Presented by .! ^\JL \J~;
]Ey Xibris
Surrey
HrcbaeolOQtcal Society
Date Q..ftM \.3J?3
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
University of Toronto
http://www.archive.org/details/surreyarchaeol64surr
Surrey
Archaeological Collections
Relating to the
History and Antiquities of the County
Published by the
SURREY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
VOL. 64
Honorary Editor: E. E. Harrison, M.A., F.S.A.
THE SURREY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
CASTLE ARCH, GUILDFORD
1967
The Council of the Surrey Archaeological Society desires it to be
distinctly understood that it is not responsible for any statement or
opinions expressed in the Collections, the authors of the communica-
tions and articles being alone accountable for the same.
In particular, the method of transcription of documents, their
transliteration and spelling are left to the compiler of the contribution,
the Honorary Editor being in no way responsible for the method
adopted.
GIFTS AND LOANS TO THE SOCIETY
Members and friends desiring to give or lend books, documents or
objects of antiquarian interest to the Society for the Society's Library
at Castle Arch, or for deposit in Guildford Museum, are earnestly
requested to send such gifts or loans to the Hon. Secretary, Surrey
Archaeological Society, Castle Arch, Guildford, with a covering letter
stating whether the objects sent are a gift or loan to the Society. As
regards articles intended for the Museum, these should be accom-
panied by full particulars, such as where found, date of finding, etc.
Members wishing to leave money, books or articles to the Society by
Will are asked to make use of the following Clause :
"I GIVE to the Surrey Archaeological Society of Guildford free of
duty the sum of £ (words and figures) (for books or other articles, a
description is necessary). AND I DECLARE that the receipt of the
Treasurer or other proper officer of the Society shall be a complete
discharge therefor."
NOTES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
COLLECTIONS
The Honorary Editor will be glad to receive contributions of county
interest, either in article form, or in notes, with appropriate illustrations.
He reserves the right to file at Castle Arch articles too long for public-
ation, and facilities will be given for obtaining microphotographic
copies of such material. Copy should be in typescript, double-spaced
with ample margins, and on one side of the page only. It should be
complete in every particular for publication, but the Honorary Editor
will be glad to discuss an article and, in particular, the illustrations,
before the copy is submitted finally.
CONTENTS
List of Officers, Council and Committees .
Local Secretaries .....
Abbreviations ......
Page
.vii, viii
Articles:
Bronze Age Metal Objects in Surrey. By Winifred E. Phillips . 1
Excavations near Merton Priorv, 1962-3. By D. J. Turner, B.Sc,
F.S.A.Scot. ... 35
The Great Park of Nonsuch. By C. F. Titford . . . . 71
The Story of Terrace House, Battersea (Old Battersea House). By
F. T. Smallwood, M.A '.91
The 1801 Crop Returns for the County of Surrey. By A. G. Partox,
B.A . . .113
Merstham Limeworks. Bv K. W. E. Gravett, M.Sc.(Eng.), F.S.A.,
and Eric S. Wood, F.S.A 124
The Church of St. George, Crowhurst, Surrey. By R. W. McDowall,
O.B.E., F.S.A 148
The Church of St. Peter, Limpsfield, Surrey. By Kay Percy . . 154
Notes:
Mesolithic Flint Axe from Woking . . . . . .160
Mesolithic Flint Axe found at Thursley . . . . .160
Flint Axe from Frimlcy . . . . . . . .160
Neolithic Axe found at Shamley Green, Wonersh .... 160
Pottery from Chessington . . . . . . . .162
Two Unrecorded Earthworks . . . . . . .163
Romano-British Pit at High Billinghurst, Dunsfold, containing Iron
Ore 164
Roman Coin from Sutton . . . . . . . .164
The Early Foundations of St. Mary's Church, Guildford . . 165
Ordinations in the Interregnum . . . . . . .168
The Great Rees David Mystery • . ■ . • • .168
Books Received .......... 170
Index ........... 171
ILLUSTRATIONS
Bronze Age Metal Objects in Surrey:
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Excavation
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Map : Earl}' and Middle Bronze Age . . . page 1
Map : Late Bronze Age ...... 4
Map: Late Bronze Age Hoards . . . . 10
Bronze Objects from Charterhouse Museum . . 22
Bronze Objects from Weybridge Museum . . 23
Bronze Objects from Weybridge, Guildford and
Ashmolean Museums ...... 24
Bronze Objects from Weybridge and Guildford
Museums ........ 25
Bronze Objects from Guildford Museum and from
Shirley ........ 26
s near Merton Priory, 1962-3:
Plan showing Site
Isopsephograph of Allotment Area
Plan of Excavations, 1962-3 .
Section A-A across Roadway
Section B-B of Southern Irrigation Ditch
Patterned Floor Tiles
Histograms of Roof-tile Thicknesses
Pottery
Pottery
Iron Objects.
Iron Objects.
Bone Objects
page 36
39
41
43
43
47
51
53
55
62
64
66
The Great Park of Nonsuch :
Fig. 1. Map ........ page 78
Fig. la. Map showing Five Divisions recommended by
Parliamentary Commission of 1650
2b. Some of the Field Lines as shown on the O.S. map of
1867
88
The 1801 Crop Returns for the County of Surrey:
Fig. 1. Surrey — Geology ......
Fig. 2. 1801 Crop Returns: Legumes and Root Crops .
Fig. 3. 1801 Crop Returns: Cereals ....
Merstham Limeworks:
Fig. 1 . Merstham Limeworks : Site Location Map
Fig. 2. Section of Circle A .....
Fig. 3. Plan of Circle B
Fig. 4. Section of Circle B .....
Fig. 5. Plan annexed to Deeds of Merstham Limeworks
page 114
115
116
page 132
134
135
136
144
ILLUSTRATIONS— Contd.
Plate la. Merstham Limeworks: Base of Steam
Engine ......
16. Merstham Limeworks: Lime Cottage
II. Merstham Limeworks in operation in 1929
111 Section of Merstham Tithe Map (1838)
I Va Merstham Limeworks : View across Circle B
W'b Merstham Limeworks: Detail of Floor in
Circle B .
following index
The Church of St. George, Crowhurst, Surrey:
Fig. 1. Plan page 149
Fig. 2. The Old Steeple 150
Plate V. Crowhurst Church from the South-East following index
VI. Crowhurst Church Interior
Vila. Brass of John Gainsford IV
Vllfc. Brass of John Gainsford V
VIIc. East Window in South Aisle .
Villa. Anonymous Tomb
Villi. Tomb of John Gainsford V
The Church of St. Peter, Limpsfield, Surrey:
Plan of Limpsfield Church .... page 155
Limpsfield Church from South -West . following index
Limpsfield Church, East End, 1825
East End in 1828 .
West End in 1828
Chancel from Gresham Chapel
Limpsfield Church in 1825, showing Box
Pews and Pulpit with Clerk's Seat
Flint Axes from Thursley, Shamley Green,
Frimley and Woking ..... page 161
Iron Age Pottery from Chessington . . .162
St. Mary's, Guildford: Plan of Trench . . . 166
St. Mary's, Guildford: Sections and Elevation . . 167
Plate IXa.
IXfe.
Xa.
Xb.
XIa.
XI6.
Notes
Fig.
1.
Fig.
2.
Fig.
3.
Fig.
4.
SURREY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
CASTLE ARCH, GUILDFORD
President :
Miss KATHLEEN M. KENYON, C.B.E., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A.
Honorary Vice-Presidents:
Colonel the Right Hon. the EARL OF ONSLOW, M.C., T.D., D.L.
The Right Hon. the EARL OF MUNSTER, P.C., K.B.E.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL, M.C.
C. J. A. EVELYN
Vice-Presidents :
I. D. MARGARY, M.A., F.S.A.
F. E. BRAY
R. H. G. LEVESON GOWER
A. W. G. LOWTHER, A.R.I.B.A., F.S.A.
R. A. SKELTON, M.A., F.S.A.
Professor S. S. FRERE, M.A., V.-P.S.A.
E. S. WOOD, B.A., F.S.A.
Council :
Retire 1968
W. C. KNOX, B.A.
K. W. E. GRAVETT, M.Sc. (En?.
F.S.A.
Major H. C. PATRICK, D.L.
A. J. CLARK, F.S.A.
R. W. McDOWALL, M.A., F.S.A.
T. S. MERCER
Retire 1970
Mrs. J. F. T. BANKS, A.L.A.
G. J. DAWSON, B.A.
J. N. HAMPTON
The Viscountess HANW< )KTH
A. T. RUBY, M.B.E.
N. P. THOMPSON
Retire 1969
J. C. BATLEY
J. L. NEVINSON, F.S.A.
B. F. J. PARDOE, M.A.
P. SHEARMAN. F.S.A.
Aid. G. O. SWAYNE, O.B.E.
T. E. C. WALKER, F.S.A.
Retire 1971
B. P. BLAKE
Miss M. GOLLANCZ, M.A.
Miss J. M. HARDING
F. W. HOLLING
C. W. PHILLIPS, O.B.E. , M.A.
F.S.A.
Miss C. SMITH
Trustees :
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY
THE HONORARY TREASURER OF THE SOCIETY
Honorary Secretary :
A. S. GILBERT, C.B.E., LL.M.
Honorary Treasurer :
D. J. COLEY, F.C.A.
Honorary Editor:
E. HARRISON, M.A., F.S.A.
Honorary Legal Adviser:
S. E. D. FORTESCUE
Honorary Librarian :
Miss P. M. St. J. BREWER, A.L.A.
Honorary Auditor:
A. A. WYLIE, F.C.A.
Honorary Editors of the Bulletin :
Mr. and Mrs. D. J. TURNER
COMMITTEES
Library Committee :
R. A. Skelton, Chairman; T. E. C. Walker; Miss M. D. Liggett; Miss E. M.
Dance; J. L. Nevinson; E. E. Harrison; A. S. Gilbert; Miss P. M. St. J.
Brewer, Honorary Librarian and Secretary.
Excavations Committee :
E. S. Wood, Chairman; B. P. Blake; A. J. Clark; I. G. R. Dormor;
A. S. Gilbert; J. N. Hampton; Lady Hanworth; Miss Joan M. Harding;
E. E. Harrison; F. A. Hastings; F. W. Holling; A. W. G. Lowther;
N. H. Nail; D. J. Turner; N. P. Thompson, Honorary Secretary.
Visits Committee :
Captain M. A. Wilson, Chairman; Mrs. J. F. T. Banks; Miss J. M. Carter;
Mrs. R. K. Chiles; H. V. H. Everard; R. J. Jackson, Treasurer; Mrs. M. N.
Trier; Miss C. Smith, Honorary Secretary.
Honorary Local Secretaries :
For addresses of Local Secretaries consult Members' list
Banstead Urban District
Beddington, Wellington, Carshalton
Bletchingley, Burstow, Home, Godstone .
Capel, South Abin,i>er, Ockley, Newdigate
Caterham, Chelsham ....
Chertsey and Egham Urban District
Compton, Puttenham, Wanborough, Worplesdon
Coulsdon, Purley .....
Cranleigh, Wonersh, Bramley, Dunsfold, Alfold
Ewhurst ......
Croydon ......
Dorking, Holmwood, Betchworth, Mickleham
East and West Claudon, Send
Epsom, Ewell, Sutton, Cheam
Esher Urban District . . . .
Farnham, Frensham, Dockenfield, Tilford, Seale
Frimley, Camberley, Windlesham, Chobham
Godahning, Witley, Peperharow, Elstead, Ham-
bledon, Hascombe, Shackleford, Busbridge
Guildford Borough ....
Haslemere, Thursley, Chiddingfold .
Horley, Charlwood ....
Horsley, Ripley, Ockham, Wisley, Effingham
Kingston, Surbiton, Maiden, Coombe
Lambeth, Camberwell ....
Lcatherhead Urban District, Headley
Lingfield, Crowhurst, South Tandridge
Merton, London Borough, including Morden
Mitcham, Wimbledon
andridge, Titsey
Oxted, Limpsfield, North
Tatsfield .
Reigate, Buckland, Leigh, Nutfield
Richmond, Barnes
Shalford, Artington, St. Martha
Southwark, Bermondsey
Till 'ingboitrne Valley, Albury, Shere, North
Abinger, Wotton
Walton, Weybridge
Wandsworth, Battersea .
Woking, Pirbright, Bisley
K. A. Baxter.
A. S. Gilbert.
F. E. Bray.
Mrs. J. Banks.
J. C. Batley.
W. T. Bult.
A. J. Clark, F.S.A.
J. C. Batley.
H. R. Tadgell.
R. C. Gill, LL.B.
Mrs. J. Banks.
P. Shearman, F.S.A.
T. E. C. Walker, F.S.A.
Mrs. W. O. Manning.
Miss H. Rendle,
Camberley Museum.
E. E. Harrison, F.S.A.
Apply to Castle Arch.
Dr. G. R. Rolstox.
G. J. Dawson.
A. W.G.Lowther, F.S.A.
W. Myson
R. H. G. Leveson
Gower.
D. J. Turner.
G. Turner, Richmond
Public Library.
F. G. Gilbert-Bextley.
G. J. Dawson.
Dr. G. I. Watson.
A. G. Martin.
The Rev. N. D. Gill.
N. P. Thompson.
ABBREVIATIONS
Ant. .
A.J. .
Arch.
Arch. A el. .
Arch. Cant.
Arch. J.
B. & B.
B.M. .
B.M.G.
C. & Y. Soc.
Evans, B. .
G.M.K.
J.B.A.A. .
J.R.S.
J.R.S.A.I. .
K.R.O.
M.&-B. .
Med. A.
N.G.R.
Nat. Grid Ref.
O.S. .
P. Croydon N.H.
P. Hants. F.C.
P. Leatherhead L
P.P.S.
Preh. Farnh.
P.R.O.
P.S.A.
R.C.H.M. .
Rec. of Bucks
Sussex A.C.
Sussex A.S.
Surrey A.C.
Surrey A.S.
Surrey Rec. Soc.
Surrey R.O.
U.J. A.
V.C.H.
:}
H.S.
Antiquity.
The Antiquaries Journal, Society of Antiquaries of
London.
Archceologia, Society of Antiquaries of London.
Archceologia Aeliana, Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle upon Tyne.
Archceologia Cantiana, Kent Archaeological Society.
ArchcBological Journal, Royal Archaeological Insti-
tute.
Brayley, Britton and Bravlcv, The History of Surrey
(1841).
British Museum.
Later Prehistoric Antiquities of the British Isles
(B.M., 1953).
Canterbury and York Society.
Evans, J., The Ancient Bronze Implements, Weapons,
and Ornaments of Great Britain and Ireland (1881).
Guildford Muniment Room, Guildford Museum.
Journal of the British Archceological Association.
Journal of Roman Studies, Society for the Promotion
of Roman Studies.
Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.
Kent Record Office.
Manning and Brav, History and Antiquities of
Surrey (1804-14)."
Medieval Archeology ,' Society for Medieval Archae-
ology.
National Grid Reference.
Ordnance Survey.
Proceedings of the Croydon Natural History and
Scientific Society.
Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club.
Proceedings of the Leatherhead and District Local
History Society.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.
A Survey of the Prehistory of the Farnham District.
Surrey A.S., 1939.
Public Record Office.
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of London,
2nd Series.
Royal Commission on Historic Monuments.
Records of Buckinghamshire.
Sussex ArchcBological Collections.
Sussex Archaeological Society.
Surrey Archaeological Collections.
Surrey Archaeological Society.
Surrey Record Society.
Surrey Record Office.
Ulster Journal of A rchcBology .
Victoria County History.
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
BY
WINIFRED E. PHILLIPS
SINCE Dr. Gardner's paper on Bronze Age pottery1 and
Mr. A. W. G. Lowther's local study of the Farnham area2
there has been little or no attempt to consider the Bronze
Age material in Surrey.
Here all the metal objects have been brought together (see
gazetteer), and some of the more interesting objects and hoards
• Flat axes
O Flanged axes
» Palstaves
& Dirks & Daggers
■ Rapiers
5 0
Fig. 1. — Early and Middle Bronze Age.
have been discussed in detail. A further paper on finds other than
metal is envisaged at a later date.
Distribution maps of the Bronze Age finds in the county
(Figs. 1, 2, 3) show two concentrations: the Croydon and Farnham
areas, and scattered finds along the valleys of the Wey, Mole and
Wandle. This would seem to suggest that movement was restricted
to the small river valleys. Movement over the rest of the county
would have been difficult. In only a few isolated places, such as
the settlement site at Weston Wood, Albury,3 there are finds.
Few of the finds can be assigned to the Early or Middle Bronze
Ages and then only on typological grounds, and the majority of
the implements are of Late Bronze Age date.
1 Gardner, Dr. Eric, Surrey A.C., XXXV (1924), 1-29.
2 Preh. Farnh.
3 Harding, J., Surrey A.C., LXI (1964), 10-7. Weston Wood interim
report.
1
2 BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
Early Bronze Age
As can be seen from the gazetteer the only finds of this period are
eight flat axes. Only one, that from Walton Heath,4 has associations
(calcined bone), and this possibly denoted a burial. This axe is
just over six inches long, with a narrow butt and slightly splayed
cutting edge. There is a faint transverse bevel across the face at
the start of the expansion of the blade, a not uncommon feature in
British axes. From Farncombe, Godalming, comes the only other
complete axe; this has a square broad butt, and the face appears
to have been left rough. Broad-butted flat axes are uncommon in
Britain, and this type possibly came from Central Germany during
the Late Northern Middle Neolithic. Neither the Walton Heath
nor Farncombe axe have been analysed, but both may well be of
Britton's 'Migdale' group.5 Similar axes to those from Walton and
Farncombe are found in many parts of the country, e.g. Parwich,
Derbyshire6 and Durham.7
A portion of a flat axe from an unknown site in West Surrey8
has a narrower, more chisel-like aspect than any of the others, but
it and other fragments are difficult to place in either of Britton's
two categories, and none are decorated. Apart from papers on
analysis of the metal used, there has been no major contribution
to the study of flat axes since that of Megaw and Hardy9 and, as
J. J. Butler10 has pointed out, British examples have not yet been
systematically studied.
The Middle Bronze Age
Thirty-six objects may be assigned to this period comprising
twenty-six axes, four dirks and six rapiers. Their distribution is
shown on Fig. 1.
Surrey has produced six flanged axes of Middle Bronze Age type,
two having splayed blades. Those from Thorpe11 and Beddington
Park, near Croydon,12 had the stop-ridge curved and the blade tips
turn upwards, with the upper edges nearly horizontal, like those
from Plymstock (Devon),13 Buckland (Kent),14 and Arrcton Down
(Isle of Wight). 1S This type of axe is seldom found outside the
British Isles, being found here in the south and east, and more
4 Surrey A.C., LVIIT (1961), 111-2. In private collection.
s Britton, D., P.P.S., XXIX (1963), 258 ff. 'Traditions of Metal-working
in the Later Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of Britain: Part I.'
6 Inventaria Archceologica, G.B., 19, Fig. 1.
7 P.P.S., XXIX (1963), 260.
8 Unpublished. Charterhouse Museum, 157-1957.
9 Megaw and Hardy, P.P.S., IV (1938), 272 ff. British decorated axes and
their diffusion during the earlier part of the Bronze Age.
10 Butler, J. J., PalcBohistoria, IX (1963), 'Bronze Age Connections across
the North Sea.'
11 Whimster, D. C, Archeology of Surrey (1931), 71, Fig. 13.
12 London Museum Records.
13 Inventaria ArchcBologica, G.B., 9.
14 P.P.S., IV (1938), Fig. 10, b.
15 Arch., XXXVI (1855), 326-31.
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY 3
rarely further north. A flanged axe said to have been found in
Richmond Park16 is, from the drawing, of European type, and
its British origin is doubtful.17
A single, elongated, straight-sided axe comes from Thames
Ditton.18 It is similar to those from the Medoc area of France, and
might be an import.
Two axes with cast flanges on both sides and a slight stop-ridge
or central thickening of the blade come from Moated Farm, New
Haw, Chertsey,19and Weybridge.20 They are of Megaw and Hardy's
Type I.
Twenty of the forty-four palstaves which have been found in
the county (see Fig. 1) have the splayed cutting edge of the
Middle Bronze Age palstave of Southern Britain. Decoration is
common; three had groups of three or more ribs, five U- or V-shaped
shields with and without median ribs, one with a median rib has
this continuing into the hafting slot. Plain specimens also occur,
of which four are looped.
Of special interest is one from St. George's Hill, Walton-on-
Thames, which is of Butler's Type IA 3. It has herring-bone decora-
tion on its sides and short ribs or grooves below the stop-ridge, with
a low side loop. It is reminiscent of the decorated flanged axes of
Wessex times, and a date of about 1400 B.C.21 might be suggested
for it. Another with short-rib decoration comes from Wanborough;
this is loopless and of M. A. Smith's low-flanged type.22
A group of three from Carshalton Park23 seem to be of
M. A. Smith's wing-flanged type,24 which, she says, is mostly
confined to the North of England.
The flanged palstave from the Crooksbury Hill hoard has the re-
mains of a side loop, the blade sides are nearly parallel, and there
are three converging lines on the face below the stop-ridge. This is a
version of the shield pattern and resembles Smith's South-Western
type with a narrower blade.25
Four dirks or daggers and six rapiers come from Surrey. All are
stray finds and can only be arranged typologically.
The dirk from Thames Ditton is discussed by Trump,26 and
resembles the German ones from Birkenfeld.27 It is derived from
Tumulus Bronze proto-types (Montelius II).
A rapier of the Thetford Class (Trump's Group II) was found
16 Said to be in Hull Museum.
17 Note on photostat of drawing at Ordnance Survey, Chessington.
18 Former Ball Collection, now Dept. of Archaeology, University of Durham.
19 Woking Herald, May 1965. The blade is pitted.
20 P.S.A., XXXII (1920), 91 ; now in Newbury Museum.
21 Megaw and Hardy, op. at., 272 ff.
22 Smith, M. A., P.P.S., XXV (1959), 144 ff., 'Some Somerset Hoards and
their place in the Bronze Age of Southern Britain.'
23 Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 208-9; not now to be located.
24 Smith, M. A., op. cit., 173.
25 Smith, M. A., op. cit., 177, and Fig. 7, 2.
26 Trump, B. A., P.P.S., XXVIII (1962), 80 ff.
27 Sprockhoff, E., 1941, Teil 2, Abb. 27, b. 14.
B
4 BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
at Caesar's Camp, Farnham. This has a strongly moulded blade,
and the notches in the butt corners are deliberately cut and are not
broken rivet-holes. Two more of this type come from the YYey
Ford.28 Trump assigned this group to the twelfth century B.C.
Two others from the Wey Ford have stout midribs, and one appears
to be of the Barnes Class like the rapier from the mouth of the
Wandle. These have butts with narrow, nearly vertical concave
sides, but the blade is leaf-shaped and very like a sword from
Richmond. Trump assigns the Barnes Class to her Group II, and
she dates it to the eleventh century B.C. (Hawkes Middle
Bronze II.)
Late Bronze Age
One hundred and seventy-seven objects may be assigned to this
period. Their nature and distribution being shown in Fig. 2.
The axes may be considered first. Fourteen of them are narrow,
1 ■ Socketed axes (more than one)
1 '-> Socketed axe TWincjec! axes
/^S\r~^>
v Late-type palstaves
"").,. ■• /
<i Swords /^^ \
s-^ oA^/-8 "
/'•:
5 0 /'
- . '
'<l
/
\ VTO
.
^j •':
°
< *- •• "
(
) :••
/ °
\ " ,--— '
1 — *Leaf -shaped
spearheads
o Basal-looped
spearheads
- Miscellaneous
objects
Fig. 2. — Late Bronze Age.
late-type palstaves. They have almost parallel sides, while the
stop-ridges are straight. Of these, seven are looped and seven
unlooped. Two are decorated with V-shaped shields, two have
strong median ribs and ten are M. A. Smith's 'late-type,' and are
plain.29 In hoards at Crooksbury Hill, Coulsdon, Hankley Common
and Carshalton Park, they were found with socketed axes of slender
South-Eastern type. {See pages 9 and 11.) These 'late-type'
palstaves are paralleled in the Wilburton hoard,30 where they are
28 Unpublished, Weybridge Museum, No. C.I. and no number.
29 Smith, M. A., op. cit., 176 and see Inventaria Archceologica G.B., 37, for
best parallels.
30 Fox, Sir C, Archesology of the Cambridge Region (1923).
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY 5
dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age, Phase I. None of the
'late-type' Surrey palstaves have been found in association with
leaf-shaped swords or spears, with the doubtful exception of
Farley Heath, Albury.31
Eighty-eight socketed axes come from Surrey, and their distribu-
tion is shown in Fig. 2.
Five are long, narrow axes with rectangular cross-sections, a
single flattened moulding round the socket and a small side loop
springing from the base of the moulding. These Hademarschen or
Taunton axes are held by C. F. C. Hawkes to come to Britain like
the twisted neckrings from the mouth of the Elbe.32 A dating from
c. 1050 B.C. to 750 B.C. has been suggested for them.
Fifty-four axes are slender, with rectangular sections, double
mouth-mouldings and low loop placings, the last a feature commonly
found on the Atlantic coasts, but rare in Northern Europe. Twelve
have wing decoration formed by ribbing, or the addition of pellets
or dot terminals as well as wings, nine have vertical ribs, X's,
horizontal ribs or a combination of all of these motifs. The winged
examples are regarded as contemporary with the carp's tongue
sword complex (L.B.A. II, see below), and there is no evidence for
them being earlier in Surrey hoards. Those with double moulding
at the mouth and low loop placement may belong to the following
Wilburton phase.
The Betch worth axe has, in addition, a pellet decoration on the
face and provides a link with the more developed South-Eastern
types just mentioned.
Axes with more elaborate mouldings at the mouth and with ribs
springing from below the collar come from Addington, Guildford
and Kingston. These have been placed at the end of the Carp's
Tongue phase (c. 600 B.C.) by Hawkes and Smith.33
Narrow forms of faceted, socketed axes occur at Beddlestead
(Chelsham), Coulsdon, Richmond and Weybridge. The neck
mouldings are elaborate, the axes are rectangular in section and
the side loops are placed below the collar. These are very graceful
axes and have fairly splayed cutting edges. The British examples
have not yet been fully listed or mapped, but seem to have reached
Britain from North Germany.34 Sprockhoff35 regarded the occurrence
of these axes as one of the few (at the time he wrote) examples of
North German influences on Western Europe's industries, and
Hodges36 lists two types in Ireland. The double and complex
mouldings (such as Beddlestead) represent British variants of the
single mouth-mouldings of the North German axes. These axes
31 B.M.G., 45. This is not now accepted as a certain hoard.
32 Taunton Hoards, Arch. J., XXXVII (1880), 94-8; Hawkes, C. F. C,
P.P.S., VIII (1942), 44 ff.
33 Hawkes, C. F. C, and Smith, M. A., A. J., XXXVII (1957), 185.
34 Butler, J. J., op. cit., 1963, 88.
35 Sprockhoff, E., op. cit., 1941.
36 Hodges, H. W. M., U.J.A., XIX (1956), 29 ff.
6 BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
occur in Wales with 'Welsh' type socketed axes,37 and in Southern
England in hoards with Carp's Tongue swords,38 but continental
varieties were still common in Montelius VI and Hallstatt times.39
Four axes from Addington Park, Guildford, and Wandsworth are
of the 'Yorkshire' sub-type. Butler40 regards them as a development
from the ribbed versions of the South-Eastern types, but ribbed
axes occur widely in Europe in the late Bronze Age.
The sole certain example of the 'Welsh' sub-type comes from
Seale and has a heavy beading at the mouth from which
springs the side-loop. The ribs on the face converge towards
one another. The axe is squat in form compared to the 'Yorkshire'
sub-type. A small fragment from an unknown site in Surrey41
may be another of this type. This sub-type may have Scandinavian
origins.42
Rib-and-pellet decoration is found on highly decorated axes
from Kingston43 and Weybridge.44 The Weybridge axe is decorated
with two ribs, ending in dot terminals, while those from Kingston
are more elaborate. One has groups of ribs-and-pellets on one face
and an elaborate key-hole decoration, ending in dot terminals, on the
other face. The other two have horizontal and vertical ribs as well.
This type of axe is represented in the Llyn Fawr hoard,45 which
is regarded as a Final Bronze Age group.
One 'hatchet' socketed axe comes from Thames Ditton. This
somewhat resembles the Irish 'hatchet' axes,46 but has its loop on
the face of the axe and not on the side as in the Irish specimens.
The expanded cutting edge is also smaller than in the Irish examples.
The nearest parallels are from Broughslane47 and Kirkmoyle.48 The
Irish axes, although the collars and loops differ, have been regarded
by Hodges49 as direct copies of Scandinavian ones, dated to
Montelius IV (between 900-750 B.C.).
Ten winged axes come from Surrey, eight from the hoards at
Addington Park and Wickham Park, Croydon. These are dated
to the seventh century (L.B.A. II) through their associations (see
page 9). One of the two stray finds from Woodside Common,
Wimbledon,50 appears to be end- winged rather than medium-
winged.
From the distribution in Surrey (see Fig. 2) this type may well
37 Grimes, W., The Prehistory of Wales (1951).
38 A. J., II (1922), 107, Fig. 2.
39 Butler, J. J., op. cit., 89.
40 Ibid., 91.
41 Unpublished. Guildford Museum. No. 955.
42 Butler, J. J., ibid., 93.
43 Evans, B., Figs. 137, 141, 142.
44 Surrey A.C., XXV (1912), PI. II, 3.
45 A. J., XIX (1939), 369 ff., 367; Grimes, op. cit., 221.
46 Hodges, H. W. M., op. cit., 33, Fig. 1, No. 4.
47 Ibid., Fig. 1, No. 4.
48 Ibid., Fig. 2, No. 2.
49 Ibid., 33.
50 Now in the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset. Nothing further is
known of these axes.
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY 7
have travelled up the Thames. It rarely competed with the already
established socketed axes.
Thirty-two spearheads have been found in Surrey and their distri-
bution is shown in Fig. 2. The twelve basal-looped spearheads
include three with lozenge-shaped openings at the base of the blade
similar to ones from the Nettleham and Stibbard hoards. An
exceptionally large specimen (length 31 inches), found in the Wan die
Valley, was presumably only used for ceremonial occasions, for the
socket is too narrow and too short for any practical purpose. It
appears to have been cut into pieces, before being deposited.51
These are attributed to L.B.A. I52 (900-700 B.C.).
Twenty leaf-shaped socketed spearheads with peg holes in the
sockets have been found in the county, and their distribution can
be seen in Fig. 2. The majority are badly damaged, but decoration
survives on some of them. Two from Beddington Park53 had small
transverse lines between two sets of horizontal bands on the socket
and one from Thames Ditton has a dotted motif above horizontal
lines on the socket. In Northern Europe this form of decoration
is attributed to Montelius II.54
Two socketed spearheads come from Colt Hill, Seale.55 Both have
the socket extending all the way to the now missing tips. The larger
one has an extra 'beading' or moulding defining the socket. This
plain type of leaf-shaped spearhead reached Britain before the end
of the Wessex period, and continued in use for a long time.
Neither the lunate spearhead nor the hollow-cast blades of the
final stages of the Late Bronze Age appear in the county.
Miniature spear or arrowheads have been found unstratified at
Farley Heath, Albury and Wickham Park, Croydon.
Two ferrules have been found in Surrey — at Beddington Park
and Wickham Park, Croydon. Both had tubular bodies, slightly
conical, and that from Wickham Park was dated to the seventh
century. Tubular ferrules are rare but widespread in England
and Ireland.56
Nine complete swords and some other fragments of Late Bronze
Age types have been found in Surrey (see Fig. 2). 'Carp's-tongue'
sword fragments come from Addington Park and a fragment of
a solid-handled 'Auvenier' sword from Wickham Park; both are
dated by their associations to the seventh century.
Swords from Limpsfield57 and the Thames at Kingston58 are of
'Rixheim/Lambeth' type. Thev should date to between 1100-
950 B.C.
51 B.M., Greenwell Coll. W.G., 2255.
52 Hawkes, C. F. C, Scheme for the British Bronze Age (1960).
53 Anderson, J. C, Croydon: Prehistoric and Roman (1874), PI. Ill, No. 4.
The objects cannot now be traced. Best parallels from Ingham and Reach
Fens, Cambs.
54 Trump, B. A., op. tit., 82.
55 Surrey A.C., XII (1895), 152; Preh. Farnh., 163.
56 Isleworth; Arch., LXI (1909), PL lxxx, Fig. 75.
57 Phillips, W. E„ Surrey A.C., LXIII (1966), 168-9.
58 Devenish, K., Surrey A.C., LXI (1964), PL II, 748.
8 BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
The remaining five swords are leaf-shaped; those from Kingston
and from the mouth of the Wandle are of Peake's type 'G.' The
one from New Lock, Richmond, is Peake's type 'E' or 'F'; some
fragments come from Chertsey, while that from Charlwood59 is
24 inches long, with two rivet holes in the shoulder, the tang broken
off.
Tools are scarce in Surrey and only eight have been noted. One
trunnion celt or lugged chisel comes from Farley Heath, Albury
(see page 12). It does not resemble the North Welsh ones, being
more like those from Ireland,60 but differs in having the stop-ridge
at the sides and not on the face. This type of stop-ridge is found
on similar implements from Yattendon.61 At Broxton there is a
very large example,62 dated to the Middle Bronze/Late Bronze
Age transition by its associations. All have slightly expanded
cutting edges, except that from Farley Heath, which more closely
resembles that from Plymstock in Devon, which, however, has no
stop-ridge. One quoted by Butler63 comes from Veerhout, Holland,
where it was associated with 'Welsh' sub-type palstaves and other
objects connected with the Ilsmoor horizon in North Germany,
and equivalent to the Middle Bronze Age in Britain, e.g. Acton
Park hoard c. 1450. From the various associations it would appear
that these lugged chisels had a long life.
Socketed gouges have been found at Addington, Beddington
Park, Purley, Wickham Park, Coulsdon, Richmond and Wands-
worth.
Portions of two moulds for socketed axes come from Beddington
Park and Wickham Park.64 Both are similar to ones from the Isle
of Harty.65
One elaborate pin has been dredged from the mouth of the Wandle.66
It has an expanded head, engraved decoration on neck and swelling
which is pierced and resembles a pin from Ramsgate, Kent.
A shield dredged from the river bank at Walton-on-Thames is
circular and approximately two feet across. Its decoration consists
of concentric rings of small repousee bosses and raised ribs.67 It is
of the Yetholm type and similar to one from Moel Siabod.68
Part of a pennanular ring, with triangular section, came from
Weston Wood, Albury. This could be similar to ones from Southall,
Middlesex,69 and the North of England.70
59 Surrey A.C., LV (1958), 122 and Fig. 6.
60 Evans, B., 69, Fig. 47; likened to examples in Denmark and Hallstatt.
61 Arch., LX1 (1908), 138, Fig. 125; Evans, B., 169, Fig. 196; P.S.A., VII
(1878), 480.
62 Evans, B., 169, Fig. 197.
63 Butler, J. J., op. cit., 52.
64 Hodges, H. W. M., U.J.A., XVII (1954), 88 ff.
65 Inventaria Archceologica, G.B., 18.
66 Hawkes, C. F. C, P.P.S., VIII (1942), 26 ff., and Fig. 2, No. 5.
67 Now in Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset.
68 Coles, J., P.P.S., XXVIII (1962). 156 ff.; B.M.G., 29, and Fig. 9, 1.
69 Inventaria Archcsologica, G.B., 51.
70 Covven, J. D., Arch. Ael., X (1933), 190, and PI. XIII, 4.
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY 9
Awls have been found at Beddington,71 Combe72 and Weston
Wood, Albury, the latter being double-ended with one point
broken.73
Discs have been found at St. Catherine's Hill, Artington;74
Addington Park, Croydon;75 and Farnham.76 Those from Farnham
and Guildford are somewhat similar to that from Heathery Burn,
but lack the two staples. The one at Farnham was found with a
small Bronze Age urn.77 There do not appear to be complete
parallels for these discs, but many similar ones have been found on
Late Bronze Age sites.78 The disc from Addington Park has a short
shank and was probably a decorative nail.
Fragments referred to in the reports as 'mountings' and 'terminals'
come from Addington Park and Wickham Park, but are too small
for comment.
There are two complete socketed knives in the county (at Birchen
Reeds and at Weybridge) and fragments from Addington and
Wickham Parks. They resemble the ones from Thorndon and
Reach Fen.79
A bronze bucket was found in 1907 at Weybridge and is dated to
between the sixth and fifth centuries.80
The Hoards (see Fig. 3)
Eighteen hoards have been found and will now be considered.
It is not proposed here to comment on the Addington Park and
Wickham Park hoards as these are well published in the Inventaria
ArchcBologica,81 and are both dated to the seventh century B.C.
Of the remainder, eight can no longer be located; Banstead, of which
only pieces of metal cake remains;82 two at the Railway Cutting,
Carshalton, both said to have contained axes, spearheads and
ingots;83 Carshalton Park,84 which, from the published report,
contained three palstaves and seven socketed axes; Kew Gardens,
which was said to have contained 'brass celts, lumps of metal and
bits of rings' ;85 at Chertsey two urns containing fragments of metal,
the point of a sword, a dagger and part of a scabbard were found;86
71 Anderson, J., op. cit., 10-11.
72 Devenish, K., op. cit., 1-9.
73 Harding, J., op. cit., 10-7.
74 Dance, E., Surrey A.C., LI (1950), 143-4.
75 Inventaria ArchcBologica, G.B., 54.
76 Preh. Farnh., 177-8, Fig. 74 and PI. XVIII.
77 London Museum.
78 Grimes, op. cit., 191, Parch-y-meirch Hill, St. George's, Denbighshire.
79 Inventaria Archceologica, G.B., 17, Card 3, 38.
80 P.S.A., XXI (1907), 464-9; Surrey A. C, XXIV (1911), 50.
81 Inventaria ArchcBologica, G.B., 39 and 54.
82 Surrey A.C., XLVII (1941), 95-7, and PI. VII, Figs. 1 and 2.
83 Croydon N.H.S. Survey and Surrey A.C., XXXVI (1925), 103. No
drawings survive.
84 Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 208-9; present whereabouts unknown.
85 O.S. Records and Arch., V (1779).
86 Bray, W., Arch., XVIII (1817), 426-7. No trace of present where-
abouts.
10
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
near Kingston one which consisted of 'missile hatchets,' axes, spears
and swords;87 also at Carshalton88 and Warlingham.89
The hoard at Beddington Park is known only from the illustra-
tions90 and it is possible that more material was found than was
illustrated. The hoard consisted of a socketed axe of South-Eastern
type with 'wing' decoration, a socketed gouge, two spearheads
with decorated sockets, one ferrule, parts of a mould, two plain
socketed axes and some metal cake. Also listed and illustrated
is a fragment of a sword not mentioned in Evans,91 whilst Whimster92
also lists a further six socketed axes. The sword fragment is
probably part of a leaf-shaped specimen. One of the two plain axes
has a splayed cutting edge, double mouth-moulding and a broad
£ rioaras (still in existence)
tt Hoards (present whereabouts unknown
5 0
Fig. 3. — Late Bronze Age Hoards.
body. The spearheads have been commented on earlier (see page 7),
and are similar to some from Shropshire and Yorkshire.
The hoard from Beddlestead, Chelsham, has been recently repub-
lished in the Proceedings of the Croydon Natural History Society,93
and consisted of one faceted socketed axe, a bag-shaped Irish axe,
two socketed axes of South-Eastern type — one with wing decora-
tion— part of a socketed axe, part of a winged axe and some metal
cake, and is of Late Bronze Age date.
87 Surrey A.C., I (1858), XV. No trace of present whereabouts.
88 Surrey A.C., XX (1907), 235.
n Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 209.
90 Anderson, J., op. cit., 10-11, Pis. II and III; Surrey A.C., VI (1874),
125-6.
91 Evans, B., 484.
92 Whimster, D. C, op. cit., 79.
93 Phillips, W. E., P. Croydon N.H.S., XIII (1967), 246-50.
BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY 11
The hoard from George Lane Gravel Pits, Coombe Warren,
Combe, has been republished in 1964. 94 It contained a small
socketed axe, the socket of a spearhead, a small portion of a sword,
an awl (mentioned on page 9) and metal cake. Early reports of
this find mention 'several other bronzes which have now disappeared.'
The Coulsdon hoard consisted of six socketed axes, part of a
winged axe, a socketed gouge, and part of a palstave.95 Of the
socketed axes the three examined are typical plain South-Eastern
types. Of the three now missing, one appears from the illustrations
to be a South-Eastern type with rib-and-pellet decoration, one has
wing decoration and a wide cutting edge, and the third is plain.
The socketed gouge is of a type common in Britain.96 This is
again a Late Bronze Age assemblage.
The Crooksbury Hill hoard, when first illustrated,97 consisted of
two socketed axes of plain type and three palstaves; however, this
may not have been all the material found. In Guildford Museum
is one flanged palstave and two socketed axes. One is a Taunton-
type axe (mentioned earlier), and the other, although badly damaged
at the mouth, has a splayed cutting edge and broken loop. The
remaining palstaves illustrated in 1857 are now missing.
The hoard from Hankley Common, Elstead,98 contained a
palstave and two socketed South-Eastern type axes — one plain and
one with wing decoration and pellets on the face. Both show signs
of bad casting and were evidently not finished for use.
The Wandsworth hoard consisted of seventeen objects. There
are eight socketed axes (four of them fragmentary), one gouge and
metal cake. From the illustrations99 three of the axes were plain
(one a Taunton-type, the other two South-Eastern type); one axe
(already discussed on page 6) is a 'Yorkshire' sub-type, while
another has two mouldings — one a particularly large and well-
rounded one at the mouth, and a pellet on the face. A Late
Bronze II date is likely for its deposit.
In general, apart from the Hadesmarschen/Taunton type axes,
most of the material in the hoards is of Late Bronze Age II date,
the palstaves being late types which survive alongside socketed
axes. It is possible that these hoards were more or less simultaneously
deposited towards the end of Late Bronze Age, Phase II, certainly
after the arrival of Carp's Tongue Swords and winged axes at the
end of Phase I.100
Farley Heath, Albury, has been published as a hoard,101 but
94 Devenish, K. A., op. cit., 1-2.
95 Surrey A.C., XXXVIII (1929), 75-8.
96 MacWhite, E., J.R.S.A.I., LXXIV (1944), 160 flf.
97 London Illustrated News, 1857.
98 Surrey A.C., XLVI (1938), 143; Preh. Farnh., 163, PI. XIV, 2 and 3.
99 Surrey A. C, XXXV (1924), 125-6. Now in the British Museum, 1928, 1-20.
100 Inventaria Archceologica, G.B., 39 and 54 (Addington and Wickham
Parks).
101 Tupper, Farley Heath (1881); Evans, B., 69, 169, 322; V.C.H., Surrey,
I, 240, etc.
12 BRONZE AGE METAL OBJECTS IN SURREY
doubts are now cast on its being a closed find.102 The finds consisted
of three plain unlooped palstaves of narrow form (one incomplete),
a trunnion celt, part of a plain socketed axe of rectangular section
with double mouth-moulding and low loop placement, two small
socketed spearheads with well-marked central ribs, two dartheads
with short sockets and some metal cake.
From the mouth of the Wandle, in 1854, 103 came a group of objects
described as a hoard, but as they were dredged from the river bed
it is possible that they are not a closed find.104 The objects included
a pin (mentioned on page 8), a leaf-shaped sword of Peake's Type
'G,' a socketed spearhead of Greenwell/Brewis Type V, and a
palstave. The Victoria County History adds that there were other
bronzes found.105 The pin has been exhaustively discussed,106 and
it is similar to one at Ramsgate, Kent.
. J cknowledgements
I would like to thank the many people and museums who have helped by
providing facilities and information and, in particular, Mr. J. Brailsford and
Dr. I. Longworth (British Museum), Dr. E. Dance (Guildford Museum),
Miss J. Macdonald (London Museum), Mr. G. Stanhope-Lovell (Ordnance
Survey), Mr. E. Harrison (Charterhouse); also Dr. J. Alexander for reading
this paper in draft and for making many helpful suggestions.
102 B.M.G., 45.
10i V.C.H., I, 243; Evans, B., op. cit., 282, 316, 368, 465; Whimster, 74.
™* P.P.S., VII (1941), 29; B.M.G., 56-7, Fig. 48.
105 V.C.H., Surrey, I, 243.
106 P PS. VIII (1942), 26-48, Fig. 2, No. 5; Arch. J., IX (1852), 7-8.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
The Gazetteer has been compiled from the following sources: —
Published Reports of many Societies
British Museum Bronze Implements Index
Ordnance Survey Records at Chessington
London Museum Records
and from the two previous gazetteers made of county material and
published in Whimster, D. C, Archceology of Surrey (1931), and Copley,
J. C, Archeology of South-East England (1953).
Note — Finds from the River Thames have been omitted unless objects were
found on the Surrey banks.
Farley Heath. TQ 052455
Finds consisting of a trunnion celt, 3 palstaves, 1 socketed axe,
2 dartheads, 2 spearheads, metal fragments and some 'copper cake' were
made in 1853 and exhibited in 1854. Regarded as a hoard in earlier
publications, but not necessarily so. Evans, B., 69, 169, 322; Tupper,
Farley Heath (1881); V.C.H., Surrey, I, 240; B.M.G., 45.
Now in British Museum— B.M. 1853, 4-19, 18-27.
Weston Wood. TQ 053485
During excavation of a L.B.A./I.A. settlement site by Miss J. Harding,
1961-4, a double-ended, square-sectioned awl (one point broken), part
of a small penannular ring, part of the shank of a pin, some pieces of
metal and some 'copper cake' were found.
Interim report in Surrey A.C., LXI (1964), 10-8.
To go eventually to Guildford Museum.
Site unknown. (Fig. 1.2.)
Part of a flat axe. Approximately half remains of the slightly expanded
cutting edge, the surface of which is eroded. L. 2i in.
Unpublished.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 158-1957.
ARTINGTON
St. Catherine's Hill. SU 9948. (Fig. 6.4.)
Bronze disc, similar to that from Farnham mentioned below. No trace
of it now.
Surrey A. C, LI (1950), 143-4.
Socketed axe with three vertical ribs running down to a horizontal
beading. Found in 1849.
Evans, B., 120, and Fig. 128; Surrey A.C., XI (1893), 244; Sussex A.C.,
VIII (1856), 295; Bronze Age Metalwork in Norwich Castle Museum
(1966), 20. Now in Norwich Castle Museum, 76.94 (776). (Cast in
Ashmolean Museum, 1875.44.)
BANSTEAD
Banstead Downs. TQ 253610
Plain socketed axe with square mouth section which has two narrow
mouldings. A loop springs from lower moulding. The blade is splayed
and cutting edge is slightly damaged. B.I. Index lists as U 12 type.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum— W.G. 1926.
13
14 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Culgarth House, gardens. TQ 26136043
In 1933 a hoard was found in the north-west corner of the garden, for
which no details are now available. All that remains are pieces of 'copper
Surrey A.C., XLVII (1941), 95-97; Soc. of Ant. Report, 1938, 12.
Now at Epsom College and Guildford Museum — S.7089.
Perrotts Farm. TQ 25715806
Part of a broken socketed axe found in 1954. No further details available.
Information from Ordnance Survey Records.
BATTERSEA
Near Grosvenor Railway Bridge
Basal-looped spearhead found in 1865 when making a filter bed. Has
a strong central rib.
P.S.A., XXII (1909), 88.
Now in British Museum. 6.1910.2.19.
Near Queen's Road Station
Palstave.
Probably unpublished.
Now in the British Museum. W.G., 1736.
BEDDINGTON
Beddington Park. Approximately 298642
A hoard excavated from the foundations of a house opposite the Rectory
in 1866. Said to have consisted of 13 objects and bought by Dr. Strong
of Croydon from a Mr. Matthews of the Old Town. It is now missing.
Anderson, Croydon (1874), 10-1; Evans, B., 110, 174, 320, 340, 423, 447,
467; Surrey A.C., VI (1874), 125-6.
TQ 30726503
An Awl found in sand-pit north-west of the station in 1922.
Surrey A.C., XVII (1902), 181-3; Preh. Farnh., 180. Formerly in the
possession of Mrs. Richardson and now missing.
BERMONDSEY
Southwark Park
Basal-looped spearhead with badly damaged blade.
Information from London Museum records. Unpublished.
Said to be in Horniman's Museum, but not there.
Tooley Street
Bronze mount with embossed scrolls and three pyramidal bosses, one
for a rivet.
Fox, C, Pattern and Purpose (1958), 30, PI. 75b; V.C.H. Somerset,
I, 293, Fig. 61.
Now in British Museum, 1905.11.66 (Smith Coll.).
BETCHWORTH
Broome Park, by path near lake. Approximately TQ 214507
Taunton-type socketed axe.
Surrey A.C., XLIX (1946), 102; Palceohistoria, IX (1963), 78.
Now in private possession.
BLETCHINGLEY
Bletchingley Castle. TQ 32335055
Plain socketed axe with square mouth section, groove and ridge below
collar; small side loop; plain blade slightly splayed. L. 3 \ in.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 15
Mentioned in Croydon N.H.S. Regional Survey.
Now in Guildford Museum, S.7100.
Tilbertstow Hill Common. TQ 347504
Broken spearhead found here in 1871. No details are now available.
P.S.A., VI (1876), 156.
Formerly in the collection of Rev. George House; no trace now.
BUSBRIDGE
Munstead Heath
Part of a flat axe found at Combe Rough in 1933.
Wrongly assigned to Cranleigh in previous gazetteers.
Surrey A.C., XLII (1934), 135; ibid., XLIII (1935), 130.
Now in Guildford Museum, G. 830.
Site unknown. (Fig. 4.7.)
Part of a socketed axe of narrow type. Remains of stump of loop.
Possibly one mentioned in V.C.H. Surrey, I, 243.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 161-1957.
CARSHALTON
Carshalton Park. TQ 281640
A hoard found in 1905 and consisting of three palstaves, seven socketed
axes.
Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 208-9.
Formerly in the H. C. Collyer Collection and present whereabouts
unknown.
Railway Cutting. «C TQ 271642, 'D' TQ 272643
Two hoards discovered in 1866 on south bank of cutting. Hearsay says
they consisted of 'many axes, spearheads, ingots of copper.' All apparently
taken to London and are now lost.
Surrey A.C., XXXVI (1925), 103; Whimster, 121; Croydon N.H.S.
Regional Survey (mentioned only).
Queen Mary's Hospital. TQ 27876230
During the building of the hospital in Stag Field on a low hill in 1903
a 'copper cake' was found. In 1937, during further building activities,
part of a flat axe and a piece of bronze ingot were found.
J. Anthropological Institute, XXV (1905), 387-97 ; Surrey A. C, XX (1907),
235; ibid., XXII (1909), 195-6; ibid., XLIX (1946), 67; Preh. Farnh., 180,
which also mentions a socketed spearhead (which cannot now be traced).
No trace now of earlier find; later finds said to have been in Grange
Wood Museum, Thornton Heath.
CHARLWOOD
On County boundary. Approximately TQ 261394
Leaf-shaped sword with hilt broken, found during development along the
River Mole. L. 24 in.
Surrey A.C., LV (1957), 122, Fig. 6; Sussex Notes and Queries, XIII
(1953), 291.
Now in the possession of Crawley Development Corporation.
CHELSHAM
Beddlestead. TQ 39845874
A hoard consisting of five socketed axes (includes a faceted axe, a bag-
shaped Irish axe), a broken winged axe and 'copper cake.'
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 241; Croydon N.H.S. Regional Survey: P.S.A., XVIII
(1901), 285 and re-published P. Croydon N.H.S., XIII (1967), 246-50.
Four axes and copper cake in possession of Croydon Natural History
Society and two axes at All Saints Church Hall, Warlingham.
16 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Worm's Heath. TQ 378579
A palstave found about a mile from the Beddlestead hoard.
Croydon N.H.S. Regional Survey (1904-5), 59.
Now in All Saints Church Hall, Warlingham.
CHERTSEY
Under Bridge. TQ 054666
Part of a leaf-shaped sword, broken off below shoulder. Edges are sharp
and surface is slightly pitted.
Probably unpublished.
Now in Lukis Museum, Guernsey, Channel Islands.
Laleham Burway. TQ 049684
Bronze fragments and possibly a dagger. Two urns containing these
fragments of metal, point of a sword, possible dagger and parts of a
scabbard found near small camp at Laleham Burway on Surrey side of
the river Thames.
