Ramsbury Manor House: Courtyard Cottages Heritage Statement

Frontispiece: Ramsbury Manor House viewed from the north, c.1820. Drawn by J.P. Neale, engraved by W.R. Smith (Neale, 1820, p. 202)

Version.2: 18/12/17

Written and Compiled by Guy Arnall

Modern OS map of Site ©Crown Copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey

With thanks to:

The Provost and Fellows of Worcester College, Oxford

The Wellcome Collection.

Contact Information:

Peregrine Bryant Architecture and Building Conservation

The Courtyard, Fulham Palace

Bishop’s Avenue, Fulham

SW6 6EA [email protected]

This report and all intellectual property rights in it and arising from it are the property of or are under licence to Peregrine Bryant Architecture. Neither the whole nor any part of this report, nor any drawing, plan, other document or any information contained within it may be reproduced in any form without the prior written consent of Peregrine Bryant Architecture. All material in which the intellectual property rights have been licensed to PBA and such rights belong to third parties may not be published or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of such material for publication or reproduction should be made directly to the owner of the intellectual property rights therein.

Contents

1. Summary ...... 6 2. Historical Summary ...... 7 3. History of the Manor House ...... 8 3.1. William, Earl of Pembroke ...... 8 3.2. The Seventeenth Century ...... 9 3.2.1. Sir William Jones (bap. 3 July 1630 – d. 1682) ...... 11 3.3. Sir William Jones’ Ramsbury House ...... 12 3.3.1. Robert Hooke FRS (1635 – 1703) ...... 12 3.3.2. Robert Hooke and Ramsbury ...... 14 3.3.3. The Townshend Papers ...... 17 3.3.4. The Worcester College Drawing ...... 19 3.3.5. The C17 Manor House...... 21 3.3.6. Ramsbury Manor House: Implications of the Basement Plan ...... 25 3.4. The Out Offices or Courtyard Cottages ...... 27 3.4.1. Lady Elizabeth and Sir William (Langham) Jones ...... 28 3.4.2. Robert Mitchell ...... 29 3.4.3. The Orangery...... 30 3.4.4. Courtyard Cottages: External Design ...... 32 3.4.5. Courtyard Cottages: Internal Design ...... 36 3.4.6. Courtyard Cottages: The Edwardian Evidence ...... 37 3.4.7. Courtyard Cottages: C20 Evidence ...... 40 4. Proposals and Potential impact ...... 42 5. Bibliography ...... 43

Appendix 1: Listing Entries Appendix 2: East Garston Woodland to Ramsbury Manor House

Appendix 3: Courtyard Cottages Development Plan: Ground Floor

Appendix 4: Courtyard Cottages Development Plan: First Floor

List of Figures

Figure 1: The east front of the Earl of Pembroke’s House, Ramsbury Manor c.1567 (Stranton, 1909) . 8 Figure 2: Map of the Manor House and Parks, Ramsbury, 1676. Revised 1771 (Detail) (Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (WSHC, X6/57HC) ...... 10 Figure 3: Detail showing “The Front of the Mannor [sic] house”, within the Map of the manor house and parks, Ramsbury, 1676. Revised 1771 (WSHC, X6/57HC) ...... 10 Figure 4: Detail showing “A Ground plan of the Mannor [sic] house and Courts”, within the Map of the manor house and parks, Ramsbury, 1676. Revised 1771 (WSHC, X6/57HC) ...... 11 Figure 5: The principal elevation of Bethlem Hospital, 1676 (© the Wellcome Collection) ...... 16 Figure 6: Detail of the principal elevation of Bethlem Hospital, 1676, outlining the equivalent 9 bays seen at Ramsbury Manor (© the Wellcome Collection) ...... 16 Figure 7: John Rocque map showing East Garston and associated Woodland, 1761 ...... 18 Figure 8: Drawing by Robert Hooke for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525) ...... 19 Figure 9: Inscription to verso of drawing by Robert Hooke for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525) ...... 20 Figure 10: Pencil sketches of cupola and eave cornice design, to the margins of drawing by Robert Hooke, for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525) ...... 20 Figure 11: Lower-Ground Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953. Note the brick-vaulted portion to the centre of the eastern rank of rooms (bottom-centre) (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 21 Figure 12: Ground Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 180) ...... 21 Figure 13: First Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 180) ...... 22 Figure 14: Second Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 22 Figure 15: Roof plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 23 Figure 16: Lateral section of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 23 Figure 17: Plans of Coleshill House, Berkshire, completed 1662 (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 94) ...... 25 Figure 18: Detail of Ramsbury Manor, east elevation. Note the Ovolo-and-fillet stone mullion window and the change in fabric, below stone string course, to basement level (including substantial areas of 1 ½ inch (38mm), English-bonded bricks) ...... 26 Figure 19: Detail from Andrews’ and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire, 1773 ...... 28 Figure 20: Detail from ‘Swindon 9’ map by William Stanley, 1818, showing Ramsbury House, Park and Gardens (British Library, Maps OSD 166) ...... 30 Figure 21: Robert Mitchell’s design for Cottesbrooke, 1795 (Mitchell, 1801, p. 47) ...... 31 Figure 22: Detail from Wallis Plan of The Cities of London And Westminster, 1801, showing the Panorama, located just to the north-east of Leicester Fields, now Leicester Square, on the site of Leicester House...... 31 Figure 23: Section through Mitchell’s Rotunda, Leicester Square, c.1800 ...... 32 Figure 24: Detail of Ramsbury Western Division Map, 1839 (WHSC, 1792/38L) ...... 33 Figure 25: The south elevation of the Orangery, inscribed ‘WJ, 1775’. English-bonded courses are evident below sill-level ...... 33

Figure 26: The north-east elevation of the Courtyard Cottages, exhibiting three distinct phases of brickwork: two in English-bond and a parapet in Flemish ...... 34 Figure 27: The roof structure of the Courtyard Cottages building ...... 34 Figure 28: Inscriptions within bricks of the eastern Courtyard Elevation, reading ‘WR 1775’ and ‘RC 1775’ ...... 35 Figure 29: View of Ramsbury Manor from the south, by John Henry Leonard, c.1870 (Benson, 1984) ...... 35 Figure 30: Ordnance Survey map of 1886 (Surveyed 1885) ...... 36 Figure 31: Plan showing proposed work to Orangery, drawn by Messenger & Co. Ltd, Westminster, April 1903 (WSHC, 2872/254/1) ...... 38 Figure 32: Section of proposed roof to Orangery, drawn by Messenger & Co. Ltd, Westminster, April 1903 (WSHC, 2872/254/1) ...... 39 Figure 33: Ramsbury Manor viewed from the south, 1908 (Francis Frith Collection, 2017) ©Francis Frith ...... 39 Figure 34: Existing Ground and First Floor Plans, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953. The double-height laundry space is highlighted (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 40 Figure 35: Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 41 Figure 36: Proposed changes to the Courtyard Cottages Elevations, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS) ...... 41

1. Summary

Ramsbury Manor House The Courtyard Cottages form three ranges of a quadrangle with an Orangery projecting to the south, located on lower ground, to the south of Ramsbury Manor House. Though the extant building envelope can be dated principally to 1775 (and has been attributed to the Scottish Architect Robert Mitchell), the buildings likely contain portions of the earlier 1686 ‘out offices’ which have directly influenced their final appearance.

The Grade I listing for the Courtyard Cottages is based principally upon their context, intrinsically linked with the late seventeenth century (C17) Manor House. This document therefore concerns itself only with those areas of the main house which aid the understanding of the Courtyard complex.

Ramsbury Manor House is a Grade I listed Caroline double-pile building of exceptional interest, constructed between c.1681 and 1686, by Robert Hooke for Sir William Jones, attorney-general. This remarkable survival is one of Robert Hooke’s few commissions found still standing, and even fewer private commissions remaining virtually as-built.

Context and Setting The house is located within the Grade II listed, late C18 park, including woodland and parkland originating from the late C17.

The stable block, to the east of the house is a Grade II, timber-framed building with a mid-C17 Artisan Mannerist façade, suggested to be by Isaac De Caus.

Further to the east, at the head of the driveway, stand two Grade II* gate piers with flanking lodges, of c.1680 and c.1775 respectively.

