er encctyen cane diben antes ere es a en idea idan ioe arti teem iL ur Oe AD Ne lb POR PEG Nah le a OU, aetna gear eees ein Te =" a ees oe Ae anes gee ey ere * ‘ ex, €: Ie a a +3 ¥ Lat) ? 54 oy 7,1 o., o 5 on Fates et etre f The Wiltshire ea, we ), en ell Archeological and Natural History Magazine PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT County A.D. 1853 EDITED BY E. E. SABBEN-CLARE THE COLLEGE, MARLBOROUGH Hon. ASSISTANT EDITORS: Owen MEyRICK RIDGELANDS, RAMSBURY J. M. Prest BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD VOL. LVI Nos. 202—205. JUNE, 1955—-DECEMBER, 1956 DEVIZES: C. H. Woopwarp, EXCHANGE BuitpINcs, STATION Roap. DECEMBER, 1956 CONTENTS OF VOL. LVI No. CCII. JUNE, 1955 In Memoriam, Harold Creswell Brentnall.............. Marden and the Cunnington Manuscripts: By Lt.-Col. [RCSB (GiE Toba 53 6) 61s a a a i Strip Lynchets at Bishopstone, Near Swindon, Wilts, Excavated in 1954: By Peter Wood, M.A........ AW 2, Natural History Section: Field Meetings and Lectures, 1954: Report by the Hon. Meetings Secretary, Beatrice Gillam... 2. .....00.0..5 iinet Weather Of 1054. 62). coheed eo Ree EERE. Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954: Recorders, Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.0.U.,’ and Guy Peirson. 2.70.00... 2... The Common Curlew as a Wiltshire Breeding Bird: By Lt.-Col. J. K. Stanford, 0.B.E., M.C., M.B.O.U.. Wiltshire Plant Notes (16): Rieceler Danald: ibe. ERS ae ss ha see Nek MAA tk gh 22 oe MOEN Sen re Serta cco e io otal aa Cl eliem ei ok Mev alisl aie a REEL Oe eed wleneie eeereive Entomological Report for 1954: By B. W. Weddell .... One Effect of Rabbits on Downland Vegetation: By C. ail) Overy Veet RI ON, AY) Bea oe, Annual Statements of Accounts, 1954.............0-- The Choir of Old Sarum: By Hugh Braun, F.s.a......... The Anglo-Saxon Name for the Avebury Circle: By ee Ger Edu eMPSONGes se oS Se ke Si ee ee ones The Wheelwright’s Shop: By E. G. H. Kempson........ Nores.—Present and Past Churches at Easton Royal. Mildenhall Church, Wiltshire. Water Eaton. The Bounds of Brokenborough, A.D. 956... 032.06... 6. Mvartsiire Books, Articles, Ete... 62040 60 8 oo es Pemmsnine @MitGarles. vids ds oe eek kee et Ae W.A.N.H.S. Records Branch—Hon. Secretary’s and Hon. imeastirer’s Weporttor-ios4/s. (ak Yd. eee e. Statement of INGEOUNIES MEN Hert Toth et a G2 ce ee es PAGE | real aa 4— II I2— 16 17 18 IQ— 29 SG Gy 35-430 390-— 48 490 je 52 3 54 55-= "59 60— 6I 62— 65 66— 690 1073 [aaa JS TO: 77 7—:79 80o— 8I iv CONTENTS TO VOL LVI. PAGE Accessions to the County Record/Office ....-.. 035. 4.2) 81— 82 List of Accessions to the Society's Library.............. 82 Accounts of the Society forthe Year 1055.0. 0 oa.5>-. 26 83— 85 No. CCI. DECEMBER, 1955 The Society Today and Tomorrow: Presidential Address delivered by R. B. Pugh, F.s.a., 24th September, 1955.. 87—1I01 Sorviodunum: By J. F. S. Stone, #.s.a. and D. J. Algar.... 102—126 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh: 1953, 1955. An Interim Report : By Nicholas Thomas and Charles TOMAS? ifsc oa eke Sebel cease ee 127—148 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire: By W. F. Rankine........ 149—I61 The Cricklade Excavation of 1953—54: By F. T. Wain- wright; “. 164-106 A Neolithic Pit on Waden Hill, Avebury: By Nicholas SPR OMIAS. avmiay sly) Reba Seal Se Sake cee 167—17I DAliscum) FRcpOrt, 1OS4-§5 0 oh ee ee 172—184 Wiltshire Banks: Articles: Ete: 0. 2a Boe ~ - ¥85—187 Nortes.—A Ground Flake from Dinton. A Blade Graver from Dinton. The Wheelwright’s Shop. Waledich. Burials at Bratton and Longbridge Deverell. Further Finds at Folly Farm, nr. Mildenhall. ‘The Broadstones’. Barrow Circles at Clatford. Romano-British Site at Burderop. Roman Ditch at Mildenhall. Carved Stones from Ramsbury Manor. A La Téne I Fibula from Fish- erton Delamere. Notes on the Place-Names of Wilt- lov eg sot kt Ls! EA Ee ee en MMM Pee Un Ga 9h | Aeneas 188—196 SUMINMIEL EXCMEMONS ATOSG) odio 2 yet wines epee aes Salen 197—I99 Wiltshire Obituaries: 56.30 o5 04-5 ca Pete eee vik oe 200—202 Annus) General Meeting, 105 Siu.) ene eerie dla ons ee 203 Acquisitions to The Society’s Library from 27th June, 1955 Gotalgorh A prl19$6.5. 2% sso os negsseeiee ae ines 204—205 List of IMbinbots ). aac tied cs) > cities eee ee ees 206—221 Accounts of the Society for the Year 1955...........045 222—225 CONTENTS TO VOL. LVI. v Nos. CCIV and CCV. JUNE and DECEMBER, 1956. PAGE Dect INGE ES 1/61 cease a's deera/ dled’ 0 ¢ieleils, syntereie's 6s clese os 227 Wiarcnce Woodburn Pugh... o/c ede une vend ooo es 228—230 Excavation and Field-work in Wiltshire: 1956: By N. MIMI TGNEAI AS eg Yule Lio 8 Alpes de ayer wiceh get e 4) «4 alia: ano catditn a 6-0 23 1-—252 An Early Bronze Age Barrow and Late Bronze Age Urn- field on Heale Hill, Middle Woodford: By J. W. G. Bolisctyeanidl |. ES, StONe, F.SiAstsd.0) logis ee wld wloie goes oes 2$3—261 Note on An Iron Age Habitation Site near Battlesbury Camp, Warminster: By S. E. Chadwick and M. W. MUMS yee cee se id oiaitye stesecht 6 sites 262—264. The Bounds of Ellandune c. A.D. 956: By T. R. Thomson, RSAC EORUEMISE Seg eA Lo, chur s tale coe etdse. a bie sodeel ee 6 6 265—270 The Battle of Ellandune A.D. 825: By T. R. Thomson, BAW AP MMPORVEISU:S 2s oe se) esi c e cceleleiy gales oduelpe gece 0 270—271 itree Wiltshire Speakers: By J.'S: Roskell..- 520.2. .... 272-358 Avebury Manor: By Sir Francis Knowles, Bart........... 359—378 Samuel Petrie and the Borough of Cricklade: By John ESTA OM ee esis rains hee die sleds byidiSlelovavele Se CUR ere eco eee o's 371 —387 The Spas and Mineral Springs of Wiltshire: By J. H. P. Pei tbeea! oI ONIN AM lard A eet en On ee Ge a 388—389 Notes.—Stone Coffin at Bradford-on-Avon. An Ancient British Forgery. Scrap Bronze from South Wiltshire. 18th Century Milestones on a Downs Track. Notes on Wiltshire Topography as Depicted in an Eighteenth PO nun OAC BOOK fees o iusa'e Mie vids fa oes 390—400 TG OKA RCENME WSU) sis Se icles ole onde Gaalelsie Day Ce « 40I—403 W. A. H.N. S. Museum, Devizes: Curator’s Report, 1956 404—41TI Biilestnire Obituaries: fei. oo. okie ls ee eee ee ee A241 Natural History Section: Field Meetings and Lectures, 1955: Report by the Hon. Meetings Secretary, Beatrice Gillam 414—415 Gite Weather‘of 1955: By R.A. U: Jennings............ 416 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1955: Recorders, Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.0.U., Guy Peirson and Geoffrey L. Boyle.. 417—429 The Corn Bunting in Wiltshire, Report of an Inquiry, con- ducted during 1951-52-53-54: Recorder, Cyril Rice.... 430—436 Nightingales in Wiltshire: By Geoffrey L. Boyle........ 437—438 Wiltshire Plant Notes (17): Recorder, Donald Edge...... 439—442 Entomological Report for 1955: By B. W. Weddell...... 443—445 vi CONTENTS TO VOL. LVI. PAGE Natural History Section—Statement of Accounts 1955.... 446 Additions to the Wiltshire and Natural History Society Library (atthe Museum, Devizes) (he. 447—448 Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society Records Branch—Hon. Secretary's and Hon. Treasurer’s Report for 1955/6; Hon. Editor’s Report for 1955/6 .... 449—452 Notes..on: Gontributors oe 0 i 453 Accesions to the County Record Office since June, 1955... 454 Finder Oe Re SEE Ee A55—465 CONTENTS TO VOL. LVI. Vu ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1; Site of the Strip Lynchets, 13. Fig. 2; Section through the Lower Strip Lynchets, Bishopstone, 15. Map 1; Location of stands and distribution of trees, 42. Map 2; Soil Values of stands and dis- tribution of selected species, 43. Plate; Rabbit Warrens, 53. The Choir of Old Sarum Cathedral, 57. Plough, 63. Plan; Plan show- ing convergence of Roman roads on Sorviodunum and the position of the Romano-British refuse layer at Paul’s Drive, 102. Fig. 2; Pot- tery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene, 112. Fig. 3; Pottery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene, 114. Fig. 4; Other finds from Old Sarum neighbourhood, 118. Plan; Snail Down and Ever- leigh, 131. Plan; Snail Down: Sites examined in detail, 1953—5, 133. Fig. 1; Soil Map of Wiltshire, 150. Fig. 2; Implements from Hack- pen Hill, 153. Fig. 3; Tranchet Axe from Bapton, 155. Fig. 4; Flint Artifacts from Bapton, 156. Fig. 5; Flint Artifacts from Dinton, 158. Fig. 1; Pottery, 169. Plan; The Museum, Devizes, Wiltshire, 177. Fig. 1; Ground Flake from Dinton, 188. Fig. 2; Blade Graver from Dinton, 189. Fig.; A La Téne I Fibula from Fisherton Delamere, 195. Fig. 1; Heale Hill Barrow and Cemetery, Plan and Section, 254. An Early Bronze Age Barrow and Late Bronze Age Urnfield—Figs. 2and 3, 256; Figs. 4 and 5, 258; Fig. 6, 260. Note on an Iron Age Habitation Site near Battlesbury Camp, Warminster—Fig. 1., 263; Plan and Detail, 264. Avebury Manor—Plate opp. 359; The Renaissance Knocker, opp. 363; The South Porch, opp. 365. Scrap Bronze from South Wiltshire, 394. Plate; 18th Century Milestone on a Downs Track, opp. 395. The Corn Bunting in Wiltshire—Map 1, 431; Map 2, 433. ‘ Dey wen) Teac: = 3 FEB 1956 No. CCII JUNE, 1955 Vol. LVI The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY IN THE YEAR 1853 HON. EDITOR HON. ASSISTANT EDITORS: H. WYLIE OWEN MEYRICK THE COLLEGE, MARLBOROUGH RIDGELANDS, RAMSBURY J. M. PREST BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD 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. WOODWARD Price ros. 6d. Members gratis The Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society The annual subscription is £1 with an entrance fee of 10s. A payment of £20 secures life-membership of the Society. Members who have not paid their subscriptions to the Society ~ for the current year are requested to send them at once to the Hon. Treasurer MR. F. W. C. MERRITT, Tawsmead, Eastleigh Road, 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 subscrip- tions. An 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 indexed separately. Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, The College, Marlborough. The Records Branch Founded in 1937 for the publication of original documents re- lating to the history of the county. The subscriptionis £1 yearly. New members are urgently needed. Hon. Secretary, Mr. M.G. Rathbone, Craigleith, Snarlton Lane, Melksham Forest, Wilts. The Branch has issued the following :-— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILT- SHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARD I AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939. Pp. xix + 190. _ ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRISONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBURY, 1645—1646. Ed- ited-by J.-H. P. Pafford.. 1940: Pp. 112... (Out of Print). CALENDAR OF ANTROBUS DEEDS BEFORE 1625. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1947. Pply + 166. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN SESSIONS, 1563, 1574— 1592. Edited by H.C. Johnson. 1949. Pp. xxvill + 246. LIST OF WILTSHIRE BOROUGH RECORDS EARLIER IN DATE THAN 1886. Edited by Maurice G. Rathbone. 1951. Pp. xiii + 108. THE TROWBRIDGE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY as illustrated by the stock books of John and Thomas Clark, 1804-1824. Edited by R. P. Beckinsale, D. Phil. 1950. Pp. xxxvi + 249. CALNE GUILD STEWARDS BOOK, 1561—1688. Edited by A. W. Mabbs. 1953. Pp. xxxiii + 150. ANDREWS’ AND DURY’S MAP OF WILTSHIRE, 1778. A reduced facsimile. Introduction by Elizabeth Crittall. 1952, Pp. iv + 19 plates. The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine No, CCII JUNE, 1955 Vol. LVI CONTENTS PAGE IN MEMORIAM, HAROLD CRESSWELL BRENTNALL 1— 3 MARDEN AND THE CUNNINGTON MANUSCRIPTS : Bymee-Colk Rk! To Cunnington oii iou ee ee 4— 11 STRIP LYNCHETS AT BISHOPSTONE, NEAR SWINDON, WILTS, EXCAVATED IN 1954: By Peter Wood, M.A. 12—16 NATURAL HISTORY SECTION : FIELD MEEEINGS AND LECTURES, 1954: Report by the Hon. Meetings Secretary, Beatrice Gillam 17 WBSEPNVEATHER OF 1954... of 0203 ose a Secs ee 18 WILTSHIRE BIRD NOTES FOR 1954: Recorders, Ruth G. Barnes, M.B.O.U., and GUY PEIRSON...... 19—29 THE COMMON CURLEW AS A WILTSHIRE BREED- [ING bIRD': By Lt.-Col... J:K. Stanford, O.B.E., IMCMMIVECOMU chen erly eeu Wee Soa ste EAS 30—34 WILTSHIRE PLANT NOTES (16) : Recorder, Donald Ee SCM See es erro Ne lu ek sae Se aba ly 35:00 A BOTANICAL SURVEY OF COLERNE PARK: By Donald Grose; F.L.S...:...... ee ae lel ca 39—48 ENTOMOLOGICAL REPORT FOR 1954: By B. W. RE CHCLEl Reamer et ene Ne oe ee Ds AOS= Hi ONE EFFECT OF RABBITS ON DOWNLAND VEGET- ARO wey ©-and DV Owen. ...0....800 600.565 ist, DEO ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, 1954.......... 54 THE CHOIR OF OLD SARUM: By Hugh Braun,F.S.A. 55—59 il THE ANGLO-SAXON NAME FOR THE AVEBURY CIRCLE By BE. Gs REMPSONG ie oe oe ce THE WHEELWRIGHT’S SHOP: By E. G. H. Kempson NOTES.—Present and Past Churches at Easton Royal. Mildenhall Church, Wiltshire. Water Eaton. The Bounds of Brokenberough, A.1D.956......54... WILTSHIRE BOOKS, ARTICEES- BUC)... ae WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES. (Re ee ee W.A.N.H.S. RECORDS BRANCH—HON. SECRETARY'S AND HON. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR 1954/5....... SEATEMENT OF, ACCOUNTS icc 06,0... aces oe eee ION EDITOR'S REPORT. oc... 5.0 nes ee ALGGESSIONS TO THE COUNTY RECORD. OFRIGCES.. LIST OF ACCESSIONS TO THE SOCIETY'S LIBRARY ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCEETY FOR THE YEAR 1955 | ILLUSTRATIONS rg se site Of tne Strip luylehnets! )...5.20.0 eee Fig. 2. Section through the Lower Strip Lynchets, BISMOPSEONMC asic wes on ete atk oc mee ree eee ac Seer Map 1. Location of stands and distribution of trees... Map 2. Soil Values of stands and distribution of SClECEC SPECIES ooo no wd ee eee Plate-— Rabbit Warrens..0ec. font a eee ee The. Choit of @ld:Sarum,Gathedraliginiiceuc sso eee PAGE 60—6l 62—65 66—69 70—73 74—75 76—77 78—79 80—81 81—82 82 83—85 iis INS) 42. 43 53 57 63 DEVIZES ; C. H. WOODWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD _ THE WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS No, CCIi JUNE, 1955 Vol. LVI IN MEMORIAM HAROLD CRESSWELL BRENTNALL Harold Cressweil Brentnall, Editor of this Magazine for thirteen years, died on 26th February, 1955. Born in Manchester in 1879, he went to Rugby and left as Head of the School, with a Classical Scholar- ship to Corpus Christi College, Oxford. There he took a first in Classical Honour Moderations and a second in Literae Humaniores, and after returning to Rugby to teach for a short time, came to Marlborough in 1903. He retired in July, 1939, but his retirement only lasted for a month, for he returned on the outbreak of war to serve for another five years. Few masters at Marlborough can ever have surpassed Brentnall in range of teaching subjects. He was originally and perhaps essentially a Classic, but he taught French and German, History and Economics and even some Mathematics: and he was profoundly read in English Literature. But he found the synthesis of all his teaching in Geography. C. C. Carter, who did as much as any man to start the teaching of Geography on modern lines, came to Marlborough four years after Brentnall and found in him a stimulating coadjutor. Their Marlborough Country (privately printed in 1910 and published in 1912) is a model of what a school local-geography should be. Though Geography was Brentnall’s latest and deepest teaching-love he never lost his delight in wide reading in all his other subjects. To the end he would compose elegant and amusing Latin or Greek verses on a chance incident that took his fancy, and it is his beautiful Greek epigram which is inscribed over the entrance to the Memorial Rose Garden at the College:— Kétwe0a wév xara ynv mioav. xqra Sévt Tad CUUPOLT@mEv ETL “VHWOCL THY POLWLEVOY. A colleague who knew him well and could appreciate the versatility of his learning once said, “‘ I should not be surprised if Brentnall had a Master Mariner’s Certificate somewhere among his credentials.” For he was no desk-bound scholar. His healthy face and robust frame suggested more a land-agent or a farmer. He was a devoted VOL.) LVI—CGII A 2 In Memorium Harold Cresswell Brentnall gardener and garden-planner. He had a love and knowledge of birds and trees and flowers. He was fond of tennis, and even at sixty he made occasional appearances on the hockey field where his hard hitting, a survival of a heartier form of the game, was a terror to his opponents. Indeed he never seemed to age, and, when past seventy and in poor health, remained a delightful companion to much younger men. Besides his work as a teacher the cause of education owes a good deal to Brentnall in other ways. In 1944 he was elected a member of the Marlborough College Council, and attended its meetings with great regularity. He was a member of the Wiltshire Education Committee from 1920 until 1952 and for some years was a governor of Marlborough Grammar School. The reader may well wonder where, in this record, there is a place for archaeology. Brentnall consistently refused offers of a House at Marlborough, and our Society may be deeply grateful that his hours of study were not severely curtailed, as they must have been, by the ties of pastoral and administrative responsibility that would have fallen to his lot had he accepted them. When he became a member of our Society has not been determined, but he first began to sit on the Committee in 1924 when he was elected a Local Secretary,—an office now abolished. He became a Vice-President in 1933 and was President from 1936 to 1938. In 1942 he succeeded Canon Goddard as Editor of this Magazine, and retained that post until his death. Such is the formal record of his long and honourable services, but the Society owes quite as much to him in less direct ways. At the end of his life and in a time of great difficulty for the Society he allowed himself to be ceaselessly applied to for advice by at least one President and imparted it unspar- ingly with the modesty, humour and tact with which he was abundantly endowed. Brentnall’s name is associated with two excavations in Wiltshire. In 1921 he began, in company with Albany Major, to investigate the course of Wansdyke as it runs through Savernake Forest, and the two excavated a section of that earthwork in 1923 and 1924.1 Jn 1929 he directed the excavation of the church or chapel of the “lost” village of Shaw-in-Alton.? But he will perhaps be better remembered for his contributions to this Magazine. These began in 1912 with a note on Marlborough Castle Mound and include articles on Marlborough Castle,* Savernake,> Bedwyn,® and Preshute;? and there were other articles and notes not immediately connected with the Marlborough In Memorium Harold Cresswell Brentnall 3 district, of which “ The Idovers of North West Wilts” was the latest to appear.’ He also contributed to the Reports of the Marlborough College Natural History Society, of which he was at one time Treasurer. He was a most graceful and entertaining writer and a cautious critic of his sources. As Editor of the Magazine he will be remembered for having improved the type, cut the pages and lightened the tone. Brentnall was admitted a F.S.A. in 1934. To his services to the Society which would alone have earned him that honour must be added his zeal for the care and publication of records. He was President of the Society when our Records Branch was founded and always took a keen, if critical, interest in its affairs; and he was a member of the County Records Committee from its foundation in 1947. He was correspon- dent of the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate in Wiltshire, and he represented the Society on the Wiltshire Victoria County History Committee. In 1908 Brentnall married Janet, daughter of the Revd. Benjamin Wright, Rector of Sandon, Essex. She died in 1954. Their only child married Dr. Reginald H. Pelham, of the University of Southampton. RA |: R.B.P. 1 W.A.M. xiii, 497. 5 ibid. xlviii, 371, xlix, 391 lili .191 2 ibid. xlv, 156. ® ibid. lii, 360. 3 ibid, xxxviii, 112. 7 ibid. Jiii, 290. * ibid. xlviili, 133. 8 ibid. x, 237. 4 MARDEN AND THE CUNNINGTON MANUSCRIPTS By Lr. Cor. R. H. CuNNINGTON The object of this paper is partly to give a fuller account than has hitherto been published of Marden (in the parish of Beechingstoke) as it was in Colt Hoare’s time; and partly to add a little to the descriptions of the Cunnington MS. given by Meyrick in his Sir Richard Colt Hoare and William Cunnington (WAM June 1948), and by me in the Appendix to The Cunningtons in Wiltshire (WAM June 1954), and to correct some mistakes in the latter. The additional information has some relevance to the account of Marden in A.W.; and, it is hoped, may also be of interest in itself. The material supplied by Cunnington for Hoare’s use in writing Ancient Wiltshire is in the five volumes of MS. (the Stourhead MS.) now in possession of the Society of [eS at Burlington House. Copies of this material comprise the thirteen books, bound up in three volumes, in the Devizes Mikeum Library. They correspond as follows: Vol. I to Books I-III; Vol. Il to Books V-VIII; Vol. III to Books IV, XII, and XIII; Vol. IV to Books IX-XI; and Vol. V to part of Book IV. But the Devizes Books have some letters that are not in the volumes. All the Books have a short Table of Contents; but the matter is often without arrangement, either in date or subject, and is quite differently ordered in A.W. For each item, however, William Cunnington, F.G.S., when the MS. was in his possession, usually made a reference, in pen or pencil, to the corresponding page in A.W. He has also added, generally on a slip attached, a copy of any comments made by Leman! and others, with Cunnington’s rejoinder. He got these from the Stourhead MS. before it was given to the Society of Antiquaries; and from the same source added four pages missing from Book XIII. Sometimes he has also corrected mistakes, as when his grandfather supposed copper had been hardened with iron and tin, he erased “iron.” These amendments, etc., can be recognised by the handwriting or the initials W.C. Besides the thirteen Books, there are in the Museum Library three volumes of MS. chiefly of letters written to Cunnington. Vol. I has the most important, viz. those from Wyndham, Coxe, and Hoare. 1 The Rev. T. Leman was a Bath, not Norfolk, antiquary. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington 5 Hoare seldom dated his letters except by the day of the week, and many of them have been dated in pencil, but not always correctly, nor are they all in the right order. The volumes also have a few letters written by Cunnington, either copies or the originals returned by Wyndham, Coxe, Leman, or Britton. There are also a few loose sheets, mostly duplicates; and some imperfect diaries written at intervals by Colt Hoare, one of which is labelled “ Collections for Wilts’; but he hardly made any use of these for his History. In A. W., Hoare describes the material sent him (The Stourhead MS) as “ Our Journal”; and he also uses the words “we” and “our ” in the editorial sense: they do not imply that he was present at the excavation described. For instance on page 199 he wrote, regarding the Normanton barrows, “ circumstances prevented my being present at the opening of them. The superintendence of our researches was therefore committed to the penetrating eye and experienced judgement of Mr. Cunnington.” Nevertheless in the pages which follow, describing the excavations, he constantly uses “we” and “ our” as if he had been there. Similarly on page 117 Hoare wrote “ we” throughout the account of opening barrow no. 3, including “ we have left some of the mortar containing the burned bones near the top of the barrow to satisfy the curiosity of any person who might wish to examine it.’ Whereas Cunnington’s account on page 27 of Book IX is:—* I have put some of the mortar containing the burnt bones near the top of the barrow for yourself or any other person to see.” We get the impression in the Normanton account that Hoare’s absence (he was touring in Wales) was exceptional, whereas in fact he was much more often absent than not. The plural is less often used for barrows opened before the end of 1803, i.e., before he undertook writing the History, and for these he has generally mentioned Cun- nington by name as the excavator. Occasionally he uses the passive tense, and these differences were no doubt made partly to give variety. No doubt too he felt quite justified in using the plurals “ we” and “our” since he was paying for the labour. Apart from this, Hoare has transcribed faithfully and fully, without however Cunnington’s circumlocutions; so the printed text usually suffices. Meyrick in WAM has pointed out some of the omissions, and there are a few others, but, with one exception, of no great 6 Marden and The Cunnington Manuscripts importance. The exception is Marden, with which the rest of this paper will deal. It is the one instance where Hoare acknowledges a serious disagreement with Cunnington, and this may be partly because Cunnington was dead before he wrote his account in Vol. Il, so there had been no opportunity of thrashing out their differences. The printed account is on pages 4-7 of A.W. II, and the MS. sources are Books VIII, pp. 10-12, and XII pp. 23-32, together with Hoare’s diary quoted in part on pp. 234-238 of WAM XXIL. Hoare’s account, apart from the differences, leaves much to be desired, and this is all the more regrettable because of the importance of the subject : after Stonehenge and Avebury, Marden was probably the most interesting prehistoric monument in Wilts, and was evidently considered so by Cunnington. Hoare, who was always seeking for “ novelties,’ was disappointed in missing the interment in the great tumulus, and finding nothing but a few bones and ashes; and, being no longer restrained by Cunnington, has indulged in some rather wild speculation, forgetting his motto, WE SPEAK FROM FACTS, NOT THEORY, to fill up the three or four pages he gives to the subject. The monument was then in process of destruction by the plough, and is now still more completely obliterated. Owing partly to Hoare’s omissions, we hardly realise what a stupendous work it was. A huge bank and ditch, the bank outside, partly surrounded the area. Some of it had been ploughed or cut away in the memory of man, and no trace of it was visible on the river side over the water-meadow. In A.W. Hoare claims that it had crossed the stream; but Cunnington, although he acknowledged this was possible, and knew that it was the opinion of Mayo, Vicar of Beechingstoke, thought otherwise:— “ After examining the ground three times, I saw nothing to support this opinion except a bit of rough ground just below the letter M, which might be construed as pointing to the vallum at G+. . . cannot believe the vallum ever crossed the water, and I think you will be of the same opinion.” After Hoare’s visit to the site with Cunnington on October toth 1807, he was of the same opinion, and gave an additional reason for it in his diary: “ Though no traces whatever of its complete continuation remain at present, I have no doubt of such a continuance, and that, in 1 On Cunnington’s plan M is beyond E, on the right hand edge of Hoare’s plan; and G is the same as Hoare’s D. Hoare gives no north point: it is nearly in the direction of D to B. By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington 7 forming the water meadows, where only the vallum is interrupted, these vestiges were removed. This work, though certainly laborious and expensive, was much facilitated by the light sandy nature of the soil, and the value of water meadows to a Wiltshire farmer is such as to render my supposition of that part of the vallum which stood in their way having been removed, highly probable.” Nevertheless in A.W. Hoare agrees with Mayo, and as a consequence, allows fifty-one acres for the whole monument as against Cunnington’s twenty-eight to thirty. Cunnington measured the bank:—‘ On extending a line over it, viz. from the bottom of the ditch, it measured 112 feet 1, and noted that “before this was in tillage it must have been much higher than at present.” The dimension is not given in A.W. After his preliminary reconnaisance in May 1806, Cunnington wrote an account to Owen (page 49 of Book VIII) in which he claimed that there had been a surround of stones, as at Avebury. Meyrick has given an abstract of this, but perhaps the full story is worth quoting: “Tam of opinion it had a circle or circles of stones set round the area on the verge of the ditch similar to Abury; for in passing the narrow bridges and horse path from the Mill to the Work, you perceive a great many sarsen stones in the water. These stones are not so large as those in the outer circle of Stonehenge, yet several of them are as large as those in the inner circle of the latter place. A farmer told me he thought they were probably brought from Kennet and placed there to protect the banks of ye river from being washed down by the stream; but this is by no means probable. On the road a little way from the Mill is a sarsen much larger than those in the water.”’ In the accounts for Hoare no mention is made of the stones, and Cunnington may have changed his mind. On the other hand he had a special reason for mentioning them to Owen, which did not apply to Hoare. For one thing Owen had not seen the place, and Hoare had. Also Owen was Welsh, and Cunnington thought that “ religious circles,” as he believed Marden to be, were always made with stones in Wales. In South Wilts, where stones were scarce, he thought, and had told Hoare, that for religious circles there may have been stones as well as bank and ditch, but that these would almost always have been stolen for building purposes. 1'When unable to measure the vertical height, it was his usual practice to measure from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the bank. 8 Marden and The Cunnington Manuscripts If there had been stones at Marden, as he supposed, their removal to revet the river bank would have been likely; but it would not take many years for most, if not all of them, to sink into the sand; and it would be difficult now to find anything like the same quantity that Cunnington saw in 1806. The account of the huge tumulus, Hatfield Barrow, on page 25 of Book XII, and in the corresponding MS. at Burlington House, reads: “A line extending over the barrow from ditch to ditch measures . feet.’ In the earlier account of Book VIII the missing figure is 483. Probably Hoare forgot the earlier account existed, or did not trouble to consult it, for in A.W. the diameter is not given, and the only dimension for the barrow is its height, 224 feet, measured by the surveyor, Crocker. The 483 feet must have been from the outer edges of the ditch, for Crocker told Cunnington that the barrow was “about 4 chains over ’’; and Cunnington’s letter to Owen says that it covered about an acre, which tallies closely with Crocker’s measure- ment. Hoare in one of his letters says that Mayo’s father wrote an account of Marden for Archaeologia. This is a mistake, for Archaeologia was not then published; but he did write an account for the Society of Anti- quaries, which Gough in his edition of Camden has printed among the Additions for Wiltshire (Page 159 of 2nd Ed. 1806), and given a diagram (Fig. 2, Plate IX). This account describes the outer ring as a complete circle with a ditch about 15 yards wide and entrances N.W. and S.W. (The Fig. shows them opposite each other); and gives the area as 30 acres, agreeing closely with Cunnington’s estimate. The tumulus was said to be 70 or 80 yards in diameter, almost exactly as Crocker found it, and so feet high. If it was then unploughed and as steep as Silbury Hill is now, 50 feet would be about right, and it might by Hoare’s time easily have been reduced to 224. Mayo junior said 40 feet, but this was probably only a guess. Hoare, when he first saw it, was so impressed as to assert in a letter to Cunnington that in its original state Hatfield Barrow and Silbury Hill must have been visible from each other (with Milk Hill hundreds of feet higher than either standing directly between !). He says in A.W. that by 1818 it had been com- pletely levelled. Since Mayo and Crocker gave the same diameter for the tumulvs, everything ploughed off it must have gone into the ditch, and there can have been no berm between them. The overall diameter being By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington 9 483 feet, it follows that the ditch must have been about 120 feet in width. The barrow was opened on Monday, October sth, 1807, and the exceptionally large number of eight men was employed for ten days. During this time Hoare seems to have visited it only once. In the early part of the week he was exploring Roman remains near Marlborough, and on the 9th drove to Everley, where he met Cunnington (whom in the diary he calls his Magnus Apollo) and went riding with him in search of barrows and earthworks. On the 1oth he drove to Marden and saw the work in progress; but a fall of sand when the floor was nearly uncovered interrupted it; and he records in his diary “I left Marden and ascended the chalk hills,” and after visiting a number of earthworks, “* returned to Everley, gratified and benefited as usual by my ride amongst the Britons.” Marden is not again mentioned in the diary, and the result of the dig was reported to Hoare a week later by letter. It is true that the account in A.W. reads as if he had been present during the whole excavation. But this is owing to his habit of using “ we,’ to which reference has already been made. He claims that he was making a full statement of the facts drawn from “ our Journal for the year 1809.” The date should be 1807, and the mistake will be explained later. The quotation from the “Journal”’ is in inverted commas; but this is another of Hoare’s practices, and does not mean an exact quotation. Actually it is a paraphrase of the account given in XII 23-32 (which is undated), with some omissions and one addition (of the landslide which stopped work). On the whole it is accurate; and the most important omission is the foot-note of page 28, which reads:—" I should have observed before that a great deal of the floor has the appearance of rusty iron, a little like the Sutton barrow, and probably from the same cause.” If Hoare had been present all the time, or even at the finish, as his account in A.W. suggests, we might consider his opinion as good as Cunnington’s; but the evidence from the MS. is clear that he was not. Cunnington’s first announcement of his failure to find the interment is in a letter addressed to Hoare in his own hand (Vol. Ill, page 141 of the Burlington House MS., and copied by William Cunnington, F.G.S., for the Devizes collection, Book XII, page 39); and he would not have written if Hoare had been present. The letter is dated 17th October, 1807; but when first saw it, I mistook the 7 for 9 in the year. 10 Marden and The Cunnington Manuscripts William Cunnington made the same mistake when he copied the letter; and probably the same misreading led Hoare to date the “Journal”’ 1809. The letter reads:— I am sorry to inform you that after a severe contest we have been defeated by the Giant of Marden. We explored 23 by 24 feet of the floor of the barrow and found ashes, charr’d wood, and some fragments of burnt bones, also two or three small pieces of pottery 1; but missed the primary interment. The finding so many stags horns, animal bones, two small parcels of burnt human bones, together with a floor scattered with ashes, charr’d wood, etc., so similar to what we discover in tumuli when cremation has been practised, convinced me on Tuesday night that the Barrow was sepulchral. On Thursday evening my opinion was more strongly confirmed. From this circumstance and from feeling myself uneasy at spending so much of your money, I thought it my duty to put a stop to further proceedings. I consider also that it would have been throwing away ten pounds more money, not to inform us, but only to convince our own modern Druids of its being sepulchral. I hope these reasons may be deemed sufficient by yourself. I have only to add that although a good deal of money has been expended, yet it has been well earned by the men, as all the farmers can testify. I am very respectfully, Sir, Your most obedient servant, W. Cunnington. Hoare’s reply to this letter (headed “ October Meeting, Stourhead 1807 ”’ in Hoare’s Letters to Cunnington) shows that at the time Hoare agreed both to the conclusions reached and the rightness of stopping further work. It begins with a long account of his own doings and ends with:—" I am on the whole well satisfied with our work .. . I am not quite so well satisfied about our Giant, and tho. I think with you it was certainly sepulchral, yet I cannot but wish we had removed all doubt by finding the interment. You did right however in not proceeding.” Cunnington wrote to Crocker on November 2nd, 1807 (Letter inserted at XII, 31) briefly describing the result of his excavation. He seems to have recognised that i view was being questioned, for he adds:—“ I am fully convinced myself that it is sepulchral, but from missing the interment others may think differently. .. . I shall make along paper of Marden, and giving my opinions, I hope I shall do it modestly, and leave others to think as they please.” The others included Leman, and eventually Hoare, who was clearly influenced by him. Leman wrote to Cunnington (XII, 29, 30) 1 These bits are similar to our sepulchral urns. (Note to original letter). By Lt.-Col. R. H. Cunnington Il “T have not heard from Sir Richard Hoare about your exploring of Marden, but I foretold the event to him when he was leaving Bath, because it was hardly probable that in a place which had been originally a Hill Altar, and was evidently a religious Sanctuary, anything could be discovered more than the remains of one High Priest, if even that was allowed to be interred in so sacred a place.” In A.W. Hoare’s disagreement is expressed as follows:—* Mr. Cunnington was of opinion that the mound was sepulchral, but from the discoveries we (the italics are mine) made when digging down from the summit to the floor, I do not think he found a sufficient basis to support his hypothesis... . Although I have so frequently agreed in opinion with Mr. Cunnington on British topics, I cannot justify myself in coalescing with him respecting the sepulchral origin of this tumulus . It may probably have been either a Hill Altar or Locus Consecratus, at which the Druids attended to decide various causes and issue their decrees.” The Hill altar, as we have seen was borrowed from Leman, and so pleased Hoare that on page 12 he suspects that the long barrow, Adam’s Grave, may have been another. ‘The Locus Consecratus was a suggestion from Mayo in a letter to Hoare written after Cunnington’s death. Hoare’s speculations are of course worthless, except as evidence of his sugeestibility and fondness for romance. But, as Meyrick has pointed out, the sepulchral origin, if substantiated, would do away once for all with the more recent suggestion that the Marden earthworks may possibly have been Norman (Introduction to the Archaeology of Wiltshire, 3rd Edition, page 160, where again the mistake is made of dating the excavation 1809 instead of 1807). In a mound covering an acre it is not surprising that an exposure of some twenty-three feet of floor should have failed to find the interment even of “one High Priest’’; and one wonders why Hoare and Cunnington should have been so optimistic as to expect it. I have said nothing about the huge “disc barrow” within the en_ closure, since the MS. account adds nothing to that printed in A.W. 12 STRIP LYNCHETS AT BISHOPSTONE, NEAR SWINDON, WILTS, EXCAVATED IN 1954. By Peter Woop, M.A. The chalk scarp which overlooks the Vale of the White Horse is cut by a level-floored and steep-sided dry valley which runs south- wards up from the spring above Bishopstone village almost to the Ridge Way (Fig. 1). Near the head of this valley, on what is roughly the north-facing flank, is one of the finest flights of strip lynchets in Britain (national grid reference SU /244825). It consists of six main steps, each between 650 feet and 800 feet long, with horizontal treads 32 feet to 48 feet wide, and with twelve-foot risers inclined at a gradient of about one: one and a half. Under the inspiration of the plea which Professor A. Austin Miller has recently put forward! for the scientific investigation of strip lynchets, the excavation of the lower steps of the Bishopstone set was undertaken by members of the Department of Geography, Reading University”. Strip lynchets, not least these at Bishopstone, have evoked considerable conjecture about their mode and date of formation, and (assuming them to have been of human devising) about their purpose. It was felt from the outset of the excavation, nevertheless, that little was precisely known about the early history of these features, for few have been explored archaeologically3. This feeling of uncer- tainty is still well-sustained, particularly as the excavation treated here was no more than an initial examination, though one which has indicated the great interest of the facts awaiting disclosure by an in- tensive study of British strip lynchets. The section (Fig. 2) which was opened across the three lower risers and their two included treads revealed, apart from features of archaco- logical significance, the geological nature of the undisturbed chalk 1“ The Mapping of Strip Lynchets ’’; Advancement of Science, 43, 1954, 277. 2 Apart from thanking my collaborators in this Department for their help, I wish to record my debt to Mr. R. Wilson of Bishopstone, not only for his permission to excavate, but also for his very great assistance in many other ways; and to Mr. W. A. Smallcombe for the loan of equipment from Reading Museum. 8 Excavated examples occur at Twyford Down, Hants. (J. D. M. Stuart and J. M. Birkbeck: Procs. Hants. F.C. and Arch. S., 13, 1937-8, 188); at East Garston, Berks. (H. J. E. Peake and J. M. Birkbeck: Trans. Newbury District F.C., 7, 1934, 6); at Blewburton, Berks. (A. E. P. Collins: Berks. Arch. Fn., 53, 1952-3, 31-2); and at Housesteads, Northumberland (E. Birley and J. EouhMots Arch. Aeliana; IV S.,.9, 1932, 225-6; and 11, 1934, 186). Scale in feet. 13 ae, BISHOPSTONE 4 sosseeees ogeesnneas N é 964 356 = 4 ¢ ~ a) % a ket! Dopod e 2 8 = x SEEN — | ece .Y e sa" Strip Lynchets Based on O.S. 6 in. Sheets Wilts. XVIN.E. and S.E. Fig. i. Site of the Strip Lynchets. 14 Strip Lynchets at Bishopstone hillside, so important in view of the suggestion that strip lynchets may sometimes have been formed by quarrying for building stone. The discovery in situ of a fossil ammonite Acanthoceras rhotomagenset showed the site to be founded on the middle part of the Lower Chalk?. The bedrock is mainly hard blocky chalk, on the surface of which is chalk rubble, probably produced by natural weathering. The hard beds are interleaved with narrow bands of much softer chalk; while at the base of the southern riser the bedrock is covered by a layer of soft, gritty chalk which may well be the result of rain-wash. Where the original surface of the valley side has not been disturbed by the process of lynchet-formation it rises quite steadily at a gradient of 1:5. On this original surface, soil has accumulated to form the shoulder of each riser (the positive lynchet). Each is formed of homogeneous material four to five feet thick at the lip of the tread. The northern and central positive lynchets are composed of identical light brown soil containing small chalk pebbles, on which a topsoil nine inches thick has developed. The southern one is an accumulation of rather darker material, with a topsoil varying considerably in depth, mainly because of disturbance by rabbit burrowing. At the back of each tread the original surface of the valley side is broken where the bedrock has been removed to leave a negative lyn- chet. It is noteworthy in the case of the northern riser and tread that what was removed in forming the negative lynchet almost exactly equals in section what was accumulated to form the positive. The inference would doubtless be that the positive lynchet was constructed of material moved downhill; but if this interpretation is correct here it does not fit the facts elsewhere, for the central riser represents an even greater accumulation while the negative lynchet above it is quite insignificant. Two further points of interest are contained within the section. In the first place, there is, with one striking exception, no trace of the humus layer which covered the pre-lynchet valley side. Before soil began to accumulate as positive lynchets the humus layer was by some means destroyed, except at the base of the southern riser. Here two horizons overlie the rain-wash. The lower, black layer was impreg- nated throughout by charcoal, and represents perhaps a man-made 1 My thanks are due to Dr. F. Hodson, Reading University, and Dr. L. .F. Spath, British Museum of Natural History, for the precise identification of this fossil. 2 This part of the Lower Chalk certainly contains beds of stone quite suitable ror constructional purposes, e.g. the local equivalent of the Totternhoe stone (A. J. Jukes-Browne: The Cretaceous Rocks of Britain; Vol. 11, London, 1903, 15). -guojsdoysig ‘syeqouA'T diayg IaMmoy ayi YFnosyy uctDag_ Sig uo0!3}22g UIZYINOS "A\jO4NzDdafuo>d UMOYS Ss! Y2OIP2G BY? JO 12}ZDOIOYD JyY BUI] S1YR MOjlag “YDUIIZ BYy JO JOOJJY BUX S$2}zZOSIPU! SUO!ZDIS 2YX UIYIIM aul] UIyXOIQ ayy "S$UO1ZDIS JO .JOFY BjlOIS ol ° uo1,z22g JO WUID TELI LTT Li irre "$4019 pud yjOY4> As2pMOd Fey -}DODIOYD PUD jays YIM U2A0) 201g Eee ypOUD YIOIp2|q PsOH FO] 1240) UMOIQ 14090 By "yjOY> 420429 0S fae] «= -s2jqqad 4!M |!0S UMOIG WNIPAW [AY '24SO0d yIOYD yOOUWS ‘S4201q HJOYD UA j!IOS UMOIG 3WYBIT [fe] puo $4201g [0°] "$21qG2ad yJOY> YZIM j10S UMOIG 34619 RYy 06s "B19QNs HIOYD[.S] ‘$2014 yJOY> PpuD snWNH |] "ypoyr Ax9146 yy0s[ | ‘snunH{]]] $Uu01}2aS 4;0 103 Ady 412A04 U01ZD2S UI2YIION "$yayrUAl-diuys P2YOAOIKD 3O d41304d ‘°S -‘N *42d5 Ul BIDIDS 02 Ol ° , : U01}23IG UI2IYJON y205p2aNy) U013DIS 10414UTD JONIZIOW payoinwnroy[— | U01}939S UJ2YUINOS Se = ang, = my ah By Peter Wood, M.A. 15 stratum of some sort (possibly of lifted turfs), rather than an abnormally thick undisturbed turf-line. The superior, dark brown layer has perhaps resulted from a mixing of medium brown soil from above and black material from below. On the other hand, an analysis! of samples from these layers has suggested that the dark brown layer may, in fact, be the remains of an old surface continuously covered by vegetation. In any case, further excavating at this spot is obviously desirable before any real inferences can be supported. In the second place, at the foot of the central riser there are indications of an extended cutting into the solid chalk. The cutting seems to have been partly refilled with chalk blocks, which thereafter crumbled into a very loosely compacted matrix containing partly-disintegrated chalk blocks. This disturbance could as well date from pre-lynchet times as from the period of lynchet-formation, and refilling of this kind was not elsewhere observed; but it is most significant for future work at Bishopstone that the excavated terraces differ so fundamentally from one another in their sub-surface structure. FINDS 1. Three pieces of pottery of identical ware from the base of the medium brown accumulation forming the southern riser, three inches above the dark brown layer. Two of these fragments were minute but the third was large enough to be identified as charac- teristic of the Az phase of the Early Iron Age of southern Britain, dating from about the third century B.C.? 2. A number of specimens of assorted debris scattered across the southern tread in the light brown layer, and including (besides an iron nail and pieces of a modern glass bottle, of a red tile and of coal) seven sherds of seventeenth or eighteenth century A.D. ware,? and fragments of sheep bones.4 3. At the back of the northern tread, immediately beneath the topsoil, a slab of chalk rubble eight inches long, whose upper surface 1 Dr. G. W. Dimbleby was kind enough to conduct this analysis at the Imperial Forestry Institute, Oxford. 2 Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Mr. L. V. Grinsell, during a visit to the site, placed this sherd in the pre-Belgic Iron Age. Professor C. F. C. Hawkes, to whom it was subsequently submitted for examination, was so very kind as to make a detailed report which incorporated a thorough identification. ‘The sherd is at present displayed in the Department of Geography, Reading University. 3 Identified by Mr. J. G. Hurst. 4 "These bones were examined by Dr. K. H. Mann and Mr. G. Williams, Reading University. 16 Strip Lynchets at Bishopstone was cut by half a dozen sub-parallel, triangular grooves, each about half an inch deep. CONCLUSIONS This small-scale investigation of the Bishopstone strip lynchets has. revealed the certainty of their human origin, while the detail of the section undeniably militates against the suggestion that primarily they represent a chalk quarry. The conclusion seems unassailable that the bulk of the material was moved, probably down-slope, to form terraces, presumably for cultivation; and though the valley side here is north- facing, the lynchet treads receive direct sunlight throughout the day in September. Moreover the incised chalk slab from the northern tread may possibly have been grooved in cultivating operations, though nothing comparable was discovered elsewhere at this site.1 The dimensions of the individual treads, roughly a furlong in length and half a chain in width, seem to point to the existence of a field system of half-acre strips. The view that the strip system was in its origins associated with the Anglo-Saxon occupation of lowland Britain has been disputed for a number of specific cases;? but definite evidence of the date of the Bishopstone strip lynchets has yet to be unearthed. The few finds lay in unsealed horizons, and the dated Early Iron Age potsherd may only long after burial in the soil have been incorporated into the growing terrace.3 In the matter of mode of construction, it seems possible that the lowest (northern) lynchet was formed first, and that the covering of the northern negative lynchet by the light brown layer was not due entirely to soil creep from an absolutely contemporary central riser. If this is so, it may very well have a bearing on the question of whether intentional terracing or downhill soil creep resulting solely from ploughing along the line of the lynchets was the chief agent in their formation; but at present it is not possible to be in any way certain about how they were constructed.4 1 Cf. G. Bersu: ‘‘ Excavations at Little Woodbury, Wilts ’’; Procs. Prehist. Soc., 6, 1940, 33 and Plate VII, 7 (f.p. 65). * Supposed Roman strips are known from the Fenlands (C. W. Phillips, in Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond, ed. W. G. Grimes; London, 1951, 267), and from Housesteads (loc. cit. sup.). The Twyford Downs strip lynchet was thought to be Belgic in date (loc. cit. sup.). 8 Professor Hawkes points out that its relatively unabraded condition indicates that it was buried quite soon after manufacture. 4 It gives me much pleasure to acknowledge the help which I have received in discussing the archaeological aspects of this problem with Mr. H. J. Case, Mr. N. Thomas and Mr. H. C. Bowen; and the kindness of Mr. Bowen in reinforcing my knowledge of the literature concerned with British strip lynchets. ik NATURAL HISTORY SECTION FIELD MEETINGS AND LECTURES, 1954 Report by the Hon. Meetings Secretary, BEATRICE GILLAM. In March, 1954 the Section joined the Salisbury and District Field Club for a lecture entitled “‘ Autumn Bird Migration in S.W. France,” given by Mr Richard Burton of the British Trust for Ornithology. Of the twenty-two field meetings held, five were botanical, six ornithological, two entomological and nine were of general interest. Three winter ornithological meetings provided opportunities for seeing golden plover at Zeals; a variety of species of duck at Blagdon Reservoir, under the expert guidance of Mr. Bernard King; and thirty-one species of birds at Longleat and Shearwater. In May redstarts were seen in Savernake Forest and the last of the Corn Bunting Inquiry meetings was held in the S.W. of the county. A new inquiry into the migration of passerines along the chalk escarpment was begun this year. Several of the botanical and general meetings were spoilt by rain and one had to be abandoned; the cold, wet summer led to discoveries of many plants in flower out of season. Two ecological meetings were of special interest. We were fortunate in having Dr. Hope-Simpson of Bristol University to explain some of the occurrences in the chalk flora along part of the Salisbury Way, and Mr. W. Goldstraw showed something of the behaviour of the lower plant orders in a wood with a northerly aspect. Pond-dipping, the spread of myxomatosis, a visit to the R.A.F. police dogs at Netheravon, larvae-beating and moth-trapping were among other interests included in the year’s programme. The Annual General Meeting was held at Warminster on July roth. Reports were given by the Officers and were followed by Mrs. D. Peall’s statement on the Inquiry into the status of the Corn Bunting in Wiltshire. The Chairman, Mr. C. Rice, drew special attention to the important work done for Nature Conservancy by Mr. J. D. Grose and by Mr. J. Halliday and the Marlborough College Natural History Society. He again appealed for help with the work being done in the Natural History Room at the Museum and for more reports from members about common birds, insects, beasts and reptiles. The Section is most grateful to all who have been leaders of its meetings. VOU. -LVi—CCH B 18 THE WEATHER OF 1954 Most of us remember a year’s weather by two things only, the fineness of the summer and the hardness of the winter; and even these criteria tend to simplify themselves as sunburn and icy roads or burst pipes. In practice these emotional yardsticks are more valuable than a mountain of statistics, and it is a meteorological truism that figures by themselves are an uncertain guide to a years pleasantness or un- pleasantness. We naturally consider weather as it affects our routine (and only in one year in twenty does a farmer get all the weather he wants at the right times). | 1954 is a good example of such views. It was a poor year, but several other poor years have shewn figures deviating more dramatically from the means. The mean annual temperature and sunshine were normal: rainfall about 11°/ in excess. The year will be chiefly re- membered by the poverty of the months of May, June, July and August, which were all “ on the wrong side’ for temperature, rainfall and sunshine. The Mediterranean summer anticyclone was too feeble to extend northwards over the continent, and depressions and dismal fronts passed over us continually. There was more wind than usual: only three days could be described as hot: such thunder as occurred was dreary and irresolute. The forecasters had a difficult task, and did it well. In a generalised note such as this we may dispense with figures. A plus sign equals “ better ’’ than normally: a minus sign “ worse” than normally. Te sR28S Jan. =... — + + Cold, dry and sunny with skating in many places at the end. Feb. .. — — + Cold and wet generally March... + — — Normal April — + + A beautiful month: East winds kept the temperature low May .. — — — Generally dull, cold and wet (cle S Bye a= 53 a July 2. — — — s a) Jha De 99 eset eh - oe Sept. + A little better, and saved most of the harvest Octo ke SE a A little better than normally, and fewer frosts . Nov... +). | Warm, and. dull Dec. + + — A mild close to the year. REGINALD JENNINGS (Marlborough) 19 WILTSHIRE BIRD NOTES FOR 1954. Recorders: RutTH G. BARNES, M.B.O.U., and Guy Pzirson It is a remarkable year when these Notes add two birds to the County List. In December a drake Red-crested Pochard visited Braydon Pond: but of course it might have been an escape from captivity. In February a Bewick’s Swan was seen at Fonthill Lake, apparently a sick straggler from the eight previously reported there. Wiltshire may have been visited by a Night Heron: Smith’s Birds of Wiltshire mentions one “‘many years ago’ and there seem to be no later records of it. Any county might be proud of a prolonged visit from an Osprey and we may now disclose that in 1951 we had that honour. Considerable rarities for Wiltshire are a Grey Phalarope, a Raven and a Firecrest. Now that the few waters in Wiltshire are watched regularly records such as breeding Teal, breeding Tufted Duck, visiting Goldeneye and Goosander no longer seem as unusual as they would have done a few years ago, but why did a Sheld-duck spend a month on a pond in a garden? Canada Geese may visit Wiltshire more frequently in future as they are now established just over the border in Berkshire. The greater number of observers who report regularly has also meant an increase in the number of records of waders visiting the streams, gravelpits and, in the case of Oystercatchers, the highways (!) of the county, yet the records of the Greenshank remain few. Can it be that Greenshanks really are rare visitors to Wiltshire and not merely overlooked as has often been suggested? CONTRIBUTORS G. Atchison .. oe G.A. Mrs. Forbes .. a: E.V.F. Eee. bares Ae EC.B: Miss M. C. Foster .- M.C.F. Mrs. Barnes .. - R.G.B. De We, Erees o:: ze DAWA G. L. Boyle ee G.L.B. CiFloyd ~.. zs CE: Miss M. Butterwort M.B. Mrs. Gandy .. i LG W. A. Chaplin ae WAL. Miss B. Gillam = B.G. G. W. Collett on GAC. Major R. K. Henderson R.K.H. Major W.M. Congreve W.M.C. Dir Ae Hoy: “ 1.A-H. By. Cruse >: oe E.J.C: Be. Jones < Ne Bey fie WJ; (Cuss oe EEE: John ‘Lucas ©. : eh JL. C. A. Cutforth a CAC. Miss M. Luckham .. M.L. Dauntsey’s School .. DS: Marlborough College Mrs. Farquharson... P.RGF. Nat. Hist. Society M.C. 20 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954 Owen Meyrick “i O.M. Mrs. Seccombe Hett C.S-H. Mrs. Newton Dunn .. D.N.D. Amold Smith de INS Squadron Leader R. J. Spencer Be RJ.S. N. W. Orr N.W.O. Col. J.K. Stanford .. KGS; By. Patrick os H.J.P. Pie Stead i P'S: NMirsi-Bealliiiys: a D2. Major P. Hu. Straghang) PELs, Gol Cer, Perkins) (7.7 (Glee B. M. Stratton ao BMS. GC. MR. Pitman § {7 CMR: Miss Thouless oe Ma, R.A Poulding’ ><; ROPE Miss Usher .. a WE Countessof Radnor .. ERY G. L. Webber Gi ReAVEL | GeStation, Ralph Whitlock .. R.W. Compton Bassett RAF. Brigadier H. Willan .. H.W. Cynl Rice | 2. is CRY Miss.E.M. Wright .. E.M.W. Peter Roberts aH PR. 5. GREAT CRESTED GREBE. Three pairs at Coate Water (C.R.), at Braydon Pond (R.G.B.), at Shearwater (B.G.) and at Longleat Lake (R.A.F.). Single pairs at Corsham Lake (C.R.), Tockenham reservoir (R.A.F.), Fonthill Lake and Stourton (B.MS.) 28. CORMORANT. At Salisbury gravel pits three birds seen on Jan. roth and two on Dec. 11th, 15th, and 26th (C.M.R.P.). An immature bird at Erlestoke during October (D.S.). 30. HERON. The National Census of Heronries showed a total of c. 50 occupied nests in four Wiltshire heronries, as compared with 55-60 nests in seven heronries in the census of 1928. The three heronries which have become extinct since 1928 were at Fonthill, Longleat and Somerham Brook. At Bradford Wood there were fourteen occupied nests in medium-sized oaks. With the exception of the grove containing the nests, the wood has been felled and replanted with conifers (R.J.S.). At Bowood there were seventeen occupied nests, eight of which were on the island and eight at the water’s edge. All these were in elms, the remaining one, about 200 yards away, in an oak (G.L.B.). At the Savernake Forest heronry there were seven occupied nests in two oaks and two beeches (N.W.O.). At the Hurdcott House heronry there were twelve occupied nests in stunted trees, some dead and some dying, on the island in the lake (C.F.P.). [36. NIGHT HERON. Probably one of this species was seen over the Avon at Longford on May 3rd. It circled over the observer’s head for some time and appeared to be a small, squat heron with retracted neck and long beak. The legs stretched only a short way beyond the tail. It showed white underneath and a greenish grey back. Mrs. Ellison of Bodenham and a friend had also disturbed a very small heron the evening before on the opposite bank of the river (I.R.).] 45, 46, 50, 56, 57. Winter records of Mallard, Teal, Wigeon, Tufted Duck and Pochard are filed in the hope that, after some years, it may be possible to build up from them a composite picture of the winter duck population of the county. 46. TEAL. A pair bred at Bowood and eleven young were seen; these were reduced to five later (E.J.C.). Great Crested Grebe—Hobby 21 53. SHOVELER. Two pairs seen on Clarendon Lake (M.L.). Two birds at Shearwater, Jan. 26th (M.B.), and at Fonthill Lake, Feb. 14th (G.L.B.). A single bird at Longleat Lake, Feb. 15th (M.B.). $4. RED-CRESTED POCHARD. A drake, in a party of Pochard, was watched for half-an-hour, sometimes at twenty yards distance, on Braydon Pond, following stormy weather, on Dec. 3rd. This appears to be the first record for the county, but the bird may have been an escape (R.G.B.). 56. TUFTED Duck. A female with seven young was seen on the R. Kennet on June roth, July 13th and Aug. 23rd (1.G.). A bird with five young, July 31st (M.C.F.). 60. GOLDEN-EYE. An immature bird at Corsham Lake Dec. 24th—30th (C.R.). One at Salisbury gravel pits, Nov. 24th (C.M.R.P.). A drake on Cheverell brickworks, Feb. 14th and 15th and on Market Lavington brick- works, Feb. 16th (D.S.). 70. GOOSANDER. A brown-headed bird on Corsham Lake, Nov. 28th (C.R.). 73. SHELD-DuUCK. A single bird, reported by Mrs. Haines, remained on a pond in her garden near Calne from early February to Mar. 4th. It was also watched by E.M.T. 75, 82. GREY GEESE. Thirteen seen flying N.W. over Beanacre, Jan. Ist (R.J.S.). Two flying low over Coate Water, Jan. 14th, were seen to have dark heads and necks, and were thought by three observers to be Pink-feet (M.C.F.). On Jan. 17th c.80 were seen over Barford St. Martin (J.L.), a large skein over Clarendon (C.R.M.P.) and fifty flew N.W. just before sunset over Limpley Stoke (R.J.S.). 82. CANADA GOOSE. Four geese seen flying near Swindon, Feb. 14th, were almost certainly Canada Geese (G.L.W.). _ 86. BEWICK’S SWAN. One was watched from close range on Fonthill Lake, Feb. 14th. It was first seen asleep on the bank but later swam and gave the impression of being a sick bird. It did not hold its neck upright and there were signs of staining on its breast feathers. Mr. Verner of Tisbury reported that there had been eight Bewicks on the lake a few days earlier (G.L.B.). This would seem to be the first record for the county. QI. BUZZARD. Seven nests were reported by M.B., R.A.F., G.L.B., N.W.O., E.J.C. and M.C. One of these nests was seen to contain four young and another three. One nest, with four eggs, was deserted. At least another four pairs were seen during the breeding season. 102. MONTAGU’S HARRIER. In one area a male bird was seen on July 29th by P.J.S. and Aug. roth by G.L.B., N.W.O., R.G.B. 103. OSPREY. One of this species stayed at Fonthill Lake from early June until the end of July, 1951, when it was seen by several observers, including Major Morrison. At the time a drawing was made of the bird by Captain Payne of Tisbury. In accordance with Major Morrison’s praiseworthy wish, we did not disclose this record earlier, in case the bird should return. 104. HOBBY. Earliest date, May 16th, when a pair were seen (C.R.). In another district a nest was found in a Scots Pine, July 18th, and the pair seen on several 22 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954 later days (P.J.S.); two birds were seen near the nest, Aug. toth (B.G.L., N.W.O., R.G.B.), and on Aug. 22nd, when one of them was seen to be a juvenile (G.L.B.). A pair seen July 30th; and another pair Aug. 16th, which from their anxiety appeared to have young (N.W.O.) A gamekeeper reported a nest which was robbed by a notorious collector (J.K.S.). Yet another pair was watched chasing swallows, July 6th (G.L.B.). Last observed Sept. roth (C.M.R.P.). One ringed as young in Wiltshire, 17.7.53, was recovered on 13.9.53 at Espinho, Portugal 41°0’ N., 8° 40’ W. cf. British Birds, Vol. XLVIL, p- 378. 105. PEREGRINE. One seen in pursuit of a Wood Pigeon near Toot Hill, Feb. 27th (G.L.W.); and one near Imber, Aug. 16th (N.W.O.). One reported by Mr. Durras as frequenting Lord’s Hill in late December (M.B.). 107. MERLIN. One seen in Marlborough district, Feb. 24th (M.C.), and one near Imber, June 6th and Aug. 16th (N.W.O.). I15. RED-LEGGED PARTRIDGE. Noted at Thickwood (G.A.), All Cannings and Heddington (R_J.S.), Keevil aerodrome (G.L.B.), Grafton (R.K.H.), Melksham Forest (G.W.C.), and Clarendon (C.M.R.P.). II7. QuaIL. Two birds heard and seen, June 2nd, on Hackpen Hill; one of these, when put up, gave the “wet-my-lips’”’ call in flight. At least twenty calling from June 8th onwards in cornfields by the Ridgeway between Overton and Totterdown. Over thirty on Downs south of Beckhampton and two-three near Fyfield Hill (N.W.O.). One heard in a cornfield near Pertwood, June 26th (R.J.S.). 120. WATER RAIL. Birds seen in winter at Salisbury gravel pits (C.M.RP., M.K.L.), near Manton (M.C.), at Corsham Lake (C.R.), Chippenham (E.M.T.), Sherrington (E.V. F.), Bemerton (D.N.D.), and Wilton Water (H.W.C.). At Coate Water in October (M.C.F.). One heard “sharming” at Braydon Pond, May ai1st (N.W.O.). Young were seen at Rodbourne sewage farm (G.L.W.) 125. CORNCRAKE. One in first year plumage found dead in a public park in Chippenham, Jan. 18th. The skin is now in Devizes Museum (C.R.). Single birds heard near Avebury (E.J.C.) and Porton, July 8th (C.M.R.P.). Two seen and heard during the first week of August near Oare by Mr. R. Bull (R.K.H.). Last noted Aug. 13th (C.A.C.). I3I. OYSTERCATCHER. A single bird seen on the main road at Pepperbox Hill, Mar. 12th (M.K.L), and one collided with a car near Barford St. Martin, Mar. 16th (W.A.C.). 134. RINGED PLOVER. One, observed for an hour or two on Rodbourne sewage farm, April 16th, finally flew off in an easterly direction. Distinctive wing bar seen (G.L.W.). I40. GOLDEN PLOVER. On Zeals aerodrome c.200 were seen on Jan. 9th and 200-300, Dec. 27th (P.H.L.S., M.B.). A flock of fifty-seventy remained on Lyneham airfield from January to March (N.W.O.). Small flocks remained: on ploughed fields near Compton Bassett until late March when a flock of c.200 was seen departing eastward (R.A.F.). In autumn, a very large flock with a large number of Lapwing near Old Sarum, Nov. 15th (M.C.F.); c.180 near Yatesbury, Dec. 15th and 19th (D.A.H.). Peregrine—Gre y Phalarove 23 145. SNIPE. Drumming first heard, Mar. 21st, near West Amesbury and display continued over observer’s garden throughout April and May (J.K.S.). Two birds drumming near Littlecote, June 3rd (B.G.). Breeding confirmed in Plaitford Common area (H. WJ.C.). 147. JACK SNIPE. At Rodbourne sewage farm a single bird remained from Jan. 3rd to Mar. 21st. One seen again Nov. 7th and Dec. 27th, and two birds, Nov. 14th (G.L.W.). 148. woopcock. Mr. H. L. Sims reported four nests in one copse of Savernake Forest (R.K.H.). A nest was also found by a gamekeeper near Farley (W.M.C.). 150. CURLEW. For notes on this species see page 30. 156. GREEN SANDPIPER. Single birds were seen at Salisbury gravel pits, Jan. 4th (C.M.R.P.) and at Longford, Jan. 16th (M.L.). One bird remained at Rod- bourne sewage farm from the previous autumn until early February (G.L.W.). Birds seen in spring at Lacock gravel pits, Apr. 23rd (G.L.B.), near Chippenham, Apr. 25th (P.R.), and near Whaddon, May 6th (R.J.S.). Up to three birds at Christian Malford eravel pits from July 12th to Aug. 26th (R.G.B.), and four at Lacock pits, Aug. roth (G.L.B.). At Rodbourne gravel pits birds were always present from July 7th to Dec. 5th. The highest number was eight (five of which appeared to be a family party) on Aug. 8th (G.L.W.). One bird at Littlecote, Nov. 6th (N.W.O.) and one bird by the Avon near Hants border, Nov. 28th (J.K.S.). 159. COMMON SANDPIPER. First seen, Apr. 21st, Lacock gravel pits (G.L.B.), and several records up to mid-May. Many reports of birds during May by the Avon, near Durrington and Netheravon, where Brigadier Lipscomb saw four on May 22nd (J.K.S.) and there were possibly two pairs by the Bristol Avon near Melksham (R.J.S.), but no evidence of breeding in either locality. Several records during autumn movement, from July 4th, Rodbourne sewage farm (G.L.W.) until Sept. 19th, Salisbury Avon (C.M.R.P.). I61I. REDSHANK. First seen in spring on Mar. 31st at Christian Malford where a pair later nested (R.G.B., E.C.B.). Nests and/or young also found at Littlecote (B.G.), near Fyfteld (G.L.B.), by the Bristol Avon near Melksham (R.J.S.) and at Bowerchalke (J.K.S.). Last seen Aug. 2nd at Rodbourne sewage farm (G.L.W.). 165. GREENSHANK. A single bird ser feeding with Green Sandpipers at Rod- bourne sewage farm, Aug. 18th (G.L.W.). 178. DUNLIN. Two birds at Rodbourne sewage farm, Oct. 9th and roth (G.L.W.). 187. GREY PHALAROPE. On November ist Mr. Peter Collett reported that a strange bird, which he had identified as a Phalarope, was swimming on the pond in the yard of Tockenham Court farm, Wootton Bassett. It had arrived there on October 28th. It was seen on Nov. 1st by R.G.B. and on Nov. and by C.R.,G.L.B., G.W.C. and N.W.O., who all identified it as a Grey Phala- rope in winter plumage. The pond was adjoining the farmhouse and cow sheds and was occupied by geese and Muscovy Ducks amongst which the small bird 24 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954 swam unconcernedly. It fed incessantly, dabbling quickly and lightly at the surface of the water. It was seen to spin once or twice on Nov. 1st by R.G.B. It was still present at dusk on Nov. 3rd but had gone by the following morning. This species does not appear to have been recorded in Wiltshire since 1936. _ 189. STONE CURLEW. First seen on March 16th (C.M.R.P.). A pair attempted to nest but their eggs were destroyed by ploughing, Apr. 24th. The following day the female was seen repeatedly “false brooding’”’, with the male standing beside her. Two other pairs may also have lost their eggs through the rolling of corn, Apr. 29th (J.K.S.). A pair was seen “ false brooding” on May 16th, and display seen on May 19th. The male ran rapidly towards where the female was sitting and she rose to meet him. Both birds then walked side by side, the male slightly in front. They were “false feeding” and the male was rapidly contracting and expanding the cloaca (cf. Spencer on the Lapwing). Suddenly both stopped, swung round and faced each other with necks arched and bills pointing downwards. They held this position for several seconds and then resumed feeding (G.L.B.). On May 29th R.J.S. found a nest and eggs, which hatched June r9th-20th. Last birds seen in autumn, Nov. 13th (J.K.S.). 198. GREATER BLACK-BACKED GULL. One at Longford, Jan. 1oth and Nov. 21st (M.L.). By the Avon at Seagry two birds were seen, Mar. 28th and May 30th, and single birds, Apr. 17th, May 22nd and Aug. 26th (R.G.B.). Single. birds were also seen at Salisbury gravel pits, Oct. 16th (C.M.R.P.) and near the By Brook, Nov. 28th (G.A.) 199. LESSER BLACK-BACKED GULL. Small numbers, under ten, seen in various localities throughout the county in every month of the year except February. Winter records are: Salisbury gravel pits, Jan. 3rd (C.M.R.P.), Avebury, Jan. 25th (R.A.F.), Coate Water, Dec. 18th (B.G.), Semington, Dec. 20th (G.L.B.), and Rodbourne sewage farm, Dec. 26th (G.L.W.). Two dark adults, seen on Rodbourne sewage farm, Mar. 14th and Apr. 30th, were probably of the Scandinavian race (G.L.W.), and one, in a flock of c.85 birds of this species near Semington, November 27th (G.L.B.). 200. HERRING GULL. One near Marlborough, May sth (M.C.), seven near Chippenham, June ist, 3rd (P.R.), and one at Longleat, Oct. 13th (R.H.P.) 201. COMMON GULL. In the Chippenham area flocks were seen, of c.200, Mar. 14th, c.120, Aug. 16th and several hundred, Nov. 28th (C.R.). Between April 25th and 20th several flocks were seen near the Dorset border and a very large flock in adult plumage near Druid’s Lodge (J.K.S.). 208. BLACK-HEADED GULL. c.100 adults on watercress beds at Bowerchalke, June 27th. Immature birds noticeable in early August on Salisbury Plain (J-K.S.). An increase noted in recent years at Corsham Lake in winter, ninety birds present on Dec. 29th (C.R.). 212. BLACK TERN. On May 27th about twenty were seen to arrive over the Southampton road gravel pits at Salisbury where the observer and two friends were fishing. After a few minutes all but two of the birds left in a southerly direction. These two remained for seven hours feeding over the pond close to the fishermen (H.J.P.). Stone Curlew—Greater Spotted Woodpecker 25 217/218. TERN, COMMON or ARCTIC. On May and three were seen over the Avon at Seagry (R.G.B.) and one at Wilton Water (H.W-J.C.). Two seen at Lacock gravel pits May 3rd—4th, one remaining there until May 9th (G.L.B., C.R.). A single bird over the Avon at Staverton, May 6th (G.L.B.). 235. TURTLE DOVE. First noted on Apr. 28th, Lake (J.K.S.), May 1st, Clarendon (M.L.). Last seen, Aug. 1st, Charlton (M.L.), Aug. 24th, Lacock (C.R.). 237. CUCKOO. First heard on Apr. 6th, Calne (G.L.B.), Apr. 19th, Bodenham (M.L.), and Seagry (R.G.B.) Last seen Aug. 13th, West Amesbury (J.K.S.); August 27th, Chippenham (G. W.C.), Sept. roth, Rodbourne S.F. (G.L.W.). 241. BARN OWL. One found dead near Chippenham, in very cold weather, Jan. 30th, had apparently died of starvation. Another, from Bishops Canning, Feb. 9th, was sent to Cambridge for examination and found to have died of phosphorus poisoning (C.R..). 248. LONG-EARED OWL. One heard at Sandridge in February, but breeding not proved (E.J.C.). Seen in Marlborough area, May 27th (M.C.). Heard on several occasions near Compton Bassett in March and April and “barking” call heard in Spye Park in July (N.W.O.). 249. SHORT-EARED OWL. One seen at Tan Hill, Jan. 7th (C.A.C.); six hunting in company at Preshute, Jan. 23rd (C.S.H.). A party of five stayed in gorse near Beckhampton from January and four were still there, Apr. 8th (E.J.C.). Many birds near Lake and Woodford in late October (J.K.S.). {Also noted near Marlborough Oct. 23rd; near West Woods, Nov. 22nd and Codford St. Mary, Nov. 24th (C.A.C.). Near Beckhampton one bird was seen Dec. sth, and the number rose to five, Dec. 29th (D.A.H.). One at Boscombe Down aerodrome, Nov. 28th (D.N.D.). 252. NIGHTJAR. First seen May 17th, when one settled on a low wall by Devizes—Chippenham road (E.M.W.). Eggs seen in Bruton Forest near county boundary, June 6th, and young birds June 29th (M.B.). Four pairs seen in Spye Park (N.W.O.) and Savernake Forest (M.C.). 255. SWIFT. First seen Apr. 23rd, Semington (G.L.B.); Apr. 24th, Clarendon (C.M.R.P.). Last Aug. 13th, Aldbourne (M.C.F.); Aug. 22nd, Chippenham (G.W.C.). 261. HOOPOE. Mr. Beames saw a bird at Lacock gravel pits on May 2nd which he described as about the size of a Jay, with a crested head and long curved bill. The colouring was sandy and the bird “waved two white flags when it fiew”’. He recognised a coloured illustration (G.L.B.). One spent nearly all day on a lawn at Arn Down, May 11th, and was seen by several people, including M.B. One was seen by Mr. and Mrs. Cannon feeding on the lawn at Druid’s Lodge in the early morning of May 20th. Both are familiar with the bird in India (J.K.S.). cf. The Field, 22.7.54. 263. GREATER SPOTTED WOODPECKER. The male bird, reported in last year’s Bird Notes and photographed, for British Birds, opening milk bottles at South- wick, returned during May, June and July. It was often accompanied by a female and later brought young to a bird table where they ate fat, but only the male attacked the bottles (P.R.). 26 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954 271. WOODLARK. Noted in Spye Park in April (G.L.B.), and a nest found (E.J.C.). Also seen near Melksham (E.J.C.), near Redlynch (N.W.O.), and at Pepperbox Hill (G.W.C.). 274. SWALLOW. First seen Mar. 26th, Clarendon, (C.M.R.P.); Mar. 27th, Farley (W.M.C.). Large parties of young birds roosting in reeds at Rodbourne sewage farm, Aug. 8th (G.L.W.). A complete albino, possibly the same bird, seen near Marlborough, Aug. 18th, Seend, Sept. oth, and Devizes, Sept. 20th, (C.A.C., LU. and Wiltshire News, Sept. 24th). Last seen Oct. 21st, Pickwick (G.LB.);; Oct: 2gth, Axford) (MCF). 276. HOUSE MARTIN. First seen Apr. sth, Seagry (R.G.B.); Apr. roth, Box (G.H.). Seen collecting mud for nests at Christian Malford, Aug. 23rd, a late date (R.G.B.). Last seen Oct. 23rd, Clarendon (C.M.R.P.); Oct. 24th, Rod- bourne (G.L.W.). 277. SAND MARTIN. First seen Mar. 25th, Marlborough (M.C.); Apr. 4th, Reybridge (C.R.). On a recently excavated sandy face at Christian Malford gravel pits a new colony of twenty-three nests was formed (R.G.B.). Last seen Sept. 12th, Swindon (G.L.W.); Sept. 26th, Corsham (C.R..). 279. RAVEN. The body of a female was found in a decomposed state in the snow early in the year by a shepherd between Winterbourne Gunner and Clarendon. The bird had been shot and its skin is now in Devizes Museum (J.K.S.). 281. HOODED crow. Two seen about Compton Bassett camp from Jan. 11th until the end of March. They fed with Carrion Crows and Jackdaws and were tame and approachable (R.A.F.). One seen near Clatford, Mar. 20th (M.C.). 293. WILLOw Tit. Identified at Knowle Hill, Feb. 2nd (M.C.) A pair seen and heard in Savernake Forest, Mar. 21st and May 9th (N.W.O.). A bird heard calling on marshy ground in Spye Park, Apr. 11th, was probably of this species. (GLB). 300. Dipper. A single bird seen on the R. Frome near Tellisford, May oth and a pair near Iford, Sept. 5th (A.S.). A nest with five eggs on the By Brook near Castle Combe, Apr. 5th, was later destroyed (E.J.C.). A single bird seen on the R. Wylye, May 8th (P.H.L.S.) and five nests found on the R. Nadder (C.F.P.). 302. FIELDFARE. Last seen in spring—Apr. 28th, Marlborough (M.C.); Apr. 29th, c.200, Stert (B.G.); May ist, c.50, Farley (W.M.C.). First in autumn— Oct. 17th, Littlecote (I.G.); Oct. 30th, Swindon (G.L.W.). 304. REDWING. ~ast seen in spring—Mar. 27th, West Amesbury (J.K.S.); Apr. 22nd, Ramsbury (M.C.F.). First in autumn—Oct. 8th, Shaw (C.A.C.); Oct. 13th, Corsley (R.H.P.). 308. BLACKBIRD. A member of the Sixth Form at St. Mary’s School, Calne, saw one standing on a stone in a goldfish pond with a largish goldfish crosswise in its beak. As she approached she saw the fish struggling and the bird let it go. (E.M.T,). 311. WHEATEAR. First seen Mar. sth, Wick Down (M.C.); Mar. 17th, Claren- don, (C.M.R.P.). Birds were common in battle area at Imber in June (G.L.B.). Last seen Sept. 22nd, Calstone (R.A.F.); Oct. 28th, Colerne aerodrome (G.A.). — Woodlark—Willow Warbler 27 317. STONECHAT. One visited a bird table near Warminster from Jan. gth throughout the snow and frost (P.H.L.S.). One hen was seen in a reed-bed near West Amesbury, Jan. 17th, and a pair in a marsh near Lake, Mar. roth, (J.K.S.). One at Boscombe Down aerodrome, Nov. 28th (D.N.D.). 318. WHINCHAT. First seen May 4th ,Lacock gravel pits (C.R.), and East Knoyle (B.M.S.), also two pairs on Hackpen Hill, May 15th (N.W.O.). Birds seen in Imber, June 12th (G.L.B.) and twenty on Aug. 16th (N.W.O.); at Lords Hill and during journeys across Salisbury Plain (P ERS. ). Last seen Sept. oth, East Knoyle (B.M.S.); Sept. 26th, Rodbourne (G.L.W.). 320. REDSTART. First seen Apr. 24th, Lake Wood, (J.K.S.); May 3rd, Saver- nake (M.C.). Two pairs were seen in Spye Park, June 7th (N-W.O.), and another nested in a garden wall near Corsham (E.J.C.). A pair were seen near Longleat in May, but it is not known if they bred there (M.B.). One seen and another heard in hawthorn on Golden Ball Hill, July 11th (B.G.). Last seen Sept. 8th, Shaw (C.A.C.); Sept. 29th, Upton Scudamore (R.A.F.). 321. BLACK REDSTART. A female on Keevil aerodrome, Jan. 24th, was watched for some time among the buildings, (G.L.B.). One was seen at Mildenhall Woodlands on Oct. 31st by the Master of Marlborough (R.K.H.). 322. NIGHTINGALE. Notes on this species will be included in the findings of the Nightingale Enquiry in a later report. 327. GRASSHOPPER WARBLER. First heard Apr. 30th, Clarendon (C.M.R.P.); Sandridge, May 4th (R.J.S.). Other records from Seend Cleeve (R.J.S.); Compton Bassett (R.A.F.); Kington St. Michael (E.J.C.); Rodbourne sewage farm (G.L.W.) and Mildenhall (G.L.B.). 333. REED WARBLER. First noted May 8th, Rodbourne (G.L.W.); May 22nd, ‘Coate Water (C.R.). 334. MARSH WARBLER. In north Wiltshire a male was heard singing, June 8th and the pair seen June 13th (N.W.O.). 337. SEDGE WARBLER. First noted Apr. 23rd, Salisbury (C.M.R.P.); May 4th, Marlborough (M.C.). Last noted July 31st, Ramsbury (M.C.F.); Oct. 9th, Rodbourne sewage farm, (G.L-W.), a late date. 343. BLACKcAP. First noted Apr. 6th, Clarendon (C.M.R.P.); Apr. oth, @oate(M-C-F.). ‘ 346. GARDEN WARBLER. First noted May Ist, Farley (W.M.C.); May sth, Swindon (G.L.W.). Last noted Aug. 19th, Semington (G.L.B.). 347. WHITETHROAT. First noted April 7th, Box, (C.S.H.); Apr. roth, Keevil (G.L.B.). Last noted Sept. 13th, Stonepit Hill, (B.G.); Oct. 9th, Rodbourne (G.L.W.). 348. LESSER WHITETHROAT. First noted May 4th, East Knoyle (B.M.S.); May 7th, Seagry (R.G.B.). Last noted August 19th, Semington (G.L.B.); Aug. 31st, Biddestone (C.R.). 354. WILLOW WARBLER. First noted Apr. 8th, Devizes (G.B.); Apr. roth, Rodbourne (G.L.W.); Coate, (M.C.F.) and Alderbury (C.M.R.P.). On Aug. 16th more than forty Willow Warblers, thirty Whitethroats and twenty 28 Wiltshire Bird Notes for 1954 Lesser Whitethroats were seen in one tree near Imber (N.W.O.). Last noted Sept. 26th, Box (C.S.H.); Oct. 2nd, Clarendon, (C.M.R.P.). 356. CHIFFCHAFF. First heard Mar. 22nd, Devizes (B.G.); Mar. 24th, Rowde- ford (E.M.W.) and Compton Bassett (R.A.F.). Last noted Oct. roth, | Devizes (B.G.); Oct. 16th, Lockeridge (C.A.C.). 357. WOOD WARBLER. First noted Apr. 28th, near Swindon (G.L.W.); Apr. 29th, near West Amesbury (J.K.S.). A brood seen near Old Sarum, July 28th (P.J.S.). 365. FIRECREST. One seen in observer’s garden at Oare, Dec. 16th at a distance of 12-18 feet. It was feeding at first at the bottom of a hedge of hawthorn and privet and later flew up into a laburnum tree. Goldcrests are constantly to be seen in the garden and the difference was obvious at once. This bird had a very distinct black and white eye-stripe and its reddish crest was more brilliant (DIE 366. SPOTTED FLYCATCHER. First noted Apr. 27th, Box (C.S.H.); May 2nd, Lyneham (N.W.O.). Last noted August 27th, Lockeridge (C.A.C.); Aug. 31st, Chippenham (C.R.) and Compton Bassett (R.A.F.). 368. PIED FLYCATCHER. A male bird observed on the drive of a house in Holt from a window within a few feet, May 2nd (C.F.). One seen by many observers near Marlborough, May 3rd (M.C.). 376. TREE PIpIT. First seen Apr. 16th, Pepperbox Hill, (C.M.R.P.); Apr. 18th, Spye Park, (G.L.B.). 381. GREY WAGTAIL. Pair reported breeding at Netheravon. Male birds seen at Wilsford and Lake in May (J.K.S.). Two pairs bred by a brook at Hardenhuish (P.R.). Noted in several places on the R. Kennet (M.C.F., B.G.). A pair at Fonthill Lake in June and family party by the R. Sem near Pyt House, Sept. 23rd (B.M.S.). . 382. YELLOW waGTaIL. First seen May 4th, Lacock gravel pits (G.L.B.); May tith, Swindon (G.L.W.). Noted in several localities near the Bristol Avon by R.J.S. and G.W.C. One or two pairs undoubtedly bred on West Amesbury marshes and young seen (J.K.S.). Last seen Sept. roth, Chippenham, a party of twelve, including three brilliant males(C.R.); Sept. roth, Rodbourne (G.L. W.). 388. RED-BACKED SHRIKE. A pair with young seen near Ford, July sth (C.M.R.P.). A male seen at Lower Woodford July 26th, and Hon. A. Tryon reported that a pair had bred near Great Durnford in 1953 (J.K.S.). One seen at Marlborough, July 31st (D.W.F.). 389. STARLING. Several birds were “anting” on the pavement in Chippenham, Feb. 24th. They showed great excitement in placing ants in their wing feathers and under their tails (G.L.B.). Four adults also seen “‘anting” in a garden at East Knoyle, Aug. 14th (B.M.S.). One, ringed as full grown at Chilmark on I§.2.53 was recovered in (presumed) breeding area on 4.6.53 at Oberneuland, . Bremen, Germany, cf. British Birds, Vol. XLVII, p. 391. 391. HAWFINCH. Six birds seen near Conholt Park, Mar. 13th; nine on Mar. 21st; and three on Apr. 18th (E.L.J.). Two birds in a garden near Whaddon, Aug. 20th (C.M.R.P.). Chiffchaff—Tree Sparrow 29 394. sisKIn. A flock of ten-twelve feeding on alder catkins near Clarendon, Mar. 1st (C.M.R.P.); another party seen at Homington, Mar. 2oth (P.R.F.). About ten with Goldfinches near West Lavington, Feb. sth (D.S.). 397. REDPOLL. A few seen in mixed flock of finches near Clarendon, Jan. 1st, (CMRP). 404. CROSSBILL. A few birds seen near Redlynch, Mar. 14th (C.M.R.P.). 408. BRAMBLING. During the January-February frost a number fed with chaffinches at the observer’s bird table at West Amesbury (J.K.S.). Last seen in spring—Apr. 21st, Fosbury Camp (E.L.J.); Apr. 18th and 25th, Amesbury (J.K.S.). First in autumn—Oct. 15th, Kingsdown (G.L.B.); Nov. 6th, Alton Priors (M.B.). 410. CORN BUNTING. For notes on this species see findings of the Corn Bunting Enquiry in a later issue. 415. CIRL BUNTING. A male seen frequently from January to March, Dauntsey Hill (N.W.O.). Singing near Pitton, Feb. 21st (R.W.) and near Bodenham in April (M.L.). A pair seen at Clarendon, Feb. 26th (C.M.R.P.) and a male in Salisbury, Mar. 16th (M.L.). A party of five with Yellow Buntings were seen in a sandpit near Compton Bassett, Mar. 17th (R.A.F.), and one bird with Yellow Buntings on Amesbury Marshes, Mar. 18th (J.K.S.). Near Netheravon a pair and a male were seen, May 19th (B.G.). A pair returned to a Ramsbury garden, Apr. 22nd, and were often seen, but nest not found (O.M.). 421. REED BUNTING. This bird feeds on stubbles in winter on Salisbury Plain, a long way from water. Three in full plumage were feeding in clover, Mar. 27th (J.K.S.). A flock of 150-200 birds were seen at Rodbourne sewage farm, Sept. 25th-26th (G.L.W.). 425. TREE SPARROW. Four nests found near Great Somerford and two near Chippenham (E.J.C.). A pair reared two broods in observer’s garden at Seagry (R.G.B.). Also seen near Marlborough, July 2nd (M.C.). Check-list numbers of those species which, though not mentioned in these notes, were recorded in 1954: 9, 45, 50, 57, 84, 93, II, 116, 118, 127, 133, 232, 234, DAG! 247s) 256,202, 204, 272; 280;)282, 283, 284, 286, 288,.289,-290, 292, 294, 296, 298, 299, 301, 303, 325, 364, 371, 373, 380, 392, 393, 395, 401, 407, 409, 424. 30 THE COMMON CURLEW AS A WILTSHIRE BREEDING BIRD by Er. Cot. J:. K. STANFORD, -O.B.E.,- M.C., M.B.O.UE The history of the Common Curlew (Numenius arquata L.) as a breeding bird in Wiltshire over the last eighty-four years is a remark- able instance of how doubtful records can survive for years, and of how little we know exactly of the status of even large and conspicuous birds. In 1870 Mr. (later Sir Everard) im Thurn, in Birds of Marlborough, gave an instance of a nest on the Aldbourne Downs, a record promptly discredited by his reviewer in the Zoologist. In 1876 he gave a little more, though still insufficient, evidence in the Report of the Marlborough College N.H. Society, about this nest, which the Zoologist again dis- believed. In 1877 the Rev. A. P. Morres wrote positively (Zool. 1877, p- 106) that the Curlew bred regularly on the downs within seven miles of Salisbury. This probably accounted for a rather vague state- ment by Howard Saunders in the fourth edition of Yarrell (II., p. 501). In 1887 the Rev. A. C. Smith (Birds of Wiltshire, p.412) remarked that various people “assure me they used to breed regularly in certain districts on the Downs. Possibly they may do so still.” He referred to the above three writers and admitted he had “no positive proof.” In 1883 Morres recanted his previous assertion and wrote in our Magazine (Vol. XXI p. 223): “I have often been told that these birds bred on the Downs, and was promised some eggs, but when they were sent they turned out to be Stone-Curlew’s, as I had all along suspected to be the case.” (This was in despite of his very positive assertion in 1877). In Howard Saunders’ Manual (2nd ed. p. 127) the original statement was repeated and was copied widely up to 1916, when Mr. G. Bathurst Hony, who did much painstaking work on Wiltshire birds, expressed grave doubts about the above records,in British Birds (Vol. X, p. 44-45). One day after this was published, on 2nd July, 1916, Mr. Hony had to eat his own words! He heard a pair of Curlews calling and felt sure they had young, about a mile from Tidworth. On the 4th July a further search revealed one young bird about a week old, which was killed by his dog. Mr. Hony remarks that this was on “ typical Early Records Sil downland.” Presumably it has long since vanished under the houses or cantonments of Tidworth. There the matter rested for nine years until in the 1925 Report of the Marlborough College N.H. Society Mr. Guy Peirson wrote that he was “convinced that the Curlew nests in the neighbourhood of Marl- borough.” (W.A.M. XLIII, 496). The 1932 Magazine (Vol. XLV., 612) contains the bald statement that Mr. R. T. H. James of Chute “ reports ten or twelve pairs breeding near Chute.” Our ornithological records are sometimes much truncated in the Magazine, and it is uncertain in what sort of terrain these birds were nesting or if any nests or young were actually seen. In the same year Mr..C. M. R: Pitman recorded five or six pairs breeding “just outside the county near Redlynch,” i.e. in Hampshire, a record which has since appeared almost annually in the Magazine, though details of eggs or young found have rarely been given, and in 1936 this colony was said to be down to one pair. The 1932 Chute record did not go unquestioned, but in Vol. XLVI, p- 455 Mr. James speaks of “ the interference of machinery and the milking machines in the field adjoining ’’ the Curlews’ nesting area, in which they have not been reported since that one year. In 1934 Mr. Guy Peirson records Curlew seen in the Marlborough district on the 3rd and the 7th of May, which in the light of subsequent notes were probably breeding birds. But between 1870 and 1945 it is clear that the actual proof of breeding within the Wiltshire county boundary was of one young bird found in July 1916. Luckily after the 1939-45 War the records become considerably more copious and clear and it seems probable that a definite new colonization took place in the war years. I will refer to the Redlynch area (which is nearly all in Hampshire) later on. Briefly most of the post-war records come from the low-lying triangle of land south of the Kennet and Avon Canal which is bounded on the west by the Devizes-West Lavington road with Pewsey as its apex. From this area spring the headwaters of the Hampshire Avon and also of the Summerham Brook which flows into the Bristol Avon. It is a land of small marshy meadows surrounded by high fences full of trees and intersected by deep muddy ditches and lanes. The G.W. Railway probably interrupts much of the drainage in this area, though a lot of ditching and reclamation has been done in the last two years. 