South Elmham Hall Gatehouse South Elmham St Cross SAM No. 21446

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

SCCAS REPORT No. 2010/094

D.Gill and A. M. Breen

Lucy Robinson, County Director of Environment and Transport Endeavour House, Russel Road, Ipswich, IP1 2BX.

HER Information

Planning Application No: NA

Date of Fieldwork: March 2010

Grid Reference: TM 3078 8324

Funding Body: Mr J Sanderson (landowner) through an English Heritage grant scheme

Project Officer: David Gill

Contents

Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Site location 1 3. Summary of the historical background 3 4. Historical context: cartographic record 4 5. Survey results 7 6. Building analysis 7 7. Discussion 17 8. Condition of the structure and archaeological mitigation 19 9. Documentary search 33 10. References 38

List of Figures

1. Site location Plan 2 2. Tithe map 1838 of South Elmham, St Margaret (detail) 4 3. First Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey of 1884 4 4. Estate map 1876 5 5. Edmund Farrar’s map of the site 1912 6 6. Third Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey 1927 6 7. General view of the building 8 8. South Elmham Hall Gatehouse, Ground Plan 9 9. Details from Phase 1 building 14 10. Details from Phase 1 building 15 11. West Stow Hall, 16th century gatehouse 18 12. Phase I – Eastern Wall External Elevation 21 13. Phase I– Eastern Wall Internal Elevation 22 14. Phase I – Northern Wall Internal Elevation 23 15. Phase I– Northern Wall External Elevation 24 16. Phase I – Western Wall Internal Elevation 25 17. Phase I – Western Wall External Elevation 26 18. Phase II Addition – Western Wall External Elevation 27

19. Phase II Addition – Western wall Internal Elevation 28 20. Phase II Addition – Southern Wall External Elevation 29 21. Phase II Addition – Southern Wall Internal Elevation 30 22. Phase II Addition – Northern Wall External Elevation 31 23. Phase II Addition – Northern Wall Internal Elevation 32

1. Introduction

This report provides an analysis of the remains of the medieval gatehouse at St Elmham Hall, South Elmham St Cross. The building is situated within the moated enclosure about 40m to the north-west of the hall. The site as a whole is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM no 211460) and protected by statute. The analysis and recording of the building was part of a project to stabilise the structure, part of which is in danger of subsiding into the moat, and was undertaken in advance of any remedial work. The work was commissioned by Nicolas Jacobs Architects and funded by the owners Mr and Mrs J Sanderson through an English Heritage grant scheme. The building was surveyed by Nicolas Jacobs Architects and the survey data was supplied to the author in the form of scaled rectified photographs.

A search was made of material held at the Suffolk Record Offices at Ipswich and Lowestoft, and a report of the findings has been included in the appendix. This includes a series of medieval compotus, or account, rolls dating 1342- 1483. These include details of payments for materials and building works, undertaken between 1445 and 1470 but appear to make no reference to the early phase of the gatehouse (and predate the second phase).

2. Site location

St Elmham Hall lies at TM 3078 8324 on the chalky boulder clay of the high plains of north east Suffolk. It is situated between the 35 and 40m contour on a promontory between two tributaries of the Beck, itself a tributary of the River Waveney (Fig. 1).

The hall stands within a moated enclosure of about 3 acres with all of the upstanding medieval building evidence situated within the southern half of the enclosure. The gatehouse is located on the inner edge of the moat on the west side of the enclosure (Fig. 1, shown in red). The line of the parish boundary passes through the east and south entrances to the enclosure so that a quarter of the site is within the parish of South Elmham St Margaret’s. The current Ordnance Survey map shows an entrance to the moat adjacent to the gatehouse, but this no longer exists and the west arm of the moat is unbroken.

283400°N

283300°N

0 50 100m 283200°N

©Crown Copyright. All00 Rights Reserved. Suffolk County Council Licence No. 100023395 2010 00° 630700°E 6305 °E 6306 Figure 1. Site location plan

2 3. Summary of the historical background

The extensive manor of South Elmham extended over nine parishes and was part of the estates of William Bishop of Thetford at the time of Domesday. The manor included the site of the Anglo-Saxon minister, arguably the See of an early Anglian bishopric. The sacred significance of the site was believed to be such that it was re-purchased, having fallen into lay ownership, by Bishop Losinga in the first year of the 12th century and conferred on the cathedral at Norwich to enhance the sanctity of the new See.

