THE village and parish of Milton are now, and long have been, in the direct line of road from Cambridge to Ely. The name comes in its uncontracted form Middleton immediately, as will be explained hereafter, from the Anglo-Saxons. We do not read about Milton until somewhat late in the establishment of our parochial system; still we can hardly suppose but that its existence (and at length, as an integral part of Cambridgeshire) is to be assigned to a much earlier date. The Liber Eliensis (Wikipedia.), that storehouse of information, so far as its range extends, in matters of a similar kind, is the most ancient document, which mentions Milton; moreover, the account which it gives us is tolerably full, and by no means devoid of interest. We are thereby enabled also to see how property, in those remote times, was accustomed to be changed about, to suit the mere convenience of the different parties concerned in the transactions.
A very natural thing was it for Brihtnothus, the first abbot of Ely, and intimately connected in more ways than one with the neighbouring parish of Horningsey, to strive to become possessed of land at Milton instead of continuing to hold what belonged to him and his clergy at Fordham. Milton was much nearer to him in reality, though not actually so in distance, what we are accustomed to call the river Cam affording an easy means of passing to and fro, as regarded the parishes situated close to, and along, its banks. Besides, Brihtnothus is distinctly stated to have been induced to fix his longing eyes on Milton propter introitum et exitum. His barge could readily land him, and as readily carry him away. As a necessary consequence of the facility of ingress and egress, the land there would be under the abbot’s immediate supervision, and its then owner Ulf was nothing loth, for reasons of his own, to come to terms with him. The two hides were exchanged.
And now, having acquired, in his ecclesiastical and public capacity, about one third of the parish of Milton, Brihtnothus entertained a wish that his monastery should be put in possession of the remainder: this was on every account a very proper wish, and it was able to be easily gratified. By the liberality of a high-born Saxon lady, the monks of Ely then held just the requisite extent of land – four hides and a half – in the neighbourhood of Colchester. On the other hand the bishop of London with his clergy, the inmates
of a monastery there dedicated to S. Paul, had become owners of a similar quantity in Milton, which made up the whole parish. Both properties were let out to farm; but, though the brethren at Ely might have no cause to complain of their tenants (certainly, none is expressed), the brethren at London were unfortunately in a very different case. These latter experienced great trouble in the management of their estate,and also great loss. Their tenants, we may suppose, were not over-punctual in paying their rents, and injured them in
many other ways, as tenants sometimes will do, when their landlords live at a great distance; and in the days of the Heptarchy it was a very long, and a very difficult journey likewise, from London to Milton.
‘Brihtnothus{-Lib. Eliens. Lib. II. cap. 31. Brihtnothus was made abbot of Ely in 970. Ibid. Lib. II. cap. 6. Several persons bore the name of Wine, particularly one at Wicceforde (Wichford), and another at Ely; which
last must have been intimately connected with the monastery, and is
here meant.-} abbas et Wine emerunt a Grimm filio Osulfi (Osulfus was an inhabitant of Girton, as his son may also have been.) duas hydas et xxxvij acras apud Fordham, datis xj libris pro his coram testimonis villæ et hundreti. Quæ terra cum esset cuidam viro nomine Ulf prope manus, et ille idem duas hydas habuisset apud Middletune, quarum multum indigebat abbas propter introitum et exitum, mutaverunt terras. Abbas itaque liberavit ei duas hydas de duodecies xx [acris], et xxxvij acris (The abbot did not intend to throw in these thirty-seven acres, since he subsequently wished land at Chypenham to be given him in return for them, and for money which he had lent to Ulf. Lib. Eliens. Lib. II. cap. 11) (acras?) apud Fordham, et ille e converso liberavit abbati duas hydas de duodecies xx acris apud Middletune.‘In eadem villa habuit etiam Thurketelus abbas (For Thurkytel see Saxon Chron. under 971, in winch year he was abbot of Bedford. For the ending of the name see Hist. of Horningsey, p. 25, n.) iv hydas et dimidiam. Qui, eo tempore quo expulsus erat de Bedeford, petiit ab episcopo Lundoniensi nomine Ælfstano (He was living in 966 and a few years later) et a clero, ut cum eis posset habere communionem et partem in monasterio, ubi prius in præsbyteratu emerat sibi locum. Sed episcopus cum toto clero recusavit eum. Tandem tamen, usus consilio et patrocinio amicorum, hæretavit S. Paulum de iiijor hydis et dimidia, quas habuit apud Middletune, ut in
illorum contubernio esse posset. Quod cum factum fuerat, ipse, quamdiu vixerat, tenuit eandem terram de fratribus, hoc est, de clero, dans eis quotannis inde xx solidos: post mortem vero ipsius, utebantur ipsi clerici illa terra, sed cum
injuriosa difficultate. Qui cum multas injurias paterentur ibi, concupivit tandem Brihtnothus abbas eandem terram ab eis vel ad censum vel ad mutationem, si forte habuisset tantundem terræ, quæ prope esset eis infra comitatum. Interea contigit quod avia Ædgari regis, nomine Ædgyva, cum moreretur, dimisit cuidam nobili matronæ, quæ dicebatur Ælftred, v hydas in Æstsexe apud Holand, quas ipsa emerat a Sprowe
pro xx libris. Tune prædicta matrona, scilicet Ælftred (This was not her only gift to the monastery at Ely, and of property derived from the same source. Lib. Eliens. Lib. II. cap. 47), dedit illam terram S. Ædeldrydæ: Ædelwoldus (See Hist. of Horningsey, p. 25, n.) vero episcopus, et Brihtnothus abbas, totusque coetus monachorum de
Ely, tradiderunt eandem terram S. Paulo et clero Lundoniensi pro iiijor hydis et dimidia de Middletune. Dederunt etiam pecuniam pro pecuniâ: superabundabant tamen apud Holande c oves, et lv porci, et duo homines{-Villeins in gross, or pure villeins, were therefore of no more account
than even what we esteem the lowest kind of animal; they were all
equally included amongst agricultural stock (pecunia).-}, et v boves suhjugales’
We may consider, that the parish of Milton continued to belong uninterruptedly to that ecclesiastical body, which had thus by exchange become the proprietors of it. If however, we go on to the latter half of the eleventh century, and to the testimony of Domesday Book, it will appear, not only that an entirely new order of things had then arisen, but that even King Edward the Confessor had previously secured to himself a small portion thereof.
