmondii

It was given in 1603 by Sir Thomas Lascelles, alderman.

A third seal of silver was obtained in 1668, when licence was granted to the town of Richmond that the mayor for the time being 'and the clerk by us by these presents to be deputed might take and receive recognizances of debt according to the form of the Statute merchant of Acton Burnell.'

This seal is a vesica 31/8 in. long. It bears in a shield the town arms, with a crowned Tudor rose above.


+ s . dni . r. ad cap : reco : inf'ra byrg : rich : concs : temp : wil : wetwang : pri : mai : ib.

It is made in two pieces in literal interpretation of the charter, the panel with the crowned rose being movable for use as the clerk's seal.

The oldest piece of plate belonging to the corporation is a silver salt with traces of gilding, 5½ in. in height, with the London hall-marks for 1589–90. The drum of this salt appears to have been given by Mr. Cotterel in 1595. The movable top is certainly of later date, but the hall-marks are illegible. There is no cover.

The drum tankard with flat lid and whistle handle is 7½ in. in height. The hall-marks are York 1615–16, and the maker's mark M B conjoined and crowned, for Marmaduke Best.

On the front is inscribed 'The Snow Tankard | The Gift of Sr Mark Milbanke Bart & John Hutton Senr Esqr | to ye Corporation after a disputed Race in a great Snow at Easter.'

The peg-tankard is 6¼ in. high, with three figs for feet, and two like fruit and leaves as a thumbpiece to the handle. A Latin inscription on the lid with the arms and crest of the donor show that this tankard was a gift from William Wetwang, the first mayor of the borough, 23 May 1668. Hall-marks: York 1667–8. Maker, John Plummer.

There are two cups; the first of these is 103/8 in. high and 4 3/16 in. across the bowl, with baluster stem and egg-and-tongue moulding. An inscription round the lip shows that 'This boulle' was given by 'Robert Willance to the incorporated Allderman and Burgagses of Richmond for the use of the Alderman.' It is said to have been an offering in commemoration of a providential escape from death by the donor when hunting on Whitcliffe Scar near Richmond. The hall-marks are London 1595–6; maker's mark AB in a shield with a tun in base. The later cup, 6 7/10 in. high, is of an ordinary 18th-century type, and is mainly of interest from its inscription: 'The Gift of George Moore of East Witton, to the Mayor | and Corporation of Richmond for ever, as a grateful —acknowledgement of their Honest and zealous endeavour | to discover the execrable Murderers of his kinsman | John Moore of Gilling, perpetrated December 16th 1758—Henry Lanchester, Mayor.' The hall-marks are London 1757–8.

Besides these cups there is an early 18th-century monteith of silver 8¾ in. high and 10¾ in. in diameter, with movable rim and hanging side-handles. Under the foot is this inscription: 'richmond novr 4th 1754 | Out of ye great Regard & Affection | i have for this corporation | i give this bowle | to be used by the Mayor | for ye time being for ever | Cuth. Readshaw Mayor.' The hall-marks are London, 1700–1, and the maker's mark Tl in a shield, with a star above and below.


In 1086 but 1 carucate of land at Hindrelagh was in the hands of Count Alan; the 'manor' and the remaining 5 were held under him by Enisan, (fn. 215) tenant of Constable Burton (fn. 216) (q.v.), Barningham (q.v.) and many other places. The descent of the lands of Enisan immediately after his tenure is obscure; he may have left co-heiresses or his lands may have suffered escheat, since Barningham was the subject of a grant by Count Stephen to Roald the Constable, son of Harscodus. (fn. 217)

The evidence is inconclusive, but the fact remains that by the middle of the 12th century the manorial rights were in the hands of the lords of the honour, and were, with certain exceptions, (fn. 218) granted to the burgesses with the borough. The mayor and corporation are the lords of the manor.


The parish church of ST. MARY THE VIRGIN consists of a chancel 35 ft. by 17 ft. 6 in., with a north vestry, north chapel 22 ft. by 18 ft. 6 in., south chapel 21 ft. 6 in. by 18 ft. 6 in., nave 78 ft. 6 in. by 23 ft. 3 in., north aisle 15 ft. 3 in. wide with a north porch, south aisle of equal width, and west tower 12 ft. square, with a modern vestry to the north of it. All these measurements are internal.

The building has been so much altered and renovated during the last fifty years that there is not a great deal of the old work left, but enough remains to show that a church of the same length as at present stood here in the 12th century. It was probably cruciform, and had aisles to the nave; the remains of the south arcade date from about 1150, and those of the north from about 1190. The nave arcades seem to have been largely rebuilt in the 13th century, but all work of this date has now been replaced by modern work, and the north doorway is the only old feature of 13th-century style now remaining. The south aisle seems to have been rebuilt in the 14th century, and the south chapel added or rebuilt. The north aisle was rebuilt about 1420; the north porch and west tower date from the same time, and the south chapel was probably lengthened eastward in this century. A clearstory was added to the nave at some time in the 15th century, but was replaced by that now existing in 1860. In that year the chancel arch and the arcades of the nave and chancel were rebuilt, with the exception of the west bay on each side of the nave, as were the south porch and the north vestry. Since then a new vestry has been added at the west end of the north aisle, a window has been inserted in the formerly blank south wall of the chancel, and other small works carried out.

The east window, of 15th-century style, is of five cinquefoiled lights with tracery under a pointed arch. The greater part of the window is modern, but the lower parts of the jambs might be the original work; a modern transom has been put in a few feet above the sill. The south window is new and there is no piscina, but a hollow in the place where it should be. An old sedile with a two-centred arch of a sunk quarter-round mould is set in the south wall. It has an incomplete square label and appears to be a 14th-century recess brought from elsewhere. In the west bay of the chancel are modern pairs of arches with a cinquefoil in the spandrel between them.

In the north-east vestry is an old locker formerly set near the south side of the chancel arch, having two oak doors with their iron strap hinges, handles and scutcheons.

The nave arcades are of five bays, with piers of four attached semicircular shafts, the four eastern bays in each arcade being modern. The fourth pier on the south side dates from about 1150; it is square with three-quarter shafts at the angles and cushion capitals, on the eastern pair of which are carved animals, while the western pair are plain. The design of the pier is earlier than its details, and suggests that the work of building went on slowly, the church having been begun about 1120.

The western respond is a large half-round with a scalloped capital. The arch between them is pointed and probably of 14th-century date, of two chamfered orders, replacing the original arch.

The western bay of the north arcade dates from about 1190, having a circular eastern column with moulded bases and capital, and a half-round respond of the same type; the arch is pointed, of two square orders.

The north chapel is now filled by the organ; its windows, like those of the north aisle, have been almost entirely renewed, and are of 15th-century style. The north doorway is good 13th-century work with an arch of two moulded orders and shafts with moulded capitals to the outer orders; it opens to a north porch covered with a two-centred barrel vault running north and south with a ridge-rib and diagonals dying into the angles without corbels. At either end of the ridge-rib are carved bosses, that next the aisle wall being a man's face bearded and cowled with leaves on either side, and the other carved as two leaves only. The outer arch of the porch is of two hollow-chamfered orders and has a two-centred arch with a moulded label.

The south chapel has an east window of four lights in 15th-century style, and two south windows, one being square-headed, which appear to be copied from formerly existing 14th-century examples.

In the south wall are a trefoiled piscina, a locker and one sedile with part of another, all with sunk quarter rounded edges and probably of the 14th century. These are now only a foot or two above the floor, which has been raised to the general level of the church. The windows of the south aisle are all renewed; between the first and second is a small blocked doorway, and the principal south doorway is nearly all modern, with 14th-century details under a modern porch, which replaced an old one and has a large outer arch of 13th-century style. Both aisles are filled with 18th-century galleries along their length.

