Anlaby, William Vause, esq.
Bessingby House, Harrington Hudson, esq.
Birdsall, Lord Middleton.

Bolton Hall, John Preston, esq.
Boynton Hall, Sir Wm. Strickland, bart.
Burton Agnes, Sir Francis Boynton, bart.
Bishop Burton, Francis Watt, esq.

Hall, Richard Watt, esq. Cave Castle, Henry Gee Barnard, esq. Cherry Burton, David Foulis, esq. Constable Burton, Sir Clifford Constable, bt. Cottingham Castle, Thomas Thompson, esq. Dalton House, Lord Hotham.

Escrick Hall, Beilby Thompson, esq. Everingham Park, Wm. Constable Maxwell,

esq.

Firby, Rev. Thomas Harrison.

Ganton Hall, Sir Thomas Legard, bart. Garrowby, Sir Francis Lindley Wood, bt. Gate Fulford, Thomas Wilson, esq. Grimston Garth, Charles Grimston, esq. Heslington, Henry Yarburgh, esq.

Hessle Wood House, Jos. Robinson Pease, esq.

Hessle Mount, Jas. Kiero Watson, esq.
High Paull, Hugh Blaydes, esq.
Holme-on-Spalding Moor, Hon. Charles
Langdale.

Houghton, Hon. Charles Langdale.
Howden, Richard Arthur Worsop, esq.
Howtham Hall, George Cholmley, esq.
Hull-bank, Benj. Blades Haworth, esq.
Hunmanby, H. B. Osbaldeston, esq.

Rev. Archdeacon Wrangham. Kilnwick, Percy Robert Denison, esq. Charles Grimston, esq.

Kirkella, Mrs. John Sykes.
Langton, Mrs. Norcliffe.

Lowthorpe Hall, W. Thos. St. Quintin, esq. Marton House, Miss Creyke.

Melbourne House, Sir Henry Maghull Mervin Vavasour, bart.

Melbourne Lodge, General Wharton.
Melton, Henry Sykes, esq.

Henry Thompson, esq.
Melton Hill, Henry Broadley, esq.
Metham, Philip Scholfield, esq.
Moreby, Rev. Thomas Preston.
Newton, George Strickland, esq.
Octon Cottage, Robert Prickett, esq.
Painsthorpe, Capt. Richardson.
Pockthorpe, Wm. Hall, esq.
Raywell, Daniel Sykes, esq.
Riccall Hall, Toft Richardson, esq.
Rise, Richard Bethell, esq.
Scampston House, C. Thorold Wood, esq.
Settrington, Masterman, esq.
Sewerby House, John Greame, esq.
Skipwith, Mrs. Jane Hudson.
Sledmere, Sir Tatton Sykes, bart.
South Ella, John Broadley, esq.
Stillingfleet, Joshua Ingham, esq.
Sunderlanwick, Horner Reynard, esq.
Swanland, Nicholas Sykes, esq.

Thorpe Brantingham, Rev. Edward William
Barnard.

Thorpe Hall, Lord Macdonald.
Warter Hall, Lord Muncaster.
Wassand, Rev. Charles Constable.
Watton Abbey, Mrs. D. Legard.
Welham, Robert Bower, esq.
Welton, Robert Raikes, esq.
West Ella, Rev. Richard Sykes.
West Heslerton, Mark Foulis, esq.
Winestead, Arthur Maister, esq.
Wood Hall, Wm. Henry Maister, esq.

Manufactures. Soap, carpets.

Marriages, 13,329.

1826.]

Mr. URBAN,

IN

July 3.

N the last Quarterly Review, p. 297, the following important information to Historians and Antiquaries occurs; and as it is, I presume, new to most of your readers, and cannot be too soon or too widely diffused throughout the Antiquarian world, I have copied it for insertion in your pages, as the channel which will convey it in the most extensive and satisfactory manner. It is to be lamented that no proof of the fact is adduced, but the reputation and peculiar duties of the individual to whom the article containing the statement may be safely attributed, are full security for its being well founded.

"In all Regal Tables and Histories of England, the years of the reign of John are made to begin with the 6th April, 1199, the day of the death of Richard I. But John, notwithstanding the acknowledg ment of his inchoate right, was only Duke of Normandy until he was crowned as King of England, with the assent of the Baronage. In the period which elapsed between the death of Richard and the Coronation, John had not the style of King, he exercised no acts of royal authority, nor did he become entitled to receive the Royal revenue. His reign began with his coronation, which took place on the Ascension-day, 27th May, 1199; and he was then let into the receipt of the revenue. The years of his reign are calculated from Ascension-day to Ascensionday, and as the date changes with the moveable feast, each year of his reign is of different length, and begins on a different day. Consequently all the documents whose dates fall between the 6th April, and Ascension-day in each year, have been referred to the wrong year of the reign by those writers who have not noticed the ancient mode of calculation."

To render this information of practical use, I have compiled the annexed table from those given in pp. 86 and 96, of Notitia Historica, and which will, I flatter myself, be deemed an acceptable addition to that work.

TABLE SHEWING THE COMMENCEMENT AND

TERMINATION OF EVERY YEAR OF THE
REIGN OF KING JOHN, CALCULATED FROM
ASCENSION-DAY TO ASCENSION-DAY IN
EACH YEAR.