‘In Middletone Ralph holds of Picot xij hides. The arable land is vij carucates. In demesne are ij carucates, and it may be ij others. There x villeins with xij bordarers and ix cottagers have iij carucates. There [are] v
serfs (Hist. of Horningsey, p. 7. Till within the last three centuries the word villein retained the meaning of a peasant. He was the prædial serf of Domesday-Book. Taylor’s Words and Places, p. 443). The meadow is iiij carucates. There is pasturage for the cattle of the village. From the fen 650 eels and xij pence (The same sum of money is mentioned in reference to Waterbeach, but there it is stated to be de præsentatione, or as a present. Hist. of Waterbeach, p. 8.). They are worth altogether vij pounds. When they were received viij pounds. In the time of King Edward xij pounds. Of this manor Ailbertus (He is mentioned Hist. of Landbeach, p. 7), the abbot’s steward, held vj hides and iij virgates, though he was not able to sell them, nor to separate them from the church, but after his death he was to restore them to the church of Ely. And iiij socmen under the abbot held iiij hides, and two virgates and
a half, and they were able to sell them without the soc (soca) (A local court, independent of the jurisdiction of the hundred; a vestige, probably, of the ancient Scandinavian franchises. Hist. of Landbeach, p. 9 ; Words and Places, p. 295). And one man of King Edward had ij virgates and a half; and he was able to sell them just as he liked (quo [modo] voluit).’
The Liber Eliensis names the abbot of Ely as at length the owner in the tenth century, on the part of his monastery, of the whole parish of Milton, on the supposition at least, and it is surely a true supposition, that the six hides and a half, which he had acquired by exchange, were, like two of them, all hides of the larger kind, or of twelve score acres. Now, viz. in 1086, we learn that Picot, the Norman sheriff of Cambridgeshire was the owner, and, of course, had been so for several years. The present is, therefore, one of those
cases (and the neighbouring parish of Impington was another) where the ecclesiastical establishment at Ely had been violently pillaged by a highly unscrupulous man, which occasioned his character to be drawn in such strong and
dark colours by the willing pen of the monkish chronicler (Hist. of Landbeach, pp. 8, 10). The accuracy of this notion is also borne out even by the statements contained in Domesday Book itself, which mentions in detail the disposal of the land in the Saxon times immediately preceding the rule of Picot.
Before this history is further proceeded with, a few words must be added in explanation of the several terms of measurement employed above.
If we go no further than to Domesday Book, we shall experience considerable difficulty in determining the size of the hide, ‘the Saxon unit of land’. We possess however another manuscript, and to this we may likewise have recourse in the matter, a manuscript too, in respect to its writing almost as ancient, and referring with great distinctness and authority, so far as the Eastern parts of England are concerned, to transactions about land, which took place even two or three centuries before. The Liber Eliensis is indeed very plain as to the extent of the hide; and, whenever it is necessary to mention distinctly the number of acres contained therein it invariably names six score, or twelve score, acres, the latter being of much more frequent occurrence than the former. And a similar result will follow, if we endeavour to ascertain what the hide consisted of by employing as our guide the amount of land shewn by actual measurement to belong to a parish when in our own times
it was inclosed. But the acreage, as given in the Inclosure Awards, must be taken, rather than that acted upon by the authorities of the Chesterton Union. For it will include the whole extent of the several parishes, whereas in the other case the amount of land taken up by roadways, town streets, &c. is necessarily omitted. The numbers given by the Union in the case of four neighbouring parishes are – Landbeach 2142: Waterbeach 5485: and Milton 1361. Horningsey, curiously enough, is set at 1592, being ten acres more than in
the award, but the accuracy of the following calculation will not be materially lessened through this small difference. To begin with Horningsey, Domesday Book assigns seven hides for its extent, and we know the same number to
have been attributed to it in 870. Now, if we divide 1582, the acreage stated in the inclosure award, by 7, we get 226 for each hide, which comes quite near enough to 2440, as specified in the Liber Eliensis, to be considered satisfactory. For we must remember that in those remote times somewhat of inaccuracy could hardly avoid entering into the measurement, and that then, and long afterwards, the acre even was to some extent an uncertain quantity, Again, in the case of Landbeach, Picot, according to Domesday Book, had six hides, and the king’s cartwrights five, eleven in all. But this parish was, at the inclosure, authoritatively declared to contain 2207 acres, which being divided by eleven makes the hide to consist of almost exactly 200.
As regards Waterbeach no definite number of hides is stated, nor could this well have occurred, because in the eleventh century, more even than recently, so large a part of the parish was constantly in a fenny and marshy state. Still also here the hide of twelve score acres, or thereabouts, gives a result which accords better than the smaller hide would (Cole, with a distinct reference to the southern part of the parish, does, however, make mention of a hide of vjxx acres. Vol.XLVIII. p. 114.) with its circumstances, inasmuch as it allots 370 acres to the southern, and 1068 to the northern part, thus making a fair division between the village with what pertained to it, and that district, which has long gone, and continues to go, by its own name of Denney. Besides, if to the above numbers are added the quantity of land brought into cultivation at the time of the inclosure together with North fen and the roadways, etc., the whole acreage of Waterbeach will be found to approximate very closely to that given in the award (Hist. of Waterbeach, pp. 7, 9, 24, 25), and therefore to furnish a strong argument favourable to the accuracy of the present mode of calculation.
At length we come to Milton. The extract already printed from the Liber Eliensis names six hides and a half in connexion with this parish, and, it is hardly possible not to suppose, as the entire extent of its land. On the
contrary Domesday Book ascribes twelve hides to Milton; whilst the inclosure award states the acreage to be 1378. The earlier and larger hide therefore would contain exactly 212 acres; the later and smaller hide, with which we are in this case chiefly concerned, 115. Thus, when we read in one of the old field-books of Landbeach that 110 acres made a hide, the remark was applicable to Milton, rather than to that parish, to which the comparatively recent writer meant, we may presume, to apply it.
Of course, in these several calculations the hide is deemed to be a certain integral portion of each parish whatever the nature of the soil included in it might be, though some persons affirm (but without taking into consideration what a large tract of land 240 or even 120 acres are, and with no authority from the meaning of the word, which appears to refer to the thong used in measuring it off), that the hide only comprised arable land, and was termed a plough-land from being as much as one plough with its team could cultivate in a year.
