ee pete te rk, gy owe Renta eee TE Te, : tases Pet Eee Tae ee ese = ae ="S~< tS Son ee Cure tee pi whee ~ te oie ars = aa = em yor ge nk SiS = ao a oho Pie pales eis, a : sat Tea — ee AE igor spe ae Fe Sree SSA RES Pe ee. ae ee Wea at a‘ Seer is Se OES oe ee ee ead < = a8 RR SES 8 TE Sncit Taegan be cae ES Tae Boweaser Gee ee eed reeteen agape, - _ = ie ee SSS See er oe Se See | rey} Loan pultge nd cet agama HE WILTSHIRE Archeeological & Natural History MAGAZINE PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT County A.D. 1853 EDITED By H. C.-BRENTNALL, F.S.A. GRANHAM WEST, MARLEBOROUGH VORB Nos. 182—186. JuNE,-1945—Junr, 1947 DEVIZES: C. H. WooDWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD. CONTENTS OF VOL. LI. No. CLXXXII. JUNE, 1945. Lacock Abbey: By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G.,O.B.E.... A Wiltshirewoman’s Tomb in Carisbrooke Church, by ee Se es ead Mee ce tla acti So weccauiina doy oawees one Further Notes on the History of the Manor of East Winters- low: By Capt. HOB: Trevor-Cox: M.P. ic... i seeee fhe Parish Boundaries in Relation to Wansdyke: By A. Shaw eG OSC es oy Sock soe sec kaa eee eben enaGumigns eee Notes on Some of the Basidiomycetes found in South-west Wiltshire, especially round Donhead St. Mary: By -T. F. G. W. Dunston B.A., and Capt. A. E. A, Dunston... Devizes ‘‘Courts’’ and the Old Town Ditch: By B. H. CwunmeEngtom EvSeAs. SCOt eee veces lees Cees etese A History of Marlborough Grammar School: By A. R. SIUM CIN Meyer Ns cre tiis sole aceiees cole Se sraisic co Sete vine eloieiesiere ss aleerstee 9 o'ave Ser Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles ........... Hee teenne sc Notes.—The Templars’ Bath. A Swallow-hole on Draycot Hill. Fauna of Savernake Forest. Hermaphrodite Willow. -Slitting Cows’ Ears. A Wanborough Seal. Lacock Abbey. Long Barrows undamaged. Gift to IVER Uther ee en YG ee ee Ce IR os ee | to PAGE {—13 14—17 18—23 24—27 28—-32 33—36 37—38 39—40 41—112 L13—115 116—119 120—124 125—126 1V CONTENTS TO VOL, LI. No. CLXXXIII. DECEMBER, 1945, A Hand List of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards: By W.-E Tate Ree IStiiS re aap ae ees aie cigs A Wiltshirewoman’s Monument in. Godshill Church?: By Je Pe Slade §. decc cies nists eee ne eee E Wocseoy nai Nat ster: Devizes Street Names and their Origin: By B. Howard Cunnington, FSA. Scot akiccrssenoseers ree cine ree eee Malmesbury, its Castle and Walls: By Henry Rees, F.R.G.S. An Early British Coin from Box: By Shaw A. Mellor ...... The Vicar’s Library, St. Mary’s, Marlborough: By E.G. H. “eR GM PSOD! 7. shades cuca cctes coe ae ee cee ee cata ee eter Wiltshire Bird Notes: By L. G. Peirson Proposed Extension of Museum and Library Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles e@eaercsoeecseoeeree ee oe eeeeeoe e@eeeceeseeseeestee eee Notes.—The Lacock Abbey copy of Magna Carta. The British Records Association. The Register of British Archives, A-correction. Imber. The Marlborough Maces. Budbury and other Sites. St. Martin’s Chapel, Chisbury,-. “he Jougs,. Albino BlackbindS f)) nace Wiltshire-Obituariess.. sci otins esti ote ieee ene aoe nee eee Additions to Museum and Library eecececc ee seseec oo eee eee eoese os oe ene o Accounts of the Society for the Year 1944 ee cee es coh cee ero reoose ese es No. CLXXXIV. JUNE, 1946. Wiltshire Plant Notes: By J. D. Grose Notes on some Early Iron Age Sites in the Marlborough District : By O. Meyrick Manor of East Winterslow (Part III): By Major H. B. Trevor Cox eeoeeeoe cee ores eto eee eee one eof re. ceeseecsce ese oes eo eo oot ees eee Oe OD ee ODS eooeeeeoee eee ses esr rose resreoeseeosereeosoeoseoseees2esseooerreosesos Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society Annual Report, 1945 The Wardens of Savernake Forest: By the Ear! of Cardigan ee eceesrececceseeeoscexresreFee Fee FLFeFOOFEOFLC HOLL OCE EH HEBEOEOED Notes on some of the Basidiomycetes found in South-west Wiltshire Especially Round Donhead St. Mary. Part NGUES Joy We. lo Ge Ws IDinistom,; ls. aia! Captain A. eA] Dunston eocoeee POF xe e8Gsr et esesraceeser eres eceooeeesaosereeevr oer 127 —173 174—178 179—183 184—192 193 194—215 216—217 218—219 220— 225 226—234 235 — 240 241— 242 243—246 24.7—255 256—-263 264—266 267—270 271—339 340—342 CONTENTS £O: VOL. LI. Vv _ Addenda et Corrigenda. A Wiltshire Woman’s Monument in Godshill Church, J. J. Slade; The Vicar’s Library, Menon, --G, bl. Kempsomn:... ..: 3 66 se80 oboe cee 343— 345 Malthe Boeks; Pamphiets‘and Articles: . i523: :<2...50...00: 346— 348 Notes.—Unrecorded Mounds at Wanborough. More Carved Stones from Teffont Magna. John Aubrey’s lost MS. John Mead Falkner. The Bishop’s Palace, Salisbury. “BSE COTTA Sra ae rere Ary sna een ee 349— 353 WT LLEE ODE NUIES Serie c eens serene Merce ena aaa Meee 354— 358 Padtdens-ro VMuseum and Library .: 02.625. 2, cc. .dieececesvesslice 359—360 Mceounts ot the Society for the Year 1945; 00. ......0003-.see..- 361—364 No. CLXXXV. DECEMBER, 1946. The Trinitarian Friars and Easton Royal: By Lt.-Col. TEL, BP: CONGUE ISOS Ca C1 65) alee Greentree ae nee 365—377 Mason’s Marks on Edington Church: By B. Howard ; emmurimeton shes. Ney SCOLs 5. 24.5 seats det) cece te ds oda ele ows 378—#80 Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford. By Major H. de S. Shortt; and an Early Bronze Age Vessel from Ashley Hill, near Salisbury : By Professor Stuart Piggott, LES ETE, ISS SUA We aie deo ge ge eer Sey eee eee 381 — 385 Families of East Knoyle: By Lt.-Col. J.M. F. Benett-Stanford 386—404 @abular Sarsen and Mud ‘Cracks: By Lt.-Col. R. H: Gonmmimecoma (late We. ek es hn etsy hoo e das hasls 405—418 Sascnspey eric s Ioremtmalli hi SA ee. oc: ac das-checedeseca «owes 419—439 Early British Settlement at Farleigh Wick and Conkwell, Mise Guy) WHIGELWOOG 3.200. sccut +00 croc scien Goce ene nne 440—4,52 Aldbourne Village Cross, By Major A. L. Ingpen, M.V.O., ONDlibe oe Nae nee A eee ae tare oe sone Od occas ee eC eee 453—455 Parade rAne ta COLI SCM ay icc cc ct ckiscieniccicalsetiss viveosctaisele tv cove since Fe 455— 456 Wiltshire Mollusc Collectors: By C. D. Heginbothom.......... 457— 463 EummualeVice ume tamds EXCUTSIONS. csc mcseacessnrecsetotesssscvesses 464—465 atisinne o00ks, Pamphlets and Articles..0 2c: c.2c. ese sacsen ss 466— 469 vi CONTENTS TO VOL. LI. - Notes.—Mason’s Marks at Edington and Winchester. Grovely Wood. Scratch Dials on Wiltshire Churches. The destruction of ‘‘The Sanctuary’ on Overton Hill. A Malt-house Mystery. Cunning Dick’s Hole. Lewis- ham Castle. A Bond for the keeping of Lent. Great Bedwyn Church Clock. The Lacock Magna Carta. ‘Lacock: Manor Court<)) 4 ee ee 470—474. Wiltshire OBreuaxries wwe ieee eee eee 475—476 Additions to Museum and Library ...... ee WER Raper te aie, «8s 477—A78 No. CLXXXVI. JUNE, 1947. The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral: By Dr. E. F. Jacob, BBA SA eee ie, Oi eens seme nee eee 479-—495 Devizes Castle: A Suggested Reconstruction: By Lt.-Col. IE Cummington aus 23 ps ee eee eer ae ee 496 —499 The Wardens of Savernake Forest: Part II: The Seymour Wardens; By The Earl of Cardigans. (1.4-0..... 7. 500— 554 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire : By J Donald Grose hs. ee ee ee Beh gem cae heat 555 — 583 The Natural History Section of the Wiltshire Archeological - and Natural History, Societ ye nee cece eee 584—585 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946: Recorder: Ruth G. Barnes, MBO. 2a: Arie Ae: Geile Derek ake eo ea ORE are i eee 586— 598 Wiltshire Plant Notes—[8]: By J. Donald Grose............... 599—610 Wiltshire Place- and Field-Names, l. ...... 2 0... c.ee cece eee eee 611—612 Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles .....................00: 613—614 Notes.—Kimmeridgian Sarsens? Edington and the Black Prnce>. An Amphora - ihe “CharltemCat-. . ) he, Crime of Kingsdown Hill. Parish Registers. More Mason’s Marks’ =Dwo Rare: Moths. ...0. 20. 2022.2..0. 22.2" 615 — 620 Wiltshire Obituariestes ei pied ene 621 —624 Additions;to Museum and kibranys)...- 34: ee ee 625 _ Tadéexto Vl ee aie) ye ne a le eee eee Bobi 626—-642 CONTENTS TO VOL. LI. vil Allustrations, Sixteenth Century Tombof Lady Wadham, 14. Marlborough Grammar School: Plate I, 49; Plate Il, 88; Plate III, 102. The ‘‘ Templars’ Bath’, Temple Bottom, Preshute, 116. Malmesbury: its Castle and Walls, Figs. 1, 2 and 3, 185; Fig. 4, 192, Budbury, 229. Conk- well, 231. The Jougs, 233. Early Iron Age Sites in the Marlborough District: Fig. I, Martinsell, 257. Fig. II, Stanton St. Bernard Down, 259. Fig. III, 261. Fig. IV, 268. Roche Old Court, East Winters- low, 265. Savernake Forest as it was in medieval times; Savernake Forest at the present day, 308—309. The Horn of the Wardens of Savernake Forest (reproduced from Archgologia, Vol. 3), 326. Genea- logical Tahle of the Esturmy Family: 1083—1427, 339. Carved Stones from Treffont Magna, 351. Mason’s Marks on Edington Church, 380, Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford, Fig. 1, 381; Fig. 2, 382: Fig. 3, 383; Fig. 4, 384. Families of East Knoyle: Pedigree of Goldesborough, 391: Still, 393: Mervyn, 397: Hunton, 399. Tabular Sarsens and Mud Cracks: Figs. 1 and 2,406: Fig 3, A409: Figs. 4 and 5; 411. Sarsens: Distribution of Sarsens, 435. Early British Settlement at Farleigh Wick and Conkwell, Wilts: Fig. 1, 441: Fig. 2, 444; Fig. 3,445: Fig. 4, 446: Fig. 5, 448; Fig. 6, 452. Devizes Castle, simplified sections, 497. Genealogical Table of the Seymour Family: 1400—1675, 501. Sir Edward Seymour, afterwards lst Duke of Somerset, 526. Savernake Forest in the 17th century, 538. William Seymour, 3rd Duke of Somerset, 551. An Amphora, 617. a ) APR 1949 FS No. CLXXXII. JUNE, 1945. Vol LF THE WILTSHIRE Archeeological & Natural History MAGAZINE PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY A.D. 1888. EDITED BY H. C. BRENTNALL, F-.S.A., Granham West, Marlborough. [The authors of the papers printed in this Magazine are alone responsible for all statements made therein.] DEVIZES ; PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY By C. H. WoopWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION Roap. Price 8s. | Members Gratis. NOTICE TO MEMBERS. A copious Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of Vols. viii., xvi., xxiv., and xxxii. The subsequent Volumes are each fully indexed separately. The annual subscription is lds. 6d.; the entrance fee for new Membersis 10s. 6d. Life Membership £15 15s. Subscriptions © should be sent to Mr. R. D. Owen. Bank Chambers, Devizes. Members who have not paid their Subscriptions to the Society for the current year, are requested to remit the same forthwith to the Financial Secretary, Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank Chambers, Devizes, to whom also all communications as to the supply of Magazines should be addressed. The Numbers of this Magazine will be delivered gratis, as issued, to Members who are not in arrear of their Annual Subscriptions, but in accordance with Byelaw No. 8 “ The Financial Secretary shall give notice to Members in arrear, and the Society’s publications will not be forwarded to Members whose Subscrip- tions shall remain unpaid after such notice.” Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, Granham West, Marl borough, All other correspondence, pee as specified elsewhere on this cover, to be addressed to the Hon. Secretary, C. W. Pugh, M.B.E., ‘Hadleigh Cottage, Devizes. RECORDS BRANCH. - The Branch was founded in 1937 to promote the publication of original literary sources for the history of the county and of the means of reference thereto. The activities of the Branch have had to be temporarily suspended, but those interested in joining when publication is resumed should send their names to Mr. A. H. Macdonald, Half-acre, Marlborough. | The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILTSHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARDI AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939, pp. xix -+ 190. ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTRY GARRI- SONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBURY, | 1645—1646. Edited by J. H. P. Pafford. 1940, pp. 112. Unbound copies of the first of these can be obtained by members | of the Branch. The second is out of print. - WILTSHIRE TOKENS. : The Society has a considerable number of 17th and 18th century Wiltshire Tokens to dispose of, either by sale or exchange Le others — not in the Society’ s collection. Apply to Capt. B. H. Cunnineton, F.S.A., Scot., Curator, The Museum, Devizes. WILTSHIRE Archeological & Natural History MAGAZINE. No: €LX XXII. JUNE, 1944. | Volk EL. Contents. PAGE WAGCOCK “ABBEY - By Lt:-Col. HE. Chettle, C.M.G.,-O.B.E. 1—13 A WILTSHIREWOMAN’S TOMB IN CARISBROOKE CHURCH : 2359 Jl] ASIRNGIG “Sas aanecc aeadtinc Bone geaoey Ao saCar dn HOBa Hae noe na eee 14—17 FURTHER NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF THE MANOR OF EAST MAINTERSLOW : By Carr. HB. Trevor-Cox, M.P.-...... 18— 23 PARISH BOUNDARIES IN RELATION TO WANSDYKE: By A, SIDER RR MUGS CT PSS peak Sai a Oe een A Nee 24—27 WILTSHIRE PLANT NotES—[6] : By J. D. Grose ............... 28— 32 THE PIONEER VEGETATION OF THE BED OF COATE WATER: Hey anne LOSE) eee ane sat dae Cele noice «Se canetectie’s (vie nes senate 33—36 NoTES ON SOME OF THE BASIDIOMYCETES FOUND IN SOUTH- WEST WILTSHIRE, ESPECIALLY ROUND DONHEAD ST. Mary: By T. F. G. W. Dunston, B.A., and Captain Nop ey Neve OUTS COM ae te octrwsne oe ec ai noe Sojs eis Selon bas apiece vend 37—38 DEvizEs ‘‘ CouRTS”’ AND THE OLD Town Ditcu: By B. H. Cunnington, Ee SAU SCOb er ak eee toes, ae ist 39—40 A HISTORY OF MARLBOROUGH GRAMMAR SCHOOL: | By, A. R. SCM Nee Om reps eC Sune uae Soe ME Ail hs Nous 41—112 WILTSHIRE Books, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES.................. 113—115 Notres.—The Templars’ Bath. A Swallow-hole on Draycot Hill. Fauna of Savernake Forest. Hermaphrodite Willow. Slitting Cows’ Ears. A Wanborough Seal. Lacock Abbey. Long Barrows ae Gift to PNNUSCUN Sete reese a. wen cle iak Vooe dere eles 116—119 WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES Be rein arn one ra MaMa ve re ee velit 8 120— 124 ADDITIONS TO MUSEUM:AND LIBRARY ....... Ravrsa sore ce oeede 1253126 ii ILLUSTRATIONS. | Sixteenth Century Tomb of Lady Wadham ................ ae 14 - Marlborough Grammar School : Plate I—The School Building, 1578—1790......... ........ 49 Plate I1I—The School Building, 1791—1904 ............... 88 Plate I1I—The School Building and Master’s House, 1844.......... Sisto OF Fev sea can bol a Suhel ae tie 102 The ‘‘ Templars’ Bath ’’, Temple Bottom, Preshute............ 116 Devizes ‘—C. H. WoopwaArb, ExcHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION Roap. THE WILTSHIRE MAGAAINE. ‘“‘ MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS.’’—Ouvu1d. Near CGE XX NIT: JUNE, 1945. Wome lei: LACOCK ABBEY. Dye ee - COL. ft CHETTLE, ©.M.G.;-O:B.E. Last year the National Trust received one of the best and most nearly perfect gifts for which it could have hoped. The simple beauty of Lacock village and the unequal graces of Lacock Abbey form a possession which the heiress of the Sharingtons and the Talbots did well and generously to place outside the chances of private ownership, and to protect from the possible negligences of public authority. Lacock Abbey has received much and expert attention, over many years, in the Wiltshire Magazine. If, as we may hope, it is entering on the happiness of years without a history, this is the occasion to collect the scattered evidences of the past. The Order of Augustinian canonesses, to which the abbey for three hundred years belonged, asserted its descent from a nunnery founded at Hippo under the leadership of St. Perpetua, the sister of St. Augus- tine. Their Rule was an adaptation of Augustine’s letter (211) to Perpetua’s convent, and it was probably drawn up by Cassian or under his influence about the time of Augustine’s death in 430 (Dom John Chapman in Downside Review, October, 1931; 395, 405). They were introduced to England in or after 1130, at Goring in Oxfordshire. They were commonly women of substance who entered a nunnery and lived under the rule of obedience and celibacy, but did not take vows, renounce property, or abjure the world for life ; in England they lived as nuns while they were in residence, but they ‘‘ absented themselves more frequently ’ (Lina Eckenstein : Woman under Monasticism, 196). There were in England at (or shortly before) the Dissolution about 130 nunneries, of which only fifteen had revenues exceeding £200 a year. Nineteen of the total were Augustinian; they were widely distributed over the province of Canterbury, but only one (Moxby) was in that of York (Eileen Power: Medieval English Nunneries, I, 685—690). Three (Burnham, Canonsleigh and Lacock) were abbeys, ruled by abbesses and “‘claustral’’ prioresses ; the others were priories, ruled by ‘‘ conventual ’’ prioresses. Abbesses—even the Benedictine four who held of the king ‘by an entire barony ’—were debarred from Parliament by their sex (Ecken- VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXII. | hie 2 Lacock Abbey. stein, 203) ; they were equally excluded from a direct share in county business, though a great endowment would give them great local influence. An abbess or a prioress was not summoned to the General Chapters of her Order. On the other hand, the provincial General Chapters commonly left the visitation of nunneries to the diocesan bishops, against whom even the Cistercian nunneries hardly succeeded in establishing exemption (Power, 481—2). In theory, the Lateran Council of 1215 had enjoined not only the holding of General Chapters but also the visitation by their representatives and on behalf of the Holy See of convents “non solum monachorum sed etiam monialium’’, and the order to visit nunneries was repeated later by the Benedictines (W.A. Pantin: Chapiers af the English Black Monks, 1, 20, 134, 177, 274; H. E. Salter : Chapters of the Augustinian Canons, ix). But in 1404 the prioress of Canonsleigh refused to be visited except by the bishop (Salter, xxx, 169), and her example was followed at Lacock in 1518. The Superior of an Augustinian nunnery was elected by the nuns, freely as a rule, on the patron’s congé d’élive. She lived, normally, “fin closer contact with the members of her convent’ than the Benedictine head “‘ and took her meals at the same table as the nuns’’ (Eckenstein, 371). Priests were attached to nunneries tocelebrate the ~ Mass; but .there were also, among the convents’ officials, women chaplains, who may be described as the superiors’ personal assistants, and who were usually changed every year (Power, 63—4). Lacock Abbey stands ‘‘in a spacious and level meadow, surrounded by elms, at the bottom of which winds, with many devious inflections, the river Avon’”’ (W. L. Bowles and J. G. Nichols : Annals of Lacock Abbey, i). Here, on her own property, Ela, the widow of William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury, determined to found a nunnery. In April, 1229, she made an agreement with the rector of Lacock, mentioning the chaplains who should celebrate mass in her abbey and her intention to place it under the jurisdiction of the bishop and chapter of Salisbury (Bowles, xi—xii). Her charter of foundation was confirmed by the king on the 3lst January, 1230 (Calendar of Charter Rolls, I, 112). On the 26th February, 1230, she obtained tte royal permission to 2s9'§8 her manor of Lacock ‘‘ad quandam abbatiam construendam ’’ (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225—32, 328). It was probably she who then obtained the disafforestation of Lacock, hitherto within Melksham Forest (cp. G. B. Grundy in Wilis Mag., XLVIII, 581). Here, ‘‘ per revelationes habuit ut in prato testudinum, anglice Snayles- mede ....monasterium aedificaret in honorem Sanctae Mariae ‘Sanctique Bernardi, et usque ad finem complevit sumptibus suis propris, id est de comitatu Sarum .... una die duo Monasteria fundavit, primo mane xvi Kal. Maij a®° MCCXXXII apud Lacock ... . et Henton post nonam’”’ (Bowles, iii). The building was of Haslebury ‘stone, from a quarry near Box (Wilts Mag., XLVII, 556) ; or as described by Harold Brakspear (A ycheologia, LVII, 129), of hard local stone rubble dressed with good Bath oolite. It was supplied with By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 3 water from a spring on Bowden Hill, covered by a conduit-house, which Sir William Sharington replaced later by a small stone building with a pointed roof (J. E. Jackson in Wilts Mag., IV, 284; C. H. Talbot in Wilts Mag., XII, 232, XIX, 162—3). Ela’s charter of foundation gave to the abbey the manor and advow- son of Lacock in free, pure and perpetual alms, free .of all secular service (Bowles, vili—ix) ; and by a subsequent charter she bestowed on it the manors of Hatherop (Glos) and Bishopstrow (Wilts) and other property (Bowles, ix—x). The first canoness who took the veil was Alice Garinges (who came, perhaps, from the premier Augustinian nunnery of Goring) ; in December, 1238, on the advice of Edmund Rich and others, Ela herself entered the convent (Bowles, 11i—iv). On the 7th August, 1237, she had obtained for it the grant of a fair on the eve, the feast and the morrow of the translation of St. Thomas the Martyr (Cal. Charter Rolls, I, 230; Bowles, xvi) ; and in February or April, 1238, she had received five marks from the king in repayment of a tax that the prioress had paid (Calendar of Liberate Rolls, 1226 —40, 322). The first superior of the convent was the prioress Wymarca (Bowles, 278). On the 15th August, 1239, she and the convent formally acknow- ledged that their elect superior was obliged to receive the episcopal blessing in Salisbury Cathedral (Rolls Series, 97, 251). A year later Ela herself became the first abbess. In May, 1241, the abbey of Stanley gave to Lacock their quarry at Haslebury in exchange for the original quarry that Lacock had bought from Henry Crok (Bowles, xxii). The rest of Ela’s reign cf seventeen years was marked by a steady stream of royal gifts to the abbey : in 1242, a market at Lacock every Tuesday and a grant of wood for her hearth once a week out of Melksham Forest (Bowles, xiv—xvii ; Cal. Charier Polls, 1, 274; Cal. Pat. Foils, 1232—47, 287) ; in 1246, four oaks out of Chippenhan Forest, and in 1247 fifty marks (Cal. Lib. Rolls, 1245—51, 69, 139); and-in January, 1257, free warren, a Monday market and an eight-day fair, all at the convent’s manor of Chitterne (Cal. Charter Rolls, I, 460). Ela, feeling herself old and weak, resigned on. the 3lst December, 1257; and ‘“‘ appointed ’’ Beatrice of Kent her successor (Bowles, ‘iv). The roya! beneficence did not fail : in June, 1260, the king gave to the abbey forty acres of Melksham Forest to supply their needs of wood, with liberty to enclose with a ditch and a hedge (Cal. Charter Rolls, Il, 25—6 ; Calendar of Inquisitions, Miscellaneous, 1, 243 ; Calendar of Close itolls 1259— 61, 22:—3 ; Dugdale’s Monasticon, V1, 504: Wilts Mags L., 48);:and in October following, quittance from cheminage in the Royal forests in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, free warren in ail their demesne lands without the royal roreotS, anda Friday market at Lacock:(Cal. Charter’ Rolls, IT, 29). , Ela died in August, 1261, and was buried in the choir of the abbey church (Bowles, iv). In 1249, in her stall at Lacock, she had seen her son William, who was killed in battle against the Saracens, ascending into heaven (Bowles, 1). The patronage of the abbey passed to his A 2 4 : | Lacock Abbey. son, a minor ; by 1274 (if it devolved as that of Hinton did) it was in the hands of Margaret de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln, Ela’s great-grand- daughter ; and from Margaret it descended to the house of Lancaster. The Longespée family retained for two generations a practical interest in the abbey. Stephen, a younger son of the countess, devised land to it, and was buried in 1260 within its walls—as was also, many vears later, the heart of his brother Nicholas, rector of Lacock and bishop of Salisbury (Bowles, 157——8, i). One of Ela’s daughters, Ela: Countess of Warwick, visited Lacock in 1287 ; another, Ida FitzWalter, — had two daughters nuns at Lacock (Bowles, 162, i), A friend, Amicia, Countess of Devon and Lady ot the Isie of Wight, gave to the abbey her manor of Shorwell, her daughter Margaret as a nun, and her heart for burial in the Church (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1313—17, 126; Bowles, 279—80). Fifteen oaks came from the royal forests in 1264, and ten in 1285 (Cal. Close Rolls, 1261—4, 335—6; 1279—88, 311). An unspecified petition of the abbess received a favourable reply at the Parliament of Acton Burnell, Michaelmas, 1283 (Camden 3rd Series, LI, 16). Beatrice of Kent was still abbess in 1269 (Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, IV, 9378). Her successor was apparently Alice, mentioned in 1282 and 1286 (Cat. Anc. Deeds, IV, 9244:R.B. Pugh: Fines relating to Wiltshire, 28) ; the fourth abbess, Juliana, is mentioned in 1288 and 1290 (Bowles, 278, XXlil—xxlv). * The ‘‘ Taxation of Pope Nicholas”’ in 1291 assessed the abbey’s revenues, from properties in Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and the Isle of Wight, at £101 12s. 4d. a year (Taxation of Pope Nicholas ; Bowles, 278--9). About this time a schedule of customary alms, pittances and the like had been drawn up (in French) for Lacock (W.G. Clark-Maxwell in Archg@ological Journal, LXIX, 120—1). Agnes, the fifth abbess, had succeeded by 1299 (Bowles, 280) ; Joan de Montfort, the sixth, ruled from 1303 or earlier to 1332 (Bowles, 280, xxv ; Pugh, 49 ; Registvrum Simonis de Gandavo, 194 ; Cat. Anc. Deeds, IV, 9228). On the 20th March, 1303, Simon of Ghent. Bishop of Salisbury, assigned the ‘‘curam penitenciarie’’ of the nuns of Lacock to Brother William of Cirencester, of the Order of Friars Preachers ; and a week later, in accordance with an injunction of Boniface VIII, he issued instructions to the nuns of Lacock and five other houses ‘“pro earum inclusione ’’ (feg. Sim, 860,109) ; the name of the porter, John of Minsterworth, is mentioned in 1313 (Cat. Anc: Deeds, IV, 9395). In March, 1311, the abktey was allowed to appropriate Lacock Church (Reg. Sim, 192—4; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1307—13, 326), and a series of related transactions began. The bishopstipulated that Sir John Bluet, lord of the manor of Lackham (in Lacock), who was interested in the advowson, should have, to him and his successors, the right to nominate a suitable nun in perpetuity (Wilts Mag., XX XIII, 368). Appropriation was a form of saving ; and in August, 1315, the abbess concluded an agreement (in French) with Sir John Bluet as to building a great Lady By LieGol. HF. Cheiile, C.M.G., O.BE. 5 Chapel on the south side of the presbytery (Harold Brakspear in Arche@ologia, LVIII, 132; C. H. Talbot in Wilts Mag., XVI, 350—9). Two months later Bluet acknowledged that he owed the convent £56 6s. 8d. (Cal. Close Rolls, 13813—18, 311). Joan de Montfort passes out of history as a co-defendant in an action for detention of beasts; (Public Record Office: Lists and Indexes, XXXII, ii, 706). Her successor, Katherine le Cras, was elected in 1332 and is mentioned again in September, 1332 (Sir T. Phillipps : Register of Wyvill, 23; Cat. Anc. Deeds, IV, 10, 280) ; and the eighth abbess, Sibilla de Ste Croix, is mentioned by name in June, 1347 (Cat. Anc. Deeds, IV, 9381)!. New aspects of daily life at Lacock emerge in these times. The king promises in 1332 that a corrody granted at his request shall not be a precedent (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1330—4, 322). The abbess’s bailiff at Bishopstrow is mentioned in 1338 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1338—40, 150). In 1339, and again in 1341, the king undertakes to pay for wool taken by his collectors in Wiltshire (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1338—40, 297 ; Cal. Close Rolls, 1341—3, 209). In 1347 the abbess and convent appeal to Parliament for redress against disturbancé in respect of their manor of Shorwell, Isle of Wight, and an enquiry is ordered (fotult Parliamen- torum, II, 182—3). 3 The ‘‘ Black Death”’ reached Wiltshire in the autumn of 1348. We do not know whether it ravaged Lacock, but the ninth abbess, Matilda (or Maud) de Montfort, was elected in 1349 (Clark-Maxwell, 123). She and one of her nuns, Margery Swinford, received indults in 1351 to choose confessors who could give plenary remission at the hour of death (Calendar of Papal Letters, III, 375—6). On the 3rd May, 1352, the chapter of the abbey established an obit for John Goodhyne ‘“‘ pro quadam summa pecunie sibi pre manibus soluta ad ardua negocia sua expedienda’’; and the occasion was possibly the rebuilding of the cloisters, begun, as Mr. Brakspear states, in the mid-fourteenth century (Arche@ologia, LVII, 136—9). Perhaps this benefactor was the same John Goodhyne or Goodwin who was co-founder of the house of White Friars at Marlborough. | | Matilda de Montfort died early in 1356, and the Black Prince, then (by an unexplained devolution) the patron, issued his congé d’élive on the 8th February (Black Prince’s Register, 1V, 180), The prioress and convent chose Agnes of Brymesden, a nun, and on the 18th February the Prince notified his approval to the bishop of Salisbury and requested the Bishop’s confirmation ; but Agnes was taken ill, and on the Ist March the Prince issued a commission for taking her fealty and acknowledgment of service (B/. Pr. Reg., IV, 183—4). She died in October, 1361, and the Prince again issued his licence to elect a - successor ; on the 20th November he informed the bishop of his assent to the election of Faith Selyman (B/. Pr. Reg., IV, 400, 405). Faith’s reign, equally uneventful, lasted until 1380. 1 A reference to Sibilla as abbess in 1329 (Wilts Mag., XXVI, 44) seems to be a mistake. 6 Lacock Abbey. Agnes de Wick (or Wyke), the twelfth: abbess, was elected in June, 1380, and ruled the abbey until 1399 or later ; John of Gaunt, who had succeeded to the advowson, issued the congé d’élive (in French) and approved the election (John of Gauni’s Register, 1379—83, 20, 924; Clark-Maxwell, 118). The king sent a yeoman of his chapel in 1381 to enjoy the corrody which Margery att Milne had had at the late King’s command (Cal. Close Rolls, 1381—5, 90). He gave the nuns leave in 1388 to enclose their forty acres of forest with a paling instead of the inadequate ditches and hedges, and to hold the land in mortmain (Cal. Pat. Frolls, 1385—88) ; and he confirmed charters of Henry III and Edward II in their favour in February, 1399 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1395— 99, 482). About this time a building was made over the cloister ; the dorter was altered to take in the west part of the reredorter or neces- savium ; and the abbess’s quarters were formed on the first floor of the west range (Brakspear, 132, 148, 155—7). Two pleasant domestic details stand out in the known period of Agnes’s incumbency. Joan,- daughter of Nicholas Samborne, took the veil in 1395—6, and her recorded “expenditure of fl/*6s: 2d: imcluded) the cost “of clotmesi: mattress, coverlet, tester, blankets and bed; a mazer (10s.) and a silver spoon ; a fee of 20s. to the abbess, and a present of 2s. to each of the convent, who evidently numbered twenty ; she may perhaps have bought other clothes already for her noviciate (Clark-Maxwell, 117—9). And Robert Erghum, by his will dated in 1398, bequeathed the beautiful psalter which the rector of Marnhull gave him to his sister Agnes for her life and then to the abbess of Lacock, directing that it should never be alienated (Somerset Record Society, XIX, 295). Building operations, as sometimes happened, had outrun the abbey’s ‘means. The Pope confirmed, in 1400, the appropriation of Lacock Church, on the ground of their poverty (Cal. Pap. Lett., V, 327—9) ; and in May and July, 1403, the King granted to the poor nuns of Lacock exemption from the tenth on their benefices (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1401—5, 223, 241). The name of the thirteenth known abbess, Helen, a third de Monger: appears in 1408 as. presenting to Lacock vicarage (Bowles, 281), and she left her initials on the west range (Brakspear, 154). She obtained two papal indults in 1422 (Cal. Pap. Lett., VII, 325, 327), and confirmation of certain charters in 1429 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1429—36, 28-9). In 1426 she was party to a quitclaim for the abduction of Eleanor, daughter of John Montfort? and ward of Sir Walter Hungerford (J. E. Jackson in Aubrey’s Wiltshire, 93 n). The fourteenth known abbess, Agnes Fray or Frary, is acnUnnee in 1429 and 1434 (Phillipps, 27; Wilts Mag.,-X XVI, 45; Bowles, 281). Agnes Draper, elected in her steadin 1445 (Wilts Mag., XXVI, 45), was still abbess in February, 1467 (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1461—67, 527) ; and a pavement tile found at Lacock, among much earlier and much later 2 No doubt these four Montforts were of one family (perhaps the — Montforts of Nunney), for family association was strong in nunneries.. By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 7 tiles, is dated during her abbacy (F. Stevens in Wilts Mag., XLVII, 375 —6). In 1446—7, at an inquisition post mortem, she asserted (against all reason) that none of three named men nor any other had ever held a corrody or sustentation or the office of gatekeeper in the convent of Lacock (Ducatus Lancastrig, 3).. In July, 1447, Lacock Abbey (of the King’s foundation as Duke of Lancaster) was exempted for forty years from paying tenths and other taxes, on a petition showing that their bell-tower and bells, bakery and brewery, and two great barns.with corn therein, and all their buildings at Chitterne, had been struck and burned by lhghtning (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1446—52, 86) : and the annals of the abbey, written by a chaplain to the year 1448 and included in the Cottonian MSS, were in their turn practically destroyed by fire in 1731 (Monasticon, VI, 500; Bowles, v—vii). The sixteen years from 1467 to 1483 have left no traceable evidence of the history of Lacock. An unnamed abbess died on the 6th February, 1483; Margery of Gloucester was at once elected in her place, and died in 1517 (Bowles, 281, xlvii; Monasiicon, VI, 500). Joan Temys, last and seventeenth known abbess, succeeded (Bowles, 281). It was in Margery’s time, in 1500, that Peter Waghuens of Malines made the “‘ nuns’ boiler’’ or “caldron’’, holding 67 gallons, which may still be seen at Lacock (Bowles, 360; John Britton : Beauties of Wiultshive, III, 242; local information) ; and in 1517 it was decided in Chancery that the patron- age of the abbey belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster and not to the Crown as such® (Bowles, 320). In 1518, under Joan Temys, it was reported to the Provincial General Chapter of the Augustinian Canons that the abbess of Lacock refused to be visited on behalf of the Chapter, as not belonging to it, and in- structions were given that the next visitors should visit her before Easter ‘‘ et hoc nolente[m] a diuinis suspendere ”’ (Salter, 139).4_ There is. no record of the result; but a more momentous inspection was to come. The Parliament of 1533 transferred the Pope’s right of visiting monasteries to the king, and Cromwell’s visitation of 1535—36 was made for the purposes (among others) of obtaining recognition of the royal supremacy and securing evidence of disorder in the smaller houses. It was completed by February, 1536, and the Act was then passed which transferred to the king the property of all houses whose clear annual income did not exceed £200. The revenues of Lacock had been returned in 1534-as £203 12s. 34d., against deductions and appro- priations amounting to {£74 17s. 74d., the nett income being thus £128 14s. 8d.; among the expenses were the maintenance of three priests at £6 a year, alms £9 ls. 6d., fees £21 6s. 8d., and £2 13s. 4d. 8 Not mentioned in the Public Record Office Lists and Indexes, XXXVITI. 4 An undated document issued by the General Chapter assessed the cost to Lacock of a visitation at £1 6s. 8d. (Salter, 193). 8 | Lacock Abbey. every third year to the bishop of Salisbury for his ordinary visitation (Valor Ecclesiasticus, I1, 115—8 ; Monasticon, V1, 500 ; Bowles, 284—-90). At Lacock the abbey held 147 acres of arable land and 1334 of meadows and pasture (Bowles, 296). Of Joan’s relatives, her brother Thomas (M.P. for Westbury 1529—1536) was steward of the courts of the manor, at £4 a year, and her brother Christopher steward of the abbess’s ‘house (Bowles, 284—90) ; her brother-in-law Robert Bathe held the — demesne lands at Bishopstrow for £6 13s. 4d. a year and farmed the pasture of the abbess’s sheep there for £2 13s. 4d. a year (Bowles, 313) ; her first cousin, Sir Edward Baynton, was chief steward of the abbey (G. Baskerville: English Monks and the Suppression, 197) ; and Thomas Temys had also a lease for eighty years of the Isle of Wight property. (Bowles, 320). Lacock was visited in August, 1535, by Thomas Legh and John ap Rice. The latter reported to Cromwell that they could find no ex- cesses; the house was well ordered; the rules were written in old French, like the French of the common law, but the sisters understood it well (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, 1X, 138—9, 160). Next year Lacock and 29 other “‘lesser’’ houses were fined for “‘ tolerance and continuance”, Lacock having to pay £300 (L. &. P., XIII, ui, 457 (i) (3) ). ; The ‘‘ County commissioners ’’, more sympathetic and more methodical, held a second enquiry. Their report (Brakspear, 126—7) described Lacock as a house “‘ of great and large buildings, set in a towne. To the same and all other adjoynynge by common reporte a great releef’’. They raised the nett valuation to £194 9s. 2d., with £16 3s. 4d. for the demesne. They found fourteen professed nuns and three novices, ‘‘ by report and in appearance of vertuous lyvying, all desyring to continue religios’’; and four chaplains, three waiting ser- vants, nine officers of the household, a clerk and a sexton, nine women servants, and fifteen hinds. The church, the mansion, and all the other houses were in very good estate; the value of the lead and the bells was put at £100 10s; and there were jewels and plate valued at £64 19s., ornaments at £17 12s., ‘‘stuff’’ at {21 18s. 2d , and “stokkes and stores’ at £257 Os. 10d. The house owed nothing, and nothing was owed to it (unlike most nunneries, it had recovered from fifteenth- century distresses). There was no ‘‘ great wood’’, but there were 110 acres of coppice valued at £75 ls. 4d. : Neither this temperate eulogy nor the fine of £300 could save Lacock abbey from the king. On the 20th January, 1539, Petre wrote to Cromwell that he and Tregonwell had received the surrender; the demesnes were all leased out, and enquiry would be made on that point before they went away; they would leave the house with Mr. Sharington (L.& P. XIV, i, 100). The surrender is dated on the follow- ing day, sealed but not signed. Pensions were at once awarded: £40 a year to the abbess, £5 to the prioress, Elizabeth Monmorthe, and £4 to £2 to each of fifteen others (L. & P. XIV, i, 110). The sisters went be) LY By Li-Col-H. F. Cheitle, C.M.G.,.0O.B.E. 9 out into the world; the three chaplains and the confessor left their chambers in the west range (Brakspear, 143—4) ; and ‘‘ Mr. Sharington ” came in. But before he gained an effective title there was an interval of State management, interesting for its summary of property at Lacock. In 1539—40 the ‘“‘king’s Ministers’’ received £60 Os. 94d. from that part of the endowment, including the farm of the abbess’s lodging, with two houses. called the parsonage and the gatehouse; the bakehouse, brewery, barns, stables, dovecotes, orchards, pools, &c.; the farm (1/-) of the fishing on the Avon from the footbridge between Lacock and Beauley ° to the end of the meadow called Rydingmeade ; 307 acres of arable land; and a sheepwalk and three acres (Bowles, 334). On the 26th July, 1540, there were granted in fee to William Sharington and Eleanor his wife, for £783 13s. 10d., (1) the house and site of the late abbey of Lacock, the church, steeple and churchyard, the lordship and manor, the rectory and church and advowson of the vicarage and the other possessions of the convent in Wiltshire, and (2) certain property of Amesbury nunnery, at a rentof £5 18s. 10d. for the Lacock property and 6s. for the Amesbury property, and subject to the payment of {2a year to Thomas Mardytt as bailiff and rent-collector of Lacock manor and £1 to the vicar of Lacock (L. & P., XV, 942 (110) ‘V6 Sharington paid the money by four instalments In 1540-—1544 (Wilts Mag., XXVII, 160). A good deal of the other property of the abbey went to members of the Temys family (L. & P., XIX, 141 (74) ; Bowles, 284—90, 313; Baskerville, 197). William Sharington, one of the most despicable characters in Tudor history, was now about 45 years old. He and Thomas Seymour, after- wards Lord Seymour of Sudeley, had been in the service of Sir Francis Bryan, and their fortunes rose together. His second wife, the Eleanor named above, died soon after he bought Lacock, and in June, 1542, he _ had licence to resettle the property on a London alderman’s widow, Grace Pagett, whom he married later (L. & P., XVII, 443 (3) ). In May, 1546, he became vice-treasurer of the mint at Bristol, and on the 19th February, 1547, at Edward VI’s coronation, he was knighted. He entered into the treasonable intrigues which Lord Seymour carried on during 1547 and 1548, and lent him money derived from illegal coining and from shearing and clipping coin; and in January, 1549, he fell with Seymour. On the 6th January Lacock was searched by the Council’s agents ; on the 19th Sharington was arrested and put in the Tower; in February he confessed all he knew, thus helping to send Seymour to the block; and in March he was duly attainted (Dictionary of National Biography). But he had saved his own life; on the 5th November, 1549, he was pardoned (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1548—9, 246) ; in January, 1550, he was restored in blood (D.N.B.); and on the 2nd February, 1550, by a payment of £12,866 12s. 2d. he bought back the > Bewley Court Priory, between Lacock and Bowden Hill, may per- haps represent a grange of the abbey. 2 10 Lacock Abbey. lordship, manor, rectory and church of Lacock (and still paid a rent of £6 4s. 10d. a year) and other property (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1549—51, 188—9). He died in 1558, without issue, and his brother Henry suc- ceeded to Lacock. In that year Joan Temys and six other nuns (one now married) were still drawing their pensions (Bowles, 282—3). Sir William Sbarington, unlike tbe majority of the grantees of | monastic property, had not destroyed the monastic buildings but had | adapted them for use as a dwelling-house. The precinct, as he took it Over, was an irregular oblong of about eighteen acres, bounded on the south by the old road from London to Bath, on the east by the Avon, on the north by fields, and on the west by the churchyard and the yard of the home farm (Brakspear, 128). Within it, he spared the sacristy, the chapter-house, the calefactory and the dormitory on the ~ east side, the refectory and its) undercroft on the morth, and the kitchen at the west end, and he built the octagonal tower with its muniment room, and the stable court (Lilian Dickins & Mary Stanton : An Eighteenth Century: Correspondence, 299). He added pavement tiles bearing his arms (Stevens, 375). He sold the bells when he rebuilt Ray bridge ‘‘ to divert the travelling by his house”’ (Talbot in Wilis Mag., XVI, 352). John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, a friend of Sir Henry Sharington, - preached his last sermon at Lacock in September, 1571 (D.N.B.) ; and Queen Elizabeth visited the house in 1574 (Bowles, 359). Sir Henry had three daughters and coheirs (Bowles, 298), of whom Olive, the youngest, fell in love with John Talbot of Salwarp, in Worcestershire ; the story was told that one night she jumped from the battlements of the abbey church tower into his arms, and that her father said : ‘‘ Since she made such leapes, she should e’en marry him ”’ (Aubrey, 92). At any rate they married. John Talbot died in 1581, and his widow, to whom the Lacock property had passed, married (and survived) Sir Robert Stapleton and lived until 1646. In 1610 Lady Stapleton obtained leave from Quarter Sessions to build cottages on the waste of the manor for the homeless poor of Lacock (Historical MSS. ‘Commission: Various Collections, I, 82; B. H. Cunnington: Ieecords of the County of Wilts, 31). Early in May, 1612, the dying Earl of Salis- bury slept at Lacock on his way to Bath, and he was there again from the 21st to the 23rd May on his way back to London (John Nichols : Progresses of King James I, Il, 446—7; Godfrey Goodman : Court of King James I, 147). In 1642 Lady Stapleton’s son, Sharington Talbot, died, and she herself was succeeded in 1646 by her grandson, also named Sharington Talbot. About December, 1644, Lacock House (as it was then called) was occupied by Parliamentary forces ; they retired in February, 1645,’ on Lord Hopton’s approach,:and Lieutenant-Colonel Bovell garrisoned it with Hopton’s regiment (C. H. Firth: Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, I, 467—8). me He stood a fortnight’s siege in May, but in July, sallying out on a By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettile, C.M.G., O:B.E. 11 Sunday ts plunder, he was routed by the Chatfield garrison (J. H. P. Pafford : Parliamentary Garrisons, 24). Sharington Talbot was taken prisoner in March (Bowles, 359). On the 23rd September, 1643, immediately after the capture of Devizes, Colonel Pickering was sent with three regiments to attack Lacock ; Colonel Bovell, ‘‘though in truth there were good works about it”’, capitulated, on honourable terms, at the first summons, and marched out in Fairfax’s presence (and apparently in Cromwell’s) on the 24th (Firth, 476; Joshua Sprigge : Anglia Rediviva, 35— 6, 334, 336). Part of the outbuildings was long known as “ Oliver Cromwell’s stable’ (Britton, III, 236), but the local belief is now that he stabled his horses under the reredorter. The owner was fined £1,000, as an active Royalist, in 1647; in October, 1649, the fine was remitted, as he had paid £165 in respect of his Wilt- shire property and was “‘ very much in debt’”’ (Calendar of Committee for Advance of Money, 834). He died in 1677. Sharington Talbot’s son and heir, John; had given parole and security for peaceable conduct in 1659, and thereupon three horses which the Gloucestershire militia had seized were restored to him (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1659—60, 209). He is ‘‘ said to have been the first person who received King Charles the Second in his arms upon his © landing in England at the Restoration ” and to have been knighted on the spot (Britton, III, 236—7; Lord Braybooke’s note to Pepys’s Diary, 17th Jan., 1668). -The house gained a certain celebrity in his time. Charles dined there in 1663 (Willits Mag., IV, 318). Thomas Dingley sketched the ‘“‘South-West prospect from the porter’s lodge”’ in 1684. and detailed some of the rooms (History from Marble (Camden Society 1868), 503, 505—8 ; Dickins & Stanton, 298). A friend of Thomas Hearne’s came in 1712 and noted that the Chapter House still existed, which was the burying place ‘‘for ye Nuns, &c. The kitchen is also intire, & there is to be seen the Nuns’ old Boyler’’; the owner, he added, was ‘‘an errant Whig’’ (Hearne’s Collections, VI, 70). It is said, however, that Queen Anne visited the house, and that on that occasion a side of bacon and a sack of peas were boiled in the ‘“‘ boiler ” (Aubrey, 90 n). Sir John, who sat in Parliament and is commemorated in Lacock church, died in 1714; he was succeeded by John Ivory Talbot, son of his daughter Anne and Sir John Ivory. During his long ownership of Lacock, from 1714 to 1772, John Ivory Talbot considerably altered the house andgrounds, He “ disposed of”’ a larger ‘‘ boiler’’, seven feet across, in 1716; but in 1747, irritated by the window tax, he blocked up some ground-floor windows and removed Waghuens’s caldron to a stand in the garden; he composed a com- memorative Latin inscription, but apparently. did not inscribe it (Aubrey, 90 n; Wilts Mag., XXVI, 49). He pulled down the mill, which stood north-east of the abbey, and diverted the stream, to make room for a new garden (Brakspear, 128). He began to alter the house in a pleasant early Georgian style, but he soon began to “‘ gothicise ’’; he ‘“‘ spoilt the west wall of the old kitchen and the windows of the stone gallery on the east side of the house, in both instances adding . . . 1, Lacock Abbey. battlements ’’; he also fixed plaster tracery ‘‘ to the walls of the‘ great stable’ at the lodge gates, which was converted into a barn’”’ in 1727 —30 (Dickins & Stanton, 300—1).. But in 1753 he was introduced to Sanderson Miller, a Warwickshire squire and amateur architect, with whose help he rebuilt the great hall; he made a new entrance with flat windows on either side, and in these he inserted stained glass, some from the old windows and some collected from elsewhere ; he put in a new chimney-piece of Painswick stone ; the roof was safely in position by October, 1754, gay with the coats of arms of his friends and neigh- bours, whom he summoned to celebrate its completion; and in May, 1755— January, 1756, Victor Alexander Suderbach filled the niches in the walls with plaster of Paris figures of the foundress and others (Dickins & Stanton, 303—9). Lord William Seymour painted the bosses of the cloister vaulting ; Miller produced a ‘‘ Gothick Gateway ”’ ; Talbot added ‘‘an handsome Sweep for a Coach and Six and built the Ah Ah likewise in front of the Hall’’.(Dickins & Stanton, 305—8). Thus, apart from subsequent minor alterations, John Ivory Talbot completed the development of Lacock Abbey; and he left a still existing map of the house and grounds, made for him in 1714 (Wilts _Mag., XXXI, 200—1; Brakspear, 127). John Ivory Talbot’s eldest son John died unmarried, devising Lacock to his sister Mrs. Davenport and her heirs (Britton, III, 237). Her son William Davenport Talbot succeeded her, and died in 1800. He had leased the house to the countess dowager of Shrewsbury, under whom, from 1795 (or earlier) to her death in 1809, it ‘‘ became an hospitable asylum for the expatriated votaries of religion ’’, the refugee French clergy ; and the next occupant was John Rock Grosett, M.P. for Chippenham © (Gentleman’s Magazine, 1795, I, 374; Britton, III, 237 ; Monasticon, VI, 500). William Henry Fox Talbot, the next owner (1800—1877), was a pioneer in photography ; his photograph of a window in the abbey, taken in 1835, is said to have been the first ever printed (Wulishire Times, 16th November, 1935). During his ownership the house was further altered by an architect (Thomas ?) Harrison (C. H. Talbot in Wilts Mag., XII, 228). Coffins containing skeletons were found in 1823 under the site of the chapel (Britton, III, 241). In 1827 John Darley. was employed to make drawings of the house, and then a small build- ing against the north side of the frater was pulled down and the South wall of the house (the six western bays of the north wall of the abbey church) was altered by inserting oriel windows (Brakspear, 158, 130; Wilts Mag., XVI, 354). W.H. F. Talbot died at the abbey in 1877. His son, Charles Henry, succeeded ; he reopened the windows of the ‘‘ nuns’ sittingroom ”’ and placed the boiler there, and in 1898 he excavated the site of the abbey church and established its plan (Brakspear, 130). His niece succeeded in 1916. . ; During the present war St. George’s School, Kensington, wasevacuated to the village and taught in the Abbey. By [t.=Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G.;.0.B.E. 13 The following are some extant illustrations of Lacock Abbey :— Bias. 15. cc N. Buck's: view. 1801. South-East view; J. Carter del., G. Hollis sc. (Bowles, 317). Fourteen drawings by John Carter, in the library at Stourhead. in 1855 (Wilts Mag., II, 122—3). 1815. Engraved by L. C.)Smith after a drawing by S. Prout (Britton, III, 241). 1826. Great Hall, and Garden Front ; drawn by J.P. Neale, engraved by E. I. Roberts and T. Jeavons (J. P. Neale: Views of Seats, 2nd Series, III). 1827. Drawings by John Darley, now at Lacock. 1834. Engraving by G. Hollis, from a drawing by Mrs. W. H. Fox Talbot (Bowles, frontispiece). 14 A WILTSHIREWOMAN’S TOMB IN CARISBROOKE CHURCH. | —Bya] Ie SEADE, In the parish church of Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight, there is one monument—and only one, if we disregard an incised slab that formerly covered the grave of a Prior of the monastery of which this was the church. It is to the memory of Lady Margaret Wadham, wife of Sir Nicholas Wadham and daughter of one of the several Sir John Seymours of Wolf. Hall. Concerning this lady two inaccurate statements have been current. First, that she was grandmother of the Sir Nicholas Wadham who with his wife Dorothy (that lady as his widow heing the actual executor) founded Wadham College, Oxford; second, that she (the subject of the monument) was sister of Jane Seymour, Queen of Henry VIII. It would give additional interest to the monument if these statements were, or one of them was, correct, but the facts dis- prove them. The first error was excusable. Lady Margaret’shusband was grandfather of the founder of Wadham, but the son who carried on the succession was by the first wife, who was Joan, daughter of Robert Hill of Halsway (sometimes it is given as Anstey), near Truro. John Wadham was issue of that marriage, and his son, Nicholas, married Dorothy Petre, second daughter of the well-known Sir William Petre. Margaret Wadham was the second wife of Sir Nicholas Wadham, the grandfather. As to her place in the Seymour family : the belief that she was sister of Jane is of respectable antiquity and had an equally respectable origin, if Sir John Oglander’s memoirs were that origin. Sir John Oglander of Nunwell was one of the principal jJandowners of the Isle of Wight in and around the time of Charles I. He was the Pepys of his time so far as the Island was concerned, and his naive and refreshingly candid comments on men and things are still preserved, in a bulky folio, in his old home. Here is his peccant entry, which has place in his notes on the Captains of the Island:—‘‘In _ Henry VIII time one Wadham a Knight who lyeth buryed in Caris- . broke church with his wife who was sister to Edward VI his mother’”’. (A double error : Sir Nicholas certainly was not ‘“‘ buryed’’ there.) Sir John’s records were of course useful to any subsequent historian, and they were material for Sir Richard Worsley of Appeldurcombe, who in the following century wrote the History of the Isle of Wight. His History is the standard work of the kind, and all later writers (there are many) use it as a quatry, accepting its statements as statements of facts. Among these writers was the Rev. E. Boucher James, who was Vicar of Carisbrooke from 1858 to 1892. In the late eighties and early nineties he wrote voluminously on persons and events connected with the Island, the Wadhams being among the former: His repetition of the alleged relationship of Margaret Seymour to Jane Seymour brought correction. A Mr. Long, a Hampshire antiquary of repute, and evidently of that school which tests the credibility of the material befagre at, declared that-Margaret was Jane’s aunt, not her sister. In proof SIXTEENTH CENTURY TOMB OF LADY WADHAM. Reproduced from the History of Carisbrooke Church, by kind permission of the Rev. Harold Ewbank, Vicar, to whom we are indebted for the loan of the block. capi ve A Wilishirewoman’s Tomb in Carisbrooke Church. 15 thereof he produced genealogical data, which is the best that can be offered in such circumstances. Here are his words: ‘‘ There were two, if not three, John Seymours in succession before the Sir John father of Jane. He had three daughters, Jane married to Henry VIII, Elizabeth to Sir A. Oughtred, and Dorothy to Sir Clement Smith. The two last had second husbands, but neither of them was Sir Nicholas Wadham. The father of this Sir John Seymour was John, living in the reign of Henry VII. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Darrell, of Littlecote, Wilts, and by her had four sons and four daughters. One of these, Margaret, was the wife of Sir Nicholas Wadham ”’, Nothing could be more precise, and although one may wonder why a Hampshire student of such matters investigated a subject of purely Wiltshire concern, it seems fairly obvious that he had before him the full pedigree of the Seymour family—perhaps that ‘‘splendid pedigree of the Seymours’”’ that ‘“‘Mr. Tucker, Rouge Croix of the Heralds’ College, made a few remarks on ”’ when the members of our Society visited Tottenham House in the course of one of the annual meetings, The theory of ‘‘ Margaret sister of Jane’”’ is imbedded in the records. It is in papers of the Wadham family that have come down to modern descendants, which would be strong evidence in its favour if Mr. Long’s categorical statements were not before us. As it is, the safe course is to follow the D.N.B., and declare that Lady Margaret Wadham was aunt of Jane the Queen. : The Seymours of Wolf Hall did not disgrace themselves by linking with the Wadhams. W. H. Hamilton-Rogers, in his ‘‘ Memorials ‘of the West’’, gives a chapter to ‘‘ The Founders of Wadham College’’, and he describes the family as ‘‘ ancient and honourable’’. It was seated at Edge, in Branscombe, one of the ‘‘ most romantic and picturesque”’ parts of Devonshire Its appearance in the Isle of Wight was due to a marriage with aco-heiress of Sir Stephen Popham (some- times so entitled, and sometimes as plain ‘“ Esquire’’), by which her husband became possessed of several manors in the East Wight. This Popham family was seated in Hampshire. (Sir Stephen was not one of the Pophams of Littlecote, which had not yet passed from the Darrells; though there was probably affinity between the Hampshire Pophams and the Chief Justfce who acquired Littlecote.) The Wadham who married into the Island was grandfather of Sir Nicholas Wadham who — married Margaret Seymour, and by the third generation the newcomers may be said to have graduated to receive some of the honours. | So Sir Nicholas the grandson was made Governor of the Island and Captain of Carisbrooke Castle; Steward of the Crown Lands and Master of the Hunt, also of “‘ game within the forest there’”’.. As H.R H. the Princess Beatrice, the late Governor, held also the ancient office of Coroner’ of the Island, it is likely that Sir Nicholas did.so.: But :when he is-credited, in addition, with the shrievalties of the counties of Somerset, Dorset and Devon, all within the years of his Governorship (1498 —1517), it is permissible to doubt it. No apology shall be offered for intruding these few details.of the Wadhams in general and Nicholas 16 A Wiltshirewoman’s Tomb in Camsbrooke Church. in particular, for there was a branch of the family in Wiltshire (as noted below), and it is permissible to examine their credentials, to see how far they added to or detracted from the dignity of an illustrious Wiltshire house. The result of the survey is satisfactory. The Carisbrooke tomb is partially recessed in the north wall of the nave of what was the church of the monastery. It is not magnificent. The late Percy Stone, F.S.A., whose volumes on the ancient churches, vanished monasteries, and old manor houses of the Island are the standard work on the subject, was not enthusiastic about it. He described the figures at the back as ‘‘ roughly sculptured’, though he admitted that there is “‘ delicate foliation ’’. There is no comparison wlth the other monuments of the Seymours or with the monuments of the Wadhams—with the elaborate tomb of Edward, Earl of Hertford, in Salisbury Cathedral or the effigied tomb of that Earl’s grandfather, Sir John Seymour himself, in Great Bedwyn church, nor with a rich structure of marble and alabaster in Ilminster church that commemor- ates the founder and foundress of Wadham College. The mark of the Carisbrooke tomb is feminine simplicity ; this, with its symbolism of the charitable deeds of the lady commemorated, arouses affection for the subject rather than admiration for theartist. It cannot be charged against it that it helps to “‘convert the House of God into the mauso-_ leum of man ’’. The central figure, a lady kneeling on a cushion upon a Purbeck marble table, is carved in detachment. She has a pedimental head-dress ; her gown has a waistband with long fringed ends, loose sleeves embroidered, and cuffs. Her hands indicate prayer, though not in the customary manner. Above her, carved in the wall at the back, is a shield, thus described: ‘‘ Wadham quartering Chiselden, Popham— and Rende—impaling Seymour, two wings in lure dependant”. The Seymour wings, however, are not exact, though they are of the con- ventional angel character; probably because of lack of sufficient room one pair, divided, does duty for two conjoined pairs. Above the lady, projecting from the parapet of the canopy, is an angel holding a shield that bears the sacred monogram. The wall at the back, on each side of these central features, is divided into twelve panels which may be described as so many blank perpendicular window spaces, having within their framework semi-traceried heads and shafts, with roses in the spandrels. The six upper panels are vacant; in the lower range are the distinctive features of the tomb. There is a tradition that Lady Wadham founded a hospital for cripples. There is no trace of such a foundation; itmay have been a home that did not long survive the benefactress. That she was such a:benefactress is an inescapable conclusion from the characters of these little figures, carved in bas- relief. On her right is a man with his feet awry, leaning on a crutch; a woman whose defect is not apparent ; and another man who may be an imbecile. On the left are:—a woman holding, probably, a medica- ment with one hand, the other hanging helplessly ; a man with his legs distorted ; another man, with bandaged legs, leaning onacrutch. The other features of the monument include, at the sides, shafts with capitals By J. J. Slade. Me of the style in vogue at the end of the 15th century. : ek 130 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. of his mistakes by reference to the 1866 Report, which gives quite full particulars of the lands affected, or to the 1904 Blue-book, or by inquiry from students of local history in the county concerned. It is submitted, then, that the lists below are likely to be useful to historians in that they contain : (1) A complete list of Enclosure Acts and of enclosures under the General Acts. (2) An indication (based upon Dr. Slater’s work) as to which Acts — included any proportion, however small, of open field arable, and which Acts related to common meadow and waste alone. “S (3) A list (we believe the only one in print, apart from the scattered. and inaccurate references in the 1904 Blue-book), of enclosures under the General Acts of 1836 ef seq. (4) Particulars of all formal agreements enrolled with the Clerk of the Peace, and relating to non-Parliamentary enclosures in Wilt- shire, and similar particulars of such agreements c. 1750—1840, enrolled in the national courts. | (5) Details of the enrolment of all Enclosure Awards enrolled either, in the national courts at Westminster or among the records of the county. (It seems that Acts rarely made no provision: for the enrolment of Awards somewhere or other, and such Awards. as were not enrolled either at Westminster or with the Clerk of the. Peace were generally entered among the records of local manorial courts. In Middlesex and Yorkshire, however, they seem often to have been enrolled in the local statutory Registries of Deeds). (6) Notes of all enclosures in parishes which at the time of enclosure were in this county, but which have since been transferred to another. It is hardly necessary to point out that in such instances the records of both counties should be searched if one fails to trace the Enclosure Award in one of them. (7) Notes of all mistakes in previous compilations upon such important data as dates, areas, etc., in so far as it has been possible to check these, and of all major changes in the official names of parishes which have taken place subsequent to the enclosures. These it is hoped will enable the inquirer to identify with some degree of assurance the data relating to any particular enclosure. This article is a section of a work which will eventually, it is hoped, cover the whole of England. Though it cannot claim to be anything more than a mere compilation, it is hoped that at any rate it may be a useful one. It is quite certain that despite all our care it must contain errors. We shall be very grateful if any fellow student noting such will be good enough to send us a postcard correcting them. Similarly we shall be indebted to any user of the lists who is able to By W..E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 131 fill any of the gaps which still remain in them. Such corrections will be entered in a copy of this work deposited in the library of the London School of Economics, and in another, available for reference in the library of the Public Record Office. Copies of the various county sections are being sent to the Clerks of the Peace throughout the country, and these will be available similarly for corrections and additions relating to the separate counties. EARLY METHODS OF ENCLOSURE. There seems little need here to enter into a detailed discussion of either the Open Field System or of the Enclosure Movement. It may suffice to call attention to the fact that the English Enclosure Act evolved quite naturally from the methods which had been adopted to carry out enclosure in earlier times. Throughout the 17th century it has been usual for lords and tenants who desired to enclose their lands to do so by private agreement,!? either with or without securing confirmation of this in the Chancery or the Court of Exchequer. Some- times it appears that a Chancery suit was undertaken in order to bring pressure to bear upona dissentient minority. Naturally there followed from this a demand for a General Act confirming decrees obtained in this fashion, and when a Bill to this effect was rejected in 1664, the same end was achieved by the introduction within the next century of a whole series of Private Acts, many of these, especially the early ones, confirming arrangements already come to by private agreement. It was natural that enclosure by Act should develop in an age when the power of the legislature was rapidly overshadowing that of the monarchy. After all, both the Chancery Decree and the Private Act are essentially the answer of the sovereign to the petition of the subject, the Chancery Decree being issued when the petition has been addressed to the king in his Chancery, the Private Act when the petition has been addressed to the king in his court of Parliament.18 And in fact, as Lord Ernle!® points out, after the Restoration the jurisdiction of the Chancery was first supplemented, then ousted, by the Private Act of Parliament: Enclosure by Private Act. Stray Enclosure Acts appear before 1702, but they are rare in the extreme. There are but sixinall.2® Two more follow in Queen Anne’s reign; eighteen in that of George I, but the number swells to 229 in 1727—1760, and after 1760 the tide of enclosure flows fast. The table below shows which counties have Enclosure Acts before 1760. 17 Curtler, The Enclosure and Redistribution of Our Land, 1920, p. 136. - 18 Gonner, op. cit., pp. 55—6 and 183. 19 Ernle, History of English Agriculture, 1917, p. 162. 20 The eight earliest enclosures of this sort are: Radipool, Dorset, 1602, Marden, Herefs., 1606, Malvern Chase, Gloucs., Herefs., Worcs., 1664, Horton, Gloucs., 1668, Hambleton, Rutlands, 1692, Salford, Oxon, 1696, Ropley, Hants, 1709 and Farmington, Hants, 1713. 132 A Hand-list of Wilishive Enclosure Acts and Awards. | | | Before 1702—, 1714— 1727-— Total COUN 1702 (1714+ «1727 +~—«:1760_|before 1760 : | Bedfordshire — fee hee 2 2 Berkshire — — 1 5 6 Buckinghamshire — — —_— 3 3 Derbyshire = —= |e 6 7 Dorset 1 -_ — 2 3 Durham -—— —- — 4 4 Gloucestershire 2 1 3 11 17 Hampshire = 1 — 12 13 Herefordshire eu 1 — — = ] Hertfordshire eS) eeece == = 1 l Huntingdonshire — — — a3 3 Kent —-- os — 1 1 Lancashire — —- 2 5 7 Leicestershire — 16 16 Lincolnshire —= = — 15 15 Norfolk Baa — — 2 5 7 Northamptonshire... | — -- —. | 21 21 Northumberland — a = 8 8 Nottinghamshire — — el eeeLo 10 Oxfordshire ] — —_— 5 6 Rutland vol == —- | 4 5 Somerset — — 2 | 1 3 Staffordshire — = 3. | 3 6 Suffolk — — er 2 2 Warwickshire — — 2 31 33 Wiltshire a oe 1 G =| qf Worcestershire aes ia as St 3 Yorkshire, E. Riding — — 1 15a 16 e N. Riding |. — as J 13.7 SaaS ae W. Riding. a — = 17 | hei Pi AES (ee Ss |S ee Teel ah: 62.29 18 | 230 256 -It will be seen that these amount to but 256 Acts in all, and that nearly-half-of these are accounted for by the three midland counties of Warwick, Northampton, and Gloucester, and the vast areas of the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire. From these early Acts, sanctioning existing agreements, there gradually developed the more typical Enclosure Act appointing commissioners to make the partition, and confirming in advance the award they should make. The vast majority of the Acts from 1760 onwards are of this type, and operations under this kind of Act are quite familiar to the student from the admirable accounts given in any of the works cited. Enclosures under Acts of this sort are listed in sections A and B below. By W. E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 133 The General Acts. The enormous expense attaching to enclosure carried out-by this method early caused a demand for a General Act to simplify and cheapen proceedings.?! After a hundred and forty years of more or less continuous agitation this demand was at last met by the passing of the General Enclosure Act of 1801.22, This Act, which arrived on the Statute Book after a great part of the work of enclosure had already been completed without its aid, wasa ‘“‘Clauses Act”’ only. References to it are incorpor- ated in almost all the special Enclosure Acts passed in the years following 1801. The next General Act of any great importance was that of 1836.23 This permitted enclosure by the consent of a majority of the proprietors (generally at least two-thirds), without an application to Parliament. No account of enclosures under it has appeared in any of the Parlia- mentary publications (save for the very incomplete references in the second of the three blue-books cited above), and they have been almost entirely neglected by historians. This is unfortunate, since in some respects they are the most interesting of all enclosures, lying as they do in a class intermediate between those enclosures carried out essen- tially by Parliamentary authority, often without the real consent of many of the landowners affected, and those affected by agreement of the landowners concerned, without the formality and expense incurred by an application for Parliamentary sanction. This Act properly related to open fields only, though actually many enclosures of lands other than open field were quite improperly carried out by its means. It was extended to cover lands other than open field by a further Act, ‘four years later.24 Enclosures under these two Acts are listed below in sections C and D. It is probable that further enquiry will, transfer to section D some at any rate of those listed in section C, The third really important General Act was that of 1845.26 This set up a body of Enclosure Commissioners, who had power to authorise the enclosure of lands not including any “‘ waste of a manor’’, by Pro- visional Order, without Parliamentary sanction, and had the more restricted power of authorising the enclosure of lands including the waste of any manor or manors by a similar Provisional Order, but _ this had to be confirmed by Parliament after inclusion in the schedule of an annual Enclosure Act. Sections E (I) and (II) and F (I) (not represented in Wiltshire) and (II) give lists of all enclosures carried out under the 1845 Act, and the (annual) General Acts which followed it. That is ; sections C—F give complete lists of all enclosures carried Out under any General Act except the first (Clauses) Act. For references to Acts merely incorporating the general clauses it will usually be sufficient to take all the Private Actsin sections A and B from 1801 onwards. 21 Gonner, op. cit., pp. 56—8, and references there cited. . 22-41 Geo. IIf,.c. 101. 236 & 7 Wm. IV,c. 115. a4 3&4 Vic., c. 31. ev7Gne 7. ViC., c. 118. 134 . >... fn. 2. 21 This is Sir William Herbert, first Earl of Pembroke of the secdénd creation. H.M.C. xi, iv, Rutland MSS. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIII. 144 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. Ther is neyther gentylle man nor yet a man of any substance as furforthe as I can lerne amoynge them ”’. | ’ The county had not been included among those to which the 1536 Depopulation Act?? was to apply, but it came under the operation of the Act of 159723. The inference seems to be that it had not been much affected by agrarian change by the early part of the century, and that this developed fairly extensively before the end of the century. A local manor known to have been enclosed about this time is Ashton Keynes, where nearly a third of the copyhold land was held in severalty by 1603—4.2* However, in 1607, the county is still described as (pre- ponderantly) open.2° ‘In Dorset, Wiltshire, Hamshire, Barkeshire and other places champion the farmers do much inrich their land indeed with the sheepfold’’. Norden was a Wiltshireman, and presumably was in a position 6 know the facts.2® There seems little evidence available as to enclosure locally about the middle of the 17th century, though there must have been some, since an undated document (assigned to 1632), in the State Papers Domestic refers to the prepara- tion of a warrant for a commission to enquire into depopulation and conversion in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.2” An interesting picture of agrarian grievance in one Wiltshire township about the time of the Common- wealth is given By the story of Wootton Bassett. Here a certain Sir Francis Englefield persecuted the inhabitants for 56 years, enclosing E,900a. of their 2,000a. of common, seizing their charters, vexing his tenants with lawsuits, and overcharging the common with his own cattle. A petition from this place?® (c. 1632) sets forth that the mayor and ~ free-teniants of this borough had enjoyed from time immemorial, free common of pasture for the feeding of all manner of ruther beasts, as cowes, &c., in Fasterne (Vastern) Great Park, which contained, by estimation, 2,000 acres of ground or upwards and that soon after the manor came into the possession of Sir Francis Englefield, Knight, that gentleman did inclose the park, leaving out to the free tenants of the borough that part which was called Wotton Lawnd, and contained 22 97 Hen. VIII c. 22 (1536), Slater, English Peasantry . . .. 1907, pp. 324—-5. Miss Leonard in Tvans. R. Hist. S., N.S., Vol. a 1905, p. 124. 23 39 Eliz. c. 2 (1597), Slater, op. cit., p. 328. 4 Gray, op. cit., p. 442. 2 Norden, Suvveiors Dialogue, 1607, Bk. 5, p. 232. Miss Leonard, op. cit., p. 138. * TD. McDonald, Agricultural Writers, 1908, pp. 61—6. 27 Miss Leonard, op. cit., p. 129 fn. 1, and Gonner, op cit., p. 166. * Britton, Beauties of England and Wales, Vol. XV, Wiltshire, 1814, pp. 642—4. Tawney, Agrarian Problem . . . 1912, pp. 148, 251—2. Sir F. Englefield acquired the manor 1555—6, é By Wek. Late, FOR, Aist.S. 145 only 100 acres. The petition then proceeds to state that, notwith- standing this infringement of their ancient rights, the inhabitants submitted without resistance and established new regulations of common inconformity with the contracted area of their lands, giving to the mayor of the town for the time being “ two cowes feeding, and to the constable one cowes feeding and to every inhabitant of the said borough one cowes feeding and no more, as well the poor as the rich, and every one to make and maintaine a certain parallel of bound, set forth to every person; and ever after that enclosure, for the space of fifty-six years or neere thereabouts, any messuage, burgage, or tenant (tenement ?) that was bought or sold within the said borough did always buy and sell the said cowes leaze together with the said messuage or burgage, as part and member of the same, as doth and may appeare by divers deeds, which are yet to be seen ; and about which 'time, as we have been informed, and do verily believe, that Sir Francis Englefield, heire of the aforesaid Sir Francis Englefield, did, by some means, gain the charter of our towne into his hands, and as lately we _have heard that his successors now keepeth it ; and do believe that at the same time he did likewise gaine the deed of the said common; and -he thereby knowing that the towne had nothing to shew for the right of common but by prescription did begin suits in law with the said free tenants for their common, and did vex them with so many suits in law, for the space of seven or eight years at least, and never suffered any one to come to tryal in all that space, but did divers times attempt to gain possession thereof by putting in of divers sorts of cattell, inasmuch that at length, when his servants did put in cowes by force into the said common, many times and present (sic) upon putting of them in, the Lord in His mercy did send thunder and lightning from heaven, which did make the cattle of the said Sir Francis Englefield to run so violent out of the said ground, that at one time one of the beasts were (sic) killed therewith, and it was so often, that people that were not there in presence to see it when it did thunder would say that Sir Francis Englefield’s men were putting in their cattell into the Lawnd, and so it was; and as soone as those cattell were gone forth it would presently be very calme and faire, and the cattel of the towne would never stir, but follow their feeding as at other times, and never offer _ to move out of the way, but follow their feeding ; and this did continue so long, he being too powerfull for them, that the said free tenants were not able to wage law any longer, for one John Rosier, one of the free tenants, was thereby enforced to sell all his land (to the value of 500/) with following the’suits in law, and many others were thereby im- poverished, and were thereby enforced to yeeld up their right, and take a lease of the said Sir Francis Englefield for term of his life; and the said mayor and free tenants hath (sic) now lost their right otf common in the Lawnd neare about twenty years, which this now Sir Francis Englefield, his heirs and his trustees, now detaineth from them. And as for our common we do verily believe that no corporation in England as much wronged is as we are, for we are put out of all L 2 146 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. common that ever we had, and hath ‘not so much as one foot of common left unto us nor never shall have any; we are thereby grown so in poverty, unless it please God to move the hearts of this honour- able house to commiserate our cause, and to exact something for us, that we may enjoy our right again. And we your Ovators shall be ever bound to pray for your heaiths and prosperity in the Lord”’. Signed by the mayor and 22 inhabitants with this notandum: ‘“Divers more hands we might have had, but that many of them doth rent bargains of the lord of the manner, and they are fearful that they shall be put forth of their bargaines, and then shall not tell how to live, otherwise they would have set to their hands ”’ Even after duly discounting the tenants’ statements, one can judge ~ that they had some very genuine grievances. No doubt, if Sir Francis ventured upon such highhanded proceedings in a borough town, with its own governing body and its own two members in the House of Commons, other landlords in the area could certainly hope to enclose other commons or open fields belonging to much less vocal and - less influential village communities. As to the effect of such enclosures in either town or countryside, a classical reference is that in Aubrey,?® ‘‘ Anciently in the hundreds of _ Malmesbury. and Chippenham, were but very few enclosures, and that near houses. This county was then a lovely campania, as now about Sherston and Coteswold. My grandfather Lyte did remember when all between Cromhalls Eston (Easton Piers) and Castle Combe was sO, and when Easton, Yatton, and Combe did intercommon together. “In my remembrance much hath been enclosed, and every day more and more is taken in. Anciently the Leghs (now corruptly called Sleights —i.e., pastures) were noble large grounds as yet the Demeane land at Castle Combe are. 1 doe remember about 1633 but one enclosure to Chipnam Field, which was at the north end, and by this time I thinke it is all enclosed ’’. So likewise in his remembrance was all between Kington St. Michael and Draycot Cerne common field. The west field ~ of Kington St. Michael (between Easton Piers and Heywood) was enclosed in 1664. ‘‘ Then werea world of labouring people maintained by the plough as yet in Northamptonshire, etc. There were no rates for the poore even in my grandfather’s daies; but for Kington St. Michael (no small parish) the Church Ale at Whitsuntide did their businesse. . .. . Since the Reformation and Inclosures aforesaid these parts have swarmed with poore people. The Parish of Calne pays to the poore (1663) £500.per annum, and the Parish of Chippen- ham little less, as appears by the Poor’s bookes there. Inclosures are. for the private, not for the public good. For a shepherd and his dogge, *% Natural History of Wilishive, under date 1685, with a reference to c. 1550, as.quoted by Miss Leonard, op. cit., p. 140 and Scrutton, Commons and Common Fields, 1886, pp. 99, 100. By W. E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 147 or’a milk mayd can manage that land that upon arable employed the hands of severall scores of labourers ’’. By 1685 the county was still roughly half open, if Prof. Gonner’s?® calculation may be relied on. He bases his estimate upon Ogilby’s Britannia, published in this year, and supposes that the percentage of unfenced road is probably a fair indication of the percentage of open land in the shire. Wiltshire with some 47 per cent. appears 11th of the 37 counties listed in order of their percentage of open road. Ogilby marks a fair amount of roadway in Wiltshire, the highways from Southampton by Salisbury and Marlborough to Lechlade and to Burford, Oxon, with a cross-road at Upavon from Andover, Hants, to meet the Gloucester-Taunton road, with an eastern branch from Marlborough through Reading to London, and with another cross-road at Swindon from Oxford to Bristol, and a cross-road from Devizes joining this same Gloucester-Taunton road at Glastonbury. Much of the south and east of the county is shown as open, but the roads in the north and west, -especially near Malmesbury, are recorded as enclosed, though they had been open in Leland’s time. This clearly proves extensive enclosure in the late 16th or early or middle 17th centuries. In fact the district in south Wiltshire between Warminster and Salisbury formed, if Ogilby is to be relied on, the eastern vertex of the great triangular area which formed the main open district still surviving in the 1680’s.*! ° Celia Fiennes,?2 whose Journal is a valuable source for the agrarian condition of England towards the end of the 17th century, was a local - woman. She describes the country near her home at Newton Tony as a “fine open champion country ’’. Evidently she was more accustomed to open-field or common country than to a severalty, since in her description of the countryside she is much more apt to notice the presence than the absence of hedges. She also describes the down country between Amesbury and Stonehenge, as ‘“‘ all on the downs, a fine champion country ’’, but Dr. Slater®? gives reason to suppose that this may not here mean that the country was in any way commonable. _“ Using the word enclosure in its broad sense, it may be said that in Wessex the process of inclosure has least of all taken visible shape either in the growing of hedges, or building of walls, or-in the conver- sion of arable to pasture, or pasture to arable, or in the scattering of the habitations of the inhabitants . . . but that it has most pro-- foundly affected the social life of the villages ”’ The 18th century writers give some further scraps of information. Nourse#4 writes in 1700 and informs us that there is still much open ” Ogilby, Britannia, 1675. _Gonner, op. cit., p. 178. * Gonner, op. cit., pp. 172—3. 38 Through England on a Side Saddle . . . (c. 1689), 1889. Pop. cit, pp. 234—b. “Campania Felix . . . 1700, p. 45. 148 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. ground in the Cotswolds. Defoe®> has more to say of the agriculture of Wiltshire than he has of most counties. He describes it as the ‘‘most pleasant and fertile. As the east and south parts of Wiltshire are i...’ all hilly in plains and grassy downs: ., =) So all’ the south and west part of Wiltshire . . . are low and flat, being a rich. inclosed Country. ... . Lhe number of sheep fed) om these downs is lessened rather than increased, because of the many thousand acres of the carpet ground being, of late years, turned into arable land and sowed with wheat... . . The north part of Wiltshire, being arable . . . they sow a very great quantity of barley. The down(s) . . . which are generally called Salisbury Plain were formerly all left.open to be fed: by :- . -: ‘sheep 2) 3) = (but are now arable and are vastly improved by the use of the sheep fold). If this way . . . were practised in some parts of England and especially in Scotland, they would find it . . . effectively im- | prove the waste lands. . . . The Vale of the White Horse (from Marlborough (? Swindon) to Abingdon, Berks) is a very fertile and fruitful Vale . . .’’. From Shaftesbury he saw ‘‘a new scene or — prospect (viz) of Somerset and Wiltshire, where ‘tis all enclosed and grown with woods, forests, and planted hedge-rows’”’. According to Hale,®® the noted starving parts of Hampshire and Wiltshire could be made like Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire by enclosure. Young notes the large farms still prevalent in the district between Devizes and Salisbury, and much regrets the waste of Salisbury Plain on pasture when it was fit for tillage. He refers to the open field in the north of the county as still under the old three or four course rotations—two or three white crops and a fallow. Between Marlborough and Hungerford (Berks) there were watered meadows, and some of the land was under improved rotations by 1771. In the south-east of the county some of the open-field farmers had agreed to sow clover and rye grass in place of the fallow, and some had even gone so far as to lay out a fourth field for the purpose. Concerning the agrarian history of Wiltshire, as for that of other counties, Marshall is, in general, a good deal more reliable than Young. Marshall?’ wrote apparently in 1792. He says ‘“‘ From Basingstoke to Salisbury the state of inclosure varies. To the eastward the country is mostly inclosed, much of it in large regular inclosures. More west- ward, it is entirely open ; as are the tops of the higher hills throughout. Extensive views, with no other break than what is given by corn or flocks, fallows or the sheep fold. . . . To the southward of the town (of Salisbury) there are some well-sized square fields, with good 3% Defoe, Tour . . . 1724—6, reprint of 1928, pp. 187—99, 279—89. : ; 3 Compleat Body of Husbandry, 1756, quoted by G. E. Fussell, in Min. of Ag. Journ., Nov., 1936, p. 736 and references there cited. 37 Ruval Economy of Southern Counties . . ., 1798. By W. E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 149 live hedges (at least on three sides) apparently of forty or fifty years’ growth ; yet, extraordinary as it is, many of these fields lie open to the roads ; the fences on the sides next the lanes lying in a state of neglect. And, to the north of the Avon, the country for many miles every way, lies open, unless about villages and hamlets, and along the narrow bottoms of the western valleys. To the eastward of Salisbury an attempt has been made at inclosure ; the ruins of the hedges are still evident ; broken banks, with here and there a hawthorn. And similar instances are observable in other parts of the Downs. Are we to infer from hence, that chalkdown lands are not proper to be kept in a state of inclosure? Or that where sheep are kept in flocks, and few cattle are kept, fences are not requisite ? Or is the foliage of shruba natural and favourite food of sheep and hence, in a country chiefly stocked with sheep, it is difficult to preserve a live hedge from destruction ? ’’. (From Ludgershall to Basingstoke) ‘‘The country is wholly inclosed : excepting a few plots to the right, mostly in large square fields, doubt- less from a state of open down, the hedges in general of a middle age: some instances of vacant inclosure. . . . With respect to the present state of appropriation of this tract of country (i.e. the whole of the district he calls ‘‘ The Western Chalk Hills ’’), the mere traveller is liable to be deceived. From the more public roads, the whole appears to be in a state of divided prosperity. But, on a closer examination, much of it is found to be in a state of commonage. In the immediate environs of Salisbury, there are evident remains of acommon field lying in narrow strips intermixed in the south of England manner, and not far from it a common cow pasture and a common meadow. About Mere I observed the same appearances. In the valley of Amesbury much of the land remains, I understand, under similar circumstances, though they do not so evidently appear in the arable lands, which by the aggregation of estates, or of farms, or by exchanges among land- _ lords and their tenants, lie mostly in well-sized pieces. But the after- eatage whether of the stubble or the meadows is enjoyed in common. And the grass downs of the common field townships are in a state of common pasture the year round : being stinted by the arable lands’’. Marshall in his work on Gloucestershire?® gives some account of the agriculture of the natural region he styles North Wiltshire. He describes it as all in large estates and mainly in grassland. The farms were larger than almost anywhere else in the country. ‘‘ Requisite alterations’’ had recently been made. The ‘‘ youngest grassland he knew was forty years old’’. ‘‘ The entire district appears to have been heretofore under the plow ; though few traces of common field are at present evident’’. The district was, of course, as it still is, a region of dairy management, and the only features of its farming which Marshall thought it worth while to comment on were connected with dairy work. 8% Rural Economy of Gloucestershire, 1789, Vol. Il, pp. 104— 82, 150 A Hand-list of Wultshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. There are two Board of Agriculture Reports?® on the county, respectively by Thomas Davis senior and Thomas Davis junior. The elder Davis was agent to the Marquis of Bath, and had acted as an Enclosure Commissioner. Marshall describes him as ‘‘a man of wide experience in all rural matters’’. At the.time when the elder Davis wrote, the north of the county was ‘‘for the most part . enclosed, but not entirely so, there being still a few common fields remaining, and some commons ”’ The commons were in a very neglected condition, and the common fields in a very bad‘state of husbandry. Enclosure had been very slow during the last fifty years, partly owing to the great difficulty and expense of making roads in a country naturally wet and deep, where the old public roads had been until recently quite impassable. Several new turnpike roads had been made in the district however, so that more enclosure was hoped for. In the south-east of the county many common fields had lately been enclosed, though many still” remained open. Among other things, Davis gives his version of the origin of common meadows. ‘‘ They shut up, and in some places enclosed such parts of their common pasture which were most proper to mow for hay, dividing - them into certain specific quantities, either by land marks or lot, for mowing, and suffering the common herds of cattle to feed on them again as soon as the hay was carried off.4° He mentions three disadvantages of open fields which have usually escaped remark. The first is the difficulty of raising feed for the winter feed of sheep, which were considered, as they always have been, as very necessary for the manuring of the arable by folding—a difficulty which, in the absence of roots, we can readily understand. The second is that an excessive number of horses was needed to cultivate the detached and scattered lands. Here he explains what must have puzzled many people, the size of the medieval plough teams, which were normally eight and sometimes as many as ten or even twelve oxen or horses, although we know that where oxen are still used, two or four are sufficient to do the work, now that the land lies together. Were these large teams often awkward for actual work ?4! The third objection to common fields which he mentions is the obligation to plough and crop all kinds of soil alike. _. Although a strong advocate of enclosure, he admits that common ° field farming sometimes kept the land from getting in a worse state, inasmuch as bad farmers were kept up to the mark by good ones ona good plan of husbandry.. Sometimes, on enclosure, there had been actual deterioration in crops through farmers having their own way. % T. Davis, Geneval View . . . 1794. T. Davis, Geneval View .. , 1811. : 40 This from Curtler. 41] very much doubtit. W.E.T. By W. E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 151 Of South Wiltshire he says ‘‘ there are some very extensive tracts of waste lands in this district, but the greatest half (sic) of the parishes are wholly or partly in a common field state. “The greater part of this county was formerly and at no very remote period, in the hands of great proprietors. Almost every manor had its resident lord, who held part of the lands in demesne, and granted out the rest by copy or lease to under-tenants, usually for three lives renewable. A state of commonage, and particularly of open common fields, was peculiarly favourable to this tenure. Inclosure naturally lead to its extinction. The North-west of the county, being much better adapted to inclosures and the subdivision of property than the South, was inclosed first; while the South-east or Down district has undergone few inclosures and still fewer subdivisions ”’. Cobbett, traversing this same south-eastern district of Wiltshire in 1825, found the common-field or tenantry system completely super- seded by that of great farms. Parliamentary enclosure alone had. effected the change ‘‘ which appears to have been so complete in the space of a single generation, 1793—1825’’.42 The valley of the Avon is Cobbett’s celebrated instance of rural depopulation following, inter alia, enclosure, and he gives in his text a sketch map of it showing the - 29 churches and some of the 50 mansion houses formerly existing and flourishing in the area, and in his time the mansions mostly decayed, » and the churches enormously too big for the populations, which in some instances could well be accommodated in the church porches. Probably Dr. Slater4? is right in considering that here, more than in most counties, the social consequence of enclosure were appalling in the fact that they degraded the tiller of the soil from a responsible member of a self-governing village community into a pauperised_ half-starved labourer. Sir Francis Eden’s!* opinions on the matter would have been very valuable, but he says relatively little of Wiltshire in his book. Of Bradtord he says ‘‘ Very few acres of common’’, of Seend ‘‘ waste land not more than 12 acres ’’, of Trowbridge ‘‘ about 30 acres of com- mon ’’. These are the only Wiltshire parishes he mentions. In the two first-named the condition of the poor was deplorable, in the last considerably better. This however was mainly a manufacturing district. Survivals of Open Land in Wiltshire. An interesting survival of burghal management of common lands is recorded of Malmesbury in 1814.7° “West of the town (Malmesbury) is a large tract of ground called ® Rural Rides, reprint of 1941, Vol. II, pp. 34—79 and passim pp, 80—99. es 43 Slater op. cit., p. 237. 44 State of the Poor, 1797, reprint of 1928, pp. 342—8. 4 Britton, op. cit., p. 1814. Presumably these are the lands enclosed in 1819 (List B.) and 1821 (List B.). 152. A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. Malmsbury Common, which presents a deplorable scene of waste and desolation. It is nearly covered with furze or gorse and, for the want of proper drainage, is almost unpassable for horses or carriages in wet weather. This common belongs to the Borough, and each freeman is privileged to turn a horse or cow into it and cut the furze for fuel. A high part of the ground nearest to the town is called Hundred Hill, and is partly enclosed. Each landholder of the borough has one acre of this district : and each of the common council of the borough is entitled to a plot of about two or three acres. To every one of the capital burgesses is assigned a field of from six to fifteen acres. These inclosed pieces of land are at once useful to the community and valuable to the possessors, and show what might be affected on the waste com- mon by management and skill ”’. - As to other open lands in the county I have been able to find very little. According to the official return of ]874,4® there were in 1873 44 Wiltshire parishes containing open arable fields, of a total area of 18,000a. with possibly another 4,500a. in other parishes in the county. There were also some 9,250a. of common. No doubt the first figure is a gross over-estimate, and I give it merely for what it is worth. The second figure relates presumably mainly to some still surviving com- monable down, and perhaps to part of Salisbury Plain. Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. The lists of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards which follow show one or two features which seem to call for comment. In general the list of enclosures of open field (List A) bears out what has been said above as to the fairly general and quite late survival of open arable lands in the county. Of the 121 parliamentary enclosures of open field, etc., only five are before 1766. From then onwards for a decade or so there is an enclosure every two or three years. Then byabout 1777 the tide of enclosure is at flood, and for half a century there is hardly a year without one or more Acts. The peak periods are numerous, even in the 1780’s, when many counties had hardly an Act passed. The highest of them all are in 1809 and 1814 with six Acts each. Enclosure of waste, etc. (List B), only developed rather later. There are seven Acts before 1800, and 27 after this year. The peak period here is in 1808, when the Napoleonic Wars made necessary the breaking up of waste. Enclosures under the 1836 General Act (List C) are surprisingly high in number—there are no less than ten. This seems to show that in some Wiltshire parishes the village community contrived to maintain a rather precarious existence well into the 1840's, and then to arrange for its own extinction by a process at once economical, expeditious, and more or less equitable. The three enclosures under the Acts of 1836 Doaea a a) 4 P.P. (H.C.) 85, 1874, For a criticism of the statistics in the Blue- book, see Slater, op. cit., pp. 36—43. By W. E. Tate, F.R.Hist. S. 153 and 1840 (List D) probably refer to the common pastures of similar village communities. What has been said of List C above is borne out by the fact that there are no less than seven entries in the two parts of List E, those of lands belonging to communities with sufficient tenacity to resist all attacks until within living memory. The list of common enclosures under the 1845, etc., General Acts (List F, 1 and 11) seems to call for little comment. The schedule of enclosures by agree- ment (List G) contains no less than eight entries, mostly in the early years of the 19th century. One may hope that these represent _ enclosures carried out in accordance with the general wishes of com- munities without the expense and formality of Parliamentary proceed- ings; and in this county it seems likely enough that such may have been the case. 154 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. ‘(9€8T) SIL 2 “AT ‘WM L PUr 9¢ ‘<-ddy 8061 ° ° ° Amquvsvag ysysugd ay ‘PI6T “668 (OH) “d'd 1 JO 9INSO[IUS 94} postioyyNe OV ,9E8I FUT ‘“q 4ST] Ul ore osaYT, -Quoye 9}3SeM PUL MOPPOUI OF 9}2[01 Ajqeuinseid 4s1] S,Jo}8[S “Iq Ul jou ssoyy/ “Vy ISI] Ur ere ‘o[qeie prey uedo Burpnyjout se ‘,S}SI] $,10} BS ‘IG’ UI aSOyT, “pepnyout ere ,uIMjor [e1Ioygo 9y} UL S}JOYV [[Y “SUIIO} usapowm poydoooe ATje10UEs II9y} UI UsAIS Useq sAvY SsoMeU-99e/d ‘aIqQISsod I9AsIOY MA ‘spremy yO JOU (UWINIOO 4sSIy) $79F” JO soyep Aq are SolI}US IOY}O 0} oUTeS 94} UI SootEIAzOYy ‘A[UO S1o}}0] [eIyIUT Iteyy Aq sajony oy} Ut pozeoIput A,UOTUIOD oe “‘oj9 ‘soysied ‘sSuryI ‘sIoURUL Jo souIeN een) p1oocey Olfqngd UT S{[oY eejq youeg s,suryy uO pojjoiue piemMy “Ay ‘yopweH (H) ‘OSETIA 40 ‘TILA (A) a | "e0eeg 94} ‘SUINJIT 10 diysumoy (‘7) JO Y1919 yo Apoysnd ut spiosey AjyUNOD Suowe pojjo1us plemy “yD ‘I9PIO [eUOISIAOIg “O'”d “91NjSeq JO UOWIWIOD OS[TY ‘994JOQ p1009exy aWStIe (cp) oqng ur Toy Arioaooey seofq uouIuIOD UO paTjolue premy “g‘d “prety uedO “yO “20IJO P1OIOY OI[qng UI [[OY sso[g ArisoueYD UO pojjoius premy “YO ‘poytoeds Jou wore ‘su | : ‘solDy °e ‘Ioueyw. (‘JA) ‘oseoioe poyeusyY = *() “Ayioqrvy 10 diyspioy (-7) *(Ajunoo stqz ur o1e1) peyorsze ued sey premy jo Adoo pajjoiuq *, “pasn SUOLIIDAJUOD ‘SGUVMYV AGNV SLOV AUYNSOTIONA AMIHSLIIM AO SISIT Te ro ' “OHIO MOS[O PospoyMouypL si dpoy asoym suossod snonrea Aq poxyooto us9q OARY VYEpP OY} PUL ‘pazNsUOS UM9G DALY OIqLILEAL OIL SB SPST] [LOOT.YONS 4, “YT/BOL “ON 6 “(pOGT) OG PUY (E68T) GEV Sig OSTe poy OAOK'E “I'd “(Z981) 68 °9 “OLA OT pur QT , “(GP81) SIT 9 “SLA L Pur g y Zi ‘(OP8T) 1G 9 “OIA F PUL g « et ‘ps d ‘“pogy ‘Moumoy 40 s7ydty Puy ‘SaAMsozIUs] OYOOD , ny ! Re eh ‘oqo ‘Mopvour ‘orngsed uowituoo yo AyUO Burysrsuo9 osoyy pur ‘ppoy UOULLLOS BULUTLZUOS SoANSOpOUS OFUT ‘S1OqIO OF OT] <1 ‘uroyy Ayissvpo OF efqissod us9q you sey yy ‘sSpsoooad AVUNOD OY} SUOLUVL 416 GOTO P*O90XT OTN oY} Ul TOYO SOATAAN Wy plooOd UOPITIM [LULIOZ TOIUM JO souo oY ore AoYY Jn “No poses Ayyenjyor osoyy yO uorpsodord [peurs AroA v oq psu kk} = 9 ISIE UL post, qUOWOOIdL Aq SoOINSOOUGT —9SPAVPMUO ESR] Wosy SprvmMy 40) VUNpUvAOWOTH ON NOL Yy JO. AaVSrurAl 94) Wioay puv ‘sz10doa JUNUUE SIOUOISSHUTUOD OANSOpOUsy; OYJ WlOgy y‘SxyOOq-onTq [eLoyjO SNOLTeA OY} WhOd, poureygo Ud0q i DARY VAVP OL], “SOSSP]O OMZ OSOYZ UL SOANSO[OUE OAOS yp PU FT SPST “POY [esouory PeNuUY oy UL UOATA SUM sIyyZ pure nal “TOL RSLIOY Ne ALOVN Ye YS pomnbor sormsopouoe ype Zgggy aoqpy ‘pyeaoidde soy quourerypsre,y OF poeyyUIqns Jou 910M JOURUT eB JO OFSUM OUP Surpnypour you soansopouo posodoid gpRy_ wor saved oy oWOS OJ OG “ZQRT Ut ssordosrd ur Aypenjor SOINSOJOUD JO ANOALY UL OSNLPO [euUOCTdooxo Uv YIM Oy Surpuoury YPXis oy, YLYUN oo10;, UL poureimos UOLstAOrd sty, ‘Quoye sopso peuoistAoid Aq soangsed uowlwi09s UY, JoyJO SpUL] JO BINSO[OUD PoOSLIOYINL ,GER] JO POY [PAoU9") OIL], “(CT St] UT poyst] O41" SOY OPRT PUY OER OY) fopuN JNO polssiv9 sormsoloud ue “OJO ‘SpUL] SPUTUIV] I10A00 0} OP Ul poepueyxo SBM BO'V SIT ") JST] UL ore 9Sol ‘pyoy UoUTMIOS JO oIe I I 0 PLL . I L : Wi Jopun soansopouo yeuy os ‘porydde Aysodoad sem yoy oy} JVY4 Otoy PoUrNsse st 4I ‘oyqepreav st Arv1}U09 OY} OF DOUOpTAS ssojuy) ,"Sossv[o 19YQO Jo spur, uodo jo oansojoue oYy yNo Aareo 0} posn Ajyuonboay sem 7. YSnoY} ‘ouoye proy uedo A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. 156 é MOTEG FOV SS8I ey} Jopun PIEMY QZ8I SIG} SITIO ‘9}e[ AIOA SuIB9S 3] é }001I09 piemy jo 9}ep ST ‘“YooqG-enjq FO6I UI Se JT] “08H 9 OU ‘TIT “095 GT 2°V - "dD °eS6E “AO ‘FOGF JO peystsuoo eoly [‘sopy Ur Mou ore sooetd 4yIOG ( “ood -enla PI6I PUe JoyeIS UI se PIO}pUY ut “DO ION “mopeour uedo ‘eQLT pue “d'OD ‘eO6P “AO ‘POL Jo dn opeut SI vole [e}0T ‘A[UO “yy Se SexXOpUT 19}eI[S 3 2 100E Psy Sem JV YT, ‘“stomod Areqzuoureljied yoes 04 SEM COLT JO JUSUIDIISY 94} }eUZ pue SUOIM st AIzUd 4SP] SIy, FeUI JF ONeIT “wELL “uel cz premy sXes yor ydwed s.s0veg 94} JO Y12[D "GOLE “AON 13 JO JUOUIOOISYW IopuNn ‘LOLT “uel 9zsem premy sity} shes yooq-en[q FO6I _- ‘quEeTUeEISe SUT]SIXO -o1d swiiyuo. yoy ssojun ‘suo0IM oyiInb sulses 9yep pleMYy ‘10}e[S UT se Usapswniqg ‘gq ION . “A[UO “Gg SB XOpUI Yooq-en[q POT 7dooxe sorytIoyyNe [Ty “eey Sprey OMT, “TO SPM pasojsus eoIe sfOYM oy], "S}IEA\ UI SUOJUIS (F IO) E O1e DIOY TL ‘A[UO Pjsy suo "SOJON “WO SSLI ‘III (09D 66 Ay tal) "S8-LOLT “III (09D “€ YO etal) *po]jo1u9e PIPMW 9681 ‘6LLI “pIPMY jo 93eq ‘SU S78 OOST O1OL 9EL “SU (00L) OOOT 008 “Sou yOVW UI "4So POY Aasmog ul ‘930 umoq yYIoM ‘(uMOC youdey 27924) umoq |joeudexyy pue 330943N0S GLLT (q) aquoo -plL ‘(aj904 4a) ~s7v equicooyy, PLLI (souhoy joog 94924) Jood pue equieyy ZLLT] paoyug ut (sf) 10 (Iq) uoydutod OLLT (q) ‘(seuAoyy u0zYySY aj2aq) souAayy USYSY Ul (TN) YSeT LOLT uoSUIPpeH Y99LT MOIPUY 4S uopsuny{g Ul(]) Uopsunfg peoig 6PLI uopersiyD ut (H) AInqpegq = 8sPLI eusey UOWIIUS TFLT (uOTZeOYIZUEPI S}reEMe) UOJUNLIS ZELT qosseg uojduloy GZLI (s)eorlas. ‘J9V jo 93eq ‘Q1QDAP platy uadQ surpnqour spuvT fo 19p ayvarsg Xq aansojuq PV ASV 157 By W.E Tate, F.R.Hist. S. ‘poweu soorrd inoy oy} IO} Sspreme o}v1edes Inoq _*930 “OC “N Se Jsze[S Aq poxepuT "A[UO "MA se yorydured s.soveg 94} JO Y1I[D Ul poxopuyT "S}IIM, UL SUOJIeYD G o1e DIO], "JO CSL “AO ‘POZI FO S}SIsuOoD ealy ‘D'S. Jo surg} “AjuO “9g se xoput yoryduied s sovag “IOPETS UL SS SOP CO) JON ea) oY} JO YIa/g pur oy ‘qd vuopAeg ur you ynq ([[IF{ Osprey) Jour] uopdvg Mou SI ‘Gq ‘F8LT ‘TIT 099 #6. ‘d'D + pojoruse od jeweota fo esueyo -x9 IO} F8LT Jo jjod pesq 930 ‘u0z}IN A ‘\ SP SOXOPUT OYM ‘197e[S UL Se SLLT JOU DV . . ° OYSH SHON) Meee ee ° Om yO oO. SLLI ‘TIT (099 OE al D) ale) a9) G8LI ‘uoydureysioyjeN pure ‘wequieyy “SU 4SOAA ‘UOISUTMIOFZ ‘YOOISPpO OOLE AinqsoyAoH] "Su UIZUIN(G) “3S U0JUCIS 0082 [[ea0q UojssuTy ‘su SpelyoIyD 000F Ag[siod pue Io}sUIUTIE AA, ‘Seu (u0z[IeYD 94994) UO,sTIeYD GPCL uops[siq) ‘S'a ysnoloque (008) 1TequepTNN ‘su (IN) UOJSIOWSsIIG pUe UOISTITL ssuluue) ‘su s,doysig ut (I) pue (J) 97%09 ‘su Aoujzeg ‘Su ‘T) $,MeIpuy 3S suINOGsO (q) YWOMYsIy ‘su (q) pue (J) souAoyy uoyYysy (Q30}SA747] 34994) VYOIS [Ie (1X) Arnqsurey ut (¢ SJ 10) (J) pue (sp) uop -uAeq pue ‘ospriyseyq ‘(Y9IIp -U0}FIY AM 97994) YOIPUSITTT M ‘su ‘UMO]T HIeg ‘uMOT AInqsurey Sy UOPSULACT JOYE (H) (2uimoqpeyl (7994) 9901 (e)uInoqpeA, pue wo SUIpPprT LELT s S8LI ESL. 68LI G8Lt I8L1 O8Lt O8LI 6LLI 6LLI 6LLI 6LLI SLLI SLLI SLLT SLLI LLLI LLLI LLLI LLLI 9LLT 158 A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. --qg8nosoqyrep ‘SIo}1TOS ‘sueut -L119J. “SISSOT JO Spuey UL ypreMY [PUISIIO ‘GQ'IW pue ‘q’7T jo seystied ay} UI MOU ore sodeid 90142 [TV —19}"[S ur se “O79 “HT “qd ION “A[UO “Wd pue “Tq sexepur jorydured s,covag 94} JO YIBIO VA pue s-e 10} spilepmy o}eiedas 10}®IS UI SB GgZyT }OU JOY “"qooq-onlq PLl6t Ul se “939 “MA'A pue ‘Iaze[S UI se JU2OY JON ‘dO “P8EG “AO ‘BG0ET JO Poysisuoo vory “Io}e[S ul se uoyduIpIDYyION JON ‘go, ydwed $,90eeq 94} JO Y1o[D pue ‘yooq-enlq POT Ut Solijuo oyeredes InOY ¢ LELT “ICI LI PleMYV eules Jopun y}0q “N pue “HM Be AC “SOJON QO Sé6L4I ‘S'U (yoouyy, IIA) 837 OOUs COLT WO C641 su Ainqaay 641 aznyselg ; pure ‘(udmpeq “{ pure “5 47744) DS Cal ‘su UIMpog 91371, “UIMped FOLD O6LT (SIM) 1114949, uoJyUOP pure ‘[[IIeA9q Aessnyy Wd C641 ‘su ‘(Q] 9994) e8pliqsuoT [{Mea0eqd (641 Wd O6LT : Tosuy U0}4 EO) O6L1 OG9T -toysty pue souref 4S Yormiog 6811 Wd S641 su eYO}SSUIYse0g puke JUOJYOI) 68LT : UOACIIYION 23) 0641 O0EE ‘sjp) UaAeYTOUION 88AT WO P6LT ‘su uyof 35 4oIaog . 9841 : Queaeg “J 27924) pjeyly pue ‘(auoysdoysiq, 37994) (2) U0}S -doysig ‘(u0js27paaTy 97944) UOY -sapealy ‘(axTeyd 1emog 47724) (2)yreyoiomog “(ex[/eyO peoig ajgaa) (8)ypeyopeorg ‘(euinoq aj9a4) O4e NM VUIOG 3 -sa(q)qq ‘(@BNS “S 97994) 33119 Wd G6LT ‘SU —--MOTLEMS ‘(JUVAO 97924) JUOHOT BLL WO 2821 =. eral uMOd 9UIZ[OD" g827 7) L8LI ED) LELI (ponuryu0o 821) ‘pojjoiue =‘pilemy "Vy UI (s)ooelg 3 "19V piemy joojyeq 489 eoly jo o1eq ° 159 BVIW «EE Pate, FR Aistcs. WN “Ajuo ‘9 se saxopul yojydwied s,soveg 9} jo YA9[Q “ToyeIS UT se [[ZoaAtyD “T pue “D JON ‘ysiied oye1edos & MOU ‘UOJSUIACT yOHIeP jo suryzy e AjJowIOy “OV FO BUIYIT} © SI UOPSUTTTV (vadns G6LT uojysnoiy, (9) Aojloaq pue qnys[q Ur sem equiojiyT ‘Q pue ‘q se yorydwed s,so0veg ey} Jo TION “Q pue “MM Se SOxOpUr 19}eIS ‘popnyjoxe snyy st ystzed uoj,Ysnol JO ‘A'S 94} Jo o[sue Ie[NserI [JeuIs e A[UOC ‘qse9 ystied yxou oY} oq ‘JoAomMOoY “Ysnuryzy ‘“AInqsoury UI SI ‘y jo[qduied s,sovog oY} JO Y19[Q 0}F suUIPIONNy “y pue “AAA IOF spremy oyeredas "UspPIPIN UI IOA9 SPM 9S9Y} JO DUON ‘O'G pur “9}0 ‘gq se soxoput yorydured s,soveg 94} JO YIIIO "WW pure ‘9 ‘g ‘Od jo soystied 9014} 94} UL Mou se SsoxopuL Yooq-on[q FOG. VETS uI Se moqpeg you s0ejd puooes pure “g6LT 3OU OV ‘S[_ UL SOSULYOXS IOF G6 LT 40 peop eyeredes epnjout spiooe1 AuNOD = °9¢ ‘pure “oT “sy ‘IT 10F AjoatzO0dso1 yoy oles Jopun spiemy oyeredos inoq ‘ystred pioyuy Ut St IoueW ATP O “19}e[S UL SY E6L1T FOU JV ‘pepseu sem puooses oy} AYM MOUZ you op [ ‘joy owes IopuN. spIleMYy OMT, Era le®) ah @) paploy do dade of CS CCRC TONS ao) 96LT SSpUL ‘'S'U “Su WIXXXTO “ON “TOA ({[et9A9YD 9/}31T pue {[Jat9AayD yeII4H) MoU) [joT9ATYO aT pue = qjereatyD yeas) (L) 10. (H) uoz103seq (SL) Jo (SH) uo}suT[y pue (ssuruue) [TV mou) SSuLUUeOTLY UOJUIFT peoig ut (L) #0099 pue ‘uozYsnoIA ut (JM) (oqumos,y 97994) (9)quiooTy OIC SILT “3S U0ZZLIYS (Agj19Aq pure qnys|q JO perpunyzy ey3 ut yred) uo, sno1r A UO}SUT] -[V pue ‘sj1eqy OUINOqIOLUT AA aj9aA) Sjiey eUur(n)oqsoqUT AA uopiey ut ‘(ST) ssuruuesy sdoysiq pure ‘903 -149 ‘ysno1oqpeg ‘Aempunoy (SI) (Aeqouy 97944) ATOR eT Op _Ainquestyy pue 10301341 *(u0}7 -SUUIpy MOU) UOISeUIP] ‘[IAasT ‘propuinq (a81005) 4S auInogsOC ~ aq9ah) 981085) 4S (a)ammoqsCO . LOLT LOLT L6LT 9L6T S641 S641 S641 POLL PLT S6L1 SELL 160 A Hand-list of Wiltshive Enclosure Acts and Awards. "SHTM Ut ‘Aostq-UINd-00}}eT ‘ystred poutquios e@ WIOJ MOU OA} JOy}IO O4L ‘SO[S) UT SI wig Ayrenjoy *A4juno0. yore ut Aqy7ed se FET jo yey} “SO[S) Ul SB Sexepul YOoq-en[_ PO6T “espe, SAeS pue “SO; JopuN soxepUl 19}e[S “AjUO *q se Yo0q -onig Pel Aq ‘A[uO *9 se Joz¥[S Aq poxepuy "(uo}TYD jo Suryj e) yoouoD pue uozIYD ut shes YOoq-en[g FOL. “1931S ul se UoyayD ION ‘Aep-0} St 1 Se SII Ur ATJOYM se pozUNOD oIOFY «= “SY IO ur Ajjred se yYooqg-enjq FO6T UI Pexopuy — ‘Ajqueredde ‘9's'S eeu ououU SI o1loyL, = <“e[qeylzuepr you st UO} SIUL “JOOTTA\ ‘NSO “5 “yde9d Jo uorssossod Ul plemy ‘A[UO ‘QO Se sSoexepUl Je}eIS [WO s}UeH JOU StI UI JeyjIeu pojjorue oq 0} sieedde piemy ‘sjueRy ‘(ousnoqyI0y 3944) guUI(n)oqyI0y OS]e SOPNIOUI oINsoOjIUS SIG] ‘“S}UeF_Z UL MON ‘6G 9 IIT 094 8g 04 Prnoys Wor “ZoW JO WOIZEIT SzIWIO YOOd-enl_ FO6I ‘Ajuo “JN pue ‘GQ Sse 103e1S “YZ Ul *, pue ‘WW se soxopur jyoyyduied s,coveg 94} FO FIO[D “SOON WO : (sop) GOST BPLIT WO L081 ou pS me) O18T ‘s'U Pine) g08T ‘su se | (SHEA) G0Sl 22 SU Wo 008T ‘su wo 6641 ‘so é é ‘su “WO POST ‘su WO LOST ‘su é é ‘su WoO 6641 028 ‘poyjoiue = ~“pieMy *q0V Ul pIeMy jooueq =*4Sa POY + BT Aosiqh pue wuoey ‘Aouduy uMod u0JUMOC, Ul UOIIeYD sonig piloysuluuUe[ ( (1) 10 (J) WORT © 91904) UWOYSULIIOYD °Ss7o UWOZWIYD (auinoq|eys 2924) UInOqleYsS uoFTTIA ‘(aseg gns p10}7eI13S mou) a[3S8eD 94} Jopun p10j3e14S wong (31994 4a) *s7v UOPING pue qsiny pue ZOOIAA UT (L) ero Agua, U0NS uo} MOIYS 1081 108T 1081 0081 008T 6641 6641 6641 S64T 8641 (Ainqsyqm 97084) Ainqqorm 8641] ajAouy sdoysig ‘s7v ajAouyy qseq ur (ST) uo pueuojdy, géAT (s)eoelg 9V jo 93eq 161 By W. E. Tate, F.R.H1st. S. 6 WW de) - USk “egre eore j[e}0z sAes 19}|S “A[UO “a Se yo1yUdured s,s0eeg 94} JO HIBID pue Yooq-eniq PI6I Ul pexopUy “Ie}VIS Ul se pIof{*¥q JON “YOO-enlg POGTL 10 yo1ydured s,s0veg 94} JO HIVI[D Ul porejue Jou pue “g’9 Ul pajorue sours ‘ATJUG0e1 910} poyisodeq ‘yO UI MoU pIeMY [eUIsIIO “TO ‘8006 "M pure ‘*5'AA JOF spremy oyeredas ‘1971S UI SW peaqysullsy) "MW JON ‘yorydured S,00e9g oy} JO YIo[TQ ur-se uoaeydgQ ION ; “a2 BUOUIL Pd[OIUS SI gOgT JO pIeMY ue YOIyM JO} OV SI} SI HI ‘JOOIION SI VoIe OY} OTIYM ‘OS JI pue ‘SaInso[ous OM ose} PosnyuOod sAeY AVUI T ‘“OAOGL [ORT PIOJS[IA\ JopuN ozo Vag ‘pooel} Useq jou sey UoNIppe jeliouem oy, ‘ystied AjieyzIou s10W 9y} 0}4 SSUOTEG PIOFJSOT[IAA Surjeds syy ~“Aosyuneq PIOJS(9)[TTAA 9G 0} HOOG-ont_ FOST 4} Ut pres st styy, ‘Ainqsies reou -M\ pue o[eA Aosmog Ul ‘MW ‘SHIA UL ‘SAA OMQ OIe TOUT WO ‘WO OI8T ‘III "09D 0¢ a 608T 808I 808T SPOT ‘Su ‘S'u "SU ‘Su OSE§ OOTS eSHUn (PIOJIOWIOS Jeo) 34944) CUSPIV PIOJIOWIOG ‘s7D ‘P1OJIBUIOS peolg ‘sjv ‘plojiaulos 4eaI4 pioyuq Ur Ainquesiy9g yseq pure ‘400I}s_ -8U0T ‘aquIOOD ‘pleyly ‘proyugq (q) pue (L) “(eummogply 9}924) sutogry ‘sjp 9UIOQGPIY ‘s7v 9uUINOGpIy souAsy{ PIOFIOUIOS yUeAeG U0VION (910UL -ppndos uo0Idy 24944) sIOUIPIYS uoidgQ ‘syv 9Iowpnos uojidgQ ysied “OHM = pue Peo}SUITIT) 389M ‘yJESSIQ 9quUIOO.) (21994 4a) ‘s7o yoskq (8)quI0Od (uoavdy a79a4) usaeydgQ PIOJSTIM AINnq3S2\\ _PAOFSTIM 908T $081 GO8T 908T G08T $081 608T 608T 608T GO8T 608T L08T A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. 162 1931S UI SE proysa[lL ION Io} ETS Ul se BUOIS“OPPIg FON "(60 °° ‘III 99D TP ‘108T FO 39V Tet19U9DH ay} JO sosnejo je1oues oY} soUeJozor Aq soze -10d1OOUT 41 ‘TQ 7S0¢ SJOV 9Y9 [[e JSOW]e OT] ‘yqnop Ou ysnoy}) Yooq-en[_ FOé6T Use III "09*) [p ‘9SINOd Jo “Jou Gy 9 “TIT “09D 09 19V ‘Ss pue “SM IOFJ YORO CUM “SPIeMY ayeiedes OMT “I9Z"e[S Ul se ‘s}Iun ¢ JON ( "19}e[S UI se uoysdoYsig JON ‘\JT'D ‘SHIM JOU SHIoq Jey}IoU suOWIe pel[o1Ue SI premy ‘“sureuior Ajosiey yI se ‘S}]IA\ UL Ayjoym peuoyoes orey (st Apyred 31 ‘sosodind [IAIO Joy ‘se) syiogq ur Ajjred se poxepuy ‘d'D ‘P01 pue “AO “eqop JO SuIysisuoo “eggg vote sAes 10}[S ‘ysiied uojuIq Ul sI‘q ‘“q Pue’N’S SINS 1931S “N’S pue ‘W'S’ SPU FIGT 4° yey “NS pue “IWS A Ul “Ss pue “W'S'd Se SOXOPUI YOOd-sn[q FOE “egspeg SAeS 10}%1S “AjUO ‘g Se SoIz1IOY}Ne 194}0 “MM pue ‘gq Se SaxepUl 19ze[S “yooq-en|g FIG] Ul Ajuo punof ore UoaTs se s[iejod "SOJON “WO Ore Rn: e) n= ee) "WO WO ‘peyjoiue premy GI8T OI8T TI81 1681 ‘pIeEMYV yo 91% °“S°U ‘Su 0008 QOV Ul *4s0 Oly LIS Peoys|rL - ~proy -I9}YSNL[S PUL “I9}eq “FS 9UO} | -soppig ‘SP[OYSIN "3S 9UOWSePPIE =TLIBT Agjieq pue uot O81 p10} -9[de4s pue ‘ox0}S 9UINOGIOPOINA OTST (quoysdoysig 24994) - auoysdoysng ‘sjv ‘ouojsdoysig 608T UOPSUTST ISOAA 608T yerjoy UozTGD 6081 981084) “FS UOWOYIIO GOST U0}JAIOIS »=—-«6O8T (¢ HOOISIOAe_ pue) UOJMON YINOS Ul (P1OJO}S 97994) P1O}F -MO}S pue “UT}Ie] “3S PIOMeA 608T 19}9d “4S PIOFPOD = 80ST Auo, U0RyNS pue ‘JUeAe_ U0} -ION ‘JoysuTUIe AA ‘MoIjsdoysig 80ST | es =L08T (s)eoe[q ‘PV jo 93eq 163 BVA Ee Late FR: Aisi: S. 9181 ‘LG ioday “TIT 095) S,Jodaayy Andoa UI se uoVWsyD ION OC"A'Y é ‘su (q) UOZPLYD Ul(H) JO (J) YLouOD FIT ‘CTS8T pessed yoy sur oo AICI -puoury "YJIOM]OYD XOPUI 0} S}IUIO OS[e YOOG "4S epeT_youg pue uosdures “NIT FIGT ‘“AlUO opelHoID se J9zeIS UT é ¢ ‘su 3S «SpepAIID «Ul “YyWOMSYD FIST 7 ‘aye, AIOA suIOaS oyep PleMYy ‘e}ye[S UI se H[eyOpeolg ON “WO 1981 LL9§ YIeULIYD pue sy[eYyD peolg FIST ‘PloyA J-UINS-U0719AO 3S9A\\ ST UOJIBAG UI (SJ) osprI ysized afoym oy} JO oweU OY ‘O'AA SPIO -ay00'J] pue (plsyAy 44992) F00G-en|_ FI6T ‘A[UO °C se soxepur 103%] WO I6sl ‘SU -PJEYL “U0WOAO 4soA\ pue sey Fg] 19}0g "ATWO “q’S'D SB YOOQ-onTg FTE] UI PexXepuy | Rs ie) CI8T ‘Su "4S PAOJpoD Ul Plopry uozysy FIs ‘plojxay Se Sq} piojuq sjedsstur pue A[uo ‘q sJepun saxepur 193¥IS Wd LI81 ‘Su oUT (L) (930997991'] 97944) 30991331. «FIST "pV ‘premy ‘QUOWIS9ISV sem oInpodoid oy} Ajjueredde o1afT “9AOQe gO/]T ‘UOPAUIPPOFZ 7e se ‘VOY ue Y9VS 0} 9UO SEM JUSTIBSISY 94} 3eU} HU i | AIXXT ‘9 “TIT (09D pg }0V Jopun Al[enjoy “TIgT “oeq g jo USUIS.ISY Jepun sAvs HOOG-ONIC FI6L ‘d’O ‘BOLT “AO “eG4e WO €18l SPS | Ste P EIN MOUS Viel 9—SI8I ‘III (094) (uoZYUOTP SUINOGIOZUIAA "I9}L[S 0} SuIpIosIe -eeeg =_- QP. “YD d G96 941994) UOJYOUOPT OUINOGIOZUINA EIST “M‘9D S}tUIO OOq- SN PIEL PUe| AORTA "I0}e[S UI se ‘930 ‘UOSUTTTO MA ‘ 9UOJSTeD JON D2) SI8T ‘su pue ‘UOZSUTTTOM QUuojs[eD ‘OUTeD EIST RED 8181 ‘s'U 7 uoqyysy 91de03S § 18T (udmpog °5) 94994) UIMpog WO GIST - «OSS FEOADH UL (Uaqaeyl 9994") UII GIST "e186 Bare shes 10}e]S WO PI8t 969 Wor? 11 2N CLS; 164 \A Hand-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. SBM SITY} 3eU} Hf eFe? T ‘(CC fo zeY}) ornsojouse BIST ou} 0} AzIZoyINe OU sais yolydured s,a0veg oy} JO Ho pue yooq-eni_q FI6T ‘pozeredes Ajopim ole pleMmyY Siy} UT s}tun oul “TIN JO Sumi e st preydq yO9eI100 SI Jo}}e] SUL “UORTIAT PUL PleyxXory se YOO -On[g PI6T PUe 1e7eIS Ul “POUL UT PlegxXom se yojyduied s,s0eeg 9} JO H19[D Ul pexepuy [-squey UI MON ‘WINIES MON UL popnypour (wey -UJeTT SOA\ YQIA) ystred ozeredos & MoU SI ‘Tyg ‘Ajoatjzoedse1 “HH pue “MA JO} ‘spremy ojeredes OM] ‘gq pue ‘q s}uIO pue “M pue ‘FT ase soxopur yojydwied s,soveg 94} fo AIO “M pue “HA syuro Yooq-en[q PI6T “9A0qe Pd}S]] jou os ‘uoT}eIedo ul 4nd JeaoU Ajjueredde ‘gt “9 ‘III 99D 0¢ ‘OI8T FO PV eInsopuUy Jorree ue sjeede1 osje yoy “ATUO WS’) se xXoepul ‘yooq-enjq FI6T 3de0xe ‘soryiouyne I0oqjQ ‘“pezyeulesyeue MOU 91k soysied Z oy, ‘“A[UO “Dd SB SoXOPUI 10}P[S ‘79A07J 103d) ‘S70 ‘yooq-en[g PIGL UL se ‘suruue) ‘¢ 10N ‘A[UO “9j'q SB SdXePUT 19}"IS *SOJON e4 ( wo WO 2310) ‘poyjorue pIeMy So8l : uvepfeysly 6181 ‘su UL (Jy) UOFYSIUY pueUO}sUTIING 6181 é ‘SU Ainqseurjew ut (q) sIned “4S 618T (QUIOQITT UOFTN 27924) UOFLIN pue ppeyxorg ur “(pregAd : E381 su 9004) ppylg pue pleyxort gist OFST OQOTL preuoey 3S HOIMIog = 181 é ‘su (q) weysoureg y3n0S gI8T] 0&8 TI&T (L) piog pue HOoWsIOAST BIBT 1781 ‘su T24“pntig 9181 é ‘SU ‘ysrajioag °sjv Ag{IOAW OTST psioyyig Ut LPST weyulep yseq pue “uoJ,UMOCd LY81 ‘SU OUT S(HOTAA 9/994) HOOAA °S7P ASTM = OT8T : S}UTeS []V 9104 8I8T PBLG -qtUD pue Arey “3S SUTEHTGD 91ST aG8I 00ST yeaoy uojdy) SIS : sSuluueg sdoystg ut ‘(SL) 499M pue ‘(pae}sinN 37994) Pee} 6I8T ‘stu —- -SINNY ‘U0FIOH{ “U0}SeY ‘uolIn0g QSL "DIPMYV "y0V—V Ul (s)o0e |G "10VW jooueq ‘jSo Poly Jo 93eq 165 By W. E. ea F.R.Hist. S. "TO ‘AT ‘UIA p pur @ 20 93eATId 94} Jopun—poxoepul jou SI 4I Se—os[e SI II “(601 °9 III 09D 1p Surpuowe ¢Z “9 “AT ‘085 % pue [ }qNOp OU) “AT ‘09H BZ pue |[ pue ‘(aAoge OTST AgIeq pue u0Ig JepuN 9}0U 90S YOIYM JOF) TIT O94) [pF Jopun se FyET Jo yey} Url “T'S Se YOoq-en[q FET Ul pexopuy ‘ATWO "g SB YOod-enlg FIGT Ul ‘ATUO “OD se jorydured s,s0veg 9} Jo Y19[D Ul poxopuy “AINQSI[eS JO pIeM & MOU ‘UOJIOWIOG YIM ‘Q'S soreYs Os[e YOIyM ‘UOIIAA UL MOU SI ‘gq Jo jeg ‘AjUO “J pue “N ‘gq “MM SB SOXxOpUT I9}"IS “seAMA ‘". pue “WL sepnpur mou ystred [IAr0 ‘L ‘euseyl \. UryjzIM “q se Yooq-anlq FO6T “AjUO | Se XOPUT Yooq-enlg FTE] pure 1931S (‘e0G¢g) Shes 10} ”1S FHOUITM Sule) UT pepNyour Mou ysized e ‘aoeid ouo st u0.sUIT[oA, OU0ISTeD “yy Ur "HT se jorydured s,s0veg 943 Jo YIO]9 ‘Au ‘O'a SB Xopur YoOoq-en[g FTET Pur 19}eIS PIST MAepueyy u0343NS ‘pure ‘COLT uo} SUIPPeH Jepun 9saoqe Ppep1ose1 9sOoy} 0} IP[IUIIS ‘yoy Ue YaIaS 0} JUSTISSISe UL SI JUOMINIOP ERT 9y} A[qissod 10 fume clone Areyuowrerred- -uOlU © SI SIq} Ajqeuinsoid ‘you JT ‘sem AjurezI00 (“yy UL “yy 1o}) PIEMY SZ8l Sy} se “OVW 618T 94} JopuN 9€81 668T 8681 O98T 0687 000T 008% ‘SU ‘su O&& piojsueT ejdee}7S Ul piojsuey sulisuezy uo}Aog Ut U0}zI109 WET I9}8q 1S (9u0}s9]337 7 aj9ad4) 9UOSO[S8IJ pue ‘uUo} -dmeyieyq}eNn ‘equrooing ‘U0jIT AA yUOPeT, Ul uozUt predAq eff) pue uojulY peorg qesseq uojduioj )«=6opue §=‘U0}BUTTIOAA pue osuoj\seg ‘oureg ‘TIIYyIIYO Asgusyy) 9U10q poy UI UOpeloy 27994) Uuspo1O;{ pue (‘A uopdey ‘uopAepy aj9a4) ‘“HOIAA uspAeP ‘uspAey SE81 8681 Lo8T S681 6G8I T68T 068T 6I8T 166 AH and-list of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards. * -jJu0 ‘gq'N se xeput jorpydured SHEA S| SING MO ENO) Nhe mitonere SN hat 17100 “quoulsc1ge Ue SUIIYUOS JV ou) 7eU} Sjsessns IeuU0s : “qomnyoyI AA Ajpeursi0 SeM 7] ‘younqo* A, se poureu-jsiy s0ejd 943 soars jorydwed owes oy, «=*(yooq-enlq FO6I ut suo Ajuo ysnoy3) yepydured s,soveq oy} JO YIoJD Ul sorijue oyeiedes OM} o1e O1OY} 97e1 Aue 1V é ‘IW pue ‘MM JO}. spiemy oyeredas Bests ‘peoy Sieaoo os[e oInsopous SsIy VISt FO Feu} pue OV SIY} UsoM}Oq UOT}E[OI 9OeI] JOUUeD I ‘[Jo4pntD arse sexepur yooq-enjq VOGT “OLLI St premy sAes A[suoim pue ‘AjuO “JS se soxopur jorydured s,s0veg et} JO H191D ‘19 Jove IepuN UO ‘SpIeEMY OM} 9G Aeut o10y]T, ‘premy Joy o3ep Aue ynoyIIM Q0U0—00q-ON|[_ FOGT ULlIoiMm} posoj Us SI STy T, "SOON $-8081 ‘III ‘084 SF “UD et ie) WO é ‘poTjorue premy BELT Z6LT SSLT LLLI 68Z1 8ELT é ‘pIeMY jo 93eq Gol 008 ‘SU ‘SU 96 é é ‘jo Ul *ySs0 COlY (o|QIsstuIpe SULIOY y}0q) Uu0jZI9A(v)91Q pure ve CO8T es es POST Amqoply 081 TeMsee “s0st (TN) kosxeo UI UowUIOD AssyeOQ ZO8T AInqsowyey pue PIOJIOUIOS 91391] UL ‘(SIAI) P1OF -JOUIOS 9][}}TT pue (ouInoq{tIn 94994) QUIOGIII pue ‘yoinyoAyM O6LI1 Astpeag WON 0641 uosdures 4S pepo ur () pue =. (SIM) WIIOMTEYD 91917 PUL yeOID gRAT [YWerg UL YsIEpY WeIICIS «LAT ‘UOIT] Ur (Sy) BueAeEy uozT Pue ‘s0qqV UOT ‘(euIOgII 1 47994) eUINOgITT UOT PLLT _. (uozINg 2924) met uojJINg ‘sjv UOJING Ul 9404S uojing pue wuowmoD) uojying LELT (uojINg 97944) UO “s7o UOYING GEL (s)eoelq "10V jo eq ‘IIQUAP party uadQ Surpajour jou spuvTy fo yop apvatsg Aq aansojpuy “g 167 BY IWoaek Tate, F Ruafist.S:. é : 00F Aesmed Z8T ‘aaoge GLLT AOSMog Iapun 9}0U 99S é “WW sywo yooqg-enlq F061 atD Sé8lL Me. DOPSTRIN DUP SUI NOdS Pesk "PISUYUIM IO "WO S681 06 . PIOVSUIMA BB8T ‘oUIES UL'S ay: pu ‘HM OU UOUTUIOD puke ‘yooq-en[q Ainqsew[ej Ul uowUIOD FOGT UI se “AT ‘09D Z 0U “AT (09D G YT PV gs 8) CS8I 00¢ Amnqseuye ‘s7yp YyyeoH Ssuryy 1ZgT ‘ystied 94} Ul 1ouUeT : eyeredas © SeM pi1OJUING 377477 ‘“yooq-snTgq - | FOGT UI Se AT ‘09D G OU “AT 09D ZY 1 WV as 8) Post ‘su (ployuingd mou) proyuind zee) TEST qjossegq u0}}00A\ UT YsIepy ‘I'M Jo ssulyzI ore “4 pue MW gy cy) POST ‘su = SION Ue ‘T[IYUVeID ‘MEYSPOOMA OZRT a] é s'U plojpelq gIRT tel) 618T 2 Ureysio) -SISt 3 IeQUeSpitA pue ‘IA. Szturo yor yd - eseqing ‘WoyssuLy] auInoq -ured ssovag 94} Jo YIIID. ‘q s}iwmo yorym -SUI[[OD UI ‘U0}NOg pue 98eq ‘yooq-on[g FI6[ ULSse “JY pue “gq “yy “DION Ws PCSL ‘su -INg ‘UOJSSUTY VUINOGSUTTIOD ¢[RT WO 9T8T SOT SARUCOLL pue uojiedtiH ¢18T WO es . S68T oo yee TOF EMO sisi os) PI8t 08h WEUSYIOIN Sist pa i@) PI8l 096 Meu Ore tet [-97ep STy} 7e SIT jo yzed poyoezyop ew SeM 4, ‘SyIOg “Y UT Sol| vole siyy. ‘A[UO “FY pue “AA Se sSorzIOY Ne : 3 rey}yO Ul pue ‘AjUO “y se Lg Moday Ul“ AM UL. ¥SI8T ‘IIT ysIny{ pue ‘y se 9% oday s,todooyz Ajndeq ur pexepuy ‘0a 9¢"g'9d é - 006 WeysuryoM ut (f_) esplysy oO TEsTI [syueH UIMON = OSC‘ 00S MOTIEM ISAM 608TI é ¢ 681 Beye RTOS S07 s0st eee é d 0¢9 - SHU S08E “ystied oy} yo oureu yUosord oe ; : Ag[yeoTD oy} ‘A[UO “FT S& Soxopur Yooq-enig FIL - WO 6081 ‘su pue UOVIOyUeA UI ‘uOJIOyUeFY gost : 5 WodO S08T 00S Ug tON UTE 908i. | ‘ 168 g ' eee} | i Gece Cie,, | yet ; \ \ ‘ \ \ \ \ / a . H ’ \ \ se A Ld / ‘ \ We 7 4f 4 & ‘, \ NS 4 aA Yi a ~ \ ‘ ee , xa XS 6d. to 8s., according to published price, date, and condition (except | ; in the case of a few Pamper the price of which is raised). Members x are allowed a reduction of 25 per cent. from these prices, -WILTSHIRE—The TOPOGRAPHICAL COLLECTIONS OF JOHN UBREY, F.R.S., 1659—1670. Corrected and enlarged by the Rev. Canon J. E. Jackson, M,A., F.S.A., 4to cl. pp. 491, 46 plates. {1 7s. 6d VO., pp-. vil. + 510. Fully indexed. In parts, as issued. Price 13s. ‘DITTO. HENRY IW, EDWARD I, and EDWARD II. 8vo., p.xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts as issued: Price 13s. ITTO. EDWARD III. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts W. J. Harrison, F.G.S., pp 169., 4 illustrations. No. 89 (1901) of W.A.M. Describes 947 books, papers, &c., by 732 authors. 5s. 6d. ny deeds connected with many Wilts Parishes, 14th and 15th turies. Only 150 copies printed, of which a few are left. /1 2s. HE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS Le HISTORY, BY HB, WALTERS, F:S:A.' In 3-Parts. Price f6s. A ‘CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, OwW272, BY E. A. HRY. 8vo., pp, 103. Price 6s. he remaining copies of the following works by Capt. B. H. and S. CUNNINGTON have been given by them to the Society and are now at the following prices :— CANNINGS CROSS (Excavations on site of Hallstadt period, By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. B.S .Az, Scot.) 4to.) cloth, 53 me aS, ODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28). By MRS. SN PonAL, Scot. 4to: cloth. 2s. ORDS: OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, EXTRACTS FROM MiOWNRTER SESSIONS “GREAT ROLES OF THE 17TH URY. By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, F:S.A., Scot. Cloth. 12/6. | IZES BOROUGH. ANNALS, EXTRACTS FROM THE COR ORATION RECORDS. By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, . ls , Scot. Cloth. Vol. 1, 1555 to 1791, 21s. Vol. II, 1792 to 1835, 15s. The North Wilts Museum and Wiltshire Library at Devizes. sib. All Members of the Society are asked to give an annual subscription towards the upkeep of the Devizes Museum and Library. Both the Museum and the Library are concerned in the first place with objects of interest from this County, and with books, pamphlets, MSS., drawings, maps, prints and photographs con- nected with Wiltshire, and together they form one of the most important branches of the Society’s Work. The Library is the only institution of the kind in Wiltshire, so far as its collection of all kinds of material for the history of the County is concerned. Old deeds, maps, plans, &c., connected with properties in Wilts and old photographs of Wiltshire houses, churches, cottages, or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian. Please address to The Museum, Devizes. Subscriptions should oe sent to Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank Chambers, Devizes. Wiltshire Bird Notes. Observers in the County are invited to send their records to. L. G. PEIRSON at Marlborough College, Wilts, for inclusion q in the Magazine under this heading. | i / | RETA hs) a ETL EE SPL EE v | The Society has a number of / | Old Engraved Views of Buildings, &c., in Wiltshire, | and Portraits of Persons connected with the County, to dispose of. Apply toC. W. Puc, M.B.E. mabraay The LS Devizes. \ BOOKBINDING. © Books carefully Bound to pattern. | Wilts Archeological Magazine bound to match previous volumes, or in Special Green Cases. We have several back numbers to make up sets. C. Wh WOODWARD, Printer and Publisher, | Exchange Buildings, Station Road, Devizes, | \ No. CLXXXI¥V. JUNE, 1946. Vol. LI. THE ® WILTSHIRE _Archoegcal& Natal History MAGAZINE / PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE EDITED BY H.-C. BRENTNALL, F.S:A., Granham West, Marlborough. authors of the papers printed in this Magazine are alone responsible for all statements made therein.] oe DEVIZES 4 PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY C. H. WooDWARD,. _» EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD. - *~Price 8s. Members Gratis. NOTICE TO MEMBERS. A copious Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of Vols. viil., xvi., xxiv., and xxxil. The subsequent Volumes are each fully indexed separately. The annual subscription is now under, review, and will be decided at the coming General Meeting of the Society. Members who have not paid their Subscriptions to the Society for the current year are requested to remit the same forthwith to the Financial Secretary, Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank Chambers, Devizes, to whom also all communications as to the supply of Magazines should be addressed. The Numbers of this Magazine will be delivered gratis, as issued, to Members who are not in arrear of their Annual Subscriptions ; but in accordance with Byelaw No. 8 “‘ The Financial Secretary . shall give notice to Members in arrear, and the Society’s publications will not be forwarded to Members whose Subscrip- tions shall remain unpaid after such notice.” Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, Granham West, Marlborough. All other correspondence, except as specified elsewhere on this cover, to be addressed to the Hon. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Owen Meyrick, Thornhanger, Marlborough. RECORDS BRANCH. The Branch was founded in 1937 to promote the publication of original literary sources for the history of the county and of the means of reference thereto. The activities of the Branch are now being resumed, and those who wish to join should send their names to Mr. A. H. Macdonald, Half-acre, Marlborough. The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILTSHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARD I AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939, pp. xix + 190. ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRI- _ SONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBURY, 1645-1646. Edited by J. H. P. Pafford. 1940, pp. 112. Unbound copies of the first of these can be obtained by members of the Branch. ‘The second is out of print. THE WILTSHIRE Archeological & Natural History MAGAZINE. pio. CLXXXIV. “JUNE, 1946. Vol. LI. Contents. PAGE Pitetcrine Prant Notes: By J.D. GROSE .......cc0.csce0seees 247—255 NoTEs ON SOME EARLY IRON AGE SITES IN THE MARL- BOROUGH. DISTRICT : By “O. Meyrick 35.....00. secs ccdseceees 256— 262 MANOR OF East WINTERSLOW (ParT III) : By Major H. B. PERIBVOR-COK eo tcedscct es cesceccens vats seiteleic rors piece aisle eeleisiols eisiele 264—266 WILTSHIRE ARCHAOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY, - “ANNUAL: REPORT, 1945. (2. occ .cccgresececcoececscscs 267—270 THE WARDENS OF SAVERNAKE ForEST: By the Earl of OO MET AMT a cits cate eiecaees eu nro’e wsictess pin ainiole Snie Salsas Sale ed Selcgeipeeiece aa wee 271—8339 NOTES ON SOME OF THE BASIDIOMYCETES FOUND IN SOUTH- WEST WILTSHIRE, ESPECIALLY ROUND DONHEAD ST. Mary. Part VII: By T. F. G.W. Dunston, B.A., and Sepa ee UNS COM acess cs tices ves ncsouess rece cseeses +. 840—342 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. A WILTSHIRE WoOMAN’S MONUMENT IN GODSHILL CHURCH, J. J. Slade; THE VicaR’s LIBRARY, MARLBOROUGH, E.G. H. Kempson 343— 345 WILTSHIRE BooKs, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES.....ccecesceceees 346—348 Notrs.—Unrecorded Mounds at Wanborough. More Carved Stones from Teffont Magna. John Aubrey’s lost ‘MS. John Mead Falkner. The Bishop’s Palace, Salispury. West Country Wills, 2.0.22. 2... cecnsecceciescscees 349—353 PME SMO BETUARTES 200650. ccs sarecesedescvcescecssedsecccs A ickins eee aan 354—358 ADDITIONS TO MUSEUM -AND. LIBRARY .....cccscccoccsccccecccves 359—360 ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 1945............. 36 1—364 ii : esc bee ; PAGI , ¢ ILLUSTRATIONS. Early Iron Age Sites in the Marlborough District :— Big ly Miartinselly poe eee sigigig dus ost uaturne sin eulepieien : 20 Fig? Il, Stanton St. Bernard Down .........:.:...... 25 Be UD i, ee eS oe re crate oer alee eee sree 26 Big) CV te eee ce ds seis Se Whee Grice ela ema ret tera 26 Roche Old Court, Bast, Wamternton. 2.) ..0.. 00s oo eee eee 26 Savernake Forest as it was in mediaeval times ; Savernake _ ‘Forest at the present day ..... ashen Bence ic meee te merece 308—30 The Horn of the Wardens of Savernake Forest (reproduced from Arch@ologia, AVAG) Fe) eae UN ot eee beisee 32 Carved Stones from Pettont Magna... ....5).. 4.0 se : 35 n7 Devizes :—C. H. WoopwarD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAL WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE. ‘“MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUsS.’’—Ovuid. No: CLXXXIV. JUNE, 1946. Vous LI: WILTSHIRE PLANT NOTES—[7]. By J. D. GRosE. 1945 was remarkable for the very early spring and summer. Many flowers, including even late summer species, bloomed: two or three weeks before their normal times. The wild roses had an exceptionally long flowering period, starting in May, a month earlier than usual, and lasting to late July. Wild strawberries and raspberries were par- ticularly fine and plentiful. Blackberries were early, ripe fruit being _ picked in South Wiltshire at the end of July, but the sunless August and September delayed the main crop until the normal season. Small Broom-rape, Pyramidal Orchis and Bee Orchis flowered abundantly, and, among cornfield plants, Venus’ Looking-glass and the two Fluellens appeared to be much more frequent than usual. I am glad to be able to record several additions to the Wiltshire flora, the most interesting, perhaps, being Avum italicum found by Lt.-Col. Congreve at Salisbury, and Teucrvium Botrys found by Mr. Peskett in company with the writer at Uffcott. In the present list I have devoted more space than formerly to confirmations of old records, and to colour-forms of common plants. These two aspects of the study of our local flora deserve more attention than they have had in the past. JI am indebted to several referees who have kindly examined and named critical plants belonging to the groups in which they specialize, and to my correspondents for their notes. Abbreviations used are :-— Aebel, .. 2... Mr. A.B. Jackson, Kew. B.W. . . . Mrs. Welch, Richmond. CDH. .-.. Mr. @ D. Heginbothom, Devizes. (CEH . > Mr. €. E. Hubbard; Kew. Gee: - . .- Lt.-Col. C. R. Congreve, Salisbury. D.M.F. . , . Miss Frowde, Colerne. och: . . . Mrs. Partridge, Hamspray. aaiG, FL. . . . Mr. G. Hazzard, Winterslow. jeo:G.:.. . Mr. J. D. Grose, Swindon. jee MB. -.... Mr. J. P. M. Brenan, Oxford. L.G.P. . . . Mr. L.G. Peirson, Marlborough College. M.C.F. . . . Miss Foster, Aldbourne. M.le F.S. . . Mrs. Shepherd, Lydiard Millicent. INGE. . . . Mr. N. Peskett, Swindon. R.Q. . . . Lhe Rev. Canon R. Quirk, Salisbury. +... . . Indicates that the plant is not native. det. . . . . Signifies that a specimen has been identified by the authority named. 4 VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. S 248 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Thalictrum flavum L.. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 7, Bulford, confirming Southby’s record of 1858. . Helleborus viridis L. var. occidentalis (Reut.) Druce. 5, Roche Court, E. Winterslow, G.H. 11, Still abundant at Tollard Royal, as noted by Goddard in 1888. H. foetidus L. 6, Porton Camp, G.H. Aquilegia vulgaris L. 2, Sandy Lane. 5, Winterslow, G.H., con- firming Hussey’s record of 1858. 11, Tollard Royal. , t Delphinium Gayanum Wilmott. 3, Oatfield, Broome Lane, Swindon, N.P. Berberis vulgaris L. 8, Hankerton Field Farm. Lane near Chedglow. Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Besser. 2, Cornfield, Clear’s Farm, Seend. 7, Near Sharcott, L.G.P. Water-meadow near East Harnham, C.R.C. R. amphibia (L.) Besser. 2, Great Somerford. Dauntsey Park. Near Seagry. 3, South Marston. 9, Near Compton Wood. + Barbarea intermedia Bor. 4, Clench Common, det. A.B. Jackson. + B. intermedia Bor. var. fallax Loret. & Barr. 1, Holt Junction,. det. A. B. Jackson. Bei Arvabis hirsuta (L.) Scop. 4, Rivar Down, F.P. Baydon, M.C.F. Spring Hill, Ramsbury, M. le F.S. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 7, Martinsell Hill) Nee: +t Sisymbrium oneniale L. 38, Shaw, N.P. + Erysimum Cheiranthoides L. 2, Malmesbury Common. 7, The Butts, Salisbury, C.R.C. : + Diplotaxis muralis (L.) DC. var. caulescens Kittel. 38, Rushey Platt, Swindon, N.P. and J.D.G. | Lepidium Dvaba L. 3, Near Liddington, N.P. 7, Sling. L. campestre (L.) R.Br. 2, Dauntsey. 5, Winterslow, G.H.: Helianthemum nummularium (L.) Mill. (H. Chamaecistus). Pale yellow form. 7, Giant’s Grave, Martinsell. Viola canina L. 8, Near Heath Wood, Grovely. 7 V. palustris L. 2, Spye Park, confirming Meredith’s record of 1860. This is the only known station in North Wilts. Sagina nodosa (L.) Fenzl. 2, Spye Park, N.P. Spergula sativa Boenn. 1, Heddington. St. Edith’s Marsh. 7, | Bulford Station. This species seems to be much less common in the | county than S. arvensis. Spergularia campestvts (All.) Aschers. (S. vubva). 2, Spye Park, con- | firming Flower’s record of 1864. 4, Near Ashlade Firs, Savernake Forest, confirming Sowerby’s record of 1888. 7, Foot of wall near the Cathedral, Salisbury. Montia verna Neck. 2, Cornfield, Clear’s Farm, Seend. A remark- | able habitat, but I understand that the field was, until recently, part of a rough, damp heath. 9, Lake-side, Wincome Park. ‘ Hypericum Androsaemum L. 9, Wood near Manor Farm, Dinton. Malva moschata L. White-flowered form. 17, Fargo Plantation. | By J. D. Grose 249 _ Malva neglecta Wallr. (M. rotundifolia). 6, Collingbourne Wood, F.P. Near Porton. 10, Odstock. Geranium pratense L. White-flowered form. 2, Goatacre, N.P. Great Somerford. G. pyrenaicum Burm. fil. White-flowered form. 2, Near Chittoe, C.D.H. G. dissectum L. White-flowered form. 2, Christian Malford Halt. G. molle L. White-flowered form. 2, Sandy Lane, C.D.H. 8, Old Swindon, N.P. 7, Near Sling Plantation. 8, Near Fargo Plantation. G. molle L. Form with double flowers. 4, Uffcott, N.P. and J.D.G. G. rotundifolium L. 8, Shrewton, confirming Roger’s record of 1888. G. pusillum Burm. fil. 3, Lydiard Millicent, N.P. and J.D.G. 7, Little Durnford. t Oxalis stricta L. 9, Dinton. t Impatiens capensis Meerb. (I. fulva). 1, Bank of Avon near Limpley Stoke, J.P.M.B. Ononis spinosa L. White-flowered form. 3, Moredon, N.P. and J.D.G. Trifolium medium L. 1, Near Gatcombe Mill. 2, Bincknoll, N.P. Wootton Bassett. Hullavington. 