The tower is of four stages with diagonal buttresses reaching nearly to the embattled parapet. It is well proportioned and was intended for a stone spire, the squinches for which still remain below its present roof. It has tall two-light belfry windows with transoms and tracery, and in the second stage are small square-headed openings. The west window of the ground stage is of four lights with tracery and transoms, and at this stage the tower has a ribbed stone vault, with a central bellway. The tower stair, entered from the south-east, runs up to the battlements, and on the centre of the west parapet are the arms of Nevill on a shield.

Externally the church has lost most of its old features through repairs; the east window of the south aisle has a moulded label with shields with the arms of Aske and Fitz Hugh, and in the south wall of the chancel are the jambs of an old blocked window. Below the east window of the chancel is a shallow and wide buttress of 12th-century date, above it is a string-course of the same date, chamfered on both edges, and to the north of it some quoins of a doorway or window opening to the space below the chancel floor. The east wall is thinned considerably about halfway up its height, the weathering being in two offsets and returning down the jambs of the window vertically. Some of the buttresses and window labels on the north side have old stonework and to the east of the porch is a small blocked doorway. Over the outer arch of the porch is an empty niche with a shouldered head.

The 15th-century font is octagonal with concave sides on which are shields, the west is carved with i.h.c. and the east with a merchant's mark between i.y.; the stem is modern. In the north aisle is the dilapidated bowl of a 13th-century font which was recently found in the churchyard; it is octagonal and has fluted ornament on the sides. A mediaeval grave slab with a floreated cross on a stepped base, and a sword beside it, is set over the vestry door, but the most important monument in the church is that of Timothy Hutton, 1629, and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of George Bowes, on the south wall of the chancel. The arms over the tomb are those of Hutton (Gules on a fesse argent between three cushions argent three fleurs de lis gules impaling Bowes, Ermine three bows gules). Below the two chief kneeling figures are those of eight sons and daughters besides four infants in cradles, and under these are their respective arms and quaint verses in English and Latin. Under the tower is a small brass to Thomas Cawing, 1516, another to Christopher Pepper, 1635, and a 15th-century gravestone with a cross, on either side of the head of which are i.h.s. and m., for Jesus and Maria. The stalls in the chancel, which were brought here from Easby Abbey after the Dissolution, are very graceful and elegant. They have been a great deal restored, but still retain much of the original work. There are eight on each side, with traceried canopies carried on pairs of shafts, the two western seats having their canopies set forward in front of the rest. Both sides have been a good deal repaired, the north much more than the south, the canopies here being nearly all modern. The misericorde seats are well carved, having, besides the common types of dragons, cockatrices, antelope, &c., a rebus of three plants or trees growing from a tun, and two pigs dancing to a bagpipe played by a third. On the south canopy is the following inscription: 'Decem sunt abusiones claustralium, victus preciosus, cibus exquisitus, rumor in claustro, lis in capitulo, dissolutio in choro, negligens discipulus, inobediens juvenis, ociosus senex, obstinatus monachus, curialis religiosus.' The corresponding inscription on the north is now a jumble of old and new; its condition before restoration may be seen in Whitaker's Richmondshire. The south canopy bears the rebus of Bampton, the last Abbot of Easby. On the misericorde seats are two sets of numbers, evidently made as a guide to their fitting and refitting. The only remains of old wall decoration is part of a large 15th-century figure on the north of the east window of the south chapel, representing the Angel of the Salutation; the figure of our Lady was, doubtless, on the south side of the window, and the painting goes to show that this was the Lady chapel, the position being the usual one.

An ancient alms-box stands at the west end of the church.

In two of the south aisle windows are some pieces of heraldic glass, one with the arms of England and France, and below it a shield bearing Chequy or and azure a canton ermine. Another has the arms of Fountains Abbey—Azure three horseshoes or, and there are two more shields, one charged with a mascled lion rampant, and the other with the Urswick arms, A bend sable charged with three lozenges, in chief a crescent.

There are eight bells: the treble and second of 1904; the third was presented by Sir Ralph Conyers and is dated 1739; the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenor are all dated 1697 with various Latin texts; the sixth is inscribed 'Scà trinitas unus deus,' a 15th-century bell said to have been brought from Easby Abbey.

The plate consists of two cups of 1640, one inscribed 'Ex dono Gulielmi Lambert olim paedagogi liberae scholae Richmondiae,' two patens with no marks but probably of the same date, a large standing paten of 1701, two large flagons of 1762, four almsdishes of the same date, one modern almsdish, and two pewter ones.

The registers are as follows: (i) 1556 to 1632 (fn. 219); (ii) 1632 to 1638; (iii) 1633 to 1659 (fn. 220); (iv) 1640 to 1652 baptisms and burials; (v) 1660 to 1667 (fn. 221); (vi) 1673 (only); (vii) marriages 1680 to 1691; (viii) burials 1680 to 1691; (ix) baptisms 1680 to 1691; (x) burials 1695 and baptisms and marriages presumably for the same year—a fragment; (xi) 1690 to 1770; (xii) 1771 to 1812. There is a book of entries for rectors and relations of rectors from 1628 to 1808. An old copy of Foxe's Acts and Monuments and a copy of Bishop Jewell's works are also among the parish books.

TRINITY CHAPEL (fn. 222) consists of a small chancel 7 ft. 4 in. by 12 ft. 4 in., nave 52 ft. by 20 ft. 10 in. with a north aisle 19 ft. 6 in. wide running its full length, to the west of which is the entrance doorway; the tower is separated from the church by a shop. Many changes have occurred since the church was first built, and there have been so many alterations that nothing remains in the building to give an idea as to when it was founded. Under the north aisle of the church is a row of shops, and on the site of the south aisle, which has been destroyed, is another row built in 1740. Soon after this date the inhabitants began to repair the fabric, which had become desecrated, and put it to its proper use, since when services have been regularly held in it. The north aisle was re-added in 1864, this having been used in Whitaker's time as a consistory court.

Externally the north side of the church with shops underneath, and another between the church and tower, presents a quaint appearance. The tower, which is also inhabited, is in three stages with diagonal buttresses and a pierced embattled parapet. In the second and top stories are square-headed twolight cinquefoiled windows with hoods, the upper ones on the north and west sides blocked for the clock face. The west, south and east ends are hidden from view by shops. The south wall is divided into four bays by buttresses, the lower part of the first three being occupied by shops and the fourth or westernmost by the door, which is modern, in the style of the 13th century. Above the shops are three modern three-light trefoiled windows which have labels above them and a string below the sills running round the buttresses and above the doorway. Above the aisle can be seen three twolight trefoiled four-centred windows which are all modern.

The interior of the church, which is all plastered, shows nothing of interest, all the windows and arcading being modern. Near the door is an old almsbox with scroll ironwork decoration. There is a curfew bell in the tower which is still rung morning and evening. On it there is no date, but an inscription in black letter: 'Omne super nomen i.h.s. est venerabile nomen.'

The plate consists of a modern silver chalice and paten, a large Sheffield plate stand paten and a silver plated chalice and paten.

There are no registers.

