CHAPTER XII - BOUNDS, GATES, AND WATCHMEN
The Bounds
The parish of St. Bartholomew the Great (see plan, p. 131) dates
from the time of the founding of the monastery. In a list of city
churches in Liber Custumarum in 1303 it is called Sanctus Bartholomaeus Magnus de Smethefeld to distinguish it from St. Bartholomew-Exchange. The hospital was made a separate parish in 1544 under
the style of St. Bartholomew the Less.
The king in his grant to Rich of that year said (as we have seen) (fn. 1)
that—
'the close of the late monastery, commonly called Great St. Bartholomew's Close, from time whereof the memory of man is not
to the contrary, was universally held used and accepted as a parish
and as a parish in itself distinct and separate from other parishes
and the inhabitants of the same close always had their own parish
church and burial place.'
There were no dwelling-houses at that time within the ' fair ground ',
but in spite of the 'close' alone being specified as constituting the
parish, the ground occupied by the fair was included within the parish
bounds described in the same deed. Although St. Bartholomew the
Great is a distinct parish in itself it would seem that the site granted
by Henry I for both his church and hospital was, as to its eastern portion, in the parish of St. Botolph, Aldersgate; and in consequence, as
was usual in such cases, the mother church of St. Botolph, at some time
unknown, made a composition with the priory, whereby St. Botolph's
received from the priory 20s. a year in compensation for the loss
of the oblations of such of their parishioners as dwelt within the portion of the precincts of the priory, which had been within St. Botolph's
parish. Between the years 1439 and 1441 this composition was
disputed by the prior, which caused the rector of St. Botolph's to
collect evidence in favour of his rights; and the answers given by
some of the oldest inhabitants to interrogations made to them are
preserved in the muniment room of Westminster Abbey. (fn. 2) St. Botolph's
was, in 1399, appropriated by Richard II to the collegiate church of
St. Martin le Grand for an anniversary of his queen, Anne, so the
inquiry was held on behalf of Richard Cawdray, who was the Dean of
St. Martin's from 1439, (fn. 3) and who was also rector of St. Botolph's.
None of the witnesses knew the date of the composition but they
knew that 20s. was regularly paid during the rectorship of Ralph de
Kesteven (1374–1399) until within the last three years of the rectorship
of William Leyton (or Leyghton), about 1435, and that the inhabitants
of the priory precinct paid the king's taxes with the other parishioners
of St. Botolph's. One of the witnesses described the bounds and
liberties of their parish 'within the precinct of the priory' as (fn. 4)
' beginning at a certain stone wall in Long Lane on which wall
there stood a certain stone cross which separated the bounds of
St. Botolph from the bounds of St. Sepulchre ' (this point is now
between Nos. 82 and 83 Long Lane) 'and so passing within the
precinct of the priory from the said cross to the corner of the high
altar of the church of St. Bartholomew and westward directly
towards the end of a house of a certain gentleman commonly called
Hotoft, standing north and south, which house or mansion was
within the bounds of St. Botolph.'
(this point is south of the hospital; it used to be in the middle of the
swimming bath of Christ's Hospital, and is now in the yard of the
new General Post Office).
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there were many inhabitants
dwelling in the close both of the priory and of the hospital east of this
line within the monastic precincts.
Why Prior William Coventry (1414–1436) or Prior Reginald Collier
(1436–1471) should have repudiated the composition does not appear,
but the matter was settled in 1441 by Prior Collier giving the Dean
of St. Martin's £4 in full discharge of all arrears. (fn. 5) The annual payment
continued until the suppression for it appears among the deductions
in the Valor Ecclesiasticus as ' paid the Dean of St. Martin's from
St. Botolph's Aldersgate 20s.' (fn. 6)
That there was no such compensation paid to St. Sepulchre's
parish suggests that St. Sepulchre's church was not built until after
St. Bartholomew's was founded.
The parish of St. Bartholomew is now in the ward of Farringdonwithout, so named from William Farendon who purchased the aldermanry 156 years after St. Bartholomew's was founded. (fn. 7) What was
the name of the ward in 1123 we do not know. The ward was not
divided into 'within' and 'without' until 1393.
The Parish Bounds.
