History Podcasts

History of LST - 311 - 349 - History

History of LST - 311 - 349  - History

LST - 311 - 349

LST - 311

LST - 311 was laid down on 7 September 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 30 December 1942; sponsored by Miss Marie L. Paternoster; and commissioned on 11 January 1943. During World War 11, LST-311 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 On 20 November 1944, LST-311 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 11 April 1946 and was decommissioned. She was struck from the Navy list on 5 June 1946 and sold to an unknown buyer on 5 December that same year. She was resold at a later date to T. Y. Fong. LST-311 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 312

LST - 312 was laid down on 7 September 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 30 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Mary E. Storin; and commissioned on 9 January 1943, Lt. Charles L. Haslup, USNR, in command. During World War II, LST-312 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 12 July 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 15 August 1946. On 13 December 1947, she was sold to James A. Hughes, New York, N.Y., for scrapping. LST-312 earned three battle stars for World War II service. LST-3- 13 LST-313 was laid down on 7 September 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 30 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. McCabe; and commissioned on 13 January 1943. During World War II, LST-313 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the Sicilian occupation in July 1943. The ship was sunk on 10 July 1943 off Gela, Sicily, by German aircraft. She was struck from the Navy list on 28 July 1943 LST-313 earned one battle star for World War II service.

LST - 314

LST - 314 was laid down on 7 September 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 30 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Gertrude F. Holmes; and commissioned on 15 January 1943. During World War 11, LST-314 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 The tank landing ship was sunk by an enemy torpedo off Normandy on 9 June 1944. On 22 August 1944, she was struck from the Navy list. LST-314 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 315

LST - 315 was laid down on 15 October 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 28 January 1943; sponsored by Miss Helen Clair Leuteritz; and commissioned on 3 February 1943. During World War II, LST-315 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July and August 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 The tank landing ship was transferred to the United Kingdom on 9 December 1944 and returned to United States Navy custody on 16 March 1946 and decommissioned. She was struck from the Navy list on 26 February 1946 and sold, on 5 December 1947, to Bosey, Philippines. LST-315 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 316

LST - 316 was laid down on 15 October 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 28 January 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Pearl Magdalene Frick; and commissioned on 3 February 1943. During World War 11, LST-316 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 Upon her return to the United States, she was decommissioned on 24 May 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 12 March 1946. On 23 December 1946, she was sold to James Hughes, Inc., New York, N.Y., for conversion to marchant service. LST-316 earned three battle stars for World War 11 service.


LST-317 was laid down on 15 October 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 28 January 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Florence Whitehouse; and commissioned on 6 February 1943. During World War II, LST-317 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 Upon her return to the United States, LST-317 was decommissioned on 18 May 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 12 March 1946. On 22 January 1947, the tank landing ship was sold to A. G. Schoonmaker. LST-317 earned three battle stars for World War II service.


LST-318 was laid down on 15 October 1942 at the New York Navy Yard; launched on 28 January 1943; sponsored by Mrs. Emma V. Umstead; and commissioned on 8 February 1943. During World War 11, LST-318 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the Sicilian occupation in July and August 1943. During this occupation duty, she was sunk, on 9 August 1943, by enemy aircraft off Coronia, Sicily. She was struck from the Navy list on 20 October 1943. LST-318 earned one battle star for World War II service.

_ An Account-My stepfather LCDR Richard Borden was commander of LST 318 when it was sunk off the coast of Sicily. He received a special commendation from Admiral Kinkaid in relation to this incident, which stated, in part:
"Your outstanding performance of duty while in command of the USS LST-318, during the assault landings on the North Coast of Sicily in August 1943 is worthy of special commendation.

"During amphibious operations in support of the US Seventh Army from 7 to 10 August 1943, while ferrying heavy mechanized military equipment in zones where Naval units were under constant aerial bombardment by the enemy, you displayed courage and resourcefulness to a high degree. Despite a near miss by an aerial bomb which damaged your ship while engaged in discharging assault elements behind the enemy lines at Terranova, Sicily, on 8 August 1943, you continued to carry out your assigned task effectively until, at a loading point in 10 August 1943, your ship was lost as a result of a concentrated enemy bombing attack. Your continuing and persistent efforts to maintain operations under adverse circumstances contributed materially to rapid advance of the of the US Seventh Army along the North Coast of Sicily towards Messina.

"For your initiative and able leadership, which reflected credit upon yourself and the Naval Service, you are hereby commended."

Dick Borden died in 1999 at age 89.

LST - 319

LST - 319 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Mrs. E. F. Stutzke. On 15 December 1942, LST-319 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 17 December 1945. She was struck from the Navy list on 21 January 1946 and sold to the Ships & Power Equipment Corp., Barber, N.J., on 9 March 1948 and converted for merchant service.

LST - 320

LST - 320 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Miss Edith Elliott. On 31 December 1942, LST-320 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 23 April 1946. She was struck from the Navy list on 19 June 1946. On 4 October 1947, she was sold to the Southern Trading Co., Wilmington, Del., for scrapping.

LST - 321

LST - 321 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Miss Catherine Winkler. On 31 December 1942, LST-321 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 11 April 1946. The tank landing ship was struck from the Navy list on 10 June 1947 and sold to Bosey, Philippines, on 5 November 1947.

LST - 322

LST - 322 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Miss Nellie F. Ward. On 9 January 1943, LST-322 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 10 July 1946. On 29 October 1946, the tank landing ship was struck from the Navy list and sold to the government of Greece on 6 January 1947.

LST - 323

LST - 323 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Mrs. Raymond McDowell. On 18 January 1943, LST-323 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody and commissioned on 26 January 1946. She was decommissioned on 5 June 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 19 June 1946. On 9 October 1947, the tank landing ship was sold to Luria Bros. & Co., of Philadelphia, Pa., for scrapping.

LST - 324

LST - 324 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 5 November 1942; and sponsored by Mrs. James A. Boyle. On 23 January 1943, LST-324 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on I June 1946. The tank landing ship was struck from the Navy list on 3 July 1946 and sold to Bosey, Philippines, on 13 February 1948.

LST - 325

LST - 325 was laid down on 10 August 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 27 October 1942; sponsored by Mrs. C. Wells; and commissioned on 1 February 1943, Lt. Ira Ehrensall, USNR, in command. During World War II, LST-325 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the Sicilian occupation in July 1943 and the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. She was decommissioned on 2 July 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 1 September 1961. On 1 September 1964, LST- 325 was transferred to Greece as grant aid where she remained active as Syros (L-144). LST-325 earned two battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 326

LST - 326 was laid down on 12 November 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 11 February 1943; sponsored by Miss Mildred E. Kelly; and commissioned on 26 February 1943. During World War II, LST-326 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the Sicilian occupation in July 1943, the Anzio-Nettuno advanced landings in January and February 1944, and the invasion of Normandy in June 1944. On 9 December 1944, LST-326 was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 25 February 1946. She was decommissioned the following day and struck from the Navy list. She was sold to France on 5 April 1946. LST-326 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 327

LST - 327 was laid down on 12 November 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 11 February 1943; sponsored by Miss Helen B. Higgins; and commissioned on 5 March 1943. During World War II, LST-327 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Tunisian operations-July 1943 Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Anzio-Nettuno advanced landings - January through March 1944 Normandy invasion-June 1944 On 27 August 1944, LST-327 was severely damaged by an enemy mine in the English Channel. Upon her return to the United States, she was decommissioned on 19 November 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 5 December 1945. The tank landing ship was sold to the Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Chester, Pa., on 15 September 1948. LST-327 earned five battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 328

LST - 328 was redesignated ARB-2 and named Oceanus (q.v.) on 25 January 1943.

LST - 329

LST - 329 was redesignated ARB-1 and named Aristaeus (q.v.) on 25 January 1943.

LST - 330

LST - 330 was redesignated AGP-4 and named Portunus (q.v.) on 25 January 1943.

LST - 331

LST - 331 was laid down on 12 November 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 11 February 1943; sponsored by Miss Ruth Stout; and commissioned on 11 March 1943. During World War II, LST-331 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Tunisian operations-July 1943 Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 She was transferred to the United Kingdom on 20 November 1944 and returned to United States Navy custody and decommissioned on 16 March 1946. LST-331 was struck from the Navy list on 26 February 1946 -and sold to Bosey, Philippines, on 13 February 1948. LST-331 earned four battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 332

LST - 332 was laid down on 29 October 1942 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 24 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. W. Henderson; and commissioned on 6 February 1943. During World War II, LST-332 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 LST-332 was decommissioned on 22 May 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 12 March 1946. On 17 October 1946, the tank landing ship was sold to the Suwannee Steamship Co., Charleston, S.C., for conversion to merchant service. LST-332 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 333

LST - 333 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 October 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Cornelius A. Kneeburg; and commissioned on 20 November 1942. She was torpedoed off Dellys, Algeria, on 22 June 1943 and struck from the Navy list on 6 July 1943.

LST - 334

LST - 334 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Nor folk Navy Yard; launched on 15 October 1942; sponsored by Mrs. M. Thompson; and commissioned on 29 November 1942, Lt. George Alyward, USNR, ill command. During World War II, LST-334 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the following operations: Vella Lavella occupation-October 1943 Occupation and defense of Cape Torokina-November and December 1943 Capture and occupation of Guam-July and August 1944 Assault and occupation of Okinawa Gunto-April through June 1945 Following the war, LST-334 performed occupation duty in the Far East until mid-October 1945. Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 24 April 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 5 June 1946. On 22 April 1948, she was sold to the Bethlehem Steel Co., Bethlehem, Pa., for scrapping. LST-334 earned four battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War II service.

LST - 335

LST - 335 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 October 1942; spon sored by Mrs. B. V. McCandlish; and commissioned on 6 December 1942. During World War II, LST-335 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 a Sa erno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 22 December 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 8 January 1946. She was sold to James A. Hughes, New York, N.Y., on 1 December 1947, for scrapping. LST-335 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 336

LST - 336 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 October 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Thomas B. Richey; and commissioned on 11 December 1942. During World War II, LST-336 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 She was decommissioned and transferred to the United Kingdom on 27 November 1944 and returned to United States Navy custody on 7 March 1946. LST-336 was struck from the Navy list on 5 June 1946. On 22 October 1947, she was sold to Luria Bros. & Co., Inc., of Philadelphia, Pa. LST-336 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 337

LST - 337 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Mrs. McL. Hague; and commissioned on 16 December 1942. During World War II, LST-337 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 LST-337 was transferred to the United Kingdom on 2 December 1944. She was returned to United States Navy custody and decommissioned on 16 March 1946. The tank landing ship was struck from the Navy list on 17 April 1946 and sold to Bosey, Philippines, on 5 December 1947. LST-337 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 338

LST - 338 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Mrs. R. I. Coleman; and commissioned on 20 December 1942, Lt. D. A. Stratton, USNR, in command. During World War II, LST-338 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normany-June 1944 Upon returning to the United States, the tank landing ship was decommissioned on 6 May 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 23 June 1947. On 3 December 1947, she was sold to the Southern Trading Co., Philadelphia, Pa., for conversion to merchant service. LST-338 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 339

LST - 339 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Britt; and commissioned on 23 December 1942, Lt. John H. Fulweiler, USNR, in command. During World War II, LST-339 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the following operations: Consolidation of southern Solomons-June 1943 New Georgia Group operation: (a) New Georgia-Rendova-Vangunu occupation- June and July 1943 (b) Vella Lavella occupation-August 1943 Occupation and defense of Cape Torokina-November 1943 Hollandia operation-April 1944 Western New Guinea operations: (a) Biak Island operation-May and June 1944 (b) Noemfoor Island operation-June and July 1944 (c) Morotai landings-September 1944 Following the war, LST-339 performed occupation duty in the Far East until mid-November 1945. Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 13 May 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 23 June 1947. On 16 October 1947, she was sold to the New Orleans Shipwrecking Corp., Chicago, Ill., for scrapping. LST-339 earned four battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War II service.

LST - 340

LST - 340 was laid down on 17 July 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Raab; and commissioned on 26 December 1942, Lt. William Villella in command. During World War II, LST-340 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the following operations: Consolidation of southern Solomons-June 1943 Capture and occupation of Saipan-June through August 1944 Tinian capture and occupation-July through August 1944 On 20 October 1944, she was redesignated IX-196 and named Spark (q.v.). The ship was decommissioned on 24 October 1944 and struck from the Navy list on 1 September 1945. Spark earned three battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for service in World War II as LST-340.

LST - 341

LST - 341 was laid down on 21 August 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Miss Elizabeth R. Bisset; and commissioned on 28 December 1942. During World War II, LST-341 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the following operations: New Georgia Group operation: (a) New Georgia-Rendova-Vangunu occupation-June and July 1943 (b) Vella Lavella occupation-August 1943 Occupation and defense of Cape Torokina- November 1943 Marianas operation: (a) Capture and occupation of Saipan-June and July 1944 (b) Capture and occupation of Guam-July and August 1944 Leyte landings-October and November 1944 Following the war, LST-341 performed occupation duty in the Far East in September and October 1945. Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 14 March 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 12 April 1946. On 12 September 1946, she was sold to the Construction Power & Merchandising Co., of Brooklyn, N.Y., for conversion to merchant service. LST-341 earned four battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War II service.

LST - 342

LST - 342 was laid down on 21 August 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 8 November 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Philip H. Ryan; and commissioned on 31 December 1942. During World War II, LST-342 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the New Georgia-Rendova- Vangunu occupation in July 1943. She was sunk by a Japanese torpedo off the Solomon Islands on 18 July 1943 and struck from the Navy list on 28 July 1943. LST-342 earned one battle star and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War 11 service.

LST - 343

LST - 343 was laid down on 18 October 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 December 1942; and commissioned on 9 January 1943, Lt. H. Rightmeyer in command. During World War II, LST-343 was assigned to the Asiatic- Pacific theater and participated in the following operations: Consolidation of southern Solomons-June 1943 New Georgia-Rendova-Vangunu occupation-July 1943 Occupation and defense of Cape Torokina-December 1943 Capture and occupation of Guam-July and August 1944 Assault and occupation of Okinawa Gunto-April 1945 Following the war, LST-343 performed occupation duty in the Far East until mid-January 1946. Upon her return to the United States, the ship was decommissioned on 27 January 1946. She was transferred to the United States Army Military Government in Korea on 21 February 1947 as a sale and struck from the Navy list on 5 March 1947. LST-343 earned five battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War II service.

LST - 344

LST - 344 was laid down on 18 October 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Ward; and commissioned on 14 January 1943, Lt. Maurice G. Jackson, USNR, in command. During World War II, LST-344 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings--September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 On 1 July 1955, she was named Blanco County (LST-344) after a county in south central Texas. The tank landing ship was decommissioned on 3 October 1969 and struck from the Navy list on 15 September 1974. She was sold for scrap. LST-344 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 345

LST - 345 was laid down on 17 October 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. John B. Brown; and commissioned on 21 January 1943. During World War II, LST-345 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 Following the war, LST-345 was decommissioned on 5 December 1945 and struck from the Navy list on 3 January 1946. On 23 March 1948, she was sold to the Ships & Power Equipment Co., Barber, N.J., and scrap I LST-345 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 346

LST - 346 was laid down on 17 October 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 15 December 1942; sponsored by Mrs. Felix X. Gygax, Jr.; and commissioned on 25 January 1943. was assigned to the During World War II, LST-346 European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normany-June 1944 On 20 November 1944, she was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody on 2 May 1946. She was decommissioned on 4 May 1946 and struck from the Navy list on 19 June 1946. LST-346 was sold to Bosey, Philippines, on 5 December 1947. LST-346 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 347

LST - 347 was laid down on 10 November 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 7 February 1943; sponsored by Mrs. J. Farrin; and commissioned on 7 February 1943. During World War II, LST-347 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Salerno landings-September 1943 Invasion of Normandy-June 1944 On 19 December 1944 she was transferred to the United Kingdom and returned to United States Navy custody in January 1948. On 23 January 1948, the ship was retransferred to France on lease and returned to United States Navy custody on 21 March 1949. LST-347 was sold to France that same day. LST-347 was struck from the Navy list on 28 April 1949. LST-347 earned three battle stars for World War II service.

LST - 348

LST - 348 was laid down on 10 November 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 7 February 1943; sponsored by Mrs. L. Honsinger; and commissioned on 9 February 1943. During World War II II, LST-348 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the following operations: Sicilian occupation-July 1943 Anzio-Nettuno advanced landings - January through March 1944 LST-348 was sunk by a submarine torpedo off Anzio, Italy, on 20 February 1944 and struck from the Navy list on 6 March 1944. LST-348 earned two battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for World War II service.

LST - 349

LST - 349 was laid down on 10 November 1942 at the Norfolk Navy Yard; launched on 7 February 1943; sponsored by Mrs. 0. Barclay; and commissioned on 11 February 1943. During World War II, LST-349 was assigned to the European theater and participated in the Sicilian occupation in July 1943. She ran aground and sank off Ponza, Italy, on 26 February 1944 and was struck from the Navy list on 25 March 1944. LST-349 earned one battle star for World War II service.

LST-325 (戦車揚陸艦)


1951年、海上輸送司令部所属のUSNS T-LST-325として再度就役し、北大西洋開発援助に参加して、カナダとグリーンランドの東海岸沿いに前哨部隊探査基地建設のためラブラドル海、デービス海峡、バフィン湾に入港した。1961年9月1日、海軍船舶登録簿より除籍され、国防予備船隊に係船するため所属を連邦海事局 (MARAD) に変更。

ギリシャ海軍 (1964年-1999年) 編集

1964年9月1日、無償援助の一環としてギリシャに向かう。1964年から1999年の間、ギリシャ海軍シロス (RHS Syros L-144) として活動。

2000年、退役軍人で構成されるThe USS LST Memorial, Inc.はこの艦船を入手。ギリシャから買い取り、補修してからアメリカへ向けて出航し2001年1月10日アラバマ州モービルへ到着。2003年、ミシシッピ川とオハイオ川を航行。インディアナ州エバンズビルで10日間35,000人以上が内覧した。2005年5月と6月バージニア州アレクサンドリア、マサチューセッツ州バザーズ湾、ボストン、グロスターなどの港を60日間かけて自家発電により航行。ニューヨーク州オリエントとコネチカット州ニューロンドンを結ぶフェリーとして日常的に使われている LST-510 や湾岸の浚渫船のMVコロンビアと同様に、数少ない航行可能な戦車揚陸艦の1つとされている。船員によると継続的にメンテナンスや修復が行なわれ元の形を留めている。2005年10月1日、インディアナ州エバンズビルに常時停泊することとなったが、毎年他の港にも訪れている。

エバンズビル 編集

第二次世界大戦中、インディアナ州エバンズビルの川岸に戦車揚陸艦のため45-エーカー (18 ha)の造船所が作られた。最盛期のエバンズビル造船所は従業員19,000人以上がおり、この規模の大型船を週に2隻完成させており、国内で最も大きな戦車揚陸艦造船所となった。エバンズビル造船所で24隻の普通船舶、167隻の戦車揚陸艦、35隻の他の船舶が作られた。現在LST-325はここに常時停泊し、戦車揚陸艦と軍事の記念博物館となっている。

Refine listing

To send this article to your account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply[email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

The Allies Land at Sicily

The invasion of Sicily, code-named Operation Husky, began before dawn on July 10, 1943, with combined air and sea landings involving 150,000 troops, 3,000 ships and 4,000 aircraft, all directed at the southern shores of the island. This massive assault was nearly cancelled the previous day when a summer storm arose and caused serious difficulties for paratroopers dropping behind enemy lines that night. However, the storm also worked to the Allies’ advantage when Axis defenders along the Sicilian coast judged that no commander would attempt amphibious landings in such wind and rain. By the afternoon of July 10, supported by shattering naval and aerial bombardments of enemy positions, 150,000 Allied troops reached the Sicilian shores, bringing along 600 tanks.

History of LST - 311 - 349 - History

WWII Cruise Books PDF's available

I have scanned a number of WWII Cruise Books and Ship's Histories in order to preserve the History of the Men who served. This started as a quest to find a copy of the USS Neshoba-APA 216's cruise book. I was able to talk a library in Maine to lend me their copy to scan. Shortly afterwards one of the men from my Dad's ship, Bill Allingham GAVE ME his copy of the book.

Since then I have been lent a number of Cruise Books and Ship's Histories by collectors, most from Rick and Charles. I only own one Cruise Book, the Neshoba. I've had a few others that I picked up relatively cheaply, scanned and then passed on to people connected to the ship-for what I paid plus postage. This is NOT a business.

After scanning the books, I photo-edit them and put them into Adobe PDF format. The files vary in size from 4 meg for the Gilmore to over 90 meg for the Napa and Lanier. They also vary in quality due to the quality of the original printing, the ability to scan the pages in tightly bound books (without breaking the bindings) and the use of off white or grey in the original books. Some are very sharp, others are relatively low quality images. Some are just Histories that were typed out by Crew or Officers and have no pictures.

I take some liberty when scanning the books, eliminating the blank pages and sometimes combining intro pages that are almost empty onto one page. Sometimes I "shift" the images around to get the most image per page, but no material is omitted. You can print from the PDF file - using a normal computer printer.

If you would like a PDF copy of any of the following files, please contact me, but please donate to USS Slater DE 766 a fine restoration of a WWII DE - located in Albany, NY

The donation link is on the bottom of the page: USS Slater DE 766

Contact me (Russ Padden) via email.

These are the books that I have scanned so far: (All of the books are from WWII Cruisebooks unless noted).

AH 13 Benevolence-History

AH 15 Consolation-History

AH 17 Sanctuary-History

AGC 7 McKinley 1st cruise
AGC 7 McKinley 3rd cruise 1946

AGC 8 Mount Olympus
AGC 9 Wasatch

AGC 13 Panamint
AGC 14 Teton

AGS 16 Maury - Neptunus Rex 1957
AGS 16 Maury - Cruise 1952

AHR01 Register - Cruise and repair log

AK 177 Zaurak-new Feb 2016

AKA 2 Procyon
AKA 7 Alcyone

AKA 30 Lumen - new Dec 2015

AKA 58 Chara - WWII, Korea - Publ 1997

AKA 63 Theenim
AKA 70 Tate

AKA 80 Tyrell
AKA 95 Marquette

AKA 98 Montague - 1953-54 (2nd 'Nam era)

AKA 106 Union 1948 Point Barrow (Arctic) Expedition
AKN 1 Indus

AP 07 Wharton-new Feb 2016 (1974 published)

AP 69 Elizabeth Cady Stanton

AP 105 General George F. Elliot

AP 111 General A. E. Anderson

AP 112 General W. A. Mann

AP 112 General W. A. Mann - Neptunus Rex 1944

AP 114 Gen Wm. Mitchell

AP 117 General W. H. Gordon
AP 120 Admiral W. S. Benson
AP 121 Admiral W. L. Capps
AP 122 Admiral R. E.Coontz
AP 123 Admiral E. W. Eberle


AP 134 General R. L. Howze

AP 137 General S. D. Sturgis

AP 139 General R. E. Callan
AP 141 General A. W. Greeley

AP 144 General Hodges

AP 148 General M. L. Hersey

AP 153 General R. M. Blatchford

AP 154 General Leroy eltinge

AP 166 Comet
AP 173 Herald of the Morning

APA 2 Harris
APA 5 Barnett

APA 13 Joseph T. Dickman
APA 16 J Franklin Bell

APA 27 Clymer
APA 30 Thomas Jefferson - 2 different

APA 38 Chilton 1st Cruise Book

APA 38 Chilton - reunion book - 1990's

APA 38 Chilton - Decommissioning 1972

APA 86 USS Geneva - Reunion 1998

APA 100 Mendocino
APA 104 Westmoreland

APA 107 Goodhue
APA 108 Goshen

APA 110 Griggs
APA 119 Highlands
APA 122 Kenton
APA 125 Lanier

APA 143 Clermont
APA 146 Collingsworth

APA 155 Lycoming
APA 157 Napa
APA 164 Edgecombe

APA 174 Jerauld - Commissioning Booklet

APA 175 Karnes
APA 176 Kershaw
APA 178 Lander
APA 187 Oconto

APA 188 Olmsted - Magic Carpet Pamphlet

APA 191 Pondera
APA 193 Sanborn
APA 202 Menifee

APA 203 Meriwether
APA 209 Tazewell
APA 212 Montrose

APA 214 Natrona - Action Report (not cruisebook)
APA 216 Neshoba

APA 217 New Kent - cruise book - also see link below:

APA219 Okaloosa
APA 226 Rawlins

APA 228 Rockbridge - Operation Crossroads

APA 231 St. Croix
APA 232 SanSaba

APA 233 Sevier
APD 11 Gilmer

APD 43/DE 62 George W. Ingram

APD 134 Kleinsmith - Commisssioning

AS12 Sperry 1st Anniversary 1943

AS 26 Clytie (Neptunus Rex)

AV 7 Currituck 1961-1962 Far East Cruise

AV 14 Kenneth Whiting

BB 60 Alabama 1936-Neptunus Rex
CL 57 Montpelier

DDR 875 HW Tucker 1958

LSM 148 -
LSM 352 -

LST 588- "in WWII" and reunion book 1986

LST 946 Fort Defiance



Looking for Cruise Books I haven't scanned?

APD 94 John Q. Roberts is on this site fold3.com and also available from www.greatnavalimages.com

AP 102 LaSalle is available on www.ancestry.com - along with thousands of others.

There is a former Navy Guy who has scanned a large number of Cruise Books (I still almost exclusively scan Amphib and Transport books).

His CD prices are reasonable considering the amount of work that goes into finding, scanning, editing, formatting etc. www.greatnavalimages.com.

His CD's have background music, an index and other features that I don't include on my CD's. He uses a program which translates the images to a proprietary format - to get prints of pages, you can do print screens. For higher resolution prints you can buy prints of specific pages or prints of the whole book from him.



I can give references from the guys who have lent me their books to scan.


With The Hamlets Of
East And West Hyde, Stopsley, Limbury Cum Biscott, And Leagrave

Lygetune (viii cent.) Lygeanburh (x cent.) Loitone (xi cent.) Lectuna, Lutune (xii–xiii cents.) Leweton (xvi cent.).

Bissopescote (xi cent.) Byscote (xiv cent.).

Lightgrave, Litgrave (xv–xvii cents.).

Luton is a large parish comprising, with its hamlets, 15,434 acres, of which 9,897 acres are arable, 3,427 permanent grass, and 692 woods and plantations. (fn. 1)

The soil is composed of chalk, loam, and gravel, and the parish contains much good arable land.

In Stopsley the soil is strong clay, the subsoil strong clay on a bed of chalk, and the crops are wheat, barley, oats, and beans. In East and West Hyde the soil is sandy loam, and the subsoil chalk and clay. The slope of the ground is irregular the highest point, in the south-west of the parish, is 534 ft. above the ordnance datum the lowest, in the north, 360 ft.

The position of the present centre of the town and of the parish church of St. Mary suggests that the original settlement at Luton occupied a piece of low ground close to the River Lea, perhaps at some important ford.

Starting from this nucleus the town spread, at first south, up the slopes on that side of the river, later in a north-westerly direction, when the present factories were built, and is now beginning to occupy the northern slopes of the valley and the steep wooded rise known as St. Anne's Hill, which overlooks the town from that direction.

The main streets appear to have preserved to some extent their original plan, and until recently contained numerous old houses and inns, now rebuilt or entirely removed. The Cross Keys Inn was pulled down in 1905, and the present George Inn retains parts of an older house, much concealed by modern reconstruction.

George Street, with the Corn Exchange at the south end and the Town Hall at the north, forms a short main street upon which numerous others converge. The majority of these streets are narrow and in some cases steep, so that the traffic which enters the town by wide and open roads in the outskirts often becomes somewhat crowded in the main streets, particularly on market days, when a portion of George Street is used for the purpose of a marketplace.

The church of St. Mary, surrounded by a large graveyard, is half-way between George Street and the river. The original vicarage was probably close to the church, but the present house is modern and lies on the north side of the river.

To the north of the town are the parishes of Leagrave and Stopsley, formed respectively in 1866 and 1861 out of Luton. To the south is Hyde parish, formed in 1843.

The neighbouring country is mostly higher than the town, and is often well wooded, particularly in Stockwood and Luton Hoo parks to the south and on the slopes of St. Anne's Hill to the east.

To the north and north-east the chalk downs run in long sweeping undulations towards Hitchin. The town is provided with water from deep borings in the chalk, the supply being stored in reservoirs on high ground to the north and south of the town.

The Hatfield road enters the town from the south by Park Road and Manchester Street and to the north the main roads run north-west to Dunstable, and north to Bedford.

The Midland Railway Company has a station at Luton on their main line from St. Pancras, and a branch of the Great Northern Railway from Hatfield to Dunstable also has a station here whilst the London and North-Western have running powers over the Great Northern Company's line from Leighton Buzzard. The Great Northern Railway has a station, Luton Hoo, in the parish of Hyde, facing which is Chiltern Green Station on the Midland Railway.

Palaeolithic implements and neolithic remains have been discovered at Dallow, Round Green, Ramridge End, Leagrave, and Wauluds Bank, Luton and gold British coins at Leagrave. (fn. 2)

Wauluds Bank, Drays Ditches near Limbury, and Someries Castle near Luton, are examples of ancient defensive earthworks, the last being manorial in character. (fn. 3)

Among place-names found in documents relating to this parish may be mentioned the following:—Catenho, Campsters hul, Haldwyk, in the thirteenth century le Haut Close, from the thirteenth to the seventeenth, and Payshull or Popeshull from the thirteenth to the sixteenth Hydemanfeld, Stapleford field, and Wychhull in the fourteenth Ryndelee or Rondeleyes from the fourteenth to the seventeenth Goffes, Chapelhaut, in the fifteenth Burymill mead, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth Allwyn's Close, Aschebesland, Bassetts, Begersland, Courgend Close, Derie Boughte, Fenylfield, Gallows, Hermytage lands, Lepers, Mayndenfield, Newmans, Ramridgehill, Sewell field, Theydon's Close, Welhavering, in the sixteenth Baylyfield, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Gregory Shaws, Pursleys, and Sears Close, from the sixteenth to the eighteenth Bassets, Broomfield, Copthall, Deadwoman furlong, Priestsmeadow, Lawcroftes, in the seventeenth Kitnow Close, Onyons, in the seventeenth century Nocehilles or Mixeshill, from the seventeenth century to the present day.

Luton is a town which has developed during the nineteenth century. This may be well exemplified by an examination of its population at various times. Thus, in 1546 the population included 1,500 'houselyng people' in 1801 the official returns give 3,095 in 1831, 5,693 in 1851, 12,787 in 1871, 20,733 and in 1891, 32,401. (fn. 4) Previous to this extraordinary nineteenth-century expansion Luton appears to have been a quiet market town with a comparatively uneventful history. No mention of it has been found before the Survey, when it already possessed a market whose tolls were valued at 100s. (fn. 5)

In 1246 Luton was the scene of a great assembly of lords and knights, who met there to keep a 'martial just and triumphal tourney.' The celebration was stopped, however, by command of the king, the real intention of the meeting having been to organize resistance to the oppression of the pope, at that time very grievous. (fn. 6)

In 1336 Luton suffered severe damage by fire, (fn. 7) from which the town had not recovered in 1340, when about two hundred messuages in the parish were uninhabited and 6 carucates of land uncultivated on account of the impoverishment of the parish by the recent fire. (fn. 8)

Leland, writing in the early half of the sixteenth century, mentions Luton as famous for its barley market whilst Camden, a generation or so later, says: 'As for Leighton Buzzard on the one side of Dunstable and Luton on the other, neither have I read nor seen anything memorable in them, unless I should say that at Luton I saw a fair church, but the choir there roofless, and overgrown with weeds.' (fn. 9) This looks as though Luton had sunk into a state of decay not uncommon amongst agricultural towns in the sixteenth century, but with the introduction of the manufacture of straw plait in the beginning of the seventeenth century the town entered on a new era of prosperity. (fn. 10) Tradition assigns the introduction of this industry to Mary queen of Scots, who brought straw-plaiters from Lorraine to Scotland, and whose son James I, when he acquired the English crown, transferred the little colony to Bedfordshire and the neighbouring districts, where the conditions, owing to the abundance of good straw, were specially adapted for this manufacture. So well did it take root and flourish that in 1689, in a petition presented to the House of Lords against the passing of a Woollen Manufacture Wearing Bill (afterwards rejected), it was estimated that if a clause in the bill enjoining the wearing of woollen caps were to take effect, over one thousand families, including 14,000 persons, in Luton, Dunstable, and neighbouring towns would be thrown out of employment. (fn. 11)

Francis Blomfield, writing of Luton between 1724 and 1734, says: 'It hath a market house and large Monday market for corn, with which this part much abounds, there being but little pasture firing is very dear and scarce by reason of the small quantity of wood, the county is chiefly champion, and the long carriage of coal by land makes that also chargeable.' (fn. 12) In the beginning of the nineteenth century a further development of the straw-plait trade took place when Thomas Waller obtained a patent for the manufacture of Tuscan grass plait, and since then a vast amount of raw material of foreign growth has been imported to be prepared, plaited, and formed into the finished article in Luton.

From sixteenth-century court rolls it would appear that the lord of Luton exercised a somewhat extended jurisdiction over the town. Constables were elected at the courts, not only for Luton, but also the hamlets of Stopsley, Limbury, East and West Hyde, and Leagrave. (fn. 13) As late as 1830 the town was governed by a high constable, two day constables, and one night constable, elected at the yearly court leet of the lord of Luton manor. In a court roll of 1542 the following entry occurs:—'A peyne put that every householder shall gather or cause to be gathered stones for the streets and high way in Luton one hole day in peyne of 4d.… that all the rich men in Luton and them that have carts shall carye one hole day the seyde stones and lay them where there is most need in peyne of 3s. 4d.' (fn. 14)

Luton had a market at the time of the Survey, which was valued at 100s. (fn. 15) In 1203 this market, hitherto held on a Sunday, was transferred to Monday, (fn. 16) but in a grant of 1338 to Hugh Mortimer, a Thursday market is named, (fn. 17) which at the present day is held on a Monday.

