them to have been built about this time. In the year 1115, Ernulf, Bishop of Rochester, composed the Textus Roffensis, in which we learn that all the parishes whose history we are writing contributed nine denarii for chrism to the see of Rochester, and in addition to them Paddlesworth and Dode as parish churches; and St. Leonards also, as already mentioned, gave six denarii. Henry I. granted to Gundulf, and the church in Rochester of St. Andrew, the churches of Dartford and Aylesford, and all the whales found in the bishopric of Rochester.* When the chapel of St. Laurence in Halling was founded, as already stated, we cannot find out; but certain we may be that it was originally built for the convenience of pilgrims to good St. Thomas' shrine about this time, as they came along the old British path, from them called the Pilgrims' Way, since it conveniently stood near that track after they had passed Paddlesworth church, and was possibly placed near one of the turnings where they left the road to cross the river Medway. The Normans built their churches from material found close at hand, till they imported Caen stone later on. Thus the sarson stones, greensand rock, the latter sometimes used when coated with iron, perhaps for ornament, and tufa, which has been found even lately at East Malling, formed their materials in Kent. Though many people trace their family to the Norman Conquest, it is a fact that in this district we have but few names amongst those who held the manors to record in this chapter, which reaches down to the time of John.

The manor of Addington at the time of the Conquest was in the possession of Odo, Bishop of Baieux, and was held by William de Gurnay from him.

The manor of Allington was the property, as has been already stated, of Harold's brother Gurth at the time of the Conquest; from him it passed to Odo, from whom Anschitil held it; it then became in succession the property of William de Warenne and of Lord Fitzhugh, whose daughter conveyed it to Sir Gyles de Allington. Warrenne is said to have fortified it. The place is already stated to have possessed a castle in Saxon times, which was razed to the ground by the Danes. Philpott declares the castle to have been the erection of William de Columbarius in Stephen's time, but we are inclined, from circumstances which we shall speak of in the next chapter, to hold this castle of later date.

Aylesford manor was the property of the king. It is said to have been held by Estrangea in 1157, a name wonderfully like a stranger, and not ill-fitted to the men of Norman and French times. In the ninth year of King John it was held by Osbert de Giffard, whose father appears to have held it before him from 1175-1185.

Whales are still caught in the bishopric, one being taken near Gravesend in 1883, and one at Gillingham on August 30th, 1888, as shown by the published records of the Rochester Naturalist Club, and as mentioned in our appendix.

Birling also became the property of the Bishop of Baieux, from whom it was held by Ralph de Curbespina (Crookthorn).* This family continued till the reign of Henry II., and were succeeded in the estate by Magminot de Wakelin, who died without children in 1191, when Alice, his sister, carried the property to Geoffry, second son of William de Say; but the living was granted to the monks of Bermondsey, with whom it continued till the Reformation.

Ditton, which consisted of the manor of Sifletone as well as that of Ditton, with the appendant manor of Brampton, was all held by the Bishop of Baieux, of whom Hamo, the sheriff, held Ditton and Brampton, and Vitulus, Sifleton. These manors reverting to the crown soon afterwards, appear to have become the property of the Earls of Gloucester.

The ancient manor of Tottington, in Aylesford, we are told, in these days was held by Robert Malgerius de Rokesley and Robert de Rokesley, who paid tithe to the monks of St. Andrew; their landlord was Odo. Richard Fitz Turold held Eccles, which soon after came into the same hands as Tottington. Odo also possessed the manors of Paddlesworth and Ryarsh. As the latter was held by Hugh de Port, and the former by Hugo, it may be that the same person had them both. Early in John's reign we find William de Crescie held the manor of Ryarsh. Paddlesworth became the possession of the Chetwynds, who changed it with Hamo de Gatton, of Throwley, who sold it to Sir William de Huntingfield, whom we find Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in the time of King John. Offham was another manor that belonged to the king's half-brother, Odo, who let this also to Hugh, but afterwards to Anschitil; it reverted to the crown, together with other manors, after Odo's disgrace.

