Another agreement, that every brother in arrear for his quarter pence, and who shall not have discharged the same by the next general meeting, shall be absolutely expelled the Fraternity.

1770. 9th Jany. An agreement by the Master and seven of the Company, whose signatures are attached, to surrender their right in the Weaver's Hall' to Mr.Robt. Neate, for the sum of £13 2s. 6d. The annual account of the Fraternity for 1769-70, showing a balance in hand of £37 8s. 8d.

Names of twenty-one of the Company who attended dinner at the Antelope, 3rd July, 1770; also of nine others who paid their quarter pence to June 26th, 1769.

Receipt from Francis Bayly, (apparently the clerk of the Company,) to Mr. Thomas Burrough, for the sum of 15s. 4d., being one year's salary due 3rd July, 1770.

Memorandum of the payment by Thomas Burrough to the Members of the Company their respective shares of the Plate belonging thereto, weighing 15 ozs. 10 dwts., and valued at £4 0s. 6d. July 27th, 1770.

The third volume, containing the Ordinances for the Company of Leathersellers, has not been met with, but it was doubtless very similar to those of the Drapers' and Mercers' Companies.

Devizes, July, 1857.

EDWARD KITE.

The Weaver's Hall formed a portion of the block of houses between the Market-place and Wine street, as appears by the following extracts from the minutes of Council, A.D. 1776, (six years after its surrender by the Companies,) for which I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Waylen.

"1776. Dec. 24. Surrender by Robt. Neate of Lease of premises in Wine street for £279.

"Surrender by James Sutton of tenement in Wine street for £95.

"Lease granted by Robt. Neate of part of premises, comprised in his lease surrendered, and part of Mr. Sutton's, with part of the Weaver's Hall over the same. Term 99 years. Fine £280. Rent £42 6s.

"Lease granted to Thomas Godden premises, and the Weaver's Hall. afterwards reduced to £14."

of part of Mr. Suttons's and Mr. Neate's Term 99 years. Fine £96. Rent £18 6s.

There will, I think, be little difficulty in identifying this as the property forming the north side of Wine street.

175

The Battle of Ethandun.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE “WILTSHIRE ARCHEOLOGICAL MAGAZINE."

IR,-Although I should deprecate the practice of prolonged controversy in your work, yet I presume that it is not inconsistent with its plan, that some notice may be taken of propositions in antiquarian research, which are published therein, particularly when they are adverse to those which are generally received. Under this impression I beg leave to bring to the recollection of your readers the statement insisted on by Dr. Thurnam,' that the site of the battle of Ethandun is the modern Yatton, and that the opinions of antecedent antiquaries that Edington is the spot where the victory of Alfred was achieved, must yield to the contradictory assertion of Whitaker who first maintained the view which Dr. Thurnam supports. If the point were to be decided by the authority of names, there could be no question as to the verdict which should be given. From Camden to Sir Richard Hoare a list of eminent writers might be produced who are opposed to this, comparatively modern, notion; but I shall give them no more weight than what is due to the opportunities they possessed of investigating the fact, and their accredited amount of capacity for turning those investigations to a proper account. I will proceed then to notice the arguments of Dr. Thurnam, in the order in which they have been given.

Of these, the first in favour of his hypothesis, is the greater proximity of Yatton to Chippenham, "it being expressly stated

1 See Wiltshire Archæological Magazine, vol. iii. p. 80.

2 It is worthy of remark that Camden states Edington to be the site of the battle, as an undoubted fact; the ancient tradition in its favour therefore, cannot be denied, and it is further observable that Camden appears to have personally investigated the neighbourhood of Chippenham, and that he found or heard nothing there opposed to the popular assignment of the site.

that the Danes had their quarters at that place both before and after the battle." This is an observation no doubt in one sense important; but its whole weight refers to a question of time, and it can be tested by no authority or express statement whatever, which either proves or intimates that the "quarters of the Danes were at Chippenham" immediately before, or immediately after the battle.

Asser indeed informs us that they passed the previous winter at that place, which he calls a royal villa, reducing almost entirely to subjection all the people of that country, but the ensuing summer (during which the action occurred') would necessarily be devoted to incursions beyond that immediate neighbourhood, which must by that time have been despoiled of all sustenance required for a marauding and foreign army; the inhabitants, as the same writer informs us, being "driven beyond sea, by want of the necessaries of life." There is no natural barrier between Chippenham and Edington which could prevent its occupation, and that of the surrounding country by the Danes, and the fortress of Bratton connected with it would necessarily have been seized by them as a strong hold, and the key of any military operations or predatory expedition. It is not improbable that the Danish host may have returned to Chippenham after the battle, (for they may have as easily marched fifteen miles as five when a treaty was concluded,) but there is no direct inference that they did return there, except the subsequent statement that they left the place the following year.

