Warkworth's Chronicle Introduction. But to return from this digression. Mr. Bayley says we have satisfactory testimony that Henry lived at least up to the twenty-fifth of May," and he quotes the Fœdera for his authority, thereby falling into an error which Sharon Turner made, in mistaking the day of the payment of certain monies for that on which they were incurred, —an error which Dr. Lingard was the first to point out, and which takes away entirely the only seeming substantial evidence that has been brought forward to show that Henry did not die between the 21st and the 22nd of May, as stated in the following Chronicle. Fleetwood's narrative affirms that Henry expired on the 23rd "of pure displeasure and melancholy," and this very palpable attempt at deception proves at any rate that the popular feeling and opinion was strong enough to induce the Yorkists to attempt to throw a veil over the important circumstantial fact that would render a murder probable, viz. that Henry died the very night Edward made his triumphal entry into the metropolis.¹ Indeed, the whole of the circumstantial evidence is in favour of the murder; Edward made his triumphal entry into London on the 21st, and went into Kent with the Duke of Gloucester on the following day; on the afternoon of the 22nd, Henry's body was brought to St. Paul's, and there, as we are informed by four good authorities, bled afresh—

"O, gentlemen, see, see! dead Henry's wounds

Open their congealed mouths, and bleed afresh!

Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity;

For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood

From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;

Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural,

Provokes this deluge most unnatural."

Note 1. The catalogue of authorities for the murder of Henry VI. might be extended ad libitum, and do not show more than the popular opinion after all; it may be as well, however, to give a few references. L'Art de verifier les Dates, i. 816, col. i.; Harl. Miscell. i. 313; Life of Henry the Sixth (8vo. Lond. 1712), p. 58; Grafton's continuation of Harding's Chronicle, Sir Henry Ellis's edition, p. 460; "Rex Henricus occiditur clam in Turri," MS. Tanner, Bodl. II. fol. 104, vo. and fol. 56, ro; Hist. Anglic. a M. H. 1640, p. 180; Cooper's Chronicle, p. 267; MS. Harl. 2408; Palmesii Continuatio Chron. Eusebiani, edit. 1483, fol. 160, rº; Mémoires Olivier de la Marche, sub anno 1469; Lilii Chronicon Angliæ, edit. 1565, fol. 63, ro; the Breviat Chronicle of the Kings of England, edit. Cant. 1553, aº. 1470; MS. Vinc. in Coll. Arm. 418.

Ellis' Letters S1 V2 Letter CII. Cardinal Wolsey (age 55) in his distress to Thomas Cromwell (age 43). [Around Nov 1528]

WnBMRjQeMS. COTTON. VESP. F. xiii. foL J6. Orig.

The Letter here presented to the reader was printed some years ago, by the Editor of the present Volumes, in the Archaeologia of the Society of Antiquaries.

Wolsey, who knew the talents of Cromwell, seems to have placed great reliance on his integrity and affection. Cromwell, according to Cavendish in his life of Wolsey, became a member of the lower House of Parliament in the month of November 1529, within a short time from which the present Letter must have been written. He appears to have protected his master in the Lower House with great dexterity and address.

Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, has related an anecdote of Cromwell which may be worth introducing here. It occurred in 1540, at the table of Archbishop Cranmer, when certain guests were making a comparison of the qualities of the two prelates Cranmer and Wolsey. " The Lord Cromwell being somewhat touched to hear the Cardinal's service cast in his teeth," said " that he could not deny but he was servant sometime to Cardinal Wolsey, neither did repent the same, for he received of him both fee, meate, and drinke, and other commodities : but yet he was never so farre in love with him as to have waited on him to Rome if he had been chosen Pope."

Myn owne enterly belouyd Cromwell, I beseche yow, as ye loue me and wyl euyr do any thyng for me, repare hyther thys day as sone as the Parlement ys brokyn vp, leyng aparte all thyngs for that tyme; for I wold nut onely commynycat thyngs vnto yow wherin for my comfort and relief I wold haue your good, sad, dyscret aduyse and counsell, but also opon the same commytt sertyng thyngs requyryng expedicion to yow, on my behalf to be solycy tyd : this, I pray yow therfor, to hast your commyng hyther assafore, with owt omyttyng so to do as ye tendyr my socor, reliff, and comfort, and quyetnes of mynde. And thus fare ye wel : from Asher, in hast, thys Satyrday, in the mornyng, with the rude hande and sorowfull hert of your assuryd louer

T. CAR^LIS EBOR.

I haue also serteyn thyngs consernyng yowr sylf wych I am suere ye wolbe glad to here and knowe : fayle not therfor to be here thys nygth, ye may retorne early in the mornyng ageyn yf nede shul so requyre. Et iterum vale.

Mr. Agtlsteyn^a shewyd me how ye had wryttyn onto me a Lettre wherin ye shuld adu'tyse me of the commyng hyther of the Duke of Norfolke: I assure yow ther cam to my hands no suche Lettre.

Note a. Augustinus de Augustinis, or M^r. Augustine as he is more usually called, was the Cardinal's Physician. In the Cottonian Manuscript Titus B. I. fol. 365. there is a Letter of his, to Thomas Cromwell, in Italian, requiring speedy medical assistance. apparently tor Cardinal Wolsey. It it dated Asher, Jan. 19^th 1529-30.

Chronicle of Greyfriars. 06 Apr 1532. Also this yere was a coke boylyd in a cauderne in Smythfeld for he wolde a powsynd the byshoppe of Rochester Fycher (age 62) with dy vers of hys servanttes, and he was lockyd in a chayne and pullyd up and downe with a gybbyt at dyvers tymes tyll he was dede.

Note. Poisoning of the household of the bishop of Rochester, and the punishment by Boiling. This crime occasioned great popular excitement at the time, which was probably increased both by the supposition that the life of the bishop (John Fisher) had been attempted, and by the rumour that many of the poor which had partaken of his alms had died, which is directly asserted as the fact by Stowe. Such, however, was not actually the case : only one of the episcopal household, and one poor widow, lost their lives. As the parliament was sitting, the matter was brought before it, and an act (22 Hen. VIII. c. 9) was passed, reciting that " now in the tyme of this presente parliament, that is to saye, in the xviijth daye of Februarye in the xxij. yere of his moste victorious reygn, one Richard Roose late of Rouchester in the countie of Kent, coke, otherwyse called Richard Coke, of his moste wyked and dampnable dysposicyon dyd caste a certyne venym or poyson into a vessell replenysshed with yeste or barme stondyng in the kechyn of the Reverende Father in God John Bysshopp of Rochester at his place in Lamebyth Marsshe, wyth whych yeste or barme and other thynges convenyent porrage or gruell was forth wyth made for his famylye there beyng, wherby nat only the nombre of xvij. persons of his said famylie whych dyd eate of that porrage were mortally enfected and poysoned, and one of them, that is to say, Benett Curwen gentylman therof is deceassed, but also certeyne pore people which resorted to the sayde Bysshops place and were there charytably fedde wyth the remayne of the saide porrage and other vytayles, were in lyke wyse infected, and one pore woman of them, that is to saye, Alyce Tryppytt wydowe, is also thereof now deceassed : our sayde Sovereign Lorde the Kynge, of hys blessed disposicion inwardly abhorryng all such abhomynable offences because that in maner no persone can lyve in suertye out of daunger of death by that meane yf practyse therof should not be exchued, hath ordeyned and enacted by auctorytie of thys presente parlyament that the sayde poysonyng be adjudged and denied as high treason. And that the sayde Richard for the sayd murder and poysonynge of the said two persones as is aforesayde by auctoritie of this presente parlyament shall stande and be attaynted of highe treason : And by cause that detestable offence nowe newly practysed and comytted requyreth condygne punysshemente for the same; It is ordeyned and enacted by auctoritie of this present parlyament that the said Richard Roose shalbe therfore boyled to deathe withoute havynge any advauntage of his clargie. And that from hensforth every wylfull murder of any persone or persones by any whatsoever persone or persones herafter to be comytted and done by meane or waye of poysonyng shalbe reputed, denied, and juged in the lawe to be highe treason; And that all and every persone or persones which hereafter shalbe lawfully indyted, appeled and attaynted or condemned of such treson for any maner poysonyng shall not be admytted to the benefyte of hys or theyre clargye, but shalbe immedyatly committed to execucion of deth by boylynge for the same."