The next term to be examined is the Norman carucate from caruca, a plough. This has also been styled, and very naturally, too, a plough-land for the reason just mentioned, a reason which is surely not justified in the case of the hide, whether we take it in its larger or
its smaller dimensions; one plough with its team, however good, not being able to do the work. How much land the carucate comprised in the parishes of Cambridgeshire is best ascertained in the same way as has been pursued with respect to the hide, by following which method we shall shew it to be a small and uncertain measurement. In the instance of Horningsey 35½ carucates are made to represent half the extent of the parish, or 3½ hides; supposing therefore this calculation to be correct, a carucate was only about 22¼ acres. At Landbeach, on the contrary, one hide of 200 acres seems to contain five carucates and one virgate, consequently the carucate is there raised to something like 34 acres. From the account given us by Domesday Book of Waterbeach and Milton, we can determine nothing respecting the size of the carucate in those parishes, inasmuch as the whole distribution of the land is not stated. It is therefore very evident, as just said, that the carucate was not only an uncertain quantity, but that it was comparatively a small quantity, so that the words of the late Mr Cooper ‘in Cambridgeshire the carucate was one twelfth of the hide’ are likely to be somewhat near the truth, but then we must understand them solely in relation to the hide of 240 acres.
The virgate, or yard-land, like the two other terms of measure, is uncertain in extent, nevertheless we cannot be very wrong in supposing it to consist of somewhere about 30 acres. Indeed, it has been asserted to contain a quarter of a hide (that, namely, of 120 acres); and if we thus take it, and apply it to what is said in Domesday Book concerning the occupation of Milton in Saxon times, we shall easily account for the twelve hides there mentioned.
Neither can the different values assigned at three several periods by Domesday Book to the whole property in Milton be passed by without a remark, especially, when they are compared with what is therein also asserted about a few other and neighbouring parishes. It is, of course, possible, and indeed not improbable, that the general confusion, consequent on the successful invasion of England by William I. exercised a great effect everywhere, and
thus among the villages of Cambridgeshire, which effect may have been considerably increased by the fact of the land having passed from ecclesiastical to lay hands, from the mild rule of the church, to the rule of such a man as Picot the sheriff. For after this parish had been transferred to its new lord, it is said to have become deteriorated in value to the extent of one third. Moreover, that deterioration continued to increase, since about twenty years later the value was one eighth less instead of being, as was naturally to be expected, much greater, because, as time went on, and order was in some degree re-established, a more favourable state of things ought to have arisen.
Now we find, that a different result by reason of the change of owner took place in the neighbourhood. Horningsey and the southern part of Waterbeach (though the latter, a not very valuable acquisition, fell equally to Picot,) remained, notwithstanding the invasion and its success, at exactly the same sum as they had been set at on the death of Edward the Confessor; whilst the northern part of Waterbeach, or Denney, is reported, under the same circumstances, and at the same time, to have reached twice its recent value. So, likewise, on the completion of Domesday Book in 1086, it appears that the northern part of Waterbeach with Landbeach and Horningsey, had since
the conquest increased in value, the two last-named parishes (of which the former, in part another new possession of Picot, had been depressed nearly a half,) almost to the extent of a third.
No one cause therefore can be fixed upon capable of suiting these several places: each one was surely influenced by something peculiar to itself. As regards Milton, a parish very near to Cambridge, the great change in public affairs may have first operated, and afterwards, perhaps, the poverty of the few cultivators of the soil. And we can easily account for more than the average amount of poverty among them in the latter half of the eleventh century. For close to the south-west corner of the parish, but just outside its
bounds, at the place called King’s Hedges, still exist some remains of an encampment, notwithstanding the inclosure and the action of the plough. The king meant is William I. who is believed, if he did not make it, to have occupied it during his war with the Saxons collected together for defence
in the Isle of Ely. Taking this conjecture to be accurate, the second deterioration referred to before in the case of Milton and the poverty whereby it may have been partly produced, are easy to be accounted for, and may be laid to the charge of the Conqueror’s soldiers, who, no doubt, did not leave the neighbouring lands or their occupiers unplundered. Three centuries later we know that the poverty of tenants did throw land out of cultivation, and therefore out of profit, as any one can ascertain for himself by referring
direct to the Nonæ Rolls (The Nonæ Rolls or Ninth Rolls of Exchequer date from 1341/2 in the time of Edward III.) or to an abstract of their contents in relation to this county, contained in the first volume of the Antiquarian Communications, by the Rev. E. Venables.
A manor existed at Milton just previous to the Norman conquest, as we learn distinctly from Domesday Book, and was then held by Ailbertus, steward to the Abbot of Ely. When Picot wrested the land in the parish from its ecclesiastical possessors, Ralph became the holder of it under that
unscrupulous and tyrannical man (Hist. of Landbeach, p. 10.). What became of the manor afterwards, for nearly two centuries, cannot be traced, but at the end of that time we find it in the hands of the sovereign, since in 1253 Henry III. gave a grant of it to Eubulo de Montibus (Cal. Rot. Put. 37 Hen. III. About the same time he had custody of the manor and church of Ixening (Exning) for the king. Roberts’ Calend. Genealog. p. 58.), who was to hold it under him. It would appear to have been subsequently in the hands of several persons. At last, however, it became the property by marriage of John de Somery, whose widow Joanna, in Trinity term, 4 Edw. I. [1276], publicly acknowledged in court, that she had given to John le Strange of Knockin, and his wife Alienora, her own daughter, the manor of Middleton, with the advowson of the church, for them and their heirs (Baker MSS. Vol. XXVIII. 213). The
Messrs Lysons, in their account of the parish of Milton, suppose the same manor to have fallen to the Le Strange family by means of the marriage of the above-named John, (who died in 1307) with Maud the daughter and heir of
Roger D’Eyville, just as her father may have become the owner of it by an alliance with the family of Eubulo de Montibus. The chief reason, they say, for adopting this notion was, that the Christian names of Eubulo and Roger became
thenceforward common in the Le Strange family for several generations.
To enter minutely into the question of the descent of the manor in those early times is not worth the trouble and labour necessarily attached to it (There is a good deal on this subject in the Baker MSS. Vol. XXVIII. pp. 213, 214; and in the Baumgartner MSS. No. 21, under Milton.). Two points are quite clear, and we need go no farther:- that by the end of the thirteenth century the manor belonged to the family of Le Strange, and that it came to them by marriage. The pedigree given by Dugdale, and the declaration made, as Baker records, in open court, by John de Somery’s widow, do not agree together, For Dugdale asserts the same John le Strange of Knockin to have married Matilda daughter and heir of Roger D’Eyville, and John his father to have married Joanna daughter and co-heir of Roger de Sumeri. He also gives the Christian name Alienora to the younger branch of the family (Baronage, Tom. I. pp. 593, 612, 663. John D’Egville’s name occurs as fighting on the side of Simon de Montfort and the barons. Hearne’s Collect. Vol. II. p. 418).
