On this Day in History ... 21st September

Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough. In the same year, the king issued letters summoning to London the archbishops, bishops, deans of cathedral churches, and archdeacons to appear in person, along with two proctors from the clergy of each diocese, to assemble before him on the Feast of Saint Matthew the Apostle [21st September 1294]. When they were gathered there, the king addressed them as follows: "Most beloved lords, it is now well known, as you have heard, of that famous war which has arisen between the king of France and us. It did not begin through any fault of ours, as God himself knows, but rather took its start by accident, without any deceit or treachery on our part. It has continued up to now at extraordinary cost. Yet, so that we might not be accused or condemned for waging an unjust war, we first offered peace to him, and both of us at first embraced the terms of peace. But although we were ready to uphold it on our part, as had been agreed, he rejected and scorned it, and the more earnestly we sought peace, the further we found ourselves from it. At last, seeing that we were thus being mocked, we began this war, which, even if necessary, we shall continue unto death for the sake of justice. But because I am only one man, and but a poor custodian of your land of England, not only is that land of yours, but the whole English Church now unjustly oppressed and placed in great straits, we cannot continue what we have begun unless we receive help from your land. Therefore we now seek your prayers and implore your aid. And you ought, dearest lords, especially for this reason, to give aid: you see your earls, barons, and knights not only offering their goods, but even their very bodies for your sakes and for the sake of your land, not only unto the shedding of blood, but more often even unto death. Therefore, since you cannot risk your bodies, it is just and reasonable that you give support from your goods."

He [King Edward I], wishing to placate them, for he knew they were disturbed due to the violation of ecclesiastical immunity, added the following remarks: "Because two recent actions have caused you concern, we desire to reassure you and offer an explanation. First, we ordered that all the wool of the land be seized; this was not done without reason, for it was our will that the land itself might be preserved unharmed by means of its own goods. Second, we were informed that the coinage of our land was debased and falsified; and so, we commanded that the regulations concerning the coinage be strictly observed, suspecting nothing evil. But in this matter it turned out as it did among the Apostles of Jesus Christ, among the twelve there was one bad man who betrayed Christ. Likewise, in this matter, certain individuals exceeded the limits of our command and deceived us. Therefore, we are ready to make amends according to your own will." When the king finished speaking, Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln, replied: "Lord, this matter requires deliberation; therefore, let a day be granted for consultation with our brothers, and we will respond with their advice." A third day was granted. In the meantime, consultation was difficult: the See of Canterbury was vacant¹, and thus its members, like a body without a head, were scattered and ineffective. John Romanus, Archbishop of York, out of fear of the king, because he owed him a large sum of money, chose to act as if indifferent. The Bishop of Durham had not yet returned from Germany.

Eodem anno vocavit rex per literas suas at London. archiepiscopos, episcopos, decanos ecclesiarum cathedralium, et archidiaconos, in propriis personis, clerumque uniuscujusque dioecesis per duos procuratores, ut in festo sancti Matthæi apostoli coram eo comparerent Londoniis. Quibus ibidem existentibus ait rex, "Domini carissimi, jam satis constat ut audistis de famosa ista guerra quæ inter regem Francourum et nos initium sumpsit; non nostra culpa, ut novit ipse Deus, sed absque ullo dolo vel fraude casualiter sumpsit initium, et usque in præsens sumptuosissime continuata est. Verum, ne ex injusto bello redargui possemus vel reprehendi, obtulimus ei primo pacem, et pacis formam uterque nostrum amplexatus est: quam cum ex parte nostra, ut convenit, servare parati essemus, ipse eam renuit et contempsit, et quanto magis pacem Edward I quæsivimus tanto magis eramus ab ea longius separati. Videntes autem nos finaliter sic illudi hanc guerram incepimus, etiam si necesse fuerit pro justitia nostra consequenda usque ad mortem continuandam; verum quia terræ vestræ Anglicanæ non sum nisi unus quasi malus custos, et non tantum ipsa terra vestra sed tota Anglicana ecclesia jam in arcto ponitur et movetur injuste, nec continuare possumus quod incepimus nisi de eadem terra vestra nobis auxilium tribuatur, idcirco orationes vestras in præsenti expetimus et vestrum auxilium implorantes. Et juste debetis, domini carissimi, et præcipue ista ratione impertiri auxilium, quoniam videtis comites, barones, et milites vestros, quod non solum bona, verum etiam corpora sua pro vobis exponunt et pro terra vestra non solum ad sanguinis effusionem, immo frequentius ad mortem. Et vos igitur, qui corpora vestra exponere non potestis, justum est et rationi consonum ut de bonis vestris subveniatis."