5, Winterslow, G.H. T. pratense L. White-flowered form. 5, Near Nightwood Copse, C.R.C. and J.D.G. T. arvense L. 1, Heddington. T. striatum L. 2, Spye Park, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. Near Prick- moor Wood, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. T. filiforme L.. 2, Spye Park, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. 4, Ham, F.P. Near Puthall Gate. Astragalus glycyphyllos L. 1, Near Isolation Hospital, Devizes, C.D.H. Lane between Weevern and Biddestone, D.M.F. 2, Near Gotshill Farm, Foxham, N.P. 3, Common Platt, N.P. t Coronilla varia L. 7, Sling. Ornithopus perpusillus L. 2, Spye Park, confirming Babington’s record of 1839. 38, Sandy field near Coate Water. Vicia sylvatica L. 4, Wood on north slope of Martinsell. + V. villosa Roth. 7, Salisbury, B.W. + V. lutea L. 2, Railway track, Christian Malford, N.P. The two earlier records for the county must be considered doubtful. Lathyrus sylvestris L. 2, Silk Wood, A.B.J. Near Morgan’s Hill, N.P. 5, Near West Grimstead, C.R.C. L. tuberosus L. 4, Border of West Woods, det. A. J. Wilmott and A. B. Jackson. Not previously recorded for Wiltshire. The plant has also been reported for Winterslow to G.H., but he has not yet seen a specimen. » L. Nissolia L. 2, Near Swallett Gate. L. Aphaca L. 5, Winterslow, G.H. + Prunus domestica L. 4, Uffcott, N.P. and J.D.G. 250 Wiltshire. Plant Notes. Agrimonia odovaia Mill. . 5, Near Clarendon Lake, C.R.C. and J.D.G. 6, New Warren Farm, Newton Tony. 7, pe ere Wood. 9, Near -Baverstock. ; Pyrus communis L. 2, Near Cowage Glove Near Bincknoll. + Ribes nigrum L. 2, Between Atworth and Wormwood Farm. Hippuns vulgaris L. 11, Tollard Royal. Peplis Portula L. 2, Webb’s Wood, N.P. and J.D.G. Spye ‘Park, Epilobium hirsutum L. x parvifiorum Schreb. 10, Stratford Tony. E. Lamyi F. Schaltz. 6, Southgrove Copse, det. G. M. Ash. Not previously recorded for Wiltshire. + E. adenocaulon Hausskn. 4, Cake Wood, M. le F.S. and J.D.G., det. G.M.Ash. 5, Near Clarendon Lake, C.R.C. and J.D.G., det. © G. M. Ash. E. voseum Schreb. 8, Burderop Wood, det. G. M. Ash, con faine ‘Miss Todd’s record of 1912. 4, High Street, Marlborough, det. G.M.Ash. 5, West Grimstead, C.R.C. and J.D.G., det. G. M. Ash. 9 Dinton Station, det. G. M. Ash. E. lanceolatum Seb.and Maur. Railway bank near Christian Malford, det. G.M.Ash. Not previously recorded for North Wilts. E. palustre L. 2, Spye Park. Oenanthe crocaia L. 1, In 1944,two Italian prisoners died within an hour of eating the roots of this plant at Smithwick Farm, Rowde. In exactly similar circumstances, two French prisoners-of-war died at Pembroke during the Napoleonic Wars. Apparently the plant was mistaken for some edible species; perhaps Apium graveolens (Wild Celery), which, though little more than a garden escape in Wiltshire, is frequent as a maritime plant in Europe. \ Oe. Lachenaliit C. Gmel. 3, Okus, Swindon. Caucalis arvensis Huds. 38, Chiseldon. 4, Near Red Barn, saltheeD, N.P. and J.D.G. 7, Wood Bridge. Wilsford. Galium tricorne Stokes. 2, Hillays, Hullavington. 4, Uffcott, N.P. and J.D.G. ; Valerianella vimosa Bast. 2, Lane between Weevern and Biddestone, D.M.F. Dipsacus pilosus L. 9, River-bank near Ghewiar Wood. Succisa pratensis Moench. (Scabiosa Succisa). White-flowered form. 2, Near Melsome Wood, N.P. and J.D.G. Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. (Scabiosa arvensis). White-flowered form. 4, West Kennett. Near Old Eagle, Rockley. . Eupatorium cannabinum L. White-flowered form. 10, Coombe Bissett. Evigeron acevL. 3, Brick-pit, Badbury, N.P. and J.D.G. 7, Sling. 10, Nunton. . BG + E. canadensis L. 2, Sandy Lane, N.P. 4, Marlborough Common. 5, Near Nightwood Copse, C.R.C. and J.D.G. 6 RRs SE Oa oe Filago minima Pers. 2, Spye Park. . 2, Hillays, Hullavington. Var. carnea Schrank. 4, Oare Hill, N.P. Samolus Valerandi L. 2, Near Avongrove Wood, N.P. Spye Park. — Centaurium pulchellum (Sw.) Druce. 2, Spye Park. 252 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Myosotis arvensis (L.) Hill var. sylvestvis Schlecht. 3, Burderop Wood. Atropa Bella-donna L. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 10, North border of Great Yews. This station appears to be about half-a-mile from the locality south-east of the wood, where it was found by B.W. in 1941. _ t+ Hyoscyamus niger L. 4, Old Eagle, Rockley. Verbascum Thapsus L. White-flowered form. 7, Sling. Linaria spuria (L.) Mill. 2, Hullavington. Norton. 3, Moredon, N.P. and J.D.G. 4, Fields below Ham Hill, F.P. 6, Newton Tony. 7, Bulford. 8, Between Shrewton and Elston. South Newton. 10, Between Coombe Bissett and Stratford Tony. This species seems to be becoming more frequent. L. Elatine (L.) Mill. 2, Norton. 3, Moredon, N.P. and J.D.G. 4, Ham, F.P. 10, Between Coombe Bissett and Stratford Tony. Scrophularia nodosa L. var. Bobartit Pryor. 6, Southgrove Copse. Veronica montana L. 2, Near Nonsuch. Spye Park. 3, Five Lanes, Crudwell. 4, Cake Wood, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. V. aquatica Benquerel. 2, Near Norton Manor. 9, West Harn- ham, C.R.C. V. agrestis L. 3, Rushey Platt, N.P. and J.D.G. Euphrasia confusa Pugsl. f. albida Pugsl. 11, Berwick Down, det. H. W. Pugsley. ¢ Rhinanthus major Ehrh. 2, Near Norton, det. A. J. Wilmott. Not previously recorded for Wiltshire. R. calcareus Wilmott. 4, East Kennett. Milk Hill. 10, Winkel- bury Hill. Lathvaea Squamaria L. 4, Chisbury, F.P. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 11, Larmer Grounds. : Mentha rotundifolia (L.) Huds. 9, Dinton. M. longifolia (L.) Huds. 6, Newton Tony, det. J. E. Lousley. + x M. piperita L. 3, Common Head, N.P. x M. gentilis L. 6, Stream near Wilbury House, Newton Tony. This locality is about two miles higher up the stream than the Boscombe station recorded in 1939. x M.vubraSm. 7, Sling. 9, Tisbury, C.R.C. Origanum vulgare L. White-flowered form. 2, Neston Park. Calamintha Acinos Clairv. White-flowered form. 6, Between Newton Tony and Tower Hill. Salvia horminioides Pourr. (S. verbenaca). 3, Moredon, N.P. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 7, Fifield. Nepeta Cataria L. 9, Between Baverstock and Middle Hills. Scutellavia minor Huds. 2, Spye Park, confirming Prior’s record of | 1839. 5, Wood near Livery, G.H. x Stachys ambigua Sm. 4, Ogbourne Maizey, det. A. J.. Wilmott, Not previously recorded for North Wilts. + Leonurus Cavdiaca L. 4, Rockley. By J. D. Grose. | 253 Teucrium Botrys L. 4, Chalky field between Uffcott and Fiddler’s Hill, N.P. and J.D.G. Previously known only in Kent, Hants, Surrey and Glos. _Plantago Coronopus L. 2, Abundant in and near Spye Park, confirming Babington’s 1839 record. -| Chenopodium Bonus-Henricus L. 2, Nash Hill, Lacock. 5, West Winterslow, G.H. 7, Between Bulford and Totterdown. C. rubrum L. var. pseudo-botryoides Wats. 3, Lydiard Millicent, M. le F.S.. Placed doubtfully under this variety by Mr. Brenan, but its true status is most uncertain. Further information on this remarkable plant will be published in the forthcoming Botanical Exchange Club Report. ¢ Axyris Amarantoides L. 2, Lucerne field, Norton. Polygonum nodosum Pers. 3, Ashton Keynes, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. Rushey Platt, Swindon, N.P. and J.D.G. 4, Pond on Poulton Downs. 6, Newton Tony. 8, Shrewton. P. nodosum Pers. var. incrassatum Rouy f. stenophyila C. E. Britton. 38, Coate, det. A.H.G. Alston and A. B. Jackson. | Rumex maritimus L. - 3, Wroughton Wharf, N.P. The second _ record for the Golden Dock in Wiltshire. _ Daphne Mezereum L. 5, Wood between Winterslow and Dean, G.H. | Euphorbia Lathyris L. 5, Livery Copse, G.H. 1 Ulmus carpinifolia Gled. x glabra Huds. 38, Badbury, den R. Melville. This hybrid elm may not be uncommon in the county, but _ itis probably not native. Salix alba L. x fragilis L. ¢ 3, Haydon Wick, det. R. Melville. £ 4, Chilton Foliat, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. S. Caprea L. x atrocinerea Brot. x viminalis L. 93 2, Bincknoll, det. _R. Melville. { 2, River bank near Swallett Gate, det. R. Melville. _ Dr. Melville télls me that these compound willow hybrids may not be uncommon, as hybrids are generally fertile and readily cross with _ others in their chromosome group. _S. aurita L. x viminalis L. 7, Compton, det. R. Melville. = S. atrocinerea Brot. x Caprea L. 3, Wroughton, det. R. Melville. | —“Salix avenaria L. (S. repens var. argentea). 2,Malmesbury Common. A shallow ditch has enabled this plant to escape the almost total _ destruction of the native vegetation of Malmesbury Common. There _ are now two known localities for the Creeping Willow in North Wilts. _ Spivanthes spiralis (L.) Koch. 5, Near Winterslow, G.H. _ Orchis ustulata L. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 8, Between Steeple Lang- 4 Bord-and Cow Down, C.R.C. _ Ophrys muscifera Huds. 4, Ham Hill, F.P. 5, Winterslow, G.H. Iris foetidissimaL. 1, Potterne Wood, C.D.H. 5, Bentley Wood, G.H. + Ornithogalum umbellatum L. 3, Between Purton and Lydiard ‘Millicent, N.P. AY Juncus subnodulosus Schrank. 3, Near South Marston, N.P. and ‘iD, : 254. Wiltshire Plant Notes. J. bulbosus L. 2, Webb’s Wood, N.P. and J.D.G. » J. bulbosus L. var. Kochi (F. Schultz) Druce. 2, Spye Park. J. compressus Jacq. 17, Near Patney Station. Luzula sylvatica (Huds.) Gaud. 9, East Knoyle. Wincome Park. Semley Common. L. Forstert (Sm.) DC. 10, Clarendon Woods. Sparganium simplex Huds. 7, Near Peter’s Finger. Arum italicum Mill. 7, Field near the River Avon, Salisbury, C.R.C. Under trees in an adjoining garden, R.Q., det. A. J. Wilmott. The occurrence of this plant in Wiltshire is unexpected and interesting. It is usually found near the sea, although the North Hampshire locality is aninland one. The habitat, also, is unusual, and it is possible that its origin may some day be traced to a wooded slope higher up the Avon or one of its tributaries. Lemna polyrrhiza L. 5, Pond in Conholt Park. Butomus umbellatus L. 3, Near South Marston, N.P. and J.D.G. 9, Near Compton Wood. Triglochin palustris L. 4, Chilton Foliat, M. le F.S. Potamogeton pusillus L. 3, Ashton Keynes, M. le F.S., det. J. E. Dandy and G. Taylor. The true P. pusillus appears to be more uncommon in Wiltshire than P. Berchtoldi1 Fieb. Zannichellia palustris L. 3, Canal between Swindon and” Stratton, N.P. and J.D.G. Scirpus sylvaticus L. 2, Spye Park. S. setaceus L. 2, Between Spye Park and Bewley Common, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. . Blysmus compressus (L.) Panz. ex Link. 7, Damp field near Bulford Station. Carex stvigosa Huds. 2, Between Bowood Park and Sandy Lane. C. pilulifera L. 2, Chittoe. 2 and 3, Webb’s Wood. 3, Lydiard Plain, N.P. and J.D.G. 9, Grovely Hill. 10, Alderbury Common, C.R.C. C. pallescens L. 2, NearChittoe. 3, Webb’s Wood, N.P.and J.D.G. C. Goodenowi Gay. 7, Salisbury, C.R.C. x C. axillaris Good. 2, Hankerton. — C. Paivaei F. Schultz. 2, Sandy Lane. C. paniculata L. 7, West Amesbury. Argostis canina L. var. avida Schlecht. 2, Gravel-pit between Wans House and Spye Park, det. W. R. Philipson. Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth. 2, Fosse Way near Cream Gorse. Malmesbury Common. Aira caryophyllea L. 3, Rail track, Kingsdown, Stanton Fitzwarren. 4, Near Ashlade Firs, M. le F.S. and J.D.G.. 4, Barton Down. Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. 4, Ashlade Firs. | Avenn Ludoviciana Durieu. 1, Littleton Pannell, C.E.H. - Sieghingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. 3, Hodson. By J. D. Grose | 255 Poa nemoralis L. 1, Potterne Wood. Gatcombe Hill. 2, Chittoe. 7, Coombe. Wall-top, Salisbury, C.R.C. 9, Dinton. 10, New Hall, Bodenham. Glyceria plicata Fr. 4, Chilton Foliat, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. G. declinata Bréb. 2, Pond near Chaddington Farm, M. le F.S., det. C. E. Hubbard. The third record for Wiltshire. Festuca elatior L. subsp. arundinacea (Schreb.) Hack. 3, Near Clout’s Wood, Wroughton, det. W. O. Howarth. 7, Between Ram Alley and Savernake. F, tenuifolia Sibth. 2, Gravel-pit between Spye Park and Wans House, det. W. O. Howarth. Vulpia bromoides (L.) S. F. Gray. 2, Near Chittoe. 4, Near Ash- lade Firs. Equisetum palustre L. var. polystachyum Weigel. 2, Spye Park. Blechnum Spicant (L.) With. 4, Bedwyn Common. 9, Wincombe eerark. Polystichum setiferum (Forsk.) Woynar. (P. angulare). 1, Potterne Wood. 9, Near Ferne House. | Azolla filiculoides Lam. 7, Honey Street, N.P. Pewsey: Wharf. This species is spreading rapidly eastwards along the Kennet and Avon Canal. 256 NOTES ON SOME EARLY IRON AGE SITES IN THE | _ MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT. By O. MEYRICK. Whilst many minor earthworks have been destroyed and larger ones mutilated in the course of the war, the plough and military operations have also brought much to light, as on three of the four prehistoric sites dealt with in this paper, and it is desirable that any such evidence should be put on record. 1. MARTINSELL. : From Martinsell a spur runs out westward to form a narrow ridge, with the high bank and ditch (known as the Giant’s Grave) of a pro- montory fort at the tip. At the other end of the ridge, just before it rises sharply to the hill-top camp on the summit of Martinsell, sherds picked up before the war included a fragment of furrowed hzmatite- coated pot. (The position lies in the N.E.corner of the 6in. O.S. Sheet Wilts 35 S.E., below the 900ft. contour line and is shown on Figure I). © Since then this part of the ridge-top has come under the plough, and a quantity of Iron Age A pottery has been turned up, of late Hallstatt- | La Téne I type. Besides much hematite-coated ware (predominantly furrowed, though one cordoned piece was found), there are also frag- ments of black pottery with rows of punch-marks, impressed concentric circles, and incised straight lines and curves, in one case still retaining traces of white filling, and much finger-tip pottery with ornament round the rim or shoulder, well-baked and with very little grit ; pieces of tanged lugs also occur. All these are counterparts of All Cannings Cross types, and one can assume that the two settlements were roughly ~ contemporary. Both sarsen and,flint hammer-stones are in evidence ; iron fragments include the tip of an implement, possibly an awl. Ofa very small number of casually selected bones submitted to Dr. J. Wilfrid Jackson, F.S.A. and kindly identified by him, three belong to red deer, remains of which were notably scarce at All Cannings Cross. But Martinsell lies, of course, much nearer-to the cover afforded by the ancient Forest of Savernake. The eastern limit of the pottery exposed lies where the ground starts to climb steeply towards the main hill-top; to the west, stray sherds can be found on mole-hills almost as far as the Giant’s Grave and well within the small outer bank that is held to be part of the promontory camp system. If it really is so, the settlement would probably serve to date the promontory fort, whose simple defences suggest some such early period of the Iron Age. A straight ditch, now almost silted up, about 60 yards east of the site, can be traced for 100 yards or more running N.W.-—S.E. across the ridge, broken only by an old chalk-pit. Excavation alone would reveal whether it can be dated to the settlement, 257 Early Ivon Age Sites. ms ~~ SIATH WV = = hALC'Site —s 44S sf 4 — = — FIGURE J]. MARTINSELL 258 Early Iron Age Sites. No pottery of later date has been found on the site, except for a very few Romano-British sherds, one a rim of mortarium of first or second century type; these are not enough to indicate any permanent occupation, and the site seems to have been abandoned comparatively early in the Iron Age, before the coming of the bead-rim. The site then. in use was on the summit of Martinsell, where bead-rim and associated wares are plentiful immediately west of the hill-top camp, between the rampart and the two adjacent ponds, and may presum- ably be connected with that earthwork (dug into without result by Sir R. C. Hoare) and the Withy Copse rubbish-dump.! These finds are also shown on Figure I. II. STANTON ST. BERNARD DOWN. Along the south-eastern brow of the ridge known as Harestone Down, running from East Kennett Long Barrow to Wansdyke (OS. map 35, N.W.), much Early Iron Age pottery is thrown up, in particular slightly to the east of the E. Kennett-Stanton boundary, and also south-east of the prominent round barrow on thecrest of the ridge (Stanton St. Bernard 4 on Goddard’s list), but also scattered between these areas, which are abouta quarter of a mileapart. (See Figure II.) Hematite ware is scanty and, apart from one lattice-work pattern, the only recognisable decoration is finger-tip; the vessels are mostly of coarse sandy ware, often thickly flinted, very like some of the Swallowcliffe Down pottery,” and suggestive of an Iron Age A2 dating. At the northern end of the habitation site are also a number of sherds of Late Bronze Age type, in and about what appears to be a small rectangular enclosure, its banks so much levelled as to be barely noticeable. The position is shown on the accompanying map, on a gentle slope below the main exposure of Iron Age pottery. A Romano-British settlement has been noted hereabouts®, and Romano-British sherds occur over much the same area, but more freely on the crest of the ridge, coins of Constantius Gallus and Valentinian I pointing to an occupation till the end of the 4th century A.D. III. FYFIELD DOWN. The site on Fyfield Down a little over 2 miles N.E. of Avebury, marked on O.S. Sheet 28, N.E. as an “‘ Ancient Village ’’, is strewn with Romano-British sherds, but there is ample evidence of earlier habita- tion. Aconsiderable amount of Iron Age A pottery is thrown up, and this includes a number of pieces of hamatite-coated ware (one cordoned fragment among them); other sherds show _irregular rows of small punch-marks and incised or lightly tooled diagonal lines ; rough finger- tip ornament also occurs. The great part of the pottery is without 1W.A.M., xxxvi, 125. 2W.A.M., xlili, 59-938. 3W.A.M., xlv, 193. By O. Meyrick. 259 \/ ~~ WZ / E KENNETT ae \ LONG BARROW “iS \ e; / ° oy - J CEC / = ore : = ~ °% / HARESTONE : SPS EN CLOSURE ‘ 5 , . . Down eas ° / ‘ BEN oie eet eS aN f Sor ° = FS fhe ~ ye / 4 A Ca + 5 a tos as “ee Sy y f a { +. gies / fe ws ay cS Va < ESS : Se / \ a / es LAR 7 a / 7 BArrowcrs ear % y . | eve pe 1-7 BARROWS f Too’ . m) ‘ avr / so 1R0 an K \ (ee 2 | = . { ] . \ 4 ] e / \ \ / 5 eas } as ak / or [aekiey 4 7 { \ Lit zs GSS TANTON 7 BEECHES 7 : \ FIGURE Il. STANTON ST BERNARD DOWN. 260 Early Iron Age Sites. decoration, and much of it is very roughly made with large particles of flint, and is perhaps fairly late Iron Age A. Of several perforated lugs picked up, whole or broken, one at least is tanged, while another is countersunk. This appears to be a northward extension from S. Wilts of the known distribution of the countersunk handle.1 Some hand- made, as well'as much wheel-turned, bead-rim ware is to be found on the site. A small bronze brooch of La Téne I type was found with the pin missing. The spring of the bow is coated with rust, and traces can be seen on the catch-plate ; it is suggested that when the original pin was lost an iron one was fitted in its place. It may be noted that two similar specimens found at All Cannings Cross had rust round the spring where an iron rivet had been inserted, though the bronze pin was still intact in both cases; in the Fyfleld Down brooch a bronze rod through the coils is still in place. A large iron brooch is probably of La Tene III type; the loop crosses in front of the spring, and the catch-plate is pierced with a triangular opening. This brooch also has lost its pin. The only hammerstones seen are of sarsen, which is not surprising on a site adjoining so thick an outcrop of ‘‘ Grey Wethers’’. That occupation went on through Roman times till the 4th century A.D. may be inferred from the occurrence of late roulette-notched and rosette-stamped ware. Any attempt at excavation has been impossible under the circum- stances, but diggings in the course of army operations indicate the presence of pits on the north side of the settlement. The site is shown in an air photograph in “‘ Prehistoric Britain ’’ by — Jacquetta and Christopher Hawkes as an example of the Celtic field system. IV. BARBURY CAMP. There is no record of any excavation since Colt Hoare dug on the site early last century and unearthed fragments of coarse pottery. But here again army digging has brought to light much material and apparently cut into pits several feet in depth. Of the sherds only three are ornamented, one with small stamped circles, the others with deep circular punch-marks, one showing a double row on each side of a lightly impressed wavy line of Iron Age B. type; besides these there are one or two pieces of haematite ware, some well-polished black- coated pottery, an incipient bead-rim, and everted rims of compara- tively late type, though it is worth noting that Iron Age C pottery seems to be absent. Occupation certainly does not seem to have continued into Roman times, as there is not a trace of Romano-British ware within the ramparts, though it is found lying on the surface close outside on lower ground.? 1 Wheeler, Maiden Castle Report, 210. 2 WAV xiv, loo: a @) Cc pe m —_ ee = By O. Meyrick. et sal u he ex; wii , G 2 261 262 Early Iron Age Sites. I am indebted to Mr. D.G. King for the drawings of objects from the various sites. III. ITT. III. IIT. Til. IV. IV. IV. 1.—Furrowed hzmatite-coated bowl. Martinsell. (This drawing has had to be inverted, thereby reversing the position of the shadows.) es 2.—Black ware, incised chevrons with white inlay, Martinsell. 3.—Black-coated grey ware, Barbury Camp. 4.—Incipient bead-rim, Barbury Camp. 5.—Coarse sandy ware with finger-tip HOES ONS, Stanton St. Bernard Down. 1.—Iron brooch of La Tene III type, Fyfield Down. 2.—Bronze brooch of La Téne I type, Fyfield Down. 3.—Countersunk lug, Fyfield Down. By O. Meyrick. 263 SR ee I NMOdG d1TsItAs ONT ANV SHHDOOUT “SNI G VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. ay 264 MANOR OF EAST WINTERSLOW (PART IIT). By Major H. B. TREvor Cox. SOME OWNERS OF ROCHE OLD CouRrRT. Sir John Roche was one of the most interesting owners of this manor. The property has borne his name for nearly five hundred years. (1467 —1946; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1467—77, p. 533.) Sir W. L. Clowes in his ‘‘ History of the Royal Navy” (Vol. I, p. 301) says that Roche was appointed sole Admiral of the Fleet on 31st May, 1389. (Fy. Rolls, 12 Ric. Il, m. 4.) ‘‘ Proceedings before the Justices of the Peace in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century” (Ed. B. H. Putman, 1938), gives the following note on Roche : — ‘* John de Roches, Kt., of Wilts. Foughtin Gascony 1379. Keeper of Marlborough Castle and Savernake Forest 1382. Admiral of the South and West by 1382. Sheriff 1390—1, Wilts. M.P. 1381—99. J.P. (regularly). J. to suppress rebels 1381—82 in Southants and Wilts (accused of too great leniency) ”’. Rymer’s Foedera (ed. T. D. Hardy, 3 vols. 1865—1889) also refers to some of Roche’s missions :— June, 15th, 1351. Commission to Roger de Beauchamp, Thos. de Seymore, John Bluet, Sergeant-at-arms, John de la Roche, and Thos. de la Ryvere, Sheriff of Wilts, to provide 150 archers in Wilts. Twenty-nine similar commissions. 27th May, 1377. Safe conduct to Guy de Roche, Archdeacon and papal collector, and Guy la Bardonia, Sergeants-at-arms to the Pope, coming to pay ransom of Roger de Beaufort and John de Roche, prisoners of the Captal de Buch. 30th October, 1377. Power for John de Roches and Gerald de Meuta to treat with Peter, King of Aragon. 20th June, 1378. Power for John Nevill, the King’s lieutenant in Aquitaine, Sir John de Roches and Gerald de Meuta to treat with Peter, K. of Aragon. Also with Gaston, Count of Foix, 22nd May, 1382. Sir John de Roches is appointed Admiral of the King’s fleet from . the entrance of the port of Southampton westward. (Roches Manor is about 18 miles from Southampton.) 18th January, 1382. Guy de Brien, John de Roches, Admiral of the Western Fleet, and John Philpon are appointed to provide for the passage of Joan, Duchess of Brittany, the King’s sister, from Southampton. 12th December, 1382. The King orders Walter FitzWauter and John Roches, Admirals, to arrest ships for the King’s passage to Calais. October, 1377. Richard II to Pedro IV, King of Aragon. Letter of credence for his ambassador, John de Roches, Knight, who — is entrusted with the news of the King’s coronation. eT ee (me | fom Ter ge mee i i oy eae ee sieertr ate Manor of East Winterslow (Part IIT). 265 June, 1378. Letter of credence for his ambassadors, John Roches, Knight, and John, Lord of Neville, the King’s lieutenant in Aquitaine. They are authorised to resume the negotiations about certain articles concerning the treaty of alliance already discussed in the previous year by the said John Roches and Master Gerald de Meuta, on the King’s behalf. Sir William Beauchamp (1410—57), Lord St. Amand, 1449, M.P. Wilts, 1447, held this manor at his death in 1457. His mother was Elizabeth Roches (d. 1447), daughter and co-heiress of Sir John Roche. Beauchamp was knighted in 1430. The King granted him thereversion of the custody of Clarendon, after the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, in June, 1440. On Gloucester’s death he became Keeper of Clarendon. Thisis of interest as he held the manor in fee tail in chief by the grand serjeanty of providing the King when at Clarendon Palace, four miles from Winterslow, with a barrel of claret and a cup. His son Richard was joined with him in the grant of Clarendon a year before his death in 1456. Lady St. Amand married Sir Roger Tocotes (1430—92), a year after her former husband’s death. He was on Clarence’s Council and Knight of the Body and Controller of the Household 1485—92. M.P. for Wilts in 1467. Elizabeth (1409—91) was the daughter and heiress of Gerald Braybroke. Tocotes was allied with the Duke of Clarence and was charged with him with rebellion in 1470.. He was with the Duke when he rejoined Edward IV and was a banneret at Tewkesbury. Tocotes was pardoned on 20th October, 1472, and was appointed to Clarence’s Council in 1475. Clarence accused him in 1477 of abetting Ankaret Twyneho in poisoning Isabel, Duchess of Clarence, but he was acquitted. Tocotes was a leader in Buckingham’s rising in Berkshire in 1483 and was attainted: Henry VII made him Constable of Devizes and Steward of Marlborough. In 1475, Sir John Cheyne, K.G. (1445—99, Lord Cheyne 1487), was in possession of the Manor of East Winterslow. He was Master of the Horse 1479—83, and Knight of the Body 1485—99, a Privy Councillor in 1479and M.P., Wilts, 1478. This manor was forfeited by Sir Robert Baynton’s attainder on 12th June, 1475. Cheyne went on the King’s expedition to France. Lord Howard and Cheyne were held as hostages by Louis XI; Cheyne was promised a pension by the French King. Richard III removed him from the bench in Wilts about 1484, when he was attainted after taking a prominent part in the rising in Wilts and Dorset. Henry Tudor knighted him at the landing at Milford Haven, and he fought at Bosworth. He was made K.G., Constable of South- -ampton, Steward of Cranborne, and a member of the King’s Council in April, 1493. One of the executors of his will was the celebrated lawyer and statesman, Sir Reynold Bray. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1499, 310.) Sir Reynold Bray, K.G. (1440—1503), held the manor on behalf of _the King during the minority of Anne, daughter and heiress of Edward Trussell, whose father, Sir William Trussell, M.P. (1435—80), was a : 7 266 By Major H. B. Trevor Cox. friend of Cheyne’s and had served with him in France on the King’s expedition. Edward Trussell had died before 1500, and it would seem that the manor had passed to him before it was restored to the Baynton family in 1504. (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 19 Hen. VII.) It is not known how these lands came into possession-of the Mompesson family. But John Mompesson (1432—1500), M.P., had a share in the Manor of Newton Tony, a few miles from Winterslow, in 1500. In 1592 Richard Mompesson and Henry Baynton, whose family held East Winterslow from 1504—79, were joint members for Devizes borough. It may be that Henry sold the manor to his colleague, whose family owned the place from 1629—1750. It is expected that a further article will be written about the arms of the different families who held East Winterslow for the period 1189— 1946, including references to the tombs, brasses and memorials erected in Bromham Church, Salisbury Cathedral and elsewhere in Wiltshire. MANORIAL SERVICE. All Jand was owned by the King in the Middle Ages. The services to be performea by those who held the lands on behalf of the Crown were always clearly defined. The manorial service at East Winterslow has been described in a previous article (see page 18 of this volume). In 1327 the manor was held of the King in chief by the service of one quarter of a Knight’sfee. By 1632 it had been raised to a Knight’s service. The Lordship of the Manor of East Winterslow goes with the ownership of Roche Old Court and its farm lands as in Elizabeth Mompesson’s time. (J.P.M.16Chas.I, Pt.1, No. 78. This inquisition mentions the house by name.) THE Manor House. The ground-plan of the Manor House to-day is the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Mr. Hudson Turner’s book, ‘‘ Domestic Architec- ture in the Middle Ages ’’, shows that this was the usual layout of a, capital messuage. There was a timbered hall forty feet by eighteen. At the lower end of this hall were the kitchens, housed in another tim- bered room forty-four feet long andseventeen wide. (Thisroomexists | to-day in its original Gothic form of 1380.) The bakehouse and | brewery were at the east end of the kitchens. Beyond the upper end of | the hall was a solar, thirteen feet by nine, with a cellar underneath. The buttery, pantry and larder were on the north side of the hall and divided from it by a narrow passage. The porch was in the centre of the hall on the south side. The solar was either a low room with a minstrels’ gallery above it, projecting into the hall and reached by a staircase, or a high room with an open timbered roof. All these features are very similar to those of early English manor houses in the fourteenth century. 267 WILTSHIRE ARCHZOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY. ANNUAL REPORT, 1945. Membership. Since the date of the last report the membership of the Society has increased from 363 to 401, of whom nineteen are life- members. In addition to these there are twenty-five Societies with whom we exchange publications. Magazine. The two half-yearly numbers have been issued as usual in spite of the difficulties of production which still continue. Additions to the Museum collection and to the Library have been received and recorded in the Magazine. Among these are valuable collections of notes, MSS. and deeds from the executors of the late Canon Manley and of Mr. C. R. Everett, and several transcriptions of Parish Registers from Mr. W. A. Webb. Finance. The accounts for 1945, printed on another page, show a surplus on the General Account of £107 18s. 6d. This is almost entirely due to the amount of Income Tax recovered on covenanted subscriptions, which amounted to £104. The Museum Maintenance Fund shows a deficit of £5 15s. 6d. compared with over £50 last year, when exceptionally heavy repairs had to be done. The receipts from admission fees to the Museum were well maintained, the number of visitors being approximately 2,000. The Budbury Site, Bradford-on-Avon. The Bradford-on-Avon Urban District Council having planned to erect a number of temporary houses on what appears to be a prehistoric site at Budbury, Mr. Keiller, on behalf of the Society, visited the site to see if anything could be done to protect it. He reported certain modifications of the original plan which, in his opinion, would prevent material injury to the archzo- logical interest of the site, which could be restored when the temporary houses are removed. In view of this opinion it was decided that no further action by the Society was necessary. Extension of the Museum. In the early part of the year the Society was given the opportunity to purchase the adjoining house, No. 41, Long Street, from the owner, Dr. G. H. H. Waylen, who generously offered it for £500 less than the valuation price. After full considera- tion of the offer and an inspection of the property it was decided to issue an appeal for a sum of £2,500, which, with the amount of the Extension Fund already in hand, was estimated to be sufficient to cover the cost of the property and the necessary alterations. The appeal was very generously supported, and the whole amount was raised by the end of the year. The purchase contract has been signed and possession of the premises is expected to be given shortly. The warmest thanks of the Society are due to Mr. B, H. Cunnington, who 268 Annual Report, 1945. undertook the work connected with the appeal and brought it to so successful a conclusion. Records Branch. The Committee of the Branch met in November last for the first time since 1939. Mr. G. M. Young was elected as chairman in the place of Mr. G. J. Kidston, who had resigned. It was decided to resume publication in 1946, and to appeal to members to renew their subscriptions, and to the public generally to join the branch. It is hoped to distribute in the autumn of 1946 a volume consisting of Wiltshire deeds, mostly relating to Amesbury. Progress has been made with editing the text of the roll of Wiltshire Justices in eyre for 1248—49, and of a note-book of the Clerk of the Peace for the county for the years 1575—92. These should form suitable volumes for 1947 and 1948. Annual Meeting of the Society. It was again found impossible to arrange an Annual Meeting in 1945, and the President and other officers therefore continued in office until 1946, when it is intended to hold an Annual meeting—the first since 1940. MUSEUM EXTENSION FUND. List of Contributions. Dr, G. H. H. Waylen’s generosity has already been recorded. Among others who have helped in various ways Mr. G. W. Jackson and Mr. A. Hodge, solicitors for the respective parties, should be particularly mentioned. They each agreed to remit 50% of their fees and thus contributed Se. to the purpose of the fund. £ Sead: £ s-.d! Andrews, Miss P. 0 Borough, Rij. M2 22. bis 0 Anonymous el 100 0 0 Bower, J. 1 0 0 Anonymous . 45 0O* 0 Bradford, Miss M. 3 3 0 Anstie, E. L. oe 1 0 O Brassey, Lt.-Col. DS. 5 0 0 Arkell: Wes ies 5 0 0 Brentnall, H. C. 10 10 O Arkell, Lt.-Col. J.O.A. 10 O 0O Brentnall, Mrs. 10 10 O Armin, G-H- ... Phas 4 AD) Brentnall, Miss : Sy 5 0) Arnold-Foster, Mrs.... iy tay 0) Brocklebank, Mrs..... 2 2 0O Atkinson; ik? fei Cee 925) 10) 0 Brooke,Mrs.de Leighton 5 0 0 Awdry, MissH.E.... 5 O O Brown, Mrs. Anstice 5 0 0 Awdry, Col. R. W.... 100 0 O Bucknill, Miss L. M. eee re) Bailey, Vady janetss 1772.30) 0 Burn,’ Col. As Hee le lO Barnes, Mrs. E. C. ... 100 O O Buxton, Major G. J. Bateson, Mrs.cHiis:s. 0) 20 and Mrs. .. 10O O O Bayliffe, C. M. oa en LO Calkin, J. B. ae LOO 20 Bell; Lt.-Col Wa: Canning, Col pA] eee 0 Heward . 100 O O Carter, Miss C. se Lose Benet-Stanford, Col. Cary, Lt.-Com.N., R.N. 4.105 0 0 jo Ee: Oe Cash, Wallis seen O72 OLTO Bibbing, E. H. Sete Deno Chitham, Sir Charles 122040 Birley, NP. oeeaeh pe ee Chivers, Mrs. Aj ‘hace 2 ee Blackford, H. oa 10:5 20550 Gochrane, Mrs: By ic, 2,279 Museum Extension Fund. fst a Codrington, Com.C.A. 25 0 0 Collett, Rev. S. oo: OO Cooper, R. H. sen 0 6 Marat A E.G <<. 1.0 0 Read Miss --.:. 10 OC: 0 Craig, Capt. the Rt. Hon. C. C. : 2) 2, -O Crichton-Stuart, The Lady 57-1002 0° 20 Crosfield, Mrs. J. D. 5*-0.:0 Cunnington, B.H.... 50 0 0 Cunnington, Mrs.B.H.50 0 0 Cunnington, Col. R.H.10 0 0O Cunnington, MissT.H. 5 5 0 Cunnington, Dr. C.) Willett se: Cunnington, Dr. -10 0 0 Phyllis Cunnington, Miss S. E. J Hon. Curator of the Museum (for post- ages, &C.) Curtis, Miss E. J. Dixon, B. T. Dobson, Miss D. Be Eccles, D., M.P. Edwards, ie f- : Elderton, Sir W.F.. Elwell, E. C. Falkner, Brig. E. ne Fellowes, C. = Fitzgerald, Col. W ilson Flower, C. T. ark Foster, Mrs. M. C. ... French, Brig. C. N.... Friend, A. sae Fry, Sir Geoffrey ... 10 Baller. HF. - -... 10 Fuller, Major R. F.... 100 Gamble, Lady Hae Gardner, Rev. E. C. Gardner, Mrs. M. E. Ghey, S. H. R. Gimson, H. M. Gladwin, R. Goddard, Rev. Cann mk OUD ee Wb DD we hb OK ke Ol OT OUR E. H. and Mrs.... 100 Gough, W. soo eee Haden, W. Nelson ... 100 Hankey, Basil 320 Harrison-Smith, Miss M. G. 1 KH OOnorFOOCTOUNODrF ONOKFWHNNWOKNO oO OvV© i oO J Ji J —) QQOooqocqocqcoocqoocqceoeooqoeoceocooscooo Hedges, Brig. K.M.F. Hemp, W. a Henderson, Major R. K. Heneage, Miss A. Heneage, GI We Herbert, Lord : Heytesbury, Lord ... Hill, Major H.L.G.... Hinton, F. H. Hoather, H M. me Hollis, Sqd./Ld.C,,m.p. 1 bo mr bo bh OF 9 OF OF RH Oty Holloway, WG? Hornby, C. H. St. John 10 Hosking, J. E. oO Hunt-Grubbe, Com. B. Ward. Mrs. S:; Boi-2 . Hyde-Parker, Adm. E. Ingpen, A. L. Jackson, Mrs. G. Ww. Jennings, R. A. U. Keevil, Surgeon-Com, .) 5. RN- ve 1 Keiller, Alexander ... 100 Kempson, &: J. Hi. ...°. ) I) Fa Thompson, Major e M. Thompson, Mrs. ... Thornely, Mrs. D. ... Thorneycroft, Mrs. E. Thorneycroft, H. D. Tilley, H. Tratman, E. H. Trumper, L. C. Underwood, G. a Wadsworth, Mrs. ... Wadworth & Co. ... 1 Wait, €ColsG ise... Walker, Gen. H.A.... Walrond, Ro Dy ee) ot Watkins, Capt. W. T. Watts, T. Weaver, F. W. Bs Webb, A. W. Miles.. Webb, W. A. : Weston, the Misses. Williams, Major R.. Wilson, Capt. W. | RN. The Wiltshire Gazette 10 Wood, F. B. Woodward, Mrs. Wright, R. P. Wylie, H. Yeatman-Biggs, H. W. Young, G. M. bee Young, W. E. V. — Ol = = DO = bY j—_ WO © = 09 09 = Total £2599 n j=! COPROSNOOCFRE NOR FOO OCOOSo- SOooonrFNOOCSO. i — Soecoooosceocoeooooosoeocoeosooeoscooocooco cCOoCC OSC ORC OF Seoowwowodcebdv = bo 10 4 271 THE WARDENS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST. By THE EARL OF CARDIGAN. BY WAY OF FOREWORD, I should like to explain that this narrative was not, in the first instance, written for publication. Itwas intended as the first part of a work, ambitious in scope but designed for private circulation only, which would tell the whole story—so far as I know it—of the hereditary Wardenship of Savernake Forest. We have here an office of great antiquity, which appears to run back at least to the Norman Conquest, and which is still claimed by my father! at the present day. His right to it was admitted by the Forestry Commissioners, now lessees of Savernake, in 1938. It seemed to me that here was a story worth putting on paper; for although the section here printed comes to an end in 1427, there has been and is an unbroken succession of Wardens, the office being passed on from father to son—or in rare instances, where the male line has failed, to a daughter and to her lineal heirs. In no case has the Wardenship, or the manor of Burbage associated with it, passed by appointment or sale into alien hands: what Richard Estormit held in the year 1083 is to-day held by his descendants. . The Wardenship has latterly, from being an important public function, devolved into something of an hereditary sinecure. The only duty which remains associated with it is that obliging the warden to turn out, when the King chances to visit his former roya] demesne, and to salute His Majesty with a blast of the Esturmy horn. This ancient hunting horn, perhaps the only relic now surviving of the early Wardens of the Forest, is still kept at Savernake, and is indeed still used for this purpose when the occasion arises. It was last so used to greet King George VI in the year 1940. The origin of this custom is, I think, self-evident. When earlier kings came to the Forest they came primarily to hunt; and they would expect to be met by their Warden with horses and hounds and with the great horn which was his token of office. The last of the Esturmys doubtless bequeathed this heirloom to his Seymour grand- son. From the Seymours to the Bruces, and from the Bruces to the Brudenells, both the horn and its tradition have alike been handed down. It is, perhaps, presumptuous of me, who am no antiquarian, to - attempt the telling of a story which runs back so far into the past. I have, however, lately re-discovered numerous ancient manuscripts which have been ignored possibly for two centuries past: I have also taken full advantage of such local history as has been written by those more learned than myself. In this connection I must acknowledge my very considerable debt to Mr. H. C. Brentnall, not only for the abun- 1 The present Marquess of Ailesbury. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. U 272 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. dant information contained in his own published works,! but also for his aid as a translator of medizval scripts. It is due to him also (although I shall leave it to others to judge whether he deserves thanks for this) that the first section of my projected book—that dealing with the original Esturmy Wardens—is here made public. My function so far has been simply to collate what has come to light concerning the Esturmys, and thus to establish the record of their Wardenship between 1083 and 1427. I hope eventually to do likewise in respect of the Seymours, the Bruces and the Brudenells, thus com- pleting a story which, at the present time, spans a period of between 800 and 900 years. THE CONQUEST—AND RICHARD ESTORMIT. Of Savernake Forest prior to the Norman Conquest little is known. It seems certain that it was one of many remnants of a primeval forest belt, partially cleared during the Roman and Saxon periods. The first mention of Savernake by name is made by King Athelstan in the year 934, where in a Charter he refers to certain crofts lying “alongside the woodland which is called Safernoc’”’. The Esturmy connection with the Forest almost certainly does not go back so far: I believe that it began in 1066 or very shortly after.2 The Roll of Battle Abbey is admittedly not good evidence; yet it may be of some significance that the name ‘‘Esturney’”’ is one of those which it records. This name—when we begin to find it in the Norman era—is variously spelled : my own preference is for ‘‘ Esturmy ’’—but it seems that the family’s Wiltshire neighbours mostly preferred the simpler version ‘“‘“Sturmy’’. Estormit is a good and early variation, and it suggests a Norman origin. Mr. Brentnall has found ina glossary of old French terms the word ‘“‘estormi’’, for which ‘‘ alarmé ’’ or ‘‘ éveillé’’ are the synonyms given.® It is, of course, known that many surnames have developed out of nick-names; and it may well have been so in this case. If Richard, 1 «« Savernake Forest in the Middle Ages” (W.A.M., xlviii), ‘“‘ The Metes and Bounds of Savernake Forest’ (W.A.M., xlix), and ‘‘ Venison Trespasses’’ (Marlborough College Nat. Hist. Soc. Report No. 80). The first named is especially informative as to the Esturmy family. 2 Mr. W. Maurice Adams points to a pre-Conquest ‘‘ Stremius ’”’ who lived at ‘‘ Stoche ”’; but it is more than doubtful whether the former can be identified with Sturmy, and the latter refers to Bradenstoke, not Stokke (near Bedwyn). Ward’s Hist. of Gt. Bedwyn misled him. 3 The illustration there quoted is from Chrétien de Troyes’ Perceval (c. 1175) : ‘‘La Ville fut mout estormie’’ (The whole town was on the alert), but the word occurs at least twice in the episode of the Battle — of Hastings in Wace’s Roman de Rou. The forms are estormiy and estormt. In the Norman dialect u tended to replace 0, hence Esturmy, By the Earl of Cardigan. 273 the first known Esturmy, took part in the Conquest, he may have gained a name for being ‘‘estormi”’ or ‘“‘on the alert’’. If he was so called, perhaps ‘‘Richard the Wary’”’ would be a good English equivalent : it would be an apt name also for one of the Conqueror’s successful followers. Our first positive knowledge of Richard comes from the Exeter Book, a survey which ante-dates Domesday Book by three years. From this we learn that one Ricardus Estormid (or, in the next entry, Estormit!) held land near Savernake in the year 1083. Domesday Book itself (1086) is rather more explicit : here we read of Ricardus Sturmid holding Burbage, with land in other villages adjacent to the Forest. An interesting point is that he is listed among the “Servants of the King’’, and therefore must have held some public office. Domesday Book ie us Pies that, in the reign of King Edward the Confessor (circa 1050), virtually all the land now occupied by Richard had belonged to a Saxon whose name was Aluric. It may be that Aluric was Warden of,the Forest under the Saxon kings? : we see that the Esturmy family gained possession of his lands, and it is possible that in so doing they may have taken over his duties also. What is certain is that, from this time onwards, every Esturmy of whom we have adequate knowledge seems to have held sway at Savernake in the capacity of Warden or Chief Forester. Concerning Richard Estormit (or Sturmid, or Estormid), seemingly the founder of his family’s fortunes, there is much that one would like to know. What manner of man was he, and what sort of place was Burbage, where apparently he made his home? Assuming him to have been warden of the royal game preserve at Savernake, what sort of forest was it which extended over the high ground between his manor and the township of Marlborough. How did he live? Whom did he marry ? How many children grew up to carry on his name ? It has to be admitted that we can answer practically none of these questions in a satisfactory way. Apart from the inference that he was “wary’”’ or ‘‘alert’’, we know nothing of Richard as an individual. Of Burbage where he had property, we can only say that it was a place of very slight importance compared with nearby Bedwyn, the 1 The final ¢ or d commonly marked the Old French past participle. 2 In one Domesday entry (Neweton, fol. 67d) Aluric venator was the holder T.E.R. of a hide that passed to Ricardus Sturmid. This seems very significant. Though the special description is lacking elsewhere, the lands formerly held by an Aluric and conferred by King William on Richard Sturmid were these : Buberge (Burbage), 23 hides ; Cuvle- stone (Cowesfield), 2 hides; Haredone (Harding next Great Bedwyn), 13 hides; Neweton (part of North Newnton) 1 hide. This last was probably Rainscombe, adjacent to Sturmid’s manor of Huish. The identifications are from Jones’s Domesday for Wiltshire. 2uU 274 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. former being, as now, an undistinguished village, while the latter was already an historic borough. From Domesday Book, we know something of Richard’s possessions both in Burbage and in nearby villages ; but for most people the tale of ‘‘virgates’”’ and “‘carucates’”’ is not especially informative. It seems Clear, however, that his estate was considerable, that he occupied some of the land himself, and that he let off the remainder to tenants such as William of Burbage and Robert of Harden.! He also had the advantage of possessing several slaves,2 one at Burbage and four at Shalbourne, who no doubt performed the functions of farm labourers. The Esturmys will not, I hope, be blamed for employing slave labour at this period. The individuals concerned were undoubtedly . the former slaves of Aluric, the unfortunate Saxon who had been dispossessed by the Conquest. The Normans did no more than take over the slaves which they found in Saxon England, and these were very soon promoted to the position of villeins. There were, I imagine, no Esturmy slaves except during the period of transition. As to Savernake Forest, old records fortunately enable us to form some picture of it—and it is a picture very different from that of the woodland in which the Forestry Commission occupies itself to-day. If we fly over the forest now (as I have often done from my landing ground near Postern Hill), we see a well-defined area, rather like an island of verdure set in a wide expanse of open farm land. If Richard Estormit could have obtained a similar view, he would have seen the countryside of his time much less tidily arranged. Certainly there was then no central block of woodland, but instead a whole series -of straggling woods and coppices, linked by wide areas of gorse or heath or downland. Well-ordered farms would have been few and far between : indeed the greater part of the land, where it served an agricultural purpose of any sort, provided nothing betterthan rough grazing. Here and there — perhaps the turned earth of a small holding might have been seen, where in an unfenced clearing some laborious peasant strove for an uncertain livelihood. So far as the eye could reach in all directions, Richard would have observed these same primitive conditions. The Forest of Berkshire lay nearby ; so did Chute Forest; so did Ramsbury Chase with Ald- bourne Chase beyond; all these Forests and Chases, although not densely wooded, included huge areas of rough, uncultivated land. With its small Norman-Saxon population, there was much of Southern England that had never known the plough. Geographically then, the outlines of Savernake were by no means clear-cut. In as much as it was a royal forest however—a Forest with | a capital ‘“‘ F’’—its legal boundaries were defined most strictly, as | were the laws under which its inhabitants lived. It behoves us, since the Esturmy family was so intimately concerned both with the main- | 1j.e., Harding. ?To call them “ serfs ’’ makes their case no better. | By the Earl of Cardigan. 275 tenance of boundaries and the enforcement of laws, to study this distinction between the geographical and legal aspects of a Forest: it was of primary importance in Norman and Plantagenet times. Broadly speaking, a Forest was simply an area of land—not necess- arily wooded—scheduled by the Crown for use as a game preserve. Within its boundaries, the Common Law of England did not apply : there was an entirely separate code, known as the Forest Law, govern- ing the lives of its inhabitants. There were local officials, such as the Esturmys of Savernake, to watch over the Forests as servants of the Crown ; and there were superior officials also, the two Guardians of the Forests, one of whom supervised all forest lands to the north of the river Trent while the other performed the same function to the south. There were, moreover, legal courts, known latterly as Eyres, which from time to time set out on circuit to try offences under the Forest Law, to give rulings as regards boundaries and privileges, and in general to maintain the royal authority over the Forests and over those who dwelt therein. The question of boundaries was dealt with locally by means of “‘perambulations ’’ made by the chief foresters—supervised as required by Commissioners or Justices—who periodically ‘‘ beat the bounds ”’, first of the individual bailiwicks into which a medizval Forest was divided, and then of the Forest as a whole. The Esturmys, as soon as they had established their hereditary rights, must have been responsible at Savernake for the latter part of this procedure, as also no doubt for the perambulation of their own “‘ home”’ bailiwick. This was named La Verme—in other words the Farm Baily—and lay mainly in the area north-east of Burbage. I have purposely described the location of the Farm Baily in vague terms; for it is important to realise that neither the individual baili- wicks nor the Forest as a whole had static boundaries. Forests could be—and often were—increased in size by any king in whom a passion for the chase was combined with a sufficiency of autocratic power. They could equally well be reduced whenever public opinion, always hostile to excessive royal afforestations, was strong enough to force the Crown to make concessions. Thus there were periods of afforestation and periods of disafforesta- tion—by which, of course, we must not understand any process either of planting or felling trees: it was simply a matter of scheduling additional land for game preserves or of releasing land which had formerly been scheduled. Timber was affected only in so far as the Forest Law, where it operated, rigorously forbade any clearance or wastage. Allowing for fluctuations one way or the other, it may be said that Forests in England were steadily on the increase from the Norman Conquest until about the year 1200. They retained their swollen size (which at Savernake amounted to more than 100 square miles) until about 1300 A.D. From this date onwards they were rapidly reduced, Many dwindling away altogether, others remaining as restricted royal 276 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. demesnes, and only Savernake—so far as I am aware—eventually passing into and remaining in the possession of a subject. It may seem surprising to us that the development of Forests should have met with such widespread resistance, and that their reduction should have been so keenly sought by the majority of those English- men who possessed influence in national affairs. (It probably surprised the Esturmys also ; but they had a vested interest in Forest expansion, and so can hardly have shared the popular view-point.) The fact is that the Forest Law was found to be oppressive, designed as it was for the protection of game at the expense of the farmer and small- holder. The economic facts, auely as the valuations of old-time Forest holdings, are decidedly revealing. In our own day, I have known farmers profess to have suffered great loss through the depredations of outlying deer (not very convincingly perhaps, since the farmer is now free to kill such intruders and to retain the venison). We hear, how- ever, Of a 14th century farmer, who lived at Knowle and had a holding in the Birch Coppice area, ‘‘ whereof the profit is two shillings and not more, because it is in the Forest’’.» This unfortunate man—his name was William Russell—had as much — as 120 acres of arable land, plus 6 of pasture; but he had not even the right to erect a fence to keep out the King’s beasts, which no doubt fattened themselves with complete impunity upon whatever crops he may have attempted to grow. It may be that he was hard put to it, thus handicapped, to show a profit even of two shillings ! We must not however—except to note that there was some founda- tion for public antipathy—stray too far from the Forest as Richard Estormit knew it. This was before the great expansion had begun ; and we are fortunate in having a fair idea of what the boundaries were in his time. No record has survived of a perambulation made at such an early date; but by a happy chance there is a much later perambula- tion on record in which a careful attempt was made to reconstruct the - boundaries of ‘‘ the ancient Forest’’. The reconstruction may not have been entirely accurate; but it has given us an approximation which we should not otherwise possess. It would seem then that the Forest of Richard Estormit’s day extended as far west as Martinsell (for simplicity, I will give the modern names rather than the ancient ones). It ran as far north as Manton and Marlborough, but without crossing the Kennet; as fag: east as Timbridge and Stokke, and as far south as Burbage Whega and Durley. The boundary was fairly regular on the north and west, somewhat tortuous on the east side and quite irrational (and most difficult to follow) on the south, The ‘‘ancient Forest’’ was therefore by no means enormous— amounting in early Norman days to perhaps 15 or 16 square miles. | It is doubtful whether, at this stage, it was subdivided into bailiwicks ; 1 Inguisitions Post Mortem, Wilts (1811). By the Earl of Cardigan. 277 but if so, the western half of the area which I have described would have been known as the West Bailey. The remainder formed the nucleus of La Verme—the Farm Baily which was the especial heritage of the Esturmys. Richard would have taken a keen, proprietorial interest in the latter area, while of course exercising a general super- vision over the whole. An important public duty no doubt fulfilled by Richard was attendance at the Forest Courts or ‘‘ Eyres’’.t He and successive generations of the Esturmys—if they carried out their Wardenship with proper zeal—must have appeared frequently for the prosecution, or at least ‘‘ briefed ’’ their verderers and subordinate foresters, in cases concerning the slaughter of the King’s deer or the wastage (i.e., clearance) of the King’s woodland. These were the two primary crimes. It is often assumed that the punishments imposed by early Justices must have been of a harsh and brutal nature. This may have been so in remote times; but later it became the almost invariable custom to impose fines or other monetary penalties. This civilised expedient had one marked advantage : it was of direct benefit to the royal exchequer. The family had also a more personal motive for regular attendance at the Forest Courts. Certain privileges had been granted to the Esturmys, and enjoyed by them from the Conquest onwards—‘‘ down from the time wherein the memory of man standeth not’’; and these _ privileges had to be recited before the Justices, and confirmed by them, at each successive Eyre. There was, so far as we know, only one occasion in Esturmy history when this ritual was not observed—and then the omission was regarded as a most serious matter, to be rectified only by a special petition to the King ! We may be sure, therefore, that Richard was meticulous in appear- ing before the Justices at the appointed times, and in claiming from them the continuance of his rights. As Warden, he was entitled to the allegiance of all the foresters of fee (i.e., subordinate foresters) and to the official ‘‘ equipage’’ of saddle and bridle, sword and horn— the traditional regalia of his office. He also claimed ‘‘ house-bote and haye-bote’’, i.e., timber to repair his house and fencing. He claimed free pasturage for his domestic animals, free use of the natural fruits of the Forest (e.g., the nut crop) and the right to all wind-falls and dead wood for domestic purposes. He claimed certain sporting rights also, enabling him to hunt the foxes, hares, wild cats and badgers. The eyries of the hawks were his —from which we may judge that he hunted the wild fowl as well as the lesser ground game. Not least important were his rights to certain fees and perquisites. The fines levied on minor defaulters came to him—fines concerning 1 Regular circuits were made by “ Justices in Eyre”’ as from 1176 Earlier Courts no doubt sat when so ordered by the Crown. 278 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. trespasses and the setting of cony traps. There were also fees for the ‘‘expeditation ’’ of dogs (this being a barbarous but effective method of restraining dogs from poaching by maiming their front paws). There were fees payable for digging sand, and fees for cartage. Finally there was the valuable right to impound all cattle found straying within the Forest area. _ Such, in brief, was the claim which, from.one generation to another, the Esturmys made. Richard must have recited it in detail before the Justices of his day,and gone home well content when he had heard them signify their assent, secure in his privileged position as a respected servant of the King. Doubtless he rode to and from the Eyre, arrayed with the sword and the horn and the other items of equipage. Perhaps also he was followed by an armed retainer; for it was one of his conditions of tenure (I should have mentioned it earlier) to supply an armed man for duty—in effect, to maintain one Territorial soldier —‘‘ whenever the King shall require his services within the seas”’. To-day Richard Estormit’s ‘“‘equipage’’ of saddle and bridle are dust : his sword is lost to us, and has perhaps rusted away. Of the man himself we have no portrait; nor has any writer left us a descrip- tion of him. Itjis, therefore, of peculiar interest to be able still to see and handle the horn—“‘ their great hunting horn, tipped with silver’’! —which undoubtedly was that of the Esturmy family, and which very possibly was Richard’s own. (The silver bands encircling it are clearly medieval—but the instrument itself may be more ancient than its ornamentation.) I shall not further describe here the Esturmy horn—partly because good descriptions of it already exist,? and partly because, being at present in my keeping, it can still be seen and examined by anyone interested. Its size and weight are such that Richard would have carried it slung from his shoulders, although not by the belt at present attached to it, which is considerably more recent than the horn itself. When he blew it, the Forest glades must fairly have echoed to its high- pitched, penetrating tones. The sound of it will still carry a remark- able distance. When my father blew it for King George VI, he was standing inside the entrance hall at Tottenham House, and it was found afterwards that he had set all the dogs barking in Durley, a good. half-mile away ! Of Richard’s house we know nothing. It is likely to have been in Burbage — although Durley would have been handier for keeping watch over the Forest. Tradition locates the Esturmys at Wolfhall from the earliest times; but I find no evidence of this untila good deal later. We do not know the name of Richard’s wife; but we are fairly safe in assuming that he had a number of children, of whom the eldest boy would be called either Henry or Geoffrey. These were the two 1 Camden’s Britannia, ed. 1722, p. 126. 2 E.g. Dr. Milles to the Society of Antiquaries, March 25th, 1773 (Avch@ologia, vol, 3). Basier’s accompanying engraving is here reproduced, By the Earl of Cardigan. 279 favourite names among the Esturmys: in following their early history we find Geoffreys and Henrys alternating for some generations; but later the Henrys predominate, and there are references to ‘‘ Henry the son of Henry ’’—often to the great confusion of the biographer. We do not know the date of Richard’s death, which may, however, have been about 1100. As to his place of burial, we can make a reasonable guess. This was probably at Easton, where there was an ancient church (not on the site of the present structure) which fell into ruin in the 16th century : it was the seat of a Priory from 1246 onwards, but existed before that as a place of worship. We know that a number of the Esturmys were buried there, thanks to a 14th century document! (requiring candles to be burned before their tombs) and also by reference to an inscription in the present Church at Great Bedwyn. The latter occurs on the tomb of Sir John Seymour (who died 1536), and part of it runs as follows :— “This knight ... was fyrste buryed at Eston Priorie Church, amongst divers of his Ancestors, both Seymours and Sturmyes; how- beit that Church being ruined, and thereby all theire Monuments either whollie spoyled or verie much defased, . . . for the better Contynuans of his memory [his grandson] did cause his Bodie to be removed, and here to be intombed .. .” This tomb, incidentally, bears a number of shields, on some of which the Esturmy arms appear. These are, in heraldic language, ‘‘ Argent, three demi-lions couped Gules’’:in ordinary language one would have to call them three sawn-off lions, for these curious beasts are only depicted from the waist upwards! As the Esturmys died out so long ago, it is a rarity now to come across their arms, even in this locality where they must once have been so well known. Were any Esturmy coffins removed with that of Sir John from ruined Easton to Bedwyn? We do not know; and certainly the present resting place of Richard Estormit is not likely, after so many centuries, ever to be identified. We can but garner from old records the few meagre facts known about him ; and, perhaps, “‘ for the better Contynuans of his Memory’’, let imagination and inference supply some seasoning of personal details. HENRY ESTURMIT : temp. HENRY I. We have to wait until the year 1129 for the next reference 2—and that a brief one—to the Esturmy family. Then and in the next year we hear of Henricus Esturmit paying £4 10s. for ‘“‘ the rent of Marl- borough Forest’’. (It was so called at this period only, perhaps on - account of some Norman prejudice against the Saxon name.) I have 1 Preserved at Savernake. MRichard’s tomb: is not specifically mentioned—and indeed records were probably not kept until after the foundation of the Priory, . ! 2 Pipe Roll, , 280 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. assumed, not unreasonably I hope, that this Henry was the son and successor of Richard ; for it is noted that some further money paid by him was for ‘‘ his father’s land ”’. The lapse of 43 years between the two references, the one to Richard and the other to Henry, may seem rather disturbing—since 30 years is the period normally allowed for a generation. It is quite likely how- ever that Henry was an old man in 1129, and that it is the paucity of records that prevents us hearing of him earlier. If so, and if race Estormit should have been in middle life when mentioned in 1086, would be fair to consider the two men as father and son. What is of greater significance is to find, at this very early date, the Esturmys becoming established at Savernake, with Henry the successor to his father’s land and no doubt also to his father’s office. Thus they “ took root’’, as it were, in the Forest—commencing the line of hered- itary Wardens which .can be traced without break from this period onwards. It is unfortunate that we do not know more as to what land Henry _Esturmit held, or as to what he received for his rent of the Forest. Already, this being the reign of King Henry I, it is probable that the afforested area was beginning to expand—and in this the Esturmys were favoured by fortune. As the Forest expanded, so naturally did their authority, their local influence and—in the long run—their material wealth. One would like also to know more of the Esturmys as huntsmen— for huntsmen they were, either personally or by proxy. One must suppose that both Richard and Henry were called upon to provide sport for kings and courtiers during royal visits to Savernake; and (so far as I know) we have only the engravings on the silver bands of the Esturmy horn to indicate how they set about it. Here however we © have a good deal of evidence: we see a huntsman mounted on a spirited steed ; we see him also dismounted, with his horn in one hand and a sword, or possibly a stave, held in the other. We see a variety of hounds, some rather like foxhounds in appearance, but one at least closely resembling a greyhound. We see deer—some which are evidently fallow buck with their palmated antlers, and others with heads suggestive of the red stag. A fox is shown also, and a hare. The indication is that the Esturmys were able to provide a great variety of sport, from plebeian coursing to the hunting of the lordly stag. Royal hunting parties naturally would have preferred the latter ; but in all probability the fallow buck was their most usual quarry. It seems that there were some few red deer at Savernake from very early times, but they appear to have been imported, and their numbers sus- tained by importations, from the more northerly Forests. The fallow were the natural deer of the country, always present in abundance so long as the Warden of Savernake could guard them from poaching or disturbance. We know, for instance, that when King Henry VII came to hunt, he had to content himself with a fallow buck: apparently it had not been possible to harbour a stag for him. By the Earl of Cardigan. 281 It is interesting to note that, even in very recent times, this same tendency has been observable. In 1938, the forest was rather over- stocked with some 500 deer; but even so we had to refrain from killing any red deer. They were then only just maintaining their numbers (perhaps 100), whereas the fallow were constantly on the increase, and required to be thinned out every year. It is doubtful however whether the engravings on the old horn can be taken as precise representations of medieval sport; for the craftsman who made them seems to have allowed himself some degree ' of artistic licence. He has for example, among other beasts of the chase, portrayed a unicorn—and the notion of Henry Esturmit harbour- ing such a quarry for his royal patrons is one that strains our imagina- tion a bit too far! Of Henry’s private life we are again sadly ignorant; but there is a fairly clear reference to him as ‘‘ Esturmy the Forester” in a fine old illuminated Pedigree of the Seymour family, completed in 1604. This Pedigree or Family Tree, at present in my care at Savernake, is a magnificent piece of work ; so large that it cannot be fully unrolled in an ordinary room, and covering all Seymour connections as far back as the Norman Conquest. (Incidentally it gives an exact portrayal of the Esturmy horn—then in Seymour hands—as it appeared about 340 years ago.) The compiler unfortunately does not distinguish between Henry © Esturmit and that other Henry, surnamed’ Esturmi, who flourished some 30 years later. If we are to assume however the normal average of three generations to every century, it follows that the Henry of 1129 was suceeeded by another of the same baptismal name, The natura] conclusion is that Henry Esturmit had children, and that one of these, named after him, was his successor. HENRY ESTURMI : temp. HENRY II. The date at which Henry Esturmi took over the family responsibilities must remain uncertain : it is likely to have been between 1130 and 1140. What is certain is that he was firmly established by 1156, in _which years we learn that ‘‘ Henricus Esturmi pays:a rent of £4 10s. for the Forest of Savernac’’. In 1158 we find him paying a like amount for ‘‘the Farm of the Forest of Savernac’”’, and again in the years 11601 and 11622. We must of course beware of picturing this “farm ’’, which later developed into the Farm Bailiwick, as being agricultural in the ordinary sense. It was in reality the central portion of the Forest, over which the Esturmys had the grazing rights, together with certain other privileges. We need not doubt that the early Esturmys were indeed considerable farmers, in addition to being guardians and administrators of the Forest; but their cultivated land must have stopped short at Durley, 1 Pipe Rolls. 2 Patent Rolls. 282 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. then as now a hamlet forming an outlying part of Burbage. It was the manor of Burbage which formed the true Speen (cara centre of the family property. Henry Esturmi, although he lived into the reign of King Henry II, must have served many years as Warden under King Stephen’s uneasy rule. There was a temporary check at this time in the expansion of the Forest : Stephen indeed made a show of releasing lands which had been afforestcd in the previous reign, and it is certainly unlikely that his.own authority was ever sufficient to enable him to make additions. Civil war in this reign must have made the Warden’s position one of peculiar difficulty. One of the many foreign adventurers whom the war attracted (for civil strife was already a magnet to the ‘‘ soldier of fortune ’’) seized the Castle at Devizes and threatened Marlborough.! Fortunately he was outwitted by the Constable of Marlborough Castle, and his followers driven off ; but there must inevitably have been great confusion and discord throughout the neighbourhood—as also, where troops were encamped, a certain carefree disregard for the current Game Laws! We do not know how Henry conducted himself during this trying period ; but it is to be hoped that he fulfilled his hereditary obligation to supply an armed man to defend the royal cause. The more settled conditions after 1154 must have come as a relief to him, so that we may picture the last years of his life being passed in peaceable enjoy- ment of his Forest ‘‘ Farm’’. We hear nothing of him after 1162, and must suppose that he died during the ensuing decade. GEOFFREY ESTURMY : temp. RICHARD I. Of all the Esturmys, Geoffrey the son and successor of Henry Esturmi is the least well documented. The Seymour Pedigree records him as having been, like his father, ‘‘ Forestarius Forestae de Sauernac’”’; and there is one other mention of him, in a document which however refers primarily to his son. Thus, beyond the fact that he carried on the family tradition during the latter part of the 12th century (probably from about 1170), we ate sadly ill-informed about him. This is unfortunate, since it appears to have been during the reign of King Henry II that the greatest expansion of Savernake took place. I should perhaps have mentioned the significant wording of the Patent Roll (1162) which gives us our last reference to Geoffrey’s father: he is there noted as holding ‘‘the o/d Farm of the Forest ’’. Why, just. before Geoffrey inherited it, was it described as ‘‘old”’, whenit hadnot - been so called previously ? My suggestion is that it had been expanded since 1160; but that rent was still payable in respect of the old, i.e., the original, portion of it. I take it that the process of expansion went on all through Geoffrey’s Wardenship, the boundaries being steadily advanced so as to take in one new area after another. Geoffrey Esturmy must have been closely + Waylen’s History of Marlborough, p, 26. By the Earl of Cardigan. 283 concerned in all this; for although it was King Henry (and no doubt King Richard after him) who called for a general policy of afforesta- tion, it was surely the Warden of Savernake who found ways and means whereby “‘ his ’’ Forest should go forward by giant strides to a size and importance which it had not known before. Thus it was that, when at the end of Geoffrey’s lifetime, i.e., in 1199, certain ‘‘ loyal men and true’ made their perambulation of Savernake,! they found the Forest stretching out its tentacles in a great circle to Collingbourne and Pewsey, East Kennet and Marlborough, to Hunger- ford, Inkpen and Vernham Dean. Within this area were five substantial bailiwicks, the West Baily, La Verme, Southgrove, the Broyle (i.e. the Brail woods) and Hippenscombe (covering all the eastern part). Each bailiwick now had its own forester, responsible to the Warden, except for the Farm Baily which the Esturmys administered themselves. It would be tedious to follow the perambulation (in reality a series of perambulations) in detail; but we can scarcely omit that which encompassed the enlarged area over which the Warden personally presided. ‘‘ These are the metes of the Verme’’—so the record runs—‘“‘ from Morley (Leigh Hill) on the east of Brayden ”’ (i.e. along the E. side of Braydon Bottom) ‘‘ to the Marlborough road: to ‘Puttehall, and from Puttehall by the road leading to the house of the lepers at Hungerford; and so up to the water which comes from Bedewynde (Bedwyn); and so by that water to Crofton—saving (i.e. excluding) the borough of Bedewynde because it is exempt ; and from Crofton to Kinwardstone’”’ (on the Burbage—Grafton road) ‘‘ and thence to Suthmere ”’’. This ‘‘ Suthmere”’ is interesting as a place name: we know it to this day as ‘‘ Seymour ’”’ Pond, but it was clearly the South Mere long before any Seymours came into the neighbourhood. The perambulation con- tinues ‘‘thence to the middle of Burstrete (Burbage High Street) on the east side’’, and so ‘‘ by the road to Morley (or Leigh Hill) again ”’. Such was La Verme as Geoffrey Esturmy and his successors knew it during the hey-day of the English Forests, a roughly triangular area with its extremities on the Bath Road near Forest Hill, at Hungerford and at the cross-roads to the south of Burbage—in all, a goodly stretch of territory, around which the other subsidiary bailiwicks were grouped. It is doubtful, I think, whether Geoffrey himself lived long enough to attend the 1199 perambulation : more probably he died towards the end of Richard Coeur de Lion’s reign, leaving a son named Henry whose destiny was to enhance still further the ascending fortunes of the Esturmy family. : HENRY ESTURMY : temp. KING JOHN. The Henry Esturmy who succeeded Geoffrey is described in the Seymour Pedigree as having lived ‘‘in the time of King Richard and King John’’. It was under the latter monarch however that he especially flourished, gaining from the King a charter which for the first 1 Public Record Office : E, 146, Bundle 2, No. 22. 284 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. time (so far as one can judge) elevated the Esturmys to the coveted position of perpetual Crown tenants both of Burbage manor and of ‘‘ the old Farm of the Forest ’’. I am tempted to say that Henry thus became the first Esturmy land- owner; but the word ‘‘ owner”’ is hardly appropriate, since under the feudal system there was but one man who literally owned land—and that was the King. Lesser mortals were land holders, having tenancies which commonly ran on from father to son, as in fact the Esturmy tenancy had done since Richard Estormit first settled at Burbage. So far however it had been by custom only that one generation had followed another, the family aptitude for hunting and for forest . management being perhaps the chief factor in maintaining the succession. — Only with Henry Esturmy in the year 1200 did it become a matter of lawful right. The position of the Esturmys at Savernake was thus immensely strengthened—so much so that, if Richard Estormit was the founder, Henry Esturmy may be deemed the consolidator of the family fortunes. This young man was lucky, in that he seems to have commenced his Wardenship at about the time of King John’s accession to the throne —and King John, although he earned the ill-will of many of his sub- jects, was an indulgent sovereign where the Esturmys were concerned. Within his own entourage, the King was served by one Thomas Esturmy, described as his ‘‘ valet’’—perhaps the equivalent of a Gentleman of the Bedchamber. What relationship existed between Thomas and Henry Esturmy I have not been able to discover: they were perhaps cousins, for there were several branches of the family in different parts of England. Thomas at any rate stood high in the King’s favour, for he was madea knight, this honour being accompanied by numerous gifts bestowed upon him by his royal master. We learn that King John gave him ‘“‘a scarlet robe wlth a cloak of fine linen ; another robe of green or brown ; a saddle and a pair of reins ; a cloak against rain ; a couch or bed, and a pair of linen sheets ’’.1 A bed, be it noted, was a thing of luxury in those days: a bed with linen sheets was therefore in every sense a princely gift! The King must also have had some acquaintance with the Esturmys who provided sport for him in Savernake Forest. He was no stranger to the district, for as a young prince he had been lord of Marlborough Castle.2. We hear of him also lodging in Bedwyn at the commencement of his reign,® and it is likely that Henry Esturmy, as Warden, may then have attended the Royal visitor. 1 Quoted, without reference, by W. Maurice Adams (Sylvan Savernake). This writer assumes—unwarrantably as I think—-that Sir Thomas was one of the Esturmy Wardens of the Forest. , There is no evidence for this—and much against it. Adams rarely gave his authorities. 2 Waylen, op. cit., p. 30, 3 History of Great Bedwyn : Rev. John Ward. | By the Earl of Cardigan. 285 What is very evident is that Henry shared with his relative, Thomas Esturmy, the approbation of King John. The mark of it is the royal charter, still preserved at Savernake, by which the King granted to his Warden a perpetual tenure. Clear and legible after nearly 750 years, it runs as follows: “« John by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Justices, Sheriffs, Ministers, Constables and all his bailiffs and lieges—Greeting ! ”’ “Know ye that we have granted, and by this our Charter doconfirm, to Henry Esturmy such seisin of all the land and bailiwick of the Forest of Savernake as Geoffrey Esturmy his father had therein on the day that he died, with ali its appurtenances to have and to hold to himand to his heirs of us and of our heirs by the service which the aforesaid Geoffrey, father of the said Henry, and his ancestors were wont and bound to perform to our ancestors therefor ’’. “‘ Wherefore it is our will, and we firmly enjoin, that the aforesaid Henry and his heirs after him shall have and hold all the aforesaid -land and bailiwick with all its appurtenances, welland peaceably, freely and quietly, wholly and honourably ; in wood and in plain, in roads and in paths, in meadows and pastures and in all places and things with all liberties and free customs pertaining to the aforesaid land and bailiwick as before stated ’’. The document is witnessed by two Bishops, two Earls and a number of other persons. It is given by the hands of two Archdeacons “at Porchester, the 28th day of April in the first year of our reign ’”’. Some people have supposed—and notably Mr. Maurice Adams—that this charter confirms some earlier grant made to the Esturmys by an earlier monarch. Personally, I draw no such conclusion from the words ‘“‘ we do confirm’’. -As [ read it, King John himself was making an original grant : having made it, he confirmed it by causing his two Archdeacons (one wonders why he should have required two !) to set it down in writing. To besure, the Esturmys may have had an earlier grant; but I can find no such document, nor does King John imply that any such existed. It isa pity that we no longer know exactly what land in fact was held by Geoffrey Esturmy ‘‘on the day that he died’”’. The officials of King John’s day no doubt had contemporary records to refer to ; for it was customary to assess a man’s property at his death, and to collect from his heir some form of ‘‘ death duty’’ based on the annual value. The necessary investigation was known asan Inquisition Post Mortem ; but unfortunately no findings of Inquisitions have survived from so early a date. Henry Esturmy’s grandson is the first member of the family concerning whose property we have such an assessment. We can only speculate therefore as to the extent of ‘‘ the aforesaid land and bailiwick’’. In addition to the manor of Burbage, my belief is that the Esturmys had at this date a wide belt of Forest land, extending from Durley across to the Bath Road : ‘‘ Sturmeyesdowne ”’, 286 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. an old place name in the region of Timbridge Farm, seems to indicate this clearly. No doubt there was further property elsewhere ; but this was the core of it, destined now to pass on with the Wardenship to ' generations beyond Henry’s imagining. Having received his charter in the year 1200, Henry Esturmy must have felt his future assured. Soon after this date he appears to have married, for it would seem that a son was born to him in the year 1205.1 Henry’s wife is not known to us by name; but we know something of her indirectly. There was a certain Sir Adam of Easton in those days, whose son Stephen became a cleric of some eminence. As Archdeacon of Wilts, the latter founded Easton Priory —an institution which the Esturmys thenceforward were zealous to support. G Sir Adam must have had a daughter also, and this lady must have been wedded to Henry Esturmy. Their son was given the name of Geoffrey —and it is through him that we are able to glean this infor- mation; for in an old indenture? there is a reference to Geoffrey Esturmy being the Archdeacon’s nephew. The foundation of Easton Priory, by the way, seems to have had something of a civilising effect upon the Savernake neighbourhood. It is noticeable that, after Archdeacon Stephen had established it in the year 1246, various documents of local interest were drawn up, of which many still survive. The brethren of Easton, unlike their simpler neighbours, would, of course, have been well skilled in reading and writing : moreover they would have had the means of preserving such documents as their neighbours lodged with them. We know as a fact that the Esturmy family did keep certain deeds and other parchments at the Priory ;? and no doubt it is on this account that, whereas our know- ledge of the earlier Esturmys is extremely scanty, I shall presently be able to give a fairly full account of those who lived contemporaneously with the Easton brethren. Almost the last period of obscurity is therefore that which covers the Wardenship of Henry Esturmy. We do not know how long Henry lived; but there are strong indications that he died young—perhaps not long after the birth of hisson. Between 1208 and 1226 there are several references to successive Constables of Marlborough Castle being given charge also of Savernake Forest. There seems to be no reason for this, other than the premature death of the hereditary Warden: there is no suggestion of the latter having so far forfeited the King’s regard as to be dismissed from office; nor, on the succession of Henry’s son, is there any hint of a pardon or amnesty being granted. The interregnum occurs, and is brought to an end, without any explanation being deemed necessary. 1 Vide infra the latter’s coming of age—apparently in 1226. 2 Savernake Archives. 3 Correspondence exists — dated 1816 —- concerning a deed box entrusted to a certain ‘‘ Brother John”’. By the Earl of Cardigan. 287 The most natural and obvious interpretation of the facts is that Henry Esturmy died suddenly, while still a young man. His son Geoffrey being a mere child, it was, of course, needful to find some competent local official to act for him in the administration of the Forest until such time as he should come of age. The Constable of Marlborough was chosen, it seems, as a suitable person (being on the spot); and thus we find Hugh de Neville, in the year 1208, being referred to in the dual capacity of Constable and Warden.! Henry’s untimely death, after commencing his career under such favourable auspices, was tragic. It might have been more tragic, in those uncertain times, but for King John’s grant to ‘‘ the aforesaid Henry and his heirs after him’’. This royal charter served the boy Geoffrey well. SIR GEOFFREY ESTURMY : 1226—1254. Geoffrey Esturmy’s childhood was spent during a confused period of history, marked by continual conflict between King John and his English subjects. The boy must have lived in Burbage with his widowed mother, for the family no doubt had a house there: its location is not known, but there is to this day a ‘‘ Manor Farm ”’ lying on that side of the village nearest to Savernake Forest—and a reasonable guess would place the Esturmy dwelling in the same vicinity.? Ten-year-old boys are seldom interested in national affairs ; yet young Geoffrey may have heard mention of the granting of Magna Carta in the year 1215. It is not to be supposed that he was much moved by the main clauses which have since made so profound an im- pression on the world at large. King John may have been a tyrant ; but he was not viewed in that light by the Esturmys ! Magna Carta however contained two minor clauses on the subject of Forests, destined to have a far-reaching effect. Had they been promptly carried out, there would have been a huge disafforestation at Savernake and elsewhere, not only of land which had been taken into the Forests by King John himself, but also of all the areas afforested either by Richard I or by Henry II. It was fortunate for the Esturmys, and for similar families of Forest Wardens elsewhere, that the King had little inclination to carry out the reforms to which he had set his Great Seal. Indeed the brief remainder of this unhappy reign was made notorious by King John’s attempts to evade the promises wrung from him by the Barons. He succeeded—although it did not greatly help him—in get ting the Pope to pronounce Magna Carta, including the King’s pledges "Close Rolls : de Neville being ordered to hang from the nearest Oak anyone harming religious men or clerks ! 2 An [.P.M. of 1625 names 3 manors in Burbage after the families of Savage, Darell and Esturmy. Burbach Sturmy is so named in. 1493 (Cal. of Ing., 8and 9 HenryVII.) The other two seem to correspond to East Court and West Court respectively. , VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. Pon EY: 288 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. as to Forests, null and void. The Dauphin of France thereupon took the field as an ally of the Barons; and soon this foreign prince was ‘holding sway at Winchester, claiming the over-lordship both of Marlborough Castle and of Savernake Forest. Such was the position when King John died in 1216. The affairs of England were restored—none too soon—to an orderly basis under the Regency which ruled the country on behalf of the boy King Henry III. In 1222 Alexander de Bassingeburn, being the new Constable of Marlborough, was given charge of the Forest;! but by now Geoffrey Esturmy was growing up, and could look forward to the day when he would take over his inheritance himself. The youthful heir to Savernake must have awaited impatiently his 21st birthday ; for until then he could do nothing, and the Constable would continue to exercise control, appointing his own nominees as foresters and no doubt performing many other functions properly belonging to the hereditary Warden. To an ambitious youngster, the last few yeas of his minority must have seemed dismally slow in passing. It was in 1226 that Geoffrey at last attained his legal manhood—a fact of which the official world at Westminster was no doubt promptly apprised. A royal edict was thereupon issued,? of which the wording is as follows : | ‘‘Henry, son of King John formerly King of England, has rendered (the Latin is veddidit, contrasting with the concessisse of the original grant) to Geoffrey Esturmy, son and heir of Henry Esturmy, the forest bailiwick of the Forest of Savernak as his right and inheritance. And it is enjoined upon all the verderers and foresters of fee of the Forest of Savernac that they be diligent and ready to do his bidding as the bailiff of our Lord the King. By witness of the King at Windsor, the 22nd day of December in the 11th year of his reign ”’ King Henry evidently intended that there should be no mistake about it ; for he sent a message also ® to the Wiltshire authorities for their information. ‘‘ And the Sheriff of Wilts is ordered to cause him (Geoffrey) to have without delay full seisin of all the said lands ’”’ A further message * went to Hugh de Neville, now Justice of the Forests, ordering him to make what we should term a schedule of plight in connection with Geoffrey’s assumption of the Wardenship. He was to ‘‘ take with him the verderers and foresters of fee and other trusty men of the Forest of Savernac, and go to the said Forest and use his diligence to see in what manner the said Forest has been kept when Geoffrey Esturmy receives it, alike it vert and in venison; and to acquaint the King of the state in which he finds that Forest ” Finally, the Constable of Marlborough had his notification.® ‘‘ King 1 Patent Rolls. 2 The Esturmys had a copy made (Savernake Archives). 3 Same source. 4 Same. 5 Same, By thezEarl of Cardigan. 289 Henry has rendered to the said Geoffrey Esturmy the forest bailiwick of Savernac to keep by his own bailiffs, the bailiwick being the said Geoffrey’s hereditary demesne ; and the Constable . . . is ordered to remove the officers whom he placed by the precept of the King in that Forest for the keeping of it, and allow the said Geoffrey to keep it by his own bailiffs ”’. With this, all concerned had been made aware both of the new Warden’s accession and of the relevant action required of them. (Crown officials, we see, were commendably business-like in the 13th century !) Geoffrey, by 1227, could feel himself firmly ‘‘in the saddle’’—and it was well for him, in view of the troubles impending, that it should be SO. In regard to the Forests of England, a critical period had by now set in: Geoffrey may or may not have recognised it, but the great tide of afforestation was on the turn at last. Indeed the ebb had already begun with the accession of King Henry; and so it was that the boundaries of Savernake, threatened in vain by the Barons at Runny- mede in 1215, came for the first time under hostile scrutiny during the Regency with which the new reign opened. The Regents knew well the popular hostility towards the swollen Forests ; and it was they who in 1217 reiterated what King John had promised. Their ‘‘Charter of the Forests’’ was issued in that year, although not put into effect where Wiltshire Forests were concerned : in 1224 there was some sort of reprieve, but in 1225 the same charter was re-issued—this time with the evident intention of translating promise into action. Geoffrey Esturmy, seeing this threat impending as he grew to man- hood, must have suffered keen anxiety as to the future of his heritage. The storm did not break, as it happened, until he was safely established in the Wardenship ; but then, in the year 1228, he had to face the ordeal of an investigation by a Royal Commission. His boundaries were examined, records searched, and a report at length drawn up. “The whole bailiwick of Savernake’’, declared the Commission in its commendably moderate findings,! ‘‘ which belonged to the ancestors of Geoffrey Sturmi and other foresters of fee of the same Forest, is ancient forest save only those woods and lands which lie north of the King’s street (now the Bath Road) leading from the House of the Lepers at Hungerford towards Marlborough as far as the well of William of Putelal (mistake for Putehal, now Puthall) which is on that street, and diverging to the gate of the said William and so across the hill to the water of Kenite at Stutescombe (i.e. Stitchcombe) ”’. We cannot dispute the justice of this verdict: no doubt the area to the north of the Bath Road, extending as far as Ramsbury, had been lately added to the Forest in some quite unauthorised manner. This was not forest land when the perambulation of 1199 was made, and 1 Close Roll. 290 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. must therefore have been ‘‘ requisitioned ’’ in the time of King John. It is even possible that the incorporation of it, carried out by Geoffrey’s father, was the means whereby the latter had earned King John’s good will and approval. Now, however, it was necessary for Geoffrey to withdraw from it ; and so the Forest, after its long period of increase, had to suffer this first territorial set-back. There was nothing, of course, that Geoffrey Esturmy could do to avert the loss. The Commission, in this matter, stood on firm ground ; but it proved fallible in other directions. In surveying the western boundaries of the Forest, for example, the members were led by certain plausible witnesses into committing aserious blunder—thereby giving the Warden a chance, which he had lacked before, to re-assert his own authority. It seems that a certain Henry de Luni, supported by Thomas of Kenete, persuaded the Commissioners that he had some right to Boreham Wood, an outlying covert beyond the West Woods. The latter believed his story and disafforested the wood, whereupon the graceless de Luni proceeded to cut down a part of it, to his own , considerable profit. Geoffrey, who well knew the falsity of de Luni’s claim, no doubt rejoiced to find here the opportunity for action. He seems to have waited only until the Commission was out of the way, and then—we are told '—‘‘ in the same year came Geoffrey Esturmiand repealed that wood to the demesne wood of our lord the King as it was before’. One would like to have seen him,“ repealing ’’ it, and sending de Luni and his minions about their business ! It is satisfactory at least to know that the wood stayed “‘ repealed ’’. The Warden’s action was upheld, and the true facts recorded by an Inquisition held at Hungerford a good many years after the event. Geoffrey was clearly a man of strong character, although not lacking in discretion : (note his boldness in this case, compared with his prudent acquiescence over the northern boundary). It is significant that he gained a knighthood ? in the course of his career—the first of the Wiltshire Esturmys, so far as we know, to be honoured in this way. The Boreham affair was well handled ; and no doubt his colleagues, the chief foresters of the various bailiwicks, supported their Warden in it with enthusiasm. It may be of interest to take the spot-light off the Esturmys for a moment, and see just who these colleagues were. They all appeared at Hungerford to back his evidence with theirs, and so we are able to list them as follows: Bashwick. Forestey in charge, 1244. West Baily John de Wyke and William de Buneclive Southgrove John de Forstbury Broyle Richard de Harden Hippenscombe Vacant; formerly William de Wexcumbe ' P.R.O. Forest Proceedings, E. 146, 2/28. 2 Seymour Pedigree, and earlier sources. By the Earl of Cardigan. 291 La Verme is of course omitted, for this bailiwick was the Esturmy’s own. It seems curious to find two foresters sharing control of the West Baily ; but they were near neighbours if one may judge by their names, and each held land entitling him to a half-share. The present East Wick Farm gives us the clue to John de Wyke’s residence; and I have an old map which shows Buneclive as being on the high ground at Martinsell (or Martinshold as it was then called). Some trace of the same name is perhaps discernible to-day in “‘ Bunny’s Copse”’. The Southgrove forester’s name has a familiar sound—and it is not difficult to link Forstbury with Fosbury. Richard de Harden is com- memorated in the name of Harding Farm near Bedwyn; and it is no surprise to learn that his “ Broyle’’ bailiwick was centred upon the Brail woods. As to the Hippenscombe baily, this large area appropri- ately included Wexcombe, whence the late forester had taken his name. (His successor there was less distinctively known as William Venator— or in plain English, William Hunter.) It ought not to be forgotten, when speaking of Forest affairs, that men such as these formed a team under Esturmy leadership, and that the administration of the Forest was carried on by their joint endeavours. It seems on the whole to have been a harmonious team: only once in 800 years do we find the Warden and his foresters at enmity. With the Charter of the Forests promulgated at the very commence- ment of Sir Geoffrey’s Wardenship, it might be supposed/that he and his Foresters had to suffer a whole series of visitations from Com- missioners. We know that—whatever the Commission of 1228 may have said—the greater part of the region under Esturmy contro] was mot “ancient forest’’ at all: there had been continual additions ever since the time of Richard Estormit, and the area to the north of the _ Bath Road was merely the most recent of them. It would have been logical to disafforest a great deal of ground in addition to this. We do not know whether the Commissioners became discouraged _ aiter the ‘‘ repeal’’ of Boreham Wood: more probably, as the young King grew up, he developed the royal fondness for sport : perhaps also he valued the absolute control which the Forest Law gave him over large tracts of his kingdom. His Finance Minister, remembering the profitable fines imposed by the Eyre Justices, may also have shown _ feluctance to see the Charter of the Forestsrigorously applied. Itis at any rate a fact that Sir Geoffrey was not troubled by further visitations, and that the boundaries of Savernake suffered, for the time at least, no further curtailment. It may have been shortly after the Boreham affair that Sir Geoffrey Esturmy, now a young man in his early twenties, turned his thoughts to matrimony. His bride was a lady named Matilda Bemynges!— presumably of alocal family, since in those days there were few facilities 1So called in an Indenture (Savernake Archives). The Seymour Pedigree mentions this lady, but mis-names her. 292 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. for doing one’s courting at a distance. She gave him what he must greatly have desired—a son and heir. i Of the Warden’s day-to-day business at Savernake we get occasional glimpses during this period. Some red deer were sent to him from the Peak Forest in 1238, evidently in the hope that he would be able to build up his local herd and so provide more varied sport. There was of course no anxiety about the fallow : in 1227 the King had sent his buck-hounds,! with Richard Pincun his huntsman in charge of them, to kill off 30 bucks, the venison of which Geoffrey had to have salted and kept for the royal table. That such a number could be killed in this one season is evidence that the Forest was well stocked with them. Of this abundance, much no doubt was due to the Warden’s care in preventing any poaching or disturbance. He seems to have been especially strict in enforcing observance of the ‘‘fence month ”’: this was the period in midsummer when the fawns appeared, and when it was most important that the does should be left in peace. During the fence month of 1236, we know that he seized and locked up two men whom he found—unlawfully as he thought—in the Forest.2._ Actually they had been sent by the Prior of St. Margaret in Marlborough to get thorns for the Priory hedges, as they were entitled to do, and so he had subsequently to release them. The incident shows, none the less, that he was very much alive to what went on under his jurisdiction. As he grew older, Sir Geoffrey began to give more thought to religious matters, perhaps inspired thereto by his worthy uncle Stephen. Com- pared with certain later members of the Esturmy family, one would hardly have thought that he had much cause for anxiety as to his destination in the next world ; but he was of a God-fearing nature, as will be seen from a grant which he made to the newly-founded Priory at Easton. The document in question * is undated, but the names of the witnesses suggest 1250 as a possible date for it. The good Arch- deacon had then only recently established his Trinitarian Hospital? ; and perhaps it was not yet very well endowed. ‘* For all the faithful in Christ to whom the present writing comes”’, the grant commences, ‘“‘ G. Esturmy (prays) health eternalin the Lord. Know that I, from contemplation of the Truth and for the Salvation of my Soul and the Souls of my Ancestors, have given and granted and by this my present charter have confirmed to God and the Blessed Mary and the hospital of Eston and the brothers serving God in that place, fifty acres of my Wood in Savernac . . . in frank and firm and perpetual almoin ’’. st The document goes on the enjoin that the brethren of Easton are to have free access to the wood at all times, ‘‘ without molestation by the 1 Liberate Rolls. 2 Close Rolls. 3 Still extant at Savernake. 4 He appears to have died immediately afterwards (1246). By the Earl of Cardigan, 293 foresters’. They are to have full common of pasture for their beasts of every kind in ‘‘Savernac. And I and my heirs ’’, declares Sir Geoffrey, ‘‘ will guarantee the said wood with all its liberties and appurtenances to the said hospital and brethren against all people. And to this end let my gift and grant be ratified and firmly abide .. . ”’. It is pleasant to find that in the next century there was still a wood near Leigh Hill known as ‘‘the Prior of Eston’s wood’’, and that indeed a part of the Forest is to this day identifiable as ‘‘ Priory Wood’’. Less edifying perhaps is the reflection that, when the Dissolution of the Monasteries eventually took place, one of Sir Geoffrey’s remote heirs was among those profiting hugely thereby. (This impious product of the 16th century was however a Seymour!) Of Sir Geoffrey’s own piety, the wording of his charter leaves no doubt. Possibly he already felt that he would not live to a great age —and in fact he was still in middle life when, in the year 1254, he died. He and Matilda had named their son after the child’s grandfather ; and thus it was another Henry Esturmy who duly succeeded both to the Wardenship and to the family property associated with it.’ SIR HENRY ESTURMY : 1254—1295. The new Warden of Savernake was destined to enjoy a long tenure of office. Gaining his inheritance in 1254, Henry Esturmy had charge of the Forest for more than 40 years—very nearly seeing the 13th century out. When he succeeded his father, it would appear that, although young, he was already a married man; his wife’s name was Alina—but beyond this we know of her only that she presented him with a son, to whom the traditional name of Henry was again given. (In all probability there were other small Esturmys; but of their names we are not informed.) Concerning the family lands at Savernake, we have at this period much fuller knowledge. An Inquisition tells us what property the - senior Henry (Henry de Stormy it elects to call him) was able to leave at his death to Henry junior; and it happens that we also know what passed from father to son by gift at an earlier date. Looking first of all at the original family estate, we find as expected the manor of ‘‘ Borbach ’’, together with the subsidiary properties (or “members ’’) of ‘“‘ Durleygh”’ and ‘‘ Couelesfeld”’. Henry Esturmy had likewise ‘‘ the bailiwick of the Forest ’’—and we are free to speculate as to how much that implied! It was worth only 40 shillings per annum to him, as against the annual £10 value of the manor of Burbage —so that perhaps the reference is to the perquisites, grazing rights, etc., enjoyed by the Esturmys in the Forest area. Some woodland must have been included also (Sir Geoffrey proved that by being able to present the Church with 50 acres). All this was held by Henry ‘“‘of the King in chief . . . by the * Abbreviatio Rotulorum Originalium, 294 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. serjeanty of finding in the army of the King in Wales one esquire _ armed, and keeping the bailiwick of the King’s Forest of Savernak”’. The King, in the latter part of Henry’s life, was King Edward 1; and as this monarch devoted his energies very largely to campaigning against the Welsh, it may be imagined that the maintenance of an esquire in his army was quite a serious undertaking, and perhaps—if the esquire’s family had to be looked after in his absence—a consider- able drain on Esturmy resources. There is evidence that Henry found it-so; for we know ofan arrange- ment which he made with a certain lady named Matilda Husee, by which she. rented land from him ‘‘ by the service of finding the third part of one man armed and of one horse harnessed in the King’s army in time of war’’. This ingenious form of lease was evidently notat the time considered to be odd; for an Inquisition Post Mortem records it, and it may be that Henry leased other holdings also to tenants who covenanted to maintain for him some fraction of his esquire in Wales. ‘What may be puzzling to any one with local knowledge is the men- tion of ‘‘ Couelesfeld’’ as being a ‘‘ member’’ of Burbage. No such _ place exists in the neighbourhood, in contrast to ‘‘ Durleygh ’’ which is of course quickly identifiable. In point of fact, Cowesfield (or Cowes- field 'Esturmy, now a tithing of Whiteparish) is miles away in South Wiltshire, somewhere the other side of Salisbury. Its association with Burbage dates back to Saxon days, for we know that the same Aluric who held Burbage in the time of Edward the Confessor was the pro- prietor of Cowesfield also. ‘When Richard Estormit took over this unhappy Saxon’s property near Savernake, he likewise acquired Cowesfield. It is interesting to note that, according to Domesday Book, he held Burbage and other local manors in his capacity as a ‘‘ Servant of the King’, whereas the entry for Cowesfield is simply headed ‘‘ Terra Ricardi Sturmid’’. None the less, Burbage and Cowesfield remained linked under Richard’s tenure—and it seems that the two places were always regarded, in spite ot their distance apart, as being in some sense united. This traditional association of Cowesfield with Burbage is of interest in several respects. For example, it indicates that the Esturmys must have travelled about a good deal, if only on estate business within the - confines of Wiltshire, and cannot have been wholly occupied with the affairs of Savernake. They must have been well known in Salisbury atleast; and one is led to enquire whether they may already have had interests in other parts of England, and perhaps have been wont, when their Forest duties were not pressing, to visit medizval London and there make contact with the wider world. In early times, we unfortunately hear of only one such visit—and that was very definitely on Forest business. (We know of a widely-travelled 15th-century Esturmy ; but he was of course the product of more spacious days.) ‘It is a little surprising that certain manors which Richard Estormit once held are at this date no longer mentioned as being in the family’s By the Earl of Cardigan. . 295 possession. On the other hand, there is reason to credit Henry Esturmy with acquiring Wolfhall, destined to become the chief residence of his successors. This manor, although adjoining Burbage, had not belonged to Aluric, but had passed from another Saxon owner to the Norman Radulfus de Halville. In the time of Sir Geoffrey Esturmy, one hears of a certain Berengarius de Wlfal,’ presumably the tenant of that period. The place-name is variously spelled, commencing as ‘ Ulfela ”’ in Domesday Book and only in recent times being modified to ‘‘ Wolf- hall’. Henry Esturmy seems to have added this manor to his property between 1254 and 1277. Incidentally it appears that Henry gained a knighthood at about this time; for an ancient document in my possession notes an ‘‘ Agree- ment made between the Lady Margaret Husee and Sir Henry Esturmy, . Knight, touching a marriage to be had between Henry, son and heir of the said Henry, Knight, and Margaret, daughter and one of the heirs of Sir Hubert Husee’’. The Seymour Pedigree gives a transcript, in shortened form, of the actual Agreement—in reality a declaration which runs as follows : ‘“‘ Know all men present and future that I, Henry Esturmy, son of Geoffrey Esturmy, have given, granted and by this present charter con- firmed for myself and for my heirs, to Henry my son as a free gift on his marriage with Margaret daughter of Hubert Husee, the whole of the manor of Wolfhall’’. The date is 1277, which fixes for us three separate events—the marriage of the younger Henry, the acquisition of Wolfhall as a marriage portion (and no doubt a home) for the young couple, and finally the knightly status achieved by the elder Esturmy.? We are fortunate, in connection with this marriage, in knowing also a good deal about the bride. She was one of the three daughters of Sir Hubert Hussey (or Husee)?—a man of distinguished family who had evidently died a short time previously. -It was her sister Matilda who became Sir Henry’s tenant and, as we have seen, maintained one-third of the Esturmy soldier—not forgetting one-third of his horse ! _ Margaret, named after her mother, must have been a very youthful bride. By my reckoning she was only 16 at the time of her marriage “in the fifth year of the reign of King Edward the son of King Henry ’’. Having no brothers, she may have been quite a considerable heiress ; certainly she had land in Figheldean, Tidcombe and elsewhere, so that, in the manor given by her father-in-law, she and the younger Ley should have been able to live in comfortable style. These domestic affairs must not however cause us to lose sight of Sir Henry Esturmy in his public capacity as Warden of the Forest. ‘In a Deed (Savernake Archives). The W, a real double xu or oo, represents the local pronunciation—Oolfall. 2 An earlier transcript (Savernake Archives) adds that the young Henry and Margaret had to make yearly acknowledgement for Wolf- hall in the form of ‘‘ one rose at the Nativity of St. John the Baptist ”’. 8 1.P.M., Wilts. 296 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. He was no doubt in attendance, and made the traditional recital of his privileges, at the Forest Eyre held in 1257. Fortunately the records of this Eyre have come down to us,! so that we can ascertain what further business was transacted. Inevitably a good many case, of poaching, or trespass in search of venison, occupied the Court’s attention: there seems to have been little respect around Savernakes either at this period or any other, for the sanctity of the royal game ! An unusual case, which Sir Henry must have followed closely, was that concerning Geoffrey the son of Walter, of Oare. His guilt was never in doubt; for he had been caught by the Savernake verderers, red-handed, in possession of a fawn. He was convicted, and fined the (then) substantial sum of ten shillings. Unhappily, however, the verderers had not been well trained—or had become careless—in the presentation of their evidence. The Court found that they had ‘‘ made Inquisition without due care, so that their plea-roll contained no record of the day and the year (of the offence) ; and now they say otherwise by word of mouth than their roll pre- sented ’’. For this bad management the verderers was fined rather more heavily than Geoffrey, the son of Walter, had been—besides in- curting, as they surely did, the wrath of the Warden whose orders they had so imperfectly fulfilled ! ; Apart from the poaching cases, there was always a variety of prose- cutions at a Forest Eyre for crimes against the “ vert’’, as forexample the clearance or wastage of timber. Sir Henry was no doubt present at the sessions of 1270,2 when a certain Henry Huse (evidently a person of some standing and perhaps—as the name suggests—a relative of Margaret Esturmy) had to answer a charge concerning his wood ‘called Shutecroft which is within Savernake Forest ”’. It was alleged that this wood ‘‘ to which the beasts of the King are wont to have great repair and access, and where they ought and are wont to have peace, has been wasted anew by gifts and sales. And the said Henry . . . oughtnot . . . to have taken any- thing in the said wood save reasonable estovers for his manor’”’ (i.e. essential timber for repairs, etc.) . . . ‘‘yet that wood for the beasts he utterly devastated ”’. The verdict was that “‘ the said Henry shall be in mercy, and the said wood taken into the King’s hand’”’. In other words, Henry Huse was found guilty, and his wood was confiscated. He was technically a ‘‘free tenant’’ of the Forest ; but he had to learn not to make too free with a covert frequented by the King’s beasts. All these cases naturally demanded the Warden’s close attention ; for it was he who had the duty of seeing that the Forest Law was observed, and in particular that game was preserved and allowed to multiply for the King’s pleasure. The earlier Kings of England, be it noted, kept a very sharp eye on T P.R-O: 32,7198: 2 P.R.O., E. 32, 200. By the Earl of Cardigan. 297 the state of affairs prevailing in their royal Forests. Did not one wrathful monarch (I have his letter before me) threaten ‘our trusty and welbeloved Wardeyn ’’, when he suspected some negligence in the latter’s administration, with ‘‘ the peyne of forfaiture of your office’ ? This was not an isolated letter either: I have found several in the same vein.! Sir Henry was concerned also in one or more perambulations of the Forest—and here we find that some sort of lull had occurred in the process of disafforestation. Savernake lost a little territory in 1259, but not to the public: it was simply a matter of yielding a certain area to Chute Forest at the point where Chute and Savernake had a common boundary. . The dispute over this area had gone on for a long time; and it seems to have been settled reasonably. Chute Forest gottheland; but Avice de Columbars, the immediate beneficiary, agreed to compensate Sir Henry by the handsome sum of 25 marks. This amount, equivalent to £16 13s. 4d., was as good as a year’s income to the Esturmys of the 13th century. If Sir Henry was satisfied however, one of his subordinates certainly was not. The amended perambulation of the Hippenscombe bailiwick ends, in 1259, on a poignant note. ‘‘ By these metes’’, it announces, “the said William (Venator). now holds his bailiwick; but he used to hold it by other metes, which John Byset altered while he'was Justice of the Forest, diminishing his bailiwick . .~. ”. One feels that poor William, grieving for his diminished realm, is the one who should have had the compensation ! There was some attempt in 1260 to raise once again the question of disafforestation—in which, it must be admitted, extraordinarily little progress had been made since the issuing of the Charter of the Forests more than 40 years before. Nothing much came of it however, and thus the Warden’s old age was untroubled by anything worse than (perhaps) rumours of impending change. King Edward by now had turned his attention from the wild Welsh to the unruly Scots ; so that even the Esturmy soldier may have shared this quiet spell. A further grant to Easton Priory, undated but belonging to this period,® indicates that Sir Henry, like his father, did not depart this life without proper contemplation of the next. “Henry Esturmy son of Geoffrey’’, it states, ‘“‘has granted (certain land) to God and the brethren of the order of Holy Trinity, for the salvation of his soul, his mother’s, his father’s, his ancestors’ and his heirs’ (souls) ’’. It goes on to specify, amongst other things, ‘‘ 10s. of annual rent which they have of my father’s gift for the soul of Matiida my mother, viz. of the tenement which Roger the shepherd holds in 1 Savernake Archives. 2 P.R.O., Exchequer K.R., 2, 25. 3 Savernake Archives. 298 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Durley’’. The old Warden enjoined that it should all continue “ in pure and perpetual almoin . . . without interference from me or my heirs or my bailiffs ’’. Then, in the year 1295, he died. HENRY ESTURMY OF WOLFHAEL : 1295 —1305. The young Henry Esturmy who had made his home at Wolfhall must by now have been approaching middle age. The officials who made the Inquisition after his father’s death noted that he was apparently ‘‘ aged 30 years and more’’. I think it must have been a good deal more; for Margaret Esturmy, whom he had married at so tender an age, was herself 34. She had given her husband several children, of whom the eldest surviving son was a lad of 13, named inevitably Henry. There was also a younger boy called John.t We must hope that, in the domestic circle at Wolfhall, all went happily and well; for it is clear that, after he had entered upon his public duties as Warden in 1296, Henry was destined in Forest affairs to suffer continual anxiety and worry. For the best part of 100 years, as we have seen, a succession of sovereigns had been promising to dis- afforest land which had been taken into the Forests by the early Norman kings. Now it was Edward I’s turn; and in 1297 this maonarch, no doubt with reluctance, re-affirmed once more the Charter of the Forests, ordering it to be put forthwith into effect. However unwilling King Edward may have been to take this step, and whatever the apprehension that it may have aroused in Henry Esturmy, there was evidently no lack of enthusiasm on the part of those detailed to carry out the disafforestation. A perambulation of Savernake took place in 1301, accompanied by a most rigid scrutiny of the boundaries, with particular reference to boundaries which had been extended since ‘‘ the coronation of King Henry, great grandfather of the King that now is’’. All such extensions—and at Savernake they were very great—were now declared invalid; and the King was con- strained to order that ‘‘ the perambulations made before our trusty and faithful John de Berewyk and his companions thereunto assigned by our precept in our Forests in Wilts are hereafter to be observed and kept by the metes and bounds contained in the said perambulations ”’. Since the curtailment of Savernake Forest was drastic (for up to the year 1300 it still sprawled over something like 100 square miles) it is perhaps worth while to follow the relevant perambulation in detail. It - was ‘‘made in the Forest of Savernake in the presence of John de Berewyk and his aforesaid companions and in the presence of Henry de Sturmy, William de Harden, William de Boneclyve and Roger de Harden, Foresters of Fee, and in the presence of John de Kenete, Thomas de Polton, William de Caperigge and Nicholas Dysmars, Verderers’’. This party commenced its labours in the West Bailiwick, in the region of Martinsell, and moved off northwards. 1 Seymour Pedigree, By the Earl of Cardigan. 299 ‘“ Beginning at Boneclyve ’’, says the official record,! ‘“‘ at the West corner, and going down by the ditch between Boneclyve (near Martinsell) and the wood of the Abbot of Hyde to Drayston (on Clench Common) and thence to la Crochedeweye (the fork of the road) and so by the road to Stimore. And so to Stotisgore and then up by the road to the Redcherde of Wodenesdich (the Wansdyke) and so down by the same unto the way which leads from Oare to Marlborough. And then up between the wood of Hauckerigg and the wood of Nicholas de Barbefeld towards Manton and so unto Manton Cross and thence down unto the river of Kenet and ever by the same river to the Cole Bridge (at Marlborough) ”’. We must picture, at this stage, the little cavalcade (for the peram- bulation was surely carried out on horse-back) trotting along the south bank of the Kennet. Marlborough at that time lay exclusively on the north bank, and was approached by the Cole Bridge—so called no doubt from the waggon-loads of charcoal which the town imported by this route. Henry Esturmy, one may suppose, rode beside John de Berewyk—the one looking glum and pre-occupied as the new bounds were set ; the other intent, as a good official should be, on the faithful performance of his mission. So they jogged along ‘‘ever by the river to the bridge of Elecote (Elcot) and thence up between the Lord King’s land and the land of Roger de Stokescombe (Stitchcombe) to the road which leads to Enesbir (for Evesbury, near the present Savernake Hospital), and thence by the King’s Way (Bath Road) unto Lechenhardescrofte. And thence by the King’s Way adjoining the said Roger’s land unto Crokeresthorpesende Cross and thence down by the bottom of the valley (of Red Vein presumably) to Alreneden Well, and thence towards the east always by the bottom of the valley to the Croft of the Prior of St. Margaret unto la Putte (the well from which Puthall has taken its name) ”’. ‘“‘ And thence up by the aforesaid Croft unto the Croft which is called Hobbesare and thence over by the hedge to Puttehale wood and thence down by the hedge to Richard de Timerigge’s house. And thence out from the King’s Way between James de Timerigge’s land and the land of Henry Esturmy ’’. This turning away from the Bath Road might be difficult to follow ; but fortunately I have a copy of an ancient map which makes it clear | enough. (The copy appears to date from the 17th or possibly the 16th century, but most of the place names are identical with those of John de Berewyk’s perambulation of 1301 : hence I deduce that the original map was of about the same date as the perambulation.) James de Timerigge’s land was (appropriately) Timbridge Farm, while Henry Esturmy’s land was Knowle Farm. Thus we may picture John de Berewyk and his party turning off the main road somewhere in the 1 Savernake Transcript ‘“‘ Ex Rotulo Perambulationum Forestar. de Anno Regni Regis Edw. 1™ 29° m. 6”’. 300 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. region of Voronzoff Lodge and riding across the open ground in the direction of the Warren. i They would be heading south now ‘‘ ever along the hedge beside William Russell’s land (now part of Birch Coppice) unto la Holtebal and so to the corner of William de Holte’s wood (by Holt Pound). And thence by Mereway unto Bellingate (Belmore) and thence by the hedge and the green track to the pasture of Stolk (Stokke) and so ever by the great ditch (across Tottenham Park) unto Bentelwell ’’. Bentelwell is a mystery—although I write these words within a short distance of it. Almost more mysterious, on the face of it, is the sudden change of direction which John de Berewyk and his party made at this point. Those who know their local geography will have seen that hitherto the perambulation had followed a roughly circular course, encompassing an area of more or less regular shape. Now a turn was made straight towards the centre af the Forest, marking out a deep wedge of land for disafforestation and almost cutting the already much diminished Forest into two separated halves. That was done to free the holdings of William de Lilbourne and the Prior of Easton ; but I think that Henry Esturmy must have protested strongly against a boundary line so grossly inconvenient from the point of view of Forest management. John de Berewyk was. not deterred however from driving in his wedge. Wheeling his horse in the direction of Marlborough, he rode “by the valley (past Durley) unto the Cole Road and so ever by the Cole Road between the wood of the Lord King and the Prior of Eston’s wood and thence between the Lord King’s wood and the wood of William de Lillebon unto Wallesmere (? Thornhill Pond) and thence straight down to Braideneshok (now Braydon Hook). And so (turning sharply back) ever by the Braden road unto the wood of the Lord King which is called Morlee (in the region of Hat Gate) ”’. Having driven this wedge into the Forest, the party now went on to mark out an equally inconvenient salient of Forest land in the region of Brimslade. It sounds as if this part of the Forest was in any case better adapted to the pannage of swine than the harbouring of deer ; for they set out by ‘“‘la Sweynepath ’’, swung round by ‘‘ la Swyneweie ” and came back eventally to Morley. ‘‘ And so, ever by the Wodediche, unto the east corner of the croft which is called Boneclyve and so by the same croft (on the shoulder of Martinsell) unto the aforesaid west corner of Boneclyve ’’. Here the circuit was completed, and it remained only to investigate certain outlying woodlands which, although detached from the central area of Savernake, might still be reckoned as Forest. John de Berewyk therefore made separate perambulations of several isolated fragments, retaining as Forest a portion of the Brails, an area at Southgrove and a small part of Hippenscombe. He rejected Boreham (alas for Sir Geoffrey Esturmy who had ‘“‘repealed ’’ it when it was threatened previously !) because it, like so much else, ‘“‘ had been appropriated to the Forest after the coronation of King Henry, great-grandfather of By the Earl of Cardigan. 30] the Lord King that now is”’. Such was the formula used to justify it all; ‘“‘but what and how much in any king’s reign severally by no means can be manifest’’. Henry Esturmy, after the last sorry patch of Forest had been perambulated, must have returned to Wolfhall in a state of black despair. It was disastrous: as a great Forest, Savernake was finished. One large section only was left of it; and even that was now cut into a preposterous shape, with La Verme and the West Baily (such as was left of them) almost severed from one another. Of the other three bailiwicks, nothing remained except miserable patches, scattered at varying distances apart. “Ichabod ! Ichabod !’’ the Warden may have cried. ‘‘ The glory is departed ; but what madness is this that has taken King Edward ? What moves him to ruin his own Forests by his own royal warrant? ”’ Far off in Westminster, as it turned out, King Edward] had begun to put these very questions to himself. To be sure, he had been much preoccupied with his campaigns against the Scots: it had seemed good _to make some concessions to his English subjects—to disafforest a few acres here or there. But now all his Forests (not Savernake only, but all the rest of them as well) were being reduced to mere pitiful remnants of what they had been, He had never foreseen or intended that ! If Henry Esturmy was in despair over the wholesale disafforestation, King Edward was indignantly determined somehow to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, since he had pledged his word to carry out the Charter of the Forests, it was not very easy to draw back at this stage. Even King John, with his elastic conscience, had turned to Rome for support in disavowing Magna Carta—and Edward I felt the need of a similar pretext, ; Eventually he sent a message to the Pope, asking him for a dispen- sation. It would be interesting to know what arguments he used: presumably he claimed to have been misled as to the effect of going back to conditions prior to his great-grandfather’s coronation, and pro- fessed to have given his consent without realising how drastic the results would be. The Pope, at any rate, was sympathetic. A pro- longed correspondence must have ensued; for it was not until 1305 that the King, fortified by Papal dispensation, felt himself able to annul what had been done and to cancel the whole scheme of disafforestation. So, as it turned out, all John de Berewyk’s labour was in vain: Savernake was saved, and the other royal Forests also. It is a little difficult to visualise how Henry Esturmy can have managed his affairs during the interim period, while correspondence was going to and fro between Westminster and Rome. It must have been a trying and anxious period for him, especially since his health, by 1305, was failing. We can only hope that the good news reached him, and that he was able to rejoice in it, knowing that the threatened dismemberment of Savernake would not after all take place. He died at Wolfhall, aged about 50, in the same year. 302 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. HENRY ESTURMY (THE ELDER) : 1305—1338. It must have seemed to his contemporaries that Fortune smiled: on young Henry Esturmy, succeeding his father as Warden in the year 1305. His predecessor’s life may have been shortened by anxiety and worry ; but now the Forest was restored to its former greatness, and a man could ride again eight or nine miles from north to south, fifteen or sixteen miles from east to west, always within its ample bounds. It was a fine territory to come now under the control of the old Warden’s heir. é Henry was only 23, having been born in the year 1282. His mother was still living, presumably in Wolfhall Manor; but a considerable private estate came to the young man from his father. The Inquisition Post Mortem tells of ‘‘the manor of Borbach, and Coulesfeld which is » a member of Borbach’’, and of ‘‘ the bailiwick of the Forest of Savernake (held) of the King in chief by the service of one horseman in his army in the war, with a habergeon, an iron helmet and a horse equipped ’’. We find some account also of the value of the land. ‘’ The court there (i.e. at Burbage) with the garden and close adjacent is worth per annum 8s. There are there in the demesne 320 acres of arable land, which are worth per annum £4 ; also 11 acres of meadow of bulmede which are worth per annum 4s. 7d. There is one pasture which is called Tymerruggedoune (or Timbridge Down) which is worth per annum 6s. 8d.”’. 3 The Inquisition—more comprehensive than most— goes on to give details of the ‘‘ free tenants’’ of the manor of Burbage, among whom it is interesting to finda certain John Semere, who “‘ holds one messuage and 10 acres of land, and pays per annum 3s. 6d.’’. This tenant was a Seymour (for the name may be spelled in this or any one of a dozen different ways) and was apparently the first of his family to take root in the neighbourhood. Naturally, the Seymours had local interests at Savernake before their intermarriage with the Esturmys: otherwise, in an era of poor communications, the two families probably would not have become acquainted. In addition to tenants, there were also ‘‘ customars ’’—small holders who paid their rent partly in cash and partly in kind. There were ten of these in Burbage, paying a few shillings annually, ‘“‘and each of them shall give to the lord (of the manor) in the feast of St. Martin 3 hens and one cock; price per head l1d.’’. There were ‘‘ cottars’”’ or cottage tenants also; but these apparently paid cash alone. The land at ‘‘ Coulesfeld ’’ was let out to tenants (strictly speaking, to sub-tenants) ina similar way. Finally, ‘‘ the custody of the said Forest of Savernak is worth per annum, clear, 20s.”, making a grand total for the estate, as specified, of £16 4s. 2d. It was, I suppose, a respectable income for the year 1305. i There were, none the less, clouds on the Esturmy horizon. One source of embarrassment to the Warden must have been the existence By the Earl of Cardigan 303 at Savernake of certain disreputable relatives, including a youngster bearing the same name as his own. We cannot hope to ascertain the relationship between these troublesome Esturmys and the immediate family of the Warden: I shall presently give a genealogical table of those Esturmys whom I can positively ‘‘ place ‘’—and there are a good many whom, for lack of information, I shall not be able to include. For instance, there was a Walter de Stormy in 1296, a Phillip Sturmy and Sarah his wife in 1324, and a Peter Sturmi in 1331!—apart from a Stephen and a Henry Sturmy who disgraced themselves round about 1317 and a Thomas Sturmy who was in trouble in 1332. The Esturmy clan was evidently numerous, and the existence of some “‘ black sheep ”’ perhaps inevitable ; but these latter, none the less, must have done damage to the Warden’s prestige, and perhaps contributed to raising doubts as to his own integrity. . There was first of all an unfortunate affair in 1315, when a juvenile Henry Sturmy broke into the Bishop of Salisbury’s park at Ramsbury and, with certain lawless companions, slew 12 of the Bishop’s deer. It was no doubt a graver offence then than we should now consider it ; for he was actually excommunicated, and, to purge his offence, was ordered to undergo two whippings in the market place of Marlborough and to do penance at Salisbury. If this was intended to deter him from further crime, however, it singularly failed ; for shortly thereafter he and Stephen Sturmy (the pair to whom I have referred above) committed a felony and were gaoled for it. Neither of these budding criminals seems to have learned wisdom from his prison sentence, Stephen took to poaching, and was eventually outlawed—being described as a ‘‘common malefactor and destroyer of the Lord King’s game’’. Henry’s career of crime was even more deplorable. This young hooligan, released from prison in 1318, com- mitted an abominable assault upon his own brother, for which he was gaoled once more*—this time with so heavy a fine levied upon him that he had no hope of regaining his liberty. He died in prison at the age of 21—presumably not at all regretted by the head of the family whose name he had dishonoured. The tradition of lawlessness was carried on by Thomas. It appears that he, trading upon his connection with the Warden’s family, intimidated such persons as shepherds and carters, levying illegal tolls upon them.® He also “took from poor women five bundles of dry wood which he sent to the house of Isabella Blakemanners, and the said Isabella had them ’”’. One is tempted to speculate as to the motive here: firewood, although no doubt acceptable, is an unorthodox offer- ing to make to a lady! 11.P.M., Wilts. * Cassan, Lives of the Bishops of Salisbury, p. 89 (quoted W.A.M. ii, 8388 by Canon Jackson). 3 Patent Rolls. 4 Calendar of Inquisitions, Vol. 6, No. 614. 5 P.R.O., E. 32, 217. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. Ww 304 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. The Warden’s own children, I hasten to add, could not possibly have been involved in any of this. He had evidently married round about 1310, his wife’s name being recorded simply as Matilda. His eldest son, inevitably christened Henry, was a mere child! at the time when the villainous Henry Sturmy was commencing his career of crime; ‘while as for his younger boys, there was no Thomas or Stephen among them. ° The Warden's brother, John Esturmy, was however by no means irreproachable. His weakness also was poaching—and one can imagine how disconcerting it must have been for brother Henry, pledged to preserve and guard the King’s game, to know (as I suppose he must have known) that John was in the habit of dining off illicit venison! When not helping himself to the game, this embarrassing relative was equally ready to make away with some of the royal timber; the ‘‘ prostration ’’ of oak trees was one of the crimes alleged against him when at last his misdeeds were brought to light. Obviously, not even the Warden’s brother could continue in such courses with impunity. A day came when John had to answer for his lawlessness—and the case then presented against him was a black one.? “They . . . say that John Sturmy . . . (and others) came into the said Forest on the Monday before the feast of St. John before the Latin Gate (in 1330) at the hour of twilight at a certain place called Hawkridge (the upper part of Granham Hill) in a coppice (doubtless the ‘ wood of Haukerigg ’) and there under cover of night set four and. ' twenty nets for the taking of fallow deer, and with the said nets took one beast and carried it whither they would, but the said John had the numbles of the same, which he sent to his house at Tytcumb (Tidcombe). «« And thereafter the said four and twenty nets and one great net were found at the houses of Maud Topper, Christina Topper and Edith le Whyte, which nets were deposited at the houses of the said women by the said John Sturmi. And they say that the said Maud, Christina. and Edith‘are not culpable of any transgression with the said nets, and indeed the said Maud, Christina and Edith straightway after the said nets were deposited at their houses shewed them to Henry ' Sturmy, custodian of the said Forest, and to William of Rameshull, constable of Marlborough Castle ; and they say that the said men with others unknown arecommon malefactors by night with the Sal nets in the said Forest to the venison of our lord the King ”’ John Sturmy was leniently treated, being fined half a seme but it was a deplorable case from the point of view of the Esturmy family. With the Warden’s own brother characterised as ‘‘a common malefactor by night ’’, one can easily imagine that people in the Savernake area 1 An infant, according to a later I1.P.M., but other evidence suggests 1311 as his birth date. 2 Exch. K.R. For. Proc., II, 26. 