Moat building, generally, began in the late 12th century with most moat dating from the period 1200-1325 and it is therefore likely that the enclosure of the Hall is the work of one of the subsequent bishops. The annual compotus or account rolls account makes reference to repairs to the chapel and cloister in 1342 along with repairs to other buildings ‘inside the moat’ suggesting the presence of a monastic community. It also refers to an ‘Old Cloister’ suggesting that it had already been long established by this date. The Hall developed as a ‘summer palace' for the bishops and to the west of the enclosure were laid out the Old Park and, further to the south, the New Park. Entries in the compotus indicate that the parks were carefully stocked and maintained suggesting that the provision of good hunting was the principal attraction of the estate.

The current hall has a core of stonework which can be dated by door arches and window forms to no earlier than the 13th century. Bishop Henry Despenser was given a licence to crenellate his South Elmham manor house in 1387. After the Dissolution the property was granted to Edward, Lord North in 1541. He was responsible for the remodelling of the hall, possibly from a ruinous state, adding the west wing and timber extensions to the north and south walls of the existing flint building in the 16th century.

The gatehouse, the subject of the survey, stands on the west side of the enclosure on the inner edge of the moat and is described, erroneously, on the early OS maps as a chapel in ruins.

3 4. Historic context: cartographic record

Figure 2. Tithe map 1838 of South Elmham, St Margaret (detail) The Hall is shown in red and the gatehouse coloured grey with what appears to be buttresses on the long walls of the Phase 1 building and the Phase 2 building complete with its east wall. The moat platform is accessed from the south and east via a bridge and causeway but no crossing by the gatehouse is shown.

Figure 3. First Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey of 1884, The plan describes the gatehouse as Chapel (in ruins) and shows the position of a footbridge approached by a public footpath.

Figure 4. Estate map 1876 with enlarged detail of enclosure inset .

Figure 5. Edmund Farrar’s map of the site drawn in 1912 The gatehouse is labelled ‘so called chapel’ and ‘postern bridge’

Figure 6. The Second and Third Edition 25 inch Ordnance Survey published in 1904 and 1927 (Third edition shown here) shows the site much as it is depicted in 1884.

5. Survey results

The building was recorded by photogrammetric survey undertaken by Nicolas Jacobs Architects. The survey images have been annotated and reproduced within the report as Figures 12-23. The building is described in detail by phase below, and the numbers in brackets reference the figure numbers followed by the feature numbers.

6. Building analysis

General description The Gatehouse is constructed in mixed flint with corner quoins and window and door openings built in brick. It was constructed in two phases, with the gatehouse wing (Phase 2) being added to the south end of an existing building (Phase 1) to create the L-shaped plan form that we see today. The original building was a small twin-celled structure laid out over two floors but almost all of the fabric of the first floor walls has been lost. The north gable however survives to the full height of the ridge and presents a near complete elevation. The architectural style of the windows and the size and firing characteristics of the bricks are very similar to the nearby Mettingham Castle and suggest a mid- 14th century date for the construction of Phase 1.

The Phase 2 range is broadly similar in appearance to the Phase 1 but the use of brick is more extensive both in the corner quoins and with courses alternating with flint in the body of the walls. The brick size and type suggest a mid 16th century date. Less survives of the second phase of the building and the remains stand, in general, only to about 1-1.5m.

The gatehouse is grouped along with the other early buildings within the southern half of the enclosure, but stands apart from them on the west edge of the moat platform. Its north edge aligns approximately with a section of substantial medieval wall which was recorded in the north side of the ‘Batemans’ barn (Boulter 2006) but there is no evidence of scars or wall stubs to suggest that the gatehouse was attached to, or integral with, a precinct or curtain wall.

Figure 7. General view of the building showing Phase 1 (right) and Phase 2 ranges

Ground plan (Fig. 8) The Phase 1 building is located on the break of slope of the moat ditch, c.3m away from the water’s edge and is constructed off a substantial foundation, or terrace (Fig. 8, '30'), of bonded flint rubble which is stepped and flares out slightly from the base of the building; indeed the whole building tapers towards the eave line to ground it securely. The footing is most clearly seen on the west side where the ground falls away to the moat and where a 1.25m depth is exposed. The current ground level surrounding the west side of the building is higher than the medieval ground level and this is evidenced by a now part- buried drain outlet (Figs. 8, 13 and 14, '12’).

The Phase 1 ground floor is a single undivided room that measures 4.7m x 6.6m. The building was entered through a door in the south east corner of the building and the east side of the brick jamb and the rebate against which the door closed can be seen in the south east corner of the building. The ground floor was lit by a single window in the east wall and there is no evidence for a fireplace. The exterior of the corner is supported by a stepped, brick-built buttress (Figs. 8, 13 and 22, '29’) which projects from the east wall and runs flush with the south elevation. The buttress is relatively complete and extended

8 N 12

6 window

29 12

Line of former bridge

Phase I Phase II First Floor Joists

0 5m

Plan Scale 1:100

Figure 8. South Elmham Hall Gatehouse Ground Plan

1 9 to the height of the first floor only. It is likely that this would have been opposed by a similar buttress on the south west corner which would have been lost when the Phase 2 range was added.

