Chapter XXXI: Appendix: IV (2)

Further, from the Charta de Forestâ of Henry III. (Manwood, ff.
6-11), we find that persons had houses and farms, and even woods, in
the very centre of the King’s forests; and the charter provides that
they may there, on their own lands, build mills on the forest
streams, sink wells, and dig marl-pits, referring, most probably, in
the last case, to the New Forest, where marl has been used, from
time immemorial, to manure the land; and, further, that in their own
woods, even though in the forest, they might keep hawks, and go
hawking. (See f. 7, sects. xii., xiii.)

It shows, too, that there was a population who gained their
livelihood, as to this day, by huckstering, buying and selling small
quantities of timber, making brushes, and dealing in bark and coal,
which last article evidently points to the Forest of Dean. (F. 7,
sect. xiv.)

We must not imagine that the Charta de Forestâ of Henry III. was
entirely a series of new privileges. They were, with some notable
exceptions, simply those rights which had been received from the
earliest times in compensation for some of the hardships of the
Forest Laws, and which had been wrested away, probably by Richard or
John, but which had never been granted to those who dwelt outside
the Forest. (On this point see especially “Ordinatio Foreste,” 33rd
Edward I., _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. i. p. 144. And again,
“Ordinatio Foreste,” 34th Edward I., sect. vi., same volume, p. 149,
where the rights of pasturage are re-allowed to those who have lost
it by the recent perambulation made in the twenty-ninth year of the
King’s reign.)

I think we may, therefore, gain from these clauses, especially when
taken in conjunction with those of the Charta de Forestâ of Canute,
a tolerably correct picture of an ancient forest—that it consisted
not merely of large timber and thick underwood, a cover for deer,
but of extensive plains,—still here preserved in the various
_leys_—grazed over by cattle, with here and there cultivated spots,
and homesteads inhabited by a poor, but industrious, population.

[41]See chapter ix. p. 97, footnote.

[42]See _Domesday_, as before, p. xxix. b., under Einforde.

[43]See chapters viii. p. 87, and x. p. 114.

[44]The following translation is made from the original in the Record
Office. Southt Plitai Foreste, A^o viii.^o E. I.^mi “The metes and
boundaries of the New Forest from the first time it was afforested.
First, from Hudeburwe to Folkewell; thence to the Redechowe; thence
to the Bredewelle; thence to Brodenok; thence to the Chertihowe;
thence to the Brygge; thence to Burnford; thence to Kademannesforde;
thence to Selney Water; thence to Orebrugge; thence to the Wade as
the water runs; thence to the Eldeburwe; thence to Meche; thence to
Redebrugge as the bank of the Terste runs; thence to Kalkesore as
the sea runs; thence to the Hurste, along the sea-shore; thence to
Christ Church Bridge as the sea flows; thence as the Avene extends,
as far as the bridge of Forthingebrugge; thence as the Avene flows
to Moletone; thence as the Avene flows to Northchardeford and
Sechemle; and so in length by a ditch, which stretches to
Herdeberwe.” It is this old natural boundary which, as stated in the
preface, we have adopted for the limits of the book. A copy of the
original may be found in the _Journals of the House of Commons_,
vol. xliv., appendix, p. 574, 1789.

[45]This may also be found, with the perambulation made in the
twenty-second year of Charles II., in the _Journal of the House of
Commons_, vol. xliv., appendix, pp. 574, 575, 1789. It is also given
in Lewis’s _Historical Enquiries upon the New Forest_, appendix ii.
pp. 174-177.

[46]This is not the place to say more on this most important chapter of
English history. See, however, on the subject, _The Great Charter:
and the Charter of the Forest_, by Blackstone, Introduction, pp.
lx.-lxxii. 1759. For the oppressions which still existed under the
shelter of the Forest Laws, see the preamble to the “Ordinatio
Foreste,” 34th Edward I. _Statutes of the Realm_, vol. i. p. 147.

[47]“Quid et quantum temporibus cujuslibet regis nullo modo eis constare
potest.” The conclusion of the perambulation. Some little difficulty
attends these perambulations. From _Domesday_, it is certain that
the Conqueror afforested land on the west of the Avon at
Holdenhurst, Breamore, and Harbridge. And amongst the MSS of
Lincoln’s Inn Library we find a copy of a charter of William of
Scotland, dated, curiously enough, “Hindhop Burnemuth, in meâ Novâ
Forestâ, 10 Kal. Junii, 1171.” (See Hunter’s “_Three Catalogues_,”
&c., p. 278, No. 78, 1838.) It would seem, from what Edward’s
commissioners say, that these afforestations, which had taken place
since Henry II’s time, were all made inside the actual boundaries of
the Forest. It has been generally supposed that the perambulation in
the eighth year of Edward I. was the first ever made of an English
forest. This is not the case, for in the Record Office, in the Plita
Foreste de Cōm. Southt LIII^tio R. H. III., No. III., may be found
the perambulation of a forest in the north of Hampshire.

[48]For a good account of all details connected with the history of the
New Forest, see the Sub-Report by the Secretary of the Royal New and
Waltham Forest Commission, _Reports from Commissioners_ (11), vol.
xxx. pp. 267-309, 1850, and also the Fifth Report of the Land
Revenue Commissioners in 1789, published July 24th of that year, to
be found also in the _Journals of the House of Commons_, vol. xliv.
pp. 552-571.

[49]See “The humble petition of Richard Spencer, Esq., Sir Gervas
Clifton, Knight and Baronet, and others, to enter upon the New
Forest and Sherwood Forest,” &c. &c. Record Office. Domestic Series,
Charles II., No. 8. f. 26, July 21st, 1660.

[50]MSS. prepared by Mr. Record-Keeper Fearnside, quoted in the
Secretary’s Sub-Report of the Royal New and Waltham Forest
Commission, _Reports from Commissioners_ (11), vol. xxx. p. 342.

[51]See Grant Book at the Record Office, 1613, vol. 141, p. 127—“4th
October, a Grant to Richard Kilborne, alias Hunt, and Thomas Tilsby
(of) the benefitt of all Morefalls within the New Forest, for the
terme of one and twenty years.”

[52]See “The humble petition of Captayne Walter Neale” for “two thousand
decayed trees out of the New Forest, in consideracion” of 460_l._,
which he had advanced to his company engaged in Count Mansfeldt’s
expedition. Record Office. Domestic Series, No. 184, Feb., 1625, f.
62.