Arch., XVIII (1817), 426-7.
No trace now.
Moated Farm, New Haw. TQ 051634
Flanged axe with slight stop-ridge; high flange. Appears to be slightly
eroded on surface from photograph. Found in 1965.
Woking Herald, 14 May, 1965.
In possession of Mr. R. Bentley, Moated Farm, New Haw.
5/. Ann's Hill. TQ 025675
A socketed axe. Further details unknown.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 243; ibid.. Ill, 404; Arch. J., XXVIII (1871), 242.
Formerly in possession of Rev. H. L. Bennett of Thorpe; present
whereabouts unknown.
Site unknown. (Fig. 6.5.)
Basal-looped spearhead, damaged with chipped blade and one loop also
broken; socket extends only 3 inches; strong central rib. L. 4f in.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, G. 828.
CHIDDINGFOLD
Barrow. SU 962333 (approximately)
When Douglas opened a barrow in 1798, he found fragments of 'corroded
brass' with the remains of a possible beaker (described by him as a brown
drinking cup), none of which survived the excavation.
Douglas, Nemia Britannia (1798), 162; Surrey A.C., XXXV (1924),
3-4.
COMBE
Combe Warren
A hoard from the George Lane Gravel Pits and consisting of an awl, two
socketed axes (one now lost), fragments of a spearhead, small fragments
of a sword and 'copper cake.' Found in 1869, when it was said to have
contained several other bronzes, now missing.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 241; Evans, B., 82, 423, 467; Arch. J., XXVI (1869),
288; Surrey A.C., LXI (1964), 1-2.
Now in Kingston Museum, 1091-4.
Sear Combe Wood
A socketed axe with plain faces and small side loop.
Evans, B., 113; P.S.A., I (1st Ser.) (1849), 67-8; P.S.A., I (1861), 83,
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 17
No. 8; Surrey A.C., XI (1893), 244; Johnson, W., and Wright, W.,
Neolithic Man in North-East Surrey (1903), 20; Preh. Farnh., 164.
Now in Museum of Society of Antiquaries.
Palstave with median rib. No loop. L. 5| in.
Evans, B., 82; P.S.A., 1 (1861), 82, No. 4.
No trace now.
COULSDON
TQ 29766159
Socketed axe, bronze 'cake' and other fragments found in 1942 when
swimming bath was made in Promenade de Verdun. Nothing further
known; information from Ordnance Survey records.
TQ 30615816
A hoard found in 1928 consisting of ten items, of which five axes and
some 'copper cake' are in Guildford Museum. Remainder of hoard,
consisting of three axes and one gouge, is now missing.
Surrey A.C., XXXVIII (1929), 75-8; Croydon N.H.S. Regional Survey.
Guildford Museum, S. 7093-8. (For S. 7096. Fig. 8.3.)
Purley
Plain socketed axe with small side loop. Rectangular mouth with double
moulding and loop from lower moulding. Blade is damaged with small
hole in one face and corner of cutting edge broken off.
Unpublished.
Deposited by Mr. Lucy in 1941 in Guildford Museum, on loan. AS. 107.
(Large copper ingot as well as AS. 106.)
Russell Hill, Purley. TQ 309621
A bronze gouge found in 1898. No further details.
Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 209; ibid., LVI (1959), 144.
Formerly in possession of H. C. Collyer; now missing.
CRANLEIGH
Site unknown
Socketed axe with seven rough striations on both faces. Blade expanded,
single mouth moulding and low side loop.
Unpublished.
Now in Derbyshire Museum, X. 29377.
CROYDON
Addington Park. TQ 36376500
A hoard found in 1914 during the making of bunkers on the golf course,
and consisting of 32 items.
Inventaria Archceologia, G.B., 54 (two cards), for full details and references
to publications.
Now in British Museum, 1914, 9-24; 1960, 1-8.
Shirley. TQ 365664. (Fig. 6.6.)
South-eastern type axe with wing decoration on one face only; found in
a garden in 1961. Rectangular mouth, side loop from lower moulding.
Slightly damaged.
Unpublished and in private possession.
Wandle Valley. TQ 315656
A large ceremonial basal-looped spearhead was found in a gravel pit.
L. 31 in. Deliberately broken in pieces.
P.S.A., XVIII (1901), 352; Johnson, W., and Wright, W., Neolithic Man
in North-East Surrey (1903), 20.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 2255.
18 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Wickham Park. TQ 372665
A hoard found in 1855 and consisting of 20 items and 'copper cake.'
Inventaria Archaologica, G.B., 39, which also lists other publications.
Now in British Museum, B.M. 2-27, 1-22.
Site unknown. TQ 3267
Plain socketed axe with side loop; casting seams still visible; single
moulding at mouth, which is roughly finished.
Unpublished and lent by the Carmarthenshire Antiquarian Society in
1928 to London Museum, 28.181.4.
Site unknown
Plain socketed axe, single mouth moulding, small side loop and round
mouth. Casting ridges still visible. Two holes in one face.
Information from Bronze Implements Index (British Museum); sold
Sothebys. No further details.
EAST MOLESEY
Island Barn Farm. TQ 137676. (Fig. 5.3.)
A looped palstave of narrow form found in what is now the Metropolitan
Water Board reservoir. Good stop-ridge and small shield pattern.
L. 5£ in.
Surrey A.C., XXV (1912), 130.
Cast now in Weybridge Museum, 147-1964.
Site unknown
Point of sword.
Information from Bronze Implements Index (British Museum).
Now in Thames Conservancy Collection.
Runnymede
Spearhead with loops on socket. L. 13-3 cm.
V.C.H. Surrey, 1, 245; Evans, B., 328; Arch. J., XVIII (1861), 158;
Bronze Age Metalwork in Norwich Castle Museum (1966), Fig. 33.
Now in Norwich Castle Museum, 141.27.
Leaf-shaped sword. L. 54-7 cm.
Bronze Age Metalwork in Norwich Castle Museum (1966), Fig. 47.
Now in Norwich Castle Museum.
TQ 03557122
Spearhead.
Berks. A. J., LVI (1958), 54.
Site unknown
Socketed axe with faint wing decoration; rectangular mouth section
which has a broad moulding; three narrow lines as well; side loop.
Previously in Ball Collection; sold Sothebys 1949 and no trace now.
Hankley Common. SU 87954255
A hoard consisting of a palstave and two socketed axes was found in
1911 on the golf course.
Surrey A.C., XLVI (1938), 142; Preh. Farnh., 163, PI. XIV, 2 and 3.
Now in Guildford Museum on loan, S. 7086, S. 7084-5.
Site unknown
Palstave found near Epsom. Splayed cutting edge and shield decoration.
Now in Lloyd Collection, London Museum, 49/107/803.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 19
Caesar's Camp. SU 835500
A rapier of the Thetford Class, Group II.
V.C.H. Surrey, I. 252; Evans, B., 250; Preh. Farnh., 164; Surrey A.C.,
XI (1893), 251; P.P.S., XXVIII (1962), 99 (Appendix).
Now in British Museum, B.M. 8-21, 1.
The Holt. SU 81554421. (Fig. 4.6.)
Butt-end of a palstave ending just below straight stop-ridge. Apparently
a narrow and unlooped type. Possibly the one mentioned in V.C.H.
Surrey, I, 252.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 160-1957.
Snailslynch, Stoneyfield. SU 85454685
Bronze disc found in the gravel workings in 1935. 1\ in. diameter with
plain staple at back. Remains of binding round rim.
Preh. Farnh., 177-9 and Fig. 74.
Now in Guildford Museum, AS.lll.
Site unknown
Plain socketed axe. Single square mouth moulding; side loop. Bronze
Implements Index (British Museum) — U. II 3 type.
Unpublished.
In Horniman Museum.
Site unknown
The cutting edge of a palstave only with remains of a strong median
rib below straight stop-ridge ; also traces of loop.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, S. 7103.
Site unknown
Possible bronze arrowhead with tang broken off. Bought with a leaf-
shaped blade and a bronze brooch from a dealer by Dr. Hooper. (Possibly
a forgery.) No other details and no trace of objects now.
Surrey A. C, XLIX (1946), 103, Fig. 2.
FRENSHAM
SU 86054204
Looped palstave of South-eastern English type with expanded blade
which was found in a field near the River Wey. Butler's Class IA I.
Surrey A.C., L (1949), 137.
Now in possession of F. S. D. Atherton, Frensham.
GODALMING
Farncombe. (Fig. 4.1 and 4.4.)
Two flat axes:
(1) With splayed cutting edge, surface corroded and flat butt end.
L. 5f in.
Unpublished.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 169-1957.
(2) With splayed cutting edge; at the broken point one edge has been
cut with a sharp instrument and one edge shows signs of hammering.
Unpublished.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 167-1957.
These could be the ones mentioned in V.C.H. Surrey, I, 243, with no
details.
20 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Site unknown. (Fig. 4.5.)
Broken socketed spearhead with two opposed rivet holes, blade damaged
and point broken off.
Unpublished.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 165-1957.
GUILDFORD
Stoke Hospital. SU 995519. (Fig. 4.8.)
Palstave with shield decoration. Variation of shield-and-rib decoration.
Butler's Class I A2. L. 6 in.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 252.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 162-1957.
Excavation on main drain. SU 99835017
Plain socketed axe; two narrow mouth-mouldings, and side loop; slightly
splayed cutting edge. L. 3f in.
Surrey A.C., XI (1893), 250, and Fig. 11.
Now in Guildford Museum, G. 8141.
Site unknown
Palstave with moderately expanded blade and large shield pattern or
depression.
Previously part of the Ball Collection. Sold at Sothebys 1949 and present
whereabouts unknown.
Site unknown
Two similar socketed spearheads with opposed rivet holes in sockets;
blades are slightly chipped in both, and the sockets extend only half way
to tips.
Arch., LNI, pt. 2 (1909), 439.
Now in Guildford Museum, G.M. 8336 (Fig. 8.2) and G.M. 8337.
HAMBLEDO.N'
Site unknown
Palstave with strong median rib on both sides of stop-ridge, found in
1875. Slightly splayed blade; no loop.
Unpublished.
British Museum, 1875, 12-29, 1.
HEADLEY
Headley Heath
Narrow type palstave with strong median rib.
Mentioned as being in Haslemere Museum.
Site unknown
In 1907 a broken weapon was found on the heath. No other details
known, and it is now missing.
V.C.H. Surrey. Ill, 290.
HINDHEAD AND CHVRT
Site unknown
Socketed axe of South-eastern type with wing decoration, found when
road-making in 1906. The wing decoration ends in a horizontal rib on
both faces; there is a low side-loop. The surface of the axe is pocked.
L. 4i in.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, S. 7099.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 21
Site unknown
Two spearheads are mentioned in Prehistory of Farnham as having been
found to south-east of Colt Hill in Churt. (Are these the Colt Hill spear-
heads?) No trace of these now.
Preh. Farnh., 163.
Lynwood Estate barrow, Shearwater. TQ 02836085
Unlooped palstave with strong median rib. Butler's Class II B.
Surrey A.C., LV (1958), 122.
Now in Shearwater School Museum.
KEW
Kew Bridge Works
Axe; no description. Information from London Museum records.
Possibly Layton Collection.
Near Kew Bridge
Socketed axe with five short straight ribs on the face. L. 4 in.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1748.
Kew Gardens. TQ 186770
A hoard found when digging canal in 1753. Consisted of 'brass' celts,
lumps of metal and bits of rings. Dr. Stukeley reported that 'Lord
Bathurst had some knife-handles made out of the metal from some of the
Celtic instruments found, which looked like gold.'
Arch., V (1779), hi; Stukeley's Diaries and Letters, III, 210-1.
Near Kew
Socketed axe with polygonal body and ribs on face.
L. 4£ in.
Unpublished.
British Museum, W.G. 1750.
KINGSTON UPON THAMES
Kingston Hill
Basal-looped spearhead with strong central rib. Blade damaged.
P.S.A., I (1861), 83, No. 9.
Museum of Society of Antiquaries, Roots Collection, No. 1.
Vicinity of Kingston
A hoard said to have consisted of 'missile' hatchets (?), axes, spears,
swords, and on exhibition in 1854.
Surrey A.C.,1 (1858), xv.
Sites unknown
Six socketed axes, three very much decorated.
Evans, B., 124, 125, 126 and Figs. 137, 141, 142. No further details
known.
Site unknown
Socketed spearhead with strong central rib.
Information from London Museum.
Unpublished.
In possession of C. Martin.
Site unknown
Sword. Nothing further known. Information from London Museum
records.
22
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
-p
li
1
1
( '! 3
| I ' i
1 j : !
\\ ! '
1( i
. -
1 [°j
o
8 "
Fig. 4. — Bronze Objects from Charterhouse Museum. (|)
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
23
Fig. 5. — Bronze Objects from Weybridge Museum. (I)
24
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Fig. 6. — Bronze Objects from Weybridge (1, 2 and 3), Guildford (5)
and ashmolean (4 and 6) museums. (',)
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
25
7 3
Fig. 7. — -Bronze Objects from Weybridge (1, 2, 3 and 4) and Guildford
(5 and 6) Museums. (!)
26
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Fig. 8. — Bronze Objects from Guildford Museum (1,2 and 3) and from
Shirley (4). (J)
Exact site unknown
Leaf-shaped spearhead. No further details.
P.S.A., I (1861), 83.
Site unknown
Fifteen pieces of 'copper cake.' Probably from the Gould Collection.
Arch. J., XX (1863), 372-3; Surrey A.C., LXI (1964), 1.
Now in Kingston Museum, 506-20.
Sites unknown
A number of objects in the Greenwell Collection are marked as 'found
Kingston,' but it is not possible to say whether they are river finds or
not, so they are omitted from these lists.
LIMPSFIELD
West Heath. TQ 40385231
Rixheim/Lambeth-type sword found in a garden. It has a rectangular
tang and a short ridge between two pairs of rivets, three of which are
still in place.
Surrey A. C, LXIII (1966), 168-9.
Now in private possession.
LONG DITTON
TQ 172669
Three daggers or sword blades found when the waterworks were made
in June, 1855.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 252; P.S.A., I (1861), 83; Surrey A.C., II (1864), xii
note only.
Society of Antiquaries, Roots Collection, Nos. 11, 12, 13.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 27
MITCHAM
Junction Street
Two palstaves found in 1888: —
(1) Looped with small trident pattern on blade.
(2) Unlooped with median rib.
Both corroded and have signs of hammering on faces and sides.
Possibly the two mentioned in P.S.A., XIII (1891), 151 (not illustrated).
Johnson W., and Wright, W., Neolithic Man in North-East Surrey
(1903), 20.
Both in London Museum (no numbers yet).
Site unknown
Part of the cutting blade of a palstave with a strong median rib and a
splayed blade.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1863.
REIGATE
Redhill
Small part of a flat axe. L. 1 in.
Unpublished.
Now in Manchester University Museum, No. 05459.
Reigate Heath. TQ 237506
Palstave with shield pattern below stop-ridge; side loop. Found in 1958.
L. 6 in.
Surrey A.C., LVII (1960), 101.
Now in Guildford Museum, AS. 112.
Site unknown. (Fig. 6.5.)
Socketed axe of square section and rounded mouth; splayed blade and
ribs inside socket.
Unpublished.
Now in Ashmolean Museum, 1953-1327.
Site unknown. (Fig. 7.6.)
Palstave with shield pattern, slight stop-ridge only and no loop; splayed
blade is slightly damaged.
Butler's Class I Al. L. 5| in.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, S. 7090.
The two bronze armlets and spindle whorl noted in V.C.H., I, 245, and
in Arch. J., X (1853), 72-3 (also in Whimster), and part of the Ambrose
Glover Collection have now been established as coming from Handcross,
Sussex, and were not found in Reigate at all. These are the Sussex
loops mentioned also in P.P.S., XXV (1959), 153.
RICHMOND
New Lock. TQ 170750
During the building of the New Lock in 1893 a socketed faceted axe was
found on the Surrey shore. Square mouth with single moulding and side
loop; splayed blade.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1749.
At same time as item above a sword of Late Ewart tvpe was also found.
P.P.S., XVIII (1952), 145, and PI. xvii, Fig. 3.
28 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
Lock and Weir. TO 170750
Chape.
Layton Collection in London Museum, D. 1405.
Richmond Hill. TQ 182742
Looped palstave found on the hill; no description given, apart from
a rib on the blade face.
P.S.A., III (1867), 90 (no illustration); ibid.. V (1873), 428.
Possibly in London Museum, 49/107/196.
Richmond Park
Flanged axe of Central-European type and alleged to be in Hull Museum.
but it is not there.
Site unknown
Part of socketed spearhead. Socket and base of blade only left, with
small piece of wooden shaft.
Unpublished.
Layton Collection in London Museum, (). 1419.
Site unknown
Socketed gouge from the Surrey bank of the river.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1755.
Site unknown
Basal-looped spearhead found in 1895. Information from London
Museum records.
Layton Collection in London Museum, O. 1445.
Site unknown
Pegged, leaf -shaped spearhead found in June, 1918.
Formerly in Greenwell Collection.
Now in London Museum, 19784.
SANDERSTEAD
Riddlesdown. TQ 332602
A socketed axe of south-eastern type with wing decoration ending in
a horizontal beading across the face.
P.S.A., XVIII (1901), 286 (not illustrated); V.C.H. Surrey, I 243
(illustrated). Croydon N.H.S. Survey (1966).
In possession of Croydon Natural History Society.
SEALE
Birchen Reeds
A socketed knife of Thorndon type with remains of rivet holes. Blade
edges damaged.
Preh. Farnh., 164, PI. XIV, 4.
Now in Guildford Museum, G. 829.
Colt Hill. SU 88604575
Two socketed spearheads were found in carlv nineteenth centurv.
Preh. Farnh., 163, PI. XIV, 5.
Now in Guildford Museum, S. 7091 (Fig. 8.1) and S. 7092.
Colt Hill. SU 882463
A plain socketed axe reported from the east side of Smuggler's Lane
during road works.
Surrey A. C. LV (1958), 122.
No trace now.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 29
Crooksbury Hill. SU 880462
A hoard found in 1857 and said to consist of three palstaves and two
socketed axes, according to the London Illustrated News for that year.
London Illustrated News, 1857; V.C.H. Surrey, I, 241; Surrey A.C., XI
(1893), 250; ibid., XII (1895), 152; Preh. Farnh., 163, PI. XIV, 6 and 7.
In Guildford Museum there are two socketed axes, S. 7087/8 and one
palstave, S. 7102.
Site unknown. (Fig. 7.5.)
A Welsh sub-type of ribbed socketed axe with three converging ribs on
face; single mouth-moulding with loop from it. A rough-casting, not
finished at edges.
Unpublished.
Guildford Museum, S. 7101.
SHALFORD
TQ 00554722
A low-flanged palstave with strong median rib below stop-ridge ; no loop ;
the blade is splayed and the cutting edge is damaged. Pitted surface.
L. 5£ in.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, A.G. 109.
SHERE
Gomshall TQ 083477
Socketed axe reported by Ordnance Survey records to be damaged.
Unpublished.
Guildford Museum, R.B. 1386.
SOUTHWARK
Old Kent Road
Socketed axe; double mouth-moulding and side loop; decorated on face
with three horizontal ribs beginning and ending in dot terminals.
Unpublished.
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1744.
STREATHAM
Near Common
Narrow-type palstave; no loop. Information from London Museum
records.
No trace now.
SURBITON
Site unknown
Socketed axe decorated with ribs and pellets; square socket. British
Museum Bronze Index says: 'rather brassy looking, possibly not genuine.'
Society of Antiquaries, Roots Collection.
SUTTON AND CHEAM
Site unknown
Narrow-type palstave; no loop; slight central rib from below stop-ridge.
Unpublished.
In Glasgow University Hunterian Museum. B. 1914.281.
30 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
THAMES DITTON
Site unknown
Socketed spearhead, with decorated shaft. Three rings and punch
decoration. Hawkes Type V in British Museum Bronze Implement
Index.
Evans. B., 319.
Now in British Museum, 7.56.1.1363.
Site unknown
Narrow form of socketed axe with side loop. Possible shield-like ornament
at top of blade, very faint.
Evans, B., 128; P.S.A., III (1867), 398.
Society of Antiquaries Collection.
Site unknown
Medoc-type of flanged axe and formerly in the Ball Collection.
Unpublished.
Now in University of Durham.
Site unknown
'Hatchet' axe of Irish type with expanded cutting edge and small side
loop. L. 3 in.
P.P.S., XXV (1959), 188-208 (metal analysis).
Now in British Museum, W.G. 1759.
Site unknown
Spearhead with strong median rib. Found in 1862. L. 20 in.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 244; Arch. J., XIX, 364; Evans, B., 316.
Presented to British Museum by Earl of Lovelace.
THORPE
TQ 021683
Flanged axe, formerly in the possession of Rev. L. Bennett of Thorpe;
present whereabouts unknown.
Surrey A.C., XXII (1909), 198 (where it is called a chisel).
Gravel Pits
Various bronze implements purported to have been found there. No
further details available.
WALLINGTON
TQ 288646
Spearhead found twenty-five yards north of Holy Trinity Church on
corner of Alcester Road and Manor Road in 1869.
Surrey A.C., LVI (1959), 148.
No trace now.
WALTON ON THE HILL
Walton Heath TQ 224540
A flat axe with a narrow butt and splayed cutting edge.
Calcined bone found with this could suggest a burial.
Surrey A. C, LVIII (1961), 111-2.
In possession of L. W. Carpenter.
WALTON-ON-THAMES
On river bank
A round shield of Yetholm type. Central boss with raised 'dot' decoration
in eleven circles, divided by raised ridges. 2 ft. 3 in. diameter.
Now in Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset.
GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS 31
St. George's Hill
Looped palstave with Irish herringbone decoration on sides of blade;
three short ribs below stop-ridge. Butler's Class IA 3.
Surrey A.C., LV (1957), 121 and Fig. 4.
Present whereabouts unknown.
Near Walton Bridge
A basal-looped spearhead found when West Surrey Reservoir was made.
Unpublished.
In possession of J. S. Smithers.
Walton Pits
Basal-looped spearhead with slightly damaged blade. Strong central rib.
Found in May 1932.
In Thames Conservancy Collection, Reading Museum.
WANBOROUGH
SU 93674903
Palstave of Butler's Class IA 3 decorated with groups of three short
ribs below the stop-ridge.
Surrey A.C..XI (1893), 250, Fig. 13.
Site unknown
Socketed axe with slightly splayed blade ; small side loop.
Unpublished.
Now in Guildford Museum, G. 7083.
WANDSWORTH
Earlsfield
A basal-looped spearhead was found in 1915 on site of Power Station.
Now in London Museum, A. 16662.
Gas Company Works
A hoard consisting of eight socketed axes, one gouge and some 'metal
cake' found when building the Gas Company's works in 1923.
Surrey A. C., XXXV (1924), 125-6.
Now in British Museum, B.M. 1928, 1-20.
Mouth of Wandle
Group of objects called a hoard in many publications. Consisted of
palstave, pin, spearhead and sword, which were found in 1854.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 243; P.P.S., VIII (1942), 26-48, Fig. 2, No. 5 (pin);
Evans, B., 368, and Fig. 454; Arch. J., IX (1852), 7-8 (pin); Evans, B.,
282 (sword) ; Evans, B., 316 (spear) ; B.M.G., 56-7, Fig. 48 (pin) ; J.B.A.A.,
XLVI (1890), 78; P.S.A., XVIII (1901)t (spearhead).
All in British Museum.
Rapier. Information from London Museum records.
A. J., Ill (1923), 343-5, No. 4.
Now in London Museum, A. 13942.
Warlingham
TQ 360585
A hoard said to be similar to those at Carshalton Park and Wickham.
No details available.
Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 209; Copley, Archeology of South-East England
(1958), gazetteer.
32 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
WEST MOLESEY
Piatt's Eyot
Basal-looped spearhead found in July, 1935.
Information from London Museum records.
Now in Thames Conservancy Collection.
WEYBRIDGE
Brooklands TQ 072629
An axe is stated to have been found in 1907. No details are given and
present whereabouts unknown.
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50.
Brooklands TQ 06856305
A bronze bucket was found in 1907 beside the track running close to the
motor circuit and near the railway.
P.S.A., XXI (1907), 464-9; Surrey A.C., XXI (1908), 165-9; ibid.,
XXIV (1911), 50.
Now in British Museum, B.M. 1907, 7-15, 1.
The Ford TQ 069648
Rapiers : —
(1) L. \\\ in. With slight central rib and remains of two rivet holes;
blade damaged at edges and surface is heavily pitted. (Fig. 7.2.)
P.P.S., XXVIII (1962), 85.
Weybridge Museum, 46-1910.
(2) L. 14 in. With a trapeze-shaped butt and two rivets in holes; a
broad central rib and sharply projecting shoulders. Trump's
Group III, Barnes Class. (Fig. 7.1.)
Surrey A. C, XXIV (1911), 50, PI. 5.
Weybridge Museum, 19-1911.
(3) L. 13 in. With stout mid-rib and remains of two rivet holes; halting
plate damaged. (Fig. 7.3.)
Weybridge Museum, 2-1919.
(4) L. 13 in. With well-marked central rib and two broken rivet holes;
good condition otherwise. (Fig. 7.4.)
Weybridge Museum, 227-1964.
Socketed spearhead with basal loops and strong central ribs. (Fig 6.3.)
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50, PI. 5, No. 5.
Weybridge Museum, 18-1911.
Socketed knife of Thorndon type with rivet holes in handle. (Fig. 6.2.)
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50, PI. 5, No. 6.
Weybridge Museum, 17-1911.
Socketed axes:- —
(1) Plain socketed axe with double mouth-moulding and side loop.
L. 4 in. (Fig. 6.1.)
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50, PI. 5, No. 3.
Weybridge Museum, 36-1909/1.
(2) Faceted socketed axe with double mouth-moulding. L. 4} in.
(Fig. 5.5.)
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50, PI. 5, No. 4.
Weybridge Museum, 36-1909/2.
(3) Socketed axe with single mouth-moulding and side loop; decorated
with ribs ending in 'dot' terminals. L. 4 in. (Fig. 5.4.)
Surrey A.C., XXIV (1911), 50; ibid., XXV (1912), 130, PI. II, No. 3.
Weybridge Museum, 2-1913.
GAZETTEER 01" SURREY FINDS 33
(4) Taunton-type narrow socketed axe with single mouth-moulding.
L. 5 in. (Fig. 5.6.)
Surrey A. C, XXIV (1911), 50.
Weybridge Museum, 148-1964.
Palstaves : —
(1) Flanged palstave with strong stop-ridge, splayed blade. Cast only
in Weybridge Museum, 145-1964. (Fig. 5.1.)
Surrey A. C, XXIV (1911), 50, PI. V, No. 2.
(2) Narrow-type palstave with strong stop-ridge. Remains of loop
only. (Fig. 5.2.)
Surrey A.C., XXV (1912), 130, PI. II, No. 1.
Weybridge Museum, 146-1964.
From Weir
Flanged axe with slight stop-ridge; deep side flanges cast in one with
the whole. Found 1901.
P.S.A., XXXII (1920), 91.
Now in Newbury Museum, OA 324.
Site unknown
Palstave with expanded cutting edge; decorative ridges below stop-ridge.
Man, LIII (1953), article 150, p. 98 and PL H.
Now in Newbury Museum, OA 63.
Site unknown
Narrow-type palstave. Information from London Museum records and
shown there to be in Leicester Museum, but it is not there.
WIMBLEDON
Near Caesar's Camp
Palstave with strong central rib and expanded blade; no loop.
Society of Antiquaries, Roots Collection, No. 4.
Wimbledon Common
Narrow Taunton-type socketed axe; side loop and damaged cutting
edge; rough surface.
In Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset.
Woodside Common
Two winged axes, one damaged.
In Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset.
Site unknown
Palstave with strong median rib below stop-ridge and no loop.
Surrey A. C, LXI (1964), 6 and PL IV.
Now in Kingston Museum, K.M. 737.
Site unknown
Socketed spearhead with two rivet holes high on socket and just under-
neath blade.
Unpublished. Information from Mr. A. J. Clark.
In possession of C. Martin.
Site unknown
Socketed axe with square mouth and slight ridges inside. Damaged at
mouth and some surface holes on one face.
Society of Antiquaries, Roots Collection, No. 8.
34 GAZETTEER OF SURREY FINDS
WINDLESHAM
Bagshot. (Fig. 4.9.)
A 'late-type' palstave of narrow form with nearly parallel sides and
slight splay to the cutting-edge, which is damaged; small side loop and
the stop-ridge is straight. L. 6 in.
Unpublished.
Now in Charterhouse Museum, 164-1957.
Lightwater
A squat socketed axe and a tanged spearhead.
No further details available.
Unpublished.
Site unknown
According to Whimster there were two palstaves at Bagshot, and the
V .C.H. also lists a socketed axe. These are untraced now.
Whimster, 222; V.C.H. Surrey, I, 243.
Site unknown
Two palstaves. No details but possibly the same as the two from Bagshot.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 251.
No trace now.
WOODMANSTERNE
Near Brighton Road
Flanged axe found in July, 1960. Expanded blade and only slight
flanges. Information from London Museum records.
Possibly in possession of W. Wells, Sudbury, Harrow.
WOTTON
Exact site unknown
In 1787, on the property of Sir F. Evelyn on 'coast hill,' it was reported
that two socketed axes, a curved object and 'copper cake' were found
and exhibited in 1788. No details of these items can now be found.
V.C.H. Surrey, I, 241; Arch., IX (1789), 99-100 (says articles crumbled
on finding).
UNKNOWN PROVENANCE
West Surrey. (Fig. 1.3.)
Part of a fiat-axe. Very narrow; could be a chisel or a wedge; one inch
wide.
Unpublished.
In Charterhouse Museum, 157-1957.
Site unknown
Small portion of socketed axe with double mouth-moulding and beginning
of a vertical rib on face.
Now in Guildford Museum, G.M. 955.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY
1962-3
BY
D. J. TURNER, B.Sc, F.S.A.Scot.
SUMMARY
EXCAVATIONS following a resistivity survey on a site adjacent
to that of the Augustinian Priory of St. Mary, Merton, revealed
a late fourteenth-century roadway partly overlain by a floor
of c. 1500. The whole was covered by a destruction layer dating
from the demolition of the main Priory buildings which started in
1538. The site was crossed by two early eighteenth-century irrigation
ditches. A small stratified sequence of medieval pottery was re-
covered and derived material in a layer formed during the destruction
of the Priory included pottery, bone and metal.
INTRODUCTION
Excavations were carried out in 1962 and 1963 near the site of
the Augustinian Priory of St. Mary, Merton. The work was
organized by the London Natural History Society (Archaeological
Section) and the Merton and Morden Historical Society.1
The site of the Augustinian Priory of St. Mary, Merton, is now
largely covered by road, railway and factory. Excavations in
192 1-22 disclosed the plan of the church, chapter house and cloisters,
much of which lie beneath Station Road and adjacent railway
property. Between the factories surrounding the church site are
a number of small areas of waste land and one plot of allotments
remained in 1962. (Fig. 1.)
The allotments3 occupied an irregular strip of land, of rather less
than half an acre, between the site of the cellarer's range of the
Priory and the known position of some medieval buildings to the
west. Until the middle of the nineteenth century a channel of the
1 The gratitude of all connected with the excavation is due to Mr. A.
Slinger, of Liberty and Co., Ltd., and to his wife, whose willing co-operation
and friendly interest throughout made the work possible. Approximately
seventy people took part in the excavation, too many to mention everybody
by name. However, the director's especial thanks for physical help are due
to John Collet, John Cross, Malcolm Sims, Bill Rudd, Cyril Easterling, Mr. and
Mrs. J. Bell, Peter Pickering, Nicholas Farrant, Susan Malec, Albert Bartrum,
the late Mr. Polan, and Linda Fowler. Help has come in the writing of this
report from persons named therein. In addition John Creswell has prepared
figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13, and Sallie Vine drew the pottery. Mrs. M. F.
Turner did much typing and re-typing and the director's wife helped untiringly
throughout in many ways.
2 Bidder, H. F., Surrey A.C., XXXVIII (1929), 49-66.
3 Nat. Grid Ref . : TQ 264698; height 45 feet O.D.; geological formation-
Alluvium. The site is published on the O.S. 1/1250 plan TQ 2669 N.E.
D 35
36
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
■ffl
Reproduced from the O.S. 25-inch map.]
Crown copyright reserved
Fig. 1. — Plan showing Site of Merton Priory.
(Scale: 25 in. to 1 mile.)
A — Allotments.
B — Approximate site of chapel, possibly infirmary chapel.
C — Site of Norman arch, discovered 1913.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 37
River Wandle followed the western boundary of the plot, and a
curving brick wall still delineates its western bank (incorrectly
marked 'Priory Wall' on the O.S. plan). To the east is a goods yard,
to the south and west are factories, to the north is the railway.
Since the excavations were carried out factory buildings have been
erected on the site.
HISTORY OF THE PRIORY
The majority of the known documentary evidence relating to
Merton Priory has been transcribed and published.4 These documents
refer largely to the legal life of the Priory and relate in considerable
detail much of the litigation involved in administering the Priory's
many properties scattered throughout England and also the juridical
activities of the Prior as Lord of the Manor. The documents are
sadly lacking in detail about the structural history of the Priory.
Knowledge of the founding of the Priory rests on a fourteenth-
century document. According to this, the ville of Merton was
granted to one Gilbert the Knight by Henry I some time before
December 1114. Gilbert built a church there, probably in 1114,
together with buildings suited to the establishment of a monastery.
He obtained regal licence for the establishment of the monastery
and introduced Rodbert, Sub-Prior of Huntingdon, together with
a few brethren. Gilbert endowed the church with land sufficient
for two ploughs and a mill worth 60s. per annum. The Canons
started to build a new monastery, apparently on a different site,
which they entered into in May, 1117. A royal charter was granted
in 1121 and Gilbert, the founder, died in 1125.
There is a suggestion in Heales's summary of the fourteenth-
century document that the church of 1117 was wooden. However,
it is apparent from internal discrepancies that the document derives
from more than one source and no great dependence can be placed
on it regarding questions of detail. One passage mentions that the
'Convent and edifices' took fifteen years to build, but other documents
refer to the dedication of the infirmary chapel in 1161. The
documents give little information about the construction of the
Priory. It must have had a tower, for the annals of Dunstable
Priory record that it was blown down in December, 1222. 5 Evidence
quoted by Heales show that there were royal lodgings within the
Priory precincts. Lambarde6 relates that a new chapel dedicated
to St. Mary was built during the reign of Henry III (1216-1272).
This record is scanty but was supplemented by the results of
Col. Bidder's excavations of the church. He was able to distinguish
two periods of building. The earlier represents the first stone church
while the second phase may have been associated with recon-
struction following the fall of the tower in 1222 and includes the
4 Heales, A., The Records of Merton Priory (1898).
5 Green, L., in Jowett, E. M., A History of Merton and Morden (1951). 37.
6 Lambarde, W., Topographical Dictionary (1730).
38 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
eastern Lady Chapel. This could well be the chapel mentioned by
Lambarde. The presence of Lady Chapels in churches dedicated to
St. Mary is common in houses belonging to orders other than the
Cistercian. There are some peculiarities of the plan of the east end
of the church as recovered by Bidder which suggest analogies with
St. Augustine's Abbey, Bristol.
The Priory was dissolved in 1538 and demolition started immedi-
ately. Much of the stone was reused in the building of Nonsuch
Palace and many interesting architectural fragments from the
Priory were found in the excavations there.7 After Henry VIII's
builders had removed what stone they wanted, the ruins became
a quarry for the neighbourhood. By the nineteenth century nothing
remained visible of the church and its ancilliary buildings except the
remains of one chapel.
One other Priory building had been converted to secular domestic
use. It became altered out of all recognition and stood until 1913
as Abbey House, a few score yards west of the site excavated.
When this was demolished, a Norman archway, set in an ashlar
faced wall, was exposed.8 The archway has been re-erected in the
churchyard of St. Mary's Parish Church, Merton, and it is considered
by Prof. Pevsner9 to date from c. 1175. Parliamentary soldiers
are said to have been billeted at 'Merton Abbey' in 1642 :10 this may
well have been in what later became known as Abbey House. The
name Merton Abbey appears to have become colloquially attached
to the Priory even before the dissolution, but it was never justified.
THE RESISTIVITY SURVEY
Twenty traverses were made by Mr. A. J. Clark, on an east- west
alignment, spaced, where possible, at eight-foot intervals. The
length and spacing of the traverses were dictated by the positions
of the allotments under cultivation at the time. Four-foot probe
spacings were used throughout. The survey showed two main
features : —
(a) A belt of low resistivity along the west side of the site. This
was expected and represented the filled-in channel of the
Wandle.
(b) A strip of high resistivity ten or fifteen feet wide running
diagonally across the N.E. corner of the site. This became the
subject of later excavations.
The result of the survey is shown as an isopsephograph, or
resistivity contour plan, of the site. (Fig. 2.) The technique of
resistivity surveying has been shown to produce results that are
a function not only of hidden variations in the substrata but also
7 Dent, J., The Quest for Nonsuch (1962).
8 Bidder, H. F., op. cit., 54.
9 Pevsner, N., and Nairn, I., Buildings of England: Surrey (1962), 310.
10 Jowett, E. M., op. cit., 78.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
39
of the angle between the traverses and these variations,11 and an
isopsephograph based on unidirectional traverses should be treated
with circumspection. In this case the principal features noted
Fig. 2. — Isopsephograph (Resistivity 'Contour Plan') of Allotment Area.
Units of resistivity — arbitrary.
appeared to intersect the traverses at large angles and so could be
accepted in position and nature.
THE EXCAVATIONS
A 16-foot grid was laid out aligned on the high resistivity feature
and 12 foot squares were excavated.12 Later some baulks were
11 Palmer, L. S., P.P.S., XXVI (I960), 64-75.
12 Interim reports on the excavations have appeared in London Naturalist,
42 (1963), 79-92, and 44 (1965), 139-47.
40 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
removed and the limits of the excavated area modified to follow
as closely as possible the boundary of the allotments. (Fig. 3.)
A flint cobble roadway approximately ten feet wide was uncovered.
It had a low bank covered by small flints adjacent to its western
edge, which may have been a raised footpath. A section of the
roadway (Fig. 4) disclosed a small ditch at the eastern boundary
of the road. Loose cobble from the surface of the road filled the
ditch which could not have been open for many years. The ditch
fill contained fragments of pottery of probable fourteenth-century
date. This dates the ditch approximately, but only dates the
making of the road if the ditch was made at the same time. In the
absence of any sign of an upcast associated with the ditch, it seems
arguable that this was so. Certainly the ditch cannot be earlier
than the road.
To the east of the road and overlaying it at one point was a floor
of irregular pieces of Upper Greensand laid on a series of dumped
layers of clay. In this dumped clay were occasional fragments
of soft chalk, some of them up to about 6 inches long. Also in the
clay was some pottery, the latest being sherds of fine grey-buff ware
of probable fifteenth-century date. Many of the Greensand pieces
were dressed on one or more surfaces, and it is possible that all the
Greensand was reused building stone. The floor was little more than
3 inches thick and large areas of it had been completely destroyed.
It could never have had great strength and as the disturbances
were filled with the destruction layer that overlay the site it is
probable that the disturbances date from the destruction following
the dissolution in 1538. Some fragments of a fine grey-buff ware jug,
found in the destruction layer filling a disturbance, were found to
join with fragments sealed in the clay below the floor. The clay
underlying the floor completely sealed the filled-in side ditch of the
road at the point where the floor overlay the road.
At one point a layer of broken roof tiles, laying roughly horizontal-
ly, was found. The layer occupied a restricted area to the west
of the road and overlay the layer of small stones covering the
western bank, and which at this point spread further westwards
from the road. The significance of this layer could not be deter-
mined and the layer could not be explored further because of the
presence of an actively cultivated allotment.
Over the whole of the road and floor was a layer of dark soil
containing a considerable quantity of refuse from the demolition
of the Priory. Mixed in the layer were a large number of broken meat
bones and oyster shells and also much fragmentary pottery. Within
the layer were concentrations of mortar two to six inches thick
covering several square feet.
The layer appeared to have formed during the demolition of the
Priory and so may be dated to 1538 or soon after. Much of the
pottery found in it appears earlier in date and probably derives,
along with the bones and oyster shells, from a midden disturbed
at the time of the demolition. At no point was the transition from
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
41
42 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
the top soil to the destruction layer clear as the digging of allotment
holders and crop roots had penetrated unevenly. The cultivation
had also caused the infiltration of some later material (mainly sherds)
into the destruction layer. The mortar deposits within this layer may
have been produced by chipping mortar from building stone that
was being salvaged. Such a methodical approach is most likely
to have taken place between 1538 and 1544 when the Priory was
being systematically demolished to provide building stone for
Nonsuch Palace.13
Two ditches were found crossing the road and running approxi-
mately east-west. One of them was sectioned completely (Fig. 5),
and the sequence of silting exposed. The ditch can be dated to the
early eighteenth century, at which time calico manufacturing was
being carried out along the Wandle. The calico was stretched out
in the neighbouring fields to bleach in the sun.14 During the process
it frequently had to be wetted and the ditches found were probably
water courses cut to facilitate this process. The final filling of the
ditches had been carried out by dumping clay into their silted-up
remnants. This dumping can be dated to the mid-nineteenth
century by pottery, etc., found in the clay. Through the clay
dumped in the southernmost of the two ditches a ring of post holes
had been made at a subsequent date.
DATING EVIDENCE AND STRATIGRAPHICAL DEDUCTIONS
The amount of stratified material, other than from the destruction
layer, is small, but some definite conclusions may be drawn and
some inferences made. The dating is entirely from the pottery,
details of which are given below, and must be accordingly tentative.
However, the Merton stratification also enables some inferences to
be made about the pottery.
1. The roadway was apparently constructed some considerable time
after the use of shell-tempered pottery died out in the district
(six sherds of shell-tempered pottery were found sealed well
below the road, only one elsewhere). It is argued below that this
date is likely to be not later than c. 1250.
2. There is some evidence for the overlap between shell-tempered
pottery and the brown-surfaced grey ware (although perhaps not
in its cream slipped form).
3. There is little evidence for any overlap between shell-tempered
pottery and the hard grey (Limpsfield?) pottery, but there is
evidence for overlap between the brown-surfaced grey wares, the
hard grey ware and the Cheam series.
4. If the roadside ditch became filled soon after the construction
of the road, as seems to be the case, then the road was constructed
after the buff-surfaced sandy ware became available. This ware
13 Biddle, M., Surrey A.C., LVIII (1961), 1-20.
14 Slinger, A., in Jowett, E. M., op. cit.. 129.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
43
O O Q. O o
o "o
o Z o
UWQJOU
uocriZO</5<DiD<o
O
o
o
-MP
<
I
<
c
O
u
M
CO
Ll
o
m
CO
i
£D
c
o
'■—
u
tO
Ll.
44 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
appeared at Northolt15 around 1350. A source near Cheam seems
likely and so this ware may have been available at Merton a little
earlier than it was at Northolt. But a date of after c. 1350 seems
probable for the road. The roadside ditch also contained frag-
ments of cream-slipped ware (possibly all from the same vessel)
which is in keeping with a mid-to-late fourteenth-century date.
5. There is little evidence for any time variation between the off-white
sandy ware and the buff-surfaced sandy ware. At Northolt the
off-white ware was distinctly earlier, although there was an overlap.
The lack of supporting evidence at Merton for this may be due
to the vagaries of the stratigraphy there, but the possibility of
differential trading policies can be borne in mind for future
investigation.
6. There is evidence that the fine grey-buff wares come later in the
Cheam series than the off-white and buff-surfaced sandy wares.
7. The Greensand floor was laid down after the establishment of
the fine grey-buff pottery but not very long before the Dissolution.
A date earlv in the sixteenth or late in the fifteenth century seems
probable.
8. This suggests a span of from c. 1325 to c. 1500 for the Cheam
series.
FUTURE WORK
The allotment site has now been built over. A few areas of derelict
land lie on the north side of Station Road and future work here may
relate the cobbled road to the approaches of the Priory and to the
cemetery that lay to the west of the Priory.
To the west of the present main stream of the Wandle is the site
of Abbey House. Photographs taken in 1913, when this building
was demolished and the well-known Norman doorway found, show
that the doorway was set in a substantial ashlar faced wall, appar-
ently contemporary with the doorway. Part of the site of Abbey
House is now occupied by buildings of Liberty's factory, but it
may be possible that excavations in the vicinity could produce
further evidence of the ancilliary buildings of the Priory.
THE FINDS (*denotes an illustrated find)
BUILDING STONE
Numerous fragments of building stone were found in the destruction layer
and elsewhere. All fragments of mouldings were retained and a selection of
others. Forty-seven pieces were submitted to Mr. F. G. Dimes, of the Geological
Survey and Museum, for identification: his notes are incorporated hereunder.
The remaining material was identified by the writer by comparison with the
specimens submitted to Mr. Dimes.
1. Reigate stone. Three small dressed fragments submitted to Mr. Dimes
who wrote: —
These specimens resemble in grain size, mineral content and colour,
examples in our collections of Merstham, Gatton or Reigate Stone.
1S Hurst, J. G., Med. A., V (1961), 274-5.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 45
About these three localities (and, indeed, Godstone) a pale, fine-grained
sandstone occurs in the Upper Greensand formation. It is usually calcar-
eous, and contains a considerable amount of fragmentary colloidal silica,
some glauconite (green in colour and a complex silicate of potassium and
iron) and mica. It is well recorded that, in the fourteenth century, the
quarries at Merstham were considered so important that they were
worked exclusively for the Crown. Use of the stone was prohibited except
for Royal and ecclesiastical buildings. I should not like to try to dis-
tinguish between the stone taken from this horizon at different locali-
ties, for example, Gatton Park, Colley Farm, Godstone, Reigate, and
Merstham.
2. Reigate stone. Worn fragment of a block with a rounded edge between
two faces at approximately 45°. Tool marks not apparent. From brown
loam layer.
3. Reigate stone. Three dressed fragments with only slight traces of tool
marks. One fragment apparently sawn. From clay layers sealed below
Greensand floor.
4. Reigate stone. Five dressed fragments exhibiting simple convex moulding
from string courses, door mouldings, etc. Tool marks not apparent. From
destruction layer.
5. Reigate stone. Three dressed fragments with one or two concave cylindrical
faces. Fine tool marks visible on some faces. From destruction layer.
6. Reigate stone. Fragment of cylindrically dressed stone, 3-5 in. diameter.
No tool marks apparent. Possibly part of shaft. From destruction layer.
7. Reigate stone. Corner fragment of machine (?) cut block, chamfered along
two edges. Long parallel marks left by the cutting operation are clear on
two faces and both chamfers. From destruction layer.
8. Reigate stone. Corner fragment of a flat polygonal block chamfered along
the upper edges. Tool marks not apparent. From destruction layer.
9. Reigate stone. Worn corner fragment of a flat polygonal block. Tool marks
not apparent. From destruction layer.
10. Reigate stone. Dressed fragment of a large wedge-shaped block with no
two faces or edges parallel. One face has deep triangular keying holes cut,
but no mortar adheres. Tool marks not apparent. From destruction layer.
11. Reigate stone. Twenty-one dressed fragments with one or more flat faces.
Several have tool marks similar to 7 above but five fragments have tool
marks from a narrow cutting tool such as a chisel. From destruction layer.
12. Reigate stone. Small dressed fragment with mortar adhering. From
destruction layer.
13. Reigate stone. Corner of dressed block with convex faces. Tool marks
not apparent. From topsoil.
14. Purbeck Marble. Fragment of a circular block 4-4 in. diameter, 2 in. deep.
Possibly part of a shaft. From clay layer sealed below Greensand floor.
15. Purbeck Marble identified by Mr. Dimes. Dressed fragment bearing the
remains of a shallow cylindrical depression approx. 4-5 in. diameter, 0-3 in.
deep. Possibly the socket for a shaft of the same dimension as 14 above.
From a mortar layer within the destruction layer.
16. Purbeck Marble identified by Mr. Dimes. Two small unstratified frag-
ments.
17. Caen stone. Two small fragments, one with a well-dressed flat surface,
submitted to Mr. Dimes, who wrote: —
These specimens match most closely examples in our collection of Caen
Stone. Although the supply of limestone in this country for building
purposes has always been sufficient, this limestone has been traditionally
imported since at least Norman times. It is a fine-grained limestone
which has no exact equivalent petrographically or stratigraphically in
Great Britain. The geological horizon of the rock is probably repre-
sented in this country by strata at the junction of the Inferior and Great
Oolites.
Unstratified.
18. Caen Stone. End fragment of cylindrical 'pipe,' tapering in section, but
with a true cylindrical inner surface. From the brown loam layer.
46 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
19. Caen Stone. Part of a dressed rectangular block with tool marks on two
faces. From the filling of the roadside ditch.
20. Caen Stone. Large fragment of a dressed block with a worn roll moulding
along one edge. From destruction layer.
21. Horsham Stone. Thirty-six slab-like fragments varying in thickness from
0-2 in. to IT in. Ten specimens were submitted to Mr. Dimes, who wrote: —
These specimens appear to have been used as paving slabs or tiles. For
grain size, colour and general texture they compare well with Horsham
Stone. This stone is a thinly bedded, ripple-marked, slightly calcareous
sandstone occurring in the lower part of the Weald Clay, which is of
Cretacious age. It is particularly well developed around Horsham, where
it is up to 30 feet thick, and it was formerly extensively worked for use
as paving stones and roofing slates.
From destruction layer or topsoil.
22. Oolitic Limestone identified by Mr. Dimes. Two unstratified fragments.
23. Oolitic limestone. Fragment of a dressed rectangular block with tooling
marks on two faces. From destruction layer.
24. Oolitic limestone. Two small-dressed fragments. From destruction layer.
25. Oolitic limestone. Fragment of thin slab, 0-2-0-3 in. thick. From
destruction layer.
26. Slate. Fifteen fragments of slate, six of which were submitted to Mr. Dimes
who stated that they were almost certainly from North Wales. Fragments
were recovered from the brown loam layer, from the clay sealed below the
CJreensand floor and from the destruction layer.
27. Chalk. Fragment dressed into a rod of elliptical section, axes 1-2 in. by
0-5 in. From clay sealed below Greensand floor.
28. Chalk. Dressed rectangular block with one end rounded 3-7 in. by 2-9 in.
by 2-7 in. From destruction layer.
29. Chalk. Two fragments of dressed block. Tool marks remain on one face
of one fragment showing the use of the dressing tool in a rotary manner.
From destruction layer.
WORKED FLINT
Forty-five pieces of clearly or possibly deliberately struck flint were re-
covered from the excavation. Most were waste flakes and were unpatinated.
Six showed some signs of retouch.
30. Scraper of black and grey flint with patch of cortex on bulbar end opposite
scraper edge. 2-5 in. by 1-9 in. by 1-0 in. Unstratified.
31. End scraper of black flint, cortex remaining on one face, little patination.
2-2 in. long, triangular in section. From destruction layer.
32. Wide blade truncated by hinge fracture. Mottled grey flint, some slight
retouch or wear on one edge. From destruction layer.
33. Possibly struck flake of brown flint with secondary working. From
destruction layer.
34. Probable gun-flint of brown flint. Unstratified.
PATTERNED FLOOR TILES
Many pieces of patterned medieval floor tiles were found during the
excavation. They were submitted to Mrs. Elizabeth Eames, of the British
Museum, who has kindly provided exhaustive notes on them. Mrs. Eames's
notes have been fully incorporated in the description of the tiles given below.
Reference is made to the series of tiles published by Hohler,16 Haberly,17
and the London Museum.18 Mrs. Eames divides the material into seven types.
Only where the pattern is not similar to one of the accessibly published
London Museum series, and is not too fragmentary for satisfactory recon-
struction, has it been illustrated (Fig. 6).
16 Hohler, E. C, Rec. of Bucks, XIV (1941 and 1942), 1-49 and 99-132.
17 Haberly, L., Medieval Paving Tiles (1937).
18 London Museum, Medieval Catalogue (1954), 229-53.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 47
54-6
Fig. 6. — Patterned Floor Tiles. (J)
I — Thirteenth-century Wessex type. Wessex school inlaid type dateable to the
second half of the thirteenth century.
*35. Triangular tile scored to be broken into two triangles half the size.
Part of tile 5-6 in. square, scored to be broken into sixteen triangles. One
large circular key centrally placed in the bottom of the square tile. Fabric :
light red with dark grey core. Clear lead glaze, traces remaining on surface
and patches on sides. Design inlaid in white clay 0-1 in. deep. Pattern is
half a pierced 8-foil : the original tile had four pierced 8-foils, each consisting
of a ring and eight round petals. From topsoil.