32 The Common Curlew as a Wiltshire Breeding Bird During the war I suspect a good deal of poor agricultural land here went back to rushy marsh. In 1946 the Magazine (LI., 593) reports Curlews seen in this area in late March and a boy at Dauntsey’s School found a nest near West Lavington which was photographed. Two pairs of Curlew were seen in the area and one nest certainly hatched. The secretary of the School Bird Club wrote “ Owing to the necessity of keeping such things quiet in a school I have no particulars to hand,” but the record can be accepted as adequate. In 1947 and 1948 observers in this area reported Curlews seen between Worton and Marlborough between late May and July (LIL, 240). There were “ possibly two nests in summer at West Lavington,” this record again coming from Dauntsey’s School without further detail. Finally in 1949 Miss Joan Ross found a nest with three eggs near Beechingstoke on 6th May, which hatched successfully (LIl., 347). Both in 1948, 1949 and 1950 Curlews, apparently breeding, were seen and heard on various occasions by Mr. Donald Cross from March to luly “in the water-meadows,” at least four pairs being present but no further proof of actual breeding was obtained. I have been through all these records and owing to their having to be “ boiled down ”’ in the Magazine, the details printed are so vague, that in twenty years time, if critically examined, they might well have been rejected as merely “ probable ’’ breeding occurrences. In 1951 there were no records of definite breeding though Curlews were seen and heard in June and July on the west side of the area named above. In 1952 Mr. R. J. Spencer of Melksham found two nests in Sandridge Park in May, one of which hatched successfully on 22nd June. On 18th May another nest with four eges was found near Etchilhampton and a fourth with two eggs on the 21st May in the same area. On the Ist June a young bird was seen near Urchfont and two pairs were noted in this area. Three pairs were seen in one field at West Lavington but no nest was found. Four young birds were seen at Bulkington, and apparently breeding pairs were observed on Keevil aerodrome in late April and May. In 1953 nests or young were seen at Seend Cleeve (two pairs seen), Potterne Wick (two pairs) and Ogbourne St. George and Urchfont, in all four pairs certainly hatching. In the Patney area one pair certainly Extension of Range 33 had young in June in a hayfield, and were repeatedly watched by me chasing away Crows but the young were never actually found. Dauntsey’s School again reported Curlews in late June, apparently breeding near Dewey’s Water. At the time when the Curlews are sitting, it is almost impossible to search the area properly for nests on account of mowing grass, and unless a search is made in late April it is likely to be unsuccessful. In 1954, four nests were found, or seen, by myself between Worton and Patney. Two of these certainly hatched and the eggs of two disappeared, probably robbed by Carrion Crows, as each nest was over- looked from about a hundred yards range by a sitting Crow. One of the robbed nests was in an upland field of lucerne, the others were in marsh meadows. In this area at least eight pairs were located by myself, Brigadier Lipscomb, David Cannon, Anthony Wellsand Mrs. O. Peall. The area swarms with Crows and large rookeries, and much drainage and ditching was going on throughout the summer, so that the birds were greatly disturbed. One nest was within twenty-five yards of the G.W.R. main line and the bird sat exceedingly closely, despite trains and passing gangers. In the same year three extensions of the bird’s breeding range were reported. One was north of Chippenham. Later Mr. B. M. Stratton of East Knoyle reported Curlews in April and June in the Sedgehill- Semley area on the S.W. Wiltshire-Dorsetshire boundary and quotes a farmer as saying that they have been “ seen each season on his land for the last seven years ”’ (i.e. since 1948) and that a nest was found in 1953. Miss B. Gillam (who had noted Curlews in the Potterne area between 3rd March and 24th May, which appeared to be breeding), also saw “ several pairs with young” on the Kennet near Littlecote, i.e. on the eastern Wiltshire-Berkshire border. Additional records in 1954 were supplied by Mr. R. J. Spencer who found a nest near Sandridge on 11th May near the 1952 site (this hatched successfully), and Mr. G. L. Boyle who noted Curlews in the Keevil area, between Trowbridge and Devizes between 7th May and 18th June, which must have been breeding birds. There seems every indication from these records that the Common Curlew is slowly spreading its range inland as other waders, notably the Oyster-Catcher in northern England, and the Redshank, have done, and that in 1954 twelve to twenty pairs probably nested in the VOL. LVI—CCII C 34 The Common Curlew as a Wiltshire Breeding Bird county. As regards the Redlynch Curlews, in the extreme south of the county on the New Forest border, Mr. C. M. R. Pitman tells me that though they have nested in boggy valleys just inside Wiltshire, they normally nest on heathy moorland on the Hampshire side of the county boundary, which is here the Redlynch-Bramshaw road. The Curlew is such a magnificent and interesting addition to our list of breeding birds that it is hoped this summary may turn the attention of field-naturalists to it in other parts of Wiltshire, and that it will be given every possible protection. It has many things apart from man with which to contend, from Carrion Crows to drainage and grass-cutting, and the interference of cattle in its breeding haunts. 5/5) WILTSHIRE PLANT NOTES (16) Recorder: DONALD GROSE, F.L.S. Downs Edge, Liddington CONTRIBUTORS: A.W. A. Whiting, Stratton ].A. Miss Amor, Swindon B.F.. - Mrs. Fergusson, J.C.C. J. C. Crowdy, Swindon Ebbesborne Wake JEL. J.E. Lousley, Streatham B.M.S. B.M. Stratton, East Knoyle J.F.H-S. Dr. J. F. Hope-Simpson, B.N.B. F/O. B. N. Boothby, Bristol Compton Bassett M.E.B. Miss Brockway, C.E.O. C. E. Owen, Lockeridge Chippenham C.M.F. C. M. Floyd, Holt M.E.N. Mrs. Nurse, Little C.S.H. Mrs. Seccombe Hett, Box Cheverell D.E.C. Dr. D:E. Coombe, M.F. Miss Fasken, Marlborough Salisbury M.H. Mrs. M. Haythornthwaite, D.M.F. Miss Frowde, Colerne Steeple Ashton D.O. — Mrs. Owen, Lockeridge N.C. N. Catterns, Tidcombe D:S: Miss Stevens, Salisbury N.D.S. N.-D. Simpson; BT: | “Mrs; Timperley, Bournemouth Fordingbridge N.Y.S. N. Y. Sandwith, Kew G.G. _ G. Grigson, Broad Town O.B. O. Buckle, Hastings G.H.D. Miss Day, Bedford O.M. O. Meyrick, Ramsbury G.L. Mrs. Lywood, Harnham P.R.F. Mrs. Farquharson, G.W.C. G. W. Collett, Homington Chippenham RS. R. Sandell, Devizes H.J.H. H. J. Hunt, Chippenham R.S.N. R.S. Newall, Fisherton Hye. HJ. Patrick, Salisbury Delamere H.M.H. Miss Hughes, Bratton MGiG .1.-G. Collett, Ealing ILM.G. Mrs. Grose, Liddington W.G.G. W. G. Goldstraw, Lavington T Indicates that a plant is not native in the given locality. All records, unless otherwise stated, are for 1954. A feature of the list is the large number of alien species recorded. Several of these are new to the county and, as such, have been named at Kew. Helleborus viridis L. Green Hellebore. 9, between Kinghay and Beacon Hill, B.M:S. Papaver hybridum L. Rough Round-headed P oppy. 7, Netheravon, M.E.B. + Hesperis matronalis L. Dame’s Violet. 9, Chalk-pit, East Knoyle, B.M.S. + Bunias orientalis L. 2, Near Thingley, H.J.H. t Silene anglica L. var. silvestris (Schott) Aschers. and Graebn. 10, Near Damer- ham, E.T. The locality is now in Hampshire but was formerly in Wilts. Cerastium arvense L. Field Mouse-ear Chickweed. 10, Roadside near Toyd, PR-E. G2 36 Wiltshire Plant Notes (16) T Arenaria balearica L. 7, Wall, Salisbury, D.S. Sagina subulata (Sw.) C. Presl. Awl-leaved Pearlwort. 5, Refound in its — only known Wilts locality at Hamptworth whence it was last recorded by E. J. Tatum, in 1890, R.S. T Geranium endresii J. Gay. 9, Roadside west of Hindon, B.M.S. G. pusillum L. Small-flowered Cranesbill. 2, Rubbish-dump, Corsham, D.M.F. t Impatiens parviflora DC. Small Balsam. 1, Vicarage garden, Steeple Ashton, M.H. The earlier record for this species (Wiltshire Plant Notes—10) was an error. Genista anglica L. Needle Furze. 4, Refound in its old locality in Savernake Forest, IL.M.G. It is probably extinct elsewhere in North Wilts. G. tinctoria L. Dyer’s Greenweed. 8, In great quantity, Lord’s Hill, G.W.C. Trifolium medium L. Zigzag Clover. 8, Lord’s Hill, G.W.C. Ornithopus perpusillus L. Birdsfoot. 5, Near Loosehanger Copse, R.S. Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. Smooth Tare. 1, Bratton, H.M.H. Lathyrus nissolia L. Grass Vetchling. 2, Hungerdown, Chippenham, G.W.C. 8, Chalk grassland between Lavington Down and Tilshead, J.F.H-S. + Pyracantha coccinea Roem. 8, One bush on White Barrow, 1953, M.E.N. Geum rivale x urbanum. 9, Chilmark Down, D.E.C. Alchemilla vestita (Buser) Raunk. Lady’s Mantle. 2, Lower Easton Piercey, C.M.F. Sanguisorba officinalis L. Great Burnet. 3, Walcot, A.W. Pyrus communis L. Pear. 5, Near Ranger’s Lodge, D.S. 8, The tree near Winterbourne Stoke (Wiltshire Plant Notes—4) is the round-fruited form, ReSuN: Sedum acre L. Biting Stonecrop. 4, Knap Hill, D.O. S. telephium L. Orpine. 5, Farley, D.S. Epilobium palustre L. Marsh Willow-herb. 2, Marsh on east border of Colerne Park, D.M.F. i Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) Airy Shaw. Parsley. Roadside near Farley, R.S. 1 Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Fennel. 9, Roadside near Ansty, T.G.C. Oenanthe pimpinelloides L. 9, East Knoyle, B.M.S. Erigeron acris L. Blue Fleabane. 7, Camp Down, D.S. 10, Ebbesborne Wake, B.F. Gnaphalium sylvaticum L. Heath G@adereead 5, Whiteparish, D.S. t Inula helenium L. Elecampane. 1, Caps Lane, comm. O.M. Bidens tripartitus L. Trifd Bur-marigold. 1, Seend Cleeve, G.G. Chrysanthemum segetum L. Corn Marigold. 1, Near Trowle Common, CS. Tanacetum vulgare L. Tansy. 1, Semington Brook near Seend, G.G. Cirsium acaule x tuberosum. 2, Slope below Oliver’s Castle, J.F.H-S. t Onopordum acanthium L. Scotch Thistle. 2, Chippenham, H.J.H. Centaurea scabiosa L. Greater Knapweed. Form with white flowers. 3, Wroughton, J.C.C. t Cichorium pumilum Jacq. 2, Garden weed, Colerne, D.M.F. Picris echioides L. Bristly Ox-tongue. 1, Bratton, H.M.H. t Hieracium brunneocroceum Pugsl. 2, Quarry, Ccrsham, H.J H. Arenaria balearica—Neottia nidus-avis 37 { Cicerbita macrophylla (Willd.) Wallr. 9, Fovant and Hatch, comm. B.M.S. Tragopogon porrifolius L. Salsify. 7, Waste ground, Salisbury, D.S. Phyteuma tenerum R. Schulz. Round-headed Rampion. 4, Milk Hill, G.G. Tt Campanula latifolia L. Giant Bellflower. 2, Bowden Hill, H.J.H. Probably introduced. Monotropa hypopithys L. Yellow Bird’s-nest. 5, Pepperbox Hill, R.S. M. hypophegea Wallr. Yellow Bird’s-nest. 6, Tidcombe, N.C. 8, Boyton, .M.S Pauls vulgaris Huds. Primrose. Umbellate form. 2, Near Alcombe, C.S.H. Hazeland Wood, A.W. P. veris x vulgaris. False Oxlip. 2, Near Alcombe, C.S.H. Stanton Park, I.M.G. T Cyclamen neapolitanum Ten. 2, The Murhill plant recorded in 1953 (Wiltshire Plant Notes—15) has flowered in cultivation and has been identified at Kew. { Lysimachia punctata L. 9, Chalk-pit, East Knoyle, B.M.S. Gentianella anglica (Pugsl.) E. F. Warburg. 5, Pepperbox Hill, D.E.C. 7, Water Dean Bottom, I.M.G. Down south of Great Durnford, D.E.C. 10, Middle Hill and Gallows Hill, J.F.H-S. { Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. 3, Allotment ground, Walcot, J.A. T Calystegia sylvestris (Willd.) Roem. and Schult. forma rosea Hyl. Greater Bindweed. 9, Lady Down, Hindon and near Tisbury, B.MS. { Datura stramonium L. Thorn-apple. 5, Still at Peter’s Finger, D.S. t Hyoscyamus niger L. Henbane. 9, Harnham Hill, G.L. { Linaria repens (L.) Mill. Pale Toadflax. 2, Roadside near Corsham, H.J.H. Odontites verna (Bell.) Dum. subsp. verna. 2, Cherhill, B.N.B. { Veronica filiformis Sm. 9, Roadside north of Dinton, I.M.G. Orobanche elatior Sutton, forma citrina (Druce) Pugsl. 7, Roadside south of Great Durnford, G.H.D. This remarkable colour-form of the Tall Broomrape has been found twice before in Wiltshire but not, as far as I know, elsewhere. O. minor Sm. var. compositarum Pugsl. Lesser Broomrape. 7, Easton Royal. Near Avon Bridge, D.E.C. In each case parasitic on Crepis capillaris. Pinguicula lusitanica L. Pale Butterwort. 5, Pound Bottom, E.T. { Thymus vulgaris L. 2, Garden escape, bank of Avon, Chippenham, H_J.H., det. D. Pigott. Salvia horminoides Pourr. Clary. 7, Chirton, R.S. 8, Berwick St. James, H.M.H. Fisherton Delamere, B.M.S. Ajuga reptans L. Bugle. Form with pale blue flowers. 10, East Combe Wood, D.O Plantago lanceolata L. var. anthoviridis Wats. Ribwort Plantain. 5, Pepperbox Hill, N.D.S. 7, Easton Royal. Old Sarum, N.D.S. T Polygonum amplexicaule D. Don. 2, Roadside between Neston and Wads- wick, H.J.H. T P. cuspidatum Sieb. and Zucc. 1, Near Horningsham, B.M.S. + Euphorbia virgata Waldst. and Kit. forma esulifolia (Thell.). 7, Roadside, Woodford, P.R.F. Tt E. cyparissias L. Cypress Spurge. 9, Bemerton, comm. D.S. Neottia nidus-avis (L.) L. C. Rich. Bird’s-nest Orchid. 2, Stanton Park, H.J.H. 38 Wiltshire Plant Notes (16) Epipactis phyllanthes G. E. Smith var. vectensis (T. and T. A. Steph.) D. P. Young, Isle of Wight Helleborine. 8, Boyton, B.M.S. Orchis ustulata L. Burnt Orchis. 8, Lower Pertwood, 1932, J.F.H-S. Codford, B.M.S. O. mascula L. Early Purple Orchis. Form with white flowers. 9, White ee Hill, Ansty, J.F.H-S. O. strict ifolia Opiz. Early Marsh Orchis. 4, Still at Axford and Chilton Foliat, M.F. 7, Netheravon, M.F. O. praetermissa Druce. Common Marsh Orchis. 8, Fisherton Delamere, B.M.S. 9, Chalk-pit, White Sheet Hill, Ansty, E.T. 10, Dry chalk down near East Combe Wood, D.S. O. fuchsii x praetermissa. 9, Chalk-pit, White Sheet Hill, Ansty, plentiful, E.T. Ophrys apifera Huds. lusus trollii (Hegetschw.). Wasp Orchid. 2, Between Hungerdown and Chippenham, H.J.H. Narcissus pseudo-narcissus L. Daffodil. 5, Mean Wood, I.M.G. 9, Gutch Common, B.M.S. T Galanthus nivalis L. Snowdrop. 9, Two acres in wood north of Pythouse, B.M.S. Leucojum aestivum L. Summer Snowflake. 5, Riverside near Ford, 1953, D.S. New for South Wilts. Allium oleraceum L. Field Garlic. 2, Colerne Park. Tamus communis L. Black Bryony. Form with fasciated stem. 1, Hill Wood, W.G.G. Ornithogalum pyrenaicum L. Spiked Star-of-Bethlehem. 2, Near Ditteridge, D.M.F. Juncus acutiflorus Hoffm. Sharp-flowered Rush. 2, Birds Marsh, G.W.C. T Aponogeton distachyos L.£. Cape Pondweed. 10, River Avon south of Salisbury, H.J.P. Probably escaped from cultivation but not recorded before for Wiltshire. Carex pairaei F. Schultz. 5, Near Loosehanger Copse, R.S. C. pilulifera L. Pill Sedge. 5, Near Loosehanger Copse, R.S. C. pallescens L. Pale Sedge. 9, Wood on Chilmark Down, O.B. Melica uniflora Retz. fonaa albida Erick. 2, Border of Derry Woods, J.E.L. and N.Y.S. Glyceria declinata Bréb. 7, Dewpond on Urchfont Hill, G.W.C. Ophioglossum vulgatum L. Adder’s Tongue. 1, Flinty Knapp, M.H. Chara vulgaris L. Common Sian 7, Dewpond on Urchfont Hill, CEO: Se) A BOTANICAL SURVEY OF COLERNE PARK by Donatp Grosz, F.L.S. A botanical survey of Colerne Park was undertaken on behalf of the Nature Conservancy and completed in 1954. My grateful thanks are due to Miss G. A. Peters for her kind permission to visit the Park, to Miss D. M. Frowde and Mr. G. W. Collett for placing their intimate knowledge of the terrain and its plants at my disposal, and to my wife for the preparation of the maps and other help. Name. The use of the term “ Park” is misleading. Almost the whole area is, or has been, dense woodland and there is no mansion included within its bounds nor attached to it in any way. There is, however, a small cottage in the wood which was built in about 1890 and is depicted on the O.S. six-inch map but not on the smaller scales. History. Colerne Park was formerly owned by New College, Oxford, and is believed to have formed part of the gift made by William of Wykeham on the founding of that college in the fourteenth century. The following maps show the wooded area very much as it is today: Map of Colerne Manor (County Record Office) —1767 Andrews and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire—1773 Greenwood’s Map of Wiltshire—1820 Ordnance Survey, First Edition—1828 There are three tumuli in the north of the Park and recent excavations near them have revealed evidence of Roman habitation. Boundaries. From the footbridge north-west of Weavern Farm (839719) the By Brook forms the east boundary northwards to the point (840731) at which the woodland diverges from the river. It is continued by the woodland northwards and westwards to the Thickwood-Slaughterford lane (837734), then south-westwards to the entrance-gate (834732) and along the border of the wood to the Euridge lane (834724) and south- eastwards along the lane and the footpath to the footbridge. The total area is about 200 acres. Situation. The Park consists almost entirely of woodland developed on the east-facing slopes above the By Brook. From 475 ft. O.D. in the 40 A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park extreme west the descent is steep and fairly uniform to the river at 150-175 ft. One small rivulet drains through the central portion of the Park and there are a few other damp places. Bordering the river are narrow belts of marsh. The higher parts of the Park are on the Great Oolite and there are a few small shallow quarries showing where limestone has been taken at some remote period. Bordering the Great Oolite is the Inferior Oolite of the slopes towards the river. The soil here is less calcareous than above and the gradually increasing acidity as one descends is reflected in a striking manner by the changing flora. Survey. Eighteen stands, each of about 200 square yards, were selected as representatives of the various habitats, and census-lists of the plants were made. A few of the more interesting lists are given below in full. The locations of the eighteen numbered stands are shown on Map 1. Soil samples were taken at all stands. The pH values were measured with standard soil indicators and subsequently checked with a capillator outfit. These values are shown on Map 2, the positions corresponding to the numbered stands of Map 1. Particular attention was paid to the distribution of the following species: Convallaria majalis (C), Poly- gonatum multiflorum (M), Paris quadrifolia (Q), and Pteridium aquilinum (P). The localities of these are plotted on Map 2. Non-indigenous trees. The species mentioned below form only a very small proportion of the tree cover and, except for their occurrence in scrub, are not considered further. Beech. A few old trees around the tumuli and near the north-west entrance. Horse Chestnut. Planted chiefly in the north and north-west; scattered individuals elsewhere. Sycamore. Rather frequent about the tumuli and near the cottage. See stands 13 and 14. Pine and other conifers. Planted along the main ride and in the north- west. Pines, now mostly cleared, formerly occupied small areas east and west of Monk’s Wood. See stand 14. WOODLAND 1. Oak-hazel coppice. pH 7.3. This is normal coppice-with-standards with a varied flora. Mercurialis perennis is dominant over much of the field layer but it is noteworthy that Sanicula europaea is more frequent here than By Donald Grose, F.L.S. 41 elsewhere in the Park—this may be due to greater exposure. Asperula odorata, Conopodium majus, Polygonatum multiflorum and. Sorbus aria occur. 2. Oak-ash-hazel coppice. pH 7.5. Very shallow soil over limestone. Oak is less frequent than in Stand 1 while ash is more frequent. Convallaria is commoner here than in its other localities. Carex digitata, known only in one other Wiltshire station, grows close to the narrow lane and should widening take place on this side the plant would be exterminated. Abundant Corylus avellana Frequent Anemone nemorosa Convallaria majalis Mercurialis perennis Occasional Allium ursinum Fraxinus excelsior Quercus robur Clematis vitalba Primula vulgaris Viola riviniana Rare Arum maculatum Hedera helix Polygonatum multiflorum Asperula odorata Lathraea squamaria Polypodium vulgare Carex digitata Ligustrum vulgare Polystichum lobatum Cornus sanguinea Luzula pilosa Sanicula europaea Crataegus monogyna Orchis mascula Sorbus aria Endymion nonscriptus Phyllitis scolopendrium Ulmus glabra 3. Ash-hazel coppice. pH 7.3. Oak still further replaced by ash. This region has been recently coppiced and conditions are still rather open. Several species growing here were not seen elsewhere in the Park; these include Milium effusum and Mycelis muralis. Abundant Corylus avellana Mercurialis perennis Frequent Fragaria vesca Fraxinus excelsior Occasional Ajuga reptans Convallaria majalis Milium effusum Arctium minus Euphorbia amygdaloides Moehringia trinervia Asperula odorata Galeobdolon luteum Veronica chamaedrys Carex sylvatica Hypericum hirsutum Viola riviniana Rare Acer campestre Ligustrum vulgare Quercus robur Anemone nemorosa Listera ovata Ranunculus repens Arum maculatum Lithospermum officinale Rosa sp. Chamaenerion angustifolium Malus sylvestris Rubus sp. Conopodium majus Melica uniflora Ulmus glabra Endymion nonscriptus Mycelis muralis Valeriana officinalis A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park 42 Map I. ' Location of stands and distribution of ! tr ces. lus avellana inus excelsior | NS Frax } | | mm Cory Quercus robur IW =o. 2 ee D i AY. ‘ iP wx v, 5, ae bh i 1 | fp , SS eee ts A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park 43 Map 2. Soil values of stands and distribution of selected species. The = contours: | which are taken i only to the bound. fary, follow the f same general direc- f tion through the i Park: 1 C. —Convallaria majalis M.—Polygonatum multiflorum P. —Pteridium aquilinum | Q.—Paris } quadrifolia 44 A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park Epilobium montanum Myosotis arvensis Verbascum thapsus Euonymus europaeus Orchis mascula Viburnum lantana Glechoma hederacea Primula vulgaris Vicia sepium 4. Oak-ash woodland. pH 7.5. Shrub layer varied but consisting chiefly of privet. Hazel almost absent. Privet is lower-growing than hazel and sheds its leaves less readily; the resultant field layer is normally impoverished. Campanula trachelium and Convallaria majalis occur sparingly. 5. Ash-hazel woodland. pH 7.5. Oak occasional; privet absent. A varied field layer which includes Campanula trachelium and Paris quadrifolia. 6. Ashwood with much privet. pH 7.7 (the highest value recorded). This is the only locality for Polygonatum odoratum in the Park. The plants grow in more or less open ground away from the bushes; they flower freely but mature few berries. Aguilegia vulgaris formerly grew here but could not be found in 1954. Abundant Fraxinus excelsior Ligustrum vulgare Frequent Convallaria majalis Mercurialis perennis Sambucus nigra Polygonatum odoratum Occasional Ajuga reptans Euphorbia amygdaloides Scrophularia nodosa Rare Anemone nemorosa Dipsacus sylvestris Primula vulgaris Arctium minus Dryopteris filix-mas Senecio jacobaea Arum maculatum Fragaria vesca Ulinus glabra Bryonia dioica Glechoma hederacea Urtica dioica Circaea lutetiana Inula conyza Veronica chamaedrys Moehringia trinervia Polygonatum x hybridum Briig. In 1872, T. B. Flower recorded Poly- gonatum intermedium Bor. from Colerne Park. The identity of his plant was doubted (see particularly J. W. White, Fl. Bristol, p. 581) but in 1939, Miss G. A. Peters gathered a specimen which, although short, bore the flowers mostly in pairs and suggested the influence of P. multiflorum in other characters. No similar plants were found until, in 1954, Miss D. M. Frowde discovered a large and flourishing colony a few yards west of Stand No. 6. The members of this colony are very variable, some bearing their flowers in pairs, others in threes, and a few with central groups of four. The specimen collected, and subsequently named P. multiflorum x odoratum by Dr. Warburg, was 76 cm. in height and bore thirty-four flowers on twelve peduncles. The stem was almost cylindrical at the base but angled above and the flowers were very” slightly constricted in the middle. Other characters—size of flowers, their waxy substance, their scent, and the glabrous filaments—were all of P. odoratum. 7. Ashwood with occasional wych-elm. pH 7.3. Ulmus glabra is scattered here and there throughout the Park but the trees in this stand are remarkable for their sub-erect habit. Herbaceous species include Helleborus viridis (apparently truly native), Paris quadrifolia and Polygonatum multiflorum. By Donald Grose, F.L.S. 45 8. Mixed woodland with no true dominant. pH 7.2. Eight woody species occur in about equal numbers. The dominant of the field layer, as in nearly all stands, is Mercurialis perennis; associated plants are few and of little interest. 9. Hazel coppice. pH 7.3. This stand is typical of much of the central and. lower parts. Hazel is dominant and forms almost pure coppice in places with very few forest trees. Occasionally ash is present and appears to have been coppiced with the hazel. The shrubs are now old and about twenty feet high, thus forming a close canopy with low light intensity in summer. In this shade, Mercurialis covers the ground almost to the exclusion of other species. 10. Hazel wood. pH 6.6. Hazel again dominant and very tall. The dominant of the field layer in the spring is Allium ursinum which forms great sheets on nearly all the damp lower slopes. Ranunculus ficaria is often associated with it. In the summer these are replaced by Mercurialis perennis. Athyrium filix-femina occurs. 11. Ash-hazel woodland. pH 6.2. The greater acidity of the soil at the foot of the slope is indicated by the presence of Pteridium aquilinum. Lathraea squamaria is plentiful here around the hazels. 12. Wych-elm woodland. pH 6.0. Ulmus glabra is well distributed but was seen only here as a dominant. In the deep shade, Mercurialis perennis is abundant but few other species flourish. Abundant Mercurialis perennis Frequent Corylus avellana Ulmus glabra Occasional Dryopteris filix-mas Primula vulgaris Pteridium aquilinum Rare Acer campestre Circaea lutetiana Dryopteris austriaca Ajuga reptans Geum urbanum SCRUB 13 and 14. Scrub. pH 7.3. These two neighbouring stands can be con- veniently considered together. On the six-inch map of 1923 the area is marked as coniferous woodland but it seems, judging by the stumps, that the cover was rather sparse. After clearance it is now reverting naturally to deciduous woodland, Stand No. 13 apparently being at an older stage by several years. The pioneer tree in the young scrub is sycamore and this is being followed by ash. The list below contrasts a few selected species in an attempt to trace the development. STAND I4: OPEN SCRUB STAND 13: OLDER SCRUB Increasing Agrimonia eupatoria _ occasional Brach ypodium syl vaticum rare occasional Clematis vitalba rare occasional 46 A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park Fraxinus excelsior rare frequent Galium aparine — rare Hypericum hirsutum rare frequent Primula vulgaris a rare Rubus caesius = rare Decreasing Arrhenatherum elatius occasional rare Chamaenerion angusti- folium occasional — Hypericum perforatum frequent rare Prunella vulgaris occasional rare Senecio jacobaea frequent — Viola hirta occasional = Additional species include: Acinos arvensis, Anacamptis pyramidalis, Cirsium eriophorum, Echium vulgare, Geranium columbinum and Malva moschata. Con- ditions are dry but these moisture-loving plants occurred as solitary individuals in Stand 13: Epilobium parviflorum, Filipendula ulmaria, and Scrophularia aquatica. 15. Recently clear-felled woodland. pH 6.8. Elder has invaded and is, for the time, the only prominent shrub. The commonest herbaceous plants are Circaea lutetiana and Mercurialis perennis. ‘There is a little Colchicum autumnale. 16. Ride. pH 7.2. This wide open space seems to have been much disturbed by the cartage of timber at some time prior to 1940 when I first knew it. The multiple tracks are now rarely used and, with the surrounding ground, harbour an extensive range of plants which include representatives of grassland, woodland and weeds of cultivation. Nearly sixty species crow in this stand of c. 200 sq. yds. The most abundant are Anagallis arvensis, Poterium sanguisorba, Primula vulgaris and Prunella vulgaris. Others are: Acinos arvensis Echium vulgare Malva moschata Anagallis foemina Erodium cicutarium Origanum vulgare Aphanes microcarpa Gnaphalium uliginosum Sherardia arvensis Blackstonia perfoliata Helianthemum chamaecistus Thymus drucei Centaurium minus Kickxia elatine Verbascum thapsus C. pulchellum K. spuria Veronica officinalis Cirsium acaule Viola hirta 17. Open ground in wood. pH 7.0. The flora is somewhat similar to Stand No. 16 above but poorer in number of species. Lysimachia nummularia grows in a damp place. 3 MARSH 18. Moderately damp ground near the river. pH 7.3. The dominant of much of this stand is Epilobium hirsutum. Other species include: Carex acutiformis Epilobium palustre Lysimachia nummularia C. contigua Equisetum telmateia Orchis fuchsii C.pendula Geranium pratense O. praetermissa Conium maculatum O. strictifolia Additional species to those recorded in the stands. By Donald Grose, F.L.S. 47 Allium oleraceum. South-west border; not known elsewhere in Wiltshire. Carex strigosa. In two places near the river. Chrysosplenium oppositifolium. Abundant on damp slopes near the river. Epipactis latifolia. One place in the south-west. Tris foetidissima. Two small colonies in the south. Ophrys apifera. Wood border near stand 16 (Frowde). O. insectifera. North-west border. Poa compressa. Bank of Euridge lane. Verbena officinalis. In scrub near stand 14. Cardamine impatiens was recorded by Sole in 1782; it has not been refound. SUMMARY OF STANDS Stand Soil Altitude No. 6 2 pH feet 7-7 400 7-5 450 7-5 425 7-5 425 7-3, 475 7-3, 400 7-3 300 7-3, 275 Tie 275 6.6 225 6.2 175 6:0, 200 7-3 4§0 7-3 425 7.2 300 7.0 250 6.8 225 7-3 175 Woody Fraxinus excelsior Ligustrum vulgare Corylus avellana Fraxinus excelsior Quercus robur Fraxinus excelsior Ligustrum vulgare Quercus robur Corylus avellana Fraxinus excelsior Corylus avellana Quercus robur Corylus avellana Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Ulmus glabra Corylus avellana Various Corylus avellana Corylus avellana Fraxinus excelsior Corylus avellana Ulmus glabra Dominants or most common species Herbaceous WOODLAND Mercurialis perennis Polygonatum odoratum Anemone nemorosa Convallaria majalis Mercurialis perennis Mercurialis perennis Mercurialis perennis Urtica dioica Mercurialis perennis Sanicula europaea Fragaria vesca Mercurialis perennis Mercurialis perennis Other species Convallaria majalis Inula conyza Carex digitata Lathraea squamaria Polygonatum multiflorum Campanula trachelium Convallaria majalis Campanula trachelium Paris quadrifolia Asperula odorata Polygonatum multiflorum Convallaria majalis Milium effusum Helleborus viridis Polygonatum multiflorum Paris quadrifolia Allium ursinum Mercurialis perennis Circaea lutetiana Glechoma hederacea Mercurialis perennis Allium ursinum Mercurialis perennis Anemone nemorosa Mercurialis perennis Mercurialis perennis SCRUB AND OPEN GROUND Acer pseudoplatanus Fraxinus excelsior Acer pseudoplatanus Sambucus nigra Hypericum hirsutum Hypericum perforatum Senecio jacobaea Anagallis arvensis Primula vulgaris Prunella vulgaris Ranunculus repens Circaea lutetiana Mercurialis perennis MARSH Epilobium hirsutum Paris quadrifolia Evonymus europaeus Athyrium filix—femina Lathraea squamaria Pteridium aquilinum Dryopteris austriaca Pteridium aquilinum Cirsium eriophoruw Malva moschata Anacamptis pyramidalis Geranium columbinum Anagallis foemina Centaurium pulchellum Aphanes microcarpa Lysimachia nummularia Colchicum autumnale Epilobium palustre Geranium pratense 48 A Botanical Survey of Colerne Park A NOTE ON THE BIRDS AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE > BOTANICAL SURVEY 1. The birds recorded as resident in the Park are those commonly found in an oak-ash-hazel coppice wood which is the main type of woodland. 2. Of these, it may be remarked that there is a winter roost of magpies; a good number, in 1954, of the longtailed tit; pairs of the nightingale, blackcap and garden warbler. 3. The Park is an area over which the buzzard is now frequently seen and it may eventually attract a nesting pair. 4. The By Brook is frequented by herons from Bowood and both dippers and kingfishers nest below the Park. Cyrit RICE. 49 ENTOMOLOGICAL REPORT FOR 1954 by B. W. WEDDELL Readers of this report are recommended to study Mr. Jenning’s summary of the year’s weather on page 18. Generally speaking, 1954 may be considered to be one of the worst collecting years in living memory, and to illustrate the effect of the weather on lepidoptera I quote this passage from the report of Capt. R. A. Jackson. “Up to the beginning of June all seemed well, the Quakers had swarmed at the sallows and the Prominents were well up to normal numbers in the woods, but in June numbers fell amazingly. Noctuids were fantastically scarce, and all through the summer, with the exception of Chalkhill Blues, butterflies were hardly to be seen. Marble Whites were not out on July 3rd and were very scarce later on, whilst Meadow Browns and Small Heaths were few and far between. The remarkable thing was that the number of species seen was about as usual, but the numbers of individuals were so small. It is suggested that the main shortages occurred in those species whose larvae normally hibernate or feed sparingly from time to time through the winter. The very warm and dry autumn may have enabled these larvae tofeed up too quickly, sothat when the sudden and severe frost came in January they were too far advanced to withstand it. Species which spend the winter as pupae were well up to average.” I offer my thanks again to all who have sent in reports. Let us hope that there will be more to be seen in 1955. PHENOLOGICAL RECORD 8 years Average 1954 Difference Large White April 12 May 7 —25 Garden Carpet May 7 May 9 — 2 Cinnabar May 15 May 13 + 2 Brimstone Moth May 13 May 15 — 2 Meadow Brown June 20 June 30 —I0 Marbled White June 22 July 4 —12 VOL. LVI—CCII D 50 Etomological Report for 1954 B.W. CE. C.M.RP. G.W.C. M.C. M.C.E. RAJ. CONTRIBUTORS B. W. Weddell, Trowbridge Charles Floyd, Holt C. M. R. Pitman, Salisbury G. W. Collett, Chippenham Marlborough College N.HLS. Miss Muriel Foster, Aldbourne Capt. R. A. Jackson, C.B.E., R.N. (Retd.), F.R.E.S., Codford. Large White Small White Orange Tip Clouded Yellow do. Brimstone Silver Washed Fritillary High Brown Dark Green Fritillary Pearl Bordered Fritillary Small Bordered Fritillary Marsh Fritillary Peacock White Admiral Marbled White Meadow Brown Small Copper Chalkhill Blue Adonis Blue Essex Skipper Death’s Head Hawk Convolvulus Hawk Pine Hawk Humming-bird Hawk Pieris brassicae Pieris rapae Euchloe cardamines Colias croceus var. helice Gonepteryx rhamni Argynnis paphia Argynnis cydippe Argynnis aglaia Argynnis euphrosyne Argynnis selene Euphydryas aurinea Nymphalis io Limenitis camilla Melanargia galatea Maniola iurtina Lycaena phlaeas Lysandra coridon Lysandra bellargus Adopoea lineola Acherontia atropos Herse convolvuli Hyloicus pinastri Macroglossum stellatarum G.W.C. 21.5, M.C. 7.5 G.W.C. 6.4 M.C. 3.5, M.C.F. 10.5 CANMURS 33:85) GE 14.9 M.C.F. 14.9 G.W.C. 14.11 M.C. 9.7 M.C. 4.7 M.C. 9.7 NEC 8855 23-5 M.C. 9.6, B.W. 5.6 C.MUR-P. . 27:55. MG: C.M.R.P. 30.5 C.M.R.P. insects marked and released 8.53, re- turned from Winter- slow 10.4.54 from Ford, 27.4.54 M.C. 20.7 CEMEREP S47, 12.7 M.C. 30.6 M.C. 30.9, M.C.F. 14.9 C.M.R.P. 21.7 onwards M.C. 3.6 B.N. 5.8 (Bratton), 10.8 (Tilshead) M.C.F. 23.6, found dead in shed C.M.R.P. 7.9, a female, ova reared C.M.R.P. 19.9, larva on Cedar C.M.R.P. 24.6 at dawn in drizzle, M.C.F. 3.8 G.W.C. Large White—Early Engrailed 51 Poplar Kitten Scarce Prominent Small Chocolate Tip Oak Eggar Green Silver Lines Garden Tiger Cinnabar Red-necked Footman Large Footman Alder Dagger Dotted Clay Double Square-spot Bordered Gothic Confused Brindle Small Angle-shades Gothic Downland Wainscot Copper Underwing Dun Bar Red Chestnut Pine Beauty Blossom Underwing Aspen Orangewing Phoenix Red-green Carpet Garden Carpet November Carpet Red Barred Barred Umber September Thorn Lunar Thorn Brimstone Moth Little Thorn Brindled Beauty Early Engrailed Cerura hermilina Odontosia carmelita Clostera pigra Lasciocampa quercus Bena prasinana Arctia caja Callimorpha jacobaeoe Atolmis rubricollis Lithosia quadra Apatele alni Amathes baja Amathes triangulum Heliophobus saponaria Apamea furva Euplexia lucipara Phalaena typica Oria musculosa Amphipyra pyramidea Cosmia trapezina (cannibal) Cerastis rubricosa Panolis flammea Orthosia miniosa Brephos notha Lygris prunata Chloroclysta siterata Xanthorhoé fluctuata Oporinia dilutata Ellopia fasciaria Anagoga pulveraria Deuteronomos erosaria Selenia lunaria Opisthograptis luteolata Cepphis advenaria Lycia hirtaria Ectropis bistortata M.C. 5.6 R.A.J. 30.4, 3.5, very rare C.M.R.P. 4.6 M.C.F. 8.9 C.F. 11.6 C.M.R.P. reports very scarce this year M.C. 13.5 C.M.R.P. 9.7, reports fe- male sipping dew on tree trunk B.W. 16.8, probably a migrant. Hitherto un- heard of here R.AJ. 30.6, M.C. 5.8 (L) M.C. 24.7 B.W. 13.7 M.C. 26.6 C.M.R.P. 3.7 M.C. 27.6, B.W. 13.7 M.C. 27.6 C.MCR-P.) .28.7,; RAC]. 11.8—30.8 scarce, late R.AJ. 12.10, very late C.M.R.P.. 4.6, 8. half- grown larvae overnight destroyed 40 full grown Stabilis larvae R.A.J. 3.4, abundant M.C. 13.5 M.C. 2.5 C.M.R.P. 19.4 M.C.F. 3.8 M.C.F. 29.9 M.C. 9.5 M.C. 13.10 B.W. 30.6 M.C. 29.5 B.W. 24.8 M.C. 21.6 MEG. rs25 CAVEREP? 30:5 M.C. 3.5 @'P 2353 D.2 se ONE EFFECT OF RABBITS ON DOWNLAND VEGETATION by C. and D. Owen The photograph published in this issue was very kindly taken by K. Donovan Grose for the purpose of record. It was taken from a position four feet west of a large fence post at map reference 122637 on Sheet 41/16 of the 1: 25,000 O.S. It is 150 yards south of the gate between Knap Hill and Golden Ball Down. The fence post shows in the foreground of the picture. The photograph is of the south face of the “ col”’ between Knap Hill and Golden Ball Down. It shows two large rabbit warrens with a section of another in the left foreground. It will be observed that the centre of the three warrens contains a large elder bush (Sambucus nigra) and there are, less visible, three others at intervals above it. These warrens are started by the single scrape which removes the turf covering from the soil. Onto the moved soil seeds of ragwort (Senecio Jacobaea) and thistles (Carduus nutans and Cirsium vulgare) are blown and germinate and thrive, and young plants of hound’s- tongue (Cynoglossum officinale) appear, the seeds presumably brought by the rabbits themselves in their fur. If the original rabbit burrow is in deep soil, which occurs in the gullies on the sides of the downs, the workings become more and more extensive. The rabbits appear to move up the slope until the soil becomes so shallow that burrowing is too difficult. Round the original burrows at the bottom of the slope the ragwort and hound’s-tongue and thistles flourish and spread upwards, and as the soil becomes enriched with the droppings of the rabbits it becomes suitable for the growth of the common nettle (Urtica dioica) which forms dark green clumps in the middle of the patches of yellow ragwort. In the shelter from grazing stock afforded by the nettles, the seeds of elder germinate and make growth. In course of time a line of elder bushes is established, following the course of the deep soil of the gully. It has not been possible to ascertain the length of time which it takes from the first rabbit burrow to the establishment of the line of mature elder bushes, nor the subsequent history of the bushes, although many well-established lines of elder bushes may be seen on the neigh- bouring downs, especially on the west side of Milk Hill, where burdock One Effect of Rabbits on Downland Vegetation 53 seems to have occupied the place taken by hound’s-tongue on Golden Ball Down. This plant succession seems of interest because of its effect in providing cover on the otherwise bare faces of the downs, and these clumps of higher vegetation provide habitats for Field Voles, Carrion Crows, Woodpigeons, and even Long-eared Owls, and doubtless many other creatures, besides permanently altering the soil structure of the down itself. It is hoped that by the publication of this carefully located photo- giaphs, it will be possible for naturalists in Wiltshire to observe the progress of the plant succession in years to come, and also, as myxo- matosis has not yet reached these rabbit warrens, to see if any modi- fication of the usual plant succession takes place if the rabbit population is greatly reduced. Note— This was written, and the photograph taken, in September 1954. During the following winter the entire rabbit population of these warrens died. There has been no recolonisation so far (June 1955). The authors wish to acknowledge the help and encouragement of Mr. Donald Grose and his son. 54 NATURAL HISTORY SECTION ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, 1954 RECEIPTS Balance 31st Dec., 1953 be sen Members’ Subscriptions, 138 at 7s. 6d. Reprints .. Museum Bird retin Hon. Treasurer— G. W. COoLtLeTT, AG 28:72 SEIS GS T13046 is © ISCO 31st December, 1954. PAYMENTS fas. id: Postages and. Stationery— Hon. Secretary Nes 8 Hon. Treasurer hacer Printing and Typing 7 Magazine Reprints Bs 8 Wiltshire Archaeological Society. Is. per member 5 Hire of rooms Affiliation Fees :— British Trust for Orni- theology = *.7 I South Western N seen lists: x. A Museum Bird Erin Ee Press and Field oe Inquiry Ne Maps 3 I Balance 31st Dercenber TOSH) - pelea] £101 Audited and found correct, E. C. Barnes, I2, 3rd January, 1955. OWN OWN 55 THE CHOIR OF OLD SARUM CATHEDRAL by Hucu Braun, E£:S.A. The cathedral church of Salisbury is the sole survivor above ground of a group of four great churches. Although even the sites of the abbey churches of Wilton and Amesbury are now lost, we are indeed for- tunate in knowing not only the site but even the complete foundation plan of one of the finest churches of the twelfth century, excavated prior to the first world war by St. John Hope, Montgomerie, and Hawley, and now cared for by H.M. Ministry of Works. It would seem that no really determined effort has yet been made by an architect to interpret the ground trace of these foundations and thus arrive at a considered opinion as to the appearance of the cathedral which once rose above them. Yet by metrological examination and by comparison with existing churches of contemporary date it should not be too difficult to effect this in respect of the cathedral which, from the middle of the twelfth century until its destruction following the year 1331, crowned the hill of Sarum. When attempting to reconstruct the appearance of Bishop Herman’s church we can have no such aid. We can form but a misty impression of some sort of central feature set between transepts and having to the west an aisled nave of seven bays and eastwards a short chancel of two bays flanked by low chapels and ending in a large apse. No church of this sort remains in England today to assist us in any appreciation of vertical scale or architectural adornment. At Sherborne, however, we may yet see what appears to be the arch leading from the north transept of the contemporary cathedral into its apse; the scale of this feature suggests that the elevational aspect of the cathedral St. Osmund knew may not have been impressive. It is otherwise when we begin the study of the new work added by Bishop Roger. While his Teutonic western feature. with its transept-flanked bell-tower may only be examined in comparison with continental examples, the approximately contemporary work at neighbouring Romsey Abbey provides at least a basis for research into the appearance of the eastern addition to Old Sarum Cathedral. There appears little of interest in Bishop Roger’s transepts except for the curious fact that they are aisled; his choir, however, is of exceptional architectural importance, particularly in view of what is 56 The Choir of Old Sarum Cathedral seen to be the subsequent development of its ultimate eastern termi- nation. The setting-out of the choir is orthodox, though when begin- ning the new work Bishop Roger had to recognise the necessity for preserving the stability of the existing nave arcade after the abutment provided by its central feature had been removed; the new crossing was therefore set out eastwards of the end of the old nave so as to give room for the provision of some kind of temporary shoring. To form a general impression of the interior of the new building one may compare Romsey Abbey where the existing choir is approximately contemporary with that at Sarum, with the difference that the latter has four bays instead of three in order to provide the canons with a spacious presbytery for which the nuns of Romsey would have no use. When one embarks upon a detailed examination of the two plans, however, one soon senses that there is a considerable difference in architectural detail. Thus, although the fragments of ornament which have been found on the cathedral site suggest that the same carvers were employed there as at Bishop Roger's church hard by his other great castle of Devizes, its crude structural detail, comparable in essence with that at Romsey, finds no echo upon the hill of Sarum. There is a remarkable lightness in the plan of the cathedral. The bays are wide for the period, centred at nineteen feet (as compared with the fifteen and a half feet of the Romsey arcades) yet the structure itself must have been quite light as the presence of the sleeper walls carrying the supports suggest that these must have resembled the sophisticated compound pillars of the Gothic Era rather than the clumsy Byzantine piers of the twelfth century. That the superstructure was not massive is also confirmed by the foundations which are only six and a half feet thick; this, after deduction for plinth mouldings, and presumably attached shafts, leaves only a light wall to be carried by the arcades. Some day there may be an opportunity for an architect to examine in detail the architectural remains stored in the castle at Old Sarum and therefrom to try to establish the elevational appearance of what must have been a charming as well as an impressive structure. Beyond the east wall of Bishop Roger’s choir passed an ambulatory out of which led four square chapels, an elaboration of the arrangement seen at Romsey; it is in the development of this extreme east end of the cathedral that the exceptional interest of its architecture lies. During the twelfth century there is seen an evident desire that the eastern termination of an English great church should be designed not as a By Hugh Braun, F.S.A. c 14313 OS IDUP2AYYOD WNIDS PIO jo JOYD IY, 58 The Choir of Old Sarum Cathedral range of small chapels but as a single large one; in some cases this meant sacrificing the two middle chapels of a group of four provided by the original designers At Romsey the demolished chapels, being quite small, were merely left to provide a sort of lobby to a new chapel built out eastwards beyond them; at Sarum, however, the problem was handled with skill and sympathy to create a feature which was itself to develop into what has often been described as the most skilful and graceful product of English Gothic architect—the eastern chapel of Salisbury Cathedral. A study of the accompanying plan—the details of which are, of course, purely hypothetical—clearly indicates the situation con- fronting the individual responsible for the alterations. After the re- moval of the vaulting of the two central chapels and the walls separating them the cleared area had to be considered as a problem in vaulting. Obviously it had to be subdivided in some way ; the solution was to set it out as a nave with aisles, the former being of approximately the same span as the flanking chapels while the aisles formed narrow strips beside it. In order to elongate the central portion and at the same time to provide proper abutment for its arcades it was extended a short distance eastwards where its new east wall could be equipped with pairs of the new buttresses which were at that time appearing. The vaulting of the little eastern bay, by matching that of the aisle bays, tied the whole design together and must indeed have completed a vaulting scheme of quite exceptional charm. The construction of the new chapel depended entirely upon the ability of its designer to carry the arcades. While the eastern responds had been quite simply dealt with, the western end, and the intermediate support, required slender pillars of a kind not hitherto employed in architecture. The only possible solution was in fact to introduce turned shafts of some very hard stone such as Purbeck marble; this may have been one of the first instances in which such features were employed as supports and not merely as ornamental adjuncts. It is easy to see that from this chapel at Old Sarum grew the lovely eastern feature at Salisbury Cathedral; the design is the same on plan with the difference that the walls next the flanking chapels have been replaced by pillars and arches while the central chapel and its aisles have been extended eastwards for two whole bays. The western pillars of the chapel at Old Sarum were set upon the foundation of the eastern wall of the choir in such a fashion as to bisect its two By Hugh Braun, F.S.A. 59 arches; at Salisbury the central pier in this wall has been replaced by a pair of pillars which facilitate the junction. While the height of the chapel at Salisbury must be greater than that of its humbler ancestor and the slenderness of the Salisbury pillars even more pronounced, one can now clearly appreciate that the lovely design we see was not an entirely original creation: the vanished chapel at Old Sarum—doubt- less that which, until the Tudor Age, survived as lonely relic of a lost cathedral—being the seedling whence blossomed the masterpiece which yet delights us. 60 THE ANGLO-SAXON NAME FOR THE AVEBURY CIRCLE By E. G. H. Kempson The existence of Stonehenge was known in literature at least as early as the twelfth century. But the Avebury Circle was scarcely noticed? until Aubrey’s day; and nothing material was published about it until Stukeley’s work of popularisation in the early eighteenth century. This note provides for the first time its Anglo-Saxon name. A chance reference to the name Waledich in Avebury in some Assize Rolls of 1289 aroused speculation as to the identity of this Dyke with the main Avebury Circle (G. J. Copley, Conquest of Wessex in the Seventh Century, p. 95, referring to Place-Names of Wiltshire, p. 395 under Downton). If their identity were established, this would form the earliest known reference to the Circle, as well as provide its Anglo- Saxon name. The Assize Rolls read :? In the tenth year (1282) when Philip Strug was coroner, Thomas Crespyn and Ralph Brond waylaid John the Spinner at Waledich and they killed John and at once fled and by suit of the countryside took sanctuary in the church of Alyngton; they made known the aforesaid fact and abjured the realm in the presence of the aforesaid coroner. They had no chattels but were in the tithing of John le Knich in Kenete, so he is in mercy. The finder (of the body) and four neighbours came and are not under suspicion. No Englishry was presented. Judgment of murder was given on Avebir’, because it had not ee pers with the hundred. Afterwards it was sworn by the twelve jurors that John de Meire at the same time as the aforesaid Thomas and Ralph carried off the aforesaid body at (apud) Waledich where it was found, and the same John absconded for the aforesaid death and is under suspicion. Hence he is required to appear or be an outlaw. His chattels are worth 35/8 for which the vill of Kenete answers. And he is in the tithing as above. And the twelve jurors falsely valued his chattels, so they are in mercy. And the vills of Kenete, Bakampton, Avebur’ and Winterborn Monacorum did not come to the coroner’s inquest, so they are in mercy. But this left the location of Waledich quite uncertain. R. B. Pugh had found similar names in Amesbury: not only Walledych or Waldyche, but Walyate or Walleate, Muchelewalles 1 It is not even referred to in Camden’s Britannia, until Philemon Holland’s edition of 1610. 2 P.R.O. JI 1/1006, m.46d and JI 1/1008, m.7. By E. G. H. Kempson 61 and Litylwallys: and they all might well refer to the embankments of Vespasian’s Camp (Calendar of Antrobus Deeds, nos. 37, 71). For this reason it was at least likely that our Waledich referred to the Avebury Circle, but the identity was far from proved. The problem is, however, resolved by an indenture of 1696 (Wilts Notes and Queries, viii, p. 270). Here we read of :— the Capital Messuages, Farm and demesnes of Awbury alias Avebury, called Avebury Farm, and the Parsonage Barn with the curtilage, backside and Wallditch thereunto adjoining, sometime belonging to the farm called Trusloes Farm ... and the Court, Barton and backside, parcel or parcels of the ground wherein the Parsonage Barn of Awbury and the barn called the Farm Barn and the Pidgeon House and Stable now stand or lately stood. The Parsonage or Rectory no longer exists as such, though its site is occupied by the Manor House. The reference to Trusloes Farm, however, points to some confusion. But this confusion is by no means only recent, for in 1593 Debora Dunch who held the Rectory at that time had brought an action against Richard Truslowe for intrusion into part of the rectory premises. Richard replied that he made no claim to any part of the rectory, but it was so inter-mingled with his manor of Avebury, that he asked for a commission to enquire into and settle the boundaries of the two properties (Wilts Notes and Queries, Vili, pp. 216-217). Avebury Trusloe and Trusloe Manor House and Farm are well away from the Church and Rectory, across the river to the south-west. But north of the Church and to the east of the Manor House stand the Pigeon House and, near it, the Tithe Barn, an L-shaped building of some antiquity, one wing of which occupies the site of the westernmost section of the main Avebury Vallum. This tithe barn is of course the Parsonage Barn mentioned. Thus it is verified that Wallditch of 1696 and consequently Waledich of 1289 are identical with the main Avebury Circle. The meaning of the name Waledich is “ the Dyke of the Britons’ from weala-dic1, a suitable name for the Saxon invaders to use of such a work and philologically reminiscent of Caesar’s use of the phrase murus gallicus. Tam much indebted to the late Mr. H.C. Brentnall for first acquaint- ing me with the problem of name; and for help in various ways both to him and to Mr. Pugh. 1 It might also mean Vallum-Ditch from weall-dic; but despite the seventeenth century form with // and the examples from Amesbury, Sir Frank Stenton assures me that the meaning in the text is the more likely, judging from the limited evidence at present available 62 THE WHEELWRIGHT’S SHOP By E. G. H. Kempson The bill printed below shows the charges for the year 1730-1 made by a local wheelwright to a certain Mr. Blake of Knighton Farm near Ramsbury. The single sheet on which it is written comes from papers belonging to Dr. W. B. Maurice of Marlborough, whose grandfather had been very friendly with the Blake family. Many of the terms used are unfamiliar even to men who started their ploughing in the last century. But fortunately there is an almost exactly contemporary publication on Wiltshire farming, on which we have been able to draw, both for the illustration and for help in understanding the words used. Jethro Tull, who lived at Prosperous Farm near Shalbourne, only six miles away from Knighton, published his Horse-Hoing Husbandry in 1733. In it he described not only his own improved four-coulter plough, but also the simpler plough that it was meant to supersede. I have to thank Mr. R. A. Coles of Marl- borough College for redrawing this simple plough from Tull’s book. In addition I have had much help in conversation with Messrs. Tom Pope and Jack Fishlock and the Rev. R. H. Lane, as well as from an article by Mr. F. G. Payne of the Welsh Folk Museum (Arch. Journal, civ, 82: “ The Plough in Ancient Britain ”’). MR. BLAKE HIS BILL 1730 Sd. Janawary ye 2: 1730: Then counted whith Mr. Blake & made A Even JantY ye 14 For a ovenlead 00.8 FebrutY ye 2: Fora days work of me to tack & grace ye wagon & othar work ee 6 O41 16 Fora broadbord & 2 srowndrists & seting it Orta 23 For 3: Larrows & mending ye harrow & puting ye tines in O18 For half a days work of me to mend ye cowcribs & othar work OD May ye 2: Forasheat & Shriding a plow & PHP ahead to yecrowstaves. re) 25 For a broadbord & seting him O 26 For mending ye van Stocks re) For mending ye ould wagon <2 Ne O June ye 15 for a broadbord & seting him O 15 For half a days work of me to mend ye wagon & othar work fe) 19: For 6 Spooks & puting in & Renging ye Dungcart wheels Oo 22 For Beating ye old wagon to pieces & carring ye Iron to ye Smiths ; tye 2 ui - OL Oma 26 For a Wagon bed 2°45 <0 29 Fora broadbord & growndrist & Dua tsa: & seting ie OI g By E. G. H. Kempson 63 as & LED —— 7 , t cpa vl ers TE SO y x te RNY - f Fx it ASE "196.0" 0 IV ”..502:. 7) 104250) 50 V 88 §8.:, 00 V 79 79-0. 0 VI 05 03..2 6 VI 89 87 2-6 Vil. TOE eeTOls OO VI 97 O7.405 0 Vie T7Or en i7On 0! O VII 157. 215752 O 20 IX 80 SO;5 0.76 IX 67 67:0 -O Decrease during 1954 58 5 0 L848 7 <6 L 848-7 26 Records Branch Statement of Accounts 31st Dec. 1954 79 Expenditure and Income EXPENDITURE LS. & INCOME £-°s.d. Postage and secre— *Subscriptions .. 194 12 6 tarial. Be [3° 28's *Sales of publica- Stationery, typing, tions to Members 2018 71 photostats, etc. 27 ir 7 *Sales to Non- One copy Vol. II members «5 en 27 19. 5 purchased for re- Grant, Swindon salen hes ws se) Corporation ..., 125. 0° 0 Cheque Book .. § <0 Donations a 2 0 Excess of Income over Expenditure 327 2 0 ie) £368 12 £368" 12) 0 *For details, see report of Hon. Secretary and Hon. Treasurer. Audited and found correct in accordance with the books and vouchers, and the explanations given. (Signed) F. C. PITT, (Signed) N. J. LANSDOWN, Hon. Auditor Hon. Treasurer. June 3rd, 1955. 80 Honorary Editor’s Report for 1954/5 1. Volume for 1954. Volume X, Two Sixteenth Century Taxation Lists, 1545 and 1576, edited by Mr. G. D. Ramsay, was issued during February. 2. Volume for 1955. Volume XI, Wiltshire Proceedings in Sessions, 1736, edited by Mr. J. P. M. Fowle, is in the press and should be ready for distribution in the autumn. 3. Volume for 1956. The material for the Collectanea, which is to be issued as Volume XII, is with the printer. The volume comprises Building Accounts for mills and for the castle at Marlborough, 1236-8 (ed. Miss Sheila Challenger); the Veredictum of Chippenham Hundred, 1281 (ed. R. E. Latham and C. A. F. Meckings); Pleas in the Liberty of the Abbot of Battle at Bromham, 1289 (ed. Miss Susan Reynolds); the Account of the Larderess of Wilton Abbey, 1299 (ed. Miss Elizabeth Crittall); Clerical Poll-Taxes in Salisbury Diocese, 1377-81 (ed. J. L. Kirby); and Twelve Wiltshire Deeds in Bath Public Library (ed. J. H. P. Pafford). Each document is prefaced with an Introduction. 4. Corrigenda. A List of Corrections to Volumes I to X will be printed at the end of Volume XII. The general editor will be glad to receive from members details of such points as errors in the identifi- cations of persons or places in the indexes to these volumes. 5. Other future volumes. (i) Although the text of the Crown Pleas of the Wiltshire Eyre, 1249, is ready for the printer, Mr. Meekings has through ill health been able to make little progress on the revision of his introduction. (ii) The text of Mr. R. L. Rickard’s Progress Notes of Warden Woodward for New College Estates in Wiltshire, 1659-78 is ready for the printer and the introduction is being completed. Work also continues on editions of (iii) the Rolls of Highworth Hundred, 1275-85 (Mrs. Brenda Farr); (iv) the Charters of Lacock Abbey (Miss Joan Gibbs); (v) Hemyngsby’s Register (Dr. Helena Chew); and (vi) the Ministers’ Accounts of the Lands of Adam de Stratton (Mr. M. Farr). 6. New Projects. (i) The possibility of an edition of the Diary of Thomas Nash, Sub-Dean of Salisbury at the end of the seventeenth Accessions County Record Office 81 century, was mentioned in the Report for 1950, but through continued illness Mr. E. R. Brinkworth had to abandon his work. Miss D. M. Slatter, assistant librarian, Lambeth Palace Library, has now under- taken to edit this diary. (ii) The general editor is himself preparing an edition of the Roll of the Wiltshire Forest Eyre, 1257, the earliest document of its kind for the county. N. J. WILLIAMS 28th May, 1955 ACCESSIONS TO THE COUNTY RECORD OFFICE SINCE THE LIST OF DECEMBER, 1954 Approximately 1,500 documents, mainly deeds, plans and estate papers of the estates of the Sutton and Estcourt family in Bishops Cannings (sixteenth to nineteenth centuries); including court books of Bishops Cannings, Cannings Canonicorum and Marden, and a group of plans and papers relating to the enclosures of common lands (1780- 1812). Smaller groups relate to Potterne (1721-1865) and Urchfont for which there is a survey (1732) and a set of large scale plans (1784) made for the Duke of Queensberry. The older records of the Trustees of Heytesbury Hospital including the foundation deeds, licences and grants from 1472, the custos’ and other accounts, 1561-1834, sixteenth century surveys, and leases and other deeds, 1562-1912, concerning properties in the Cheverells, Chirton, Market Lavington, Upton Scudamore, Urchfont and elsewhere in Wiltshire. Records of the civil parish of Barford St. Martin, including minutes of the Vestry and Parish Council Meetings, 1849-1871, 1895-1913; Churchwardens’, overseers’ of the poor and Parish Council accounts, nineteenth and twentieth centuries; poor rate assessment book, 1864-1866, parish copy of the enclosure award, 1815 and other papers. 82 List of Accessions to the Society's Library Records of the parish council of Winsley, including minutes 1895-1930 and accounts, I91I-1949. Thirteen documents being records of Chippenham Without Parish Council, including minutes of the Vestry from 1887 and of the Parish Council and Meeting, 1894-1935; minutes of the Lighting Com- mittee, 1895-1912, and financial records. Records of Atworth Parish Council including accounts of the surveyors of highways, 1808-1885, minutes of meetings of the Vestry 1885-1894, Parochial Committee, 1891-1893, Parish Council and Parish Meetings, 1894-1924, with deeds and other papers. LIST OF ACCESSIONS TO THE SOCIETY’S LIBRARY FROM JANUARY 1955 Donor: H. Rosinson, Esq. BOUGHT Mr. AND Mrs. DOWNES SWINDON BOROUGH Mrs. R. W. Awpry C. THOMAS Mrs. H. C. Hutts R. B. PucH PUBLISHERS BOUGHT RecorpDs BRANCH V. COLLINS Mrs. E. H. STONE Messrs. BRYANT & May PUBLISHERS J. M. BuckERIDGE J. F. Reep F. C. Pitt BouGcuHT BouGHT a BOUGHT FS Mae rs - 3 FEB 1956 Monumental Brasses of Wilts by E. Kite. Armorial Bearings by Fox-Davies. Kelly’s Directory of Wiltshire for 1931. The Serpentine Temple at Avebury. Annual Report of Librarian and Curator. Andrews and Dury’s Map of Wilts. Folklore from a Wiltshire Village by C. Thomas. Emigration of British Birds by A Naturalist, 1795. How to write a Parish History. Teach yourself Archaeology by S. G. Brade Birks. Teach yourself Anthropology by J. E. M. White. The Vale of Pewsey by H. W. Timperley. Two 16th century Taxation Lists 1545 and 1576 by G. D. Ramsay. Bishop Wordsworth’s School Arch. Soc. Excavation Reports, 1942-1954. Maps, Plans, Notes, etc., on Devizes by E. H. Stone. Catalogue and Supplement to the Museum of Firemaking Appliances. Roman Roads in Britain by I. D. Margary. History of Castle Street Baptist Church, Calne. Flock Book, Vol. XXX, Wiltshire Horn Sheep Society. Parish onWheels by Reverend J. H. Swinstead. Baynton House by R. H. Pearson. Mercury Presides by the Marchioness of Bath, Salisbury Plain by Ralph Whitlock. 8 6 zwity § 6 zieTs 9% gor a oe gunosoy jeyded 03 poriojsuen reo 34} JO} SOU] JoAO sInjIpuadxY Jo ssooxq “* zt L ¥iI6I Oo o1 ¢ ES x °* suedayy soy Ayisioatug) yorstig “ TERS | eS a se Pepanyoy. T&D suoydeay, “ o “41s as a so0,J uoneyidey “ o o $f a a: = ee ** ssuimelq Joppong “ 9 S$ zs o gil v8 ce a Rs "+ sosuodxg ulnosnyy “ 9 S$ + os oe oe os ee os Aapung O O18 es oe os rs sosusdxq s8un2ojl “6 Oo Oo gt oe oo eo ee sSUIMeIC] Joppong re) 6 9 oe oe oe ee oe sadieyD yueg “cc —suoyeuog ‘“‘ y I19 ee ee os ae ze sayeyy «roiepy “* © O Oo$% a ane qeID) Teane) Ayunory srrysipi yA “ 9 O gI =: oe ss = ies ** guoydojay, “ 0 o oS a ces : uinesnyy siouryoeyg ‘“‘ 9 L gv ee “ we ae se Aoueyunosoy ‘ t2=2: 1% es ca s ae soulzesep] jo ayes “ II gi vz ? oe Ze Be ue oourinsuy Inq “ or 4 ¥ oe oS = = ik sooj Arzeiqry “ Z gi if ° ze (uonduroper Sutipnpour) xey, pur “ 6 gi S€ re us Se "* unasnyy ©} suOrsstuIpy “ TT Q1=e (eavprpueD pur s12019O) _Sestiodxg Suypoarzy, “* 9 VI cE ; II I 07% yusul € -or Sof- *: of = "* PS €$61 syuoUNsoAu] ~dinbg Aroqerogey pure soueusyeyy pue sredayy “ ty. Ly as o a a 28 SJUCUSAO7) 9. £1: £1 : suoydriosqns ‘ —:juswAeday xe, suroouy “ OI OI 61 a ous = oo sduieyg pure sadeysog “ OI SI 17 —_—— 9 91 SO se " = "+ Zunutig pue Arsuoneis “ 41 ZL Zs a "* gunossy drysioquieyy] 9j1T ol vy EI a ze aS "+ 4ysry pue jeny “ 11 Li €1 RE. = °* qgunosdy dsArosoy Supping $ oO oF ae a2: = ae sosttlaiIg 0} sireday —jsolaquy yueg ssuraes siyiA\ pue yosioulos “ z L. 616 ox gourinsuy [euOTeNY pue sosesA ‘sorseles ir €1 LiS ** $yUSUIYSPAU] Woy ysolojuy pue spuospraiq “ zc tc ger 0 0 Oo a te ue ee ‘+ dryszoquisyy oytq “‘ —_——_-— Oo 9 gI Ae ee ace os suoTeUuOG SIoquisyy 66 II 8 6Sz ees sie ate OIG v8 oe I0z ‘ON oO 6 6£S es ee ee ee 2° suondriosqns 66 ¢ €I Aca es ee ee oe es oe Ooz ‘ON 0 0 OZ 28 ae ae 2 "* szaq sourmuq Ag —souizesrp] JO sod OF, SDS o/- ‘Dis AWOON] pS. 7 ‘ip os of HaN.LIGNadxy “VS61 NIAGWAOTC If GHANA UVAA THL WO LNNOOOV FUNLIGNAdXA GNV ANOONI Aye100G AsOISIFT [VINIeA_Y puUe [eoIZojoseyoIy eITYSIIAY Doge gel I 38> Sze Se 11 br Lotez7F Si.z gi 9 ih {dots Z 9601 om CO en \O ° ZI £6£91 II LI & ee ee ee ee oe oe 4so19}U] (73 "OZ ‘AON (e) oO Oz ee ee oe ee ee sqqIy ‘WwW ee OST ‘TW a = a "+ premsoy pores oourreg Ag ‘If “d0q/ | Z OF OOF ae ae ze 2" premio; WYSNoIq Dduepeg OJ, ‘1 ‘uel PS61 sca ce 2 vS61 (ANN dIHSUaAaWaW AdIT) HNVA SONIAVS SLILM % LaSddWoOs oog7z Ff | 11 bi Lofezy oogre FF oe ge aR ** srojqoq Aipung Liv oe ; 5p + puepy ur se — ‘+ qunos9y yWOLMD—pyy yaeg spAoyy —_ Targhee "+ (drysioquiayy -2j1J) 91IG 10£ z tr lol °° (qunosIy aAasayy Surpymg) 98z yurg sso1aeg syAA pue josioulosg junonp jisodaq uo ysvy fe uP esrs (LOSLIF $$ TI IE 3e oNTeA WAI) ‘a's “UITeEID Jse] OF dn popnyour st yueuS —_—_—_ 1foL1 -AOD jo speaq uo yuowAeday “bS VS 6 11 90L °° ee oe os sores ssa] 0} dn popnpur st suloouy yudtT}s9A 6 € oorLt -uj uo juourheday xej, auODu;—:ajoyy QO I1 96077 Or Si1g97" *= Bs ‘-zeah Surnp suonippy 9 &. gor — ¢: PS61 votz7z 6 g I€oLI': 24 oe -* -€$61 ‘raquia ‘laquisooq 3sIf popua resA 94} IOF -09q ISIE 3e sy AJO1ID0g 94) 0} payeuOp JUIOIU] I9AO aINjIpusdxy Jo ssooxy ssaT uaye onEA: JOYIEYT IO 4SOD 3e Syuauysaduy 9 €1 voftTe ** S61 JoquIsdaq] YSIE ye soURTeEg €S61 ‘1aquis.0q SOSY junovpy jouidvy ISIE 3e@ SW saztAoq ‘320136 SuOT ‘Ib OF — _— SEL PEN qus1inD—'pyy yueg spAoyyT 967 Msadorg pjoyaasy ir € 1L7 : ** ++ sioypeig Arpung _ ORAS Neat g SLASSY £$61 SD GrSeme yg: SPs ok. ey SHLLITIAVIT £S61 I g gzezy bS61 “YAAWAOAC IE LY SV LYAHS JONVIVA G8 v1 LoL € ooliF ZI £6£or1 Ir 904 0 O 09 8 91 1f9 I SI v1 *S Cif "p *S “SLOUIPHPY puv syuvjunop "OD 299 NUMO GIAVG "$$61 ‘1aquiajdag YI07 ‘YWMaIoyy souepIOsoe ur pue poredeid Ay001109 sae Aoyy yeyy Ajnr99 Aqoray om pue ‘sn 03 UdAIS UONeUTIOJUT puke spIOdeI ‘syoog 943 YIM AYDINOS dL], JO Jag sourjeg pue syuNO.DY dA" 91} pozpne sary of pyeMIO}J porsses sourreg Ag "IE “99C] vS6I z vi LolF 0 O OS¥ Ir LI £1 o or: LI £ 9 98gz "p °S F “SHZIATC ‘sloquieyy) yueg yunoO.DY yusIIND Wo Jojsuery, ee ee oe 4so19}U] 66 a ** ysoroquy puog souejaq “* “1 ‘99q premio} WYSNoIq sourfegG OF, “1 ‘uel vS61 (LNQOOOV JAUISAU ONIGTING) NHNVA SONIAVS SLIM 7% LASUTWOS oe pieMmIOF patzses souryeg “ °o- aiejdury, sxouryy saddoy * woysuTpoteC] 29 preg sJysrY ysnIy, fosuor Sinqsouueyof —: yueg Ag "IE ‘00q S61 6 € ooliF Oo $I g9 6 g IfoLI o or LPL 6 gi fgzg1 "p °S 7 SLNANLSAANI ysOo Je “pyT sIOWIIA OS OF, “If 99 vVS61 us vS IT 1 4e se [eI], - YOOIG TUM WHEE STF sjosuor) %¥z “pS *s61 Loz ‘*spuog sousjaq % FE 00s F —:3s0D ye solipuns sajeysq uoJSuTUUND sy, WoW soreyg JO Jojsues} 10 sep ye onjeA OT “1 ‘uel vS61 = 5 FEB 1956 Records Branch publications continued— SURVEYS OF THE MANORS OF PHILIP EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY, 1631—2. Edited by Eric Kerridge, Ph.D. 1953. Pp. xiv + 178. TWO SIXTEENTH CENTURY TAXATION LISTS, 15465 and 1576. Edited by G. D. Ramsay. 1945. Pp. xxiv + 242. Publications to be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUITIES IN THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. Part II, illustrated, 2nd Edition, 1934. Price 4s. A BIBLIOGRAPHY or THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS or 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. Price 65s. 6d. A CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, 1195 TO 1272, BY E. A. FRY. 8vo., pp. 103. Price 6s. WILTSHIRE INQUISITIONES POST MORTEM: HENRY III, EDWARD ITand EDWARD II. 8vo. pp. xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts. Price 13s., complete. DITTO. EDWARDIII. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts. Price 13s., compiete. THE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS AND HISTORY, by H. B. WALTERS, F.S.A. (In3 Parts.) Price 16s AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF WILT- SHIRE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PAGAN SAXONS, by M. E. Cunnington, C.B.E. Fourth Editon, 1949, 6s. 6d. (by arrangement with the Publishers, C. H. Woodward, Devizes). THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISs- TORY SOCIETY, 1853—1958. A Centenary History. Illustrated 3s. 6d. BACK NUMBERS of THE MAGAZINE. Price from 2s. 6d. to 10s. 6d. according to date and condition (except in the case of a few numbers the price of which is raised). To Members, 25 per cent. less. The late Capt. B. H. and Mrs. CUNNINGTON gave all remaining copies of the following to the Society for sale :— ALL CANNINGS CROSS (1923), By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. F.S.A., Scot. 4to. cloth, 53 Plates. 21s. WOODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28), By MRS. CUNNINGTON Hon. F.S:)A., Scot. 4to. cloth; 21s. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, EXTRACTS FROM THE QUARTER SESSIONS GREAT ROLLS OF THE 171s CENTURY By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, £.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 is out of print) Vol. IT, 1792 to 1835, lés. The Society's Museum and Library, Long Street, Devizes All members of the Society are asked to give an annual subscription towards the upkeep of these collections. The Museum contains many objects of especial interest, and the Library is the only one in Wiltshire devoted to material for the history of the county. Subscriptions should be sent to. Mr. F. W. C. MERRITT, Tawsmead, Eastleigh Road, Devizes. Old printed material and photographs of Wiltshire buildings or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the Librarian at the Museum. The repository for old deeds, maps, plans, etc., is now the County Archives collection at the County Hall, Trowbridge. Natural History Section The object of this Section is to promote the study of all branches of Natural History in the county by encouraging field observations, maintaining records, arranging field and other meetings and by putting observers in touch with each other. Members and others who wish for particulars of the Section and its activities should write to the Honorary Treasurer of the Section :— ' Mr. G. W. COLLETT, 174, Sheldon Road, Chippenham. Membership of the Section does not entail any further subscrip- tion from those who are already members of the Society. Observations should be sent to the Recorders: BIRDS. Mrs. Egbert Barnes, Hungerdown, Seagry, Chip- penham, Wilts. FLOWERS. Mr. J. D. Grose, Downs Edge, Liddington, near Swindon. LEPIDOPTERA. Mr. B. W. Weddell, 13, The Halve, Trowbridge. REPTILES AND AMPHIBIA. Mr. C. E. Owen, Newtown, Lockeridge, Marlborough. Back numbers of the Report of the Section can be obtained from Mrs. Egbert Barnes. Prices: Report for 1946, 1/6; 1947, 2/6; 1948, 2/6; 1949, 2/6; 1950, 2/6; 1951, 2/6. Post free. ‘BOOKBINDING. Books carefully bound to pattern. Wilts Archaeological Magazine bound to match previous volumes, or in special green cases. C. H. WOODWARD, Printer and Publisher, Exchange Buildings, Station Road, DEVIZES Woodward, Printer Devizes ee he No. CCIII Vol. LVI The Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY IN THE YEAR 1853. HON. EDITOR HON. ASSISTANT EDITORS: H. WYLIE OWEN MEYRICK THE COLLEGE, MARLBOROUGH RIDGELANDS, RAMSBURY J. M. PREST BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD 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. WOODWARD Price. 10s.-6d. Members gratis The Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society The annual subscription is £1 with an entrance fee of 10s. A payment of £20 secures life-membership of the Society. Members who have not paid their subscriptions to the Society for the current year are requested to send them at once to the Hen. Treasurer MR. F. W. C. MERRITT, Tawsmead, | Eastleigh Road, 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 subscrip- tions. An Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of vols. viii., xvi., xxiv., and xxxil. The subsequent volumes are each indexed separately. Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, The College, Marlborough. The Records Branch Founded in 1937 for the publication of original documents re- lating to the history of the county. The subscriptionis £1 yearly. New members are urgently needed. Hon. Secretary, Mr. M.G. Rathbone, Craigleith, Snarlton Lane, Melksham Forest, Wilts. The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILT- SHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARD I AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939. Pp xix + 190. , ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRISONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBURY, 1645—1646. Ed- ited by J. H. P. Pafford. 1940. Pp. 112. (Out of Print). CALENDAR OF ANTROBUS DEEDS BEFORE § 1625. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1947. Pplv + 165. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN SESSIONS, 1563, 1574— 1592. Edited by H.C. Johnson. 1949. Pp xxviii + 246. LIST OF WILTSHIRE BOROUGH RECORDS EARLIER IN DATE THAN 1886. Edited by Maurice G. Rathbone. 1951. Pp. xiii + 108. THE TROWBRIDGE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY as illustrated by the stock books of John and Thomas Clark, 1804-1824. Edited by R. P. Beckinsale, D. Phil. 1950. Pp. xxxvi + 249. CALNE GUILD STEWARDS BOOK, 1561—1688. Edited by A. W. Mabbs. 1953. Pp. xxxiii + 150. ANDREWS’ AND DURY’S MAP OF WILTSHIRE, 1778. A reduced facsimile. Introduction by Elizabeth Crittall. 1952. Pp. iv + 19 plates. The Wiltshire Archeological and Natural History Magazine No. CCI DECEMBER, 1955 CONTENTS THe Society: TopAy AND Tomorrow: Presidential Address delivered by R. B. ag F.S.A. aa Septem- Pete MNOS 5 No. | ese ies ee Sy ees SorviopUNUM: By J. F. S. Stone, r.s.a. and D. J. Algar.... EXCAVATIONS AT SNAIL Down, EVERLEIGH: 1953, 1955. AN InTERIM Report: By Nicholas Thomas and Charles roe ec ce ce cms 2G a oak, on eek MESOLITHIC FINDs IN WILTSHIRE: By W. F. Rankine...... THE CRICKLADE SSCA OF 1953—54:By F. T. ie UNNI Rr ace Wee ala. MOOS, alee Cea aes A NEOLITHIC PIT ON WADEN Hitt, AveBuRY: By Nicholas “TE SOUT sg 25 Pee pene ee a Sgt PRIMIGEOMM@ECEPORT, -TO5A=$ 5.5.5 vcs hens ccd oe woe ees PR AeESHHIRE DOOKS, ARTICLES, ETC. oe 5c). ota eaieiece Sow oton Notes.—A Ground Flake from Dinton. A Blade Graver from Dinton. The Wheelwright’s Shop. Waledich. Burials at Bratton and Longbridge Deverell. Further Finds at Folly Farm, nr. Mildenhall. “ The Broadstones.” Barrow Circles at Clatford. Romano-British Site at Burderop. Roman Ditch at Mildenhall. Carved Stones from Ramsbury Manor. A La Tene I Fibula from Fish- erton Delamere. Notes on the Place-Names of Wilt- so lulié,, ESP INES) SIR aR cr SHIMMER MEMO URSIONS TOSS. oc ccs oceles 6a ceueee ye Cee Vol. XVI PAGE 87—I01. 102—126 127—148 149—I61 162—166 167—I7I 172—184 185—187 188—196 197—I199 il PAGE WILTSHIRE; OBITUARIES, oc cirenco oo es ek eee See 200—202 ANNUAT (GENERAL AMEETING 1055). 4: 28 Nn Pe ae 203 AcQuIsITIONS TO THE SocreTy’s LIBRARY FROM 27th JUNE, 1955 UNTIL, 30thAPRI TOS6es ee an ee 204 —205 HAST OF AVIEMBERS 0010 4 Sie ee Ws aerate Pe Sie (eho eee maaan 206—221 ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE YEAR 1955.......... 222—225§ ILLUSTRATIONS Plan: Plan showing convergence of Roman roads on Sorviodunum and the position of the Romano-British refuse layerat Pauls rive. 302... eee 102 Fig. 2. Pottery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene 112 Fig. 3. Pottery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene.... 114 Fig. 4: Other finds from Old Sarum neighbourhood...... 118 Plan: Snail Down and Eyerleioh..) 0120 131 Plan: Snail Down:Sites examined in detail, 1953—5....... 133 Fie: Soil Map of Waltshine: 2405 (ge i ae 150 Fie 2: Implements trom Elackpen Full. =o 153 Fig.3: Tranchiet Axe frommBapton 1...) iio ole 155 Fig. 4: Flint Antilacts trom Baptom). 20 cau ee 156 Fig. 5) bunt Artifacts from IDinton 4. 3.5245 sacs 3) ee 158 Bigs TE POtbery ccs am eee ios aa yee Maree 169 Plan: The Museum, Devizes, Wiltshire’... -.. 2.20.4 2... 177 Fig, 1; Ground Flake from i@mton 272) eee 188 Pip, 2: Blade Grayer trou Dimon, 6 so. oi 189 Fig.: A La Tene 1 Fibula from Fisherton Delamere. ..\=. =. 195 DEVIZES: C. H. WOODWARD, EXCHANGE BUILDINGS, STATION ROAD tHe WILTSHIRE MAGAZINE MULTORUM MANIBUS GRANDE LEVATUR ONUS No. CCIII DECEMBER, 1955 Vol LVI THE SOCIETY - TODAY AND TOMORROW (Presidential Address delivered by R. B. Pugh, Fs.a., 24 September 1955.) In earlier times Presidents have sometimes forgone the custom of commenting upon the antiquities of Wiltshire at our anniversary mect- ings, and have chosen instead to speak about the purpose and usefulness of the Society itself. As I have already given you two addresses based upon research,! I thought you might forgive me if I fashioned this one out of my personal reflections. If you do not like it you will have the consolation of knowing that it is my last. I cannot flatter myself that you will find my views original. Certainly some of you will have heard all of them, and all of you will have heard some of them. I can only pray that all of you may not have heard all of them. Judging by the standards of the more recent past Iam a strange person for you to have chosen as your President, for lam not a Wiltshireman and I do not live within the county or indeed near it. I suppose there is some value now and then in bringing an outsider in, for he can, in theory at least, contribute experiences collected in another part of England. There are, however, grave disadvantages. Apart from the obvious fact that Wiltshire institutions should be run by Wiltshiremen, geographical remoteness is very hampering. It makes it quite imposs- _ ible to deal swiftly and simply with those many little difficulties that can only be resolved by the spoken word, and it puts not merely the President himself but all those in the county with whom he has to deal to the trouble of a continuous correspondence. My shortcomings as your President are in part to be attributed to that cause. I have been an unusual type of President for another reason also; I did not begin to sit on the Committee until I sprang into the chair. This might have led to dangerous breaches with tradition, even to iconoclasm, had I not already heard much about our affairs from the mouth of our chief librarian, who is, I suppose, by far the most senior member of our Com- mittee. He first sat upon it in mid-August 1923 and it is characteristic 1“ Chartism in Wiltshire ” in 1951 and “ Amesbury Priory ” in 1954. The first is printed above, Vol. liv., p. 169. The second, a coudensation of an article on the same subject which the author has contributed to the Victoria History of Wiltshire, Vol. III, was not published in the Magazine. VOL. LVI—CCIII F 88 The Society : Today and Tomorrow of his scrupulous concern for the welfare of the Society that he inter- rupted a holiday which he and I were spending together to attend that his first meeting. Ever since that time, but of course more especially during the past five years, I have been able to talk with him about our many problems and draw upon his knowledge. I have also greatly valued the help I have received from other members of the Committee, and if any of them think that I have called for it too often, I hope that they will extend their forgiveness in return for my gratitude. Since I joined the Committee in 1950 my absorption in the Society’s affairs has been deep and continuous, for even in the two years when I did not occupy the chair I found there was a good deal of work for me to do. It has been a privilege to have been so absorbed, for there can have been no more important period in our history. The death of Mr. and Mrs. Cunnington brought us for the first time an independent fortune and released us from dependence upon the subscriptions of our members. The Cunningtons were outstanding benefactors to the Society throughout their lives, and their bounty is our present salvation. It is not perhaps given to many local societies to receive at one stroke so large a bequest. With the income from it we were able to achieve the ambition which they and we had so long entertained—the appoint- ment of a full-time curator of our Museum. And shortly afterwards, with assistance from the County Council and Salisbury Museum, we were able to add an assistant curator, a part of whose services we share with Salisbury. We celebrated our centenary just after this addition to our staff had been made. Then we have revised our rules, superseding a code that had served us since the seventies, and thereby provided a means of bringing fresh blood into the Committee. We have worked out sets of notes to guide the respective honorary officers, so that if there is a lapse in office the new arrival may readily pick up the threads. We have prepared new forms on which to notify new members of their election, and have revised our prospectus. We have resolved to change the format of our magazine and to construct a lecture-hall in our museum. All the time our curators have been steadily reorganizing our collections and have begun constructing a catalogue on modern principles. Finally we have undertaken in our own name and with the use of our own officers two large-scale excavations of pre-historic sites. This is perhaps not so bad a programme for a voluntary society to have pursued and partially fulfilled in a single quinquenniuny. Are there good hopes that we can maintain it in the next, and improve upon it? I shall try to make this address the answer to that question. By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. 89 Those who know me best will often have heard me say that it is better to do a few things well than many things ill. I have long held that doctrine and am increasingly persuaded of its truth. The objects on which the Society may spend its energies are very many and in the next few years voices will be raised in advocacy of new ones. If the Society is to survive nearly all those voices will have to be silenced. This will not be because the new proposals are unsound, but because our existing programme, being bold and far-reaching already, is only just within our resources, and any enlargement can wreck us. By “resources ’’ I do not mean our income in particular, though in the last analysis money settles everything. I mean that for years to come we shall lack the qualified manpower to superintend and execute any larger programme than our present one. It is one of the tragedies of our time that there are so few people who are willing to give up any appreciable part of their leisure to voluntary causes. This is usually attributed to the domestic preoccupations of that section of society that was formerly relieved of them. I acknowledge that there is some truth in that explanation, but it is not the whole truth. In the 19th century many of the people who taught in Sunday Schools, preached in chapels, founded trade unions or managed friend- ly societies hardly possessed any leisure at all. When we reflect upon its limits we shall be ashamed to offer the conventional explanation. To my mind the reluctance that I deplore is due less to economic than to moral causes; those with the resolve can mostly find the means. It is because of this reluctance that so many learned societies have come to be effectively managed by their paid officials, and this may be the ultimate solution for us. But the system is far from perfect. If those officials are appointed primarily for their literary or curatorial merits, administrative duties must reduce the amount of time that they can give to their literary or curatorial functions. If they are chosen prim- arily as administrators they may lack the scholarship, taste or zeal to do their other work with needful competence. One must hope therefore that the days of honorary officers, and particularly of honorary secret- aries, have not yet ended. But what an extraordinary combination of gifts and circumstances we demand of our own honorary secretary! He should follow a way of life which enables him to allot an appreciable amount of his leisure to our business, and he must be so placed that he can discharge some of it urgently. He should be a man of broad exper- ience, subtle in argument, both on paper and in speech. His contacts 2F 90 The Society : Today and Tomorrow within the county and without should be with men of influence. He should possess a deep understanding of human character and a genius for human relations. And he should live in or close to Devizes, and own a car, a typewriter and telephone. While we are in search of that not impossible he (or she) we must make such use as we can of our paid officers, we must re-distribute functions and divide them up— remembering our motto—and we must draw fully upon the wisdom of our Committee. For a long time the Committee has met no more than four or five times a year, and in my day these meetings have been tediously long. We have tried to relieve the Committee and shorten its meetings by appointing standing sub-committees, one on the museum and another on archaeological research. I am not sure that such sub-committees have as yet proved their worth, for they have not been and perhaps can- not be invested with very extensive power, and, lacking that power, must report back to the main Committee. The ground covered by the sub- committees has then often to be traversed again by the main Committee, and we are not much better off than if the issue in debate had come before the main Committee at the outset. I believe myself that it would be better to leave these sub-committees in abeyance and summon the full Committee more often, perhaps at certain seasons once a month. If these more frequent Committees were served by our paid officers the decisions which they took could be promptly put in hand and each problem would be submitted to a collective judgement. This is a far from perfect arrangement. It would be much better for the Committee to meet, as has been customary, only once a quarter, to lay down general principles on those occasions, and to leave to a group of voluntary officers much discretion in their execution. But in administration it is unfortunately often necessary to fit the machinery to the circumstances and not the circumstances to the machinery. The machinery of government was nothing like so important to the Society in earlier days as it has since become. This is true of all volun- tary societies, and is, I think, always due to the same cause: a shortage of money and the dependence of such societies upon some form of subsidy from public funds. It may seem strange to you to hear me speak of a shortage of money in our case, when I have just said that thanks to the munificence of the Cunnington family the Society is better off than many of its contemporaries. Our inheritance however is a precarious one. It is true that we received it prudently invested, but By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. 91 constant vigilance is needed if those investments are to remain as favour- able as they are at present. Such vigilance must be exercised by our Honorary Treasurer, who has been transformed by the course of events from a mere collector of our pittances into something like a financier. But vigilance cannot prevent fluctuations on the stock market, and the time could come and come with unexpected suddenness when the revenue from this source might be very much restricted. Should such a disaster seem to impend we might have to realise our securities and convert the capital into tangible and enduring commodities. But, 1am glad to say, that day is not yet here, and our present policy ought to be to maintain and if possible enlarge our income from investments. Cer- tainly we should not attempt to live up to our income. The membership of the Society shows no sign of flagging and per- haps is larger than it has ever been before. There may well be scope for for further enlargement, and here I must mention how much benefit can come to us from persuasive people in close touch with society in a single town or area. I should like to testify in particular to the good work done by Mr. and Mrs. Hayman in recruiting new members in Marlborough. Very many more members are needed in the south of Wiltshire, and it is my great regret that we are so thinly represented in the close at Salisbury. But recruitment is at least as much a matter of maintaining membership as of expanding it. I am doubtful myself whether for some time to come our members will rise greatly above the present level. Indeed if they did administrative costs might also rise and sweep the advantage away. It is astonishing to me that Mr. Mey- tick is willing so patiently to address 570 envelopes so many times a year to notify us of our meetings. If he had 1,000 to address I believe that even his patience might give out, and we might have to employ some- one to help him-with the work. I now come to those public funds upon which, by grace, it may be possible to draw. It is the intention this year to lay our needs before one of the great national foundations. We shall ask for a substantial capital sum to enable us to equip the Bronze and Early Iron Age Rooms in our Museum with show-cases really worthy of the antiquities which they are to hold. I cannot predict the outcome, but I think the signs are tolerably favourable. If we succeed in this, our museum ought to be- come the resort of much larger numbers of visitors, both experts and laymen, and bring a new renown upon our county, our Society and the delightful town in which our premises are set. 92 The Society : Today and Tomorrow Such a benefaction, if attracted, can come but rarely. There are how- ever other ways of raising lesser sums for lesser objects. First ofall we can dip into our own pockets. In the past, when a financial crisis threatened the Society, some prosperous member of the Committee was found ready to repel it from his own resources. There are no longer people who can afford such large amounts, but there is hardly one of us here who cannot on occasion find ten shillings or a pound to meet some clamant and unexpected need. You will remember that in 1954 we had little difficulty in raising in a few weeks £45, more than enough money in fact to buy six drawings by John Buckler, and so prevent their destruc- tion, dispersal or expatriation. It will bea satisfaction to those who then contributed to know that a reproduction of one of these pictures—a view of the Priory House at Edington—is to be published next year in the third volume of the Victoria History of Wiltshire. Remembering the generosity that was shown on that occasion I appeal with all the greater confidence in another cause. As you have heard we are faced with heavy expenses for the repair of our buildings and must at the same time press on with the equipment of a lecture hall. All of us, fairly shortly I think, will receive a strong appeal from the Committee to meet the cost of that hall, which is roughly estimated at £300, exclud- ing furniture. It is very necessary to the Society’s well-being and it cannot be provide. out of our current revenue. I commend the idea to you most warmly and hope that we may all, not far ahead, meet together in that hall and listen to some eloquent address. It is a place where all our indoor meeting: — uld be held and perhaps normally our Annual General Meetings. It will, I hope, be hung with pictures and adorned with some memorials of the Society’s early days. How to raise money from the public for cultural and artistic purposes is one of the weightier problems that confront the present generation. It is certainly not a problem for this Society alone. May I read you what the Pilgrim Trust said to the Commission on the repair of churches set up by the Church Assembly in 1951?! “ Surplus wealth ”, they say, “ has now been transferred into the hands of a wholly different section of the community. It has also been broken up into smaller units; money must be obtained in smaller individual sums from a greatly increased number of people; but that some degree of surplus wealth does exist in these. stmaller simi tsi snes is beyond question. The Church's pro- blem derives from the fact that this section of the community . . . have 1 The Preservation of Our Churches (Church Information Board, 1952), p. 20-I. By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. 