It has been supposed that this was an ex-post facto enactment, so far as Richard Roose was concerned; and yet we find by the present chronicle, p. 30, that, at an earlier period of Henry's reign, nine years before, a man was sodden in a cauldron at Smithfield, "because he would have poisoned divers persons." Therefore the same punishment appears to have previously attached to the offence. It has not, however, been traced to still earlier times. (See "Notes and Queries," 1852, vol. v. pp. 32, 112, 184.) A third instance of its execution has been found in the chronicle of King's Lynn, about the same time as Roose's case: "1531. This year here was a maid boiled to death in the Market-place for poisoning her mistress." (Ibid. p.355.) A fourth occurs in 1542, which is briefly mentioned in p. 45 of the present volume, and somewhat differently by Stowe, as follows : " The 17 March [i.e. a week later] Margaret Davy, a maid, was boiled in Smithfield for poisoning of the household that she had dwelled in." Sir Walter Scott, in his Border Minstrelsy (notes to Leyden's ballad of Lord Soulis), gives this passage with the erroneous date of 1524, following a misprint in Stowe's margin. The punishment by boiling is supposed to have been repealed by the statute 1 Edward VI. c. 12, by which all new treasons were abolished.

1581. Church of St John The Baptist, Kinlet [Map]. Monument to George Blount (age 68) and Constance Talbot.

The following Epitaph is engraved on a white marble slab, by the side of the large Tudor Monument, which contains the kneeling figures of Sir George and Constantia Talbot, his wife, and their two children. Underneath is the entombed figure. The monument is richly decorated with the quarterings of Blount Arms Blount and Talbot Arms Talbot. [Latin Epitaph at Kinlet translated by the late Stanley Leighton, M.A., F.S.A.]

HERE LYETH THE BODY OF SIR GEORGE BLOUNT KNIGHT WHICH WAS LORDE OF KINLET WHO DIED IN THE YEARE OF OURE LORD GOD 1581 HERE THYRE CHILDREN BE JOHN AND ALSO DORETHY.

FIAT VOLVNTAS DEI 1584 ANNO DOMINI. AVOVS SERVIR JESUIS

Laid in this tomb is Blount of noble race, Ennobled by light of his own, and BY THE light of his father he was; His lineage most high, knightly by either parent, Worthy of these was the son's knightly name; Arms, and the charger fiery were his delight, on the day of battle, But the palace of his King delighted his youth, In manhood Scotland and the realms of France Felt his generosity in war; to both he was a terror; His neighbour's quarrels and disputes he settled all, At home he was a man of peace, Nor did he make unfitting nuptial for himself, The daughter of a knight he wedded of equal lineage, Who bore two children, of whom a daughter (age 47) lives, The son before his father sought the realms above; After his son's death, he gives many lands to his nephew And makes him the heir of this very place - Rowland Lacon who laid his lifeless body in a tomb But his spirit the realms above hold. This Lacon an Esquire in filial memory of love This record raised. His nephew and his heir

CHRIST S LIFE'S AIM.

Be near good Christ to England, To Prince, to Nobles, And to all other Inhabitants; Good Christ, I pray grant Peace - For by this the life of men is quiet - By this, their journey safe And all good things do multiply. By strife, what has been gotten By great labor, melts away, So to Thine own give everlasting peace - May virtue which is learning's light, Be given too, and blessings come - Far off be what, At any time may hurt.

Constance Talbot: Around 1517 she was born to John Talbot of Albrighton and Margaret Troutbeck On 30 Mar 1533 George Blount and she were married. Around 1565 Constance Talbot died.

1260 Annals Dunstable. 1260. In the year of grace 1260.Henry King of England (age 52), son of King John, etc.

Original Latin Text:

Anno gratiae MCCLX. Henricus rex Angliae (age 52), filius regis Johannis, pace firmata cum rege Franciae, ibidem per longum tempus moram traxit; nec in Angliam redire curavit, donec episcopi et magnates Angliae ei literatorie mandaverunt quod reverti in Angliam properaret; quod si non faceret, ad placitum suum in Anglia non rediret. Quo audito, rex in se reversus, in Angliam rediit; sed quidam malitiosi falsis rumoribus inter patrem et filium suum Edwardum discordiam seminavervmt, asserentes quod dictus Edwardus et consiliarii sui guerram domino regi movere procurarunt; propter quod dominus rex supra modum iratus, multos milites de partibus transmarinis usque Londoniam secum adduxit; et eis ultra pontem dimissis in partibus Sureiae, ipse civitatem Londonise ingressus est, et ibi aliquandiu moram fecit, portis civitatis firmatis et seratis, apposuit custodes, ut nullus nisi ab eo licentiatus ingrederetur.

Comes vero Gloverni, et Johannes Maunsel, et quidam alii qui de concilio regis fuerunt, ad placitum suum ingressum et egressum habuerunt.

Rex vero proliibuit, ne filius suus Edwardus, nec aliquis qui de consilio suo extiterat, coram ipso venirent, dicens, "Coram me non appareat filius mens Edwardus, quia si eum videro, quin ipsum osculer me non cohibebo.".

Tandem, amore paterno commotus, et magnatum precibus devictus, ipsum ad osculum pacis recepit, et regina mater sua similiter, quae, ut dicebatur, causa totius malitis extiterat.

Dum ista aguntur, quantos honores et quantas expensas, omnibus qui interesse voluerint, dominus Edwardus fecerit, lingua vix potest explicare.

Letter to Archbishop Mandell Crichton 05 Apr 1887. I was disappointed at not learning from you what I never could find out, how that peculiar discipline established itself at Rome between the days of Kempis and of Erasmus. It would not have appeared mysterious or esoteric to your readers if I had said a little more about it. Nor is this a point of serious difference. When you come to talk of the crisis I do not doubt you will say how it came about. Probably you will not give quite the same reasons that occur to me, because you are more sure than I am that the breach was inevitable. But I did think myself justified in saying that these two volumes do not contain an account of some of the principal things pertaining to the Papacy during the Reformation, and in indicating the sort of explanation I desiderate in Vol. V.

What is not at all a question of opportunity or degree is our difference about the Inquisition. Here again I do not admit that there is anything esoteric in my objection. The point is not whether you like the Inqui­sition-I mean that is a point which the H.R. may mark, but ought not to discuss-but whether you can, without reproach to historical accuracy, speak of the later mediaeval papacy as having been tolerant and enlightened. What you say on that point struck me exactly as it would strike me to read that the French Terrorists were tolerant and enlightened, and avoided the guilt of blood. Bear with me whilst I try to make my meaning quite clear.

