Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 6.djvu/95

 vi. JOLT 28,i«ni] NOTES AND QUERIES. 77 addition to Mr. Clark's list of mounds. The earthworks at Owston are only referred to in Murray's ' Lincolnshire ' as "embankments" they are there stated to be the remains of " tin formidable stronghold of the Mowbrays callec Kinnard Castle," and to surround the church It would be interesting to know the authority for S. T.'s suggestion that " the mounc was the site of the pre-Christian place o( worship." The immediate neighbourhood oi a church is the commonest place for a moatec mound, as it is for manorial sites in general the connexion being obvious enough. The fact is that these mounds were long a mere puzzle to most people, and, on the well- known principle of Nature s abhorrence of a vacuum, any suggestion relating to them was fondly adopted by those interested in the locality, and in a few years took rank as a "tradition." The example at St. Weonard's, Hereford- shire, included with a query in my list (v. 310), is called the grave of the patron saint of the parish ; it has been opened, and, accord- ing to Murray's ' Herefordshire," was "found to oe of a sepulchral character." This being the only information I have yet obtained, it may seem rash to include the example among "mottes," especially as no ditch or out- works can now be seen; yet a sepulchral barrow with a flat top 60 ft. across or there- about is not common. Another case included by me with a query was Thruxton, Herefordshire. This also has been opened, and I was told contained bones and crockery—but not human bones. Murray calls it "a tumulus conjectured to be of British formation." It has a flat top with an average diameter of about 50ft. The "Court" by which it stands (now a farmhouse) preserves the memory of the manorial cha- racter of the site. On visiting the extensive and very curious works of Barrow Castles, Lincolnshire, I was shown a plan of the last century on which they were described as " a heathen temple." Again, the works at Downton, Wilts, have been claimed as a "moot-hill," apparently by reading " mote " (or " moat," as the Ordnance map has it) as "moot," and accepting some formal garden terraces of a hundred years ago as seats for the wise men. The great mound at Tunbridge, in Kent, was claimed as Roman or earlier because a coin of Constantino was found on it. A clergyman whom I met at Castle Rising, Norfolk, was at some pains to prove to me that the site of the castle was originally a " Baal-hill," or temple of the sun. Even Mr. Clark seems to rest his theory almost entirely on the fact that moated mounds are found at some of the places where the 'Saxon Chronicle' records the erection of burhs : a singularly small foundation, which might be instantly provided with a " mal- voisin " in the other fact that such mounds are found (as he admits)at many places where the erection of castles after the Conquest is recorded. To return to Owston, the inclusion of the parish church within the earthworks of the castle (if correctly stated) is a rare case, though not without parallels, the most notable of which is perhaps the surrounding of the church of St. Mary, at Dover Castle, by the so-called Roman bank. J. A. RUTTER. There is apparently no reason to doubt that local tradition is correct in giving to the mound at Owston, near here, the name of the Castle Hill. "There was a castelle," says Leland (quoted in Read's ' History of the Isle of Axholme'), " at the southe side of the Churchgarth of Oxtun, whereof no piece now standetn. The dike and the hill where the arx stood yet be seene. It sume time called Kinnard." I suspect that Read, who closely follows Stonehouse all through his ' History,' was indebted to that authority for this quota- tion ; but I have not Stonehouse at hand. However this may be, there is no doubt that the mound marks the site of the castle of which Leland speaks. Read .says, "The site is a small eminence, containing about three acres of ground." It would be more correct to say a small eminence in an enclosure of about three acres. Probably this is what our local historian meant, for he goes on to say that the mound "measures within the ditch 270 paces " and "still retains its ancient form as when the arx or castle was standing. The moat in one place is plain to be seen, the sides being quite steep, as if newly cut." I visited the place recently, and found it as described. Who Kinnard was, or whether there ever was any Kinnard, is not known. The name is thought by some to be a corruption of King Edward (the Confessor). The castle Belonged at one time to the Mowbrays, and was destroyed (I am still following Read) by Henry II. in 1173. C. C. B. Epworth. IDENTIFYING JUNIUS (9th S. iv. 202; v. 509 ; vi. 33).—In acknowledging my obligation to MR. FRASER RAE for additional evidence, I cannot admit that " all that has been written about the identity of Junius is mere guess- work," a toss-up—heads or tails. By chance '. learnt that Lord Grenville knew who Junius was, and that he and Lady Grenville