Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 1856 V3 Pages 164-177

Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 1856 V3 Pages 164-177 is in Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 1856 V3.

On a Cromlech-tumulus called Lugbury [Map], near Littleton Drew by John Thurnam (age 45), M.D., F.S.A.

In the County of Gloucester, and north-west of Wilts, particularly in the district of the Cotswold hills, and some neighbouring parts of Somerset, are several sepulchral tumuli of peculiar character, which have hitherto attracted but little attention, and which, so far as we know, are nearly confined, at least in their most fully developed forms, to this part of England. These tumuli are cairns or barrows (in the language of the district tumps) composed chiefly of loose stones, of long or oval form, varying from about 120 to 180 feet in length, ranging nearly from west to east, and having the broadest and highest part towards the east. Internally they are found to contain, in some cases, chambers walled in with stone, which open into a gallery, evidently intended to be entered from one end, the east; in others, cells or cists, which, when used for the purpose of interment, must have been opened from above. In some instances, from their ruinous condition, or from the imperfect descriptions given of them, it is almost impossible to decide those of the first class, or those which of these classes they belong. containing chambers, the best examples are at Uley [Map] in Gloucestershire, and at Stoney Littleton [Map] in Somersetshire. Of those containing one or more cists or cistvaens, as it is usual to call them, Duntesford Abbots in Gloucestershire, and Littleton Drew [Map] in Wiltshire, now to be described, present well-marked instances. In the long barrow at Avening [Map], there seems to have been both a chamber and cists; whilst as regards those at Lanhill [Map], Luckington [Map], and Shurdington2, there is more or less doubt to which form the contained structures must be referred. There is however sufficient similarity in their character, notwithstanding this variety of internal structure, to lead us to refer all these barrows to the same period and people. This conclusion is confirmed by the mode of interment, which, so far as they have been examined, is common to all of them. In the chambers, and also in the cists, are found entire human skeletons, in a contracted posture, and frequently crowded together in groups. With these only very trivial objects of art have been discovered; but, so far as appears, these are confined to stone implements, such as flint flakes, knives, or arrow-heads, and stone axes; and with these, bones and teeth of the lower animals, for instance, of oxen, horns of the red deer, and tusks and other teeth of boars. In several instances, fragments of pottery and other objects have been met with, chiefly near the surface; but these are evidently of a later, and generally of the Roman, period, and must have been deposited in these spots, either by those who have resorted to them for superstitious or funereal purposes, or who have dug into and rifled them, in search of treasure.

Note 1. Archæologia, vol. 19. p. 43. Archæological Journal, 1854, vol. XI. p. 315.

Note 2. For the Lanhill barrow, see ante, page 67; for that at Luckington, Sir R. C. Hoare's Ancient Wilts," vol. II. p. 101; and for that at Shurdington, the Journal of the British Archayological Association," vol. I. p. 153; vol III. p. 64; aud Wright's "Celt, Roman, and Saxon," p. 53, may be consulted.

From these general remarks, we may proceed to the description of the Littleton Drew tumulus, which is situated in a field called the "three stone field," in the parish of Nettleton, nearly equidistant, and about a mile, from the villages of Littleton Drew, Nettleton, and Castle Combe. The earliest notice to be found of this barrow is in an unpublished work by John Aubrey, the well-known Wiltshire topographer and antiquary, from whom we learn that in the 17th century it was called "Lugbury," a designation which it has probably long ceased to bear. "Lugbury," says Aubrey, "is in a field in the parish of Nettleton, but near to Littleton Drew in Wiltshire, over against the ruins of Castle Combe. At the east end of this barrow is a great table stone of bastard freestone, leaning on two pitched perpendicular stones. I suppose it was heretofore borne up by two more such stones like the legges of a table. Near to this stone was a little round barrow, before it was ploughed away since A.D. 1630."1 In Aubrey's manuscript work, Monumenta Britannica, now in the Bodleian Library, is a rough sketch of the barrow, with the trilith at the east end, which shews that, two hundred years since, the stones had the same position as they retain at present.2

Note 1. Sir R. C. Hoare, Ancient Wilts, vol. II. p. 99, quotes this from Aubrey's M.S., "Monumenta Britannica," written chiefly between the years 1663 and 1671. See Memoir of Aubrey, by J. Britton, 1845, p. 39—47.