36. Small fragment. Fabric: light red with dark grey core. Traces of clear
lead glaze. Design shallowly inlaid in white clay. Pattern is a quasi-heraldic
animal, possibly a lion — one part only of one foot is present — within a circle
with quadrants in each angle of the tile. From topsoil.
37. Small surface fragment not including any edge or base. Fabric: light red.
Design shallowly inlaid in white clay. Pattern unidentified, possibly part of
Winchester-type tracery. From destruction layer.
48 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
II — Probably early fourteenth century. The design is fairly deeply impressed
on the surface of the tile and the bottom of the depression is covered with
light firing slip, so that the design is in counter relief picked out in yellow.
This is well drawn and well executed. An early fourteenth-century date is
suggested.
38. Small corner fragment, from the bottom right corner of a tile. Fabric :
light red with dark core not reaching the surface. Clear lead glaze. Pattern
shows foot in a shoe and part of a leg. Unidentified. From destruction layer.
Ill — Relief tile, possibly late fourteenth century.
39. Small corner fragment. Fabric: light red with dark grey core erupting at
surface. Mottled green glaze. No inlay or slip. Pattern unidentified. From
destruction layer.
IV — Line-incised tile, possibly early fourteenth century. Line-incised decoration.
Only one fragment present. A date in the earlier part of the fourteenth century
is suggested.
40. Very small surface fragment with no edge or base. Fabric : light red. Clear
yellow glaze over a thin coat of white slip. Pattern of one V-shaped im-
pression and two parallel incised lines, possibly part of an incised design.
From destruction layer.
V — Penn type tiles. Printed type, probably from Penn or related Chiltern
factories. Mid to later fourteenth century in date.
41. Nine fragments of tile with similar patterns. Fabric: red or light red
with grey or pale grey surface except in the case of two joining fragments
with a pinkish buff body. Glaze is either clear yellow or yellow with greenish
patches. Pattern is similar to Hohler's P 38, L.M. 2, and Haberly CLIV
(a lion passant in lozenge formed by four segments of circle enclosing trefoil
ornaments). This pattern is known from Cookham. Berks; Pitstone, Bucks;
Dunstable, Beds; Chesterford, Fssex; Watford, Herts; and various sites
in London. Possibly also from Oxford. One fragment from topsoil, remainder
from destruction layer.
42. Corner fragment. Fabric: light red and pinkish buff. Yellow glaze with
streaks of green obscuring part of the design. Pattern is probably the same
as Hohler's P 63 (pierced eight-petalled flower in guilloche pattern with one
dot in the interstices). This pattern is known from Edlesborough, Missenden,
and Pitstone, Bucks; Wallingford, Berks; Lesnes, Kent; and various sites
in London. From destruction layer.
43. Corner fragment. Fabric: light red. Clear yellow glaze. Pattern could
be either Hohler's P 106 or Haberly's CXII. From destruction layer.
*44. Fragment, including one edge and a small part of another. Fabric: light
red with a grey core. Clear yellow glaze. Design depressed slightly below the
surface. Pattern is Hohler's P 134 (naturalistic oak leaves between two
concentric quadrants with two petals at the inner angle). From destruction
layer.
*45. Four fragments. Fabric: light red. Clear yellow glaze. Pattern is a
continuous one of four contiguous circles enclosing a lozenge with concave
sides. Within each circle a foliate pattern with eight or ten leaves. Within
the lozenge four spots and a foliate pattern of unknown form. On each tile
a complete central figure, halves of four circles and four spots in the corners.
From destruction layer and topsoil.
VI — Sub-Penn (London) type. This series may be derived from designs used
in type V. The clay is different. The designs are more crudely drawn and
often rather deeply impressed below the surface of the tile. The glaze is
sometimes slightly muddy or opaque. Tiles closely resembling these are
known from sites in London and it is possible that they were produced
commercially in the London area. The only kiln for the manufacture of
decorated medieval tiles known in London was found in Farringdon Street in
about 1866, but unfortunately the type of tile found there is not recorded.
This series might belong to the late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 49
*46. Corner fragment. Fabric: light red with grey core. Muddy opaque glaze.
Pattern is similar to Hohler's P 42 (fleur-de-lis with long leaves and foot
askew, set diagonally). A debased version of a pattern known from several
sites in Bucks. Similar pattern from St. Augustine's, Canterbury. Un-
stratified.
47. Corner fragment. Fabric: red with grey core. Muddy opaque glaze.
Pattern is a variant of Hohler's P 71, L.M. 50, and Haberly's CXXX
(pierced cross in ring from which spring fleur-de-lis into the angles and
trefoils towards the middles of the sides). Also known from Heading,
Berks; St. Alban's, Herts; Chalcombe, Sussex; and London. From
topsoil.
*48. Large fragment of tile originally 4-5 in. square. Fabric pinkish red.
orange at base, with large dark grey core erupting over most of surface,
Slightly muddy yellow glaze. Very worn. Design depressed below surface.
Pattern is a pierced flower of ten petals within a spotted circular band,
having twenty spots. Hohler's P 75 is similar but has five petalled flower
in 16 spot circle with four spots in the angles. The pattern was too large
for the quarry. From clay layer sealed below Greensand floor.
49. Three fragments similar to 48 above. From destruction layer and un-
stratified.
50. Four fragments (possibly of only two tiles) of tile originally 5 in. square.
Fabric: badly mixed dark pink and orange with some grey erupting at the
surface. Slightly opaque muddy glaze. Design depressed a little below
surface. Pattern resembles Hohler's P 88 and 89, but not identical (saltire
cut by a square enclosing a small circle from which spring trefoils). From
destruction layer and topsoil.
51. Corner fragment. Fabric: pinkish red. Slightly opaque muddy glaze.
Design depressed below surface. Pattern may be a neater version of that
on 50 above. From topsoil.
52. Corner fragments. Fabric: pinkish orange. Clear yellow glaze. Pattern
similar to Hohler's P 120 and L.M. 19 (part of cusped quadrant with empty
cusps: variations of this design normally enclose a dragon below the
quadrant and have fleur-de-lis and trefoils in the outer angle). Possibly
type VII. See also No. 64 below. From destruction layer.
53. Three corner fragments of a tile 4-3 in. square. Fabric: dark pink with
grey core erupting on the surface of the two larger fragments. Slightly
opaque muddy glaze. Pattern similar to L.M. 37; Chatwin19 Fig. 10.6 and
Leicester Abbey 1920 (foliate cross set diagonally). Tiles with similar
patterns are known from Dunstable, Beds; Bengeo, Herts; Canterbury
and Lesnes, Kent; Baginton, Warwick; and four sites in London.
*54. Approximately half of a tile originally 4-4 in. square. Fabric: pinkish-red
with large grey core erupting over most of the surface. Muddy yellow glaze.
Design depressed below surface. Pattern consists of a mounted knight,
dexter, bearing a shield chequey, quarterly. The left arm raised brandishing
a sword. The head of the knight and head and forepart of the horse is
missing. Three examples of tiles bearing closely related designs but with the
shield barry, are in the British Museum21 from London, Dunstable and of
unknown provenance. From topsoil.
*55. Two joining fragments. Fabric: pinkish red with light grey core erupting
over the surface. Muddy yellow glaze. Design depressed below surface.
Pattern is the lower part of that described for 54 above. From topsoil and
destruction layer.
*56. Fragment of tile of identical fabric, etc., to 54 and 55 above. Pattern
shows part of hindquarters and tail of horse. From destruction layer.
*57. Corner fragment. Fabric: pinkish red with large grey core erupting over
most of the surface. Slightly muddy yellow glaze. Pattern is a pierced
quatrefoil in a circle within a lozenge with concave sides. At each edge of
19 Chatwin, P. B., Trans. Birmingham Arch. Soc, LX (1936).
20 Witcomb, N., Medieval Floor Tiles of Leicester (1956).
21 Catalogue numbers R 77, R 78 and A 198.
50 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
the tile half of a vesica enclosing lozenges (this part very worn). From
destruction layer.
58. Fragment with two lengths of original edge. Fabric : dark pink with grey
core erupting at surface. Slightly opaque muddy glaze. Design depressed
below surface. Pattern is fleur-de-lis in bloom with four (?) stamens set
diagonally. From destruction layer.
59. Two fragments. Fabric : pinkish red with grey core erupting over most
of surface. Muddy yellow glaze. Design depressed below surface. Pattern
is gyronny of sixteen. From destruction layer and topsoil.
60. Three fragments. Fabric: pinkish orange or pink with grey core erupting
at surface. Clear yellow glaze on two pieces. Pattern is gyronny of 64.
From destruction layer and topsoil.
61. Two fragments. Fabric: dark pink with dark grey core. Clear yellow
glaze. Design depressed below the surface. Pattern unidentified, possibly
two legs of a deer. From destruction layer.
VII — Possible Sub-Pen n Type. This series could also be derived from the
Penn type. The technique is better than in Type VI. Designs seem to be
clearer in outline and only slightly below the surface of the tile if they are
depressed at all, but the patterns seem to be rather finicky. The glaze is clear
but of an unusually deep yellow. Tiles of this type are known from London
sites and it is possible that they are also products of a London factory. A late
fourteenth or early fifteenth-century date may be suggested.
*62. Corner fragment. Fabric: red with grey core. Yellow glaze. Pattern is
variant of Hohler's P 61 (guilloche pattern with oak leaves (?) in the inter-
stices) . From destruction layer.
63. Corner fragment. Fabric: light red with grey core. Deep yellow glaze.
Pattern probably Hohler's P 66 (pierced eight-petalled flower in ring, and
four dots, between four cusped quadrants enclosing alternately trefoil and
quatrefoil ornament), very worn. From destruction layer.
64. Corner fragment. Fabric: red with grey core. Yellow glaze. Pattern is
variant of Hohler's 1* 120 (see No. 52 above). From destruction layer.
*65. Corner fragment. Fabric: red with grey core. Yellow glaze. Pattern
possibly a variant of Hohler's P 165 (two concentric quadrants, three pellets
between them and one in each angle). Pattern also known from Iver,
Bucks. Wrongly described and classed as P 151 in Second Interim Report.
I nstratified.
66. Fragment. Fabric: light red with grey core erupting. Yellow glaze.
Pattern is gyronny, possibly of 36. From destruction layer.
67. Small fragment. Fabric: red with dark grey core. Deep yellow glaze.
Pattern unidentified, two petals and part of surrounding band. From
destruction layer.
68. Corner fragment. Fabric: red with grey core. Could be a waster implying
fairly local manufacture. From fill of south irrigation ditch.
PLAIN FLOOR TILES
66. One whole plain glazed floor tile of dark blue-green colour, 4 in. square.
From destruction layer. Numerous fragments of plain or mottled glazed
floor tiles were also found.
67. Twelve pieces of square tile with large circular key. Fabric: light red with
thick grev core. One fragment has traces of brown glaze remaining.
Dimensions apparently from 6 to 8 in. square and 1 in. or l| in. thick.
From clay below Greensand floor and destruction layer.
ROOFING TILES
Fragments of roofing tiles were frequent in the destruction layer and in the
clay layers sealed beneath the Greensand floor. In addition there was the
layer, mentioned above, of broken tiles to the west of the roadside bank. Only
rarely was a dimension other than thickness measurable. A selection of tile
fragments from each of these three layers was measured and the frequencies
of different thicknesses (measured to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch) are
plotted as histograms in Fig. 7. The numbers of fragments from other layers
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
51
measured do not justify their presentation in this form. It can be seen that the
tiles from the clay layers and those from the tile layer are likely to have a
different origin. The smaller thickness of the tiles from the tile layer may
imply an earlier date for these than for the tiles from the clay layers. An Act
°/o
30
Layer 3
405 til
30-
Layer 3A
315 tiles
30
1
3D & 3E
160 tiles
1
1
8
IO
I6ths inch
Fig. 7. — Histograms of Roof-Tile Thicknesses.
of Parliament of 1477 laid down a standard for roofing tiles of 10£ in. by
6£ in. with a thickness of at least f in.22 The histogram for the destruction
layer can be seen to be a close approximation to the mean of that from the
other two layers.
Approximately 7% of the fragments examined had patches of poor yellow
to brown glaze over part of one side. Several fragments of plain ridge tile
22 Salzmann, L. F., Building in England down to 1540 (1952).
52 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
were found. They were suited to a roof pitch of approximately 35° and were
f in. thick and apparently 8 in. wide by at least 12 in. long. The 1477 Act
laid down the standard size of ridge tile as 13£ in. by 6i in.
BRICKS
68. 2\ in. by 3f in. by 8 in. Light red. From destruction layer.
69. 1\ in. by 3| in. by 8 in. Light red. From destruction layer.
70. Chamferred. 2 in. by 3| in.-3J in. by 8£ in. Light red. From topsoil.
71. 2 in. by 3 J in. by 1\ in. Light red. Unstratified.
72. 2 in. by 4 in. by 9 in. Purplish red. Unstratified.
73. 1\ in. by 4 in. by 8} in. Light red. Unstratified.
74. 2| in. by 3| in. by 8J in. Light red. Unstratified.
The following brick fragments were not retained.
75. 1| in. by ? by ?. Dark brown-red. From destruction layer.
76. 2 in. by 4| in. by ?. Light red. From destruction layer.
77. 2 in. by 4£ in. by ?. Dark purplish red. From destruction layer.
78. 2^ in. by 3| in. by ?. Dark purplish red. From destruction layer.
79. 1| in. by 3f in. by ?. Light red. From topsoil.
80. 2 in. by 44, in. by ?. Light red. Unstratified.
81. 2 in. bv 4| in. by ?. Dark purplish red. Unstratified.
82. 2\ in. by 4{ in. by ?. Light red. Unstratified.
POTTERY
The medieval pottery recovered from the excavations was almost entirely
in a very fragmentary condition (Figs. 8 and 9). The bulk of the material
came from the destruction layer and so only a moderate amount of strati-
graphical information was forthcoming. Recently it has become apparent
that previously accepted datings for medieval pottery have been overprecise.
While these datings are probably of the right order, large tolerances must
be placed on them as few pieces are closely dated and little is known about the
persistence of different wares or pot forms. Local variations are of importance
and too much dependence cannot be placed on analogies made over long
distances. Comparisons are probably only valid if links can be found between
sites that are no more than twenty or thirty miles apart. Attention must be
paid to regional ties: for example, before the fourteenth century north-cast
Surrey material is more likely to be comparable to north-west Kent than to
Middlesex. An illustration of possible pitfalls may be cited in the superficial
resemblances between pottery manufactured on the Surrey- Kent border
(presumably in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) and that from various
Hertfordshire kilns produced at a similar period. Certain wares, such as the
cream-slipped pottery described below, may well have had wider distribution
and longer ranging analogies may be valid. The same applies, obviously, for
imported pottery.
In the absence of the publication of the material from the key Surrey sites
of Preston Hawe, Banstead, and Pachesham, Leatherhead, analogies have had
to be drawn cautiously from Kent and Middlesex. The datings here given must
be treated with due circumspection. In most cases the evidence is slender
and the datings and classifications must be subject to revision as work, and
publication, on other local sites is undertaken.
Imported pottery.
*83. Red painted ware. This sherd was submitted to Mr. G. C. Dunning, U.S.A.,
who writes: —
Sherd of jug of buff sandy ware with yellow surface. It is from the upper
part of the body, with the change in profile into the neck at the top of
the sherd. The decoration is red-painted and consists of a broad horizontal
band just below the neck and irregular curved stripes lower down. Near
the right-hand edge of the sherd is a spot of yellow glaze with a pit-mark
at its centre.
The sherd is identified as part of a jug imported from Normandy in the
late eleventh or early twelfth century. Closest analogies for the style of
the red-painting on the Merton Priory sherd are on two jugs, one found at
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
53
Rouen and the other at St. Vincent-de-Nogent, Seine Maritime.23 The
first has irregular loops and curved stripes on the upper part of the body
and the second has horizontal bands in this position. The two patterns are
combined on the Merton Priory pot.
/
83
84
85
86 /
87
89
91
? T
90
f
r
IOO
IOI
102
7
108
92
93
\
104
Fig. 8. — Pottery. (£)
83-5 Imported ware; 86-7 shell-tempered; 89-95 hard grey; 96-108
cream-slipped, etc.
23 Dunning, G. C, Med. A., Ill (1959), 62, Fig. 34, 1-2.
54 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
Glaze is seldom found on Normandy jugs of this date. In this feature,
however, the spot of glaze on the Merton Priory sherd is precisely matched
by one of the imported red-painted jugs found in a deep pit at Pevensey
Castle : this has numerous spots of yellow glaze on the body.24
From the destruction layer.
*84. White ware. Fragment of base angle of large vessel. Pale grey-buff
ware with white surface. Patchy apple green glaze externally over thin
pale buff slip. Considered by Mr. Dunning to be possibly West French in
origin. From brown loam sealed below Greensand floor.
*85. Sherd of bowl of pale buff ware, rim not complete but trace of embossed
decoration remains. Patches of pale yellow glaze externally, mottled
yellow-green glaze internally. Possibly imported. From destruction layer.
Shell-tempered ware. Grey or black, lightly shell-tempered ware, usually with
a light red-brown surface.
Shell-tempered ware appears to be superseded in the twelfth century at
Northolt.25 This site is less than twenty miles from Merton, but the pottery
there was derived from East Anglian types. Northolt is almost certainly at
the edge of East Anglian influence and Surrey sites are more likely to be under
Kentish influence at this time. At Eynsford shell-tempered pottery continues
to c. 1300.26 However, at Merton the shell-tempered ware is stratigraphically
earlier than the dark grey wares that appear related, at least, to Limpsfield
ware, which has also been dated to the late thirteenth century.27 The rim
forms at Merton appear early and a date running up to c. 1250 at the latest
might be tentatively suggested.
*86. Rim sherd. Simple flared rim of wide-mouthed vessel from upper levels
of the black alluvial soil that underlies the site.
*87. Rim sherd. Squared-off bead rim of wide-mouthed vessel from upper
levels of the black alluvial soil.
88. Plain base angle sherd of dark grey ware with red-brown external surface
and some fine shell temper. From brown loam layer.
Hard grey ware. Hard grey reduced pottery, sometimes with a pinkish surface,
made on a fast wheel. Wide range of thicknesses. Coarse sand temper stands
out, giving a surface slightly harsh to the touch. The fabric resembles that
produced by the Limpsfield potteries,28 but is also similar to the hard medieval
grey wares of Northolt29 and to pottery from the Manor of the More, Rick-
mansworth,30 and other sites in Hertfordshire.31 The Merton rim forms
resemble those from kiln sites at Ashstead32 (where the fabric is different) and
Limpsfield. The ware found at Merton was almost certainly manufactured
somewhere in East Surrey or West Kent. Both Limpsfield and Ashstead
potteries have been given a date of c. 1300 and the similar ware from Northolt,
probably made in Hertfordshire or Middlesex, is dated 1250-1325.
*89. Rim sherd. Flat-flanged rim with bevel underneath. From brown loam
layer.
*90. Rim sherd of jug. Flat-flanged rim with tiny upright beading and bevel
underneath. From destruction layer.
*91. Rim sherd. Flat-flanged rim with bevel underneath. Top of rim decorated
by simple rouletted pattern poorly applied. From brown loam sealed beneath
the Greensand floor.
24 Dunning, G. C, A. J., XXXVIII (1958), 211, Fig. 2.2.
25 Hurst, J. G., op. at., 258-61.
26 Spencer, B. W., 1964 Exhibition of Medieval Pottery (1964), 1.
27 Ibid., 6; Dunning, G. C, Arch. Cant., LV (1943), 57-64.
28 Spencer, B. W., op. cit., 1.
29 Hurst, J. G., op. cit., 267.
30 Biddle, M., and others, Arch. J., CXVI (1959), 136-99.
31 Renn, D. F., Potters and Kilns in Medieval Hertfordshire (1964).
32 Frere, S. S., Surrey A.C., XLVII (1941), 58-66.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
55
_t-H S^ 1"H
J
56 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
*92. Rim sherd of bowl. Heavy flat-flanged rim. From the fill of the roadside
ditch.
*93. Rim sherd of bowl. Flat-flanged rim with upper face bevelled into external
rounding. From the lowest of the clay layers sealed between the Greensand
floor and the brown loam layer.
*94. Bottom end of slashed strap handle of globular jug. From clay sealed
below floor.
*95. Top end of slashed round handle of similar vessel. From destruction
layer.
Cream-slipped and decorated jugs. A number of sherds carrying a cream slip
were found. The slip was often covered by a glaze varying in colour from the
palest green to deep olive, sometimes mottled with yellow. Four separate
fabrics were distinguishable. Sherds of similar fabrics but without slip,
although sometimes with other decoration, are considered also, as it seems that
the slip and glaze were restricted to the upper parts of vessels.
(a) Brown surfaced grey fabric. This was a uniform ware with a red-brown
oxidized surface usually both internally and externally. The pale grey core is
due to incomplete oxidization and occasionally extends to the inner surface.
Base angles are plain. Jugs have strap, rod or D-sectioned handles, but plain
rod handles predominate. The glaze rarely extends over the handle. It is
possible that similar ware antedates the introduction of slip techniques, as
unslipped sherds were found sealed below the road associated with shell-
tempered sherds. Two or three unslipped sherds were found with spots of
clear or orange glaze: it may well be that this technique is restricted to the
earlier occurrence of this fabric.
(b) Pink-oxidized fabric with some very fine sand temper. Some sherds of
this fabric bore traces of imitation polychrome pattern in red, yellow and
green. Probably closely related to Fabric (a).
(c) Grey reduced fabric. Very hard, well-fired pottery with a uniform grey
showing little temper. Very rare at Merton.
Similar pottery is recorded locally from various sites, e.g. : —
(i) Ashtead. Jugs and dishes of brown or brick-red paste, coated with patchy
white slip, found at a kiln site with a range of other vessels of brown, brick red
and grey fabric. Also associated, but apparently not made at the kiln, were
jugs of glazed off-white sandy ware.33
(ii) Lesnes Abbey. Jugs, apparently of fabrics (a) and (c) above, associated
with Limpsfield ware and imported pottery of c. 1300. 34 The survival value of
such imported ware is a matter for some speculation.
(iii) Southwark. Jugs, of fabrics (a) and (b) associated with vessels of off-white
sandv ware, a decorated jug of buff ware, and a sherd of imported polychrome
ware of c. 1300.35
(iv) Joydens Wood. Jug, apparently of fabric (b), found loosely associated
with Limpsfield ware.36
(v) Northolt. Brown-ware jugs with zonal decoration of yellow strips and
blobs on a red-brown background, and jugs of brown sandy ware, possibly
similar to fabric (a) above, with an overall white slip under a mottled green
glaze and combed decoration.37
(vi) Burstow. Jug, of fabric (b) above, bearing sgraffito decoration found
loosely associated with pottery not closely related to any found at Merton.38
33 Frere, S. S., op. cit., 58-66.
34 Dunning, G. C., A.J., XLI (1961), 1-12.
35 Dunning, G. C, in Kenyon, K. M., Excavations in Southwark (1959),
88—92. Vessel 5 has a brown surface beneath the slip.
36 Dunning, G. C., Arch. Cant., LXXII (1958), 31-9.
37 Hurst, J. G., op. cit., 270-1.
38 Turner, D. J., Surrey A.C., LXIII (1966), 60.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 57
Hurst3' dates fabric (c) as thirteenth-fourteenth century and suggests the
first half of the fourteenth century for fabric (b). The distribution of sherds
of these wares at Merton suggests that fabrics (b) and (c) may be later than
fabric (a), and that, with the exception of the earlier variant of fabric (a), they
are all later than the hard grey ware.
The first four sherds listed below (96-9) are not cream-slipped wares but are
brown ware jugs with applied cream or yellow slip patterns similar to the
brown ware jugs from Northolt. Their fabric suggests a close relationship with
the cream-slipped jugs. It is probable that all these decorated jug forms,
including the decorated jugs of the off-white sandy ware series (see below),
are similar in date.
*96. Sherd of large jug of fabric (a). Arcaded pattern of concentric strips of
white slip covering red-painted band, closely paralleled by vessel at
Northolt.40 From brown loam.
97. Sherd of fabric (a) with pattern of narrow bands of thickly applied cream
slip. Clear glaze. From destruction layer.
98. Sherd of fabric (a) with pattern similarly produced. Olive green glaze.
From destruction layer.
99. Sherd of brown ware, with red surface internally. Pattern of cross-
ing bands of cream slip thinly painted on. No glaze. From destruction
layer.
*100. Rim sherd of fabric (a) with cream slip. Mottled dark green glaze
externally and on the interior to the bottom of the moulding. From clay
layer below Greensand floor.
* 101 . Rim sherd of fabric (a) with cream slip and splash of green glaze. From
destruction layer.
*102. Rim sherd of fabric (a) with cream slip and vestigial glaze on top of
rim. Flat-flanged rim with bevel underneath, resembling rim form of jugs
of hard grey ware found on the site. From destruction layer.
103. Plain rim sherd of fabric (a) with cream slip. Neck constricts sharply
0-6 in. below rim. From destruction layer.
*104. Rim sherd of jug of fabric (a) with mottled yellow and green glaze
externally. Rim form is closely parallel to that of biconical jug from Thread-
needle Street.41 Unstratified.
105. Vessel and handle junction of fabric (a). Wide strap handle with
stabbing. Traces of green glaze. From destruction layer.
106. Rod handle of fabric (a) with cream slip. Crude petal-like pads at the
upper junction with the vessel. An almost identical handle (unpublished)
from Stonar, Kent, is on display at the Deal Castle Museum. The form of
decoration is a common one,42 and is in imitation of jugs made in Northern
France. From destruction layer.
107. Three sherds of fabric (b) with cream slip and glazed to give an imitation
polychrome pattern in yellow, mottled green and red-brown. From
destruction layer.
*108. Plain rim sherd of fabric (c), glazed externally. Cream slip externally
and extends § in. below rim internally. Glaze spills irregularly over rim.
From destruction layer.
Off-white sandy ware. Very pale grey pottery with a finer temper than that of
the hard grey ware. One or two darker sherds, intermediate in texture to the
hard grey ware, were also found. At the other extreme, sherds with a buff
tinge to the surface implied overlap with the buff-surfaced sandy ware. If this
ware may be taken as corresponding to the 'off -white Surrey' ware of Northolt,43
then a date of early fourteenth-century to early fifteenth -century may be
inferred.
39 Personal communication.
40 Hurst, J. G., op. cit., 270, Fig. 72.1.
41 London Museum, op. cit., 215, Fig. 69.1.
42 Rackham, B., Medieval English Pottery (1948).
43 Hurst, J. G., op. cit., 273-4.
58 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
109. Small sherd from decorated jug. Raised band of cream slip. Glazed
clear on slip band, brown on body. From brown loam.
110. Small sherd of imitation polychrome jug. Pattern of yellow, brown and
dark green formed by slip and glazing. From destruction layer.
111. Neck sherd of jug with diverging vertical ribs. Thick mottled dark green
glaze. From clay sealed below Greensand floor.
*1 12. Sherd with raised 'leaf or 'fir-tree' pattern. Mottled green glaze.
From destruction layer.
113. Sherds of decorated jugs. Combing, heavy raised ribs and simple diamond
rouletting on weak raised ribs are exhibited. Glaze varies from mottled
yellow-green to mottled green-brown. From, or derived from, destruction
layer.
*1 14. Rim sherd of jug with sharply expanded neck. Thickly applied apple-
green glaze. From brown loam west of bank.
* 1 15. Rim sherd of jug. Gently thickened rim, with vestiges of glaze extern-
ally. A jug of sagging biconical form of buff ware with similar rim was
found in a pit at Westminster Abbey and ascribed to the late fifteenth
century.44 l*rom destruction layer.
* 1 16. Rim sherd from jug with flaring neck. Mottled green glaze externally.
From destruction layer.
* 1 17. Rim, neck and rod handle junction of jug. Spot of green-brown glaze.
From destruction layer.
118. Oval-sectioned handle. With three broad shallow grooves running up
back. Unglazed. From destruction layer.
1 19. Base angle sherd of large jug. Decoratively thumbed, sag of base probably
lower than projection of thumbing. I'nglazed. Unstratified.
Buff-surfaced sandy ware. Similar in texture to the off-white sandy ware but
with a buff surface and slightly greyer body. Occasionally the body of the
sherd was also buff and a small group of sherds had a distinct orange tint to
their external surfaces. Many of the sherds had mottled glaze and several
were decorated. There were many sherds intermediate in fabric between this
ware and the fine grey-buff pottery. The 'buff Surrey' wares at Northolt were
dated to 1350-1425, with special local reasons for the final terminal date.45
Similar ware was found in a pit with a sherd of imported French polychrome
ware at Southwark,46 together with other early fourteenth-century wares.
At Merton a dating of early fourteenth century to late fifteenth century might
be acceptable. Pottery intermediate between buff-surfaced wares and other
wares has been grouped under buff-surfaced wares.
There is a singular shortage of bowl forms of this ware and of the two
preceding wares. Bowl forms of off-white and buff wares are common on other
sites such as Northolt. Jugs have plain or decorated handles and rod, oval or
D-sectioned forms predominate. Both plain and thumbed base angles were
found, there being a wide range of thumbing styles.
120. Sherds of decorated jugs. Two with deep parallel horizontally incised
lines, one with parallel grooves and some indeterminate relief moulding.
Dark green glaze. From destruction layer.
121. Fragment resembling one of the upright knobs on the rim of a jug found
at Northolt.47 On the Northolt example there was deep slashing below the
knob but on the Merton one there are shallow parallel grooves. This form
may be a degenerate face jug and a similar feature is also recorded from
St. Catherine's Hill, Winchester.48 Glazed externally. From topsoil.
44 Hurst, J. G.. A.J., XL (1960), 188-94.
45 Hurst, J. G., Med. A.,V (1961), 274-5.
46 Dunning, G. C, in Kenyon, K. M., op. cit., 88-92.
47 Hurst, J. G., op. cit., 271, Fig. 72.7.
48 Hawkes, C. F. C, and others, P. Hants F.C., XI (1930), Fig. 26.44.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 59
* 122. Rim sherd of jug with surplus clay adhering to top, derived from stacking
in the kiln during firing. Mottled green glaze externally. From clay sealed
below Greensand floor.
*123. Rim sherd with mottled yellow-green glaze. Probably from a biconical
jug, as the resemblance to the rim form of the jug from Threadneedle
Street49 is even stronger than in the case of vessel 104. From destruction
layer.
124. Four jug rims showing persistence of early form. Flat-flanged rims with
bevel underneath, as in vessel 89 above. One glazed externally, three un-
glazed. From destruction layer.
125. Similar rim but on a sharply everted neck. Glazed externally, glaze
spilling over rim. Unstratitied.
126. Two other jug rims showing the persistence of early form. Downward
sloping flange with tiny upright beading and bevel underneath, a downward
canted version of the rim of vessel 90 above. Unglazed. From destruction
layer and topsoil.
127. Plain upright rim with sharp constriction of neck .V in. below rim. Green
glaze over rim. From brown loam.
128. Two similar rims without constriction. From destruction layer.
129. Neck and rod handle junction with section of plain rim k in. above top
of handle. Slightly everted neck. Patches of glaze externally. Similar to
vessel 117 above. From brown loam.
*130. Sharply rounded flange rim of large bowl. Apple-green glaze internally.
From destruction layer.
131. Two rim sherds of plain everted rims of very thin vessels, possibly lids.
One has glaze on top of rim, the other is glazed externally and has orange
surface internally. From destruction layer.
*132. Rim sherds of flat dish or lid decorated internally with two rows of
crudely applied rouletting from a toothed wheel. Mottled apple green-yellow
glaze. From destruction layer.
133. Two rims of similar vessels lacking glaze or decoration. One orange ware,
the other brown ware (probably over-fired).
*134. Lid or flat dish of considerable diameter. Mottled green glaze internally.
Heavy external burning over large part of perimeter. Where burnt the
fabric has changed from buff to dark grey. From roadside ditch fill.
135. Lower end of strap handle, with three deep-thumbed grooves at the
junction and stabbing above. Unglazed. From destruction layer.
136. Strap handle with longitudinal grooves near the edges. Unglazed. From
destruction layer.
137. Rod handle with two deep grooves and a single line of stabbing up the
back. Uneven mottled green glaze. From destruction layer.
138. Oval-sectioned handle with two deep grooves running up the back.
Mottled green glaze. From destruction layer.
139. D-sectioned handle with irregular line of stabbing up the back. Mottled
green glaze. From destruction layer.
140. Two base-angle sherds of jug. Angle decoratively thumbed with thumbing
projecting below slight sag of base. Mottled green glaze externally under
base. From brown loam.
141. Small perforated sherd of thin-walled vessel. Unglazed. From destruction
layer.
Fine gyey-buff wares. Ware finer and thinner than the sandy wares, although
several sherds intermediate in fabric were found. Colour is pale and varies
from buff to pink or grey. Glaze, varying in density and on parts of vessels
only, is usually mottled olive-green to brown. A fifteenth-century date seems
likely for this pottery.
*142. Rim, possibly of biconical jug or measure. Ware transitional between
buff-surfaced sandy and fine grey-buff. Spotted with glaze and blackened
by fire. From destruction layer.
*9 London Museum, op. cit., 215, Fig. 69.1.
60 EXCAVATION'S NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
* 143. Pitcher with bib of mottled olive-green glaze. Flattened D-section
handle with single line of stabbing. Joining sherds from clay below Green-
sand floor and from destruction layer.
*144. Rim and sherds with very pale grey surfaces. Spot of glaze on neck
with streak of pale blue paint-like substance running from it. Similar streaks
on body. From destruction layer.
* 145. Rim with orange surface internally. Fragment of dark brown glaze
remains externally. From destruction layer.
146. Two plain base angles, possibly belonging to vessels 143 and 144. From
destruction layer.
147. Two sherds of fine grey ware with brown bloom to surface. Decorated
with curving trails of white slip or paint. Traces of green glaze. From
destruction layer.
The three preceding pottery types, off-white sandy, buff-surfaced sandy, and
fine grey-buff wares, are all represented amongst finds associated with the well-
known pottery kiln at Cheam.50 The material from Cheam was, apparently,
derived from a waster midden and there was no stratification except in that
a green-glazed costrel appeared later than the bulk of the pottery found. There
seems no reason why the Cheam pottery need not be considered as covering a
wide time-range and a sequence of two centuries is probably not unreasonable.
Oxidized late- or post-medieval wares. A number of not necessarily related
vessels may be grouped under this head.
148. Large rim sherd of large dish of uncertain size and shape (not circular)
of coarse, red, tile-like ware. Irregular glaze internally resembling the glaze
found on some pieces of roofing tile from the site. The wall thickness is
}, in. and oxidization has not been uniform, leaving a grey core. From upper
cobbles of road.
* 149. Two rim sherds of jug including part of simple lip. Hard dark brown-
buff ware with dark grey band on underside of rim externally. Traces of
white painted line on neck. Dated late fifteenth-early sixteenth century
by Mr. Hurst. Possibly related to the grey-buff ware described above.
From destruction layer.
* 150. Rim sherd of similar jug of hard brown-surfaced pink ware. Similar
dating. From destruction laver.
151. Rim sherd of costrel of coarse brown ware with poor clear glaze. From
destruction layer.
*152. Rim of large pan of coarse red-brown ware with splashes of poor clear
glaze. Thickened rim is recessed slightly on top to take a lid. From
destruction layer.
Early stonewares.
*153. Plain rim sherd of unglazed grey stoneware, pale brown externally.
From brown loam.
*154. Handle and part of wall of cup. Identified by Mr. Hurst as Beauvais
stoneware of the later fifteenth or early sixteenth century. From destruction
layer.
155. Handle of stoneware cup similar to above. From destruction layer.
15H. Frilled base of brown stoneware vessel identified by Mr. Hurst as
Raeren stoneware of the early sixteenth century. From destruction layer.
157. Frilled base of very fine grey stoneware with good quality glaze. From
destruction layer.
Seventeenth- to nineteenth-century pottery. Some of the later pottery on the site
had stratigraphical significance with respect to the irrigation ditches.
158. Two minute fragments of plain Delft drug jar or similar vessel. Early
eighteenth century. From lowest silt of south irrigation ditch.
159. Rim-to-base sherd of shallow dish of thin dark brown-glazed stoneware.
Possibly early eighteenth century. From lowest silt of south irrigation ditch.
50 Marshall, C. J., Surrey A.C., XXXV (1924), 79-97.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
(SI
160. Minute sherd of white, salt (?)-glazed earthenware. From lowest silt of
south irrigation ditch.
161. Minute sherd of white porcelain with blue underglaze pattern. From
silt of south irrigation ditch.
*162. Sherds of flat oatmeal-coloured stoneware dish. Fighteenth century.
From below clay capping to south irrigation ditch.
163. Rim of vessel of red ware with heavy brown glaze. Horizontal incised
line below plain, slightly everted rim. Late eighteenth or early nineteenth
century. From below clay capping to south irrigation ditch.
164. Numerous sherds of cream earthenware, including straight-sided jug,
plate, etc. Dated by Mr. J. Ashdown as c. 1780. From clay capping to north
irrigation ditch.
165. Sherds of coarse brown earthenware, including base fragment of chamber
pot. Dated by Mr. Ashdown as first half of nineteenth century. From clay
capping to north irrigation ditch.
166. Various sherds of decorated earthenware. Dated by Mr. Ashdown as
c. 1830-50. From clay capping to north irrigation ditch.
167. Three fragments of stoneware. Dated by Mr. Ashdown as c. 1900. In view
of the dates of the large quantity of other pottery from this layer, these
sherds may be regarded as intrusive. From clay capping to north irrigation
ditch.
TABLE 1
Pottery Distribution Table: Numbers of Sherds
Ware
Layer
Shell tempered . . .
Hard grey
Cream slipped (a)
Cream slipped (b)
Cream slipped (c)
Off white
Buff surfaced
Fine grey-buff ...
Stoneware
5SR
5SF
AE
2
30
1
6
24
ABSF AB
3F 3£
3D
3C 3A
3B
27
36
14
3
126
152
59
21
Layer numbers are as in Figs. 4 and 5. Suffix 'SF' or 'SR' means sealed by the
Greensand floor or sealed by the roadway.
GLASS
A number of minute fragments of glass were recovered. Few had features
of note and the majority came from the destruction layer where the possibility
of intrusive material being present was high.
168. Fragment of the rim of a shallow dish. From clay sealed below Greensand
floor.
169. Fragment of rim of straight-sided vessel. Clear glass. From base of
destruction layer above cobble but possibly intrusive.
170. Fragment of rim of a dish. From destruction layer.
171. Rim of a narrow-necked bottle. From destruction layer.
172. Fragment of bottle neck of dark green glass. From destruction layer.
173. Fragment of flat base of bulbous vessel of pale green glass. From
destruction layer.
IRON
Several badly corroded finds of iron were made during the excavation
(Figs. 10 and 11). Conservation work has been carried out on the material by
Mr. P. Humphries and by the London Museum.
62
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
179
Fig. 10. — Iron Objects. (£)
* 174. Rowel spur with eight-point rowel on short shank. This simple type of
spur is difficult to date precisely in the absence of the arm terminals.51
From destruction layer.
* 175. Part of blade and long tang of a single-edged knife. A common medieval
form.52 From destruction layer.
* 176. Blade and tang of single-edged knife. Blade approximately 4 in. long.
From destruction layer.
177. Part of blade of single-edged knife. 5 in. long, tapering from jfe in. to
-& in. From destruction layer.
178. D-shaped bow and short length of shank of small key. From destruction
layer.
* 179. Small doornail, almost complete. Head approximately 1J in. square,
cylindrically domed. Tapering, rectangular-sectioned shank, 1| in. long.
From top of cobble.
51 London Museum, op. cit., 103-12.
52 Ibid., 51-5.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 63
*180. Head and part of shank of large doornail. Domed head originally
2£ in. by 2\ in. by approximately \ in. maximum thickness. Tapered
rectangular-sectioned shank, £ in. by \ in. where it joins head. From top
of cobble.
181. Domed head of large doornail or stud. 2 in. by 2^ in. by approximately
& in. maximum thickness. Embedded in top of cobble.
182. Domed head of large doornail or stud. 2\ in. by 2| in. by approximately
\ in. maximum thickness. From top of cobble.
*183. Facetted head of large doornail or stud. 1\ in. by 1\ in. by approx-
imately f in. maximum thickness. Embedded in top of cobble.
184. Fragment of horseshoe. From brown loam.
*185. Horseshoe. Plain outline, no calkins. The lack of calkins suggests a
sixteenth-century date53 which is in line with the stratigraphy. From
directly on top of cobble roadway.
*186. Horseshoe. Plain outline, no calkins. From destruction layer.
*187. Half a horseshoe. Plain outline, originally eight nails, prominent calkin.
From destruction layer.
188. Half a badly worn horseshoe. Plain outline, no calkins. From destruction
layer.
189. Hook. From uppermost cobble of roadway.
190. End of strap or strut. \\ in. wide, two nail holes. From directly on
cobble.
191. Nails of various forms. Mainly from destruction layer.
COPPER ALLOY OBJECTS
192. Jetton, size 6. From the uppermost of the layers sealed below Greensand
floor east of the roadway.
Obv. A king, standing under a canopy of E.E. architecture.
Leg. GRA REX, perhaps for Dei Gratia Rex.54
Rev. A short cross-crosslet decorated (one of the numerous decorative
varieties of the cross-crosslet for which there is no special heraldic
or other term) cantoned by eagles displayed, within an inner
Leg. AMOR VINCIT OMNINI ... (in gothic script).55
Partly pierced on rev.
An Anglo-Gallic jetton probably struck at an English mint in France. The
partial piercing is a common characteristic of Anglo-Gallic jettons and is
discussed by Barnard56 who states: —
A peculiarity of the jettons generally accepted as Early English or
Anglo-Gallic is that most of them are partly or wholly pierced in the
middle ... It has been suggested that to render the flans more exactly
circular, they were worked on a lathe and held in place during this
operation by a little spike of hard metal which penetrated the centre
of the flan. It may be that the cavity thus made also served to hold the
flans fast during the striking, a similar spike being fixed in the die. This
is supported by the fact that in an examination of many hundreds of
such counters I have never met with a case in which the flan has slipped
under the hammer. Why this should have been a feature of Anglo-Gallic
and no other, not even French, jettons is, so far, not clear.
In the case of the jetton from Merton, the partial piercing is central to
the flan but not to the design. Also, the piercing is surrounded by a slight
raised rim of metal that has resisted wear to a greater extent than the
adjacent parts of the surface, probably as a result of the work-hardening
53 London Museum, op. cit., 1 16.
54 C.f., Barnard, F. P., The Casting Counter and the Counting Board (1916),
102, No. 39.
55 Ibid., 101, No. 37.
56 Ibid., 95, with refs.
64 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
176
187
186
Fig. 11. — Iron Objects. (J)
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 65
of the metal. This suggests that the piercing was later than the striking
of the jetton and supports the contention that the jetton was worked on
a lathe.
Barnard suggests that the Anglo-Gallic jettons were not struck later
than the end of the fourteenth century. The partial intelligibility of the
legend on this example suggests that it falls late within the series, and a date
towards the end of the fourteenth century might be implied. Little is known
of the survival capacity of individual jettons.
193. Jetton, size 6£. From the destruction layer.
Obv. The Chatel Tournois within a granulated inner circle.
Leg. Indecipherable gothic script.57
Rev. A cross of three strands fleurelissee and fleurannee with a quatrefoil
in the centre, all within a tressure of four arches fleuroncee at each
angle.
Leg. AVG in the spandrels of the quatrefoil (gothic script).58
Barnard states that the type of Chatel Tournois was ubiquitous on European
coins for more than two centuries, but especially popular in the fourteenth
century. It presents a motive of stylized ground plan and elevation, repre-
senting, conventionally, the town, castle and church of Tours. There are
many variations in the treatment of the chatel type. In the case of the
jetton from Merton, the town walls are given in ground plan as three sides
of a square with two round towers at the unenclosed side. In the centre
rises the elevation of the church spire, crowned with a fleur-de-lis: in the
examples detailed by Barnard the spire is surmounted by a cross potent.
In front of the town is the ground plan of an outwork.
The reverse is of a character commonly found on medieval jettons and
resembles the reverses of various French coins from Louis VIII (1223-6)
onwards.
194. Jetton, size 7. From the destruction layer.
Obv. A conventional single-masted vessel at sea with a flag and a streamer
fore and aft; above the yard is a G.
Leg. An open crown VOLGUE LA GALLEE (DE FRANCE).
Rev. A lozenge of France-ancient (shown as four lis) within a granulated
inner circle; in each spandrel a trefoil between two annulets.
Leg. (VI)VE LE BON ROY (DE FRANCE).
Jettons of this type were struck at Nuremburg in great numbers in the
sixteenth century. The obverse and reverse combined suggest the arms of
Paris and the legend intimates that they were originally intended for use in
France. They spread widely and are common in England. An almost
identical jetton, but of size 8, is illustrated by Barnard.59 The legend on
the obverse may be translated 'Sail fair the ship of France.'60
195. Seven lace tags or tassel ends: varying in length from {£ in. to 1J in.
From destruction layer.
196. Threading needle made of ^ in. ribbon twisted together with a loop at
one end, pointed at the other, the loop is very worn, 1 ^ in. long. From
destruction layer.
197. Tack or shoe nail. From the destruction layer.
198. Pin from brooch. From destruction layer.
199. Cleat-like object. From destruction layer.
200. Fragment of twisted sheet. From fill of roadside ditch.
201. Small fragment of sheet. From cobble of roadway.
57 Ibid., 110, No. 4.
58 Ibid., 112-3, Nos. 7 and 15.
59 Ibid., PI. XXIX, No. 8; also Barnard, F. P., Annals of Archceology,
V (1913), 21-66, No. 10.
60 The writer is indebted to the late Prof. Munroe Fox for clarifying the
obscurity of this legend.
66 EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
202. Pins. 191 unbroken spherical headed bronze pins were found and
fragments of approximately 65 more. The shortest complete pin was
$ in. long, the longest (by -fg in.) If in. All but five of the pins were between
1 -& in. long and If in. long. Twenty-nine unbroken pins and fragments
of seven came from the destruction layer (probably as a result of infiltration) :
the remainder came from the fill of the south irrigation ditch or from the
indistinct upper surface of the destruction layer.
LEAD
203. Small piece of wire. From beneath Greensand floor.
204. Two twisted pieces of glazing bar. From beneath Greensand floor.
205. Numerous fragments, mostly in the form of shapeless lumps, apparently
waste from melting down lead being salvaged from the Priory. Some
fragments were recognizable as part of glazing bars, others were in the form
of fragments of sheet. From the destruction layer.
206. Short length of squashed tube. Approximately 1\ in. long, \ in. diameter,
threaded at both ends. From upper fill of south irrigation ditch below
clay cap.
BONE OBJECTS (Fig. 12.)
*207. Cylindrical handle. Turned on a lathe; 2^ in. long and \ in. diameter;
one end slightly tapered and has short socket for tang; the other end is
decorated by two circumferential grooves on a head, \ in. long by -& in. diam-
eter. Possibly from a punctilios.6' From clay sealed below Greensand floor.
c
207 208
Fig. 12. — Bone Objects. (£)
*208. Die. Hand made, approximately ^ in. cube; the markings are in the
form of small pits slightly less than }2 in. diameter, surrounded by an
incised circle ^ in. diameter. Slightly burnt. From destruction layer but
could be intrusive.
MOLLUSC A
Samples of soil from various horizons were examined by Messrs. J. P. Castell
and J. Cooper of the British Museum (Natural History), who wrote the
following report on the mollusca content of the samples.
Samples of material from seventeen locations (ten soil samples and seven
groups of shells recovered by excavators) were submitted for examination
and from these about 2,750 land and freshwater mollusc shells were
extracted. The results are summarized in Table 2.
2 kgm. of each of the soil samples were used for molluscan analysis except
in two cases where the sample submitted was less than this amount. In
both these cases, however, the samples duplicated second samples from
similar contexts. The figures in each column of the table are, therefore,
based on at least 2 kgm. of material.
Mollusca were most prolific in the eighteenth-century deposits (layers
2A, 2B and 2C), where the aquatic species are especially abundant.
Many of the species are characteristic of rivers and small streams with
plenty of vegetation. Fifty per cent of the 1,311 gastropods are aquatic
species. There is a remarkable abundance of about 500 specimens of
species of the minute bivalve Pisidium in the eighteenth-century samples
61 The writer is indebted to Mr. J. L. Nevinson for this suggestion.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 67
and some 400 come from one sample (layer 2B) ; most of them have yet to
be identified. All three deposits appear to indicate running water rather
than stagnant conditions but species characteristic of running water
could be transported in times of flood. This is unlikely here as there is
no clear evidence of different conditions.
Calcareous granules from slugs belonging to the genus Arion, which
occur in great abundance in many samples, cannot be identified specific-
ally and the plate-like vestigial shells of the Limacid slugs are very
difficult, if not, impossible, to determine satisfactorily.
The great majority of the land mulluscs are characteristic of damp or
marshy woodland conditions. Some, such as Papilla muscoram, Vallonia
costata, V. exentrica, and Helicella itala, are more typical of drier habitats.
These species may have been washed into the River Wandle higher up
during periods of heavy rain or flooding. They are never abundant.
It will be noticed that five species of marine mullusca were used for food.
Oyster shells were particularly abundant in the destruction layer and
were presumably imported from the Thames estuary.
Stelfox62 recorded 50 species of land and freshwater molluscs as a result
of several visits between 1906 and 1908 to the River Wandle and neigh-
bouring ditches and ponds on. and adjacent to, the site of Merton Priory.
Three species, including Arianla arbostorum, were not found living, and
it was thought that these dead shells may have come from deposits along
the bank of the Wandle. All the species were abundant with the excep-
tion of Retinella nitidula, Vitrea crystallina, Planorbus leucostoma, and
A pie x a hyp novum.
The species recorded by Stelfox which occur in the samples from Merton
Priory are listed in Table 2. It will be seen that 17 species, as well as
freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) were not seen by Stelfox. Several species
recorded by him were not found in the samples.
The ostracods were kindly determined by Mr. S. H. Eager of the British
Museum (Natural History).
Oysters. Several hundred (possibly thousand) valves, of varying sizes, were
found mainly in the destruction layer where they probably derive from
disturbed midden material. In view of the large number of specimens collected
from a small area it was hoped that various aspects could be studied, notably
any remains of parasite activity, that might possibly lead to a better under
standing of the present limits of scientific inference in this field. As yet it
has proved impossible to arrange for this to be done. A similar collection of
oyster valves from the excavations at Hangleton, Sussex, also awaits study.63
ANIMAL BONES
Considerable quantities of animal bones were recovered from the excavations,
mainly from the midden material incorporated in the destruction layer.
These have been submitted to Mr. R. E. Chaplin, of the Passmore Edwards
Museum, for analysis, but unfortunately it has not been possible to complete
the detailed examination of these bones in time for the present publication.
The results of the examination will be published in full at a later date.
Preliminary work indicates the presence of cattle, sheep/goats, pigs and fallow
deer. The material is such that it will be possible to demonstrate the
importance of the different species in the diet of the occupants and also
indicate the husbandry pattern which provided the meat. The presence of
fallow deer as a meat animal is of particular interest, and in this context
it may be pointed out that L. Green64 has noted that the records of the
Priory suggest that hunting with dogs and hawks may have been carried out
during the fourteenth century by the Canons.
62 Stelfox, A. W., Journal of Conchology, XII (1909), 292-3.
63 Biek, L., Sussex A.C., CII (1964), 141.
64 In Miss E. M. Jowett, op. cit., 51.
68
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
Layer Numbers
(as in Fig. 2)
Wgt. of sample (kgm.)
AQUATIC
GASTROPODS
Valvata cristata Mil Her
V . piscinalis (Muller)
Potamopyrgus jenkinsi
(Smith)
Bithynia tentaculata
(L-):
B. leachi (Sheppard)J
Lymnaea trimcatula
(Muller)
L. palustris (Muller)
L. peregra (Muller)
Physa fontinalis (L.)
Planorbis carinatus
Muller
P. planorbis (L.)
P. albus Muller
P. contortus (L.)
A ncylus fluviatilis
(Muller)
AQUATIC BIVALVES
Unionidae (frgmts)
Sphaerium corneum (L.)
Pisidium amnicum
(Muller)
P. supinum Schmidt
P. moitessierianum
Paladilhe
P. spp.
LAND GASTROPODS
Carych i um m inim um
Muller
Succinea pfeifferi
Rossm.