3 6s. 8d. By the Earl of Cardigan. 305 ~ began to ask themselves what the Esturmys were coming to—and even to speculate as to what party Henry might have played in this, if only Maud Topper and the others had not notified the Constable of Marlborough ! Troubles of another sort, from 1816 onwards, likewise began to press upon the Warden. King EdwardI was now dead; and with Edward II seated much less securely on the throne, the old, oft-frustrated demand for disafforestation was once more heard at Westminster. The new King, unable to ignore this outcry, was constrained to institute a further inquiry. Hence we find a document ' sent out by a certain Philip de Say on behalf of the Guardian of the King’s Forests to the south of the river Trent. ‘‘ To Henry Esturmy, guardian of the Forest of Savernake, greeting ! ’’ it commences; “ we have received in these terms the man- date of the Lord King’’. It goes on to give very specific instructions as to the making of perambulations, so as to ascertain what woodlands, if any, have been afforested in recent times. The foresters of Savernake and other Forests must also assemble all muniments, rolls, memoranda and evidences bearing upon this question of afforestation, and with these documents present themselves at Westminster on certain specified dates. The date given for the Wiltshire foresters was one month after Easter (not allowing them any too much time, since the King’s mandate was only issued on the 8th of March). King Edward seems to have feared that some would be negligent in carrying out his orders; for he insists that the foresters are to make diligent inquiries and to appear, under penalty of forfeiting their bailiwicks, at the appointed time. To Henry Esturmy, the prospect ofa trip to London would probably, under happier auspices, have been agreeable. As it was, however, he must have felt acutely anxious as to the outcome of it. John de Berewyk’s perambulation—a memorandum of which he no doubt had ‘to take with him—had already shown how ruthlessly Savernake might be reduced if a return to the ancient boundaries were to be enforced. Was this what King Edward II had in mind? It must have appeared distinctly possible. We must picture Henry therefore setting out with mixed feelings on his journey to the metropolis. We have of course no indication as to how he travelled, where he stayed, or how he occupied himself in London when not engaged in giving evidence at Westminster. Such details, alas, were never placed on record during the period when Henry Esturmy lived. Few people were able to write, and those who were so skilled did not write down casual happenings ; they confined themselves _ to legal and business matters of immediate importance. No one, incidentally, seems to have possessed anything in the nature of a note-book, or to have had any means of recording every-day events. 1 Savernake Archives. 306 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. One sometimes hears of a person being asked to make a note of some particular event, such as the birth of a child; but in one case which I: have come across this was set down in the margin of a legal deed which happened to be in preparation at the time: in another case it was written on the wall of a house—where no doubt it very speedily got smudged and rubbed out. Of Henry’s journey to London, therefore, our positive knowledge is merely that it did not produce the result which he must have feared. King Edward evidently had no enthusiasm for disafforestation. He had promised to enquire into the matter, and he did enquire; but no action appears to have followed. His reign was in any case a troublous one, with two revolts culminating in his own murder by the insurgents ; so that perhaps neither the King nor the disaffected barons had much time to give to the complex problem of Forest boundaries. _ It was a different matter after the murder of the King in 1327. Edward III who succeeded him was still a minor, and the country was therefore governed by aCouncilof Regency. The Regents were anxious to make themselves popular ; and to go ahead with the business of dis- afforestation seemed a good way of doing so. Thusin 1830—just 115 years after Magna Carta—we find John Maltravers, the King’s Justice of the Forests to the south of the river Trent, holding his Eyre at New © Sarum. His mission was to complete the work begun by John de | Berewyk and to enforce, once and for all, the oft-debated Charter of , the Forests. | He made the unfortunate Warden carry out the actual perambulation of Savernake,! which necessarily had to conform fairly closely to that | of 1301. We learn that ‘‘ These are the metes and bounds of the afore- | said Forest, consisting of the demesne lands and woods of the Lord the | King as determined by the foresters, viz: Henry Sturmy, Warden of | the said Forest, Robert de Bilkemor, Roger de Harden, Peter de } Forstebury, Hubert Pipard, foresters of fee of the same Forest ; and by | Peter de Grymstede, John Wake, Robert Homedieu (and) Walter le | Blake, verderers of the same Forest ’’.. Twelve Regarders are likewise | named as having taken part in the perambulation ; also twelve Jurors | in Eyre, the list of whose names is headed by that of William de} Rammeshull, the Constable of Marlborough Castle. They all assembled | in a body, ‘‘as was enjoined upon (them) by John M(altravers) the / King’s Justice of the Forests this side Trent, and his associates in his | Eyre of the Forests in the County of Wiltes ”’ I: This cavalcade of thirty-three officials assembled at Boned (by | Martinsell), this being evidently the recognised starting point for} Savernake perambulations. As the route which they followed was so| similar to that of 1301, it may perhaps be of interest here to comment} on the type of country over which they rode, rather than to reiterate} the bounds in detail. My old map (undoubtedly derived from a 14th) I) 1 British Museum, Stowe M.S., 925. By the Earl of Cardigan. 307 century source) shows both the boundary perambulated and the nature of the land which it enclosed ; so that from it one can get a very tair picture of Savernake Forest as Henry Esturmy, Robert de Bilkemor and all the others saw it on this fateful day. Riding northward from Martinsell, they had before them quite a chain of woods and coverts, of which Hawkridge Wood was the largest and best covert for the deer. (At least I judge that it must have been the best, since John Esturmy had chosen it for his poaching expedition !) Manton Copse is almost certainly the modern remnant of it. Had Henry and his companions studied the prospect to the east of them however, they would haveseen a very large expanse of open country. This became known at a later date as the Great Parke—and my belief is that it always was open, with no more than scattered trees growing here and there. It is amusing to note that, under the Bruces-. four centuries later, an attempt was made to prove that there had once been dense woodland between Cadley and Clench Common; but this argument was put forward to discountenance the Church in connection with a tithe dispute, and it was evidently based on the popular mis- conception that to prove an area to have been Forest one must prove that it grew trees. Savernake Great Park, as it happens, is one of the areas which might well be quoted in refutation of this fallacy. Swinging round towards Marlborough, the party would have found the Kennet valley looking very much as it does at present. Following the Bath Road in an eastward direction, they would have encountered two substantial coppices close to the present Savernake Hospital. Beyond that, the ground lay open once again. Puthall Wood and Little Frith were there; and beyond the latter woodland we know that the cavalcade turned to the south. Birch Coppice (formerly Burch Wood) was.a good deal smaller than itis now, and was separated from Holt Coppice. a small wood near the present Holt Pound. From this point, there was open country all the way to ‘Stokke : the woodland known as Bedwyn Common had not yet come into being. It was open also between Stokke and Durley. From any eminence near Tottenham, one could see far into the Forest, viewing no con- tinuous woodland at all; only separate coppices with heath or down- . land lying in between. The first extensive woods would have been encountered by Henry Esturmy and his party when they.turned at Leigh Hill to mark out again that tiresome wedge of disafforested land in the direction of Brayden Hook. From Leigh Hill onwards, they | would have ridden for about a mile in the shade of the trees, and Teturning from Brayden Hook would have covered a similar distance, | skirting this wooded area by way of Lilbon (Lilbourne’s) Heath. | They must now haveridden southward to perambulate the Brimslade salient: and here they would have found small areas of woodland as at | the present time. Finishing the salient in the region of Hat Gate how- | ever, they would have entered Morley Wood, little of which can now { | F | nnn, a NN + 1 ‘a NS yy nA Sie. i gg ag ee yavanna =a 1S ( Sor ne LECHEn- . 0 as NENESBURY ( HARTES «15 eo Se ee ties ae < a Cc sal.) a ROKERSTHOR y iy oi 3 ’ eae ah Bollscke SX PeeeEnO Poo Psa hae ! ay? HOUSE CD C= == ST. MA ALRENEDEN CROFT BA kak Lodae ; 4 P@tLo ge ew | Great = BRADENSHOKE IMERIGE | HENRY Savernake Parka fH Lodge WALLES ’ STURMYS LANO a = Se - ace . ae! > Sey x : okey wisrerce tt Bere ‘ Mia een ‘(on wd m nba Xe Cunny Wor7en Stock Com ~ Ss 4 3 \e Durle Wa.tven or oe pretende By, \e as ae called ey { Motres- Xen 3 : Hl FONT'S \é Caryds j x eae aS @ Lodge -o, “2 SCADE \] wpogmens I WODEMEDe Sa\ dq : Xs .=—i=3- z= y iN sg y TX | entre 4 AN) Yo fr 9% e GREAT DITCH é Totenham Parke ] ; i | i} 2. i R 894.38 ie epee iviskcs O ne —~TA BH ea BM md ali [ely a> evaroe =i TA 8 & OD . | Gee 8 cSaayeP TES gs oO wH Oo 6 Gola (6) 4 ye oeg Ho as g Gu SS bp (©) 4c) oe) Bees cow 2 52 pe ad 38 Om Mao Oo 0S a) A 6b) anit 5 MO) 2 55) aS > 5 me oF aS ss) o a OS, The original is a 16th or 17th century drawing, SAVERNAKE FOREST As IT WAS IN MEDIAEVAL TIMES This map was copied, with certain modernisations, from an ancient map found among > (a0) SS q =} Os fo S&S) tacos oe fas Sy ea O op as 8 PS we Seer acoso Beodvnr- Gee eit re © O ao 8 ges a @ +2 ea gece esa & oO (S| >M EO RUS oa oO ral (S| 0 © a eS oO 3) () S) ian} On RO HS ©€& a gu on a3} — ) o ~ s D ~ DEG pp ta gd aa OD oO" Soe raecga2zo = FEODeda m & © = o> oO co ee ceGonr ceo MWocasaos su ee eases ws SO Saaus p here shown as having at least a 14th| ould thus seem fair to describe the ma LEAN, century basis. (308) MARLBOROUGH tae ee Ur: — Se SY % OT Fees ELGG ys reendye® ReeAe. NO eta erect SS o ye "an Lior pore ui pe rrA EU UIAD yusene Ms ie se ses BRAY on®: : 4 Great ok Overfon g Lodg led meee t N Fm. Heath (AY “Severn ake 27. * Lodge SAVERNAKE ) by:-serjeanty:. .,.) sand) (by, the service of keeping half of a certain part of the Forest of Sauernake which is called ‘la Westbaillye’ ”’. He also held another messuage and another virgate from Queen Isabella ‘‘ by keeping the other moiety of la Westbaillye ’’ and—this is the clue to the whole matter—‘‘ Anastasia, daughter of the aforesaid William de Hardene . . . is the next heir ’”’. Looking up Anastasia’s history, we find that she was born in 1306. She was married as a young girl to William Lillebon, whose name was associated with a wood and.a heath in the Forest near Leigh Hill, and still is remembered in the name of the village of Milton (once Middel- ton) Lilbourne. She bore him a son, John Lillebon ; but her husband died shortly thereafter, and it was as a young widow that she married Sir Robert (it seems he was a knight) de Bilkemore. She was Anastasia de Bilkemore when she inherited the property and alleged tights of her father, de Hardene. In another and later Inquisition, we read that ‘‘ they (the jurors) said also that Anastasia, wife of Robert de Bilkemore, daughter and heir of William de Hardene, and her ancestors have held from time immemorial the West Bailiwick of the said Forest jointly with William de Boneclif’’. They noted that Anastasia and her ancestors had held one virgate of land, and William de Boneclif (of Boneclyve by Martin- sell) another, ‘‘ which two virgates her said father acquired, and now the said Robert de Bilkemore holds them of the King by the serjeanty of keeping the said bailiwick ”’. There is, I feel compelled to point out, at least one false statement here. The de Hardenes had certainly not been in the West Baily “from time immemorial’’. The Broyle bailiwick was their natural habitat ; and in fact it was the de Wyke family which, in earlier times, had shared the forestership of the West Baily with the de Boneclyves. Whatever arguments Anastasia may have had on her side, ancient custom should not have been one of them ! Henry Esturmy, in any case, had no intention of recognising any de Hardene-Bilkemore hereditary rights—and so a deadlock developed between the Warden and the de facto forester of his chief bailiwick. The word ‘‘deadlock’’, implying merely static hostility, is perhaps scarcely adequate : in fact, Henry from this time onwards was con- tinually assailing what de Bilkemore claimed to be his rights, just as the latter was continually seeking to exercise a local authority which Henry deemed unwarrantable. The resultant confusion must have upset the administration of the Forest to a deplorable extent. With this trouble coming on top of the ruthless disafforestation, by — which about five-sixths of the previous Forest area was emancipated, Henry’s financial position seems at this period to have become em- barrassed. His grandfather, as we have seen, had acquired Wolfhall By the Earl of Cardigan. 313 and his father had lived there; but after 1330 we hear of this manor being in the hands of the de Stokkes. While we do not positively know the reason, it seems likely that Henry found it advisable to live on a more modest scale elsewhere. We get some sort of picture—albeit a sketchy one—of what Wolfhall was like at this period from an Inquisition held three years later. as to Roger de Stokke’s estate. We find that the latter held “a certain assart (clearing) in the Forest of Savernage. ... He also held... the manor of Wolfhale’’. Of the manor house we can learn nothing except that its annual value seems to have been £1 3s. 4d., which in those days would indicate a fairly big place. - A feature of the manor was evidently the dovecote, worth 6s. 8d. yearly. This would have been a small edifice, probably circular in form, holding some hundreds of birds which could be caught and killed as required for the table. There was a garden of the same value, and the farm land was extensive. ‘‘ There are 800 acres of arable land, worth £20; 80 acres of meadow worth 60s.; 100 acres of wood, the ‘underwood of which is worth 13s. 4d.”’ (This last item is surprising, for there is no substantial wood near Wolfhall now.) The total annual value of the manor was not far short of £30. It seems likely that Henry retired to whatever house his manor of Burbage provided, and that here he brought up his young family. We do not know whether Matilda was still living ; but she had given him three sons of whom Henry, the eldest boy, was now growing up. The other two, Geoffrey and Richard,! would have been in their ’teens. It was at about this period indeed that the young’ Henry found himself a bride :. she was Margaret, the younger daughter of Sir John de Lortie of Ashley onthe Wilts-Gloucester border.2 The elder Henry evidently thought well of his daughter-in-law; for as soon as the young people were legally of age, he included both of them in a sort of family Trust—a corporation perhaps not widely different from the Savernake Forest Estate Company of the present day. It was an unusual thing to do in the 14th century ; and he did it no doubt on account of the threatening state of his personal affairs. There were enemies about him who only waited their opportunity to achieve his downfall, and who would perhaps seek the confiscation of his property. It was better therefore so to dispose of his estate that an Inquisition inquiring as to his property should find (as was in fact found in 1838) that ‘‘ Henry Sturmy the Elder held no lands of the King in chief or of any other . . . ; but he held jointly with his son Henry and his son’s wife Margaret . . . the manor of Burbache, the hamlet of Durle, the pasture of Tymerugge and the bailiwick of the steward- ship of Savernake Forest... ”’ 1 Seymour Pedigree. ‘2 Hoare, Mod. Wilts; p. 117, corrected by Jackson, Aubvey’s Col- lections, under Ashley. WHoare’s Esturmy pedigree confuses the Henrys hopelessly, as we shall shortly find that even their contemporaries. did. 314 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. (Strange, that my father and I should have thought, just 600 years later, that we were doing something original when we put the same: lands under the same form of administration !) Meanwhile of course the feud continued, doubtless with growing bitterness. Sir Robert de Bilkemore had scored an advantage at this period ; for he had induced a Justice in Eyre to “swear him in” as Forester, thus gaining legal support for hisclaim to the West Bailiwick. . Then. came the Eyre held at Salisbury in 1332, at which both parties— and indeed all the Savernake officials—found themselves equally in conflict with the Forest Law. We may surmise that word had reached Westminster of the indiscipline at Savernake, and that there was a definite intention to ‘‘shake up”’ the local administration. The long list of indictments! presented at this Eyre however bore most heavily upon the Warden ; for although he was not alone in being charged with abusing his position of privilege (a matter which we will consider in detail later), he stood accused also of a number of personal crimes. Some of these were trivial : for instance, both Henry and the Constable of Marlborough faced a charge of carelessness in that, when they were hunting with greyhounds to obtain venison for the King, they ‘‘ took a buck and left it in a certain place without a guard. “‘Which said buck ’’, states the indictment, ‘‘ was eloigned by certain unknown men ; and because the said William (the Constable, de Rammeshulle) and Henry left the said buck .. . without guard, therefore it is considered that the said William and Henry shall be answerable to the Lord King ”’. There were several cases of this sort; but one was more serious: It was alleged that, in 1324, ‘‘Sibilla de St. Martin caused one buck to be taken in the said Forest, ... the said Henry Sturmy having knowledge of the said offence and consenting to it. And that... (on a previous occasion) the same caused one doe to be taken by John de Blakeford, deceased, in a certain place called Bollesweye? within the said Forest, and the said Henry did his own will with the said game. Therefore the Sheriff is ordered to arrest them ’’. Henry, it seems, was not arrested : he was not even in Court during the preliminary session. In this he made a most lamentable blunder, for which he excused himself later by saying that the session—or the opening part of it—was brought to a premature end by the Court rising long before the normal time. This may have been so; but he took an unwarrantable risk in failing to be present at the very start. As it was, not only was he late in answering to charges of a very serious nature (such as this alleged collusion with Sibilla, for which he subsequently paid a fine); but, what was much worse, he was not in time to make his claim to the traditional Esturmy privileges. I have previously noted the old custom by which the Warden of Saver- nake, at each successive Eyre, had to recite his claim, and gain the Y PR.Os) E32).217. 2 Near the Bolls oke of the map, p. 308 ? By the Earl of Cardigan. 315 Justices’ assent to the continuance of his special rights. This had now been omitted—and it was disastrous for Henry, in as much as there were numerous other charges laid against him, most of which were concerned with these rights and his alleged misuse of them. It behoves us now to study this part of the indictment. The allega- tions against Henry were, as I have mentioned, used also against the Foresters of the various bailiwicks; but naturally it was a more serious matter where the Warden—the King’s chief representative within the Forest—was concerned. In Henry’s case also, by confusing him with Henry his father and even with Henry his grandfather, the Court was able to allege that his excesses had extended over 51 years —a rather gross absurdity when the accused’s appearance must have been that of a man about 50 years old! None the less, it was seriously claimed that, for more than half a century past, Henry had unlawfully take fallen wood and even growing trees for his own use in his manor of ‘‘ Burbache’”’. He was also said to have unlawfully burned wood for charcoal, ‘“‘ to the greatest damage of the Lord King and the detriment of his said Forest and the putting to flight of the beasts of chase ”’. A further charge was that Henry had a cowshed ‘“‘ from which issue 16 oxen, 4 cows and 4 young steers’’. He had also a pigsty ‘‘ from which issue 30 pigs to graze in the said Forest’’. He had furthermore “200 sheep grazing . . . as well in the demesne woods of the Lord King as elsewhere in the Forest, to the destruction of the pasture of the beasts of the chase of the Lord King ’’. It was not only on account of his own beasts that Henry was indicted. It seems that he allowed the inhabitants of ‘‘ Durle”’ to graze their cattle also in the Forest, charging them fees for such agist- ment. Moreover ‘‘ the same Henry at some time of the year permits the animals of the men of Burbache to enter the said Forest and to graze on the herbage of the Lord King’s beasts of chase, . . . taking a certain fixed sum from the men whose the animals are ”’. It was alleged also that Henry had defied a royal proclamation, issued regarding the agistment of pigs. ‘‘ And that, . . . when the pigs of the parson of Kenete (East Kennet) were agisted in the same Forest to the profit of the Lady Queen, the same Henry Sturmy drave the said pigs from the said Forest and had them impounded until the said parson had made a fine of 20s. for the same—extorting the said money thus from the said parson without wdrrant, under the pretext of his bailiwick ”’. Finally, it was claimed that Henry had wrongfully taken and sold the heath and bracken from the Forest. He had taken the fees which arose from the hambling or ‘‘ expeditation’”’ of dogs, and had not accounted for the money—“‘‘ whereas the money from the hambling of dogs should appurtain to the Lord King and to none other ”’. These were formidable accusations ; but none the less Henry seems to have felt that, in the main, he had the answer to them. The charge 316 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. of illicit charcoal burning was the only one of this category to which he felt it prudent to plead guilty : he paid a fine in respect of this, but was able to secure the transfer of the other charges to a higher court. This was to his advantage, not only because at Westminster he would find no local prejudice to combat, but also because he was planning to. to dispose of the whole matter by means ofa direct petition to the King. The petition is an interesting one, chiefly because it does not deal specifically with the accusations brought against him. Rather, it is an attempt by Henry Esturmy to demolish the entire indictment by showing that, as Warden, he enjoyed rights and privileges such as to authorise the various acts of so-called lawlessness set out in the individual charges. The King is petitioned to confirm these privileges, at present in jeopardy Owing to Henry’ s failure to establish them at the recent Eyre. ‘Whereas Henry Sturmy, Henry his son, and Margaret the wife of the same Henry son of Henry ”’, the petition runs,! ‘‘ hold of the Lord the King in capite the manors of Borebach and Couelesfeld .. . by the service of guarding the bailiwick of the entire Forest of Savernak, and the farm called ‘La Verme’ in the said Forest; and also by the service of finding one man armed with hauberk whensoever the King shall require his services within the seas, ... they claim all the following rights and appurtenances. : ‘‘ That is to say—All the foresters of the fee of the whole of the said Forest shall be bebolding and responding to them as the capital foresters of the Forest. They hold of right the equipage, saddle, bridle, sword and horn of the foresters of the fee whensover they move abroad. ‘““They claim their necessary allowance (of wood) for house-bote ain haye-bote throughout the whole of the aforesaid bailiwick. Also all the fines levied on defaulters in the Court of the aforesaid Forest ; and . all pleas concerning hares, nets, coney-traps, badgers® foxes, wild cats and partridges ; and all penalties for the trespass of animals, and for dead wood throughout the whole year, except during the fence-month (in mid-summer). “And all their domestic animals, excepting two-toothed sheep and goats, are free of herbage throughout the year, and their swine free of pannage throughout the whole year except the fence-month. Also they have liberty to impound stray cattle found throughout the entire Forest, and to receive the fines for the expeditation of dogs. «« And they have the eyries of the hawks, the honey and nuts and hips throughout the Forest after the Regard (i,e., Forest inspection). And they have free chase throughout the bailiwick of the said a orest for hares, foxes, wild cats, badgers and all such vermin. “‘ And they claim the dead wood in the farm of ‘La Verme’ during the three weeks previous to Christmas, the three weeks before Easter 1 Waylen’s History of Marlborough : original source not quoted. ey ~~ By the Earl of Cardigan. 317 and the three weeks before Michaelmas; that is to say, such as has fallen without the aid of a cutting weapon. And they claim in the said farm whatever is thrown down by the wind, over and above the underwood which belongs to the King. “And they have the after-pannage (for pigs) from Martinmas to Candlemas ; and all the top and lop of the timber, whether thrown for the use of the Lord the King or given away by him. Also the toll for digging sand, and that levied for carriage throughout the whole said farm ; and the pasture of a certain corner of the heath beyond the covert. “Now it is admitted that the aforesaid Henry Sturmy, Henry his son, and Margaret the wife of the same Henry son of Henry and all the ancestors of the said Henry . . . down from the time wherein the memory of man standeth not, have been accustomed wholly to enjoy all the above-mentioned profits as of right pertaining to the said guardianships, up till the Friday last before the feast of the Blessed Virgin Lucia, in the sixth year of Edward the present King (1332) ; on which day the Iter (Eyre) of the Forest . . . was shut by John de Tychehourn . . . (and others) wholly debarring the _ petitioners from the aforesaid perquisites, to their manifest disin- heritance. “Wherefore ”’, it ends, ‘‘ the said Henry Sturmy, Henry his son, and Margaret the wite of the same Henry son of Henr y, upon these premises, pray that redress may be administered to them ’ On the whole, it must be granted that this was a good petition, tend- ing to discredit nearly all the charges laid against the elder Henry. It seems moreover to have been successful, in as much as we hear nothing further as to these specific charges being pressed. Indeed, had this Esturmy manifesto (for it is almost that) been followed by a resump- tion of quiet and orderly administration at Savernake, it seems highly probable that the whole trouble might have blown over. Unfortunately for all concerned, the very opposite seems to have occurred. We have seen that de Bilkemore had obtained from a magistrate some authority for his control of the West Baily ; but if he thought that the stiff-necked Henry would accept this, he was soon to _be disillusioned. The feud indeed seems to have been carried on after the Eyre of 1832 even more bitterly than before. The whole Savernake neighbourhood must have been divided by it into two camps—a state of affairs not conducive to good order ! De Bilkemore’s legal position, although strong, was soon qasdiled! In 1334 a further Eyre was held at Marlborough ; and this, presided over by a certain John de Ludham, was a far more satisfactory affair for the Esturmys than the Salisbury Eyre had been. In the first place, clear instructions! had been sent to the Warden in advance. ** We charge you in the King’s name that you cause to come before us 1 Savernake Archives. 318 The Wardens of Savernake F orest. . all the foresters, verderers, regarders, agisters and all other officers of the said Forest with their rolls . . . And you shall have warned all who have been indicted for trespass against the venison and the vert . that justice may be done on them according to the Assize of the Forest. And in this you shall not fail. And you shail have... all the names of the aforesaid written down .. .” We are fortunate in having still extant what Henry Esturmy did in fact write down'—and most informative it is. Since he did not recognise de Bilkemore as a Forester, he naturally did not set down his name in that capacity. He mentioned Roger de Harden of the Brails, Peter de Forstebury of Southgrove and Hubert Pypard of Hippens- combe—so that each of these much-reduced bailiwicks was represented ; but against the West Baily he set no name. Sir Robert de Bilkemore was mentioned however in another place : he was among those indicted for a number of crimes! For instance, he and his servants are said to have entered the Forest, where they ‘‘in the covert of Ywode (near Brimslade) cut a cart-full of hazel and whitethorn worth 4d., and took it away to Robert’s house at Wyke. ‘Likewise they say that Robert de Bilkemore . . . (and others) felled an oak worth 18d. in the Wodedych ...on Sunday, St. Andrew’s Eve . . . and took it to Robert’s house at Wyke.. Likewise that the said Robert . . . (and others) felled an oak on Christmas Eve . worth 2s. and removed it to Wyke ”’ These were not grave crimes (indeed it was only the non-recognition of de Bilkemore as a forester that made them crimes at all) ; but nodoubt such charges served to discredit the accused, while at the same time raising the morale of the Esturmy partisans. Henry’s position in the eyes of the world must Lae been much strengthened by the time this Eyre closed. Sir Robert de Bilkemore however was a man who matched Henry Esturmy in determination. Not fora moment would he abandon his pretensions ; and so, in the same year that he received this set-back, we find him, with Anastasia his wife, preparing in his turn a petition to theKing. 2 “To our Lord the King’’, it runs, “‘ (this petition) sheweth that Robert de Bilkemore and Anastasia his wife holdcertain lands : together with the West Bailiwick of the Forest of Savernak’’. It goes on to deal with the ‘‘ swearing in’’ of de Bilkemore as a forester. ‘‘ Such oath was by Master Robert de Aspale, at that time Justice in Eyre of the Forest, recorded in open Court at Salisbury ; by which record the said Robert de Bilkemore was recognised by the Court as forester, and accepted by the entire session in Eyre. And in the said Court he laid his claims accessorial to the said bailiwick, and produced Mmainprize to the Court as bond for such claims until adjusted by the King’s Council. | Savernake Archives. 2 Quoted.by Waylen ; source not stated. By the Earl of Cardigan. | 319 **Upon all which, commandment was made in open Court to Henry Sturmy, Seneschall of the said Forest, to allow peaceable possession to the said Robert de Bilkemore and Anastasia, in virtue of the said main- prize, until theirclaims should be adjudged. But the said Henry ... has denied to the said Robert and Anastasia the exercise of their rights, and wilfully disturbed them in spite and contempt of the Court of our Lord the King, to the encroachment on the lordship and sovereignty of the said Forest, to the disinheritance of our Lord the King and to the great loss of our Lady the Queen. By which also the bailiwick afore- said is destroyed both in vert and in venison. Other misdeeds of ‘‘ the said Henry”’ are alleged. ‘‘ Respecting all which outrages and burdens the said Robert hath sued to our Lord the King and his Council, and challenged by brief the said Henry to cease therefrom. . . . But the said Henry refuses to obey, wilfully setting at naught the lordship and sovereignty of the Forest and stopping the course of the law, to the disinheritance of the petitioners, who now pay annually their fee-farm without benefit. “*On account of which burdens ’’, the petitions ends, ‘‘ and of others too numerous to recite, committed from day to day by the said Henry, : may it please our Lord the King to apply some speedy remedy, and compel Henry Sturmy to answer these and other charges which will be laid against him, notoriously tending to the disinheritance of the King, the great loss of the Queen and the destruction of the Forest ”’ The date of this petition is given as 1334; and it seems that the King at once ordered that an investigation should be held. It would be interesting to know what this revealed ; for it must be admitted that Henry’s conduct is here shown in a very bad light. He himself seems to have got wind of the contents of the foregoing document, and to have felt the necessity for issuing some sort of a counterblast. This took the form likewise of a petition, which he was careful to draft in French—this being the language of the royal household. Happily he retained a copy of it, from which I am able to quote. ‘« To our Lord the King ’’, it runs, ‘‘ if it please him and his Council, Henry Sturmy sheweth that he and his ancestors from time out of mind have had the keeping of the Forest of Savernak. And it belongs _to the said keeping that the said Henry ought to take possession of the bailiwicks of fee in the said Forest at their vendaunces (? transfer in consideration of. a fee), reserving the issues unto our Lord the Ene And the said Henry, by virtue of his aforesaid keepership, had flies possession of the bailiwick of the West Baily in the said Forest on the death of William de Harden to whom the said bailiwick belonged ; for that cause moreover accounting and . answering to our Lord the King for the issues of the same. And Sir Robert de Bilkemore and Anastasia his wife, daughter and heir of the 1 Savernake Archives. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. 320 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. said William, bring their (writ) of novel disseisin (i.e. dispossession) against the said Henry . . .. by cause whereof. . .- the said bailiwick passed out of the hand of our Lord the King, contrary to the law and custom of the land : (fro, aot) Pheisaid Henny, payer that it please our Lord the King and his Council to be avised lest prejudice be done to his sovereignty by the said assize (ie. judgement), having regard that all the profit issuing from the said bailiwick . . . belongs to our Lord the King, . . . the said Henry claiming nothing of these issues’’ This petition is perhaps less easy to follow than de Bilkemore’s ; but the gist of it seems clear. Henry claims that, as the King’s servant, he has merely been standing up for the King’s rights, not only against the de Bilkemore clan but also against the wrong-headedness of the local Justices. He is at pains to point out (does one detect here a certain lack of candour ?) that he himself has no personal interests at stake. One wonders how King Edward III and his Council reacted to this long-range bombardment with petitions ? It is likely that the feeling at Westminster was of annoyance ; for it must soon have been evident that this local squabbling could only do harm to the administration of one of the royal Forests. A final petition, reaching the capital round 1337, must have confirmed this view of the matter, showing as it did that the feud at Savernake was still being conducted with considerable misguided vigour. I shall not quote this petition ;! but it contained a further accusation against Henry Esturmy—that of oppressing the small tenantry of the West Bailiwick. Although this may alienate our sympathy from him ; it seems that Henry was provided with a strong temptation to oppress them. It will be recalled that, at the Eyre of 1332, he himself had all but lost his age-old rights and privileges through the premature rising of the Court before he had been able to recite them. He may have — thought—and the reader also may suspect—that de Bilkemore had somehow engineered this for hisownends. The plan (ifit was planned) succeeded adinaab ly against the Warden ‘to his manifest dis- inheritance’’; but it had the disadvantage of ‘‘catching out’ in the same way a number of other late comers. Henry Esturmy may have noticed, among ‘those who shared his chagrin at finding the court-house closed on that unhappy occasion, a number of de Bilkemore’s own supporters. These were small-holders from various villages within the West Baily, and they were there to claim traditional rights of common for their beasts. Since their claims were not presented, the Warden was of course enabled thereafter to turn their beasts off the Forest commons; and it seems that he did so —no doubt deriving a good deal of satisfaction from being able thus to turn against de Bilkemore’s tenants a shaft which their master had supposedly aimed at him. ; 1 P.R.O. Ancient Petitions—File 63. By the Earl of Cardigan. 321 Gratifying though this may have been to Henry, it was perhaps bad policy in-the long run. The petition of these small-holders to be spared ‘‘ this harshness’ must, when it reached Westminster, have made an unfortunate impression ; suggesting that the Warden was a tyrannical person, creating needless trouble’ for the minor tenantry of Savernake. As the Warden’s reputation stood none too high already, he could ill afford to invite further criticism. Although not yet an old man, Henry ‘‘the Elder’ was by now in failing health. His life had been a troublous one, marked by continuous worry and strife ever since the disafforestation of 1330. He died, pre- sumably at Burbage, in the year 1338, handing on to the _ younger Henry and to Margaret Esturmy an uneasy heritage. SIR HENRY ESTURMY : 1338—1381. The younger Henry Esturmy was in his middle twenties when he succeeded to the Wardenship,! and when he and Margaret his wife (as the surviving shareholders) succeeded to the family property. He and Margaret had been married now for a number of years; but it appears that they were childless. So it was also with the new Warden’s youngest brother, Richard : the latter evidently made a career of some sort for himself, for he became a knight ;? but if he had any children, _ they did not survive’ him.? Of Geoffrey Esturmy, Henry the Elder’s second son, we have but little knowledge—possibly because he died young, certainly predeceas- ing his brother Henry. He married,. however, and had a son named William, being thus apparently the only one of the three brothers to present the family with an heir. We may imagine that Henry and Margaret took an especial interest in their little nephew, soon to be the only male descendant of his line. Taking over the Wardenship in 1338, Henry must at once have been faced with a very difficult decision. Was he to carry on the feud which his father had been waging against the de Bilkemores, or should he try to bring back peace to Savernake? It seems probable that he shared his father’s views as to the rights and wrongs of the dispute; but he was, on the other hand, a sensible young man (his subsequent career gives proof of this) ; and it must have been clear to him that both the Esturmys and the de Bilkemores were heading for trouble by keeping the whole neighbourhood in a state of continual unrest. We do not know whether he tried to stop the feud; but it is certain that he did not succeed in doing so. Hostilities continued : we hear of 1%7.P.M., Wilts. 2 Seymour Pedigree. 2 iy should be remembered that, at this period, references to young children hardly ever occur : one hears only of those who grew up and in some way made their mark in the world. As to this generation, Hoare’s genealogy, Modern Wilts, p. 117, is hopelessly in error. V4 PS ae 322 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Esturmy clansmen invading de Bilkemore property, committing assaults and doing damage there. In all probability, there were counter-attacks by de Bilkemore’s adherents—in other words, a sort of private war. It is not surprising that the authorities at Westminster at last became disgusted with the whole affair : what is remarkable is that they had kept their patience for so long. By 1342, they had for ten years heard nothing from Savernake but plaints and counter-plaints, charges and counter-charges. In so far as they had been able to investigate the matter, it appeared that both parties were in some degree blameworthy ; . and so in the end the action taken was of a sort agreeable to neither. In a word, the whole Forest including the West Baily was, in 1342, ‘taken into the King’s hand ’’.' No explanation apparently was given ; nor indeed was any needed. The official view plainly was that, if the Esturmys and de Bilkemores could not rule Savernake peaceably between. them, then it was high time for the King to | send some other representative to do it for them. In fact, he sent Simon Simeon his ‘‘ yeoman ”’ to take over Henry Esturmy’s office., As for the forestership claimed by the de Bilkemores, ‘‘ the said Anastasia did not hold at her death the forestry cf the West Bailiwick of Saver- nake, because long before her death, to wit on Monday before the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the l'6th year of the reign of King Edward III, that bailiwick was taken into the King’s hand : aud it still remains in the King’s hand ... (and) Simon Symeon, keeper of Savernake Forest, has occupied the West Bailiwick aforesaid ”’.2 Thus began a long and in some ways a tragic interlude in the administration of the Forest. The greatest share of misfortune was surely that which fell upon young Henry Esturmy; for he had to en- dure the loss of an hereditary office already held by his ancestors for two centuries and more. Furthermore, the trouble had not been of his making: the feud had been essentially his father’s feud, not his. It was a cruel fate which had enabled Henry the Elder to enjoy the privileges of his office (or most of them) to the last, and so soon snatched them from his son. It is to be supposed that young Henry did what he could to bring this hardship to the notice of those in power at Westminster. Lord Lovel, Margaret Esturmy’s cousin, should have had some influence there ; but perhaps nothing, at this stage, could have restored the “ troublesome ’”’ Esturmys to official favour. So time went by, and “‘in the King’s hand’’ Savernake remained. Anastasia, as we have seen, grew old and died : Sir Robert de Bilkemore was ageing: Henry himself was growing into middle age, and little William his nephew had become asturdy youth, approaching manhood. 1 Patent Rolls. 21.P.M., Wilts, A.D. 1353. By the Earl of Cardigan. 323 Meanwhile, if Henry did nothing else during the years of disgrace, he at least took measures to improve the family fortunes. By 1356, he felt himself able to resume occupation of Wolfhall. He had previously (1350) acquired manors at Eston and Middelton (Easton and Milton), thus expanding his estate in that direction; and he now entered into negotiations with Edward de Stokke, drawing up an agreement with him, somewhat oddly, in the Anglo-French language rather than in the conventional Latin used by our ancestors for legal purposes. The agreement ' itself was of an unusual nature; for it provided that Henry Esturmy should receive Wolfhall from de Stokke, and that the latter should guarantee him permanent possession. The vendor must pledge himself to pay £10 per annum to the purchaser, which sum would never be claimed so long as the Esturmys were not disturbed or dispossessed by the de Stokkes! One wonders whether Henry was his own lawyer in this matter? If so he was an ingenious one—this piece of legal draughtsmanship having at least stood the test of time, despite its unorthodox provisions, with complete success. It is likely that, with the family fortune re-established and Wolf- hall regained, Henry had achieved an ambition that he had long cherished. He had been born at Wolfhall ; and the place no doubt held for him memories of happier times. The manor house there was a fine timbered structure; not very extensive, but none the less thought worthy, 150 years later, of sheltering a king. The Esturmys themselves may have rebuilt or enlarged it ; for it was an old house— indeed rather a tumble-down old house—when the Seymours lived there. Thus it was perhaps in its prime when Henry Esturmy occupied It: Having installed himself there, he no doubt turned his mind once again to the question of regaining those hereditary rights from which — he had now been debarred for so many weary years. Itis possible that ' Henry’s more prosperous circumstances were at this stage an advantage _ to him, enabling him to meet influential people and to enlist their aid. However this may be, we find that in 1359 the long period of disgrace (it had lasted 17 years in all) was brought at last toanend. The King and his Councillors relented ; letters patent were prepared; and one fine day in May, Henry held in his hand the document? which, faith- fully preserved, I have before me. ‘‘ Edward, by God’s grace ’’, it is headed, ‘‘ King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland: . . . Whereas of late the offices of Seneschall and Chief Forester of our Forest of Savernak in the County of Wilts, which Henry Esturmy lately held in fee, were for certain causes taken into our hand; yet because we are convinced of our certain knowledge that the aforesaid Henry was unjustly removed from Savernake Archives. 2 Savernake Archives. 324 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. the offices aforesaid, and those offices wilfully by the malice of certain persons who were jealous of him taken into our hand, we, in considera- tion thereof and for the good service which the said Henry has rendered and shall in future render us, desiring to deal graciously with the said Henry in this matter, have restored to the same Henry the atorcesid offices. : “To have and 6 hold ”’, it continues, ‘‘ to himself and to his heirs of us and of our heirs by the services due and wont in respect thereof for ever, in the same manner as the said Henry, he and his ancestors from a time whereof the memory runneth not, had and held them and were wont to have and hold them before the seizure aforesaid ; that seizure, which we regard as unwarrantable and unjust, notwithstanding ’’. The document is witnessed by the King himself at Westminster ‘‘in the thirty third year of our reign in England, but the twentieth of our reign in France ”’ While Henry Esturmy was—perhaps rather breathlessly —reading out these words, another document in the same vein + was on its way toall the minor officials of the Forest. ‘‘ Thomas de Braose,”’ it runs, ‘‘Guardian of the Forests of the Lord King on this side Trent, to all the foresters, verderers, regarders, agisters and other lieges of the Lord King’s Forest of Savernak—greeting!’’. It goes on to recapitulate King Edward’s grant of restoration to the hereditary Warden, repeating the King’s words as to his unjust removal and as to the malice which had caused it. De Braose himself being unable in person to carry out the formal reinstatement, the document calls upon his lieutenants, specifying four of them by name, to see that the Warden is well and truly restored to his former offices. As for the foresters and others, they must be ‘* zealous and forthcoming ” to facilitate the change, ‘‘ knowing all and singular that we have reinstated the said Henry in the bailiwick afore- said ’’. It was a triumph for Henry Esturmy—particularly in view of the generous wording by which his character was vindicated. He must have smiled grimly over the reference to ‘‘certain persons ’’ and their ‘* wilful malice ’’.. It would have been very clear to him at whom this verbal shaft was aimed; but to us it is less obvious—for we find, rather surprisingly, that at about the same date Sir Robert de Bilkemore was restored to the Forestership of the West Baily! If he was not guilty of the malice, who was? There is a puzzle here, to which we may never find the clue. Is it possible that Henry, using his regained power of appointment, chose to heap coals of fire upon the head of his father’s old adversary ? - This would have called for extraordinary magnanimity ; and perhaps a more likely explanation is that some other edict came out of Westminster, aliowing the West Baily forestership to de Bilkemore for the remainder 1 Savernake Archives. * By the Earl of Cardigan. 325 of his lifetime. The latter being aged and childless, this would have been a reasonable concession. In fact, de Bilkemore enjoyed his restoration only for two years, dying in 1361. An Inquisition concerning the West Baily mentions in that year the two virgates of land which had caused so much trouble; ‘‘and now the said Robert de Bilkemore holds them of the King by the serjeanty of keeping the said bailiwick’’. It is perhaps not surprising that, with de Bilkemore dead and this disputed territory vacant, Henry should have decided to risk no more difficulties with it. He appointed himself to the forestership; and so, in 1370,’ “‘ Henry Esturmy now holds the West Bailiwick in the King’s Forest of Savernake. . . . (It) is held of the King in chief by a rent of 52s. and by the service of keeping the said bailiwick, to wit, by finding three foresters on foot under him there to keep the same accord- ing to the Assize of the Forest’’. It is interesting to note that this forestership carried with it rights and privileges very similar to those which the Esturmys had always claimed by virtue of holding La Verme. Thus Henry gained extended rights of pasturage, besides the privilege of employing one man “ yearly for ever’’ to.carry sand from the Forest sand-pits. He could obtain certain timber for repairs, collect certain fees within the bailiwick, and enjoy ‘“‘ the retro-pannage of the agistment of pigs ’’. So out of evil came good; for the Esturmys now personally held the two main bailiwicks forming the bulk of Savernake Forest, with only the remnants of outlying bailiwicks administered for them by sub- ordinate foresters. With the total area so much reduced, this was no doubt the most practical arrangement. With his affairs now in this prosperous state, Henry Esturmy was able to take up certain public duties. His personal character seems to have won respect; for no sooner was he reinstated as Warden than he was made a Justice. It was perhaps at the same time that he gained a knighthood, and only two years later that he was appointed Sheriff of Wilts. This was quick advancement for a man who for so long had lived under the shadow of disgrace. In the legal sphere, it was strangely appropriate that one of Sir Henry Esturmy’s first duties was to take part in the trial at Marlborough of a certain Hildebrand Barr.2 The latter had been a forester of Savernake under the administration of Simon Simeon—and he was accused of an appalling list of crimes, including deer stealing and the illicit sale of timber. The case is now of interest to us (and was no doubt of satisfaction to Sir Henry then) as showing that, even when “in the King’s hand’’, the Forest adminstration could not be freed from occasional scandal ! It was good that this should be demonstrated so soon after the 1L.P.M., Wilts. 2P.R.O., E. 32, 318. The presiding Justice was William of Wykeham. 326 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. commencement of a new Esturmy Wardenship; for as it happened Sir Henry himself was not able, during his own term of office, to keep entirely on the right side of the Forest Law. We may be sure that he endeavoured to do so, since he had recent and distressing memories of the result of his father’s irregular conduct : the Forest code, however, was a complex one, and we know that in fact he offended against it. No record remains of what the indiscretions were ; but King Richard II had not long been on the throne when, in 1878, his pardon was required in respect of unspecified ‘‘ transgressions’’ dating back into the previous reign. The document pardoning Sir Henry was preserved by his descendants.! “Richard by the grace of God”’ it runs, ‘‘ King of England and of France and Lord of Ireland . . . Know that of our special grace, and at the supplication of our most dear Uncles? . . . we have pardoned Henry Sturmy, Warden of our Forest of Savernak, and John Wilee (or Wiley) his lieutenant in the same, all kinds of transgressions as well of vert as of venison committed by the said Henry and John in the said Forest, as well in the time of the Lord E(dward) late King of England, our Grandfather, as in our time ” The Pardon goes on to exonerate Henry and John, not only from the consequences of their own misdeeds but also from any blame for the wrong-doing of their subordinates. ‘ Being unwilling that the said Henry and John . . . should be impeached or molested in any- thing or suffer injury at our hands . . . In witness whereof we have caused these our letters patent to be prepared”. It was a generous pardon; and we may well believe that the Warden received it with feelings of relief. Whatever he and John Wiley had done—and very likely they had not erred greatly—there must have been a risk of officials in Westminster casting their minds _ back to those other Savernake scandals of forty years before. ‘‘ The — Esturmys again! ’’ : it would have gone ill with Sir Henry if the latest trouble had been looked on in that light. The danger averted, his old age was serene. We have seen that Sir | Henry Esturmy had built up the family fortunes; but he was no mere ~ hoarder of possessions, for as early as 1350 he had joined with others in giving some land from his newly acquired manors to the Priory of q Easton. Then, in 1871, he sought the royal permission to give further ~ land, this time of considerable extent. Permission was granted by Edward III, who gave his licence® ‘‘ to our well-beloved Henry Sturmy’”’ for the transfer to the Prior and brethren of certain lands, buildings and rents, situated in such ~ diverse places as East Wick, Clench, Milton, Pewsey, Upavon, Puthall ~ and Wootton Rivers ‘‘ which are not held of us in chief’. (Such a © 1 Savernake Archives. 2 The King being a minor, his uncles acted as advisers to him in affairs of State. 3 Savernake Archives. yi pfucon i Lorn tn the t ip 7, é artic By the Earl of Cardigan. ; 327 permit was needed in those days, on account of the Statute of Mortmain.) ihe Prier might receive the gift ‘‘to have and to hold .. . for the sake of our well-being and that of our most dear first-born, Edward Prince of Aquitaine and Wales, and for that of Henry himself so long as we (all) shall live, and for our souls when we shall have passed out of this light. And for the soul of Philippa, lately Queen of England, our most dear consort, and for the souls of our ancestors and of all the faithful dead for ever’”’ This royal concern for the departed was a sentiment which the Esturmys fully shared. Sir Henry eventually gave to the Priory “all my lands and tenements at Puthall’’; but made it a condition that, out of the resulting revenues, a penny and a white loaf worth 4d. should be given to each of 20 poor persons ‘‘ on the day when (the feet) of the poor ‘are washed. By us’’, says the Indenture!, ‘if we are present with the said brethren. And if itso happen that we have no heirs and are not present there, then it is my wish that the Prior or one of the brethren distribute the 20 pence and the 20 white loaves and wash their feet as aforesaid. . ‘“Moreover’’ it continues, ‘‘it is my wish that the Prior provide yearly four wax candles, each containing 2 lbs. of wax, to burn about the different tombs of my ancestors (specified by name). And those four candles shall be lit and burn on each night of the birthdays of the said men and women severally. ... (And) the Prior and brethren _shall annually and for ever solemnly celebrate chorally in like manner for all the souls of my ancestors, successors and benefactors, . . . and they shall provide each year one candle of 1} lbs. weight for my eblationy.: .)2" ‘* And if they do not pay the 20 pence and the 20 loaves... nor observe the birthdays (et cetera) . . . but fail in part or in the whole, which God forbid, ... then it is my wish that the Bishop punish them. , ‘“And the Prior and brethren accept all the conditions here laid down and bind themselves to me, Henry Sturmy, and to my successors faithfully to perform the same ”’ I have greatly abbreviated this long document; but even thus it serves to show that combination of reverence for his forebears with ‘devotion to the Church which was a feature of Sir Henry’s character. As it happens, his careful regard for individual ancestors has served even in this 20th century, to keep their names (as he intended) in remem- brance. There are several who would now be unknown to us, but for the fact that he set down their names, roaueine the candles to be burned for*each one. Finally, in the last year of his life, Sir Henry Esturmy made yet another charitable gift?. The Prior of Easton and the Rector of South 1 Savernake Archives. 2 By a Deed, preserved at Savernake. 328 : The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Tidworth (the latter incidentally being his secretary and agent) were to receive ‘‘ all my goods and chattels, mobile and fixed, living and dead, with all their issues in all my manors and holdings in the County of Hants’’. The use to be made of these was not specified ; but perhaps Maurice Hammond of ‘‘ Suthtodeworth’’ had been verbally instructed as to the disposal of such personal property. The death of his brother Geoffrey was a bereavement which must have. befallen Sir Henry during his latter years. No date can be assigned to this; but the effect was to make William Esturmy, Geoffrey’s son, heir to the Wardenship and to the family estates. William by now was a man of about forty and, as we have seen, the sole descendant of Sir Henry’s generation. _ It was in 1381 that the old Warden, aged about 70, died. He was buried ‘‘on the Tuesday next after the feast of the Decollation of St., John the Baptist’; and we are fortunate in having some record of his funeral. Maurice Hammond entered the details concerning it in his accounts—and although these accounts were ‘‘ cast asyde by whyles ”’ they were found again at Wolfhall by some member of the Earl of Hertford’s household in the year 1589.' Hence their survival. We know therefore that there was a considerable outlay—‘“ in . money distributed to the poor on the day of the burial by the hands of William Esturmy, together with the hearse escorted by torches and the cerements belonging to the said hearse. And in black-and- white cloth bought and distributed to the poor, and in oblations at the Masses, and in making up the said cloth; and in black cloth bought for William Esturmy ”’ These items cost the large sum—for those days—of £17 odd ; but this was not all. It appears that a great crowd attended the funeral service, many no doubt coming from a distance ; and William Esturmy felt obliged to entertain them in a handsome manner. Hence there were payments ‘‘ to divers men for preparing the halls, and in cleaning the kitchens and other rooms’’. There were also ‘‘ the stipends of the cook(s) and other men serving the said cooks’’; all suggestive of a large-scale banquet. As for the food, there were ‘‘ divers victuals bought, to wit :—the flesh of oxen, pigs, sheep, calves, swans, capons, chicken, geese, wild ducks, sucking pigs, pigeons and rabbits’’. There were ‘divers fish, salt and fresh, to wit :-—herrings and pilchards’’; also ‘‘ eggs, milk, honey, mustard, vinegar, salt, onions and pears’’. There were also ‘‘divers spices bought, to wit:—pepper, ginger, saffron, Alexandr: +n almonds, sugar, canel, cloves, mace, dates, figs, rys, flour de rys a raisins of Corinth’’. Bread was specially baked, and there was b: and wine to drink. Those who came to mourn Sir Henry therefore did not go em} away. The old Warden’s nephew saw to it that there was hospital for all, and for the needy a gift of money also. In this he did we 1 The parchment, now at Savernake, has a note on it to this effect — ee ft. >. a ot aa oe By the Earl of Cardigan. 329 for his uncle had been generous in his lifetime, and would have approved of some munificence at his departure. SIR WILLIAM ESTURMY : 1382—1427. From the family historian’s point of view, it is remarkable how well documented is Sir William Esturmy (for he soon gained a knighthood) after his succession, in 1382, to the hereditary Wardenship of Saver- nake Forest. It is remarkable also how little is known of Mr. William Esturmy who prior to that date, was but the nephew and the heir pre- sumptive of the old Warden, Sir Henry. The obscurity shrouding Sir William’s early years is a misfortune; for when he succeeded his uncle he must have been already in middle life. We know that Geoffrey Esturmy, his father, was dead. His mother, on the contrary, was still alive; but although we know that Maurice Hammond “ paid for one ox, bought for the lord’s mother for her larder, 12s. 8d.’’, we find no clue as to the old lady’s name. We area trifle better informed as to Sir William’s wife. He appears to have remained for many years unmarried, only becoming engaged in the last year of his uncle’s lifetime. The lady for whom he abandoned his bachelor state was Joanna, née Stokey, the widow of a certain John de Beaumont’: she was seemingly his junior by some years,? and bore him two daughters—Agnes and Matilda. Maurice Hammond’s accounts are disappointing in regard to her, telling us little of her domestic activities ; indeed she is mentioned only once, when ‘‘on the Sunday next after the feast of St. Michael’’, Sir William’s steward paid out ‘‘ for the Lady’s expenses at Wolfhall, 2s. 64d.”’ Financially, Sir William Esturmy was undoubtedly well off. His uncle, as we have seen, had added to the family possessions ; and it seems that several generations of Esturmys had married heiresses. (We cannot otherwise account for Sir William’s possession, for example, of the half of a manor remgte from the rest of his estate.) He was also a substantial farmer ; for we know that his bailiff at Wolfhall sold pigs ‘“‘on the Friday next after the feast of St. Katharine”’ to the value of 53s. 4d. The wool clipped from his sheep at Wolfhall brought in £5 4s. 4d., while from Elvetham he sold on one occasion 17 pigs and 31 sheep, for which a butcher at ‘‘ Redyng ”’ paid him £5 10s. 3d. A memorandum exists* showing the chief properties which Sir William inherited ; and the salient points of this are perhaps worth quoting, since they give an idea of the status of the Esturmy family at this period. In respect of the lands mentioned, ‘‘the said William did homage and fealty to our Lord the King (Richard II) on the 7th day of August in the 5th year of his reign ”’ Marriage Settlement, Savernake Archives, and Hoare’s Modern Wilts. _ 2 The marriage occurred in the summer of 1382, and this lady was still living in the winter of 1428. 3 Maurice Hammond’s accounts for 1381. 4 Savernake Archives. 330 The Wardens of Savernake F orest. “And . . . the said W. Esturmy . . . acknowledged that he held .. . from the King in chief . . :; the manors. of - Burbach & Couvelesfeld with the bailiwick of Savernake Forest . by service of forester of the King’s Forest of Savernake : together with a certain bailiwick of Savernake Forest called Westbaille ’’. (In other words, he had the whole central portion of Forest, as it then existed.) Other property inherited by ‘‘ the said William’ and held of the King in chief included “‘ half the manor of Stapelford in the said county (of Wilts);.*..,. . .the manor of) fiyghelden” ~~ 2 im) the said county; . . . the manor of Lystormy (Lyss Esturmy) . . . in the county of Southampton together with the Hundred there ; : and the manor of Pollyng . . . in thesaid County of Southampton ”’. Wolfhall apparently was not held directly from the Crown, and so was not listed in the memorandum. I fancy that there were various other lands and manors indirectly held. Maurice Hammond mentions ‘‘the: farm of Crofton’’, and accounts also for rents received from such places as Elvetham, Bella- Mine, Rigeland, Colyngesdon and Tydecombe. Thus, while Sir William’s “‘ relief ’’ or assessment for death duty was in the region of £20, there is reason to think that his total annual income ran toa good | many hundreds. Certainly he was accustomed to travel to an fro, and to send couriers to do his business in different parts of the country. We hear of him visiting London, Staines and Basingstoke, the round trip occupying a week and costing 35s. lld. A Wolfhall carter was sent as far as Hampton (20d.) and a servant named Wylym (for 12d.) on‘an errand to Woodstock. Maurice Hammond was on one occasion sent to London _ —and that remarkably honest man charged only 11d. for his expenses, Later ‘“‘ the said Maurice ’’ was sent to London for a week (8s.), and apparently entertained someone in Westminster to breakfast (64d.) Although from such entries in an account roll one can of course form but a sketchy notion of what was going on, we have here none the less an indication that Sir William Esturmy was a man of varied interests, whose horizon was by no means bounded by the wooded slopes of Savernake Forest. It is therefore not altogether surprising to find that, later in life, he obtained the entrée into Court circles, being attached for a time to the entourage of Blanche, Duchess of Bavaria, a daughter of King Henry IV of England. His attendance upon this royal lady gave him the opportunity of travelling to the Continent and seeing something of the German prin- cipalities. In 1401 for instance we find that he held a passport, or rather a document designed to serve that purpose,! entitling him to pass through Albert, Duke of Bavaria’s, domains. This stated that ‘‘the lady Blanche” was travelling with a retinue of 80 ladies and gentlemen, including Sir William Esturmy, Knight, and one John 1 Savernake Archives. By the Earl of Cardigan. 331 Kyngton, clerk. All public functionaries in Bavaria were ordered to facilitate their passage. It appears that Sir William, aided by John Kyngton, was acting as guide or liaison officer to this royal cavalcade. The document men- tions only his name and Kyngton’s, as if. these two were the individuals with whom the local authorities would have to deal; and the fact of the parchment being retained among the private papers of the Esturmy family is indication that he was indeed the organiser of the travelling arrangements. The responsibility for guiding so large a concourse of English and other courtiers must have been a serious matter; but it seems, none _ the less, that Sir William undertook it on more than one occasion. A second and similar ‘“‘ passport’’ exists!, which, while it does not mention by name anyone other than the Lady Blanche herself, was likewise found among the family archives. It must have been issued to Sir William and retained by him—no doubt as a further memento of his Continental travels. Affairs at Savernake seem to have’proceeded smoothly at this period ; for Sir William’s chief preoccupation when at home was to foster the work of the Church—or so one gathers from the documentary evidence. Around 1390 he acquired the manor and advowson of Froxfield ; and shortly thereafter we find him presenting these to Easton Priory.2 It is true that there was some quid pro quo, in as much as the Prior and brethren made certain concessions to the Esturmy family in respect of land at Burbage and at Crofton ; but there is no need to doubt that the funds of the Priory benefited largely by the exchange. This indeed is proved by the fact that it was necessary for the Prior in. 1391 to obtain the consent of the King to his acceptance of the Manor. Sir William, like many of his ancestors, must have been a sincerely pious man ; for he seems to have felt it desirable that, in each of the manors remaining to him, there should be a private chapel where local services could be conducted. To obtain authority for this, he had to make application to the Pope; and we know that he did so, for the Pope’s letter of authorisation has survived.? It is an interesting document, for, although the language is orthodox Latin, the papal secretary seems to have wished to keep the contents secret from any casual eye. Certain words are therefore run together in a curious and baffling manner—someth ingli kethis. ** Boniface, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God’’, it begins (when deciphered), ‘‘ to his favoured son the noble William Stormy, Knight, of the Diocese of Salisbury, Greeting and the Apostolic benediction! ’’, 1 Now at the P.R.O. * Savernake Archives : also Phillips’ Sarum Institutions. Froxfield had previously belonged to John de Cobeham, whose name the wood called Cobham Frith perpetuates. 3 Savernake Archives. 332 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. The Pope goes on to say that he is affected by the sincerity of Sir William’s devotion, and that permission is granted for the chapels to be consecrated, ‘“‘so that by suitable priests chosen by you, mass and other high offices may be celebrated : and to you and your heirs and to your and their wives and to their domestic households they may administer the sacraments of the Church’’. The document, issued in Rome in the year 1397, ends with the warning that, upon anyone presuming unreasonably on the papal authority, ‘‘ we call down the indignation of the omnipotent God ’’. It would be interesting to know what chapels were in fact instituted by Sir William on receipt of this authorisation. There must have been one at Wolfhall, although now no trace of it remains. There are how- ever several disused chapels still to be found in the Savernake district, of which the one at Knowle, close to ‘“‘ the pasture of Tymerigge ”’, can perhaps most safely be attributed to the Esturmys. The end of the 14th century, to which period the building of chapels must belong, was marked by considerable changes in Sir William Esturmy’s family circle. We have seen that he had two daughters ; and although he and Joanna must have longed for a son, none was born to them. Now the daughters were growing up and reaching marriageable age. Agnes, the elder girl, was married eventually to a certain William Ryngeborne, by whom she had a son, christened like- wise William. Matilda, the younger daughter, was married about the year 1400 to a young man named Roger Seymour of Hache-Beauchamp.! The Seymours were already known as people of substance, several members of the family having held property in the Savernake neighbourhood,” while Roger Seymour himself possessed a considerable fortune, his Beauchamp grandmother having been an heiress. He and Matilda had a son, born in 1401, to whom they gave the name of John. With the coming of the 15th century, things began to go rather less well with Sir William Esturmy. He had some contacts, as we have seen, with the royal family ; and for his services to the Lady Blanche one might have supposed that he could count on considerate treatment from the reigning House of Lancaster. Unfortunately however, his career as Warden of Savernake Forest was marred by some trouble (the exact nature of which remains obscure) through which he incurred the displeasure of the Princess’s brother, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. _. We have seen that it had become customary for Savernake Forest and its revenues, although belonging to the King, to be transferred by the 1 Seymour Pedigree. 2 Notably Thomas de Seymor who had land at Polton, a water mill at ‘‘ Bedewynde’’, and was tenant also of land at ‘‘La Knolle”’ (I1.P.M. Wilts, 1358.) May we also trace to this stock the John Semere mentioned on p. 302? The Seymour pedigree is not informative, except where the main line of the family is concerned. | ae OS Tee eee eee By the Earl of Cardigan. 333 reigning monarch as dower to his Queen. The Forest and other royal property could of course likewise be allotted—although this was less usual—to a prince or princess of the royal family. It happened that, in Sir William Esturmy’s time, it had been allotted to this Duke of Gloucester, a younger son of King Henry IV. The first indication which we have of Sir William, as Warden, having - lost the confidence of this Prince is a document! sealed by the latter in 1417. I quote here the significant portions of it. “‘ This indenture witnesseth that the illustrious lord prince, the Duke ‘of Gloucester, wishes Sir William Esturmy to occupy (or assume charge of) three bailiwicks in Savernake Forest . . . after the manner used by other bailiffs of that Forest in their own bailiwicks, without claiming or usurping the stewardship or chief forestership of the Forest but behaving as other foresters are required todo .. . ‘Walter Beauchamp, the Duke’s steward, shall hold all Forest courts, and all foresters of fee shall do his bidding ’’. The document continues in similar vein; but the grievous nature of it is already plain. Sir William is to be degraded from the position of _ Warden, occupied by him and by his ancestors for the past 300 years; and this Walter Beauchamp is to take his place. All foresters of fee are to do the latter’s bidding—and among the foresters of fee will be the head of the Esturmy family, controlling three out of the five baili- wicks indeed, ‘‘ but behaving as other foresters are required to do’’. Sir William Esturmy, after 36 years spent in the royal service both at Savernake and elsewhere, must have felt bitterly hurt to receive. so abrupt and cruel a communication. Although an old man at this time, he determined to take whatever steps were possible to regain his hereditary rights. Accordingly he drew up a petition * addressed to the King, now King Henry _V, in the following terms. ‘‘To the most sovereign Lord the King: Prayeth most humbly your humble liege the Knight Bachelor William Esturmy that, whereas he _and his anccstors have been seised of the offices of Steward and Head ¢ Forester of Savernake Forest from a time whereof the memory runneth not, with divers fees, profits and commodities to the same belonging, the which offices are held of you immediately as of your crown, and of the which offices he and his ancestors have been seised . . . as by divers evidence placed on record in the time of your noble progenitors more fully appeareth ; now at this late hour he is ousted by the most puissant prince the Duke of Gloucester by colour of letters patent issued by the noble King your father, whom God assoil, to the said Duke concerning the Castle of Marleburgh and the Forest of Savernake. ae: “May it please your Highness to consider the advanced age of the said suppliant and the long possession that he and his ancestors have had of the said offices, and how he is ousted without process of law, = ~} Savernake Archives. 2 Savernake Archives. 334 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. and to order that this matter be discussed before your Council by advice of your Justices, and that the said suppliant may have his inheritance, as right and reason require, for the sake of God and as an act of charity ” It appears that the King was moved by this appeal to order an investigation. It must have been conducted in a dilatory manner ; for there was no tangible result until October 1420, ey which date Sir William had already suffered more than three years’ dispossession. It is evident, however, that the King’s advisors were at last convinced that an injustice had been done, and that suitable representations were then made to the high-handed Duke. It was the latter at any rate who brought this unhappy affair to a close by restoring Sir William to his rightful place as hereditary Warden of the Forest. The Duke’s letters patent,’ used to effect the restoration, are curiously worded—the phraseology being almost exactly that used by King Edward III in regard to Sir Henry Esturmy more than 60 years before.2 One wonders whether there was, at this period, a standard form of words by which royal personages might retract | injustices which they had committed towards their ‘‘ humble lieges ”’ In the case of Sir William’s restoration, the letters patent were couched in the following terms. ‘‘ Humphrey, son and brother of Kings, Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Pembroke & Great Chamberlain of England, also Lord of the Castle and demesne of Marleburgh & of the Forest of Savernak . . . greeting!. «« Whereas of late the offices of Steward and Chief Forester of our Forest of Savernak, which our beloved and trusty knight and homager William Esturmy lately held in fee, were for certain causes taken into our hand; since however we have learned and are assured by the inspec- tion of divers patents and other deeds in the records of our progenitors, formerly Kings of England, that the said William was unjustly removed and his offices wilfully through the malice of his rivals taken into our hand ; we in consideration of this, being desirous of acting graciously with the said William in this matter, have rendered, delivered and restored to him those offices . . . , to have and to hold to him and his heirs of us and ours by the customary services, to occupy and keep : as before the seizure he and his ancestors held, had, received, occupied and kept them from a time out of mind, and were wont to hold, have, receive, occupy and keep them, notwithstanding the seizure which we hastily made. ‘‘In witness whereof we have caused these our letters patent to be issued zt From beginning to end of this affair, it will be noted, there is no mention of what Sir William Esturmy is supposed to have done wrong, or of what his malicious rivals had alleged against him. We have to ee = 1 Found at Savernake, stitched to Sir William’s Petition. 4 Pi32e- By the Earl of Cardigan. 335 content ourselves with the knowledge that, although his old age had been clouded by the injustice (wilful or otherwise) of the Duke of Gloucester, Sir William lived to see his claim to the Wardenship com- pletely vindicated, the Duke’s steward forced to abate his pretensions, and the Esturmy family recognised as having valid right to primacy among the Foresters of Savernake. So ended the old Warden’s public tribulation; but there remained one domestic problem which must have troubled him sorely. Already in 1417 he had referred to his own ‘‘advanced age’’: he had no son, and it was increasingly needful that he should make some provision for the future. Presumably he would have liked his estate and his hereditary office (once this had been rendered secure) to go to someone who would carry on the Esturmy name. Sir William was not without relatives in the male line : for instance, there was a John Sturmy living in 1427 and a William Sturmy (perhaps John’s descendant) in 1476.1 He must therefore have considered, but rejected, the idea of making the senior surviving member of the Sturmy family his heir. He may of course have had good reason for deciding against his male cousins (for such they apparently were). It is likely that they were descended from those Sturmys who had behaved so recklessly in the previous century ; and if so, he may have deemed them unfitted to fill a responsible public position. By a curious coincidence, both his sons-in-law had died young.? Each had left a son; and these young men, his grandsons, were now growing to maturity. The senior of them—being, as we have seen, the descendant of his elder daughter—was the young William Ryngeborne, whose claim to the Esturmy heritage was thus a strong one. ! We know, however, that Sir William looked with greater favour on Matilda’s son, John Seymour. If it had merely been a question of disposing of his landed property, it is probable that he would simply have left half of it to each; but in fact he had property at Savernake, possession of which carried with it the right to an ancient and distinguished public office. The wardenship clearly could not be | divided between his Ryngebourne and Seymour grandsons; and he had, therefore, to make a decision in favour of one or the other. The choice of John Seymour, the junior grandson, is not in reality surprising. The Ryngebornes appear to have been thoroughly respect- able people; but they were not influential. (They could hardly, for example, have pressed their case so successfully against the Duke of ‘Gloucester, had they been in Sir William’s situation in 1417.) The Seymours, on the other hand, although at this period they had by no means reached the position of power and wealth which they were * Both mentioned in contemporary documents, Savernake Archives. * Roger Seymour in 1421. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. Yj 336 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. destined later to attain, were none the less people of some consequence and substance. Thus we find Sir William \Esueay, in a document dated 1427,’ disposing of the central portion of his property in the following manner. He grants to trustees (among whom is a bishop), ‘his manor of Burbache, the hamlet of Durle, the pasture of Tymerigge (Timbridge) and the bailiwick of the Stewardship of Savernake Forest”’. He includes also the half of the manor of Stapleford ‘‘to have and to hold to the said John Seymour and the heirs male of his body legiti- mately begotten. And if John Seymour dies without such heir, which Heaven forfend, then the property shall pass in remainder to William Ryngeborne, son of Agnes, lately the wife of William Ryngeborne senior,” daughter and other heiress of William Esturmy ” The settlement goes on to provide that, should both Seymour and Ryngeborne heirs fail, then the property is to pass ‘‘to Robert Erlegh, kinsman of William Esturmy, and-his heirs male’’. (This relative must have been well liked by Sir William; for the latter in his own lifetime made certain grants of land to him,* calling him — ‘nephew ”’ in one of the documents drawn up in Erlegh’s favour.) — - There must, I think, have been a separate settlement, now lost, in favour of William Ryngeborne. There was a good deal of property available for him, apart from that specified above ; and no doubt it was left to him on similar terms. It seems that some property was also left—ill-advisedly as it turned out later—so that both the Sey- mours and the Ryngebornes had an interest in it. Such was Sir William Esturmy’s allocation of his worldly possessions, made by him in the last year of his life. He was now, in 1427,more | than 80 years of age, and must have begun to feel that he had almost run his course. We may, perhaps, picture him, white-haired and frail, lying in his chamber at Wolfhall—a great room, ill lit, with its beams and rafters fashioned of good Forest oak. Sounds of the busy life of Wolfhall Manor would come to him faintly as he lay there ; the lowing of his herds—the soft murmur of doves in the recesses of their dove- cote—the distant voices of his farm and household servants. Familiar sounds these : he had known them ever since, as a boy, he had first stayed at Wolfhall with his uncle Henry. His memories of those days were still clear and sharp : it seemed strange to think that the reign of King Edward was, to most men, so remote; (to be sure, though, there had been four Kings of England since!) It had been good King Edward, he recalled, whose messenger had brought the joyful news to Uncle Henry as to the long-awaited remission of the Esturmy family’s disgrace, that sad legacy of old grandfather Henry’s truculence. 1 Savernake Archives. 2 She re-married on his death. 3 Savernake Archives. By the Earl of Cardigan. 337 There had been great rejoicings that day—and the boy William had shared with his uncle the congratulations of their friends and neigh- bours. Afterwards Uncle Henry had talked to him with unwonted freedom, telling him of the long heritage of the Esturmys, and of their history linked so closely with that of the Forest which lay but a short distance from the manor fields. Even now, sixty or seventy years after, he could recall almost word for word his uncle’s stories of the by-gone days—of old Richard the Wary, who in the train of Duke William had shared in the conquest of England; of how the Norman duke had become King, and of how the careful Richard had been given charge by him of Savernake, to guard the woods and coppices and to preserve the deer for his royal master’s pleasure. There were tales too of an earlier Henry Esturmy—trusted and favoured by the unhappy King John. His uncle had brought out the iron-bound casket in which he kept the family records : he had taken an old parchment from it, and had read out to his nephew the sonorous Latin words: ‘‘ John, by the grace of God .. . Know that we have granted .. . all the land and bailiwick . . . to him and to his heirs, of us and of our heirs . . . in wood and in plain... in meadows and pastures...’ The boy William had listened—and had been enthralled. | A day had come—it was in King Richard’s reign—when he himself, being Uncle Henry’s heir, had become Warden of Savernake Forest. His thenceforward was the land and bailiwick ; his also the numerous duties which the Wardenship entailed. He recalled how his first care had been to see his uncle laid to rest with all due ceremony in the Priory church. That again was a vivid memory : perhaps it was brought back to his mind now by the wind being in the west. When it was in that quarter, anyone listening quietly at Wolfhall could hear the chiming of the Priory bell. To an Esturmy, Easton Priory was a place where memories gathered. ' There were many days in the year when the brethren there lit candles, placing them prayerfully around the tomb of some departed member of the family. No Esturmy was ever forgotten ; each, on his or her birthday, was in faith and. piety commemorated thus. The brethren knew each one by name : there was Sir Geoffrey, their benefactor and their Founder’s nephew, and with him Matilda Esturmy his wife. Nearby lay Sir Henry Esturmy and his wife Alina; next came Henry Esturmy of Wolfhall and Margaret his wife. There Henry Esturmy the Elder lay beside his wife Matilda : to these Uncle Henry had been added, and later Aunt Margaret had been laid beside him. Sir William knew well that he too would be remembered by the brethren, unfailing with candles and prayers. There was a place for him alongside his forebears—and for Joanna too (she was an old lady now, his wife and companion for more than 40 years). They had shared much together both of happiness and sorrow : their one abiding sorrow was the unkind fate which had allowed her to bear him two 2y 338 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. daughters, but had denied to them fulfilment of their mutual need—a son. 3 It was good that at least he had grandsons: they had grown up in these last few years into strapping young men—not of his name indeed, but still of the Esturmy blood. John Seymour, he felt, would’ not fail when the time came for him to assume the Wardenship. His forebears perhaps had not the same long traditions as the Esturmys ; but they had none the less an honourable record since the time of that William St. Maur who had defended the marches of Pngieud aginst: the barbarous insurgent Welsh. _ He felt that the Seymours had also some go-ahead quality in them ; and that was no bad thing. Young John had youth, ambition, wealth : with fortune favouring, he might go far. Perhaps he, or perhaps some other Seymour yet unborn, would make his mark one day not.only in bucolic Wiltshire, but in the wider world glimpsed by Sir William during his service to the Lady Blanche. Perhaps old Wolfhall manor would thus come to know one day the bustle and stir of great events ? One could not tell; for the times were changing. Changing rather for the worse, he thought : with a boy King on the throne, there was misguided government in England. Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, had been made Protector of the Kingdom during the minority of Henry VI—and he was an unjust man, as everyone at Savernake well knew. Abroad, the French were rallying : the late King had won a great victory at Agincourt, but now the Duke of Bedford seemed to be letting the fruits of victory slip away. One feared that for rae the days of ascendancy and influence were past and gone. And yet, thought Sir William, he had heard his uncle voicing this same pessimism during Wat Tyler’s rebellion nearly half a century before. Always new troubles and problems loomed up; and always—if one had faith—the new generation brought forth its wise men and its ‘strong men to surmount them. It would be so again in the great affairs of England : it would be so in Wiltshire when the Esturmys were gone, and when other men had rule over the bailiwick of Saver- nake Forest. The brethren of Easton did well to preach faith. So mused the old man, the last of his line: and as he mused the shadows gathered in the corners of the room. GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE ESTURMY FAMILY— 1088— 1427. Richard Estormit, living 1083-86 ep aesae Henry Esturmit, living 1129 Henry Esturmi, living 1156-62 levis Sir Adam | de Eston Geoffrey Esturmy, living circa 1180 | eee | | | | | ese Henry Esturmy 1200—N. de Eston Stephen, Archdeacon of | | Wilts d. 1246 | Sir Geoffrey ES euay iatida Bemynges 1226-1254 | Sir Henry Esturmy—Alina N. 1254-1295 | | | Henry Esturmy of Wolfhall— Margaret Husee 1295-1305 | | Henry Esturmy the Elder—Matilda N. 1305-1338 | | John Esturmy | | ey Sir Henry Esturmy—Margaret Geoffrey Sir Richard 1338-1381 de Lortie Esturmy Esturmy | Sir William Esturmy—Joanna, ned Stokey, relict of John © 1381-1427 } de Beaumont. | : Pal : | Agnes Esturmy Matilda Esturmy—Roger Seymour | | ae. | John Seymour 1427 — (339) 340 NOTES ON SOME OF THE BASIDIOMYCETES FOUND IN SOUTH-WEST WILTSHIRE, ESPECIALLY ROUND DONHEAD ST. MARY. Part VII.t By T. F. G. W. Dunston, B.A., and Captain A, E. A. DUNSTON. The few oddments we bring forward in this short paper include a few common species and some which, without being very rare, are not often met with. We have not had much time to do the intensive collecting which brought in such a multiplicity of records before the war, and doubtless there are many more interesting discoveries to be made once we can recover that care-free attidude of mind which sent us so often into the woods during the late summer and autumn. There should also be good things to find in the spring, but somehow few mycologists seem to get going so early. We are again indebted to Mr. A. A. Pearson, F.L.S., and Miss E. M. Wakefield, M.A., F.L.S., for naming the fungi we submitted to them, and to Mr. Pearson for writing the notes on them. To both we offer our sincere thanks. Geastey Briantui (Berk). This is a very attractive earth-star with a slender stem and conical striate peristome. The garden, Burltons Donhead St. Mary. | Bovista nigrescens (Pers.). A common little puff-ball, very like the equally common Bovista plumbea, but the peridium turns blackish instead of a dull lead-colour. The garden, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. : Lepiota sevena Fr. sensu Kuthner. All parts white with a ventricose fusiform stem, elliptical spores 7-8 + 4-434 guttulate and large clavate cystidia. This may not be the L. serena as interpreted by Rea. It is uncommon but was collected in Devonshire last year. Off the Wincombe-Shaftesbury Road, Donhead St. Mary. L. parvannulata Fr. Another white Lepiota, but very small with spores 4 xX 244. The garden, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. L. brunneo-incarnata Chodat and Martin, forma microspora. A fairly common Lepiota with concentric, vinaceous scales on the pileus and the stem. Normally the spores are about 8-10 x 5-6 but a form with smaller spores 4-6 and 24-3, is not uncommon and at present is not separated from the normal form. Donhead St. Mary. Psalliota sylvatica (Schaef.), Fr. One of the commonest of edible mushrooms with a rusty scaly pileus and flesh that turns a rusty red, but not the brilliant scarlet seen in the flesh of its near relative P. hemorrhoidartia. Berry Wood, Donhead St. Mary. 1 For parts I and II see W.A.M., xlviii, pp. 321—847 and: 471—487; for part III see xlix, pp. 147—156 ; for parts IV and V see vol. ], pp. 1—-12 and 333—335 ; and for part VI see li, pp 37—38. | Notes on Basidtomycetes in South-West Wiltshire. 341 BP. xanthoderma Genéy. var. obscurata (Maire). This is ‘a very striking and elegant mushroom and is fairly common on the margins of woods, amongst leaves and road sweepings. It has also been described under the appropriate epithet meleagris (Schaeffer), because of its black-and-white scaly pileus, like a guinea fowl. Like the type it is not recommended as an edible. The garden, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. ; P. sylvicola (Vitt.) Fr., forma gracilis. Differs from the type in its small slender stature, but requires further study, as indeed does the whole group of mushrooms. Donhead St. Mary. Clitocybe metachroa (Fr.) Berk. One of the series of hygrophanous clitocybes with dark grey gills, which are so difficult to distinguish one from another. It differs from C. ditopa in having little or no smell and larger spores. Wincombe- Road, Donhead St. Mary. Hygrophorus metapodius Fr. Often confused with H. ovimus which . is less robust and darker in colour. Donhead St. Andrew. Psilocybe uda (Pers.), Fr. Has greenish yellow gills and a large spore. It has been confused with P. polyivicht which grows in the same habitat and is much more common. Alec’s Shade, Donhead St. Mary. Mycena epipterygioides Pearson. Differs from the common M. eptpteyygia in tts dark green sulcate pileus. The basidia are always two-spored, and it grows rather late in the autumn on the ground in damp mossy places in pine woods. Donhead St. Mary. Omphalia integrella (Pers.), Fr. This white Omphalia has distinct vein-like gills and rhomboidal spores. There is another white Omphalia (O. Matrez, Gilbert) with similar spores with which it can be confused, but the latter has true gills instead of mere fold-like veins. O. candida also has the lozenge-shaped spore but is a bigger thing, growing on comfrey. Donhead Hall Estate, Donhead St. Mary. Russula eruginea (Lindb.), Fr. (R. graminicolor (Secr.) Quél.). A fairly common species with a greenish cap and cream gills. It is usually found under birch trees. In a field off the wood at the back of Donhead Hall, Donhead St. Mary. Psathyvella crenata (Lasch), Fr. Easily recognised by its strikingly sulcate pileus. Alec’s Shade, Donhead St. Mary; Donhead Hall Woods, Donhead St. Mary. . _ Mavasmius impudicus Fr. The reddish brown plicate cap and velvety villose stem together with the rather disgusting smell make this an easy species to name. Donhead St. Mary. Acia stenodon (Pers.), Bourd. and Galz. A resupinate with spines, white at first, turning yellow or tawny when rubbed. It was thought tare but in recent years has turned up on several occasions. Donhead St. Mary. Grandinia Brinkmanii (Bres.), Bourd. and Galz. A resupinate with granules or warts, pure white at first, becoming yellow with age. It can easily be confused with G. farimacea but the spores of the latter are 342 Notes on Basidiomyeetes in South-West Wiltshire. minutely echinulate while those of G. Brinkmanii are smooth: Fairly common, On poplar, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. | G. mucida Fr. Another resupinate with granules, but the colour is yellow and the spores 6—7 x 34. Woods near Wardour Castle, Tisbury. | Tomentellina bombycina (Karst.), Bourd. and Galz. A rusty coloured resupinate, looking very like the common Tomentella ferruginea but with long narrow cystidia. It grows on rotten wood or mossy ground. Donhead St. Mary. T. subfusca (Karst.), V. Hoeln and Lit. (Hypochnus subfuscus, Karst.). The garden, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. Cortictum avachnoideum Berk. A common white resupinate with. a delicate arachnoid margin. Donhead St. Andrew. Pentophora glebulosa (Fr.), Bres. A white or cream resupinate often cracked into small irregular areas and chiefly remarkable for the very thick-walled bright cystidia. Fairly common. Donhead St. Mary. Pistillaria quisquiliaris Fr. The small club-shaped fungus common on the stems of dead bracken. The garden, Burltons, Donhead St. Mary. Sebacina incrustans (Pers.), Tul. A white waxy resupinate which often creeps over grass and twigs. The basidia are vertically divided into two or four cells from which grow the long sterigmata. The spores are oblong, elliptic or crescent-shaped. Alec’s Shade, Donhead St. Mary. Abbreviations of Authors : Berk.—M. J. Berkeley. Lasch—W. G. Lasch. Bourd. and Galz.—H. Bourdot Lindb.—S. O. Lindberg. and A. Galzin. Maire—R. Maire. Bres.—]J. Bresadola. | Pearson—A. A. Pearson. Chodat and Martin.—R. Chodat Pers.—C. H. Persoon. and K. Martin. Quél.—L. Quélet. | Fr.—E. M. Fries. Rea.—Carleton Rea. Genév.—G. Gené€vier. . Schaeff.—J. C. Schaeffer. Jungh.—F. W. Junghuhn. Tul.—L. R. & C. Tulasne. Karst.—P. A. Karsten. Vitt.—C. Vittadini. ee ee a Qn ee 343 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. [Additions and corrections to previous articles may well prove of little value, since the original reader can have no warning that they are coming. With every sympathy for an author’s desire to round off or set right in the light of later information what he has written, the Editor can rarely print the supplement, and then only within the limits of the same volume and, consequently, of the same index.] A WILTSHIRE WOMAN’S MONUMENT IN GODSHILL CHURCH ? (pages 174, 175.) A HERBERT—WoOrSLEY MARRIAGE. In thearticle reference was made to the difficulty of identifying ‘“‘ the Hon. James Herbert, second son of Philip, Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chancellor to Charles II’’, whose daughter, according to Sir Richard Worsley’s ‘‘ History of the Isle of Wight’’, married Sir Robert Worsley ‘‘somewhere about 1666”’. Burke shed no light on the question, which was therefore left open. But since the article appeared, Lord Herbert has kindly made research and established the identity. He writes:—‘‘Sir Richard Worsley was incorrect in his reference to the Herbert, as James Herbert was the 6th, not 2nd, son of Philip, 4th Earl of Pembroke, who was Lord Chamberlain to Charles I (not Chancellor to Charles II) and Vice- Chancellor of Oxford University. This is where Worsley became con- fused. James Herbert married Jane Spiller and had two daughters— Jane, who married Sir Walter Clarges, Bt., and Mary, who married Sir Robert Worsley, Bt. This is taken from Collins, Ed. 1812, p. 136”. }2 Je SEADES 344 Addenda eC orrigenda. THE VICAR’S LIBRARY, MARLBOROUGH (pages 194—215). The main problem left unsolved in my article was to find a link between William White, the founder of the Library, and Cornelius Yeate, the first Marlborough vicar to enjoy its use. William White spent the last thirty years of his life in the depths of the country as Rector of Pusey and latterly as Rural Dean. We now know that Yeate, after being ordained priest at the end of 1678, became White’s near neighbour; for in the following September he was appointed curate of Charney Bassett and, for a time, of Denchworth also (Seth Ward, Notitie, pp. 41, 84, MS. in Salisbury Dioc. Reg.). Now Charney is only two miles across the fields from Pusey, and we can readily understand how a friendship would grow up between such kindred spirits. White had no son, and so it was natural that, when he made his will in 1677 a month after Yeate’s appointment to Marlborough, he should leave him his library. Thus the link with Marlborough is established. Consequently the suggestion made previously that Pierce was the real intermediary between White and Yeate loses much of its force. Unfortunately we know little of Pierce’s movements during the period between his resignation from the Presidency of Magdalen in 1672 and his appointment to the Deanery of Salisbury in 1675. He had a curate at the time in his Northamptonshire parish of Brington, but this was normal even when the Rector was at home (Wood, Fasé#s, ii, 297; T. Pierce, The New Discoverer Discover'd, 1659, p. 238). Otherwise we only know that on his leaving Oxford he was hoping to “‘ find better health upon Gloucestershire, Cotswold, and after that upon Salisbury Plain ”’ (Letters by Dr. Henry More, 1694, p. 41). Indeed, except for the fact that Yeate was an undergraduate when Pierce was head of a college, we have no reason to think that the two men even knew each other at that time. P. 195, 1.16. A William White was also Vicar of Wargrave in Berk- shire from 1637 until 1669, but these dates are so incompatible with what we know of White’s life that it is possible that this office was held by another man of the same name Pe Alumni Oxon.; Seth Ward, Notitte, p. 30). P. 196, n. 2. The fact that Charles Hoole in his fascinating and exhaustive A new discovery of the old Art of Teaching Schoole (London, 1660) recommends the Supplementa ad Grammaticam of Phalerius for use with Fourth and Fifth Forms in Grammar-Schools shows that it had won a recognised place amongst the educational works of the day. P. 199, 1. 13. Thomas Pierce was born in 1621, being baptised in St. John’s Church, Devizes, on Aug. 4th, 1621. His father, John Pierce, woollen-draper, was Mayor in 1603 and 1633, Thomas died on Mar. 28th, 1691, at North Tidworth, where his son, Robert, was Rector. P. 201, 1.10. The living of St. Mary’s, Islington, was in the gift of George Stonehouse, M.D., at that time Bursar of Magdalen College, Oxford. His father, Duke Stonehouse, had been M.P. for the borough The Viear’s Library, Marlborough. 345 of Great Bedwyn from 1661 till his death in 1668 ; and his elder brother, Francis, from 1678 to 1681 and from 1694 to 1705. They had both lived in the borough, but Francis also owned Hungerford Park and in 1719 bought Standen Hussey on the Berkshire—Wiltshire border. P. 205, 1. 26. The lost volume contained a 1537 edition of Lily’s Rudimenta grammatices, a 1586 edition of De octo ovationts partium constructione (Antwerp), an imperfect edition of his De generibus nominum revised by Rightwise, as well as two other contemporary grammatical works. It appears from Wordsworth’s 1903 Catalogue that some two dozen other books are now lost. Two rarities among these were still in the library in 1912 (H. Macdonald, The Library, 8rd Ser., iii, pp. 279, 281), The first was Hugh Robinson’s anonymous A ntiquae Historiae Synopsis : cui accedit Geographiae et Rkhetorices compendium, in usum Scholae Wintoniae (Oxford, 1660). A letter of 1903 from Madan, Bodley’s Librarian, describes his excitement when he first inspected this hitherto unrecorded edition of a book that retains some interest for Wyke- hamists. The second rarity, taken by Wordsworth from a binding, was A newe Prognostication for M.D.LXX. by John Securis of Salisbury (W. Powell, London ; see E. F. Bosanquet, English Printed Almanacs, Ixxii). Curiously enough Mr. G. Smith has an imperfect copy of another edition of this 1570 almanac by Securis, in which the printer’s name begins with a J (? J. Waley). A few further corrections are added : PY196;.1.3. For Gulielmus vead Guilielmus. P. 196, n. 1. Addand in 1641 Guil: Albius and Guiliel : Leukius. P. 201, n.6. For 1626 vead 1826. P2202, 1.1. For until 1819 vead from 1804 until 1819. P. 205, n.1. For 1528 read 1624. P. 212, 1.13. For Albert vead Alfred. P, 218, 1. 29. Fov Kerwervead Keruer. P. 213, 1.37. Stockwood : Disput. gram. This is STC 232794 of Huntington Library Bulletin, No. 4, Oct. 1933. E. G. H. Kempson. | 346 WILTSHIRE BOOKS, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES. [This list is in no way exhaustive. The Editor asks all who are in a position to do so to assist in making the record under this Reading as complete as possible.] “Young Bess’ by Margaret Irwin (Chatto and Windus, 1944). This is not in the main a Wiltshire story, but it has a Wiltshire background, for it is largely concerned with the fate of the best known Seymours of Wolfhall. There are references also to Fasterne (or Vasterne, near Wootton Bassett) and hints of the troubles there which were mentioned in Mr. Tate’s recent article on Wiltshire Enclosures (p. 144 of this volume). The story of the future Queen Elizabeth 1s ; taken as far as the death of her half-brother, Edward VI, and includes the execution of her two Seymour uncles—Thomas, Lord Sudeley, and the Protector Somerset. Decollations indeed are the commonplaces of this sixteenth century story, and one might wonder how gaiety, of which there is plenty in this novel, could survive in the constant shadow of the block, if one had not seen it outwardly unimpaired under the still more promiscuous incidence of the bomb and the rocket. The narrative is well calculated to hold the reader’s atereee on nearly it conforms to historical fact is another matter, with which he is not to concern himself. But since the author expresses her gratitude for help received from a member of the family with reference to Seymour documents, another source of information might well have been mentioned. A comparison of at least two chapters of this novel with Canon Jackson’s articleon ‘‘ Wulfhall and the Seymours’ (W.A.M., xv., 140) will reveal their debt to his discoveries at Longleat. The Protector shows himself in these pages, in defiance of chronology, a diligent student of Canon Jackson’s footnotes, and the author takes considerable liberties with his appendices. Letters actually written by Mr. John Berwick, the Duke’s agent, to Sir John Thynne, his man of business, are quoted as addressed to the Duke himself by a bumpkin brother. This may explain the author’s reticence, for documentation is a dangerous adjunct to historical fiction. H. C. B. Andre Maurois. Memoires I. New York, 1942, now available on this side of the Atlantic, contains a paragraph which Wiltshire readers may like to see translated. It refers to visits paid to Colonel Jenner at Avebury about 1920 or 1921. “The most typically English of the places I stayed at was Avebury Manor. It was a beautiful Elizabethan dwelling with gables arranged in diminishing order. Prehistoric burial places, dolmen-fields and remarkable yews surrounded it; and inside there were four-poster beds, high, open fire-places with log-fires burning in them, tables covered with blue-tinted Waterford glass, and ancient, well-stocked ‘ Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. 347 libraries. Through my visits to this Wiltshire house I became acquainted with English county society, a society steeped in tradition, conservative yet liberal in its views. There I saw how the country gentlemen lived and thought, the class which, together with the London merchants, had long formed the backbone of England and still played so important a part in the Army, the Navy and the Foreign Office. They had their faults—faults of obstinacy, pride and narrow- mindedness ; but they had their virtues too—the priceless virtues of courage and tenacity ”’. J. M. Lupton. Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society, 1945. Wo. 94. A year ago our sanguine eye detected a slight increase in the pages of this Report and foresaw a speedy return to something of its former size and scope. But it was evidently the wrong eye. The present issue conforms with the scrannel piping of these times of peace, for it is thinner than ever. We learn from the Editor’s preface something of the handicaps under which the stress of war laid his society’s premises. A machine- gun post in the workroom; bandages and splints in the showcases ; bombs, petrol, leaky, in the cellars ; sandbags and concrete restricting movement and light : these are impediments which make the Society’s mere survival through the past five years sufficiently remarkable. The Editor modestly foreshadows his own retirement, which has now, since the Report was issued, become a regrettable fact. Mr. Peirson has been President of the College Natural History Society for the past 26 years. Every naturalist must have his particular interest, but only the cover of W.A.M. reveals Mr. Peirson’s. The records of the College Society show with what impartiality he has fostered the study of flower and insect, bird and beast, and found a corner for the toadstools and the snails as well. Wecongratulate him on the comple- tion of a long and exacting, if not ungrateful, task. | The Report records the appearance of snow buntings in 1945 and a greater rarity, a snowy owl.. Unusual visitants to the district were a gadwall and a ruff. , Buzzards are spreading in from the west, or would, if gunmen ws the nineteenth century mentality would leave them — alone. Of flowers it is noted that among the orchises it was ‘’an ustulata year’. Among butterflies, the Camberwell Beauty reappeared after 61 years without a record, and it was a good year for “‘ hairstreaks ”’ Roe deer were seen in two localities near Savernake and left their appearance unexplained. The meteorological records show that at Marlborough pressure, temperature and sunshine were above the normal, the last by more than 100 hours, while the rainfall was nearly 3 inches in default. The Repoyi concludes with an enthusiastic note on thunderstorms, of which Marlborough enjoyed a greater number than in any of the past 18 years. H.C. B. 348 Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. Bichard Jefferies is the subject of several publications pro- moted by the Worthing Art Development Scheme. Two of them appeared in 1939. In one he is called on two successive covers ‘‘ The Prose Poet of the Countryside’, but in the final title ‘““The Sussex Nature-lover and Philosopher’. The text that follows is a prize essay by a pupil of the Worthing County High School for Boys. It is followed by a photograph of the house at Goring, Sussex, in which Jefferies spent something less than the last year of his life, and another of the memorial tablet placed on its “frontal wall’’. The ,second pamphlet is dedicated ‘‘ to the Immortal Memory of Richard Jefferies’, by its author, Samuel J. Looker, who loved him ‘“‘more than any other [author] in the whole of our literature ’’ and proved it by writing ** Jefferies’ England ’’. _ The third publication is called ‘‘ Richard Jefferies—a tribute by various writers’’. It appeared this month from the press of Aldridge Bros., Worthing, and is priced at {1 5s. It is described as abundantly illustrated and including two unpublished fragments of Jefferies’ work. If the county in which John Richard Jefferies spent three-quarters of his life is to celebrate her son’s centenary two years hence, we may expect something from Wiltshire about him before long. She will hardly allow Sussex to steal her birthright ; but is there much left to say? . , H.C. B. Boots and Flutes. The death of Thomas Miles at Potterne in February of this year occasioned an interesting note in the Wiltshive Times. He was a “ bespoke’’ boot maker and practised a craft which his family has carried on for 200 years. The business was founded | by Thomas Clifford at Easterton. Thomas Draper, his apprentice, married his master’s daughter, in the approved ’prentice fashion, and succeeded to the business, which passed to his son Samuel Draper. The latter moved to Potterne, where George Miles was apprenticed to him in 1844, eventually marrying his sister and taking over the business. Thomas Miles joined his father at Potterne in 1904 and succeeded him in 1910. The family still possesses a one-keyed flute owned and played by Samuel Draper in Potterne- Church. Evidently Potterne did not share the prejudice against wood-wind instruments in church orchestras that Mr. Penny expressed in U nder the Greenwood Tree. And Mr. Penny was a shoemaker too. 349 NOTES. Unrecorded Mounds at Wanborough. The wayfarer passing from Upper Wanborough Green towards Hinton Parva will, after walking about 500 yards, see on his left a big field, at the bottom of which, outlined against the dark foliage of Lower Wanborough, a large spreading mound appears, much ploughed down but still over ten feet high and 150 feet in diameter from W. to E.—perhaps not quite so much from N. to S., as ploughing has taken place in this direction and the spread is more gradual. , It is a most conspicuous object, which may be the remains of a Norman motte, but only excavation can decide : no relics can be found on the surface. From this mound a large bank and ditch proceed to the E. with the ditch down hill to the N.-—apparently a defence against an enemy advancing from that direction ; it is much too big for a field boundary. In the grounds of Callas House it was cut through to make a summer house : the section showed clean greensand with a few bits of early medieval green glazed pottery. It proceeds slightly to the N. of E. as far as the Roman Road and turning N. dies away.. Across the road the line may be seen to-day as a hollow way, which soon joins a deep ditch and bank, at present a field boundary. Below the big mound and about 200 yards agian slightly W. of N., is another curious barrow-like mound, but much smaller, with a — curious tail to the N.W. There is no apparent connection between the two. About 250 yards distant from the big mound to the E. and in the angle formed by the junction of the Roman Road from Gloucester and the Wanborough-Hinton Road is a Jong mound with deep ditches at the side which do not go round the ends. It is 150 feet long and about seven feet high with the bigger end facing the S.E., a fine model of a long barrow but objected to as such because it hangs down hill. Here again only excavation can decide. About two hundred yards E. of Foxhill House, Wanborough, on the down just E. of a line of fir trees, is a large barrow-like mound about 8 feet high and 60 in diameter, bowl-shaped. A small excavation has been made on the S. side. Earth from a pit near has apparently been added to the N. face giving it an unshapely appearance. This is probably the ‘‘ Wen Barrow ”’ of the Saxon Charter (Birch, 477). The site of another barrow which has been moved from cultivated land can be seen about 350 yards E. of Wanborough Plain Farm. This is well on the Wanborough side of the parish boundary. | A. D. PassMoRE. Mr. Passmore’s discoveries are very interesting. His Wenbarrow or Wenbeorg fits into its correct place in the Little Hinton survey on the common boundary of that parish and Wanborough, but it can hardly have given the. latter its name. The Wanborough surveyors (B. 479) 350 Notes wholly ignore it—an unpardonable slight if it were the eponymous landmark—and it lies too remote from their main settlement under the hill to justify its choice for that purpose. Mr. Passmore’s supposed motte would seem more likely, but its evident connexion with the running earthwork in which he found medieval sherds (too deep, as a later letter insists, for surface accretions) appears to rule it out. Yet the conversion of a barrow into a castle motte is a labour-saving device of which at least one other local instance—-the Marlborough mound—has been adduced. Of Mr. Passmore’s other mounds in the vicinity of the village, one — seems too insignificant for the still unallocated distinction, and the other too long to be wen-like. And this raises, momentarily, another question. Ekwall, in his Place-name Dictionary selects Waenbeorgon, from the Saxon version of the grant (B. 478), as the most trustworthy form of the name. He tentatively derives it from a g-less form of | - waegn but can find no sense in a ‘‘ wain’”’ barrow. The most obvious and exciting sense is a barrow containing a chariot-burial. But Mr. G. M. Young would calm the excitement. He points to the fact that the charter belongs to Winchester, where it was a frequent practice to write @ for e (as ecclesia, hlince in B. 477). Nor is there any. clear reason for preferring the form in B. 478 to the Wenbeorgen of B. 477 (the place-name in the grant, not Mr. Passmore’s wenbeorg of the bounds). Mr. Young also draws uncomfortable attention to the fact that all the forms of the settlement’s name in the three texts, whether ending in -en, -on or -an, seem to be plural, which argues a positive eruption of wen-shaped barrows in the neighbourhood. He holds, however, that the reference is to the four conspicuous barrows aligned on Sugar Hill. He admits that they lie in Aldbourne, beyond the limits of Wanborough and wholly out of sight of that village, but considers that the name applies to a district marked by such wen- barrows. This seems a difficult interpretation: The Wanborough problem would still seem to lack a convincing solution. | H.C. B. More Carved Stones from Teffont Magna. Those interested in pre-Norman work may remember that eight years ago (W.A.M., xiviii, 188) Mr. Newall reported and illustrated two stones showing pre-Norman tracery from Hanging Langford and Teffont Magna, places lying within four miles of one another. He now reports other finds from the latter village: “‘Mr. Ronald Lever, in repairing the west end of the Church, found built into a buttress another piece of similar work 224 inches long by 10 inches wide. Though one cannot be certain, this may possibly be another panel or compartment of the same stone [which was dated by Mr. T. D. Kendrick to the late 9th century]. The ‘earlier find was too much worn on: one side to determine its. original width, and the interlaced tracery was of a different pattern, but both have been CARVED STONES FROM TEFFONT MAGNA. : a = Notes. 351 damaged in a similar way by a curving groove which runs across the face. The new find has also a round hole bored in it about 7 inches above the groove, and the two upper thirds of the right edge have been cut back half an inch ”’. Though a change of pattern in succeeding panels of the same cross- shaft is not without parallel, it has been objected against that explana- tion -of these stones that the back of the new discovery is perfectly smooth, an unusual feature in early crosses, and that there is no evidence of taper. If the two stones were of different thicknesses, the possibility of such a relationship would be finally ruled out. The new stone measures 6} inches from back to front; the earlier fragment is described as not quite so thick but very rough on the back. It would therefore seem possible that it also once measured 6} inches through and presented a similar smooth surface, since destroyed. It is un- fortunate that both the critical dimensions of this block are undeter- minable. No alternative use, however, has been suggested, though Brigadier Willan considers the stone too soft to have been meant for exposure to the weather. The other stones illustrated were found at the same time, and Sir Alfred Clapham confirms the view that the upper block bears one of the five consecration crosses usual on an altar-slab, and that the lower one is the head of a lancet window of the early or middle 13th century. A shaft or respond capital of the same date was also found. In the opinion of an experienced mason, Mr. Bradley of Dinton, the two stones with interlaced tracery, the lancet window-head and the capital (not here illustrated) came from the Chilmark quarries. He . also observes that the V cuts so clearly visible across the earlier frag- ment are a stone-mason’s normal precaution against undue flaking when he intends to split a stone with a punch or chisel. From this we may infer that both stones were intended for some secondary use, perhaps when the Church was rebuilt. The mason may have desisted for the reason mentioned by Brigadier Willan. Mr Lever remarks on a similar score on the right headstone of the double lancet S.W. window of the Church, and suggests that it was originally meant for the head of the central shaft. However that may be, the use of a stone so defaced argues some haste or parsimony in the building. The cost of the blocks illustrating this Note was kindly defrayed by Mr. Newall. H. C. B. John Aubrey’s lost MS. Aubrey wrote two volumes of Wiltshire Collections. One we have, edited by Canon J. E. Jackson. It was last heard of ata bookseller’s in or about 1835. Itisa folio book, © which its author referred to as ‘‘Liber B’’, and may have a title stamped on it: ‘“‘Hypomnemata Antiquaria B’”’. Is this lurking forgotten in some Wiltshire library’? Any information gratefully received. A. D. PassMORE. A similar inquiry appeared earlier in the year in the Sunday Times, but no information appears to have been forthcoming. VOL, LI.—NO. CLXIV. Z , 352 Notes. John Meade Falkner. In the West Regional Programme of the B.B.C., in the New Year, 1946, a serial version was broadcast of John Meade Falkner’s remarkable story ‘' Moonflete’’. On Dec..80th last a talk on this Wiltshire writer was broadcast by Geoffrey Grigson. John Meade Falkner was born in 1858 at Manningford Bruce, in the Vale of Pewsey, and died at Durham in 1982. He was educated at Dorchester Grammar School, Marlborough. College, and Hertford College, Oxford. He was archeologist, scholar, novelist; and chair- man, during the Great War, of Armstrong-Whitworth. Besides three novels, allof exceptional quality, The Lost Stradivarius, 1895; Moonfiete, 1898; The Nebuly Coat, 1903; he wrote Bath, in History and Social Tradition, 1918; A History of Oxfordshire, 1899; and two of Murray’s Guides—the Oxfordshire and Berkshire volumes. He wrote poems and edited The Statutes of the Cathedral Church of Durham,, of which he was honorary librarian. He was also honorary reader in paleography in the University of Durham. His novels are all marked by his curious scholarship and neler of archeology and heraldry. One of his friends at the time of his death wrote of him as ‘a medizevally-minded humanist”; and his interests, which he pursued in most of the libraries of Europe, included Byzantine archeology, church music, architecture, demonology, neo- platonism and mysticism. His novels were a by-product of a full, complete life, in which he exercised a profound fascination on many people of distinction, awakening, as one of them has said, all their spiritual and intellectual interests. That his books are not better known is due to his own snrinking from the lime-light of authorship ; but there is no doubt at all that he is one of the most distinguished Wiltshire authors of the last sixty years. GEOFFREY GRIGSON. The Bishop’s Palace, Salisbury. The Diocesan Gazette for January, 1946, contains a statement from the retiring Bishop upon the scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the housing of his successors. Mompesson House, ‘‘the most distinguished of all the houses in the Close ’’, 250 years old and in perfect order and repair, with every modern convenience, adequate bedrooms and excellent reception rooms, is to become the episcopal residence by exchange with the Dean and Chapter for the present Palace. The ‘Old Palace’’, as it now becomes, is to be occupied by the Choristers’ School, which has, since the beginning of this century, been developing as a preparatory school and changed its name 15 years ago to ‘“‘ The Cathedral School ”’ It still educates some 16 choristers and so continues to fulfil the purpose for which it was founded, no one knows exactly when, in the Cathedral precincts at Old Sarum. Thus the school which had already existed for a hundred years before the earliest foundations of the Palace were laid is now, after wanderings at times obscure, to find a ome in that historic building. With its new dignity, the Dean and Notes. 353 Chapter, its governors, are charging it also with a weighty responsibility. It is noticeable that the Salisbury and Winchester Journal for January 11th, 1946, refers to the impending change with a certain reserve. H: C..B. West Country Wills. The destruction of the probate records at Exeter by bombing during the war must be one of the greatest disasters that West Country genealogy has ever suffered In an endeavour to mitigate the consequences of this misfortune, the Somerset Record Society have in mind the publication of a volume containing copies or abstracts of Somerset wills not printed elsewhere. They will be very grateful if anyone having copies or abstracts would lend them, or send copies of them, to either.Mrs. Rawlins, 19, Kensington Hall Gardens, West Kensington, W. 14 (a member of the committee of the Somerset Record Society), or Mr. J. Fitzroy Jones, The Castle, Taunton, Somerset (as honorary secretary of the Somerset Archeological Society), who will return any original notes as soon as copied. R. H. MAaLpen, Dean of Wells, Chairman. Prebendary T. F. PALMER, Hon. Secretary, Somerset Record Society. 2z 354 WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES. JULIAN, DOWAGER COUNTESS OF RADNOR, died at Homing- ton House, Combe Bissett, on January 5th, 1946, at the age of 78. A daughter of Charles Balfour of Newton Don, Berwickshire, she married in 1891 Lord Folkstone, afterwards the sixth Earl of Radnor, in whose company she visited most parts of the British Empire and other places that promised benefit to Lord Radnor’s health. Despite these travels and the cares of a family which eventually included 10 children, Lady Radnor found time for much social work in the county. In 1904 she launched the Wilts Nursing Association, in 1916 the Wiltshire Federation of Women’s Institutes took shape under her leadership, and of both she remained president till the end of her life. After the death of her husband, in 1930, Lady Radnor extended the range of her public service by entering the Wiltshire County Council as member for the Britford Division. She was made an Alderman in 1984, and will be remembered for her devoted service as chairman of the Teaching Staff Sub-Committee of the County Education Committee. In that capacity she also presided at the interviews with candidates for county scholarships, a task of some delicacy at which she excelled. Lady Radnor was a governor of each of the Salisbury Secondary Schools, the Godolphin, Bishop Wordsworth’s and the South Wilts Grammar School, and also of the Diocesan Training College. She was a Justice of the Peace from 1930 and a member of the Juvenile Court Panel, Chairman of the County Pensions Committee in two wars, and of the Services’ Families Association ; member of the Guardians’ Area Committee and President of the South Wilts Needlework Guild. Obits. in The Times, January 7th ; Wiltshive Gazette, January 10th ; Salisbury and Winchester Journal, January llth; Wiltshire Times, January 12th, 1946. EDWARD IMPEY died in London on January 6th, 1946, aged 86. The elder son of Col. E. C. Impey, C.1.E., and a lineal descendant of Sir Elijah Impey, Chief Justice of Bengal and iriend of Warren Hastings, he was educated at Eton, where he was contemporary in college with M. R. James, the future Provost, and at King’s College, Cambridge, where he took first class honours in the Classical Tripos. After a short period as assistant master at Wellington he returned to Eton in 1884 and was for 24 years a housemaster. He retired in 1913 and came to live in Wiltshire, first at Steeple Ashton Manor and later | at Sheldon Manor, near Chippenham. He became a Magistrate for | Wiltshire and was co-opted to the County Education Committee in | 1915. Appointed Chairman of the Teaching Staff Sub-Committee in 1919, he retained that office till failing health compelled his retirement | in 1982 (and he survived by one day his later successor in that chair, Wilts Obttssaries. 355 Lady Radnor). His practical experience of school-mastering rendered his services particularly valuable to the county. He married Miss Kathleen Austen Leigh and leaves two surviving sons; a third was killed in the war of 1914—18. Obits., Times, January 7th; Wibtshive Times, January 12th, 1946. MAJOR THE HON. REGINALD COURTENAY BOYLE, M.B.E., M.C., of Wilcot, who died in Savernake Hospital on the 16th February, 1946, was the son of the late Col. G. E. Boyle and Lady Theresa Pepys, daughter of the Earl of Cottenham, and brother of Admiral of the Fleet, the Earl of Cork and Orrery. Born in 1877, Major Boyle was educated at Harrow and Magdalen College, Oxford, whose boat he stroked in 1897. He served in the West Somersetshire Yeomanry through the 1914—18 war, seeing service in the Near East and in France, where he won the M.C. and was twice mentioned in despatches. He was a J.P. for Somerset 1920—23. During the London “ blitz’’ he served there as air-raid warden during the week and returned to command and train the Wilcot Home Guard at the week-end. In 1942 he took the command of ‘‘C” Company, the 10th Home Guard Battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment, and later became second in command of the battalion, receiving the M.B.E. for his services, though he was well over the age limit. He was a well-known and much respected figure in the Vale of Pewsey. THE REV. CHARLES EDWARD BOLTON HEWITT died at Wilsford in the Vale of Pewsey on March 13th, 1946, at the age of 85. A scholar of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and 22nd Wrangler in 1883, he joined the staff of Marlborough College in 1886. He took Orders in 1900 and in 1920 became Vicar of Wilsford with Manningford Bohune, later exchanging the latter for Charlton St. Peter. He had two daughters, one of whom survives him. Obits., The Marlborough Times, and The Mariburian, April, 1946. THOMAS HAYWARD died at Corsham in the early spring of this year at the age of 98. He joined the Wiltshire. Militia over 70 years ago and saw service under the Lord Methuen of that day. He formed one of a marine landing party in the Zulu War and of the guard of honour that escorted to England the body of the Prince Imperial of France, whose death in the Zulu War created a delicate international situation. SIR CHARLES AUGUSTUS TEGART, K.C.LE., C.S.I., M.V.O., LL.D., died at The Croft House, Warminster, on April 6th, 1946, at the age of 68. Son of the Rev. J. P. Tegart of Dumboyne, Co. Meath, he was educated at Portora Royal School, Enniskillen, and Trinity College, Dublin, of which he became an honorary LL.D. He.joined 356 Wilts Obituaries. the Indian Police in 1901 and his appointment as assistant superinten- dent in Bengal almost coincided with the beginnings of the revolution- ary movement in that province. In his career may be found all and} more’ of the adventurous life which Kipling depicted for us in the character of ‘‘Strickland of the Police’’. His knowledge and understanding of the Indian terrorists was equalled by his skill in bringing them to book. Thanks to his thorough knowledge of the vernacular and his prodigious memory, he acquired an acquaintance with the names, faces and histories of hundreds of actual or potential anarchists and of everyone of importance in the affairs of Bengal,. retaining all this knowledge in his head. For years there was no man in India whom the subversive elements would sooner have. put out ‘of the way, and his extraordinary courage served to preserve him in many | hairbreadth escapes ; yet no man in Calcutta society seemed more free of cares or enjoyed a greater popularity. After one murderous assault upon him in 1930 men of all races and creeds met to pass resolutions congratulating him on his escape and condemning the terrorist move- ment. In 1937 his services were requisitioned by the Palestine Administration. There he applied his unrivalled knowledge of terrorist methods with considerable success, but he narrowly escaped death on the Nablus Road when his car was ambushed and two other occupants shot dead. He was made M. V. O. in 1912, C.1.E. in 1917 and C.S.I. in 1931. In 1926 he was knighted and became K.C.I.E. in 1937. In [922 he ‘married Kathleen Frances, daughter of the Rev. J. Ll. AOE of Disserth, Llandrindod Wells. Obit., The Times, April 8th, 1946. CHARLES HARRY ST. JOHN HORNBY died at Dorchester on April 26th, 1946. Though not a Wiltshireman, he did the county notable service as the owner and preserver of the celebrated Porch House at Potterne, where from time to time he stayed. Born in 1867, he was educated at Harrow and New College, Oxford, and rowed in the victorious Oxford crew of 1890. He was called to the Bar in 1892, but entered the firm of W. H. Smith & Son, of which he eventually became the senior partner. He was much interested in medieval and Renaissance manuscripts and was a trustee of the British Museum and of the Wallace Collection. Obit., Wiltshive Gazette, May 2nd, 1946. WILLIAM NELSON HADEN died in London on April 28th, 1946, as the result of an accident some .weeks previously. Born in Trow- bridge, a town with which his family has been associated for 130 years, he was educated at Oakley House School, Caversham, where he proved himself a fine athlete. For most of. his life he was a member of the celebrated engineering firm founded by his grandfather in his native | Wilts Obstnartes. 357 town and travelled to many parts of the world in connection with its business. On the machinery of heating and ventilation he became a recognised authority. He was nearly 70 when >first ‘elected to the Wiltshire County Council, but as chairman of the Building Sub-Com- mittee of the Education Committee he showed himself: untiring in the improvement of our schools, and his grasp of detail remained un- impaired to the end.. His services and .personal contributions are commemorated in the name of the schools erected at Trowbridge on the Frome Road, and he was Chairman of the Trowbridge Secondary School Governors. For many years he was also Chairman of: the Trowbridge Bench and Vice-President of the Philharmonic Society, for he was an enthusiast in the cause of music. oe Danest ane in the People’s Park was his gift. - ‘A. Liberal: in ‘politics, he remained a firm believer in Free Trade despite the recent unpopularity of that doctrine: An earnest supporter of the Congregational Church, he was a generous benefactor of ‘the Trowbridge Tabernacle. He wasan interested member of our Society and not long before his death evinced that interest in the liberal con- tribution to its needs recorded on another page. He died at the eee of 87 and is survived by a son and one daughter. | Obit., Wiltshive Gazette, May 2nd; Wiltshire Times, May 4th; ' 1946, THE MARQUESS OF BATH, formerly Master of the Horse in the household of King George V., died at Longleat on » June: 9th, 1946, at the age of 83. ‘The Most Honourable Sir Thomas Henry Thynne, Bt., K:G., PC. C.B., fifth Marquess of Bath, Viscount Weymouth and Baron Thynne, all in the Peerage of England, and the eighth holder of the baronetcy, Thynne of Caus Castle, created in 1641, was born in 1862,: the eldest son of the fourth Marquess, whom he succeeded in 1896. He was educated at Eton, and Balliol College, Oxford, obtaining honours in Modern History in 1884. In 1886 he became M.P. for the Frome Division of Somerset. From 1886 to 1887 he was private secretary to the First Lord of the Treasury, and in 1887 assistant private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He lost his seat in 1892, but regained it in 1895. Next year he went to the House of Lords on the death of his father. Except during his tenure in 1905 of the Under-Secretaryship of State for India, he did not play a prominent part in national politics. His activities became confined more and more to the West Country. Locally he was-one of the best known public men, Lord Lieutenant of Somerset, Chairman of the Wilts County Council, President of the _ Wiltshire Territorial Army Association and from 1906 to 1929 Chairman _ of the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions.. As a tribute to his long public service he was made an honorary freeman of Bath in June, 1929. Lord Bath joined the Wiltshire County Council fifty years ago, only _a few years after the Council came into existence with his father, ghe 358 Wilts Obttuarées. fourth Marquess, as its first Chairman. He was elected to represent Warminster and continued his membership until this year. He became an Alderman ten years ago. In 1906 Lord Bath was elected to the chair which his father had occupied until his death in 1896. He continued as Chairman for forty years, presiding over the Council’s deliberations with conspicuous ability and tact. . In his younger days Lord Bath was an active member of the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry (Prince of Wale’s Own), in which he received his commission, rising to the command of the regiment. He retired in - 1911 and in 19382 became honorary colonel. He was alsolate honorary colonel of the 4th Battalion, The Somerset Light Infantry (Prince Albert's), T.A. He was created a K.G. in 1917; in 1919 he was made C.B.; and in 1922 he was sworn a member of the Privy Council. He wasalso a Knight of Justice of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. In the city of Bath and the towns of Warminster and Frome he was the recognised leader in every sort of activity, and in the villages of Horningsham, Corsley and the Deverills, adjoining the Longleat Estate, he was ‘‘the squire’’, with a kindly greeting for every old inhabitant and a paternal interest in their families. In 1890 Lord Bath (then Viscount Weymouth) married Violet Caroline, daughter of Sir Charles Mordaunt, tenth baronet. Lady Bath died in 1928. There were five children of the marriage. The elder son, John Alexander, Viscount Weymouth, second lieutenant, The Royal Scots Greys, was killed in action in 1916 at the age of: 20. The surviving son, who took the title of Viscount Weymouth on his brother’s death, now succeeds. He married in 1927 the Hon Daphne Vivian, eldest daughter of the fourth Lord Vivian.. They have three sons and a daughter. Obits., The Times, June 10th; the Wiltshire Times, June 15th, 1946. 