Leland mentions Luton market as famous for its barley, and Blomfield, writing between 1724 and 1734, says it was noted for its corn. (fn. 18)

The introduction of the straw-plait industry into Bedfordshire in the seventeenth century largely increased the importance of Luton market, which at the present day does a large trade in cattle, corn, and straw plait. The rights of market tolls belong to Sir Julius Wernher, lord of Luton manor, subject however to a lease of the same to the corporation of Luton for seventy-five years at £150 per annum rent from 25 March, 1866. (fn. 19) During the nineteenth century a second market has been established on Saturdays, mainly for the sale of provisions.

The right of a yearly fair on the feast of the Assumption (15 August) was early appurtenant to Luton manor, and during Baldwin de Bethune's tenure of the manor (1195–1212) was the subject of a controversy which was finally settled by Baldwin allowing the claims of St. Albans to the profits of the fair except for the sale of gold, horses, tanned skins, and men, qui antiquitus vendebantur, the men of the abbot to enjoy the same rights as in the time when the manor was the king's. (fn. 20)

In 1338 Hugh Mortimer obtained the grant of another fair in this manor on St. Luke's Day (18 October), (fn. 21) and Sir Robert Napier in 1620 received a confirmation of these two fairs, the date of the former being altered to St. Mark's Day (25 April). (fn. 22) Two fairs are still held at these dates, as well as one at Michaelmas, formerly held for hiring servants, but now as a pleasure fair.

In 1876 Luton obtained a charter of incorporation by name of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Luton, with the right to use armorial bearings and devices, (fn. 23) and the town is now governed by a mayor, six aldermen, and eighteen councillors. Luton is divided into three wards, north, east, and west.

At the present day, besides the straw plait manufacture (for which material is now imported from China, Italy, and Japan), there are in Luton iron and brass foundries, boiler works, and a brewery. In 1896 the following hamlets were detached from Luton and became separate civil parishes:—East and West Hyde (now known as the parish of Hyde), Limbury-cumBiscott, Leagrave, and Stopsley. (fn. 24)

Luton contains a specially large number of MANORS, which will be found treated according to the following classification:—

1. Manors held in chief:—(1) Luton (2) Woodcroft or Halyard (3) Woodcroft (4) Luton Hoo (5) Picks.

2. Manors held of Luton Manor:—(6) Brache (7) Dallow (8) David Ashby (9) East Hide or The Hyde (10) Farley (11) Fennels Grove (12) Greathampstead (13) Hayes or Hooburne (14) Haverings (15) Limbury (16) Limbury (17) West Hyde Aynel (18) Whiperly or Stockwood.

3. Miscellaneous Manors:—(19) Bailiffs (20) Bennets (21) Biscott (22) Bramblehanger (23) East Hyde and West Hyde (24) Lalleford (25) Langleys (26) Lewsey (27) Northwood (28) Plenties (29) Someries (30) Stopsley (31) Woodcroft.

At the time of the Domesday Survey of 1087, LUTON MANOR is found among the king's lands, and had been a royal manor during the reign of Edward the Confessor. (fn. 25) It was then a manor of considerable importance, assessed at 30 hides, and included six mills and tolls of market worth 100s. (fn. 26) Subsequently this manor passed away from the crown. The earliest authenticated grant is that of Henry I to Robert earl of Gloucester (c. 1100–47), his illegitimate son, who during the civil war of the reign of King Stephen fought on the side of his half-sister, the Empress Maud. (fn. 27) He died in 1147, when William his son succeeded to the Luton estate, and he appears to have enfeoffed Earl Gilbert, who proved a traitor to King Stephen, and whose estates consequently escheated to the crown, and were granted by the king to Robert de Waudari, (fn. 28) one of his knights. William was subsequently restored to his estates, (fn. 29) and died without issue in 1182, and the manor having returned to the crown was next granted to Baldwin de Bethune, afterwards earl of Albemarle, who in 1190 held crown land in Luton valued at £80 a year, (fn. 30) and in 1214, on the marriage of his daughter with William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, Luton passed to him as part of her marriage portion. (fn. 31)

During the civil war between John and his barons William Marshal took the side of the latter, and Luton fell into the hands of King John, who granted it to Fulk de Breauté, 'as he was permitted to do in times of war.' Afterwards, when there was peace between the king and his barons, Fulk, not wishing to be against the peace, returned the manor to the earl, who restored it to Fulk by a charter by which William, son of William Marshal, quitclaimed to Fulk de Breauté the whole manor of Luton to hold to himself and his heirs. (fn. 32) This Fulk, who thus acquired Luton, was the famous Norman adventurer who took a prominent part on the king's side in the barons' war. He appears to have made himself very much disliked at Luton, as he did throughout England. In 1221 he built a castle here, which the prior of Dunstable complained was a source of danger to the priory and the neighbourhood. (fn. 33) In the previous year he had unjustly disseised William de Stanes of free tenements in Luton, (fn. 34) and in 1224 he similarly dispossessed thirty-two freemen in the manor of Luton and appropriated their pasture for himself. (fn. 35) On another occasion the abbot of St. Albans complained that the outflow of a pool constructed by Fulk had injured the abbot's crops whereupon Fulk replied that he wished that the overflow had occurred when the grain was garnered, so that the injury would have been greater. (fn. 36) Fulk died in disgrace in 1226, and in 1229, on the occasion of the marriage of William Marshal with Eleanor, sister of Henry III, Luton manor was regranted to him, (fn. 37) and thus in the words of the Chronicler he 'recovered what he had formerly foolishly given.' (fn. 38) William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, died in 1231, leaving no issue, but his widow, who subsequently married Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, survived until 1274, (fn. 39) when Luton fell to the heirs of Isabel de Clare, wife of William de Ferrers, earl of Derby, she being one of the co-heirs of Anselm Marshal, earl of Pembroke. (fn. 40) She had six daughters who became their mother's co-heirs, and the consequent subdivision of the manor into sixths leads to some complication in its history. The names of these daughters were Isabel, wife of Reginald de Mohun Maud, married first to William de Kyme and afterwards to William de Vyvonia Sybil, wife of Frank de Bohun Joan, wife of John de Mohun Agatha, wife of Hugh Mortimer of Chelmarsh and Eleanor, married successively to William de Vaux, Roger de Quincy, and Roger de Leyburne. (fn. 41) The portions of three of these sisters, Isabel de Mohun, Maud de Kyme, and Agatha, wife of Hugh Mortimer, after following a separate descent for some time, subsequently became reunited in what was later known as Luton manor. (fn. 42) Isabel de Mohun, the eldest daughter, appears to have received as her share in addition to the hundred of Flitt, rents of free tenants in Luton amounting to £5 19s., for these rents were held by her son, William de Mohun, at his death in 1282. He left a son Reginald, who died without issue previous to 1297, in which year his sister Mary, wife of John de Meriet, received as her portion of her father William's estate all his lands in Luton, valued at £17 10s. 4d., (fn. 43) for which her husband rendered feudal service in 1316. (fn. 44) Mary de Meriet left no issue, and on her husband's death in 1327 this portion of the manor reverted to the heirs of Isabel de Mohun, who are given as John de Beauchamp of Somerset, and Henry son of Roger (representing Maud de Kyme), John de Bohun, John de Mohun, and Hugh Mortimer. (fn. 45) In 1332 John de Bohun transferred his share to Hugh Mortimer, (fn. 46) and in 1341 he received a similar grant from John de Beauchamp. (fn. 47) The shares of John de Mohun and Henry, son of Roger, appear to have become absorbed in their other Luton property, and no further separate descent of them has been found.

Marshal. Party or and vert a lion gules.

Clare. Or three cheverons gules.

Maud de Kyme, second daughter of Isabel de Clare, survived her mother until 1299, when she died seised of the sixth part of Luton manor which included a water-mill and free fishery, also a free court and view of frankpledge, and a market. (fn. 48) She left four daughters as her co-heirs, Joan de Vyvonia wife of Reginald Fitz Piers, Cicely wife of John de Beauchamp of Somerset, Sybil, wife of Guy de Rochechouart, and Mabel de Archiaco, whose son Aymer succeeded to his mother's share. (fn. 49) In 1300 Sybil de Rochechouart conveyed her fourth of her mother's property to Cicely de Beauchamp, (fn. 50) and in 1308 Aymer de Archiaco enfeoffed Joan Fitz Piers and Reginald her son of his mother's fourth. (fn. 51) Thus of Maud de Kyme's sixth of Luton manor, onehalf now belonged to Joan Fitz Piers, the other to Cicely Beauchamp. Joan Fitz Piers held in 1302 one-fourth of her mother's lands, valued at 17s. 10½d., and including one-fourth of a windmill, a market, and view of frankpledge. (fn. 52) She died in 1314, (fn. 53) and was followed by her son Reginald, who died in 1328, (fn. 54) His grandson Reginald Fitz Herbert held this portion of Luton manor till 1347, when he was succeeded by a son, Edmund Fitz Herbert (fn. 55) whose son Edmund Fitz Herbert in 1377 conveyed his estate in Luton, worth at this time £8 per annum, to William de Wenlock. (fn. 56) In 1389 William Wenlock made a settlement of this estate on William Wyvell of Wenlock, (fn. 57) but no further mention of it has been found until the following century, when, together with the larger portions of the manor which had accumulated in the hands of the Mortimers, it reappears still in the family of the Wenlocks. (fn. 58)

In 1318 Cicely Beauchamp, who had acquired the other half of Maud de Kyme's property, effected an exchange with Hugh Mortimer, by which, in return for his property in Sturminster, she gave him her share in Luton manor. (fn. 59) Thus of the four parts into which Maud de Kyme's share in Luton manor had been divided, by the fourteenth century one-half had gone to Hugh Mortimer, and one-half to the Wenlocks to await subsequent amalgamation in the fifteenth century.

Wenlock. Argent a cheveron between three blackamoors' heads razed sable.

Agatha Mortimer, a third of the co-heiresses of Isabel de Clare, inherited in 1275 one-sixth of the manor of Luton, which included the capital messuage of the manor. (fn. 60) She died in 1306 leaving a son Henry Mortimer, (fn. 61) who in 1316 rendered feudal service to the king in Luton, (fn. 62) and whose son Hugh, in 1331, claimed a market, view of frankpledge, and free warren in Luton for himself and as feoffee of Cicely de Beauchamp. (fn. 63) In 1344 Hugh Mortimer made a settlement of the manor on his son Henry and his heirs, with remainder to his other sons, and failing them to his daughters Joan and Margaret and their heirs. (fn. 64) Hugh Mortimer died in 1372 leaving as his heir his grandson William, son of Henry, (fn. 65) who, in an inquisition dated 1391 is described as a fool and idiot, his lands in consequence being in the king's hands. (fn. 66) His brother Hugh inherited his estates, and died in 1403 without issue, when this moiety of Luton manor, in accordance with the settlement made by Hugh Mortimer in 1344, passed to John de Cressy, his second cousin, son of Mabel granddaughter of the aforesaid Hugh. (fn. 67) John Cressy died in 1407, leaving a son Thomas, aged six, who only survived his father a few months, and left as heir a brother John, aged at the time of the inquisition thirty-three weeks. (fn. 68) He continued to hold the manor until 1467, in which year he alienated it to John Lord Wenlock, (fn. 69) who fought on the Lancastrian side at the first battle of St. Albans in 1455. He next, 'with contemptible tergiversation, 'joined the Yorkist party in 1459, and was attainted. He fought for them at Towton in 1461, but again changed sides and was slain at Tewkesbury in 1471 fighting under the Lancastrian banner. (fn. 70) His estates thus escheated to the crown, and were granted to Thomas Rotherham, at that time bishop of Lincoln, and subsequently archbishop of York. (fn. 71) This grant must have occurred before 1475, for Thomas Rotherham's will, which is found enrolled at that date, mentions Luton manor amongst his real property. (fn. 72) Two years later, probably in order to consolidate Thomas Rotherham's title, Thomas Lawley of Wenlock, kinsman and heir of John Lord Wenlock, released to the bishop all claim to the Luton manors, formerly held by his cousin Lord Wenlock. (fn. 73) Thomas Rotherham died in 1500, and in accordance with his will his Luton property passed to Thomas, son of his brother John, (fn. 74) who held the manor till his death in 1504, when it passed to his son, another Thomas, aged about five. (fn. 75) He died in 1565, when the property passed to his son George, (fn. 76) who, at his death in 1600, left a son Sir John Rotherham, knight, as heir, (fn. 77) who in 1610–11 conveyed his manor into the hands of trustees preparatory to a sale to Sir Robert Napier alias Sandy, which took place in the same year. (fn. 78) Sir Robert Napier died in possession of this property in 1637, when it passed to Robert Napier his son by his third wife Margaret Robinson. (fn. 79) He sat for Parliament, representing Weymouth in 1628 and Peterborough in 1640. During the troubles in the reign of Charles I he sided with the crown, and in 1644 the Committee of Sequestrations for Bedford reported that Sir Robert Napier 'being a member of the House of Commons did in August last depart from London and Westminster and neglected the service of the House till December' and that his estates were accordingly sequestered. He submitted and offered to compound for his estates in 1646, but was not finally discharged until 1647. (fn. 80) His death took place in 1660, when he was succeeded by a grandson Sir Robert Napier, who died unmarried and under age in 1675. (fn. 81) His heir male was his uncle John Napier, who held the Luton estate till his death in 1711, when his son Theophilus came into possession. (fn. 82) The latter died in 1719 leaving no direct heir, and Luton passed to his nephew John Napier, who dying unmarried in 1748, devised his Luton estate by will to his aunt Frances Napier, from whom it passed to her nephew Francis Herne of Middlesex. (fn. 83) In 1763–4 Francis Herne sold it to the earl of Bute. (fn. 84) After having resided at Luton nearly thirty years he died in 1792, and the property passed to his eldest son John, created marquess of Bute in 1796. He died in 1814, when the whole of this property was conveyed into the hands of trustees for John, his grandson, then a minor, (fn. 85) who, in 1844, sold the Luton estate, which then consisted of some 4,000 acres, to Mr. Ward of Clopton. (fn. 86) He never came into residence, and in 1848 it was purchased from him by John Shaw Leigh, (fn. 87) who died in 1871, when he was succeeded by John Gerard Leigh, on whose death in 1878 his widow, afterwards Madame de Falbe, succeeded to the estate for her life. She died in 1899, when the Luton estate passed to her husband's nephew Gerard Leigh, a minor. He died within a fortnight of his entry into possession, leaving an infant son, whose trustees sold it in 1903 to Sir Julius Wernher, in whose possession it is at the present day. (fn. 88)

Napier. Argent a saltire engrailed between four cinqfoils gules.

It now remains to account for the sixths of the ancient Luton manor, which Joan de Mohun, Sybil de Bohun and Eleanor de Leyburne acquired in 1274 as three of the co-heirs of Isabel de Clare. The portion of Joan de Mohun passed to her son John de Mohun, whose son John, then aged ten, succeeded him in 1279. (fn. 89) In 1305 the latter was negotiating a marriage between his son John and Christina, daughter of John de Segrave, when her dower was provided from rents in Luton manor, (fn. 90) and the son of this marriage, John de Mohun, in 1375, enfeoffed Sir Neel Loryng of Chalgrave, one of the first founders of the Garter, with his share of Luton manor. (fn. 91)

Wernher, Baronet. Gules the head of a grappling-iron argent set saltire-wise with two sixpointed molets or above a mount vert in the foot.

On the death of Sir Neel Loryng (March 1385–6), William Loryng, a clerk, obtained a licence in 1387 to alienate this property to the prior and convent of Dunstable to celebrate services daily for the soul of Sir Neel and others. (fn. 92)

The priory appears to have retained this property, for at the Dissolution Dunstable owned in Luton rents amounting in all to £16 16s. 1d., (fn. 93) and in 1545 Henry Audely and John Maynard received a grant of the lands in Luton which had belonged to Dunstable Priory.

From the fact that these names frequently occur as trustees about this time, and that the greater part of these lands were already leased by Sir Thomas Rotherham, lord of Luton manor, it seems likely that this grant was preliminary to a final transfer to him, and that this portion of Luton manor again became absorbed in the whole. (fn. 94)

The one-sixth which fell to Sybil de Bohun, later known as WOODCROFT alias HALYARD MANOR, (fn. 95) was transferred almost immediately by her son John de Bohun to Emery de Lucy, who in 1276 obtained a confirmation of the grant of ten librates of land in Luton held of the king by the service of half a knight's fee. (fn. 96) Emery de Lucy was succeeded some time previous to 1296 by Geoffrey de Lucy, (fn. 97) who died in 1305 holding 'one-sixth of the manor of Luton, namely the hamlet of Woodcroft.' (fn. 98) He left a son Geoffrcy, aged 17 at the time of his father's death, who in 1332 obtained a charter of free warren in his demesne lands of Woodcroft, (fn. 99) and dying in 1346 was followed by a son Geoffrey, (fn. 100) who held the manor till 1400, when Reginald his son succeeded him. (fn. 101) Reginald de Lucy was followed in 1437 by a son Walter who died in 1444 leaving a son William. (fn. 102) On the death of the latter in 1461 (fn. 103) the manor passed for life to his widow Margaret, who held it until 1467, (fn. 104) when it was divided between his niece Elizabeth, daughter of his sister Eleanor and wife of John earl of Worcester, and his nephew William Vaux, son of Maud, another sister, who was attainted on account of a speech made against the king. (fn. 105) Woodcroft eventually passed to William Vaux, who was slain at Tewkesbury in 1471, and whose grandson, Sir Thomas Vaux, Lord Harrowden, transferred this manor to the earl of Essex, (fn. 106) who in 1544 conveyed it into the hands of Robert Dormer and other trustees. (fn. 107) This was probably preliminary to an alienation for when the manor reappears a generation later it is as the property of Ralph Alwey, on whose death in 1623 it passed with his other property to his three daughters, Mary, Anne and Dorothy. (fn. 108) It eventually became the portion of Mary, wife of Edward Wingate, (fn. 109) who in 1653 conveyed it by fine to Robert Napier, (fn. 110) and Woodcroft or Halyard, as it is henceforward called to distinguish it from the other Woodcroft, from this time onwards follows the same descent as Luton manor (q.v.). It has never lost its separate identity, however, and at the present day is distinguished by name as one of the manors which collectively are styled the manor of Luton with its members. (fn. 111)

Lucy. Gules crusilly argent and three lucies argent.

One-sixth only of Luton manor—that which Eleanor de Leyburne inherited as co-heiress of her mother—now remains to be accounted for. It became later known as WOODCROFT MANOR, and appears to have passed almost immediately from Eleanor de Leyburne to Walter de Mandeville, who in 1288 held at Woodcroft in Luton 129 acres of arable land, 6 acres of meadow, 18 acres of pasture, and £9 6s. 11½d. rents held of the king in chief for one-sixth of two knights' fees. (fn. 112)

His sister and heir was Sibil, wife of Henry de Boderigan, who did not long retain it, for in 1310 it was held by John le Poer, who then received licence to grant Woodcroft manor to Robert de Kendale. (fn. 113) The latter is returned as owing service for this manor in 1316, (fn. 114) and died in 1330 leaving a son Edward as his heir. (fn. 115) In 1372 Edward de Kendale conveyed the manor to William de Croisores and other trustees, (fn. 116) and died the following year, leaving sons, Edward and Thomas, who both died without issue in 1375, when their sister Beatrice, wife of Sir Robert Turk, became their heir. (fn. 117) Beatrice pre-deceased her husband, who held the manor till his death in 1400, when their daughter Joan, wife of John Waleys, acquired Woodcroft. (fn. 118) Her eldest daughter Beatrice married Reginald, son of John Cockayne, of Bury Hatley, and in 1421, probably on the occasion of this marriage, John and Joan Waleys conveyed this manor to her and her heirs. (fn. 119) On the death of Reginald Cockayne Beatrice married William Milreth, a citizen and alderman of London, and on her death in 1448, (fn. 120) Woodcroft manor passed to John Cockayne, her son by her first marriage, who died in 1490. (fn. 121) His widow Joan, however, held the manor till her death in 1507, when Edmund Cockayne succeeded to the estate. (fn. 122) From Edmund Cockayne Woodcroft manor then appears to have passed to a younger branch of the family, for in 1522 William Markham and Frances his wife (who was daughter of William Cockayne, son of Edmund) conveyed the manor by fine to John Markham. He was still holding in 1584, (fn. 123) between which date and 1630 the manor passed to Edward Wyngate, (fn. 124) who also held Halyard, and it has since followed the same descent as that manor (q.v.), and like it has preserved to the present day its separate identity as a member of Luton manor.

The manor of LUTON HOO is declared by some writers upon historically worthless evidence to have been held by the Hoo family prior to the Norman Conquest. (fn. 125) It appears always to have been separate from the royal manor of Luton, and to have been held in chief. (fn. 126) It is not mentioned in Domesday, and no documentary evidence has been found of the Hoos holding in Luton prior to 1245, in which year Thomas de Hoo conveyed land and a small rent to his father Robert. (fn. 127) In 1292 Robert de Hoo, probably a son of Thomas, received a charter of free warren in his manor of Hoo, (fn. 128) and in 1306 conveyed the manor by fine to his son Robert, (fn. 129) who in 1319 leased his capital messuage of Hoo at a rent of £10 to his mother, Hadwisa de Goushill, and about the same time acquired the mill of Thatchford by purchase from Thomas de Keston. (fn. 130) In 1337 Thomas de Hoo, Robert's son, obtained a charter of free warren: (fn. 131) his death took place some time before 1391, in which year his widow Isabella obtained a confirmation of this charter. (fn. 132) He left a son William, whose widow Eleanor in 1415 conveyed the manor to her son Sir Thomas de Hoo, probably on the attainment of his majority. (fn. 133) He distinguished himself greatly in the wars with France, and in 1447 was created Baron of Hoo and of Hastings. He died in 1454–5 leaving a brother of the half blood, Thomas Hoo (who died without issue in 1486) and four daughters and co-heirs—Anne, wife of Geoffrey Boleyn, Eleanor, wife of Sir Richard Carewe, Elizabeth, wife of Richard Devenish, and Anne wife of Roger Copley, (fn. 134) who all appear to have inherited an interest an interest in the manor, and it was probably by a mutual arrangement that the manor was sold to Richard Fermor about 1523. (fn. 135) He appears subsequently to have forfeited his lands to Henry VIII, 'because he gave help to a certain James Thayne, a convict,' but on his humble petition recovered Luton Hoo manor in 1551. (fn. 136) Jeremiah Fermor, probably his son, was holding the manor in 1559, (fn. 137) between which date and 1594 it passed to Sir John Brocket, (fn. 138) and was sold by his trustees to Sir Robert Napier, (fn. 139) who, in 1611, acquired Luton manor (q.v.) and Luton Hoo has henceforward followed the same descent. Sir Robert Napier built a residence here, and Luton Hoo has since been known as the seat of the lords of Luton manor and its members. In 1623 he received licence to inclose 300 acres to make a park with free warren, (fn. 140) and this was enlarged to 1,200 acres by Lord Bute, after his purchase in 1763, (fn. 141) who employed 'Capability Brown' to lay out the park, and widen the River Lea, which flows through it, into a considerable lake. He also added largely to the house which has been injured by fires in 1771 and again in 1844. (fn. 142)

Hoo. Quarterly sable and argent.

Luton Hoo Park, at the present day the residence of Sir Julius Wernher, lies to the south of the town, the Lea forming its eastern boundary, making a long sheet of ornamental water. The house stands on the brow of the slope, surrounded by picturesque welltimbered park land and plantations. The entrance is by a colonnaded portico to the west, opening to a large central hall, from which a lately inserted staircase at the north-east angle leads to the upper floors. The dining-room is in the middle of the east front, with library and drawing-rooms, etc., to the south, and the chapel is at the north-east angle. The collection of pictures for which the house was famous was almost entirely dispersed at a late sale, and only a few still remain in their old quarters. The house itself is of little interest architecturally the fittings of the chapel, and the marble panelling in the dining-room are costly modern additions, and the present owner has spared no expense in fitting up the house.

PICKS MANOR, held in chief, is first mentioned as a manor in 1470. In that year Lord Wenlock held a court for Luton, Langley and 'Pykes' bracketed together. (fn. 143) He had obtained Luton from John Cressy in 1467, as previously stated, whilst his ancestors had in 1377 acquired the portions of two of the co-heirs of Maud de Kyme, so that it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that Picks is a distinctive name given to one of these portions, more especially as it was held in chief. (fn. 144) From 1470 it continued to follow the same descent as Luton manor (q.v.). The last mention found of it before its reabsorption in Luton occurs in 1638 when Sir Robert Napier died seised of Picks Farm. (fn. 145)

There were several manors in this parish held of Luton manor. The estate afterwards known as BRACHE MANOR undoubtedly belonged at one time to the royal manor of Luton, for whilst the latter was in the possession of William Marshal earl of Pembroke (who held Luton between 1214 and 1231) he granted a yearly rent of 20s. from his mill at Brache to St. Paul's Cathedral for prayers for the soul of his late wife Alice de Bethune. (fn. 146) By 1282 it had become the property of the Kendales, who held it of the heirs of Joan de Mohun, (fn. 147) for in that year Jordan de Kendale granted to Andrew de la Brache lands in Brache for his life. (fn. 148) After the acquisition of Woodcroft manor by Robert de Kendale in 1310 it followed the same descent as that manor (q.v.) until the sixteenth century. It is called a manor in 1531 (fn. 149) when it was held by William Markham in right of his wife Frances, daughter of William Cockayne. (fn. 150) In 1576 a preliminary settlement of Brache manor on George Rotherham was made by Francis Markham, probably their son, (fn. 151) and another settlement in 1585 on the same by John Markham, (fn. 152) which appears to have taken effect, for George Rotherham held the manor in 1595. (fn. 153) In 1602 John Rotherham transferred it with other manors to Robert Napier, and it has since followed the same descent as Luton manor (q.v.), of which it is a member at the present day. (fn. 154)

The origin of the manor of DALLOW or DOLLOW is to be sought in the 5 hides belonging to Luton Church, which in the time of Edward the Confessor belonged to Morcar the priest, but by the time of the Survey had passed to William the Chamberlain, (fn. 155) who also held lands in chief at Battlesden, Potsgrove, and Totternhoe in Bedfordshire. Mr. Cobbe in his history has contended that William the Chamberlain was also a priest, but though he may well have been in minor orders, he held Luton Church with its lands by knight service, and transmitted them to his heirs under the same tenure. (fn. 156) In the reign of King Stephen William Chamberlain, probably a son of the Domesday tenant, held these lands and Luton Church of Robert earl of Gloucester, and the desire of the latter to put in a kinsman of his own led to the final transference of both the church and the manor which formed its endowment to St. Albans. (fn. 157) The story is given at some length in the 'Gesta Abbatum.' Robert, earl of Gloucester, wishing to put in his kinsman Gilbert de Cimmay, was greatly shocked at the idea of this church being held by laymen. Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, refused however to dispossess William the Chamberlain without legal forms but after three days had been appointed for the hearing of the case, and the defendant refused to appear, he was disseised, and Gilbert de Cimmay was instituted. The fall of Robert of Gloucester put the manor for a time into the hands of Robert de Waudari, a kinsman of the abbot of St. Albans, who was thus able to mediate between him and Gilbert de Cimmay. A serious illness of the latter, combined with the persuasions of the abbot, moved him to resign the benefice into the hands of the archdeacon Nicholas of Bedford it was then conferred on the abbot's nephew. As soon as William, earl of Gloucester was restored to his father's property the abbot approached him and obtained from him a grant of the church for 80 marks, and a discharge of knight service for another 30 marks. This was confirmed by King Stephen between 1151 and 1154, and also by Henry II. (fn. 158)

The first reference which has been found to Dallow manor as such occurs in 1258, when Godfrey of Biscott and twelve others acknowledged that they had neglected to attend the view of frankpledge held annually at Dallow. (fn. 159) In 1291 the value of the manor was £7 3s. 1d. (fn. 160) and in 1331 the abbot claimed view of frankpledge in his manor and a yearly fair in the town of Luton on the Feast of the Assumption. (fn. 161) At the Dissolution the manor became crown property, and was granted in 1544 to Sir Thomas Barnardiston, (fn. 162) who in 1586 transferred it to Thomas Crawley. (fn. 163) In 1606 Richard, his son, by alienating a portion of this manor, divided it into two parts, each of which became known as Dallow manor, and followed a separate descent until the middle of the nineteenth century, when they again became united in the possession of the Crawley family. The first of these fractions, that which included the manor-house and grounds, was sold by Richard Crawley to Richard Scudamore in 1606, (fn. 164) who in the same year transferred it to Sir John Rotherham, (fn. 165) by whom it was conveyed in 1615 to Sir Robert Napier, (fn. 166) and thus became part of the Luton manor estate (q.v.). It was not sold with that estate, however, in 1844, but part of it was purchased in 1859 from Lord Bute, and the remainder in 1862 from J. Shaw Leigh, by T. Sambrooke Crawley, whose son, Mr. Francis Crawley, holds it at the present day. (fn. 167)

Crawley. Or a fesse gules between three storks with three crosslets or on the fesse.

The other fraction of Dallow manor was sold by Richard Crawley in 1613 to Robert Faldo of North Mimms, (fn. 168) who in 1620 sold the property for £1,600 to Henry Denham and Ralph Merefield. (fn. 169) The latter released his claim in the manor in 1622 to Henry Denham, who in the following year sold it to Richard Peters, (fn. 170) who finally, in 1640, sold it for £1,450 to Bernard Hale of King's Walden. (fn. 171) Dallow manor continued to be held by the Hales until 1859, (fn. 172) when by sale to T. Sambrooke Crawley it was reunited to the other portion of the manor, and a farm of this name exists at the present day in possession of Mr. Francis Crawley, his son. (fn. 173)

Hale. Azure a cheveron or battled on both sides.

The first reference to what later became known as DAVID ASHBY MANOR occurs in an inquisition taken in 1375 when Edward de Kendale held those lands and tenements which were of David de Ashby in Luton, including 47s. 6d. rent of assize of free tenants, partly held of John and William Loryng by service of 27s. 2½d. per annum, and the residue of Hugh Mortimer by service of 2s. 7d. (fn. 174) This property followed the same descent as Brache and Woodcroft (q.v.), (fn. 175) until, like the former manor, it was alienated by John Markham to George Rotherham in 1585, (fn. 176) and so became included in Luton manor (q.v.). This manor is mentioned by name as part of the Luton estate in a Recovery Roll of 1815, (fn. 177) but all trace of it is lost at the present day.

The property afterwards known as EastHide MANOR or THE HYDE appears to have been held by a family of Hyde in the twelfth century, but is not mentioned as a manor until 1535. (fn. 178) It was parcel of Luton manor, but the only reference that has been found to the overlordship occurs in 1253, when the heirs of Alan de Hyde were distrained by the bailiff of Luton manor. (fn. 179) As early as 1197 Fulk de la Hyde is mentioned in a fine as holding the moiety of a mill here. Alan de Hyde, who is the next owner of whom mention has been found, was holding in 1232, when he acknowledged the right of Alice, wife of Roger de Luton, to her dower in his lands of Luton. (fn. 180) In 1240 he was admitted to Dunstable Priory and gave, 'with his body,' 1 virgate and rent of ½ a mark in Stopsley, which were leased to Walter de Hyde, who appears to have been his successor. (fn. 181) Roger de la Hyde was holding in 1247, in which year he held two parts of the moiety of a mill in Luton of Agnes de la Hyde. (fn. 182) His name appears in 1252 and again in 1262, and finally he released to his son Henry all his inheritance in La Hyde for the rent of one clove of gilliflower. (fn. 183) In 1305 Thomas de la Hyde was holding land in Luton, (fn. 184) and then all trace of this property is lost until 1534, when it reappears as a reputed manor in the possession of Richard Fermor, who in that year mortgaged it to Thomas Pope, together with Luton Hoo (q.v.). (fn. 185) Its history is the same as that of Luton Hoo manor until the death of Sir John Brocket in 1599, (fn. 186) when it passed by settlement to his brother Edward. His son John in 1647 conveyed it to Thomas Mitchell, (fn. 187) by whose family it was retained until 1717, when Richard Mitchell transferred it by fine to Samuel Hannot. (fn. 188) It was subsequently purchased by Philadelphia, widow of Sir Thomas Cotton, (fn. 189) who some time after 1741 sold it to Mr. Floyer, governor of Fort St. David, from whom it was purchased by Dr. Bettesworth, chancellor of the diocese of London, who died in 1779. (fn. 190) John Bettesworth, probably his son, held this manor in 1782, (fn. 191) and in 1806 John Bettesworth Trevanion (fn. 192) sold it to Robert Hibbert, the founder of the Hibbert Trust to provide lectures and scholarships for the spread of Christianity. (fn. 193) It was purchased in 1833 by Levi Ames, whose direct descendant, Lionel Ames, of Ayot St. Lawrence, holds it at the present day. (fn. 194)

The origin of FARLEY MANOR is found in the land which Henry II granted in 1156 to the Hospital of Holy Trinity, Santingfeld, Wissant, in Picardy. This grant is specified in the charter as 'terram de Ferleya juxta Lectonam, usque ad terram ecclesiae de Lectona.… Et totam terram de Wyperleya usque ad viam de Presteleya.' (fn. 195) This grant was subsequently augmented in 1204 by 45 acres in Luton from Baldwin de Bethune. (fn. 196) These lands were afterwards colonized, and became a dependent hospital, with a master and brethren, (fn. 197) known as Farley. In 1291 the master of Farley had in Farley and Luton in lands, rents, mills, and woods £4 12s., and on his non-appearance in 1331 to support his claim to view of frankpledge in his manor of Farley, the manor was taken into the king's hands. (fn. 198) On the dissolution of the alien priories in 1447 Farley was granted to the provost and scholars of King's College, Cambridge, (fn. 199) who did not continue to hold it however, for in 1522 Farley was again crown property. (fn. 200) Lysons offers a supposition, based on no ascertainable authority, and not corroborated by its subsequent history, that King's College had conveyed Farley to St. Albans in exchange for other lands. (fn. 201) St. Albans certainly appears to have tried to enforce some claim on Farley, which lay adjacent to its own manor of Dallow, for in 1505 George Rotherham (whose son is found later as lessee of the manor) wrote to Pierre Caurel, master of the hospital of Santingfeld, warning him that the abbot of St. Albans had entered upon his lands at Farley and dispossessed the tenants. The master in reply desired Rotherham to sue the abbot, as the place had belonged to Santingfeld from time immemorial. (fn. 202)

King's College, Cambridge. Sable three lilies argent and a chief party azure with a fleur de lis or and gules with a leopard or.