The Le Stranges continued owners of the manor, and of all that pertained to it, for almost three centuries. Richard Lowe armiger was found to be the owner 19 Edw. IV. [1479] (Cole’s MSS Vol. XXII pp. 148, 259 ; Calend. Inquisit. post Mortem, Vol. IV. p. 393; Prynne’s Aurum Reginæ, p. 92); but we do not learn in what way he came into possession, though it seems highly probable that it was only in the character of trustee. For another marriage is stated to have transferred the manor into the Stanley family about the year 1482 by the union of Joan, daughter and heir of John, Lord Strange of Knockin, to George{-Queen Elizabeth Woodville was his mother’s aunt. Collins’
Peerage, Vol. III. pp. 65, &c. Shakespeare mentions him several times
in the fourth and fifth acts of King Richard III.-}, eldest son of Thomas, Lord Stanley, afterwards the first earl of Derby, and who in right of his wife was himself summoned to parliament by the title of Lord Strange of Knockin, 22 Edw. IV. and died in the lifetime of his father.
A warren was made by King John, and attached to the castle erected by William I. in Cambridge. This warren embraced a considerable extent of country towards the north, and included within it the whole parish of Milton, together with other parishes as far as the Old Ouse (Hist. of Landbeach, p. 9).
We must now go to the Rotuli Hundredorum (These were Hundred Rolls from 1275 and were part of an inquiry into the abuses of royal and seigneurial bailiffs and officers in the previous ten years or so. Following the civil war in the mid 1260s, central government lost control of local administration and there had been a degree of chaos with officials of all kinds abusing their powers. The hundred rolls of 1275 record the complaints made. They are often some of the most colourful records that survive from medieval England.), and see what information respecting Milton and its inhabitants we can obtain therefrom; this information is connected with the
year 1279, and will be found to be extremely important:
They (The juratores, or the persons summoned to give evidence about the several parishes in the hundred of North Stow. John le Munz was present from Milton. Rot. Hundred. Tom. II. pp. 446, 452) say, that Sir John le Straunge{-Johannes extraneus (John the stranger). So that he and his family
must have come but recently into England.-} holds and keeps in the parish (villa{-“Anciently a district, when considered ecclesiastically, was called
a parish ; when civilly, a vil or town.”-}) of Middleton two knight’s fees, in lands and meadows, of Symon de Insula, rendering yearly to the same Symon j pair of gilt spurs at the price of vjd [or vjd in money (See our notes on roman numerals and monetary values in our Introduction to this Edition.)]; and he gives scutage (Hist. of Landbeach, p. 11, n) to the said Symon, and the said Symon owes scutage to the Lord Bishop of Ely, and the Bishop to the King. Also he has a fishery (At the spot now called Baitsbite (Basebitt)?) on the great bank of Cambridge [on the Cam] which is worth xxs a year, of the demesne. Also he has a view of frank-pledge, and the assize [regulation] of bread and ale from ancient times, and for a long while he has had a warren within the bounds of his land. Also the same John and his men claim to be free at all feasts and markets; but they [the juratores] know not why.Also they say, that John de Montibus holds half an acre of land of G. le Knyt, and half an acre of land of Reg’ the son of Peter for ijd yearly paid to the same John.
Free tenants of the lord, John le Straunge.
Also the same John de Montibus holds xiij acres of land of the same fee at ijs vjd, and aid to the sheriff, and scutage, &c.
Also they say, that Robert Maupudre holds xv acres of the same at ijs iijd with aid to the sheriff.
Also they say, that Ralph Gows holds x acres of the same at j pound cummin (Pigeons were, it is said, ‘a very favourite food of our forefathers.’ Hence it may have arisen, that cummin, a warm aromatic seed, of which they are remarkably fond, became so frequently a reserved rent), and ijd aid to the sheriff.
Also they say, that Robert Bercare holds j croft, which contains j acre and a half with a messuage and iij roods of land of the same, at iiijs yearly, and iijs aid to the sheriff.
Also they say, that John de Burewell (A John de Borewell was Vicar in 1348) holds iiij acres of the same at j pair of gloves at the price of jd halfpeny.
Also they say, that Robert de Burewell holds j virgate of land of the same at iiijs yearly, and vjd aid to the sheriff.
Also they say, that Luke Bercator holds iij roods of land of the same at j pound of cummin yearly.
Also they say, that Peter Templeman holds xv acres of land of the House of the Temple de Deneye{-Of the manor of Denney, which in 1279 had not yet been joined to the manor of Waterbeach. See Hist. of Waterbeach, pp. 10, 102. Peter
Templeman, from his very name, must have been in some way connected with his landlords.-} at viijs, and does iij works at the price of iijd.Also they say, that Alexander le Scrutiere holds one messuage of the said John at ijs a year, and does j work and a half for jd and a halfpeny.
Also they say, that Henry the son of Gilbert holds j acre and iij roods of Hugh Thurgare for jd and a halfpeny and a farthing a year.
Also they say, that Andrew Rokard holds j cottage of the same at ijd a year, and does j work for jd.
Also they say, that Stephen Bule, Henry But, Walter Correye hold iij messuages, which contain j rood, for ijs and vjd; and j work and a half at jd and a halfpeny.
Also they say, that Alan Segyn and William Christien hold of the same one messuage, which contains j acre, for ixd, and ij capons for iijd.
Also they say, that Walter Faber holds j messuage for xijd a year, and for his smithy viijd.
Also they say, that John the son of John holds xv acres of land of the same for iiijs a year, and iijd aid to the sheriff.
Also they say, that Robert Anger holds j holm (Holm is a Norse word for a lake, or a river island ; here, however, it can only mean a fen island. But it has a more extensive signification; for of the Orkney Islands those not inhabited, and used only for pasture, are so called even now), which contains ij acres, for ijs a year.
Also concerning ancient suits, and custom, and service, and other things. They say that the predecessors of the said John the son of John were wont to do suit at the county court in the time of King Henry [III.], the father of the king
that now is, and it has been omitted for twenty years and more, – they know not why, unless it be through some connexion of his with the liberty of Ely (per libertatem Elyensem) (Unless he is free of Ely).Also they say, that John de Hardleston holds j virgate of land of Henry le Chamberleyn de Land Beche (Hist. of Landbeach, pp. 15, 16), and it is subject to taxation, and John himself owes the said John le Straunge j hen annually.
Also they say, that Geoffry Didon holds j rood of land with a messuage, rendering to John de Hardleston ijs and ij capons a year.
Also Henry Knit holds j rood with a messuage for xvjd a year.
Villains.
