vast monument of the 17th century, of marble painted and gilt, and the canopy rising nearly to the ceiling. It commemorates Sir Gabriel Pile, of Collingbourne, and Anne, his wife, the figures are very large. A.D. 1628 and 1640."

In the pavement of the chancel is a brass to Constantine Darrell and Joan his wife; the date of the death of the former is left blank, but that of the wife is given as the 8th day of December, 1495. The brass was probably executed on the death of the latter, and the date of the husband's death was not inserted later, as intended; but Mr. Kite records the fact that he survived his wife by 12 years. The effigy of the lady only is preserved. Constantine Darrell (younger son of William Darrell, of Littlecote) lived at Collingbourne Kingston; his wife, Joan, was daughter of Robert Collingbourne.

ALDBOURNE, MANOR, CHASE, AND WARREN.

By JOHN SADLER.

There is an interesting deed printed in the Wiltshire Notes and Queries, [Vol. iii., p. 271] showing how part of the Duchy of Lancaster property in Wilts was dealt with in the early years of the seventeenth century. The manor and other property of the Duchy at Aldbourne having been settled by a deed of 10th January, 14 Jas. I in trust for the Prince of Wales for 99 years; and by a deed of 20th June, 4 Chas. I transferred to William Williams, Robert Mitchell, Walter Markes, and Robert Marshe, nominees of the Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London—the Chase excepted— for the remainder of the term at a yearly rent of £135 15s. Od.; lands in Snapp, Upham, and Wanborough, parcel of the Manor, were on 1st July, 1631, conveyed to Hugh Hawkins and Anthony Martyn on the nomination of Edward Martyn of Swindon: and by them assigned to John Doyley, Richard Goddard and Henry Gearinge on 10th May, 1634, for the unexpired years of the term.

Further information is obtained from the Chancery Court Records.

In Hilary term 1675 Philip Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery brought an action in that court against the Earl of Middlesex to recover possession of the Warren, and the Court in giving judgment on 12th March 1677, summed up the evidence showing that the plaintiff stated that King Charles I soon after his accession was desirous of paying off a debt to the City of London incurred by his father and himself, and then amounting with interest to £229,897 2s. Od., and for that purpose conveyed to the City property including the Manor and Warren of Aldbourne; the Chase was excepted. The Warren was at the time held on lease at a yearly rent of £44 by William Earl of Pembroke, brother of plaintiff's grandfather, who also held the office of Keeper or Ranger of the Chase-to him and his heirs. The conveyance to the City was carried out by two separate deeds: one dated 20th June, 4 Chas. I already mentioned, dealing with the remainder of the term of 99 years: and the other made within three months later which conveyed the reversion of the same property to E. Ditchfield, John Highlord, Humfrey Clarke, and Francis Mosse in trust for the City : in both of these deeds it was mentioned that the yearly rent of £135 15s. Od. [in the Chancery records this is given at £135 Os. 6d.] was reserved to the Crown. Philip, Earl of Pembroke, plaintiff's grandfather, had secured a lease of the Warren from the City for the remainder of the 99 years, and had purchased the reversion. Philip, Earl of Pembroke, plaintiff's father, who died in 1669, and William, late Earl, plaintiff's brother, succeeded to the property; and Thomas Hawles the elder, one of the defendants, who had been one of his officers, conceiving that the Warren was excepted from the conveyance of 20th June, 4 Chas. I by the words excepting the Chase, prevailed with the Earl of Middlesex, then Charles Lord Buckhurst, one of the King's Bed-Chamber, to obtain for him a grant of it, and agreed to give