93 no tradition of giving to the needs of the Church or to any ‘ cultural ’ cause. They require to be educated in the art of giving to those objects.” Translate this into wholly secular terms and you can apply it to this and all similar learned societies, who may have need of a wider public than their own membership. The situation should not breed despair but challenge ingenuity. Money can still be raised for humanitarian causes with great facility. Indeed such funds are often oversubscribed. This shows that it is not lack of means but lack of perception that inhibits giving, and if that is so, the fault lies at least as much with the petit- ioner as with the respondent. I conclude from this review that so long as the population continues to expand and productivity to grow no less, we ought not to despair of meeting the capital costs of new developments. Current mainten- ance however is a greater difficulty. It is easier to raise money for a special object than to find from day to day the cost of salaries, wages, cleaning, heating, lighting, redecoration, repairs, stationery, workshop supplies, and—above all perhaps—printing. The cost of these things mounts steadily and in our own case not nearly all the needs are being fully met. Here since 1953 the Wiltshire County Council has come to our assistance, and we should all be profoundly thankful for what it has done. It is a body which has set an admirable example to other local authorities, by its generous and disinterested patronage of learning in several different directions, and I hope its Councillors,—and its officers—- realise how much their actions are esteemed by those of us who cherish the survival of a cultural tradition in this country. Alas! such valuable subsidies do not always keep pace with the rising cost of living, and so it must cause surprise to no one if their enlargement is desired. I must not speak at any length on such a topic, the more especially since this is my last appearance as your President. I may, however, say that when we first ventured to approach the County Council, in 1951, we put our ideas quite frankly before them, and I have never thought that we needed to modify those ideas. Our case was this. In such societies as ours, we argued, salaries and wages should ultimately become the responsibility of a local authority. To the society, on the other hand, should be left the task of providing the paid officers with the means to meet their current expenses. Should this division of responsibility, which has the merit of being easily intelligible, ever be accepted in prin- ciple, it would mean that neither side could get on without the other. If the societies slackened their efforts the agencies of local government 94 The Society : Today and Tomorrow would cut their supplies. If they maintained them, the local author- ities would know that they were patronizing causes which appealed to a wide and generous-minded public. I have spoken hitherto of the means by which our programme can be carried out. What is that programme? First, of course, it is the maintenance of our Museum. That museum, like all museums, I suppose, has got to play a double part. First of all it must be in a fit state for use by scholars,—its contents kept in a good physical state, clean, accessible, catalogued. Secondly its exhibits must be used for teaching in the broadest sense of the word, partly through formal lec- tures and talks and partly for the enlightenment of visitors who exam- ine them rather for the satisfaction of curiosity than to acquire know- ledge in a formal sense. These two objects are, I believe, harder to reconcile in a small museum like our own than in a great national one. Their co-existence poses such questions as how much to display, what to do with what is not displayed, and whether to concentrate on a large permanent collection, with occasionally small temporary ones of a special kind, or to organise a constantly changing succession of tempor- ary ones. Since the coming of our curators a significant amount of what was formerly on show has been put away and the museum has greatly benefited by that activity. For myself, however, I hope that things will never go too far in that direction. We cannot predict the tastes of the more casual visitor, whose interests may be wide, but not deep enough to impel him to call for specimens from store. For the same reason I think that the main effort should go in displaying and expanding a single permanent exhibition, rather than in preparing numerous transient ones. There is, indeed, a further reason for this preference: constant changes take up a great deal of a curator’s time, which, since we shall always be short of curators, could better go in cataloguing the whole collection, and improving the display and label- ling of what has been set out. May [here enter a plea for printed catalogues? I believe that they are not invariably favoured nowadays, and of course their publication can be prohibitively costly. But I think that a catalogue, capable of publication, should exist in every museum and should be published if the money is there. Printed catalogues tell us what type of material is available in what places, and may save us many fruitless journeys. So may we hope that one day the Goddard-Cunnington catalogues, much improved, may be reissued? By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A 95 A great difficulty facing every museum in every age is how much to accept from donors and lenders. This difficulty is unusually acute today and is most acute of all in the case of ‘recent’ antiquities. . In this century the expectation of life has increased and living-space has decreased. Wise men, as they grow old, seek to discard their possess- ions voluntarily, and unwise ones often do so under compulsion. The more time a man has in which to reflect upon the fate of his possessions, the more convinced he is that those possessions are great curiosities and ought not to be lost. He is led, particularly if his inclinations are kindly and public-spirited, to offer them to some museum. For a variety of reasons museum committees are strongly tempted to accept such offers, but the advantages of acceptance have to be balanced against the risk of overcrowding the accommodation and overstraining curatorial resources. Numerous examples of the clothing, furniture and bric-a- brac of the last and even of the present century ought to be laid up for posterity, but we cannot establish a collection of these things every- where. There must be some specialization,—one museum agreeing to collect one type of object and leaving other types to its neighbour. There must be the fullest consultation between curators within a region, indeed within the kingdom, so that some principles may be established: how many specimens of each object ought to survive, and what is the best place in which to put them. If rationing of some kind is not prac- tised, all buildings will become congested and curators and committees will forfeit public confidence by their clamours for excessive space. - Keeping too much will be found to be as great a misfortune as keeping too little. I must not, of course, appear to be offering an expert opinion on the preservation of museum specimens, but in the field of manuscripts I may perhaps be bolder. I am sure that it was wise in the Grigg Com- mittee, which reported last year upon the records of government departments, to advocate a thorough-going system of elimination. I hope that they have set an example which will be imitated by others who have custody of documents. It seems to me that both nationally and locally too many documents are being kept while at the same time too little effort is expended on evaluating them. I was myself asked not long ago to advise upon the destiny of a small packet of papers relating to the ordination, institution and induction of a r9th-century clergyman. After looking at the papers I replied that I thought that the information that they contained was in principle available else- 96 The Society : Today and Tomorrow where, in books or documents not likely to be destroyed, and that therefore the packet need not go into public custody. This one packet would indeed have occupied a trifling space, but even it would from time to time have had to have been catalogued, and cleaned, and re- paired. Multiply the little packet no more than twenty times and you have laid out a significant amount of official effort and public money. That effort and that money could have been better spent by fur- nishing the custodian with the opportunity to equip lumself to distinguish the significant from the less significant. The policy that mainly prevails at present is one of wholesale conservation, and is the product of the sceptical generation that grew up in the ‘twenties’. In that age dogmas of all kinds were submitted to the most searching tests. Certainty seemed unattainable. There were no limits to human cur- iosity and base metals looked just as interesting as precious. The pen- dulum is, I hope, beginning to swing in the opposite direction. If it does not swing too far, that direction is the right one, and implies a robuster judgement in those who follow it. It should greatly help all custodians, whether of manuscripts or other objects, if they will agree that a good deal cannot be accepted outright until its worth has been explored. This means that gifts and loans must go into a kind of ‘limbo’ until there is time for enquiry. Potential benefactors, if worthy of the name, should have no difficulty in apprec- iating the soundness of that reasoning. I have only one more thing to say about the Museum. Its title, if indeed it has a formal title, is a cumbrous one—the Museum of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society at Devizes. We shorten it by calling it Devizes Museum, or the Devizes Museum, but this can imply, to those who do not know it properly, that it is mainly concerned with Devizes. The museum is proud to possess many antiquities from Devizes and the neighbourhood, but it is of course a county museum. Indeed in some of its branches it is undoubtedly a museum of national importance. May there some day be a case for giving it a formal short title which will proclaim its national character? From our museum I turn to our library. I wonder how many of us really know it properly? I certainly do not, but I recognise in it a col- lection of Wiltshire literature, unrivalled elsewhere, and particularly rich in fugitive pieces. As you will know, we have, for their greater security and for other reasons, parted with most of our MSS. to the Wiltshire Record Office, where they are on permanent loan, but we still By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. oF have a few MSS. of Devizes interest and some accumulations of what are irreverently and often quite unjustifiably called * collectors’ junk’. Weare not very likely, I think, to add to our MS. collections, but we should welcome more ephemeral pieces—such material as annual re- ports, directories, and sale catalogues, which it is hard to keep track of and which we could not afford to buy. We also value gifts of books, which we have not got, provided that they deal with Wiltshire, for the money available for purchases is very limited. What should be done about keeping up our valuable press-cutting collection is at the moment being debated, and I will not try to anticipate what the Committee must eventually decide. But I have one suggestion to offer for the Committee’s future consideration. Some years ago Swindon Histor- ical Society began a survey of the files of Wiltshire newspapers in local custody. It went some way, but never completed its task, and I should like to think that our Society could perfect what was so well begun. It is perhaps an enterprise which could be organised by that group of local history enthusiasts, who, as you will have heard from the report, are clustering round Mr. Gee. The work is the more important, because, as you will remember, the local newspaper collection belonging to the British Museum was damaged in the late war. During the past year we have, as you have also just been told, begun to co-operate with the County Library. What may grow from this we cannot yet say, but, provided there is complete assurance of the integrity of our collections and the safety of each book or MS., I should like to think it would lead to a wider use of our library by the public. One thing that would undoubtedly make the library more serviceable would be a short published guide to its contents and how to find one’s way about them. Such a guide—I do not mean a catalogue—could be fairly easily compiled and cheaply printed and could be sold if not at a profit at least at no loss. There is no one so well fitted to set its com- pilation going as our senior librarian who has for many years given so very much of his own time to the library. Our Magazine, as you have been told, is for various reasons in a tran- sitional stage. First its new editor has to settle into the work. Secondly we have at no very distant date to change the format. Thirdly we are like- ly to be faced by increasingly heavy charges for printing it. I cannot feel myself that we shall be able to continue to publish two issues a year much longer. As it is, I believe we are the only local archaeological society to do so. What we may lose in quantity may of course be made 98 The Society : Today and Tomorrow up in enhanced quality, as contributors vie with one another to secure the editor’s restricted space. What we want in the Magazine are, so far as possible, original papers, founded on new research. But they should be interesting papers, so as to catch the attention of those of our mem- bers who are not experts. Writing such articles is of course more difficult than writing reports for the pure specialist, but is not, I hope, beyond the skill of our contributors. In the volumes issued by our Records Branch it has always been the aim to interpret the texts by introductions which are intelligible to the educated layman, and I hope that a like ambition will always inspire those who write for the Magazine. Apart from style we have to think of content. The Magazine is primarily the chronicle of our doings, and this means that some superficially un- interesting records must appear init. They are the raw material for the history of our next centenary, and cannot be omitted. On the other hand we could, I believe, review a little more briefly, and could alto- gether exclude reviews of books which do not bear upon the history of Wiltshire. We could curtail the narratives of our excursions. We could also hand over to our Records Branch the publication of all texts. Indeed I have sometimes felt that the editors of the publications of the Society and the Branch could be in closer touch. I think too that the editors of all archaeological proceedings, certainly in adjacent counties, should get to know each other. Editors of record societies meet once a year and hear about their common difficulties and achieve- ments. Why not the editors of antiquarian magazines? Could not this be arranged through some such body as the Council for British Arch- aeology: One final suggestion. The magazine is the repository not only of antiquarian but also of scientific papers. Yet we always call it when speaking hastily the Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine, or use the initial letters of those words. Why not call it simply The Wiltshire Magazine and so demonstrate more clearly its dual content? From the outset the first page of each issue has borne those words. Why not put them on the cover too? The fourth department of our work may be said to be excavation in the field. Though in the past individual members have promoted excavation out of their own resources, the two large-scale operations at Snail Down, conducted under the Society’s auspices, though with Treasury grants, are an altogether new departure. I must not predict what the excavation programme can be in future years, only remind- ing you once again that the extent of such enterprises must be limited By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. 99 by the manpower available to direct them. I am tempted to believe myself that we should consider in the more immediate future smaller excavations, lasting perhaps only one week, but possibly occurring at more frequent intervals. At least we might try this, without in the least resolving to abandon more ambitious enterprises. I hope you will not think I disparage in any way prehistoric research if I say that I also hope that we may soon give our patronage to the excavation of some medieval sites. Nothing could be more important, judged by any standard, than the resumption of the work at Clarendon Palace, a majestic operation that would attract the widest interest. The exist- ence of a large body of documentary material about the fabric of the palace makes the site all the more suitable. Of almost equal importance is Devizes Castle, in which our Assistant Curator has already begun to take an interest. The castle has largely been spoiled by the ponderous structure that surmounts the mound, but a cutting through the ditch might tell us a good deal about the most splendid fortress in Europe, as it was called in the 12th century, and about the garrison-town that lay around it. Thirdly I should like to see some more digging done at the place so unfortunately called Old Sarum. While a good deal was achieved in 1909 and several following years, much was left untouched, and we know little enough about the buildings of the city apart from the cathedral and the castle. There are not many virgin sites of medieval towns and the money that public bodies have recently devoted to the excavation of deserted villages could perhaps have been spent with equal profit on exploring Old Salisbury. Lastly we have often in the past spent ourselves in trying to protect the antiquities and scenery of Wiltshire. That there should be a wide- spread watchfulness in such matters is one of the best reasons for main- taining local societies like our own. Deep ploughing and the activities of the fighting services may continue to be the main causes of the dam- age we have deplored, and I greatly hope that we shall continue to keep watch. Since, however, prevention is better than cure there are num- erous opportunities for a society like ours to educate the public and to cultivate the right kind of good relations with soldiets, airmen and farmers. Changes in the landscape, new uses for old sites, are inevitable in an evolving society, and I an sure that we should try not so much to bar all change, which will be futile and lead us to be hated, as to urge that the closest investigation should be undertaken before any antiquities are interfered with, and that no destruction should be wanton. And be- 100 The Society : Today and Tomorrow fore we make protests we should be certain of our facts. Several times in my experience cases of alleged damage or interference have been brought to our Committee by people partially ignorant of the real in- tentions of those other people whom they wished us to restrain. It is of great importance that the Society should not compromise itself by espousing weak causes. The protection of ancient monuments is rather like the preservation of antiquities in museums and libraries. Here, as there, the danger of trying to preserve too much is nearly as great as that of trying to preserve too little. The problem however is more complex, for whereas the storing of one pair of snuffers more or less is no great mat- ter, the preservation of a building may result in the immediate sacrifice of some lawful competing ambition. At present there is no well- recognized philosophy of preservation, or none that is known to me, and I wish there were. The preservation of a building is sometimes asked for because it is a thing of beauty, sometimes because it is in the nature of an unexamined document, sometimes for its associations, sometimes as a specimen. Or there may be a combination of these reasons. I think it ought to be the accepted view that no society like ours will plead for the preservation of any monument unless the ground for its plea have been clearly thought out. Antiquity alone is not to my mind a sufficient ground, particularly in days when photography will preserve a faithful record. Conversely I do not think that a monument or site is necessarily valueless because it has once been excavated or sur- veyed. Changes in technique have been too numerous to permit any single generation of investigators to suppose that it has a monopoly of wisdom, and that its findings leave nothing for discovery by posterity. I spoke just now, I hope not too unsympathetically, of the activities of the Services. May I add one paragraph to what I said? Most of us can see, even if we deplore, the need to turn farms into camps and cover them with barracks. Few of us can see the need, when those camps and barracks have served their purpose, for leaving them derelict. If it be indeed the case that servicemen have time to act as footmen and grooms they surely also have the time to demolish buildings that are no longer any use. And even a civilian may perhaps enquire whether such de- molition may not form as useful a part of a man’s training. When seeking help from public bodies we have from time to time proclaimed ourselves an agency of education. A juster claim could not have been made. We are an educational body, because by cherishing - By R. B. Pugh, F.S.A. 101 what is best in antiquity, digging it up, or publishing it, we are preserv- ing and transmitting a cultural tradition. The mere maintenance of our museum is in itself an educational activity, because, lacking our museum, society is the poorer. If our museum meets the needs of men of culture,— and men of culture will demand imagination and good taste as well as learning,—we need not doubt that it is justifying its existence. Like- wise our magazine must be of such quality that scholars will be proud to see their work appear in it. We must by no means ignore the value of simple exposition and must take our share of it. If however we exhaust ourselves in talks to clubs, and schools and wayfarers, and in designing dioramas, we shall have no energy with which to advance learning, and no society which fails in that direction deserves to be supported out of public funds. In no small measure those funds are already drawn upon in the interests of popular enlightenment. We claim a tiny share in them not as teachers but as conservators and explorers. If we discharge our duty, the teacher and his pupil cannot fail to benefit. Those are my last words to any from outside who might think fit to help us to survive. For ourselves I have a much terser valediction. It is in three words: work, give, think. By “work” I mean that we should sacrifice a little of our leisure, a little of the domestic round to the needs of societies like our own. Do not let us wholly subordinate such forms of public service to the clamour of the nursery and the clatter of the scullery. By “give” I mean that we should not forget that a year’s subscription to this soc- iety costs no more than a bottle of sherry, and that an occasional dona- tion may cost less. By “ think ” I mean that we should never act with- out reflection. Nearly all the troubles that have come our way in my time have been caused or aggravated by impetuosity. I have myself shared in some imprudent decisions, for which I ask most heartily for- giveness, and I therefore know how easily they can be reached. But when we are tempted into new courses let us consider their effect not merely now but hereafter. Let us plan too not merely for next week, next month, or next season, but for the next quinquennium, and the next decade. If we do that, and work and give as well, we may celebrate a second century. 102 SORVIODUNUM! By J. F. S. Srong, F.S.A. and D. J. Atcar. The saddleback connecting the main East Gate of Old Sarum with Bishopdown has witnessed many memorable events and none more so than its intentional selection by the Romans as the point of convergence of four, and probably five, of their major southern roads (Fig. 1.) O' om LANE RO SN ec as ein ei eee ene zie \ \- dt mr >i oe rae eR) tn MEO a eye tate # Ore ate us Te Th Z / i va “a 2 " age i Poe # Sst i ae ? + Alot ieei e ee i © i PA ee ENTA pELGARVM = Barly fron oe NO chester Age Camp *:, ~ Ne (wine b Old Sarum) “7% ) JF > +, SORVIODUNUM vA NSS ee “ee { te x ~S ~~ a . . i ee 300-.. . . . »; \ ane aN Strattord ‘ nm x, ies : \ sub : ue “ Pauls Dene ‘ mae XN “j 4 Urs / s Castle aN e mee o8 \ 5 ane oe i ~. . N vs z Bishopdown SS \ “. XN, \ . a . ‘ . N. SS. \ FANS 7 ~: \ \ (eet 8 ! § v j ~ j eh % we / ~ ot? Piso Mae \ va 6 AL Ny eee old ? i < ( co . XN Hf : Track to Downton a 7 F New Forest Potteries ( ra Ser) ( Q hs \ 1 f ‘ \ i ‘ oo Noy Netheravon Road x ‘ N \ t N \ { \ ‘Ne va ‘ ~ x fa) 1/4 1/2 3/4 t Mile TESS SALISBURY “1985 Fic. t Plan showing convergence of Roman roads on Sorviodunum, and the position of the Romano-British refuse layer at Paul’s Drive Sited as were these important cross roads? almost in the centre of a thickly populated and rich corn growing district, it has always seemed 1 For a note on the alternative but incorrect spelling SORBIODUNUM see Professor K. Jackson, J. Roman Studies, xxxviii (1948), 58. 2 See especially Colt Hoare, Ancient Wilts IT, Roman Aera, pp- 25; 7 38 46 and 58 with plans. Sorviodunum 103 strange that the immediate vicinity should have remained seemingly bare and isolated and lacking recognizable traces of human habitation, town or village of Romano-British date; especially in view of the near proximity of so desirable a hill, originally an Early Iron Age camp,3 which was later to become the populous and important city of Old Sarum. Unfortunately the very early history of Old Sarum must re- main tantalizingly conjectural, and it is moreover extremely doubtful whether excavations on the scale of those expended at Maiden Castle would yield results comparable with the effort and expense entailed. The late D. H. Montgomerie, who was closely associated with the 1909-1915 excavations throughout, was to the end convinced that the whole site had been too much levelled by the Normans for chalk for their ramparts and the castle Mound to expect anything of value to have survived. Virtually nothing pre-Norman, with the exception of about eight illegible fourth century Roman coins, was found in the Cathedral quadrant and he felt sure that the other three quadrants had been despoiled and levelled similarly. In view, therefore, of this con- sidered judgement, such scraps of information as appear from time to time fortuitously, and in a district that is “ developing ’ so rapidly, must of necessity be recorded piecemeal in the hope that ultimately they may lead to a clearer appreciation and better understanding of this remark- able site. The excavations within Old Sarum itself, carried out from 1909 to 1915 by W. H. St. J. Hope and W. Hawley for the Society of Antiq- uaries, were concerned mainly with the Norman Castle and Cathedral ;4 and towards the close of these explorations Haverfield was clearly per- plexed and surprised at the apparent lack of tangible evidence bearing upon any form of Roman interest in the hill itself. His short paper on Old Sarum and SorviodunumS reviewed the remarkably few finds of 3 The evidence is admittedly slight. However, the plan is that of a typical univallate Iron Age camp which follows the steep hill’s oval contour; and the mouth of a typical storage pit was found under the Castle Mound and below the foundation of a building which is probably Roman (see below). Elsewhere a bronze belt-link and three La Téne III brooches suggest Belgic occupation c. 25-43 A.D.; an earlier date running back to the second century B.C. is how- ever not unlikely (Arch. Jour., civ (1948), 131). 4 Proc. Soc. Ant. London, xxiii-xxviii. 5 W.A.M., xxxix (1915), 22. VOL. LVI—CCIII G 104 Sorviodunum Roman date and, although he felt that some form of Roman occupa- tion must have existed somewhere, not necessarily within the camp but possibly near the village of Stratford-sub-Castle below, he was careful to emphasize that this village had so far yielded no object of Roman date to support the supposition. In consequence he came to the con- clusion that the Sorviodunum of the Antonine Itinerary must most probably have consisted of no more than a posting-station or a hamlet of a couple of houses or so near the cross roads, without, however, adducing any evidence in support. Although at a later date Mrs. Cunnington, in her study of Romano- British Wiltshire, 6 also listed the few objects of the period found in the district, it remained for Montgomerie to summarize and review the history of Old Sarum in the light of modern research and thought.7 However, all that he could cite for the Roman period were the found- ations of a rectangular building of some size apparently, but not con- clusively, associated with several sherds of Roman pottery8 and a coin of Maximian, situated under the Castle Mound. The short stretch of wall examined by tunnelling was about five feet in height and was built of alternate courses of ashlar and flints on a foundation of chalk lumps with a clay and chalk bedding laid on the natural gravel. While Montgomerie was forced to admit that its Roman date must remain conjectural, a recent suggestion made by Mr. H. de S. Shortt to one of us that the building may possibly have been a Romano-Celtic temple similar to that found and excavated within Maiden Castle is an attrac- tive one and should be borne in mind by future excavators. Neverthe- less, as Professor Hawkes has pointed out to us, another interpretation is possible. It is known that in Roman, or at any rate Late Roman, times the Government built buildings for storing foodstuffs, wool, hides, etc., collected as tribute or taxes levied in kind and which were known as annona (annual levy of corn, etc.). This levying of the annona militaris was one of the fiscal burdens under which the Late Empire “groaned ’; and municipal buildings for housing such tribute would not have been out of place in such an agricultural district and near such important cross roads. 6 Ibid., xlv (1930), 203-4. 7 Arch, J., civ (1948), 129-143. 8 A]l now lost but for one scrap of Samian; see Pottery, fig. 2, no. I. By J. F. S. Stone F.S.A., and D. J. Algar 105 Elsewhere? Professor Hawkes has commented on the importance of the position of Old Sarum at the centre of the area’s Roman road system, and has argued forcibly that the cause of the lack of extensive occupation within and, we may add, the absence of a town or villas in the vicinity, was more likely than not to have been a political one. In answer to the question—why did not the Romans set up a normal town-centre for the Salisbury Plain ‘ village ° life at Salisbury, to super- sede the Early Iron Age camp on Old Sarum—he accepts as most pro- bable Collingwood’s explanation that this district, together with the contiguous Cranborne Chase district, was turned into an Imperial estate, either administered directly, or through leaseholds, for the Roman emperor.!0 Professor Hawkes adds that, if this were so, Sorviodunum could well have become the regional headquarters for the administra- tion of the Salisbury Plain district, which would thus explain the other anomalies of the place; and likewise Badbury Rings for the Cranborne Chase district. We have but to recall the remarkable continuity of village life on Salisbury Plain as exemplified by the recently examined Boscombe Down village complex only 44 miles away, which ranged in date from Early Iron Age A times through Belgic to the late Romano--British period, to realise that political upheavals did not necessarily upset village life unduly, and that small social units may well have been controlled without much difficulty from some central office. 11 Now, as we have noted, four of the principal roads of the system converged on the saddleback outside the East Gate and, if Haverfield’s suggestion is correct, some form of Roman occupation should be recognizable nearby, and not necessarily within Old Sarum itself. The actual position and siting of the fifth road from the Mendips, after leav- ing GrovelyWood, is not known; nor do we know whether it entered the West Gate of Old Sarum, or skirted round to join one of the others. It is hoped that these points will shortly be solved by work at present in progress by the Salisbury Field Club. Excavations by one of us with Mr. John Charlton, F.S.A., in 1933, in the paddock of the Old Castle Inn just outside the East Gate, failed to reveal anything of Roman date; Norman cesspits with abundant pottery of the period, and a medieval cemetery, alone were found.12 This, however, is not surprising as the 9 Arch. J., civ (1948), 32. 10R. G. Collingwood, Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 1936, 224. 11 W.A.M., liv (1951), 123. 12 Antiquaries J., xv (1935), 174. 106 Sorviodunum actual site of the cross roads must have been obliterated long ago by later alterations and occupation in Norman and medieval times. But from the fields immediately to the south of Old Sarum, and therefore close to the Sorviodunum-Vindogladia road, two practically complete amphorae are recorded as having been found; one now in the Salisbury Museum!3 (fig. 4, no. 1) and the other in Devizes Museum! (fig. 4, no. 2). Although the former is a normal specimen of Augustan or Claudian date, the latter is peculiar in having a corkscrew-like base for crewing into a pedestal or stand. It is peculiar too in that no parallels can at present be cited; it may in fact not be Roman at all. Since we do not know precisely where they were found and since no reliable witnesses were present to record the facts we are very sceptical as to the genuineness of both finds in the Old Sarum district and consider them suspect on the circumstantial evidence presented. It is not at all im- probable that they had been brought to the district from elsewhere in recent times and later disposed of to the best bidder as finds from Old Sarum. We cannot overlook the fact that the ‘ discoverer’ of the Devizes Museum vessel was an eccentric purveyor of antiques and curios. With these facts in mind, the sudden discovery in 1953 of a some- what diffusely spread refuse dump of Romano-British date on the comparatively steep slopes of Castle Hill about 500 yards south-east of the East Gate (fig. 1) clearly called for rapid investigation, though ex- cavtions in the accepted sense were out of the question. The southern slopes of the hill have been under housing development for some time, and the so-called Paul’s Dene Estate is rapidly encroaching towards Old Sarum. No finds of interest had been reported during the building of the houses and it was not until some of the occupants started to cultivate and level parts of their steep gardens that discoveries began to be made. As far as we have been able to ascertain the greatest concentration of refuse lies in the gardens between nos. 14 and 22 Juniper Drive, and it should be added that it was entirely due to the perspicacity and interest of Mr. M. Shanks of 20 Juniper Drive that the potentialities of the area were brought to our attention. Cursory examination and sampling at various places has shown that the refuse layer, up to one foot in thickness, lies below about eight inches of normal surface plough soil brought down from the ground 13 W.A.M., xli(1920), 194. 14 W.A.M., li(1947), 617. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 107 above. Perforated baked clay and stone roofing tiles, fairly abundant unabraded potsherds and other domestic refuse clearly indicated the former existence of a nearby dwelling or habitation site which almost certainly, from the contours of the ground, must have been higher up the hill to the north and nearer the Roman road junction. This higher ground appears to be at a very slightly higher level than Old Sarum itself, before the construction of the Norman Castle and Mound, and from this higher ground it would have been possible to keep the inside of the Early Iron Age camp under observation as well as four of the roads for some miles. A more strategic site could hardly have been found for keeping the whole district under scrutiny. The finds from the refuse layer are described in detail below. Here we need but review briefly the salient facts that emerge from their study. Although we have not located the actual site of the dwelling, the pottery and coin evidence reinforce one another in no uncertain way and indicate that occupation was concentrated mainly in the late third to the end of the fourth century A.D. The pottery is almost entirely the product of the New Forest potteries and can for the most part be assigned to their latest fourth century phase,!5 two solitary Samian sherds (fig. 2, nos. 2 and 3) alone possibly representing heir- looms from an earlier period, and that may be compared with the sherd from the 1909-1915 excavations inside Old Sarum (fig. 2, no. 1). Weare greatly indebted to Mr. H. de S. Shortt, F.S.A., for his report on the coins and for his examination of all Roman coins known to have been found in the immediate vicinity. Although these number only 53, of which 14 came from the Paul’s Dene refuse layer, their analysis is of considerable interest and importance when compared with that of Bokerly Dyke and Woodyates 10 miles along the road to the south- west and with which the fortunes of Sorviodunum must have been indissolubly connected. Fortunately we now have the advantage of Professor Hawkes’ brilliant re-appraisal, based on the interpretation of the coin evidence by Dr. C. H. V. Sutherland, of Pitt Rivers’ excava- tions at Bokerly Junction,16 and it should therefore be possible to re- construct in very bare outline a little of the history of Sorviodunum itself. In his study, Professor Hawkes has clearly demonstrated that Wood- 15 Discussed by Professor Hawkes, Antiquaries J., xviii (1938), 113. 16 Archaeological J., civ (1948), 62-78. 108 Sorviodunum yates (Vindogladia?) gradually grew as a road-side settlement, though on a small scale, up to about the time of Severus Alexander (222-235). By an act of Imperial administration during the third and early fourth centuries, the staple production of the downs was changed from that of wheat to sheep, and wool must have begun to pass in quantity along the roads through Sorviodunum to the Imperial weaving-mill at Winchester. The resulting expansion and wealth of Woodyates during the Constantinian period (306-361), as reflected in the greatly increased flow of coinage, has been described by Dr. Sutherland17 as the high pressure period of that settlement, and presumably therefore of other local downland villages and sheep farms in general. That this was in fact the case is suggested by an analysis of the coins, also very kindly carried out by Mr. Shortt and Mr. F. K. Annable (see below), from the Romano-British settlement at Stockton Earthworks, 10 miles along the road from Sorviodunum to the Mendip lead mines, where a very similar high concentration of Constantinian coins has been found, and which are preserved in the Salisbury and Devizes Museums. But this period of prosperity was short lived; a major crisis, due to the simultaneous attack of Roman Britain by Picts, Scots and Saxons, necessitated the cutting of the trunk road to the south-west and the strengthening of Bokerly Dyke in 367. Although the road was almost immediately re-opened, prosperity had vanished and decay rapidly set in. By the end of the fourth century the road was finally cut for ever and the so-called Fore Dyke built across it. Roman domination in the district then apparently ceased, and the subsequent 150 years, up to the recorded fall of Old Sarum to the Saxons in §52, is still shrouded in complete obscurity. Its fall implies resistance, but evidence of the whereabouts and activities of the local sub-Roman Britons is entirely lacking. We have of course the famous Wilton bowl and a few minimi and minimissimi of early fifth century date from Stockton Earthworks; but it is not until the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon cemeteries at Harnham Hill!8 and Petersfinger19 near Salisbury in the mid-sixth century that the curtain is once again lifted. In his review of the latter cemetery , Mr. Leeds again emphasizes the slow progress northwards from Southampton Water of the invaders between 495 and 552, 17 Tbid., 72. 18 Archacologia, xxxv (1853), 259. 19 An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Petersfinger near Salisbury, Wilts, by E. T. Leeds and H. de S. Shortt, Salisbury, 1953. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 109 and this suggests no rapid capitulation of the local inhabitants. But where are their remains? And how is one to distinguish them? Having had to rely for so long on mass produced wares from the New Forest potteries it looks as if the sub-Romans suddenly found them- selves unable to produce satisfactory domestic articles. of the required durability and strength. Can it be that of necessity they were forced to revert to less durable vessels of wood and leather which have not sur- vived in the archaeological record? Although the actual number of coins available for study is vastly different (Woodyates and Bokerly Dyke 958; Stockton Earthworks 366; and Sorviodunum 53), their distribution in date is not dissimilar, when expressed as percentages, and suggests a close connection. A.D. Woodyates and Stockton Sorvio- Bokerly Dyke Earthworks20 dunum no. % no. vA no. Wy 69- 79 — — 3 08 I 1.9 100-250 18 1.9 10 217. 8 14.1 259-2906 166 17.3 87 23,8 9 17.0 306-361 700 73.0 232 63.4 26 49.0 364-395 71 74 32 8.8 5 9.5 395-405 3 0.3 2 0.6 4 7-6 At all three sites it will be seen that the peak of prosperity was reached during the period 306-361 and this, we are assured by Mr. S. Peto, F.S.S., who has kindly analysed the number of coins for us, is statistically sig- nificant. Furthermore, Mr. Peto draws attention to the fact that the numbers of coins preceding the peak (259-296 A.D.) are significantly greater than those following (364-395 A.D.), which suggests a sudden misfortune or rapid decline in prosperity at all three sites. On the other hand he points out that the general time distribution of the Woodyates coinage differs significantly from that of Stockton Earthworks, espec- ially in the greater number of coins dated between 259 and 296 from the latter site; but unfortunately the Old Sarum distribution cannot be readily compared with either site owing to the small size of the sample. The general pattern can, however, hardly be fortuituous and, bearing in mind the absence of extensive occupation and settlement, when com- 20 Two British Durotrigic coins (1-50 A.D.) and five minimi and minimis- simi (probably early fifth century) are not included in this table. 110 Sorviodunum pared with that at Woodyates, we seem justified in inferring that a small road-side inn, hostelry, or even small establishment for the sale of New Forest pottery,2! close to the Sorviodunum cross roads benefited by the traffic (2 wool) converging at this point. Whilst it is natural to expect a slightly higher percentage of early coins at these important cross roads, it seems clear that the prosperity of this small establishment commenced after 250 and reached its zenith about one hundred years later; but the temporary cutting of the road at Bokerly Junction, due to the barbarian invasion of 367, clearly affected the fortunes of the inhabitants of Sorviodunum too. And with the final severance of the south-western trunk road, the building of the Bokerly Fore Dyke to face some threatened danger from the Sorviodunum area, and the rescript of Honorius in 410, their doom was sealed in so far as the coin and pottery evidence take us. How fate overtook them, in the absence of excavation, we do not know; an examination of the small field lying between the Paul’s Dene Estate and Old Sarum would, we feel, be amply repaid. In our discussion of the possible whereabouts and fortunes of Sorvio- dunum we have with intention refrained from mentioning certain other evidence of Romano-British settlement in the immediate neigh- bourhood since there would appear to be no direct connection. To the south of the Paul’s Dene refuse layer, and about three-quarters of a mile away, two finds of Roman date have been recorded. During the building of no. 63 Moberly Road in 1937 an almost complete oil flagon, unornamented and of hard grey late New Forest ware, was discovered ;22 and about 70 yards to the east of Moberly Road the remains of a small Romano-British dwelling at no. 3 Netheravon Road have been re- ported by Colonel R. A. Bryden. Besides sandstone roofing tiles, the finds included hearths, pottery, glass, iron objects, iron slag, a sandal and a number of coins ranging from Gallienus to Constantine. 23 Bearing in mind that these two finds are about one mile to the south of the Roman cross roads, any direct connection is clearly unwarranted. They merely prove in our view, in the absence of intermediate links, that the south-western slopes of Bishopdown attracted settlement in the form of a few isolated dwellings during the late third and fourth cen- 21 In this connection we should note the ancient trackway thats run south from Old Sarum along the top of Bishopdown to Milford and then in all pro- bability past Petersfinger to Downton and the New Forest pottery area. 22 W.A.M., liii (1949), 258. 23 [bid., lii(1948), 394. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 111 turies, which may of course be true of our Paul’s Dene refuse layer too. In conclusion we would wish to record our very great indebtedness to Professor Hawkes for so kindly reading through the manuscript of this paper and for offering a number of valuable suggestions. THE POTTERY. FIG. 2. All, except no. 1, from 14-22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene. Samian, plain. Only surviving fragment of Roman pottery in Salisbury Museum from Hope and Hawley’s excavations in Old Sarum 1909-1915. Found under the Castle Mound associated apparently with a Roman (2) building. Sir Mortimer Wheeler has kindly informed us that this is a piece of form 18 and datable to the middle or third quarter of the 1st century A.D., although it may have survived until the close of the century. 2, 3. Samian, plain. Sir Mortimer Wheeler dates these two fragments about 100-130 A.D. The rim is of form 18/31, or early 31, and the base probably represents a similar dish. Small bowl of finely made New Forest ware; light pinkish-buff body with red slip which has largely corroded away. Ashley Rails (Sumner,! 27, pl. iv, 3) and very like no. 127 in First Richborough Report, 1926, where dated 3rd or 4th century. . Rosette-stamped bowl; buff body with red slip. Typical Ashley Rails ware (Sumner, 27-8, pl. v), and characteristic of last third of the 4th century (Hawkes, Arch. J., civ, 75). 6, 7- Rims of small bowls, also of pinkish-buff body with red slip. IO. 1 i Well made and clearly fragments of Sumner’s “ Rosette-stamped ware. Rim of well made roulette-stamped bowl. Pink body with re- mains of deep red slip which has largely disappeared. Bowl of soft red body with red slip. The slip remains inside but has flaked away badly over the outside. Oil flagon; handled neck only. Grey body with pink undercoat and brown painted surface. Ashley Rails (Sumner, 33, pl. ix). Oil flagon. Typical late New Forest ware. Grey body covered with purple metallic glaze. Neck missing, otherwise complete and unbroken. Four opposing trellis-work patterns painted on in white paint. Pitt Rivers, Excavations, iii, 145. 1 All references to Sumner refer to his Excavations in New Forest Pottery Sites, 1927. 112 Sorviodunum 12. Oil flagon. Sherd with concentric grooves and white painted trellis work. Grey base with brown painted surface. AVMs TFS.S, 1955 Fig. 2. Pottery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene. 13. Oil flagon. Sherd with concentric grooves. Cream base with reddish-brown painted surface. Other fragments of similar flagons, including a base, found but not illustrated. ; 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 113 Wine flagon. Neck only; hard grey ware. Wine flagon. Neck only; cream base with reddish-brown slip. Ashley Rails (Sumner, 33, pl. ix, 9). Thumb pot or New Forest beaker; grey base with purple metallic lustre. 4th century. Common on all late New Forest pottery sites excepting Linwood and Old Sloden (Sumner, 21). Thumb pot; ditto. Thumb pot, large, fragment of wall. Light grey base with brownish-purple metallic lustre. Ornamented with inverted foliated stalks in white paint. Identical pots with similar decor- ation from Armsley (Sumner, 116, pl. xxxv, 1), Woodyates (Excavations, iti, 142, no. 11) and from as far afield as Bury Hill Camp, Gloucestershire (Proc. Spel. Soc., iii (1926), 21, no. 25). The rim of another large thumb pot is not here illustrated. 19, 20. Fragments of covers or lids. No. 19 grey with black knob, 21. 22. 23. alg no. 20 buff. Ashley Rails (Sumner, 40, pl. xii, 1-3). Rim of bowl of hard grey ware. Sloden (Sumner, pl. xxx, 2) and Crock Hill (Sumner, 110, pl. xxxi, 3). Base of beaker-like vessel, rather coarse, hand made, medium hard, greyish-black ware. Bowl, wide mouth with inside flange, cream coloured ware with brownish-red painted design on inside. Ashley Rails (Sumner, Ba) Flanged bowl or mortarium, cream body with painted red strokes on flange. Islands Thorns (Sumner, 113, pl. xxxii, 17 and 18). 25, 26. Platters. Fragments of four of different sizes. Hard grey and 27): 28. sandy ware, three with burnished interiors. Although burnishing was an early feature in the New Forest, platters were common in all kilns. Sloden (Sumner, 65, pl. xvii, 9). Flanged dish with remains of trellis pattern. Lydney Report, 1932, fig. 27, 40-43; Maiden Castle, fig. 80, 54-55 and Jewry Wall, Leicester, fig. 54, 7 where dated mid-fourth century. Flanged dish; hard grey ware, black surface, rim and inside burn- ished. Ashley Rails (Sumner, 40, pl. xii, 10-14) and Sloden (Ibid, 64, pl. xvii, 19). 29—34. Flanged dishes, mostly black sandy ware and burnished, ex- cept no. 30 which has a reddish slip. 114 Sorviodunum FIG. 3. All from 14—22 Juniper Drive. 35—40. Rims of cooking pots or ollae with out-bent flanges. Sloden (Sumner, 65, pl. xvii, 5-8; pl. xxx, 5-8), Ashley Rails (Ibid., 39, pl. xi, 13-19) and Maiden Castle, fig. 80, 46 and 47, where dated to the latter half of ihe fourth century. 42 aren 2 399). 9 Sl 54 55 Fig. 3. Pottery from 14—22 Juniper Drive, Paul’s Dene. 41. Wall of cooking pot or olla of grey ware with lattice pattern separated by shallow groove from black burnished lower part. Rough Piece, Linwood (Sumner, 98, pl. xxvii, 1 and 2). Ollae of 42. 43. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 115 this type have been dated circa 307-337 A.D. from the use of one as a cinerary urn at Westbury, Wilts (B.M. Guide to Antiquities of Roman Britain, 1922, 120-121 and Devizes Museum Catalogue, Part II, 1934, 185-6). Base of cooking pot of hard grey ware with internal grooves. Ashley Rails (Sumner, 39 pl. xi, 5 and 7). Small jar about 3 inches high and of grey ware. 44, 45. Ditto. 46—58. Jars with rolled over rims; hard grey sandy ware. 59. Fragment of wall and base of a coarse wheel-turned grey pot ornamented with multiple parallel small grooves over whole body. 60—62. Jars with rims having single grooves; sandy grey ware. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. Ditto with two grooves on rim. Bowl with two grooves on rim and very similar to that from Linwood discussed by Professor Hawkes and dated to the begin- ning of the fourth century (Antiquaries J., xviii (1938), 120). Knobbed rim with indented ornament; Sumner’s “ knobbed-rim ware”. Large storage jar. Rim of sandy hard buff ware. Finger print ornament below rim and rough freehand slanting grooves on body nade presumably by dragging the finger downwards. Old Sloden (Sumner, 55, pl, xiv, 6). Ditto. Rim of course grey ware with considerable thumb orna- ment, the finger prints being still plainly visible. Sumner’s “Rope- rimmed type ’’. Usual jabbed holes, made before firing, also pre- sent and characteristic of these jars. Sloden and Black Heath Meadow (Sumner, pl. xvii, 10; xxii, 4—6). Ditto. Mortaria. Noc illustrated. One fragment of grey ware with cream surface. Another of cream base with reddish-brown slip. OTHER OBJECTS FROM 14—22 JUNIPER DRIVE. FIG. 4, nos. 1 and 2. Amphora of yellowish-white ware, 33 inches high and maximum diameter 12 inches, of form 186A and very similar to those from Camulodunum (1947), 252 where the type lasted from Augustan to Claudian times. Its acquisition is recorded in the following terms: 116 Sorviodunum “ Major V. Benett Stanford also wrote (1914) that his father, Capt. J. Benett Stanford, many years ago bought from an old man at Stratford-sub-Castle a large two-handled Roman amphora of thick pottery about 3ft. 6ins. high, the pointed base of which is broken off. This had been found somewhere in the neighbour- hood ” (W.A.M., xli (1920), 194). The Salisbury Museum Access- ions Book, 1935 records © 77/35. Col. J. Benett Stanford: Roman amphora, said to have been found near Old Sarum”. The evidence for this vessel having actually been found at or near Old Sarum is in our view unreliable especially when considered in conjunction with amphora no. 2 (below). It is practically complete and in an exceptionally good state of preservation. That two almost complete amphorae, apparently differing widely in date, should have been found within a relatively close distance of one another near, of all places, Old Sarum with its later history of great disturbance in Norman times, is highly improbable and, as Professor Hawkes has suggested to us, at no period are amphorae likely to have been left lying about in such conditions as to ensure their preservation whole or nearly whole. It is not improbable that this vessel was orginally introduced to the district by a col- lector or antique dealer and later disposed of falsely as from Old Sarum. Amphora 25% inches high and maximum diameter 7 inches, stated to have been dug up some years ago at the foot of Old Sarum on its southern side by Mr. Soul of Amesbury and acquired from him by Capt. B. H. Cunnington. The find was published somewhat inaccurately by Capt. Cunnington (W.A.M., li (1947), 617) where he drew attention to the remarkable screw-like base apparently fashioned for screwing into some form of base or pedestal. The vessel is roughly made of sandy reddish ware and is ornamented with horizontal rilling or grooving over most of its surface. No parallel can at present be cited, Roman or otherwise, though Professor Hawkes is inclined to think that it may have been con- nected with the Mediterranean wine trade and of late medieval or Tudor date. This vessel too we consider to be highly suspect, largely on account of the unreliable evidence of the finder Mr. Soul, author of Stonehenge and its Ancient Mysteries and purveyor of antiques and curiosat Amesbury Although the vessel itself is probably genuine, err. coo NT ON A 12, 13. 14. IS. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 117 we are inclined to the view that it was introduced to the district along with amphora no. 1 in recent times. Devizes Museum. . Small oval-shaped very roughly made mortar of hard sandstone, odin. by 73in., and varying in height from 2 to 3in., the central depression not exceeding tin. . Fragments of perforated roofing tiles of shelly limestone, one ovate specimen complete. . Fragments of baked clay roofing tiles. . Small thin whetstone of fine grained sandstone 44in. long. (Fig. 4, no. 7). . Fragment of a Kimmeridge Shale spindle whorl. (Fig. 4, no. 9.). . A plain unperforated polished bone awl 31in. long. (Fig. 4, no. 6). . The segmented head of a polished bone pin. (Fig. 4, no. 3). . A flat elliptical transparent greenish-blue glass bead, 10 by 8mm. (Fig. 4, no. 8). Also one or two fragments of glass. . Fragment of an ornamented bronze finger ring, 2in in diameter, and still retaining traces of a reddish enamel inlay. . Iron pruning-knife or small sickle, 4.6 in. long. (Fig. 4, no. 4). May be compared with those from Woodcuts (Excavations, I, pl. xxix, no. 12) and Rotherley (Ibid., I, pl. cvi, no. 2). Another somewhat similar one from Stockton Earthworks is in the Salis- bury Museum. Head of a spoon of white metal, somewhat distorted. (Fig. 4, no. 5). Resembles that from Woodcuts (Ibid., I, pl. xvi, no. 16). Another from Old Sarum, now lost, was stated to be of Roman date (W.A.M., iv (1858), 249). Small fragment, about 4in. square of thin sheet silver con- taining a small proportion of copper and a trace of lead. Iron nails, one 21in. long with round flat head being identical with those from Woodcuts (Excavations, I, pl. xxx, fig. 19). Various fragments of corroded ironwork, one being part of a small knife. Stone axe-head or battle-axe (fig. 4, no. 10) found in the Roman refuse layer at 14 Juniper Drive. Though fragmentary, it is a typical specimen of an Early Bronze Age type and is of par- ticular interest in having shallow cup markings on both faces, Sorviodunum a ITY) 1) MUN yy Fic. 4 Other finds from the Old Sarum neighbourhood Amphorae nos. I and 2, 4; other objects, 4. By J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. and D. J. Algar 119 markings which are by no means uncommon (Proc. Prehist. Soc., Xvii (1951), 132) though their significance is unknown. The implement has been examined by the South-Western Sub- Committee for the Petrological Identification of Stone Imple- ments whose report follows :— No. 886. A greenish-grey basalt. Consists of grains of fresh augite set in a mass of plagioclase laths with magnetite in large grains and large porphyritic crystals of felspar. Its association with Roman refuse once again emphasizes a point that has been discussed by one of us—the occurrence of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age stone implements, mostly axes, in much later contexts (W.A.M., liv (1951), 162). A number of instances were there cited of similar finds in Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age settlement sites and, more to our present purpose, in Romano-British sites. Thus specimens are recorded from a Roman house of third century date in Rowberrow field near Radstock, and from Woodcuts (Excavations, I, 163) and Rotherley (Ibid., 11, 184), Romano-British villages within easy access of the Sorviodunum-Vindogladia-Badbury road. Their magical value as charms seems to have persisted for a very long time, and this would explain their retention at much later periods when found accidentally. The Group IX axe from Tievebulliagh Hill, Co. Antrim, now in the Salisbury Museum and found in Old Sarum, is possibly susceptible of the same explanation. ROMAN COINS FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF OLD SARUM. By H. de S. Sport, F.R-N:S., F.S.A. Vespasian (69—79 A.D.) . Denarius, 18mm. 69—71 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. IMP. CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG. Rev. Pax seated 1. with branch & caduceus. COS. ITER TR. POT. Mint: Rome. R.I.C. to. Salisbury Museum, 44/47. Post Office corner, Stratford-sub- Castle, 1947. Trajan (97—117 A.D.) . Denarius, silver plated on base metal, 18mm. 100 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. IMP. CAES. NERVA TRAIAN. AVG. GERM. VOL. LVI—CCIII H 120 Sorviodunum Rev. Victory seated |. holding patera and palm. P.M. TR. P. COS Ill P. P, ‘Mint: Rome.- R:LC. 41. Near Old’ Sarum by Roman road to Silchester, before 1931. Salisbury Museum. Pro- bably the same coin as no. 3. 3. Denarius, plated. tor—2 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. IMP. CAES. NERVA TRAIAN. AVG. GERM. Rev. Victory seated |. hold- ing patera and palm. P.M. TR.P. COS TIHI P.P. Mint: Rome. R.I.C. §7. Roman road near Isolation Hospital, 1916. Loose note only, in Salisbury Museum. Probably the same as no. 2, with the date misread. Hadrian (117—138 A.D.) 4. AZ coin, 134—8 A.D. Obv. Bust laur. r. HADRIANVS AVG. COSIIIP.P. Rev. Felicitas stg. 1. with caduceus and cornucopiae. FELICITAS AVG.S.C. Mint: Rome. Ledwich, Antiq. Sar. 1 of plate W.A.M., xxxix, 25 no. 1; R.LC. 748 or 801. Old Sarum, ‘ Saresberiae ’ before 1771. Faustina the Elder (138—141 A.D.) 5. 2?AS, worn and badly struck. Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “Coins II’ no. 9. Septimius Severus (193—211 A.D.) 6. Denarius, 200—201 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. SEVER VS AVG. PART.MAX. Rev. Emperor stg. 1]. holding spear sacrificing at altar. RESTITVTOR VRBIS. Mint: Rome. R.I.C. 167. Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “‘ Coins II”’ no. 26. Field under Old Sarum, turnip hoeing 1883. 7. Denarius, 202 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. SEVER VS PIVS AVG. Rev. Trophy and captives. PART.MAX.P.M.TR.P.X. Mint: Rome. Ledwich, Antig. Sar., 3 of plate W.A.M., xxxix, 25 no.3; R.I.C. 184. Old Sarum, before 1771. 8. Denarius or aureus, 202—10 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. SEVER VS PIVS AVG. Rev. Victory adv. r. leading captive and holding trophy VICTO-RIAE BRIT. Mint: Rome. Ledwich, Antiq. Sar., 208 plate WAM), xsodx, 25 no. 2;:Ri1.C. 3024 Old Sarum, before 1771. 10. Il. I2. 3. 14. IS. Roman Coins 21 Julia Mamaea (222—235 A.D.) Dupondius, 24mm. c. 226—235 A.D. Obv. Bust diad. r. IVLIA MAMAEA AVGVSTA. Rev. Vesta veiled stg. 1. holding pallad- tuna, ce sceptre.” VESTA S:C. Mint: Rome.” R-I-C. ‘709. “Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “ Coins II”? no 9. Salisbury Museum. Old Sarum. Victorinus (268—270 A.D.) Antoninianus, 19mm. Obv. Bust rad. r. IMP.C. VICTORINVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Sol. adv. 1. with arm outstretched INVICTVS | . Mint: Cologne. R.ILC. 114. Salisbury Museum. Old Sarum, before 1931. Tetricus II (270—273 A.D.) Antoninianus, very worn, 19.5mm. Obv. Bust rad. r. [2?PIV] ESV. TETRICVS CAES. Rev. Victory 1. :SALVS AVG |. Mint: “ Southern” Gallic. cf. R.ILC. 265. Salisbury Museum. Old Sarum, before 1931. Antoninianus, 17.5mm. Obv. Head radiate r. Rev. Sacrificial vessels PIETAS AVG. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Jumper Drive, 1953. Maximian (2 Herculeus) (286—305 A.D.) Probably 4: W.A.M., xxxix, 26 (Haverfield) ; Arch. J., civ. (1948), 132 and P.S.A.L., xxiv (1912), 58. Old Sarum excavations 1911 (Roman level in castle well). Carausius (287—293 A.D.) Antoninianus, 24mm. Obv. Bust rad. r. IMP.CARAVSIVS [P.F.AVG.] Rev. Pax stg. |. with transverse sceptre and olive branch PAX-AVG. S)?P. Mint: London. R.ILC. 118. Salisbury >MLXXI Museum. Near the end of Port Lane, Stratford-sub-Castle, 1937. Antoninianus. Obv. Bust rad.r. IMP.CARAVSIVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Salus stg. |. at altar holding long sceptre (upright) [? & feed- ing serpent] SALVS AVG. | , Mint: : London. cf. R.ILC. 162. H2 122 16. 17: Lal io 2) 19. 21. Sorviodunum Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “* CoinsI”’ no. 37=“ Coins II’ no. 17. Old Sarum c. 1876. Antoninianus. Obv. Bust rad. r. IMP.CARAVSIVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Salus stg. |. at altar holding long sceptre[? & feeding serpent] SALVS AVG. |. Mint: : London. cf. R.ILC. 162. Dr. Black- 2 more’s notebook “* Coins II’ no. 18. Old Sarum, 1873. Antoninianus, 25mm. Obv. Radiate dr. cuir. bust r. IMP. CARAVSIVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Felicitas stg. 1. with long caduceus r. and cornucopiae in 1, FELICITAS TEMP FiO. Mint: London. ML R.I.C. 30 with cornucopiae for sceptre and FELICITAS for FELICIT (variety). Salisbury Museum. 20 Juniper Drive, 1953. . Denarius. Obv. Bust laur. r. IMP.CARAVSIVS P.F. AVG. Rev Galley r. FELICITAS _. Mint: RSR (? Richborough). Led- RSR wich, Antiq. Sar., 4 of plate W.A.M., xxxix, 25 no. 4; R.LC. $60. Old Sarum before 1771. Constantine I (307—337 A.D.) Follis (reduced), 24mm. 307—324 A.D. Obv. Bust laur. cuir.r. IMP. CONSTANTINVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Sol stg. iSO INVICTO COMITI T/F . Mint: London. Cohen 536. Salis- PLN bury Museum, 44/35. Near Old Sarum, new house foundation in Stratford Road 1935. . 4 3,¢.325A.D. Obv. Head laur.r. Rev. Victory trampling on a seated captive [SARMATIJA DEVICTA_ ss. Ss Mint: [PLO]JNT London. Akerman, II, 245, no. 27; Cohen 487; Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “‘ Coins1I”’ no 27.. Old Sarum, 1875. A 3, ¢. 325 A.D. Obv. Head laur. r. Rev. Two soldiers stg. each holding a standard and spear GLORIA EXERCITVS ___ TRE: Mint: Trier. Cohen 253. Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “ Coins I ” no. 33. Old Sarum, 1876. 22. a3. 24. ho ‘A 26. 27. 28. Roman Coins 123 £3, ¢.325 A.D. Obv. Helmeted cuir. bust r. CONSTANTINVS AVG. Rev. Altar with globe above and VO/TIS/XX on face. BEATA TRAN***QVILLITAS . Cohen 20. Salisbury Pre Museum. 22 Juniper Drive, 1953. FE 3, c. 325 A.D. Obv. Bust laur. dr. r. CONSTAN-TINVS AVG. Rev. camp gate, star above, PROVIDENTIAE AVGG. . Mint: Trier. Cohen 454. Mr. E. F. Mc Cumiskey, 14 | ca 0 ee Juniper Drive, 1955. 3, 17mm. Obv. Bust laur. cuir. r. eagle standard before face. IMP. CONSTANTINVS AVG. Rev. Altar surmounted by globe; three stars above. VOT/IS/XX on altar. BEATA TRAN- QVILLITAS . Mint: Trier. Voetter 269=Cohen 17. PTR Note in Salisbury Museum. Lime Kilns, Butt’s Farm near Old Sarum, 1937. Constantine IT (335—337 A.D.) Z 3 (pierced), 18mm. Obv. Bust laur. r. CONSTANTINVS IVN. N.C. Rev. Two soldiers each with a standard and a spear GLORIA EXERCITVS Q . Mint: Arles. Cohen 126. o CONST bury Museum. Opposite the old Post Office at Stratford-sub- Castle (road widening c. 1947). #2 3. CONSTANTINVS JUN. NOB. CAES., 13.5mm. Obv. Bust diad. r. Rev. Two standards between two soldiers [GLORIA EXERCITVS]. : Mint. Cohen 115. Bishop Words- worth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. E 4, 13mm. Obv. Bust laur. cuir. r. Rev. Single standard or ? labarum between two soldiers. Mint: : cf. Cohen 113. Note in Salisbury Museum. Garden of Mr. Elliott’s house, Stratford-sub- Castle 1937. fi 4. Obv. Laur. dr. cuir. bust r. CONSTANTI — NVS IVN.N.C. Rev. Single standard between soldiers, GLO[RIA] — [E]XERCI. . Mint: Trier. Cohen 113. Mr. E. F. Mc -IRP.- Cumiskey, 14 Juniper Drive, 1955. 124 29. 30. 21, 32. 35 Sorviodunum Constantius IT (335—350 A.D.) FE 3. Obv. Head laur. 1. FLAV.IL.CONSTANTIVS NOB.C. Rev. Camp gate, star above. PROVIDENTIAE CAESS. STR Mint: Trier. Cohen 167. Dr. Blackmore’s notebook “ Coins I”’ no. 24. Old Sarum, 1875. E 2. Obv. Bust laur. 1. D.N.;CONSTANTIVS P.F.AVG. Ren Emperor f. leadmg ‘captive (? from hut) 2 2[/FEL. TEMP: TRS REPARATIO}. Mint: Trier. cf. Cohen 56. Dr. Blackmore's notebook “ CoinsI”’ no. 26. Old Sarum, 1875. Solidus (2). Obv. Bust diad. r. FL.IVL.CONSTANTIVS PERP. AVG. Rev. Victory adv. |. with trophy, palm and wreath, and figure kneeling onl. VICTORIA AVGVSTORUM _.__. Led- 2 wich, Antiq. Sar., 5 of plate W.A.M., xxxix, 25 no. 5; Cohen 237 Old Sarum, before 1771. House of Constantine AE “ Urbs Roma’ c. 350 A.D., 15mm. Obv. Bust of Roma | [VRBS ROMA.] Rev. Wolf and twins i . Mint: : >TZBZBS Trier. cf. Cohen 18. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. /E 3 (worn) mid 4th century, 19mm. Obv. Bust diad.r. Rev. Emperor stg. |. with shield and labarum OF[II . Mint: Arles. ?: CON e Salisbury Museum. 20 Juniper Drive. Illegible and British Copies 34—41. About eight illegible Roman coins c. 4th century. W.A.M., xxxix, 26 (Haverfield); P.S.A.L., xxv (1913), 101 (" about six ~). Old Sarum excavations 1912 (Cathedral area). 42. AR British copy, misstruck, 2 4th century. Bishop Wordsworth’'s 43. School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. Magnentius (350—353 A.D.) Nummus Majorianus, 29mm. Obv. Bust r. D.N.MAGNENT- IVS: P.BLAVG. «, Rev, Xe SALVS DD.NN.AVG.ET.CAES. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Roman Coins 125 ____. Mint: Amiens. Cohen 31. Salisbury Museum. Old Sarum, AMB 1931 (? East Suburb, while making the new main road). Julian (360—363 A.D.) Small AR coin. Obv. Bust. diad. r. FL.CL.IIVLIANVS P.F.AVG. Rev. Anubis stg. 1. with caduceus and sisttum VOTA PV— BLICA _. Ledwich, Antig. Sar., 6 of plate; W.A.M., xxxix, 2 ) no. 6; Cohen 58, but P.F. for P.P. (O), and 116 (R). Old Sarum before 1771. Valentinian I (364—375 A.D.) AZ, 19mm. Obv. Bust diad. r. Rev. Emp. stg. with labarum and Victory RESTITVTOR REIP _—.,s~ Mint: London. cf. Cohen oLON 21. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. Valens (364—378 A.D.) AZ worn, 18mm. Obv. Bust diad. r. Rev. Victory 1. SEC— [VRITAS REIPVBLICAE] | . Cohen 47. Salisbury Museum. 2 Garden of 269 Castle Road, near Old Sarum, 1938. Gratian (375—383 A.D.) AE, 7.5mm. Obv. Bust diad. r. Rev. Emp. stg. with labarum and shield GLORIA NOVISAECULI N| . Mint: Arles. Akerman, CON II, 327, no. 2; Cohen 13. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. Valentinian II (375—392 A.D.) 2? Siliqua or A 4. Obv. Bust diad. r. D.N.VALENTINI—ANVS P.F.AVG. Rev. In wreath VOT/V/MULT/X Ledwich, ? Antiq. Sar., 7 of plate; W.A.M., xxxix, 25, no. 7; cf. Cohen 68. Old Sarum before 1771. 126 49. 50. §I. Ba. S03 Sorvoiduuum Theodosius (379—395 A.D.) Siliqua. Obv. Bust diad. r. D.N.THEODOSIVS P.F.AVG. Rev- Constantinopolis throned facing, turreted, with spear and cornu- copiae. [foot on prow] CONCOR-DIA AVGGI[G]__. Mint: Lugdunum or Aquileia. Ledwich, Antig. Sar., 8 of plate W.A.M. XxXxix, 25, no. 8; R.ILC. 24 (b) Lug. or 25 Ag. Old Sarum before 1771. Honorius (395—423 A.D.) Solidus. Obv. Bust diad. r. D.NJHONORI-VS P.F.AVG. Rev. Emperor stg. r. with labarum and Victory, |. foot on captive VICTORI-A AVGGG. MID. Mint: Milan. Ledwich, Antiq, 2 Sar., 9 of plate; W.A.M., xxxix, 25, no. 9; Cohen 44. Old Sarum before 1771. British Copies A. :? British copy c. late 4th century, 11mm. Obv. Bust diad. r. Rev. One standard between soldiers. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. ~ British copy, ? early 5th century, 9mm. Obv. Traces of bust. Rev. Fore-part of falling horse. Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. - British copy, ? early 5th century, 11mm. Obv. ? Rev. 2? Bishop Wordsworth’s School, Salisbury. 14 Juniper Drive, 1953. 127 EXCAVATIONS AT SNAIL DOWN, EVERLEIGH: 1953, 1955- AN INTERIM REPORT. By Nicuoras THOMAS and CHarLes THOMAS. INTRODUCTION. The late B. H. St. J. O’Neil was probably the first to notice the dam- age being done to the barrows on Snail Down after the area had be- come War Department property for tank-training in 1939. The pre- occupation of a nation at war allowed this damage to continue un- hindered. In July, 1951, Mr. L. V. Grinsell drew the attention of the Society to the ruined state of the mounds which, until the outbreak of hostilities, had been one of the finest groups in Wessex. Negotiations with the War Department caused the immediate area of the barrows to be put out of bounds to military vehicles and their destruction was thus prevented. A visit to Snail Down by Mr. Grinsell and one of the writers (N.T.) early in 1952 convinced them that deterioration was continuing; frost and other natural agencies were acting with deadly effect onthe mounds, most of whose turf had been torn away by the tracks of tanks. More- over it was clear that military vehicles, probably manned by territorial soldiers in summer camps nearby, were ignoring the out-of-bounds notices and making illicit journeys over the alluring series of switch- backs provided by the burial mounds. After discussion with Mr. O'Neil and the Committee of the Wiltshire Archaeological Society it was decided that a series of rescue excavations should take place to salvage what information remained before destruction of the sites was complete. This work was to be financed by the Ministry of Works as a rescue operation, the Society providing the director of the excavation (N.T.). The latter enrolled his friend and colleague Charles Thomas as assistant director, and the first season, lasting five weeks, was organ- ized in the summer of 1953. A second season, of four weeks, was held in 1955. Four barrows of different types have now been excavated completely, a fifth has been closely examined and trial cuttings to answer specific problems have been dug across two others. In addition the Late Bronze Age boundary ditch to the north and a trackway with hedge-bank to the south, the latter probably Romano-British, have been sectioned as additional enterprises while so large a labour force was available. 128 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh Some 200 volunteers have spent at least one week at Snail Down. Mrs. Charles Thomas, Mrs. D. Christie and Mr. J. V. S. Megaw have played leading parts in the organization and supervision of the camp at Everleigh and on the site. The services of Mr. M. B. Cookson, Mr. N. Alberts, Mr. E. Peacock and Mr. and Mrs. A. C. Jordan were secured for special photography; Dr. I. W. Cornwall has undertaken the examin- ation of soil samples obtained to answer particular questions. The gratitude of the writers is extended to these, to Messrs. F. Rendell & Sons for twice lending much equipment free of charge; to Mr. W. E. Cave for providing vast quantities of milk and eggs to those diggers (the whole expedition in 1955) who lived in the Army camp at Ever- leigh; to the military authorities at H.Q. Salisbury Plain District, at Tidworth and at the David Bruce Laboratory, Everleigh; and to the officials of the Ministry of Works, particularly the late B. H. St. J. O'Neil and Mr. J. G. Hurst, whose patience and co-operation have made the excavation possible. Finally, the writers wish to thank all those members of the Society who have given the excavations their help and support. Much work remains to be done at Snail Down. It is hoped that two more seasons may take place now that the wealth of information to be gained from total excavation of selected sites has been demonstrated. Comprehensive reports, which will include an analysis of the pottery which is turning up in abundance, a study of bronze and copper awls, detailed analysis of internal barrow structure and evidence from soil samples for climatic and ecological changes in this area from the late Neolithic to the Roman period should properly await the conclusion of digging at Snail Down. Meanwhile, this summary of the work so far completed is offered by the writers. ! THE BARROW CEMETERY. The barrows at Snail Down? are situated in the angle formed by the main road from Everleigh to Tidworth; they are less than one mile south of the Everleigh/Andover road. About half a mile to the east lies the group of mounds on Cow Down, excavated by the Rev. F. C. Lukis about one hundred years previously.3 A little over a mile further south stands Sidbury Hill, crowned by an Iron Age hill-fort. In Late 1 A paper on the local folk-lore, compiled by C. T., appears in Folk-Lore, LXV, Dec., 1954, p. 165 ff. 2 The map reference to the centre of the group is SU/219521. 3 W.A.M., x, 1867, p. 85 ff. Interim Report 129 Bronze Age times this very prominent hill had been made the focus of a series of boundary ditches; a branch from one of these runs in an east-west direction immediately north of the Snail Down barrows and, as Site VI, was sectioned in 1953. Three Romano-British villages are to be found within three miles of the cemetery. A track with hedge- bank which appears to link these to the Roman road from Old Sarum to Mildenhall4 overlies the ditch and berm of Site III at one point and, as Site IX, has now been excavated at a number of places. The mounds at Snail Down have been built in a semi-circle nearly half'a mile long. For the purpose of description and research this cemet- ery is considered to be confined to the area marked by the boundary ditch (Site VI) to the north, by the modern tank track 400 yards to the south, to the west by Site II and by the two twin bell-barrows to the east. At least twenty-nine barrows may be seen on the piece of down- land so defined. As indicated in fig. 1, these include every known Wessex type except the pond-barrow. Site VIII, a bell-barrow, and the more southerly of the twin bell-barrows stand out as the largest in the group. A number of more isolated barrows can be seen in the immediate locality. The contents of one, a bowl-barrow a short distance south- west of Site II, has recently been republished by one of us.5 In 1953 Mr. L. V. Grinsell located another saucer-barrow (or ring-ditch, see below, p. 146) about 400 yards south of Site XV; this actually appears on the famous air-photograph of the whole group taken by the late Major G. W. G. Allen in 1939 and published by J. D. G. Clark in 1940.6 Hoare noticed the isolated disc-barrow 700 yards north-west of Sidbury Hill which is overlain by one branch of the Late Bronze Age ditch- system already mentioned.7 The barrow cemeteries on Snail Down and on Cow Down just to the east may be seen, then, to belong to an area of downland which has witnessed the activities of farmers and herdsmen from late Neolithic times to the present day. Notes on the barrow architecture and burial rituals so far revealed, which include primary burials of the late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age, and secondary interments which 41. D. Margary: Roman Roads in Britain, I, 1955, p. 91-2 (Route 44). 5W.A.M., lv, Dec., 1954, p. 317 ff, fig. 2. 6 J. D. G. Clark: Prehistoric England, 1940, pl. 92. 7 Hoare, Ancient Wiltshire, i, 1812, pl. opp. p. 180, and p. 18r. 130 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh are Middle Bronze Age and Romano-British, together with a des- cription of the Late Bronze Age cattle ditch and the Romano-British cart-track, now follow; they have been arranged in the order in which the individual sites have been numbered. Their location appears in figure I. DESCRIPTION OF SITES. SITE I (fig. 2). This is a disc-barrow with two mounds, Goddard’s Collingbourne Kingston 18. It was excavated in 1953, the work lasting five weeks. Like the other barrows at Snail Down it had been opened by William Cunnington and Sir Richard Colt Hoare in 1805; they found nothing, reporting that it had already been robbed. Site I possessed the usual features of a disc-barrow,—a silted-up ditch with an outer bank (rather denuded) and a low central mound. A second mound almost filled the space between the eastern edge of the first and the inner edge of the surrounding ditch. Depressions could be seen at the centres of each. Method Site I was dug in quadrants, with two additional baulks across the ditch and others laid out across the eccentric mound. The entire barrow was cleared down to the native chalk. The quadrants extended well beyond the outer edge of the bank in case additional structures were to be found there. At the end of the excavation the site was not filled in but was wired around and left open, allowing us to study the weather- ing of the chalk. Thirty volunteers were present for the duration of the work. Sequence A circular platform of chalk had been defined by a ditch whose maximum diameter was about 107 feet. The material from this was cast on the outside to form a low bank about 9 feet wide. Laid out, presumably, by string from a central peg, the ditch was regular in shape, having a flat floor, vertical walls and a width varying from 6 to 8 feet. It was about 3 feet deep. Some of the chalk from it was used to raise a mound just over 20 feet in diameter over the central burial pit. The latter, 3 feet across, had been dug nearly 2 feet into the chalk. It con- tained the cremated bones found already disturbed by Hoare. Another cremation, with a bronze awl, had been incorporated in the mound on the south-east side. A second mound lay to the east of the central one LEMS N 131 ALIWG ‘TNO dA-dadVAdDG (+) HOLIG-ONN © NOLIVWaaD *TmMod dn-dadvuog B NOLLYWadD AOMvEusnvsy © ACWSITWd “IMO dn-dadwios <3 NOLLWWAND : MOWAVA-DsIT ©) STIVLAT ON TAOS dn-daawias ©} AOWVIVA-TIAT NIALL ©) NOLLWWHAD XASSHM LAOY GAHILIA © NOILVYWaud: T14ad ® ALCWa * THOU AHIHDLIA © ALdW4' T1ad @& NOLINWaYD * THO GAHILIA B SUVLAT ON‘ MONWE-TTAG QC = STIVLAC ON MONVETMO CaHOLIC O © ® MNWY-S9daH UALWT WVIAL STLLAW o¢ OF Ol O 0S) OO] Os t) ‘Laaa HOIATHAAD 96 0 ? NAOT TIVNS' 1@) Fic. I 132 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh and not quite touching it. Made likewise of chalk derived from the ditch, it was found to cover a large oval pit about 15 feet by 20 feet and excavated nearly 3 feet into the chalk. This had been filled up with clean chalk immediately after it had been dug. At least two separate cremations had been incorporated in the filling, one of them being dis- turbed by Hoare and Cunnington who had left a penny of 1799 there. Twenty-five feet west of the central mound a third pit had been dug into the chalk. It was circular, 12 inches in diameter and nearly as deep. It had been filled with burnt material which included chips of cremated human bone. Interpretation. The Bank and Ditch. Enough of the bank remained to show that in all probability the site of it had been stripped of turf and soil before the bank itself had been erected, for no ancient soil separated it from the undisturbed chalk beneath. The silting of the ditch was everywhere the same. Frost and other weathering had caused its upper edges to crumble within a few months of being dug; this had accumulated in the bottom corners, preserving the lower half of the ditch. Secondary silt had followed slowly, much earthy chalk slipping in from the bank outside. The ditch floor was conspicuously free from animal bones and other refuse. The Mounds. Both mounds were of pure chalk rubble. Neither sealed an ancient soil. We may assume, therefore, that the plateau defined by the ditch had been cleared down to the natural chalk before grave-pit and mounds were made. It seems possible that both mounds were contemporary: The Pits. The central burial-pit, already described (above, p 130), had been carefully dug. It was slightly oval in plan. The pit beneath the eccen- tric mound was sufficiently large to suggest that it may have been de- signed to accommodate people during the burial rituals. It had been filled up with clean chalk before any natural silting had had time to accumulate. The third pit, to the west of the central mound and probably never covered over, contained burnt soil and cremated bone which can, per- haps, be interpreted as a token deposit from a funeral pyre situated somewhere away from the site of the barrow. 33 = = ¢ ie ToS LNYNG 3 TUAd WYINad AI (XI ALIS) MOVUL-Dawo Oc- SNOLLVWHD AYVINODGS SNOLLYWNHNI AUVGNODSS = SATOH-ANVLS 9 180d - TWLIY ASOdyNd AYWWId'SLId | Wand Asodund ATWWMd*SLId SMNV@ 78 SENNOW SHHDLIC MOU a MOLLY VI VTT ee S-€S6l “INLAG NI GAINIWVXa SALIS‘N AOC TIVNS eneneete yo" sey) a SHeneteannnennssepel® YoOVUL NYaqow ’ " ” ’ L fen aa’ Poo, ans Cresrocegreageel® 4 Yay ‘ nf “ i} we LATIN Pies 2 134 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh Date and Conclusions. Apart from its Wessex Culture architecture, Site I can only be dated, and that inconclusively, by the concentration of Beaker sherds belong- ing to one vessel and in a fresh condition, which were found beneath its bank in the north-west quadrant. On the plateau within, unstratified, fragments of a collared urn of typologically early form and the rim of a Food Vessel were also found. With the bronze awl from the central mound, these indicate that this disc-barrow had been built at a period embracing both the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age, roughly between 1600 and 1500 B.C. Itshould be contem- porary, on these grounds, with Sites II and III, and perhaps a little later than Site XV. Site I contained the cremated bones of at least four people. Evidence for burial rituals seems to indicate the following :— (1) a circular ditch sufficiently flat-floored and wide to have been in- tended for the movement of people; (2) a pre-burial ceremony in a boat-shaped pit filled up immediately afterwards; (3) the main burial at the centre and the erection of two mounds with additional cremations, the whole plateau having previously been stripped of its turf; and (4) a token deposit in a third pit of material from a funeral pyre. SITE II (fig. 2). Site II, a saucer-barrow, is Goddard’s Collingbourne Kingston 6, Hoare’s no. 5. It consisted of a central area, slightly domed,’ and was virtually circular. The central area was surrounded by a ditch, and traces of a bank were observed outside it. The total diameter from crest to crest of the outer bank was about 90 feet. The site was opened in 1805 by Hoare and Cunnington. They discovered a pit (the Central Pit of 1953) which is described below, in which, beneath a mass of packed flints, were two small incense cups, a bronze awl and a human cremation. These are in Devizes Museum.2 Our excavation lasted from July 27th to August 22nd, 1953. 8 At its centre it was about rft. 6in. above the natural chalk. 9D. M. Cat. i, 1896, nos. 104, 104a. Interim Report 135 Method. The barrow was stripped by the quadrant method two supplement- ary octant baulks being included. Three-dimensional recording took place from reference points on the main cross-baulks. A military road which overlies part of the ditch on the south side prevented the barrow from being entirely cleared. About 15 volunteers worked daily. Sequence. A circular plateau had been defined by a regularly planned ditch cut some 2 ft.6 inches into the undisturbed chalk and originally about 6 feet wide at its top. Its walls were nearly vertical and its floor flat. The material from it had been cast on the outside to form a bank. A tiny hearth, marked by charcoal, was found on the floor of the ditch in the south-west quadrant. Two burial pits were dug into the ground thus marked out, one at the centre, the other a few feet to the south- west. They were identical in shape and size. First, pits had been dug into the chalk toa depth of 2 feetand 3 feetin diameter; through the floors of these holes subsidiary excavations had been made, each 1 foot in depth and the same in diameter. In these lower pits the cremated bones of two people were placed, an adult at the centre and an adolescent in the other. The skull of the latter had been trepanned immediately before, or after, death and the cranial disc which had been removed was deliberately placed at the base of the pile of bones. The upper part of each pit was then filled up with earth which incorporated food refuse and broken domestic pottery; at some stage during this filling a series of grave goods was placed in the central burial pit. There was no proof that the area within the ditch or the two pits had ever been covered with a mound. Subsequently, or possibly during the burial rituals, a Food Vessel of southern British form was placed, inverted over food bones, in a small pit a few feet to the south-east of the centre. Interpretation. The Bank and Ditch. Most of the material dug out of the ditch seems to have been used to form an outer bank. So much of this had slid back into the ditch over the centuries, that it was not possible to observe whether the site of the bank had first been cleared of turf and topsoil, as seems to have hap- pened in Site I but not in Site IV (see below, p. 140). The sequence of silting in the ditch closely resembled that in the disc-barrow described above; the chalk in this area of Snail Down contains so muchmoreclay, VOL. LVI—CCIII I 136 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh however, that the filling of man-made features tends to be much less clearly defined than it is in the most northerly sites in the group. Con- spicuously few finds were made in the ditch or under the bank. A few sherds of beaker ware occurred here and there to within 6 inches of the floor, and in an ancient tree-hollow below the bank in the north-east quadrant a weathered greenstone axe of Group I was found. 