To the south of the gate lodges lies a Grade II listed, 5-arch, brick and flint bridge. Constructed during the landscape remodelling of c.1775, this structure spans the diverted river Kennet at the head of the ribbon lake, creating a weir and affording oblique views of the Manor House within its designed landscape setting.

Full listing entries can be seen within Appendix 1.

2. Historical Summary Ramsbury likely belonged to the bishops of Ramsbury as far back as the 10th and 11th centuries (C10 & C11), retaining it for their successors after the see was moved to Salisbury between 1075 and 1078. The bishop of Salisbury certainly held Ramsbury in 1086 and the manor of Ramsbury passed with the see.

In 1545, Bishop Salcot granted the manor to Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford, protector of the realm 1547–9, and from 1547 duke of Somerset. After Seymour's execution and attainder in 1552, it was granted to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. It passed with the Earldom of Pembroke to Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, who in 1676–7 sold it to the lawyer and politician Henry Powle.

Between 1677 and 1681, following his apparently speculative purchase, Powle sold off the manor in piecemeal fashion, and the manor house, parks and woods around it went to Sir William Jones (d. 1682). Jones was succeeded by his son Richard (d.s.p. a minor in 1685) and by his brother Samuel (d. 1686) whose heir was his son Richard.

In 1736 Richard was succeeded by his brother William, whose heir was his son William (of age in 1764, d. 1766). That William was succeeded by his sister Elizabeth, wife of William Langham (d. 1791) - who assumed the additional name Jones - and in 1774 was created a baronet.

After Lady Jones's death in 1800, Ramsbury manor passed to her nephew Sir Francis Burdett (d. 1844), and afterwards to Sir Francis's son Sir Robert. In 1880, Sir Robert was succeeded by his cousin Sir Francis Burdett (d. 1892), whose heir was his son Sir Francis.

Throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries the Joneses and Burdetts recovered by purchase some of the lands sold 1677–81, especially of those at Axford and Ramsbury.

In 1880 Ramsbury manor was a compact estate of c. 4,000 a. encompassing nearly all the west part of the parish and including little land in the east and north. After the death in 1951 of Sir Francis Burdett, the airfield land, Park farm, nearly all of Park Town farm, and Ramsbury Manor and c. 350 a. around it were bought by Seymour William Arthur John Egerton, Earl of Wilton.

In 1958 Lord Wilton sold the manor house and its surrounding land to Sir William Rootes (Baron Rootes from 1959). They were sold in 1964–5 to Mr. H. J. Hyams.

(Baggs, Freeman, & Stevenson, 1983)

3. History of the Manor House Ramsbury, throughout the Middle Ages, was one of the bishop of Salisbury's principal and, especially in the later 15th century and the early 16th, most often lived in palaces (Baggs, Freeman, & Stevenson, 1983, p. 16). Little is known about the house at this time, which stood within a park beside the Kennet. The bishops had at the house a chapel dedicated to the Virgin and a cloister was mentioned in 1320 (ibid). Licences were granted to crenellate in 1337 and to wall and crenellate in 1377 (The Castle Studies Group, 2007). Leland described the c. 1540 house as both 'fair' and 'old' (Baggs, Freeman, & Stevenson, 1983, p. 16).

3.1. William, Earl of Pembroke Between 1552 and 1567 William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, spent over £2,000 on building work at the site (ibid). His revised house had a main, symmetrical, east front of two storeys, with attics and nine gables above (see Figure 1), and associated:

“…stable, barn gardens orchards, flower garden and Court surrounded with walls, palings and lez Rayles [fencing], contained by est. 6 acres…” (Stranton, 1909, p. 18).

Figure 1: The east front of the Earl of Pembroke’s House, Ramsbury Manor c.1567 (Stranton, 1909)

3.2. The Seventeenth Century Information on Ramsbury Manor during the first half of the seventeenth century is scarce, the house said (in 1644) simply to be a 'fair square stone house . . . though not comparable to Wilton' (Baggs, Freeman, & Stevenson, 1983).

It is only within the first known plan of the site (1676), that it becomes clear the house stood within a series of enclosures bounded by high walls (and covering 6 acres), the principal east-front approached along a formal, tree-lined avenue (Figure 2). The plan of the house was large and square (nearly 60 M2), but it included three irregularly placed internal courts (WSHC, X6/57HC): possible vestiges of the Bishops' palace, parts of which may have been incorporated in the house (ibid) (see Figure 4). The principal elevation had also been remodelled by this time; exhibiting nine bays, with a cupola installed behind the central gable (see Figure 3).

The large, westernmost enclosure (No.16) is labelled simply as “All within the Brick wall”, and appears to be dominated by trees, as does the unlabelled enclosure to the north. The larger enclosure perhaps contained an Orchard, and that to the north the Kitchen Garden: before the early C18, the best situation for a kitchen garden was considered to be close to the house. According to Campbell (2013, p.7), early kitchen gardens were situated “…if not beneath the very windows, then certainly only a short distance away”.

The building within enclosure no.20 is perhaps the extant Stable Block (which pre-dates the house), though the enclosure itself is titled “The Dairy House Orchard”. The further, clearly defined buildings are both also contained within enclosures: “Dairy House Meadow” (No.12) and “Pigeon House Meadow” (No.17).

A series of further small enclosures (possibly buildings) are also shown to the south of the house, arranged along the historic line of the river Kennet (prior to the landscaping of the park in c.1766 – 1800 (Benson, 1984). It is here that the Courtyard Cottages likely sit today (see 3.4).

In the 16th century, the earls may have used the house as much as they used Wilton, but as the importance of Wilton grew in the C17, Ramsbury declined. It was sometimes lived in by Mary, dowager countess of Pembroke (d. 1650), and Anne, Baroness Clifford, wife of Philip, earl of Pembroke and Montgomery (d. 1650). It was leased to Charles Dormer, earl of Carnarvon (d. 1709), the grandson of Philip, earl of Pembroke and Montgomery (d. 1650), and afterwards to John Seymour, duke of Somerset (d. 1675) (Baggs, Freeman, & Stevenson, 1983).

In 1676–7, the Manor was sold by the earldom of Pembroke, to the lawyer and politician Henry Powle who, in turn, sold the manor house, the park and the woods to Sir William Jones (in 1681).

Figure 2: Map of the Manor House and Parks, Ramsbury, 1676. Revised 1771 (Detail) (Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre (WSHC, X6/57HC)

Figure 3: Detail showing “The Front of the Mannor [sic] house”, within the Map of the manor house and parks, Ramsbury, 1676, revised 1771 (WSHC, X6/57HC)

Figure 4: Detail showing “A Ground plan of the Mannor [sic] house and Courts”, within the Map of the manor house and parks, Ramsbury, 1676. Revised 1771 (WSHC, X6/57HC)

3.2.1. Sir William Jones (bap. 3 July 1630 – d. 1682) The Jones family had owned the small estate of Stowey Court since Elizabethan times. His father, a parliamentary supporter during the Civil War, held county office throughout the Interregnum, and represented Somerset in the first Protectorate Parliament (Crossette, 1983).

Jones became a lawyer and, with the Duke of Buckingham’s support, achieved rapid advancement. Consequently, Jones built up a considerable estate on the Berkshire-Wiltshire borders, including the manors of Avington and Anvilles (1673), Sindlesham (1675), Ramsbury (1676) and East-Garston (1677) (see 3.3.3).

Jones soon became a crown lawyer,1 and went on to lead the prosecution during the Popish Plot trials. He resigned in October 1679, giving reasons of ill-health and the death of his infant son - but it was also asserted that ‘he was very weary of the Plot prosecutions’ (ibid). He remained politically inactive for another 12 months, refusing all crown appointments, only returning to the House of Commons as an opponent of the Court, at a by-election of 3 November 1680. He soon went on to become heavily involved in the passage of the Exclusion Bills through Commons (Crossette, 1983).

1 a lucrative post in which he earned ‘no less than £6,000 per annum’ (Crossette, 1983)

For his efforts, Jones was much satirised by the court wits, and John Dryden introduced him as 'Bull- faced Jonas' into ‘Absalom and Achitophel’, first published the year Jones was re-elected for Plymouth, in March 1681 (ibid).