The original south wall was removed when the Phase 2 range was added and the south end of the west wall has been truncated neatly to accommodate the later wing. The two structures simply butt together and there is no evidence of keying in. The later wall was built along the same line as the one that was demolished so that the internal dimensions of the Phase 1 building remained unchanged.

The Phase 2 range is orientated at right angles to the original building. The Phase 2 wing forms the ‘ride-through’ gatehouse itself and there is a central entrance (Fig 8, ‘38’), 1.7m wide, in the west end, which would have been matched by one at the east end. The west end fronts the edge of the moat with the west wall rising up from the water’s edge.

The range measures 6.25m x 4.5m internally, the east gable wall has been removed but the remaining scars on the internal face of the north and south wall indicate that the original length is as shown. There is no evidence that the two phases were connected by a door but the new wing is off-set to preserve the entrance into the original cell.

Phase 1, Elevations Exterior (Fig. 12) The walls of the Phase 1 building are constructed of mixed flint; large cobbles seem to have been selected for the bottom of the walls getting smaller as the building rises. There is no sign of horizontal coursing, but the flintwork is interspersed with the occasional course of brick (headers to help tie the face to the core?) and roof tile has been used to correct levels (Fig 12, ‘28’). The east and north walls are slightly thicker than the west (0.7m against 0.6m).

The exterior of the east wall has been finished neatly in rudimentary flushwork (closely spaced flints which have been split to expose the smooth core), suggesting that this is the finished face (Fig.12, ‘27’). This contrasts with the exterior of the north wall which is built of mixed unworked flint and finished with

10 a render or heavy flush pointing (Fig. 15, ‘31’). The pointing/render survives in bands and it is uncertain as to whether this is intentional, but these distinctive wall finishes need to be maintained. The lower half of the west wall has the same flushwork finish (Fig. 17, ‘32’)as the east wall but this only extends to a string course of tiles (Fig. 17, ‘33’) at about mid height; above this the wall has been completed with irregular mixed flint; there is however no evidence of render on this face.

The ground floor was lit by a single window in the east wall. The full fenestration of the first floor is unknown as the long walls of the building have been reduced to below window level, but there are two small windows in the north gable and evidence of a third at the north end of the west wall. The windows are square headed forms and the openings and the corner quoins are formed in handmade, plain bricks. The bricks are well made with a fine sandy texture, tempered with grog (and no flint) and fired to a purple/red–red/orange, but there is the occasional gault coloured brick too. The bricks sizes vary, but most commonly measure 9⅞″ x 4″x 1¾″. The building is very similar to nearby Mettingham Castle in both the treatment of the window, and the size and firing characteristics of the bricks which suggests a mid 14th century date.

Rows of brick built putlogs (holes built into the fabric of the wall into which the scaffold stages were secured) (all Figs. ‘18’), were observed in all elevation faces and pierced the full thickness of the wall. The rows were at different levels on each of the walls and at varied intervals suggesting that progress on the building construction was not consistent.

Phase 1 Interior (Figs. 13, 14 and 16) Ground floor The door at the south east corner of the building has been truncated at the springing point of the arch head but the original brick surround of the east jamb (Fig. 13, ‘1’) and the sloping head of the door embrasure (Fig. 13, ‘2’) can be seen in the interior of the east wall, and above this, the scar of the former south wall (Fig. 13, ‘3’). Behind the door the wall is recessed (Fig. 13, 4 -the line of the general wall face can be seen above the brick corbelling) to allow the door to open flat to the wall. The remains of the bottom iron, peg hinge remains in the

11 wall and there is a square hole where the top hinge was once located (Fig. 13, '5').

The ground floor was lit by a large window in the east wall (Fig. 13, '6'), which is now in ruins, but the south side of the window is relatively intact to indicate the sill and head heights. A single brick (Fig. 13, '7') is the only survivor of the north side of the window, which gives a width of 1.43m. It is important that this brick is preserved and any reconstruction in this area be made in respect to its line. The window head is likely to have been square, similar to the first floor ones, and this hypothesis is supported by the projected ceiling height (Fig. 13, '8') which does not leave enough space available for an arch-headed form. The brickwork on the south vertical side is rebated to suggest that it once contained a wooden frame or tracery. The internal splay was been re-profiled (Fig. 13, '9') and the window shortened, probably when the Phase 2 building was added.

