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.

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 1st 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.

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.

Tariff of Prices:	Per day.
	s.	d.
Sitting-rooms from	5	0
Bedrooms from	2	6
	Per head.
Plain breakfast	2	0
Breakfast with chop or steak	2	6
,, fish, ham and eggs	3	0
Luncheons:
Bread and cheese	0	9
Sandwich	1	0
Light soups	1	0
Cold meat	2	6
Dinners:
Soup and chop, vegetables, and cheese	3	6
With either soup or fish and entrée	4	0
Ditto with sweets	4	6
Teas:
Plain	1	6
With eggs	2	0
Single cup of tea	0	6
Servants’board, 5s. per day.

Gentlemen’s coffee-room, ladies’ drawing-room, smoking and billiard-room.

Visitors are requested, if possible, to write to the Manager for accommodation.

Table d’Hôte, Breakfasts, 3s.; Luncheons, 2s. 6d.; Dinners, 5s. These meals run for two hours, and are served at separate tables.