[53]See warrant from Charles II. to the Lord Treasurer Southampton, that
“Winefred Wells may take and receive for her own use” King’s Coppice
at Fawley, and New Coppice and Iron’s Hill Coppice at Brockenhurst.
Record Office. Domestic Series, No. 96, April 1st, 1664, f. 16.
Three years before this there had been a petition from a Frances
Wells “to bestowe upon her and her children for twenty-one yeares
the Moorefall trees in three walks in the New Forest, ... and seven
or eight acres of ground, and ten or twelve timber trees, to build a
habitation.” The petition was referred to Southampton, who wrote on
the margin, “I conceive this an unfit way to gratify this
petitioner, for under pretence of such Moorefall trees much waste is
often committed.” Record Office. Domestic Series, No. 34, April 2nd,
1661, f. 14. Hence the reason of Charles’s warrant in the case of
Winefred Wells, as he knew that the Lord Treasurer was so strongly
opposed to any such grants.

[54]See the report of Peter Pett, one of the King’s master shipwrights,
“Touching the fforests of Shottover and Stowood.” Record Office.
Domestic Series, No. 216, f. 56. i. May 10th, 1632. The New Forest,
however, seems from this report to have been much better in this
respect.

[55]See “Necessarie Remembrances concerning the preservation of timber,
&c.” Record Office. Domestic Series. Charles I., No. 229, f. 114.
Without date, but some time in 1632.

[56]9th and 10th of William III., chap. xxxvi, 1693. An abstract of the
Act may be found in the _Journals of the House of Commons_, vol.
xliv., appendix, pp. 576-578.

[57]To show how for years the Forest was neglected and robbed, we find,
from a survey made in James I.’s reign, 1608, that there were no
less than 123,927 growing trees fit for felling, and decaying trees
which would yield 118,000 loads of timber; whilst in Queen Anne’s
reign, in 1707, only 12,476 are reported as serviceable. See Fifth
Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners, _Journals of the House of
Commons_, vol. xliv. p. 563. The waste in James I.’s and Charles
I.’s time must have been enormous, for from the “Necessarie
Remembrances” before quoted we find that there were not in 1632 much
above 2,000 serviceable trees in the whole Forest.

[58]See, as before, Fifth Report of the Land Revenue Commissioners, pp.
561, 562, and especially the evidence of the under-steward,
Appendix, 583. As far back as February 20th, 1619, we find that
James I. gave the Earl of Southampton 1,200_l._ a year as
compensation for the damage which the enormous quantity of deer in
the Forest caused to his land. Letter from Gerrard to Carleton, Feb.
20, 1618/1619, Record Office. Domestic Series, No. 105, f. 120.
Gilpin (vol. ii. pp. 32, 33, third edition) states that in his day
two keepers alone robbed the Forest to the value of 50,000_l._

[59]_Journals of the House of Commons_, vol. xlvii. pp. 611-792; vol.
lv. pp. 600-784.

[60]See the evidence in the _Parliamentary Papers_, 1849, Nos. 513, 538.
Of the Forest Rights and Privileges, the secretary to the New Forest
Commission writes: “The present state of the New Forest in this
respect is little less than absolute anarchy.” (_Reports of
Commissioners_ (11), vol. xxx. p. 357, 1850.) It should be
distinctly understood, as was shown in the last chapter, that these
Rights had their origin as a compensation to those whose lands had
been afforested by the King, and who were, in consequence, subject
to the Forest Laws, and the injury done by the deer. Now that the
injury is no longer sustained, and the exercise of the Prerogative
has ceased, so ought also the privileges. The Crown, however, has
not pressed this, and the Rights are thus still enjoyed. _A Register
of Decisions on Claims to Forest Rights_, with each person’s name,
and the amount of his privileges, was published in 1858.

[61]The present statistics of the Forest are—Freehold estates, being
private property, within the Forest boundaries, 27,140 acres;
copyhold, belonging to her Majesty’s manor of Lyndhurst, 125;
leasehold, under the Crown, 600; enclosures belonging to the lodges,
500; freeholds of the Crown, planted, 1,000; woods and wastes of the
Forest, 63,000: total, 92,365 acres. The value of timber supplied to
the navy during the last ten years has been, on the average, nearly
7,000_l._ a year. The receipts for the year ending 31st of March,
1860, derived from the sale of timber, bark, fagots, marl, and
gravel, and rent of farms and cottages, &c., were 23,125_l._ 6_s._
6_d._; whilst the expenses for labour, trees, carriage of timber,
and salaries, were 12,913_l._ 1_s._ 7_d._; thus showing a
considerable profit. (From the Thirty-eighth Report of the
Commissioners of her Majesty’s Woods and Forests.) The management of
the Forest is now in the hands of a deputy-surveyor, three
assistants, and eight keepers; whilst four verderers try all cases
of stealing timber, turf, and furze.

[62]See further, on the condition of the Forest population, chapters xv.
and xvi. When stripping bark and felling timber in the spring, the
men can earn considerably more than at other times. The average
wages are two shillings a day for ordinary labourers, but all work,
which can be, is done by the piece.

[63]In the _Rolls of Parliament_, vol. i. p. 125, A.D. 1293, 21st Edward
I., is an account of a vessel, the _All Saints_, “de Hethe juxta
Novam Forestam,” which, laden with wine from Rochelle, was wrecked
and plundered on the Cornish coast.

[64]A little beyond Hythe is a good example of Mr. Kemble’s test (see
the _Saxons in England_, vol. i., Appendix A, p. 481) for
recognizing the Ancient Mark. To the north lies Eling, the Mark of
the Ealingas, and in regular succession from it come the various
hursts, holts, and dens, now to be seen in Ashurst, Buckholt, and
Dibden. The last village has a very picturesque church, its roof
completely thatched with ivy, disfigured, however, by a wretched
spire. In _Domesday_ it possessed a saltern and a fishery, and a
wood with pannage for six hogs (sylva de 6 porcis). Two hydes were
taken into the Forest. Eling, at the same time, maintained two
mills, which paid twenty-five shillings, a fishery and a saltern,
both free from tax. The manor was bound, in the time of Edward the
Confessor, to find half-a-day’s entertainment (_firma_) for the
King. For a curious extract from its parish register, see chapter
xix. Staneswood (Staneude), which is more southward, also, according
to _Domesday_, possessed a mill which paid five shillings, and two
fisheries worth fifty pence. Farther north lies Redbridge, the
Rodbrige of _Domesday_, which also maintained two mills, rented,
however, at fifty shillings. This was the Hreutford and Vadum
Arundinis of Bede, where lived Cynibert the Abbot, who, failing in
his attempt to save the two sons of Arvald from Ceadwalla, delayed
their death till he had converted them to Christianity. (Bede,
_Hist. Eccl._, tom. i., lib. iv., cap. xvi., p. 284, published by
the English Historical Society.) All these places, with the
exception of Redbridge, were more or less afforested. The district,
however, seems to have been by far the most flourishing of any
adjoining the New Forest, owing, no doubt, to the immigration which
the various creeks invited, and the remains of salterns still show
its former prosperity. Next to it came the Valley of the Avon, its
mills often rented, in _Domesday_, by a payment of the eels caught
in the river.