S. sp.
TABLE 2
MOLLUSCA
6
2
5
2f
3D-
3F
2f
3 &
3B
2t
2C
3-8
2B
2
2A
3-2
2
2*
Top-
soil
2
Recorded
living
in 1908*
5
1
2
15
4
105
4
9
1
1
X
X
X
3
4
34 +
11 op.
1
40 +
18 op.
34 +
6 op.
4 +
1 op.
3
X
X
X
10
1
11
61
3
1
3
26
154
1
1
15
5
21
4
32
1
1
1
2
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
I
55
10
c. 400
!
16
X
1
2
6
X
3
12
X
2
1
1
2
* The following species were recorded by Stelfox in 1908 but not found in the samples
from the excavation: Theodoxus fluviatilis (L.) (deadshells), Lymnaea stagnalis (L.),
Aplexa hypnorum (L.), Planorbarius corneus (L.), Planorbis voitex (L.), P. leucostoma
Millet, Segmentina complanata (L.) (deadshells), Oxychilus alliarius (Miller), O. helvelicus
(Blum), Yitrina pellucida (Muller), Lehmanni a marginal a (Muller), Agriolimax reticulalus
(Muller), A. laevis (Muller). The following species were recorded by Stelfox in 1908 and
mdY have been present in the samples, but were not specifically identified : Pisidium
casertanum (Poli), P. obtusale (Lamark), P. milium Held, P. subtruncatitm Malm
Succinea putris (L.), Arion intermedins Normand, A. circumscriptum Johnston, A. sub
fuscu* (Drap.), A. ater (L.).
f Plus groups of shells recovered by excavators.
% The numbers of opercula (op.) have been separated from those ot the shells, as some
of the opercula might belong to some of the shells.
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3 69
Land Gastropods (Continued)
Layer Numbers
(as in Fig. 2)
Cochlicopa lubrica
(Muller)
Vertigo antivertigo
(Drap.)
V. pygmaea (Drap.)
Pupilla muscorum (L.)
Vallonia costata (Muller)
V. pulchella (Muller)
V. exentrica Sterki
Ena obscura (Muller)
Cecilioides acicula
Muller
Arianta arbnstoruni (L.)
Helix (Cepaea) hortensis
Muller
H. (C.) nemoralis (L.)
H. (C.) sp.
H. aspersa Muller
Hygromia striolata
"(Pfeiffer)
H. hispida (L.)
Monacha cantiana
(Mont.)
Helicella itala (L.)
Punctum pygmaeum
(Drap.)
Discus rotundatus
(Muller)
Euconulus fulvus
(Muller)
Vitraea crystallina
(Muller)
Oxychilus cellarius
(Muller)
Retinella radiatula
(Alder)
R. nitidula (Drap.)
Zonitoides nitidus
(Muller)
Arion spp. (granules)
Limacidae (plates)
EDIBLE MARINE
SHELLS
Littorina littorea L.
(Winkle)
Buccinum undatum L.
(Whelk)
Ostrea edule L. (Oyster)
Mytilus edule L.
(Mussel)
Cardium edule L.
(Cockle)
18
1
136
14
34
3D-
3F
3
13
21
3 &
3B
1 1
Abun-
dant
18
2C
2B
8
12
1
1
4
2
17
14
6
9
8
5
1
3
frag-
ments
80
69
2
1
1
2
2A
29
6
5
100
8
13
9
188
2
10
1
2
1
23
7
2
17
2
2
10
20
22
267
11
10
Id
Top-
soil
1
3
4
14
8
36
70
EXCAVATIONS NEAR MERTON PRIORY, 1962-3
Layer Numbers
(as in Fig. 2)
CRUSTACIA
(OSTRACODA)
Herpetocypris reptans
(Baird)
Ilyocypris gibba
(Ramdohr)
6
5
3D-
3F
3 &
3B
2C
2B
2A
2
Top-
soil
X
X
Recorded
living
in 1908*
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
BY
C. F. TITFORD
IN their account of the two parks of Nonsuch, Manning and Bray
state that when in 1627 Charles I granted them to his wife,
Henrietta Maria, the area of the Great Park, together with the
Great Mead, was 1,030 acres, and that of the Little Park 671 acres.
Subsequent writers have been content to repeat these figures without
further enquiry; yet the period to which they refer was late in the
history of the parks and the figures are no guide either to the acreage
or to the bounds of the parks in their heyday in the sixteenth century
and opening years of the seventeenth. The acreage of the Little
Park is not given in any of the documents relating to an earlier
period; it can only be inferred by deducting that of the Great Park
from the total of the two as given in the Fine of 1592 when they
were acquired by Elizabeth I from Lord Lumley.1 Accordingly, this
enquiry will be confined to tracing the acreage and bounds of the
Great Park during the period from 1538, when Henry VIII first
acquired the area, to c. 1607-8, when, after a decade or more of
its disuse as a hunting park, James I added to its acreage and
restored it to its previous use. It was at this latter date that the
Great Park reached its widest extension and spread over parts of
the four parishes of Cuddington, Ewell, Maiden and Long Ditton.
From the available documents it is not difficult to trace its acreage,
and we shall do this first; the main difficulty arises in tracing how
that acreage was distributed over the four parishes.
The earliest document on the subject is entitled 'Survey of the
Manour of Nonesuche — otherwise Codingtonne,'2 and is dated
21 November 1538. It is divided into three sections, the second of
which relates solely to 'the Seite of the manor' ; the two remaining
sections itemise 'Landes taken into the Kinges parke there.' From
the field names, topographical details and the way in which it is
divided it is clear that the items in the first section lay on the north
side of London Road and those in the third on the south side.
Evidence that will be quoted later shows that London Road — at that
time known as London Way — was the dividing line between the
two parks ; so the items in the first section alone are relevant to this
enquiry. Their total acreage as given in this survey was 817 acres.
The next document in order of date is described as a 'Brefe note
of a Survey of the Great park of Nonesuche'3 and was compiled
about 1558. It gives few details beyond the fact that the acreage
of the Great Park was then 927 acres. This shows 110 acres over and
above the total of the manorial lands; but the document does not
1 Final Concord, Lumley to Elizabeth. P.R.O. C.P. 25(2)/227.
2 G.M.R. 10/157.
3 G.M.R. L.M. 844.
71
72 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
say that they were added at this time, merely that such was then the
acreage of the park. The extra acres may have been enclosed at any
time during the twenty years since 1538. It will be necessary to
enquire further about these acres later ; but for the moment we need
merely add 110 acres to the 817 of the manorial survey.
There is no documentary or other evidence of further changes
until 1605-7, when a part of Long Ditton and further Maiden acres
were acquired and enclosed in the Park. State Papers of James I that
we shall be considering later indicate that 109£ acres were then
added. Later documents do not come within the period of this
enquiry; so the total at the end of the period concerned can be
summarized thus: —
1538 817 acres
1558 ... ... ... ... 110 additional acres
1607 ... ... ... ... 109£ additional acres
1,036£ acres
The 1538 Survey raises no difficulties concerning the distribution
of the acreage over the different parishes as this is expressly stated
to have been: —
acres
Parish of Cuddington ... ... ... 519
Parish of Ewell 153
Parish of Maiden ... ... ... 145
817 acres
The 1558 Survey, however, details the acreage solely in terms of
pasture, arable, meadow and wood. But if it can be shown that of
the 927 acres of this second survey, 817 acres were identically the
same as those of the first survey, the investigation will be narrowed
down to ascertaining the location of the remaining 110 acres. The
earlier manorial survey details the items both according to parish and
topographically, so the following direct comparison can be made: —
1538
1558
acres
acres
Arable
26
754
Pasture
727
100
Meadow
23
20
Wood
41
53
817 acres
927 acres
The greatest variance is between the figures for arable and pasture,
and taken at their face value they might be assumed to indicate
that an additional 728 acres of arable had been enclosed in the park
and 627 acres of pasture excluded. Geographical considerations,
however, indicate that an interchange on this scale could not have
been possible. 627 acres of pasture constituted 76% of the whole
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 73
of the manorial pasture land, and of these 483 were in Cuddington
alone. If these had been excluded, it would have left only 36 acres
of Cuddington parish in the park, and this would not have reached
up to the Maiden acres from London Way; on the other hand, too,
nowhere in either Ewell or Maiden adjacent to what would have
been left of the park were there 728 acres of arable land that could
have been taken in to replace the excluded pasture.
An alternative explanation becomes apparent if the figures of
arable and pasture of the 1538 Survey are combined. Together they
make a total of 753 acres which is only one short of the figure for
arable of the 1558 Survey. This can be readily explained by the
fact that after the death of Henry and during the reigns of Edward
and particularly of Mary, the park was little used for hunting, and
much of it was brought under cultivation. So the figures indicate
that only one additional acre of arable was in fact added. A similar
change of usage — the afforestation of three acres of meadow — would
explain the difference of acreage of meadow and wood, with the
addition in this case of nine further acres of woodland. This would
account for ten of the additional acres and the item of 100 acres
of pasture for the rest. It is thus apparent that 817 of the 927 acres
of the 1558 Survey were those as detailed in the manorial survey,
and it now remains to ascertain in which parish or parishes the
additional 1 10 acres lay.
Except for the unlikely possibility that the Cuddington and
Maiden acres of the manorial survey did not abut on one another,
it follows that the 519 acres given in that survey comprised the
whole of the Cuddington parish north of London Way ; and there is
no evidence that any part of Long Ditton was enclosed in the park
at this early date. The additional 1 10 acres can thus only have been
in Ewell or Maiden.
Considering Ewell first, adding the whole of the additional acres
to the 153 of the manorial survey would make a total of 263 acres
and if this be measured off on a map, it would bring the park pale
to a line close to the modern Kingston Road. A century later, much,
but still not all, of this area was enclosed in Worcester Park; but
that it was not enclosed in the Great Park of 1558 is evidenced
by a survey of the parish compiled in 1577 by Thomas Taylor, the
Surrey County Surveyor.4 This describes the boundaries of the
parish starting from what he names as Sleygate on the boundary
of the park where it crossed the London Road. The latter must have
been constructed at some time after 1538 to provide a route from
Ewell village to London Way5 alternative to the previous route via
East Street (Vicarage Lane) and Codyngton Street that lay in the
area acquired by Henry and by him closed to the public. It was
the same as that part of London Road of today that lies between
the northern end of Church Street and Briarwood Road. From
4 Taylor's Survey of Ewell. G.M.R. 10/158.
5 Referred to as the 'king's highway to Merton' in Inquisition of 1422.
Register or Memorial of Ewell, Deedes.
74 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
other evidence in Taylor's survey and a later map, it would appear
that Sleygate stood at practically the same point as the later toll gate
by Woodgate close to the Organ Inn of today. From this point the
relevant part of the survey describes the eastern boundary of Ewell
as follows : —
from the said gate northwards all along and by the pale of the grete
parke of Nonsuch unto East Coraon and still along by the said Comon
and the same pale of thest and northest ptes unto a Close of George
Evelin called Myllclose pcell of his manor of Tallworth and then along the
same Close and by the same pke pale unto a place of the said pke pale
ageinst which within the said pale near unto the said pale certen okes
ben newly m'ked then from thens extending over the same Close west
ward to a ditch and post where a gate lately was in Tallworth lane and
from thens ou the same lane west ward between twoe oken trees.
From this it is clear that the boundary lay along the park pale
to some point where it turned westwards across Myllclose to form the
northern boundary of the parish. This point will be indicated if the
position of Myllclose can be established. There is no available
documentary evidence referring to this Close other than Taylor's
Survey; but, unintentionally so far as Taylor himself was concerned,
his survey yet gives a very definite indication of its position. On
page 65 he gives this description of the Close: —
A Close of G Evelin by Nonsuche grete parke between Tallworth lane
and the same parke. George Evelin holdeth the said Close containing
of pasture by estimacion xiiij acres whereof lieth in the parishe of Ewell
by estimacion vj acres abutting upon the residue of the said Close in the
parishe of [blank of the north parte upon the lane leding to Tallworth
being parcell of the wast of Ewell Lordshippe of the west south west
parte which parte of the Close is the owtbounds of Ewell Lordshippe and
extendeth [in length (deleted)] with the said lane towards Tallworth
lordshippe of the north parte to a ditch on the same lane where a post
standeth for a gate to hange on so as before containing in Ewell
Lordshippe vj acres.
What is singular and significant in this description is the fact that
whilst Taylor is so uncertain of the parish in which the northern
part of the Close lay that he leaves it unnamed, he has no such doubt
about its western side that abutted on Tallworth Lane, and which
he states 'extendeth with the said lane towards Tallworth Lordshippe
of the north parte.' Yet, obviously, the north and west sides of the
Close must have joined at its north-west corner. Along the northern
boundary of Ewell there is only one point where doubt could have
arisen. From the Hogsmill River eastwards towards the park, there
is only one parish abutting on Ewell — namely, Long Ditton — so no
doubt could or did arise along this part of the boundary. On the
east, however, Long Ditton abutted on Maiden. Possibly the position
of the boundary between these two parishes was in dispute; but
whether or not this was the case, it is at this point alone that the
Ewell boundary abutted on more than one parish and could have led
to any doubt.
Then, too, as stated in the previous quotation from Taylor's
Survey, Myllclose was a part of Evelin 's manor of Tolworth, and a
document, to be discussed more fully later, states that this manor
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 75
included several closes that abutted on 'the way leading from
Nonsuch greate Parke to tallworth' and which were on the north
side of the river immediately opposite the position indicated as the
site of Myllclose. The inference is unmistakeable and still further
evidence will be quoted later from a seventeenth-century document.
At this point, however, reference can be usefully made to two items
offering evidence of a circumstantial character. First, there is the
fact that Evelyn owned and worked a gunpowder mill somewhere
in Long Ditton, as well as at Godstone. There is no direct evidence
that the mill in question was the one from which Myllclose derived
its name; but the Earl of Worcester, who was keeper of the park
in the seventeenth century, resided at Worcester House nearby
and also held a licence to manufacture gunpowder, and the powder
mills of William Taylor in the eighteenth century lay across the
river just at this point. This may be no more than coincidence; but
if so, it is a singular one.
The other evidence is supplied by the 1867 O.S. map. This shows
the same site as occupied by Worcester Park House (built in 1797)
and the general position is unchanged except for the fact that the
grounds extend a little further eastwards beyond the ornamental
water in front of the House. On Rocque's map of c. 1767 this water
is called 'Maiden Pond,' which suggests that it marked the original
boundary between the two parishes. The western side of the grounds
is shown as abutting on a lane running northwards to the river.
Today, this is part of Cromwell Road and included in the Ewell
parish ; but the map indicates it as a lane following closely the hedge
of Worcester Park House grounds, narrower and running at a slightly
different angle than the rest of Cromwell Road which was not
constructed until some time after the area had been acquired by
William Taylor in 1750. It is thus distinct from the rest of Cromwell
Road and tallies with the Tallworth Lane of the Survey.
If now a line is drawn from below the ornamental water on the
east side of Myllclose down to Sleygate, it encloses 153 acres of
Ewell land in the park in accordance with the figure given in the
1538 Survey and thus indicates that no further acres of Ewell had
been enclosed by 1577.
There is another document to which brief reference must here be
made. It concerns a grant of the Rectory of Ewell in 1560 to Thomas
Reve and George Evelin.6 The reference to the park is contained in
a passage that, inter alia, debars the grantees from receiving tithe
that had previously been paid to the Rector on '148 acres of land
in the parish of Ewell parcel of the manor there and in the old park
of Nonsuch enclosed as of 142 acres in the same parish and within
the same park likewise enclosed.' These figures appear to be
inconsistent with those of all the other documents; and coming at
a time between the manorial survey and Taylor's survey seems to
imply that in the interim a further 137 acres of Ewell were first
enclosed in the park and then excluded again. This is highly
6 Grant of Ewell Rectory to Reve and Evelyn. P.R.O. C66/951 ms. 27,32.
76 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
improbable, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that
any such changes were effected. On the other hand, according to
the Custumal attached to the Register, in the early fourteenth century
Merton Priory had held 213 acres in Sparfeld abutting on Ewell
as part of the manor of Ewell. It may be that 137 of these acres
were still so held in the same way that the Priory continued to hold
the tenures in other parts of Cuddington that they had held in 1422.
Suggestive of this possibility is the fact that among the items of
Cuddington in the 1538 Survey is one in Sparfeld of '140 acres
by estimation' held by Richard Cuddington. As this holding would
have become tithe-free when included in the park, it is possible that
it is part of the 290 acres given in the Grant. However, this or any
other interpretation of the Grant can be no more than conjectural
and thus of no value for the purpose of this enquiry. On the grounds
stated above, it is clear that only 153 acres of Ewell were enclosed
in the park by 1577 and, as will be established later, evidence
indicates that this was still the onlv acreage of Ewell so enclosed
up to 1650.
We now have to consider the grounds supporting the conclusion
that the additional 110 acres of the 1558 Survey were Maiden land,
additional that is to the 145 acres given in the Manorial survey-
l'n fortunately, there is no contemporary survey of Maiden available
and, indeed, little documentary evidence of any kind relating to
the period in question. There are, however, two passages in the
' Yewe and Survey of the Manor of Codyngton,'7 that may have some
bearing on the subject. This survey was compiled in c. 1536 for
Henry's information when he was considering acquiring the area,
and the items read as follows: —
Thomas Compton holdyth a messuage and C akers lande lyeing in the
parysshe of Maiden and payeth yerly vj d and sute of Courte and a payre
of Spurrys [page 23].
Md that the Wardene of mertene Colledge Claymyth xij acres as parcell
of hvs manor of Maiden [wych ?] is not here charged in the holding of
the Lord of Quydyngtone [Marginal note, p. 16\
The round figure of Compton's holding is probably 'by estimation' ;
but in any case the total of 112 acres is close enough to 1 10 to awaken
interest and to suggest the possibility that when Henry acquired
the area, he appropriated these acres as being part of the manor
he had purchased. This is made the more probable by a sequel in
the seventeenth century to be mentioned later; and we may note
that Manning and Bray record that Henry appropriated some of
the land of the Maiden manor, although they put the acreage at
120 acres. However, as the possibility that these acres formed part
of the 145 acres mentioned in the 1538 Survey cannot be excluded,
the passages cannot be advanced as positive evidence.
As our main guide for the earlier period, we must turn to the figures
of acreages. Relating them to a map, it will be found that the area
between London Wav and the Great Avenue (taking in the Great
7 P.R.O. E. 315/414.
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 77
Lodge) accounts for the 817 acres of the 1538 Survey. This includes
145 acres of Maiden, so whether the 112 acres just mentioned were
a part of them or not, there still remains the additional 110 acres
of the 1558 Survey to be placed and they can only have lain some-
where north of this line. The area between the avenue and the
southern boundary as it is today adds only approximately a further
67 acres, leaving 43 acres laying still farther north. Arbitrarily to
mark off 110 acres north of the Great Avenue would account for
the acreage, but there is a map of a kind dated 15508 that indicates
an alternative method of dealing with the matter.
The map was prepared in connection with a dispute between
farmers of Morden and Cheam over rights of common on the 'Wast
of Sparewefeld.' Like other maps of the period, it is pictorial in
character and no reliance can be placed upon the proportions of
one part to another. It does, however, give a rough picture of the
eastern side of the park as viewed from Morden and Cheam, and
affords evidence of several matters relevant to this enquiry. It
confirms that London Way formed the dividing line between what
it labels as the Old and New Parks. It shows the eastern pale as
running parallel with, but a few paces back from, the 'Waye from
Cheyme through Sparfeld to Kingestone'; and half way along the
pale, it shows a hill called Pystyl Hyll, which must be the high ground
at the junction of Balmoral Road and Kingsmead Avenue as this
is the only high ground anywhere near here. These last two features
afford confirmation that the position of the eastern pale was
practically the same as the pre- 1933 boundary between Cuddington
and Cheam. North of the hill, there is a gate which may be the
entrance to the Great Avenue, and still farther north of this the pale
is indicated as running along the southern side of a turning off the
Waye to Kingestone with Maiden Church on the opposite side of
the turning. The position in which the church is placed is not in
accord with its actual position as we know it to be; but the fact
that it is shown at all suggests that the turning can be none other
than Church Road, and that in 1550 the park pale abutted on it.
Beyond this, the map affords no further guidance; for, as stated, it
has none of the accuracy of a modern map. However, with this
limited indication of the position of the pale, we can now mark off
the 1 10 acres between the Great Avenue and Church Road, starting
from the eastern end of the former. When this is done, it encloses
the area up to the broken line on the attached map (Fig. 1). This is
not to say that the line represents the actual position of the pale. It is
still accounting for the acreage only; and it will be seen that it does
not enclose the whole area to the river. This is only to be expected ;
we have yet to account for the further enclosure of Maiden land in
1608, and there can be no question that the park ever extended
north of Church Road or it would have taken in Maiden village and
church. So we now have to consider the additions made in 1608 to
8 Map c. 1550. P.R.O. M.P.B. 25.
78
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
see how they fit into this northward extension of the park as it
appears to have been in 1558.
The first document concerning these final additions to the park
is a survey of c. 1605. 9 It is described as 'Survey for the enlarge-
ment of the Great Park' ; and at one point the commissioners state
that they have 'serveyed the grounds intended to be taken into
NONSUCH
GREAT PARK
1608
Fig. 1. — Map.
the said great park of Nonsuch ... in the parishes of Longdytton
and Maiden.' The document recounts the results of enquiries into
numerous matters in addition to listing the names and holdings
of tenants; and this fact and the word 'intended' indicates the
character and purpose for which the document was prepared. It
is, in fact, very similar in character to the ' Vewe and Survey' prepared
9 Survey for enlargement of Great Park 1605. P.R.O. E178/4804/m3.
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 79
for Henry before he acquired the Cuddington manor ; that is to say,
it is not an account of the land actually added to the park, but a
preliminary survey of what at the time of its compilation was
'intended' or proposed should be added. For what in the event was
actually added, reference must be made to three State Papers10 of a
slightly later date.
The first, No. 47, states 'A Note of such lands as are agreed . . .
to be taken into his Ma'tis Greate Park at Nonsuch,' and lists holdings
of eleven tenants having a total acreage of 26 acres 3 rods 15 perches,
and the glebe of the 'mynester parson' containing 2 rods 17 perches;
but no indication is given whether they were in Long Ditton or
Maiden. The next paper, No. 48, is 'A particular of such lands
within Maiden as John Goode is to pass unto his Ma'tie for the
enlargement of the greate park of Nonsuch,' and lists a total of
20 acres and 2 rods. The final Paper, No. 49, is 'The particulars of
the land of Thomas Evelyn in Talworth which is to be enclosed and
taken into Nonsuch park,' and lists 61 acres 2 rods 22 perches.
It is the figures of these State Papers, therefore, with which we
are here concerned; but as the names and positions of the holdings
are not described in the Papers, but are described in the Survey,
the latter can be used for this purpose.
Evelyn's land lay on the two sides of the 'way leading from
Nonsuch greate Parke to Tallworth.' This would be Tallworth Lane
of Taylor's Survey, and the Tolworth Inclosure Map shows this
lane as leading north-west towards Tolworth village across the area
later known as Riverhill or Riverhead. The boundary of this estate
follows a wide semi-circle from the river near Tolworth Court to
a point lower down the river opposite Millhaws on the Maiden side
of the river. The acreage of this area amounts to approximately
66 acres; leaving in round figures 43| acres of Maiden out of the
total 109J acres being added to the park.
The most westerly of the Maiden holdings is a part of Millhaws
held by John Brown ; which, with the rest of the haw not taken into
the park, lay
betwene the Ryver on the west and the new grubbed ground of the said
John [Goode]. [The latter lay] betwene the said Ryver and the said
parcell of Maiden of the said John Brown called Millhaws on the west
and the common feild of Maiden called Downefeild on the East, the one
end buttinge vpon the park pale of the said great Park of Nonsuch on
the South the other end buttinge vpon the [rest] of the grubbed ground
on the North.
From this we know that the river marks the western bound of
the Maiden area to be marked off; south-east of this were the
eastern bound of Myllclose and the pale by the northern boundary
of Ewell. If from these sides 43| acres are marked off, it includes
the area eastwards from the river to the broken line on the map and
northwards to the dotted line. With these two lines, 110 plus
43i acres have been marked off and there is still one further item
10 S.P. 14/xxiv/Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
80 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
to be added; namely, the 'rest of the said new grubbed ground on
the north' of John Goode. The document does not state the acreage
of the latter, but according to our map it was approximately
15 acres. Thus the whole of the area up to Church Road is accounted
for by 1608. However, as earlier stated, neither the broken line
nor the dotted one can be taken as indicating the actual position
of the park pale at either period. All that can be said is that
110 acres north of the Great Avenue formed part of the 927 acres
of the 1558 Survey and that the final additions of 43i acres in 1608
occupied the rest of the area to the river and up to Church Road
with the exception of some 15 acres held by John Goode. This
does, however, establish beyond doubt that the additional 110 acres
of the 1558 Survey were in Maiden; and having also allocated the
further acres added to the park in 1608, we can now analyse as
follows the l,036i acres contained in the park at this date:—
acres
Cuddington . . . ... ... ... ... 519
Maiden— 145 plus 110 and 43£ 298£
Ewell 153
Long Ditton 66
1,036£ acres
In passing, it is reasonable to suppose that Henry VIII had some
grounds, legitimate or otherwise, for enclosing in the park 110 acres
of Maiden land in addition to the 145 acres that formed part of the
manor of Cuddington. It may therefore be noted that the Close
Rolls of Henry VI include an Indenture of Award, dated 1427,
settling a dispute between the 'wardeyn of the hous of scolers of
Merton in Oxenforde' and Thomas Codyngton and his heirs concern-
ing rights of common in Sparfield. Inter alia, the award gives equal
rights to both parties to 'commune with averes and alle manner of
beastes communable in all that parcell of waste in Sparwe feld be
twene Maldoun towne on the north the arrable felds of Codyngton
on the south the Worthfeld on the west and the path called Fisheres-
way on the est.' When Henry VIII acquired the Cuddington manor
from Richard Codyngton, he would have acquired this right of
common inherited by the latter from Thomas. As stated in the
1538 Survey, Cuddington tenants were assigned 141 acres on the
Downs to compensate them for loss of rights of common in Sparfield.
And, apparently, Maiden tenants were still allowed to pasture their
animals in the park area ; for in the Court Roll of 1558, they complain
that tenants of Sir Thomas Carwarden had stopped 'the two gates
in Nonsuch parke by which the inhabitants of Maldon and other
did of long tyme use to passe and repasse with their cattell.' Although
not in full accord with all clauses of the award, having made these
practical concessions to the Cuddington and Maiden tenants on the
spot, the king apparently judged that he could override any
objections that might be advanced by the College. In this he appears
to have judged rightly, for as we have as yet to note, it was not
until nearly a century later that the College took any action to
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 81
recover their land. Assuming this to be a correct explanation of
Henry's action, it would add further to the evidence that the
additional 110 acres extended the park up to 'Maldoun towne.'
Before leaving reference to the State Papers, one further point
may be noted. State Paper No. 48 has a memorandum stating that
before the final additions were made, 100 acres of Maiden demesne
and copy held land had already been enclosed in the park. As we
have seen many more than 100 acres of Maiden land had been so
enclosed; but this specific mention of 100 acres recalls the 100 acres
held by Compton and also the 100 acres of pasture that formed the
major part of the additional 110 acres of the 1558 Survey; and we
shall have occasion to refer to this same figure again later.
The next matter to be investigated is the length of the perimeter
of the park. It must be remarked that even a perimeter of the correct
length and enclosing the right number of acres would prove nothing
unless the acres enclosed are rightly distributed over the parishes.
But having established that factor, the length of perimeter will
afford a check on the accuracy of the map.
The length of the perimeter in 1558 presents no difficulties as the
survey of that date states that it consisted of 1,593 pole. For the
perimeter in 1608, however, there is no such explicit statement;
it can be ascertained only by comparing evidence supplied by four
documents. The first of these,11 dated 23 October 1605, is an
estimate by John Taverner for the 'enclosing with pale Rayle and
post of his Ma'tis parke called ye Great Parke of Nonsuch,' and
further described as 'The said ground as heretofore enclosed cont:
in circuit 1,696 pole after 16 ft. 6 ins. the pole. Also the porticon
betwene the meadow ground ther and thupland cont: after the
same measure 228 pole — in all 1,924 pole.' The second document12
is an acceptance of this estimate and authorising payment of
£1,076 lis. for the work to be done. Both these documents were
drawn up the same year as the preliminary survey referred to above,
and can be taken to apply to the area 'intended to be enclosed in
the park.' There is no evidence that payment was ever made, the
inference being that the work was never in fact executed; and
this inference is confirmed by the fact that the third document,13
dated 9 January of either 1606 or 1607 is a revised estimate by
Taverner for similar but not exactly the same work, but including
details of paling to be set up. The cost of the work, too, is consider-
ably less; namely, £611 15s. 2d., plus £30 for extras.
The final document is a 'Declaration of thaccompt of Susan
Taverner Executrix of the last will and testament of John Taverner
Esq.'14 The first two items record that the sum of £611 15s. 2d. of
the second estimate had been paid in two instalments; the rest of
the account details all the work done and expenses incurred, the
11 State Paper. S.P. 15/37/64.
12 State Paper. S.P. E35 1/3368.
13 State Paper. S.P. 15/39/3.
14 State Paper. E351/3367 and Aci/248 1/285.
82 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
total charge amounting to £1,057 16s. 8d. As there is no question
that the paling was set up twice over, it is apparent that the last
two documents alone are relevant to this enquiry.
Taverner's revised statement states that 400 pole of paling were
required to enclose the newly acquired land ; and as these were to be
'ditched and quickset about the outside' obviously no paling was
to be set up along the river bank. Of these 400 pole, 180 were to be
new but 220 were 'to be sett with parte of the old stuff which shall
be taken up in the parke.' In addition to this, a further 100 pole
of the 'old stuff' was to be used for a paling round the orchard and
garden of the Great Lodge. Deducting 320 pole from the 1,593
of the original perimeter of the park as given in the 1558 Survey
(see Table below), would leave 1,273 pole of the old stuff to be
re-erected in situ. Adding 400 pole required to take in the new area
to be enclosed makes a total of 1,673 pole.
pole pole
Perimeter of park as in 1558 Survey 1,593
Old stuff required : —
to enclose newly acquired land... ... 220
to enclose orchard and garden ... ... 100
320
To be erected in situ ... 1,273
Paling required to enclose newly acquired land: —
Old Stuff 220
New 180
400
1,673 pole
This final figure, however, cannot represent the perimeter of the
enlarged park as it would suggest that it was only eighty pole longer
than the perimeter of 1558, which seems unlikely. Thus it is apparent
that 'taken up in the park' must have included more than the old
park paling; probably paling round some of the areas inside the
park that by this time were under cultivation. Another of the items
of the estimate reads, 'Setting up 1,780 pole,' which is 107 pole
greater than the 1,673 and a far more likely figure for the perimeter.
However, there is no statement to that effect, so evidence must be
sought, and for this reference must be made to the fourth document.
Before doing so, one further item concerning paling must be noted
in Taverner's estimate; namely, 60 pole for enclosing with double
paling 'a place to feed deer.'
Turning now to the account as submitted by Taverner's widow,
the costs are here presented in a different form and include items
for materials, labour, cartage and so forth which do not concern us
here.
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 83
The amount of paling is stated under a separate heading as follows: —
Setting up posts pales railes and shores
pole
1.557
116
50
87
100
1,910 pole
The analysis of these figures can best be presented in the following
tabulated form: —
The first two items added together amount to
1,673 pole which is the figure traced in the
analysis of the estimate as made up of: —
180 pole new
220 pole old stuff and pole
a further 1,273 old stuff 1,673
The third and fourth items are accounted for,
first by the further 107 pole obtained from some
inside enclosure; and on the reasonable assump-
tion that only 30 pole was finally used for the
deer pen ... ... 137
The fifth item is for the paling to be erected
round the orchard and garden of the Great Lodge ... ... 100
1.910
To arrive at the length of paling required to
enclose the park, the paling round the Great
Lodge and the deer pen must be deducted ... ... 130
1,780 pole
This confirms that the figure in the estimate for 'Setting up 1,780
pole' represents the length of the park perimeter apart from along by
the river that was left unpaled.
One difficulty that arises in all attempts to reconstruct a map
from old documents is the fact that whilst they record acreages, as
in this case they rarely state dimensions. A ten-acre field, say, can
be anything from a square to a long narrow rectangle, which neces-
sarily affects the length of the perimeter where it abuts on a boundary
or another field. It is for this reason that, although they enclose
the right acreage, neither the broken line nor the dotted one on the
attached map can be taken as indicating the exact position of the
park pale at these points. It might be possible to adjust their angles
in such a manner as to fit the perimeter figures given in the documents
without affecting the acreages. But the result would still be hypo-
thetical; so it is best to recognise that the actual lines of the pale
at the two dates cannot now be traced other than that in part they
lay along the road by the church. Accordingly we can only measure
84 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
the perimeters as shown on the attached map. These compare with
the documentary figures as follows: —
1558
1608
Map
Documents . . .
5 miles 252 yards
4 miles 1 ,72 H yards
5 miles 1,255 yards
5 miles 990 yards
The difference is less than 300 yards in both cases ; so in the circum-
stances such virtual agreement is fair evidence of the practical
accuracy of the map in other respects.
There are two further items in Taverner's estimate of interest to
this enquiry. First, there are 'two gates to be taken up in the
outeringe of the park as it is now enclosed and to be set again in
the outeringe of the park where grounds are to be taken in, one of
wh. being the gate where his Ma'tie usually passeth through from
Hampton Court to Nonsuch had need to be a faire paire of gates
with a wicket.' In view of the fact that the exact position of the park
boundary hereabouts prior to the final additions is not known, we
can only surmise the position of the two gates to be taken down and
re-erected elsewhere. The avenues were apparently not constructed
until Worcester House was built as a residence for the Earl of
Worcester some time later ; but it is probable that there was a track
across the park approximately along the same line as the later
Great Avenue, and this would doubtless have had a gate at its
western end, on the park pale. More certain is the fact that there
would have been a gate at the end of the Chessington-to-Malden
track where it emerged from the northern bound of the park, south
of Maiden village and the area later enclosed. As regards where they
would be required to be erected: one would be needed on the newly
formed part of the boundary with Maiden ; and the other at one or
other end of Tollworth Lane where it crossed the newly added
Long Ditton acres. It would be this latter that would be used by
the King on his way from Hampton Court to Nonsuch, and the fact
that it was to have a double gate and a wicket raises a point of
interest. The King would have to pass through other gates on his
way into and across the park (see later) ; yet there is no indication
that any of these had a pair of gates and a wicket. The implication
is that the track on which these gates were to be erected was used
by a considerable amount of heavy traffic. In this connection it
has to be recalled that the old route from Ewell and Cuddington
villages to Tolworth, Maiden and Kingston which lav along the
original boundary between the two parishes had been taken into the
park and closed to the public ; an alternative would therefore have
been necessary. On the 1867 O.S. map, there is a field line running
northwards from Beggar's Hill towards the lane on the west side
of Worcester Park House (alias Myllclose) . At the Beggar's Hill end
(Steets of Taylor's Survey) it would have been alongside the park
pale; but as it proceeds farther north it would have left the line
of the pale, cutting the corner where the north and east boundaries
of Ewell met at an angle, and joining the Chessington-to-Malden
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 85
track, which in turn was joined by Tall worth Lane a little farther
north. It would thus seem probable that this marks the line of the
alternative route, and that traffic to and from Ewell passed through
the gate on the new park boundary on its way to Tol worth, turning
east through a corner of the park to reach Maiden or either way to
Kingston. Walsingham Gardens of today appears to lay along the
field line and thus to mark a part of this probable route. This would
be additional evidence supporting that earlier given as identifying
the position of Myllclose and the park pale.
Similar significance attaches to yet another item in Taverner's
estimate. It reads as follows: 'Two cart bridges to be made new over
the Ryver in the said park.' As earlier shown, the area of the park
in 1558 did not reach the river at any point; Tallworth Lane, how-
ever, crossed the river and also, a few yards north of it, it crossed
the outflow from the moat of Tallworth Court. The fact that two
bridges would be required here, over which traffic could cross to the
gate with the wicket, identifies this as the position of the cart bridges
in question.
The acres enclosed in the park in 1608 were the last to be added
to the Great Park as such. The years that followed witnessed the
Civil War, Commonwealth and Restoration; and during this period
the park changed hands several times, to be finally reconstituted
under the title of Worcester Park and so named after the Earl of
Worcester, who was its keeper for a short time before the Civil War
and again after the Restoration. Strictly speaking, therefore,
subsequent events do not concern the subject of this enquiry. But
one such event has so close a connection with matters disclosed by
this enquiry, that brief reference will be made to it.
For several centuries prior to Henry's acquisition of the area, the
boundary between Cuddington and Maiden had been a subject of
constant dispute between the lords of the two manors; and from
details already recorded, it would seem certain that Henry had
ignored the claims of Merton College and appropriated land rightly
forming a part of the Maiden manor. Elizabeth, too, appears to
have been none too scrupulous in her dealings with the College.
Doubtless the inclusion in the park of yet a further 43| acres of
Maiden land in 1607-8 spurred the College into action, as litigation
was instituted against Sebastian Goode, the then holder of the
land that they claimed was part of the demesne lands of the Maiden
manor.15 A compromise verdict was ultimately obtained under
which the land was to revert to the College, but that the Goode
family was to retain the lease of the land for a further eighty years.
It was finally surrendered in 1707; but the result of the litigation
is reflected in a map of 162716 which shows the Maiden boundary
moved south to the position it still occupies today (with the exception
of the eastern corner that was slightly changed when the railway was
built). The College took the precaution of obtaining a confirmation
15 M. s-B., Ill, 3.
16 Lane's Map. Merton College. Reproduced in Ross, History of Maiden (1947).
86 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
of the verdict from Charles I in 1633. 17 In this a further proviso
appears, excepting from reversion to the College 'the tenements
enclosed in our Park called Nonsuch Great Park.' The only tenements
shown in this area, both on the map of 1627 and the 1867 O.S. map,
abut on the south side of Church Road, thus confirming the fact that
this road had previously marked the park boundary. The acreage
thus restored to the College was 100 acres, of which 85 acres had
been in the park; and it will be noted that the position of the new
boundary was so drawn as to leave the avenues still within the park
area.
This enquiry can be most fittingly concluded by reference to a
document of 1650 ;18 partly because the latter affords final evidence
of the position of the western boundary of the park, and partly
because it enables an impression to be formed of the general topo-
graphy of the area. The northern boundary at this time was as
shown on the 1627 map; that is, it excluded the acres restored to
Maiden manor. Similarly, Long Ditton was not included; a Parlia-
mentary Survey19 made earlier in the same year also makes no
mention of it. The document is a report submitted by commissioners
who were instructed by Parliament during the period of the Common-
wealth to recommend how the park could be divided 'into five
parts or divisions of equal value.' As in all such surveys, the bounds
of the proposed divisions are described by reference to the position
of trees, hedges, ponds and the like that have long since vanished
and thus offer no guidance to the modern enquirer. To add to the
difficulty, no figures of acreages or distances are given. There are,
however, a few items that still have positional significance; but for
the rest we have to rely upon hints of direction conveyed by such
phrases as 'leaving (so and so) on the north,' 'at the upper end
of . . . ,' 'as the ditch goes northerly . . .' and so forth.
The opening passage of the recommendations reads as follows: —
We begin at a gate leading to Ewell Common called Gouge Gate and as
the slow or rill of water runs down the valley to a great rew or shaw of
thorns and underwoods.
As the description of the fourth division starts and ends at this
gate and that of the others from points nearby, its position is the
key for interpreting the document; and in this connection one
further passage must be quoted. It ends the description of the
fourth division and is as follows: —
to the west corner of the wall of the great lodge thence per south side
of the shaw of thorns to the Rithe at the lower end thereof and thence
to Gouge Gate as the Rithe lieth.
From the first quotation, it is apparent that the gate stood on the
perimeter of the park at a point where it abutted on East Common ;
and from the second that it was near the Great Lodge. The only
17 See note 15.
18 Several Divisions of the Great Park. P.R.O. E317/Surrey/40.
19 Parliamentary Survey of the Great Park. P.R.O. E317/Surrey/39.
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 87
track that entered the park at this point was that from Chessington
to Maiden; the section inside the park formed part of the Great
Avenue, and the section leading up to this is now a part of Grafton
Road. The O.S. map of 1867 shows the point of juncture as just
south of the ornamental water in front of Worcester Park House.
The position of the gate is further indicated by the statement that
it stood on a 'slow (slough) or rill of water' running down a valley.
Reference here to a geological map of the area published in 1897
shows that the ornamental water lay lengthwise in a narrow tongue
of alluvium jutting out southwards from the line of the Hogsmill
River, thus explaining the presence there of a slough and rithe
running down a valley. The gate was thus the one by which traffic
coming from Tallworth Lane, about 150 yards to the west, entered
the park and reached the Great Lodge that stood about 300 yards
to its east. Its position is indicated in Fig. 2(a) by the letter A.*
Other points where the divisions contacted the park perimeter
must next be established and fortunately the description of these is
sufficiently indicative to enable them to be placed with reasonable
assurance.
The fifth division consisted of the Great Mead, the northern
boundary of which was formed by the stream flowing from the
Little Park (now in Nonsuch Park) and across the Great Park to
join the Hogsmill River in Ewell parish — S and P/Q on Fig. 2(a).
Another point, but on the eastern side of the park, is stated to be
30 rods south of Cheam Gate (on London Way), see H. One further
point is named 'Brickhill Gate.' This, too, was on the eastern side
of the park and is described as a point where the pale turned west-
wards back to Gouge Gate. The only hill in this vicinity is Pystyl
Hyll as shown on the 1550 map. As offering some confirmation that
this was Brickhill, the 1867 O.S. map shows a brickfield near this
point, so the gate can accordingly be placed adjacent to this, see D.
With these key points fixed, the main topographical details given
in the document can now be filled in on Fig. 1.
Division 1 starts at Gouge Gate, the position of which has been
established. From there, the boundary goes to 'Mr. Turner's lodge
and orchard to the north' (B) ; the orchard, we can assume, being
that which had been impaled by Taverner alongside the Great Lodge.
The boundary then follows along the hedge of the orchard to 'the
gate at the upper end of Longwood' (C) and then on to Brickhill
gate (D), and from 'thence along as the pale stands westerly till it
meets at the gate first mentioned called Gouge Gate' (E and back to
A). The second division begins 'two roods from the west corner of
* In passing, it may be noted that on the Inclosure Map of 1802, a gate is
shown near the modern Kingston Road, and is described as 'Ancient gate
to Worcester Park.' It is possible that this might be mistaken for Gouge Gate.
However, it was nearly half a mile away from the river and nearly as far from
the Great Lodge; and where it is situated there is nothing to suggest a slough,
rithe or valley. Moreover, if the Several Divisions were worked out from
this point, Division 4 would overlap and include parts of Divisions 2 and 3,
which would make nonsense of the recommendations.
88
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
the brick wall of the great lodge' (F). From here it follows the line
of the first division to Brickhill Gate; then along the pale (G) to
'an high oak in the pale about thirty rods belowe Cheam gate
towards the north (H) thence to Sparrowfeild Barn leaving the said
barn and dung yard to the south' (I). On then 'to a little pond (J)
down the glade to an oake within 10 rods of the north end of the
Ould Lodge' (K), and so back to its starting point, passing in turn
'Pheasant Nest gate' (L), 'where a hay stack has been paled in' (N)
and 'the Prince his standing' (O).
The third division starts at the paled-in hay stack (N) and then
goes on to the oak near Cheam gate (H). From there it follows the
pale along London Way to 'the north corner of the great mead' (P)
Fig. 2. — (a) The Great Park divided (theoretically) into the Five
Divisions recommended by the Parliamentary Commission
of 1650.
(b) Some of the Field Lines as shown on the O.S. Map of 1867.
and 'the east side of hay stack barn' (Q), 'thence northerly to the
Half Mile gate' (R) and back to its starting point. The fourth
division starts at 'Gouge gate per pale against Ewell Common to
west corner of the greate meade' (S), 'thence per north side thereof
(Q) and back to its starting point first along the boundary of
division 3, and then along part of division 2 and finally of division 1.
It is a long cry from 1650 to 1867, and the area underwent
considerable change, particularly when the railway was built across
it. Fig. 2(b), however, is a tracing of some of the field lines indicated
on the O.S. map of the latter date. From this it will be seen that
they divide the area in a manner closely similar to the pattern of
the theoretical lines of Fig. 2(a) . On the basis of a comparison between
these two figures, the details described in the 'Several Divisions'
document have been added to the main map. The date of the
THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH 89
document is a little later than the period with which this enquiry
is concerned ; nevertheless, it is unlikely that the general topography
had changed to any considerable extent since the last additions
to the park had been made.
Two final comments can now be offered. The first concerns the
western boundary of the fourth division. This separated the park
from East Common ; and it will be seen that this boundary between
Gouge Gate down to the western corner of the Great Mead and on
to London Way, is identical with the western pale of the park as
based earlier on Myllclose and Sleygate. This demonstrates that
up to the time when the final additions were made to the Great
Park the western pale had remained unaltered since it was first
set up in 1538.
The second comment refers to the route by which traffic would
have passed across the park between Nonsuch and the Great Lodge
and on from there to Tall worth Lane. Of the field lines shown on
Fig. 2(b), the one that most clearly resembles the theoretical lines of
Fig. 1, is that which runs from the 'west end of the brick wall of
the Great Lodge'; and it passes through two gates. Where ridings
cross fields, there are certain to be gates, which is circumstantial
evidence for the opposite that where there were gates there were
ridings. The importance of this riding is the fact that it divides
the park into two unequal parts. Division 4 lay on its western side
and the other three on its eastern ; each of them, however, abutting
on it at some point. Then, too, the boundary between the first and
second division and that between the third and fourth were also
along ridings. The northernmost ran through the gate by Long wood
to near Brickhill, the second branched off at Pheasant's Nest gate
(M on map) 'to the oake at the ould lodge west corner' and on to
Sparrowfeild Barn. From this it is apparent that these ridings
gave access to all parts of the park. On reaching the stream north
of the Great Mead, the main riding followed the course of the
stream eastwards to London Way. This latter, it will be recalled,
was an ancient track coming from London via Merton ; so there must
long have been a ford or bridge for crossing the stream at this point.
Half Mile Gate is half a mile from the point where, having crossed
the stream, the London Way was diverted to join up with the
Avenue leading up to the main gate of Nonsuch. Then, too, it is
significant that the Prince's standing should have abutted on this
riding, as it is far more likely that it would have been at a point
where it could be easily reached on horseback, along a track rather
than across open fields. Haystack Barn, the other building
mentioned, abutted on London Way and was thus suitably placed
for carting the hay.
As stated at the outset, no particulars of the Little Park are given
in any of the early documents. According to the Fine of 1592 when
Elizabeth acquired the two parks from Lord Lumley, their combined
acreage was 1,604 acres. In view of the fact established by this
enquiry that the acreage of the Great Park at this time was 927 acres,
90 THE GREAT PARK OF NONSUCH
that of the Little Park must have been 677 acres. So Manning and
Bray's figure of 671 acres probably relates, like those given for the
Great Park, to some time late in the seventeenth century.
ADDENDUM
The changes by which the park was reconstituted after 1608 under the
name of Worcester Park and ultimately deparked in 1670 are not precisely
known; there is documentary evidence of acreages only. However, it seems
probable that the changes were as follows: —
acres
1608 Acreage of the Great Park as shown in Fig. 1 ... l,036i
1627 85 acres restored to Maiden manor ... ... ... 85
951 \
Some time before 1650 further Ewell land enclosed, extend-
ing the pale westwards and up to the northern
boundary of the parish ... approx. M\
1650 Parliamentary Survey,20 'by estimation 1,000 acres'... 999
Some time between 1650 and 1663 the Lons Ditton area
between the northern boundary of Ewell and the
river enclosed .. . ... ... approx. 31
1663 Leased to Sir Robert Long21 ... ... ... ... 1,030 acres
It will be noted that the final figure is the one given by Manning and Bray
and is the acreage of Worcester Park in 1663. The total does not differ greatly
from that of the Great Park, but the distribution over the four parishes was
considerably different as shown by the following based on the above details: —
Cuddington
Ewell
Maiden
Long Ditton ...
Great Park
acres
519
153
298£
66
W
approx.
approx.
orcester Park
acres
519
200£
213|
97
1,036£ acres
1,030 acres
P.R.O. E317/Surrey/39.
P.R.O. E317/912.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE,
BATTERSEA
(OLD BATTERSEA HOUSE)
BY
F. T. SMALLWOOD, M.A.
'A new truth will have much to do to dislodge an old error.' — Henry
St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke.
THE PLEASANT SURMISES
TERRACE House, officially re-named Old Battersea House in
1931, is now Battersea's outstanding ancient monument. Its
main west front faces the Thames some three hundred yards
above the parish church (St. Mary's), and it must not be confused
with the old Battersea Manor House, which stood below the church
and the last traces of which disappeared some forty years ago.
Before 1840 the house did not attract the attention of topographical
writers, but in that year Dr. J. P. Kay obtained the use of the
premises for his training institution for schoolmasters, and under
the name St. John's College the institution continued for over
eighty years in Battersea. The name of the College is derived from
St. John the Baptist; the St. John ('Sinjun') family, who were lords
of the manor of Battersea from 1627 to 1763, never had any con-
nection with the College.
In recent years writers have ascribed the erection of the building
to Sir Walter St. John (1622-1708), who was the head of the
Wiltshire branch of his family and Third Baronet from 1656 till his
death. There is no known reason for doubting that 1699 — the date
on the sundial — is the date of the erection of the present super-
structure, though the problem of the present foundations is not so
simple. But as the association of Sir Walter's name with the house
did not begin till the present building was nearly two centuries old,
the tradition — if that is the right word for such a recent notion —
calls for investigation.
In 1894 some former students of the training college decided to
form a Masonic Lodge with the name 'The Sir Walter St. John Lodge.'
In explanation of their choice, they described Sir Walter's as
a name that would appeal to every Battersea man, the Bolingbrokes
being at one time Lords of the Manor, and some portions of the College
premises part of the old Manor House.1
As this is the earliest known association of Sir Walter's name with
Terrace House, the statement is worth detailed examination.
The claim that the name 'would appeal to every Battersea man'
1 The sentence is quoted by courtesy of the Grand Secretary of the United
Grand Lodge of England.
91
92 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
is doubtless perfectly true, though it does not imply that Sir Walter
had had the house built. From its beginning in 1840 the College used
Sir Walter's School as its practising school; in 1857 the School
extended its site, thus gaining a common boundary with the College
grounds; in 1859 a doorway was cut in the boundary wall, and from
that date classes had marched through that doorway for demonstra-
tion lessons in the College.
The second part of the statement — 'the Bolingbrokes being at one
time Lords of the Manor' — is very loose. Sir Walter St. John was
not a 'Bolingbroke.' The three St. Johns of Bletsoe in Bedfordshire
who were Earls of Bolingbroke from 1624 to 1711 do not enter into
the discussion. The only two 'Bolingbrokes' who were Lords of the
Manor of Battersea were Henry St. John, First Viscount Bolingbroke,
and Frederick, Second Viscount, grandson and great-grandson of
Sir Walter respectively. Between them they were Lords of the
Manor from 1742 to 1763. The applicants could have strengthened
their case if they had stated that certain St. Johns of Lydiard
Tregoze had been Lords of the Manor from 1627 to 1763. This would
have included Sir Walter; but it would not have implied that Sir
Walter had had the house built.
The third part of the statement — 'some portions of the College
premises [being] part of the old Manor House' — was simply not true,
as any map of Battersea, particularly the one in the Crace Collection
at the British Museum,2 shows. The two houses were about a
quarter of a mile apart ; when the statement was made part of the
Manor House still stood, to disprove it ; and in between them stood
the main features of the old village. The name 'Terrace House' is
documented as far back as 1810, and was used in the Report of the
Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, 1925. In 1841 Dr. Kay
had described the premises as 'a spacious manor-house'; and the
name 'The Little Manor House' was freely used during press
discussions in 1930. But whether 'Little' or not, the term 'manor
house' is a misnomer.
In 1897 Ernest Hammond made the first known printed statement.
It runs, 'St. John's College . . . consists in part of an old Battersea
Manor House, said to have been "present writer's italics] the residence
of Sir Walter St. John.'3 Hammond's source is unknown; he may
have heard what the old students were saying in 1894, though he
was not himself an old Battersea student.