him £500 or some such sum when it was conveyed to him. The King authorised Sir Thomas Trevor, executor of the surviving trustee under the deed of 14 Jas. I, to assign the residue of the term to trustees, who assigned it to the Earl of Middlesex, and he granted it, or agreed to grant it, to the defendants, who in Easter term, 1674, commenced an action against Stephen Liddiard and William Sadler, then tenants of the late Earl; but before the suit was determined plaintiff's brother died. The case was tried and a special verdict was found which “yet hanged in the Court undetermined.” It was stated by defendant, Thomas Hawles the elder, in his answer that he agreed with plaintiff's father for a lease of the Warren for three lives for a fine of £1,000 and the ancient rent; that he enjoyed the Warren for some years, paying the rent and £150 of the fine, but before obtaining a lease he transferred the benefit of the agreement to John Norden for £500 clear gain that John Norden took the lease and paid the residue of the fine, and defendant Hawles was forced to sue for the £500 and money expended, and obtained a decree for near £3,000, but before satisfaction could be obtained Norton died. The Court in giving judgment was fully satisfied that there was an apparent equity for the plaintiffs: it appearing that the free Warren was contracted for and paid for by the City of London and the reversion and inheritance was expressly granted to Ditchfield, Highlord, and others, and ordered that the Earl of Middlesex should assign the remainder of the term of 99 years to the plaintiff, the Earl of Pembroke, that the same should attend the inheritance. And that so much of the Chase over which there was Warren stocked with coneys at the time of the lease granted to William Earl of Pembroke, plaintiff's great-uncle, and which was within the said lease, should be taken to be the Warren which was contracted for by the City of London and granted by the late King, and which defendent, the Earl of Middlesex, was directed to assign. In case of disagreement about the assignment the matter was referred to one of the Masters of the Court. The defendant Hawles was dismissed out of the suit. [Chancery Decree Rolls, No. 1057.]

Some difficulty may arise in attempting to distinguish between the Chase and the Warren, the latter being frequently described as the Chase or Warren, at times with the words "of coneys" added: thus the King conveyed to E. Ditchfield and others the Manor and the "Chase or Warren of Coneys," followed immediately by words excepting the Chase. The difficulty will I think disappear if we may understand the Chase to be the royal hunting grounds, which did not pass from the Crown during the time now dealt with, unless they passed under the Inclosure Act: and the "Chase or Warren" to be the coney Warren conveyed to the Earl of Pembroke. But this apparently careless description was ground on which the defendant Hawles based his attempt to obtain a grant of the Warren.

It will be observed that the Manor is not mentioned in the deed first referred to, or in the report of the Chancery Decree, except that it was settled by the deed of 14 Jas. I, and conveyed to the nominees of the City of London. It, or rather the reversion to it, was sold to Thomas Bond, of Ogbourne, on 13th January, 163, by E. Dichfield and other nominees of the City for £1956, subject to a yearly rent of £77 3s. 4d, part of the reserved rent of £135 15s. Od. payable by the City. The Chase was

exempted from this conveyance also, and further exemptions were the coney Warren already granted to the Earl of Pembroke, the lands granted to the nominees of Edward Martyn, and other lands granted to Edward Nicholas, of Aldbourne. [Close Rolls, 7 Chas. I., pt. xi., No. 7].

The "scite of the Manor" had been leased to Henry Hungerford, of Marston, and Oliver Nicholas, of Manningford. By a deed of 13th December, 20 Jas. I., reciting that Sir Henry Hobart, Thomas Murray, Esq., Sir James Fullerton, Sir John Walter, and Sir Thomas Trevor [the last four were among the trustees named in the deed of 10th January, 14 Jas. I] were possessed of the Manor to the use of Prince Charles: that Queen Elizabeth by indenture of 10th February, 1603, demised the reversion to Richard Goddard for 21 years on the expiration of a former lease to Anthony Hinton, Thomas Goddard, and John Hinton: and that the reversion so granted had been assigned to John Doyly: two-thirds of the scite of the Manor, the demesne lands and meadows in Wanborough belonging to the Manor, were granted, in consideration of the surrender of the indenture and payment of £360, with the consent of John Doyley, to Henry Hungerford from the preceding Michaelmas for 31 years, at a yearly rent of £18 4s. 4åd. The timber, mines, quarries, and royalties were excepted, and Henry Hungerford was bound to make a perfect record and “terror' of the premises within two years, setting forth the number of acres and the buttalls and boundaries: within one year to certify the number of trees; and to plant yearly twelve trees of oak, elm, or ash. A similar deed of the same date, reciting that the King by indenture of 13th June, 5 Jas. I, had demised the property to Thomas Goddard for 21 years on the expiration of the lease to Hinton, Goddard, and Hinton, the interest in which had come to John Doyly, granted the remaining third of the site of the Manor to Oliver Nicholas for 31 years from the previous Michaelmas at the ancient yearly rent of £10 14s. 2 d. [Duchy of Lancaster, Miscell. Bks., Vol. 87, fo. 113.]