[65]Colonel Hammond, Governor of the Isle of Wight, in a letter to the
Committee of Derby House, dated from Carisbrook Castle, June 25th,
1648, speaks of “Caushot Castle as a place of great strength.”
(Peck’s _Desiderata Curiosa_, vol. ii., book ix., p. 383.) In the
reign of Elizabeth there were stationed here a captain, with a fee
of one shilling a day; a subaltern with eightpence; four soldiers
and eight gunners with sixpence each; and a porter with eightpence.
(Peck’s _Desiderata Curiosa_, vol. i., book ii., p. 66.) And in
1567, we find the queen ordering “the mountyng of ordinance,”
probably to pay attention to Philip, who was expected to pass
through “the narrowe seas.” Record Office. Domestic Series, No. 43,
Aug. 27, 1567, f. 52.

[66]_The Chronicle._ Ed. Thorpe. Vol. i. p. 24. _Florence._ Ed. Thorpe.
Vol. i. pp. 3, 4.

[67]Compare his edition of _The Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 13, with note 1
at p. 4, vol. i., of _Florence_.

[68]Early English Settlements in Great Britain—_The Proceedings of the
Archæological Institute_, the Salisbury volume, pp. 56-60. It is, of
course, not without much consideration that I presume to differ from
Dr. Guest; but surely the passages quoted from Bede refer to nearly
200 years after the arrival of Cerdic and his nephews, Stuf and
Wihtgar, when their descendants would have been sure to have crossed
over, finding the east side far richer than the cold, barren
district where the New Forest afterwards stood.

[69]_The Early and Middle Ages of England_, p. 56, foot-note. I may,
perhaps, add, that Camden also placed it at Yarmouth; Carte, at
Charmouth, in Dorsetshire; and Milner, at Hengistbury Head. Gibson,
with some others, in his edition of _The Chronicle_ (under _nominum
locorum explicatio_, pp. 19, 20), alone seems to have fixed on this
spot. Lappenburg, however, says that the site is no longer known.
_England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings._ Ed. Thorpe, p. 107.

[70]In a letter of Southampton’s to Cromwell, 17th September, 1539
(_State Papers_, vol. i. p. 617), it is called Calsherdes; whilst in
another letter of his, also to Cromwell (_Ellis’s Letters_, second
series; vol. ii. p. 87), he writes Calshorispoynte. Leland, in his
_Itinerary_ (Ed. Hearne, second edition, vol. iii., p. 94, f. 78),
speaks of both “Cauldshore” and “Caldshore Castelle;” and again (p.
93, f. 77), calls it Cawshot, as it is also spelt in Baptista
Boazio’s Map of the Isle of Wight, 1591; whilst in the State papers
of Elizabeth we find Calshord. (Record Office. Domestic Series, No.
43, f. 52. Aug. 27th, 1567.) I give these examples to show the
number of variations through which the name has passed. No form is
too grotesque for a corruption to assume. How names become
corrupted, let me give an instance in the word Hagthorneslad (from
the Old-English “hagaþorn;” a hawthorn), as it is written in the
perambulation of the Forest in the twenty-ninth year of Edward I.,
which in Charles II.’s time is spelt Haythorneslade, thus losing its
whole significance, although to this day the word “hag” is used in
the Forest for a “haw,” or “berry.”

[71]The simple termination “ore”—“ora,” and not “oar,” as spelt in the
Ordnance Map, may be found within a stone’s-throw of Calshot, in Ore
Creek.

[72]See previously, chapter iv. p. 40, foot-note.

[73]The derivation of Leap as given in the text is very
doubtful.—_errata_

[74]At the date of the Dauphin’s leaving England, William de Vernon was
dead, which makes his embarkation at Leap less probable. Neither
Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 32. Ed. Coxe), nor Walter Hemingburgh
(vol. i. p. 259. Ed. Hamilton), nor Ralph Coggeshale (_Chronicon,
Anglicanum Bouquet Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France_, tom. xviii. p. 113 C.), nor the _Chronicon Turonense_ (in
the _Veterum Scriptorum Amplissima Collectio_ of Martène and Durand,
tom. v. p. 1059 B), nor Rymer’s _Fœdera_ (“De salvo conductu Domini
Ludovici,” tom. i. p. 222), say anything of the place of
embarkation.

[75]I believe on that of the Oglander MSS. in the possession of the Earl
of Yarborough, but which I have never seen. Neither the _Iter
Carolinum_, Herbert’s _Memoirs_ (London, 1572, p. 38), Huntington’s
account (same volume, p. 160), Berkeley’s _Memoirs_ (second edition,
1702, p. 65), _The Ashburnham Narrative_ (London, 1830, vol. ii. p.
119), nor Whalley’s letter in Peck’s _Desiderata Curiosa_ (tom. ii.,
lib. ix., pp. 374, 375), nor Hammond’s, in Rushworth’s _Collection_
(part iv., vol. ii., p. 874), mention the place, though the latter
would seem to indicate that the King sailed direct from Tichfield to
Cowes. Ashburnham and Berkeley had, we know from Berkeley
(_Memoirs_, same edition as before, p. 57) and Ludlow (_Memoirs_,
1771, p. 93), previously gone by Lymington to the Island.

[76]The road is marked in the map which accompanies Dr. Guest’s paper on
“The Belgic Ditches.” _The Archæological Journal_, vol. viii. p.
143.

[77]As the passage is so important, I give it in full:—Ἀποτυποῦντες δ’
εἰς ἀστραγάλων ῥυθµοὺς κοµίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον προκειµένην µὲν τῆς
Βρεττανικῆς, ὀνοµαζοµένην δὲ Ἴκτιν. κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἀµπώτεις
ἀναξηραινοµένου τοῦ µεταξὺ τόπου ταῖς ἁµάξαις εἰς ταύτην κοµίζουσι
δαψιλῆ τὸν καττίτερον. Ἴδιον δέ τι συµβαίνει περὶ τὰς πλησίον νήσους
τὰς µεταξὺ κειµένας τῆς τε Εὐρώπης καὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς. Κατὰ µὲν γὰρ
τὰς πληµµυρίδας τοῦ µεταξὺ πόρου πληρουµένου νῆσοι φαίνονται, κατὰ
δὲ τὰς ἀµπώτεις ἀποῤῥεούσης τῆς θαλάττης καὶ πολὺν τόπον
ἀναξηραινούσης θεωροῦνται χεῤῥόνησοι.—Lib. v., cap. xxii., vol. i.,
p. 438. Ed. Dindorf. Leipsic, 1828-31. Pliny, as Wesseling remarks,
in his note on this passage, quoted by Dindorf, vol. iv. p. 421, by
some mistake, makes the Isle of Wight (Mictis) six days’ sail from
England. See Sir G. C. Lewis’s _Astronomy of the Ancients_, chap.
viii., sect. iii. p. 453.

