Part 4

situated on the banks of the Avon, is in the parish of Wilsford, and about three miles south of Amesbury. The exact date of its foundation is uncertain. Its main features are Elizabethan, but an old letter in the possession of the family clearly suggests an earlier date. “As to ye date of ye house,” says the correspondent, “I do not remember anything in that beautifully written deed to which you refer that would bear on it. Great weight would belong to any opinion expressed by ye late J. H. Parker, and you told me that you thought it might be as early as Edward VI. or earlier, and probably Parker judged only by what he saw, and ye architectural features that remain have in them nothing distinctive in comparison with those what have vanished.” Lake House is one of the most beautiful in this neighbourhood, and is built of the usual stone and flint; it possesses yew hedges and delightful old-fashioned gardens sloping to the river. It was purchased in 1591 by George Duke, and it remained in the Duke family till 1897, when (just in time to save the old house from utter ruin) it was bought by Mr. J. N. Lovibond, and most beautifully restored by the architect, Mr. Detmar Blow, according to the views of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. There are barrows in the park at Lake, and many curious objects, such as amber necklaces, &c., were discovered in them about fifty years ago during excavations made by the late Mr. Duke. Some of the things then found are in the British Museum. A cottage industry is now carried on in the village of Lake: a sort of rough tweed in pretty colours being made in hand looms by the women. This tweed is called “Stonehenge” cloth, and is not expensive.

GREAT DURNFORD CHURCH.

Leaving Amesbury, and following the eastern banks of the Avon, we come to Great Durnford. Its name is derived from the British word “dur,” signifying water. The church is most picturesque, and is built of stone and flint, with very rich Norman north and south doorways and chancel arch. The font is Norman, with an interesting arcade. The pulpit is of oak and dated 1619, and has a very old velvet cover with 1657 worked on it. Built into the wall of the church is a stone coffin containing a skeleton, supposed to be that of the founder. Traces of two doors leading to the rood loft can still be seen, and in one window are the remains of some very old glass. Inside the south door are several curious crosses, supposed to be dedication crosses. In the chancel is a leper’s window. The altar rails are of oak, and date back to the sixteenth century. The pattern on the walls is the same as that found some years ago under the plaster and whitewash. There is a curious brass to the memory of Edward Young, his wife, and fourteen children, dated 1670. In the chancel, chained to an ancient desk, is a copy of Jewel’s “Apologie of the Church of England,” ordered by Convocation after the Reformation, 1571.

GREAT DURNFORD HOUSE

was once a seat of the Hungerfords. Evelyn notes in his Diary, July, 1654:—“We dined at a ferme of my Uncle Hungerford’s called Darneforde magna, situate in a valley under the plaine, most sweetly watered, abounding in troutes, catched by speares in the night when they come attracted by a light set in ye sterne of a boate.”

It is in the French château style on a small scale, and has lovely old-fashioned gardens, quite unspoiled, with some rare trees growing in them. At the end of the last garden flows the Avon, and picturesque Durnford Church stands close by. In 1869 Mr. Pinckney bought the house and some of the estate from the Earl of Malmesbury.

OGBURY CAMP.

On the eastern side of the Avon is a very ancient earthen work called Ogbury Camp. Sir Richard Colt Hoare thus describes it:—“On this hill we recognize the very early and simple handiwork of the Britons, unaltered by their successors and conquerors, the Romans and Saxons. Here we see a large tract of sixty-two acres enclosed within a single rampart, and without any fosse to strengthen it against the attacks of an enemy, and we perceive within the area the evident marks of enclosures, and only one entrance to the east. On the northern side the ramparts followed the windings of the hill, and are interrupted by the plantations of Lord Malmesbury’s demesne. The area contains sixty-two acres and a quarter. The circuit of the outer ditch is one mile, one furlong and fifty-five yards, and the depth of the vallum is thirty-three feet. On the south-east and west sides the ramparts are very much mutilated. I cannot consider Ogbury as a camp or work of defence against an invading enemy, but rather as an asylum or place of refuge, whither the Britons, in times of danger, retired with their families and herds of cattle. On digging within this area we could not find any marks of ancient residence, but on some high ground adjoining the extraordinary verdure of the turf induced us to dig into the soil, where we immediately found numerous bones of animals with fragments of the rudest British pottery.”