Adjecitque subsequentia, ut placaret eos; scivit enim eos esse motos pro immunitate ecclesiæ violata, et ait, "Quia recenter duo facta sunt in quibus admiramini, placare vobis volumus et in hac parte respondere. Præcepimus quod omnes lanæ terræ arestarentur, et hoc non sine causa fecimus, quia nostræ voluntatis fuit ut de bonis terræ ipsa terra conservaretur illæsa. Aliud est, datum fuit nobis intelligi quod moneta terræ nostræ corrupta fuit et falsata, unde præcepimus quod statutum monetæ in suo robore teneretur, nihil mali suspicantes; sed in hoc facto contigit sicut et accidit inter apostolos Jesu Christi, inter enim XII erat unus malus qui Christum tradidit, similiter et in hoc facto fines mandati nostri quidam egressi sunt et deceperunt nos, unde parati sumus emendas facere pro libito vestræ voluntatis." Cumque loquendi finem faceret, respondit Oliverus Lincolniensis episcopus: "Domine, istud negotium consilium requirit; detur igitur dies ad consulendum cum fratribus nostris et ex consilio respondendum:" Datusque est dies tertius; interim vero consulentes diversi diversa senserunt, vacabat enim Cantuariensis ecclesia et membra sine capite in consilio dispersa sunt; episcopus etiam Eborum Johannes Romanus regis timore perterritus, eo quod regi in magna pecuniæ summa tenebatur, quasi dissimulando constituit; Dunolmensis vero nondum reversus fuerat de Alemannia.

Note 1. Robert de Winchelsey [aged 49] was elected on the 13th of February, 1293, but did not receive consecration till September, 1294, about the time when this contribution was exacted.

Chronicle of Adam of Usk [~1352-1430]. 21st September 1399. On Saint Matthew's day (21st September), just two years after the beheading of the earl of Arundel, I, the writer of this history, was in the Tower, wherein king Richard [aged 32] was a prisoner, and I was present while he dined, and I marked his mood and bearing, having been taken thither for that very purpose by sir William Beauchamp [aged 56]¹. And there and then the king discoursed sorrowfully in these words: "My God!, a wonderful land is this, and a fickle; which hath exiled, slain, destroyed, or ruined so many kings, rulers, and great men, and is ever tainted and toileth with strife and variance and envy²"; and then he recounted the histories and names of sufferers from the earliest habitation of the kingdom. Perceiving then the trouble of his mind, and how that none of his own men, nor such as were wont to serve him, but strangers who were but spies upon him, were appointed to his service, and musing on his ancient and wonted glory and on the fickle fortune of the world, I departed thence much moved at heart.

Note 1. Sir William Beauchamp, distinguished as a soldier and sea-captain, became lord Bergavenny in 1392. He died in 1410 [1411].

Note 2. Shakespeare, Richard II, act III. sc. ij.

For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground

And tell sad stories of the death of kings:

How some have been deposed; some slain in war;

Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;

Some poison'd by their wives; some sleeping kill'd;

All murder'd."

Chronicle of Jean le Bel Volume 1. On the octave of Pentecost following [4th June], the King of France issued another very great summons and sent the Duke of Normandy, his eldest son, together with his constable and his marshals, to besiege the castle of Thun¹, which Sir Walter Manny and his men had taken from the Bishop of Cambrai when the King of England and his allies were before Cambrai². And the Count of Hainaut believed that this great gathering was meant to come and lay waste his country, and to accomplish what had not been done the previous time. So the young count made such preparations as he could, and brought it about that the Duke of Brabant, whose daughter he had married, summoned all his forces to help him defend his land of Hainaut. Likewise, the Duke of Guelders, the Marquis of Jülich, and several others came at the request of the said Duke of Brabant. The Count of Hainaut then went to Liège in chapter and formally received back the whole county from my lord Adolphe, Bishop of Liège, there performing fealty and homage as he was bound to do, and he requested the said bishop to come and help defend his fief, as was his right.