Plan of Grey Friars Church, Richmond

All that now remains of the GREY FRIARS monastery, founded by Ralph Fitz Randolph in 1258, is a beautifully proportioned tower, which may have replaced an earlier bell-turret of wood, and a few fragments of the walls of the chancel and south chapel. It would seem that the church consisted of a quire, nave and south chapel, with probably the monastic buildings to the north, and late in the 15th century the present tower was built over the passage dividing the nave from the quire; it is of great height, with only one offset at the top story, and at the angles are pairs of buttresses which were corbelled out on each side of the arch on the east and west sides, and which rested on the chancel walls on the north and south. These are of four stages, with crocketed ends to the first and third, terminating in foliated finials and grotesques, the top stages running above the parapet and terminating in pinnacles. The parapet has pierced trefoiled battlements, and in the middle of each side is a projecting pinnacle supported on corbels above the windows of the top stage, which is lighted on all sides by trefoiled two-light perpendicular three-centred windows having moulded hoods terminated by flowers. The middle stories of the tower are lighted on the east and west by one, on the north and south by two square-headed cinquefoiled lights with moulded and returned labels. There are beautifully moulded equilateral arches in each wall, the height on the east and west to the springing being about twice the width and the other two about 4 ft. 6 in. lower; the jambs are clustered attached shafts with beautiful capitals and bases, and the arch moulds are two double ogees divided by a large casement and surrounded by a moulded label. Above these arches is a string which was intended to act as a dripstone to the roofs on the east and west, and it is continued round the north and south walls; above the crown of each arch into the chancel and nave is a doorway a little to the north of the central line in each case. On the north side near the northwest angle is an external staircase lighted by slits and terminating under the second crocketed canopy of the buttress.

Richmond: Grey Friars Tower

Of the quire there are parts of the north and south walls, 3 ft. thick, which seem to have extended 52 ft. eastward, making this part of the church 52 ft. by 22 ft.

The chapel has still remaining the greater part of the east wall and the springing of the north arcade; the length is 17 ft. 9 in. from north to south. There are two 14th-century windows in the east wall with head and jambs complete, but without tracery.

There is a window jamb of the nave (which was about 22 ft. wide) on the north side near the tower. The north and south sides of the tower are filled in by the old 14th-century walls of the chancel, that on the former being broken away and that on the latter containing a pointed chamfered arched doorway. Externally these old walls of the chancel have remains of buttresses, and there are marks of a diagonal buttress at the south-east angle of the chapel.


The 'church of Richmond' was given by one of the first three lords of the honour, possibly by Alan Rufus, to the abbey of St. Mary, York. (fn. 223) The abbey was, at all events, in possession before 1137, the date of Count Stephen's death, (fn. 224) and in 1396 it was receiving a pension of 100s. and 20 lb. of wax from it. (fn. 225) After the Dissolution the advowson (fn. 226) remained in the possession of the Crown until it was transferred to the bishopric of Ripon in 1860 by an order in Council. (fn. 227)

The chantry of St. Anne and St. Catherine (fn. 228) was founded in the parish church in 1492 by William Stenall, clerk. In 1546 it had an income of £4 10s. 8d. Thomas Asby bequeathed a burgage in Richmond for a priest to serve in the parish church after the death of his wife, but as she was alive in 1546 his will had not then been executed. Little beyond its existence is known of the chantry of the Blessed Virgin here, and it is not known definitely whether the chantry of St. John the Baptist was or was not in the parish church, where certain obits were maintained from lands lately belonging to the monastery of St. Agatha. (fn. 229)

Two historians of Richmond have maintained that Trinity Chapel was the older of the two churches in Richmond and the original parish church of the town. (fn. 230) But all the available evidence goes to show that Trinity was from the beginning a chapel and nothing more. So far as is known, it is first mentioned in 1330 as 'Holy Trinity Chapel, Richemund.' (fn. 231) The Chantry Survey of 1546 (fn. 232) gives an interesting, if somewhat ambiguous, account of its origin and purpose: 'The necessite is,' it quaintly says, 'that in tyme of the plage the inhabitantes, with out infeccion, to resorte to the same, for savegarde of there bodyez; fyndyng in the same threy prystes of theyre owne charges yerely, to put in and out at the pleasure of the inhabitants of the same towne, with such wages as they do agre unto. Havyng no landes nor tenements to the sustentacion of the same.'

Doubtless 'the inhabitants' came in course of time to be narrowed down to the corporation. In 1754 the corporation was, at all events, making arrangements for the endowment of Trinity Church, (fn. 233) and in 1836 it declared that 'by long and antient usage the right of Nomination and Presentation to the Curacy of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity . . . was vested in the Mayor, Aldermen and Freeburgesses of the said Borough of Richmond. (fn. 234) That the said Chapel of the Holy Trinity became vacant in or about the month of March 1822 . . . and that the said Mayor and Aldermen and Freeburgesses not being able to agree (fn. 235) upon a fit and proper person to be nominated and presented to the said Chapel the right of nomination and presentation thereto lapsed to . . . the then Lord Bishop of Chester.' (fn. 236) The Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 made the corporation legally incapable of appointing another incumbent. (fn. 237)

In or about 1845 Mr. Leonard Cook of Richmond bought the advowson from the corporation, and about 1870 he sold it to the late Lord Zetland, who gave it to be held by the head master of the Richmond Grammar School, then always in orders. The advowson remained with the school trustees till 1893, when the Charity Commissioners brought in a new scheme, whereby it was unnecessary that the head master should be in orders, and directed that the presentation should be sold and the proceeds given to the school funds. It was thereupon bought by the Bishop of Ripon and is still in his possession.

In 1398 relaxations of penance were decreed to penitents visiting the chapel of Holy Trinity on certain days of the year. (fn. 238)

The Chantry Surveys contain no mention of a chantry in Trinity Chapel, but in 1330 a certain Nicholas de Kirkby obtained a licence to endow a chaplain with land and rent that he might celebrate divine service daily at the altar of St. Thomas the Martyr in Holy Trinity Chapel for the souls of the said Nicholas, of Henry le Scrope and Peter de Richmund and their ancestors. (fn. 239) A 16th-century list gives the chantries of St. Thomas the Apostle and of the Trinity. (fn. 240) An 'old chapel in a state of ruin' belonged to the school until sold to meet expenses incurred during the inclosure of some of the school lands in 1803 (fn. 241); this may have been the chapel of St. James, the origin of which is not known. The chapel appears to have had some endowment. (fn. 242)


The municipal charities consist of an ancient fee-farm rent, understood to have arisen under a grant from Queen Elizabeth, now represented by a sum of £418 17s. 9d. consols with the official trustees, producing £10 9s. 4d. a year; £1 4s. a year charged by will of George Scott, 1672, on a burgage house next to Finckle Street Bar; £1 a year charged by will of Jenking Gretam on land at Marske; £1 4s. a year charged on property at Hudswell representing the charity of Malager Norton; an annuity of £1 4s. payable out of land lying in the West Field charged thereon by Francis Allen, by deed, 1685; and an annuity of 18s., also payable out of land in the West Field, in respect of Dawson's charity.

In 1905 the income of these charities was distributed under the name of audit money in sums of 1s. to 2s. 6d. among 130 poor persons.

Christopher Clarke, by will date unknown, charged his burgage messuage in Newbiggin Street with 20s. a year for the education of one poor boy at the grammar school.

Bowes Hospital, Anchorage Hill, founded by Eleanor Bowes 1618, on the site of the chapel of St. Edmund, was endowed by the founder with a rent-charge of £10 payable out of a farm at Lownewath, now the property of the Marquess of Zetland, which is paid to two widows living in the hospital.

Pinkney's Hospital in Tower Street was founded by will of George Pinkney, 1699, who endowed the same with £6 a year paid in respect of the following premises, viz.: £4 out of a burgage house in the market-place formerly the 'Blue Bell'; £1 out of a burgage house near Old Frenchgate Bar called Bargate House; £1 out of a burgage house in Old Frenchgate, also with an annuity of 10s. out of lands in Hudswell. These sums are paid to three poor widows in the almshouses.

Thompson's Hospital in Castle Hill was founded by William Thompson by indenture of bargain and sale, enrolled, dated 3 November 1781, for four poor widows whose husbands were tailors by trade. The property belonging to the charity, exclusive of the hospital premises, consists of 3 acres in the East Field of Richmond, being an allotment awarded in 1803 on the inclosure, let at £10 a year.

