Report to Walhampton School
August 1998
Walhampton School (centred on SZ 332967) asked C K Currie of CKC Archaeology (Gardens Archaeology Project) to undertake an archaeological and historical assessment of landscape of the estate to AD 1700. This work was as part of a larger assessment for a landscape management plan.
Walhampton can be shown to have many characteristics of a small medieval manor. Its development of an open field system may have resulted from the strong centralised control of the powerful Augustinian priory of Christchurch. This system, with its strip fields and communal meadow along the stream, seems to have survived, at least in part, until the activities of the Burrard family after 1668.
Elizabeth Burrard seems to have made a conscious effort to build up a moderate sized country estate around the old demesne farm. Her main purchase was in 1668, followed by further purchases in 1670 and 1675 from the Blandford family. She gave the estate to her younger son, Paul, on his marriage. He seems to have begun creating a formal landscape around his new home soon after. A drawing of 1680 shows what the estate may have looked like, although it is unclear if this picture shows a completed design or a proposal. According to another later document, a Paul Burrard was supposed to have built the new mansion in 1711. It is therefore confusing to find that the house shown on the 1680 drawing strongly resembles the core of the mansion as illustrated in 1832. It is unlikely that research will be able to establish exactly which of these two conflicting sources is the more accurate. Whatever the answer, there are strong hints of a designed landscape being carried out fairly soon after the land purchases mentioned above.
The research has shown that the landscape before c. 1680 still retained a number of medieval features. References to 'windmill' field names remember a medieval windmill recorded in the 14th century. Strip field systems are indicated by the numerous small acre plots, both in the manorial arable and the meadow lands. There is a field where a 'headland' still survives in the 17th century. One gets an impression of an unrecorded enclosure of the medieval open fields that was still continuing in the later 17th century. There are good records of an extensive informal enclosure of meadows and pasture at Compton Bassett in Wiltshire around the same time in 1665 (Currie 1998). These two examples are probably amongst many unrecognised medieval landscapes that disappeared around this time without documentary record. At Walhampton, it seems this landscape was finally swept away to lay out a designed landscape.
Such a change must have been quite drastic for the traditional land uses of this quiet rural manor. In the later 18th century, a further major change occurred when the formal was swept away, in turn, to create an informal 'English Landscape' design. This is a good example of its kind, making copious use of the small stream, from which Walhampton takes its name, to create a number of artificial ponds. Much of this landscape survives to the present day. An archaeological and historical assessment of landscape of the Walhampton House, estate, Lymington, Hampshire to c. AD 1750 (NGR: SZ 332967)
This report has been written based on the format suggested by the Institute of Field Archaeologists' Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments (Birmingham, 1994). The ordering of information follows the guidelines given in this document, although alterations may have been made to fit in with the particular requirements of the work.
Walhampton School (centred on SZ 332967) asked C K Currie for CKC Archaeology (Gardens Archaeology Project) to undertake an archaeological and historical assessment of landscape of the estate to AD 1750. This work was as part of a larger assessment for a landscape management plan.
Walhampton House is a country estate to the east of the River Lymington estuary within the large parish of Boldre, Hampshire. The New Forest is about 0.5km to the north, with the medieval town of Lymington 1km to the west on the other bank of the river. The core of the present house is thought to date to the later 17th or early 18th century, with later additions. The house was in the hands of the Burrard family for over 200 years during the period of its greatest development from 1668 to the later 19th century.
3.1 The Prehistoric and Roman landscape
Little is known about the area around the Walhampton estate before the Late Saxon period. The county Sites and Monuments Record (hereafter SMR) contains very little information for these early periods. One might think that there may have been early salt production around the estuary of the Lymington River, but, if this was so, much of the evidence has probably been destroyed by later activity. The only two sites within about a kilometre of the estate are the Iron Age hill fort at Ampress Hole (SMR no. SZ39NW31), and the chance find of a suspected Roman stone head between the estate and Newtown Park Farm (SMR no. SZ39NW16).
