Kimberley

Nottingham Road and Main Street, Kimberley, c.1905.
Nottingham Road and Main Street, Kimberley, c.1905.

KIMBERLEY also Kinmarlie, Kimmerley and Kimberlie, in the Villare Anglicum Kimberleigh, stands in Domesday as Chinemarelie. Taylor refers for the meaning of “lie” (as in the Domesday name of this township), to Kemble’s Codex Dipl., from which it appears to be the same with “leah,” “lea,” and “ley,” i.e., an open place in a forest; and Mr. Edmonds writes that Kimber (Cumber) and Kimmer were perhaps the name of some Theyn named “Cymba” or “Gumba.” May we suggest that it it may be of a same root with Cynedrith, the wife of Offa, the Mercian King?

We shall, in respect of this township, first avail ourselves of Domesday and of Throsby’s Thoroton, which are authentic and a safe guide. In the Confessor’s time Asor had in Chinemarly a manor of four bovats, and Grimchetel (also Grimshel and Grunshel) had also four bovats for his manor, the land being 1 carucate. Besides these, however, as we shall find in Newthorpe, Grimshel had also a “berew” in Kimberley, i.e., a fenced-in place or villa (according to Taylor), a fortress on a hillside. Kimberley became Peveril’s fee, who had there 2 socmen, 1 vill. and 2 bordars, having 3½ carucates with small wood to the extent of 4 quarentens in length and 2 quarentens wide. Peveril gave it to one of his men, whose name is not recorded; but his descendants appear to have assumed the name of the place. Throsby writes that this manor seems to have been held by a family, who had their name from their residence here. In the 9th of Edw. II., it went for the fourth part of a villa, and Robert de Kynmarley was certified to be Lord of it. The Domesday survey does not say that there was a Church here in the Confessor’s time. It was probably an off-spring from Greasley, and the first mention we meet with of one at Kimberley is in 1298,f when Robert de Kymmerley was the patron, and John de Kymmerley the first recorded Rector of that Parish. The next Rector’s name was John de Curtenale, appointed in 1304, and unless he was succeeded by an incumbent, whose name and appointment is not recorded, de Courtenale must have held the living for 42 years; for the next known appointment did not take place until 1346.

The estate of Kimberley passed in the 9th year of Edward II (1316) for the fourth part of a villa, and Robert de Kimmerley was certified to be Lord of it. He had a son named John, who was a Cleric and succeeded him, but who, in the 9th year of Edward III. (1336) passed both the manor and the advowson of the Church, together with all his land at Newthorpe, which he had of the gift and feofment of his father, and all his goods to Sir John de Monte, the at that time Rector of Greasley.

St James' Street, Kimberley (Photo: A Nicholson, 2004).
St James' Street, Kimberley (Photo: A Nicholson, 2004).

We must here digress to redress a wrong done to (or a mistake made by the author of the history of Ilkeston, respecting) John de Monte. We feel that we have a right to infer, from what we read in Ilkeston, that the Rector of Greasley so administered his Lord and Patron’s estate as to enable himself to become the purchaser of some estates for himself. It is easy to say that, for de Monte is long gone to his rest, and cannot now answer for himself, but he was one of our predecessors in the Incumbency of Greasley, and we are glad to be enabled to say so much about him, as we trust will clear the memory of his name from an unworthy stain. For that purpose we refer our readers to the Calendar of Patent Rolls of the 3rd year of Edward III. (1329), Part I., which any one may go to see at the Free Reference Library. That testimony is to the following effect: “ Nicholas de Canteloupe, going beyond the seas, had letters nominating William, Parson of the Church of Ilkeston, and John de Monte, his attorneys for three years.’ “ Protection with clause nolumus, for the same period for the said Nicholas.” De Monte, therefore, was only joint attorney in the management of the estates. Possibly the Rector of Ilkeston was manager of the Derbyshire estate, and de Monte for those in our county. If not so, then the Rector of Ilkeston must be equally culpable with de Monte, and if the latter’s attorney-ship was confined to the Greasley estates only, then we may fairly consider the utter unlikelihood of his being able (even if he would) to extract so much for himself, during the short term of three years only, out of an estate, which after all that de Canteloupe had given to his Priory, was sufficiently indifferent, not to have sufficed de Canteloupe for his positional needs, without the much larger estates in Derbyshire, &c. Besides, the Baron seems to have been a man who knew what belonged to him, and to have looked fairly well after and into it; for he was now and then rather short of money, of which we will give an instance. The Calendar of the Close-Rolls of the 8th year of Edward III., Jan. 3rd, tell the tale that: “Nicholas de Canteloupe acknowledges that he owes to William, Archbishop of York, £100, to be levied in default of payment of his lands and chattels in the County of Nottingham, which acknowledgment the Chancellor received.”

We beg from the foregoing to say that we have no desire to cause painful feelings to the author of Ilkeston, to whom we trust to have given a satisfactory answer touching our predecessor; and he will no doubt agree with us that peculations of the kind, together with secret commissions to the detriment and damage of proprietors, are rather the complements of our days, than of those of de Monte’s, which do not seem to us to have well lent themselves to the like.