Two aumbry (cupboards) were built into the walls; one on the east and one on the west face. The eastern one (Fig. 13, '10') is still open and measured 1m x 1.07m x 0.43m deep, surrounds formed with brick, which was rebated to accept a frame and door(Fig. 13, '11'). The western aumbry (Fig. 16, '37') measured 1.23mx 0.8m but had been blocked in, probably during the 16th century, but this has preserved a wooden lining or lintel (Fig. 16, '38') at the top of the aumbry and the remains of a tile sill (Fig. 16, '39') at its base.

At the base of the west and north walls are arch-headed openings for drains (Fig. 15, '12') which pass through the mid point of the west wall and the east end of the north wall. These are formed in brick in a herring-bone pattern and are original, contemporary features. The openings are now part blocked by a post-medieval rise in the internal and external ground levels. Above the drain in the north wall is an area of later patching (Fig. 14, '13'), which is an interior feature only and does not appear on the exterior face.

The interior of the building was originally rendered and vestiges of this remain on most of the internal faces of the walls (Fig. 14, '14'), although none remains above ground floor ceiling height. The render would have concealed the

12 irregularities in the build that are now apparent, demonstrated by the mix of bricks laid both flat and rat-trap on the sides of the aumbries (15) . On the west wall there the render has been applied in two coats and the top coat is laid to a vertical line (16) in respect of a now missing internal feature. In addition to this there are paired holes (Fig.14 ‘17’) into which a timber structure was located.

First Floor (Figs. 14, 15, 16 and 17) The first floor was supported on ten closely spaced joists (Fig. 14, '19') running N-S which were set into a central bridging beam which ran across the width of the building; the location of this can be identified by the square hole in the west wall (Fig. 16, '20'). The shape of the joist sockets suggest that these were narrow timbers laid on edge, in the style of the 16th century, rather than the square section larger timbers of earlier medieval buildings (but this may be misleading and is not conclusive dating), and their relative levels indicate that they were tennoned into the side of the bridging beam. The sockets indicate a complete run of joists across the width of the building suggesting that neither a stairwell nor chimney rose through the floor at this end of the building. The truncation levels at the south end of the building mean that potential evidence for the arrangement of the ceiling and stairs has been lost.

The first floor windows (Figs. 14 and 15, '24' and '25') have been preserved in the north gable wall and the surviving sill near the north corner of the west indicates the width and position of a further window (Fig. 16, '26') but otherwise the wall heights have been truncated to below first floor window level. The windows in the gable wall are square headed with the wall over them carried on timber lintels; these have been removed but their position survives as plank shaped voids. The west window (Figs. 14 and 15, '24') is a narrow slit, 0.15m wide splaying to 0.68m, and 0.95m high. The reveal is formed in bricks laid neatly, and those that form the external opening are shaped to form a rebate suggesting that they originally held an internal shutter or screen. The east window (Figs. 14 and 15, '25') is 0.35m square and the external top of the window is lower than the internal lintel, as if the size of the window has been reduced (Fig. 15, '34'). Although completed in the same brick type as the west window, the bonding is a mixture of stretcher and rat-trap. The opening has an improvised look to its construction which was clearly meant to be concealed by

13 A B

C D

Figure 9 Details from Phase 1 building A) flushwork, external east face. B) Banded rendering, external north face C) Rebated section for door, with scar of the former south wall over sloping door head. D) East window reveal with secondary re-profiling.

A B

D C

Wood lintel

E Tile sill

Figure 10. Details from Phase 1 building A and B) first floor windows north wall C) first floor west window. D) rebate surrounding aumbry and crude brick work E) blocked aumbry

15 render and it seems that this was either a modification of an earlier opening or more likely a later addition. The west wall window (although not the same dimension) is similar to the narrow window on the north wall. Its presence is not clear from the ground and it is vulnerable to being lost. The window shape and character needs to be preserved within the repaired wall top.

The thickness of the gable wall above the windows is reduced to create a ledge (Fig. 14 '36') on which a ceiling or garret floor level was supported. Below this is a row of putlog holes (All Figs. '18') which pass through the wall thickness and are for scaffolding and not for joists. The roof is at a steep 60-65º pitch and is likely to have been tiled; the documentary sources indicate that tile was brought in prodigious quantities and roof tile is common place within the wall fabric.

Phase 2 (Figs. 18-23) The Phase 2 range has been completed in flint and brick to mimic broadly the appearance of the original building, but the use of brick is more extensive both in the corner quoins and its use in alternating courses in the body of the wall. The mix is not consistent or a recognisable decorative pattern but nonetheless has a pleasing effect. The bricks are uniform; being made from a well-mixed, fine sandy, fabric which has fired evenly an orange-orange pink and measure 10½″ x 5″ x 2⅛ -2¼″. The core is made of a flint rubble but is stitched together with rows of broken peg tiles (6½″x ½″ roundhole) laid in a herringbone pattern (Fig. 21, '44').