George Rotherham, as appears in a manuscript of 1554, had the manors on a 92 years' lease from the crown, dating from 1522, but before it expired his son George received a grant in fee of Farley and Whiperley from Queen Elizabeth in 1554. (fn. 203) George Rotherham held these manors at his death in 1594, when his son George succeeded him, (fn. 204) being followed on his death in 1632 by his son George. (fn. 205) In 1698 and also in 1707 Thomas Rotherham, probably a grandson of the lastnamed George, still held this estate, (fn. 206) which by 1783 had passed to John Sharpe Palmer. (fn. 207) He transferred it to the marquess of Bute, who held it in 1815. (fn. 208) Lord Bute sold it some time previous to 1855 to Mr. Crawley, whose family holds it at the present day. (fn. 209)

Rotherham. Vert three harts tripping or.

The manor of FENNELS GROVE, which derives its name from the Fitz Neel family, to whom it belonged in the thirteenth century, was held of Hugh Mortimer of his moiety of Luton manor (q.v.) by service of 6d. per annum (fn. 210) until 1370, when it fell into the king's hands, and was subsequently held in chief. The first mention that has been found of the Fitz Neels holding in Luton occurs in 1283, when Robert Fitz Neel granted lands there to Roger Taylard. (fn. 211) In 1329 Roger de Gildesburgh acknowledged the right of Robert Fitz Neel, probably a son of the above Robert, to a messuage, seven score acres of land, 6 acres of meadow, 30 acres of wood, and the moiety of a water-mill. (fn. 212) On the death of the latter in 1332 his daughter Grace, wife of John de Nowers, became his heir. (fn. 213) Her son John in 1370 conveyed Fennels Grove to Edward III, (fn. 214) who in 1378 granted to Henry Downham for life 'the house and place of "Fyneslesgrove" in Luton.' (fn. 215) In 1399 Fennels Grove, still crown property, was valued at 60s., (fn. 216) but in 1416 was granted with many other manors by Henry V to his brother John, duke of Bedford, (fn. 217) on whose death in 1435 the property returned to Henry VI as heirgeneral of his uncle. (fn. 218) In 1462 Edward IV made a lease of the manor of Luton Fennels Grove—here definitely so-called for the first time, (fn. 219) and it seems to have been subsequently granted to John Lord Wenlock, for it appears both in the earlier will of Thomas Rotherham and the release of Thomas Lawley, Lord Wenlock's heir-general, in 1477. (fn. 220) It thus became absorbed in Luton manor (q.v.), and subsequent to 1611 no mention has been found of it as a separate manor. (fn. 221)

GREATHAMPSTEAD, later known as FALCONER'S HALL, was another property held of Luton manor. In 1803 the owner still paid a quitrent of £1 2s. 7½d. to Luton manor, (fn. 222) but if, as its name implies, it at one time formed part of the Greathampstead Someries manor, payment was probably made on account of a former dependence on the manor of Woodcroft, at that time absorbed in Luton. Its history—which has been almost entirely compiled from papers in the possession of Mr. F. Crawley—begins in 1564, when, described as a messuage, farm, and dove-house, it was sold by Richard Laurence to William Crawley, whose grandson Thomas Crawley sold it in 1662 to John Miller, from whose grandson John it had passed before 1705 to Richard Fielden, at which date Hannah, widow of Richard Fielden, was acting as his executrix. Richard Fielden, son of the above, left it to his daughter Sara Jobson in 1725 'because that his son Richard had intermarried with a woman of mean parentage and doubtful reputation without his consent, and that he had since paid considerable sums of money for him as shown in his Book of Accompts.' Finally in 1752 Greathampstead Farm was sold by Stafford Jobson to John Crawley. (fn. 223) Lysons says that 'a reputed manor of that name is now a field belonging to a farm called Falconer's Hall, which is the property of John Crawley,' (fn. 224) to whose representative, Francis Crawley, it still belongs, though the farm-house has been pulled down of recent years. (fn. 225)

The manor of HAYES or HOOBURNE was held of Luton manor, though no mention of the overlordship has been found before 1487, when it was held of John Rotherham by a rent of 50s. for all services, (fn. 226) and at a court held at Luton in 1554. the lord of Hayes still paid service to that manor. (fn. 227) Very little has been found concerning the early history of Hayes, but from the twelfth century a family of de la Hayes held property in Luton, from which this manor possibly originated. In 1198 John de Sandon transferred 4 virgates of land in Luton to Reginald de la Haye, (fn. 228) the next mention found is in 1275, when Walter de la Haye and Matilda his wife recognized the claim of Agnes de la Barre to her dower, consisting of 2 marks' rent and one-third of a carucate of land. (fn. 229) By 1296 Walter had been succeeded by Roger de la Haye, probably a son, who in that year transferred a messuage and land to Thomas de la Hyde. (fn. 230) The family apparently still continued to hold land in Luton, for in 1390 Nicholas de la Haye confirmed to his mother, Agnes Thrale, lands in West Hide, Luton. He was followed by John Hay, who is mentioned in the 'Return of the Gentry of Bedfordshire in 1433.' (fn. 231) He was steward of the archbishop of Canterbury, and was buried in the north aisle of Luton church, with an inscription to the effect that he had repaired the church at his own expense. (fn. 232) After his death in 1454 there is a gap in the history of the manor until it reappears in 1475 under the title of Hooburne manor, when John White acknowledged the right of John Catesby to it. (fn. 233) He died in 1487, leaving a son Humphrey Catesby, (fn. 234) who by 1534 had been succeeded by Anthony Catesby, (fn. 235) on whose death in 1554 his son Thomas succeeded to the estate. (fn. 236) In 1586, and again in 1589, Thomas Catesby conveyed Hayes manor to Edward Docwra and other trustees, (fn. 237) and finally in 1598 the manor was sold by George Catesby for £830 to Thomas Cheyne. (fn. 238) Thomas Cheyne, dying in 1612, left Hayes manor by will to his younger son George, who held it until 1645, when he appears to have transferred it to Robert Cheyne (probably his nephew), (fn. 239) and the latter in 1652 alienated it by fine to John Howland and others, probably trustees. (fn. 240) Twenty years later it appears as the property of Sir Samuel Starling. (fn. 241) From him it passed to the Etricks, though it has not been found possible to ascertain the exact date, and in 1716 Anthony and Elizabeth Etrick alienated it to Benjamin Morris, (fn. 242) whose family continued to hold it for upwards of 150 years. Lysons, writing about 1802, describes Hayes as 'a spurious manor, a small estate within Stopsley, the property of Mr. Morris,' (fn. 243) whilst Davis, writing a generation later, says that the manor was still held by this family, which belonged to Buntingford in Hertfordshire. (fn. 244) It was purchased from Mr. Morris about forty years ago by the late Colonel Sowerby, who owned Bennet's manor (q.v.), and is now the property of Mr. Sowerby of Putteridge Park.

Catesby. Argent two leopards sable with golden crowns.

The first reference to HAVERINGS MANOR in Stopsley occurs in 1430, when the manor was held of John Cressy as of Luton manor. (fn. 245) After its escheat to the crown in 1543 it is described in 1627 as held as a moiety of the crown and a moiety of Sir Robert Napier lord of Luton. (fn. 246) The earliest holders of this manor were the Haverings, of whom first mention is found in 1258, when Richard de Havering and Lucy his wife conceded lands in Luton to Andrew de la Brache, (fn. 247) and in 1262 John de Havering, probably Richard's son, acknowledged his father's right to certain lands in Luton. (fn. 248) John, who was still alive in 1305, left a son Richard, who in 1348 received a charter of free warren in his demesne of Stopsley. (fn. 249) By 1402 this manor had passed to William Butler, who at that date granted it to his son John Butler. On his death in 1430 (fn. 250) it passed to his son John, whose descendants appear to have held for the next century, for when the manor appears in 1525 it is as the property of Thomas Butler, who at that date conveyed it to Sir Henry Wyatt and others. (fn. 251) This may have been preparatory to an alienation to Richard Fermor, who held it in 1534, (fn. 252) on account of whose 'transgressions and contempts against the king' it escheated to the crown, and was granted in 1543 to Sir Thomas Barnardiston. (fn. 253) He died in the same year, and his son Thomas Barnardiston alienated the manor in 1568 to John Crawley, (fn. 254) who was succeeded by a son Thomas in 1599, (fn. 255) and he was followed in 1627 by a son, Francis Crawley. (fn. 256) After 1684 no separate mention has been found in documents of this manor, which has become absorbed in the other property which the Crawleys held in this parish, (fn. 257) though Davis, writing in 1855, speaks of Haverings as an ancient seat of the Crawleys. (fn. 258)

LIMBURY MANOR was also held of Luton manor. (fn. 259) The first reference to this property is found in the messuage, the carucate of land, and the yearly rent which Richard de Lymbury held in Luton in 1275. (fn. 260) This reappears in 1368, when Philip de Lymbury died in 'Constantyn Noble (sic), in parts beyond the sea,' leaving to his son Philip the manor of Limbury, which included, besides the house within the site of the manor and garden, 100 acres of land, 2 acres of meadow, a water-mill worth nothing for want of repair, and 53s. 4d. rent of assize of free tenants. (fn. 261) Of this second Philip de Lymbury the Gesta tells the following incident:—Abbot Thomas, a man magnanimus et cordatus, had amongst his foes a certain knight of the soke of Luton, Philip de Limbury, a follower of Henry, duke of Lancaster. One Monday, which was Luton market-day, he ordered John Moot, the cellarer of St. Albans Abbey, to be put upon the pillory, which caused great scandal. The duke of Lancaster interfered on behalf of the abbey, and ordered Philip to make restitution, but when he made offerings at the shrine of St. Albans the martyr showed indignation and refused to accept his gifts. The chronicler concludes by saying that Lymbury and his followers died and were soon forgotten. (fn. 262) His death must have taken place before 1388, in which year his mother Joan, who had married John de Clynton, died, leaving as heir to Limbury her daughter Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Tryvet, (fn. 263) who must have died the same year as her mother, for in 1389 Thomas held the manor, now worth 20s. per annum only, in right of his late wife. (fn. 264) He left two daughters aged seven and five, and here all trace of the manor ceases.

A second LIMBURY MANOR was also held of Luton manor, to which overlordship it is declared to belong in 1531. (fn. 265) This manor has followed the same descent as Biscott (q.v.), though no mention has been found of it previous to 1386, when it appears as the property of Baldwin de Bereford. (fn. 266) It maintained a separate identity however until the sixteenth century. In 1546 George Acworth held a court for the manor of Limbury-cum-Biscott, (fn. 267) and when the sale of these two properties to John Dormer occurred in 1549 the alienation of Lymbury is recorded in the Luton Manor Court Rolls, and John Dormer and also William Harper (to whom he sold it almost immediately) are distrained for 2s. quit-rent. (fn. 268) No further separate mention occurs of Lymbury, which henceforward becomes absorbed in the more important Biscott manor.

The manor of WEST HYDE AYNEL, situated in East Hyde and West Hyde, acquired its distinctive name from a family of Aynel who held it from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. It at one time formed part of Luton manor, (fn. 269) on the subdivision of which in 1274 the overlordship of West Hyde Aynel appears to have passed to Joan de Mohun, and through her to Dunstable Priory, whose prior in 1415 gave seisin of the manor to trustees on the death of John Aynel. (fn. 270)

This property first appears in 1257, when Adam son of William Aynel granted land in Luton to Richard son of Simon, which his brother Robert had of the enfeoffment of Baldwin de Bethune (see Luton manor). (fn. 271) Adam was succeeded by his son Roger Aynel before 1287, in which year Robert de Hoo acknowledged the latter's rights to rents in Luton. (fn. 272)

In 1351 John Aynel, son of William Aynel, and probably a grandson of the last-named Roger, received a grant from Ralph de Eccleshale of all his lands and tenements in West Hyde, (fn. 273) and in 1358 his brother Roger entered into possession of the lands and tenements of his father William. (fn. 274) The next mention that has been found of this property occurs in 1415, when, called for the first time West Hyde manor, it passed into the hands of trustees on the death of John Aynel. (fn. 275) The manor next passed, though how has not been ascertained, to Henry Frowick, who was holding it in 1423. (fn. 276) His daughter and heir, Elizabeth Frowick, married John Coningsby of North Mimms, (fn. 277) and the Coningsbys continued to hold the manor during the following century, for it reappears in 1530, and again in 1546, as the property of John Coningsby, who transferred it by fine at the latter date to William Day. (fn. 278)

Coningsby. Gules three sitting conies argent in a border engrailed sable.

His descendant, Benjamin Day, in 1612, conveyed West Hyde Aynel to Edmund Neele and Henry Halsey, preparatory to a sale to Robert Napier, (fn. 279) and it thus became a member of the larger Luton manor (q.v.), and has since followed the same descent.

Mention is found of it by name in a Recovery Roll of 1815, but it has since disappeared, having probably become absorbed in Luton Hoo Park. (fn. 280)

The history of WHIPERLEY MANOR, which includes the modern estate of STOCKWOOD PARK, is identical with that of Farley (q.v.) until 1640, when Thomas Rotherham sold to Richard Norton a detached part of the Whiperley estate, described as 'all that capital messuage or mansion-house known as Stockwood alias Whiperly which the said Thomas Rotherham doth now inhabit together with the appurtenances known as New, Woodfield, Ponds Close, Stockwood Close, Woodyard Close, Slipp, and Highwood.' (fn. 281)

Luke Norton held the property until 1658, but between that date and 1707 it had passed to Richard Crawley, whose representative, Mr. Francis Crawley, holds it at the present day. (fn. 282)

The house built by John Crawley about 1740 is a rectangular brick building with stone dressings, of two stories and an attic, with a balustraded parapet and hipped roof. The principal entrance is on the north-east, under a pillared portico, and the central bays of the east and south fronts are set forward slightly from the general wall-face. The house has a central hall with a stair on the west side, and to the west, or more accurately, north-west, lie the offices and stables. The garden is on the south and west, and running due northwards from a point in front of the house is a fine avenue. The ground is high, nearly the whole of the park being 500 ft. or more above sea-level.

The parish of Luton also contained twelve other manors, or so-called manors. BAILIFF'S MANOR, which was probably never organized on a true manorial basis, does not appear until the sixteenth century, when it was held of Luton Hoo (q.v.) with the exception of the gate-house, an orchard, and one acre of land, which were said to be held of Brache manor (q.v.). (fn. 283)

The known descent of this manor is as follows:—In 1542 Henry Bradshaw and Joan his wife transferred it to Thomas Field, who died in 1556–7, (fn. 284) and whose son, James Field, died in possession of the manor, leaving a son George, (fn. 285) and between this date and 1638 it passed to Sir Robert Napier, and so became one of the members of Luton manor (q.v.). (fn. 286) It is mentioned by name in a Recovery Roll of 1815, but at the present day its identity is lost. (fn. 287)

No reference at all has been found to an overlordship in BENNET'S MANOR, and the estate itself does not appear until 1504, when Thomas Rotherham died seised of it. (fn. 288) The Rotherhams retained it until 1573, when it was transferred by George Rotherham to John Franklin, (fn. 289) who was succeeded by Richard Franklin, whose son, Sir John Franklin, held the manor in 1622. (fn. 290) After this date there is a gap of 150 years, and the manor reappears in 1797 in a conveyance from Edward Southouse to John Sowerby, (fn. 291) and Mr. Sowerby of Putteridge Park at the present day owns property in Stopsley which represents this manor.

Sowerby. Barry sable and gules a cheveron between three lions argent with three rings gules in the cheveron.

The origin of BISCOTT MANOR, later held of Dallow manor (q.v.), may be sought with some show of reason in the land of 5 'manentes' or tenants in Luton, (fn. 292) which it is recorded were granted by Offa, king of Mercia, in 792 A.D. to St. Albans Abbey, which he had founded in the previous year. (fn. 293)

Between 792 and the date of the Domesday Survey Biscott was alienated from the abbey, for at the latter date it is given among the king's lands, and was assessed at 5 hides. It was held by Edwin, a man of Asgar the staller, and was declared to have been separated by Ralph Taillebois from the hundred in which it was formerly assessed, and added to Luton on account of the additional payment. (fn. 294)

It remained crown property until 1115, when, on the occasion of the dedication of the restored abbey church of St. Albans, Henry I gave to Abbot Richard the manor of Biscott. (fn. 295) The abbey, however, did not long retain the manor, for during the abbacy of John de Cella, and in the reign of John, i.e. between 1199–1214, a grant was made to Robert Fitz Walter of 10 librates of land, chiefly in Biscott. (fn. 296)

After the alienation of Biscott manor by St. Albans it continued to be held of them as of their manor of Dallow in Luton it is mentioned as so held in 1327 and again in 1531. (fn. 297) Subsequent to the dissolution of the abbey it continued to be held of Dallow, the last mention of the overlordship occurring in 1644. (fn. 298)

Robert Fitz Walter, to whom Biscott manor thus passed, was one of the twenty-five barons appointed to enforce the fulfilment of Magna Charta. He was outlawed and temporarily deprived of his possessions on two occasions— in 1212 and again in 1216. (fn. 299) Whether, after these alienations, Biscott was ever restored to him does not appear, and no record has been found of the manor until 1289, when Hugh de Philibert granted to William de Bereford £9 16s. rent in Biscott, together with all services of those holding in the manor. (fn. 300)

In 1327 William de Bereford, probably the original grantee, died seised of £9 9s. 4d. rent in Biscott, received from eleven free tenants, leaving a son Edmund as heir. (fn. 301) The manor was held in 1386 by his son Baldwin de Bereford, (fn. 302) who in 1401 made a settlement of the manor, in the event of his dying without heirs, on the heirs of Joan, Agnes, and Alice, sisters of his father Edmund. (fn. 303)

Biscott was held by Elizabeth, widow of Baldwin de Bereford, during her lifetime, but by 1419 the reversion had passed to Ralph Bush (in right of his wife Eleanor), who in that year conveyed it by fine to William Acworth. (fn. 304)

John Acworth was holding the manor in 1500, (fn. 305) and was followed by a son George, who, dying in 1531, left as heir a son, also George Acworth. (fn. 306) He sold the manor in 1548–9 to John Dormer, citizen and mercer of London, (fn. 307) who in the following year transferred it to William Harper, citizen and merchant tailor of London, (fn. 308) by whom it was sold in 1555 to John Alley. (fn. 309) His son Francis conveyed Biscott manor to Edward Wingate in 1593 by way of mortgage, (fn. 310) which was foreclosed in 1595, when the manor became the property of Edward Wingate. (fn. 311) At his death in 1598 it passed to his son George, (fn. 312) and from him, in 1606, to his grandson John Wingate. (fn. 313) He died in 1644, and was followed by a son Francis, (fn. 314) who was holding the manor as late as 1678. (fn. 315) In 1718 Arthur Wingate was holding the manor, (fn. 316) and in 1724 he sold it to John Crawley for £8,796 14s., (fn. 317) in whose family it still remains, Mr. F. Crawley being the present owner.

Acworth. Ermine a chief indented gules with three crowns or therein.

BRAMBLEHANGER MANOR was held of the prior of St. John of Jerusalem certainly from the thirteenth century onwards, for in 1247 Alan de Brambelhanger held a free tenement of the prior by the service of 22s. 1d. yearly. (fn. 318) The prior claimed view of frankpledge in Bramblehanger as appurtenant to his manor of Clifton in 1287. The last mention found of the overlordship occurs in 1515, when John Sylam held it by rent of 59s. (fn. 319) The first under-tenant of this manor of whom mention has been found is Alan de Brambelhanger, holding in 1247 he was still in possession in 1269, when the property consisted of one messuage and 4 virgates of land. (fn. 320) By 1309 Bramblehanger had passed to Peter Fitz Warin, who in that year conveyed it by fine to his son William. (fn. 321) In 1324 the manor of Bramblehanger—here definitely so called—became forfeited to the crown on account of the delinquencies of William Fitz Warin, and was granted to the king's niece Eleanor, wife of Hugh le Despenser. (fn. 322) Fitz Warin appears to have obtained a free pardon and restoration of his property, for Bramblehanger was still in his family in 1348, when Hugh Fitz Warin conveyed it by fine to John de Northewell. (fn. 323) The descent of this manor is lost till 1425, when it is found as the property of Joan, wife of John le Waleys, who also owned Woodcroft manor. (fn. 324) She left a daughter Joyce, married to Robert Lee, who in 1434 held a messuage called 'Braumangrebury' in Luton, (fn. 325) and in 1446 alienated the manor to Thomas Boleyn and other feoffees. (fn. 326) This may have been preliminary to an alienation, for in 1513 John Sylam died in possession of the manor, leaving four daughters as coheirs, Elizabeth Mattock, Agnes Croswayte, Joan Snow, and Mary Lock. (fn. 327) It passed eventually to the last-named, subsequently married to Robert Cheyne, who in 1546 conveyed the manor into the hands of trustees on the occasion of the marriage of his son Thomas with Elizabeth Rotherham. (fn. 328) Thomas Cheyne succeeded to the manor in 1554, (fn. 329) and held it until 1614, when it passed to his son Robert, who died in 1632. (fn. 330) Thomas, son of the latter, conveyed the manor in 1676 to John Crosse, whose family continued to hold it for upwards of two hundred years. (fn. 331) Thomas Crosse held Bramblehanger in 1807, (fn. 332) and Hammond Crosse in 1855. (fn. 333) In 1890 the estate, consisting of two farms known as Great and Little Bramingham, was purchased by trustees of the will of the late Sir Edward Page Turner, and is at present in the possession of Mr. F. A. Page Turner. (fn. 334)

Wingate. Sable a bend ermine cotised or between six martlets or.

Fitz Warin. Quarterly fessewise indented argent and gules.

In 1504 Thomas Rotherham died seised of two estates in Luton called EAST HYDE and WEST HYDE MANORS. (fn. 335) His son Thomas held the same property at his death in 1565, (fn. 336) and as no further mention has been found, the presumption is that they became absorbed in the larger estate which the Rotherhams owned in Luton.

The property which later became known as LALLEFORD MANOR first appears in 1425 as the possession of Joan Waleys, and is then described as lands and tenements called Lalleford, of whom held it was not known, (fn. 337) and in 1447 as 40s. rent called Lalleford fee. (fn. 338) It followed the same descent as Brache manor, and subsequent to its transfer to Sir Robert Napier in 1602 is described as a manor. (fn. 339) It is mentioned by name in a Recovery Roll of 1815 as part of the Luton estate, but has since become absorbed in the larger manor, and no trace of it exists at the present day. (fn. 340)

The history of LANGLEYS MANOR is exactly identical with that of Picks (q.v.) until the beginning of the seventeenth century. It is mentioned in 1600 with that manor as the property of George Rotherham, (fn. 341) but does not appear in the conveyance of Picks and other manors by Sir John Rotherham to Sir Robert Napier. Davis, in his history of Luton, says this property was sold by John Rotherham in 1721 to Lady Elizabeth Napier for £2,000, which would imply that the Rotherhams continued to hold it long after they had parted with their other Luton property. (fn. 342)

The manor of LEWSEY belonged to the prioress of Markyate during the thirteenth century. The record of the original grant has not been found, but it seems probable that it was bestowed on Markyate by St. Albans, which owned extensive lands in Luton, and whose Abbot Geoffrey was instrumental in founding the priory in 1145. (fn. 343) At the time of the Taxatio of 1291 Markyate owned lands and rent worth £3 0s. 1½d. in 'Levesey,' (fn. 344) which by 1535 had increased to £4. (fn. 345) It remained crown property until 1545, when it was granted to George Acworth, (fn. 346) who owned Biscott manor (q.v.), and till 1718 followed the same descent as that manor, like it passing to the Wingate family. In pursuance of a settlement made by John Wingate in 1643 the reversion of Lewsey manor passed to his second son George, who must have been considerably under age at the time of his father's death, (fn. 347) whose two daughters (Elizabeth married to John Pomfret in 1692 and Mary married to George Snagge in 1700) acquired joint possession of the manor in 1679. (fn. 348) George Snagge retained his wife's moiety in the manor until 1741 when he transferred it to John Miller. (fn. 349) John Pomfrete and his wife held their half of the manor certainly as late as 1747, (fn. 350) but in 1771 Henry Wagstaffe and John Peck alienated it to John Miller, son of the above John, who thus acquired the whole of the manor, (fn. 351) and from him it was acquired in 1782 by the trustees of the duke of Bedford. (fn. 352)

It remained as part of the ducal estates until the middle of the nineteenth century, when it was purchased by Mr. Anstey, whose son at present owns this property. (fn. 353)

A property called NORWOOD MANOR was held by Thomas Rotherham in 1504, (fn. 354) and by his son Thomas in 1565. (fn. 355) In 1573 Thomas Catesby alienated Stopsley manor, together with Norwood, to Sir George Norton, (fn. 356) but no further reference has been found to the property.

It seems probable that in PLENTIES MANOR is to be found the most ancient seat of the Crawleys. The first mention that occurs of it is in 1519, when the will of John Crawley of Luton contains the following bequest:—'To my wife Joan, my house that I dwell in called Plentisse till Richard my son come of age of 23 years.' (fn. 357) Richard eventually entered on his inheritance as is proved by a will made in 1551, in which he left to his son William Crawley and his heirs 'the dwelling-house called Plenties with 7 acres of land,' (fn. 358) and he in 1568 sold the manor to Robert Wolley, a draper of St. Albans, for £300. (fn. 359) Richard, son of Robert Wolley, held Plenties manor between 1635 and 1656, in which year he conveyed it to Henry Knight alias Brothers. (fn. 360) By 1688 it had passed to Guy Hillersdon, (fn. 361) and with its conveyance by him in 1708 into the hands of trustees all further trace of this property disappears. (fn. 362)

The estate afterwards known as the manor of GREATH AMPSTEAD SOMERIES was held of the manor of Woodcroft (q.v.), and first appears in 1309 as the property of Agnes wife of Roger de Somery of Dudley Castle, when it is described simply as a tenement. (fn. 363) Agnes was succeeded at this date by her son John, who dying in 1321 left two sisters as co-heiresses, Joan de Botetourt and Margaret wife of John de Sutton of Dudley. (fn. 364) Greathampstead Someries passed to Margaret, for in 1380 trustees conveyed this property to Sir John de Sutton, her great-grandson, who came of age at this date. (fn. 365) No further reference has been found to this estate until 1464, when, called for the first time the manor of Greathampstead Someries, it was transferred by John Aylesbury of Edeston to John, Lord Wenlock. (fn. 366) From this date until 1611 it followed the same descent as Luton manor (q.v.).

Somery. Quarterly or and azure a bend gules.

When Sir John Rotherham alienated the latter manor at that date he retained Greathampstead Someries, which he sold to his son-in-law Sir Francis Crawley in 1629, (fn. 367) whose family retained it, according to Nichols, until 1724, when it was purchased from them by Sir John Napier, and thus became attached to Luton manor. (fn. 368)

When the latter was sold in 1763 Someries was called a capital messuage or farm, (fn. 369) and a farm of this name exists at the present day, but the manor is completely absorbed in Luton. (fn. 370)

Someries Castle

Ruins of Someries Castle, so called from the family who held the manor in the fourteenth century, still exist. In 1309 this property already included a capital messuage which points possibly to an earlier structure than that erected by Lord Wenlock. (fn. 371) Leland thus describes the castle:—'A faire place with in the Paroche of Luton caullyd Somerys, the which house was sumptuously begon by the lord Wennelok but not finischid. The Gate House of Brike is very large and faire. Part of the residew of the new Foundations be yet scene and part of the Olde Place standeth yet. It is set on a Hille not far from St. Anne's Hill.' (fn. 372)

At the present day the ruins consist of a gatehouse with a chapel and vestibule to the east, probably forming about two-thirds of the north front of the fifteenth-century building. They are built of narrow red bricks of excellent quality, ranging five courses to the foot, and here and there dark vitrified bricks are used in the facing, generally as it seems at random, but over the inner arch of the gateway a lozenge of such bricks occurs. The entrance gateway is 8 ft. wide, with a four-centred stone head and jambs, and above it the wall face is set forward on a pretty cinquefoiled arcade of moulded brickwork. The entrance is flanked by half-octagonal turrets, that on the west side containing the entrance to a lobby, from which a small round window commands the approach to the gate. The gateway passage is 20 ft. long, and was covered with a brick vault from it doors opened at the south-west to a room with a fireplace, and a window overlooking the inner court, probably the porter's lodge, and at the south-east to another room of like size and character. A stair which went up over the lobby seems to have occupied the north-east angle of the lodge, having a door into the gateway passage, and the remaining space in the west turret was used as a garderobe. The inner arch of the gateway is fourcentred, of plain brickwork, and opened to a courtyard 46 ft. wide from east to west, having a wide circular staircase at its north-west angle. It is clear that there was a flat-roofed pentice or gallery over the doorway, running right across the north side of the court, and the doorways on the first floor from the circular staircase, and from the room over the porter's lodge, led on to it. These doorways have four-centred heads of moulded brick with square labels, and that at the foot of the stair is of the same character, but wider and with better detail. The stair itself has a central newel and radiating steps of brick carried on a brick vault, with a hand rail contrived in the wall and running spirally upward, following the rise of the stair. (fn. 373) To the west of this staircase the buildings are entirely destroyed, but the bonding of the west wall of the court remains to show its line.

Someries Castle, Luton Hoo: Entrance Gateway

To the east of the gateway is the chapel, with a two-centred doorway at its southwest angle, opening from a former range of buildings on the east side of the court. The chapel is 34 ft. by 18 ft., and at its east end its walls stand to their full height, with an external brick cornice, and inside at the plate level a row of shield-shaped brick corbels. The east window was of four lights with brick tracery, now fallen, and at the southeast was a like window of three lights. On either side of the east window are trefoiled image niches of brick, high in the wall, and at the south-east is a piscina with a stone drain, which has had two trefoiled arches in the head of its recess. On the north side are two blocked windows, the eastern of the two having its sill at a much higher level than the other, while the heads of both are at the same height. In the south wall, about half way down the chapel, is a squint commanding the site of the altar from a room on the south, now destroyed, the line of its east wall being marked by its bonding near the south window of the chapel. In the west jamb of the entrance doorway are traces of the start of a thin brick wall running across the chapel, and separating it from the vestibule at the west. Just within the doorway on the west is a recess for holy water, and beyond it the jamb of a blocked opening which is exactly equidistant from the centre line of the gateway with the west face of the staircase at the north-west of the court. Whether this is more than a coincidence is a matter for doubt, but there are signs of alteration here on both sides of this range, whether in the course of building or afterwards. A square-headed window lighting the vestibule now takes the place of the former opening, whatever it may have been. The changes of masonry in the north wall of the vestibule are chiefly noticeable from the outside. The lower six feet of the chapel wall are of different brick from the rest, and there is a joint in the masonry a little distance to the east of the east turret of the gatehouse, the work on the turret side being the older, and the plinth one course lower than on the rest of the chapel. The evidence points to the fact that the chapel was built after the gateway, and some change of plan may have been made in the interval, which must in any case have been a short one. Over the vestibule was a gallery or upper floor, doubtless reached by a wooden stair.

The lines of a rectangular earthwork to the west and south of the buildings may perhaps mark the site of an older building. There was evidently a second court here, with out-buildings, and there are traces here and there of an inclosing ditch. On the east are several cottages and farm-house buildings, the materials of which have in large measure been taken from the ruins, and fully account for their present fragmentary condition.

The manor of STOPSLEY was in the possession of the Hoo family during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and followed the same descent as Luton Hoo (q.v.). Robert de Hoo held land in Stopsley in 1245, (fn. 374) and in 1291 one of the same name obtained free warren in his demesne lands there. (fn. 375) He settled this estate on his son Robert, (fn. 376) whose son Thomas in 1338 received a confirmation of free warren in Stopsley. (fn. 377) Shortly afterwards the association of this family with Stopsley manor appears to have ceased, and all trace of it is lost until 1416, when Edward Brassington or Stopsley, heir of Alexander Stopsley, granted the manor to John Gedney and others. (fn. 378) In 1573 a manor of this name was in the possession of Thomas Catesby, who sold it between that date and 1593 to Edward Docwra, (fn. 379) and Thomas Docwra obtained confirmation of free warren there in 1617. (fn. 380) This manor appears to have passed to the Crawleys, for in 1772 John Crawley owned Stopsley manor, together with other manors in the same parish, (fn. 381) amongst which it probably became absorbed, for no further mention has been found of it.

A third, WOODCROFT MANOR, is found in this parish during the sixteenth century. It appears always to have followed the same descent as Bramblehanger (q.v.), and the first reference to it is in an inquisition of 1515, when John Sylam, in addition to that manor, held a messuage and lands in Luton. (fn. 382) In a fine of 1546 Robert Cheyney conveyed Bramblehanger and Woodcroft manors to trustees, (fn. 383) and though the inquisition taken on his possessions in 1554 merely calls this property Woodcroft Farm and lands, (fn. 384) it is invariably from this time onward called a manor, the last mention of it before its final absorption in Bramblehanger occurring in 1807. (fn. 385) It seems likely that the property is represented at the present day by the farm called Little Bramingham, which forms part of the Bramblehanger estate. (fn. 386)

Docwra. Sable a cheveron engrailed argent between three roundels argent each having a pale gules upon it.

