42 Broughton Gifford. 



on either side did not care for the preservation of the bridge, they 

 did not want horse ways and foot paths across their grounds. There 

 were others who thought the destruction of the bridge would be a 

 subject of much regret ; it was a handsome structure, with four 

 arches, in a most convenient position for the public, being the only 

 means of crossing the river between Melksham and Staverton, and 

 equidistant from either, being also the direct line of communica- 

 tion between Broughton Gifford, Atworth, Chalfield, Whitley, and 

 Monkton Farleigh on the north, with Whaddon, Hilperton, Sem- 

 ington, Seend, Bulkington, Keevil, and Steeple Ash ton on the 

 south of the river. They determined therefore, in order to fix the 

 liability of repairing on some one, to bring the question before the 

 Quarter Sessions. The law was clear that the highway must not 

 be lost to the public, and that the county must repair, except there 

 were legal proofs of the liability of others. The court very pro- 

 perly resolved to make every inquiry on this bead, before throwing 

 the burden of the repairs on the county. Investigations elicited 

 that Monkton bridge was built in 1725. The owner of Monkton 

 has a map of the estate, and at a line denoting the bridge is this 

 note: — "A foot bridge built with stone, Anno 1725, in the place 

 where a tree laid across had before afforded a passage to foot tra- 

 vellers across the river." The tree must have been a noble stick, for 

 the river is there twenty- six yards wide. In 1737 an order was made 

 on the hundreds of Bradford and Melksham, not exceeding £25 

 each, for the repairs. At this time the justices in Quarter Sessions 

 were empowered under the Statutes 22nd Henry VIII. and 1st Ann 

 to make assessments on every parish or place within their jurisdic- 

 tion towards the maintenance of bridges. And this separate rating 

 continued until 12th George II., when the several rates were con- 

 solidated and a general county rate substituted. Hence a common 

 saying about here, when any mischief was done to the bridge, 

 "There's something for the two hundreds to pay." It was dis- 

 covered also that the bridge had been repaired by the late Mr. 

 Thomas Bruges of Melksham, a magistrate, in 1811 and 1819, but 

 nobody knew at whose expense. The upshot of the whole matter 

 was, that the county, being unable to fix any legal liability else- 