Less survives of the Phase 2 building which has been reduced to about 1-1.5m and contains few architectural details. The east gable wall has been completely removed but scars on the internal faces of the north and south walls demonstrate its former position (Fig. 21, '45').

There is a centrally placed entrance (Fig. 18, '38') in the west wall 1.70m wide and at the edges of the opening, below the level of the threshold, are short brick pilasters (Fig. 18, '39') or elongated corbels which would have supported a timber ‘girder-type’ bridge across the moat. The top of the pilasters are truncated and there is no surviving evidence to positively confirm the threshold or internal floor levels, although this is likely to be close to the existing level; and

16 there is a string course projecting a half brick width on the exterior of the wall at the same height (Fig. 19, '43').

In-line with the pilasters there are deep sockets at the base of the wall into which the lower rails of the bridge were once located (Fig. 18, '40'). The holes are within a section of the elevation where the wall face has come away exposing the wall’s core material. The damage to the wall follows a level horizon and may be an indicator of former water levels; but this is now well above the waterline.

Mr J Sanderson reported that timbers were observed in the middle of the moat during a moat cleaning operation which aligned with the gatehouse entrance.

Internal channels running through the angle of each corner were recorded at the base of the walls which look like drains, but these are putlogs which carried the external scaffolding around the corners of the building and align with other putlogs holes in the in the west wall face (Fig. 18, '42').

All of the fabric within the Phase 2 remains are of the same date and represent a single campaign of building. There is not evidence within the structure was ever repaired or altered after the Phase 2 wing was added.

7. Discussion

The building has been described as both a chapel and a gatehouse. The interpretation as a chapel was probably extrapolated from a reading of the medieval account rolls which does make reference to repairs to a chapel on the site but there is nothing in the structure of the building to suggest that this was ever it; not withstanding its N-S orientation, the presence of drain outlets through the base of the walls suggests that its use was more prosaic. Its position on the edge of the moat is most suggestive of a gatehouse and lodge, and it was undoubtedly converted into one when the Phase 2 wing and its associated bridge were added.

17 The Phase 1 building dates to the mid-late 14th century, and its architectural style, in its treatment of the window, and the size and firing characteristics of the bricks are very similar to the nearby Mettingham Castle (AD 1342). From outside the moat the building has appearance of being fortified with the absence of ground floor windows and the narrow slit windows on the first floor, but it is likely to be an affectation. Bishop Henry Despenser was given a licence to crenellate in 1387 and the style of the Phase 1 building is consistent with this show of status. There is no indication of a fireplace within the building and the layout of the surviving features suggests that the building on the ground floor at least is likely to have been unheated; the medieval accounts suggest that the hall included a timber chimney and it is possible that the upper floor here was similarly heated. The absence of a fireplace precludes the building from being something like a bake or brewhouse, and it is likely that these would be part of a more extensive collected service range. Cupboards were used for the storage of objects of value and the presence drains, however, would suggest a practical function for the building perhaps as a lodge for the overseeing and maintenance of the hunting in the adjacent park.

Although not much survives of the Phase 2 building, this is in the style of a mid- 16th century gatehouse of which West Stow Hall is a fine example (Fig. 11). The brick size and type are consistent with this date.

Figure 11. West Stow Hall, 16th century gatehouse

18 8. Condition of the structure and archaeological mitigation

Phase 2 The Phase 2 gate house is the most dilapidated part of the building, as the remains of the south wall have broken into short lengths which require stitching together and stabilising. The south west corner has become detached and has been partly underpinned by a concrete revetment to prevent it subsiding into the moat. The corner requires pinning and stitching back to prevent its collapse. The wall face of the west elevation, below the entrance, has been lost exposing the vulnerable core of the wall and this will need to be replaced on the line of the wall face above.

Mitigation: archaeological inspection and recording (re-photograph and measured survey) following removal of vegetation. Archaeological observation and recording during removal of loose fabric and care in retaining as much evidence as possible of the entrance way(Fig. 18, '38'); particularly the preservation and retention of sockets for the bridge’s lower timbers in the re-facing of lower west wall and corbel, threshold level and sides of the entrance opening. (Fig. 18, '40') Care in packing, pointing and re- capping.

