Battleswick Farm, , Historic Asset Assessment

Leigh Alston MA (Oxon), Architectural Historian

Leigh Alston MA (Oxon) 4 Nayland Road Bures St Mary Suffolk CO8 5BX Tel. (01787) 228016 [email protected]

May 2017

Battleswick Farm, East Donyland, , Essex

(TM 025 220)

This report is based on a site visit of 20th April 2017 and is intended to supplement an assessment made by Dave Stenning, formerly Essex County Council’s Historic Buildings Officer, whose sketch is included. The property’s postal address is Battleswick Farm, Road, Rowhedge, Colchester CO5 7JP, but it lies in the parish of East Donyland (of which Rowhedge forms the principal settlement). The building is omitted in error from the Schedule of Listed Buildings but is currently subject to re-evaluation (Historic case no. 1441357).

Summary

Battleswick Farm occupies the site of the medieval manor of ‘Battleshall alias Battleswick’ in East Donyland, which bears the name of its 13th century holder Richard Battle of . For much of its existence the manor appears to have operated either as a grange or a tenanted farm belonging to the larger estate based at Wivenhoe Hall which it overlooks on the opposite bank of the River Colne. The picturesque weatherboarded and largely timber-framed farmhouse is a building of considerable historic interest that evolved in a highly abnormal manner. It consists of five principal structures, all of which were shown on the tithe map of 1839: a small late-17th century central hall of 1.5 storeys is flanked on the east by a much larger parlour of two storeys that dates from the early-16th century and on the west by a single storeyed kitchen of the late-16th or early-17th century. Single-storeyed brick service wings were added to the front and rear of the kitchen in the 18th or early-19th century. The parlour preserves a number of impressive Tudor features including an intact crown-post roof (currently inaccessible but seen during recent roofing work), two doorways with four-centred arches, expensive close-studding and a rare enclosed stair in a dedicated narrow bay. Much of its framing is hidden by later plaster on the ground floor (which may have protected early decoration), but it appears to have formed the parlour cross-wing of a high-status demolished hall to the rear (south) and originally contained a single room on each floor. The evidence of high status in the early-16th century suggests a direct link with Wivenhoe Hall, which enjoyed a brief flowing at the same period when it was rebuilt as a grand mansion by the Earls of Oxford before falling quickly into decay after the 17th Earl sold it in 1584. Battleswick Farm would have been a highly conspicuous feature in the landscape when viewed from the new mansion and may well have been rebuilt by the De Veres at the same time. The single-storied western structure was initially a detached kitchen behind the Tudor house and retains a completely intact and heavily soot-encrusted roof with clasped-purlins and wind-braces. Detached kitchens of this kind were once common but are now notoriously rare. By the end of the 17th century the house had been converted into a more modest farmhouse, reflecting the demise of Wivenhoe Hall, by demolishing the earlier hall and inserting a small replacement between the back wall of the parlour and the kitchen. Although omitted in error from the Schedule of Listed Buildings the resulting house clearly meets the statutory criteria for listing at grade II given the presence of the rare kitchen and the various early-16th century architectural features of the parlour. The threshing barn to the north-east of the house is a mid-19th century example of standard form that would not normally merit separate listing but lies within the curtilage of the farmhouse and should be protected accordingly. It should be noted that the medieval manorial site is also of historic interest given its strategic position commanding the River Colne, close to the reputed site of Colchester’s original port, and may yield archaeological evidence of unusually early occupation.

1 Historic Background

Figure 1 Current site plan based on the Ordnance Survey of 1970 highlighting in red the farmhouse to the west and the threshing barn to the east. The farm is now approached by a dedicated track from Rowhedge Road to the east and overlooks the River Colne on the east and the narrow valley of the Birch Brook to the south.

Battleswick Farm occupies the site of the medieval manor of ‘Battleshall alias Battleswick’ in East Donyland, which bears the name of its 13th century holder Richard Battle of Wivenhoe (VCH). The manor appears to have operated as a grange for the larger manor of Wivenhoe with which it was held jointly until 1624/25. It was managed ‘in hand’ by labour services in the usual way during the 14th century, but by 1425 had been leased for a cash sum to a tenant farmer and appears to have continued as a tenanted farm until the present day (VCH, citing the manorial records now preserved at Keele University in Staffordshire). A bundle of deeds given to the present tenants some years ago in fact relates to neighbouring Cleavelands Farm on the north, which derives its name from a Colchester merchant, John Cleve, who acquired it in 1427 (VCH. See Appendix 1). By 1818 both Cleavelands and Battleswick Farms belonged to Benjamin Firmin, a farmer of Wivenhoe, who presumably sub-let them (Cleavelands deeds and 1818 Field Map of Battleswick Manor, ERO Q/RDc 17B).