We are not speaking of the Papacy towards the end of the fifteenth or early sixteenth century, when, for a couple of generations, and down to 1542,there was a decided lull in the persecuting spirit. Nor are we speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, which is as distinct from the Roman as the Portuguese, the Maltese, or the Venetian. I mean the Popes of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, from Innocent III down to the time of Hus. These men instituted a system of Persecution, with a special tribunal, special functionaries, special laws. They carefully elaborated, and developed, and applied it. They protected it with every sanction, spiritual and temporal. They inflicted, as far as they could, the penalties of death and damnation on everybody who resisted it. They constructed quite a new system of procedure, with unheard of cruelties, for its maintenance. They devoted to it a whole code of legislation, pursued for several generations, and not to be found in [ ].

But although not to be found there it is to be found in books just as common; it is perfectly familiar to every Roman Catholic student initiated in canon law and papal affairs; it has been worn threadbare in a thousand controversies; it has been constantly attacked, constantly defended, and never disputed or denied, by any Catholic authority. There are some dozens of books, some of them official, containing the particulars.

Indeed it is the most conspicuous fact in the history of the mediaeval papacy, just as the later Inquisition, with what followed, is the most conspicuous and characteristic fact in the history and record of the modern papacy. A man is hanged not because he can or cannot prove his claim to virtues, but because it can be proved that he has committed a particular crime. That one action overshadows the rest of his career. It is useless to argue that he is a good husband or a good poet. The one crime swells out of proportion to the rest. We all agree that Calvin was one of the greatest writers, many think him the best religious teacher, in the world. But that one affair of Servetus outweighs the nine folios, and settles, by itself, the reputation he deserves. So with the mediaeval Inquisition and the Popes that founded it and worked it. That is the breaking point, the article of their system by which they stand or fall.

Therefore it is better known than any other part of their government, and not only determines the judgment but fills the imagination, and rouses the passions of mankind. I do not complain that it does not influence your judgment. Indeed I see clearly how a mild and conciliatory view of Persecution will enable you to speak pleasantly and inoffensively of almost all the performers in your list, except More and Socinius; whilst a man with a good word for More and Socinius would have to treat the other actors in the drama of the Reformation as we treat the successive figures on the inclined plane of the French Revolution, from Dumouriez to Barras. But what amazes and disables me is that you speak of the Papacy not as exercising a just severity, but as not exercising any severity. You do not say, these misbelievers deserved to fall into the hands of these torturers and Fire-the-faggots; but you ignore, you even deny, at least implicitly, the existence of the torture-chamber and the stake.

I cannot imagine a more inexplicable error, and I thought I had contrived the gentlest formula of disagreement in coupling you with Cardinal Newman.

The same thing is the case with Sixtus IV and the Spanish Inquisition. What you say has been said by Hefele and Gams and others. They, at least, were in a sort, avowed defenders of the Spanish Inquisition. Hefele speaks of Ximenes as one might speak of Andrewes or Taylor or Leighton. But in what sense is the Pope not responsible for the constitution by which he established the new tribunal? If we passed a law giving Dufferin powers of that sort, when asked for, we should surely be responsible. No doubt, the responsibility in such a case is shared by those who ask for a thing. But if the thing is criminal, if, for instance, it is a license to commit adultery, the person who authorises the act shares the guilt of the person who commits it. Now the Liberals think Persecution a crime of a worse order than adultery, and the acts done by Ximenes considerably worse than the entertainment of Roman courtesans by Alexander VI. The responsibility exists whether the thing permitted be good or bad. If the thing be criminal, then the authority permitting it bears the guilt. Whether Sixtus is infamous or not depends on our view of persecution and absolutism. Whether he is responsible or not depends simply on the ordinary evidence of history.

Here, again, what I said is not in any way mysterious or esoteric. It appeals to no hidden code. It aims at no secret moral. It supposes nothing and implies nothing but what is universally current and familiar. It is the common, even the vulgar, code I appeal to.

Upon these two points we differ widely; still more widely with regard to the principle by which you undertake to judge men. You say that people in authority are not [to] be snubbed or sneezed at from our pinnacle of conscious rectitude. I really don't know whether you exempt them because of their rank, or of their success and power, or of their date. The chronological plea may have some little value in a limited sphere of instances. It does not allow of our saying that such a man did not know right from wrong, unless we are able to say that he lived before Columbus, before Copernicus, and could not know right from wrong. It can scarcely apply to the centre of Christendom, 1500 after the birth of our Lord. That would imply that Christianity is a mere system of metaphysics, which borrowed some ethics from elsewhere. It is rather a system of ethics which borrowed its metaphysics elsewhere. Progress in ethics means a constant turning of white into black and burning what one has adored. There is little of that between St. John and the Victorian era.

But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do argue thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations, and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.

The standard having been lowered in consideration of date, is to be still further lowered out of deference to station. Whilst the heroes of history become examples of morality, the historians who praise them, Froude, Macaulay, Carlyle, become teachers of morality and honest men. Quite frankly, I think there is no greater error. The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man's influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then history ceases to be a science, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer, the upholder of that moral standard which the powers of earth, and religion itself, tend constantly to depress. It serves where it ought to reign; and it serves the worst better than the purest.

Let me propose a crux whereby to part apologetic history from what I should like to call conscientious history: an Italian government was induced by the Pope to set a good round price on the heads of certain of its subjects, presumably Protestants, who had got away. Nobody came to claim the reward. A papal minister wrote to the government in question to say that the Holy Father was getting impatient, and hoped to hear soon of some brave deed of authentic and remunerated homicide. The writer of that letter lies in the most splendid mausoleum that exists on earth; he has been canonized by the lawful, the grateful, the congenial authority of Rome; his statue, in the attitude of blessing, looks down from the Alps upon the plain of Lombardy; his likeness is in our churches; his name is upon our altars; his works are in our schools. His editor specially commends the letter I have quoted; and Newman celebrates him as a glorious Saint.

Here is all you want, and more. He lived many a year ago; he occupied the highest stations, with success and honour; he is held in high, in enthusiastic reverence by the most intelligent Catholics, by converts, by men who, in their time, have drunk in the convictions, haply the prejudices, of Protestant England; the Church that holds him up as a mirror of sanctity stands and falls with his good name; thousands of devout men and women would be wounded and pained if you call him an infamous assassin.

What shall we call him? In foro conscientiae, what do you think of the man or of his admirers? What should you think of Charlotte Corday if, instead of Marat, she had stabbed Borromeo? At what stage of Dante's pilgrimage should you expect to meet him?

And whereas you say that it is no recommendation in my eyes to have sympathy with the Roman system in its essentials, though you did not choose those terms quite seriously, one might wonder what these essentials are. Is it essential-for salvation within the communion of Rome-that we should accept what the canonization of such a saint implies, or that we should reject it? Does Newman or Manning, when he invokes St. Charles [Borromeo], act in the essential spirit of the Roman system, or in direct contradiction with it? To put it in a walnutshell: could a man be saved who allowed himself to be persuaded by such a chain of argument, by such a cloud of witnesses, by such a concourse of authorities, to live up to the example of St. Charles?