The notion was now well started on its career both within the
College and among people interested in Battersea's local history.
In March 1903 William Taylor, Head Master of Sir Walter St. John's
School, was quite categorical in an article in The Gazette of his Old
Boys' Association — 'The fine old house which forms the original part
of the Training College was built by Sir Walter St. John' ; and in 1906
Thomas Adkins, writing the history of the College, mentioned 'this
beautiful old-world mansion by the river . . . little changed since . . .
2 B.M. Grace, XVI/71.
3 Hammond, E., Bygone Battersea (1897), 21.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 93
worthy Sir Walter St. John caused it to be built.'4 In 1912 the
Victoria County History, Surrey, stated: 'It [the Battersea College]
is on the site of Bolingbroke House [i.e. the Manor House] and
includes part of the house in which Viscount Bolingbroke lived' ; and,
doubtless unaware of the contradiction, reproduced a photograph of
a part of the Manor House that was still standing about a quarter of
a mile away.5 Later, J. G. Taylor, son of William and Head Master of
the School from 1907 to 1932, wrote: 'The well-known Battersea
Training College . . . was opened in the old mansion erected on the
riverside by Sir Walter St. John in 1699, '6 and 'the core of their
college buildings was the old dower-house built by Sir Walter St.
John in 1699, '7 though elsewhere the statement is more guarded —
'Persistent tradition says that it was built by Sir Walter.'8
At about this time evidence was being assembled to support the
declared fact or reputed tradition, and the interest that was aroused
when the property came on to the market in 1928 gave publicity to
the discoveries. The sundial's date, 1699, was found to coincide with
the fiftieth anniversary of Sir Walter's wedding, and its motto —
Pereunt et imputantur — to accord well with Lady St. John's
temperament. Hence the charming deduction that the house was
Sir Walter's golden-wedding present to his lady, intended to serve in
due course as a dower-house. (Sir Walter was eight and a half years
older than his wife.) Lady St. John's will, made in 1704, proved in
1705, referred three times to a house that she described as her own.
Hence the conclusion that Terrace House was that house. Evidence
came to light in 1926 that in 1677 Sir Walter and Sir Christopher
Wren had both been concerned in a matter involving a property in
St. James's Park. Hence the 'interesting speculation' whether Wren
designed Terrace House.9 The absence of a grand salon on the first
floor agreed with the presumption that at the age of 68 Lady St.
John was no longer interested in dancing. In its article on Sir
Walter's grandson Henry, the Queen Anne politician, the Dictionary
of National Biography had stated that 'Sir Walter and his son Henry
lived together in the Manor House at Battersea,' with the implication
that this was during Henry's first marriage. Dr. Taylor had made
the same statement, in quite categorical terms,10 and now in an
article in the Battersea Borough News (25.1.1929) he marshalled
most of the foregoing evidences and extended the last of them to the
second marriage of Sir Walter's eldest son. An interesting connection
between the make-up of the household at the Manor House and the
building of Terrace House followed. Sir Walter 'must often have
4 Adkins, T., The History of St. John's College, Battersea (1906), 43.
5 V.C.H. Surrey, IV, 9-10.
6 Taylor, J. G., Our Lady of Batersey (1925), 283.
7 Taylor, J. G., Short History of the Old Sinjins Lodge (1935), 15.
8 Taylor, J. G., Our Lady of Batersey (1925), 86, n. 77.
9 For a discussion of the attribution of Terrace House to Wren see
Smallwood, F. T., Battersea Booklist Quarterly (Spring 1965), and T. London &-
Middx. A.S., forthcoming.
10 Taylor, J. G., Our Lady of Batersey (1925), 87.
94 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
wondered what would be the life of his aged wife in this veritable
beehive of a mansion should he predecease her, and it is highly
probable that he built Terrace House for her own occupation in that
event.'
At first sight the burial of the first three children of Henry St.
John's first marriage (1673-8) and the christening of the fourth (the
future Bolingbroke) — all at Battersea — would appear to justify the
statement in the Dictionary of National Biography; and the burial
of six young children of Henry's second marriage (1687-1736) at
Battersea would seem to justify the extension of the idea to that
second marriage. But the unreliability of the Battersea burials of
young children as evidence of the Battersea residence of the parents
is well illustrated by the case of Sir Edward Henry Lee, First Earl of
Lichfield, and his wife Charlotte Fitzroy, a daughter of King Charles
II and Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine. Of the eighteen children
of this marriage four died in infancy and were buried in Battersea.
But three had been born in Windsor Castle, five in the parents' home
in St. James's Park, and the other ten in James Street, Westminster.11
Battersea burials do not necessarily prove Battersea residence.
Christenings are a more reliable evidence of the parents' place of
residence, particularly as they often took place within ten days or a
fortnight of the birth. But even here a caveat must be entered, for
young mothers often went back home for the birth of their first baby,
and the christening was recorded in the church of the mother's
former parish. As will be seen in the case of the future Bolingbroke,
unusual factors may throw doubt on fairly obvious deductions.
Five possible places of residence for Henry St. John during his
first marriage (1673-8) call for consideration. Lydiard Tregoze, the
old family home of the Wiltshire St. Johns, which had been settled
on him by Sir Walter; the country residence of his wife's people, the
Earls of Warwick, at Leighs near Chelmsford; their town house,
Warwick House, High Holborn; the St. John Manor House at
Battersea; and their town house in Burv Street, St. James's, acquired
in 1675.
The first child was born in Warwick House, was christened at
St. Andrew's, Holborn, on 14 February 1675, died at Warwick
House on 24 April 1675, and was buried at Battersea in the evening,
three days later. The birthplace of the second child, born in 1675, is
uncertain. The mother is known to have been at Warwick House
and at Lydiard Tregoze during the summer, but the child was buried
at Battersea on 22 July. The third child, born on 25 or 26 January
1677, was christened at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields on 4 February —
which squares satisfactorily with the parents' residence in Bury
Street — died on 8 April, and was buried in Battersea on the 9th.
On 16 September 1678, a fourth child was born, but the place of
birth is not recorded. Quite soon the mother died, but neither date
11 Sandford. Francis, Genealogical History of the Kings and Queens of
England . . . continued to this Time (1707), 651-2. (What Sandford called
James Street, Westminster, is now called St. James's Street.)
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 95
nor place is recorded. On 2 October the mother was buried at
Lydiard Tregoze, and on 10th of the same month the child — the
future First Viscount Bolingbroke — was christened at Battersea.
His more cautious biographers state the fact of the christening and
leave it at that. Others state categorically, apparently without
knowing of the mother's burial at Lydiard and of the evidence
of the parents' residence there, that he was born in the old Battersea
Manor House. If the birth had taken place in Bury Street or at
Battersea there would have been good reason for burial at Battersea,
for her father's first wedding had taken place there, and her three
infant children were already buried there. (The homes of the
Warwicks can be ruled out, for the mother's devoted aunt, whose
diary provides much of the foregoing information,12 was now dead.)
If the child was born in Battersea and the mother died there, why
were her remains taken more than eighty miles into Wiltshire for
burial? In short, the evidence of the parents' presence in Battersea —
except for the three burials — is so scanty and of their presence
elsewhere so substantial that the present writer sees no reason for
doubting that the birth had taken place in Wiltshire, and is very
sceptical of the opinion that Sir Walter's eldest son lived in the
Battersea Manor House13 during this marriage.
After eight years as a widower Henry re-married. Evidence of his
whereabouts during this interval is scanty and does not point to
Battersea. Bath and Tunbridge (probably Tunbridge Wells) are
mentioned, and the official record of the coroner's inquest on Sir
William Estcourt (1684) describes Henry St. John, one of the
murderers, as of London— not of Battersea. Of the twelve recorded
children of this second marriage eight died very young, and six of
these eight were buried at Battersea. The natural presumption
would be that if the parents were living in Battersea, their children
would be born there and in that case would be christened at
St. Mary's. But not one of the twelve was christened at St. Mary's.
The first was christened at the bride's parish church, five of the others
at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. It is known that Henry St. John was
assessed for poor rate in Berkeley Street (1692-1700) and in
Albemarle Street (1704-17), which accords with christenings at
St. Martin's. In the very month in which the last of these twelve
children was born, Swift14 described the father as 'a man of pleasure,
that walks the Mall, and frequents St. James's Coffee-house and the
chocolate-houses.' (Although Sir Walter had died in 1708, his son
was not rated as occupier of the Battersea Manor House till 1717.)
Thus, apart from the burials of young children — nine in all — in
Battersea, Henry's presence there is strikingly unrecorded.
It is now possible to estimate the make-up of the household in the
Manor House in 1699. Sir Walter was 77, Lady St. John 68. His son
12 B.M. Add. MS. 27351-5.
13 Smallwood, F. T., 'Bolingbroke's Birthplace,' IV. A.M., LX (1965), 96-9.
14 Swift, Jonathan, Journal to Stella, 11 November 1710.
96 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
Henry and his second wife were living in Berkeley Street, and of
their twelve children most were already buried or as yet unborn.
The surviving son of Henry's first marriage was travelling on the
Continent. Of Sir Walter's other children, William, married but
childless, seems to have been a Battersea resident, for the School's
Trust Deed of 1700, which appointed him as one of the first Trustees,
described him as of Battersea ; and an unmarried daughter Elizabeth
was presumably also a member of the household. Even with
servants and a resident domestic chaplain and his wife, the total does
not support the picturesque reference to 'this veritable beehive of a
mansion'. In the years immediately following 1699 the manorial
household rapidly decreased. In 1701 the domestic chaplain became
Vicar of Battersea and moved into the Vicarage next to Terrace
House. In 1703 the unmarried daughter Elizabeth died, in 1705
Lady St. John herself, and in 1707 William. In short, before Sir
Walter died in 1708 the Manor House had become even less of a
'veritable beehive' than it had been before 1699.
What of the 'rambling old mansion' itself? The Crace map of
c. 1760 and the eighteenth-century prints combine to show that it
was slightly larger than Terrace House, with an H-shaped ground
plan. Each house had two main floors, plus attics. The main front
of the Manor House had eight windows on the first floor, Terrace
House has seven. On the river front the Manor House had westward
residential extension of perhaps four or six rooms, and along the
south-western boundary of the grounds were three ranges of out-
buildings comprising the brewhouses, bakehouses, stables, etc.,
mentioned in the will of Sir John, First Baronet, and accommodating
the corn, hay, straw, horses, cattle, coaches, etc., mentioned in Sir
Walter's will. The map, the prints, the wills, and the obvious
necessities of the situation all agree.
After much, perhaps most, of the building had been demolished
in the 1770's, the topographers got busy. A writer in The Ambulator,
1794, mentioned 40 rooms on a floor. In 1813 a writer in The
Beauties of England and Wales made it 50. Both statements have
been repeated, the former quite recently. But a count of the windows
and chimneys in the prints of the Manor House and comparison with
the accommodation in Terrace House agree with the 1670 hearth tax
documents, which assessed Sir Walter for tax on 23 hearths and the
occupier of Terrace House — the predecessor of the present building —
for tax on 16. In short, the Manor House, though old, was not
'rambling'; it was not much bigger than Terrace House itself, and
the make-up of the household does not suggest a 'veritable bee-hive'
from which Lady St. John needed a refuge.
In the 1929 newspaper article already mentioned Dr. Taylor
stated that he had discovered 'no contemporary documentary
evidence' for the 'persistent tradition' that the house was built by
Sir Walter, and added that he could 'find no evidence that, after the
death of Sir Walter in 1708, Terrace House was ever occupied by any
member of the St. John family.' The present writer can repeat both
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 97
statements. But four more recent writers have claimed that the
house was at the disposal of, and was in fact occupied by, later
St. Johns. These views call for investigation.
A correspondent of The Times (30.12.1931) mentioned 'the Adam
"Diana" fireplace, added during the time when the St. John family
still occupied it.' Two facts are relevant — and fatal: —
1. The Battersea rate-books record Benjamin Doggett as the
occupier from 1751 to 1766;
2. The Adams had not arrived in London by 1751.
In other words Benjamin Doggett, who was not a St. John, was in
occupation from before the Adams arrived in London till after the
St. Johns left Battersea.
The second and third writers introduced a novel fiction into a
well-known incident that involved Sir Walter's grandson, Alexander
Pope, and Hugh, Earl of Marchmont. In 1738 Henry St. John,
formerly Viscount Bolingbroke — he had been deprived of the peerage
by attainder in 1715, but continued to use the surname Bolingbroke —
commissioned Pope to submit the draft of his essay The Patriot King
to the preliminary, confidential judgement of five or six named
persons. After Pope's death in 1744 Bolingbroke, who was now
living at the Battersea Manor House, discovered that Pope had
tampered with the text and had had 1,500 copies printed.15 He
therefore decided to buy the whole edition, and he asked his friend
Marchmont, to whom he had lent the Battersea Manor House in 1742,
to be careful to collect all the copies and to burn them at his house.
Lady Hopkinson concluded that Marchmont lived at Terrace
House;16 and Mrs. Stirling took her word for it, modified her phrase-
ology, and wrote : —
That night on the lawn at the Dower House a great bonfire blazed heaven-
wards, astonishing the villagers at Chelsea across the river, and the boatmen
who rowed up and down stream wondering if a great victory had been gained
in Flanders.17
The process by which Lady Hopkinson reached her conclusion
appears to have been fourfold : —
1. She added to Bolingbroke's letter to Marchmont the recipient's
address, which in fact it does not bear, and founded her
conclusion on her own addition;18
2. She ignored Bolingbroke's description of the property he had
lent to Marchmont in 1742 as 'an old and decayed habitation.'19
The description fitted the Battersea Manor House, but not a
building whose sundial dates it at 1699.
15 For discussion of this complicated incident see Barber, Giles, The Library,
5th Ser., XIX and The Book Collector (1965).
16 Hopkinson, M. R., Married to Mercury (1936), 213.
17 Stirling, A. W. M., Merry Wives of Battersea (1956), 51.
18 Hopkinson, M. R., op. cit., 237.
19 Marchmont Papers (ed. G. H. Rose. 1831b II. 288.
98 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
3. She altered Bolingbroke's phrase 'to help to dry which'20 to
'to keep the house dry.'21 As Marchmont had recently moved
to a newly-built house in Mayfair, Bolingbroke's words fitted
the situation as Lady Hopkinson's variation does not.
4. She ignored the fact that the books were burned, not by March-
mont at all, but by Bolingbroke himself at the Manor House.
The next deduction is a very simple one : if Marchmont resided at
Terrace House, so did Bolingbroke himself — was he not Marchmont's
self-invited guest in 1743-4? — and there his friends visited him. In
1937 Arthur Mee stated as a fact : 'The house was built by Wren in
1700, and is said to have been ordered by Sir Walter St. John. . . .
Here gathered the wits of Queen Anne's day and later: Pope, Swift,
Gay, Addison, Voltaire, and the great Duke of Marlborough
entered . . . from their boats to the garden room, with its delightful
decoration by Wren.'22 Quite obviously, the person whom these
distinguished visitors came to see was Sir Walter's grandson, Henry
St. John, First Viscount Bolingbroke. The developing fiction almost
takes the form of a syllogism. Major premise — Lady Hopkinson's
invent;on: Marchmont occupied not the Manor House but Terrace
House. Minor premise — a fact used by Mrs. Stirling:23 Bolingbroke
was a member of Marchmont's household at Battersea during the
winter of 1743-4. Conclusion — stated by Arthur Mee and Mrs.
Stirling:24 All the distinguished people whom Bolingbroke ever knew,
whether they were alive and in England in 1743-4 or not, visited
Bolingbroke in Terrace House.
The evidence of the contemporary Battersea rate-books remains
to be considered. Although the rate-in-the-pound varied from time
to time, and the sums actually payable varied in the same proportion,
the assessments themselves representing the annual value of the
properties varied but little, and may serve to establish the identity
of a property. The name of Sir Walter, as Lord of the Manor, always
heads this annual list. If c. 1699 he had built himself an additional
residence, either his assessment at the Manor House would have been
substantially increased, or his name would have appeared elsewhere
with a second assessment. But there is no evidence of either.
A final question may be asked. If Sir Walter, the head of an
ancient family that made much display of its heraldic inheritance
elsewhere — eight large panels of his own heraldic work survive in
the church at Lydiard Tregoze — did in fact build Terrace House,
why do the St. John arms appear nowhere there either in brick or in
stone, in wood, glass, or plaster— not even on the sundial, the ideal
feature for the purpose?
To sum up, the present writer agrees with Dr. Taylor (a) in having
20 B.M. Add. MS. 37994, f. 46.
21 Hopkinson, M. R., op. at., 237.
22 Mee, Arthur, The King's England — London (1937), 785.
23 Stirling, A. W. M., op. cit., 50.
24 Ibid., 215.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 99
'discovered no contemporary documentary evidence' that Sir Walter
had the house built, and (b) in finding 'no evidence that, after the
death of Sir Walter in 1708, Terrace House was ever occupied by any
member of the St. John family.' But he goes further. He has found
no evidence to support the probability that Sir Walter and his Lady
'retired there together, until her death in 1704,' and, with all due
deference to Lady Hopkinson and writers who have accepted her
conclusion, no evidence that after Sir Walter's death the house was
ever at the disposal of any St. John. Moreover, neither Sir Walter's
will nor Lady St. John's disposes of any property that can be
identified as Terrace House.
THE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCES
So far the present article has discussed two facts — (1) that the
date on the sundial (1699) coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of
Sir Walter St. John's wedding, and (2) that in her will Lady St. John
mentioned her own house three times — and certain notions that have
gathered round the building during the last seventy-odd years and
particularly during the last forty. The remainder of this paper
assembles the available evidence from the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
A firm beginning may be made in 1810. In that year the unexpired
portion of a 99-year lease of Terrace House, granted by the Earl
Spencer (Lord of the Manor) to Daniel Ponton on 10 October 1775
as from Michaelmas 1774 at a rental of £51.10.0. p. a., came on to the
market, and a specimen of the auctioneer's particulars of sale is
preserved at the House of Lords among the papers of Sir John
George Shaw-Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, who later became
the leasehold owner-occupier of the property.25 The original lease and
counterpart are preserved in the Earl Spencer's archives at Althorp,
Northampton, and indicate that the property had previously been
'in the tenure or occupation of Benjamin Dogget.'
In the Crace Collection of maps at the British Museum there is a
map of Battersea that must be dated, on internal evidence, between
1758 and 1763.26 On this map Terrace House is marked, and the
name of 'Mr. Dogett' is entered on the area of the garden. (The
name of 'Mr. Fraigneau' — Vicar of Battersea 1758-78 — is similarly
entered on the garden of the adjoining Vicarage.) The poor-rate
books show Benjamin Dogett as a rate-payer from 1751 to 1766 and
a very near neighbour of the Vicar. They also show Benjamin Pierce,
Thomas Tritton, and from 1773 Daniel Ponton as Dogett's successors
in the occupation of the property.
These three contemporary documentary sources — the lease, the
map, and the rate-books — agree in making the situation in the middle
of the eighteenth century perfectly clear, and from this starting
point it is possible to trace the property backwards in the rate-books
25 House of Lords, Shaw-Lefevre Papers — Particulars of Sale.
26 B.M. Crace XVI/71.
100
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
as far back as the rate-books themselves go, namely to 1624. One
initial 'difficulty' proves to be far less serious than would at first
sight appear. The book for the period 1732-50 is missing, and it is
therefore not possible to name the rated occupiers for that period.
But comparison of the relevant group of occupiers in 1731 with the
corresponding group in 1751 settles the matter.
1731
4 William Daniel
6 Hannah Sanders
12 John Bennett
10 John now Wid Guy
30 Mrs. Hannah Poinzs
5 John Jones
30 Sirs. Mary Camb
15 Mr. George Osborn (Vic)
3 John Davis
3 Wid Churchill poor
30 Daniell Haughton Esqr
(Gross assessments in column on left)
1751
4 William Daniel
4 Daniel Danvers
3 William Chapman
8 Hannah Sanders
Tudor Smith's empty
10 Cornelius Holland
16 Theodore Darley
14 Ditto for Powell's Land
5 John Hill, to bring Cert.
24 Alice Goddard
15 The Rev. Dr. Church [Vicar]
3 Thomas Bassdell
3 Samuel Tickner
26 Benjamin Dogett
(The next entries on each list concern small properties — again with some
names in common — obviously too small to have been Terrace House.)
The presence of William Daniel, Hannah Sanders, and the Vicar
in both lists and the close correspondence between the gross assess-
ments leave no doubt that the property occupied by Daniell
Haughton Esqr in 1731 was occupied by Benjamin Dogett in 1751.
The fact that the property and its occupiers can be traced back to
1624 (except for the period 1732-50) raises the question: 'What then
did happen in 1699?' Three comments may be offered: (1) The list of
occupiers does not include Sir Walter or any other person who can be
identified as a St. John. This fact squares with the fact mentioned
alreadv that the rate-books do not record an increased assessment or
a second assessment for Sir Walter c. 1699. (2) Experts whom the
present writer has consulted have no difficulty in accepting 1699 —
the date on the sundial — as the date of the present superstructure.
(3) They point out, however, that the bricks of the present super-
structure are of a later type than the bricks of the foundations, which
are, in fact, of Tudor type. In the last decades of the seventeenth
century London was being re-built, in brick instead of wood. It is
possible, though very unlikely, that bricks of Tudor type were still
being made near Battersea. It seems more probable that old bricks
were re-used for the foundations. The possibility that the old
foundations were themselves re-used can at present be neither
dismissed nor established.
It seems unlikely that a building only 75 years old would be
demolished. The conclusion therefore seems to be that a building
that went back to a much earlier date than the earliest surviving
rate-book (1624) — possibly to Tudor times — was ripe for demolition
and re-building in 1699. But the earlier building seems to have been
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 101
of similar size to its successor, for in 1662-4 Mrs. Dubois and in 1670
Mr. Samuel Defisher were assessed for tax on sixteen hearths —
which approximates closely to the accommodation of the present
building.
The house was one of the largest in the village and served as a
landmark. The question therefore arises whether the occupiers
recorded in the rate-books were of such means and status as would
be expected of the occupiers of a residence which, with the exception
of the Manor House, the Archbishop of York's palace, and one or
two others, was the most considerable in the parish.
The rate-books show the following occupiers : —
1624-38
Mr. Du Bois
1639-64
Mrs. Du Bois
1665
Mrs. Mary Ottgar — with an addition in the course of the year —
'now Mr. De Fisher'
1666-76
Mr. (Samuel) Defisher
1676-81
Mr. Long(e)
1682-83
Mrs. Long
1684
Mrs. Long, with the addition 'now Mr. Pett'
1684-99
Samuell Pett, Esq.
1699-1716
Madam Pett
1716-17
Capt. Devissor or Madam Devissor
1718-24
Capt. Devissor
1724-28
Madam Grace Devissor
1728-31
Col. Daniel Haughton
Mr. Peter du Bois may well have been a newcomer to Battersea in
1624, for when the assessments were made in the spring of that year
another name was entered. But in the course of the year that name
was made quite illegible, and the name Mr. Laboyce was entered
instead. This spelling deviates farther from the official du Bois than
any other of the fifteen variants that occur during the next forty
years, and it seems likely that the unfamiliar Huguenot name was
beyond the powers of the none-too-literate overseer.
When the Heralds made their Visitation of London in 1633/4
Peter du Boys, merchant, of Cordwayner Ward, was of sufficient
status for his pedigree (three generations) to be recorded.27 His
grandfather had lived near Lille in Flanders. His father, ' Jaques du
Boys, neere Lisle who came over into England in the tyme of
Persicution' and died before 1594, settled in Canterbury, and there
Peter was born c. 1576. By 1618 he was a merchant in London, and
had married in 1604 Mary, born overseas, daughter of Jean-
Baptiste Friscobaldi of Florence, as his third wife. A daughter was
christened at Canterbury in 1617, but no child is mentioned in the
Visitation, or in Peter's will, or in his widow's.
Whether Peter du Boys was armigerous or not is not certain. In
the place of the usual details of coat and crest the Heralds entered in
1634, 'The arms respited for proof.' This entry was subsequently
cancelled. The arms mentioned by various writers as having been
27 Harleian Society, XV (1880), 240.
102 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
granted to Du Bois of London in 1634 cannot be authenticated, and
this merchant of foreign descent may have fallen an easy victim to
bogus heralds who were making 'grants' at that time.28
When Peter du Boys 'of London, Merchant' made his will in 1637
he left £30 'to the poore of the parish of St. Bennett Sherehog, the
parishe wherein I live in London,' and substantial bequests to the
French Church in Canterbury and to the Dutch Church in London.29
The rate-book evidence of his connection with Battersea is confirmed
by a bequest of £3.6.8. p.a. for four years to the poor of Battersea.
His monetary bequests totalled over £3,000, and the documents refer
to landed property in Essex, Kent, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire. In
short, whether du Boys was technically armigerous or not, he
certainly was a gentleman of substance and standing, with his town
house in London and a notable country residence in Battersea.
Moreover, as early as 1605 his wife, attending a christening at
Canterbury, was described as 'Marie femme du Sr Pierre du Bois de
Londres,' a significant evidence of status.
All this is more than confirmed by the will of Mrs. Mary du Bois,
who outlived her husband by twenty-six years and died in 1664. 30
Her monetary bequests, which totalled over £18,000, included
legacies to the poor of Battersea (£20), of St. Bennett Sherehogg
'where I now dwell' (£100), of Dutch congregations in London (£200),
Norwich, Colchester, Sandwich (£100 each), and Canvey Island, and
of French congregations in Canterbury and London (£300 each) , and
to over ninety named individuals. In addition, a suite of five
tapestry hangings 'being the history of Julius Caesar,' five diamond
rings, various pieces of plate, and her French psalm book with gold
clasps were specifically bequeathed with or without monetary
legacies.
The will also provides evidence of the social contacts of Mrs. du
Bois; her legatees included Lady Bridgett Lydall (formerly Maid of
Honour to the Queen of Bohemia and the widow of a baronet) ; the
wife, son, daughter-in-law, and grand-daughter of Sir Thomas
Bennett; and Sir Richard Vivian and his lady. Moreover, she was
evidently on good terms with the Lord and Lady of the Manor, for
there is an interesting reference to her in Lady St. John's correspond-
ence. Soon after the Restoration, King Charles II wanted some
'Muscovia ducks especialy thos that are white of that sort to furnish
St. Jeames Park withal,' and Lady St. John wrote to the steward at
Lydiard Tregoze asking him to send some up forthwith. She added,
T can have a drake at Mrs. Deboyses.'31
For present purposes the important question is, Why is the name
of this very wealthy lady, with a strong interest in seven Dutch or
French Protestant congregations and with eminent social contacts.
28 The writer acknowledges his indebtedness to J. P. Brooke-Little, Esq.,
Bluemantle Pursuivant of Arms, for guidance on this problem.
29 P.C.C. Lee 109.
30 P.C.C. Bruce 108.
31 Taylor, J. G., Our Lady of Batersey (1925), 80.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 103
followed in the Battersea rate-books for a few months by 'Mrs. Mary
Ottgar'? Neither Peter du Bois, who was thrice married, nor his
widow named a son or a daughter as legatee. In 1605 and 1606 Mrs.
Mary Dubois stood godmother to two children of Jane Freleux and
in 1607 to Samuel, son of Jan Freleux, on all three occasions in the
French congregation in Canterbury. In 1637 Peter Dubois left £100
each to Abraham Ootgeer and his wife Mary, £300 each to their
children Peter and Mary and £100 each to 'Little Susann Ootgeer'
and to Jeane Fruleu. In 1643 Mary Fruleu, wife of Abraham
Odguier, witnessed a christening at the French Protestant
(Huguenot) church in Threadneedle Street. In his will, made in 1674
and proved in 1685,32 their son Peter, already mentioned, referred to
the late Mrs. DuBoys as his aunt. He made a bequest to his 'mother-
in-law,' i.e. stepmother, and, quite consistently, mentioned two
sisters of the half-blood. Moreover, Chancery proceedings arose out
of the will of Mrs. Dubois on the grounds that she was of foreign
birth.33 They were brought by Peter Otger's sister Susanna (the
'little Susann' above mentioned) and her husband Thomas Atkins,
and the pleadings declared that Mrs. Dubois was 'possessed of a very
great personal estate of £40,000' and that Mary Frieulieu, late wife of
Abraham Otgher, was 'of ye kindred or alliance of the said Peter
Dubois or of the said Mary his wife or of one of them.' Mrs. du Bois
also bequeathed £1,500 and four cottages in Battersea to her godson
John Stables, a minor, son of her late servant John Stables, deceased.
This John Stables, the elder, and his wife Jean Fruleu, a native of
Canterbury, were married at Battersea 18 October, 1648. It seems
likely, therefore, that Peter Dubois had two near relatives named
Fruleu — Mary, first wife of Abraham Otger, and Jane, wife of
John Stables.
The third name on the above list of occupiers — April 1665 Mistress
Mary Ottgar — is thus explained. Eventually Abraham Otgar and
his wife Mary (Fruleu) had five children ; to all five Mrs. Dubois made
particularly valuable bequests but none to Abraham's two daughters
by his second marriage. Under one clause all five received £1,000
apiece, under another £100 apiece, and they shared the household
goods in London and at Battersea. In addition, Peter, one of her two
executors, received the lease of the London residence and a further
£1,000. Moreover, Mrs. du Bois bequeathed
all that my house and garden in Battersey in the County of Surrey with all
Barnes, Stables, Outhouses, washhouses, yards gardens and appurtenances
thereunto belonging in my owne Occupation and all my estate and Interest
therein unto Mary Otgher my goddaughter and her heires;
and added a further £500 out of the residue.
Although Mr. and Mrs. du Bois declared in their wills that they
lived in the parish of St. Benet Sherehog, there is much evidence that
32 P.C.C. Cann 123.
33P.R.O. C8, 321/1.
104 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
their legatees had connections with Battersea. All the five young
Otgers had been christened in Battersea between 1635 and 1642. In
1646 a daughter of Mr. Caesar Callendrine, minister of the Dutch
Protestant (i.e. refugee) congregation in Austin Friars, who received
a legacy of £500 from Mrs. du Bois and was the other executor, was
also christened there in 1646. The wedding of Jane Fruleu in 1648
has already been mentioned. Peter Otger, who left £20 to the poor
of Battersea — one of Battersea's lost charities — £20 to the poor of
the Dutch congregation in London, and £5 to the poor of the French
(i.e. Huguenot) congregation in Canterbury, declared in his will that
he was born in Battersea and, although he described himself as 'of
London, Merchant,' he directed that he should be buried in Battersea.
(The registers confirm both these details.) Yet no Otger, Fruleu, or
Callandrine appears in the Battersea rate-books of the period. The
explanation seems to be that while Mr. and Mrs. du Bois had their
house in London and were responsible for poor-rate in Battersea,
they allowed friends and relatives to occupy or share their Battersea
mansion.
The name of Mistress Mary Otger did not remain in the rate-book
for long. On 20 April 1665 Mary settled the property on trustees in
view of her approaching marriage to Samuel Defisher,34 and the licence
for the marriage was issued on 26 April.35 She was just twenty-nine.
Under various names she and her relatives remain in the story for
sixty-odd years.
Both families — Otger and Defisher — hailed from Flanders and
were prominent as deacons and elders of the Dutch Protestant
Congregation in Austin Friars. Both families were important enough
to be recorded by the Heralds in 1633/4. When Samuel's sister
Isabella married James Bovey, her father William was said to be
worth six score thousand pounds,36 and the de Visschers bore arms
that accorded well with their surname, for on a blue field they
displayed three mermaids with mirrors, and for crest they had a
dolphin with tail erect and mouth grasping the torse, i.e. the crest
wreath.
The Battersea registers record two children of the marriage —
Abraham, christened on 18 September 1667 (of whom much more
hereafter), and William, buried on 20 January 1669. In a hearth-
tax document of 1670 Samuel was assessed for tax on sixteen hearths —
Mary du Bois had been assessed on the same number. In 1674 he was
churchwarden.
Samuel de Visscher died in the spring of 1676. In his will, proved
12 April 167637 he is described as 'of London, Merchant.' Apart
from a few small legacies to relatives and £10 to the poor of the
Dutch Church in London, his will is concerned with his wife Mary
34 Minet Library — Surrey Collection, Deed 215.
35 Harleian Society, XXXIII (1892), 132.
36 Aubrey, John, Brief Lives (Clarendon Press, 1898), II, 272.
37 P.C.C. Bence 44, 84.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 105
and his son Abraham. Justus Otgher, a cousin, is named as one of
two executors, to act till Abraham comes of age.
The eligible widow lost no time, for on 31 May 1676 the Vicar-
General licensed her marriage to Edmund Long of St. Olave's, Hart
Street, gent., bachelor aged about 34. (The widow 'aged about 30'
seems to have understated her age by about eleven years.) The
marriage was of particular interest to Battersea, for the bridegroom's
family hailed from Wiltshire, and his maternal grandmother was a
St. John, an aunt of Sir Walter's. Consequently his mother was Sir
Walter's first cousin; her eldest sister had been married to Edward
Hyde, later Earl of Clarendon, at St. Mary's in 1632, and another of
his aunts had been the wife of one of Sir Walter's elder brothers.
Consequently Widow Devischer's new husband could claim close
kinship with the Lord of the Manor, and would note with special
interest the heraldic representation of his St. John grandmother's
marriage in the east window of St. Mary's.
Edmund Long died in 1681 and was buried at St. Mary's on 25
August. He left no will, but when administration of his estate was
granted to his widow (1 Sept., 1681) he was described as of Battersea,
Surrey, and Salisbury, Wilts. There is no evidence of any children
of the marriage, and for the next three years Mrs. Long was assessed
for poor-rate. Meanwhile, her son Abraham (born 1667) was grow-
ing up.
In the year of Edmund Long's death Samuel Pett, a member of
the famous family of shipwrights of Chatham, Deptford, and
Wapping, arrived in the parish with his wife and four young
daughters. He was assessed for poor-rate for a property near the
Archbishop of York's palace on the south-west bank of the creek
formed by the Falcon Brook at its entrance to the Thames. His fifth
and sixth daughters were christened at St. Mary's in 1682 and 1683,
but soon after the birth of the sixth, Pett's wife herself died. Again
events moved rapidly, for on 9 June 1684 the Archbishop of
Canterbury's Vicar-General issued a licence for the marriage of
Samuel Pett of Battersea, widower, about 40, and Mrs. Mary Long,
also of Battersea, widow. Moreover, in the course of the year Pett
was replaced in the rate-books by a newcomer at his former residence
near the Falcon Creek and himself replaced Mrs. Long as the rated
occupier of Terrace House.
Like the more eminent members of his family, Samuel Pett began
his career as a shipwright, but after a year or two he switched to
administration.38 Before November 1668 he had been employed by
the late clerk of the Survey at Chatham, and in that month a request
was made that he might be continued under the new clerk. In 1670
he himself became Clerk to the Surveyor of the Navy, and there are
a few not very informative references to him in the following years.
Presumably he was transferred to London at about the time of his
38 From a pedigree of the family compiled by Mr. C. Knight, of Chatham
(ob. 1944) and now in the possession of Mr. Basil W. Pett.
106 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
settlement in Battersea. Two letters of his, dated 17 January
1679/80 to Samuel Pepys and 21 March 1681/2 to Sir Phineas Pett,
survive in the Rawlinson Collection at the Bodleian Library, and
sampling at the Public Record Office has revealed letters of a routine
nature written by him from the Admiralty in November 1689.
A disconcerting incident occurred in 1691. One Samuel Allen of
London, merchant, who had become owner of the province of New-
Hampshire and part of Maine and who had contracted with the
Navy Board to supply masts, yards, bowsprits, and other timber,
asked to be appointed Governor of the province in order to preserve
it from destruction and to be himself enabled to comply with his
contract. The Privy Council received his petition and referred it to
the Committee for Trade and Plantations to examine and report.
While the Committee was considering the petition, accusations were
made upon oath that Allen had embezzled and conveyed away the
victuals provided for their Majesties' Fleet. The Secretary of State
for the South (the Earl of Nottingham) thereupon authorized and
required one of their Majesties' Messengers in Ordinary forthwith to
make strict and diligent search for Samuel Allen and having found
him to apprehend and seize and bring him in safe custody to be
examined before the Earl concerning these matters. A like warrant
of the same date (30 June 1691) was issued to another messenger for
the apprehension of Samuel Pett.39 (A coincidence characteristic of
the times is found in the fact that the Earl had a connection with
Pett's place of residence, for he and Sir Walter's eldest son had
married sisters.)
Unfortunately the record of the examinations before the Secretary
of State has not been traced, and it is not possible to say how much
fire there was behind the smoke. Apparently not much, for the
Privy Council minutes for 21 January 1691/2 record that the
Committee for Trade and Plantations recommended Allen's
appointment as Governor, and the Council ordered the Committee
to prepare the draft of his Commission. Moreover, the Index to the
Patent Rolls records on 14 March 1693, 'The King and Queen Doe
appoint Samuel Pett Esquire Commissioner in Quality of a principall
Officer of the Navy (during pleasure) in the Room of Sir Richard
Booth Knight deceased; Annual Sallary five hundred pounds.'
('Booth' is a slip for 'Beke' or 'Beach.') Pett's function as a
Commissioner was that of Comptroller of the Victualling, though it
is on record that in conjunction with two other Commissioners he
inspected Plymouth Docks in 1694. His appointment was renewed
in July 1698, and he held it till his death early in 1699. The status of
his office is indicated not only by the salary. Pett described himself
in his will as 'one of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Navy
Royah"; his predecessor as Comptroller of the Victualling was a
knight, and his successor was no less a personage than Sir Cloudesley
Shovell.
39 P.R.O., S.P.D. 44/341, p. 94.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 107
Pett was fairly active in the parochial life of Battersea. By
September 1689 he had become Justice of the Peace for Surrey,40
and in that capacity he authorized the proposed assessments tor
poor-rate on twenty-one occasions, using as his seal either the
coat — Or, on a fess gules between three pellets a lion passant of the
field — or the crest — Out of a ducal coronet or a demi-pelican, wings
expanded, argent — that had been granted to one of his forebears in
1583. He attended parish meetings fairly frequently and was
churchwarden in 1686. Pett's continuing connection with his wife's
family is shown by two incidents. On 11 February 1698/9 — a few
days after his death — his fifth daughter Henrietta Maria married
Peter Olger (sic in the register but presumably a slip for Otger) at
St. Alphege's, London Wall, and on the same day, when Samuel's
will came up for probate41 and certain deletions had to be explained,
Mr. Justice [sic, obviously a slip for Justus] Otgar was named as one
of the three gentlemen who had searched and found the will now
shown with various obliterations.
Meanwhile, early in 1686, Abraham de Visscher, the only
surviving child of Mary Otger/Defisher/Long/Pett, had married
Grace Webb.42 Both parties were about nineteen; consequently
Abraham needed and received his mother's consent, and Grace her
father's. This marriage was particularly interesting, for by it this
wealthy Huguenot family became, for the second time, connected
with the Lord of the Manor. (This time one of Sir Walter's great-
aunts provided the connection.) Grace, her brother Thomas
(Serjeant at Law), and her brother John (General under Marlborough
at Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet, and himself
the hero of Wynendael 1708) were children of Sir Walter's second
cousin once removed, Colonel Edmund Richmond Webb, who had
shared with Sir Walter's eldest son Henry the murder of Sir William
Estcourt in the Globe Tavern, Fleet Street, in November 1684.
Consequently when Abraham and Grace went to church at St. Mary's
they could see in the east window the heraldic record of the
St. John-Webb marriage from which Colonel Edmund was
descended.
From his marriage till 1699 Abraham Defisher was separately
assessed for poor-rate in Battersea, and his nine children (of whom
three sons and four daughters grew up) were christened at St. Mary's.
But in that year he disappeared from the rate-book, and he evidently
joined his mother, now widowed for the third time by Pett's death,
in Terrace House, for his will (1710) provided that after his mother's
decease 'all that house at Battersea wherein I now live' should go to
his wife Grace. (Of Pett's six daughters by his first wife, two had
died, and certainly three wrere married. Only Arabella, the youngest,
40 He does not appear in the Liber Pacis for James II — P.R.O. C. 193/12.
As a magistrate he first authorized the Battersea assessments in September
1689.
41 P.C.C. Pett 27.
42 Harleian Society, XXX (1890), 222.
108 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
then fifteen, might still have been living with her stepmother in the
Battersea mansion house.)
Concerning Abraham Defisher several interesting details are on
record. Evidently he was a horseman of some prowess, for in his will
he bequeathed to his three sons 'one tankard each, which I formerly
won at the Paddock Course.' Race meetings for owner-riders, with
pieces of plate as prizes, were very popular and were regularly
organized at many places. Barnes and Wimbledon Common may be
mentioned, though the identity of 'the Paddock Course' has not been
established. 'Abraham Devischer of Battersea aforesaid Gentleman'
was also one of the first trustees of Sir Walter St. John's School. In
view of his family's eminence in the parish and its double connection
with the St. Johns it is not surprising that he was one of the four who
actually signed, sealed, and delivered in Sir Walter's presence on
7 September 1700. (Sir John Fleet, former Lord Mayor of London,
and Sir Walter's son William were two others.) His wealth is to
some extent indicated by the fact that though he predeceased his
mother his monetary bequests exceeded £6,000, including /10 to the
poor of Battersea.
Eventually, in the spring of 1716, Mary Otger/Defisher/Long/Pett
died, nearly 81 yt-ars of age, having outlived her three husbands and
both her recorded children. Probably she had been born in Terrace
House — certainly she had been christened at St. Mary's; for some 52
years she had been its occupier; presumably she died in it, and
certainly she was buried at St. Mary's on 26 March. She left £10 to
the poor of Battersea.
For the next twelve years or so the story of the house is the story
of Mary's daughter-in-law Grace (born Webb) and grandchildren.
After providing for his mother (Mary) and his widow (Grace),
Abraham Defisher had made his eldest son Samuel his principal
legatee and, in default, his second son Edmund. In the event, Samuel
predeceased his grandmother by about two months; he was
unmarried, and administration of his estate was granted to his
brother Edmund, his mother Grace (widow) having previously
renounced. This Edmund and his mother Grace are the 'Captain
Devissor or Madam Devissor' who appear in the rate-books from
1716 to 1728.
Madam Grace Devissor disappeared from the Battersea rate-book
in the spring of 1728. She spent her last two years in the parish of
St. George, Hanover Square, but was buried in Battersea on
3 November 1730. With her departure the Defishers ceased to be
Battersea residents after living there certainly since 1664 and very
probably since 1635 or earlier. In her will43 Grace bequeathed to
Edmund 'all that my Capital Messuage or Mansion House wherein I
lately lived at Battersea aforesaid together with the Gardens
Coachhouses Stables Outhouses Buildings and other Appurtenances
thereunto belonging'; if Edmund predeceased her, the Mansion
43 P.C.C. Aubcr 302.
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 109
House and residue were to go to her third son Abraham and three of
her daughters equally.
To his second son Edmund, Abraham had left a mere £400,
explaining that he had 'already spent considerable sums for his
advancement.' In 1707, at the age of 17, Edmund had been commis-
sioned— in those days commissions were purchased — as ensign to
Major Colombiere in Major-General Webb's (i.e. his uncle John's)
Regiment of Foot (later the King's, 8th, Regiment of Foot) ; he
became First Lieutenant of the Grenadier Company under Major
Peter Hamars in 1708, and Captain in the same regiment in 1709.
He was therefore presumably present with his regiment at Oudenarde
on 11 July 1708, and at Malplaquet on 11 September 1709. In 1721
he became Lieutenant-Colonel in Colonel John Middleton's
Regiment of Foot (later the 25th Foot, K.O.S.B.), was sent with his
regiment to Gibraltar in December 1726, and took part in its defence.
When his widowed mother Grace made her will in October 1728 she
appointed Edmund to be her sole executor, but added that he was
now at Gibraltar; if he was unable to prove the will, her son-in-law,
Edmund Strudwick, was to be executor during Edmund Devisscher's
absence. And, sure enough, in November 1730 probate was granted
to Edmund Strudwick.
Edmund did not live to any great age, for his will was proved
before he was 47. In it he described himself as of Wellwyn in the
county of Hertford, made his principal bequests to his 'dearly
beloved Friend Mrs. Elizabeth Bewley now living with me at Wellwyn
abovesaid,' and appointed his brother-in-law Edmund Strudwick as
sole executor and residuary legatee. The validity of the will was
challenged by his niece Grace — a daughter of his deceased brother
Abraham and a minor suing by her guardian — and by his four
married sisters. Judgement was given first against the niece on
25 February 1737, and, the four sisters 'contumaciously absenting
themselves,' second against the sisters on 27 April 1737. As
Abraham's only son is not named in these proceedings, he had
presumably died, which means that by 1737 the Defishers of
Battersea had died out in the male line.
(Incidentally, one of these four sisters, Grace, had married John
Bull, grandson of Sir John Fleet, former Lord Mayor of London and
one of the first Trustees of Sir Walter St. John's School. In 1722
Bull himself became one of the second group of Trustees.)
Abraham, the third son of Abraham and Grace Defisher followed
his brother Edmund into the Army and ultimately became
Lieutenant-Colonel of Pocock's Regiment. He died on 30 January
1730 of wounds received the previous day in a duel with Barry
Redmond, a member of the Irish House of Commons and a Captain
in the same regiment, at Kilmaine, in County Mayo; but when
administration of his estate was granted to his brother-in-law and
chief creditor Edmund Strudwick in June 1732, he was described as
of the city of Cork. He left a widow and three children — Grace,
Alice, and Edmund — all under age. He was barely 37.
110 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
Meanwhile Daniel Haughton Esqr, alias Colonel Haughton,
appeared in the Battersea assessments from September 1728 to
April 1731. The local scribe consistently spelled the surname as
Haughton, but the Colonel himself, in his capacity as a Justice of
the Peace, twice signed the assessments with the spelling Houghton.
In view of the overseer's difficulties with 'Colonel,' which appears
twice as 'Corn11' and once as 'Cor11', we may allow him a discrepancy
of one letter in the surname. Despite the absence of the Battersea
rate-books for the period 1732-50, the date of the Colonel's departure
from Terrace House can be fixed within narrow limits. In the
probate proceedings 1747-8 he is described as 'late of High Ongar,'
and the vestry minute books of High Ongar record the attendance
of Daniel Houghton on several occasions from 10 April 1732
onwards. He was first commissioned as lieutenant in Colonel
Bowler's Regiment of Foot (1709). Later (1715) he became Captain
in Colonel Roger Handasyde's Regiment, and later still Captain-
Lieutenant and Lieutenant-Colonel in the 1st Foot Guards
(Grenadiers), raised the 45th Foot (now Sherwood Foresters), and
became Brigadier-General. In May 1747, while in Brabant, he made a
will 'in case of any Accident happening to me this Campaigne,' and
he 'deceased' at Osterhout — but not, apparently, as the result of
such an 'accident' as he had envisaged in his will— c. 12 September
of that year.
The next recorded occupier of Terrace House is Benjamin Dogett,
1751-66. Whether the Houghtons and Dogetts were related to the
Otger-Defisher-Pett group is not yet established, but certain details
encourage further research. Samuel Pett's elder brother William had
married a certain Elizabeth Houghton. She outlived him, and her
second husband was Robert Lee. Samuel's eldest daughter married
a certain William Lee. John Houghton, notary public of Chancery
Lane, witnessed the will of Mrs. Dubois in 1663 and Mary Otger's
settlement of her Battersea property in 1665. In 1671 Justus Otgher,
cousin of Samuel Defisher, married Elizabeth Doggett, and nearly
thirty years later he shared in the finding of Samuel Pett's will.
(A certain John Houlton also shared the finding. Is it possible that
'Houlton' and 'Houghton' are variants of the same surname? The
probate record of the incident turned 'Justus' into 'Justice.') When
Daniel Houghton became Captain in Handasyde's Regiment, John
Odgers was commissioned as his lieutenant. If some of these details
can be more fully explored, it may be shown that the family's
connection with the house lasted not merely to 1728 but to 1766.
Be that as it may, the foregoing discussions may now be summed
up. While there is no evidence that Sir Walter or any other St. John
ever owned or occupied the house, there is contemporary document-
ary evidence that it was occupied by people who were wealthy,
generally armigerous, and of good social standing. Three of the
families were descended from Protestant emigres and were loyally
attached to the French or Dutch congregations in London,
Canterbury, and elsewhere. They had connections with the City, the
THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA 111
Law, the Army, naval shipbuilding, and local government. In two
instances they were related to the Lord of the Manor by marriage.
In short, they were just the kind of people whom one would expect
to occupy such a property.
The rest of the story is quickly told. Benjamin Dogett, recorded
as occupier 1751-66, was succeeded by Benjamin Pierce (1766-8) and
by Thomas Tritton (1768-73). Tritton was one of the original
proprietors of the old Battersea Bridge (1772-1885). So was Daniel
Ponton, to whom the Lord of the Manor granted a 99-year lease of
the house as from Michaelmas 1774. Ponton did not occupy the
house for long, for he died in 1777. Administration of his estate was
granted to his son Thomas, and from 1792 — there is a gap in the
rate-books till that year — till the end of 1809 Thomas was assessed
for poor-rate. Thomas Ponton was a Trustee of Sir Walter St. John's
School; Ponton Road, Nine Elms, perpetuates the family name.
In January 1810 the unexpired portion of the lease came on to the
market, and John Perry, Esq., shipowner, of Moor Hall, Essex,
contracted to buy. Before the purchase was completed he made a
codicil to his will (14 February 1810) beqeathing the premises and
such contents as were to be purchased to his wife Mary 'for her own
absolute use and benefit.' He also did not occupy the house for long,
for he died suddenly of apoplexy on 7 November. His wife continued
to reside there — at any rate, she appeared in the rate-books — till
1828. Her youngest son Charles (1807-91), later Senior Wrangler
and First Bishop of Melbourne (1847), evidently spent his boyhood
in Battersea.
In 1828 John George Shaw-Lefevre (1797-1879) acquired the lease
from Mary Perry and occupied the house till the winter of 1838-9.
This extremely able man — he was Senior Wrangler, and read
fourteen languages easily — had a most varied and distinguished
career in the public service, becoming K.C.B., F.R.S., D.C.L., and
Clerk of the Parliaments. But he must not be confused, as he often
has been, with his elder brother Charles (1794-1888), who became
Speaker of the House of Commons, first — and last — Viscount
Eversley, and 'Father' of the House of Lords; or with his own son
George John (1831-1928), who was presumably born in the house —
he certainly was christened at St. Mary's — and also had a distin-
guished public career, becoming first — and last — Baron Eversley.
George John claimed to have known personally thirteen Prime
Ministers, seventeen Lord Chancellors, and seven Archbishops of
Canterbury.
After the house had stood empty for about a year — which explains
his description of the garden as 'a wilderness of rubbish, withered
grass, and weeds' — Dr. James Phillips Kay, an Assistant Commis-
sioner for the administration of the 1834 Poor Law, obtained the use
of the property from Shaw-Lefevre, who was at the time one of the
three Chief Commissioners under the same Act, for use as the
training institution for schoolmasters that Kay conducted for four
years as a private venture with the support of E. C. Tufnell, another
112 THE STORY OF TERRACE HOUSE, BATTERSEA
Assistant Commissioner, and with the co-operation of the Vicar of
Battersea, the Hon. and Rev. Robert John Eden (later Bishop of
Sodor and Man, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Lord Auckland) as its
Chaplain. After four years Kay transferred his venture to the
National Society, and as St. John's College it played an important
part in the training of schoolmasters, until in 1923 its Principal was
appointed to be Principal of St. Mark's College, Chelsea, also— a
decision that soon resulted, as was intended, in the amalgamation of
the two colleges in Chelsea.
The notion, for which there is no acceptable documentary evidence,
that the house was designed by Sir Christopher Wren dates from the
late 1920's.44 When the S.P.C.K., which had acquired the freehold in
1895, offered the whole property for sale, an appeal was signed by
ten gentlemen and supported by the Member of Parliament for
East Fulham, asking the Minister of Health to preserve the house,
and in the course of the public discussion of the subject the
attribution to Wren became widely accepted. The Minister did as
requested by making an order in November 1930 preventing the
Battersea Borough Council, which had purchased the whole estate,
from demolishing the house. Yet even on such a recent episode the
facts have been badly garbled. Kent's Encyclopaedia of London
(revised edition 1951) declares: Tn 1929 when the house was
threatened with demolition it was saved by Charles Stirling, who
induced the Borough Council to sell him the property.' The facts
are that the appeal that saved the house was organized in 1930 by
Dr. J. G. Taylor; that Mr. Stirling was not one of the ten signatories;
that he and Mrs. Stirling were introduced to the Borough Council as
possible tenants after the Minister had refused to rescind his order ;
and that the Council granted Mr. and Mrs. Stirling a joint tenancy
for life.