359 ADDITIONS TO MUSEUM AND LIBRARY. Museum. Presented by THE ForESTRY COMMISSIONERS: Fragments of Romano- Presented by VOL. British pottery from Leigh Hill, Savernake Forest. THE Rev. E. C. GARDNER: Two Old Pistols; one a flint-lock carried by John Wentworth of Beckhampton (died 1877) for protection on his way to market, one with. percussion-cap action. Also a decorated Powder-horn,. dated 1713. The Exors. of the late Mrs. Cowarp: a “‘ Partridge- call’’, a whistle used to call birds together when scattered by gun-fire, formerly used at Roundway. Iron Musket-ball from King’s Play Down, site of Battle of Roundway, 1643, found in 1874. Flint-Lock Duck-Gun. Mrs. COPELAND-GRIFFITHS : the late Major Gwatkin’s. Collection of Stuffed Birds. Library. DAUNTSEY’S SCHOOL ARCHZOLOGICAL SOCIETY: Report on excavations on Romano-British site at Lavington Manor, 1945. : C. H. Harris: ‘‘ History of 7th Batt. (Salisbury) Home Guar1 1940—44”’. SIR FrELix Pore: ‘The Great Bedwyn Monthly _ Budget’’, March, 1854—-February, 1855 (all issued), only complete copy in existence, formerly the property of FE, R. Pole, schoolmaster at Little and Great Bedwyn. Miss E. Fox: Preston’s ‘Flowering Plants of Wilts ’’, Pafford’s ‘‘ Accounts of the Garrisons of Chalfield and Malmesbury ”’ (Records Branch). G. J. Kipston : Transcripts of Court Rolls (1390—1419) and Feet of Fines (1323), Manor of Box. A. TINGLE (Ottawa): Hobbes’ ‘‘ Philosophical Rudi- ments concerning Government and Society, etc.” (1651). W.A. WEBB: Transcripts of Potterne Parish Register (Bap. 1653—1812, Marr. 1654—1812, Banns 1754—1812, Bur. 1663—1812) ; of Broughton Gifford Parish Register (Bap. and Bur. 1665—1812, Marr. 1665—1809, Banns 1754—1809), and of the Lacock Parish Register (2 parts): Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1559—1712, with extracts from Banns, 1754—1812. LI.—NO. CLXXXIV. 2A 360 a? Additions to Library. Mr. WILLIs of Basingstoke (per the Salisbury Museum) : Proposal for construction of N. Wilts Canal to connect the Wilts and Berks and Thames and Severn Canals, with plan (1813). Case of Commisioners of the Thames | Navigation in opposition thereto (1813). Mr. A. D. Passmore: Act of Parliament respecting lands belonging to the Duke of Kent in Wiltshire and elsewhere. Reign of Geo. III. Photographs of Wanborough Church and the Roman Temple, White Walls. Exors. of the late Mrs. Cowarp : Parish Registers of Bishops’ Cannings (Parry). _ ‘“Woodhenge’”’ (Mrs. M. E. Cunnington). ‘All Cannings Cross ’’ (Mrs. M. E. Cunnington). BRIGADIER J. M. PRowER: 10 Vols. Wiltshtve Archeo- logical Magazine. ‘History of Devizes’ (Waylen). ‘‘Monumental Brasses of Wi‘. vire’’ (Kite). ‘“‘ History of Gloucestershire (Rudder). 361 6 6 &GZPrt 0 8T LOT OreL- TE 0 9 9T 29¢ 6 &1 61 9 9 0 61 Fel yuNoooY soouryed 03 snjdins Areyes—A1e}91096 [eUeULT eoe eo (spos0q SUIUIUIeXy) s}SoD [e8O"T 070 ‘suulg ‘soseysog Aja100S peorydeis0juo@leg salloy[ey JV sulnesnyy, jo er) _ U1e}soaq}NOS eee . ASOjO eqory ysaug IO} [lounoy ; nen icles hire Br) Wor efoOssy, SpI00eY SHG ysnip, [eUOTyeN Aj9190G 1IOSIYoIg UO]PELNOSSY SuINesNyy —: suonjdi1osqns SOUIZESETT PIO & 9 6I T SHOOT *0}31C 9 61 GCI" ‘OVO ‘sululg ‘prem “POOMs€8T ON 9 919 spool ‘0}1G 0.6. FEL: "079 ‘SunUIIg ‘prem POOM— G8T “ON SouIZzeSeIW JO 4soD Deyeace7 AUNLIGNAd Ka a) | SOE S RR | ria POL PEF OE SAN MN. OFT CET 9 6 &Brt OP6T woe suolzeuog (FF61) S}ueU -dA0%) uo PIyIVAOIVII Xe suoleoyqng AIpuns jo a[es oe SONSOle}LD JO ITVS 5 SOUIZESLI JO 9[eG /-90}S UOISI9AUO’) UO }S910}UT eee “puny drys -Ioq WIJ. BJT JO uoIodo1g "** suondriosqns pie sdeJ OUI Y as AWOONL,, “SP6L “TANT ISTE. caaNa UVaaA aH dod LNNOOOV AUNLIGNAdXa anv HNOONT ‘CNN IVYANAD feat hl acim F he el at Ag , O19 e6se7 0 L Oo6€!I L oI 668 g LI Pel ee) 01 9 s6se7 —_——_—_— [oLg esed vos oinsy jeuy aq} 107] >’ 8 &822 °° wo WULUUND yde_D Jed [voddy |e1seds . IL 91 O12 Q][eS UO }Sd19JUT—So}COYI}IOD STULALG eve eee oce yuegd spAoy] 9 SI IZ eee coe zUNODDYy jerveds : Gis ie “eroeds x sas 1 91 P eae “°° JUNODDY AreUIpIO— 4S010}U] ne PIE NTR ENT yisodeq I #1 LL8 ae, jeroeds a 902195 oa If jo sseyoing uo z1sodeq Il If IS ee ++ Areulp1lgo—junoosoy jsodeq 2 - jeoaddy a4 sosuodxy Aipung ‘[g'99q | 0 TI &6E os “** 4600 38 SO}PLOYIQIOD ssuraes *| ‘uel AYNLIGNadXa CF6I | “(ps fF ANOONI . GF6T ‘GNNaA ONIGTING WOASNA g 91 IIIt | 9 Ot 897 G 91 IIIF suiedoy TI FI FE ee SOUEINSUT SYSRY IEA O OL £ Ot ST g aes aoe ZUNODY os Oe solipuns 6 & 6 sooueled oF SUIyIOM S,1eaX UO WWYyIq YI ITT OG * sotipuns Aleiqry 6 81 0 6 2 sjyoyory Areiqry — — — eouvinsuy pue sose M—s0Fe}0Ieg O OT 66 G@ CI Z% oo "* xoq winosnyy ‘suoneu0og & £ EDS pue sey 0 SGT & 6 3 & “* winesnyy 0} suoIsstmpy 6 OFT 46 yysIT £4 6 ='T 0 19 aes a sjosuo,) UO YSsolO}UT OC FL 9 ng & SI Fé 9; €1 66. —" oe suoljeuog [enuuy TT GI 9é Pos 7 Poss pee af AUNLIGNACXaA PEL GP6T AWOONI FF6T ‘GF6I ‘MAAWAOUC 316 GHANA UVAA AHL YOHX GNONA AONVNALNIVW WOdSOWN 363 —— =a e 9 + 69F 9 F 69F D0, 82 0 91g a SF61 ‘sayes Arpung | ee ee ysey 43304 98 8¢ 3 G6 LI 99 °“ puny ye19uey—asueleg P62. oe ysey Aj}0g 0 8I Bae “C6 ‘SeseygoIng ‘[g ‘90q a EE 1g: puny [eleuey—9sourleg ‘T[ ‘uel “p's: “7 ‘p's. F AUMNIIGNaAdKa GP6T | spits. F ‘Dp -s =F HWOONI SPELT SS ANNA SHSVHOUNd WOASni + LI 668F b LI 6rEt G.6 COL. OL: S158 “* puny soue -Ud}JUICIY Ulnesnyy ‘yOyoq ‘ 0. St LOL. = puny [e1ouss : ‘SUIYIOM S.1eaX UO snjdins “ é se eS a ; eee Bes See puny seseyoing < ulnesnyy 0} eNnp ‘oNIq “ 9 91 € Yse) 4330q—puny [e1euey “ Verbs CO ice 0 0 002 "(puny soueusqureyy 8 OL €1 puey uryseg A}j0g-o071q “ winasnyy) 3809 }e sjosuo, ‘ 8 91 88 °" “que 0 OL LF 2 aes (}s09 ye ysej—puny [elouey ‘ ye) Y90JS UOISIOAUOD %FZ ‘‘ 0 O 002 (puny soueusqurepy —: (90}}1WIUIOD tmnesny]) 309 72 sjosuoy ey} Aq pesise se pojfood © OI LY as (3809 32) spun, s0ueUazUIeYY UInesnyy YI0}G UOIsIgAUOD % Fz pue jelaue) y10q Ioj yseD —SF6I Ayjeogq pue ysed) : 930N) “09d 3SIE 72 se soourfeg Aq ‘Tg ‘90q PRET WoIJ preMmiof soouRjeg of ‘{ ‘uel Bese afer Ds 8, 7 S6I | pis ¥ “ps F SFG6I Fc a ae ‘St6T “MHENADAC ISIE LV SV LNQODOV SHONV IVa 364 ‘NHMO ‘CG Hd Ivu - KAvjadnas [wLIIUBULT Se “HONd M (O° 44Ansvas yz, “uo L Sl rer OT 6 6 eo0e eec ceo puny [e1oussy 5 e “pss 7 HAUNLIGNAd KA ‘TE 99d OPEL ‘OFGL ‘Ao WIFI “010PN P ‘WORT ‘WVMO SaNV. “"USATS suoreurdxe pure siayonoa ‘syooq 94} —-YUIM oouepsOIe Ul 4991100 puNo} pue pozIpny L 81 P67 : yseiojuy *‘ P61 ‘UoTdrosqns “ “““JUNODOV FPG Woy sourjeq OF I Loot 7 |. HINOONT "T ‘uel OF6L he ts Printed and Published by C. H. Woodward, Exchange Buildings, Station Read, Devizes, THE SOCIETY’S PUBLICATIONS. To be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes. THE BRITISH AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES OF THE NORTH WILTSHIRE DOWNS, by the Rev. A. C. Smith, M.A. Atlas 4to., 248 pp., i7 large maps, and 110 woodcuts, extra cloth. One copy offered to each Member of the Society at £1 1s. A few copies only. CATALOGUE oF THE STOURHEAD COLLECTION oF AN- TIQUITIES In THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. 175 Illustrations. ls. 6d. CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUITIES IN THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. Part II, 2nd Edition, 1935. Illustrated, 2s. 6d. By post 3s. CATALOGUE or WILTSHIRE TRADE TOKENS. Price 6d. BACK NUMBERS or THE MAGAZINE. Price to the Public, from 2s. 6d. to 8s., according to published price, date, and condition (except in the case of a few numbers, the price of which 1s raised). Members are allowed a reduction of 25 per cent. from these prices. WILTSHIRE—The TOPOGRAPHICAL COLLECTIONS OF JOHN AUBREY, F.R.S., 1659—1670. Corrected and enlarged by the Rev Canon J. E. Jackson, M.A., F.S.A., 4to cl. pp. 491, 46 plates. /1 7s. 6d, WILTSHIRE INQUISITIONES POST MORTEM, CHARLES I, 8vo., pp.. vii. + 510. Fully indexed. In parts, as issued. Price 13s. DITTO. HENRY III, EDWARD I, and EDWARD II. 8vo., pp. xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 13s. DITTO. EDWARD III. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 18s. A BIBLIOGRAPHY or THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS or WILTSHIRE, STONEHENGE ano AVEBURY, with other references, by W. J. Harrison, F.G.S., pp 169., 4 illustrations. No. 89 (1901) of W.A.M. Describes 947 books, papers, &c., by 732 authors. 5s. 6d. THE TROPENELL CARTULARY. 2 vols., 8vo., pp.917. Contains many deeds connected with many Wilts Parishes, 14th and 15th centuries. Only 150 copies printed, of which a few are left. £1 2s. THE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS AND HISTORY, BY H. B. WALTERS, F.S.A. In 3 Parts. Price 16s. (Separate Parts can no longer be sold.) A CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, 1195 TO 1272, BY E. A. FRY. 8vo., pp, 103. Price 6s. All the remaining copies of the following works by Capt. B. H. and Mrs. CUNNINGTON have been given by them to the Society and are now on sale at the following prices :— ALL CANNINGS CROSS (Excavations on site of Hallstadt period, 1923). By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. F.S.A., Scot. 4to. cloth, 53 ‘Plates. 2ls. WOODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28). By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. F.S.A., Scot. 4to. cloth. 2ls. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, EXTRACTS FROM THE QUARTER SESSIONS GREAT ROLLS OF THE 171 CENTURY. By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, F:S.A., Scot. Cloth. 12/6, DEVIZES BOROUGH ANNALS. EXTRACTS FROM THE CORPORATION RECORDS By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, F.S.A., Scot. Cloth. Vol. I, 1555 to 1791, 21s. Vol. II, 1792 to 1835, 15s. The North Wilts Museum and Wiltshire Library at Devizes. q All Members of the Society are asked to give an annual | subscription towards the upkeep of the Devizes Museum and — Library. Both the Museum and the Library are concerned in the — first place with objects of interest from this County, and with books, pamphlets, MSS., drawings, maps, prints and photographs con- © nected with Wiltshire, and together they form one of the most — important branches of the Society's Work. The Library is the q only institution of the kind in Wiltshire, so far as its collection of © all kinds of material for the history of the County is concerned. Old deeds, maps, plans, &c., connected with properties in~ q Wilts and old photographs of Wiltshire houses, churches, cottages, ~ or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian. 4 Please address to The Museum, Devizes. Subscriptions should be sent to Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank j Chambers, Devizes. | | ‘ Wiltshire Bird Notes. Observers in the County are invited to send their records to Mr. L.G. PEIRSON, Marlborough College, Wilts, for inclusion in the Magazine under this heading. | The Society has a number of 4 Old Engraved Views of Buildings, &c., in Wiltshire, and Portraits of Persons connected with the County, to dispose of. Apply to C. W. PuGH, M.B.E., Hon. Librarian, The Museum, Devizes. BOOKBINDING. _ Books carefully bound to pattern. Wilts Archzological Magazine bound to match previous_ volumes, 4 or in special green cases. We have several back numbers to make up sets. C. H. WOODWARD, Printer and Publisher, :* ‘ Exchange Buildings, Station Road, Devizes, een (PRINTER, DEVIZES oy No. CLXXXV DECEMBER, 1946 THE WILTSHIRE Archeeological & Natural History MAGAZINE _PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY A.D. 1853 EDITED BY H. C. BRENTNALL, F-:S.A., Granham West, Marlborough [The authors of the papers printed in this Magazine are alone responsible for all statements made therein.] ae fi ilk DEVIZES PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY C. H. WooDWaARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION Roap Price 8s. Members gratis Vol; LE NOTICE TO MEMBERS A copious Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of Vols.viil., xvi., xxiv., and xxxil. The soe ech Volumes are each fully indexed separately. The annual subscription is £1 os. od. with an entrance fee of Ios. A payment of £ 200s. od. secures life-membership of the Society. Members who have not paid their subscriptions to the Society for the current year are requested to remit the same forthwith to the Financial Secretary, Mr. Rk. D. Owen, Bank Chambers, Devizes, to whom also all communications as to the supply of Magazines should be addressed. The numbers of this Magazine will be delivered gratis, as issued, to members who are not in arrear of their annual subscriptions ; but in accordance with Byelaw No. 8 ‘‘ The Financial Secretary shall give notice to members in arrear, and the Society’s publications will not be forwarded to members whose subscrip- tions shall remain unpaid after such notice.” Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, Granham West, Marlborough, All other correspondence, except as specified elsewhere on this cover, to be addressed to the Hon. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Owen Meyrick, Thornhanger, Marlborough. RECORDS BRANCH The Branch was founded in 1937 to promote the publication of original literary sources for the history of the county and of the means of reference thereto. The activities of the Branch are now ~ being resumed The subscription is £1 os. od. yearly and should ~ be sent to Mr. Michael Jolliffe, Hon. Assistant Secretary, County Library Headquarters, Trowbridge. The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILTSHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARD I AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939, pp. xix + 190:0m ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRE SONS.OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBUIREe 1645—1646. Edited by J. H. P. Paiford. 1940, pp. 112: Unbound copies of the first of these can be obtained by members of the Branch. ‘The second is out of print. WILTSHIRE Archeological & Natural History MAGAZINE, No. CLXXXYV. DECEMBER, 1946. Vol. LI Contents. PAGE THE TRINITARIAN FRIARS AND EASTON ROYAL: By Lt.-Col. imi @Wettle ©.Mi.G.,. OLB Bi. eis cet ce ccceegecesdsccsie'e dees 365—377 Mason’s MARKS. ON EDINGTON CHURCH: By B. Howard Seam OM a PR OPAT, SCOL a. cafes econ ces eecesiceness descers cee 378—380 BRONZE AGE BEAKERS FROM LARKHILL AND BULFORD : By Major H. de S. Shortt; anD AN EarLy BRONZE AGE VESSEL FROM ASHLEY HILL, NEAR: SALISBURY : yekrotessor- stuart. Piggott, D.Lit., F.S.A.a.......0608. 381—385: FAMILIES OF East KNOYLE: By Lt.-Col. J. M. F. Benett- SUEBIMNIORC soda Gad cbHae CUBS RON IDOE RC oO CEE anne errr eee 386—404 TABULAR SARSEN AND Mup Cracks: By Lt.-Col. R. H. Simmmmnmscom (la Cesk A ee ea eS ees,cuc ances canoes vceaeasted 405—418. SARon Noel ber C: Brentnall, H.StA,: cvcsccssstccccesserscccscee 419—439 EARLY BRITISH SETTLEMENT AT FARLEIGH WICK AND CONKWELL, WILTS: By Guy Underwood ................ 440—452 ALDBOURNE VILLAGE Cross: By Major A. L. Ingpen, M.V.O., (O) JBI Dey aye nee ee sladitnamecewars's wales Soctleeeives devnaere Semen 453—455. ERD NDA tT CORRIGENDAS: -...Sovcccecese coasecescccecessecccecctssee 455—456. WILTSHIRE MoLiLusc CoLLectors: By C. D. Heginbothom. 457—463 ASNNUAE NESETING AND EXCURSIONS 6. ..0ciccessarecesseccscsercss 464—465. WILTSHIRE BooKsS, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES ....ee.ceseeece 466—469 Notes.—Mason’s Marks at Edington and Winchester. Grovely Wood. Scratch Dials on Wiltshire Churches. The destruction of ‘‘ The Sanctuary ’’ on Overton Hill. A Malt-house Mystery. Cunning Dick’s Hole. Lewis- ham Castle. A Bond for the keeping of Lent. Great Bedwyn Church Clock. The Lacock Magna Carta. Wacock Manor Court... [ic cccces.ccccececccceessecesecceectcccessse 470—474 WN MEESHIRE: OBITUARIES, .0.0c..95- so dsa ceed eccesinwisieasmeeseterorecs 475—476 ISBDITIONS LO’ MUSEUM AND LIBRARY. viccccccccccccccceccscssiooes 477—478 li ILLUSTRATIONS. Masons Marksion Edington @hunch) 2005... c15. ete ceo eeeens Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford: Jey earatd Bae Ava es cl Le sidlocd's slslerol tata, ese diuhero ete noc hema eel eens 1 ey I Rang ae Re EA IANE Ret OAL RMANE AONE AR Ot Gs oOo ou. A BEN rc ate ictabete arernse Sale ahaa ornd Ruasiieess woe oe See ene eee Bho etic pbeitiam cereus ayy alate Sen eee eee Families of East Knoyle: Pedigree of Goldesborougih 5.5.0. 5-4 oe eee i ye StU Sees eee eel ase ae wo Merv yit's nice en Senders ee ee Bs Sp PAU COR ice San oes sinllee ne we ceine siete ae eee Tabular Sarsens and Mud Cracks : Bee ie is es wie aes aly Gas Be ea cle oe Seiee sae ee ener Sarsens: beer ee seer eer er oereeerrevr ee oeeoaneesea Wilts: PAGE 380 381 382 383 384 391 393 397 399 406 406 409 411 411 435 441 444 445 446 448 452 Devizes :—C. H. WooDWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD. THE WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE. ‘¢ MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS.’’—Ovid, Noe ClXOKX Vi, DECEMBER: 1946. VoL. LI: THE TRINITARIAN FRIARS AND EASTON ROYAL. By Lt.-Cov. H. F. CuETTLeE, C.M.G., O.B.E. Easton Royal,! five miles south of Marlborough, was the home for nearly three hundred years of a small convent of Trinitarian (or Red) Friars. There is now no vestige of their house or their church; both were ruinous when the friars left them. But these brethren were, in their day, respected members of a village population and representa- tives of the first (and least typical) of the Mendicant Orders—the ‘‘Ordo Sanctae Trinitatis de Redemptione Captivorum ”’. The failure of the Third Crusade left many thousands of Christian captives in Moslem hands, and the fate of these men and women lay heavy on sensitive consciences. Two hermits living near Chateau- Thierry, afterwards canonised at St. Felix de Valois and St. Jean de Matha, became dissatisfied with their mode of life. They were warned in a thrice repeated dream to go to Rome and obtain a Rule. They had audience of the new Pope, Innocent III, who, as they learned, was more than ready to receive them, for he had seen a vision corresponding with their aspirations: ‘‘an angel of God, holding with crossed hands two captives, a Christian and a Moor, as though he exchanged them ’’, Therefore the name, the habit, the main objective and the Constitutions of a new Order were approved before the end of December, 1198 (Gallia Christiana, VIII, 1732, Instrumenta, 553—7). The Order was to consist of a Minister General, Ministers in charge of houses, and in each house three clerks and three lay brothers. Private property was forbidden ; the revenues of each house must be used as to two-thirds for ‘‘ the works of pity ’’ and necessary subsistence, and as to one-third for the ransom of those imprisoned by pagans for the faith of Christ. All must labour; silence must not be broken with- out good cause; clothing and dietary were austerely regulated ; the brethren might ride upon asses, but not on horses. The Chapter was 1 The medizval parish and priory and the modern civil parish are alike plain Easton, but the suffix is convenient and reasonably long- established, and it appears in the name of the ecclesiastical parish. VOL. LI.—NO. GLXXXV, 2B 366 The Trinitarian Friars and Easton Royal. * to meet every Sunday, and the General Chapter in the octave of Pentecost. Novices must be full twenty years of age. The Minister should be chosen on his merits; he must be a priest ; he could be deposed by higher authority in the Order. The duties of caring for the sick and for the wayfaring poor were elaborated ; and at least every night common prayer must be offered in the hospital, in the presence of the poor, for the good estate and the peace of the Holy Roman Church and of all Christendom, and for benefactors, and for those for whom the Church in general had been used to pray. Clement IV’s revised Constitutions, issued in 1267, recognised a new appointment of Provincial Minister, and authorised the Provincial to vary the division of revenues; they allowed the individual houses to increase their numbers, clerical or lay, at discretion ; they relaxed the primitive austerity in matters of diet and equitation ; and they specified the fourth Sunday after Easter for the General Chapter. In 1808 Clement V brought the Order into direct dependence, ‘“‘absque ullo medio’’, upon the Holy See; but four years later an English bishop, Walter Reynolds of Worcester, excommunicated the Minister of an English house on the ground that he had claimed exemption from diocesan authority under a forged bull of Clement. | The new Order spread out, in its first twenty-five years, into France, Provence, Aragon, Castile, England, Scotland, Navarre, Portugal and Flanders ; but it remained predominantly French. The mother-house was at Cerfroy, the place near Chateau-Thierry where its founders had received their vocation; the convent of St. Maturin at Paris soon became a second administrative headquarters and a home of learning, and gave the Order its other name of Maturins. The first seven Ministers General were chosen internationally ; from about 1260, Frenchmen were elected. Nine Trinitarian houses were founded in England in the thirteenth century, and two in the fourteenth. Hounslow (Middlesex) came into being in or before 1200; Berwick-upon-Tweed in 1214, as a Scottish house ; Mottenden (Kent), traditionally, in 1224; .Thelsford (Warwick- shire), by transfer from canons regular, in 1240; and Eastonin 1245. Between the years 1210 and 1236 (Rolls Series, 97, 301—6), the abbot of Mont-Ste Catherine, near Reims, and the prior of Bradenstoke were at odds concerning the patronage of Easton church. The rival claims, based upon gifts by two members of the great Marshal family, are explained by the documents numbered 1—7 and 13 in the Aidlesbury MSS. from Easton Priory. The French abbey had presented a young — clerk named Stephen to Easton church about the year 1210. The prior of Bradenstoke had dispossessed him; in June 1218, by order of Honorius III, he was reinstated ; and in 1236 the prior and convent of — Bradenstoke had granted to him all their rights in the church. saving the tithes of wheat, hay and cheese from their demesne. Then, or about then, both parties had accepted the arbitration of Robert de By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 367 Bingham, bishop of Salisbury, and his award and the subsequent pro- ceedings are set out in his ‘‘ ordinance ”’ of the 9th May, 1246 (Ailesbury MS., 10). Stephen had become Stephen of Tisbury, archdeacon of Wiltshire, and had very recently died; but before his death he had founded at Easton a hospital (or hostel) in which three priests should officiate and the needy traveller should be received.!_ He, his heirs and assigns, were to present to the bishop from time to time one of the three chaplains as master and rector of the hospital. Bradenstoke was to receive its tithes of wheat, hay and cheese, and the patronage and re-: maining income of the church should pass to the hospital. Nicholas, Minister General of the Trinitarians, had recommended for master (or Minister) a friar of his Order named Nicholas of Norfolk; Stephen had presented him, and the bishop had admitted him. Obedience to the bishop was stipulated in the arbitral sentence, and both Ralph of Woilveley (then Provincial of the Order in England and Scotland) and Nicholas of Norfolk had promised it. Such, and so carefully safe- guarded, was the ‘“‘ ordinance ’’ under which the house at Easton was established, and the King inspected and approved the document at Marlborough on the Ist July, 1251 (Ailesbury MS., 11). stephen of Tisbury had two sisters, of whom one married Henry Sturmey and the other Sir William Drueys? (or Druce), and both Marriages were to the advantage of his foundation. Sir William’s son Geoffrey, at some date before 1257, quitclaimed to the brethren the late archdeacon’s property at Easton, and both Geoffrey Drueys and his brother Stephen confirmed the archdeacon’s gift of houses and land (Aulesbury MSS., 15—20). The Sturmeys (or Esturmys) inherited for . nearly two centuries the patronage of Easton. They were hereditary wardens of Savernake forest : an unruly clan, usually (like the former princes of Reuss) named Henry and consequently difficult to sort out ; Mr. Brentnall (W.A.M., xlviii, 380—4) has studied the family under both these aspects, and Lord Cardigan, in the preceding number of the Magazine, has given us their full and authoritative history. In 1260 Geoffrey Sturmey gave to the hospital fifty acres of woodland in “ Halegodesfolegd’”’ (now Priory Wood) in Savernake Forest *; and in or after 1254 his son Henry confirmed his gifts of Priory Wood, of a messuage and 14 virgates in Easton, and of a rent of 10s. (MSS. in Ailesbury Archives.) The sixth of the English Trinitarian houses was founded in or before , 1252 at the chapel of St. Robert of Knaresborough, under the patron- - age of Richard, Earl of Cornwall; the eighth at Totnes, in 1271; and the ninth at Oxford (to meet a need long felt by the English friars) in 1 See the Editor’s note at the end of this article. 2 Easton Drewes, Easton Prioris, Easton Bradenstoke and Easton Warrens appear at different times as local names of manors. 3 The Prior of Easton’s wood was “‘ put out of ’’ Savernake forest in. 1330 (H. C. Brentnall in W.A,M., xlix, 433). 2 BZ 368 The Trinttarian Friars and Easton Royal. q 1291. Meanwhile the seventh house was founded as a cell of Easton. _ About 1261, the leper hospital of St. Mary Magdalene outside the. town of Hertford was occupied by the friars of Easton (Victoria County History, Herts, iv, 452—3). In April, 1287, William, Minister of Easton and of the house of St. Mary Magdalene by Hertford, took all the cor- rect precautions before going beyond seas (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1281—92, 267), and the grant of a wood in Amwell, Herts, to the house of Easton was authorised in 1301 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292—1301, 599). _The parent house in Wiltshire, steadily and not too slowly, increased its endowments. In July, 1283, it obtained licence under the recent Statute of Mortmain to acquire real estate to the value of £10 a year, and a note on the back of the licence records that property worth {2a year was acquired on the 7th June, 1289, another £2 worth on the 3rd March, 1386, and £2 worth again on the 12th June, 1349 (Azlesbury MS., 12). Robert Drueys, Stephen’s son, added in 1322 a rent of 2. marks due from John at Hull, with suits and services rendered by the same John for two messuages and two virgates of land in Easton which, he held for life, and had licence in June, 1324, to grant the reversion of. the two messuages and two virgates to the hospital (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 13821—24, 421 ; Arlesbury MS., 25). A document of March, 1325 (Atlesbury MS., 24) sums up and completes Robert Drueys’s bene- factions; he had built (or rebuilt) a chapel of St. John the Baptist on the north side of Easton church, to be served by a chaplain from the hospital ; he had provided in addition a rent of 12s. and 200 sheep! as endowment; John of Titchfield, the Minister, and his brethren had) agreed, and the rector and parishioners, the bishop and the King (under the general licence of 1283) had approved his gifts and his chantry. Other properties were added to those derived from the Sturmeys and the Druces. In June, 1308, John of Backham sold (or mortgaged) to John of Titchfield and his brethren, for £40 silver, a messuage and two: virgates in Easton (Atlesbury MSS., 26—28). In May, 1331, Vincent. of Tarrant, parson of Everley, had licence to grant an acre of land in Tidcombe Huse, worth 3d. a year, and the advowson of the church, ‘ worth £4 a year—which the Minister and friars were allowed to impro- priate (Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, XVII, 307; Cal. Pat.: Rolls, 1330—84, 112). Robert de Hungerford had leave in March, 1886). | under the general licence of 1283 to grant a messuage and a carucate and rents of 3s. 6d. a year in Grafton, the whole valued at £1 Os. 4d. a; year (L. & I., XVII, 336; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1334—88, 225; Ailesbury- MS., 30). It is not surprising that as early as July, 1314, John of | Titchfield and his brethren appointed two proctors (Robert of Elvetham, | a friar of Easton, and Simon of Hertford, clerk), with very wide powers 1 Mr. Brentnall has found in the court rolls of the manor of Easton Drewes, 1348—1349, that the shepherd of the Minister of Easton placed ~ himself in mercy for allowing twenty sheep to stray on forbidden land.~ } | | By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 369 to conduct their external relations (Ailesbury MS., 29). To complete this phase of Easton’s history : in 1329, on the presentation of Henry de Sturmey, William Beccles was instituted to the hospital (Sir Thomas Phillipps: Institutiones Clericorum in comitatu Wiltoniae, 26); and at some time before 1844 Edmund of Pollesden? had succeeded. Thus far, the nine English houses, governed from France and pledged _to support a remote missionary enterprise, had no doubt done their duty by the Order. There is no proof that at any time English brethren went in person to the infidel States, as the friars on the Continent un- doubtedly did; but, in default of evidence, it may be assumed that they remitted to Cerfroy their quota for the redemption of captives, and that they sent representatives to the General Chapters. But the Hundred Years’ War broke out in 1337, and it is probable that during hostilities all relations with Cerfroy were severed, and the English poor and English wayfarers benefited. The Order established its last two convents in England in 1360: at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, probably colonised by refugee friars from Berwick, and at Ingham in Norfolk. The effect on Easton of the Black Death, which reduced the numbers at Knaresborough and swept away the whole community at Oxford, is not known; but the hospital went on consolidating and extending its. possessions, In February, 1344, Walter of Kingsettle 2 quitclaimed to Edmund of Pollesden and the brethren the two messuages and two virgates in Easton given by Robert Drueys in 1322 (Atlesbury.MS., 32). Henry de Sturmey and three others had licence in June, 1349, to grant to Easton a messuage and a carucate of land in Middleton and Easton (worth 33s. 4d.), and William de Erchesfonte and three others 13 acres in East Grafton (worth 2s. 2d.) (L.& J., XXII, 448; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1348—50, 303). Again, Henry de Sturmey had licence in October, 1371, to grant them two messuages, a toft, a mill, three carucates and twenty acres of land, six acres of meadow, eight acres of pasture, thirty acres | of wood and £4 6s. rent, in all worth £10 a year, on condition that they should pray especially for the King, Edward, Prince of Wales and | Aquitaine, and the donor, and for their souls and the souljof Queen | Philippa after their death (L. & J., XXII, 576; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1370— ; 74, 145). In these proceedings the brethren are described as canons. In February, 1374, Robert Wyvill, bishop of Salisbury, confirmed and | republished the ‘“‘ordinance ’’ of his predecessor Robert de Bingham, and in the following August, at the request of Henry Esturmey, patron of the hospital, he issued a new copy to replace the worn-out original (Atlesbury MSS., 40, 41). Another bishop, Ralph Ergham, confirmed | the hospital’s title to Easton Church in August, 1386 (Ailesbury MS., 42); and Ailesbury MS., 43, is a notarial copy of the report of a | 1 Mr. Brentnall observes that Polesdon’s is a farm in Shalbourne, on ie Sturmey estates. | 2 Near Wincanton. | | | 370 The Trnmtanian Friars and Easton Royal. friendly action tried in St. Mary’s Church, Marlborough, in March, 1891, by which John of Hacklestone,! now “ prior ”’ of the hospital, apparently asserted its liberties and immunities against the rural dean of Marl- borough. But it is time to return to other aspects of life at Easton, for this question of ecclesiastical subordination had been of practical importance twenty-seven years earlier. The episode of 1364, which brought the patron and the bishop into indirect but open conflict with the Minister General, is narrated under different aspects in the Bodleian Library’s Rawlinson MS., B444, and the Ailesbury MS., 34. In January or February of that year (or possibly at the end of 1863) Henry Sturmey appointed Robert England, a secular priest, as Minister of Easton, and applied to the bishop for his institution ; he maintained that Edmund of Pollesden had quitted the house, after wasting and embezzling its revenues, and he assumed a vacancy. The bishop made lengthy and careful enquiries: his commissaries sent for Edmund (who did not appear) and examined four resident brethren (one named Geoffrey Sturmey) and a fifth, who was stated to be Edmund’s proctor. It was found that masses and hospitality had been suspended for fifteen years; that Edmund had flagrantly wasted the priory’s revenues, had built in it a stable for his horses,? and had gone to live at Hertford four years ago, taking the common seal with him. It was therefore agreed between the bishop and Henry Sturmey, after prolonged discussion, that Edmund had forfeited his office; the brethren had merited expulsion, but should be restored to their home under proper disciplinary safeguards. Robert England thereupon resigned what- ever rights he had into the bishop’s hands, and on Sturmey’s presentation Robert Pilkington, one of the brethren, was instituted as Minister. It remained to draw up the disciplinary safeguards. Meanwhile, Edmund had appealed to the Holy See and complained in writing to the Minister General, Pierre de Bourri. Pierre, by letters patent dated at the convent of Verberie (Oise), after postulating that to him alone (after the Holy See) belonged the institution and destitu- tion of Ministers, and describing Edmund as Provincial of England (which may help to explain the charge of non-residence), restored him to. his office ; and Edmund had the barren satisfaction of sending a copy of this letter from the cell of St. Mary Magdalene at Hertford, on the 10th August, to William of Marlborough and the other brethren at Easton (Ailesbury MS., 35). References in Edmund’s covering letter to his resignation, to the ordination of his proctor, and to a bargain for ten marksa year, render the interim proceedings obscure and suspicious ; and all was in vain, for the bishop, the patron and the brethren apparently ignored the letter from Verberie. -The new disciplinary statutes and ordinances, the fruits of discussion with ‘‘ viris venerabilibus prelatis religiosis’’ and others, were issued by 1 In Fittleton parish. 2 An early (but undated) stable long con- verted to a cottage abuts on the village street nearby. (Editor.) By Lt.-Col. H. F. Cheitle, C:M.G., O.B.E. 371 the bishop on the 3Ist October, 1368, and witnessed by four abbots and three priors of the diocese.. They included a direction to follow the Use of Sarum. They were separately agreed by the patron, the con- vent, and the dean and chapter; and, to close the transaction, the ordinance of Robert de Bingham was set out in full. On the 26th June, 1363, a long and involved rescript (Azlesbury MS., 33) had been signed at Avignon by the vicar-general of the diocese at the request of the Trinitarian Minister in that city, It set out in detail the wide privileges granted to the Order from 1227 onwards. The presence of a copy among the Easton papers is no doubt connected _with Edmund’s troubles ; a more surprising fact is that those papers do not contain Urban V’s bull of April, 1368, to which the vicar- echery refers, confirming the privileges of Easton. One of the brethren, Robert of Donnington, went home to Berkshire in 1866 and was excommunicated as an apostate (Ailesbury MS., 36). Two years later the friars of Easton and of their cell at Hertford com- plained to the King that many false questorves, with forged letters of procuration, had collected and embezzled great sums of money, and a commission was issued for the arrest of such persons (Cal. Pat. Rolls, —1367—70, 198). In 13869 (Azlesbury MSS., 37—39) the parish church of Easton was pulled down by the brethren and the material was used to enlarge the conventual church, which was barely sixty yards away. The parish- ioners, reduced in numbers (perhaps by the plague of 1361) and unable to maintain their own church, had asked for this, but they undertook to keep in order the conventual nave, chancel and cemetery if they might have the use of them. After a local enquiry the archdeacon, the patron, the bishop and the dean and chapter notified their agreement. A Trinitarian Minister named Robert (and this may have been Robert Pilkington) obtained in October, 1371, leave to cross the sea with two yeomen, giving two sureties. There was evidently trouble in the English Province. In August, 1372, the Minister of Mottenden was appointed from Cerfroy as Provincial with a hint to reform abuses (Historical MSS. Commission, 4th Report, 198); and when he claimed jurisdiction over Easton Henry Sturmey caused him to be attached in the Common Pleas. He was released on bail, and unfortunately neither the points at issue nor the Court’s decision are known. This obscure dispute lasted into the opening years of the Great Schism, and in 1382 the same Provincial cited the Minister of Easton to appear at a Chapter to be held in London on the 8rd May. Again, we do not know the issue or the result ; but Urban VI granted the English houses leave to choose their own Provincial, and the Minister of Knaresborough was elected Provincial in or before 1387. And in November, 1408, the English Province obtained relaxation of the Constitutions in two articles: the ‘‘ immemorial ’’ custom of sending a fixed quota for the ransom of captives, instead of the original third part of income, was approved ; and the reception of novices under twenty years of age was 372. The Trinitarian Friars and Easton Royal. permitted. The quota had presumably been taken, when conditions allowed, to the General Chapter ; it is difficult to say what was done with it while relations with Cerfroy were broken off—as they probably were until the election of Pope Martin V in 1417. In November, 1389, while Robert of Newington was “prior’’, Sir William Sturmey ratified (Azlesbury Archives) an indenture executed by his uncle Henry, by which the latter gave to the hospital all his lands and tenements at Puthall! on minutely detailed conditions ‘as to dis- tributing pence and halfpenny white loaves and washing the feet of the poor on behalf of the patron, and as to providing candles and cele- brating obits; and the ‘‘ Prior’ agreed that the bishop should visit with proportionate punishment any breach of these trusts which he might discover. Income, however, was again outpaced by expenditure, and in January, 1392, the bishop consented to the appropriation of Tidcombe church (Ailesbury MS., 44). The reasons given were more than usually serious : Owing to poor harvests, murrain, the increasing numbers of both rich and poor whom they entertained and the excessive demands of the King and others ‘‘ex moderni temporis malicia’’, the brethren could not maintain the establishment of a prior and six priests needed to fulfil their obligations, nor find the money required for hospitality, works of piety, dues, and the restoration of their collapsed or weakened buildings. Tidcombe church was worth not more than 8 marks a year ; the terms included the provision of a resident chaplain and compensa- tion to the Diocesan authorities; and the first presentation by the hospital took effect eleven years later. Under licence dated in 1891 (Aitlesbury Archives). Sir William Sturmey ceded to the hospital the manor? and advowson of Froxfield in exchange for Crofton Braybeuf manor and lands and tenements in Burbage (a French document in the Atlesbury Archives) ; but Sir William presented to Froxfield church as late as 1396. At some time during the reign of Henry IV the dean and chapter of Salisbury lent £40 to the hospital. The terms of the loan were varied. by an agreement of the 24th July, 1412 (Azlesbury MS., 45) under which John of Hacklestone and his brethren compounded for a yearly payment of 13s. 4d., in perpetuity, to two chaplains celebrating certain obits on St. Luke’s day in the Church of St. Thomas at Salisbury. In October, 1424, the ‘‘ prior and convent’’ obtained a general amnesty (Ailesbury MS., 46), granted—so it was stated—at the request of the last Parliament, for offences committed before the 8th December last, but excepting crimes against the coinage and murders committed after the 19th November. The reasons for this act of grace are not known, and there does not seem to be any reflection of it in the Rolls of Parliament. A second amnesty found in the Ailesbury MSS. (47), 1 Now a farm outside the east boundary of the forest, on the London road. 2 Crofton next Great Bedwyn. By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 373 dated the 10th November, 1446, was ‘“‘sent downe ”’ (as a nearly con- temporary endorsement notes) ‘‘ by the Prior or my/nister] of Hy([rtford ?]’. Those excepted from the pardon included the notorious Eleanor Cobham, the Duke of. Gloucester’s imprisoned. wife, and a number of other persons and officials. _ Sir William Sturmey died in 1427, and Wulfall and other property, passed, with his younger daughter, to the Seymours (see Calendar of Inquisitions, Henry VII, I, 770; W.A.M., li, 336) ; in March, 1427, Stephen Yateley, “ prior’ of Easton, came to Elvetham to speak with Sir William and learned that he was dead (Cal, Pat. Rolls, 1446—52, 556). John Newington, a friar of Easton, spent the last ten years of his life (1427—1437) serving the chapel of the Holy Ghost at Warland (F. C. Hingeston-Randolph : Registey of Edmund Lacy, 95, 222). This was the house at Totnes, mentioned above ; it stood on the west side of the street still named Warland, close to the west bank of the river, and it was usually occupied by a single friar from Hounslow. | Easton received a legacy of 40s. in 1441 from one John Frankes (Register of Henry Chichele II, 592); and in 1444 John Benger had licence to grant to it the advowson of Stapleford (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1441 —46, 228). In 1448 Stephen Yateley resigned, and John Charlton took his place ; the patrons at that time were recorded as Sir John Seymour and (his cousin) William Ringeborne (Phillipps’s Ovatoria, 28). In the same year Hertford is mentioned, for the first and last time, as an independent house (‘‘the hospital of the poor of the Trinity and St.. Thomas the Martyr ’’), with a chamberlain and a warden (V.C.H., Herts, IV, 458). Itbecame, at some time not ascertained, a cell of Mottenden: In April, 1459, William Bradker of Debenham Market in Suffolk, proctor of the hospital, gave his bond to the ‘‘ Prior’’, John Charlton, and the convent for £200 sterling, to be repaid in ten years by half- yearly instalments (Azlesbury MS., 48): It is not clear why the proctor, whose normal function was to collect alms for a religious house, had borrowed so large a sum—unless this was a case of farming. The general government of the Order passed, from 1473 to 1507, into the hands of a great and energetic ruler, Robert Gaguin. He visited Germany, Italy and England. He rode his continental Provinces with a tight rein. He did not like the English, but he recovered the house at Oxford from its. occupation by a hermit and made it a hall of residence under a Trinitarian head—in which capacity it survived the Dissolu- tion’ by a few years. He resumed the ransoming of captives on a large scale.! The collection of alms up and down England continued ;? but the activities of the Province during the remainder of its existence seem » -1The Order’s big hauls were in the Barbary States. Their Rule devoted them to Christians “‘ incarcerati a Paganis’’; Gaguin saw the reception in Paris of 500 captives redeemed at Granada. * The Registers of a number of English bishops bear witness to the special activity of the proctors of Thelsford. 374 The Trimitarian Friars and Easton Royal. remote from the life of the Order as a whole, and the events recorded at Easton are still of a domestic character. An institution to the vicarage of Stapleford in 1473 was made on the presentation. of four “‘confratres ’’ of the ‘‘ prior’’, which seems to indicate a vacancy ; and next year William Marshall was instituted to the ‘‘ priory ’’ on the presentation of John Seymour (Phillipps’s Institu- tiones, 163). In 1487 William Marshall seems himself to have been instituted to the vicarage of Stapleford, but he resigned it in 1491 (Phillipps’s Institutiones, 170, 174). In the year 1493, William Marshall being apparently still Minister, the conventual church, with vestments, chalices and other ornaments, and the houses and buildings at Easton and all the possessions of the fraternity were consumed by fire. A public appeal for funds was necessary : the archbishop of Canterbury gave the brethren a letter certifying the facts and offering to contributors, during the next twelve months, forty days’ indulgence; the King gave protection ‘‘ without — term ”’ to the proctors of the “ prior’’ (William) and convent; and the vicar-general of the diocese issued notarial copies of both letters for the use of the proctors (Ailesbury MS., 50). We must assume that the necessary funds were raised and some rebuilding carried out. _ The last recorded act but one in the story of the hospital is not the least obscure. William Marshall had, presumably, died; the see of Sarum was again vacant; and Henry VII wrote to the patrons, Sir John Seymour and “oon Raynsbourn ’’, recommending his own chap- lain, the Minister of Hounslow. Raynsbourn (Ringeborne), whose turn it was, presented a secular priest named John Topping. MHenry.there- upon wrote (in English) to the vicar-general, protesting against this irregular nomination to a religious house and pressing his. chaplain’s claim (Ailesbury MS., 49). (It was a strange request, if plurality was not intended, for Hounslow was wealthier than Easton by £25 a year.) This second letter was apparently written between 1497 and 1501. What evidence there is suggests that it failed to move the vicar-general ; on the 22nd February, 1523, John Topping, prior of Holy Trinity, Easton, let a close called Pollernmede, at Stibbe! in the parish of Burbage, for 61 years at 4s. a year (Azlesbury MS., 51); and in 1527, on Topping’s death, Sir John Seymour, ‘‘founder’’, presented Henry Bryan to the vacant office (Phillipps’s Imstitutiones, 199). It. was Henry Bryan’s destiny to see the closing of his hospital. . Of the English Trinitarian houses, Oxford had ceased in 1488 to bea friary; and Totnes had been confiscated by the bishop of Exeter in 1509 ; the others were surrendered or abandoned in the four years 1586—1539. The Act of 1536, if it had applied, would have swept all of them away, for none had a nett income of as much as £70 a year; but they were still—in spite of a great deal of popular misconception?—friaries and 1 Stibb or Steep Green. * Even the commission to Brown and Hilsey in April, 1584, to visit the Friars did not specify the Trinitarians. ‘ By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E. 375 not monasteries. They succumbed to the pressure of Cromwell’s visitors, the contagious effects of mass dissolution, or, in some instances, a good offer by a local squire. Easton had, according to the Valoy Ecclesiasticus, a gross general income of £55 14s. 4d., nett £42 12s. It was described by the county commissioners (Dublin Review, 1894, 1, 274) as a ‘‘ hedde house of crosse channons of Seint Augustynes rule ’’, worth £45 14s. a year with £4 lls. 8d. for the demesne ; containing two priests (by report, of honest conversation, desiring to continue religious), six hinds, and two women servants. The church and mansion were in ruin, in default of covering, and the outhouses in great decay. Movable assets were worth £144 6s. 8d., and 50 acres of wood in Savernake forest and six acres Of coppice {17 13s. 4d., against £22 2s. 2d. of debts. The Seymours stepped in : Sir Edward, then Viscount Beauchamp, obtained on the 7th June, 1536, a grant in tail male of the property of the late priory of Holy Trinity, Eston, dissolved (as it was expressed) by Parliament, as enjoyed by Henry Bryan, late prior (Letters & Papers Henry VIII, X, 1256 (6)). This included the manors of Easton, Frox- field, Stapleford and Tidcombe. The “‘ prior’’ received a pension of ten marks. The Protector spent nine days at Easton in October, 1543 (J. E. Jackson: Wulfhall, 41); and his descendants used the church for burials until 1590, when it had become even more ruinous (C. E. Ponting in W.A.M., xxviii, 144). The brethren at Easton, as at other Trinitarian houses in England, seem to have been almost invariably native Englishmen, and most commonly natives of the county. Their number at times exceeded the figure suggested by Stephen of Tisbury. They proceeded to the priest- hood in the regular course of ordination (Registey of Simon of Sudbury, II, 60). They were subject to the authority, in different respects, of the hereditary patron and of the diocesan bishop (the grant of exemp- tion in 1308 was not often pleaded by the English houses); when Edmund of Pollesden forced the issue, the bishop and the patron together vindicated the integrity of Robert de Bingham’s “‘ ordinance ”’ We have what seems to be one late instance of a brother serving an impropriate church, as many Trinitarians did in the fifteenth century. We have no evidence (except what Edmund of Pollesden’s accusers furnished). of the extent to which the Easton friars yielded to the temptation of personal property ; nor of their intellectual life; nor of the existence of lay brothers ; nor of the routine of their guest-house. They seem, in fact, to have lived peaceably in their valley, protesting not unsuccessfully against interference from outside the county on the few occasions when it was threatened ; and it is strange that one, if not both, of the two journeys abroad credited to English Trinitarians noe have been made by Ministers of Easton. 376 The Trinitarian Friars and Easton Royal. The list of known Ministers (or Priors) seems to be : 1245 Nicholas of Norfolk instituted. 1287 William occurs. 1308-1328 John of Titchfield occurs. 1329 William Beccles instituted. 1344-1364 Edmund of Pollesden occurs. 1364 - Robert England; Robert Pilkington. 1389 Robert Newington occurs. 1391-1412 John of Hacklestone occurs. 1426 Stephen Yateley occurs; resigned 1448. 1448 John Charlton instituted ; occurs 1459. 1474 William Marshall instituted ; occurs 1487, 1491, 1493. c. 1498 John Topping instituted ; died 1527, 1527-1536 Henry Bryan. The first draft of this article had been written when Mr. Brentnall’s attention was drawn to a collection of documents at Tottenham House connected with Easton. Lord Cardigan, in whose charge they were, most kindly consented to their use, and Mr. Brentnall brought them’ to my notice. We agreed that it was imperative to study them and’ then re-write the article. It was impossible for me to find time to read the originals, and Mr. Brentnall agreed to, and did, read them and send me his transcripts and summaries. For this most valuable and. generous help I cannot be too grateful. The documents add very con-. siderably to what. was known of Easton; the story was both briefer and neater without them, but at any rate the known facts, with some inexplicable elements, are now collected. | These documents are quoted above as coming from two sources. The Ailesbury MSS. (from Easton Priory) are a series of more than 50 documents which by the generosity of the Ailesbury family are now lodged in the care of the Wiltshire Archzological Society at Devizes. Others of more direct family interest are retained among the Savernake muniments and are here quoted as Azlesbury Archives. The Editor has the author’s permission to add this further note on the site of Easton Priory. The six-inch ordnance map (Wilts, XLII, N.W.) shows it as lying in a field to the east of the present village. Inspection reveals there a series of enclosures indicated by low banks presumably covering the foundations of walls, but no record has come to light of any explora-’ tions. Among the mounds an old track, now represented by a foot- path, leads northwards from a branch of the down road from Everleigh over the eastern shoulder of Easton Hill, and its earlier continuation - may be traced by field-boundaries and other footpaths and roads in - the direction of Brimslade and the western edge of Savernake Forest. By Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle. C.M.G., O.B.E. 377 It is known that a Roman road branched from the Cirencester- Winchester highway near Folly Farm in the Forest and ran to Old Sarum. At either end its course is known : the middle section across the Vale of Pewsey has so far defied all efforts to re-establish it. Easton lies on the direct line, and it is a fair assumption that travellers from Salisbury northwards in the middle ages continued to follow, as best they might, the same line. This would explain the siting of a house intended for the succour of wayfarers at a place now so remote from traffic. The plaint of 1391 (Atlesbury MS., 44) speaks of the dissipation of the brethren’s resources in consequence of the increasing concourse of applicants for assistance not only poor but rich as well (suggesting, if not a misuse of their hospitality, at least inadequate recompense). This points to a considerable traffic past their house. Baron van Haeften, the present owner of the Old Vicarage at Easton, tells me of a tradition in the village that his house is on the site of an old hospital. The Old Vicarage is itself a house of consider- able age, and some of its features may antedate the building of the present church in 1591. It includes a closed: central block measur- ing 8 ft. 6 in. by 7ft. which has not yet been examined. If this house; which lies on the main street of the village, really represents the guest- house of the Priory, it would argue that the modern line of that street dates back at least to the early years of the 15th century. It is certainly: well sunk in the greensand, like other old routes in the Pewsey Vale. But the identification separates the reputed site of the Priory by nearly 400 yards from its guest-house. It is possible that the desertion of the Roman line (if that may be assumed) in favour of the present street occurred after the foundation of the Priory, and that the brethren, finding themselves by-passed not only by the objects of their charity but also by potential contributors ‘of — rebuilt on the new line of traffic. The modern village street is in line with another branch of the down road from Everleigh running over the westevn shoulder of Easton Hill. By either branch the chances of getting bogged in the stream which ran at the foot of Easton Hill would seem to have been about equal (there is mention of a fludegate ina 17th century survey of the manor). This: perhaps explains why the old Salisbury-Marlborough road was diverted vea Falstone Pond towards Burbage, leaves Easton Boyer to ey: in solitude ne consolation of its suffix. , 378 MASON’S MARKS ON EDINGTON CHURCH. By B. Howarp CUNNINGTON, F.S.A., Scot. By the kindness of Miss D. W. Seth-Smith of the old Monastery Garden, Edington, an addition of a very interesting book has been made to the Library. It is a small notebook entitled ‘‘ Mason’s Marks on the interior walls of the Church at Edington, with notes made by Miss Marguerite Geaussant, 1944’’. These mason’s marks have been copied into the notebook by Mr. V. L. Arnold, the Borough Librarian at Reigate. The accompanying plate shows these marks and was kindly redrawn one third of the original size by our Hon. Librarian, Mr. C. W. Pugh.! In the Report of the Oxfordshire Archeological Society for 1938 is an interesting article on the Masons Marks in Oxfordshire and the Cotswolds by R. H. C. Davis. With the Author’s permission I quote the following :—‘‘Mason’s ‘bander’ marks are the personal trade marks of individual masons and can be seen on the surface of the walls of many of the larger churches and castles in Europe. They occur especially in Romanesque and Gothic work, but there are examples also on Roman work and of much more modern date—even in the 19th century. It seems they were usually used when many masons were being employed on a building, as a check upon faulty workmanship ’’. It is suggested by some authorities that when masons were sent to the quarries to excavate and prepare stones for building churches and other ecclesiastical buildings each man was given a certain mark that he had to cut on the stones he hewed and prepared, in order that the master mason should know who the hewer was and reward him accord- ing to the efficiency of his work. It seems that the custom of marking hewn stones in this way continued down to the early part of the 19th Century, but I am informed, rightly or wrongly, that the custom has been given up for over 50 years. | With regard to the figures (p. 380), some of the marks appear to be initials, others may be the outcome of the master mason’s ingenuity. No. 7 evidently is the swastika orfylfot. Thissign is known almost the whole world over, but not necessarily as a masonic emblem— rather as one of religious origin—and it is very ancient. The late Sir Wm. Boyd Hawkins in “ Early Man in Britain ’’ figures pottery marked ~ with this emblem and says that pottery of the late Bronze Age in ~ France is sometimes ornamented with this sign. The late.Canon Greenwell in his writings on pottery found in British barrows states that in one case the marking ‘‘almost assumes the form of the fylfot”’. When the Germans adopted the sign they made the arms project the reverse way, 1.e., from left to right. 1 And Mr, Cunnington has kindly provided us with the block. (H.C.B.) Mason’s Marks on Edington Church. 379 No. 20 somewhat resembles the mark on the fallen stone at Stone- henge that led to much discussion over 80 years ago, for which I refer the reader to the article on the subject by the late Dr. Thurnam in W.A.M., xxvii, pages 268—277. Numbers 39 and 39a are apparently emblems of the sun and somewhat similar marks have been found on prehistoric burial urns. Major A. Gorham of Limpley Stoke has written an exceedingly interesting booklet on ‘‘ The Kennett and Avon Canal and its marks ”’. In it he figures over 160 mason’s marks found on the bridges and aqueducts of this canal between Bath and Devizes. The canal was begun in 1794 and opened for traffic in 1810. On the Tithe Barn at Bradford-on-Avon are many mason’s marks ; some of them are illustrated in a leaflet on the Barn by Mr. R. T. Christopher of Bradford-on-Avon. Doubtless many of the old churches in Wiltshire have mason’s marks, and it would be interesting to have a record list of all such churches. Mason’s Marks on Edington Church. Pp o! ol Ww OO @ 56 37 38 39 39a MASON’S MARKS on the interior walls of the Church of EDINGTON, Wilts. . 381 BRONZE AGE BEAKERS FROM LARKHILL AND BULFORD By Major H. de S. SHORTT. About the year 1939, when contractors were cutting a drain for the camp at Larkhill, a crouched skeleton was found in an oval grave about 24ins. deep with two B beakers. No other objects were found. Mr. R. S. Newall rescued the beakers and, after restoration, presented them to the Salisbury Museum. Unfortunately much of the base of the larger beaker was taken by a workman and enquiries have so far failed to trace it. The exact site of the burial is not known, but its approxi- mate position may be given as lat. 51’ 11” N. long. J’ 49” 25’ W. or aS a Map reference on the 1” Salisbury map (sheet 167, New Popular Edition), 123436. The difference in style and finish of the two beakers is remarkable. | Mr. Dudley Waterman has kindly supplied the accompanying notes and drawings. Both beakers are of type Bl. INCHES Fig. 1. Mole tl. NO. CLXXXV. PA EXC} 382 Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford. 1. Poorly made vessel with feeble and varying profile. (Alternate sections shewn in drawing). The body is sooty black in colour, fired to a buff-brown on the outside, and brown on the interior. Grit is plentifully used, some larger pieces shewing on the surfaces. The in- side is very roughly finished. olen Ie Fo Ton De To-to Vo fo le be be he be taka to le VSSIIVIIVIVIEITV pS VVVBVDVPUBITIVSEYwuy se AANGVOYQUPRAUVYVB wae 4 So, a RPS ‘é AM, SEA AE Ae 8194 ite PDVIVISIWIVIWIIWG DIDIVAVIVwavIwy VW BVDV eaPoeygwswwv ww BWAVDVBVYUVIDIITIVIT ABVBVBVSVIVIIVPII VVIVTVIDBVIIIWIISST PRONE uP eee EEN Dy py ey | AVFIYUVIIIIIVwI4M “3 awe fe iz Fig. 2. 2. Very well made and formed example. Sooty black body with excellent burnished surface, red-brown, tending to buff,incolour. The zonal decoration is combed out in notched technique. 3. Another BI] Beaker was rescued by Mr. R. S. Newall in the summer of 1939. This was found during excavations for a boiler-house, in the R.A.S.C. Lines at Bulford Camp. Like the two beakers from Larkhill, this was also restored by Mr. Newall and given tothe Salisbury Museum. The drawing is by. Mr. Dudley Waterman. No details are known of — any Skeleton or associated objects. It is crudely made with uneven and sharply everted rim. The decoration, which appears to be a cord ornament, is also uneven. It is circumferential—not spiral. The sur- face, interior and exterior, as well as the body, is uniformly light buff in colour, and there is very little grit. A slight polish has been applied — to the outside. The boiler-house has recently been identified in the R.A.S.C. Lines. Its bearings are lat. 51° 11” 45° N., long, 1° 44” 28° W., anda reference on the Ll” map of Salisbury, 182441. Mr. Frank Stevens has kindly defrayed the cost of the blocks which illustrate these notes. By Major H. de S. Shortt. 383 FU 2. (622 384 AN EARLY BRONZE AGE VESSEL FROM ASHLEY HILL. | Near SALISBURY: By PRoFESSOR STUART PiaeotT, D.Lit., F.S.A. The vessel which is the subject of this note was found accidentally — in February, 1941, while an anti-tank ditch was being dug across Ashley Hill on the Clarendon Estate north-east of Salisbury, the geographical co-ordinates for the find being lat. 51° 4’ 45”, long. 1° 45’ 50”. The recovery of the sherds and the record of their precise location were due to Messrs. Wort and Way’s foreman, Mr. H. W. Masters, who brought the find to the Salisbury Museum, and it is by the courtesy of the Director, Mr. Frank Stevens, that I am able to publish it. Every credit must go to Mr. Masters for his action in preserving for science this important archeological discovery. There appear to have been no associated finds. \\ Se RE aA. eho een murah ating roe: Ww Luu Li y; \ | An Early Bronze Age Vessel from Ashley H1ll. 385 The ware of the Ashley Hill vessel is gritty and while fairly hard has a tendency to crumble. The surface is red on the outside, and ranges from brown to black on the inside, with indications of soot or carbon- ized organic matter in the lower part of the pot. The ornament is incised firmly with a pointed tool, the strokes sometimes leaving a slight lateral ‘upcast’”’ of clay on the edges. As will be seen in the restored drawing (Fig. 4) the form is that of a large carinated bowl and though no fragments of base or rim survive its original height appears to have been about the same asits maximum diameter, about 83 inches. The scheme of the ornament is a series of rhomboids with multiple out- line set in two zones, the lower having a diagonally hatched band above it. In the lower zone too, some alteration or error in Jaying out the scheme of rhomboids has occurred at one point to the right of the restored drawing. The vessel is unusual in form and ornamentation, but its affinities lie with a group of handled bowls to which I called attention in 1938,! of which one (Nunwell) came from the Isle of Wight, three (Martinstown, Frome Whitfield and Langton Matravers) from Dorset and one, with- out a handle but analogous, from a burial against a stone of Avebury -Avenue.? A second pot has since been found at Langton Matravers by Mr. J. B. Calkin, without ornament but otherwise similar to the first find from that place.2 The dating evidence for these bowls, where it exists, is consistent in placing them in the Early Bronze Age and in _ some way related to the beakers. The carinated form of the Ashley Hill pot is typical of the majority of this series, while the incised orna- ment is closely paralleled in the Nunwell bow]. The find is therefore an important addition to a small group of Early Bronze Age bowls _ peculiar to Wessex, and its location near Salisbury serves to render the Avebury find less isolated from its southerly congeners. + Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1V (1988), 98. 2 Antiquity, X (1936), 423. * Unpublished, referred to here by Mr. Calkin’s permission. 386 FAMILIES OF EAST KNOYLE. By Lr.-Cot. J. M. F. BENETT-STANFORD. This is a collection of the histories of the different families of eminence in Knoyle between the years 1600 and 1800. In the reign of Charles I most of them were owners of small manors scattered about the parish. These manors were bought by people who had the money to put down in Henry VIII’s time, when he stole the monasterial property.and sold it in small pieces to anyone who had the money to pay for them. GOLDESBOROUH OF UPPER LEIGH. Arms ; Azure, a cross flory Argent. The Goldesboroughs, like the Mervyns and Stills, have entirely died out inthe parish. I believe about 1875 the last local represen- tative kept the Phoenix Inn at Gillingham, and one of the family remained at Mere until a few years ago. They were great Royalists in the Civil War and previously, in Elizabethan times, were constantly cited as recusants, showing that they held to the old faith of the county as is shown by the following notes. The family originated from Goldsborough near Knaresborough in Yorkshire : they begin to appear in Wiltshire in the 15th century, the first being Thomas, vicar of Lacock. Whence they immediately sprang has not yet been discovered, nor has the connection in the line of father and son been established with the ancient Yorkshire stock. But from their early and occasional use of the family arms, as at Bere Regis, Dorset ; Chipping Ongar, Essex; Knoyle Episcopi, Wilts; and _ Lincoln’s Inn, London; it is clear that widely distributed offshoots believed themselves to have sprung from the same common stock. Strictly speaking, the Goldesborough family in Wilts was not entitled to bear arms nor was it a county family, though allied with such. In the Heralds’ Visitations for Wilts no pedigree and no arms are given of any of that name among the lists of gentry. On the other hand, none was disclaimed by the Heralds for having usurped the arms to which-he had no right as being of plebeian origin. Further, as we shall see, quite a number of the family, as substantial yeomen or smaller gentry, married into armigerous families in Wilts and other counties. Apart from all investigation, the tradition has been handed down in the Wiltshire branch that the family was ancient, military, and sprung from the North. This tradition, counting for what it is” worth, evidently points to the descent of the Wiltshire members, though at a much earlier date than was supposed, from the original Yorkshire family. It is probable that the family had some piece of land in Wiltshire allotted to them for military service in France in the Black Prince's time. The earliest trace of them yet discovered is the appointment of the above mentioned Thomas to Lacock in 1431 by the patroness, the Families of East Knoyle 387 Abbess of Lacock Abbey. He remained vicar till his resignation in 1445. In the Court Rolls of the Bishop of Winchester relating to the Manor of Knoule, alias Bishop’s Knoyle, Knoyle Magna or East Knoyle, for 20 Oct., 14 Ed. IV. (1474) Henry Goldesborough, yeoman and miller, was presented for having taken toll! for grinding corn and brewing | contrary to the assize.?— He was fined 3d. with a number of others. Stephen Goldesborough, of Wilts, is given as a Demy of Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1482, thus partaking as a scholar of the benefaction of the Founder, William of Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester (1458), who was still lord of the manor of Knoyle in 1474. Among other eritries in the Court Rolls of the manor is one dated May 6th, 1508, when John Goldesborough and others were charged with unjustly pasturing 50 sheep beyond the proper number on the common land and ordered to amend the matter by the next Court day on pain of paying Ils. 4d. each. On September 25th, 1519, John Goldesborough was sued for a debt of 6s. 8d. by Richard Maynard. - The said John desired an agreement with the said Richard. He was fined 8d. He was also presented at the Court as a butcher who had sold meat ‘‘ outside’’, i.e, beyond the proper market or limits of the manor, and again fined 3d. Similar presentments of John Goldes- borough for little breaches of the custom of the manor continued till the year 1529. In the Lay Subsidies for county Wilts, 1523, John Goldesborough is stated to have goods to the value of £40. He is charged with a sub- sidy of 40s., one of the highest among the 28 assessments in East Knoyle. The Knoyle branch of the Goldesborough family were well established _ yeoman stock, for the most part upholders of Church and State, Crown and Constitution: jurors of the Manorial Courts and not seldom defenders and defaulters therein : freeholders and copyholders of the manor: occasionally clergy, schoolmasters and medical men, and allied with some of the best families amongst the squirearchy and gentry in Wilts and adjoining counties. They also had distinguished offshoots in Maryland, U.S.A. The earliest recorded marriage in the Wiltshire branch is that of Robert Goldesborough and Cicely, daughter of John and Lucy Haytor of East Knoyle on October 10th, 1540. In the Knoyle rolls there are - constant presentments of Robert Gooldisborowe or. Golsborow and others as ‘‘ butchers who have sold meat outside’”’ between 1541 and 1562. This Robert, who may be regarded as the founder of the Wilt- shire family’s fortunes, seems to have made his money in sheep from 1 Payment for grinding corn. was made either in money or by the retention of a portion of the corn by the miller.. This was called a toll. * An ordinance regulating the price of ale according to the price of grain. 388 Families of East Knoyle. his farms in Knoyle and in Mere, a place that was a great staple for wool. The evidence goes to show that he farmed the moiety of Mere Patk Farm, which lies at some distance from Mere on the road to Knoyle. . | His will was proved in London, November 6th, 1581. He desired his body to be buried in the north aisle of the parish church of Knoyle and left 12 pence to Salisbury Cathedral, 40s. to Knoyle Church and 40s. to the poor of Knoyle ; 40s. between the poor of Hindon and of Mere. To all godchildren Ils. each and 10s. to everie of his children’s children of both kinds. To each of his two daughters, Mary and Dorothy, £200, and to his wife Cicilie the lease of the windmill of Knoyle, with remainder to John Goldborowe, and also the household stuff, implements and utensils ‘‘in my said house at Lighe in which I now dwell”’. Robert’s sister Margaret became the wife of Thomas Turberville of Woolbridge, Dorset, the third son of George Turberville of Bere Regis, as shown in the Herald’s Visitation and Hutchins’s monumental History. This was the family of Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Though itis not certain that the Robert Goldesborough about to be mentioned was Robert, fourth son of Robert and Cicely Goldesborough of East Knoyle, the identification is highly probable. The place and date of. his birth are not known, but he is mentioned in the wills of his father, mother and brothers Augustine and John. He appears to have been twice married, one of his wives being Anne, daughter of Lionel and Frances Tichborne of Sherfield English, Hants, a well-known Roman Catholic county family. It is curious that in 1540 an important inhabitant of Knoyle married a Tichborne, whose family was much connected with Alfred Seymour of Knoyle in the famous Tichborne claimant trial. In November, 1589, informations were laid against Robert Goldes- borough, Recusant. Though in these days of general religious tolera- tion such information would seem to be of a trifling character, they were accounted serious charges in an age when openly to profess the Roman Catholic religion was almost tantamount to treason. The informations were as follows ;— 1. He hath (under his own handwriting) defaced an English Bible in three places. In the first place he misconstrueth his Ma’ty’s authorities. In the second, the bodies of the whole Scriptures. In the third, the translation of the Scriptures. 2. He hath maryed two wives, no man knowing when, where or ~ how. | 3. He christeneth his children in corners. : 4. In his publique and private speeches he maynteyneth the popish religion and seeketh to confute the religion established. a 5. Hesetteth at naught the counselles award and decree, stirring up such sedition between the mother and children and brother that bludshed must need ensew if it be not speedely prevented. — By Lt. Col. J. M. F. Benett-Stanford. 389 In extenuation of these ‘‘ offences”’ it may be noted that no charge of defacing the text of the Bible is made, but apparently only of the title page or the Preface. A Roman Catholic would naturally deny all ecclesiastical authority to Queen Elizabeth. In regard to his wives and his children, the fault lies in his not having been married on either occasion in the parish church, but secretly by a Roman Catholic priest, and havirg his children baptised in the same manner. After the year 1625 Robert Goldesborough, Recusant, disappears, and nothing more is heard of him. He may have been the ancestor of the distinguished American branch of the family that emigrated to Cambridge, Maryland, the State founded by Lord Baltimore (who married Anne Arundell and lived at Hook Manor, Semley) as a Roman Catholic colony with liberal laws, where the followers of the faith of their fathers might practice their religion in freedom and peace. We now come to Robert, elder son of John and Joan Goldesborough of Knoyle Episcopi, to whom his father left land within the manor and the moiety of the farm in Mere for the remainder of his lease. Robert Goldesborough was baptized in Knoyle Church on 12th September, 1579. He was married at Tisbury, 12th September, 1602, to Mary, daughter of Thomas Benett of Pythouse, Wilts. There is an entry in the Falstone Day-Book—a record of persons mainly in South Wilts who were compelled to contribute towards the fund for the Civil Wars by a Wilts Parliamentary Committee— as follows :— : “16th May, 1645. Thomas Benett of Pythouse had compounded with this Committee and given bond to pay on 22nd May £20 in plate and £40 in money. Seven pounds of this was paid presently in three hours, which Capt. Ward received to horse his dragoons. Mr. Benett hath formerly paid £44 to Colonel Ludlow ”’. At the time the Civil War was raging between King and Parliament, Augustine Goldesborough engaged himself to the side of the King with others of his kindred and friends. That he actually fought or not the following entry in the Falstone Day-Book hardly makes plain :— “1645, 24 Sept. Austin Goulsbury of Knoyle, gent., detained a _ prisoner for delinquency (i.e., adherence to the King’s party), gives £10 for his present enlargement to be paid presently and gives security, Mr. Augustine Goldesborough acting as security ’’. The battle of Naseby had been won by Cromwell on June 14th, 1645. In the same year Fairfax routed the King’s forces at Langport in Somerset and compelled Prince Rupert to surrender Bristol on Sept. 10th. This defeat of the Royalists brought the war practically to an end. It now remained for the conquered to pay the price of their loyalty and delinquency. In the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, 1643—1660, are the following entries :— 1647--8, Jan. 13th. List of Delinquents under the value of £200 discharged, some on paying small fines and taking the Covenant, 390 Families of East Knoyle. others only on taking the Covenant and negative oath : John Bath, Idmiston ; Augustine Goldsburg, Knoyle ; etc. 1652, Sept 30th. Wiltshire Delinquents. Registrar s certificates for many names, including Augustine Goldsburg of Knoyle, that there is no information against them for delinquency or recusancy, but that their names are in a list of delinquents returned by the County Com- . missioners of Wilts, March, 1652, and in a list of sequestered persons returned by the late County Committee 13th Jan., 1648. In the monthly Assessment for the Relief of -Ireland raised in the Division of Warminster, 1648, are entries as follows :—Mere Hundred, Mere Tithing ; Austin Goldesborough, 4s. 4d., Robert Goldesborough, 5d. It is not surprising that in view of lawsuits, fines, subsidies and imprisonment there should be sales and removals. Accordingly there is to be noted :— Fine dated 12th Feb., 1650—1, between John -Benett, gen. Querent, and Augustine Goldesborough, gen., and Mary, his wife, Deforciants, by which a portion of their property passed by purchase into the hands of their kinsman, viz., 1 messuage, 1 orchard, 2 acres land, 15 acres meadow, 6 acres pasture and common pasture for all cattle in Milton and Knoyle. For these John Benett paid £41 sterling. The second son of Robert and Mary, and brother of Augustine, appears to have been Robert Goldesborough, baptised at East Knoyle, June, 1609. He married Joan, daughter of Thomas Barnes, gent., in 1629 or thereabouts. From his father he had a settlement of a lease of land including the Castle Hill at Mere. Like others of his kindred and friends Robert Goldesborough played his part in the Civil Wars, espousing the side of the King. He was commissioned as captain of a troop of horse and no doubt bore his share in the actual fighting. He survived the ordeal, however, and after the Restoration of 1660 received payment for his services to the Royal cause, as is shown in the Lists of all the Loyal and Indigent Military Officers as certified in the Star Chamber before the year 1663 : Warrants for Payments of Officers. Wilts: Robert Goldesborough, Cap., Horse. 21 June, 1664: George Goldesborough, Cap., Horse. Royal Warrant to pay out of money for Guards, Garrisons and Land Forces pensions as follows:—Robert Goldesborough £86 10s. Od. for 1686, 1687 and 1688. After that the pension ceased. I find in a will of John Goldsborough, proved London, 1585, that he was the owner of Clouds, evidently before it came to the Still family. It is evident that the Goldesborough family, though not recognised by the Heralds in 1625, later paid their fees and were allowed to use the coat of the Yorkshire branch. It is also evident that they were accepted as gentle folk when they married with the Benetts, Turber- ville and Tichborne. — The following rhyme is cut with a diamond on the glass of a window in Higher Leigh Farm, but the Goldesboroughs had left the place before the date attached to it. 391 Io}SeWOOYIS T€—EZLI PreuosyT 3S HOIMIS_ JO ‘OTLT poomzied FO ueuloed OL9T 'P ejAouy ‘O19 Lopooy «GOT Arey “4S 9u107319D uewyoty =G99T “9 €99T “4 ye G99T “9 oyle[ +e 6S9T 4 8¢9T “9 jo IeoIA “O89T “UOXO ‘TIFH a eas ee ‘Y}qe2zF yiipnf{—se[oyotn suljeog © °° — euuy uuy MON JO Vd ‘9991 4 ue | | | | OZLLP Aoueyul C—F89I “UOXO | SILT S101 32 uerorsAyd UI poIp =‘TTeH Arey 3S fo ‘qoid sioyYysnep InojF CCQ ‘O10J, pur [[Iyspes jo | “p ‘ueuooA PLOT “G ‘WeIM Uos1pllyo Z 9991 ‘q ‘ouljsnsny pue suos eS G PIVPpOdD “YIN JO “nep ‘auy—zegt -q ‘uyol | ? | | ; SIIIAA 10 STILAA Arey | SzeIN Bue SI9}YSNep F | ojAouysy Jo weutood | 9Z9T “9U19930q +e g0o9T ‘Pp ‘Arnqsiyes ze ueioishyd : 79ST pue oe I9Y}O Z ie 19}}B[S IO J9zeTS AIeW “I— EO9T “Gq ‘“OUNSNSnYy }OSIOG | ‘OqUIODLEJT S, WIeYSsuIg jo | o1oJ. pue ojAouyy fo weysulg sou ‘atAouy 4SOAA | weutoed ‘1 6¢] UOXO jo AqusnoytAA ueof *Z ueUIOsA ‘EQOT 'P asnoyyAg Jo J0uUeq | ‘1109 1ey0x'y Jo ‘qosd P8CL pape "7. yyeqezyy “I—18¢1 See uyof jo ‘p ‘Arejy— 6LGI ‘G oe | XOSS Ainq ‘IvBUQ JO —-SITVS JO out0q cgel'p uewook = -yory, ouory ILET “Urtos | ‘opAouyy LOST UOPMOTIYS dyUop 19ST Q jo-‘nep ‘auuy z uewood yomnyoysty | jo rJoyru pue A[seog jo ueulood jolesiep(—seuloy |, ' Aref [—Hoqoy jo soyepFR ueof{—urewood ‘uyof SOUSY-—FFET “q “UIETTITM ‘uOXO Lie) “WIN SIARQ oUUY—E€FEl 4 oe | esl r) / enssl poomzieg JO [PET “q yOSIOd ‘OSPliqjooM, LET Surat] | 1I9Y70 UIAIIIA, UYO [ —IOT[IJL JO O][LAIoqin]y, “sou .—e1es1e py es | | afAouy jo 10jAeTT | [SGT ‘p ‘uewood ‘o[Aouyy uyof jo ‘nep ‘Aja01IQ—jo YSnosoqseporyy 119qOY | 66—80E1 SUIATT IZSl 'P : 80ST “wos ‘Areoqeg ‘Q0ET ‘WOS 430110g ‘N 10999X «-“°Z8FI ‘UOXO “T1090 ‘pse Awd ‘SiIAA JO Ysnoroqsipjoy usydeys “ATAONM LSVA AHO PLIT 9 soqyrut pue ueuooh ‘qoid ‘ysnotoqsApjoy Arius HONOVOAUSAGCION UO HONOAESIGIOD AO AAAOLI AT nn ‘mueUOoA " uesng—eAouy jo ysnor0qsepjoy uyol GP—IEFI “I09"T FO reora ‘Ainqsp[oy ‘soul 392 Families of East Knoyle. APOLLO AND DAPHNEY. When Phebus was anxious and longed to be rude Miss Daphne cry’d Pish and ran swift to the wood. And rather than do such a naughty affair She became a fine laurel to deck the God’s Hair. The nymph was no doubt of a cold constitution For sure to turn Tree was an odd resolution, Yet in this she behaved like a true modern spouse For she fled from his arms to distinguish his brows Jms. Sympson, Hindon. July 28th, 1798. STILL OF CLOWDES. The family of Still of Clowdes rose to eminence in the Church of England before it was established in thiscounty. John Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells 1593—1608, was the son of William Still of Grantham, Lincs., where he was born about 1543. He was twice married and by his second wife became the ancestor of a number of Wiltshire families. His descendants married into the families of Howe of Berwick St. Leonard (in 1631), Willoughby of West Knoyle (in 1767), Wake, Rector of Knoyle Episcopi (in 1783) and other families of equal importance in other counties. A great-grandson, Nathaniel Still, established his family at East Knoyle in the latter part of the 17th century, and Sir Richard Colt Hoare in his History of the Hundred of Mere, c. 1820, mentioned the family of Still, residing at Clowdes, as the possessors of a considerable portion of the parish. (The present house of Clouds was originally built by Percy Scawen Wyndham in 1880.) MERVYN OF PERTWOOD AND UPTON MANOR. Arms: —Argent, a demi-lion rampant Sable charged on the shoulder with a fleur-de-lys Or. The Mervyn family were big people between 1560 and 1600. They owned or rented Pertwood, Fonthill Gifford and much in Hindon. I find that the Upton property was originally granted by Henry VIII to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. In 1555 the College let it to a George Horsey of Diggeswell, Herts. It was leased to William and Edward Baisley for their lives at a rent of £6 8s. in 1559. A certain John Hayter was granted a reversion on the death of Edward Baisley, but apparently never acquired it, since Edward was succeeded by his son Robert Baisley in 1604. The Mervyns became the tenants in 1623. Their holding is described as lying in Lygh with lands in Lygh, Middle- ton and Upton. In the Calendars of Inquisitions (Feudal Aids and Post Mortem) I find one taken 9th November, 8 Henry VII (1492) showing that Thomas Mylbourne, Knt., died seized of the Manor of Uptonin Knoyle, worth 60s. and held of the King as of the manor of East Knoyle, parcel of the temporalities of the See of Winchester, now in the King’s hands OFGI ‘POFY “S UL SUIAV] “061 4 ‘TIS 10}0q onsst pry t = sioyyonep ¢ s}pnog Asuoy Fepsng, stouvs.y JO ‘nep “yoresiepY—OSsT “q ‘TTS [ryoinyyg stowed ieee & O x le. Al Aating ‘ye esprqAsAg Jo | ZO6T SULALT “UOXO ‘ON’ “GEST 'd si9zysnep % THyoinyD ‘seyO jo ‘nep Aury—uuy s,upoour’y Jo [YS JAeqoyy sour ‘SuUOS IOP]o F | | | YIOMSPO'T JO TVOTA “YAOTD YSV GL8T "P ‘80ST ‘q ‘uUT Aading ‘weyuapas jo sq SE8l Pp “weysesuy Jo sop YINEP % . 981095) JO "Nep ‘ouTforR) “Z—s,UpoouryT Jo [[4S Jzoqoyy—yd ey jo ‘nep ‘soourry vineyT “| TRA “LOST “4 ‘1S uyol AOE It ESE ere a) ed ear aed -— [oe eta ae a | uUys,UjooUr] FEL “P “UUT s,uoo PIOPLD [[TYFUOYT JO “OXY “TOD JO FuOAAS “A -ULT “BAHT SOPMOTD ‘sory ‘Aopred | “YPPM “TOL SEPMOTD 72 “q a[Aouyy JO 10J99YY ‘OYE AL 8Z8I “P ‘SLT “9 jo ‘nep Arepy—ye “q “TIIS ha jo syoddiy, uuy—asnopy] YoUsogy JO [YS nee sojivy FO “Nep ‘o}j0[,1eYDO—e[Aouy “| JO TTF “YO ae uopuo’T Jo JUAgS | S081 'P “OZLT ‘4 ANSST 19Y4O uyof jo ‘nep ‘euezng—oAouyy ‘sf Jo [QS sowe[ | Sans tees eae ee ayMouyy “AX JO AQusnoy[L A, SZL1 ‘P ‘F89I “4 ansst 19t]}0 WIRITITAA JO “Nep ‘Yyoqezi[s{—o[Aouyy “AY FO [1S aqoyy prs a[dwiay, e[ppryt JO s9ystuseg , soul yg uoJseYys yoyoe'y] | TOLT P*S99T ‘UOXO “TION “YPrAL ANSSt 1OlYO JO 19S ay yeqezyy—efsouyy “A JO TINS igus Pitas Ss i ; ab ey ; preuoay “YS YOUMsog, Jo | 899T ‘P ‘GO9T ‘WUT S,UjoourT “wpe : : S1O}SIS 1 MO}{ 851005) JO *p ‘Joresieyy—soruef[ 4S uoJseys yo ure uyo[t | j ;, , 3 et uoaac] ‘Uo}SuyAL(T JO | Tf9T P ¢ 96ST “4 umousoduey) uoerrey jo ‘nep Yospug—jesioq ‘sowef -y¢ uoyseYs Jo [[WS ‘soy, _ : & * - ie his uy ° : 4 em 7 ‘ b > o . ' ‘ ; ae SOT. \ 4 i i Ps i \ \ ‘ 2 j Mi i ; | ah K y 4 inl? 4 ‘ + 2 * . * > “4 : 394 Families of East Knoyle. during voidance of the See, by fealty at 12s. rent yearly for all services. In the 1565 Visitation of Wilts Mervyn’s pedigree is given with their arms. Three early generations are given indicating that they first lived at Pertwood, c. 1490, the last being John Marvin of Pertwood, gentleman, son and heir of John Marvin of Pertwood, who married Melior, daughter of Robert Gouldisborough of Knoyle and had issue John, baptised at Knoyle, 1561. In the 1623 Visitation we find John as of Pertwood, with a note saying that the coat of his family was entered with descent in the 1565 Visitation. The Mervyns or Marvins married imte good families in the neinbeum hood, such as Edwards of Westbury ; Sambourne of Maiden Newton, Dorset ; Willoughby of West Knoyle; Ryves of Damory Court, Bland- ford; Haytor of Little Langford ; Toppe of Stockton; Benett of Pyt- house; etc. They all seem to have had many children. | I find that George Mervyn of Upton Manor was the fourth son of John Marvyn of Pertwood and Melior his wife, and that John died in 1601. George married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Ryves of Ranston, Dorset, and the eldest son, John, was born in 1595 and married in 1622 Ann, daughter of John Toppe of Stockton. This George Mervyn seems to have carried on the family name and honour as his three elder brothers died without issue. I think we may safely assume that it was Augustine, sixth son of John and Melior Mervyn ‘and George’s younger brother, who built Upton Manor. I believe it was the younger son of the first Mervyn of Pertwood, and George’s uncle, who founded the Fonthill family and who turned his home into the headquarters of the Cavaliers when they were besieging the rebel Ludlow of Hill Deverill in Wardour Castle. He had taken it from the famous Blanche Arundell, who with a few servants, mostly women, defended it for a long period against the rebel army while her husband, Lord Arundell of Wardour, was fighting for the King elsewhere. Among the Wiltshire squires who preferred to be fined in lieu of accepting a knighthood, 26th January, 1680—the ‘‘Compositors for Knighthood’’—I find the following :—George Mervin of Knoyle Episcopi, £10; Augustine Mervin of the same, £10. Many squires refused that honour at the Coronation of King Charles I—so different to the present day! If the King was on a progress he could put up for the night with any one holding a title. Imagine how it would upset an economical housewife to. suddenly have the King and his huge retinue of 100 men and horses and 50 waggons arriving at her front door without notice! I have the receipt granted to Thomas Benett of Pythouse for a fine of £40 for refusing knighthood. In Ludlow’s Memoirs I find that about the year 1649 he contracted with the trustees commissioned by the Parliament for the manors of East Knoyle and Upton, wherein he employed the portion which he received from his first wife and a greater sum arising from the sale of his patrimonial estate. By Li.-Col. J. M. F. Benett-Stanford. 395 It may not be out of place if I say a little concerning Pertwood and the Marvin family, although -it is a separate parish. One William Marvin married Margaret, only daughter and heiress of William Fletcher and Joan, his wife, who seem to have owned Pertwood as early as 1460. This William started the Mervyn of Pertwood family, who spread to Knoyle and Fonthill. In ‘‘ Notes on the family of Mervyn of Pertwood ”’ by Sir William Drake, F.S.A., I find the state- ment : ‘“‘ John Mervyn of Pertwood, eldest son of George Mervyn and Elizabeth Ryves . . . sold Upton Manor to his brother Richard .. . The sole remnant of the landed property of the Mervyns of Wiltshire now held by any descendant of the family is an annual rent charge issuing out of this and now (1873) belonging to Major John Mervyn Cutcliffe Drake, R.E.”’ I see in the Visitation of Wilts, 16238, that this Richard was born December 18th, 1600, which date is also given in the Parish Registers. Besides being the owners of Upton Manor in Knoyle Episcopi and the manor of Pertwood, the Mervyns also held land in Fonthill or Fountel Bishops and Gifford, Stoppe, Hindon and - Chicklade. Fonthill Gifford was nobly held during the Civil Wars by the Cavaliers against the Roundheads. When the family of Mervyn left Fonthill, the house and lands passed through the families of Lord Castlehaven, Lord Cottington, the regicide Bradshaw, back to the Cottingtons and then to the rich West Indian slave, sugar and rum merchant Beckford and from his descendants c. 1840 to the Morrisons. Long may they own it! Here isa true story of Pertwood. About the year 1860, when my grandfather, Arthur Fane, was vicar of Warminster, Pertwood Church was served by him with about one service a month. There is no vestry at Pertwood, and Arthur Fane used to put on his surplice, etc., in the Farm House and walk a few yards to the church. One Sunday Mrs. Warren, grandmother of the farmer now at Knoyle Down Farm, met him and dropping a curtsey said ‘‘ Oh, Mr. Fane, de ’ee grant I a favour!’’ The Vicar, who was a bit pompous, replied ‘‘ Mrs. Warren, Ihave known you for so many years that I might almost say your favour is granted before I know what it is’’. ‘‘ Please, sir’’, said she, “do ’ee preach thy sermon this morning from altar steps ’stead of from pulpit’, ‘‘I will’’, replied Fane, ‘‘ but tell me first why you want me todoso’’. ‘‘ Well, sir’’, said the old lady, ‘‘ our turkey be sitting up in pulpit’. So there is some use in a church that has few services ! The Manor of Upton was bought by Henry Seymour about 1817 from Corpus Christi College when he started making the Knoyle House property. In 1880 the house and lands were sold by Alfred Seymour to Percy Scawen Wyndham and resold by the latter’s grandson, Capt. Guy Richard Wyndham to the land speculators. They in their turn disposed of Upton Manor to a very charming Sir Joseph Cheyne, _ Baronet, who beautifully restored the house, which had been degraded into three cottages. I fancy .Alfred Seymour so converted the old manor house, as about his day there was a mania for having only one 396 Families of East Knoyle big house in each parish and for the squire to own the whole village, thus having no one to gainsay him or go against his wishes. This is all very well when you have a good squire for despot! In 19389 Sir Joseph Cheyne sold the house and land around it to Major Crawshay Bailey, who in his turn has made gardens and grey beautified the house. FAMILY OF HUNTON. This family was an important one in East Knoyle from c. 1550 to Cromwell’s days, but I cannot trace what became of them or where they lived. They are given inthe Visitation of 1623—a long entry. I find in my Pythouse papers that my Roundhead (I regret to say) ancestor, Thomas Benett of Norton Bavant, captain in the Parliamen- tary service, who bought the tithes of the Vicarage from the Cathedral authorities of Salisbury, seems to have had considerable trouble with a certain Phillip Hunton over them. Was this man of the same family ?>—probably. Their arms were, or I should say—are, Sable, a chevron Ermine between three talbots passant Argent, but I find in the 1565 Visitation the name of William Hunton under East Knoyle in the list headed : ‘‘ Each of the following except those marked respited is said to have made his appearance before me, William Harvey, Clarenceux King of Arms, and to have disclaimed the name of gentle- man except those marked, who are said to be disgraded’’. William Hunton, Andrew Blackman, Thomas Briller, head the list of dis- claimers, but in the Visitation of 1628 a long pedigree of the name Hunton is given. The then living Hunton thought better of the indiscretion of his ancestors, paid up and behaved like a gentleman. The Parish Registers show Hunton births 1589—1685, marriages 1564—1635 and burials 1541—1633. Like many Cavaliers who were heavily oppressed by the archrebel Oliver Cromwell, they may have died out after the’Civil War. I find a somewhat interesting entry concerning one Margaret Hunton, a nun of Amesbury. This was a very difficult nunnery to get into, as it was under the Royal Prerogative, and she must have been a person of some importance. : ‘‘ A true certificate of the Parish of East Knoyle or Knoyle Magna. We do present upon our oaths that one Margery Hunton of the Abbey of Amesbury now died and deceased within the [said Parish], the 17th of March the year above [1546]. Dame Margery Hunton buried March 17th. Robert Goldesborough Wm. Smith I also find that Bridget Hunton was presented to Queen Elizabeth in 1565 at Salisbury, and the last I have found of the family is an entry showing James Hunton in the list of men paying to the monthly assessment for the relief of Ireland in 1648. } Churchwardens ”’ = Siezysnep OI8I—9éLT 9I8I—LELT 69L1—FELT LELI—GELT €8LI—6CL1 cO8I—9eLI OSLI—SCLI oO eee OUT M, WIT —ATION eolig soure {—Ajjoq a ae a Hat A ogee ae3 | | cS) [[oaoq suoyssury | ye UIOG [TV | ECLT P ‘€ JO ZGLI 978489 ‘QOLT 'P‘PSLT W| OLT oY} PIOS “ShLT weysuly Aoueyul ‘POLT “q ‘UOJSUTIIOYS pue uopysnorg Jo | —FOLT OSLT 940foq S9LT 'P -TED fo Joues Jo FueUS, UI “Pp ‘QOLT ‘some I0}NeI JJOqUIe'T ‘Soy, Jo ‘nep ‘10uea;y—uyo[ ‘p sewmoy ioyns Areyjy~—poqjiuipe ae Alva | | | | 8ZLI ‘P| SPLIT 'P Egg SUIAT Alej—seuoy J, poom}ieg jo afkaAroyy ee NM | ’ : geg] “WeYSUTTD | ‘d's'p yo oopiig, “st1yg | 2691 —F291 S197 YSNep 9 uos PIg uos puzZ Jo ‘nep ‘“eoeqey—udasoyy uyo[ [ | | | | SoOL | yosiog ‘“equios ‘G6ST G tdeSep SUOS IOP[9 F 9Z9T “4 6191 q Aoueyurur’p ‘d's'p ‘oyy001S Jo addoy, | -j0J" Jo Ize] ee 9 Pe euljsnsny ourjsnsny siayysnep € suoOs IoyJO Z ~ UoOS puz uyof jo ‘nep ‘asuuy—poom}seg Jo ae Gs | | | | | | qasIO(T ‘WOWMEN yosi0cq | poom uapAeyy JO surnoq | os[Aouyp | ‘uojsuey jo | -3J0q 3e RSEOT Sul AINq4S9 A -wes srioueng | jo uAaroyy soady “qoy jo | -Al] ‘sewloyy, ‘o1q josprempyq uyof ‘ds‘p poomyiog aa. JO Nep “eTLOsiIg—ouljsnsny WRIT ‘nep ‘yyoqezI[q—sty Jo ey ‘es100x) jo nep YereSrey—jo uAATOW ee ) ha | | | - | 9ST ‘e[Aouyy jo | 1091 'P Joyysnep uos YSnoIOgsIploy }Aeqoy jo ‘nep ‘1o1Tjeyy—poomys9g jo uAArOy uyol lee | eee | qqoqezyy S}IIM “W0ZYSN0}ZS Jo [[e19yx90g uyof jo ‘nep ‘stay—poom}jseg jo uAaIop Uyo[ teyj}e1g uyof fo toy pue ‘nep ‘ueof Aq | ITA “H ¢ ‘WoS 2 JoSIOG FUeYyS “pIoPry jeyu0y Poomj1odg FO 1oYdzo_Y WIeTT[IAMA JO ‘nep joresiey[—jo uAaroy 103;e A JO Moydou ‘UAATOW WTI ‘dOOMLYAd AO NAAMAW AO AAXADIGAd NO. CLXXXV, VOL. LI. 398 Families of East Knoyle. The following somewhat curious inquest deserves recording. It shows a member of the Hunton family among women: whose husbands were fined because their wives wore velvet and other fine apparel. Exchequer Q.R. Commissions, Wilts. Inquysicyon Indented taken at the Cytye of New Sarum . . . before Thomas Carter, Mayor of the City of New Sarum, and John Hooper by virtue of the Queen Majestys Comysyon to them and others directed and herunto annexed the sixteenth day of December in the fiveth year [1562] of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth [etc]. By the othes of [the jurors] whyche doo saye uppon their oathes that [sundry Salisbury women and] Bridget Hunton, wife of William Hunton the younger, of East Knoyle, gentleman; Edith Blackman, wife of Andrew Blackman of East Knoyle, gentleman; Agnys Hayter, wife of John Hayter of East Knoyle, husbandman [have Eee eoe et the statute]. The “‘ Bill for Great Horses ’’ 33 Hen. VIII was designed to increase the revenue and also to prevent the King’s subjects from apeing their betters) 1-e., the Ming and ins count: The relevant paragraph ran as follows; ‘If the wife of any person Or persons wear any velvet in the lining or other part of her gown other than the cuffs or purfels of her gown or else wear any velvet in her kirtell or wear any pettycoat of silk that then the husband of every such wife shall find one stone horse of the stature above in this act recited (in height xiiij handfulls) or shall incur the above said penalty and forfeiture of ten pounds ”’ This statute was confirmed by an “ Act for the having of Horse, Armour and Weapon”’, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, passed like the first ‘‘for the better furniture and defence of this: kealm 2: tlere 1b was enacted that every person who, ‘‘by reason that his wife should wear such kind of apparell or other thing’ specially mentioned in the statute of 33 Hen. VIII, was required to find one great stone trotting horse and ‘‘shall keep and maintain a gelding able and meet for a light horseman with sufficent harness and weapon for the same ’’ under the penalty of £10, half of which was forfeit to the King and Queen and half to the person suing for the same in any court of record by bill, plaint, action of debt or information. The wearing of velvet was of course taken as a sign of the husbands being sufficiently prosperous to afford the costs of the gelding and weapons. FAMILY OF BRETHERS. Arms: per pale Gules and Sable on a fesse between 8 griffins’ heads erased Or as many lozenges Ermine. Crest : A demi-greyhound Sable holding in the paws a dart Gules feathered Argent. This family were important people in Knoyle previous to the Civil Wars. Many entries of them exist in the earliest Parish Registers. They married important families in the neighbourhood, such as Benetts of Pythouse; Scammels, etc. In the Visitation of 1565 the oP) oP) ne) yosIocy “Ulod UT O8eSSsN+y puryAary UI So[IeT WUINOGIOJUTA\ JO jo oure’yT uyof[ 0} "17-PJ 01 ‘Z ‘oto SR[OYSIN uYyOf 0} “1euL USNS ‘reul OUATIUI ‘OYOIN 0} ‘f ‘eur Arey ‘SYILM, “UL09 ‘SUOUT g “JOR Z ‘yor ‘Arey € EZ9T ‘9 “JoR “NOLNO YL AUVHORYT ‘juesIV yuessed sjoqye} 90141 UdIMJoq DUIWIIG UOIAOYO e& oIqGeS ‘ZITA IZ ‘SL¢[ ‘eouere~y aY00D ‘oy Aq ‘oPAouyy | Ay}OIN fF p joe ‘ourl ey L. 4ezty FSeY JO UOJUNFT UL TIAA 1OF posozpe odours | aaa eae ert | fe oe ae 07809 OA YN ‘SIT JO UOTLYISIA P[O oY} UT \ | uopuo’T | uozYysng jo osre[ | jo “ezgT sur SFT M Wo) | ueullopry | -ary ‘Aoy pue UL POY] JO ossny OUUOS % ‘ep Z ‘ep e SI ‘yor 0% ‘yor “AoY JO ‘ep ‘qzI[v{—ouUuos UL TIT ‘UdFT 07 “IeW “qzITy ‘UO, ouuy USOT ILA oUUOS % “}QOY pue ouuos ‘soure[ | | | | | | | | | YAS SS91 Surary | ° "ysyos10(q | ‘UI09 UL UOJION ‘SUTIAA “ut0o | ‘bso ‘Ao AA Jo UI ‘1oJSoyoIOC, Jo | ouUOsS °Z ‘sqITAA jo ouAM ZT, JO ur uozoysng jo | suAvpsof ‘ur Ay Jo yoinyyg uyof | “uroo ut jjoousy ‘ep ‘OllodIe “G—uUOJUNY ‘YOINy—'nep “qezyyA ‘fT jo ‘ep ‘onz19A—yjo uozyuNTY] ‘oY, ode | 7 : ed | UATUuLS 79S WOS UOVULET ‘nep "¢ 0} “APU Wa Yyof o7 ‘ULOD UL S}}EAA SPTOYOIN, jo Joqieq uyo[ [ony uyol Tloqes] ‘IeUL ‘IOUTTAT “9 0} [ ‘Jeu ‘sory -G 0} ‘1eur ‘oue[ “FP 0}; IVUL. “QZITG | | | | pas ! ooriddy VXOH MP7 | uyo[{ 07 IIS 0} *Z ‘WOUTE MA yosioqy “woo | poleur seuloy y, OF QUUOS °*% UL JSINYSIpe_ Jo | “"PSIe If] ‘[ ‘qeul sousy yIoqoy =srlrysduieypy jo ‘[TepET Jo ‘ep Josprq—uojuny ‘uA “T | | | | | | yassrocy “UL09 | | yosIog ‘ULOS UTI UL oLINGS}eYS JO Ppey, twos "yqO-Y JO “Yoo pur “p ‘ouvof—uozunyy weipIA—'oyL Joep ‘AOE “1 ‘291 ‘AMIHSLIIM JO NOLLVLISIA AHL wosy ‘NOINQH psoj pueleg so soAvoayy . D 400 Families of East Knoyle. name of Thos. Brothers of Knoyle is given among those who disclaimed the name of gentleman, although Thomas is given as No. 2 in that of 1623. In 1565 a pedigree and arms are entered, but in 1623 an entry non probavit sed defertuy is marked against the arms. Where did they live? All trace is lost, but I fancy they bought from Henry VIII the Manor of Pertwood, as in the early Visitation we find that Jane, daughter and heiress of John Brothers of Pertwood, married William Fletcher, and their daughter Margaret brought that property to the Marvyn family by her marriage with William Marvyn, TOOPE FAMILY. I can find but little of this family, who were people of importance in the parish about 1640, as one of them was a major in the Royalist army. The Marriage Registers show : Nov. 9th, 1539. Robert Toope to Joan Meshel. Feb. 26th, 1616. George Monpesson to Elinor Toope. June 5th, 1625. Francis Toope to Dorothy Marvin. Nov. 4th, 1682. Anthony Wareham and Elizabeth Toope. June 18th, 1656. John Bushel and Frances Toope. I find in the list of prisoners in the Penruddocke Rising in the West, Exeter, 1655, among many names of South Wiltshire gentlemen and their servants, that of Francis Toope of East Knoyle in Wilts, gent. An entry in the Falstone Day-Book records that ‘“‘ Francis Toope of Combe, gent., gives £5 upon the propositions, presently paid. He hath lent Captain D’Oyley £5, which the Captain is to account for. May 16th, 1645’’. And under date Ist of December, 1646, the following : “Major Francis Toope, who was in arms against the Parliament, had two livings in the parish of East Knoyle, being a Royalist. The Com- mittee had let them to Nicholas Rowe of Sarum for £15, reserving the fifth for the Major’s wife and children ”’. The Day-Book also contains : ‘‘ February 16th, 1645. Richard Toope of Knoyle, gent., a Captain in the King’s Army, brought in here and committed to the Marshal, but by reason that his estate lies in Dorset- shire he pays £5 for his present enlargement, and Henry Randol of Broadchalk gives bond for his appearance within a month before Col. J. Bingham at Poole, there to make further satisfaction. 20th August, 1645. John Troope of Coombe, gent., being brought before us, pays for his present enlargement £10”’. Dr. CHRISTOPHER WREN. In the Bodleian Library there is a note by old Christopher Wren, Dean of Windsor, as follows :—‘‘ Under the South Wall of the Rectory House at Knoyle I planted among otheres a Muskel Plum and a Primordian which for many years had ripe fruit and blossoms ‘all at once to the wonder of all men ”’. The father of the first English architect of his day was rector of Knoyle Episcopi as well as Dean of Windsor. He married Mary, Bnet Col: MOF. Benett-Stanford. 401 daughter and heiress of Robert Cox of Fonthill. So on both sides the future Sir Christopher Wren was well born. He was an only son with seven sisters. We know nothing of his mother except her name, but his father cut some figure in Charles I’s reign. A loyalist of loyalists, he succeeded his more distinguished brother, Bishop Matthew Wren, in 1635, as Dean of Windsor and Registrar of the Order of the Garter. When St. George’s Chapel was plundered by the Cromwellian troops, the spoils included the three Registers of the Garter Knights, but by making a heavy payment the Dean got them back again and cherished them until his death in 1658. They then passed into the safe keeping of his son, who soon after the Restoration handed them over to Dr. Bruno Ryves (of the Dorset family), then the Registrar of the Garter. As the following incidents, occurring during the childhood of Sir Christopher, will not be found in the Paventalia published by his grand- son, Dr. Stephen Wren, 1750, it is hoped that they may prove of interest in 1946. When the Civil Wars broke out between Charles I and his Parliament, Knoyle was the centre of a group of Royalists such as the Stourtons of Stourton, Benetts of Pythouse, Cottingtons of Fonthill, Digbys of Sherborne, Greens of Mere, Willoughbys of West Knoyle, Hydes of Hatch and Groves of Fern. Dr. Wren’s advanced age made him adverse to any movement of a revolutionary kind. His adherence to the King’s party was therefore from the first pronounced in a decided manner. This in fact was all that could be alleged against him to prove what was called ‘‘ delinquency ’’, for he had served his King with credit for nearly thirty years. Still delinquency, though only in the form of adherence to the King, was a crime to be punished in Crom- wellian days. Yet even on this point the evidence given was’ very contradictory. There was also another charge relating to ‘‘ pictures ”’ which he had placed in the chancel of Knoyle Church ; but it was not shown that they were ‘‘ superstitious’’. Without further comment we proceed to the facts alleged. Soon after the commencement of hostilities Dr. Wren retired to Windsor. Sir Edward Hungerford, the Parliamentary general, sweep- ing through the south of Wilts compelled two parishioners, Christopher Williams and Henry Marsham, to surrender £25 due to the Doctor as rent of part of the Parsonage of East Knoyle. A few months after, Ludlow the Cromwellian was shut up in Wardour Castle, and the Royalist Colonel Barnes, who lay before it, had the command of the country adjacent. Down comes the Dean of Windsor armed with a warrant from Sir Ralph Hopton empowering Colonel Barnes to send a troop Of horses to his aid, by which means he speedily collects all rents due to him and compels Williams and Marsham to pay their £25 over again. This was in the autumn of 1644, and from this time he seems to have considered Knoyle a safer place than Windsor. Thespring of the next year, 1645, was signalised by Cromwell’s capture of Sir James Long’s 402 Families of East Knoyle. troops near Devizes, and about Lady-Day Cromwell and Waller were lying near Shaftesbury laying their plans for the relief of Taunton. Keeping these two facts in mind, we seem to trace in the following fragment of evidence in Dr. Wren’s case the movements of the scattered remnants of Long’s troops, who, being chased (as is known) through Steeple Ashton and seeking safety by flying southward and distributing themselves among their associates in South Wilts, must have heard with great consternation that the enemy was so close upon their traces. ‘‘On the morrow after Lady-Day, last two years ’’, deposed George Still of Knoyle, in 1647, ‘‘ at about 10 of the clock at-night there came into the house a great company of the King’s forces and Dr. Wren came in with them and saluted this examinant by the name of | Landlord. This examinant’s wife provided him and one of the King’s commanders a bed, and they lodged together, and in the morning as he lay in bed the Doctor spoke these words to the commander that lay with him: Sir, all is well, there is no danger, for I left word with my wife if any were, she should send word over the grounds ’’—that is, . ‘across the fields ”’. 5 The next thing we hear of Dr. Wren is his advocacy of the ‘ Club- rising ’’ in the autumn of the year 1645. There was a union of the - gentry and agriculturists of South Wilts and North Dorset to protect their property from both conflicting parties. - These ‘‘clubmen’s”’ motto ran: ‘‘ If you come to steal our cattle, we will surely give you battle ’’. Andrew Marsham swore that Dr. Wren not only encouraged his parishioners to assist, but when Mr. Thomas Benett of Pythouse came to Knoyle to invite their co-operation, Dr. Wren seconded Mr. Benett’s remarks and even went forth himself with Mr. Benett carrying a caliver upon his shoulder. Against this and other testimony to the same import Randall Dominick (there are still fields in Knoyle and Chicklade called Dominick’s) declared that Dr. Wren had expressed so decided an opposition to the “‘club-business’’ that the parish of Knoyle did not list themselves. c We next come to the story of the pictures in the church. These were loosely reported at first as ‘“‘superstitious’’, but the only evidence worth reciting in this place will be that of the workman who executed them under the Doctor’s supervision, and the whole affair shows that the love of pictorial embellishment as an accessory to architecture which his distinguished son afterwards gratified in the dome of St. Paul’s was a taste derived from the father. Little Christopher was perhaps too young to have watched the progress of the frescoes at Knoyle, being then eight years of age, but he was fifteen or sixteen before he left Wiltshire. ‘Robert Brockway of Frome St. Quintin in Dorset, plasterer, being sworn (in 1647) saith that about July last eight years, or thereabouts Dr. Wren of Knoyle sent for this examinant and agreed with him to make and set up at the chauncell at Knoylein fret-work (pargeting) the By Lt.-Col. J. M. F. Benett-Stanford. 403 picture of the four Evangelists and such other things as afterwards the said Doctor should invent. And accordingly he did invent and make a model or draught thereof on paper, namely the picture of the Ascension, which was done in this manner: the picture of the twelve apostles and Christ ascending in the clouds and nothing seen but his feet and the lower part of his garment below the Clouds ; which stood at the Lower part of the Chauncell next towards the Church, and gave the examinant also a draught of the Trinity as the said Doctor called it which was set upon the Communion Table in three rounds linked in each other and God in the midst with the glory about it, and without that the Clouds on the Roofs, and further on each side of the East window there was set up the picture of Jacob’s Dreamand his sacrifice, the one of one side and the other of the other side, with the Clouds breaking above Jacob being asleep and a ladder let down to_the earth and Angels ascending of the one side of the window and descending of the other side with Crownes of Laurell in their hands and underneath written ‘J.et prayers ascend that grace may descend’. And further sayeth that the said Doctor Wren himself made the bargain with him for the work and gave him IIs. 6d. in earnest and payed the remainder according to his agreement and that the said Doctor came every day himself to view the work and to give his direction in it’’. Testified before the Committee sitting at Longford Castle 8th May, 1647. That Dr. Wren had not designed to raise any scandal by his fret- work is proved by the fact that, while resident at Windsor, he wrote to Randall Dominick (probably his churchwarden) giving him full authority to remove the whole series of paintings, if any offence seemed -to have been taken. Buta view of his case creditable to him in every respect is shown in the following letter without date, but apparently _ written about February, 1647 (and therefore presumably some months before the implacable recipients turned their attention to the evidence, _ part of which has been reproduced above.) Letter from the Committee of Lords and Commons for Sequestrations to the Wilts Committee touching Dr. Wren. ! “ Gentlemen, _ There are come to our sight several orders of Parliament and other public certificates, some of them attested by our Committee, whereby it appears that Dr. Christopher Wren had been much employed by the Parliament and had suffered many violences and plunderings in the performance of those employments : and likewise that he had contributed very large sums to the Service of the State and been a painful labourer in the work of the Ministry almost these thirty years : —all which fully induces us to believe that he is a parson far from meriting the doom of sequestration. Wherefore we desire you to take his cause into your serious consideration and narrowly weigh the number and quality of the witnesses and informers, looking upon him | with such favourable inclination as the due consideration of these 404 Families of East Knovyle. premises do warrant. What tenderness you please to afford him shall be esteemed as an obligation upon Your very assured friends, John Danvers!, James Herbert?, William Stephens, John Evelyn? William Lister. i Even this strongly worded letter from the Cromwellian Committee didn’t save Dr. Wren from sequestration, and the Falstone Day-Book has the following entry under 29th August, 1647 :— “Christopher Wren of Knoyle, D.D., being brought before us, additions to his present enlargement subscription £40”’. Such are the main facts connected with Dr. Wren’s share in the Civil War. The account might have been extended by reciting in full all evidence tendered, which is to be found in the British Museum Additional MSS., No. 22084. It was produced betore the Wiltshire Committee sitting at Falstone Manor House near Broadchalk. This Committee had to find money for Cromwell, so they fined anybody with Royalist feelings, including my ancestor, Thomas Benett of Pythouse, who was heavily mulcted. Meanwhile the Doctor’s son, the future Sir Christopher, was engaged upon his Treatise of Spherical Trigonometry, having left Wiltshire for Wadham College, Oxford, in the year 1646. 1 The regicide. *6thson of Philip, Earl of Pembroke. 3 The diarist. ' 405 EABULAK SARSEN AND MUD CRACKS. By Lt.-Cor. R. H. CUNNINGTON (late R.E.). Sarsen is a tertiary rock formed by the particles of a sandy silt cemented together. A very.full account of the rocks and their distribution has been given by Mr. Brentnall.t As the title indicates, the present paper is concerned with a quite different point of view. Like other concretionary rock, sarsen is found in two forms, a nodular one, like the Friar’s Heel at Stonehenge, which is much the commoner; and a tabular, having flat surfaces. It is only the latter which has any definite shape, and with which this paper deals. It is the kind that has been so often selected for megalithic monuments, such as Stonehenge and Avebury, and in the “ wild’’ state is now very scarce. This must be partly because it is so much the more easily broken up for building and paving stones. - The characteristic shape of tabular sarsen is polygonal, having _ generally five or six sides, and bearing a certain resemblance to the polygons made by cracks in drying mud. The object of this paper is to show why this is not likely to be a mere coincidence, and why the sarsen polygons can be so much larger than those in mud. The conditions under which sarsen was made are not exactly known ; but mud cracks can be observed in the making. They result of course mromm the loss of water causing it to contract. The contraction is resisted by the cohesion of the mud below, which has only partly dried, and by the cohesion laterally. Obviously the total amount of contraction increases with the size of the area, so that a small area can shrink without breaking, whereas a large one divides into a number of pieces separated by cracks. Sir D’Arcy Thompson (‘On Growth and Form’”’ pp. 515, 516 of the 1943 edition) gives a geometrical explanation for the characteristic _ Shape of these pieces. ‘‘ The conjugation three by three of almost any assembly of partitions, of cracks in drying mud, of varnish in an old Meie,-. . isageneraltendency . . .. It would beacomplex pattern indeed and highly improbable were all the cracks (for instance) . to meet One another six by six; and three by three is nature’s way, simply because it is the simplest and least. When the partitions meet three by three, the angles by which they do so may vary indefinitely ; but their average will be 120 degrees, and if all be on the average angles 1 See next article. VOL. LI.—No. CLXxXxv. 2E Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Figure l. Scale Inches 6 3 0 6 ee eet = ioe \ ee ee a: | Figure 2. Summer cracks after one week’s exposure, Autumn cracks after the same, 406 = Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. 407 of 120, the polygonal areas must on the average be hexagonal.! This then is the simple geometrical explanation apart from any physical one, of the widespread appearance of the pattern of hexagons ”’’. Elsewhere in the same book he puts it in another way which may be paraphrased as follows :—Supposing that an area is to be divided by contraction into a definite number of smaller areas (as on a contracting mud surface) the contraction, by the Principle of Least Action, takes place with the least cracking needed to give relief. Consequently the boundary forming the cracks tends to be a minimum; and for a minimum boundary, the division must be into regular hexagons. Neither of these explanations seems to be entirely satisfactory, and in order. to see exactly what happens when mud contracts, an experiment was made with a sheet of mud about two feet by three, (See figures opposite and Appendix I). It was noticed that the cracks started (presumably where cohesion was least or the drying fastest) quite independently of each other and apparently at random. Once started, a crack would extend in both directions. This must be partly because the opening exposes more mud to the air and helps it to dry, and partly perhaps for the same reason that any tear, once started,is apt torunon. It was eventually stopped by meeting another crack, where the continuity is broken. The reasons given for extending at all account also for the tendency to run straight, but any lack of uniformity would divert it and give more or less sharp bends to its course. As a crack widens it gives relief in its neighbourhood to the strains at right angles, but not to those parallel to its course. The mud however contracts in all directions, so a fresh crack will be needed at an angle to give complete relief. If it originates at some point on the “original crack (by the crack branching), this point is most likely to be at asharp bend, on the outside of which the movement of the mud away from each arm of the bend tends to tear the surface apart. On the inside the tendency would be to draw the mud together, and no crack is likely to originate there. The new crack and the two parts of the old make three cracks radiating from a point. By the Principle of the Resolution of Forces, they give complete relief to strains in every direction, so no more cracking will take place there. : With three lines meeting at a point, the average angle between them | is 120 degrees ; and if the corners of the polygons were all made in this way, by cracks branching, the average number of sides would be six. But with drying mud the corners of the polygons are not all made in this way. Most of them come where one straight crack has run into 1 This is true only if three angles or corners are made. In the special case where one line runs into another and stops, there are still three lines meeting, but one of the three angles is 180 degrees, and only two corners are made. Their average angle is 90, not 120 degrees. : e £2 408 | Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. another. This makes two corners, and the sum of their angles being 180 degrees, their average is 90 instead of 120 degrees. If all the corners were made by cracks meeting, the average number of sides would be four instead of six. But there is yet a third way in which corners can be made in the drying mud, and that is by the cracks bending without branching. The tendency to bead is a consequence. of the strains being in every direction, so that a single straight crack is unable to give relief. A bend serves the same purpose as a branch by providing two cracks at an angle. The exterior and interior angles together make 360 degrees, so the average for the two corners made by a bend is 180. This type of corner therefore greatly increases the average angle, and so also the number of sides. To sum up:—there are three types of corner: that made by a branching crack, which tends to make polygons with an average of six sides ; that made by a meeting crack, tending to make quadrilaterals ; and that made by a bend, which would give polygons averaging more than six sides. The combination of these three gives the characteristic shape of mud cracks; but they may not all be operative. When the shrinkage takes place very rapidly there -is probably no time for corners to be made by cracks bending or chance cracks meeting. This is perhaps why basalt, as in the Giant’s Causeway, makes much more perfect hexagons than mud. The basalt sheet has shrunk when cooling under conditions which allowed for free continuous contraction in a vertical direction, but shrinkage horizontally could take place only after the mass had been strained to breaking point. Once started it must have proceeded explosively, shattering the basalt into fragments. The suddenness, under pressure, of the breaking up is not the only reason for greater regularity; another is doubtless the greater uniformity of the substance. Mud made from a heterogeneous material such as loam breaks into more irregular as well as smaller pieces than pure clay. The pelygons illustrated in Fig. 3 were made in the uniform mud-residue from screened and washed gravel. - They are not only very much larger than those in Figs. 1 and 2, but the cracks outlining them ~ run almost straight or regularly curved over several feet, instead of zig-zagging about as in ordinary mud. A point of some importance, irrespective of the number of sides or regularity of outline, is the permanency or otherwise of the cracks. é Ss Ste hy, j : | / All the cracks shown in Pig. 2 closed up during the winter, leaving a smooth surface, but reappeared next spring. The pattern was) identicaliy the same, except that some of the abortive cracks which had never linked up failed to re-open. Their absence was presumably because they were not needed after other cracks had formed, and ecause shrinking from the perimeter of the surrounding polygons would tend to seal them. There will therefore be a tendency, if the surface is undisturbed, for “the wide cracks to grow wider, year after year, and for the minor, or ‘‘secondary”’ cracks to disappear; and by this means the polygons will grow larger. Ta. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington. 409 Analogous to mud cracks, but of a much greater size, are the ‘soil polygons” of the arctic regions. Describing those in the soil of Northern Alaska, Mr. Leffingwell writes in the Journal of Geology, XXIII, for 1915, under the title “‘Ground-ice Wedges”’,:p. 639: ‘When Figure 3. Scale 2 r 0 2 4 6 Feel Mud cracks near Wallingford. 410 Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. the snow melts in summer fresh open cracks can be seen cutting across all the tundra formations, even mud and growing. moss beds, and dividing the surface into polygonal blocks; these cracks resemble mud cracks but are of a large size. The blocks have an estimated average diameter of about 15 metres and have a- tendency towards the hexagonal form although rectangles and pentagons are often developed”’ (See Fig. 4, p. 411). The cracks that delimit these polygons have been proved to be the upper part of large cracks or veins, which the writer calls ‘‘ ice wedges ”’, permanently filled with ice, and going down 30 feet or more into the ““muck beds ’”’ below the tundra. A further and more complete account of them is given by Mr. Taber in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America for October, 1943; and the rather startling conclusion is reached that the cracks were made, like those in mud, by contraction through loss of water. He explains that water in a wet soil will freeze by segregation into horizontal layers of ice, and while it does so more water is drawn up by capillary attraction’ from the as yet unfrozen soil below. (This is possible through that property of water, so necessary to plants, that keeps it liquid in very small pore spaces at temperatures well below freezing point.) Asa consequence the subsoil below the frozen layer becomes abnormally dry and cracks by contraction. The polygonal structure therefore is due to the same cause as the similar shape in drying mud. The polygons are much larger than those in mud for several reasons. One may be that the weight of the soil above assists cohesion in resisting fracture, so that fewer cracks are formed. It was also found by experiment that a low colloidal content in the soil and a slow rate of cooling both increase the size of the polygons. The Alaskan silts are almost free of colloidal matter and the freezing of the soil dates from the Ice Age. The segregation of water, on which the process depends, can take place only in sufficiently fine-grained soils. Sand is too coarse, and it was noticed that the ice veins stopped abruptly in Alaska, and in the laboratory experiments, on reaching a layer of pure sand. Sand of course does not crack when drying, The Alaskan silt averages about .03 mm. in diameter, but segregation is possible in a soil three times as coarse. Presumably such a soil would also crack on drying; the two phenomena seem related, ahd the layer of segregated water might be equivalent to a horizontal crack. Cracks due to freezing have, it is true, been observed in coarse sand — or even gravel in Baffin’s Land (Paterson in Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, vol. XCVI, Part I, for 1940); and dirt-filled cracks in a Cambridgeshire gravel pit, described in the same paper, are attributed to similar cracks made in the Ice Age. The polygonal pattern however is absent. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington. 41] Figure 4. Mefres Broken edge of Tundva Seafe ro) 10 Feel ae a ee oe Figure 5. 4. Soil polygons in Alaska. 5. Stones of Avebury Circles showing secondary cracks. 412 Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. Soil polygons, resembling mud cracks in their shape, may also be made by expansion instead of contraction. Elton in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, vol. LXX XIII for-1927, describes those in Spitsbergen as follows :—The boulder clay ‘‘ presents in many places the appearance of having been thrown up into hummocks, which occur at regular intervals of two or three yards. Lhe channels which delimit the hummocks are polygonal in plan, sometimes showing a clear hexagonal arrangement, and form a continuous network between ~ them’’. The cause suggested is the expansion of the soil on freezing :— “If the soil is wet a tremendous pressure is exerted when freezing takes place, and the only direction in which the pressure can be relieved is upwards. Just as a general contraction of soil due to drying gives rise to a network of polygonal cracks, with the centres of the. polygons at certain regular distances apart (depending on the nature of the soil, etc.) so in the same way with expansion we should expect the soil to form hummocks at regular intervals ’’. Another example, in three dimensions, is the hexagonal shape of a bee’s cell, where the pressure is exerted by the bees themselves. It is important to notice that all these polygonal forms are made in a material under a simultaneous radial stress. It is true that the cracks appear successively in drying mud, but the strains they relieve were present everywhere throughout the mass, though not quite uniformly, as some parts will be wetter than others. The more uniform the material, the more regular will be the pattern, and the more nearly will it be that of equal hexagons. The cooling of basalt is a good instance of how perfect they may be. The experiments with drying mud showed a definite tendency in this direction. The material was alike in the several experiments at different times, but the contractive force, due to the power of the sun, varied. In hot weather the lack of complete uniformity in the material mattered least: the cracks were formed quickly, and there were far more that branched, tending to form hexagons, than later in the year when the mud took longer to dry. (See Figs. | and 2, p. 406, and Appendix I). Before considering what bearing all this may have on the formation of tabular sarsen, it would be as well to see what happens in a material subject to successive transverse strains instead of a simultaneous radial Strain. A sheet of rock, for instance, under unequal settlement would break up by cracks running all across and more or less straight, first in one direction, and then perhaps in another. If there was much disturbance the pieces might get broken again and again until they resembled in ~ size the polygons formed by shrinking; but the shape would be radically | different. 3 It is easy to prove that the average would be four, instead of six= sided. A break is not likely to pass through an angle, and such rare instances can be ignored. Assuming then that a crack always cuts two By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington. . 413 sides of the slab to be broken, and that it runs straight, it is obvious that for every break a total of twice 180 degrees, or four right angles (where the crack cuts the sides) has been added to all the angles of the slab before it broke four new sides have also been added (the line of fracture in both portions and the division into two of each of the sides it cuts). Therefore one right angle has been added for each new side. If therefore the slab, before breaking in two, had either more or less than an average of One right angle per side, the average for the two new slabs made by the break will be nearer one right angle per side than before ; and the more often the slab breaks, the nearer will the average number of right angles per side approximate to one. But this is the number for a quadrilateral, so the average number of sides will approach nearer and nearer to four as breaking proceeds. One or two examples may make this clearer. Excluding the im- probable case of a crack meeting an existing angle, a five-sided slab must break into o ne of three and one of six, orinto one of five and one of four. A four-sided slab breaks into two of four, or one of three and one of five. A triangle breaksinto another triangle and a quadrilateral. In every instance the average number of sides after the break is either four (if it was four before), or is nearer four than it was. Paper torn up for a paper-chase illustrates this, and if only rectangular sheets, like whole newspapers are used, the average number of sides remains exactly four however much it is torn. The ‘ joints” of stratified rock are produced in the same way, by earth movements. Turning now to the tabular sarsens. Wemay say with confidence that if there had ever been a solid sheet of rock, broken up by unequal settlement, or any other gvadual process, the slabs of sarsen now found would have nearly an average of four sides. A very cursory examination shows that this is not the case. A. detailed summary of my observations is given in Appendix II. They make no pretence to be complete, but are sufficient to show that simultaneous and not successive strains have been responsible. ‘The average number of sides is well under six (5.2 for the ‘‘ wild’’ ones and perhaps a little under 5 for Avebury) ; but, judging from the way in which cracks form in mud, this is not unexpected. An average of six would mean that the whole mass when drying shrank equally and simultaneously. Actually some cracks are bound to start before others, sO some corners would be made by cracks meeting. There are likely to be more of these than of cracks bending to form a re-entrant angle (instances of this are rare among tabular sarsens), so there will have been a greater tendency towards less than towards more than six sides, and the average will be less than six. Eelit also seemed, as far as I could tell, that the tabular variety is’ always at the bottom of valleys and more or less collected together. One would expect this if the tabular variety was formed from the silt of drying ponds or lakes, because these would be likely, as drainage developed, to become the bottom of valleys. But of course the 414 Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. common nodular variety is also usually, though not always, in the valley bottom. The chief difficulty in supposing that the slabs were formed, like those in mud, by drying, is the much greater size Usually mud forms very small polygons, like those in my garden; but they have been observed up to 5 or 10 feet across in Mesopotamia (Huxley and Odell in the Geographical Journal, vol. LXIII, p. 215), and some of those illustrated in Fig. 3 were not much smaller. The mud from which these last were made came from gravel in a pit on the slopes of the Chilterns above Wallingford ; and the gravel (as were the sarsens them- selves) derives from the Reading Beds (Dr. Arkell in Ovoniensia, VIII, p. 2). This mud is a waste product carried by water into ponds several feet deep, and when dry sets so hard that the surface can be polished. As the figure shows, the cracks run straight or in long sweeping curves, breaking the surface into polygons with an average of just over 5 sides. When I frst saw them and made the sketch, the cracks were about an inch wide and three inches deep, but after a month of further drying the principal ones had widened to two or three inches and were at least nine inches deep. By that time some of the largest polygons had been broken by fresh cracks, and the average size was about two feet across. They did not break further, but at the edge of the pond, where the mud had dried most, the surface had cracked into very small pieces, which could be brushed off leaving the principal cracks exposed beneath. Ata still later stage (on other ponds apparently now quite dry) this fine surface material gets blown or washed into the cracks, and the cracks themselves develop into shallow watercourses. Prodding with a stick however showed that they were still open or very soft mud for several feet in depth. Between them the top few inches had dried into something like ordinary soil on which vegetation was growing ; but below that the subsoil was still wet. One can imagine something like this took place when the sarsen was formed. The water in which the silt was deposited must have con- tained silica, presumably in a very weak solution. On evaporation, the exposed surface would crack, and the principal cracks, outlining large polygons, would penetrate to a considerable depth, while the sur- face between them would form a loose dry cover to the still damp sub- soil. This dried material would never harden into rock, just as the surface of newly made concrete, if allowed to dry in the sun, will not set. It would serve however to protect the silt underneath and give time for the dissolved silica to harden it. Eventually the loose top would get washed away, leaving the sarsen with a nearly flat surface, just at the depth where it had remained moist long enough to set. This would explain how it is that the roots of terrestrial trees (not seaweed, as was once thought) have left traces in the sarsen, but never the tree trunks. It would explain also the absence of small secondary cracks, such as one finds on drying mud. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington. . A15 Tabular sarsen usually has one face fairly flat and the other much more lumpy. It seems reasonable to suppose that the flat face was the upper; and on this face, much more often than on the other, fissures may be found, that look like mud cracks, but without forming any polygonal pattern. Fig. 5 (p. 411) is a sketch of the flat side of two of the Avebury stones.. A is that north of the cove in the northern circle, and B is the second to the west from the Swindon road entrance in the outer circle. It is suggested that these fissures, or some of them, may be the lower part of secondary cracks that have penetrated only a short distance into the hardening silt. Root-holes, or what appear to be root-holes. may however be found with equal frequency on either face. As regards the size of the polygons, Mr. Taber found that slow cool- ing and the absence of colloidal matter both tend to make large poly- gons. With drying mud, the size seems to depend on the material being deep, fine, and uniform. Dr. Schofield of the Rothamsted Experimental Station has kindly analysed a specimen of the mud from the Wallingford gravel pit. He describes it as highly colloidal, with the following approximate percentages :—-Coarse sand and fine sand, each about 34, Silt! 21, Clay 66, Air dry moisture 6. Sarsen has been described as follows by Professor Judd (Geological Magazine for 1901) :—‘ Microscopically the sarsens are seen to be made up of two kinds of materials, clastic fragments of crystalline minerals and a cement ’’.- The relative proportions of the two vary very widely. At one extreme are sarsens almost wholly made up of sand grains. Atthe other are those ‘‘ exhibitinga fracture like those of some cherts. Under the microscope the greater part of their mass is seen to be made up of excessively minute and imperfectly developed quartz microlites ”’. As far as I am aware, it is only the fine grained variety that makes tabular sarsen. A deposit of ordinary sand would of course have dried without cracks. Large though the Wallingford polygons may be compared with those in ordinary mud, there are perhaps traces of still larger ones in tidal estuaries or salt marshes. The channels intersecting these look like mud cracks ona very large scale, but are wider in proportion. They are also less angular; but this would result from the scour of running water. The surface probably began to crack when above the level of ordinary tides, and the largest cracks developed into channels while the minor cracks closed up or were otherwise obliterated. The disappearance of the minor cracks would be helped by the growth of vegetation ; and the development of the larger ones is possibly because, after flooding in the wet season, they would tend to re-open on the same lines, and, growing wider and deeper, would eventually become permanent water courses. To return to the tabular sarsen. It would seem from the above 1 The diameter of ‘‘ silt’ grain varies from‘0lto.lmm. “ Sand”’ of course is larger and ‘“‘ clay ’’ smaller. 