PI/4/6
Reference code
PI/4/6
Level of description
File
Title
48 The Close (The Porter's Lodge): Petition of Thomas Lush
Original Title
Petition of Thomas Lush
Date
1801-1811
Quantity & Format
1 sheet
Description
"The Petition of Thomas Lush" to "The Reverend and Worshipful the Dean & Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Sarum".
The Petition recites as follows:
that the Petitioner, Thomas Lush, purchased the Office of Porter of the Close of Sarum for the life of Thomas Shillingford for £180 "about six years ago";
that the Petitioner "found the House and Premises in a very dilapidated state having been wholly neglected by Shillingford";
that the Petitioner "put the House into good repair at the Expence of £180 and upwards as per Particulars annexed for which he can vouch" (the "Particulars annexed" show actual itemised expenditure totalling £185-5-0);
that "the Garden Walls were very old and ruinous and great part thereof has lately fallen down . . . and your petitioner hath taken down and rebuilt the same . . . at the Expence of £40 and upwards";
"That your Petitioner found on the Premises an Old Building formerly a Stable, which he has continued to patch up, but it is now so decayed that it will now fall down. That he must have some Building for his Whitsuntide fair Standings, Fuel and other necessary purposes . . . That to take down the present Building and build another will cost from £30 to £40 and with the expense aforesaid will be more than he can afford".
"Your Petitioner therefore prays your kind Assistance in the premises".
The Chapter Minutes record the following on Wednesday 13 March 1811:
"Ordered that in Consideration of considerable Expences incurred by the Porter in repairing his House and Offices adjoining near the Gate, therefore he be allowed £40 towards the same but without being considered as any Precedent for an Allowance for the Repairs of the Porter's House in future" (Chapter Minutes 1796-1813, CH/1/22).
The undated Petition and the 1811 grant of £40 are referred to in Salisbury: The Houses of the Close (Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, London: HMSO,1993) pp.157-159, where the archival reference is incorrectly given as Press 5 rather than Press 4.
Language
English