Note 2. A wood engraving from this sketch, is given in the "History of Castle Combe," by G. Poulett Scrope, Esq., M.P., 1852, p. 7.

The barrow is about two hundred yards from the great Roman road, the Foss, which traverses nearly the whole of south Britain, from S.W. to N.E., from Devonshire to Lincolnshire, and whence the legionaries of the Czsars must have often contemplated this ancient monument.1 Traces probably of earlier occupation exist on the opposite Castle hill of Combe; where, within range of cannon shot from the Foss-way, is an entrenched camp or hill fortress, curiously protected by a series of parallel earth-works, doubtless of ancient British construction, though afterwards chosen as the site of the Castle of Combe, in Norman times.2

Note 1. Collinson, (History of Somerset, 1791, vol. I, p. 101), gives a brief notice of this tumulus, which has been copied into the additions to Camden, (Britannia, 1806, vol. I. p. 119). Collinson adds "I doubt not that this was the monument of some Roman chief who died on the march, and was commemorated in this rude manner, for want of time and other conveniences." This opinion will scarcely now be regarded as calling for serious refutation.

Note 2. Sir R. C. Hoare, "Ancient Wilts," vol. II. p. 301, and "Roman Era," p. 102. G. Poulett Scrope, Esq., M.P., "History of Castle Combe," p. 7.

The barrow, though in the parish of Nettleton, is immediately without the boundary of that of Littleton Drew, and it may be worth naming that a road or trackway now disused, but evidently of great antiquity, leads directly past the western end of the barrow to this last-named village, which it connected with that of Nettleton. Where it descends the intervening valley, this path is hollowed out, so as to form a true "covered way." Upon this road, half-way between the barrow and Littleton Drew, close to a farmhouse, is an ancient quarry, yielding large blocks of what the quarrymen still, as it would seem in Aubrey's time, call "bastard freestone," belonging to the great oolite, which occurs in this district of the Cotswolds, From this quarry, the stones of which the cromlech is formed, were evidently obtained.

Both Aubrey and Sir Richard C. Hoare appear to connect the barrow with Littleton Drew rather than Nettleton; and the latter, in particular, insists on its neighbourhood to Littleton Dru or Drer, a name evidently of druidical antiquity." There is perhaps no difficulty, in the fact of its position beyond the boundary of the parish of Littleton, in connecting it with this place rather than with Nettleton; there being much reason for concluding that the existing parochial divisions, in many cases at least, do not ascend beyond Norman times. Whether, however, the epithet Drew had in its origin any reference to the Druids, may admit of enquiry. There are at least three other places, where are remarkable remains commonly called druidical, into the name of which this epithet enters. These are Stanton Drew in Somersetshire, where are the well known megalithic circles of unhewn stones, inferior only in Bize and number to those of Abury; Drews' Teignton, Dartmoor, Devon, where is one of the best preserved cromlechs in England; and Trer Drew in Anglesea, near the spot where the Romans are believed to have landed, and where are many remains of cromlechs and other early British monuments. Here, not improbably, were the groves devoted to superstition and barbarous rites, with altars dedicated to human sacrifices, which, Tacitus tells us, were destroyed by the Romans1 In all these cases, topographical writers to the present time, have not failed to connect the epithet Drew with a supposed Druidical origin. This has however been contested by some, who suppose this name to be derived from that of families who have lived near, or possessed lands at, these places. Aubrey himself in his "Collections" for North Wilts, has preserved a deed, probably of the 12th century, to which "Walterus Drew, Dominus de Littletone" is the principal party.2 The question certainly admits of discussion, though the evidence seems to be in favour of the druidical derivation of the name; and in this instance there appear grounds for Dr. Stukeley's opinion, who, in writing of Stanton Drew, says, "I make no doubt but the name of Stanton Drue is derived from our monument, Stanton from the stones, and Drue from the Druids. It moves not me that some of the name of Drew might have lived here formerly, for such a family might take the denomination of the town, and leaving out the first part retain only that of Drew. It is sufficient conviction that there are so many other [places] in England and elsewhere that have preserved this name, and all remarkable for monuments of [this] nature.3

