Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 10.djvu/178

 172

NOTES AND QUERIES. [11 s. x. AUG. 29, 1914.

Mr Sollicitor conceived him very capable of yo r Mat 7 * grace And wee conceive it suitable to yo r Matys goodnes to take noe advantage of this forfeiture.

Oct 18. 1661. T. SOUTHAMPTON.

I can find no further reference to this petition among the State Papers or else- where, so we may assume it was granted. In the light of what has been already recorded in these articles, the following documents are particularly interesting, inasmuch as they indicate the extent of Sir Gregory Norton's estates, and the difficulties the Crown must have had to contend with in respect to the settlement of claims made by parties who had suffered, and were still suffering, for their fidelity to the Boyal cause :

" [? October, 1660.] Eobt Gordon Viscount Kenmure for a grant of Stockenham Rectory, co. Devon, and Clymsland Prior, and Landulph Manors, co. Cornwall, forfeited by Sir Gregory Norton, bart for treason in murdering the late King ; he settled them on his lady, who conveyed them to the petitioner, but by the power of the late times, they were taken from him." ' Cal. State Papers, Domes. Ser.,' 1660.

" 1661, July 25. Petition of Nicholas Delves ; Sir Henry Norton, son and heir apparent of Sir Gregory Norton, deceased, entered into a statute of 700Z. to petitioner on the 12 th March 1659-60,

Eetitioner being moved to furnish the money ecause he had often heard that Sir Gregory Norton had disinherited his son for his affection to His Majesty. Sir Henry was involved in a long and expensive suit at law before he could regain his estate. Petitioner did not know at the time he lent the money that Sir Gregory Norton had been in any way concerned in his late Majesty's death.

" Parliament having been pleased to allow all statutes etc upon the estates of such persons as are reserved to pains and penalties until Septem- ber 1659, petitioner had hopes his debt had been therein comprehended and secured, but finding the Bill has passed the House of Commons, and that he is therein excluded only in point of time, he prays that in case their Lordships shall think fit to take away the estate of Sir Henry Norton, they will allow petitioner's statute by way of proviso to the Bill." ' Cal. of House of Lords' MSS.,' Hist. MSS. Comm., 7th Report, App., 151A. " 1661, Nov. 27. Whitehall Petition of Nicholas Delves of London to the King. Lent 350Z. to Sir Henry Norton, bart on a bond of 700Z. because his father had disinherited him for loyalty. The money not being paid, extended the Manor & Rectory of Stokenham in Devonshire, for the debt, but it is forfeit by the treason of Sir Henry's father ; hears that it is re-granted to Sir Henry, who has taken it in another name, which will endanger his money. Asks satisfaction for the debt. With reference thereon to the Attorney & Solicitor General, and report of the latter that Sir Henry Norton should either pay the debt or have the grant of the lands passed in his own name." ' Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser.,' Chas. II., 1661-2.

" 1661, Dec. 28. Order that no 'grant of the Manor and Rectory of Stokenham in Devonshire be made until Sir Henry Norton have secured or paid a debt of 350Z. to Nicholas Delves, or that the grant to Sir Henry be made in his own name in order that the land may be liable for the debt." ' Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser.,' Chaa. II., 1661-2.

" 1662, March. Grant to Sir John Norton, bart and two others of the Rectory of Stokenham, co. Devon, with all lands etc belonging thereto, except the advowson of the church, now in the King's hands by forfeiture of Sir Gregory Norton, deceased." 'Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser.,' Chae. II., 1661-2.

ALBERT A. BARKAS.

Richmond, Surrey.

BETWEEN WINCHESTER AND LONDON (1 1 S. ix. 471). Having quoted the above in the columns of The Farnham, Hindhead, and Haslemere Herald, I have been favoured with permission to publish the following remarks, which MR. R. P. L. BOOKER, F.S.A., of Ling Cottage, Hindhead, and Eton College, Windsor, was kind enough to send me concerning the same.

MR. BOOKER says :

" Practically, no one knows the history of English roads between Roman times and the days of Charles II. It is a favourite device of writers to piece together fragments of old roads, and call the whole by a name which has at some time been applied to one or more of the fragments. And I strongly suspect that the so-called Pilgrims' Way is a case in point. What evidence there is for the name west of Guildford is, I expect, small.

" The permanence of the old roads was due as much to fairs as to pilgrimages, and the good order in which the Roman roads centring on Winchester and Cambridge still exist is due to the importance of St. Giles's Fair and Stourbridge Fair principally.

" When the Winchester authorities posted men to guard Alton Gap at fair-time (see Austen-Leigh's book on Chawton), I have no doubt it was to protect traders from London chiefly. Other traders would have been much less important.

" Alton Gap was, I presume, a gap between wooded tracts, and the road there to be protected was no doubt much on the line of the existing road near Med stead station. None of the roads thereabouts are Roman, though the first four or five miles out of Winchester may be so.

" When the roads emerge again in the seventeenth century into the fierce light of day Winchester is an unimportant place,