In 1890 Francis Sanderson, by will proved 7 February, bequeathed £500 to the trustees of William Thompson's charity, to be invested and income applied for the benefit of such deserving poor in the parish of Richmond as the trustees should think fit, but without prejudice to any religious denomination. The legacy was invested in £439 Great Northern Railway 3 per cent. debenture stock, producing £13 3s. a year.

Charities administered by the rector or rector and churchwardens: In 1704 the Rev. Matthew Hutchinson, by will dated 26 October, devised unto trustees certain lands, which on the inclosure in 1803 underwent considerable alterations, for education, apprenticing and for poor widows, with a preference to any poor clergyman's widow. The trust property now consists of 11 acres or thereabouts at Hirgill, let at £43 10s. a year, and a sum of £870 Midland Railway Consolidated 2½ per cent. stock with the official trustees, producing £21 15s. a year arising from the investment of £600 received in 1901 from the sale of a cottage and 2 acres of land on the Easby Low Road, and a sum of £144 16s. which had been accumulated in the savings bank for some seventy years.

In 1905–6 £52 was paid by the rector to poor widows and £8 in apprenticeship fees.

By an order dated 2 August 1904, made under the Board of Education Act 1899, the Hutchinson Education Foundation was determined to consist of a yearly sum of 40s., and so much of a further yearly sum of 40s. as might within the year be expended in improving in reading, writing and arithmetic two poor boys between the ages of thirteen and fifteen years and otherwise qualified in accordance with the donor's will.

Mrs. Margaret Jackson, by a trust disposition and settlement dated 25 July 1836, which came into operation in 1879, settled a sum of money for the benefit of the poor of Richmond, now represented by £165 6s. 4d. consols.

In 1851 Octavius Leefe, by will proved at York, bequeathed a legacy for the poor, which was invested in £35 18s. 5d. consols.

By deed, dated 3 December 1856 (enrolled), the Rev. Lawrence Ottley, the then rector, settled two cottages and garden ground adjoining Frenchgate upon trust that the rents should be applied, under the title of 'The Peter and Mary Benefaction,' in providing clothes, coal, other goods or money for indigent members of the Church of England, attendants at the parish church. The trust property was sold in 1887, and the proceeds invested in £294 9s. 6d. consols.

The several sums of consols are held by the official trustees, and the annual dividends, amounting to £11 11s., are applied in the distribution of milk, soup, groceries and coal.

Philip Lord Wharton's Bible Charity.—Bibles and religious tracts are distributed by the rector among poor children of the parish in respect of this trust, founded by deed dated 12 July 1692.

Society of Friends' Charity.—In 1687 Philip Swale, by will dated 29 September, devised to trustees certain real estate at Leyburn, which in 1872 was sold, and the proceeds invested in £1,554 13s. 1d. consols with the official trustees.

The annual dividends, amounting to £38 17s. 4d., are applicable by the monthly meeting of the Society of Friends for the maintenance and relief of poor aged and impotent persons called Quakers in Richmond or within the wapentakes of Gilling East, Gilling West, Hang East, Hang West and Hallikeld.

Educational and Apprenticing Charities.—The Grammar School. (fn. 243)

The official trustees, in addition to certain funds belonging to the Grammar School, hold £277 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway £4 per cent. stock belonging to the Brackenbury Scholarships and Exhibitions, founded by deed 1870 and will proved 1873, and £160 consols, set aside under an order of the Charity Commissioners of 18 September 1903, to provide £4 a year for apprenticing in respect of Dr. Bathurst's charity for that purpose.

By scheme dated 9 May 1892, made under the Endowed Schools Acts, these several foundations were united.

For the Hutchinson Educational Foundation see charity of the Rev. Matthew Hutchinson supra.

In 1894 Mrs. Anne Reed, by will proved 21 April, bequeathed an annuity of £10 for the National schools founded in 1825. The trust fund is represented by £250 North Eastern Railway 4 per cent. preference stock with the official trustees.

General Charities for the North Riding:—Charity of Matton Hutton.—Matton Hutton of Macclesfield died intestate; a part of his estate was administered under the Royal Sign Manual and a declaration of trust dated 1835. The trust fund consists of £10,651 7s. 1d. consols, which under a scheme dated 6 January 1899 provided for the following annual payments, namely: to the York County Hospital £25, to the Leeds General Infirmary £25, to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Infirmary £25, upon such terms in each case as to enable the trustees to secure the benefits of the institution for necessitous persons bona fide resident in one of the following places in the North Riding: Marske next Richmond, Richmond, Marrick, Grinton, Arkengarthdale, Wensley, hamlet of Hartforth, or the children of such persons; various sums to dispensaries at Richmond, Leyburn, and the Richmond and District Victoria Hospital.

The trustees are also empowered to apply towards the maintenance of public elementary schools in one or more of the following places: Marske next Richmond, Downholme, Marrick, Hudswell, and Grinton, the annual sum of £40, provided that the Holy Bible is one of the school books and that the children deriving the benefit of free instruction are instructed in the Church of England Catechism.

The scheme further directs that the residue of the income be applied in apprenticeships in the above places.

By an order, dated 4 October 1904, made under the Board of Education Act 1899, £1,600 consols, part of the above-mentioned sum of £10,651 7s. 1d. consols, was directed to be transferred to a separate account; this with so much of the residue as cannot usefully be applied within the year for apprenticeships constitutes the Hutton Educational Foundation.

In 1907 the year's dividend, amounting to £266 5s. 8d., was applied in the payment of £200 to the several hospitals and dispensaries, of £20 to Marske Schools, £10 to Downholme School, £10 to Hudswell School, and £20 in four apprenticeship fees, and there was a balance in hand of £14.

Dame Mary Calverley, by her will dated 10 May 1715, bequeathed to her executors certain personal estate to be invested, and the yearly income divided among the poor of certain parishes.

Proceedings in Chancery resulted in the recovery of principal and arrears of interest amounting to £1,933 14s. 2d. consols, which was in 1879 transferred to the official trustees. The annual dividends amounting to £48 6s. 8d. are under a scheme of the court of Chancery dated 30 January 1851 applicable towards the relief of the most deserving poor sick and infirm inhabitants not receiving parochial relief, of any of the parishes betwixt Northallerton and Darlington, including under special circumstances any of the two last-named parishes. In 1904–5 ninety recipients were selected by the Darlington trustees and sixty-seven by the Northallerton trustees.