Note 1. Stukely. "Itin. Cur." vol. 11, p. 91, plate. Camden, Britannia," vol. III. p. 197. Pennant's Wales," 1810, vol. II. p. 229; vol. III. p, 11. Rowland's. Mona Antiqua." p. 88—236. Compare Tacitus, "Annales," Lib. 14. xxx. Mr. Herbert. "Cyclops Christ." p. 30 maintains that the Welsh word here should he written "Dryw,", - "Tre'r Dryw," meaning the house of the wren." He himself however quotes a passage Taliesin, which at least that in the mystical system of the bard", the Druids were sometimes called wrens,

"Wyv dwr, wyv dryw; I am water. am wren,

Wyv saer, wyv wyw." I a builder. I am wise."

According indced to Welsh lexicographers, the words Derwyd and Dryw both signify a Druid, the latter having the additional meaning of a wren. See Owen, 1805, and Spurrell, 1848.

Note 2. "Collections for Wilts," part I. 1821, p. 125. The family of Drew of Littleton Drew, appear to have been lords here for several centuries, and the family to have ended in the female line, by marriage with the family of Mompesson. Ibid. p. 56.

Note 3. Stukeley's "Itin. Cur." 1776, vol. II. p. 177. Some further remarks on the topographical question, as to the name of Drew, will be found in a supplementary note.

To return however to the tumulus itself. It is of a long oval form, ranging nearly due east and west, measuring somewhat more than 180 feet in length, by 90 in greatest breadth. Its present greatest elevation is about six feet; but, being in a ploughed field, it has lost somewhat of its original height in the memory of those living, and the rude sketch of Aubrey, seems to shew that, two hundred years since, its elevation, towards the east end, was much more considerable.1 The south side of the mound is still somewhat steeper and more defined than the north, a character which was much more marked as late as the year 1821, the date of the sketch from which our view is taken.2 The most remarkable feature is the trilith, or cromlech of three large stones, at the east end, which still give its name to the field.

"Campus ab illis

Dicitur, eternumque tenet per seecula nomen."

Note 1. Collinson, toward the close of the last century, gives the length as 200, and the height as 9 feet.

Note 2. This sketch was by Mr. Crocker, the artist employed by Sir R. C. Hoare.

These stones are placed somewhat on the slope of the barrow, about thirty feet from its base. The two uprights, which are six and a half feet apart, are of a flattened pyramidal form, about two feet thick and four wide. That to the south is six and a half feet in height, that to the north, from which part of the top seems to have been broken, is a foot lower. From recent excavations, made by Mr. Scrope, it is found that these stones are sunk upwards of four feet below the surface. Resting on the ground, and leaning against the western edges of these uprights, is the large table stone, measuring about twelve feet in length, by six in breadth. There can be no doubt, whatever was their intention, that this large table stone was originally supported by the two uprights, aided perhaps by a third, or, as Aubrey thought, by two others. The stones are altogether rough and unhewn, and are richly covered with time-stains and lichens. Their first inspection suggested the idea that they were the remains of a chamber, such as exists at Stoney Littleton [Map] and Uley, but a consideration of their size, and the great height of the uprights above the highest part of the barrow, is sufficient to refute such an opinion. Sir R. C. Hoare concludes the account he gives of his examination of the tumulus, by stating that he had no doubt the primary interment was placed "beneath the huge superimpending stones at the east end." This view, however, has been fully disproved, by examinations made in the summer of 1854, and again in September 1855, when the space between the two uprights was excavated down to the base of the stones, and a considerable trench dug in front of them, by which the red clay of the natural surface was uncovered. A similar excavation was made on the western side of the stones. No traces whatever of human remains were met with; and the only objects found were some trifling fragments of black Roman pottery, a foot or two from the surface; and at a greater depth, in part mixed with the natural soil, a few fragments of bones, tusks and teeth of boars, with one or two rude flakes of black flint. It is not probable that these stones had been at any time buried beneath the cairn, as would have been the case had they formed part of a sepulchral chamber, of which, it has been shewn, there is no proof. The only likely view which remains is that they had in reality formed an external structure, such as the French term a dolmen and the English a cromlech, in all probability devoted to pagan sacrificial rites.