Also they say, that the said John has in villenage Geoffry le Gardiner, who holds half a virgate of land of the same, and gives as his rent annually xiijs vd and a halfpeny and a farthing, and he shall do yearly lxvij works, which come to vjs vd and a
halfpeny.Also they say, that Alice Kille, Hugh le Maner, Walter le Husebonde, Alice Ridel, Robert Raysun, Peter Herbert, Margaret Goding, Robert Goding, Robert Picok, Geoffry Sarpman, Henry the son of Hugh, Wymar de Hogiton, Robert de Rampton, Matilda Weilot, William de Cruce, Henry Bacon, Robert Bachun, Thomas Cosin, Peter Blakeman, Mabille Fot, Walter de Haselingfeld, Stephen Scot, Adam Scot, John de Cotenham, Roger Scarpman, Roger Kille, hold each for himself so much land as the aforesaid Geoffry, and do in all things as the aforesaid Geoffry each for himself. And they render yearly ij capons at the price of jd and a halfpeny apiece, and liiij geese at the price of ijd each goose, and iiijxx vij hens and half [a score], at jd a hen, and if they shall cart with their own team as far as Lynn, each of them shall have from the lord iiijd, and they shall be relieved of their works during the same time.
Also he has in villenage Roger Scot and Richard de Rampton, who hold xx acres of land of the same, and both render yearly xviijs, and for works by the same xijs and a halfpeny; and all other customs and services are
to be done as the aforesaid Geoffry in all things.Also they say that the aforesaid John le Straunge has a croftman Walter de la Hythe, who holds j toft (A homestead or enclosure. Words and Places, pp. 158, 185. See Hist. of Horningsey, p. 13, n. ; and p. 14, n) containing jr of the same, and gives as rent annually xvijd, and he shall do xiiij works, which are worth yearly xxijd.
Also they say, that John Langur, Alice Goding, Roger Caractare, John Frere, Richard le Port, and Alexander Scot, hold as much land as the aforesaid Walter,
and do in all things as the aforesaid Walter, and one (each?) cottager of them gives to the lord yearly ij capons for iijd.Also they say, that Stephen Campiun holds j messuage for ij capons yearly at the price of iijd, and viij hens for viijd, and iijd for his works.
Also they say that Robert Byne holds of the same j messuage with a croft, which contains j acre, for jd a year.
Also they say, that William Bercare holds j messuage of Robert de Burewell for xijd and a halfpeny a year: also he holds j acre of the same Burewell for jd yearly.
Also they say that Mariere the daughter I of Peter holds ij acres of land of Gilbert le Knyt for vjd and a halfpeny, and it is liable to pay all kinds of taxes.
Also they say, that John the son of John holds ij acres of the same for vjd and a halfpeny a year, and it is liable to taxation.
Also they say, that Johanna his sister holds ij acres, &c.
Also they say, that Roger the son of Peter holds v acres of land and a half of the same G. for xvijd and a halfpeny and a farthing a year, and it is liable to pay taxes.
Also they say, that Robert, the chaplain{-One who said mass at a small private altar, a chantry or soul-priest. Almost every parish had several chaplains. At Leverington, in 1406, there were no fewer than seven, and at Wisbech ten. Such priests, as well as the gild-priests, assisted the incumbent, and made up a choir-service on Sundays and holidays, when they used to sit in the stalls of
the chancel. B1omefield’s Collect. Cantab. pp. 199, 242, 245; Peck’s
Desid. Curios. pp. 229, 230; Rock’s Church of our Fathers, Vol. I.
p. 408; Vol. III. Part I. pp. 104, &c.-} of the manor chapel, holds xx acres of land in free alms of the gift and grant of the lord John de Someriis (The family of Somer held a Manor in Barton; also, as early as Stephen’s reign, in Haslingfield) for the souls of his ancestors – moreover [he has] two men, namely Andrew Scot and John Sarpman, who hold xx acres of the said Robert, and each of them does as the aforesaid Geoffry le Gardiner in all things.Also they say that Peter de Woseri holds in Middletone xxx acres of land and messuage in pure and free alms of the founders of the said church, whereof there is no memory. The same rector has of the gift and grant of the founders of the church – namely Alan Textor, who holds j cottage of the same, and pays for his works every year xviijd.{-The sense here is not very clear; but, judging from what immediately follows, it would seem that as Robert the chaplain had two tenants for his 20 acres, so Alan Textor hired the rector’s land as well as the house upon it. Dr Whichcote records, that in 1656 the land belonging to his rectory contained 34½ acres, and so also does Mr Knight
in 1779.-}Also they say, that Agnes Frebern, John le Tayllur, Hugh le Batur, Alice Scot hold as much land as the aforesaid Alan, and will do in all things as the aforesaid Alan each for himself.
Also they say, that the heir of William Twet holds j cottage of the same for xijd a year, and for half a pound of wax for the church of the same parish (villa).
Also they say, that Enstace de la Hythe holds j messuage for ijs and j pound of cummin. Also, Walter le Gows holds j cottage for vjd a year. Also, Ralph le Gows holds j cottage for vjd a year, and both pay Roger de Berkeway.
All the before named under the title of villenage are at the will of the lord as concerns their works.
It must be borne in mind that all the before named, as well the free tenants as the villeins, who have beasts worth xxxd, give to the aforesaid lord annually jd by reason of a certain custom which is called Wartpeny (Hist. of Landbeach, p. 21, n).
The above extract has told us of two knight’s fees held by Sir John le Strange of Simon de Insula (De Lisle). On 12 March 1288-9 these fees were given by Simon to John de Kirkeby, bishop of Ely, so that for the future John le Strange and Eleanor{-For the origin of this word, see Miss Yonge’s Hist. of Christian
Names, Vol. I. pp. 158, &c.-} his wife were to hold them of him, who represented, by reason of his ecclesiastical dignity, the former owners of the whole property. Sir William de Middleton had in his hands at that time the
remainder of the parish; the advowson of the rectory however did not belong to his part, but to that in the possession of the Le Strange family, who alone were lords of the manor.
The manor was valued in the fourteenth century at xlvlib and in the succeeding century at xlviijlib.
Before leaving the family of Le Strange it will be as well to refer to a circumstance recorded by White Kennet in his Parochial Antiquities (Vol.II. p. 233, edit. 1818. This work contains a good deal pertaining to the same family. Duck, Life of Archb. Chichele.) respecting one member of it
and his wife: it affords, also, a curious instance of the extent to which personal feelings were then carried in despite of religion, and even in a church. It occurred 3 Hen. V. [1415].