To Luton manor is attached the right of holding a view of frankpledge, court leet and court baron. (fn. 387) The marquess of Bute has in his possession a transcript of Court Rolls of Luton manor, written in an early seventeenth-century hand, and covering a period from 1471 to 1559. Three volumes of Court Rolls, dating back to the beginning of the eighteenth century, still exist, but older volumes are supposed to have been burned at the great fire at Luton Hoo in 1771. The annual view of frankpledge, court leet, and court baron of the manor is still held with all customary formality at the Luton Corn Exchange on Thursday in Whit-week. The courts are always well attended, and a fair amount of business transacted the tenants are all customary freeholders, as the customary tenements have been enfranchised. The town crier is appointed annually at the court leet of the manor it is a lucrative appointment, as the crier is also bill poster and warden of the pound, which belongs to, and is maintained by, the lord of the manor. (fn. 388)

There is evidence that the lord of the manor of Limbury cum Biscott held courts baron between 1519 and 1635, but no courts are held at the present day, nor have been for long past. (fn. 389)

The lord of Dallow manor formerly possessed the right of view of frankpledge, and courts baron. (fn. 390)

Six mills, valued at 100s., are mentioned in Luton in Domesday. (fn. 391) Mills are subsequently found attached to the following properties in the parish:—Matilda de Kyme owned a water-mill in 1299 as part of her share in Luton manor, (fn. 392) which in 1372, valued at 6s. 8d., had passed to Hugh Mortimer. (fn. 393) This may be the mill known as the Brache, from which William Marshal, who held Luton manor between 1214 and 1231, granted a pension to the dean and chapter of St. Paul's for prayers for the soul of his wife. (fn. 394) A water-mill of this name still existed in 1855, but has since disappeared. (fn. 395)

To Luton Hoo belonged a mill known as Stapleford Mill, of which the first mention is found in 1287. (fn. 396) East Hyde had a water-mill as early as 1247, which was still attached to the manor in 1599. (fn. 397) The mill mentioned in Biscott in Domesday as worth 10s. afterwards became attached to Dallow manor. (fn. 398)

David Ashby manor included a windmill 'worth nothing' in 1448, (fn. 399) and between 1332 and 1435 Fennels Grove held a moiety of a water-mill. (fn. 400) In 1330 a water-mill was attached to Woodcroft manor, which included a fish-pond worth 12s. (fn. 401) In extents of the Luton estate taken in 1677 and 1694, five water grist-mills are mentioned (fn. 402) in 1712 six water grist-mills, and in 1815 three water cornmills. (fn. 403)

Davis, in his History of Luton, written about 1855, mentions as formerly existing in this parish four post windmills—of which two had been blown down by hurricanes in c. 1765 and 1845, one burnt down in 1783, and one destroyed by lightning in 1841—and two smock mills burnt down in 1795 and 1812. At the time he wrote there existed two windmills, and four water-mills, three of which belonged to John Shaw Leigh, owner of the Luton estate. (fn. 404) At the present day the only mill belonging to the Luton estate is the Hyde Mill. (fn. 405)

The following manors in this parish acquired at various dates charters of free warren. Luton manor received a charter in 1330. (fn. 406) Luton Hoo was granted a charter in 1292, which received confirmation in 1337, 1520, and finally in 1623, on the occasion of the inclosure of the park. (fn. 407) Stopsley acquired this privilege in 1292, Woodcroft in 1317, Dallow some time previous to 1331, Woodcroft alias Halyard in 1332, and Haverings manor in 1348. (fn. 408)

The right of free fishing belonged to Luton and Dallow manors. (fn. 409)


The church of ST. MARY, one of the largest and finest parish churches in England, stands in a large churchyard, bounded on the north and east by Church Street and St. Mary's Street.

The building is cruciform, with a chancel 49 ft. by 25 ft. north vestry of two stories, 18 ft. square north or Wenlock Chapel, 25 ft. east to west by 33 ft. north transept, 24 ft. by 32 ft. south transept of similar dimensions, with the Hoo Chapel to the east, 14 ft. wide nave, including the crossing, 98 ft. by 25 ft., with north and south aisles 13 ft. wide, north and south porches with parvises above, and a western tower about 18 ft. square. All these measurements are internal.

In spite of much enlargement and rebuilding, enough is left to show that a cruciform church existed here in the twelfth century, and the arches still existing in the west walls of the transepts prove that the nave had north and south aisles by the end of the century, if not earlier.

About the year 1230 the chancel seems to have been extended eastward to its present limits, and it is possible that the transepts may have been enlarged at the same time, but the evidence is not conclusive. In the fourteenth century a general enlargement of the church was undertaken, beginning with the addition of the present western tower, which was to take the place of the old central tower. The arcades and aisles on both sides followed, the new work being built from the west eastwards to the crossing. The arches at the crossing were then built in place of those carrying the central tower, the opening to the west of the crossing being probably closed in by a temporary wall. It is noticeable that the western jambs of the transept arches are not fully developed like those of the eastern, but are set as far westward as possible, as though to avoid the destruction of some existing work, doubtless the side arches of the central tower, which would not be removed till the new work was ready to take their place. There was probably some short pause between the work on the west tower and the nave arcades, as the western responds on both sides have a different section from that of the arcade piers they are of three engaged shafts, and had the arcades followed immediately the piers would probably have been of four engaged shafts to match the responds, instead of having a plain octagonal form. It is curious to note that when the south arcade met the eastern work it was found that, owing to some slight discrepancy in the setting out of the bays, there was not room for a semioctagonal respond to narrow the archway would have entailed new centering, and rather than do this the difficulty was overcome by making the respond of less projection.

In the fourteenth century also the transepts were enlarged and chapels equal in depth to the transepts added on the east the chapel on the north side was probably of the same depth as that on the south (now called the Hoo Chapel), but the arcade is of earlier and better detail. The lower story of the vestry, to the north of the chancel, with its stone vault, was the work of this century, as were also the porches to the nave.

Shortly before 1461 (fn. 410) Lord Wenlock pulled down the cast and north walls of the chapel east of the north transept and extended it to the west wall of the vestry, at the same time piercing the wall into the chancel and inserting the two beautiful arches (or, rather, double arch) there the rood stair was either built at the same time or altered to make more room for this opening, as was also the doorway into the vestry from the east. Alterations amounting almost to a rebuilding were carried out in the chancel by the abbey of St. Albans, as rector, and nearly all the windows in the church were replaced by larger ones at different times during this century. At the same period the four western bays of the north arcade were rebuilt, probably for structural reasons, and the clearstory added. There appears to have still been a wall across the western arch of the crossing, as the corbel heads supporting the jacks of the trusses do not look north or south as the others, but are given a quarter turn to the west. The corbels to the roofs of the chancel and the crossing are of much coarser detail than those of the nave, and are doubtless of the early sixteenth century it is probable that the space between the nave and crossing was entirely cleared at this time. The upper story to the vestry and the stair turret to it are also of this date a fifteenth-century window on the north of the chancel was blocked up by their addition. The small chantry just west of the sedilia in the chancel was built by Richard Barnard, vicar, 1477–92.

The church was completely restored by the late G. E. Street, R.A., between the years 1865 and 1885. The east wall of the chancel was rebuilt, a triplet of lancets in thirteenth-century style replacing the fifteenth-century window which then existed. They purport to be a 'restoration' of the original thirteenth-century lancets, whose sills were found in the wall when it was taken down. Most of the outside face of the walls and window tracery has been renewed, and new doorways have been made in the south wall of the Hoo Chapel and in the west wall of the tower.

The tower is now (April, 1907) undergoing a complete external repair, the buttresses, which are very much perished, having to be entirely refaced.

The three lancets in the east wall of the chancel have round jamb-shafts both outside and inside, the latter being of marble the arches are two-centred and plain. Externally the three lancets are inclosed by a large shallow arched recess.

The piscina and sedilia in the south wall have cinquefoiled ogee heads with rich crocketed canopies and carved cornice, and are divided by square shafts set diagonally with moulded bases and capitals and surmounted by crocketed finials. In the canopy are eight shields, whose colours suggest that they have been repainted. The first and the eighth shield have the arms commonly attributed to Abbot John of Wheathampstead, Gules a cheveron between three groups of three wheatears or the second and seventh shields are Argent two cheverons between three roses gules the third has three crowns, no doubt intended for the shield of St. Oswin, Gules three crowns or, although the field is painted blue the fourth has the golden saltire on blue of St. Alban the fifth is easily recognized as the four lions of St. Amphibal, although the painting of this shield is quite different from that of the arms attributed to the saint—Quarterly gules and or with four lions countercoloured—as they appear on the east side of the central tower in St. Albans Abbey Church the sixth shield is that of St. Edward the Confessor, Azure a cross paty between five martlets or. Above these shields is the motto Valles babundabunt, which tradition assigns to Abbot Wheathampstead.

To the west of the sedilia is the small chantry chapel of Richard Barnard, vicar in 1477–92 its floor is some 21 in. below that of the chancel, which has been raised in modern times. Its north face is divided into three bays with hanging four-centred arches springing from angle shafts and pendants the eastern pendant is octagonal in plan, and its top member is battlemented the western one is broken off and now lies on the top of the chantry. The spandrels of the arches are carved with the rebus of Barnard, a bear and a hand holding a box of ointment (nard). The chantry is entered from the west by a small four-centred doorway, and in the south wall is a piscina with a small recess over it, the latter possibly for a lamp to the west of these is a small window to light the altar, of two lights with cinquefoiled four-centred arches under a square head the roof is vaulted in stone, the ribs springing on the wall side from corbels carved as winged angels.

To the west of the chantry is a small south doorway with a four-centred arch and two hollow-chamfered orders it probably dates from the fifteenth century, but has been renovated in modern times. There are two windows in the south wall of the chancel the eastern one, over the sedilia, of four trefoiled lights with simple trefoiled fifteenth-century tracery in a two-centred arch the other, over the chantry, is of four cinquefoiled lights with tracery of fifteenth-century style, under a four-centred head it has been partly renewed.

The arch opening from the chancel to the Hoo Chapel has plain splayed jambs and a moulded twocentred arch dying on to the splay without a break it is apparently of fifteenth-century date.

In the north wall of the chancel is a fifteenth-century window of three cinquefoiled lights with tracery, now blocked by the upper story of the vestry, and filled in on the chancel side with mosaic.

Below and to the west of this is an early fourteenthcentury tomb recess, with a well moulded ogee arch with crockets and a finial its position suggests that it may have been used for the Easter sepulchre. It seems to have been brought to its present place from a site farther to the west, as it partly blocks a later four-centred doorway to the west of it, which formerly gave access to the vestry. This alteration doubtless took place when the Wenlock Chapel was built, and a new approach from chancel to vestry was provided by a doorway at the south-east angle of the chapel, leading to the south-west doorway of the vestry, which up to this time had been external. The double archway to the Wenlock Chapel is a lofty opening with panelled responds, at the angles of which are pairs of slender engaged shafts with moulded bases, bands, and capitals the main arch is fourcentred and has a panelled soffit, like the jambs, with moulded ribs springing from the angle shafts. The opening is divided by a central pier of the same detail as the responds, with solid panelling ending in cresting a little above the springing of the arches, while from the pier spring arched ribs, dividing the inclosing arch into two sub-arches, the central spandrel being filled with pierced tracery. Above the main arch runs a horizontal cornice, with panelled spandrels beneath it framing the arch, in which are shields with a cheveron between three crosslets these also occur in the soffit of the main arch at the springing.

The central ornament of the cornice is a helm with mantling and torse, the shield which it surmounted having lately fallen from its place, and on either side encircled by garters are the arms of Wenlock. In the smaller carved bosses on the cornice the moors' heads are repeated.

The stairs to the rood-loft pass through the thickness of the wall to the west of the archway, the lowest step being some distance above the floor of the chapel the upper doorway is close up against the chancel arch.

The chancel roof is modern and of low pitch, but the stone corbels which carry it ate old and take the form of rather coarse heads surmounted by moulded abaci.

The vestry to the north of the chancel has a ribbed stone vault of fourteenth-century date springing from engaged wall shafts with moulded bell capitals, and from a larger central shaft with a moulded capital of less depth than the others, looking as though it had been reduced from the original size at some later date there is no shaft in the south-west corner of the vestry, the vaulting springing from a corbel above the rear arch of the doorway, carved with a human face and appearing to be of later date. The three windows to the vestry (two in the east wall and one in the north) are modern restorations each is of two trefoiled lights with a quatrefoil over, and there is a modern doorway in the north wall. The doorway to the stair-turret in the north-east corner has a four-centred arch and belongs to the date when the upper story was added. This upper story is lighted by three windows similar to and above those of the lower chamber, but only the north-east window is old. The fifteenth-century window formerly lighting the chancel, but blocked up when the story was added, is to be seen on the south side of the chamber.

The door from the vestry into the Wenlock Chapel, the original external door of the vestry, has a single chamfered two-centred arch with a rear arch on either side. It is probable that the outer chamfered reveal of the doorway was once flush with the western face of the wall, and that when the doorway from the chapel to the chancel was built the reveal was moved inwards and the higher rear arch turned to the west of it to make room for the later doorway. (fn. 411) The three windows of the Wenlock Chapel, two on the north and one on the east, are of four cinquefoiled lights with tracery under segmental pointed arches the external stonework of the windows has been completely renewed but the interior seems to be the original fifteenth-century work.

The two arches of the arcade between the Wenlock Chapel and the north transept, the chancel arch, and the arches opening from the crossing to both transepts are all work of one date, about 1320, and are similar in detail, with high moulded bases and bell capitals and arches of two orders with small chamfers. The responds consist of three, and the pier of four large engaged round shafts separated by small hollow chamfered angles. The height of the bases of the arcade to the chapel shows that the floor of this chapel was from the first, as now, 1 ft. 6 in. above the general level of the nave and transepts, and flush with the chancel floor. The small squint in the east jamb of the Wenlock arch would be useless if the floor were lower.

The arcade of two bays between the south transept and the Hoo Chapel to the east of it is of much simpler detail than the corresponding one on the north side and is perhaps a little later in date. The pier is octagonal, and the responds semi-octagonal with a filleted bowtell in the angle between them and the wall. It is to be noted that the face of the wall above is flush with the nosing of the abaci instead of being within it, a detail which suggests that the arches are cut through an older wall. The arches are two-centred, of two slightly chamfered orders with a roll and bead divided by a hollow between the chamfers. The three windows of the Hoo Chapel (two eastern and one southern) are each of three wide lights with cinquefoiled heads and fifteenthcentury tracery under pointed segmental arches they have been partly renewed. The doorway in the south wall is new, its head cutting into the window-sill above to the east of it is a modern recess in the head of which is built part of the cusped head of a recess of late fourteenth-century date, found in the wall when the doorway was made. In the east wall of the chapel between the two windows is a piscina with a circular bowl, in a recess with two hollow-chamfered orders and a cinquefoiled head it is of fourteenth-century date.

The windows in the gables of the transepts are similar to each other, both being of five cinquefoiled lights, the foils sub-cusped to make nine foils in all, and with fifteenth-century tracery over.

The west window of the north transept preserves its old stonework of three cinquefoiled lights with tracery under a pointed segmental arch. The mouldings are of a different section from those of any of the other fifteenth-century windows, and of a somewhat earlier character. The west window of the south transept is of four lights and somewhat similar to the last the outside is entirely new, but the inside jambs are old and of a section not found elsewhere in the church. The roofs of the chapels and transepts are modern, but there may be some old timbers in the latter.

The two arches from the transepts to the aisles of the nave are the earliest architectural details in position in the church both are of the thirteenth century, the southern one being the earlier its jambs are of two orders, the outer square and the inner with a small chamfer stopped out square below the abacus the stops differ in the two jambs, the north side being merely a curve outwards whilst the south jamb has a kind of incipient capital. The narrow abacus is square above and hollow chamfered below with a V-shaped groove above the chamfer, and the archsection is like that of the jambs.

The arch on the north side has three detached round shafts in each jamb, with moulded bases and beautiful foliated bell capitals the arch is two-centred of two chamfered orders.

In the west wall of the south transept above the arch to the aisle are the remains of a string course running southwards about as far as the outer face of the aisle wall it then continues at a lower level until interrupted by the window the upper string evidently marks the limits of the thirteenth-century transept.

There is now no arch between the crossing and the nave, the piers being flat and shallow with chamfered edges, setting back slightly at the level of the capitals of the arcade the offsets may mark the springing of a former arch.

The nave arcades are of six bays, with two-centred arches of two chamfered orders the piers on the south side and the eastern pier on the north are octagonal, and both eastern responds are semi-octagonal, that on the south being somewhat flatter than the other. The western responds on both sides are of three round engaged shafts, all have moulded bases and bell capitals. In the eastern respond of the south arcade is a niche now filled with a mosaic representation of St. Paul.

The four western arches on the north side with their three piers are fifteenth-century work, the piers being composed of four half-octagons with moulded bases following the plan of the piers, but with capitals to the inner orders only, the outer orders being continued round the arches without a break the arches of two chamfered orders are higher than the earlier ones and the moulded labels are turned up at the points of the arches to mitre with the moulded string course at the base of the clearstory. The clearstory is of the same date as these later arches and has five square-headed windows a side, each of two cinquefoiled lights.

The roofs of the nave and crossing are at one level they have been restored, but probably contain many of the old timbers. The tie-beams are moulded and are filled in above with tracery. The purlins are also moulded. The jacks of the trusses rest upon stone corbels carved into grotesque heads, some human and some of beasts those at the east and west ends of the nave look out from the walls diagonally. The heads over the transept arches are large and coarse, like those in the chancel.

Of the aisle windows only those in the west walls are original, that in the north aisle being of two trefoiled lights with a quatrefoil over. It has been forced northwards by the thrust of the tower arch. The north jamb is splayed, but the south is square, being the face of the north-east buttress of the tower. The west window of the south aisle has two lights with sharply-pointed cinquefoiled heads and a quatrefoiled spandrel over the tracery has been renewed.

The westernmost window in the south wall is modern, of two cinquefoiled lights with tracery over, and all the other aisle windows are fifteenth-century insertions of three lights with cinquefoiled heads and tracery under segmental arches with labels. The four in the north wall have old jambs and tracery, and new sills and labels. The three in the south have been completely renewed on the outside.

The entrance doorways to the aisles are both of fourteenth-century date. That in the north wall has two continuous chamfered orders and a scrolled label, the outer order having broach stops at the base while the south doorway has two continuous sunk chamfered orders. The south door itself, which is of oak with traceried panels, appears to be of the same date as the stonework.

Below the easternmost window in the south aisle is a piscina with the original fourteenth-century jambs and bowl the jambs are carved with ballflowers in a hollow chamfer between two small rolls, but the head is now a square lintel formed by the fifteenth-century window-ledge. Close to the south door is a holy-water stone, partly blocked up, with an ogee head, and to the west are the upper and lower doorways to the parvise over the south porch both are of fourteenth-century date. The porch and parvise have been completely restored outside, and the outer doorway and windows are new. There is a single ogee-headed light on either side of the porch, and a square-headed window of three trefoiled lights in the south wall of the parvise. The stair to the latter goes up in a round turret in the western angle between the porch and the aisle.

To the east of the north doorway of the nave is a holy-water stone with a two-centred head of square section. It is earlier in appearance than the aisle wall, and may be a thirteenth-century one re-used. There is no stair turret to the parvise over the north porch, but a square-headed door looks into the aisle at the parvise level. The outer arch of the porch is of three continuous chamfered orders, with a label stopping on carved human head corbels much defaced. The label is new, but the rest appears to be fourteenth-century work. The parvise window over the doorway is old, of two trefoiled lights under a square head.

The roofs of the aisles are modern, and are supported on cross arches, of two chamfered orders, from the piers to the side walls.

The eastern arch of the tower is fine and lofty, with three large engaged round shafts in the responds, separated by small hollow chamfers, moulded bases, and carved foliate capitals. The arch is of three moulded orders, with double ogees, wave moulds, and filleted bowtells, separated by deeply-recessed hollows, and with a scroll-mould label stopping on carved human head corbels. Over the arch the line of the former steep-gabled roof, before the addition of the clearstory, is plainly to be seen.

The doorway to the turret in the bottom of the tower has a two-centred arch and jambs of two chamfered orders, and is original.

The west doorway is a modern one in fourteenthcentury style, and has jambs and a two-centred arch with three continuous orders of double ogees with three quarter hollows between them.

The four-light window over retains its fourteenthcentury jambs and arch, but the tracery and label have been renewed. Besides the monial of a hollow chamfer and ogee mould, there are three orders with three quarter hollows between, the inner one being a wave mould and the other two double ogees.

The tower is of three stages, and some 90 ft. in height, with an embattled parapet and octagonal angle turrets, also embattled, rising above the parapet. There is a low pyramidal roof with a vane post and vane, and at the base of the parapet is a moulded cornice with gargoyles at the angles. The tower stair is in a turret at the south-east. The belfry windows, which look rather later in style than the lower part of the tower, have each two cinquefoiled lights with cusped piercing above, under a two-centered arch. The jamb moulds are much weathered, but appear to consist of a large hollow and an ogee mould. In the second story is a clock face on the west side, and on the other three sides a small single trefoiled light with a wave-moulded outer order.

At the angles of the tower are pairs of buttresses of seven stages, in the second and sixth of which are canopied niches for statues, but these with the buttresses are so decayed as to be almost shapeless they are now undergoing a thorough refacing.

The walling is faced with chequered work of flints and Totternhoe stone. This chequering also appears on the walls of the aisles, porches, and transepts, a great deal of it being quite modern. The walling on the south side of the chancel is of roughly-squared rubble, once wholly plastered, and the modern east wall of the chancel is of dressed ashlar.

Most of the buttresses of the church have been restored or rebuilt, but the two at the south-west angle of the south aisle look like original fourteenthcentury work. There are buttresses to the clearstory walls between the windows.

The parapets of the church have for the most part been renewed in brick or stone, nothing but the string courses of the old work, at the bases of the parapets, having been here and there preserved.

A good many pieces of architectural detail have been collected at various times and stored up in the church, and many of them are arranged on a shelf against the south wall of the tower the earliest appear to date from the latter part of the twelfth century, and are of very good style. Many more fragments of the older buildings on this site are doubtless used up in the walling, a piece of twelfth-century zigzag being visible in the south transept.

Parts of the wooden screen between the Wenlock Chapel and the north transept are of fifteenth-century date, notably the carved work along the top of the cornice containing winged beasts, &c., the vine-trail along the middle and lower rails, and the linen panels on the west face. This was brought in a dilapidated condition from the chapel at Luton Hoo and presented by the first marquess of Bute. It was first repaired and set up in the Hoo Chapel, but when the remains of the old rood screen were discovered, it was put in its present position and the rood screen repaired, repainted and placed there in its stead only some of the lower panels are ancient.

The oak quire seats and fittings are modern, but in the boys' desk is incorporated the old reading desk, which still retains the iron staple and a piece of the chain to which the Bible was fastened.

In the east window of the Wenlock Chapel has been preserved some fifteenth-century glass, including four figures, one apparently of our Lady and the other three of angels a good number of the diamond quarries are also old, and have the letter M and in one case a T the word HOLA also occurs several times. The rest of the window and the next to the north have been filled with modern copies of this glass.

The internal fittings are for the most part modern, the reredos, of alabaster and mosaic, being by Street, who also designed the pulpit of alabaster and marble.

The beautiful octagonal fourteenth-century baptistery at the west end of the nave is one of the chief attractions of the church. It is 7 ft. 3 in. wide inside, with an arcaded dwarf wall on each face, except the east, from which side it is entered, and traceried openings above which are surmounted by sharplypointed gablets with large foliate finials and crockets. At the angles are slender buttresses on which stand tall crocketed pinnacles rising nearly to the same height as the gablets. In the openings and the internal angles are slender engaged shafts, from the latter of which springs a beautiful ribbed vault rising to a central opening.

The font has an octagonal bowl with panelled sides and engaged shafts at the angles, standing on an octagonal stem, which is surrounded by smaller shafts, and is apparently of the same date, c. 1330, as the baptistery.

There are many monuments of interest in the church, and only the most important can be mentioned here. In the eastern bay of the Wenlock arch is an altar tomb on which is the brass figure of a lady unknown, (fn. 412) but conjectured to be Lady Rotherham, who died in the latter part of the fifteenth century over the figure is a fine canopy, but there is no inscription. The sides of the tomb have cusped lozenge-shaped panels containing plain lozenges or shields. Until modern times this tomb stood in the middle of the Wenlock Chapel. In the western bay of the arch is a second altar tomb with the recumbent effigy of a priest, William Wenlock, master of Farley Hospital, who gave directions in his will, 1391, that he should be buried in St. Mary's Church. The sides of the tomb are panelled with cusped tracery, the three middle panels being quatrefoils containing shields with arms of a cheveron between three crosslets. The top edge is moulded and battlemented with a row of quatrefoil panels containing alternately roses and shields below this runs a marginal inscription in English as follows: 'In Wenlok brad I, in this town lordschipes had I, Her am I now fady, Cristes moder helpe me lady, under thes stones for a tym schal I reste my bones, deye mot I ned ones, Myghtful God grãt me thy wones amen.' On the north side of the tomb is a Latin inscription, the first words being defaced: .… etatus sic tumulatus: de Wenlok natus in ordine presbiteratus: alter huius ville: dominus laicus fuit ille: hic licet indignus anime deus esto benignus,' and on the effigy a label with the words: 'Salve regina mater misericordie ihu fili dei miserere mei' at the end of the label is a shield with the Wenlock arms. The tomb stands some two feet clear of the eastern jamb of the bay, but touches the west jamb from this it would appear that it was not intended originally to be put into this position, but was brought here from elsewhere. The place was doubtless at first reserved for the builder of the chapel, but for some reason he was not buried here.

In the north wall of the Wenlock Chapel are two tombs partly in recesses the eastern one the late Mr. Cobbe attributes to Sir John Rotherham, 'the first of the name who possessed Someries, who died in 1492–93.' The front of the tomb had three traceried panels of diamond form inclosing shields. On either side of the recess are round attached shafts with a small bead on the inner side the recess is roofed by a flat three-centred arch with a panelled soffit, and at the back are the matrices of two kneeling figures with scrolls issuing from their mouths. The western tomb is supposed by the same writer to be that of George Rotherham, younger son of the first Sir Thomas, who died in 1579 and desired to be buried in Luton Church where his first wife was buried. The style of the tomb is, however, of an earlier date than that suggested. The front has cusped traceried panels inclosing the spaces for small shields, now lost the shafts attached to the sides of the recess are octagonal with concave sides and moulded capitals and bases, and the arch is a flat three-centred one with a panelled soffit in the back are the matrices of a man and two women kneeling, with scrolls by their heads, and the emblem of the Trinity, and two shields above.

In the floor of the chapel is a slab with the brass, of early fifteenth-century date, of a man, and the indent of that of his wife on his right and of his son on his left, the last being in the dress of a priest. The inscription below reads: 'Hic jacent Hugo Atte Spetyll et Alicia uxor ejus cũ d'no Joh'ne filio suo primogenito, quorum animabus p'picietur deus Amen.' This was formerly in the chancel. There is also the matrix of two half figures united, without inscription or date, and others, of fifteenth-century date, of an armed man with a lion at his feet and his lady beside him, which are perhaps those of Sir Thomas Wenlock, 1416, who distinguished himself at the battle of Agincourt, and his wife. On the north wall between the windows is a small brass to Roland Stap, 'late cetezin and clothworker of London,' 1558, and Dorothy his wife, 1565.

In the north transept is a slab with a small brass figure of a woman with a pointed head dress, a close gown clasped by a girdle and fur cuffs there is also the matrix of a man's figure, and between them that of their two children, while below is the space for the inscription which is also missing. A rubbing in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries shows it to be that of John Barbar, 1415, and his wife Agnes and their children. The date on the brass is probably a mistake for 1515. It was formerly in the nave. There are also the slabs, removed from the Wenlock Chapel, of Thomas Crawley, 1629, Sir Francis Crawley, judge of Common Pleas, 1649, and Francis Crawley, baron of the Exchequer, 1682, with other members of the family of later date. There is also the brass of John Acworth represented in armour between his two wives, his head resting on his helmet below the figures is the inscription: 'Pray for the soules of John Acworth, Squyer and Alys and Amy his wyfes, whiche John decessed the XVII day of Marche the yer of or Lord M°V c XIII on whose soules J'hu have m'cy,' and below the inscription are figures of eight sons and nine daughters. In the corners are shields, three of them bearing quarterly 1 and 4 on a chief indented three crowns 2 and 3 three roses the fourth bears a dragon around the edge is the remains of a brass inscription '.… thow be, Timor mortis shulde trowble the, For when thow leest wenyst veniet te mors superare and so .… grave grevys: ergo mortis memoraris .…' At the corners were the symbols of the Evangelists, but only one now remains. Near this slab is one to Daniel Knight with the following inscription:—
Here lyeth the body of Daniel Knight
Who all my lifetime lived in spite.
Base flatterers sought me to undoe
And made me sign what was not true.
Reader take care whene'er you venture
To trust a canting false dissenter.
Who died June 11th, in the 61st
Year of his age, 1756.

In the south transept is a slab with the brass of a priest wearing an almuce and albe, and a doctor's cap, c. 1500. The inscription below the figure is now missing but was in place in 1889 and read: 'Hic jacet Edwardus Sheffeld utriusq' juris doctor, Canonicus eccl'ie Cathedralis leichfelden' et Vicarius istius eccl'ie, ac Rector eccl'ie p'och'is de Camborne in Com. Cornub, et yatt in Com.' Glocestr' qui obiit … die, mes' .… Anno D'ni M c v c .… cuj' a'ie p'picietur Deus.' From his mouth issues a label with the words 'Miserere mei Deus.'

At the corners of the slab are small shields bearing the arms quarterly 1, a cheveron between three sheaves, 2 and 3 fretty, 4 a cheveron, between two tau crosses fitchy in the chief, and a sheaf in the foot. The slab has been removed here from the chancel in modern times. North of this is the brass, also removed from the chancel, of a man in armour and two ladies with the inscription: 'Off yo' charite pray for the sowllis of John Sylam, Elizabeth and Jone his wyvis, the whych John decesyd the X day of Juin in the yere of owre lord MCCCCC and XIII on whos sowllis Jh'u have m'cy. Ame.' There are also other slabs of modern date removed from the chancel and set here.

In the Hoo chapel is a small brass with an inscription in Latin to Penelope Countess of Pridgewater, and wife of Sir Robert Napier, of Luton Hoo, 1658.

In the eastern part of the south aisle wall between the first and second windows is a fourteenth-century tomb recess with a pointed segmental arch of two hollow-chamfered orders. Its original occupant is unknown, and it now contains an ancient coffin slab found in the churchyard some years ago the slab is broken in two, and part of its lower end is missing it is slightly coped and has a roll edge and a foliate cross in relief it is evidently of early thirteenth-century date. With it is a piece of an ancient white stone coffin, with a hollow for the head.

At the west end of the same wall is another fourteenth-century recess with a low pointed arch with feather cusps, partly broken. In it lies the effigy of a priest in mass vestments, probably of late fifteenthcentury date Mr. Cobbe (fn. 413) suggests that it is that of Richard Barnard, removed from his chapel in the chancel.

In the nave is a slab with small brass figures of a man and woman under a shield bearing the Merchant Taylors' arms—a royal tent between two Parliament robes, in chief an agnus dei—and the inscription below, partly destroyed, as follows: 'Of yo r charite pray for y e soule of Anne Waren, dowg r [later] unto Thomas Waren gentylman and sũtyme wyfe [unto] Robert Colshill marchawnt taylo r of London the [whiche] Anne decessed the XIIII day of Maye in the yere [of our] lord god M V c XXIIII on whose soule Jhu hav [e mercy Amen].'

Other brasses of which rubbings exist in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries are those of John Lamar and Elinor his wife, 1512, John Hay and two wives, 1455, John Penthelyn, priest, 1449, and Robert Sw … and two wives, 15 …

There are eight bells, the first seven of which are by Pack and Chapman, of London, 1775, and the eighth by Joseph Eayre, of St. Neots, 1761. The priest's bell bears the stamp and initials of Robert Oldfield, of Nottingham.

The plate includes a fine cup of 1610, inscribed 'Given this cupe to the church of Lutoone by Thomas Attwood of Castel Street for a Cummunyan cupe, 1610.' An engraved band runs round the bowl, with knots in three places. There is a modern copy of this cup, a large straight-sided flagon of 1669, a modern copy of the flagon, a standing paten of 1815, and a large almsdish, 18 in. across, of the same date. The border is worked with a lozenge pattern inclosing raised floral patterns, and the centre is engine-turned.

The registers date from 1603, the first book containing baptisms from that date to 1726, marriages to 1715, and burials to 1708. The second book contains baptisms and burials from 1731 to 1733, and marriages 1731 to 1756. The third book has burials 1772–79, and baptisms 1778–86, and the fourth burials 1787–98, and baptisms to 1797.


Luton Church is mentioned in Domesday when it was held by William the king's chamberlain, having been held by Morcar the priest during the Confessor's reign. (fn. 414) The history of its transference to St. Albans Abbey has been given under Dallow manor (q.v.) and a charter of confirmation was given to the abbey in 1199. (fn. 415) In consequence of dissensions between the bishop of Lincoln and the abbot a deed of composition was executed in 1219 whereby a perpetual vicarage was established in Luton. (fn. 416) In 1291 the value of the church was £66 13s. 4d. (fn. 417) St. Albans continued to present to Luton until the Dissolution, when the advowson became crown property and was granted in 1623 to Sir Robert Napier, lord of Luton manor, (fn. 418) and followed the same descent as that manor until 1845, when it passed by purchase from the marquess of Bute to Mr. Sykes (fn. 419) who in 1857 sold it to Dr. Peile. In 1862 it was purchased by Mr. O'Neill, who presented himself, and at his death in 1896 the perpetual advowson was finally purchased by the Peache trustees who exercise the right at the present day. (fn. 420) The rectorial tithes of Luton were worth £92 in 1544 and were payable in Luton, Chaul End, New Mile End, Leagrave, Limbury, Biscott, Bramblehanger, Woodcroft and Stopsley. (fn. 421)

The tithes of Stopsley were granted in 1555 to Sir Thomas Pope who bestowed them on Trinity College, Oxford in 1642 these tithes were rented at £200, in 1844 at £820. (fn. 422) In 1575 Edward Wingate purchased the tithes of Chaul End, New Mile End, West Hyde, East Hyde, Leagrave, Bramblehanger, Woodcroft, Limbury and Biscott. The tithes of the two latter his family retained until the sale of the manors to Mr. Crawley in 1724. (fn. 423)

In 1623 the tithes of Chiltern Green went to Sir Robert Napier, (fn. 424) and in 1638 when his son's property was sequestered, the tithes are spoken of, not as those of Chiltern Green, but as of East and West Hyde, in the former of which hamlets Chiltern Green was situated. Eventually, the remainder of the rectorial tithes were broken up into fragments, and either became merged in the rent of the land, or are found in the award of 1844 as belonging to 'the rightful owners and impropriators of the rectorial tithes.' (fn. 425)

Luton now includes the following ecclesiastical parishes with their churches:— Christ Church, formed in 1861, the church in the gift of the bishop of Ely St. Matthew's Hightown, formed in 1877, the church in the gift of the Church Patronage Society St. Saviour's parish formed from Christ Church in 1892, the church in the gift of the bishop of Ely St. Paul's parish formed in 1895 from St. Mary's Luton, the church in the gift of the Peache trustees. Luton also contains one Roman Catholic church, three Baptist chapels, seven Wesleyan chapels, five Primitive Methodist, a Friends' Meeting house, two Congregational chapels, and a Salvation Army barracks. In Park Street Baptist Chapel a chair, said to be that of John Bunyan, is preserved.