In 1821, an extensive excavation, 150 feet in length, was made by Sir R. C. Hoare, along the whole length of the mound, to the west of the trilith. On this occasion, what was probably the original principal interment was disclosed, about 60 feet from the east end of the barrow, and about 30 to the west of the cromlech. Here, on the natural soil, a slight cist had been scooped out, and furnished with a rudely constructed pavement of unworked thin stone. Over this, a sort of rude arch, of the same kind of stone appeared to have been raised, which however had fallen in. In the cist, was an entire human skeleton, laid on the right side, having the head to the west, and the face to the south. It was in a contracted position, with the knees drawn up, the right hand on the upper part of the chest, and the left arm laid across the body. Under the left hand, and not far from the head, was a small instrument of flint about an inch and a half in length, brought to a very sharp point, and apparently formed for piercing or cutting. "Tt was," says Sir R. C. Hoare, "too thin for an arrow-head, but might have served for a lancet.1

Note 1. Our wood engraving of this curious relic has been drawn from the object itself, very obligingly lent for this purpose, by Mrs. Carrick. The late Dr. Carrick of Clifton was the former owner of the Nettleton property.

Dr. Wallis of Bristol, at that time a lecturer on anatomy, who was present when the skeleton was exhumed, informs us it was evidently that of a young man, the sutures of the skull not being firmly united. The skull was of full size and well formed, the teeth were perfect, the thigh bone measured 18 inches in length, and the humerus was of the usual size. In the course of the excavation, many scattered pieces of charcoal were thrown out, but nothing else was met with. There were traces of two dry walls of loose stone having been formed across the barrow; one close to the cromlech on the east side, and the other about 60 feet to the west, the interment being midway between the two.1

Note 1. "Gentleman's Magazine," vol. XCII., Feb. 1822, p. 16, and MS. letter from G. Wallis, M.D., Bristol.

In the spring of 1854, the existence of a rude cist on the south side and near the centre of the barrow, containing several skeletons, was brought to light by the plough. Subsequently to this, the proprietor of the field, G. P. Scrope, Esq., M.P., has made a very complete examination, by which a series of four such cists has been discovered.1 Their position is shewn on the ground-plan. They vary a little in form and size, but on the average, are about ten feet in length, by four in width, and two in depth. Their shape is an irregular oblong, and they are formed of large rough flat stones set on edge: there were no covering stones, (though it is possible that such may have formerly existed, and been removed when the barrow was first subjected to the plough), the cists being filled with stone rubble carelessly thrown in; whilst in the spaces between the cists and elsewhere, the stones forming the barrow had evidently been heaped up by hand. The largest cist nearest to the east is within a few feet of the south-west angle of the cromlech, and has its long axis placed east and west. The three other cists range north and south, and lie somewhat nearer to the edge of the barrow and nearly equidistant from each other. In three of these cists, were nine, seven, and ten skeletons respectively, there being, apparently, some distinction of sex and age, as to the cists in which they were found. 'The bodies must have been packed closely together, in a crouched or sitting posture, and were particularly crowded near the angles of the cists. Their being buried in rough stone rubble, made it difficult to ascertain their precise position, or to remove the bones in an entire state. No relics of any other kind were found in the cists; but in the course of the general excavations, a flake or two, and a round worked disc, of black flint were met with. Cist A. - This, it is said, contained seven skeletons; we examined five, all of which appeared to be of women or children, of the ages of about 1, 2, 5, 15, and 50 years of age. Cist B. - This appears either never to have been used, or to have been rifled at some period of its contents, not even a fragment of bone being found in it. Cist C. - This contained nine skeletons, all apparently males, and of adult age, about 20, 25, 30, 45, 50, and 55 years; two others were those of aged persons. There were the fragments of a ninth skull, the fractured edges of which were very sharp and clean, suggesting the idea of having been cleft during life, but they may possibly have been broken after interment, by the falling-in of one of the side-stones of the cist. Cist D.—In this were ten skeletons, eight of which we examined; four were those of adults, two possibly of each sex, and four of children, of about 3, 4, 7, and 17 years. It may here be briefly stated that the crania from these cists are almost uniformly of a somewhat lengthened oval or dolichocephalic form. The facial bones are generally smooth and little indented; the alveolar edge of the superior maxillary, upright and rather short; the lower jaws narrow; the crowns of the teeth generally very much worn. The only thigh-bone which could be obtained for measurement was 18 inches and a half in length.