The position, from the evidence so far available, seems at this time to have been that Thomas Bond had bought the reversion of the manor. Ditchfield and others, as nominees of the City of London, had only the reversion to dispose of, the remainder of the 99 years being in Williams and others the site of the manor and the demesne lands were already leased to Henry Hungerford and Oliver Nicholas; the Earl of Pembroke, besides having secured the extension of his lease for the remainder of the term of 99 years, had purchased the reversion of the Coney Warren; the nominees of Edward Martyn that of the lands in Snapp, Upham and Wanborough, of which they acquired the remainder of the term of 99 years at the same date, 1st July, 1631, as stated in the first-mentioned deed; and Edward Nicholas that of other lands [Pickwood]. The reserved rent of £135 15s. Od. was payable as follows:-by Bond, £77 38. 43d.; by the Earl of Pembroke, £44; by the nominees of Martyn, £8 3s. 4d.; and by Nicholas, £6 8s. 4d.

Thomas Bond was dead in May, 1653, when his will was proved [P.C.C. 220, Brent]. In the will he spoke of having purchased the present possession of the manor and the reversion of the chief manor house and demesne lands, which house and lands were then held on lease nearly expired by Thomas

:

Haynes, gent., and gave the use of the house to his wife for life after the expiration of the lease, unless she preferred to occupy his usual dwellingplace at Okebourne. It would by this appear probable that the leases of H. Hungerford and O. Nicholas, if then still in force, had passed to Thomas Haynes the term of 31 years would have ended at the following Michaelmas. Thomas Bond had sold to John Goddard, son and heir apparent of Edward Goddard, then of Upham, for £230, subject to a yearly rent of 19s., part of the £135 15s. 0 d., two messuages and two yard lands in Upham and Snapp, by indenture of 20th January, 11 Charles I as freely and fully as E. Dichfield and others by deed of 13 January, 7 Charles, had conveyed them to him—that is the reversion. [Close Rolls, 11 Charles I, pt. 9]. How he acquired the "present possession" I have not yet been able to trace. Besides his widow, unnamed, he left a son, George, and a daughter, Alice, both under age in 1649, when his will was made. He was, it is suggested, a son of Sir George Bond, Lord Mayor of London in 1587, who, although not a Wiltshire man, came from the west and was grandson of William Bond, of West Buckland, in Somerset. Sir George Bond died in 1592 and left three sons, William, George, and Thomas, the last two under age, and several daughters, including Rose, who married William Hale, of King's Walden, Herts, he had also a son-in-law, William Quarles; and Thomas Bond mentioned in his will a nephew, John Hale [Rose Hale had a son, John], and a nephew, William Quarles; the widow, Dame Winifred, survived Sir George Bond twenty-nine years, and by her will, dated 13th February, 18 James, and proved four months later, on 12th June, 1621 {P.C.C. 59 Dale], left the residue of her property to her son, Thomas, whom she made her executor. The son is probably the Thomas Bond described in Foster's Alumni Oxonienses as eq. fil." of Corpus Christi College, who matriculated 26th July, 1596, at the age of 16; and the Thomas Bond specially admitted to the Middle Temple as Secretary to Lord Ellesmere on 6th August, 1604-in his will he described himself as of the Middle Temple-and he may well be the Thomas Bond appointed, with Leonard Dare, Receiver for the Duchy of Lancaster for Wilts and some adjacent counties on 19th November, 1625 [Duchy of Lancs. Misc. Books, Vol. 88, fo. 40], and who thus became acquainted with the Aldbourne property before he purchased the manor. By his will he left the profits of his manor of Okborne St. George and St. Andrew, held on lease from King's College, Cambridge, and of the manor of Aldbourne and Aldbourne Chase [i.e., the chase of coneys, the free warren], held on lease from the Earl of Pembroke, to his executor for his son during his minority, and afterwards the manors, &c., to his son. It may be added that he bequeathed his chest in the Alienation Office (which is believed to have been in the Temple) to his successor. George Bond, the son of Thomas, sold the manor of Aldbourne to Richard Kent, described then as of London, under a deed dated 3rd March, 2 Jas. II. [but entered on the Close Roll for 1 Jas. II, part xi.] subject to a yearly payment of £77 3s. 41⁄2d., for £8,500. The largely increased price over that paid in 1632 seems to confirm Thomas Bond's claim to have purchased “the present possession " and the expiration of the leases of 20 James I, particularly as the property had been reduced by the sale of houses and land at Upham and Snapp for £230 in 1635. George Bond died in October, VOL. XLII.-NO. CXL. 2 R