Ampress Hole is unusual in its siting in that it lies very close to a second more substantial hill fort at Buckland Rings (centred on SZ 315969), both on the west side of the Lymington River. According to Williams-Freeman (1915, 210), there was reputedly the earthworks of a third 'camp' barely 200m to the south, but this may have been the result of sand quarrying. Williams-Freeman (ibid, 211) suggests that Ampress Hole was a Saxon or Danish fort designed to protect shipping moored adjacent. It is more likely that it was of Iron Age date, either a predecessor of Buckland Rings or a fort acting as a harbour defence for the larger fortification. Whatever the answer, it suggests considerable activity in the Lymington River area during the later Prehistoric period. The absence of finds on the east bank may be more the result of an absence of fieldwork in this area than any real lack of activity.
The sculptured stone head found near Newtown Park was original described as a Roman cult object. It was made of Bembridge limestone, and was a male head with ram's horns. The iconography was said to be Celtic (Ross 1969). This has since been disputed by Green (1976), who calls it a 'dubious Celtic head'.
The first edition of the Ordnance Survey six inch plan (sheet 80, dated 1867) shows a tumulus or burial mound on the side of the road at SZ 34069686. This supposed barrow is not listed by Grinsell (1939), nor is it shown on the county SMR, suggesting that the original OS designation may have been incorrect.
3.2 Saxon, Medieval and Post-medieval landscapes
The name Walhampton seems to derive from the 'farm (tun) of the dwellers (ham) of the spring (wel/wiell)' (Ekwall 1960, 492). The 'spring' probably being the small stream that presently feeds the series of ponds on the estate. The place seems to have developed into a manor at a relatively early date as it is recorded in Domesday Book.
Here the estate was to be found in Rowditch hundred (it later transferred to New Forest hundred) under the lands of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Fulkwin held half a hide here from the earl, although its assessment was reduced to a virgate by the time of the survey. There was land for one plough, which was held in demesne, along with one smallholder and a slave. The value in 1066 was 15s, but this declined to 10s by 1086. This may have been the result of taking its woodland into the New Forest after the Norman Conquest (Munby 1982, NF3.8).
The ancient boundary of the New Forest seems to have been the northern boundary of the tithing of Walhampton. This runs along a road called Hundred Lane and on past the west boundary of Pylewell to the sea. A perambulation of 1300-01 (Hanna 1988, i, 194) bears some comparison with a later bounds of 1670 (Stagg 1983, 235). Both the road from Walhampton to Beaulieu and Vicar's Hill are mentioned in the earlier bounds. Other than this the bounds pass too far to the north to be of interest to this report, although they both show some continuity of place-names, and some clear changes.
Roger's son, Robert de Bellesme forfeited the Walhampton estate to the crown early in the 12th century. It was then granted to Richard de Redvers, Earl of Devon. His son, Baldwin, granted it to Christchurch Priory. In 1263 the priory persuaded two other landowners within the manor to hand their lands over in return for their sustenance for life. It was possibly through these arrangements that the priory consolidated its hold on the manor.
After the Dissolution, the manor passed through the hands of a number of owners. The Victoria County History claims that the manor did not pass to the Burrard family until 1742 (Hendy 1911, 620). However, this may have been the title of lord only because this family had already built up a substantial estate there before this date. The Burrard interest began in 1668 when Elizabeth Burrard purchased what was to become the core of the estate from the Gookey family (HRO 52M87/3/1). She added further land purchased from John Blandford in 1670 before passing the estate to her younger son, Paul Burrard, in 1671. Further lands were added in 1675 and 1738, creating a moderately substantial estate (HRO 52M87/10).
This outline history reveals two periods of estate building, both of which probably had significant influence on the development of the landscape. Firstly, the canons of Christchurch Priory seem to have made a concerted effort to consolidate their land holding in Walhampton in the 13th century.