416 Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. examples that the size is no real objection to supposing that the slabs were made by cracks in a drying silt; and no other process seems adequate to give them the characteristic shape. Expansion, as in the Spitsbergen soil polygons, is ruled out, were it only because they are not humped up. There have of course been many changes since the rock was first made. The underlying chalk has been partly dissolved and the sarsen has sunk, and has also travelled laterally down the slopes of deepening valleys. One might suppose that it would get broken in the process, and a solid sheet of rock certainly would ; but the rarity of four-sided and virtual absence of three-sided slabs snow that there cannot have been many broken. We may conclude therefore, first that the slabs of tabular sarsen were dried and not broken into shape, and have always been of about the same size as now; and secondly that where hexagonal and pentagonal slabs are found in ancient monuments, they may have been selected, but their shape is evidence that nature, and not man, has designed them. APPENDIX |. Although perhaps not strictly relevant, a few further remarks on the cracking of mud may be of interest. A mud bath (see Fig.-1) was made on a water-proof sheet, 24 ft. by 2 ft. with one end (the upper margin of the figure) 25 inches, and the other 44 inches deep. The local subsoil, Oxford Clay, was used, and as it came from a dry tip some two or three gallons of water were needed to moisten it and bring it to a level surface. A grid of cotton for measurements was stretched over it, and the mud was left to dry. The next week was fine with a drying wind, although the sun did not appear until the afternoons, and the shade temperature was seldom over 70 F. After the first day the mud was well cracked, but generally in short lengths running in any direction, and fairly evenly distributed ; three or four of the cracks had started branching. After the second day, most, but not all, of the first day’s cracks had lengthened in both directions, and many entirely new cracks had formed. On the third day few new cracks originated, and the day’s work was little more than to continue or widen those already started. The fourth day (although the mud was still damp below and continued so for more than a week) showed practically no change, except that some of the cracks continued to widen. Some of the cracks went on getting wider for several days, and those that did so established the pattern and gave the appearance of primary cracking, although they had not all formed even on the second day. The early cracks which had not broadened would then be indistinguish- By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington, 417 able from later undeveloped cracks, and with these would constitute the ’ “secondary cracking ”’ After a day or two it became difficult to asian euisk between a crack that had branched from another and one that had run into it; but when. freshly made, the branching crack was noticeably wider at the junction. Fig. l1_represents the appearance of the cracks before most of this difference had become obliterated by the cracks widening after meeting. Besides attaining an almost uniform width, the cracks also lose some of their irregularities and so appear straighter than they were. The figure shows how often cracks have originated on the outside of bends, while none have formed on the inside or re-entrant angle. Two further mud baths were made that year, with the weather getting progressively cooler. The chief differences between these and the previous one are that the lines were straighter and the polygons fance~ (See. hig. 2, showing: that-made at the ‘end of September). ‘There were very few instances of branching, and almost all the cracks started independently. As a consequence there were more four sided figures. The slower drying also seems to have given time for the principal cracks to have relieved the strains with fewer secondary ones. The cracks shown in Fig. 2 took a week in the making and remained unaltered for the next fortnight, when rain came to obliterate them. They seemed to be quite lost during the winter, but reappeared on March Ist next year, practically unaltered. After a week without rain fresh cracks or extensions of the old ones completed and closed most of the open polygons. Two characteristics of mud cracks, noticeable in all the experiments are likely to be overlooked :—the absence of very acute angles, and the presence of abortive cracks which come to nothing. As regards the angles, it will be evident that none of the three types of corner discussed in the text is likely to be very sharp. A crack which branches would do little to relieve the strains parallel with its course unless {he arms of the branch deviate at a considerable angle. A bend would have to double right back on itself to make an acute angle. A ‘‘ meeting crack’’, if it approached an existing crack at a sharp angle, would tend to turn more directly towards_it as it gets close ; for, by doing so, it can quickest relieve strains parallel to the existing crack, hitherto neglected. The absence of very acute angles is also a noticeable characteristic of tabular sarsen. As regards the abortive cracks, their presence suggests that the mud pattern is developed, rather than predetermined. This is probably because there are sure to be some parts dryer than others, which will crack first, and because the material is not completely uniform. An abortive crack comes to nothing either because it is too nearly parallel to an existing crack to be needed, or because a closed polygon forms round it, and the mud, shrinking away from its boundary, stops and tends to seal up any crack within. None of these abortive cracks is 418 Tabular Sarsen and Mud Cracks. likely to go deep, and some were quickly closed up permanently after a very little rain. A still more transient peculiarity may be also worth noting. A crack, when it begins to open, may be discontinuous in a manner reminiscent, though on a tiny scale, of a geological syncline or anticline. It will run straight for two or three inches, fade away, and start again in the same direction, but removed half an inch or so to the left or right ; and these two parts slightly overlap. I was not able to catch them at it; but probably these interrupted cracks started at the same time. Each would stop as it began to overlap its neighbour because it would be no longer needed. Usually, as the cracks widen and deepen these separated sections merge together into one continuous crack resembling any other. APPENDIX II. ; I visited four of the chief sites for sarsen in Wilts and Berks, and counted the number of sides in each specimen of tabular sarsen I was able to find. It was not always easy to decide whether a slight change of direction or a blunt point should or should not be considered a side, and observers may not all agree. My estimate was as follows :— Lockeridge. The tabular sarsens are about half way up the sarsen stream, and are the best for size and flatness I have seen. Some are 10 ft. long, and one measured 9 by 9. My reckoning for the number of sides is :— 6, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 5, 6 and 5, giving for ten an average of 5.4. Piggledean. I-found only two, each with 5 sides. Clatford. I found seven, but there may be more. I reckoned 4, 5, 6, 5, 6, 5 and 5 sides, giving an average of 5.1. Ashdown Park. The tabular sarsens are more numerous tha else- where, but smaller. The longest was 8 ft., and they were all within a few hundred yards of each other, opposite the house. The difficulty of estimating the number of sides was increased by so many being partly buried and others artificially broken. I reckon 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 7, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7, 5, 4, 4, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4 and 7, giving for 24 an average of 5.3. Summarising for all the ‘“‘ wild”’ sarsens, the 48 examined averaged 5,2 sides, and there were no triangles. I tried to estimate for those at Avebury, but could only guess at what lay hidden underground. For 41 stones in the circles and avenue. the average was 4.9. 419 SARSENS! By ° H.C. BRENENALL, F-S.A. So faras the general public is concerned, the Marlborough Downs are little known: a fact which we shall only begin to deplore when we have to appeal to the general public to preserve them. The thoughts of English- men turn naturally to Sussex when Down-country is in question—to Ditchling and Chanctonbury, not Tan Hiil and Barbury, of which few Englishmen have ever heard. It is not merely that the Sussex Downs lie nearer London; literary influences have been at work. Poets have trumpeted each several Sussex height, but our downs have had few skalds, and even Jefferies, when he wrote of his beloved Liddington, could never bring himself to write its name. The South Downs, regarded first as a protection from the sea breezes and then as a mere obstruction on the road to them, have come into their own. It needed the motorcar to reveal them to the Londoner as some- thing more than the reputed source of a succulent variety of mutton, though, here and there, a pedestrian was aware of them before and sometimes sang them. Mr. Belloc, for instance, whose Muse owes noth- ing to petrol, has asserted that ~The great hills of the South Country They stand along the sea, and we would not, even with the spot levels of our own South Country hills to help us, dispute the assertion ; nor ask the National Farmers’ Union to decide whether the ‘‘dim blue goodness ’”’ of Kipling’s Weald exceeds the goodness of our Wiltshire Vales. Statistics are no answer to predilections; so when another poet asks Where do the larks sing As on the Sussex downs? we in this county have two quite adequate answers in Salisbury Plain and the Marlborough Downs, but we hold our peace. It is not the first time that these birds have aroused uncritical enthusiasm. But one feature at least the Marlborough Downs can boast in which neither Sussex nor Salisbury Plain can claim equality—they are still _the docus classicus for sarsen stones. Boast, perhaps, is the wrong word to use of such a wasting pre-eminence, for, though it cannot entirely pass from us—thanks to a purchase for the National Trust in !1908-—-it is steadily diminished by the ravages of the stone-breaker. Our pride 1 Reprinted, with alterations, additions and subtractions, from The Mariborough College N.H.S Report for 1930, by permission of the present Editor. The off-prints from that issue have long been exhausted, but not the demand, which encourages me to offer a revised version to other readers in the shelter of Colonel Cunnington’s article on another aspect of the same subject, 420 Sarsens. in the grey wethers is wistful rather than arrogant, foreboding the day when they will no longer lie scattered over the downs, and the remnants of their ranging flocks must be sought in an occasional bottom, penned behind a notice board of the National Trust. ‘‘Grey wethers’’ was the name favoured by the last generation of geologists, who borrowed it from local usage, and, like most names of a similar origin, it has its peculiar fitness. There are still places here and there where the huddled stones, seen perhaps under a hanging mist, will inevitably suggest a flock of resting sheep. Our earliest evidence for the name is to be found in the Diary of Richard Symonds, who wrote of our Fyfield in 1644 as ‘‘a place so full of grey pibble stone of great bignes as is not usually seene ; they breake them and build their houses of them and walls, laying mosse betweene, the inhabitants calling them Saracens’ stones, and in this parish, a mile and a halfe in length,! they lie so thick as you may go upon them all the way. They call that place the Grey-weathers, because afar off they look like a flock of Sheepe.”’ The spelling ‘‘ grey-weathers’’ seems to have persisted in places where it might be least expected. It occurs in Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, and even the New English Dictionary uses it in the definition of ‘‘ Druid stones’’. It obviously embodies a misconception not wholly unpardon- able in the minds of those who see more dreariness than folded grandeur in the downs, and allow the resulting depression to colour all their associations. ‘‘Grey wether’’, however, is now accepted as the equiv- alent of ‘‘sarsen’’, though on other horizons the term may be applied to other stones of similar appearance. Lovers of Dartmoor will be familiar with the circles under Sittoford Vor called the Grey Wethers, but the stone in this case:is, of course, the local granite. The attitude suggested in the middle of the last paragraph, it must be confessed, is no. uncommon one. As a contrast it is a pleasure to quote a passage from The Geology of the Country round Mariborough, by H. J. Osborne White. We cannot often hear the horns of Elfland blowing however, faintly, through the Memoirs of the Geological Survey, but Mr. Osborne White, whose more strictly professional opinions we may find ourselves invoking hereafter, betrays himself for onceasa Romantic. “Solitary for the most part, [the Sarsens] not infrequently occur in small groups of natural or artificial origin, and in a few restricted areas they are congregated in greater numbers : nowhere, however, are they so plentiful as in the Chalk country near Marlborough. Here,after centuries of exploitation, these stones yet lie thick on some of the downland ridges, and thicker still in the adjacent winding bottoms, where their disposition suggests the idea of rivers of stones. There is something in their grey, recumbent forms, half hidden in long grass and scrub, that awakens a lively interest in the beholder, and even when theirnatureis known they 1 Not the parish, but the deposit, He seems to mean the upper part of Clatford Bottom, which lies in Fy field, and Totterdown, By H.C. Breninall, F.S.A. 421 continue to stir the imagination, their bulk, their legendary associations, ‘and a touch of melancholy in their wild surroundings investing them with a kind of glamour”’. “A kind of glamour’’—all will surely agree whose hearts respond to _ the sight of the grey wethers on an open down. Symonds’ testimony to the profusion of the sarsens in Fyfield will surprise us less than the statement of a much more recent writer, Dr. Joseph Stevens, whose paper on “‘ Sarsen Stones’ was printed in The Marlborough College N.H.S. Report for Christmas, 1873. Referring to this district he says: “So thickly are they spread over miles of country that the traveller might almost leap from stone to stone withour touching the earth”’. It may be doubted whether even seventy years ago that statement was intended to be taken literally, and it is certainly not true of any district to-day. If any one chooses to make the experiment suggested, he may try it in the area which Symonds had in mind. The sarsens lie thicker in the bottom above the Devil’s Den than anywhere else in ‘England now, and if a start be made towards the upper end the ex- periment may begin hopefully, but it will rot prove possible to “go upon ” the stones for many consecutive yards. Probably, if the truth were known, it never was. Nevertheless, making all allowance for possible exaggeration, itis an undoubted fact that the sarsens we see to-day over the downs in general are very much fewer than they were some centuries ago, and a mere fragment of the covering that remained when the forces of nature had disintegrated the original deposit ; for successive generations have found a variety of uses forthem. The builders of the Avebury circles and avenues selected, it has been reckoned, some 650 of the largest. How far afield they had to go for them we cannot say. .Thereisa vast stone in Clatford Bottom, about a mile above the Devil’s Den, lying perched at the mouth of a aside valley on the west and not sunk like the rest for half its bulk in the ground.? Mr. A. D. Passmore is responsible for the ingenious theory that it is a stone for some reason abandoned on the way to Avebury. It is certainly difficult to account for its being lifted (as it must have been) and left on the best gradient for transport over Avebury Vown on any other supposition, for stone- breakers are well content to remove their victims piecemeal from their ‘beds. Many more were used for the smaller local circles and kistvaens, but since none of these early builders either mutilated the stones or Temoved them from their native Jandscape we do not reckon them despoilers. Stonehenge may account for some fourscore, but some of these may have been taken second-hand from Avebury, because of their superior “‘ medicine’, as the “‘ blue stones’’ are believed to have been taken from Pembrokeshire circles. Thereafter we may believe that 1 Tt had a fellow, similarly raised, but that was broken up during the first World War. ; VOL. LI—No. CLXXXV. 2 422 Sarsens. the sarsens had rest for many centuries. Some few sarsens we find appropriated to individual Saxons: such were Ethelferth’s Stone on the bounds of Overton, and that vexed Ecbrihtes Stone of Alfred’s campaign, which now lies, perhaps, next Kingston Deverill Church. Unhewn sarsen blocks may be found in the footings of numerous local churches and small ones in their walls, but the Middle Ages were ended before men began to split the stones and use them as regular building material. There is some small conflict of evidence as to the first breaking of the sarsens. Symonds, as we have seen, refers to the process as already in common use when he wrote in 1644, but Stukeley ascribes the discovery of the method which he calls ‘‘ burning ”’ toa villager of Avebury named Walter Stretch just fifty years later. ‘‘ He exercis’d this at first on one of the stones standing in the street before the inn, belonging to the outer circle of the southern temple. That one stone, containing 20 loads, built the dining-room end of the inn. Since then Tom Robinson, another Herosivatus of the place, made cruel havock among them. He own’d to us, that two of them cost eight pounds in the execution. Farmer Green ruin’d many of the southern temple to build his houses and walls at Bekamton. Since then many others have occasionally practis’d the sacrilegious method, and most of the houses, walls and outhouses in the town are raised from these materials ’’. 7 Aubrey, however, seems to have known of this manner of dealing with the stones before 1671. Not only did it yield valuable building material, but it superseded the earlier one of digging pits and burying them, because it was reckoned that the cost of sinking them below ploughing level was more than 30 years’ purchase of the spot they stood on. Stukeley tells us: ‘‘The method is, to dig a pit by the side of thestone, tillit falls down, then to burn many loads of straw under it. They draw lines of water along it when heated, and then with smart strokes of a great sledge hammer, its prodigious bulk is divided into many lesser parts. But this Atto de fe commonly costs thirty shillings in fire and labour, sometimes twice as much. They own too ’tis excessive hard work ; for these stones are often 18 foot long, 13 broad, and 6 thick; that their weight crushes the stones in pieces, which they lay under them to make them lie hollow for burning ; and for this purpose they raise them with timbers of 20 foot long, and more, by the help of twenty men; but often the timbers were rent in pieces ’’. In their excavation of the ‘‘Sanctuary’’ on Overton Hill Mr. and Mrs. Cunnington first exposed the evidence that this method had been einployed there, doubtless by the afore-mentioned Farmer Green, to whom Stukeley attributes the removal of the majority of the stones from that site two hundred years ago. Evidence of a like nature appeared in the trench dug for the oil-pipe line during the War on the line of the Avenue west of the ‘‘ Sanctuary ’’, and Mr. Keiller has found many other instances at Avebury. By H.C. Brentnall, F.S.A. O43 Anyone who examines not merely Avebury and Beckhampton, but any of the villages between there and Marlborough, may see how popular a material for building sarsen stone has proved. Nevertheless it has come to be looked on with disfavour on the ground that the stone is porous and makes the houses damp. The cause in reality is the very opposite, though the effect may be indistinguishable ; the sarsen is so impervious that, as Stukeley expresses it, it becomes ‘‘moist and dewey in winter, which proves damp and unwholesome, and rots the furniture ”’. Of this defect, Symonds in the preceding century gives no hint. It is possible, of course, that in his rapid passage with the Royalist forces he heard nothing of it, though it existed; but it would be interesting to know whether the custom of ‘ laying mosse betweene ”’ the stones had been abandoned in the interim, for Stukeley does not mention it. For walling, however, and the lower courses of barns and even houses, sarsen remained in common use, and many a cubic foot has gone into gateposts for yards and fields. Marlborough College Chapel is built externally of sarsen, though it is lined with freestone, and some remark- ably fine sarsen walling of the Cyclopean type is to be seen at Fyfield and at other placesup the valley. Some years ago an enquiry from the Clerk of the Works at Windsor revealed the fact that sarsen from Beckhampton had sometimes been used for repairs to walls in the castle though the fact that it is there called Heathstone suggests that the original source of supply was the sarsen of Bagshot Heath. 1 Sarsen building, so long as it is confined to the neighbourhood ‘as, for the most part, it must be, would bea small evilif it had not taken in the past such disastrous toll of our megalithic monuments. The destruc- tion of the sarsens has been a long and steady process. The evidence of Symonds in the seventeenth century and of Stukeley in the early eighteenth is supplemented by that of Sir Joseph Banks, the naturalist and companion of Captain Cook, who recorded in 1767 that the sarsens between Silbury and Marlborough were being largely broken up. John Britton tells us that in his time (meaning probably the early years of the nineteenth century) the burning of the Avebury stones was still going on, and Doctor Stevens wrote in 1873 that most of the stones which not half a century before surrounded many of the Wiltshire barrows had since been used forroad repairing or for building purposes. Many additions to the melancholy calendar of destruction might be quoted, such as the removal of the remains of a circle, perhaps of sarsens, from Tisbury to ornament the grounds of Wardour Castle ‘‘ witha pretty grotto and rockery ’’; but that was overa hundred years ago, and vandal- ism -of this kind has been scotched, if not completely killed by the Ancient Monuments Act. What is left to us of our megaliths may now 1 On that source, or Denver Hillin Bucks, a recent letter from Windsor shows that the Castle still depends, but it also shows that suitable stone is hard to come by. The diggers are said to trace the blocks to the surprising depth of 30 feet, presumably in quarries. 2F 2 424 | Sarsens. be considered reasonably safe : with the sarsens in their natural deposits the case is very different. Those who have watched the district through this century have seen the wolf at work in many a fold of the grey wethers, daily devouring apace, and nothing said. Piggledean, which earlier generations knew as the Valley of Rocks, has scarcely a sarsen left in it above the area secured for the National Trust (a fact which the latest one-inch Ord- nance map, 6th edition, still denies). The long pen of grey wethers south of the East Kennett Long Barrow, almost the last remnant of the great deposit which gave the name of Stonyfield to the bottom in which it lay, was emptied twenty years ago (though again the Ordnance map is un- aware of it) and the same two-handed engine has been gradually clear- ing the south-west slope of Totterdown about Overton Delling. There was a question in 1930 of a purchase of the latter area to preserve its sarsens, and a meeting of our Society was held on the spot with a view to rousing interest in the county. From the crest of Avebury Down we surveyed the scene dotted with the gleaming surfaces of blocks freshly split and incongruous arrays of virgin setts grouped pavement- wise on the turf among the stunted thorns. We had come too late, Though actually the broken stones were still few compared with the numbers that remained, their whiteness caught the eye on every side, entirely dominating the quiet greys of the still undamaged sarcens. We seemed to have invited our visitors to inspect a stoneyard. The preservation scheme, so far at least as concerned .Totterdown, was stillborn. But of all the areas that have been denuded in recent years the de- lapidation of Stony Copse is most to be regretted. It lies in the West ° Woods beside that northern continuation of Hursley which is locally known as Ox-Bottom. Probably this is the area intended by Aubrey when, writing of the grey wethers in his Natural History of Wiltshire, he said: ‘‘ Many of them are mighty great ones, and particularly those in Overton Wood’’. The sarsens there had lighter coloured rinds than we are used to see on the open downs, and formed in spring a perfect background for the bluebells that grow in such vertiginous profusion below the oaks and birches. The stones are gone, for the most part, to make the roads of Swindon. The modern sarsen-cutter does not, of course, employ the arduous and costly method of burning. Armed with tools of the finest temper, he chips sockets for his wedges in the selected stone, and the heavy sledgehammer wielded by his mate at length divides the mass.1! If the stone splits true, the rest is a matter of knack, till at last the almost dazzling cubes are lying in even rows on the down beside a snowy heap of dust and fragments. Only the blocks of purest sand appear to be worth the labour, and only the practised eye of the workman can judge the inner texture from the outer rind. But even he is not infal- 1 This was the fate, it may be remembered, that the Stonehenge ‘Slaughter Stone’”’ so narrowly missed. By H.C. Breninall, FSA. 425 lible, and blocks are not seldom abandoned when the first splitting has shown them to be unprofitable. The downs, even in the path of the quarryman, show many stones that have been spared, though too often at thecost of their integrity. But hitherto the demand has been mainly for kerbs and setts, for which a more or less rectangular cleavage iS essential. If a more extensive use be found for sarsen, the grey wethers will browse the upper downs in ever scantier flocks. It is fortunate that some at least of the best remaining areas are in strong hands and in no immediate danger of spoliation. Let us turn from the devastation of the sarsens to the problem of the derivation of their name. Its origin has exercised many enquirers from the days of Aubrey onwards. That observer, who was perhaps a little catholic in his use of the term, for he speaks of the stones as far north as Huntington (? Huntingdon), calls them ‘‘ sarsden”’ or ‘‘ sarsdon stones’ ’ deriving the word from the village of that name (properly Sarson) east of Amport in Hampshire. ' More recent research has failed to find any trace of these stones in that neighbourhood at all, though the Geological Survey Memoir on the Andover district records large blocks imbedded atsome depth in a gravel pit at Weyhill Bottom some miles to the north. The same form, ‘‘sarsden’”’, occurs in a Government report of 1817, where it refers to the sarsens of Berkshire, but the author there informs us explicitly that the local name is ‘‘grey wether’’, and we are left wondering where he obtained the name “‘ sarsden’’. It could not be from Aubrey, whose Natural History of Wiltshire remained in manu- script till 1847. In Wiltshire, on the other hand, it is asserted that the form is sometimes ‘‘sassen’”’ or ‘‘saasen’’, and an entry is quoted from the Devizes Corporation accounts of the early nineteenth century, where the word is spelt ‘‘ saeson’”’. Actually, however, the earliest occurrence of the word in literature appears to be its use by Symonds, quoted above, in the form ‘‘ Saracens’ stones’’, and against the entry in the Devizes accounts we may set much earlier references in the Chamberlains’ accounts of Marlborough, which Mr. Cunnington has brought to light. The first evidence we get that ’ Marlborough was as active as the neighbouring villages in the spoliation of the downs is to be found in an item of the 1575 account, when four- pence was paid for the ‘‘ carriage of great stones’’ to be used in the _ repair of the new Grammar School wall. It is nearly a hundred years later, however, before the stone is named. . In 1673 we find ‘“‘ 2 loads of of ‘‘sarazen stones’’;in 1678 they have become “‘ sersons’”’, and in 1702 “sarzons’”’. Taken in conjunction with Symonds’ “Saracens” in 1644 we seem in these entries to trace a gradual corruption of what was never a native word, but one which came to us from the East at the time of the Crusades. An obvious parallel is the word ‘‘sarsenet’’, which we get through Old French from the same source. ce | He spells it Sevsden. Sarsdon is an Oxfordshire village, a still less likely locality for the stones. But Sarson (Hants) never had a d. 426 Sarsens. Such a derivation of the word ‘‘sarsen’’ is of course not new, but even the almost universal support of the dictionaries (when they con- descend to admit what is, after all, a dialect form) has failed to render it generally acceptable. Those who object to it forget the repercussions of the first and longest of world wars, which affected in countless ways the lives and the imaginations of half-a-dozen successive geierations of Western Europe and coloured all the time that followed them. Thirteenth and fourteenth century usage shows that the word “Saracen”’ rapidly iost its specific significance, so that historical writers could apply it to the early Saxon raiders or even to the Roman Emperor Trajan. It came in fact to be used as the equivalent of ‘‘heathen’’. In Cornwall we find the Saracens or Sarsens! were the early peoples who were known only from the vestiges they had left behind them in the prehistoric tin workings, and in North Wiltshire the same name was doubtless applied to the heathen builders of Avebury or any other megalithic monument on which the Devil had not secured a prior lien. It is true that we cannot quote any such definite ascription—even in Avebury the Devil has his Branding Irons and his Quoits, and we know that he was originally responsible for Stonehenge, as he was for Silbury Hill—but the Rollright Stones are sometimes referred to in South Warwickshire as the Sarsen Stones, though their honeycombed exteriors (they are oolitic) could suggest no geological affinity to our local sand- stones. It is, of course, a well-known fact that Avebury had no liter- ature till the seventeenth century, and its folklore, which for our present purpose would be more valuable, seems to have been almost wholly neglected, a defect which should certainly be remedied before it is too late. We may venture then to affirm that “ sarsen’’ stones were in the first instance the megalithic monuments of this county and, by exten- sion, the native blocks of the same material that covered wide areas of these northern downs. When wecall them ‘‘sarsens’’, therefore, we are strictly guilty of a confusion such as would result if we abbreviated another name they sometimes bear, ‘‘ Druid Stones’’, into ‘“Druids’”’ ; and probably we should be pendantically correct if we said that the Devil’s Den, for instance, was made of sarsen stones, but that Lockeridge Dene, which contains no recognised megalithic monuments, was filled with grey wethers. From the use of ‘‘ Druid stones ” in either applica- tion we beg, however to beexcused. Evenif Mr. Kendrick’s suggestion, based on the classical affinities of the mortice and tenon joint, is accepted, and Stonehenge, in its latest shape, is to be restored to the Druids, neither he nor any other archeologist of repute would associate them with the ruder monuments of the Marlborough Downs, save as Macaulay’s New Zealander is one day to be associated with Westminster Bridge. Next to the quantity of the sarsens lying in certain bottoms of the J “ ' Strangers from overseas were still sometimes known as Saracens in Cornwall as late as the nineteenth century. By H.C. Breninall, F.S.A. 427 downs—and it is always in the bottoms that they lie in the greatest profusion—the fact that most impresses the observer is their arrange- ment. Sir Christopher Wren’s comment upon this, quoted and queried by Aubrey,! was peculiar: ‘‘ They doe pitch all one way, like arrows shot’”’. Respect for its author forbids us to dismiss this judgment as idle, and it would be interesting to know in what locality it was formed, but as a description of the generality of sarsens 7m situ it is wholly in- appropriate. Sometimes, as in the plantation west of Overton Delling, the stones lie heaped on each other like boulders in a mountain torrent ; more frequently they are to be found in close proximity winding in regular streams down the valley floor. Wherever the side of the bottom is steep, it isbare of sarsens, while the gentler slopes carry a load thin- ning out, as the distance from the thalweg increases, to the normal sporadic distribution of the upper downs. The two adjoining valleys of Clatford Bottom and Piggledean on the northof the Bath Road show this arrangement clearly, though not so perfectly as they did before the latter were stripped of its sarsens above the cottages. But we find the conditions in the two valleys reversed ; for while in Clatford Bottom the sarsens spread up the eastern slope and are absent from the western, in Piggledean it is the western side that carries the sarsens, and the eastern that is bare, as the cross-sections of the two valleys would lead us to expect. Darwin found that on a grass-covered slope with an average inclin- ation of 94 degrees, 2.4 cubic inches of earth crossed a line one yard in length in the course of a year.2. Theaction of frost, rain and worms is, in fact, responsible for a continual movement of earth and stones downhill even when the slope is slight. The late Lord Avebury when seeking to explain the disposition of our sarsen-streams, attributed it in a still greater degree to the action of the sun upon the large blocks of stone, which tend, he explained, to expand under the influence of heat in the direction of least resistance—that is, downhill—and again, when cooled at night, incline by their own weight in the same direction. 3 This vermigrade motion, of which we might not have suspected any- thing so sedate as a sarsen, is of course extremely slow. If it were as rapid as that of the soil in Darwin’s experiment, it would take some five thousand years to cover a mile, but the average slope of the downs is nothing like as much as 94 degrees, which works out at about one in six. Inthat part of Upper Clatford Bottom where the sarsens now | lie thickest the eastern slope is about one in fifteen ; the western on the other hand, is considerably. more than one in six, and we can draw upon the Bank of Timein the interest of our hypothesis for very much more than five thousand years without any danger of the draft being dishonoured. t Nat. Hist. of Writs. (Ed: J. Britton). ‘Pitched’ means ‘inclined’. * Vegetable Mould and Earthworms, chapter VI. 3 I cannot, however, now trace this statement to its source. 428 Sarsens. Let us then suppose an original Totterdown tilted, as the dip of the strata indicates, pretty much as it is tilted now and strewn with the broken sarsen crust of some post-cretaceous formation. Down that gentle and as yet undisturbed slope we may imagine the sarsens creeping their limpet creep towards the still unsculptured Kennet valley, until the development of the river increased the southward trend and imparted a more directly southward tendency to the travellers. Across their path new erosion creases due to local weaknesses of structure began to propagate themselves at various points in the valley, notably those that were ultimately to become the bottoms now defining the spur of Overton Down and its south-eastern continuation, Fyfield Hill Upon the blocks that had started their journey below the creases, or had safely passed those points on theirsouthern transit, the new phenomena would have, of course, no effect ; their secular progress would continue with- out haste or rest till they found their goal, where they still lie buried, in the flood plain of the Kennet. Butit would not be so with the sarsens that found themselves within the ever-extending influence of the incip- ient depressions. Those upon the hither brink would find themselves presenting an extra slow motion picture of the yet unfarrowed swine of Gadara, while those immediately beyond the farther bank would begin to falter in their purpose as the soil drained back from under them into the miniature abyss. As each valley deepened, cutting back into the flanks of the intervening ridge, it would gather the sarsens upon the retreating scarps into its embrace with a rapidity proportionate to the steeper slope, there to meet the increasing company from the other side and saunter with them along the dene towards the Kennet valley. Either bottom, it must be remembered, is excavated now in the Middle Chalk, and denudation must have taken out of them the whole mass of the Upper chalk, on top of which the sarsens originally lay. We must therefore add a vertical displacement of at least 350 feet to the horizontal translation of the stones described above. So far a general acquaintance with the nature and appearance of the sarsens has been taken for granted. Nevertheless, before we proceed to discuss their origin, it may be desirable to explain what is meant by the word, since sarsens themselves vary considerably in texture and appearance and other stones, of a not very dissimilar nature to the outward view, are apt to be confused with them. The accepted, or at any rate the most acceptable, definition of a sarsen is ‘‘a silicated saccharoidal sandstone’’: Ferruginous staining is common, particularly on the natural suface of the block, where it is apt to form a rind, often of an appreciable depth, but the sugar-like grains of the unweathered interior, as revealed by the chisel, are typically as white as the Upper Chalk, on the grassy surface of which the sarsens so frequently lie. It should be added that there is usually no visible trace of sedimentation, and that the weathered surfaces are frequently water: polished, a fact which has its bearing, if not upon their origin, at least upon their subsequent history. In the tact that the cementing By H.C. Breninall, F.S-A- 429 medium to which they owe their commonly (but not invariably) extreme hardness is the same as that which forms the flints, they are differenti- ated from the calcareous blocks of sandstone found, for instance, near _ Sidmouth in the west and Harwich in the east. In the fact that they con- sist, normally, of pure sand alone, they are readily distinguished, even when they exhibit externally a similar mamillated appearance 1, from the ‘ pudding stones”’ usually, but by no means exclusively, associated with Hertfordshire—unlovely ochreous conglomerates of flint pebbles in a highly siliceous matrix. Sucha block lies, or lay, by the gate of of the Rectory at Newton Tony in the lower Bourne valley. The true sarsen is a handsome stone within (which must be our consolation for seeing them so frequently disintegrated) and picturesque, if not abso- lutely beautiful, without ; and though there are degenerate members. of the species, they will usually be found to have suffered some indignity from the hand of man. ? As to the origin of the sarsent we may first quote the views of Stukeley as illustrating the state of geological knowledge in the middle of the eighteenth century. “This whole country, hereabouts [he says] is a solid body of-chalk, cover’d with a most delicate turf. As this chalky matter harden’d at creation, it spew’d out the most solid body of the stones, of greater specific gravity than itself; and assisted by the centrifuge power, owing to the rotation of the globe upon its axis, threw them upon its surface where they now lie. This is my opinion Soren ayia this appearance, which I have often attentively consider’d”’ And again in another passage, which contains an sneer but wholly unconscious, reference to a later discovery of Mr. Crawford’s, the Celtic field system on Monkton Down: ‘A little to the right hand of the road coming from Marlborough to Abury...1f we look downwards to the side of the hill towards Abury, we discern many long and straight ridges of natural stone, the same as the gray- weathers, as it were emerging out of the chalky surface. They - are often cross’d by others in straight lines, almost at right angles. For hereabouts it seems that the chalk, contracting itself and growing closer together as it harden’d, thrust the lapidescent matter into these fissures. ‘Tis a very pretty appearance, ”’ —But one, alas! no longer visible. As for the nature of the stone, after a fairly accurate description, he explains : ‘«Tt consists, as all other stones, of a mixture of divers substances united by lapidescent juices, in a sufficient tract of time ”’. Tin Lhe Newbury Field Club Transs. 1876 the Rev. Charles Soames reported a stone at Mildenhall, the only one he knew in the neighbour- hood which had ‘“‘ the original mamillated surface’. I have not seen it. * Though the primary interest of the builders of the Avebury circles was not esthetics, a reason for the rejection of the perched sarsen in Clatford Bottom (supposing its use ever to have been contemplated) might well have been its ungainly appearance when fully exposed. 430 Sarsens. In this he is surely not so far out, For ‘‘ divers substances’ read, in this case, ““sand’ particles 3 for “ lapidescent juices 37% ssecondamy, silica’’: as for his estimate of the length of the process, modern science could scarcely improve upon it. Stukeley was probably acquainted with the theories of Descartes, but the father of modern geology was still at school when that was written. What have his scientific descendants to tell us about the origin of the sarsens ? It is a question on Which recent geological opinion has differed, but the differences, to a layman, are trifling, since the dispute is mainly confined to the Eocene. These early Tertiary formations, it may be remembered, immediately overlie the Chalk, though separated from it in time by an interval which no one has been presumptuous enough to estimate. In this country the succession of the Eocene strata is as follows, if we place the most recent on top. We should also remember that the whole series is never represented at any given spot, a fact which helps us to understand the wide divergence between the stages to which the material of the sarsens has been assigned. 6. Barton Clays and Sands, typically (and horribly) represented on the coast of Hampshire east of Highcliff. 5. Bracklesham Clays and Sands, named from the shore deposits in Bracklesham Bay, west of Selsey Bill. 4. Bagshot Clays and Sands, which give us Bagshot Heath and the coloured beds of Alum Bay. 3. London Clay, the most characteristic formation of the London and Hampshire Basins. Woolwich and Reading Clays and Sands. 1. Thanet Sands, as exposed at Pegwell Bay and elsewhere. To every one of these beds, excepting only the pure clays of the London series, the sarsens on various horizons have been attributed, and as they are sometimes to be found embedded in one or other of them, the attribution is not to be questioned. But the precise derivation of the sand the sarsens contain would seem to of less interest than the period at which they became solidified, and on this question little information is as yet forthcoming. It is obvious that to name the formation to which any rock is to be attributed is to give only its proximate origin, and that the ultimate source of any inorganic sedimentation must be sought in the beginning of things. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that the latest authority, Mr. Osborne White, ascribes our local examples to the highest bed, the Barton Sands, though he does not exclude the possibility of even a post-Eocene derivation. The problem might be much simpler if the sarsens contained any contemporaneous fossils, but these are wholly absent. It is true that they frequently show cavities suggestive of fossils, but in the somewhat infrequent cases where the cavities are occupied the evidence suggests that the fossils are intrusive. Stukeley noted several cases and took them for the bones of animals, “concluding them to be antediluvian’’. Inrecent times they have been bs Biwi. breninglkh, TiS. A” 431 recognised as roots of plants, and they were first supposed, by William Cunnington, to belong to some kind of seaweed. In 1865 Codrington speaks of fragments of coniferous wood being found in the sarsens, and in 1904 Mr. Osborne White pointed out that the appearance of the roots suggested plants growing on a land-surface above the soft sands out of which the sarsens were later formed, since only the lower parts of the roots are ever visible. They were for long referred, though very tentatively, to the Palm group, but the latest evidence has led to a reversal of judgment in favour of Codrington’s identification. In 1929 the President of the Marlborough College Natural History Society was able to send a new specimen to South Kensington which has yielded more definite results. These roots were assigned by Mr. W. N. Edwards with some certainty to the Coniferae, and more precisely to a plant which appears to be akin to the Canton Water Pine, a small deciduous Cypress which grows in southern China. A close ally of this tree is the Florida Swamp Cypress sometimes seen in English gardens. It seems possible that the fluviatile habit of the modern congeners of this fossil plant may give us a hint as to the conditions that brought about the induration of the sarsens, though it tells us nothing of the sands that formed them. ‘Beyond their prevailing arenaceous character’’, (to quote Mr. Osborne White again) ‘“‘ there is nothing to suggest their accumulation under desert conditions ; no preponderance of rounded sand-grains, but the reverse ; few, if any, polished and faceted pebbles ; not even a well-marked current bedding. The frequent occurrence of angular and sub-angular flints rather points to a sub-aerial or fluvial origin, but is not incom- patible with a marine one. The feeble development of bedding counts most against the fluvial hypothesis ”’. Evidence of bedding, though rare, is not unknown. A small block in my possession, which came by the kindness of the owner from the garden of the Old Vicarage at Easton Royal, shows the “ varves ”’ of many successive seasons. It is also pierced through all its 63 inches by a root-hole more than an inch in diameter (which doubtless explains its preservation as a curiosity). It should be observed that the ring- like excrescences palpable to the inserted finger seem to correspond to the bedding planes. This would dispose of the theory, first put forward in the case of the so-called Kinward Stone beside Chute Causeway, that the ringed interior walls of these holes correspond to the roots that once occupied them, as though the roots had consisted of aseries of confluent tubers like the advertisement of Michelin tyres (77T) ——"TS— * The secondary silica, which penetrated, probably, only the upper layers of the sand beds, or what was by that time left of them, and formed the hard crust that now survives in the form of sarsens, may have been deposited from overlying water, or possibly driven down by rain froma layer of siliceous loam spread over thestill loose sands. The comparative rarity of the fossil roots may perhaps indicate that only parts of the sands were covered with a fertile loam. Since that 432 Sarsens. date a fresh upheaval has drained away the water or caused the loam to disappear under the influence of normal sub-aerial agencies, to which must also be attributed the disappearance in most areas of the unsolid- ified portions of the sand bed beneath the sarsen crust, as likewise the breaking of that crust itself into the separate blocks now known to us, That sarsens are not peculiar to Wiltshire is, of course, well-known, but the wide area over which they are found may still be a little sur- prising. In larger or smaller numbers and greater or lesser bulk they are to be traced from western Somerset to eastern Kent and from Suffolk to the south coast; and they are found again in_the neighbour- hood of Dieppe Their distribution in Wiltshire itself is by no means conterminous with the Chalk, for sarsens are almost absent, in the geological sense, from the whole of Salisbury Plain save parts of its northern fringe.!} A-few apparent exceptions certainly occur. There are, for instance, three medium-sized specimens in the Bulford neighbour- hood, one actually in the bed of the Avon, though the engaging theory _ that it was shipwrecked there on its way to Stonehenge is disproved by its size and situation. It seems evident that it was undermined at some time by stream erosion, and it is not a little curious that it is in line with, and almost exactly equidistant from, its neighbours in Durrington Field and on Bulford Down. Thestonein Durrington Field is mentioned, under the name of the Cuckoo Stone,? by Mrs. Cunnington asa possible sighting stone in connection with Woodhenge. The stone inthe river has a hole in itsuch as might have helda cross, anda ring which may have held the painter of a ferry boat. Thestone on Bulford Down was evidently once erect, and the circumstances in the case of each of these makes it unsafe to claim for them a local origin. Another sarsen which appears to have borne the name of the Dwarf Stone, if Barclay’s reference in his Stone- henge volume is to be so interpreted, lies just west of the rampart of Durrington walls, but this is associated with an undoubted burial. A _ few other solitary sarsens are known: one at Shipton Bellinger ; and two at Berwick St. James. These latter have been shown (W.A.M. xlvi, 395) to have strong claims to be the two parts of the companion to the so-called Altar Stone at Stonehenge in the days when it stood upright. There is another at Woodlands, Mere, about which further inform- ation is lacking, as also of the Redbridge stone, reported by Mr. Crawford from near Westbury and identified by him as the Ecbrihtes Stone of King Alfred’s Ethandun campaign. The Kingston Deverill group of sarsens. now arranged as a collapsed dolmen near the church, but originally situated on King’s Court Hill above the village, as Mrs. Cunnington has recorded, may or may not have better 1 As N. of Everleigh, for instance and S. of Old Hat Barrow. 2 Or Cuckold Stone ? 3 Stukeley tells us that stones from Stonehenge were used to make ‘‘ bridges; mill dams and the like in the river’. Where are they now? Vien BD LCMINGl 1.9 A... 433 claims to have marked Alfred’s rallying point, but at Jeast their associ- ation ona hilltop suggests some pre-Saxon purpose which would account for their transport froma distant source. Traces of a sarsen discovered in the excavation of Woodhenge again make it unnecessary to suppose that the stone had been originally taken from the immediate neighbour- hood. It would be imprudent to suppose that these and the great mono- liths of Stonehenge complete the the list of south Wiltshire sarsens, but, if others exist, they are not numerous, and the absence of sarsen gate- posts and walling from the whole area precludes the explanation that original deposits capable of furnishing some hundred known examples, including such wholly exceptional masses as are found in the Stonehenge trilithons, have otherwise been wholly removed by human agency. It is true that Prestwich, describing the Reading Beds near Codford, declared the fine white sand they contained to be ‘‘just the stuff that when solidified would form the Druid sandstone ’”’, and that Mr. Clement Reid, relying apparently on this remark, asserts that the grey wethers of Stonehenge are of “local origin, and derived probably from the Reading Beds’’, but nowhere in his Memoir on the Salisbury Geological Sheet does he make any reference to the natural occurrence of sarsen in the district. It seems therefore just to conclude that any specimens that occur at Stonehenge or elsewhere in the area are importations.! On the other hand, sarsens are by no means confined to the Chalk. They are reported from positions below its escarpments at Westbury (whence, perhaps, the Redbridge Stone was taken), at Hilmarton, and not infrequently (sometimes as standing stones) in the Swindon district; nor are they unknown in the Pewsey Vale. But their occurrence upon older horizons is not confined to Wiltshire: in the Taunton district, for instance, they bear witness to a former westward extension of the Eocenes, if not necessarily of the Chalk. At Staple Fitzpaine in that neighbourhood they are too numerous to be explained as importations. The story attached to the Devil’s Stone there has points of resemblance to that of the Friar’s Heel at Stonehenge. The Devil, wishing to stop the building of Staple Fitzpaine church, gathered a few sarsens to be used as missiles. Unfortunately for his purpose, he fell asleep, and awoke to find the tower already finished. In his hurry to get up the stone fell out of his satchel and remains there to this day. To these Somerset examplesshould perhaps be added the stone called Hautville’s Quoit at Stanton Drew. Prof. Lloyd Morgan describes it as a fine-grained cherty sandstone, possibly sarsen, but as to its source, , 1 Perhaps one ‘“‘literary’’ example deserves mention. Caleb’ Baw- combe in Hudson’s 4 Shepherd’s Life knew of a sarsen by a mist-pond in his native parish of ‘‘ Winterbourne Bishop.’’ This is now identified with Martin (Hants. ex Wilts). But the Hampshire border of S. Wilts is scarcely to be included in Salisbury Plain: it belongs to Cranborne Chase, a region with which sarsens are not usually associated, though Prof. Stuart Piggott, who knows the region well, tells me of two in a garden at Whitsbury. Caleb’s story, he thinks, wont fit Martin, 434 Sarsens. geological or local, he hesitates to pronounce. Analysis of a loose frag- ment shows it to consist of almost pure silica with traces of iron reacting just like specimens of our local sarsen. } Iron is commonly present in the less compact sarsens, and the appear- ance of the fallen Quoitis not incompatible with suchacharacter. Was it indigenous or imported ? The local tradition explains that it was hurled by Hautville from the top of Maes Knoll, a mile or more to the north; to which we may reply, with due gravity, that similar stones are not to be found there. The relation of the Quoit to the Stanton Drew Circles has not yet been proved, and they may well belong to different periods, though the reign of Henry III, in which the doughty Sir John Hautville flourished, need not be one. The fact that he is called a giant, however, seems to show that he has been endued with the attributes of some earlier and more mythical hero. It is impossible to give the details of all the sarsen areas, and the map opposite compiled from a large number of separate geological memoirs and other sources, particularly the papers of Prof. Rupert Jones, must serve asa general guide. The one chalk district of southern England in which they do not occur naturally (and into which they were, as we should expect, never imported) is the Isle of Wight. Outside Wiltshire they are nowhere really plentiful except in a few areas north-west of Lam- bourne on our borders, and of these the most important lies between Ashdown House and Weathercock Hill, both inside and outside the Park. It was at one time suggested that these sarsens showed evidence of artificial arrangement, and the belief has given rise to repeated ref- erences in popular archeological literature to “the Berkshire align- ments ’’. a mysterious series of stone rows which for 50 years has eluded inquirers who sought acquaintance with them. Such sarsen alignments as actually exist are mainly believed to be the result of field clearances in Celtic times, but it must be remarked that, if the Totterdown ex- amples are typical, the clearance was often half-hearted. For the rest, it may be of interest to indicate the more remarkable uses to which these blocks have been put. The legends in connection with them are often interesting and sometimes, as in the case of Way- land’s Smithy, significant, but they cannot be extensively quoted here. Mr. Crawford:has traced the Hangman’s Stone legend through a dozen counties, including the two English-speaking districts of South Wales, In outline it is the story of a sheep-stealer (though in a forest area the sheep may be replaced by adeer) who rests his -ooty on a stone against which he leans, and is strangled by the animal’s struggling off backwards and tightening the rope round his neck by which he is carrying it. Such stones, Mr. Crawford found, are usually situated at the point where a number of old tracks and parish boundaries meet. He holds that they were originally boundary stones, which, from their situation, became ascociated with open-air courts held in such places, or with the 1 T am indebted to Mr. L. G. Peirson for this test. 435 ESAs y H.C. Brentnall, = B CIRCLES @ BUYRIAL CHAMBERS NI SARSEN FIELDS Wi, KEY TOWNS @ The Distribution of Sarsens in 16 Counties. SUFFOLK French examples lie too far south for inclusion. 436 Sarsens. gallows that served for the summary execution of their sentences. Retribution must therefore be supposed to have overtaken the thief in a less romantic manner than that which folklore has preferred. Three sarsen Hangman Stones are to be found in Berkshire: one on Lambourne Downs, one in Hangmanstone Lane, Leckhamstead, and one between East and West Ilsley. In this neighbourhood we have the same story told of the Hanging Stone, one mile south-west of Alton Barnes Church in a field called Hanging Stone Hurst. Itis alarge stone, 5 feet high, and is marked on the six-inch Ordnance map. In a small enclosure of thorns and sarsens below Temple Farm there is is a large recumbent block in which a basin has at some time been hollowed, with a perforation for draining purposes through the side of the stone. It is locally known as the ‘‘ Templars’ Bath ’”’, though some- times ascribed to the Romans.! There wasa preceptory of the Templars there in the Middle ages, and it is possible that they used it as their laundry or lavatory. If they are responsible for the chiselling still visible in the basin, they must have possessed tools of a good temper, but prob- ably an existing cavity was merely enlarged. Another stone, beside Chute Causeway, called the Kinward Stone or “the Devil’s Waistcoat ’’, which has been referred to on page 481, is chiefly noteworthy for the misapprehensions to which it has given rise. It has been supposed to mark the meeting place of the hundred of Kinwardstone, and its retnarkable ridges apparently enclosed in a raised border have suggested resemblances to the carved stones of some of the Breton dolmens. But it is now established that the supposed carving is merely the effect of weathering, and that the stone never stood up- right in its present position but was dragged there from one of the neighbouring farms, where it was formerly one of a group of large sarsens. Whether that group ever represented a dolmen cannot now be known, nor whether it was ever chosen for a meeting-place of the hundred. There is another Kinwardstone (but lacking thestone) south of Burbage with some claim to that honour, but a change of venue is not impossible, and the name of the stone we are considering, if not a mere antiquarian invention, requires explanation. A sarsen of unusual interest is one which lies on the border of Alton Prior’s parish east of Adam’s Grave. Its position and the hole in it identify it as a boundary mark mentioned in the year 825. The Saxon charter reads: “* When toa stone in Winding j/€omber there is a hole on the upper side”’. This was supposed to refer to a hollow in the ground above it till Mr G. M. Young’s walking stick sank into the stone and revealed the true interpretation. The famous Blowing Stone of Kingston Lisle is a block of brown sarsen perforated by many of those cavities which are left by vanished roots, and by one in particular from which expert lips may extract a a gloomy booming note. Doubtless the stone once:stood on the down ' See Mr. Passmore’s note and illustration at p. 116 of this volume, _By H.C. Breninall, F.S.A. 437 above, ubi ad Album Equum scanditur, as the Abingdon Cartulary has it. There is certainly a tradition to that effect, but, unless lungs are not what they were, its use as a summons to the countryside is not to to be credited, and even Judge Hughes was sceptical about the story in the opening chapter of Tom Brown’s School Days. We may be certain that it was not used By King Alfred the Great, when he spwiled their consate And caddled thay wosbirds, the Danes, but it may conceivably have served the earlier dwellers in one of the local hill camps to call their cattle home. Near Aldworth, farther east, where some of the sarsens still bear the impress of the giants’ hands that threw them, two of these blocks were used by the Romans for milestones, though one has been removed ‘“ to a more convenient spot about a quarter of a mile away’’. A similar use has been ascribed to a small weathered sarsen on Silchester Common known as the ‘‘Imp”’’ stone. It was conjectured that it bore in former days the traces of a Latin inscription, of which only the letters Imp remained to attest its erection in the reign of some Roman emperor. But the story is discredited, and another source must be found for the Mame, or its variant, ‘‘ Nymph Stone’’. Even modern tools find it difficult to cut letters of the ordinary depth in sarsen, as the inscription on the Wedgewood Stone, a modern menhir in the playing-fields of Marlborough College, bears witness. This handsome stone, which weighs four tons,' was brought from the West Woods, where it was rescued from the devastators of Stony Copse. Sarsens are to be found even in London, but their occurrence is, so far as we know, accidental. No significance appears to attach to the one reported from Moscow Road, Bayswater, nor even to the specimen in new precincts Of the Law Courts. But at Kingston-on-Thames is preserved what many would regard, if tradition is to be relied upon, as the most interesting single sarsen in existence, the Saxon Coronation stone. This is a light brownstone nearly 3 feet high and 2 feet square, considerably larger therefore than the Scottish Stone of Destiny under the chair in Westminster Abbey, where it has served our kings in a similar capacity for the last six hundred years. An inscription on the Kingston sarsen records the names of seven Saxon monarchs believed to have been crowned upon it between 901 and 978. Though it cannot claim to have travelled so far as its more honoured successor, the Lia Fail of Scone, it is distinctly the worse for wear and at some period has been cracked across. If little has been said here of prehistoric standing stones, it is because the majority of them have long since resumed a recumbent attitude, 1 Of the sarsens set up in the Avebury Circles 4000 years ago, one still standing weighs by estimation 62 tons, and another of 90 tons was broken up some hundred years ago, teste W. Cunnington. These are the largest sarsens known. VOL, LI.—NO. CLXXXV, 2G 438 Sarsens. in which they are difficult to recognise. The circles of Avebury and Stonehenge and their associated megaliths—the Longstone Cove and the West Kennett Avenue in the former case, the Friar’s Heel and the fallen Slaughter Stone in the latter—are of course well known. There are a few small circles in Dorset beteen Weymouth and Dorchester, such as the Circles of Tennant Hill and Winterbourne Abbas, but their sarsens scarcely deserve to be called standing stones. Of the circle at Waylen’s Penning, to the east of the best preserved section of the Kennett Avenue, only a single stone now remains, and the remnants of the Winterbourne Bassett circle are scarcely recognisable as such. Remnants of others, too numerous and too fragmentary for mention, survive in the Marlborough district. The so-called circle south of the Swallowhead Springs has little right to the name. ‘The greater part of it was removed in the early eighteenth century and what remains, an irregular and much broken circuit of quite small sarsens, would rather suggest the peristalith of a vanished long barrow disturbed in the removal of the mound which it enclosed. — A standing stone in the West Woods near Bayardo Farm, two south of Down Barn in Overton and another at Stanton Fitzwarren appear to be our only other menhirs, but whether they were always solitary or represent lost circles or burial chambers, can no longer be determined. Of indubitable burial chambers of sarsen we have more numerous examples. In Wiltshire they are almost confined, as we have seen reason to expect, to the Marlborough Downs, where eight are certainly known to have existed, though three of them are now destroyed. Most of the survivors are still engaged in long barrows, like Adam’s Grave! or the famous West Kennet example. One, proved by excavation, is hidden in the oval barrow of Barrow Copse in the West Woods 2; but others, like the Devil’s Den and the Manton Down kistvaen, show only faint traces of their mounds. Another more degraded example is to be suspected in a group of sarsens just north of Wansdyke, half a mile east of Wernham Farm in Savernake Great Park. South of the Pewsey Vale the only unmistakable sarsen chamber is that of the ruined Tidcombe Great Barrow. East of our borders the celebrated chambers of Wayland’s Smithy, west of the Berkshire White Horse, have no parallel till the neigbour- hood of the Medway is reached. The megaliths of that region are re- corded in the Ordnance Survey Professional Paper No. 8, but without petrological description, and I have to thank the Curator of the Maidstone Museum for the assurance that they consist of true sarsens. West of the river, Addington and Coldrum show in stone the outlines of their original long barrows with remnants of burial chambers: beyond the Medway lies the famous chamber of Kit’s Coty, a more regular and perfect Devil’s Den. Within a mile of Kit’s Coty lie the Coffin Stone, the Countless Stones (or Lower Kit’s Coty), the Warren Farm Chamber, * But here blocks of oolite were also used. 2 W.A.M.., xlii, 366. Back Cebrentindlal SA. 439 the Kentish Standard Stone and the Upper White Horse Stone, which together form the most easterly group of megaliths in the British Isles. With them our catalogue must end. It is hoped that it is tolerably complete. Some stones enjoying at least a local celebrity, like the Wishing Stone at Selborne, are omitted because they do not come with- in our definition, which excluded the conglomerates; others, doubtless, have eluded a somewhat extensive search in the library and in the field ; and others still, by far the largest class, have ceased at various dates to cumber the soil of our unimaginative agriculturists. Among these latter stones we must include the vanished burial chamber in Temple Bottom, known to A. C. Smith and excavated by him in 1861. The field in which it stood still bears the significant nameof ‘‘ Harestone’’ and Mr. Passmore has heard from local labourers that one large stone still remains below plough level. There wasalso the stone which in Stukeley’s day stood ‘‘ leaning at Preshute Farm near the church, as big as those at Stonehenge’’, and those ‘‘ Druidical Stones in the Marlborough Fields S. of the Western Road ”’ of which S. H. Grimm made sepia drawings in 1788 (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 15547). They probably caused horses to shy and thus ensured their own destruction. It remains only to add there is little evidence that our forerunners on these southern uplands attached any particular mystery or merit to the grey wethers, except, probably, the comparatively late builders or re- builders of Stonehenge. That the stones acquired a special sanctity from their use -at Avebury and elsewhere is not improbable, but their employment in the first instance must be ascribed to the single and obvious fact that, in the districts where they were used, they were the only large stones available. That they were stone, the one durable, massive material known to a world otherwise dependent on flint flakes and wood and clay-and bone, was all the men who toiled to raise them knew or cared to know. 440 EARLY BRITISH SETTLEMENT AT FARLEIGH WICK AND CONKWELL, WILTS. By Guy UNDERWOOD. This site lies between the villages of Conkwell and Farleigh Wick. It is about three miles by road from Bradford-on-Avon, and six from Bath. The well known sites of Bathampton and Claverton Down are on the hillson the opposite side of the River Avon, about a mile away. The site covers over 200 acres, and comprises about 12 miles of linear earthworks, and a number of mounds, pits and hut sites It is strange that it should have, almost entirely, escaped the attention of archeologists, but the. situation is remote and in thick and enclosed woodlands. The undergrowth is remarkably dense and makes much of the remains invisible and sometimes impenetrable. For this reason it took nearly three months early this year to make the survey reproduced in the plan. Fig. 1. The only published reference to the existence of the site, known to me, is in a paper by Sir Charles Hobhouse, written about 1881, on The Parish of Monkton Farleigh. (W.A.M., xx.). He wrote “ Here, in the hamlet of Farley Wick, is a plantation called Inwoods. It is situated on a high cliff, on the road to the hamlet of Conkwell, overhanging the valley of the Avon and commanding a view of Bath. Here are still to be seen large blocks of hewn-stone, the remains evidently of buildings, and here were dug up some Roman coins of the time of Antoninus A.D. 142-52. I may, perhaps, mention that it was civca 1826 that the coins were discovered, and that my informant’s father, who found them, described them as brass, in an earthen jar, which was broken in the finding, and about a ‘ peck’s weight’. There is a tradition, also, supported by a certain non-natural formation of the ground, which ' would indicate the site of a British settlement ”’ If by ‘‘ hewn-stone ” Sir Charles meant shaped for building purposes, none is now visible, and only rubble remains. The site is known to have been much robbed for local building, but notwithstanding this the field walls remain distinct and easily traceable generally. The main part of the site is in a wood now called ‘‘ Inwood”’, a name which does not suggest high antiquity. In the Tithe Map of 1846 it is called ‘‘ The Great Wood ’’. In a map dated 1742 by Thomas Thorpe, “ Five Miles round Bath’’ (Bath Reference Library) it is called ‘“‘ Farly in Wood’’. In a survey of the Manor of Forde (now Bathford) taken in 1605 (Bathford and tts neighbourhood, H. D. Skrine 1871) the ravine at the north corner of the site, now crossed by the ‘“‘ Dry Arch”’, is referred to as ‘‘ Inwards Gate’’. The name therefore appears to be of some age. The village of Farleigh Wick is not old and lies on the boundary of the settlement, es Specie TIS foe sptetareceta toh poem ae Gt 460 Wiltshire Mollusc Collectors. FREDERICK TOWNSEND was a botanist who lived at Great Bedwyn ciyvca 1850 He was also interested in land and freshwater shells and made a small collection from around the Great Bedwyn area which his widow handed over to the Jonathan Hutchinson Educational Museum at Haslemere, Surrey. The collection consisted of 32 species and a few varieties (see E. W Swanton’s paper, W.A.M. xxxvi). Great Bedwyn is too close to the county boundary for any of Townsend’s records to have much authority, as in most instances exact localities were not given, and further confirmation is necessary before they can be accepted - as genuinely Wiltshire. One of the most important was the Smooth Pond Snail or Mud Limnea, Limnea glabra (Mill. 1774). This very rare shell was doubtless taken from the marshy field on the left side of the road below Stype Grange, Bagshot, leading towards Little Bedwyn, where C. P. Hurst found it (see Marlborough College N.H.S. Report, 1915). If so, the site in Townsend’s day was in Berkshire, but the alteration of the county boundary in 1895 now includes it in Wilts, so Hurst’s record (if any) should stand. Of recent years the site has been drained and ploughed up. The specimens in the Townsend Collection at Hazlemere are rather small. HUMPHREY PURNELL BLACKMORE, M.D. Born 1835. Died 1929. A son of William Blackmore, Mayor of Salisbury 1841. The Blackmore Museum at Salisbury was founded by his elder brother, William Black- more. H.P. Blackmore was one of the founders of the Salisbury and South Wilts Museum. FE. W. Swanton in his article on Wilts Mollusca mentioned above states that since April 1908, he had received a letter from Dr. Blackmore reporting the Carnivorous Slug, Testacella haliotidea (Draparnaud 1801) at Salisbury: also the Small Amber Snail, Succinea oblonga (Drap.) at Aldérbury in 1890 and occasionally since, and adding, “it is not abundant there’’. Specimens of this shell from brick earth at Fisherton were recorded by Dr. Blackmore in 1867. There would appear to be considerable differences of opinion concerning the Succineida, and I cannot say whether this record should be accepted until confirmed by modern authorities, more particularly as Dr. Blackmore was not an authority on Mollusca. THEODORE DRuU ALoM COCKERELL. Born 1868. Wrote a catalogue of the Land and Freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles and was a prominent member of the Conchological Society. Made a collection of 42 species of Mollusca around the Swindon area (see Journal of Conch- ology vi, 82-84). The list contains no species rare in the county. CHARLES OLrpHAM. Born in Lincoln 1868. Died 1942. Was at one time Vice-President of the Malacological Society and Treasurer of the Conchological Society. Visited Wiltshire collecting Mollusca on more than one occasion. C. P. Hurst recorded a number of shells found by him at Devizes and Seend (see W.A.M., Vol. xl, December, 1918). He discovered Pisidium parvulum (Clessin) at Seend. By C. D. Heginbothom. 461 ERNEST WILLIAM SWANTON. Born 28th June, 1870, at the Manor House, Dibden, Hants. Curator of Sir Jonathan Hutchinson’s Educa- tional Museum at Haslemere, Surrey, since 1897. Author of a number of books and papers on Mollusca, Fungi, and other natural history subjects. Visited Wiltshire in 1905, when he added 19 species to the Concho- logical Society’s records for the northern half of the county, and 32 for the southern half (for details of species see W.A.M. June 1909, 57-85). Introduced me to the study of the Mollusca by a lecture given at Bruton, Somerset, in 1891, which has resulted in 55 years of unalloyed pleasure for me, and I trust, by means of this paper and the collections I have made, which will eventually be lodged in the County Museums, some assistance to others. I visited Mr. Swanton at Haslemere in August last and found him surrounded by children and older people eager for information and inspired by what they heard and saw. A great personality. C. E. N. BRoMEHEAD. Wasa pupil at Marlborough College. In the College Natural History Report for 1903 a list of shells from the Marl- borough district is included. It covers about 42 species and varieties. In this Report it was stated that the College Natural History Society had never yet formed an official list of molluscs found in the neighbourhood. Rev. RoBERT EDWARD THoMAS,M.A. Curate at St. Martin’s, Salisbury 1906-1910. Read a paper on ‘“‘ Mollusca of Wilts” at the meeting of the Wilts Arch. Society held at Salisbury on the 16th July, 1908. In it he states clearly the collection illustrating the paper was not a local one, and ‘he could not profess to any personal knowledge of the Mollusca of _ of the County ’’, a flat contradiction of the report in W.A.M., xxxv, 538. His rarest find was a single specimen of the Point Shell, Acme lineata, (Drap.) in asmall wood on the downs between Wroughton and Wootton _ Bassett in July, 1903, and lost some time after during a spring clean. ~ The Rev. J. E. Vize received a record of this shell from ‘‘ Upavon among roots of grass’’ but would not accept responsibility for its accuracy. The shell has not been recorded since. REV. JOHN HERBERT ADAMS, M.A. Pupil at Marlborough College, 1910-1915. Prominent member of College Natural History Society 1913-1915. Now Rector of Landulph, Saltash, Cornwall. Published | list of Mollusca found in the Marlborough District by himself and others | (see College N.H.S. Report, 1915). ° CzeciL Prescott Hurst. Lived at Ivy House, Great Bedwyn, 1910- 1931. Published various lists recording Wilts Mollusca collected by him (see W.A.M., xxxix, 465, xl, 241, xli, 137,also Marlborough College | NIELS. Reports). These lists contain some of the most valuable of our | county records. All doubtful species were authenticated by either E. W. Swanton, J. W. Taylor (author of the monograph of the L. and F- W. Mollusca of the British Isles) or W. D. Roebuck, the Conchological Society’s Recorder. He found three living specimens of Striated Vertigo, 462 Wiltshire Mollusc Collectors. Vertigo substriata (Jeffreys) near Savernake Lodge, and around Great Bedwyn within the county border, the three toothed Snail, Azeca tridens (Pultney), and the White-lipped Helix, Cep@a hortensis (Mill.) var. subcarinata. His rarest find was the white variety of Rolph’s Door Snail, Claustlia rolphiu var. albina, near the Froxfield side of Stype Wood, never before taken in Great Britain. ; C. G. WooLMER and G. S. CARTER. Pupils at Marlborough College. Published a local list of Mollusca in College N.H.S. Report for 1911. None of rarity, RICHARD ALFRED Topp. Lived at Aldbourne for some few years prior to his death there in 1932. His collection of Mollusca taken around Aldbourne contained 39species and some few varieties. The most note- worthy were five specimens of the Pointed Snail, Cochlicella barbara (Linné) (=Helicella acuta Mill.), now in my possession, taken in a lane opposite Ford Farm, Aldbourne, in 1929. This shell has not hitherto been genuinely recorded in England except asacoastalspecies. It seems probable that they were brought from Burnham or Weston-super-Mare in Somerset, where the species is very abundant, by the farm children after an excursion, and flung out when they were tired of them. Pro- longed search by him never produced more than the five specimens, and I have twice scoured the spot myself without success. C. E.N. Bromehead, of Marlborough College, (see above) found on Oare Hill in 1903, two specimens ofa shell he named, Bulimus ventrosus. Thereis no shell known to me of this name, but Bulimus ventricosus is an old name mentioned in Turton’s Manual, 1831, which might apply to Cochlicella barbara. Among recent collectors who have made interesting new records for the county are :— ROBERT STERLING NEWALL of Fisherton Delamere House, near Wylye, who discovered Moulin’s Vertigo, Vertigo Moulinsiana (Duprey) on the banks of a nearby stream feeding on the Reed Poa (Poa fimtans). CECIL JOHN CHARLES SIGGERS, Surgeon. Came to reside in Devizes 1939. First to discover Oval Cyclas, Sphoerium ovale (Jeffreys) (=Sphoe- rium pallidum, Gray) in the Kennet and Avon Canal at Horton, VC 8, and later in the Canal at Seend, VC 7. It seems firmly established. ARTHUR GOODWIN StTuBBs. Author of “‘ Iliustrated Index of British Freshwater Shells’? and other pamphlets. Lived at Heytesbury 1942- 1945. An outstanding artist in the depiction of Mollusca, who has painted a number of Wiltshire shells. He made a small collection of shells from the Heytesbury area. Discovered an ordinary type shell of the Garden Snail Helix aspersa (Mill.) the mollusc itself being pure white, a very rare occurrence. Also a sinistral White-lipped Helix Cepaea hortensis (Miull.) var. lutea. : CHARLES DAvID HEGINBOTHOM. Born at Bruton, Somerset, April, 1874. As the seventh child of a long family my advent probably caused my parents less astonishment than it caused me! Inany event it was a By C. D. Heginbothom. 463 matter of little moment, and I only refer to it because my attention has been called to the fact that this paper would not be complete with- out some reference to it. I have been a malacologist in Wiltshire since 1893, and have added a number of new records for the county to the Conchological Society’s list during that period. In conclusion the following statement should be of some assistance to those who may in future decide to take up this study. The total species of Mollusca (excluding varieties) recorded for Wilts during the past 150 years I make to be 120. Of these the following cannot be reasonably accepted without further evidence, viz :— Segmentina nitida (Miull.), Acme lineata (Drap.), Amphipeplia glutinosa (Mill.), Succinea oblonga (Drap.), Succinea elegans (Risso.)—the shell so often recorded in the past under this title is really Succinea pfeifferi (Rossmasler)— Cochlicella barbara (Linné), Vertigo angustior (Jeffreys). ‘The Northern half of the county, VC 7, still requires the following Testacella hahotidea (Drap.), Clausilia Biplicata (Montagu), ! Vertigo Moulinsiana (Duprey) to complete established records for the county as a whole, and the Southern half, VC 8, Helix pomatia (Linné), Vertigo subsiriata (Jeffreys), Planorbis glaber (Jeffreys). Shells of Helix pomatia were excavated by General Pitt-Rivers at Rushmore, VC 8, in 1882. Dr. J. E. Gray’s reference in 1857 to the shell being rare at Salisbury possibly refers to the colony established at Boyton near Codford, VC 8, ~- by Aylmer Bourke Lambert a botanist, who lived there for many years and died in 1842 aged 81. Living specimens have been taken there quite recently. If this paper achieves its purpose, it has opened the way for any amateur to know what species should be looked for, and to make new discoveries. In due course I hope to publish a complete County. List, and any assistance in this direction will be gratefully received at Walden Lodge, Devizes. -} The inclusion of this species in the Wiltshire list rests, so faras I can find out, on four authentic specimens in a collection of shells in the Castle _ Museum, Norwich, made by John Brooks Bridgman, a well known malac- ologist born at King’s Lynn, Norfolk, 1837 (died 1899). These are un- doubtedly the specimens referred to in Jeffreys British Conchology 1862 (2nd ed: Vol. I page 283, pub. 1904) as found at Clarendon near Salisbury. It has been reported from four different localities in Wilts, viz: Easton Grey, Devizes, Durnford and Alderbury, all of which have been searched, so far without success. The following species should be looked for, as they have been found in adjoining counties, viz :— Limax tenellus (Mill.), Zonitoides excavatus (Alder), Oxychylus Draparnaldi (Beck), (=Hyalinia lucida, Charpentier), Truncatellina cylindrica (Fér), Vertigo pusilla (Miller), Pupa anglica (Wood), Physa rivalis (Turton), Viviparus fasciatus (Milll.), (= Paludina contecta Millet), Valvata macrostoma (Morch), Helicodonta obvoluta (Mull.), Succinea elegans (Risso). 464 ANNUAL MEETING AND EXCURSIONS. For the first time since 1939 it has been possible this year to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Society, and to resume to a limited extent the excursions which were formerly an attractive feature of its summer activities. Salisbury. On July 26th the Friends of the Cathedral invited the Society to join their Annual Meeting at Salisbury, and were good enough to arrange a special programme on our behalf. About fifty accepted the invitation. After the General Meeting in the Chapter House, at which an address was given by Mr W. Oakeshott, now headmaster of Winchester College, the Dean of Salisbury kindly conducted our party round the Cathedral. There was then an interval for lunch, and we are grateful to Mr. Frank Stevens for providing accommodation at the Museum for those who had brought their own, and also for offering himself as guide to the Museum. In the afternoon, the party heard an excellent address by Canon R, Quirk on the treasures of the Cathedral Library, some of which were on exhibition in the North Transept. He afterwards conducted parties to the Library itself. Tea at Sutton’s Restaurant brought an interesting and successful day to a close. Annual General Meeting. The Annual General Meeting of the Society was held at Devizes on Friday, 26th July. The Mayor of Devizes, Alderman H. A. Smith, received the members in the Town Hall, and expressed his pleasure that the Society should have come to Devizes for their meeting after an interval of six years. Referring to the fact that the Society was first founded at Devizes nearly a century ago, he wished it a long life of increasing vigour and usefulness. The President, Col, R. W. Awdry, expressed the thanks of the Society for the welcome extended to them. At the business meeting, Colonel Awdry reviewed the activities of the Society during the past year, with special reference to the acquisition of the new premises, and mentioned with warm appreciation the work done in this connection by Capt. and Mrs. Cunnington, who were _largely responsible for the success of the appeal for funds. He then proposed the election of Mr. G. M. Young as President for the coming year, and the proposition was seconded by Mr. H C. Brentnall and carried unanimously. Mr. Young, in accepting the Presidency, proposed a warm vote of thanks to the retiring President who had held office throughout the war. This was seconded by Mr. A. Keiller and carried with acclamation. The officers and Committee were then re-elected, with the addition of Mr. R. A. U. Jennings, Mr. A. E. Beswick and Mrs. R. Barnes to the Committee. Annual General Meeting and Excursions. 465 In a discussion on the finances of the Society, it was generally recognized that the extension of the Museum must involve largely increased costs of maintenance, and a resolution of the Committee to increase the annual subscription to £1 was considered. A few of the members present felt that this might press rather heavily on some, and after much consideration it was finally resolved that the subscription for new members joining after the date of the meeting should be £1, with an entrance fee of 10s., but that existing members might, if they wished, continue at the present rate of 15s. 6d. The hope was strongly expressed, however; that all who felt able to do so would raise their subscriptions to the new rate. The fee for life membership was fixed at £20. At the close of business the members present were entertained to tea by the Mayor and Mayoress, who were cordially thanked for their hospitality. In the evening a paper by Dr. E. F. Jacob, F. S. A. on ‘‘ The Salisbury Chapter in the later Middle Ages’’, was read, in the author’s unavoidable absence, by Mr.G. M. Young. The essay proved to be a most interest- ing and vivid account of the life and doings of an ecclesiastical body of the period, and was highly appreciated by all who heard it. A discussion followed. Excursion to Avebury, etc. The next day a modest excursion programme was arranged. In the morning about forty members visited Devizes Castle, by permission of the owner, Mrs. Reed. No better guide than . Col. R. H. Cunnington could have been found, for in his boyhood he spent much time at the modern Castle, which was built by his srandfather about a century ago. From the terrace overlooking the valley to the west, Colonel Cunnington gave an admirably lucid and succinct account of the history of the site, and afterwards led the party ona tour of the grounds. Next came St. John’s Church, where Mr. _C. W. Pugh briefly described the principal features of the building and the alterations and restorations since its erection by Bishop Roger in the 12th century. In the afternoon an excursion to Avebury was made. This attracted over a hundred members and their friends. Mr. A. Keiller F.S.A., who had kindly made arrangements for the visit, met the party on arrival and led the way to the S.W. sector of the vallum, where he gave an admirable account of the monument and fully described the conclusions arrived at as a result of the pre-war excavations. Fortunately the weather was delightful. The party afterwards divided, some accompany- ing Mr. Keiller on a walk round the vallum, while others visited the Museum. Here they were in the capable hands of Mr. W.E. V. Young, who had a busy time explaining the exhibits and answering questions. During the afternoon many of the visitors explored the beautiful grounds and gardens of the Manor, which Mr. Keiller had kindly thrown open for the occasion. 466 WILTSHIRE BOOKS, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES. [The Editor invites all who are in a position to do so to assist in making the record under this heading as complete as possible. Books sent for review pass eventually to the Museum Library, a remarkable collection of Wiltshire material to which such additions are particularly welcome. | The History of the Wiltshire Home Guard. Edited by Major E. A. Mackay. (Lansdown and Sons, Trowbridge: price 6s. 6d.) There were thirteen battalions of infantry, a mechanical transport company and an anti-aircraft battery in this county, and the history of each from its beginnings as a detachment of Local Defence Volunteers, relying on their pistols and shot-guns for the repulse of the expected invaders, to its final shape asa body of trained and equipped soldiers comes mainly from its commanding officer. To those who ‘shared them, the experiences of the eariy days leave memories as indelible as any later ones. The summer nights on the upper downs lit by the stars or the questing search-lights, the autumn road-barriers so zealously guarded, gave a comforting sense of alertness that no private conviction of its futility could wholly destroy. Later developments made serious work of this citizen service, and some splendid visions faded into the light of common Sundays laboriously spent. In June, 1940, the Wiltshire force numbered 15,879 men (and boys) ; in September, 1943, it had reached its peak of 23,409. Those were days of high endeavour and hearty comradeship, and the tale of them with all its ights and some of its shades is here recorded. It includes the gallantry of Lieutenant W. Foster of Alderbury Company, which won for him a posthumous George Cross. “Royal Wilts ’’, the Story of the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry from 1921 to 1946, by Lt.-Col. P. W. Pitt, T.D. (Published by private subscription: price 12s. 6d. cloth.) This is described as mainly an account of the regiment in the Middle East, written with full access to official despatches, with many photographs, maps and diagrams. The Parish Church of St. James, Trowbridge, by F.C. Pitt, 1946. (Wiltshire Times Press: price Is.) This short guide now appears in an enlarged second edition. A list of 50 rectors is included, but George Crabbe dominates the other 49, even the two who became Archbishops. His reputation was established before he came to Trowbridge, and no one could fairly claim him for a Wiltshire poet, nor indeed does Mr. Pitt. The description of the Church is detailed and precise: the illustrations not all of equal merit. A better idea of the Church is to be got from Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. 467 the sketch on the cover than from the photograph that forms the frontispiece, but there are some interesting reproductions of earlier views. The visitor to Trowbridge, in search of something worth looking at, will be glad to turn to the Parish Church and grateful to find so informed a guide to its antecedents and its existing features. A Short History of Cricklade. By T. R. Thomson (faylor and Sons, Minety, 1946: price 2s. 6d.). Dr. Thomson is a newcomer (as coming goes) to Cricklade, but he has thrown himself wholeheartedly into the aura of that ancient town and promises at some future date a full history of the place and its parishes. For the moment he presents us with only one-fifteenth of the material he has collected in the space of twelve months, but in that fraction he contrives to cover the local history from 2000 B.C. to 1900 A.D. (both dates approximate). That the review should bea little breathless is the necessary consequence of attempting so long a span in a pamphlet of 14 pages. It is evident, however, that Dr. Thomson bases his record where possible on documents and elsewhere on sources that are above reproach. He has compiled his account for the benefit of St. Sampson’s Church-tower, and all the proceeds of its sale will be generously devoted to the fund for the repair of that ‘‘glory of North Wiltshire’’. We wish the publication such Success aS may make a serious contribution to the sum required, £550, Very similar repairs were executed in 1760 for £20! To Dr. Thomson’s quotation from the Iliad we might add one even better known : Tempora mutantur, pretia et mutantur in illis—or have we got it wrong ? - Wiltshire Life carries for its sub-title The County Magazine and has made, up to the time of writing, four monthly appearances (price Is.). The Wiltshive Magazine extends a hearty welcome to this ' new venture, whose career will be followed with interest and sympathy, The range of topics is as wide as the county, and the illustrations are particularly pleasing. The November number contains an article on Avebury. It is a regrettable, though trifling, coincidence that a megalithic monstrosity should in the same number flank the editorial notice inside the cover. Nor does the small sketch of Stonehenge (seen from the west-north-south ?) which regularly appears on the first page, make many concessions to reality, however decorative its effect. But these pedantic criticisms will not occur to many readers. With a growing circulation and a more generous supply of paper (when that arrives) we hope that the present slender numbers may develop into Stouter issues without loss of the exemplary standard they have already set. Joseph Priestley at Calne. Though not a Wiltshire book, The Conquest of Pain, by George Bankoff (Macdonald, 6s.) reminds us that this county contributed something to the campaign. Joseph Priestley, the discoverer of many gases, whose life extended from 1732 to 1804, was a Yorkshireman by birth and a Non-conformist Minister by profession but 468 Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. he became librarian and literary companion to Lord Shelburn, afterwards first Marquess of Lansdowne. His patron brought him to Bowood and ~ placed at his disposal a large room for his scientific experiments, requiring, it is said, that the servants, and even his guests, should wear over-slippers in the house lest Priestley’s labours should in any way be disturbed. Together they travelled on the continent, where Priestley told Lavoisier of his ‘‘dephlogisticated air’’, better known to us as oxygen. In 1870 he left Lord Shelburn with an annuity of £150 and took charge of a.chapel in Birmingham. His subsequent misfortunes, which reflect little credit on Birmingham, do not concern us here. He died in America unaware of the full significance of the discoveries which owed so much to the liberality of his patron and his laboratory at Calne. A stone in the river there rather unexpectedly records his connexion with the place and his claim to fame. In the tracks of Richard Jefferies. An article in the Swindon Evening Advertiser for October 2nd, 1946, describes a pilgrimage by Mr. J. B. Jones to Richard Jefferies’ various homes outside Wiltshire. It was an act of piety that few are likely to repeat, for the sprawl of modern building has often covered the trail. Most of the article is concerned witha place that Mr. Jones does not name, though we may guess he turned west and not east to reach it. There he found indeed no memories of Jefferies’ brief stay but the same atmosphere of slander, squabble and censoriousness which Jefferies had remarked sixty years before. . And somewhere in his Rural Rides, sixty years earlier still, Cobbett paused at a roadside gate to contemplate a village nestling in the valley below and comment on the restful scene. ‘‘Ah, Sir’’, said a country- man leaning on the gate, “‘if you only knew the scandal that is talked there and the misery it brings!’’ Backbiting, alas! has been a popular pastime for much more than sixty years in many a “ haunt of ancient peace ’’, and Cobbett’s village is doubtless still playing it. Wilton Carpets. ‘Worsted’ cloth, ‘‘panama’”’ hatsand many other things bear names that have quite lost their localsignificance. If we supposed that ‘‘ Wilton’ carpets had no better claim to their name than ‘-Axminsters”’ to theirs, an article in the Sunday Times for October 27th would reprove our ignorance. It described the survival of acraftin Wilton and the surrounding villages that is three hundred years old. One of its more recent achievements has Carrollean suggestions. Into a carpet made for the Bank of England were worked—By thrice three maids in thrice three months Eleven million knots. (‘‘ The task exceeds ’’, the Walrus said, ‘‘ The Lady of Shalott’s!”’) Thata village industry still flourishes in its place of origin is a cheering item in the post-war news. Parlour games and others. Just a year earlier the Sunday Express told of another business that owed its origin to Wiltshire, if it was pursued elsewhere, In 1788 Thomas Jaques, the 15-year old son ofa Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. 469 Grittleton farmer of Huguenot descent, took the waggon for London to seek his fortune. He found work with an ivory-turner of Leather Lane and in due time set up for himself. The Jaques family prospered in their chosen line. In 1839 they designed and standardized the ‘‘Staunton’’ chessmen. They introduced croquet and by its display at the Great Exhibition of 1851 established its vogue in this country. They also invented Happy Families, Snakes and Ladders, Ludoand Tiddley Winks, but the success of these was as nothing to the popularizing of Gossima, which the firm took up and renamed Ping-Pong, now further dignified as Table Tennis. Such a record goes far to relieve the name of Jaques of its Shakespearean epithet. Surely no melancholy can be sucked out of these games. At the moment of going to press there arrived, by the courtesy of a correspondent, the second number of the Swindon Review (Libraries, etc., Committee of the Town Council: price 2s.), the first issue of which appeared a year ago. A year is not too long to wait, when by that interval the standard can be so successfully maintained. The coloured frontispiece is a picture of E. J. Buttar’s showing cloud effects over a Cricklade landscape, and there is a kindly foreword from Sir Stafford Cripps. John Betjeman contributes a London poem and ~H. J. P. Bomford, discussing a painting of Picasso’s (reproduced), shows an ability of to see further than most of us into a brick wall, though even his perspicuity fails to penetrate it completely. An article by Donald Grose on local wild flowers comes from an authority less chary than most in revealing the habitat of rare plants. Kenneth Knapp writes of the Goddard family—a name revered in our Societv—and traces its connexion with this county to the 14th century. The quality of the local contributions in prose and verse and of the photographs and drawings is assessed by competent authorities, but there are a number of contributions which stood hors concours. ‘The whole issue may be commended as further evidence of the progress of Swindon’s fine experiment. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXV. 21 470 NOTES. WMason’s Marks at Edington and Winchester. This interesting appendix to Mr. Cunnington’s article on p. 378 provides just the kind of information that is required. In 1352 William of Edington, Bishop of Winchester, began the rebuild- ing of Edington Church. It was dedicated in 1861. About 1860 he started to transform the west end of Winchester Cathedral. Since then much of the stone work there has been refaced, but many mason’s marks Survive, especially on the walls of the two spiral staircases flanking the west door. The Edington mason’s marks numbered 1], 2,5, 10, 21, and 22a, are among them, number 2 is on two of the piers ; Mr. Adams, the verger at Winchester Cathedral, has identified others. Some of these mason’s marks may have passed from father to son. Numbers 21 and 22a appear on the walls of Bishop de Lucy’s retro-choir, 1204. Soit is possible that Edington and Winchester show the work of the same families of masons. D. U. SETH-SMITH Grovely Wood, a remnant of the royal forest of Gravelings, passed to the Pembroke family with the properties of Wilton Abbey in the days of Henry VIII. The document here quoted marks a stage in the gradual surrender of customary rights. ‘* Be it remembered that we the Inhabitants of Great Wishford whose names are hereunto subscribed do consent and agree to the Selling of our Costome of cutting and drawing greene wood and boughs in the month of May out of the severall Woods of the Earle of Pembrooke commonly called Grovely And we doe promise and agree as much as in us lies to ratifie and confirme such Aggreement or Conveighance as the Lords of the Manor of Wishford shall by Advice of Counsell agree unto for the Publique Benefit of our said parish Church. Witnesse our hands the 4 day of January 1681/2”. Here follow the signatures of 58 parishioners, including the Rector of Wishford and the two churchwardens. It is noteworthy that only six were illiterate, signing by mark. C. W. PuGuH. Scratch Dials on Wiltshire Churches. There is asmall, but well defined scratch dial on the S. E. angle of the chancel of Holy Rood Church, Swindon, about three feet from the ground. W. H. HALLAM. The destruction of ‘‘ The Sanctuary ”’ on Overton Hill. The following scrap of information on the destruction of ‘‘ The Sanctuary ’’ stone circles and other Avebury stones has not, I think, previously been published. In the Haslemere Museum (Surrey) are drawings of Avebury by Henry Browne, dated 1826, with the following notes written on them (in addition to quotations from Stukeley). Notes. 471 ‘‘Several stones of the K. Avenue have been broken up since that [i.e. Stukeley’s] time, four of them within the last two years, by persons acting as Commissioners of the Roads for that district and one in the temple itself, which has been applied to building walls”’. ‘* The last person who saw the Head of the Serpent, as represented by Dr. Stukeley, was Isaac Hart, of Overton. He was 92 years of age when he pointed out its position to me, three years ago. He is now dead, and buried in Overton Church Yard’’. STUART PIGGOTT. A Malt-house Mystery. The site of the old Malt House at Aldbourne has been provoking much speculation. Major A. L. Ingpen has kindly presented a detailed report on the problem involved, accom- panied by a plan, but asummary of the situation seems preferable to publishing all the facts in an undetermined inquiry. For many years there has been a strong tradition in Aldbourne of an underground hiding-place, possibly under the Malt House, for the manufacture or concealment of excisable liquors. This tradition has been handed down for at least three generations in the family of Mr. A. C. Smith, which long owned the Malt House. Early in March of the present year drainage work in the yard adjoining the Malt House on the north, once part of the same property, revealed a culvert or vaulted passage under the sarsen pitching. The aid of this Society was invoked, and first the writer and the Rev. R. H. Lane visited the site. We inclined to the view that the underground chamber then partially exposed had served for the storage of rain-water. The work seemed too large for a culvert and showed no use as a cess-pit. Had we propounded the last alternative, it could hardiy have elicited less enthusiasm. None of us, indeed, was satisfied, so we asked Mr. A. D. Passmore to inspect the chamber. He was of opinion that it had been a steeping- tank for the maltster’s grain, though the romantically minded might suspect, if they would, a secondary, nefarious purpose. Cargoes, of course, were often run far inland, as the stories of Jamaica Inn and our Own moonrakers testify. But local men with experience of malting in the old days elsewhere pointed out the difficulty of working in so confined a space and the existence of a perfectly good steeping-tank on the other side of the wall. By the end of April another, eastward section of the passage had been opened up, turning at right angles under the Malt House and continu- ing in that direction for at least 16 feet. Beyond that it was blocked by a fall, but the last 10 feet, separated from the rest by a low cross- wall, had a wooden floor, in contrast to the brick elsewhere, and contained asmall hand pump. A cast-iron gutter fixed high on the side of the passage ran from this section round the bend, and there was a lead pipe leading towards the Malt House well. A small shaft a few inches wide led up to, and was lost in, the levelled floor of the Malt House. But what happens to the passage west of the point of first discovery is still unknown. It is heading for the house which lies between the ote 472 Notes. yard and the street and seems to pass ‘under it towards the stream beyond. Until this section is explored, and exploration presents obvious difficulties, no conclusions can be reached, if then. An underground distillery, which some have seen in the floored area, seems, as Major Ingpen points out, an unnecessary precaution, since in the 18th century and earlier the excise was trifling and even a licence unnecessary. We come back to smuggling as the source of the local tradition, but that cannot explain the peculiar features of the Malthouse mystery. H.C.B. Cunning Dick’s Hole. This is a curious remote spot on the downs where the old main London and Exeter road runs through the parish of Fovant. There were within my memory some old iron hooks driven into an oak tree here. The story is that a highwayman called Cunning Dick used to lie in wait for the West of England coaches as they passed and hang the reins of his horses on these hooks. For the sake of our descendants I think I should place the tradition on record, since nobody in Fovant that I can find takes any interest in this bit of local history. JOHN BENETT. Lewisham Castle. This circular earthwork south of Stock Lane in Aldbourne Chase is one of the series of similar entrenchments in which that region curiously abounds. Little is known about it except that Mr. Owen Meyrick has found there numerous fragments of medieval pottery. But he has also drawn my attention to a passage in a novel by ‘‘ Richard Dumbledore” (the Rev. Maurice Meyrick, at one time Vicar of Baydon) published in 1877. He is referring to ‘‘ Willowbourne ’”’, a thin (but etymologically misleading) disguise of Aldbourne, and writes: ‘‘Tradition also tells how, down the long straggling row of hovels which once stretched into the hills, at curfew time might be heard the clang of the iron gates of Lewisham Castle, which stood some two miles from the present village. But of the Castle not one stone is left if All efforts to trace the tradition in Aldbourne to-day have failed. The most that is heard out that way is the whistle of a train below the hill or the sound of the ‘‘Swindon hooter’’. Butif we link the clanging gates of Mr. Maurice Meyrick’s legend with Mr. Owen Meyrick’s 13th century pottery, we get the picture of a castle wholly different from the usual downland acceptance of the term as in Barbury, Liddington or Uffington castles. Perhaps some document of the Duchy of Lancaster, to which Aldbourne Chase belonged, might throw light upon it. And why ‘‘ Lewisham ”’ Castle? The name is strange in Wiltshire, — but a theory may be ventured for those to deride who can produce a better. Itis known that Hugh de Neville surrendered Marlborough Castle to Louis the Dauphin in 1216 and that the French despoiled Savernake Forest, but not for long. The Dauphin’s cause soon ceased to prosper. In April of 1217 a safe conduct was issued to ‘‘ Hugo Grossus, Knight, his sergeants, arblasters and others, who were in Notes. 473 Marlborough Castle, for their return to their own place’’. This reads like an evacuation of Louis’ garrison of mercenaries, but the records of this period are very scanty. May it not be that Louis’ commandant had established some kind of an outpost in Aldbourne Chase, known thereafter to the neighbouring population as Lewis’s ham? It would conform to the standard of humour so frequently displayed in country names. But whatever interpretation we may place upon the name, the existence of the tradition as late as the 1870's is worth recording. Fi. .C. B. A Bond for the keeping of Lent. Major Shortt of the Salisbury Museum has presented the following curious document to our Library. The first paragraph is in Latin (except the occupational descriptions), the second, as will appear from the spelling, in English. ‘* Know all men by these presents that I John Brathall (?) of the City of new Sarum in the County of Wilts Alehowskeeper am Engaged and firmly bound to our Lord James King of England in one Hundred pounds of good and legal money of England And that I Edward Gangell (?) of the said City in the said County Cooke am Engaged and firmly bound to the said Lord King in Thirty pounds of good and legal money of England And that I Jenkin Watkins of the City and County aforesaid Inholder [tenant] am Engaged and firmly bound to the said Lord King in Thirty pounds of good and legal money ot England to be paid to the same Lord King his heirs or successors And for each payment of the several sums aforesaid to be well and truly made by each of us in the form and manner aforesaid each of us firmly binds himself our heirs executors and administrators separately by these presents sealed with our seals Given the twenty second day of _ ffebruary in the twelfth year of the reign of our said Lord James by the grace of god King of England ffrance and ireland Defender of the faith etc. and of Scotland the forty eighth 1614 The condicion of this obligacion ‘is suche That if Thabovebounden John Brathall doe not dresse anye fleshe in his howse duringe this lente tyme for anye respecte, nor suffer any to be there eaten That then this presente obligacion to be voide and of none effecte or els it to stande abide and remaine in his full power force and vertue. sign of Jo Brathall Signed sealed and delivered to the + seal use of the Kings Ma‘® in the presence of sign Edwd Gangell Michael Markyell h seal : sign Margarete Crosse A. Mackarell IW seal The lodger in the alehouse appears to have changed, and Margaret Crosse signs instead of Jenkin Watkins to the confusion of the document! Feb. 22 1615 (the Gregorian year) was Ash Wednesday. 474 Notes. Great Bedwyn Church Clock. From issues of the Parish Leaflet of Rustington, Sussex, and information supplied by Mr. E. R. Pole, there emerges this story. Clocks with minute-hands were first made in 1670. In 1769 Great Bedwyn wanted a clock for its church, but it was not to be rushed into new-fangled ideas barely a hundred years old. George Hewett, the Marlborough clock-maker, who had just started business, was commissioned to build one of the old kind. So for something like a century and a half the hour-hand in the church tower did its work alone, round four successive dials, and Bedwyn maintained its indifference to the lesser intervals of time. Even the advent of the railway failed to disturb its oriental calm. But at last the clock wore out, and forty years ago the invention of 1670 was adopted. A newclock with two hands was bought by subscription and the old one consigned to the carpenter’s scrap-heap. There it was seen by a visitor from Rustington, who acquired it for £2, repaired it and set it up by desire of the vicar and the churchwardens on the floor of Rustington church tower. A hole was pierced to show its face, and there it continues to discharge its single-handed function to the satisfaction of the parish. The Lacock Magna Carta is now in the Library of Congress, Washington, where it is to remain for two years. It was deposited there on December 15th, the American Bill of Rights Day, by the British Ambassador. Miss Talbot was present at the ceremony. A letter in The Times of December 18th refers to this copy as the only legible one of the 225 issue. Its relation to the document of 1215 was explained on page 226 of this volume (December, 1945). Lacock Manor Court. Mr. F. H. Hinton has found the following unusual presentments of the jury in the Court Rolls of 1641: April. Quod collistrigium est in defectu et quod indigeant plaustro, Anglice a Cookinge stoole, ad diluendas partes posteriores suarum rixosarum uxorum; quod nisi peremptorie procuretur sunt coronaturi [pro erunt coronandi] damae cornibus. Ambo habenda facienda (?) apud expensas Dominae manorii predicti. October. [Iterum requirunt] cubile pro leonibus et talibus feminis quae rixantur ; et quod Domina manorii debet collistrigium reparare et cubile leonibus etc. per dictos juratos ministrari. ‘‘Collistrigium ”’ is the pillory. The meaning of ‘‘ cubile pro leonibus ” in this context is not obvious, but the reference is plainly to the missing cucking-stool. A song in the fourth act of As you like 1¢ might serve as commentary to the April entry. 475 WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES. BRENDA, MARCHIONESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA, died at Sheldon Manor, Chippenham, on July 17th, 1946. She was the daughter of the late Mr. Robert Woodhouse, formerly of Orford House, near Bishop’s Stortford, and married in 1908 Lord Frederick Hamilton- Temple-Blackwood, fourth son of the first Marquess of Dufferin and Ava. Ten years later her husband succeeded an elder brother as third marquess. She was left a widow in 1980 and in 1932 became the second wife of Mr. H. C. S. A. Somerset, heir presumptive to the Duke of Beaufort, She was again widowed in 1945. In her first marriage she had two children, of whom the son, the fourth marquess, distinguished himself as a politician and a soldier. He was killed in action in March, 1945. The daughter is Lady Veronica Maddick. Obit. The Times, July 18th, 1946. EDITH MARCIA MATTHEWS, died after a short illness on October 13th, 1946, at the age of 63. The daughter of the Rev. J. H. Dudley Matthews, at one time headmaster of Leeds Grammar School, she was educated at the Godolphin School, Salisbury, and Newnham College, Cambridge, and after teaching for some time elsewhere was appointed headmistress of St. Mary’s School, Calne. “St. Mary’s Middle Class School’’, was founded on Calne Green in 1873 and painfully maintained by successive Vicars as a school for the education of daygirls and boarders in the principles and faith of the Church of England. Miss Matthews found it in 1915 removed to a villa in the Bath Road with 15 boarders and a complement of local daygirls. Better accommodation came, first in the form of army huts and then by the acquisition of neighbouring premises, till gradually the present school emerged, shorn of its class-conscious particularisation, with accommoda- tion for 120 boarders and a reputation which not many girls’ schools in England can equal and fewer still surpass. It was the achievement of Miss Matthews’ undaunted courage and energy. Through two wars and the anxious period between, she pursued the tradition of the Christian life and endued her pupils with the spirit of service which has carried them to all parts of the world and ever widening fields of activity. She resigned her post after 30 years’ service and retired to the pleasant village of Wilcot near Pewsey, still unwearied in well-doing. She died little more than a year later. We record also the death of two sisters whose closest association with’ this county ended in the seventies of the last century. The Times of August 2nd contained an appreciation of EMILY TENNYSON MURRAY SMITH, a daughter of Dr. Bradley, Master of Marlborough from 1858 to 1870. Though her life was largely given to social service, she found time to write, particularly about Westminster Abtey, of 476 Wiltshire Obituaries which her father was Dean for over 20 years. But her affections embraced all the scenes of her father’s working life, and Rugby, Marlborough, University College—but chiefly Marlborough, where she spent her childhood—shared her devotion with the Abbey and West- minster School. Her more famous sister MARGARET LOUISA WOODS, died not very long before her. As a poet, Mrs. Woods was acclaimed by the best judges of her day, and it wasa long one. Poems of hers, like Gaudeamus Igitur, the song of ‘‘the world’s unwearied lover’’, have found their way into the anthologies, but one poem, which only appeared in the collected edition of her verse, strikes a Wiltshire note. The scene, she tells us, is the High street of Marlborough in the forties of the nineteenth century, and the street is full of the clamour and colour of a great Mob Fair (the spelling is hers). She describes in episodes the pleasure of the fair, and they remain, for all the changes in their apparatus, essentially the same to-day. But Dr. Bradley’s daughter knew that the best of the Mop Fairs in their October setting is for those who leave the noises and the lights behind and climb the quiet down beyond the Kennet to look down on the glow that rises from the hidden street, outlining St. Peter’s tower. . The Hunter’s Moon over the stream has risen, A gleam among the poplars, then a vision Large and serene behind their lattice frail. The town deep down grows fiery in the vale. Stealthily night draws on, but light in heaven Lingers, a pure translucent spirit of day. Here on the height, seeming of shadows woven, Shadowless shapes, wayfarers go their way : And deep, deep in the valley peers the tower Sinking below the vaporous seas of even. In the forties of the twentieth century that picture may still be ours —and few there will be to share it ! 477 ADDITIONS TO MUSEUM AND LIBRARY. Museum. Presented by Mr. B. H. Cunnincton: Wooden screw nutcracker. bP) a) Presented by Mr. J. EyLEes: Pair of barking irons (formerly used for stripping bark from oak trees for tanning). Library. THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY ; Deeds relating to Easton Priory and the Manors of Easton Royal. Mr. G. UNDERWOOD: Plan of Conkwell (Bradford-on- Avon) with probable prehistoric sites marked. Rev. E. C. GARDNER: Handbill of arrangements for Conservative Festival at Devizes, 1837. Miscellanies in Verse and Prose, by John Lucas, Cobler, a Pensioner in Trinity Hospital, Salisbury, 1776. Major E. A. Mackay: History of the Wiltshire Home Guard, 1940—1944. Mr. J. H. P. Parrorp: Official Guide to Trowbridge (circa 1923). Lines by a Countryman (Henry Webb, Hawkeridge, Westbury), 1882. Miss D. SETH-SmMiTH: Notes and Drawings of Mason’s Marks on the walls of Edington Church. MS. Mrs. A. C. CREWE: Two Poems by Stephen Duck. Mr. W. H. Hattam: Monumental Inscriptions in Christ Church, Swindon, and (in collaboration with Mr. W. Hanks) Monumental Inscriptions in Holy Rood Church, Swindon. Two numbers G.W.R. Magazine. The Swindon Mirror, Nos. 4, 5, 6. Photograph of tenor bell of Westbury Church, 1921. Mr. F. BENGER (Compiler) : A Calendar of References to Sir Thomas Benger, Master of the Revels and Masques to Queen Elizabeth. (Benger’s family was of Wiltshire origin). Mr. G. B. Hony: List of Birds in the Marlborough District (E. Meyrick, F.R.S.). Report of Marlborough College Natural History Society 1912. MS. notes and letters on Wiltshire Natural History. Mr. B. H. Cunnincton: The Kennett and Avon Canal and its [mason’s] Marks, by Major Gorham. 478 Presented by Printed and Published by C. H. Woodward, Exchange Buildings, Station Road, Devizes Additions to the Library. Mr. O. Meyrick: Kaleidoscopiana Wiltoniensia. (Account of Parliamentary Election for Wilts). 1818. BRITISH RECORDS ASSCCIATION : Five deeds relating to the Manor of Braydon. Mr. W. A. Wess: Transcript of Parish Registers of Compton Bassett, Baptisms 1563—1812, Marriages 1558/9—1812, Extracts from Banns of Marriage 1754— 1812, Burials 1558—1812. Photograph of piscina in window-sill in N. Wraxall church. Mr. A. D. PassmorE: Digest of evidence taken before a Committee of the House of Commons on Agricultural Customs in respect to Tenant Right. 1849. “BF JAN 1947 | THE SOCIETY’S PUBLICATIONS To be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes. THE BRITISH AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES OF THE NORTH WILTSHIRE DOWNS, by the Rev. A. C. Smith, M.A. Atlas 4to., 248 pp., i7 large maps, and 110 woodcuts, extra cloth. One copy offered to each member of the Society at {1 ls. A few copies only. "CATALOGUE oF THE STOURHEAD COLLECTION or AN- TIQUITIES In THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. 175 Illustrations. Is. 6d. CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUITIES IN THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. Part II. 2nd Edition, 1935. Illustrated, 2s. 6d. By post 3s. CATALOGUE or WILTSHIRE TRADE TOKENS. Price 6d. BACK NUMBERS oF THE MAGAZINE. Price to the public, from 2s. 6d. to 8s., according to published price, date, and condition (except in the case of a few numbers, the price of which is raised). Members are allowed a reduction of 25 per cent. from these prices, WILTSHIRE —The TOPOGRAPHICAL COLLECTIONS OF JOHN AUBREY, F.R.S., 1659—1670. Corrected and enlarged by the Rev Canon J. E. Jackson, M.A., F.S.A., 4to cl. pp. 491, 46 plates. {1 7s. 6d. WHeTSHIRE INOUISITIONES POST MORTEM, CHARLES I, _ 8vo., pp.. vii. + 510. Fully indexed. In parts, as issued. Price 13s. DIMiTO> HENRY, Til, EDWARD I, and EDWARD II. 8vo., pp. xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 13s. ' DITTO. EDWARD III. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 13s. _ A BIBLIOGRAPHY oF THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS oF WILTSHIRE, STONEHENGE anp AVEBURY, with other references, by W. J. Harrison, F.G.S., pp 169., 4 illustrations. No. 89 (1901) of W.A.M. Describes 947 books, papers, &c., by 732 authors. 5s. 6d. THE TROPENELL CARTULARY. 2 vols., 8vo., pp. 917. Contains many deeds connected with many Wilts Parishes, 14th and 15th centuries. Only 150 copies printed, of which a few are left. £1 2s. THE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS ean HISTORY, BY H.B. WALTERS, F.S.A. In 3 Parts. Price 16s. (Separate Parts can no longer be sold.) ° A CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, 1195 TO 1272, BY E. A. FRY. 8vo, pp. 103. Price 6s. All the remaining copies of the following works by Capt. B. H. and Mrs. CUNNINGTON have been given by them to the Society and are now on sale at the following prices :— _ ALL CANNINGS CROSS (Excavations on site of Hallstadt period, 1923). By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. F.S.A., Scot. 4to. cloth, 53 Plates. 2ls. WOODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28). By MRS. CUNNINGTON, mon. S.A. Scot. 4to. cloth, 21s. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, EXTRACTS FROM (eee QOUARTFER SESSIONS GREAT ROLLS OF THE 171TH | CENTURY. By CAPT.B.H. CUNNINGTON, F.S.A., Scot. Cloth. 12/6. DEVIZES BOROUGH ANNALS. EXTRACTS FROM THE CORPORATION RECORDS By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, FB.S.A , Scot. Cloth. Vol. I, 1555 to 1791, 21s. Vol. II, 1792 to 1835, 15s. peer The North Wilts Museum and Wiltshire Library at Devizes All members of the Society are asked to give an annual subscription towards the upkeep of the Devizes Museum and Library. Both the Museum and the Library are concerned in the first place with objects of interest from this county, and with books, — pamphlets, MSS., drawings, maps, prints and photographs con- — nected with Wiltshire. Together they form one of the most © important branches of the Society’s work. The Library is the — only institution of the kind in Wiltshire, so far as its collection of . all kinds of material for the history of the county is concerned. Old deeds, maps, plans, &c., connected with properties in . Wilts and old photographs of Wiltshire houses, churches, cottages, | : or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian. Please address to The Museum, Devizes. 3 Subscriptions should ‘be sent to Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank — Chambers, Devizes. Bs Wiltshire Bird Notes ' Observers in the County are invited to send their records to MES. BARNES, Hungerdown, Seagry, Chippenham, fond inclusion in the Magazine under this heading. to dispose of. Apply to C. W. PUGH, M.B.E., a Librarian, The Museum, Devizes. ¥ bs BOOKBIN DING. Books carefully bound to pattern | Wilts Archzological Magazine bound to match previous volumes, bg or in special green cases. E - We have several back numbers to make up sets. C. H. WOODWARD, Printer and Publisher, ‘a Exchange Buildings, Station Road, Devize: * = SF, y bay fy od Bry Te iv rt 00D ers PRINTER, DEVIZES bee he, Vig apr i949 e No. CLXXXVI JUNE, 1947 Vol. LI THE WILTSHIRE Archeological & Natural History MAGAZINE PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY A.D. 1853 EDITED BY H. C. BRENTNALL, F.S.A., Granham West, Marlborough {The authors of the papers printed in this Magazine are alone responsible for all statements made therein.] Lie DEVIZES __._- PRINTED FOR THE Society By C, H. Woopwarp, 3 EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD Price 8s. Members gratis NOTICE TO MEMBERS A copious Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of Vols.vili., xvi., xxiv., and xxxili. The subsequent Volumes are each indexed separately. The annual subscription is £1 os. od. with an entrance fee of tos. A payment of £20 0s. od. secures life-membership of the Society. Members who have not paid their subscriptions to the Society for the current year are requested to remit the same forthwith to the Financial Secretary, Mr. R. D. Owen, Bank Chambers, Devizes, to whom also all communications as to the supply of Magazines should be addressed. The numbers of this Magazine will be delivered gratis, as issued, to members who are not in arrear of their annual subscriptions ; but in accordance with Byelaw No. 8 “‘ The Financial Secretary shall give notice to members in arrear, and the Society’: publications will not be forwarded to members whose subscrip- tions shall remain unpaid after such notice.” Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, Granham West, Marlborough, All other correspondence, except as specified elsewhere on this cover, to be addressed to the Hon. Assistant Secretary, Mr. Owen Meyrick, Thornhanger, Marlborough. RECORDS BRANCH The Branch was founded in 1937 to promote the publication of original literary sources for the history of the county an of the means of reference thereto. The activities of the Branch are now being resumed ‘The subscription is £1 os. od. yearly and should be sent to Mr. Michael Jolliffe, Hon. Assistant Secretary, County Library Headquarters, Trowbridge. The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TU WILTSHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARDI AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh 1939, pp. xix + Igo. ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRI.- | SONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBDRY, 1645—1646. Edited by J. H. P. Pafford. 1940, pp. 112, Unbound copies of the first of these can be obtained by members of the Branch. The second is out of print. ey il Hl Archeological & Natural H Istory MAGAZINE, No: CEXX XVI. JUNE, 1947. Volk 11 ; Coeegeeiis. PAGE THE MEDIEVAL CHAPTER OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL: By Dr. tec Ont) BoA BS Ae ed. Agua ods eons 319— 4195 DEvizZEs CASTLE: A SUGGESTED RECONSTUCTION: By Lt.- Colminee tal CUMMINS LON). 2. ees 6 So ce So cee sep ae's driver det vee 496—499 P Tae WARDENS OF SAVERNAKE ForREST.. Part II: THE SEYMOUR WARDENS: By The Earl of Cardigan. ........ 500 —554 BotaANICAL REFERENCES IN THE SAXON CHARTERS OF WILT- Sole. Donald Grose... 02. wal ka 590— 583 a THE NATURAL HISTORY SECTION OF THE.WILTSHIRE ARCHZO- : BOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY: .. 2. s.....06..05 584— 585 WILTSHIRE Birp Notes For 1946: Recorder: Ruth G. TES WSS, WTB OVS OI a eee ce ea ae ree ea 586—598 WILTSHIRE PLANT Notes—[8]: By J. Donald Grose ... ..... 999—-610 WILTSHIRE PENCE AND RIBED- NAMES) lone. 69 02 =e) OI 612 WILTSHIRE Books, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLEG....... Mages ne aEe 613 —614 Notrs.—Kimmeridgian Sarsens ? Edington and the Black Emance. An Amphora, Ihe © Chariton Cat:*. ~The Crime of Kingsdown Hill. Parish Registers. More Masons: Manks.* Iworkare Moths: 2. 00s. ists 615—-620 ~ WILTsHIRE OE IE WANRINE Sissies nem eon sn Meare een aimee Beenie oe 621— 624 ADDITIONS TO MuseUM AND. LIBRARY. .......-... EAS ae oe se 625 Slee 0: VOL. LT... eee eee ceeien eee ey ee 626— 642 il PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS. Devizes Castle; simipitiedisections =o 3s.) ss1e Ae S eene re 497 Genealogical Table of the Seymour Family : 1400—1675 ... 501 Sir dwar. Seymour, afterwards lst Duke of Somerset... . - , 526 Savernake Porest in the 17th century 0... he «2588 William Seymour, 8rd Duke of Somerset .....0...0.0¢00000-.- 551 An Amphorac.. 000. cim se ee ee es ee ee ees 617 DrvizEs :—C. H. WooDWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD. | THE WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE, ** MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS.’’—Ou1d. No. CLXXXVI. JUNE, 1947. Vou-- WE. THE MEDIEVAL CHAPTER OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. ByDR E: b= JACOB, B-A; E.S.A. The kindness of your society in asking me to address it makes me _ feel all the more disappointed that I cannot do so in person, and regretful that I have to inflict upon the courteous reader of this paper 1 the task of disentangling my poor sentences. My only claim to speak about the medieval chapter of your own cathedral church is that in the course of my studies I have come to. know, perhaps more intimately than with other medieval societies, the personalities that made it one of the most interesting, certainly one of the most distinguished bodies in the later Middle Ages. My introduction, to.the records of the chapter came through Canon Christopher Wordsworth, With whom I spent many hours over the Cathedral Act Books and other muniments. I well remember my excitement when he first showed me in the Pountney Act Book the original manuscript of Richard Ullerston’s sermon on St. Osmund, corrected in the preacher’s own hand. The editor of your . Cathedral Statutes, the author of Salisbury Processions and Ceremonies Se i sp —— was himself a true index to Salisbury tradition and scholarship. Through him, in his library at Nicholas’ Hospital, I first became acquainted with the work of Rich Jones, Malden, Bishop Frere and others who have written on Salisbury institutions and liturgical practice. To a student of the Conciliar Movement, when the greatest of all bishops of your medieval see was almost the dominant force at the General Council of Constance, such scholarship made the strongest appeal. It brought St. Osmund’s Cathedral, so entrancing for its characteristic English beauty and ritual, into a new universal context. One could see that its leading figures, men like Hallum, Bubwith, Polton or Chichele, stood prominently forth in the great oecumenical gatherings of Christendom; one could realize how much they struck the imagination of contemporaries, with what assurance they moved ina ‘complicated and critical society where the least trace of provincialism would have condemned them to oblivion. Of course this is not what ‘we commonly mean by local history, and, as far as I am aware, Wiltshire historians have not concerned themselves with it. They may prefer, and with very good reason, to build up the story of their own 1Mr.G.M.Young. The author has kindly revised it for publication. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXVI. 2K 480 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. stones and institutions; while their hagiographers possess, in the miracles of St. Osmund, as rich a source of local custom and belief as at Canterbury, Walsingham or Beverley. Whatlocal sportsmen could resist the story of the hockey match, Quidhampton v. Bemerton, when the teams fell to blows and John Combe of Quidhampton suffered a broken head and right shoulder; and, as he lay sick and motionless, after three months, ‘“‘ there appeared to him a man clothed in a white garment and shining so brightly as to illumine the whole house, who told him to makea model of his head and shoulders in wax, and to mark them with wounds similar to his own, and to go to Osmund the bishop and make an offering of the wax model and pray to him and he should. be made whole”’. ! Needless to say, Osmund the bishop did his part. But my theme is the Chapter of Salisbury, and in its records your local historians will find material for the topography, for the institutions and for the personalities of the medieval Cathedral Church. Its Registers or Act Books, which of recent years first Mrs. Robertson, later Dr. Kathleen Edwards, used for their respective studies of the Choir School and of the canons’ houses in the Close, are a precious possession. When supplemented by the Cathedral Statutes and other sources, they enable us to reconstruct a notable medieval community. Not only in appearance, but constitutionally, a medieval cathedral was a great ship with many decks or departments. Modern practice makes one think only of dean and canons, organist (very important), choir and vergers: but the pre-Reformation cathedral, and Salisbury in particular, maintained a formidable hierarchy of clerks of various descriptions: each residentiary canon, and sometimes the non-resident too, had a vicar choral to represent him in choir, and in time the vicars becamea corporate body or college capable of holding common property : such minor colleges were found in most medieval secular cathedrals. Below them came the cantarists who sang, for their chantry foundations, the anniversaries or masses commemorating individuals who had left gifts and bequests to the Cathedral. At Salisbury the cantarists were subject to the dean and chapter for discipline, and the Dunham Act book shows that charges against them on the score of incontinence, drunkenness, brawling in the city and the like were heard in the Chapter House before the dean or president and a special chapter of residentiary — canons. Below the cantarists came clerks ‘‘of the second form’’, who sat in the second row of choir stalls beneath the vicars choral and the cantarists but above the choristers, and whose duties were mainly connected with the cantarists. Below these were other ministri inferiores, down to those who performed the more menial tasks. All these groups — eT were ruled by the chapter with its dignitaries, dean, chancellor, arch- deacon, treasurer, as the main departmental heads of the Cathedral, if we may so call them; and above them, in a very special, délicately 1 H. E. Malden, The Canonization of St. Osmund (Salisbury, 1901), p. 72. : ByeDroveol. [acod. F BAS E.S.A. 481 adjusted and frequently contested relationship which varied from cathedral to cathedral, stood the pastor of the mother church of the diocese, the bishop himself. I propose very briefly to review certain aspects of this chapter governance, before passing to biographical detail. First, the positition of the bishop. Dr. Kathleen Edwards has pointed out that Salisbury is the only English secular cathedral at which medieval bishops are known to have established a legal claim to share in the election of the dean. ! Thisis the more remarkable because the Salisbury customs and statutes gave far less prominence to the bishop’s office and dignity than those of Lincoln and St. Paul’s. The position of the bishop in his chapter at Salisbury differed fundamentally from that of his fellow bishops in theirs, because from the foundation of the original cathedral at Old Sarum he had a prebend permanently annexed to his office. He was therefore able to attend chapter meetings in his capacity as prebendary when he might have been excluded as bishop. In 1219 Bishop Richard Poore stated in his letters patent that ‘‘ since Blessed Osmund and his chapter by unanimous and deliberate council constituted that the bishop of Salisbury should be admitted to the secrets of the chapter like a canon and should havea prebend with his bishopric, and since this prebend (that of Major Pars Altaris) consisted in uncertain profits, namely the pentecostal oblations at the high altar, the chapter have now provided that for the future the prebend of Horton should be annexed -to the bishopric .... lest at any time the bishop should lack a prebend and so be excluded from the secrets of the chapter. 2 In 1254 Alexander IV allowed Horton to be exchanged for Potterne. which the bishop of Salisbury still possesses. ? After his enthronement the bishop was solemnly admitted as canon and prebendary to his stall in choir and place in chapter. He wore the canonical habit and swore the usual canonical oath to observe the ancient and approved customs of the Church, to keep the secrets of the chapter and to pay his vicar choral’s stipend regularly. In this case however, the canon’s wonted promise to obey the dean was omitted. But Salisbury custom prescribed that the bishop, as prebendary, should not attempt to assume the presidency of the chapter. Possibly this was the reason why he was able, throughout the Middle Ages and afterwards, to maintain his position in a chapter so apprehensive of 1 In Ch. II of ‘‘ The Clergy of the English secular cathedrals in the fourteenth century with special reference to the Clergy of Salisbury ”’ (Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Manchester, 1940). Dr. Edward’s thesis is to be published by the Manchester University Press. I should like to express my obligation to this work, which is several times cited below. 