Although leased as a farm in the 15th century Battleswick Manor may have possessed special significance in the 16th century as it lies on a crest of land commanding a fine view to the east of the River Colne and the site of the original Manor of Wivenhoe (just to the north-west of Wivenhoe church). This view is now obscured by trees adjoining the house but can still be appreciated from the eastern entrance track where the church is fully visible. Wivenhoe Hall was rebuilt here on a grand scale in the late-15th and early-16th centuries by the Earls of Oxford, who had acquired the Manors of Battleswick and Wivenhoe by marriage, but quickly decayed after their sale by the 17th Earl in 1584. The Tudor house had a tower gateway that was used as a sea mark in the 16th century and a deer park was mentioned in 1475 ‘apparently in the south-east of the parish’ (VCH). Battleswick Farm would have been a highly conspicuous feature in the landscape as seen by its owners and builders, the Earls of Oxford,

2 from across the valley, and in consequence may have warranted a higher specification than would otherwise have been the case. It may have been occupied as something more than a normal farmhouse, but this is difficult to prove without extensive research in the manorial archive at Keele: houses commanding good views of approaching shipping are known to have been favoured by wealthy urban merchants, for example, and the former existence of a low- tide crossing between the two riverbanks would have enabled occupation by an official of the De Vere estate.

Figure 2 ‘Battles Wick’ on the south-eastern edge of a hill spur overlooking the Colne as shown on Chapman & Andre’s map of 1777. The buildings are stylised. Before the construction of the present Rowhedge Road in the early-19th century the site was reached from the north, but is also likely to have been linked to the river on the east by ancient tracks that survive on the ground but are not depicted here. The Revd. Nicholas Corsellis lived in the remains of the De Vere’s Wivenhoe Hall immediately east of Battleswick Farm, with Wivenhoe church visible at bottom right. The farmhouse was highly visible from this direction. Old Heath to the north is shown as heath land but appears to be a corruption of Old Hithe (i.e. Old Quay), and the name is believed to derive from its proximity to Colchester’s early medieval and possibly Roman port. Corsellis held Cleavelands Farm from the Manor of Battleswick and probably did the same for Battleswick Farm itself (as his successor is known to have done in 1818 – see Appendix 1). The conspicuous position of Battleswick overlooking the Colne immediately south of Colchester’s original port suggests it may have held great strategic importance in the early Middle Ages and before, and evidence of early occupation might be expected on the site.

3

Figure 3 The First Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey of 1875. Rowhedge Road is now present, but note the track that continues eastward to the River Colne and the land of Wivenhoe Hall on the opposite bank.

Figure 3a A detail of the 1875 map showing the distinctive T-shaped outline of the farmhouse much as it remains today (and as on the 1839 tithe map which is not included here).

4

Figure 4. The Second Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey of 1936, showing little change since 1875.

Figure 5. The house in circa 1900 taken from the entrance track showing the lack of windows in the eastern gable. One of the two original first-floor windows has since been reopened. From a photograph in the possession of the tenants.

5

Figure 6 An image of circa 1900 showing the northern elevation with its small enclosed porch and weatherboarding. From an original photograph in the possession of the tenants.

6 Building Analysis

Figure 7 Sketch and notes by Dave Stenning annotated in red by Leigh Alston. The building is viewed from the north-west and the later brick wings projecting from the front and rear of the right-hand (western) structure are omitted.

Introduction

The farmhouse evolved in an unusual and interesting manner that leaves some scope for speculation, particularly as much of its fabric is hidden by later plaster. It consists of five principal historic structures, all of which were present in 1839 when the house was depicted on the East Donyland tithe map with its distinctive T-shaped outline: a two-storied range to the east; a range of 1.5 storeys in the centre, and a single-storied range on the west (all timber- framed and on the same axis), together with a pair of single-storied brick ‘wings’ projecting from the latter’s front and rear elevations. These wings were added in the 18th or early-19th centuries as service sheds and were much altered when they were incorporated into the house in the 20th century; accordingly they are not described further. The three timber-framed structures can be dated on stylistic grounds to the early-16th century (the two-storied eastern range), the late-17th century (the central range) and the late-16th or early-17th centuries (the western range), and are discussed separately below.

The Two-Storied Eastern Range

Date This part of the house is weatherboarded to the north and east and consists of a high-quality late-15th or early-16th century timber-frame which originally overlooked the broadly contemporary mansion at Wivenhoe Hall from the two first-floor windows of its eastern gable

7 (one of which is now blocked). It extends to a modest total of 8.25 m in length by 5 m in width on an approximately east-west axis (27 ft by 16.5). The pegs of a crown-post are exposed in its tie-beam and although currently inaccessible above the plaster ceiling a plain crown-post roof structure is known to survive (as reported by the tenants, who saw it when the tiles were renewed). Crown posts were not used locally after the mid-16th century and the roof-plate contains an edge-halved and bridled scarf joint of typical 15th and 16th century form that did not extend into the 17th. The exposed framing of the internal walls and ceiling is highly characteristic of the early-16th century as opposed to the 17th, and includes a fine Tudor doorway with a four-centred arch on the ground floor. A similar Tudor arch survives in the door of the first-floor cupboard projecting above the staircase. The modern staircase occupies the position of the original stair in a narrow, dedicated bay against the western gable – a rare feature usually found at this early period only in high-status houses.

