CITY OF DURHAM 



the said city and suburbs.' Unfortunately the 

 question of proportion led to some bickering, 

 and a suit in the Durham chancery.'* The 

 occasion of this visit was the King's northern 

 progress in connection with the first Bishops' 

 War. The cloud which then hung over the 

 north disappeared for the time being, but only 

 to gather again next year. 



One or two local changes prior to the great 

 dividing line of 1640 may be mentioned in 

 passing. In 1614 an important partition of 

 the commons of Crossgate and Elvet was 

 effected. A commission of six was first ap- 

 pointed to arbitrate and an award was made 

 embodying their decision.'" In 1630 Kepier was 

 granted away from the Heaths to the Coles, 

 who in 1674 ^°^'^ ^^ ^° ^^^ Musgraves. In 1631 

 the Abbey bells were recast. In 1632 a house 

 of correction was built on the south side of 

 Elvet Bridge,'^ an inscription on the door giving 

 that date. This place of imprisonment was 

 used as a lock-up until 1821, when the new gaol 

 at the end of Elvet was built.** In 1633 when 

 King Charles came to Durham ' a way was made 

 for him to come in at Elvet Head,' thus passing 

 from the Shinclifle Bridge round Nab End 

 and along the Hollow Drift.'^ In 1637 the 

 old church of St. Mary-le-Bow was disused and 

 lay waste until its rebuilding fifty years later. 

 The tower fell in, bringing with it a large part 

 of the western portion of the church.** In the 

 same year a suit was instituted in the Durham 

 Chancery against Cuthbert Billingham, a des- 

 cendant of the original 15th-century Billingham, 

 who had given the water conduit which supplied 

 the market place. The water had been recently 

 diverted and the result of the suit was to restore 

 to the citizens the interrupted supply. A little 

 later than this the Bishop's Mill was rebuilt 

 below Crook Hall with a straight dam across the 

 river some 200 yards below its present position." 



The second Bishops' War in 1640 made 

 Durham a military camp held sometimes by 

 Scots and sometimes by English troops. This 

 began in the summer when soldiers were 

 billeted in the city on their way to repel the 

 Scottish army. After Newburn fight they came 

 running back, and their rapid passage was the 

 signal for a general flight of the church party 

 from Durham, leaving castle and cathedral to 

 the Scots, who soon followed up their victory. 

 There was undoubtedly some sympathy in the 



»i Mickleton MS. i, fol. 387. 



'■- Surtees, op. cit. iv, 66-7. 



'3 Register of St. Mar>'-Ie-Bow. 



^ Surtees, op. cit. iv, 56. 



«5 Ibid. 39. 



»* The great thorn which was a feature of the 

 churchyard for at least two centuries perhaps perished 

 at this time (Ibid.). 



" This evidence is given in a later suit. 



place with the covenanting party, though this 

 probably vanished as the Scots held city and 

 palatinate in their grasp, and the unfortunate 

 inhabitants were forced to pay an indemnity 

 of large amount." The Scots were inclined to 

 be somewhat reckless, and Durham tradition 

 has preserved instances of iconoclasm perpe- 

 trated by them in the cathedral and elsewhere." 

 They destroyed the cathedral organ which had 

 been set up in 1621, and the old font, doing 

 other damage elsewhere in the city.'*" The day 

 of their departure in August 1641 was gratefully 

 remembered, but they went only to return in 

 1644, and to stay much longer. The Civil 

 War had broken out in the meanwhile, and the 

 Scots again occupied Durham on their way 

 to Marston Moor,* after which the Royalist 

 cause went down in the north. This second 

 invasion was further aggravated by an outbreak 

 of plague in 1644, the worst visitation since 

 1598.2 



The disturbed state of Durham during the 

 Commonwealth and Protectorate is seen in the 

 irregular way in which the local records are 

 kept from this time until the Restoration.' 

 For this reason it is not possible to follow the 

 history of the city with any great detail. Dur- 

 ham saw Charles again in 1647, when he passed 

 through in custody of the Scottish commis- 

 sioners. At this time the church lands (and 

 these included most of the city) had been con- 

 fiscated and placed in the hands of trustees for 

 disposal.* There is practically no light as to 

 what happened in detail in Durham. Probably 

 dean and chapter property and episcopal lands 

 and houses were leased out : their sale in such 

 uncertain times is scarcely likely to have been 

 carried out widely. One or two sales we can 

 trace. The castle was bought in 1650 by Sir 

 Thomas Andrews, draper, and Lord Mayor of 

 London (1649). He died before the Restora- 

 tion,^ and the disposition of his property in 

 Durham is not known. In 165 1 the trustees 

 sold to the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of 

 Durham ' all that the borough of Durham, with 

 the rights, members, and appurtenances thereof, 

 also the office of baileywick, all markets, fairs, 

 court of pie-powder, toUs, courts.' * In fact, 

 everything which the bishop had claimed in 

 the dispute of 1610 was sold outright under 

 this instrument to the persons specified. Then 



'8 See F.C.H. Dur. ii, 48-9 and the notes. 

 *' Rius of Durham (Surt. Soc), 163, 269. 

 loo Ibid. 



* Perfect Diurnal, Burney Newspapers, no. 18. 



* As the Parish Registers seem to prove. 



' Mem. of St. Giles's, Dur. (Surt. Soc), 69 n. 

 «See V.C.H. Dur.'n, 51. 



* Between I Nov. 1659 and May 1660. 



* The deed is in Mickleton MSS. xxxvii, fol. 137. 

 See below under Jurisdictions, p. 57. 



39 