[Picture: Heale House]

HEALE HOUSE, MIDDLE WOODFORD.

_The Residence of the Honourable Louis Greville_; _bought by him from Sir E. Loder_, 1894.

This house, beautifully built of small red bricks, has stone-coped windows in the Dutch style of architecture introduced into this country by William III., and is quite unlike the usual stone and flint “chequered” houses of the neighbourhood. You enter the grounds through old wrought-iron gates and down an avenue of elm-trees. The river Avon flows through the garden. This property formerly belonged to the Errington and Hyde families. Inside the house little remains of the old decorations but some carved woodwork. A cupboard in a bedroom is shown as the hiding-place of Charles II. after the battle of Worcester. He is said to have visited Stonehenge from Heale, and there met friends who were to conduct him to the coast of Sussex prior to his escape from England. He is supposed to have proved to his own satisfaction the fallacy of the notion of the impossibility of counting the stones composing Stonehenge.

“In 1721 Robert Hyde bequeathed Heale to his sister, Mrs. Levinz, widow of the Bishop of Sodor and Man, and she, by will, devised the estates to her son-in-law, Michael Frampton of Oxford, and he, in his turn, left them to his nephews, Thomas Bull, rector of Porton, and Edward and Simon Polhill and their heirs in succession, in default thereof to William Bowles; in seventeen years after the death of the testator, Canon Bowles was in full possession of the property.” Several members of the Bowles family lie buried in Salisbury Cathedral. Heale Hill is remarkable for a circle on the summit and traces of a British village on the south slope.

[Picture: Little Durnford]

LITTLE DURNFORD HOUSE.

Built of stone and flint, successively the property of the families of Pregers, Wodhull, and Tropnell, afterwards Yonge or Young. In 1795 it was sold to Edward Hinxman, whose descendants sold it in 1897 to Mr. Devenish (the present owner). The Avon, flowing through the grounds, has been artificially widened in one place, forming a miniature lake in front of the house.

ENVOI.

With much regret I find myself at the end of my little book, which, I hope, will help to describe a beautiful and interesting country. It has been compiled from various learned sources, and only a small portion of it can claim to be original. I shall consider myself fortunate if the traveller finds _any_ pleasure in reading what has given me great pleasure to write.

FLORENCE CAROLINE MATHILDE ANTROBUS.

_June_, 1900.

APPENDIX. THE RECENT WORK AT STONEHENGE. {43}

AT a meeting held last March at Stonehenge, and attended by representatives of the Society of Antiquaries, of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Monuments, and the Wiltshire Archæological Society, various plans and measures were discussed and suggested for the better preservation of Stonehenge. The whole state of the surrounding neighbourhood being changed from its former quietude by the introduction of new elements, such as the military camps at Bulford, &c., the making of the new branch line of the South-Western Railway (from Grateley to Amesbury), it became necessary to meet the altered circumstances by the exercise of greater precautions for the care of the beautiful old Sun Temple standing in the midst of the grass-clothed downs—a thing of wonder and mystery to behold. The advice given to Sir Edmund Antrobus by the representatives of these societies was as follows, published in the _Times_ of April 3:—

_Resolutions_.

(1) That this Committee approves of the suggested protection of Stonehenge by a wire fence not less than 4 ft. high, following on two sides the existing roads and crossing on the west from the 331-foot level on the north road to the 332-foot level on the south road shown on the O.S. map (1-2, 500), Wilts sheet liv. 14.

(2) That the Committee recommends, without prejudice to any legal question, that the local authorities be requested to agree to divert the existing track-way or ridge-way from Netheravon now passing through the earth circle so as to pass from the 302-foot levels in the O.S. map immediately west of Stonehenge.