Nevertheless, they may not have held the whole of Walhampton. According to the tithe map, the tithing of Walhampton extended to the western edge of the Pylewell estate (HRO 21M65/F7/26/1-2). This was because it included the medieval sub-manor of Sharpricks. This was largely the south and east part of the tithing. This included Lilse Court Farm, which was probably the main farm of Sharpricks.
This manor had been in the hands of the Trenchards. Around 1331, it passed to the Lisle or de Insula family as subtenants, and remained with them until 1539. In 1331 it is recorded as consisting of a messuage, 160 acres and a windmill (Hendy 1911, 619). A field name, Windmill Field Coppice, is recorded in 1627, suggesting the location for the windmill (HRO 52M87/5/1).
The canons of Christchurch consolidated their holding in 1263 by obtaining the rights to the former lands of both Robert le Plumber and the Osborn family (ibid, 620). A look at early maps suggests that the lands to the immediate north and south of the present farm building made up the medieval arable. There are reasons to suggest this may have been a common field. To the west was a strip of poorer land that seems to have been partly encroached by people occupied in salt making. Later on quarrying was carried out here and brick kilns developed, as well as a series of quays from which maritime activities, such as fishing, were carried out. To the east of the main arable land was the valley of the Walhampton stream. This was probably occupied by meadow. East again was a mixture of arable and pasture enclosures, with common land on Portmore Common to the north. The latter was probably more extensive in the medieval period than later, when it had probably been encroached on.
These conjectural land uses can be supported from 17th- and early 18th-century documents recording land transactions. It would seem that parts of a relict medieval landscape had survived until at least 1668. The Burrards seem to have made a systematic attempt to bring these lands into their ownership, and to alter them to suit their plans. Initially, this seems to revolve around the creation of a formal landscape over the former arable lands west of the stream. A drawing, proported to date from 1680, shows Walhampton House, with an extensive formal designed landscape mainly to the south.
There are some problems with this drawing. The first of these is the statement that Paul Burrard had pulled down the old farm in 1711 and built a new mansion house in its place (HRO 52M87/3/7). The building shown in the 1680 drawing is very similar to the core of the building shown in an illustration of 1832 (HRO 15M84/P4/3/29). How does this fit in with the reference to the new building of 1711? There is clearly an anomaly here. A number of possibilities might explain this, but none can be proved. We are left with the possibility that one of the documents is in error. Perhaps the statement about the new house being built in 1711 is wrong? It is equally possible that the 1680 drawing was made later, and does not date from 1680 at all. Alternatively, it was a proposal for a landscape design that was not brought about until 1711. As long as one excepts that the landscape in the drawing was probably a fair record of Walhampton at some time between 1680 and 1720, the exact date of its origin is of lesser importance.
Why should one believe that this landscape actually existed? Perhaps the drawing was a proposal that was not carried out? There is some proof in the documents of that period. From 1668, the Burrands were clearly trying to build an estate. The reason for this seems to have been to create a country seat for Elizabeth Burrand's younger son, Paul. He came into the estate in 1671, on his marriage (HRO 52M87/10). Can we believe his family waited thirty years to build their country seat? The answer has to be that a seat was established by 1680. There is a memorandum that strongly suggests that certain lands were used to lay out part of the landscape shown on this drawing. The memorandum is undated, but it refers to lands that were mainly purchased in 1675 (ibid).
The memorandum refers to a piece of land called 'Upper Curtis' as 'part of the wilderness'. Lower Curtis is 'part of the meadow' (HRO 52M87/8). The latter suggests it is near the stream. On the 1680 drawing, an area looking like a late 17th-century wilderness can be seen on the east side of the landscape near the conjectured course of the stream. This suggests the memo is dealing with lands brought into the estate for the purpose of making the designed landscape. Curtis Close was purchased from John Blandford in 1675 (op cit). It seems that this is good evidence to suggest the landscape shown on the drawing could have been executed fairly soon after this date. This suggests that the formal landscaping was some way advanced by 1680, even if the full design shown on the drawing had not been completed.