If the easily verifiable facts of thirty-odd years ago can so soon be
distorted, it is not surprising that pleasant surmise has found
acceptance instead of the less easily accessible facts of three
centuries ago. Perhaps Josh Billings may be allowed the last word :
'The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they
know so much that ain't so.'
The Battersea Registers of christenings, weddings and burials are preserved at
the Parish Church (St. Mary's), Battersea. The rate-books are at the Battersea
Reference Library, Altenburg Gardens, London, S.W.ll. The wills mentioned
are at Somerset House, hearth tax documents at the Public Record Office.
For several interesting details the present writer is indebted to an article on the
De Visscher family by Charles Evans in 'Notes and Queries,' July 1958.
*4 Smallwood, F. T., see note 9.
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE
COUNTY OF SURREY
BY
A. G. PARTON, B.A.
ON 1 September 1801, when much of the work of the harvest
was over, the bishops of the Church of England, at the request
of Lord Pelham, sent letters to their clergy asking them to
record the number of acres 'sown since last years' harvest with
wheat, rye and other grain as expressed in the enclosed printed
form ... as His Lordship is persuaded that it may be conducive
to the Public good.'1 The form referred to required information
about the following crops: wheat, rye, barley, oats, potatoes, peas,
beans, turnips and rape; the last two crops were sometimes differ-
entiated by the clergy, but were usually recorded together. Space
was also left for the clergyman's remarks, which often provide
useful additional information. The results of the enquiry, known
as the 1801 Crop Returns, are to be found in the Public Record
Office.2
The historical and economic background to the Returns has been
dealt with fully elsewhere.3 They were made at a time when grain
prices were inflated due to war; together with the first National
Census of the same year they mark the beginning of the large-scale
collection of information about the state of the nation which became
more detailed and more reliable with the passing of each decade.
As the 1801 Crop Returns are almost the sole statistical source of
information about the agriculture of Surrey at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, it is worthwhile considering their value to the
local historian or historical geographer.
The fact that the clergy were made responsible for collecting the
information was undoubtedly the cause of some errors; farmers
were understandably loth to reveal their crop acreages to the man
who received a tithe of them ; here was good reason for understate-
ment: although in some parishes the tithe owner was a layman.
The problem of obtaining a true return was the subject of a number
of comments by the clergy; fourteen of the Surrey Returns mention
the reluctance of the farmers to give information. The Vicar of
Chiddingfold was unable to make any return; he explained, 'the
1 Extract from one of the original letters found among the Returns for the
Diocese of Canterbury.
2 The Returns for Surrey are in two parts, those for the Diocese of Winchester
P.R.O. H.O.67.24 and the Diocese of Canterbury P.R.O. H.O.67.4.
3 For example see: Galpin, W. F., The Grain supply of England during the
Napoleonic period (New York, 1925), and Prothero, R. E., English farming
past and present (1927).
113
114
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
Based, in part, on Crown Copyright Geological Survey Maps by permission of the Controller of
II. M. Stationery Office.
Fig. 1. — Surrey — Geology (simplified).
farmers in my parish almost to a man are quite averse to inform
me in what manner their land has been cultivated. . . .' D. Thomas4
and R. A. Pelham5 point out that there was considerable under-
statement of acreages in the 1801 Crop Returns, the latter noting
4 Thomas, D., Agriculture in Wales during the Napoleonic Wars (1963), 56.
5 Pelham, R. A., The 1801 Crop Returns for Staffordshire in their geographical
setting. Collections for a History of Staffordshire (1950-1), 233.
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY 115
D3JD papjODSJ •/,
Fig. 2. — 1801 Crop Returns: Legumes and Root Crops.
that the understatement tended to be made in proportion to the
actual acreages shown.
For this reason Figs. 2 and 3 show each crop as a percentage of
the total crops recorded for each parish, for while in a minority of
cases where a very small acreage was returned this may mislead
(for example Guildford, where wheat occupied most land but only
amounted to 36 acres), it probably presents a truer picture than
would a map of actual acreages (see Appendix where the actual
acreages recorded are presented).
116 THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
Csl g *"i:V'
-■»,
_—:
c\ /,--'
...
Z3 .--'J^-
^1 -
r
r
- ==.=^= jt
I
/
/
o -
■■ ^JB ci "" c
ja as
1
\
>y ■= •
_Z_i ^'
>
■■3
\
tvm m3E
I
1
\
*— \
■^ JI
\
*~*
1
1
I
_ ll ^a r.
c- 1
f~^*~^> H^fl
1
1
o y r^ J
J .J ?
„
I
c \__ 'Ji
-a-
1
J- o * \
„
S| \
5 1 i o t
-
jM
'»
- g a o rr \ g^
si ^,
;
° < m <_> a \
§; si ll
1^
I . . ■:". v-
JW
/t'"'
a. "\;
<* oooooo **
o oajD pepjoodj •/.
\ ■*
<~
tj
v-^ **""
--J
a»
N - "
j
Fig. 3. — 1801 Crop Returns: Cereals.
The value of the Returns as a general source of information about
the farming of Surrey depends partly on how complete they are.
A comparison of the number of parishes for which Returns exist
with the number of parishes recorded in the 1801 Census shows that
42 Returns (31%) are missing. Fortunately most of these omissions
are concentrated in two areas, the south-east and north-west of
the county, which together account for 22 of the missing Returns.
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY 117
Excepting these areas some regional subdivision of the rest of
Surrey is not precluded by lack of coverage.
Perhaps more serious than deficiencies of areal coverage are the
limitations imposed by the scope of the enquiry itself, which was by
no means comprehensive. Thus no attention whatsoever was paid
to livestock, bare fallow, permanent or rotation grasses; neither
were market garden crops, so important in north Surrey, nor hops,
which occupied a considerable acreage in the west of the county,
included. As the Returns refer to the arable land, it is necessary to
try and discover from contemporary maps and other sources how
significant the arable acreage was in relation to other forms of land-
use. The Vicar of Mitcham mentioned that 'about 400 acres are
occupied by gardeners and about 500 acres are in grass,' the total
acreage given in the Return is 446 acres. The Maiden Return includes
an extract from a survey made in 1793 giving the total number of
acres in the parish as 1,223, of which sown arable amounted to
531 acres 3 roods, common lands 137 acres 3 roods and clover, tares
or fallow, 543 acres 3 roods. The 1801 Return for Maiden records
482 acres of arable; the incumbent commented, 'the number of
acres under each type of grain is, I believe, what is usually sown.'
Beddington parish, according to a note made by the vicar, consisted
in 1801 of 500 acres of common and waste, 600 acres of sheep
down, 500 acres of grass or hay, and about 2,500 acres of tillage or
fallow; the actual Return gives the arable acreage as 1,178 acres.
In the north of Surrey, where market gardens, the extension of the
built-up area of South London, and the lucrative hay crop com-
plicated the pattern of land-use, an informative land-use map,
surveyed at the end of the eighteenth century by Thomas Milne,6
can be usefully compared with the Crop Returns.
The table on page 1 18 compares the arable acreage given in the
Returns with that shown by Milne and with the percentage of land
in the various land-use categories he devised, taken from his map.
This enables one to assess to some extent the place of the informa-
tion given by the Returns in relation to the rest of the contem-
porary land-use pattern. In most of the parishes considered in
this table the arable acreage is less than that obtained from
sources other than the 1801 Crop Returns; to what extent the
differences are attributable to under-statement or to the exclusion
of rotation grass and bare fallow from the enquiry it is not possible
to say. The table points to the usefulness of the Crop Returns in
expanding the information given by contemporary maps which
depict land-use, for few of these distinguish the crops which make
up the arable land.
The actual distribution of the crops recorded will now be con-
sidered: to facilitate this, two maps, showing the distribution and
6 Milne, Thomas, 'Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster circum-
jacent towns and parishes, etc.: laid down from a trignometrical survey
taken in the years 1795-1799.' King George Ill's Topographical Collection.
B.M.
118
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
relative importance of the various crops (Figs. 2 and 3), are presented,
together with a geological map of the county (Fig. 1). The soils of
Surrey are closely related to its geology as Hall and Russell point
out in the most comprehensive study of the soils of the county with
particular reference to agriculture.7 The distribution of the crops is
compared with the observations of two contemporary commentators
on the agriculture of Surrey: James Malcolm8 and William
Stevenson.9
In 62% of the parishes wheat occupied the largest percentage of
land recorded; in 27% it was of second importance, usually to oats,
Land-use in six North Surrey parishes as shown by Thomas Milne
compared with the arable acreage recorded in the 1801 Crop Returns.
Recorded Arable
A creage
(Crop Returns)
Land-use from Thomas Milne's
Map
Parish
■J; »o
^43
_3
5?
55^
% C.F.
Market Gdn
&■ Arable
fcil-a
s3
s?2
c
o
o
U
r
a
o
aq
Barnes
257
254-4
26-54
19-53
18-86
13-68
2-83
18-53
Battersea
370
76-8
3-75
14-47
5-94 19-48
13-69
1604
26-52
Clapham
193
387-0
34-72
24-67
10-9
J 29-69
Lambeth
1,000
1,289
28-42
17-76
21-89
7-54
2-97
21-4
Streatham
859
1,466
49-14
19-69
7-61
0-37
2317
Tooting
107
168
27-13 j 4-65
33-07
904
2609
Note. — C.F. = Common Field.
on the heavy land of the Weald Clay, Clay-with-Flints and London
Clay. As would be expected the distribution of wheat was more
even than that of any other crop. Several of the clergy reported
that more wheat was sown in 1801 than was customary; the Vicar
of Wotton stated that 'this is due to high prices and the failure
of the turnip crops,' while at Morden the abnormal wheat acreage
was attributed to 'favourable weather at seedtime.' Stevenson,
commenting on the relative importance of wheat in Surrey,
mentioned six contributory factors. Firstly the need for frequent
summer fallowing of the Weald Clay soils, which induced farmers to
7 Hall, A. D., and Russell, E. J., The Agriculture and Soils of Kent, Surrey
and Sussex (1911).
8 Malcolm, James, A Compendium of Modern Husbandry principally written
during a Survey of Surrey, Vols. I-III (1805).
9 Stevenson, William, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Surrey
(1809).
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY 119
sow wheat, 'in order to pay for the want of a crop,'10 secondly he
suggested that these soils were 'peculiarly adapted for wheat.'11
Of the lighter lands Stevenson pointed out that some wheat was sown
on them because of the introduction of the clover ley as a preparatory
crop (for wheat), the cheapness of lime and London manure and the
proximity of the London food market.
Barley is of first importance in only nine parishes, but second
(usually to wheat) in 30% and third in 29% of the recorded parishes.
This crop would appear to have been of more consequence on the
soils of the Bagshot Sands, Lower Greensand and the Chalk; this
was confirmed by Malcolm when he wrote, ' . . . barley is grown
in all the hilly chalky and sandy districts enclosed or open extending
from Smitham Bottom westerly through Guildford to Bramley and
on the left of the road to Farnham.'12 The fact that barley is not
tolerant of poorly drained soils is corroborated by its almost complete
absence on the clay soils of the county.
While oats were grown in most parishes, the Returns point to the
predominance of this crop, which will tolerate damp and heavy soils,
on the claylands; notably on the Weald Clay where more oats than
wheat were recorded in most parishes. Stevenson stated that 'this
grain does not form a regular part of the rotation on any — except
the strong soils, and especially on the clays of the Weald.'13 In
Surrey oats were chiefly grown as feed for horses, sheep and oxen;
proximity to London with its large equine population made the
cultivation of oats particularly profitable.
Potatoes and rye were comparatively insignificant crops in Surrey,
although potatoes occupied a considerable acreage in a small group
of Thames-side parishes: Putney, Barnes, Kew and Mortlake.
Several of the clergy commented that potatoes were grown chiefly as
a cottage-garden crop.
Malcolm and Stevenson referred to the extensive cultivation of
peas at Mortlake, but there is no evidence of this in the Crop
Returns, in fact Mortlake was recorded as having had only five acres
of peas in 1801, although further up river at Chertsey, Egham and
Thorpe about 10% of the recorded average were devoted to this
crop. Throughout most of Surrey peas occupied a small part of the
recorded arable land.
The Returns do not suggest that many beans were grown anywhere
in the county, while Stevenson noted that 'garden beans are grown
in considerable quantities near London and on the banks of the
Thames about Mortlake, Walton, etc.'14 The beans acreage for
Walton-on-Thames was 53 acres, while for Mortlake the Returns
make no mention of this crop.
Tares have been omitted from the maps of the Crop Returns as
10 Stevenson, op. cit., 202.
11 Ibid., 202.
12 Malcolm, op. cit., Vol. II, 330.
13 Stevenson, op. cit., 226.
14 Ibid., 233.
120 THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
they are only recorded in any quantity in Lambeth parish, where
70 acres are said to have been sown. Malcolm and Stevenson refer
to the cultivation of tares in Surrey, the latter stated that 'the
cultivation of winter tares is extending,'15 while Malcolm commented,
'in the environs of London they [tares] are grown with a view to
cutting them green, for the purpose of soiling horses of every
description.'16
Turnips and rape were not differentiated on the printed forms
circulated to the clergy, although in 36% of the Returns for Surrey
the incumbents deleted rape, thus indicating that only turnips were
grown (the Appendix shows turnips separately when they were
recorded so). As the extent to which turnips were cultivated is
sometimes taken as an indication of the degree of agricultural
improvement at this time, the recording of turnips with rape is
particularly unfortunate. It would seem that the turnip was not
grown in large quantities in Surrey, for Malcolm stated that 'fewer
turnips are grown [in Surrey] than in almost any other corn county
that I know.'17 However, the Returns suggest that in some parishes
at least the turnip occupied a considerable proportion of the land;
in Reigate, Frensham, Bramley, Albury, Chipstead and Petersham
20-33% of the recorded acreage carried turnips. The absence of
turnips and rape from the Weald Clay soils appears to be indicative
firstly of the small number of sheep kept in these parishes (Malcolm
and Stevenson pointed out that both crops were primarily grown for
feeding sheep in Surrey), secondly of the problems of growing the
turnip on heavy land. Stevenson also stated that turnips were
grown 'to a considerable extent on the strong and rather wet loams
in the northern part of the county.'18 Here the milk cattle, together
with those being fattened for the London butchers, and the large
number of horses in the Metropolis, favoured their cultivation.
There are many problems of general and particular reliability
involved in using the 1801 Crop Returns for Surrey. The general
problems include their incomplete coverage of the county, the
limitations in the scope of the enquiry and the fact that the acreages
recorded are themselves suspect. The discrepancies between the
Returns and the accounts of Stevenson and Malcolm with regard
to peas, beans and tares, and the difficulties involved in using the
turnip and rape return, are examples of problems of particular
reliability. Nevertheless the Crop Returns are almost the only
quantitive source of information concerning the agriculture of
Surrey at this time. If used discriminately they give a general
picture of the distribution of the crops recorded and of their relative
importance. To a lesser extent the current courses of husbandry
can be detected. Thus the dominance of wheat and oats on the
Weald Clay soils can be compared with the more balanced rotations
15 Ibid., 236.
16 Malcolm, op. cit., Vol. II, 3.
17 Ibid., Vol. II, 391.
18 Stevenson, op. cit., 243.
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
121
practised in other parts of the county ; although a distorted picture
would emerge if other sources were not consulted. Despite their
deficiencies the 1801 Crop Returns can be a useful source of informa-
tion if used in conjunction with contemporary maps, descriptions
and other evidence to which they are complimentary.
APPENDIX
The 1801 Crop Returns for the County of Surrey
Tur-
Parish Wheat Barley Oats . ' Peas Beans .' ^J
J toes nips and
Rape
1. Abinger
2. Addington
3. Albury
4. Ashtead
5. Barnes
6. Battersea
7. Beddington
9. Betch worth
10. Bramley
1 1 . Byfleet
12. Buckland
13. Burstow
14. Camberwell
15. Capel
16. Carshalton
17. Caterham
18. Chaldon
19. Charlwood
20. Cheam
21. Chertsey
22. Chipstead
23. Chobham
24. Clandon
East
25. Clandon
West
26. Clapham
27. Cobham
28. Coulsdon
29. Cranleigh
30. Dorking
31. Effingham
32. Egham
33. Esher
34. Ewhurst
35. Farley
36. Farnham
37. Fetcham
38. Frensham
39. Gatton
40. Godalming
41. Great
Bookham
42. Guildford
43. Hambledon
44. Hascombe
45. Haslemere
1150
277
269
397
72
145
370
447
254
141
253
493
230
398
436
221
241
845
231
26
152
571
126
119
63
574
405
834
600
323
457
137
577
135
467
224
326
144
812
243
36
196
169
122
1420
157
219
374
72
104
270
55
260
131
120
790
21
242
142
75
15
147
19
26
398
136
75
9
298
259
100
450
147
373
88
34
25
453
109
258
24
889
212
13
150
96
124
1325
221
250
459
32
39
260
300
120
84
163
145
506
275
243
156
1103
103
11
206
427
47
56
38
373
479
1196
400
211
112
39
765
113
437
145
200
162
288
177
7
103
192
137
100
11
9
6
44
24
13
5
12
17
2
94
15
3
26
3
6
h
4
30
20
25
30
8
35
15
1
23
40
7
25
2
400
56
62
288
4
4
55
156
90
26
67
45
37
92
56
41
102
30
8
3
132
20
18
4
142
109
153
200
29
130
66
81
20
172
44
105
17
300
33
120
2
9
— 400
— 108
212 —
276 —
2—21
45 —
— 200
82
197
80
40
20
18
10
2
60
29
28
50
11
9
152
9
24
54
150
30
18
86
36
38
52
22
15
82 —
— 2
— 113
7
94
— 42
90
4
— 101
102 —
— 220
9 —
112
38
270
200
200
52
100
148 —
— 30
20 —
— 6
25 —
70
17 59
72
250
— 16
20 827 —
— — 162
— 68
71 —
— 96
Rye Tares
20
9
26
19
10
8
10
1
16
25
1
5
1
5
104
64
6 —
35 — — —
32 —
12
20
45
17
27 — —
62
25
92
13
6 —
122
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
Parish
Wheat Barley Oats . Peas Beans ■ ,
J toes nips
Tur-
nips n t-
r j Rye 1 ares
and J
Rape
46. Headley
89
83
82
4
41
57
—
47. Horley
923
54
1006
10
103
112
—
50
— —
48. Horsley
333
185
231
2
46
28
—
114
— —
West
49. Kew
3
1
9
4
3
—
6
—
— —
50. Kingston
500
350
250
20
150
70
106
—
100
51. Lambeth
300
180
50
150
80
50
100
—
20 70
52. Leigh
497
24
560
5
75
66
. —
30
— —
53. Limpsfield
417
53
447
2
45
32
—
23
4 —
54. Little
53
72
102
—
21
5
25
—
— - —
Bookham
55. Long Ditton
267
76
152
5
121
92
—
30
— —
56. Maiden
186
15
146
—
71
51
—
13
— — •
57. Merrow
149
119
72
1
49
19
—
60
— 4
58. Merstham
386
77
425
2
65
—
106
—
— —
59. Merton
255
56
196
18
90
54
—
57
6 —
60. Mickleham
200
98
146
6
59
—
—
93
15 —
61. Mitcham
202
40
93
50
23
7
—
28
2 —
62. Molesey East
93
74
16
1
17
6
16
— ■
4 —
63. Morden
242
11
93
—
37
72
17
—
3 —
64. Mortlake
86
53
43
102
5
—
34
—
28 —
65. Newdigate
463
1
531
6
56
50
—
8
— —
66. Ockham
190
146
72
—
43
26
—
161
— —
67. Peper Harow
32
39
20
4
12
3
—
48
— —
68. Petersham
12
10
8
10
8
,
35
—
20 —
69. Putney
62
77
50
39
38
47
—
1 —
70. Pyrford
101
115
32
12
6
10
—
60
12 —
71. Reigate
484
292
373
6
161
26
234
—
3 —
72. Richmond
22
21
28
6
19
4
—
27
— —
73. Ripley
393
603
240
20
97
53
—
330
48 —
74. Sanderstead
243
132
193
1
48
—
—
110
13 —
75. Shalford
220
132
53
6
47
15
7
—
16 —
76. Stoke
327
50
174
1
30
75
—
50
— —
d'Abernon
77. Streatham
366
65
106
94
79
46
—
98
5 —
78. Sutton
268
210
154
6
35
24
—
75
7 —
79. Thames
290
149
159
17
113
81
40
—
8 —
Ditton
80. Thorpe
266
233
55
5
100
53
34
—
8 —
81. Thursley
214
215
154
1
54
6
191
—
10 —
82. Tooting
2
35
14
6
7
—
—
25
18 —
83. Walton-on-
135
66
148
—
17
—
—
31
6 —
the-Hill
84. Walton-on-
434
324
176
56
116
53
—
—
89 —
Thames
85. Wandsworth
197
47
107
50
16
10
80
—
9 —
86. Warlingham
208
86
307
17
46
—
—
—
10 —
87. Weybridge
32
33
52
9
7
—
—
50
29 —
88. Wimbledon
218
39
180
19
36
41
—
30
— —
89. Windlesham
230
124
191
22
62
43
88
—
3 —
& Bagshot
90. Wisley
58
57
46
2
10
4
—
45
15 —
91. Witley
415
305
225
6
84
4
310
—
5 —
92. Woking
469
449
131
14
111
19
—
309
60 —
93. Woodman-
203
134
182
3
33
—
—
77
— —
sterne
94. Wotton
302
150
299
92
8
—
—
158
15 —
THE 1801 CROP RETURNS FOR THE COUNTY OF SURREY
123
Parishes for which no Return exists
95.
Alfold
109.
Epsom
123.
Pirbright
96.
Ash
110.
Ewell
124.
Puttenham
97.
Banstead
111.
Godstone
125.
Seale
98.
Bisley
112.
East Horsley
126.
Send
99.
Bletchingley
113.
Horne
127.
Shere
100.
Chelsham
114.
Horsell
128.
Stoke-next-Guildford
101.
Chessington
115.
Kingswood
129.
Tandridge
102.
Chiddingfold
116.
Leatherhead
130.
Tatsfield
103.
Compton
117.
Lingneld
131.
Wonersh
104.
Crowhurst
118.
St. Martha (Chi
hvorth)
132.
Titsey
105.
Croydon
119.
West Molesey
133.
Wallington
106.
Cuddington
120.
Nutfield
134.
Woldingham
107.
Dunsfold
121.
Ocklev
135.
Worplesdon
108.
Elstead
122.
Oxted
136.
Frimley
The parishes of Newington, Rotherhithe, Camberwell and Bermondsey are not
included in this list as they were either built upon, or used for market gardens or
grass; categories of land-use with which the Crop Returns were not concerned.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
BY
K. W. E. GRAVETT, M.Sc.(Eng.), F.S.A.,
and ERIC S. WOOD, F.S.A.
The first part of this paper outlines the history of the very important
quarries and limeuvrks at Merstham, Surrey. The second part describes
the investigation of a nineteenth-century industrial installation in the
xcorks. The paper concludes with a note on some of the records of the
limeworks, by Marguerite Gollancz, M.A.
HISTORY OF QUARRIES AND LIMEWORKS
THE parish of Merstham straddles the scarp-slope of the North
Downs. The village street is some 280 feet above sea level, but
in the north of the parish the crest of the downs, just east of
Alderstead Farm, reaches 624 feet. These downs are cut, along a
north-south line, by a wind-gap in the centre of the parish which is
utilized by the present-day Brighton Road (A23) and which was
chosen for the course of the Croydon, Merstham and Godstone
Railway.
The geology of the district is complicated,1 the main strata coming
to the surface in east-west bands. The village itself lies in the Gault
Clay, which is some half-mile wide. To the south, near Albury
Moat, the Folkestone Beds are reached, and near Battle Bridge Farm
is a large area of brown Brickearth. Overlying the Gault Clay, north
of the village, is a narrow band of Upper Greensand, upon which the
church is built and which reaches almost to Quarry Dean. Above
and to the north of this lies the Chalk, which is finally capped by
clay-with-flints on Alderstead Heath.
The good communications north-south, because of the wind-gap,
and east-west by the 'Pilgrims' Way' which originally crossed the
parish, caused two of the strata, described above, to assume economic
importance. These were the Upper Greensand, which yielded the
famous Merstham Stone, and the overlying Lower Chalk, which was
burnt into lime.
THE STONE QUARRIES
The Upper Greensand yields a building stone, particularly
valuable for its free-working properties and its relative immunity to
fire damage. It is generally known as the Merstham Stone or the
Reigate Stone, both of which names cover the products of many
quarries in several parishes along the North Downs.
1 Geological Survey Sheet 286 refers.
124
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 125
This stone has been used in many famous public buildings2
(including Westminster Abbey in the thirteenth century, the
Guildhall in 1400-20, and Nonsuch Palace in 1531-3), although
in many cases no attempt has apparently been made to identify
the particular quarry concerned. Several buildings in Merstham
Parish testify to its later use, including 26 High Street (1791),
Weighbridge Cottage, Lime Cottage and Quarry Dean itself.
Certainly, when Hall and Co. occupied the area (see below) they
continued stone working, as one of the buildings at their Croydon
Wharf was in this material. It is not known exactly when quarrying
ceased in the late nineteenth century. It probably continued
spasmodically for years, but, since it could not compete in price
with bricks, the demand fell off, latterly being restricted to the
linings of furnaces; the Merstham Lime-Kilns being made if it.
The upper layers of the stone are softer and found a use as hearth-
stone for scouring hearths and front door-steps. Small quantities
are believed to be still mined in the Reigate area.
The stone was won by 'pillar and hall' mining, the hills being
honeycombed with galleries of several periods. The entrance was
directly to the south of the Limeworks, being blocked, early this
century, by blasting, it being considered unsafe. Near this entrance
a large assortment of gears and pulleys remains of some machinery
believed to have been used in connection with haulage of stone. The
granite base of a single-cylinder vertical steam engine, used for
stone haulage, was found built into a wall near Lime Cottage.3
This base was formed out of one block of granite measuring 6 feet
2 inches by 3 feet by 16 inches. It is illustrated in Plate 1(a). Another
entrance lay to the south-east of Quarry Dean and further entrances
lay to the east.
In recent years there have been several subsidences and these
have been investigated by the Cave Research Group of Great Britain
since I960.4 These explorations have been made difficult by the
high level of water in the galleries. It is suspected that flooding has
long been a problem in the operation of the quarries. Manning and
Bray5 mention drainage works carried out in 1807-9 and their
interference with the water supply to the mill near the church.
Quarry Dean itself is mentioned in 1522 as Quarrepitden in a
rental of the Manor of Merstham,6 which unfortunately fails to
mention the stone quarries. The present house appears to have
2 M. &■ B., II, 253; V.C.H., Surrey, II, 277; III, 214; Dines, H. G., and
Edwards, F. H., The Geology of the Country around Reigate and Dorking
(1933), 173; Hooper, W., Reigate (Surrey A.S. 1945), 105; Dent, J., Quest
for Nonsuch (1962), 264.
3 Information from Mr. John Sanders, ex-manager of Merstham Lime-
works.
4 Information from Mr. M. W. Harrison, the farmer at Quarry Dean, and
from his lecture to the Reigate Society reported in Surrey Mirror and County
Post (19.2.1960).
5 M. <£> B., II, 807.
6 Surrey A.C., XX (1907), 90-114.
126 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
been largely reconstructed in the first half of the nineteenth century,
probably when it was owned by George Valentine Hall.
ROADS AND RAILWAYS
The 'Pilgrims' Way' passes south of the Limeworks in an east-
west direction. This section of the road was closed in 18787 and also
the other roads of Merstham have undergone considerable alteration.
Hart8 gives a map of these changes. Briefly, the present Quality
Street was continued northwards to form the road to London. This
was diverted in 1807 by the formation of a turnpike road by-passing
the village to the east, and this was again diverted (westwards) to
form the modern road in 1839 when the South-Eastern Railway
came. Also Shepperd's Hill was diverted in 1868 due to undermining
by the Lime Quarry.9
The story of the iron railways in the area is well documented.10
The Surrey Iron Railway was opened in 1803 from Wandsworth
to Croydon. The Croydon, Merstham and Godstone Railway
(C.M.G.R.) was incorporated by an Act of Parliament of May 17
1803 (43 Geo. III., cap 35), and was intended to reach Reigate
with a branch to Godstone Green.11 A war-time venture, this was
originally intended to be part of a main trunk railway to Ports-
mouth. Victory at Trafalgar removed the urgency for such an
overland connection, and as constructed and opened in 1805 the
C.M.G.R. only reaches the Merstham Quarries. The line enters
Merstham Parish in a cutting,12 much of which still exists, some
20 feet deep and approximately parallel to the main road. An
overbridge remains, buried to its parapets, and a second and third
may be seen just to the north in Coulsdon parish. The Weighbridge
Cottage still exists beside the main road, and is shown on the
Merstham Tithe Map of 1838. I3 The railway then diverges east-
wards from the main road and passes the site of the old Hylton
Arms — the present inn was rebuilt on the main road, as the Jolliffe
Arms.
To the south-west of the line are the remnants of some cottages,
which were originally stables for horses and a repair depot for the
trucks, and which were demolished at the beginning of the recent
war. The track continued south-east, past Lime Cottage, and finished
at the quarry entrance near Quarry Dean Farm. The line of the track
7 Surrey R.O., Highway Proceedings, Q.S. 5/8/412.
8 Hart, E., Surrey A.C., XLI (1933), 22.
9 Surrey R.O., Highway Proceedings, Q.S. 5/8/316.
10 Dobson, G. G., A Century and a Quarter (privately published for Hall
& Co., 1949); Townsend, C. E. C, Transactions of the Newcomen Society,
XXVII (1956), 51-68; Lee, C. E., 'Early Railways in Surrey,' Railway
Gazette, 1944; Bing, F. C, The Grand Surrey Iron Railway (Croydon Public
Libraries, 1931).
11 The copies of the Parliamentary plans deposited with the Clerk of the
Peace for Surrey are in the Surrey R.O., Q.S. 6/8/14 and Q.S. 6/8/16.
12 A scheduled ancient monument.
13 Copy in Surrey R.O.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 127
is shown in a series of maps drawn by Lee and illustrating Townsend's
paper.14
Between Lime Cottage and Quarry Dean the line is shown as
curving and twice crossing the existing pathway, and the reasons
(and evidence) for these diversions are not obvious to the author.
Beyond the south-west corner of Lime Cottage the ground has been
made up above its natural level, some six feet by spoil from the
Limeworks. It has long been suspected that this was laid on top of
the track of the railway15 and the author has located with a mine-
detector two parallel metal objects going some ten yards and
spaced approximately 5 feet apart. However, these may be the gas
and water pipes to the cottage and unfortunately it was not possible
to excavate.
The track consisted of flanged plates, supported on square, stone
sleepers, each with a central hole in which a wooden peg was inserted,
and to this the plates were spiked. It was strictly a plateway, the
flanges being on the inner side of the rails and not on the wheels of
the trucks, which were horse-drawn and could be used on ordinary
roads. The sleepers were rough-hewn in a variety of different stones,
mainly millstone grit. A section of track has been erected near the
Jolliffe Arms and specimens of rail and sleeper exist in the Guildford
Museum. It is surprising that the actual gauge of the line appears
to be obscure.16 Some of the doubts are obviously due to difficulties
of definitions of gauge in a plateway. However, the discovery in
1961 of a straight set of sleepers, in situ, in the lane between the
Jolliffe Arms and the quarry, have made it clear that these were
placed in two lines so that the peg-holes were 5 feet apart, and
3 feet 1 inch apart in the direction of the rails. Unfortunately, the
road has been resurfaced since observations were taken and the
sleepers are no longer visible.
The C.M.G.R., never financially very successful although it
provided a ready outlet for Merstham lime, was bought out by the
London and Brighton Railway in September 1838, since it wished
to use the line as part of its track at Coulsdon. The Brighton line
was commenced on 12 July 1838,17 just north of Merstham Tunnel
(1,831 yards), which was completed by 1841. As noted above, this
involved a diversion of the 1807 turnpike road.18 The Tithe Map of
1838 shows the London and Brighton Railway land, but also shows
the C.M.G.R. track finishing just short of the limeworks, presumably
the section to the stone-quarrying having been abandoned. The
limeworks were originally served by the C.M.G.R., and this was
14 Townsend, C. E. C, op. cit. Also Railway Magazine, 1947, p. 255. This
is shown in greater detail in a plan drawn by Major Taylerson (in Dobson, C. G.,
ibid., Plate 50).
15 Information from Mr. Sanders.
16 Lee, C. E., op. cit., 31.
17 White, H. P., Regional History of Railways in Great Britain (1961), II,
75-80.
18 Built by Jolliffe & Banks for the Croydon and Reigate Turnpike Trust.
128 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
replaced by a single track spur from the L.B.S.C.R.-S.E.R. joint
line.19 When the Quarry line was built, this spur was carried by
a bridge immediately south of the tunnel mouth. This bridge was
removed when the limeworks closed. Although built by the Brighton
Company,20 due to Parliamentary insistence that only one southern
route for a railway from London was required, the Merstham section
actually passed to the South-Eastern Railway in 1842, and was
used by trains of both companies. This caused considerable friction,
and the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway built a new line
(the Quarry Line), by-passing Redhill, largely parallel to the earlier
line and involving a further Merstham Quarry Line Tunnel of 2,113
yards, which was opened in April, 1900. The chalk spoil for this
tunnel was dumped on land directly to the south of Lime Cottage,
considerably altering the contours there.
When it was realized that the Croydon, Merstham and Godstone
Railway was unlikely to be extended beyond Merstham, plans were
made to connect it to the Arun by canal. In 1811 the plan21 of the
proposed Merstham and Newbridge Canal shows that connection
between the canal basin at the foot of the downs and the iron
railway was to be by inclined plane. This map is interesting in that
it marks Jolliffe & Bank's Works (see below) and also an obviously
artificial pond to the south of Rockshaw Road, called New Pond.
This was intended as a feeder reservoir for the canal and it is
interesting to speculate whether this pond existed before 1811 or if
it represents the commencement of works on this canal. It is not
shown on Rocque's map, but is shown on the Tithe Map. Portsmouth
was reached (1823) by canal from the Thames by way of the Wey
Navigation, the Wey and Arun Junction Canal, the Arun Navigation
and the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal.22
THE LIMEWORKS
Chalk has been dug from the hills around Merstham for burning
into lime since 'time out of mind.' Certainly the small pit south of
Alderstead farm is shown on the Tithe Map and is identified by
Hart23 with that of Pit Field mentioned in the Merstham Manor
Rent Roll of 1522. Also in a wood to the north-west of the church
is an extensive series of marling pits. These were mainly to supply
agricultural lime, the use of which increased during the agricultural
improvements of the eighteenth century. The effect of this on clay
soils and the lime-burning industry has recently been studied by
Robinson and Cooke,24 who show that, for economy in transport,
19 The locomotives used in the Limeworks are listed in Industrial Loco-
motives of South-East England (Birmingham Locomotive Club 1958), 13.
20 The contractors were the Hoof Brothers, one of whom was killed in the
tunnel and buried in Merstham Churchyard.
21 In Surrey R.O., Q.S., 6/8/68, and M. & B., Ill, appendix, ix.
12 Vine, P. A. L., London's Lost Route to the Sea (1965).
23 Hart, E., Surrey A.C., XLI (1933), 21.
24 Robinson, D. J., and Cooke, R. U., Surrey A.C., LIX (1962), 19-26.
MERSTHAM LIME WORKS 129
the lime-burning took place at the farms near the source of fuel.
This may explain the absence of earlier kilns at Merstham.
Lime was also used for building purposes. Manning and Bray
state: —
The Chalk from this part of the Surrey Hills burns into excellent lime and
is in much esteem with builders for any work which requires more than
ordinary strength of mortar. In future, it may form a considerable and
lucrative article of trade in this particular spot, if the traffic shall be sufficient
to support an iron railway, which was completed in 1805, opening a direct
communication between this place and the Thames, at Wandsworth. Great
quantities of chalk have been conveyed by this means to the vicinity of
the metropolis, and the business of lime-burning is now carrying on with
great alacrity.25
Thus it appears that it was the improvement in communications
resulting from the iron railway that caused the large size of the
Merstham Limeworks. Mr. Harrison26 states that the Limeworks
opened in 1762, but it is not shown on Rocque's map, nor the
Merstham Estate Map of c. 1768 in the possession of Lord Hylton.27
This and several other maps, including Cary's of 1801 and the first
edition of Ordnance Survey, show the stone-quarries but not the
limeworks. Some of these maps may not have attempted to show
limeworks, but the author believes that this indicates that any
works here were small in size before the iron railway came.
Tharby28 states that Sir Edward Banks, the contractor, joined
Colonel Hylton Jolliffe, M.P., of Merstham House, in developing
Merstham Limeworks in 1805, after Banks had completed the
C.M.G.R. In 1807 Banks entered into partnership with Hylton
Jolliffe's younger brother, the Rev. William John Jolliffe, to form
the firm of Jolliffe & Banks, Public Works Contractors. This
Company had many famous contracts, including Dartmoor Prison
(1809-10), Waterloo Bridge (1812-7), Sheerness Dockyard (1813-23),
the new London Bridge (1824-31) and that over the Serpentine
(commenced in 1824). In their public works they were the first to
introduce Aberdeen granite to the South of England, and the mill-
stones of this material found at the Merstham site are undoubtedly
connected with them. The Company's offices were at the Merstham
Limeworks and are shown in the map of the proposed Merstham and
Newbridge canal (1811), and are included in the Land Tax returns
for 1809 and later.29
It appears that Jolliffe and Banks worked the lime here until
1824, when the lease of the Limeworks, Quarry Dean, and surround-
ing fields were taken by George Valentine Hall, who was previously
employed there. He became the founder of the firm of Hall &
Company Ltd., whose history has been excellently covered by
Dobson,30 and was described as a lime-burner. The firm of Jolliffe &
25 M. & B., II, 253.
26 Lecture to the Reigate Society, see note 4.
27 Photocopy at Castle Arch, Guildford.
28 Tharby, W. G. The Life of Sir Edward Banks (1955).
29 Plan and Land Tax returns in Surrey R.O.
30 Dobson, C. G., op. cit.
130 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
Banks continued to have their offices on the site until they wound up
in 1834, and continued to use Merstham lime and stone in happy
business relationship with George Valentine Hall. The Hall family
lived at Quarry Dean, and the Company were connected with the
site until 1864, when the conditions imposed for a renewal of lease
being too heavy due to the landlord's annoyance that the firm had
recently acquired a second site at Coulsdon, they gave up the
Merstham Works and concentrated their resources at Stoat's Nest
Quarry, Coulsdon, which closed in 1962.
About 1872, the workings were taken over by Mr. J. S. Peters,
whose family had been connected with lime in the Lower Medway
Valley. He appears at first to have only taken over the works area
to the north of the bridle road to Quarry Dean, which he does not
appear to have leased until 1890,31 when he also acquired rights on
the land behind the bridle road and the site of the Pilgrims' Way.
The limeworks were run by the Peters, uncle and nephew, until
1934, when the Merstham Grey-stone Lime Company was formed.
This Company continued until 1956, when the works lay derelict
for several years. Finally in 1961, Croydon Corporation bought the
land for the dumping of household rubbish and eventual restoration
of the original contours.
An illustration exists of the Limeworks in 1824 in a hunting print
by D. Wolstenholme, Full Cry — crossing the Brighton Road at
Merstham.32 This shows on the left the old Hylton Arms and
Jolliffe Row and, on the right, Lime Cottage. This building is
constructed of the Merstham Stone and appears to date from the
early part of the nineteenth century. It may be the cottage first
mentioned at Jolliffe & Banks' Works in the Land Tax in 1815.
It is, however, reputed to have been a mill building,33 and this was
confirmed by the discovery within the wall of timber supports,
presumably for a bearing, during alterations carried out in 1962. 34
The exterior before alteration is shown in Plate 1(b). This house is
marked on the Tithe Map of 183835 with the form of hatching used
for industrial buildings rather than dwellings. The eastern end
was the office of the Company at least since 1870, and may have been
so earlier. Remains of an archway are faintly visible in the stone
work of the south face, and this was reputed to be connected with
its industrial origins.36 The cottage has been retained, but renamed
'Old Quarry Cottage'.
Remains existed until recently of two rows of old conical flare
kilns, the upper one of eight kilns and the lower of three. The upper
row is known to have been built by George Valentine Hall in 1830. 37
31 Lease from Lord Hylton to J. S. Peters, 1890 and 1899 in Surrey R.O.,
Ace. 641.
32 Reproduced in Surrey A.C., XLIII (1935), Plate V.
33 Information from Mr. Sanders.
34 Information from Mr. R. Teesdale, Croydon Corporation, Engineer-in-
Charge.
35 In Surrey R.O.
36 Information from Mr. Sanders.
37 Dobson, G. C, op. cit., illustrated in Plate 49.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 131
These are illustrated in operation in an engraving by Elliott Sea-
brooke38 and photograph A. 4636 of the Geological Survey taken in
1929, reproduced by kind permission as Plate II. In 1934 con-
tinuous running kilns were installed and these were in use until the
works closed. All the kilns used coal as fuel and this was a back-
carriage in return for lime. All the occupiers of the site seem to have
carried on a subsidiary coal-merchants' business due to this.
Several mill-stones were discovered during operations by Croydon
Corporation. They were all apparently of Aberdeen granite, and
included two halves, forming a platform 9 feet 5 inches diameter,
with an 8 inch diameter hole. There were also two 5 feet 10 inch
diameter, with an 11 inch square hole, fitted with a metal bearing
for a A\ inch shaft. It is suspected that these two were rotated
edgewise on the platform, but it is not clear whether they came from
Lime Cottage or perhaps elsewhere on the site. Two other mill-stones,
approximately 3 feet 6 inches, were found, but had to be covered
over-39 K.W.E.G.
INVESTIGATION OF A NINETEENTH-CENTURY
INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATION
During the many visits paid to Greystone Limeworks by
Mr. K. W. E. Gravett in the course of his researches into their
history (as described in the first part of this paper), the former
quarry manager, Mr. John Sanders, who then lived at Old Quarry
Cottage (formerly Lime Cottage), kindly drew his attention to a
circular earth bank just inside the thicket, across the lane which
runs south of the cottage.40
As the purpose of this was not apparent, and as it was unlike any
of the other known remains of the working days of the quarry or
limeworks, investigation seemed desirable. Further inspection
showed that there were, in fact, two contiguous circles (Fig. 1).
There was no record of disturbance for many years, and indeed the
thicket was dense and unbroken. In view of this prospect of un-
covering a probably complete industrial installation (the circles had
nothing ancient about their appearance), and of the imminent
filling in by Croydon Corporation of the quarries, and the possible
threat to the circles thereby, it was decided to excavate. Permission
was kindly given by the ground landlord, Lord Hylton, and the
Croydon Corporation ; both showed continuous interest in the work,
and much gratitude is due to them.
The excavation took place in June 1962 under the writer's
direction, assisted by Mrs. M. C. Wood, Mr. Gravett, Mr. N. P.
38 Reproduced in Green, F. F., The Surrey Hills (1915), 58.
39 Information from Mr. R. Teesdale.
40 This lane follows the line of the extension of the Surrey Iron Railway,
which ended at Quarry Dean, a quarter mile beyond Lime Cottage. It was not
possible to excavate beneath the lane for traces or actual remains of the track,
but some of this has since come to light at Quarry Dean (1967).
132
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
Thompson and Mr. David Herbert. The work was visited by
Mr. W. G. Tharby, of the Bourne Society.
The site is on a narrow spur of Lower Chalk, left standing on the
southern edge of the quarries. Just to the south-east of it are the
Merstham stone layers which were mined here for many centuries
(see page 125). 41 The rock (which is a very hard greyish clunch) falls
away in a scarp a few yards south of the circles, but the formation
is here obscured by the high piles of outcast from the railway
tunnels and cuttings, which were built up against it. The cutting
of the railway into the quarry runs under the lane some 50 yards
north-west of the site.
But these features (except the chalk) are unrelated to the choice
of site for the circles. These seem in fact to be sited in close relation
MERSTHAM
L O C A TIO N
REYSTONE
M E WOR K S
Quarry jpean
feet
Fig. 1.— Merstham Limeworks: Site Location Map.
to the lane to Quarry Dean, or rather, no doubt, to the iron railway
which preceded it. This lane or railway could provide access, and
a means of transporting the raw materials for, and the products of,
the site. In fact, the entrance to the smaller circle (see below) faced
the lane.
The circles consist of banks of chalk (covered with a thin topsoil)
some 3 feet 6 inches high. They are some 60 feet and 24 feet in
diameter. The smaller has a gap on the north side, the larger is
unbroken (Fig. 1).
41 The lime quarries are in the Lower and Middle Chalk; the building-,
road- and hearthstone beds (Merstham stone), to the south of them, form
part of the Upper Greensand. Dines, H. G., and Edmunds, F. H., The Geology
of the Country around Reigate and Dorking (1933), 100.
MERSTHAM LIMEWOKKS 133
EXCAVATION METHOD
Although it was presumed that the circles represented the emplace-
ments of rotary machines connected with processes of the lime
industry, their precise contents could not be guessed from external
inspection. They showed merely as gently-dished circular platforms,
the level inside being higher than that of the soil surface outside the
banks. Excavation, therefore, took the form of trenching (down to
the natural undisturbed rock) across the larger circle from one of the
few accessible points on the bank on the lane side, in towards the
centre ; examining a wider area at the centre, to see if there were any
central feature; then continuing the trench towards the part of the
bank where it touched, or rather appeared actually to form for a
certain length, the bank of the smaller circle. From this point the
trench was continued across the smaller circle, through its centre, to
the bank on the far side. From the centre trenches were then taken,
one to the gap on the lane side, the other in the opposite direc-
tion as far as the bank, and across it to test the flat platform which
was observed in the angle where the banks of the two circles met.
Excavation was at all times hampered, and to some extent con-
ditioned, by the dense cover of hawthorn bushes, with their roots,
which entangled the entire site. Clearance of this vegetation was
in fact so laborious that the minimum passages were cut consistent
with adequate trenches, plans and sections being obtained. But in
the result a clear picture was, in fact, achieved.
THE LARGE CIRCLE (a)
This was 60 feet in diameter, measured from the centre (highest
point) of the bank. The bank was 3 ft. 2 in. high (above the
present ground level outside the circle), and had a spread of 10 feet
from the top in each direction. The top was rounded, and only
slightly flattened. The soil level inside the circle was 1 ft. 9 in.
below the top of the bank, i.e. 1 ft. 5 in. above the soil level
outside. The top soil, which covered the whole area, including the
inside of the circle, was 4 inches thick.
The bank was made of chalky material, and rested on the natural
rock. Indeed, the whole circle was evidently cleared down to the
rock before the bank and the interior layers were laid down.
The interior consisted of carefully laid and levelled thicknesses
of clay (Fig. 2). The bank had evidently been allowed to settle before
the interior was dealt with, as it showed a 'foot' or spread of some
five feet from where the bank proper would have ended. Inside this
some five inches of reddish brown clay (which outcrops at South
Merstham) had been spread on the natural rock. Over this lay eight
inches of clay, grey over the spread of the bank, merging into light
brown over the red layer. It is possible that this is an effect of
leaching or soil-water.
Some four inches of recent topsoil covered both the bank and the
clay layers inside it. At the base of this, roughly coterminous with
the brown part of the upper clay layer, was a thin (up to two inch)
134 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
layer of small pieces of apparently unburnt chalk and chalky soil,
resting on the brown clay. On the assumption that Circle A was an
artificial pond, this chalky matter might be seen as the remains of
whatever the pond was meant to contain (see below) , or might have
been added to prevent damage by animals, perhaps oxen from the
nearby grinding mill.42
~~-\^ MERSTHAM
V\ SECTION Of CIRCLE A
chalk ~~2 4"
c'ay merging Into brown |8"
clay J 5"
natural chalk
feet
Fig. 2. — Section of Circle A (part — the circle is 60 ft. in diameter).
THE SMALL CIRCLE (b)
This was about 24 feet in diameter, between the tops of the bank.
But the bank on the side of Circle A merged into the latter's bank,
and for several feet was indistinguishable from it, forming one
stretch of bank common to both circles.
The angles between the two circles were blocked with heaps
of chalky rubble, perhaps spreads from the banks.
Midway along the common bank was a platform of brickwork
laid transversely across the bank. This consisted of an oblong
platform four bricks wide (two feet), and 3 ft. 8 in. long. On the
outside rows of brick another course of bricks had been laid, forming
low retaining walls. These did not extend across the ends of the
platform (which therefore had the form of a tray with no lip at the
shorter sides). The structure was laid on an inch layer of mortar
on the top of the bank.
Below this, covering the slope of the bank inside Circle B, had
been a. facing of slates, of which many fragments were found. This
must have been fastened to a wooden framework. If the purpose
of the brick platform was (say) to rest buckets of water or some
other liquid on, in transit between the two circles, then the slate
facing would have prevented erosion of the bank by spilt liquid.
Inside the circle (see plan, Fig. 3), the bank had been prolonged
by a flat shelf or berm some five feet wide, and 1 ft. 6 in. thick. On
this (resting on a layer of sand) was laid a brick floor 3 ft. 6 in. wide,
one brick thick, which ran continuously right round the circle. The
outside edge of this floor, on the bank side, had been built up by
a low retaining wall two bricks high and two (one foot) thick. There
42 Such a layer was commonly added to dewponds for this purpose. See
Martin, E. A., Dewponds (1915), 104, and also Clutterbuck, J. C, 'Prize Essay
on Water Supply,' Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, 2nd Ser. I (1865),
271.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
135
was a gap of about a foot between the retaining wall and the base of
the bank, lined with sand (which may be merely part of the spread
on which the floor was laid). The bank had spread over the wall,
except under the brick platform on the Circle A side, where the
slate facing had protected it for a time. When the slates collapsed
the bank spread, but only up to the wall and not over it.
MERSTHAM
PLAN OF CIRCLE B
Fig. 3. — Plan of Circle B.
The bricks which formed the floor were laid in diagonal rows of
four bricks each, lengthwise (see Plate IV (b)). Four somewhat
irregular grooves, one inch wide and up to three-quarter inch deep,
had been worn into the brickwork by the passage of some heavy
object (s) dragged across it. The amount of irregularity of these
grooves may be gauged by measurements taken at two places: —
Wall to
1st
groove
1st groove
to
2nd groove
2nd groove
to
3rd groove
3rd groove
to
4th groove
4th groove
to inner edge
of floor
3 in.
11 in.
6 in.
9 in.
9 in.
3 in.
9 in.
Sin.
9 in.
12 in.
136 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
The circular space, 1 1 ft. 6 in. in diameter, contained by the floor,
was, of course, two feet deep from the surface of the floor to the
natural rock, inside the inner slopes of the berm. In the centre of
this space (and thus in the centre of the entire circle) was a low
circular wall, one brick (lengthwise) thick, and two bricks deep,
resting on the natural rock. This was 3 ft. 3 in. from the brick floor,
and its inner diameter was 3 ft. 6 in. {see Plate IV(a)).
On the side of the circle nearest the lane (or railway) was a gap in
the bank and retaining wall (but not the floor), 4 ft. 6 in. wide. This
was evidently the entrance to the structure, but no trace of an
actual doorway was found. Indeed, the absence of roofing material
in the filling of the circle suggests that the structure was open to the
sky. The flooring in the entrance was much broken up, no doubt
partly by intensive wear. The bank had spread from both its ends
over the entrance.
The topsoil layer, which ran, as stated above, over the bank,
dipped into the centre of the circle {see section, Fig. 4). It was about
MERSTHAM
SECTION of CIRCLE B
B
V~~^ — ~"— — ?"" _ mnini! — 7Z-r*-~7" -n<
\ » ■ B"»veH- — - - —- gravel ^T , / I
brlcK door
chalk *
rubble VA
spread or bank
reel
Fig. 4. — Section of Circle B (from A to B in Fig. 3).
a foot above the brick floor, and then ran level across the circle until
it rose to the top of the bank on the far side. Above the floor the
soil was brown and gravelly. The central circular feature was filled
with rubble consisting of broken brick and chalk; this not only
filled the central feature, but rose above it for about 1 ft. 3 in. The
rest of the space inside the brick floor was filled with crushed and
broken chalk.