Illus. 1 The farmhouse from the north showing its three principal phases of construction with the later brick wing projecting on the right. The early-16th century two storied range on the left retains a crown-post roof and originally contained a single room on each floor with an integral stair bay against its rear gable (behind the entrance porch). The lowest of the three structures to the right of the chimney was built as a detached kitchen/bake- house between the mid-16th and early-17th century and preserves an intact, heavily soot- encrusted clasped-purlin roof with wind-braces. The central range was built in the late- 17th century to link the older structures and formed the hall of a more modest dwelling after the demolition of the earlier hall (which lay behind the left-hand range).

Original layout The building is a complete structure of two principal bays that now contains two rooms on each storey in addition to the stair bay. The partitions dividing these rooms are later insertions of uncertain date, and it originally possessed a single room of 6.6 m in length internally by 4.8 m in width (21.75 ft by 15.75) on each floor. If the structure was jettied to its eastern gable, as is highly probably, the ground floor room would have extended to only 6 m (20 ft). The external ground floor walls are obscured, but the western wall of both rooms contained doorways of varying width at both ends (i.e. to the north and south). A wide doorway of just over 1 m (42 ins) in width to the north linked the ground-floor room to the foot of the staircase (which occupies its original position but appears to have been rebuilt) and a narrow door retaining its original arched head to the south opened into a cupboard beneath the stair. On the upper storey arched doors opened onto the stair landing to the south and into a

8 cupboard that projected into the stair bay on the north. The latter has been interpreted as a garderobe (privy) and this is possible if the interior contained only an earth closet or chamber pot (otherwise the waste would have been deposited at the foot of the stair). Given the symmetry of this arrangement the southern door of the lower storey, which is just 0.75 m wide (28 ins), may have performed the same function – although in my view this is unlikely as both doors opened into the cupboards rather than outwards. The original stair trimmer survives in situ, as shown in illus. 13, and there is no evidence of original doors in the western wall: the two existing ground-floor doors in this gable and the single door on the upper storey all interrupt the original frame.

Illus. 2 The house from the north-east showing the good 19th century weatherboarded façade with a first-floor gable window to the left of its centre. A smaller window, probably with a higher sill, lay to its right initially. This two-storied structure probably formed the jettied parlour cross-wing of a missing hall to the left and the asymmetry of its windows is likely to have been reflected in a second cross-wing to the rear.

Interpretation The building is well framed and, given its enclosed staircase, of high status. It is therefore most unlikely in my view that it stood alone. A structure of this kind would normally be interpreted as the parlour wing of an adjoining hall, and several clues indicate that a demolished hall stood on the ground to the south which has been levelled for the purpose (the natural ground slopes sharply downwards to the Birch Brook on both sides). The studding of the northern wall is closely spaced, as is that of the eastern gable, but the studs of the western gable are far more widely spaced and waney externally, indicating they formed a rendered back wall. This is consistent with the position of the detached kitchen, the historic access to the site from the north (figure 2), and the site’s conspicuous position in the landscape when viewed from the east. The southern wall appears to have contained two original windows on its upper storey: one 30 cm from its eastern gable (i.e. the width of the jetty, for which

9 window the evidence is only a gap of 1.5 m or 5 ft), and the other abutting the western gable and lighting the stair bay (where a sill peg is clearly exposed). The central area of the eastern bay lacked studs where it now adjoins the rebuilt 19th century lateral chimney, and this gap of at least 2.1 m (7 ft) may have extended into the adjoining western bay where the framing is unfortunately hidden (as on the whole of the lower storey). The distance between these first- floor windows extends to 5.5 m (18 ft) – precisely the expected width of a reasonably high status hall. Many parlour cross-wings of this period were open-framed in precisely this way against the high-end chimneys of their respective halls, and the presence of the Victorian chimney in this position offers some evidence that an earlier chimney occupied the same location. It has been suggested that the gap in the southern wall was open to the elements, allowing a view of the landscape in the manner of a lodge or hunt standing, but this seems most unlikely if normal windows lay on both sides. The orientation of the building in the landscape is also inconsistent with such an interpretation, as the principal view lies to the east, not to the south where the building overlooks a narrow valley which rises sharply on the opposite side (now covered with housing). The windows of the eastern gable appear to have been relatively normal, albeit in two sections: a wide window on the right (south) and a smaller window to the left that almost certainly possessed a high sill to match the arrangement of the northern wall. This reflects a standard Tudor fashion for shallow windows known at the time as clerestoreys that admitted light without sacrificing all privacy: the northern window of the western bay was shallow in this manner, as demonstrated by its visible sill peg, while that of the eastern bay was of normal height. It is tempting to suggest that the demolished hall was adjoined on the south by a service cross-wing in the standard form of the period which reflected the windows of the parlour to create a symmetrical eastern elevation.