10 The Central Area. Sections exposed across the area defined by the ditch failed to reveal any trace of a mound covering the two burial pits. “The domed effect noticed before the excavation began may now be explained by the weathering of the edge of this plateau which originally seems to have been quite flat. So much weathering had taken place that we may suppose that at least the turf had been removed from within the ditch when this barrow was first built. It seems likely, from its position and grave goods, that the central pit contained the primary burial. If, as the presence of the bronze awl would, on known statistics, suggest, the cremated person was female, one would be tempted to see the remains of the body in the other pit (which, as skull fragments clearly showed, was that of a young person) as a child of the woman interred at the centre. The shallowness of the soil covering the central area made it impos- sible to show whether the Food Vessel found inverted in a small pit in the south-east quadrant had been placed there during or after the burials. Date and Conclusions. Whilst generally within the framework of native Neolithic culture of the area up to its descendant elements in the Early/Middle Bronze Age, closer dating is still difficult. The saucer-barrow would appear, like Site I, to have clear affinities with certain monuments attributable to the late Neolithic (the henge monuments and similar ritual sites). The date must depend on the contents of the various pits found within the ditch. These include incense cups, a bronze awl not of the earliest typological form, one, possibly two Food Vessels and a trepanation disc. The latter might indicate some phase roughly parallel with the Beaker period; the axe sealed by the bank and the few Beaker sherds 10 The Cornish group, which appears to have decidedly ritual as well as functional implications. Interim Report 137 from low down in the ditch support this. The incense cups, the awl and perhaps the Food Vessels, however,could be use d to argue a date within the period of Stonehenge and the famous Wessex chieftains’ graves. At present we can do no more than indicate the period within which the construction of Site II must have occurred. SITE III (fig. 2). This is a small bell-barrow extensively damaged by tanks, Goddard’s Collingbourne Kingston 8. It had been opened in 1805 by Hoare, who found at its base a pit containing a cremation in an urn. The latter has not survived or been described. Method. From an assumed centre an octant system was laid out, extending well beyond the outer edge of the bell-barrow ditch. Four octants comprising the north-east and south-west quadrants were first excav- ated down to the undisturbed chalk with extreme care. The main features of the barrow-mound having thus been exposed, the other half was cleared more rapidly, leaving only the area of the central grave. When all baulks had been drawn and photographed, and a lengthy series of soil samples obtained, the centre of the barrow was excavated and details of the burial recorded. The work lasted from July 29th to August 26th, 1955. Approxim- ately 40 volunteers were present daily. Sequence. A circular ditch 115 feet in diameter was marked out from a central peg with string. A funeral pyre about 6 feet square, made of substantial timbers, was built a few feet north of the central peg and thoroughly fired. When the flames had been extinguished, probably by water, the ashes of the person burnt there were collected and placed in an urn. A ragged hole was next scraped through the floor (now burnt red and covered with wood ash) down to the undisturbed chalk; the urn was placed in it. The material from this pit was heaped around its edge, - brown ashy soil sealing, and in turn sealed by purer wood ash from the fire. A large stack of turves was heaped up around and over the urn which was probably standing above floor-level, so shallow wasits pit. At some stage either before or after these events, a straight line of hurdling had been set up north-west of the pyre and orientated north-east/south- ~ west. Finally the barrow mound was built over the pyre and burial pit. 21 138 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh This was done in two stages; first the turf and humus from the area of the berm and ditch were removed and heaped over the burial, making a stack 4 feet high and 25 feet in diameter; then the ditch itself was dug and the chalk from it piled over this mound to provide a chalk crust 1—2 feet thick. This formed a tumulus which must have been over 7 feet high, with a diameter of about 60 feet, separated from a surround- ing ditch by a berm a little less than 20 feet wide. Two secondary burials were interred on the berm in the south-west quadrant. Both were cremations. The first, probably contained in a bag, was placed in a large collared urn which had been lowered into a pit and covered with a dome of flints. With the ashes were beads of shale and amber and one of faience. The second burial was also in a collared urn, placed in a pit and supported on opposite sides by minia- ture urns. A flint cairn which originally covered this burial appears to have been thrown to one side subsequently and the contents of the main urn scattered on the ground. The two small urns may have been added after this act. Three shallow oval pits, two about 8 feet by 4 and oneslightlysmaller, were dug at equal intervals around the outer edge of the ditch just after it had begun to silt up. The outer wall of the ditch was in each instance partly carved away but not completely removed. The chalk from each pit had been piled on the side away from the ditch and allowed to silt back in the course of time. A cart-track 5 feet 3 inches wide has been worn across the southern part of the berm. It could be Romano-British. At some period a hedge-bank had been erected running parallel to this; subsequent weathering has caused it to spread and obscure some of the track ruts. Interpretation. The Barrow Mound. The entire mound beneath the chalk crust was clearly composed of turves, but it was noticeable that at the centre the structure of in- dividual sods wasclearer; in outline these formedaheapnearly 3 feethigh. The junction between the main turf stack and its chalk covering was marked by considerable interleaving of chalk, sods and humus, as one might expectfrom the building activities of gangs of basketmen. An old land surface showed at the base of the mound: clearly the central area had not been de-turfed before the pyre had been built and fired. A Interim Report 139 small post-hole, 2—3 inches in diameter, was found at the geometrical centre of the barrow. This we may assume to have been the marking- out post. North of it, beyond the edge of the burnt area, a row of 12 small stake holes was found, 20 feet in length. Its stratigraphical relation- ship to the mound was not established; it may represent a line of hurd- ling since the holes were staggered. Berm, Ditch and Pits. The berm, originally flat and probably cleared down to the chalk, has weathered so that it now slopes outwards. The ditch, flat-floored and vertical-sided, is slightly narrower than that of Site I, a little deeper but otherwise similar. It compares fairly closely in size with the ditch of Site VIII, the largest bell-barrow in the group. The three pits outside the ditch, which were quite devoid of finds, are hard to explain. They would appear to be broadly contemporary with the secondary burials. It is possible that bodies may have lain in them for the flesh to decay prior to cremation; but only 2 secondary burials were found. Date and Conclusions. Throughout the mound and at the bottom of the ditch sherds of A and B-beakers were found in abundance, most of them unweathered. Associated with these were rusticated wares which included at least one fragment of ‘ Woodhenge’ Grooved Ware. Lying on the floor of the barrow clear of the central area a Bronze Age collared urn had been broken and trampled into the soil (or else incorporated in turves brought from the berm or ditch). Hoare found the cremation at the centre deposited in an ‘Urn’; this we may assume to have been a Bronze Age cinerary urn (now lost, alas!) rather than a beaker, for he would have called the latter a “ Drinking Cup ’. This apparent association of beakers and rusticated wares with collared urns, this fusion of the burial rites of people who normally inhumed their dead, with those who pre- _ ferred to cremate, implies a chronological position between the Neo- lithic and the Bronze Age Wessex Culture. Site III should therefore be contemporary with Site I and its date fall between 1600 and 1500 B.C. It is hoped that this may be more securely fixed when the Carbon 14 content of the large quantity of charcoal from the funeral pyre has been examined. 140 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh SLTETY: This is a disc-barrow with one mound, Goddard’s Collingbourne Kingston 14. One section was cut across its ditch in 1953, the work being photographed, the profile drawn and a run of soil samples obtained for analysis. Tnhe Bank and Ditch. The ditch was just over 3 feet deep and was slightly narrower than that of Site I. The silting was the same, clean chalky rubble in the bottom corners and slower silting above, with much rainwashed chalky soil entering from the bank outside. The bank, unlike that of Site I, preserved an ancient soil beneath it. No relics were found in this trench. SITE V. (igs 2). A much ruined flat barrow, this is Collingbourne Ducis 3 in God- dard’s list. During the season of 1953 a section was taken across the north-west part of this site, exposing a regular and well-cut ditch. The site shows from the air but is only visible on the ground to the exper- ienced eye and in favourable light. It was excavated extensively in 1955; twelve volunteers took part in the work which lasted for 2 weeks. Method. Two North-South base lines 79 feet long and 100 feet apart were laid across the barrow. A grid system was used, 4 feet cutting areas being marked East-West across the barrow at 6 feet intervals. Six more cuttings were made across the ditch. Three original trenches in the centre of the barrow were later expanded into an area, and revealed the three pits described below. Interpretations. Site V seems to have been a saucer-barrow. Its diameter (measured from the centre of the ditch) is a little over 100 feet. There are traces of an external bank, and 3 pits which must be regarded as S Pamary, if only ritual in function. The site was almost entirely obliterated in Romano-British times. It lies within a known field system, and the sections reveal obvious if shallow plough disturbance on the surface as well as increased filling of the then partially silted-up ditch. Much pottery, mostly of the 2nd- 3rd centuries A. D., presumably distributed over the fields with manure, was recovered. Interim Report 141 The Pits. Three pits lying in a line East-West were found and are referred to as West, Central and East, below. Pit West was roughly circular, about 4 feet in diameter and some 2 feet deep. It seems to have been dug out of the chalk and then filled in again fairly quickly; one can only assume some short and purely ritual use of it. A smaller pit had later been dug into the southern part of its filling; this contained earthy silt, and a single sherd of indetermin- ate but patently prehistoric date. Pit Central was small, circular and deep, with vertical sides cut neat- ly into the chalk. It was filled in a curious way, apparently by dump- ing (from skins or pots perhaps) alternate loads of chalk and dark earth, which gave it a striped appearance in section. It was finally sealed by a disc or cap of puddled chalk, which stood up several inches above the level of the natural chalk. This pit contained no artifacts. Pit East was small and irregular. Its filling was of soil and chalk, and only the presence of charcoal at the bottom revealed the fact that it was not natural. Conclusions. If Site V was a saucer-barrow, Romano-British or later cultivation has removed all evidence of an original mound within the ditch. It is possible that, like Site II, it never had a central mound but consisted only of a ditch with a bank outside. We could, therefore, call it a ring- ditch instead, in the sense in which this type of structure is found in the Upper Thames!!. One might expect that a ritual pit which was not protected by a mound would have been provided with a cover like that found over Pit Central. This site has added to our scanty knowledge of these odd structures by the very fact that the three pits were found empty: the ritual element centred on the pit, demonstrated by Site II, and its assumed focus in the late Neolithic, tends to be strengthened by this year’s work. SITE VI. Two cuttings were laid out across a linear ditch with bank to the south, which skirts the northern edge of Snail Down and seems to be- long to a network of similar earthworks which spread south beyond Tidworth. These, probably, were dug by Deverell-Rimbury farmers of the Late Bronze Age, to act as boundaries for their cattle ranches. 12 11 Oxoniensia vil, 1942, p. 34. 12 Proc. Prehist. Soc., xx, 1954, p. 103 ff. 142 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh The Ditch. The ditch of this feature was V-shaped, with an almost vertical-sided channel or slot at the bottom. It was 5 feet deep and nearly 12 feet wide at the surface of the chalk. South of it, its contents had been heaped to form a low bank preserving a soil profile. The filling of the ditch was a clean yellow/grey loam containing a few streaks of chalk derived from the bank. Interpretation. No dating evidence has yet been obtained for Site VI, except that, as Hoare noticed, one branch of this great boundary ditch cuts across a disc-barrow about 800 yards sout-west of Site II and must therefore have been built after it. Although these ditches tend to converge upon the Iron Age ramparts on Sidbury Hill, a hillfort with an exception- ally commanding position, it is noticeable that they stop short of this fort or else seem to underlie it. We cannot say, therefore, whether the complex of which Site VI is part belongs to a pre-hillfort stage of the Iron Age, and possibly to be related to the great layout of Celtic Fields nearly 2 miles south-west of Snail Down, or whether these linear earthworks originally joined up with thoseabout Winterbourne Gunner, which were related to Late Bronze Age habitation sites as a result of Dr. Stone's pre-war excavations. 13 SITE VIII. This is a bell-barrow, the largest in the group and the only one to have defeated the energies of Hoare and Cunnington. It is Goddard’s Collingbourne Kingston 13. One section was cut across its ditch in 1953. This was found to be virtually identical to that of Site III and need not be described. SITE IX (fig. 2, where it crosses Site III). This is a bank of pure soil, running straight, east-west, cutting across Site III as already explained and disappearing south of Site I. West- wards it approaches a well-known Romano-British farmstead and probably joined the Roman road from Old Sarum to Mildenhall. One section was cut across it in 1953 and it was more extensively examined in 1955. 13 W.A.M. xlvii, June 1937, p. 640 ff. Interim Report 143 The Bank. The bank stands 1 foot 9 inches above the natural chalk, and pre- serves an indistinct land surface where it overlies the ditch of Site III. Immediately to the north three parallel ruts were found in 1955 when the cutting of 1953 was extended. These ruts had first been noticed when Site III was being dug. Here, as already explained, some of these tracks had been covered by the spread of the bank of Site IX. Much Romano-British pottery was found in the material of this site in 1953 ‘ind in 1955. Interpretation. Pending further work on Site IX, we assume that a mound of soil had been heaped alongside an unmetalled road linking various Romano- British farms, where a hedge could be planted to afford protection from the winds which never cease sweeping across Snail Down. Sub- sequently, the hedge fell into disrepair andits bank gradually collapsed and slipped across the wheel and sledge-ruts carved into the chalk by farm vehicles. SITE XV (fig. 2). It was decided, at a stage in the excavation of Site V, to run a cutting into the barrow lying due west of it (Goddard’s Collingbourne Ducis 3a). The object was to reveal the ditches of both barrows in one section and thus to see which was the earlier. The section, having passed through a pipe of clay which was at first, understandably, mis- taken for an artificial feature, showed that Site XV had no ditch. When a cutting on the far side of this site gave the same result, one complete quadrant ofthe barrow was removed, with startling results. Since Site V had by then been examined thoroughly, it was decided to strip Site XV in the fortnight which remained for digging. Method. Site XV was exposed bythe quadrant method, most of the baulks not being removed. The two‘ ditch’ cuttings were incorporated to extend the sections. Sequence. The following series of events seem to have taken place during the erection and subsequent re-use of this barrow :— 144 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh (i) acircular area of ground was defined by a ring of posts; (ii) the cremated bones of an adult were interred in a pit within the sost-circle but not central; (iii) a low mound was then built over the site. These are discussed in broader detail below. The mound was then disturbed during the following acts :— (i) four inhumations, possibly Romano-British, were inserted in the mound and covered by flints. Roughly about this time the mound, together with Site V, was damaged by ploughing; (ii) various pits were dug under the direction of Hoare and Cunning- ton, without results; (iii) local rabbiters and ferreters carried out subsequent disturbance on a large scale; there was now very little of this mound which had not been turned over. The Early Phases. In all, 41 post-holes were discovered. Seen in plan, and in four cases in section, these had been made by digging a pit in the chalk, inserting a post and packing chalk around it; they were thus “ posts’ and not * stakes ’.14 Thirty-nine posts lie on the circumference of a circle over 50 feet in diameter. The majority are concentrated in an arc on the south-west side, with a few on the north-east; it seems very probable that a com- plete circle existed, but owing to deep decomposition of the chalk on the higher, north-east side, others could not be recorded with certainty. An amusing overlap occurred on the south-west side, due probably to a surveyor's error,—his laying-out string getting wrapped around the central peg perhaps. The posts were circular, mostly about 3 inches in diameter, in some cases trimmed to a point; their holes were roughly 7 inches in depth. There were a few post-holes by themselves both inside and outside the circle. No convincing entrance was observed. Three pits were found inside the circle. One had been completely emptied by rabbits and was a long oval; another, also disturbed, yielded both Romano-British sherds and shot-gun cartridges. These were both south-west of the centre. 14 Sir Cyril Fox first made this distinction when excavating barrows with internal palisades shortly before the last war. Interim Report 145 A third pit was in the north-east sector. It was almost circular, vertical-sided, dug some 2 feet into bedrock chalk and, although dis- turbed by rabbits, yielded the cremated bones of an adult human. Among these was a cranial disc, trepanned from the parietal bone of the skull. This is only the ninth instance of early prehistoric trepanation in Britain!5 and it will be recalled that the eighth example also comes from Snail Down, Site II; oddly enough both were found by the same excavator. The low mound which covered the pits and post-holes was of chalky soil, perhaps scraped from the surrounding surface; its original height at the centre may have been about 2 feet. Owing to disturbance, chiefly by rabbits whose burrow this soft earthy mound has been for centuries, it was impossible to get a satisfactory cross-section of the barrow. | The Late Phases. Remnants of four scattered burials were found, inserted into the mound. These were covered with platforms of flint nodules, were laid in shallow depressions and associated with Romano-British potsherds. It is suggested (a) that they are connected with the nearby farm and field-system; (b) that Site XV, having no ditch and thus no chalk capping, was chosen as the easiest place to insert burials; and (c) that these are crouched inhumations of Romano-British age. Conclusions. An assemblage of finds is associated with the early phase of the site. This comprises: A large shale bead, biconically pierced and identical to one found with secondary cremation I on Site III; A large bone awl made from a sheep or deer’s cannon bone; A small bone copy of a hollow-based arrowhead; Some sherds of Grooved Ware of Woodhenge affinities; A few Beaker sherds. The shale bead was found lying on the natural chalk inside the post- hole circle. The other finds were in disturbed contexts. 15 P.P.S. vi, 1940, p. 112 ff. 146 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh Viewed with the cremation-pit and the cranial disc, this barrow seems to belong to the later Neolithic period rather than the Wessex phase of the Early Middle/Bronze Age. The discovery of a circle of post-holes beneath a barrow with no surrounding ditch,—the posts acting, we may assume, in place of a ditch—leads one to think that many “ scraped-up ’ bowl-barrows may cover these: likewise it be- comes clear that a classification of barrows based on surface features alone can refer to nothing further than the surface appearance. Good parallels for our post circle may be found in South Wales, 16 in Dorset,!7 in Cambridgeshire18 and elsewhere; quite recently the work of van Giffen and Glasbergen in the Eight Beatitudes in Holland19 has supplied numerous examples, though apparently of a slightly later date. Barrows 6, 10, 12 and 16 in this North Brabant cemetery are superficially the closest to Site XV. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. It is premature to attempt an analysis of barrow structure and burial rituals while so much remains to be done at Snail Down. Certain results are beginning to emerge, however, and it may be worthwhile to summarize these. The excavation of Site II has taught us that not all saucer-barrows possess mounds. It seems clear to the excavators that this site, like Site V, probably consisted originally of no more than a ditch with outer bank defining an area which contained burial and ritual pits. While not denying that some saucer-barrows do include a definite mound, the writers suggest that Sites II and V belong to a class of sacred site com- monly foundinthe Upper Thames and termedaring-ditch. These, which concentrate on the Thames gravels in Oxfordshire, are notoriously devoid of finds when excavated; but it can often be proved that they consisted solely of a bank and ditch. Their late Neolithic/Bronze Age dates can safely be inferred. It is suggested that barrow-classification should distinguish between bowl-barrows with ditches and ‘ scraped-up ’ bowls without ditches. The latter at Snail Down, concentrated between Sites III and VIII, 16 Summarized with refs. in W. F. Grimes: The Prehistory of Wales, 1951, p- 106. 17 P.P.S., xviii, 1952, p. 148 ff. 18 Proc. Cambs. Ant. Soc., xliti, 1949, p. 35 and refs. 19 Palaeohistoria, Groningen, Vols. II-III, 1954, pp. 1-134, 1-204. Interim Report 147 and planned to be excavated in 1957, tend to be less than 50 feet in diameter and under 2 feet high. Site XV, the first of these to receive our attention here, was proved to be nearer the Neolithic than the Wessex Bronze Age in culture: that immediately south of Site I, the largest scraped-up bowl in the group, yielded to Hoare a fine and typologically early Bronze Age collared urn containing a cremation. The archaeological material being found at Snail Down should get us nearer to the solution of those outstanding problems connected with the Bronze Age in Wessex,—when it started, how far the Beaker people (if they ever existed as a separate group) played a part, whether we may speak of a Wessex Culture in Early Middle Bronze Age times, and what happened to the builders of these barrows. Every barrow so far excavated thoroughly, except Site V, has pro- duced Beaker sherds. Site III and Site XV have included late Neolithic Grooved Ware, and a sherd of this pottery was picked up in the tank track across Site VIII in 1953. Sites I and III have included Bronze Age collared urns with these other wares. Food Vessels, complete or frag- mentary, have been found in Sites I and II together with bronze awls and incense cups proper to the Wessex Bronze Age. We have found, in short, a large amount of evidence that people who made well- designed Beakers were very closely associated with the builders of barrows which elsewhere, as at Snail Down indeed, have contained objects of more advanced form, and among whom were those who erected the sarsens at Stonehenge. We have been able to demonstrate an even closer fusion of these different ceramics than was done when the Bronze Age turf-line at Maiden Castle was exposed.20 If the highly mixed character of the Early Bronze Age in Wessex has been demonstrated, and assuming from the uniformity of barrow- architecture and grave goods that we are dealing with a distinct culture, we have not yet been able to show how long it took to erect the mounds on Snail Down, nor to what extent there was any continuity be- tween those who buried their dead under these and the Late Bronze Age farmers who erected the boundary ditches to the north and west (Site VI) and added secondary burials to the barrows on Cow Down.?1 Analysis of soil samples from a large number of barrows and direct dating by the Radio Carbon method may help to indicate the duration of our Wessex Culture. 20R.E. M. Wheeler; Maiden Castle, Dorset, 1943, p. 150 ff. 21 W.A.M. x, 1867, p 89, pl. 3, 1.; D. M. Cat. ii, 1934, pl. ix, 1-2, pl. x, rand 4. 148 Excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh The table below summarizes the evidence for culture and period disclosed by the excavations so far carried out at Snail Down:— Culture or Period Ill-defined Neolithic Beaker +Grooved Ware Beaker/Grooved Ware + Wessex Culture (inc. Food Vessels and Urns) Ill-defined Wessex Culture Later Wessex Culture (= Middle Bronze Age) Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age Romano-British ee Sites Excavated, 1953—5 Vv 9* 149 MESOLITHIC FINDS IN WILTSHIRE By W. F. RANKINE. INTRODUCTORY. The marked scantiness of the mesolithic discoveries recorded from Wiltshire has sometimes been attributed to the county’s extensive cretaceous outcrop but researches on the equally extensive chalk areas of Dorset and Hampshire have clearly demonstrated that chalk soils did not restrict mesolithic activities. On the other hand no large scale enquiries have ever been undertaken in the county and surface con- ditions do not favour surface collecting since half the county’s surface is chalk outcrop which is mainly masked by turf; only about one quar- ter of the county area is arable! and here, apparently, is the explanation. This brief discussion is mainly based on the evidence of artifacts collected from the surface in the Nadder valley and on others ploughed up in the Wylye valley, on the re-interpretation, in the light of present day knowledge, of a report published in 1922 on artifacts collected from fields on Hackpen Hill and Windmill Hill and a review of numer- ous sporadic finds throughout the county. Additional evidence is pro- vided by the material from the recently published floors? discovered in the flood-plain of the Bristol Avon in the Chippenham area. Admit- tedly, by Wealden standards, the sum total of these evidences is not massive but it is certainly convincing and serves to emphasise the fact that Wiltshire was not a mesolithic desert. The object of this contri- bution is to stimulate research which probably, to some extent, has been retarded by unfamiliarity with the mesolithic flint industry. Mesolithic movements and consequently mesolithic distribution were greatly influenced by waterways which served as communi- cations and provided food reserves. This is exemplified in Wiltshire by the riverine pattern of occupations, admittedly scanty, along the Nadder, the Wylye and the Bristol Avon. It is along the corridors of the Avon, the Kennet and the Bristol Avon that future discoveries may be expected. 1 Acreage of land under crops, 1954, was 199,482; grass 423,048 and tempor- ary leys 122,852 acres. (Information supplied by Wilts Ag. Ex. Com.) 2 W.A.M., lv, 1954, 330. 150 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire ea VILL LL Fig. 1. Soil Map of Wiltshire By W. F. Rankine 151 Grouped Finds. These are from certain areas which have yielded mesolithic material in sufficient quantity and variety of type to indicate occupations. This material is dispersed in museums and private collections namely Salis- bury Museum (SM), Devizes Museum (DM), Swindon Museum (SWM), Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology at Cambridge (CMAE), and British Museum (BM). (NK) indicates that the material cannot be traced. map ref. site. O.S. 6in. notes. location. see tdack pen Hill *- 22-8.E. Proc. Preh. Soc. E.A. IIL; pt.IV; 515—41 NK. 14. Windmill Hill. 28.N.W. ibid. NK. 2. Marlborough. 54.5S.E. ibid. NK. 3. Bapton. so.N.W. SM. 4. Christian Malford. 20.N.E. W.A.M. lv, 1954, 330. Pe: 4a. Peckingell. 20..N_B.:- ibid. PC. S Dinton. 65.N.W. SM. 6. ~Fovant. 65:S5W: SM. Description of Sites. Hackpen Hill (1) and Windmill Hill (14). The late Rev. H. G. O. Kendall, at one time rector of Winterbourne Basset, over a period of some eighteen years collected flint artifacts from fields on Hackpen Hill and Windmill Hill. In the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia of 1922 there appeared a lengthy article from his pen entitled “ Scraper-Core Industries of North Wilts.” Since the scraper core is a well known mesolithic artifact type it is not surprising to discover that Kendall’s descriptions and illustra- tions, fortunately clear and ample, refer in many instances to undoubted mesolithic flint implements. Kendall, himself, was intrigued by the differential patination of his finds which decided him to group them into two periods the older of which exhibited a blue patina. He re- garded the latter as early neolithic; in reality they belonged to a meso- lithic industry. At that time the mesolithic had not been defined and VOL. LVI—CCHI K 152 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire scraper cores were thought to be upper palaeolithic. From Kendall’s careful descriptions of the soil conditions it is obvious that the relic floor from which the Hackpen Hill artifacts were ploughed was in Clay-with-Flints. A brief inventory of the Hackpen series includes the following un- doubted mesolithic types:— (a) prismatic and conical cores with numerous narrow flake beds (micro-cores). (b) parallel-sided flakes (micro-blades). (c) pygmy flints (microliths). (d) a‘ celt with one end sharpened by a single transverse blow ’ (tran- chet of which there is an illustration, Fig. 13). (ce) ‘flakes probably taken off the base of prismatic cores ’ (rejuvenat- ing flakes). (f) parallel-sided flakes with notches (see Fig. 2, 5). (g) dos abattu flakes. Kendall states that on Windmill Hill the dos abattu flakes were rather numerous and that although conical and prismatic cores were found there were no pygmies; there were paralled-sided blades. The report leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that both Hackpen Hill and Windmill Hill were mesolithic occupation sites of which the former seems to have been the more important. Unfortunately the collection on which the report is based cannot be traced. Kendall’s collections were acquired by the late Alexander Keiller but they cannot be traced at Avebury. The presence of the transversely sharpened axe on the Marlborough Downs is significant and proves that the forest culture had extended westward apparently along the Kennet corridor since tranchets were found in the Thatcham floor. Five of Kendall’s illustrations are reproduced here in Fig. 2, namely I, conical micro-core; 4, prismatic micro-core; 2 and 5, notched slen- der blades; 3, a lateral core dressing of ‘ plunger’ type. In Kendall’s contribution there are two figures of tranchets. Marlborough (2). In the article discussed in the foregoing paragraphs there is a brief reference to the discovery of flint implements on the Sewage Disposal Farm at Marlborough by a Mr. J. W Brooke—no date nor detail. It By W. F. Rankine 153 reads thus “ Among the flints were the usual prismatic and conical cores with narrow facets, fine flakes and pygmy tools. The workmen showed me, on the spot, the stratum from which, as they said, all the objects Fig. 2. Implements from Hackpen Hill. came. Kendall also adds that the flints were identical with the Hack- pen series. This singularly brief and tantalising statement cannot possibly refer to anything other than a stratified mesolithic site beside the river 2K 154 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire Kennet which, in its Berkshire reaches, is notable for very important mesolithic settlements like Thatcham and Newbury. Apparently the finds were never preserved and there is no record of the discovery which antedates 1922 in the Borough records. I have made numerous unsuccessful attempts to trace Mr. Brooke’s collections part of which was acquired by Devizes Museum but the Marlborough flints are not there. Bapton,Wylye (3). The following is based on information kindly supplied by Mr. R. S. Newall, £.s.a., the discoverer of the site. . The deep ploughing of water meadows at Bapton, beside the Wylye river, disturbed a relic bed, under peaty soil some six to twelve inches in thickness, bringing to the surface mesolithic implements and wastage. Below the peaty soil is a layer of yellow clay about one foot in thickness resting on gravel and chalky rubble, both of which are river desposits. All the artifacts which were collected from an area some fifty yards by thirty yards in extent exhibit the creamry-white porcelain-like patina characteristic of chalk-land flints; all appear to belong to one industry excepting one flake which is smoothed as if polished but no striae are discernable under the lens. Noteworthy among the recovered material are an unfinished adze, an axe sharpening flake, three microliths, a backed knife, two serrated blades, a scraper, cores and blades including micro-blades. In addition to these artifacts of flint a broken quartz-veined pebble of sandstone was also found. The most important find is the adze, abandoned in the making, Fig. 3, which has sufficient dressing to indicate that a flatly flaked ‘sole’ or underside was being prepared; a deep natural hollow on the underside probably decided the discarding of the partially worked nucleus. This Bapton tranchet measures 54in. by 24in. by 13in. and thus is compar- able in size, and alsoin treatment with the unfinished tranchetadze found by the writer in the Oakhanger (Hants) chipping floor.! This flattened ‘sole’ type is distributed over southern England and was recorded at Broxbourne. It is diagnostic of the Wealden mesolithic industry. 1 Proc. Preh. Soc., 1952, xviii, pt. I, 32, fig. 7. By W. F. Rankine Oo: aA. Tranchet Axe from Bapton. Fig. 3. 156 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire A find of some significance is the fractured quartz-veined sandstone pebble which, although of non-local material, may have derived from the river gravel. Its fractures are ancient. It has been examined petro- logically by the South-Western Axe Committee whose report reads: No. 901. Bapton,Wylye, Wiltshire. Petrology. Macro: a quartz rock banded with quartz veins. Micro: consists of an unevenly graded sandstone with a dark cement. Sandstone. 3/11/54. Fig. 4. Flint Artifacts from Bapton The three microliths, Fig. 4, 2, 3, and 4, consist of an obliquely blunted point, 2, with an undeveloped facet of detachment and two fragments of which one, 4, is a broken scalene triangle and the other, 3, may be part of a similar type or a trapezoid. The backed knife is an attractive implement and resembles a Gravette point. The cores in- clude the two-platform type and core-scrapers. The sharpening flake, 8, is 2in. wide and comes from a comparatively small adze. The scraper, 5, is oval in form and is two-ended. The two saws, 6 and 7, show a minimum of serration. The Bapton site is not isolated geographically; mesolithic material has been found at Fovant and Dinton; some twenty miles to the south- By W. F. Rankine 157 east is an extensive site, as yet not investigated, at Alderholt in Dorset. Some fifteen miles to the south is an important surface site at Iwerne Minster which has yielded tranchet axes. Bapton is an instance of a mesolithic site in a flood-plain which turns attention to the Avon river basin as a mesolithic region of potential importance. The material from this site is now in Salisbury Museum. Christian Malford (4) and Peckingall (4a). These two sites were discovered by Mr. J. H. Tucker and described by him in W.A.M., lv, 1954, 330. They are of prime importance in that they are stratified. Both sites are related to the flood-plain of the Bristol Avon and like the Bapton site point to the presence of other analagous sites along the river course. Among the material recovered are microliths, micro-blades, micro-cores and micro-burins, also gravers and scrapers. These sites are about ten miles west of Hackpen Hill and less than twenty miles northward, over the Gloucestershire border microliths have been recorded at Tetbury and Nailsworth. Dinton (5) and Fovant (6). These villages are in the Nadder valley, Dinton on the north slope and Fovant on the opposite slope. The late Rev. G. H. Engleheart assembled a large collection of implements from the fields of this area. The collection is now in Salisbury and through Mr. Hugh Shortt’s ready co-operation the writer has been enabled to make a study of the material on which this note is based. Among the artifacts, unfortun- ately not labelled or dated, there are numerous mesolithic types notably microliths, micro-cores and micro-blades. There is also a graver from Dinton. A few mesolithic artifacts from this area are shown in Fig. 5, namely micro-cores, I and 2; a blade segment with one edge retouched, 3; microliths, 4 and 5; blades, 6 and 7; a truncated blade with notches, 8; micro-blades, 9 and 10; and a small discoidal scraper, 11—there are many of these in the collection. A broken hour-glass perforated quartzite pebble was found at Fovant in 1915 by a Mr. Wilkins of Reigate, Surrey when on military service on the Plain. Engleheart contributed an article entitled “On Neolithic Flints lying under the present surface at Dinton” to W.A.M., 36, 1910; this describes the finding of flint implements at a depth of eighteen inches 158 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire Fig. 5. Flint Artifacts from Dinton. when a field behind the rectory at Baverstock was double dug. Nor- mally very few flints could be detected on the surface after ploughing. This field lies on the north slope of the Nadder valley (See Wilts 65 By W. F. Rankine 159 N.W.). Unfortunately the implement types are not specified beyond that ‘ the flints fall into two classes knives and scrapers’. Presumably the former were blades. After steam ploughing on the fields south of the Nadder Engleheart observed that numerous flints were brought to the surface while after horse ploughing there were very few. The article in itself is not very helpful to research but it clearly indicates that relic beds existed at a depth of some eighteen inches below the surface in the rectory field; this combined with the fact that there is a strong mesolithic element in the flints collected from the area suggests that an investigation of the field would be worthwhile. It is also of interest that many mesolithic flints in Engleheart’s collection are of dull grey flint unlike the post-mesolithic material which is usually lustrous and these may have been found in the deep digging of the field. Also in the collection there is a smoothed mesolithic flake labelled as from Dinton which was actually found when the field was being prepared for bulb planting. ISOLATED FINDS. Abbreviations used: A.S.I. Ancient Stone Implements, 1926, Evans. h/g P.P. hour-glass perforated pebble. ! SCHEDULE I, 2: ce 4. 5. map ref, site. S.O. 6in. notes. location. 7. Landford, Broom microliths. The Times Park. 74.S.E. 8/4/29. CAEM. 8 Tollard Royal. 74. SiE.)* hj/o PIP, SM. 9. Alderbury. 72.N.W. tranchet (64in.). SM. ro. Ansty. 69.N.W. microliths. SM. 11. Winterbourne Gunner. 61.S.W. microlith. CAEM. 12 Amesbury. 545.57 “hjs Pe. SM. 1.) Bulford. 54.S.E. S.M 14. Windmill Hill. 28.N.W. DM. 1 There is evidence for a mesolithic dating for this implement type. See Rankine, Proc. Preh. Soc., xv, 70-6. 160 Mesolithic Finds in Wiltshire SCHEDULE is 2: 3. 4. 5. map ref. site. S.O. 6in. notes. location. 15. ‘Box. 25.S.W. microliths. PC. 16. Liddington. 16.9.W. h/e PP. A Sil 220. NK. 17. Kingsdown. 25.5: PC. To. durdcote. 72.N.W. long mesolithic pick.1 SM. 19. Huish. 54.S.E. microliths. SM. 20. Swallowcliffe. 70.N.W. microliths. DM. 26. Sutton : Mandeville. 65.S.W. microliths. SM. 22. Swindon. 15.N.E. microliths and saw. SWM. 23. Manningford, Pewsey. 41.N:E. hj/g P-P. NK. 24.. Peter s Finger. — micro-cores. A.S.I. 277. SM. 25. Winterbourne Basset. — cupped pebble. BM. 26. Winterbourne — h/gP.P.278/w ¥ J 4 DM. O-a SS Stoke. oe Zee) 27(a). Wylye. 59.5.W. h/g PP. 4t1| 8S oe PC. (b). Hanging Langford 410 | o & S =a Camp. ~~ 6 ao PC: (c). Bilbury Camp. 4og\™ 2 eg BC: Distribution of industrial types (both grouped and isolated finds.) Microliths. Hackpen Hill: Marlborough: Bapton: Christian Malford: Peckingell: Dinton: Fovant: Landford: Ansty: Winterbourne Gunner: Box: Kingsdown: Huish: Swallowcliffe: Sutton Mandeville: Swindon. Tranchets and pick. Hackpen Hill: Bapton: Alderbury: Hurdcott (pick). 1 This is a remarkable implement some twelve inches long; two similar picks are known to the writer namely from Bromley, Kent, 13 in. and Shedfield, Hants, 124in. By W. F. Rankine 161 Hour-glass perforated pebbles. Fovant: Marlborough: Tollard Royal: Amesbury: Bulford: Windmill Hill: Liddington: Manningford: Winterbourne Basset (cupped pebble): Winterbourne Stoke: Steeple Lang- ton: Wylye (3). CONCLUSION. It cannot be claimed that the foregoing evidence is massive yet it is sufficient to demonstrate that the downs and river valleys of Wiltshire were occupied in mesolithic times and that the industries of the occu- pants demanded the use of both microlith and tranchet axe. The iso- lated finds are in themselves significant and the grouped finds on Hack- pen Hill and in the valleys of the Nadder and Wylye are very important in that they prove that the forest culture typified by the tranchet axe reached Wiltshire. And these sites emphasise the need for systematic enquiry. This demands some familiarity with the mesolithic dint industry: the microlith is easily recognisable but equally important diagnostically are the narrow-blade cores, both conical and prismatic, and the micro-blades which constitute the microlithic industrial com- plex. See Fig. 2, 1 and 4 also Fig. 5, 1 and 2: 162 THE CRICKLADE EXCAVATION OF 1953-54 By F. T. WaINwRIGHT. On Ordnance Survey maps and plans the town of Cricklade is shown to be surrounded by a “ wall”’ or “ entrenchment’, roughly in the form of a square and lying immediately south of the River Thames. The area enclosed, which includes houses, shops and gardens, is about seventy acres. On the ground to-day there is little to be seen except a broad low “ spread” which, though unnoticed by farmers and casual observers, can be traced through meadows and gardens for most of its length. The “ walls ’’ of Cricklade have long interested antiquarians, and speculation has attributed them to the Romans, to Alfred the Great, to the Middle Ages, and to a number of other less likely persons and periods. Tentative excavations were made by Mr. Francis Maddison in 1948 and by Group Captain G. M. Knocker for the Ministry of Works in 1952. The latter operation exposed a length of stone walling, which may still be seen, in the area marked out for the extension of the cemetery south of the point where the Bath Road cuts the west side of the ancient walled enclosure. Before the Ministry carried out its work of preservation in 1952, however, it had been decided to organize a large-scale excavation for 1953-54, a project which had the energetic support and approval of the late Mr. B. H. St. John O’Neil, then Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments in the Ministry of Works. The objects of the 1953-54 excavation were, briefly, to determine the exact line of the “ wall’’ (which was in doubt at one or two points), to reveal its nature, and to settle, if possible, the date and circumstances of its construction. In the summer of 1953 attention was concentrated in the north-west quarter of the site, where it was possible to examine the “ wall” in several sections and to become familiar with the various problems that presented themselves below the surface of the ground. In the summer of 1954 the line of the “ wall” was checked at many points along its four sides, and special attention was devoted to the south-east corner. Final conclusions will depend upon reports which are not yet available, and the following is no more than a short and tentative summary of results. The true line of the wall is not that which is marked on current Ordnance Survey maps and plans. There are two major divergences, one in the west and one in the south-east. The west line of the wall is The Cricklade Excavations of 1953—54 163 marked as an “ entrenchment’? which runs down the west side of Long Close (O.S. Field No. 56). The true line of the wall runs just outside the east side of Long Close, or about fifty yards east of the “entrenchment ’’ noticed by the Ordnance Survey officers in the last century. There is, indeed, an “ entrenchment ”’ where the Ordnance Survey officers marked it, but it is not the wall. What it is will be explained, at least tentatively, below. The second major divergence between the true line of the wall and that marked by the Ordnance Survey officers is between the south-east corner of the enclosure and the road which leads south to Purton and Wootton Bassett. Here the true line lies several yards to the north of the line as marked—the latter follows the misleading hollow which runs across the meadow parallel to but well outside the wall itself. And a similar error vitiates the line of the east wall as it is marked between the south-east corner and Calcutt Street. It would be ungracious to labour errors made long ago by a hard-worked and efficient body of men, especially as their succes- sors in the Ordnance Survey made a most valuable, one might say indispensable, contribution to the work carried out in 1953-54. The point is that it is now possible to draw an accurate plan of the ancient wall which runs round Cricklade. Its line has been tested in many places, and it may be regarded as established. As to the nature of the “ wall’, excavation proved that it had once consisted of a large clay bank faced in front by a well-built wall of stone and mortar. It varied a little in construction from place to place, but its essential character is no longer in doubt. Fairly full details of its construction were recovered, and it is possible to make convincing deductions concerning its height, size and general structure. But all such details, together with the evidence upon which they rest, must be left for elaboration and explanation elsewhere. The basic fact recorded here is that the ancient “ town wall” of Cricklade was a broad clay bank built against a stone wall which held the bank in position and, at the same time, presented a formidable vertical face to a potential enemy. It might have been expected that there would be a ditch immediately outside the wall and bank. There was not. This was demonstrated in 1948, in 1952, and repeatedly in 1953-54. But there was what amounts to a defensive ditch, a very deep broad ditch, set forward a considerable distance from the wall and bank. On the west side of the town it sur- vives to-day as the “ entrenchment’? marked on Ordnance Survey 164 The Cricklade Excavation of 1953— 54 maps and plans, the curious feature, hitherto unexplained, that runs along the west side of Long Close. Its equivalent was found on the opposite side of the town, outside the east wall, both north and south of the modern road (Calcutt Street) which runs from Cricklade to- wards Swindon. There is evidence that in construction it is contem- porary with the wall and bank, and it should be regarded as an addition- al defence, a water-filled ditch that would appreciably increase the hazards of an attack upon the walled town. This water-filled ditch did not completely surround the town. It ran parallel to the wall for about three-quarters of its length, the south-west quarter of the enclosure apparently being too high to be included in the system. The water in the ditch was drawn from the river, which in earlier days, as the excav- ation proved, lapped the north wall of the town. Interesting confirm- ation of this interpretation came from the extensive floods of last winter (1954-55). Photographs taken by Dr. T. R. Thomson show the flood water creeping far up the line of the ancient water defences, while the wall itself stands on higher and drier ground. It would be premature to dogmatize about the date of any part of the defences at Cricklade until the thousands of sherds have been ex- amined and analysed, but preliminary work suggests that the wall, with its clay bank and its outer water obstacle, were all built at a date not far removed from A.D. 900, presumably as part of the Anglo-Saxon system of fortification which was put into operation under Alfred the Great and Edward the Elder. Within three or four hundred years the stone wall had been deliberately and systematically removed, probably for use as building material. It was never restored, and the clay bank very quickly settled down to form the low “ spread ” which is all that is visible on the ground to-day. For the last four or five hundred years the “ walls” at Cricklade must have looked very much as they look now. One other result may be mentioned. It concerns a question that has long aroused local interest, though its relevance to the objects of the 1953-54 excavation will become fully apparent only when the basic problems are considered in greater detail. It concerns the line followed by the Silchester-Cirencester Roman Road in the vicinity of Cricklade. The road, marked on Ordnance Survey mapsas “ Ermin Street ”’, passes to the north-east of Swindon and, as it approaches Cricklade, follows the line of the modern road from Swindon. But near Calcutt Bridge, six or seven hundred yards short of Cricklade, the modern road sudden- ly swings west, enters Cricklade, turns right at the High Street, and re- By F. T. Wainwright 165 joins the Roman road some distance north of the town. The question that has for long agitated local opinion is whether the Roman road followed the line of the modern road, making a curious detour to enter Cricklade, or whether it continued in its straight north-westerly line from Calcutt, crossing the Thames and the lowlying riverside meadows to the point where, over halfa mile away, its line is once again certain. Those who argued that the Roman road swung west into Cricklade thought thereby to gain some support for their theory that the town and its walls were Roman. Those who, more reasonably, held that the Roman road continued on its straight line north-westwards from Calcutt made repeated search for traces of it in the losthalf-mile. Oddly enough, they were never able to find any sign of it, though they are said to have made very careful investigations and to have paid special attention to the spot where it would cross the Thames. The answer to the problem almost leaps of its own accord from the Ordnance Survey 25-inch plan. It would seem that the course of the Thames has changed and that earlier searchers for traces of a Roman bridge or ford were looking in the wrong place. The true or ancient course of the Thames is now marked by a small stream, still significantly the parish boundary, which meanders across the meadows some dis- tance north of the present course of the Thames. Along it one can even see the unnatural loop, almost certainly caused by the waters swirling south of the ramp that once carried the Roman road over the river. It is exactly on the line that one would expect the Roman road to take. But to this point the offered solution is “‘ paper work ’’, and it seemed worth while in 1954 to prove the line of the road by excavation. This was done, despite local forecasts of failure, and a clear section was obtained across it. There is now no doubt at all that the Silchester-Cirencester Roman Road passed to the north-east of Cricklade, altogether ignoring the town and its wall. Which, of course, is what one would expect it to do if the tentative attribution of the wall to the Anglo-Saxon period is accepted. The meadows between the two courses of the Thames are lowlying and much subject to seasonal flooding. In early days the whole area must have been a swamp, and it would be easy enough to believe that the Thames changed its main course in obedience to the dictates of natural levels anc obstacles. But it is tempting to associate the change with the need to bring a good permanent supply of deep water a little closer to the north-east corner of the wall and, in particular, a little closer to the water-filled defensive ditch referred to above. 166 The Cricklade Excavation of 1953—54 As the Romans have come into this short report, it may be as well to remark that the excavation of 1953-54 produced vast quantities of Roman and Romano-British pottery, especially in the north-west quarter of the town. At first glance this may seem to give some sub- stance to the theory of Roman origins, but in point of fact all the Roman and Romano-British finds belong to a date much later than the date of the Roman road, and they are entirely civil, as distinct from military, in character. There is evidence in abundance for settlements in and near Cricklade from the third and fourth centuries onwards, presumably settlements of highly organized villa communities within easy reach of the road, but there is no evidence that Cricklade was a fortified site in the first phase of the Roman occupation. The evidence of Romano-British settlement will have its own interest for students of Roman Britain, of course, and the details will be fully recorded. I am very greatly indebted to many persons, societies, groups and institutions: to a willing band of volunteer diggers, to learned societies and trusts for financial support, to the Ministry of Works and the Ordnance Survey, to landowners and farmers for facilities and for much incidental assistance, to specialists for reports, to many other scholars for advice and encouragement, and to Dr. T. R. Thomson for his un- failing interest and enthusiasm. Acknowledgements will be made more fully and more appropriately in the final report which is now in preparation. Note: Further work was carried out in 1955, and it may be necessary to dig one or two more trenches before the final report will be ready for publication. 167 A NEOLITHIC PIT ON WADEN HILL, AVEBURY. By Nicuoras THOMAS. In February, 1913, workmen cut through a smal] pit when digging a trench for water pipes from the top of Waden Hill (or Windmill Ball) to a pumping station on the east side of the Avebury earthwork, at the end of Green Street. Waden Hill, a gently rounded bit of high ground, lies immediately south of Avebury, in the angle formed by the Kennet Avenue and the Marlborough/Bath road. The pit was found 117 yards north and east of a pond situated near the crest of the hill and marked on the 6 inch O.S., 1925 Edition. The brief note which Mrs. Cunning- ton put in W.A.M., xxxviii, 1913, p. 14, is here re-printed for con- venience: “ A DWELLING PIT In cutting the trench near the top of the hill (117 yards from the edge of the pond) the men cut through a small pit. This was cleared out and found to be rather oval in shape, some 3ft. by 4ft. and 3ft. deep. It was full, as these small “ dwelling ” pits usually are, of black earthy material mixed with grains of charcoal: a sarsen muller, or hammerstone, various fragments of coarse handmade pottery, broken bones of sheep, pig and ox, some of them burnt, some rough flint flakes, including two “ scrapers”, and burnt flints were found in it”. The material which was found in this pit, to be described in these notes, was put away in a cupboard in the library at Devizes Museum and, to the writer’s knowledge, had not again seen the light of day until he came across it by chance recently. The pottery was not included by Prof. Piggott in his list of Windmill Hill ware published in Arch. Journ. Ixxxvili, 1931, 67, nor was the place included in the list of Neo- lithic habitation sites in his Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 1954, Appendix A, p. 383, because Mrs. Cunnington gave no indication of its early age in her note: Neolithic pottery had not been defined in 1913. The material is described in detail here since it represents an associated group of pottery and flints which must be early in the Neolithic period; and it is very unusual to find isolated pits containing this type of pottery. Pottery (fig. 1, 1—6). THE FINDS. (1) Fragment of the rim of a vessel about 9 inches in diameter at the mouth. The lip is sharply everted. Form C of Piggott’s original scheme, ! a bowl-shaped pot contracted at the mouth. The ware varies 1 Arch. Journ. xxxviii, 1931, p. 75, fig. I. VOL. LVI—CcII L 168 A Neolithic Pit on Waden Hill, Avebury from buff to black and contains pounded flint grit; thin and hard-fired, slightly polished on the exterior. (2) Part of the rim of a vessel of Piggott’s form A or B, a bag-shaped pot with its greatest diameter at the mouth. The lip is plain and has a diameter of about 6 inches. Fabric softer than no. 1 and contains no flint grit. Orange outside, grey core and interior. (3) Sherd from the rim of a vessel of form C, the lip everted: dia- meter of mouth nearly 14 inches. The clay is crumbly and contains much finely pounded flint grit; it is fired deep red/brown with a light red core. (4) Rim sherd of a vessel of form C; wall contracts less at the mouth than nos. 1 and 3. Diameter about 12 inches. The rim is flattened and expanded; it seems to have been made by moulding on an extra strip of clay over a plain lip. The clay, containing pounded flint grit, is fired deep brown all through, with the surfaces smoothed. It is now rather friable. (5) Part of the wall of a straight-sided pot, with an oblong lug slightly hollowed on top (Piggott’s form a4). The clay is fired light orange on the exterior, with a grey core and inside; it contains flint grit. Both surfaces have been smoothed. (6) Three fragments (two joining) of the upper part of a small spec- imen of form A, diameter about 6 inches. The lip has been turned out slightly. There is an oblong lug just below the rim of one sherd. The ware of each fragment is hard-fired, black all through except for the lug which is buff: surfaces have been polished and flint grit is present. Eleven other pieces of plain pottery were preserved by Mrs. Cun- nington. All are similar in ware and colour to the rim-sherds described above and must originally have belonged to these or similar vessels. Flints (fig. 1, 7—9). | (7) End-scraper of grey patinated flint, some cortex remaining along one side. Narrow band of steep secondary flaking at one end. Length 13 inches. (8) Round scraper of grey mottled flint with traces of cortex on upper face. Steep secondary flaking has formed an almost vertical edge all round. Diameter 14 inches. (9) Flake of grey patinated flint, some cortex at tip. A row of fine serrations along the whole of one edge. These show traces of gloss. Length 2 inches. By Nicholas Thomas 169 served. Of these, five are blades whose edges have been battered with use. Three flakes have been cracked with heat. The majority of these Thirty-eight other flint flakes, all patinated grey, have been pre- flakes are blades ranging from 14 inches to 24 inches in length. me TA eS < Z — cs. Ne S Z sce Can } *y £ Na") SAY 24 170 A Neolithic Pit on Waden Hill, Avebury Sarsen. A hammer stone, roughly oval in shape and weighing a little over half-a-pound, was also found in the pit. Its edges have been roughened with use; one face retains the smooth red surface typical of some wea- thered sarsen. DISCUSSION. The sherds from Waden Hill have been compared with the great stratified series from Windmill Hill in the Avebury Museum.2 The two lugs (nos. § and 6) can be closely matched with fragments from low down in all three ditches at Windmill Hill, particularly with those from the Middle Ditch. The same may be said of the forms of the vessels represented and their fabric. As Piggott has shown3, flint- gritted wares belong to the earlier phases at the latter site; shell-grit, in softer-fired vessels, appears later on. The small group of flints associated with the pottery in the pit is also such as may be found in the earliest occupation material at Windmill Hill. The serrated flake with its gloss and the sarsen pounder are parti- cularly characteristic. The two scrapers are more akin to Bronze Age types, being more delicately flaked than those with which the first Neolithic farmers are credited*. Nevertheless we are left with the impression that the contents of our pit must have been deposited there by one of the earliest groups of Western Neolithic farmers. The assemblage from Waden Hill must necessarily be compared with the finds from rabbit burrows on the side of Hackpen ridge, about $ mile to the east.5 The resemblance is close in that the wares—hard and gritted with flint—are alike, as are the forms of the pots represent- ed. Most of the sherds from Hackpen are decorated, while all the pieces from Waden Hill are plain. At Windmill Hill, however, plain vessels and those decorated with simple stroke and punctulated orna- ment occur together from the lowest levels to the top in the ditches. It seems likely, then, that the fragments from Waden are broadly con- temporary with those from Hackpen and represent the same culture. 2 The writer is grateful for the help which he received from W. E. V. Young in the identification of these finds. 3 Piggott, Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles, 1954, Pp. 72. 4 Piggott, ibid., p. 78-9. 5 W.A.M., xlviii, 1937, 90-1. By Nicholas Thomas 171 There is probably an early Neolithic habitation site on Waden Hill. Whether it was a causewayed camp or a site for more permanent occupation it is not yet possible to say®. In shape and height above the surrounding country Waden Hill resembles Windmill Hill closely. It is at once within sight and reach of the latter and the long barrows at East and West Kennett. It has running water near at hand. The known existence, now, of two of those elusive open Neolithic sites so close to- gether, in an area famous for its causewayed camps and long barrows, leads one to hope that it may not belong before wediscover where these peasants lived when not engaged in the short seasonal occupation of rounding up their flocks and herds, or gathering to bury their dead. 6 In conversation, Mr. Young disclosed that he has noted depressions in the ground which have long made him suspect the presence of prehistoric habit- ation on top of Waden Hill. 172 MUSEUM REPORT, 1954—55. The Society’s Museum at Devizes has been undergoing a complete change in display policy since July, 1952, when its first professional curator was appointed. An assistant curator joined the staff in June, 1953, with the particular task of cleaning, repairing and restoring the large number of antiquities in the Museum which required serious attention.! For this purpose a laboratory and a pottery repair room were equipped by the end of 1952 with the necessary tools and electrical apparatus. In 1955 Messrs. Edwards and Webster, Architects, pre- pared a detailed report on the state of the Museum premises; following their recommendations a series of repairs and structural alterations has been begun, making good the sixteen years of neglect which our build- ings suffered because of the war. The Committee and the Curators are anxious that these activities, together with routine Museum work, should regularly be brought to the attention of members of the Society, and it has been decided to print a full Annual Museum Report in each June number of the Mag- azine. This will give the Curators an opportunity to express their gratitude to those who help voluntarily in the Museum in a variety of ways and to donors of gifts; but, in particular, if through these Reports members of the Society are induced to visit the Museum more often, bringing with them their friends, we shall increase our membership and advertise more widely the presence of what is, in fact, one of the most mportant collections of prehistoric antiquities in the British Isles. This then is the first Report. It will be a little longer than subse- quent Reports because it must review more than three years of Museum change. 1952—4: MUSEUM ACTIVITIES. Since the end of 1952 the re-organization of the Museum has been based on a Five Year Plan drawn up by the Curator soon after his arrival and approved by the Committee. Workshops for cleaning, repairing and restoring antiquities (plan, rooms 1 and 2) were equipped first of all and have been in daily use ever since. A description of a typical year’s work in these rooms will be found below (p. 178). Here we have pleasure in expressing our best thanks to Mr. J. H. Tucker who 1 Miss S. M. Mottram was appointed Assistant Curator in July, 1953, but for reasons of ill-health was forced to resign two months later. She was succeeded by Mr. F. K. Annable, who took up his duties in February, 1954. Museum Report, 1954—55 173 supplied and installed much of the necessary electrical apparatus. Re- display in the galleries from July 1952 to June 1953 was concerned with the setting up of a Centenary Exhibition comprising a cross-section of our most important antiquities, from a selection of the Knowle Farm (Savernake Forest) hand-axes to Wedgwood copies of some of the urns excavated by Hoare and Cunnington in the last century (plan, room 3). A catalogue of the exhibition was printed and placed on sale. The Centenary Exhibition was enriched beyond measure by the series of Early Bronze Age ornaments of gold, amber and shale, and other objects found buried with the bones of an old lady under a round barrow at Manton in 1909; these had remained in private hands ever since. In March, 1953, Dr. W. B. Maurice presented the entire grave- group to the Society, to be shown in public for the first time four months later. Two permanent displays were next planned and arranged, both in the new premises (plan, 1944 extension), a Neolithic Room (plan, room $) and two rooms illustrating recent history (plan, rooms 6 and 7). The first describes the centuries from c. 2500—1600 B.C., the period beginning with the arrival of our first farmers and potters with their long-barrows, and ending (so far as any prehistoric period may be said to end) with the appearance in Wessex of the warriors who brought Beakers, round barrows and the first objects of copper. We are in- debted to the late Mr. Alexander Keiller who placed on permanent loan a series of the earliest Neolithic pottery and bone tools from Wind- mill Hill, Avebury for this room. The Recent History Rooms contain a heterogeneous series of dom- estic and other objects from the Elizabethan age to the present century. Meanwhile, the Natural History Section of the Society, under the enthusiastic direction of Mr. C. Rice, had begun work on the collection of stuffed birds, with a new Natural History Room in mind. This is now being set out in the old Stourhead Room (plan, room 8). At the same time we started on the conversion of the former Bird Room (plan, room 9, immediately above room 8) into a lecture hall, which will also be used as a room for schoo] parties. Progress with these two projects is described below (p. 175176). When No. 41, Long Street was added to the premises it became obvious that its very charming Georgian entrance hall (plan, 13) with staircase, panelling and plasterwork should become the official entrance to our Museum. This done, the former hall (plan, room 10), “festooned” 174 Museum Report, 1954—55 as one of our members recently observed, “ with mantraps’’, was to be converted into a gallery for the display of temporary exhibitions of material owned by the Society or else borrowed from elsewhere for periods of afew months. This room is to be known as the Picture Gallery and a description of it will be found below (p. 175). The Five Year Plan of 1952 did not include the re-arrangement of what may be described at present as the Iron Age/Roman/Saxon Room (plan, Room 15). This will, however, eventually contain our Romano- British collections together with the small series of Pagan Saxon antiquities. Rooms 3 and 4, the present Centenary Exhibition Room and the one of similar shape and size above it, will house our most important objects, those of the Iron Age and Bronze Age respectively. Our plans for these, are also described below. 1954—1955: MUSEUM ACTIVITIES The Bronze Age and Iron Age Rooms (Plan, rooms 4 and 3). Plans for these were drawn out during the year and specifications and estimates for new cases were obtained from E. Edmonds & Co., Birmingham. A request for a grant from the Carnegie United King- dom Trust was submitted in November, 1955, based on these estimates. These two rooms have been designed to appeal directly to visitors, while yet providing for students by including in accessible form as much as possible of the remains of the two periods. In both galleries it is intended to display a strictly selective series of objects so that the various cultures in question, their continental origins and insular deve- lopments may be understood by visitors. Beneath the vertical display windows there will be nests of glass-topped drawers concealed behind removable panels. Here will be stored the remainder of the col- lections. The Museum Entrance (Plan, 12 and 13). A new entrance has been made by building an internal porch in the hall of No. 41, Long Street (plan, 12). This incorporates a display window visible from the street and, on the inside, a second display window (advertising publications and postcards for sale) and a desk for a visitors book. The hall itself is emptysave for a plan of the Museum layout and cases for recent acquisitions and coins. A small Victorian glass chandelier was bought for this hall in 1953. Museum Report, 1954-55 175 We are indebted to Mr. A. Cole, our caretaker’s husband, for con- structing the new porch without charge to the society. The Terrazzo floor was laid by Messrs. Rendell, Devizes. The Picture Gallery (plan, rooms 10 and 11). The former entrance porch (plan, 11) has been demolished and the walls of this room prepared for exhibiting pictures, photographs, maps and other illustrations. Two old cases have been re-used by being set vertically against the walls, a scheme carried out with some success in the Recent History Rooms. A wooden screen has been erected across part of the end of the gallery to make it appear more like a room than a passage-way. This Picture Gallery will be completed early in 1956. The Natural History Room (plan, room 8). Progress with the new display of Wiltshire birds has been entirely due to the voluntary help of Miss Beatrice Gillam and Messrs. Cyril Rice, Richard Sandell and John Burden. This scheme is nearly finished. Structural alterations in connection with the new lecture hall (below, p- 176), however, have prevented us from going further with the geological and other natural history displays which will also be set up here. These will receive our attention in 1956. An extremely generous donation from Mr. Sandell will enable us to complete this room within twelve months. Meanwhile we must express our appreciation of the invaluable work being done by Dr. I. S. Loupekine, of the Dept. of Geology, Univer- sity of Bristol, on our extensive and important collection of fossils from the county. He is devoting three days each month to this task and is now being helped by Mrs. Margaret Nurse, to whom we are also grateful. It is proposed to split up our fossils into three groups: (i) a type series for display in the Natural History Room; (ii) a complete series for the use of students ; (ili) a second complete group assembled and stored; (iv) the remainder, to be considered suitable for exchange so that our geological collection may be made complete. At present, for instance, we have no rock specimens. When this work has been completed, probably by the summer of 1956, our fossils will have to be catalogued and properly cared for. For this we shall need much outside help and the advice of specialists. 176 Museum Report, 195455 Lecture Hall (plan, 9). As already explained, the long room situated above the new Natural History gallery is being converted into a lecture hall for the Society. Most of the structural alterations which this entails have now been com- pleted. An outside staircase of oak has been built (plan, 14). This will be available both as a fire escape and as a convenient entrance and exit when the hall is in use after the Museum has been closed for the day. A second pillar and a steel girder have been installed to give extra support to the floor of the hall. It is intended that the lecture hall should also be used to display per- manently such relics and portraits of eminent past members of the Society as we already possess, to which we are continually adding. Here, too, we propose to keep a series of surplus antiquities of all types for the use of parties from schools. Our lecture hall will serve as a class-room so that adequate return may be made for the very consider- able annual grants being made to the Museum by the Wiltshire County Council. Museum Catalogue. A comprehensive catalogue of every object in the Museum was begun in March, 1955. For convenience we are preparing this period by period. The Anglo-Saxon antiquities were catalogued first and the Bronze Age and Romano-British collections are at present being listed. The catalogueis being typed(withone extra copy) on cards 8ins. x 5 ins., with an additional entry in a ledger and, for gifts and loans since 1952, in a Recent Accessions Register also. Specimens are being listed under parishes, individual sites, composition of object and type. Every speci- men is being drawn to scale; in due course it will be necessary to in- clude photographs of certain classes of object, for instance Bronze Age knives and daggers showing traces of their sheaths and handles. Coins. A good third of these have now been catalogued. This includes the Chandler Collection with its good range of denarii and also the excellent bronze specimens contained in the Baynton Hoard. Regrettably, many coins in the collections are unprovenanced, and no progress has been made in the search for further information concerning them. Since such pieces are of little value to the Museum apart from any individual interest attaching to a particular coin, Messrs. A. H. Baldwin & Sons have been approached with a view to exchanging these for Museum Report, 1954—55 177 The MUSEUM, DEVIZES, WILT SHIRE SHOWING SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS HEEEWEE 1872 ZZ \902 =e 1944 GARDEN GARDEN LONG STREET 178 Museum Report, 1954—55 other coins with a definite Wiltshire connection or interest. In this | way it is hoped to establish in this Museum the nucleus of a collection which will eventually be of value to the student of protohistoric and historic Wiltshire. , Not to be disregarded also are the slowly increasing number of enquiries about coins which regularly come into the Museum. The spread of information and the publicity gained, slow and slight as it may be, is nevertheless well worth the trouble incurred in identifying the pieces brought in. In this connection sincere thanks are due to Mr. Hugh Shortt of the Salisbury Museum who has always provided un- stinted help in assisting with coin identification. LABORATORY: RESTORATION AND CLEANING.! Metals. Progress on the technical side of the Museum has been continuous during the past year and a growing number of metal objects in our collections have been cleaned. Let it be stressed however, that it is not Museum policy to be indiscriminate in its cleaning and restoring. Objects, whether of metal or clay, will only be cleaned and restored when by so doing they will be left undamaged and rendered more intelligible to layman and scholar. Opinion on the cleaning of metalwork is divided. In the case of pottery restoration this division is not so great, since the difference between a single sherd and its assimilation into a complete vessel made in plaster of paris (when the original profile is correctly known) is per- haps purely one of aesthetics, so be it, there is no harm done to the authentic fragment. Perhaps it should be pointed out here that in the last two years almost every metal object in the Recent History Rooms has been sub- jected to electrolytic cleaning. In no way has this been destructive to the object; in a few examples further interesting details, previously hidden by rust, have come to light. Moreover no specimen has so far shown any trace of fresh deterioration. A beginning has now been made on the cleaning of the finds from Casterley Camp, near Upavon, at present exhibited in the old Roman- Saxon-Iron Age Room. No second glance is necessary to realise the parlous condition of the objects here, due undoubtedly to years of 1.We were pleased to receive the assistance of Mr. Justus Akeredolu, of the Nigeria Museum, Lagos, from March to April, 1954. He worked in all depart- ments of the Museum but specialized in the Laboratory work. Museum Report, 1954—55 179 neglect and imperfect storage conditions. It is intended then, in 1956 to carry out a good deal of cleaning and restoration of specimens here in preparation for the arrangement of this room and the re-presentation of the Roman and Saxon material it contains. Pottery. Of the pottery restored, perhaps the most interesting has been the fine cinerary urn discovered at Snail Down (Site III) in 1955. Though completely shattered, it has been possible to restore this vessel in its entirety, extensive damage to the rim being made good with plaster of paris. Of further interest was the reconstruction of a complete late Neolithic bowl incorporating a fragment found at Woodhenge in 1926—8. This was made for the B.B.C. Television broadcast on the excavations at West Kennett last summer. Eventually this bowl will be displayed in the Neolithic Room. A fine Beaker also found at West Kennett was repaired and restored. Cleaning of Objects in Private Hands. During the year a small number of objects in private hands were . cleaned and restored in the laboratory, and a fee charged. Particular amongst them was an interesting sword of the Civil War period, owned by Mr. Gough of Marlborough College. This policy of carrying out a moderate amount of private work, commensurate with the amount of Museum work in hand, will be continued as a means of assisting towards the maintenance and betterment of laboratory equipment. SALISBURY MUSEUM. The equivalent of one’s day work per week for the Salisbury Mus- eum is still being given by the Assistant Curator. A continual feature of this work is the cleaning and restoration of the interesting Salisbury Drainage Collection. Other objects have been cleaned and repaired, including Roman and Iron Age pottery. Within the museum at Salisbury a small shelf has been arranged illustrating objects in daily use in Roman times. Medieval glassware has been advantageously displayed on perspex mounts within an all- glass case, and now nearing completion is the rearrangement of the Bronze Age vase in Wyndham Gallery II. Also under construction is the first of a number of portable cases intended for circulation among 180 Museum Report, 1954—55 local schools. This case and its objects, illustrating the development of the Bronze Age Axe, is now almost complete. Perhaps it, and others envisaged for 1956, will both provoke and stimulate schoolchildren to take an interest in the many-sided activities of their local museum. MUSEUM VISITORS. School Parties in 1955: Twelve groups of schoolchildren visited the Museum and were received by one or other of the Curators; this involved about 300 children (there were 250 children in 1954). Adult Parties in 1955: Eight parties of adults visited the Museum to be shown round, in- volving 240 people (about 200 were thus received in 1954). General Visitors: The following adults and children other than those listed above came to the Museum in 1954 and 1955: 1954: Jan—April, 247 1955: Jan—April, 225 April—June, 494 April—June, 510 July—Sept., 691 July—Sept., 982 Oct.—Dec., 283 Oct.—Dec., 293 Totals: . 1715 2010 OTHER MUSEUM ACTIVITIES IN 1955 South-Western Group of Museums. A meeting of this group, of which Devizes Museum is a member, was held here on Sept. 21st. The galleries were viewed in the morning; after lunch the Curators lectured on the development of the Museum and, in particular, Mr. Annable described the work being done in the laboratory. Tea was then provided in the Library. “ Animal, Vegetable, Mineral:”’ : Our challenge to the Television panel of experts, authorized earlier in the year, was delivered on Nov. 17th. The Museum was honourably defeated. MUSEUM LOANS. Small collections of duplicate museum material have, from time to time during the year, been lent to certain schools and to the Army Education centre at Devizes in imitation of what in larger museums is a regular service. Museum Report, 195455 181 Publicity. When more of the Museum has been re-arranged, we shall consider how best to give it proper publicity. It should be possible at least to double the number of our visitors. Meanwhile, local newspapers are being kept fully informed of our activities and a number of reports have been published in the Wiltshire Gazette and the Wiltshire News. Postcards. Three postcards were produced and placed on sale in September, 1954; by the end of August, 1955, 142 cards from the original stock of 300 had been sold. Three more cards will be added to the series in 1956. Fieldwork. Two skeletons were recently excavated in the county by Museum staff. The first of these occurred at Bratton where a single inhumation was exposed during clay-digging at the water-cress beds of Mr. R. H. Pearson, of Baynton House, Coulston. Unfortunately there were no gtave-goods associated with which to date the burial. It is now known that a further two burials lie within a foot or so of the original discovery. (See note, p.190, below). The second skeleton, found on Cow Down, 3 miles south of War- minster, was the only undamaged burial of a group said to be five in number, destroyed during bulldozing operations on the Down. Once again there were no associated finds and thus a date can- not be given; the close proximity of a D-shaped enclosure of known Roman date, however, suggests that the group as a whole may be Romano-British. MUSEUM ACCESSIONS, May 1954—December, 1955. Prehistoric. Fragment of ? Neolithic chalk axe, surface find, Westbury (1/55/ 180). H. Ross. Chipped flint axe (11/55/225), perfect; 120.7cms. Found on surface at Baydon. Lent, F. H. Poole. Finds from the excavations at Snail Down, Everleigh, 1953 (11/s5/ 213). Finds from the Snail Down excavations of 1955 (11/55/214); Both groups of finds, described above (pp. 127-148), representing the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, presented by the War Department. 182 Museum Report, 1954—55 Group VII (Graig Lwyd, North Wales) stone flake picked up on surface at the quarry site (1/55/181). Miss D. Edwards. Middle-Late Bronze Age pottery collected on the surface at Rockley; some Iron Age sherds are also represented (11/55/217). O. Meyrick. These were actually presented during the last war. Middle-Late Bronze Age sherds collected on the surface of Round- way, Barrow 1 (11/55/218). L. V. Grinsell. Late Bronze Age sherds found on the surface of Goddard’s Wilsford, barrow 36a in 1950 (11/55/215). L. V. Grinsell. Late Bronze Age sherds with flints collected from the surface within enclosures on Ogbourne Down (11/55/220) and Preshute Down (11/55/221). L. V. Grinsell. Late Bronze Age sherds found during the excavation of enclosures on Ogbourne Down and Preshute Down (11/55/22); see Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1942, p. 48 ff. Mrs. C. M. Piggott. Neolithic-Late Bronze Age sherds from Rockley Down (11/55/219), found on surface. O. Meyrick. Sherd of Beaker pottery from surface of barrow at Kingston Deverill, —Goddard’s no. 2; (11/55/216). L. V. Grinsell. Roman. Iron shaft-hole axe (11/55/186) from Stokke, near Gt. Bedwyn. The late A. N. H. Yates. Romano-British sherds from kiln site near Column Ride, Savernake (2/56/227). O Meyrick. Romano-British sherds found on the north bank of the Kennet, near Mildenhall School (2/56/228); found when digging a post hole. Mrs. N. Hannay. Medieval. Pitcher, Medieval or earlier (3/55/182), found at Westbury. W. G. Bush. Recent. ; Brass tinder box for flint and steel, roth. cent. (12/54/176). Brig. K. M. F. Hedges. Brass thimble found in Sedgefield Gardens, Devizes (12/54/177); Miss M. Braidwood. Museum Report, 1954—55 183 Calne Centenary committee badge, 1955 (11/55/224); J. M. Buck- eridge. China slop bowl, mauve transfer patterns including view of Conigre Chapel, Trowbridge, mid-19th cent. (12/54/178); Miss M. Braidwood. Election result for 1819, Wiltshire, printed in gold on red material (7/55/183). H. Pritchard. Group of objects found in an attic at No. 8, Monday Market Street: five shoes (one pair and one a child’s), c. 1780—1850 (12/54/167—170) ; broken wine glass c. 1800 (12/54/171); clay pipe, “long Dutch’ form (12/54/172); Fragmentary cooking bowl, pottery, brown-glazed interior, late 17th - early 18th cent. (12/54/173); fragmentary white- glazed cooking bowl, late 18th cent. (12/54/174); complete china cook- ing bowl, ? mid-i9th cent. (12/54/175). C. Fox. Scales for weighing guineas and half-guineas, early 19th cent. (11/54/155). R. Kemp. Series of objects connected with the first Lord Roundway: wooden two-piece butter mould for casting dolphins (11/54/164); brass plate- chest label marked * Edward Francis Colston Esq., New Park, Wilts.’ (11/54/165); wood and iron hanger for uniforms and hunting clothes, 2 mid-19th cent. (11/54/166); pair of silver-plated harness mounts in form of a dolphin (11/55/192); mahogany spur rack with six pairs of dress spurs by Coe and Maxwell, early-mid roth cent. (11/55/193). H. Robinson. Two white metal buttons bearing the arms of Calne; possibly from the Borough Constable’s uniform, c. 1850 (11/55/223); T. R. Hood. Two revolvers: centre-fire revolver, late Victorian (11/54/156); Victorian pin-fire revolver (11/54/157); C. Owen. Water colour of Potterne High Street from the south. mid-rgth cent. (11/54/163). The late Miss M. K. Hicks. Coins, medals and tokens. ~ 9/54/150; Florence Nightingale medal, white metal. Found in garden of the Railway Hotel, Lavington, L. Brinkman. 11/54/158: bronze antoninianus of Gallienus, site of Roman villa, Castle Copse, Gt. Bedwyn. E.R. Pole. 11/54/159: token, J. Baster, Devizes, Found at Potterne. Mrs. T. C. Brooke. VOL. LVI—CCIII M 184 Museum Report, 1954—55 11/54/160: French 14th cent. reckoning counter, found in the garden of No. 8, Monday Market Street, Devizes. C. Fox. 11/54/161: Token, W. Somner, Grocer, Devizes, 1652. Mr. Deevin. 11/54/162: token, John Stevens, Chippenham, 1652. Found in a at Chippenham. W. L. Armin. 12/54/179: Indian Mutiny medal with Lucknow bar, awarded to Capt. Ball, roth Regt., later transferred to the 99th Foot (Wilts Regt.). W. G. Holloway. 11/55/184: medal commemorating the visit of the Emperor and Empress of France to Britain, 1855; in presentation box. Miss Homan. 11/55/187: brass token, spade guinea type, 1788; 11/55/188: reckoning counter, Hans Schultes, 1600; 11/55/189: spade guinea type brass token, 1788; 11/55/190: Victoria: Prince of Wales model sovereign, bronze; 11/55/191: medal, George III and Charlotte, ‘ Peace and Harmony ’; All the above presented by E. R. Pole. 11/55/194-198: five white metal Victoria Jubilee medals and label badges. 11/55/199: bronze medal to commemorate the wreck of Nelson’s ship Foudroyant at Liverpool, 1897. 11/55/200-201: two Victoria Jubilee white metal medals. 11/55/202: medal to commemorate the royal visit to Liverpool and the opening of the north docks in 1881. 11/55/203—4: two Victoria Jubilee medals, soft metal. 11/55/205: white metal medal to commemorate the visit of Queen Victoria to Liverpool in 1886. 11/55/206, 208—g: three medals of soft metal, Jubilee of Queen Victoria. 11/55/207: white metal medal commemorating the marriage of the Duke of York and Princess May, 1893. 1/55/210: medal, Colonial & Indian Exhibition 1886; in white metal. 11/55/211: medal, Coronation of King Edward VII; white metal. 11/55/212: bronze medal, Nelson Centenary (containing copper from H.M.S. Victory), 1911. All the above presented by Miss M. Braidwood. 185 WILTSHIRE BOOKS, ARTICLES, ETC. Said and Done. The Autobiography of an Archaeologist. By O. G. S. Crawford, Weidenfeld and Nicholson (1955). 