Of course I know that you do sometimes censure great men severely. But the doctrine I am contesting appears in your preface, and in such places as where you can hardly think that a pope can be a poisoner. This is a far larger question of method in history than what you mean when you say that I think you are afraid to be impartial; as if you were writing with purposes of conciliation and in opposition to somebody who thinks that the old man of the Seven Mountains is worse than the old man of one. I do not mean that, because your language about the Inquisition really baffles and bewilders me. Moreover, you are far more severe on Sixtus about the Pazzi than others; more, for instance, than Capponi or Reumont. And my dogma is not the special wickedness of my own spiritual superiors, but the general wickedness of men in authority-of Luther and Zwingli and Calvin and Cranmer and Knox, of Mary Stuart and Henry VIII, of Philip II and Elizabeth, of Cromwell and Louis XIV, James and Charles and William, Bossuet and Ken. Before this, it is a mere detail that imperfect sincerity is a greater reproach in divines than in laymen, and that, in our Church, priests are generally sacrilegious; and sacrilege is a serious thing. Let me add one word to explain my objection to your use of materials. Here is Pastor, boasting that he knows much that you do not. He does not stand on a very high level, and even his religion seems to be chiefly ecclesiastical. But I do apprehend that his massive information will give him an advantage over you when he gets farther. In that light I regret whatever does not tend to increase the authority of a work written on such Culturstufe as yours. I did not mean to overlook what may be urged per contra. When you began there was no rival more jealous than Gregorovius. That is not the case now. I should have wished your fortification to be strengthened against a new danger.

I am sure you will take this long and contentious letter more as a testimony of heart confidence and respect than of hostility-although as far as I grasp your method I don't agree with it. Mine seems to me plainer and safer; but it has never been enough to make me try to write a history, from mere want of knowledge. I will put it into canons, leaving their explanation and development to you.

I remain, yours most sincerely

Acton

Letters of Horace Walpole. 05 Aug 1752. Here our woes increase. The roads row bad beyond all badness, the night dark beyond all darkness, our guide frightened beyond all frightfulness. However, without being at all killed, we got UP, or down,-I forget which, it was so dark,-a famous precipice called Silver Hill, and about ten at night arrived at a wretched village called Rotherbridge. We had still six miles hither, but determined to stop, as it would be a pity to break our necks before we had seen all we intended. But alas! there was only one bed to be had: all the rest were inhabited by smugglers, whom the people of the house called mountebanks; and with one of whom the lady of the den told Mr. Chute he might lie. We did not at all take to this society, but, armed with links and lanthems, set out again upon this impracticable journey. At two o'clock in the morning we got hither to a still worse inn, and that crammed with excise officers, one of whom had just shot a smuggler. However, as we were neutral powers, we have passed safely through both armies hitherto, and can give you a little farther history of our wandering through these mountains, where the young gentlemen are forced to drive their curricles with a pair of oxen. the only morsel of good road we have found, was what even the natives had assured us was totally impracticable: these were eight miles to Hurst Monceaux.³³⁸ It is seated at the end of a large vale, five miles in a direct line to the sea, with wings of blue hills covered with wood, one of which falls down to the in a sweep of a hundred acres. The building, for the convenience of water to the moat, sees nothing at all; indeed it is entirely imagined on a plan of defence, with drawbridges actually in being, round towers, watch-towers mounted on them, and battlements pierced for the passage of arrows from long bows. It was built in the time of Henry VI, and is as perfect as the first day. It does not seem to have been ever quite finished, or at least that age was not arrived at the luxury of white-wash; for almost all the walls, except in the principal chambers, are in their native brickhood. It is a square building, each side about two hundred feet in length; a porch and cloister, very like Eton College; and the whole is much in the same taste, the kitchen extremely so, with three vast funnels to the chimneys going up on the inside. There are two or three little courts for offices, but no magnificence of apartments. It is scarcely furnished with a few necessary beds and chairs: one side has been sashed, and a drawing-room and dining-room and two or three rooms wainscoted by the Earl of Sussex, who married a natural daughter of Charles II. Their arms with delightful carvings by Gibbons-, particularly two pheasants, hang over the chimneys. Over the great drawing-room chimney is the first coat armour of the first Leonard, Lord Dacre, with all his alliances. Mr. Chute was transported, and called cousin with ten thousand quarterings.³³⁹ The chapel is small, and mean: the Virgin and seven long lean saints, ill done, remain in the windows. There have been four more, but seem to have been removed for light; and we actually found St. Catherine, and another gentlewoman with a church in her hand, exiled into the buttery. There remain two odd cavities, with very small wooden screens on each side the altar, which seem to have been confessionals. The outside is a mixture of gray brick and stone, that has a very venerable appearance. The drawbridges are romantic to a degree; and there is a dungeon, that gives one a delightful idea of living in the days of soccage and under such goodly tenures. They showed us a dismal chamber which they called Drummer's-hall, and suppose that Mr. Addison's comedy is descended from it. In the windows of the gallery over the cloisters, which leads all round to the apartments, is the device of the Fienneses, a wolf holding a baton with a scroll, Le roy le veut - an unlucky motto, as I shall tell you presently, to the last peer of that line. The estate is two thousand a year, and so compact as to have but seventeen houses upon it. We walked up a brave old avenue to the church, with ships sailing on our left hand the whole way. Before the altar lies a lank brass knight, knight William Fienis, chevalier, who obiit c.c.c.c.v. that is in 1405. By the altar is a beautiful tomb, all in our trefoil taste, varied into a thousand little canopies and patterns, and two knights reposing on their backs. These were Thomas, Lord Dacre, and his only son Gregory, who died sans issue. An old grayheaded beadsman of the family talked to us of a blot in the scutcheon; and we had observed that the field of the arms was green instead of blue, and the lions ramping to the right, contrary to order. This and the man's imperfect narrative let us into the circumstances of the personage before us; for there is no inscription. He went in a Chevy-chase style to hunt in a Mr. Pelham's (age 57)³⁴⁰ park at Lawton: the keepers opposed, a fray ensued, a man was killed. The haughty baron took the death upon himself, as most secure of pardon; but however, though there was no chancellor of the exchequer in the question, he was condemned to be hanged: Le roy le Vouloist.

Note 338. the ancient inheritance of Lord Dacre of the South.-E.

Note 339. Chaloner Chute, Esq, of the Vine, married Catherine, daughter of Richard, Lord Dacre.-E.

Note 340. At the date of this letter Mr. Pelham (age 57) was prime minister.

1260 Annals Dunstable. 1260. In the year of grace 1260.Henry King of England (age 52), son of King John, etc.

Original Latin Text:

Anno gratiae MCCLX. Henricus rex Angliae (age 52), filius regis Johannis, pace firmata cum rege Franciae, ibidem per longum tempus moram traxit; nec in Angliam redire curavit, donec episcopi et magnates Angliae ei literatorie mandaverunt quod reverti in Angliam properaret; quod si non faceret, ad placitum suum in Anglia non rediret. Quo audito, rex in se reversus, in Angliam rediit; sed quidam malitiosi falsis rumoribus inter patrem et filium suum Edwardum discordiam seminavervmt, asserentes quod dictus Edwardus et consiliarii sui guerram domino regi movere procurarunt; propter quod dominus rex supra modum iratus, multos milites de partibus transmarinis usque Londoniam secum adduxit; et eis ultra pontem dimissis in partibus Sureiae, ipse civitatem Londonise ingressus est, et ibi aliquandiu moram fecit, portis civitatis firmatis et seratis, apposuit custodes, ut nullus nisi ab eo licentiatus ingrederetur.

Comes vero Gloverni, et Johannes Maunsel, et quidam alii qui de concilio regis fuerunt, ad placitum suum ingressum et egressum habuerunt.

Rex vero proliibuit, ne filius suus Edwardus, nec aliquis qui de consilio suo extiterat, coram ipso venirent, dicens, "Coram me non appareat filius mens Edwardus, quia si eum videro, quin ipsum osculer me non cohibebo.".

Tandem, amore paterno commotus, et magnatum precibus devictus, ipsum ad osculum pacis recepit, et regina mater sua similiter, quae, ut dicebatur, causa totius malitis extiterat.