  • 1. See the reproductions in Whitaker's Hist. of Richmondshire.
  • 2. The town was first lighted with gas about 1821 (Coucher Bk. 1812–32, 16 July 1821), but the ugliest of the present gasometers was erected as late as 1909.
  • 3. Dict. Nat. Biog. under these names.
  • 4. Ordnance Survey, 1888–93. According to Clarkson the corporation gave up 80 or 100 acres of land to Lord Dundas at some time after 1739 (Hist. of Richmond, 426).
  • 5. Ordnance Survey, 1888–93.
  • 6. Statistics from Bd. of Agric. (1905).
  • 7. A lead mine is mentioned in 1280 (Yorks. Inq. [Yorks. Arch. Soc.], i, 225). A copper mine 'by Richmond' was granted to Richard Duke of Gloucester and others in 1475 (Cal. Pat. 1467–77, p. 505). Lead and copper seem to have been worked near Richmond in both the 17th and 18th centuries. The mines did not pay and were discontinued after the 18th century (Christopher Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 274–6, 332; Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1752–81, 27 July and 22 Sept. 1758). The commissioners of 1835 mentioned the failure of the lead mines but said nothing of copper (Rep. of Com. on Municipal Corporations [1835], xxv, 1704). Within the last few years copper has been worked in the neighbourhood just outside the limits of the parish.
  • 8. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 276; Coucher Bk. of Corporation, 1752–81, 31 Jan. 1752; 1812–32, 22 Mar. 1820.
  • 9. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 82, 287.
  • 10. A coal mine is marked on one of the ordnance maps.
  • 11. Coucher Bk. 1752–81, 9 Mar. 1759. Brick kilns are shown on a plan of the town made in 1724 (R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond).
  • 12. Rep. of Com. on Municipal Corporations (1835), xxv, 1703.
  • 13. Coucher Bk. 1752–81, 14 Jan. 1752.
  • 14. Leland, Itin. (ed. L. Toulmin Smith), iv, 24. He says that the wall was only half a mile about, but this seems to be a low estimate. Gardens in the old part of the town are very small.
  • 15. Cal. Pat. 1307–13, p. 555.
  • 16. Whitaker, Richmondshire, i, 54–5, citing an Inq. p.m. on the Duke of Britanny, 15 Edw. III, from a Dodsworth MS. The inquisition of the same date at the Public Record Office is quite illegible.
  • 17. Chron. of Reigns of Edw. I and Edw. II (Rolls Ser.), ii, 47; Cal. Close, 1327–30, p. 59; 1333–7, p. 720.
  • 18. Cal. Pat. 1334–8, p. 414.
  • 19. Ibid. 1399–1401, p. 283.
  • 20. Leland, Itin. (ed. L. Toulmin Smith), i, 79. The wall was repaired in 1658 (Doc. of Corp. Chamberlains' Accts.).
  • 21. Leland speaks of three gates and the Friar's Postern in one place (Itin. iv, 24), but in another he says that there were four or five gates (ibid. i, 79).
  • 22. Coucher Bk. 1752–81, 7 Feb. 1754; 9 Mar. 1773; Clarkson, op. cit. 65; Whitaker, Hist. of Richmondshire, 96. It is curious, however, that Frenchgate Bar is not marked in maps of 1610 (?) and 1724. Leland said that all three gates were down in the 16th century and that only vestiges were left, but what he meant is not clear, for two still remain (see above).
  • 23. Celia Fiennes, Through Engl. on a Side Saddle, 183.
  • 24. Yorks. D. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), 141.
  • 25. Richmond Borough MSS.; Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 124, 125.
  • 26. R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, Yorks. 1724.
  • 27. Coucher Bk. 1752–81, 20 Mar. 1780.
  • 28. Leland, Itin. (ed. L. Toulmin Smith), iv, 25.
  • 29. Old Biggin was in the 17th century on the furthest northern limits of the town (J. Speed, An Atlas of England and Wales; North and East Ridings of Yorks). The date suggested for this map is 1610, but it may have been rather later.
  • 30. Richmond Parish Reg.
  • 31. The gaol of the honour; the Earls of Richmond had a gaol before the close of the 13th century (Roger Gale, op. cit. 89).
  • 32. Leland, Itin. (ed. L. Toulmin Smith), i, 79; iv, 25; Coucher Bk. 19 Nov. 1771; Allen, Yorks. iii, 511. Bridge Street seems to have been known as Briggate (Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, App. xxi).
  • 33. Coucher Bk. 1752–81, 4 May 1772.
  • 34. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 328. For the position of Hudswell Tower see R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, 1724.
  • 35. Leland, op. cit. iv, 25; J. Speed, An Atlas, &c. The site for the rectory was given to Hugh de Frithby and his successors by Ralph de Nevill, lord of Raby, about 1359 (Inq. a.q.d. file 332, no. 17; cf. Valor Eccl. [Rec. Com.], vi, 238).
  • 36. V.C.H. Yorks. i, 475.
  • 37. Richmond Borough MSS., but cf. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 401; Yorks. Arch. Journ. xiii, 45.
  • 38. Richmond Borough MSS.; Augmentation Office Proc. bdle. 5, no. 35, 97; 24, no. 1; 35, no. 19; ibid. Misc. Bks. cccci, fol. 41; cxxii, fol. 44–50; cxxiv, fol. 86–8; Yorks. D. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), 142; Leland, op. cit. iv, 25.
  • 39. Coucher Bk. 1812–32, 3 Sept. 1812; R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, Yorks. 1724.
  • 40. N. and Q. (Ser. 5), ix, 495; x, 168.
  • 41. Quaker Lane, from a Quaker burialground situated there. The Quakers' meeting-house in Friar's Wynd was acquired by them in 1677 (Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 207, 208). For Pottergath see Egerton MS. 2827, fol. 30.
  • 42. Clarkson, op. cit. 247; cf. L. and P. Hen. VIII, x, 99; Whitaker, Richmondshire, i, 55; Mins. Accts. bdle. 1116, no. 9, m. 6 d.; Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), v, 84.
  • 43. L. and P. Hen. VIII, iii, 1286.
  • 44. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 282.
  • 45. Ibid. 283.
  • 46. Pipe R. 20 Hen. II (Pipe R. Soc.), 48. The identification with St. Nicholas is confirmed by the series of early deeds in Egerton MS. 2827.
  • 47. Dugdale, Mon. vi, 720; Yorks. Chant. Surv. (Surt. Soc.), i, 140–2. See also Cal. Pat. 1446–52, p. 158.
  • 48. Pat. 27 Eliz. pt. iv, m. 29. For the advowson see ibid. 2 Eliz. pt. viii, m. 1.
  • 49. Ibid. 17 Jas. I, pt. iii, m. 31.
  • 50. It is said to have been held by Thomas Wray (Clarkson, op. cit. 258). Wray, if not himself actually a rebel, was at least a friend of rebels (Cal. S. P. Dom. Add. 1566–79, pp. 456–7, 460). For pedigree see Barden in Hauxwell parish, and cf. Royalist Comp. Papers (Surt. Soc.), 388; Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 254, no. 4.
  • 51. For Wray see Pat. 15 Eliz. pt. viii, m. 26; Chan. Proc. (Ser. 2), bdle. 254, no. 4. Norton apparently obtained the property through Sir Nicholas Tempest; cf. n. 49 (Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 255). Clarkson gives a pedigree of the Nortons (ibid. 331). A Major Norton of St. Nicholas is mentioned in 1662 (Cal. S. P. Dom. 1666–70, p. 670). The advowson of the hospital was granted in 1559 to Robert Freeke (Pat. 2 Eliz. pt. viii, m. 1).
  • 52. Except Whitefield pasture and two closes given to the Yorke family, who were connected by marriage with the Nortons (Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 258, 330).
  • 53. Ibid. 258. A pedigree of the Blackburnes is also given by Clarkson (ibid. 257).
  • 54. Cal. Pat. 1436–41, p. 289; Yorks. Chant. Surv. (Surt. Soc.), i, 141; Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), v, 238.
  • 55. Eleanor Musgrave, widow of Robert Bowes.
  • 56. R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, Yorks. 1724; Dugdale, Mon. vi, 720, 1626; Clarkson, op. cit. 223. Nuns of Richmond are mentioned also in the Pipe R. 18–29 Hen. II (Pipe R. Soc.); cf. Egerton MS. 2827, fol. 28b, 29; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxlvii, 168; Exch. K.R. Misc. Bks. xxxviii, fol. 138 d.; cf. Tithe Apportionment Map (Bd. of Agric.). Clarkson mentions also a fraternity of St. John, which had a house in Frenchgate, and a gild of St. Mary (Hist. of Richmond [ed. 1821], 148, 225).