[78]As before, sect. iv. p. 462.

[79]_The South-Western Parts of Hampshire_, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6, 1793.

[80]For an account of the barrows on Beaulieu Heath, see ch. xvii.

[81]Dugdale’s _Monasticon Anglicanum_. Ed 1825, vol. v., p. 682. Num.
ii. See _Chronica de Kirkstall_. Brit. Mus. Cott. MSS. Domitian. A.
xii., ff. 85, 86. The cause of John’s enmity against the Cistercian
Order may be gathered from Ralph Coggeshale, _Chronicon Anglicanum_,
as before in Bouquet, _Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France_, tom. xviii. pp. 90, 91.

[82]_Carta Fundationis per Regem Johannem_, given in Dugdale (Ed. 1825,
vol. v. p. 683); and _Confirmacio Regis Edwardi tertii super cartas
Regis Johannis_, Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott. Nero, A. xii., No. v., ff.
8-15, quoted in Warner (_South-West Parts of Hampshire_, vol. ii.,
Appendix, pp. 7-14). There are, however, no less than three dates
given for its foundation. The _Annals of Parcolude_, according to
Tanner (_Notitia Monastica_, Ed. Nasmyth, Hampshire, No. vi.
foot-note _h_), say 1201, which is manifestly wrong; whilst John of
Oxnede, better known as the chronicler of St. Benet’s Abbey at Hulme
(_Chronica._ Ed. Ellis, p. 107), with the _Chronicon de Hayles et
Aberconwey_ (Brit. Mus., Harl. MS., No. 3725, f. 10), and Matthew
Paris, according to Dugdale, say respectively 1204 and 1205, though
I have not been able to verify the last reference.

[83]_Roger of Wendover._ English Historical Society. Ed. Coxe, vol. iii.
p. 344.

[84]See the previous chapter, pp. 57, 58, foot-note.

[85]Curiously enough, as Warner remarks (vol. i. 267), Matthew Paris
gives two dates for the dedication, the first 1246 (_Hist. Angl._,
tom. i. p. 710, Ed. Wats., London, 1640); and the second (p. 770)
1249; not, however, 1250, as Warner says, and who, followed by all
later writers, totally misunderstands the passage, which means that,
although the abbot spent so large a sum, yet the King would not
remit him the fine he had incurred by trespass in the Forest,—“Nec
tamen idcirco aliquatenus pepercit rex, quin maximum censum solveret
illi pro transgressione quam dicebatur regi fecisse in occupatione
Forestæ.”

[86]See Matthew Paris, in praise of the Cistercian Order. Same edition
as before, tom. i. p. 916.

[87]Not Margaret of Anjou, as the common accounts say, who, landing at
Weymouth, took refuge at Cerne Abbey. See _Historie of the Arrival
of Edward IV. in England_, pp. 22, 23, printed for the Camden
Society, 1838; and Hollinshed’s _Chronicles_, vol. iii. p. 685; and
_Speed_, B. ix. p. 866. Hall, however (_The Union of the Families of
Lancaster and York_, p. 219), with Grafton, in his prose
continuation of Hardyng (Ed. Ellis, 1812, p. 457), says it was to
Beaulieu that Margaret fled. But they are evidently mistaken, as
Speed and Hollinshed, and the explicit and circumstantial narrative
of the author of the _Historie_, show.

[88]The following list of books at Beaulieu, taken by Leland (_Collect.
de Rebus Brit._, vol. iv. p. 149), just before the dissolution, will
show what was in those days an average ecclesiastical
library:—“_Eadmerus de Vitâ Anselmi, et Vitâ Wilfridi Episcopi._
_Stephanus super Ecclesiasticum, Libros Regum, et Parabolas
Salomonis._ _Joannes Abbas de Fordâ super Cantica Canticorum._
_Damascenus de Gestis Barlaam eremitæ, et Josaphat regis Indiæ._
_Libellus Candidi Ariani_” (most probably the _De Generatione
Divinâ_). “_Libellus Victorini, rhetoris, contra Candidum_” (the
_Confutatorium Candidi Ariani_, written against the preceding work).
“_Tres libri Claudiani de Statu Animæ ad Sidonium Apollinarem._
_Gislebertus super Epistolas Pauli. Prosper de Vitâ contemplativâ et
activâ._”

[89]_Ellis’s Letters_, second series, vol. ii. p. 87. For Henry VIII.’s
enforcement of Wolsey’s levies on Beaulieu, see _State Papers_, vol.
i., part ii., p. 383.

[90]Accounts of this palace—probably, as Mr. Walcott says, the King’s
hunting lodge—may be found in the _Proceedings of the Archæological
Institute_, 1846, p. 32, and the Rev. Makenzie Walcott’s _Church and
Conventual Arrangement_, p. 115.

[91]Her remains were lately discovered near the high altar, with part of
the inscription on her gravestone. (See the Rev. F. W. Baker’s
account in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_, vol. ccxiv. p. 63.) A carved
head with a crown in the refectory preserves the memory of her
husband, crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle King of the Romans, and whose
heart was buried, in a marble vase, beside his wife. (Leland, as
before, iv. 149.) Tradition says that Eleanor of Acquitaine was also
buried here, but she lies with her husband at Fontevraud.

[92]Warner (vol. i. 255) mentions that in his time there was still
brandy in the steward’s cellars made from the vines growing on the
spot. _Domesday_ gives several entries of wines (see Ellis’s
_Introduction_, vol. i. pp. 116, 117), though none in the Forest
district. But the term ‘Vineyards’ is still frequently found
hereabouts as the name of fields generally marked by a southern
slope, as at Beckley and Hern, near Christchurch, showing how common
formerly was the cultivation of the vine, first introduced into
England by the Romans.

[93]In Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 892, f. 40 _b_, is an extract from a most
interesting letter written in 1648, describing the state of the
refectory, which seems, with the exception of the alterations made
in 1746, to have been much the same as at present.

[94]Corrected from “the injunction which the Bishop of Hippo gives to
the canons of his own order”—_errata_

[95]Quoted from Dugdale’s _Monasticon Anglicanum_, by Warner, vol. i. p.
249.

[96]It is pleasant to have to add that the present noble owner, the Duke
of Buccleuch, has shown not only good taste and judgment in the
restoration of the guest-house and the excavation of the church, but
a wise liberality in throwing the grounds open to the public.

[97]In Parker’s _Glossary of Architecture_ is given a list of some of
these old barns. Vol. i. pp. 240, 241.

[98]Some curious leaden pipes, soldered only on one side, were dug up
close by, which are worth seeing, as they show how late the process
of running hollow lead pipes was invented. The earthenware pipes
found with them are as good as any which are now made. At Otterwood
Farm, on the other side of the Exe, pavement and tiles have also
been discovered.