The church of the Holy Trinity, Hyde, was built by public subscription in 1840–1. It is of brick, in twelfth-century style, consisting of chancel, nave, porch and a small western tower. The register dates from 1841. The living is a vicarage in the gift of Mr. Lionel Ames of Ayot St. Lawrence.

The church of St. Thomas, Stopsley, consecrated in 1862, is of red brick in thirteenth-century style, consisting of chancel, nave, and turret containing one bell. The register dates from 1863. The living is a vicarage in the gift of the bishop of Ely. The Wesleyans have a chapel at Stopsley, and the Baptists a mission chapel in connexion with Park Street, Luton.

The church of Holy Trinity, Biscott, built in 1867, has chancel, nave, north transept, north porch, organ chamber on south, and western bell-cote containing two bells. The living is a vicarage in the gift of Mr. Francis Crawley, who holds Biscott manor. The Baptists have in Limbury a small mission chapel in connexion with Park Street, Luton, and in Leagrave are Primitive Methodist and Wesleyan chapels.

In 1467 Thomas bishop of Lincoln, John Rotherham, John Acworth and others obtained a licence to found a fraternity or gild of the Holy Trinity within the parish church of Luton, consisting of a master, two wardens, and brethren and sisters, and also a chantry of two chaplains to celebrate divine service for the souls of King Edward and his consort Elizabeth, and the said brethren and sisters. (fn. 426) At the time of its dissolution in 1547 the brotherhood was worth £21 4s. 11d., (fn. 427) and in 1549 the lands which belonged to it were granted to Ralph Burgh and Robert Beverly. (fn. 428)


The schools. See above, article on 'Schools.'

In 1673 Cornelius Bigland, by will, gave £6 a year for educational purposes, now paid out of cottages in Adelaide Terrace, and two shops in George Street belonging to Mr. R. G. Sibley.

In 1695 Roger Gillingham, by will, gave £10 a year payable out of his manor of Shillington, now belonging to Mrs. Eyre, for a schoolmaster.

In 1736 Thomas Long, by will, left £1,000 income in part for a schoolmaster and in part for apprenticing. The legacy is now represented by £949 9s. 4d. consols with the official trustees, producing an annual income of £23 14s. 8d.

By a scheme of the Board of Education of 23 December, 1905, these charities constitute a fund for Exhibitions of £5 a year, tenable at a secondary school or technical institutions, and for Bursaries of £5 a year for pupil teachers in public elementary schools, or of £10 a year tenable at training colleges.

In 1731 John Richards, by will, devised a messuage in Luton for education, and for providing a twopenny loaf every Sunday morning for six poor widows. The trust property now consists of a shop and premises on Market Hill, let at £75 a year for ninety-nine years from Christmas, 1897, and £358 10s. 3d. consols with the official trustees, arising from the accumulation of income.

By a scheme of the Charity Commissioners of 19 April, 1882, two-thirds of the net income of about £50 a year is applicable in the promotion of instruction of boys in religious knowledge by grants to the Church of England schools, also for scholarships. See the Distribution Charities below for application of the remaining third.

Thomas Attwood's Charity.—Deed 1610, rentcharge of £1 on Kitnowe Close, and rent-charge of £1 on Ivy Cottage, Langley Street.

William Crawley's Charity.—Will 1682, threefifths of rent of homestead and land in Round Green. The net income of these charities, amounting to about £17 a year, is distributed in coal.

Elizabeth Rotherham's.—Will 1715, rent-charge of £2 12s., charged upon land in Harthill, twelve penny loaves to be distributed every Sunday to twelve poor women attending divine service.

Sir Robert Napier's.—Will 1637, an annuity of £5 4s. charged on Brache Farm, for twenty-six poor people in bread, 2s. every Sunday after divine service.

Sir Theophilus Napier, bart.—Will 1715, an annuity of £5 from land at Luton Hoo, in bread every Sunday morning.

George King's.—Deed 1642, formerly £2 12s. a year out of land in Blackwater Field, to be laid out by 12d. a week in bread to twelve poor people every Sunday redeemed in 1901 by transfer to the official trustees of £104 2½ per cent. annuities. These charities are duly distributed in bread.

In 1660 Elizabeth Winch by will devised 7 acres in Burge Field (subsequently known as Bell Close), the rents to be distributed on St. Thomas's Day amongst the poor of the town. In 1902 the land was sold for £4,250, which—less £102 15s. for expenses—was invested in £4,453 7s. 11d. consols with the official trustees. The income amounting to £111 6s. 8d. is applied for the benefit of the poor under the provisions of a scheme of 12 November, 1886. In 1903 609 persons received gifts of coal.

Charity of John Richards.—See Education Charities above.

Under the provisions of the scheme of 1882 onethird of the net income, amounting to about £25 a year, is applied, as to £2 12s. a year, in distribution of bread to six poor widows, and the remainder in subscriptions to hospitals, provident clubs, and contributions towards the outfit of persons under the age of twenty-one years.

In 1624 Thomas Crawley and Edward Crawley, by deed, gave a messuage standing next the tithe barns, and 5 acres in the common fields of Luton, in trust for sustaining and amending the parish church and steeple for ever. The trust property now consists of a shop and beerhouse adjoining in Park Square, shop in Park Square, and seven cottages in Park Square let to weekly tenants, homestead and meadow land at Round Green containing 2 acres 2 roods, and £1,246 5s. 7d. consols, with the official trustees, arising from investment of the proceeds of sales. The income, amounting to about £210 a year, is applied, as required, in the repairs of the church and steeple. There was at Easter, 1906, a balance in hand of about £350.

Almshouses founded by Robert Hibbert by deed dated 2 January, 1819 (enrolled in Chancery). The endowment fund consists of £5,000 on mortgage of freehold estate in the parishes of Chalgrave, Tilsworth, and Stanbridge at £4 per cent. £1,200 India 3 per cent. and £1,385 14s. 11d. consols with the official trustees, of which £979 13s. 1d. consols was transferred in 1888 from a portion of the endowment fund of the Luton Benefit Society (Widows' Fund), producing an annual income of £234, which is applied in the support of the twenty-four widows occupying the almshouses.

The almshouses in Chobham Street were built in pursuance of a scheme of the Master of the Rolls of 17 February, 1863, out of funds belonging to the Luton Charities, in respect of which proceedings had been instituted in the court. The almshouses are endowed with a messuage, baker's shop, and premises at Trowley Bottom, Flamstead, Hertfordshire, let at £15 10s. a year £250 consols transferred under an order of the Master of the Rolls as a repair and insurance fund and £97 4s. 1d. like stock transferred in 1888 from a portion of the endowment fund of the Luton Benefit Society (Widows' Fund), established in 1818, the dividends to be applied for the benefit of widows occupying two of the almshouses not receiving parochial relief. The sums of stock are held by the official trustees.

The Bute Hospital.—A cottage hospital in High Town Road was founded in 1872, which in 1882 was removed to a new building in Dunstable Road and called the Bute Hospital. The endowment funds consist of £700 India 2½ per cent. stock, £530 consols, and £376 17s. 4d. Liverpool Corporation 2½ per cent. stock held by the official trustees, producing an annual income of £40. The trust funds arise in part from accumulations of income and from a donation of £100 by Arthur Smart, esq. and a legacy of £200 by will (1898) of the Rev. Thomas Lye.

Union Chapel in Castle Street.—Martha Barber, by will, proved 12 July, 1893, bequeathed £167 6s. 9d. India 3 per cent. stock (with the official trustees), the dividends amounting to £5 0s. 4d. to be applied equally between the Union Chapel Auxiliary Fund of the Baptist Missionary Society, and the Sunday School in connexion with this same chapel.

The Friends' Monthly Meeting at Luton and Leighton.—The official trustees hold a sum of £1,885 10s. 1d. consols, the dividends of which, amounting to £47 2s. 8d., are applied for the relief of poor Friends and for education and apprenticeship expenses in connexion with this monthly meeting in accordance with the trusts of a deed of 30 March, 1864. The stock arises from the investment of proceeds of sale in 1875 of four cottages and 7 a. 1 r. 2 p. at Dudswell, Hertfordshire, and from sale in 1878 of a small piece of land at Hendon, Middlesex.

D-Day Landing Craft

Any amphibious operation requires landing craft to carry assault troops from their transport ships to the hostile shore. D-Day, the largest such invasion in history, involved hundreds of craft in all sizes. Many D-Day landing craft made the operation possible. A seagoing vessel shorter than two hundred feet was considered smaller than a ship and therefore a ‘‘craft.’’ The main types were:

Landing Barge (LB)

Hundreds of landing barges were specially outfitted for Overlord, serving a variety of purposes. LBs were equipped for emergency repair work (LBE), as flak batteries (LBF), as floating kitchens (LBK), as oil barges (LBO), for delivering vehicles (LBV), and for providing drinking water (LBW). In all, 433 landing barges were assigned to the invasion, including 228 LBVs.

Landing Craft, Assault (LCA)

The British variant of the Higgins Boat (LCVP) differed primarily from the U.S. design in being lightly armored. Consequently, the LCA was heavier than its American counterpart and sat lower in the water. The Royal Navy had 646 in Britain during early June 1944. The U.S. Navy reported seventeen LCA (Utility) craft destroyed off Normandy prior to the major storm of 17–18 June.

Landing Craft, Control (LCC)

The volume of offshore traffic anticipated at Normandy led to construction of control D-Day landing craft to direct amphibious forces to the proper beaches. Somewhat larger than an LCVP, the LCC had a deckhouse and multiple radio antennas to perform its mission as a navigational leader. On D-Day few American D-Day landing craft reached shore in their planned sectors owing to strong currents and to the particular confusion at Omaha Beach. However, sector commanders in LCCs were able to improvise in many cases, directing LCVPs, LCIs, and other craft to suitable landing areas.

D-Day Landing Craft, Infantry (LCI)

Largest of the troop transport craft, ‘‘Elsie Items’’ were 160 feet long, displacing some 385 tons and capable of fifteen knots. They carried almost two hundred fully armed troops, the equivalent of an infantry company or more, debarked by catwalks that lowered from either side of the bow. Other variants were LCI(G)s, heavily armed gunboats with 20 and 40 mm weapons as well as three-inch cannon. LCI(M)s were equipped with heavy 4.2inch mortars in addition to 20 and 40 mm guns, while LCI(R)s were mainly employed in the Pacific, with five-inch rocket launchers. One soldier who crossed the English Channel in an LCI said that in a seaway it combined the movements of a roller coaster, bucking bronco, and a camel.

Neptune-Overlord involved 247 LCIs, evenly distributed between U.S. and Royal Navy units. U.S. Navy losses included nine LCIs during the landings. Nearly a hundred were listed in the Mediterranean and 128 with American forces in the Pacific Theater of Operations.

Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM)

You can also buy the book by clicking on the buttons to the left.

Books on Local History

By clicking 'Accept' you are agreeing to our use of cookies for content personalisation, analytics, navigation and marketing purposes. To find out more about how WHSmith use cookies Read our cookie policy.

We use different types of cookies to optimize your experience on our website. Click on the categories below to learn more about their purpose. You can change your cookie permissions at any time. Remember that disabling cookies may affect your experience on the website. Please read our Cookie Policy.

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with the services available through our websites and to use some of its features, such as access to secure areas.
An example of an essential cookie: __cfduid

These cookies are used to enhance the performance and functionality of our websites but are non-essential to their use. However, without these cookies, certain functionality (like videos) may become unavailable.
An example of an performance cookie: _gat_UA-533522-1

These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.
An example of an marketing cookie: uuid

These are cookies that have not yet been categorized. We are in the process of classifying these cookies with the help of their providers.

Appendixes to Part II

Appendix I

The pacification of Mindanao by Ronquillo

[Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, Dr. Antonio de Morga, Mexico, 1609.]1

Shortly after Don Francisco Tello had taken over the governorship, news was brought of the death of Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa in Mindanao by Brother Gaspar Gomez of the Society of Jesus. The latter brought the body for burial in the college of Manila, of which Don Esteban was patron. Juan de la Xara wrote that he had charge of affairs, that he had settled in Tampakan,2 that he intended to continue the pacification and conquest of the island as should seem most advisable, and that reënforcements of men and other things should be sent him. It was learned that he intended to make an ill use of the government, and would not remain dependent on, and subordinate to, the governor of the Philippines and that he was depriving the heirs of Esteban Rodriguez of what lawfully belonged to them. It was learned that, in order to make himself safer in this respect, he was sending his confidants to the town of Arévalo in Oton where Don Esteban had left his wife, Doña Ana de Osseguera, and his two small daughters, with his house and property, to persuade Doña Ana to marry him. This resolution appeared injurious in many respects, and the attempt was made to rectify matters. But in order not to disturb the affairs of Mindanao, the matter was left alone for the present, until time should show the course to be followed. And so it happened that when Juan de la Xara left the camp and settlements of Mindanao, and came hurriedly to Oton to negotiate his marriage in person&mdashalthough the widow of Don Esteban had never been favorable to it&mdashDon Francisco Tello sent men to arrest him. He was brought to Manila, where he died while his trial was being conducted.

After the imprisonment of Juan de la Xara, Don Francisco Tello immediately sent Captain Toribio de Miranda to Mindanao, with orders to take command of the camp and to govern until some one should agree to continue the enterprise. When he arrived at Mindanao and the soldiers saw that Juan de la Xara&rsquos schemes had been defeated, and that the latter was a prisoner in Manila, with no hope of returning, they obeyed Toribio de Miranda and the orders that he brought. [270]

In Manila the governor was considering carefully the necessary measures for continuing the war, since the island of Mindanao was so near the other pacified islands, and the island itself contained some provinces that professed peace and were apportioned as encomiendas and had Spanish magistrates, such as the rivers of Butuan, Dapitan, and Karaga, so that it was desirable to pacify the whole island and subject it to His Majesty. The royal treasury was spent and could not bear the expense and Esteban Rodriguez had bound himself by a legal writ to carry the war to entire completion at his own expense, in accordance with the terms of his agreement. The guardian of his children and heirs brought the matter before the court, and refused to fulfill this obligation on account of Esteban Rodriguez&rsquos death. In order not to lose time, for what had been commenced had to be continued in one way or another, the governor decided to prosecute it, drawing the necessary funds from the royal treasury, either on its own account or on the account of Esteban Rodriguez&rsquos heirs, if such should be according to law. The governor then searched for a person to go to Mindanao, and selected Don Juan Ronquillo, general of the galleys. The latter was given the necessary reënforcements of men and other things, with which he reached Mindanao. He took command of the Spanish camp and fleet which he found in Tampakan. He confirmed the peace and friendship with the chiefs and people of Tampakan and Lumagan, restored and set in better order the Spanish settlement and fort, and began to make preparation for the war against the people of Bwayan.3 He spent many days in making a few incursions into their land and attacks on their forts, but without any notable result, for the enemy were many and all good soldiers, with plenty of arquebuses and artillery, and had fortified themselves in a strong position. They had many other fortifications inland and went from one to the other with impunity, whenever they wished, and greatly harassed the Spaniards, who were little used to so swampy a country. The latter found themselves short of provisions without the possibility of getting them in the country on account of the war, inasmuch as the camp contained many men, both Spaniards and the native servants and boatmen, and it was not easy at all times to come and go from one part to another in order to provide necessities.

Meanwhile Don Juan Ronquillo, seeing that the war was advancing very slowly and with little result, and that the camp was suffering, drew up a report of it, and sent letters in all haste to Governor Don Francisco Tello, informing him of the condition of affairs. He wrote [271] that it would be better to withdraw the camp from Mindanao River, so that it might not perish and that a presidio could be established on the same island in the port of La Caldera, which could be left fortified, in order not to abandon this enterprise entirely, and so that their friends of Tampakan and Lumagan might be kept hostile to the people of Bwayan. Meanwhile he and the rest of the camp and fleet would return to Manila, if permitted, for which he requested the governor to send him an order quickly. Upon the receipt of this dispatch, Governor Don Francisco Tello resolved to order Don Juan Ronquillo, since the above was so and the camp could not be maintained, nor the war continued advantageously, to withdraw with his whole camp from Mindanao River. He was first to make a great effort to chastise the enemy in Bwayan, and then to burn the Spanish settlement and fort and go to La Caldera, fortify it, and leave there a sufficient garrison with artillery, boats, and provisions for its maintenance and service. Then he was to return to Manila with the rest of his men, after telling their friends in Tampakan that the Spaniards would shortly return to the river better equipped and in great numbers.

Silonga4 and other chiefs of Bwayan were not neglecting their defense, since, among other measures taken, they had sent a chief to Ternate to ask assistance against the Spaniards who had brought war into their homes. Thereupon the King of Ternate dispatched a numerous fleet of caracoas and other boats to Mindanao with cachils5 and valiant soldiers&mdashmore than 1,000 fighting men in all&mdashand a quantity of small artillery, in order to force the Spaniards to break camp and depart, even could they do nothing else. When the news reached Bwayan that this fleet was coming to their defense and support, they made ready and prepared to attack the Spaniards, who also having heard the same news were not careless. Consequently the latter turned their attention more to the main fort, and reduced the number of men in the smaller forts on Butil6 River and other posts, mouths, and arms of the same river. These served to strengthen the garrison of the main fort and the armed galleys and other smaller craft, in order to use the latter to resist the expected attack of the enemy. The enemy having gallantly advanced to the very fort of the Spaniards with all their vessels and men, attacked and stormed it with great courage and resolution, in order to effect an entrance. The Spaniards within resisted valiantly, and those outside in the galleys on the river assisted them so effectively that together, with artillery and arquebuses, and at times in close combat with swords and kampilan, they made a great slaughter and havoc among the men of Ternate and those of Bwayan, who were aiding the former. They killed [272] and wounded a great number of them and captured almost all the caracoas and vessels of the enemy, so that very few boats escaped, and they were pursued and burned by the Spaniards, who made many prisoners and seized immense booty and many weapons from the enemy. As soon as possible after this, the Spaniards turned against the settlements and forts of Bwayan where some of their results were of so great moment that the enemy, seeing themselves hard pressed and without anyone to help them, sent messages and proposals of peace to Don Juan Ronquillo, which were ended by their rendering recognition and homage, and the renewal of friendship with the people of Tampakan, their ancient enemy. In order to strengthen the friendship, they sealed it by the marriage of the greatest chief and lord of Bwayan with the daughter of another chief of Tampakan, called Dungunlibur. Thereupon the war was apparently completely ended, provisions were now to be had, and the Spaniards with little precaution crossed and went about the country wherever they wished. The people of Bwayan promised to dismantle all their forts immediately, for that was one of the conditions of peace. Then the Spaniards returned to their fort and settlements at Tampakan, whence Don Juan Ronquillo immediately sent dispatches to Governor Don Francisco Tello, informing him of the different turn that the enterprise had taken. In view of the present condition he requested the governor to issue new instructions as to his procedure, saying that he would wait without making any change, notwithstanding the arrival of the answer which he expected to his first report, for conditions had now become so much better than before that the governor&rsquos decision would be different.

The governor had already answered Don Juan Ronquillo&rsquos first dispatch, as we have said above, when the second dispatch arrived with news of the successes in Mindanao. Suspicious of the men in the camp who had constantly shown a desire to return to Manila, and little relish for the hardships of war, and fearing lest they would return at the arrival of the first order, executing that order and abandoning the enterprise which had reached such a satisfactory stage and thinking that it would be unwise to abandon the river, the governor made haste to send a second dispatch immediately by various roads, ordering them to pay no attention to his first orders, but to remain in Mindanao, and that he would soon send them what was necessary for further operations.

It seems that this message traveled slowly for, the first having arrived, they obeyed it without any further delay, and camp was raised and the country abandoned. To their former enemy of Bwayan they gave as a reason that the governor of Manila had summoned them and to their friends of Tampakan they said that they would leave men in La Caldera for their security, and that assistance would be sent them from Manila. This news caused as much sorrow and sadness to the latter [273] as joy to the people of Bwayan. Then, after burning their fort and settlement, the Spaniards embarked all their forces as soon as possible, left the river, and went to La Caldera, 24 leagues farther down in the direction of Manila. Having entered port, they built a fortress and left there a garrison of 100 Spaniards, with some artillery, provisions, and boats for their use.

At this juncture the governor&rsquos second message to General Don Juan Ronquillo arrived, to which the latter replied that he was already in La Caldera, and could not return to the river. Then, without any further delay, Don Juan Ronquillo went to Manila with the balance of his fleet, by way of the Provinces of Oton and Panay. The governor, having heard of his coming, sent to arrest him on the road before he entered the city, and proceeded against him by law for having withdrawn the camp and army from Mindanao River, without awaiting the orders he should have expected after the favorable turn that affairs had taken. Don Juan Ronquillo was set at liberty on showing a private letter from the governor, which the latter had sent him separately with the first instructions, to the effect that he should return to Manila with his troops in any event, for they were needed in the Islands for other purposes and because of this letter Don Juan had determined not to await the second order. [275]

Appendix II

The pacification of Mindanao7

[Concerning the pacification of the Island of Mindanao in the year 1600.]8

In the relation of the last year you will have learned how occurred the death, in the pacification of the Island of Mindanao, of Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa, who offered to carry out this pacification under the conditions which he stipulated with Gomez Perez Dasmariñas, formerly governor of these islands, copies of which were sent to His Majesty and to Master-of-Camp Juan de Lajara, formerly of the said expedition, who succeeded to his place when the camp was abandoned, and came to Manila. Don Francisco Tello, Governor and Captain-General of the said Philippine Islands, who at that time had taken possession of the government, was considering how to aid and stimulate the said pacification at the expense of the heirs of Esteban Rodriguez, and with the agreement of the captains and persons who were long resident and experienced in war in the said islands. Don Juan Ronquillo was appointed commander of the galleys to prosecute the said pacification, and in the meantime, in order to be present and continue the expedition, Capt. Toribio de Miranda was sent forward to encourage and animate the troops, under orders to keep them in his charge and in case the post should be abandoned, and a retreat made to Manila, he should detain the troops and return to Mindanao. The said Capt. Toribio de Miranda having arrived at the Island9 of La Caldera, which lies 40 leagues from the river of Mindanao, there found the whole camp, which was returning from the said islands. Conformably to the orders which he had, he turned back and fortified the site where they had first been, which was on the river, 4 leagues from the forts of the enemy. Juan Ronquillo, having been dispatched to Mindanao, had taken the camp in his charge, and begun to achieve some success. He achieved a victory in the battle which he fought with the Ternatans, who had entered with 800 men to give aid to the people of Mindanao. Before these successes, he had written a letter in disparagement of that country (a copy of which was sent to His Majesty), on account of which, in a council of war [276] which had been held, the General Don Ronquillo had been ordered to make a last effort against the Mindanaos, doing them all possible damage. He was then to come to the Island10 of La Caldera and there build a fort, to be garrisoned with a hundred Spanish soldiers, with artillery, arms, and munitions, and leave them there as a check upon Ternate and Mindanao, in charge of a good soldier, one of the captains of the camp, and with the rest return to Manila. Although Don Juan Ronquillo received this order, after having won considerable victories, he again wrote that he would not abandon that place, even if such were the order, because it would not be expedient to retire from the camp and comply with what had been ordered, when he was leaving the Island of Mindanao already pacified, the chiefs, with whom he had used gentle means, that they might all be more contented, having again rendered submission to His Majesty, and likewise as the King of Sulu again rendered obedience and submission. Confiding in this, Capt. Cristobal Villagra, whom Don Juan Ronquillo had appointed commander of the garrison of La Caldera, had sent 30 soldiers to the Island of Sulu for supplies. They found at this time in Jolo a Mindanao chief, an uncle of the King of Mindanao and a brother-in-law of the King of Sulu, who had been driven out of Mindanao because he was rebellious. He treacherously killed 13 Spanish soldiers. When news of this was brought, Juan Pacho was sent to take the troops of La Caldera in charge, and, when it should seem best to him, to try to inflict punishment with 600 Spaniards the enemy unfortunately killed the said Juan Pacho and 29 Spaniards, the rest of them retiring without any success. This news having come to the governor, he sent in place of Juan Pacho, Capt. Toribio de Miranda, a person in whom he had entire confidence, with an order not to attempt any punishment until he had force enough for it. After this Capt. Toribio de Miranda arrived at La Caldera on the 26th of August, 1599. When the garrison was given into his charge he put the defensive works in order, and with the arms which he brought, and those which he found in the fort, he armed all the troops, amounting to 114 soldiers. As directed by an order of the governor, he sent a chief of the Pintados [Bisayans] to Mindanao with letters to the chiefs of the island, in which he informed them that they would be protected, favored, and upheld in justice, as vassals of His Majesty, and that with this object a garrison had been placed in La Caldera and that to aid in maintaining it, and in covering the expenses which they had caused in the war by their disobedience, the largest possible quantity of tributes would be collected for His Majesty, and that he would send for them shortly, which had not been done earlier because the Mindanaos had been so spent and afflicted. Having arrived on the 2d of September at the river of Mindanao, and delivered his dispatch, this chief was [277] well received, and found the people in the settled state in which Gen. Don Juan Ronquillo had left them. Raja Muda, the main chief of Mindanao, in the name of them all, sent him back on the 15th of the said month, offering to give to His Majesty all the tribute which they could collect.

At this time news from the chief captain of Malacca having reached the governor, to the effect that in the Sunda,11 150 leagues from that port, there had been seen a number of English ships, whose designs were not known and, a little later, word from the commander of the fort of Maluco that there were at Ternate, within the port, two English ships with 400 men and 50 pieces of artillery a council of war was held as to what was best to do. The said council decided to withdraw the garrison from La Caldera to Cebu, so that the enemy should not take that place and, if they should attempt to do damage to that province, they would find it in a state of defense. Accordingly an order was sent to Capt. Toribio de Miranda to withdraw with the troops, arms, artillery, and munitions, dismantling the fort he was also told that he could return shortly to the island with more troops and arms, in order to assist in its defense. On the 9th of September Capt. Toribio de Miranda arrived at Cebu, with all the troops, artillery, arms, and munitions and at the same time Gen. Don Juan Tello arrived at Cebu with a hundred men, who came as reënforcement from the city of Manila. Having spent six months there and commenced to build a fort of stone, the governor, as they had no more news of the English referred to, sent an order to the said Don Juan to come to the city of Manila&mdashwhich he did with the hundred men. leaving the Province of Cebu in a prosperous condition, with the troops which are usually kept there, and those of the garrison of La Caldera, which in all amounted to 250 Spaniards.

After all this, in June of 1600, the governor received news, by way of Malacca, that the ships which had passed to the South Sea belonged to Dutch merchants, who had come to load with spices in the Maluco Islands. Having transacted their business, they had returned to their own country by way of India, without doing any damage to the islands of the west it therefore seems that we are safe, notwithstanding the news received of those enemies. [279]

Appendix III

The Moro raids of 1599 and 1600

[ Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas , Dr. Antonio de Morga, Mexico, 1609.]12

The Spanish garrison left in La Caldera, at the withdrawal of Don Ronquillo&rsquos camp from the river of Mindanao, passed into command of Captain Villagra at the death of Capt. Juan Pacho in Jolo, and was suffering for lack of provisions for neither the people of the river could give them to the Spaniards, nor would the Sulus furnish any on account of the war declared upon them. Therefore the garrison urgently requested Governor Don Francisco Tello either to aid their presidio with provisions, soldiers, and ammunition, or to allow them to retire to Manila&mdasha thing of which they were most desirous&mdashsince there they gained no other special result than that of famine, and of incarceration in that fort, and of no place wherein to seek their sustenance. The governor, in view of their insistence in the matter, and having but little money in the royal exchequer, with which to provide for and maintain the said presidio and for the same reason the punishment that was to be inflicted upon the Sulus for their outrages upon the Spaniards, and their insurrection was deferred&mdashand thinking that the return to Mindanao matters would be a long question, he was inclined to excuse the difficulty and anxiety of maintaining the presidio of La Caldera. In order to do it with a reasonable excuse he consulted the Audiencia and other intelligent persons, and requested them to give him their opinion. But he first communicated his wishes to them and gave them some reasons with which he tried to persuade them to give him the answer that he desired. The Audiencia advised him not to remove or raise the garrison of La Caldera, but to reënforce and maintain it, and to attend to the affairs of Sulu and the river of Mindanao as soon as possible, even if what was necessary for those two places should be withdrawn from some other section. They said that this was the most urgent need, and the one which required the greatest attention in the islands, both in order to pacify those provinces and to keep them curbed lest, seeing the Spaniards totally withdrawn, they should gain courage and boldly venture [280] still farther and come down to make captures among the Pintados [Bisayans] and carry the war to the very doors of the Spaniards. Notwithstanding this reply the governor resolved to raise and withdraw the garrison, and sent orders to Captain Villagra immediately to burn the fort which had been built in La Caldera, to withdraw with all his men and ships, and return to Manila. This was quickly done, for the captain and the soldiers of the garrison waited for nothing more than to dismantle the fort and leave. When the Sulus saw the Spaniards abandoning the country, they were persuaded that the latter would return to Mindanao no more, and that they had not sufficient forces to do so. Thereupon they gained fresh resolution and courage, and united with the people of Bwayan on the river, and equipped a number of caracoas and other craft, in order to descend upon the coast of Pintados (Bisayas) to plunder them and make captives. The people of Tampakan, who lost hope of receiving further help from the Spaniards, and of the latter&rsquos return to the river, since they had also abandoned the fort of La Caldera and left the country, came to terms with and joined the people of Bwayan, their neighbors, in order to avoid the war and injuries that they were suffering from the latter. Then all turned their arms against the Spaniards, promising themselves to make many incursions into their territory and gain much plunder. Accordingly they prepared their fleet and appointed as leaders and commanders of it two of the experienced chiefs of the river of Mindanao, called Sali and Silungan.13 They left the Mindanao River in the month of July of the year 1599, in the season of the vendabals,14 with 50 caracoas, containing more than 3,000 soldiers armed with arquebuses, kampilan, carasas,15 other weapons with handles, and many culverins, and steered toward the islands of Oton and Panay, and neighboring islands. They passed Negros Island and went to the river of Panay, which they ascended for 5 leagues to the chief settlement, where the alcalde-mayor and some Spaniards were living. They sacked the settlement, burned the houses and churches, captured many native Christians&mdashmen, women, and children&mdashupon whom they committed many murders, cruelties, and outrages. They pursued these in boats more than 10 leagues up the river, and destroyed all the crops. For the alcalde-mayor, and those who could, fled inland among the mountains, and accordingly the enemy had a better opportunity to do what they pleased. After they had burned all the vessels in the river, they left the river of Panay with their boats laden with pillaged goods and captive Christians. They did the same in the other islands and towns which they passed. Then they returned to Mindanao, without any opposition being offered, with a quantity of gold and goods and more than 800 captives, besides the people whom they had killed. [281] In Mindanao they divided the spoil, and agreed to get ready a larger fleet for the next year, and return to make war better prepared.16

This daring attack of the Mindanaos worked great injury to the Pintado Islands [Bisayas], both on account of their deeds there and also on account of the fear and terror with which they inspired the natives because of the latter being in the power of the Spaniards, who kept them subject, tributary, and disarmed, and neither protected them from their enemies, nor left them the means to defend themselves, as they used to do when there were no Spaniards in the country. Therefore many towns of peaceful and subjected Indians revolted and withdrew to the tingues,17 and refused to descend to their houses, magistrates, and encomenderos.18 As was reported daily, they all had a great desire to revolt and rebel, but they were appeased and reduced again to subjection by a few promises and presents from their encomenderos and religious who showed great pity and sadness over their injuries. Although in Manila people regretted these injuries, and still more those which were expected in the future from the enemy, they did nothing but regret them&mdashsince the governor was ill provided with ships and other necessities for the defense&mdashand reckon them with the loss which they had suffered for having raised the camp on the river of Mindanao and dismantled the presidio of La Caldera.