The king's declaration of 8 April 1681, justifying his dissolution of parliament, was answered by Jones in ‘A Just and Modest Vindication of the Proceedings of the last two parliaments’ (1682), a tract soon reissued as ‘The Design of Enslaving England Discovered’ (1689). Following publication of the former, Jones appeared little in public life, owing, it was reported, to his dislike of Lord Shaftesbury (ibid).

Jones died ‘very rich’ but (according to his numerous enemies - who included Samuel Pepys) ‘not much lamented’ on 2 May 1682, at the age of 51 (ibid).

3.3. Sir William Jones’ Ramsbury House It was during the tumult of the Exclusion Crisis that Sir William Jones met repeatedly with the great polymath, Robert Hooke (Colvin H. , 1999, p. 193).

3.3.1. Robert Hooke FRS (1635 – 1703) Born in Freshwater on England's Isle of Wight in 1635, Hooke first studied at London’s Westminster School.

In 1653, he enrolled at Oxford's Christ Church College, where he supplemented his funds through work as an assistant to the scientist Robert Boyle (1627 – 1691). While studying subjects ranging from astronomy to chemistry, Hooke also made influential friends, such as the architect Christopher Wren (1632 – 1723).

Hooke was appointed curator of experiments for the newly formed Royal Society of London in 1662 (a position he obtained with Boyle's support), soon becoming a society fellow (1663).

In 1665, he accepted a position as professor of geometry at Gresham College in London. After the ‘Great Fire’ destroyed much of London in 1666, Hooke was appointed Surveyor to the City of London, one of the three men appointed by the City Corporation to match the three Commissioners assigned to the rebuilding (LMA, 2017).

A true polymath, the topics Hooke covered during his career include: comets, the motion of light, the rotation of Jupiter, gravity, human memory, algebra, natural history, medicine, politics, music and sound, navigations, mathematics, and the properties of air.

Hooke’s most important publication was Micrographia, a 1665 volume documenting experiments he had made with a microscope. In this ground-breaking study, he coined the term ‘cell’ while discussing the structure of cork. He also described flies, feathers and snowflakes, and correctly identified fossils as remnants of once-living things.

The 1678 publication of Hooke's Lectures de Potentia Restitutiva shared his theory of elasticity; in what came to be known as ‘Hooke’s Law’. In an ongoing, related project, Hooke worked for many years on the invention of a spring-regulated watch.

Though much attention is placed upon Hooke’s scientific life, he was one of the most prolific architects of the second half of the seventeenth century, working the gamut of contemporary society for some thirty years, including commissions for royalty, aristocracy, livery companies, and the City Corporation (Worsley, 2004).

Amongst his works, include:

 Stable Block at Somerset House (1669)  Royal College of Physicians (1672)  Unrealised designs for Sir William Hooker (1673)  The Screen within the Merchant Taylors’ Hall, City of London (1673)  Bridewell Hospital, 1674  Bethlem Hospital (Bedlam) (1676)  The Monument (1677)  Church of St Mary Magdalene, Willen, Bucks. (1678)  The Church of St Edmund the King and Martyr (1679)  Montagu House (1679)  Ragley Hall (1680)  The Church of St Benet Paul’s Wharf (1683)  Buntingford Almshouses (1684)  The Church of St Martin Within Ludgate (1684)  Ramsbury Manor (1686)  Old Shenfield Place, Essex (1689)  Aske’s Almshouses, Hoxton (1693)

According to Walker:

“Hooke tended to meet his architectural patrons in the Royal Society, which was not only the source of much of his architectural knowledge, but also the facilitator of his career in practice, although a number of contacts were clearly also made through his employment in the City of London” (2009, p. 102)

It was during his tenure as assistant to Wren in the City Church Office that, in November 1673, Hooke acted as intermediary between the Office and one Sir William Jones; when legal counsel was required regarding the coal tax used to finance the churches (Walker, 2009, p. 106), although it is clear they were already in discussion about a domestic architectural commission by this stage (see 3.3.2).

3.3.2. Robert Hooke and Ramsbury There has long been speculation as to the architect responsible for Ramsbury Manor, from confident attribution to “…a design by John Webb, the nephew of Inigo Jones” (Neale, p. 202) as early as 1820 - a fact repeated by Gotch, who states that, although Neale provided “…no authority, he must have had some reason for the statement” (1919, p. 95).

Stylistic speculation continued right into the 1960’s, when Hussey wrote his serialized articles for Country Life (December 7 1961) (December 14 1961) (December 21 1961), and it was only in 1975 that Howard Colvin made a breakthrough; not through the unearthing of new documentation (that was to come later), but through the attentive study of Robert Hooke’s diary.

Sir William jones was one of Hooke’s regular acquaintances, appearing numerous times within the journal (from its commencement in August 1672)2. Hooke also acted as Jones’ architectural adviser on a number of occasions: visiting Jones ‘about a new house’ on 20 September 1673 (Colvin, 1975) and then producing designs in December 1673 – both likely relating to a replacement for Jones’ existing London home in Southampton Square (Walker, 2009, p. 107); consultation on (an unidentified) ‘survey of country house’ in November 1673; then paying several visits to Jones’ house in Bloomsbury during 1680 (to supervise both work to chimneys and the installation of sash windows). A further five meetings during the course of 1681:

2 Indeed, Jones owned a copy of Hooke’s Micrographia, presented to him by the author: a copy in Emory University library has the inscription ‘ex dono Authoris’ and the signature ‘W. Jones’ (Robert Hooke's Books, 2017).

“… leave us tantalisingly ignorant of their purpose, and it is not until after Jones’ death in in May 1682 that at last we find conclusive evidence that Robert Hooke was concerned in the building of this country house” (Colvin, 1975)

Following the death of Sir William Jones in May 1682, it was on the 9th of August that Hooke travelled with one of Jones’ most trusted servants to Ramsbury, in order to ‘view the [unfinished] house’ (Henderson, 2007, p. 154). He was in further esteemed company for, besides Thomas Pelham (Jones’s son-in-law and the executor of his will), Hooke was joined by Joseph Lem (Master Bricklayer), Joseph Avis (Master Carpenter) and Roger Davies (joiner), all of whom had worked for Hooke on the College of Physicians (1672-78) and had regularly been employed by him elsewhere; including the Merchant Taylors’ School, Bethlem (Bedlam) Hospital (1675-76), Montagu House (1675-79) and several of the Post-Great Fire London churches (ibid).

Of all those buildings mentioned by Colvin, he draws upon the designs of one in particular, to further bolster his assertion for Hooke’s involvement. Detailed examination of the (now demolished) principal elevation of Bethlem Hospital shows somewhat elongated versions of the east and west fronts of Ramsbury within the pedimented blocks, to either side of the central pavilion (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Thus, as Colvin so convincingly intimates, the object of Hooke’s journey of early August 1682 was surely to take stock of the half-finished house following Jones’ death, in order to fulfil the codicil within his will, which directed that:

“…the building of my house at Ramsbury…shall proceed and the workmen thereof shall be paid out of my personal estate according to the agreement I have made with them.” (WSHC, 1883/179)

It was not until 1987 that further evidence, not only for Hooke’s authorship, but also the involvement of Joseph Lem, Joseph Avis and (most likely) Roger Davi[e]s, and for many vital details regarding the construction of Ramsbury were unearthed.

Figure 5: The principal elevation of Bethlem Hospital, 1676 (© the Wellcome Collection)

Figure 6: Detail of the principal elevation of Bethlem Hospital, 1676, outlining the equivalent 9 bays seen at Ramsbury Manor (© the Wellcome Collection)

3.3.3. The Townshend Papers The Townshend Archive, held at Raynham Hall, Norfolk (WSHC, RAS J2/1/8) contains a number of papers relating to the posthumous completion of Ramsbury manor, executed by Thomas Pelham for William’s son Richard (who was but an infant at the time of his father’s death).

Firstly, it is made clear that Robert Hooke attended the funeral of Sir William Jones, indicating Hooke had visited Ramsbury at least once before his visit of 9th August (Louw, 1987).

Further to this, it seems that Jones at first repaired and renovated the extensive house seen within the 1676 map (Figure 2 to Figure 4), before demolishing it and building anew upon the same site. Such work involved:

“…the taking down and rebuilding of ten chimneys, repairing the tiling of the house and stable, the altering of thirty-two windows and doorcases, and, ‘for finnishing [sic] the front’” (ibid).

