[ 577 ] SUPPLEMENT TO VOLUME XCI. PART I. Embellished with a View of the GATEWAY of the PRIORY of ST. MARTIN-LE-GRAND, near the Town of Dover. Mr. URBAN, June 1. FEAR to the entrance of the town NE of Dover, where the road leads to Folkstone, in a very pleasant situation, are several remains of the Priory of St. Martin-le-Grand, among which the Gateway is not least conspicuous. I beg you to lay before your Readers the annexed View of it (see the Plate). The Refectory, 100 feet long, is now used as a barn; a portion of the Church, and remains of other buildings, are also still remaining. The Priory of St. Martin was founded by King Widrid for the Secular Canons, whom he removed from the older Church in Dover Castle. These Canons were suppressed by Henry I.; and their possessions given to Christ Church, Canterbury, most probably at the instigation of Abp. Corbyl, who designed to replace them by a Priory of Canons Regular; the buildings for which he soon after begun, at a short distance without the walls; but dying before he had completed them, they were finished by his successor, Abp. Theobald, who, instead of Canons Regular, preferred Benedictines; and Henry II. decreed that none but Benedictines should be admitted. At the Dissolution, Dugdale estimates the annual value at 1707. 148. 114d.; and Speed at 2321. 1s. 5d. Henry VIII. granted all its possessions to the See of Canterbury, to which it now belongs. St. Martin-le-Grand was considered as superior to all the other Churches of Dover, so that no Priests began the service till a bell had notified that Mass was begun at St. Martin's. After the suppression of the Canons Regular, the Church of St. Martin became parochial, and was so used till 1546, when it was nearly all taken down, except the tower. In the church-yard belonging to it A W. June 5. sundry inquiries respecting Sir Thomas Gardiner of Cuddesden, and his connexions (see page 395); and as, previously to the appearance of this article in your valuable pages, I also had directed my attention to the same subject, I am enabled, therefore, to send you some particulars in reply, without much delay. It will be found upon reference to Wood's History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, edited by Gutch (Part II. p. 938), that Thomas Gardiner was of the Inner Temple; and in 1621, admitted a student in the Bodleian Library; that he was afterwards Recorder of London, a Knight, his Majesty's Solicitor General, and eminent for his knowledge of the municipal law; also, that he died in October 1652, and was buried in the Church at Cuddesden, near Oxford. The Arms borne by Sir Thomas were very different from those used by the family of Gardiner, to whom, in 1660, a Baronetage was granted; for, in Gutch's edition of Wood's History and Antiquities of the Colleges and Halls of Oxford (vol. I. p. 510), it is mentioned (the passage having reference to various coats of Arms pourtrayed at Christ Church College), that the Arms of his son, Sir Thomas (having in 1643-4 been also knighted in his father's life-time), were, "Party per pale, Gules and Or, a fess between three hinds trippant counter-changed, a label for difference;" also, that Sir Thomas the younger, who was a Captain of Horse under the King, was buried in Oxford Cathedral, 578 Account of the Gardiner Family. Cathedral, under Alex. Gerard's mo- From sundry accidental means of intelligence, and principally from a perusal lately of various certified extracts from the register books of the parish of Cuddesden (the first entries wherein were in the year 1541), I am also enabled to state to you, with, I believe, tolerable correctness, a few other particulars relative to this family. Wood mentions that Sir Thomas Gardiner had an estate at Cuddesden; but a "quære" is attached to this memorandum in one of the early editions; and Lloyd states that he was born in the neighbourhood of Oxford, and purchased lands near the place of his nativity. Whether, therefore, he had any hereditary possessions in that quarter is uncertain; but it is clear, that by means of his superior talents and industry, he raised himself progressively to considerable eminence in the political and legal sphere. The troubles and sacrifices, however, which must have been attendant upon the conspicuous interference of himself and his connexions, during the protracted continuance of the civil war, would naturally have the effect of reducing the condition of all of them, until circumstances might occur so as to recruit it. This kind of renovation does not seem to have taken place (but in this respect their lot was by no means singular); for we must conclude that the finances of the family were and contioned to be in an indifferent state, as neither at [XCI. the time of the Restoration (only eight years subsequent to the death of Sir Thomas), nor during the period, afterwards, when we may conjecture that sympathetic feelings of near relationship would prevail among them, does any monument or inscription appear to have been put up at Cuddesden in memory of their distinguished predecessor. Sir Thomas Gardiner was buried at Cuddesden, Oct. 15, 1652.