The bricks measure 8^ in. by 4 in. by 2\ in. They are red, close-
textured and hand-made, and have no frogs or makers' marks.
Mr. Norman Cook, F.S.A., Keeper of the Guildhall Museum, who
kindly examined one, places it earlier than the middle of the nine-
teenth century, but not much earlier than the end of the eighteenth.43
The small finds are consistent with this dating. Nothing of
importance was found in the areas excavated, but this was not
unexpected in a site of this kind. The finds consisted of : —
Short piece (1-75 in. long) of an iron strap 1-25 in. wide. From
the floor on the south side of Circle B.
43 Lloyd, N., A History of English Brickwork (1925), gives the date of the
introduction of this size of brick in England as 1776; the present size came in
after 1850.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 137
Square iron nail (tip missing), with flattened conical head —
length of fragment 2-6 in.; width of sides 0-3 in.; head 0-7 in.
across.
Large iron nail or staple, of flattened section, with broad flat
head — this may be complete — it thins off at the end to an edge.
Length 5-1 in.; width halfway along 0-6 in.; thickness 0-4 in.;
head 1-25 in. by 0-9 in. From the floor on the south side of
circle B.
Part of bottle, of dark green glass (0-2 in. thick), heavily iridized.
The fragment stops short as it turns inwards toward the base,
which is kicked.
Mouth, probably of the same bottle — thickened, with incised line
round it. Diameter of mouth 0-8 in.; overall diameter 1-3 in.
These two pieces came from the central feature of Circle B.
Fragment of thin dark green bottle-glass.
Fragments of thin flat pale green glass.
Fragment of thin clear glass, from bottle of the 'medicine-bottle'
type — two raised letters BL. From the brick platform.
Nondescript piece of glazed earthenware. From the entrance.
Piece of bone (part of sheep's clavicle). From the central feature
of Circle B.
Piece of a bituminous or tarry substance.
The slates from the slope of the bank below the brick platform are
grey. They are of two thicknesses, 0-3 in. and 0-2 in. They are
bevelled off along one edge. The size of the slates could not be
determined.
discussion: the purpose of the circles
A satisfactory interpretation of this seemingly simple, but in fact
puzzling, site has not been at all easy to arrive at. There seem to be
no surviving or even recorded parallels, and the site is not mentioned
in the published history of the Merstham quarries.44 Indeed, the
lime and allied industries are far from copiously documented from
the historical point of view. Most of the literature deals with the
modern industrial processes and plant, and (as for glass and some
other industries) the references to the pre-industrial phases are not
informative as regards the details of the plant and equipment used.
Indeed, except for kilns, the equipment is scarcely referred to at
all, let alone described or illustrated.
The Merstham site, as it clearly predated fully modern industrial
practice, had therefore to be interpreted by inference from what
little was known of the processes and products of the industry
before, say, Johnson's breakthrough in the manufacture of cement
in 1845 {see page 138). Even then, the results are not wholly con-
clusive ; it is difficult to suggest a process and product which demands
the use of all the evidence which the site provides.
44 Dobson, C. G., op. cit.
138 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
Besides searching the literature, the problem was discussed with
two people who had intimate knowledge of the industry and its
history — Mr. Sanders, the former manager of Greystone Limeworks,
and Mr. A. J. Rook, B.Sc, formerly of the Chalk, Lime and Allied
Industries Research Association. I am greatly indebted to these
authorities for their kindness in giving thought to this, and in making
suggestions and elucidating obscurities. They are not committed
by what follows.
It will make the discussion clearer if the evidence is related, in
turn, to the various main processes of the industry: —
One of the three main primary products of a limeworks was of course lime.41
This is made by burning chalk (or limestone), at about 900° C, in a kiln to
convert it into quicklime. The chalk is mainly calcium carbonate, with various
impurities; heating resolves it into carbon dioxide gas and calcium oxide (the
quicklime). The stone is burnt in kilns (as at Merstham) usually close to the
quarry; if not sold away at this point as lump lime, it is then ground and
hydrated in plants adjacent to the quarry. Ground lime is also sold away.
For both agricultural and building purposes ground quicklime is slaked — that
is, covered with water; it combines with the water, generating heat, to form
slaked lime, which is mainly calcium hydroxide. Under specially controlled
conditions a purified powder can be made called hydrated lime; hydration (or
slaking) is usually done on site, but hydrated lime can be sold away and used
after mixing with water. Sand is mixed with slaked or hydrated lime to
produce mortar.
When excess water is used, the slaked lime in suspension in the water i^
milk of lime; when this is allowed to stand it thickens into lime putty, used for
mortar and plastering.
The grey chalk of Merstham produces a semi-hydraulic lime, that is, one
which will, with water, produce a relatively hard and impervious mortar or
cement.
Another main product, using chalk as a raw material, is cement, which depends
for its properties on the types and proportions of clays, earths or gravels with
which the chalk is mixed. They are crushed together in a wet mill and calcined
into a mass which is ground into a fine powder. Quality improved throughout
the early nineteenth century, under the influence of men like Vicat and Frost,
and in 1824 Joseph Aspdin patented a cement of modern type ('Portland
cement'). But the first fully reliable cement was not produced until 1845,
by I. C. Johnson at Swanscombe. Reinforced concrete, patented by W. B.
Wilkinson in 1854, was the final stage in this long development, but is outside
our concern here.
Various mixtures were experimented with in the making of cements and
concretes. G. R. Burnell,46 for example, describes in 1850 a process (no doubt
not then new) in which hydrated lime was made into a thick paste, and made
into a mortar before being mixed with gravel. It was 'wheeled in on a level,
and beaten with a rammer.' Burnell gives details of mixtures of lime, earths,
sand, gravel and broken limestone; burnt clay or pounded bricks could be
substituted for the earth.
The third product of chalk is whiting. This is finely divided calcium
carbonate, used in gesso, paints, putty, etc. No chemical process is involved;
the chalk is merely ground in water; the fine material is separated by sedi-
mentation, and the settled sediment dried and powdered. Normally, in this
process, the chalk was broken up and crushed in a wash mill (a circular floor)
by rollers drawn round a central upright. The resulting 'slurry' was transferred,
or flowed, into an artificial pond, where the coarser material sank to the
45 For a good general account of the various lime products see Davey, N.,
A History of Building Materials (1961), 97 ff.
46 Burnell, G. R., Rudimentary Treatise on Limes, etc. (1850), 73. Burnell
draws partly on Pasley, C. W., Observations . . . on Cement, etc. (1830).
MERSTHAM LIME WORKS 139
bottom. At intervals, say once a year in the summer, the pond was allowed to
dry; the fine material was dug out, dried, and broken to powder, perhaps in the
same mill. The coarser pieces were usually left in the pond.
We are now in a position to review the evidence from Mersthani,
and suggest solutions.
Circle A is obviously a pond, constructed of layers of clay like
a dew-pond.47 Circle B is more difficult. At this point it should be
noted that analysis of the chalky remains in either circle cannot be
conclusive. Slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) under conditions of
exposure is carbonated by the atmosphere, and reverts to calcium
carbonate, which is chemically indistinguishable from chalk. In
fact, Mr. A. J. Rook kindly examined the chalky substance from
Circle B, and confirmed it as simply chalk, which appeared to have
gone through no other process than the one which produced the
small lumps recovered from the circle and sent for analysis; these
could have been fractured by natural means. Mr. Rook48 points out,
however, that whiting would have the same chemical composition,
but its consistency would be like whitewash that has dried out —
much softer than the samples, and without their rather rectangular
fracture. We can therefore eliminate whiting from the enquiry,
and the site must be considered in the context of lime, mortar or
cement.
Mr. Sanders pointed out that Circle A (the pond) was larger than
normally used for slaking lime, for which quite small pans were
usual. It was at first reasonable to assume that Circle B was the
site of a rotary crusher or grinder, for which it was about the right
size.49 But against this, no trace of a central post or pivot was found
(unless a pivot had been mounted on the central brick feature and
since removed);50 there was no sign of the compression on the
ground inside the floor which would be the result of the passage
of a heavy roller ; and the brick floor showed no signs of the crushing
or damage which would be caused by horses' hooves (and in any
case brick would make the coefficient of friction completely wrong
for horseshoes — a brick floor would speedily break up under shod
hooves).
Thus the floor must have been intended for human use, either to
watch or control a process taking place in the centre (although as
the centre is 8 feet from the edge of the floor this idea also has
practical difficulties).
One possibility is that this process could have been that of running
down lime into lime putty. This is made51 by putting quicklime on
a sieve and pouring water over it. Only the pure lime goes through —
47 Pugsley, A. J., Dewponds in Fable and Fact (1939). 30 ff., and references
in note 42.
48 In correspondence.
49 Information from Mr. F. Atkinson (Bowes Museum).
s0 This enigmatic feature may have been to stand a container of some sort
on or in, but its real purpose remains obscure. Perhaps it was merely to guide
something round the centre.
51 Information from Mr. Sanders.
140 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
the ashes and unbaked chalk stay on the sieve. It is then allowed
to ripen and can be used either with sand to make mortar or, when
allowed to dry a little into a stiff paste, for plastering walls and
ceilings.
A similar process is described in 1819: —
A pit is dug in the ground, which is bricked at the bottom and sides, into
which the operator puts the lime. He has command of a small stream of
water, which is conveyed at pleasure into the pit, and in a few days the
lime is sufficiently slaked; he then puts the lime and sand or gravel into the
mill. ...»
The size of the pit is given as making six bushels at a time. The
pit at Merstham is somewhat larger than this.
The grooves or scratches on the brick floor suggest that something
heavy had been dragged round. This may have been some kind of
stirrer, but more likely a large sieve on a wooden frame, which
would have been agitated and used to remove the unburnt lumps
from the quicklime.53
That the circle was used for mixing and not crushing is also
strengthened by indications, found by Mr. Gravett, that an animal
mill for crushing probably existed in part of Lime Cottage across
the lane. The signs of wear in the floor in the entrance of Circle B
could suggest that the crushed material was brought across from
the cottage and unloaded at the entrance to the circle, for distribu-
tion and use inside. The grooves on the floor could, in this event,
represent the dragging of receptacles full of crushed material round
the floor to the places where it was required.
Cement, rather than putty or mortar is, however, suggested by the
gravel and broken brick and stone found together with chalk (lime)
in the filling of Circle B. And the problem of accepting the circle
as a slaking-pit is that lime was, until recently, only slaked for use
as lime-mortar and was used as soon as possible after slaking. Hence
it was always slaked at the place where it was to be used, and never
sold in the slaked condition, but only as quicklime. Also slaked lime
has considerably greater volume and weight than quicklime and
transport costs are greater.
The use of the platform for conveying water (or liquid) from
Circle A to Circle B is reasonably clear.
All this points to the plant having been constructed for a large
local building work. It was at first thought that the products were
sent off along the Surrey Iron Railway to works in London, such as
the building of Rennie's new London Bridge (completed in 1831),
for which the Merstham Limeworks had the contract.54 But the
52 Rees, Abraham, Cyclopedia (1819), XXIV under 'Mortar.'
5i These lumps might explain the pile of chalk rubble between the circles
at the back.
54 And for which lime mortar was used; see Dobson, C. G., op. cit., 191. A
list of works, for which the firm of Jolliffe & Banks had the contract, is given in
Dickenson, H. W., 'Jolliffe & Banks, Contractors,' Transactions of the New-
comen Society, XII (1931-2), 1, but this paper does not deal with Merstham
Limeworks or its contributions.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 141
above arguments point, however inconclusively, to a work much
closer at hand.
This is conveniently provided (as Mr. Gravett very ingeniously
suggests) by the first Merstham Railway Tunnel. Certainly con-
tractors' rails were laid from the limeworks to the railway works,
and fragments remained of the trucks used until after 1950. 55 The
plant could thus have been built to supply mortar or cement for the
tunnel lining, and perhaps the size of the contract would account
for the oversize of the slaking-pit itself. The tunnel was built
between mid- 1838 and mid- 184 1,56 and thus the site would date
from c. 1840. This is entirely consistent with the construction,
bricks, slates, small finds, and many of the considerations above.
An approximate estimate of the quantity of slaked lime required
for the tunnel is 950 cubic yards. This could be provided by the pit
investigated, assuming it was used six days a week for nearly the
three years.57 The lime must have been mixed with sand somewhere,
but no doubt this was done on the spot, by the tunnel. A short life
would account for the absence of modifications, the relatively light
wear (and good condition), and the abandonment of the plant
thereafter.
This may indeed well be the true explanation, although much still
remains obscure. One may hope that parallels to this interesting
site will be found elsewhere, and more precise knowledge gained on
their purpose. Other limeworks were visited by Mr. Gravett, but
nothing like this site was seen. Perhaps one should look rather in
the neighbourhood of major construction works, such as bridges,
or canal and railway tunnels. It was no doubt merely a coincidence
that the Merstham tunnel was close to a limeworks, and, after all,
this site may indeed, for this reason, be unique.
SUMMARY
Two conjoined earth circles were investigated at Merstham
Limeworks. One was an artificial pond, the other a structure with
a circular brick floor round a space containing a central brick feature.
This is a plant of the lime industry, and may have been built for
the production of mortar or cement for the nearby railway tunnel,
about 1840. The small finds are in Guildford Museum.
A cknowledgements
I am most grateful to the owner and lessees for permission to investigate
this site. Several experts have given thought to the problems it raises, and
have answered questions. These are mentioned in the text, but I should like
to repeat my gratitude to them here. The paper, and the enquiry itself, also
owes a great deal to Mr. Gravett, who kindly read the draft and contributed
much. E.S.W.
55 Information from Mr. Tharby and Mr. Sanders.
56 Marshall, C. F. D., History of the Southern Railway (1936), 267-8. This is
not the tunnel shown in Fig. 1, but a little to the west.
57 This estimate is based on a straight tunnel of length 1 mile 71 yards and
horseshoe profile of span 22 ft. 6 in. and height 23 ft., lined throughout with
four rings of brickwork (Mr. Gravett's calculations) .
142 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
THE RECORDS OF MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS58
A PRELIMINARY NOTE
BY
MARGUERITE GOLLANCZ, M.A., County Archivist
The records formerly preserved at the Merstham limeworks and
since 1961 deposited in the Surrey Record Office at County Hall,
Kingston upon Thames, extend back in broken series to 1872.
Although these records have suffered considerably through damp
and only a few are at present available for study, these few are
important as illustration of the value of business archives to the
historian and to those interested in industrial archaeology.
By 1870 the Peters family had established an interest in the
operation of the limeworks which formed part of Lord Hylton's
estates in Merstham, for in that year Edwin Peters was qualified to
vote at parliamentary elections in respect of joint occupation of
limeworks and farm. Though he changed his abode in 1875, moving
first to Rochester and later to Maidstone, his name was retained on
the Merstham register. From 1885, however, the qualification for
Peters' vote was in respect of Quarry Dean. The name of Henry
Peters of Wouldham Hall, Rochester, Kent, replaced that of Edwin
Peters in 1888 and was followed in 1891 by Joseph (S.) Peters whose
abode was in Merstham, from 1896 to 1899 at the limeworks, then
at Quarry Dean.59
It is assumed at present that the bulk of the records relate to
the works of Peters Brothers, later Joseph S. Peters,60 lime-burners,
at Merstham, but a closer study may show that some of them
include business of the Peters family elsewhere. The considerable
business with Peters of Wouldham, Kent, Peters of 199 Old Kent
Road and Peters of Paddington requires investigation. It should
be noted in this connection that Henry Peters of Wouldham Hall
was party to the lease of 1890, 61 and that he qualified for inclusion
in the occupiers' section of the electoral roll for Merstham in respect
of Quarry Dean, as already shown. A small book, of later date,
containing transport rates for lime from Merstham and cement from
Snodland, in the Medway valley some miles south-west of Wouldham,
may also be significant.
The main series of pre- 1934 records includes journals (or day
books), of which unfortunately only that for the years 1872-6
survives, trade ledgers, ledgers, purchases and sales accounts and
wages books. There are also subsidiary cash books and a few less
formal records, including a small note book containing accounts
58 Surrey R.O.. Ace. 566 (ledgers, etc.), and Ace. 641 (deeds). All records
subsequent to 1933 are closed to searchers.
59 Surrey R.O., Voters Lists for Surrey, Middle, later Reigate Division,
1870-1905".
60 Cf. Kelly's Directory of Surrey, 1882, 1,246; 1891, 1,368.
61 See below, p. 145.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 143
for harness repair between 1890 and 1896, this notebook having
escaped the damp which has penetrated so many of the formal
records.
One of the earliest surviving records is the journal, a large leather-
bound volume of which only the first 270 of the 706 pages are used.
It opens with entries for 1 January 1872, and breaks off on 25 May
1876. The pages have been ruled and the printed headings include
name and residence; place of delivery; carman; yards lime, with
separate columns for grey, ground, chalk; cement; sand; coals;
and amounts paid. It provides a daily analysis of outward business,
mostly the sale of grey lime, though there are also some sales of
ground lime and chalk. Considerable use was made of the various
branches of the South-Eastern Railway. Indeed the rails and
sidings at the limeworks were extended between 1890 and 1899
as the plans annexed to the deeds of these dates show.62
Among other volumes available for study are the ledger, 1876-
84, and the Merstham trade ledger, 1885-9. The main part of
the former is useful as giving the names and addresses of customers
and the extent of their accounts. At the end of the volume, however,
there are special accounts, including those for rents ; rates, taxes and
tithes; horses; horse keep; plant; loose tools, etc.; and the South-
Eastern Railway. Debit and credit references to Peters Brothers
occur on most pages of this section of the ledger. For the types of
materials invoiced to the different customers and the destinations
to which materials were despatched it is necessary to turn to the
trade ledger. At the end of this volume, too, there is a section of
special interest, in this case a daily analysis of sales of different
materials, together with weekly, monthly and annual totals for the
five years 1885-9.
The journal and trade ledger show that grey and ground lime and
other materials were distributed throughout Kent; destinations in
Surrey included Nuffield, Redhill, Dorking, Kingston and Virginia
Water; in Berkshire, Wokingham and Reading. Except for nearby
deliveries much of the transport was by rail, over the various lines
of the South-Eastern net-work. The terminus at Bricklayers Arms
was used frequently, for the abbreviations 'B. Arms' and 'B.A.' recur
throughout the records in association with entries relating to Peters
of Old Kent Road and others. Among the few carmen then employed
was P. Wood who, in the years 1872-6, made trips to Nuffield,
Redhill and Reigate, Caterham and Chipstead.
Supplies were sent to gas companies, including the Wokingham
Gas Co., the Crystal Palace Co. at Sydenham, the Phoenix
and the South Metropolitan. Among customers at Caterham was
the asylum which received various types of materials and goods.
Godson and Co., who received supplies at Croydon, may probably
be identified with Richard Joseph Godson and Co., coal merchants
62 See pp. 126-8, Fig. 5; also plan of proposed connection between present
siding and London, Brighton and South Coast new line received by the
Engineer from Mr. Peters on 16 June 1899, and returned to him on
21 July 1899, Surrey R.O., Ace. 566.
144
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
Fig. 5.- — Plan Annexed to Deeds of Merstham Limeworks.
MERSTHAM LIMEWOKKS 145
and building material merchants of 55 George Street,63 and
A. Brooks, Kingston, with Mrs. Adelaide Brooks, lime and cement
merchant, of Clarence Street.64 In 1885, for example, she received
fortnightly 10 yards of grey lime at 7s. 6d. and once, on 26 February,
\\ of ground lime at 8s.6d. In 1889 F. Higgs (probably Frederick
Higgs, contractors, of Station Works, Camberwell)65 had materials
sent, for example, to Eltham and Norbiton, as well as to Marden
Park. These are a few random examples of business connections
that can be found in the records.
The wages book 1884-94 is made up of weekly accounts giving
the names of those employed at daily rates, followed by companies
paid for piece work. Wheelwrights and blacksmiths, paid 5s. 2d.
or 4s.8d. daily rate, and bricklayers, 4s.l0d. or 4s.6d., were dis-
tinguished from the rest. Usually only one in each of these two
classes was on the pay roll. With one exception they were paid
more than the other workers whose duties were unspecified and who
received between 4s.6d. and ls.3d. or occasionally lOd. A rate of
3s. 8d. was usual. One of those receiving this pay over a considerable
period was W. Chillman who sometimes received 6s. or 7s. a week
extra, on a piece-work rate, for clipping horses. The highest paid
worker was R. Atkins who headed the lists until January 1893,
with a daily wage of 7s. Id. He was not replaced. A six-day week
was general. The weekly wage bill varied considerably. For example,
for the week ending 10 October 1884, the total was £61 14s.0d., of
which £42 2s.8d. was divided between 14 companies for piece work,
and 17 day-rate workers. In the week ending 12 October 1888 the
number was 15. Between them they received £16 19s. Od. and
£31 3s. Hd. was paid for piece work.
Among the records which are the subject of this note there is no
deed earlier in date than that of 31 March 1890, by which Lord
Hylton leased to Joseph Stilwell Peters of the Welches, Bentley,
near Farnham, Hants, Esq., and Henry Peters of Wouldham Hall,
Esq., a workshop, 18 kilns, buildings, railways, spoil banks, works
and pieces or parcels of land known as the limeworks and containing
19 acres 1 rod and 36 perches included within the red verge on the
plan annexed to the lease, together with the messuage or farm house,
cottages and buildings thereon and all quarries and beds of chalk and
stone open or under the limeworks, with all yards, bridges, walls,
fences, water courses, etc., with authority to work and extend the
existing quarries of chalk and stone in an additional area, with the
proviso that chalk and stone within 50 yards of the hedge on the
south-east side of the new public road, up Shepherds Hill, was to be
left unworked. In this deed Joseph Peters was described as the
tenant. His lease was for two years from 25 March 1890, and was
then to continue from year to year until determined by either party
63 Kelly's Directory of Surrey, 1882, 1,128.
64 Ibid., 1,227.
65 Ibid., 1,051.
146 MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS
giving the other two years' notice in writing to terminate on any
25 March.
Among other conditions the tenant was to pay the lessor £300
yearly on quarter days, 3 per cent royalty on each cubic yard of
small chalk sold or carried away before being converted into lime,
5Jd. on each ton of dry or other chalk (except small chalk) sold or
carried away before being converted into lime, one shilling for
each ton of soft stone so sold, and 6d. for each ton of rough burrs.
There was also a special rent of £20 for any new kiln erected, unless
to replace one that had been pulled down. The tenant was also to
pay any land tax, all taxes, tithes and rent charges in lieu thereof.
He was to be responsible for the repair of all buildings, kilns, railways,
railway bridges, roads, walls, fences, drains, ditches and, without
the consent of the landlord, was not to convert into tillage or
otherwise break-up meadow or pasture. The landlord was to be
provided with lime of suitable quality at the lowest current selling
price for the repair of his buildings. In addition to the care of a
weighing machine or machines the tenant was to keep in some
convenient part of the premises regular books of accounts and to
enter accounts by weight or measure of chalk or stone liable to
royalty that was sold or carried away and the times and dates and
also particulars of waggons, carts and horses used. Copies of the
books of account were to be delivered to the landlord each quarter.
The schedule to the deed shows, in addition to over 16 acres of lime-
works and quarries, and a cottage, stable and other buildings, over
an acre of orchard and house and garden, these being part of Quarry
Dean.
In contrast to that of 1890 the lease of 13 December 1899 was
for 21 years, Joseph Stilwell Peters of Quarry Dean being described
as the lessee. He was still the lessee in 1904 when the lease was
modified, part of the main plot (195) being exempted from the
conditions of the lease under a 99-year agreement referred to in the
endorsement on the lease now described. The area as shown on the
annexed plan (Fig. 5) now covered 109 acres 1 rod and 12| perches
and included quarry farm with the limeworks, the farm house
known as Quarry Dean, 18 kilns, spoil banks, workshops, the upper
part of the cottage (No. 86) included in the earlier deed and all
railways belonging to Lord Hylton, the lessor. As in the earlier
lease there were provisions for extending the workings, to cover
repairs, payment of taxes, the keeping and submitting of accounts,
and good farming and husbandry. The lease was also subject to the
rights of the National Telephone Company to fix, inspect and repair
poles and wires, of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway
to enter certain fields to deposit spoil, and of the lessor, tenants and
others so authorised by him, with or without carts or waggons, to
drive cattle, sheep and other animals over the road from Joliffe
Row past Quarry Dean to Noddyshall cottages.
The yearly rent was increased to £430. The lessor was to be paid
2d. on each ton of lime manufactured in excess of 25,000 tons, 3d.
MERSTHAM LIMEWORKS 147
a cubic yard on small chalk sold or carried away and 5£d., Is. and
6d. respectively on dry chalk, soft stone and burrs, as in the earlier
lease. The schedule shows that 61-911 acres of the land was arable,
15-740 was pasture and the rest, 31-677 acres, included woodland and
buildings.
It is tempting to suggest that we owe the detailed records of the
business transactions of the Merstham limeworks that have survived
from 1872 to the provisions in these leases that accounts should be
prepared, and to similar provisions which may have been included
in an earlier agreement or agreements with members of the Peters'
family or their predecessors as lime-burners, and which have not
survived among the archives of the Merstham limeworks.
THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE
CROWHURST, SURREY
BY
R. W. McDOWALL, O.B.E., F.S.A.
CROWHURST is not mentioned in Domesday Book. The
earliest documentary reference to the church is in a taxation
return of 1291 when the church of St. George at Crowhurst was
taxed 100 shillings. Henry de Guldeford granted the advowson of
the church to the Prior and Convent of Tandridge and the appropria-
tion of the rectory is recorded in June 1304. A vicarage was not
however established until 1868. The priory was founded as a hospital
for three priests, and lay brethren. They maintained a house near
the church which has survived as a range of four tenements known
as Altar Cottages. The parish registers date from 1567.
The church consists of Chancel, Nave, South Aisle and South
Porch, and a timber Steeple. The south aisle was added towards the
end of the twelfth century. The original church, dedicated to
St. George, may have been built soon after the miraculous inter-
vention of St. George in aid of the Crusaders at Antioch in 1098.
The chancel was reconstructed with new lancet windows early in the
thirteenth century and the east end of it was again rebuilt in the
early fifteenth century. The timber steeple was also built in the
fifteenth century over the west end of the nave, but it had to be
completely rebuilt after a fire in 1947.
The parish register records that in 1652, on 20, 21 and 22 January,
part of the church was repaired 'which had lien in heaps a long time.'
It has been suggested that this was the repair of damage done in a
Civil War skirmish a few years previously and the finding of a
cannon ball in the yew tree in the churchyard supports this theory.
There is now no division between nave and chancel but when the
chancel arch was removed is not known. The east wall of the chancel
was decorated in 1882 in memory of the Third Earl of Cottenham by
his widow Theodosia Selina.
The Chancel. The rebuilding carried out in the early fifteenth century
is defined by a substantial plinth reaching six or seven feet along
the north and south walls, and by the use of larger squared stone
which contrasts with the smaller random masonry of the earlier
work. The east window, with perpendicular tracery, and the eastern
window in the south wall, with four lights in a square head, are of the
fifteenth century. The eastern window on the north side is of similar
size to that opposite, but of three lights only, and is of sixteenth-
century date. In the western part of the chancel are thirteenth-
century lancet windows, one to the north partly restored and one to
the south renewed after having been blocked. There are also traces
of former lancet windows further east.
148
THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE, CROWHURST, SURREY
149
The Nave has three windows to the north, a late fourteenth-century
window of two lights under a segmental head between two modern
lancets in thirteenth-century style. That to the east replaces a
window of two square-headed lights shown in a drawing by Hassell,1
dated 1823. Traces of the west jamb of this window remain on the
outside. A patch of rebuilding in the lower part of the wall suggests
a former north doorway and this is shown still surviving in a sketch
by Hassell, dated 1824. The original south-east corner of the nave
appears externally where the dressed stones of the corner remain in
the upper part of the wall. The archway to the south aisle was made
when the aisle was added at the end of the twelfth century. High up
in the wall to the east of the arch is a recess which may represent
access to a former rood-loft. Now only a single beam spans the
junction of nave and chancel. The doorway to the porch has a
pointed arch built below the lofty semicircular rear-arch of the
original doorway. The west window is of the fifteenth century and
12th century
i Late 12th c.
lEarlyBthc.
14th century
^ 15th
18th "
^^ 19th .■
20 30FF.ET
Fig. 1. — Plan.
part of the wall above it has been rebuilt, but the thickening in the
upper part of the wall reproduces an old feature evidently designed
to carry a bell-cote before the fifteenth-century steeple was built.
The South Aisle was presumably the chapel of the Holy Rood in
which John Harlynge, in his will of 1504, wished to be buried. In the
east wall is a window with an original late twelfth-century semi-
circular rear-arch springing from side shafts, with the remains of
carved leaf capitals, but the window itself is of the late fourteenth
century, with two lights and a tracery quatrefoil under a segmental
head. In the south wall is a window of one very small light with a
later trefoiled head. Two buttresses to the south wall were probably
added early in the eighteenth century.
1 A series of water-colour sketches by Hassell are bound into a copy of
Manning and Bray's History of the Antiquities of the County of Surrey (1814), in
the British Museum. All are dated in the eighteen twenties.
150
THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE, CROWHURST, SURREY
The South Porch is structurally a continu-
ation of the aisle. It is entered by a simple
pointed arch between two buttresses, that
to the west of the late eighteenth century,
that to the east probably added in the
restoration of 1852.
The Steeple is entirely modern, but two of
the timber posts on which it stands, to-
gether with a moulded beam against the
west wall, survive from the original struc-
ture. A measured drawing showing the
steeple was prepared in 1905 (Fig. 2). The
three old bells were all recast and a fourth
added after the fire of 1947.
The Roofs of the chancel and nave are
of simple trussed-rafter construction with
moulded wall-plates. Differences in the
mouldings between nave and chancel and
the slightly larger size of the timbers in the
nave suggest that the nave roof is the
earlier. The chancel roof was probably
erected in the early fifteenth-century
restoration
The Gainsford Family is commemorated
by several interesting monuments. The
first John Gainsford to acquire land in
Crowhurst was a Judge of the High Court
in the reign of Edward III; he married
Margery de la Poyle who brought him land
in Crowhurst, and he made several further
purchases of land in the parish between
1331 and 1348. In 1418 his grandson John
(III) acquired the manor and Crowhurst
Place. His son John (IV) sat in Parlia-
ment in 1430 as Knight of the Shire of
Surrey and died in 1450, leaving instruc-
tions that he should be buried in front of
the statue of St. George. His tomb is on
the north side of the chancel. His son
John (V) died in 1460 and is buried with
his wife Anne (Wakehurst) in the canopied
tomb on the south side of the chancel.
Their grandson John (VII) was knighted
and served as sheriff of the county and
was married six times. His third wife was
Anne Fiennes and a floor-slab now in the
south aisle bears a brass plate recording
that she was the daughter of Lord Dacre.
Fig. 2. — The Old Steeple, re-
drawn from a survey by E. E.
Bowden, dated 1905.
THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE, CROWHURST, SURREY 151
The title of Lord Dacre was granted to Sir Richard Fiennes in
1459 and passed to the family of Lennard on the death of
Gregory Fiennes in 1594. Anne had no children but his other wives
bore John twenty children. One of his grandchildren, Anne, married
William Forster and is commemorated by the remarkable cast-iron
slab in the chancel floor. Another grandchild, Erasmus, married
Johanna, daughter of the Richard Cholmley, who is commemorated
by a brass set in a slab in the floor of the chancel. The male line of
Gainsford of Crowhurst failed at the end of the seventeenth century
and the heiresses sold Crowhurst Place in 1724 to the first Duchess
of Marlborough.
There were two other branches of the Gainsford family in Surrey
and Nicholas Gainsford, commemorated on the north wall of the
nave, belonged to the Carshalton family.
The Gainsford Tombs. The tomb of John (IV) on the north side of the
chancel consists of a stone chest with panelled sides containing plain
shields within quatrefoils. Set in the forest marble top are three
brasses : a figure in full plate armour, a shield-of-arms of Gainsford
quartering de la Poyle, and an inscription plate. Above the tomb a
length of timber cornice, moulded and embattled, is fixed to the sill of
the window. The tomb of John (V) opposite has a similar chest set
under an arched canopy. The arch is decorated with the Gainsford
badge of a grapnel, and various grotesques, including human faces
surrounded by grapes and by leaves, suggesting the wild man of the
woods (the woodhouse) and other rural superstitions. The shields of
the tomb-chest are carved with the arms of Gainsford, Gainsford
quartering de la Poyle, and Wakehurst. On the top of the tomb-chest
are brasses. The inscription plate records John's death on the feast of
the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr 1460. A shield bears the
arms of Gainsford quartering de la Poyle impaling Fiennes quartering
Dacre, showing that this shield belongs to the floor-slab of Anne
Gainsford in the south aisle. The main brass shows a figure in plate
armour but with no helmet. The armour is of gothic character in
contrast with the Italianate armour of John (IV). John (V) has a
gusset of chain mail at the right armpit where the plate leaves room
for the lance to be held. There is a further gusset of chain between
the tassets which cover the thighs. The lowest plate of each tasset is
unusual in being attached with a buckle. John (IV) has a reinforced
breast plate with no allowance for the lance and instead of tassets a
full skirt which, on horseback, would necessitate the use of a special
high saddle, the skirt making a seat on an ordinary saddle impossible.
The floor-slab of Anne has a broken inscription plate. For a long
time half this plate was missing but it was replaced c. 1961. There
are indents for two shields, one of which is now fixed to the tomb of
John Gainsford (V).
The iron floor-slab to Anne Forster has some of the letters reversed.
As well as the inscription, there is a figure enveloped in a shroud
between panels showing Anne's two sons under the initials WR and
152 THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE, CROWHURST, SURREY
her five daughters ; there are also shields-of-arms of Gainsford and of
Forster. Duplicates of this casting have been used as firebacks, one
being recorded as far away as Norfolk (Gentleman s Magazine for
December 1788).
The monuments to Nicholas Gainsford and his wife are of painted
canvas, like miniature hatchments. Hassell's drawings show that the
church formerly contained a number of hatchments now destroyed.
The Angell Monuments. The Angells came to Crowhurst early in the
seventeenth century and occupied the Mansion House standing
across the road from the church. In the chancel are two fine black
marble floor-slabs. One is to John Angell, died 1670, who was
'caterer' at Windsor Castle to James I, Charles I and II, with a
shield-of-arms of Angell impaling Edolph. The other is to William
Angell, died 1674, the son of John, with achievement-of-arms of
Angell impaling Gosson. On the south wall of the chancel is a
monument with side scrolls and broken pediment to Justinian, fifth
son of John; he died 1680. On the north wall is a monument with
flanking columns and broken scrolled pediment to Thomasina,
daughter of John Angell and wife of Richard Marryott.
Other Monuments. A table-tomb on the north side of the chancel,
with cusped panelled chest and a canopy, has no inscription or other
means of identification (fifteenth-century). In the nave is a wall-
tablet to Margaret Donovan, 1826, and James Donovan, 1831, of
Chellows Park.
Glass. In the tracery of the east window are fragments of fifteenth-
century glass, including three angels whose appearance was probably
inspired by the feathered costumes worn for miracle plays, and a
figure of the Virgin from an Annunciation scene. Fragments of
heraldic glass of the sixteenth century remain in the main lights of
the east window and in the middle window on the north side of the
nave.
Pulpit. The pulpit drawn by Hassell has disappeared and the present
pulpit is made of sixteenth-century panelling, probably of secular
origin.
The Font has a not very elegant bowl, square at the bottom, brought
to an octagonal top by broached corners and standing on an
octagonal drum and four smaller shafts. It is probably of the
thirteenth century.
The Stoup, in the east wall of the porch, is a broken medieval
fragment, recently uncovered.
The old door with medieval ironwork, mentioned in earlier
descriptions of the church, has been replaced by a modern door.
THE CHURCH OF ST. GEORGE, CROWHURST, SURREY 153
The Churchyard contains several old head-stones near the east end of
the church, conspicuous for their great thickness. Most are probably
of the late seventeenth century but the earliest legible date is 1709.
Table-tombs include two good late eighteenth-century tombs with
moulded ends, and others enclosed by cast-iron grilles with phoenix
standards. Memorials consisting of wooden boards between posts
at the ends of the grave are of nineteenth-century dates. Two
monuments of similar design, but made of stone, are of 1743 and 1753,
and a third is dated 1900.
The yew tree near the east end of the church is of remarkable
size. The hollowed trunk was fitted with seats early in the nineteenth
century. The seats and a doorway into the tree are shown in
Hassell's drawings.
Sources : —
Reg. John de Pontissara I in Cant, and York Soc. XIX, 168.
Taxatio of Pope Nicholas IV (Record Commission), 208.
Gaynsford Cartulary, Brit. Mus. Harleian MS., 392.
An Heraldic Book, written and tricked by Mr. Richard Mundy. Brit. Mus.
Harleian MS., 1561.
O. Manning and W. Bray, The History and Antiquities of the County of Surrey
(1814).
Somerset House Wills. P.C.C. 12 Rous, 12 Alenger, 27 Holgrave.
Unpublished notes by R. N. Gillespie in possession of the Vicar of Crowhurst.
THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, LIMPSFIELD
SURREY
BY
KAY PERCY
HIGH above the road at the north end of the village of
Limpsfield stands the Church of St. Peter. Built of ironstone
and sandstone rubble, roofed part tile and part Horsham
stone, with a squat shingled tower, it sits serenely above the ancient
stone wall which borders the High Street (Plates 1(a) and (b)). A
flight of stone steps and an ironstone path take the visitor through
the lychgate, probably ancient, though much restored in 1891, to
the sixteenth-century south porch, where one enters the church.
The first record of a church in Limpsfield is in the Domesday
Survey of 1086. Nothing remains of this church; it may have been
of timber, but most probably it was built of local stone, for Domesday
Book records two stone quarries in the manor.1 The church and
manor, once belonging to King Harold, were given by William I to
the Abbey of Battle as part of William's thank-offering for his
victory.2 The Abbey, however, did not appropriate the living as
happened in so many manors. This meant that the Abbey appointed
the rector but the tithes and offerings remained the property of the
incumbent.
The oldest remaining part of the present church is the tower
c. 1180. This twelfth-century church consisted of a chancel, nave
and tower placed, unusually, to the south of the chancel. The nave
has never been completely rebuilt, but all four walls are pierced by
later work and nothing of its original character remains.
The CHANCEL (Plan and Plates 11(a) and 111(a)) was rebuilt
and probably lengthened to the east in the first quarter of the
thirteenth century; the east part of the south wall butts against the
tower but is not bonded into it. The three lancets in the east wall
are modern reconstructions of the original windows, which had
been replaced by a single window of three lights in the early six-
teenth century.3 When the church was 'restored' in 1871-2 the
whole of the upper part of the east wall was rebuilt and the sills
and outer jambs of the original windows were discovered in situ.
Below the window the remains of a stone reredos, probably of the
fifteenth century, were found but these have not been preserved.
1 Domesdav Book, f. 34a, col. 1.
2 Lowther, M. A., The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (1851), 26, and British
Museum Cotton Charter, XVI, 28.
3 Evidence from wills of 1536. Surrey Archdeaconry Court. Pykman, f. 194.
Mychell, f. 153.
154
THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, LIMPSFIELD, SURREY 155
Behind the present Communion Table there is a cupboard, rebated
to take a door, perhaps intended for some sacred relic. South of this
is a second recess measuring 22 by 18 \ inches and 16 inches in depth
which has a flue, 6 inches in diameter, built into the top. So much of
the wall has been rebuilt that there is now no exit for the flue, but
there is no doubt that it was an oven for baking the communion
bread or Hosts. This task, both before and after the Reformation,
was carried out with due reverence and ritual in a place set aside for
it.4 This is a comparatively rare survival, only four others being
ma. • ■<-.
(MUD 13 lh century
15 lh century
16 th ce.ntury
l.'-X-.l I9fel
(Scale: approximately 24 ft. to 1 inch.)
Plan of Limpsfield Church.
recorded in Surrey. Low down at the east end of the south wall is a
narrow window with wide splays which lights the area in front of the
oven and it seems probable that it was so placed for this purpose.
In the south wall also is a piscina with a simple chamfered two-
centred head and a second recess, probably a sedile or priest's seat,
of similar shape. The original purpose of the third recess with
segmental head is not known, although between 1823 and 1872 it was
used as a door to a vestry, built in the angle between the tower and
chancel.5
The two widely splayed lancets above the moulded string-course
have external glass rebates and showed, until recent years, remains
of simple painted stone- jointing and rosettes dated c. 1230 on the
4 Crawley, J. M., and Bloxam, R. N., 'Church Wafer Ovens,' The Amateur
Historian, VII (1967), No. 5.
s Limpsfield Parish Register, No. VI, pp. 137, 160.
156 THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, LIMPSFIELD, SURREY
internal splays.6 The present modern glass of SS. Peter and Andrew-
is the work of Mr. F. Powell in memory of Canon Edward Rhys-
Jones, 1870-1900. The west part of the south wall is formed by the
tower in which there is a plain flat-soffited arch of the twelfth
century. The chancel arch of thirteenth-century form was con-
siderably raised in 1851.7
The north wall has a doorway and an arcade of two bays opening
to the Gresham Chapel. These are all of the thirteenth century but
the circular pier between the arches has a modern capital.
The GRESHAM CHAPEL, north of the chancel, takes its
present name from the Gresham family who acquired the manor
of Limpsfield and the advowson of the church in 1538.8 It was built
towards the middle of the thirteenth century, perhaps bv Ralph,
who was Abbot of Battle from 1235 to 1260 and it was, presumably,
the Lady Chapel referred to in the will of Alys Bysset 1488.9
The three modern lancets in thirteenth-century style in the east
wall replace a fourteenth-century window of three lights. In the
north wall is a fifteenth-century window of two lights, containing
fragments of sixteenth-century glass under a square head, and
further west is an original lancet heavily restored. Towards the east
end one jamb of a blocked doorway remains.
The little spray of sculptured foliage set in the east wall is of
uncertain date but probably fourteenth-century. There is also a
rectangular recess rebated for a door. In the wall, south of the present
organ arch, remains of a doorhead can be seen which apparently led
diagonally through the wall to the blocked doorway in the nave,
north of the chancel arch.
The NAVE (Plates 11(a) and (b)) retains its original twelfth-
century size. To the north is an arcade of three arches built in 1851
when the north aisle was added. The south arcade was pierced
through the twelfth-century wall in the first half of the thirteenth
century when the narrow south aisle was built. Above this arcade,
at the east end of the south wall, is a blocked doorway with rebated
jambs which once led to the rood-loft mentioned as 'newe' in the
will of 1488. The west window is modern, replacing a fifteenth-
century window of five lights; it was inserted sometime between
1828 and 1851, possibly when the extension of the west gallery
which ran along the west end of the north wall was removed. The
west gallery itself was finally removed in 1871.10
The SOUTH AISLE arcade is of three bays with circular
columns and half round responds, all with moulded capitals and
bases. There is a modern (1851) west window of two lights replacing
a single light. The west wall of the tower, within the aisle, shows the
6 Johnston, P. M., Surrey Arch&ological Collections, 'Low side windows in
Surrey churches,' XIV (1899), 104.
7 Limpsfield Parish File. Incorporated Church Building Society, 7 Queen
Anne's Gate, S.W.I.
8 Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, II, 191.
9 Surrey Archdeaconry, Ct. Spage 284. Surrey Record Society, XVII, 82.
10 Limpsfield Parish Register, No. VI, p. 159.
THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, LIMPSFIELD, SURREY 157
thirteenth-century roof line well below the present roof. The aisle
roof was raised probably in the fifteenth century when the present
square-headed window of two lights was inserted. Remains of an
earlier window can be seen beneath this window in the outside wall.
The TOWER (Plates 1(a) and (b)), built in the late twelfth
century, has small windows to the belfry, each of two lights with
modern heads. In the north wall a plain archway of a single two-
centred order springing from chamfered imposts communicates with
the chancel. In the east wall is the arch of a blocked fifteenth-
century window and above it, spanning the full width of the tower,
a second arch which may have covered a recess for the altar which
once stood here; a piscina in the south wall is evidence that the
tower was used as a chapel, probably the chapel of St. Katherine
referred to in wills. In the west wall there is a thirteenth-century
arch with boldly moulded capitals to the responds; there are
indications of a former screen between tower and south aisle.
The modern NORTH AISLE has three two-light windows in the
north wall and a three-light window in the west wall; at the east
end, next to the Gresham Chapel, is a doorway. Below the west
window is the board mentioned bv Aubrey in the early eighteenth
century,11 listing the benefactors of the parish. The modern organ,
which is built above the newly formed arch between north aisle and
chapel, is the fourth organ at St. Peter's. The first was subscribed
for in 1822, 'in consequence of the Church Singers having left off
singing'12 and erected in the west gallery. In 1872 Arthur Leveson
Gower, Esq., presented an organ which was erected in the chancel;
this was replaced in 1948 by a Compton Electronic Organ. The
present organ was given in memory of R. H. Aisher in 1963.
The trussed-rafter roof of the Gresham Chapel may be original, of
the thirteenth century; the chancel roof, now boarded, is of the
same period, though some timbers have been renewed. The nave roof
of lower pitch is a good example of cradle form. The south aisle has a
fifteenth-century lean-to roof.
The FONT is thirteenth centurv but has been recut. It consists
of a simple square stone hollowed with a circular basin. This is
supported on a fluted pillar, probably part of the original font recut
in Jacobean times, but the four corner shafts and base were renewed
in 1871-2.13
The PULPIT (Plate 111(b)), once much taller with a sounding
board and clerk's seat,14 was the gift of Samuel Savage, Esq., in
1764. It was cut down and now stands on a stone base. The
CHURCH PLATE includes nine pieces of silver and silver gilt
also given by Mr. Savage in 1765, and a silver gilt cup and paten of
11 Aubrev, John, Natural History and Antiquities of Surrey, III (1710). 8.
12 Vestrv' Minute Book. 1822-26. Parish Clerk's Office, Limpsfield.
13 Limpsfield Parish Register, No. VI, p. 160.
14 See Plates. Manning and Bray, History and Topography of Surrey, XI,
contains a series of water colours by J. Hassell painted between 1821-1828.
British Museum North Library, Press Mark Crack 1, tab. 1, b. 1.
15S THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, L1MPSFIELD, SURREY
1888 in memory of Mary, the wife of the Rector, Edward Rhys-
Jones.
Until 1877 there were only four BELLS, but in that year two
were recast and two more added. The six bells bear the following
inscriptions: —
No. 1 D Cast by J. Warner & Sons 1877 and weighing 594 lbs.
'Fiat voluntas tua.' E. Atkinson ( n, , ,,, ,
p-,- Churchwardens
R. Ridley Clerk.
No. 2 C Cast by J. Warner & Sons 1877 and weighing 684 lbs.
'To the Glory of God.'
No. 3 B 'Sancta Margareta Ora Pro Nobis' T.H.
This is an ancient bell probably made by Thomas Hillman, a bell
founder of Canterbury between 1350 and 1400.
No. 4 A 'Bryan Eldridge made mee 1619,' weighing 964 lbs.
The inscription has a heart between each word. Bryan Eldridge
was a well-known founder of Surrey and Sussex bells.
No. 5 C 'In multis annis Resonet Compana Johannis,'
weighing 1,456 lbs. It was recast in 1877; the
original was probably a fourteenth-century bell.
No. 6 F 'Sum Rosa Pulsata Mundi Maria Yocate,' weighing
1,626 lbs. A large bell recast in 1877 by John
Warner, from the original which was thought to
date from c. 1500.
The bells were last tuned and rehung by Gillet & Johnston in 1948.
The CHURCHYARD, enlarged in 1862, 1893 and 1934, is the
resting place of several notable people, including Florence Barclay
the authoress and Frederick Delius the composer. Near to the south
porch are some good early eighteenth-century grave stones bearing
names of families still living in the village.
The registers are very well preserved; they run from 1539 to the
present day with few gaps; the earliest register was transcribed in
1600. They are deposited in the County Record Office at Kingston
upon Thames. Those up to 1837 have recently been transcribed and
typed copies are kept at the Rectory.
I am indebted to Mr. R. W. McDowall, M.A., F.S.A., for his kindness in
advising me on architectural detail and the presentation of this description.
THE CHURCH OF ST. PETER, LIMPSFIELI), SURREY
159
LIST OF KNOWN RECTORS
Roger le Bran
1296
Edmund Knight
1546
Nicholas de Taunton
1333
John Huntley
1554
William Goffe
1335
John Wilson
1555
Roger de Leighton
1336
William Danby
1556
Walter de Merstham
1347
Thomas Bell
1572
John Ketteryngham
1378
John Rhodes
1597
John Ireland
1378
Patrick Balfour
1617
John Flamstede
1394
John Lorkin
1618
John Wodehall
1394
Edward Lorkin
1655
Thomas Roke, LL.B.
1398
John Campion
1688
REGISTER 1415/1446 lost.
William Walker
1700
John Ingryth
1450
John Holman
1728
Gilbert Emworth
1450
George Lewis Jones
1757
John Hasard
1459
William Steed
1775
William Polman or Portman
1459
Legh Hoskins Master
1781
Robert More
1461
Robert Mayne
1806
William George
1473
Thomas Walpole
1842
John Shadewell
1481
James Haldane Stewart
1846
John Wyld
1481
Charles Baring
1855
Thomas Poyner
1481
Samuel Charlsworth
1857
Thomas Bowman
1487
Edward Rhys-Jones
1870
REGISTER 1492/1500 lost.
Ernest Morrel Blackie
1900
John Wallysh*
1488
Gerald Gurney Richards
1906
John Goodwyn*
1517
Charles Sterr
1928
Roger Wylkynson*
1521
Paul R. Wansey
1951
Stephen Sythwarren
1534
* Traced through Surrey Archdeaconry Wills.
NOTES
Mesolithic Flint Axe from Woking. — The axe illustrated in Fig. 1.4 was
found in May 1957 in the old Jackman's Nursery1 by Mr. Lucas of Edgley
Road, Woking, who has presented it to the Guildford Museum.2
The axe is of mottled grey unpatinated flint. One face has been dressed
fairly flat and the other has a median ridge formed by the removal of a few
large flakes. The cutting edge, which is of tranchet type, has been chipped,
no doubt by subsequent use.
The find spot is about a quarter mile from the Hoe Stream, a tributary
of the River Wey, on the Lower Bagshot Sand.
E. E. Harrison.
Mesolithic Flint Axe found at Thursley. — A flint axe (Fig. 1.1) was found
many years ago in a garden at Pitch Place, Thursley,3 by a relative of the
present owner, Mr. Gale, who kindly loaned it to Guildford Museum for
recording.
The implement should probably be classed as an adze rather than an axe,
since the weight is unevenly distributed on either side of the cutting edge.
It is of grey flint, and has what appears to be a natural round hollow in the
humped side (not figured) about five-eighths of an inch in diameter, and the
same distance from the cutting edge.
F. W. HOLLING.
Flint Axe from Frimley. — The axe illustrated in Fig. 1.3 was found in the
Frimley Gravel Pit4 in May 1962 by Mr. G. H. Rickwood of Frimley, who has
deposited it on loan in the Guildford Museum.5
The implement is of reddish-brown unpatinated flint with patches of rough
cherty material. It is worked over the entire surface and the cutting edge is
produced by the intersection of several small flake-beds parallel to the axis.
There are no traces of polishing. The implement has a pointed oval section
and the butt end has an unusual waisted profile.
The find-spot is situated on the west side of the Chobham Ridges where
the ground begins to slope gently westwards toward the River Blackwater.
The site, which is on the Upper Bagshot Beds, is in a region of light heathy
vegetation such as was favoured by Mesolithic man, although in point of
fact Rankine lists no Mesolithic material from the immediate vicinity.6
In the absence of associated finds the implement must be dated by typo-
logical criteria. It lacks the tranchet edge and the thick angular section of
the typical Mesolithic axe, but the rather irregular outline and the coarse
flaking suggest that it is Mesolithic rather than Neolithic.
E. E. Harrison.
Neolithic Axe Found at Shamley Green, Wonersh. — A large flint axe
(Fig. 1.2), very finely flaked on both sides, was found about 1954 in a field at
Lordshill, Shamley Green.7 The axe is 7£ inches long, patinated a light olive-
brown, and is virtually undamaged. It is in the possession of Mr. W. C.
Banting, of Westland Farm, Lordshill, Shamley Green, who kindly loaned it
for drawing.