Dum ista aguntur, quantos honores et quantas expensas, omnibus qui interesse voluerint, dominus Edwardus fecerit, lingua vix potest explicare.

Diary of a Dean by Merewether. 01 Aug 1849. Aug. 1st. The next day was to witness the assemblage of the neighbourhood to inspect Silbury; and this very picturesque event I have already described in the former paper. Our party occupied the morning, till the time of repairing to Silbury, in visiting the barrows lying near Beckhampton, between the Caine and Devizes roads. In some of these, very curious urns and remains had been discovered, some of which I shall describe hereafter; but most appeared to have been disturbed. One high up on the hill in the northern direction was examined, but without success. It would be an indication of ungrateful disrespect —for it could not he forgetfulness —were I to omit, though briefly, to record the employment of the evening of this day, and the route we took; albeit it were well to start somewhat earlier than we did, specially if so splendid a moon as conducted us home might not be reckoned upon. But then, as we had been very fully occupied during the day, some regard was needful to he had toward such discoveries as we might be able to make at the Archæological Hotel, calculated to recruit our exhausted strength, which being satisfactorily accomplished, we proceeded with a very docile pair of horses and driver, both desiderata in such an expedition, first to Oldbury Castle [Map], a splendid position, overlooking the rich vale of Caine, Chippenham, Christian Malford, and Malmsbury, and bearing in its entrenchments the characteristics of Roman occupation, enlarged possibly at some time on the south-west side, but very possibly having been previously a British position, and even subsequently occupied by later warriors. I possess an iron spear-head, and one of those curious circular stones with a hole in the centre, found here. Thence we cut across the down towards the Roman road, the Via Badonica leading from Cunetio [Map] to Aquæ-solis [Map], and which, on arriving at Silbury Hill, which it would otherwise have cut at one-third of its base, deflects its course. We cannot boast that any of the dii deœque minors much less Diana herself, Bivia, Trivia, or whatever she might here have been called of old, were very propitious to us; though, in truth, she made ample amende by her bright guidance, when it was subsequently so much needed. The devotees of Ceres had strangely cut up this ancient road; so that, to traverse it with its full complement was not so easy a matter, either to the wheels of our vehicle, to the poor animals who had to draw it, or, indeed, to its occupants; to say nothing of the conductor. So that we traced the ancient way on foot, and were ready, not unneeded, to replace in its vertical position our tottering and almost subverted equipage, at a spot where the descent to Calston below would have been facile enough per saltum, or per volutationem, for the road in this part runs on the very edge of the abrupt and steep precipice of the hill. After some time spent in these corrective and directive pursuits, having fairly landed the really patient driver on the turf, to seek in advance the summit of the hill, we again became viatores in the strict sense of the word, and in its cognate road, until we reached its junction with the famous Wansdyke, the high vallum of which, in most places from 30 to 40 ft. high, is here and for a considerable distance cut down to fill up the foss and form the road. From this point our explorations were by moonlight, bright as day; we had every reason to be grateful for the propitious aid; by it we traced the some what sinuous range of the Wansdyke; I marked, after thirty years' absence, a barrow almost on its bank, which I had meis manibus excavated some 7 or 8 ft. in depth, finding one solitary glass bead (N), which I still possess. The Wansdyke, ere it makes its turn to the right by Shepherd's shore, forms, without any apparent reason, two right angles; and its trench at this point is very deep, and its vallum marvellously high and steep. From hence we were reluctantly obliged, having succeeded in finding our equipage, to return towards Silbury. Some of our party (and one was a lady, precious as an Archmologist and deserving of all our consideration, as well as her excellent brother) had to return the same night to Marlborough. The plain over which we travelled possesses some earthworks worthy of inspection, especially one enclosing, with an approaching avenue to it, some curious barrows. Towards the right Wansdyke boldly ascends the downs to Tan Hill; some say St. Ann's, others the Hill of Tanaris. The whole of this range is replete with exceeding interest, and Madlv should I be the conductor once more of the whole Archæological Institute amidst its varied treasures.

Pepy's Diary. 11 Oct 1667. And then rose and called W. Hewer (age 25), and he and I, with pails and a sieve, did lock ourselves into the garden, and there gather all the earth about the place into pails, and then sift those pails in one of the summer-houses, just as they do for dyamonds in other parts of the world; and there, to our great content, did with much trouble by nine o'clock (and by the time we emptied several pails and could not find one), we did make the last night's forty-five up seventy-nine: so that we are come to about twenty or thirty of what I think the true number should be; and perhaps within less; and of them I may reasonably think that Mr. Gibson might lose some: so that I am pretty well satisfied that my loss is not great, and do bless God that it is so well¹, and do leave my father to make a second examination of the dirt, which he promises he will do, and, poor man, is mightily troubled for this accident, but I declared myself very well satisfied, and so indeed I am; and my mind at rest in it, being but an accident, which is unusual; and so gives me some kind of content to remember how painful it is sometimes to keep money, as well as to get it, and how doubtful I was how to keep it all night, and how to secure it to London: and so got all my gold put up in bags.

Note 1. About the year 1842, in removing the foundation of an old wall, adjoining a mansion at Brampton always considered the quondam residence of the Pepys family, an iron pot, full of silver coins, was discovered, and taken to the Earl of Sandwich, the owner of the house, in whose possession they still remain. The pot was so much corroded, that a small piece of it only could be preserved. The coins were chiefly half-crowns of Elizabeth and the two elder Stuarts, and all of a date anterior to the Restoration. Although Pepys states that the treasure which he caused to be buried was gold exclusively, it is very probable that, in the confusion, a pot full of silver money was packed up with the rest; but, at all events, the coincidence appeared too singular to pass over without notice. B.

Autobiography Simon D'Ewes. 31 Dec 1690. The four lords that came for it were Henry Viscount Mandeville, Lord Treasurer, Lodowick Stewart, Duke of Lennox, Lord Steward of the King's house-hold, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain of the same household, and Thomas Earl of Arundel, Earl Marshal of England (whom I should have placed before Pembroke); they, coming to York House [Map] to him, where he lay, told him they were sorry to visit him upon such an occasion, and wished it had been better. "No, my lords," replied he, "the occasion is good;" and then delivering them the great seal, he added, "It was the King's favour that gave me this, and it is my fault that hath taken it away: Rex dedit, culpa abstulit" - or words to that effect. So leaving him, the said four lords carried the gage they had received to Whitehall, to the King, who was overheard by some near him to say upon their delivery of it to him, "Now, by my soul, I am pained at the heart where to bestow this; for as to my lawyers, I think they be all knaves." Which it seemeth his Majesty spake at that time to prepare a way to bestow it on a clergyman, as the Marquis of Buckingham had intended; for otherwise there were at this present divers able wise lawyers, very honest and religious men, fit for the place, in whom there might easily have been found as much integrity, and less fawning and flattery than in the clergy; and, accordingly, Doctor Williams, now Dean of Westminster, and before that time made Bishop of Lincoln, was sworn Lord Keeper, and had the great seal delivered to him. On October the 9th, next ensuing, being the first day of Michaelmas Term, one Lloyd, or Floud, a Papist, being of the Inner Temple, having spoken these buse and opprobrious words following of the distressed Prince Elector Palatine and his royal lady, to wit, - "What is now become of your goodman Palsgrave, and your goodwife Palsgrave?¹ - they had, I think, as much right to the kingdom of Bohemia as I have to the principality of Wales," was censured by the House of Commons, to pay a fine to the King, to be imprisoned during the King's pleasure, to ride disgracefully two several days in the open street upon a horse, with his face to the tail of it, and each day to stand in the pillory. The execution was long deferred, his fine and imprisonment remitted, and himself and his fellow Romanists began to boast that nothing should be inflicted. But at last, tho two Houses of Parliament appearing stoutly in the cause, he underwent the first day's punishment on May the 30th, being Wednesday, and the second on Friday the 1st day of June, on which Midsummer Term began. These days' actions I have added a little before the due time, that I might at once finish the relation of this business; in which the faithful zealous affection of the whole state and kingdom, in their body representative, consisting of the two Houses of Parliament, was fully expressed to that royal Princess, our King's only daughter, amidst the many scorns and oppressions of her irreconcilable and bloody enemies.