The documents relating to the purchase of land to make up the estate also give clues to the nature of the earlier landscape. Many of the documents refer to many small plots of an acre or thereabouts. This is suggestive of strips in a former open field system. These small plots are referred to throughout a detailed abstract of title to the estate lands drawn up by the Burrard family after 1738 (HRO 52M87/10). It gives a breakdown of the lands purchased, and their ownership changes, from 1524 through to the date of compilation.
From this and other documents, it is learnt that some parts of the early open fields had already been enclosed by the 17th century. However, there were still acre plots around indicating the origin. A transaction in the abstract dated 1657 refers to lands attached to a message and garden in Walhampton and Sharpricks (this being the name commonly given to the tithing of Walhampton at that date). This includes '..an acre of land next Size Down and a headland in Wimblefield..'. The implication here is reasonably clear that Wimblefield was once part of an open field system. This field is probably that given as number 1312 'Wimble' on the tithe map and award (HRO 21M65/F7/26/1-2). The name comes from a rushy grass that probably grew in Wimblefield Meadow to the east (Field 1972, 255-56). The main field is in the area conjectured to have once been within the main medieval arable of the manor. The tithe map also shows a single acre strip to the NW of this field, on the other side of a track. This is plot number 1210, 'Acre Field'. Likewise, to the SE of Wimble are further plots of about an acre in strip-like formation; 1304, 1305, both arable plots called 'Belvidere' (ibid). Both 17th-century documents and the tithe map also give field names of larger plots that are suggestive that they were once part of open fields. These names include North Field, East Field, Warborne Field (possibly in the adjoining sub-manor), and Middle Ground.
The land around the stream seems to have been meadow before 1668. There is no indication of the later ponds at this date. Some of these meadow plots are quite small, being little more than an acre or so. For example in land purchased from John Blandford in 1675, there were two little meadows containing two acres (HRO 52M87/10). In the memorandum referred to above there a number of plots including 'Lower Curtis' and 'Down Grove' that were 'part of the meadow'. Again the acre plots seem to recall the medieval system of dividing meadow into acre strips between the manorial tenants.
Further east of the old meadows was a mixture of arable and pasture lands. Field 1335 is given as 'rough pasture' in 1841, suggestive that it was not good pasture. The fields to the north and south were arable at this date, but this may have been an alternating land use. One would have expected the land to become increasing dominated by pasture as one moves away from the centre of the estate.
Likewise on the extreme west side of the manor, there is a strip of enclosed fields along the tidal estuary of the Lymington River. These were probably rough pastures and salt marshes in the medieval period. Their marginal nature may have made them suitable places for cottagers to settle, and carry out the typical cottage industries of the area. One suspects that at least some of these plots were utilised as salt pans from an early date. Fishing would have also been practised by the cottagers here. At a later date some of them took to brick making. In an account of the fields of Walhampton Farm, dated 1768, Home Close and New Close are recorded as lying 'above the Brick Kilns'. This large 'brick field' was still operating in 1867 at the time of the 1st edition of the 6" Ordnance Survey map (HRO OS sheet 88, 1867 ed.).
The surviving 17th- and early 18th-century deeds give a suggestive picture of medieval Walhampton. It is unlikely that such a small manor developed a complex three field system, but there seems to have been one, with a possible second smaller, open field around the main manor. The manor also seems to have had a managed meadow system. Pasture would have been on enclosures to the east, and on Portmore Common to the north. The latter was probably much larger than the remnant that survived on the earliest maps.