Illus. 3 The house from the south showing the later brick wing in front of the former detached kitchen on the left. The two-storied wing originally contained a first-floor window lighting its stair in the position of the present window at top left, and another to the right of the 19th century chimney. The gap of 5.5 m (18 ft) between the two appears to have lacked studwork and probably abutted a demolished hall that projected at right- angles on the level building platform in the foreground. The original house would have faced east (right) towards the fine view shown in illus. 4.

10 The Central Range

The weatherboarded 1.5 storey structure in the centre of the house is a late-17th century insertion of just 4.25 m (14 ft) in length which links the rear gable of the early-16th century eastern range to the formerly detached single-storied building on the west. The studs of its front (northern) wall are exposed on the first floor and are tenoned but not pegged to the roof- plate in the manner of the late-17th and 18th centuries. Some joists of its ceiling have been re- used but the narrow, tall-sectioned examples are fully consistent with this period, as is the exposed original brickwork of the fireplace on the west (which was reduced in width during the late-18th century when the chimney was rebuilt). The present doorways linking this part of the house to the 16th century range are later insertions that interrupt the frame. It seems likely that this structure was added to serve as a new hall when the original Tudor hall to the south was demolished and the house was converted into a relatively modest farmhouse in contrast to the high status dwelling of the early-16th century.

Illus. 4 The view of Wivenhoe church across the River Colne from the hill immediately to the east of the farmhouse. This view would have been obtained from the property’s eastern windows before the arrival of the trees shown to the right in illus. 3. The site of Wivenhoe Hall, which owned Battleswick Manor, lies slightly to the left of the church and would also have been fully visible – particularly as it boasted a brick tower in the 16th century. Lines of sight were important in the medieval and Tudor landscape and may well explain the high status features of Battleswick farmhouse.

The Western Range

The western structure of the house is largely hidden externally behind later brick wings that project at right angles from its front and rear elevations. Its timber framed walls are concealed internally by plaster and much altered where exposed to the rear (south), but it preserves a

11 well framed original roof structure with clasped-purlins and curved wind-braces that appears to survive intact and is heavily sooted. Extending to 5.5 m in length by 4.9 m in width (18 ft by 16 ft) this structure was evidently built between the mid-16th and early-17th centuries as a detached kitchen/bake-house 4.25 m (14 ft) behind the early-16th century range. Detached kitchens of this relatively early date were once common but are now rare survivals, particularly with intact sooted roofs, and this building is of special historic significance. The sooted roof timbers are largely hidden behind characterful 18th century lath-and-plaster nailed to inserted collars just below the purlins, but can be seen from the roof of the southern extension. The present ceiling at eaves level is a late-19th or 20th century insertion that blocks the door of a cupboard to the north of the brick chimney. This chimney also incorporates an arched recess to the south and was inserted at the same time as the higher lath-and-plaster when the space still remained open to the slope of its rafters. The brickwork contains back-to- back fireplaces but there is no longer any obvious trace of the bread oven that is likely to have existed here.

Illus. 5 The front (eastern) room of the two-storied range seen from the north, with the 19th century fireplace against its southern wall. The historic fabric of this room is completely hidden but the eastern gable on the left was probably jettied initially despite the boxed axial joist (which is likely to form part of a rebuilt ceiling). The partition on the right is a later insertion, and this area was formerly part of a single room that included the western bay shown in illus. 6. The original axial joist on the other side of this partition has been lifted from its original mortise, suggesting the ceiling has been significantly altered if not renewed.

Historic Significance

Battleswick Farm preserves what probably represents the parlour cross-wing of a high-status early-16th century dwelling that was highly conspicuous in the landscape when viewed from the house of its owners, the Earls of Oxford, at Wivenhoe Hall. It may well have been occupied originally by an individual with connections to their estate rather than a normal

12 tenant farmer, and it may be possible to establish such a link with further documentary research. The medieval manorial site is also of historic interest given its commanding position overlooking the River Colne and may yield archaeological evidence of unusually early occupation. As a substantially intact early-16th century timber-framed structure retaining a crown-post roof, an unusual stair bay and at least two original Tudor arched doorways the building warrants listing at grade II despite the apparent loss of its adjoining hall. The importance of the building is further enhanced by its western kitchen, which represents a 16th or early-17th century detached bake-house with a completely intact heavily soot-encrusted roof structure with clasped-purlins and wind braces. Early kitchens are notoriously rare, particularly with sooted roofs, and this structure meets the statutory criteria for listing in its own right. The present house is also of considerable historic interest insofar as it illustrates the manner whereby parts of a higher status 16th century dwelling could be converted in the 17th century into a more modest farmhouse with a relatively small new hall. The nearby threshing barn is a mid-19th century example of standard form that would not normally merit separate listing but lies within the curtilage of the farmhouse and should be protected accordingly. The remaining farm buildings incorporate fragments of early-19th century brick structures but date chiefly from the 20th century and are not of historic value.