The following particulars of the parish bounds in 1544 are translated
from 'Particulars for Grants' in the Record Office. (fn. 8)
'Bounds and limits of the circuit and precinct of the Close called
Greate Seynt Bartilmewe's Close, late belonging to the monastery or
priory of St. Bartholomew in West Smythfelde in the suburbs to wit:
'Beginning at the great gate called "le southgate" of the close
aforesaid on the farther side of the same gate, at the southern end
of the lane called Duck Lane' (Duck Lane, afterwards Duke Street,
is now named Little Britain) 'and thence tending northward along
the middle of that lane, to wit, along "le cannell" as it leads up
to a certain place called "le Cheyne", belonging to the said late
monastery' (plan, p. 131).
All we know of this place called 'le Cheyne' is from Agas's map, where
it is shown as an oblong space bounded by a low wall, presumably
about 4 ft. high (p. 110). It extended from the south side of the
Smithfield gate past the west front of the church, to the Cloth
Fair gate. The width of the enclosure is shown as about half that
of Duck Lane. It was probably 10 ft. wide as the parish boundary
now is 10 ft. westward of the Smithfield gate. (fn. 9) In the centre of the
west side of this low wall an opening is shown of about 6 ft. in width,
which we assume was on market days enclosed by a chain to prevent
cattle from entering the church. (fn. 10) After 'le cheyne' had been removed,
even as late as the year 1774, one of the duties of the parish beadle
was 'to keep horses out of the close on Fridays', (fn. 11) which was the
market day, (fn. 12) as already stated. It was also the market day when
Fitz Stephen wrote, 600 years before, for he says: (fn. 13)
'There is also, without one of the city gates, and even in the
very suburbs, a certain plain field, such both in reality and name;
here every Friday, unless it should happen to be one of the more
solemn festivals, there is a celebrated rendezvous of fine horses
brought thither to be sold.'
In the seventeenth century strong wooden fencing was placed round
the whole of Smithfield as a protection from cattle. The 'particulars'
continue:
'And thence proceeding northward along the outer side of the
west side of "le cheyne" as far as the north end of "le cheyne",'
by which we see that the boundary which ran up the middle of Duck
Lane made no turn on reaching 'le cheyne'. At the north end of the
enclosure the bound is described as
'then turning away eastward along the outer side of the northern
end of "le cheyne" and then turning and thence proceeding
northward along the outer side of the west gate of the fair of
St. Bartholomew.'
This implies that 'le cheyne' did not extend to the north side of the
Cloth Fair gate as shown in Agas's map: on the other hand, John
Chesewyk's house, though on the north side of the Cloth Fair gate,
is described as 'next to le cheyne', so there is some confusion. Neither
the Ordnance map nor 'the book of the perambulation of the parish'
shows the turn to the eastward mentioned above. As the king's
bounds do not, up to this point, follow the building front, as they do
beyond it, we do not know whether the site of the west front of the
church was occupied by houses in the year 1544, as Agas's map shows
was the case some twenty years later.
The boundary then proceeded, not in the street as described in the
later perambulation of the parish bounds, but
along the outer sides and walls of houses and tenements parcel
of the possessions of the said late monastery towards Smythfeld
market' (these houses were called Le Ramyge in the grant) 'up
to a certain lane called Long Lane,'
taking no notice of the two houses 62 and 63 West Smithfield which
belonged to St. Sepulchre's parish,
'and then turning away eastward along the outer side of the
stone wall of the close of the monastery abutting on Longlane
up to the stone wall at the eastern end of the same stone wall
towards Longlane,'
no mention is made of the gate in this north wall of the monastery
shown in Agas's map,
'and then turning southward away from Longlane along the outer
side of the stone wall,'
that would be through the centre of the present Manchester Hotel,
'as it leads up to houses and buildings late parcel of the possessions
for a time belonging to the late house of the brethren of Houneslowe,' (fn. 14)
that is the Priory of Trinitarian or Maturine Friars in Hounslow.
These houses were apparently the limit of the stone wall; further
references are to one of brick.