What of the early settlement of Walhampton? This was possibly a dispersed pattern, with a small number of scattered farms. Lisle Court formed the main farm of the Sharpricks sub-manor, with possible other farms at Snooks Farm and on the site of Vicar's Hill, which may have been the glebe estate for the Boldre Rectory. The old manor house may have survived as a farm house until the Burrards took over. One would have expected a reasonable demesne centre to have been built by the rich canons of Christchurch Priory. A document of 1627 seems to record two John Gookeys, father and son, dividing the old manor house between them. The son granted his father 'the great chamber' with the cockloft? above, and the buttery for his own use. According to the Hearth Tax of 1665, the Gookeys lived in a house with four hearths. There were two other houses with four hearths and two more with five; these were the five largest houses recorded in the combined manors of Walhampton and Sharpricks (Hughes & White 1991, 79-80). At least one of these was probably Lilse Court, the old manor house of Sharpricks. Although the Gookeys did not have the most hearths it 1665, their status in the combined manors was such that in the Lay Subsidy of 1571 William Gookey had the highest rating, ten shillings, of all the inhabitants. By 1594 his rating had fallen to six shillings, and was then the second highest taxpayer (Vick 1987, 55).
There may have been a small hamlet of cottages around Walhampton Farm, as well as the outlying farms and cottages. The Hearth Tax of 1665 records about some 32 houses in the manor (Hughes & White, op. cit.). There were barely this many in the first half of the present century, and many of these were fairly new developments. It is therefore quite possible that a number of the older cottages were swept away in the laying out of the formal landscape c. 1680. This is suggested by the notice in the contemporary memorandum that 'Pickets had a house and orchard on the north side' (HRO 52M87/8). Pickets was a field that can be placed near the later Portmore Pond. The past tense used is suggestive that this cottage had been removed. Likewise, one wonders what happened to the two cottages the Burrards bought from John Blandford in 1675? Perhaps these were elsewhere on the manor, but one gets a feeling they were on lands to the NE of the manor house where the Blandfords had property. This was on the old road to Portmore Common.
It is not the purpose of this report to examine the history of the landscape changes of the later 18th century in any detail. Nevertheless, one might point to clues to the date of the transition from formal to informal design. The account of Walhampton Farm fields given in 1768 talks of a timber yard that lies 'near the end of the Damm' (HRO 52M87/3/4). This indicates that by this date work had began converting the old meadow land into the series of informal ponds that still survives today. The 1760s would be an appropriate date for this work. Any earlier might be unusual for an out-of-the-way place like Walhampton; only the more fashionable places were converted to the English Landscape style before 1760. From this reference we might conclude that the map of 1787, hanging in the school, shows a landscape that had been largely carried out by that date.
There are indications in the tithe map field names of features existing in this landscape that may have since disappeared. For example, there is a Temple Field to the SE of Portmore Pond, and at the south end of ornamental area there is a series of fields called 'Belvidere', suggesting a possible structure used for taking views out over the Solent.
There is an interesting notice referring to the brick making carried on in the field below Home Ground mentioned above. In 1796 the brickmaker, Ben Wickenden, has to agree not to erect any structure that would cause 'the Garden or Pleasure Ground belonging to Walhampton House ... [to] be annoyed or rendered inconvenient or disagreeable or the view or prospect of the adjoining county be hindered obstructed or interrupted' (HRO 52M87/30/2).
Finally it is perhaps worth noting that the influential commentator on the Picturesque, the Reverend William Gilpin (1724-1804) was once Rector of Boldre. He lived at nearby Vicar's Hill, where he helped develop a designed landscape around the house there. He did not come to Boldre until he was 53 years of age, by which time the bulk of the present design may have already been executed. Nevertheless, it would have been most unusual if he had not had conversations with the Burrards on the subject of landscape, and had some influence on the estate's development.
Little is known about the area before the Late Saxon period. Two Iron Age hillforts in close proximity on the west bank of the Lymington River suggests a late Prehistoric presence in the area, but there few genuine finds have been made from this period on the Walhampton side. It might be suggested that this is more a lack of fieldwork rather than lack of settlement.