However, it is within the ‘Valluation of the Designe [sic] for the new house at Ramsbury’ that real insight is provided into construction of the extant house. It estimates a total cost of:

“… £2,171 13s. 8d., and includes provision for 400,000 bricks, 48,000 tiles, 230 tons of timber 12,000 ft of floorboarding, 7 tons of lead, 60 iron casements, and 1,700 ft of glass” (ibid).

The bricks were made on site (as would be expected of the era) by Mr Goodwyn: most likely Nicholas Goodwyn of Hammersmith (ibid) who, besides being member of the Draper’s Company of the City of London and acting primarily as a London money-scrivener (Graham, 2016), also made bricks for Winchester Palace (1683/4) (Louw, 1987) and for the Royal Hospital Chelsea (1682-91) (Graham, 2016).

The timber was sourced from ‘Agarston’ (known today as East Garston – see Figure 7): the west Berkshire estate purchased by Jones in 1677 (BHO, 2017) and located a mere 11 Km (7 miles), as the crow flies, to the north-east (see Appendix 2).

Inscriptions upon the rainwater heads clearly indicate the external envelope of Ramsbury was completed in 1683, during the brief tenure of Richard Jones (who died a minor in 1685). Yet, surviving tradesmen’s vouchers show the remainder of building work was in fact completed during the spring of 16863 (Louw, 1987). Samuel received £1000 from the executor of William’s will on 18

3 under the even more brief ownership of William’s brother: Samuel Jones (d.1686).

May 1686 towards ‘…the finishing of the inside of the house Ramsbury and the Building of the Out Offices’ (ibid) (For Courtyard Cottages, see 3.4).

Figure 7: John Rocque map showing East Garston and associated Woodland, 1761

Most of the tradesmen received their final payments in May 1686: Thomas Burton (Plasterer, who previously worked for Wren et al. at St. Steven Coleman Street, London, 1672-9) received the final £71 7s. 0d. of a total sum of £171 7s. 0d.; Joseph Lem (Bricklayer) £200 over and above an earlier payment of £250; Daniel Houghton (Plaisterer) was paid £11 16s. 0d. for the (extant) weather vane (delivered in December 1685); and one Thomas Davis (likely the mason and sculptor who previously worked at Montagu House, London) received £100 in addition to an earlier, unspecified bill of £100 (Louw, 1987). The total carpentry bill amounted to £464, but it is not clear who, apart from Joseph Avis, was responsible for this work. The Mr. Davis who received £369, was surely the joiner Roger Davis (ibid).

No design drawings were found at Raynham Hall however, and it was not until 2009 that one possibility was flagged-up by Dr Matthew Walker.

3.3.4. The Worcester College Drawing A drawing acquired by Worcester College, Oxford in 2003 (Hugh Pagan Ltd, 2003) shows a seven- bay house with a cupola, born of Hooke’s hand (Walker, 2009, p. 108) (see Figure 8). Association with Ramsbury is made via inscription to the verso, in (not Hooke’s) contemporary writing, reading ‘Jones’. Walker goes on to caution however, that it is possible the label is a mistaken attribution to Inigo Jones (ibid).

Walker concludes that, if the drawing was for Sir William Jones, it seems more plausible that, given the size of the building depicted (and the confident style indicating one of Hooke’s later drawings), it was likely an early scheme for Ramsbury of c.1681, rather than one made for Jones in 1673 (ibid). Indeed, its highly finished nature, the fact that it became detached from the from the Hooke volume in the British Library, and the pencil sketches to the margins, all suggest that it was a later work; submitted to and discussed with the patron, and ultimately rejected it in favour of a different design. Thus, the possibility remains that the drawing was produced by Hooke, for Sir William Jones, on completion of his purchase in 1681 (ibid).

Figure 8: Drawing by Robert Hooke for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525)

Figure 9: Inscription to verso of drawing by Robert Hooke for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525)

Figure 10: Pencil sketches of cupola and eave cornice design, to the margins of drawing by Robert Hooke, for an unidentified house, undated (courtesy of Worcester College Oxford, WOR/Colvin/525)

3.3.5. The C17 Manor House The design eventually chosen for Ramsbury was a quintessentially late seventeenth-century country house. Nine bays wide with a break-front, Flemish bonded brickwork, a pitched roof, dormer windows and a pedimented entrance. The four-storey building (upon a sloping site with subterranean basement to the north, finishing at ground level to the south) (see Figure 11 to Figure 16), followed the popular double-pile model, established after the Restoration by houses such as Roger Pratt's Coleshill.

Figure 11: Lower-Ground Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953. Note the brick-vaulted portion to the centre of the eastern rank of rooms (bottom-centre) (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

Figure 12: Ground Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 180)

Figure 13: First Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 180)

Figure 14: Second Floor plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

Figure 15: Roof plan of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

Figure 16: Lateral section of Ramsbury Manor House, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

The Double Pile Plan Though aristocratic country houses were slow to take up the idea of ranges two rooms in depth, cautious experimentation had been made as early as the late-fourteenth century (Gomme & Maguire, 2008, p. 125). It wasn’t until the early C17 that the ‘full double-pile’ began to emerge, as traced by Summerson (1966) through the ‘Book of Architecture of John Thorpe’ (Gomme & Maguire, 2008). It was at Holland House (1605) that a full range of rooms, at equal depth to the front rank, were placed behind the hall, thus fulfilling Summerson’s definition of the ‘full double-pile plan’. Yet, multiple drafts indicate that the architect (possibly Thorpe) was clearly still struggling to resolve a prevailing problem: articulation of movement throughout the nascent form (ibid). The answer, however, had already been explored as early as the 1590s, within Thorpe’s reorganisation of the Great House at Chelsea for the Cecil Family, where the radical innovation of separating the front and rear ranks of rooms, by means of a continuous central corridor had been proposed. This innovative introduction, which ran along the lateral spine of the building, allowed for direct access into all the rooms, but also suffered a serious downside: it was without any natural light whatsoever, a problem succinctly summarized by Gomme and Maguire (2008, p. 126):

“Corridors were certainly new and like other architectural novelties took their time to become an accepted form; and as numbers of later architects and their clients were to find, the design of very large double-pile houses requires both much suppleness and a willingness to tolerate certain compromises: if you don’t have a corridor you must have rooms in series; if you do, you are going to have difficulties with lighting it.”

The name perhaps most synonymous with mastery of the ‘Double-pile’ is that of Sir Roger Pratt (1620 – 84), indeed he coined the phrase to describe his house at Coleshill (1672), designed ‘to be most useful’ for a ‘private man’, shaped like a ‘commodious … oblong square’ and comprised of two main sections; with ‘the whole be so contrived that each room leith to other with best convenience’ (Lipsedge, 2012, p. 25). The Hall at Coleshill contained both entrance and staircase, an unusual arrangement in the 1650s (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 94), but one which eliminated those problems of corridor lighting, allowing for illumination of the central portion of corridor to the first-floor (see Figure 17).

Hooke’s plan of Ramsbury Manor followed directly (albeit rather late) in this lineage, the axial relationship of hall and parlour being key to this typical Restoration plan. Hooke too resolved the issue of illumination to the central hall, with Cupola elegantly descending through the attic storey. It seems, however, that the ideal plan for Ramsbury was somewhat compromised, owing to the reuse of significant elements of basement storey from the earlier house.

Figure 17: Plans of Coleshill House, Berkshire, completed 1662 (Hill & Cornforth, 1966, p. 94)

3.3.6. Ramsbury Manor House: Implications of the Basement Plan Where Coleshill exhibits a continuous axial corridor at basement level, it is interrupted at Ramsbury by the brick-vaulted portion of the building which, though only partially visible within Figure 11, in fact projects through the line of the central corridor, finishing upon the longitudinal axis of the building. Such interruption is again reflected at ground-floor level, where the central wall between Entrance Hall and Saloon is necessarily supported (Figure 12).