As soon as the weather permitted, the Mindanaos and Sulus returned with a large fleet of more than 70 well-equipped ships and more than 4,000 fighting men, led by the same Silungan and Sali, and other Mindanao and Sulu chiefs, to the same Islands of Pintados [Bisayas], with the determination of taking and sacking the Spanish town of Arévalo, which is situated in Oton. Capt. Juan García de Sierra, alcalde mayor of that province, having heard of this expedition and of the designs entertained by the enemy, took the most necessary precautions, and gathering into the town all the Spaniards who lived there and in its neighborhood, shut himself up in it with all of them. Then, having repaired, as well as possible, a wooden fort there, he gathered there the women and their possessions. He and the Spaniards&mdashabout 70 men&mdasharmed with arquebuses, awaited the enemy. The latter, who intended to attack the river of Panay again, passed Negros Island and made for the town of Arévalo, where they anchored close to the native [282] settlement. Then they landed 1,500 men armed with arquebuses, kampilan, and carasas, and, without stopping on the way marched against the Spanish town which was the object of their attack. The Spaniards, divided into troops, sallied forth and opened fire with their arquebuses upon the enemy with such vehemence that they forced them to retreat and take refuge on board their caracoas. So great was the enemy&rsquos confusion that many Mindanaos were killed before they could embark. Capt. Juan García de Sierra, who was on horseback, pursued the enemy so closely to the water&rsquos edge that the latter cut off the legs of his mount with their kampilan and brought him to the ground, where they killed him. The enemy embarked with a heavy loss of men, and halted at the Island of Gimarás,19 in sight of Arévalo. There they counted their men, including the dead and the wounded, who were not a few, and among whom was one of the most noted chiefs and leaders. Then they sailed for Mindanao, making a great show of grief and sorrow, and sounding their bells20 and tifas.21 They made no further delay at Pintados [Bisayas], deriving little profit or gain from the expedition but much injury, and loss of men and reputation, which was felt more deeply upon their arrival in Sulu and Mindanao. In order to remedy this disaster, it was proposed to renew their expedition against the Pintados at the first monsoon with more ships and men, and it was so decided. [283]

Appendix IV

Gallinato&rsquos expedition to Jolo

[Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, Dr. Antonio de Morga, Mexico, 1609.]22

The daring and audacity of the Mindanaos and Sulus in making incursions with their fleets into the Islands of Pintados [Bisayas] had reached such a state that it was now expected that they would come as far as Manila, plundering and devastating. In order to check them, at the beginning of the year 1602, Governor Don Francisco Tello, deriving strength from weakness, determined that the expedition against Sulu should be made at once, without more delay, in order to punish and pacify it, with the forces and men whom Capt. and Sargento-mayor Juan Xuarez Gallinato held in Cebu and in the Pintados [Bisayas] together with more men, ships, and provisions, which were sent him, accompanied by the necessary documents and instructions for him to enter the island, chastise its king and inhabitants, and pacify and reduce it to the obedience of his Majesty. By this means, until there should be an opportunity to settle the affairs of Mindanao, which is quite near Sulu, the audacity of the enemy would be checked and by bringing the war into his own country, he would not come out to commit depredations. Captain Gallinato set out on this expedition with 200 Spanish soldiers, ships, artillery, enough provisions for four months&mdashthe time which it was thought the expedition would last&mdashand with Indians as rowers for the ships and for other services that might arise. When he arrived at Sulu, at the bar of the river of this island, which is 2 leagues from the principal town and dwellings of the king, he landed his men, artillery, and the necessary provisions and left his ships under a sufficient guard. The islanders were all in the town and dwellings of the king, which are situated on a very high hill above some cliffs, and have two roads of approach through paths and roads so narrow that they can be reached only in single file. They had fortified the whole place, intrenched it with palms and other woods and a number of culverins. They had also collected provisions and water for their sustenance, besides a supply of arquebuses and other weapons. They had neither women nor children [284] with them, for they had taken them out of the island. They had requested aid from the people of Mindanao, Bruney, and Ternate, and were awaiting the same, since they had been informed of the fleet which was being prepared against them in the Pintados [Bisayas]. Gallinato determined to pitch his camp near the town before this aid should arrive, and to attack the fort. After he had quartered himself at a distance of one-half league, in a plain facing the ascent, he sent interpreters with messages to the king and chiefs of the island, calling on them to surrender, and telling them that good terms would be given them. While waiting for an answer, he fortified his quarters in that spot, intrenching himself wherever necessary. He mounted the artillery in the best position for use, and kept his men ready for any emergency. A false and deceptive answer was returned, making excuses for the excesses that had been committed, and for not complying just then with what had been asked of them, and making loud promises to do so later. All this was with the object of detaining the captain in that place, which is very unhealthy, until the rains should set in, his provisions run short, and the arrival of the expected aid. After this answer had been received the Sulus, thinking that the Spaniards had become more careless on account of it, swarmed down quickly from the said fort in a large body of probably somewhat over one thousand and armed with arquebuses and other weapons with handles, kampilan, and caraças, attacked and assaulted the quarters and camp of the Spaniards. This could not be done so secretly as not to be seen by the Spaniards and allow them opportunity to prepare to receive the Sulus before their arrival. This the Spaniards did, and having permitted the natives to come all together in a body to the very inside of the quarters and trenches, as soon as the Sulus had discharged their arquebuses the Spaniards opened fire upon them, first with their artillery, and then with their arquebuses, killing many, and forcing the rest to retire in flight to the fort. The Spaniards pursued them, wounding and killing to the middle of the hill. But seeing that farther on the paths were so narrow and rough, they retreated before the heavy artillery fire from the heights and the large stones hurled down upon them and returned to their quarters. Upon many other days efforts were made to reach the fort, but without any result. Thereupon Gallinato, in consideration of the war being prolonged beyond what had been expected, built two forts, one where he kept his ships in order to defend them and the port and the other one-half league farther on in a suitable place where they could take refuge and communicate with the camp. The forts were built of wood and fascines and fortified with the artillery from the ships. The Spaniards shut themselves up in these forts, whence from time to time they sallied, making incursions as far as the enemy&rsquos fort. The latter always remained shut up in their fort without ever choosing to come down or to yield for he was convinced that [285] the Spaniards could not remain long in the island. When Gallinato saw that the rains were fast setting in, that his men were becoming ill, and that his provisions were failing without his having accomplished the desired task, and that it could not be accomplished with his remaining resources, and that the enemy from Mindanao with other allies of theirs were boasting that they were gathering a large fleet in order to drive the Spaniards from Jolo, he sent news of all that had occurred to the governor of Manila, with a plan of the island and fort and a relation of the difficulties which the enterprise presented. He sent this in a vessel, by Capt. and Sargento-mayor Pedro Cotelo de Morales, toward the end of May of the year 1602, in order to obtain instructions as to his procedure, and the necessary reënforcement of men and provisions. The captain was charged to return quickly with the answer. * * *

At the same time that Governor Don Pedro de Acuña entered upon his administration, the captain and sargento-mayor, Pedro Cotelo de Morales, arrived from Jolo with the advices and report of Juan Xuarez Gallinato concerning the state of affairs in that island, whither he had gone with the fleet at the beginning of that same year. The governor, on account of the importance of the matter, wished to make every effort possible, and determined to send him supplies and a reënforcement of some men, which he did as soon as possible. He was ordered to at least make an effort to punish that enemy, even if he could do nothing more, and whenever the opportunity presented itself, to go to do the same thing in the river of Mindanao, and return to the Pintados [Bisayas]. When this commission reached Jolo Gallinato was already so worn out, and his men so ill, that the reënforcements only made it possible for him to get away from there accordingly without seeing to another thing, he broke camp, burned the forts which he had built, embarked, and went to Pintados, leaving the people of that Island of Sulu and their neighbors, those of Mindanao, emboldened more than ever to make raids against the Pintados, and the islands within, which they did.

The governor, without delaying any longer in Manila, hastily started for the Island of Panay and the town of Arévalo, in a galliot and other small vessels, to see their needs with his own eyes, in order to provide for them. He left war matters in Manila, during his absence, in charge of Licentiate Don Antonio de Ribera, auditor of the Audiencia.

As soon as the governor left Manila, the auditor had plenty to look after, because a squadron of 20 caracoas and other vessels from Mindanao entered the islands as far as the Island of Luzon and its coasts, making captures. Having taken some ships bound from Cebu to Manila, they captured 10 Spaniards in them, among them a woman and a priest and Capt. Martin de Mandia, and they took them off with them. They entered Calilaya, burned the church and all the town, and captured many [286] persons of all classes among the natives. Thence they passed to the town of Balayan to do the same, but the auditor, having received news of the enemy in Manila, had it already in a state of defense with 50 Spaniards and a captain and some vessels. Consequently, they did not dare to enter the town or its bay, but crossed over to Mindoro, where, in the principal town, they captured many men, women, and children among the natives, seizing their gold and possessions, and burning their houses and church, where they captured the prebendary Corral, curate of that doctrina. They filled their own ships, and others which they seized there, with captives, gold, and property, staying in the port of Mindoro as leisurely as though in their own land, notwithstanding that it is but 24 leagues from Manila. Capt. Martin de Mendia, prisoner of these pirates, offered, for himself and the other Spanish captives that, if they would let him go to Manila, he would get the ransom for all, and would take it, or would send it within six months, to the river of Mindanao, or otherwise he would return to their power. The chief in command of the fleet agreed thereto, with certain provisions and conditions, and caused the other captives to write to the effect that what had been agreed upon might be fulfilled, and then he allowed the captain to leave the fleet. The latter came to the city, and upon receiving his report, the auditor sent munitions, ships, and more men to Balayan than there were there already, with orders to go in pursuit of the enemy without delay, saying that they would find him in Mindoro. Capt. Gaspar Perez, who had charge of this in Balayan, did not start so quickly as he should have done in order to find the enemy in Mindoro, for when he arrived he found that he had left that port six days before, laden with ships and booty, to return to Mindanao. Then he went in pursuit of him, although somewhat slowly. The enemy put into the river of a little uninhabited island to get water and wood. Just at that time Governor Don Pedro de Acuña, who was hastily returning to Manila, from the town of Arevalo, where he had learned of the incursion of those pirates, passed. He passed so near the mouth of the river, in two small champanes23 and a virrey,23 with very few men, that it was a wonder that he was not seen and captured by the enemy. He learned that the enemy was there, from a boat of natives which was escaping therefrom, and then he met Gaspar Perez going in search of the enemy with twelve vessels&mdashcaracoas and virreys and some large champanes. The governor made him make more haste and gave him some of his own men to guide him to where he had left the pirates the day before, whereupon they went to attack them. But the latter espied the fleet through their sentinels whom they had already stationed in the sea, outside the river. Accordingly they left the river in haste, and took to flight, throwing into the sea goods and slaves in [287] order to flee more lightly. Their flagship and almiranta caracoas protected the ships which were dropping behind and made them throw overboard what they could and work with all the strength of their paddles, assisted by their sails. The Spanish fleet, the vessels of which were not so light, could not put forth enough strength to overtake all of them, because, furthermore, they went into the open without fear of the heavy seas which were running, inasmuch as they were fleeing. Yet some of the ships of Capt. Gaspar Perez, being lighter, got the enemy&rsquos fleet, sunk some caracoas, and captured two, but the rest escaped, although with great danger of being lost. Without accomplishing anything else, the fleet returned to Manila where the governor had already entered, very much disturbed that things should have come to such a pass that these enemies, who had never dared to leave their houses, should have been so daring and bold as to come to the very gates of the city, doing great damage and making captures. [289]

Appendix V

Olaso&rsquos expedition in 162924

[Relation of events in the Philippine Islands and other surrounding regions, from the month of July, 1629, until that of 1630.]25

I shall commence the affairs of these islands with the expedition to Jolo. It is an island of the Archipelago, rebellious for years past, and its natives, who are Mohammedans, have made a thousand incursions against us in these islands, pillaging whenever opportunity arises, burning villages and churches, and capturing numerous people.

In order to remedy all these evils, Governor Don Juan Niño de Tabora determined to equip a powerful fleet in order to destroy that enemy and conquer a stronghold which nature has made in their island so lofty and so difficult of approach that there is no better stone castle, for the approach to it is by one path, and it has some artillery which defends it. The people are courageous and warlike. For our fleet were collected 1 galley, 3 brigantines, 12 freight champanes (which are like small pataches ) 26 and about 50 caracoas. The last named are the usual craft of these islands, and generally have thirty or forty oars on a side. All these vessels together carried about 400 Spaniards and 2,500 Indians, and they had considerable apparatus and war supplies. It was quite sufficient for another conquest of greater importance than the one on which they were going.

All that fleet departed, then, from the port of Dapitan on March 17. Dapitan is the port nearest to the enemy, and the Island of Sulu was reached in [blank space in the Ventura del Arco MS.] days. At dawn our men were landed, and began the ascent to the stronghold. The master-of-camp, Don Lorenzo de Olaso, who was commander in chief of the fleet, preceded the men. The Sulus defended their stronghold with valor. They killed some of our men and wounded eight, among them the master-of-camp himself. He was overthrown, as if dead, and went rolling down the hill. However, he was not dead, but only wounded, [290] nothing more. Our men retired on the run, and to speak plainly, such terror entered into them that they did not dare to attack again. They skirted the island in their craft, entered the villages, burned, wrecked, destroyed them, and killed a few people. They brought back some captives with them whom the Sulus had taken from us. A violent storm overtook them, which compelled them to weigh anchor, and they retired stealthily. Thus so powerful a fleet as that was lost. It was such a fleet that never has one like it been made for the Indies in these islands. The Sulu enemy were left triumphant, and so insolent that we fear that they will make an end of the Islands of the Pintados [Bisayas] which are the nearest ones to them, and which they infest and pillage with great facility. [291]

Appendix VI

Corcuera&rsquos campaign in Jolo27

In my last letter I wrote to your Reverence of the result of the first attack, which was unfortunate, because the Moros repulsed us, as I told your Reverence. Not less unfortunate will be the news that I shall now relate,28 which it is yet necessary for me to tell, in order to fulfil my duty and to remove the clouds arising from rumors and letters that will go there. I am here and see everything and there is never a lack of those who tell many new things and exaggerate matters that are not so great as they will relate and descant there, where no one can report and declare what has happened. It is as follows:

Since that attack, we have made two others. The first was with five mines which we had made, with which we expected to blow up a great part of those walls. All of the mines were fired, and thinking that they would cause the same effects as the others our men retired farther than they ought to have done. Four of the mines exploded, and did not a little damage among the enemy. They, full of fear, fled down from their position but, as the mines did not make the noise that we expected, we did not, accordingly, get there in time, as we were quite distant because of our fear lest the mines do us harm. The Moros retook their position, so that we were repulsed this time, as we had been the other, with the death of a captain, while some men were wounded. The fifth mine was left, and did not explode that time. Hence its mouth was looked for, and having found it, we tried two days after that to make another assault. The assault was made after the mine had exploded. That mine was larger than the others had been, and caused much damage. But the Moros fortified themselves again, with greater strength than they had the last two times, and defended themselves in their trenches, which had been fortified with many stockades and terrepleins, so that we could not enter. We lost some soldiers on that occasion, who tried to show that they were bold and valiant. Among them was the sargento-mayor, Melon, who was struck by a ball which passed through him and carried him off [292] in two days. May God rest his soul! Thereupon, we retired to our posts and endeavored to collect our men and carry away the wounded, who were many. We have lost four captains of renown in these three assaults&mdashnamely, Captain Pimienta, Captain Juan Nicolas, Captain Don Pedro de Mena, and Sargento-mayor Gonzales de Caseres Melon. Besides these three assaults, another misfortune happened to us on St. Matthew&rsquos day, which was as follows: Captain Rafael Ome, going with forty-six men and two hundred Indians to make a garo29 (as we say here), and having taken up quarters in a field, where there was a fortified house, arranged his posts at intervals and ordered his men to be on their guard. But since man proposes and God disposes, the posts were either careless, or God ordained it thus for suddenly the enemy rushed upon our men, who could not unite, as they were by that time scattered through the forest. The enemy, having caught them off their guard, made a pastime of it, killing twenty-six men, and carrying off arms, powder, balls and fuses. I regard that event as the greatest of all our losses. Among those of our men killed there by the enemy was Captain Lopez Suarez, a fine soldier. Our men were not disheartened by these reverses, except such and such men. The governor well sustains the undertaking with [all his powers of] mind and body. He has surrounded the entire hill with a stockade and a ditch, and has sown the ground with sharp stakes so that the enemy may neither receive aid nor sally out from it. At intervals there are sentry-posts and towers, so close that they almost touch. There were six barracks along it, so that if any tower should be in need the soldiers in them could go to its defense. Some of them have six men, others four, and those which have least three men, as a guard. The enclosure is one league long and surrounds the hill. I do not know which causes the more wonder, the fort of the Moros or the enclosure of the Spaniards which restrains the Moros, so that they issue but seldom, and then at their peril. We are day by day making gradual advances . Today a rampart was completed which is just even with their stockades, so that we shall command the hill equally [with the enemy]. God helping, I hope that we shall reduce their trenches, and then we shall advance from better to better. May God aid us and si Dominus a custodierit civitatem frustra vigilat qui custodit eam.30 Father, prayers and many of them are needed. Will your Reverence have them said in your holy college, and excuse me and all of us for what we can not do. I forward this letter, [hoping] for its good fortune in the holy sacrifices of your Reverence, etc. Jolo, March 31, 1638. To the father-prior of Manila. [293]

I would like to be the bearer of this letter, and to fulfil my desires of seeing your Reverence and all the fathers and brothers of your Reverence&rsquos holy college. That is a proposition for which credit may be given me, but the time gives space only to suffer and thus do we have to accommodate ourselves to it, and to check our desires, drawing strength from weakness. I must content myself with writing, which would be a pleasant task, if I could do it at my leisure, and not so hastily as I have made known in certain letters that I have sent to your Reverence&mdashnot losing or neglecting any occasion at which I could write. And so that this opportunity should not pass without a letter from me, I have hastened my pen beyond my usual custom, and have written very concisely and briefly&mdashalthough I could write at greater length, and give account of many things which I leave for a better occasion. That will be when it is the Lord&rsquos pleasure for us to see each other. Moreover, I have no pleasant news to write, since that which I could write would all be to the effect that we have not gained this enchanted hill and that, at the times when we have tempted fortune, we have retired with loss of some men and many wounded.

Continuing, then, in the same style as the last letter, I declare that since the first assault, in which we were driven back with the loss of Captain Don Pedro Mena Pando, Adjutant Oliva, and Alférez Trigita, we have made two other assaults. One was on the twenty-fourth of March, the eve of our Lady of the Assumption. The second was on the twenty-eighth of the same month. In the first, we trusted to the mines that had been made, by means of which we expected to make a safe entrance. We would have made it had our fear of receiving harm from them matched the little fear of the enemy&mdashwho, as barbarians, did not prepare for flight, although they knew our designs. Of the five mines, four blew up and as was seen, and as we afterward learned here from some captives, there was a great loss to the enemy. As soon as they saw the fire, they took to flight but our men, being at a distance, could not come up to seize the posts that the enemy abandoned, until very late. That gave the Moros time to take precautions, so that when we had come up, it was impossible to gain a single thing which the mines had given us. On that occasion both sides fought very valiantly . The wounded on our side were not many, and our dead even fewer among the later was Captain Pimienta. We were forced to return to our posts without having gained more than the damage wrought by the mines. The loss of those people was considerable, while not few of them perished because of the severity of our fire. But with the opportunity of the fifth mine which remained (which could not have its effect, because the [294] fire-channel of the others choked it), the third attack was made inside of two days, by first setting fire to that mine, and by arranging the men better than on the day of the previous assault. They were set in array by the governor, who in person came up to these quarters on that occasion. They set fire to the mine, and more was accomplished than on the preceding days. Many of the enemy were killed but, as the entrance was so deeply recessed, it could not be forced so freely by us, for the Moros were able to defend it from us, with so great valor that we could not take it. Our men fought with so great spirit and courage that it was necessary for the leaders to use force with them in order to get the men to retire, when they saw the so superior force of the enemy. On that occasion they killed seven of our men, besides wounding many. Among the latter was Sargento-mayor Melon, who was shot through the lung by a ball. He died on the second day, to the grief of all this army. Thereupon his Lordship made his men retire to their quarters, and commanded that the fort should not be attacked, but that they should proceed to gain it by the complete blockade of the enemy, as we are doing. By this method, I think that we shall make an entrance into the fort. Already we have one bulwark, which we have made level with their entrenchments and we are raising our works one and one-half varas31 above them, so that we are dislodging them with our artillery. They are retiring to the interior of their fort. By this means we hope to gain entrance into all their forts and, once masters of them, I trust by God&rsquos help that we shall conquer their stronghold, and that they will humble themselves to obey God and the king.

Before those assaults, on St. Matthew&rsquos day, Captain Raphael Ome went out to make a garo, as they say here, and to overrun the country. In this island the level country is heavily wooded as nearly all of it is mountainous. He took in his company about fifty men (i.e., Spaniards) and two hundred Karaga Indians. The captain reached a field, and having lodged in a fortified house, such as nearly all those houses are (for those Indians of the mountain, who are called Guimennos,32 build them for their defense), he placed his sentries and seized the positions that he judged most dangerous. But since non est volentis neque currentis, etc., either because of the great multitude and the wiliness of the enemy, or (as is more certain) because the sentries were careless, and the other men asleep, the enemy came suddenly and attacked our soldiers&mdashwith so great fury that they killed twenty-six men, among whom was Captain Lopez Suarez, a brave soldier. The leader and captain, Ome, was in great danger. He fought in person with so great valor that, although run through with a spear, he attacked and defeated his opponent, laying him dead at his feet. Few of our men aided him, and [295] many of them retreated immediately, thus allowing the enemy to capture from us twenty firearms, with fuses, powder, and balls. That was a great loss, and it is certain that we have not hitherto had a greater. And if any loss has occurred, it has been due to the neglect and confidence of the Spaniard.

Today two Basilan Indians came down from the hill to ask for mercy, and for passage to their own country. They say that they are sent by the datus in the stronghold who came from that island of Basilan or Tagima and that, if permission and pardon were given to them by the pari [i.e., Corcuera], one hundred and thirty of them would come down in the morning. We regard this as a trick of that Moro and, although it may be as they say, we are taking precautions, and are watching for whatever may happen. If they should come, they will be well received and that will not be a bad beginning to induce others to come from the hill. I shall advise your Reverence of such event on the first occasion. What we know that they are suffering within [the fort] is the disease of smallpox and discharges of blood, together with great famine because we have surrounded the entire hill with ditches and stockades, set with sharp stakes, which run around it for more than one and one-half leagues, and within musket-shot [of their fort] is a sentry-post [garita] or tower in which three men and three Bantayas are staying. By that means the enemy cannot enter or go out without being seen and, when they do that, they are given such a bombardment that scarcely does any one dare to go outside of their walls. The hill is a beautiful sight, and if it were enjoying holy peace instead of war, it would be no small matter of entertainment and recreation to survey the landscape at times. The Moro does not like to see us, and is looking at us continually from his stronghold and yelling and scoffing at us&mdashas they say sometimes that the Spaniards are chickens again, that they are sibabuyes,33 and again, that they will come to set fire to us all, and kill us. The Moro is a great rascal and buffoon. I trust in God that in a little while He will be ready for our thanksgivings [for the defeat of the Moros]. Will your Reverence urge His servants to aid us with their sacrifices and prayers. Those, I believe, it will be that must give us the victory, and that must humble the arrogance of this Mohammedan. His Lordship is displaying great firmness and patience, as he is so great a soldier. Already has he almost raised a stone fort on the beach, for he intends to leave a presidio here, and I think that it will be almost finished before he leaves. Nothing else occurs to me. Of whatever else may happen, your Reverence will be advised on the first occasion. If I have gone to considerable length in this letter, it is because I have known, one day ahead, of the departure of this champan. I commend myself [296] many times to the holy sacrifices of your Reverence. This letter will also serve for our father provincial, etc. Jolo, April 5, one thousand six hundred and thirty-eight.

The Moro has returned today with a letter from the queen and all the stronghold, in which they beg pardon and humiliate themselves. May God grant it, and bring them to His knowledge. I shall advise you of the result. I hear that Datu Ache is dead. If that is so, then the end has come. Today, the sixth of the above month.

PAX CHRISTI. Deo gratias qui dedit nobis victoriam per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.34 I have written your Reverence another letter, by way of Oton, telling you that it was our Lord&rsquos pleasure to give us a joyous Easter-tide, the beginning of what has happened. His Divine Majesty has chosen to bestow upon us an overflowing blessing, by the reduction of these Moros so that they should come, abased and humiliated, to beg His governor for mercy for, whether it was the latter&rsquos plan to go to treat for peace at Basilan for their men, or whether they should send them all, that they might see how the governor viewed their petition, the following day they came with letters from the queen35 for Father Pedro Gutierrez and his Lordship. Therein she begged the father to protect her, for she wished to come to throw herself at the feet of the hari of Manila, and to beg his pardon for the obstinacy that they had shown hitherto. The father answered for his Lordship, in regard to the pardon, that if they agreed to do what was right, they would be very gladly pardoned but that in regard to their coming it was not time, until they would humbly give up the arms which they had taken from us, and the captives, vessels, and holy ornaments and that, even though the queen had so great authority, so long as the king did not come, he must declare and show his willingness to accept what the queen had written. Accordingly, the king wrote to the same father and to his Lordship next day, begging the same thing and more earnestly. But he was not allowed to come&mdashwhich he urgently entreated&mdashuntil they should have given up the arms and other things of which they robbed us. Difficulties arose over this point, as to which of the two things was to be done first. The Moro declared that he wished to treat first of the peace, and the points on which they were to agree and therefore it was necessary to see the hari of Manila first of all. But Don Sebastian, as he was so experienced in these matters of war (in which God has inspired him with so wise resolutions, and given him even better results) held [297] firm to his proposals. Two days passed, but at last the king agreed to the terms, by giving up the pieces of artillery which he had captured from us. There were four iron pieces and, in place of one which had burst, one of bronze was requested, which many mines had buried. Afterward we found the broken piece, by opening the mouth of one of the mines: and he gave it to us willingly&mdashsaying that he had thus brought the broken piece, and that he ought not for that reason to give another in its place and that which had been asked from him had been bought for forty basines of gold at Makassar. In order that the Spaniards might see what an earnest desire for a permanent peace was in his heart, and that he was greatly inclined to it, he sent also some muskets, although few and poor ones. In what pertained to the captives, he said that he would surrender those that he had, but that he could not persuade his datus to give up theirs still he would ask them to give their captives. At most, he sent eleven Christian captives, counting men, women, and children. He had already spent the holy vessels, for, since it was so long a time since they had been brought, he had sold them to the king of Makassar but he said that he and all his property were there, to satisfy the Spaniards for any injury that they had received. The king petitioned his Lordship to allow him to visit him and his Lordship granted such permission for Quasimodo Sunday.

The datus [sic] were very angry that the king was so liberal, and because he humbled himself so deeply accordingly, they opposed his leaving the hill to talk with the governor. They tried to prevent it, but the king overruled by the reasons which he gave to the datus, and which father Gregorio Belin gave to him. His Lordship gave hostages for the king, and ordered Captain Marquez and Captain Raphael Ome to remain as such. They asked for Admiral Don Pedro de Almonte and two fathers, but that was not granted to them. Finally they were satisfied with the two said captains, persons of great esteem and worth and the king came down to talk with his Lordship, accompanied by many chief men. His Lordship received him with such display as he could arrange at short notice, under a canopy of damask, and seated on a velvet chair, with a cushion of the same at his feet. Another cushion was placed at his side upon a rug. As the king entered the hall, his Lordship rose from his seat, and advancing two steps, embraced the Moro king then he made him sit down on the cushion that had been prepared. Then his Lordship also seated himself beside the king in his chair, while at his right side was his confessor, and at his left stood a captain of the guard and the sargento-mayor. Grouped behind the confessor were the fathers who were in the quarters on that occasion. There were two Augustinian Recollects, and one Franciscan Recollect, and a secular priest. Then came Father Gutierrez, and Father Gregorio Belin. The king requested permission to rest a little first, for he came, one of his servants fanning [298] him (haciendole paypay), lifting up from time to time the chinina which he wore&mdashopen in front, in order to catch the breeze, and to enable him to shelter himself from the heat, or to get rid of the fears with which he had come. His chief men seated themselves after him on that open floor, a seat very suitable for such nobility, who esteemed it as a great favor. Then when the king was rested, or reassured from his fears, they began their discourses or bicharas, talking, after the manner of these people, by the medium of interpreters&mdashnamely, Father Juan de Sant Joseph, an Augustinian Recollect, and Alférez Mathias de Marmolejo, both good interpreters. The governor set forth his conditions. The agreement made was: first, that the banners of the king, our sovereign, were to be hoisted on the stronghold second, that the men from Basilan were to be permitted to leave the stronghold and go to their country third, that the Macassars and Malays were also to leave and return to their own lands and fourth, in order that the first condition might be fulfilled without the rattle of arms and the shedding of blood, all the enemy were to come down to our quarters, while the king and queen and their family could come to that of the governor. The Moro king did not like this last point but, as he saw that matters were ill disposed for his defense, he had to assent to everything. But, before its execution, he begged his Lordship to communicate the terms with his men and datus, saying that he would endeavor to get them all to agree to the fulfilment of what his Lordship ordered and that in a day and a half he would reply and, in what pertained to the other conditions, they would be immediately executed. This happened, for the Basilans descended in two days with all their men and families&mdashin all, one hundred and forty-seven. Some fifty or sixty did not then descend, as they were unable to do so. The Macassars refused to descend until they received pardon from his Lordship, and a passport to their own country. Therefore their captain came to talk with his Lordship, who discussed with him what was to be done with him and his men. The latter are very humble and compliant to whatever his Lordship should order. His Lordship answered that he would pardon their insolent and evil actions, and they could descend with security of life and that he would give them boats, so that they could go away. Thereupon the captain, giving a kris as security that they would come, returned, and immediately began to bring down his property and men. The Malays came with them, for all those peoples had united against the Castilians. They are the ones who have done us most harm with their firearms, and have furnished quantities of ammunition for all the firearms of the Sulus. At the end of the time assigned to the king for answering his Lordship in regard to the matters which he had discussed with him, he was summoned, in order that what had been recently concluded might not be hindered, as his Lordship had many matters to which to attend. If he would not come, [299] his Lordship was resolved immediately to continue his bombardment and fortifications, saying that he would make slaves of all whom he captured. With this resolution, the queen determined to come to visit his Lordship and, so saying and doing, she summoned her chair, and had herself carried down to the quarters of Don Pedro de Almonte, which is the one located on their hill, and which has given them so much to do. She sent a message to the governor, begging him to grant her permission, as she wished to see him. His Lordship sent a message to her, to the effect that he would be very glad to see her, and that she would be coming at a seasonable time. She came to the hall borne on the shoulders of her men, accompanied by some of her ladies and by her kasis, who was coming with pale face. She alighted at the door of his Lordship&rsquos hall. He went out to receive her, and with marked indications of friendship and kindness led her to her seat, which was a cushion of purple velvet and his Lordship, seated in his own chair, welcomed her through his interpreter, Alférez Mathias de Marmolexo. She responded very courteously to the courtesies of the governor for the Moro woman is very intelligent, and of great capacity. She did not speak directly to the interpreters, but through two of her men, one of whom was the kasis and often he, without the queen speaking, answered to what was proposed. The queen petitioned and entreated the governor to desist from entering the stronghold, for the women, being timid creatures, feared the soldiers greatly. And if his Lordship was doing it to oblige her and the king her husband to descend, she said that they would descend immediately, with all their people. Thus did she entreat from him whom his Lordship represented and I desired that she should obtain this favor. His Lordship answered her that he would do so very willingly but that he had an express mandate for it [i.e., to gain the fort] from his king, and that, if he did not obey it, he would lose his head. &ldquoI do not wish,&rdquo said Tuan Baluka (for such is the name of the queen), &ldquothat the favor which I petition be at so great a price and danger to your Lordship. Consequently, will you kindly grant me three days? and in that time I, the king, and our people will descend without fail.&rdquo His Lordship thanked her anew, and added that with this she obliged him to fulfil strictly what he had promised her. &ldquoIndeed,&rdquo said the queen, &ldquoI have no doubt of it for, being in the gaze of so many nations that your Lordship has to conquer, it is clear that you must fulfil what you have promised me for your Lordship&rsquos actions toward me would be understood by all to be those that you would have to perform toward all.&rdquo This terminated the discussion. His Lordship ordered a collation to be spread for the queen and her ladies and then his Lordship retired, so that they might refresh themselves without any embarrassment. Then, having dined, the queen returned to her stronghold with the retinue that she had brought. Before she left the quarters she was saluted by the [300] discharge of two large pieces of artillery, which had been made ready for that purpose. She was greatly pleased by that, and the next day began to carry out her promises, by sending down a portion of her possessions. The Makassars and Malays also brought down their property with her, and immediately embarked. I had written up to this point to this day, Saturday, the seventeenth of this month of April, hoping for the end of all these incipient results and expected events regarding this stronghold the issue has been such as we could expect from Him who has also been pleased to arrange and bring it to pass. Last night the queen came down to sleep in our camp or quarters, with some of her ladies. In the morning she went to report her good treatment to her people for she was received with a salute of musketry and large artillery, and a fine repast. All that has been done to oblige her to encourage her people, for they were very fearful, to descend immediately. More than two thousand have now descended, and our banners are flying on the hill, and our men are fortified on it. May God be praised, to whom be a thousand thanks given for He, without our knowledge or our expectations, has disposed this matter thus&mdashblinding this Moro and disheartening him, so that, having been defeated, he should surrender to our governor, and give himself up without more bloodshed. We are trying to secure Datu Ache if we succeed in this, I shall advise you. Now there is nothing more to say, reverend Father, except to give God the thanks, for He is the one who has prepared and given this victory to us and to beg all in your Reverence&rsquos holy college to give thanks that the college has had (as I am very certain) so great a share in the achievements [here]. The governor is very much pleased and we all regard him in the proper light. The men are full of courage, and even what was carefully done is now improved. I am the humble servant of your Reverence whom I pray that God may preserve as I desire, and to whose sacrifices I earnestly commend myself. Jolo, April 17, 1638.&mdashJuan de Barrios.

All the Sulus descended, in number about four thousand six hundred, to the sea. Finding themselves down and outside the enclosure, they all fled, under cover of a very heavy shower of rain&mdashleaving all their possessions, in order not to be hindered in their flight. Many mothers even abandoned their little children. One abandoned to us a little girl who had received a dagger-stroke, who received the waters of baptism and immediately died. There is much to say about this, and many thanks to give to God, of which we shall speak when it pleases God to let us see each other. Today, the nineteenth of this month of April, 1638.&mdashBarrios.

The governor sent messages to the king and queen by two kasis, asking why they had fled. They replied that since all their people had fled, they had gone after them for very shame, but that they would try to bring them back and to come, and this was the end of the matter. [301] The result was exceedingly profitable for our soldiers and Indians for the Sulus, fearful because they thought that, if they became scattered, they would all be killed, abandoned whatever they were carrying&mdashquantities of goods, and chests of drawers&mdashwhich our soldiers sacked. Above, in the stronghold, they found much plunder. It is believed that the king and queen will return, but not Datu Ache but this is not considered certain.

I am not writing to anyone [else], for the lack of time does not allow me to do so. Therefore will your Reverence please communicate this to the father provincial, Father Hernandez Perez, Father Juan de Bueras, and the father rector of Cavite.

When our men were most disheartened at seeing that the fortress on the hill was so extensive, and that it was becoming stronger daily that the mines and artillery had seemingly made no impression on it that we had been repulsed four times and that our men were falling sick very rapidly: in order that it might be very evident that it was [all] the work of God, ambassadors came from the hill to beg his Lordship for mercy. He received them gladly, and asked them for the artillery that they had plundered from the Christians, etc. They brought down four pieces, which they had taken from the shipyard, and brought to us some Christians. Next day, more than one hundred and fifty people from Basilan descended, who surrendered their arms, and then about fifty Makassars, who did the same and all were embarked in the patache.

Next day the king and queen went down and slept in the camp of Don Sebastian. On the following day (which was the day agreed upon when all were to descend from the hill), seeing that it was already late, the king and queen said that they would go to get their people. The governor granted them permission, and went to a camp that was located opposite the gate of the stronghold . All the Sulus descended, carrying their goods, arms, etc., to the number of about four hundred soldiers, and more than one thousand five hundred women, children, old men, etc. They reached the governor&rsquos camp and Don Pedro de Francia told the king that they must surrender their arms. The latter replied that he would surrender them to none other than to the governor. Thereupon, they went to summon his Lordship but the Sulus, seeing that they were going to summon him, fled, under a heavy shower that was falling, and abandoned all their goods. A vast amount of riches, many pieces of artillery, and versos,37 falcons, muskets, arquebuses, etc., were found. [302] The cause of the Moros fleeing was their great fear that they were to be killed. On our part, since Don Sebastian Hurtado held all their stronghold, and had left only thirty men in his quarters (in order that Datu Ache might not escape), and as that number could not resist so many people, the Sulus were, on the contrary, allowed to go without any firearms being discharged.