‘A memorable accident now happened relating to Richard l’Estrange, baron of Knokyn, lord of the manor of Burcester in Oxfordshire, whose wife Constance contended with the wife of Sir John Trussel of Warrington in Cheshire for precedency of place in the church of S. Dunstan in the east, London: upon which disturbance the two husbands and all their retinue engaged in the quarrel, and
within the body of the church some were killed, and many wounded. For which profane riot several of the delinquents were committed, and the church suspended from the celebration of any divine offices. By process in the court
Christian, the lord Strange and his lady were adjudged to be the criminal parties, and had this solemn penance imposed upon them by that exemplary prelate Henry Chicheley, archbishop of Canterbury. The lord Strange walked bareheaded with a wax taper lighted in his hand, and his lady barefooted, from the church of S. Paul to that of S. Dunstan, which being rehallowed, the lady with her own hands filled all the church vessels with water, and offered to the altar an ornament of the value of ten pounds, and the lord a piece of silver to the value of five pounds. A great example of the good discipline of the church, and of the obedience of these noble persons.’
When in 1340, money being wanted to sustain Edward III. in his wars with France, a tax was appointed to be levied upon the several parishes in the kingdom, £10 6s. 8d, or fifteen marks and ahalf, were required from Milton. The assessment then used was very different from
that at present in force, even allowing for the decrease in the value of money. For now the annual rateable value of the property in this parish is estimated at £3669.
The manor continued to be among the possessions of the earl of Derby, lord of Man and the Isles, until towards the end of the reign of Hen. VIII. It was then purchased by William Cooke, a native of Chesterton, who, from his eminence as a lawyer, became sergeant at law, and finally, under Edw. VI. one of the judges of the Common Pleas. Sir William Cooke was buried to the north of the altar
in Milton Church in 1553 (Foss’ Judges of England, Vol. V. p. 298; Athen. Cantab.). In 14 Jac. I. [1616] Edward Newman was lord of the manor. During the reign of the same sovereign, however, the manor passed into the hands of the Harris family, some members of which were buried, as the brass mural tablet still existing testifies, in the manor chapel. The father of the John Harris thereon recorded was the first lord. In 1670 Sir Paul Whichcote,
Bart. (Of Quy, “who had a small but elegant chapel for his family prayers, which were twice in a day there attended.” Memoirs of the life of Mr William Whiston, p. 370), Dr Whichcote, the rector of Milton, and Simon Smith, Esq. were the lords. No doubt, they were only trustees on behalf of the representatives of the family of Harris. However, at least by 1685, they had parted with the manor (but without the advowson of the living, which had long been alienated,) and the remainder of the estate, to the celebrated lawyer, Francis Pemberton. He had been educated at Emmanuel College under Dr Whichcote, whose niece Anne, the daughter of Sir Jeremy Whichcote, Bart. he afterwards married. Chauncy, the historian of Hertfordshire, is the only author who speaks of him with unmixed commendation. His other biographers, with whatever party they are connected, almost invariably qualify the encomiums they are compelled to utter with some expressions of condemnation. He was eventually made chief
justice, first of the king’s bench, then of the common pleas, but was successively deprived of both offices, and went again on each occasion to the bar. In this inferior position he eventually passed the last portion of his life, and was the leading counsel among those who defended the seven bishops (The Seven Bishops were seven bishops of the Church of England. When James II issued his second Declaration of Indulgence in 1688, which granted expansive religious various freedoms, the Seven Bishops petitioned the King against it. James ordered them imprisoned in the Tower of London for seditious libel. They were brought to trial before the Court of King’s Bench and they were found not guilty.). Sir Francis Pemberton died in 1697, and was buried in the chapel of his house at Highgate; but afterwards, on that being pulled down, in the church of Trumpington (Foss’ Judges of England, Vol. VII. pp. 149, &c).
The next owner of the manor was the Reverend Samuel Knight, only son of the Reverend Dr Knight, formerly Canon of Ely Cathedral (Bentham and Stevenson’s Hist. of Ely Cathedral, Vol. I. p. 263 ; Vol. II. p. 132. Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes, Vol. V. pp. 354,&c.; Memoirs of the Life of Mr. William Whiston, pp. 192, 195). He bought the property about 1767 for the sum of £10,000 from Mr Jeremiah Pemberton of Trumpington. As advertised for sale in the Cambridge Chronicle for 7th June 1766 it was described to be the
manor, three farms, quitrents, &c. In their award, when in the possession of his son, the commissioners stated the land to amount to 487 a. 1 r. 8 p. Mr Baumgartner, great grandson to Mr Knight, is at present the lord of the manor:
the rest of the estate, including the modern manor house, was sold off no long time ago to different individuals.
Milton, in Cambridgeshire, as well as elsewhere, is a very common and natural contraction of a word which was anciently spelt in various ways, viz. Middeltun, Medilton, &c. Blomefield says of a village in Norfolk with the same
name (Hist. of Norfolk, Vol. IV. p. 645) ‘it was so called because it lay on a hill surrounded with low ground, marshes, and water.’ Probably we shall not be wrong, if we suppose that in a somewhat similar manner, from the circumstances of its position, our village obtained its name, and then that such name, being extended to all the land, which adjoined it, and belonged to it, became likewise in time the name of a distinct parish. In fact what took place in Milton may have been, and most probably was, the very reverse of what took place in Horningsey, for the parish was in this instance, at least,
so called from the village.
Blomefield equally points out how he imagines the word Middeltun to have been derived – Mid-Le-Ton. But in this matter he is unquestionably wrong: it consists only of two, not of three words, both of which came from the
Anglo-Saxons, to whom the village therefore owed its origin and first settlement. Leaving the word middel, as presenting no difficulty, it may be added that tun is one of those terminations, which, instead of being common to
many, point out infallibly a particular nation. England is, and ever has been, ‘pre-eminently the land of hedges and inclosures.’ What in this respect it was formerly, it is now, and thus testifies both to the seclusiveness of character distinguishing the Anglo-Saxon race, and, it is also thought, to the advanced_state of agriculture which flourished among them. Tun seems to have been the inclosure for the cattle, as barton was the inclosure for the bear, or gathered crop borne by the land. Soon, however, tun must have come to signify a few scattered houses, and eventually what we understand by a village (Words and Places, pp. 117, 366, 458, 484). Singularly enough, even in the present day, ‘town’ is the regular word for the village in the mouths of its inhabitants, so also on the church plate, and in the parish documents.
The parish of Milton, which is on the very edge of the fen district to the south, is bounded on the east by the Cam, on the north by Waterbeach and Landbeach, on the west by Landbeach and Impington, or rather, perhaps, by Beach Way, the modern name for the ancient Akeman Street (Words and Places p. 465; Hist. of Landbeach, p. 3.), and on the south by Chesterton. As regards the two old encampments, each of which forms part of the boundary between Milton and Chesterton, one called Arbury, and the other being situated near King’s Hedges, recourse must be had elsewhere (Professor Cardale Babington’s Ancient Cambridgeshire, pp. 10, 73, 74). For they are both in Chesterton parish, and therefore, like the Akeman Street, do not really belong to the present compilation.