Note 1. Two of the cists were opened at the time of the Meeting of the Wilts Archaeological and Natural History Society at Chippenham, in September, 1855; on which occasion Mr, Scrope, the President of the Society, entertained a large party of the Members at Castle Combe. Mr. Scrope kindly contributes the lithographic illustrations.

The whole of the barrow has latterly been excavated by Mr. Scrope, but without discovering any further interments, nor any- thing worthy of note except two or three more flint-flakes of irregular form. The bulk of the stones having been carted away, the barrow is now consequently much reduced in elevation; except at the east end where the cromlech stands, where the barrow has been left of its full height, and only dug through, (as stated above), 'to ascertain the non-existence of any deposit.

Considerable light is thrown on the long barrows of this part of England, by the examination of that of Littleton Drew; the real character of which seems now fully ascertained. Some other long barrows in this district must have been of the same description, containing cists or chambers within, and having megalithic structures, in the form of standing stones, apparently the remains of cromlechs, at the east end. Such probably was the long barrow at Gatcombe Park, near Minchinhampton, in Gloucestershire; the barrow in a spot called Irecombe at Boxwell, near Wootton-under- Edge; the long tumulus at Duntesbourne Abbots, near Cirencester, both in the same county; and that with a fallen cromlech, at Enstone, near Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire. In all these instances there are, or have been, large stones on the barrow, which appear unconnected with the sepulchral cists, and to have been designed for some other purpose than one connected with the interment of the dead. The evidence afforded by such examples as these, is in favour of some of the megalithic structures called cromlechs, being really designed (as the whole of them were formerly erroneously supposed to be) for other purposes, and most probably for sacrificial rites,—in fact that they were altars.


At what period the name of Drew was first applied to places and persons is not clear. In Doomsday Book, the name occurs as that of two servants of the Conqueror, Herman de Drewes, and Amelric de Drewes, each of whom held of the king a manor in Wiltshire.

The name of Drogo, common in mediæval times, is generally and with good reason, regarded as synonymous with that of Drew. Both the words appear to be of Teutonic origin, and to be derived from the verb dragan, to draw, which makes drog and drogon in the past tense, as our modern English verb makes drew. Skinner in his Etymology1, under the proper name of Drew, traces it to Drogo, but, it is noticeable, that he hesitates whether it should not rather be derived from the Anglo-Saxon dry a druid or magician.

Note 1. "Etymologicon," 1671, Onomasticon, sub voc Dru. Mr. Lower, in his "Essay on English Surnames," 1849, chap. 9, pp. 152. 167, treats of Drogo and Drew as identical.