More than two hundred and fifty of the Sulus have died, and they were perishing in great numbers from dysentery because the women and children were placed under ground for fear of the balls. That and the fear of the mines caused their surrender for it was impossible to take their fort by assault. The interior strength of that stronghold is so great that the Spaniards were surprised and all recognize that it has been totally the work of God, and [a result of] the perseverance of Don Sebastian, who ever said that all must die or capture the stronghold. Somewhat more than two hundred Christian and more than one hundred Moro women have come from the stronghold during this time. All the Moro women are fearful. Up to date eighty-three Spaniards have died from wounds, and many of them from disease.

  • Sargento-mayor Melon
  • Captain Don Pedro de Mena
  • Captain Don Juan Nicolas
  • Captain Don Pimienta
  • Captain Don Lope Suarez
  • Captain Don Aregita Martin de Avila
  • Adjutant Oliba
  • Adjutant Calderon
  • Alférez Concha
  • Alférez Alonzo Gonzalez

I shall not name others, as they are not so well known, and it will be known later. Up to date about two hundred Bisayan Indians have died, most of them from diseases. Don Pedro Cotoan died while en route from Jolo to Samboanga, in order to take back the Bisayans, who are a most cowardly race. Those who have done deeds of valor are the Karagas, and the Sulus tremble at sight of them. Don Pedro Almonte remains as governor and lieutenant for the captain-general at Samboangan, with one hundred and fifty Spaniards, as has been reported. Captain Jines Ros is to stay as castellan in Jolo with one hundred and eighty men&mdashCaptain Sarria being fortified in the stronghold with eighty men, and Jines Ros on the beach in a stone tower that is already eight stones high, with one hundred men. Captain Marquez is going to Buaren with fifty Spaniards, although no succor had been sent to Don Sebastian from Manila. All that has been supplied to excess is truly wonderful, for the winds have [303] brought (and it is incredible) many champanes, with more than twenty thousand baskets of rice, innumerable fowls, and pork, veal, beef, and cheeses from Cebu, which have made a very excellent provision.

They ask for Father Martinez [and] Alexandro at Jolo [and] Father Carrion at Buiaon, but without an associate. I say that, following even to the end of the world, I do not know to what to compare these Moros of Samboangan. They have paid all their tributes. This is a brief relation. I pray your Reverence to pardon me and commend me to God, for indeed what I desire is necessary.

Samboangan , April 23, 1638.38 [305]

Appendix VII

Obando&rsquos report on the preparations to be undertaken to return Alimud Din to Sulu, July 15, 175139

Sire : Your Majesty will find in the enclosed report the resolutions adopted by the Committees of the War and Treasury Departments for the purpose of reinstating the king of Sulu, Fernando the First, whom I found in this capital, baptized and protected by Royal briefs insuring him the continuation of the same Royal goodwill as long as he remained a Christian and a friend of the nation, which seems to be his intention hitherto, with the help of 3 galleys, 3 barges, 1 galiot, 2 large champanes and other craft for war and transportation, under the orders of the Master-of-camp of your Majesty&rsquos infantry here, to whom I have given the instructions and orders contained in said report, to the effect that he should make port at Zamboanga, and from there try to subdue the rebel vassals, blockade the island of Sulu by sea, cut it off from all communication with its neighbors, prevent food from being introduced, prevent and punish all depredations, acts of piracy and insults on the part of that barbarous nation against the town and vassals of your Majesty of which I receive pitiful complaints every day, and see that the captives are returned and that due observance is given the treaties of peace and other agreements which were made by my predecessor but have not proved to be as satisfactory as might have been hoped, on account of the inconstancy which characterizes that nation.

Before undertaking such an important operation, I decided to order the construction of three average sized galleys, and other small vessels, of which there were none in these Islands and to arm them I ordered to be cast 100 perrier cannon of calibre 2, with three chambers each, ordering the transfer to the province of Iloilo of General Francisco Domingo Oscoti, as Lieutenant-Intendant-General, with instructions to prepare provisions at the smallest cost for the Treasury, and directing him to issue a proclamation (as he did) calling for volunteers, who would be rewarded according to their merits on the ships plying between Manila and Acapulco, and authorizing the natives to arm boats at their expense, exempting them of all taxes during the expedition. As I was [306] in possession of a rescript of your Majesty addressed to his Field Marshal my predecessor Gaspar de la Torre, ordering him to reconnoiter the island of Balabak, and Ipolote Bay, and other places of Palawan Island for the purpose of building a fort for the protection of the inhabitants against the people of Sulu, Tiron and Borneo, and to build six galleys with which to fight the Moros, with a report on the same object presented by the Province of Saint Nicholas of these Islands,40 both of which have been communicated to said Committees of the War and Treasury Departments and to persons who had knowledge by experience of the said province and regions also, in view of the poor condition of the Royal treasury which precluded the possibility of greater expenses it was decided, in accordance with the opinion of your Majesty&rsquos Fiscal [Attorney General] in regard to the above mentioned instruments, to incorporate them to said report (or record),41 as they are of the same nature, to take, when there was a better opportunity, the proper measures for reconnoitering the most favorable position for the intended fort, and to await the result of the expedition for the reinstatement of the king of Sulu, so as to request him, if the result should be favorable, to withdraw his vassals from the fort of Ipolote, and, if not, to secure the safety of the people of the said island by driving them out and having already ordered, as I have said, the construction of the galleys, which were necessary and made more so by your Royal order, to continue the work until the six were built, said work being carried on with the utmost care and economy, which I always bear in mind in my zeal for the service of your Majesty.

I will send your Majesty full reports on the progress of these different undertakings, so that your Royal orders may let me know your Royal pleasure, which will always meet with my humble obedience.

God give the Royal and Catholic Person of your Majesty the many years of life which are required by Christendom for the happiness of your vast dominions.

Manila , July 15, 1751. [307]

Appendix VIII

Obando&rsquos report on the circumstances attending the attempt to return Alimud Din to Sulu, June 18, 175242

Sire : In a letter addressed to your Majesty last year, 1751, I forwarded a report and vouchers to the effect that I had sent, with the King of Sulu, Fernando the First, to the fortified station of Zamboanga, a fleet of 3 galleys, two feluccas, two galiots and two large champanes, with other craft, under the Master-of-camp43 of the Royal troops here, for the purpose of restoring said king to his throne and forcing his rebel vassals to submit, by means of a blockade of the island of Sulu, which would cut it off from all communication with its neighbors and prevent the importation of food to the island, other provisions being made for the purpose of protecting the Christian communities against any further harm on the part of the Sulu people and the Tirons.44 I have the honor to report now that the said Master-of-camp arrived at Zamboanga with most of the fleet, ahead of the Sultan of Sulu, who had been delayed by various accidents, and sailed at once, in order to avoid the monsoon, for the Bay of Jolo, where he anchored on the 26th of June of that year, at about one mile from the forts. He formed a line of battle, and, noticing two Chinese champanes without flags, that were stationed near the river mouth and were stretching two lines to go up stream, he ordered two long-boats to go and remove them from under the artillery of the enemy the Jolo forts, four in number, displayed red banners and opened fire with cannon of calibre 8 to 18 on the boats towing the champanes our fleet answered, and the fire was kept up some time on both sides, until the enemy hoisted the white flag in order to gain time for reënforcing his trenches the Master-of-camp sent a letter to Prince Asin, informing him that his only purpose was to restore the legitimate king of Sulu to his dominions, and to have the captives delivered the prince answered that he had no captives to deliver that he was waiting for the return of the king, who would do as he wished with them, that he was begging the Prophet to send back the king * * *. Finding such an answer vain [308] and impertinent, our ships opened fire again a suburb was stormed and burned, and our men found out that the negotiations were a pretext to gain time to place artillery behind the palisades the Moros accomplished this purpose and again requested a truce in order to hold a meeting of their leaders and to deliberate as to what should be done. This was granted, and in a second letter signed by the Datus Prince Asin insisted that the Master-of-camp should retire to Zamboanga, promising to bring over the captives as the south-west monsoon was blowing hard and he was short of provisions, the latter decided to go back to Zamboanga the Datus informed their king Fernando in a letter addressed to him at Zamboanga of what had been agreed Prince Asin also stated verbally that he would bring to Zamboanga some captives whom he was going to seek in the woods, and asked the Master to leave the port, while he went after the wives and children of the followers of King Fernando, who had been frightened and scattered by the artillery. After a few more answers and objections which showed an utter lack of sincerity, the Master-of-camp sailed back to Zamboanga. The King of Sulu had arrived there on June 22, and as soon as he heard about the truce requested by his brother Asin, and other affairs of the fleet, he declared that the prince was his enemy. This statement was believed at the time, but soon afterwards good-sized boats began to arrive one after the other with many of his principal people on the pretext of Prince Asin&rsquos visit to the King, until there were 180 persons, including 32 women between concubines and servants. When the Master-of-camp, Governor of Zamboanga, remarked that all these boats were full of firearms, powder, ball, coats of mail, helmets, and other warlike equipment, that the King of Sulu had secretly sent to his brother Asin, at Basilan, golden buckles and epaulets, and embroidered stockings to make a brilliant appearance at landing in Zamboanga, while he feigned to be his enemy that Prince Asin had failed to keep his word, since he said that he had been unable to get hold of the captives he was to bring to Zamboanga, when it was known that he was keeping the said captives in a secret place, six of them, including a woman, having escaped by swimming over to the fleet when the latter was at Jolo, and reported that the Moros had many captives concealed in the woods that Prince Asin had written to the King that all the captives seized during the latter&rsquos stay in Manila were still in their power, not one having been sold while awaiting the royal commands and finally, that the King and his brother were secretly dismissing the concubines only, telling them that the Master-of-camp was sending them away with contumely he inferred that the King was preparing to surprise the fort. This surmise was strengthened by the face that armed men were steadily coming in each day, despite the Master-of-camp&rsquos friendly admonition to the King that his followers enter the fort unarmed. The lying and disingenuousness of the King, which all these [309] indications were making plainer every moment, were finally betrayed by a letter, written in Arabic characters, to the King of Mindanao, in which he stated that he had been compelled, by those in whose power he was, to write the letter he had previously sent him from Manila,&mdashwhereas he had enjoyed complete freedom in this capital, so complete, in fact, that he did not perform, during the voyage hence to Zamboanga, a single rite of the Christian religion, as far as known, while he was seen to perform various Moro religious acts, and took with him the Quran in his own language, instead of the numerous Catholic books which had been given him for his instruction. In view of all the foregoing evidence of bad faith, the Master-of-camp, Governor of Zamboanga, and the captains of the fleet decided to arrest at the same time the King, the datus and their men, to seize their boats, arms, and concealed ammunition, and to keep the whole under careful guard, the men being detained in decent quarters, pending the decision of the Captain-General.

In reflecting on this important and critical change in the situation, I bore in mind that the said King of Sulu had been a false friend and a consummate Machiavellian, who had deceived your Majesty&rsquos Governor Fernando Valdes Tamon with his feigned promises of peace, which he never kept, and that, instead of releasing the captives and preventing the cruel outrages of his vassals the Moros and Tirons, he had used the considerable supply of arms, which he received from the said Governor and Governor Gaspar de la Torre under the pretence of suppressing supposed rebellions of his vassals, to keep our forces busy in Sulu, so that his vassals the Tiron pirates might ravage the provinces, while our forces were engaged in the Sulu kingdom. He also deceived your Majesty&rsquos Governor and Bishop when a fleet was sent against the Tirons he went as an ally and a pilot for the fleet among the shallows, and the small islands belonging to the enemy, and prevented the destruction of the principal towns, by misrepresenting to the commander of the expedition that said towns belonged to peaceful people who were friends of his, and pledging himself to have the prisoners returned, so that the fleet retired after burning only nine villages without importance, thanks to the cunning of the king. The trouble caused by all these Moros, thanks to his influence, is really astounding, and has nearly drained the Royal treasury, as, since the last peace agreement made by Governor Tamon, 89,744 pesos have been spent from 1736 to 1740, and since then the war expenses have far exceeded that amount. All these criminal and astute antecedents fully justify my distrust in giving careful instructions to the Master-of-camp to avoid a surprise of the fort under the veil of feigned friendship I really expected this new act of treason on account of what I already knew about the said King of Sulu, and was only held back by the fact that he had been baptized, and the information about him which my predecessor had given me in good faith. As it is, all [310] the members of the Government were glad that the treachery of the King had been foreseen and that he had been arrested. * * *

In Zamboanga, after his arrest, 12 krises, each in six pieces, were found hidden in two cushions belonging to him. * * * Urged by the members of the ministry, I proceeded at once to explain to the Real Acuerdo45 and the council of war all the difficulty of inflicting the condign punishment that was deserved, and, supported by a majority of votes, I decided to declare war on all the Sulus, Tirons and Kamukons, with the understanding that no capitulations or treaties of peace would be considered, but that they would be treated as rebels, in their persons, their property and their land, and put to the sword in case of resistance that all their towns would be destroyed and burned and that the mission of our fleet was not to make conquests, but to punish the rebellion and to blockade the island of Sulu so as to prevent any attempt to bring in food or any other help. I also directed that the King of Sulu, who was under arrest at Zamboanga, should be sent to Manila, there to be kept in confinement until the pleasure of your Majesty be known. The Datus and other Moros were declared to be slaves, and I ordered that they should be branded and marked, not so much for the purpose of guaranteeing the ownership of their masters or punishing their obstinacy, as for that of avoiding all confusion between them and the numerous Indians of these Islands, whom they resemble in color, bearing and language, of crushing their pride, their daring and their evil spirit, experience having shown that 8 Sulus suffice to subjugate a whole town, and principally of preventing the clandestine introduction of the sect of Mohammed, which would easily spread among the Indians, if the brand did not mark them as enemies from Sulu, it being known that the sect of Mohammed is daily extending its darkness over these regions. * * *

The declaration of war against the Moros was published in all the provinces, which were instructed to be constantly ready for attack or defense to organize companies of militia, with their officers, in all the pueblos, and have them frequently drilled and reviewed, so as to become skilful in the use of their arms to send a list of all the arms and ammunition on hand to the Captain-General, who will thus be able to supply them with all he may deem necessary. I furthermore ordered that no boat should leave Manila or any other port without being well provided with men and arms, and issued proclamations calling for privateers, several of whom have already been given letters of marque and have sailed with the hope of doing good service for your Majesty I issued new instructions on every subject, to be followed in their respective parts according to circumstances I reserved for my future action [311] the disposal of our prisoners at the best terms, one fifth of the profits going to the Royal treasury the right of plundering was declared to be free for all, all privateers from the Bisayas were exempted from tribute, and I promised them in the name of your Majesty 6 pesos for each Moro, as an encouragement to pursue and exterminate them. As soon as I heard the news from Zamboanga, I sent there a supply boat with plenty of food, arms and soldiers, in view of the next campaign I took on myself the care of relieving from time to time the officers and soldiers * * * and I can sincerely assure your Majesty that I have been so provoked and exasperated by the untamable fierceness and the bad faith of the Moros, that I am decided to spare neither work nor efforts in order to punish them thoroughly and to deliver from oppression the Christian communities, so that the glorious name of your Majesty may be feared and respected all through my Government, in compensation for the gross deceit practised by said Moros upon my predecessors. I trust, with the help of God, to punish them as they deserve, and will report to your Majesty the progress of the expedition.

God keep the Catholic and Royal Person of your Majesty many years, as Christendom and the Monarchy have need.

Manila , June 18, 1752. [313]

Appendix IX

Report on the occupation of Palawan and Balabak, April 30, 175346

Sire : By letter forwarded to your Majesty through confidential channels under date of * * * I reported that I had despatched an embassador to the King of Bruney, informing him of the arrest of the King of Sulu for his inveterate faithlessness, and pressing him to continue our long standing friendship and to form a new alliance against the said king as a usurper of part of his dominions, and against all his enemies, and to cede to your Majesty the Island of Balabak and the territory of Palawan, for the purpose of better waging war against the Sulus, Tirons and Kamukons and that, the desired end having been obtained, I found it necessary to use the new rights acquired by the cession referred to. Consequently, with the view of best promoting your Majesty&rsquos interests, I resolved to put into execution the idea of an armament composed of our galleys, a tender, three feluccas, and two champanes, supplied with two Spanish companies of one hundred men each, together with another company of Pampanga Indians, which, with the crews, the convicts and the military officers, number nearly a thousand persons, for the glorious object of taking possession of La Pampanga in the ceded part of Balabak and the other adjacent islands, forming this new district into a province called Trinidad, with a separate government from that of the Kalamians for I have appointed a governor to take charge of nourishing this new plantation with the political regulations and Royal ordinances which the prudent zeal of your Majesty has provided for similar cases, and which, on my part, have been furnished him in the form of brief and clear instructions directed towards civilizing those barbarous natives, so as the better to facilitate the spread of the holy Gospel.

With this in view I am sending two reverend Jesuit priests, persons distinguished in politics and mathematical learning, and the military engineer of this place, for the purpose of making an inspection of the capital of Palawan, as well as of the Island of Balabak, and its adjacent islands, and of examining their bays, ports, inlets, rivers, anchorages and [314] depths, in order to construct a fort&mdashwhich will be named after Our Lady of the Good End&mdashin the most healthful location, secure by land as well as by sea, for the garrisoning of which an adequate force of artillery has been despatched. It will be kept guarded for the present by a small galley, two feluccas, a company of Spaniards, and another company of Pampanga Indians, besides the galley slaves47 and the suite of the governor, and officials&mdashall rationed for one year&mdashwho will number three hundred, the rest being returned to this capital when possession is once established. And that the taking of possession may be unopposed, useful, and lasting, I have planned for the strengthening of the said fort, with the primary object of having our troops sally from its walls to pacify the Sulu rebels who have been dwelling in certain districts of Palawan, or to exterminate them completely by fire and sword, preventing by means of the new fortress and the little flying squadron, the Kamukons, Tirons, and others, from laying waste the province of the Kalamians, and the adjacent islands for, there being access to the entire chain of places and all the islands, facilitating attacks, and our vessels being on a constant cruise through those regions, their expulsion will be secured. But the greatest gain of all will lie in becoming acquainted with their lands, rendezvous and places of refuge, in view of the fact that the greatest defense which they have had up to the present time has been our own ignorance and negligence in the premises, they scorning our arms without fear, in the belief that they are unconquerable because the places of their abode are unexplored wherefore the King of Sulu, pretending to serve us as a pilot among the Tiron Islands laughed at our expedition under the command of your Majesty&rsquos Reverend Bishop of Nueva Segovia, leading the Spaniards about with a halter wherever he wished, and wherever he thought they would suffer most fatigue. In view of all this, and of our present experience of the unbridled audacity with which they ravage almost all the provinces, I felt compelled to project this campaign of reconnaissance so as to test, by the favorable results secured, the surest means of benefiting these Christian communities, for I am in hopes of establishing, through this new colony, an impregnable bulwark against the whole Moro power and a source of reciprocal assistance to the fortress at Zamboanga. And I likewise propose to introduce into those parts, by reason of their proximity, commerce with Borneo, Siam, Cambodia, and Cochin-China, so that, through intercourse, the inhabitants of Palawan may become pacified and tractable and their towns become opulent so that with the families which in due time will be drafted from the outskirts of this capital, a province of substantial usefulness may be formed, having greater respect for both Majesties for, by erecting churches to God, a new gem will be added to [315] the Royal crown, namely the glory of giving many souls to the Lord, while the savings of the Royal treasury will in time be appreciable.

Although I intended to make this journey personally, the noble city48 and the majority of the committee on war opposed this course, and with the sanction of the Audiencia convened in executive session I decided to delegate my authority for this act, in view of the necessity of my remaining in the capital for the despatch of the urgent and arduous affairs which frequently present themselves.

God guard the Royal Catholic Person of your Majesty the many years that Christendom needs him.

Manila , April 30, 1753. [317]

Appendix X

Brief report on the expedition to take possession of Palawan, July 17, 175349

Sire : When the galleon was on the point of sailing for New Spain, the Palawan expedition returned to the port of Cavite, from where the commander of the expedition informs me that he has made a careful and exact survey of the Islands of Palawan and Balabak, beginning on the outward coast, from 9 degrees to Labo. On all that coast he has only found mangrove swamps and reefs, the inhabitants being hostile to everyone and obeying no king the land is miserably poor there is no drinking water from Balabak to Ipolote the climate is so bad that in two months and a half 116 men of the expedition died and 200 were sick, and he finds that all that has been said about Palawan is false.

I have also been informed by the Alcalde Mayor of the Kalamians of the arrival there of one galley, and three feluccas, which had left the fleet since it sailed from Manila, as the Commander also now reports after the galley had been careened and food provided, one felucca sailed on its course convoying the joanga50 of the father prior in charge of that district and two small vessels which had been sent by the Alcalde of Komboy and had suffered the misfortune of being captured by the Sulu Moros, most of the people, however, escaping, as explained in the enclosed letter from the Alcalde.

The commander of the expedition has sent me from Cavite a report of the councils of war held by him for the purpose of carrying out his instructions, the most important of which was to take possession of Palawan and adjacent islands in the name of your Majesty, said islands having been ceded by the King of Bruney accordingly, our fleet took possession of the land with due solemnity, with the express knowledge and consent of the inhabitants I also received a log of the whole route which seems to have been well kept, with maps and a full explanation of the examination made of the said islands and the operations in connection therewith. A new map of the islands is being made, on [318] account of the errors contained in the former one as the log and the report of the commander refer to the new map, which is unfinished, and I cannot delay the departure of the galleon, I cannot forward a full report to your Majesty I wish to make a serious and careful examination of all that has been done, so as to take such action as may be the best for the benefit of the Royal service, and to be able to send your Majesty a full report of the expedition, with my opinion based on a complete knowledge of the facts. This is all the information I can give your Majesty for the present.

God keep the Catholic Royal Person, of your Majesty many years, as Christendom has need.

Manila , July 17, 1753. [319]

Appendix XI

Letter of the King of Spain to Sultan Israel, December 2, 177451

To the Captain-General of the Philippine Islands .

Most illustrious Sir : In letters Nos. 322 and 325, your Excellency sets forth the ideas of the English settled in the island of Balambangan, who are displeased with the unhealthfulness of the country and petition that the Sultan of Sulu allow them to settle within his dominions.

With No. 325, the letter of the Sultan was received, and the King, thus informed of the attempts of the Englishmen, and also of the favorable inclination of the Sulu Sultan to establish with our nation friendship and alliance, commands me to direct you to listen to his proposals, to accede to them whenever they are reasonable, and to grant him aid and favor as far as possible, assuring him of Royal protection, and delivering to him the enclosed communication in answer to his own, in which his Catholic Majesty declares his entire satisfaction with his reasonable conduct and promises to reciprocate his friendship as you may understand through the copy of that letter which I enclose. God preserve your Excellency many years.

Madrid , December 5, 1774.

[Copy of the communication referred to in the foregoing letter.]

Most illustrious and excellent prince Mohammed Israel, Sultan of Sulu. Most gratifying has been to me the announcement, which you conveyed to me in your letter of January 20th, of your happy accession to the sovereignty of Sulu, on account of which I offer you many congratulations, wishing you happiness in all things.

The disposition which inclines you to seek my friendship and assistance, as also the friendly relations which you maintain with my Governor of the Philippines, which you desire to establish and perpetuate by means of a mutual agreement, which may secure for the future firm [320] peace and a perpetual alliance between your states and mine, increase my just gratification, especially as my Governor has informed me of the sublime natural gifts which are united in your person, with many and most expressive eulogies thereof.

In view of this, and of the constant fidelity which you promise in your letter, I command my good vassal, Don Simon de Anda y Salazar, to listen to your proposals, to accede to them whenever reasonable, and to grant you all the favor and assistance which the forces and facilities to be found there may allow assuring you of my Royal protection, which I extend to you from now on, confiding in your reciprocal friendship, and noble conduct, and desirous of opportunities of favoring you and of proving the interest which I feel in your good fortunes and the earnestness with which I pray God to preserve you many years.

Madrid , December 2, 1774.

Appendix XII

Letter from the Captain-general of the Philippines forwarding a copy of the treaty of peace, protection, and commerce with Sulu, December 25, 183652

Superior Government of the Philippines

Most Excellent Sir : After having reported to your Excellency in my three former communications, the opinion which I have formed with regard to the countries in the vicinity of our possessions in the southern part of the Philippines, of the relations which we ought to sustain with their governments and the policy we should follow until we shall obtain the immense advantages which our position offers us, I have the honor to deliver to your Excellency a copy of the Capitulations of the Treaty of Peace, Protection, and Commerce, which I have concluded through the captain of frigate, Don José María Halcon, with the Sultan and Datus of Sulu.

The articles which need some explanation, are the 1st, 3rd and 4th. With reference to the 3rd and 4th, I mention them in my former communication and indicate their intent and with respect to the 1st, I copy herewith what has been reported to me by the commissioner, D. José María Halcon, which is as follows:

I must make clear an important point relating to the text of the Capitulations, in the wording of which your Excellency has noted perhaps some ambiguities and omissions in Article I, which while intended to make the Datus and Sultan of Sulu acknowledge and declare the extent of our rights, seems indefinite on certain points which many irresponsible writers have asserted with confidence.

While considering the protection granted the Sultan, I recognized the inexpediency of making the same include the lands which he has lately acquired in Borneo, and of determining definitely the line of the boundary in Palawan, the title to which island, as also that to Balabak and Balambangan, is very disputable, though at present, the lands where we have not established our settlements of the province of Kalamians are included de facto in his possessions.

Palawan was ceded to the Crown of Spain by the King of Bruney, and Balabak is likewise ceded by an instrument brought back by D. Antonio Fabean when he went there as Embassador under the administration of the Marquis of Obando, [322] which should be in the archives of the Philippine Government but since these cessions were made on an occasion when the Sultan of Sulu found himself in possession of the lands by virtue of a former cession made in his favor by another King of Bruney, such documentary testimony cannot serve as the basis of our arguments, especially since we did not proceed to found any settlements.

This matter of the cession of Balabak occurred upon the occasion of a visit to Manila, of Sultan Mohammed Alimud Din (Fernando I) who, asserting his right to the island, executed and ratified upon his part the gift, at least in word, through D. Manuel Fernandez Toribio, afterward Governor of Zamboanga, and the Secretary of the Government.

Our writers have misrepresented the subsequent conduct of the said Sultan, and concealed very important facts, but at any rate, the very concealment of the reasons for his fleeing from Manila betokens the lack of liberty in all of the instruments he granted during his stay in that place moreover the facts in the case justify his later actions, which gave occasion for casting a doubt over the legitimacy of our title to the lands under consideration.

The true reason for the actions of Mohammed Alimud Din, beginning with his flight from Manila, was the fact that he had purchased the secret in a copy of the confidential letter which the First Minister of the Monarchy, Marquis de la Ensenada, wrote to the Captain-General of the Philippines on August 28, 1751, discussing the states of Sulu which document, when brought to his knowledge, could not fail to ruin all of our political moves, and to dispose him to take every defensive measure against our power, for Mohammed Alimud Din was a man of no mean understanding.

This was the origin of the letters which, on September 17, 1763, the said Sultan wrote from Sulu to the King of England and to the English company,53 ratifying in favor of the latter the concession of the lands which form the strait of Balabak, in which is comprised the southern part of Palawan from Point Kanipaan to Point Bulilaruan, and this was the origin of their settlements in Balabak and Balambangan which have been abandoned since later events.

Such are the antecedents which induced me to draw up the said article with such ambiguity that it may be construed to the advantage of the Crown without giving occasion to embarrassing objections.

My aim throughout, most illustrious Sir, has been to promote the national welfare by carrying out the high designs of your Excellency, who by promoting this enterprise has attempted to open up one of the most abundant sources of wealth in the Philippines.

I also deliver to your Excellency a copy of the Capitulations, in which, in consequence of Article 2nd, it has been agreed to determine the duties to be paid by the Sulu vessels in Zamboanga and Manila, and ours in Sulu. For the better understanding of these stipulations, I have thought it expedient to inclose a copy of the explanation with which the said commissioner forwarded them to me.

The present tariff rates have served as a basis for the duties imposed upon the Sulu vessels, it being beyond my authority to alter them. With reference to those which shall be paid by our vessels in Joló, although they may appear to be excessive, it will be sufficient to inform your Excellency that all of the ship-owners who are accustomed to make voyages to Joló, have been satisfied with the very favorable terms we have [323] secured in the agreement, not only because of the high valuation set on the articles in which payment will be made, but because of the regulation and reduction to fixed rules of the charges, that until now have been arbitrary and never less than the stipulated rates. It is true that they have desired not only a greater reduction but still more their complete abolition, as is natural, but it was necessary to conciliate the two parties, as the commissioner says.

Above all, one of the advantages of importance which our merchants recognize in the relations now established, the benefits of which they have begun already to experience, is that the Sultan and Datus together guarantee the credits left in Sulu as a result of commercial operations, which advantage they have not heretofore enjoyed, but waited on the will and good faith of the debtor, who paid if he pleased and when he pleased, or perhaps never, and there existed no means of compelling him as there now is by recourse to the Government.

Likewise through the preference they are now accorded, our merchants have gained greatly, as your Excellency will comprehend. In short, there is not one of them who is not well satisfied with the results of the negotiations, and all appreciate the skill and prudence with which Halcon has conducted himself upon a mission all the more delicate and difficult since he has had to treat with a Government whose lack of enlightenment and poorness of organization equal the barbarism of its people.

Finally, in the answer given by the Chamber of Commerce of which I inclose a copy, your Excellency will perceive the appreciation which the Capitulations have brought him, by having settled the duties to be paid by our vessels in Sulu, as also by having established relations with the Government of that island.

I trust that your Excellency will condescend to bring all this to the notice of her Majesty that she may grant her Royal approval.

God preserve your Excellency many years.

Manila , December 25, 1836.

(Sgd.) Pedro Antonio Salazar. &mdashRubricated.

The most excellent the Secretary of State and of the Office of &ldquoGobernación&rdquo of the Kingdom . [325]

Appendix XIII

Royal directions relative to a general policy and the regulation of commerce with Sulu, and the advisability of making Zamboanga a free port, June 23, 183754

Ministry of the Navy, Commerce, and Colonial Administration

Most Excellent Sir : Your Excellency&rsquos predecessor, Don Pedro Antonio Salazar, when he reported in detail, in letters of last December, all that he had done in the treaty of friendship and commerce entered into with the Sultan of Sulu, of the mercantile relations which it behooves us to maintain with the Mohammedan possessions to the south of the Philippines, of the opinion which he had formed concerning the war of enslavement, and other matters upon which your Excellency will receive due instructions under Royal order of this date, forwarded separately and privately, in a very secret manner, a communication dated the 17th of the same month, in which he set forth the policy, which, according to his belief, should be adopted toward the said Kingdom of Sulu in consequence of the said treaty. Her Majesty the Queen Regent, having been informed of all this, and having in mind the remark made in the said communication, that the Spanish possessions in the southern region are frequently oppressed by the alcaldes, on account of the present defective system of administration, has decided to direct your Excellency to suppress, with strong hand, these excesses of the alcaldes, that they may not disturb the peace happily established with Sulu exhorting them to moderation and peaceableness, in order that the odium which the Moro race feels toward us may vanish. Noting also among his remarks, his conclusion that while the war of enslavement is undoubtedly an evil, it produces nevertheless the advantage that those provinces are united more closely to the Government because of their greater need of the same against their enemies and that by becoming used to a life of freedom and license, those people become also inured to captivity, from which they could sometimes escape but do not, many preferring to turn [326] to piracy, Her Majesty holds these views erroneous and harmful, since no just and paternal government should promote misfortunes among its subjects in order to make itself more necessary, and thus keep them dependent and because, though there may be some who are content with slavery in Sulu because it affords them a life of unrestraint, it can not be ignored that their families and the Government suffer a great injury from their situation, nor that morality would be greatly outraged, if, for these reasons, countenance were given to slavery, which should be attacked and exterminated at all costs. The idea is advanced in the same communication, that in the countries of the southern part of the Philippines, the system of protection, carried to the point of establishing trading houses, will be almost equivalent to possession and control, when once commercial interests are held to be the chief interests, and there is set forth a plan to diminish or even cut off the trade55 with Mindanao, in order to confine the commerce to our channels. Her Majesty, on being informed of this policy of a protectorate, approves of the same, but desires that it be carried out frankly and faithfully with the Sultan of Sulu, in order that he be convinced, through experience, that the Spaniards are his loyal friends, our authorities keeping it in mind that the conquest of those countries is not to the interest of the nation, but rather the acquisition of isolated military and mercantile stations, which may control indirectly without the disadvantages of great expense and of arousing the hatred of the natives. This alliance or friendship with the Sultan should be such, that in whatever war he may be engaged with his rebellious subjects, he shall be aided in good faith, unless his adversary should be of such strength as to insure his triumph, for then the useless defense of the vanquished would subject us to the contempt of the conqueror and we should lose the benefits already acquired. In such cases we should remain neutral, under some plausible pretext of impracticableness or other honorable reason. In other wars, waged by the Sultan with other princes, we should attempt to mediate, with the purpose that, by settling new discords, we may obtain advantages from the two or more belligerents, as rewards for the services rendered them but in the event of having to oppose some one of them, it should be that one who offers us the least advantages, and has the best chances of triumph, because with our ally victorious, the latter may in the treaty of peace execute articles favorable to our commerce,&mdashtrying always, above all things, so to act that the victor shall not become too strong nor the vanquished brought too low. With regard to the policy which it is best to adopt as a general rule in regard to commerce, your Excellency should remember that the best system consists in the greatest possible liberty for our merchandise, and in securing, directly or indirectly, for our own merchandise, or foreign goods carried by the national vessels, [327] the enjoyment of greater privileges than those of any other country, in order that they may be preferred and produce greater profits on the markets.