Phase 1 The Phase 1 building is in a good state of repair apart from erosion of the top and a full depth crack (Fig. 15, '35') running the height of the wall in the north east corner of the building which requires specialist input as regard stitching or pinning. The exposed core fabric at the top of the wall needs stabilising and formation of new wall heads needs to be undertaken.

Mitigation: archaeological recording (photograph and measured survey). Archaeological observation and recording of wall core during removal of loose fabric, and potential archaeological details that were previously not visible from ground level. Evidence of window openings at the top of the west wall (Fig. 16, '26') and details of east window (Fig. 12, '6') need to be retained. Care in re-pointing to retain distinct and different character of wall finishes and preserve areas of render.

19 None of the proposed conservation repairs advised by others are of a scale or in archaeologically unique and sensitive locations such that it is likely to have a major adverse impact. However, significant care in the works coupled with archaeological recording and a flexible approach to accommodate the issues already identified as well as any new one arising will be a vital part of the conservation program. Particular areas of importance will be the details of the entrance and bridge attachments on the west elevation, the wall tops, windows and any large scale re-pointing.

Pre-conservation records take the form of digital photographs. These are to be supplemented by surveyed outline elevations of the building faces.

David Gill. April 2010 SCC Archaeological Service Field Team

Bibliography

Ridgard, J. 1987 ‘References to the south Elmham Minster in the Medival account Rols of south Elmham manor’ Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of History and Archaeology Vol 36 part 3

20 N

P12 21 1

18 18 6

7 28 27

29 28

N S

0 2.50m

Figure 12. Phase I - Eastern Wall External Elevation N

P11

Chopped out to remove lintel 8 Face gone Face Scar of 3 South Wall

18 22 1 10 9 2 15 15 14 5 11 7

6 4 1 14

North Wall Cross-Section

N S

0 2.50m

Figure 13. Phase I - Eastern Wall Internal Elevation N

P13

36 18 18

27 27

14 35 17

West Wall 14 East Wall Cross-Section Cross-Section

0 2.50m

Figure 14. Phase I - Northern Wall Internal Elevation

1 23 N P14

34 24

35 31

12 30

0 2.50m

Figure 15. Phase I - Northern Wall External Elevation

1 24 N

P15

18 18 18

Upper floor beam 20

25 18 18

1 18 38 16 14 37

12 Phase II drain North Wall Cross-Section Wall S N

0 2.50m

Figure 16. Phase I - Western Wall Internal Elevation N

P16 18

33 26 1

Top of footing 12

N S 0 2.50m

Figure 17. Phase I - Western Wall External Elevation N

42 Gateway Entrance P17 38 27 1

41 42 41

39 39

40 40

N S

0 2.50m

Figure 18. Phase 2 - Western Wall External Elevation N

P18 28 1

S N

0 2.50m

Figure 19. Phase 2 - Western Wall Internal Elevation N

P17P19

42 29 1

W E

0 2.50m

Figure 20. Phase 2 - Southern Wall External Elevation N

P20 P17 30 1

Phase II West Wall Cross Section

0 2.50m

Figure 21. Phase 2 - Southern Wall Internal Elevation N

P21

P17

46 31 44 1

Phase I West Wall Cross Section

E W

Moat

0 2.50m

Figure 22. Phase II - Northern Wall External Elevation N

P22

P17

44 32 1

Buttress Profile

Phase I Door

29 45 Phase II Phase II Wall Wall

E W

0 2.50m

Figure 23. Phase 2 - Northern Wall Internal Elevation 9. Documentary Search by Anthony M Breen

The research for this report has been carried out at the Suffolk Record Office in Lowestoft and some additional material has been drawn from the Farrar Collection held at the Suffolk Record Office in Ipswich.

Introduction According to Copinger, ‘The manor extended over nine parishes and formed a sub-division of the Hundred of Wangford, anciently called the liberty, manor of township of South Elmham’. The manor was sold to Hubert de Losinga, Bishop of Norwich in 1101 and he gave it to the see of Norwich. The bishops had a palace here from a very early period; ‘It is certain that a palace was built in South Elmham by Bishop Hubert, and … that the old moated ruin in St Margaret’s parish may be the remains. The existing mansion now called St Margaret’s Hall was erected by some later bishop’. It and other manors remained the property of the bishops until the appointment of William Repps or Rugge, the former abbot of St Benet’s Holme as bishop of Norwich in 1535 who surrendered the bishops’ manors in exchange for the property of the former monastery of St Benet’s Holme. The manors were then returned to the crown.