At Preston, near Aylesford, stands an old barn dated 1102, with "T. C." on it-the initials of Thomas Colepepyr; but the arms quartered, as well as the writing, are later than Edward III. We, however, find Sir Thomas Colepepper was a judge in the time of King John. East Malling, as has been already stated, was in the hands of the archbishop. West Malling, after being held a short time by Odo, was given up to the see of Rochester, and its fortunes we have followed. That prelate also possessed the manors of Halling, Trottescliffe, and Snodland or Esnoiland.

The palace of Halling was another construction of Gundulf's, and was built in 1077; it was rebuilt by Gilbert de Glanville in 1185. It is possible that when Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, died there in 1184, from fright it is said at what he had seen in a dream, if the place were out of repair, the howling of the north-east wind in the gorge of the Medway may have had something to do with it.

Gundulf had the manor of Trottescliffe to support his table, and as part of the bishop's share of the spoils when Odo was compelled to restore the lands of the monks of St. Andrew's in 1293. The bishop *Crookhorn wood still keeps up the name.

being called upon to prove the right he had to the manor, claimed it from time beyond memory; the palace was in ruins when Gilbert Glanvil came to the see, but it was then rebuilt, and became a favourite dwelling-place of the Bishops of Rochester. The manor of Leybourne was possessed by Odo, Bishop of Baieux, and soon after it reverted to the king, who had given in marriage Amy, daughter and heiress of Robert Fitzgerald. Charles Seymour, who wrote a survey of the cities, towns, and villages in the county of Kent under Leybourne, tells us that "Sir William Arsick was the owner of Leybourne in the time of William the Conqueror, and Lord Leybourne, of an ancient and illustrious family there, was at the same time possessed of the castle built by his ancestors: it was a place of strength." It would, however, appear that Leybourne Castle is not older than Norman times. In the year 1194, we find Sir Philip de Leybourne died in possession of the manor, which then passed to his son Robert de Leybourne, whose son, the first Sir Roger de Leybourne, was in arms when quite a youth against King John with his brother barons, was taken at the siege of Rochester Castle, and had to pay two hundred and fifty marks for his liberty, which he did not regain till the following year. The oldest of the buildings of which the ruins now remain were probably antecedent to that date. These were on the south side of the enceinte, and were on the plan followed in all manor houses of Norman as well as Saxon times, and perpetuated in our collegiate buildings. On the western side we have the remains of the vestibule, with the sewery for the storing of linen and provisions, and the buttery for wine and beer. There must have been a drawbridge over the moat, about 20 ft. to the westward of the vestibule. The vestibule would be connected by a porch with the hall, which was the principal building of the castle, being used in the day-time as the banqueting-room and sitting-room, and at night as a dormitory.

Facing the upper end of the hall was the solar, the private room of the lord of the castle, over the cellar. There are no remains of the chamber itself, but the building which must have been connected with it is perfect and interesting. Its lower portion was connected with the cellar by a square shaft, of which the part is on a level with the second story, and at the further side, which is the east end of a vaulted passage, 2 ft. wide, 71⁄2 ft. high, and if we include the top of the shaft, 8 ft. in length. There are four apertures, viz. : the doorway, the shaft, the upper part of a large arched window over the shaft, and a small aperture on the north side. Above the shaft, on the north and south sides of it, are cavities in the stonework, evidently designed to receive the ends of a beam or roller, over which a cord might be passed for the purpose of drawing up things, and possibly persons also, there being no internal staircase to the solar. It was built close to the moat.

What is now the north wall of this arched passage must have

been part of the inner wall of the solar. It is throughout of good workmanship, and was very strongly built, which has led to its preservation. Immediately below the passage there is an arched doorway, communicating with the chamber below. This lower chamber apparently was the lady's bower. It was nearly circular, 21 ft. in diameter, and it was provided on the south side with a row of seats, formed by carrying up the full thickness of the wall only for a short distance from the ground. At a distance of 38 ft. from the buildings above described, proceeding northward, are the remains of buildings which must have been the chapel, with small rooms for the priest and other officials built to the west of it, and to the south of the passage leading to it. The chapel must have been a remarkably fine building. The entrance to it was by an arched porch and a passage of 20 ft. in length, and the red sandstone jambs of the doorway of the chapel are very perfect.