Whilst it remains to be seen whether this vaulted portion of the basement originates from the earlier building on the site, the fabric forming the east and west exterior walls to the basement level surely does not form part of the 1681-1686 construction, for as Hussey notes:

“The fact that the in the basement courses the bricks are of only 1 1/2 –in. thickness, and are associated with [stone] mullioned windows of Elizabethan-type chamfer, suggests they were reused from the earlier house…” (December 7 1961)

The fact this brickwork is also English-bonded provides another sure indicator of earlier construction; being the oldest and most popular form of brick bonding until the late C17 (The Heritage Directory, 2009), English was ultimately superseded by Flemish Bond – an import which first appeared correct in Kew Palace, 1631 (Lynch, 1994, p. 46) and became the fashionable bond across the entire country (for all decorative brickwork) from the middle of the C17 (Brunskill, 1997).

Figure 18: Detail of Ramsbury Manor, east elevation. Note the Ovolo-and-fillet stone mullion window and the change in fabric, below stone string course, to basement level (including substantial areas of 1 ½ inch (38mm), English-bonded bricks)

If, then, it is supposed that the basic plan form of Ramsbury originates from a portion of the Elizabethan house of 1567 (or its later remodelling), the fact that both known iterations of the earlier house comprise of nine bays to the eastern front should come as little surprise (see Figure 1 and Figure 3).

Thus, with Hooke forced to compromise upon a central, longitudinal spine-wall to part of the ground-floor storey, the return to a central corridor at first-floor level resulted in rather precarious lateral cross-section (Figure 16), where the corridor walls impose distinct bending moment within the floor structure, creating discernible deflection within the finished floor level. That such a design

26 came from the pen of one so well-versed in the calculation of forces comes as something of a surprise (though the fact that no failure has ever occurred should perhaps be considered testament to his understanding).

Hooke’s plan resulted in an even number of bays to the north and south elevations, beautifully handled by the imposition of a two-bay breakfront with twin doorways (formed in stone to the north), all surmounted by a small pediment. Such compromise, again, may lie within restrictions imposed by the antecedent plan form (and the need for suitably proportioned windows), though the enlargement of the central corridor stairwells - to two bays in width - allows space for entrance from the full-height basement elevation to the south; something impossible to achieve using the Coleshill plan, for example (Figure 17).4

Thus, as the English-bonded brickwork still visible within the main house provides clues to both development and design of the extant building, the same is true of those Out Offices to the south.

3.4. The Out Offices or Courtyard Cottages Hussey (December 21 1961), showed little interest in the dating of the “…base court below the south end of the house”, describing it as a “moot point”, yet close examination of the brickwork also provides some insight into the origins of the extant Courtyard Cottages, those ‘out offices’ completed in 1686 (Louw, 1987) (see 3.3.3) and their further development in 1775.

The earliest known illustration of the extant house, with its attendant service buildings, dates from 1773 (Figure 19). Although the drawing is clearly somewhat stylised5, it does show a disconnected collection of buildings between house and river, arranged in a loose courtyard plan.

These buildings, whatever their precise form, are surely those completed in 1686 following the death of Sir William Jones, and it is contended they too may have developed from the Elizabethan remains of the former house. Constructed upon the site of those enclosures (even buildings) illustrated to the south of the main house within the plan of 1676 (Figure 2), the William Jones “out offices” were built in English-bonded brickwork, either because this waning fashion was still considered appropriate for such utilitarian construction, or because they contain vestiges of

4 It should be noted that, where the same problem occurred at Eltham Lodge (1665), Hugh May utilised the blind window to satisfactory effect 5 The house, for example has been rotated to exhibit its eastern front and the walled garden incorrectly proportioned

Elizabethan (and/or C17) material.6 Thus, when remodelled (as part of extensive work to park and grounds) to form the extant, coherent courtyard (c.1775), the bond perpetuated, despite being totally out of fashion for the late C18 aesthetic.

Figure 19: Detail from Andrews’ and Dury’s Map of Wiltshire, 1773

3.4.1. Lady Elizabeth and Sir William (Langham) Jones Elizabeth Jones inherited Ramsbury, upon the death of her brother William, in early 1766. She married William Langham, who adopted the name Jones, and it was he who:

“…laid out and expended large sums of money at the request of Lady Jones in improvements of the mansion and pleasure grounds”. (WSHC, 1883/186)

Such work involved extensive landscaping of the grounds, clearly underway by the time Andrews and Dury produced their 1773 map (Figure 19). The walled kitchen garden was relocated to the east,

6 It should be cautioned that no 2 ½ inch brick to match the Basement storey of the main house has yet been identified

28 its four-square layout discernible7, though its north-south orientation perhaps highlights further inaccuracies within the cartography.8

By 1800, the Ramsbury–Marlborough road (and various public footpaths) had been successfully diverted (WSHC, 1883/220), allowing for park extensions to the north and the east of the house (as illustrated with William Stanley’s map of 1818 - Figure 20). The entrance drive was extended, terminating at a new pair of Lodges (with late C17 gate piers relocated) and the ribbon lake with ornamental bridge had been created. The walled garden can be seen, correctly orientated, with the sunken trackway leading directly to stable block.9 Decorative modifications were also made to the main house at this time, and it has been convincingly argued that Robert Mitchell was employed by Langham-Jones for the architectural work (Hussey, December 21 1961) (Benson, 1984, p. 15).

3.4.2. Robert Mitchell Robert Mitchell is said to have been born in Aberdeen. In 1801, he published 'Plans, etc. of Buildings erected in England and Scotland; with An Essay to elucidate the Grecian, Roman, and Gothic Architecture' (which featured his designs for Cottesbrooke Hall, amongst others). He presumably also wrote a book described in a bookseller's catalogue as 'Mitchell's Designs for Rural Villas on Economical Principles' (1785). No copy of this is known (Dictionary of Scottish Architects, 2017).

Mitchell designed in the style of James Wyatt. His larger houses combine neoclassical detail with Palladian porticos and attached office blocks, popular in the earlier Georgian period (ibid).

Known works by Mitchell include:

 Cottesbrooke Hall extensions, c.1770-95 (see Figure 21)  Moor Place, Hertfordshire, 1775-9  Preston Hall, started 1791  Craycombe House, Date Unknown  The Rotunda, Leicester Square, c.1800. This remarkable brick building was constructed to exhibit the panoramas of Robert Barker (See Figures 22 & 23): “The rotunda was taller than a regular three-storey building and encompassed within two circular panorama viewing chambers, one above the other. It was almost perfectly round in plan, with the exception of an external shaft for a staircase to provide access to the upper

7 This created four separate plots, ideal for a four-yearly crop rotation system. Larger gardens may well have had further subdivisions. It was advised that crops should run from north to south within these plots, to avoid rows of crops shading their neighbours and allow an even exposure to sunshine (Delamer, 1855) 8 The longest walls would typically run along an east-west axis to optimise the southerly aspect – see the Stanley Map of 1818 (Figure 20) 9 Such concealed interconnection allowed for discrete transportation of necessary manure

viewing chamber. The rotunda had a conical roof which was almost completely made of glass, supported by a metal framework, which was ingeniously designed to provide natural light to both panorama viewing chambers below. The roof framework and both viewing platforms were supported by a central column which ran the full height of the building. The walls had no windows, except for a row of small square ones, just a couple of feet below the roof-line, which allowed in additional natural light to illuminate the interior.” The structure still stands, as the Church of Notre Dame de France (The Regency Redingote, 2017).

It is Mitchell’s work for Cottesbrooke in particular which bears striking resemblance to that at Ramsbury (including the entrance lodges and much of the internal decoration) (Hussey, December 21 1961) (Benson, 1984). The evidence is further bolstered by the fact that Cottesbrooke (built by the Langham family in 1710), was extended by Mitchell for Sir James Langham, brother to Sir William Langham Jones (Benson, 1984, pp. 13-16).

3.4.3. The Orangery The Orangery building, to the south of the service courtyard, was clearly constructed in 1775, as indicated by the escutcheon decoration within the pediment tympanum (Figure 25). According to Hussey (December 21 1961): “The design’s elegance and its reliance for effect on tall plain arches are characteristic of other works by Mitchell”, although such design forms a fairly standard pattern for a Georgian Orangery.

Figure 20: Detail from ‘Swindon 9’ map by William Stanley, 1818, showing Ramsbury House, Park and Gardens (British Library, Maps OSD 166)

Figure 21: Robert Mitchell’s design for Cottesbrooke, 1795 (Mitchell, 1801, p. 47)

Figure 22: Detail from Wallis Plan of The Cities of London And Westminster, 1801, showing the Panorama, located just to the north-east of Leicester Fields, now Leicester Square, on the site of Leicester House.