Illus. 6 The western room of the two-storied range, seen from the east and showing the original internal partition adjoining the narrow stair bay. The fine door head on the left with its Tudor four-centred arch would have opened into a cupboard beneath the stair, and was matched by another, much wider doorway to the right of the partition that opened onto the foot of the stair. A connecting door to the demolished hall probably occupied the position of the modern window on the left where the original framing is concealed.

13

Illus. 7 The narrow stair bay from the south, with the western gable of the two-storied structure on the left. The door to the extreme left is a later insertion leading to the chamber above the late-17th century central range. A series of carpenter’s Roman numerals are visible on the studs of the internal partition to the right, and the studs in the rear form an original cupboard entered by the doorway shown in illus. 8. This stair bay was lit by an original window in the southern wall (behind the camera) and an arched doorway opened from its landing into the two-bay first-floor chamber. Dedicated stair bays of this kind were expensive in terms of space and timber, and are only found in high status Tudor buildings.

+ + + + + + + + +

Leigh Alston is a building archaeologist and architectural historian who lectures on the analysis and recording of timber-framed structures in the Department of Archaeology at Cambridge University, but also undertakes commissions on a freelance basis for the National Trust and various county archaeological units. He co-founded the Suffolk Historic Buildings Group in 1993, serving as Chairman for 13 years, and has been involved in several television programmes including Grand Designs and David Dimbleby’s ‘How We Built Britain’. Publications include ‘Late Medieval Workshops in East Anglia’ in ‘The Vernacular Workshop’ edited by Paul Barnwell & Malcolm Airs (Council for British Archaeology and English Heritage, 2004) and the National Trust guidebook to Lavenham Guildhall.

Additional Illustrations follow on pp. 15-20

14 Additional Illustrations (pp. 15-20)

Illus. 8. The original arched doorway in the north-western corner of the two-storied chamber, opening into the cupboard that projects into the stair bay. A ground floor doorway immediately beneath opened onto the foot of the stair. The presence of an arch indicates the original door opened inwards. There is evidence of an original window in the position of the present window on the right, but with a much higher sill.

Illus. 9. A detail of the edge-halved and bridled scarf joint in the northern roof-plate of the two-storied structure. Joints of this kind are found in most 15th and 16th century buildings but were quickly superseded by face-halved joints at the beginning of the 17th.

15

Illus. 10. The high quality close-studding of the two-storied range’s northern wall exposed in the eastern bay of its first-floor chamber. The window occupies the position of an original window with a still at normal height, unlike the high-silled window of the western bay (both of which lit the same room until the insertion of the left-hand partition).

Illus. 11. The eastern gable of the first-floor chamber in the two-storied structure. The off-centred window occupies the position of an original predecessor, as indicated by stud pegs in the tie-beam, but there is a gap for a smaller second window that was probably high-silled behind the wardrobe. A gap in the southern framing 30 cm from the corner post on the right is also likely to relate to a window, with a much wider gap abutting the Victorian chimney to the extreme right.

16

Illus. 12. The western wall of the two-storied range as seen from the later central structure, showing the stair rising from left to right in the stair bay beyond. The studs of this wall are roughly finished and widely spaced, indicating they belonged to a rendered back wall and were not visible externally. Both doorways are later insertions.

Illus. 13. A detail of the ceiling in the stair bay, seen from the south, showing the original stair trimmer, pegged to the western gable’s mid-rail on the left, with the joists of the stair landing above. Note that the stud on the left has been moved to create a wider gap for the inserted door to the central range.

17

Illus. 14. The 17th century fireplace at the western end of the central range, with a re- used timber lintel and 18th or early-19th century brickwork within the original piers. The axial ceiling joist is a timber of poor quality, typical of the late-17th century, with a number of re-used joists. The wall studs of this range are not pegged to the roof-plate.

Illus. 15. The formerly detached kitchen at the western end of the house, with its late- 18th or early-19th century chimney (as seen from its western gable, with the entrance to the central range on the right). The ceiling is a relatively recent insertion beneath the lath-and-plaster shown in illus. 16.

18

Illus. 16. The old lath-and-plaster ceiling of the formerly detached kitchen, seen from the north (above the present ceiling shown in illus. 15). Two original rafters are just visible on each side of the central hole to the southern brick wing, both heavily sooted, and an intact clasped-purlin roof with wind braces survives behind the plaster.

Illus. 17. The five-bay timber-framed and weatherboarded threshing barn to the north- east of the house (seen from the south-east). A barn occupied this site at the time of the enclosure map in 1818 but this structure is a slightly later reconstruction.