From May 27, 1199, to May 17, 1200....1
May 18, 1200, to May 2, 1201......2
May 3, 1201, to May 22, 1202......3
May 28, 1202, to May 14, 1203....4
May 15, 1203, to June 2, 1204
June 3, 1204, to May 18, 1205....6
May 19, 1205, to May 10, 1206....7
May 11, 1206, to May 30, 1207....8

...5

27

May 31, 1207, to May 14, 1208....9 May 15, 1208, to May 6, 1209....10 May 7, 1209, to May 26, 1210....11 May 27, 1210, to May 11, 1211...12 May 12, 1211, to May 2, 1212....13 May 3, 1212, to May 22, 1213....14 May 23, 1213, to May 7, 1214....15 May 8, 1214, to May 27, 1215....16 May 28, 1215, to May 18, 1216...17 May 19, 1216, to Oct. 19, 1216...18 The same writer in the Quarterly Review has likewise pointed out the following error relative to the reign of Edward the First:

"A mistake of the same description has been made with respect to the reign of Edfrom the 16th November, 1272, the day of ward the First, which is usually calculated the death of Henry III. Edward's reigh really commenced from the 20th Nov. 1272, when he was proclaimed at the New Temple, and upon that day the date of the year of his reign was changed. Full proof is afforded of this assertion, by the date of the charter of Homage, executed by John Baliol,

66

apud Norham die Jovis in festo Sancti Eadmundi Regis et Martiris (20 Nov.) anno

Incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo, et regni ipsius domini nostri Edwardi vicesimo finiente et vicesimo primo incipiente." FŒDERA, new edit. vol. i. p. 781.

The proof cited, appears to be indisputable; but it is not necessary in this place to insert a table similar to the above, as it is merely required to substitute the 20th for the 16th of November, in the usual tables of the reign of Edward the First, and the one in Notitia Historica, p. 15, should be altered throughout, in the following manner. Instead of

From Nov. 16, to Nov. 15, of each year, from 1272 to 1306, i. e. 1st to 34 Edw. I., it should stand thus:

From Nov. 20, to Nov. 19, as above;

whilst the last year of that mỏnarch's reign should be thus written: From Nov. 20, 1306, to July 7, 1307...35.

Before I conclude this letter, I beg also to notice a circumstance not, I believe, generally known respecting Edward the First, and for several examples of which I am indebted to one of the most able historians of the present day-Francis Madden, Esq. namely, that that monarch is frequently styled by contemporary writers, Edward the Third, which is explained by their including the two Saxon Kings, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor, in their list of English sove

1826.]

accession of Henry III. Richard I. or the other predecessors of Edward the First, or to that of either of his successors, can a mere inference drawn from a single example be allowed to prove a case of so much importance in the history of the constitution of this country? Entertaining as I do the greatest respect for the historical information displayed by the able Reviewer on this occasion upon other points, I regret that I cannot agree in the inference he has drawn in the instance alluded to; and I must consequently present the extraordinary phenomenon of accusing the Quarterly Review of attempting to establish upon such slight and untenable grounds, a theory with respect to the English Constitution which the boldest Reformer has never even dared to imagine. Yours, &c.

CLIONAS.

29

deed 9 Richard II., wherein mention is made of one acre, and three roods of land, "apud le Doune in St. Martini Campis," granted to a Stephen Chise. In this state it seems to have continued until the reign of Henry VIII. when it is described in the Deed of Exchange alluded to between that Monarch and the Abbot of Westminster, as Charing-cross Field. "Two acres of lande in Charinge-crosse Felde, in the parysshe of Seynt Martyn-in-theFelde." At this period it partly belonged to St. Giles's Hospital, as mentioned (which owned the North-west part), the Abbey of Abingdon, and the Abbey of Westminster; the latter foundation being proprietors of the part abutting on St. Martin's-lane, together with the adjoining Covent-garden.

On coming to the Crown at the Dissolution, Henry VIII. granted the right of commoning on this land to the parishioners of St. Margaret's and St.

I

BOURHOOD.

WN the course of a very few years the neighbourhood of Charing Cross and the Strand will, in all probability, be completely metamorphosed; and if we are to judge from the plans laid before the public, its present site will scarcely be recognized by the future visitor. The appearance of the neighbourhood may be so entirely changed, that the very names of the streets, courts, and alleys, will only be learnt by referring to the pages of the topographer or historian. The following notices, relative to the ancient state of this now populous and wealthy portion of the Metropolis, will doubtless prove interesting to the general reader, as well as to the Antiquary and Topographer.

At a period coeval with, or rather before the erection of its Cross, John Mugge, rector of St. Clement's, owned all the site of the present Pall Mall East, and for a considerable space beyond, Northward, which he gave to St. Giles's Hospital; and which is described as being then "a garden wall.ed in, situate next les Mwes, and containing twenty-seven acres," together with another garden" (the extent not mentioned) "at Cherryng," &c.

Better than a century later we find this site, and the whole of the ground behind the Mews, changed to a Common, and known by the name of "The Down" (Le Doune), as appears by a

the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth. It is shown in the state mentioned quite open, with cattle grazing, a female spreading clothes on it to dry, &c. in the large Plan of London by Aggas, first engraved about that period, together with Hedge-lane, a country bye-way bounded by hedges (and from which it probably derived its name); the Haymarket, more anciently Hay-hill, and all the Northern part open fields as far as to Hampstead and Highgate. Elizabeth, some time after her accession, leased the greater part to a person named Dawson, who having divided and enclosed it with fences and ditches, thereby deprived the parishioners before named of their right of common. This, in the year 1592, occasioned a violent commotion, the particulars of which, Strype, the editor of Stowe, has given from papers of Lord Burghley, in his possession. The inhabitants determined to resist the encroachment, came with pickaxes and spades, destroyed the fences, filled up the ditches, and made the whole level as it had formerly been, and it was not until some time after, and the matter having been represented to the Queen, that an amicable arrangement between the parties was concluded on. Upon the occasion alJuded to, to show the very small value of the site at that period, it was asserted in evidence that the ground in question did not produce the Queen eight