Figure 23: Section through Mitchell’s Rotunda, Leicester Square, c.1800 (Mitchell, 1801, p. 56)

Of particular note is the muddle of English-bond header courses still discernible below sill level to the south elevation, an indication that Mitchell utilised the footings of a previous structure. The pattern for the new construction soon settles into typical Flemish-bond, something which continues through the side elevations, and indeed throughout the parapet which skirts the entire courtyard complex. This sits in sharp contrast to the curious late use of English-bond elsewhere.

3.4.4. Courtyard Cottages: External Design It is highly likely that the loose courtyard ‘out offices’ of 1686 (Figure 19) were also consolidated by Mitchell during his work of 1775, joined together to make a coherent whole, in the form of a three- sided quadrangle (Figure 20 Figure 24). The unusually late use of English-bond can be explained by this expansion upon the existing fabric (some of which can still be seen with the north-east elevation of the extant structure - Figure 26 - and within the conspicuous cross walls within the building - see Appendix 3 & 4). The roof structure was also clearly constructed at this time, the use of a ridge board being typical of later C18 work (Figure 27). This roof was then skirted by a parapet, so typical of construction following the 1774 Building Act. This act also ensured that sash-window boxes were concealed behind the brickwork, evident within (almost all) the windows throughout (see 3.4.7).

The final indication of extensive revision at this date lies within the eastern courtyard elevation. Two bricks, located beyond convenient reach, bear the inscriptions ‘WR 1775’ and ‘RC 1775’ (Figure 28). Whilst such inscribed dates should be approached cautiously, it is notable that the letter ‘W’ takes

32 the ‘archaic’ form: interlocking ‘V’s went out of regular usage, on gravestones at least, by the mid- C18 (Lacy, 2017).

Figure 24: Detail of Ramsbury Western Division Map, 1839 (WHSC, 1792/38L)

Figure 25: The south elevation of the Orangery, inscribed ‘WJ, 1775’. English-bonded courses are evident below sill-level

Figure 26: The north-east elevation of the Courtyard Cottages, exhibiting three distinct phases of brickwork: two in English- bond and a parapet in Flemish

Figure 27: The roof structure of the Courtyard Cottages building

Figure 28: Inscriptions within bricks of the eastern Courtyard Elevation, reading ‘WR 1775’ and ‘RC 1775’

By 1869-71, it is clear that the courtyard cottages featured three-over-three windows throughout the south-east elevation, to the right-hand side of the Orangery (Figure 29).

Figure 29: View of Ramsbury Manor from the south, by John Henry Leonard, c.1870 (Benson, 1984)

Elsewhere, the original pattern may have been three-over three to the first floor and six-over-six to the ground, as is (only just) discernible to the east of the Orangery (Figure 29). This asymmetrical

35 elevation is perhaps explained by the change in floor height to the south-east corner, something still discernible in 1954 (see 3.4.7), and perhaps an indication of the purely functional use of this area.

Where the eastern external elevation is a full two-storeys in height, the western elevation gradually disappears into the sloping ground. Such design ensures that views over the park and gardens are restricted from service areas.

3.4.5. Courtyard Cottages: Internal Design Hussey (December 7 1961), suggests that the Courtyard Cottages originally consisted of “…married quarters consisting of a dozen little houses”, but it seems that the plan was never so simple.

For example, should the coherent quadrangle have been born at the same time as the Orangery, then the necessary stove housed to its rear must have taken up the central southern apartment, from the very inception of the building.10 The Laundry, too, would have required extensive accommodation by this date.

The OS map of 1886 perhaps provides some clues as to divisions within the Cottage complex in the Late Victorian era (Figure 30), but we must turn to another document for detailed insight into this building at the start of the Edwardian era.

Figure 30: Ordnance Survey map of 1886 (Surveyed 1885)

10 Towards the end of the C18, many landowners owned huge collections of orange and lemon trees, housed within heated Orangeries, specially built for the purpose (Grant, 2013)

3.4.6. Courtyard Cottages: The Edwardian Evidence The specification for electrification of Ramsbury Manor, produced by Drake and Gorham Ltd (WSHC, 2872/258/1) provides telling insight into the arrangement of the Courtyard Cottages in the year 1909.11 Of those areas destined for ‘plain fittings’, the Laundry (comprising of: Wash House and Ironing Room), the Gardener’s Cottage (comprising of: Kitchen, Back Kitchen x 2, Stairs and Entrance, Bedroom x 3 and Sitting Room) and the Butler’s Cottage (comprising of: Parlour x 2), Entrance Hall, Kitchen, Scullery, Larder, Landing and Bedroom x 3) are all included. It is clear from sketched plans to install a water softener, dated 1925 (WSHC, 2872/257/2), that the that the Butler’s Cottage is located to the north-east corner12, therefore the location of the Gardener’s Cottage may also be deduced, located to the south-west (see Appendix 3 & 4). The precise extent of these apartments at time of inception remains unclear – for example, it seems that the Butler’s accommodation was expanded by at least one bay to the south at ground floor level (since the associated doorway has been blocked) and the Gardener’s Cottages had later (Edwardian) bathroom facilities introduced to the east (at FF level). The electrification schedule further implies that a phase of work was undertaken during the Edwardian era and that there were clearly no other occupants to the Cottages by 1909, with significant space devoted to storage and to Laundry facilities.

Laundry Space Existing plans produced in 1953 show the laundry was located within a double-height space to the west wing of the Courtyard buildings (Figure 34). This likely marks its original 1775 location: the laundry would, after all, be the priority area to push outside the main body of the house, intending to avoid damp air and caustic (amongst other) aromas affecting the occupants, thus was often built on “…on the periphery of servant’s quarters” (Hardyment, 1997, p. 221). A double-height space was the “first essential” for the oppressive atmosphere generated by such activities (op cit. Hardyment, p.223). Here, blind windows to the ground floor prevented unwanted observation over park and gardens to the west, with views restricted to the eastern courtyard only. High-level windows to the west provided extra illumination. The essential flagstone floor was still in place as late as 1953.

As mechanisation of the washing process inexorably progressed (modern equipment requirement requiring less ventilation), it seems the laundry expanded. The Wash House moved north, into the adjacent ground floor room.13 With the requirements for wet and dry areas to have good interconnection, a doorway was knocked through, for ease of movement.

11 Work undertaken by Sir Francis Burdett after he took possession in 1900 12 And is furnished with the elaborate later-C18 ceiling to Sitting Room and Hob Grate to first floor bedroom 13 Prior to 1909

The Orangery Orangeries with glazed roofs became increasingly common through the C19 and were standard practice by the end of the century, originating not just from a better understanding of the benefits of light on plants, but also the prevalence of modern materials such as cast and wrought iron (Grant, 2013, p. 14).

Therefore, the Orangery at Ramsbury was somewhat antiquated by the turn of the twentieth century. Thus, a number of quotes were sought for installation of a glazed roof and renewal of the heating system, with tender drawings provided by Messenger & Co. in 1903, revealing the extent of the work14 (see Figure 31 & Figure 32).

The work was ultimately undertaken by G.A. Parsons of Oxford Road, Reading and completed July 1903 (WSHC, 2872/254/1).

Figure 31: Plan showing proposed work to Orangery, drawn by Messenger & Co. Ltd, Westminster, April 1903 (WSHC, 2872/254/1)

14 Estimated by Messenger & Co to cost a total of £108. 5. 0. (£88 of which supply and installation of the glazed, timber and iron roof) (WSHC, 2872/254/1)

Figure 32: Section of proposed roof to Orangery, drawn by Messenger & Co. Ltd, Westminster, April 1903 (WSHC, 2872/254/1)

It remains unclear what other work (beyond electrification, and the expansion and modernisation of both the Butler’s and Gardener’s Cottages) was undertaken to the Courtyard Cottages during the pre-war era, as the only known photograph for this time (Figure 33) shows no discernible changes from the painting of 1870 (Figure 29).15 For clear insight into any form of historical layout, we must look to 1953 and the changes wrought under the ownership of The Earl of Wilton.