A l'octave de la Penthecouste ensuivant, le roy de France fist ung aultre mandement moult grand et envoya le duc de Normendie, son aisné filz, à tout son connestable et ses mareschaulx assieger le chastel de Thun, lequel messire Watier de Manny et ses gens avoient gaagnié sur l'evesque de Cambray quant le roy des Anglois et ses aliez furent devant Cambray. Et pensoit le conte de Haynau que celle grande assemblée fust pour venir gaster son pays, et faire ce que fait n'avoient à l'aultre fois. Si se porvey le jœune conte ainsy qu'il pœut, et fist tant que le duc de Brabant, de cui il avoit la fille, manda tout son pouoir pour luy aidier à garder son pays de Haynau. Ainsy le duc de Guerles, le marquis de Juley et pluseurs aultres y vindrent à la requeste dudit duc du Brabant, et ledit conte de Haynau ala adoncques en chappitre au Liege relever toute la conté de monseigneur Adulphe, evesque de Liege, et luy fist là endroit feaulté et hommage, ainsy que faire debvoit, et requist audit evesque qu'il venist aidier à deffendre son fief, ainsy que droit en estoit.

Note 1. The siege of Thun-l’Évêque began immediately after the capture of Escaudœuvres. The latter town surrendered on 3rd June 1340 (Chronographia, vol. II, note 1), and by 14th June the French army was already before Thun. Philip VI, who was at Villers-Cotterêts on the 1st (Archives Nationales, JJ 72, no. 320), at Pierrefonds on the 4th, and at Noyon on the 10th, came in person to take part in the siege. He is recorded in the host before Thun on 22nd June and again on 23rd June. The date of 23rd June, given by Jean le Bel in Chapter 36 as that of the town’s capture, is correct, as is shown by the following entry: "Perrot Le Cousturier, on the 24th day of June, sent swiftly from Cambrai to Paris to carry letters to our said lords stating that the enemies had withdrawn, and that those of the castle of Thun had departed and set fire inside it, and carried off all the supplies, 30 sous." (Bibliothèque Nationale)

1. Le siège de Thun-l'Évêque commença immédiatement après la prise d'Escaudœuvres. Cette dernière ville se rendit en effet le 3 juin 1340 (Chronographia, t. II, note 1), et dès le 14 juin, l'armée française était déjà devant Thun. Philippe VI, qui était à Villers-Cotterets le 1^er (Arch. nat., JJ 72, n^o 320), à Pierrefonds le 4 (Ibid JJ 72, n^o 319), à Noyon le 10 (Ibid 35 71, n^o 402), vint en personne prendre part à ce siège. Nous le trouvons en l'ost devant Thun les 22 (Ibid JJ 74, n^o 560) et 23 juin. (Lerres d'état enregistrées au Parlement sous le règne de Philippe VI de Valois, n^o 137.) Ce jour (23 juin) donné par Jean le Bel comme date de la prise de cette ville est exact, ainsi que le prouvent la mention suivante: «Perrot Le Cousturier, XXIIII^e jour de juing, envoié de Cambray à Paris bastivement porter lettres à nozdiz seigneurs faisanz mencion que les anemis s'estoient deslogiés, et que ceulz du chastel de Thun s'en estoient alez et bouté le feu dedens, et emporté toutes les garnisons, XXX s.» (Bibl. nat., ms. fr. nouv. acq. 9239, fol. 287 r^o) et une lettre de Philippe VI, sans date de jour, mais donnée certainement entre le 23 et le 30 juin «en nos tentes après la prise du château de Thun.» (Arch. nat., 3373, n^o 137.) Le 30 juin, le roi de France était «lez le chastel de l'Escluse.» (Ordonnances, t. III, p. 167.)

Note 2. The castle of Thun-l’Évêque, which belonged to the Bishop of Cambrai, had been captured on 21st September 1399 by Walter Manny.

2. Le château de Thun-l'Évêque, qui appartenait à l'évêque de Cambrai, avait été pris le 21 septembre 1339 par Gautier de Masny. (Froissart, éd. Kervyn, t. XVII, p. 84. Cf. Froëssart, éd. Luce, t. I, p. 156, et Chronographia, t. II, p. 71.)

Memoires Jacques du Clercq. On the 21st day of the month of September, in the said year 1449, the Counts of Dunois, of Clermont, of Nevers, and several others in their companies laid siege before the castle of Ivry, which was surrendered by the English who were inside, and they departed with their persons and lives safe. This done, the French went before the town and castle of Argentan, where they laid siege; and then the English began to negotiate. And when the townspeople inside saw the English occupied in negotiations, knowing that their intention was to hold out, they secretly, without the English knowing, called to some of those on the other side with whom they were negotiating, and asked them for a standard or banner as a sign, telling them that wherever they placed the banner, they might safely enter the town; and so they did. When the English perceived them entering, they withdrew into the castle, and immediately a bombard from the French siege fired against the wall of the said castle and made a breach large enough for a cart to pass through. Then the French, seeing the wall thus broken, assaulted the castle and took it through the breach. The English inside withdrew into the keep, but soon surrendered for fear of being taken by assault, and departed carrying only a staff in their hands.