In the same letter he submits the opinion that the lack of communication of the countries to the south with the Philippines, is a most favorable political measure for Spanish commerce, and recommends that our relations with the Government of Sulu should be strengthened in order to include the same under our dependence at some future time, it being necessary to act with cunning in order to separate it completely from the piratical warfare. Her Majesty commands me to state to you concerning these matters, that the communication of Sulu with the Philippines being purely commercial, should not be restricted, but on the contrary, should be increased in every way possible, encouragement should be given to the establishment of traders and Spanish trading houses in Sulu, where our good conduct and benevolence toward the natives may bring us profit. But it is always to be borne in mind that the Government of Her Majesty does not desire the subjection of other states to itself, but a sincere friendship and a close and useful alliance, and that a just and discreet policy, not crafty nor artful, will accomplish most in withdrawing the Sultan from the interests of the leaders of the pirates.

Your Excellency will note in the draft of the communication from your predecessor, to which I make answer, the proposal of various schemes for establishing ourselves securely in Sulu. Such would be the establishment of a trading house there, already agreed upon in the treaty, and posting there a garrison, under the pretext that it is for the safety and greater state of the person of the Sultan. Her Majesty deems indispensable the establishment of the trading house, but it should be done in such a manner as not to cause distrust, and fortified and protected from any sudden attack, using in this the greatest prudence, and remembering that a garrison there, though it might be acceptable to the Sultan, might wound the self-love of the people of the country, and so render odious both the Sultan and his protectors. The most essential thing for the Spaniards, in order to become firmly established, is to make themselves popular, to respect the customs of the people, even with veneration, not offending any one for any reason, treating all with courtesy and decorum not showing themselves domineering nor covetous, not insulting any one, but being very respectful to women, the old and children, not scoffing at anything in their public amusements, nor religious affairs, nor in their meetings. It seems to her Majesty that through these means would be secured a consistent friendship between both countries, and that the most adequate plan for the support and defense of the trading house would be to maintain in the safest harbor a permanent maritime force, in which should be stored all arms and [328] munitions, and sufficient soldiers, in case it should be necessary to defend the building, without arousing the suspicions that would be caused by placing these preparations, concealed or openly, in the house itself and since for this purpose, for the defense of the country against the pirates, and for maintaining the respect of the people and Government of the protectorate, it is indispensable to keep a well organized sea force, her Majesty had determined that you decide the manner of organizing this maritime force, without losing sight of the great economy which it is necessary to observe on account of the embarrassed condition of the Peninsula, which needs now more than ever before the assistance of her colonial provinces.

Finally, the predecessor of your Excellency further stated that he was attempting to extend his efforts to the establishing of the protectorate over the countries subject to the Sultan of Mindanao: her Majesty approves this policy on condition that in its execution the purposes and measures, which are mentioned above for Sulu, be adopted.

Her Majesty, by whose Royal order I communicate to your Excellency the foregoing, trusts in your zeal to realize the importance of this matter, and, regarding the principles of justice and right which direct the resolutions of her Majesty, to direct all your efforts to the accomplishment of the results desired carefully reporting your progress in the affair, for the information of her Majesty and further action. God preserve your Excellency many years.

Madrid , June 23, 1837.

The Governor Captain-General of the Philippines .

Ministry of the Navy, Commerce, and Colonial Administration

Most Excellent Sir : The predecessor of your Excellency, convinced of the important advantages to be derived by the Philippines, in making more intimate and more secure our few and doubtful relations with the island of Sulu, determined immediately upon assuming command, to negotiate with the Sultan of the said place, a treaty of peace and commerce which he considered, in every respect, not only useful but indispensable to the prosperity of the country. After having announced this project in various of his communications, he reported in December of last year, having accomplished the same, and furnished in several communications, an exact and detailed account of the history of his labors in the affair, the reasons which he had for undertaking the same, the benefits which he expects as results, and the measures whose adoption he deems necessary in order that these results may be more certain, and at [329] the same time profitable. There were received from him seven letters, all marked with the letter &ldquoA,&rdquo numbered from 14 to 23, and dated from the 15th to the 29th of the said month with so many points of analogy and similarity between them, that they should be considered as one only. The first, number 14, is intended to furnish information and data relative to Sulu, and the other Mohammedan islands of the south (without which it would be impossible to know their importance) and to detail the relations which we should have with them, considering them both in relation to commerce and with respect to the war of enslavement. In the second, of a confidential nature, he outlines the policy, which, in his opinion, should be adopted in order to obtain all the advantages which our position affords. In the third, number 16, he states the measures which should be adopted for the benefit of the national commerce in those countries. In the fourth, number 20, he transmits a copy of the treaty of peace, protection and commerce concluded with the Sultan of Sulu, and of the stipulations made for the determination of the duties which our vessels should pay in Sulu, and the Sulus in Manila and Zamboanga. In the fifth, number 21, he relates the motives which have led him to direct these matters as he has done, transmitting to her Majesty all the plans referring to it, through this Ministry only. In the sixth, number 22, he gives account of some of the advantages which have been derived from our expedition to Sulu, and amongst others, a treaty of peace concluded between the pueblo of Malusu and the Governor of Zamboanga. And finally, in the seventh, number 23, he sets forth the necessity of retaining at that station, the frigate-captain, Don José María Halcon, who performed the duty of commissioner for the negotiation of the treaty.

I have informed her Majesty, the Queen Regent, of the contents of all these communications, and in this knowledge she has seen fit to approve, in a general manner, all the measures adopted by the aforementioned predecessor of your Excellency, giving suitable orders, that the proper Ministry provide the special approval which some of them deserve, on account of their weight and importance, concerning which your Excellency will soon be informed, and deigning to command me to submit in a separate and particular communication the following advice on the special subject of the letters referred to above.

Her Majesty, feeling assured that conquests in themselves, and later their maintenance, absorb the profits which accrue from the countries already acquired, prefers to any conquest advantageous trade and commerce. Convinced, therefore, that the most profitable and lucrative policy is to conquer or secure such places as on account of their fortunate location may prove to be at the same time strong military and mercantile [330] posts and so both promote and protect commerce, she cannot but approve the ideas your Excellency&rsquos predecessor expresses in his communication numbered 14, and desires, that upon adopting the system in accordance with those ideas, you confine yourself solely, in all enterprises of conquest, to occupation of territory either abandoned or uninhabited, or to that which, notwithstanding its being settled, would cost little and would not give occasion for a costly war. In order to increase our commercial advantages in Sulu, and to raise up rivals to the Portuguese, it would be well to grant protection and reduction in duties to the Chinese junks56 under the specific condition that they do not sail under the flag of any other nation (without mentioning the Portuguese by name in order not to occasion the resentment of this power) and to secure in Sulu for those who adopt the Spanish flag, a reduction of duties although not as much as that which should be granted to Spanish vessels. Thus it is the will of her Majesty that you be directed, commanding, with the same purpose in view, that your predecessor state to you explicitly, which are the measures that he would have adopted, had he been authorized to do so, in order to avoid the blow to our commerce threatened by the Portuguese, depriving us with the double expedition from Macao and Singapore to Sulu, of the advantage over all other nations which still remained to us in this traffic and that your Excellency obstruct, by all the means in your power, the association of interests between the commercial houses of Manila with those of Macao and Singapore, if the same were intended to secure special privileges in the island of Sulu to the products of the Philippines to the injury of the national commerce.

With respect to the matter of the war against piracy, referred to also in letter number 14, her Majesty approves all the purposes expressed therein by the predecessor of your Excellency, and commands me to direct your Excellency that, without ever recurring to war or the interruption of traffic with Sulu as means of destroying or diminishing piracy and traffic in slaves, you exert yourself to suppress the same and remedy the evil which it inflicts on the Philippines, by the various means at hand, to-wit 1st, through negotiations with the Sultan of Sulu in which measures suitable for the accomplishment of the purpose may be concerted 2d, securing the increase, by the Sultan, of import duties on slaves who are Spanish subjects, and the lowering of duties on slaves of other countries 3d, requesting of him assistance in driving out the pirates from their haunts of Balangingi and other places 4th, watching the rendezvous of these pirates in the Bisayas also, in order to destroy them. In this manner and with hard lessons, with the energetic and continuous warfare spoken of by the predecessor of your Excellency, the extermination of piracy will be accomplished without the evils which [331] would follow upon an unwise and useless war against Sulu, and without the more serious result to which the same would expose us, and which her Majesty desires your Excellency to avoid at any cost, the result referred to being the removal of the Sultan to some other point, which removal England and Holland might turn to great advantage against our trade.

As to the measures proposed in letter number 16, for the benefit of the national commerce, her Majesty will determine which is fit, notifying your Excellency in due season. Meanwhile you should keep in mind, that as long as the Sulus man their ships with slaves, your Excellency should prohibit them from trading in Zamboanga and all other places within the dominions of her Majesty, whenever the ships which they use shall be manned in whole or in part with slaves who are subjects of Spain.

Concerning the treaty of peace, protection and commerce, a copy of which is inclosed in letter number 20, her Majesty has been pleased to resolve, after careful examination, that it be forwarded with favorable comment to the Ministry of State for the approval of the Cortes and the ratification of her Majesty, all of which will be communicated to your Excellency in due time, its policy being carried out and its intent carefully observed in the meanwhile, for the purpose of determining whether there is anything to amend or correct by means of further negotiation, which would be considered as an appendix to the treaty. In view of the explanations concerning the first article of the aforementioned treaty furnished by the commissioner of the negotiation, her Majesty commands me to repeat to your Excellency the necessity for carrying out the policy which is prescribed to your Excellency with regard to acquisition and conquest in order to claim those lands referred to in the explanations, if perchance such claim should be advisable for the purpose of acquiring some point of military or mercantile value: or in order to set up the claim of the Kingdom of Spain to those countries, in order that by giving it up, we may secure other things which may be of real importance to us, such as reduction in duties, some exclusive privilege, or the possession of some isolated point of great importance.

The predecessor of your Excellency by addressing to this Ministry all communications bearing on this matter, has merited the approbation of her Majesty, because he has avoided many unnecessary steps and useless delay, and thus your Excellency will continue to do, in the manner herein indicated.

And finally, her Majesty having noted with satisfaction the favorable results produced already by the expedition to Sulu, and approving the idea of not using the fifteen hundred dollars sent by the Bishop of Nueva Segovia for the redemption of slaves, she commands me to direct your Excellency to cultivate the friendship of all the chiefs who, like the [332] Orankaya of Malusu, abandon the pursuit of piracy, and that suitable orders be issued by the Division of the Marine of this Ministry, not only that the captain of frigate, Don José María Halcon, who has so well discharged the duty of negotiating the treaty, be assigned to that station, but that he also be duly rewarded for his services as such commissioner her Majesty not failing to express the gratitude with which she declares her appreciation to the predecessor of your Excellency, the aforementioned Don Pedro Antonio Salazar. All of which is communicated to your Excellency, by Royal order, for your due information and guidance, instructing you with regard to the confidential letter, that you carry out the directions forwarded you separately under this date. God preserve your Excellency.

History of LST - 311 - 349 - History

The Persian Conquest of Egypt of 525 BC saw Cambyses II of Persia conquer the fourth major power of the ancient near east, completing the series of conquests begun by his father Cyrus II the Great.

The battle of Pelusium (early 525 BC) was the decisive battle of the first Persian invasion of Egypt, and saw Cambyses II defeat Psamtik III, opening the rest of Egypt to conquest.

The siege of Memphis (early 525 BC) was the last recorded resistance to Cambyses II of Persia's invasion of Egypt, and came after the main Egyptian army had been defeated at Pelusium.

510 B.C.

500 B.C.

The Greco-Persian Wars of c.500-448 BC involved a series of clashes between the Persian Empire and the Greeks of Asia Minor and mainland Greece, and ended as something of a draw, with the Persians unable to conquer mainland Greece and the Greeks unable to maintain the independence of the cities of Asia Minor.

499 or 496 B.C.

The battle of Lake Regillus (499 or 496 BC) was a narrow Roman victory over the Latin League early in the life of the Republic that helped to prevent the last of the kings of Rome from regaining his throne.

499 B.C.

The Ionian Revolt (499-493 BC) was a major uprising of the Greek cities of Asia Minor against Persian rule, and is said to have either delayed an inevitable Persian invasion of mainland Greece, or made that invasion more likely.

The siege of Naxos (499 BC) was an unsuccessful Persian backed attempt to restore a part of exiled Naxian aristocrats. The failure of the attack played a part in the outbreak of the Ionian Revolt (499-494 BC), an attempt to overthrow Persian control of the Greek cities of Ionian.

498 B.C.

The battle of Sardis (498 BC) was a minor success for the Greeks during the Ionian Revolt, and despite being followed by a retreat and a defeat at Ephesus, helped to spread the revolt to Byzantium, the Hellespont and Caria.

The battle of Ephesus (498 BC) was a victory won by the Persians over a rebellious Greek army that was retreating from an attack on the city of Sardis (Ionian Revolt).

498/7 B.C.

497 B.C.

The battle of Salamis, c.497 BC, was a land and sea battle on Cyprus, won by the Persians on land and the Cypriotes and their Ionian allies at sea.

The siege of Paphos (c.497) was part of the Persian reconquest of Cyprus after the defeat of the Cyprian rebels at Salamis.

The siege of Soli (c.497 BC) was part of the Persian reconquest of Cyprus after the island's failed participation in the Ionian Revolt, and was the last to be concluded, lasting for four months.

The battle of the Maeander (497 BC) was the first of three battles between Carian rebels and the Persians that eventually disrupted the first major Persian counterattack during the Ionian Revolt.

The battle of Labraunda (497 BC) was the second of three battles between the Persians and Carian rebels during the Ionian Revolt, and was a second costly defeat for the Carians.

497-496 B.C.

494 B.C.

The battle of Lade (494 BC) was the decisive battle of the Ionian Revolt, and was a crushing Persian naval victory that eliminated Ionian naval power and left the individual Ionian cities exposed to attack.

The siege of Miletus (494 BC) followed the Ionian naval defeat in the battle of Lade, and saw the Persians recapture the city that had triggered the Ionian Revolt in 499.

The battle of Malene (494 BC) ended the career of Histiaeus, former Tyrant of Miletus, a former support of Darius who may have played a part in the outbreak of the Ionian Revolt, but who ended his career as something of an adventurer.

493 B.C.

The battle of the Helorus River (c.493 BC) saw Hippocrates, tyrant of Gela, defeat the army of Syracuse, but he was unable to capitalise on his victory by capturing the city.

490 B.C.

The siege of Carystus (490 BC) was an early Persian victory in the campaign that ended at the battle of Marathon.

The battle of Eretria (490 BC) was the second and final Persian success during the campaign that ended in defeat at Marathon.

The battle of Marathon (12 September 490 BC) was the decisive battle during Darius I of Persian's campaigns against the Greeks, and saw the Persians defeated by a largely Athenian army at Marathon in north-eastern Attica.

489 B.C.

483-474 B.C.

The First Veientine War (483-474 B.C.) was the first of three clashes between Rome and her nearest Etruscan neighbour, the city of Veii.

481-480 B.C.

480 B.C.

The battle of Artemisium (August 480 BC) was an inconclusive naval battle that was fought on the same three days as the battle of Thermopylae, and that ended when the Greek fleet retreated after learning of the Persian victory at Thermopylae.

The battle of Thermopylae (August 480 BC) is one of the most famous military defeats in history, and is best known for the fate of the 300 Spartans, killed alongside 700 Thespians on the final day of the battle.

The siege of Himera (480 BC) was the first military action of the Carthaginian invasion of Sicily of 480, and was ended by the dramatic Carthaginian defeat at the battle of Himera.

The battle of Salamis (23 or 24 September 480 BC) was the decisive battle of Xerxes's invasion of Greece, and was a major Greek naval victory that left the Persian army dangerously isolated in southern Greece.

The siege of Andros (c.480 BC) is an incident recorded by Herodotus as taking part in the period after the Greek naval victory at Salamis.

The battle of Himera (autumn 480 BC) was a famous victory won by the Greeks of Syracuse over an invading Carthaginian army.

480-479 B.C.

479 B.C.


27 August

The battle of Plataea (27 August 479 BC) was the decisive land battle during the Persian invasion of Greece (480-479) and saw the Persian land army left behind after the failure of the 480 campaign defeated by a coalition of Greek powers.

The battle of Mycale (479 BC) was a land battle that resulted in the destruction of the Persian fleet in Asia Minor, and that encouraged the Ionian cities to rebel against Persian authority.

479-8 B.C.

472-1 B.C.

474 B.C.

466 B.C.

465 B.C.

451 B.C.

The siege of Motyum (451 BC) was the first known attempt by the Sicel leader Ducetius to conquer an area held by one of the major Greek powers of Sicily, and led to his greatest victory over the Greeks at the battle of Motyum.

The battle of Motyum (451 BC) was the most important battlefield victory won by the Sicel leader Ducetius, but he was defeated at Nomae in the following year and forced into exile.

450 B.C.

448 B.C.

446 B.C.

440 B.C.

437-434 or 428-425 B.C.

The Second Veientine War (437-434 or 428-425 B.C.) was fought for control of the crossing over the Tiber at Fidenae, five miles upstream from Rome.

437 or 428 B.C.

The battle of the Anio (437 or 428 B.C.) was a Roman victory early in the Second Veientine War that was won after Lars Tolumnius, king of Veii, was killed in single combat

435 or 426 B.C.

The battle of Nomentum (435 or 426 B.C.) was a Roman victory over a combined army from Veii and Fidenae that was followed by a successful Roman attack on Fidenae, and possibly by the end of the Second Veientine War.

435 or 426 B.C.

The siege of Fidenae (435 or 426 B.C.) saw the Romans capture the town only five miles upstream on the Tiber and eliminate the last Veientine enclave on the right bank of the Tiber.

435-431 B.C.

435 B.C.

The siege of Epidamnus (435 BC) saw the Corcyraeans capture their own former colony, overcoming a garrison partly provided by their own mother city of Corinth

The battle of Leucimme (435 BC) was a naval victory won by Corcyra over the Corinthians that gave them control of the seas around the western coast of Greece and allowed them to launch raids on Corinth's allies for much of the next year

433 B.C.

432-30/29 B.C.

431 B.C.

429 B.C.

The battle of Spartolus of 429 BC was a costly Athenian defeat in a battle fought just outside the city of Spartolus in Chalcidice. s

The battle of Stratus (429 BC) was a Spartan defeat that ended a brief campaign designed to drive the Athenians out of Acarnania, the area to the north-west of the entrance to the Gulf of Corinth (Great Peloponnesian War)

The battle of Chalcis (429 BC) was the first of two Athenian naval victories won in the same year in the Gulf of Corinth that helped demonstrate their naval superiority in the early part of the Great Peloponnesian War.

The battle of Naupactus (429 BC) was a second Athenian naval victory won in a short period around the Gulf of Corinth, but was won by a very narrow margin and only after the narrow failure of a Peloponnesian plan to trap the entire Athenian fleet.

429-427 B.C.

428-427 B.C.

426 B.C.

The battle of Aegitium (426 BC) was an Athenian defeat that ended a short-lived invasion of Aetolia.

The siege of Naupactus (426 BC) was a short-lived Spartan attempt to capture a key Athenian naval base on the northern shores of the Gulf of Corinth.

The battle of Olpae (426 BC) was an Athenian victory that ended a Spartan campaign aimed at the conquest of Acarnania and Amphilochia.

The battle of Idomene (426 BC) was a second victory in three days won by Demosthenes against the Ambraciots in the north-west of Greece.

The battle of Tanagra (426 BC) was a minor Athenian victory won close to the city of Tanagra in Boeotia.

425 B.C.

The battle of Pylos (425 BC) was the first part of a two-part battle most famous the surrender of a force of Spartan hoplites trapped on the island of Sphacteria.

The battle of Sphacteria (425 BC) was the second part of a two-part battle which ended with the surrender of a force of Spartan hoplites (Great Peloponnesian War).

The battle of Solygia (425 BC) was a minor Athenian victory during a raid on Corinth, but one that had little long term impact (Great Peloponnesian War).

424 B.C.

423-421 B.C.

423 or 422 B.C.

422 B.C.

421 B.C.

418 B.C.

The siege of Orchomenes (418 B.C.) was a short-lived success won by an alliance of Greek cities led by Argos and that included Athens.

The battle of Mantinea (418 BC) was a Spartan victory over an alliance of Peloponnesian states led by Argos and supported by Athens. The alliance survived into the following year, but the threat that it originally posed to Sparta was gone.

415 B.C.

414-413 B.C.

The Athenian siege of Syracuse of 414-413 BC was a two year long epic that ended with the total defeat and destruction of the Athenian army, and that put Athens onto the defensive in the renewed fighting in the Great Peloponnesian War.

412 B.C.

The unsuccessful siege of Miletus (412 BC) was a major Athenian setback early in the Ionian phase of the Great Peloponnesian War, and helped establish a revolt against Athenian power in the area.

The battle of Panormus (412 BC) was a minor Athenian victory during the longer siege of Miletus, most notable for the death of the Spartan commander Chalcideus.

The battle of Miletus (412 BC) was an Athenian victory fought outside the walls of Miletus, but that was followed almost immediately by the arrival of a Peloponnesian fleet and an Athenian retreat.

412/411 B.C.

411 B.C.

The battle of Eretria (411 BC) was a naval defeat suffered by Athens that was followed by a major revolt on the island of Euboea, cutting the city off from one of its last sources of food (Great Peloponnesian War).

The battle of Cynossema (411 BC) was the first major Athenian victory since their disastrous defeat on Sicily in 413 BC, and helped restore morale in the city after a series of setbacks and a period of political upheaval.

410 B.C.

409/408 B.C.

408 B.C.

The siege of Chalcedon (408 BC) was part of an Athenian attempt to regain control of the Bosphorus and ensure the safety of Athens's food supplies from the Black Sea.

The siege of Byzantium (408 BC) was an Athenian victory that saw them regain control over the Bosphorus, and remove a threat to Athens's food supplies from the Black Sea.

407 B.C.

406 B.C.

The siege of Delphinium (406 BC) was a minor Peloponnesian success that came early in the command of Callicratidas, an admiral who replaced the popular Lysander in command of the Peloponnesian fleet in Asia Minor.

The siege of Methymne (406 BC) was a second success for the Peloponnesian fleet commanded by Callicratidas, and saw the loss of a second Athenian stronghold on the coast of Asia Minor.

The siege of Mytilene (406 BC) saw the Peloponnesians attempt to capture this Athenian held city on Lesbos. The siege was ended by the Athenian naval victory at Arginusea, but the reaction to the aftermath of this battle played a part in the final Athenian defeat in the Great Peloponnesian War.

The battle of the Arginusae Islands (406 BC) was the last major Athenian victory of the Great Peloponnesian War, but after the battle six of the eight victorious generals were executed for failing to rescue the crews of the twenty five Athenian warships lost during the battle.

405 B.C.

405-396 B.C.

The Third Veientine War (405-396 B.C.) saw the Roman Republic finally capture and destroy their closest rival, the Etruscan city of Veii, after a siege that lasted for ten years

The ten year long siege of Veii (405-396 B.C.) was the main event of the Third Veientine War and saw the Romans finally conquer their nearest rival, the Etruscan city of Veii.

404 B.C.

The siege of Athens (to 404 BC) was the final act of the Great Peloponnesian War, and confirmed the Spartan victory that had been made almost inevitable at the naval battle of Aegospotami in 405 BC.

403 B.C.

The battle of Phyle (403 BC) was the first of three battles that saw the Athenian democrats led by Thrasybulus overthrow a Spartan-supported oligarchy that was then ruling in Athens.

The battle of Munychia (403 BC) was a significant victory for Democratic rebels against the Spartan imposed rule of the Thirty at Athens, and played a significant part in the reestablishment of Democracy at Athens in the aftermath of the Great Peloponnesian War.

The battle of Piraeus (403 BC) saw the Spartans defeat the pro-democratic forces of Thrasybulus outside the port of Athens, but divisions within the Spartan leadership meant that the Athenians were still able to restore their democracy

400-387 B.C.

395-386 B.C.

395 B.C.

The battle of Sardis (395 BC) was a minor victory for Agesilaus II of Sparta during his period in command of the Spartan war effort in Asia Minor that triggered the fall of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes and led to a six month truce in Caria and Lydia.

The battle of Haliartus (395 BC) was the first significant fighting during the Corinthian War (395-386 BC) and was a Spartan defeat that saw the death of Lysander, their victorious leader from of the Great Peloponnesian War.

394 B.C.

The battle of Naryx (394 BC) was a costly victory won by the forces of an anti-Spartan alliance over a Phocian army early in the Corinthian War (395-386 BC).

The battle of Nemea (394 BC) was the first major fighting on the Corinthian front that gave the Corinthian War (395-386 BC) its name, and was an inconclusive Spartan victory.

The battle of Cnidus (394 BC) was a decisive Persian naval victory that ended the brief period of Spartan naval supremacy that followed the end of the Great Peloponnesian War, and in its aftermath the short-lived Spartan domination of the Aegean crumbled.

The battle of Coronea (394 BC) was an inconclusive Spartan victory that saw Agesilaus II defeat an allied army that was attempting to block his path across Boeotia, but not by a big enough margin to allow him to continue with his invasion (Corinthian War, 395-386 BC).

392 B.C.

390 B.C.

The First Gallic Invasion of Italy of 390 B.C. was a pivotal event in the history of the Roman Republic and saw the city occupied and sacked for the last time in eight hundred years.

18 July

The battle of the Allia (18 July 390 B.C.) was one of the most embarrassing defeats in Roman history, and left the city defenceless in the face of a Gallic war band.

The sack of Rome (390 B.C.) was the worst recorded disaster in the history of the early Roman Republic, and saw a Gallic war band led by Brennus capture and sack most of the city, after winning an easy victory on the Allia

The battle of the Trausian Plain (c.390-384 B.C.) probably saw an Etruscan army from the city of Caere defeat all or part of the Gallic war band that was responsible for the sack of Rome

386 B.C.

385 B.C.

382-379 B.C.

382 B.C.

381 B.C.

The battle of Apollonia (381 BC) saw Sparta's ally Derdas of Elimia defeat an Olynthian cavalry raid that had entered the territory of Apollonia.

The battle of Olynthus (381 BC) was the second battle fought by the Spartans close to the city during their expedition to Chalcidice, and ended with defeat and the death of the Spartan commander Teleutias.

381-379 B.C.

379-371 B.C.

378 B.C.

The Theban campaign of 378 BC was the first of two unsuccessful invasions of Boeotia led by King Agesilaus II of Sparta, and ended after a standoff close to the city of Thebes.

The battle of Thespiae (378 BC) was a Theban victory that ended a period of Sparta raids from their base at Thespiae, and in which the Spartan commander Phoebidas was killed.

377 B.C.

376 B.C.

The battle of Cithaeron (376 BC) was a minor Spartan defeat that prevented them from conducting a fourth invasion of Boeotia in four years (Theban-Spartan War).

The battle of Naxos (September 376 BC) was the first naval victory won by an official Athenian fleet since the end of the Great Peloponnesian War, and saw a fleet besieging Naxos defeat a Spartan fleet sent to lift the siege.

375 B.C.

The battle of Alyzeia (June or July 375 BC) saw the Athenians defeat a Spartan fleet that was supporting an attempt to move troops across the Corinthian Gulf into Boeotia (Theban-Spartan or Boeotian War, 379-371 BC).

The battle of Tegyra (Spring 375 BC) saw an outnumbered Theben defeat a force of Spartan hoplites twice its own size, an early sign that the Thebans were no longer intimidated by the impressive reputation of the Spartans (Theban-Spartan War, 379-371 BC).

373-372 B.C.

371 B.C.

371-362 B.C.

C.370-350 B.C.

367-366 B.C.

The siege of Adramyttium or Assus, c.367-6 BC, saw forces loyal to Artaxerxes II besiege the rebel satrap Ariobarzanes before withdrawing after King Agesilaus of Sparta arrived to help the rebels.

The siege of Sestus (c.367-6 BC) saw forces loyal to the Persian emperor Artaxerxes II unsuccessful besiege allies of the rebel satrap Ariobarzanes, during the second stage of the Satrap's revolt.

358 B.C.

357-355 B.C.

357 B.C.

357 or 356 B.C.

356 B.C.

The siege of Samos (356 BC) saw the rebels against Athens besiege one of the loyal members of the Athenian League (Social War).

The siege of Potidaea (356 BC) saw Philip II of Macedon capture the strongly fortified city at the head of the Pallene peninsula, but then hand it over to Olynthus in order to secure an alliance with that city.

355 B.C.

The battle of Embata (356 BC) was a minor naval defeat for Athens during the Social War, but in the aftermath two of her best commanders were put on trial, and the remaining commander soon provoked the Persians.

Outbreak of the Third Sacred War (to 346 BC), which began as a dispute between Thebes and their neighbours in Phocis over the cultivation of sacred land, but expanded to include most of the Greek powers and was ended by the intervention of Philip II of Macedon, helping to confirm his status as a major power in Greece

The battle of Phaedriades (355 BC) was a Phocian victory early in the Third Sacred War, fought on the slopes of Mount Parnassus.

355-354 B.C.

354 B.C.

The battle of Argolas (Spring 354 BC) was a Phocian victory over a Thessalian army early in the Third Sacred War, fought at an otherwise unknown hill somewhere in Locris

The battle of Neon (354 BC) was a battle of the Third Sacred War, and was notable for the death of the Phocian leader Philomelus.

354 or 353 B.C.

353 B.C.

352 B.C.

The battle of Orchomenus (c.352 BC) was the first in a series of defeats suffered by the Phocian leader Phayllus during a failed invasion of Boeotia (Third Sacred War).

The battle of the Cephisus River (c.352) was the second in a series of defeats suffered by the Phocian leader Phayllus during a failed invasion of Boeotia (Third Sacred War).

The battle of Coroneia (c.352) was the second in a series of defeats suffered by the Phocian leader Phayllus during a failed invasion of Boeotia (Third Sacred War).

The battle of Abae (c.352 BC) was one of a series of setbacks suffered by the Phocian leader Phayllus, and came after a unsuccessful invasion of Boeotia and a failure to capture the city of Naryx (Third Sacred War).

The battle of Chaeroneia (c.352 BC) was an early defeat in the career of Phalacus as leader of the Phocians (Third Sacred War).

349 B.C.

348 B.C.

346 B.C.

The siege of Halus (346 BC) was carried out as the same time as peace negotiations between Philip II of Macedon and Athens, and may have been part of Philip's wider plan for a campaign in central Greece (Third Sacred War).

The Peace of Philocrates (346 BC) ended the ten year long War of Amphipolis between Athens and Macedon, and helped establish Philip II of Macedon as a power in central and southern Greece

Philip II of Macedon ends the Third Sacred War (from 355 BC), forcing Phocis to surrender

343 B.C.

The First Samnite War (343-341 BC) was the first of three clashes between Rome and the Samnite hill tribes, and ended in a Roman victory that saw the Republic begin to expand into Campania.

The battle and siege of Capua of 343 B.C. triggered the First Samnite War (343-341 B.C.), the first of three wars between Rome and the Samnites.

The battle of Mount Gaurus, 343 B.C., was the opening battle of the First Samnite War (343-341 B.C.), and was a hard fought Roman victory.

The battle of Saticula (343 B.C.) was a Roman victory that saw a rare example of the Roman army fighting at night in an attempt to avoid a disaster.

The battle of Suessula (343 B.C.) was the final major clash during the First Samnite War (343-341 B.C.), and was a major Roman victory

340 B.C.

The battle of Trifanum (340 BC) was a Roman victory that ended the Campanian phase of the Latin War of 340-338 BC.

340-339 B.C.

The siege of Perinthus (340-339 BC) was an unsuccessful attempt by Philip II of Macedon to defeat a wavering ally, and was conducted alongside an equally unsuccessful siege of Byzantium. Both sieges took place in the period just before the Fourth Sacred War.

The siege of Byzantium (340-339 BC) was an unsuccessful attempt by Philip II to defeat a former ally, and was begun after his siege of nearby Perinthus ran into difficulties. Both sieges came in the build-up to the Fourth Sacred War.

339-338 B.C.

339 B.C.

The battle of the Fenectane Plains (339 BC) was a Roman victory in the second year of the Latin War of 340-338 BC

338 B.C.

The battle of Pedum (338 BC) was the decisive battle of the Latin War of 340-338BC and saw the Romans defeat a Latin army sent to protect Pedum and capture the city in the same day

327-6 B.C.

The Roman siege of Neapolis (Naples) of 327-326 BC was the first fighting in what developed into the Second Samnite War (327-304 BC).

325 B.C.

324-261 B.C.

323 B.C.

Settlement at Babylon, the first attempt to divide up power within Alexander's empire

Start of the Lamian or Hellenic War, an attempt by an alliance of Greek cities led by Athens to escape Macedonian control

322 B.C.

Siege of Lamia sees alliance led by Athens trap Antipater in the town of Lamia. Death of Athenian general Leosthenes



Outbreak of the First Diadoch War, (to 320 BC) between the successors of Alexander the Great

321 B.C.

Truce between Antipater and the Aetolians ends the Lamian War.

Death of Craterus in a battle against Eumenes of Cardia

Perdiccas murdered by his officers in Egypt

320 B.C.

Settlement at Triparadisus second attempt to divide power in Alexander's empire

319 B.C.

316 B.C.

Battle of Gabiene, marks the end of the Second Diadoch War in Asia (from 319 BC)

315 B.C.

Outbreak of Third Diadoch War (to 311 BC)

The battle of Lautulae (315 BC) was the second major Samnite victory during the Second Samnite War, but one that didn't produce any long term advantage

314 B.C.

The siege of Bovianum of 314-313 BC was a short-lived Roman attempt to take advantage of their victory at Tarracina in 314

311 B.C.

End of Third Diadoch War (from 315 BC), ends with all of the main contestants back where they started.

310 B.C.

The battle of Perusia, 310/309 BC, was a Roman victory that forced several key Etruscan cities to make peace with Rome (Etruscan War, 311/308 BC)

The battle of Lake Vadimo (310 BC) was a major Roman victory that broke the power of the Etruscan cities involved in the short Etruscan War of 311/10-308

308 B.C.

The battle of Mevania, 308 BC, was a final Roman victory in the Etruscan War, although it was fought against the Umbrians

307 B.C.

C.306-3 B.C.

301 B.C.

Fourth Diadoch War ends (from 307 BC) with defeat and death of Antigonus at the battle of Ipsus

Watch the video: LOSTPROPHETS - Last Train Home (January 2022).