Figure 33: Ramsbury Manor viewed from the south, 1908 (Francis Frith Collection, 2017) ©Francis Frith

15 Except that the large stack serving the Wash House and Ironing Room is clearly in use

3.4.7. Courtyard Cottages: C20 Evidence Following purchase of the estate in 1951, Wilton employed the Architect Marshall Sisson to design changes to the main House, the Courtyard Cottages and the Stable Block, producing a series of proposals by November 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1MS).

Thus, we see the earliest plan of the Courtyard Cottages, most noticeably with its double height laundry space still intact (Figure 34).

Figure 34: Existing Ground and First Floor Plans, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953. The double-height laundry space is highlighted (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

The proposal drawings also provide telling insight into the extensive changes undertaken in c.1953, for it appears that all of the work was carried out,16 leaving the plans essentially as found today (Figure 35).

The most significant changes, apart from almost wholesale revision of internal partitions, include the subdivision of the Laundry space (and the insertion of a new staircase) and revision of the dropped floor level to the south-east corner. It is clear that the associated windows to the southern elevation had already been changed by this date, enlarged to their extant six-over-six pattern (Figure 36) and installed with their boxes visible, in the pre-1774 manner. From these drawings it is also possible to chart any post-c.1953 changes.

16 To the Courtyard Cottages, at least

Development Plans found within Appendix 3 and 4 chart those material changes, as they are currently understood.

Figure 35: Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

Figure 36: Proposed changes to the Courtyard Cottages Elevations, drawn by Marshall Sisson Architects for the Earl of Wilton, 1953 (WSHC, 4373/1WS)

4. Proposals and Potential impact The Courtyard Cottages are, for the most part, uninhabited, increasing the risks of neglect and decay; problems best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use (that is consistent with their conservation).

Peregrine Bryant Architecture take a positive and collaborative approach to Constructive Conservation: the protection and adaptation of historic assets through the active management of change. Such an approach dictates that guardians of historic assets should not be discouraged from adaption, provided that established heritage values are not eroded or compromised in the delicate process of change. In such spirit, this proposal seeks the careful alteration of the Courtyard Cottages to enable viable future use of the property, allowing public benefit to flow from the proposed development. Thus, the narrative of the building may be allowed to continue, with careful, well- considered adaption for contemporary use.

Although the articulation of movement within the building will change, it can be demonstrated that the assumed original plan of a dozen, separate cottages was unlikely to have ever existed (due to facility for Butler’s Cottage, Gardener’s Cottage, Storage to the south-east and the extensive Laundry space), and that most of the original layout has clearly also been lost (due principally to work during the Edwardian Era and the extensive interventions of the mid-C20 – see 3.4.7).

These proposals therefore seek careful adaption of the extant building, minimising harm to any remaining historic fabric - through considered demolition of only that which allows for recirculation of the internal spaces (see Drawings 173-HE-RC-101 to 173-HE-RC-105).

The arrangement of the Butler’s Cottage is to be retained, allowing only for access through the historical apartments at First Floor level. Where demolition is proposed within the Gardener’s Cottage, all significant fixtures and fittings are to be retained for re-use during the works (for example the Edwardian units within F-R15 and F-R16 and any relevant doors/doorcases). Such an approach to considered re-use will be utilised throughout the project. Ceiling downstands (which likely indicate historic divisions) will be retained, allowing for continued reading of any earlier configuration. The post-1954 infill of the Laundry is proposed for reversal to ground floor level only; re-opening this space for a Dining Hall to entertain visiting students and other guests. Such an approach has been declined (here and elsewhere) at first floor level, to ensure maximum accommodation for students and researchers, thus fulfilling the charitable Remit of the Trust (see accompanying Trustees Statement) and maximising public benefit. In this spirit, Accessibility has also been considered, allowing for a ground-floor accessible WC, shower room and bedroom (see Drawings 173-HE-RC-201 to 173-HE-RC-205).

5. Bibliography Baggs, A., Freeman, J., & Stevenson, J. (1983). Parishes: Ramsbury. In D. Crowley, A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume 12, Ramsbury and Selkley Hundreds; the Borough of Marlborough (pp. 12-46). London.

Benson, J. (1984). Ramsbury Manor: The Alterations 1766 - 1800. BA Dissertation: University of Edinburgh.

BHO. (2017, 11 22). Parishes: East Garston. Retrieved from BRITISH HISTORY ONLINE: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol4/pp247-251

Brunskill, R. (1997). Brick Building in Britain. London: Victor Gollancz.

Colvin, H. (1975). Robert Hooke and ramsbury Manor. Country Life, January 23, 194-195.

Colvin, H. (1999). X. Robert Hooke and Ramsbury Manor. In H. Colvin, Essays in English architectural history (pp. 191 - 194). New Haven, Ct. : Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, by Yale University Press.

Crossette, J. (1983). JONES, Sir William (1630-82), of Southampton Square, Bloomsbury, Mdx. and Ramsbury, Wilts. In B. (. Henning, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons, 1660- 1690 [3 vols]. London: Haynes.

Delamer, E. (1855). The Kitchen Garden and Flower Garden. London: George Routledge & Company.

Dictionary of Scottish Architects. (2017, 11 29). Basic Biographical Details: Robert Mitchell. Retrieved from Dictionary of Scottish Architects : http://www.scottisharchitects.org.uk/architect_full.php?id=408104

Francis Frith Collection. (2017, 11 30). Ramsbury, Manor House 1908. Retrieved from Francis Frith: https://www.francisfrith.com/ramsbury/ramsbury-manor-house-1908_60951

Gomme, A., & Maguire, A. (2008). Design and Plan in the Country House: From Castle Donjons to Palladian Boxes. Yale University Press.

Gotch, J. (1919). The English home from Charles I to George IV; its architecture, decoration and garden design. London: B.T. Batsford.

Graham, A. (2016). Military COntractors and the Money Markets, 1700-15. In A. Graham, & P. Walsh, The British Fiscal-Military States, 1660-c.1783. London: Routledge.

Grant, F. (2013). Glasshouses. Oxford: Shire Publications.

Hardyment, C. (1997). Behind the scenes: Domestic arrangements in Historic Houses. The National Trust.

Henderson, F. (2007). Unpublished Material from the Memorandum Book of Robert Hooke, Guildhall Library MS 1758. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 129-175.

Hill, C., & Cornforth, J. (1966). English Country Houses: Caroline. 1625-1685. London: Country Life Ltd.

Hugh Pagan Ltd. (2003). Architecture & illustrated books - Catalogue 45. London: Hugh Pagan Ltd (London).

Hussey, C. (December 14 1961). Ramsbury Manor, Wiltshire - II. Country Life, 1526-1529.

Hussey, C. (December 21 1961). Ramsbury Manor, Wiltshire - III. Country Life, 1580-1583.

Hussey, C. (December 7 1961). Ramsbury Manor, Wiltshire - I. Country Life, 1376-1380.

Jones, W. (1682). A just and modest vindication of the proceedings of the two last Parliaments. London: Anon.

Jones, W. (1689). The design of enslaving England discovered in the incroachments upon the powers and privileges of Parliament by K. Charles II being a new corrected impression of that excellent piece intituled... London: Anon

Lacy, R. (2017, 11 29). Inscribed Letters and Protective Marks - The Case of the W. Retrieved from Spade and the Grave: Death and Burial Through an Archaeological Lens: https://spadeandthegrave.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/inscribed-letters-protective-marks- the-case-of-the-w/

Leach, P. (1979). Ragley Hall Reconsidered. Archaeological Journal, Volume 136 265-268.

Lipsedge, K. (2012). Domestic Space in Eighteenth-Century British Novels. AIAA.

LMA. (2017, November 30). HOOKE, ROBERT. Retrieved from London Metropolitan Archives: Collections Catalogue: https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/LMA_OPAC/web_detail/REFD+CLC~2F49 5?SESSIONSEARCH

Louw, H. (1987). New Light on Ramsbury Manor. SAHGB, 45-49.

Lynch, G. (1994). Brickwork: History, technology and Practice: Volume 1. Shaftsbury: Donhead.

Mitchell, R. (1801). 'Plans, etc. of Buildings erected in England and Scotland; with An Essay to elucidate the Grecian, Roman, and Gothic Architecture' . London: Printed by Wilson & Co. for the Author.

Neale, J. (1820). Views of the seats of noblemen and gentlemen, in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. London: Sherwood, Jones and Co.