As in early English, Drogo and Drew appear synonymous, so in the Norman-French of the same period, are Drogo and Dreux. This last name Dreux, that of a place in France near Chartres, so called, as conjectured, from the Druids, is supposed to have been the site of the "locus consecratus," or temple "in finibus Carnutum," alluded to by Cesar, where was held the annual assembly of the Druids for the whole of Gaul.1 That the name was in common use among the Normans, as a personal appellation, a reference to the Anglo-Norman history of Ordericus Vitalis is sufficient to shew. Ordericus refers to at least four persons of the name of Drogo. The first is Drogo, Archbishop of Metz, the son of the Emperor Charlemagne, who is mentioned under the year 840.2 The next is Drogo, also called Dreux, Count of the Vexin, who died about 1035, whilst on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and who was likewise descended from Charlemagne.3 A third Drogo, otherwise Dreux, was of the celebrated Norman family of Hauteville, one of the twelve sons of Tancred de Hauteville, who conquered the south of Italy in the early part of the 11th century; this conquest, under the fourth brother, Robert Guiscard, embracing at a subsequent period the whole of Sicily. The eldest brother William had assumed the title of Count of Apulia in 1043, in which he was succeeded by his brother Drogo or Dreux in 1046.4 The fourth of the name is Drogo, called indiscriminately Dreux, the son of a Norman baron, Geoffrey de Neuf-marché, who became a monk and had great influence, in ecclesiastical affairs, at the court of William, about the time of the conquest.5

Note 1. B. G. 1.6, c. 13.

Note 2 Ordericus, Lib. 1, c. 14.

Note 3. Ibid, Lib. 3, c. 8. Lib. 7, c. 14.

Note 4. Ibid, Lib. 3, c. 3. Lib. 8, c.7. See Gibbon, Chapter 56,

Note 5. Ordericus, Lib. 5, cap. 12, Lib. 6, c. 4. Lib. 6, c. 4, and 8.

To return, however, to England; in Doomsday, Drogo, the son of Ponz, is named as holding Seagry and other places, with half a messuage in Malmesbury. Drogo or Drugo de Buerer, a Fleming, married a niece of William the Conqueror; he was the first Earl of Holderness, and is said to have built the Castle of Skipsea. In the following century, we find mention of another Drogo, the chamberlain of the Empress Matilda, who was possibly the father of that "Drogo the Younger," from whom the Montacutes, four of whom were Earls of Salisbury, are said to have descended. Risdon, in his survey of Devon, "writing of Drew's Teignton, says expressly that in its name it "honours" that of "its ancient landlord Drogo de Teign, by time's continuance mollified into Drew. In the reign of Richard the First, Drogo granted one farthing of land to Parisius Arlecheston."1 Collinson, speaking of Stanton Drew, says that at the time of Doomsday, and some time later, this place in great part belonged to a family who derived their name from it, among whom he instances Roger, William and Hugh de Stanton, and a Geffrey de Stanton, as late as the time of Henry the Third. One of this family, he says, bore the appellation of Drogo or Drew de Stanton, and gave the place his name, by way of distinction from other Stantons in the neighbourhood. The descendants of this family, as he states, were chiefly settled here and at Littleton Drew in Wiltshire. He goes on to say that, 12 Edward III., Walter Drew was certified to hold half a knight's fee in Stanton, which William de Stanton formerly held; and that, 10 Henry IV., the same moiety, late the property of Roger Drew, was held by John de Montacute, Earl of Salisbury. Collinson adds that these Drews were closely allied to the Dinhams of Buckland and Corton.2 Aubrey, in his collections for North Wilts, as we have shewn, (ante p. 168), has preserved a deed probably of the 12th century, to which "Walterus Drew dominus de Littletone" is the principal party. We have had no opportunity of tracing the documentary evidence, on which the statements of Risdon, as regards Drew's Teignton, and those of Collinson, with respect to Stanton Drew, rest; but the argument which derives the name of the places from that of the persons seems neither satisfactory nor conclusive - the reverse indeed appears more probable. It would certainly be a curious circum- stance, if three places, in as many counties of the west of England, all remarkable for ancient British, and probably Druidical, remains, should each have been the property, in the 12th or 13th century, of persons or families of the name of Drew or Drogo, unless indeed they derived their names from the localities.