The greater part of the north wall remains, but it has been much altered, first by the erection of a dwelling-house on the remains of the chapel late in the sixteenth century, and again by the conversion of this into a farmhouse in the early part of the eighteenth century.

The nave, as was usual in chapels of that age, was divided into two stories. The upper chamber was for the lord of the castle, his family and his guests, and the lower one for the other inmates of the castle. They were separated from the sacrarium by screens, and as they were not consecrated they were used for other purposes than those connected with religious worship. The sacrarium, which was consecrated, was the whole height of the building. When the dwelling-house was built the walls of the chapel were raised and a third story was added. Fireplaces were formed for the first and second stories, with a long chimney. The fact of these having been of that later date is shown by distinct lines of demarcation between the masonry of the wall and that of the chimneys. A fireplace was also formed on the third story, which had no chimney; the smoke having been carried into the long chimney by a short lateral flue.

Chambers were formed at this time over the sacrarium. Their comparatively modern date is shown by the fact that the joists of the floor were let into the wall: whereas in the original building these were affixed to beams supported by corbels. When the dwelling-house was converted into a farmhouse, the chapel was turned into a dairy. The two floors which had been placed over the sacrarium were removed, and the space which had been occupied by the fireplace, in the third story, was filled up with stones built into the level of the wall; the chimney place having been built in with them, its face remaining so as to show its position. These details of an ordinary dwelling-house have led to the general belief that the building has never been a chapel; but

a careful and minute examination shows this opinion to be entirely

erroneous.

The fact that the original building was a chapel, and that it could have been nothing else, may be proved by the following evidence:-First, by its orientation, and by the remains of narrow windows in the eastern wall. Secondly, by its eastern half having been of the full height of the building, while its western half, or nave, was divided into two stories. Thirdly, by the distinctly ecclesiastical character of the north window of the sacrarium, which was evidently divided by a central pillar into window lights, with pointed arches formed of Caen stone; there are no remains of the pillar or of the keystone, but the voussoirs which were on either side of it remain, and on the lower side of each of these there is a triangular incision, showing the position of the tops of the pointed arches, and in one of them a fragment of the Caen stone remains. Fourthly, by the distinct remains of an Easter sepulchre, such as are to be found in a few old English churches, but never before, so far as I have been able to learn, in any castle chapel: it projects about 8 in. from the north wall at its eastern end, and is recessed for 2 ft. into the main wall. A stone which formed part of an ornamental arch has been found by the author of this book among the rubbish; this stone was the segment of an arch with a radius of 2 ft. 6 in., and as the width between the imposts on the two sides of the sepulchre was 4 ft. 8 in., the stone was probably part of a semicircular arch over the sepulchre; it is chamfered on its lower side, and the chamfered portion, as well as its inferior surface throughout, is covered with fine red cement. Fifthly, by a corbel stone, which must have been placed there for the support of a rood beam at its north end; its distance from the east wall is 14 ft. 3 in., and its height above the ground 5 ft. 6 in. Allowing 2 ft. for the length of the wall-piece rising from it, this would make the height of the rood beam 7 ft. above the floor of the chapel; from the position of the corbels which supported the beams of the floor of the second story of the nave, the rood beam would appear to have been about 2 ft. to the eastward of it, and 8 ft. lower; of the three corbels which supported that floor two remain, and the third was removed when the fireplaces were made. Sixthly, the roof of the building had arches, supported by corbels 24 ft. above the ground. The corbels in the north wall remain at the east and west ends: the intermediate corbel must have been removed for the construction of the fireplace in the third story of the sixteenth-century building. The length of the chapel was 29 ft., and its width 24 ft., and there was probably a Mary chapel, or chantry, on the south side. If there was a partition wall, every vestige of it must have disappeared when the chapel was converted into a dairy.

Sir William de Leybourne, who alienated Leeds Castle to the