[99]The chapel was standing in Warner’s time. _South-Western Parts of
Hampshire_, vol. i. pp. 232, 233.

[100]In Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott., Nero, A. xii., No. vii. f. 20 _a b_, is
a copy of a Bull from Alexander I., giving permission to all the
Cistercian Houses to hold service at their granges.

[101]Even Layton saw their kindness, and pleaded for the poor wretches
whom they had protected. Letter regarding Beaulieu Sanctuary from
Layton to Cromwell, _Ellis’s Letters_, third series, vol. iii. pp.
72, 73.

[102]Blount’s _Fragmenta Antiquitatis_. Ed. Beckwith, p. 80, 1815.
_Testa de Nevill_, p. 235 a (118). We know, however, that our
forefathers, long before this, possessed beds, or rather cots, hung
round with rich embroidered canopies. For their general love, too,
of comfort and personal ornament and dress, we need go no further
than to Chaucer’s description of “Richesse,” in his _Romaunt of the
Rose_. Englishmen, however, were still then, as now, ever ready to
lead a rough life if necessary, and to make their toil their
pleasure.

[103]In that portion of it which comes under the title of “In Forestâ et
circa eam.” See chap. iii. p. 31.

[104]All over England did the church towers serve as landmarks, alike in
the fen and forest districts. Lincolnshire and Yorkshire can show
plenty of such steeples. At St. Michael’s at York, to this hour, I
believe, at six every morning, is rung the bell whose sound used to
guide the traveller through the great forest of Galtres; whilst at
All Saints, in the Pavement, in the same city, is shown the lantern,
which every night used to serve as a beacon.

[105]The following measurements may have some interest, and can be
compared with those of the oaks and beeches in the Forest, given in
chap. ii. p. 16, foot-note:—Circumference of the oak, twenty-two
feet eight inches. Yew, seventeen feet. An enormous yew, completely
hollow, however, stands in Breamore churchyard, measuring
twenty-three feet four inches. There are certainly no yews in the
Forest so large as these; and their evidence would further show that
at all events the Conqueror did not destroy the churchyards. As
here, too, there remains some Norman work in the doorway of Breamore
church.

[106]For some account of these barrows, see chapter xvii.

[107]The word is from the French _merise_. At Wood Green, in the
northern part of the Forest, a “merry fair” of these half-wild
cherries is held once a week during the season, probably similar to
that of which Gower sung.

[108]An objection, that the lime-tree was not known so early in England,
has been taken to this derivation. This is certainly a mistake. In
that fine song of the Battle of Brunanburh, we find—

“Bordweal clufan
Heowan heaþolinde
Hamora lafan.”
(_The Chronicle._ Ed. Thorpe. Vol. i. p. 200.)

The “geolwe lind” was sung of in many a battle-piece. Again, as
Kemble notices (_The Saxons in England_, vol. i., Appendix A, p.
480), we read in the _Cod. Dip._, No. 1317, of a marked linden-tree.
(See, also, same volume, book i., chap. ii., p. 53, foot-note.)
Then, too, we have the Old-English word _lindecole_, the tree being
noted for making good charcoal, as both it and the dog-wood are to
this day. Any “Anglo-Saxon” dictionary will correct this notion, and
names of places, similarly compounded, are common throughout
England.

[109]The entry in _Domesday_ (facsimile of the part relating to
Hampshire, photo-zincographed at the Ordnance Survey, 1861, p. iv.
a) is as follows:—“In Bovere Hundredo. Ipse Rex tenet Linhest.
Jacuit in Ambresberie de firmâ Regis. Tunc, se defendebat pro ij
hidis. Modo, Herbertus forestarius ex his ij hidis unam virgatam
(tenet), et pro tanto geldat; aliæ sunt in forestâ. Ibi modo nichil,
nisi ij bordarii. Valet x solidos. Tempore Regis Edwardi valuit vi.
libras.” It is worth noticing that Lyndhurst is here put by itself,
and not with Brockenhurst and Minestead, and other neighbouring
places under “In Novâ Forestâ et circa eam;” a clear proof, which
might be gathered from other entries, that the survey was not
completed.

[110]Blount’s _Fragmenta Antiquitatis_. Ed. Beckwith, p. 183. 1815. Here
the place is called Lindeshull.

[111]Let me especially call attention to the exquisite carving of some
thorns and convolvuluses in the chancel. It is a sad pity that this
part of the church should be disfigured by glaring theatrical
candlesticks and coarse gaudy Birmingham candelabra.

[112]I have only seen but the slightest portion of this fresco, so that
it is impossible to properly judge of even the merits of this part.
No criticism is true which does not consider a work of Art as a
whole. At present, the angel with outstretched hands, full of
nervous power and feeling, seems to me very admirable, though the
position and meaning of the cloaked and clinging figure below is, at
the first glance, difficult to make out; but this will doubtless, as
the picture proceeds, become clear. The richness, however, of the
colouring can even now be seen under the enormous disadvantage of
being placed beneath the strong white glare of light which pours in
from the east window. Further, Mr. Leighton must be praised for his
boldness in breaking through the old conventionalities of Art, and
giving us here the owl as a symbol of sloth, and the wretchedness it
produces.

[113]_Herbert’s Memoirs of Charles I._, p. 95.

[114]William of Malmesbury: _Gesta Regum Anglorum_. Ed. Hardy, tom. ii.,
lib. iv., sect. 333, p. 508.

[115]Vitalis: _Historia Eccl._, pars. iii., lib. x., cap. xii., in
Migne: _Patrologiæ Cursus_, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 751, 752; where
occurs (pp. 750, 751) a most remarkable sermon, on the wrongs and
woes of England, preached at St. Peter’s Abbey, Shrewsbury, on St.
Peter’s Day, by Fulchered, first abbot of Shrewsbury, a man
evidently of high purpose, ending with these ominous words:—“The bow
of God’s vengeance is bent against the wicked. The arrow, swift to
wound, is already drawn out of the quiver. Soon will the blow be
struck; but the man who is wise to amend will avoid it.” Surely this
is more than a general denunciation. On the very next day William
the Red falls.

[116]Malmesbury, as before quoted, p. 509. Vitalis, however, in Migne,
as before, p. 751, says there were some others.

[117]William of Malmesbury says nothing about the tree, from which
nearly all modern historians represent the arrow as glancing.
Vitalis, as before, p. 751, expressly states that it rebounded from
the back of a beast of chase (_fera_), apparently, by the mention of
bristles (_setæ_), a wild-boar. Matthew Paris (Ed. Wats., tom. i. p.
54) first mentions the tree, but his narrative is doubtful.

[118]Malmesbury, as before, p. 509. The additions that it was a
charcoal-cart, as also the owner’s name, are merely traditional.