  • 57. Dugdale, Mon. vi, 1544–5.
  • 58. L. and P. Hen. VIII, xiv (1), 96. For a survey of this property see Aug. Off. Misc. Bks. cccci, fol. 367.
  • 59. L. and P. Hen. VIII, xv, p. 556.
  • 60. Pat. 36 Hen. VIII, pt. xxviii, m. 22.
  • 61. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxlvii, 168.
  • 62. Pat. 15 Eliz. pt. viii, m. 26. This grant and the later inquisition on Thomas Wray speak of the house of 'the Carmelite Friars.' This must, however, be an error. There was, so far as is known, no such foundation at Richmond (Dugdale, Mon. vi, 1544, 1581).
  • 63. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), ccxix, 61.
  • 64. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 220.
  • 65. Cal. S. P. Dom. 1611–18, p. 65.
  • 66. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 160.
  • 67. Feet of F. Yorks. Mich. 8 Chas. I.
  • 68. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 223.
  • 69. Local inform.
  • 70. Roger Hoveden, Chron. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 16.
  • 71. Inform. kindly supplied by the Rev. Henry Farmer; cf. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 208.
  • 72. A new street, connecting the Queen's Road and Frenchgate. It was made by Lord Dundas in 1834 (Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1833–7, 25 Mar. 1834).
  • 73. Cf. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 205.
  • 74. Mill Lane forms the first part of the New Road up Swaledale.
  • 75. Cf. p. 20.
  • 76. Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 295; R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, 1724.
  • 77. Or boxes containing dolls intended to represent the Christ in the Manger.
  • 78. Christ. Clarkson describes other old customs which no longer survive (op. cit. 288–98).
  • 79. The tithes of mills at Richmond were granted by Earl Conan to the cell of St. Martin near Richmond (Dugdale, Mon. iii, 602, 607), and a few years later the tithes of a mill or mills at Richmond were accounted for in the Pipe Rolls (one year the singular appears, in another the plural) (Pipe R. 18 Hen. II [Pipe R. Soc.], 5; 23 Hen. II, 80; cf. Aug. Off. Misc. Bks. cccci, ccclix).
  • 80. Presented doubtless by the early lords of the honour, as they were interested in Begar (Cal. Pat. 1348–50, p. 242).
  • 81. Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), ii, 331; Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 208–9. The Church Mill is now the property of the Marquess of Zetland.
  • 82. Chan. Inq. p.m. 14 Hen. VI, no. 36.
  • 83. Cal. Pat. 1446–52, p. 281.
  • 84. Parl. R. vi, 124.
  • 85. Cal. Pat. 1354–8, p. 128.
  • 86. R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, 1724.
  • 87. Cal. Pat. 1348–50, p. 242.
  • 88. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), lx, 53.
  • 89. Ibid. cclxxx, 73; cf. also Yorks. Fines (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), iv, 161. Apparently the Hudswell Mills (Christ. Clarkson, op. cit. 329).
  • 90. Assize R. 1039, m. 7; Mins. Accts. (Gen. Ser.), bdle. 1086, no. 1; Chan. Inq. p.m. 14 Hen. VI, no. 36.
  • 91. Feet of F. Yorks. Mich. 10 Will. III. In 1576 and in 1597 Richard Duckett and Anne his wife on the one part and John Pepper on the other part made conveyances of a fulling-mill in Richmond (Yorks. Fines [Yorks. Arch. Soc.], ii, 85; iv, 85).
  • 92. R. Harman, Plan of the South Prospect of Richmond, 1724; Assize R. 1057, m. 29 d.
  • 93. Assize R. 1057, m. 29 d.; 1043, m. 3 d.; cf. Yorks. D. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), 142.
  • 94. Inclosure Act; Richmond Borough MSS.
  • 95. Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1752–81, 21 Feb. 1754.
  • 96. Petition for Inclosure; MSS. of Richmond Borough.
  • 97. Local and Personal Act, 42 Geo. III, cap. 31. The award is enrolled in King's Bench Plea R. no. 858, 50 Geo. III, 1810, E. rot. 1397.
  • 98. The name appears in a copy of a charter dated 1140 (Dugdale, Mon. vi, 990), but there are reasons for thinking that it may have been the addition of a copyist (cf. p. 2, n. 23). It is also mentioned in the charter of Alan III (1145) and in a poem which is believed to have been written between the years 1135 and 1147 (Lestorie des Engles [Rolls Ser.], ll. 5315–26): Li cuens Alains de Bretaine Bien ferit od sa cumpaigne; Cil i ferit cume barum, Mult le firent bien Bretun; Od le rei vint en ceste terre Pur lui aider de sa guerre. Sun cusin ert de sun lignage, Gentilshom ert de grant parage; Le rei seruit mult e amat; E il tres bien lui gueredonat: Richemunt li donat en Nort, Bon chastel e bel e fort.
  • 99. This identification is not accepted by the editor of the Domesday Survey. As, however, the evidence is inconclusive, the views of both contributors have been given [Editor].
  • 100. Dom. Bk. Fac. 24, 27. One is spelt Hindrelag, the other Hindrelaghe.
  • 101. R. Gale, op. cit. 24–5. The list of vills which forms the first part of this extent bears a rather remarkable resemblance to that in Domesday Book. There is practically the same erratic order without in all probability the same reason for it (see below). If allowance is made for the errors of copyists, the likeness is striking enough to suggest that the one was taken from the other, and this may explain the appearance of Hindrelagh and the otherwise unaccountable absence of Richmond.
  • 102. The order of the vills south of Richmond is very fairly geographical. North of Richmond it is more erratic, though even here the departures from geographical order may usually be explained by ownership.
  • 103. It is between Startforth, which lies near the north-western limits of Richmondshire, and Easby, which is close to the centre, and, but for the position of the second Hindrelagh, might have been held to be near the former instead of near the latter. In either case the gap would be explained by the fact that all three belonged to Enisan.
  • 104. There can be little doubt about the position of the second Hindrelagh, as it appears in the latter part of the list where geographical order is not complicated by questions of ownership.
  • 105. Dom. Bk. Fac. 24. In the late 12th and early 13th centuries a ford in Richmond now known as Hind Wath was called Indrewath or Hinderwath (Ordnance Surv. 25 in., 1888–93; Egerton MS. 2827, fol. 30; cf. Harl. MS. 236, fol. 45). It is just at the junction of the boundaries of Easby, Richmond and St. Martin's.
  • 106. Because the first was in the hands of a sub-tenant, Mr. Skaife (Yorks. Arch. Journ. xiii, 530; xiv, 1) identified the second Hindrelagh as Richmond, while remaining undecided about the first. Mrs. Armitage seems to have overlooked the second. She rejected Mr. Skaife's tentative identification of the first because of the sub-tenant (Engl. Hist. Rev. xix, 422–4). But Enisan's manors may have escheated at an early date (cf. p. 29).
  • 107. R. Gale, op. cit. App. p. 100.
  • 108. In another charter Alan III confirmed to the burgesses of Richmond 'that liberty' which they had enjoyed in the time of his great-uncle [Alan Niger] and his father [Stephen] (ibid.). Earl Conan in his charter refers to the liberties granted by his grandfather [Stephen] and his father [Alan III] and also to those conceded by his 'other ancestors,' thereby possibly including Alan Rufus as well as Alan Niger among the grantors (ibid. 101).
  • 109. Many documents formerly in the possession of the corporation of Richmond were unfortunately burnt in the last century.
  • 110. The Gild or Town Hall (Christ. Clarkson, Hist. and Antiq. of Richmond, 135) seems also to have been called the Common Hall or St. John's House (ibid. n. 6).
  • 111. That 'the land of Fontenay' meant the demesne of Richmond is clear from a later document (Cal. Pat. 1436–41, p. 509). It seems to have consisted of 24 bovates of land, for an inquisition of 1285, instead of mentioning the land of Fontenay by name, gives that extent of territory as the holding of the burgesses (Cal. Inq. p.m. 1–19 Edw. I, 342).