'and then proceeding southward along the western side of the
same houses and buildings up to a certain place called Pety Wales'
that is to the back portion of Collingridge's printing establishment
entered at the south-east corner of Newbury Street and at 148 Aldersgate Street,
'and then turning eastward away from Pety Wales along the outer
side of the northern side of a certain place called Paradyse, next
Pety Wales, up to the further side on the east of Paradyse, and then
turning away southward along the outer side of the east side of
Paradyse (as far as) the further side on the south side of Paradyse
and then turning away westward along the outer side of the southern
side of Paradyse,'
that is the northern side of Half Moon Court,
'up to Pety Wales and then proceeding westward along the outer
side of Pety Wales'
because Petty Wales extended from the north-west to the south-west
of Paradise,
'along and next houses, buildings and vacant land parcel of
Blackhorse alley'
that is Bowman's Buildings leading to Queen's Square belonging to
the Company of Fishmongers, (fn. 15)
'up to the western end of the vacant land, parcel of the Blackhorse
alley, and then turning away southward along the western end of
the said vacant land'
that is at the east end of Queen's Square,
'and along the outer side of a garden and messuage in the tenure
of Robert Burgoyne Esquire towards the east up to a wall of brick
at the south end of the same messuage,'
that is from the back portion of William Potter and Sons' premises,
160–162 Aldersgate Street, southward past Manchester Avenue to
the north wall of what was the Albion Tavern, 173 Aldersgate
Street,
'and then turning away westward along the outer side of the said
wall of brick at the southern end of the messuage of Robert Burgoyne'
that is the length of the western half of the north wall of the late
Albion Tavern,
'up to a wall of brick next a messuage in the tenure of Thomas
Burgoyne Esq. and then turning away southward along the outer
side towards the east of the same wall of brick next the same
messuage and garden in the tenure of Thomas Burgoyne, as the
same wall of brick extends up to a garden in the tenure of Thomas
Andrews gentleman'
that is along the western side of the late Albion Tavern to and perhaps
across Westmoreland Buildings,
'and turning away eastwards'
as Andrewes' and Mody's houses and gardens, as we shall see presently,
were lost to the parish, the parish bound now turns to the west instead
of to the east,
'along the outer side of the same garden of Thomas Andrewes
towards the north up to the eastern end of the same garden, and
then turning away southward along the outer side of the eastern
boundary of the same garden towards the east up to a messuage
of Richard Mody Esquire'
that is to say the eastern portion of the Aldersgate and Farringdonwithin ward school, formerly part of the Earl of Westmorland's (fn. 16)
house, and the western end of the National Provincial Bank, 185
Aldersgate Street.
'And so thence proceeding southward along the outer side of
the messuage of Richard Mody towards the east up to a wall of
brick at the southern boundary of the same messuage of Richard
Mody and then turning away westward along the outer side of
a wall of brick at the southern end of the messuage and garden of
Richard Mody towards the south and at the southern end of a garden
in the tenure of Richard Bartlett Doctor of Medicine towards
the south up to a wall of brick at the western boundary of the said
garden of Richard Bartlett toward the west up to the southern
side of a messuage in the tenure of the said Richard Bartlett and
then turning away westward along the outer side of the same
messuage of Richard Bartlett towards the south,'
evidently Dr. Bartlett's garden occupied the whole of Albion Buildings
and his house probably occupied Nos. 9 to 11 Bartholomew Close,
'and so thence proceeding westward along the outsides of houses
tenements and buildings parcel of the possessions of the said late
monastery or priory towards the south up to the said south gate.'
These bounds of the close were those of the monastery and, with
slight variations, are the bounds of the parish of St. Bartholomew the
Great to-day.
We learn by 'a Perambulation of the Parish Bounds' (fn. 17) preserved
in the safe in the church, written in the year 1828 as a guide to the
boundary marks when beating the bounds on Ascension Day, that
the boundary up Duke Street is not in the middle of the road, but that
it varies in distance; the houses on the east side of the road in some
cases being 10 ft. 6 in., in others 18 ft. 8 in. distant from the bound:
the street itself varies in width from 25 ft. to 22 ft. 2 in. At the site
of 'le cheyne' the bound varies from 10 ft. 1 in. to 9 ft. 5 in. in front
of the houses, and so continues to the corner of Long Lane; it does
not set back to the houses at the entrance to Cloth Fair as was the
case in 1544.
There are two houses—as mentioned above (fn. 18) —Nos. 62 and 63
West Smithfield, between the Cloth Fair entrance and Long Lane,
which are in St. Sepulchre's parish. (fn. 19) The king's grant to Rich in
1544 says that all the houses from the Cloth Fair gate to Long Lane
were in St. Sepulchre's parish (called St. Stephen's in error). It is
clear, however, that the two houses, Nos. 62 and 63, are the only
ones now belonging to St. Sepulchre's and probably it was always so.
