By the Rev. J. E. Jachson, F.S.A. 277 



APTER THE DISSOLUTION. 

 About the 5'^ear 1550 Farley was transferred, in an exchange 

 by the Earl of Hertford, to the See of Salisbury, under which, from 

 that time, it has been held by various owners. The first name that 

 apjDears is that of Henry Breton, gentleman, of Monkton Farley, 

 whose pedigree and arms are to be found in the Wilts Visitation of 

 1565. This family had been settled for a long time at Layer- 

 Breton, in Essex, where (according to the pedigree alluded to), they 

 were still living at the time of their removal hither. How long 

 they remained here does not appear; probably not later than 1606. 

 They had the right of presentation to the living. The next name 

 of gentry connected with Farley (whether as owners or only oc- 

 cupiers is uncertain), is that of Tropenell, of the neighbouring parish 

 of Chalfield, a well-known name in old Wiltshire family history. 

 But the only authority for placing them here, at present forth- 

 coming, is a brass plate in the church of Great Durnford,^ which 

 mentions Mary, wife of John Young,- Esq., of that place, one of 

 the four daughters and coheirs of Thomas Tropenell of Monkton 

 Farley. The way in which this family ended in heiresses was re- 

 markable. The only son, on coming to man's estate, met with an 

 unlucky accident. He had put a pair of dog couples over his head, 

 and, leaping over a hedge, a loop in the strap hanging at his back 

 caught a bough, and kept him from the ground till he was strang- 

 led. These minutiuc of old owners, or residents here, may not be 

 very interesting; but the motive for preciseness in date and person 

 about this period has been to ascertain, if possible, under what cir- 

 cumstances, and under whose roof, a very eminent prelate was 

 staying when he ended his days here — John Jewell, Bishop of 

 Salisbury. The property at Farley had, at this time, belonged to 

 the see for about twenty years ; but the family of Breton were then 

 owners under the see, and it is, therefore, likely that the Bishop 

 was on a visit to them. 



' IToare's "Amosbury," iiago 123. 

 '' Probably of a Monkton Farley family, two of tliis name a])i)oarinp; anionf^st 

 the jury who, many years before, had valued the eilects of the uiouks at tho 

 diuHolutioD. 