(3) That stones 6 and 7 with their lintel, and stone 56 (according to the numbering on Mr. Petrie’s plan) be first examined, with a view of maintaining them in a position of safety.

(4) That, in the opinion of this Committee, stone 22 should be replaced, stone 21 be made safe, and the lintel of 21 and 22 be replaced in the most safe and conservative manner. The Committee also recommends the re-erection of stones 57 and 58, and their lintel 158.

(5) That the instructions to custodians already in force be approved with a few suggested alterations.

(6) That this Committee feels that it is impossible to overstate the value of the assistance which the County Council of Amesbury can give to the efforts made to preserve this unique monument.

(7) That these resolutions be sent to Sir Edmund Antrobus with the earnest thanks of the Committee, for the part he is proposing to take in the preservation of Stonehenge, also that it be left to him to communicate with the Press.

* * * * *

The fence was erected by Whitsuntide, and is 1700 yards in circumference, and composed of lightest barbed wire of a neutral tint, and absolutely invisible at a distance, so that the traveller gets the whole effect of Stonehenge in its full grandeur instead of, as in former days, the view of the stones mingled with two or three flys, a cart, an old waggonette, and photographer’s van, &c., to say nothing of picnic luncheons, spread out within the sacred circle. This fence encloses as large an area as possible, being well outside the vallum, except on the west side, where a right of way interferes with the true circle. The next work undertaken—the most difficult and important of the whole—was the raising of the “leaning stone”—the largest monolith in England except Cleopatra’s needle—to an upright position. This stone formed one of the uprights of the trilithon, the fall of which was said to have been caused by the digging and researches of the Duke of Buckingham in 1620. The horizontal and the other upright (the latter broken in two pieces) now lie prostrate across the altar stone.

[Picture: The work at Stonehenge. Raising the Leaning Stone]

The great stone leaned considerably towards the N.E. and appeared to rest upon (actually touching at one point) a beautiful little pillar stone of syenite, the danger being that in some storm, especially after a heavy fall of snow and sudden thaw, the great stone would break in three pieces (having three veins) in falling, and also crush the smaller stone beneath it.

That a forward movement was continually taking place is shown by observations taken by Mr. Flinders Petrie some years ago. It then leaned at an angle of 66, which has been increased to one of 60.5 degrees lately. The work of the raising of the stone was begun on August 18th and finished September 25th, and was under the direct supervision of Mr. Gowland, Mr. Detmar Blow, architect, and his assistant Mr. Stallybrass, and Mr. Carruthers, engineer. The first thing done was to make a fitting to the stone of a strong timber cradle, so as to protect it from injury by the immense iron chains and ropes placed round it, these being attached to winches worked by men, so that the stone was actually “wound up,” so to speak, into an upright position. Hydraulic jacks were also used. The whole thing was most carefully and slowly done, and devotedly watched over by the workers. A rectangular excavation was made in front of the stone, a square excavation at the back. A frame of wood with numbers at equal distances apart was placed over the ground, which was excavated in sections, and the earth was most carefully sifted in layers through four grades of sieves in such a manner that the position of every object found could be recorded. The excavations round the base of the stone are now filled with concrete, and the large struts which uphold it will remain in their positions for six months, until the concrete be thoroughly set.

The objects found were one Roman coin and one George III. penny at a shallow depth, and many chippings of both the blue and sarsen stones. Numerous flint axe-heads and large stone hammers were also found at a depth of from two feet to four feet six inches underground; all tending to prove the great antiquity of Stonehenge—at least Neolithic. But all this will be discussed scientifically later on.

FLORENCE C. M. ANTROBUS.

* * * * *

1904. A. No. 335.

In the High Court of Justice. CHANCERY DIVISION. MR. JUSTICE FARWELL.

_Writ issued the_ 1_st day of March_ 1904.

BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL at and by the relation of FRANK TUCKER, THOMAS MERCHANT, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN SHAW LEFEVRE, SIR JOHN TOMLINSON BRUNNER, Bart., and WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS PETRIE and the said FRANK TUCKER, THOMAS MERCHANT, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN SHAW LEFEVRE, SIR JOHN TOMLINSON BRUNNER, Bart., and WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS PETRIE . . . _Plaintiffs_

AND

SIR EDMUND ANTROBUS, Bart. . . . _Defendant_.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

Delivered the 17th day of March 1904 by HORNE & BIRKETT of 4 Lincoln’s Inn Fields in the County of London Solicitors for the Plaintiffs.

1. On Stonehenge Down in the Parish of Amesbury in the County of Wilts there are a group of stones and surrounding earthworks which are together known as Stonehenge. Stonehenge which is of very great antiquity originally formed an ancient building and place of assembly for public worship the burial of the dead deliberation on public affairs or other public purposes and since it has ceased to be so used has remained a national monument and place of resort of great public interest.

2. Until the acts of the Defendant hereinafter complained of there was and there now ought to be free access for the public to Stonehenge by means of roads running up to and through the same the sites of which roads are shown on the plan hereunto annexed and are thereon coloured green.

3. The said roads were at the time of the said acts and are public highways for all His Majesty’s liege subjects to go and return on foot and with horses and carriages at all times of the year at their free will and pleasure.

4. Stonehenge is subject to a trust created by a grant or declaration of trust which if in writing has been lost or by a Statute which has been lost for the free user by the public of Stonehenge as a place of resort and for the free access of the public thereto by means of the said roads and the site of Stonehenge has since the creation of such trust been held by the owners thereof for the time being subject to the said trust.

5. The Defendant has lately erected and maintains and threatens and intends to maintain upon Stonehenge Down aforesaid fences along the lines shown upon the said plan and thereon coloured red. The said fences obstruct the said roads or some of them at the points marked respectively A. B. C. D. and E. on the said plan and are obnoxious to and interfere with the rights and privileges of His Majesty’s liege subjects referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof.

6. The Defendant has been requested to remove the said fences but he has refused and still refuses to do so and threatens and intends to maintain the same and the obstructions hereinbefore complained of.

The Plaintiffs therefore claim—

1. An order that the Defendant remove the said fences where they respectively obstruct the said roads or any of them.

2. An injunction to restrain the Defendant his servants workmen and agents from erecting upon the said lands or any part thereof any fence or other erection so as to obstruct and from in any way obstructing the said roads or any of them.

3. Costs.

C. GURDON.

R. B. FINLAY.

* * * * *

1904. A. No. 335.

In the High Court of Justice. CHANCERY DIVISION, MR. JUSTICE FARWELL.

BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL at and by the relation of FRANK TUCKER, THOMAS MERCHANT, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN SHAW LEFEVRE, SIR JOHN TOMLINSON BRUNNER, Bart., and WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS PETRIE and the said FRANK TUCKER, THOMAS MERCHANT, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN SHAW LEFEVRE, SIR JOHN TOMLINSON BRUNNER, Bart., and WILLIAM MATTHEW FLINDERS PETRIE . . . _Plaintiffs_

AND

SIR EDMUND ANTROBUS, Bart. . . . _Defendant_.

DEFENCE.

1. As to paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim it is not admitted that Stonehenge was made or ever used for such purposes as in the said paragraph mentioned or any of them or for any public purpose. Stonehenge is and has been from time immemorial and in fact at all times private property and not national or public property and resort thereto by the public has always been by permission of the owner of the land and not as of right.

2. As to paragraph 2 the principal part of Stonehenge lies in an angle between and near to two public roads leading from Amesbury to Shrewton and to Winterbourne Stoke respectively. A public way or track leading from Netheravon to Lake crosses these two roads and also crosses part of Stonehenge but except the right to use this way or track (which is outside the fence erected by the Defendant and has not been in any way obstructed by him) there never has been any access for the public to Stonehenge otherwise than by permission of the owner of the land on which it is situate. The alleged road running up to and through Stonehenge the sites of which are purported to be shown on the plan annexed to the Statement of Claim and are thereon coloured green (except the way or track from Netheravon to Lake aforesaid) do not exist either in law or in fact and never have existed.

3. Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim is denied except as to the way or track from Netheravon to Lake aforesaid.

4. Paragraph 4 is altogether denied. Stonehenge is not and never was subject to any trust for user or access by the public or to any public trust.

5. As to paragraphs 5 and 6 the Defendant has for the better preservation of Stonehenge erected and maintains a fence round the land lying within the triangle formed by the said two public roads and the way or track from Netheravon to Lake not obstructing or interfering with any public right of way. Save as aforesaid paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim are denied.

F. VAUGHAN HAWKINS.

Delivered the 27th day of April 1904 by FARRER & Co. of 66 Lincoln’s Inn Fields in the County of Middlesex Solicitors for the Defendant.

* * * * *

This case commenced in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, on Tuesday, March 28th, and continued on the 29th and 30th. Again on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 11th and 12th of April. Mr. Justice Farwell delivered his considered judgment on the 19th, concluding as follows:—

“I hold, therefore, that the access to the circle was incident only to the permission to visit and inspect the stones, and was, therefore, permissive only, and, further that the tracks to the circle are not thoroughfares, but lead only to the circle, where the public have no right without permission, and, therefore, are not public ways. The action accordingly fails, and ought never to have been brought. It is plain that the vicinity of the camp and the consequent increase of visitors compelled the defendant to protect the stones if they were to be preserved; and he has done nothing more than is necessary for such protection. I desire to give the relators credit for wishing only to preserve this unique relic of a former age for the benefit of the public, but I fail to appreciate their method of attaining this. The first claim to dispossess the defendant of his property is simply extravagant, so much so that, although not technically abandoned, no serious argument was addressed to me in support of it. The rest of the claim—for rights of way over the network of tracks shown on the plaintiffs’ plan—if successful would defeat the relators’ object. If these ways were left unfenced and heavy traffic passed through the circle, there would be great risk of injury, and even without such traffic there is great risk from the increased numbers of passers-by. As Sir Norman Lockyer (whose interesting application of the Orientation theory to Stonehenge has recently appeared) says in one of his articles:—‘The real destructive agent has been man himself—savages could not have played more havoc with the monument than the English who have visited it at different times for different purposes.’ I feel no confidence that the majority of tourists have improved, nay, rather,—‘Aetas parentum, pejor avis, tulit Nos nequiores.’ It is only fair to the defendant to say that he is not acting capriciously but on expert advice for the preservation of the stones. If, on the other hand, the roads are all fenced off, the general appearance would be ruined, and no human being would be in any way the better. It is not immaterial to remark that this is not the action of the District or the County Council to preserve rights of way, but is brought on the relation of strangers on the score of the public interest in Stonehenge. The action is dismissed with costs.”

Mr. Warmington:—“My Lord, there is only one matter with regard to costs I think, and that is the question of the Commission. {52} My Lord, those were reserved, and they will be costs in the action.”

Mr. Justice Farwell:—“Yes. I may say this—it sometimes saves trouble, and it is not unusual, I have done it before, and I think I may say it now—that this is a case in which the taxing master should allow three counsel.”

Mr. Warmington:—“If your Lordship pleases. I was instructed to apply; but according to the practice it is done after taxation.”

Mr. Justice Farwell:—“I know it is. But I have done it before. You see the matter is now fresh in my recollection, and a summons to vary might come before other Judges.”

Mr. Warmington:—“If your Lordship pleases.”

HOTELS AT SALISBURY.

THE WHITE HART (_near the Cathedral_).

Carriages and horses for Stonehenge, Wilton, and the New Forest may be had.

PRICES FOR STONEHENGE, &C.—The complete drive _viâ_ Amesbury to Stonehenge and back by Lake House and the Valley.

_£_ _s._ _d._ One horse carriage, for 2 persons 0 13 0 ,, ,, ,, ,, 3 ,, 0 18 0 Two ,, ,, 2 ,, 1 1 0 „ „ „ „ 3 „ 1 5 0 „ „ „ „ 4 „ 1 10 0

These prices include the driver and waiting, baiting, &c.