The bounds we have seen as described in 1544 take no notice of these
intruding houses, but they are minutely described in the 'Perambulation of the Parish Bounds' we are now considering, and are clearly
shown as two houses only in the Ordnance Survey map. The king
sold these St. Sepulchre houses separately and not to Rich, as 'part
of the possessions of the late monastery', showing that, although
they belonged to the monastery, they were not within the precincts.
We assume that it was No. 62 that was leased to John Cheswyke, the
launder, in 1542, and that it was No. 63 that was occupied by a farrier
in 1544; (fn. 20) although the king's grant says that Cheswyke's house was
'next the west gate of the market' (i. e. No. 61) and that the other
four houses and a stable (Nos. 62–66) were in the tenure of Cheswyke
and were all in St. Sepulchre's parish. In 1572 the two houses (Nos. 62
and 63) were bequeathed by one John Saul for the use of the parish
of St. Sepulchre, after his wife's death, but how they came originally
to be in the possession of the monastery and yet not within the
monastic bounds does not appear.
Up Long Lane the boundary runs at a distance of 14 ft. 6 in. from
the houses in front of Barley Mow Passage, to 8 ft. 5 in. at its termination eastward. At a point 93 ft. 9 in. westward of what was the
corner of Long Lane and Aldersgate Street the three parishes meet:
St. Sepulchre's, St. Botolph's Aldersgate, and St. Bartholomew's the
Great.
The boundary, which from this point threads an irregular and
intricate way at the backs of and often through houses of Aldersgate
Street, is very little, if at all, altered in spite of the monastic brick wall
having been pulled down or built upon. There were many disputes
from this cause where the bounds crossed Halfmoon Passage and
passed at the back of London House; but the parish generally was
able to hold its own against St. Botolph's. A give-and-take arrangement, when Westmoreland Buildings were built in the year 1764,
necessitated a modification of the boundary there to the detriment of
St. Bartholomew's, because in one or two instances it would have
extended the privilege of St. Bartholomew's of trading without being
free of the city (fn. 21) to persons beyond the ancient boundary, and this
the Corporation resisted. (fn. 22)
The main alteration in the boundary occurs on the east side of
Albion Buildings and south of Westmoreland Buildings. The boundary
here now turns to the west (as seen above), whereas in the Bounds of
1544 it turned to the east, to include in the parish Thomas Andrewes's
and Richard Mody's property. It is shown later (fn. 23) how Mody had
acquired his house in the south-east corner of the parish (where the
Aldersgate ward schools now stand) from Sir John Williams and
Sir Edward North, to whom the king had given the house in 1543, so
that it was not sold to Rich with the rest of the parish. And this may
be the cause why, after Rich purchased it in 1544, the house was
absorbed by St. Botolph's parish. As Mr. Illidge, a member of the
vestry, wrote (25th October 1824) (fn. 24) when the question of the Bounds
was being considered:
'Take that house and garden (Mody's) out and it leaves you such
a boundary as you now have: but include his house and garden
and you have such a boundary as the Charter describes and such
as you now have not but ought to have.' (fn. 25)
The main cause of the disputes with the parish of St. Botolph,
Aldersgate, arose from the extension westward of premises in the
latter parish on to or beyond the ancient monastic wall and the
disinclination of the owners to pay rates to both parishes. This is
well exemplified in the first case recorded, in the year 1676. (fn. 26)
The Half Moon Tavern, to which the wits in the reign of Charles II
resorted on account of its proximity to Lauderdale House (which
was on the opposite side of Aldersgate Street where Lauderdale
Buildings now are), was in St. Botolph's parish. It was the property
of Sir John Deane, the first rector of St. Bartholomew's, at the time of
his death in 1563, for in his will he bequeathed to Margerie Storke
his 'tennant's daughter of the Halfe Mone £3' and to Brian Storke
and his wife all his 'tenements called the halfe Moune, together with
the parloure chambers and shoppe adjoining whiche were three little
tenements in the parishe of St. Buttolpe, on the north side of the
halfe moune'. The owner in 1676 was Tyde Roberts: he purchased
some small houses in Petty Wales and Paradise, in St. Bartholomew's
parish, which were at the back of the Half Moon. These he pulled
down and built upon the front portion a new Half Moon Tavern; the
back portion he kept as a yard. The old tavern in Aldersgate Street
he sold, except a portion of its cellar and the passage leading into
Aldersgate Street. He then proceeded to pull down a piece of the
ancient monastic wall, whereby he obtained access from his backyard into the passage from Aldersgate Street. He then claimed to
be in St. Botolph's parish where he was not taxed, and not to be in
St. Bartholomew's parish where he was not taxed. A similar claim was
made in the year 1705, when counsel's opinion was again in favour
of St. Bartholomew's.
