ANTIQUITIES OF SELBORNE 243 



Confessor, had been lady of that manor, and was succeeded 

 in it by the Conqueror, and that it had a church. Besides 

 these, many circumstances concur to prove it to have been 

 a Saxon village ; such as the name of the place itself, 1 the 

 names of many fields, and some families, 2 with a variety of 

 words in husbandry and common life, still subsisting among 

 the country-people. 



What probably first drew the attention of the Saxons to this 

 spot was the beautiful spring or fountain called Well Head, 3 

 which induced them to build by the banks of that perennial 

 current ; for ancient settlers loved to reside by brooks and 

 rivulets, where they could dip for their water without the 

 trouble and expense of digging wells and of drawing. 



It remains still unsettled among the antiquaries at what 

 time tracts of land were first appropriated to the chase alone 

 for the amusement of the sovereign. Whether our Saxon 

 monarchs had any royal forests does not, I believe, appear 

 on record; but the " Constitutiones de Foresta" of Canute, 

 the Dane, are come down to us. We shall not, therefore, 

 pretend to say whether Wolmer Forest existed as a royal 

 domain before the conquest. If it did not, we may suppose 

 it was laid out by some of our earliest Norman kings, who 

 were exceedingly attached to the pleasures of the chase, and 

 resided much at Winchester, which lies at a moderate distance 

 from this district. The Plantagenet princes seem to have been 

 pleased with Wolmer, for tradition says that King John re- 

 sided just upon the verge, at Ward le Ham, on a regular and 

 remarkable mount, still called King John's Hill, and Lodge 

 Hill; and Edward III. had a chapel in his park, or enclosure, 

 at Kingsley. 4 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and Richard, 

 Duke of York, say my evidences, were both, in their turns, 

 wardens of Wolmer Forest, which seems to have served for 

 an appointment for the younger princes of the royal family, 

 as it may again. 



I have intentionally mentioned Edward III. and the dukes 

 Humphrey and Richard, before King Edward II., because I 

 have reserved, for the entertainment of my readers, a pleas- 

 ant anecdote respecting that prince, with which I shall close 

 this letter. 