Milton is in the hundred of North Stow, the division of Cambridge, the union of Chesterton, and district of Willingham. The village stands three miles and a half to the north of Cambridge.
An Act of Parliament for the inclosure of Milton was procured in 1800, and the award of the commissioners for carrying it out is dated 8th July 1802. The parish was declared by those commissioners to contain 1378 a. 2 r. 4 p., whereof
157 a. 1 r. 32 p. were then copyhold, though 30 a. 1 r. 7 p. out of this quantity were held not of the manor of Milton, but of the manors of Waterbeach cum Denney, and Impington. The public roads and ways took up 21 a. 3 r. 24 p.
By means of a general summary placed at the end of the award we are enabled to glean some information respecting the previous, if not the ancient, condition of this parish. At the time of the inclosure it had three fens (The Manor Rolls for 1640 make mention of Knaves’ Fen). Lug fen and Backsbite fen were both of them in the neighbourhood of the river. The third comprised a district to the north of both called simply the fen, otherwise land fen. The first fen had its name from the Bags, or wild irises, wherewith it abounded, and whose flower-petals were in shape like the ears of a dog. It was once divided into high lug and low lug. Backsbite, or Baitsbite, the name of the second fen, will be explained hereafter. The arable land was distributed into five fields, styled
severally Backsbite, South, Middle, Mill, and Island, field. The reason for the names of four of these fields is very evident; the last name we may conceive to have arisen from the presence of some fen island in that north-eastern part of the parish, or from the way in which it was bounded.
Milton possessed six closes: Dovehouse, Hill, Rye, Cherry, Picked, and Camping, close. The first two were near the manor house, the former of them being intimately connected with it, and indeed, of right belonging to it: the latter
might be supposed to have derived its name from an ancient barrow on it, (which, however, has been recently taken away,) but Cole, as we may see in a note to the will of Thomas Campion, deems Hill close a misnomer for Hall
close, because the manor house stood there. Rye and Cherry closes adjoined each other, the one containing about six, the other about thirteen acres. Both of them recal the names of articles, which are no longer to be found at Milton as regular crops, for rye has ceased in that parish, no less than elsewhere, to be cultivated in order to make bread of, and cherry orchards, which were once not uncommon in this district, no longer exist. What Picked close may mean is far from clear: this portion of land was in the neighbourhood of themanor house, and is now included within its grounds. The Camping close contained 2 r. 26 p.: it is at present a portion of the rectorial property, and close to the parsonage. It was annexed to the rectory, 18th February, 1652-3, the rector,
however, was to pay for it an annual rent of six shillings and eight pence. Such plots of ground given, and set apart, for the playing of a particularly favourite game (Forby’s Vocabulary of East Anglia) were once not uncommon among our villages: would that every one of them had its play-ground now! Pound piece may have derived its name from the existence therein of the usual place of temporary confinement for straying cattle. Northward and southward lower doles were so called, because, instead of being the property of one individual, they were jointly owned, as the word doles shews, by several. Formerly the name of the whole plot was leverdole furlong.
The earliest mode of communication by road between Cambridge and Ely lay over the Akeman Street. When the villages of Milton and Landbeach had been formed, the land traffic, such as it was, passed through them, at least, in part, for the old Roman road continued in use through the whole distance, until the inclosure of Chesterton parish took place, as a track for carts, and occasionally for such horsemen, as were very particular about having to pay turnpike dues. By the middle of the sixteenth century the direction of the roadway had undergone a partial change, for, branching off towards the right from Milton pond, it then led over Waterbeach meadow, so that the persons who used it were no longer obliged to pass through the village of Landbeach.
This alteration, however, was in reality a trespass, or, more properly, an encroachment. For in a terrier belonging to Landbeach parish, and dated so far back as 1549, we find it said – ‘semitam ex permissione ducentem a Medilton Crosse versus Dennye (Hist. of Landbeach, p. 33).’ Possibly it had been found by the inhabitants of Milton, that a road in such at direction was a readier means of intercourse between themselves and their neighbours. Through the lapse of time, the permission, originally granted as a favour by the owners of the soil, became looked upon as a right, and, consequently, when in 1763 an Act of Parliament was passed for improving the highway between Cambridge and Ely, this new piece of road from Milton Pond to
Goose-hall (Goose-hall, or, as it is in the maps, Goose-house, standing in Landbeach parish, was so named from a practice which, since the introduction of railways, has entirely ceased. For previously large numbers of geese were wont to be driven periodically along the highway from the northern part of the Isle of Ely to London, and here, next after Ely, they rested during the night) was therein authoritatively styled, (which indeed it really had been for two centuries,) ‘the Right Hand branch.’ Such however was not the opinion of Mr Masters, rector of Landbeach. For in the course of some proceedings unsuccessfully taken by himself and his parishioners to prevent the Act from being carried out, he affirmed that it was even then ‘no road for carriages, only a sort of vague road (over commons and meadows) to Denney,’ and therefore
that they ought not to be compelled to render it it for traffic. Subsequently, at the time of the inclosure, another, and a very short deviation from this usurped track was made through the influence of Mr Knight, the lord of the manor, who resided in the parish, and whom it chiefly concerned. The road to Ely, as we have seen, had by 1549 turned off at the pond, and begun to run close to the church, and just in front of what in recent times at least became the manor house. About 1801 a new direction was given to it at this point, the
direction, in fact, which it has at present. The inclosure commissioners refer to this in the following passage of their award – ‘having set out in its ancient (?) direction the turnpike road called the Ely road, so far as the same leads through the parish of Milton, (except where the same passes through the
old inclosures) of the breadth of sixty feet.’
The word Backsbite, now written Baitsbite, which has occurred as the common designation of a fen and a field in Milton, is a corruption. In the manor rolls for 1634 Basebitt furlong occurs, and in 1657 Basebitt corner. ‘Base’ must refer either to the low position, or to the utter worthlessness of the ‘bitt’ of land so called: most probably to the latter, though it might well take in both. The small house with its garden near the river, which all persons are accustomed to call by the same name, was built by, and belongs to, the Conservators of the river Cam, as a residence for one of their officers. It was an encroachment made to the detriment of the charity estate, but not at length without giving compensation.
A reference to Milton cross has been made. We hardly needed such a notice to feel assured that Milton formerly possessed one, since it would undoubtedly have been difficult, before the establishment of the Reformation, to find any
village without a similar aid to devotion. What, however, we cannot settle, is the exact spot whereon it stood (a point of inferior moment), by reason, as it would appear, of the non-occurrence of the least fragment thereof: still we know
from a circumstance already mentioned, that it was somewhere in the centre of the village, and at no great distance from the church; possibly at the turn of the road leading down to it.