19

Illus. 18. The interior of the barn from the north, showing its original bolted knee-braces with a high proportion of re-used timber – all typical of the mid-19th century. Both gables have been rebuilt with narrow softwood and the internal rafter battens are an unusual feature.

Appendices 1 & 2 follow on pp. 21-25

20 Appendix 1

Selected Deeds belonging to the owners of Battleswick Farm, Rowhedge (East Donyland) (Omitting a number of leases, copies of wills and other miscellaneous documents not relevant to changes of title). All documents in fact relate not to Battleswick Farm but to Cleavelands Farm to the north.

1681 Manor of Battleshall alias Battleswick in Donyland (Latin) Copy of Court Baron of John Godschall gent lord of the manor Admission of Robert Durrell to one customary messuage with lands and marshes called ‘Cleve Lands’ in Old Hythe (Vetera Heitha) in the parish of St Giles in Colchester, also a piece of meadow containing six acres formerly of Robert Rand, all previously held by Robert’s late brother Thomas of whom he is the heir.

1697 Manorial release Re customary messuage called Cleve Lands as in 1681. Susannah the daughter and heir of Cockerell gent. decd. and wife of John Seaber Grocer of Colchester to Robert Durrell of Dredger and Edward Lock of Colchester ‘soapeboyler’ & Grace his wife.

1698 Manorial admission of Robert Durrell etc. as in 1697

1720 Court Baron of Nicholas Godschall Esq. Nicholas Corsellis Esq. late tenant of the customary message called Cleave land has died. John Poynter was his subtenant. Now his son and heir Nicholas Corsellis of Wivenhoe is admitted. (A copy of Nicholas senior’s will is included, referring to property in Wivenhoe, Layer Marney, a diamond necklace, etc.)

1746 Random note entitled ‘5 Farm in St Gyles in Colchester 1746, John Smith’. List of lands: Barn field, Chase Field, Acre next ditto, 2 Acre field next ye great marsh, 3 acre field, Great Marsh, Little ditto or long slip, 4 acres of middlefield, 6 acres, Right of Common for 5Head or 50 sheep in ye Common Marsh. Endorsed’ Right of Common for 5 head or 50 sheep on the Common Marsh’.

1762 Abstract of title dated 1762 reciting all deeds from 1681 and noting that Nicholas Caesar Corsellis Esq, the youngest son aged 14 of Nicholas Corsellis Esq, inherited by the custom of the manor ‘a messuage or tenement with the barn, stable, outhouses & about 35 acres of copyhold land called Cleavelands in the parish of St Giles at the Old Hith in Colchester held of the manor of Battleshall alias Battleswick in Donyland.

1771 Manorial admission, Court Baron of William Mann Godschall (lord of the manor). Clevelands in the Old Hythe in the parish of St Giles and six acres etc. Surrenders to the use of his will.

21 1792 Manorial surrender by Revd Nicholas Corsellis of Wivenhoe to Mr Benjamin Firman of Wivenhoe farmer. Cleavelands and piece of six acres formerly in the occupation of John Pointer, then John Smith, then John Went, then Cleer Went his widow and now of Benjamin Firman. (The purchase indenture is included, giving the price as £250.)

1809 Deed of enfranchisement, 24th June 1809. Between Henry Thorn of Colchester, gentleman, lord of the manor of Battleshall otherwise Battleswick in East Donyland and Benjamin Firman of Wivenhoe gentleman, for £180 paid to Henry Thorn. Usual description (Cleavelands in Old Hithe and a piece of six acres.

1818 Letter to Mr Benjamin Firman addressed to Bull Hall Wivenhoe from the Commissioner of the Battleshall Enclosure Act requesting £17 5s being his share of the rare for the 3 acres, 1 rood and 32 perches allotted to him.

++++++++

The Colchester merchant John Cleve who acquired 2 messuages, a tenement, 21 a. of land and 4 a. of marsh in 1427 seems to have been a member of an Old Heath family (VCH vol. 9 below)

VCH Notes.