In the year 1781 (fn. 27) the occupier of this tavern was indicted by the
St. Botolph's parish for using the house for immoral purposes, since
which time it has ceased to be a tavern. Though St. Botolph's prosecuted
they admitted that the offence took place in St. Bartholomew's parish.
In spite of this, in the year 1801, St. Botolph's distrained for rates on one
Thomas Yates who then occupied the late tavern, but judgement in the
Court of Husting was given against them. It was even then not settled,
for in the year 1805 St. Bartholomew's employed Thomas Hardwick,
the surveyor, in the matter, who reported that he found that one of
the boundary marks was immediately over the remains of the ancient
wall which formed the west springing wall to an arch of a cellar
belonging to Yates, the tobacconist. He reported that the wall was
about 28 ft. from the west front of the houses in Aldersgate Street,
and that he had traced it running about 23 ft. in a northerly direction.
What was known as London House, on the site of which is now
Manchester Avenue, was a fruitful source of trouble. (fn. 28) It was in
St. Botolph's parish and had belonged to Lord Petre, who had built
on the ruins of the priory wall an infirmary (afterwards called a
garden house) and an audit house (as to three-quarters of its length),
which were, in consequence, in St. Bartholomew's parish. This
Lord Petre, who was in possession in the year 1678, was accused by
Titus Oates of complicity in the fabricated popish plot, and died in
the Tower. The house and garden therefore reverted to the Crown
and Charles II gave it to the Bishop of London for his town house.
Disputes with St. Botolph's concerning these buildings on the ruins
of the wall commenced in the year 1705, and references thereto occur
in the Vestry Minute Books in the years 1717, 1725, 1747, and 1767.
In 1768 the disputants began pulling down the boundary marks put
up by the opposing parish. In 1771 and 1783 attempts were made to
determine the matter, but in 1791 a mark put up by St. Bartholomew's
parish was again pulled down. In 1814 it was still unsettled, for
Mr. Illidge was requested to collect all the documents relating to the
subject in dispute. This he did, but nothing resulted until 1825,
when St. Botolph's Vestry expressed a desire to settle the matter by
a Joint Committee, by which means an agreement was reached.
The beating of the bounds of the parish was carried out (apparently
triennially) for over 200 years. The ceremony took place on Ascension
Day, more generally known as Holy Thursday. The procession was
headed by the parish beadle, followed by the rector, (fn. 29) churchwardens,
overseers, and the schoolboys of the parish. The first record we have
found is in the churchwardens' accounts of the year 1659, when
occurs 'May 10 pd. for poyntz for the boys 00.6.6.' and 'allowance
for ye feast on Holy Thursday 01.00.00.' In the year 1669 occurs
'four gross of points used for Ascension Day'. In 1685 occurs
'28 points for ye boyes 00.12.00, nosegays and strawings 5s., wands for
ye boys 00.3.6.' In 1698 we find 'June 1 Item pd. Mr. Latham for
a gross of points 01.01.00. Expended at the halfe Moon Tavern on
the minister, clark, masters and boys, 00.11.00., pd. Mr. Short for
nosegays and strowings 00.03.00., pd. for the ringers on Holy Thursday
00.05.00.' The points were probably small bows of ribbon for the boys'
clothes, for it is recorded that at the funeral of Sir John Spencer in
the year 1609 each man had among other things 'a pair of gloves and
a dozen of points to tie his garments with'. (fn. 30)
One of the difficulties as regards London House arose when beating
the bounds in 1816, the house then being occupied by Seddon, the
upholsterer. Seddon had bricked up, for his own convenience, an
entrance to his yard which interfered with the perambulation by
compelling the beaters to go outside their own parish; against this
the parishioners protested, so Seddon had to provide a ladder to scale
the wall and he had to form a new door in the wall for future use. (fn. 31)
The Parish Gates.