Robert Hooke's Books. (2017, 11 28). Other extant books - Record details. Retrieved from hookesbooks.com: http://www.hookesbooks.com/wp- content/themes/hookesbooks/details_other.php?id=32

Stranton, C. (1909). Survey of the Lands of William First Earl of PembrokeTranscribed from Vellum Rolls in the possession of the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery. Oxford: Roxburghe Club.

Summerson, J. (1966). The book of architecture of John Thorpe in Sir John Soane's Museum. Edited, with biographical and analytical studies by John Summerson. Glasgow: Printed for the Walpole Society by R. Maclehose, University Press.

The Castle Studies Group. (2007). Licences to Crenellate 1199 - 1264. The Castle Studies Group Journal, 234-245.

The Heritage Directory. (2009). Brick Bonds: Heritage Note. www.theheritagedirectory.co.uk.

The Regency Redingote. (2017, 11 29). Robert Barker’s Leicester Square Panorama: The Rotunda. Retrieved from Historical Snippets of Regency England:

https://regencyredingote.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/robert-barkers-leicester-square- panorama-the-rotunda/

Walker, M. (2009). Robert Hooke, the early Royal Society and the practices of architecture. University of York: PhD Thesis.

Worsley, G. (2004). Taking Hooke Seriously. The Georgian Group Journal XIV, 1-25.

Appendix 1: List Entries

Name: RAMSBURY MANOR

List entry Number: 1184029

Grade: I

Date first listed: 22-Aug-1966

Listing NGR: SU2569570992

Details:

Great House. 1681-83, probably by Robert Hooke for Sir William Jones, attorney-general. On site of house of the Earl of Pembroke c1560 replacing a palace of the Bishops of Salisbury. Brick, with stone dressings. Tiled roof. 2-storey with attics and basement, becoming 3 storey on south. 9 x 6 bays, double pile plan with servants cottages to south forming courtyard enclosed by conservatory of 1775. Centre 3 bays of elevation quoined and projected, having central glazed doors up flight of steps and segmental pediment. Crowning pediment containing arms and festoons. 24-pane sashes with stone architraves and cornices and rich modillion cornice. Roof hipped with 6 flat roofed dormers, 4 to returns. Cupola lighting central well, and panelled stacks. Rear elevation similar, north with 2 central bays with pediment and pair of segmental pedimented doors. Interior: Entrance hall with C17 panelling leads to rear saloon with C18 plaster ceiling and good carved overmantel in style of Grinling Gibbons. Principal stair on north c1800. Secondary stair to south of cross axis has heavy turned balusters and connecting bridge at first floor level. Most other internal features of mid to late C18, including fireplaces and library, and one bedroom with Chinese wallpaper. Conservatory south of courtyard of 5 tall arched windows and full length pediment.

Name: RAMSBURY MANOR (Park and Garden)

List Entry Number: 1001242

Grade: II

Date first registered: 01-Sep-1987

Details:

A late C18 park including woodland and parkland originating from the late C17, surrounding a house built in the 1680's. The Manor together with its Park and Gardens are not open to the public.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT

Believed to be see of the Bishops of Ramsbury in C10 and C11 until it was moved to Salisbury 1075- 1078 (VCH). Granted to Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford 1545, Duke of Somerset 1547, and William

Herbert, Earl of Pembroke 1552. The latter sold it to Henry Powle, lawyer and politician 1676-7. 1681 Powle sold it to Sir William Jones, who had the Manor House rebuilt by Robert Hooke but retained the existing stable block.

Improvements to the Manor and Park continued during the latter half of C18 under the ownership of Sir William Langham Jones (1766-1791). By 1775 the lake with ornamental bridge at eastern end, park extensions (N and E), entrance drive extension, new pair of Lodges with late C17 gatepiers from elsewhere on the estate and the Orangery (on the south front of the Manor (1775) had been built. C19-C20, the Manor saw little change, staying in the same family through marriage to the Burdett family until sold in 1951 to the Earl of Wilton and next to Sir William Rootes, who sold it in 1964-5. The Manor remains in private ownership, together with its Park and Gardens.

SITE DESCRIPTION

LOCATION AREA BOUNDARIES LANDFORM SETTING

A site of c 62 ha, 5 miles northeast of Marlborough, sloping gently to the southeast to the River Kennet which runs through the southern half of the site. The southern boundary of the site is formed by woodlands, The Plantation and to the far south by Cutnights. The northern boundary follows the Bank-pale on White Hill.

ENTRANCES AND APPROACHES

The main entrance to Ramsbury Manor lies along White Hill to the east of the site. It is marked by late C18 wrought iron gates, a set of gate piers of c1680, and two late C18 flanking lodges (all listed grade II*).

PRINCIPAL BUILDING

The Manor (listed grade I), is situated in the centre of the site, c 50m north of the lake. The two storey, brick house, with attics and basement has a hipped roof and is adorned by 24 pane sashes with stone architraves. Circa 200m northeast of the Manor is a mid C17 timber framed stableblock with a brick façade (listed Grade II).

GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS c8ha, laid to lawn, extends to the north, west and south of the Manor. It is separated from the park by a late C18, brick ha ha. To the southwest of the Manor, along the lakeside, is an area known as the Wilderness (Andrews and Dury's map of Wiltshire, 1773), situated immediately northeast of the walled garden. Within this area is a late C18 or early C19 rustic Bath House (Tithe map, 1839), built of brick and flint. To the southwest of the Bath House lies the Fisherman's Hut, a small rustic building probably dating from the late C18 or early C19.

PARK

The park surrounds the Manor and its Pleasure Gardens on all sides. To the west lies Old Park Wood, dating back to late C17 (Walgrave's survey, 1676), to the north a thin belt of trees planted in late C18 when the park was extended north and eastwards. The lake, created in the late C18, runs through the full width of the park from the southwest to the northeast. In the centre of the southern park stands the late C18 or early C19 Manor Cottage (Tithe map, 1839), screened by a small piece of

47 woodland. By the late C19, the southern strip of parkland was in use as a Horse Race, with a pavilion (now (2002) no longer there) standing towards its eastern end.

KITCHEN GARDENS

The late C18 kitchen garden (Andrew's and Dury's Map of Wiltshire) of c 2ha, stands c 500m to the southwest of the Manor, and is enclosed by brick walls of c 2m high. Enclosure formally laid out as ornamental flower garden and central lily pond. A walled garden, situated on the site of the current walled garden, is indicated on William Walgrave's survey of Ramsbury dated 1676.

Name: STABLES TO RAMSBURY MANOR

List entry Number: 1034064

Grade: II

Date first listed: 22-Aug-1966

Listing NGR: SU2581171138

Details:

Stables, mid C17. Timber framed with brick facade. Central carriageway and 2 carriage entrances either side, each with pair of 6-panel doors and half-round fanlight, and keystone. Gabled end projections with large asymmetrical oval keyed oeils be boeuf with stone architraves. Round headed light in tympanum and 4 dormer windows to attic. Design has been claimed to be by Isaac de Caus.

Name: EAST GATE AND LODGES TO RAMSBURY MANOR

List entry Number: 1365500

Grade: II*

Date first listed: 22-Aug-1966

Listing NGR: SU2633271245

Details:

Gates, gate piers and flanking lodges. c1680 and 1800. Ashlar limestone and slate roofs on lodges. Wrought iron gates with gilded javelins. Piers are panelled with Corinthian nook columns and festoons on frieze, consoled cornice and crestings of lions supporting shields. To the piers were added in C18, possibly by Robert Mitchell, Palladian rusticated flanking pedestrian arches with wheel-headed gates and anthemion ironwork supporting lamps over. Beyond, square terminal pavilions with central guilloche band and 12-pane sash within shallow recessed arch, urn in tympanum and blind balustrade below window. The return has niches and blind attic windows. Central chimney with patera decoration.

Name: BRIDGE AND WEIR ON RIVER KENNET

List entry Number: 1184067

Grade: II

Date first listed: 06-Mar-1985

Listing NGR: SU2628271078

Details:

Bridge and weir under, retaining lake for Ramsbury Manor (q.v.). c1775-1800. Brick and flint decorative bands round 5 arches, the centre larger. Limestone dentil course at base of parapet. Important to the setting of Ramsbury Manor.

Appendix 2: East Garston Woodland to Ramsbury Manor House