9 th S. II. Nov. 5/98.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
365
by royal authority, after the parish church
of St. Leonard had disappeared, to
supply to the parishioners of St. Leonards
the loss of the old parish church. Whether
this was so or not, the free chapel (as I
observed in my former article) is now gone
and its site unknown at least I could never
learn, when I resided at Hollington, anything
about it, except what I saw in the registers
or learned from Mr. W. D. Cooper's 'Addi-
tions.'
In the Hollington register we find an entry in 1671 of a marriage between parties "both of the reputed parish of St. Leonards " ; and I make the following extract from the article in ' Sussex Archaeological Collections,' vol. xxi. for 1869 :
" The Register of Hollington affords evidence that in the seventeenth century there was a claim on foot on the part of Hollington to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction over the parish of St. Leonards In
point of fact, during the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries, the people of St. Leonards made use of the services of the parson of Hollington, bringing their children to be baptized, and their cate- chumens to be prepared by him for confirmation ; and there was a strong disposition (as I said above) to deny the parochiality of what remained of the parish of St. Leonards, as appears from the Hollington Register."
When Sir Thomas Eversfield lived at Grove House, near Iron Latch Hill, in the parish of St. Leonards,* he desired to be buried "in the parish church of Grove " (he meant Hol- lington), there being no parish or church for his house, which was in the reputed parish of St. Leonards.
This report of the state of things applies rather to the parishioners than to the clergy- men of Hollington. Probably the latter received fees from outsiders. There was afterwards an objection on the part of the inhabitants of Hollington to the use of the burial-ground by the people of St. Leonards (to which they had probably a right), and the burial-ground of the church in the wood (Hollington) could not be enlarged in conse-
Suence. In these circumstances, when the ill was promoted for settling the ecclesias- tical difficulties at St. Leonards, a claim for consideration was set up on the part of Hollington.
This claim was disputed ; it was thought it could only be established in a court of law, and as the patron and rector of Hollington were not prepared to go to law, eventually a compromise was agreed to, and some rather unimportant portions of the parish of St.
- Maps now give Iron Latch Hill, because there
was a large latch to his gate, which is or was still remaining.
Leonards were assigned to Hollington for
ecclesiastical purposes. As this claim was
not pressed, "compensation" for it is men-
tioned in the Act. It is called in the Act
" the disputed claim," and " the claim of the
patron and rector of Hollington."
I need not carry my observations on the parochial history of St. Leonards and Hol- lington any further, and will conclude with two observations, viz. (1) that I write from personal knowledge of what occurred at and before the passing of the Act, as I was acting at the time as rector and was resident in the house of residence ; and (2) that I thought it necessary to explain the true state of the case with regard to Hollington and St. Leonai'ds-on-Sea after MR. HAMILTON HALL had remarked on my article of December last.
With regard to St. Leonards and the dis- appearance of the church and parts of the parish, I subjoin a short extract from the work on the Cinque Ports mentioned above, p. 9:-
" Modern records fail to tell us of the dis- appearance of an island, a mile and a half long, which extended along the coast of St. Leonards, but which appears in Norden's map of the seven- teenth century."
See also p. 241, where the closed port of Bulvarhythe, to the west of St. Leonards, and its ruined chapel are mentioned, the town having long ago disappeared. S. ARNOTT.
DUCHESS OF KINGSTON. In an article, 'Un
Aventurier au XVIIP Siecle,' in La Nouvelle
Revue for 15 October, is an interesting, but
not accurate record of the wanderings of
Elizabeth Chudleigh. The strangest of its
blunders, as it appears in a great French
review, is that the writer confuses the Comte
d'Artois, who was the Duchess of Kingston's
lover when she had Sainte-Assise, with
"Monsieur" (the Comte de Provence), and
describes the "Comte d'Artois, plus tard
Louis XVIII.," when he means Charles X.
D.
[See 2 nd S. v. 22, 85, and, under ' The Pantiles,' 6 th S. ii. 53.]
A MISTAKEN RENDERING OF A NOTE or GRAY'S. Among the ' Collectanea and Con- jectures ' of the poet Gray, published by Mr. D. C. Tovey in his book on 'Gray and his Friends' (Cambridge, 1890), occurs the fol- lowing passage (p. 280): "Bp. of Norwich finds the Pretender reading P. d'Orleans." The explanation of this passage is to be found in a letter of Horace Walpole to Mann, dated 11 December, 1752 (Cunningham's ed., vol. ii. p. 316). This letter contains a detailed account of the quarrels of the "preceptors" of