21s. “And did you once see Crawford plain? ”. I suppose eventually we shall be asked the question by the generation that knew not O.G.S.C., and we shall have our answer. “ Yes” we shall say “ and if you read Said and Done you will have a very good idea of what we did see”. To make an autobiography read like a tape-recording of the author’s conversation is a rare achievement, but here is the man talking, talking away, amused or irritated, riding a hobby-horse here or airing a prejudice there, but never in the end being a bore or failing to com- municate in print that infectious enthusiasm and vivid intellectual curiosity that his friends know so well. The book ranges widely in theme and space—the beginning of the Archaeo- logy Branch of the Ordnance Survey, travel in Europe and Africa, air photo- graphy, the founding of Antiquity, and miscellaneous notes by the way on smoked eel, cats, geology and detective stories. But here it is proper to con- sider the Wiltshire aspect of Said and Done, and to remember (if we were likely to forget it) that it was at Marlborough that Crawford endured the “ dark and bitter atmosphere of the publicschool’. He wasunhappy there, and forthe right 1easons, but he records with gratitude that it was Malim who started his inter- estin archaeology, together with school expeditions to Avebury and Stonchenge. With his establishment as Archaeology Officer to the Ordnance Survey in 1920, Wiltshire inevitably became part of The Crawford Country. The first deliberate archaeological air sorties were flown from Old Sarum at his initiative; there followed Wessex from the Air with Alexander Keiller. Routine map revision and period maps such as Neolithic Wessex involved field-work round Avebury and elsewhere in the county; he worked out the Anglo-Saxon char- ter bounds of Bedwyn and studied the Perambulations of the medieval Wilt- shire forests. He made a beginning on a project (unfortunately cut short by the last war) of mapping the Celtic Fields of Salisbury Plain, of which the Old Sarum sheet alone was published. But Crawford’s services to Wiltshire archaeology are not of course confined to these local studies. As one reads this autobiography one sees how, at a pecul- iarly critical point in the recent history of British archaeology, he was able, by means of Antiquity on the one hand and the Ordnance Survey archaeological maps on the other, to create a particular climate of thought which perhaps is taken for granted to-day. To him, and to Sir Cyril Fox, are almost wholly due our concept of the archaeological distribution map as an instrument of research; on Crawford’s initial demonstration of the value of air survey all subsequent work in this field is based. And by the 1930’s he had constructed, out of the old and honourable tradition going back to Aubrey and Stukeley, a new dis- cipline of field-archaeology, concerned with the accurate record and informed interpretation of the ancient monuments of the countryside; chambered tomb or medieval park boundary, strip linchets or Roman roads. In Said and Done we see how all this came about. The illustrations include a splendid frontispiece of the author at his most characteristic. But my personal favourite is no. 2 (My Aunt Gertrude in Iona). STUART PIGGOTT 2M 186 Wiltshire Books, Articles, Ete. A Map of Roman Britain. Ordnance Survey. Third Edition. A lapse of twenty-five years since the second edition, and a steadily increasing corpus of fieldwork and research have combined to produce sweeping advances in our present day knowledge of the period of the Roman occupation of Bri- tain. These have now been incorporated in the third edition of the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain. Indications of this advance are strikingly seen in the increased use of symbols indicating fresh discoveries, or modifications of previously accepted fact, where later work has led to uncertainty. In the military sphere the routes of advance north of Hadrian’s Wall have been further clarified and smaller fortlets are now indicated separately to distinguish them from the larger, permanent fortresses and forts. For the first time the ‘ practice camp ’, built solely as a military exercise and first revealed through the excavations at Cawthorn, Yorkshire, is distinguished separately on the map. There are also more indications of a military origin for many of the civil sites of Roman Britain. This information, previously largely surmised, is now becoming fact; the newly discovered London fort, and nearer home, the en- campment lying beneath the walled township at Mildenhall, east of Marlbor- ough, are merely two examples amongst a rapidly increasing number. Turning to the civil side the towns, like the forts, are further subdivided. The tribal capital, unemphasised in the last edition, has a symbol of its own, and the ‘lesser walled town’ in the very indefiniteness of its title suggests itself as an object for further research with the spade. Furthermore, the compilers of the new map, admitting honest doubt, have now discarded the use of the term ‘ village’. The excavation of the Little Woodbury farmstead and the brilliant reassessment of the earlier excavations in Cranborne Chase by General Pitt-Rivers have shown that sites previously assumed to be villages can now only be accepted as isolated farms, or at best hamlets. The compilers, driven to compromise, now use the symbol of a black dot to indicate evidence ranging from the farmstead down to the single small find. Here again, excavation on the scale and standard of Pitt-Rivers is needed, could it be achieved, to tell us more about the agricultural communities of Wessex. As to the villas, it has in the past been common to assume that any two frag- ments of masonry wall set at right angles one to another, constitute a villa site. Now, in recognition of this untruth, greater caution has been used in distin- “1: ‘ 21 Sha ‘ Bide a ears guishing between ‘certain’ and ‘uncertain’ villas, and other buildings not assionable to any category. Hence the need for a re-examination of museum material and the re-excavation of many villa sites dug as a loot-seeking pastime half a century ago. The results may be surprising and extremely illuminating. In this edition the representation of up to the minute data in map form about the period has never been more satisfactorily achieved. A brief glance and we have a ready picture of the civil and military organisation of Roman Britain, impressive enough even if weighed against Roman Gaul. The addition to the sheet also of canal systems in the cornlands of the Fen district and more particu- Wiltshire Books, Articles, Etc. ; 187 larly the power aqueduct at Lincoln emphasises the increasing truth that in feats of civil engineering this country was not behisnd similar Continental achieve- ments. The value of this map to the student however, lies equally in the stimulus it gives to further work in the field and the museum. The expressions of doubt implied in this use of a greater number of symbols are also a sign of the numer- ous gaps in our present knowledge; a brief study of this map and there is little doubt of the direction in which further work must go. The scale of the map is as the 2nd edition, sixteen miles to one inch. Nervous- ly speaking, with much of our present information of uncertain nature, this scale is perhaps permissible; even so, the use of the black dot symbol can hardly be called a solution to the problem of indicating satisfactorily such a range of evidence as it has to do. A final word of praise for an attractive format, though the quarto size is not a handy one for the travelling student. Excellent too are the introduction and site index, the chronological table of events in the history of the period and a short summary of the sources for Romano-British place-names and tribes. All these combine to make the map intelligible to any interested reader and no student of Roman Britain can be without a copy. F. K. ANNABLE. NOTES. | A Ground Flake from Dinton. In the series of flint implements collected by the late Rev. G. H. Engleheart from the Dinton-Fovant area now deposited in | the Museum at Salisbury (acc. no. 15/51) there is a unique ground artifact figured herewith. | Fig. 1. Ground Flake from Dinton The implement was found in the field behind Engleheart’s house when the ground was being double-dug preparatory to bulb-planting. It is developed from a flake of bluish-grey flint; the edge-work is steep and of mesolithic char- acter. The bulb of the flake has been partly removed. The flake has been ground on the under surface as shown at C—the polished area is blackened—and on the left edge, A, and at the tip of the flake which has produced a chisel-like edge, B, which is shown in section at E. The grinding technique used on this implement is noteworthy; the flattening of the under surface was effected by a movement parallel to the chisel-edge. The striae produced D are remarkably fine as compared with the coarse mark- ings seen on polished axes. Both sides of the chisel-edge have a high degree of polish presumably resulting from use. The limited grinding observable on the edge xy produced two small polished areas which lie on the same plane; on this edge a decided notch is observable. The angle of about 120 degrees developed by the chisel-edge and the side xy seems to have been the chief working feature and may have been used for groov- ing wood andbone. The artifact seems to have functioned as a ground graver. EE anes Notes 189 Although the flake appears to have been retouched in mesolithic fashion no date can be claimed for the grinding. In connection with this flake an article by G. H. Engleheart entitled On Neolithic Flints below the present Surface at Dinton which appeared in W.A.M., I9I0, 76, 86-9 is of some interest although it would have been more helpful had it been illustrated. The significant fact about the flints discussed is that they were more numerous at a depth of 18in. than at 4in.; the former depth was reached by double-digging and the latter by the plough. The collection of implements referred to above contains an appreciable element of mesolithic material in- cluding microliths, micro-cores and blades and thus the deep level may have had a mesolithic association. A trial excavation on this field would be helpful. Of course in 1910 all post-palaeolithic artifacts were described as neolithic. The information concerning the discovery of this flake was communicated to the writer by Mr. R. S. Newall, F.S.A. [See Figure 1, p. 188]. W. F. RANKINE. A Blade Graver from Dinton. Also in the Dinton-Fovant Collection there is a graver made on a blade of dark flint, free from inclusions, slightly lustrous and with no trace of patination. Fig. 2. Blade Graver from Dinton The blade is 13in. in length and has a graver facet (A, a) backed by steep re- touch (b). This artifact is not labelled but its unpatinated and lustrous condition indicates that it was disturbed from a relic bed of a sandy nature. [See Figure 2, p. 189]. | W.F. RANKINE. 190 Notes The Wheelwright’s Shop (W.A.M,, lvi, 62-65). The bolt of the plough, con- trary to what appeared in my last note, was probably the horizontal beam, usually five to six feet wide, to which the traces were attached by the whipple- trees. This meaning suits the cost of 8d. better than a mere bolt to attach one thing to another. Shriding the plough may well mean fixing the share to the plough, though this is elsewhere described as “ letting the share on upon the plough”. Etymolo- gically shrid, shred, shard, shord, shore and share are similar. The root occurs in the place-names Redshard, Shepherd’s Shore or Shord and there means a gap “ sheared ” through Wansdyke. Waledich (W.A.M., lvi, 60). Convincing evidence for the local use of this name for the Avebury Circle has already appeared in this Magazine: William Long eighty years ago knew it was called Wall-dyke (W.A.M., xvii, 329). I have to thank Messrs. T. Pope and O. Meyrick for the substance of the above two notes. BiG.E.K. Burials at Bratton and Longbridge Deverell. In the autumn of 1955 Mr. R. H. Pearson of Baynton House, Coulston, reported the presence of human bones unearthed while digging clay at his watercress beds at Bratton, immed- iately below White Cliff; and approx. 1 mile E. of Bratton Camp (O.S. min. Sheet 166 (Frome) 923519). The writer visited the site on October 28th and excavated the remains of a single inhumation of which unfortunately only the upper half remained, the rest having been inadvertently destroyed by workmen who did not immediately recognise its significance. The skeleton was in an extended position and orientated NW/SE with skull to the NW. It lay just on top of the Greensand subsoil at a depth of 3ft. 8ins. below surface soil. Noticeable features associated with the burial were, first, that the skull lay face downwards in the soil, and second, the position of the upper arm bones clearly indicated that at death both arms were positioned be- hind the back. Both features suggest that death was violent, though no visible trace of wounds to skull or bones was evident. The skeleton was that of a male of mature age, and the condition of the molars, which were well worn down, suggests that the person had existed on a largely farinaceous diet. A single thick sherd of hard, buff fabric was the only associated find. This was situated at the distal end of the left humerus. It has not yet however, been possible to date the fragment and thus a date for the burial cannot be postulated. Since the excavation took place, a further two skeletons have turned up with- in a foot or so of the original discovery. These still remain in the ground though not in imminent danger of destruction. An additional point of interest, not to be commented on further, lies in the comparative closeness of these burials to one of the disputed sites of the Battle of Ethandun. Notes 191 A turther skeleton was excavated in December, 1955, again by the writer, on Cow Down (OS. tin. Sheet 166 (Frome) 882142), approx. # mile S.E. of Long- bridge Deverell and 140 feet S. of Barrow 11. This was the only undamaged burial in a group reported to be five in number, but unfortunately, with this exception, entirely destroyed during bulldozing on the Down. The skeleton, orientated E/W withskull tothe W/H, was fully extended and lay in a shallow scoop on chalky gravel at a depth of 2ft. 6ins. below surface soil. It was that of a fully adult female, and once again the worn condition of the molars indicated a largely farinaceous diet. No associated finds were discovered and a search of the surrounding surface soi] turned over by the bulldozer failed to bring any dateable evidence to light. No date for the group as a whole can then be suggested; it should however be mentioned that a small D-shaped enclosure of likely Romano-British date is situated approx. 4 mile E. of the burial site. Sir Richard Colt Hoare’ states that on the E. side of the earthwork he “ found the usual marks of a British popul- ation’ and “ dug up some rude fragments of coarse pottery together with a 99 large piece of fine red Samian ”’. It is pleasant to record with appreciation the prompt reporting of these finds by Lady Seymour of Bratton House, Westbury, and Mr. R. H. Pearson; also, in the case of the Cow Down burial, Mr. Stratton of Manor Farm, Longbridge Deverell. Thanks are also accorded to Mr. R. Sandell, for his ready help, and to Dr. Varian, of Devizes, who kindly examined and com- mented on the skeletons. F. K. ANNABLE. Further Finds at Folly Farm, nr. Mildenhall. Further abundant evidence of a habitation site of obvious Roman date was once again forthcoming from Folly Farm, nr. Mildenhall, when the writer visited the site in January of this year’. The area in which the evidence lay was approx. 800 feet N. W of Folly Farm (O.S. tin. Sheet 157 (Swindon) 210687) and almost exactly at the point marked on the 6in. O.S. map as “ Roman Well”’.* The site is well known as “ Upper Cunetio ”., so named by Sir Richard Colt Hoare, and Hoare himself writing in Ancient Wilts records the discovery of pottery, coins, and coarse tessellated pavements over the area. 5 On the present occasion deep ploughing had brought to the surface a chalky rubble spread over an approx. area of 40 square feet, though, owing to a light sprinkle of snow in the furrows, it was not possible to make out any coherent plan to the spread. Nevertheless, ample evidence of a building site lay on the surface in the shape of flue and floor tile fragments, considerable numbers of tesserae, and small sherds. Probing also indicated the presence of wall found- 1 W.A.M. xxxviii, 280, Longbridge Deverell, Barrow 1. * Hoare, A.W. I., 103. * The writer is grateful to A. L. F. River, F.S.A., of the Ordnance Survey, who initially pointed out this fresh evidence after an earlier visit. * O.S. 6in. (Wilts). Sheet xxix S.W. 2nd Edition, 1901). * A.W. II Roman Aera, pp. 72, 91. 192 Notes ations jutting off at angles, and it seems highly likely that here was a substantial dwelling with one or more rooms, with perhaps the addition of a hypocaust system and tessellated flooring. Sincere thanks are again due to Mr. Sandell, who ably assisted in surveying the site. F, K. ANNABLE. “ The Broadstones.” In W.A.M., lii, 390 Professor Stuart Piggott published a recently found note of Stukeley on a stone circle that formerly existed be- tween Kennett and Marlborough, as we know from Aubrey’s reference to it, also quoted by Piggott. The only attempt to locate the circle more exactly was made by Rev. A. C. Smith (Antiquities of N. Wilts), who tentatively suggested that it might have stood on the lane from Overton to Lockeridge. From the Stukeley note which says “‘a little farther west you turn on the right into the fields ” to the Devil’s Den this is clearly well off the mark. It may be possible from the evidence to put it more accurately on the map. T. Hearne published in 1725, with Langtoft’s Chronicle, an anonymous work ‘ A Fool’s Bolt soon shott at Stonage, ’ in which occurs this passage: * The first was also called Manton, near Marlburrow from a pettie Stonage [Stonehenge] there of eight huge stones, now called the broad stones, antiently standing, but now lying circularly in London way, testified to be a British trophie, by the frag- ments of men’s bones found on the burrows on the fields adjoining ’. This gives us the local name for the circle, and Smith marks Broadstone W. Meadow as the Tithe map name for the narrow strip between the Bath Road and the Kennet, which is bounded on the west by the road to Clatford Bottom and on the east by Plough Cottage. Mr. E. G. H. Kempson informs me that Bradstonemede can be dated back to 1466 and cites 16th and 17th century references to Manton North Field or Water Way Field containing a Waterway furlong and a Broad- stone furlong. Smith maps North Field Waterway to the north of Broadstone Mead and the Bath Road. All available evidence therefore points to the same piece of ground. All three writers mention that the circle is on some sort of road. Aubrey calls it a lane; the version quoted above is ‘ London way ’, and Stukeley’s more detailed description reads: “In the lane, or rather Ro. Road between Marl- borough and Devizes over ag. Clatford . . . . In the middle of the road which seems to widen on purpose for it and takes a little turn too upon that account . . There are two barrows within sight of it it stands upon the edge of the meadow just by the Kennit side.’ As Broadstone Mead is north of the river, the back road from Manton to Clatford can be eliminated. The Bath Road is the only track now visible on the north side and the line of the Roman road may in part coincide with it.1 Stukeley again refers to the circle in ‘ Itinerarium Curiosum ’ (Pt. 1, p. 132): * Over against Clatford at a flexure of the river we meet with several very great stones, about a dozen in number, which probably was a Celtic temple and In the early 18th century the coach road from Marlborough to Bath ran over the Downs to Avebury (Piggott, William Stukeley, p. 47). Notes 193 stood in a circle; this form in a great measure they still preserve.’ There is only one “ flexure’ anywhere on this stretch of river and that a very pronounced one about 100 yds. W. of Plough Cottage where the stream makes practically a right-angled turn; it is at this point that it is nearest to the road, which also has a slight bend here, fitting in with Stukeley’s description. (NGR. 163690). The remaining clue is the two barrows within sight of the circle. The famous Manton Barrow (Preshute 1A on Goddard’s list) lies 200 yds. N.E.; no other is to be seen now, but there may well have been another close by which has long since been ploughed out. Assuming that the Broadstones were situated at about this point (and no other place complies with all the topographical details) it may not be mere chance that the barrow was adjacent, just as it can hardly be sheer coincidence that this barrow and the “Golden Barrow’ (Goddard’s Upton Lovell 2£), probably the two richest known female burials of the Wessex Culture, are exceptionally close to rivers. All accounts agree that there were eight stones in the circle; Stukeley alone notes that four others lay outside, which he conjectures may have been the be- ginning of an avenue. O. MEyRICK. Barrow Circles at Clatford. A widely spread barrow (Goddard’s Preshute 3) lies in a field adjoining the north side of the London-Bath Road opposite Clat- ford Hall Farm. Hitherto it has appeared to be isolated, but in August 1955 crop marks observed from the Clatford-Lockeridge lane revealed two other barrows in line west from it. Similar in size, the further is just within the west border of the field and shows two concentric ditches several feet apart; the other, a few yards away, is surrounded by a single ditch. The crop marks showed up so clearly as immediately to catch the eye of anyone looking in that direction from the opposite slope. No trace of either barrow could be seen when the field was visited after harvest. The Nat. Grid. Ref. is 154690(6 in. O.S. 28 S.E.). O.M. Romano-British Site at Burderop. In September, 1952, Mr. F. Mitchell, employed at the U.S.A. base at Burderop Park, near Chiseldon, brought to my notice sherds exposed in the sides of a 30 ft. square hole dug by mechanical excavator for a storage tank. The spot is about 200 yds. N.E. from the western entrance, Nat. Grid. Ref. 163804. The excavation had by then been completed and emergency rescue work was undertaken next day with Mrs. C. M. Piggott. This was carried out under difficulties, a cement floor being laid at one end while the sides were being probed at the other. Several small pits were dis- closed, mostly 1ft. 6ins.—2ft. deep below the old turf line, holding sherds and some ox and sheep bones, but there was no chance to clear out the pits thorough- ly. Later a cursory search of the spoil heap produced a number of other sherds. The pottery is all Romano-British and dated by Prof. C. F. C. Hawkes to about the 2nd century A.D. Most specimens represent common types, but one piece calls for further comment. It is unglazed red ware with moulded frond and pellet ornament bordering a panel with human figure. Similar ware has been found previously in Wiltshire and nowhere else except at The Gaer, a Roman fort near Brecon, where a fragment of a bowl was found during ex- cavations in 1925 (Wheeler, Y Cymmrodor,xxxvii, 231). In this county it occurs 194 Notes at Mother Anthony’s Well, Bromham and at Heddington, whilst the Stourhead collection at Devizes Museum includes some sherds and part of a mould in which the ware was made, regrettably with no locality given (W.A.M.,xlix, 219). It all points to a crude local product in imitation of the imported Samian, which does not appear to have caught the popular fancy. The site is very close to the edge of the lower chalk escarpment overlooking the Swindon Vale. About 100 yds. to the south-west Mr. Mitchell had a year earlier found three small sherds and some ox teeth at an estimated depth of 3ft. 6ins. when the ground had been bulldozed. One sherd had slashed orna- ment suggestive of Iron Age A dating and the other two may be of the same period. Just south a large rectangular earthwork is shown on the 6in. O.S. map (rs SE.) O.M. Roman Ditch at Mildenhall. A trench dug in March, 1955, for pipe-laying in the field west of Mildenhall School and just south of the signpost (N.G.R. 214698) showed a wide band of dark earth on either side bounded by chalky strips. In the sides and in the throw-out at this point were many Romano- British sherds dating from about 1st—4th cent. A.D., part of a flue-tile and other debris. It apparently marks a ditch running S.W.., perhaps serving to drain the Roman road as it reached the low ground near the river. It is worth putting on record that in 1954 when a hole was dug for an electricity pole below this spot and about 20 yds. from the north bank of the Kennet part of a very large storage vessel was thrown out. It was rescued in fragments by Mrs. G. D. Hannay and is now in Devizes Museum. A native product of grey ware with lattice-work pattern, it is very similar in character to pots from the Savernake Forest kilns and may have come from there. The position is too low and close to the river for an occupation site. Mrs. Hannay’s suggestion that the pot might have slipped off a packhorse fording the stream seems as good an explanation of its presence there as any. O.M. Carved Stones from Ramsbury Manor. At the end of 1954 a pipe-line was laid through Ramsbury Manor Park, passing within 100 yards north of the house. Here the trench cut through walls at two points; these were built of varied material, bricks and stonework being intermingled. Among the stones were several square blocks with three dowel holes which had supported slender pillars, and others had clearly formed part of window frames with grooves to take the glass. The foreman in charge drew attention to these and one of the blocks was by permission of Lord Wilton removed for expert examination. It was pronounced by the foreman of Messrs. Blackford Ltd., of Calne, to be ‘best Box Ground’ quarried at or near Box Hill, Wilts, and by Mr. John Harvey, the authority on medieval architecture, to be early Renaissance work and the base of a pillar, probably from its slender form in a balustrade. This dating is right for the earlier manor house, built by the Earl of Pembroke soon after the Duke of Somerset’s execution in 1551 and sold by a later Earl in 1676. It was described in 1644 as a“ fair stone square house ’. This was pulled down to make way for the existing house and some of the stones may have been built into garden walls. O.M. Notes 195 A La Tene I Fibula from Fisherton Delamere. This bronze fibula was recently presented to the Salisbury Museum by Mr. R. S. Newall (93 55). It was found on the surface near New Barn, Bapton, in the parish of Fisherton Delamere (S.S. 6 in. lix, S.W.) in 1938. A dark green patina covers the whole fibula, including the pin which is an ancient but skilful replacement held in position by a hollow pin, which passes through the four-looped spring and is hammered at each end. One of the inner spring loops belongs to the pin, the fracture having occurred between it and the outer loop, evidently a weak spot to judge by the number of breaks which occur there. The bow was once decor- ated with a row of lozenges, with concave sides and a dot in the middle, punched es jr, in series between two engraved parallel lines. This ornament, now largely worn away, is terminated by a transverse line at the end away from the spring. The foot ends in a stud which is flattened on the top, but is only ornamented by a double ridge at the neck. The overall length is 1.85 ins. The type belongs to Fox’s phase A (Arch. Cam. |xxxii, 1927,75). More La Téne I fibulae have been found in Wiltshire than in any other county. Fox (Op. cit.) listed 24, while no other county reached double figures. To these 24 should be added one from Salisbury (W.A.M. liii, 1937, 285), another from Cold Kitchen Hill (W.A.M. liu, 1950, 134) and the present example. H. de S. SHortr. Notes on the Place-Names of Wiltshire, E.P.N.S. The late lamented editor of the W.A.M. invited corrections and only a few have so far been forth- coming. For various obvious reasons it seems unsuitable exactly to follow the methods of the E.P.N.S. in these remarks. 1. R. Key, p. 8. Other names have been BradenWater, Stokkenlake, Spittle Brook, Weramere, Dance Brook, Stoke Brook—W.A.M. lv, 354. Key- croft is not on the R. Key but on an unnamed tributary of the R. Ray. 2. R.Ely, in Wroughton parish, omitted: see Wilts N. & Q., iii, 331. 3. Braden Pond, omitted: the old name was Wulfmere—K.C.D., xxix, B.C.S., 70. 4. Calcutt, p.42, and 5 Chelworth, p.43, were in Staple Hundred and not in Cricklade Hundred. 196 13. 14. Notes Braydon, p. 41, was in Staple Hundred and not in Cricklade Hundred {t was not taken from either Cricklade parish but from Purton parish. The Dutchy Rag is not in Braydon but in Cricklade St. Sampson’s parish. Hailstone, pp. 43-44. The derivation is almost certainly from holy-stan, a landmark on the hill at the S. side of the prehistoric Thames crossing, later replaced by St. Helen’s chapel—Cart. Marast. Glouc. I., 132, 146-7. Brockhurst, p. 31 (Purton Parish): the derivation is from broc—badger, see W.A.M., lv. The Early Bounds of Purton. . Sheppen Bridge, p 46 (Latton Parish): This is a modern bridge next to what is obviously a small enclosure for sheep or cattle. . Blackgrove Hundred: contiguous to the farm of Blagrove is the Toot Hill (6in. omitted). . Mudgell, 6in., (Wroughton parish) omitted. This may be “ muddy cor- 99 6¢ ner, © midge infested corner,” or even a corruption of the “ mighty vic- tory” of $56 or 825! The parish boundary makes a curious excursion at this place. Markham, p. 280, is “ not on the parish boundary ”, but it is the division of the two D.B. manors of Elcombe and Ellandun. The Ivery is not on the escarpment of a hill. It is an isolated raised site. For the derivation of the word see W. N. and Q. iii, 331. Ruddles Mead, p. 497 (Wanborough Parish): Five different fields bear the name Ruddles!—a Wiltshire name. ‘ hrud wylle ’ of B.C.S. 948 refers to the “reedy brook” i.e., the stream running N. from Wroughton Wharf, not to a well or spring. TR. 197 SUMMER EXCURSIONS, 1955. On June ith an excursion to the Wylye and Nadder valleys drew an attendance of over 130. They were met at Stapleford Castle, a medieval site now marked only by the deep ditch enclosing the mound, by Mr. H. Ross, who recounted what little was known of its history. A move was then made to Great Wishford Church, where the Rev. E. H. Steele gave an admirable talk on the church and the history of the village, including its celebrated Oak Apple Day rites. The church plate and other interesting exhibits were also on view. From here the long stream of cars went to Grovely Wood, where a section of Roman road had been excavated by the Salisbury Field Society and most kindly kept open specially for the occasion. Mr. J. W. G. Musty pointed out the features of its construction and discoursed on the Roman road system in the district. After lunch in Wilton Town Hall the party crossed into the Nadder Valley to visit three National Trust properties at Dinton. Two of these, Little Clarendon, an early Tudor house with period furniture, and Lawes Cottage, home of the composer William Lawes, stand side by side and were shown together by Mrs. Spalding and Col. and Mrs. Frith. At Philipps House, a fine mansion designed by Jeffery Wyatt and now a YW.C.A. holiday home, Mr. F. C. Dowling showed the party round and spoke on its history and the pictures on its walls. All these houses were of special interest, as they had recently been the subject of a paper in W.A.M. by Mr. H. G. Chettle. Some also visited the great medieval dovecote at Hyde House. The high dividing ridge was then crossed to the Wylye Valley again, where tea was ready at Deptford. Stockton Manor House was next on the programme. Lady Lacey welcomed the visitors and related its history before they went over the house, a particularly charming ex- ample of Tudor and Jacobean architecture, which narrowly escaped dismantling before Lady Lacey saved it from destruction. A long day ended at Stockton Church, where Mr. H. de S. Shortt was an excellent guide and pointed out its many curious features. Mr. Chettle was largely responsible for the organisation and success of the excursion. The excursion on July 16th was devoted to N. W. Wilts, starting with a visit to Sherston Church, where Canon D. E. J. Anthony was waiting to take the party round and gave an excellent talk on this fine church, mainly Early English, but with much Norman work surviv- ing. From here cars proceeded through Malmesbury to Cole Park, where Mr. and Mrs. John Buxton made the visitors welcome, and Mr. 198 Summer Excursions, 1955 Buxton addressed them before showing them round. The house, with its stone front and Tudor brick on the garden side, charmed everyone in its moated setting. It had not been possible to cater for so large a number (over 100) in Malmesbury, fortunately as it turned out, as the day was very warm and the shade of the tall elms in the park proved an ideal place for a picnic lunch. Bradford Manor Farm, dating in part from the 15th century, was next visited by kind permission of Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Giles; Miss June Wilson dealt admirably with the historical aspect and Mr. Oswald Brakspear with its architecture. Moving on to Priory Farm, Kington St. Michael, the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Adams, Mr. Brakspear was again the speaker, discussing the range of buildings which are the remains of the Benedictine convent that form- erly stood here. Cross-country lanes led to Lanhill Long Barrow where Mr. Nicholas Thomas gave a lucid discourse on its past history of ex- cavation and on long barrows in general. It is now overgrown and in part despoiled and seems fated to suffer even greater deterioration. Last on the programme was Sheldon Manor, where Major and Mrs. Gibbs most hospitably dispensed very welcome tea on the lawn before accompanying the party over the house which is mainly 16th century, though it has a notable late 13th century porch. At their suggestion photographs were taken to match a similar record of the Society’s visit just over 60 years earlier. Altogether a memorable day, but the approach to out-of-the-way places by narrow lanes stressed the need for marshals to keep all cars on the right track and so avoid delay. It is all too easy for those in the rear to be held up behind a slow-moving tractor and so lose touch. The morning of the third excursion on Aug. 17th was spent at Potterne. The church, Early English at its best, with a unique Saxon font, was ably described by Mr. Tilley, who with a local committee had taken a lot of trouble to arrange an exhibition illustrating the life of Potterne through the centuries, with the church plate and registers. Whilst some examined these the remainder crossed the road into the gar- den of Porch House, where Mr. and Mrs. M. Stancomb gave themacor- dial welcome and took groups over thisstriking example of 15thcentury domestic architecture. Following lunch at the Castle Hotel in Devizes, the rest ofthe day was spent in the Pewsey Vale, with Urchfont Manor the first objective. This pleasing 18th century house is now admirably adapted as an Adult Education Centre and in the absence of the Warden, Mr. P. Fraser, the resident Tutor, kindly received the visitors and out- Summer Excursions, 1955 199 lined its past history and present uses. A short drive led to Marden Earthworks, where Mr. Nicholas Thomas was waiting and gave a first- rate exposition on this important site, which still awaits scientific investigation. Afterwards he led a tour of inspection until it was inter- rupted by a smart shower in an otherwise fine day, but some nearby buildings not only provided shelter but held a good series of Neolithic flint implements picked up here by Mr. Simper in the course of farm- ing. Cars then made their way to Manningford Bruce, where an ex- cellent tea had been prepared in the village hall. The Rev. T. S. Jameson acted as guide tothe church. This early Norman building, unique of its kind in Wilts, is not as well known as it might be; certainly it was new ground to most of the party. He then led the way to a renovated 15th century barn where Miss Grant-Meck had most kindly invited in- spection of a choice and varied collection of antiques, which brought the day to a close. VOL. LVI—CCIII N 200 Notes WILTSHIRE OBITUARIES. ALEXANDER WILKINS, of Turleigh, Bradford-on-Avon, died on May 31st, 1955, aged 76. Fourth son of Henry Wilkins, of Bradford, he was educated at Cheltenham and qualified as solicitor in 1902, starting practice in Bradford in 1905, and retiring in 1954. He was a pioneer motorist and a keen sportsman; for long an oarsman in Bradford Rowing Club crews, he became captain and later president of the club. Prominent as a Freemason, he was Past Master of the local Lodge and Past Grand Warden of the Province of Wiltshire. He had been for many years Clerk to the Governors of Fitzmaurice Grammar School. Obit.: Wiltshire Times, June 4th, 1955. JOHN STANCOMB died at Hurstpierpoint, Sussex, on June 23rd, 1955, aged 71. Third son of William Stancomb, of Blount’s Court, Potterne, a former High Sheriff of Wilts, he came of an old Wiltshire family. Educated at Wel- lington and Magdalen Coll., Oxford, he took up farming, hunting regularly with the Beaufort and the Avon Vale. He leaves a widow and one daughter. Obit.: Wiltshire Times, July 2nd, 1955. DR. GEORGE HENRY HITCHCOCK WAYLEN, of Nursteed House, Devizes, died on June 26th, 1955, aged 73. Son of Dr. G. S. A. Waylen, he represented the fourth generation of a line of Devizes doctors and came of a family with local associations dating back to tke 15th century. Joining the Army in 1912 he was medical officer to 1/4 Wilts Regt. in India, Egypt and Palestine in the 1914-18 War. Then he set up in general practice in Devizes until 1943, becoming M.O.H. in 1934 to the Borough and Rural District Councils up to his death and winning universal esteem. He was a borough magistrate and had been elected Mayor of Devizes in 1932, though not on the Town Council. He was a keen Territorial until his retirement in 1934 and maintained a life-long interest in Scouting. He wasa good friend to the Wilts Archaeological Society and in 1944 on leaving No. 41, Long Street, next door to the Museum, disposed of it to them on generous terms, thus providing a much needed extension to the Museum premises. He married a daughter of Mr. E. Anstie, of Devizes, who survives him with a son and three daughters. Obit.: Wiltshire Gazette, June 30th, 1955. MAJOR ROBERT FLEETWOOD FULLER died at Great Chalfield Manor, on Sept. gth, 1955, aged 79. Fourth son of G. P. Fuller, of Neston Park, he joined the family concern, the Avon India Rubber Co. of Melksham, in 1897 and, apart from service with the Royal Wilts Yeomanry in the Boer War, was closely connected with it for the rest of his life. He became Chairman in 1927 and on his retirement in January, 1955, was made President of the Company. Through- out he maintained the triendliest possible relations with employees and staff, endowing in 1947 a Veterans’ Fund with 10,000 shares divided between the 200 employees with longest service. A magistrate from 1903, he was also on the County Council for 45 years, retiring as Alderman in 1946. He was High Sheriff of Wilts in 1926. He had an outstandingly successful dairy herd, being a pioneer in modern methods of hygiene and management, and had been Presi- dent of the Dairy Shorthorn Association. Wiltshire Obituaries 201 Some fifty years ago he acquired Great Chalfield Manor when it had fallen into disrepair and with the aid of Pugin’s detailed drawings, made many years earlier, restored it to its present condition as a fine example of late Gothic domes- tic architecture. This he and Mrs. Fuller delighted in throwing open and show- ing to visitors. It was presented to the National Trust in 1943. He was a gener- ous benefactor of this Society. He married in 1911 Miss Mabel Chapell, who survives him with one daughter. Obits.: Wiltshire Gazette, Sept. 15th; Wiltshire Times, Sept. 17th, 1955. DANIEL COMBES, of Dinton Manor, died in September, 1955, aged 87. He had farmed at Dinton for many years and was one of the most widely known men in S. Wilts. At his death senior Alderman on the County Council, he had long been prominent in its debates and made his mark there as in other spheres of life by the strength of his personality. Obit.: Wiltshire Times, Sept. 17th, 1955. ALEXANDER KEILLER, F.S.A., died at Kingston Hall, Surrey on Oct. 29th, 1955, aged 65. He began the excavation of Windmill Hill, Avebury in 1924, event- ually purchasing it and most of the Avebury Circle and a considerable part of the Kennett Avenue land. Moving to Avebury Manor from the family estate at Morven, Aberdeenshire, he carried out excavations at Avebury from 1933-38 at his own expense, in conjunction with the Office of Works (as it then was) and assisted by Stuart Piggott. At this time the monument was in a neglected state, with many stones lying buried; these he raised and put markers on the sites of those which had been destroyed. In the course of work on the Ditch it was found that the village street and the Swindon road rested on hitherto unsus- pected original causeways. No less important was his work in 1924-29 at the adjacent causeway camp on Windmill Hill, with its stratification of Neolithic A (or “Windmill Hill’), Neolithic B and Beaker cultures. With typical insight he left one half of the site untouched for future excavators, foreseeing that great advances in technique could be expected. For the display of the finds from both sites he turned the coach house and stables of Avebury Manor into a museum that is a model of its kind. The Manor itself was restored and furnished as far as possible in keeping with its 16th century date. In 1943 Windmill Hill, Avebury Circle and the Avenue became National Trust property, with the Ministry of Works assuming responsibility for its care and upkeep. With O. G. S. Crawford he was a pioneer of archaeological air photography, the results of their survey flights appearing in a magnificent joint production, Wessex from the Air (1928). He was also one of the first to appreciate the poss- ibilities of petrographical examination of Neolithic stone axes, which has so greatly added to our knowledge of the trade contacts between different regions. While resident in Avebury he did much for the village and was its represen- tative on the R.D.C. During the last war he became Superintendent of Special Constabulary. He leaves a widow. Obits.: Times, Oct. 31st and Nov. 8th; Marlborough Times, Nov. 4th, 1955. 2N 202 Wiltshire Obituaries SIR ERNEST MUSGRAVE HARVEY, BT., K.B.E., died at Mildenhall on Dec. 17th, 1955, aged 88. Third son of Prebendary C. M. Harvey, educated at Marl- borough, he was nominated to a clerkship in the Bank of England, being appointed Deputy Chief Cashier in 1902. In this position he was largely respon- sible for the flotation of Government loans in the 1914-18 War, being made C.B.E. in 1917 and Chevalier of the Legion of Honour and the Belgian Order of Leopold. He became Chief Cashier 1918-25, Comptroller 1925-29, and Deputy Governor 1929-36, when he retired to live at Mildenhall. Made x.B.z. in 1920, he received a baronetcy in 1933. He was a Lieutenant of the City of London and a member of the Council of Marlborough College. He married Miss Sophia Catesby, who died in 1952; he is survived by ason and two daughters. Obit.: Times, Dec. 19th; Marlborough Times, Dec. 24th, 1955. 203 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, 1955. The Annual General Meeting, 1955 was held at Lydiard Park, Lydiard Tregoze, on 24th September, 1955. His Worship the Mayor of Swindon, who was accompanied by the Mayoress, greeted the Society in the name of the Corporation. On the proposal of Brigadier Hedges cordial thanks were re- turned to the Mayor and Corporation for lending Lydiard Park for the occasion and for entertaining the Society to tea. The Minutes of the Annual General Meeting, 1954, were read and confirmed. The Acting Secretary and the Hon. Treasurer presented their annual reports which were adopted. The Acting Secretary’s report is published in this number of the W.A.M.: the accounts were published in the June number. The following persons, proposed by the Committee, were declared to have been elected to the following offices in accordance with Rule X: President: Brigadier K. M. F. Hedges. Hon. Treasurer: Mr. F. W.C. Merritt. Hon. Librarian: Mr. C. W. Pugh, assisted by Mr. R. E. Sandell. Hon. Editor: Mr. H. Wylie, assisted by Mr. O. Meyrick and Mr. J. M. Prest. Hon. Meetings Secretary: Mr. Meyrick. It was reported that until a candidate for the office of Hon. Secretary could be found Mr. F. K. Annable would act as Secretary. Mr. E. C. Barnes, the Revd. P. E. C. Hayman and Mr. E. G. H. Kempson were declared elected to three vacant places on the Committee. On the proposal of Miss E. Crittall, Mr. W. E. Brown was elected Hon. Auditor. On the proposal of Brigadier Hedges, seconded by Mr. H. de S. Shortt, Mr. R. B. Pugh, retiring President, was elected a Vice-President. The President stated that he had sent a message in the name of the Society, greeting the Mayor of Calne on the occasion of the celebration by that borough of the 1,000th anniversary of its first mention in history, had expressed the hope that the exhibition that was to be opened that day would be very successful and had assured the Mayor of the great interest of the Society in the antiquities of Calne. The President then read a paper entitled “ The Society: To-day and To- morrow " which is published in this number of the Wiltshire Magazine. 204 ACQUISITIONS TO THE SOCIETY’S LIBRARY FROM 27th JUNE, 1955 UNTIL 30th APRIL, 1956. East Overton Enclosure Act, 1814. Hayden Enclosure Act 1819. Borough of Marlborough 1204-1954. “ The Maroon Square”, History of 4th Bttn. the Wilts Regiment, 1939-1946. Transcript of Parish Registers of Dinton and Compton Chamberlaine. Catalogue of Cricklade Museum. Calne; Bibliography for Millenary Exhibition. Cricklade; Official Guide. Devizes; Charles Sloper, History of Firm. Archaeologia, Vols. 93, 94, 95, 96. V.C.H. Vol. 2. Conveyance of a cottage in Frog Lane, Calne. Election Registers for Borough of Calne 1848-1856. Four photostat copies of maps of Rowde. Chambers’ Encyclopedia 1788. Collection of notes belonging to the Reverend R. G. Bartelot. Kaleidoscopia Marlebergensia 1835, photostat copy. Short History of the Borough of Calne 1830, photostat copy Overseer’s accounts for Martin 1792-1804, 1813-1820. Coulston; Short History of the church. Devizes Castle; History by W. Michael 1872. Wilts Quarter Sessions and Assizes 1736. Localities and dates for Cirsium tuberosum. Notes on contents of Rowde Parish Chest. Unpublished amendments to Cunnington letters and Ancient Wilts. Wilts County Development Plan. British Association Handbook to Bristol and its adjoininig counties. Notes left by the late Miss Alice Dryden. Descriptive pamphlet of panels in the Ruth Pierce Restaurant, Devizes. Chicklade & Pertwood; A short History by Miss E. R. Barty. 13 Volumes belonging to the late Dr. G, H. Waylen Presented by Miss R. E. Baker. E. G. H. Kempson. Bought. Col. N. F. Penruddocke. Dr. T. R. Thomson. County Library. Messrs. C. Sloper & Son Ltd. Dr. T. R. Thomson. Institute of Historical Re- search. G.I. Gough & Son. T. R. Hood. R. F. Halcomb. Mrs. M. E. Ferris. Dorset County Archivist. E. H. Lane-Poole. Miss Braidwood. Miss Braidwood. Records Branch. J. D. Grose. R. F. Halcomb. Col. R. H. Cunnington. Brig. Hedges. Bristol University. Exors. Proprietors. Miss E. R. Barty. Mrs. G. H. Waylen. Acquisitions to the Society’s Library 205 “ Said and Done ”’, by O. G. S. Crawford. Publishers, Advertisement of Jubilee celebrations at Holt. J. H. Pafford. All Cannings in the past, by Miss B. M. Gough. Miss B. M. Gough. Collection of papers relating to Devizes Muni- cipal Elections. Miss Gillman, Mrs. Chester. Transcript of the lost Court Roll of Sir Thomas Seymour of Tinhead. Miss Seth Smith. 206 LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAOLOGICAL & NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY [Any member whose name and address is incorrectly printed in this List is requested to communicate with the Acting Secretary, the Museum, Devizes.] DECEMBER, 1955 Patron: THe LaDy COLUM CRICHTON-STUART. Trustees: E. C. Barnes, Sir Patrick Devlin, Lt.-Col. Sir Michael Peto, Bt., Bonar Sykes. Committee: Brig. K. M. F. Hedges, ¢.B.E.,D.s.0. President and Wilts C.C. Representative. J. A. Arnold-Forster, 0.8.E. Vice-President. R. B. Pugh, F.s.a. Vice-President. C. W. Pugh, M.B.E. Vice-President and Hon, Librarian. G. M. Young, C.B., LITT.D. Vice-President. A. M. Hankin, c.m.c. Hon. Secretary. F. W.C. Merritt Hon. Treasurer. Owen Meyrick Hon. Meetings Secretary and Assistant Editor. The Lady Katharine McNeile Representing the Wilts C. C. H. Wylie Hon. Editor. J. M. Prest Hon. Assistant Editor. R. Sandell Hon. Assistant Librarian. E. C. Barnes. aR Gee: Revd. P.-E. C. Hayman. E. G. H. Kempson. J. Oram, M B.E. Prof. Stuart Piggott, F.B.A., F.S.A. M. G. Rathbone. H. Ross. A. Shaw-Mellor. H. de S. Shortt, F.s.A. Dr. T.R. Thomson, F:s.A. Curator: Nicholas de 1E. W. Thomas, The Museum, Long Street, Devizes (Devizes 765). Hon. Auditor: W. E. Brown. Hon. Life Member: R. de C. Nan Kivell, Redfern Gallery, 20, Cork St., Burlington Gardens, London, W.1. Subscribing Private Members : 207 [L]—Life Member. feexander, Lt. Col. E. -T. H., Cockhatch, Hilperton, Trow- bridge piear, |. Torbay , 26. Hulse Road, Salisbury Andrews, J. R. B., Brookside, Leigh, Cricklade Mekells W.- J:, D.S:C:,”_8.G.S.,° 14 Crammer Road, Cambridge Armin, W. L., The Orchard, Bath Road, Devizes Arnold-Forster, J. A., 0.B.E., Sal- throp House, Wroughton, Swin- don Atkinson, R. J. C., F.s.a., 4 North East Circus Place, Edinburgh, 3 Austin, Mrs. R. E., Southridge, Hindon Awdry, C. E., Notton Lodge, Lacock Awdry, E. P., Coters, Chippenham Awdry, Miss H. E., Fairview, Littleton Panel!l, Devizes Awdry, Mrs. O. M., 0.B.£., Little Cheverell, Devizes Badeni, Countess, Norton Manor, Malmesbury Bailey, Lady Janet, Lake House, Salisbury Baker, J., Georgian House, Wilton, Marlborough Barnes, E. C., Hungerdown, Seagry, Chippenham Barnes, Mrs. E. C., Hungerdown, Seagry, Chippenham Barrington-Brown, C., Tapshays, Burton Street, Marnhull, Dorset Bashford, Sir H. H., The White House, Easton Royal, Marlboro’ Batchelor, W. J., 5 Crown Place, Potterne, Devizes Bateson, Mrs. F., The Manor House, Great Cheverell, Devizes Batten-Pooll, A. H., The Hotel, Limpley Stoke, Bath, Som. Battersby, Rev. R. St. John B., Chittoe Vicarage, Chippenham Bayley, H. E., Passfield Hall, End- sleigh Place, London, W.C.1 Beale, Mrs. J. S., Dryfield, Bristol Road, Chippenham Beale, Rev. F. W., Stathel Stans, Totterdown, Amesbury Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. Heward, p.s.0., Cleeve House, Seend, Melksham Bennett, John F., Oak Lodge, Alderbury, Salisbury Berry, Mrs. S. M., Withleigh, Melksham Beswick, A. E., 0.B.z., 58 Bath Road, Swindon Bevan, Mrs. T. R., Blagdon House, Keevil, Trowbridge Bevir, Miss M., The Little House, Wootton Bassett Bibbing, E. H., Penolver, 22 Hill View, Henleaze, Bristol Bird, Miss K. M., Brimsdown Cottage, Brixton Deverell, Nr. Warminster Birley, N. P., p.s.o., Hyde Leaze, Hyde Lane, Marlborough Blacking, W. H. Randoll, 21 The Close, Salisbury Blake, T. N., Glebe Farm, Tilshead, Salisbury Bladon, Major F. McK., Middle- dean, Swallowcliffe, Salisbury Blease, Miss E. M., 3 Victoria Road, Trowbridge Blease, Miss H. F., 3 Victoria Road, Trowbridge [L] Blunt, C. E., .s.a., Ramsbury Hill, Ramsbury Bonner, Lt. Commander W. H., 23 High Street, Cricklade Bonness, D. J., Conroy, Countess Road, Amesbury Boulding, J. J., 45 The Avenue, Yeovil, Som. Boutflower, Lt.-Col. E. C., Bourton House, Bishop’s Cannings, Devizes 208 List of Members Boutflower, Mrs. V. E. D., Bourton House, Bishop’s Cannings, Devizes Brackenbury, Mrs. D. N., Beech- wood, Monkton Combe, Bath, Som. Bradley, F/C. R., B.sc., Officers’ Mess, R.A.F. Yatesbury, Calne Braidwood, Miss I. M., 22 Victoria Road, Devizes Brain, Miss N. G., The Cottage on the Green, Patney, Devizes Brakspear, Oswald, Pickwick, Cors- ham Bray, C. H., Westcombe, Gomel- don, Salisbury Brice, G. R., 44 Adelaide Avenue, London, S.E.4 Bridges, Miss M. H., Quaker’s Lane, Goatacre, Hilmarton, Calne Briggs, Mrs. E. W., Axford’s Patch, Lacock, Chippenham Brockbank, Major I. M., The Manor House, Steeple Langford, Salisbury Brocklebank, Cpl. J. A., 4 Wing Corporals’ Club, R.A.F. Yates- bury Brocklebank, Mrs., Charlton House, Shaftesbury Brook, Mrs. Margaret R., 34 Launceston Place, London, W.8 Brooke, Mrs. T. C., Sandfield, Potterne, Devizes Brown, Mrs., Four Winds, Gran- ham Hill, Marlborough Brown, Mrs. J., Anstice, Ladymede, Stoke Poges, Bucks Brown, W. E., 30 Victoria Road, Devizes Browne, Rev. F. B. R., The Rec- tory, Marlborough Bryden, Col. R. A., Hill Cottage, Netheravon Road, Salisbury Buck, A. G. R., Bs.A.. Dunkery House, Weare, Axbridge. Som- erset Buck, Mrs. L. D., Dunkery House, Weare, Axbridge, Somerset Buckeridge, J. M., 29 The Green, Calne Burge, Miss H. M., The Old Rec- tory, Huish, Marlborough Burnett-Brown, Col. A. D., Lacock Abbey, Chippenham Bussell, Mrs., Seven Stars, 51 St. Martin’s, Marlborough Butler, R. B., King’s Hall, Milton, Pewsey Butterworth, Rev. H. W., The Parsonage, Great Cheverell, De- vizes Buxton, E. J. M., Cole Park, Mal- mesbury Buxton, Major G. J., Tockenham Manor, Wootton Bassett Calderwood, J. L., The Hermitage, Swindon [L] Calkin, J. B., Virginia House, Langton Maltravers, Swanage, Dorset Callender, M. H., pu.p., 32 Bel- vedere Court, Lyttelton Road, London, N.2 Calley, Miss J. M., Burderop Park, Swindon Canning, Col. A., Restrop House, Purton Cardigan, the Earl of, Sturmy House, Savernake Forest, Marl- borough Carter, Miss C., Greenways, Silver- less Street, Marlborough Cartwright, A. C. M., Glendower, Winsley Road, Bradford-on- Avon Cary, Commander H., Wans, Chip- penham Cassels, Mrs. S., Beech House, Seend, Melksham Catterns, B. G., Tidcombe Manor, Marlborough List of Members 209 Chamberlain, S. G., Ambrose Farm, Ramsbury, Marlborough Chandler, J. E., Orchard Close, London Road, Marlborough Chandler, T. H., Vine Cottage, Aldbourne, Marlborough Cherrington, P., Urchfont Manor, Devizes Chettle, H. F., c.M.c., 0.B.E., Font- hill, Tisbury Ginid; R: S., Brighstone, The Breach, Devizes Child, Mrs. G. R., Brighstone, The Breach, Devizes Chilton, G., Merle Cottage, Marl- borough Chitham, Sir Charles, c.1.2., The Old Rectory, Great Cheverell, Devizes Christopher, R. T., West View, St. Margaret’s Street, Bradford- on-Avon Churchill, C. R., Sunnycot, Lower Chicksgrove, Tisbury, Wilts Chuter, Mrs. E., Ballyraine House, Arklow, Co. Wicklow, Ireland Clappen, Mrs. E. M., Eaglescroft, Potterne Road, Devizes Clark, Miss G. F., Knole, Manor Road, Milford-on-Sea, Hants Clarke, H. Pallister, M.c., 53 Bore- ham Road, Warminster iy, Dr. R..C.-C,, -F.s.a., Manor House, Fovant, Salisbury Cleverley, E. V., 76 New Park Street, Devizes Cochrane, Mrs. E. B., 23 Mulberry Close, Beaufort Square, London, S.W.3 Codrington,Col. Sir G. R., K.C.v.0., C.B., D.S.0., Roche Court, Win- terslow, Salisbury Codrington, Miss N. E., Wrough- ton House, Swindon Codrington, Mrs. E. M., Wrough- ton House, Swindon Coffin} ‘Dr.’ S.:- 1° Farner: Drive, London, N.W.11 Coggin, F. L., Summerfield, Marl- borough Collier, Mrs. M. W., Wevarholt, Bradford-on-Avon [L] Collins, V., Hatchet Gate, Hale, Fordingbridge, Hants. Cook, A. B., 12 Park Field, London Road, Devizes Cooke, L. B., Kepnal Manor, Pew- sey Cooper, Miss Mary, Holy Trinity Vicarage, Trowbridge Cooper, R. H., Lisfannon, Gad- dington Road, Strood, Kent Corbyn, Mrs. N. L., Hillside House, Kington St. Michael, Chippen- ham Cormwall;| A:-£: :C.,. The: Priory, Marlborough Cossar, Ian. M., $58 Banbury Road, Oxford Cowling, W. J., The School House, Bishop's Cannings, Devizes Crate, Capt, the Rt. Hon. C.G., Old Brewery House, Malmesbury Crawford, Mrs. E. C., Talboys, Keevil, Trowbridge Crichton-Maitland, Miss M.,Knook Manor, Upton Lovell, Warmin- ster Crichton-Maitland, Mrs. P., The Island House, Wilton, Salisbury Crichton-Stuart, The Lady Colum, 23 Charles Street, Berkeley Sq., London, W.1 Crittall, Miss E., 69 Clare Court, Judd Street, London, W.C.1 Cundliffe, Lt.-Col. E. J., Westerly, Wickfield, Devizes Cundliffe, Mrs. N., Westerly, Wick- field, Devizes Cunnington, Lt.-Col. R. H., Round way, Stanley Close, Botley Oxford 210 List of Members Currey, Mrs., 41 Pickwick, Cor- sham Cuss, C. T., Viewlands, 51 Brook- lyn Road, Cheltenham Cuss, H. W.J., 5 Albert St., Swindon Dann, S. W. H., Hardenhuish, Chippenham Dancer, A. T., Trelane, South- broom Road, Devizes Davis, Walter, 207 Quemerford Cottage, Calne Dennis, Mrs. M., Moiety Farm, Seend de Udy, Mrs. A. R. G., Windy- gates, Bratton, Westbury Devereux, Miss M. 24 Penywern Road, London, S.W.5 Devlin, Sir Patrick, West Wick, Pewsey Diamant, A. Lieut., 31 Command Pay Office, British Army Post Office 5 Dix, Mrs. G., Dairy House, Bishops Cannings, Devizes Dobson, Mrs., Glaisters, Wrington, Somerset Dobson, Rev. J. O., Sandown, Breachfield, Devizes Dobson, Mrs., Sandown, Breach- field, Devizes Dobson-Hinton, Mrs., F.s.A., Glais- ters, Wrington, Somerset Downs, L. T., Plough Cottage, Bath Road, Marlborough Drewery, H. R., Rainscombe,Oare, Marlborough Dudley, Rev. R. E., Edington Vic- arage, Westbury Dugdale, H. J., Apple Tree Cottage, Wilton, Marlborough Dumas, Mrs. R., Manor Farm, Hill Deverill, Warminster Eastwood, Lieut.-Gen. Sir Ralph, K.C.B., D.S.O., Wasterne Manor, Wootton Bassett [L] Elderton, Sir William P., K.B.E., Quill Hall Cottage, Amersham, Bucks. Elphinstone Fyffe, Rev. J. M., 22 St. John’s Park, S.E.3 Ewing, K. W., Martlets, Ogbourne St. George, Marlborough Farquharson, Mrs. J. P., The Manor, Homington, Salisbury Fasken, Miss M., Far Corner, Back Lane, Marlborough Feeney, P. J., 42 Boreham Wood, Warminster Felce, Miss W., Wilcot, Pewsey Finch, Miss M., Acrefield, Seend, Melksham Fisher, Maj.-Gen. D. R. D., South- cott House, Pewsey Fitch, Mrs. C., Marden Manor, Devizes Flower, Sir Cyril, c.B., £.B.A., F.S.A., 2 Lammas Park Gardens, London, W.5 [L] Floyd, C., Manor House, Holt Forbes, Mrs., E. N. Bury House, Codford, Warminster Forbes, Miss K. A. G., Bury House, Codford, Warminster Forbes, Mrs. M. S., Beckford Lodge, Tisbury Forster, Miss J. McGredie, Edu- cation Department, County Hall, Trowbridge Foss, K. J., Southwick Court, Trow- bridge Foster, Miss M. C., Ivy Cottage, Aldbourne, Marlborough Fowle, J. P. M., c/o The Secretariat, P.O. Box. 5, Entebbe, Uganda Fowle, Rev. J. S., Queen Eliza- beth Cottage, Broadtown, Swin- don Fraser, P., P.O. Box §, Entebbe, Uganda Free, D. W., Salisbury Road, Marl- borough List of Members 211 Free, E. J., Halfpennies, High Street, Marlborough Frost, O. H., Manor House, Og- bourne St. George, Marlborough Fem sir Geoffrey, K.C.B., C.V.0., Oare House, Marlborough Fry, J. F., Kingmead Mill, Little Somerford, Chippenham Fuller, E. H. F., 6 Lauriston Road, London, S.W.19 [L] Fuller, Major Sir Gerard, Bt., Neston Park, Corsham Gandy, Mrs. I., Upper Sixpenny, Aldbourne, Marlborough Gardner, Mrs. M. I., Bell Farm House, Uckfield, Sussex Garnett, T. R., The Lodge, Marl- borough College, Marlborough Gaylard, I. J., 5 Avon- Terrace, Devizes Gee, T. R., Aepelford Acre, Wood- borough, Pewsey Ghey, S. H. R., Priors Hall Avenue, Offington, Worthing, Sussex [L] Gibbs, Major M., Sheldon Manor, Chippenham Gibbs, Miss M. J., Purlieu Dene, Redlynch, Salisbury Gillam, Miss Beatrice, Allington House, Allington, Devizes Gillett, Mrs. L. M., 32 Kingsbury Street, Marlborough Gillett, Miss B., Far End, 52 High Street, Marlborough Gilliat, S., Embrook, Hilcot, Pewsey Gimson, H. M., Grey Wethers, Stanton St. Bernard, Marl- borough Gladwin, R. 1, 8 Oxford Street, Malmesbury Glyn, Miss E. F., 2 The Church House, Crane Street, Salisbury Goddard, Miss J. E., Brow Cottage, — Seend, Melksham Goddard, Miss R., Brow Cottage, Seend, Melksham Godfrey, Rev. C. J., The Rec- tory, Donhead St. Andrew, Wilts Godwin, Miss J. D., Budbury, Brad- ford-on-Avon Gore, Mrs. B. M., Fallows, Rams- bury, Marlborough Gotch, M. S., 9 The Green, Calne Gough, C. O., Chilvester House, Calne Gould, C. P., 1200 Old Mill Road, San Marino, California, U.S.A. Greaves, Capt... E:*J., The New House, Winsley, Bradford-on- Avon Grigson, Geoffrey, Broad Town Farm, Broad Town, Swindon Grimston, Sir Robert, Bt., m.p., 36 Lowndes Square, London, S. W.1. Grinsell, L. V., F.s.A., c/o the City Museum, Bristol Grose, J. D., Downs Edge, Lid- dington, Swindon Grudgings, N. U., 1 Bank Street Melksham Grudgings, Mrs. D., 1, Bank Street, Melksham Gurney, Miss C., Turleigh Mill, Bradford-on-Avon Gush, Mrs. B., Old House Farm, Semley, Shaftesbury, Dorset Guthrie, J. L., 28 North End Road, Calne Gutmann, K., Megara, Weston Lane, West Winterslow, Salisbury [L] Gwynne, Mrs., 8 Sonning, 355 Innes Road, Durban, South Africa Haines, W., The Croft, Quemer- ford, Calne Haines, Mrs, K. M., The Croft, Quemerford, Calne Halcomb, R. F., Pen y Ffrith, Llanarmon yn Ial Mold, N. Wales Hammond, R. F., New Bungalow, Golden Farm Road, Cirencester, Glos. 212 Hannay, Mrs. Winifred, Werg Mill House, Mildenhall Hancock, Dr. B. O., Beecroft, Devizes Harber, Mrs. Mary, 106 Shriven- ham Road, Swindon Harding, A., Euridge Manor Farm, Colerne, Chippenham Hardwicke, the Countess of, Rockley Manor, Marlborough Hare, Miss Barbara, 3 Water Ditch- ampton, Wilton, Salisbury Harris, A. G., 23 The Peak, Purton, Swindon Harrison-Smith, Miss M., Wilcot Lodge, Marlborough Hayes, the Hon. Mrs. J. O. C., The Old Manor, Overton, Marl- borough Haynin, (Rev. RAE. G., Half Acre; Marlborough Hayman, Mrs. S. M., Half Acre, Marlborough Hedees,”Brigs Kye Fy 0p:s:0., Wedhampton Cottage, Devizes Helliar, Miss G. C., 18 South- broom, Devizes Henderson, Miss L. S., Bennetts, Oare, Marlborough Henderson, Major R. K., M.B.E., Crabbe’s Close, Marlborough Heneage, Miss, 45 Wilbury Grange, Hove, Sussex Herbert, the Lord, c.v.o., The Chantry House, Wilton, Salis- bury Hereford, F. F., Dawn Cottage, Aldbourne, Marlborough Hewer, G. T., 15 Norman Road, Swindon Hewitt, A. T. Morley-, The Old Manor House, Fordingbridge, Hants. Hicks Beach, The Lady Victoria A., Fittleton Manor, Netheravon Hickson, Lt.-Col. J. G. E., White Lilac, Market Lavington List of Members Higgins, Commander H. G., The Croft, Winterbourne Dauntsey, Salisbury Hill, H. E., Poulton House, Marl- borough Hill, J. K., 17 Sutherland Avenue, Wahroonga, New South Wales Hoather, H. M., 31 Buckingham Avenue, Whetstone, London N.20 Hodge, A., Jakeways, Breachfield, Devizes Hodge, Dr. B. L., Gloucester House, Malmesbury Holloway, Miss S., The Old Manor, West Lavington, Devizes Holloway, W. G., Box Cottage, Potterne, Devizes Hony, H. C., Sunny Brow, Marl- borough Hony, Miss J. M., Stack House, Woodborough, Marlborough Houghton-Brown, Col. J., Lower Pertwood Farm, Hindon, Salis- bury Howells, E. H. G., Berkeley, Nur- steed Road, Devizes Hudson of Pewsey, the Viscountess, Fyfield Manor, Pewsey Hughes, C. J. Pennethorne, South View Cottage, Keevil, Trow- bridge Hughes, Col. C. W., 35 Kingsbury Street, Marlborough Hughes, Lt.-Col. G.W.G., 31 Court Street, Moretonhampstead, Devon Humby, Miss J., Ethandune, Hil- perton Road, Trowbridge Humphries, K. P., Milton, Cam- bridge Hurd, Mrs. Anthony, Winterbourne Holt, near Newbury, Berks. [L] Hussey, Professor Joan M., Royal Holloway College, Engle- field Green, Surrey. Hussey, Wm., Trinity Villa, Trow- bridge List of Members 213 Hutchinson, J., Greenheys, Seend, Melksham Inchbald, Rev. C. E., 8 Belfrey Avenue, St. George, Bristol 5 Jennings, R. A. U., F:s.a., Littlefield, Marlborough Joliffe, M., Khartoum University, Sudan John, D. W., 3, Stanley Terrace, Pans Lane, Devizes Johnson, Col. T. W. M., The Green Farm, Hallwood Green, Dymock, Gloucestershire Judd, J. S., The Manor House, Winterbourne Dauntsey, Salis- bury izelly, Brig. E..H., D.S-0., .M.c., Dane House, Bratton, Westbury Kemp, R., Newington House, Potterne Road, Devizes Kemp, R. T., Paddocks, Breach- field, Devizes Kempson, E. G. H., Preshute House, Marlborough Kendall, Miss C. V., Far End, Great Bedwyn, Marlborough Kennet, the Lord, Leinster Corner, 100 Bayswater Road, London, W.2 Kerr, J. A., F.R.c.s., Woodford, $7 Wykeham Road, Hastings King, D. Grant, Little Cheverell, Devizes Knocker, Group-Capt. G. M., Brook House, Ashton Keynes Lambert, Mrs. R. E. Upham House, Aldbourne Lamplugh, Rev. B., Littleton Drew Rectory, Chippenham Lansdowne, The Most Noble the Marquess of, Meikleour House, Meikleour, Perthshire Latham, Mrs. J., Hyde Lodge, Marl- borough Latter, Miss P. G., Beechingstoke Manor, Marlborough Laurie, F. G., Darley House, Hul- lavington, Chippenham Lawson, Mrs. V., Knap Cottage, Ramsbury Layng, Rev. T. M., Deenhurst, Church Road, St. Mark’s, Chel- tenham Legge, Miss M. E., Tutton Hill House, Colerne, Chippenham Legge, Miss R. S., Orchard House, Hinton, Swindon Lever, R. E., Read’s Close, Teffont Magna, Salisbury Liddiard, E., Holmwood, 37 Love- lace Road, Long Ditton, Surrey Lister, E. C., Westwood Manor, Bradford-on-Avon Longland, F., South Point, Somer- ford Road, Cirencester, Glouces- tershire Lowinski, Mrs., The Old Rectory, Aldbourne Lucarotti, Lt.-Col. U. R., Oriel Cottage, West Lavington,Devizes Luce, Mrs. M. D., c/o Lloyds Bank Ltd., Devizes Lupton, Mrs. M., Granham East, Marlborough Macintyre, Miss A. S., Mitre Cottage, Dinton, Salisbury Mackay, Mrs. G. M., Courtfield House, Trowbridge Mackay, A. Donald, Slade’s Farm, Hilperton, Trowbridge Mackay, Major E. A., Hilperton House, Trowbridge McErvell, Miss A., Johnings, Shal- bourne, Marlborough McNeile, D. H., Nonsuch, Brom- ham, Chippenaham McWilliam, Mrs. H., Manor House, Hanging Langford ,Salisbury 214 List of Members Maggs, F. H. C., End Farm, Mar- ston, Devizes Mann, Mrs. I., Weathervane House, t Chelsea Studios, Fulham Road, London, S.W.6 Mann, Miss J. de L., The Cottage, Bowerhill, Melksham Manning, W. F., 64 Nore Marsh Road, Wootton Bassett Marriott, S. F., 1a Shipley Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol Marsden-Jones, Mrs. P., Littleton Panell, Devizes Masters, H. A. C., North Farm, Stanton Fitzwarren, Swindon Mather, Miss L. I., Case Hayes, Membury, Axminster, Devon Mather, P. E. G., Barleymead, Baydon, Marlborough Mathews, G. V., Ballards Piece, Marlborough Mathews, Mrs. S. I., Ballards Piece, Marlborough Maurice, Dr. W. B., Lloran House, Marlborough May, D. G., South Royd, Devizes Mayell, A. Y., St. James’ House, 173 Holland Park Avenue, Lon- don, W.11 McGowan, J. O., 217 Carn Hill Road, Gateshead, Co. Durham McNaughton, Mrs. N. F., Little Thatch, Upavon Mead, J. W., 19 Northgate Street, Devizes Mellor, A. Shaw, Box House, Box Mellor, J. F. Shaw, The Old Vic- arage, Marden, Devizes Merores, Miss M., PH.D., 4 Caen Hill Gardens, Devizes Merritt, F. W. C., Tawsmead, Eastleigh Road, Devizes Messiter, L. C., c/o Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, 16 Clare Street, Bris- tol Methuen, Lady, Corsham Court, Corsham Methuen, the Hon. Anthony, Ivy House, Corsham [L] Meyrick, O.,Ridgelands, Rams- bury, Marlborough Meyrick, R., Corchester, Corbridge on-Tyne, Northumberland Miles, Timothy, The Shooting Box, West Winterslow, Salisbury Miller, Mrs. A. R., Forest School, Snaresbrook, London, E.17 Mitchell, Miss E. C., Little Ridge, Alderbury, Salisbury Moody, G. C., 82 Shaftesbury Road Wilton, Salisbury Moore, C. H., 60 Park Lane, Hayes, Middlesex Morris, Miss B., 9 Talbot Road, Trowbridge Morris, E. J., Pond House, Ald- bourne, Marlborough Morrison, Major J. G., M.P., Font- hill House, Tisbury Morten, F. J., Clench House, Wootton Rivers, Marlborough Musty, J. W G., 6 Paul’s Dene Crescent, Salisbury Nash-Peake, Miss D., Leigh House, Chard, Somerset Nest, H. C., Green Meadows, Marl- borough New, R. G., London House, Crick- lade Newall, R. S., £.s.A., Fisherton Delamere House, Wylye Newton, Miss H. M., Kingsfield, Bradford-on-Avon Noel-Baker, F. E., M.P., House of Commons, Westminster North, E. H., Artillery Mansions, 75 Victoria Street, London, S.W.1 Nosworthy, Mrs. M. H., Highfield, Great Cheverell, Devizes Nurse, Mrs. M. E., Little Cheverell, Devizes List of Members 215 Maver, Capt.(S) F. N.L., R.N., c/o Lloyds Bank, 6 Pall Mall, London, S.W.1 Oram, J., M.B.E., Belle Vue, House, Devizes Oram, Mrs., Belle Vue House, Devizes Oram, Miss Daphne, 23 Welbeck Street, London, W.1 O’Regan, Mrs. A., Killycoonagh, Marlborough Owen, C. E., Mount Pleasant, Sig- net Hill, Burford, Oxon. Owen, R. D., 19 Queen Square, Bath [L] Pafford, J. H. P., 62 Somerset Road, London, S.W.19 Palmer, A. E., Brookfield, Twyford, Winchester Parker, H. N., Tau Cross, West Lavington, Devizes Parsons, E. G., Little Wishford, Salisbury Parsons, R., Hunt’s Mill Farm, Wootton Bassett Partridge, Mrs. F., Ham Spray House, near Marlborough Paskin, Sir John, &.C.M.G., M.C., Wylye Cottage, Wishford, Salis- bury Patten, R. N., 72 Shrivenham Road, Swindon Patton, Dr. D. S., The Old Rectory, Coleshill, Highworth _ Peacock, E., 59 Northgate Street, Devizes Peacock, Mrs. E., 59 Northgate Street, Devizes Peirson, L. Guy., 17 Embankment Road, Kingsbridge, Devon Pelham, Dr. R. A., The Court House, West Meon, Petersfield, Hants [L] Pembroke and Montgomery, the Rv. Hon. the Earl of, Wilton House, Sailsbury VOL. LVI—CCIII Penruddocke, Mrs. M. V., Dean Hill Farm, West Dean, Salisbury Perkins, E. H., Applegarth, Og- bourne St. George, Marlborough Peto, Lt.-Col. Sir Michael, Bt., Iford Manor, near Bradford-on- Avon Phillips, A. J., Philsden, Pewsey Phipps, Lady, 15 Lanchester Court, Seymour Street, London, W.2 Phipps, The Lady Sybil, Chalcot, Westbury Piggott, Professor Stuart, F.B.A., F.S.A., Department of Prehistoric Archaeology, The University, Edinburgh Pitt, F. C., The Old Rectory, North Bradley, Trowbridge Piper, J. E. C., Fawley Bottom Farm House, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon. Pole, E. R., Great Bedwyn, Marl- borough Ponting, K. G., 4 Becketts, Tinhead Poole, E. H. L., Martin, Fording- bridge, Hants. Portal, C., 2 Burton Avenue, Manchester, 20 Potter, R., 21 The Close, Salisbury Prest, Major C. A., Mascalls, Broad- chalke, Salisbury Prest, Mrs. C. A., Mascalls, Broad- chalke, Salisbury Prest, J. M., 21 Tower Road, Tadworth, Surrey Prismall, S. E., 17 Broome Manor Lane, Swindon Pugh, C. W., M.B.E. Hadleigh Cottage, Devizes Pugh, R. B., F.s.a., 6 Lawn Road Flats, London, N.W.3 Pyemont Steeds, Mrs. P., Stone House, Pewsey Quinnell, N. V., The Shoe, Old Hollow, Mere O 216 List of Members Randall, B. G., 5 Wyndham Road, Salisbury Rathbone, M. G., Craigleith, Snarl- ton Lane, Melksham Forest Reeves, Miss M. E., The Elms, Bratton, Westbury Rendell, E. A., Wimereux, Wick, Devizes Renton, Dr. H. B., Littlecroft, Devizes Ruch; ovRevik:*.S;, Vicarage, Calne Rickards, E., Siddington House, Siddington, Circencester Rickards, Mrs., Siddington House, Siddington, Cirencester Ridout, A. H., 23 Okus Road, Swindon Roberts, Miss Beatrice C. E., c/o Y.W.C.A., 37 Woodville Road, Woodville, S. Australia Roberts, J. B. Boyd, 40 Monkton Farleigh, Bradford-on-Avon Robertson, A. W., Forest Farm, Easterton, Devizes Robins, W. R., 318 Cricklade Road, Swindon Robinson, AviC2 Street, Swindon Robinson, Comdr. V. J., Henford, ‘Warminster Robinson, Mrs. D. S., Henford, Warminster Rogers, > Bi *Set.~ Seroeants: Mess, R.A.F., Lyneham Rogers, Mrs., L. A. N., Brookwell Farm, Lirttle Hosted, Uckfield, Sussex Rogers, K. H., 24 Drynham Road, Trowbridge Rooke; ” Capt. J; W.,2 The; Ivy: Chippenham Room, A. R. W., Vale Cottage, Littleton Panell, Devizes Ross, H., Leighton Villa, Wellhead Lane, Westbury Hilmarton 16 Crombie Ross, Miss J. M., The Livery, Winterslow, Salisbury Ryde, J. W., Redhurst, 19 Elgood Avenue, Northwood, Middlesex Sabben-Clare, E. E., Ferndale, Barn- field, Marlborough Sabin, C. W., 0.3.z., Tadorne, The Fairway, Devizes Sabin, Mrs. M., Tadorne, The Fairway, Devizes Sainsbury, H. J., The Close, Little- ton Panell, Devizes Salmon, A. J., The Breach, Devizes Sandell, R., Hillside, Potterne Road, Devizes Sandford, E. G., A.R.c.M., c/o Assoc- iated Examining Board, 31 Bre- chin Place, London, S.W.7 Sands, Mrs. M., Mill House, Wood- borough, Pewsey Schomberg, A. C. B., Seend Lodge, Seend, Melksham [L] Scott-Ashe, Major C., Langley House, Langley Burrell, Chippen- ham Scott, Lt-Commander M., 1Io1 Highway, Fish Hoek, C.P., South Africa Scrivener, G. P., Mow Cop, Bay- don, Hill, Aldbourne Seekree, E. L., Silver Birches, All Cannings, Devizes Seth-Smith, Miss D. U., Old Mon- bury Seymour, Sir H., Bratton House, Westbury Shadbolt, Mrs. L., Penn Stowe, Penn, Bucks Sharp, Mrs., Penwethers, Hyde | Lane, Marlborough Shearing, E. A., PH.D., I Cranleigh | Drive, Brooklands, Sale, Man- [ chester Shortt, H. de S., F.s.A., The Museum, i St. Ann Street, Salisbury astery Garden, Edington, West- List of Members 217 Siggers, Dr. C. J., Sandcliff, Devizes Slade, Miss. M. E., M.B.E., 63 Avenue Road, Swindon Slade, W. Goold, Ferfoot, Chippen- ham Smethurst, Rev. Canon A. F., PH.D., Hungerford Chantry, $4 The Close, Salisbury Smith, George, The Old House, Great Bedwyn, Marlborough Smith, J. D., 24a Ashford Road, Swindon Smith-Rogers, J., 7 Stratford Road, Salisbury Speering, M. G., Greenlands, Salis- bury Road, Fordingbridge,Hants. Spillane, Mrs. C., Manor House, Manningford Abbots, Marlbor- ough Stedman, A. R., Greenlands, Lon- don Road, Marlborough Steele, Rev. E. H., The Rectory, Great Wishford, Salisbury Stephenson, Mrs. M. N., Kelmscott House, Upper Mall, London, W.6 Stevenson, W. M., 20 East Yew- stock Crescent, Chippenham Stewart, Miss H., Court Hill House, Potterne, Devizes stone, Wr. J. F...S., -F.s.a.,° The Poplars, Winterbourne Gunner, Salisbury Story, D. P., 0.B.E., 13 Westlecot Road, Swindon Stratton, A. G., Alton Priors, Marl- borough Stringer, P. A. Selborne, D. L., Jackson’s, Langley Burrell, Chip- penham Sturton, T. W., Clyffe Hall Hotel, Market Lavington, Devizes Summersby, D. J., Red Lion Hotel, Henley, Oxon Sykes, Bonar, Conock Manor, Devizes [L] Sykes, Tristram, Diana’s, Stock- ton, Warminster Talbot, Miss M., Lacock Abbey, Chippenham Tanner, Miss J. M., 155 Shrivenham Road, Swindon Tanner, P. W., Wessex, Bath Road, Devizes Payler,’ Dr. H.-C., 13° Westfield Avenue, Barnstaple, Devon Tennant, the Hon. Stephen, Wils- ford Manor, Salisbury Thelwall, Miss G. M. de C,, Kingsbury Hill House, Marl- borough Thomas, A. C., Lowenac, Cam- borne, Cornwall Thomas, Miss J. G., Restharrow, Great Wishford, Salisbury Thomas, P. H., 31 Groundwell Road, Swindon Thomas, W. Sherwill, Castle Cott- age, Gt. Bedwyn Thompson, A. S., The Hawthorns, 107 Bradley Road, Trowbridge Thompson, Miss G. E., Blaxall House, Rowde, Devizes Thompson, Major G. Malcolm, West End, Shipton Moyne, Tet- bury, Gloucestershire Thompson, Mrs. M. C., South- bridge House, Devizes Thomson, Dr. T. R., F.s.a., Crick- lade Tilley, C. -N.,..17-Stokke,< Great Bedwyn, Marlborough Tilley, Mrs. C. V., Springfield, Potterne Road, Devizes Timperley, H. W., Brooklyn, Alder- holt Road, Sandleheath, Fording- bridge, Hants Tompkins, - E. .S.,- 223 Pineapple Road, King’s Heath, Birming- ham 14 Tratman, Professor E. K., Penrose Cottage, Burrington, Bristol 20 218 List of Members [L] Trumper, L. C., Drew’s Pond, Devizes Tucker, J. H., 43 Park Lane, Chip- penham [LE] Turner, “G. Ci,e.Mie; ac., 1 St. Martin’s Square, Chichester, Sussex Turner, Maj.-Gen. C. D. L., C.LE., 0.B.E., Urchfont, Devizes Tweed, Mrs. M., The Ivy, Worton, Devizes Tweedie, Mrs. W. P., The Church House, Potterne [L] Twine, W., 16 Carlton Drive, Baildon, Shipley, Yorks. Twiss, J. C., 9 Oak Lane, Easterton, Devizes WVandy,. D:r” K..) W., Dunkirk, Devizes Vernon, Miss, T. E., Dyer’s Leeze, Lacock, Chippenham Wadsworth, Mrs. Theo., Walden, West Grimstead, Salisbury Waight,E., A. | Church © Farm, Woodborough, Pewsey Wait, Miss M. E. K., The Green, Urchfont, Devizes Wailing, C. G. W., Noah’s Ark, Hawkeridge, Westbury Waley, V. H. D., Beechy Ride, Great Cheverell, Devizes Walker, Rev. J. G., Moxoms, Bradford-on-Avon Walker, Mrs. O. M., Moxoms, Bradford-on-Avon Walrond, R. E., 81-4 Leadenhall Street, London, E.C.3 Walsworth, C., 59 Wimpole Street, London, W.1 Walsworth, Mrs. J., 59 Wimpole Street, London, W.1 Waterfield, Mrs., Cowcroft Farm, Aldbourne Waterlow, Lady M., Parsonage House, Oare, Marlborough Watkins, Mrs. G., Yew Tree Cott- age, Castle Combe, Chippenham Watkins, W. T., 114 Leigh Road, Westbury Watson, Col. M. K., Jessamine Cottage, Coulston, Westbury Watson, Mrs., Jessamine Cottage, Coulston, Westbury Webb, A. W., Miles, 25 Portland Rise, Finsbury Park, London, N.4 Webb, W. J., 83 Argyle Road, London, W.13 Webster, D. A. S., A.R.1B.A., Old Wyatts, Seend, Melksham Weldon, H. de W., The College, Marlborough Wells, Mrs. E.L., Medwyn House, Somerton, Somerset West, D. R. C., The Beacon, Leaze Road, Marlborough White, Capt-C: Fo 1, c/o P) Office; Broadford Bridge, Billinghurst, Sussex Wheelwright, E. H., Pittsmead, Stratford-sub-Castle, Salisbury Whitehorn, A. D., The College, Marlborough Whiteman, Miss E. A. O., Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford Whittaker, W. J., 534 Cricklade Road, Upper Stratton, Swindon Whittet, Mrs. D. F., Hollybrook House, Broughton Gifford, Melk- sham Willan, Brigadier R. H., Bridges, Teffont, Salisbury Williams, Major R. S. A., The Old Rectory, Poulshot, Devizes Williams, Mrs., The Old Rectory, | Poulshot, Devizes Willmot, J. S., Kitchener Hall, R.M.C:S., Shrivenham, Berks. Wilson, | Col. F.- W. F., D.s.0.48m Purton House, Purton Wilson, Miss M., Greenacre, Rams- List of Members 219 Wylie, H., The. College, Marl- bury, Marlborough | borough Wiltshire, A. W., 8 Avon View, | Bath Road, Devizes | Yeates, Mrs. C. G., St. Andrews, Woodward, C. F. R., Exchange Place, Devizes Woolley, Sir Leonard, PD.Litt., LL.D., F.S.A., Sedgehill Manor, Shaftesbury, Dorset Warminster Yeatman-Biggs, Mrs. M. B., Long Hall, Stockton, Codford St. Mary Yeatman-Biggs, Miss B. M., Myr- field, St. Nicholas’ Road, Salis- Woolnough, Major G. F., Roman | b Way Camp, Colchester, Essex Worrall, Miss K. M., 234 Market Place, Devizes Worthington, E. S., Vale Lodge, ury Yonge, Commander W. H. N., Woodborough House, Worton, Devizes Young,Dr. G; M.,..c.B., The ‘Old Colnbrook, Bucks. Oxyard, Oare, Marlborough Wright, R. P., Fs.a., 5 Victoria Young, The Lady M., The Grove, Terrace, Durham City Lydiard Millicent, Swindon Wright of Durley, the Lord, Durley Young, W. E. V., The Museum, House, Savernake, Marlborough | Avebury, Marlborough INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS : Aberystwyth: Bath: Birmingham: Bristol: Cardiff: Chessington: Chippenham: Corsham: Devizes: Lavington, West: Leicester: Liverpool: London: Manchester: Marlborough: Reading: Salisbury : Swindon: Trowbridge: UNITED KINGDOM National Library of Wales. Corporation Library. Public Libraries; University Library. City Library; University Library. National Museum of Wales. Ordnance Survey. Grammar School. Bath Academy of Art. Wiltshire Gazette; Wailtshire News. Dauntsey’s School. University College. University Library. British Museum (Bloomsbury), Department of Anti- quities; British Museum (Natural History); Guildhall Library; Institute of Archaeology, University of London; Institute of Historical Research, University of London; London Library; Public Record Office; University of London Library; Victoria and Albert Museum. John Ryland’s Library. College Library; College Natural History Society. Public Library. Cathedral Library; Clerical Library, Church House; Public Library; Salisbury, South Wilts and Blackmore Museum. British Railways Mechanics’ Institute; Public Library. County Library, Headquarters and 17 Branches; Wiltshire Record Office, County Hall; Wiltshire Times. 220 INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS : OVERSEAS Germany Gottingen; Universitaetsbibliothek. United States of America Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Library. Baltimore, Md.: Peabody Institute. Boston, Mass. : New England Historic Genealogical Society; Public Library. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Library. Chicago, Ill.: General Library: Newberry Library. Cleveland, Ohio: Public Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Library. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State College Library. New York, N.Y.: Public Library. Salt Lake City, Utah: | Genealogical Society of Utah. San Marino, Cal.: Henry E. Huntington Library. © Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. EXCHANGES Berkshire Archacological Society, Central Public Library, Reading. Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, City Library, Brunswick Road, Gloucester. : British Naturalists’ Society (Hon. Librarian), City Museum, Bristol 8. Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Cambridge Antiquarian Society (Librarian), University Library, Cambridge. Cotteswold Naturalists’ Field Club (Hon. Librarian), Public Library, Gloucester Dorset Nat. Hist. and Antiquarian Field Club, County Museum, Dorchester. East Herts Archaeological Society, The Museum, Bell Place, Hertford. East Riding Antiquarian Society (Hon. Sec.), Municipal Museum, Hull. Essex Archaeological Society (Secretary), Castle Museum, Colchester. Essex Field Club (Secretary,) Passmore Edwards Museum, Romford Road, Stratford, Essex. The Geologists’ Association, Geological Survey and Museum, South Kensing- ton London, S.W.7. Kent Archaeological Society (Hon. Sec.), The Museum, Maidstone. Kungl Universitetsbiblioteket (Chief Librarian), Uppsala, Sweden. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Librarian). Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, Central Library, Manchester 2. Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 63 Merrion Square, Dublin. Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-on-Tyne (Librarian), Blackgate, New- castle-on-Tyne. Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Secretary), Queen Street, Edinburgh. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (Librarian), 50, Bedford Square, London, W.C.1. Exchanges 221 Somerset Archaeological Society (Secretary), The Museum, Taunton. Surrey Archaeological Society (Librarian), Castle Arch, Guildford. Sussex Archaeological Society, Barbican House, Lewes, Sussex. Societé Suisse de Préhistoire, Haus Ratia, Speicherstr. 39, Frauenfeld, Switzer- land Ulster Journal of Archaeology, Librarian, Queen’s University, Belfast. Universitetsbiblioteket (Librarian), Lund, Sweden. Yorkshire Archaeological Society (Librarian), 10 Park Place, Leeds. Daya “AOUIPNPY *UORT Tio) OLLzz 7. (fas e/ eae are Pe ECODStS ek) se bt 9 -4 ~6fLor € € SOSP [oS eS eae? If II II OI cI ‘NMOUd ‘AAA (eli eve got tog opaad "9S61 ‘yaS -adag ‘UDAIS SUOTILULTxXd PUL SIAYONOA ‘sYOO 9Y} YIM VUEPIOIIE UT 4991109 puNoj pur poypny puey urysea x qunossy eytded = qunossy yuoIIND— py] yueg spAoyy (drystoquroyy 2x17) yueg SSUTARS STA\ pue JasIoUIOS QQUNODDY dArasyYy Surpping) YURG SSUIALS SITA\ PUL JOSIDUIOS juno2p jisodaq uo ysvpy (ShogrF $S$-zI-1£ 3v onyea J4IeP) o ¥F 602 suOTINGIIISsIC] [i 7 (ontreté SITES SSaT ‘pEss” 7: “2 a a "* - yea Sutinp suonippy i ** PSOI ‘Iaquissaq] ISLE 3¥ se AJOID0G dy 03 pereuop eyes Ste A JOLIN JO JSOD 3e SJUaMsjsaauT a €S61 ‘Joquisdaq] ISIE J se saztaoq ‘390I9g BuoT 1F/or Aysadosg pjoyaasz SLASSY “SSOI AAWAOAC SIE LV SV LAHHS JONVIVA Aya190G AIO}SIPY [BINJeNY pue [eorsoloavyory sITYSII AY Il 9 6LL¢77 OFS Bsce Sait (Hog ‘p *s Ge Sey Ole € or So€ O ‘p II 96077 2S vy “JI4NSDALT, “UOET “LLITWUAW ‘DO (AA A ee e- ee oe ee ES/b/S ar ‘caTepD yseq oy3 03 dn queuaaod jo spoaq uo quowkeday -$$/¢/$ 03 dn papnyour st quousaAuyT UO JUOWIARdoI XV] tUODU;—: ajony SS6I ‘I9quIsd9q] ISI f papua reah aH 103 Sma puede IOAO SUIODU] JO ssaoXq ppy x : €S61 ‘Iaquradacq ISIE Ae al suaInAL os xey, owioouy ‘as quownsnipy = Be PS6I ‘Iaquisdaq ISIE ye DuLTeEg juno2pP jvjidvy vs SJuno Py ate pil AVE spAoy] Pra : ¥ sIoyperyg Arpuns SHILITIGVIT 223 eroowuddonmno tow do Laan eh ea Gs at YC" ee me ay + Surues[D pure sireday “st ay s}d1ad0Qy UMOG] [IeuS ; . a WOIg ssunosspy vs 019996 AIO§STFY [eANIeNY papunyert sie suoydayay, ae oe oe : suoljeuod 2 che SUETD OURO] AyUNOZ) SITAK f a : "* uIMasnyy soul ETg : iS Eso pu souIzesey JO aes ae : "+ saaq Areiqry = ulnosnyj ©} suOIssTUIpy $$/PS61 syuouTsaauy yUsUTARdaY xv], BUOIUT a qunossy dryssoqursyy or] cee ae JUNODIY SAIOsSIyY SUIPINgG —so19}U] YURG SSUTALS SII AA pue JosIOUIOS SHUITUISPAU] WOT S9I9IU] PUL SPUSPIAT oe SS61 pue PS61 ssojsueIy, a oe "+ (z) soag drystaquiayy ojrT : oe "* suoneuog sioquisyy suondrissqns 66 6eé 66 6é 66 66 sooj sourquq Ag ne ome 0 +0 NOUN SQ Or OV Ost. O-0 00 008M ie ont bo bad CO”O”Ome rH NH NO TO M™M AO > ion gI 61 fe) 9 s Iv 97 9 OI Q7 61 € (Ao) Sz ve gl 8 Ift S61 196 1S ZT ee asnjipuadxy 4ado ausoouy Jo ssaaxzy ** sodieys yueg a WINTILIOUOFY JoIMseo1 JT, sosusdxy a3eiey IoWIND jurIsssy SS syusuAtg UMOC] [Ieus = = $99,J $ J9ITIIV Ajrodoig jo soueuazureyy eS "+ -999 ‘syoog ‘Areiqry os S "+ saqeyy Joqe yy, "+ suondrosqns "099 sooJ syURJUNODIYy SIDIIYO JO sasusdxy Surpoarsy, ee quourdmby Arojye10qr TT =f ss: + gouPINsU] dI1] ae ** sguoydeyay, he "+ sdureys pur sade3sog pas ge "+ JoqtamodA J, a Sunutrg pue A1su017e3¢ ce es qYySTT pur jong sJUDTUIDAOIdUI] pur SUOTILAOUD YT DoULINSU] [RUOTIENY PUL sade AY ‘sarees "* ZOT ON oUIzeSePY JO SOD OF, ‘S$S6OI QUAGWAOAC IE GCHAAGNT UVAA AHL WOA LNNOOOV AUN.LIGNAdXA ANV AWOONI A39190g AIO}SIFY [PANILAY PUL [VITSOTOORYIIY SITYSIT AY 6é ‘aon weit Dad < gerne oma, “ ee Se ee ee a a A RE aneney tern gars: $ 6 SgIt07F 1 So1oe ee soko 9 £ 6£Lo1 a ** — pIVMIOJ patsiied soueyeg Il I 9gzve be £1 9 oe a. o. . Arpunsg EV JOT £226. sIkT (-¥% "+ sgsuodxy ssoy—o$1 ‘ {aeep10 TF “pry swapA Ystpsuq 6 11 O$z sasuodxq ssoy— Axemrp1O ‘p-/S ob “pyy IOAOOFT LS Sot "+ sgsuodxq ssoT —osr¥ yooig ainjuaqgoqd %+Ft "OF UONeSIARN] WIeIIS ‘CO * ‘d L 6 VL sosuodxy ssoy[—soivys OOr 1% puz souar1ajo1g ARE[UUNS) ZV Pa ‘OD SJ CAN SE Ivjg opoeq & gr S6E 2 "> | sasuod -xq ssoy —Yoo0Ig onjueqaq aseSOW 3sI YEE OOS F “pry Ve sotedorg uopiey) JUIAOD + Of 198. ZLI2 = Poy GeNraye “ -XY sso[—oouslajoi1g puz %V of ‘py] “Issy 29 uosuyof usyoutg re 4. 660 "+ sgsuadxyq ssoy— 1° DUdIIJeIg IANeNUIND, PUuodIS y £19 "+ qunosoy oinjipuodxy pur swiosuy %$ OSI SPIQIEHISN 225 uoa at qsanx) OO: SLY soieys “sOIg UsAtID UO pred uoONndO v.60 Lre sasuodxgq I Fv O6SE ssoy—soivrys Areurpio ‘p-/z oor Oy OI ESi. 2: ae - sosuodxq snjq SIL] STA, U0WOD poyeuresyjeury te be SPV oy oc. ¢ Li thr sasuadxgq ssay—soreys AreuIpIg, 0 6 999 sasuadxq snjqg—Aie 17 OOl ‘pry Apu AY WITTY “p19 *p-/S “py suos 29 uojIeg CCCI “ 9 Oo 6£1 sasusdxq ssoT—so1ieys 6 £ 109 sosuadxg snjq— AreulpiO AreutprO "p-/S ogz suog 29 ]]eYsIepy ‘p-/$ ‘solg 29 3ysg uyo{ oos 6 9 giz "+ gouslojorg sAe~NuIND L €1 667 sasuodxg sn[q—Areurpig %F9 O07 STAY uoW0D doyung os ‘pry “Suq ospriqdssyg $Lg “ ¥ OL g6z ** sasuadxdssaI—pg ‘sz ggt 7% 901 VLSe sasusdxyq snjg— AreurpiO posjuriens %€ yzodsuvay, ysnug p-/ot ‘pry ‘0-_ ourjdorsy joystig 009 * OL52 = VOS— * o$9F y01g Surpun.y “YP E:€r OSE sosecoe sn[q—AreuIpig po1ajoq —SJUSUTISOAU] JO a[eg “* P/s 09 uoTRIT, WIa{q Ys OSE “ o bv 607 9 + O6fF ; sasuodxgq snjq—soreys 0 oO ozr ** § (ajeidury srsutyy 19ddoD) yurg hesuipio 1F siopunojyuol paypy coz “ OF tye 6g et se eE. uo yuTouTed 29 preg —Jopun sesoseysing “* “"ysI£ ‘99q —yueqg Ag ‘3ysIf‘00q | O ZI £6£91 za "+ premio yysnorg souryeg OF, "ast ‘uel Bosse peepee ns $S61 ‘pose 7 oy Re $S61 225 11 Li ole F 11 Li oLEF OL 6 8 2° ee ee ee oo ce 3sd19}U] 66 "YyI0T “AONT Il 6 got. +* =e 2 "* pIPAAIO, porssesy sourreg “ Oo O oF 28 a8 ms "* (OAs}) SIOQUIDY MON OFTT “ 0 g 89 ae ee a ie ; yueg op sojsuerpy Aq ‘ysIf-oaq | I g gzé °° ee a °° premioj 3ysno1g sourreg oy, ‘ysI ‘uel ps: of SS6I ‘Des SS61 (ANN dIHSudaWaW AdIT) ANVA SONIAVS SLT GNVY LaSUuaWos S$ 11 bog? S$ 11 bog ¢ L 61 ee oe ee ee eo ee S919} U] 66 SS 1h Vog. = * 5 oh sis premio patie soureg Aq “ysx£ ‘aq Oo or ZI =f ae 2 a Jso1ajUuy spuog s.uajogq ‘* = “4ysI£ *09q Dia pau SS61 C2Vi Lobe = a °° premio WysnoIg sourregoy, "3sI ‘uel (ZA UdSa a LNNOOOV ONICTING) ANV SONIAVS SLIIA\ CNV LaSuaiWos Records Branch publications continued— SURVEYS OF THE MANORS OF PHILIP EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERY, 1631—2. Edited by Eric Kerridge, Ph.D. 1953. Pp. xiv + 178. TWO SIXTEENTH CENTURY TAXATION LISTS, 1545 and 1576. Edited by G. D. Ramsay. 1945. Pp. xxiv + 242. Publications to be obtained from the Librarian, The Museum, Devizes CATALOGUE OF ANTIQUITIES IN THE SOCIETY’S MUSEUM. Part II, illustrated, 2nd Edition, 1934. Price 4s. A BIBLIOGRAPHY oF THE GREAT STONE MONUMENTS of WILTSHIRE: STONEHENGE anp AVEBURY, with other references, by W. J. Harrison, FG.S., pp. 169, 4 illustrations. No. 89 (1901) of W.A.M. Describes 947 books, papers, &c., by 732 authors. Price 5s. 6d. A CALENDAR OF THE FEET OF FINES FOR WILTSHIRE, 1195 TO 1272, BY E. A. FRY. 8vo., pp. 103. Price 6s. WILTSHIRE INQUISITIONES POST MORTEM: HENRY III, EDWARD ITand EDWARD II. _ 8vo. pp. xv + 505. Fully indexed. In parts. Price 13s., complete. DITTO. EDWARD III. 8vo., pp. 402. Fully indexed. In parts. Price 13s., compiete. THE CHURCH BELLS OF WILTSHIRE, THEIR INSCRIPTIONS AND HISTORY, by H. B. WALTERS, F.S.A. (In3 Parts.) Price 16s. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF WILT- SHIRE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PAGAN SAXONS, by M. E. Cunnington, C.B.E. Fourth Edition, 1949, 6s. 6d. (by arrangement with the Publishers, C. H. Woodward, Devizes). THE WILTSHIRE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HIS- TORY SOCIETY, 1853—1958. A Centenary History. Illustrated 3s. 6d. BACK NUMBERS oF THE MAGAZINE. Price from 2s. 6d. to 10s. 6d according to date and condition (except in the case of a few numbers the price of which is raised). To Members, 25 per cent. less. Oo ohe late Capt. B. H. and Mrs, CUNNINGTON gave all remaining copies _ of the following to the Society for sale :— ALL CANNINGS CROSS (1923), By MRS. CUNNINGTON, Hon. io, scot. 4to. cloth, 63 Plates. 21s. WOODHENGE (Excavations, 1927—28), By MRS. CUNNINGTON fon. E.SVA., Scot. 4to. cloth, 21s. RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF WILTS, EXTRACTS FROM tae OUARTER SESSIONS GREAT ROLLS OF THE. 171 CENTURY By CAPT. B. H. CUNNINGTON, £.5.A., Scot. Cloth. 12/6 DEVIZES _BOROUGH ANNALS. EXTRACTS FROM THE POREORATION, RECORDS -By CAPT. B H. CUNNINGTON fi, scot. Cloth, (Vol d is out of print) Vo.._I1, 1792 to 1835. 15s, The Society’s Museum and Library, Long Street, Devizes All members of the Society are asked to give an annual subscription towards the upkeep of these collections. The Museum contains many objects of especial interest, and the Library is the only one in Wiltshire devoted to material for the history of the county. Subscriptions should be sent to Mr. F. W. C. MERRITT, Tawsmead, Eastleigh Road, Devizes. Old printed material and photographs of Wiltshire buildings or other objects of interest will be welcomed by the © Librarian at the Museum. The repository for old deeds, maps, plans, etc., is now the County Archives collection at the County Hall, Trowbridge. Natural History Section The object of this Section is to promote the study of all branches of Natural History in the county by encouraging field observations, maintaining records, arranging field and other meetings and by putting observers in touch with each other. Members and others who wish for particulars of the Section and its activities should write to the Honorary Treasurer of . the Section :— Mr. G. W. COLLETT, 174, Sheldon Road, Chippenham. Membership of the Section does not entail any further subscrip- tion from those who are already members of the Society. Observations should be sent to the Recorders: BIRDS. Mrs. Egbert Barnes, Hungerdown, Seagry, Chip- penham, Wilts. FLOWERS. Mr. J. D. Grose, Downs Edge, Liddington, near Swindon. LEPIDOPTERA. Mr. B. W. Weddell, 13, The Halve, Trowbridge. REPTILES AND AMPHIBIA. Mr. C. E. Owen, Newtown, Lockeridge, Marlborough. Back numbers of the Report of the Secuont can be obtained from Mrs. Egbert Barnes. Prices: Report for 1946, 1/6; 1947, 2/6; 1948, 2/6; 1949, 2/6; 1950, 2/6; 1951, 2/6. Post free. -BOOKBINDING. Books carefully bound to pattern, Wilts Archaeological Magazine bound to match previous volumes, or in special green cases. C. H. WOODWARD, Printer and Publisher, Exchange Buildings, Station Road, DEVIZES Woodward, Printer, Devizes Mes CCIV & CCV JUNE & DECEMBER, 1956 Vol. LVI The Wiltshire é Archaeological and Natural History Magazine PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY FORMED IN THAT COUNTY IN THE YEAR 1853 HON. EDITOR HON. ASSISTANT EDITORS : E. E. SABBEN-CLARE OWEN MEYRICK THE COLLEGE, MARLBOROUGH RIDGELANDS, RAMSBURY J. M. PREST BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD 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. WOODWARD Price 10s. 6d. Members gratis The Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society The annual subscription is £1 with an entrance fee of 10s. A payment of £20 secures life-membership of the Society. Members who have not paid their subscriptions to the Society for the current year are requested to send them at once to the Hon. Treasurer Mr. F. W. C. MERRITT, Tawsmead, Eastleigh Road, 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 subscrip- tions. An Index for the preceding eight volumes of the Magazine will be found at the end of vols. viii., xvi., xxiv., and xxxil. The subsequent volumes are each indexed separately. Articles and other communications intended for the Magazine, and correspondence relating to them, should be addressed to the Editor, The College, Marlborough. The Records Branch Founded in 1937 for the publication of original documents re- lating to the history of the county. The subscriptionis £1 yearly. New members are urgently needed. Hon. Secretary, Mr. M.G. Rathbone, Craigleith, Snarlton Lane, Melksham Forest, Wilts. The Branch has issued the following :— ABSTRACTS OF FEET OF FINES RELATING TO WILT- SHIRE FOR THE REIGNS OF EDWARD I AND EDWARD II. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1939. Pp xix + 190. ACCOUNTS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY GARRISONS OF GREAT CHALFIELD AND MALMESBURY, 1645—1646. Ed- ited by J. H. P..Paftord. 1940./Pp..112;. -(Out of Beme)- CALENDAR OF ANTROBUS DEEDS. BEFORE § 1625. Edited by R. B. Pugh. 1947. Pplv + 165. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN SESSIONS, 1563, 1574— 1592. Edited by H.C. Johnson. 1949. Pp xxviii + 246. LIST OF WILTSHIRE BOROUGH RECORDS EARLIER IN DATE THAN 1886. Edited by Maurice G. Rathbone. 1951. Pp. xiii + 108. THE TROWBRIDGE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY as illustrated by the stock books of John and Thomas Clark, 1804-1824. Edited by R. P. Beckinsale, D Phil. 1950. Pp. xxxvi 4+ 249. CALNE GUILD STEWARDS BOOK, 1561—1688. Edited by A..W. Mabbs, 1953. Pp. xxxiii + 150, ANDREWS’ AND DURY’S MAP OF WILTSHIRE, 1773. A reduced facsimile. Introduction by Elizabeth Crittall. 1952. Pp. iv + 19 plates. The Wiltshire ~.,, . Archaeological and Natural History Magazine No. CCIV& CCV JUNE & DECEMBER, 1956 Vol. LVI CONTENTS PAGE eR IN OUESS co oo eo ct acdsee sb Sin ins ten So eSs,0 kw o e508 227 MranENEH Vy OODBURN PUGH® 225 2.nc <5 ) — ~~ a) —— eae! TAD ee ee CEO Fig. 3 By J. W. G. Musty and J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. 