176 The Bishop’s Palace at Salisbury. 
another door now built up on the south side, which, as we know 
from our old plan, led to some buildings beyond. In this hall King 
James I. created Robert Viscount Lisle, Earl of Leicester, and 
William, Lord Compton, Earl of Northampton, 2nd August, 1618 
(Benson and Hateher, p. 330). 
I have now described the old house, as far as I have been able to: 
re-construct it. I should like to add a few words about Bishop 
Seth Ward’s connection with it. Over what we call the back-door 
—though it is not more of a back-door than any other part of the 
house—there is the date 1674, under the Royal arms on that 
chequered front, which we know to have been put up by Bishop 
Seth Ward. Looking at his valuable manuscript, ‘‘ Notitie,” a 
little book which is in my registry (a beautiful copy of which was 
made by Bishop Burgess, and given to the chapter muniment room) 
I find the following memoranda :— 
“Bishop's Hall sold by State to Colonel Ludlow, by him to Sir J. Danvers, 
by him to one Hayles, who pull’d it down.” 
By the accounts in this book, pages 153 to 160 of the chapter 
copy, it appears that the cost of re-building the hall was 
about £1140, and that other repairs cost about £536, including 
a certain sum spent upon the Guild Hall and the Close wall. 
The whole sum of £1676 13s. 7d. was divided amongst the 
five bishops since the Reformation in proportion to their receipts, 
according to the sentence of a Commission of Appeal, granted 
November, 1671, which gave judgment on February 25th, 1673-4. 
[The first two bishops, Duppa and Henchman, received respectively 
£10,000 and £11,700, these comparatively large sums no doubt 
being due to the fines taken on the grant of new leases.] Bishop 
Ward, who carried out the work, and who put up the date 1674 as 
we have said, and his own arms with the recovered garter round 
them, opposite the Royal arms inside the hall itself, naturally has 
the credit of this work, but it should be known that only a portion 
of it was done at his expense. The details in the bishop’s own 
hand, or gathered from his manuscripts, do not entirely agree with 
Dr. Pope’s account of his life, chapter 10, which being re-printed 