Note 1. "Survey of Devon," ed. 1811, p. 127,

Note 2. Collinson's "Somerset," vol. II., p. 432,

That Drogo, the chamberlain of the Empress Matilda, had extensive possessions in the western counties, in great part probably derived from his illustrious mistress and her son Henry II., is well known.1 It must also be admitted, that in one remarkable instance, a place derived its name from this very Drogo. In this case, however, the name took the form of Drown, a corruption evidently of the Latin Drogonis. A remarkable spring in a very romantic situation on the top of a hill, in the forest of Pewsham, about three miles from Chippenham, now called Lockswell, was given by Matilda and her son Henry to Drogo. "Ego," says the charter, "et Mater mea dedimus et concessimus Drogoni matris meæ camerario."' The spring hence came to be called "Fons Drogonis," and in the English of that time, Drownfont. We owe to Mr. Bowles the publication of the original documents, and the topographical enquiries by which this spot was identified, as well as the discovery that it very soon after, in the same reign, became the site of an Abbey, hence called Drownfont abbey,— "Abbatia de Drogonis Fonte." After three years, this abbey was removed to Stanley, but the water of the spring was so highly prized, that the monks had it conveyed in pipes to their new abode, about three miles distant.

Note 1. Polwhele, "History of Cornwall," cited by W. L. Bowles, "History of Bremhill," pp. 87, 90, which see for the description and identification of Lockswell and Drownfont.

Mr. Bowles, in a note, appends the following enquiry from his friend, the celebrated Saxon scholar Dr. Ingram, late President of Trinity College, Oxon. 'Is there not a romantic spot near Devizes called 'Drew's Pond?' Is this another 'Fons Drogonis?' I suppose he had more wells or ponds than one; but there was only one 'fons sacer?"' Mr. Bowles has not answered this not unnatural enquiry of his friend; and it may not, perhaps, be superfluous to observe, what perhaps nearly every inhabitant of Devizes could have told Mr. Bowles—that this well-known spot can claim no connection either with the druids, or with the favourite chamberlain of Matilda.

The name of Thomas Drewe, occurs in a list preserved by Fuller, of the gentry of Wiltshire in the twelfth year of Henry VI. (1483)1, whether of the same family with that settled at Devizes, for at least two centuries from Henry VII. to the close of the reign of Charles II., is not clear. Robert Drew represented Devizes in several of the parliaments of Elizabeth and James the First; and different members of this family are commemorated by monumental tablets in the old church at Westbury, and in those at Devizes of St. John and St. James’, Southbroom.? This family was possessed of the Southbroom2 estate, which they parted with about the year 1680. Drew’s pond was included in this property, and indeed continued to be so down to its last change of ownership, about the year 1826. There are title-deeds, and other old documents, preserved in the office of the Town Clerk of Devizes, shewing that in the time of Henry the Seventh, this family bore the name of Trewe; among which is a lease from the Bishop of Salisbury to John Trewe, bearing date the twenty-fifth year of this reign. That this is not a mere clerical error is proved, by a deed of the 20th of November of the 25th Elizabeth, in which are found the names of "John Drewe alias Trewe," and of "Robert Drewe alias Trewe his son and heir apparent".3

Note 1. "Worthies of England," ed. 1840, p. 339.

Note 2. See R. C. Hoare "Modern Wilts, Westbury;" and Waylen "Chronicle of Devizes, 1839, pp. 292. 307. 313.

Note 3. There is a pedigree of this family of Drew in the "Visitation of 1623," and a continuation in the possession of the family of the late William Hughes, Esq., of Devizes and Poulshot; whose father, by marriage with a female descendant of the Drews, (Elizabeth Marsh the daughter of Elizabeth Drew, of Lacock), became the representative of the Drew family, which seems to have become extinet, except in the female line, by the death in 1728, of Robert Drew the younger, and in 1729, of Joseph Drew, both the sons of Robert Drew of Lacock.

In the case of Drew’s pond then, we have this name applied to a locality, almost in our own day, without any reference to Druids, and without any further significance than any other common name would have in the same connection. The name itself, in this instance, traced back as far as we can reach, was not Drewe but Trewe.