257 available to trench the area, but the closeness of the urns to the surface makes it unlikely that any others were missed. All the urns were standing in an upright position approximately roft. apart and 15ft. outside the barrow ditch to the south-west of it; and the noles containing them were cut only just into the chalk—the largest urn (Urn 2) occupied a hole only gin. into the chalk. Like Urn 4B, the urns are typical Deverel-Rimbury barrel forms and con- temporary with it. The contents of the urns were removed from the site, and subsequent- ly sifted, but no associated objects were discovered. The Urns. All the urns with the exception of Urn 4a were of similar fabric: brown to black, poorly fired, friable gritty ware. Urn 4a was of a much harder and better fired ware, salmon pink in colour. Urns 1—3 were from the urnfield; 44 and 4B from the centre of the barrow. Urn 1 (fig. 2). Standing upright in a hole 15in. in diameter and Isin. deep (3in. into the chalk). Only the lower 6in. of the urn was found intact, and no rim sherds were recovered. A barrel urn with a slightly raised shoulder ornamented with finger- nail impressions and nine vertical ridges running from it down the urn; these ridges carry a slight finger-print ornament. Urn 2. (fig. 3). Standing upright in a hole 2$ft. in diameter and 18in. deep (gin. into the chalk). A large barrel urn. No ornament on body but finger-nail impres- sions running round the rim. Urn 3. (fig. 4). Standing upright in a hole 1sin. in diameter and rsin. deep (3in. into the chalk). Barrel urn. Body of urn undecorated, light finger-print ornament running round the rim. Urn 4a (fig. 5). Only six sherds were recovered. The reconstruction suggests an urn of unusual form, and not easy to parallel. Just below the rim is a double row of finger-nail ornament separated by a raised moulding, and this is repeated further down the body. Lower down still is another raised moulding, but this is unornamented. Urn 4B (fig. 6). Barrel urn. Closely resembles Pokesdown, Hants, P. 9, but with the addition of finger-print impressions to the horizontal moulding and vertical ribs. Conclusions. As we have alreaay noted, the examination of the distribution of Deverel-Rimbury urns and urnfields in Wiltshire needs to be appro- An Early Bronze Age Barrow and Late Bronze Age Urnfield 258 ‘xoldde pi¢/T TM meee ew ew ew ow ew ‘xordde y3¢/t ¢ Brg Yeah if Wy LU 6 pe ee YS 6 SGL4ELAG Ee Bigs UG ae By J. W.G. Musty and J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. 259 ached with caution in view of the possibility that many multiple burials may yet remain undiscovered or may have been lost through culti- vation. Salisbury Plain notoriously lacks examples of Late Bronze Age urnfields comparable with those of Dorset and Hampshire. A mere glance at Mrs. Piggott’s illuminating distribution map! of urnfields containing more than 10 burials emphasizes in a striking manner the apparently complete absence of such communal burials north of Salis- bury; and from such a map we are left in doubt whether any form of northwards penetration of the Deverel-Rimbury culture took place in this region. The only multiple burials known, strangely omitted by Mrs. Piggott, are those somewhat inadequately recorded by the Rev. W. C. Lukis from barrows at Collingbourne Ducis. 2 However, we now recognize other contemporary aspects of the cul- ture; the introduction of Late Bronze Age enclosures and cattle kraals, uncompromisingly associated with the Deverel-Rimbury people in Wiltshire, seemingly took place along the chalk downs from Sussex. 3 Their apparent absence in Dorset has up to the present left us in doubt whether these new methods of agriculture and animal husbandry were in fact primarily introduced with the new culture from the coastal regions of disembarkation. In fact, until recently, it was thought that the intermingling of the enclosure complex and the Deverel-Rimbury people only took place when they merged on Cranborne Chase, Salis- bury Plain and the Marlborough Downs. But there is reason to be- lieve that such enclosures may exist in Dorset and it remains only for examples to be identified and published. The possible discovery of enclosures in Dorset does not, however, in any way affect the apparent absence of urnfields north of Salisbury. Little scientific excavation of barrows on Salisbury Plain has yet been attempted; the mere removal of the primary interment as carried out by earlier excavators would leave multiple secondary interments or urnfields on the edge or periphery of barrows untouched and undis- covered. Other explanations for their absence need to be sought. Both Pro- fessor Hawkes and Mrs. Piggott5S have studied the distribution of globular, barrel and bucket urns and it is clear from their distribution 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc. VIII, (1942), 59. 2 W.A.M., X (1867), 85. 3 Mrs. Piggott, Proc. Prehist. Soc. XVI, (1950), 194. 4 Antiquaries J., XIU, (1933), 414. 5 Proc. Prehist. Soc. IV, (1938), 186—7. VOL. LVI—CCIV & CCV R 260 An Early Bronze Age Barrow and Late Bronze Age Urnfield S75. wp, © — ane rth TF prs Tey eae Sy WETS GR MLE CY PIE Sige aie atin % « ;; a, ”, Thais i; wy . co DEAR Fig. 6 1/S5th approx. maps that single interments rather than multiple urnfields appear to be the rule north of Salisbury. This surely must imply some cultural barrier that prevented the immediate spread of the settlers northwards. The native Middle Bronze Age population with their tradition of sin- gle burial may have slowly absorbed the new pottery forms and agri- cultural techniques, or conversely, the Deverel-Rimbury settlers may have slowly adopted the native methods of burial in a region seemingly well populated but culturally backward after the collapse or slow de- cline of the brilliant Wessex Culture. In any event it is clear that some cultural intermingling did take place and the present small Heale Hill urnfield in a sense demonstrates the coalescence of the two traditions. Mrs. Piggott has already noted the grouping of urns round a possibly contemporary but native urn! and in the typical Deverel-Rimbury settlement on Thorny Down sherds 1 Proc. Prehist. Soc. IV, (1938), 179. By J. W. G. Musty and J. F. S. Stone, F.S.A. 261 of cord impressed collared urns were found associated with the Late Bronze Age pottery proving co-existence of the two peoples}. The distribution pattern of the single Deverel-Rimbury interments suggests that penetration into the areas of the Plain lay through the Salisbury basin, which appears to have acted as a bridgehead between the primary areas of settlement in Hampshire and Dorset and those north of it. But their relationship to the enclosures and cattle kraals still remains obscure. Acknowledgements. The authors are indebted to the late Brigadier Rasch for permission to undertake this excavation, and to his tenant Mr. R. Edwards for his willing co-operation. The excavation would not have been possible without the assistance of the following members of the Salisbury Field Club: Messrs. J. R. Hunter, D. A. L. Davies, D. M. Morgan and the Rev. E. H. Steele. We have also to thank Miss F. de M. Morgan for drawing the urns. The urns and the cremated remains from them have been deposited in the Salisbury, South Wilts and Blackmore Museum. 1 J. F. S. Stone, Proc. Prehist. Soc. VII, (1941), 128. 2R 262 NOTE ON AN IRON AGE HABITATION SITE NEAR BATTLESBURY CAMP, WARMINSTER By S. E. Coapwick and M. W. THompson The Iron Age Camp at Battlesbury encircles a hill which slopes steeply on all sides except the north. Here, a col connects it with the main ridge of the chalk downs, and on this side the camp is protected by an extra ditch and bank. The whole area north of the camp is War Department property. Road making operations along the crest of this col, on its eastern side, uncovered a series of dark circular patches in the chalk. The brief investigations the authors made on the site in October 1956 form the subject of this note. We are indebted to the Garrison Engineer Major G. E. Read, for providing every facility to the Ministry of Works on whose behalf the authors undertook this work. Graders had stripped an area about 50 feet wide and several hundred yards long. It extended to 150 feet from the outer edge of the coun- terscarp bank, to the point marked Y on the plan (N.G. 31/459897, 200 yards from the western and 430 yards from the eastern entry to the camp) along a true bearing of about 15°. Disturbances in the subsoil were very numerous for the first 200 feet (XY on the plan) and smaller groups occurred at intervals over the next 300 yards. The chalk, however, was not everywhere exposed in this strip and it is likely that the plan, even for the small area XY, is not complete. A test with the grader revealed further dark patches west of the main group, as shown on the plan, and there can be little doubt that they extend over a much wider area than has actually been uncovered. Clearly these are the traces of a substantial settlement whose importance can hardly be exaggerated in view of its proximity to the camp. The disturbances in the chalk were roughly circular in shape and filled with greasy black soil containing animal bones and pottery. They varied in size from those between 3ft. and §ft. in diameter and those .5 to 2ft. in diameter, (as shown on the plan.) As no complete excav- ation was possible at the time a typical specimen of each was dug. The smaller proved to be a post-hole, the larger a pit about 2 feet deep of a familiar type with concave sides (fig. 1, 4). The arrangement of the post-holes does not suggest they belonged to a building, although some are aligned in pairs. Huts may lie outside the bulldozed area. _ A fair quantity of pottery was picked up on the site before the auth- Note on an Iron Age Habitation Site Near Battlesbury Camp 263 ors arrived; other sherds were found in both pit and post-hole. The pieces that could be illustrated are shown in Figure 1: No. 1. (from the excavated pit). The major part of an irregular but E Fig 1. well made pot 6in. in diameter, by sin. high; a degenerate ‘saucepan’ pot type, of medium grained brown-black ware with a slight burnish. No. 2. Sherd of light brown ware with slight burnish. Medium grained paste with shell grit; rim angular and slightly hammer shaped. No. 3. Sherd of coarse sandy coloured ware with shell grit; rough bead rim slightly flattened; traces of grass impressions on the inside. The other sherds comprised: (from the post-hole) Two small sherds of fine red haematite ware, one froma furrowed bowl: (from the pit) sherds of coarse pottery ranging in colour from sandy brown to red and dark brown, mostly with shell grit: sherds of thick coarse pot with pale orange slip, grass marked. Sherds of finer ware, well fired and wheel turned, ranging in colour from pale orange to dark brown: sherd of fine grey paste with smooth red coating. 264 Note on an Iron Age Habitation Site Near Battlesbury Camp The haematite ware is of Iron Age Ai date; the rest of the pottery seems to be of A/B type. The site awaits complete excavation, but meanwhile we hope that our note will show that it has a wide range in area and date, and is clearly related to the camp and neighbouring lynchets. ° -? e 8 i a8 8 e ‘ 4 : iv i : i e ’ é is &% ‘ at /. hs » UU z eee Q é a § ° ie EE WO, n 200. ° e POST-HOLE O pit @ ® EXCAVATED 4 ce) Ole Right. Plan of Iron Age Site of Battlesbury. “Leit: Detail of X-Y Camp shown on plan. 2 265 THE BOUNDS OF ELLANDUNE c. A.D. 956 By T. R. THOMSON, F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S. The bounds of Ellandune in the middle of the roth century are contained in the grant of King Eadwig to the thegn Aelfheah. The charter recording this grant is printedin Kemble (1184) and Birch (948). The land is within the present parish of Wroughton. An attempt by Grundy to describe the bounds in detail was published in Arch- aeological Journal LXXV (1918) and LX XVII (1920). Grundy’s was pioneer work; but it must be put on record that his ignorance of the principles to be followed in this type of topographical work was so pro- found that he was led into the wildest errors. It is not my intention minutely to criticise Grundy’s work but to point out only his more egregious blunders. Those interested in the subsequent history of the ownership of this and of neighbouring properties are referred to the indexes of W.A.M. and Wilts N. and Q. There were six Domesday manors within the bounds of what is now the parish of Wroughton although the northern boundary has changed a little. The parish was known as Ellandun until fairly recent times. The six manors were Salthorpe, Elcumbe, Ellandun, Wervetone (Nether Wroughton), Wertone (Over Wroughton, Overtown) and Westlecott.1 Their relationship is shown on the 24$in. map of the ‘Saxon and Domesday manors of N.E. Wilts’ in the Society’s pos- session. The fourth and fifth constituted one property at a very early date and were divided into a northern and southern portion. Taking these two as one [the fifth], we may say that the second, third and fafth properties ran southwards up to the high downs near Barbury but in- cluded only a scrap of high down land. The sixth manor was on the north, and had for its share of high ground part of the Swin- don ridge. The land is all good and an approximate acreage per hide of about 75 is not unreasonable. 2 Of these six properties five maintained their integrity until fairly recent times. The Domesday manor described as ‘in Wervetone ’ (Nether Wroughton) was granted at the Dissolution to the Bishop of 1 V.C.H. Wilts II, nos. 264, 160, 33, 474, 263, and 400. The hidage was 10, 27, 30, 10,and 5. The total acreage was about 7,000, giving an average hide of just over 75 acres. 2 Grundy calls Wroughton a more or less upland parish, and cannot accept a low acreage per hide. There is little or no high downland here, and 80% could be arable. 266 The Bounds of Ellandune c. A.D. 956 Winchester who already held Ellandun. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the boundary between these two contiguous manors should appear on modern maps. The 1795 Enclosure Award presents them as a single tithing. 1 As I have shown elsewhere (W.A.M. LV, 333 et seq. and © Bradon Forest’ 1953), where boundaries manorial, parish, or hundredal have been set out with heavy balks, where use has been made of obvious natural features, and where agricultural conditions, drainage, shelter, etc. have remained unchanged, there is a very strong tendency for such boundaries to be perpetuated. The text (Birch) of the bounds given in the charter runs thus :— AErest of tham aethenan byrgelsae 7 lang wegaes to caerscumbe. thonon on maedena coua. of maedena coua on thone hric weg to ealhaeraes byrgelse. thonon 7 lang thaere dic. to hafuc thornae. of tham thornae on thone bradan stan. thonon on claefer maere. of tham maere. on haelnes thorn. of tham thorne on thone broc. thonon to tham aellen stubbe. of tham stybbae on thaere ciricean heoh wah. thonon on hrud wylle. of hrud wyllae to hrysan beorge of tham beorge to cealdan beorge of tham beorge 7 lang weges to tham stane. of tham stane aeft to tham aethanan byrgelse. The perambulation starts at the ‘heathen burial place’ (aethenan byrgelsae) approximately on the site of the Three Tuns in Wroughton village. More will be said of this mark later. We proceed along the road to the ‘ combe of the watercress ’ (lang weges to caerscumbe). ‘This is now submerged by a reservoir. Thence’ to the cove of the meads ’, (maedena coua), now known as Coombe Bottom. This coombe and ‘cove’ present a truly remarkable L-shaped natural feature of great depth. The western end peters out exactly at the side of the Wrough- ton- Barbury road just north of Overtown Lodge. The use of cofa in the sense of a deep cleft appearing in downland is exemplified in Ekwall’s Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names and may well be a usage later than that given in Bosworth and Toller. From thence ‘to the Ridgeway to Ealhere’s burying place’ (on thone hric weg to ealheres byrgelse) follows the present Wroughton-Barbury road2 to the pass in the hill where the Ridgeway is crossed im- 1 Private Act; 35 Geo. III, c. 40, which deals with tithe apportionment. There was in this instance no consequent 19th century T.A. 2 This road is ditched on both sides where there is no possible drainage way. On this soil, ditches to keep a raised roaddry are unnecessary. It is really a broad balk used as a wagon way. By T. R. Thompson, F.S.A., F.R. Hist.S. 267 mediately below the Barbury earthwork. At this point are three bowl barrows, one of which is probably the resting place of Ealhere. Alternatively, and this does not affect our line, Ealhere’s bury- ing place may be at the small clump of thorns, among which is a col- lection of sarsens, 250 yards further along the Ridgeway. Hence along the dyke (thonon lang thaere dic), which is very obvious in parts, running N.W. to a chalk pit (see 6in. O.S. map). From this point there isa fine view looking northward along the balk between the manors of Elcumbe and Ellandun.1 Unfortunately much of the terrain on the eastern side is airfield. The next natural feature is the sharp hill (7ooft. contour) just to the west of Rectory Cottage. There is now an eastward turn to the brook (see below), so the bound at the turn must be Helen’s Thorn (haelnes thorn) at the summit of the hill. Grundy assumed that this was the same as Helen’s Thorn of the Purton boundary (B.C.S. 279a) four miles away! I have shown elsewhere? that the reading in the Purton charter should be helves. It is worthy of remark that in Wroughton we find Helen’s Thorn, a church dedication to St. Helen, the first ele- ments of Ellendun and Elcumbe, and the river Ely, a headwater of the Ray. Much argument may be weaved around this circumstance. 3 We have now to attempt to identify the three marks between the end of the dyke near the chalk pit and Helen’s Thorn at the hill top. There is little material to work on. We have only the pre-airfield field bound- aries and the sinuousities and angulation of the inter-manoria] balk, which is, clearly enough, the boundary. There are usually marks at points of change of direction and at points where the bound encounters something of strong significance. The first mark ‘Hawk Thorn’ (hafuc thornae) must have been at the foot of the hill below the chalk pit where the balk takes a turn. The second ‘ Broad Stone’ (braden_ stan) was where the bound turns north, and the third the ‘ clover bound’ (claefer mere) where there is another turn slightly westward. In the pre- airfield field boundaries is a suggestion of an old division running east from near this bend. Thence our boundary balk runs straight up to Helen’s Thorn on the hill top. This section of boundary is marked on the 6in. O.S. map asa road. It isnow arough cart track in some of its south- ern part. At the time of the setting down of the bounds it may well 1 This balk may have been fashioned on the line of a prehistoric track which left the main trackway at Salthrop and made for Helen’s Thorn. See the follow- ing article. 2 W.A.M.,, ly, 355. 3 E.P.N.S. Wilts. p. 278 268 The Bounds of Ellandune c. A.D. 956 have been less obvious, and so may have needed the three marks which now seem unnecessary. Near Helen’s Thorn it runs beside an impress- ive artificial bank. From Helen’s Thorn it is but a short distance east to the rise of the brook ji(aasl ac on thone broc) running down Markham! bottom. Then to the ‘ elder stub ’ (aellen stybbae) where a path and the manorial boundary runs up to the road under the bank of the “the Ivery ’2 to the churchyard. We now come to the most difficult words of the charter which des- cribe the most obvious of all the bounds! Consider first the ancient manorial bound. From the steep bank on which stands the church there runs northwards a broad balk for a mile anda third. Itis a straight wide balk varying in width from fourteen to eighteen feet with a ditch on both sides.3 It runs across flat country and on it grow thorn and forest trees. It is sizhted on the Toot Hill summit three hundred yards west of Toothill farm, but it stops abruptly at the (old) stream bed close to Wroughton Wharf. The charter (Birch) says of tham stybbae on thaere ciricean heow wah. Kemble gives heoppah for the last two words. If Birch is right the reading would be ‘ church’s domestic wall ’*. If Kemble is right (except for the second “p’) we have bramble—, briar—, or dog-rose-wall.4 Personally, I think ‘domestic’ in the sense of ‘communal’ is right. The church is directly on the boundary of the two manors of Ellandun and Elcombe, and was purposely placed here for communal use. If the building of a church was subsequent to the laying down of the boundary, possibly the Ivery was a more ancient site and as such might well serve an early surveyor. To anyone interested I would urge a visit to the churchyard bank, the Ivery, and a conspectus from the church tower. Thus to the ‘reedy brook’ (hrud wylle). Grundy refers to a ‘ Ruddle’s mead’ and the E.P.N.S. Wilts, p. 497, follows him! But a search reveals four field names in the parish containing “ Ruddle ’,— which was a fairly common patronymic. Wylle here means brook or 1 Merecombe 1325, “ boundary valley’. True, as stated in E.P.N.S. Wilts, p. 280, it is not a parish boundary, but it was a manorial boundary before the days of parishes. 2 see E.P.N.S. Wilts, p. 280 and Wilts N. and Q., IV, 38. 3 Probably originally a no man’s strip of a pole’s breadth with a ditch or deep furrow on both sides, sometimes used as a wagon way. 4 This is the opinion kindly given by Mr. R. W. Burchfield. By T. R. Thompson, F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S. 269 stream, and not well or spring. Our last long, truly fine, boundary stops dead at the brook. “From the reedy brook! to the heathy mound’ is the next step See to hrysan beorge). The last word is taken by Grundy to mean barrow. The locus exhibits the distinctly raised ground on which stands the cottage Bushey Leaze. The name may be worth noting. Two hundred and fifty yards N.W. of this cottage our double ditched balk starts again from the stream and after two angulations reaches the Worf (Ray). This line, the boundary of Westlecott and Ellandun, is continued eastwards from the stream as a hedge and single ditch as far as the Black Horse Inn. I am inclined to think that the balk originally ran on, but has since been destroyed for reasons which will occur to all farmers. At the Black Horse, where the bound meets the Swindon— Wroughton road, must have been the cealdan beorge. I am disinclined to accept the ‘ cold barrow’ and I invite suggestions from readers. . Textual emendations might give ‘ the cottage on the hillock’, * the mound of dispute’. ‘calf’s barrow’, ‘chalk barrow’, * beak barrow ’. The site is rather a curious one. It is at a road bend which does not seem conditioned by any natural circumstance, (the most likely being the avoidance of marshy ground). The road angle is one of a triangle, the sides being the continuation eastward of the Westle- cott bound to form the boundary of Nether Wroughton and Swindon, the Swindon road, and the brook called in B.C.S. 598 Symbroce. The kink in the road might be called a “ beak’. The term in the charter must be left unsolved, but the place is not in doubt. ‘Along the way to the stone’ (lang weges to tham stane) is clear enough. Weare going south along the road from the Black Horse, the road which is the division between Ellandun and Nether Wroughton. The place of the stone cannot of course be known with exactitude, but from the context it seems to be where the road is abandoned in favour of a path or artificial line. It was probably where Perry’s Lane leaves the present main road. This is just where the Gault begins to overlie the Kimmeridge Clay. It is significant that just at this place are some big (Greensand) sarsens and it is likely that a specimen was set up as a boundary mark. See Arkell, W.A.M., LII, 206. The road would be by Perry's lane and its continuation, Church Way (now vanished, present 1795) to the church and beyond. Our line, leaving the road at the ‘stone’ boundary mark would cut across to the ‘heathen burial 1 In this stream our member Mr. J. D. Grose has noticed “ masses” of phrag- mites communis. 270 The Battle of Ellandune A.D. 825 place’ by the “ Three Tuns’ and there rejoin a road, that is, the road leading eastward from the church. This soon divides, one limb ascend- ing Brimble Hill to join the old Swindon—Marlborough road, and the other to ascend steeply to our second mark the ‘ combe of the water- cress’. Thus are determined the bounds of a charter whose reputed date was exactly a thousand years ago. THE BATTLE OF ELLANDUNE A.D. 825 Lt.-Col. Alfred Burne, p.s.o., (W.A.M. LIII, 405) placed this battle ‘for good and all at Lydiard Tregoze’. He accepted Grundy’s siting of Ellandun as partly in the northern part of Wroughton parish and partly in Lydiard (Arch. Journ. LXXV). Grundy considered the Wroughton—Broad Hinton road as a“ ridgeway ’, a thing which no traveller lifting up his eyes unto the hills could ever accept. If we believe the Chronicle, it is as unjustifiable to say that Ellandun was fought at Lydiard as to say that Hastings was fought at Dover. Inall probability Lydiard was named long before Ellandun (Ekwall, Oxford Dictionary of English Place Names) and no lands in Lydiard can be called dun. Ellandun, whose extent we have shown above, took its name from its southern downland (airfield) part. The chronicler means us to believe that the battle took place on down land; and that part of the Ellandun delimited in the following century which is downland is the southern part. | In the examination of ancient battles Grundy and Col. Burne are very right in stressing the importance of considering the ancient trackways. Barbury is the local Seven Dials. To the east, Smeathe’s Ridge crosses the Swindon—Marlborough track to run along the small plateau up to the eastern entrenchments. On this plateau it seems pro- bable (to one brought up as a subaltern on ‘ The Defence of Duffers’ Drift ’) that the opening phases of the battles of Beranbyrg were fought. Immediately to the west of Barbury and under its steep slope is the pass where the great Ridgeway crosses a north-south track andimmediately gives off anorth western branch which becomes the western boundary of Ellandun described in the previous article. This proceeds from Helen’s By T. R. Thomson, F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S. 211 Thorn across the Wroughton—Avebury road to join at Salthrop the the prehistoric north-south track. This last has come south by the White Way (north of Circencester), South Cerney, Hailstone Bridge, Pry Lane, Nine Elms, Salthrop, and Broad Hinton to Avebury and beyond Kennet. We rarely have any evidence of the movements of the hostsimmed- iately before the battle. If Beornwulf was coming southwards he may have used this road and turned off at Salthrop, or he may have pro- ceeded by Ermine Street, Swindon, and Wroughton. Either route would have led him near the highest open ground by Helen’s Thorn. Egbert might have been there already, or may have just moved up from the south via the Barbury complex. If we accept the story of the blood stained stream, the site must have been on the airfield near Helen’s Thorn and the source of the Ely. There is no other stream on Ellandun. The stream quickly descends into Markham Bottom, an excellent place for pursuit and slaughter. This suggested site is on Ellandun, it has a stream handy, and it is rea- sonably placed as regards old tracks. But I would not say that the site is fixed “ for good and all’! 272 THREE WILTSHIRE SPEAKERS By J. S. ROSKELL It was not until about the beginning of the reign of Edward II] (in 1327) that elected knights of the shire, citizens and burgesses came to have an essential, if subordinate, place in parliaments. Before then, if only recently, they had been summoned with some frequency, but not regularly. At this time, too, perhaps because they were forming the habit of co-operating in the work of petitioning for redress of public erievance and voting taxes, it was possible for them first to be given a collective description as communitates, alias communes, alias commons. They represented the local communities of the shires of England (save two, the counties palatine of Durham and Chester) and of most of the towns that were of note. In the next half-century, during the course of Edward III’s reign, the commons claims to share in the work of par- liament grew, more quickly, in fact, than did at first the machinery devised to assist their functions. Not until 1363, so far as we know, were they allowed by the king the services of a royal clerk specializing in their business, the under-clerk of the parliament. And seemingly not until 1376 did they feel the need to elect, from among their own number and for the duration of a parliament, one who, after his formal accept- ance by the king, would declare to him and the lords what the com- mons allowed him to say on their behalf: a common speaker. The speaker's potential importance as a controller or manager of the business and discussions of the lower house was soon realised, not least by the government, and in the course of Richard II’s reign an order from the king to the commons to elect a speaker became a conventional part of the formal opening of a parliament. The function, as functions have a habit of doing, had turned into an office. The first continuing speaker we know of was Sir Peter de la Mare, steward of the Earl of March, who led the commons in the Good Parlia- ment of 1376. It is clear from the accounts of some of the chronicles of the day that he was personally responsible for much of what the com- mons did in that important and significant session. But he is not men- tioned in the record of that parliament. The first speaker to be referred to in the roll of a parliament itself was Sir Thomas Hungerford, an official and supporter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who was speaker in the last of Edwards III's parliaments which met in January 1377, when he was knight of the shire for Wiltshire, his own county. Of his immediate successors in the office we know only a few, because Three Wiltshire Speakers 213 the compiler of the rolls of the parliaments was not always at first care- ful to enter even their names. Not until 1397 does a consecutive list of them begin. Down to the Reformation Parliament of 1529-36, the speakers seem to have been invariably drawn from among those who represented counties. The social standing of the knights of the shire was much higher than that of the rank and file of the parliamentary burgesses: they were members of the landed gentry, locally important for family and other reasons, and influential, too, because most of them and their kind saw that one of the best ways of working for themselves was to work in their “ country for the king ’ and also, as a general rule, for one or more of the great lords, whose “ good lordship ’ and fees they coveted in this time of * bastard feudalism ’; they frequently managed to com- bine these occupations with the furtherance of family aggrandisement by marriage and the accumulation of estates. The speakers were like their fellow knights of the shire, of course, in these respects. Most of them besides were constantly in the thick of affairs of state, usually connected, the courtiers, administrators, and lawyers among them alike, with the king or some dominant magnate or faction. This is not to suggest that it may be implied that in the medieval period the speaker’s election was a mock proceeding, in which a nomin- ation was foisted upon the commons from above as a regular thing. For one thing, the commons would have found it difficult to find for the speakership one of their most influential, knowledgeable and elo- quent members who wasnot so occupied. The personal connections of a speaker with some branch of the royal administration or household, and his occasional payment by the royal exchequer for his prolocutorial services, sometimes suggest that he must have been as much the king’s agent in the lower house as the commons’ representative vis-a-vis the king. But the fact that now and then a particular speaker was an adher- ent of some strong aristocratic interestencourages the counter-suggestion that there were other than merely governmental influences operating in his election. It is perhaps safe to infer that even the election of an out- and-out partisan, whether the king’s or some other magnate’s, repre- sented no more than the registration of a certain tilt of the balance of opinion in the lower house at the beginning of a parliament. There is other evidence to strengthen the view that the speaker’s election was normally no ‘ put-up’ job. However he was elected, it was the speaker's duty to communicate the outcome of the commons’ meetings to the king and lords in the way and form the commons themselves saw 274 Three Wiltshire Speakers fit. The history of the careers of the early speakers clearly has some bear- ing on the question of the medieval commons’ political independence, especially valuable because the inside workings of the lower house are largely hidden from us until the Commons’ Journals, which did not begin until 1547, do something to remedy the defect. As it happened, of the known seventeen knights of the shire who in the first forty years of the history of the speakership (1376-1416) occu- pied this office, no fewer than five were Wiltshire men. Sir William Sturmy of Wolfhall acted as speaker at Coventry in 1404, but he was then representing Devon, and William Stourton of Stourton, an apprentice-at-law, who was speaker for part of the single session of Henry V’s first parliament in 1413, was then sitting as knight of the shire for Dorset. The other three, Sir Thomas Hungerford, speaker in the Bad Parliament of January 1377, his son Walter (later first Baron Hungerford), speaker in the Leicester parliament of 1414, and Sir Walter Beauchamp of Bromham, speaker in March 1416 in the first parliament which Henry V opened in person after his victory at Agin- court, were on these occasions, however, representing Wiltshire itself. Never afterwards was the speaker's chair filled by a knight of the shire for this county. The careers of these three men are described below. I Str THOMAS HUNGERFORD. Sir Thomas Hungerford, speaker in Edward III's last parliament of January 1377. Knight of the shire for Wiltshire, in the parliaments of April 1357, May 1360, October 1362, January 1377; for Somerset, October 1378; for Wiltshire, April 1379, January 1380, November 1380; for Somerset May 1382; for Wiltshire, October 1383; for Wilt- shire and Somerset, April 1384; for Wiltshire, October 1386; for Somerset, September 1388; for Wiltshire, January 1390; for Somerset, November 1390; and for Wiltshire, January 1393.1 The manor of Hungerford in the south-west corner of Berkshire, from which Sir Thomas Hungerford’s family took its name, was one of those originally De Montfort estates which formed part of Henry III's endowment for Edmund, his second son, when he created him Earl of Lancaster; it was thus part of the complex of properties which, after their fourteenth century expansion and the promotion of the Lancas- trian earl to the rank of duke, eventually became the duchy of Lancaster. By J. S. Roskell 275 Almost from the first appearance of the house of Lancaster, the family of Hungerford, in one or more of its members, was connected with it, although the maintenance of their link with the town of Hungerford itself is not always demonstrable. Sir Thomas Hungerford himself, so far as can be ascertained, had no such link, although his heir, Walter first Lord Hungerford, was to receive the duchy manor and borough as a grant from the king before the end of his life. But certainly Sir Robert Hungerford, the elder brother of Sir Thomas’s father, had a house in Hungerford, and here in the church of St. Laurence, where he founded one of his five chantries, he was buried2. And asa factor in promoting an early connection between the house of Lancaster and the Hungerford family, this domiciliary origin may have been of some significance. Perhaps the Nicholas de Hungerford, who in 1300 was confirmed by Thomas Earl of Lancaster in the keepership of the forest of Duffield (Derbyshire), an office which he had first been granted by the earl’s mother, was not a direct ancestor of Sir Thomas Hungerford 3. There is no doubt, however, about the relationship between Sir Thomas and the Sir Robert Hungerford who was Earl Thomas of Lancaster’s keeper of his lands in Wiltshire and wore robes of his livery (an office which for his alleged fidelity Edward II allowed him to retain after the great Lancastrian forfeiture of 1322), who continued in the Lancastrian service with Earl Thomas’s brother and heir and successor in the title, Henry of Lancaster, and who was knight of the shire for Wiltshire nine times between 1324 and 1339 4. Sir Robert, who was also (in 1332) steward of the bishopric of Bath and Wells, was Sir Thomas's uncle, and when he died (without issue) in 1352 Thomas acquired his lands in north Wiltshire and Berkshire and certain expectations, including a remainder in tail of the manor of Rushall (Wiltshire), which came to his heir Walter in 1404.5 It is not known what estates came to Thomas from his father, Walter. A younger brother of Sir Robert, this Walter was by 1333 the Bishop of Salisbury’s bailiff in the cathedral town, knight of the shire for Wiltshire in 1332, 1334, and 1336, royal escheator in Surrey, Sussex, and Kent from May to December 1335, coroner in Wiltshire in (and probably between) 1341 and 1346 (in both of which years his replacement was ordered), and in 1351 was included in the commission of the peace for this county.6 Nor is it possible to say what were all the lands that came to Thomas Hungerford as a conse- quence of either of his two marriages. His first wife was Eleanor daughter of John Strug and probably Vol. LVI CCIV & CCV S 276 Three Wiltshire Speakers yranddaughter of the Sir John Strug, one of the Contrariants of 1322 who compounded for their estates by making fine and ransom with Edward II, in possession of whose lands in Heytesbury (near Devizes) Thomas and Eleanor were confirmed in 1352 and again, by final con- cord, two years later.7 Eleanor died sometime after 1366 but before April 1376, by which time Thomas had married a widow of no excep- tional but quite solid prospects; Joan, daughter and coheir of Sir Edmund Hussey of Holbrook (Somerset) and formerly wife of John Whiton.’ Joan certainly brought into her second husband’s possession the manor and advowson of Teffont Evias, and property in Woolley in Wiltshire, and other Hussey lands in Holbrook and Bossington (near Minchead) in Somerset. 9 But these were by no means all Thomas Hungerford’s holdings, some of which surely came by purchase. In 1369 he secured the east Somerset manors of Wellow and Farleigh Montfort for 1100 marks, 10 from Bartholomew Lord Burghersh. The manor of South Court in Heytesbury near Devizes he had bought as early as 1352.11 The manor of East Court in Heytesbury he had leased in 1355 from Margaret, widow of William Lord Ros of Helmsley, and after her death (in 1363) Thomas Hungerford and his first wife secured an extension of the lease from her son and heir, Thomas Lord Ros, for the term of their lives. This, in 1376, Lord Ros converted into a final sale and release, and in November 1383 Hungerford levied a fine settling (through feoffees) East Court on himself and his second wife and their issue in tail male. (On 28 November 1387 Hungerford received a royal pardon for his trespasses with regard to this estate by letter patent under the great seal.)12 Not long before this settlement of East Court, Hungerford had rounded off his holdings in Heytesbury by securing the manor of West Court as well. This manor in the borough Edward III had gran- ted to Henry Burghersh, Bishop of Lincoln, and it descended normally in his family until the death of Bartholomew Lord Burghersh in 1369. It passed as a dower estate first into the possession of his widow, Mar- garet (who now married Sir William Burcestre), and then, before November 1381, to Lord Burghersh’s daughter and heir Elizabeth, widow of Edward Lord Despenser. This change of possession, resting on a dubious title, smoothed the way for Hungerford’s conversion by dubious devices of a lease of the manor that he had enjoyed since 1370 into a tenure which eventually emerged in 1382 as one enjoyed by himself and his wife in fee tail male. The whole transaction was called into question by a petition which Sir William Burcestre and his wife By J. S. Roskell 207 laid before the King and Council in the parliament of November 1381, but without any very tangible result or effect on Hungerford’s “ bar- gaining’ of the manor.13 Other Wiltshire estates in Hungerford’s occupation were the manor of Mildenhall (near Marlborough) which he acquired in 1371 and settled by a fine in November 1383 on himself and his second wife in tail male,14 the manor of Horningsham (near Warminster) which he got in 1378-9,!5 the manor and advowson of Ashley, the manor of Codford (near Heytesbury), and lands in Woolley Green, La Slo (in Bradford-on-Avon), Knoyl Odyern, Ashridge, and Twyford. He had a fulling mill near Warminster ! 6, and the keepership of the royal forest of Selwood which he converted into an office held in fee tail male, an act for which both he (in February 1380) and his son Walter (in 1395) had to sue out royal letters of pardon from the Chan- cery.!7 In Somerset, apart from the manor and hundred of Wellow (near Bath), the manor of Farleigh Montfort, and the Hussey estates, Hungerford had the manors of Farrok and Charlton, and in Gloucester- shire, just over the north Wiltshire border near Cricklade, he had the manor of Down Ampney and a toft and two carucates nearby in Wick by Maisey Hampton.18 In the most important of his demesnes— Wellow, Farleigh Montfort, Heytesbury (East Court and West Court), Mildenhall, Teffont Evias, Ashley, Woolley, La Slo, and Down Ampney—he received on 13 May 1385 a royal grant, warranted by signet, of the right of free warren. 19 Heytesbury, judging from the trouble taken in the acquisition of its component manors, was a key place in Hungerford’s territorial scheme: it had the advantage of being no more than a day’s riding from any one of his Wiltshire and East Somerset estates. But it was the manor- house at Farleigh Montfort that by November 1383 he fortified and received royal licence to hold ° come chastell ’, and it was in the chapel of St. Anne in the church of Farleigh that he and his second wife were to be buried.29 The licence to fortify Farleigh seems to have been part of a general tidying-up of his affairs. Only a week before its issue, he had levied on 18 November 1383 a series of fines settling his Mildenhall estates on himself with successive remainders in tail male to his four surviving sons by both his marriages (Robert and Thomas by his first wife, Walter and John by his second), but the fines relating to Heytes- bury (East and West Court), Wellow, and Farleigh, and other smaller properties provided for their later descent in tail male to Hun- gerford’s issue by his second wife only. Of all his sons, only Walter, later first Lord Hungerford, outlived him. On Sir Thomas’s death 258 278 Three Wiltshire Speakers in 1397, or rather on his widow’s death in 1412, the estates de- scended to Walter without complication, none of his brothers = had issue. 21 It is, perhaps, not without a certain interest that the first traceable reference to Thomas Hungerford should connect him with a high official in the Lancastrian administration, his own future connection with which had long been prepared for by the attachment of members of his family to each of the first three earls of Lancaster. On 4 Novem- ber 1349 as the son of his father he acknowledged in the royal chancery a debt of £100 (leviable in Wiltshire) to Henry de Walton, archdeacon- of Richmond, who was at this time attorney-general and treasurer of household to Henry of Grosmont, fourth Earl of Lancaster.22 Thereis nothing to connect Thomas Hungerford again with the house of Lan- caster until 1372, and it may well be that this solitary transaction of 1349had simply to do with a duchy tenancy held by Hungerford’s father, Walter, the details of whichareunknown. (Walter, never conspicuous, fades out of view soon after this time, although I have not been able to fix the date of his death.) It seems likely that Thomas Hungerford was already of age. Very soon he was receiving royal commissions in his own county of Wilt- shire and sometimes outside it. On 20 March 1351 he was appointed one of a commission of three overseers of the administration of the statute of Westminster 1285, which had provided penalties for the tak- ing of salmon at certain seasons, in the Wiltshire and Gloucestershire courses of the Thames and Severn. A patent of 27 May 1353 gave him membership of a commission of oyer and terminer regarding infringe- ments in Wiltshire of the recent Statute of Labourers. He became sheriff and also escheator in Wiltshire on 24 November 1355, serving the former office for five years on end (until 21 November 1360) and the escheatorship for two of those five concurrently (until 16 October 1357).23 Twice during this time he was able to return himself as knight of the shire, in April 1357 and May 1360. In the meantime, his connections and interests were becoming more extensive and diversified. Robert Wyvill, Bishop of Salisbury since 1330 and destined to hold the see until 1375, on 27 June 1354 had appointed Thomas Hungerford as bailiff of the episcopal Wiltshire manors of Potterne and Ramsbury with right to appoint a deputy; the office carried with it an annual livery of an esquire’s robe (or £1 in lieu) and customary fees estimated at 20 marks a year.24 Hungerford re- tained the office until 4 April 1370, when he surrendered it to take up By J. S. Roskell 219 instead a grant for life of the office of bishop’s bailiff or steward of the city of Salisbury and of the manors of Milford and Woodford at an annual fee of £10 and of his right to an esquire’s livery. The prefer- ment of Ralph Erghum, John of Gaunt’s chancellor, to the See of Salis- bury on Wyvill’s death in 1375 can only have rendered his tenure more secure (Erghum was one of Hungerford’s feoffees) and he certainly maintained his life estate in the appointment.25 The office was clearly the product of a close and continuing attachment to the bishop; but this connexion was by no means exclusive of others. Hungerford’s relationship with the royal administration was never a directly close one after he relinquished the shrievalty in 1360 (his only occupation of that office), but his administrative experience was cer- tainly enriched—and doubtless his coffers—by his connexions with members of the royal family and others of great estate, although he came at some of these perhaps indirectly. Many of his royal commiss- ions were undoubtedly the outcome of some of these outside fidelities. Whether or not he was connected with the administration of the estates of Edward III’s queen, Philippa of Hainault, as early as 10 February 1357, when along with her steward he was one of a commission of oyer and terminer charged with a judical investigation in her southern lordships and liberties, by 20 October 1359 he was constable of her castle of Marlborough, where she and the king had spent part of the previous summer but one.26 Perhaps his occupation of the shrievalty at this time accounts for this office, as it would for a royal commission he had received in the previous July to demolish and sell the material of some houses at Norton Bavant (Wiltshire) given by the king to the Dominican nunnery of Dartford (Kent). But what lay behind his appointment in May 1360 to a commission to survey defects in the structure of Dover Castle it is difficult to say, unless his occupations at Marlborough had brought him into touch with William of Wykeham, who was another member of the party. (The constable at Dover, who died before the end of the year, was a brother of the Earl of Warwick and Hungerford had no connexion with either). 27 Sometime between the end of June 1361 and May 1362 Hungerford became under-steward of the Black Prince’s honours of Wallingford and St. Valery in the Thames Valley, which were parcels of his duchy of Cornwall, Hungerford’s superior in office being Bartholomew Lord Burghersh.28 Burghersh followed his father in closely identifying his interests with those of the royal heir-apparent. The father had been a 280 Three Wiltshire Speakers member of the prince’s council (as well as chamberlain of the king’s household). The son had been a constant companion-in-arms of the prince, with whom he was much of an age, during the period of success- ful war against France, slipping comfortably into some of his father’s offices in the prince’s administration when the elder Bartholomew died in 1355. Since 1351 he had been steward of the honours of Wallingford and St. Valery and of the four and a half hundreds of Chiltern and also constable of Wallingford castle. On 10 February 1365, described in a letter under the prince’s privy seal of Gascony as the prince’s yeoman, Hungerford was confirmed in his appointment as under-steward dur- ing Burghersh’s tenure of office and occupation of the farm of the honours, and within a matter of weeks short of Burghersh’s death in April 1369 he was his under-constable of Wallingford castle. 29 Whether or not he continued in this branch of the prince's adminis- tration after Burghersh’s death is not known, but it is very doubtful. Inno other way was he directly connected with the Black Prince in the years covered by the latter’s Registers (that is, down to 1365) or later, although his connexion with Burghersh brought him into touch with other members of the prince’s retinue and circle, Burghersh’s cousin, Sir Walter Paveley K.G., for example. 3° It is probable that with Burghersh’s demise Hungerford’s association with the eldest of the king’s sons came to an end. It may well have arisen in the first place solely through the younger Burghersh, with whom he was closely linked in other and more immediately personal ways. We may regard it as a bye-product of his association with Lord Burghersh which was a distinct and significant phase of his career. On 9 May 1365, before proceeding on royal service to Flanders, Burghersh took out letters under the great seal nominating Sir Walter Paveley and Hungerford as his attorneys in England for a year; a month later, when Burghersh made a settlement of his Sussex manor of Burwash, Hungerford was a feoffee with John Gildsborough; and another month later still, when Burghersh took out a royal licence to make a settle- ment of his castle and moiety of the lordship of Ewyas in the march of Herefordshire and of three Wiltshire manors (including West Court in Heytesbury, which Hungerford was himself eventually to acquire) Hungerford was with Paveley and again with John Gildsborough a member of the committee of feoffees. In the meantime, in the middle of May he was put on a royal judicial commission of oyer and terminer in the Devon stannaries, an appointment which he doubtless owed to Burghersh’s occupation of the office of warden of the stannaries there By J. S. Roskell 281 (in which Burghersh had followed his father in 1355.)31 In May of the following year (1366) when Burghersh was preparing to go on a royal embassy to Urban V at Avignon he again made Hungerford one of his attorneys. This appointment was to last until Christmas, but in all probability Burghersh was back home before then because the papal letter of credence to Edward III given to him and his fellow ambass- adors was dated 1 August 1366. Two days before this, Burghersh had taken the opportunity to petition in the Curia for the privilege of plenary remission at the hour of their death for nineteen English people who included Hungerford and Gildsborough and their wives. On t August the petition was re-presented but with only a partial success. 32 Burghersh died on 5 April 1369, Hungerford being then not only his feoftee but also one of his executors. 33 Hungerford appears to have used this position to advantage, securing for himself first (in 1370) a lease of the manors of West Court in Heytesbury, Colerne, and Stert (of which he was a feoffee) from the widow as life-tenant, and then (before 1381) manipulating a purchase of the Heytesbury portion from the daughter and heir, Elizabeth Baroness Despenser.34 In the spring of 1382 West Court was settled on him and his wife in fee tail male. This, after he had successfully withstood a petition of Burghersh’s widow made in the parliament of November 1381, charging him with falsity in undoing her life- interest (to the creation of which he had been party as a feoffee), and with maintenance and embracery in an attempt to render secure an unlawful entry which he had advised the Baroness Despenser to make (on the ground that her step-mother’s life estate had never been properly effected). The charges of the petition and Hungerford’s replications furnish further evidence of the closeness of Hungerford’s relations with Lord Burghersh, including (in the former) a statement that being ‘ del conseil Monsr. Bartholomeu de Burghersh . . . . et pur estre de son conseil’ Hungerford had been granted for life (as a retaining fee) land worth 40 marks a year. Hunger- ford himself stated that the lands were worth only £20 year, but he added that the grant had been made four years before Lord Burghersh’s espousals with his second wife, the petitioner, which takes Hunger- ford’s retainer in this capacity back at least to 1362. Hungerford was able to state that he could not answer for the actions of Burghersh’s attorneys when the formalities of the enfeoffments creating a life- interest for his wife were in train, because at the time he was out of the neighbourhood, being in Hampshire and elsewhere about the business 282 Three Wiltshire Speakers of the late bishop of Winchester to whom he was * seneschal de ses terres *.35 This is the only reference we have to the fact of Hungerford’s occu- dation of this office of steward of the lands of the See of Winchester dur- ing perhaps only the very latest years of the episcopate of William of Edington. A native of the Wiltshire manor of that name which be- longed to the bishops of Salisbury, first a protégé of Adam Orleton, and later from 1341 to 1344 treasurer of the royal Household, then treasurer of the Exchequer from 1345 to 1356, and finally in November 1356 promoted to the custody of the great seal which he held for a little more than six years (that is, until February 1363), Edington was one of the great professional administrators of the Crown of the old ecclesiastical type of important civil servant. He had been elevated to the See of Winchester in May 1346. Twenty years later, almost to the day (10 May 1366) he was elected at the king’s instance to the arch- bishopric of Canterbury on the death of Islip, but he was not well enough to accept this translation and, in fact, died on 7 or 8 October later in the same year.36 Whether Hungerford came into touch with Edington through his connexion with the administrative system of the Black Prince, to whom Edington was himself closely attached as a member (in 1347) of his council and then (certainly in the years 1355-60) ashis general attorney in England, or through his connexion (as steward of Salisbury) with Bishop Wyvill, it is impossible to say. Per- haps it was simply because of his own intrinsic ability, or because of the share he already enjoyed in the regulation of a highly complicated net- work of different interests to which a flair and instinct for business as a land-agent and governor of franchises was already giving him the en- trée: to him that hath shall be given. Hungerford’s office as steward of the episcopal estates of Win- chester under Edington certainly makes it easier to understand cer- tain other of his connexions with this bishop. He was one of Edington’s feoffees in some estates which the bishop settled on members of hisown family, for example, in the manor of Baddesley (Hampshire) and a moiety of Timsbury (Somerset), which were entailed on the bishop’s brother (John, then warden of the hospital of St. Cross near Winches- ter) with certain remainders in tail to others of his kindred. (Hunger- ford himself was a joint lessee of these manors for a term of 17 years.) He was also the bishop’s feoffee in the manor of Coleshill, in an estate at Buscot, and in certain reversions of other property in Berkshire when, on 8 October 1366 (probably the day after Edington’s death), a By J. S. Roskell 283 royal licence was issued authorising these lands to be granted in mort- main to the Austin priory of “Bonhommes’ into which (at the desire of the Black Prince) the bishop, in 1358, had converted the college he had founded in 1345 at his native place of Edington.37 On the same day as this royal licence was issued Edington’s executors, of whom Hungerford was one, were given the custody of the bishopric of Winchester and of all the temporalities of the see during the vacancy, the executors undertaking to pay £200 each month to the Exchequer. 38 Less than two months later, however, the custody was entrusted (on t December 1366) to William of Wykeham, who had already at the king’s instance been elected to the see.39 There is no evidence to sug- gest that Hungerford’s office as land-steward to Edington was continued under his successor in the bishopric of Winchester. Compensations for the setback which the death of Edington doubt- less occasioned were not, however, wanting. Indeed, one such had already come Hungerford’s way sometime before the bishop’s death. Lord Burghersh’s niece was Countess of Salisbury, 49 and it may well have been through his Burghersh connexion that Hungerford came into the service of her husband, William Montagu, second Earl of Salisbury, another founder-knight of the order of the Garter, who had made heavy personal investments in Edward III’s French wars and was also a member of the royal council. On 1 January 1365, by an inden- ture written at his Wiltshire manor of Winterbourne Bassett, the earl had appointed Hungerford to the office of steward of his lands of the earl- dom an an annual fee of 20 marks (plus expenses), which was to be made up by a grant of all the earl’s rent from an estate at Ashridge (Berkshire), including the issues of the courts and hundreds, and {1 a year from the manor of Amesbury (Wiltshire). The fee was to be forthcoming even if Hungerford were unable to act as steward, pro- vided that he continued to be the earl’s retainer and counsellor.41 The appointment and grant were for life, and the Montagu connexion certainly seems to have been maintained. On 4 July 1367 the earl made formal complaint that his free warren at Swainstone (Isle of Wight) had beentrespassed uponand Hungerford was put on the resulting royalcom- mission of oyer and terminer. When, in the parliamentof 1371, the earl’s younger brother, John Lord Montagu, petitioned the King and Council regarding the withdrawal of the feudal services and rent of the Wilt- shire manors of Norton Bavant and Fifield Bavant due to his late uncle, Bishop Grandison of Exeter, following a royal grant in free alms to the prioress of Dartford, Hungerford was one of the two official com- 284 Three Wiltshire Speakers missioners appointed to make an inquest. Sometime before November 1384 a case was successfully brought before the court of the Constable and Marshal by the Earl of Salisbury against his brother (for breach of faith in detaining an indenture and statute merchant, the covenants of which Lord Montagu had infringed). When Lord Montagu appealed against the decree, Hungerford was one of four witnesses who were, the earl submitted, vital to his case. 42 Though important for Hungerford this Montagu appointment of 1365 doubtless was at the time, it was not by any means a connexion exclusive of others. Hungerford still remained connected with Bishop Edington and attended to his interests after his death. His Burghersh attachment was still a powerful and seemingly very personal tie until at any rate 1369, and in the following year Hungerford strengthened his old link with Bishop Wyvill of Salisbury by taking up the stewardship of the cathedral city. But the best was yet to be. It is possible that before 1372 Hungerford was known to some of those who, locally if not regionally, helped manage and organise the great accumulation of estates, franchises, and other rights, upon the income from which were based the English and continental policies of their lord, John, Duke of Lancaster, jure uxoris King of Castile and Leon. Something has already been said of the long-standing association of the Hungerford family, especially of Thomas Hungerford’s uncle, Sir Robert Hungerford, with the house of Lancaster. But in 1372 when first, surviving records show, Thomas Hungerford appears as a retainer of John of Gaunt, twenty years had passed since Sir Robert's death. And, in the meantime, there is no anticipation of the important part that Hungerford was now to play in the Lancastrian administration. John of Gaunt’s first extant register, however, only begins in the previous year, 1371, and it is possible that Hungerford was already attached to the duke’s service. The Hungerford family tradition apart, opport- unities for contact between Hungerford and Lancaster (or those who acted for him) are not likely to have been wanting: Hungerford, as we have seen, had had dealings with Thomas Lord Ros of Helmsley, an important member of John of Gaunt’s military retinue, and Walter Heywode, one of Hungerford’s fellow custodians of the temporalities of Winchester in 1366, was the duke’s steward in Wiltshire. However this may be, he was by this time a known man. His membership of other administrative systems, the Earl of Salisbury’s, for instance, is only likely to have increased his political usefulness to the most powerful of his masters; his inclusion and promotion in the Lancastrian executive By J. S. Roskell 285 meant that potentially the web of Lancastrian influence was spun the further. As far as we can see, Hungerford’s Lancastrian connexion, whenever it originated, now became and henceforward remained the central, focal one of his career. What seems to make it less probable that Thomas Hungerford came freshly into the Lancastrian administration with his appointment on 13 August 1372 as “chief steward and surveyor of all lands and lord- ships’ in Wales and in Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire Wiltshire, Berk- shire, Dorset, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Devon, Cornwall, and Kent, is the fact that this office ‘in itself was an innovation.’ ‘ This district or bailiwick may have been formed then for the first time.’43 A new- comer to the Lancastrian service is not likely to have been given such an appointment. At the same time Hungerford was made duchy steward of Kidwelly, on which lordship was charged his annual fee of £10; he was to receive an additional allowance of 3s. 4d. for each day of actual duty. On 18 June 1374 the Lancastrian receiver in the south was authorised to increase this daily allowance to 4s. as from the orig- inal date of the appointment.44 Early in the following year, on 18 February 1375, Hungerford was appointed chief steward of the duke’s lands and lordships south of the Trent, except in Derbyshire and Staff- ordshire. His fee was to be too marks a year and his daily allowance, when acting as a member of the duke’s council or when engaged on other ducal business away from London and out of the household, was to be 6s. 8d., these payments being put to the charge of the duke’s receiver in Hungerford’s own county of Wiltshire. The chief steward- ship, which he held at the duke’s pleasure, Hungerford was to retain until 1393. Not until nearly five years after Hungerford’s appointment (November 1379) was there to be a similarly unitary system provided for the duke’s estates north of Trent, from which even then Lancashire was excluded. On the same day that Hungerford was made chief steward he was formally made a member of John of Gaunt’s council. In view of the duke’s intention to knight him, he was at the same time granted for life the constableship of the castle of Monmouth and the stewardships of Monmouth and the Three Castles (Grosmont, Sken- frith, and Whitecastle). Hungerford was, in fact, knighted sometime between his appointment and 5 March 1375, when he was about to leave England for Flanders with Lancaster, who was at the head of the English mission sent to negotiate for a peace with France at Ghent and then at Bruges. 45 From this time forward it was probably his place in the Lancastrian 286 Three Wiltshire Speakers administration which monopolized most of Sir Thomas Hungerford’s attention. Thomas Walsingham, the monk-historian of the abbey of St. Albans, who was at this period very hostile in his attitude to Lan- caster, when referring to Hungerford’s election as speaker for the com- mons by a majority of the knights in what proved to be Edward III’s last parliament (27 January to 2 March 1377) was able to describe him as “miles duci familiarissimus, utpote senescallus ejus; qui nil aliud voluit quod pronunciaret admittere, quam quod scivit oculis sui domini complacere.’46 There is no reason to question the © familiar- ity ’; his eldest son, Thomas, was alsoa member of the Lancastrian retinue.47 Hungerford’s Lancastrian connexion can only have been a very influential factor in his election as speaker. For it came about in a parliament whose main political object (and result) was to put the seal on Lancaster’s already contrived reversal of the impeachments and other acts of its predecessor (the ‘Good Parliament ’ of 1376), whose sessions had been so disagreeable to the duke and the court “camarilla’ that he was prepared to champion. It was for the first time for over fourteen years that Hungerford sat in the commons. He had now been elected for Wiltshire as on earlier occasions. He was, of course, a figure of some importance in his own county as well as outside it. He had so far served on comparatively few royal commissions that had not been evoked by those with whom he was specially connected or that were not merely concerned with routine chancery inquiries into property or local complaints of tres- passes. In July and November 1370, however, he had beena royal com- missioner of array in Wiltshire, in July 1375 had been appointed to an oyer and terminer commission on the subject of the repair of Midford Bridgenear Bath, a year later to an oyer and terminer following a com- plaint by the Dean and Chapter of Wells of breach of their rights of free warren at North Curry (Somerset). Moreover, since March 1361 he had continuously been a member of the commission of the peace for Wiltshire and, for a short time in the late ’sixties, had served as a justice of the peace in Hampshire, and from July 1374 to December 1375 in the same capacity in Somerset as well.48 Apart from certain intervals (May 1380—February 1381, July 1389—June 1390, July 1391—June 1396) Hungerford was to be a continuing member of the commission for the peace in Wiltshire, and also in Somerset, acting here from July 1377 to March 1378, from May 1380 to July 1389, and from June 1390 until his death in 1397.49 His greater importance as duchy of Lancaster chief steward and the By J. S. Roskell 287 interest of his lord, John of Gaunt, probably account for the way in which, from the time of his speakership in 1377 until 1393, Sir Thomas Hungerford came regularly to sit in the commons for either Wiltshire or Somerset (in one instance, in the Salisbury parliament of 1384, actually for both), almost rhythmically alternating from one to the other, with the result that of the twenty-one parliaments which sat in this period of sixteen years he was knight of the shire in thirteen, and that only three years went by, in which parliament was in session, when he was not elected. Not only did his Lancastrian chief stewardship apparently involve Hungerford in more or less continuous parliamentary activity: it involved him in a multitude of multifarious commissions emanating from the royal as well as the ducal chancery, some of them relating to parts of the country far distant from Heytesbury or Far- leigh Montfort, but capable of being discharged in the course of his pursuit of his obligations to the duke. On 20 May 1375, along with the duchy feodary in Wiltshire (Robert Toly), the duchy receiver in Glou- cestershire who was also in this year the king’s escheator in that county (John Sargeant), and others, Hungerford was put on a royal commis- sion of inquiry into the seizure by force of arms at Whittington (Gloucestershire) of cattle belonging to some tenants of the duke of Lancaster's manor of Aldbourne (Wiltshire). and the detention in the Dominican friary at Gloucester of some of the tenants who had brought an action for novel disseisin regarding a holding in Whittington. The scene of this inquiry was comparatively handy for Hungerford. The appointment of the Lancastrian chief stewards to membership of the royal commissions of the peace in the shires of their bailiwick, a pos- ition which was to be regularized by statute in 1416, seems to have been adumbrated in Hungerford’s case before the end of Edward III’s reign, although merely now and then and merely here and there. It can only have been as duchy chief steward that on 5 March 1377 (three days after he relinquished his speaker’s office) Hungerford was appointed justice of the peace throughout Lincolnshire, where John of Gaunt himself headed the commissions, and he was re-appointed at the beginning of Richard II's reign; he did not, however, figure on the next commission issued in May 1380. Similarly in Norfolk he was made a justice of the peace on 5 May 1377 and, although he was not re-appointed in the following November, he was appointed again in February 1378; as in the case of Lincolnshire he dropped out in May 1380. In neither case was he again included. He was even for a time, by the duke’s own warrant of 8 August 1379, a justice in Lancashire 288 Three Wiltshire Speakers which was not, of course, even in his jurisdiction as chief steward. 50 In the meantime, on 4 March 1377, the day before his appointment as justice of the peace in the Lincolnshire ridings, he was made a commissioner for sewers in the parts of Holland in south Lincolnshire. In February 1381 he was put on the same sort of royal commission in Lindsey (where he was again appointed in April 1383), a day or two later for the Sussex coast in the neighbour- hood of the duchy lordship of Pevensey (where, and for further along the coast into Kent, he was again commissioned in July 1389 and Feb- ruary 1390), and by a patent of November 1382 at various places in the Isle of Ely in Cambridgeshire.5! In these commissions he doubtless represented the duchy interest. How far he himself sought represent- ation by deputies, it is not possible to say. To some of his commissions he can only have given a perfunctory attention. As a member of the duke’s council during these years as well as his chief administrative agent in southern England, Sir Thomas Hunger- ford must have spent some of his time at the palace of the Savoy be- tween the City and Westminster. He was, for example, present in the chapel of the Savoy on 17 April 1377 when a royal chancery clerk, Thomas Thelwall, was there appointed chancellor ° in the duchy and county of Lancaster ’ and solemnly, by the duke himself, given custody of the great seal ordained * pro regimine regalitatis comitatus palatini ’; this was seven weeks after the restoration by Edward III of the county’s earlier palatine status (formerly enjoyed 1351-61) during the course of the recent parliament when Hungerford was speaker. The closeness of Sir Thomas’s attachment to Lancaster is further evinced by the fact that when, on 26 July 1378, a royal letter patent was granted to the the duke allowing his executors the custody for a year of all his estates in the event of his death, Hungerford for the first time appeared among them, along with other important household and duchy officials, in- cluding the duke’s chamberlain, his steward and controller of house- hold, his chief of council, his receiver-general, and his chancellor. 52 Among the increasing number of royal commissions on which in the next decade or so Hungerford was appointed to serve, several that were of peculiar Lancastrian interest can be detected, apart from the commis- sions of the peace and of sewers outside the region of his own landed interests. On 22 May 1382, for example, he was put on a royal com- mission of oyer and terminer, along with (among others) Justice Skipwith, following a complaint from the duke of breach of his free warren in four of his Norfolk manors where damage, loss of livestock By J. S. Roskell 289 (worth 200 marks), and burning of charters had occurred. What is referred to here is a series of incidents in the peasants’ risings in western Norfolk during the great revolt of June 1381. The same commissioners were appointed by a patent of two days later to hold another oyer and terminer regarding a complaint by Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (of which John of Gaunt was patron), of a riotous entry into the college during the rising and of the spoiling of the college, which resulted in the destruction and removal of some of its muniments when its common chest and other coffers were broken open.53 Hungerford seems to have been representing the duchy interest when he was appointed on 16 June 1384 to a general government inquiry into felonies and trespasses and concealments of feudal incidents in the rape of Pevensey and else- where in Sussex, and to a similar inquiry in Gloucestershire into felonies and trespasses in March 1387; his fellow commissioners in Gloucester- shire included the duchy deputy-steward in the county (Thomas de Brugge). Within less than a week of the end of his service as shire- knight in the first parliament of 1390, Sir Thomas was appointed (by patent of 6 March 1390) to a royal commission of oyer and terminer after the Duke of Lancaster’s complaint (by petition in parliament) that the exercise of the franchises arising out of his hereditary keepership of the castle and bailey of Lincoln had for the last five years been impeded by the mayor and bailiffs of the city; the duke had alleged that the in- fringement of his officers’ right to entertain presentments arising out of theassize of bread hadalonecosthim £1,000. Sir Philip Tilney of Tydd (Lincolnshire), knight of the shire for Lincolnshire in the recent session and at this time chief steward of the duchy north of Trent, and Thomas Pinchbek, late chief baron of the royal exchequer and now duchy chief steward in Lancashire (and, three years later, Hungerford’s successor as chief steward of the duchy south of Trent), were also members of the commission. In this same parliament the bishop, dean and chapter of Lincoln had complained of detrimental acts on the part of the civic authorities regarding the collection of their rents in the city, and the dean and chapter followed this up by objecting to interference by the mayor and bailiffs with their sole jurisdiction over cases arising out of contracts made by merchants within the cathedral close, which had involved them in an alleged loss of £1,000. The same commissioners, including Hungerford, were appointed for the oyer and terminer set up on 11 May 1390 to deal with this last complaint. 54 Occasionally, Hungerford’s Lancastrian connexion led to his standing surety in the royal Exchequer for members of the ducal retinue and 290 Three Wiltshire Speakers administration when they were granted the right to farm estates that were under the Exchequer’s control. When in May 1381, for example, Sir John Marmion secured a renewal of his custody of the Yorkshire and Wiltshire estates of a royal ward (at a reduced rent), Hungerford was one of his mainpernors; Marmion was a Lancastrian retainer and steward of Knaresborough at this time. When the alien priory of Deer- hurst (Gloucestershire) and its estates were re-let (at an increased rent) in February1383, Hungerford was a surety for the small syndicate that collectively replaced the prior as farmers; the re-letting was done by John of Gaunt’s special advice, and of the three new farmers, one (Richard de Burley) was duchy steward in Gloucestershire and another (Hugh Vaughan) was a clerk in Lancastrian employment. 55 Some of Hungerford’s royal commissions came to him virtually because of his place in the Lancastrian administration, but in these years of his chief stewardship he was appointed to act on many more of a purely local character and unconnected with his office. And his in- clusion probably arose simply and generally out of the fact that he was himself one of the foremost of the notables of Wiltshire and Somerset, and a justice of the peace in these counties. He was, for example, a commissioner of array in Wiltshire in April and July 1377 when there was a threat of French raids from the Channel. On 1 September 1377 he was one of a royal commission of inquiry into cases in Wiltshire of tenants banding together to refuse to perform the services and pay- ments customarily due to their lords and to resist the lawful distraints of their lords’ bailifts(under colour of exemplifications of extracts from Domesday Book); the commissioners were empowered to demand surety or, alternatively, commit to gaol. Similar authority was being given to commissions in Surrey and Hampshire, and in Richard II’s first parliament the commons made general complaint on this subject and an ordinance safeguarding seigneurial rights resulted. In the spring of 1378 Hungerford was one of a commission of oyer and terminer empowered to take indictments of those Wiltshire bond-tenants of the Abbess of Shaftesbury who were refusing their services and to imprison them. On 20 March 1380 Hungerford was again made a royal com- missioner of array in Wiltshire.56 Nothing is known of his move- ments during the Peasant’s Revolt which was characterised by a fervid hostility to John of Gaunt and resulted in much damage to his property (including the destruction of his palace of the Savoy along with most of the duchy muniments) and damage to the property of some of his household and administration. But on 14 December 1381, at a time By J. S. Roskell 291 when he was being attacked in parliament for his sharpness in acquiring the Burghersh estate in Heytesbury, Hungerford was included in the Somerset and Wiltshire commissions for keeping the peace which were given powers to arrest for incitement and unlawful assembly and to put down rebels with armed force. He was re-appointed to similar commissions in these areas in March and December 1382, now with powers of oyer and terminer. In March 1383 Sir Thomas was made one of a commission appointed to survey the Avon between Bath and Bristol with a view to removing weirs and other impediments to river traffic; a previous commission, appointed in the previous reign following a parliamentary petition by the commons of Somerset and Wiltshire, had been ineffectual. 57 On 10 May 1385 Hungerford was made one of a commission to in- quire how it had come about that sixteen of the bishop of Salisbury’s tenants in the manor of Bishop’s Cannings (Wiltshire) were assessed by the collectors of parliamentary subsidies with the men of Burton (where they lived) and Easton and not with the men of Cannings, as had been the case until sometime during Edward III's reign. In April 1386 Hun- gerford was put on a royal commission charged to investigate the alien- ation of an estate in his own place of Heytesbury which ought to have escheated to the Crown because of the tenant’s idiocy, an inquiry which was still pending in July 1390 when Hungerford was again a commis- sioner. Presumably in the summer of 1386 he was a commissioner for the array of archers in Wiltshire when a French invasion from the Low Countries was a serious threat, and on 28 January 1387 he was put on the Wiltshire commission of oyer and terminer ordered to inquire into the embezzlement by local bailiffs and constables of the archers’ wages that were levied on the townships although the archers had never reached their appointed rendezvous. On 18 March 1387 he was one of several commissioners ordered to report into Chancery on the threats offered at Salisbury to a king’s clerk, John Chitterne, a prebendary there who had been thereby prevented from prosecuting the king’s suit to recover the presentation to the church of St. Thomas the Martyr in the city, pending which suit the king had presented him. Some three months later, at the end of June, he was made a commissioner for sewers in Somerset. On 18 July he was authorised to assist in an inquiry into the complaint of Sir Peter de Courtenay of certain tres- passes at his place at Newton St. Loe (Somerset), including the breaking of his seal of arms. Five days later he was commissioned by Chancery to inquire into wastes in the manor of Stower Provost (Dorset), an Vol. LVI No. CCIV & CCV T 292 Three Wiltshire Speakers estate of the Norman nunnery of St. Leger at Préaux then in the king’s hands. (In 1394 Hungerford successfully resisted the Exchequer’s pro- cess against him as a commissioner on the grounds that the letter patent of 23 July 1387 never reached him.)58 These last few were the only commissions that Sir Thomas Hunger- ford was appointed to serve during the perilous eighteen months which followed the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in October 1386, a crisis which saw the government of the country put into the control of a parliamentary commission regarded as treasonable by Richard I, the coming to power of the Lords Appellant, and the bloody proscriptions of the Merciless Parliament of 1388. It had been, of course, John of Gaunt’s departure from England for Spain in the summer of 1386 which had made possible this head-on collision between the King’s curialist party and the pseudo-constitutional country party of magnates headed by Thomas of Woodstock and the Arundels. The Duke of Lancaster’s domestic policies from the beginning of the reign until his three years absence from England had frequently been equivocal, but Richard’s support of Lancaster's views on policy towards France would always have ensured the latter’s loyalty, had there not been more normal reasons. But Lancaster's heir, Henry of Bolingbroke, became one of the Appellants and hostile to the court party, and Hungerford had his connexions with Henry: in the critical year, 1387-8, he was his receiver in the Wiltshire manor of Upavon. But in July 1387 he was still an active member of John of Gaunt’s council in England, and doubtless his administrative preoccupations as well as his age enabled him to play an unobtrusive réle so far as the political issues of the day were con- cerned.59 He had sat in the parliament which impeached Suffolk in 1386; he did not secure election to the Merciless Parliament of Feb- ruary 1388. Itis probable, however, that he sympathized with the aims of the Appellants. With a supporter of theirs, one of those bishops who in 1388 were complacently translated by Urban VI to more profitable dioceses, Ralph Erghum, who now left Salisbury for the See of Bath and Wells (and so remained Hungerford’s diocesan), Hungerford had had a long-standing connexion. He had been, of course, episcopal bailiff of Salisbury for life from the time of Erghum’s predecessor. Moreover, Erghum had been John of Gaunt’s chancellor until his elevation to the episcopate in 1375 and a fellow ducal executor of Hun- gerford’s, Hungerford’s co-feoffee to William Lord Botreaux, and Hungerford’s own feoffee inthe most important of his Somerset manors.69 On the day after the original three Appellants laid their By J. S. Roskell 293 accusations before the King at Westminster on 18 November 1387, Bishop Erghum and Sir Ivo Fitz Waryn were bound over in Chancery to keep the peace towards each other; Hungerford was one of four knights who found surety for the bishop under pain of 4,000 marks. There was probably some political animus in this vendetta; Fitz Waryn’s sureties were members of the royal Household. Hungerford himself may well have been regarded by the King as politically un- reliable. Since 1361 he had been a justice of the peace in Wiltshire and since 1374 in Somerset. Occasionally he had been dropped from the commissions of the peace in these counties, but his omissions had been short-lived and never from both commissions together. Now, after Richard II’s own coup d’état of May 1389, Hungerford was ex- cluded in the following July from the office of justice of the peace in both counties at once. His omission was as before, however, of short duration. He was put back on both commissions again within a year, at the end of June 1390, and stayed there. By this time, of course, John of Gaunt had returned from Spain. 61 It was just before his re-instatement as justice of the peace that Hunger- ford served on the Lincoln commissions in which Lancaster’s interests wereamong thoseatstake. After these he was appointed to no other royal commission of a special character, except one in October 1391 to hear and determine an appeal on the part of a citizen of Salisbury against the sentence of a maritime court.62 He must now have been at least well turned sixty years of age. In January 1393 he sat for the last (and six- teenth time) as knight of the shire. In the same year he retired from his Lancastrian chief stewardship. He continued to act as episcopal bailiff of Salisbury, however, apparently until the end, having a life interest in the office. On 19 September 1397 he had a royal letter patent by which the King undertook to repay him a loan of 100 marks within a fortnight of Easter following.©3 It was, of course, only one among many loans that Richard II took up in this time of the beginning of the second tyranny. Hungerford’s executors must have had the recovery of the loan as one of their duties. For Sir Thomas died on 3 December 1397. He was buried in the chapel of St. Anne in the parish church of St. Leonard at Farleigh Montfort, where some fourteen years later his widow, who survived him until 21 March 1412, was also to be buried. A week after his death letters went out from the royal Chancery ordering the escheators in Somerset, Wiltshire, and Gloucestershire to take into the king’s hands Hungerford’s estates in their bailiwicks and to preceed with the usual formalities of inquest regarding them and the T 294 Three Wiltshire Speakers heir. Hungerford’s heir was his elder son by his second wife: Walter, who had been born about midsummer 1378. He was the only one of Sir Thomas’s sons to survive their father. Sir Thomas had already on 8 October 1396 covenanted for Walter's marriage to Katherine, daugh- ter of Thomas Peverell by Margaret, a daughter of Sir Thomas Cour- tenay of Southpool and granddaughter of Hugh Courtenay, first Earl of Devon. Walter was still a minor at his father’s death but sufficiently nearly of age to make the wardship an unprofitable one to farm, espec- ially in view of the heir’s marriage having already been contracted; there isno record that Hungerford’s estates were farmed out by the Ex- chequer. That Walter was still not quite of full age at his father’s death probably accounts for his not being one of Sir Thomas’s executors. To administer his will the latter had appointed his wife, Joan, and John Snappe, doctor of decrees, an advocate of the court of Canterbury, rector of Pewsey in the diocese of Salisbury, and a kinsman. The will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 6 June 1403.64 Sir Thomas had himself as long ago as 1365 amortized lands to the house of Bonhommes at Edington (with which he had a connexion as feoffee and executor to Bishop Edington of Winchester, its founder) for the keeping of his obit, and the obits of his then wife, his father, mother and uncle. As late as May 1397 he and John Marreys (parliamentary burgess for Bath in 1395 and January 1397) had royal licence to alienate in mortmain the reversion of certain messuages and lands which he held for life in Farleigh, Farleigh Wick, and Allington by Chippenham to the Cluniac priory of Monkton Farleigh in aid of a chantry. But the chantry in the church of his burial at Farleigh Montfort his heir did not found until 142665, the year in which he, Sir Thomas Hungerford’s only surviving son, entered the ranks of the parliamentary peerage. The first Lord Hungerford was to serve his family well, but its aggrandise- ment rested squarely on the foundation of the policies, acquisitions, and administrative connexions of his father, Sir Thomas Hungerford. By J. S. Roskell 295 FOOTNOTES These abbreviations will be used: C.C.R.—Calendar of Close Rolls. C.P.R.—Calendar of Patent Rolls. C.F.R.—Calendar of Fine Rolls. Cal. Ing. p.m.—Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem. C.Ch.R.—Calendar of Charter Rolls. Rot. Parl_—Rotuli Parliamentorum. H.M.C.—Historical Manuscrips Commission. D.K.R.—Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. 1 Official Return of Members of Parliament, vol. I, 160, 165, 171, 197, 200, 203, 205, 207, 211, 219, 221, (for his service in the parliament of April 1384 which was held at Salisbury, Hungerford was paid as knight of the shire for Wiltshire; only his fellow-knight of the shire for Somerset, Sir William Bonville, received a writ de expensis for payment in that county, C.C.R., 1381-5, 454), 230, 235, 239 (although Hungerford was apparently at first returned for Somerset to the parliament of January 1390, he was not one of the two knights of the shire who sued out writs de expensis, and was paid only for his service as knight for Wilt- shire, C.C.R., 1389-92, 179), 240, 246. 2 Hoare, Wiltshire, vol. 1, part, 2, 113; his other chantries were at Stanley abbey, Easton priory, the church of St. Mary, Salisbury, and the church of St. Mary, Calne; that Sir Robert lived at Hungerford is clear from C.P.R., 1327- 30, 280. 3 Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, VI. C 6870; Nicholas does not find a place in the Hungerford pedigree compiled by Hoare (op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, 117), but his pedigree is transparently not complete. 40G.GR., 1318-23, 472; -1bid.,1327-30, 67; C.P.R.; 1327-30, 106, 425. _. Ancient Deeds, VI. C 7449; it is the continuing Lancastrian connexion which accounts for Sir Robert’s employment (in 1334) as a justice in eyre in the Lan- castrian forest of Pickering (Yorkshire), for his association with the forest eyre inLancashire(in 1336) and with the commission of inquiry there (in 1342) into frauds in the collection of the king’s wool and into official abuses, and (in the next year) for hisappointmentas one of the overseers forthe defence of the salmon of the four main Lancashire rivers of Lune, Wyre, Ribble, and Mersey (C.P.R., 1334-6, 2, 261; ibid., 1338-40, 246; ibid., 1340-43, 25, 586-7; ibid., 1343-5, 87, 172). 5 C.P.R., 1354-8, 308-9; Cal. Ing. p.m. (1821), iii, 217; for Sir Robert’s stewardship of the bishopric of Bath and Wells, see The Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1329-63, ed. T. S. Holmes, 109, 136. 6 Hoare, op. sit., ii. 698; Official Return, 97, 103, 112; P.R.O., List of Eschea- tors, 159; C.C.R., 1341-3 28; ibid; 1346-9, 102; C.P.R., 1350-4, 92. 7 Hoare, op. cit., V. 2, 27; for Sir John Strug, see C.F.R., 1319-27, 168; C.P.R., 1321-4, 197; ibid., 1327-30, 77; C.C.R., 1323-7, 27... The Contrariants were those who sided with Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, against Edward II. in #322. 8 Hoare, op. cit., IV. part 1, 110, 203; Cal. of Papal Registers, Papal Petitions, I. $31; ibid., Papal Letters, lV. 220; C.C.R., 1374-7, 362. 296 Three Wiltshire Speakers 9 C.P.R., 1485-94, 145-6; C.C.R., 1377-81, 137; C.Ch.R., V. 297; Cal. Inq. p.m., III. 217; Hoare, op. cit., vol. IV, part 1, 110, 203. 10 Hoare, op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, 89; Ill. 217; C.P.R., 1485-94, 145-6; C.C.R., 1381-5, 420; ibid., 1396-9, 275; C.Ch.R., V. 297; Cal. Ing. p.m. (1821); Feudal Aids, IV. 377. 11 Hoare, op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, 89. 12 ibid., V. 29; H.M.C., Report on MSS. of R.R. Hastings, 1. 227; Cals. of Inquisitions post mortem for the reign of Edward III (H.M. Stationerv Office), XI. 403; C.C_R.. 137427,.362; C.Ch.R., V.-207; C-P_R., 1565-0, 4805 Cal wing p.m. (1821), III. 217. Margaret, widow of William Lord Ros, acquired East Court, being the eldest of the four daughters of Bartholomew Lord Badlesmere and sister and coheir of Giles Lord Badlesmere, who died without issue in 1338. 