In 1541 the manor was granted out to Edward, Lord North and amongst the records held at Lowestoft there is a rental of the manor dated 1556 (ref. 741/HA12/C2/57). This rental, written in Latin, includes rent for former demesne land that is land belonging to the lords themselves that had been granted out as copyhold. These lands are referred to in the rental as ‘New Fee’ and the list begins with ‘Item the heirs of John Toft for rent of 7 acres of meadow of the demesne of the manor called the Gongmedewe’. There is no reference to the hall in this part of the rental. In a separate section headed ‘The farm of the site of the manor with all demesne lands’, the first entry is ‘Item Robert Sellyng for the farm of the site of the manor and certain demesne lands to the same belonging lying in the parish of Saint Margaret £10’. He also paid £2 for another part of the demesne land called ‘Oxclossemedowe’. The next entry is for another tenant named Richard Fox who paid £20, 2

33 barrels of butter and one ‘weigh casei’ for the farm of ‘the lodge and other buildings herbage and pannage within the new park in the parish of St James’. It is probable that this lodge was connected with the park and not with the site of the manor. From at least 1556 onwards it appears to be the case that the hall was a tenanted farm and not the main residence of any of the lords of this manor.

Maps By the eighteenth century this manor was part of the Adair estates. The family lived at Flixton Hall and the land was rented out. There are very few surviving estate maps. A map of part of South Elmham then the property of Sir Edward Ward dated 1705 is damaged and awaiting conservation. A later map of 1759 shows another farm then the property of James Denny (ref. 741/HA12/D4/11). None of the lands shown on this map adjoin this site. The only estate map to show South Elmham Hall Farm is dated to circa 1876 (ref. 741/HA12/D4/23/4). It was copied into a small pocket book and was probably used by the estate’s steward. There is no scale on this map. The only other earlier map of this site is the tithe map of 1838. This shows that only part of the moated site was within the parish of St Margaret’s (ref. 150/C3/1b). The land was then tenanted to George Durrant but only some 30 acres 3 roods and 22 perches of his lands are described in the apportionment (ref. 150/C3/1a).

The antiquarian Edmund Farrar visited the hall in 1912 and made a coloured plan of the site showing the positions of the house, stables and ‘so-called chapel’ and postern bridge. He measured the northern and western sides of the moat. Within the South Elmham file of the Farrar Collection held at Ipswich (ref. HD78:2671), there are a series of photographs of the hall including two internal doorways and a window, but just one photograph of the ‘Remains of the ancient Palace of the Bishops’ then covered with vegetation. There is also a copy of his article describing the hall. He noted that the moat was ‘not quite rectangular, for the southern side has an inward inclination’. He concluded that the main entrance had been the eastern side of the moat and that the approach was along the remains of an avenue of oak trees planted in

34 1520. Within the house he noted a number of early features from the thirteenth century and ‘Upstairs there is a good deal of early timber work, probably of the fifteenth century’. He was of the opinion ‘from external and internal evidence, it may be the manor of about 1500, in which is incorporated some earlier work’.

Account Rolls The records of the manor of South Elmham are extensive and include a series of medieval compotus or account rolls dating 1342-1483 (ref. 741/HA12/58- 86). The series is incomplete and only some of the later rolls have been indexed to highlight specific references to the repair of buildings within the manorial site. The references to this site have been gathered from the rolls so that the works described can be identified within the surviving structures.

The earliest surviving roll containing details of the building works for 1444-5 is damaged along the right edge. The total expenditure on repairs in that year was £10 0s 7½ d and the account begins with the payment William Tyler of Stowe for 29 thousand tiles for the hall and porch at the rate of 16d for each thousand. The next payments are for six thousand lathe nails at a total cost of 7s 6s and for lathes at a total cost of 10s 8d. The total for ‘threpenynaill’ that is three penny nails is lost from the text. The next payment is for further nails called ‘derenaill’ for the eaves boards. Other parts of the text are damaged but the sections include payment for carriage. William Tyler was also paid for repairs to the lord’s chamber and for the chamber above. Further down the account includes repairs to the barn or grange including ‘groundfyllyng’ and for the bases on the north and east sides of the building.

In a separate paragraph John Tyler and his fellow workers were paid for 14 thousand tiles called ‘thaktyll’ at 2s 6d per thousand and at a total cost of 33s 10d. He and his workers were also paid for waltyll and for tiles called ‘crestes’ but these sums were for work at Hoxne (ref. 741/HA12/C2/70).

The next roll for 1450-51 includes details of only limited building work with a total cost of £1 5s 5d mainly paid to Stephen Syward for tiling 4s, Robert Toly

35 and Richard Anketell for 6 days work on the ‘shepyn’ (ref. 741/HA12/C2/72). The repairs to the mill at Homersfield are in a separate section of the roll.