Note 1. This exclamation is given somewhat differently by Meade in the Harl. MSS. He says, "On Tuesday, Floyd, a counsellor, steward and receiver in Shropshire to the old Lord Chancellor Ellesmere and the Earl of Suffolk, a papist, and prisoner in the Fleet, was censured to ride thrice with papers, and stand in the pillory, and first at Westminster, for saying, Goodman Palsgrave. and Goody Palsgrave may or must go pack their children at their backs and beg. On Wednesday should have been the first time, but his Majesty stayed it. Yesterday the King and House met; his Majesty thanked them for the care they had of his son-in-law, daughter, and grandchildren's honour; if it were in them to censure this prisoner, the censure should be executed, otherwise there should be a punishment equivalent to that they had set down; which gave good content."

Introduction. The reader will be amused by comparing this version with the inscription in the etching, and observing the expedients which were resorted to in order to bring it within the limits of the stone. To Mr. Stothard's observations on stone-coffins may be added, that they were the receptacles of the distinguished dead Rom a very early period^a. A Roman stone-coffin of very massive construction, having a coped lid^b, was laid open at the excavations made in 1828 at a spot near Caesar's Camp, Holwood Hill, in Kent, where are still visible the remains of a small temple, or sacellum, in connection with Roman sepulchres. This coffin was deposited in a grave cut eight feet deep in the chalk rock. The coped form of the lid was particularly well calculated for carrying off the moisture from the interior, whether above or under ground. Accrdingly, we find in the coffin in which the body of William Rufus was deposited, the same form continued which had been adopted by the half-civilized people of Europe, like the details of their architecture, on the Roman model. The coped shape of the lid was no doubt very early varied by the flat, (particularly when the defunct was deposited under the roof of a sacred building, where no moisture was to be repelled, and the coffin lid could be thus reduced to the level of the door,) but it remains one mark of the antiquity of sepulchral chests in the Middle Age. We resume Mr. Stothard's prefatory notes:

"Effigies are rarely to be met with in England before the middle of the thirteenth century; a circumstance not to be attributed to the causes generally assigned, which were, either that they had been destroyed, or that the unsettled state of the times did not offer sufficient encouragement for erecting such memorials: but it rather appears not to have been before become the practice to represent the deceased. If it had been otherwise, for what reason do we not find effigies over the tombs of William the Conqueror, his son, William Rufus, or his daughter, Gundrada [Note. No daughter of William the Conqueror named Gundrada is known? She is probably Gundred Countess of Surrey wife of William Warenne 1st Earl Surrey, daughter of Gerbod The Fleming, who was, for some time, believed to be a daughter of William the Conqueror]. Yet, after a time, it is an undoubted fact that the alteration introduced by the Normans was the addition of the figure of the person deceased; and then it appeared not in the bold style of the later Norman monuments, but partaking of the character and low relief of those tombs it was about to supersede. Of these, and of the few, perhaps, that were executed, Roger Bishop of Sarum is the only specimen in good preservation. The effigy of Joceline Bishop of Salisbury is infinitely more relieved than that of Roger Bishop of the same see, which is far from possessing the bold relief we afterwards observe in the figure of King John. Our sculptors, having arrived at this stage of improvement, continued to execute their effigies after the same manner, (during which we observe the coffin-shaped slab giving way to a more regular figure,) till the beginning of the fourteenth century; and it was then that it entirely disappeared, and that the effigy is represented in full relief To support such a conjecture is no difficult task * * * as by the appearance of King John's remains, and other instances. "Withburg, a sister to Queen Etheldreda, Abbess of Ely, when examined, several centuries after her interment, by order of the Abbot Richard, was found with a cushion of silk beneath her head, &c. It is not unlikely that it was usual to bury the dead in this manner; whence arose the custom of sculpturing our effigies with cushions under the head. Henry the Second's effigy, at Fontevraud [Map], is thus represented, and agrees with the account given by Matthew Paris, and other writers, of that monarch's appearance after death, when placed upon the bier; and Berengaria, Queen of Richard the First, is seen in her effigy holding a book, the cover embossed with a second representation of herself (which agrees with the effigy), lying upon a bier, with waxen tapers burning in candlesticks on either side. Yet it is probable the custom of burying the dead in the dress which marked the habits of their lives was not universal; for, had it been so, we should find knights in their armour^c, which would have explained points that now, probably, will never be clearly understood.

Note a. Cremari apud Romanos non fuit veteris instituti: terra condebantur; et postquam longinquis bellis obrutos erui cognovere est institutum, et tamen multse familise priscos servavere ritus. [Among the Romans cremation was not an ancient institution: they were laid in the earth; and after having been rescued from distant wars, it was determined to know the institution, and yet many families kept the ancient rites] Manutius de leg. Rom.

Note b. See Archæologia, Vol. XXII. Plate xxxii. p. 348.

Note c. The value of armour in an iron age, when the suit descended from sire to son, or was bequeathed as "a rich legacy," may account for the omission of this practice.

Brief Lives: Elizabeth Danvers. ^[716]His^[CY] mother, an Italian, prodigious parts for a woman. I have heard my father's mother say that she had Chaucer at her fingers' ends.

A great politician; great witt and spirit, but revengefull^[717].

Knew how to manage her estate as well as any man; understood jewells as well as any jeweller.

Very beautifull, but only short-sighted. To obtain pardons for her sonnes^[718] she maryed Sir Edmund Carey, cosen-german to queen Elizabeth, but kept him to hard meate.

Smyth of Smythcotes-Naboth's vineyard-digitus Dei^[CZ].

The arcanum-'traditio lampadis' in the family of Latimer^[DA] of poysoning king Henry 8-from my lady Purbec.

Notes.

Note 716. MS. Aubr. 8, fol. 25.

Note 717. Aubrey, in the margin, notes 'Anne Bulleyn.'

Note 718. For the murder of Henry Long.

[CY]. i.e. Henry, earl of Danby's. She was Elizabeth, daughter of John Nevill, the last lord Latimer. 'An Italian' may mean that she knew that language, among her other accomplishments. I can make nothing of a note added by Aubrey here, which seems to read '... Cowley, crop-ear'd.'

[CZ]. I do not know to what circumstance, in the history of the Danvers family, Aubrey here applies 1 Kings xxi. 19.

[DA]. Catherine Parr, last consort of Henry VIII, was widow of John, 3rd lord Latimer; and step-mother of John, 4th lord Latimer, the father of this Elizabeth Danvers, whose grand-daughter ('viscountess Purbeck') was Aubrey's informant.