13 Hoare, op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, 87-9; ibid., V. 30 (Hungerford’s lease of 1370 from Margaret, widow of Bartholomew Lord Burghersh, comprised the manors of Colerne and Stert as well as West Court Heytesbury at a rent of 200 marks a year); C.P.R., 13811-5, 121; ibid., 1485-94, 145-6; C.Ch.R., V. 297; Rot. Parl., III. 109. This last reference is to the petition presented in the parliament of 1381 in the king’s own presence by Sir William Burcestre and his wife, Margaret, formerly wife of the Bartholomew Lord Burghersh who died on 5 April 1369. It alleged that Sir Thomas Hungerford as one of Lord Burghersh’s feoffees in West Court Heytesbury, Colerne, and Stert, and other land had been charged by him to make a re-enfeoffment which would give his wife (Margaret) a life interest in these estates, that this had been done, that on Burghersh’s death she had had livery out of the king’s hand, and that Hungerford himself had received her fealty. Subsequently Hungerford had leased the estates and had undertaken to defend her interests if she discharged her other retained counsel, which he advised her to do. He was then alleged to have informed Burghersh’s daughter andheir, Elizabeth Lady Despenser, that her father had died sole seised and that the estates were therefore hers to enter. Whereupon after these acts of * pro- curement, covine et malice ’ Hungerford ‘ bargained ’ the manor of Heytesbury (West Court). The petitioners further complained of the ‘ grant maintenance ’ of Hungerford and others of his ‘affynyte’ in Wiltshire and of his abuse of his office of J.P. to prevent the establishment of their right. Hungerford was re- quired to answer to the bill in parliament. He pleaded that relating to the re- enfeoffments to secure Margaret a life interest he had only a common respon- sibility with his co-feoffees and that, in any case, he was absent when they were put in charge, that he did not undertake to act as retained counsel to Margaret, that he did not remember taking her fealty by royal command (according to a Close Roll memorandum of 15 June 1369 he did in fact do so), that he farmed the manors at Margaret’s request and on terms favourable to her, that later he merely advised Lady Despenser to ascertain from the inhabitants of the manors the truth of her father’s estate at his death before even she took steps to secure an entry, that he was himself no maintainer or embracer of quarrels, that he had no estate in fee or reversionary interest in Heytesbury (West Court), and that any declaration he had made on Lady Despenser’s behalf at the Wiltshire sessions in support of her claim was in defence of his good name after he had been slandered in a county court at Wilton by Sir William Burcestre and his men, That Hungerford’s influence over his fellow members of the Wiltshire PP wae By J. S. Roskell 29) bench was, in fact, considerable is suggested by the issue on 21 May 1381 of a royal writ of supersedeas to the justices of the peace in Wiltshire in favour of Sir William Burcestre, who was in fear of imprisonment until he should find security to dono hurt or harm to Sir Thomas Hungerford(C.C.R., 1377-81 523). 14 C.C.R., 1369-74, 280-1; C.P.R., 1485-94, 145-6; C.Ch.R., V. 297. 15 Hoare, op. cit., V. 29. 16 C.Ch.R., V. 297; Cal. Ing. p.m. (1821), Il. 217. 17 C.P.R., 1377-81, 428; ibid., 1391-6, 636. 18 Cal. Ing. p.m. (1821) iii. 217. 199G- CHR, V. 297: 20 See C.P.R., 1381-5, 340, for the royal pardon of 26 November 1383 for crenellation without licence. But cf. P.R.O., Ancient Petitions, S.C. 8, file 226, no. 11256, for his request for a licence to enclose with wall of stone and lime, embattle, tower, and enfoss, without fine or fees to pay. Hoare (op. cit. vol. 1, part 2, p. 89) says that he was fined 1,000 marks for fortifying without licence. 21 C.P.R., 1485-94, 145-6. 22 C.C.R., 1349-54, 144; for Henry de Walton, see R. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1, 358. 23 C.P.R., 1350-54, 59, 451; P.R.O., Lists and Indexes, IX, List of Sheriffs, 153; P.R.O., List of Escheators, 177. 24 C.P.R., 1354-8, 419; the dean’s deputy and chapter of Salisbury con- firmed the appointment, and on 14 July 1356 Hungerford secured a royal in- speximus and confirmation under the great seal. 25 -C.P.R., 1367-70, 30; the deputy -dean and chapter’s ratification was dated 28 November 1370 and a royal inspeximus and confirmation, 22 January 1371; Hoare, op. cit., Salisbury; Benson and Hatcher, II. 698 (list of episcopal bailiffs of Salisbury). The office had been held by Thomas Hungerford’s father, ~ Walter. Thomas had other connexions with the city. He was not the same man as the Thomas Hungerford who was mayor of Salisbury in 1351-2, but this Thomas was doubtless a relative (Ancient Deeds, VI. C 5292; C.P.R., 1350-54, 216. cf ibid., 1354-8, 308-9). Thomas was still occupying the office of bailiff of the city in 1393 and 1397 (Ancient Deeds, 1. B 1465; V. A 12038). He had been executor to a former parliamentary burgess, Henry Russell, in 1357(C.P.R., 1354-8, 630). 26 C.P.R., 1354-8, 613: ibid., 1358-61, 303. 27 C.P.R., 1358-61, 245, 419. Hungerford was made, in July 1361, a com- missioner of inquiry regarding suit from Norton Bavant to the hundred court of Warminster (ibid., 1361-4, 73); on 18 June 1371 he was appointed to another royal commission relating to Norton Bavant (and, this time, Fifield Bavant) after John Lord Montague, nephew of Bishop Grandison of Exeter, had petit- ioned in the previous parliament for a rectification of the royal grant in free alms to the priory of Dartford, which had not included provision for the rendering of the proper feudal services and rent to the bishop and his heirs. But Hungerford was by this time connected with the Earl of Salisbury, Lord Mon- tagu’s elder brother (ibid., 1370-4, iii.) 28 Register of Edward the Black Prince, IV. 434, 529-30, in succession to John Alveton, 9 times knight of the shire for Oxfordshire 1332-52 (ibid., 378, 387); 298 Three Wiltshire Speakers the primary duty of the under-steward was to hold the prince’s courts and leets in the honours. 29 ibid., IV. 546; C.P.R, 1367-70,2273; in May 1375 Aubrey de Vere became- steward of the honours of Wallingford and St. Valery, and with him Hunger- ford had no known tie at all. 30 Sir Walter Paveley of Hilperton (Wiltshire), founder-knight of the order of the Garter like his cousin, Burghersh, was one of the knights bachelor of the Black Prince’s retinue (see Register, IV. 380, 384; Beltz, Order of the Garter,sub nomine); on 30 April 1364 Paveley, going overseas, nominated his cousin, Burghersh, and Hungerford as two of his four attorneys in England for a year (C.P.R., 1361-4, 489.) 31 C.P.R., 1364-7, III, 114, 160; C.C.R., 1364-8, 178-9; C.P.R., 1364-7, 148. 32 T. Rymer, Foedera, V1. 510; Cal. of Papal Registers, Papal Petitions, 1. 531. It is not stated in the Calendar whether Hungerford was successful in obtaining his indult ;on 30 March 1376 he was to obtain a papal privilege to choose his own confessor, and on 12 April he and his second wife(Joan) were given an in- dult to have a portable alter (ibid., Papal Letters, IV. 220). 33 Lambeth Palace Library, Whittlesey Register, fo. 98. The will, dated on 4 April 1369, was proved on 27 April in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, letters of administration being issued to Hungerford and Gildsborough who were executors along with the widow, Sir Walter Paveley, and two clerks of standing, one of them William Steel, Burghersh’s own clerk, who was arch- deacon of Totnes. 34 See above p. 276 andnote13. Thedowager Baroness Burghersh remained as life-tenant in the manors of Colerne and Stert, the reversion of which was granted in 1387 by the Baroness Despenser to William of Wykeham and his feoffees for his foundation of New College, Oxford (C.P.R., 1385-9, 368). 35 Rot. Parl., iii. 109-11. 36 T.F. Tout, Chapters, III. passim. 37 C.P.R., 1367-70, 17. Master John Edington, in September 1368 when going overseas, made Hungerford one of his attorneys (ibid. 152). Ibid., 1364-7, 310; the only other foundation of ‘ Bonhommes’ in England was the one founded by the Black Prince himself at Ashridge (Bucks.) Hungerford was still involved as late as September 1392 in the endowment of the Edington estab- lishment (ibid., 1391-6, 156); in 1365 he had himself granted it lands for the celebration of the obits of some members of his family and his own (see note 65). 38 CLF.R., 1356-68, 339; Hungerford wasstill acting as executor, along with the others who still survived, in June 1374 (C.P.R., 1370-4, 439). Oneof the group, John de Blewbury of Shellingford (Berkshire), who because of the vacancy was presented by the king on 6 December 1366 to the episcopal living of Witney (Oxfordshire, diocese of Lincoln), died early in 1372, when Hungerford was one of his executors and feoffees (ibid., 187, 437). Hungerford’s interest in the cus- tody of the Winchester temporalities and the stewardship, which doubtless he was still retaining, would account for his inclusion in a royal commission of oyer and terminer appointed on 2 November 1366 to investigate breaches of the episcopal parks in Hampshire (ibid., 1364-7, 364). By J. S. Roskell 299 39 C.P.R., 1364-7, 353; the custody was granted to Wykeham for a great sum paid into the Chamber. The see had already (on Edington’s death) been reserved by Urban V who, on 11 December 1366, invested Wykeham with the administration of the see in spirituals and temporals. Not until 14 July 1367 did the pope provide Wykeham as bishop-elect, and not until 12 October did the king invest him with the temporalities as bishop by papal provision, two days after his consecration at St. Paul’s. His enthronement at Winchester only took place ong July 1368. By this time Wykeham had been chancellor of England for the best part ofa year. 40 Salisbury, after his divorce from Joan of Kent, married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of John Lord Mohun of Dunster (a member of the Black Prince’s household) by Joan, sister of the Lord Burghersh who died in 1369 (see Complete Peerage, sub nomine). 41 C.P.R., 1364-7, 169; the appointment received the royal inspeximus and confirmation by letter patent, on 26 October 1365, following the payment of a fine of £10 into the hanaper of Chancery. 42 ibid., 447; ibid., 1370-4, 111; ibid., 1381-5, 510. Whenthiscase was pend- ing Lord Montagu was steward of the royal Household. On 29 November 1384 a commission of magnates was specially appointed to examine Hunger- ford and other witnesses of the earl, who were all old men and, so the earl feared, likely to be unable to appear at the hearing of the case. After a series of commissions to hear and determine Lord Montagu’s appeal, the decree of the Court of Chivalry was eventually upheld (ibid., 507, 509, 584, 587; ibid., 1385-9, 67, 375): 43 R. Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, 1. 113. 44 Royal Historical Society, Camden 3rd Series, vols.) XX-XXI John of Gaunt’s Register, ed. S. Armitage-Smith, vol. I, 114; he was also apparently joint-steward in Herefordshire by May 1373 (ibid., vol. 2, 181; ibid., 213). 45 ibid., vol. 1. 153-5 (Hungerford was already steward of Kidwelly); R. Somerville, op. cit., 113-4, I17, 119, 367. For the first reference to Hunger- ford as a knight, see The Register, vol. 2. 325, confirmed by C.C.R. 1374-7, 2A; GPR. 13.74=7, 122. 46 Chronicon Anglie, ed. E. M. Thompson (Rolls Series). 112. 47 Royal Historical Society, Camden 3rd Series, vols. LVI-VII, John of Gaunt’s Register, 1379-1383, ed. E. C. Lodge and R. Somerville vol. 1, 8; Monsire Thomas Hungerford le fitz (the Speaker’s son by his first wife) soon died but not before November 1383. He was almost certainly the Sir Thomas Hungerford who as a young knight bachelor accompanied Sir William Windsor (the husband of Edward III’s mistress, Alice Perrers) when the latter joined the expedition of Thomas of Woodstock into France and Brittany in 1380-1 (Exchequer, Accounts Various, P.R.O., E 101/39/7.) 48 C.P.R., 1361-4, 63, 528; ibid., 1364-7, 205, 429, 434; ibid., 1367-70, 192, 444; ibid., 1370-4, 34, 478; ibid., 1374-7, 139, 154, 157, 327. 49 C.P.R., passim. 50 C.P.R., 1374-7, 1$4, 1573 490; ibid., 1377-81, 46,96; D.K.R., XLII. 363; On two occasions when he sat among the commons, in the successive parlia- ments of January and November 1380, his fellow executor and feoffee to Lord Burghersh, John Gildsborough, was speaker for the commons; Hunger ford 300 Three Wiltshire Speakers was one of Gildsborough’s feoffees at Wennington (Essex) as late as April 1388 and probably up to Gildsborough’s death (C.C.R., 1385-9, 632). A feodary was a local official whose duties were similar to those of a ye) escheator, namely, to look after wardships and escheats. 51 C.P.R., 1374-7, 485; ibid., 1377-81, 576; ibid., 1388-92., 132-3, 200-I. 52 DKR., XXXIL. 348; CPR. 1377-81, 262. Lancaster had first appointed a group of executors in February 1369 which had not undergone much change by May 1373 (ibid., 1367-70, 212-3; ibid., 1370-4, 279), but between then and July 1378 there had occurred some notable additions to the executorial body and withdrawals from it; Hungerford was one of the new members. 53 C.P.R., 1381-5, 143-4 (Skipwith, as well as being secondary in the Court of Common Pleas was also the duke’s chief justice at Lancaster and a member of his council); the rebels clearly included Lancastrian tenantry for, in pursuance of their commission, Skipwith and Hungerford levied fines, some of which went to the duke (Register, 1379-83, vol. 2, 273). 54 C.P.R., 1381-5, 429; ibid., 1385- 9, 322; ibid., 1388-92, 220, 270; Som- erville, op. cit., 1. 367. 55 C.F.R., 1377-83, 248, 351; in February 1378 Hungerford had been a surety for two chaplains who became farmers of the alien priory of Avebury and its estates (ibid., 83). 56 C.P.R., 1374-7, 498; ibid., 1377-81, 38; 50 (Rot. Parl., Ill 21 b), 24, 251, 254 (similar commissions to those procured by the Abbess of Shaftesbury, who took out another commission for her recalcitrant Dorset tenantry, were sued out by the Abbot of Chertsey (Surrey) and by the Prior of Bath); 473. 57 ibid., 1381-5, 85, 140-1, 248, 259. 58 C.P.R., 1381-5, 598; ibid., 1385-89, 177, 3153 320, 283, 384, 386-7; ibid., 1388-92, 346; C.C.R., 1392-6, 375. 59 Duchy of Lancaster, Accounts Various, P.R.O., D.L. 28/1/2/; Hunger- ford by 1391 was farming this manor of the Earl of Derby at 40 marks a year (ibid., 3/3); John of Gaunt’s Register, 1379-83, op cit., ii. 407 where, in the duke’s letters from Castile, he is among those addressed as members of the ducal council in England. 60 C.P.R., 1381-5, 542; C.C.R., 1369-9, 275. On 26 February 1384 Hun- gerford had stood surety in the Exchequer for Lord Botreaux when the latter acquired a royal wardship (C.F.R., 1383-91, 40). The great-niece of Botreaux’s wife was to marry Hungerford’s son and heir, Walter. 61 C.C.R., 1385-9, 450-1; C.P.R., passim. 62 C.P.R., 1388-92 491. 63 ibid., 1396-9, 180. 64 Hoare, op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, 113; Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Re- search, XVIII. 38; Lambeth Palace Library, Arundel Register, pars. II, fo. 152a; C.F.R., 1391-9, 268; H.M.C. , Report on MSS. of R. R. Hastings, t. 299; Oxford Hist. Sac vol. LKXX, Snappe’s Formulary, ed. H. E. Salter, 2; of the four sons of Sir Thomas Hungerford surviving in 1383, only Walter and John, the sons of his second wife, were alive in 1395. 65 W. Dugdale, Baronage o England, Il. 203; C.P.R. 1396-9, 121; ibid., 1422-9, 347. 301 II. Sir Walter Hungerford, first Baron Hungerford. Speaker in Henry V’s second Parliament (at Leicester in April 1414). Knight of the Shire for Wiltshire in the Parliaments of January 1401, October 1404 (at Cov- entry), October 1407 (at Gloucester) ; for Somerset, January 1410 ; for Wiltshire, May 1413, and April 1414 (at Leicester). 1 Born about 1378, Walter Hungerford was the first son of Sir Thomas Hungerford by his second wife, Joan, daughter of Sir Edmund Hussey. He already, therefore, had the prospect of eventually coming into the estates to which his mother was coheir. At the time of his birth he had two surviving elder brothers (Robert and Thomas), the sons of Sir Thomas by his first marriage. These two, however, died before their father, as did Walter’s own younger, uterine brother, John, and at Sir Thomas’s death in December 1397 Walter was his father’s sole sur- viving son and, as such, heir to all his proper estates, none of his elder brothers having apparently married, certainly none having produced a still surviving heir. On coming of age in 1399 Walter can at first have succeeded to little more than the manors of Mildenhall, Ashley, Codford St. Mary (Wilt- shire), and Down Ampney (Gloucestershire). For in the manors of Heytesbury (Wiltshire), Farleigh, and Wellow, and other lesser estates, which were all entailed on Sir Thomas’s second wife’s male issue, the widow (Walter’s mother) had a life interest, and she was to survive her husband for over fourteen years. Not until 1412 did Walter, therefore, come into the whole of his patrimony. His estates were then further augmented by those to which he succeeded as his mother’s heir, these including the manors of Teffont Evias (Wiltshire), Holbrook and Bossington (Somerset).3 Already in October 1396, he had been con- tracted in marriage exceedingly well, especially as events were to befall: to Katherine, one of the two daughters and coheirs of Thomas Peverell, a Cornish squire who had been knight of the shire in 1379 and sheriff in 1389—90. Katherine’s mother was Margaret, one of the two daughters and coheirs of Sir Thomas Courtenay of Southpool and his wife, Muriel, herself a coheir (being the elder daughter of John Lord Moels). The covenant between Sir Thomas Hungerford and Peverell provided for estates in Wiltshire or Gloucestershire worth £40 a year to be settled by Sir Thomas on the married pair with the final prospect of entailed estates worth 300 or 400 marks annually. In return for this Peverell was to pay £140 for the marriage and entail, and settle the manor of Stoke Bassett (Oxfordshire), worth {20a year. The marriage had taken place 302 Three Wiltshire Speakers before the end of May 1399. Margaret Courtenay, Sir Walter Hunger- ford’s wife’s mother, a niece of the Earl of Devon (Hugh) who died in 1377 and cousin of Archbishop Courtenay of Canterbury (1381—96), surviving her husband, died in 1422, and it was not until then that her own and her dower estates were parcelled out between Hungerford and his wife on the one hand and Katherine’s sister, Eleanor, and her hus- band, Sir William Talbot, on the other. Hungerford took the Somer- set parts of the inheritance, including the manors of Clapton, Halton, Maperton, South Cadbury, Wootton Courtenay, Pymtree, and Sutton Lucy, and he shared the Devon lands; in 1439 the Cornish and the other Devon lands of Peverell and Courtenay (comprising thirteen manors) also fell to Walter Hungerford under the terms of a settlement when his first wife’s sister died without issue. 4 At first, as a result of Margaret Courtenay’s death in 1422 and of Eleanor Talbot’s death in 1439 only a moiety of the whole of the Moels inheritance and barony came to the Hungerfords, but the other moiety was eventually to come into the possession of the family (although not during Walter’s lifetime), through the marriage between Robert, Walter’s eldest son, and Margaret, daughter and heir of William Lord Botreaux. This Hungerford-Botreaux alliance, which was eventually to bring into the family’s possession over fifty manors (mainly in the West Country) was probably contracted early in 1421, when Hunger- ford had returned after an absence of nearly four years in France, and just about when a previous marriage contract, effected by him, was yielding dividends. 5 On 8 November 1416 Henry V had granted to Sir Walter Hunger- ford the marriage of Margery, one of the three daughters and coheirs of Edward, the only son of Hugh Lord Burnell, who (in September 1415) had died before his father, together with the custody of her person and lands during her minority. (Margery was then about seven years old.) The royal letter patent embodying this grant sanctioned Sir Walter’s bargain with Lord Burnell arranging for his eranddaughter’s marriage with Edmund, Sir Walter’s third son, at a stated cost to Hungerford of £1,000. Sir Walter had feared a distur- bance of the marriage and of the settlements which depended on it. For, by midsummer 1416, Margery’s sister, Katherine, had~ been affianced to John, son and heir of John Talbot, Lord Furnival (the later first Earl of Shrewsbury), and a settlement had been contrived to give the couple the main bloc of Burnell estates in Staffordshire and Shrop- shire. This marriage had not, however, taken place when Lord SIE i eethnA 3 By J. S. Roskell 303 Burne'l died in November 1420 and, in fact, the Talbot settlement never did mature, this sister marrying Sir John Radcliffe, K.G., of Attleborough (Norfolk). Even had it done so, the terms of the Burnell- Hungerford settlement would have been favourable enough to Sir Walter. Drawn up on 12 July 1416 (some three weeks after the Talbot arrangement), they had provided for the manors of Rotherhithe and Hatcham (Surrey), Rollright (Oxfordshire), Little Rissington (Glou- cestershire), Suckley (Worcestershire), Compton Dando (Somerset), Great Cheverell (and a fee-farm of 20 marks from Biddestone) (Wilt- shire), Stanstede Montfichet, Waltham Powers, Walkfare and Latch- ingdon (Essex), and certain burghal properties and rents in Bristol, to remain at Lord Burnell’s death to Sir Walter, Edmund his son, and the latter’s wife, Margery Burnell. The expiry of a life-interest, secured to Margery’s mother, would further release the Essex manors of East and West Ham and Borham. By May 1421, the estates concerned, held by Lord Burnell at his death, had passed into Sir Walter’s hands. The latter did, of course, settle certain of his own estates on his son; the manors of Jenkingescourt, Burton, Stratton St. Margaret, Stoke by Bedwin (Wiltshire), and Down Ampney (Gloucestershire); perhaps these were comprised in the {1,000 costs he had undertaken, perhaps additional to them. 6 Apart from the trusts and royal wardships with which Hungerford temporarily augmented the stock of land upon which he could count for ready income (for example, the wardships of Philip Courtenay of Powderham, nephew and heir of Bishop Courtenay of Norwich, and Walter Rodney, both of whom married daughters of his), his estates were considerably increased by purchase. It was probably by this direct method of acquisition that over the years there came into his possession some thirty additional manors, mainly in Wiltshire and Somerset,7 together with his London inn in Charing. Some of the’ most important of these purchases were in his hands before his occup- ation of the Treasurership of England from 1426 to 1432, and many of the rest before the end of his term of office; it was while he was Treas- urer that in the autumn of 1429 and the first half of 1430 he engineered a whole series of enfeoftments covering a considerable number of these purchased estates.8 The whole estate was a large enough complex to demand a proper system for its administration and a hierarchy of administrative and financial officials. By 1413 there was a receiver who took the rents from the manorial bailiffs and collectors, and there was a steward. When, in 1420-21, the Burnell and Rodney lands were 304 Three Wiltshire Speakers attached to the core of Hungerford’s own estates, the receiver became receiver-general and there were separate receivers for the different manors or groups of manors. The stewardship eventually had also to be divided; this was done on a county basis, one steward being appointed for Wiltshire, one for Somerset and Devon, and one for Dorset. In Berkshire and Wiltshire there was an under-steward. The Hungerfords did not themselves ever hold any very notable estate in Dorset, but dur- ing the later stages of Sir Walter’s life a steward was needed to adminis- ter the lands there brought into his control by his second marriage, which took place sometime between June 1429 and May 1439. Sir Walter’s second wife was Eleanor, Countess of Arundel, daughter and heir of Sir John Berkeley of Beverstone (Gloucestershire), success- ively wife and widow of John Arundel, Lord Mautravers, who had died in 1421, and of Sir Richard, the son and heir-apparent of Robert Lord Poynings, who was killed on active service near Orleans in June 1429. Eleanor had no issue by Hungerford. Her children by her two earlier unions had married well. John, Eleanor’s elder son by her first marriage who was admitted in 1433 to be Earl of Arundel, had married the daughter of Lord Fanhope (a granddaughter of John of Gaunt) and later a daughter of Robert Lovell, a Dorset notable, but he was probably dead before Sir Walter's marriage to the countess took place. Her second son, William, his brother’s heir and summoned to parliament as Earl of Arundel in 1422, was to marry the first daughter of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury. Her daughter by her second marriage, Eleanor Poynings, before mid- summer 1435 was already married to the son and heir of the Earl of Northumberland. The countess’s lands were, however, doubtless her chief attraction for Hungerford, and in her right he came to hold thirteen manors in Dorset, six in Wiltshire, five in Gloucestershire, and two in Somerset. 9 As Hungerford’s will explains, he met the countess’s debts to the Crown and in London which far exceeded the 700 marks she gave him after their marriage. But he could well afford to do so. These estates held by Hungerford jure uxoris were bringing him in during the 1440's almost £/700 a year: more, that is, than his own estates and those under his control had been yielding in (say) 1420-21, when the total sums handled by his receiver-general had amounted to close on £650 a year. By 1429-30 his annual receipts from landed estate had risen to £1,047. By 1444 they were averaging over £1,700, and in the year before his By J. S. Roskell 305 death were as high as {1,800.19 What were the revenues of his French lordships, secured to him by royal grant, there is no knowing. By the latest possible date for Hungerford’s marriage with the Coun- tess of Arundel (May 1439) the family’s territorial interests and pro- spects had been further extended bythe marriage of his grandson, Robert (the eldest son of Sir Walter’s own eldest son, Robert), who by March 1439 had been contracted with Eleanor, the daughter and heir of William Lord Moleyns who had been killed ten years before at the siege of Orleans: a match which was to bring into the Hungerford family’s possession between twenty and thirty manors in Buckingham- shire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, and Cornwall, and to the young heiress’s husband besides an individual summons to Parliament in 1445 as Lord Moleyns. 11 All this remarkable accumulation of landed interests and proliferation of family connexions and associations, which it fell to Sir Walter dur- ing his life time largely to control and use to his profit, was developing all through a political career of considerable diversity and complexity, upon the progress of which it can only have favourably reacted. From the presence of his heraldic arms among the embellishments of Mickle Hall in Oxford it would be rash even to conjecture that Sir Walter was ever on its books in his youth. But that he had some schvol- ingin the University is possible. He wascertainly literate: judging froma bequest in his will to one of his Courtenay grandsons, who was a clerk, of a two-volume great bible ‘eciam cum omnibus libris meis de facultate theologie ’ (which were already in the beneficiary’s hands), it is tolerably certain that he had Latin; and we know for sure that he read English with facility. In later life certainly he had his con- nexions with the University of Oxford. When, in February 1435, the University wrote to Archbishop Chichele commending one of its proc- tors, Master John King, a scholar in theology, another similar letter went to Lord Hungerford (as he then was). Not long before his death Hungerford was interesting himself in the work then going forward on the bell-tower of Merton College chapel, and when he came to make his will he had already advanced some two-thirds of a promised bequest of £100 towards the fund.12 These links with Oxford may well have been formed, however, much later than his youth, and if ever a career for Hungerford in the Church had ever been thought feasible (a tenuous conjecture), that prospect had evaporated by his eighteenth year when (on 10 November 1395) he received a royal letter patent pardoning and confirming his acquisition in fee-tail of the bailiwick 306 Three Wiltshire Speakers of the forest of Selwood from his father who held the custody in chief. 13 Less than a year later his marriage with Katherine Peverell was arranged for, and before the end of Richard II’s reign the contract had been ful- filled. Walter’s father had died in the meantime (December 1397), leaving him, as his only surviving son and heir, with solid prospects which would only mature, however, when his mother’s death ended her life-interest in so many of the Hungerford entailed estates. Young Hungerford quite clearly reacted to the political crisis which ended inthe accession of Henry IV, with whom his father had had con- nexions. It may have been the long-standing Lancastrian attachments of his family, intensified by his father’s strong ties with John of Gaunt, which influenced him to give Henry of Bolingbroke his corporal ser- vice. And so far as he was concerned, the Lancastrian usurpation paid immediate dividends: Walter Hungerford was one of the forty-six esquires knighted on the eve of Henry’s coronation on 13 October 1399. Only three weeks later, by letters patent dated 2 November, he was granted for life the manor and barton, and thecustody of thecastle, of Marlborough with their appendant franchises, together with the mills and hundred of Selkly, and ‘ housbote’ and ‘ heybote’ and pasture rights in the forest of Savernake, for an annual rent of £120 payable in the Exchequer; and, after another fortnight had passed, on 16 Nov- ember Hungerford shared (with Sir Thomas Beauchamp) a royal grant of £200 from the estates of the late Duchess of Norfolk expressly ‘to recompense them for their great expensesin the king’s service after his last coming to England’.14 The following year, however, was apparently one in which at times Sir Walter’s position can only have been a source of acute discomfort to him. Early in January 1400 occurred a plot of a group of Richard II’s closest supporters among the nobility who had been degraded in Henry IV’s first Parliament from the new dignities they had won in the late king’s coup d’état of 1397. Their plan was to seize Henry IV at Wind- sor and restore Richard II. Henry acted with decision, raised London, and compelled the conspirators to retire with their forces westwards to Cirencester. Here the townsfolk rose against them and executed out of hand the Earls of Salisbury and Kent. A similar fate soon met Lord Despenser at Bristol and the Earl of HuntingdonatPleshey. Sir-Walter Hungerford found himself awkwardly involved. An inquest held at Cirencester on 25 January 1400 found that he had been with the rebels thereand had actively adhered to and supported them against the king’s lieges in the town. His name was specially linked in the indictment By J. S. Roskell 307 with the Earl of Kent, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Lord Despenser was his superior lord in his holdings at Farleigh and Wellow, and that elsewhere he was a tenant of the Earl of Salisbury. Judicial proceedings at a higher level had not ended even as late as 25 Novem- ber following, when a further inquest was ordered to be taken regard- ing Hungerford’s actions at Cirencester, its findings to be submitted to one or more royal justices of either of the two Benches or before the justices of assize in Gloucestershire. These later proceedings, however, may well have been only formal, because at a trial on 27 January 1400 at Newgate, where a London jury had indicted those privy to the plot of conspiring in the City, it had been found that Sir Walter Hun- gerford, king’s knight, had been forced (with others) by the rebels to go with them, and had been robbed of a collar of the king’s livery (worth £20) which he was wearing at the time of his capture. Perhaps he had been taken prisoner when the rebels made their first move and broke into Windsor Castle to search for the king and his sons on the night of 4 January. This particular act, the offence of accroaching the royal power, was one of the treasons of which Thomas Merk, late Bishop of Carlisle, was pardoned on 28 November 1400.15 It is possible that during and immediately after the riot at Cirencester Hungerford was under arrest. If this were so, he can only have been in custody a matter of a few weeks at most, for on 18 February 1400 he had been able to stand surety for two Somerset magnates, Sir Hugh and Sir John Luttrell, in their royal grant of all the English estates of the alien abbey of St. Nicholas-lez-Angers. 16 By the end of 1400 the clouds had lifted clear, and in January 1401 Sir Walter was returned for the first time as knight of the shire, being elected for Wiltshire, and on 16 May 1401 he was appointed a J.P. for the county, a commission to which he continued to be re-appointed until January 1406. In the summer of 1401 by privy seal writ he was summoned as a Wiltshire knight to a Great Council convened at Westminster to discuss the emergency arising out of French and Scot- tish hostility, Irish turbulence, and the rebellion in Wales. Between this and his summons as one of four Wiltshire knights to another Great Council sometime in 1404, there is little to record of his activities. 17 On 15 August 1402 he and his wife and mother procured a papal indult to have a portable altar, and it is not improbable that at this time Hungerford was himself in Rome as a pilgrim on his way to or from the Holy Land. His own will says that his father had made an enfeoff- ment to uses of the manor of Tidworth for the Austin priory of Long- Vol. LVI No. CCIV & CCV U 308 Three Wiltshire Speakers leat, which manor the priory sold for 160 marks to John Chitterne, a master in chancery, the purchase price being lent to Sir Walter for his voyage to the Holy Land, he in turn (to fulfil his father’s will) appro- priating the church of Rushall to the priory. It is true that it was not until November 1407, when he was knight of the shire for Somerset in the Gloucester Parliament, that Hungerford secured a royal licence enabling the priory to appropriate the church, but he was certainly in touch with John Chitterne as soon after the conjectural date of his pilgrimage as January 1403 when he was his mainpernor in a grant of the custody of the alien priory of Hayling. It is verv doubtful whether in any year but 1402, the intervals between his royal commissions would have allowed him to take a long tour. He received no royal commission at all during 1402.18 In the early years generally of Henry IV’s reign Hungerford was by no means busily employed on royal local commissions. Possibly this was because he was still a young man, but more probably because much of his time was being spent with the king, at court or in the field, espec- ially during the unquieter period of the reign. But on 20 April 1403 he was put on a commission of oyer and terminer regarding an appeal against a judgement given by a deputy of the admiral for the West in a case over broken contracts. In September following he was a com- missioner of array in Wiltshire for the defence of Southampton against a threatened attack.19 He attended a Great Council in the summer of 1404, and in the autumn sat for Wiltshire in the Unlearned Parliament of Coventry. When next Parliament was summoned to meet in March 1406 he was not elected, being by then sheriff of Wiltshire. He held this office from 27 November 1405 to 5 November 1406. For the greater part of this year, however, he was acting as chamberlain to the king’s younger daughter, Philippa, who (nearly four years after the contract was made) was married by proxy at Westminster on 26 Nov- ember 1405 to Eric, King of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and on 8 December proclaimed as his queen. Hungerford was a member of the Anglo-Danish retinue of over 200 persons who accompanied the young queen to Denmark, and he received a grant of livery for the voyage and on 26 July 1406 an advance of 100 marks at the Exchequer. The flotilla sailed from Lynn in the second half of August. The marriage was celebrated in Lund cathedral on 26 October and by Christmas most of the escort of Englishmen were back home. 2° Earlier in the year, on Lady Day, Hungerford had already been granted a gift of 100 marks, one payment of an annuity for that amount (charged on the castle and By J. S. Roskell 309 town of Marlborough). This annuity had been surrendered by its former recipient following an act of resumption passed in the Coventry Parlia- ment of 1404; the fresh grant to Hungerford was made in view of the great charges he had previously incurred in the royal service and espec- ially lately at Calais where he had upheld his king and country’s honour in arms against a knight of France. 21 Hungerford was certainly back in England by the end of 1406, for on 30 December he was on a panel of knights and esquires from which a jury was to be chosen for the settling of a law-suit between the heirs of Sir John de Mohun, whose widow had sold the reversion of his West Somerset estates, and Sir Hugh Luttrell, whose mother had been the purchaser.22 On 16 February 1407 his continuing interest as Exchequer lessee at Marlborough presumably procured Sir Walter’s inclusion in a royal commission of inquiry into reported breaches of the assizes of wines and victuals by recent mayors of the town. In October 1407 Wiltshire once again elected Hungerford as knight of the shire to the Parliament summoned to Gloucester, and it was dur- ing the session that (on 19 November) he procured a royal licence to amortize and appropriate the advowson of Rushall (Wiltshire) to Long- leat priory, and that (three days later) he and five other knights of the shire, including the Speaker, witnessed a quitclaim in favour of Sir Thomas Brook, M.P. for Somerset, a deed to which the common seal of Gloucester was affixed.23 It was for Somerset that Hungerford him- self was to be returned to the next Parliament of January 1410. In the meantime, in May 1408 he had been re-included in the commission of the peace for Wiltshire, and in November of the same year for the first time had been put onthe commission for Somerset; he was to beexcluded from the Wiltshire commission in February 1410, but only for two years, and thenceforward he was J.P. in both counties until his death nearly forty years later. On 6 July 14009, the feast of the translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, he had been on pilgrimage to Canterbury, where he was then received into the confraternity of the priory of Christchurch. 23a It was in the course of the 1410 parliament that Hungerford and William Stourton, a lawyer, then M.P. for Dorset, were ordered ‘ for particular causes moving the king and council’ to meddle no further with the temporalities of the Cluniac priory at Farleigh in Somerset (where Hungerford had his chief residence). He and Stourton, who was also one of his feoffees, had received on 18 May 1409 a royal grant of the custody of the priory’s estates to the use of the convent. This U 310 Three Wiltshire Speakers was pending thesettlement ofa dispute between HenryIV and the prior of Lewes over the nomination of anew priorat Farleigh. (The king claimed patron’s rights through his first wife, Mary de Bohun, while the prior of Lewes claimed on the grounds that Farleigh was a dependency of his house.) On 3 September 1409 the king had compromised by nomin- ating (in letters under the seal of the duchy of Lancaster) the candidate of the prior of Lewes. On 1 February 1410 Hungerford and Stourton received the order not to meddle further with the Farleigh temporal- ities, and on 12 February they secured letters of pardon, protesting that they had received none of the priory’s revenues and should therefore be free of all Exchequer process to compel them to render account. Two days before this concession was formally made, however, an in- quiry into allegations of waste and asportation of goods by Hungerford and Stourton had been made the subject of a royal commission. This investigation was conducted with sufficient despatch to allow of Hun- gerford’s laying a petition before the Commons on 2 May 1410, just a week before the Parliament ended. In this petition he declared his in- tention of traversing the inquest, which had evidently been damaging, and asked the Commons to request the king to ordain by parliamentary authority that the traversing jury should include no man with less than £20 landed income in the county, that the sheriff should ensure this on pain of a £200 fine, and that the return should be null if this arrange- ment miscarried. The Commons promoted the bill and the king granted it.24 Not long after the dissolution of the 1410 Parliament, by the new royal Council, of which Prince Henry of Monmouth was head, Hungerford was made (by patent of 14 June 1410) one of a commission to raise speedy loans amounting to 500 marks in Somerset and e'sewhere in the diocese of Bath and Wells, on the security of the recent parlia- mentary subsidy; this sum the commissioners apparently put up them- selves within a matter of days in return for a preferential tally drawn on the subsidy collectors in the county.25 Hungerford’s local territorial standing in Somerset and Wiltshire was soon to be considerably im- proved when at Teffont Evias his mother died on 1 March 1412. Sir Walter was one of her executors. Her death released such entailed estates as had been settled on her for life in 1383. The royal escheators involved were given their orders on 11 April 1412 to deliver seisin to Sir Walter at Heytesbury, Teffont Evias, Wellow, Farleigh, and Hol- brook. 26 The struggle for control of the royal Council that was going on in the last years of Henry IV between the Arundel bloc (supported by the By J. S. Roskell 311 decrepit king) and the Prince of Wales and the Beaufort group which lined up behind him, was virtually settled for nearly two years during the 1410 Parliament in favour of the latter party. In the last proper Parliament of the reign, during the winter of 1411, there was a reaction towards the party of which the king’s second son, Thomas, and Arch- bishop Arundel together now shared the leadership. Inthiscompetition there is no way of knowing for sure which side Hungerford favoured. But his diocesan and near neighbour, Bishop Bubwith of Bath and Wells, wasa member of the Council of which the future Henry V was chief; he had himself a slight connexion with Robert Lovell at whose London inn this Council occasionally met;27 and the accession of Prince Henry in March 1413 was soon followed by Sir Walter’s em- ployment at important administrative, diplomatic, and then military levels, in close touch with the new king. It is likely that he had been in Henry V’s confidence for some time. Right at the beginning of his reign Henry V made some important changes in the higher administrative staff of his duchy of Lancaster, in- cluding the appointment of a new chamberlain, a new chancellor, and new chief stewards north and south of Trent. It was to the last of these offices, the chief stewardship of the duchy south of Trent and in Wales, which his father Sir Thomas Hungerford had relinquished just twenty years before, that Sir Walter was appointed on 5 April 1413. It was an office which carried with it membership of the duchy council and, after an act of the Parliament of March 1416, a commission of the peace in each of the counties of his bailiwick. He continued to hold it until May 1437, even after his appointment as chamberlain of the duchy in February 1425, although after Henry V’s death his jurisdiction seems to have been limited to the estates under the control of Henry’s feoffees in the duchy. 28 Soon after his appointment as duchy chief steward Hungerford was elected for Wiltshire to the first of Henry V’s Parliaments, which met in May 1413 and in which his friend, William Stourton, was for a time the Commons’ Speaker. He himself was Speaker in the next Parliament which met in April 1414 at Leicester, having been re-elected for Wilt- shire. So far as is known, it was the last Parliament which he attended as knight of the shire. Had the statutory prohibition on the return of sheriffs been strictly enforced, however, he would not have been elected on this occasion, because he was sheriff of Somerset and Dorset in this year (November 1413-14).29 As in 1406, Sir Walter can only have been very much of an absentee 312 Three Wiltshire Speakers from his bailiwick. Apart from his duchy interests, not only was he away in the midlands for the month’s duration of the Parliament in April and May, but from 16 July to 20 September 1414 he was out of the country on an embassy to the Emperor Sigismund at Coblenz * pro certis materiis specialibus dominum Regem intime moventibus’ (actually to treat for an alliance), and he was only back in England for a matter of five weeks or so when, on 27 October, he left for the Gen- eral Council of the Church then being held at Constance. He went in the company of, among others, his own diocesans of Bath and Wells (Bubwith) and Salisbury (Hallum), and the Earl of Warwick and Lord FitzHugh. The object of the embassy was to act ° pro salute animarum christianorum ibidem congregatorum necnon pro aliis certis de causis dictum dominum nostrum Regem erga dictum Imperatorem moventibus ’. More prosaically, this second embassy was to treat for the Anglo-Imperial alliance with greater urgency now that Henry V had decided to prosecute his rights in France. From it Hungerford did not return until May 1415. His allowances were {1 a day for himself and pro rata payments for his men and servants. (He took 28 horses.) The Exchequer audit of his expense claims disclosed that on 13 May 1415 £79 out of a total of £279 owing to him were still outstanding. (A tally for that amount, drawn on the collectors of tunnage and pound- age at Bristol, was given him at the Lower Exchequer on 21 June.) 3° Hungerford took advantage of his stay at Constance to secure on 10 February 1415 a papal dispensation for his son Walter, who is described in the bull as a scholar and in his eighth year, enabling him, when he should have made up his thirteenth year and been tonsured, to hold any benefice with cure (including a parish church or perpetual vicarage) or an elective dignity in a cathedral or collegiate church, to hold there and then any benefices without cure, including prebends, and to resign such, by way of exchange, as often as he wished. And on 18 March, two days before John XXIII’s flight from Constance to Schafthausen, a bull issued, at Sir Walter’s impetration, ordering the prior of Bath to transfer the disused Hungerford chantry in Heytesbury parish church to a chapel in his manor-house there, it being understood that Hunger- ford would augment the revenues of the chantry and appoint a resident chaplain and clerk, who were later to be joined by others when further resources had been found. 31 When Hungerford returned to England early in May 1415, prepar- ations for resuming the war with France had been going ahead since the previous autumn with increasing urgency. Recruitment of retinues Aa nessa ne Eales andes cronatits By J. S. Roskell 313 by indenture had already been proceeding for a month. By 9 June Hungerford’s own retinue was at least in course of formation, and he finally contracted to serve with 19 men-at-arms and 60 archers. 32 Pre- sumably he was with the king at Winchester when, on 28 June, he appointed a deputy in his office of duchy chief steward, as did his fellow steward for the north. This his first deputy, Roger Hunt, may not have been his own choice, but, a year later, William Westbury and, two years later again (in 1418), William Alisaundre were his deputies and both these men were to be among his own feoffees and were Wilt- shire men. This appointment of chief stewards’ deputies was a new departure in duchy history, necessitated by the impending absence of their principals in France.33 On 22 July at Southampton Henry V made a series of enfeoffments (comprising most of the original Lacy and Ferrers estates and his mother’s share of the Bohun inheritance, and worth about £6,000 a year clear) for the fulfilment of his will, which was sealed two days later. Hungerford was both one of the feoffees and one of the executors nominated in these instruments; in fact, with one exception, all the executors now appointed were also members of the committee of feoffees and, moreover, were a majority of it. Both bodies included the chancellor and receiver-general of the Duchy of Lancaster as well as Hungerford. The feoffees included additional members of the higher administrative staff of the duchy in the persons of the duchy chamberlain and the chief steward for the northern parts. Time was to bring changes in the ranks of both feoftees and executors, and when, on 10 June 1421, Henry V drew up his last will Hungerford was to be appointed one of the eight executors charged with the actual administration of the will, a position in the scheme he had not previously held. 34 On 5 August 1415, the very day of the condemnation and execution of the conspirators of the Southampton plot, chief of whom was Richard, Earl of Cambridge, the latter’s elder brother, Edward, Duke of York, received the royal licence to mortgage certain of his estates, mainly in Wiltshire and Yorkshire, in order to raise loans to help meet his costs in the first of Henry V’s expeditions to France and also his out- lay on the endowment and building of the great collegiate church at Fotheringhay, where within a few months, after his death at Agin- court, he was to be buried. Among the feoffees, who included Bishop Beaufort, was Sir Walter Hungerford; another was his future colleague, Roger Flore of Oakham, a lawyer who was to be Speaker in 1416, 314 Three Wiltshire Speakers 1417, 1419, and 1422, and chief steward of the Duchy of Lancaster for the north parts. 35 Hungerford crossed with the expeditionary force and, after the tak- ing of Harfleur, fought at Agincourt. On the eve of the battle it was he (according to the author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti) who expressed a wish for another 10,000 archers, a remark which drew from the king, who heard it, a rebuke and an assertion of his royal faith in God to win them triumph over superior numbers.36 Within a month of the great victory some of Hungerford’s prisoners (eight or more in number) were returning home from England under safe-conduct in quest of their ransoms. For his own and his retinue’s services in the compaign Hungerford had by June 1416 received at the hands of the treasurer of the Household some £295, payment being made by assignment on a recently voted parliamentary tenth and fifteenth. 37 By this time Henry V was bent on seeking to be successful in France by diplomatic methods which might also serve his interests in the Gen- eral Council at Constance where papal union and church reform were still outstanding problems. He meant to do his best with the Council's imperial protector, Sigismund, whose purpose was to off-set the threat to its usefulness and even existence contained in Henry's claim to the French throne and his recent triumph of arms. Lack of success in Paris moved the Emperor to visit England, and on 1 May 1416 he landed at Dover. In the previous month the royal council had discussed the visit and had decided to suggest to the king that Hungerford should be attached to Sigismund while in England and have the oversight of his household here. Sir Walter’s embassy of 1414-15 was sufficient quali- fication. Three days after Sigismund’s arrival (4 May 1416) Hungerford was appointed to treat with an embassy from the Archbishop of Col- ogne for the latter's alliance and homage. 38 Well before the conclusion of the imperial visit, Hungerford was directly engaged, however, in the naval measures being taken to re- lieve the English garrison at Harfleur, then hard-pressed by a Franco- Genoese fleet, and on 26 July 1416 he was commissioned as one of the two admirals of the fleet which was to serve under the Duke of Bed- ford. This appointment was made without prejudice to Thomas Beau- fort, Earl of Dorset (made Admiral for life of England, Ireland and Aquitaine in March 1412), who as Lieutenant of Normandy was in Harfleur itself at this time. Hungerford was presumably in part-com- mand as admiral in the great English naval victory of the Seine of 15 August. A fortnight later he was on sick-leave, the Duke of Bedford's By J. S. Roskell 315 licence being dated on 28 August aboard the Holy Ghost, then in the river off Harfleur. Hungerford probably returned to London where, on 14 September, the civic sheriffs had orders by royal letters close to liberate four of his retinue who had apparently been seized as deserters. 39 On the very day of the sea-battle the Treaty of Canterbury had been signed between Henry V and Sigismund; it involved an offensive and defensive alliance and, after a further diplomatic understanding had been arrived at with Burgundy, the winter was spent on preparations in England for a renewal of the war. Hungerford himself used the brief lull to further his private scheme for marrying his younger son, Edmund, to one of the coheirs of Lord Burnell; the contract already had the king’s approval.49 By the middle of February 1417, if no earlier, Hungerford was a member of the royal Council,4! and was frequent in his attendance. Certainly this was so during the early months of the year, when those advising the king were a peculiarly small and select group, mainly of officials. All was in train for the ex- pedition which sailed on 30 July 1417 for the conquest of Normandy. Meanwhile, on 18 July at Titchfield Sir Walter was made an additional feoffee in certain of the Hampshire and Wiltshire estates of Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, who was forced to mortgage themas secur- ity for loans which he was raising to equip himself for the expedition and to ensure support for his mother, sisters, and daughter.42 On 21 July Hungerford was presumably at the drawing up of Henry V’s ‘ second will ’, a series of instructions to the Lancastrian duchy feoffces of whom he was one, for two days later he was with the king at South- wick priory when the great seal was transferred from Bishop Beaufort to Bishop Langley of Durham, who thereby began a seven years period of office as Chancellor. It was expressly as steward of the royal House- hold that Hungerford was present at this transaction. How long he had occupied this superior position in the Household is not known, but it is possible that he owed his membership of the royal Council earlier in the year to it. He was to retain the office until the end of the reign and was separated but seldom from the king’s side in the intervening five years.43 When he sailed to Lower Normandy with the expedition of 1417 Hungerford’s retinue was just three times what it had been in 1415, namely 60 men-at-arms and 180 archers.44 The next three-and-a-half years were for him a time of continuous military service, only inter- rupted by his part in negotiations for the surrender of fortresses and in diplomatic exchanges with the French. He helped arrange the surrender of the castle of Caen on 9 September 1417 and there, three weeks later, 316 Three Wiltshire Speakers was made one of an embassy to treat for a truce. It was a week or so after the fall of Alencon that here on 1 November he was granted for life the constableship of Windsor castle with the custody of its forest and parks (Windsor, Guildford, South Henley, Easthampstead, and Folly John), and he was not to be deprived of this office until 1438 (when it was given to Edmund Beaufort, then Earl of Dorset).45 It was doubtless Henry V’s desire to give his youngest brother, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the benefit of an experienced staff which moved him to include his steward of the Household in the task-force which (after the fall of Falaise) Gloucester was to lead into the Cotentin in February 1418, Cherbourg being its chief objective. This town en- dured a five months’ siege and not until Michaelmas 1418 were its in- vesting forces free to take part in the greater siege of the Norman capital itself. Before the town and castle of Cherbourg actually fell, Hungerford had been made captain of both on 11 August 1418; he was to hold this office continually until certainly as late as 1431.46 The siege of Rouen had begun on 30 July 1418, but diplomatic exchanges with Armagnacs and Burgundians alike were still proceeding. The Dauphin’s offer of a treaty and alliance drew from Henry V the appointment of an embassy on 26 October 1418 of which Hungerford was one; he and his fellows were to treat for a marriage between the king and Charles VI’s daughter, Katherine, but there was to be no question of Henry’s disgorging any of his military gains. The abortive negotiations took place at Alencon between 10 and 22 November. At the beginning of December Hungerford was one of an embassy ap- _ pointed to treat with a mission from Burgundy, which at Arras resulted in Burgundy’s acceptance of the English terms and in an armistice which created a neutral zone round Paris. Again, after the surrender of Rouen on 19 January 1419, which he had helped to negotiate, in late January, in March, and in May following, Hungerford was one of those who met the Dauphin’s envoys to try to effect a personal inter- view between Charles of Valois and Henry V.47. Already captain of the town and castle of Cherbourg, Hungerford continued to do well for himself out of the conquest of Normandy. During the long siege of Rouen he had been granted (on 20 December 1418) the castle and barony of Homet in tail male on condition of a yearly rent of a lance with a fox’s brush attached and the provision of IO spearsmen and 20 archers for service in France. On 16 March 1420 he was given the lordship of Warenquebec and the fortalice of Beuse- ville; on 12 January 1421 lands in Tourny in the bailliage of Gisors, By J. S. Roskell 317 and on 19 May following the lands of Breauté and the chateau of Neville, lands in Coulombe Tenneville, and Villequier, and the fortalice of Hibouville, these being the forfeitures of three Norman “ traitors’. By May 1422 he had followed John Lord Clifford, recently killed in the siege of Meaux, as captain of Chateau Gaillard. And then, of course, apart from the unrecorded profits of war, there were wages and rewards as an indentured royal retainer: the treasurer of the Household paid him some £974 for the last eighteen months of Henry V’s reign. 48 The grants of 1420 and 1421 are almost all we know of the French side of Hungerford’s life in these years. As steward of the Household he was most probably with Henry V continually. After the conclusion of theTreaty of Troyesin May 1420 the war went on and Hungerford was with the king at the protracted siege of Melun from 13 July to 18 Nov- eniber 1420; he was one of the negotiators for its surrender. 49 Almost certainly in company with Henry V, Hungerford returned to England when the king visited it for the last time in the first half of 1421 for the coronation of his new Queen ‘Katherine of Valois), the ratification of the Treaty of Troyes in the Parliament of May 1421, and for the harnessing of further support for the conquest of Dauphinist France. Loans were to be an important feature of this support, and on 21 April Hungerford was put on loan-raising commissions in Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset. On 3 May, in a chapter at Windsor, he was elected and installed as a Knight of the Garter. He took the chance given by his stay in England to arrange for the conveyance into his hands of those estates which would come eventually to hisson Edmund, through the latter’s marriage with one of the coheirs of Hugh Lord Burnell who had died in November 1420. And this was perhaps the time when his eldest son, Robert, was contracted with the eldest daugh- ter of Lord Botreaux. When the king made his last will at Dover on 10 June, the eve of his departure for France, Hungerford’s previous appointment as an executor (in 1415) was confirmed, only now he was to be one of the © working’ executors. Already, he had renewed his royal letters of protection on 28 May and he presumably sailed with the king.5° After a demonstration near Orleans which did much to offset the moral effectof the defeat of Baugé, Henry V in October 1421 took on the siege of Meaux, the most important Dauphinist centre near Paris. Here Hungerford was in command onthe west side of the town, the Duke of Exeter and the Earls of Warwick and March being in charge of the other sectors. Not until 2 May 1422 did the place surren- der, Hungerford being one of the English commissioners to make 318 Three Wiltshire Speakers terms.5! Meanwhile, in the conditions of a winter siege, the king’s health had given way. His case was soon hopeless, and he died at Bois de Vincennes on 31 August. Hungerford, his steward of Household, already appointed by Henry V in his written will to attend on the person of his infant heir (Henry VI), was confirmed in this position of guardian when the king made his final death-bed dispositions. Hungerford himself was there. For four-and-a-half years later he was required, along with Henry’s erst- while secretary, the Earl of Stafford, and Lord Bourchier, to testify to the dying king’s intentions regarding the Duke of Bedford’s future position in Normandy and France, and in a parliamentary petition of 1427 was mentioned as being present when Henry V at the last par- doned his Household officers their debts.52_ Almost certainly Hunger- fordcame back to England with the funeral cortége of the dead king via Paris, Rouen, Boulogne, and Calais, London not being reached until 5 November. Two days later Henry V was buried. Two days later again, on 9 November, his successor’s first Parliament met. Of first-rate importance on the agenda of this parliament were cer- tain matters in which Hungerford had an immediate interest: the arrangements to be made for the fulfilment of the late king’s will, of which he was one of the ‘ working ° executors and for which he was a feoffee in parcels of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the constitutional provisions to be made for government during the minority of the new king, in which he was also concerned as one of the latter’s guardians. The result of the session regarding the second and more important of these issues was the establishment of a Protectorship and the recon- struction of a royal Council charged with the exercise of the royal authority when Parliaments or Great Councils were not sitting. The new Council, as presently composed, was to consist of the Dukes of Gloucester and Exeter, five prelates, five earls, and five others. Of the last fiveall wereknights, two barons and three commoners; Hungerford was one of these three. He did not retain his stewardship of the royal Household, an office now somewhat deflated, but he remained as one of the two chief stewards of the Duchy of Lancaster. His membership of the royal Council—as steward of Household to Henry V he had almost certainly been a member of his Council continuously- from 1417—was a foregone conclusion. He was among the magnates named as present in the great chamber at Windsor on 17 November 1422 when _ the great seal of silver, brought back from overseas by Henry V's Chancellor of Normandy, was entrusted to the old Chancellor of By J. S. Roskell 319 England, Bishop Langley. Apparently on 9 December the Council took office. Hungerford took the oath on 26 January 1423 at a meet- ing in the Dominican friary in London.53 Salaries were not seemingly fixed, in a scheme of payments graduated according to rank, until 10 July 1424 when, after an inspection of records for the previous half century or so, Hungerford’s own stipend as a knight banneret was decided as being {100 a year (minus Ios. a day for absence in term- time). As things turned out he was to remain a member of the Council certainly until after the end of Henry VI’s minority, and perhaps for longer. In fact, in November 1437, when his councillor’s annual salary was reduced to 100 marks he was to have this fee for life even if unable to attend, and he was paid £/50 for Michaelmas term 1438. Until then, since 1422, not a year had passed in which, in the imperfect records of the Council, his attendance is not noticed, and certainly until 1432 his attendance was frequent except from spring to spring 1423-4, when he was overseas.54 This preoccupation explains Hungerford’s almost complete absence from local commissions of royal appointment in these years, although his inclusion in the commissions of the peace continued. As early as 18 February 1423 Hungerford was given permission by the Council to go to France with the Duke of Exeter. He had asked to be temporarily discharged of his obligation (under the terms of Henry V’s will) to attend continually on the king and from his functions as one of Henry V’sexecutors, and thatafter his service in France he might perform certain religious vows. These requests were granted by the Council ‘libenti animo’, and a Council minute of the same day allow- ing the wardship of the heirs of tenants-in-chief dying overseas to go to their wives or executors was expressly extended to Hungerford. At a Council meeting on 26 April at which he was himself present, it was decided that he should have his letters of protection without further demand, and onthe same day he took out letters appointing his general attorneys. Onthe next day it was agreed that the Treasurer should take from him certain pledges he held as creditor to the late king until the administration of the royal will should be properly begun. From now until May 1424 there is no record of Hungerford’s appearing at council meetings. But, although his indenture of service de guerre specified that he was to begin it on 28 June, he did not take out letters of protection until 8 July 1423, and although an order to take his muster issued on 18 June, he was still in England a month later when he personally received at the Lower Exchequer an advance of some £294. His con- 320 Three Wiltshire Speakers tract to serve for a year with a retinue of 2 knights, 17 esquires, and 60 archers, had certainly been drawn up as early as 14 March. 55 What was the purpose of Hungerford’s visit to France it is not easy to see: it may have been intended to supply Bedford with a welcome source of counsel in this year of diplomatic difficulty, although the triple alliance of Bedford, Burgundy and Brittany had already been achieved when Hungerford eventually crossed the Channel. One of his objects may have been to see to his own French estates and to put Cherbourg in order. In the meantime, his private affairs in England had almost certainly benefited from his membership of the royal Council. During the Parliament of 1422 he had been given (on 24 November) the custody of the estates of his recently deceased mother- in-law while they were in the king’s hands, and on 27 January 1423, the day after he took his councillor’s oath, orders were sent out to the escheators in Somerset, Cornwall and Devon to give livery of seisin of all the estates of which Margaret Peverell had died possessed to Hun- gerford and his wife and to her sister and her husband. Whether Hungerford was back in England or not by 18 November 1423 he then — secured from the Council the guardianship and marriage of Philip Courtenay, nephew and heir of Richard Courtenay, the Bishop of Norwich and friend of Henry V who had died at Harfleur in 1415, pay- ing 800 marks for the marriage alone (his sureties being Lords Scrope and Cromwell). Before the end of 1424 Sir Walter had married young Courtenay to his own daughter, Elizabeth; a dispensation for their marriage, which was within the prohibited degrees of kinship, already. granted by Bishop Beaufort of Winchester, was confirmed by Pope Martin V on 28 December 1424.56 By May 1424 Hungerford was certainly back in England and he then resumed his attendance at the meetings of the royal Council. On 15 July the Council appointed him to his old office of steward of the House- hold, and on the next day he was present with other councillors at Hertford castle when the great seal was surrendered by Bishop Langley and delivered to Bishop Beaufort who so returned to the Chancery after an absence of seven years. On 31 October, four days after the death of Nicholas Bubwith, Hungerford’s own diocesan of Bath and Wells, the Council gave to Hungerford, who was overseer of the late bishop’s will along with Bishop Beaufort, and to four of Bubwith’s executors the keeping of the temporalities of the see during the vacancy. In the course of their custody they made a loan to the crown of £400 and met other drafts on the revenues made by the Exchequer, but these By J. S. Roskell 321 payments were taken into consideration when the final account was rendered in February 1427 and the total payment due was assessed at £872 odd. Elected to the see in December 1424, Dr. John Stafford, Treasurer of England since the beginning of the reign and as already Dean of Wells favourably placed for this promotion, got livery of the temporalities on 12 May 1425.57 Not long before this, on 12 February 1425, Hungerford had been made chamberlain of the Duchy of Lancaster, in addition to his office as duchy chief steward south of Trent. The office of chamberlain was com- ing to carry little more than dignity but it still involved the presidency of the duchy Council, andit made Hungerford the formal chief of those members of the committee of Henry V’s feoffees in the duchy who were actually duchy administrators. Hungerford was to retain this office of duchy chamberlain until February 1444, when his younger son, Edmund, after securing the reversion of the office on 10 November 1441, followed him in possession of it.58 Hungerford’s membership of the royal Council continued to pay him dividends. Any tendencies for his councillor’s salary to fall into arrears in these early years of Henry VI's reign and any calls on his goodwill for government loans—on 3 March 1425 he made a loan of 250 marks— were offset by grants within the control of the Council. By this very loan he bought his way into a syndicate of councillors (altogether £1,000 was subscribed) granted the marriage of John, the son and heir of the late Earl of Oxford, then a royal ward. (If this grant came to nothing the group were to recoup themselves from the estates of Thomas, son and heir of John Lord Ros of Helmsley, whose minority had still two-and-a-half-years to run.) And on 20 May 1425, he and his young son-in-law, Philip Courtenay, acquired for seven years (as from midsummer 1425) the custody of the borough, manor, mill and courts of Lydford, the manor of Teigncombe, and all the royal lands called Dartmoor, including the coal-pits and turbaries, for an annual rent of £105.59 On 13 June 1425, when an advance of 500 marks was furnished him at the Lower Exchequer, Hungerford was about to go to France again _ to join Bedford’s council of regency for half a year, a decision of the _ English Council. By the beginning of August he had seemingly crossed | with Bishop Kemp of London. Again, as in 1423, it may have been _- diplomatic business that was responsible, especially perhaps the diffi- culties arising out of the Duke of Gloucester’s invasion of Hainault (in support of his wife, Jacqueline) between October 1424 and April 1425, | which were still disturbing the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. Certainly | i —————————— | 322 Three Wiltshire Speakers Hungerford was in Bedford’s council when a papal bull of 24 April 1425 prohibiting a duel between Gloucester (the challenger) and Bur- gundy was delivered to the Regent by the Archbishop of Rouen on 24 September following, and then read before those present.69 At the end of October Bedford was asked by the Council in England to return home to settle the quarrel between Gloucester and their uncle, Henry Beaufort, the Chancellor, which had reached the point of open conflict between their retinues. Bedford did return in December 1425, Hunger- ford in all probability with him. Asa member of the English Council since 1422 Hungerford is likely in this period of tension to have been in sympathy with Bishop Beau- fort, or at any rate to have belonged to a moderate group in the Council holding the balance between the Protector and the Chancellor but offering resistance to Gloucester’s recurrent bids for a bigger share of authority vis-a-vis the Council than had been allowed him as Protector at the beginning of the reign. It is probable that he was inclined to support Beaufort, but his first summons to Parliament as a baron on 7 January 1426—his fellow councillor Tiptoft was also now first sum- — moned—was more probably due to a movement in the Council to strengthen its hands than to the Chancellor himself alone. The appease- ment of the quarrel between Gloucester and Beaufort took up much of the time of the first session of the Parliament which met on 15 Feb- ruary 1426, far away from thescene of therecent disturbances, at Leices- ter, where twelve years before Hungerford had acted as Speaker. Part of the price Beaufort paid for the reconciliation of 12 March was his resignation of the great seal on the following day. But Bishop Stafford of Bath and Wells who resigned the Treasurership three days later (16 March) was almost certainly a friend of Gloucester, and his retire- ment was, therefore, perhaps part of a compromise. It was Lord Hungerford who was immediately appointed to follow his diocesan at the Exchequer, the first lay Treasurer since 1417, and it was as Treasurer of England that he was present in Leicester Abbey at the delivery of the great seal to Beaufort’s successor, Bishop Kemp of London. Bishop Kemp, soon to be promoted Archbishop of York, had in his youth studied at Merton College, Oxford, and had later become a fellow there. If, as is possible, Hungerford had an earlier as he most certainly had a later connexion with this college, the new Chancellor and Treasurer had interests in common there. In any case, the two officials had had more. recent contacts: Kemp had been Hungerford’s companion on his trips to France in 1423 and 1425.6! Both men can only have taken office as By J. S. Roskell 323 acceptable to the acting Protector, Bedford. Hungerford retained his Duchy of Lancaster offices but now resigned his stewardship of the royal Household. This office went to his fellow councillor, Tiptoft. In sum, the re-shuffle of offices at Leicester meant a consolidation of strength on the part of the moderate elements in the Council rather than any success for Gloucester, whose quarrel with Beaufort was not, from the Council’s point of view, the first (or last) consequence of his am- bitions. On Whit-Sunday 1426, during the second session of the Leicester Parliament, the Duke of Bedford knighted the four years old Henry VI who then dubbed thirty-six young men, lords and lords’ sons, includ- ing the new Treasurer's younger son Edmund. 6? After this parliament- ary session Hungerford was put on a Crown loan commission of 23 July 1426 that was to operate in Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, and at Bristol, and he again served on a like commission for the same area in 1428.63 But these were almost the only local conimissions, apart from his commissions of the peace, on which Hungerford served in these years of his Treasurership, when in term-time at any rate he was more or less continuously at Westminster in attendance on the Council. On 24 October 1426 it was decided by the Council that, instead of the {100 a year which Hungerford had been receiving as a councillor of the rank of knight-banneret, he should from the time of his appoint- ment as Treasurer take a fee of 200 marks a year as a member of the Council. In addition to this he now enjoyed 100 marks a year plus an established increment of {300 a year simply as Treasurer. Apart from his duchy of Lancaster fees, his official stipends now amounted to £500 a year. Moreover, as head of the Exchequer, he was able to ensure that their payment did not fall into heavy arrears, and while he was Treasurer his lowest annual receipts were £380 and his highest, £580. Although his payments as a councillor were always behindhand—he had been paid little during the first two years of the reign—his payments as Treas- urer were usually actually in advance, so that, when he came to resign from the Exchequer in 1432, all his treasurer’s fees had been paid up (save £12). From the beginning of the reign until then the total sum due to him was in the region of £3,600: of this by 1432 he had his hands on over £3,400. Averaging it all out, he was receiving in the first nine years of Henry VI’s reign something like {£/400 a year, com- pared with an income from his estates at the beginning of this period of about £650 a year and at the end of it of about £1,050 a year. 64 VOL. LVI—CCIV & CCV Vv 324 Three Wiltshire Speakers What his incidental fees and perquisites of office were there is no means of knowing. But their total can hardly have been negligible. His importance at the centre of things was clearly growing, and one result of this was to bring Hungerford into prominent membership of committees of feoffees to uses. The list of those who sought his good offices in this way isa long one. Even in Henry V’s reign, to name only — the most important, he had been feoffee to Edward Duke of York, Thomas Earl of Salisbury, Chief Justice Sir William Hankford, and Sir John Tiptoft, and in Henry VI's reign he became feoffee to Richard Duke of York, Humphrey Earl of Stafford, Ralph Lord Cromwell, Reginald West Lord de la Warre, William Lord Lovell, and also to Richard Melbourne, knight of the shire for Wiltshire in 1421, 1423, and 1425, who was one of Hungerford’s estates-stewards in Wiltshire 65, Hungerford’s membership of the little group of four overseers of the will of Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, which was drawn up on 29 December 1426, may have been due partly to friendship, partly to Hungerford’s then occupying the Treasurership. His being chosen on 12 May 1429 as overseer of the will of John, Duke of Norfolk, was almost certainly due to his being Treasurer, because his co-overseer was the Chancellor, and Norfolk suggested that either of them would do. On 15 January 1431 one of the two chamberlains of the Exchequer, John Wodehouse, made ‘ his lord’ the Treasurer one of the overseers of his will. Their association at the Exchequer had been by no means the beginning of this connexion; Wodehouse had been made chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Hungerford was made one of the - duchy chief stewards (in 1413) and they had been fellow-members of the duchy council for the next eleven years; moreover, both men had been feoffees and executors to Henry V.°6 For nearly six years, from March 1426 until February 1432, Lord Hungerford was to remain Treasurer of England. During this period he was one of the mainstays of the Council, was party to all the most important of its acts, and generally took up an attitude designed to con- tinue its control of affairs without any undue subservience to the Pro- tector. On 3 March 1428 in Parliament, for example, he subscribed the Lords’ declaration of Gloucester’s limited authority, confirming the settlement of 1422. As Treasurer and councillor, chamberlain and chief steward of the duchy of Lancaster, executor and feoffee of Henry V, he was the administrator pure and simple, the foremost single agent in the © manipulation of the finances of the Crown. There was no question of his taking up again any military duties, and his request on 25 January, al PE ENS EILEEN ESS —— By J. S. Roskell 325 1427 to be allowed to cross to Cherbourg, where he was still captain of castle and town, to see to its strengthening against attack from Brittany, can only have been meant to guarantee him against any charge of negligence if the place were lost. 67 At this time Hungerford’s two elder sons, Robert and Walter, were both serving in France with Bedford. The former was at the siege of Orleans in 1429 and the latter was a prisoner of war when the autumn Parliament of this year was in session, having been taken at Patay on 18 June by Lord Beaumanoir, a Breton noble, who held him to ransom at 12,000 ‘ saluz’. The Lords in the Parliament, in fact, undertook to write to Bedford recommending some arrangement whereby Lord Talbot and Sir Walter Hungerford junior could be exchanged for a French prisoner of note, Sir William Barbazan, if this was not likely to upset the Duke of Burgandy. (Barbazan had evidently been involved in the murder of John the Fearless at Montereau ten years before.) Over this son's ransom Lord Hungerford was to have much trouble, in spite of his being favourably placed to effect his liberation. On 8 May 1431 he was given a formal licence to send {£2,000 out of the country to pay the ransom. He himself subscribed a quarter of the total sum due (3,000 “ saluz’), and Lords Scales, Cromwell and Tiptoft put up the rest, and an acquittance had been received. An additional 6,000‘ saluz’ had been promised, unknown to Lord Hungerford, by his son. The - father had paid off 5,000 ‘ saluz’ of this sum, being assisted by a sub- scription of 1,000 ° saluz ’ from the Duke of Brittany and a loan of 4,000 from merchants. All was therefore paid up except 1,000 * saluz’ which the receiver of Queen Joan (Henry IV’s dowager) in Brittany was in February 1433 willing to pay off. Although liberated, the younger Walter had died by this time, but Lord Beaumanoir refused to con- clude the transaction, so that the royal Council on Lord Hungerford’s behalf ordered a complaint to the Duke of Brittany. 68 As early as 1429 English affairs in France were going ill, and there was no improvement in the years that followed. Finance was clearly one of the main difficulties, and it may have been Hungerford’s realiz- ation of the dangers of his own very responsible position as Treasurer that prompted him to ask in Parliament on 16 March 1431 for it to be recorded that he had frequently demanded that the late Earl of Salis- bury (killed at Orleans in 1429) should be better supplied with funds. And it may have been a sense of the need for financial circumspection at home which prompted him on 28 November following to state in a specially well-attended Council that, though he was agreeable to Duke Vv 326 Three Wiltshire Speakers Humphrey taking as ° custos ’ 2000 marks a year in addition to the 4000 marks he already had been granted, while Henry VI was out of the country for his coronation in France, Gloucester should revert to his previous salary (plus a ‘ reward ’) when the King came back. Glouces- ter’s supporter, Lord Scrope, concurred that Gloucester’s stipend should be raised to 6000 marks a year but recommended that on the King’s return it should drop by merely 1000 marks to 5000. Those who stood out against this were outnumbered by three to one, and the minority finally acquiesced, the Chancellor and the Bishop of Carlisle last of all. 69 His opposition to Gloucester was to cost Hungerford dear not long afterwards when the Duke on Henry VI's home-coming in February 1432 took the opportunity to secure extensive changes in the admin- istration. The Treasurer had only recently tried to ensure his control of the national finances, but his attempts had fallen short of success. At Canterbury on 28 January 1432 he was party to certain stipulations agreed to by the Council regarding its procedure. It had been estab- lished as one of its rules of conduct that at least four councillors and an official member should approve any measure, but that if so many agreed it should pass provided that they were a majority of those pre- sent. It was now decided that if no official member assented a matter might still pass, provided that over half of the Council were present. The special knowledge of both Chancellor and Treasurer was acknow- ledged to be an important consideration, and their advice and reasons must be heard, but it was nevertheless decided that whatever one of the Kings’ uncles and a majority of the Council deemed advisable should pass, and that the Keeper of the Privy Seal should make out all necessary writs even if no official subscribed the warrant. Four weeks later Hungerford was present at Westminster at the tradition of the two great seals to Bishop Stafford of Bath and Wells when Archbishop Kemp of York was required to give up the Chancery. It was his last official act as Treasurer: on the following day, 26 February 1432, he was him- self superseded as Treasurer by Gloucester’s supporter, Lord Scrope.7° At the same time Lord Cromwell gave up the Chamberlainship and Lord Tiptoft the Stewardship of the royal Household. The Parliament which came together in May 1432 saw Cardinal Beaufort’s attempt to justify himself against allegations of treason fizzle out in a denial of any such rumours, and Cromwell’s complaint _ to the Lords that he had been dismissed contrary to the Council ordin- ances of 1429 fell through. Probably thanks to Bedford, the next By J. S. Roskell 327 Parliament, meeting in the summer of 1433, was to witness the restor- ation to power of the Beaufort group, including the appointment of Cromwell to the Treasurer’s office which he was then to retain for almost ten years. Hungerford was not called upon for high office, but he remained a member of the royal Council, and was influential there if only because of his experience and his position as a feoftee and executor of Henry V and as a member of the Duchy of Lancaster council and administration. He attended the Parliament of May 1432 and was a trier of English petitions. By this time his younger son, Sir Edmund, was close to the person of the young King, being one of the four royal carvers or sewers.71 In the middle of July 1432 Lord Hungerford was about to go to France with a large retinue of 300 men (50 men-at- arms and 250 archers) at a wage rate of over {1,100 a quarter, and he was to carry £2,500 to the Duke of Bedford. But he was back in Eng- land in October when he was present at an assay of coinage at the Tower mint. In April 1433 he and his old colleague in diplomacy, John Kemp, Archbishop of York, were commissioned to go to the General Council of the Church at Basel where, Pope Eugenius IV was making efforts to bring about peace between England and France. What were their instructions in this mission are not known, but Hun- gerford at any rate was to confer with Bedford on the way out.72 It is very doubtful whether Hungerford went to Basel (there being no _ Exchequer record of any payment), but if he did so he was back in England again in time for the Parliament of July—December 1433 in which Bedford began the first session with a defence of his policy in France and ended the second with an undertaking to remain in Eng- land as head of the Council. Hungerford was once more a trier of petitions, and before the Parliament ended was one of the Lords who, in answer to a Commons’ petition, took an oath to observe the King’s peace and not to maintain those who broke it. In the following May (1434) he was a commissioner to administer the oath to the notables of Wiltshire, the list of whom is headed by his two sons, Sir Robert and Sir Edmund. Meanwhile, on 22 November 1433 he had attended a meeting of the Council during the Parliament, and from 24 April to 8 May 1434 was present at a Great Council which met to consider proposals from the Duke of Gloucester that he should be given charge of the war in France.73_ The latter’s views resulted in a quarrel with his brother Bedford but naught else, and in June the senior duke returned to France. Before his departure, on 13 June, he had laid some important suggestions before the Council regarding the future conduct of the war, 328 Three Wiltshire Speakers including certain financial stipulations which affected Hungerford as one of Henry V’s Duchy of Lancaster feoffees. The administration of Henry V’s will had proceeded slowly. Indeed, Henry IV’s will had only been settled in December 1429, and in May 1432 Henry V's executors had pointed out in Parliament that their liabilities under his will still amounted to £8000. The feoffees had then virtually taken over its administration. Now, in June 1434, Bed- ford proposed that the enfeoffed portions of the Duchy should be re- sumed by the present King and that the revenues of the whole Duchy should then be appropriated to the war and to the maintenance of a a permanent force of 200 spears and bows. On 14 June Cardinal Beaufort and Hungerford, the two politically most important feoffees still alive, promised an answer on the following day when, in fact, they partially consented to Bedford’s plan. The Lords agreed that the feoffees might honourably release their estate in the enfeoffment if assignments were made by the Exchequer to meet the loans made by the feoffees to the Crown, the expenses for Henry V’s chantry and tomb, and his outstanding debts. After demanding an inspection of their books by a committee of the Council so that the soundness of their administration could be attested in the next Parliament, the feoffees agreed that if the current year’s revenues from their estates and the in- come from the proposed assignments proved more than enough to meet all their obligations under Henry V’s will, they would not only direct the surplus to meet the costs of the war as from Michaelmas following but also then settle the estates in their trust on Henry VI.74 Their undertaking to bring the enfeoffment to an end was conditional. Not for a long time yet were Hungerford and his cofeoffees to feel able to honour it, but in the next year, 1435, they made further considerable advances to the Crown out of their income. Again, on 3 February 1436 Beaufort, Chichele and Hungerford in their own names and in the name of Bishop Langley of Durham granted £/4000 from the enfeoff- ment, on condition that they were given security on the Southampton customs and that for a year from June following they should be free from need to make loans to the government. In May 1438 the feoffees made another assignment of 2000 marks. In Parliament, on 14 January 1440, it was again left to Beaufort and Hungerford to obstruct the con- clusion of their estate under Henry V’s arrangement of 1415. By this time the only feoffees left alive were Archbishop Chichele and them- selves. Both the Cardinal and Hungerford objected to the proposed employment of their income from the trust to meet the expenses of the By J. S. Roskell 329 royal Household. They did so on the grounds that the administration of Henry V’s will had not even yet been fully completed because of loans to the Crown amounting to ‘ many thousands ’. They were pre- pared, however, to acquiesce in the appropriation to the Treasurer of the Household of what was left out of their revenues after the payment of Beaufort’s and Chichele’s debts and after the reservation of £2000 for the continuing administration of the will, provided that they should each have royal letters patent declaring the cause of the delay in the fulfilment of the will and indemnifying them, that each should be free from impeachment or claims, and that any conveyances or releases of any of the enfeoffed estates, made by them at the instance of Henry V or Henry VI, should not be held against them. The three surviving feoffees were clearly touchy on the subject of their administration and conduct as feoffees. But not until another two years had elapsed could they be prevailed upon to surrender their trust. And then in the Par- liament of 1442 the Commons requested that there should be set upa parliamentary commission to hear the feoffees’ declaration regarding the will, failing which the King was to enter the enfeoffed estates and they stand discharged. Beaufort’s and Chichele’s debts, it was said, had long (but since 1439) been paid up, and the Commons expressed them- selves as concerned about the danger of Henry VI being disinherited if possession, now enjoyed by only three feoffees, should happen to fall upon one of them and descend to his heirs, especially, as the Commons noted in their petition, if ‘it fortune upon a Temporall man’. The Commons evidently had their doubts about Hungerford who was the only layman left alive of the original feoffees. This attempt of 1442 to recover the enfeoffed duchy estates for the King was eventually success- ful, and by February 1444 Henry VI was in possession so that the way was left clear for him to begin a series of duchy enfeoftments to ensure the fulfilment of his own will.75 In 1434 the attempt to terminate the estate of the Duchy of Lancaster feoffees of Henry V was part of a programme to supply the sinews of war to safeguard the English conquests in France. But in the following year, Bedford, himself in failing health and now somewhat estranged from his ally of Burgundy, agreed to the making of an attempt to save the game by diplomacy. The result was the great congress of Arras, which met in August 1435. On 20 June Hungerford, still a member of the royal Council, had already been chosen as a member of the English embassy and given a licence to take 2000 marks out of the country for his upkeep; his personal wages were to be £2 a day. He left London 330 Three Wiltshire Speakers for Arras on 11 July and returned on 18 September,76 The proceedings began on 3 August and the English withdrew on 6 September, in spite of the French being prepared to make large concessions. Within little more than a week Bedford was dead. Burgundy’s adherence to Charles VII of France followed almost automatically. This desertion made the English position in France precarious and the preservation of the Eng- lish hold on Calais and the march of Picardy of especially urgent im- portance. Hungerford was one of the Lords present in Parliament when on 29 October 1435 the Duke of Gloucester, now heir-presump- tive to the throne, indentured with the King for the custody of Calais for the next nine years as from July 1436. The Duke of York was appointed as Bedford’s successor as Regent of France and, in February 1436, Hungerford was one of the recipients of privy seal writs asking for loans for the equipment of the army which York was to take over to France. Paris had already been lost and Calais was under siege. At the end of January with his eldest son Hungerford had been made a commissioner to assess both baronial and other incomes in Wiltshire for the new graduated income tax (on land and offices) voted in the recent Parliament; he himself also served in Somerset. His other son, Edmund, one of the King’s carvers, was sheriff of Wiltshire in this year (November 1435-6).77 Whether Hungerford’s force of 2 knights banneret, 30 men-at -arms, and 378 archers, which by the end of Aug- ust 1436 he had raised for service in France (being advanced some £320 at the Exchequer), was actually employed by York or for the relief of Calais is not clear. But that Hungerford fully approved at this juncture of an active anti-Burgundian policy in Flanders is suggested by his apparently warm approval of the tract composed in these latter months of 1436, entitled “ The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye’. Advocating the maintenance of naval supremacy in the narrow seas and a blockade of Flanders to enforce a diplomatic accommodation and secure a resump- tion of commercial intercourse, the book was given to Hungerford to approve of, which he did ‘ whanne he thee redde alle over in a nyghte ’: ‘trewe .... nexte the Gospell’ was his alleged comment.78 On 9 April 1437, he was appointed one of a group of commissioners ° pro materia pacis ’, just about when York was giving up his lieutenancy of France in favour eventually of Warwick. A week later he had agreed to make a loan to the King of {100° si non ibit in servicium regis ’. Hungerford at this time was still in constant attendance at the royal Council, and in November 1437 was among the existing members who were re-appointed with four additions; his fee of £100 was now re- By J. S. Roskell 331 duced from £100 to 100 marks but granted him for life, evenif he were unable to attend, and on 20 March 1438 a suitable Exchequer assign- ment for his payment was made on the issues of the alnage of cloth in his own county of Wiltshire. On 28 March a privy seal warrant was issued authorizing the repayment by the Exchequer of a loan of £40 which he made towards the cost of raising the siege of Guines and send- ing an army to Normandy under the Earl of Dorset. Quite recently, in January 1438, to Hungerford had come a reminder of earlier and more spacious days with a bequest of a drinking cup given in the first place by the Emperor Sigismund to Simon Sidenham, Bishop of Chichester, who now gave it to Hungerford, the sole overseer of his will. 79 In February 1439 Hungerford was present at a Great Council. The war was going unsatisfactorily, but the peace party had to go slow in its approaches to Charles VII, and parallel negotiations to win back Burgundy to an English alliance went on as well. Hungerford was away from Westminster from 11 June to 8 August and again between 28 August and 7 October 1439 on an embassy to Calais engaged in negotiations for a peace with France (alias matters touching the King and the * res publica ’ of his two realms), which resulted in a truce for three years with Burgundy. Between the two visits (with Archbishop Kemp and the Earl of Stafford) he was back in England for instructions. - From the second visit he returned to this country on 1 October, rode up from Sandwich to London via Canterbury with the Bishop of Norwich and Thomas Beckington, the King’s secretary, and on 10 October reported to Henry VI at Kennington. His advances at the Exchequer in cash and assignments came to £290, £54 of which were outstanding until midsummer 1440.89 This diplomatic mission of 1439 was to prove Hungerford’s last. He was well out of it. In 1440, after the retaking of Harfleur by the English, the Duke of York was given the management of the war as lieutenant-general in France; his commission was to last from 2 July 1440 to Michaelmas 1445. The instructions advised by the duke’s chief council suggested Hungerford’s inclusion in the council of nine that was to operate with York in France and Normandy.8! Nothing, however, seems to have come of this proposal, and Hungerford, now turned sixty years of age, drops out of the diplomatic picture. His stock of diplomatic know- ledge had largely been gained when it was a fair wind all the way in France; the diplomacy of defeat and withdrawal was perhaps not con- genial. He had ceased to be a chief steward of the Duchy of Lancaster B32 Three Wiltshire Speakers in 1437, in 1438 to be Constable of Windsor; his duchy feoffeeship was become an embarrassment. But his territorial and family position was very healthy, and he was still a member of the King’s Council and chief of the Duchy of Lancaster council. And he was far from lacking in- fluence. He was still powerful enough to get the reversion of his duchy chamberlainship granted in 1441 to his younger son, Edmund, who wasstillasewerto Henry VI. Hisown future royal commissions, however, were to be mainly local. In August 1440 he was one of the lords ordered to guard against unlawful assemblies and to join the King if need be. In October 1441 he was included in a commission of oyer and terminer regarding treasons and other offences in London and in the counties north and south of the Thames nearby, which suggests his attendance on the Council still. He attended Parliament in January 1442 and was a trier of petitions. In March 1442 he was put on a Crown loan raising commission in Wiltshire, in August on another down at Bristol. A few days before this last commission he subscribed a personal loan of £100 for an expedition to Guienne, and so that he might have a good assignment for repayment he loaned 100 quarters of wheat as well.82, On 15 March 1443 he was stated in the royal Council to have quelled riots at Salisbury, and it was decided that he should be specially thanked and asked to keep his eye on the situation there.83 By Feb- ruary 1444 Henry VI was in possession of his inheritance of the Lan- castrian duchy, and Hungerford, then (since Archbishop Chichele’s death) the only sharer of Cardinal Beaufort’s trust from Henry V, gave up at the same time his office of chamberlain of the duchy in favour of his son, Edmund. The two of them had recently (on 29 November 1443) been appointed by Henry VI as feoffees in certain parcels of the duchy to ensure the performance of his will, especially regarding his colleges at Eton and Cambridge. On 10 November 1444, Hungerford loaned another {100 to the government. He remained a J.P. in Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Oxfordshire and Bucks until his death, but he was appointed to his last casual royal commission on 1 June 1446, —a loan raising commission in Dorset and Somerset. 