2 Chariers and Documents illustrating the history .... of Salisbury in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, ed. W. H. R. Jones and W. D. Mackay, p.95. ~ 3 Register of St. Osmund, ff. 196—7. Dike? 482 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. any invasion of itsindependentrights. In 1319 Bishop Mortivalconsented in chapter to the code of statutes which he himself had prepared, not as bishop and president, but as prebendary of Potterne. Later, at the Whitsuntide chapters held at Salisbury for resident and non-resident canons between 1562 and 1740, the dean always took the chair, even when the bishop was present. There were other occasions at Salisbury when the bishop sat in chapter im loco suo principalt, as at visitations, and probably when the chapter, as his council, gave its consent to appropriations of churches, to manumissions of serfs, or to grants of land from the episcopal estates. Moreover he might at one and the same meeting be called upon to act in his two different capacities. A 1392 composition between Bishop Waltham and his chapter declared that ‘‘on any day the bishop can enter chapter as a canon, and if any- thing be referred to his correction, he can enjoin as bishop that it be corrected ’’. } It would not be the Middle Ages if the canons were not suspicious of their bishop, Relations in the fourteenth century were full of friction. One potent cause had nothing to do with constitutional rights, but was over the question of commons. Certain chapters might pay daily commons to their bishop, as to any other member of the cathedral body, when he attended the cathedral services. Salisbury chapter declared in 1355 that Bishop Wyville was trying to take too substantial a share of its common goods by practice of residing and attending the services. Dr. Edwards has pointed out to me that the communar account rolls extant at Salisbury for the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries show that normally the canons had little cause to worry on this account. In most years the bishop received no commons at all; when he did, the sums paid to him came to little more than sixpence or one shilling a quarter, representing a stay of only one or two days at the cathedral. English bishops in the Middle Ages seem rarely to have been present in their cathedrals, even at the cere- monies and feasts in which they had the right and the duty to take a’ leading part. Simon of Ghent, bishop of Salisbury from 1297—1315, seems only to have been in Salisbury for one Christmas and five Easters during the eighteen years of his episcopate. Not only the need for travelling in order to supervise a large diocese, but motives of precaution also dictated that bishops should prefer to stay at their manor houses in country districts rather than risk a conflict with the dean and chapter in their cathedral cities. For instance, it was highly desirable at the outset of an episcopate to avoid clashes such as occurred at Salisbury itself in 1388 over the bishop’s oath. In the fourteenth century a number of chapters succeeded in forcing their bishops to swear an oath on the gospels at the west door of the cathedral, before their admission for enthronement, to observe and defend the customs and ~ 1 Cited by Dr. K. Edwards, op. cit., from Statuta et Consuetudines ecclestae Cathedralis Sarisberiensis, pp. 290—1. by Dy T= facob, FB AS, BS. A. 483 liberties of the Church. At Salisbury both sides were so determined that the canons eventually threatened to refuse attendance at Bishop Waltham’s enthronement, even though the king himself should come to it, unless the bishop would agree to swear the oath in the form they maintained wascustomary. The bishop finally had to give way. But at the ceremony, when the cathedral chancellor had read the words aloud to him, Bishop Waltham, repeating them, added on his own account, ‘‘saving the rights and customs of our Church of Salisbury and of our pontifical dignity’’.! Waltham was a determined man, for he went so far as to suppress the canon’s oath to the dean, as well as to appropriate the profits of the deanery when vacant. In both of these attempts he was defeated: on the latter head, the composition of 1392 laid down that ‘‘as regards the fruits, commodities and profits of the deanery when vacant, and the jurisdiction of the same, and all other things accruing in the time of vacancy, let them belong to the chapter fully, peacefully and quietly, and let the chapter have and exercise them all fully in time to come”’. The claim of a bishop to visit his cathedral chapter—a claim made and resisted in a neighbouring diocese in our own time—was the occasion of a notable victory by the chapter of Salisbury. In 1262 Bishop Giles of Bridport, who had become bishop of Salisbury after being dean of Wells, revoked his mandate for a visitation of the chapter, stating that, from his examination of the constitutions of Blessed Osmund and the Salisbury customs, he had decided that none of his predecessors had exercised or demanded sucha visitation. On behalf of himself and his successors he therefore exempted all members of the cathedral church and of the canons’ prebends for the future from episcopal visitation. 2 As late as 1392 the Salisbury chapter maintained their exemption, but after a thirteen years struggle with their bishops they were at last compelled, under pressure from the king and from Pope Boniface IX, to allow certain rights of visitation to their bishop, John Waltham, and other rights, more restricted, to his successors. For the future, bishops of Salisbury might visit their cathedral. once in seven years and could bring one notary and one clerk with them. Butunder no circumstances could the bishop visit the churches and estates of the prebends and the common fund. Secondly, the canons themselves. In England the foundation and endowment of the canons’ prebends (their separate ‘‘ provender ’’, income or estates) generally took place in the late eleventh, twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. St. Osmund issaid to have made provision for thirty-two prebendaries, at Salisbury in the late eleventh century. 3 By the thirteenth century Lincoln, Salisbury and Wells were the largest English secular chapters. Lincoln and Wells each had fifty-four prebendaries ; Salisbury had fifty-two. In the later Middle Ages, the 1 Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury, Dunham Act Book, fo. 57. 2 Salisbury Statutes, pp.96—7. 3 Ibid., pp. 24—5. 484 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. canons of the English secular cathedral were very much of a mixture socially, being men from different. ranks and varying occupations. Unlike some continental chapters, such as Lyons, which laid down that all its canons must have at least four strains of nobility in their blood, or Cologne and other Rhineland chapters, which consisted almost entirely of ecclesiastics belonging to local noble families, men of all social strata, excepting freedmen and serfs, could be admitted to the English chapters. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they con- tained numbers of clerks who had risen in the royal service or in the universities, appointed through the influence of king or pope. After the 1390 reissue of the Statute of Provisors the contingent of papal provisors dwindled and an increasing number of civil servants drew their income from this source. A prominent Chancery official might have as Many as six or seven prebends in different cathedrals besides, perhaps, a stall in one or more of the royal free chapels. Another influential category was that of the genevos1, young men of noble or gentle birth who acquired dispensations at an early age. ' Nobilitas generis gavea well-born clerk, even if he had only received minor orders, a claim upon a collegiate foundation, although, perhaps, the tendency was for these fortunate people to be appointed to the colleges proper rather than to the cathedral chapters. & All holders of prebends were supposed to be in holy orders and there- fore at least twenty-two years of age—the age at which by canon law a clerk could be admitted as subdeacon. Yet, as we noted, boys in minor orders were sometimes admitted by dispensation of the pope: the statutes df Salisbury and Wells made provision for them to sit on the lower form in the choir among the boy choristers. Originally there had been all orders of clerksin theearly episcopal familie. Throughout the Middle Ages the canons’ statutory choir duties required that they should be fairly equally divided among the three orders of priest, deacon and subdeacon, the priest prebends being usually the most valuable. But by the later Middle Ages the distinction had generally disappeared. A priest canon could always minister at the altar, when necessary, in the offices of deacon or subdeacon. The difference is largely due to the important fact that by the later Middle Agesa large part of the cathedral choir duties had come to be performed by the vicars choral, supervised and directed by the slowly diminishing group of residentiary canons. Both in choir and chapter the vicars now bore the burden of the services in place of the full body of canons. Residence for the canons was optiona:, and if a canon wished to becomea residentiary, he now mnade a formal entry into residence and swore a special oath on the gospels, distinct from the oath which he took on his first admission as a canon and prebendary of the.church. Such an entry into residence dated 25 * For examples of such, cf., Jacob, ‘‘ Petitions for Benefices from English Universities during the Great Schism’’, Tvans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 4th ser., vol. xxvii (1945), pp. 57—8. By Dro EF. Jacob, F:BioA:, FSA. 485 October, 1334, is recorded in the first extant Act Book of Salisbury Chapter, Reg. Hemingsby, fo. 3, ! There thus grew up, in the early fourteenth century, a fairly clear division of the canons into the two more or less distinct groups of residentiaries and non-residents, each with carefully defined duties and privileges. It was the practical solution—not perhaps an ideal one — of the problem of frequent and unregulated non-residence which reached alarming proportions in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. ‘‘ The chief object of most cathedral statutes at this time was no longer to force or even to encourage all canons to reside (the canons’ houses were far too few for that), but simply to ensure that a sufficient proportion of the whole body of canons would reside constantly at the cathedral to maintain its services and work’’.2 Gradually the residentiaries came to form a close corporation which gained almost complete control over cathedral government and business. Salisbury, followed by Lichfield, had its own way of dealing with the problem of residence, Instead of requiring a long annual residence from those canons who chose to reside, the chapter during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries resolved to regard a short period of residence as obligatory by their statutes on all canons, exempting only clerks in the service of king, archbishop and bishop, and certain university students. _. The minimum period of annual residence decided upon by the chapter (and Lichfield followed this practice) was three months or a quarter of the year; the aim was that a quarterof the canons should always be in residence together. Anycanon who did not keep his quarterly residence at the statutory time and who could show no reasonable excuse was bound as a punishment to pay a fifth of his prebendal income to the common fund for the use of the residentiaries. Canon Wordsworth thought it probable that originally the Salisbury table of residence, like that of Lichfield, assigned the four quarters of the year respectively to the four dignitaries of the cathedral, and arranged that the canons called upon to reside in any one quarter of the year should be those whose choir stalls were in the same quartevium of the choir as that of the persona responsible for three months’ residence.? By 1319, however, the time when Bishop Mortival published his code of Salisbury statutes, the rota of residence was different: the residentiaries were now to be drawn not from one quarter of the choir only, but roughly half from the decani and half from the cantoris side; and each quarter was to include members of all three groups of priest deacon and subdeacon prebendaries.4 A substantial burden for the new residentiary was the entrance feast, condemned by Bishop Mortival of Salisbury on the (to-day) very appropriate ground that ‘‘it swallowed up in one short hour provisions " Canon Christopher Wordsworth first pointed out to me the passage. 2 Dr. K. Edwards, op. cit., ch.i, ‘The Canons and their Residence ’”’, 3 Salisbury Statutes, p. 157 n. 4 [bid., pp. 156 f. 486 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. which had been calculated to last for many days’’. At St. Paul’s the feast for those beginning the ‘‘greater’’ residence was ruinously expen- sive ;} but Salisbury chapter was more sensible than the wealthy London corporation. It invited the non-resident canons to make trial of residence at their cathedral, and, in order to encourage them, reduced substantially the burden of the feast, for the new residentiary was forbidden to spend uponit more than the annual value of his prebend.? At the same time, as Dr. Edwards has pointed out, some pledge of the new-comer’s purpose to reside was necessary, and he was accordingly required to pay forty shillings as a kind of pledge that within a definite time he would either provide an entrance feast at his house or pay a fine of £40 to the cathedral fabric. ‘‘The Chapter Act Books show that during the greater part of the fourteenth century most new residentiaries preferred to pay the fine rather than provide the entrance feast’’.2 The chapter of residentiaries was not extortionate over the exaction of the fine. Several times it reduced the amount from £40 to £20, or agreed that payment should be postponed for as long as two years, if the new residentiary demurred to paying atonce. Salisbury seems to have been one of the first English chapters where an entrance fee came to be substituted for feasting. Throughout the greater part of the fourteenth century the amount of the fee was comparatively moderate. Towards the end of the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century a | change took place in the Salisbury practice. From 1386 heavier pay- ments were enforced. In 1404 Master Henry Harborough paid a hundred marks for his entrance ;* in 1406 and 1413 the chapter declared ~ that no entrance fee should be less than forty pounds and that it had the right to demandahighersum.® Finally in 1428 the chapter forbade all entrance feasts and imposed a fine of 107 marks, 6 shillings and 8 pence upon every simple canon entering residence, and upon every dignitary 157 marks, 6 shillings and 8 pence.® The chapter had to meet heavy expenses, particularly after 1412, in pressing forward the business of St. Osmund’s canonization at the Court of Rome (finally achieved in 1452). The increased fee was, in effect, a canonization tax.’ Besides fulfilling their duties at the Cathedralservices and dispensing hospitality, the residentiary canons of the later Middle Ages formed the body which conducted the business affairs of the cathedral and chapter. ‘They were appointed as chapter commissaries to visit or administer the common estates; to hold inquisitions about repairs needed in the separate prebends, on chapter farms or in the canonical houses of residence. 1 cf. Registvrum Statutorum et Consuetudinum Eccl. Cathedralis Sanch Pauli, ed. Sparrow Simpson, pp.125—8. 2 Salisbury Statutes, pp.144—7. PRO py ci emnnl: 4 Draper Act Book, fo. 29. 5 Ibid:, to. aan 6 Salisbury Statutes, pp. 308 f. ‘ 7 On Salisbury’s efforts towards this end, cf. Jacob, ‘‘ Some English Documents of the Conciliar Movement’’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xv, 384. By Dr. E. F. Jacob, F.B.A., F.S.A. 487 They collected taxes from the prebends; they might be sent to conduct chapter litigation in the Court of Rome or in the secular courts, or to undertake negotiations with the bishop or monastic houses. There was plenty of business for a man with an administrative mind. The chapter of a medieval cathedral invariably contained eminent canonists and civilians, sometimes among the residentiaries, more often among its non-resident members, who might be in the thick of royal or provincial administration. Such experts were in a position to pull strings for the chapter ; and it must be admitted that in the fifteenth century lawyers were more abundant in the chapter than theologians. One favourite device for securing the favour and assistance of the ‘great was the admission of royal or noble persons to the confraternity of the Cathedral. The Prince of Wales (Henry of Monmouth) and his brother Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, wereadmitted—Humphrey in person—intothefratern- ity on 15th September 1409, and Queen Joan, with the ladies and gentle- men of her court, a year later. They would be valuable in the move- ment to canonize the founder of the Cathedral Church. Much of the canons’ weekly activity in chapter can be gathered from the Act Books. Some of it is concerned with entry upon residence and the assignment of the houses in the Close; some with the prebend and prebendal estates. The chapter as such seems to have been a fairly business-like body, but its individual members were not always so careful. In the fifteenth century it is curious to note how ‘many suits for the recovery of dilapidations came into the archbishop’s Court of Audience.! Chichele was constantly beset with claims made by an in- coming Salisbury prebendary against the executors of a deceased canon, on account of ‘‘notable defects’’ in the prebendal houses and farm, Even Robert Hallum was alleged by his successor in the bishopric, John Chaundler, to have left uncorrected ‘notable and enormous _ deficiencies”’ in his castles and manors and in the properties belonging both to his prebends and to the episcopal manse.? Probably a bishop like Hallum, who had lived for his last three years continuously abroad, had been unable to keep his agents in England up to the mark. The fact that these cases came ‘‘ by complaint ”’ into the archbishop’s Audience points to the inability of the consistory court to provide a remedy. The steps taken by the Audience were to sequestrate and to conduct a strict inquiry in order to arrive at a fair assessment of the dilapidations. It seems doubtful whether the chapter could do anything about the episcopal castles and manors, but the state of the prebends was most decidedly their concern, and they cannot be wholly absolved from responsibility. But when in 1428 the archbishop visited the chapter and examined the canons, enquiring, we are told, into local defectus, the comperta or list of established offences was so inconsiderable that a few words of injunction orally (verbotenus) to the dean were all that was required. 1 Reg. Chichele, iv, 29, 85—-6, 48, 56—7, 83- 4, 86. 2 Ibid., iv, 61—2. 3 [bid., iii, 514. 488 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. And now for the men themselves. The first half of the fifteenth century can show a series of notable bishops. At the opening of the fifteenth century Richard Medford was bishop and his brother Walter chancellor (1402), The bishop had been Richard II’s secretary for the critical years 1885—7. He began as a clerk in the king’s chapel and his intimacy with royal business (the chapel clerks did a lot of administrative work) enabled him to organise and develope the office of the signet. Constantly with Richard, he gathered from his mastera rich sheaf of dignities and prebends. It was his practice of making signet letters lawful warrant for acts under the Great Seal. That was brought to an end when the storm of opposition to the king and his ministers broke in the parliament of 1386. Medford attended Richard on his wanderings throughout England in 1387. The next year, when the Merciless Parliament took its fateful steps against the king’s friends, Medford and his fellow clerks were arrested shortly after Christmas and sent to the Tower. He was later moved to Bristol castle. On 14th June, 1389, he was released on bail, pledging himself to live peaceably in his own dwelling, not to gainsay the acts of parliament, and not to present himself to the king’s presence or send him any business of state. But before this undertaking was given, the pope had already nominated Medford bishop of Chichester, and he was given the temporalities in 1390, He stayed at Chichester until 1895, when he was translated to Salisbury, which he held till his death in 1407.1 By 1895 he had probably had his fill of politics, and his future was to be a quiet one. He may have been an easy-going man, for he failed to grapple with the scandal at the Berkshire nunnery of Bromhale, which so moved Henry IV that he got Archbishop Arundel to appoint a special commission (on which Robert Hallum figured) to enquire into the conduct of the prioress Julian Dunne “‘ owing to the negligence and defect _of our venerable brother ’’ (Medford). Amongst her other offences Julian had been imprisoned for poaching at Windsor, and had so terrorised the foresters that when she was released they petitioned for her incarceration. Aided and abetted by her son, John Bromhale, she reduced the small Benedictine community to a ruinous condition (‘‘bien prés désolat et en voie de perdition’’). But this episode came at the end of Medford’s episcopate, and he can best be judged by his appointments to the chapter. Apart from that of his brother Walter—a distinguished man who became dean of Wells as well as papal nuncio and collector-general - in England—the happiest accession was that of Dr. Henry Chichele as archdeacon of Dorset and vicar general. As archdeacon of Salisbury (1402) and as chancellor (1404), Chichele, the future archbishop, gained at Salisbury an experience of diocesan administration which, when joined with his diplomatic gifts, learning and piety, made him on the death of 1 For Medford’s official career, cf. T. F. Tout, Chapters in Medieval Administrative History, iii, 400, 405, 452—-8, 457; v. 219—20. By Dr EOF, Jacob, F.B.A.«F.S.A. 489 Arundel, the strongest candidate for St. Augustine’s see. Throughout his life he remained devoted and loyal to Salisbury; so greatly did he value its Use that he persuaded other cathedrals to adopt it; and some of its canons were among hisclosest friends. More membersof Salisbury than of any other chapter had their wills proved by Chichele when archbishop. The Act-books show him in residence in the Close from 18th November, 1404, but he appears most frequently in the months between September 1405 and April 1406. In the latter year the chancellor set out upon his diplomatic missions for Henry IV, which _ lasted till 1408, when, as bishop of St. David’s, he was selected by Robert } Hallum to accompany him to the council of Pisa. When Chichele came to the diocese he had to litigate for two years against the papal provisor in the archdeaconry of Dorset. In virtue of a reservation, Nicholas Bubwith had been appointed by the pope before Chichele got there, and was not easily displaced, though he was silenced in the end, and Chichele, already acting as archdeacon, received anew that dignity from the Holy See. Bubwith, one of the greatest pluralists of the later Middle Ages, had been, like Medford, king’s secretary ;2 he was to succeed the latter for a brief period as bishop of Salisbury and then to be translated to Wells. The struggle evidently did not impair his friendship with his rival for the archdeaconry, for Chichele was later to send him with Hallum to Constance. Though Thomas Langley of Durham might have been in the running, Bubwith must have been Chichele’s only serious competitor for the primacy. The tough Yorkshireman was keeper of the Privy Seal in 1405, a member of the king’s Council in 1406 and treasurer of England in 1407. It may be noted that in his will (1424) he made Henry Beaufort the | supervisor of his executors ;3 may there perhaps be found here a reason | why he was passed over for Canterbury ? Henry V was on excellent _ terms with Beaufort in 1414, the year of Chichele’s appointment ; but, as far as possible, he always kept uncle Henry well to heel and did not encourage the formation of a Beaufort group or interest—a development that took piace in Henry VI’sreign. The presence at Canterbury of an ecclesiastic too friendly to the powerful bishop of Winchester would have been most undesirable. Medford and Bubwith reached their positions from the vantage ground of the royal service. But the Salisbury chapter had a tradition of | learning and respect for education dating well back to the thirteenth century, when Bishop Simon of Ghent granted more dispensations to _the clerks of his diocese to study ata university than any other con- _temporary bishop, and the cathedral school had nearly developed into a Studium Generale. The three canons with whom I shall now deal _ were all distinguished academics. William Loryng, fellow of Merton, } | \ » Draper Act-book, fo. 20 v. 2 Seethe biography of himin J.Otway-Ruthven, The King’s Secretary, pp. 160—2, and in D.N.B. 3 eg. Chichele, ii, 300. 490 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. brother of Sir Nigel Loryng, steward of the Black Prince’s household, was an Oxford LL.D., but a theologian as well as a lawyer. He gave — Merton one of its still extant manuscripts containing the De errore — Pelagu of William of Auvergne, Anselm’s Curvy Deus Homo and other works that included his own treatiseon prebends.! He left his Roman ~ Law books to the University Library at Cambridge. Loryng must have been an important figure in the administration of the cathedral, for in John Chaundler’s will we hear of an ordinance or composition he | helped to make governing the conduct of the common funds both of the canons and of the vicars choral. A man of taste, he went to great expense in repairing and adding new buildings to his house called “‘ Hemingsby ’’ in the Close. Loryng died between December 1415 and March 1416 asa residentiary, holding the prebend of Torleton. How long he was a canon I find it hard to say, but he was a comparatively old man at his death. The second of the academics was to become the greatest of the medieval bishops of Salisbury, possibly one of the greatest churchmen of the fifteenth century. Robert Hallum,? who was born shortly before 1870, came from the neighbourhood of Warrington in Lancashire: he was trained in the Canterbury administration, for he was registrar to Archbishop Courtenay between 1389—94 and later was Archbishop Arundel’s chancellor and auditor of causes, besides holding the arch- deaconry of Canterbury. He waschancellor of Oxford University from 1403 to 1406, and in the latter year was nominated by Gregory XII as archbishop of York, but owing to Henry IV’s objection (we do not know the grounds) was transferred to Salisbury. The choice was appropriate, forin 1895 Hallum had been prebendary of Bitton. In 1408 great events were at hand. The cardinals had finally revolted from their two masters and had decided to hold a general council to terminate the schism. There could have been no better selection than Hallum as leader of the English delegation to the Council of Pisa. The records of the Council point to the authority he exercised there and shew him discussing the reform of the religious orders. At Oxford his friend | Richard Ullerston had dedicated to him his Petitions of the Church | militant in the matter of reform and the treatise was very much to Hallum’s liking. He was a moderate Conciliar, respectful of apostolic authority, critical of its abuse, inclining (like Gerson) to base it upon the consent and approval of the whole body of the church. | At the Council of Constance (his next big task) Hallum, as leader of || of the English delegation and closely in touch with Henry V, had to take momentous decisions which influenced the whole course of Church history. The English plan of voting by nations rather than by heads | or by ecclesiastical provisors threatened to seal the fate of Pope John ' F. M. Powicke, The Medieval Books of Merion College, p. 192. 2 I have given a brief biography of him in Reg. Chichele, ii, 656, and | referred to his qualities in Essays in the Conciliay Epoch, pp, 76-—84. EVD yer. aCoU. I BeA sh Os Al 0 49] XXIII, who, if it was accepted, could no longer be maintained by the numerous Italian prelates that thronged the Council. The French were persuaded to adopt it, and John fled and was deposed. After the deposition Hallum and the patriarch of Antioch are indicated by William Fillastre, in his diary, as the main upholders of the supremacy of the Council over the cardinals and the Roman Curia. The bitter complaints of the French Cardinals Fillastre and d’Ailly against this disliked— but very just—control, and against the severe and parsimonious way in which the nations treated the Court of Rome, single out Hallum as a leading agent of Conciliar dominance.!. How much our bishop of Salisbury had to do with the Council’s famous decrees perpetuating its own life (‘‘ Frequens ’’) or asserting its superiority over any and every authority, even papal, in matters of faith and reform (‘‘ Sacrosancta’’) we do not know;; but the firm resolve of the English nation to support the Germans in advocating a policy of ecclesiastical reform in head and members can have had only one source. Hallum had to withstand the opposition of the French cardinals and the fierce rivalry of the Aragon- ese, both wanting to displace the English nation in the Council and force it to amalgamate with the Germans; he had to moderate the un- wise partisan zeal of the emperor Sigismund, Henry V’s ally in the Treaty of Canterbury, and make him a little more conciliatory to the Latins; and he had to keep discipline in a somewhat miscellaneous delegation of between 500 and 600 persons, the greater proportion of them laymen in attendance upon the king’s diplomatic representatives or upon their ecclesiastical masters, men quick to arm and enter into foray with the lay retinues of the other nations. All through the difficult phases Hallum kept his head, and found time to think of more peaceful things: Along with his colleague Bubwith he persuaded Giovanni di Serravalle, bishop of Fermo, to translate the Divine Comedy into Latin verse. That he was a stylist can be seen from his sermons, as well as from some of the letters in his Register, still preserved at Salisbury. Elsewhere I have dwelt on his firm yet enlightened rule in his diocese.2, He was nominated cardinal by John XXIII, but never received the hat nor styled himselfso. He had no inclination to receive such honour from Pope John, whom he helped to discard. Hallum is still more than a name in Constance. At the Cathedral they shew you his splendid full-length brass before the high altar, where he was buried: for he died there in the autumn of 1417, two months before the election of the Colonna Pope Martin V. What hopes were | set upon Hallum and reform can be seen from the text of the sermon to _ which I alluded at the beginning of this paper. Richard Ullerston, 7 who preached it, Hallum’s friend at Oxford, was his most fortunate acquisition. Like Loryng he was a genuine academic: a fellow of Queen’s 1391—14038, who resided about 83 years in Oxford, and was ' Acta Concilii Constanciensis, ed., H. Finke, ii, 114—5, 1883—4. 2 Essays in the Conciliar Epoch, p. 82 f, 492. The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. chancellor during 1407. Ullerston became prebendary of Axford on 25th March, 1416, and was admitted as a residentiary on the \7th December, 1416. He died in 1423.1 In Oxford he had been a member of a little Queen’s College circle which seems to have been in touch with the Court, for from it Henry V had not only literary works dedicated to him, but chaplains and administrators for his service. The treatise Ullerston dedicated to Henry was the De Officio Militari,” dealing with the moral — duties of a knight. But his better known works were the “ Petitions of the church militant’’ to which I have alluded, written for Hallum’s guidance at Pisa, and the Defensorium Dotacionis Ecclesie or Defence of the Endowment of the Church, written at Oxford in 1401. This latter is a work of apologetic; standing as it does after the treatises of FitzRalph of Armagh and Uthred of Boldon right in the thick of the Lollard controversy, it possesses considerable importance. Significantly it was dedicated to Archbishop Arundel, the pillar of the defence against the attack on church endowments. But if Ullerston was a defender of them, he was also a critic of clerical deficiencies, and in the Petitions, seven years later, it is interesting to find him conducting a strong attack on the contemporary abuses in the church—dispensations, exemption from diocesan authority, the abnormal number of appropriations of livings to the religious houses. In this attitude he had the support not only of Hallum, but of Archbishop Chichele himself, who was suspected by the more conservative Benedictines of hostility towards the position of the exempt religious. Ullerston’s sermon shows his pride in, and hope for, the cause sustained by his.own bishop and fellow progressives in the Council of Constance: and his confidence in the Institutio Sanch Osmund1, which is the ordering of services and scheme of government reputedly drawn up by St. Osmund for his church. The sermon was the prelude to a chapter decision to give up for the next seven years a tenth of the annual income of their prebends to the expenses of the canonization, and also to appropriate to the same object the admission fees of canons entering upon residence during the same period. The literary tradition of Richard Ullerston was continued in the chapter by the precentor Nicholas Upton, who, with Simon Houchyns was sent in 1452 to Rome as proctor for the bishop, dean and chapter in the matter of St. Osmund’s canonization. Like the then chancellor, Andrew Holles, Upton was a Wykehamist who became fellow of New College in 1415, retaining the fellowship till 1424. He served in the French war under Thomas Montagu, earl of Salisbury, and after the | earl’s death attached himself —as they all did--to Humphrey, duke of Gloucester. In Montagu’s will he is described as ‘‘ Master Nicholas Upton ”’ and, in the places where he is mentioned, named first of the | "Cf. Malden, Canonization of St. Osmund, p. 236 v.; D. N. B. art. | ‘“Ullerston ’’; and (for the fullest material) A. H. Wood, ‘‘ Richard | Ullerston, Canon of Salisbury’, (Dissertation, Univ. of Manchester Library, 2 vols., 1936). 2 In Wood, op. cit., vol, 2. By Dr. E. F. Jacob, F.B.A., F.S.A. 493 executors, which suggests that he was a favourite clerk of the earl’s chapel in the field. I do not think that he was a layman, as is some- times implied, but in minor orders ; but he must have taken holy orders by 1431 when he was collated to a prebend in Wells Cathedral, and in the autumn of that year he was given Major Pars Altaris at Salisbury. He became cantor or precentor in 1416, by which time he was also prebendary of Wildland in St. Paul’s. He was also warden of the college of Vaux (de valle scholarium) in Salisbury. He lived, Mr. Malden tells us, in a house which he is supposed to have built in the north-west angle of the Close. He died in the summer of 1457.! Upton hasa place in the literature of heraldry by reason of his treatise De studio militant or De militant officio, edited first by Bysse and, in more recent times, by Dr. F. P. Barnard. Dedicated to Duke Humphrey, the work is a little compendium of military science and heraldry : i describes the duties of a herald in war and peace, discusses nobility and titles, discourses on the government and regulation of armies. The third and fourth books are purely heraldic, dealing with the colours used in heraldry and with heraldic terms. It has been argued by Mr Evan Jones in his study of the Tvactatus de armis of Johannes de Bado Aureo that Upton’s treatise is simply a revision of the work of Johannes, whom he identifies with Sién Trefor, bishop of St. Asaph, and that it is in fact by Trefor himself, not Upton at all. There is an unquestionable similarity between these treatises and the Tvactatus de armis, but simi- larity in the Middle Ages is no proof of identity of authorship. Medieval borrowing is quite unashamed and unshameable: if an author whom you were reading said a thing you wanted to say better than you your- self could, you merely lifted the passage and putit into your own work, often without acknowledgement. If arguments and arrangement are identical in the two treatises, it may merely mean that Upton had diligently studied Trefor (if it was he). The dedication to Duke Humphrey in the De studio militari, wherein Upton declares that the present treatise represents his maturer correction of an earlier work, and alludes to an assertion of Duke Humphrey that he (Nicholas) had seen many things in the French wars, issome argument for the traditional view, while we should note that Upton’s work may be far from origina] . and owe much to an earlier writer. The point of special interest about Upton’s treatise is its blending of _ learning and personal military experience. Upton was both a civilian - andacanonist and cites with equal ease from both laws. He uses John of Salisbury’s Policrvaticus and St. Bernard on the Templars very frequently ; there are many citations from the great civilian Bartolus | of Sassoferrato, with whose De nobilitate he is very familiar. In Kook II, _ chapter xii, he quotes in full, very significantly, a safe-conduct issued by -. Thomas Montagu to the people of St. Loup, a small township near the - Orléanais, tocome and go through the English army between 15th April ' Canonization, p. xx. 494 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral. and 15th May. Montagu was operating in the area during the late spring of 1418, so that Upton was probably drawing upon his own personal knowledge and records. So too when hespeaks of the dutiesof the heralds in war. This young New College clerk in attendance upon the great English captain had both his academic authorities and his war service to rely upon when he wrote the De studio militari in more peaceful times. Upton has been described asa man of strong personality. As Mr. Malden said, ‘‘ he tried hard to check the licence which had been allowed to grow up in connection with the custom of the Boy Bishop ; he detected and exposed a fraud which had been imposed on the Dean and Chapter by an erasure in a deed ; and whenever there was any important ceremony to take place in, or in connection with, the cathedral, he took the lead in making all the necessary arrangements’’.' He was aman of some personal courage : once he protected Lord de Moleyns (afterwards third earl of Hungerford) from a mob that was theatening his life, and took him safely within the gates of the Close, His English style when he wrote from Rome to the dean and chapter (who had not sent him the funds he and Houchyns needed) is racy and vigorous: ‘‘ we have bete thair (Rome) gapyng after your letters without comfort of you and Tarentyn (the Archbishop of Tarentum, who promised to act in Salisbury interests), as I shal more playnly telle youat commyng. By God I trow and [if] money had been in the bank, our mater had be sped or this — with lytelle mony consydering the gretnesse thereof ... . I pray God put the holy ghost among yow, and so herte [hearten] you in youre — blest mater that negligence or yvell let hit not, there schal be no defaute in us”’. Dean from 1402 to 1417, when he succeeded Hallumas Bishop, John Chaundler takes us back to the succession of king’s clerks ; yet he was connected with the chapter for the greater part of his life. His first prebend was Netherbury in 1888; he was treasurer in 1894, holding Calne; and ten years later dean, though he kept the treasurership of St. Paul’s (which was also in his hands) till 1409. He was Queen Joan’s firsttreasurer, having been sent by Henry IV to fetch her from Brittany, and treasurer too to Princess Blanche. His will, one of the most elaborate of any proved by Archbishop Chichele,?, makes complete provision for the cathedral staff : for the canons, the vicars, cantarists, choristers and altarists; for the two sacrists and their boys, for the subdean and succentor, the master of the grammar schools, the master carpenter and master mason ; for the clerk of the works, the workmen under him, the janitor and the beadle. Sums of money are left to the fabric of his various prebendal churches and to the poor of their parishes; but his most noteworthy bequests are of his pontifical vestments to the | Cathedral sacristy and of the moneys he left to the common funds both | of the canons and of the vicars choral, to be distributed, in case’of need, by the communars. There were other rewards for the vicars: by his 1 Canonization, pp. xxi—il. 2 Reg. Chichele, ii, 346—53. By Dr. E. F. Jacob, F.B.A., F.S.A. 495 direction the society was to be divided into three, one group to say the office of the dead, the second lauds, the third the requiem each night until the thirtieth day. One would like to haveseen the “ great breviary ”’ which he bequeathed to the Cathedral, ‘‘to remain in the treasury of the said church and not elsewhere, nor to be taken or carried outside unless a king, prince, duke or bishop come, and then for the honour of the church it is to be put before them and borne before them”’; or the two images, one in amber of the Trinity, the other, silver gilt, of the Blessed Virgin, ‘‘ which I had from Master John Tidelying’’. Few bishops made such elaborate provision for every clerica] interest in their cathedral cities, for Chaundler did not forget the hospitals or the religious; but he had been dean, and on his death an effort was made to continue the policy of appointing the dean to be bishop on the vacancy of the see, and so avoiding the friction of the Waltham days. In 1427 Simon Sidenham was brought from the deanery to succeed Chaundler at the palace. Sidenham, an ecclesiastical iawyer, son of a justice of the Common Bench, had made his career in the diocese ; apart from one diplomatic mission, when he accompanied Sir Walter Hungerford to visit the emperor Sigismund, he had stuck honourably to his Salisbury prebends and had served as archdeacon of Berkshire, later of Wiltshire. But nobilitas generis defeated him, and he had to make way for Robert Neville. It was a pity, for he knew the diocese in and out, and had often served as Chichele’s commissary. He was eventually sent to Chichester. Salisbury was evidently, as now; a pleasant place to live in. During the fourteenth century, except for the plague years round about 1349—50, there were rarely much less than a quarter of the 52 canons making full residence at the cathedral,and sometimes considerably more. The communar accounts show that their numbers were maintained _ well into the fifteenth century, at any rate till 1461. This was achieved largely through the majority of the residentiaries proper making a much longer residence than theirstatutory threemonths. Thecathedral had in consequence more continuous service from the canons, and the programme undertaken during the treasurership of George Louthorpe and Henry Harborough—a period of great internal activity —necessitated such a measure of solicitude. The chapter in the first half of the fifteenth century undertook large schemes: the reform of the cathedral statutes, the settlement of outstanding causes of dispute with the bishop, the repair of the cathedral fabric, finally the canon- ization of their founder. They played their part in the political thought of the time; they made their contribution to the Conciliar Movement. They were the liturgical mainspring of a great part of Ecclesia Anglicana. I hope that these things will be remembered by anybody inclined to Minimize the value and underrate the activities of fhe cathedral canons of the fifteenth century. VOLE. LI.—-NO ¢CLXXXVI 410 496 DEVIZES CASTLE: A SUGGESTED RECONSTRUCTION. By Lz.-Cot. R. H. CUNNINGTON. Until I was asked at the annual meeting to talk about it, I had always supposed that the Norman castle of Devizes stood on a mound that was at least partly artificial. I was in good company, for Leland evidently thought so, 400 years ago. ‘‘ The Keep or donjon of it’”’, he writes, ‘“‘set upon a high hill cast up by hand’’. (Waylen’s History of Devizes). Most writers about the castle have followed him in his error—for an error I feel sure it was. In Leland’s time the building was largely in ruins, no doubt partly overgrown with vegetation: and the great moat surrounding the keep and the curtain wall and isolating a spur of ground, would make the part cut off looklike a hill. Now it looks even more like one, because no walls are visible, and the slopes of debris are covered with grass or trees. It must however have been a spur of level ground and not a hill for several reasons :— A natural hill in this position would be a geological eccentricity. As an artificial Norman ‘‘ motte ’’, it is too low and too wide. Roger, when he built his stone castle early in the twelfth century, could never have founded it on recently ‘‘made’”’ ground ; and there is no evidence of a motte-and-bailey castle preceding his. Evenif there had been one, the ground would hardly have settled sufficiently to build on it the great keep which was clearly part of Roger’s castle. The levels clinch the matter. The bottom of the modern building and of the rampart walk within the moat are some 20 feet above the natural level of the ground; but the ‘‘ banqueting hall”’ and other ruins within ~ (sometimes called dungeons) stand even now, after debris must have collected, very little above ground level. (The figure does not show these as they are probably later than Norman. They would come under the letters Aand B). It is obvious that these buildings must have been built on natural ground, for no one would have deliberately excavated a hole to set them in. There can have been no mound, artificial or otherwise, when they were built. Supposing then that Roger’s castle was built on a spur jutting out into the valley at the same level as the town and surrounding country we have to account for its present appearance. Partly it is due to the isolating ditch, but less so than in Leland’s time, when the ditch must — have been much deeper. As the building was ruinous in 1540 and ‘slighted ’’ soon after 1646, there is plenty of time for the debris of walls to be covered with earth and grass or trees. Visible masonry would have been a tempting quarry to the townspeople in that district, barren of building stone; and what little might have been left was probably re-used, like many of the carved stones, in the modern build- ings. It isno wonder it looks like a mound of earth, 497 24 2 "suol}09S payl[duiis ‘ajseg seziaeq *9uN) POs '}2027-punos UIIV~oO yy, "P2YOY' sz oem PUT Prop’ sysomuzive WOWLOWN “PEMCP-wroyd" 22) -punosb JOAN “YSvyg of {som wos $U03}29S ayouw0 ib vig Ey, { { } j i C01 as re) Se eee egg ceeswcellee Pus ° e : e GB ry 7 “e o rh 20% OG! 21°39 : ; a =. e @ e e .-y of Ff iv? \ { ! { j , i] ANY f t ' i rad] ANNAN C) ee ceccece Pe em 0 & ° ew eo amo ee G2 eo ee @temeo a» UsP POs 498 Devizes Castile: A Suggested Reconstruction. The ditch was at least 45 feet deep, and the material from it (if not used for a motte) must have been thrown up on the outerv side to make a circular bank. This is nodoubt what Leland saw when he wrote that the castle was ‘‘defended partly by nature and partly with dykes, the earth whereof is cast up aslope and that of a great height for the defence of the wall’’. Very little of this bank remains: on the town side it was evidently levelled off or thrown back into the ditch, but on the west the remains of it form a carriage drive (at two places pierced by short tunnels) between the moat and the valley bottom. The figure illustrates why I suppose this drive to be ‘‘made” and not “natural” ground. It rests on the reasonable assumption that the curtain wall was built at the end of the spur, with the ground falling steeply beyond, scarped to serve as a most formidable ditch. Within the moat was the curtain wall. It is now represented by a. ‘“‘rampart ’’’ walk, some 15 or 20 feet above ground level. On the south this stands with steep slopes on both sides, still something like a wall; but on the northern segment, where the rampart walk is lower. the inner slopes are gentle. This can be interpreted by supposing that moreof the northern portion has fallen thanelsewhere, and fallen inwards. Supposing the curtain wall was 50 feet high and averaged 10 feet in thickness, but with towers at intervals to raise the average thickness to, say, 15 feet. Then the areaof a cross section of wall would about balance that of the rampart walk above ground level. The wall area would be 50 x 15=750 square feet. The rampart walk is about 15 feet wide, 20 feet above ground level, and has slopes on each side averaging 45 degrees. Thearea of a cross section is therefore about 700 square feet. The rampart walk would have been made on top of the remains of the curtain wall. The fallen débris on each side, representing the destroyed part, would have protected what was left from further loss. As the walk is 20 feet or so above ground level, 20 feet or so of the curtain wall must still stand concealed within it. The wall however is likely to have lost much of its ashlar facing : it might have been taken before the top had fallen to protect it, or it might have been worth quarrying for at any time. The keep was much the largest building and would have left the widest and highest mound. This is where the widest, southern, end of — the present building stands. We know from Leland that the keep was at this end, for the forebuildings, guarding the approach, occupied the northern part. As regards its size, we must again make some assump- tions, for there is no record. Colchester keep, the largest in England, — was 152 by 111 feet. The White Tower of London was 118 by 107 and at least 90 feet high. Rochester was 70 by 70 and 113 high. It may be supposed that Devizes keep, in a castle noted for its strength, was at least equal to Rochester, say 70 by 80 and 90 feet high. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington. 499 The average thickness of the walls of a keep is about 15 feet at the bottom and 10 at the top; and there would have been a cross wall up to the full height, say 12 feet thick, and projecting buttresses or turrets at the four corners, whose thickness would about balance the openings for doorways and windows. The volume of masonry therefore would have been about 330,000 cubic feet. The area of the wide part of the existing mound or platform (on which the southern part of the present building stands) is about 90 by 75, and the height above ground level averages 24 feet. The volume is therefore about 270,000 cubic feet. Thisis much !ess than the volume of the keep because some of the masonry was carried away (Leland mentions the chapel for instance), and a large part must have fallen into the ditch. One can be sure of this because the present mound or platform is 8 feet lower on the east, or ditch, side than on the other. The defences of the approach or ‘‘ gateways’’, as Leland calls them, and their towers stood on the northern side and probably extended as far as Castle Lane. Perhaps a trace of these defences may still be seen. One of the windmill towers erected early in the 18th century was incorporated at the northernend of the moderncast!e. Its lower courses are of stone, and the upper part of brick. It may well have made use of one of the “‘ gateway ’’ towers as a foundation. The ‘‘gateway’’ defences, like the chapel of the keep, were used as quarries for Sir Edward Baynton’s house at Bromham early in the 16th century, and no doubt by the inhabitants of Devizes after the castle was slighted in 1646. Much of the stonework must be missing, and as a consequence the platform on this side is lower than elsewhere, but widespread, showing what a lot of these forebuildings must have been destroyed. The top part of a building in falling protects the lower part from further damage or theft. We may be sure therefore that the found- ations and lower courses of Bishop Roger’s splendid castle still exist, and may one day, by excavation, be restored to view. 500 THE WARDENS OF SAVERNAKE FOREST. PART II: THE SEYMOUR WARDENS. By THE EARL OF CARDIGAN. SIR JOHN SEYMOUR: 1427—1465. When, at the age of 24, John Seymour came into his inheritance at Savernake, he must have been reckoned a fortunate young man. Already for some years, owing to the premature death of his father, he had been head of the Seymour family—folk of some eminence in the West of England. The St. Maurs, for so the name was originally spelled) . were Clearly of Norman origin; but they do not appear to have made their mark in history until the time of that Sir William St. Maur who, in the 13th century, was one of the defenders of the Kingdom against the incursions of the Welsh. Descended from the militant Sir William was Sir Roger Seymour of Woundy, Monmouthshire. The latter married, in the 14th century, Cecilia de Beauchamp, one of the sisters of John, Baron Beauchamp of Hache. Her brother being childless, this lady became a great heiress. She survived until 1394, thereby outliving both her husband, Sir Roger, and her son, Sir William Seymour. So it was that the great possessions which she had inherited fell to her grandson, that same Roger Seymour who married Matilda Esturmy.? Roger himself did not live to a great age. Thus by 1427, John Seymour, with whom we are now concerned, found himself possessed both of his father’s Seymour-Beauchamp fortune and, through his mother, of a great part of the Esturmy lands. The hereditary office of Warden of Savernake Forest, which also descended to him, gave him at the same time a position of influence and a vocation to follow. From henceforth he was the King’s representative within the Forest, pledged to guard the King’s venison and to preserve his woodlands. King Henry VI being but a child, it was in fact to a Council of Regency that the new Warden was responsible. John Seymour’s lot, in dealing with officialdom, can not have been enviable: the country was entering a a period of lawlessness, when great nobles manceuvred themselves into power, only to be overthrown by less scrupulous rivals. This process culminated in the Wars of the Roses, which for 30 years filled the land 1 The Seymour Pedigree lists 10 variations of the name; but the Seymour family themselves found that this did not cover all the possibilities The Lady Elizabeth, for instance, when she signed “‘ Eliz. Seymaure’’, made use of an llth permutation—this as late as the 17th century ! _ 2 As we proceed with the history of the Seymours, we shall find that this inheritance of property, etc., by a grandchild was of surprisingly frequent occurrence. Alternate generations, in other words, tended to die young. 501 GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE SEYMOUR FAMILY— 1400— 1675. Sir Roger Seymour—Cecilia Beauchamp sir William Seymour * Sir William Esturmy Roger Seymour—Matilda Esturmy * Sir John Seymour(1427—65)—Isabella Williams | John Seymour—Elizabeth Coker | | | * John Seymour (1465—91)—Elizabeth Darrell Humfrey Seymour | | | | * Sir John Seymour (1491—1536)—Margery Wentworth 3 brothers : | | Catherine— Edward Seymour— Anne 5 brothers 4 sisters Fillol | * Duke of Stanhope incl. incl. Jane | Somerset, Thomas Queen of | 1536-52 Ld. Seymour England 2 sons | * Edward Seymour-—Lady Catherine 2 brothers Earl of Hertford | Grey (1552-1621) | Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp—Honora Rogers Thomas | Seymour ey | | Lady * William Seymour Lady 2 brothers - Arabella—Marquess of Hertford—Frances Stuart 1621-60 | Devereux | | | | | William Seymour Robert Henry Mary Edward John, 4th Duke Lord Beauchamp Seymour— Capel * of Somerset | 1671-75 a | | William Seymour, 3rd Duke Lady Elizabeth * of Somerset (1660-71) Seymour * Warden of Savernake Forest. 502 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. with confusion and bloodshed. Wedo not hear of the Seymours taking any part in this: John perhaps had the wisdom to concentrate his attention on the Forest and on his various landed properties. There were domestic matters also to occupy him. Shortly before the death of Sir William Esturmy, his grandfather, he had married Isabella, the daughter of a certain Mark Williams of Bristol. A son was born to the young couple and was given the name of John. (In this matter, the Seymours followed the Esturmy practice—sons being constantly named after their fathers. Thus, just as the biographer is confused by a succession of Henry Esturmys, so he is baffled by a string of John Seymours. There were four members of the family so named during the 15th century.) It is not easy to judge where the Seymour family, at this stage, made its home. John’s trustees had handed over to him the lands so _ be- queathed by old Sir William Esturmy, ‘‘his manor of Burbache, the hamlet of Durle, the pasture of Tymerygge, the bailiwick of the steward- ship of Savernak Forest in the County of Wilts with its appurtenances, and the half of the manor of Stapleford in the County aforesaid’’. It will be seen that there is no mention of the Esturmy homestead of Wolfhall. Some evidence! exists that Robert Erlegh had a Jife interest in Wolfhall manor, and perhaps it did not come to the Seymours until after his death. ' Then again, William Ryngeborne (John’s cousin) and his heirs had some claim upon Wolfhall, having apparently not received their fair share of the Esturmy lands elsewhere. It is perhaps unprofitable at this date to attempt to analyse their grievance: what is certain is that eventually John Seymour and Robert Ryngeborne had the good sense to come together (but not until the former was already grey-haired) and agree to a permanent settlement. The basis of this was that the Seymours should have Wolfhall, and that the Ryngebornes should receive an annuity in Satisfaction of their claim. The document recording this was written in English—a novelty for those days. ‘‘ Thisis the Accorde’’, it runs, ‘‘and Agrement Endented made be twyxt John Saymour knighte of that one partie and Robert Rangeborn esquyer of that other partie . . . the whiche accorde is this that yeseid Sir John Seymour shall have the Maner (of Wolfhale) afore seid, and Crofton with ye appurtenaunce to him and to his heires: . to theseid Robert and his heyrs an anuyte of xi mark? bithe yere . . . And this partition be made in as goodeli haste as may be bi the avisse (advice) of Counssell of boothe parties and alsso the seid counssell have auctorite to adde and admenushe (? admonish) and make the seid particion as Sewre and as lawffull as they can, as sewre for the seid Sir John Seymour as for the seid Roberd in witnes where of the parties affore seid to this Endentur have put to ther Seales ”’. 1 Savernake Archives. 2 £7 6s. 8d. By the Earl of Cardigan. | 503 It will be noticec that John Seymour is referred to as ‘‘ Sir John’”’. His knighthood was almost certainly gained when he was made Sheriff of Wilts in the year 1432. He was still a young man, barely 30, when he received this honour. Information is unfortunately scanty concerning Sir John’s activities during the middle part of his life; but he seems to have been influential in Wiltshire, and to have represented his county in Parliament as a Knight of the Shire. Young John Seymour, hisson, grew up, and about 1450 married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Coker and incidentally an heiress. Sir John’s first grandson (yetanother John!) was born in 145], and shortly afterwards another boy, Humfrey, was born. These young- sters were sturdy, which must have comforted the Warden: their father apparently was not robust. In 1464 indeed, Sir John Seymour suffered asad loss through his son’s death. John his grandson thus, at the age of 13, became his heir. At this period it seems clear that the family was established at Wolfhall ;? and in the manor house there we must suppose that Sir John, now a man of about 60, made a home for his widowed daughter-in-law and for his two grandsons. The latter part of Sir John Seymour’s life must have been a busy and anxious period. Civil war was raging between the Yorkists and Lancast- rians, resulting in the dethronement of Henry VI and the accession of King Edward IV. There is some indication that Sir John was persona grata with the new sovereign; for we hear of him? in 1465 holding Marlborough Castle, and thus combining the office of Constable with that of Warden of the Forest. In such times, the Constable’s office, in particular, must have been an onerous one. The year 1465, as it happened, was a busy one also in Forest affairs. During the summer, this communication reached Savernake :— ‘‘ Henry -Bourgchier Earl of Essex, Justicein Eyre of all the forests, parks, chases and warrens of our Sovereign Lord the King on this side Trent, to the Warden of the Forest of Savernake in the County of Wilts of his Deputy in the same, Greeting! On the part of our said Sovereign Lord the King we command you, firmly enjoining that you cause to come before us or our Deputy at Marleburgh . . . all the Foresters, Verderers, Regarders, Agisters, Woodwards and all and singular other Ministers of the said Forest with their rolls, writs, tallages (taxes) and all other amercements happening since the last Inquisition in Eyre .. . and that you also cause to come . . . before us or our Deputy all the treeholders who have any lands or tenements within the said Forest, and of every village in the said Forest four men prepared to hear and do such things as shall be then and there enjoined them”. _ 1H. St. Maur, Annals of the Seymours, p. 1d. 2 From documents so dated being drawn up there. 3 Waylen’s History of Marlborough, p. 62. 504 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. “And moreover that you cause to come at the same time all persons indicted or accused of any trespass in Venison or Vert . . . and further that you have there all and singular the Sureties . . . and that you cause tocome .. . all and singular person and persons who claim to have any liberties or franchises within the said Forest . . . and that you be then and there in your own proper person, bringing with you the names of all the said men and Ministers aforesaid imbreviated together ... and... you certify us or our Deputy upon pain and peril that may ensue”’. To carry out all these instructions must have involved a great deal of administrative work, and gallopers must have gone all round the countryside warning (and in some cases compelling) the various persons to attend. The nominal roll which the Warden himself prepared has happily survived.’ He heads it, ‘‘The Answer of Sir John Seymour Knight, Warden and Chief Forester in Fee and also Chief Steward of - the Forest of Savernake’’. Next to his own name he adds :— ‘‘ John Seymour Esquire, Deputy of the said Forest. Richard Seymour Esquire, Ranger of the said forest ’’. Both these names are puzzling. The only John Seymour Esquire living at this date was apparently the Warden’s grandson, aged 14— while as to Richard Seymour, no trace remains in Savernake records of his identity. It is not impossible however that 14-year-old John was his grandfather’s Deputy: the duties may have been nominal, and the opportunities great for gaining experience of forest management. As regards Richard, Ihave noted previously that compilers of family records (even on the ambitious scale of the illuminated Seymour Pedigree) commonly did not know the identity of younger sons, except in the case of those who in some way gained fame, or of daughters, except those who were heiresses. The Warden may thus have had numerous unrecorded cousins, and perhaps nearer relatives as well. The Warden’s list goes on to name the Foresters in Fee :— ‘‘Robert Rangeborn? of Hyppyngyscombe Roger Seymour? of Broyle John Sotewell of Southegrove Sir John Seymour, Knight, of the West Bailey ”’. The bailiwick of La Verme is, as usual, not mentioned: it was no doubt common knowledge that this was the Warden’s personal domain. That the West Bailey should be kept in hand was however a compara- tively recent practice: it dated only from the time of the Esturmy-, Bilkemore feud. Hence Sir John specifies himself as the West Bailey Forester. 1Savernak Archives. . 2 Besides being a relative, Robert must have had much land there— his father’s share of Sir Willam Esturmy’s property. : i 3 Another unknown; but perhaps closely related. One recalls that a former Roger was the Warden’s father. By the Earl of Cardigan. 505 The Under-foresters are named :— . ‘ Willian Manger of La Verme John Eston of the West Bailey John Baryngton of Panterwyke Thomas King of Iwode Wilham Loveleke of Hyppyngiscombe William Puttehull of Southegrove’’. And the Verderers :-— ‘“‘Constantine Darell William Erneley ’’. Then follow the names of 24 Regarders, and of 20 Woodwards. The latter are not specified by their proper names, but are called, for example, ‘“Woodward of the Grove of the Abbot of Hyde’’. One notices a “Woodward of Toppenham ’’—the first mention of this name, more familiar now as Tottenham. Nineteen villages are listed, but not the names of the 76 men who represented them. (Sir John had to draw the line somewhere !) Prominently named among ‘’ those who claim to have liberties and franchises within the said Forest’”’ is once again ‘‘ Sir John Seymour, Knight’’. Wemay be sure that the Warden did indeed, as his pre- decessors had done for centuries past, recite his elaborate claim to hereditary privileges. It is probable that the whole of the first day of the Eyre was taken up with business of this sort. Several more days must have been occupied by prosecutions which had been pending ever since the last visit of a Justice to Savernake Forest.’ All the work involved must have told on Sir John—for he was no longer young. At any rate, in the following months he thought it prudent to set his affairs in order, placing his property in the hands of trustees for the benefit of his young grandson. He seems to have con- solidated his estate during the period of his Wardenship, for his charter? ‘specifies in addition to Burbage etc., ‘‘ Wodehous Close and the baili- wick called Vermbayly, the Stewardship of the Forest of Savernak, two virgates of landin Estwyke and Wotton Ryver with the bailiwick of Westbayly . . . and alsomy manor of Wolfhale, Crofton, Wotton Ryver and Hewyshe (Huish) . . . likewise the advowsons of the churches of Wotton and Hewyshe ...andalsoatenement . . . called Wykestond in West Grafton’’. All this of course had been Esturmy property—and now once again it was concentrated in the Warden’s hands. 1 It is noteworthy that, according to the list of villages, the Earl of _ Essex appears to have claimed jurisdiction over the whole 100 square miles which Savernake used to occupy before the great disafforestation of the 14th century. Was it the King’s policy at’ this time to ignore | the disafforestation ? Or were the villages those specified by the Warden | in accordance with his own, somewhat archaic, notions? 2 Savernake Archives. 506 | The Wardens of Savernake Forest. The summer of 1465 was nearly over when Sir John sealed this document at Wolfhall. As winter closed down upon the land he was already failing, and five days before Christmas he died. Isabella survived him, and might perbaps have remarried had she been so inclined. She preferred however to live out the rest of her long life alone. After two years of mourning, she came before Bishop Carpenter in thecollegiate church of Westbury, put on with his blessing the vesture of one pledged to widowhood, and took the vow of perpetual chastity.! JOHN SEYMOUR: 1465—1491. It might be supposed that 14-year-old John Seymour, succeeding to the Wardenship after his grandfather’s death, would have had the affairs of Savernake taken out of his hands and assigned to some crown nominee. This had twice occurred during the Esturmy period when the hereditary ~ Warden was not legally of age, and it had been the custom to appoint ~ the Constable of Marlborough Castle as temporary administrator of the Forest. Now, Sir Jobn Seymour’s death had left both offices simultan- eously vacant. It would have been in accordance with precedent if the King had selected some competent official to replace Sir John, perman- ently as Constable and temporarily as Warden. Curiously enough, I can find no account of this being done. Civil war may have interfered with the normal procedure, or it may be that some senior member of the Seymour family came forward to act as young John’s guardian and mentor. The records are silent, except for noting the marriage of the young Warden, which seems to have occurred about 1472. John’s wife came from Littlecote: she was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir George Darrell. The young couple soon had a large family, including four sons of whom the eldest was of course named John. We know this boy’s approximate birth-date, for in 1492 ‘‘he was aged 18 years Or more ~’.” It would seem, possibly owing to the Warden’s youth, and perhaps also owing to the fact that he had a lawless brother-in-law, that a good deal of poaching was allowed to take place in the Forest at this period. By 1477, this state of affairs had become known to King Edward IV, whose indignation expressed itself in the following letter.? ‘‘Edward, by the grace of God, King of England and of ffrance and Lord of Ireland : To oure trusty and welbeloved Esquier, John Saymour, Warden of the fforest of Savernake belonging to oure deerest wyf the Quene, and in his absence to all the kepers of the same and to eni of them, greting! ffor asmoche as we to oure right great displeasur have — understanden that the Game in the said fforest by many riottous and evill disposed persones of late huntyng therinneis greatly diminisshed, 1 H. St. Maur. 2 Calendar of Inquisitions. 3 Savernake archives. | | i | | | | ; } | By the Earl of Cardigan. 507 we straitly charge and command you that from hensforth ye suffer noo maner of persone, of what estate condicion or degre soever he be, with- inne the said fforest or eny grounde therto belonging to have shot sute nor cours unto the tyme that we or our said wyf shal cumme thider ”’ “ Andif eny persone whatsoever he be woll hunte therinne or with bowe or other thing sture (? stir) the said game agenst your willes, that ye thanne in alle possible hast certifye us of his name and demeanyng, and we shall procede unto his grevous and sharp punicement as accordeth with our lawes. And therfore that ye faile not t’obey this our Comand- ment in eni behalve as ye woll eschewe oure grettest displeasur and answere onto us at your uttermost perille. Geven under oure signet at our Castell of Leycester the xii day of Juylli,the xviyere of ourregne’ . One would like to think that the Warden, his brother-in-law and other local gentry took good heed of the royal warning, (I say ‘gentry ’’, for the mediaeval poacher—at least at Savernake—was usually a person of some quality, who ought to have known better.) Unfortunately however, there were some hardened sinners in the neigh- bourhood at this time ; so that, if the foregoing letter caused any im- provement, it was but temporary, An event of the following year (1478) was the return to Savernake of Henry Bourgchier, Earl of Essex. He came, as in the time of old Sir John as ‘‘ Justice Itinerant . . . of all the Forests, parks, chases and warrens ’’—and it was now John Seymour’s duty to summon the Foresters, the Verderers, the villagers, the accused persons and others to attend his Court. We know! that John presented at great length his own claim to ‘“‘all and singular the authorities, powers, liberties, privileges, profits advantages, commodities etc.’’ which were his by hereditary right, ‘‘even as is fully evident by the copy of the record and process thereof, sealed with the seal used for exemplifications of this sont Unfortunately this record seems in the course of centuries to have got lost—so I quote from a similar document which John presented to a similar Court on an occasion some years later.. ‘‘And now John Seymour, esquire, by John Baker his attorney, comes . . . and claims (John Baker is very longwinded ; and so the contents of a fenethy parchment roll must here be drastically condensed). He claims ‘‘ the chief wardenship and stewardship of the aforesaid Forest . . . and to have the wardenship of a certain bailiwick within the said Forest, vulgarly called Vermebaily. And moreover he claims . . the power and authority of making a certain lieutenant and ranger (and) foresters in the Bailiwick of Verme. ... Andalso.. . all amercements arising from .. . hares, foxes, badgers . . . all fines for animals straying . . . and lost in the said Forest, and... nestlings _ of sparrow hawks, honey, nuts and reasonable estover for housebote and haibote throughout all the aforesaid bailiwick of Verme ”’ 1 He specifically says so—Savernake Archives. 508 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. ‘‘(He claims to be) quit of payment for herbage for all his animals and his pigs running within the said Forest . . . except during the forbidden month only. He also claims to have all amercements for hambling dogs, and free chase of hares, foxes, wild cats, badgers and all manner of the same sort of vermin . . . and to have a certain farm at fixed rent! in the wood called La Verme . . . And these are the metes and bounds of La Verme ... ”’ “The claim goes on (blandly ionouine all that had happened in the 300 years intervening !) to quote the perambulation of 1199. The Court in fact—incredible though it may seem—was asked to recognise a Farm Baily stretching out to the House of the Lepers on the outskirts of Hungerford ! Then follows—more rationally—the old claim to fallen timber, {and as well to have bracken in the same fixed-rent farm. . . . He claims also to have a certain sand pit’’. There are some further slate as to the Warden’s right to charge fees for the agistment of beasts in certain parts of the Farm Baily—the rate for each beast being twopence a year. “The same John Seymour claims . . . to have two virgates of land . of which one lies next Hywode? and the other at Boneclyf and to have, by reason of the two virgates . . ., the wardenship and govern- orship of a certain bailiwick within the said Forest commonly called le Westbaily alias le Braydon ;? and to have and hold the said two virgates| 7. '. ‘ot the Word King ) . 7. by) the service: ot smmcdinen time foresters on foot . . . and also rendering tothe Lord King . . . fifty and two shillings of lawful money of England . . . (the said bailiwick being held) by these metes and bounds underwritten ”’ Once again, ignoring Magna Carta and all the long process of dis- afforestation arising from it, the metes and bounds given are those of the 1199 perambulation, showing the West Baily to stretch out as far as Pewsey! There follows a whole string of claims to privileges within this Bailiwick, the effect being to give the Warden much the same rights here as those appertaining to La Verme. Among purely local rights, we may note ‘“‘ that the Abbot of Hyde shall have onestrong oak a year. . . and shall render annually fourteen shillings . . . the village of Eston five shillings for one tree trunk annually, and the Lady Isabella Seymour’ of Wotton two shillings ”’ ‘“« And (he claims) as well to have from all sheepfolds of the. Barton (around Marlborough) of the,Lady Queen® . . . from each and every 1 A reference to ‘‘ the old Farm of the Forest ”’ 2 More usually Iwode, near Burbage Wharf. 3 An inappropriate alias. Braydon Hook was on the boundary | between La Verme and the West Baily. 4 This must have been the Warden’s grandmother, now retired to a dower house at Wootton Rivers. She evidently lived to a great age. 5 Presumably Elizabeth Woodville, King Edward IV’s Queen. It was common for the Consort to be given the over-lordship of Savernake Forest, Marlborough Castle, the Barton etc. | | | | ] ‘| | } By the Earl of Cardigan. 509 fold one sheep or twelve pence at his choice, and to have payments for right of way within his bailiwick aforesaid ’’. John Seymour’s claim then goes on to prove, at laborious length, his descent from the Esturmy Wardens, and to elucidate the Seymour- Ryngeborne partition of Esturmy property. ‘‘ All and singular which things the same John Seymour is ready to prove, even as the Court here may consider (needful), and he seeks that . . . the authorities, powers, liberties, privileges, profits, advantages (etc.) by him claimed above may be allowed to him’”’. It is evident from all this that John had every intention of making the most of his hereditary rights. The traditional claim of the Wardens of Savernake can never have been more comprehensively presented. . One is sorry to observe however that at this time, when John Seymour was stressing his hereditary rights, dissatisfaction at Court still continued in regard to his management of the royal Forest. The Wars of the Roses had no doubt caused a general increase of lawlessness: none the less, it was unfortunate that the Warden should have continued unable to keep in check those of his neighbours who were addicted to hunting and harrying the King’s deer. There was trouble of some sort at the end of King Edward’s reign ; for John Seymour was pardoned by Richard III soon after that monarch’s accession.’ Following the Battle of Bosworth, it was King Henry VII who sent a stern message? to ‘‘ the Warden of our fforest of Savernak . . . fforsomouche as we bee fully determined to have our game within our said fforest to bee reserved cherisshed and kept for our disport and plaisir . . . which as we bee enformed is greatly diminisshed and lessed (lessened) through excessive and outragious hunting”. The King demanded that no one be allowed to hunt without his express permission ; ‘“‘and if any personne wol of hedinesse (headiness) attempte the contrary herof, we wol that ye certifie us of his name, and we shal provide for his sharpe punisshement; .. . and that herin bee founde noo defaulte orremisse dealing in you, as ye wol answere therfor unto us at your peryllys”’. | We must suppose that John Seymour did his best to carry out these royalinstructions ; but he seems to have achieved no substantial success. In June 1486, King Henry was constrained to send a further message, ?® couched in still stronger terms. He commenced with the words, ‘‘ To our trusty and welbeloved the Wardeyn and lieutenant of our fforest of Savernak’’; but directed it to the latter functionary, ‘‘ Alexander " The Pardon (Savernake Archives) does not indicate whether John’s offence had to do with his Forest Wardenship. It seems rather that he was one of many who received a general pardon from the new King. 2 Savernake Archives; September, 1485. 3 Savernake Archives. 510 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Seymour, lieutenant of the fforest’’. (Alexander was no doubt the Warden’s relative; but I have not been able to identify him).! ‘“‘fforasmoche as it is comen to our knowlege’’, the King’s message ran, ‘‘that our Game within our seid fforest by mean of excessive huntyng there in tymes passed is greately dimminisshed and lykly to growe unto fynall distrucion withoute the better oversight be had amounge you hereafter. ‘‘We therfore, desiryng our seid game to be cherisshed and saufly kept for our disport ageinst suche seasone as hit shall fortune us to resorte unto thoos parties, wol and streytly commaunde you .,. ” There followed once again the injunction to allow no man to hunt in the Forest, and to inform the King of any who dared to come there in defiance of his orders. ‘‘Not fayling ’’, the message concluded, ‘‘ t’execute in all points this our commaundent, as ye and eny of you wol avoide our high displeasur and the peyne of forfaiture of your office”’. This was plain speaking— and a clear warning to the Warden that he must justify his hereditary place. John Seymour, at long last, neoponded= eitnoeen to do so meant laying grave charges against a neighbouring squire, Heand Alexander drew up a lengthy document? addressed as follows :— ‘‘ To the King, theyr liege lorde H(enry). ”’ ‘(This Peticion) shewith to your highnes your most humble subgettes and trew liege men, John Seymour Esquyer, Warden of your fforest of Savernack .-. . and Alisaunder Seymour his brother .. . heutenant therof, where your seid besechers for theyr trew ailigens attendans and excersize of the seid office have be(en) leagued agenst and evyll wyll boren to them by John Wroughton theelder . . . Cristofer Wroughton, John Wroughton the yonger and Richard Wroughton, sonys of the seid John Wroughton the elder, for the offenses done by the seid(men) . . . in the Quenes game in the seid fforest . . . also for the evidynces made therfore to . . . your Grace by your seid besechers accordyng to theyr duyte”’ The petition goes on to show that the Wroughtons had finally broken out into open defiance of authority. They had assembled in Marlborough with a gang of 40 of their followers, and ‘‘ came in riottous and forsible wise agenst your lawesand peas . . . arrayd with .. . bowys, arowes, ‘ swerdes and bokelers (bucklers), opynly assemblyng themself . . . in destourbans of your peas, soveregn lorde, there conspiryng among them the dethes of your seid besechers ”’ Apparently the Wroughtons were genuinely out for blood; for they burst into St. Margaret’s Priory, on the Forest side of Marlborough, and ~ 1 He is elsewhere (in the next document quoted) described as being ~ John’s brother. This, however, is baffling, since all family records confine themselves to showing one brother—Humfrey. Was Alexander perhaps a half-brother ? 2 Savernake Archives, By the Earl of Cardigan. 511 ransacked the place in the belief that John and Alexander had taken refuge there, ‘‘serchyng for your seid besechers them to have murdred and slayn, seyng this wordys opynly, that if your seid besechers myght have be(en) founde that they sholde have be(en) hewed as small as fleshe for the potte’’. Moreover this was no mere drunken outburst ; for—says the Petition —on another occasion the same gany turned out, lay in wait for a servant of Alexander Seymour ‘‘ and uppon hym made assaute and hym bete and woundyd and left hym for dedde’’. Thereafter they continued to make threats against this unfortunate man “and other freintes and welwyllers of your seid besechers, whiche knowyth the certente of the offenses doon by the seid riottours in the seid fforest in asmoche as they have openyd and disclosyd the same. . . . And over this, the same riottous persones dayly thretenyth your seid besechers to murdre and slee them ”’. “In tendyrconsideracion wherof’’, the Petition concludes by praying the King to order that the Wrougtons appear before him and his Council, there to answer for their hooliganism. ‘‘ And your seid besechers shall pray to Godd for your moste prosperous estate and moste to endure ’’. This long recital—for it is much longer in the original—presents the Warden of Savernake in a more favourable light. It appears that he had already, as the king had demanded, reported the poaching procliv- ities of the Wroughton family. As these men were accustomed to go about with a retinue of 40 ruffianly retainers, it is clear that he could not physically have resisted their incursions: indeed he must already have surmounted serious obstacles (considering their threats of violence and readiness to commit assault) in obtaining the necessary evidence against them. We know that the evidence was obtained; for the record exists of ‘proceedings being taken at a Forest Eyre’ against the Wroughtons, the Darrells and various others. It is to be hoped that the prosecution of these local squires was sufficient to convince the King that his Warden had all along been endeavouring to do his duty, despite the obvious handicap of lawless relatives and neighbours. The Eyre was held at Amesbury in 1490 or ’91; but much of the evidence given goes back to 1486, and concerns the offences which no doubt inspired King Henry’s admonitory letters. A few items may be quoted, to show the sort of thing that had been going on. “To my lord ffitzwater and maister Bray, Justicr’ of the Kyngs fforests:— These beyn the presentments of the Kepers of the fforest of Savernake ’’. “William Tailor, underkeper of the Verme Bayle, presentith—That John Wroughton Esquier, Thomas Wroughton (and others) . . . the Thursday next after the feast of the Trinite the first yere of our sove- ' Forest Proceedings, Duchy of Lancaster, quoted by H.C. Brentnall: Venison Trespasses. VOL LI.—NO. CLXXXVI. 2M 512 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. raigne lord . . . hunted Cobham Frith, Holt Lese and the lityll Frithe? and there killed a Sowre? with bowes and arows’’. ‘‘Also the seid keper presentith that Sir Edward Darell® Knyght, Richard Wroughton (and others) . . . the Monday before the ffense monythe? the yere aboveseid, entred into Heveryng Hethe® and then and there MM stakys which were sett for the defense and save garde of the kyngs game pullyd up and brake, and after that hunted at theyr pleasure without lycense or warant’’ And again— ‘William Taylor, underforster of the Verme presentith ‘that John Baynton and Henry Stourmy® gents, servants to the seid Sir Edwarde, the fryday next after the conception of our lady the seconnde yere of our seid soveraign . . . at the Shouyll’ a doo and a ffawne with grey- houndes slewe, and flessh and skynne caried aweye ”’ All the other under-foresters gave simillar evidence as to what had occurred within their sections of the Forest. In effect, the Wroughtons and Darrells had been hunting and killing deer quite shamelessly when- ever and wherever they pleased. Early in King Henry’s reign there seems*to have been a apeeee cessation of poaching—this perhaps arising from the fact that John Seymour was known to have informed the King as to the misdeeds of the Wroughtons and of other ‘‘riottous persones’”’. There was another reason, revealed to us by Leland, for peaceful behaviour just at this time, for ‘“‘about Ladyday 1489, King Henry VII roode into Wiltshire an Hunting, and slew his gres (buck) in three places in that shire. He first hunted in the Forest of Savernake ; the second in the good park of Fastern, the third in Blackmore Forest, and so returned to Windsor ’’ If, as I take it, the King was by then aware of the difficulties under which the Seymours laboured, we may hope that he received his Warden graciously when the latter turned out to greet him-—as he must have done—bearing the great horn which he had inherited from his Esturmy 1 Two of these woodsare stillso called. The placecalled Holt Pound _ is our clue to the location of Holt Lese. 2 A Soar or fourth-year buck. 8 This was Elizabeth Seymour’s brother, now Squire of Littlecote. 4The ‘‘ fence month’’, at midsummer, when the does were fawning. No man might wander in the Forest at that time. ' 5 The area now called Durley common. | 6 Spiritually at least, one feels that this was a descendant of John | Sturmy, the ‘‘malefactor’”’ of 1380. He may have been so in actual | fact. We have seen that, although Sir William Esturmy left no male heirs, there were still, at the time of his death, Sturmys living in the neighbourhood. ? A part of the Forest is still called Showel Bottom, , By the Earl of Cardigan. 513 predecessors. A good day’s sport may also have convinced him that the Forest deer, although grievously harried, had not as yet come ‘‘ unto fynall distrucion ”’ - The poaching however seems to have re-commenced as soon as the King’s attention was directed elsewhere. In 1490, for instance, we learn that ‘‘Thomas Kyng, underforster of Iwode,! presentith that Sir Edward Darell Knight (and others) . . . outof Mouttisfonte Copys a doo (and) a fawne kylled in the cheif (i.e. at the height) of the fenst — monyth and their houndes thorough ranne the forest to the great dis- trucion of the Kyng’s place ”’ As before, all the keepers tell of similar doings. William Taylor of La Verme tells how Sir Edward, John Wroughton and others ‘“‘ kylled out of Toppynham? ii does and in Haveryng Heth a prekett’’.? John Eston of the West Baily describes how Sir Edward, Sir Christopher Wroughton and others, ‘“‘a Bukke a doo and a preket with greyhoundes and bowes and arowes slewe without lycence and warante, and their houndes thorough ranne the forest’’. There is a reference in one case o ‘‘theire yernyng (i.e. baying) Houndes’”’, from which it is clear that the Forest Law was not merely broken; it was blatantly defied. For all these offences the squire of Littlecote and his associates had to answer at the Amesbury Eyre. We unfortunately do not know what sentences were pronounced upon them: they had earned severe punish- ment, but it was one of the features of the Forest Courts that the Justices normally preferred to impose moderate fines rather than to consign malefactorstogaol. The fines helped to swell the royal revenues—which was no doubt a consideration. | There are indications,* certainly in Darrell’s case, that no lasting dis- grace was incurred by these miscreants. Wecan but hope that convic- tions and fines were sufficient deterrents, so that thereafter they mended their ways: otherwise the unfortunate Warden of Savernake would have had good cause to feel discouraged ! Among his other troubles during these difficult years, John Seymour had suffered bereavement through the death of Elizabeth his wife. In due course he married again, his second wife being a daughter of Robert Hardon.? By her he had another son, whom he named Roger. He himself was at this time still a comparatively young man, although ‘seemingly not a strong one. His health tailed him while he was still in Iii 40th year, so that in 1491 he died. } | 1 The area, including Mottisfont Copse, lying south-west of Leigh Hill. 2 Tottenham. 3 A pricket or second-year buck. 4 Venison Trespasses. 5 The Seymour Pedigree ignores this second marriage; but several 7 "books of reference recordit. The lady was very probably descended from the de Hardens, who had been Foresters of Fee for many generations during the Esturmy Wardenship. | 2M 2 | +4 | | { | 514 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. “THE WORTHIE” SIR JOHN SEYMOUR: 1491—1536. With the accession of young John Seymour, the fourth of his line, in the year 1491, the local historian begins to notice a change from medi- | zval conditions of life towards something more akin to our own way of | living. For example, he finds in documents of the period the English | language being commonly used. He finds that the local gentry, in| addition to sealing them, also signed these documents with pen and ink. |” The earliest known signature of a Warden of Savernake occurs at this time. Whether the Esturmys and the earliest Seymours were able to. write must be a matter for speculation: what is certain is that they| never did so, being content merely to affix their seals to what some local scribe had written. John Seymour however could sit down and) write a letter—although his standard of legibility was unfortunately not high !2 | Legal documents were of course still written in Latin; but now these} were drawn up by professional lawyers. This was in some ways a} change-for the worse, for the lawyers were appallingly verbose: what) used to be expressed by the local cleric in 100 words, using only a few; Square inches of parchment, now required 2,000 or 3,000 words and) several square feet. Whether anything was gained by this prolixity i very doubtful. | One notices also that, from this time onwards, life was much les | strictly localised. With rare exceptions, earlier Wardens of Savernake) had spent their lives within the Forest, or on their estates nearby. Johnj- Seymour of the Tudor period was a man of the great world—and so were the majority of his successors. Travelling conditions were still primitive, and the coach had not yet been invented: none the less country gentlemen were inspired to widen their horizons, and in partic ular to visit the capital, thereby gaining contact with national affairs. | John Seymour, succeeding his father at the early age of 20, soo sought military service as an outlet for his adventurous spirit. Swiftly, promoted, he was one of the commanders who led the troops of King) Henry VII against the Cornish rebels who, in 1497, were induced a | Lord Audley and others to mobilise and march on London. | Cornishmen got to Blackheath before being met by the royal ona a the encounter they were routed—and it seems that the dashing teadel ship of a young officer from Wiltshire played a great part in thei discomfiture. | | The Seymour Pedigree states: ‘‘This John Samet on account co) his gallant and conspicuous conduct at the Battle of Blackheath, wat knighted by Henry VII King of England on June 17th, 1497”. Thus early did he make his mark, bringing himself favourably to the sovereign’: notice. 1 Vide Ancient Correspondence, P.R.O, : letter to ‘“my unkyll Darel ’ RR A RR By the Earl of Cardigan. 515 For a time, the young knight, having now found himself a wife, returned to his manor of Wolfhall. Perhaps typically, he did not choose a local bride : he married Margery, daughter of Sir Henry Wentworth, whose birthplace was in Suffolk. To them a son was born; and in this Sir John was so fara traditionalist that he called the boy John, thus repeating the name for the fifth generation. Little John was not destined to grow up: had he done so, he would in due course have become head of the Seymour family—and then a chapter of 16th-century history would have been differently written. It was in the year 1500 that a second son was born ; and to this child his parents gave the name of Edward. Four more sons and four daughters eventually swelled the family circle. Not all of them flourished; but little Edward was sturdy, as were his brothers Henry and Thomas: three of the girls likewise surmounted the ailments of childhood, among them a fair-haired child who was known as Jane. Outside their family life, we know little of what activities Sir John and Margery nis wife pursued during the closing years of King Henry VII’s reign. Adocumentof an unusual sort, however, in the Savernake archives creates the impression that they were politically active, and perhaps were involved in some sort of intrigue. I refer to a pardon issued by the new King, Henry VIII, when he came to the throne, in which both Sir John and his wife are absolved of all possible crimes committed by them “‘ before the twenty third day of April in the first year of our reign ’’.? This document, witnessed by the King himself, is like so many others of the period, absurdly long-winded. It does not specify any particular transgression : it lists all the crimes in the calendar, and pardons ‘‘ the said John and Margery ”’ forcommitting any or all of them. We there- fore. get no inkling of what they had actually done. _ Isuspect a political offence, occurring perhaps during Sir John’s term of office as Sheriff of Wiltshire (1508) ; for otherwise how could Margery Seymour have been involved init? If it had been a matter of mal- administration of the Forest, only the Warden himself could have been held to blame. The full explanation may never be known; but two things are apparent The Seymours were latterly in disgrace with King Henry VII; but they were sufficiently respected by King Henry VIII to be restored by him immediately to the royal favour. Under the new King, Sir John soon had further opppreanitice t for proving his courage and skillas a soldier. He served in the war against France, and distinguished himself particularly at the siege of Tournai. 1 A younger brother of this boy was again named John, but again did not survive. The Seymour Pedigree shows that finally Sir John had a: _naturalson whom he named John yetonce more. This John, justifying his persistence, thrived. * This was the first day of the new reign. The Seymours wereamong a very large number of people, all pardoned as from this date. 516 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. The King was himself present at this siege, and he conferred on Sir John (whose existing knighthood had been gained through valour) an addi- tional distinction in making him Knight Banneret. Sir John’s merits however did not show themselves only on the field of battle. He must have had skill in dealing with affairs at Court, and talent also as a diplomatist. King Henry was attended by Sir John Seymour, among other notabilities, at the conference known as the Field of the Cloth of Gold. It was an occasion of great magnificence—and Sir John entered into the spirit of it by taking with him a chaplain, 11 servants and 8 pack horses. - He must have made a favourable impression ; for two years later he was again in attendance when the King went to Canterbury to welcome the Emperor Charles V, then ° paying a state visit to England. We hear of Sir John once more in a similar role when King Henry went to France for a further conference in 1532. He acted on this occasion as Groom of the Bedchamber—a DOS: indicating that the King had a personal liking for him. It is perhaps on account of all these activities at Court that we hear comparatively little of Sir John’s doings at Savernake. Doubtless he had a “‘ lieutenant” to look after Forest affairs—and as one hears nothing of poaching at this time, it is perhaps a reasonable presumption that his prestige in Court circles was such as to strengthen the hand of his lieutenant in dealing with troublesome neighbours. The Savernake archives contain but few manuscripts relating to him. One of these is a complaint, made apparently to a local Justice by one of Sir John Seymour’s tenants, occupying a water mill at Crofton, in respect of harsh treatment accorded to him by the lord of Wolfhall, ‘* Thes ben the injures and wrongs ’’, he commences, ‘‘ done unto your poor servant and daily bed(e)man' Thomas Hall by Syr John Saymor Knyght, wherof the sayd Thomas Hall besechith your master “pee to see reformation for the love of God and in the way of charytee”’. It appears that there had been some change of occupancy at the mill, whereupon ‘‘the sayd Syr John Saymorof hys gretmyght . . . beryng extreme malice unto your sayd pour servant, wolde not suffer the sayd Thomas pesably to enjoye the seyd lese oonles he wolde gyff hym in mony V marks’’. There is a good deal more to the same effect, ending with Thomas Hall’s conviction that he would “‘ never have remedy with owte the comfort of your good mastershippe to hym nowe be shewyd ”. We should beware, I think, of drawing the too obvious deduction from this, and so picturing Sir John as an avaricious landlord. We do not hear the Seymour version of the affair; and a safer deduction would be that he was a landlord with a sense of humour. For some reason, he took the trouble to acquire this document and to preserve it—a thing] which a man might doin whimsical mood, but not if his conscience) was at all uneasy. ' Bedeman ; implying that he prayed daily for the Justice. By the Earl of Cardigan. 517 In one respect we know more of Sir John Seymour than of any of his predecessors: he was the first member of the family to have his portrait painted.t Wesee him at the age of 62,ie. presumably in 1534, as an elderly man of very dignified appearance, gazing out from the canvas with a steady and assured expression. Heis wearing voluminous robes, and with his long, grey beard might be taken for a learned cleric or philosopher. He has changed. one supposes, and mellowed since his early days when he was a dashing leader of troops. By this date, Sir John’s family had of course grown up. His eldest son being dead, young Edward Seymour had become his heir. This was a promising young man: Sir John had-already introduced him into Court circles, where he had quickly made his mark, gaining a knighthood for himself, a post in King Henry’s entourage and—more important— the personal friendship of the King. One of Sir John’s daughters was also in favour at Court. This was Jane, who had been a Lady in Waiting to Queen Catherine of Aragon, and was now performing the same office to Queen Anne Boleyn. She was thus known to the King, although he had never as yet paid any marked attention to her. Having so many contacts with the royal household, it is by no means surprising that Sir John Seymour should, in 1535, have invited King Henry to visit him at Wolfhall. The visit took place on September 10th in that year —and it is a misfortune that we know extremely little about it. King Henry paida second visit in the year 1539, and was there again in 1548. Concerning these latter visits we are fairly well informed—and so it is possible to make some intelligent inferences as to what the King saw on his first arrival at Wolfhall, and how he fared during his stay there, Assuming King Henry to have come Gor London, his first sight of the old manor house at Wolfhall would have been from ‘‘ Topenhan Hyll’’, from which vantage point all the buildings, fields and gardens would have been seen spread out on the sloping, but less elevated ground across the valley. ‘‘ The parke called Topenhays’’ would have been behind him; but Wolfhall had its Horse Park, its Red Deer Park and, beyond the manor buildings, undulating Soden Park also. Between these park lands lay the arable fields, besides a number of small pastures. There was an orchard, and there were several gardens. One was a walled garden, half an acre in extent: another, twice as big, was called ‘‘ the Great Palyd gardyne’’. There were two smaller areas, one known as ‘“‘My Young Lady’s gardyne”’ and the otheras ‘‘ Myn Olde Lady’s gardyne’’.? . 1 [llustrated in Annals of the Seymours and noted as being in the possession of the author of that work, Mr. H. St. Maur. : 2 «My Young Lady”? may have been young Sir Edward Seymour’s wife. These details of Wolfhall are taken from the Longleat archives, as quoted by Canon Jackson. 518 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. The manor house stood in the centre of it all. The buildings were laid out in rectangular pattern: there was a Little Court, and so, by inference, a Great Court. There was the chapel that Sir William Esturmy had built,! the timbered dwelling house itself and many outbuildings. The place was extensive, although not lavish in accommodation. Wolfhall indeed had not been built for entertainment on a royal scale. There was a long Gallery there, most likely on the first floor, and a Broad Chamber, doubtless broad enough for the reception of neighbouring squires and their ladies. Wedo not know whether, on. this occasion, King Henry came witha large entourage ; but ifso, various expedients would have been necessary to make space for them. For example, Sir John could have boarded out some of his own household, and some of the minorroyal retainers also. He could call upon certain accommodation in Burbage—and there were forest lodges also at his disposal. Since, through ‘‘ Grene the Bailly ’”’ (salary £1 6s. 8d. per annum), Sir John farmed much of his own land, there were also some great barns near the manor house. The best of these could be cleaned and swept. out and, with tapestries hung on the walls and a layer of fresh-cut rushes carpeting the floor, could be made to serve the purpose of a huge dining hall. Certain bays could at the same time be partitioned off, so as to provide additional chambers. Some preparations of this sort had no doubt long since been made; so that all was in readiness when the King rode down from ‘“‘ Topenhan Hyll’’, crossed the valley and dismounted in the great courtyard. Here the ladies of the household must have been waiting to greet him—among them his host’s daughter Jane, who no doubt was assisting her mother in the capacity of hostess. The King,seeing her now in this favourable setting, seems to have discovered charms in Jane Seymour of which he had not previously been conscious. This may have contributed to making the royal visit a success—and it is certain that from this time onwards King Henry’s affection began to be directed towards his Queen’s young Lady in Waiting. We have no means of knowing whether Sir John Seymour was aware of this, although his son, Sir Edward, certainly knew of it.2 Six months or more went by after the Wolfhall visit; and then the Savernake neighbourhood must have been electrified by the news emanating from London—namely that Queen Anne Boleyn had been convicted of infidelity and executed, that the King had forthwith sought the hand of Sir John Seymour’s daughter Jane, and that this young lady had, 1 The Seymours kept a priest or chaplain for it; he was known as «Sir James’’, and received a salary of £2 annually. 2 Annals of the Seymours, pp. 24--26. By the Earl of Cardigan. 519 with what appeared unseemly haste (May, 1536), allowed the capricious monarch to make her his new Queen ! Tradition asserts that Queen Jane was actually married at Wolfhall, and that the marriage feast was held there in the great barn, decorated for the purpose. It is an attractive story; but there seems to be no historical foundation forit. If Jane Seymour did, at this period, revisit her old home, it may have been just before or just after the marriage— for the event itself took place apparently in Whitehall. Old Sir John Seymour, now that his daughter shared the throne, had become naturally a person of great importance. His age however was not suchas to incline him any longer towards participation in great affairs. With his son it was otherwise: soon after his sister’s marriage, Sir Edward Seymour was created Viscount Beauchamp, and to support this new honour was granted certain lands, including those formerly in the possession of Easton Priory. (It was at this time that the smaller monasteries were suppressed.) It would be interesting to know what Sir John thought of all this. Did he take pride in his children’s swift advancement? Or did he regard with apprehension this sudden elevation of the younger generation to wealth and honours and high places ? Perhaps, as old men will, he shook his head dubiously—muttering something into that long, prophetical grey beard. Sir John Seymour died in December, 1536, after his daughter had been Queen some seven months. He was buried in the Priory church at Easton ‘‘amongst divers of his Ancestors, both Seymours and Sturmyes’’. Although the Priory itself had been abolished and its brethren scattered, the church remained, albeitin a poorstate of repair. (The brethren, despite Esturmy grants, had not been prosperous: the church was ancient, and it had moreover been gravely damaged by fire in the preceding century). Henry Bryan, the last of the priors, had remained at Easton. He was now the curate (i.e. the vicar) there and received from the Seymours asti- pend of £6 perannum.' Sir John,as the King’s father-in-law, must have been buried at Easton with considerable ceremony, and a suitable memorial must have marked his resting-place there. It was not long however, before the church fell into ruin, ‘“‘and thereby all theire Monumentes either whollie spoyled or verie much defased ”’; this, as we know, being the reason for Sir John’s subsequent re-burial at Bedwyn. Ishali not quote in full the long inscription which was carved on the new monument erected for him.? It dealt largely with the achievements of his numerous children, telling us little of the man himself. Yet in some ways Sir John was more admirable than they. He was courageous and able, knew how to walk with Kings, but was not covetous ot ‘ A substantial addition to his pension of 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.). 2 It still exists: Great Bedwyn Church. 520 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. honours. Asa young man, he played his part in camps and Courts ; but at the last he was content to die a country gentleman. His grandson’s opening words are best. ‘‘ Here lyeth intombed the worthie Sir John Seymour ’’. EDWARD SEYMOUR, DUKE OF SOMERSET: 1586—1552. At the time of his father’s death, Edward Lord Beauchamp (to give him the title by which he was then known) had already advanced far in his public career. He was a Peer of the Realm, about to be made a Privy Councillor. He was the King’s friend and brother-in-law. He was young (being in his thirties still) and wealthy, having received grants of land from the Crown in addition to those estates which were his by inheritance. Various portraits of him are in existence, including one at Savernake which is dated 1532. This depicts a young man, richly dressed, and with beard and moustaches carefully trimmed, whose features, without being handsome, are refined and sensitive. All pictures of Edward Seymour indeed seem to have this in common, that they show us a man of markedly intellectual type. Fortune had, up to this time, favoured him less well in his domestic life. He had married in 1527 Catherine Fillol, and by her had had two _sons, the elder of whom he named John and the younger Edward. In 1535 however he had divorced Catherine, evidently convinced that she had been unfaithful to him. What was worse, he seems to have enter- tained doubts as to the paternity of the two sons which she had given him: we are forced to this conclusion (although without the means of judgirg whether his suspicions had any foundation) by the extraordi- nary manner in which he treated John and Edward. He was clearly determined that they should not inherit any major portion of his property, and that neither should they inherit (except, in some cases, as a last resort) any of the titles which were conferred upon him. His Beauchamp Viscounty, for instance, was granted ‘‘to him and the heirs male of his body hereafter to be begotten’”’, thus excluding the heirs male who were already living. There is no doubt that this was extremely hard on John and Edward ; for whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, they certainly were innocent of any offence. Their father however re-married in 1537, taking to wife a lady named Anne Stanhope: by her he soon had a second family of children, notably a son whom he again named Edward. | It was upon this second family that all his parental affections were from henceforth lavished. At this period, owing to the Seymour alliance with the royal family, Beauchamp was no doubt much involved in national and Court affairs, gaining experience of which he afterwards made use. It was in the autumn of 1537 that his sister, the Queen, gave birth to a prince—the future Edward VI of England. The christening took place when the By the Earl of Cardigan. 521 child was but a few days old, and when Queen Jane had Dy no means recovered from the effects of her confinement. King Henry was of course delighted to have at last a male heir to the throne. Throughout the ceremony he was most attentive to the Queen, while to her brother he allowed the honour of carrying in his arms ‘the little Princess Elizabeth, Queen Anne Boleyn’s child. Immediately afterwards, he granted further advancement to Lord Beauchamp, Sine him to the dignity of Earl of Hertford.! The few days following the birth and christening of Prince Edward must have been a time of rejoicing both for the King and for the new- made Earl. Then camea grievous misfortune: Queen Jane, who had not been very well since the birth of her son, became dangerously ill. The malady grew worse, and after only 12 days of motherhood she collapsed and died. With cruel suddenness, both King and courtier were plunged from merry-making into mourning. There seems to be no doubt that the king’s grief was sincere and deep. As for Hertford, he had lost not only a sister but also an invaluable friend and ally, whose position as King Henry’s consort would have opened a way for him to the highest places. Now, as it seemed, the Seymour influence must wane. This was the general opinion, as is shown by a contemporary document, listing ‘‘ The names of all the nobility in England, their ages and their activeness’’.2. Here we find ‘“‘ The Earl of Hertford, young and wise, of small power, and brother unto the last Queen deceased ”’ None the less, friendship continued between the King and this young nobleman ‘‘of small power’’. Proof of it was given in 1539, when King Henry revisited Savernake, and once again came as a guest to Wolfhall. Lord Hertford was. now, of course, Warden of Savernake Forest— although it may be doubted whether he had found much time to deal personally with the work involved, He almost certainly employed one of the local gentry as his ranger,® and left the latter to handle. most of the business which, in former times, had fallen to the Warden’s lot. This change in the system of management seems to have coincided with a gradual but well-marked change in the nature of the Forest itself. Throughout the Seymour period, we find evidence of a number of enclosures being made, either for the purpose oficonfining the deer or, ‘Why a West-country Seymour should have, taken his title from Hertford is not clear. The patent of Earldom ,allowed this title to descend to the heirs male of Anne Stanhope or of any future wife: it excluded, as usual, the unfortunate children of Catherine Fillol. 2 Gairdner’s State Papers (782). Most of the comments are uncom- plimentary, Lord Hertford being one of the Weak few peers to be given credit for wisdom. 3 From this ae onwards, one no longer hea of the Warden’s “lieutenant ”’ 522 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. in the interests of forestry, to exclude them from certain of the coppices. One recalls the Red-deer Park at Wolfhall, ‘‘ the parke called Topenhays”’ and the enclosure of nearby Havering Heath. When Sir Edward Darell and his friends ‘‘MM stakys ... pullyd up and brake’’, they were breaching a deer park for the sake of their illicit sport. These things were new since the days of the Esturmy Wardens. With regard to the extentof woodland in the Forest, there was however little change. We still hear of individual coppices, small and well separated from each other; and the same tale is told by a map which belongs approximately to this reriod. It illustrates the northern end of Savernake Forest, and shows, in the triangle between Marlborough, Puthall Gate and Cadley, four such coppices separated by a great deal of open space. This accounts for the continued importance of the Forest grazing: no farmer nowadays would give anything for it; but the herbage was good then, and there was plenty of it, both for the deer and for domestic animals as well. There was no doubt a greate stirat Savernake when it became known thatthe King would paya visit to his brother-in-law. Hertford on this occasion spared no pains to entertain the royal party ona princely scale. He made full use of the great barn at Wolfhall, apparently occupying a part of it himself,so as to put at his Majesty’s disposal the best suite of rooms within the manor house itself. Thus we find an entry in the account book! for that year :— ‘«Payed to Cornish the paynter for dyvers colours by him bought, for makyng certeyn fretts & antiques on canvas for my lord’s Barn and House at Wulf Haull agenst the King’s coming thether 9th Aug. and for his cost in being sent to-London for the same colours—3ls. 8d.”’. Cornish evidently did his work well, for he later received a gratuity. ‘To Philip Cornish 10s. . . . (and varying amounts to others) in reward to'them for their paynes taken’. Other domestic arrangements included the re-housing of Lord Hertford’s mother, Dame Margery Seymour, his children and’ their several nurses—all these members of the household being accom- modated in a nearby Lodge. The obvious purpose was to set free additional rooms at Wolfhall, so as to entertain there all the members of King Henry’s entourage. In the accounts we find :— “Paid. . . tocertain painters, joyners, carpenters, masons and others for their wages in preparing and trimming of the Barne at Wulf hall wherein my Lord lay and kept his house during the King’s abode there, and also for the ridding, cleansing and garnishing of the Manor of Wulf hall wherein the King lay, and also at Penham Lodge where my Lord’s mother and (his) children lay—£68 10s. 10d.”’. There seems no doubt that ‘‘ Penham ”’ was the abbreviation for (To)penham, and that in fact we have here the first mention. of Tottenham Lodge—a place of which one hears much at a later date. Already, one assumes, there was a fairly presentable house there ; 1 Longleat Archives, as quoted by Canon Jackson. By the Earl of Cardigan. 523 otherwise, despite its convenient proximity to Wolfhall, it would not have been chosen for the use of an old lady and of several small children. Hertford had now to consider the question of provisions. He no doubt knew in advance that the King, who was travelling with a great retinue, would bring with him some wagon-loads of stores. Local supplies, especially of game, would none the less be required on a great scale. The Savernake keepers could provide much—and so also could the neighbouring squires, if asked. Hence we find :— “In reward to Master Hungerford’s man for bringing my lord partridges, a capon, pigeons and brawn—3s. 4d.”’. ‘To diverse men that brought my lord presents from diverse of his friends, as venison, wild fowl &c, against the Kings coming to his house at Wolfhaull, where my lord defraid him for Saturday supper, Sunday and Monday all day, and Tuesday dinner the 12th August, with money given to diverse persons for carriage of letters to my lord’s said frends for the same—-£18 9s. 2d.’’. As for attendants to look after so great a company, this was by comparison a trifling problem. Lord Hertford normally employed at Wolfhall some 44 men, whose labours were directed by his steward—- an important person drawing £38 10s. Od. per annum. Surprisingly, only 7 women are mentioned, inclusive of nurses —this perhaps being due to limited accommodation. The steward doubtless recruited some additional help; for we hear of gratuities ‘‘to coke and a turnebroche (turnspit) that did labor in the kychin during the King’s being at Wolfhaull—7s. 8d.’’. The great day of King Henry’s arrival was, as we have seen, a Saturday. On that day it was illegal to eat meat,’ for which reason a fish supper was the first meal provided. The King appears to have brought with him a retinue of some 200 persons; and although the lesser fry were no doubt housed in Burbage, all seem to have fed at Wolfhall. The King and his courtiers had a great table to themselves : the host and hostess ate separately, presiding over their own household table. It seems an unfriendly arrangement, but such was apparently the etiquette of those days. There must have been some close collaboration between the Wolfhall steward and the King’s victualler in the preparation of so great a number of ‘‘messes’”’. The former’s account book shows that some items were ‘‘of the King’s provision’’; others were ‘‘of my lord’s store’. The steward made wholesale purchases where necessary ; thus —‘‘ Bought of the King’s officers, fyne flour . . . (4 bush.) 7s.: Bought of the King’s officers, bere and aill, two tuns, 3 hogsheads, 75s. : Ashen cupps (bought) 150, 5s.’’, and so on. : Thus contrived, the fish supper did not lack variety. ‘‘ Of the King’s provision’ there were ‘‘sea-fish, 5 potts: 8 pikes, 5 salmon, 8 grilz, 7 tenches, 9 lopsters’’, besides bream and plaice. ‘‘ Of my lord’s store’ ’ Canon Jackson ; Wolfhall and the Seymours, p. 7. 524 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. there were ‘‘congers, pike, eles, trouts, bremes, carps, tenches, roches, perches, moletts’’. From other sources came ‘‘ one barrel of sturgeon ”’ ; likewise ‘‘xi pasteys of salmon’”’. Considering that Savernake is 50 miles inland, the provision of ‘‘ lopsters’’, etc. in August, must have called for good organisation ! Me There was good liquor to drink—‘‘ Swete Wine”’ and Gascon wine— additional to the ‘‘ bere and aill’’. There wasalso a spiced wine known as hippocras. The meal was enlivened by music; for the King’s minstrels had accompanied him. They played on the sagbutts, the violls, the flutes, the trumpetts and the tabaret. Whether Lord Hertford’s own minstrels joined in, wedo not know: he had a troupe of them— so there was no shortage of musical talent. On Sunday there was a great feast, and again on Rilesndlage Lord Hertford and his Lady had invited certain of their neighbours—and those so favoured turned up, bringing numbers of retainers with them. My Lady Hungerford (the Dowager) brought six; Sir Anthony and Lady Hungerford had eight accompanying them: Master Wroughton had five servants: my Lady Darrell four: Sir John Bridges, with oe was among the most lavish. With such guests and their retinues, there was a great concourse at Wolfhall. The catering department however was equal to any test: six beeves' (or oxen), each worth 30s., were slaughtered, as were 24 ‘“muttons’’ worth 3s.each On Sunday alone, “of the King’s provision”’, additional meats included 12 ‘‘ veales’’, 5 cygnets, 21 great capons, 7 gooa capons, 11 Kentish capons and 42 coarse capons. There were 70 pullets, 91 ‘“‘chekyn’’, 88 quails, 9 mewes, 6 egretts, 2 shields of Brawn, 7 swans, 2 cranes. 2 storks, 3 pheasants, 40 partridges, 4 pea-chicks, 21 snyts (snipe), 2 dozen larks, 6 brewes and 28 gulls. With these and other good things, those at the King’s table, where on Sunday 470 messes (or portions) were served, were able to keep body and soul together. For Hertford’s own table, two more oxen and two sheep were slaughtered, whereby during the day 146 messes were served to those who sat down with him. It is unfortunate that, knowing so precisely what the royal visitor was given to eat and drink, we know little of how he was otherwise entertained. It is supposed that he was taken to Tottenham Lodge to see Dame Margery Seymour and her grandchildren. (Living at this time would have been Edward Lord Beauchamp, Anne Stanhope’s eldest son, and perhaps one or two others of a family which eventually numbered nine.). It is significant that an avenue near Tottenham is still known as: Henry VIII’s. Walk, and that near the end of it there was once a building known as King Harry’s Summer-house.' "The Walk doubtless existed before the avenue which borders it. As for the building, there was a stone structure set up in the 18th century. It has disappeared now; but it may have been built to replace asummer house of earlier date. By the Earl of Cardigan. 525 It seems likely that, on the Monday at least, the King would have been offered some form of outdoor sport. There were deer in the forest, and at Wolfhall a kennel of hounds. Also Lord Hertford kept hawks and spaniels: on his manors were partridges which he had reared and protected. His account books speak of ‘‘4 couple of spanvels being a-brode hawking ’—and I suppose that they were used to flush the birds. We hear also of ‘‘ Thomas Potenger, my lord’s falconer ’’ and of *““a cast of leonards’’, which were lanner-hawks. As to the preservation of game birds, there was a fox-taker earning fees ‘‘ for taking of foxes in Tottenham Park andin the Forest’’. This man presumably killed what he took. Not so the partridge-taker, ‘“‘which brought partridges to store my Lord’s ... ground’’. Some birds were even imported from overseas: one Edward King earned Is. 4d. “‘ for feeding of partridges that came from Jersey and were sent to Wulfhall ’”’. There was thus ample opportunity for King Henry to enjoy a day’s sport, before his departure from Wolfhall on Tuesday. There were even some wild boar in the Forest at about this time; but these were surely imported, and did not establish themselves—for at no other period do we hear any mention of *‘ wilde bores ”’ or of the taking of ‘‘wyldeswyne”’. Lord Hertford’s lavish entertainment of his royal brother-in-law did not gounrequited. He was madea Knight of the Garter in 1541,.and in the following year Great Chamberlain. He also carried out a number of important missions, both military and diplomatic. being one of the outstanding English leaders in several campaigns against Scotland and France. He was no longer ‘‘of small power’’ during the latter years of King Henry VIII’s reign. PROEBCIORN OF THE REALM: When the King died in 1547, Lord Hertford was one of those named in his Will. He was among the 16 Executors who, with 12 Councillors, were appointed to carry out King Henry’s wishes as to the government of England during the minority of the young prince, now King Edward VI. Jane Seymour’s son as yet was only 10 years old. Rather naturally, it was soon found that a Regency of 16 persons, advised by 12 others, was too cumbersome an institution to provide satisfactory government. The Council of Regency therefore decided to appoint one of its members to act as chief executive, creating for him the office of Governor of the King, likewise that of Protector of the Realm. We need feel no surprise that the choice fell upon the Earl of Hertford. He was the new King’s uncle, and thus the most suitable person to act as his mentor. Moreover he was a statesmen and diplomat of proved ability—a natural leader, a man who had enjoyed the late King’s special confidence, and one with a wide grasp of public affairs. Within the first few weeks of the new reign’s commencement, he was invested with these almost regal powers. 526 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. At about the same time, fresh titles of nobility were granted to him— the Barony of Seymour and the Dukedom of Somerset. These titles were granted, as usual, with remainder to the new Duke’s male issue by his second marriage, and in such a way that his first wife’s descend- ants could inherit them only after all other heirs to the Dukedom and Barony had failed.’ To the end, Edward Seymour, now rich in possessions and honours, continued to cherish his grievance against the children of Catherine Fillol. It is clearly impossible, within the scope of this essay, to deal with the public administration of the Protector Duke. For three years he ruled: England, not without some disorders, but at least with a good recordin certain spheres. For instance, he was largely free from bigotry in religious matter—a rare thing in the 16th century. He was sym- pathetic also towards the poorer classes—a predilection for which he was taken to task by one of his colleagues in the following terms :—‘‘ What seeth your Grace, marry ! the King’s subjects all out of discipline .. . What is the matter ? Marry, sir, that which I said to your Grace in the gallery. Liberty ! Liberty! and your Grace’s too much gentleness, your softness, your opinion to be good to the poor—the opinion of such as saith to your Grace, ‘Oh, sir, there was never man that had the hearts of the poor as you have’ ”’.? : One distressing episode however can not be overlooked. While the Duke was in office, and with his assent, his own brother was executed fortreason. This was Thomas, the fourth son of old Sir John Seymour, whose career under Henry VIII had been brilliant. He was now Lord Seymour of Sudeley, High Admiral of England, and a persom of great influence in national affairs. His abilities were comparable with those of the Protector—and he had quite outshone Henry, who had been Sir John Seymour’s third son.? There is little doubt that the High Admiral was a person of great ambitions and few scruples. He married Queen Catherine Parr, having first tried to marry the Princess Elizabeth, and was guilty of gross intrigues against both his brother and the established government. He seems to have deserved his fate; but naturally there were many who blamed the Protector for inhumanity in assenting to it. Beset as he was with so many momentous duties, the Protector can latterly have had but little time for the affairs of his numerous estates and of his Wiltshire Forest. I say ‘‘his’’ Forest; for by a royal grant* in the summer of 1547, he became the absolute owner of Savernake, and so was not merely, as his predecessors had been, the Warden who held it on the King’s behalf. ! This contingency at last occurred—after 200 years! The present Duke of Somerset is Catherine Fillol’s descendant. 2 Sir William Paget, quoted by H. St. Maur. 3 This Henry however was knighted, and had a respectable, if not distinguished, career. 4 Vide Inspeximus—Savernake Archives. e%, 4, Whitney SIR EDWARD SEYMOUR, afterwards Ist Duke of Somerset. This portrait was painted before his rise to power, and during the lifetime of his father, ‘‘the worthie’’ Sir John. a : } ‘ 3 J > 1 oH ene = \ \ fi ( z ; hi e = % x 5 ) i te 4 \ : ae t ~ x ~ Kt ( = x :: + \ sth re i. x — \ = , = i sk oY \ - See, ~ é di P Sera a ry 5 ‘ ) D EN erste ra A tee 16 = 1 , e i nes Leni ee < > Sf yy 2 X ~ ats - a { So ec ) Si ik 2. Pe ase $ A PS Nie es , e f rs oe A ~ te é j 3 = \ “2 5 x = tet - ‘ i 2 eh e = { ee + ny S 2 “ z Roe ? - a HMEN - j ia are a aad A 33 ‘. = = = ee a = aS if O at i re oy, ae Slr = a ati d => = Se wf 17 — > I 5 ‘ {e ‘ = = = N Pas: - aj SF = a 3} - = } as nN 7 f - eae ee = = > ' = 2 es ~ } - £ = oe ee . ioe : ‘i { x‘ = t J, ac p S is — * a res } 5 3 < B he ye ; 2 ( < - x ( : = 2 NX ie — ( ( e i \ 1 = . ae ( a = Sys i Barat By the Earl of Cardigan. 527 That he took a keen interest in the Forest is proved by the fact that he made certain plantations. We do not hear of anything of the sort being done before—previous Wardens having apparently concentrated on the preservation of such woodland as happened already to exist. The Protector’s account books show however that heeplanted on a considerable scale: one plantation was at ‘‘the Great Dych’’, a place not easily identifiable, but perhaps coinciding with that great ditch which was one of the Forest boundaries in the region of Tottenham.! Another matter of concern to the new-made Duke was the provision at Savernake of a house appropriate to the status of the Seymour family, Wolfhall had done well enough in its day; but it was quite inadequate. as we have seen, to the requirements of large-scale entertaining. Tottenham Lodge was still smaller. There was a house at Easton, formerly part of the Priory ; but this again was a small place and of no pretensions. S The Duke soon decided that he would have to build anew. He looked round fora site—and he found one which was admirable for the purpose which he had in mind. This was at the south-western corner of the Brail Woods near Bedwyn—those woods from which the Broyle baili- wick of Savernake had received its name. . The house was to be built on the high ground, with commanding views over the hamlets of Wilton and Marten to the downs bevond. The Duke planned a great park to extend for three miles around the North and West sides of his new house, including the whole of the Brail Woods, Wilton Common and the sloping land which runs down to the Bedwyn brook (now robbed of significance by the Canal). The ground heré is naturally park-like, and would form an ideal setting for a country Mansion. In 1548 the work was actually put in hand, the broad acres of the paik being first enclosed and then, in the next year, a water supply - scheme being devised and the foundations of the house laid. Weknowa good deal about all this from letters? written at the time to Sir John Thynne, personal secretary to the Protector. The plans of the house have not come down to us ; but we may be Sure that its proportions were to have been palatial: the greatest of the Seymours would not have been content with anything on an inferior scale.® There were of course difficulties, one of them being the lack of good stone in the neighbourhood. Considering that, at Dodsdown within the enclosed park, there was and is an ample supply of clay suitable for brick making,’ it is surprising that the Duke did not decide upon a brick-built house. He did indeed order ‘‘ xx hundred thousand brykes’”’ ; but the building was to be stone-faced—and so experiments were made 1 Vide Perambulation, 1301. 2 Found by Canon Jackson at Longleat. 3 It is said (but I can quote no authority for it) that Longleat was afterwards built from these same plans. 4 Bricks were still being made there within living memory. >" VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXVI. 2N 528 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. with the local Wilton stone, which ‘‘spalters out in thick peces, and will not abyde’”’. : Labour was a problem; for a huge force of builders was needed. Sixty men worked continuously on the water conduit alone, for this was 15 feet deep and 1600 feet long.1 There were never enough men for the other work: out of 400 required there were usually 150 lacking. French masons were imported and sent down to Wiltshire ; but Mr. John Barwick, the agent, did not think highly of them. “Further ye sent us downe such a lewde company of Frenchmen masons as I never sawe the lyke. I assure you they be the worst condicyoned people that I ever saw and the dronkenst ; for they wyll drynke more in one day than three days wages wyll come to, and then lye lyke beasts on the flore not able to stonde. I have geven them dyvers warnyngs me self and yet never the better ’”’ None the less, ‘‘it may please your mastership to understand that my Lord’s Grace’s works here do proced to effect with such expedition as it pleaseth God to permitt them’’. By 1549 the great house had began to rise, and all expected that my Lord’s Grace would shortly come to take stock of its progress. He would perhaps stand in meditation before the growing pile of masonry, planning his retirement from the cares of state; picturing himself well and handsomely housed here in the tran- quillity of his old age; sometimes living secluded, sometimes giving a great entertainment for his young nephew the King—no longer cramped and straitened as in the old house at Wolfhall. We do not in fact know whether the Protector paid any such visit, or dreamed any such dreams. By the end of 1549 he was already in disgrace, blamed by his enemies for all the misfortunes of the country since the new king’s accession, and lodged as a prisoner in the Tower of London. The fall of the Protector Duke of Somerset is another matter which belongs to the history books rather than to this essay.” Parliament first passed a Bill asking the King to deal leniently with him, but providing that part of his landed property should be forfeited to the Crown. In particular, Savernake Forest was to become Crown property once more, although the Duke was to retain all his rights there as the hereditary Warden.’ In 1550 there was a reversal of fortune. The Duke was pardoned, and much property, including Savernake, was restored to him. In 1551 1 The course of it may be traced by anyone who cares to penetrate the undergrowth in the south end of Bedwyn Brail. About half the length of the conduit still leads from the spring that was to feed it. 2 It was not without some searchings of heart that the present writer decided to pass over thus summarily the story of the Duke of Somerset's Protectorate. But complete books have been written concerning it; and it was felt that a mere précis would be both unworthy and tiresome, By the Earl of Cardigan. 529 however he was again arrested,' this time being charged with treason and felony and condemned to death. He was executed on January 22nd, 1552. It being impossible, except at great length, to review all the evidence for and against the unfortunate Protector, his own final words at his execution may be briefly quoted. ‘‘Masters and good fellows. I am come hither to die; but a trueand faithful man as any was unto the King’s Majesty and to his realm. But I am condemned by a law whereunto I am subject, as we all; and therefore to show obedience I am content to die . . . for the which I dorthank God .; .”’ ‘‘Ror, as 1am aman, I have deserved at God’s hand many deaths ; and it has pleased His goodness . . . thus now to visit me and call me with this present death as you do see, where I have had time to remember and acknowledge Him, and to know also myself, for the which I do thank Him most heartily...” ==. and I pray you now let us pray together for the King’s Majesty, to whose grace I have been always a faithful; true and most loving subject, desirous always of his most prosperous success in all his affairs ; and ever glad of the furtherance and helping forward of the Commonwealth of this Realm ”’ Thus, with resignation and courage, spoke the Protector in the last moments of his life. The boy-King, his nephew, made a brief entry in his journal for that day? ‘‘The Duke of Somerset had his head cut off upon Tower Hill between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning ”’ He added no comment. EDWARD SEYMOUR, EARL OF HERTFORD: 1552—1621. All through his boyhood, Edward Seymour, eldest son of the Protector by his wife Anne Stanhope, was a young man upon whom fortune smiled. He was born into a world wherein his father, already a man of great possessions, was the King’s relative and confidant. His own first cousin was the Heir Apparent. Two Dukes were his godfathers ; and his own father soon was raised to similar rank. Thenceforth he had the entrée to his royal cousin’s Court—could mix with courtiers and be on easy terms with princes. He had been knighted at the coronation of ine Edward VI; but the world knew him as the Earl of Hertford. This title of course was his father’s ; but the custom obtained then, as now, whereby a peer grants to his heir the right to use one of the family titles—normally that which is second in importance. Young Edward had thus been known as -! Sir John Thynne was also arrested. Fortunately he was able to preserve a number of his patron’s private papers. It is for this reason that the Longleat archives are so informative concerning the Seymours of the 16th century. 