  • 112. R. Gale, op. cit. App. p. 100.
  • 113. Ibid. p. 101.
  • 114. Pipe R. 2 John, m. 8 d. They also rendered account in the Pipe Rolls of 5, 6 & 7 John (Yorks).
  • 115. Rot. de Oblat. et Fin. (Rec. Com.), 371.
  • 116. The 3 acres of land were some time in the tenure of Jordan the Plumber (R. Gale, op. cit. App. p. 48).
  • 117. See Aug. Office, Cartae Misc. v, no. 20. The details of this grant have been gathered from the confirmation of Edward III (Cal. Pat. 1327–30, p. 402) and an inquisition taken in 1440 (ibid. 1436–41, p. 509). In addition to the £40 of fee farm, the earl received £4 rent from the dye-works, which had been granted by the earl to Thomas son of Geoffrey, and 4s. rent from a house in Bargate which had escheated to him— total £44 4s. (R. Gale, loc. cit.).
  • 118. Cal. Pat. 1436–41, p. 452; the actual grant is printed by Clarkson in the appendix to his Hist. of Richmond, no. xii.
  • 119. Cal. Inq. p.m. 1–19 Edw. I, 342.
  • 120. Cal. Pat. 1327–30, p. 402.
  • 121. Ibid. 1396–9, p. 69.
  • 122. They said that the population had decreased through epidemics and the departure of the people. The market was also less frequented than of old (ibid. 1436–41, p. 452).
  • 123. Ibid. pp. 452, 509.
  • 124. Ibid. p. 509. But the king also pardoned them £14 17s. 9½d. of the fee farm during the lifetime of Jacquetta and £20 6s. 8d. after her death.
  • 125. Ibid. 1441–6, p. 429.
  • 126. See above, p. 10.
  • 127. Cal. Pat. 1476–85, p. 90. After the death of the Duchess of Bedford the sum due from the burgesses was £19 13s. 4d. (£12 to the Crown and the rest to the Scropes), and this, according to the report of the inquisitions in 1440, was all that they could afford to pay.
  • 128. Christopher Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 74.
  • 129. From information kindly supplied by Mr. C. G. Croft, town clerk of Richmond.
  • 130. Pat. 17 Hen. VII, pt. ii, m. 8.
  • 131. MSS. of the corporation.
  • 132. A few leases and indentures belonging to the years between 1492 and 1567 are still in existence amongst the documents in the possession of the corporation. One of these was granted by only two bailiffs and the twenty-four burgesses. Clarkson gives the names of the bailiffs holding office for many years between 1304 and 1569 (Hist. of Richmond, App. no. xix).
  • 133. Pat. 19 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 28.
  • 134. Now appointed by the mayor and aldermen in place of the aldermen and capital burgesses.
  • 135. Pat. 20 Chas. II, pt. i, no. 5; printed in English by Clarkson (Hist. of Richmond, App. no. xvi).
  • 136. Pat. 36 Chas. II, pt. i.
  • 137. In January 1752 there were twelve aldermen and twenty-four commoncouncilmen; see the Coucher Book of the Richmond Corporation, 1752–81, under that date.
  • 138. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 115, App. xxi. In the last half of the 18th century, however, the pasture masters' receipts for 'gates' in the pasture of Whitcliffe varied considerably, but the most usual numbers were 272 and 273 exclusive of the farms (MSS. of the Corporation). In 1870 the report was made that the Borough of Richmond does not possess any common or other land affording freemen or other privileged inhabitants any exclusive right of property or use (Parl. Papers [1870], no. 448).
  • 139. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1700–1; Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81, 2 Feb. 1758; 1812–32, 28 Dec. 1813; 28 Nov. 1820.
  • 140. This list, with the exception of the pasture masters, is taken from the Rep. of the Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1699. Two chamberlains are mentioned in accounts of 1688 (Richmond Borough MSS.). They were, it seems, annually appointed, one by the majority of the common-councillors, the other by the mayor. With the dissolution of the common council the former was no longer appointed, but the mayor continued to appoint the latter, though his right to do so was disputed (Rep. of the Com. on Munic. Corp. [1835], xxv, 1700, and Coucher Book of the Richmond Corporation, 1833–7, under date 21 May 1835). The pasture masters are not mentioned in the above report, but they appear in the Coucher Books of the Richmond Corporation; see, for instance, the one for the years 1752–81 under date 14 Jan. 1752. Possibly the chamberlains were also pasture masters. Cf. also Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 102–4, where he gives a detailed account of the officers of the corporation.
  • 141. Rep. of the Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1700; Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81.
  • 142. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 14 Jan. 1822. Clarkson, however, gives an instance in which the usual rotation was not observed (Hist. of Richmond, 89).
  • 143. MSS. of the Richmond Corp.
  • 144. According to Clarkson, who says that it sometimes resulted in a mayor having a majority of the companies, though not a majority of the freemen (op. cit. 94–5).
  • 145. According to Clarkson, the choice of an alderman was limited to the commoncouncilmen by two by-laws made in 1576 and 1606 respectively (op. cit. 97).
  • 146. Rep. of the Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1700.
  • 147. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81, 8 and 14 Feb. 1765.
  • 148. Thirteen resigned altogether (Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81, 9 May 1769). Clarkson gives as the reason some supposed ill-treatment and disrespect from the mayor and aldermen. He speaks also of the purple gowns worn by the commoncouncilmen before this date. They were burnt on this occasion and not replaced (Hist. of Richmond, 101).
  • 149. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81, 21 Feb. 1754; 29 Jan. 1756; 29 Oct. 1827 (Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. [1835], xxv, 1700).
  • 150. Ibid. The mayor and aldermen were indeed advised that they would be wise to make candidates freemen before election.
  • 151. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 10 Jan. 1832. See also the protest made in 1827 against the election of ten commoncouncillors who were not free burgesses (ibid. 30 Apr.).
  • 152. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 28 Dec. 1813; cf. also Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 103–4.
  • 153. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 23 Apr. 1830.
  • 154. Ibid. 27 Apr. 1830.
  • 155. So at least one of them said in his letter of resignation (MSS. of the Corp.). They were evidently alarmed by the legal proceedings which had been taken against other members (Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. [1835], xxv, 1700).
  • 156. Ibid.
  • 157. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 4 Jan., 16 Feb., 29 Apr., 16 May 1831.
  • 158. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1700, 1704.
  • 159. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 2 Dec. 1831. In this they may have been unjust. The commission showed that the mayoral expenditure in 1831–2 exceeded the profits by £21 (Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. [1835], xxv, 1701).
  • 160. Coucher Bk. of 1812–32, 2 Dec. 1831 ; 1833–7.
  • 161. Ibid. 11 Aug., 27 Dec. 1831 ; 10 Jan. 1832; 24 Apr. 1835.
  • 162. In 1830 the corporation, in reply to a letter from the Bishop of Chester, said that they would give it every attention as soon as they were in a state to accomplish any public business (ibid. 6 Sept. 1830).
  • 163. Ibid. 21 May 1835 ; Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1701.
  • 164. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1812–32, 2 Dec. 1831 ; 1833–7, 9 Feb. 1836 ; Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1701.