84 It was in this same year, 1446, that Lord Hungerford was enabled to round off a property that he had long been developing in Hungerford (Berks). During the years of his Treasurership he had acquired the manors of Hungerford, Engleford and Charlton-in-Hungerford and he had fishery rights in the township. Now, in 1446, the Duchy of Lancaster manor, town and borough of Hungerford, granted nine years before to the Duke of Gloucester, came his way to be held by By J. S. Roskell 333 fealty and for a rent of 20 marks. In July 1447 the duchy manor, park and hundred of Mere (Wilts), which he had held by a grant for life since 1416, were given to him and his son Edmund in survivorship.85 The family was still doing well enough. Robert, the heir, was no politician and by this time something of a stay-at-home, but Sir Edmund was at the centre of things as a member of the royal Household. In August 1447 this younger son shared (with a squire of the body to the King) a grant in survivorship of the keeping of the castle and honour of Berk- hamstead. In February 1449 he was made for life controller of all royal mines in England, Wales and Ireland, outside Devon and Cornwall, at afee of {40a year. All these mines had been granted three days before to the Duke of Suffolk, which suggests that here was his principal connexion at Court. And Edmund shared on 2 August 1449, just be- fore his father’s death, a royal grant of the offices of constable of Cardiff castle, and chancellor, master forester, and receiver of the Beauchamp lordships of Glamorgan and Morgannok.86 Lord Hungerford’s grand- son, Robert (the son of his heir Robert), had been summoned to Parlia- ment as Lord Moleyns since 1445 in right of his wife, Eleanor de Moleyns, the marriage being another sign of the way in which the Hungerford family fortunes were connected with Suffolk’s at this time.87_ Lord Hungerford himself, of course, continued to be sum- moned to Parliament until his death, but it is doubtful whether he attended after his grandson’s first Parliament of 1445. In 1444 he had been excused by the sovereign’s letters from being present at the annual chapter of the Order of the Garter, having since his election in 1421 attended every single chapter of which there is a record (that is, all ex- cept those from 1439 to 1443); and from 1444 onwards he always ex- cused himself. Neither of his two surviving sons, Robert and Edmund, became a member of the Order, although each was nominated on three occasions between 1445 and 1453.88 It was to his two sons and his grandson, Lord Moleyns, that on 31 July 1449 Lord Hungerford received a royal licence under the great seal to grant all his possessions. This was clearly in preparation for the end, for he died at Farleigh on 9 August. On 15 August were issued from the royal Chancery the writs of diem clausit extremum. Livery of seisin to his heir, Robert, was ordered on 26 October. His will, drawn up on 1 July, had already been proved at Croydon on 21 August by Archbishop Stafford, and on the following day order had been given to commit the administration of the will to the executors, provided they were willing to act; the Prerogative Court of Canterbury was to be 334 Three Wiltshire Speakers certified by Michaelmas whether this was so. The executors were Hungerford’s son and heir (Sir Robert), his younger son (Sir Edmund), his grandson (Lord Moleyns), Sir John Fortescue (Chief Justice of the King’s Bench), Master John Chedworth, Walter Bailly, William Stirrop (recently M.P. for the seventh time since 1432 for Chippenham), and John Mervyn (Hungerford’s receiver-general). The will’s super- visors were © carissimus dominus meus’, John Viscount Beaumont (husband to a niece of Cardinal Beaufort and a kinsman of the wife of the heir), Sir Philip Courtenay (Hungerford’s son-in-law), Master Gilbert Kymer (Dean of Salisbury and also Chancellor of the University of Oxford), and Master Andrew Hulse (a canon of Salisbury). 89 It was no light burden that these committees undertook. The relig- ious provisions of the will alone were formidably multiple, in spite of the fact that Hungerford had already founded and endowed (during his period of office as Treasurer of England) a chantry at Farleigh Hun- gerford (by royal licence of 14 June 1426) and another in the chapel of St. Stephen in the palace of Westminster, and later on other chantries - in the cathedral church of Salisbury, where he intended to be buried with his first wife, and at Heytesbury and Chippenham. There were bequests of varying amounts to the canons residentiary at Salisbury, to the priory at Bath, to the Augustinian canons at Bruton (Somerset) and Maiden Bradley (Wilts), and to the only two Carthusian houses in — south-west England, at Witham and Hinton (Somerset), a sign perhaps of adevotion inspired by the interest taken in this Order by Henry V, to whose own foundation at Sheen (between Windsor and Westminster) Hungerford bequeathed 10 marks. The Bonhommes at Edington (Wilts) were remembered, and so were the two Wiltshire nunneries of Ames- bury and Lacock. The great gift to Merton College, Oxford, of {100 ‘ad fabricam campanilis ’ had already been two parts paid up. Houses of the Mendicants all over the south came in for more modest allowances, something of a preference for the Dominicans creeping in here and there: at London, Oxford, Salisbury, Marlborough, Bristol, Bridg- water, Ilchester, and Exeter. 175 marks were to be distributed by the testator’s chantry chaplains at Salisbury to priest-vicars and old priests- perpetual in the cathedral; 100 marks among poor men, especially poor husbandmen (iconomi), poor labourers with many children, and so on, in his own estates; one mark each to fifty poor men, especially bed- ridden ones, and further to the poor a mark for every year of his own life. The bequests to the family and to retainers of one sort or another were of the same order of generosity. To Hungerford’s second wife, By J. S. Roskell 335 the Countess of Arundel, who was to survive him til] 1455, were to go his silver and gold, plate and other chattels, but not the 700 marks which she had made over to him at their marriage—he had met her debts at the Exchequer and in the City, which exceeded that sum. And she was to get the stock at Pynkeden (Sussex), the sheep at Heytesbury (of which his heir was to have the use), and £100 for her ex- penses for the year after his death, provided that she sued out her dower and made the proper releases to his heir in recompense for it. The heir, Robert, the second Lord Hungerford, came by various bequests including all unsown corn, all the sheep and other stock except at Heytesbury and Fenny Sutton. The artillery and contents of the armouries in his castles overseas, which by the custom of that’ patria ’ ought to be shared between sons and daughters, were to remain there for their defence. There were the usual gifts of goblets, basins and cups, but especially to Viscount Beaumont as descended lineally from the house of Lancaster went the silver cup from which John of Gaunt had often used to drink until the end of his life. One son-in-law, Sir Philip Courtenay, got £40 for a good courser. Theother, Sir Walter Rodney, of whom the testator perhaps disapproved, was to pay up to the executors within a year a debt of 500 marks, which sum was then to go in furnishing marriage-portions for the Rodney grand- children. 700 marks were to be devoted to the marriages of -Hungerford’s heir’s younger children, another £100 to the marriage of the surviving eldest Courtenay grandson. Bequests of plate and moneys amounting to {90 went to members of his household staff, to which as a whole were to go a full year’s wages. The executors were to get {10 each, over and above legacies. {100 were to stand for funeral expenses, not including over f 12 for bell-ringing. Hungerford was to be buried next his first wife in the chantry founded by him on the north side of the nave in the cathedral church of Salisbury.9! (Iam indebted to Mr. J. L. Kirby and to the University of London for permission to read his M.A. thesis entitled “ The Hungerford Family in the later Middle Ages.’ Iam especially grateful to Mr. Kirby for his willingness to let me use his data relating to the management of Lord Hungerford’s estates and the income which he derived from these and other sources.) 336 Three Wiltshire Speakers FOOTNOTES TO PART II OF WILTSHIRE SPEAKERS 1 Official Return of Members of Parliament, i. 261, 267, 273, 275, 280, 282. 2 Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XVIII. 38. 3 Ante. 4 Historical MSS. Commission Report, MSS. of R. R. Hastings, i. 299; The Complete Peerage, VI. 615; Dugdale, Baronage, i. 635; ii. 204 et seq.; The Gen- ealogist (N.S.), XVI. 166; The Archaeological Journal, X (Courtenay pedigree); Somerset Record Society, vol. XXII (Feet of Fines, Henry IV-Henry VIII, ed. E. Green), 157; Calendar of Close Rolls (C.C.R.), 1422-9, 29; ibid., 1435-41, 217, 227; Calendar of Fine Rolls (C.F.R.), 1422-30, 31; Calendar of Patent Rolls. (CPR); 1422-9, FO. 5 H.M.C. Report, Hastings MSS, i. 287. Margaret Botreaux’s great great grandmother, Isabel, was the younger daughter and coheir of Sir John de Moels and sister of Muriel, Margaret Courtenay’s mother. The Botreaux marriage was eventually to bring into Hungerford possession no fewer than $2 manors (18 in Cornwall, 6 in Devon, 10 in Somerset, 8 in Hants, the rest in other counties, including Maiden Winterbourne in Wilts). But Walter Hun- gerford did not live to see this happen. Nor did even his son and heir, Robert, the husband of Margaret Botreaux, because her father outlived both Walter and Robert, dying in 1462, three years after his son-in-law. (Hoare, Wiltshire, vol. I, part II. p. 92). 6 C.P.R., 1416-22, 49, 362; The Ancestor, no. 8. The Burnell-Hungerford settlement was later to be somewhat disturbed by the prosecution of a claim by William Lord Lovell to certain of the estates involved, on the ground of his descent from Hugh Lord Burnell’s grandmother by an earlier marriage of hers. But not all the settlement was upset (cf. Manning and Bray, Surrey, ili. 421). 7 In Wiltshire: Bramshaw, Britford, Chippenham (C.P.R., 1422-9, 269; ibid., 1485-94, 145), Corston, Great Durnford, East Harnham (C.C.R., 1447-54, 147), Horningsham, Imber, Louden, Shieldon, Rowley alias Wittenham (C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 (7); C.C.R., 1429-35, 54), Little Somerford, Stanton, Titherington, Upton Scudamore (C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 (17); Hoare, Wiltshire, iii, i. 50), Winterbourne Honington (C.C.R., 1447-54, 147), Winterbourne Stoke (C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 (9, 16); C.C.R., 1429-35, 55), Biddenham, Biddes- tone, Martin Bradley, Pombury, Fenny Sutton. In Somerset: Flintford, High Church, Tellisford (C.C.R., 1413-9, 194), Hardwick, Pouthley, Feltham. In Oxfordshire: Stoke Moyles. In Dorset: Folke (C.C.R., 1447-54, 147; Hoare, op. cit., vol. I, part II. 161). For the Charing property, see C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 (10, 14), and C.C.R., 1429-35, 53. 8 C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 et seq. 9 Hoare, op. cit., vol. I, part II, 117; C.P.R., 1436-41, 300;C.C.R., 1454-61, 87. The manors held by Hungerford in the right of his Countess were Durlston, Frome Whitfield, Hymeford, Langton, Loders, Lytchett, East Morden, Oke- ford Fitzpaine, Philipston (in Wimborne St. Giles), Bere Regis, Upper Wim- borne, Woolcombe, Wootton Fitzpaine, in Dorset; Boyton, Coate, Elston, Knighton, Sherrington, Stapleford, in Wiltshire; Achards, King’s Stanley, Shurdington, Winterborne Hill, Woodchester, in Gloucestershire; Stoke Tuister, Spargrove, in Somerset. 10 Exinf. Mr. J. L. Kirby. 11 Complete Peerage, IX. 43. At the request of Sir Walter when Treasurer, it By J. S. Roskell 337 was Cardinal Beaufort’s cousin, Thomas Chaucer of Ewelme (Oxon), who had arranged for the infant Eleanor to be brought home from the Loire, perhaps in the company of his own daughter, Alice Countess of Salisbury, who had been widowed during the blockade of Orleans; in 1431 Chaucer secured (for 500 marks) Eleanor’s wardship and marriage. (She was his wife’s greatniece.) Eleanor’s marriage with Robert Hungerford, who came of age in November 1440 (C.P.R., 1441-6, 35), must have been arranged in good time between Sir Walter and Chaucer, if this was the way of it, for Chaucer died in 1434. In the mean- time, on 30 March 1439, Sir Walter and his son, Robert, had been granted by the Crown the keeping of the estates of the young heiress’s paternal grandmother pending Eleanor’s majority (C.F.R., 1437-45, 82). 12 Oxford Historical Society, Proceedings, XXXV (Epistolae Academiae Oxon- iensis), 112; ibid., XVIII (Oxford City Documents, 1268-1665), 314, 326, 328-30; Lambeth Palace Library, Stafford Register, fo. 114. 13 C.P.R., 1391-6, 636. 14 The Great Chronicle of London, ed. A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley, 73; C.P.R., 1399-1401, 62. (On 1 December 1403 the rent was diverted from the Exchequer to Henry IV’s youngest son, Humphrey, later Duke of Gloucester, together with the reversion of the premises after Sir Walter’s death (ibid., 1401-5, 320); ibid., 154. (Margaret, daughter of Thomas of Brotherton, Coun- tess of Norfolk in her own right, had been created a'duchess by Richard II in 1397; she had died on 24 March 1399.) 15 C.P.R., 1399-1401, 385; C.C.R., 1399-1401, 228; R. R. Sharpe, Letter Books of the City of London, 1, 3; Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society Transactions, vol. 50, 148. 16 C.F.R., 1399-1405, $4. 17 C.P.R., 1401-5, 520; Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, ed. N: HNicolas(P.P.C.),i. 161; i1..87: 18 Calendar of Papal Registers, Papal Letters, IV. 351; Stafford Register, loc. cit.,; C.P.R., 1405-8, 384; C.F.R., 1399-1405, 192. 19 C.P.R., 1401-5, 221, 289. 20 Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, IX (List of Sheriffs), 153; P.R.O., E 101/406/t10, but cf. transcript in Archaeologia, LX VII. 176-7, 186; J. H. Wylie, The Reign of Henry IV, ii. 434-51. 21 C.P.R., 1405-8, 161. 22 Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries, XVI. 162; the dispute had attracted special notice during the parliament of 1406 (in which Sir Hugh Luttrell sat for Somerset) and the Commons had requested that if there were a normal trial by the * patria’ nobody should be a juryman who had not £40 a year in land (Rotuli Parliamentorum, IV. 597). 23 C.P.R., 1405-8, 308, 384; C.C.R., 1405-9, 350. 23* British Museum, Arundel MS., no. 68, fo. 57. 24 C.F.R., 1405-13, 149; C.P.R., 1408-13, 143, 163, 181; C.C.R., 1409-13, 28; Rot. Parl., iii, 632b. 25 P.P.C.,1. 343; C.P.R., 1408-13, 204, 208. 26 C.F.R., 1405-13, 216, 236-7; Joan Hungerford’s will, made on 25 Feb- ruary 1412, was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, letters of administration issuing on 23 March 1412 (Arundel Register, fo. 152). 338 Three Wiltshire Speakers 27 C.C.R., 1413-9, 62. 28 R. Somerville, The Duchy of Lancaster, i. 428. The office of chief steward very soon involved Hungerford (on 12 June 1413 by patent under the great seal of England) in a commission of oyer and terminer regarding treasons and rebellions in some of the duchy lordships in S$. Wales and the March, and on 20 June he again was appointed to act with duchy officials, inquiring into conceal- ments and maladministration on the part of duchy foresters, parkers and warreners in the south parts of the duchy and making all necessary dismissals and re-appointments,certifying the King and Council in Chancery, a similar commission being appointed for the north parts(C.P.R., 1413-6, 112-3). 29 Lists of Sheriffs, 123. 30 Deputy Keeper’s Reports (D.K.R.) XLIV (French Rolls), 554; T. Carte, Catalogue des Rolles Gascons etc., ii. 216-7; Exchequer, Issue Rolls, P.R.O., 403/617, mem. 8; ibid., 619., mem. 2; Exchequer, Accounts Various, E1o1/321, moO. 28; C:.G Ra. t4iig-9) 21) 31 Papal Letters, VI. 461. This may or may not be the Walter Hungerford, the younger son of Sir Walter, who was to take up a military career, undergo capture at Patay in 1429, and be freed only to die sometime not long before February 1433. Sir Walter may have had two sons of the name of Walter: certainly there was a Walter Hungerford who was granted for life by the King in February 1449 the hospital of St. Lawrence by Bristol(C.P.R., 1446-52, 223), but there is no Walter Hungerford among the beneficiaries of Lord Hunger- ford’s will, drawn up and proved later in that same year. Ibid., 490. 32 D.K.R., XLIV. 563; Privy seal warrants for issue, P.R.O., E4o4/31/165; N. H. Nicolas, The Battle of Agincourt, 381; Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd Series, V. 138. 33 R. Somerville, op. cit., 1. 183, 430; C.P.R., 1485-94, 145 et seq. 34 C.P.R., 1413-6, 356-7; ibid., 1422-9, 64, 136, 176, 181, 188, 313, 337; Rot. Parl., IV. 172-3, 393. 35 C.P.R., 1413-6, 350. 36 Incerti Scriptores, Chronicon Angliae, ed.J. A. Giles; Gesta Henrici Quinti, 47. 37 D.K.R., XLIV. 575-7; Issue Rolls, P.R.O., E 403/624, mem. 4. 38 0D KR, XLIV 15705). .(\Carte, op: cit, it. 228. 39 C.P.R., 1416-22, 39; H.M.C., 15th Report, 161; C.C.R., 1413-9, 321. 40 See above, pp. 302-3. 41 P.P:C., 11208, 213-4,.220, 227, 220, 231, 233. 42 C.P.R., 1416-22, 108; ibid., 1422-9, 474. Hungerford was still a feoffee of the earl at the time of his death in 1429, and in Salisbury’s will was to be re- ferred to by him as ‘amicus noster’ (The Register of Archbishop Chichele, ed. E. F. Jacob, ii. 394). 43 C.C.R., 1413-9, 435; Rot. Parl., IV. 120. 44 Ex inf. Mr. J. L. Kirby. 45 T. D. Hardy, Rotuli Normanniae, 153, 169, 195; C.P.R., 1416-22, 236; ibid., 1436-41 ,181; C.C.R., 1429-35, 261. 46 Camden Society, The Historical Collections of a citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century, ed. J. Gairdner, William Gregory's Chronicle of _ London, 121; The Great Chronicle of London, op. cit., 103; D.K.R., XLI. 696, 803; ibid., XLII. 378, 424; Exchequer, Accounts Various, P.R.O., Ezo1/187/14; 188/7; By J. S. Roskell 339 D.K.R., XLVIIL. 222, 261, 280. According to British Museum, Harley MS. no. 782, fo. 49v, the captaincy of Cherbourg had first been given to Richard Lord Grey of Codnor who died, however, on 1 August 1418, and then to Hungerford “ apres son decez ’. 47° D.K_R., XLI. 705,733,741, 745; 776, 783; J. H. Wylie and W. T. Waugh, The Reign of Henry V, iii. 191. 48 DK R., XLI. 706; Dugdale, Baronage, ii. 204; D.K.R., XLII. 387, 413, A523 Exchequer, Foreign Accounts, E 364/61, mem. C; E 1o1/404/7. 49 C.L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century, App. 319. 50 C.P.R., 1416-22, 385, 362; C.C.R., 1419-22, 150,156, 201; J. Anstis, The Register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (London, 1724), 73. (The payment of £92 17s. rod. to Hungerford at the Exchequer on 3 May 1423 (a part payment of £146 4s. 6d. still due to him for his service in France in 1415) was made ‘ per manus Willelmi Bruges ’, Garter King of Arms, and may have been connected with the fees Hungerford would be called upon to pay on his installation (Issue Rolls, E 403/660) ). Rot. Parl., IV. 172-3, 393; D.K.R., XLIV. 627 (a laggard member of his retinue from Driffield, Glos., was still in England in mid-July 1421, C.C.R., 1419-22, 206). 51 Receuil des Chroniques, etc., par Jehan de Waurin, ed. W. Hardy (Rolls Ser- ies), 404; Wylie and Waugh, op. cit., ili 348-9. 52 Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti, edi T. Hearne (Oxford, 1727), p. 337. Only this chronicle alludes to Hungerford in this way. He was a patron of its author and encouraged him to write the work, but the appointment is undisputably confirmed by record evidence (P.P.C., iii. 37, 248; Rot. Parl., IV. 324. 53 Rot. Parl.,1V.175;C.C.R., 1422-9, 49; P.P.C., iii. 22. 54 Rot. Parl., V. 404; P.P.C.,V. 71; ibid., 111-V, passim; P.R.O., E404/ 52/160. 55 P.P.C., iii. 37-8, 67; T. Carte, op. cit., i. 249-50; C.P.R., 1422-9, 124; P.R.O., E403/658, mem. 14, /660, mem. 13; E404/39/166. 56 C.F.R., 1422-30, 25, 31, 76; Papal Letters, VII. 379. In 1436 Hungerford was one of Courtenay’s feoffees (Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, VI. C6409.). 3? @.P.R., 1422-0, 211; C.C.R. .,1422-9, 154; C.F.R., 1422-30, 96; C.P.R., 1422-9, 298, 397; Chichele Register, op. cit., ii. 300. (Bubwith left to Hungerford his best horse and £20). 58 Duchy of Lancaster, Accounts Various, P.R.O., D.L. 28/5/3, 5; R Somerville, op. cit., i. 417. 59 P.P.C., i. 167; C.P.R., 1422-9, 271; C.F.R., 1422-30, 100. 60 P.R.O., E 403/671, mems. 8, 17; Letters and Papers, The Wars of the English in France, Henry VI. (R.S.), ed.J. Stevenson, vol. ii, part ii. 414. 61 C.C.R., 1422-9, 269; P.P.C., iii. 197. 62 William Gregory's Chronicle of London, op. cit., 160; The Great Chronicle of London, op. cit., 149. 63 C.P.R., 1422-9, 354, 481, 403. 64 P.P.C., iii. 212; P.R.O., E403/675, mem. 10; 700, mem. 14. For Hun- gerford’s total and average payments between 1422 and 1432 I am indebted to information supplied by Mr. J. L. Kirby. 65 Feudal Aids, V. 269, 277, 279; C.C.R., 1429-35, 134, 214, 260, 264(Edward, Duke of York). C.P.R., 1422-9, 474; Chichele Register, op. cit., ii.394 (Thomas VOL. LVI—CCIV & CCV. Ww 340 Three Wiltshire Speakers Earl of Salisbury). C.C.R., 1422-9, 110 (Chief Justice Hankford). Ibid., 1413-9, 194 (Sir John Tiptoft). C.P.R., 1429-36, 514; Feet of Fines for Somerset, op. cit., 193, 201 (Richard, Duke of York). C.C.R., 1422-9, 318 (Humphrey, Earl of Stafford). C.P.R., 1422-9, 212; ibid., 1436-41, 292; H.M.C. Report, MSS. of Lord de l’Isle and Dudley, i. 172 (Ralph Lord Cromwell). Somerset Record Society, The Register of Bishop Stafford, ii. 248 (Reginald Lord de la Warre). Manning and Bray, Surrey, ili. 421 (William Lord Lovell). Ibid.,ii.744 (Richard Melbourne). 66 Chichele Register, op. cit., ii. 361, 474, 439. 7 Rot. Parl., IV. 327; P.P. a iti. 230. 68 Rot. Parl., TV 338; D.K.R., XLVIIL 282, P.P.C., IV. 149. 69: PPC. IV. 104. 0 Rot. Parl., V. 433; C.C.R., 1429-35, 181; P.R.O., E403/700, mem. 14. 71 Rot. Parl., IV. 388; C.P.R., 1429-36, 267. 72 P.R.O., E404/48/319, 340, 365; C.P.R., 1429-36, 218, 259; P.P.C., IV. 158. In 1433-4 negotiations were in train for the ransom of Hungerford’s prisoner, Jean de Vendosme, Vicomte of Chartres, who received a safe-conduct to France in April 1434 to enable him to get his ransom (D.K.R., XLVIII. 294-6; H.M.C., 15th Report, part X. 162). 73 Rot. Parl., 1V. 419, 422; C.P.R., 1429-36, 370; P.P.C.., IV. 184, 212. : 74 Rot. Parl., V. 435; P.P.C., TV. 229-32. . (The only other feoffees of Henry V still alive in June 1434 were Archbishop Chichele, Bishop Langley of Durham, and John Leventhorpe esquire). 75 Rot. Parl., V. 8-9, 56-9; P.R.O., E404/52/199 and 54/291; R. Somerville, op. cit., i. 205-6. By 1439 Cardinal Beaufort had acquired a peculiarly personal interest in certain of the Norfolk and Cambridgeshire manors enfeoffed, and Hungerford refused to ratify this estate and release his own and Chichele’s interest, because the will of Henry V had not yet been executed; when he later gave way he took good care to have an indemnity under the great seal and the duchy seals (Somerville, op. cit., 1. 205). 76 P.P.C., IV 289, 302; P.R.O., E403/719, mem. 12; Ero1/322/36; Wars of the English in France ,op. cit., vol. ii, part ii. 431. For the purposes and results of the Congress, see J. G. Dickinson, The Congress of Arras 1435 (Oxford, 1955). 77 Rot. Parl., IV. 484; P.P.C., IV. 317; C.F.R., 1430-7, 259-60, 268; List of Sheriffs, 153. On 8 February 1436 Hungerford and his son-in-law, Sir Philip Courtenay, shared a royal grant of the custody of the Cornish manor of Tywar- dreath (C.F.R., loc. cit., 264), and in 1439 the keeping of the dower lands of the late widow of Sir John Luttrell. 78 P.R.O., E403/724; The Libelle of Englyshe Polycye, ed. Sir Geo. Warner, fon ~ $7 ‘ 79 P.P.C., V. 6,13, 71; Rot. Parl., V. 438; C.P.R., 1436-41, 144, 240, 2 E404/54/181; Chichele Register, op. cit., ii $59. 80 P.P.C)V.' 108, 336; P.R:O}, °E364/73; E403/735, mem. 7; ‘bid, 739, mem. 8. 81 Wars of the English in France, op. cit., vol. ii, part ii. 586. 82 C.C.R., 1435-41, 387; C.P.R., 1441-6, 109, 62, 93; P.P.C., V. 202; Rot. Parl., V. 36. 33..PiP. Ci, Ve2ag By J. S. Roskell 341 84 Rot. Parl., V.70; P.R.O., E403/755, mem. 4; C.P.R., 1441-6, 430. 85 V.C. H., Berkshire, IV. 185, 191, 194; C.P.R., 1446-52, 79. 86 C.P.R., 1446-52, 84, 213, 274. 87 The Complete Peerage, IX. 42-3. The Duke of Suffolk had married Alice, daughter and heir of Thomas Chaucer of Ewelme (Oxon), cousin of Cardinal Beaufort. It had been at Ewelme that Eleanor’s parents had been married; Alice Chaucer (then Countess of Salisbury) had been one of her godmothers at her baptism in June 1426; to Thomas Chaucer had been granted her marriage in 1431. 88 J. Anstis, op. cit., 73 et seq. 89 C.P.R., 1446-52, 268; C.F.R., 1445-52, 97, 142-4; Lambeth Palace Lib- rary, Register of Archbishop Stafford, fo. 114 et seq. . The date of Hunger- ford’s death is both confirmed and contradicted in a missal which in 1870 was in the municipal library at Tours. Given on 24 July 1449, during his last illness, by Lord Hungerford to his grandson, Lord Moleyns, an entry in it says that he died at Farleigh at half past one on the vigil of St. Lawrence (16 October), but in a note on a later folio, 9 August, the correct date as it appears, is given. Lord Moleyns was to be taken prisoner in Guienne in 1453 and to remain for some seven years in France; it was probably during that time that the missal came into the possession of Jean de Beuil, Comte de Sancerre, who fought in Nor- mandy and Maine and was at the siege of Cherbourg in 1450. The missal re- mained in the keeping of his family (Notes and Queries, 4th series, vol. V (1870), p. 112). 90 C.P.R., 1422-9, 347; ibid., 1441-6, 36, 94, 151, 327; Hoare, Wiltshire, op. cit., vol. 1, part 2, p. 92; Dugdale, Baronage, ii. 204 et seq. . In 1427-8 Hunger- ford gave to the dean and canons of St. Stephen’s, Westminster, houses and shops in the parish of St. Anthony in the City, so becoming a sharer of all their masses and prayers for life, and on condition that his obit was celebrated each year after his death. In 1428-9 he received a licence to amortize and appropriate the advowson of the parish church of Olveston (Glos) to Bath Priory, which was to maintain a chantry priest at Farleigh. In aid of his chantry of two priests and two chaplains in Salisbury Cathedral he appropriated the parish church of St. Samson at Cricklade and the reversion of the manor of Cricklade (called Abingdon’s Court) to the dean and chapter; this fund was also to help maintain in repair the tall spire-steeple of the cathedral. The royal licence to found a chantry at Farleigh, first granted in 1426, was renewed in November 1441, and then this repetition of the grant was superseded in March 1445 by a further licence allowing for the fact that the Farleigh chapel was now part of the castle there, the site of the parish church having been moved to another place in the town. 91 Stafford Register, loc. cit. 342 IIT. Sir Walter Beauchamp of Bromham, Speaker in the Parliament of March 1416, when Knight of the Shire for Wiltshire. 1 Sir Walter Beauchamp was a member of the family of Beauchamp of Powick, a cadet branch of the family of Beauchamp of Elmley, of which the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick became the senior line. His great great-grandfather, Walter Lord Beauchamp of Alcester and Powick, steward of the Household to Edward I from 1290 to his death in 1303, was a younger brother of William de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who died in 1298. Another branch of this family was that of Beau- champ of Holt: Sir Walter’s grandfather, Sir John Beauchamp of Powick, a knight of the Chamber at the end of Edward III's reign, who died sometime between March 1386 and May 1389, was second cousin to John Lord Beauchamp of Holt, who was created Baron of Kidder- minster by patent in 1387, when he was steward of the Household to Richard II, and who was successfully impeached of treason by the Commons in the Merciless Parliament of 1388 and executed. Sir Walter’s grandfather’s younger brother was Roger Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe (Bedfordshire) and Lydiard Tregoze (Wiltshire), who was Chamberlain to Edward III for a time during the last year of his.reign and summoned to Parliament from 1363 until his death in 1380. Sir Walter's father was Sir William Beauchamp of Powick, who died sometime between July 1420 and December 1422; his mother, Kath- erine, a daughter and coheir of Sir Gerard Ufflete, survived both her husband and Sir Walter, her eldest son, and was still alive in 1431.2 Sir Walter’s father followed his father in the constableship of Gloucester castle, being granted the office in 1392 at the request of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, first for the duke’s life and then in 1393 for his own life, a grant which was confirmed to him at the accessions of Henry IV and Henry V; and from 1392 he and his wife enjoyed a royal annuity of 40 marks charged on the issues of Glouces- tershire which was similarly confirmed in 1399 and 1413 and, after Sir William’s death, to his widow in 1422.3 Sir William was sheriff of Worcestershire in 1401-2 and of Gloucestershire in 1403-4 and 1413-4, and was Knight of the Shire for Worcestershire in 1407, 1413, and in April 1414. The matrimonial position of the family at the turn of the fourteenth century reinforces this general impression of influence in Court circles. Sir William’s sister, Walter’s aunt, Alice Beauchamp, after the death By J. S. Roskell 343 of her first husband, Thomas Boteler esquire, in 1398, married Sir John Dallingrigge, a knight ofthe King’s Chamber, early in Henry IV’s reign. Walter did well for himself by marrying into the important Wiltshire family of De La Roche of Bromham. By November 1410 at the latest, and probably by November 1403 (when he was first appointed sheriff of Wiltshire), Walter was married to Elizabeth, one of the the two daughters and coheirs of Sir John de la Roche and his wife, Willelma, daughter and heir of Sir Robert de la Mare of Fisherton Delamere (Wiltshire) and Offley (Hertfordshire). Walter’s father-in- law, Sir John de la Roche, who died in September 1400, had been appointed in 1373 (like his father before him) overseer of the royal forests of Chippenham, Melksham, and Pewsham, and in April 1377 had begun to enjoy a royal annuity of 100 marks in which he was to be confirmed by Richard II and Henry IV at their accessions; he had been appointed by Richard II as ambassador to Pedro IV of Aragon to pre- sent him with news of his coronation and in 1378 had accompanied John Lord Neville, then King’s Lieutenant in Aquitaine, on another embassy to Pedro IV, and in 1382 on one to Gaston de Foix; in this year he had been made keeper of Marlborough castle and of Savernake Forest and was admiral of the South and West; in May 1389 he had followed the Earl of Arundel as admiral to the West and North; in 1390-91 he had been sheriff of Wiltshire; and he had sat in Parliament for Wiltshire on eight occasions in and between 1381 and 1399.4 To the local influence of the De la Roches Walter Beauchamp was in a sense to succeed. In view of the survival of Walter’s father until after his own career had taken shape, it was largely from a moiety of the De la Roche and De la Mare lands which came into his possession jure uxoris that his landed income evidently accrued. These were for the most part in Wiltshire and were in all parts of the county, although the main concentration was within easy reach of Devizes, of which lordship the De la Roche residential manor of Steeple Lavington was held. Near here, in the western approach to the Vale of Pewsey, were also estates and rents in Bromham, Calne, Chittoe, and Goatacre, which came to Walter and his wife on the death of her mother (Willelma) in October 1410, the royal escheator in Wiltshire being ordered to give them livery (after taking security for the relief) in February 1411. At the same time livery was authorized of other estates which fell to Elizabeth as her purparty, including lands and rents at Hardenhuish and Draycot Cerne (near Chippenham), at Berwick Bassett (near Malmesbury), and at Winter- 344 Three Wiltshire Speakers bourne Bassett, West Chisenbury, and East Winterslow (in the eastern half of Wiltshire). Further afield was.the manor of Lower Heyford on the Charwell in N. Oxfordshire, and the manors of Offley and Putter- idgebury (in Offley) in Hertfordshire. Rights of ecclesiastical patronage they succeeded to at Tollard Royal in south Wiltshire and Marsh Baldon in Oxfordshire. Steeple Lavington had already been conveyed to them by Elizabeth’s mother before her death, for on 29 November 1410 Walter and Elizabeth secured a royal pardon for their trespass in entering without royal licence.5 Within a week of the royal order for livery of seisin of his wife’s purparty of her mother’s estates, Beau- champ moreover secured (on 10 February 1411) the wardship of the other purparty belonging to his wife’s nephew, John Beynton, the four-year old son and heir of her sister Joan, for which custody he undertook to pay annually into the royal Exchequer a farm of 80 marks until the heir reached his majority. The wardship was, in fact, to en- dure to within about a year of Walter Beauchamp’s death, John Beyn- ton obtaining seisin in December 1428. In February 1412 the whole of the render was ear-marked as the fee of Henry IV’s physician, Master David de Nigarelli of Lucca. But after the latter’s early death Walter compounded for his obligations past and future, paid to the physician’s executors 40 marks and another 260 marks in hand to the Exchequer, and on 16 May 1412 the annual rent of 80 marks was altogether remit- ted as from the previous Easter. It would appear that for little more than the equivalent of five years’ rent Beauchamp secured an occupation of the purparty in wardship for some eighteen years in all.6 In addition to his wife’s and her nephew’s lands, Beauchamp also came into occu- pation (at some other time before his death) of lands in Quobwell (in Malmesbury) and a Duchy of Lancaster estate of the honour of Trow- bridge at Whaddon in Wiltshire, lands in east Somerset at Wanstrow and Brewham, and at South Weston and Wheatfield near Thame in Oxfordshire.7 He held lands in Gloucestershire, too, judging from the fact that at his death the escheator there was ordered to inquire what they were, but in the counties where were the main estates of his own family, Worcestershire and Warwickshire, he apparently held nothing, although he is occasionally described as being “ of Powick ’. Two years after Walter's death, his mother, the widow of Sir William Beauchamp of Powick, was still in possession of an estate there and of the manor of Acton Beauchamp, also in Worcestershire. 8 Walter Beauchamp’s family ties were such as to have ensured him an easy entry into Lancastrian court circles whenever he was ready to By J. S. Roskell 345 profit by it. His father was a life retainer of Richard II, but with no more than a very modest fee, and he seems to have owed his grant of the constableship of Gloucester castle in 1392 to a connexion with the chief of Richard’s II political enemies, Thomas of Woodstock. More- over, he was a kinsman, however distant, of another of the Appellants of 1388, Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who felt the bite of Richard’s rancour in 1397. The deposition of Richard II Sir William probably regarded with complete indifference; the accession of Henry IV, sympathetically, especially in view of the renewal of all his royal patents on 20 December 1399. For his eldest son, Walter, the crisis and Henry IV’s continuing great need of support were doubtless a godsend, as they were to so many other pushing young men of the day. With- out any known previous connexion with the new King, Walter Beau- champ ° of Powick ’—he had evidently not yet married his Wiltshire heiress, but was almost certainly of age—ten days after Henry IV’s coronation secured (on 23 October 1399) a grant of £40 a year from the royal revenues of Gloucestershire, for life or until he should be given equivalent lands: an annuity half as much again as his father en- joyed from the same source. Already he had doubtless joined the royal Household as an esquire. He was appointed one of the escort for Henry IV’s elder daughter, Blanche, when she sailed from the Orwell estuary for Dordrecht on 21 June 1402, en route for Cologne and Heidel- berg, where (on 6 July) she married the son and heir of the anti-Kaiser, Rupert of Bavaria. Her English entourage returned home on 25 July; on 15 July her treasurer had paid Walter Beauchamp {4.9 During the next financial year (Michaelmas 1402-3) he figures in the royal ward- robe accounts as an esquire of the Household, and during this year he held by royal grant the Duchy of Lancaster manors of Easterton and Berwick St. James (in north Wiltshire), which were assessed by the duchy auditors for the South parts as together worth £40 3s. 6d. He continued to hold them and was still in possession in 1408-9 and in 1418-9, by which time they had been put into the control of the feoffees charged to complete the administration of Henry V's will. It was pro- bably now that he surrendered his annuity of £40 of October 1399.10 The details of his service with Henry IV are not known, butitis pro- bable that he was mainly ‘in curia’ in the early part of the reign. It is very likely that he fought at the battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403, for only four weeks later (on 17 August) he was granted by the King’s own warrant a debt of £20 owing to Sir Henry Percy (Hotspur), which the dead rebel leader had forfeited for his treason. On 5 November 346 Three Wiltshire Speakers following he was appointed sheriff of Wiltshire, his father on the same day being appointed sheriff of Gloucestershire. Walter held office until 22 November 1404.11 It looks as though his marriage to Elizabeth de la Roche had taken place by this date. In the following June (1405) he almost certainly moved northwards with the King when Henry went up to Yorkshire to cope with the rebellion of Archbishop Scrope and the Earl Marshal and then on into Northumberland to crush another Percy revolt. The work of the royalist army was done and Henry IV on his way south again when, by letters patent dated at Newcastle-on- Tyne on 16 July, Walter Beauchamp, King’s esquire, was granted the office of keeper of the royal forest of Braden (north Wiltshire), a recent grant (of 14 March 1405) to his uncle by marriage, Sir John Dalling- rigge, one of the knights of the King’s Chamber, being surrendered, perhaps for the purpose; Walter’s grant was made for life, but he evid- ently did not hold the office after September 1420. In the account book of the controller of the royal Household covering the period 30 Sep- tember 1405-8 December 1406, Walter Beauchamp is still listed as one of the esquires of the Household in receipt of livery of robes worth £2 a year.!2 From 20 November 1407 to 15 November 1408 he was again sheriff of Wiltshire; during the year the mayor of Salisbury, on the city s behalf, paid 4 marks for a pipe of wine presented to Beauchamp as sheriff“ to make him a friend *’.13 It is just possible that Walter Beauchamp was elected as knight of the shire for Wiltshire to the Parliament of January 1410, for which the county returns have been lost. For it was while this Parliament was sitting that, on 10 February 1410, he was included in a royal commission to investigate a report of wastes committed on the estates of the Cluniac priory of Farleigh (Wiltshire) when the place was in the temporary custody of Sir Walter Hungerford and William Stourton. Only three days after the issue of this commission he was for the first time put on the commission of the peace in Wiltshire.14 It was in the autumn of this year that Beauchamp’s mother-in-law, Dame Willelma de la Roche died (on 31 October 1410). And in the ensuing months, Beauchamp was much involved in getting livery of those of her lands which des- cended to him and his wife, and in securing the wardship of his wife's sister's share of the estate, to which her infant son, John Beynton, suc- ceeded. He was also concerned at this time with the administration of his mother-in-law’s will of which she had appointed him the overseer, probate being allowed in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury on 22 November 1410. A year or so later he was acting in the same capacity By J. S. Roskell 347 in relation to the testament of his paternal grandmother, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Powick, which was proved on 26 September 1411.15 He was still probably attached to the royal Household. Certainly in April 1412 he was still described as King’s esquire. On 11 November I41I a payment at the Lower Exchequer to the King’s Chamber in the form of an assignment on the abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, had been made by Beauchamp’s hand.!6 On 2 January 1412 he was appointed as one of the two commissioners for Wiltshire to inquire into the incidence of liability to the recently voted parliamentary sub- sidy of a sixtieth on landed incomes of over {20 a year, and on 14 February following he was re-appointed justice of the peace in the county. He was confirmed in the commission at Henry V’s accession in March 1413, and on 14 June was made a member of a royal com- mission set up to inquire into the refusal of customary services by a league of bond-tenants of the abbey of Austin canons at Cirencester. In January 1414, however, when fresh commissions of the peace were generally issued after Oldcastle’s Rebellion, he was dropped from the Wiltshire bench. And it was not until November 1415 that he was once more made J.P. . In the meantime he served on no royal com- missions at all.17 In 1415 Walter Beauchamp was caught up in activities preliminary to the first expedition of Henry V to northern France. The army sailed from Portsmouth on 11 August. On 31 June he had taken out royal letters of protection as a member of the King’s retinue. He and a small retinue of three archers first mustered as members of the company of the King’s youngest brother, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, at ‘ Mikelasshe * near Romsey in July, but when the royal forces left England his retinue was composed of 3 men-at-arms and 12 archers, instalments of whose wages he was still being paid early in 1422.18 It was just before or during the campaign which resulted in the capture of Harfleur and the victory in the field at Agincourt that Beauchamp was knighted. He is referred to as Walter Beauchamp knight when listed as a witness to a deed, dated 22 October 1415, conveying certain reversions in Wiltshire from Thomas Calston esquire to his daughter, the wife of William Darell. There is no reason to suspect that Beau- champ was back in England by that date, which was three days before the Agincourt engagement; the first of the witnesses was Sir Walter Hungerford, who certainly fought in the battle. On 13 December following Beauchamp was a witness to a deed confirming Hungerford’s rights of common of pasture in Great Horningsham.!9 But he was 348 | Three Wiltshire Speakers back in England before this, probably returning with the King from Calais on 16 November. Already, on 8 November, he had been once more, after an interval of nearly two years, re-included in the Wiltshire commission of the peace (on which he was now to serve continuously until the summer of 1419), and on 25 November as a “ King’s knight ’ he was able to secure for himself a grant of the keeping of the manor and lordship of Somerford Keynes (on the border between Wiltshire and Gloucestershire) during the minority of Richard, the young nep- hew and heir of the late Duke of York who had been killed in the press at Agincourt; the manor, which was supposed not to be worth more than £20 a year, was given him rent-free, provided that he answered for any surplus beyond that figure. 20 To the Parliament which met on 16 March 1416 Beauchamp was elected as knight of the shire for Wiltshire along with Robert Andrews, the sheriff responsible for the election being Thomas Calston, whose deed of the previous October Sir Walter had ‘ witnessed’. On the third day of the session Beauchamp was presented by the Commons to the King as their Speaker and formally accepted. The first session lasted until 8 April when an adjournment was made for Easter, and the second session began on 4 May, a week after the landing of the Emperor Sigismund in England. When the Parliament was dissolved is not known, but the second session is not likely to have been a long one, for the King was preoccupied with diplomacy and with the situation which was formally clarified by the Anglo-Imperial Treaty of Canterbury in August following. Moreover, the parliamentary grant, which was no more than an anticipation by five months of the payment of the tenth and fifteenth voted in the last Parliament of November 1415 and now made due at Whitsuntide 1416, had been apparently made during the first of the two sessions. One of the important topics discussed during the Parliament was the question of payment of military wages. The matter was soon fairly satisfactorily dealt with from the Speaker's own point of view: on 6 June the Lower Exchequer paid him £286 odd on the account of the Treasurer for the Wars, but a certain amount still re- mained due for his service in the 1415 expedition as late as February 1422.21 By that time, more again was owing to him for his service overseas in the meanwhile. Not very long after the spring Parliament of 1416 was over, Beau- champ was put on an inquiry, instituted by royal patent on 15 June, into allegations of waste in the alien priory of Clatford near Marl- borough. But a week before this a Bristol man had been granted By J. S. Roskell 349 letters of protection as a member of Sir Walter’s retinue, and it is poss- ible that Beauchamp was soon engaged in the military expedition which, under the leadership of the Duke of Bedford, relieved the siege of Harfleur. Whether this was the case or not, Beauchamp evidently joined Henry V’s second expedition to France which set out on 23 July 1417 with the conquest of the whole of Normandy as its first objective. Three months before its departure, Beauchamp had taken out (on 27 April 1417) letters of protection and of attorney as a member of the King’s retinue.22_ A member of the Duke of Gloucester’s retinue in the expedition of 1415, he was in this year (1417) the Duke’s steward for the holding of the courts of the forest of Savernake which Gloucester had been granted and where he was evidently using his authority as keeper of the forests south of Trent to make certain disagreeable changes. 23 But there is nothing to suggest that he now went to France in Gloucester’s company. During the first year and a half spent by Henry V on the conquest of Normandy there is no information of Sir Walter Beau- champ’s movements, except that in January 1418 he was commissioned to muster men-at-arms and archers garrisoning a number of places held by Thomas Montague, Earl of Salisbury.24 He was probably present at the long siege of Rouen from the end of July 1418 to 19 January 1419 when the city surrendereed. It says much for Henry V’s confidence in Beauchamp’s ability that he appointed him on the very day of the surrender of the Norman capital as its first English bailli. A few days later Sir Walter received a grant of a house in the city for- feited by a ‘rebel’, and on 21 March following he was granted in tail male the castle of Beausault forfeited by a ‘rebel’ Norman seigneur, Sir John de Montmorency, in return for his homage and a yearly rent of a sword. During the year he acted on various ex-officio commissions in Rouen: on 5 February he was ordered to receive an oath of fealty from the Abbot of St. Mary de Voeu, and on the next day to inquire into the characters of certain persons who had applied to the King for office; on 23 July the Earl of Warwick, Lord Willoughby, Sir Walter Hunger- ford, John Feriby (the Treasurer of the royal Household), and Beau- champ were empowered to treat with the clergy and citizens about certain sums to be paid to the King and, at the same time, the Earl, Hungerford, and Beauchamp were instructed to make provision for the security of the city and inquire into any developments likely to be hurtful to the King’s majesty; Beauchamp had authority as bailli to grant bills of passage to England to merchants and shipmen. On 11 350 Three Wiltshire Speakers March 1420 he was granted as bailli of Rouen the customary allow- ances while farming out the taxes imposed by the King.25 It was while Henry V was at Rouen in January 1421, prior to his journey to Calais for the crossing to England, that (on 14 January) Beauchamp was re- placed in the bailliage of Rouen by Sir John Keighley. Sir Walter only relinquished his Rouen office for promotion to the very important office of Treasurer of the royal Household, which carried with it the office of Treasurer for the Wars. He was certainly occupying this dual office by 21 January 1421. His predecessor, Sir John Rothenale, however, had died during the summer of 1420 and his own appointment, which cannot be precisely dated, pethaps took place then. 26 Beauchamp naturally returned to England when Henry V made an extended visit home for the coronation of his queen, Katherine of Valois, whom he had married in accordance with the Treaty of Troyes on 2 June 1420, and for the purpose of securing a parliamentary rati- fication of the Treaty and further support for his policies in France. The King landed at Dover on 1 February 1421 and on 24 February Katherine was crowned at Westminster. Among the liveries of cloth made from the Great Wardrobe to members of the Household in pre- paration for this event was one to Sir Walter Beauchamp.27 Towards the end of March the King’s eldest brother, Clarence, was killed by the Dauphinists at Baugé, and Henry began to take steps to return to France as soon as was feasible. On 10 June, the day of his departure from Dover to Calais, the King revised the terms of the will he had made in July 1415, and something of the structure of its future administration. He re-appointed the executors of 1415 who were still alive and added others, among whom was Sir Walter Beauchamp. The latter was pro- bably appointed to succeed Rothenale who, as Treasurer of the House- hold, had been appointed executor in 1415; and, like Rothenale in 1415, Beauchamp was appointed to be one of a select committee of eight out of the total of eighteen executors that was specially ane to administer the will as “ working ”’ executors. 28 Although Beauchamp had taken out letters of protection and of attorney on 28 May 1421 as being about to go abroad once more in the King’s retinue, it is most unlikely that he accompanied the King back to France in June 1421. On 6 July he was put on a commission appointed by the Council to inquire into alleged sales of venison and timber in the parks of Devizes by Robert Tyndale, who was parker there for life by grant of Henry IV; Tyndale had been removed from office by the By J. S. Roskell 351 Duke of Gloucester, acting as keeper of the royal forests south of Trent, on account of his suspected conduct, but the King did not desire his ejection without reasonable cause, and so the Council was authorizing an investigation. As Gloucester’s ex-steward for holding forest courts in Wiltshire, Beauchamp’s own appointment to the commission was perhaps no mere formality. And it is probable that he was able to act at the time of the appointment. But what makes it much more un- likely that even if he returned to France in 1421 he did not long stay there, is that on 1 October 1421 his place as Treasurer of the Household was taken by Sir William Philip. On 23 February 1422, Beauchamp was certainly at Westminster and able to receive in person a payment at the Lower Exchequer of some £29 due to him in wages for his own and his retinue’s service in the Agincourt campaign.29 On 11 March 1422, moreover, Beauchamp was acting in England as Steward of the Queen’s Household for in that capacity he then received at the Lower Exchequer £78 odd, which Henry V had ordered him to be paid for distribution among the clerks of the Queen’s ‘closseta’ and the ‘garciones ’ and ‘ pagetti’ of her Household.3° It is not improbable that he had occupied this headship of the Queen’s Household from the previous autumn. How long he continued to hold this office is not known, but he also acquired the office of chief steward for those estates of the Duchy of Lancaster which went to make up part of Katherine’s dower, and he was certainly still occupying this latter office in 1423, although by 1426 John Leventhorpe was acting as steward of all the duchy estates she held.31 Beauchamp is almost sure to have accompanied the Queen back to France when she left her five months old son, Henry of Windsor, in order to rejoin the King. Her equipage crossed from Southampton to Harfleur in early May 1422. On 26 March Beau- champ had already taken out letters of protection and, on 16 April at Southampton, letters of attorney.32 He very likely only returned to England after Henry V’s death on 31 August following, in the com- pany of the Queen who left Rouen with her husband’s body on 5 Oct- ober and reached London a month later. The first Parliament of Henry VI’s reign met at Westminster on 9 November 1422. Its main task was to sanction the form of government during the King’s minority, and the settlement which emerged pro- vided for the establishment of a limited Protectorship, to be enjoyed by the Duke of Bedford (the elder of the young King’s uncles) or in his absence by his younger brother, the Duke of Gloucester. By authority of Parliament the effective power in the State was entrusted to a large, 352 Three Wiltshire Speakers mainly aristocratic Council comprising the three greater officials and seventeen others whose conditional terms of acceptance of office Parliament agreed to. The last of the three commoners who were in- cluded in the list of councillors was Sir Walter Beauchamp.33 The other two, Sir Walter Hungerford and Sir John Tiptoft, like himself were both ex-Speakers. But that is by the way. The reasons for his inclusion were without doubt his place among the effective executors of the late King and (perhaps a lesser consideration) his connexion with the Queen-mother. There is no actual record of Beauchamp’s attendance at Council meetings, but as an ex-Treasurer of the Household and exofficio Treas- urer for the Wars he is likely to have been quite preoccupied with the tangled problems of the administration of Henry V’s will. The work, however, proceeded slowly, and even at Beauchamp’s death early in 1430 there was a sum of about {2,050 still unpaid to the executors of the £14,000 which it had been agreed (in 1422) they should receive. The whole position had been complicated by the need to fulfil the will of Henry IV concurrently, and not until December 1429 was this done. And even when in 1432 the deficit of the executors’ income had been made up, their liabilities to Henry V’s creditors and Household ser- vants still amounted to £8,000. So far as winding up the administra- tion of Henry V’s Household was concerned, difficulties had in the meantime arisen, because its minor accounting officials claimed that Henry V had been prepared during his last illness to pardon them all their debts, arrears, and accounts in accordance with his usual annual practice every Good Friday, that he died before they could be acquitted by him personally, and that in any case they had had no opportunity of accounting for their receipts because after the death of Sir John Rothenale, Treasurer of the Household, they had entrusted all their memoranda and accounts to his successors in office, Sir Walter Beau- champ and Sir William Philip. Certain of Henry V’s* sergeants ’ and other Household officers petitioned in this strain to Parliament in 1427.33 Incidentally, Sir Walter Beauchamp’s family had had a special inter- est in the terms of Henry V’s will of 10 June 1421, or rather in the terms ofa codicil which the King had writtenin English with his own hand on the day before and sealed with the signet of the eagle. Henry had desired that Sir Walter Beauchamp’s sister, Elizabeth, should be granted £200 worth of land for life on condition that she married by the advice of By J. S. Roskell 353 her mother, Thomas Beaufort, Duke of Exeter, Sir Walter Beauchamp (then Treasurer of the royal Household), and Sir Ralph Butler her kinsman, and took a husband within a year of the King’s death with their assent. Ifshe married contrary to the King’s intention, she was to forfeit her interest in the feoffees’ grant. If she married in accordance with it and had issue, her heirs were to inherit in fee tail half of the lands granted her for life. If there were no children by the marriage and she predeceased her husband, the latter was to enjoy a life interest in half the estates, the other half reverting to the King’s feoffees. If she did not marry but lived chaste, she was to have from the feoffees land worth 200 marks a year for life with reversion to them. In point of fact she did marry Thomas Swinford esquire, the son of the half- brother of the Duke of Exeter, by the advice of the Duke, Sir Walter Beauchamp her brother, and Sir Ralph Butler, and the couple were given estates by Henry V’s feoffees in November 1425 in accordance with his will. But the marriage had not taken place precisely within a year of Henry V’s death, owing to the feoffees’ negligence of the terms of his instructions, with the result that after Swinford’s death Elizabeth and her second husband, Thomas Rothwell, had to seek in 1440 a ratification of her estate in the manors in which she had a life interest and in those in which she and her issue by Swinford had an interest in tail. 34 Sir Walter Beauchamp’s sister's marriage with the nephew of the Duke of Exeter and of Bishop (later Cardinal) Henry Beaufort of Win- chester, especially in view of his participation in its arrangement, may have done much to draw him clear of any sympathy with the Duke of Gloucester (with whom he had been earlier connected) during the troubled period in English domestic politics which followed Henry V’s death. Both the Beauforts were in 1422 against Gloucester being given that control of the government of England which he thought right- fully belonged to him by his birth and Henry V’s will. So was the Earl of Warwick, Richard Beauchamp, Sir Walter Beauchamp’s distant kinsman. And if more evidence were required to suggest Sir Walter’s adherence to the 1422 plan of “ government by Council’ than his mem- bership of the Council as first constituted in 1422, it would have to be looked for in his connexion with the Beauforts from his sister's marriage to one of their family, and in his evident attachment to the Earl of Warwick. In the Parliament of April-July 1425 when there came to a head the dispute over precedence in Parliament between the Earl Marshal and the Earl of Warwick, it was Sir Walter Beauchamp who 354 Three Wiltshire Speakers acted in the case before the Lords as chief of Warwick’s counsel and his spokesman. 35 Despite the important connexions in high circles which these con- cerns of Sir Walter Beauchamp suggest, and despite his involvement in the active administration of Henry V’s will, he did not long remain a member of the regency Council. Appointed in December 1422, he was not re-appointed, as were the great majority of his fellow-council- lors, in the second Parliament of the reign which sat from October 1423 to February 1424.36 He was, however, almost certainly still a member of the Council on 6 November 1423 when he shared with Lord Crom- well, another member of the Council, and others a grant of the custody of the temporalities of the archiepiscopal see of York, vacated on 20 October by the death of Archbishop Bowet. And he retained an inter- est in this custody until the vacancy was ended and the temporalities restored on the translation of Bishop Kemp of London to the northern province in April 1426, the custodians having in the meantime paid the Exchequer at the rate of 2,000 marks a year (that is, a sum of £3,344 6s. 5d. in all).37 Apart from these various transactions, not a great deal is known of Beauchamp in these last few years before his death. In July 1423 he had been once again appointed J.P. in Wiltshire and was regularly re-appointed to the commission of the peace until his death, in July 1424, July 1425, December 1427 and February 1428. He served in the same county on commissions for the raising of Crown loans in July 1426 and May 1428. These were the only casual local commissions on which he served in these years. With a fellow-member of this second loan commission, Robert Long esquire of Wraxall, and a J.P. of the quorum in Wiltshire, Beauchamp incidentally had been at enmity nearly two years before: on 26 October 1426 a commission of oyer and ter- miner had issued from Chancery after Long had complained that Beauchamp, his son William, and others had assaulted him at Beau- champ’s place at Bromham. 38 Although Beauchamp was still certainly connected with the Queen- mother in the first year after Henry V’s death, it seems likely that an intimate relationship with her Household did not continue. But it is clear that his earlier connexion with the King’s Household was main- tained in Henry VI’s reign, although it did not now lead to any such important post as he had held under Henry V. When Henry VI was nearly seven and a half years old Sir Walter was one of a group of four knights and four esquires appointed by the Council on 8 May 1428 to By J. S. Roskell 355 wait on the person of the King under the oversight of the Earl of War- wick, who was then appointed * magister Regis ’ and a few weeks later given a commission under the great seal to take charge of the boy King’s education. Sir Walter and the other knights and esquires deputed to be about the King were ordered to appear before the Council, pre- sumably to receive their charge, a month later (on 7 June). The Council agreed that each of the four knights was to enjoy the right of boarding in the Household an esquire and two ‘ valetti’, to have food in his chamber at Household cost, and to have an annuity of 100 marks a year by way of reward so long as he was engaged in these duties. On the same day the castles of Wallingford and Hertford were appro- priated for the King’s residence in the summer season, and Windsor and Berkhamstead in the winter time. The annual * regardum ’ of each of these knights for the body was fixed at this time at 100 marks. Beauchamp was still one of the four * milites assignati pro Rege ’ at the time of Henry VI’s coronation on 5 November 1429, against which ceremony he received a special livery from the Great Wardrobe. Sir Walter’s elder son, William, received the order of knighthood of the Bath on the vigil of the coronation. Sir William Beauchamp and _his uncle, Sir John Beauchamp, Sir Walter’s younger brother, as well, were in October 1432 stated to have been then long in the King’s ser- vice as ‘ dapiscissores Regis ’. Earlier in the year of the coronation, on 20 April 1429, Sir Walter was appointed to the office of ‘magister equorum domini Regis ’. He was not to hold this office for very long, however. For either at the very end of 1429 or early in 1430 he died, his place as Master of the King’s horses being taken by Sir John Steward, and his position as one of the knights attendant on Henry VI falling to Sir Ralph Butler, Sir Walter's cousin, who rose to be Chamberlain of the royal Household after being chief chamberlain to the Duke of Bed- ford, was later created Baron Sudeley in 1441, and was Treasurer of England in 1443-46. 39 Some eight weeks after Henry VI’s coronation, on 30 December 1429, Sir Walter Beauchamp made his will. He left his body for burial in the chantry chapel of the parish church of Steeple Lavington (Wiltshire). The sparseness of the terms of the will suggest that his final illness had caught him somewhat unawares. To the church of St. Bridget in Fleet Street in London he alone made specific bequests: £2 to the church, £1 to its rector, a mark (13s. 4d.) to its parish chaplain, a noble (6s. 8d.) to each of its three clerks. The remainder of his goods and chattels he left to his executors : his wife Elizabeth, Sir William Beauchamp, his VOL. LVI—CCIV & CCV X 356 Three Wiltshire Speakers son and heir, Richard Beauchamp, a younger son, and John Roche, his cousin. He died sometime between the drawing up of the will and 14 February 1430, when probate was made in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. To Richard Beauchamp was then committed the admin- istration of the will, and the executors received their acquittance on 12 July following. In the meantime, on 28 May 1430, the writs order- ing inquiries into Sir Walter’s tenures had issued from the royal Chan- cery to the escheators in Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire. Seventeen years later his widow, Elizabeth, was to be buried next to his tomb at Steeple Lavington. 49 She had not lived quite long enough to see members of their family climb up into the ranks of the titular nobility. On 2 May following her death in February 1447, Sir Walter’s younger brother, John, was created by royal patent Baron Beauchamp of Powick; already a Knight of the Garter (since 1445), he was to be Treasurer of England from 1450 to 1452. At the time of his uncle’s ennoblement, Sir Walter’s son and heir, Sir William Beauchamp, was still one of the King’s carvers and, since 1441, Chamberlain of North Wales. Having married Elizabeth, the daughter of Sir Gerard Bray- broke, grandson and heir of Almaric Lord St. Amand (summoned to Parliament, 1382-1402), William was himself summoned as Lord St. Amand to Parliament on 2 January 1449, and he continued to be sum- moned until his death in 1457. He, too, was interred at Steeple Lav- ington. His son and heir, Sir Walter’s grandson, Ri-hard Beauchamp, Lord St. Amand, born in 1454, became a Knight of the Bath in 1475, rebelled against Richard III in 1483 and was attainted, but was restored at the accession of Henry VII, to whom his mother’s second husband, Sir Roger Tocotes, was knight of the body and Controller of Household. At Richard’s death, in 1508, without surviving legitimate issue, the barony became dormant (according to modern peerage theories) or extinct. Sir Walter Beauchamp’s younger son, Richard, who in 1430 had acted as his father’s executor, became Bishop of Hereford in 1448 and in 1450 Bishop of Salisbury, which see he retained until his death in 1481; in the meantime he had been made chancellor of the Order of the Garter in 1475 and Dean of Windsor in 1478. He it was who in June 1481, shortly before his death, joined with his nephew, Richard Beauchamp Lord St. Amand, Sir Roger Tocotes (Lord St. Amand’s step-father), and Thomas Beauchamp esquire, in paying £300 for a royal licence to grant in mortmain lands worth £50 a year and found a chantry of four chaplains in the cathedral church of Salisbury. The chantry was to be for the good estate of Edward IV and his Queen, and By J. S. Roskell 357 of the founders, and for their souls after death and for the souls of the bishop’s parents, Sir Walter Beauchamp and Elizabeth his wife, and the bishep’s elder brother, William Lord St. Amand. 41 FOOTNOTES TO PART II OF WILTSHIRE SPEAKERS 1 Rot. Parl., 1V.71; Official Return, i. App., xx. 2 The Complete Peerage, ii. 46-7; vii. 9. 3 C.P.R., 1377-81, 111; ibid., 1385-9, 151; ibid., 1391-6, 108, 200, 209; ibid., 1399-1401, 171, 173; ibid., 1413-16, 130; ibid., 1422-9, 53. 4 Complete Peerage, VII. 296; Wiltshire Arch. and Nat. Hist Mag., vol. 50, 379; vol. 51. 18, 23, 264; Cussans, Hertfordshire, ii, 100. 5 C.P.R., 1408-13, 265; C.C.R., 1409-13, 138; Cussans, Hertfordshire, loc. cit. 6 C.F.R., 1405-13, 204; C.P.R., 1408-13, 363; C.C.R., 1409-13, 269; ibid., 1422-9, 421. 7 Feudal Aids, IV. 192, 384, 386; V. 235, 238, 241, 244, 247, 265. 8 ibid., V. 327-8. 9 C.P.R., 1399-1401, 35; Exchequer, Issue Roll, P-R.O., E 403/573, mem. 20. 10 Exchequer, Accounts Various, Q.R., Wardrobe Accounts, E 101/404/21; Duchy of Lancaster, Accounts Various, D.L. 28/27/T1, 8, 10. 11 C.P.R., 1401-5, 255, 354; List of Sheriffs, 153, 50. 12 C.P.R., 1405-8, 73; ibid., 1422-9, 107; British Museum, Harleian MS. 319, fo. 46. 13 List of Sheriffs, loc. cit.;R. C. Hoare, Wiltshire, Old and New Sarum (R. Benson and H. Hatcher, London, 1843), vol. 1, p. 110. 14 C.P.R., 1408-13, 181, 486. 15 See above, pp. 2-3; N. H. Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, i. 176, 178. 16 Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/609, mem. r. 17 C.P.R., 1408-13, 380, 486; ibid., 1413-6, 38, 425. 18 D.K.R., XLIV, 568; Exchequer, Accounts Various, P.R.O., E 101/45/13; Privy Seal warrants for issue, E 404/31/324; Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/652, mem. 18; T.R.H.S., 3rd series, vol. 5, 134. 19 C.C.R., 1413-9, 219, 294. 20 C.P.R., 1413-16, 380, 425. 21 Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/624, mem. 4; E 403/652, mem. 18. 22 C.P.R., 1416-22, 76; D.K.R., XLIV. $80, 591, 593. 23 Wiltshire Arch, and Nat. Hist. Mag., vol. 51. 333. 24 Rotuli Normanniae, ed. T. D. Hardy, 359. 25 D.K.R., XLI. 724, 725; 782; 747, 790; ibid., XLII. 331, 359, 388; T. Carte, Catalogue des Rolles Gascons, etc., i. 343. 26 C.P.R., 1416-22, 333; C.F.R., 1413-22, 334; Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/646, mem. 12. x 358 Three Wiltshire Speakers 27 Exchequer, Accounts Various, Q.R., Account Book of the Great Ward- robe, 8-9 Henry V, E. 101/407/4, fo. 34v. 28 Rot. Parl., IV. 172-3, 393. 29 C.P.R., 1416-22, 389; Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/652, mem. 12 (cf. Wylie and Waugh, Henry V, iii. 258); ibid., mem. 18. 30 Exchequer, Issue Roll, E 403/652, mem. 19. 31 R. Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, i. 207. 32 D.K.R., XLIV. 637. 33 Rot. Parl., IV. 175. 33 J. S. Roskell, The Commons in the Parliament of 1422, 117--9; Rot. Parl., IV. 325; C.P.R., 1422-9, 64, 136, 176, 181, 188. 34 C.P.R., 1436-41, 364-6; ibid., 1422-9, 455. For notes on the Swinford family of Coleby and Ketelthorpe (Lincolnshire) to which Sir Hugh Swinford (the first husband of Katherine Swinford, the mistress and later third duchess of John of Gaunt), Sir Thomas Swinford his son (by Katherine), and the latter’s son, Thomas (Elizabeth Beauchamp’s husband) belonged, see D.N.B., XIX. 244. The identification of the husband of Elizabeth Beauchamp with the kins- man of the Beauforts is assisted by the fact that in 1452 her second husband, Thomas Rothwell, got a grant of two-thirds of the manor of Colby and other estates of the Lincolnshire Swinfords. (C.F.R., 1445-52, 254). 35 Rot. Parl., IV. 267. (The dispute was concluded by the Earl Marshal being allowed his father’s title of Duke of Norfolk in accordance with the creation of 1397 by Richard II, the King’s “ worthi predecessour ’.) 36 ibid., 200. 37 C.F.R., 1422-30, §9, IOI, 166. 38 C.P.R., 1422-9, $713 354, 481; 402. 39 P.P.C., iii. 294; Privy Seal warrants for issue, E 404/44/315 (warrant to pay at rate of 100 marks a year dated 11 June 1428); Exchequer, Accounts Var- ious, Enrolled account of the keeper of the Great Wardrobe, P.R.O., E 101/ 408/10; P.P.C., op. cit., iv. 128; E 101/106/29. Sir John Steward was appointed Master of the King’s horses on 13 March 1430. A payment made to Sir Ralph Butler at the Exchequer in July 1431 described him as appointed by Henry VI to be attendant on his person vice Sir Walter Beauchamp, late deceased (Exche- quer, Issue Roll, E 403/698, mem. 11). 40 Somerset House, Register Luffenham, fo. 12; C.F.R., 1422-30, 276. The will of Sir Walter Beauchamp’s widow, Elizabeth, dated 6 February 1447, is to be found in the Stafford Register (Lambeth Palace Library), fo. 145b. 41 Complete Peerage, ii. 46-7; D.N.B. TV. 31;:C:2.R., 1477-85, 276. pry ‘afiT Aagunod fo uosssisad pury oys dq pornposdaa ydvsd0ojJouc] 359 AVEBURY MANOR By Sir Francis KNOWLES, Bart. (Built by William Dunch circa 1560. South Front by Sir James Mervyn, circa 1600. Minor alterations Sir Richard Holford, circa 1700. Restoration and additions by Lt.-Col. L. C. D. Jenner after 1907. Grey stone and plastered rubble. Mullioned windows. Surrounded by eight gardens, many of them formal. A mile of topiary work. Elizabethan panelling and decorative plasterwork ceilings. Some thirty rooms, the largest the library (4oft. by 18ft. 6in) and the dining room (26ft. 6in. by 18ft. 8in.). The east front is of the 16th century style with steep gabled roofs; the south front is Elizabethan in date, Renaissance in inspiration; the west wing consists of a library of late 17th century style. There are some fine details, notably the renaissance knocker, the panelling, decorative plasterwork, a fine stone chimneypiece dating from 1600, and some carved woodwork of the late 17th cent). Introduction. I must begin with a word of warning to the reader of this article. I am a comparative newcomer to Avebury, and I am by training a scientist, not a historian. Yet I can claim to know the structure of Ave- bury Manor at least as well if not better than any previous owner for my knowledge is personal and intimate, and acquired with consider- able labour and discomfort. The fabric of the house was in poor repair when we took possession on April 20th, 1955, and since then builders have been almost my constant companions. I have climbed over the roof, scrambled among rafters, crept behind panelling and under floors, crawled up chimneys; in short I have subjected as much of the building as possible to minute scrutiny in an effort to ensure that no tungus is left in peace, no woodworm untroubled and no beetle undisturbed. In the course of these operations I have learnt much about the construction of Avebury Manor. Last year, for the first time in its history of more than 400 years, the public was able to visit Avebury Manor and in order to write a short guide to the house I searched old records and previous pub- lications. The library of the Wiltshire Archaeological Society and the County Archives at Trowbridge have been useful sources of inform- ation and it is to these, to the article by H. A. Tipping, published in ‘English Homes’ (Country Life, 1929) and to Wiltshire Notes and Queries, Nos. 89 and 90, 1915 that I am principally indebted for the information on which this account is based. 360 Avebury Manor Iam conscious that the tale is an incomplete one. I hope to continue my researches, and I shall be most grateful if any reader of this article can contribute any piece of information, however small, which will help to make the history of Avebury Manor more complete. Early History. The monastic phase. In Domesday Book Averberie (sic) is described as “ Terra regis ’, and it is noted that the only parts under cultivation were two hides of land held by Rainbold (Rainbald), a priest who also held the church; Saxon remains in the church testify to its antiquity. ! Unfortunately the recorded history of the church and its occupants during the Middle Ages is slight and often contradictory. For instance we find that a Roll dated 1275 states that a property at Avebury was given by Henry I to William de Tankerville, Chamberlain of Nor- mandy, who gave it to the Abbot and Convent of St. George de Bocherville and thereby endowed a Benedictine house at Avebury. On the other hand elsewhere (Wiltshire Collections. Aubrey and Jackson) it is said that during the reign of Henry III the royal lands at Ave- bury were granted to the Abbot and Monks of Cirencester, who held them until the reign of Henry VIII.2 Undoubtedly there was a priory at Avebury during the middle ages, but its exact location is still uncertain. Recently while clearing ivy from the walls of the Manor I uncovered the signs of Gothic arches in the north east corner which had been filled in during Elizabethan times. The proximity of the Manor to the church suggests that it may have formed at least part of the monastic buildings. It is also perhaps relevant to note here that in a sale of furniture held in the Manor in 1902 an old oak table held by tradition to have been used by the monks was sold for 16 guineas. There is however no certain evidence that the bulk of the priory stood where the Manor now stands; indeed it is possible that the main monastic building stood closer to the church and that the early fragment in the north-east corner of the Manor may have formed part of a subsidiary building. There is a tradition that another house, now known as Trusloe Manor, which stands about a quarter of a mile to the west of the church 1 See V.C.H. Il, p. 33, and p. 119. Rainbold may have been Edward the Confessor’s Chancellor. 2 It seems likely that there were two distinct ecclesiastical houses at Ave- bury, one English and the other French. The evidence favours Avebury manor as the residence of the French monks. By Sir Francis Knowles, Bart. 361 may also have been an ecclesiastical building. We find that in 1553 the Abbey of Cirencester granted a lease of property here to Thomas Truslowe, Jane(Joan?) his wife and John his son for 60 years at a rent of £36 16 o per annum. Thomas Truslowe was said to have been a butcher of Yorkshire origin. In 1599 a witness in a court case, a Jone Pope aged 60, said ‘ about 37 years ago John Truslowe dwelt in defendant’s house and causing a cellar to be digged out at the west end of the house there were found about two bushels of dead men’s bones and in the skull of one was a nayle driven, and in the same house there was a pryorye or house of prayer ’. There is need for further research before the monastic phase of Ave- bury Manor can be described with precision. Undoubtedly the church of Avebury was cared for constantly over a long period of time for we find in ita Saxon window, Norman arches, mediaeval rood screen (15th cent.), Gothic windows and a Plantagenet tower, but where its builders and custodians lived is still a matter for speculation. The present evid- ence favours the following hypothesis :—that in pre-Christian days the great stone circle was still used as a place of worship by the local in- habitants, and that anearly Christian missionary founded in opposition to this (and as close to it as possible) a Christian church. The Norman invaders took this over! and enlarged it, and by the 13th Century there was a Benedictine cell affiliated to a Norman order. The fate of this is uncertain and it seems most likely that during the 13th and 14th cen- turies the link with its Norman house was precarious liable to be broken when the King of England waged war against the King of France, and finally severed during the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413). The precise role of the Abbey of Cirencester in the religious life at Avebury is not yet clear from the documents that I have so far had an Opportunity to study, but it seems likely that it is Cirencester and not Bocherville which was the predominant influence at Avebury. Nor is it clear whether Trusloe Manor or Avebury Manor or both are built on monastic foundations. A local tradition holds that Avebury Manor stands on the site of the monastery and that there was a nunnery on the site of Trusloe Manor. (I have heard it said that an underground pass- age connected the two, but as this would have had to go under the river Kennet I think this unlikely !) I have found it difficult to determine the exact date on which Ave- bury Manor passed into lay ownership. As I have already remarked, 1 There seem to have been only two monks at Avebury during at least part of the 13th cent. (V.C.H. III, p. 392.) 362 Avebury Manor according to Aubrey and Jackson's Wiltshire Collections the Abbey of Cirencester was able to lease at last some of the Avebury lands to Thomas Truslowe in 1553 (it is said that this took place one year before the dis- solution of the Abbey), and yet we have evidence that some years be- fore this Sir William Sharington owned some lands at Avebury, and indeed that on the 11th May, 1551, he sold Avebury Manor lands to William Dunche of London for £2200. The most reasonable explan- ation of these apparent contradictions is that the Avebury Manor estate and the Truslowe Manor estate were distinct, and that the latter be- longed to the Abbey of Cirencester, but that Avebury Manor did not. It is said that during the reign of Henry IV Avebury Manor passed to the Duke of York who made it one of the estates with which he en-- dowed his new collegiate foundation of Fotheringay,1 and that at the Dissolution of the Monasteries it was resumed by the Crown and sold to Sir William Sharington. The 16th Century. The building of Avebury Manor. With the acquisition of Avebury Manor by Sharington we leave the monastic period peopled by shadows to which we can put no name and about whom at present the information is so disappointingly sparse, and enter the historical period of the Manor during which we shall meet men and women whose actions are known and whose motives can be appraised. Sir William Sharington had been given the Bristol Mint in 1546, and for a while he profiteered pleasurably. It is said that several Wiltshire estates, including Avebury, were bought with money that he made dishonestly at Bristol. I can find no direct evidence that he built Ave- bury and indeed it seems to me unlikely that he did so for he was arrested in January, 1549, and Avebury can only have been in his pos- | session for a few years at the most. Sharington had been associated with the Protector Somerset’s brother, Thomas Seymour, whose head fell on Tower Hill in March, 1549. One of the charges against him was that of * procuring the coining of false money ’, and it seems likely that Sharington had taken part in this for his evidence helped to convict Seymour. After Seymour's death Sharington obtained a pardon and on payment of £12,000 regained possession of his lands which had been taken from him. In 1551 Avebury Manor passed in to the hands of William Dunch (De Willielmus Dunch arm.) 2 who was auditor of the London Mint 1 V.C.H. Ill, p. 393. 2 By agreement between Sir William Sharyngton of nk and William Dunche of London. ‘ee + aa SSRs