Post-Roman Walhampton can be shown to have many characteristics of a small medieval manor. Its development of an open field system may have resulted from the strong centralised control of the powerful Augustinian priory of Christchurch. This system, with its strip fields and communal meadow along the stream, seems to have survived, at least in part, until the activities of the Burrard family after 1668.
Elizabeth Burrard seems to have made a conscious effort to build up a moderate sized country estate around the old demesne farm. Her main purchase was in 1668, followed by further purchases in 1670 and 1675 from the Blandford family. She gave the estate to her younger son, Paul, on his marriage. He seems to have begun creating a formal landscape around his new home soon after. A drawing of 1680 shows what the estate may have looked like, although it is unclear if this picture shows a completed design or a proposal. According to another later document, a Paul Burrard was supposed to have built the new mansion in 1711. It is therefore confusing to find that the house shown on the 1680 drawing strongly resembles the core of the mansion as illustrated in 1832. It is unlikely that research will be able to establish exactly which of these two conflicting sources is the more accurate. Whatever the answer, there are strong hints of a designed landscape being carried out fairly soon after the land purchases mentioned above.
The research has shown that the landscape before c. 1680 still retained a number of medieval features. References to 'windmill' field names remember a medieval windmill recorded in the 14th century. Strip field systems are indicated by the numerous small acre plots, both in the manorial arable and the meadow lands. There is a field where a 'headland' still survives in the 17th century. One gets an impression of an unrecorded enclosure of the medieval open fields that was still continuing in the later 17th century. There are good records of an extensive informal enclosure of meadows and pasture at Compton Bassett in Wiltshire around the same time in 1665 (Currie 1998). These two examples are probably amongst many unrecognised medieval landscapes that disappeared around this time without documentary record. At Walhampton, it seems this landscape was finally swept away to lay out a designed landscape.
Such a change must have been quite drastic for the traditional land uses of this quiet rural manor. In the later 18th century, a further major change occurred when the formal was swept away, in turn, to create an informal 'English Landscape' design. This is a good example of its kind, making copious use of the small stream, from which Walhampton takes its name, to create a number of artificial ponds. Much of this landscape survives to the present day.
Copies of this report were lodged with the client, the County Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), and the National Monuments Record.
Sincere thanks are given to all those involved with this project. In particular, Sybil Wade, the landscape architect for the project, and to Mr Hill, the teacher at the school responsible for the management of the grounds.
7.1 Original sources in the Hampshire Record Office (HRO):
52M87 Collection of Burrard papers
21M65/F7/26/1-2 Tithe map & award for Boldre
15M84/P4/3/29 Picture of Walhampton House, 1832
7.2 Original sources in print
K A Hanna (ed), The Cartularies of Southwick Priory, 2 vols., Winchester, 1988
E Hughes & P White (eds), The Hampshire Hearth Tax assessment, 1665, Winchester, 1991
J Munby (ed), Domesday Book. Hampshire, Chichester 1982
D J Stagg (ed), A calendar of New Forest documents. The fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, Winchester, 1983
D F Vick (ed), West Hampshire Lay Subsidy Assessments, 1558-1603, Farnham, 1987
7.3 Secondary sources
E Ekwall, The concise Oxford dictionary of English place-names, Oxford, 1960 (4th ed)
M Ellis, Ice and icehouses through the ages with a gazetteer for Hampshire, Southampton, 1982
J Field, English field names, Newton Abbot, 1972
M J Green, A corpus of religious material from the civilian areas of Roman Britain, 1976
L V Grinsell, 'Hampshire Barrows', Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society, 14, pts 1-3 (1939), 9-40, 195-229, 346-365
A M Hendy, 'Boldre' in W Page (ed), The Victoria history of the county of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, volume 4, London, 1911
Institute of Field Archaeologists, Standard and guidance for archaeological desk-based assessments, Birmingham, 1994
A Ross, 'A Roman-British cult object from Boldre, Hampshire', Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club & Archaeological Society, 26 (1969), 57-59
J R Williams-Freeman, An introduction to field archaeology as illustrated by Hampshire, London, 1915
There were very few archaeological sites on the Hampshire County Council Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) for the Walhampton Estate. This is probably the result of a lack of fieldwork in the area, rather than a real absence. To give an idea of the sort of sites in the area, a summary list of sites outside the estate, but within a rough radius of about one kilometre, is given at the end of this gazetteer (Section B).