1260 Annals Dunstable. 1260. In the year of grace 1260.Henry King of England (age 52), son of King John, etc.

Original Latin Text:

Anno gratiae MCCLX. Henricus rex Angliae (age 52), filius regis Johannis, pace firmata cum rege Franciae, ibidem per longum tempus moram traxit; nec in Angliam redire curavit, donec episcopi et magnates Angliae ei literatorie mandaverunt quod reverti in Angliam properaret; quod si non faceret, ad placitum suum in Anglia non rediret. Quo audito, rex in se reversus, in Angliam rediit; sed quidam malitiosi falsis rumoribus inter patrem et filium suum Edwardum discordiam seminavervmt, asserentes quod dictus Edwardus et consiliarii sui guerram domino regi movere procurarunt; propter quod dominus rex supra modum iratus, multos milites de partibus transmarinis usque Londoniam secum adduxit; et eis ultra pontem dimissis in partibus Sureiae, ipse civitatem Londonise ingressus est, et ibi aliquandiu moram fecit, portis civitatis firmatis et seratis, apposuit custodes, ut nullus nisi ab eo licentiatus ingrederetur.

Comes vero Gloverni, et Johannes Maunsel, et quidam alii qui de concilio regis fuerunt, ad placitum suum ingressum et egressum habuerunt.

Rex vero proliibuit, ne filius suus Edwardus, nec aliquis qui de consilio suo extiterat, coram ipso venirent, dicens, "Coram me non appareat filius mens Edwardus, quia si eum videro, quin ipsum osculer me non cohibebo.".

Tandem, amore paterno commotus, et magnatum precibus devictus, ipsum ad osculum pacis recepit, et regina mater sua similiter, quae, ut dicebatur, causa totius malitis extiterat.

Dum ista aguntur, quantos honores et quantas expensas, omnibus qui interesse voluerint, dominus Edwardus fecerit, lingua vix potest explicare.

Section I Tumuli 1843. July 14th, 1843, one of the most interesting barrows ever examined in this vicinity was opened. It is situated upon a ridge of high land, near the village of Biggin, which goes by the name of the "Liffs [Map]," the barrow itself having no specific name: the mound had been sadly mutilated, at least one third of it having been removed; notwithstanding this the truth of Sir Richard Hoare's maxim, "fronta nulla fides," was agreeably exemplified. That hemisphere of the circle which still remained the most perfect was selected as the place where to commence operations: on reaching the thickest part of the circle, which, owing to the depression usual in the middle of most barrows, would be about two yards from the centre, a few human bones, horses' teeth, various animal bones, and two small pieces of a very thick and coarse urn, were found; but not until penetrating to the heart of the barrow was the principal interment discovered. In that situation an octagonal cist was erected of the usual material, namely, thin flat lime-stones, which are admirably adapted for the purpose; this vault was about half filled with stiff clay, imbedded in which lay a fine human skeleton, whose knees were drawn up, according to a general custom, prevalent in the most remote ages. The extreme antiquity of this interment is demonstrated by the simple form and material of the weapons and tools which were, with one exception, deposited in a cluster behind the shoulders of this early denizen of the Derbyshire moors. The skull, which is fine and intellectual, lay on the left side so as to look towards the west, and in the angle formed by the contraction of the knees, was placed a hammer-head ingeniously constructed out of the lower part of the horn of a noble red deer; one end of this instrument is rounded and polished, the other is cut into a diamond pattern, somewhat similar to the wafer stamps used by attorneys. The articles before alluded to as being placed near the shoulders were of a very miscellaneous character, and highly interesting; as showing, after a lapse of several thousand years, that the savage Briton reposing in this cairn had cultivated the art of making war amongst the inhabitants of the forest, in preference to molesting his fellow-savages; as almost the first observed articles were a pair of enormous tusks of the wild boar, the trophies of some, perhaps his last, sylvan triumph; next came two arrow-heads of flint, delicately chipped, and of unusual form; two flint celts or chisels, beautifully chipped and polished at the cutting edges; two spear-heads of the same material; two flint knives polished on the edge, one of them serrated on the back, in order to serve as a saw; and numerous other pieces of flints of indescribable form and use, which, together with all the flint instruments enumerated above, seem to have undergone a partial calcination being gray tinted with various shades of blue and pink; with these utensils were found three pieces of red ochre, the rouge of these unsophisticated huntsmen which, even now, on being wetted imparts a bright red colour to the skin, which is by no means easy to discharge. Upon the summit of the little heap, formed by this accumulation of relics, lay a small drinking or incense cup of novel and unprecedented shape, which was unfortunately broken and crushed, but has been since restored. The absence of instruments of metal in this and other barrows should be borne in mind; it is commented on in another part of this work.

1260 Annals Dunstable. 1260. In the year of grace 1260.Henry King of England (age 52), son of King John, etc.

Original Latin Text:

Anno gratiae MCCLX. Henricus rex Angliae (age 52), filius regis Johannis, pace firmata cum rege Franciae, ibidem per longum tempus moram traxit; nec in Angliam redire curavit, donec episcopi et magnates Angliae ei literatorie mandaverunt quod reverti in Angliam properaret; quod si non faceret, ad placitum suum in Anglia non rediret. Quo audito, rex in se reversus, in Angliam rediit; sed quidam malitiosi falsis rumoribus inter patrem et filium suum Edwardum discordiam seminavervmt, asserentes quod dictus Edwardus et consiliarii sui guerram domino regi movere procurarunt; propter quod dominus rex supra modum iratus, multos milites de partibus transmarinis usque Londoniam secum adduxit; et eis ultra pontem dimissis in partibus Sureiae, ipse civitatem Londonise ingressus est, et ibi aliquandiu moram fecit, portis civitatis firmatis et seratis, apposuit custodes, ut nullus nisi ab eo licentiatus ingrederetur.

Comes vero Gloverni, et Johannes Maunsel, et quidam alii qui de concilio regis fuerunt, ad placitum suum ingressum et egressum habuerunt.

Rex vero proliibuit, ne filius suus Edwardus, nec aliquis qui de consilio suo extiterat, coram ipso venirent, dicens, "Coram me non appareat filius mens Edwardus, quia si eum videro, quin ipsum osculer me non cohibebo.".

Tandem, amore paterno commotus, et magnatum precibus devictus, ipsum ad osculum pacis recepit, et regina mater sua similiter, quae, ut dicebatur, causa totius malitis extiterat.

Dum ista aguntur, quantos honores et quantas expensas, omnibus qui interesse voluerint, dominus Edwardus fecerit, lingua vix potest explicare.

The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Volume 5 1876 Pages 120 to 173. To the relative size of the skulls in the two sexes in prehistoric times, the doctrine laid down by Retzius in 1845², and re-affirmed in 1854 by Hüschke², as to the upper and lower classes of modern society, and the civilised and uncivilised races of modern days, is ordinarily supposed to apply, mutatis mutandis. Broca, in his interesting paper on the " Caverne de l' Homme Mort," says³ " L'un des traits les plus remarquables de la série de l' Homme Mort, c'est la grande capacité relative du crâne des femmes." The head of the female occupants of this cavern, like the head of the rustic Dalecarlian females, as observed upon by Retzius, was but little—some 99.50 cub. cent. ( 6 cubic inches) —inferior in capacity to that of their male fellow Troglodytes, whilst the difference between the modern Frenchman of Paris and the modern Frenchwoman is more than twice as great as this amount. Where a woman is told by symbols, no less than by precepts, as Tacitus tells us⁴, the German women were told, venire se laborum periculorumque sociam, idem in pace idem inprælio passuram ausuramque, it is easy to understand, upon the principle of natural selection, how an equality, or, at least, a near approach to equality, in the physical, as well as in the moral and mental character of the sexes, may come to prevail, and how the weight and stature of the entire body in the female sex may approximate to the proportion of the male sex. Such, however, is rarely the case in savage tribes and times, and what we usually find, both among modern savages, as testified to by Weisbach⁵, and amongst prehistoric men, as I have found, is an exaggeration in the females of the disproportion which exists, even in civilised races, between their brain and their entire body weight, to the disfavour of the latter, which is relatively heavier in the other sex.

