THE MYSTERY OF CORFE. 53 



and there is no indication given of whether it was her own 

 property or not. 



It may, I think, be conceded that the house or residence 

 was the property of Elfrida, and there are three sites which 

 will require careful consideration. 



The first to be dealt with is that which has been generally 

 accepted since the 12th Century, to wit Corfe Castle. 



Let the matter be stated quite clearly, the allegation being 

 that the fatal blow was struck within the precincts of the 

 present Castle. Now, be it remembered, the conditions 

 requiring to be fulfilled are that the site must have belonged 

 to Elfrida, and that she must have had a residence there. 

 Unless one or both of these statements can be proved, the 

 claim of Corfe Castle fails. It is not enough to advance the 

 statement in Brompton ; it is necessary to prove from other 

 sources that his declaration is correct. This is impossible, 

 and that being so, it may be fairly stated that there is no 

 evidence extant which in any way connects Corfe Castle with 

 the crime or criminals. But this is only a bare statement of 

 fact, and is of course not very satisfactory, for if it be impossible 

 to prove that Brompton is correct it seems equally impossible 

 to prove that he errs in his statement. 



Here then the question must be studied from another point 

 of view, and the problem is, to prove that the site of the 

 Castle belonged to some one else both before, during, and 

 after the episode of the murder. 



It cannot be denied that William the Conqueror acquired 

 from the Abbess of Shaftesbury one hide of land, part of 

 sixteen hides comprising her manor of Kingston, in exchange 

 for the advowson of the Church of Gillingham, and that upon 

 the land thus acquired he built the Castle of Warham.* 



Furthermore, it is certain that the site of the Castle of 

 Warham was precisely the same as that upon which the 

 Castle of Corfe stood, 



* Doomsday. f Testa de Neville. 