LE xxj^e jour du mois de septembre, I'an dessusdit xIjx, les comtes de Dunois, de Clermont de Neyers et plusieurs aultres en leur gompagnies, meirent le siege deyant le chastel d'leyre, lequel fust par les Anglois qui dedans estoient, rendu, et allerept leurs corps et leurs yies saulfs. Ce fait, les Franchois allerent deyant les ville et chastel d'Argeptan, ou ils le siege; et lors les Jpglois parlamenterent; et quant les bourgeois de dedans yeirent les Anglois amusés a parlamentec, cognoissants que leur vollonté estoit de tenir, contre la cognoissance des Anglois et sans leuc sceu, appellerent aulfuns de I'aultre costé dopt parlamentoit, et leur demanderent ung estendarty banniere epseigpe, leur disants, que la ou ils mecteroient l'epseigne, yenissent seurement. et les dedans place, et ainsy le feirent. Quant les Anglois les appercheurent entrer ens, ils se retournerent au chastel, et incontinent une bombarde du siege des Franchois tira contremont la muraille d'icelluy chastel, et y feit trou assés grand pour y passerune charette; lors les Franchois voyant le mur ainsy abbatu, ils assaillirent le chastel et le prindrent par le trou: les Anglois de dedans se boutterent au donjon; mais assés tost se rendirent de poeur d'estre prins d'assault et s'en allerent ung baston au poing tant sculement.

Henry Machyn's Diary. 21st September 1553. The xxj day of September was the obseqwe of the baron of Dudley ser John Dudley [aged 59] at Westmynster, the bake-syd of Sant Margatts; and ther was at ys beryng prestes and clarkes syngyng in Laten, the prest havyng a cope and the clarke havyng the halewater sprynkull in ys hand, and after a mornar baryng ys standard, and after a-nodur beyryng ys gret baner of armes gold and sylver, and a-nodur beyryng ys elmett, mantyll, and the crest a bluw lyon('s) hed standyng a-pon a crowne of gold, and after a-nodur mornar bayryng [his] targett, and a-nodur ys sword, and after cam master Somersett the harold bayryng ys cott armur of gold and selver, and then the corse covered with cloth of gold to the grond, and iiij of ys men beyryng hym, and ys armes hangyd a-pone the cloth of gold, and xij men of ys servands bayryng xij stayffs torchys bornyng to the chyrche; and in the qwer was a hersse mad of tymbur and covered with blake, and armes apon the blake, and after the mornars a grett compene; and a-for the durge began, the harold cam to the qwer dore and prayd for ys soll by ys stylle, and so began the durge song in Laten, all the lessons, and then the harold prayd for a for masse, and so the masse songe in Laten; and after ys helmet ofered, and cott and targatt, and after all was endyd offered the standard and the baner of armes; and so hom to dener, and ther was goodly ryngyng and a gret doll.

Note. P. 43. Funeral of John lord Dudley. This nobleman sold the castle of Dudley [Map] to his cousin John duke of Northumberland [deceased], and was never summoned to Parliament. (Nicolas's Synopsis of the Peerage.) His pecuniary distresses are noticed by Dugdale, Baronage, ii. 216; and it is added that he "was commonly called the Lord Quondam." [See this term used to bishop Latimer in p. 57 of this Diary.] His son and successor was restored to Dudley castle [Map], which was forfeited by the duke's attainder. See the funeral of the widowed baroness in p. 61.

Note. P. 44. Funeral of John lord Dadley. This is thus recorded in the register of St. Margaret's Westminster: "1553, September 18. Sir John Sutton knyght, Lorde Baron of Dudley." And that of his widow (see p. 61, and Note in p. 338) occurs under her maiden name: "1554, April 28. The Lady Cysslye Gray." The latter extraordinary circumstance is probably attributable only to the high rank of the Greys:—she was greataunt to the Lady Jane. His son, "The right honorable sir Edwarde Dudley knighte, Baron of Dudleye, the lord Dudleye," was buried in the same church on the 12th August, 1586; and his great-grandson, "Sir Ferdinando Sutton knight, Baro: Dudley," [but really the son and heir apparent of Edward then lord Dudley,] Nov. 23, 1621. Also in 1600, Mary lady Dudley, widow of the former Edward, and sister to Charles lord Howard of Effingham, lord admiral. She died Aug. 21, 1600, and a monument with her recumbent effigy, and a kneeling effigy of her second husband Richard Mompesson esquire, now remains near the south-east door of the church. See the History of St. Margaret's Church by the Rev. Mackenzie E. C. Walcott, M.A. 1847, 8vo. p. 19.

