Antiquarian Relics - Ruins at Bulverhythe
186H
Interpolatory
Antiquarian Relics
A leaderette in Brett's Gazette of March 23rd, 1889 states that two curious discoveries have been made in the outbounds of Hastings which are suggestive of enquiry. There is mystery in both cases, and our assistance has been asked for by way of elucidation. We will, therefore first describe the discoveries as we have seen them and then proceed to throw what light we can upon them. In the rear of a row. of houses at Silverhill, known as Grove Cottages are some gardens, and in digging up the one attached to No. 3, the residence of Mrs. Lucas, a laundress, a considerable portion of a memorial grave-stone was found about two feet ‘below the surface. The stone, although but a fragment, is in a good state of preservation and bears the following portion of the original inscription :
“Sacred to the Memory of
Thomas Wimble, Ge ..,
Who departed this life,
.... of a Blessed Re....
..th. 17..”
A previous occupier of the house had kept chickens, and it is believed that the ground during that tenancy had not been dug up for cultivation. Also a small pond it is thought once existed at that spot. Question - How came the stone to be there buried? Had it been sacrilegiously removed from some burial place in the vicinity and there put underground; or had it been accidentally fractured, and in its broken condition, used, with other material, for filling up the pond? The incomplete word at the end of the second line undoubtedly should be “ Gent.,” and this will give us a little clue to the person whose memory the stone was intended to perpetuate. On looking over our records of burials, we find that a Mrs. Wimble, relict of Thomas Wimble, Gent., of Hastings, died at Newhaven on Sunday, Jan. 17th, 1802, aged 81 years. We next find that Thomas Wimble was buriéd at Hastings on July 14th, 1779, aged 80 years. Supposing, however, these persons to have been man and wife there would have been about 22 years difference in their ages, which though not an improbability would be somewhat of a rarety(sic). Here we will leave the matter for further investigation by whomsoever it may concern.
The second discovery is that of a skull and other bones of a human skeleton which a Mr. Cockett has dug up at Bulverhithe. A portion of the Chapel field—in which are situate the ruins of the church of St. Mary-the-Virgin — has not been ploughed or harrowed for many years, and anything that may have lain buried near the surface has therefore been undisturbed. Quite recently the ground has been turned up for cultivation, and Mr. Cockett, with his spade, has unearthed the said bones, There were no traces of a coffin, but the position in which the fragments were found, bore - evidence that the corpse had originally been placed longitudinally in the ordinary burial fashion. It was not more than a foot deep, and close to the west end of the ruins. The skull, which we have seen, is a very thick one, and the teeth are perfect except those which should be in the front. The church, as History tells us, has been in ruins for centuries, and its exact form and size were not traceable. until 1861, when under the guidance of our townsman, Mr. Ross, the interior was excavated. It is too much, however, to suppose that the human remains now discovered are those of anyone whose had received the usual church rites of interment so many centuries ago; and a question is now naturally suggested, how came they there, and at so short a distance below the surface? If it would at all assist the enquiry we might propound other questions and this we will venture to do. Was it the body of someone who in the days of highway robbers and footpads had been the victim of foul-play; or was it one of the two men, who, when there were barracks at Bopeep and Bulverhithe, were shot after receiving sentence of death at a trial by court-martial? Was it one who died with fever or who was said to have mutinied on board the Dutch ship Amsterdam, which was run ashore within gun-shot distance of the spot, the hull of which ship, with much of his treasure still lies submerged in the sand ? Some of that crew, it has been stated, were buried at Hastings, but no record has been found. Also the date of that event has been variously stated in guide-books as 1749, 1751 and 1754. But our “St. Leonardensis,” who has given a more extended account of it than any that had been previously published, proves it to have been on Sunday, January 15th, 1748 O.S. or as we now reckon it, 1749. For full and interesting details of this ship, see special chapter. But (continues the Gazette) after all, our own theory is that the human skull now in Mr. Cockett’s possession is that of some unfortunate smuggler, who having been slain in one of the many conflicts described by ”St. Leonardensis” in his local history, was secretly put. under, ground by his comrades. Such interments were not uncommon, and more than one of them have been since brought to light.
Of the church ruins it may be said that by means of Mr. Ross's excavations, to the depth of about 6 feet it was found that the church within its walls had an area a length of 101 feet; that the nave was 57ft 8in. by 23ft 6in. and that the chancel was 25ft by 17ft 9in. The tower, which appeared to have fallen in one mass, had been 12 1/2 feet square. The church was originally Norman, with additions of Early English, and built by an Earl of Eu. The earliest mention of it was in 1372, under the seal of the Hastings Bailiff (probably William Haylman). But even before such record in connection with Hastings, it is said that in 1212, John Earl of Eu presented the church to Daniel, son of Richard Clerck. The ruins are now very insignificant, but in 1808 they were somewhat picturesque, as in the annexed view.