  • 165. The council sent an address of thanks for the Act in Feb. 1836 (Coucher Bk. 1833–7, 9 Feb.).
  • 166. Coucher Bk. of the Corp. 1752–81, 23 Dec. 1755.
  • 167. Ibid. 12 Feb. 1756.
  • 168. Ibid. 1812–32, 6 Apr. 1814, 31 Dec. 1816.
  • 169. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1700.
  • 170. Coucher Bk. of Corp. 1812–32, 29 Mar. 1813.
  • 171. Ibid. 1833–7, 9 Feb. 1836.
  • 172. The town was paved, lighted and supplied with water at the expense of the corporation (Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. [1835], xxv, 1703). Christ. Clarkson (Hist. of Richmond, 109) also bears witness to the public spirit of the corporation.
  • 173. Whitaker, Hist. of Richmondshire, i, 55; Yorks. Inq. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), i, 130.
  • 174. Doc. of Corp. Ct. Leet Bks. 1760– 1827.
  • 175. Allen, Yorks. iii, 510 n.
  • 176. Pat. 19 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 28, and a nonintromittent clause to the county magistrates unless there was a lack of a recorder or alderman.
  • 177. Pat. 19 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 28.
  • 178. MS. in the possession of the corporation, dated 1656.
  • 179. Pat. 20 Chas. II, pt. i, no. 5. It was to be held before the mayor, recorder and steward, and three aldermen, or any two of them. On one occasion the mayor, recorder, and seven aldermen were present (MSS. of the Corporation [1668]). In 1775 the court leet and view of frankpledge were held before the recorder.
  • 180. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1702.
  • 181. Ret. of Members of Parl. (1878), 88.
  • 182. Ibid. 421.
  • 183. Stat. 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 102 (17) and Schedule A.
  • 184. Stat. 48 & 49 Vict. cap. 23 (2) and Schedule I, pt. i.
  • 185. Pat. 19 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 28.
  • 186. Ibid. 20 Chas. I, pt. i, no. 5.
  • 187. See Clarkson, op. cit. 118–19.
  • 188. Ibid.
  • 189. Harl. Chart. 58, I 44.
  • 190. Egerton MS. 2827, fol. 30 d.
  • 191. Cal. Pat. 1327–30, p. 402.
  • 192. Ibid. 1436–41, p. 509.
  • 193. Ibid.
  • 194. Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 122.
  • 195. Chart. R. 7 Edw. I, no. 72, m. 5. For an early notice of this fair see Egerton MS. 2827, fol. 30.
  • 196. Roger Gale, op. cit.
  • 197. Pat. 9 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 27, 28; 19 Eliz. pt. vi, m. 28.
  • 198. Ibid. 20 Chas. II pt. i, no. 5.
  • 199. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 409.
  • 200. Cal. Pat. 1436–41, p. 509.
  • 201. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 410.
  • 202. Cal. Pat. 1436–41, pp. 452, 509.
  • 203. MSS. of the Borough; see also the petition of the inhabitants to the Bishop of Durham printed by Clarkson (Hist. of Richmond, App. no. xlvi). This shows that the market was important still later.
  • 204. Defoe, A Tour (ed. 1727), iii, 145; ibid. (ed. 1769), ii, 157.
  • 205. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 410. In 1835 it was said to have no manufacture of importance (Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. 1835).
  • 206. The paper manufacture is not mentioned by Clarkson in his account of the state of Richmond in 1821, but the plan of the town given by him shows mills at Whitcliffe and the paper-mills are mentioned only four years later (MSS. of the Borough of Richmond).
  • 207. Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 87.
  • 208. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1701.
  • 209. Clarkson in 1820 gives 'Cordwainers and Curriers,' and adds to (8) bridlers, glaziers, coopers, osiers and painters (Hist. of Richmond, 87).
  • 210. MSS. of the Corporation.
  • 211. Rep. of Com. on Munic. Corp. (1835), xxv, 1701.
  • 212. Archives of the Mercers, Grocers, and Haberdashers.
  • 213. For an account of the plate now dispersed see Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 92–4.
  • 214. Jewitt and Hope, Corporation Plate and Insignia, ii, 541 et seq.
  • 215. Dom. Bk. Fac. 24, 27.
  • 216. Parish of Fingall.
  • 217. Madox, Baronia Angl. 157 n.
  • 218. See above.
  • 219. In this book is the entry 'Richard Snell, burnt Sept. 9th, 1558,' and the Plague is mentioned and also proved by the large number of deaths from about August 1597 to December 1598, and from the beginning of 1645 to the end of the year.
  • 220. In this from 1653 to 1659 are the entries of a large number of Commonwealth marriages before witnesses.
  • 221. It contains the following:—'Note that this book was received by Kirton— Minister—from Jackson who kept same during the Commonwealth.'
  • 222. Leland said 'there is a chapel in Richmont town with strange figures in the walls of it. The people there dreme that it was once a temple of idols.' It was thought that he meant Trinity, but there is no evidence to support this idea. He, moreover, mentions Trinity Chapel elsewhere. It has also been suggested that St. Nicholas was the chapel in question.
  • 223. The evidence is conflicting. If Alan Rufus gave it, it is curious that the charter of William II to St. Mary's contains no mention of the gift (Dugdale, Mon. iii, 547). Yet the charter of Henry II gives Alan Rufus as the donor (ibid. 549), and it is impossible to tell from the charter of Count Stephen whether he gave it or merely confirmed a previous grant.
  • 224. This is shown by Count Stephen's charter (ibid. 547).
  • 225. Cal. Papal Letters, v, 4. The 20 lb. of wax was commuted for 13s. 4d. and was payable to the Prior of St. Martin's at the Dissolution (Valor Eccl. [Rec. Com.], v, 238; Aug. Office Misc. Bks. 401, fol. 359).
  • 226. It was valued in the Liber Regis at £15 5s. 7½d.
  • 227. Lond. Gaz. 31 Aug. p. 3220, in exchange for other livings.
  • 228. Clarkson gives two chantries: one founded by Stenall at the altar of St. Catherine, the other founded by one Cardmaker, vicar of Catterick, at the altar of St. Anne (Hist. of Richmond, 148, 149).
  • 229. Aug. Office Proc. bdle. 5, no. 35; Yorks. Chant. Surv. (Surt. Soc.), i, 140, 142; ii, 517, 518.
  • 230. Whitaker, Hist. of Richmondshire, i, 86, and Christ. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 137. But they regard the present churchyard as the original burial-place none the less. The charters of Count Stephen and Earl Conan speak of 'the churches' of Richmond as granted to the abbey of St. Mary, and Clarkson thinks that one of these was Trinity. But there is no later evidence to connect Trinity with the abbey, and the charter of Henry II, which is very minute and detailed, far more so than the other two charters, speaks of the 'church' of Richmond only (Dugdale, Mon. iii, 547–8).
  • 231. Cal. Pat. 1330–4, p. 15.
  • 232. Yorks. Chant. Surv. (Surt. Soc.), i, 142.
  • 233. Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1752–81, 25 June 1754.
  • 234. But Gale in 1722 gave the patronage of Trinity as in the gift of the vicar of Richmond (Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Add. p. 285); and in 1827 it was claimed by the rector (Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1812–32, 26 Feb. 1827).
  • 235. For the details of this dispute see the Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1812–32, 13 May and 5 Aug. 1822.
  • 236. Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1833–7, 1 Jan. 1836.
  • 237. Stat. 5 & 6 Will. IV, cap. 76. In 1836 the corporation begged the Bishop of Chester to appoint someone of their own choice, alleging that the representation had lapsed to him owing to their former failure to appoint (Coucher Bk. of the Corporation, 1833–7, 1 Jan.).
  • 238. Cal. Papal Letters, v, 175.
  • 239. Cal. Pat. 1330–4, p. 15; Yorks. D. (Yorks. Arch. Soc.), i, 141.
  • 240. Aug. Office Proc. bdle. 5, no. 35; cf. Clarkson, Hist. of Richmond, 127–8.
  • 241. Charity Com. Rep. vii, 654.
  • 242. Aug. Office Proc. bdle. 5, no. 35.
  • 243. See article on 'Yorkshire Schools,' V.C.H. Yorks. i, 475.