We need not hesitate to reckon Milton among the pretty villages of Cambridgeshire. It is very compact, and though not remarkable for any feature particularly suited to attract the attention, has an air about it which is pleasant and agreeable. The position of the church and rectory contribute much to the general effect, being just far enough removed from the main street of the village to be perfectly retired, and yet not so much so, as to become unseen or in accessible.
The only house, which requires a remark, is what has for some time been called the manor-house. The lord of the manor of course always had a residence in the parish, though not exactly on this spot. Judge Cooke, who died in 1553, built here what Cole terms a farm house. He affirms, too, that it was built out of the ruins and spoils of Denney or some neighbouring abbey, which had recently been dissolved and sold (See his remarks on the will of Thomas Campion): this may easily have been the case, and would account for the many pieces of worked stone to be found in various parts of the village. The present building is due to the Reverend Samuel Knight, and to the year 1772. Judge Cooke’s ‘farm house’ however, as it seems, was not entirely destroyed; it was only at that time substantially repaired, and rendered a fit habitation for the lord of the manor, whose residence it may indeed have been ever since the original
and proper manor house had fallen into decay. Cole, who had come in 1770 from Waterbeach to reside at Milton, writes: ‘I made choice of this place for my residence; one of its recommendations was its privacy and solitude.’ Again,
under the date 9th July 1772 : ‘I have seen no one all the time, except the squire of the parish, as they call him here, a rich clergyman, who called upon me yesterday morning. This gentleman having, about five years ago, purchased the chief part of the parish, has to my no small mortification taken it into his head to like the situation, and is now actually building a good house to reside in (Warburton’s Life of Horace Walpole, Vol. II. p. 388.). On his removal to Milton Mr Knight brought with him a variety of manuscripts written by Dr Patrick, bishop of Ely, by his father and others, particularly a large quantity of Strype’s correspondence, now bound up in ten volumes, together with Bishop Patrick’s own autobiography (This had been printed for publication in 1839. There are some remarks about it in the Memoirs of the Life of Mr William Whiston, p 353.). These, by, the kindness of Mr Baumgartner, who has been before mentioned, have lately been deposited in the University Library at Cambridge (They are marked Add. MSS. 1 to 88)
The feast, which lasts a few days, used to begin on Midlent Sunday, ‘being the first in the year;’ that is, so long as the year was considered to commence on the 25th of March, Midlent Sunday very frequently, though not always, fell after it. Midlent, or feast, Sunday was ‘vulgarly called Pease-porridge Sunday (Carter’s Hist. of Cambridgeshire);’ just as at Waterbeach, the Sunday preceding the feast has always gone, and still goes, by the name of Furmety Sunday, and in both cases, of course, for a similar reason. Mr Champnes, the vicar, changed the day with the consent of the churchwardens, and it is now the second Sunday in May, because the village festivities, which naturally attended upon the feast, were found to bring with them, especially from the proximity of Cambridge, too much riot and disorder.
We learn very little respecting the names of the inhabitants of Milton. Sir William de Middleton, one of the two lords of the town in 1289, no doubt, lived here. Thomas de Frebern, John Mapoudere, William Town, Stephen Herberd and Petronilla his wife, with Thomas Godechild, occur in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as the majority of them had occurred a century before. William Foote was returned in 1433 among the resident gentry of Cambridgeshire (Fuller’s Worthies of England, Vol. I. p. 245, edit. 1840.). Richard Richardes is said to have lent Queen Elizabeth £25 on 29th May, 1588 (Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge, Vol. II. p. 452). Richardes is the name of a family frequently mentioned, as we shall see, in connexion with the wills and charity trusts of the parish. Some of the lords of the manor assuredly dwelt on their property, as we know Judge Cooke did and others in more modern times. Nor must the Rev. William Cole, the celebrated antiquary, be forgotten: indeed, it would not be far from the truth to add,
that he was the man of chief importance among all, who had at any time made Milton their place of residence. For more than two years he had been curate to Mr Masters at Waterbeach. Not, however, liking the place because of the frequent inundations, and its many other discomforts, he ‘repaired and in a manner rebuilt an old house belonging to King’s College’ on the higher ground
of Milton, with the intention of getting into it by Christmas, 1769, which intention he did accomplish at the following Lady day (Hist of Waterbeach. p. 17.). In this house, standing on the right hand of the road leading towards what now goes commonly by the name of Baitsbite, and which he was wont to style his hermitage (Hist of Waterbeach. p. 18. There is a view of Cole’s Hermitage, by Essex, taken 25th June, 1773; and a long account of it by himself in his MSS., Vol. XXXIII. pp. 386, &c), he lived and prosecuted his valuable labours with wonderful industry and perseverance
until his death in December, 1782. He left directions for his burial in a vault under the old wooden belfry of S. Clement’s church, Cambridge, and for the building of a tower over it by way of monument after the decease of his sister Jane (Life of Horace Walpole, Vol. II. pp. 373, 442 ; Cooper’s Memorials of Cambridge, Vol. II. p. 266). This was at length done in 1821, and on the west front of the tower, in remembrance of the donor, and in compliance with his express wish, were added, certainly with questionable taste, the words, Deum Cole. Mr Cole embedded in the walls of his house several pieces of old worked stone, which are still to be seen there; and he records that he had in his hermitage in his garden, in 1775, ‘a piece of black touch [stone] evidently the top, or cover of an altar tomb, workmanship of
the age of Edw. III being, as he conceived, a relic of the tomb of the Lady Mary de S. Paul, the foundress of Denney Abbey (MSS Vol. XIX. foll. 125, 126; Vol. XXXVI. p. 153; Vol. XLVI. p. 377 ; Hist. of Waterbeach, p. 106).
The population of Milton has nearly doubled in the course of the last sixty years, having been, at the taking of the census in 1801, 272; whilst by 1861 it had reached 494 (1676 – 85 inhabitants, 35 (?) families, 1 popish recusant. No dissenter.
1728 – 170 inhabitants, 40 families, 6 dissenters.
1782 – 224 inhabitants, 39 families.;). It still goes on increasing, contrary to what is the case in some neighbouring parishes, as we may judge from the new cottages which are gradually springing up here and there, no less than from the small Meeting-house belonging to the Particular Baptist connexion, which has
been recently erected.
The Great Eastern Railway to Norwich runs quite through the lower, or fen, part of the parish, nearly parallel with the Cam, though no station has been built for the accommodation of the inhabitants of the village.
The present owners of land are – the rector, King’s College, Pembroke College, the Reverend Dr Archdall-Gratwicke, Professor C. C. Babington, Mrs Denson, and
Mr Gunnell.