[119]The _Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364.

[120]Vitalis, as before, p. 752. Neither William of Malmesbury nor
Vitalis, who go into details, mentions the spot where the King was
killed. The _Chronicle_ and Florence of Worcester most briefly
relate the accident, though Florence adds that William fell where
his father had destroyed a chapel. (Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45).
Henry of Huntingdon (_Historiarum_, lib. vii., in Saville’s
_Scriptores Rerum Anglicarum_, p. 378) says but little more,
dwelling only on the King’s wickedness and the supernatural
appearance of blood. Matthew Paris brings a bishop on the scene, as
explaining another dream of the King’s, and gives the King’s speech
of “trahe arcum, diabole” to Tiril, which has a certain mad humour
about it, as also the incident of the tree, and the apparition of a
goat (_Hist. Major. Angl._ Ed. Wats., pp. 53, 54), which are not to
be found in _Roger of Wendover_ (_Flores Hist._ Ed. Coxe, tom. ii.,
pp. 157-59), and therefore open to the strongest suspicion. Matthew
of Westminster (_Flores Hist._ Ed. 1601, p. 235) follows, in most of
his details, William of Malmesbury. Simon of Durham (_De Gestis
Regum Anglorum_, in Twysden’s _Historian Anglicanæ Scriptores
Decem_, p. 225), as, too, Walter de Hemingburgh (Ed. Hamilton, vol.
i. p. 33), and Roger Hoveden (_Annalium Pars Prior_, in Saville’s
_Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores_, pp. 467, 468), copy Florence of
Worcester. So, too, in various ways, with all the later writers, who
had access to no new sources of information. Peter Blois, however,
in his continuation of _Ingulph_ (Gales’s _Rerum Anglicarum
Scriptores_, tom. i. pp. 110, 111; Oxford, 1684) is more vivid, and
adds that the dogs were chasing the stags up a hill; but his whole
book is very doubtful, and his account in this particular instance
is irreconcilable with the others. Gaimar (_L’Estorie des Engles._
Ed. Wright. Caxton Society, pp. 217-224), who says that the King was
hunting near Brockenhurst (Brokehest), gives a still more detailed
account, but we are met by the same difficulties. Of later writers,
Leland, in his _Itinerary_ (vol. vi. f. 100, p. 88) states that the
King fell at Thorougham, where in his time there was still a chapel
standing, evidently meaning Fritham, called Truham in _Domesday_.
Gilpin (_Forest Scenery_, vol. i. p. 166) mentions a similar
tradition; so that there is a very reasonable doubt as to the spot
itself being where the Stone stands, especially since, with the
exception of the vague remark of Florence, none of the best
Chroniclers say one word about the place. Thierry, in many minor
particulars, follows Knyghton, whose authority is of little value,
and I have therefore omitted all reference to him.

[121]Very much against my inclination, I give a sketch of the iron case
of the Stone, which the artist has certainly succeeded in making as
beautiful as it is possible to do. The public would not, I know,
think the book complete without it. It stands, however, rather as a
monument of the habit of that English public, who imagine that their
eyes are at their fingers’ ends, and of a taste which is on a par
with that of the designer of the post-office pillar-boxes, than of
the Red King’s death, for the spot where he fell is, as we have seen
from the previous note, by no means certain. We must, too, remember
that there is no mention made by the Chroniclers of Castle Malwood,
but the context in Vitalis, as also the late hour mentioned by
Malmesbury when William went out to hunt, show that he was at the
time staying somewhere in the Forest.

[122]See, as before, Lappenberg’s _History of England under the Norman
Kings_, pp. 266-8; and Sharon Turner’s _History of England during
the Middle Ages_, vol. iv. pp. 166-8.

[123]“Tabidi aëris nebulâ” are the words of William of Malmesbury.
(_Gesta Regum Anglorum._ Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iii., sect. 275,
pp. 454, 455.)

[124]_Gul. Gemeticensis de Ducibus Normannorum_, lib. vii., cap. ix. To
be found in Camden’s _Anglica Scripta_, p. 674.

[125]This seems to be the meaning of a not very clear passage in William
of Malmesbury. Same edition as before, p. 455. Vitalis, however,
_Historia Ecclesiastica_, pars 3, lib. x., cap. xi. (in _Migne,
Patrologiæ Cursus Completus_, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 748, 749), says he
was shot by a knight, who expiated the deed by retiring to a
monastery, and speaks in high terms both of him and his brother
William, who fell in one of the Crusades.

[126]Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45. Lewis, in his _Topographical Remarks on
the New Forest_, pp. 57-62, is hopelessly wrong with regard to
Richard, the son of Robert, a grandson of the Conqueror, whom he
calls Henry, and confounds at p. 62 with his uncle; and makes both
William of Malmesbury and Baker (see his _Chronicle_, p. 37, Ed.
1730) say quite the reverse of what they write.

[127]As I am not writing a History of England during this period, my
space will not permit me to enter into those details which, when
viewed collectively, carry so much weight in an argument; but at all
events, it will be well for some of my readers to bear in mind the
character of William II., who in a recent work has lately been
elevated into a hero. Without any of his father’s ability or power
of statesmanship, he inherited all his vices, which he so improved
that they became rather his own. From having no occupation for his
mind, he sank more and more into licentiousness and lust. (“Omni se
immunditiâ deturpabat,” is the strong expression of John of
Salisbury. _Life of Anselm_, part ii. ch. vii., in Wharton’s _Anglia
Sacra_, tom. ii. p. 163. See, also, Suger, _Vita Lud. Grossi Regis_,
cap. i., in Bouquet: _Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la
France_, tom. xii. p. 12. D. E.) Being lustful, he naturally became
cruel; not as his father was, on, at least, the plea of necessity,
but that he might enjoy a cultivated pleasure in gloating over the
sufferings of others. From being cruel, too, he became, in its worst
sense, an infidel; not from any pious scruple or deep conviction,
but simply that he might indulge his passions. (See that fearful
story of the trial of forty Englishmen told in Eadmer: _Hist. Nov._,
lib. ii., p. 48, Ed. 1633, which illustrates in a twofold manner
both his cruelty and his atheism.)

To a total want of eloquence he joined the most inveterate habit of
stammering, so that, when angry, he could barely speak. His physical
appearance, too, well harmonized with his moral and mental
deformities. His description reads rather like that of a fiend than
of a man. Possessing enormous strength, he was small, thick-set, and
ill-shaped, having a large stomach. His face was redder than his
hair, and his eyes of two different colours. His vices were, in
fact, branded on his face. (Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib.
iv., sect. 321, p. 504, whom I have literally translated.)