-Of his eldest son Thomas, I have been able to glean but little more than has been mentioned above. His son Henry was baptized in Oct. 1625; and, according to Wood, was buried at Cuddesden; but there is not any register to that effect. Indeed, during the year 1645 (and some others), as I am informed, there are no entries in the register books of either baptisms, marriages, or burials, and for some years afterwards, the entries are irregular. Another son, Michael, was baptized in August 1628. Sir Thomas's second son, Henry, from the early age at which he was killed, most likely died single. Of his son Michael (supposing the person aftermentioned not to be so allied to him), I have obtained no particulars, except as to his baptism: and of the descendants from either of his sons, I regret that I cannot inform you more, than that Thomas, a son of Sir Thomas the younger, was baptized at Cuddesden in January 1643-4. In tracing particulars of Sir Thomas, I have found his name stated differently, namely, Gardiner and Gardner; and I also find occasional variations in this particular, in the register entries concerning the next mentioned parties. It appears by the register books, that there was one other family of the name, resident in the parish, and contemporary with that of Sir Thomas. Of this family, Matthew was baptized in November 1592, and buried in April 1634. He had a son John (respecting whom, and David, a son of the said John, I have collected no other account than that of their baptisms); also a daughter Alice, who died under three years old; and, thirdly, a son Michael, whose baptism occurred about three years after that of Michael before- mentioned, namely, in November 1681; but the PART I.] Account of the Gardiner Family. time of his decease, I have not yet Some years after the foregoing dates (and commencing at 1670), baptisms occur in the register books, of sundry other persons of the name; but no entries are previously found respecting their parents, so as to enable me to connect them with any of the persons who have been mentioned. I have not been able to find out the age which was attained by Michael, the purchaser of a small properly in 1664-5, and of another little freehold in 1680, but he was unquestionably one or the other of the aforesaid two Michaels; and, as his condition in life was, I understand, that of a shopkeeper, or village tradesman, at Wheatley in this parish, the said purchaser was probably the son of Matthew. The degree of family connexion which might possibly exist between the said Michael and Sir Thomas's family (for the existence of some relationship bas been handed down traditionally among the descendants of the former), appears to me, at present, to be very undefined. What might be the occupation of Matthew, I have not been able to learn. There is no appendage to his name in the said books; whereas to that of his contemporary Thomas, is attached "Gent." and to this epithet, as he no doubt previously to the time of his son Henry's baptism, had been duly admitted a Barrister, he was, from this circumstance alone, fully entitled; even supposing that during his early career, he possibly was not conspicuous, on account of either parentage or fortune. It is, therefore, by no means unlikely that these contemporaries, Thomas and Matthew, were nearly related, notwithstanding the above distinction. The only baptisms met with in the register books previously to October 1625 (when that of Henry Gardiner took place), are those of Matthew and his son John. The said books, therefore, will afford no light as to Cuddesden being the birth-place of either Sir Thomas or of his eldest son. The party who, in 1807, sold his property in this neighbourhood (the little freehold bought in 1680 making a part of it), is descended in the fifth degree from Michael the said purchaser; and is considered to be (almost) his only male representative. The most recent of "the tombs," re 579 ferred to by "A Constant Reader," is that of the said Vendor's parents. This gentleman, from various causes during a long minority, and since, from close attention to his professtand, been near Cuddesden; or had sional affairs, has never yet, I undervery respectable but not very near much correspondence with several relatives, who reside in its vicinity. surprised to find him unable to assist Under such circumstances, I am not above subjects: he has suggested, me with much information on the however, as a possible clue to my tracing the descendants of Sir Tho of St. Andrew's, Holborn, goldsmith, mas Gardiner, that William Gardiner whose will was proved in Doctors' diner mentioned therein as a "loving Commons in 1728, and George Garcousin,” might be two of them. Letwill annexed, were, during the followters of administration, with the said ing year, granted to Michael Gardiaforesaid purchaser, baptized Dec. ner of Wheatley (only son of the 1670, buried March 1757-8), as a distant relative; the expression being "consobrino remoto semel et proxishortly afterwards revoked in favour mo consanguineo;" but they were of Philip Trolip, a near relation. the character of Sir Thomas Gardiner If the observations made respecting by David Lloyd, whose work was published in 1668 (not more than sevendecease), be well founded, 1 flatter teen years after the worthy Knight's ing particulars will not be unacceptmyself, Mr. Urban, that the foregoable to you, or to such of respondents as may be disposed to your Cordirect their researches further. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, AMICUS. May 30. THE Edinburgh Reviewers having and 69th Numbers, even the receipt To the Editor or Writers of the IN you have referred to an early edition stated 582 Origin of Pointed Architecture. pointed vaulting most admired, on account of the appearance of height which such an arched roof gives to the interior of a building; though, according to the form here selected, it would diminish nearly to a flat ceiling; and the depression of the arch was the principal cause to which Dr. Milner has very justly attributed the downfall of the style. (Treatise on the Eccl. Arch. of England, ch. 8.) Your Antiquarian Readers will scarcely imagine that this collection of inconsistencies is intended for the description of a Chapel professedly in the Pointed Style; and some will, perhaps, lament that such a superior design should not be carried into execution. Unfortunately for Mr. Lascelles's system, Batty Langley is no more, or he certainly would have been the "Architect of genius," selected to embody the author's ideas, and if a chapel could not be erected, at least some retired citizen's gardens might display a summer-house built in a "purer order than any now existing." The exploded notion of the introduction of the Pointed Style by the Crusaders, is revived by the author. But from which (if true) his hypothesis does not derive much support. They must have obtained their knowledge from some other source; and from the same cause, that no Hebrew buildings have reached our days, none could have existed in theirs: we must therefore suppose they were taught the style by the Jews, who had preserved it till then traditionally. But is it probable that, in the twelfth Century, the haughty Crusaders would condescend to receive any invention from so despised a class of men as that people then were? the utter improbability of which, if not suffi cient to confute this supposition, an important question will remain to be answered. How did the Jews, scattered, dispersed, and persecuted as they were, preserve their style of building so perfect merely by tradition, and without being able to prac. tise it? and why has not such tradition reached the present day? But it is evident the style was not thus introduced, as in buildings posterior to the time of the grand Crusade, round Arches are predominant; and Pointed ones are to be seen in edifices long antecedent to that æra. [XCI. "If any individual," says the author I have just quoted, "of that period might be expected to have brought back with him into Europe this supposed Eastern Style, it was the celebrated Monk of Bec Abbey, Gundulphus"-" the most celebrated practical Architect of his age."—"Now this eminent builder had made a journey of devotion to the Holy Land, a little before the first Crusade.-Yet in vain do we examine his subsisting works at Rochester and in London for an Arch, a Pillar, or a Moulding, in the Style under consideration" i.e. the Pointed. (Treatise, &c. p. 56.) It would be unprofitable to pursue this almost forgotten supposition further, after what has been advanced by Milner and others in opposition to it, did it not form a very prominent feature in the author's theory; for if, as he supposes, the Style had been imported into this country, the Crusaders were the most likely to have done so; but that they did not, appears evident, not only by the foregoing quotation, but by the existence of early buildings in the Style, a careful examination of which cannot fail of disproving the system of Mr. Lascelles. But should any one still contend that the Style is exotic, I would ask, why it was not introduced in a perfect state, and not by a single Arch at a time, as we have seen the fact was? I should, however, imagine, that this supposed Jewish Style was as little known to the Crusaders or their successors, as it is to the Jews themselves at this period: indeed, it does not appear to exist any where, but in the author's imagination; for, in his description of a Chapel, referred to in the former part of this Letter, I am unable to recognize the detail of any Style known to the Architects of the middle ages, from the days of St. Benet Biscop to those of Sir Reginald Bray and Bishop Close. It would extend my Letter to a great length to examine the conjectures which Mr. Lascelles raises from some "curious facts;" the greater part do not apply to an enquiry of this nature, and none of them go the length to prove that a peculiar Style was ever appropriated to sacred Årchitecture, either by the antient Hebrews or the Christians of the middle ages (see Mag. for May, p. 411). Whe ther |