The accounts for 1451-52 are much fuller, listing repairs to a total cost of £6 4s 9d. The long list begins with the wages of the carpenter for the work of scouring the chimney in the hall and payments for masons’ work called the ‘levelyng’. The chimney appears to have been made of timber as there are payments to Stephen Syward and Walter Seman for carrying and raising the timbers of the chimney. There were also repairs on some of the tiles next the chamber, no doubt to accommodate the new chimney and Robert and John Toly were paid for work on the roof between the chimney and hall. The costs of this work included the purchase of three iron bolts for the timbers next to the chamber. Tiles and lathes were bought for work on the new ‘garyte’, garret, stable and hall. Henry Hercok was paid for tiling the roof of the ‘Newgaryte’ and further work below the Great Garret. There is also a mention of the new stables. Further down the list William Byrd was paid for work on the Bailiff’s chamber and at the west end of the great stable. The final payments are for work on the great grange (ref. 741/HA12/C2/73).

The roll for 1467-68 contains details of payments of £20 2s 4 ½ d of which £15 3s 6d were spent on the garret (ref. 741/HA12/C2/80). The account begins with payments to four carpenters for 20 days work on the new roof and payments for materials included sums for lathes and board called ‘plawncheryng’. There were further payments for ‘waterbordes’ and ‘sparre feet’. Money was again spent on ‘thaktyle’, ‘cornertyle’ and ‘rooftyle’ brought from Weybread and there is a payment for five ‘chalder’ of lime was brought from Norwich. The chalder or chaldron, a measure of approximately 36 bushels had not been standardised at this date. The account includes a payment to John Crakesheld and Robert Wade for plastering the walls. There were payments for the clay, ‘colder’ and for plumber’s work on the gutters. Augustine Fyshe, a thatcher was paid for 14 days thatching the old grange and stable at a rate of 9d a day. This roof was made of rushes brought from Mendham. Amongst the entries there are a few payments for repairs to Homersfield Bridge including payment for the use of timbers called

36 ‘plawncheryng’. Planchering is flooring (Yaxley 2003) and the same type of timber was used for work on the garret.

The final accounts for 1469-70 include expenditure of £2 3s 1d (ref. 741/HA12/C2/82). Tiles were again brought from Weybread for the hall, kitchen, stables and bake house. The carpenter Richard Auntell was paid for repairs to a window in the garret and he also carried out work in the great grange with John Salter. Stephen Wryght was paid for making two doors one at the end of the stables and the other at the old entrance of the porch.

None of these accounts have been translated in full and here are further details in the text of each account. The accounts do show that major repairs were carried out in these years.

Conclusion There would be some value in translating the building accounts in full especially if the works can be identified within the surviving structures.

Though some of the materials used for the repairs were drawn from the resources of the manor other material was brought from elsewhere Norwich, Weybread and Mendham. The earliest surviving account mentions work at Hoxne, another of the bishops’ manors. It is likely that the resources of the various manors were used to provide materials for building work not only at South Elmham but elsewhere. This suggests that the surviving accounts rolls for other manors may include further references to the buildings at South Elmham.

37 10. References

Ipswich

HD78:2671 South Elmham Edmund Farrar Collection

Lowestoft Maps and Plans 741/HA12/D4/8 Map of lands belonging to Sir Edward Ward knt and bart, lying in St Margaret, South Elmham 1705

741/HA12/D4/11 A Survey of the estate of James Denny lying in St Margaret South Elmham by Francis Emerton 1759

741/HA12/D4/23/4 Book containing plans and particulars of farms c. 1876 St Margaret, All Saints and St Nicholas South Elmham

741/HA12/C2/57 Rental for the manor of South Elmham 1556 ‘Includes … rentals for the demesne lands … and for the site of the manor and the demesne lands’

741/HA12/C2/70 Compotus Roll 23-24 Hen VI 1444-5 ‘Includes accounts for tilling the hall and porch of the manor and for making tiles: also repairs to the chamber and manor’

741/HA12/C2/72 Compotus Roll 29-30 Hen VI 1450-51

741/HA12/C2/73 Compotus Roll 30-31 Hen VI 1451-52 ‘Includes an account for building a chimney in the hall’

741/HA12/C2/80 Compotus Roll 7-8 Edw IV 1467-68 ‘Includes accounts for putting a new roof of tiles on the building called the Garret, for repairing the gutters on the hall, for repairing Homersfield Bridge, for putting a new roof of thatch on the great barn.

741/HA12/C2/82 Compotus Roll 9-10 Edw IV 1469-70 ‘Includes accounts for repairs to the Garret and other buildings, the mill and Homersfield Bridge’

Published Works David Yaxley ‘A Researcher’s Glossary of words found in historical documents of East Anglia’, Larks Press 2003