Let us look, too, at the events of his reign. Crime after crime
crowds upon us. His first act was to imprison those whom his father
had set free. He loaded the Forest Laws with fresh horrors.
Impartial in his cruelty, he plundered both castle and monastery
(_The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364). He burnt out the eyes
of the inhabitants of Canterbury, who had taken the part of the
monks of St Augustin’s. At the very mention of his approach the
people fled (Eadmer: _Hist. Nov._, lib. iv. p. 94). Unable himself
to be everywhere, his favourites, Robert d’Ouilly harried the
middle, and Odineau d’Omfreville the north of England; whilst his
Minister, Ralph Flambard, committed such excesses that the people
prayed for death as their only deliverance (_Annal. Eccles.
Winton._, in Wharton’s _Anglia Sacra_, tom. i. p. 295).

As _The Chronicle_ impressively says, “In his days all right fell,
and all wrong in the sight of God and of the world rose.” Norman and
English, friend and foe, priest and layman, were united by one
common bond of hatred against the tyrant. It could only be expected
that as his life was, so his death would be; that he would be
betrayed by his companions, and in his utmost need deserted by his
friends.

[128]Eadmer: _Vita Anselmi_, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 23. John of Salisbury:
_Vita Anselmi_, cap. xi.; in Wharton’s _Anglia Sacra_, tom. ii. p.
169. William of Malmesbury: Ed. Hardy, vol. ii., b. iv., sect. 332,
p. 507; and Roger of Wendover, Ed. Coxe, vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.

[129]Vitalis: _Historia Ecclesiastica_, pars 3, lib. x.; in Migne,
_Patrologiæ Cursus Completus_, tom. clxxxviii., pp. 750 D, 751 A.
See previously, p. 94, foot-note.

[130]Eadmer: _Vita Anselmi_, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 6.

[131]Baxter, in his Preface to his _Glossarium Antiquitatum
Britannicarum_, Ed. 1719, p. 12, entirely misquotes Alanus de
Insulis (see _Prophetica Anglicana Merlini Ambrosii cum septem
libris explanationum Alani de Insulis_. Frankfort, 1603. Lib. ii.
pp. 68, 69), and completely misunderstands the passage. Alanus,
however (p. 69), seems to have no doubt that the King fell by
treachery,—“spiculo invidiæ,” as was foretold by Merlin, though he
gives no other reason; and which by itself, resting on nothing
further, would carry no weight. His account, though, of the general
detestation of the Red King immediately before his death, as also
the conversation of Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, with Anselm (p. 68), is
very suggestive, especially by the way in which it is introduced.
Alanus must have possessed far too shrewd an intellect to have
believed in Merlin; though it might have suited his purpose to have
appeared to have so done, as a veil and a blind, so that he might
better say what his high position and authority would not in any
other form have well permitted, but which still give to many points,
as here, enormous significance and weight.

Besides Gaimar and Alanus, Nicander Nucius also hints at treachery
(_Second Book of Travels_, published by the Camden Society, pp. 34,
35), but his account is too vague to be of any service. We should,
however, constantly bear in mind, with Lappenberg, that the best
authority, _The Chronicle_, simply relates that the King was shot at
the chase by one of his friends, without any allusion to an
accident. Not one word or fact else is given, except the appearance
of a pool of blood in Berkshire (at Finchhamstead, according to
William of Malmesbury), which we know, from other sources, was
supposed to foretell some calamity, and which phenomenon science now
resolves into merely some species of _alga_, probably either
_Palmella cruenta_ or _Hæmatococcus sanguineus_. Eadmer, with some
others, in his _Historia Novorum_, lib. ii. (Migne: _Patrologiæ
Cursus Completus_, tom. clix. p. 422 B) mentions a report, prevalent
at the time, that the King accidentally stumbled on an arrow. Then
follows, in the very next book (Migne, as before, p. 423 B), a
singular passage, to be found also in his _Life of Anselm_, book ii.
ch. vi. (Migne, as before, tom. clviii. p. 108 D), where, on the
news of the Red King’s death, Anselm bursts into tears, and, with
sobs, cries, “Quod si hoc efficere posset, multo magis eligeret se
ipsum corpore, quam illud, sicut erat, mortuum esse.” Whether this
wish sprang from the effects of some pangs of conscience as to
William’s death, or from an honourable feeling of natural emotion
under the circumstances, as suggested by Sharon Turner, it is hard
to determine. From John of Salisbury (_Vita Anselmi_, pars ii., cap.
xi., in Wharton’s _Anglia Sacra_, tom. ii. p. 169), it would seem
that Anselm thought that he was the direct cause, through God, of
his death. Wace, quoted by Sharon Turner (vol. iv. p. 169), says
that a woman prophesied to Henry his speedy accession to the throne;
but I am not inclined to put any faith in this story, especially as
Wace’s account is in poetry, where a prophetical speech might after
the event be given dramatically true, without being so historically.
The same criticism must be applied to the still more detailed
account of Gaimar, who vaguely accuses Tiril of conspiracy. No one,
however, was likely to declare, for so many reasons, that the King
was murdered. We must not expect such a statement, or even look for
it in the Chroniclers; we must seek for it in the contradictions,
and absurdities, and prophecies which have gathered round the event.

[132]Let no one be startled at the fact of ecclesiastics being
assassins. We have on record during this very reign the deliberate
confessions by monks of plots to murder their abbots, deeming they
were doing God a service. We must further keep steadily in mind that
prelates then united in their own persons both sacred and military
offices. How much Henry was under the influence of the monasteries
his marriage and his various appointments show. Their power was
enormous. In fact, I believe that the Conqueror owed his success as
much to them as Rufus his death, and Henry his crown.

[133]At the time of his death he held in his hand the archbishopric of
Canterbury, the bishoprics of Winchester and Salisbury, besides
eleven abbacies, all let out to rent. _The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe,
vol. i. p. 364.

[134]_The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 356.

[135]William of Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 306, p.
488.

[136]The same, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 319, p. 502.

[137]_The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 362.

[138]Suger: _Vita Lud. Grossi Regis_, cap. i. (to be found, as before,
in Bouquet, tom. xii. p. 12 E.) See, also, John of Salisbury: _Vita
Anselmi_; Migne: _Patrologiæ Cursus Completus_, tom. cxcix., cap.
xii., p. 1031 B.; or, as before, in Wharton’s _Anglia Sacra_, tom.
ii. p. 170.

[139]Quoted by Sharon Turner: _History of England_, vol. iv. p. 167.
See, as before, Migne: tom. cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.

[140]The word, however, is going out of use, and is more generally now
softened into hill. We meet with it in the perambulation of the
Forest made in the twenty-second year of Charles II.—“The same hedge
reaches Barnfarn from the right hand, right by Helclose, as far as
to a certain corner called Hell Corner.”

[141]For the geology of this part of the Forest see chapter xx.