2 Journal in Lit. Remains, Edward VI. CaNee 530 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Viscount Beauchamp in childhood, but had the Earldom of Hertford from the time of his father’s advancement to dukedom. Having begun life with these bright prospects, he was perhaps the principal sufferer, both in terms of bereavement and in a worldly sense, through the disgrace and execution of the Protector. Opinions differ as to his age at this time; but he was hardly more than 14. It was his lot now to see his mother imprisoned in the Tower, his father’s estates confiscated, and all his titles likewise forfeited. No more could the boy call himself the Earl of Hertford: he was Sir Edward Seymour, a penniless young knight, virtually an orphan and without favour at Court,! It is difficult to imagine what would have happened to the young Sir Edward, but for the good nature of his father’s former secretary, Sir John Thynne. The latter, when himself released, took charge of his old patron’s unfortunate heir, giving him counsel, and for some years supplying him with ready money. ‘‘Let no: this, my furtherance, stick or quail for want of a little money ’’—wrote the young man on one occasion.? Sir John did not let it stick: he was a very loyal friend. Happily the Seymours had other friends also, and with their aid a Bill was passed through Parliament, restoring to the Protector’s children some fair means of subsistence. Considerable estates indeed were handed back to young Sir Edward: these included the original Esturmy properties, and more besides. The Forest of Savernake was returned once more to its hereditary Warden, the actual ownership of it being vested in him as it lately had been in his father. It is remarkable that property in so unusual a form should have been released by the Crown after twice being forfeited. A further helpful factor was that King Edward VI died in 1558, being succeeded by hissister Mary. The Protector had always shown kindness and tolerance towards this Princess (who had been in disfavour) ; and she now responded by ordering the release of the Protector’s widow.? Queen Mary did not have a long reign; but she was succeeded by the Princess Elizabeth. The latter had also kindly memories of the Protector, and was very ready to assist his son. She had not been long on the throne before she re-created for him the Earldom of Hertford and made him also a Baron (Lord Beauchamp). The new Earl thus enjoyed the same rank that his father had held in the good days of Henry VIII. 1 We must beware here of confusing this Sir Edward with his half- brother, also Sir Edward Seymour. The latter was Catherine Fillol’s son—and for once was the more fortunate of the two ! 2 In a letter—Longleat Archives. 3 The Protector’s heir always believed that she had meant to do much for him also. Later in life, when laying claim to some property, he noted: ‘‘ This that I seek is but a feather of myne own goose: whereas if I were ambitiously disposed . . . I should have claimed ... the whole once meant to me by Q. Mary’’. By the Earl of Cardigan. 531 Lord Hertford—as we may once again call him—was now a young man, some 20 years of age. He was decidedly handsome and well set up, carrying himself with a certain natural dignity. Like his father, he wore a short beard and moustache; but his colouring was different: he had grey eyes, and his hair was of a chestnut tint.! Being restored to favour, he lost’no time in seeking to regain his rightful place in Elizabethan society. He wrote, for example, to Sir John Thynne proposing a tour in Wiltshire and Somerset so as to make the acquaintance of the local gentry. After a roundof visits, he would go to Wolfhall, there to hunt and kill some bucks. It was a good idea, but expensive ; for the family finances were not as yet ona satisfactory footing. He had to ask Sir John to oblige him with 100 marks,? At Court, young Hertford might have enjoyed great popularity; but in 1560 he did a very reckless thing. He had for some time been in love with Lady Catherine Grey, sister to the unhappy Lady Jane Grey and equally near in succession to the throne. Queen Elizabeth being notoriously mistrustful of any such possible claimants, the lovers did not dare to ask for permission to marry. Instead, they were privately married, endeavouring to keep the matter a secret until some more propitious moment. | Inevitably, the secret was not kept for long. The Queen, when she discovered it, was furious—and at once ordered Lady Catherine to be imprisoned in the Tower. Hertford hurried to Court, no doubt to make intercession, but was himself likewise seized and imprisoned. lt was in the Tower of London therefore that a child was born— Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp—in the year 1561. The Queen appointed a Commission to enquire into “‘the pretended marriage ”’ ; and this body, no doubt well knowing what verdict was expected of it, duly found the marriage to have been invalid, and the new-born child a bastard. (None the less, this Edward Seymour was always known to his contemporaries as Lord Beauchamp—thus showing-what the popular view was as to his legitimacy.) Hertford’s incarceration does not seem to have been especially strict ; for within 18 months a second child—a boy whom the parents named Thomas?—was born to the Lady Catherine. This event caused the Queen still greater indignation : she ordered the Lieutenant of the Tower to be dismissed ; and although the unhappy couple were later placed under house arrest, she ordained that they should be kept henceforth in different parts of the country. 1 There is a portrait at Savernake, dated 1565. 2 Longleat Archives. 3 There seems to be doubt as to how many children Lord Hertford and Lady Catherine had. My conviction is that there were two only ; because—(a) the Seymour Pedigree says so, being compiled by Lord Hertford’s own order ; (b) Hertford, in his own hand, on the fly-leaf of his bible (found at Longleat) names Thomas as being the second ; (c) there was stricter imprisonment of the parents as from 1563. 532 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Hertford had to appear before the Star Chamber to answer for his part in what had occurred. He was fined £5,000 for having broken prison, £5,000 for ‘‘ debauching a lady of the blood royal’’, and as much again for having had intercourse with her a second time. Happily only fractions of these fines were ever extracted from him; otherwise he would have been totally ruined. Queen Elizabeth seems to have been convinced that Hertford’s marriage had been part of some political plot. There is no evidence for this; and indeed there is much to show that it was genuinely a love match. Lord Hertford was steadfastly loyal to the Queen— while as to the relationship between himself and Lady Catherine, her letters, of which I quote an example,' are sufficient testimony. ‘“No small joye, my Deare Lorde, is it to me the comfortable under- standing of your mayntayned helth. ... Though of late I have not byn well, yet now, I thank God, pretely well, and longe to be merry with you as you do to be with me. . . . I say no more . . . as I was heavy when you the third time came to the door and it was locked.2 “Do you thynke I forget old fore-past matters? No surely I can not, but bear in memory far many more than you think for. I have good leisure so to do when I call to mind what a husband I have of you and my great hard fate to miss the viewing of sogoodaone.. . . “Thus most humbly thanking you, my sweet Lord, for your husbandly sending both to see how I do, and also for your money, I most love- ingly bid you farewell: not forgetting my especyall thanks to you for your book which is no small jewel to me. I can very well read it, for as soon as I had it, I read it over even with my heart as well as with my eyes; by which token I once again bid you Vale et semper salus, my good Ned. ‘Your most lovyng and faithtul wyfe during lyfe, KATHERYNE HARTFORD ”’. The tragic result of the Queen’s jealousy was that, after a few hours of stolen happiness in the grim Tower of London, husband and wife saw each other no more. Lady Catherine died in ]568—and in her last moments still took thought for her ‘“‘ good Ned’’. She said to Sir Owen Hopton, in whose house she was kept :—8 ‘‘T beseech you, promise me one thing, that you yourself with your own mouth will make this request unto the Queen’s Majesty, . . . that she should be good unto my children, and . . . good unto my Lord; and, for I know this my death will be heavy news unto him, that Her Grace will be so good as to send liberty to glad his sorrowful heart withall ”’. But Queen Elizabeth—unhappily in this case—enjoyed a remarkable immunity from sentiment. For six months she did nothing for the ' Appendix, Canon Jackson’s Wolfhall and the Seymours, p. 34. 2 The letter bears no date. Does this refer to some incident in the Tower ? 3 Vide Harleian MSS. By the Earl of Cardigan. 533 young widower: then she allowed him but a slight increase of freedom. After three years, she gave him liberty. After 27 years however, when he ventured to seek recognition of his sons’ legitimacy, she at once had him seized and put into the Tower again. (This second imprisonment, mercifully, was but of a few months’ duration). By 1571, when the Queen’s anger against him first abated, Hertford had spent some ten years in various degrees of confinement. Through Sir John Thynne, he had maintained a certain contact with affairs at Savernake; but naturally, in the owner’s absence, things did not go well there. The Wroughton family, for instance, which had plagued John Seymour during his Wardenship in the previous century, still was a cause of trouble in the neighbourhood. Then it was John Wroughton who ‘‘came in riottous and forsible wise’’: now Lord Hertford, as Warden, learned of ‘‘ great abuses committed by your (i.e., Sir John .Thynne’s) brother(-in-law) Wroughton in and about my Forest; and also his new device about the purlieu of my Lord of Pembroke whereby he justly procureth unto himself rather new displeasure and evill opinion at my hands then pardon and reconciliation for his former abuses and enormities’’. Verily, the Wroughtons had run true to type! ‘‘The purlieu of my Lord Pembroke ’”’ is interesting; for it included the Brail Woods, these having been detached from the Protector’s great estates at the time of his downfall. Lord Pembroke was specifically authorised to appropriate ‘‘all leaden channels and pipes’, also all bricks lying at ‘* Doddysdowne alongside the said wood called le Broyle’’.! In other words, he had licence to carry off all the materials which the Protector had gathered for the construction of the great, new Seymour mansion, This purlieu therefore must have grieved Lord Hertford. He himself could not have afforded to continue building as his father had done; but he needed a good house of respectable size—and by this time Wolfhall had become almost ruinous. He could at least have made use, in repair work, of the Dodsdown bricks. As it was, ‘“‘ by credible report . . . my house isin way of utter ruine unlesse some speadie repayring be thought uppon for the same; I have thought good to desire you now at your being there to consider thoroughly of the state thereof and so to make an estimate what stone, tymber, brick, lyme, sand, and such other necessaries apperteyning to building will be nedefull for the reparation of the same, and what somme the provision . . . amount unto’’.? The matter was urgent: Wolfhall had now suffered a full generation of neglect. Part of the structure was positively dangerous; so that Hertford could write :— ‘‘ My toweris down. Easyer it is you wyllsay as truth to pull down then set up, but better is it and more safety when the tymber is rotten, to pull down lest it fall as that was alltogether gon and the very iron of the windowes consumed in the middest”’. It would be interesting to know what plans were evolved for the restoration of Wolfhall; but whatever they were, it appears that ‘ Royal grant to Lord Pembroke, 6 Edw. VI. 2 Letter to Sir John Thynne, 1569. 534 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. Hertford soon entertained doubts as to their feasibility. The old place would have had to be virtually rebuilt. Would not money be better expended, he must have enquired, on the enlargement of his lodge at Tottenham? Here he had a small but substantial residence—one which would lend itself to being developed. | _ Though there remains little documentary evidence, events show clearly what the answer was. Some ten years after his release, we find Lord Hertford living at Tottenham Lodge. There is no indication of what the house was like, except as to its being large, with extensive outbuildings. A list has survived,' entitled ‘‘ Totnam Lodge. A Note of the names of the Ordinarie of Household there’’; and in this no fewer than 41 persons are mentioned. Allowing for some of them sleeping out, as they no doubt did in nearby cottages, we must still visualise a decidedly large place. Not all of the persons named can be identified; but there was a tutor for Lord Beauchamp and for his brother; a steward, an agent and several more who were heads of departments. ‘The list includes Smyth, who was keeper of the park, Gaskin the slaughter-man, Dowdinge the smith, Ricche the farrier, Hewes the ale brewer, Gilbert the beer brewer, Warren the ostringer (i.e. the falconer), Barnaby the baker, six ‘“Groomes of your Lordship’s stable’’, and various others who may have been footmen. As at Wolfhall, there were few female servants; but there were numerous boys. Some of these were personal boys, looking after the senior members of the staff: others clearly did work such as in later times was done by women. ‘‘ Hugh, boy of the Warderobe’’ is an example of it. | . From this period, about 1580, we may date the renewed prosperity of the Seymour family. Money must have accumulated during the ten years of confinement: thereafter we hear no more of Hertford having to borrow; he was able to live, if not so grandiosely as his father, at least in very comfortable style. He was now also restored, although rather precariously, to the favour of Queen Elizabeth. We do not know whether she visited Tottenham ; but at Elvetham, one of the former Esturmy properties in Hampshire, she was for several days Lord Hertford’s guest. He began once again to be seen at Court—and incidentally to take an interest in one of the Queen’s ladies. His son, Lord Beauchamp, had by now grown up. Hertford, remembering that the boy was (although the Queen would never admit it) great-great-grandson to King Henry VII, and hence a possible heir to the throne,* no doubt began thinking of some important match for him. Young Beauchamp however had ideas of his own, and to his " Longleat Archives. 2 Through Lady Catherine Grey, he had descent from King Henry VII’s younger daughter. King James of Scotland based his claim to the English throne on being descended from the elder daughter of the same King. By the Earl of Cardigan. ; 535 father’s great anger he became engaged to a young lady named Honora Rogers. She was his cousin, the daughter of Sir Richard Rogers—and this relationship had no doubt caused the young people to be thrown together: none theless, when they had the temerity to.marry in defiance of Lord Hertford’s wishes, a most bitter quarrel resulted between father and son. By nature, the Earl was a man of hot temper, outspoken and blunt,! although he could be charming and courteous also. His indignation against Beauchamp was such that the young man— he was scarcely of age—wrote in alarm to Lord Burghley and to Sir Francis Walsingham. » To the: latter he appealed ‘‘ once again to stand my good friend - and, to avoid further occasion of dislike, to deliver me from his (i.e. my father’s) custody ”’. : Walsingham replied. in very sensible vein:— 2? ‘‘ You desire to be removed from your father’s presence, as you see he is greatly grieved through your not yielding to his desires, and are unwilling to be, as it were aneyesore to him. Iam very sorry , . . but you must give me some time to think of it. Inthe mean time, carry yourself humbly and dutifully towards him, and await with patience a good hour, when your friends may prevail to remove from you his displeasure ”’. It must have been painful to Hertford to have his domestic dissensions thus bruited abroad—although indeed they could hardly have remained private, since he was trying forcibly to keep the young lovers apart. So unhappy a situation was mitigated for him only by the approaching prospect of his own re-marriage. The lady of his choice was Frances Howard, sister of the great admiral, Lord Howard of Effingham.® Being one of the Queen’s ladies, she had to seek the royal assent before she could wed—and, needless to say, this was not readily given. Frances however must have been a person of great charm: she wheedled Queen Elizabeth into consenting, while at the same time keeping up the spirits of her distracted and impatient suitor. As to the Queen’s opposition, she writes to him :—‘‘ Many persuasons che used agaynst maryge . . . and how littel you wold care for me how well I was here and how muche she cared forme. Butin the end she said she would not be against my desire. Trust me, sweet ord; the worst is past... ”: As to the trouble with Lord Beauchamp, (who seems to have gainea sympathy at Court, where it was thought that his father had ‘‘ used ' An example of his style is seen in a letter to his sister, who was Honora’s aunt. He writes: —‘‘ Sister Mary, I have ever dealt plainly with all men, and will deal plainly with you”’. After speaking his mind to her, he adds :—‘‘ But we grow old. Let us not discomfort each other ’’.—and so unexpectedly ends on a friendly and generous note. 2 This and the foregoing letter are from the Longleat Archives. 3 One of whose captains, incidentally, was Lord Hertford’s brother. 536 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. him in great extremity ’’)—“‘ Be wise, and I pray you do not grieve. I would with all my heart I were with you to make you merry. I trust in God to bring you another pretty boy. Sweet Lord, you may have me now when you will, for the Queen praised you and said with all her heart you should have me. Farewell, sweet Mr. Edward. Love me and be merry . ts It is to be hoped that, with such a wife, Lord Hertford was able to forget his anger against the son who had become “‘ an eyesore’”’ to him. Unhappily, Frances’ desire to give him another son was not fulfilled: no children were born of this marriage, although it lasted until her death in 1598. Inhis old age, Lord Hertford married a third time; but again without issue. His son Thomas being childless, his only descendants were in fact Beauchamp’s children by Honora Rogers. In 1608 something happened which no doubt Lord Hertford had long since foreseen Queen Elizabeth being on her death-bed, the question arose aS to who should suceeed her. It is well known that her attendants questioned her, naming various persons who seemed to have claims to the throne. Among others, Edward Lord Beauchamp was mentioned—and to this name sbe reacted sharply. ‘I will have no rascal’s son in my seat’’, said she, rousing herself from the stupor into | which she had been sinking, ‘‘ but one worthy to be a King’! (On being asked to amplify this, she then indicated a preference for ‘‘ our Cousin of Scotland ’’).? It has already been pointed out, notably by Canon Jackson, that the word ‘‘rascal’’ did not, in Elizabethan English, have the same opprobious meaning that it has today. None the less, it was scarcely complimentary to Hertford. Perhaps, to show clearly what was in the dying Queen’s mind, I should quote from a letter of the 16th century, written (appropriately) from Savernake by a steward or agent.® ‘Further, according my lord’s grace’s pleasure, I have byn at Vasterne Parke and there with moche worke I have put owt by estymacion 500 dere of all sorts into Braydon. It was not possible to devyde the bucks from the vascalls but one with the other. Whereof the most part were vascalls”’ Lord Hertford, then, was likened—perhaps rather cruellpaetto! one of his Forest deer of an inferior type. It was not for nothing that such an analogy, in her last moments, had sprung to the lips of the old Queen. Obviously, Hertford’s attachment to Savernake must have been well known at Court—and so it was natural to liken him to some denizen of the Forest. Old records of Savernake show that indeed there were many developments under Lord Hertford’s Wardenship. He had at first provided for the day-to-day management of his Forest through a Ranger and deputy Ranger. This is clear from his ‘‘Orders to be 1 Both letters found among the Longleat Archives. 2 Disraeli’s Curiosities of Literatuye, 2nd ser, III, 107. 3 John Barwick to Sir John Thynne. By the Earl of Cardigan. 537 presented to the Kepers of Savernake’’, dated 1554. Among other instructions, we find :— ‘‘Item every kepere shall come every day come (sic) to the Ranger’s Lodge to speake with him or his deputie or at the least to leve ther severall marks in a sertaine place to be appoynted at the said Lodge’”’. This Ranger evidently was a person of some consequence, having magisterial powers; for the next order reads—‘‘ Item that every keper mysse not to appeare at every illi weke courte day at the said Lodge ther to present all offences dunne in there severall walks as well toushing the gamb (game) as wood ”’. Towards the end of the century, however, Hertford determined that the Forest should be subdivided. We have seen that already there were separate parks at Tottenham and Wolfhall: now he fenced off additional areas of much greater size, so that no longer was there one broad tract of forest land through which the deer could roam at will. We learn that—‘‘in the same forest newly paled in out of the forest (is) one parke callyd the great parke wherein there is one Lodge callyd the great lodge’’.' We are told of the park’s size—‘' Item 1650 ac of pastur; 800 ac of heath and waste’’; also about its nature—‘‘all is heath, grene ground and verny (? ferny) ground’’. As to the labour involved in fencing it, Lord Hertford’s agent, writing in 1598 speaks of ‘‘the great bound newly made in the forest’’. Says he—‘‘I have spent the greater part of this week in viewing his Lordship’s work’’.- Another huge enclosure was ‘‘ Brymslad’’, now Brimslade: this contained some 1300 acres. There wasalso ‘‘ the forest unpaled.—Item there is in the thurde parte of the said forest or chase 1800 ac of pastur: itemof heath and wast 400 ac. Item there is of coppice wood. in the foresayd great parke, forest and bremeslad 1400 ac’’. In other words, ‘“‘ coppice wood’”’ covered a mere quarter of the entire area— emphasising once again the open nature of the original Forest. The dividing line is of interest between ‘‘ the forest unpaled ’”’ on the one hand and the two large new parks ontheother. It must have agreed fairly closely with the mediaeval division between the two bailiwicks of La Verme and the West Baily: it agrees also, and more closely, with the present-day division between the woodland known to us as Savernake Forest and the, expanse of agricultural land bordering the West side of it. Lord Hertford’s “‘ great bound”’ is thus a boundary still. ; Having split up his Forest, Hertford’s next decision was to’ appoint two Rangers. One was Sir Gilbert Prynne, who had authority ‘oyer all areas enclosed: the other was Edward Danyell, in charge of ‘‘ the forest unpaled’’. Each had his lodge, one at Great Lodge and the other at Bagdon ;? and each, in addition to his salary, enjoyed certain perquisites 1 Survey, temp. Queen Elizabeth. A farm in this area is still known as Great Lodge. 2 now Savernake Lodge. 538 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. : MARLEBURROUGH | Jf, wits Eee bre My, os : Cf BLcoTT SAVERNAKE q f vT 2 AD FOREST IN | THE 17° CENT, | Saxe ae ae Ss, BoLOsoAKe) ‘ COPSE +.) . So rr 2 WHITEATTS NaS POND & BRADEN ey Hook @Looce [ASHLADE: * Corse ae OR LILGBON se THE HEATH BAGDON @® LOOGE RESIDUE BAGDON Raves” Clench Common GREAT PARK tf FOREST ares oe ey ; nara < ? HAVERING Oe ak HEATH BREMESLAD SHEEPE Warten PARE oY Some ?7 THE PLACE | ARKE Oo PALYD IN || NOTE. Tne northern part Us = 5 A Copied from a t7 cent ae copie 7 Cento & = ariginal. The Savthern par’ A Oro TNAM | is based on written vecords of be a LodGE | the (6% and (7% centurves. = , Ud names throvughol BURBAGE We CAPITALS - Modern ‘os Ss ea I names, wher ( . { he e€ vsed,in @ SUDDON Script. Cc. 1qu7 Z By the Earl of Cardigan. 539 An old book of Forest records! sets it all out clearly. We find— “The allowance of what the Ranger and kepers of the Great Parke in Savernake shall henceforth (from 1591) have: “In primis to the Ranger there for his wage and for his man kepinge the walk (or beat) where the great lodge standeth in reddy money i ee. ec ches A acs sshoperda ey oon stein Tale viats cv ots e adlas gerdiees £10 “Item more in reddye money for keepinge of his houndes......... 40s ‘‘Item the herbage and kepinge of xii keyne and one bull eC EMC SECINCY, DCAS Cac sid ecccieenwicctigcliceetscs Sree cseSescdarsssepscages £9 15s. aplLemucyl \oOdes Of wood at 4s. the’ 100de.~ «0.225... .cucese sso csacnees 64s. ‘“ Item the feading of one Somer nag, one wynter Geldinge an@eewoerstalkinge horses at 13s. 4d. a-pece..... 5... 5.2.0 0.s eee wees: 53s. 4d. It seems that the Ranger’s man keepered one quarter of the Great Park area. There were three other “quarter kepers’’, each receiving £6 13s. 4d., ‘‘and more for eny of them 20s. a yere for kepinge of hounds’’. Each of these subordinates could keep two cows, a ‘‘ nagge”’ and a stalking horse, besides getting 10 loads of wood for his lodge. On the next page we find— “The Allowance of what the Ranger and kepers of the forest of Savernake shall from henceforth have: ‘‘Tn primis to the Ranger for the wage of him selfe and also forthe kepinge of his hounds in reddye money............ £13 6s. 8d. “‘Item the grasse ffeadinge tor twoe geldings or mares to be kept within Bagdon Rayles? worth yerely...................4 26s. 8d. ‘‘Ttem the feadinge of iiii milche kyne to be kept within EW CMSAIGminaeSeW OLIV CLELY. selene css cc ccaiieces te oocahecesiedcestsecaefaess’ te 40s. ‘Item xiv loodes of wood at 5s. the lode worth yerely DSUMRS CAIBHSGs sccéoake bas uaner OSCE ECO UCC DESC na cuC ONSET rn ca ae £3 10s. ‘‘Item the feadinge of vi pigges for the somer and but three for the wynter tyme, soas they be alwaves ringed, worth yerely...20s.”’. The Forest Ranger had only two keepers under him; but each keeper here had his own man. A keeper, tor himself, his man and his hounds, received £14 6s. 8d. Each keeper might have four cows ‘to be kept at lardge in the fforrest ’’, with one mare or gelding. Each received 10 loads of wood for his lodge, together with a quantity of ‘‘ browse ’”’ or underwood. We must suppose that both the Great Park Ranger and the Forest Ranger now had magisterial powers. When they held court at this period, it seems that they chiefly had to deal with such offences as the stealing of wood by the inhabitants of Marlborough and Manton. Typical items from the Forest records are :— “Cannon of Marlebroughe the vii daie of february (1583) stole billett wodde, from whom I toke awaie his hatchett’’. _ ‘“Tomsun of Marlebroughe eodem die stole wodde ”’ ‘Cannon the 1x daie of february stole billett wodde ”’ 1 Savernake Archives, 2 i.e..in Savernake Lawn. 540 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. ‘* Breedcocke eodem die stole wodde ”’ ‘* All these are common stealers ”’ Breedcocke indeed was an old offender ; for there is an entry concern- ing his doings in the previous year :— ‘Richard Breedcocke of Marlebroughe for stealinge of wodde; (Gined) iar ce iene wccr o siecnaasomceee renee. sive debisem te asie ne etoneeLe 2d This was perhaps before he graduated as a ‘“‘common stealer’? The fine, in bad cases, was usually 2s. 6d. There were of course also cases of illegal grazing—for despite the change to private ownership, we find that cattle, sheep and pigs were still agisted in Savérnake Forest. Each village or township adjoining the Forest had its especial mark, which a trustworthy person had to imprint upon those beasts for which the right of pasturage was claimed. The holder of this mark or brand had to take oath that he would not misuse it—the oath taken by the representative of Stitchcombe (for example) being in the following form:— ., “‘T, William Dale, do swear that I shall not wittingly prent or marke any other cattell with the prent or marke made by the inhabitants of Stychecombe & delivered into my kepinge . . . other then the catell of suche ...as... do bryng cattell within the said forest there to depasture . . is nnaetiont (ancient) use at all a used from tyme beyond memory of man untill this presenttyme . . . Sohelpeme God” An innovation for which Lord Hertford was responsible was ne creation within the Forest of rabbit warrens, intended no doubt -to provide flesh (as was the case with dovecotes) during the winter months when butchers’ meat was not available.' There were few, rabbits there formerly ; for—‘‘ having begun a Conigree (coney warren) for the necessary provision of my house, I am driven to desyre the, ayde of my neighbours and friends towards the storing thereof ’’.? The neighbours and friends must have responded nobly; fora few years later—‘‘ there be 1i coney warryns or places for conys viz one callyd the place palyd in for conys & the other Durly Heath & Haveringes Heath ”’.® In these two warrens the rabbits had multiplied exceedingly. By 1592: Hertford could make an agreement with one Anthony Cooke? whereby the latter leased the warrens for a term of 20 years, pledging himself to supply to his landlord annually ‘‘seaven hundrethe and three scoare cooples of Conyes”’, i.e. 1,520 rabbits over and above what he (Cooke) " Our ancestors, growing no root CHOPS, could maintain few cattle through the winter. 2 Letter to Sir John Thynne, 1573. : 3 Survey, Savernake Archives. The places mentioned are close to a farm which is still named ‘“‘ The Warren ”’ | 4 Cooke had until recently been Ranger of the Forest. He seems to have retired to maké way for Danyell and Sir Gilbert Prynne. By the Earl of Cardigan. 541 would take for his own profit. The rabbits had to be delivered when needed at Tottenham Lodge, and they had to be ‘‘ good, sweete and mete to be served used and spent in the house of the said Earle”’’.! Lord Hertford no doubt spent a good deal of his time at Savernake after the-accession of King JamesI; for he must at first have felt uncertain as to how the Stuart dynasty would view him. All went well however; for as early as 1608 we hear of King James, with his Queen, paying a visit to Tottenham.? We need not doubt, I think, that the old horn of the Esturmys was brought out and blown for them: the Seymours unquestionably prized it and knew well its tradition. An artist was already working on the great 24-foot, richly illuminated Pedigree, by which Hertford’s forebears were traced back to the Norman Conquesti. It is noteworthy that, of all the insignia depicted therein, none is shown on so large a scale, nor is any delineated with a more minute care, than the horn of the mediaeval Wardens of Savernake Forest. The King was again at Savernake i in 1617, as is shown by the follow- ing entry in an account book :— “To Anthony Hedd and Grammat 2 dayes apeace looking to Sturmyes Gate and Wootton Gate at the King’s being in the park, 2s. 8d.”’. These two gates lead into the newly-fenced Great Park, showing that this was where King James was hunting. He presumably spent at least the intervening night at Tottenham Lodge. That the hunting at Savernake was to the King’ s liking seems to be indicated. by the fact that he paid a further visit in the year 1620. There was an unfortunate accident on this last occasion; for—‘‘ while His Majesty was a guest at Tottenham, a young gentleman of good sort, one Waldron. was killed by the rise or bound of a buck in the King’s presence’’.4 It is difficult to visualise such an occurrence, which surely could not have happened in the open Forest: the buck may perhaps have been cornered by Waldron in one of Lord Hertford’s new parks or enclosures. 1 Savernake Archives. Until very recent times, the rabbits here were still so numerous that the writer has seen 2,000 shot in two days. Nearly all were destroyed however, as a war-time measure, in 1941, 2 Waylen’s History of Marlborough. 3 City of Bradford collection. Grammat is mentioned also in Forest records (Savernake Archives). He had earlier (1592) been suspected of holding unsound—or unpopular—religious views ; and to clear himself of this imputation, had had to produce a certificate as follows :— _ “May it please your worshippe to understand . . . that the bearer hereof, Thomas Grammat, ... did receave ye holy Communyon at _ Easter last, & so doth yearely in our parishe Church of Preshute, By | me, John Chapman alias Hiscocke, Vicar there ”’ 4 Waylen’s quotation ; letter of Mr. Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carlton. 542 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. THE TROUBLESOME GRANDSON. Their common interest in hunting no doubt served to establish Hertford in the good opinion of the new King. He was again given some employment in national affairs, and after leading an important embassy to Brussels to negotiate a treaty in 1605, was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Wilts and Somerset. We may hope that the old Earl— for he was over 70—had by this time become reconciled with Lord Beauchamp, his son: the Jatter, not very robust, was growing into middle age and was himself the father of several children. + The eldest of these, and Lord Hertford’s senior grandson, was a young man called Sir Edward Seymour. There were two younger grandsons, one LAO e as William and the other as Francis. Young men have always been apt to cause anxiety to their elders — and in this case it was William Seymour who, in no small degree, was the disturber of his grandfather’s peace of mind. Asa youth, William showed himself to have more than ordinary intelligence; and he must have been somewhat precocious, for while still in his ’teens he attracted the attention of a young lady who was a person of some importance at Court. This was the Lady Arabella Stuart, who was another of the several living descendants of King Henry VII. As such, she had some claim to the throne of England, and might indeed have become Queen had there been any serious opposition to the accession of King James I. Lady Arabella’s romance with young William Seymour seems to have commenced in Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The old Queen naturally objected to it—and so did King James when it came to his notice. The affair continued, however, despite opposition, until in 1610 the young people exchanged promises of marriage. It was a most foolish engagement; for not only was the fens certain to refuse consent, but there was also a great disparity in age, Lady Arabella being William’s senior by a good many years. It appears' that young Seymour made some effort! to disentangle himself before: he was too far committed ; but Lady Arabella was determined to risk. all, and so a clandestine marriage between them took place. It is curious to observe how, up to this point, William had repeated almost exactly the reckless behaviour for which his grandparents had suffered some 50 years earlier. The same result ensued ; for the secret of course became known. Thus by 1611 young Seymour was languish- ing in the Tower, while his bride was being held in confinement elsewhere. The sequel however was different. William and Arabella were not content to remain State prisoners; and although kept apart, they succeeded in planning simultaneous escapes. Both were able, on the day appointed, to elude their gaolers, and both made their way to the | coast. i Vide draft letter, quoted by Canon Jackson from the Pengieaa Archives, By the Earl of Cardigan. 543 Lady Arabella was the first to reach the barque which had been hired to take them to France. William Seymour was somewhat delayed— and this caused a break-down of the pre-arranged plan. Lady Arabella’s party lost patience, set sail before Seymour’s arrival, and then anchored in supposed safety off the French coast. Here one of the King’s pinnaces, sent to recapture the fugitives, came up with the barque.. A few shots were fired—and then the unfortunate Arabella found herself once again a prisoner. She was taken back to England, lodged in the Tower of London, and was there kept in close confinement until, within a few years, early death released her. William Seymour was left, of course, in most unhappy plight. He had managed to hire for himself another vessel; but being driven eastwards by unfavourable weather, never made contact with Arabella’s barque. He reached the continent, only to learn the recapture of his bride, from whom he was now more hopelessly parted than ever before. He himself, by his flight, had so far roused the anger of King James that he dared not return to England. He thus found himself an exile in a foreign country, cut off—perhaps for ever—from his friends and family. It may easily be imagined how much all this distressed his grand- father. The old Earl, who had by no means forgotten the ten years of disgrace which had marred his own youth, was appalled by the still greater recklessness displayed by William. He wrote to the Earl of Salisbury :1— ‘* . . . strange to think I should in those (sic) my last days be grandfather of a child that, instead of patience and tarrying the Lord’s leisure (lessons that I learned and prayed for when I was in the same place whereout lewdly he is now escaped), would not tarry for the good hour of favour to come from a gracious and merciful (=overeign) .-. . but hath plunged himself further into His Highness’s just displeasure. To whose Majesty I do, by these lines, earnestly pray your lordship to signify how distasteful this his foolish and boyish actions unto me... 7 This letter of course was written with a view to Bring those in power at Court; yet it was sincere enough, as may be seen from a letter written shortly afterwards to the errant William. This young man had decided to settle in Paris {although his grandfather would have preferred ‘‘ Jeneva, where your religion could not be corrupted’’) and there, having obtained some favour with King James’ ambassador, had begun to adopt a somewhat lavish mode of life. Indeed, at one time he had had to leave the French capital to avoid his creditors—and in so doing had caused further offence by going to Dunkirk, a place which was forbidden to political exiles. Lord Hertford, who ‘‘ ever dealt plainly with all men®’, did not mince his words now.? ‘‘Your former great offences which I neede not 1 Harleian MS., 7003. 2 Letter found by Canon Jackson at Longleat. VOL, LI.—NO, CLXXXVI. 20 544 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. expresse ’’, he wrote, ‘‘aded to your course of life, ever since you escaped over the seas, not a little agrevated by your late wilfull repaire to Duncerke, . . . under pretence of feare of creditors in Fraunce, would make any Grandfather hate the memorie of suche a (grandson). You writ(e) for payment of your debts and have prevayled with my worthy friend the Lord Imbassador Ledger! to write for increase of meanes, but do not consider how litle your ill government & profusse expense doth incourage mee to contynew that you have already. ‘“ . .. To conclude, I advise you in the feare of God, serve him, amende your course of life, be carefull not to do any thinge that may offend your gracious Soveraigne, to whome I wishe myself and all myne to be saints, though to God we cannot bee but sinners, live within your compasse, depend uppon the good advise and counsell of that worthey gent. the Lo. Imbasador to whome you are muche bounde; his good indevours & justificacion of your reformation may be greate means for you one day to kisse the Royall hand which may make you happie, and bee a comfort to my old age. Whereas by your relaps you shalbe sure to rewin (ruin) your selfe and . . . (so far as) in you lyes tumble my graye haires with sorrow to my grave’”’. So much the old Earl wrote in stern disapproval. Then—it was typical of him—he added a few words in a kindler vein. ‘‘In this course uppon farther triall, I may be drawen to do for you what my meanes will give leave. And ever so prayinge God to blesse you with his Holy Spirite, I reste ’’. We do not know how far William was induced to reform himself ; but after the hapless Lady Arabella had died a prisoner in 1615, he found himself able to obtain a pardon. His return to England must have done something to console his grandfather for a whole series of bereavements which the latter suffered at about this time. His elder son, Beauchamp, had died in 1612; his senior grandson, Sir Edward Seymour, in 1618. A great-grandson (Sir Edward’s son) had died in infancv—and thus William had suddenly become the old man’s heir. Lord Hertford was now more than 80 years old. In his last years, he had the satisfaction of seeing William marry again --this time choosing a lady of his own station in life, Frances Devereux, daughter of the Earl of Essex. He saw the young man also assume some local responsibilities, entering parliament, for example, as member for Marlborough. The future looked brighter when, in the spring of 1621, the patriarch died. His family buried him in Salisbury Cathedral, by the side of his first wife, Lady Catherine Grey. One may still read the graven tribute to— ‘‘A matchless pair, - who, after experiencing in many ways the hazards of a wavering fortune, at length repose here together in the same union in which they lived ”’. 1 or ‘‘ Leger’’, meaning Ambassador Resident. By the Earl of Cardigan. 545 WILLIAM SEYMOUR, MARQUESS OF HERTFORD: 1621—1660, William Seymour was in his early thirties when he succeeded his erandfather as Earl of Hertford.) With Frances, his second wife, he was now able to enjoy the domesticity of which events had previously robbed him—and before long he was the father of a large family. Being still out of favour at Court, he seems to have lived quietly in Wiltshire, either at Tottenham or at Amesbury, 2 and to have taken no great part in affairs of State. A picture of him, painted apparently at about this period, shows us a person very different from the former William, the youngster whose charm had brought disaster upon a lady of the royal blood—the bold young man whom even the Tower of London could not hold—the reck- less exile who had piled up debts in Paris. The artist has depicted for us rather a sober-looking gentleman, with ruddy, fair hair falling to his shoulders, wearing a suit of black material, relieved only by some fine white lace at collar and cuffs. His face is not especially handsome, and its expression is thoughtful: it is the face, one would say, of a student—perhaps of a cleric. There are indications that, as the possessor and Warden of Savernake, William Lord Hertford became known, among other things, as an authority on forests. It was not by chance, one imagines, that one of the few public functions which he undertook at this time was that of Assistant Commissioner for the disafforestation of the Forests of Roche and Selwood.? Of his activities at Savernake, we unfortunately have few records; but we know who his ranger was, and how he was appointed. An indenture? of 1636 says:— “Knowe yee that the said Earle of his especiall love, favour and trust which he beareth and hath unto and in his welbeloved friend and neighbour John Pophain of Littlecott in the Countie of Wiltes Esquire, doth by theis presents give and grant unto the said John Popham the Office of Raunger or cheife fforester and keeper, and the charge, com- mand, care and oversight of all and every the said Earle his lands and grounds . . . knowne by the name of the fforest of Savernack. “And of all his Game and Stock of Redd deare and ffallow deare, hares and Conyes. And of all Hawkes ffowles and birds therein breeding, feeding or abiding. And of all his wood and underwood. ... Together 1 He was not however allowed to succeed normally to the Earldom, for the Crown was still unwilling to admit that the old Earl had been legally married to Lady Catherine Grey. The title was therefore deemed _ to have lapsed—-although it was immediately re-created for the natural heir. * At Amesbury there is still a relic of Lady Hertford—a bell in the church, with the inscription :— ‘‘ Be strong in faythe; prayes God well —Frances Countess of Hertford’s bell ’’. 3 State Papers, Domestic : Charles I, 4 Savernake Archives. 202 546 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. with full power and authority to restraine and punishe all disorders and abuses there . . . as fully and largely as he, the said Earle, could or might doe if he were then and there present ” From this one may infer that William Lord Hertford had reverted to the earlier practice of employing one Ranger only. John Popham, in charge of ‘all and every the said Earle his lands’, must have been responsible for the entire Forest, parks included. A survey of 1632 shows that the various subdivisions of the Forest were retained, and had become permanent. There is reference to certain enclosures apparently reserved for grazing ; one was Havering Heath ; another— ‘That part of the fforest which the Tenants of Durley doe claime for their Sheepe Comon ’’.. Hence “‘ the Residue of the fforrest that nowe lyeth open for the deare’”’ is reckoned at only about 2,250 acres. Many of the old methods of forest management were however still retained. It will be remembered that, in mediaeval days, there were ‘“‘ Regarders ’’ whose duty it was to make tours of inspection, reporting any breaches of the Forest Law. Now, the Ranger and his subordinates were expected to take ‘‘views’’ of the Forest, the parks and certain areas ajoining, either for a specific purpose such as a census of deer, or with the general intention of noting and checking abuses. The findings were entered in a book kept for the purpose. Turning the pages, one sees, for example—‘“‘Savernake fforrest: A vewe of the deere there made by Edmund Pyke!’ & the persons hereafter named .’. Pyke had evidently mobilised for this “ view’’ a small army of retainers, sending one or two to each part of the Forest. Whether this was an accurate method of making a count may be doubted ; but each party recorded the number of deer seen—the total arrived at being 258 head. No distinction seems to have been made between red deer and fallow. The Seymours certainly had some of the former—and not only in their Red-deer Park at Wolfhall. There are at this period references to red deer found in such places as Morley (Leigh Hill); and it is a pity that we do not know whether tpey, were scarce Or numerous. A more common type oi “‘ view ’’ was that recorded under the follow- ing heading :— « A vewe taken . . . and Certificat made by the Ranger and kepers as also by the borderers hereafter named .. . of Trespasses damage and offence and of other disorders committed within the said forest .. . as well of the vert as of the venison . c Typical items? revealed by such a “ view’”’ would be :— “Knoll: Tymbridge: Puttall :— Nicholas Kember doth say that all is good and fayre, savinge that many wood stelers to him unknowen do frequent the forest ”’ 1 Pyke was one of the keepers in James I’s reign, i.e. in William Lord Hertford’s youth. 2 I have selected some representative items from the Forest records of the late 16th and early 17th centuries. ; ; —— 2s ts > ee PR ey fp eee eee ee es ee eee ee 2 5 9 SS ee ee er or, By the Earl of Cardigan. 547 “«Stychecomb :— Robart Cooke & John Baylie. They say that there hath byn & yet: be sum seaven white swyne or piggs which have digged & done muche harme nighe unto and about Bradon Hook Lodge, and the owner of the same pigges ys not yet knowen ”’. ‘‘Crofton :— William Batt (and others) do saye all well & fayre at this day’. “* Durley :— John Webb (and others)—who saye that William Lad hath kept as a common trespasser xx shepe & from tyme more & from tyme less, and hath also kept vi rother beasts! and cut downe wood in the litle cony warren ”’. ““ Wotton :—Thomas Commyn (and others). They saye that the forest gate at Wotton Lane ysso hevye as that it is much hurtfull to all persons that way traveling and desire that it may be reformed ’’. ‘‘ Burbage :— Adam Platt ‘and others) do say—They present that Robart Smythe of Shercott hath oppressed the forest with x beasts which he hath brought from Shercott? & that Nicholas Dangecastell hathe guyded them”’. “Eston :— William Kynge (and others) do saye all well”’. Often the Ranger would add his testimony as to some incident which had come under his personal notice. It will be seen therefore that, although the Forest was much less extensive than it formerly had been, and although it had passed from the Crown into private possession, it was still subject to an elaborate (and necessary) system of control. The hereditary Warden, by means of these “‘ views ’’, could inform him- self very exactly of what was going on there. The increasingly precarious state of national affairs, however, was destined soon to break in upon the rural preoccupations of William Lord Hertford. Charles l was now King—and as the breach widened between that monarch and his Parliament, so he began to look for support towards the heads of country families upon whose loyalty he could depend. Hertford’s youthful misdeeds were accordingly set aside : he was made Lord Lieutenant of Somerset in 1639, and in the following year he was created a Marquess. Although he was for long an Earl, and in his old age a Duke, it is as ‘‘ the Lord Marquess”’ that William Seymour is chiefly remembered. Although of unquestioned loyalty to the Crown itself, it should not be supposed that the Marquess of Hertford was King Charles’ blind supporter. Politically, he was often in agreement with his brother-in- law, the Earl of Essex, who later became general of the Parliamentary forces.2 It was not until recourse was had to arms that these two relatives found themselves leaders in opposing camps. Meanwhile, in 1641, Lord Hertford was appointed Governor to the Prince of Wales—afterwards Charles II. It appears that he was selected for this post chiefly on account of his reputation as an 1 Horned cattle. William Lad, incidentally, should have known better : he was at one time an under-keeper! 2 Sharcott is a mile S.W. of Pewsey. 3-H. St. Maur, quoting State Papers, Domestic, Charles I. 548 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. honourable and moderately-minded man. He was neither energetic nor personally ambitious, as is shown by the opinion of Lord Clarendon, who was acquainted with him.! ‘“The Marquis of Hertford was a man of great honour, interest and estate, and of an universal esteem over the whole kingdom; and though he had received many and continued disobligations from the Court, . . . yet he had carried himself with notable steadiness from the beginning of the Parliament in the support and defence of the King’s power and dignity, notwithstanding all his allies, and those with whom he had the greatest familiarity and friendship, were of the opposite party. “|. . It is very true he wanted some of those qualities which might have been wished to be in a person to be trusted in the education of a great and hopeful Prince, and in forming of his mind and manners in so tender an age. He was of an age? not fit for much activity and fatigue, and loved and was even wedded so much to his ease, that he loved his book above all exercises, and cared not to discourse and argue on those points, which he understood very well, only for the trouble ot contending (and had even contracted such a laziness of mind that he had no delight in an open and liberal conversation) ; and could never impose upon himself the pain that was necessary to be undergone in such a perpetual attendance; but then those lesser duties might be otherwise provided for, and he could well support the dignity of a Governor and exact that diligence from others which he could not exercise himself; and his honour was so unblemished that none durst murmur against the designation. ‘And therefore His Majesty thought him very worthy of the high | trust, against which there was no other exception, but that he was not ambitious of it, nor in truth willing to receive and undergo the charge, so contrary to his natural constitution.” In 1642, when the Civil War finally broke out, Lord Hertford was given a high military appointment, that of the King’s Lieutenant- General in the West. It may be thought, from Clarendon’s description, ~ that he was hardly fitted for generalship ; but the times were treacherous, and King Charles perhaps felt that this loyal and steadfast supporter could be of greater service to him than many another whose superior energies might be less honourably directed. Besides, the Seymours were a great West-country family, and locally could exercise a power- ful influence. Lord Hertford’s influence, alas, proved least effective in the town nearest to his home. We cannot attempt to follow the changing fortunes of the Civil War; but we may note that Marlborough was strongly Parliamentarian, and that it was twice assaulted and once sacked by the Royalist forces (although not by those under the Lord Marquess’ direct command). There is a strong tradition—although I 1 Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion. 2 He was 53 when he took up this appointment. ae —————————————— ee By the Earl of Cardigan. 549 can find no written evidence for it—that the Marlburians retaliated by attacking and damaging Tottenham Lodge.' This must have been a sad period of MHertford’s life. Not only was he fighting against his brother-in-law and many of his friends, but he also lost two of his sons. There is no record of their having been killed in action ; so itis probable that some natural illness claimed them, William Lord Beauchamp—named after his father—died when he was just 21 years old, and Robert his brother, being in his early twenties, succumbed only a few years later. Edward, another son, had died in infancy ; and thus, by the end of the civil war, there were but two heirs left—Henry, who had now taken the title of Lord Beauchamp, and the youngest of the original five brothers— John. Henry Lord Beauchamp appears to have served with his father throughout the hostilities,? and his health—perhaps as a result of this—was by no means good. He left England after the final defeat of the Royalists; but was recalled by his father, who, having taken part in the negotiations for peace, had perhaps received some assurance of reasonable treatment for him. Lord Hertford wrote :— ‘‘ Harry, I hear you are now at Paris, I likewise understand you have a great desire to go for Italy, but for many reasons not fit to be expressed, I desire you to leave the thoughts of that journey, and to repair hither to London (where I now am), with all the possible speed and secrecy you can ..-. So with my blessing I rest your most affectionate father’’. The date was July, 1646.3 Lord Hertford himself had remained at the King’s side: indeed he was among the faithful few who remained there to the end. When the decision was taken to bring King Charles to trial, he made one of a brave quartet, offering to take the King’s place in the dock. Hertford, the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Southampton and the Earl of Lindsay—all these urged that, since they were Privy Councillors, they were responsible, by their advice, for the alleged crimes with which the monarch was being charged.4 It wasa gallant gesture, but fruitless. A victim indeed was required—but for that role there could be no substitute. It was Hertford again who, in the same goodly company, took the King’s body after the execution, and saw to its private burial at ‘Windsor. There, in the wrecked and desecrated interior of St. George’s Chapel, he performed his !ast personal service to King Charles I, to whose Court he had come almost ten years before. No man ‘‘ wedded so much to his ease ’’ could have acted more loyally. ‘ The damage, if any, can only have been partial; for a letter, preserved at Savernake, shows that Lord Hertford was in residence a few years later. 20 St, Maur. 3 Letters; Savernake Archives. 4 Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion. 550 Ihe Wardens of Savernake Forest. During Cromwell’s Protectorate, Lord Hertford inevitably lived under restraint. At first he was compelled to remain at Netley, Hampshire, where he had a house; then, having paid a fine of more than £8,000, he was allowed to live quietly at Tottenham and elsewhere. His son Beauchamp was less fortunate: for a considerable period he was imprisoned in the Tower, but at last he too was set at TD) again. Lord Beauchamp had married in 1648, his bride being Mary Capel. He had one son, named William, and three daughters, two of whom died young. Imprisonment caused a renewal of his ill-health; and although he went to France again soon after his release, the change did not avail him. He died there; being still in his twenties, in 1654. - It was soon after this that Lord Hertford, being now almost seventy, felt that he must put his wordly affairs in order. His fortune was somewhat diminished ; apart from the fine, he had laid out large sums to finance Charles I; and now, unknown to the Cromwellian government, he still made regular and heavy contributions towards the maintenance in France of the young King, Charles II. He had, none the less, great estates to dispose of. Lord Hertford’s will is of importance, since it caused the eventual transfer of Savernake out of Seymourhands. He left the bulk of his property, in the first instance, to little William, his grandson and heir. Should William have no son, it was then togo to Lord John Seymour (youngest of the testator’s sons) and to his heirs male, if any. Failing these, it was to beshared out between Lord Hertford’s several daughters and his one grand-daughter, Elizabeth Seymour. On the face of it, this may seem reasonable; but it did not take account of the fact that the Seymour titles and honours might pass in time to other members. of the family—the descendants, for instance, of the testator’s brother.! If this were to happen (asin fact it did happen), some future Seymour would find himself rich in hereditary dignities, but poor in lands and money. Some daughter of the family (the little Elizabeth as it turned out) would become a great heiress, enriching with valuable Seymour properties the happy man to whom her hand should be given in marriage. The unreasonableness of this was evidently not perceived—although it was much emphasised by the events of 1660. In that year, King Charles II was restored to his throne; and inevitably one of the first 1 Lord Hertford’s surviving brother, who lived in Marlborough and had a house on the site of the old Castle, had been created Lord Seymour of Trowbridge. His son succeeded him in that Barony; but two of his grandsons became respectively the 5th and 6th Dukes of Somerset. The latter was the celebrated ‘‘ Proud Duke’’, who restored the ducal fortunes by a prudent marriage. The 5th Duke can have had but a relatively small estate. a WILLIAM SEYMOUR, 3rd Duke of Somerset. A portrait painted shortly before his death in By the Earl of Cardigan. 551 to greet him when he landed at Dover was that faithful servant, now somewhat bowed with age but still strong in counsel— William Seymour, Lord Marquess of Hertford. The latter had done as much as anyone to facilitate the restoration, and that not only by financial aid: throughout the years of young King Charles’ exile, he had (no doubt at consider- able risk) been in constant communication with him, passing on information as to the state of affairs in England, with advice as to how best to turn it to the royal advantage. One of the attractive qualities of Charles II was his readiness to reward and praise those who deserved well of him. He did so in this case—and an Act was passed by which the Dukedom of Somerset, of which the Proctector Duke had been deprived at the time of his downfall, was now restored to the latter’s great-grandson.! The King made the following reference to the matter when addressing both etenises of Parliament in September, 1660 :—- ‘‘T cannot but take notice of one particular Bill [ have passed, which may seem of an extraordinary nature,—that concerning the Duke of Somerset. But you all know it is for an extraordinary person who hath merited as much of the King my father, and myself, as a subject can do; and I am none of those who think tnat subjects by performing their duties in an extraordinary manner do not oblige their Princes to reward them in an extraordinary manner. There can be no danger from such a precedent ; and Ido hope no man will envy him because I have done what a good master should do to such a servant ’’.? The new Duke of Somerset did not live very long to enjoy his dukedom ; but indeed it is probable that nothing thereafter could have pleased him so much as the generous manner of its bestowal. He could now say his Nunc dimittis; and about a month later, at his London house, he died. He was buried at Bedwyn, at night, on the feast of All Saints. WILLIAM SEYMOUR, DUKE OF SOMERSET: 1660—1671. William Seymour was a boy of nine years old when he succeeded his grandfather as Duke of Somerset. He could hardly remember Lord Beauchamp, his father: he had been brought up partly by his grand- parents, his mother having re-married and being now the wife of Henry, third Marquess of Worcester. His sister Elizabeth—known as the Lady Betty—was his chief companion, he and she being much of an age. William was a good-looking boy, judging by a portrait at Savernake which must have been painted about 1660. He became somewhat less so as he grew older; for a later portrait shows him as a stout and rather puffy young man. It is to be feared that, like so many of his ' The Barony of Seymour was at the same time restored ; and it so happens that these two titles, with a baronetcy, are the only ones which remain with the head of the Seymour family at the present day. 2 Lords’ Journals. 552 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. family at this period, he had a weak constitution, manifesting itself not in childhood, but in early adult life. Affairs at Savernake were naturally managed for him by his trustees, and we know only indirectly what developments took place there. The remains of the old manor house at Wolfhall, which for a long time had been becoming more and more ruinous, were finally pulled down; and the materials appear to have been used for reconstruction at Tottenbam. John Aubrey, whosaw Wolfhall in 1672, noted that it ‘‘has been much bigger, and great part pulled downe within these 10 yeares, to build the house of Tottenham Parke. I remember a long gallery. It was never but a timber house’’. We are left with a conundrum as to what exactly was going on at Tottenham. Had the house there been seriously damaged during the Civil War; and had the Lord Marquess merely patched it up during his lifetime, so that proper repairs had to be done in the next generation ? It is possible; and yet it seems strange that the alleged damage should have occurred within the years 1642—46, and that not until 20 years later should the family have begun to collect the material to repairit. The work itself was still in progress, according to Aubrey, in the 30th year after the siege of Marlborough ! There is an alternative explanation which is far more probable. The family dukedom had just been restored; and dukes, in the 17th century at least, were expected to live in appropriate style. It was not for nothing that Tottenham Lodge (which indeed had originally been a hunting lodge) was now re-named Tottenham Park. May not the pulling down of Wolfhall be accounted for by the fact that the family mansion was being improved and extended, so as to provide a suitable home for the young Duke when he should be grown up and married ? Alas for such plans! William’s health was precarious, and he was struck down bya fatal illness while he was still only 19 yearsold, Dying in London, his body was carried to Bedwyn, where great numbers of people—some moved by pity, others by curiosity—had gathered around the churchyard. ‘There was much rudeness (i.e. roughness) of the common people ’’, reported the Dowager Duchess’s steward, ‘‘ amongst whome none suffered that I heare of, but my selfe, I having above a yard of the cloth of my long Black Cloake cutt or rent off in the crowd at my going into Church ”’. With solemn ceremonial, the young Duke was laid to rest beside his father. It was just before Christmas in the year 1671. JOHN SEYMOUR, DUKE OF SOMERSET: 1671—1675. Lord John Seymour, as he had previously been called, was William’s uncle—a man of about 40 at the time when he succeeded to the duke- dom and (as tenant for life) to the family estates. Although not much is known about him, he had already played some part in public life, having served for ten years as M.P. for Marlborough. i By the Earl of Cardigan. 553 It is a curious fact that nearly every writer who has hitherto made reference to Lord John (Mr. Burke of Burke’s Peerage included) has supposed that he did not inherit his father’s Savernake property, and so did not enjoy the hereditary Wardenship of Savernake Forest. This supposition is quite false; for the Marquess of Hertford’s will—when one has waded through the excessive verbosity of it—is clear and explicit. He leaves the bulk of his property, if his grandson should die without male heir, “‘ for the Benefitt of the said Lord John Seymoure my Son for and during his natural life’”’. What is more, there are a number of documents in the Savernake Archives which reveal Lord John, now Duke of Somerset, acting as tenant for life. I take as an example a Recovery deed, signed by him and dated January 1671/2. In this he deals with—‘ all those the Mannors Lordshipps and Demesne Lands of Woulfehall .. . and all those parks . . . called Sudden parke. . . and Totnam parke. . . and all those lands ... called West Courte ... Bowden ffitzwarrens, Iwoodes meade, Rudglands, Ladiewell and the Heele (?) and the Brayle in the parish of Great Bedwyn and (/or) Burbage . seamdeallthose-lands . - . called the ffarme of Puttell . . . in the parish of Little Bedwyn. . . andallthoselands. . . called Longmeade .ffrithehayes and Earlesheath in the parishes of Burbage and Colling- borne Kingstone . . . And all that the fforrest and Chase . . . called the fforrest of Savernacke . . . and all those parkes as they are now enclosed, comonly called . . . the Greate parke or Savernacke parke and Brymeslade . . . parke, now or late part parcell or member of the 27) said tforrest of Savernacke ... There is a great deal more of it—in fact about 10 square feet of parchment, listing all the former Esturmy lands, with those which successive generations of Seymours had added. Enough has been quoted, however, to show that the new Duke of Somerset held, for the term of his life, substantially all that his ancestors had held before him. It seems doubtful whether John, the fourth Duke, actually lived at Savernake. The house at Tottenham Park was apparently still in the hands of the builders when Aubrey visited it in 1672. Coming from Wolfhall, he noted “‘a most parkley ground and romancy pleasant place ; several walkes of great length, of trees planted. Here the Duke of Somerset hath his best seate, which is now to be made a compleat new pile of good architecture.’’ (Note that Aubrey says no word to support the war-damage theory.) Pending the completion of his new mansion, the Duke appears to have lived at Amesbury. There is no portrait of him at Savernake, although there is one in the Council chamber at Salisbury. This shows him asa curious-looking individual—by no means handsome. He had married a widow, Sarah Grimston, daughter of Sir Edward Alston; but they had no children. (Sarah indeed was thrice married, but died without issue.) This Duchess of Somerset must have been a woman of very charit- 554 The Wardens of Savernake Forest. able inclinations—and as such she is still remembered in Wiltshire and elsewhere. It was she who planned and endowed the Almshouses at Froxfield, which still combine beauty with usefulness to a remarkable degree; and this is merely the best known of her numerous benefactions. It was a great misfortune for the Seymour family that she and the Duke were not blessed with a son: lacking such offspring, there was now no male heir who could benefit under the will of the Marquess of Hertford. The next Duke, John’s cousin, would be a relatively poor man. We do not know whether the fourth Duke was greatly concerned as to the impoverishment of his successor (but his wife was, as a clause in her will shows.)! John was probably more anxious as to the future of Savernake :}it had been the home of his childhood, in the good days before the great Rebellion: it would be the home, he hoped, of his old age: he would move there as soon as his new plans for Tottenham Park were accomplished. > There was a Seymour tradition there now. Since the Wars of the Roses and earlier, the Seymours had ruled over Savernake Forest. They had loyally served each King of England, until such time asa King of their own blood had raised them from bailiffs to owners of that ancient woodland—until indeed they had become lords of all the countryside around them. | i So they had grown in stature during two centuries and more. But ‘what now? Lady Betty, the Duke’s niece, would be a great heiress: no doubt she would marry, and no doubt have children. Her husband must be carefully chosen: he must be aman fitted to rule wisely, when the time should come, over thos egreat possessions that his wife would bring him. He must be a man able to bring up his sons, so that they too should be worthy to reap where the long generations of Seymours had sown. All this, thought the Duke, was yet far in the future: he himself was but entering on middle age. But time in fact was short, and shortening. That fatal constitutional weakness, which at this period struck down so many of the family in the high tide of life, had already begun to seek out a new victim. John Duke of Somerset, still living at Amesbury, died in the spring of the year 1675. ! She left some property with the sensible provision that—all named beneficiaries failing—it should pass to whatever individual should inherit the Somerset dukedom. 559 BOTANICAL REFERENCES IN THE SAXON CHARTERS OF WILTSHIRE. By J. DONALD GROSE. In the surveys attached to the Saxon land charters are found frequent references to trees, and occasional references to herbs, which formed landmarks on the boundaries of the lands granted by those charters. These references are in some cases the earliest records of the plants for Britain. Over ninety of the charters have been attributed to Wiltshire, and in these may be found mention of about two hundred teesseand plants. Dhis total has here been reduced for various reasons: (a) Duplication. The same landmark may appear in two or more Surveys, as in surveys of adjoining lands, or as in a later survey of the same lands. (b) Indeterminable landmarks. Many of the boundaries have never been satisfactorily interpreted, and botanical tandmarks, by their very nature, can often only be approximately determined even in otherwise straightforward surveys. (c) Trees are frequently mentioned in connection with personal names (e.g. ‘‘ Puntel’s tree’’ in Baverstock) or with some qualification (e.g. ‘‘ Great tree ’’ in Christian Malford) but with no indication as to the species. (d) Doubtful translation. There are several instances where it is quite uncertain if a particular species is intended. (e) Cultivated plants. References to Woad, Flax, Wheat etc., are here excluded as they undoubtedly concern man-sown crops. There remains, then, a residue of about 150 botanical landmarks with which this paper is concerned.'! All the localities (except one)? have been visited and notes made for this investigation during the period 1944—46. As might be expected, much of the information collected is of little value, but a few general conclusions can be drawn, and it is hoped that some feeble ray of light might be shed not only on the botanical conditions of a thousand years ago but occasionally also on the interpretations of the surveys themselves. , Translations and solutions of nearly all the surveys may be found in Dr. Grundy’s great work, The Saxon Land Charters of Wiltshire (Arch. Journ. \xxvi, 1919, and Ixxvii, 1920). I acknowledge with gratitude the help I have received from Mr. H. C. Brentnall? and Mr. G. M. Young, without in any way imputing to them the (possibly erroneous) conclusions I have reached. 1 T have included also two examples of later date (the Privet and the Dock) owing to their particular interest. eine Spindle tree, No. 1. > The author has invited me to add a few further suggestions in the form of footnotes, and, baving made them to him, I do so, if only as a guarantee of good faith. H.C. B. 556 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. A number following : B. refers to the number of the charter in Birch’s Cartulartum Saxonicum. . G. refers to the page number in Grundy’s Savon Land Charters of Wiltshire. K. refers to the number of the charter in Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus (used only when the charter is not given by Birch). PN,W. refers to the page number in The Place-names of Wiltshire. The dates given are those attributed to the original charters; the surveys are not necessarily contemporaneous. Water-cress. 1. A.D. 956. B.948. G.54. 10. CUCYSCUIMOGE, 7 ar . . . to the combe of the water- cress 5 The landmarks of the Ellandune Charter have never been certainly determined and Dr. Grundy himself makes only a few tentative suggestions.’ Mrs. T. S. Maskelyne doubtfully identifies the combe with Markham (Marcum; Marcombe) Bottom, Wroughton,? and it is possible that this solution can be reconciled with Grundy’s views. Water-cress will grow in almost any stream, but it flourishes best in calcareous waters. Most of the streams in the possible area south of Wroughton receive supplies from the drainage of Swindon Hill and hence are less highly calcareous than the higher reaches coming direct from the chalk at Wroughton. Of these two streams the one from the Waterworks has been deviated and altered considerably in modern times, but water-cress still thrives in it. The Markham Bottom stream has escaped alteration, and here again the cress grows. Southwards as far as Lydiard and Purton, the plant is almost completely absent except in ponds. The Lime. oi. A.D. 955. B.917. G.41. thonne ofer lind ovan . . . ~..., -thenvover thesbamik _of the lime-trees : The bank was probably on the north slope of St. Bartholomew’s Hill, Semley. No lmes grow there now, and the nearest I have been able to find are in a field near Donhead Hall, a considerable distance away. None of the three species of lime found in Britain is thought to be native in Wiltshire, and the commonest, Tilia europaea was probably introduced by the Romans. The trees of the survey were almost certainly planted and in due course died without successors. ! Arch. Journ., xxv, 1918. *W.A.M., xxxvii, 1912. By J. Donald Grose. 557 The Holly. ies JN. Ue B.225. G.152. : Lomnolhyyee. vele{ = 4 .. . 4. <=. -. to) the gate~ of: Holly Ridge Grundy gives the alternative translation of ‘“‘hollow’’ for “ holly ’”’. The ridge is the slightly elevated ground now called Bedwyn Common and I can see no reason why it should be termed ‘‘hollow’’. There is one large tree in the hedge near the crest of the ridge, and many others around St. Katharine’s Church on the summit, but these latter have probably been planted. 2: AN IDIS WITS B.225. (G.154. tham holen stypbum . . . oy the nolly-istumps The holly stumps were probably on the Little Bedwyn boundary south of Scrope’s Wood, There is still one tree in the boundary hedge although a little to the west of the section suggested by Grundy. 3. A.D. 940. B.751. G.254. LOMMOVCHACHIC = oo tO lolly Dean : This is an unknown locality, possibly in Kington Langley. Holly is an unusually common tree in that district. 4. — ENGID EO B.754. G.14 LOMOUCTUCUTIUD Nears) > . . to Holly (or Hollow) Combe The combe is possibly Shipley Bottom between Liddington and Aldbourne. No holly grows there now, norisit a tree of the immediate district. Theterm “ hollow” fits this valley admirably, and is probably the correct translation. 5. A.D. 964. Ballas G.72. onholenbrok . . . , . . to Holly (or Hollow) Brook © The locality appears to be near Housecroft Farm, Steeple Ashton. A careful search along the brook and in the surrounding district reveals that the holly is absent or very scarce. Where the brook is coincident with the present boundary, it flows through a deep: hollow, so it seems probable that ‘“‘holly”’ is an incorrect translation. The Spindle-Tree. 1. A.D. 968. B.1215. G.83. thannenonlusthorn . . . is 2) thentothespindle-tree There is some doubt of the translation of /usthorn as ‘“‘ spindle-tree ’”! and Grundy renders it as ‘“‘(Louse ?) Thorntree”’. The fruits of the spindle tree, however, were at one time known as Louseberries. This tree probably grew at an angle in the boundary about a mile N.W. of "W.A.M., xlvi, 348, 1933 ; PN,W, 24, and W.A.M., xlix, 221, 1940. 558 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. Bowls Barrow, Imber. The area is still in Army occupation and I have been unable to visit it. 2. A.D. 1043—53 B.479. G.179. : onthaholanwannan . . . _..). to thevhollow:spindle= EKeey (2) ae eee | Again there is some doubt of the translation, and it may be argued that a spindle-tree rarely grows large enough to become hollow.. The landmark was somewhere on the E. boundary of Little Hinton, S. of the Ridgeway. There arespindle-trees on this boundary over a distance of about a hundred yards near the site of the old Downs Barn. I was unable to find the tree anywhere else on the boundary or in the neigh- bourhood. This upland district must still be very much as it was in the days of the charter and, supposing the translation to be correct, there seems to be no reason to doubt that the existing trees are the direct descendants of the one mentioned then. : The Maple. 1. A.D. 939. B.734. G.244. to mappledvelea- =. .. . . . to the lea of the: maple- tree Dr. Grundy offers no suggestion of where this landmark might have been, but Mr. Brentnall? places it doubtfully on the slopes of Totter- down. All that can be said is that the maple occurs there now but is quite scarce. . 2. A.D. 940. B.752 G.257. on the grete mapildove . .. . - > sto theeneata maple: (NCC W Re am ee This landmark has been placed at the angle in the boundary a little N.W. of Bradenstoke Abbey, Lyneham. The boundary hedge for the last few yards of the leg leading to the angle is composed almost entirely of maple. It is worth noting that no maple whatever was seen on the boundary (working in the direction given in the survey) for several miles until this locality was reached. Beyond the angle the tree becomes frequent. 3. XD 955: B.917. G.38. 3 up on mapuldor cumb . . . 2°. 2, UD toe Maplestnes combe ; A.D. 958. B.970. G.35. thanen on mapeldere cumb . . . - 4 2 then toe Maple: tree Combe ., . This is Malacombe Bottom, Tollard Royal. A few trees, some of them large, still grow at the head of the Bottom, but the species is absent or very scarce in the lower part of the valley. This is another almost certainly undisturbed locality, and the fact that trees of varying ages and seedlings are found here shows that under these favourable conditions the maple can maintain itself through the ages. ' Rep. Marlb. Col. N.H.S., 1938, 136. By J. Donald Grose. 559 4. A.D. 984. K.641. G.93. ; thannen on mapeldere hille . . . a... then: to: Maple- tree Hill The suggested locality is the slight elevation at Toke’s Cottages, north of Semley. A few maples grow in the small wood adjoining the cottages; no others could be found in the district. The Broom. a a A.D. 905. B.600. G.215. A.D. 957. B.998. G:215; A.D. 960. B.1053. G.215. LO FOVOM: LACE 2 . . . to the brook where broom grows The brook forms the S.E. boundary of Stanton St. Bernard, about a mile W. of Woodborough. Broom does not grow along this stream, nor anywhere else in the district. The reference is almost certainly to gorse. The two plants are commonly confused at the present time, and it is likely that our Saxon forefathers did the same. Gorse grows in five or six places along this stream and the adjoining fields. One place in particular where several bushes grow together on a little hill seems a likely spot to have given the brook its name... Apart from the bushes near the stream, gorse is absent or very scarce in the entire district. The Blackthorn, oye A.D. 956. B.922. G.47. . usque ad blakethovne . . . .... . ontothe blackthorn The blackthorn probably grew at an angle in the boundary of Ashley, about a mile west of the village—a locality now in Gloucester- shire. The boundary here is marked by a stone wall for a considerable distance. Therearea few scattered hawthorns growing here and there at the foot of the wall, but blackthorn grows only in two places, and these two places are on the legs of the angle which was selected by Dr. Grundy as being the most likely one. Blackthorn is largely repro- duced by suckers, and cultivation almost up to the wall isolates these two small colonies, preventing not only their spread but the introduc- tion of bushes from elsewhere. It is probable that blackthorn has grown here continuously from the time of survey. Bee AD ONG.: --B.956. Co. to thaen seoh tore (read slah thorn) . . . to the blackthorn a: he tree grewon the boundary of West Knoyle a little to the east of Common Wood. Blackthorn is common in the boundary hedge there and frequent in the district. VOL LI,—NO. CLXXXVI, 7 2p 560 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. The Bramble. ike Before A.D. 672. Belk. Not in G. A.D. 826. B.391. Not in G. A.D. 905. B.690. Not in G. A.D. 948. B.862. Not in G. A.D. 948. B.863. Not in G. A.D. 997. K.698. Not in G. bremberv wudu. . ... . . . Bramble Wood The site of this wood is not determinable ; it may have been near South Newton. ; 2. A.D. 931. B.677. G.227. on bremeles sceagan easte wearvdne . . . on On the east side of the shaw where brambles grow 2 This was on the W. boundary of Ham. It is clearly impossible to reach any worth-while results by the consideration of a plant which grows in almost every wood and hedge in the county, and the records are here included largely for the sake of completeness. In the present case the most frequent species is probably Rubus ulmifolius. 3. A.D. 940. B.752. G.256. ‘ eft on ther brembelthernan . . . 2 97.) vazaim to. the bramble thorns This was between Swallett Gate and Dauntsey Station, and again the most frequent species seems to be FR. ulmifolius. 4. 3 A.D. 940. B.757. G.266. brembelcumbe .. . . . . Bramble Valley The locality is thought to be Tilman’s Dean, Grovely. The lower part of the valley is now clean pasture ; the upper part is rough scrub, and here there‘appears to be only one species of bramble present. It is Rk. vestitus. 5. A.D. 943. B.782. G.278. brembel thyrnan . . - . ¥. bramble thorns An unknown locality perhaps sore bare S.E. of Salisbury. The Apple-tree. 1. A.D. 796. B.279A. G.158. et ab illo per leappeldove . . . so « and: thence iby; the apple-tree The tree grew in the extreme west of the parish of Purton, perhaps near SomerfordCommon. Grundy suggests that the apple-tree is a copyist’s error for maple-tree. No apple-tree could be found in the district, but the maple does occur here and there in the boundary hedge. 2. A.D. 796. B.279A. G.158. appeldorve selewyke . . . . . . Appletree - Farm ~« This was probably at the S.W. corner of Battlelake Plantation, Braydon. No apple-tree could be found there, but there are a few maple-trees. | By J. Donald Grose. 561 3. A.D. 825. B.390. G.1638. tovaepeljovda, 4... i on top Np pletord The ford was where the S. boundary of Alton Priors meets the stream. One tree grows about a hundred yards from this spot, and another about + mile away, both on the boundary. It is a frequent tree in this district. 4. A.D. 850. B.458. G.167. apeldovestod: =~. = ;. a the stump-of, the apple-tree The stump was on the S. boundary of Dauntsey between Avon and Dauntsey Brook. There is one tree at about the place indicated on the boundary, and two others in the neighbourhood, one of which is on the boundary. It is a scarce tree in the district. 5. A.D. 854. B.477. / GAT. on tha wogan apoldvan .. . ey tothe ierooked apale- -tree This fect was probably on the boundary a little N. of Callas Hill, Little Hinton. The locality is rather indefinite, but there are two apple-trees inthe boundary hedge there, and no others could be found in the immediate district. They are plentiful on the higher ground a mile away. 6. A.D. 854. B.477. G.176. on thaapoldvan . . . ea tOutne apple=tree The tree was near the R. Cole towards the N.E. corner of Little Hinton parish. There are several trees, one of them unusually large, in a hedge about a hundred yards from the present boundary. No others could be found elsewhere in the district. 7. A D. 940. B.748. G.251, on tha havan apoldve . . . . . . to the hoar apple-tree The location was on the boundary S.W. of West Wick Farm, Pewsey. No apple-tree could be found anywhere in this district. 8. A.D. 940. B.751. G.254. totharapplidore .. . . . tothe apple-tree An unknown locality, perhaps in Aeneton Langley. The nolo ds is rare in this parish, and only one tree could be found. 9. A.D. 956. B.1030. — G.295. to thave swete apuldve . . . 1 27 tO the Sweet apple: tree The tree was apparently a planted one. It grew by the road between Wilton Park and Bulbridge. No apple-trees could be found in this district. 10. A.D. 964. B.1127. G.75. . . and thanne on hapeldure hille . . . ait ee wane them: to Age -tree Hill 2P 2 562 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. The hill is about + mile N. of Green Lane Wood, Steeple Ashton. There are two trees in a hedge a few yards from the present boundary on this little hill, and the tree could be found’ souly. in one other place: in the immediate neighbourhood. p aba as c. A.D. 965. — Not 1 Wa 18), oye 16, G.268. el a AUG DUNAOY,. 5 armies oi. o thevhoar apple tree This grew on the boundary W. of Baverstock village. There is one tree on the boundary at a probable place and no others could be found anywhere else in the district. 2 The Pear-tree. : 1. A.D. 681. a BD9A es (Gal del: pevey >. oe ofthe pear-tree The translation is double The landmark was on the S. poundney of Charlton, perhaps a half-mile W. of Pond Plantation. The boundary hedge here was searched for two miles, and a single pear-tree was found about three furlongs W. of the Plantation. It bore very few flowers and no fruit. The Wild Pear is a very scarce tree in Wiltshire and until undertaking these present investigations, I had only found it in the county once. It is usually considered to be a degenerate form of the garden pear and to represent a reversion to the original form of the species. Hence its claim to be a native has been contested. There are, however, two varieties of the Wild Pear. One hasa distinctly pyriform fruit and may be derived from the garden pear. The other hasa more or less globose fruit, and it is possible that this is a true native. In the absence of fruit the Charlton tree cannot be allocated to either of these forms. 2. ¢. A.D. ‘922. B.1145. — G.24. on thaere pyvigean SIO a 2... 22 Oe the Stump aol the pear-tree : The locality is noe known; it may have been at Winterbourne ' Monkton or Winterbourne Bassett. No pear could be found in either parish. . ap A.D, 956. B.922. G.46. usquead pirum . . -) Om to thepearmunee ; The tree was on the boundary « mear = Compan Grove, Foxley. In the boundary hedge about } mile S.W. of Cowage Grove there are two Wild Pears. They belong to fue form with subglobose fruit, and may be native. 4. A.D. 956. B.1030 G.293 Be noddre aet thaeve pyvigean. By the Nadder at the pear tree. The tree was probably on the river-bank between Ugford and Bulbridge. No wild pear could be found along the river, but there is an orchard which abuts on it. : iy, A.D. 1001. K.706. G.101. Aerest of seuen pirien on there hevewat . . . First from the seven pear-trees to the highway : By Donald Grose. 563 This very definitely located landmark was at the bend in the boundary of Great Chalfield one furlong S.E. of Little Chalfield. No wild pear could be found, and a hedger who had worked there for 34 years did not know ofa wild pear anywhere in the district. At the spot indicated, however, there is an orchard and it may be that this has been, so continuously since Saxon days. It seems likely from the above records that there were both wild and cultivated pears then as now. The Service-tree. Ue A.D. 940. 2) 68, TOME G.264. sylfve (? read syrfe) .... eee SELVICe-Uree The ee was on the S. fide of the river near Wylye: No service-tree can be found there now, and judging by the present distribution of the spews Wiltshire, it is unlikely ever to have grown there. The Hawthorn. 1. A.D. 796. B.279A. G.156. teowes thorne . . eee DeOWs. SF Lorn tree As with the bramble, very Waele evidence can be adduced from ihe present distribution of the hawthorn in Wiltshire. From the numerous references in the charters, the tree was obviously quite a common one in Saxon times. Its present abundance is largely due to its extensive -use to form quickset hedges, and no doubt this practice has been general for many years, perhaps even from the Roman occupation. All the localities given in the surveys have been examined, but no details _will be given here except in the few cases where there are points of interest. 2. 3 A.D. 796. B.279A. G.156. hermodes thorne . . . |. . . Harmod’s Thorntree 3. A.D. 796. B.279A. G.157. | WEINESUINOV NE, = 21). e522) tlelenis; Vhorntree A.D. 956. B.948., G.55. haelnes thorne . .-. . -Helen’s Thorntree Dr. Grundy considers these two references are to the same tree. This may well be so, despite the apparent gap of 160 years, for the hawthorn, although a quick-growing tree when young, grows very slowly afterwards and is reputed to live for about two centuries. In any case, it was sometimes the practice to replace an ancient tree serving as a landmark with a younger one, which would then probably take the name of its predecessor. : C ; 1 The text reads “‘ on thaere ea sylfre’’. This might be a mistake for * on thaere eas ylifre”’, which introduces another problem as to what ylfre might represent but at least removes any possible reference to a service-tree. H.C. B. 564 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. 4. A.D. 825. B.390. G.163. oferv tha dune on aenne thorn . . . . . . over the down to a thorntree : . It is suggested that the tree grew on the Knap Hill earthworks, but there are no trees there now and the species is uncommon until Golden Ball Hill is reached. 5. A.D. 850. B.458. G.169. haythorne .. . . . . thorn of the hedge 6. A.D. 854. B.477. G.178. on thone greatan thorne stent bae lentan stathe to the great thorn standing on Lenta’s bank The tree probably grew where the boundary leaves the stream 3} mile S. of Little Hinton Farm. Thorns are plentiful all along the water- course, but, curiously, the largest one in the district grows at the spot mentioned. 7. A.D. 854 B.477. G.175. We ON NONE NOT 5. ane =. . tothe) thomtree 8. A.D. 901 B.586. G.119. sl a SUC USOUL AA SPINGH Tr .. -« thus,on tothe, thorn: tree 9. A.D. 901. B.595. G.198. 2 ON \eVealan sthOVM, - « .. to the great, thortree 10. A.D. 901. B.598. G.204. on thone thornestyb . . . . . . to the thorntree stump 11. c. A.D. 922. B.1145. G.24. 5 on thone thorn . . . . . . to the thorntree 12. A.D. 9381. B.672. G.222. shinee le Culuer thorne .. . . . . the Woodpigeon Thorn- tree aa) | 13. ACD. 93ls ts B.672. G.223. Ma AdSPUN AI ya oe. 1.82. sto the thorthee 14. A.D. 940. B.748. G.248. : to maevihorne . . . » s:-+¢ to the boundary thorn 15. A.D. 940. B.748. G.249. tae WUONT INOUE Wea. . .. the—thorntree 16. A.D. 940. B.748. G.250. nS OW LONE TNOVW a 1, “202 tO the thornsnec : (The ‘‘ thorntree ”’ on line 11, G.250., is a misprint for ‘‘stone’’). 17. A.D. 940. B.748. G.250. ~ . on wippestiorn ~.. = i: «,.. ‘to Wip:s Dhormmeree SS By J. Donald Grose. 18. A.D. 940. thanen on feden thorn 565 B.754. G.13. then to—thorntree! The tree grew at the head of the valley near Hill Farm, Liddington. There are several very tall, isolated trees growing there now. 19. A.D. 940. , on thane thorn 20. A.D. 948. on thorn dune cumb 21. A.D. 943. rugan thyrnan 22. A.D. 955. thanen on the thorn 23. A.D. 955. thanen on crowenthornisstibbe Thorn stump 24. A.D. 955. on the thorn stubbe ' 25. A.D. 955. to than thorn 26. A.D. 955. thonan to thorn wylle the thorntrees A.D. 956. thanen on thernwelles the thorntrees 27. A.D. 956. sub Bubbethorne ad aquam thorn to the water B.756. G.260. to the thorntree B.782. G.278. to Thorn Down Combe B.782. G.278. aie rough thorntree B.904. G.206. then to the thorntree B.904. G.207. then to Crow B.904. G.208. to the thorn stump B.917. G.27. to the thorntree B.917. G.34 then to the spring of B.970. G.35. then to the spring of B.922. G.46. . beneath Bubba’s (?) This grew where the Fosse Way crosses the stream # mile N.W. of Brokenborough. The largest thorn in the immediate neighbourhood now grows at this spot. 238. A.D. 956. hafuc thornae 29. A.D. 956. thonne up to tham thorne thorntree S B.948. G.55. Hawk Thorn. °. B.985. G.237. then up to the 1 If feden represents fegeden, “ united’’, two thorns may have grown intertwisted or even, Mr.Grose suggests, actually have coalesced. H.C.B. . 566 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. A.D. 1045. TiS: G.291. on thane greatan thorn . . . ey tothe ie) thorn- tree Although ee so indicated by poe these two references seem to apply to the same spot. | 30. | A.D. 956. B.985. G.237. andlang dic to otherenthorne . . . . . . along the dyke to the other thorntree aie 31. A.D. 957. B.998. G.213. A.D. 960. B.1058. G.213. on thorn dune . . >. . -toDhorn Down This is Thorn Hill about anehvauy between Milk Hilland East srernseee. There are no thorntrees on the hill now. 32. A.D. 957. ~ B.998. G23) A.D. 960. B,1053. G.213. thonon on anne thorn . . . . . . then to a thorntree The tree grew between the Wansdyke and the valley S. of Thorn Hill. All the thorns have been uprooted recently, and in 1945 were still lying on the ground. 33. A.D. 961. B.1071. = GEG ‘oth thorn hlinc . . . 72%. “as\ far as the lynch ofthe thorntrees : A.D 986. K.655. G.97. on thornhlinch . . . ... . to the lynch of the thorn- trees ; 34. c. A.D. 965. Not in B. or K. G.268. Cald thorn . . Old thorntree This grew at a bend in the boundary W. of Baverstock. The principal tree of the boundary hedge is Blackthorn, and Hawthorn is very scarce in the district. It is probable that some of the A.S. were should be referred to the blackthorn. 35. A.D. 982. K.632. G88. fegevan thorne ... . . . . the fair thorntree! 36. A.D. 987. Not in B. or K. G.107. HOM 5s 7 =) a thorntnee : 37. A.D. 987. ‘Not in B. or K. G.108.: thornstyb . .. . . . Stump of. the thoratree 38. A.D. 1045. Ce eT 8: G.291. .. on thone, havan thorn. ... to the hoar thorntree 1 [f ‘‘fair’’ means ‘‘ beautiful ’’, the commendation seéms curious. But New Pond Bottom in Savernake Forest was earlier known as Fairbough Bottem, and a tradition explains that a bough was there set up to mark an agreed boundary after a dispute... That tradition is. probably very, old, and if f@ger bore, as it well might, this sense of ‘‘equitable’’, another dispute may have been ended by the planting or adoption of this - thorntree as a landmark. H.C.B, By J. Donald Grose. 567 The Elder-tree. 1. A.D. 850. B.458. G.169. eHemme = --.- = the elder-tree This tree grew near the Brinkworth Brook, north of iDeimeeers There are a few small trees on the banks of the brook. It is a scarce species in the district. 2 Cy Ae: 922: B.1145. G.24. on the ellen stybbas . . . Ty eeton une. elder stumps An unknown locality possibly W. of Winterbourne Bassett, where the tree is abundant. Stumps of various trees are frequently mentioned in the charters, but it is curious that no less than nine of the fourteen elder-trees given were stumps, Iam unable to suggest an explanation. 3. ACD. 931% B.672. G.222. Wenellerne stubbe- ~... 2 7a ether elder stump The stump was where the boundary of Norton reaches the road at Vine Tree Inn. There are two elders growing at this spot. The tree is frequent in that district. 4. A.D. 939. B.734. G.241. Of Cynetan to thon ellene . . . From the Kennet to the elder- tree Mr. Brentnall suggests that this landmark was on the W. side of Lockeridge village.! The elder is abundant there. 5. A.D. 940. B.748. G.250. on ellen grafan . 24 to. lder-tree Grove The grove was between Denny, Sutton Hipend and Abbot’s Down Pewsey. Ontheslope of Denny Sutton Hipend facing Abbot’s Down there is a line of elders which might well be termed a ‘‘grove’’. It contains trees of all ages, including one very ancient specimen. The tree is absent from the actual valley. 6. A.D. 940. Beol: G.254. : on thene ellenestubbe . . . eee tOrthe, elder Stump The identification of the charter is doubtful. The elder may have been in Kington Langley, where it occurs now but is scarce. Che A.D. 940. B.752. G.256. on ther ellenestub . . . . . tothe elder stump This was probably between Sealleet Gate and Dauntsey Station: There are two elders in the boundary hedge near St. John’s Farm, but the tree is not common about there. 8. A.D. 943. B.788. G.286. A.D. 962. B.1093. G.286. on thone ellen stub . . . » . , to the elder stump The landmark was where Penhill Copse, Stratton St. Margaret, now stands. Theelderis particularly abundant at the angle in the boundary at the N.E. corner of the copse. 1 Rep. Marib. Coll. N.H.S., 1938, 126. VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXVI. 2Q 568 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. 9. A.D. 955. B.917. G.32. to than ellen stybbe . . . ie. co) the eldemstumip A.D. 958. B.970. G.35. on thone ellenstub. . . . to the elder stump The stump was on the N. slope of Winkelbury Hill. There are still a few elders there, and it is a frequent tree in the district. ° 10. - A.D. 956. B.922. G.47. usque ad Ellerne . . ~ -. . Onto the’elder-tree This is an indefinite locality somewhere near Chedglow. Elder is frequent in the district, and particularly abundant on the present parish boundary. 11. A.D. 956. B.948. G.55. aellen- stybbae. i: ee oe they cldlersseutans The landmark is lost, but may possibly have been on the River Ras a little N. of Swindon. Elder is scarce there, but elsewhere in the possible area of the grant it is common at Wroughton, Elcombe, Okus and Shaw. 12. A.D. 968. B.1216. G.86. GALTON QHAD SVD 7)... 9 at theelder-tree Stump This was between the River Wylye and Pit Folly, Wilton. There is one tree at a bend in the boundary and others in the adjoining wood, It is uncommon in the district. 13. A.D. 972. B.1285. G.245. ON MNGCHCIIC: ane ~ 2) to une elder-inee Mr. Brentnall has identified this landmark as the point mhere the Ridgeway crosses the river r just N. of East Kennett.) Elder trees still grow at this spot. 14. i A.D. 987. Not in B.or K. G.108. WWOVSIIOCE 5. 3s . a. elder-stump The stump was on the S. slope of the valley W. of Peeeey Down. Near the foot of this slope grow two elders. They are the only trees of any sort in the entire valley. The Mayweed. 1. A.D. 931. B.672. G,222. magthe ford.'.-. . . . . the ford of the mayweed : Dr. Grundy suggests that the ford was where the road from Corston to Foxley crosses the brook a little N.W. of Gorsey Leaze, or altern- atively on the same brook nearer Norton. No mayweed could be found anywhere along this stretch of the brook, but this is not surprising, as it is a fugitive plant depending upon disturbance of the soil. The Mayweed of the district is Matvicaria inodora. 1 Rep. Marlb. Coll, N.H,S., 1938, 122. By J. Donald Grose. 569 The Thistle. lie ND 92 2: B.1145. G.24. om thistel beovh. ) . ... to the barrow where thistles grow This is an Sinidenuned locality near one of the Winterbournes. It was possibly a little W. of Winterbourne Monkton. Thenearest extant barrow W. of that village is rabbit-infested and two thistles (Cirsium avvense and C. vulgare) are common on it. The Heath. 1. Ja\— Dae XOiL- B.595. G.200. thaet ofer thone ee erties 7) s2then. Over the open land where heath grows The heath was at the S.E. corner of Stockton, where the boundary meets the track on Chilmark Down. This is no longer open ground but is densely covered with bushes. No heath or heather grows there now, but heather occurs in the CSE and this is probably the species intended by the charter. The Ash-tree. 1. A.D, 796. B.279A. G.158. : usque ad ia Freynne Pe ee on to the ash-tree (?) The landmark was probably between Maple Sale Copse and eomericnd Common. This is a distance of a mile anda half and, in addition, the translation is uncertain. All that can be said is that the tree is very scarce in the district. 2. xeD 9G: B 279A, G.159. USGUCHEESE > Jie Oly vO the aSM-thee eau. 7 ye Probably this tree grew ane the bend in the boundany, at the SE: corner of Battlelake Plantation. An ash grows at exactly ee spot given, and it is uncommon elsewhere in the district. 3. A.D. 854. B.469. G.171. thone on aeschyrste aestewevde . . . i eee ef) clrene sto: the east side of the small ash-tree wood . The locality is Somewhat indefinite but was probably on the boundary N. of Hardenhuish Church. Ash is common in this district and many trees grow on the boundary hne. Five furlongs N. of Hardenhuish Church, at the point where the boundaries of Chippenham, Kington St. Michael and Hardenhuish meet, is a smal! triangular wood with the boundary on its E. side. Here grow several ash-trees, and it is likely to be the landmark of the survey. 4. A.D, 931. B.677. G.226, thaet on efen thone oe BESO an: Sie eecOw au level with the great ash-tree This tree was probably near the south end of Ham Ashley Copse. . Ash is uncommon in this district except as an obviously planted tree. I am indebted to Mrs. F. Partridge for the information that there are _two very old trees about fifty yards inside the S, limit of the copse. 292 570 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. 5. A.D. 934. = 183,705. G.233. : to aescedaene . . 1 to Ash tree Valley . This was probably the wallesy a eae W.of Enford Penning. This area is in army occupation and the valley and surrounding slopes are pitted with shell-craters. A few bushes and small trees have survived in the valley, but no ash. The species is almost absent in the entire neighbourhood. 6. A.D. 940. B.752. G 257. ; endband this clives on then hen ayssh . . . Soi ew alone the steep slope to the high (?) ash-trees The suggested locality is the sharp bend in ake boundary W.N.W. of Bradenstoke Abbey. No ash-tree grows there now, but it is frequent in the district. ; 7. A.D, 956. B.934. G.283. thonon on aes dune .. . . . . then to the down of the ash-trees This is the down at the S.E. side of Little Langford. . The down itself is now almost treeless, but there are a few ash-trees at the foot of the down on the boundary. 8. A.D. 962. B.1093. G.285. thanon ut on aesclace . . . ies. thentout onmethe stream of the ash-trees The stream is the one 5 emenng the River Ray about midway between Crosslanes Farm and Tadpole Farm, Blunsdon, near the site of the now demolished Blunsdon Station. Thereare still ash-trees along the banks of this stream, including one extremely old tree. 9. c. A.D.965 Not in’ B: or K: G.268. DESC Wille ee . . . the spring of the ash-trees The spring was in the valley about 3 mile N.N.E. of Baverstock. An examination of the valley revealed two likely places as the site of the original spring. At the higher there is a large group of ash-trees. At the lower, where there is a bush-covered ditch which was probably once the headwaters of the stream, there is a single very ancient ash. There are other trees at the present source of the stream lower down the valley. Ash is not common in the district except at these places. Mr. G. M. Young points out that the water-table is considerably lower now than in Saxon times, and this particular instance illustrates the point very clearly. The Privet. a Oe A.D.1800 Perambulation of Melksham Forest. to Prevetmove’ .+. . . . 1. sto'the swan py land where privet grows : 1. See W.A.M.,, xlviii, 1939, 578. By J. Donald Grose. 571 The marsh was on the E. boundary of Melksham near Sandridge. » There are many small marshes here on the hill-slopes and all within . about a mile of Sandridge wereexamined. The wettest marsh is exactly. on the boundary between Sandridge and Prickmoor Wood, and in the middle of it is asmallcolony of privet. The plant isapparently entirely absent from the region except at this one spot. This is undoubtedly a native station for a species which has been extensively planted in recent times. The Dock. 1. A.D. 1351. Inquisitions post mortem. Dockham. Hamm where dock grows. This is Dockham, Donhead St. Mary; the name still appears on the lin.O.S. The valley is what might be termed a ‘‘closed locality ’’ being almost entirely surrounded by woodland. The entire lower portion is covered with hundreds of thousands of head-high Broad-leaved Docks (Rumex obtusifolius) almost to the exclusion of all other plants. This is remarkable since the species is a pioneer of waste ground and, unless disturbance was renewed, would be expected to have been replaced lomeeacolby. other species.~ The fact that the name. ‘* Dockham ~ has survived for 600 years! suggests that the dock has been there continuously. The Elm-tree. 1. A.D.968. Notun OR ke G.111. tothamealdanelebeme . . . fey 2 to the old elm-tree (7) The site of this tree was in what is now Great Ridge Wocd, on the W. boundary of Sherrington, a little N. of Longdean Bottom. Theelm does not grow at this place now, and probably not within a mile or more in any direction. The existence (mentioned in the survey) of a ‘‘lynch”’ here in Saxon days suggests that it was then open ground. It is remarkable that we should have only this one doubtful reference to the Elm in the Wiltshire charters.2, The Wych-elm (Ulmus glabra Huds). is certainly native in North Britain and has been claimed as a native for Wiltshire. Our othercommonelm, the English Elm (Ulmus procera _Salisb.) is not known to occur outside Britain, and since it is probably 1 Jt seems unlikely that a name of this type was a recent creation even 600 years ago. It was probably given some 1200 yearsago, which | argues a Still more reinarkable persistence of the weed. Mr. Grose reports | a Dokham at Wanborough, though the name has fallen out of use possibly because the dock no longer infests that meadow. Ee, B: 2 In the Charter of Bremhill, B.717, A.D. 987, is a landmark termed huckeam. Jackson, in Aubrey’s North Wilts, 60, suggests that. this might be ‘‘Cook’s Elm”. Grundy apparently rejects this proposition. Mention must be made also of Wishford (Wicheford in Domesday Book, 1086) which is translated ‘‘ Ford by a wych-elm’”’ (PN,W. 281). 4 572 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. as common in our county as anywhere else, there is good reason to class it as a native species or hybrid. But the absence of confirmatory evidence in the charters makes it necessary to admit the possibility of the trees being recent migrants or introductions from other parts of the country. : The Birch. 1. A.D. 955. B.917. G.4l. andlang beovc ovan . . . ) . along them bank otathe birch-trees : A.D. 958. B.970. , G.58. on berg (read beorc) hove . . . . 2's. to Birch) Bank It seems probable that these two landmarks refer to the same bank or slope. It was on the E. slope of St. Bartholomew’s Hill, Semley. Birch grew here until recently, but nearly all have been felled and the hill replanted with larch. And the birch has been used as posts to fence the plantation! There are two trees left at the W. end of the hill, and these are on the boundary. 2. A.D. 958 . BOO, G.60. thannen on watdune beorch ... . . . . then to Wata’s (?) Down Birch (or Barrow) The birch or barrow was at an angle in the boundary about + mile S. of Milkwell, Donhead St. Andrew. Thespot is now covered by a house and garden and no birch growsin the immediate neighbourhood, Despite the paucity of birch-tree references there is no reason to suppose that the tree was not a common one in parts of Wiltshire in Saxon times. Topographically the surviving charters are more grouped than scattered, and they leave large areas of the county totally unrepresented. The birch is normally a tree of hilly districts, preferring an acid soil, and is often absent from large tracts of the fertile lowlands. . And of these hilly, heathy places the charters are almost silent. Hence the arguments cited above concerning the elm do not hold good when the birch is considered. The Alder. 1. A.D. 901. B.595. Gre: thonne and lang score hlinces on alercum then along boundary lynch to Alder Combe This has been identified as the valley S.E. of Conyger Barn, Stockton. No alder grows there now, and it seems an impossible place for it, being high on the chalk. Alder rarely grows away from the water, except sometimes in woods, so one can only conclude that a thousand years ago this valley was drained by a stream. The lowering of the water- table by about 100 feet to the River Wylye is remarkable. Alder occurs by the Wylye, but it is not common. Mrs. M. B. Yeatman-Biggs tells me that she has failed to find a single tree away from the river. By J. Donald Grose. : 573 2. A.D. 944. B.800. G.295. Aerest endlang the fer to Alorbroke . . . First along the furrow to Alder Brook The brook is at the W. foot of Gatcombe Hull, Nettleton. No alder grows by this part of the stream now. 3. A.D. 964. B.1127. G.73. than onalleburne.. . . .. . .-thento Alder (?) Brook This is the stream which joins the Biss Brook near Brook House, between Trowbridge and Westbury. There are two trees just at the ford of the stream by Brook House, and one other higher up the same stream. The species was not seen elsewhere in the district. The Hazel-tree. 1. A.D. 933. IBGE G.190. Aerstonhaeselwylle . . . First to the spring of the hazels Mr. Young places the site of this spring as probably behind “‘ The Limes ’’ in Oare village. This is mostly garden-ground, but a short distance to the N.E. there is a small dry watercourse with a few hazels at the head. Hazel is a common tree in the hedges to the S. of Oare and at the foot of Martinsell Fiill. 2. oD O74: K.584. G.115. note graue . . -, Nut Grove The grove was Probably, me track just W. of Oaksey Wood. It is unlikely that any nut couid be intended other than the hazel-nut, and the neglected overgrown lane of the survey is still a veritable Nut Grove, being bordered with hazels for a considerable distance. 3B: A.D. 994. K.687. G.197. Aerest ou thone havan haesel . . . First to the hoar hazel The tree grew where the E. boundary of Fovant leaves the 5S. Bank of the River Nadder. There are several trees at the foot'of the wood near the river; the largest of them grows at the exact spot given. Proceeding northwards there are no more hazels on the boundary. 4. A.D. 1001. K.706. G.104. | to thes kingesimaveatheselbert . . . ee tOtneranges boundary at Hazel-tree Camp The camp was probably about ee furlongs S.W. of Wormwood Farm, Atworth. MHazels still grow on une boundary there and are common elsewhere in that region. The Oak. 1. AD. 901: B.588. G.196. _. swathurhdellwudaonland scoraac . . . 2 sothrough Ofreeay Wood to Boundary Oak robably the tree marked the N.E. corner of the parish of Sutton Mandeville. An oak grows a few yards from this spot. It is a frequent tree in the district. 2. A.D. 940. B.748. ' G.248. "Aevest of thavé- anlipigan aéec-. . : First from the isolated oak 574 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. _ The oak stood on the W. side of Clench Common in the N. corner of Pewsey parish. The boundary hedge has not been destroyed in the recent clearance of Clench Common, and an oak still stands near the site of the landmark. It is no longer a solitary tree, for other oaks grow all along the boundary. 3. A.D. 940. B.751. G.254. UO CIGIOVG 3 4% . . . tothe ford of the oak-tree This is an unknown locality perhaps near Kington Langley. Oak is a common tree there. 4 A.D. 961. B.1067. G.638. on tha ac on filethcumbe . . . ee CO iin oak at Hay Comal The oak was 5 probs b hy in the valley N. of Ram Alley, Burbage. Mr. Crawford! believes that the Saxon boundary here was about } mile W. of the present boundary, and that no oak now marks the old site. There are, however, several very large trees close by, and, an ancient stump on the present boundary near the railway, and Mr. Brentnall tells me that in his opinion the present boundary was the original one. 5. JID. SOS. B.1213. G.80. thonne on thone hleadvreadan (read veadhleafan) beam then to the red-leaved tree Dr. Grundy places this landmark at ae summit of the ridge now called Bedwyn Common., Mr. O. G. S. Crawford,? however, suggests that it was S.W. of Timbridge Farm, Savernake Forest, and advances a most interesting argument that it is even possible that the old oak stump called the ‘‘ Duke’s Vaunt’’ represents the actual tree of the survey. This places the age of the still-living stump at nearly a thousand years, even if we suppose that an infant tree was selected as the land- mark. Mr. Brentnall tells me that he has never seen anything to distinguish the foliage of the Duke’s Vaunt from that of other oaks in the neighbourhood, and I do not think that the leaves of an oak would ever have sufficient coloration to warrant the term ‘‘ red-leaved tree”. I think it possible that the tree mentioned in the survey was the dog- wood (Cornus sanguinea), the leaves of which become bright red in late autumn. 6. A.D. 987. K.658. G.100. thanenoncrawanac . . - «= = then to€Crowe@akk The Crow Oak grew between Stowford Farm and Midway Manor, Westwood. .The county boundary for some way north of Stowford Farm is formed by a small stream, and there are several oaks on the banks. No other oaks could be seen within about a mile. 1W.A.M., xli, 1921, 300. 2W.A.M., xli, 1921, 290. By J. Donald Grose. 575 a. A.D. 1001. K.706. G.101. @ecesliegle =. Wier Oak ea : This is a somewhat indefinite locality probably somewhere on the boundary S.W. of Little Chalfield, Atworth. There are several oaks in this boundary hedge, and it is an uncommon tree in the district. 8. fave BN Not in Bork. G113. SR OCIE RS ee at, Oalejcea This was probably on the boundary a little to the S.E. of Murcott, © Crudwell. Oak is frequent in this district, and one*tree grows close to the boundary. The Beech. 1. A.D. 958. B.970. G.58. thanne forthbe dine on baibocheued . . . eee Cheon by the dean to Beech (?)! Headland Hae, The translation is doubtful. The landmark was probably at the S.E. corner of Gutch Common. One small tree grows in the hedge at about the place given, but no others could be seen in the district. The lack of references to the Beech in the Wiltshire charters is not surprising. It isa tree which only rarely reproduces itself from seed in Wiltshire, and it is almost certainly nota native. Although it must have been abundant in some English counties in Saxon times, it was probably almost unknown in Wiltshire. ; The Willows Salix fragilis Crack Willow or Withy. Salix alba White Willow Salix triandra Almond-leaved Willow. Salix Caprea Great Sallow. Salix atrocinerea Grey Sallow. Salix viminalis Osier. Salix purpurea Purple Osier. Le 796) B.279A. G.157. VR MONUIVE) 2), oo the willow-tree The tree probably grew where the boundary-line crosses the brook at Sparcell’s Farm, Purton. Salix fragilis grows at this place, and no other species could be seen thereabouts. “The Withy is often classed as a non-indigenous tree, but the many references to it can be construed as some evidence that it is native. It must be born in mind, however, that the word might have been used loosely, as it is today, to include other long-leaved willows. 2. A.D. 850. B.458. G.167. usquerad le Wythybed. . *.... .. . on to the willow-bed 1 Two possible emendations of Jaiboc are leiboc ‘‘the beech with a head of hair” or ‘‘ bushy beech”’ or, if any sort of beech is unlikely, lahboc, ‘‘the lawbook headland’’ implying some legal decision on a boundary dispute. But both are temerarious. H.C.B. 576 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. This was probably where the stream crosses the parish boundary 4 mile N.W. of Swallett Gate, Dauntsey.. At this spot there are two bushes of S. atrocinerea. S.viminalis grows nearby. 3. a) 939: B.734. G.24]. 3 thonne on withigmeres . ... i. Sab hemetorthe: willow- PONG roe Mr. rental identities this pond as Pig-trow Pond beside the lane -atthe S.end of Barrow Copse, West Woods. Despite the partial recon- struction mentioned by Mr. Brentnall. the pond is still surrounded -by willows and, since this is an isolated locality with little chance of the introduction of trees from elsewhere, these can hardly be other than lineal descendants of the originals. There are two species, S. atvocinerea and S. Caprea. The former grows sparingly in the district ; the latter is absent, or at any rate very scarce. &. AD. 940. B.752. G.256. On the-withibed 7. . . . tothe willow-bed This was where the N. boundary of Christian Malford leaves the Avon, about a mile E. of Seagry Heath. All the willows at this spot are S. fragilis. There is one very old tree, now decayed and fallen across the river, which it spans. S. viminalis and S. triandra occur nearby. Be A.D. 948. B.788. G.287. nythaer on thone ealdan withig . . . Bh ONIN WO aS old willow-tree A.D. 962. B.10938. G.287. nither on thone ealdan umthig . . . CO whatO tlre old willow-tree The old tree grew ata lacs where a small stream enters the boundary. stream about 200 yards S.W. of Penhill Copse, Stratton St. Margaret. At this exact spot now grows a huge specimen of §. alba. The girth of the tree at five feet from the ground is 12ft. 6in. Its height, as nearly as could be calculated from measurements on the ground, is 78ft. The junction of the two streams, supplying moisture on two sides of the tree, and bringing perhaps different nutritive material from the two directions must be a particularly favourable place for growth. An old dead tree lower down the stream had not attained anything like this size. The white Willow is frequently planted beside rivers, and it may not be native here, but it is the only species in the immediate district. 6. A.D. 956. B.922. G.47. ab eo directe a parte boriali de saltherpe (read sealhthorp) thence straight north of the hamlet of the sallow-trees The sallows probably grew a little S. of Fosse Gate, Chedglow, bute the exact locality has been considered uncertain. The wording of the survey seems to imply that there was a group of trees, rather than a few scattered ones. About three furlongs S.S.W. of Fosse Gate are the 1 Rep. Marlib. Coll. N.H.S., 1938, 128. By J. Donald Grose. 577 headwaters of a little stream which flows to West Crudwell. Here grow S. atrocinerea, S. fragilis, S. triandra, and S. viminalis in abundance. The trees near the road are possibly planted, but higher up the stream the first three species mentioned are growing with hazel, ash, hawthorn and elder. There is every indication that this is natural scrub and that the willows and sallows are native. —Thesurrounding ground (an upland area on the borders of the Cotswolds) is quite unsuitable for the growth of willows, and they are almost absent. I think it highly probable that this spot is the landmark of the survey. Th Cae. B= 950) B.956. G.21. thanon to sahl beorge . . . . . . then to Sallow-tree Barrow Dr. Grundy identifies this barrow with the one 3 mile S.S.W. of Keysley Farm, Knoyle. No tree now grows on this tumulus, and no willows could be found near. 8. AD. 96T. B.1067. G.63. : ut on Rod leage wesie wearde -. . . i s2) OUts tothe west side of Withy (?) Lea : A.D. 968. B.12138. Gz79. thonne with Rodleage meres . . . eta ENT OVeK against Withy (?) Lea Pond Mr. Crawford! places this landmark at Bitham Pond, Savernake Forest. Bitham Pond has been enlarged during the war and used as an emergency water-supply. The margins have been cleared and flattened, and no willow grows there now. Three other nearby ponds are too much shaded by large trees for willows to grow, but at Leigh Hill occur S. atrocinevea and S. Caprea. 9. ASD = 961. B.1071. G.65. Aevest on thone ealdan withig . . . First to the old willow-tree The tree grew where the Combe Bissett boundary leaves the River Ebble, 4 mile from the Church. Here grow now S. fragilis, S. triandra, S. purpurea and S. atrocinerea. 10. A.D. 963. B.1118. G.69. on withig maere . . . . . to Willow Balk This was probably the westernmost bend of the Patney boundary, a little S.of the railway. S. fragilis growsat this place. The only other species of the immediate neighbourhood is S. alba. 11. A.D. 968. B.1213. Geer : thone to. sael one Sie . . . then to the gate of the sallow (?) ; Mr. Crawford! sofia that sael gaete might be Shoul Bottom, ores nake Forest. No willow could be found here but S. atvocinerea and S. Caprvea grow in the district. WAV xii, KOZ 1 299) 578 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. 12. A.D. 974. K.584. G.115. le evete wythye 7)? 4). ty the 2reat willlow-inee The tree grew on Braydon Brook about + mile E. of Eastcourt House. S. atrocinerea and S. fragilis grow on the stream about here. Willows are scarce in the vicinity. 13. A.D. 982. K.632. G.89. lewtthybedde . . sy, theawathy-bed This was probably on the Reed Bourne to the S.E. of Eiconmbe Wood, Malmesbury. Many trees of S. atvocinervea and a few of S. fragilis grow there. 14. A.D. 984. K.641. Wo (G94. : thanen on withig broc(h) . . . . . . then to Willow Brook aay : This is the brook which crosses the boundary near Summerleaze Farm near East Knoyle. S. atrocinerea and S. fragilis grow along this brook. 15. Nol Do WO. K.655. G.96. Aevest on thone welig . . . First to the willow-tree The willow stood where the boundary of Stratford Tony crosses the River Ebble a little W. of the village. S. alba is abundant, and S. fragilis is frequent, at this spot. 16. AD? =) Not in Bvor Kk oe Gale: LA OVOGE WYLIE ne . . . the broad willow-tree This landmark cannot be identified accurately, but it was possibly about 3 mile E. of Crudwell. Willows are remarkably scarce in this area, and only a solitary tree of S. aivocenevea could be found. This species could hardly be described as ‘‘broad’”’ from the point of view of girth, of spread or of width of leaf. “ Bulbs”. ale A.D. 863. B.508. —G.186. thanon on clophangran (read oe then to the hanger where bulbs grow The hanging wood has been placed as on the N. boundary of Buttermere where it reaches Ham Hill. There is no hanger there now. Mrs. F. Partridge has kindly made a close search in the district for woodland plants which could be described as ‘‘ bulbs’’, and apparently the only two species present are the Mountain Star-of-Bethlehem (Ornithogalum pyrenaicum) and Ramsons (Allium ursinum). The Yellow Iris. 1. A;DD955.), B.917. ; G29. and thanne west to lafres mere ... . OS. Me Geinids tem west to the pond where yellow iris (?) grows. i _ An alternate translation of Jafres mere might be “‘ rush pond aieame eon was in Larmer Grounds, Tollard Royal. There appears to be only one pond there now, and this was reconstructed in 1880 and its sides By J. Donald Grose. 579 planted with ornamental flowers. There are two plants of the Yellow Tris amongst these flowers, but it is quite probable that they were planted, perhaps even with the idea of restoring to the pond some semblance of its supposed original plant life. 2. ADs 982: K.632. G.90. VeMCUCY OCAAO. tas. a. othe bed of fags The iris-bed was on the hill about } mile N.E. of Bincombe Wood near Malmesbury. There are about ten ponds on this hill, none of which bears the Iris, and the plant could not be found elsewhere in the district. ‘The Rush. Juncus effusus The Soft Rush. Juncus glaucus The Hard Rush. us ALD. 196. B.279A. G.157. USGUE’ TICnsbed =. 8 . . on to the rush-bed This was at the junction of the Fao streams § mile W. of Tadpole Farm, Blunsdon. Juncus effusus and J. glaucus both grow at this point in small quantity. 2. AD. 892: B.567. G.188. thonne on viscslaed . . . =: 4. jthen to the, rush Slade ae slade seems to be the small declivity which forms part of the present boundary about 3 i mile E. of Cuttenham Farm, Wilsford. It is now normally dry, being overgrown and tree-shaded. No rushes grow there, but there is a little J. effusus in a nearby stream. The Bull-rush (Scirpus lacustris) also grows in this stream. 3. A.D. 933. B.699 G.190. on visthysel .- . >. ss. to the rush, thicket This is an indefinite een ity setAerOS on Huish Hill. /. effusus grows in a pond on the hill, but there is nothing which could be termed a “‘rush-thicket ’’. Conditions here may have been very different with the higher water-table of Saxon times. 4. ANID) eb, Baii69. G.269. Up alang ninge (or Hringhe) burne oth that hrisc lad (read slaed) Up along Ring Bourne as far as Rush Slade . . . (assuming Hringhe to be the correct reading.) Probably Rush Slade was at the E. side of the small wood N. of the railway at Beechingstoke. J. effususand J. glaucus are both abundant at this spot. 5. A.D. 955. B.904. G.209. thanenonvishlak . . . . . then to Rush Brook The brook is the stream flowing N. W. from Medbourne, Diddingtont J. glaucus occurs in small quantity in several parts of this stream. No other species could be seen the district. Sedges. 1. A.D. 956. B.922. G.53. USGUC HAA SCEMEdE 2.) 2). . . . on to the sedge-mead 580 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. The Sedge Mead was where the Chissell Brook joins the Avon near Christian Malford. There is an effluent from the Avon at this spot, and the brook which forms the boundary joins the effluent a few yards from the river. The corner of the meadow where these waters meet is © covered with a sedge growing so densely as to exclude almost any other plant. It is a real Sedge Mead. The species is Cavex riparia, and no other sedge could be found in the district. This corner must have remained unchanged since the time of the survey. The Reed. 1. A.D. 943. B.788. G.284. A.D. 956. B.983. G.284. andlang hreod burnanon wurf . . . . . . along Reed Beaune to the Worf (now Ray) A.D. 962. B.1098. G.284, andlang hreod burynan on uuorf . . . 4, along Reed Bounce to the Worf This is the brook running through the village of Rodbourne Cheney. It has been straightened here and there, and much of its course is bordered with allotments. The Reed (Phragmites communis) still grows by the stream immediately S. of Rodbourne Cheney Church. 2. A.D. 956. B.948. 7 G.55. hind Wyllie ya: 2 Spring othe reeds The locality is identified in PN, W .497 as Ruddles Mead, Wroughton, but I have not yet been able to trace the site. Thereisaspring issuing from Swindon Hill at Mill Lane, Okus, where the boundary leaves the River Ray fora short distance, and the Reed is abundant there. It also grows plentifully near the spring in Marcombe bottom. 3. A.D. 982. K.632. G.90. vithe burne . ©. -. 2. 1) > Reed- Bourne This is the stream inch flows through the S. part of our other Rodbourne to join the Avon at Great Somerford. The stream was very thoroughly dredged late in 1945, and there is no reed now right from the Avon tothesource. Formerly it grew at the spot where the stream joins the Avon at Somerford Bridge, and probably also in other places. The plant will probably reappear in a few years’ time. 4 A.D. 984. K.641. G.93. LO KOACICE er = te tO thetea ol themeedsa(s) The locality is where the S, boundary of West Tisbury leaves the River Sem about 4 mile N. of Semley village. The reed no longer grows there, and I have never seen it in this part of Wiltshire. It is possible there has been a mistranslation, and in any case it is by no means certain that the plant intended in the above references is Phragmites communis. The word ‘‘reed”’ is sometimes used in a loose sense to include other aquatic plants with reed-like leaves. By J. Donald Grose. 581 The Couch-grass. 1. A.D. 681. B.59a. Ga9k guiccaéleyen .'. ee COUCH-STass lea! : The landmark was pronably, on the S. boundary of Charlton, perhaps about a mile W. of Pond Plantation. The Wood Couch-grass (A gropyron caninum) is rather uncommon but may sometimes be seen in hedgerows. The Common Couch-grass (A. vepens) is an abundant plant of waste ground and is only rarely found in hedgerows. In the boundary hedge of Charlton about 2 mile W. of Pond Plantation there is an abundance of the Common Couch-grass, and it is frequent in other hedges in that district. The lea of the survey may have taken its name from the plants in the hedges or on the balks surrounding it. ““ Coarse Grass ”’. Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass. Bromus erectus Upright Brome-grass. Deschampsia caespitosa Tufted Hair-grass. Phalaris arundinacea Reed-grass. 1. A.D. 796. IB. 219A. G.156. usque hassukes move... . (ts VOUmto the: Marsnwor coarse grass The marsh was ae Haxmore Farm, Purton. ~Yhere is no extensive marsh near this farm now. Two places are still a little marshy, and it seems likely from the lie of the land that larger marshes existed in those places before the days of modern drainage. At one of these swamps Deschampsia caespitosa and Phalaris avundinacea are the common grasses; at the other, Phalaris avundinacea is the dominant. 2. A.D. 964. Bat: G.72. on hassukesmorv . . . 2s tOrbhe marsh) wherecOarse grass grows The marsh was on the boundary E. of Housecroft Farm, Steeple Ashton. The largest marsh in the possible area has Deschampsia caespitosa as the dominant. 3 A.D. 986. K.655. G.96. on thon hassuc upp on hrofanhricge . . . Fe er LOLE Ne coarse grass up on Roof Ridge This is probably on the E. side of Thnoane Hill, Stratford Tony. The side of the track here, which forms the boundary, might possibly be called a ridge. The dominant grasses are Bromus erectus and Arrhen- -atherum elatius. The Spruce-fir. 1. A.D. 984. K.641. G.93. iannen on. sapi(seppe) Gumbe. . . 2 >... then to the combe of the spruce- -firs The valley. is on the S. bommaden: of Tisbury near Toke’s Cottages. By a remarkable coincidence there are growing now several old spruce- firs in this valley. The tree is not native and is thought to have been 582 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire. introduced in the 16th century. It rarely reproduces from seed in England, and therecan be no connection between the present trees and those of the survey. It is difficult to account for the occurrence of the spruce at such an early date. Even if se@ppe be translated as ‘‘larch’”’ | or ‘‘pine’’, we are Still faced with the position that these also are not natives of Wiltshire. Probably the original trees were introductions from Northern Europe, and it may be pertinent to mention that the Danes were in occupation of the Tisbury district for a few years from A.D. 876. Certain theories have been advanced above under different landmarks, and the following notes are intended to supplement these in a more general sense. An analysis of the refereaces shows that in a very large proportion of cases the botanical landmarks of the surveys can still be matched at the present day with examples of the same species at the same places. The critic may assign this to the long arm of coincidence or perhaps even to wishful thinking on my part, but after full allowance is made for such factors, there remains a substantial weight of evidence to support the assertion. And, after all, is not this position just what one should expect? if a species wasa native a thousand years ago and is still a feature of our countryside, what is more likely than that the seed-sown decendants should occupy approximately the same places today ? The boundaries are usually formed by hedgerows and until comparatively recent times, these hedgerows were deep and ragged, thus forming excellent nurseries for seedlings and saplings. In several instances, particularly, as it happens, when an exact spot can be determined as the landmark, I have noticed that the modern representative of a certain tree is noticeably larger than usual, often the largest in the district. The original surveyors, faced with a choice between several trees for their landmark, would probably choose the tallest. The local conditions may have been ideal for the more vigorous growth of the selected tree and would remain so now. This proposal, of course, is bound up with the ages of the trees at the two periods, but trees in general reach almost their maximum height in early life. In some other cases it was found that a tree had been chosen as a landmark at just about the place where that particular species began to become frequent along the boundary. This was noted only when following the boundary in the direction given in the survey; working in the reverse direction would not give the same result. It must be admitted that the few woodland records do not work out so satisfactorily as those of the hedgerows, but it should be remembered that woods are often cleared completely and replanted with other trees. River side and downland records give a fair measure of confirmatory evidence. Records of plants in marshland show the extensive drainage which has taken place, and references to springs in several cases illustrate vividly the modern lowering of the water-table. There is ie i lr a a re ae By J. Donald Grose. 583 some support for the theory that our common elms and the beech are not native trees in Wiltshire and that they were probably very — uncommon here in Saxon times. The great bulk of the references concerns native trees, and I thinkit can be concluded that these grew very much then as they do now. The wild flowers receive only very scanty mention, buta herb flora of a given community, factors of climate and soil being the same, is remarkably constant. Hence we can confidently assert that the flowers growing with these trees and bushes in a natural habitat would in general be unchanged. The flora of undisturbed places in large areas of Wiltshire must be substantially the same now as it was a thousand years ago. VOL LI,—NO. CLXXXVI, DATE 584 THE NATURAL HISTORY SECTION OF THE WILTS HIRE ARCHAOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY. During the summer of 1946 a few people, who had felt the need of a more active Natural History organisation in Wiltshire and who had already grouped themselves unofficially into a Field Club, approached the President of the Society asking if room could be made for them within the Society, as they were unwilling to form any rival organisa- tion. This proposal was referred to by the Chairman of the Society in his speech at the Annual Meeting of the Society on July 26th, 1946, and the Committee of the Society was authorised to take the necessary steps. As the result of this the Committee of the Society invited Mrs. Egbert Barnes and Mr. Charles Heginbothom to call a small meeting of those likely to be interested. This meeting, which was attended by 16 people, was held at Devizes Museum on Wednesday, October 9th. Mr. Guy Peirson was elected to be chairman of the meeting. After discussion it was agreed that a Natural History Section should be formed and that its name should be the ‘‘ Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society, Natural History Section ”’ A small provisional Committee of the Section was formed consisting of Mr. Guy Peirson (Chairman), Mrs. Egbert Barnes (Hon. Secretary), Mr. G. W. Collett (Hon. Treasurer), Miss Elizabeth Harvie, Mr. G. D. Grose, and Mr. Cyril Rice, to prepare formal proposals to put before the Committee of the Society. This provisional committee of the Section later prepared a draft constitution setting out the relation of the Section to the Society as follows :— Name : Wiltshire Archzological and Natural History Socicae Natural History Section. Membership : Open to anybody. Members of the parent Sorin to have all the privileges of membership of the Section, if they wish to claim them. Object : | To promote the study of Natural History in the County of Wiltshire. Constitution : . Pending the formation of the Section, there is a provisional Com- mittee with authority to act, consisting of President, Secretary, Treasurer, and three others. : Privileges : Members of the Section shall be permitted to attend meetings of the parent Society without power to vote (on payment of any meeting fees), to attend meetings of the Section, to take part in all, other activities of the Section, to receive free one reprint of the Natural History articles printed in the Magazine of the Society. These privileges include free admission to the Devizes Museum, members under 16 to be accompanied by an adult, The Natural History Section. 585 The Section will be represented on the Committee of the Society by two members. Finance : Members of the Section shall pay an annual subscription of 7s. 6d. to the Treasurer of the Section. Of this ls. would be paid over to the Treasurer of the Society, 6s. 6d. would be available for paying for the reprints, Section meeting expenses, postage, circulating lists of mem- bers; etc. Rooms : The Section to have the free use of the Society’s rooms once a year for an Annual Meeting and for Committee Meetings and at other times by arrangement on payment of an agreed fee for lighting, heating, etc. This draft constitution has been approved by the Committee of the Society. It awaits approval at General Meetings of the Section and the Society. The provisional Committee of the Section felt however that they had sufficient authority to go forward and avoid the waste ofa year. They therefore drew up and sent to persons likely to be interested a circular detailing their proposals, which appeared also in an abbreviated form in several Wiltshire newspapers, and arranged a programme of monthly meetings for 1947. 