Dr. Thurnam's next proof is founded on an objection to the relative distances of the places assumed by previous writers to be those mentioned by Asser in the line of march taken by Alfred. He admits, and he can scarcely deny the identity of Brixton with Ecgbright's stone, but he repudiates both Bucley and Westbury Leigh as the representatives of Æglea, because the one being five miles only, and the other but nine, from Brixton, "these distances seem too short for a day's march, when the king is described as setting forth at dawn, and with the head quarters of the enemy at Chippenham, a distance of at least twenty-five miles." I suggest, however, that in this sentence the ingenious writer in some measure

The 7th week after Easter, Asser; Turner fixes the date on the 11th May.

begs the question. If by head quarters he means the seat for the time being of the Danish government or the sovereign, he may be allowed the expression; but if the term is applied to the army, that is the very point in discussion; and it remains to shew, whether good reasons may not be adduced for believing the "head quarters" to have been not "at Chippenham, twenty-five miles. distant," but at Edington and Bratton camps, within eight miles of Cleyhill or Bucley, and four miles of Westbury Leigh.

It is difficult, at this period of time, to ascertain the reasons which would determine a leader to make a long or a short day's march, but I will so far anticipate a future observation, as to remark, that as surprize was obviously the plan of Alfred, his progress would be decided with a view, not merely to activity, but to concealment. Both these stations were within the friendly covert of the forest which shrouded the design of the Saxon King, and at Cleyhill was an encampment which would be another security for a night's occupation, sufficiently near to Edington to admit of an action on the subsequent day. That it did there take place, Dr. Thurnam can scarcely, with seriousness, deny, for it is the statement of Asser, the only cotemporary historian, who after step by step and day by day tracing the progress of Alfred to Iglea, adds, “the next morning he removed to Edington, and fighting fiercely and bravely in a compact body against the army of the pagans, by divine permission obtained the victory;" the removal and the battle being stated without interruption in this diurnal narrative.1 It is moreover to be remarked, that this writer uses the term, "castrametatus est," to denote the security as well as occupancy for the night, but it is incomprehensible that this progress, even in a slighter form, could be effected in an open plain in the face of an enemy already in possession of the country.

"Inde sequenti mane illucente vexilla commovens ad locum qui dicitur Ethandum venit, et contra universum paganorum exercitum cum densa testudine atrociter belligerans, animoseque diu persistens, divino nutu tandem victoriâ potitus, paganos maxima code prostravit." The use of the participle present I submit substantiates this fact. Dr. Giles translates belligerans "and there fought," which might lead to some doubt on the subject; he omits altogether the mode of attack densâ testudine, probably indicating a sudden onslaught on the camp.

The contradictory quotation from the work of Simeon of Durham, for whose inflated style (and consequently inaccurate expression) an apology is offered, can have no weight: as this author lived in the reign of Edward III., and did not depart this life till 479 years after the victory was gained. But we are further assured that the Danes would not have advanced so far south as Edington, fourteen or fifteen miles from Chippenham, on hearing of the king's approach. I must confess my inability to receive this statement in the light of a self-evident proposition. If the Danes did hear of the approach of Alfred, the plain of Edington, supported by the strong fortress of Bratton, would be a spot favourable to the interception of the invading force and to the manoeuvres of a superior army, and in choosing such a site for the battle, they would have followed the general, I might almost say, the invariable, example of their predecessors. But there is not the slightest proof that they did hear of the king's approach, and the more reasonable presumption would support the tradition, that whilst they were on some predatory expedition, Alfred, (in the words of old Speed,) "on the suddeine, set uppon the carelesse campe of the Danes, and made thereof a very great slaughter."

Dr. Thurnam next observes, that "even if Edington might be admitted as the site of the battle, we shonld still demur to accepting the camp of Bratton as the Danish fortress." If this latter observation can be maintained, I will readily yield the question in dispute; and will agree, that the battle could not have been fought at Edington, if Bratton is not to be identified with the fortress to which the Danes afterwards retreated. But so far from admitting the difficulty of that retreat, I presume it to be consistent with the most obvious view of the case. Alfred emerging from the forest and woody tracts, which extended beyond Westbury Leigh, must of course, have attacked, to the north of Bratton; the ridge of down preventing the meeting of the hostile armies in any other direction. Mr. Britton indeed objects to the identity of Bratton, on account of its position between Edington and Cleyhill, which would infer a retreat through the conquering army; but (referring to the map), if we consider that this fortress is separated by the ridge of down