A. Sites within (or partly within) the estate:
| WH/1 | Portmore Pond | SZ 33509685 | 18th-century ornamental pond |
| Later 18th-century ornamental pond of 5.758 acres in 1908 (OS 25" plan, sheet 88.3), Created by damming small stream on SW side of the pond. The dam forms an earthwork over 2m high and about 90m in length. The pond contained four small islands, a boat house and a landing stage in 1908. | |||
| WH/2 | Sandwalk Pond | SZ 33509645 | 18th-century ornamental pond |
| Later 18th-century ornamental pond of 4.157 acres in 1908 (OS 25" plan, sheet 88.3), Created by damming small stream on SE side of the pond. The dam forms an earthwork over 2m high and about 110m in length. The pond contains two small islands. | |||
| WH/3 | Rock Pond | SZ 33409675 | 18th-century ornamental pond |
| Later 18th-century ornamental pond of 0.92 acres in 1908 (OS 25" plan, sheet 88.3), Created by damming small stream on SW side of the pond. The dam forms an earthwork over 1.5m high and about 80m in length. The pond contains four small islands. | |||
| WH/4 | Black Pond | SZ 33349681 | 18th-century ornamental pond |
| Later 18th-century ornamental pond of about 0.3 acre to NW of Rock Pond. | |||
| WH/5 | Site of canal | SZ 33409655 | Ornamental water feature |
| Later 18th-century ornamental water feature created out of small stream where it flows between Rock Pond and Sandwalk Pond. It was originally about 140m long and about 2-3m wide. It is now heavily silted. | |||
| WH/6 | Mound | SZ 33489646 | Ornamental viewing mound |
| Ornamental viewing mound with spiral walkway to top, now planted with rhododendrons. Possibly an earlier 18th-century or late 17th-century feature from earlier formal gardens that was retained when the grounds were redesigned in the later 18th century. Approximately 3m high and about 20m diameter. The county SMR attributes it as a possible ice house mound, but then states that Ellis (1982, 78) thought this incorrect, and it was a viewing mound. The SMR number is SZ39NW46. | |||
| WH/7 | Sawpit | SZ 33529661 | Site of late post-medieval sawpit |
| OS 6" plan (sheet 80) for 1867 marks a 'sawpit' here on the edge of the ornamental woodland of Walhampton House. | |||
| WH/8 | Walhampton House | SZ 33159665 | 18th-century and later country house |
| 18th-century and later country house; Listed Building Grade II*. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Early 18th-century core added to in 1884 by N Shaw, further remodelled by T Mawson in 1911. | |||
| WH/9 | Arcade & Grotto | SZ 33119662 | Arcade 1914 incorporating 18th-century grotto |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Arcade of Portland stone with 18th-century shell-encrusted grotto at west end. | |||
| WH/10 | Sundial | SZ 332966 | Stone, lead and bronze sundial |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Inscribed John Smee, London AD 1784 on face. Probably brought to present position in 1911. Grid reference given as approximate only | |||
| WH/11 | Column sundial | SZ 332966 | Column sundial, possibly 18th century |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Column 4m high with Ionic capital with lions masks between scrolls. Thought to have been moved to present position in 1911. Grid reference given as approximate only. | |||
| WH/12 | Gatepiers | SZ 33149669 | 18th-century stone gatepiers |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Dressed stone square plan piers, 3m tall. Thought to have been moved to present position in 1911. Grid reference given as approximate only. | |||
| WH/13 | Wall & gatepiers | SZ 332967 | 18th-century brick wall and stone piers |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Wall broken by gatepiers around entrance court. Thought to be c. 1911 with some parts 18th-century date. | |||
| WH/14 | Home Farm | SZ 33069660 | Model Farm c. 1900 |