2R2 586 WILTSHIRE BIRD NOTES FOR 1946. Recorder: Kuru G. BARNES; MB.O.U: This is the first Report to appear under the aegis of the newly-formed Natural History Section, although the notes in it were recorded before the Section came into being. Thanks are due to all those who have helped, and we hope that there will be still more contributors and a fuller Report for 1947. For the benefit of new contributors it is recommended that written notes should be made as soon as possible, and, in the case of an unfamiliar bird, that the impressions of its appearance should be recorded before consulting descriptions and illustrations and not. afterwards, to avoid wishful thinking. In the case of an unusual species a full description must be sent to the Recorder, for we are determined to maintain a high standard of accuracy. The year 1946 has produced some records of outstanding interest, the presence of a Little Bustard, only the fourth known visit to Wiltshire since 1877. The nesting of the Shoveler, perhaps the first authentic record, and the nesting of the Marsh Warbler, for which the year 1900 only is given for this county, in the Handbook of British Birds. It is good to be able to report the breeding of Montagu’s Harrier, Buzzard, Hobby and Stone-Curlew in spite of changed conditions in many areas resulting from the war. The special mention of these species is not an indication that the Notes are intended to be only a list of rarities. Far from it; the intention is that by the collection of a number of small and apparently insignificant details over a period of years it will be possible to piece together, after the manner of a jig-saw puzzle, a complete picture of the bird life of our county. CONTRIBUTORS : E. R. Brown, Trowbridge a te E.R.B. Miss M. Butterworth, Warminster cae r. M.B. Mrs. Barnes, Seagry ... a sad a R.G.B. C. C. Balch, Calne ai, ae Ae che C.C.B. Major W. M. Congreve, Farley _... oe Bae W.M.C. G W. Collett, Chippenham ols ae Gs G.W.C. E. J. Cruse, Chippenham fea if Ee ycG: Dauntsey’s School Bird Trust, w. Lavington ae D3: Mrs. D. Newton Dunn, Salisbury .. Aes ae DAN: Miss E. Harvie, Westwood es ae oi En Ee C. Heginbothom, Devizes x Shc Gales le Marlborough. College Natural History Society 5 M.C. F. W. C. Merritt, Devizes eee a veo) ah Wee Mrs. Nurse, Worton _... a ce oe M.E.N. Guy Pierson, Marlborough uk ee cs Gils Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. 587 Mrs. Oscar Peall, Oare ... ap 5 ane DP; E. G. Parsons, Wishford see a she EGP: C. M. R. Pitman, Clarendon ee bbe ee CAM RE, Cyril Rice, Chippenham ees C.R. St. Mary’s School Natural Hictory Society, Calne ae St. M. R. Vaughan, Sutton Veny ee at: oe KV. Rev. A. J. Watson, Upavon Nae Mas ais A.J.W. Brigadier R. H. Willan, Teffont. ... te ise R.H.W. Miss J. Wilson, Norton “a ae sie J.W. HoopED Crow. Corvus c. cornix L. Seen in Kennet Valley in January and February. (M.C.). CARRION Crow. Corvus c. corone L. Definite increase in Salisbury District. (C.M.R.P.). _Maepigr. Pica p. pica (L.). A considerable increase reported from N. and S. Wilts. (E.R.B., haGHoeiGnwne. WM. ©; (CMRP. DP). .. Nest building began at Seagry, March 18th. (R.G.B.). [ CONTINENTAL JAY. Garrulus g. glandarius (L.). ]: At least 30—40 seen between Farley and East Grimstead, January 5th. Probably an influx of the continental race of whicli some specimens have been obtained by a local gamekeeper in recent years. (W.M.C.). °BritisH Jay. Garrulus glandarius rufitergum Hart. A considerable increase in Trowbridge and Teffont districts. (E.R.B., R.H.W.). HAWFINCH. Coccothraustes c. coccothraustes (L.). Reported from Savernake Forest and at Pewsey Road Bridge, Marlborough (M.C.), and one seen near Calne, December 23rd. (C.C.B.). SISKIN. Carduelis spinus {L.) . A flock of about 25 seen at Knighton near Ramsbury, February 17th, (M.C.), three birds on tops of alders near Shearwater, March 16th. One attempted a song. (C.R.) Two at Erlestoke, November 80th. (D.S.). BRITISH BULLFINCH. Pyrrhula pyrrhula nesa Math and Ired. A nest with five eggs near Chippenham, August Ist, a late date. (E.J.C.). CirL BuntTING. Emberiza c. cirlus 1. Nest with three eggs, April 23rd, at Farley, an unusually early date, feather lined, but feathers were supplied in a bag in garden hedge. This nest was deserted and a second nest built also feather lined, May 8th. (W.M.C.). Reported as common about Ford. (D.N.D.). HOUSE-SPARROW. Passery d. domesticus (L.). One seen with nesting material, March 7th., and one building on October 4th. (C.M.R.P.). 588 Wiltshive Bird Notes for 1946. TREE-SPARROW. Passer m. montanus (L.). Six reports in localities as midely separated as Clatford, Ogbourne and Surettor: (M.C.). Woop-Lark. Lullula a. arborea. (L.). Nest of four incubated eggs near Farley, April 7th. (W.M.C.). Singing in Spye Park, March 25th and May llth. (G.W.C.,C.R.) Also two birds seen there, May 11th. (R.G.B.). A slight increase noted in Clarendon area. (C.M.R.P.). A pairseen and another bird singing on the Vowns between Corton and Great Ridge, June 80th. A party of 13 on Downs between Longbridge Deverill and Great Ridge, July 3rd. (R.V.). One seen in Hursley Bottom, West Woods. (M.C.). YELLOW WactTalIL. Motacilla flava flavissima (Blyth). In water meadows near Ramsbury, May 25th. (R.G.B.). Return migration noted near Chippenham, August 10th. (C.R.). ~GrREY WactTaiIL. Motactlla c. cinerea Tunst. Sitting hard near nest of Dipper in Chalke Valley, the two nests less than a yard apart, April 6th. (C.M.R.P.) Records throughout the year at Seagry (R.G.B.) and near W. Lavington. (D.S.). PieD WaartTaiL. Motacilla alba yarrellii Gould. Decrease noted in Clarendon district, many pairs absent from usual haunts). (COVER E.): TREE CREEPER. Certhia familiaris britannica Ridgw. Nest with young behind a stable door at Fonthill Gifford, June Ist, close to it was a nest of the previous year. (C.M.R.P.). NuTHATCH. Sitta europoea affinis Blyth. Reported from Norton and Chippenham to be less common in the last few years. (J.W., C.R.). BivueE Tit. Parus ceruleus obscurus Prazak. In late March a pair started to build in a nest-box near Trowbridge. They deserted, and after a fortnight the box was opened and found to contain a domed nest with a dozen Humble Bees. Later the nest was full of the white grubs of these bees. (E.R.B.). WiLLow-Tit. Parus atricapillus kleinschmidtt Hellm. One heard singing, then seen and identified near Alderbury, April 6thixencG: MRP): LonGc-TaILeD Tit. Aegithalos caudatus rosaceus Mathews. : A nest practically completed March 7th, near Trowbridge. Previous night’s temperature 12° of frost. Birds at work with the temperature just above freezing. (E.R.B.). A nest with three eggs at Farley, April 2nd. (W.M.C.). Both early dates. By Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.O.U. 589 RED-BACKED SHRIKE. Lantus c. collurio L. First seen at Old Sarum, May 4th. Not up to usual numbers this year, absent from many haunts near Salisbury. (C.M.R.P.). Not seen near Chippenham this year. (C.R.). Reported from Manton and Broadtown Hill. (M.C.). . WaxwinG. Bombycilla g. garrulus (L.). Three were seen passing along a hedge near Memorial Hall, Marl- borough, December 17th. (M.C.). There wasa widespread invasion in other parts of Britain. CuiFF-CHAFF. Phylloscopus c. collybita (Viell.). Return migration noted September 7th. (E.J.C.). WoopD-WARBLER. Phylloscopus sibilatrix. (Bechst.). Common in Savernake Forest and in all suitable woods about Sutton Weuya(D2P.; IR.V.). GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER. Locustella n. naevia. (Bodd.). Seen and heard singing in reed-bed by the Avon at Manningford, April 23rd. (G.W.C., R.G.B., D.P., C.R.). One-passage migrant in garden at Chippenham for one day, April 29th. (C.R.). Onesinging in Robin Hood’s Bower near Sutton Veny, July 8rd. (R.V.). REED-WARBLER. Acyvrocephalus s. scirpaceus. (Herm.). A nest with five hard set eggs, May 3lst, by Salisbury Avon. Also several nests and eggs, July 30th, rather late. (C.M.R.P.) MARSH-WARBLER. Acyrocephalus palustris. (Bechst.). : A pair nested in a water meadow near Ramsbury. The story of the discovery of their nest and the feeding of the young birds is the subject of an article in the Report of the Marlborough College Natural History Society. They were building on June 18th, first egg June 22nd, young hatched July 7th, young fledglings July 20th. The only date given in - the Handbook of British Birds for nesting in Wilts is 1900. The species did nest near Marlborough for several years about 1920. (G.P.). BrackcaPp. Sylvia a. atricapilia, (L.). A wintering male was seen near Shelburne Road, Calne, at 10 am. on Christmas Day. (C.C.B.). A nest with six eggs and another with five of the scarce erythristic type of pink eggs, May 27th. (C.M.R.P.). A nest with five erythristic type eggs near Chippenham, May 18th. #22 ]°C,): . LESSER WHITETHROAT. Sylviac.curruca. (L.) Large migratory movementin progress near Malmesbury, April 20th. Return passage through garden in Chippenham, observed September. Very few nesting birds in immediate neighbourhood. (C.R.). DARTFORD WARBLER. Sylvia undata dartfordiensis. Lath. Still no sign of recovery following winter 1944—-45. (W.M.C.). One pair in their old haunts on October 25th, after an absence of many years. (C.M.R.P.) 590 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. FIELDFARE. Turdus pilaris. L. Very large flocks in trees along the valley of the Norton Brook, March 24th. (J.W.). Large number, c. 1000, flying S.W. over Calne, December llth. 7 (St. M.). [GREENLAND WHEATEAR. Oenanthe oenanthe leucorrhoa. (Gm.).]| Passing through, March 28th, may have been of the Greenland race which has been definitely known to occur in other years on Dean Hill, Farley. (W.M.C.). REDSTART. Phoenicurus p. phoenicurus (L.). Male in pollard willows by Summerham Brook, April 2 26th. (G.W.C. C.R.). Male seen in Spye park, May llth, (C.R., R.G.B.) and June 3rd. (D-P:). BLackK REDsTART. Phoenicurus ochrurus gibraliariensis. A female,in garden at Eastleigh Road, Devizes, October 12th—13th. Appeared at 10a.m.and stayed throughout the day and next day. ‘‘ Greyish body with briliantrump’’, (F.W.C.M.), also a temalein garden at Warminster, October 24th—27th, ‘‘slate grey all over except for rump and tail”’ It spent the day as a gardener’s robin does on a spade, on the ground or low fence. It perched on wire of chicken-house and fed among vegetables. It was entirely silent. (M.B.). DIPPER. Cvzncilus cinclus gularis. (Lath.). . Sitting hard, April 6th, in usual area in Chalke valley. (C.M.R_P.). One record only of unsuccessful attempt to nest in W. Lavington district.: (D.S.). One pair resident in Castle Combe District. (R.G.B.). SAND-MaRTIN. Ripania rv. riparia. (L.). About 50.pairs nesting in disused quarry near Crockerton, and small colony on Battlesbury Hill near Warminster. (R.V.). NIGHT-JAR. Caprimulgus e. europaeus. L. Flushed several from heather near Redlynch, June 22nd (C.M.R.). Common round Warminster, where habitat is suitable. (R.V.). Seem to be increasing in Marlborough area; reported from Clench ‘Common, West Woods and Bedwyn Common. (M.C.). Not seen in Biss Wood for three seasons, perhaps owing to disturbance by military. (E.R.B.). Cuckoo. Cuculus c. canorus. L. Young bird 8—9 days old in Hedge-sparrow’s nest, May 18th, (C.M.R.P.). LONG-EARED Owl. Asio 0. otis. (L.). Sitting on four eggs in old Magpie’s nest in tall hawthorns, March 25th. (C.M.R.P.). SHORT-EARED OwL. Asio f. flammeus. (Pontopp.). Up to eight seen near the Warren, January to March. (D.S.). As many as twelve were seen at Totterdown, January 15th and near Rockley Long Copse, February 8th and March 29th, feeding on voles By Ruth G. Barnes, M:.B.0.U. 591 and beetles (an analysis of six pellets was carried out). (M.C.). Also wintering on down near Wishford, the first time the observer has seen tem that district. -(2.G.P.). PEREGRINE Fatcon. Falco p. peregrinus. Tunst. One seen at Preshute, July 20th. (M.C.). A not infrequent visitor in late summer and autumn on downs near Wishford. (E.G.C.). Hospsy. Falcos. subbuieo. L. One flying N.E. near Poulshot, April 27th. (G.W.C., E.H., C.R. R.G.B.). One hawking insects over Bristol Avon at Seagry, May 18th, _ perched on same dead branch as 1944. (R.G.B.). One flying over Avon at the Town Bridge, Chippenham, June Sth. (C.R.). Nest of three young 2—8 days old on Salisbury Plain, July 10th. Young flourishing July 19th. (W.M.C.). Constantly seen from ‘July to October with family: (E.G.P.). MERLIN’ Falco columbarius oesalon. Tunst. The Merlins arrive about Wishford in autumn and then are numerous, though there is a marked decrease from November onwards and only a few winter in this area. (E.G.P.). .So many reports have been received from Marlborough district and each with much evdidence to support it that it appears that at least one must be correct. (M.C.). ComMoON Buzzarv. Buteo bd. buteo. (L.). One seen near Shearwater, February 2nd (M.B.), and one soaring near Brokenborough, April 14th. (R.G.B.). Three pairs at least bred in Wilts this year and probably one or two more. Of two birds which took up residence in Savernake Forest, one was shot. (M.C.). MOoNTAGU’S HARRIER. Circus pygargus. (L.). One pair nested in S. Wilts. Nest found and male seen, May 9th. Female seen close to site and male 14 miles away, May 12th. Nest as before with no eggs. On June 9th the nest contained four eggs, female flying overhead. When visited again, June 22nd, the nest contained three young still showing a good deal of white. The female with two young well on the wing wasseen in the area, August 25th. (C.M.R.P.). HEN-HARRIER. Cuzrcus c. cyaneus. (L.). Two Harriers described as ‘‘ large brown birds with white rumps and owl-like check markings’’, on the downs near the Warren, West Lavington, January 20th. (D.S.). SPARROW-HaAwkK. Accipiter n.nisus. (L.). Increase reported from Marlborough and Salisbury districts. (M.C., IS:G:P:). [Honry-Buzzarp. Pernis a. apivorus. (L.).] The Honey-Buzzard has been shot in the Wishford area in the last few years, and one was very probably seen at the end of October. (E.G.P.). 592 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. COMMON HERON. Avdea c.cinevea. L. Twelve nests occupied at Bowood, April 3rd. (G.W.C.). One nest only at Clarendon this year, April Ist—a decrease. (C.M.R.P.). Savernake heronry contained eight nests definitely occupied. (M.C.). BITTERN: Botaurus s. stellaris (L.). One seen flying from one reed bed to another at Coate Reservoir, January 5th. (G.W.C.). WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE. Anser a. albifyons. (Scop.). Seen every winter since 1941, Wishford. (E.G.P.). GREY GOOSE. Anser sp. ? Small. parties flying N.W. over Westwood about December 19th. (E.H.). Two skeins passed over Chippenham 3.30 p.m., December 28th. (E.J.C.). About 200 flying over Worton 8 p.m., ies skeins (c. 150 birds) flying N.W. over Seagry 3.15 p.m. and 20 cine over Oare, all on December 29th. (M.E.N., R.G.B., D.P.). Skein of 23. probably White-fronted, passed over Corsham lee to N.W., December 31st. ‘C.R.). Ruppy SHELL-Duck. Casarca ferruginea. (Pall.). A fine male, watched several times during day, April 26th, in meadows near Clarendon and was about for several days. There isa note of this occurrence in the Countryman. Attracted attention by its peculiar _ “honking” similar to that of a goose. This record must be treated with reserve as a possible escape from captivity. None are known to have been kept in the immediate neighbourhood. (C. M.R.P.). TEAL. Anasc.crecca. L. Strongly suspected of breeding along the Salisbury Avon, but no definite proof, although birds flushed as late as May and beginning of June. (C.M.R.P.). Two or three at Coate, Apri] 138th. (R.G.B.). Seen on flooded meadows near Wishford in autumn, and a few in winter at Coate, Corsham and Shearwater. (M.B., G.W.C., C.R.). WIDGEON. Anas penelope. L. About 40 in one flock at Chilton Foliat in January. (M.C.). Two seen in late autumn on pond by Southampton Road, Salisbury. (D.N.D.). Seen on flooded meadows near Wishford in autumn. (E.G.P.). SHOVELER. Spatula clypeata. (L.). A duck with her ducklings on the Salisbury Avon, June 8th. Atten- tion attracted to them by the warning call of the parent bird. This is possibly the first authentic record of this species nesting in Wiltshire. One immature bird was shot on the Avon, September 15th. (C.M.R.P.). A pair feeding together in a small pool among reeds at Coate, April 13th. (R.G.B.). Pair seen there twice in April and on May 30th, but no nest found. (C.R.). a: Common PocHarD. Aythya ferina. (L.). Eight at Bowood, January 27th. (St. M.). In winter at Corsham, By Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.O.U. a 593 (11 males, January 15th), Shearwater and Braydon (C.R.), anda number at the Pits, Britford, October 24th. (C.M.R.P.}). t TuFTED Duck. Aythya fuligula. (L.). Many on gravel pits, Britford, from January 3rd until March 2lst. (C.M R.P.). And some in winter at Shearwater, Corsham, Braydon and Stourton (G.W.C,, C.R.) and at Bowood. (St. M.). ees GOLDENEYE. Bucephala c. clangula (L.). ©ne atiCoate in March. (M.-C). CORMORANT. Phalacvocorvax c. carbo (L.). Five flying over the Salisbury Avon at Britford January 3rd, and- six together on December 26th. Can be seen in this district almost daily during winter and are much persecuted owing to their depreda- tionsintroutstreams. (C.R.M.P.) One fishing in Shearwater in March (C.R.), and two there in November and on December 16th. (M.B.). GREAT CRESTED GREBE. Podiceps c. cristatus (L.). Mlevenapains- at. Coate;, April 3th. (C.R., R:G.B.).° Some. young successfully reared there. (M.C.). Three pairs at Shearwater, February, aiiduatermested. «(M.R.B.) ©.R.): Lwelve birds there in June: (R-V.). Only one pair with two young to be seen in August. (E.R.B.). One pair at Corsham, four at Braydon, noneseen at Stourton. (C.R.). Seen at Fonthill, June 2nd, no evidence of nesting. (C.M.R.P.). One bird at Bowood, April 3rd, later none seen (G.W.C. and St. M.). [GREAT NORTHERN DIVER. Celymbus immer Brunn.| The keeper at Coate reported one about March 5th. (M.C). STOCK-DoveE. Columba enas L. Sitting on three eggs, November 17th. (C.M.R.P.). COMMON CURLEW. Numentus a. arquata (L.). A number flying round and alighting in a meadow between Potterne and Urchfont, March 29th. (A.J.W.). Heard flying over Chippenham at night, April 7th. (C.R.). Two pairs known to have nested S. Wilts . this year. (C.M.R.P.), and report of nesting in mid-Wilts. (0 S.). Woopcock. Scolopax rusticola L. Flushed on many occasions throughout March and April near Clarendon, and several nests found. Five birds seen April 6th. (C.M.R.P.). Were again more common than usual in Marlborough district. (M:C.).. Lwoin Biss Wood in October. (E.R.B.). COMMON SANDPIPER. Actitis hypoleucos (L.). Five perched together on a branch by Shearwater, July 2nd. (R.V.). GREEN SANDPIPER. Tvinga ochropus L. Three feeding by the Pits, Britford, January 3rd, and by Avon, February 16th. Seen off and on throughout autumn and_ winter. (C.M.R.P.). 594 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. REDSHANK. Tvringa totanus britannica Math. Feeding by floodwater by Salisbury Avon, March 6th. (C.M.R.P.). Piping among reeds at Coate, April 23rd. A pair by Kennet at Fyfield, May 2nd. At least five in one meadow near Stitchcombe, May 30th. (R.G.B.). GOLDEN PLOVER. Pluvialis apricaria (L.). A flock of 60 flying over Devizes. (C.H.). Seven with Lapwing near Warminster, January 4th. (M.B): Seen in many places, as many as 30 at one time. (M.C.). STONE-CURLEW. Burhinus @. edicnemus (LL). Reported from several localities between March 24th (W.M.C.), and August 21. (M.B.). Three pairs seen together at dawn, April 8th. (W.M.C.). Slight increase, but many nests on arable are destroyed by harrowing, rolling, etc. (C.M.R.P.). LITTLE BUSTARD. Otis tetvax L. This bird was first seen feeding in a clover field on the evening of July 16th, by Mr. E. G. Parsons and Squadron-Leader Scotter. It was seen again by the former on July 18th, and a small party assembled that evening hoping to see it, consisting of Mr. Parsons, Mr. and Mrs. Oscar Peall, Mr. G. W. Collett and Mrs. Barnes. The bird was approached by car, of which it showed little fear, and thus the observers were able to watch it at a distance not exceeding ten yards. It was an adult male of which the black and white gorgets, the sandy mantle and white underparts were clearly noted. The head was brown with hght eye-stripe and the iris pale yellow. After a few minutes the bird rose from the clover and flew some 80 yards. When flying, a large amount of white was shown on the wings, under the tail and on the underparts. The wing beats were rapid, and in gliding down the wings were bowed like those of a grouse. When again flushed, it flew into an adjoining field of potatoes. It was seen again on July 2Ist by Mr. R. Brown and remained in the neighbourhood until the second'week in September. As __ stated in the Handbook of British Birds the races cannot be separated in the field, so it is idle to speculate whether this bird belonged to the Eastern or Western form. In either case the dates are unusual, the . dates bitherto recorded for the country as a whole are most frequently from October to January. The Little Bustard’s past history in Wiltshire appears to be as follows: 1877, August 6th. A pair seen near Netheravon. The Birds of Wiltshire, p. 364. Rev. A. C. Smith. 1897, September 27th. One near Over Wallop (Hants Border). a November. Presumably the same bird. 1905 or 1906. One shot at Chilmark. . 1909, April 26th. One shot at Avebury. All these from Hony’s List in W.A.M., xxxix, 12. BLack TERN. Chlidonias n. niger (L.). One seen at Wilton Water, May 5th. (M.C.). By Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.O.U. 595 CORNCRAKE. Cvex crex (L.). Reported nesting near Draycot Cerne. (C.R.). Flushed from cornfield near Wishford at the end of September, but itis many years since their call was heard there in summer. (E.G.P.). WATER-RalIL. Fallus a. aquaticus L. Several seen at Britford Pits, January 6th. (C.M.R.P ). Comparatively common by the Wylye. (E.G.P.). RED-LEGGED PARTRIDGE. Alectoris r. rufa (L.). Nest with 12 eggs near Chippenham, May 29th. (E.J.C.). Seen. on at least three occasions in Marlborough district. (M.C.). QUAIL. Coturnix c. coturnix (L.). For two days, May 24th— 25th, in a field at Farley. (W.M.C.). Scientific nomenclature follows the Handbook of British Birds. ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE OF MIGRANTS, 1946. ARRIVAL. REDSHANK. March 6th, Salisbury, C.M.R.P. April 13th, Coate, (Gris) CHIFF-CHAFF. . March 8th, Chippenham, C.R. March 19th, Deweys Water, D'S. March 25th, Warminster, M.B. March 26th, Farley, WMG. . March 26th, Marlborough, M.C. March 26th, Seagry, R.G.B. March 26th, Clarendon, GE R.P. March 27th, Oare, D.P. March 80th, Calne, St. M, STONE-CURLEW. March 24th, Winterslow, W.M.C. WILLOW-WARBLER. March 26th, Farley, W.M.C. March 26th, W. Lavington, D.S. March 3lst, Calne, St. M. April Ist, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 2nd, Chippenham, . C.R. April 2nd, Savernake, IDI, April 6th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. April 11th, Marlborough, M.C. April 12th, Trowbridge, E.R.B. WHEATEAR. March 26th, Marlborough, M.C, March 28tb, Farley, W.M.C. April Ist, Ramscliff, IDES). SWALLOW. March 28th, Codford, M.B. March 380th, Biddestone, G.W.C., C.R. April 4th, W. Lavington, D.S- April 6th, Norton, jJ.W. April 7th, Oare, DP: April 10th, Marlborough, M.C. April 10th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P, SAND-MARTIN. March 3lst, Farley, W.M.C. April 5th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. April 18th, Coate, C.R. April 19th, Marlborough, M.C. COMMON SANDPIPER. April Ist, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 23rd, Fyfield,C.R., R.G.B. May 2nd, Marlborough, M.C. Cuckoo. April 5th, W. Lavington, D.S. April 9th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. April 13th, Oare, DD sPz April 14th, Brokenboro’, R.G.B 596 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. April 14th, Worton, M.E.N. April 14th, Langley Burrell, 1354 |G. April 15th, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 15th, Allington, C.R. April 17th, Marlborough, M.C. HousE-MARTIN. April 6th, Chippenham, C.R. April 26th, Poulshot, R.G.B. May 3rd, Calne, CiC.B: May 4th, W. Lavington, D.S. WoopbD-WARBLER. April llth, Spye, C.R. April 14th, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 15th, Farley, W.M.C. May 5th, Marlborough, M.C. YELLOW WAGTAIL. April 11th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. April 18th, Chippenham, G.W.C. May 10th, Marlborough, M.C. May 25th, Ramsbury, C.R. BLACKCAP. April 13th, Coate, Cans G.W.C., R.G.B. April 15th, Farley, W.M.C. April 18th, Norton, J.W. May Ist, W. Lavington, D.S. May 3rd, Marlborough, M.C. NIGHTINGALE. April 14th, Farley, W.M.C. April 19th, Trowbridge, E.R.B. April 20th, Braydon, CAR: May Ist, Seagry, R.G.B. May 7th, Marlborough, M.C. SEDGE-WARBLER. April 15th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. April 18th, Coate, Galke April 19th, Christian Malford, R.G.B. April 27th, Poulshot, G.W.C. May Ist, Marlborough, M.C. GARDEN-WARBLER. April 15th, Farley, W.M.C., April 22nd,Kington Langley, C.R. April 26th, Poulshot, G.W.C., R.G.B. May 5th, Marlborough, M.C. COMMON REDSTART. April 15th, Corsham, C.R. April 26th, Poulshot, G.W.C. April 27th, Savernake, D.P. May Ist, Marlborough, M.C. COMMON WHITETHROAT. April 17th, Queensbridge, C.R. April 19th, Seagry, R.G.B. April 20th, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 28th, Marlborough, M.-C. April 30th, W. Lavington, D.S. LESSER WHITETHROAT. April 18th, Chippenham, G.W.C. April 20th, Malmesbury, C.R. April 22nd, Seagry, R.G.B. May 6th, Marlborough, M.C, GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER. April 22nd, Manningford, D.P. May 2nd, Marlborough, M.G. TREE PIpir. April 22nd, Manningford, D.P. April 22nd, Marlborough, M.C. April 23rd, Bulford, CRS G.W.C., R.G.B. SWIFT. April 28rd, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. May Ist, Marlborough, M.C. May 2nd, Calne, St. M. May 3rd, Warminster, M.B. May 3rd, Calne, CGE May 5th, Seagry, R.G.B. May 5th, W. Lavington, D.S. May 8th, Chippenham, G.W.C. May 8th, Limpley Stoke, E.j.C. HOBBY. April 27th, Poulshot, EE R.G.B., G.R., G.W.C. May 18th, Seagry, R.G.B. TURTLE-DOVE. % April 29th, Clarendon, C.M.R.P. May 5th, Mere, GAR May 5th, Alton Barnes, D.P. May 6th, Marlborough, M.C. By Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.O.U. 597 May 9th, Chippenham, G.W.C. RED-BACKED SHRIKE. May 4th, Salisbury, C.M.R.P. May 20th, Marlborough, M.C. WHINCHAT. May 5th, Marlborough, M.C. SPOTTED FLYCATCHER. May 5th, W. Lavington, D.S. May 10th, Marlborough, M.C. May 20th, Chippenham, C.R. GoRe May 2lst, Calne, St Vir November 3rd, Chippenham, REED-WARBLER. G.W.C. May 7th, Marlborough, M.C. November 3rd, W. Lavington. May 30th, Coate, C.R. : D.S. CORNCRAKE. November 6th, Seagry,: R.G.B. May 11th, Marlborough, M.C. December 11th, Calne, St. M. NIGHTJAR. BRAMBLING. May 16th, Marlborough, M.C. November 20th, Marlborough, REDWING. M.C. October26th, Warminster, M.B. October 27th, W. Lavington, D.S. DEPARTURE. REDWING. March 10th, Warminster, M.B. March 4th, W. Lavington, D.S. kK G:B: March 3rd, Seagry, FIELDFARE. April 20th, Malmesbury, C.R. March 27th, W. Lavington, D.S. March 24th, Norton, J.W. R.G.B. March 10th, Warminster, M.B. March 20th, Seagry, March 10th, King’s Play Hill, St. M. SPOTTED FLYCATCHER. July 23rd, W. Lavington, D.S. YELLOW WAGTAIL. August 10th, Chippenham, C.R. SWIFT. August 29th, Trowbridge, E.R.B. August 10th, Marlborough, M.C. August 7th, Warminster, M.B. October 28th, Chippenham, EG: November 3rd, Chippenham, G.W.C. November 7th, Marlborough, M.C. FIELDFARE. October 3Ist, Marlborough,M.C, November 2nd, Chippenham WILLOW-WARBLER. September 7th, Chippenham, EC, CoMMON WHITETHROAT. September, 8th, Chippenham, Eye CHIFF-CHAFF. September 21st, Clarendon, : C.M.R.P. September 17th, Chippenham, BC: COMMON SANDPIPER. September 28th, Wishford, R.G.B. September Ist, Chippenham, G.W.C. SAND-MARTIN. October 8rd, Marlborough, M.C. WHEATEAR. October 4th, W. Lavington, D.S. 598 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1946. HovusE-MARTIN. SWALLOW. October 29th, Marlborough, M.C. November 10th, Chippenham, October 24th, W. Lavington, C.R, D.S. October 24th, Marlborough, M.C. October 20th, Warminster, M.B. October 16th, Warminster, M.B. October 8th, Chippenham, October 4th, W. Lavington, D.S. G.W.C. September 26th, Chippenham, BC. 599 WILTSHIRE PLANT NOTES—{[8]. By J. DoNALD GROSE. The dry, sunny April and early May of 1946 was followed by a cold, rainy period lasting until the end of June. In early July, there was a profusion of downland orchids. Hundreds, or even thousands, could be counted on some hills where, in normal seasons, they are few or absent. In particular, the Frog, the Spotted and the Fragrant Orchids were abundant, while even the Burnt Orchis was quite common. The Marsh Orchids of the water-meadows, however, did not supe to be in any greater quantity. There was very little good weather in July and August, and the temperature was for the most part below normal. The rainy season produced a number of abnormalities, particularly in the sedges, plantains and clovers, and references to such forms will be found scattered through the List. The two Fluellens were again frequent, and White Melilot appears to be gaining ground. Perhaps.the best discovery of the year was the hybrid between the Frog Orchis and a Spotted Orchis found on Bishopstone Downs by Mrs. Shepherd. A second specimen was later found by Mrs. Grose on the Wansdyke near Horton Down. I am glad to be able to include in the List for the first time a number of records by Dauntsey’s School Natural History Society, mostly on the authority of Mr. Coulson and Mr. Marsden-Jones. Some of these records are several years old ; all other notices refer to 1946 unless the contrary is stated. Intending contributors are asked to note that new county records cannot be included in these lists unless confirmed by specimens. Voucher specimens should also be sent of all critical plants, and these will be submitted to the appropriate referees. Records received year by year include some which have already been published. Iam glad to have this up-to-date information, but it is not advisable to print such details again unless there are points of special interest. Abbreviations used are: MOE Re. Mr, A. Hs Ridout, Swindon. B.W. . . . Mrs. Welch, Richmond. B.W.H.C. . . Mr. B. W. H. Coulson, Dauntsey’s School N.H S. CDi: . @ . Mr. C. D. Heginbothom, Devizes. Cic€a i. =... Lt.-Col. ©. K. Congreve, Salisbury. Det Miss Harvie, Westwood. . D.M.F. . . . Miss Frowde, Colerne. ; ECW 3) + Mr. &. © Wallace, Sutton; Surrey. E.M.M-J. . . Mr. E.M. Marsden-Jones, Littleton Pannell. VOL. LINO. CLXXXVI. _. 28 600 Wiltshire Plant Notes. F.M.B. . . . Miss Barton, Bath. G.G. . . . . Mr. Geoffrey Grigson, Broad Town. G.H. . . . . Mr. G. Hazzard, Winterslow. G.W.C. . . . Mr. G. W.:Collett, Chippenham. J.D.G. 2... Mr. J. D. Grose; Swindon. J.H.H. . . . Mr. J. H. Halliday, Marlborough College N.H.S. M.B.Y-B. . . Mrs. Yeatman-Biggs, Stockton. M.C.F. . '. . Miss Foster, Aldbourne. M.E.L. . . . Miss Long, Castle Eaton. M.le F.S. . . Mrs. Shepherd, Lydiard Millicent. N.H.S. . . . Natural History Section Excursion. NEP ee. I MirwN@ Peskett swindon KB. . >: } . 9Mrs; Barnes, Seagry. WOE...) there. «Canon ks Ouink, Salisbugye t . . . . . Indicates that a plant is not native. det. . . . . Indicates that a specimen has been identified by the authority named. (A few contributors of single records are named in full.) Myosurus minimus L. 1, Dauntsey’s School, Lavington, B.W.H.C. The Mouse-tail occurred as a weed here before the Order Beds had been planted. Ranunculus bulbosus L Pale-flowered form. 4, Whitefield Hill. R. Flammula L. var. tenuifolius Wallr. 1, Potterne, E.M.M-J. R. fluitans Lam. 8, River Wylye near Hanging Langford, det. R. W. Butcher. R.circinatus Sibth. 1, Bradford-on-Avon, N.H.S. Avoncliff, N.H.S. 3, Sadler’s Water, Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R. R. trichophyllus Chaix. A large-flowered form. 1, Midway Manor, Westwood, det. R. W. Butcher. R. hederaceus .. 11, Near St. Peter’s Pump, Stourton. R. Ficaria L. var. bulbifera Marsden-Jones. 38, Hodson. 7, Wilcot. Aquilegiavulgaris L. 4, Wood between Bagshot and Burridge Heath. Papaver Rhoeas L. White-flowered form. 3, Broome, Swindon, A. Whiting. P. Argemone L. 4, Avebury Down. 8, Grovely Castle. Arabis hirsuta (L.) Scop. 1, West Yatton Down. 4, Avebury. Rivar Hill. +t Hesperts matronalis L. 1, Roadside near Potterne, B.W.H.C. 4, Ogbourne St. George, A.H.R. 9, Great Ridge Wood. + Sisymbrium altissimum L. 2, Quarry, Moor Green, Corsham. + S. orientale L. 2, Quarry, Moor Green, Corsham. 3, Wroughton. Arabidopsis Thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Szsymbrium Thalianum). 1, Little- ton Pannell, E.M.M-J. 3, Okus, Swindon; N.P, Chedglow. Hannington Station, By J. Donald Grose. 601 {| Diplotaxis muralis (L.) DC. 3, Rodburne Cheney, A.H.R., N.P. and J.D.G. 4, Marlborough Station, J.H.H. + D. muralis (L.) DC. var. caulescens Kittel. 2, Moor Green, Corsham. + Cavara didyma (L.) Britton. 1, Clyffe Hall, Lavington, B.W.H.C. The Park, Trowbridge. 3, Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R. 4, Marlborough Common, J.H.H. | Lepidium Draba L. 1, Trowbridge. 2, Chippenham, G.W.C. Little Somerford. 38, Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R. 5, West Winterslow, G.H. L. campestve (L.) R.Br. 1, Market Lavington, B.W.H.C. 2, Near Park Farm, Garsdon. 3, Near Braydon Manor, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. + L. sativum L. 1, Colerne, D.M.F. Canal-Bank, Avoncliff, N.H.S. 4, Foxbury Wood, J.H.H. 7, The Butts, Salisbury, C.R.C. Thlaspi perfoliatum L. 3, Near Stanton Fitzwarren. This is the second known locality in Wiltshire. Helianthemum nummularnium (L.) Mill. Pale yellow form. 7, Round Down, Everleigh. Viola palustris L. 2, Spye Park, R.B. and G.W.C. Mr. Heginbothom suggests that Meredith’s original locality of 1860 for the Marsh Violet was near Westbrook Mill, north of the Sandridge Road. My 1945 station was in the extreme north of Spye Park, while this new find is at the Chittoe end of the Park. V. segetalis Jord. 8, South Down, Kingston Deverill, det. H. Drabble. V. vuralis Boreau. 1, Patcombe Hill, det. H. Drabble. Polygala serpyllacea Weihe. 3, Lydiard Plain, M. le F.S., 1939, det.’ A. J. Wilmott. 8, Eastleigh Wood, det. A. J. Wilmott. This species is probably far less common in Wiltshire than our other Milkworts. Silene noctifiova L. 1, Lavington, B.W.H.C. 2, Near Stanton Park. Lychnis Flos-cuculi L. Double-flowered form. 2, Near Norbin Farm, South Wraxall, A.H.R. and N.P. L. Flos-cuculi L. White-flowered form.4, Chilton Foliat, Mrs. G. M. Brown. : : L. Gtthago (L.) Scop. 1, Lavington, B.W.H.C. 8, Hodson, R. W. Walling. 7, Redhorn Hill. 8, Lavington Down. 10, Middle Down, Alvediston. Cevastium semidecandvum L. 3, Okus, Swindon. The Small Mouse- eared Chickweed is a rare plant in the county. Unfortunately it is doomed at Okus by the housing programine. Minuartia tenuifolia:(L.) Hiern. 6, Hampshire Gap, Newton Tony. Sagina apetala L. 9, Tilman’s Dean, Grovely. S. nodosa (L.) Fenzl. 3 and 4, Bishopstone Downs, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. 6, Everleigh Ashes. Montia verna Neck. 9, Near East End Farm, Gutch Common. Hypericum Androsaemum L. 1, Vagg’s Hill. Malva moschata L. White-flowered form. 6, Near Figsbury Rings. | M. neglecta Wallr. (M. rotundifolia). 1, Dauntsey.’s School Farm, Lavington, E.M.M-J. 3, Mill Lane, Okus, Swindon. 8, Wylye. 2s 2 602 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Geranium pratense L. White-flowered form. 4, Near Boreham Wood, Ree Daas: G. dissectum L, White-flowered form. 5, West Winterslow, G.H. G. votundifolium LL. 8, Near The Bustard, Shrewton. G. pusillum Burm. fil.. 1, Dewey’s Water, G. H. Wiltshire. G. Robertianum L. White-flowered form. 3, Near Braydon Pond. + Impatiens capensis Meerb. 1, River-bank near Vagg’s Hill. _ + I.glandultfera Royle. 4, Little Frith. Rhamnus Frangula L. 1, Black Dog Woods. Gentsta tinctoria L. 7, Smithen Down, E.M.M-J. An uncommon plant on the downs, but frequent in some parts of north-west Wilts. Ulex Gallit Planch. 2, Chippenham Golf-course, A.H.R., 1941. Ononis spinosa L. White-flowered form. 4, Avebury Down. + Medicago apiculata Willd. A form in which the spines are reduced to obtuse tubercles; it may be var. confinis Koch. 2, Near Norbin Farm, South Wraxall, A.H.R. and N.P. Not previously recorded for North Wilts. M.avabica (L.) All. 2, Seend Cleeve. + Melilotus albus Medik. 3, Wroughton Hill, N.P. and J.D.G. 4, Froxfield. Bishops Cannings Down. 6, Near Hampshire Gap, Newton ‘Tony. Beacon Hill, Bulford. 7, Rushall Down. Apparently an increasing species. Trifolium medium L. 1, Kington Down. 2, Near Avon. 3, Gospel Oak Farm, Braydon, N.P. Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R., N.P. and J.D.G. ‘Near Braydon Manor, M. le F.S. and J.D.G. 7, Everleigh Ashes. T. pratense L. A remarkable form with simple, not trifoliate, leaves. 3, Old Swindon, N.P. T. pratense L. White-flowered form. 4, Whitefield Hill. T. filiforme L. 4, London Ride. Rivar Hill. Lotus tenuis Waldst. and Kit. 6, Near Beacon Hill, Bulford. Astragalus glycyphyllos L. 1, Potterne, E.M.M-J. Hippocrepis comosa L. Cream-flowered form. 4, Morgan’s Hill, A-H.R: and N.P: Vicia sylvatica L. 1, Between Lavington and Patney, E.M.M-J. + V.lutea L. 4, A large, well-established colony on the site of the American airfield at Rudge, Froxfield. 5, Roadside near Pitton, G.H., det. Kew. Mr, Hazzard’s record of the Yellow Vetch is the first certain one for South Wilts. Lathyrus sylvestris L. 1, Three Graves, Lavington, J. G. Manners. L. Aphaca L. 3, Near Bishopstone, N.P. + Prunus domestica L. 8, Rushall Down. x Geum intermedium Ehrh. 1, Viaduct Field, Lavington, E.M.M-J. Dewey’s Water, E.M.M-J. i y Fragaria vesca L. A form with the petals tri-lobed. 9, Donhead St. Mary. Agrimonia odovata Mill. 1, Potterne, E.M.M-J, Greenlands Wood. 4, Bagshot. Stype Wood, By J. Donald Grose. 603 Rosa. I am grateful for the help of Dr. R. Melville (R.M.) and Mr. N. Y. Sandwith (N.Y.S.) of Kew with this difficult section. Mr. Sandwith wishes it to be understood that his identifications are “ sensu Wolley-Dod, 1931 Revision ’’. R. arvensis Huds. var. ovata (Lej.) Desv. 2, Somerford Common, 194i, OBI ONOSE R.avvensis Huds. var. laevipes Gremli. 1, Potterne, E.M.M-J and W. B. Turrill, 1929. R. stylosa Desv. var. systyla (Bast.) Baker. 2, Seend Cleeve, det, R M. hk. canina L. var. sphaerica (Gren.) Dum. 3, North Wroughton det. R.M. . R.canina L. var. senticosa (Ach.) Baker. 3, Coate Water, 1942, det. NAYES: R. canina L. var. spuria (Pug.) W-Dod. 2, Somerford Common, 1941. Witcomb Bridge, 1942. 8, Coate Water, 1942. 8, Sherrington, 1941. All det. N.Y.S. : R.canina L. var. globularvis (Franch.) Dum. 4, Pumphrey Wood, det. R.M. R. canina L. var. vamosissima Rau. 2, Seend Cleeve, det. R.M. Re. canina L. var. dumalis (Bechst.) Dum. 2, Braydon Pond, 1942, M.le F.S. 3, Broome, Swindon, 1941. Coate Water, 1942. 4, Whitefield Hill, 1942. All det. N.Y.S. Rk. Afzeliana Fr. var. glaucophylla (Winch) W-Dod. 3, Hodson Wood, 1942, det. N.Y.S. R. Afzeliana is rare in the south of England and has not previously been recorded for Wiltshire. R. dumetorum Thuill var. typica W-Dod. 7, Milkhouse Water, det. R.M. 11, Pitt’s Farm, Sedgehill, det. R.M. R. tomentosa Sm. 1, Potterne, E.M.M-J. & W. B. Turrill, 1929. 2. Bremhill, 1941, det. N.Y.S. Witcomb Bridge, 1942, det. N.Y.S. hk. tomentosa Sm. var. pseudo-cuspidata (Crep.) Rouy. 10, Fyfield Down, 1941, det. N.Y.S. R. Shevardi Davies. 2, Somerford Common, 1941, det. N.Y.S. R. Sheravdi Davies var. omissa (Desegl.) W-Dod. 1, Potterne Field, 1929, E.M.M-J. and W. B. Turrill, det. A. H. Wolley-Dod. 4, Near West Grafton, det. R.M. Pyrus Pivasteyr L. 2, Charlton. 3, Near Braydon Manor, det. R.M. Crataegus oxyacanthoides Thuill. 2, Stanton St., Quintin. | Ribes nigvum 1... 2, Kington Langley. Sedum Telephium L. em. Gren. and Godr. 7, Field near Frith Wood. S. acre L. 4, Russley Down, Baydon, M.C.F. Dean Bottom, Rockley. A.H.LR. Avebury Down, 5 and 6, Thorny Down. 7, Rushall Down, 8. Stockton Wood. The Biting Stonecrop seems to have become commoner On the downs in recent years; it is probable that this is due to transport of living parts of plants on wheels and tracks of army vehicles rather than to seed dispersal. Peplis Portula L. 1, Sleight Wood, Wingfield. 2, Oak Hill, Seagry N.P. Broughton Common, C.R.C. and J.D.G. 604 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Eptilobium obscurum Schreb. x parvifiorum Schreb. 11, Marsh near St. Peter’s Pump, Stourton, det. G. M. Ash. E. yvoseum Schreb. 9, Fovant, det. G. M. Ash. t Oenothera Lamarckiana Ser. 4, St. Martin’s, Marlborough, J.H.H. | Apium graveolens L. 1, Stream near Rowde Hill. Petroselinum segetum (L.) Koch. 1, Canal-bank between Widbrook and Staverton, D.M.F. and F.M.B. 6, Allington. Oenanthe pimpinelloides L. 11, Near Lower Mere Park Farm. O. fistulosa L. 1, Between Widbrook and Staverton, D.M.F. and F.M.B. 38, Near Pry Farm, Purton. N.P. Caucalis arvensis Huds. 4, Uffcott. Near Walker’s Plantation, Hackpen, N.P. and J.D.G. 1 Sambucus Ebulus L, 8, Between Chitterne and Codford. Galium uliginosum L. 1, Sleight Wood, Wingfield. Sherardia arvensis L. White flowered form. 7, Border of Porton Firs. + Valerianella eriocarpa Desv. 4, Boreham Down. Not previously recorded for Wiltshire. V.vimosa Bast. 2, Between Biddestone and Weevern, D.M.F. and F.M.B. 5 Dipsacus pilosus L. 1, Potterne Wood, E.M.M-J. Heath Bridge, Cuckold’s Green. 2, Hazeland Hill, G.W.C. 3 Succisa pratensis Moench. White-flowered form. 1, Pomeroy Wood. Scabiosa Columbana L. Red-flowered form. 4, Horton Down. Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. White-flowered form. 1. Shire Hill. | + Evigeron canadensis L. 2, Moor Green, Corsham. 8, Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R., N.P. and J.D.G. Wroughton. Filago geymanica L. 17, In the short grass of the airfield near Porton Firs. : Gnaphalium sylvaticum L. 7, Frith Wood. 8, Eastleigh Wood. + Inula Helenium L. 2, The well-known colony at Calstone Welling- ton has been destroyed by building. ) | Galinsoga parviflora Cav. 1, Dauntsey’s School Farm, Lavington, E.M.M-J: © | | G. quadrivadiata Ruiz. and Pav. 7, Garden weed, Salisbury, Miss E. Herron, det. A. B. Jackson. ja: Chrysanthemum segetum L. 1, 1, Littleton Pannell, E.M.M-J. Corn- field below Cheverell Cliff, B. W. Sandilands. 9, Sutton Mandeville. Matricaria inodova L.A form with all the florets ligulate. 3, Kingsdown, Stratton. | Doronicum Pardalianches L. 1, Dauntsey’s School Manor Woods, Lavington, B.W.H.C. | Senecio savvacenicus L. 1, Near Stowford Farm, Wingfield, D.E.H. and J.D.G. Corsley. } S. squalidus L. 4, Hackpen, J.H.H. 5, Cathanger Wood. This is the first time I have seen the Oxford Ragwort at any great distance from the railway. S. vulgaris L. var. vadiatus Koch. 3, North Wroughton, N.P. Fox- bridge, Liddington, 7, Leigh Hill. By J. Donald Grose. 605 S. integrifolius (L). Clairv. 4, Cherhill Down, N.P. Horton Down, Barbury. 7, Adam’sGrave, Martinsell, ALH.R.and N.P. 8, Near Laving- ton, B.W.H.C. Near Conygar Barn, Stockton. Yarnbury Castle. Carduus crispus L. White-flowered form, 2, Near Chippenham, 1944, G.W.C. 3, Lower Wanborough. C. crispus L. x nutans L.. 1, Shire Hill. Centaurea Cyanus L. 1, Near Lavington, B.W.H.C. 4, Beside the Pewsey Road, Marlborough, J.H.H. C. Scabiosa L. White-flowered form. 1, Etchilhampton Hill, C.D.H. 4, Near Harrow Farm, R. L. Davis. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 6; Between Cholderton and Park House. Cichorium Intybus L. 1, Slaughterford, G.W.C. 7, Marden Cowbag. Picris Hievacioides L. 1, Bratton Castle. 2, Quarry near Stanton Park. 11, West Knoyle. Tragopogon pratensis L. var. grvandiflorus Syme. 3, Railway bank, Swindon. + Campanula latifolia L. 2, Clyffe Pypard, J.H.H. Vaccinium Myrtilius L. 8, Eastleigh Wood. Monotropa Hypopitys L. 1, Castle Combe, D.M.F. 4, Near. Manton Racing Stables, J.H.H. 5, Roche Court, G.H. Hare Warren, Winter- slow, G.H. Primula veris L. x polyantha. 38, Meadow, Lydiard Millicent, M. le F.S , det. E. M. Marsden-Jones. This hybrid between the Cowslip and the garden Polyanthus has only rarely been recorded in Britain. Lysimachia vulgaris L. 2, Little Somerford, A.H.R. Anagallis arvensis L. subsp. foemina Schinz and Thellung. 2, Near Draycot Park, det. E. M. Marsden- Jones. Centunculus minimus L. 1, Sleight Wood, Wingfield. Not previously known in Wiltshire except in the extreme south-east of the county. Centaurium umbellatum Gilib. |White-flowered form. 10, Wood near Clarendon, C.D.H. ° Gentiana anglica Pugsl. 1, Near Cheverell Barns, C. B. Smith. 2, Near Devizes Golf-course, E.M.M-J. 38, Liddington Hill. 4, Cherhill, M.le F.S. 7, Huish Hill, ALH.R. and N.P. 8 and 9, Great Ridge. G. anglica Pugs]. White-flowered form. 8, Stockton Earthworks. G. baltica Murb. 5. West Grimstead, B.W., det. A. J. Wilmott. Not previously recorded for South Wilts. Menyanthes trifoliata L. 8, Water-meadow, Stockton, M.B.Y-B. Between Bapton and Wylye. tT Polemonium caeruleum L. 4, Green Hill, Aldbourne, Mrs. Olive Fraser. + Symphytum peregrinum Ledeb. 9. Near Arundell Farm, Donhead ‘St. Andrew. ft Borago officinalisL. 2, Field near Kington Langley Church, G.W.C. 6, Collingbourne, J.H.H. t+ Anchusa semperiivens L. 2, Seend, E.M.M-J. + Pulmonaria officinalis L. 2, Little Town, G.G. 606 Wiltshire Plant Notes. | P. officinalis L. White-flowered form. 3, Burderop, A.H.R.and N.P. Myosotis collina Hoffm. 1, Great Cheverell, B.W.H.C. 8, Longdean Bottom. Near Stockton Wood. 9, Near Great Ridge Wood. Cuscuta europaea L.* 1, River-bank, Avoncliff, N.H.S. Atropa Bella-donna L. 2, Cocklebury, Chippenham, G.W.C., R.B. and J.D.G. 6, Wood between Newton Tony and Tower Hill. Miss Barton tells me that the plant was gathered in abundance non this district by herb collectors during the war. | Datura Stvamonium L. Sand-pit at Dewey’s Water, 1938, B.W.H.C. 3, Vicarage garden, Wroughton, 1945, Rev. E. V. Rees. Hyoscyamus niger L. 2, Formany years near Bincknoll Farm, up to 1944, G.G. 8, Castle Eaton, M.E.L. 5, Roche Court Woods, G.H. Verbascum nigrum L. 8, Tilshead. + Mimulus guttatus DC. 2, Stream near Goatacre, G.G. Veronica montana L. 1, Coxhill Lane, Potterne, E.M.M-J. 10, Wood near Croucheston Down Barn, Knighton Wood. ‘V. persica Poir. White-flowered form. 2, Wick Hill; Bremhill. Rhinanthus calcarveus Wilmott. 1, Bratton Castle. 7, Chirton Maggot. 9, Near Hindon. Lathraea Squamania L. 4, Stype Wood, C.D.H. Mentha votundifolia (L.) Huds. 1, Between Slaughterford and Biddestone, confirming Prior’s record of 1837, G.W.C. + M. alopecuroides Hull. 1, River-bank, Avoncliff, N.H.S. +x M. piperita L. 1, Clyffe Hall, Lavington, B.W.H.C. +x M. gentiis L. 6, Allington. The third locality in this district. +x M. rubra Sm. 4, Chilton Foliat, M.C.F. Scutellaria minor Huds. 1, Sleight Wood, Wingfield. Black Dog Woods. Stachys arvensis Li. 2, Park Farm, Garsdon. Between Draycot Park and Clanville. Lamium hybridum Vill. 7, Near Stanton’ Dairy. Plantago lanceolata. L. A monstrous form with a dense compound inflorescence. 8, Sutton Veny, Lt. N. Rankin, comm. R.Q. Chenopodium polyspermum L. 2 Park Farm, Garsdon. Atriplex hastata L. var. deltoidea (Bab.) Moq. 1, Roundway Park. Seend Cleeve. 11, White Hill. Polygonum Bistorta L. 2, Prickmoor Wood, G.W.C. and R.B. 4, Rectory garden, Marlborough, E.M.M-J. Between Stype and Oak Hill, C.D.H. 8, Between Wylye and Bapton. 9, Teffont Magna. Bares: Semley Common and Billhay Farm. P. nodosum Pers. 3, North Wroughton. P. Hydropiper L. var.densiflorum A. Br. 1, Dewey’s Water, det. jE eousiey- : 2 Rumex crispus L. x obtusifolius L. 4, Near Walker’s Plantation, Hackpen, N.P. and J.D.G., det. J. E. Lousley. This hybrid Dock will probably prove to be frequent, but it has rarely been recorded for the county. . By J. Donald Grose. 607 Viscum album L. 1, On lime between Southwick and Rudge. Ulmus glabra Huds. x Plott Druce. 4, Near Foxbury Wood, Crooked Soley, det. R.M. West Overton, det. R.M. Salix alba L. x fragilis L.3 3, Croft Road, Swindon, det. R.M. S. purpurea L. 3, Blackburr Bridge, Castle Eaton. S. atvocinerea Brot. x aurvita L. 1, Near Bradford-on-Avon, D.E.H. and J.D.G., det. R.M. The hybrid hermaphrodite willow gathered in 1945 at or near the same place by Miss Harvie (W.A.M. li, 118) was probably this combination. Neottia Nidus-avis (L.) Rich. 1, Erlestoke Woods, B.W.H.C., con- firming Knipe’s record of 1888. 4, Foxbury Wood, Stype, J.H.H. 8, Stockton Wood. Spivanthes autumnalis Rich. 1, Near Rooktrees, Lavington, B.W.H.C Epipactis purpurata Sm. 1, Cuckoo’s Corner, Urchfont. 4, Cobham rith. Orchis ustulata L. 4, Horton Down, Russley Down, Baydon, M.C.F. 7, Barley Hill, Upavon, Mrs. i. E. Ainley-Walker. 8, Stockton Earthworks. Yarnbury Castle. The Burnt Orchis was unusually abundant in 1946, and a specimen seen by N.P. at the Cherhill Down locality reached the height of 30 cm. Orchis pavdalina Pugsl. (O. latifolia auct. angl. non L.) 4, Whitton- ditch, N.P. det. H. W. Pugsley. A highly critical plant bearing a strong resemblance to the hybrid O. Fuschiit x O. praetermissa; it has not previously been recorded for North Wilts. O. latifolia L. sec. Pugsl. (O. incarnata auct. angl.nonL.) 1, Dewey’s Water, B.W.H.C. 2, Near Avon. 4, Oak Hill, M. le F.S. and J.D. G. O. praetermissa Druce. 1, Near Stowford Farm, Wingfield, det. _H. W. Pugsley. Dewey’s Water, B.W.H.C. 8, Stockton, M.B.Y-B. Between Bapton and Wylye. O. evicetovum (Linton) E. S. Marshall. 3,° Webb’s Wood, N.P. Near Braydon Manor, M. le F.S. and J.D.G., det. H. W. Pugsley. O. evicetorum (Linton) E. S. Marshall x O. Fuchsit Druce. 38, Near Braydon Manor, M. le F.S..and J.D.G., det. H. W. Pugsley. Ophrys apifera Huds. 1, Cheverell Barns, J. H. Wood. Ford, G.W.C. Shire Hill. 1 and 2, Kingsdown. 2, Morgan’s Hill, A.H.R. and N.P. 4, Russley Down, Baydon, M.C.F. Horton Down. 7. Garden lawn, Salisbury, R.Q. Walker’s Hill, A.LH.R and N.P. Easton Hill. 8, Stockton Down, M.B.Y-B. 9, Fovant Down, abundant, B.W. O. muscifera Huds. 1, Erlstoke Woods, B.W.H.C., confirming Knipe’s record of 1888. Combe Wood, Slaughterford, D.M.F. 2, Near Devizes Golf Course, E M.M-J. Herminium Monorchis (L.) Br. 1, West Yatton Down, on limestone. 4, Rivar Hill. 9, Foot of down facing Fovant, a distinct locality from the better-known one on Fovant Down, B.W. Gymnadenia conopsea (L..) R.Br. White-flowered form. 1, West Yatton Down. 2, Morgan’s Hill, A.H.R. and N.P. 8, Stockton Down, M.B.Y-B. 608 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Coeloglossum viride (L.) Hartm. The Frog Orchis was remarkably plentiful in 1946 and was reported from many new localities on the downs. The following localities are not on the chalk and deserve special mention. 2, Kington Langley, C. Rice. 3, Castle Eaton, M.E.L. C. viride (L.) Hartm. x Orchis Fuchsit Druce. 3, Bishopstone Downs, M. le F.S. The fresh specimen was seen by Mr. Pugsley and the naming is on his authority, but Canon Quirk points out that certain characters might well be considered as being derived from a Marsh Orchis. 4, Horton Down, Mrs. J. D. Grose. This second Orchicoelo- — glossum found a few days later had a more deeply-lobed labellum with even stronger markings. Mr. A. J. Wilmott has kindly examined the dried specimen and reports that the naming seems the most obvious _ interpretation. Full descriptions of these hybrids will be given in the next B.E.C. Report. Platantheva chlovantha (Cust.) Reichb. 3, Fresden, Highworth. 8, Longdean Bottom. 9, Teffont, M.B.Y-B. confirming Roger’s record of 1888. Ivis foettdissima L. 1, Manor Woods, Market Lavington, E.M.M-J. 4, Foxbury Wood, Chilton Foliat. Convallaria maqjalis L. 1, Dauntsey’s School Manor Woods, J. H. Wood. 9, Great Ridge Wood, M.B.Y-B. Colchicum autumnale L. 1, Field below Roundway Down, E.M.M-J. 2, Dunley Wood, Grittleton, R.B. Upper Swinley Farm, Stanton St. Quintin, A.LH.R. and N.P. 6, Everleigh Ashes, C.D.H. Juncus conglomeratus L. var. laxus A. and G. 11, Stourton Wood, 1938, det. R. D. Tweed and N., Woodhead. This rare form has not previously been recorded for Wiltshire. J. bulbosus L. 1, Black Dog Woods. Typha angustifolia L. x T. latifolia L. 5, Clarendon Lake, C.D-H. This remarkable hybrid between the two species of Reed-mace was first found in 1944 by Mr. Heginbothom and recorded in Plant Notes (6) as T. angustifolia which species it more nearly resembles. In most plants the female part of the spadix is poorly developed and tapers from a broad base upwards. A full discussion of the characters by T. G Tutin and J. E. Lousley appears in the B.F.C. 1945 Report. Lemna polyrrhiza L. 1, Avoncliff, N.H.S. 38, Sadler’s Water, Rodbourne Cheney, A.H.R., N.P.and J.D.G. 5, Pond near Down Barn, Fosbury. Alisma lanceolatum With. 1, Canal, Seend Cleeve. Butomus umbellaitus L. 3, Canal near Castle Eaton, M.E.L. . Triglochin palustris L. 2, Seend Cleeve. Potamogeton alpinus Balb. 2, River Avon between Sutton Benger and Avon, 1989, det. J. E. Dandy and G. Taylor. : P. Friesii Rupr. 7, Canal, Horton, det. J. E. Dandy and G. Taylor, P. Berchtoldii Fieb. 2, Pond, Dollaker’s Green, det. J. E. Dandy and G. Taylor. P. pusillus L. 7, Canal, Horton, det. J. E. Dandy and G. Taylor. P.densus L. 1, Canal, Avoncliff, N.H.S. By J. Donald Grose. 609 Zannichellia palustris L. 9, Wincombe Park. Scirpus Tabernaemontant C.C. Gmel. 7, Pond on Clifford’s Hill. S. sylvaticus L. 1, Clyffe Hall, Lavington, N. Rea. Eniophorum angustifolium Roth. 11, Near Pitt’s Farm, Sedgehill. Carex Pseudo-Cyperus L. 38, Near Drill Farm, Braydon, N.P. C. riparia Curtis. A form with no ¢ spikelet and only one ¢ spikelet. 9, West Harnham, C.R.C. C. riparia Curtis. A form with densly-compound + spikelets. 2, Near Langley Burrell. : C.pilulifera L. 9, Great Ridge Wood. Carex Goodenowit Gay. 8, Between Bapton and Wylye. x C. axillaris Good. 1, Near Midway Manor, Westwood. C. vulpina L. A specimen of this species collected in Wiltshire by Alexander Prior, probably about a hundred years ago, has been discovered by Mr. E. Nelmes in the Kew Herbarium. No locality is given on the label, but the plant is hkely to have been gathered near Corsham or Chippenham. The specimen is the oldest one known for Britain. Ourcommon “ Fox Sedge”’ is now referred to C. Otrvubae Podp. C. polyphylla Kar. and Kit. 6, Roadside near St. Thomas’ Bridge, det. E. Nelmes. New for South Wilts. C. pulicaris L. 9, Near Great Ridge Wood. + Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. 1, Dauntsey’s School Farm, Lavington, E.M.M-J. ‘ Milium effusum L. 2, Near Norbin Barton. Ennix Wood. 5, Winterslow, G.H. 8, Stockton Wood. Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth. 11, West Knoyle. Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. 4, London Ride. 11, Stonedown Wood. Steglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. 4, Whitefield Hill. Catabrosa aquatica (L.) Beauv. 6, Winterbourne Dauntsey. Poa compressa L. 2, Corsham, det. C. E. Hubbard. Glyceria declinata Bréb. 4, Baydon, det.C. E. Hubbard. 9, Semley, det. C. E. Hubbard. Vulpia myuros (L.) Gmel. 3, Kingsdown, Stratton, det. C. E. Hubbard. Festuca ovina L. var. firmula Hack. 1, Lavington, det. W. O. Howarth. F elatioy L. subsp. arundinacea (Schreb.) Hack. 1, Trowle Common. 2, Pound Hill, Corsham. 38, Wroughton Hill. All det. W. O. Howarth. Bromus Thominit Hard. 4, Allington Down, det. C. E. Hubbard. New for Wilts. B. lepidus Holmb. 1, West Lavington, B.W.H.C. 4, Allington Down, det. C. E. Hubbard. 7, Etchilhampton Hill, E.C.W. and J.D.G., det. C. E. Hubbard. 9, Middle Down, Alvediston, det. C. E. Hubbard. Lolium multiflorum Lam. x perenne L. 3, North Wroughton, det. C. E. Hubbard: Mr. Hubbard tells me that we may expect this hybrid to become increasingly frequent. 610 Wiltshire Plant Notes. Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. 1, Castle Combe, D.M.F. This aggressive grass is still scarce on the limestone, but on some of our chalk downs its rapid spreaa in recent years bids fair to become a serious menace. Itis worthless for grazing purposes and hence is often burned by shepherds. This treatment sometimes produces the reverse of the required effect, for, unless the operations are strictly confined to the False-brome colonies, the more palatable surrounding grasses are destroyed, their place being rapidly usurped by the hardier False-brome. Equisetum palustre L. var. polystachyum Weig 4, Near Oakhill. Athyrium Filix-foemina(L.) Roth. 1, Black Dog Woods. 8, Eastleigh Wood. 9, Near Donhead Hall. Wincombe Park. A. Filix-foemina (L.) Roth. var. convexum Newm. 8, Eastleigh Wood. This form is induced by greater light intensity. Dryopieris spinulosa (Muell) O. Kuntze. 8, Great Ridge Wood. Ceiavach officinarum DC. var. crenatum Milde. 1, Rudge. Ophioglossum vulgatum L. 1, Steeple Ashton. 3, Near Braydon Green Farm, M. le F.S. Castle Eaton, M.E.L. 4, Ogbourne St. Andrew, M.E.L. 7, Near Cuckoo’s Knob, W. E. Wright. 8, Near Lavington, B.W.H.C. | Azolla Filiculoides Lam. 7, Near Milkhouse Water. Near Stanton St. Bernard. This species was far less abundant in 1946 than in some recent years. 611 WHE TSHIRE” PLACE “AND BIELD-NAMES,. I. A letter to the Editor from Mr. E. H. L. Poole of. Martin, a village which belonged to our county till 1895: “To the student of local history and topography, The Place- Names of Wailitshive mnust always be the principal book of reference. Many, who like myself find an interest in field names and parochial records, might be able to contribute some additions and an occasional correction to this work. ‘*The Wiltshire Archelogical Magazine is the obvious reposi- tory for information of this kind. I suggest that you opena page’ or two in the Magazine for this purpose. As an example of the kind of thing I have in mind, I enclose notes on a few place-names at Broad Chaike and Martin.”’ | The Editor promptly places a couple of pages at Mr. Poole’s disposal. He even heads this section with a hopeful I. Corrections and additions to The Place-Names of Wilishive have appeared in succeeding volumes of the Survey, but no volume has issued from the press since 19438. There is much more to add, and W.A.M. will be glad to cooperate in the manner here suggested, attaching only the condition that the relevant page of PN.W. be quoted in each case. Ref. in PN,W. 206 BROAD CHALKE. Vittrel Gate is Bitter Hill Gate. The fields below it are Hither and Further Bitter Hills, 1840, T.A.,cf. Churchwarden’s Accounts 1818, ‘wagon load of earth from Bittrells’’. The identification with Vyrells in the text would seem to be wrong. 402 MartTIN. Adam de Mertuna. 1189. Glast. Inq., 1189. » Blagdon. Blakedon, 1483. Cal. Pat. Rolls 1476—1485. pe) Whidprt. Toudeputt, 1307. Reg. Simon of Ghent.. Todeputie, 1842. Monyton’s Foedary. 403 Toyd. Apud Duas Hydas, 1235. Glast. Rl. ,, Bustard Farm. I have searched Hoare in vain for this refer- ence. 1567 suggests the Pembroke Survey, where also I cannot findit. The first allusion known to me is 1819, Wilts Poll Book. Kites Nest Farm. Was North Blagdon Farm in 1840, T.A. It A derived its name from Kztes Nest Wood (T.A.), which overhangs it, at a later date. », Paradise. Is the barn in Wilton Field in 1840, T.A., v. infra Wilton Field. - » oweetapple Farm. Is Swetapulle, 1518, Hoare (1), Swetaple 1579, Pem, Survey. , 612 403 512 a) Wiltshire Place - and Field Names, I. Talk’s Farm. FIELD NAMES. Storkes. Wilton. Blandford Way Ground, Lodge Down. The Peak. If this be identified with Tulkes or Toukes, 1579, Pem. Surv., then there are earlier refer- ences to Johannes Tooke, 1518, Hoare, and to Johannes Touke vel Tooke, 1456—1498, John of Glastonbury, I, 281. But the possibility that it was named after William Talk, Mayor and Alderman of Salisbury, who acquired property in Martin and was buried in the church in 1789, cannot be ignored. Add, Smallend Lane Ground, 1840, T.A., is Smalelonde, 1518, in the Terrier of Richard Beere, Abbot of Glastonbury, printed in Hoare’s Hundred of South Damerham. Remund de Smalelon, 1235, Glast. RL. 1840, T.A., possibly from Johannes Storke, — who was Firmarius domini (of the Abbot of Glastonbury) in 1518. 1840, T.A. The Wilton Way, 946, Birch, ii, 579, passes along its eastern boundary. 1840, T.A. is apparently Blakedonway of 1518, Hoare. Thesame path led to Blandford and Blagdon. Is the Rotherdown of 1579, Pem. Surv. probably so named after Vernditch Lodge, which over- looked it and was demolished in 19th century. Is Pykylonde, 1578, Hoare (v. supra 443) cf. Fitzherbert, Book of Husbandry, 1523, ‘‘ often brode at one ende and a sharpe pyke in the other ende”’. « « Longbarrow Lane. Is Langbergewaye, 1578, Hoare, not marked on 6” Ord. Map. (Tidpit) Courtland, 1840, T.A., is Curte Lawe, 1518, Hoare Hop Garden. The Chalk Pit. “The Orchard. Sheepsleight at Toyd. (v. supra 436, flaw). In Richard Beere’s Terrier, 1518, twelve of its twenty acres are marked with a rubric * signifying “‘ est terra dominicalis videlicet Overlonde ultra prae- dictam firmam terrarum’”’. This may give a clue to the origin of the name Demesneland. 1840, T.A. There used to be a Malthouse adjoining it, but there is no earlier reference. Is Mariynputtes of 1518, cf. Aubrey, Mon. Brit., Part 5, ‘‘about this Todpitt and other parts hereabout are pitts of great antiquity. I could never learn why they were made ’* T.A., 1840. La Orcharde, Pomerarium, gardinium Abbatis (Glaston.) in 1518, Hoare. 1642, I.P.M., 18, Ch. I., pt. i, 26. (v. supra 454). Apparently an early instance of this word, 613 WILTSHIRE BOOKS, PAMPHLETS AND ARTICLES. [The Editor has not come across any books. | Passing of a River. An Obituary. By G. K. M. Blackwood’s Magazine, January, 1947. Once the River is identified, many will recognise the author’s initials. Col. Godfrey Maurice has long had the apparent fate of the Kennet very much at heart. He has watched it dwindling in its upper reaches with the concern of one who was born and bred at Marlborough and ascribes the weakening of its flow, in part at least, to the intrusion of the Swindon pumping stations into its basin. He might have added that Devizes has been guilty of a similar encroachment. The Marlborough Rural District is planning another at Clatford, though most of the water taken at that point must ultimately return to the river—‘ ultimately ’ is perhaps the signi- ficant word. But that is not the whole story, as Col. Maurice realises. The modern policy of clearing affluents of the Thames has increased the whole pace of the Kennet and removed much water from its Wiltshire course. At present the river shows no weakness: its bed is fuller than it has been for several years: But by the autumn Swallowhead Springs, the true source of the Kennet, will doubtless be dry again, and for that we shall blame Devizes. The prospects are distressing, and to a fisherman like Col. Maurice peculiarly exasperating. The Thames above Reading is a mere tribu- tary of the ancient Kennet which has usurped the latter’s title to the whole basin. But that wrong is of long standing and belongs to a period whereof there is no memory of man torun. Is a single genera- tion to see the Kennet above Hungerford reduced to a winterbourne like its northern tributaries? _ | Water-engineers tell us that all these assaults upon the water-table of the Chalk cannot seriously affect its level. But astronomical estimates of the gallons that lie underground, though they afford assurance that we shall not go thirsty or unwashed, do not console us for the loss of the visible surface-flow, and a drop of a mere foot or so in the average level of the subterranean supply might well turn the Kennetinto a dry valley—not that that would worry the water-engineers. They would deepen their wells and pump on. For such possibilities Colonel Maurice reserves his lament till the closing section of his article, where he voices it with commendable restraint. The greater part of what he writes deals very pleasantly with his memories of the river at the end of the last century—with boats that navigated where boats will no longer float, and vanished swimming pools and boys who fished as often as not by hand, till the fly-fisherman arrived and they knew their wickedness. It is largely of course an oblique criticism of the policy that is turning our chalk streams into wadis, but on its own merits Colonel! Maurice’s cunningly unvarnished tale must commend itself to Wiltshire readers. H.C. B, 614 Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles. | Linear Earthworks. There is a great deal of work to be done in connection with the study of the boundary dykes and defensive linear earthworks so widespread over different parts of the country. With this in view, the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries have made this their principal scheme of research for the next few years, and Sir Cyril Fox, Mr. B. H. St. J. O’Neil and Mr. W. F. Grimes, who have done much to further this field of study, have pub- lished notes on methods of survey in the Antiquaries’ Journal. In this a suggested line of procedure is laid down, such as planning the course of the dyke with the 6-in. O.S. maps, noting passage-ways through the dyke, as well as broad gaps in it, and other features. The fundamental points to be noted in field work are those in relation to (a) the character of the country through which the dyke passes, and (b) other antiquities such as Roman roads and ancient trackways, early settlements and barrows. No extensive excavations are called for, and it should be stressed that even small-scale ones on the lines indicated in the paper should not be attempted without expert guidance; much valuable work can be done in survey without resort to the spade. In Wiltshire a whole complex of minor linear ditches need to be planned. Anyone who is interested in archzlogical field work should get a COpy of the paper from the Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly, W. 1. price 6d. (83d. post free), OwEN MEYRICK. ‘‘ Save the old Cottage now.’’ An address on this subject was given in March last before the Town and: Country Planning Association by Mr. Basil Sutton, F.R.I.B.A., of Baydon. It was based on Dr. Orwin’s Country Planning and dealt largely with a typical 15th century cottage still partly inhabited by rural workers. Mr. Sutton showed how it could be made healthy and convenient, and in every way more attractive to the modern villager than the council houses on the outskirts, for an expenditure not exceeding two-thirds of the cost of new building. The real difficulty is often a Demolition Order too hastily issued. Under the Housing (1936) Act such orders, once served, cannot be rescinded. Another Act empowering local authorities to use their discretion is clearly needed. Vandalism at Liddington. The Swindon Evening Advertiser for April 12th, 1947, reported that the memorial tablet to Richard Jefferies and Alfred Williams had been found in a hedge and rescued by the owner of the land. The tabiet was wrenched from the obelisk on Liddington Hill some time about February 1945, when the vicinity was a closed military area. A photograph shows that the inscription is defaced by many bullet holes, 615 NOTES. Kimmeridgian Sarsens? Mr. Brentnall’s map in the last number of W.A.M. assigns the Swindon stones to a Downland origin, and I thought it just possible they might have derived from another source. On mentioning this to him, he very kindly offered to print any relevant remarks I might care to put into writing. Hence the following note. 1. It will be agreed that the Cretaceous strata once covered Swindon. By analogy, but not by evidence, we may credit these with a superincumbent load of Eocene sand and boulders. as the chalk escarpment slowly retrograded to its present position—two miles distant in the case of Burderop—the overhead blocks whose existence we are assuming would, as they were successively reached, be let down by solifluxion upon the intervening Swindon-Broome area. If this theory were correct, we should expect such blocks equally far from the, foot of the Downs throughout North Wilts. But that evidence is virtually non-existent, only a very small number of stones being found even quite close to the escarpment (e.g., at Little Hinton, Earl’s Court Farm; Burderop, Ladder Hill Bottom; Wroughton, Perry’s Lane.. These of course would be Bagshot blocks). Further, the supposition that the Swindon-Broome chalk carried a super-load of boulders to explain their immense numbers in this limited area and their absence elsewhere to east and west abreast of Swindon is extremely unlikely. Further still, there is no evidence of any northward extension of a Tertiary sea beyond the present line of the Chalk unless the blocks of Broome are perversely so regarded. 2. Did ancient man bring sarsens from the Downs for some cult- memorial? There are 50 blocks in one field alone at Broome, and when Aubrey passed that way he was struck both by their quantity and their alignment. Weneed merely remark that Bronze Age folk were gluttons for such work, and that there is.a sarsen stone circle at Coate. 3. The local (Swindon) sandy top of the Kimmeridgian is a mixed calcareous and siliceous sedimentary deposit (with massive doggers) called Shotover Grit Sand. This layer thins out toward Coate and Burderop, and rapidly changes to a much more siliceous character. In Park Field (Old Swindon) blocks indistinguishable from sarsen have been disinterred from this stratum at considerable depths. To confirm my own observation, I quote Messrs Bradley, builders, who wrote :— ““Some of the stones (in Park Field) were found on the surface but the majority about five feet down during excavations for drains’’. These boulders are still visible, some of them huge. Could a local intensive concentration of silica—due to current variation— have occurred in this (Swindon-Broome) area? Such a phenomenon cannot be ruled out, though its revolutionary nature, 1.e., so sudden a change in facies, makes it difficult to entertain. But how can we explain otherwise the deep presence of wholly siliceous boulders in the bowels of undisturbed Shotover ? : VOL. LI.—NO. CLXXXVI. oy AN 616 Notes. Criticising adversely my own theory, I should suggest that the Park Field blocks might have been covered by a washdown of débris from slightly higher ground northward. But as I watched excavation here, the sands appeared to be previously untouched, and two experienced builders whose opinion I sought thought the same. Upon the evidence set forth above I feel that a Kimmeridgian provenance for the Swindon- Broome boulders may fairly be claimed. JE BONES: And this is perhaps the place to recall that one of the papers of Prof. Rupert Jones referred to in my article on Sarsens was read before the General Meeting of our Society in 1886 and printed in W.A.M., xxiii, under the title ‘‘ A History of the Sarsens’’. I should at least have mentioned that such an article appeared in these pages 60 years ago. Hoe: B: Edington and the Black Prince. Perhaps the Editor should preface this communication with the explanation that the Bones- Homes, Bons Hommes or Bonhommes were an English ‘‘ reformation ”’ of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine. They had only two houses, the other being at Ashridge, Bucks. Anaccount of them will be found in Jackson’s article on Edington (W.A.M., xx, 241). Edington Church is also the subject of a paper by Ponting (W.A.M., xxv, 209). ‘“Prince Edward, called the Black Prince had a great favour to the Bones-Homes . . . he heartily besought Bishop Hedington to change the minster of his college into Bones-Homes ”’. “From Leland’s litnevary. In the west window of the south aisle of Edington Church there is a roundel of a lion’s:face with protruding tongue, and there are at least two smaller ones in the north aisle. These lions’ faces closely resemble those on the sword belt of the Black Prince’s effigy at Canterbury. The windows of the north aisle at Edington have, or had, heraldic borders, but the glass is darkened or has been obscured. The best preserved are behind the font and over the north door, where fleurs-de- lis and lions can be made out. The lions are statant gardant: at Canterbury they are passant gardant. In the old St. Stephen’s Chapel at Westminster, however, there was a contemporary mural of the Black Prince, and there the lions were statant gardant. This mural was most likely painted during the life- time of William of Edington, Bishop of Winchester, as the Black Prince is shown young and without beard or moustache. There is some con- nection between William of Edington and St. Stephen’s Chapel, as his obit was afterwards kept there for having drawn up its statutes. It is assumed that the chancel at Edington was begun in 1352, when William of Edington (Bishop Hedington) founded a chantry, the ‘‘minster of his college’’ in Leland’s words, and that the rebuilding of the other parts of the church was after the change ‘‘ hastily besought”’ of the Black Prince. If so, the north aisle windows would have been glazed when the Monastery of ‘‘Bones-Homes ”’ was in existence, Notes. 617 In addition to the lions and fleurs-de-lis there are roses and other emblems. So the heraldic glass at Edington should repay carefulstudy, as it probably commemorates the benefactors of the Monastery. DUS SETH SMITH: An Amphora. Examples of amphorae are fairly common and seen in many of ourmuseums. Usually they were made of earthenware, conical in form, and used for holding oil or wine. This specimen was Scale: about + dug up some years ago at the foot of Old Sarum on the southern side by the late Mr. Soul of Amesbury, from whom I obtained it.» eet 2 618 | Notes. The chief point of interest in this amphora is that its lower tapered end is fashioned into a coarse screw and looks as though it was intended to be screwed into some substantial base— perhaps a stone pedestal—in order that it might be kept upright. The vessel is 27 ins. high and zx ins. diameter at the top. The lower part plainly shows that the screw was formed when the amphora was made. The upper half of the screw is perfect, but the lower half has been considerably worn down ; suggesting that it had been repeatedly screwed in and out of some kind of base. But there still remains enough of the screw-thread to show that it originally continued to the point. A copy of the accompanying sketch has been sent to the British Museum and the Colchester and Essex Museum, but apparently the screw peculiarity is unknown at either institution. Perhaps some readers of the W.A.M. may know of similar vessels and expat the screw base. The amphora is now in the Museum. B. HowarD CUNNINGTON. The ‘‘ Charlton Cat.’’ About eight miles from Devizes on the road to Salisbury via Netheravon there stands a small way-side inn known as The Charlton Cat. In the village of Charlton once lived Stephen Duck, who in his early days earned his living as a thresher and in his leisure hours wrote poems. He died in 1756, and the rent of a of small plot of land at Charlton, known as Duck’s Acre, was given to pay for an annual dinner for agricultural labourers of the village. I have recently seen a fine brass tankard inscribed with the words— WE OLD “LOOKS ARMS CHARIRON: Cui At one time the family of Poore were Lords of the Manor of Rushall, a village nearby. Those of us who are familiar with the district will remember that the road leading to the Inn is cut into the bank and just beyond it runs through a cutting in the hill on the way to Netheravon. The tankard is a genuine old one, possibly 18th century, a from this it may be DeeSTmes that the original name of the Inn ‘Charlton Cut’? and not ‘‘Cat.’’ Later on a signboard represent- a a Leopard—the Arms of the Poore family,—was hung outside the Inn, and it seems probable that in this way Charlton Cut became changed into Charlton Cat, the name it retains to the present day. B. HowArD CUNNINGTON. The Crime of Kingsdown Hill. In the second week of the Suppression of Periodicals, which accompanied this winter’s fuel crisis, the Sunday Times for March 2 carried Major Jarvis’s ‘‘ A Coun- tryman’s Notes”’ from the unpublished Country Life. They began :— “The Western Gazette publishes an extract from its files of 200 years ago which suggests that even in those days the country suffered from Notes. 619 much the same kind of petty-fogging officialdom that is so familiar to-day. The extract reads :— “On Monday last on the top of Kingsdown Hill, in the road between Chippenham and Bath, was committed a murder of a most uncommon kind. Five of the inhabitants of Chippenham having seen two wagons belonging to a Calne man, one with 10 horses and the other with 11, went to the said hill with a design (as the law directs) to seize all the horses more than six they should then find drawing the wagons. While waiting in an empty barn they were attacked by three men, and one of them died of his wounds next day ”’. This would suggest that two centuries ago there was a law prohibit- ing the use of more than six horses in any wagon or conveyance (though I can find no mention of it in any of my books of reference), and it ismMOteasy to understand the reason forit. ..- . '... One can only conclude that the road up Kingsdown Hill was in a shocking state and that, owing to the gradient, the unfortunate carter had had to employ the extra trace horses to get to the top. Previously J] had always regarded the middle of the 18th century as a pleasant and carefree period in which to live, but I am not so certain about it now after reading this extract and learning that the ordinary members of the public were encouraged to interfere and act as self- appointed policemen whenever they detected a slight infringement of the law.”’ Kingsdown is in Box parish, which just makes the incident a Wiltshire concern. A letter from the Rev. R. H. Lanesetting the facts in a clearer light was published in Country Life when it reappeared, and he has kindly supplied the substance of his comments for reproduction at the Editor’s request. “Tt is, perhaps, hardly fair to describe 18th century traffic regula- tions as ‘‘ pettifogging officialdom.’’ Heavy traffic was on. the increase, civil engineering hardly existed, and even main roads were still in the hands of countless local authorities. Very large numbers of Acts were therefore passed, intended either to limit the weight of road vehicles or to enforce the use of such wheels, tires, and other points of design as were supposed to do least damage to the roads. The favourite method of restricting loads at this period was to limit the number of horses (or oxen) which might be used to draw a wagon. The first restriction was imposed by a proclamation of Charles I, dated July 20th, 1618, by which the limit was fixed at five horses fora four-wheeled waggon. It mentions waggons carrying 33 tons. The Act in force at the time of the incident quoted was 9 Annae c. 23, which limited the number of horses to six. Persons ‘‘discovering and prosecuting ’’ under the Act, if residents of the parish where the offence was Committed, received half the penalty of £5. This seems to account for the action of the Chippenham men. Further we learn from a petition presented to Parliament in 1695 that a ‘‘racket’’ in the best modern style had grown out of previous 620 Notes. restrictions. Professional informers agreed to allow the carriers to break the law on payment of a regular quarterly sum, in default of which even the law-abiding were prosecuted and put to much expense and loss of time. It does not seem far-fetched to believe that this custom still con- tinued in 1747, and that the ‘‘three men’’ were representatives of the ‘‘racketeer’’ who did not propose to allow anyone else to poach on his preserves. Possibly the Calne man had paid his quarterly fee, and was entitled to ‘‘protection.”’ The encouragement of ‘‘ ordinary members of the public’”’ to act as ‘self-appointed policemen” is not really unreasonable, when it is remembered that at the time there were practically no officially appointed policemen. But it does not seem to have worked well’. RAE. Parish Registers. The British Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is actively at work through its Genealogical Branch (149, Nightingale Lane, Balham, S.W.12) making micro-films of the parish registers of the country. They seem to have been particularly active in some northern dioceses, and a number of Wiltshire parishes have already given their consent. We may not hitherto have associated the Mormons with antiquarian research, but the preservation of these records is a very laudable aim. The results, however, will be of less use to usin Utah than in England. For that reason it is to be hoped that incumbents who co-operate will accept the | copy of the negative which is offered free of charge. This Society or, better, the County Archives at Trowbridge would willingly house such copies if the recipients preferred to put them in a place of safety, as seems desirable. He CaB: More Masons’ Marks. Mr. Cunnington has received further evidence of the interest aroused by his article on page 378 of the present volume (W.A.M., December, 1946) in a letter from Mr. Edwyn Jervoise of Shaftesbury. In 1936 Mr. Jervoise, with the aid of the then Borough Engineer of Salisbury, examined from a punt the underside of some of the arches of Harnham Bridge (built in 1245) and discovered a number of masons’ marks, of which the Surveyor made drawings. They included Nos. 4 and 10 of the Edington series and, to the best of Mr. Jervoise’s recollection, a No. 12 as well. No. 2la was also found on the Close Wall in Exeter Street, and a form intermediate between Nos, 22a and 22b on a stone in the ruins of Clarendon Palace. _ Two Rare Moths. Even such ashocking year for lepidoptera collecting as 1946 has produced two records of unusual interest. Mr. J, R. L. Baiss found on a telegraph pole in Savernake Forest a specimen of the Pine Hawk Moth (Hylocius pinasirt). Members of the Marlborough College Natural History Society tound on poplars in West Woods a number of larvae which were bred and proved to be those of the Chocolate Tip Moth (Pygaera curtula). L. G. PEIRSON. | 621 WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES. THE REV. WALTER LEACROFT FREER of Evershot, Dorset, died in a London Hospital after an operation on August Ilth, 1946. He was born near Stourbridge, Worcestershire, on August 18th, 1883, and was Vicar of Chute, Wiltshire, from May 1933 to September 19843. Outside his parochial work his chief interest was in Natural History, He was a member of our Society and sometimes contributed plant notices to the Magazine. Of a gentle, lovable disposition, he was an ideal companion for a botanical ramble in the countryside he knew so well and loved so much. PDs THOMAS SHARP died at his home in Westbury on February 18th, 1947, within a month of his 91st year. Though it is over 20 years since he retired from his post of Horticul- tural Instructor under the Wiltshire County Council, there will be many who remember his skill and helpfulness in that capacity. But his contacts extended far beyond this county. He had a remarkable collection of cacti, succulents and orchids, the gathering of which had brought him acquaintance not only with the staffs of English, Scotch and Irish Botanical Gardens but with many correspondents in tropical reg:ons of the world. In 1908 he succeeded in a grafting operation on the medlar in the garden of Bemerton Rectory which George Herbert is supposed to have planted in 1632, thus securing for that veteran tree a new lease of life. Obit. Wiltshive Times, March Ist, 1947. MRS. ELIZABETH ANNICA GODDARD died at Red Gables, Devizes on February 27th, 1947. She was 80 years old. Her father, the Rev. C. W. Bradford, was for 20 years Vicar of Clyffe Pypard, and she was descended on her mother’s side from the Goddard family, whose connection with Clyffe began 400 years ago. In 1883 the Rev. E. H. Goddard succeeded to the living, and three years later the representatives of two branches of the family were married. Canon and Mrs. Goddard, after 50 years of service to their ancestral parish, retired to Devizes, where in April 1946 they celebrated their diamond wedding. Her husband, who was a full twelve years her senior, survives her witha son and two daughters. Obit. Wilishive Gazette, March 6th, 1947. 622 Wultshire Obstuartes. COMMANDER KENNETH EDWARDS, R.N., died on February 28th, 1947, in London at the age of 44. The son of Brigadier General T. B. Edwards of Sloperton Cottage, Bromham, and later of Threeways, Seend, Commander Edwards was born in India and educated at Haileybury. He joined the Navy in 1919 and became a submarine commander. After service at home and in the Far East he retired in 1932 and became Naval correspondent of the Morning Post, the Sunday Times and finally, after a recall to the Press Division of the Admiralty, of =the Daily Telegraph. He was the author of ‘‘ Mutiny at Invergordon ’’ and of a number of other books, the last being ‘‘ Operation Neptune’’, which described the Navy’s part in ‘‘D”’ Day. In 1981 he married Elizabeth Kathleen, daughter of L. T. Martin of Seend House and New York City. His wife and their son and daughter survive him. Obit. Wiltshire Gazette, March 6th, 1947. ALFRED ERNEST WITHY of Westlecott, Swindon, died March 30th, 1947, aged 86. The son of John Withy of Bath, he was educated at King Edward’s Sciool in that city and became a solicitor, being for 40 years Clerk to the Swindon Borough Magistrates. He was the last of the original members of the Wilts County Council who met at the Devizes Assize Courts in January 1889. Asa councillor he served for over 50 years and for 80 of them was vice-chairman. He was an alder- man for more than 20 years, and his intimate knowledge of Local Government Law made him a valuable chairman of more than one Committee. Obit. Wiltshive Gazette, April 8rd, 1947. COLONEL HENRY BASIL INMAN of Rockley House, Devizes, died on March 5th, 1947, aged 66. The son of Canon Edward Inman, Vicar of Potterne, he was educated locally and was commissioned to the Royal Marines in 1900. In the first World War he became Senior Marine Officer in the Mediterranean and won the Military Cross. In the Russian Revolution of 1917 he was with the Marines in the Crimea and, later, Second Commandant at Chatham. Retiring from the Marines in 1933, he returned to Devizes and interested himself in local government, serving for nine years on the Town Council. In the recent war he was responsible at Trowbridge and Tidworth for the raising of the 6th Battalion, The Wiltshire Regiment, and also served, as long as his health permitted, as an officer of the Home Guard. He made the British Legion his especial concern and was at one time County Chairman. He was well known over a wide area. : In 1919 he married Joan, daughter of Henry Daubeney of Charlton Kings, Gloucestershire. Mrs. Inman became the first chairman of the Women’s Section of the Devizes branch of the British Legion. She died last year. There were no children of the marriage. Obit. Wiltshive Gasette, March 6th, 1946. Wiltshire Obituaries. 623 CANON HARRY ERNEST KETCHLEY, Rector of Biddestone with the chapelry of Slaughterford, died on March 5th, 1947, the victim at an advanced age—he was over 80—of the severe and prolonged winter. His college was Christ Church, Oxford. He was ordained deacon 1890 and priest in the following year. From 1890 to 1893 he was curate in succession of Romsey and Great Malvern, from 1894 to 1904 chaplain to the Hon. Mrs. Meynell Ingram. For the next ten years he was Rector of Barton le Street in his native county of Yorkshire and came to Biddestone in 1917. In 1988 he was made honorary Canon of Bristol Cathedral. He wrote numerous articles in the Bristol Diocesan Review and else- . where, though his only contribution to this Magazine was a list of Quaker marriages at Slaughterford (Vol. xlix). He was our local secretary in his own area from 1920 and again and again, in unobtrusive ways, proved himself a generous friend of the Society. There was a warm- hearted and forthright honesty in his words and actions which at times might seem almost embarrassing to circumspect Southerners. But no one could mistake Canon Ketchley for a Southerner.. Obit. Wiltshire Gazette, March 6th, 1947. WILLIAM CHARLES DOTESIO died at-his home in the Isle of Wight on March 6th, 1947, at the age of 82. For more than 50 years he lived at Bradford-on-Avon, the head, until his retirement, of the printing firm which bears his name. He was a student of the anti- quities of the ancient town and published the results in the Guides which his firm produced. He frequently conducted visiting Societies on tours of the monuments for which Bradford is renowned, and was for many years a member of our Society. He was at one time a member of the Wiltshire County Council. As a Freemason, he was a Past Master of the Lodge of Friendship and Unity in Bradford and held provincial rank. In later years he was an active member of the Baptist community and an enthusiastic supporter of the Waifs and Strays Society. “Obit. Bath and Wilts Chronicle, March 8th, 1947. SiR HENRY HUGH ARTHUR HOARE, 6th Baronet, of Stourhead, and LADY HOARE both died on March 25th, 1947, at Stourhead. Sir Henry was in his 82nd year. He was educated at Harrow and succeeded to the title in 1894 on the death of his cousin, the 5th Baronet. He wasa Justice of the Peace in four counties and High Sheriff of Wiltshire in 1915. He married-in 1887 his cousin Alda Annie, daughter of William Purcell Weston of Lane House, Dorset. There was one son of the marriage, Captain Henry Colt Arthur Hoare, who died of wounds in 1917. Sir Henry was a director of Lloyds Bank. He had been in his day a keen follower to hounds and at one time chairman of the Blackmore 624 Wiltshire Obituartes. Vale Hunt Committee. A generous supporter of various rural organ- isations, he was a well-known breeder of pedigree cattle. On his death the title again passes to a cousin, Peter William Hoare, who was born in 1898. . Obits. The Times, March 17th: Wultshive Gazette, April 3rd, 1947. CHARLES INGHAM HADEN, died at his home in Trowbridge on May 24th, 1947. He was born in January, 1863, tne youngest son of George Nelson Haden, and was for many years partner with his brother, whose death we recorded a year ago, in the firm of G. N Haden and Sons. From a directorship in the later company he retired some ten years ago. His business took him abroad to many parts of the world, but he was known and loved at home as a kind and considerate employer. In Trowbridge his outside interests were manifold. He was a prominent and generous member of the Congregational Church and worked whole-heartedly in the cause of the local Hospital. But no good cause in Trowbridge appealed in vain for his support. Like his brotfier, he was a member of the County Education Committee and for many years the Chairman of the local Magistrates and of the Managers of the Trowbridge Schools. His great personal charm, warm heart and liberal mind endeared him to all who knew him. He had a keen sence of humour and a delight in simple things, but he shared also with the brother who died before him a sense of duty which never forsook him. Trowbridge is the poorer for the loss of the last Haden of his generation and one who made the welfare of the town his constant concern. Obit. Wilishive Times, May 31st, 1947. 625 ADDITIONS TO MUSEUM AND LIBRARY. Museum. Presented by Mrs. LEECH: cannon ball found ina field near the County Mental Hospital. ng » Messrs. J. H. and K. W. LEEcH: cabinet containing a collection of British Lepidoptera. Library. Presented by Mr. C. D. HEGINBoTHOM: G. MONTAGU’s “‘ Testacea Britannica, or Natural History of British Shells ’’. , Mr. E. G. H. KEmpson: ‘Oxford Prize Poems, 1768— 1823” (including one on Stonehenge). fo DR ak HOMPSON :) = \>Short Eustory of-Cricklade!”’, Mr. F. C. Pitt: ‘‘ Guide to Trowbridge Parish Church’’, (revised edition). Copy of ‘‘ Instructions for training Volunteer Rifle Corps’, 1859. Act for enclosing Stockham Marsh (Bremhill), 1775. Prospectus of the College for Adult Education at Urchfont Manor. Two sale catalogues. INDEX TO VOL. LI. [June, 1945, to June 1947.] Compiled by the Editor with the assistance of Mr. Owen Meyrick. Abbesses, disabilities and privi- leges of, 1, 2 Abbesses of Lacock: Wymarca (prioress), 3; Ela, Beatrice of Kent, 3; Alice, Juliana, Agnes, Joan de Montfort, 4; Katherine le Cras, Sibilla de Ste Croix, Matilda de Montfort, Agnes of Brymesden, Faith Selyman, 5; Agnes de Wick, Helen de Mont- fort, Agnes Fray (or Frary), Agnes Draper, 6; Margery of Gloucester, Joan Temys, 7 Addison, Joseph, Wiltshireman, 71 Additions to Museum and Library, 125f, 241 f, 359 f, 477 f, 625 Ailesbury, Thos. Earl of, 57; Marquesses of: gifts, of Jand, 202; of MSS., 477 Albino blackbirds, 234 Aldbourne, A Malt-house mys- tery, 471: three-field system, 139 Aldbourne: Court Rolls, 453 f; Market Cross, 453—5; Sir J. Poyntz’ Survey, 453; Green = Market Place, 458; George Inn, 453; Chantry House, 458 ; Market discontinued (1581), 454 Aldbourne Chase, 274; Lewis- ham Castle in, 472 Aldbourne Village Cross, by Major A. L. Ingpen, M.V.O., O.B.E., 453—-5; Doran Webb’s theory rejected, 453; Buckler’s drawing, 454; Court Leet pre- sentment, 454 Alexander, Capt. W. H. R., obit., 120 Alton Barnes, Hanging Stone Hurst, 436 Alton Priors, Boundary Stone (Saxon), 436 Alton Down Long Barrow, 119 Aluric Venator, 273—4 Alvediston, three-fieldsystem, 189 Amesbury, Forest eyreat, 511,513 Amphora, screw-pointed, from Old Sarum, 617 Anstie: (G: Bs sifts 25 Appuldurcombe (l.o.W.) 174, 176—7 Aragon, K. Peter of, 264 Arum italicum at Salisbury, 247 Archbishop’s Court of Audience, 487 Arnold, Thomas of Rugby, letter, 91, 93 Ashdown House, sarsen “ align- ments’’, 434 Ashton Keynes, three-field sys- tem, 139, 140; enclosed, 144 Ashton, North, three-fieldsystem, 140 Asslegg (Ashley, now in Glos.), ~ enclosure, 141 Aspale, Robert de, Justic. For., 318 Aubrey, John, on enclosures, 146 ; on sarsens, 422, 424; lost MS., 351, 455. Augustiniancanonesses, Lacock, | Avon (? in Bremhill), three-field system, 139 Avon (Salisbury) Valley, depopu- lation, 151 Axford, two-field system, 139 Avebury, Lord, on sarsens, 427 Bacon, Wm., of Aldbourne, 454 Badbury, two-field system, 139 Barbefeld, Nich. de, 299 Bardonia, Guy la, 264 Barnes, Mrs. Ruth, Wiltshire Bird Notes, 1946, 586—98- Barr, Hildebrand, 325 Barrow, a ‘‘short long’”’ ?, 451 ; oval, chambered, 438 Barwell: Purner, Capita obit., 236 INDEX TO VOlz EI. 627 Barwick, John, 528 Basidiomycetes in S.W. Wilts (Donhead St Macy), Part VI, 37—8; Paxt VII, 343—2. By T. F. G. W. Dunston and Capt. A. E. A. Dunston Bassingeburn, Alexander de, 288 Bateman, J. V., Marlborough, 202 Bath, Marquess of, obit., 857 Baylie, Thomas, of Marlborough, 61 Baynton, Henry, 266: Sir Robert, 265; John, 512 Beauchamp, Walter, 333; Roger Gemeco4- Sin- VV. Lord St. Amand, 265 Beaufort, Roger de, 264; Henry, 489 Becher, G. G., obit. 239 Bedwyn Brails, Protector’s man- sion planned, 527; Dodsdown brickyards, 527; conduit, 528 ; Lord Pembroke’s purlieu, 533 Bedwyn field system, 140 Bedwyn, Great: Church 474 Beech in Wilts, 575 Bemynges, Matilda, 291, 456 Benett of Pythouse: Thos., 389, 394, 402, 404; John, 390: Thos., of Norton Bavant, 396: marriages, 389 f, 394, 398; family, 401 Benett-Stanford, Lt.-Col. J.M.F., Families of East Knoyle, 386— 404; on Cunning Dick’s Hole, A472 Benger, —., gift to-Library, 477 ; Jokmaeitt to: Easton Priory, 373; Sir Thos. (temp. Eliz.), 477 Berewyie, Gilbert de, “of 7 E. Winterslow, 19; John de, 298 Berwick: St. James, two-field system, 139 ; Stonehenge sarsen at, 432; St. John, field system, 140 Bill for Great Horses (33 H. viii), 398 Bilkemore, Anastasia de, 312, 322 Robert de, 306, 311—320, 325 Birnstingl, C., gift, 241 Bitham Pond, Savernake, 577 clock, \l \ Blackheath, Battle of, J. Seymour knighted, 514 Black Prince, 616 Blakemanners, Isabella, 308 Blanche, Duchess of Bavaria, 330—1 Blowing Stone (Berks), 436 Bluet, sir a)e,ol. wackham,4'; John, 264 Bond for the Keeping of Lent, 473 Box, An Early British Coin from, by A. Shaw Mellor. Galba aureus; Julia Sozemios, Em- press; Valens brass; pre-Roman occupation, 193 Box, Kingsdown Hill, 618—20 Botanical References in the Saxon Charters of Wiltshire, by J. Donald Grose, 555 —83 Bowerchalke, four-field system, 140 BoyvlewHonwk: © Obit..305 Bradley, North,three-fieldsystem, 140 Bradenstoke, Prior of, 366 Braose, [Thomas de, 324 Bray, Sq-Ldr. N.N. E., gifts, 241 Sir Reg., 265 Braybroke, Eliz., 265 Braydon Manor deeds, 478 Bremhill and Foxham, three- field system, 139; Stockham Marsh Enclosure Act, 625 Bremhill Vicarage, noticed, 115 Brentnall, H.C., Sarsens, 419—39 Birethers- (Brothers). family, of Knoyle, 498, 400 Brien, Guy de, 264 British -- Records ~ Association, 226—7; gifts, 126, 242, 478 Britanny, Joan Duchess of, 264 Broad Chalke, three-field system, 139; Vittrel Gate, 611 : field article’ on, Brokenborough, 139— 40 Bromhale Nunnery (Berks), 488 Bronze Age Beakers from Lark- hill and Bulford, by Major H. de S. Short, 381—3 5 Bronze Age (Early) Vessel from Ashley Hill, near Salisbury, by Prof. Stuart Piggott, B.Litt., F.S.A., 384 f, system, 628 INDEX TO VOL. LI. Bronze Age finds at Farleigh Wick, 441 Brooch, bronze, La Tene I, 260° iron, La Téne III, 260 Bruce, Lord, i104, 107; Thos. E. of Ailesbury, 57 Bryan. Elennye last) eerion wot Easton, 375, 519; Vicar, 519 Bubwith, Nich., Archd. of Dorset, 489 Budbury (Bradford-on-Avon) 229 -— 230, 267 Burbage, 278, 282, 298—4, 331; William of, 274 Burcombe, three-field system, 139 Burgess, Daniel, of Marlborough, 61, 71 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Sarum, 201 Byzet, john, justice Hor, 297) Calne, Joseph Priestley at, 467; Poor books (1668), 146 Cardigan, The Ear] of, The Waxr- dens of Savernake Forest, 271 —339; PartII.: TheSeymour Wardens, 500—854 ; Sir Geoffrey Esturmey (note), 456 Carey, Canon James, obit., 238 Carisbrooke (I.o.W.), Wadham monument at, 14 ; Castle Combe, three-field system, 139 ; enclosures, 140; demeane lands, 146 Caswall, Ed. of Marlborough, 96 Cats, Wild, in Savernake Forest, 316 Charles V., Emperor, at Canter- bury, 516 Charlton, three-field system, 139 ; the Cat Inn, 618 Charney Bassett (Berks ), 344 Charter of the Forests (1217), 289, 301; re-affirmed, 298 Chaundler, John, Dean of Sarum and Bishop, 494 Cheggeberge (Chedglow in Crud- well), early enclosures, 141 Chelworth, enclosure, 172 Chettle, Lt.-Col. H. F., Lacock Abbey, 1—13; The Trinitar- ian Friars and Easton Royal, 365 —377 Cheyne, Sir J. (Lord Cheyne), 265 ' Chitterne St. Mary, enclosure, 172 Chilhampton, three-field system, 130 Chilmark, four-field system, 140 Chichele, Dr. Henry, Archdeacon and Chancellor of Sarum, 488, Bishop, 489 Archbishop, 492, 494 . Chipnam Field (1663) ; Chippen- ham Hundred, 146 Chisbury, St. Martin’s Chapel, 231—2 Choules, R. B. W., on albino blackbirds, 234 Christian Malford, field system, 140; closes, 141; Sedgemead, 580 Church, Thomas, D.D., 75 Chute Forest, 274, 297 Clarence, Duke of (1470), 265 Clarendon, Lord, on Lord Hert- ford, 548 Clarendon Palace, 18, 265 Clark, L., on Alfred Williams, noticed, 113 “Clubmen’ of S- Wilts (1645), 402 ‘““Coate Reservoir System’’, by J. B. Jones, noticed, 114 Coate Water, the Pioneer Veg- etation of the Bed of, By J. D. Grose, 383—6 Cobbett, ‘‘ Rural Rides ’’, quoted, 151 Cobham, Eleanor, Duch. of Glou- cester, 373 Cockerell, T D. A., of Swindon, conchologist, 460 Codrington family, of Marl- borough, 98—-9 Cole Bridge (Marlborough), 299 Colerne, two-field system, 139 Collingbourne Woods, 224 Columbars, Avice de, 297 Combe, John, of. Quidhampton, 480 : Compton Bassett Registers, 478 Conciliar Movement, 479, 495 Conkwell ‘‘stone circle, ’ 230 f Constance, General Council of, 479, 490 INDEX LO; VOL. ll: 629 Constantius Gallus, coin of, 258 Copeland-Griffiths, Mrs., gift, 359 Correction of June, 1946,W.A.M. cover, 455 Coronation Stone, Kingston-on- Thames, sarsen, 437 Corsham field system, 140 Cottars (in Burbage), 302 Court, Books, of Lacock, cor- rection, 227; quoted, 474 Coward, Edward, obit., 121. Mrs. E., gifts, 126, 359, 360 Cowesfield Esturmy (Coueles- feld), 273, 293—4, 302 Cowfold with Norton, two-field system, 139 Cow's ears, slitting, 118 Crewe Wis AC: gift, 477 Cricklade, A Short History of’’, by T. R. Thomson, noticed, 467 Crofton, 330—1; C. Braybeuf Manor, 372; watermill 516 Crudwell, three-field system, 139 Cunnington, B. H., Devizes Courts and old Town Ditch, 39, 40; Devizes Street Names and their Origin, 179—83 ; Gifts, 241,477; Mason’s Marks on Edington Church, 378—80 ; on a screw-pointed amphora, Cliewonetne < Charlton Cat =, 618 Cunnington, Lt.-Col. R. H., on Devizes Castle, 496—9; Tab- ular Sarsens and Mud Cracks, 405—18 Customars (of Burbage), 302 Damerham (now in Hants), 139 141 Danyell, Ed., Ranger of Saver- nake, 537 Darrell family of Littlecote, 505 f, 511 if Dauntsey’s School: Excavations, noticed by S. Piggott, 222—4 ; gift, 359 Dauphin of France, Lord of Marlborough, 288 Davis, Thos. (sen. and jun.), on Wilts Agriculture (1794, 1811), 150 , Deer, fallow, 280, 292, 304; red, 280; from the Peak, 292; red deer bones of Iron Age, 256 Detoe’s ‘‘Tour’’, 1724—6, 148 Denison, Dr., B. of Sarum, 202 Depopulation Act, 144 Devizes Castle: a Suggested Re- construction by Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington, 496 —499; Gates, Inner ditch, Outer ditch, Outer ward, 39 Devizes Courts and the old Town Ditch, 39—40; Devizes Street Names and their Origin, by B. Howard Cunnington, F.SA., Scot, 179—83 Dinton, three-field system, 140 Disturbances of 1549, Wilts, 143 Ditchampton, three-field system, 139 ‘*Dockham ’’, Donhead St. Mary; Wanborough. 571 Dodson, Mich.,of Marlborough, 76 Dolphin, Rich., of Pusey (Berks), 195 Dominick, Randall, of Knoyle, AQ 2 Doran, Brig..Gen. W. R. B., obit. Dorcan, River (Upper Cole), 114 Dotesio, W. C., obit., 623 Draycot Cerne open field, 146 Draycot Hill, (Wilcot), swallow- hole on, 117 Drayston (Clench Common), 299 Drueys family of Easton, 367 ff. Dufferin and Ava, Brenda March- ioness of, obit., 475 Duke’s Vaunt, Savernake, 574 Dinstony i: Ga jwand: Cape. A. E. A., Notes on Basidio- mycetes found in S.W. Wilts, Part VI, 37—8; Part VII, 340—2 Dunwallo Molmutius, British king, 184 Duppa, Dr. Brian, B. of Sarum, 195 Durley, 293; Sheep Common, Savernake, 546 Durrington three- field system, 139 Early SBritish Settlement at Farleigh Wick and Conkwell, Wilts, by Guy Underwood, 630 INDEX LOL VOlalie 440 —52: Dating material, 441; walls, 441: trackways, 442: defences,443 ; No Man’s Land, 443 ; excavations, 443 ff ; finds, 446, 451 f; burials 447; short long barrow (?), 451 Easton Priory, 279, 286, 297, 300, 326--7, 331; see also Trinitar- lans Easton Priory, brethren of: Rob. Pilkington, Wm. of Marl- borough, Geoffrey Esturmy, 3705" > Rob. of) Donnington (apostate), 871; J. Newington at Warland, Totnes, 373 Easton Royal, deeds, 477 Easton Royal, Old Vicarage, 377 Easton, Sir Adam of, 286; Stephen of, Archd. of Wilts, 286 Easton Piers open fields, 146 East Overton field system, 140 East Wick Farm (Wootton Rivers), 291 Eddison, FE. R.,. obit, 238 Eden, Sir Francis, on Bradford, Seend, Trowbridge, 151 Edington and the Black Prince, 616 Edward II. King 305 Edwardes,Comm. K., R.N., obit., 622 Edwards, Dr. Kathleen,on Sarum Canons, 480 f, 486 Ela, --Countess, ‘of Salisbury, founds Lacock Abbey, 2 Elcot (Marlborough), 299 Elizabeth, Princess, Queen, 526, 530, 536, 542 Elm, English, native in Wilts ? 562 Enclosures by Private Act, 156— 169; General Acts, 169—171 Englefield, Sir Francis, 144—6 Erlegh, Rob., of Wolfhall, 336 Estcourt, Miss K. O. B., obit., 237 Estormit, Richard, 273—9, 294 Esturmi(t), Henry, 279—82 Esturmy family: Agnes, 332, 336; Alina, 337; Geoffrey, 282—3 ; Sir Geoffrey, 287—293, 456; Geoffrey (son of Henry the elder), 321, 328; Henry, 283— 7; Sir Henry, 293—7; Henry, of Wolfhall, 298—301 ; Henry the elder, 302—321; Sir Henry, 321—8; John, 304; Margaret, 296, 298: Matilda,332; Richard, 321; Thomas, 284; Sir William, 328— 338. See also Sturmy Esturmy horn, 271, 278, 280 Everett, C. R., bequest, 267 obit, 236 Expeditation of dogs, 278, 315—6 Eyles, J., gift, 477 Fairbough Bottom, Savernake, 566 n. Falkner, J. M., note on, 352 Falstone Day Book, 389, 400, 404 Families of East Knoyle, by Lt.- Col. J. M. F. Benett-Stanford, 386-404: Goldesborough, 386 —92; Still, - 3892; Mervyn, 392 —6; Hunton, 396—9; Brethers, 898; Toope, 400; Wren, 400—4 Fane, Rev. Arthur, 395 Farleigh Wick, excavations, 440 —52; “ Jug’s Grave’’, 447—52; Sir Ch.” Hobhouses onthe Parish, 440; Inwood, 440; Neolithic and Bronze Age finds, 44] Fasterne (Vastern) Great Park, 144 Field of the Cloth of Gold, 516 Field systems of Wilts townships, 139-140 Fiennes, Celia, “‘ Journal”. 147 Figheldean (ffyghelden), 295, 330 Finlay, Viscount, obit., 235 FitzWauter, Admiral Walter, 264 Foix, Count Gaston of, 264 Fonthill Abbey, article noticed, 115 ‘‘FRorest’’ defined, 275 Forest Eyre, 277; (1257, 1270, 296; 1330) 306 ; (1382) 314; (1334) 317 Forest Law, 275, 296, 326 Forest of Berks, 274 Foresters of Savernake; Bilke- more, Rob., 306, 311—20, 325 Boneclyve (Buneclive) Wm., 290, 298, 312 Forst- bury, J. 290; ‘Peter, 306, 318 Harden, Rich: 290; INDEX TO VOL. LI. - 631 Roger, 298, 306,318: Wm., 298, 311 Pipard, Hubert, 306, 318 Wexcumbe, Wim., 290 Wyke, J., 290 Forestry Commissioners, gift, 359 Forstoury (Fosbury), 291 Four-field townships, 140 ‘*Bour Victorian Ladies of Wilt- shire,” by © Edith Olivier, noticed 114 Fovant, ‘‘Cunning Dick’s Hole”’, 472 Fox, Miss E., gifts, 359 Francis, Charles, of Marlborough, Sa TS Frankes, John, 373 Freer, Rey. WE obit. 621 Froxfield : (pee orees: 5D4 : ~ Manor and advowson, 331, 372 Fuggleston, three-field system, 140 Gardner, Rev. E. C., gifts, 247, 359, 477 Garinges, Alice, of Lacock, 3 Gay, Maisie, obit., 239 Giant’s Grave (Martinsell), date, 200° Gladstone, Sir J. E., obit., 120 Glastonbury, Abbot of, enclo- sures, 141 Goddard, Canon E. H., gift, 125; Canon F., of Hilmarton, 95; Mrs. E. A., obit., 621 Godshill Church, A Wiltshire- woman’s Monument in? By J.J. Slade, 174—-178 Gonner, Prof., on enclosures, 128, 147 Goldesborough family of East Knoyle, 386—90; pedigree, 391 ‘Goodhyne (Goodwin), J., obit. abewacock: 5 Goslin, William, V.C., obit., 12] Gough, William, of Marlborough, eo: Grigson, Geoffrey, on J. M. Falk- ner, 352 Grittleton, two-field system, 189 Grose, lie D., Botanical Refer- ences in the Saxon Charters of VOEe El. NO. CLXccXy Ff. Wiltshire, 555—583; Wilt- shire Plant Notes, 28—32, 247-55, 599—61L0; Pioneer Vegetation of the Bed of Coate Water, 33—6 Grovely Wood, 470 Eadent.C7ie Obit. 624-73 We Ns * obit., 356 Haking, Gen. Sir Richard, obit 235 Hale, R., loan to Museum, 241 ‘* Halegodesfolegd ”’ (Priory Wood), Savernake, 367 Hallam, Wi El eitts, 24). 477 Hallum, Robt., Canon of Sarum, 490, Bishop, 487, 491 Halville, Radulfus de, 295 Hammond, Dr., chaplain to Charles I, 197 Maurice, of S. Tidworth; 328—30 Hangman’s Stone legend, O. G. S. Crawford on, 434, 436 Harborough, Henry, Canon of Sarum, 486, Treasurer; 495 Harden, Robert of, 273 Harding Farm (Bedwyn), 291 Harestone Down (Stanton), 258; Field (Rockley), 439 Harte, Walter, Canon of Windsor, ZO Harvie, D. E., on hermaphrodite willow, 118 Havering Heath, 512 f, 546 Haye-bote, 277, 316 Hayward, Thomas, obit., 355 Hedington, Bishop, 616 Heginbothom, C. D., Wiltshire Molluse Collectors, 457—63 ; gift, 625 Henry V and Savernake, 333, 489, 491; Henry VII (ditto), 509, 512; Henry VIII: pardon to Seymours, 515; visits Wolf- hall bad feb 2 ite entry, VIII’s Walk’ (Savernake), 524; ‘King Harry’s Summer- house’’ (Savernake), 524 Henry of Huntingdon, quoted, 186 Henry of Monmouth, 487 a AU Savernake, 632 INDEX TO VOL, LI. Herbert, Mary, 174; Sir W., Ist Earl of Pembroke, 143 Herbert—Worsley marriage, 343 Hertford, Earl of, 53, 54 Hewitt, Rev. C. E. B., obit., 355 Heytesbury, East, two-field sys- tem, 139 Hilcot, four-field system, 140 Hinton, four-field system, 140 Hinton, F. H., 227, 474 “History of the Wilts Home Guard ’”’,ed.Maj. E.A.MacKay, noticed, 466 Hoare, Sir H. H. A., obit., 6238: Lady Hoare, obit., 623 Hockey match, medieval, 480 Holbrook, the Marlborough black- smith, 55 Holte, William de, 300 Homington field system, 140 Hony, G. B., gifts, 477 Hormby, ©: HH) St? ).; of Dor- chester, obit., 356 Hospital, Trinitarian, at Easton, 292 House-bote, 277, 316 Huish, 273 , Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, 332— 5, 487, 492 Hundred Hill, Malmesbury, 152 Hunton family of E. Knoyle, 396, 398; pedigree, 399. Hungerford, House of the Lepers, 289; Park, 345 Hurdcott, two-field system, 139 Huse, Husee or Hussey: Henry, 296; Sir Hubert, 295; Mar- garet, 295; Matilda, 294—5 imber, damage to, 227—8 Impey, Edward, obit., 354 Ingpen, Major A. L.., Aldbourne Village Cross, 453—5 Inman, Col. H. B., obit., 622 Iron Age, Early, notes on sites in Marlborough district, by O. Meyrick, 256—63; Barbury Camp, 260, Fyfield Down, 258 ; finds, 256, 258, 260; Martinsell, 256; Stanton St. Bernard Down, 258 Isabella, Queen, 312 Jackson, G. W., gifts, 241 Jacob) Dr Pb Best oeAL The Medieval Chapter of Salis- bury Cathedral, 479—495 jaques, Thos, of Grittieton, 469 Jefferies, Richard, article on, noticed, 468; books about, noticed, 348. Joan, Queen, 487 494 John de Backham (Easton), 368 John, King, Lord of Marlborough Castle, 284 John, of Salisbury, 493 Jones, J. B., on Coate Reservoir, noticed, 114; ‘‘ Witch = of Chedworth’”’ noticed, 221; on sarsens, 615; gift, 125 Prof, Rupert, on sarsens, 434 Samuel, of Ramsbury, 232—4 Joscelyne Rt. kev. Ave; DDs obit., 123 Jougs, 232- 4 Judd, Prof., on sarsens, 415 Jurors in Eyre, 306 Justiciars of the Forest: John Byset, 297; John Ma(1)travers, 306; Rob.de Aspale, 318; Henry Bourgchier, Earl of Essex, 503, 507; Lord Fitzwater and Mr. Bray, 511 Kalway (Keilway or Kelway), J., of Tytherton, 17 Kemble, three-field system, 139 Kempson, E.G. H., The Vicar’s Library, St. Mary’s, Marl- borough, 194—215; gift, 625 Kenete, Thomas of, 290 John de, 298 Ketchley, Canon H. E., gifts, 241 ; obit., 623 Kidston, G. J., gifts, 359 Kimmeridgian sarsens, 615 Kingsdown Hill, Box, 618 Kington, two-field system, 139 Kington St. Michael open fields, 146 Kingston Deverill sarsens, 432 Knighton Long Barrow, war use of, 119 INDEX “TO VOL. LI 633 Lacock Abbey, by Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G.,0.B.E., 1—13; additional notes, 119 Lacock Abbey (House): Charter, 3; patronage, 3; royal gifts, 3; appropriates Church, 4; Lady Chapel, 5; Annals (1448), ieaO. elizabeth at, 10; Bp: Jewel preaches, 10; Earl of Salisbury at (1612), 10; garri- soned and besieged (1644—5), 10; ‘‘OliverCromwell’sstable’’, 11;Q. Anneat, 11; J. I. Talbot succeeds to, 11; alterations, 12; illustrations, 18; abbesses, 3—7 Lacock, disafforestation of, 2 Lacock Magna Carta, 474; Manor Court presentments, 474 Lanhill Long Barrow, 119 Lansdowne, Marquess of, obit., 120 Larmer Pond, Tollard Royal, 578 awessewev.|\.- 0:, 91, 93-tf, 97 Mrs, 95 Weechwavirs.- j- El: and. K, W., gifts, 625 Leghs or Sleights, pastures, 146 Leland John, at Devizes, 496, 499 ; at Malmesbury, 184, 190; IMS 141-—— 3. 147 Levenoth, of Marlborough, 41—2 Leigh, Upper (Knoyle), 386, 388 ; window verses, 892 - Lepers, Houseof, Hungerford, 289 Liddington, vandalism at, 614 _ Lilbourne, William de, 300, 312 Lime-tree, not native, 556 Linear Earthworks, 614 Lipyeatt, Jonathan, of Marl- borough, 79. Wewellyn, Wt-Col Sir Hoel, DES-O:, obit.; 122 Long, Sir James, of Draycot, 55 James T., M.P., 180 John, Sheriff of Wilts, 180 Longespée family and Lacock, 4 Longford Castle Committee (1647), 403 | Longleat, 176 - 8 Long St., Devizes, No. 41 bought, 267 Lortie, Margaret de, 313 Loryng, Wm., Canon of Sarum, 489 f Louthorpe, Geo.,- Treasurer of Saruin, 495 : Ludgershall-enclosed, 149 Ludham, John de, 317 Ludlow, E., of Hill Deverill, 8394, 401] Luni, Henry de, 290 Lyss Esturmy (Hants), 330 Mackay, Maj. E., gift, 477 Maddington, two-field system, 139 Maltravers, John, 306 Magna Carta, Lacock Abbey, 226; Sarum, 224; on Forésts, 287 Malmesbury, Abbey, 184, 186; Abbot. of, 141; Castle, 184, 186 ff; Common, 152; Gates, 187—91; Mills, 188, 191; Abbey.-Ho., 188; Abbey Row, 191; Bank Ho., 190; Bell Hotel, 184, 188; borough arms, 191; Burnivale, 191; Catholic Sch., 789; Crosshayes Ho., 189; Holloway, 188 f; King’s Arms, 190; King’s Wall, 190; Nuns’ Walk, 189; Silver St., 189; Westgate Ho., 191; Westport, 187; Winyard Mill, 190 Malmesbury, its Castle and Walls, by Henry Rees, F.R.G.S., 184—192 Manley, Canon F. H., obit., 122; bequests to Society, 267 Miss, gifts, 125—6 Manor of East Winterslow (Part III), by Major H. B. Trevor Cox, 264—6 Manton Cross, 299 Manton Down Kistvaen, 438 Marden, two-field system, 139 Marlborough; Billingsley, Samuel, Presbyterian minister, 73—74; Castle Club, 97 ; Chantry lands, 70; Foster, Michael, 72, 80; Francis, Charles, 78, 88; great fire of 16538, 55; Gresley’s private school, 93; Holbrook the blacksmith, 55; Hospital of St. John Baptist, 41—4, 69; 2 Ug 634 INDEX TO VOL: LI. Inns, 88—9; Hughes, William, dissenter, 61—2; Jesus service in St. Mary’s, 45; in St. Peter's, 44; Kyllyngehouse, 45; Lip- yeatt, Jonathan, 79; Maces, 228: Non-comformists; ~61 ; Perry sharwells is of aS Peter’s, 68—9 ; Puritan Academy, 62, 69, Gales Sacheverell, Dr. Henry, 68—9, LES Margaret’ s Priory, 292, 510°" St. Mary's, Vicarial library, 58; Vicars 212: Stage plays in 16th and 17th cent., 51; Twells, Lemuel, V. of St. Marys, (74;° Ward, John, 47, 79, 88—9: White Horse, 93 Williams, Sir Erasmus, R. of St. Peter’s, 102, 105; Winter, Cornelius, . 83; Wykeham House, 92 Marlborough Castle, Constables of, 286, 503 College, N.H-S. Report noticed, 114, 347 Marlborough Forest, 279 “Marlborough Grammarian,’ 109 Marlborough Grammar School, History of, by A. R. Stedman, 41—112; Ailesbury family, 57 ; Amalgamation schemes, 103 ff, ElLO: £2 Bruce, {Lords “1037 itt: Brown, 7) jane; of Covtles; benefactions, 66 f; Chantry land, 54, 69; Hospital lands, 69 f; Master’s salary, 47, 54, 60, 89, 98, 107; Mayor visitor, 59; Old Library, 50, 57, 84; Oration, 60, 82, 85,89; School house, 47, 49, 85, 87; Somerset, Duke of, 46; Sarah, Duchess of, benefactions, 65 f; scholar- ships, 64—7, 74, 100—3, 107; Marlborough Grammar School, . (head) masters of : Bond, Rev. F. H.,.106, 109 - 12; Butler, J.; HOt Gue Cath, O25 oGe a seer aledee Coggynes, 47 f{; Edwards, Rev. J... 78; 82, 88 >: Evans, 48; Hearne, A., 48; Hemerford, 48; Hildrop, J., 68 ff, 72—5, S45 Tawes,oivev ae a tape oe 93: ff, “97 > Marting: 4). 94: Meyler, Rev T., 78—82; Rev. T. (Jun.), 96—9, 102 £; North, jn. 55, = Priok, ooG. owen, ec. 55, 62; Smith, 48, 51 ff; Stone, Rev. W., 76; Watton, 68; Welch, 55, 62; Wydley, 48 Marshal -jamitlys 9) = (@ariss aor Pembroke), 366 Martin (Hants), 611—2 Martinsell, 256, 291 place-names, ‘Mason’s Marks on Edington Church, by 8B. Howard Cunnington,, FS.A., Scot., 378—380; Marks in Oxon and Cotswolds, 378; Kennet and Avon Canal, Bradford Tithe- barn, 379 Edington exam - ples figured, 380 Mason’s marks at Winchester, 470; at Salisbury and Claren-_ don, 620 Maton, W. G., conchologist, 458 Matthews, Miss E. M., obit., 475 Maurice family of Marlborough, 92 Dhelwell sure. 294 Col. G. K., on the Kennet, 613 : Maurois,, André, at -Avebuny Manor, 346 Medford, Walter, Chancellor of Sarum, 488 Merriman family of Marlborough, 77, 81—8, - 98, 99 Nathaniel, 73, 81 Re 98—101 Mervyn (Marvyn) family of Pert- wood and Upton, 392, 394—6; pedigree, 397 Meyler family, of Marlborough, 78—82, 89, 96—9, 102—4 Meyrick, Oy Early Iron Age Sites in Marlborough district, 256—63 ; gift, 478; notice by, 614 Meuta, Gerald de, 264—5 Meyrick, Owen: Notes on some Early Iron Age sites in the Marlborough district, 256—— 263 Miles, T., of Potterne, 348 ‘‘Momes Leaze Roll’’, 172 -Mompesson family: Eliz., 266; John? > 266); Katherine, 19; Richard, 266 INDEX TO VOL~ El, 635 Mompesson House, Sarum Close, 19 Montague, George, conchologist, 458 Mont-Ste Catherine Abbey (Reims), 366 Mormons and Parish Registers, 620 Moths: Chocolate Tip, Pine Hawk, 620 . Murray Smith, Mrs. E. M., obit., 475 ) Mylne, Bishop, Vicar of Marl- borough, 202 Museum Extension Fund, con- tributors, 268—270 Nettleton, two-field system, 139 Neolithic finds, Farleigh Wick, 44] Nevill, John, 264—-5 Neville, Hugh de, 287—8 Robt. B. of Sarum, 495 Newnton, two-field system, 139 Newentone (? Long Newnton), enclosure, 141 Newton, South, three-field sys- tem, 140 Newton Tony, 140, 147 Nourse, ‘‘Campania Felix’’, 147 Oare,, Geoffrey of, 296 Oglander, Sir. J., memoirs, 14 Ogilby’s ‘‘ Britannia’’, 147 Olivier, Edith, ‘“‘ Four. Victorian Ladies of Wiltshire’’, noticed, 114 ; - Orchises, abundant (1946); rare hybrid, 599 Osborne White, H. J., on sarsens, - 420, 430f Overton: Delling, heaped sar- sens at, 427; East, three-field system, holdings, 140; West, two-field system, 139; standing sarsens at 438 Owen, R.D., gift, 241 Pafford, J. H. P., gifts, 477 Parish Registers, 620 Parliamentary Committees on Enclosure, 127 Passing of a River, by G. K. M,, noticed, 618 Passmore, A]. DD: on. slitting cow’s ears, 118; the Templar’s Bath, 116; Wanborough seal, 118; mounds at Wanborough, 349 ; gifts, 241, 360, 478 Paston, J., on the 1549 Rising, 143 Pear, Wild, native? 562 Peirson, L. G., Wiltshire Bird Notes 216—7; on rare moths, 620 Pembroke: 4th Earl of, Captain Of- On W2 115 Purlieu in Savernake, 583 Peters, Rev. A. E. G., V. of Marl- borough, 203 Peto, Sir Basil E., obit., 120 Perpetua, ot, 1 Pershute, Nich. de, E. Winters- low, 19 Philpon, John, 264 Phipps; sir Ene CE. ; obit.,. 237 Pierce, John (Devizes), 344 Rob. R. of N. Tidworth, 3844 Thos., Pres. of .Magd. Coll., Oxford, 195, Dean ‘of Sarum—9, 344 Piggott, Prof. Stuart, Harly Bronze Age Vessel from Ash- ley Hill, near Salisbury, 384 f Pisa, Council of, 490 Pitta 6 Joikts, 2415 625) Pole; Sir.F;, gitt, 359 E.R., on Bedwyn clock, 474 Pollernmede at Stibbe (Burbage), 374 Pollyng (Hants), 330 Poole, E. H. L., notes on place- names, 611—2 Popes: Alexander IV, 481; Boni- face IX, 381, 483; Clement IV, 366; Honorius III, 366; Inno- cent III, 365; John XXIII, 490 f; Martin V, 491; Urban V; VI, 371 Popham, J., of Littlecote, Ran- ger of Savernake, 545 : Potterne Manor, 172 Pottery, Iron Age A, 256, 258; Iron Age B, 260; Romano- British, 258, 260 636 INDEX TO VOL. LI. Preshute, leaning sarsen (lost), 439 Provisors, Statute of, re-issued, 484 Prower, Brig. J. M., gifts, 360 Prynne, Sir Gilbert, Ranger of Savernake, 537 Purton, three-field system, 139 ; “Roll 67—716—_li2 Pusey (Berks), 195, 344 Puthall, Savernake, 372 Wm. of, 289 Quidhampton, three-field system, 140 Radnor, Dowager Countess of, obit., 354 Rameshull, William of, 304, 314 Ramsbury Chase, 274 Ralph Ergham, B. of Sarum, 369 Rawlence, Major Maurice, obit., 121 Raynesbourn (Ringeborne) fam- ily, 332, 335—6, 374, 502, 504, 509 Redcherde (Redshard) of Woden- esdich, 299 Rees, Henry: Malmesbury, Its Castle and Walls, 184—192 Regardaunte of Savernake, 311 Regarders, 306 Register of British Archives, 227 Ridgeway, Dr., B. of Sarum, 203 Robert de Bingham, B. of Sarum, 366 Robert Wyvill, B. of Sarum, 369 Robertson, Mrs. D. H., writings, 480 Robinson, Hugh, author, 345 Roche Court, E. Winterslow, 19 Roche (Roches) family, 23; Sir J., 20, 264 Guy de, 264; Eliz., 265 ; Rockbourne (Hants), enclosures, 141 Roger, Abbot of Malmesbury, B. of Sarum, 186, 496 Romano-British pottery, Saver- nake, 359 Roman road at Easton Royal, 377 Rosier, J.,of Wootton Bassett, 145 ‘*Royal Wilts Yeomanry’’, by Lt.-Col. P. W. Pitt, noticed, 466 Russell, Wm., of Knowle, 300 Ryngeborne, see Raynesbourn Ryvere, Thomas de la, Sheriff, 264 St. Amand, Lady, 265 St. Martin, Sibilla de, 314 St. Maur, Sir Wm., 338, 500 St. Osmund, miracles, 480: ser- mon on, 479, 491; canoniza- tion, 486, 492 Salisbury, Bishop’s Palace, 352 —3; St. Thomas’s Ch., 372 See also Saruin Salisbury Plain, 148, 152 “Sanctuary’’, Overton Hill, Destruction of, 470 Sarsen : in Winding Combe, Alton Priors, 486; Imp Stone, Sil- chester, 437; Kinwardstone or Devil’s Waistcoat, 431, 436; Marlborough College, 423, 437 ; Hanging Stone, Alton Barnes, 436; Cuckoo Stone, Durring- ton, 432; Ecbrihtes Stone, 422, 482: Ethelferth’s Stone, 422 Sarsens, by H. C. Brentnall, F.S.A., 419—439; bedding, 431; burning, 422; distribution map, 435; : ““Ssaracens- 2.— 425) fe fossils in, 480 f Sarsens: Marlborough Downs, 419; Fyfield, 420; Clatford, 421: Avebury, 422; Overton Delling, 427; Chute Causeway, 431; Windsor, 423; Salisbury Plain, 432 f; Somerset, 483; London area, 437; Berks, Dorset, Kent, 488; Kimmer- idgian? 615 Sarum, Bishops of: oath, 482; visitation ; 483 ; prebends, 481 ; position in Chapter, 481 Richard Poore, 481 Mortival, 482,485 Waltham, 482f Wyville,482 Simon of Ghent, 482, 489 Giles of Bridport, 4838 John Chaundler, 487 494 Robt. Hallum, 487 Rich. Melford, 488 Simon Sidenham, 495 Robt. Neville, 495 INDEX TO VOL. LI. 637 Sarum, Boy Bishop, 494 The Medieval Chapter of Salisbury Cathedral, by Dr. E. F. Jacob, F.B.A., F.S.A., 479—495 Chapter, 480, 489; choristers, 480; Canons resi- dentiary, 484 f; non-resident, -485; cantarists, 480; clerks, 480; communars, 482, 494: Registers or Act Books, 480, 486; vicars choral, 480 Use at Easton Priory, 371 Sarum prebends: Major Pars Altaris, 481;- Horton, 481; Potterne, 481; Canons’, 483; Axford, 492 Savernake Forest, article on, noticed, 224; fauna, 117; olim Safernoc, 272; perambulations, 21a, 285,- 298, 306: fence month, 292, 316; K. John’s charter, 285; foresters, 504; other officers, 505, 511 ff, 546; lieutenant, 509; rangers, 537, 539, 545 ff; warrens, 540; parks, 522; bailiwicks, 504 f; poaching, 506, 509f; sport, 512, 525, 541; passes to Ed. Seymour, 526; Henry VII hunting, 512; James I hunting, 541; wood stealing, 539; sen- eschal, 319, 323 Savernake Forest place-names: Alreneden Well, 299 Bagden, 537; Bentelwell, 300; Birch Coppice, 300, 307; Bollesweye 314; Boreham Wood, 290; Braydon Hook, 300, 307: -.Brimslade, - 537: Broyle bailiwick, 283, 290; Buneclive, 291, 299, 806; Bur- bage Wharf, 276 Cole Road, 300; Croft of St. Margaret’s, 299; Crokeres- thorpesende Cross, 299 Durley, 276, 281 Evesbury, 299 “‘Great Bound’’, 537: Great Ditch, 527; Great Lodge, 537; Great Park, 587, 539 Hawkridge (Granham Hill), 299, 304, 307; Hippenscombe bailiwick, 288, 290, 297; Holt Coppice, 307; Holtebal, 300; Holt Pound, 300, 307 Knowle, 276, 299, 332 La Verme bailiwick, 275, 277, 281, 283, 301, 316; Lechen- hardescroft, 299; Leigh Hill, SOT: Lilbon (Lilbourne’s) Heath, 307; Little Frith, 307 Manton, 276, 299; Martinsell, 276; Morlee, 283, 300 Old Farm, 282 Priory Wood, 293; Puthall Wood, 299, 307, 327, Putte, la, 299 Red Vein, 299 Shutecroft, 296; Southgrove bailiwick, 283, 290; Stokke, 276, 300; Sturmeyesdown, 285; Sweynepath, 300 Timbridge, 276, 286, 299, 382 ; Topenhayes, 522; Tottenham, 307,-005,.537, do2 Voronzoff Lodge, 300 Wallesmere, 300; Warren, 300; West baily, 277, 283, 290, 301; Wodeditch, 300, 310, 318 Ywode (near Brimslade), 318 Savernake Forest, The Wardens: of, by the Earl of Cardigan, 271—3839 The Conquest and Richard Estormit, 272 Esturmi, Henry: temp. Henry II, 281 Esturmit, Henry: temp. Henry I, 279 Esturmy, Geoffrey: temp. Richard I, 282 Sir Geoffrey: 1226— 1254, 287 Henry: temp: King John, 283 Sir 3 Henry : 1254—1295, 293 Henry of Wolthall: 1295—1305, 298 Henry (the elder) : 1305—1338, 302 Sir Henry: 1338—1381, 321 Sir William: 1382—1427, 329 Esturmy v. de Bilke- more, 31] Genealogical Table, 339 Savernake Forest, The Wardens. of, Part II: The Seymour Wardens, by the Earl of Cardi- gan, 500—5d4 Sir John — (1427—65), 500—506; John, 638 (1465—91), 506—513; Sir John (1491—1536), 514—20 ; Edward, D. of Somerset, 520— 5925; Protector of the Realm, 525—529 ; Edward, E. of Hertford, 529—541 ; The troublesome grandson, 542— 544; Wm., M. of Hertford, 545—551; Wm., D. of Somer- set, 551, 552; John, D. of Somerset, 552—554 Savernake Great Park, grouped sarsens near Wansdyke, 438 Say, Philip de, 305 “‘Scobs ’”’ at Marlborough Gram- mar School, 48, 55 Scratch Dial, Holy Swindon, 470 Securis, John, of Salisbury, 345 Sedgewick family of Ogbourne, 52—3 Selfe, Isaac, of Melksham, 76 Semere, John, of Burbage, 302 Semington, three-fieldsystem, 140 Seth Smith, Miss D. U., gifts, 378, 477 ; on mason’s marks at Edington, 470; on Edington Church heraldry, 616 Seymore, Thos. de, 264 Seymour, Alfred, of Knoyle, 388 Seymour family tree, 501; Sir Roger of Hache-Beauchamp, 332, 500; Cecilia (de Beau- champ), 500; Sir Wm., 500; Roger, 500; Matilda (Esturmy), 500; Sir John, 279, 336 f, 338, 500 ff; Isabella (Williams), 502, 506, 508; John, 503; Eliz. (Coker), 503 ; Roger (of Broyle), 504; John, 506 ff; Eliz. (Darrell), 506, 513; Alex., 510 f; Sir John, 514 ff; Margery (Wentworth), 515, 522 ; Ed. (Protector) 517 ff; Jane (Queen) 517 ff; Cath. (Fillol), 520 f, 526 ; Anne (Stan- hope), 520, 524; Ed. (E. of Hertford), 529 ff; Cath. (Grey), 531 f; Ed. (Ld. Beauchamp), 534; Honora (Rogers), 535; Frances (Howard), 535; Wm., (2nd LD. of Somerset), 542— 551 ; Sir Ed., 542; Arabella (Stuart), 543 ff; Frances (Devereux), Rood Ch., | INDEX TO VOL. LI. 544; Wm., (Ld. Beauchamp), 549 ; Henry, 549; Mary (Capel), 550; Eliz. (Lady Betty), 551, 554; Wm. (8rd Duke), 551; John (4th Duke), 552; Sarah (Duch. of Somerset), 553 f; Pedigree, 281, 500n., 531n., 541 ~ Barony, 526; burials: Easton, 519; Great Bedwyn, 279, 519, 551 f; Salisbury, 544 Thomas, Ld. Seymour of Sudeley, 526; Algernon, D. of Somerset, 175; Margaret (Wadham), 15 Sharington family of Lacock: Sir Wm., 3, 9, 10 Sir Hy 10 Olive m. John Talbot, 10 Sir R., 10 Sharncott, three-field system, 139 Sharp, Thos., obit., 621 Shaw Mellor, A. An Early British Coin from Box, 193; Parish Boundaries in relation to Wansdyke, 24—27; gifts, 119, 125 Sherston, two-field system, 139 Shipton Bellinger ; sarsen, 432 Shortt, Maior H. de S., Bronze Age Beakers from Larkhill and Bulford, 381—3 Sidenham, Simon, Dean and B. - of Sarum, 495 Sigismund, Emperor, 491, 495 Silchester (Hants), ‘‘ Imp”’ stone, 437 : Simeon, Simon, King’s Yeoman, 322 Simpson, George, .obit., 121 Slade J. J., A Wiltshirewoman’s Monument in Godshill Church, 174—8; A Wiltshirewoman’s Tomb in Carisbsoke Church, 14—17 Slater, Dr., on Enclosure Acts, 128—9, 147, 151, 154 Sleights (pastures), 146 Smith, Thomas, of Melksham, 76 George, of Gt. Bedwyn, 204 Soil polygons (Arctic), 409—12 Somerset, H.C.S.A., obit., 239 Somerset, Protector, at Easton‘ 375 INDEX TO VOEs LI, 639 Southwick, three-field system, 140 Stalking horses (Savernake), 539 Standen Hussey, 345 Stanton Drew (Som.), Hautville’s Quoit, 433 Stanton Fitzwarren, sarsen, 438 Stanton St. Bernard Down, Late Bronze Age sherds, 258; rect- angular enclosure, 258 Stanton St. Quintin, two-field system, 139 : Stapleford: manor, 330, 336; advowson, 373 f Statute of Mortmain, 327 Stedman, A. R., A History of Marlborough Grammar School, 41—112; noticed, 220—1 ; gift, 241 Steeple Ashton, three-fieldsystem, 140 Stephen of Tisbury, Archd. ‘of Wilts 366-f, 375 Stevens, Dr. J., on sarsens, 421 Still family of Clowdes, 392, 402 ; pedigree, 393 John; 2B: of Bath and Wells, 392 Stockton, four-field system, 140 _ Stoford, three-field system, 140 Stokescombe (Stitchcombe) Roger de, 299 Stokey, Joan (de Beaumont), 329 Stone, eG. FSA. -(L:0.W.);-174 Stonehenge, mark on fallen stone, nah) Stonehouse, Duke, M.P., 344 Francis, M.P., 345 George, M.D., 344 Stormy (Sturmy) Walter de, 303 Stubbs, A. G., conchologist, 462 Stukeley on sarsens, 429 Sturmid, Ricardus, 273, 294 Sturmi, Peter, 303 Sturmy, Sir Geoffrey, land to Easton Priory, 367; a brother in that house (?), 370; died in Wales (?), 456 Henry, 303, 512 John, 335 Ph., Stephen, Thos., 303 Wim., 335 See also Esturmy, Stormy, Sturmid and Savernake Forest Stutescombe (Stitchcombe), 289 Stunton, Kev. J.-A. obit 121 Suthmeére (Seymour Pond, Bur- bage), 283 Sutton, three-field system, 139 Sutton, B., on old cottages, 614 Swallowcliff, two-field system, 139 Swanton, E. W., of Haslemere, naturalist, 461 Swastika (fylfot) as mason’s mark, 378 Swindon, notes on; 241, 477; Review noticed, 224 f, 469 Symonds, R._ (1644), Diary quoted, 420 Tabular Sarsens and Mud Cracks, by Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington, 405—18 Tarrant, J. G., gift, 125 Tate, W. E., A Hand List of Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards, 127—73 Taxation of Pope Nicholas, 4 Teffont Magna, carved stones, 350—1 Tegart, Sir Charles A., obit., 355 ‘‘Templar’s Bath ” sarsen (Preshute), 116, 486 Teucrium Botrys at Uffcot, 247 Theodore of Tarsus, Archb. of Canterbury, 24 ; homson,; Dr. 1. k., gift, 625; ‘‘ Short History of Cricklade’’, noticed, 467 Three-field townships, 139 Thynne, Frances, 175—7 Sir John, 527, 529 f, 583 -ir Thos., Viscount Weymouth, 176 Thomas murdered, 175 Tichborne, Anne (1540), 388; ~ “€Claimant’’, 388 see also Tuchebourne Tidcombe, 295, 304, 372 Tingle, A. (Ottawa), gift, 359 Tocotes, Sir Roger, 265 Toope family of E. Knoyle, 400 Topper, Christina and Maud, of Marlborough, 304 Tottenham or Toppenham, Savernake, 505; Lodge (Pen- ham), 522, 527, 534, 541, 552 Townships of Wilts, list of Enclosures, 154—171 640 INDEX TO VOL. LI. Trevor-Cox, Capt. H. B., Further Notes on the Manor of E. Winterslow, 18—23; Manor of E. Winterslow (Part Itt), 264-6 Trinitarian Friars and Haston Royal by Lt.-Col. H. F. Chettle, C.M.G., O.B.E., 365—377 Founders of order, 365; at Cerfroy, 366; called Red Friars, 365; Maturins, 366; Con- stitutions (1198), 365; revised (1267), 866; distribution, 366; Ministers General, 367, -370, 373; English Provincials, 367, 871: ‘Hundred Years War,- 369; Verberie, 3870; Great Schism, 371; Robert Gaguin, 373 Trinitarians in England: -t1 houses, 366 ff ; Easton founded, 366 ; Hertford a cell of Easton, 368 Patrons: Sturmys, 367, 369, 371 ff; Seymours, 373 f Dissolution, 375 Stephen of Tisbury, 367, 375 Ministers of Easton, 367, 374. listiot, 376) Site of Priory, 376 Ailesbury MSS., 376 Drueys bequests, 367 ff Proctors, 368, 373 Easton Church, 368, 371 ‘« Trowbridge, Parish Church of St, James 7 bya hoo @. =. Pitt noticed, 466 Trussell (of Winterslow), Anne, 265 Edward, 266 Sir Wm., M.P., 265 Turpin, Matthew (E. Winterslow), 18 Pucker} K. H., V: pe le 201—2 Two field townships, 139 Tychebourne, John de, 317 Lis Ugford, North, three-field system, 140 Ulfela (Wolfhall), 295 Ullerston, Richard, Sermon on St. Osmund,.479, 491 ; writings, 490 Underwood, Gay. Early Hritish Settlement at Farleigh Wick and Conkwell, 440—52; gift, 477 ‘‘Unhook’’ custom explained, 140 Upton Manor (Knoyle), 392, 395 Upton, Nich., Canon of Sarum, 492, 494; wrijings, 493 . Urns from Farleigh Wick, 446 © Valentinian I, coin of, 258 Verderers of Savernake Forest: Blake, Walter le, 306 ; Caperigge, William de, 298; Dysmars, Nicholas, | 298; Grymstede, ‘Peter de 306; Homedieu, Robert, 306 ; Kenete, John de, 298; Polton, Thomas de, 298 ; Wake, John, 306 Verlucio, 24, 25 Vicar’s Ihibrary, St. WMary’s, Marlborough, by E. G. H. Kempson, 194—215; Addenda, 344—-5; Baxter, Richard on Thomas Pierce, 197; bindings, 207: books of interest, 212; canon, law, 206 = Craddock Walter, 197; Cressy, Father, 197 ; Creswick, H. R., Bodley’s Librarian, 205; educational works, 204; Edwards, Thomas, 197; general literature, 206; Hutchinson, Dr. F E, of All Souls, 203; incunabula, 206 ; Jones; 'Canon, -R., of Marr borough, 205; Lester, William, of Marlborough, 201; liturgical works, 206; Mayor and Corp- oration trustees, 204; medical books, 206; on permanent loan to Marlborough College, 204 ; Petition for Mr. Yeates, 211; political lute, 2077; Smmiviage vine George, of Bedwyn, 205; Swann, Canon, R. of Marl- borough, 204; William White’s will, 208— 210: Wordsworth, Canon, makes catalogue, 204 —5 Wadham, Lady Marg., 14 Walter of Kingsettle (Som.), 369 INDEX “LOMVor. ts 641 Wanborough, seal from, 118; mounds at, 349; MS. notes on, 241 Wandsdyke, Parish Boundaries in relation to. By A. Shaw Mellor, 24—7; Belgae, 24; separates parishes in Somerset and Wilts, 27; near Monkton - Farleigh, 24; on Morgan’s Hill, 24: in Neston Park, 25; Gen. Pittekivers and Kev..C. S. Taylor on, 26 Ward, John, of Marlborough, 77, 79. Seth, B. of Sarum, 199 Wardens of Savernake Forest, The, 271—339; Part II, 500 —554, by the Earl of Cardigan : for details see under Savernake Forest Waylen, Dr. G. H. H., 267 Warminster, two-fieldsystem, 139 Washerne (in Wilton), three-field system, 140 Webb, W. A., gifts, 125, 267, 359, ~ 478 West Country Wills, appeal, 353 West Kennett Long Barrow, 438 West Woods, standing sarsen, 438; oval barrow with sarsen cham- ber, 438 White, Wm., of Oxford, 194—7, 204,208—210, 344; of Wargrave (Berks), 344% ™ Whitsbury (Hants), sarsens at, 433 Whyte, Edith le, of Marlborough, 304 Wild Boar in Savernake, 525 Wilee, J., of Savernake, 326 William de Erchesfonte, .369 William of Malmesbury, 184 Williams, Alfred, by Leonard Clark, noticed, 113 Willis—(Basingstoke), gifts, 360 Willow, hermaphrodite, 118 Wilton carpets, 468 Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Society: Annual Meeting and Excur- sions, 1946, 464 f{; extension of Museum, 218 f; Accounts, 243—6, 361—4; Report, 267— 70 Records Brarch re- vived, 268 Natural History Section inaugurated, 584 f Wiltshire Bird Notes, by L. G. Peirson, 216—7; by Mrs. Ruth Barnes (1946), 586—98 Wiltshire Books, Pamphlets and Articles, 113—5, 220—5; 34 6—8; 466—9, 6183—4 Wiltshire Enclosure Acts and Awards, Hand List of, by W. E. Tate, F.R. Hist. S., 127— 73; early enclosures, 141; methods, 131; awards, 184—5; private Acts, 131; general Acts, 1338; facts and statistics, 127 ; notes and queries, 172; other records, 136; survivals of open lands, 151; list of Acts and Awards, 154—171 Wiltshive Life, magazine, noticed, 467 Wiltshire Mollusc Collectors, by C. D. Heginbothom, 457—463 Wiltshire Obituaries, 120—4, 235 —40, 354—8, 475—6, 621—4 Wiltshire Place- and Field Names, I, 6]1—2 Wiltshire Plant Notes, by J. D. Grose, 28—32, 247—55, 599— 610 Wiltshire woman’s Monument in Godshill Church ?, by J. J. Slade, 174—8 ; Wiltshirewoman’s Tomb, in Carisbrooke Church, by J. J. Slade, 14—17 Winterbourne, two-field system, 139 Winterslow, East, Further Notes on History of the Manor by Capt H. B. Trevor-Cox, M.P.., 18—23; founded, 18; hall, kitchens, solar, tithe-barn, 20; M.P’s. connected with, 21 Wise, Miss G. A., gift, 125 Withy, A. E., obit., 622 Wlfal, Berengarius de, 295 Wodehous Close, Savernake, 505 Wolfhall Manor, 295, 313, 323, 329, 332, 502 f; house, 518; barn; -.522::.7 gardens; ~ 517; kennels, 525; parks, 517; pro- visions, 523f; K. Henry VIII at, 517, 521; J. Aubrey on, 552f. 642 INDEX TO VOL. LI. Woodhenge, sarsen at, 433 Woods, Margaret L., obit., 476 “Wootton Bassett enclosure dis- pute, 144 Wordsworth, Canon Chr. R., of Marlborough, 202—3 ; Chancel- lor of Sarum, 479, 485 Worsley family (I.o.W,) : James, 176. Sir Rich., 14, 174 Sir Robt., 174—8 Wotton Lawnd in Vasterne, 144 Wren, Dr. Christopher, at Knoyle, 400—4 Sir Christopher, 401, 404; on sarsens, 427 Wroughton family, 510 ff, 533 Wykestonde in W. Grafton, 505 Wylye, three-field system, 140 Wynkyn de Worde, 204 Yatesbury, two-field system, 139 Yatton, 146 | Yeate, Cornelius, V. of Marlbo- rough, 194, 198—201, 208, 211, 344 “Young Bess’, by Margaret Irwin, noticed, 846 Young, J. M., Chairman of Records Branch, 268; gift, 125 Printed and Published by C. H. Woodward, Exchange Buildings, Station Road, Devizes.” THE SOCIETY’S PUBLICATIONS To be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes. THE BRITISH AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES OF THE NORTH WILTSHIRE DOWNS, by the Rev. A. C. Smith, M.A. Atlas 4to. 248 pp., i7 large maps, and 110 woodcuts, extra cloth. One copy offered to each member of the Society at {1 1s. A few copies only. CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUITIES IN THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. Part II. 2nd Edition 1935. Illustrated, 2s. 6d. By post 3s. BACK NUMBERS of tHe MAGAZINE. Price to the public, from 2s. 6d. to 8s., according to published price, date, and condition (except in the case of a few numbers, the price of which is raised). Members are allowed a reduction of 25 per cent. from these prices. WILTSHIRE INQUISITIONES POST MORTEM, CHARLES I, 8vo, pp., vil. + 510. Fully indexed. In parts, as issued. Price 13s. DEO. HENRY Li EDWAKD. I, and EDWARD II: 8vo.,, pp. xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 13s. DITTO. EDWARD III. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts as issued. Price 13s. A BIBLIOGRAPHY oF THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS of WILTSHIRE, STONEHENGE anp AVEBURY, with other references, by W. J. Harrison, F.G.S., pp 169, 4 illustrations. No. 89 (1901) of W.A.M. Describes 947 books, papers, &c., by 732 authors, 5s. 6d. THE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS Ny EISTORY, BY FH. B.. WALTERS, F.S.A. In 3 Parts. Price 16s. (Separate Parts can no longer be sold.) A CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, Pde EO. i272, BY E. A. FRY. 8vo., pp, 103. Price 6s: All the remaining copies of the following works by Capt. B. H. and Mrs. CUNNINGTON have been given by them to the Society and are now on sale at the following prices :— ALL CANNINGS CROSS (Excavations on site of Hallstadt period, 1923). By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. F.S.A., Scot. 4to. cloth, 53 Plates. 21s. WOODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28), By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Fon. E.S.A., Scot. <4to..cloth, 2s. THE POTTERY FROM THE LONG BARROW AT WEST KENNETT, BY MRS. CUNNINGTON. 4to. 18 plates. 6s. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS;: es — We tye Be ro! pagers > sits we Sia bated Anise SST ae ma ee SASS iit: feet [eeison taht * Vane ie ie ie veers ane ieee: cee Siu riitoess reins Eine Botte ela TR Repeal rere TS Sanita wet ie ww A me Sh Fen ange = Bs pane he mtr bet et ties é Seige aon Salant eta wt poe ose il Sashys eh deed TV Se tomep . Ete die Sn. pets hes ah Se ove a teeta, tA iat ae atte! eee el N ~ A palates Poon ys. S : az ti ees = Smstas tai hinge y wr perk ah lew ie eben ene NY ~