It will be seen that the only gates mentioned in the king's 'particulars for grant' are 'le southgate' and the 'west gate of the fair
of St. Bartholomew'. But Agas's map shows very clearly a small
gate in the northern boundary wall near the granary, in the position
of the parish gate which was removed in 1879 when the Manchester
Hotel was built. This small gate was probably only a postern and
for that reason was not mentioned in the 'bounds'.
But on the sale to Rich it was necessary to have more entrances
to the parish than in monastic times, and these entrances had to be
guarded by gates for the reason that Rich claimed the privilege of
'a liberty' (fn. 32) for the parish. Being a 'liberty' the Mayor and Sheriffs
had not the right of arresting any person therein. This was naturally
resented by the Corporation; but in 1597 when the king had given
commandment to the City for the press or levy of 500 soldiers, and
the Lord Mayor had directed the city parishes accordingly, 'the
inhabitants within the liberty of Great St. Bartholomew's' having
taken exception—pretending that the privilege of the liberty freed
them from the commandment—the Privy Council supported the
Corporation and wrote to Lord Rich, the owner of the liberty, that
'in these public services the liberty gave no such exemptions'. (fn. 33)
Again in December 1598 the Council wrote to the Lord Mayor that
any claiming exemption should be punished severely. (fn. 34) However, in
1624 the king had to request the Lord Mayor that the privileges of
Lord Kensington within the liberty of St. Bartholomew the Great,
which belonged to him and was exempted from the jurisdiction of the
city, should not be encroached upon, especially during his employment on the king's service (i.e. negotiating the marriage with Henrietta
Maria), and that all impeachments thereof be forborne till the right
be legally determined. (fn. 35)
The City sometimes ignored the privileges and the owner of them,
and indeed the orders of the Council too: thus, in 1626 one John
Meredith and his wife, having been arrested within the liberty,
appealed to the Earl of Holland, who sent an order for their discharge,
which order was disregarded. Meredith having lain in prison a fortnight, further petitioned the earl, who was then Captain of the Guard, (fn. 36)
but apparently no satisfaction was obtained, for in the next year,
1627, Meredith petitioned the Council that 'having been formerly
unjustly arrested in the liberty of St. Bartholomew, belonging to
the Earl of Holland, he had been discharged on the interference of
the Council. Lately, since the departure of the earl, he had been
re-arrested and could not obtain his discharge.' (fn. 37)
In 1630 the Earl of Holland's claims were formally disputed by
the Corporation, who attended by Counsel at the Council Board, but
by reason of the earl's absence the matter could not proceed.
Sometimes the privileges of the 'liberty' were forcibly circumvented
by other interested parties, as in 1643, when a man, having an action
against his wife, wished to prevent a certain Levinus Hopper from
appearing as a witness for her. He therefore repaired to Hopper's
house in Great St. Bartholomew's, accompanied by four soldiers who
affirmed they were of Col. Mainwaring's regiment, and, pretending
they had a warrant for his arrest as a malignant, broke open his door
and carried him forcibly forth into the liberty of the city. (fn. 38)
The necessity of guarding the liberty by gates was therefore
apparent. There were eight gates in all. The great South Gate or
Britain Gate was the monastic gate from the Close, the overhanging
gatehouse of which remained until the year 1720. (fn. 39) This gate was
removed in 1888 when the Commissioners of Sewers widened the
entrance to the Close (pl. LXXXIII a, p. 210).
The church or Smithfield Gate was originally the south-west
portal to the façade of the church and led directly into the south
aisle of the nave. When the nave was destroyed in 1542 this doorway
was left as a convenient place in which to hang a parish gate. The
wooden gates shown in Storer and Greig's engraving of 1804 were
replaced in 1856 by iron gates, the framework of which still remains
(pl. LXXXIII b, p. 210).
The Cloth Fair gate or 'the West Gate of the Fair' was at the
Smithfield entrance to Cloth Fair both before and after the suppression
(pl. LXXXIV b, p. 210). The gate was removed in 1908 when the
overhanging building of the bank on the north side had to be taken
down, owing to the way in which the house on the south side was
rebuilt at that time.