BATTLESWICK manor seems to have derived from an estate in Donyland held, with Tendring manor, of the honor of Boulogne in 1205 and c. 1217 by Oger or Roger de Curton and c. 1222 by his brother William, sons of Arnulf or Ernald de Curton who had given Canonswick to St. Botolph's. (fn. 88) The overlordship passed to Richard de Munfitchet, probably the man of that name who died in 1267, and to his heir Giles de Plaiz, Lord Plaiz (d. 1302). It descended with the barony of Plaiz to Sir John Howard, by whose marriage to Joan Walton it was united with the demesne lordship. (fn. 89) The demesne lordship, with that of Tendring, was held by Andrew Blunt (fl. 1259), and passed to his daughter Catherine wife of Richard Battle of Wivenhoe, who gave his name to the Colchester manor. (fn. 90) Under an agreement of 1298 Battleswick passed with Wivenhoe to Catherine's daughter and coheir Margery wife of William Sutton, (fn. 91) and the manor descended with Wivenhoe until 1624 or 1625. (fn. 92) By 1315 the lord was John Sutton and he was followed by two or possibly three other men of the same name. (fn. 93) The last John (d. 1393) was succeeded by his brother Richard (d. 1396) and by Richard's son Thomas, (fn. 94) but by 1399 the lord was John Walton, husband or son of Thomas Sutton's heir Margery. John was succeeded in 1407 by Richard Walton whose heir was his sister Joan (d. 1424) wife of John Howard, Lord Plaiz. Her daughter and heir Elizabeth married John de Vere, earl of Oxford. (fn. 95) In 1473 Elizabeth surrendered her lands, including Wivenhoe and Battleswick, to Richard duke of Gloucester who in 1480 sold them to John Howard, Lord Howard, later duke of Norfolk (d. 1485). (fn. 96) After 1485 the de Veres recovered the manors, which descended with the earldom of Oxford until 1584 when Edward de Vere, earl of Oxford, sold them to Roger Townshend. (fn. 97) Townshend died in 1591 and Battleswick was held by his executors during the lifetime of his son John (d. 1603) but passed to his grandson Sir Roger Townshend who sold it in 1624 or 1625 to Robert Buxton. (fn. 98) Buxton held in 1653, but by 1658 John Godschall, a London merchant, was lord. (fn. 99) He was succeeded in 1693 by his son, another John Godschall, (fn. 100) who was followed in 1725 by his son Nicholas. Nicholas was succeeded in 1748 by his daughter Sarah whose husband William Mann assumed the surname Godschall. Sarah died in 1792 and William Mann Godschall in 1803, to be succeeded by his son Samuel Mann Godschall; he sold the manor in 1804 to Joseph Ward who sold it in 1808 to Henry Thorn of Colchester. Thorn was declared bankrupt in 1815, and in 1820 he and his trustee Samuel Blomfield sold the manor to Samuel John Edgell Martin. Martin sold it in 1825 to John Cutts who sold it in 1848 to James Cuddon of Witham. (fn. 101) Thereafter it was held by a succession of absentee lords, Cuddon selling in 1853 to James Manning, deputy steward of the manor, for his daughters Clarissa Peach, Rose Frances, Elizabeth Adelaide, and Louisa Manning. They sold it in 1880 to Richard Henry Wood, (fn. 102) who was succeeded c. 1908 by Stanley Rose Wood. S. R. Wood was succeeded in 1931 by James Hatton Wood, but by that date the manorial rights had lapsed. (fn. 103)

22 ...

Both Battleswick and Canonswick were mixed farms in 1296 and 1301, although Canonswick may have specialized in sheep: the prior of St. Botolph's was assessed on 20 sheep and 5 lambs there in 1301; in 1464 he had at least 222 sheep there. (fn. 105) Oats were grown on the Battleswick demesne in 1325-6, and rye between 1341 and 1344. (fn. 106) In 1330-1 there were 20 cows and 40 sheep at the manorial grange, and there were still 20 cows in 1425-6. In 1341-2 as many as 11 customary tenants performed boon works, recorded in 1368 as reaping, binding, and stooking the lord's corn at harvest, receiving from the lord in return food that included bean and fish pottage, bread, eggs, and herrings. By 1425 Battleswick, presumably the demesne, was being farmed for £5 6s. 8d. a year; the rent fell to £4 in 1426 and did not recover fully until 1492; it then remained at £5 6s. 8d. until 1518 or later. (fn. 107)

...

Most of the recorded medieval tenants of Battleswick manor were agricultural workers. The Colchester merchant John Cleve who acquired 2 messuages, a tenement, 21 a. of land and 4 a. of marsh in 1427 seems to have been a member of an Old Heath family. (fn. 117) By c. 1500 as many as 11 of the holdings were in the hands of one man, John Fuller of . (fn. 118) From the mid 16th century there was further consolidation of copyholds, notably by George Christmas (d. 1566) who had a freehold house just north of Battleswick. Alderman Thomas Laurence bought 40 a. freehold from George Dibney of Colchester in 1567. (fn. 119) By c. 1677 John Standly had built up Place farm (60 a.) in the centre of Old Heath. In 1745 there were no owner-occupiers of copyholds in Old Heath. (fn. 120) At Berechurch, the Audleys at Berechurch Hall and the Barkers at Monkwick were the largest landowners in the 16th and 17th centuries, but there was a number of smaller holdings. In the 18th and 19th centuries the Smyth family enlarged the Berechurch Hall estate, cultivated parkland and woodland, and established Park, Friday Wood, Maypole, and Blackheath farms. (fn. 121)

Selected footnotes 104. Rot. Parl. i. 237-8. 105. Ibid. 238, 253; E.R.O., D/B 5 Cr72, rot. 13d. 106. E.R.O., T/B 122. 117: 117. Keele Univ. Libr., Raymond Richards Colln. BW 3; E.R.O., T/B 122.

