A HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE 



1652 " the town persistently made claims in main- 

 tenance of its ancient boundaries, but the claims 

 became relaxed early in the next century. From 

 1 704 the town presents that the ' metes and bounds 

 ought to extend through a village called Hill etc.' In 

 1748 the name of Sidford is added, and afterwards 

 the bounds were presented as extending northward 

 ' from a village called Hill and Sidford.' But there 

 was hesitation to the last. The Parliamentary 

 Boundary Commissioners of 1832 took the larger 

 limit ; on the other hand the Municipal Corporation 

 Commission of 1835 excluded the disputed district; 

 this the commissioners of 1868 followed, and the 

 matter at length rested. 



At the north-west angle of the old borough limits 

 was another loss. At this point there seems to have 

 been hedging and ditching about 1577 not altogether 

 to the satisfaction of the court leet. They present 

 (1579) : 'That whereas of late daies theare hathe 

 bin a peece of our comon and heathe ditched and 

 hedged and enclosid in and planted wth willows 

 under the name of a shadow for our cattel wch have 

 hitherto many yeres past prosperid verie well as the 

 comon was beefore ; wherefore we dessire yt may be 

 pulled down agayne and levelid as before ; for we 

 doubt that in short time yt wilbe taken from the 

 common to some particuler man's use, wch weare 

 lamentable and pitieful and not sufferable ; for as our 

 auncestors of theire great care and travell have 

 provided that and like other many benefyts for us 

 theire successors, so we thinck it our dwetie in 

 conscience to keep, uphold and maintain the same as 

 we founde yt for our posteritie to come without 

 diminishing eny part or parcel from yt, but rather 

 to augment more to yt yf yt may be.' This hedging 

 and ditching, for some reason or other, had left the 

 ancient Hode cross, which is mentioned in every 

 description of the franchises, standing as it does now, 

 some 100 paces from the corner of the inclosed 

 common ; and the jury immediately continue : 

 'Also wee fynd that theere ys a great peice of our 

 sayd comon and heathe leaft unclosed from the rest 

 by Hood crosse, for what purpose wee know not, 

 but we doubt that in continuance of tyme yt will be 

 quit lost, and so by litell and littel we shall loose and 

 diminish oure Lyberties wch we so long have enjoyed 

 wch weare greate pitie.' Similar presentments and 

 warnings continued to be made for many years ; but 

 no teps seem to have been taken, and in time this 

 portion became abandoned and the Parliamentary 

 Commissioners of 1832 drew the boundary along the 

 inclosure on the evidence of the latest perambulations. 



At the north-eastern limit the ancient inquisitions 

 and the court-leet books describe the boundary line 

 as passing the Burle or Borell stone along Burgess 



Street to Langherne gate, and thence to Haven stone ; 

 and there is evidence that the corporation ex- 

 ercised jurisdiction within these limits. 10 However 

 the modern perambulations had been confined to 

 the shorter route by the Burle stone, and along 

 the stream there to the River Itchen ; and in 

 accordance with this the boundary was drawn by 

 the commissioners of 1832, in which they were 

 followed by those of 1868. It is a matter now of 

 small moment since the alterations of 1895 ; and the 

 discussion of the old boundaries serves but to illustrate 

 the methods of the past. There can be little doubt 

 that the old borough-county limits had in time some- 

 what shrunk from their ancient dimensions. The 

 area till I 95 comprised the parishes of All Saints, 

 Holy Rood, St. Lawrence, St John, St. Michael, so 

 much of the parish of St. Mary as lies west of the 

 Itchen, the tithing of Portswood in the parish of 

 South Stoneham and Southampton Common, which is 

 extra-parochial. 



The existing boundaries as settled" in 1895 are 

 much more extended. Three large wards have been 

 added on the west, the Shirley, Freemantle, and 

 Banister wards, the greater part of which were 

 formerly comprised in the urban district of Shirley 

 and Freemantle ; " while on the east a large addition 

 was made to the Portswood ward consisting for the 

 most part of the Bitterne Park estate in the South 

 Stoneham rural district on the opposite side of the 

 Itchen, which is crossed by the Cobden bridge, opened 

 in 1883. The wards are now thirteen in number, 

 viz., the Town, St. James's, St. Mary's, All Saints', 

 Trinity, Northam, Nichols Town, Newtown, Bevois, 

 Portswood, Banister, Freemantle, and Shirley wards. 

 And the acreage of the whole, as against the old 

 boundaries of 2,817 acres, or, excluding mudlands, 

 2,004 acres > > s now 5> 2 95 acres, or, excluding mud- 

 lands, 4,4 1 6f acres. The population of the borough- 

 county immediately prior to the alteration was 

 estimated to be 71,750, immediately after, 94,150 ; 

 while at the last census the population of the enlarged 

 borough was found to be 104,911 ; it is now esti- 

 mated at 108,000. The extension order expressly 

 provides that the whole area included within the 

 altered boundary shall be ' the Borough and also the 

 County of the Borough of Southampton and shall be 

 the County Borough for the purposes of the Act of 

 1888.'" 



Southampton Common, an important member of 

 the above precincts, demands a special notice. It is 

 first mentioned in 1228, when the burgesses of South- 

 ampton, represented by John de Lillebane, were in 

 contention with Nicholas de Scherleg or Surlie 

 (Shirley) concerning the moiety of a messuage in 

 Southampton, and battle " in the court was pending 



19 In thii year the burghers not only 

 made claim to their ancient boundary but 

 complained of the many annoyances 

 arising within the precincts ' for want of 

 an officer within this Towne anciently 

 called the lord Mayor of the Buckingrs, 

 wherefore wee desire that suche an officer 

 be yearly choasen at the accustomed tyme 

 accordinge to the ancient custom of this 

 towne etc.' No trace of such an officer 

 has been discovered. 



80 Thus in 1488 repairs were made at 

 the crosses in that locality, and in 1594 

 a man was fined 5 for tampering with 

 the Haven stone. In 1600 'the postes 



and vanes at Langthome gate ' were 

 ordered to be repaired and painted, as also 

 at Haven stone by Hilton j they also 

 fined Sir Michael Blunt, who held Ston- 

 age (Stoneham) Farm, izd. for a path by 

 the Haven stone which was ' so moyry ' 

 as not to be passable. So late as 1819 

 a new boundary stone bearing the arms 

 and monogram of the town was placed 

 at Langherne where it now stands ; and 

 in the same year, on the aldermen of 

 Portswood giving notice that the Haven 

 stone 'dividing the county of the town 

 from the county of Hants ' had been 

 taken away and converted to the use of 



494 



South Stoneham Mill, the Corporation, 

 after strict inquiry, finding the act to 

 have been that of a vagrant without au- 

 thority, were satisfied with an ample 

 apology and the placing of a new stone. 



81 By virtue of the Southampton Order, 

 1895, confirmed by the Local Govt. 

 Board's Provisional Orders Confirm. Act, 

 1895 (No. 16), sess. 2. Ex inform. Mr. 

 R. R. Linthorne, town clerk of South- 

 ampton. 



22 See above under *MilIbrook. f 



23 Ex inform. Mr. R. R. Linthorne. 



24 * Unde duellum vadiatumet armatum 

 fuit inter eos in prefata curia.' 