The Barley Mow gate was the westernmost of the five gates in
Long Lane, and gave entrance, by the side of the public-house of
that name, to Barley-mow Passage.
Solomon's Gate, at No. 57 Long Lane, gave access indirectly to
Sun Court. It was removed in 1895, when the Corporation, at the
instance of Mr. Deputy Turner, a churchwarden of the parish, did
not allow the rebuilding of No. 57, taken down the year before, thereby
opening out not only Sun Court but also a fine vista of the new north
porch of the church. The name of the gate was modern, being that
of the owner of the house pulled down.
The White Hart Gate at No. 69 Long Lane gave entrance to
White Hart Passage, where the original wooden gate remained until
1910.
The Red Cow Gate, named, like the preceding gate, after the adjoining public-house, was at No. 72 Long Lane. Here the Corporation
had placed a good iron gate with the civic arms, which also remained
until 1910.
The Cloth Street Gate, the last one in Long Lane, was at the
entrance to Cloth Street. It was in the position of the one referred
to above as the small postern gate of the monastery. When the gate
was taken down in 1879 the Corporation declined to rebuild it.
The Halfmoon Passage Gate was removed when the south side of
the passage was rebuilt.
The Westmoreland Buildings Gate was half-way down the passage
that led between 178 and 179 Aldersgate Street to the close. It was
a slender iron gate and was removed in 1910.
The other two gates leading from Aldersgate Street are private
property and still remain. One is on the south side of the Manchester
Hotel in the passage formerly known as Cox's Court. In 1772 the
parish claimed a right of way through this passage and took action
on the obstruction of it by Shaw and Seymour, who had closed the
gate. (fn. 40) The parish, however, lost their case in the King's Bench by
a flaw in the indictment. The other, the Queen's Square Gate, is in
the passage from 159 Aldersgate Street, known as Bowman's Buildings.
The Fishmongers' Company claim to close it yearly on Easter Monday.
On the 25th July 1910 all the gates still standing were, excepting
the two private gates mentioned above, removed by agreement with
the Corporation, (fn. 41) under the following circumstances:
These gates had been shut every night by the parish watchmen
up to the year 1848. At that time the Corporation introduced a Bill
into Parliament, subsequently known as the London Sewers Act, (fn. 42)
which among other things was to take over the powers of self-government conferred on the parish by two private Acts of Parliament. (fn. 43)
The parish did not wish to relinquish their powers of local selfgovernment and took steps to oppose the Bill. To stay this opposition the Corporation gave an undertaking (fn. 44) to the parish trustees to
provide for the maintenance of the parish gates, under which undertaking the Corporation continued to maintain the gates (more or less)
and to pay the watchmen. (fn. 45)
In the year 1908 an opportunity occurred for the parish to acquire
the house over the Smithfield gateway and part of the house on the
south side of it, for the sum of £1,875. Of this sum £1,600 was
publicly subscribed. It was then deemed desirable that there should
be a fund available for the preservation of this gateway for all time;
and, inasmuch as three of the gates had already been removed, and
the others were of no artistic or antiquarian importance and no
longer served any useful purpose, it was decided to release the Corporation from their undertaking for a sum of £1,500. So, although
the gates are no more, the safety of the Smithfield gateway is secured. (fn. 46)
The Watchmen and Gatekeepers.
In monastic times there was a janitor or gatekeeper to control
those going in and out of the south gate of the monastery. We have
already referred (fn. 47) to one Stephen de Clopton who in his will in 1336
described himself as the janitor, and bequeathed his shops in Aldermanbury for the maintenance of the newly-constructed Lady Chapel.
Stow mentions that in monastic times the booths in the fair 'were
closed in with walls and gates locked every night and watched for
safety of men's goods and wares'. In the year 1590, fifty years after
the suppression, the office of gatekeeper still continued, for one John
Nelson in that year bequeathed to William Thomas 'porter of the gate
of Great St. Bartholomew's' his 'myhte (fn. 48) gowne fared with budge
which he last mended'. (fn. 49)
In fact, from the time of the suppression until 1908 there continued
to be watchmen for the gates. In that year the agreement with the
Corporation mentioned above was first mooted; and, by a curious
coincidence, in the same year the last of the watchmen died, so there
was no compensation to pay. (Their duties are set out in the
Appendix. (fn. 50) )