23 Appendix 2

The Standard Room Plan of Medieval and Tudor Houses

Although identical houses are rare, almost all domestic buildings constructed between the mid-13th and the early-17th centuries reflect the same room layout (see accompanying diagram). Until the opening decades of the 16th century the only heated space in a typical house comprised an open hall with an open hearth akin to a bonfire burning on its floor. In the absence of a chimney the hall, as its name suggests, was open to its roof in the manner of a barn to allow smoke to escape through the roof covering and through tall, unglazed windows which rose from normal sill height to eaves level. The hall was a communal space with little or no fixed furniture, and was used as a dining room, a dormitory for household servants and apprentices, and as a kitchen and general purpose working area at varying times of the day. The hall was also designed to display the wealth and status of its owner, and at meal times was arranged like a modern college dining hall, with the head of the household sitting with his immediate family behind the ‘high table’ at one end, while his servants and employees were arranged in order of precedence at secondary tables along the side walls. The lower an individual’s status in the household, the further he sat from the ‘high’ end of the hall. The high table was often raised on a platform or dais, but contemporary references to the high and low ends of houses relate rather to social than physical hierarchy. Halls were usually divided into two structural bays, separated by a pair of principal posts carrying a tie-beam that spanned the walls at eaves level, with the great windows in the high-end bay towards the dais. Fixing pegs for the high-end bench, which was often attached to the wall, can sometimes be seen in surviving examples. The front and back doors of the house (which often stood open for ventilation purposes) lay opposite each other at the low end of the hall, forming a cross- passage that was partly screened by boarded partitions to exclude the weather.

The open hall in the middle of the typical medieval house was flanked by additional rooms that were usually floored over. Beyond the high end of the hall lay a single room known as a parlour, that served as the main bedroom for family members and guests and contained at least one bed (perhaps consisting of nothing more than a straw mattress) and perhaps a few pieces of furniture that normally included a storage chest. The parlour was entered by a door to one side of the high-end bench, and sometimes a second door on the opposite side of the bench opened onto a stair to the solar (upper room) above. Medieval living took place primarily on the relatively warm ground-floor, and the two solars of the house were used chiefly for storage purposes. An increasing demand for domestic privacy during the later 16th century saw the provision of additional bedrooms on the first floor, and the ‘parlour chamber’, as the room over the parlour came to be known, was often provided with its own fireplace. Principal bedrooms, used more and more for sitting and entertaining as well as sleeping, remained downstairs until well into the 17th century.

Beyond the low end of the hall lay two service or storage rooms termed butteries and pantries (or collectively as ‘spences’, i.e. dispensing rooms). As their names suggest, these were used for storing wet and dry goods respectively, and represent the household larder. The front service rooms of town houses often contained shops, and the buttery sometimes served as a dairy in rural contexts. Two doorways lying side by side in the middle of the low-end wall gave access to these rooms, usually in conjunction with a third door against the back wall that opened onto a stair to the service chamber above. Although the original arches of these doorways have frequently been removed, their position may be revealed by the distribution of peg holes used to secure the mortise and tenon joints of the wall timbers.

The tripartite plan described here is found in both large manor houses and small peasant cottages in the countryside, but is sometimes condensed in towns where houses consisting of only a hall and subdivided parlour (or occasionally a hall with service rooms) may be found. Houses of high status might also possess rear courtyards, containing additional

24 accommodation or perhaps bake-houses and workshops, but rarely add to the tripartite arrangement in their main ranges. Rectangular houses under a single roof are common, but more ostentatious town houses frequently contain their parlour and service rooms in relatively expensive cross-wings with jettied gables built at right-angles to their halls. From the beginning of the 16th century chimney stacks were inserted into open halls, and new houses built with ceilings throughout, but the standard layout endured. By the end of the same century fireplaces were typically provided in parlours as well as halls, and often the parlour chamber was also heated (but rarely the hall chamber). Not until the second quarter of the 17th century did the cross-passage plan begin to disappear from new houses, to be gradually replaced by a number of different layouts of which the ‘lobby-entrance’, where the main door opens into a narrow ‘lobby’ in front of a chimney stack between the hall and parlour, was the most common.

The Standard Medieval House Plan

The most likely interpretation of the two-storied eastern range at Battleswick Farm is that it formed the jettied parlour cross-wing of a standard domestic house, with a high- end chimney in the position of the bench depicted here. The hall lay on the level ground to the south of the parlour, which faced east to Wivenhoe Hall and projected slightly to both front and rear (hence the central gap in the surviving frame for a chimney flanked by windows). The hall may well have survived from a medieval house on the site, but it is tempting to supposed that a contemporary service cross-wing reflected the asymmetry of the parlour’s first floor windows.

25