Samuel Pepys' Diary. 21st September 1660. Office Day. There all the morning and afternoon till 4 o'clock. Hence to Whitehall, thinking to have put up my books at my Lord's, but am disappointed from want of a chest which I had at Mr. Bowyer's. Back by water about 8 o'clock, and upon the water saw the corpse of the Duke of Gloucester [deceased] brought down Somerset House stairs, to go by water to Westminster, to be buried to-night. I landed at the old Swan [Map] and went to the Hoop Tavern, and (by a former agreement) sent for Mr. Chaplin [aged 33], who with Nicholas Osborne and one Daniel came to us and we drank off two or three quarts of wine, which was very good; the drawing of our wine causing a great quarrel in the house between the two drawers which should draw us the best, which caused a great deal of noise and falling out till the master parted them, and came up to us and did give us a large account of the liberty that he gives his servants, all alike, to draw what wine they will to please his customers; and we did eat above 200 walnuts. About to o'clock we broke up and so home, and in my way I called in with them at Mr. Chaplin's, where Nicholas Osborne did give me a barrel of samphire¹, and showed me the keys of Mardyke Fort², which he that was commander of the fort sent him as a token when the fort was demolished, which I was mightily pleased to see, and will get them of him if I can. Home, where I found my boy (my maid's brother) come out of the country to-day, but was gone to bed and so I could not see him to-night. To bed.

Note 1. Samphire was formerly a favourite pickle; hence the "dangerous trade" of the samphire gatherer ("King Lear", act iv. sc. 6) who supplied the demand. It was sold in the streets, and one of the old London cries was "I ha' Rock Samphier, Rock Samphier!"

Note 2. A fort four miles east of Dunkirk, probably dismantled when that town was sold to Louis XIV.

Archaeologia Cambrensis Series 6 Volume 15 1905 Stonehenge. 22nd September 1915. Sale of Stonehenge. — Great public interest was shown in the sale by auction at Salisbury yesterday [September 21st] of the Amesbury Abbey estate, including Stonehenge. Sir Howard Frank, of Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, conducted the sale, and explained that the estate came into the market in consequence of the deaths of Sir Edmund Antrobus and of his only son [Edmund Antrobus], who was killed in action last October. The estate, which has many historical associations, comprises 6,420 acres, and has an estimated rental of £5,359. It was first submitted as a whole, but as no purchaser was forthcoming it was offered in lots, of which Amesbury Abbey and grounds formed the first. This was unsold. Farms and buildings in the town of Amesbury, however, sold at good prices, and most of the property changed hands. When Stonehenge was put up for sale Sir Howard Frank asked for an opening bid of £5,000. A bid for that amount was made at once, quickly followed by an advance of £100, and £6,000 was readied within a minute. Then there was a lull. The auctioneer said the price was a poor one for Stonehenge, which could not be valued, but if there were no further offers he would accept it. Bidding recommenced and mounted to £6,600, at which the property fell to a local landowner, Mr. C. H. E. Chubb [aged 39], of Bemerton Lodge, Salisbury. After the sale Mr. Chubb said that when he went into the sale room he had no intention whatever of buying the monument. "While I was there," he added, I thought a Salisbury man ought to buy it, and that is how it was done." Asked if he had any plans for the future of Stonehenge, Mr. Chubb said that, while he intended to preserve the monument, he would do nothing for some little time, as he had to consider the position. — Times, September 22nd, 1915.

Profits Of Stonehenge. — -Mr. Chubb, the new owner of Stonehenge, will not be given legal possession for some months. Meanwhile he has formulated no plan for the future, except that he is determined to take every step to see that the stones are preserved as heretofore.

The opinion expressed locally is that Mr. Chubb has made an excellent bargain, quite apart from the historic interest attaching to Stonehenge. As the purchase price was £6,600, and the net receipts from fees paid by visitors to the enclosure average £360 per annum, the transaction, regarded in a cold commercial light, represents an investment of over 5 per cent.Times, September 23rd, 1915.