| Listed Building Grade II. Refer to Appendix 2 for list description. Brick with timber model farmhouse, c. 1900. Converted to restaurant in 1984. Possibly on site of earlier building. | |||
| WH/15 | Earthworks | SZ 33659630 | Earthworks of a series of silted ponds |
| Earthworks of a series of silted ponds, part of ornamental landscape to the SE of Sandwalk Pond. Heavily overgrown, but original form still visible. Was still open to sky in 1940s when form of ponds still visible on air photographs. | |||
| WH/16 | Parchmark? | SZ 330970 | Triple parallel lines |
| Triple parallel lines on alignment of conjectured avenue at front of house. They are best seen in field on other side of the road to the north of the house. Can be seen on a number of different air photographs of widely differing dates (NMR nos, 315, 2238). NMR no. 2238 seems to end in a mound (now in woodland). This was not examined on the ground, and the photo may be deceptive. | |||
| WH/17 | Parkmarks? | SZ 33259645 | Sub-ovate and rectangular parch marks |
| Sub-ovate and rectangular parch marks in field at back of house, possible remains of formal gardens. These can be seen on a number of air photographs of differing dates (NMR nos 4781, 10988, 11117). They may have been caused by tents or other features left on the ground, but as they occur at various dates, they may be real. Need to be checked on ground, and against old maps and prints. | |||
B. Sites outside the estate, but within one kilometre
| Roman find | SZ 33959692 | Sculptured stone head of Roman date? |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW16. Stone head of Bembridge Limestone, male with ram's horns. Thought to be Celtic by Ross (1969), but this has since been disputed by Green (1976). 25 cms high, 17.5 cms wide on block 30.5 by 45.5 by 28 cms. | ||
| Ampress Hole | SZ 32009700 | Multivallate Iron Age? hill fort |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW31. Described in detail by Williams-Freeman (1915, 210-11, 346). Excavated in 1959 by Alan Aberg, but now largely built over. | ||
| Ice house | SZ 34029689 | Ice house, Listed Building Grade II |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW35. 19th-century ice house, probably associated with Newtown Park; Listed Building Grade II. Described by Ellis (1982, 55). | ||
| Ice house | SZ 32429746 | Site of ice house |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW36. Site of ice house, only pit remains. Thought to be associated with Gilpin's landscape at Vicars Hill. Described by Ellis (1982, 55). | ||
| Newtown Park | SZ 34509680 | Landscaped park |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW48. Landscaped park, begun mainly from c. 1789 by Sir John Hadley D'Oyley. He purchased the property on his return from India; it was originally known as D'Oyley Park. | ||
| Warborne Park | SZ 32809750 | Landscaped park |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW49. Landscaped park to Warborne House, possibly late 18th or 19th century. Contains good example of rectangular formal pond. | ||
| Vicars Hill | SZ 32509730 | Landscaped park |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW50. Landscaped park associated with W Gilpin, vicar of Boldre 1778-1804 and well known writer on the Picturesque and the New Forest scenery. It is thought that the landscape was designed by him, during his occupancy of the house. | ||
| The Elms | SZ 33509550 | Small landscaped park |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW51. Small landscaped park associated with The Elms. Though to be of 19th-century date. | ||
| Hard | SZ 33309550 | Site of hard |
| County SMR no. SZ39NW67. Recorded as two berth embarkation point for landing craft in World War II. | ||
| Barrow? | SZ 34069686 | Barrow site? |
| Tumulus (burial mound) marked on OS 6" map of 1867 on east side of road near Newtown Park. It is not listed by Grinsell (1939) or the county SMR, and so may be dubious. | ||