Note 1. Müller's Arch.," 1845, p. 89.

Note 2. Schädel, Hirn. und Seele," p. 48.

Note 3. Revue d'AnthropoIogie," ii. I, p. 45, 1873 ; and Bull. Soc. Anth.," Paris, Tom. viii. ser. ii. p. 832, 1874.

Note 4. "Germania," 18.

Note 5. "Reise der Novara," 1867, Anthrop. Theil,'s. 222.

1260 Annals Dunstable. 1260. In the year of grace 1260.Henry King of England (age 52), son of King John, etc.

Original Latin Text:

Anno gratiae MCCLX. Henricus rex Angliae (age 52), filius regis Johannis, pace firmata cum rege Franciae, ibidem per longum tempus moram traxit; nec in Angliam redire curavit, donec episcopi et magnates Angliae ei literatorie mandaverunt quod reverti in Angliam properaret; quod si non faceret, ad placitum suum in Anglia non rediret. Quo audito, rex in se reversus, in Angliam rediit; sed quidam malitiosi falsis rumoribus inter patrem et filium suum Edwardum discordiam seminavervmt, asserentes quod dictus Edwardus et consiliarii sui guerram domino regi movere procurarunt; propter quod dominus rex supra modum iratus, multos milites de partibus transmarinis usque Londoniam secum adduxit; et eis ultra pontem dimissis in partibus Sureiae, ipse civitatem Londonise ingressus est, et ibi aliquandiu moram fecit, portis civitatis firmatis et seratis, apposuit custodes, ut nullus nisi ab eo licentiatus ingrederetur.

Comes vero Gloverni, et Johannes Maunsel, et quidam alii qui de concilio regis fuerunt, ad placitum suum ingressum et egressum habuerunt.

Rex vero proliibuit, ne filius suus Edwardus, nec aliquis qui de consilio suo extiterat, coram ipso venirent, dicens, "Coram me non appareat filius mens Edwardus, quia si eum videro, quin ipsum osculer me non cohibebo.".

Tandem, amore paterno commotus, et magnatum precibus devictus, ipsum ad osculum pacis recepit, et regina mater sua similiter, quae, ut dicebatur, causa totius malitis extiterat.

Dum ista aguntur, quantos honores et quantas expensas, omnibus qui interesse voluerint, dominus Edwardus fecerit, lingua vix potest explicare.

Knap Hill [Map]. Historic England 1005704.

Summary: The site of Knap Hill, a Causewayed Enclosure. It encompasses an area of circa 2.4 hectares and consists of a single circuit of sub-triangular plan, conforming to the contours of the hill and possibly incomplete on the steepest, southern side. Exceptionally compared to other enclosures, the causeways seem to correspond precisely to gaps in the bank. It is unclear if the earthworks ever formed a complete enclosure. Excavations by the Cunningtons in 1908-9 first demonstrated the causewayed nature of the earthworks, as well as recovering pottery which they felt to be Neolithic in date. Further excavations in 1961 confirmed the Cunningtons' observations. Romano British pottery and an extended inhumation probably relates to the adjacent, later earthwork enclosure. The site and its archaeological history were re-investigated as part of the RCHME project focusing on enclosure and industry in the Neolithic period in 1995. Knap Hill was also subsequently included in a research programme into the dating of the early Causewayed Enclosures of southern Britain and of Ireland. The results suggested that Knap Hill was probably constructed in the 35th century cal BC, (that is to say between 3500-4001cal BC) probably more than a century later than Windmill Hill and the West Kennet long barrow [Map]. It is unclear, however, for how long activity continued. On the basis that the ditch was left to infill naturally, that there is no sign of recutting, and because there is a scarcity of sherds and bones, a short duration, probably of well under a century and perhaps only a generation or two, is possible.

More information: (SU 12106368) Neolithic Camp (NR) Knap Hill (NAT).

A causewayed camp on Knap Hill (see plan), excavated by BH and ME Cunnington in 1908-9 and G Connah in 1961. The excavations revealed Windmill Hill sherds in the silting of the ditches, Beaker sherds on the surface of the ditches and Romano-British sherds, probably associated with the plateau enclosure (see SU 16 SW 13). Other finds nearly all from within a few feet of the bottom of the ditch include fragments of red deer antlers, a human jawbone, flint flakes and a few sarsen chips. The finds are now in [Map]. Connah concludes from his excavations that the causewayed ditches undoubtedly belong to the Windmill Hill culture and that the scarcity of the pottery and occupation material may suggest that the camp was of a defensive character and abandoned at an early stage - perhaps before completion.

Radiocarbon dating of antler fragments from the primary rubble of the ditch - 4710+- 115 BP or 2760BC. Charcoal from the upper silting of the ditch - 3790+- 130BP or 1840BC.

SU 12106365 Knap Hill causewayed camp occupies a hill top position overlooking the Pewsey Vale to the S. The causewayed bank can be traced only on the N and W sides, but accepting the natural gradient of the hill for the eastern and southern extent, then the area enclosed would have been approximately 1.7 hectares. There is a bowl barrow (see SU 16 SW 23) and some flint digging disturbance within the camp, and in the E the perimeter of the IA/RB "plateau" enclosure obscures the terminal on the causewayed bank. Resurveyed in conjunction with RCHM manuscript plan at 1:2500.

The Neolithic causwayed enclosure and associated features described by the previous authorities have been mapped at 1:10,000 scale from aerial photographs and the 1:1000 plan produced as part of the industry and Enclosure in the Neolithic Project (Event UID 923509).

Surveyed by the RCHME as part of the above project.

Knap Hill encloses an area of 2.4 hectares and consists of a single circuit of sub-triangular plan, conforming to the contours of the hill and possibly incomplete on the steepest, southern side. Exceptionally to other enclosures, the causeways seem to correspond precisely to gaps in the bank.

Two radiocarbon dates were obtained by Connah following his 1961 excavations (Table 3.3: BM-205, -208; Connah 1969). They bracket the infilling of the ditch, the sample for BM-205 coming from near the base and that for BM-208 from the topmost fill. BM-205 was measured on an antler implement which had arguably been used to dig the ditch and would have been contemporary with that event. BM-208 was measured on an unidentified bulk charcoal sample which may have included material of diverse ages, and can hence provide only a terminus post quem for its context.

Knap Hill was included in a research programme into the dating of the early Causewayed Enclosures of southern Britain and of Ireland, using chronological estimates produced by Bayesian statistical analysis of radiocarbon dates. In addition to attempting to establish a construction date and duration for the monument, the proximity of the site to Windmill Hill and to a concentration of long barrows posed the question of its chronological relation to them. Six further radiocarbon measurements were therefore obtained. A model which incorporates this interpretation of the archaeological sequence with the radiocarbon dates was constructed. The model suggested that Knap Hill was probably constructed in the 35th century cal BC, probably rather more than a century later than both Windmill Hill Causewayed Enclosure [Map] and the West Kennet long barrow [Map]. It is unclear, however, for how long activity continued at this enclosure. On the basis that the ditch was left to infill naturally and there is no sign of recutting, and because there is a scarcity of sherds and bones, a short duration, probably of well under a century and perhaps only a generation or two, is plausible.