Stonehenge: Its Recent Sale And Price.- The following letter appeared in "The Times of October 6th, 1915:— Sir, — The sale by auction a few days ago of Stonehenge for the comparatively small sum of £6600 will, I think, cause regret in many quarters that the opportunity was lost of vesting this most important national monument in some public body, and of restoring to the public the access to it, free of charge, which had been enjoyed for countless centuries. It will be recollected that fourteen years ago litigation was undertaken with this object. The claim was made that two well-worn ways leading up to, and through, the outer circle of stones were obstructed by the inclosure, which was erected partly with the object of guarding the stones, but mainly for the purpose of enforcing a charge of admission of Is. a head. Those of us who were engaged in this attempt were worsted in the suit and were heavily mulcted in costs. It was not generally known, however, and could not be stated at the hearing of the suit, that at an early stage of the proceedings we offered to purchase the monument and a few acres of Down land surrounding it for the sum of £10,000, with the purpose of placing the monument under the full protection of the Ancient Monuments Act. The effect of this would be that the Government would be charged with the duty and cost of guarding and preserving the stones, and that access of the public to them would be secured, free of charge, for ever. The then owner of the property did not object to a sale, but he said that his price was £50,000. For this sum he had already offered the monument to the Government, and when it was rejected, on the ground that it was altogether exorbitant, he threatened to sell the stones to an American millionaire, who would ship them across the Atlantic. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the offer and threat were verbally made, very properly replied that if an attempt was made to remove the monument he would send a regiment from the camp on Salisbury Plain to prevent it. In spite of this rebuff, the excessive price was insisted upon, with the result that the suit was proceeded with. Since then the admission fees have been maintained, and I am informed that the visitors to Stonehenge have been only one-fourth in number of what they used to be. The net produce from the charge for admission has averaged the last three years £320, after deducting the cost of guarding and preserving it. The fees for admission during the last half-year have been greatly reduced in consequence of the war.

"When, a few weeks ago, the intended sale of the monument was announced, I would gladly have made an effort to raise a sum for its purchase, with the object of undoing the wrong which had been done in 1901. But I found that, in view of the many claims arising out of the war, it was impossible to raise by subscription even the moderate sum which appeared to be the full commercial value of the monument, based on the admission fees.

"There remained, however, the possibility that the monument might be purchased by some public body, such as the National Trust, who would maintain the charge for admission to it until more favourable times, when it would be possible to reduce or abolish that charge. In this view, the National Trust, at my suggestion, entered into a correspondence with Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, the agents for the sale of the Amesbury estate. The society had no funds at its immediate disposal for such a purpose, but among its generous supporters there would probably have been found those who would advance the purchase-money on loan on the security of the admission fees. It was necessary, however, before applying to any such friends, to know the price demanded for the monument. The society was informed by the agents that the owner could not name a price, but was prepared to entertain any offer from the National Trust above the sum of £10,000 — a price evidently based upon the offer made for it fourteen years ago. The society replied to this that, after careful consideration, they had come to the conclusion that the minimum price named by the owner was altogether excessive, particularly in view of the exceptional conditions consequent on the war, and that they were unable to make an offer of that amount or above it.

"The reply of the agents to this, on September 17th, was 'that the vendor, who is a tenant for life of the property, would not be justified in selling Stonehenge previous to the auction except at a price which was considered by us (Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley) to be high.' They added — 'The reserve at the auction, however, is a low one, in our view, and is thousands of pounds below the amount mentioned in our previous letter,' namely, £10,000. They suggested that the National Trust should be represented at the auction. It was thus practically admitted that the price named by the owner in the previous letter was, in the opinion of the experienced agents who advised him, too high by some thousands. The letter was received by the National Trust on Saturday, September 18th, three days before the sale by auction. It was impossible, in this short interval, to make arrangements for finding the possible purchase-money. The society, therefore, was not represented at the auction, and made no bid. The monument was bought for S6600 by a gentleman resident in the neighbourhood, who has stated that he has bought it as an investment, but with the full intention of doing his best to preserve it a promise which I doubt not he will fulfil. Not the less, however, it is to be regretted that the monument has not become the property of some public body, with the prospect of the reduction or remission of the entrance fees. I may be permitted also to point out that the price obtained at the auction, while it confirms the opinion of the agents who conducted the sale, is also striking proof that the sum offered for the monument in 1901 was most generous, and such as, in the interest of the entailed estate and of the public, should have been accepted.

I am yours faithfully,

Eversley.

Abbotsworthy House, Winchester,

October 1st.