224
NOTES AND QUERIES, [ii s. xn. SEPT. is. 1915.
was thrown open to the public on 1 Aug.,,
1882. When Lord Mornington acquired the
estate through his wife, Miss Tylney-Long,
in 1812, he rapidly proceeded to squander it,
and in June, 1822 ten years after his
marriage the contents of Wanstead House
were sold by auction to pay some of his
debts. Mornington was obliged to escape
down the Thames from his creditors in an
open boat. His wife died broken-hearted.
Wanstead House was pulled down, and the
material sold piecemeal in separate lots. All
that now remains is a turf -covered mound ,
and the site is used as a golf ground. The
Park remained closed for many years till
acquired for the public by the Corporation
of London.
'"The Story of Wanstead Park,' by O. S. Dawson, used to be sold at the refreshment chalet. See also ' Epping Forest,' by E. N. Buxton, and ' London's Forest,' by F. J. S. Perceval. G. H. W.
THE SITE OF THE GLOBE.
(11 S. x. 200, 290, 335 ; xi. 447 ; xii. 10, 50, 70, 121, 143, 161, 201.)
IN DR. MARTIN'S letter, ante, p. 143, he says that he " has many instances where the ' Park,' without qualification, refers to the Bishop's Park only, and he has no instance where the ' Park ' refers to anything else."
If DR. MARTIN will refer to the facsimile reduction of the map of South wark, c. 1542, in Kendall's Old Southwark,' he will find that " Park Gate " is Suffolk Park Gate, and, again, "The Park" is Brandon's Park. These examples show that a reference to " the Park " need not necessarily mean the Bishop of Winchester's Park.
The question at issue between us is whether the reference to " the Park " in the Coram Rege Roll, 1616, did refer to the Bishop's Park, as DR. MARTIN asserts, or whether it was, as I contend, the name of a piece of land abutting upon Brand's land on the north, and, in consequence, lying between Brand's land and Bankside.
I am quite in agreement with him that in common parlance a reference to the Park would mean the Bishop's Park. In this sense, any one living in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park to-day would speak of the Park as meaning Hyde Park. This, however, does not meet my point. In my article, ante, p. 11, I said : " In an important legal document defining the boundary of land .... the full title would be given," that is to say, if the Bishop's Park had been intended it
would have been called "the Lord Bishop
of Winchester's Park." As an example of
this, it may be remembered that when
Brand sold land to Mempris in 1620 it
was stated to be " bounded by the common
sewer dividing the land from the park of
the Lord Bishop of Winchester on the
south."
In the Coram Rege Roll document Brand's land is described as abutting upon " a piece of land called the Park upon the north." In this legal document the piece of land would have been called the Lord Bishop of Winchester's Park if that park had been intended. But, apart from this aspect, there is the topographical difficulty which definitely disposes of DR. MARTIN'S conten- tion. The Bishop's park lay to the south of Maiden Lane, and it could not, therefore,, under any circumstances, have formed the northern boundary of Brand's land, which is described in the Roll as lying wholly on the north side of Maiden Lane. The Park is clearly stated by the Roll to refer to the strip of land which lay between Brand's land on the north and Bankside.
If further support \\ere required, the reference in the Sacramental Token Book for Bankside, 1598, clearly indicates that there were spme cottages known as The Park,, for the reference is, in the Bankside Token Book, " ffrom the Park." DR. MARTIN, how- ever, says that I am unwise in appealing to the testimony of the Sacramental Token Books of Southwark for evidence on behalf of my contention for a park on the north of Maiden Lane. On the contrary, it seems to me that the reference to the Park in the Bankside Token Book is confirmatory of the accuracy of the Coram Rege Roll that these cottages were known as the Park on Bank- side.
That the Park did refer to some property on Bankside is undeniable on the evidence of the Coram Rege Roll, and the Bankside Token Book confirms this ; yet DR. MARTIN says that he is " not aware of an iota of evidence that this was the case, beyond my statement." If DR. MARTIN could bring himself to believe in the accuracy of the contemporary documents, he would find an abundance of evidence.
These cottages which formed the Park on Bankside may not have been many in number. The Coram Rege Roll only speaks of four garden plots on Brand's land which abutted upon the Park on the north, so I cannot quite see why DR. MARTIN should find it curious that, according to the Token Book, there should only be six token-holders