[142]_Testa de Nevill_, p. 237 b. 130. See, also, p. 235 b. (118).
Throughout the Forest, as we have seen at Lyndhurst and
Brockenhurst, were similar feudal tenures. Some held their lands, as
the heirs of Cobbe, at Eling, by finding 50; and others, again, as
Richard de Baudet, at Redbridge, 100 arrows. _Testa de Nevill_, as
in the first reference; and p. 238 a. (132).

[143]See previous chapter, p. 96, foot-note.

[144]For some account of the contents of these barrows and potteries,
see chapters xvii. and xviii.

[145]Lewis: _Topographical Remarks on the New Forest_, p. 80, foot-note.
I have not, however, been able to find his authority. A tradition of
the sort lingers in the neighbourhood. Blount (_Fragmenta
Antiquitatis_, Ed. Beckwith, p. 115. 1815) says that Richard
Carevile held here six librates a year of land in chief of Edward
I., by finding a sergeant-at-arms for forty days every year in the
King’s army. See, also, the _Testa de Nevill_, p. 231 (101), No. 3.

[146]Dugdale: _Monasticon Anglicanum_, Ed. 1830, vol. vi., part ii., p.
761. Leland, however (_Itin._, vol. iii., f. 72, p. 88, Ed. Hearne),
says it was given to King’s College, Cambridge.

[147]_The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 26. _Florence of
Worcester_, Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 4.

[148]Same edition as before, p. iv. a. Its manor then belonged to that
of Rockbourne, and was held in demesne by the Conqueror, as it had
also been by Edward the Confessor. Two hydes and a half, and a wood
capable of supporting fifty swine, were taken into the Forest. From
the mention of a priest (_presbyter_), who received twenty shillings
from some land in the Isle of Wight, there may have been, though by
no means necessarily, a church, situated, as the old yew would
perhaps show, in the present churchyard, and of which the Norman
doorway may be the last remains.

The Valley of the Avon, as was mentioned in chapter v., p. 51,
foot-note, appears from its nature to have been, with the exception
of the east coast, the most flourishing district of any in the
neighbourhood of the Forest. It is worth, however, noticing that
many of its mills were rented not only by a money value, but by the
additional payment of so many eels. Thus at Charford (Cerdeford) the
mill is rented at 15_s._ and 1,250 eels, and at Burgate (Borgate)
the mill paid 10_s._ and 1,000 eels, whilst at Ibbesley (Tibeslei)
the rental was only 10_s._ and 700 eels (_Domesday_, as before, pp.
xix. a, iv. b, xviii. a). The latter place had two hydes, and
Burgate its woods and pasture, which maintained forty hogs, taken
into the Forest; but Charford with its ninety-one acres of
meadow-land, seems not to have been afforested, which, taken with
other instances, shows that the best land was, as a rule, spared.

[149]In the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1828, vol. 98, part, ii., p. 17,
is a sketch of the house, taken fifty years ago, which, with the
exception of some parts now pulled down, much resembles its present
condition.

[150]Monmouth, like a second Warbeck, was in all probability on his way
through the Forest to Lymington, where Dore, the mayor, had raised
for him a troop of men, and would assist him to embark. At
Axminster, in Dorsetshire, there is a local MS. record,
“_Ecclesiastica, or the Book of Remembrance_,” made by some member
of the Axminster Independent Chapel, of the sufferings of Monmouth’s
followers, which appears to have been unknown to Macaulay.

[151]There was formerly a cell here, subordinate to the Abbey of Saint
Saviour le Vicomte in Normandy, to which it was given by William de
Solariis, A.D. 1163, but dissolved by Henry VI., and its revenues
annexed to Eton. Tanner’s _Notitia Monastica_, Hants., No. xii. See,
also, Dugdale’s _Monasticon Anglicanum_, Ed. 1830, vol. vi., part.
ii., p. 1046.

[152]Same edition as before, p. iv. a. The entry is remarkably
interesting. Out of its ten hydes, four were taken into the Forest.
In the six which were left, there dwelt fifty-six villeins,
twenty-one borderers, six serfs, and one freeman. There were here
105 acres of meadow, a mill which paid 22_s._, and a church with
half a hyde of land. On the four hydes which were taken into the
Forest, fourteen villeins, and six borderers, who had seven
ploughlands, used to dwell. How very much the woodland preponderated
over the arable we may tell by the additional entry, that the woods
maintained 189 hogs, whilst a mill in that part was only assessed at
30_d._, which facts may help us to form some opinion of the kind of
soil that was in general afforested. The meadows, as usual, were not
touched.

[153]See Yarrell’s _History of British Fishes_, vol. ii. pp. 399-401.

[154]On this phenomenon, see Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, p. 139.

[155]The Ordnance map here falls into an error, placing Sandford a mile
too far to the south; whilst it omits the neighbouring village of
Beckley, the Beceslei of _Domesday_, and “The Great Horse,” a clump
of firs, so called from its shape, a well-known landmark in the
Forest, and to the ships at sea, as also “Darrat,” or “Derrit” Lane.

[156]In _Archæologia_, vol. v. pp. 337-40, is a description, illustrated
with a plan of these entrenchments, together with the adjoining
barrows, most of which have been opened, but the accounts are very
scanty and unsatisfactory.

[157]See Dr. Guest on the “Belgic Ditches,” vol. viii. of the
_Archæological Journal_, p. 145.

[158]Gibson, in his edition of _The Chronicle_—in the “nominum locorum
explicatio,” p. 50, seems to think that Yttingaford, where peace was
made between the Danes and Edward, was somewhere in the New Forest,
deriving the word from Ytene, the old name of the district. Mr.
Thorpe, however, in his translation of _The Chronicle_, vol. ii. p.
77, suggests that it may be Hitchen.

[159]_The Chronicle_. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 178. _Florence of
Worcester_, Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. pp. 117, 118.

[160]Grose, in his _Antiquities_ (vol. ii., under Christchurch Castle),
gives the following curious extract from a survey, dated Oct. 1656,
concerning the duties of Sir Henry Wallop, the governor:—“Mem.: the
constable of the castle or his deputy, upon the apprehension of any
felon within the liberty of West Stowesing, to receive the said
felon, and convey him to the justice, and to the said jail, at his
own proper costs and charges; otherwise the tything-man to bring the
said felon, and chain him to the castle-gate, and there to leave
him. Cattle impounded in the castle, having hay and water, for
twenty hours, to pay fourpence per foot.” The fee of the Constable
in the reign of Elizabeth was 8_l._ 0_s._ 9_d._ Peck’s _Desiderata
Curiosa_, vol. i., book ii., part. 5, p. 71. In the Chamberlain’s
Books of Christchurch we are constantly meeting with some such entry
as, “1564, ffor the castel rent for ij yeres—xiij_s._ v_d._” “1593,
ffor the chiefe rent to the castel—vi_s._ xi_d._”