F. W. Holling.
1 N.G.R. SU 99625697.
2 Catalogue number RB 1781.
3 N.G.R. SU 891391.
4 N.G.R. SU 904590.
5 Receipt number TRB 996.
6 Rankine, W. F., The Mesolithic of Southern England. Research Paper
No. 4, Surrey A.S. (1956), 19 et seq.
7 N.G.R. 027433.
160
NOTES
161
Fig. 1. — Flint Axes from Thursley (1), Shamley Green (2), Frimley (3),
and Woking (4). (£)
162 NOTES
Pottery from Chessington. — In September 1963, in response to a call from
a member of the Surbiton and District Historical Society, the writer and
Mr. Creese, of the above Society, visited the site of the British Legion Hall at
Church Fields, Chessington.1 The site lies on a knoll of the Claygate Beds.
From the spoil of foundation trenches pottery sherds ranging in date from the
Pre- Roman Iron Age to the nineteenth century were recovered. Unfortunately,
concrete had already been placed in the trenches and nothing could be seen
in them.
r
3 ^ 4
Fig. 2.— Iron Age Pottery from Chessington. (£)
Some seventeen sherds of Iron Age pottery were found (including the three
rims here illustrated, l*ig. 2). The bulk are small scraps of body sherd, all very
much abraded. The ware is mainly of two types: — -
(i) A coarse hard sand and flint-grit filled ware with brown or red surfaces.
(ii) A finer, softer, grey or brown ware, shell-filled, now largely vesicular,
with brown, reddish-brown, or black surfaces bearing traces of a light
burnish.
Only four sherds are worthy of note: —
1. A flat-topped rim in hard coarse grey ware with profuse sand filling
and light brown surfaces.
This sherd is slightly unusual in having two shallow finger-tip im-
pressions on the internal edge of the rim, a feature which is paralleled
at Hawk's Hill,2 Longdown Lane,3 and Coombe Hill.4
2. A short simple rim in soft grey ware, shell-filled with reddish-brown
interior, and brown exterior, surfaces. Both surfaces are smoothed,
the exterior one having a light burnish.
3. An out-turned rim in hard grey ware with profuse sand filling and
reddish-brown surfaces.
4. A shoulder fragment in soft grey ware, shell-filled, with reddish-brown
interior, and black burnished exterior surfaces.
1 N.G.R. TQ 18486357.
2 Cunliffe, B., in Hastings, F., 'Excavation of an Iron Age Farmstead at
Hawk's Hill, Leatherhead,' Surrey A.C., LXII (1965), 1-43, Fig. 10, Pit. 9, I.
3 Frere, S. S., 'An Iron Age Site near Epsom,' A. J., XXII (1942), 123-38.
Fig. 3.
4 Unpublished. Kingston upon Thames Museum. Ace. No. 1091 A.
NOTES 163
The rim forms are common on Surrey Iron Age sites and the assemblage
may be paralleled particularly with Hawk's Hill.
There were also some eleven sherds of very hard coarse, sand-filled, grey
or brown ware with brown or black surfaces, of medieval date.
Nine sherds of post-medieval glazed wares, all of seventeenth-eighteenth
century date, were also recovered, along with nineteenth-century 'china.'
These sherds have little archaeological significance, but it was felt that it
was time for them to be placed on record. The abraded nature of the Iron
Age and Medieval sherds tends to indicate field scatter, but the number of
Iron Age sherds concentrated in such a confined area may be indicative of
some occupation in the immediate locality.
The material is held by the Surbiton and District Historical Society.
M. W. Bishop.
Two Unrecorded Earthworks. — Two apparently unrecorded earthworks
of medieval or later date have been discovered within a mile of Botley Hill,
near the North Downs scarp. Both are in dense thicket. The Ordnance
Survey have been informed and have carried out surveys of both features.
A third small earthwork, previously recorded1 but undated, is close by in
Coldharbour Beeches. The sherds recovered from the two former sites have
been deposited at Castle Arch, Guildford.
Kitchen Grove, Titsey Parish
This earthwork which lies to the north of Cheverells Farm, in the southern
half of Kitchen Grove, centres on TQ 39555675. It consists primarily of two
banks which almost meet at the southern end of Kitchen Grove but diverge
northward into the wood, until approximately 300 feet from the southern
end of the wood they are 120 feet apart. Connecting these two banks trans-
versely run two other banks and a ditch, forming in effect three enclosures,
the largest being the most southerly. There are occasional breaks which may
represent entrances.
One can only conjecture about the function of these enclosures without
excavation, but there is some evidence of the date. Thirteen unglazed medieval
sherds of sandy/gritty fabric have been collected from the surface within the
earthwork. The sherds include two rim fragments — one upright with a squared
rim, the other also with a flat top but curving into the wall beneath. The top
of the latter has a wavy line incised. Also included among these sherds is a
pitcher handle of round section with knife slashes on the upper side. The
interior of the vessel shows three stab marks penetrating into the handle.
Another sherd has a thumbed strip applied vertically. All of these sherds
could have come from one of the Limpsfield kilns — identical handles to the
one described have been recovered from Scearn Bank and dated to the
thirteenth century.
Hell Shaw, Limpsfield Parish
This earthwork which lies in Hell Shaw, north of Woldingham Road, is of
simpler form than the Kitchen Grove earthwork, being roughly in the shape of
a parallelogram. It centres on TQ 39135499, and is delineated by a ditch with
internal bank on all sides. The long sides, roughly 250 feet long, run north-
north-west. The vertical height from the base of the ditch to the top of the
bank varies around 3 feet. A small disused chalk pit cuts into the northern
ditch and another is just inside the north bank. An old field bank runs the
length of Hell Shaw to the east of the enclosure and finishes at the eastern
ditch.
Four medieval sherds have been recovered from the surface inside the
enclosure, including two rim fragments with flat tops and curving into the
wall beneath, identical to those from Kitchen Grove, and one thin fragment
showing five impressed or punched dots.
M. E. Farley.
1 TQ 406557. Congress of Archaeological Societies, Earthworks Committee
Report, 1919, p. 10. P. Croydon N.H.S., IX (1925), 60.
164 NOTES
Romano -British Pit at High Billinghurst, Dunsfold, containing
Iron Ore. — The excavation of a Romano-British pit at this site1 was reported
previously.- In March 1966 another pit was disclosed by ploughing in the
field adjoining the ditch, at a point about twenty yards west of the first one.
The new pit was irregular in shape, with maximum dimensions of approximate-
ly 5 feet by 4 feet and 2 feet 6 inches deep. There was no stratification, and
other than the finds described below the pit contained only a thin deposit
of ash at one end, some tiny scraps of bone, and remains of several ox teeth,
mostly in fragmentary condition. The material is in Guildford Museum.
The Pottery. This is not figured, since it is mainly very similar to that from
the first pit, and the exceptions are sherds too small to warrant illustration.
As before, the effect of the wet Weald clay filling the pit has been to destroy
the original surface and also to obliterate the signs of wheel manufacture, if
any, on many of the pots.
The number of pots represented exceeds twenty. Most are sandy, a few
calcite-gritted. At least nine were bead-rimmed jars of varying size: five of
the smaller ones were black and retained signs of burnishing or semi-burnishing,
which may not have extended below the shoulder. There was only one
cordoned jar, clearly wheel-made, and this had zigzag ornament on the
shoulder very similar to a sherd from the other pit.3 Another small, thin-walled
jar was of the same general form but had no cordon, and the shoulder was
slightly concave, giving a sharply angular carination. No Patch Grove ware-
was present, but a few sherds of finer fabric contrasted with the remainder,
and with all the pottery found in the previous pit. These consisted of rim
sherds from two vessels, presumably of butt-beaker form, in a fine light brown
sandy fabric, and one hard, light red sherd which might come from a pseudo-
Samian form 30.
Stone. A quartz pebble 3£ inches long, with a rounded nose; has a small
polished area near the tip, and was evidently used for burnishing.
Bog Iron Ore. A feature of this pit, unlike the other, was the presence
of a large number of dark reddish-brown lumps of clayey material. Samples
were analysed at the Iron and Steel Institute through the courtesy of
Mr. Henry Cleere, who reported that it was typical bog iron ore, a surface
concretion not confined to the Weald clay in its occurrence, but in this case
having the characteristically high manganese content of bog ore from the
Weald.
Quantities of this ore were found by S. E. Winbolt in 1934 in association
with an Iron Age hearth at Kirdford, Sussex,4 and more recently its use as a
source of iron is discussed in a paper on iron ore workings in the western
Weald.5 There is no definite evidence at High Billinghurst, but a few small
pieces of iron cinder or slag were seen on a track through the rough woodland
behind the ditch in 1965, and it would seem possible that small-scale smelting
for domestic consumption was carried on at this site. The main area of
occupation is presumed to lie in this woodland, which should be worth exam-
ination when the site is eventually cleared.
F. W. Holling.
Roman Coin from Sutton. — In 1956, Mr. B. H. Maddock, when removing
turf from a garage site at 105, Upland Road, Sutton,6 found a worn Roman
coin. The find was reported to the Ordnance Survey by his brother, Mr. O. R.
Maddock. It is recorded on O.S. Record Sheet, Surrey 13 S.E., as Site 26.
At the time the coin was identified as an as of Marcus Aurelius.
Although the coin is genuine, more recent enquiries have established that
it is unlikely that it was an ancient loss. The coin is now owned by Paul
Maddock (aged 13), the son of the finder, who produced it for examination,
1 Nat. Grid. Ref. TQ 023368.
2 Surrey A.C., LXIII (1966), 171.
3 Op. tit., 172, Fig. 4, No. 9.
4 Sussex A.C., LXXVII (1936), 246.
5 Worssam, B. C, Proc. Geologists Assocn., LXXV, Pt. 4 (1964), 530.
6 N.G.R. TQ 268635.
NOTES 165
but who produced also four other 'Roman' coins, all of which, he said, came
from a collection started by his grandparents, who built the house which has
been occupied by the family since.
The five coins concerned, i.e. the 'find' and the four others, were submitted
to Dr. J. P. C. Kent, who identified them as follows: —
1. (TheFind.) A coin of Marcus Aurelius (a. d. 161-180). Minted at Caesarea
in Palestine. Being from an eastern mint, it could not definitely be
described as an as.
2. A coin of Elogabalus (a.d. 218-222). Minted at Antioch.
3. A coin of Numerian (a.d. 283-284) dementia temp. Minted at Antioch.
4. A coin of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138). A copper drachma of Alexandria.
5. A coin of Maurice Tiberius (a.d. 582-602). Byzantine 40 minimi. Minted
at Antioch.
Coins from eastern mints have been found in quantity in seaports such as
Reculver and Burgh Castle, but Dr. Kent thought it 'extremely unlikely'
that the find was an ancient loss.
It seemed probable that the coin of Marcus Aurelius was originally in the
Maddock family collection, that it was lost by the grandparents and innocently
found by their son. The new evidence was accordingly submitted to the
Ordnance Survey through Mr. C. W. Phillips, who made the original record
but who was, of course, not aware of the existence of the family collection
or that it included coins of this type. The Survey immediately agreed that it
was probably not an ancient loss and undertook to amend fheir records
accordingly.
A. S. Gilbert.
The Early Foundations of St. Mary's Church, Guildford. — At the
invitation of the Rector, the Rev. M. Hocking, an examination was made
between November 1966 and January 1967 of several features in the church.
This was made possible by the removal of the old flooring for major restora-
tions which involve reflooring with York stone paving laid on concrete.
The object of the investigations was chiefly to locate the foundations of the
original north and south aisles, which were narrower than at present, and to
search for any other signs of early foundations. The results summarised below
supplement and correct the information given in the paper on St. Mary's
by J. H. Parker,1 which is illustrated from drawings made by Goodchild, the
architect of the extensive nineteenth-century restorations.
The Original Aisles. Parker suggests that a nave with narrow lean-to aisles
was built on to the west side of the tower in the later twelfth century, and that
there was no earlier structure on this side which it replaced. He dates the nave
arches to the time of Henry II, or about a.d. 1160, and the widening of the
aisles to their present extent to Henry Ill's reign, the north aisle about 1230
and the south about 1250. A footnote states that part of the original north
aisle wall was actually seen by Goodchild. The plan reproduced from his
drawings bears no scale, but from the dimensions of the church itself the scale
is approximately fifteen feet to the inch. On this scale the original aisle walls
are shown six feet from the pillars of the nave on both sides.
A trench was dug (Fig. 3) to locate the original south aisle wall which
Goodchild was not stated to have seen. There was no trace of it in the area
trenched, which was between four and eight feet from the west wall of the
church, and it became apparent that burials of various periods, especially
the construction of brick vaults, had probably resulted in its almost complete
removal. A small section was found to survive at its junction with the west
wall (Fig. 3), and it was then discovered that its position on the Goodchild
plan is incorrect, the distance from the inner side of the aisle wall to the line
of the pillars being 8 ft. 6 in. and not six feet as shown. The wall was
2 ft. 2 in. wide. The position of the aisle wall is in fact indicated by a line of
chalk jointing blocks in the west wall, revealed by removal of the old plaster;
1 Arch. J., XXIX (1872), 170-80.
166
NOTES
these continue below the floor level, where they key in with the surviving
wall footing.
In the west wall of the north aisle a similar arrangement of blocks showed
that the position of the original aisle wall on this side was also given
incorrectly on the plan: the width of this aisle was eight feet, and not six as
shown. Almost certainly the wall itself will have been completely destroyed
in the installation of the old central heating system.
It was impossible to check the width of the original south aisle at its eastern
end because a large brick vault extended across the line of the south wall.
In the north ais4e, the area close to the transept wall at the eastern end was
undisturbed, but here solid chalk was only six inches below the floor surface,
so that no other foundation was necessary. There was, however, a step-like
Trodden chntk
or plaster
,5 Feet
////////////////////
Original
Aisle
Wall
West end ol South ti:
''?//////////////////////////////////// V///S7777777
ST. MARY'S. GUILDFORD. Excavations at west end of South Aisle- Oct . 1966
Fig. 3. — St. Mary's, Guildford : Plan of Trench Dug to Locate
Original South Aisle and Nave Foundations.
rise of an inch in the level of the chalk on the projected line of the wall's outer
face. About three feet from the transept the chalk had been excavated for
the insertion of burials.
The Nave. The trench at the west end of the south aisle reached solid chalk
4 ft. 10 in. below floor level. It was taken across the line of the pillars to see
whether any earlier foundations could be traced on this alignment, and this
disclosed that at the western end of the church the pillars rest on a foundation
wall extending down to the chalk. The top of this wall was just below floor
level; it was 2 ft. 4 in. wide, and mortared on both faces. The north side was
not examined below a depth of twelve inches to avoid disturbing an old
wooden coffin. On the south side, the base of the mortaring was just over
two feet below floor level in the centre of the trench and followed a slope
(Fig. 4.3) conforming closely to that of the stone coping retaining the soil in
the churchyard on the south side of the church. Below the mortar, the base
of the wall was studded with flints projecting about an inch from the face.
The material excavated on the south side of the nave wall was a mass of
unadulterated powdered mortar and flints, extending to a depth of nearly
four feet and for a distance of seven feet from the wall. Beyond and below
this the filling was of soil (Fig. 4). The nature and the quantity of rubble was
consistant with the assumption that it represented the material of a nave
NOTES 167
wall 10£ feet high which was taken down to be replaced by the arcade when
the aisle was added, the rubble being used to build up the floor in the new
aisle to the level of the nave floor. The mortar facing of the wall below the
pillars, finished on the outside on a slope corresponding to the slope of the
ground, makes it clear that this was originally an external wall and that the
nave was originally built without aisles.
The Tower. According to Parker's estimate, based on architectural details,
the tower may date from about 1050, and most probably was a rebuilding
of an original timber structure.
A trench, stretching to the centre of the tower floor from the middle of the
south wall, uncovered only one feature— a vertical-sided slot twelve inches wide
and fifteen inches deep with a flat bottom. It was cut into the solid chalk,
which rose to sixteen inches below the surface of the floor. The slot was filled
with rubble and ran parallel to the south wall at a distance of eighteen inches
from it. When followed, it was found to continue under the base of the arch
■ Baza of wall
Earth ^ir^N?^ Flint i, mortar rubble 0,0
Window sill
r
%i5- QoQp_ opoQj
Scale
Plaster
Roor level
Junction of original South
Aisle wall with West wall.
Fig 4.— 1. Section A'A (West Side of Trench). 2. Section BB' (East Side
of Trench). 3. Section AC (South Side of Nave Wall below Floor
Level). 4. West Wall Elevation: Chalk Jointing Blocks aligned
with Original South Aisle Wall. (Fig. 3.)
over the steps down to the nave. This slot must be attributed to the earlier
timber building which Parker supposed to have preceded the present tower.
The Use of Chalk and Flint in the Structure. The foundation wall under the
pillars of the nave appeared to consist almost entirely of mortared flints, from
observation of the surface exposed at various points. This conformed to the
mortar rubble in the trench, which contained only a few small pieces of chalk.
The surviving portion of the old south aisle wall was constructed of flints
and a few fair-sized lumps of chalk, without any definite arrangement. The
base of the north wall of the church, which Parker dates to about 1230, was
seen at its eastern end, and this consisted entirely of chalk blocks ; the footing
of the south wall of the tower was also of chalk.
Finds. Several small sherds of medieval pottery, probably between eleventh
and thirteenth-century in date, were found in the aisles, but the only sherd
of any significance was found in the chalk footings of the south wall of the
168 NOTES
tower and from its position could not have intruded after the construction.
It has been identified by Mr. J. G. Hurst as early medieval ware, made
between about 1050 and 1 150, which agrees closely with the generally accepted
dating of the tower to not long before the Norman conquest.
A small hollow cylinder of bone, three-quarters of an inch in length and
diameter, was found near the bottom of the trench in the south aisle. It has
been turned and is incised with parallel lines in three groups. It may have
formed part of a composite knife handle, or possibly decorated a processional
staff or similar object.
Summary. The results of these investigations confirm Parker's suggestion
that the church originally had narrower aisles than at present, but their
width is incorrectly shown in his plan as six feet on both sides. The north
aisle was in fact eight feet wide, and the south 8 ft. 6 in. Before this, however,
there was almost certainly an earlier phase unsuspected by Parker, when an
aisleless nave was built. Part of its wall survives as a footing for the pillars
at the west end, and is constructed almost solely of flints, whereas the wall
of the narrow aisle contained a small percentage of chalk.
A slot found in the tower floor can only relate to a timber building, and
confirms Parker's opinion that the stone church replaced an earlier wooden
one. Slight though it is, the evidence of the small sherd from the wall footing
confirms the general view that the tower was not built before about 1050.
It appears that the surface of the solid chalk under the nave has a slope of
about 1 in 9, judging from its depth below the floor at the east and west ends.
When the nave was first built, the ground was probably a natural slope and
the base of the walls resting on it could be seen from outside the church,
with a mortared facing parallel to the ground surface. The level of the church-
yard is now everywhere at least as high as the floor of the church, which must
always have been considerably made up at the western end to bring it to a level.
F. W. Holling.
Ordinations in the Interregnum. — Mr. A. J. Willis, in his Winchester
Ordinations, 1660-1829, gives the names of six Surrey incumbents ordained
during the Commonwealth period by the Bishop of Ardfert and Aghadoe.
They were Richard Parr of Camberwell, John Bunting of Addington, Richard
Carter of Cobham, John Bonwick of Mickleham, Francis Clarke of Stoke
d'Abrrnon, and John Holney of Dunsfold.
Ardfert (where Casement landed) is in co. Kerry, six miles north-north-west
of Tralee. The See was founded by St. Brendan in the sixth century, and the
cathedral was finally abandoned in 1641. Aghadoe is near Killarney, and has
the ruins of a church called Aghadoe Cathedral.
The bishop concerned was Thomas Fulwar (Fuller), appointed by patent
on 26 September 1641. He soon found it prudent to cross to England, and
became a doctor of divinity of Oxford in 1645. After the Restoration he
became Archbishop of Cashel, and Ardfert and Aghadoe were united with
Limerick. From 1646-7 to 1660 Fulwar appears to have acted as shadow
Bishop of Lincoln, and performed over 250 of the 1,300 Anglican ordinations
known in the Commonwealth period. Orders were conferred in loco congruo
('in a suitable place') and it would not normally have been safe for a priest to
have carried his new Letters of Orders about with him. Much is still obscure,
but a flood of light has been thrown on the subject by the Rev. C. E. Davies,
assistant chaplain at Pembroke College, Oxford, to whom I am greatly
indebted.
T. E. C. Walker.
The Great Rees David Mystery: —
1. Roger ap David, curate of West Horsley. Witnesses will. Surrey Arch-
deaconry, Pykman, f. 134. October 1539.
2. Richard Davys, priest of West Horsley. Witnesses will. (B.M. Add.
MS. 24925, p. 23.) 2 Feb. 1543/4.
3. Mr. Richard Davyd, instituted to Compton, presented by William More.
15 Aug. 1554. (Gardiner Register. C. and Y. Soc. ed., p. 141.)
NOTES 169
4. Sir Richard David, instituted to Calborne, Isle of Wight, presented bv
William Browne. 4 Sept. 1554. (Ibid.)
5. Richard David, presented by the Crown to East Horslev. 13 May 1554.
(Let. Pat. Philip and Mary, vol. 1, p. 38.)
6. Rees David, clerk, chaplain to Lady Anne Knevet of Sutton, and John
Brace, gent, grants lease of Compton parsonage to Brace. (L.M. 347/7.)
7. Rvce Apdavie is apprenticed to Thomas Cordrey of West Horslev,
William More's cook, 11 Mar. 1565/6. (L.M. 348/43.)
1 1 has for some time been a pretty story that this last Ryce Apdavie whom
More found wandering and masterless was the same man whom More himself
had presented to Compton in 1554. The V.C.H. chapter on the ecclesiastical
history of Surrey (by H. E. Maiden) uses it as an example of how even such an
honest and conscientious man as More was reduced to filling his benefice
cheaply with a semi-literate Welshman, and for good measure mentions that
More's later presentation, John Slater, was also found wandering some years
after his deposition. The story is repeated in Lady Boston's History of
Compton (1933), 196, and having gathered together the array of Davids
and Davies listed above I felt that further fuel could be added to the flames
bv making him a triple pluralist as well. However, a note in the Baigent
collection (B.M. Add. MS. 39984, f. 215) leads to a will in Hampshire County
Record Office, B series: it is that of 'Sir Resse Davyd, parson of Compton,
sec in body and of good remembrance,' and it is dated and filed under the
year 1558. The register is missing, so the exact date of probate cannot be
found. The opening formula is, as would be expected, Catholic: he wishes
to be buried in 'my sade parysh churche' and leaves 20s. to cover these
expenses. ^13 are specifically distributed to various people, including his
sister, housekeeper, and 'Master More.' The residue goes to the vicar of
Woking and 'Sir Rychard parson of Horsley.'
The will is written in a curious hand with some spellings uncommon even
by Tudor standards, but it is not illiterate, especially if we remember it was
written by a dying man. So Rees David of Compton did not become a cook,
nor did he also hold East Horsley. (No Richard is named as either rector or
curate of West Horsley at this period.) 'Sir Rychard' must be his near name-
sake who was presented in 1554 and deprived in 1560.
But there are further complications. Even the two like-sounding curates
of West Horsley cannot be definitely linked, as in 1541 George Forest was paid
as curate there (Gardiner Register. C. and Y. Soc. ed., p. 184). Possibly one
of them could have been the future rector of Compton, as Sir Henry Knevet
was granted the next presentation to West Horsley in 1542 (L. and P. Henry
VIII , vol. 17, no.1012 (16)), which forms a link with Compton's Rees David,
who was chaplain to Lady Knevet.
The East Horsley Richard David is not, as we have seen, incumbent of
Compton, but he is the same as the Richard David instituted to Calborne, for
in 1566 he is before the Winchester Consistory Court (Act Book 25, ff. 2 et seq.)
and his credentials are in question. He was able to show letters of institution,
dated 26 Sept. 1561, some time after his deprivation from East Horsley, but
his original letters dimissory had been left at East Horsley. After several
adjournments of his case the letters seem to have been found and are copied
in Act Book 26, f. 18: he was licensed by Fulco Salusbury, Dean of St. Asaph
on 26 May 1542. The problem seemed to have been solved, although for
several years David's name appears in the act books, cited for unspecified
offences. Could he have wandered back towards Horsley after his credentials
had been challenged and found himself a cook's apprentice? It seems unlikely
that the indenture would omit mention of such a recent fall from grace, as
he would have been recognised in the area. Also, Home's register states
that the next institution to Calborne was in 1572 on David's death. We have
no burial register to support this, and a mere probate act at Somerset
House for 8 March 1571/2 for Richard Davys, clericus, with the diocese
named as St. Asaph, cannot be taken to refer to the Calborne Richard
David.
170 NOTES
We can only fall back on the fact that David and Rees or Richard were
common Welsh names, and their combination not rare: emigration from
Wales was also quite usual, as the many Welsh names among the sixteenth-
century Surrey clergy bears out — and not all these were rogues either. It
seems there must still be at least four men of similar names : —
1. The rector of Compton and chaplain to Lady Anne Knevett;
2. The rector of East Horsley and of Calborne ;
3. The cook's apprentice ;
4. The priest whose will was proved in 1571/2;
and probably two curates of West Horsley, one of whom could be equated
with the second, or more probably the first of these four.
R. A. Christophers.
BOOKS RECEIVED
The attention of readers is drawn to the following books which have been
received : —
The Glass Industry of the Weald. By G. H. Kenyon. Pp. xxii + 231.
22 pis., 19 text figs., 2 maps. Leicester t'niveristy Press, 1967. £2 lOs.Od.
This important book is the first general study of the Wealden Glass Industry
to appear since S. E. Winbolt's Wealden Glass was published in 1931. It
deals with techniques, types of glass produced, the administration of the
industry and the families concerned, and it contains also a full schedule and
description of known glass-house sites. We hope to review the book in our
next volume.
Age by Age. By Ronald Jessup. Pp. 96. 46 drawings, 4 maps. London.
Michael Joseph, 1967. £1 lOs.Od.
This book, which has the sub-title Landmarks of British Archaeology, is
profusely illustrated with drawings by Alan Sorrell. The first part surveys
the prehistory and history of Britain up to the Viking settlers, and the second
part deals with a variety of topics, including archaeological methods.
INDEX
Albury, bronze objects from, 1, 5, 7,
8, 9, 11, 12, 13
copper cake from, 13
Angell, arms of, 152; John, 152;
Justinian, 152; Thomasina, 152;
William, 152
Apdavie, Ryce, 169
Artington, bronze objects from, 9, 13
Aspdin, J., Portland cement patent,
138
Atkins, Thomas, 103
Banks, Sir Edward, 129
and Jolliffe, public works contrac-
tors, 129
Banstead, bronze objects from, 9, 13,
14
copper cake from, 14
Barley, cultivation of, in Surrey, 1 19
Battersea, bronze objects from, 14
lords of manor of, 92
Manor House, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,
97
map of (Crace Collection), 92, 96,
99
St. John's College, 91, 92, 93, 112
Sir Walter St. John's School, 92,
96, 108, 111
Terrace House, 91-112; date of,
100-1
Battle, Ralph, abbot of, 156
Beans, cultivation of , in Surrey, 119,
120
Beddington, bronze objects from, 3,
7, 8, 10, 14
mould from, 8
Bermondsey, bronze objects from, 14
Betchworth, bronze socketed axe
from, 5, 14
Bishop, M. W., note on pottery from
Chessington, 162-3
Bletchingley, bronze objects from,
14-5
Bolingbroke, Frederick St. John,
Viscount, 92; Henry St. John,
Viscount, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98
Bone cylinder from Guildford, 168
handle, from Merton Priory site, 66
Bones, animal, from Merton Priory
site, 67
Bonwick, John, 168
Books received:
Age by Age. By Ronald Jessup, 170
The Glass Industry of the Weald.
By G. H. Kenyon, 170
Bovey, James, 104
Bricks, nineteenth - century, from
Merstham Limeworks, 136
Bronze Age metal objects in Surrey,
1-34
arrowhead, from Albury, 7; from
Croydon, 7; from Farnham, 19
awl, 9; from Albury, 9, 13; from
Beddington, 9, 14; from
Coombe, 9, 16
axe, from Carshalton, 15; from
Coulsdon, 17; from Kew, 21;
from Weybridge, 32
flanged, 2, 3; from Beddington,
2; from Chertsey, 3, 16; from
Richmond, 3, 28; from Thames
Ditton, 3, 30; from Thorpe, 2,
30; from Weybridge, 3, 33;
from Woodmansterne, 34
flat, 2; from Albury, 13; from
Busbridge, 15; from Car-
shalton, 15; from Godalming,
2, 19; from Reigate, 27; from
Walton-on-the-Hill, 2, 30;
from West Surrey, 2, 34
hatchet type, from Thames
Ditton, 30
socketed, 5-6; from Artington,
13; from Banstead, 13, 14;
from Betchworth, 5, 14; from
Bletchingley, 14; from Bus-
bridge, 15; from Carshalton,
15; from Chelsham, 5, 15;
from Chertsey, 16; from
Coombe, 16; from Coulsdon, 5,
17; from Cranleigh, 17; from
Croydon, 5, 6, 17, 18; from
Egham, 18; from Elstead, 18;
from Farnham, 19; from
Guildford, 5, 6, 20; from
Hindhead and Churt, 20;
from Kew, 21; from Kingston,
171
172
INDEX
Bronze Age axe, socketed — (Contd.) :
5, 6, 21; from Reigate, 27;
from Richmond, 5, 27; from
Sanderstead, 28; from Seale,
6, 28, 29; from Shere, 29; from
Southwark, 29; from Surbiton,
29; from Surrey, 6, 34; from
Thames Ditton, 6, 30; from
Wanborough, 31 ; from Wands-
worth, 6, 31; from Weybridge,
5, 6, 32, 33; from Wimbledon,
33; from Windlesham, 34;
from Wotton, 34
winged, 6; from Chelsham, 15;
from Crovdon, 6; from
Wimbledon, 6, 33
brooch, from Farnham, 19
bucket, from Weybridge, 9, 32
cake, from Coulsdon, 17
chape, from Richmond, 28
chisel, lugged, from Albury, 8
dagger, from Long Ditton, 26
dirk, from Thames Ditton, 3
disc, from Arlington, 9, 13; from
Croydon, 9; from Farnham, 9, 19
ferrule, from Beddington, 7; from
Croydon, 7.
gouge, from Beddington, 8; from
Coulsdon, 8, 17; from Croydon,
8; from Richmond, 8, 28; from
Wandsworth, 8, 13
hoard, 9-12; from Albury, 11, 12,
13; from Banstead, 9, 14; from
Beddington, 10, 14; from Car-
shalton, 4, 9, 10, 15; from
Chelsham, 10, 15; from Chertsey,
9; from Coombe, 11, 16; from
Coulsdon, 4, 11, 17; from
Croydon, 6, 17, 18; from Elstead,
4, 11, 18; from Kew, 9, 21; from
Kingston, 10, 21; from Seale, 3,
4, 11, 29; from Wandsworth, 11,
12, 31 ; from Warlingham, 10, 31
ingot, from Carshalton, 15
knife, from Croydon, 9; from Seale,
9, 28; from Weybridge, 9, 32
mount, from Bermondsey, 14;
from Croydon, 9
palstave, 3, 4, 5; from Albury, 5,
13; from Battersea, 14; from
Carshalton, 3, 4, 15; from
Chelsham, 16; from Coombe, 17;
from Coulsdon, 4; from East
Molesey, 18; from Elstead, 18;
from near Epsom, 18; from
Farnham, 19; from Frensham,
19; from Guildford, 20; from
Hambledon, 20; from Headley,
20; from Horsell, 21; from
Mitcham, 27; from Reigate, 27;
from Richmond, 28; from Seale,
3, 4, 29; from Shalford, 29;
from Streatham, 29 ; from Sutton
and Cheam, 29; from Walton-
on-Thames, 3, 31; from Wan-
borough, 3, 31; from Wands-
worth, 31; from Weybridge, 33;
from Wimbledon, 33; from
Windlesham, 34
pin, from Albury, 13; from Wands-
worth, 8, 31
rapier, from Farnham, 3—4, 19;
from Wandsworth, 4, 31; from
Weybridge, 4, 32
ring, from Albury, 8, 13; from Kew,
21
shield, from Walton-on-Thames, 8,
30
spearhead, 7; from Albury, 7, 13;
from Battersea, 14; from
Beddington, 7; from Bermond-
sey, 14; from Bletchingley, 15;
from Carshalton, 15; from
Chertsey, 16; from Coombe, 16;
from Croydon, 7, 17; from
Egham, 18; from Godalming, 20;
from Guildford, 20; from Hind-
head and Churt, 21; from
Kingston, 21, 26; from Rich-
mond, 28; from Seale, 7, 28;
from Thames Ditton, 7, 30;
from Wallington, 30; from
Walton-on-Thamcs, 31; from
Wandsworth, 31; from West
Molesey, 32; from Weybridge,
32; from Wimbledon, 33
sword, 7-8; from Charlwood, 8, 15;
from Chertsey, 8, 16; from
Coombe, 16; from Croydon, 7;
from East Molesey, 18; from
Egham, 18; from Farnham, 19;
from Kingston, 7, 8, 21; from
Limpsfk'ld, 7, 26; from Long
Ditton, 26; from Richmond, 8;
from Wandsworth, 8, 31
tools, 8
trunnion celt (lugged chisel), from
Albury, 8, 13
weapon, from Headley, 20
Brown, John, 79
INDEX
173
Building stone from Merton Priory
site, 44-6
Bull, John, 109
Bunting, John, 168
Burnishing stone from Dunsfold, 164
Busbridge, bronze axes from, 15
Bysset, Alys, 156
Calico, manufacture of, 42
Carshalton, bronze objects from, 3, 4,
9, 10, 15
Carter, Richard, 168
Castell, J. P., report on mollusca
from Merton Priory site, 66-7,
68-70
Carwarden, Sir Thomas, 80
Chaplin, R. E., report on bones from
Merton Priory site, 67
Charhvood, bronze sword from, 8, 15
Cheam, see Sutton and Cheam
Chelsham, bronze objects from, 5, 10,
15-6
Chertsey, bronze objects from, 16
Chessington, iron age pottery from,
162-3
medieval pottery from, 163
post-medieval pottery from, 163
Chiddingfold, barrow at, 16
Cholmley, Johanna, 151
Christophers, R. A., note on the great
Rees David mystery, 168-70
Churt, see Hindhead and Churt
Clark, A. J., resistivity survey by, at
Merton Priory site, 38
Clarke, Francis, 168
Cleat, of copper alloy, from Merton
Priory site, 65
Coin, Roman, from Sutton, 164-5
Compton, rector of, 168, 169, 170
Thomas, 76, 81
Coombe, bronze objects from, 11,
16-7
Cooper, J., report on mollusca from
Merton Priory site, 66-7, 68-70
Copper alloy, objects of, from Merton
Priory site, 63-6
cake, from Albury, 13; from
Banstead, 14; from Carshalton,
15; from Chelsham, 15; from
Coombe, 16; from Coulsdon, 17;
from Kingston, 26 ; from Wotton,
34
ingots, from Carshalton, 15
Coulsdon, bronze objects from, 4, 5,
8, 11, 17
Cranleigh, bronze axe from, 17
Crop Returns of 1801, 113-23; scope
of, 116-7, 120
Crowhurst, priory at, 148
St. George's Church, description of,
148-53
Croydon, bronze objects from, 5, 6, 7,
"8, 9, 17
area, Bronze Age finds in, 1
Merstham and Godstone Railway,
126
Cuddington, Great Park of Nonsuch
in, see Nonsuch
manor of, 79; survey of; 76, 77
Richard, 76, 80; Thomas, 80
Dacre, arms of, 151
David, Rees, 169, 170; Richard, 168,
169, 170; Roger ap, 168
Da vies, Rev. C. E., on Commonwealth
ordinations, 167
Davys, Richard, 168, 169
De Fisher, see Defisher
Defisher, Abraham, 104, 105, 107,
108, 109; Alice, 109; Edmund,
108, 109; Grace, 109; Isabella,
104; Mary see Otger; Samuel,
101, 104, 108; William, 104
Devissor, see Defisher
Die, bone, from Merton Priory site, 66
Dimes, F. G., report on building
stone from Merton Priory site,
44, 45, 46
Dogett, Benjamin, 97, 99, 110, 111;
Elizabeth, 110
Doggett, see Dogett
Donavan, James, 152; Margaret, 152
Du Bois, see Dubois
Dubois, family, grant of arms to, 101,
102; Mary, 101, 102, 103, 104,
110; Peter, 101, 102
du Boys, Jaques, of Lille, 101; see
also Dubois
Dunsfold, burnishing stone from, 164
Romano-British pit at, 164;
pottery from, 164
Eames, Elizabeth, report on pat-
terned floor tiles from Merton
Priory site, 46-50
Earthwork at Limpsfield, 163; at
Titsey, 163
East Horsley, rectors of, 169, 170
Molesey, bronze objects from, 18
Edolph, arms of, 152
174
INDEX
Egham, bronze objects from, 18
Eldridge, Bryan, 158
Elstead, bronze objects from, 4, 11, 18
Epsom, bronze palstave from near, 18
Escourt, Sir William, 95, 107
Evelyn, George, 74, 75; Thomas, 79
Ewell, Great Park of Nonsuch in, see
Nonsuch
Nonsuch Palace, 42
Rectory, 75
survey of, 73, 74, 84
Worcester Park House, 75, 76, 84,
87
Excavations at Merstham Limeworks,
131-41
near Merton Priory, 1962-3, 35-70
Farley, M. E., note on earthworks at
Titsey and Limpsfield, 163
Farnham area, Bronze Age finds in, 1
bronze objects from, 3—4, 9, 19
Fiennes, Anne, 150, 151; arms of, 151
Fleet, Sir John, 108, 109
Flint axe, from Frimley, 160; from
Wonersh (neolithic). 160; from
Thursley (mesolithic), 160; from
Woking (mesolithic), 160
worked, from Merton Priory site, 46
Foster, arms of, 152
Freleux, Jan, 103; Jane, 103, 104;
Jean, 103; Mary, 101 . 103;
Samuel, 103
Frensham, bronze palstave from, 19
Frimley, flint axe from, 160
Friscobaldi, Jean-Baptiste, of Flor-
ence, 101; Mary, 101
I'ruleu, see Freleux
Fulwar, Thomas, Bishop of Ardfert
and Aghadoe, 168
Gainsford, Anne, 151; arms of, 151,
152; Erasmus, 151; John, 150,
151; Nicholas, 151, 152
Gilbert, A. S., note on a Roman coin
from Sutton, 164-5
Glass from Merstham Limeworks,
137; from Merton Priory site, 61
Godahning, bronze objects from, 2,
19-20
Gollancz, M., on the records of
Merstham Limeworks, 142-7
Goodchild, architect, 165
Goode, John, 79, 80; Sebastian, 85
Gosson, arms of, 152
Gower, Arthur Leveson, 157
Gravett, K. W. E., and Wood, E. S.
on Merstham Limeworks, 124—47
Gresham, family of, 156
Guildford, bronze objects from, 5, 6,
20
medieval pottery from, 167-8
St. Mary's Church, note on, 165-8
Gunpowder, 75
Hall and Co. contractors, 125, 129-30
Hall, George Velentine, 126, 129, 130
Hambledon, bronze palstave from, 20
Harlynge, John, 149
Harold, King, 154
Harrison, E. E., notes on flint axes
from Woking and Frimley, 160
Haughton, see Houghton
Headley, bronze objects from, 20
Hillman, Thomas, bellfounder, 158
Holling, F. W., notes on flint axes
from Thursley and Wonersh,
160
note on a Romano-British pit at
High Billinghurst, Dunsfold, 164
note on St. Mary's Church, Guild-
ford, 165-8
Holney, John, 168
Hindhead and Churt, bronze objects
from, 20
Hook, iron, from Merton Priory site,
63
Horsell, bronze palstave from, 21
Horseshoe, from Merton Priory site,
63
Houghton, Daniel, 100, 101, 110;
Elizabeth, 110; John, 110
Hvlton, Lord, 129, 142, 145, 146
Industrial installations, 19th-centurv,
131-41
Interregnum, ordinations in, 168
Iron Age potterv from Chessington,
162-3
ore in Romano-British pit at
Dunsfold, 164
Railwavs, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132
Jettons from Merton Priory site, 63-5
Johnson, I. C, cement patent, 138
Jolliffe, Hylton, 129; William John,
129
and Banks, public works contrac-
tors, 128, 129, 130
INDEX
175
Kay, J. P., 91, 92, 111
Kew, bronze objects from, 9, 21
Key, iron, from Merton Priory site, 62
Kingston, bronze objects from, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 21, 22
Knife, iron, from Merton Priory site,
62
Lace-tags, of copper alloy, from
Merton Priory site, 65
Lead objects, from Merton Priory
site, 66
Lee, Robert, 110; William, 110
Lefevre, Sir John George Shaw-, 99,
111
Limpsfield, bronze sword from, 7, 26
earthworks at, 163
rectors of, 159
St. Peter's Church described by
K. Percy, 154-9; in Domesday,
154
London, Brighton and South Coast
Railway, 127, 128, 143 n., 146
Long Ditton, bronze objects from,
26
Great Park of Nonsuch in, see
Nonsuch
Long, Edmund, 101, 105; Mary, see
Otger, Sir Robert, 90
McDowall, R. W., on the Church of
St. George, Crowhurst, 148-53
Maiden Church, 77
Great Park of Nonsuch in, see
Nonsuch
Marchment, Hugh, Earl of, 97
Masonic Lodge, Sir Walter St. John,
91
Medieval ditch at Merton Priory site,
40, 42, 44
pottery from Chessington, 163;
from Guildford, 167-8; from
Merton Priory site, 40, 42, 44
Merstham, Grey-stone Lime Com-
pany, 130
Jolliffe Arms, 126, 127
Lime Cottage, 125, 126, 127, 130,
140
Limeworks, by K. W. E. Gravett
and E. S. Wood, 124-47; cus-
tomers of, 142, 143-5; employees
of 145; history of, 128-30; in-
dustrial installations at, 139-41
Quarries, history of, 124-8; mode
of working, 125
Quarry Dean, 125, 126, 127, 129,
130, 132, 142, 146
Quarry Line Tunnel, 128
stone, its use in famous buildings,
124-6
Tunnel, 127, 141
Weighbridge Cottage, 125, 126
Merton College, Oxford, 76, 80, 85, 86
Priory, excavations near, 35-70;
history of, 37-8
site, bone handle from, 66; bones
from, 67; building stone from,
44-6; cleat from, 65; dating
evidence at, 42; die (bone)
from, 66; flints from, 46; glass
from, 61; horseshoe from, 63;
hook (iron) from, 63; jetton
from, 63-5; key from, 62;
knives from, 62 ; lace-tags from,
65; lead objects from, 66; mol-
lusca from, 66-7, 68-70; nails
from, 62, 63, 65; pins from, 65;
medieval pottery from, 40, 42,
44, 52-60; post-medieval pot-
tery from, 60- 1 ; resistivity
survey at, 38-9; strap-end
from, 63; spur from, 62; tiles
from, 46-52
Mesolithic flint axe from Woking,
160; from Thursley, 160
Metal cake from Wandsworth, 31
Mill-stones from Merstham Lime-
works, 131
Mitcham, bronze objects from, 27
Mollusca from Merton Priory site,
66-7, 68-70
More, William, 168, 169
Moulds, 8; from Beddington, 8;
from Croydon, 8
Nails, copper alloy, from Merton
Priory site, 65
iron, from Merstham Limeworks,
137; from Merton Priory site, 62,
63
Neolithic flint axe from Wonersh, 160
Nonsuch, Great Park of, by C. F.
Titford, 71-90; acreage of, 71-
81; Brickhill Gate, 87, 88, 89;
bridges in, 85, 89; Cheam Gate,
87, 88; field boundaries of, 88;
Fishersway, 80; gates in, 84-5,
176
INDEX
Nonsuch, Great Park of — (Contd.):
89; George Gate, 86, 87, 88, 89;
Great Avenue, 76, 77, 80, 84, 87;
Great Lodge, 76, 82, 83, 86, 87,
88, 89; Great Mead, 87, 88, 89;
Half Mile Gate, 88, 89; Hay-
stack Barn, 88, 89; Lane's Map
of, 85, 86; Longwood, 87, 89;
Maiden Pond, 75; Millhaws, 79;
Myllclose, 74, 75, 79, 84, 85, 89;
Old Lodge, 88; Parliamentary
Survey of. 86-8; perimeter of,
81-4; Pheasant Nest Gate, 88,
89; Prince his standing, 88, 89;
Pystyl Hyll, 77, 87; routes
across, 84-5, 89; Rythe, 86;
Sleygate, 73, 75, 89; Sparrow-
held, 76, 77, 80, 88; Sparrowheld
Barn, 89; Worthheld, 80; survey
of, 78
Little Park of , 7 1 , 87, 89
Manor, survey of, 71, 76
Palace, 42
Oats, cultivation of, in Surrev, 119,
120-1
Odgers, John, 110
Olger, Peter, 107
Ootgeer, see Otger
Ordinations in the Interregnum, 168
Otger, Abraham, 103; Justus, 105,
107, 110; Mary, 101, 103, 104,
105, 107, 108, 110; Peter, 103,
104; Susanna, 103
Otgher, see Otger
Ottgar, see Otger
Parr, Richard, 168
Parton, A. G., on the 1801 Crop
Returns for the County of
Surrey, 113-23
Peas, cultivation of, in Surrev, 119,
120
Percy, K., on the Church of St. Peter,
Limpsneld, 154-9
Perrv, Charles, Bishop of Melbourne,
111; John, 111; Mary, 111
Peters Brothers, lime-burners, 142,
143
Edwin, 142; family, 142, 146;
Henrv, 142, 145; Joseph Stilwell,
130, 142, 143 n., 145, 146
Pett, Arabella, 107; Henrietta Maria,
107; Mary, see Otger; Samuel,
101, 105, 106, 107, 110
Phillips, Winifred E., on Bronze Age
Metal Objects in Surrey, 1-34
Pierce, Benjamin, 99, 111
Pins, copper alloy, from Merton
Priory site, 65, 66
Ponton, Daniel, 99, 111; Thomas, 1 1 1
Post-Medieval pottery from Ches-
sington, 163
Potatoes, cultivation of, in Surrey,
119
Pottery, Iron Age, 162
Medieval, 40, 42, 44, 52-60, 163,
167-8
post-Medieval, 60-1, 163
Romano-British, 164
Powell, F., 156
Poyle, de la, arms of, 151
Railway, Croydon, Merstham and
Godstone,' 126, 127
London, Brighton and South Coast,
127, 128, 143 n., 146
South-Eastern, 128, 143
Surrey Iron, 126
Rape, cultivation of, in Surrey, 120
Rees David mystery, great, 168
Reigate, bronze objects from, 27
stone, its use in famous buildings,
124-6
Resistivity survey at Merton Priorv
site, 38-9
Reve, Thomas, 75
Richmond, bronze objects from, 3, 5,
8, 27-8
Roman coin from Sutton, 164-5
Romano-British pit at Dunsfold, 164
pottery from Dunsfold, 164
Rye, cultivation of, in Surrey, 119
St. John, Elizabeth, 96; Frederick,
92; Henry, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
98, 107; John, 96; Lady, 93, 95,
96, 99, 102; Walter, 91, 92, 93,
94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 105, 108;
William, 96, 108
Sanderstead, bronze axe from, 28
Scabbard from Chertsey, 16
Seale, bronze objects from, 3, 4, 6, 7,.
9, 11, 28-9
Shalford, bronze palstave from, 29
Shamley Green, see Wonersh
Shere, bronze axe from, 29
Sir Walter St. John's School, see
Battersea
Slater, John. 169
INDEX
177
Slates from Merstham Limeworks,
137
Smallwood, F. T., on the Story of
Terrace House, Battersea (Old
Battersea House), 91-112
South-Eastern Railway, 128, 143
Southwark, bronze axe from, 29
Spur (iron) from Merton Priory site,
62
Stable, John, 103
Steam engine, stone base for, at
Merstham Limeworks, 125
Stirling, A. W. M„ 97, 98, 112;
Charles, 112
Strap-end (iron) from Merton Priory
site, 63
Streatham, bronze palstave from, 29
Surbiton, bronze axe from, 29
Surrey, bronze axe from, 34
Iron Railway, 126
Sussex, Abbey of Battle, 154
Sutton and Cheam, bronze palstave
from, 29; Roman coin from,
164-5
Tandridge, Prior of, 148
Tares, cultivation of, in Surrey, 120
Taverner, John, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87;
Susan, 81, 82
Taylor, J. G., 93, 96, 112; Thomas,
Surrey County Surveyor, 73, 74,
84; William, 75, 92
Terrace House, see Battersea
Thames Ditton, bronze objects from,
3, 6, 7, 30
Thorpe, bronze object from, 2, 30
Thursley, mesolithic flint axe from,
160
Tiles, from Merton Priory site, floor,
46-50; roofing, 50-2
Titford, C. F., on the Great Park of
Nonsuch, 71-90
Titsey, earthwork at, 163
Tolworth, manor of, 74
Tritton, Thomas, 99, 1 1 1
Turner, D. J., on excavations near
Merton Priory, 1962-3, 35-70
Turnips, cultivation of, in Surrey, 120
Urns from Chertsey, 9
Wakehurst, Anne, 150; arms of. 151
Walker, T. E. C, note on ordination
in the Interregnum, 1(S8
Wallington, bronze spearhead from,
30
Walton-on-Thames, bronze objects
from, 3, 8, 30-1
on-the-Hill, bronze axe from, 2,
30
Wanborough, bronze objects from,
3, 31
Wandsworth, bronze objects from, 4,
6, 8, 11, 12, 31
Warlingham, bronze hoard from, 10,
31
Warner, J. and Sons, bell-founders,
158
Webb, Edmund Richmond, 107;
Grace, 101, 107, 108, 109; John,
107; Thomas, 107
West Horsley, curates of, 168, 169,
170
Molesey, bronze spearhead from,
32
Surrey, bronze axe from, 2, 34
Weybridge, bronze objects from, 3, 4,
5, 6, 9, 32-3
Wheat, cultivation of, in Surrey,
118-9, 120-1
Wilkinson, W. B., reinforced concrete
patent, 138
William I, 154
Wimbledon, bronze objects from, 6,
33
Windlesham, bronze objects from, 34
Woking, mesolithic flint axe from,
160
Wonersh, neolithic flint axe from, 160
Wood, E. S., and Gravett, K. W. E.,
on Merstham Limeworks, 124-
47
Woodmansterne, bronze axe from, 34
Worcester, Earl of, 75, 84, 85
Wotton, bronze objects from, 34
Wren, Sir Christopher, 93, 98, 112
BIDDLKS LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD
PLATE I
(a) Merstham Limeworks. Base of Steam Engine built into Wall near
Lime Cottage.
(b) Merstham Limeworks. Lime Cottage from West.
PLATE II
iui permission of Geol -,;. cU Sun ty
IMerstham Limeworks in Operation in 1929. View looking Westwards.
PLATE 111
[By kind permission of the County Archivist.
Section of the Merstham Tithe Map (1838).
(Note. — North is to the left of the diagram.)
Key to places mentioned: —
57 Pit field showing small lime-pit.
69 Alderstead Farm.
near 108 Weighbridge Cottage.
near 109 Croydon, Merstham and Godstone Railway.
217 Ponds, perhaps connected with the Canal project.
270 Quarry Dean, in occupation of George Hall in Tithe Award 1841.
361 Jolliffe Row.
362 Chalkpit Limeworks. in occupation of George Hall in Tithe Award 1841.
363 Land required for London and Brighton Railway.
The turnpike and turnpike diversion are also shown.
Lime Cottage is the southernmost building in the Limeworks site. The
two circles were identified by Mr. Sanders as wells.
PLATE IV
WWJ*™
iti&rUZ.-W-
» *v«c
PLATE V
[National Monuments Record.
Crowhurst Church from the South-East,
PLATE VI
[National Monuments Record.
Crowhursi Church Interior.
PLATE VII
PLATE VII. — continued
[National Monutm nts Ri
(c) East Window in South Aisle.
PLATE VIII
PLATE IX
(a) Limpsfield Church from South-West.
I VI
'Reproduced by permissiun of Trustees of British Museum.
(b) Limpsfield Church, East End. 1825.
PLATE X
[Reproduced by permission of Trustees of British Museum,
(a) East End in 1828, showing Altar Piece erected in 1713.
'Reproduced by permission of Trustees of British Museui
(b) West End in 1828, showing Gallery and Organ.
PLATE XI
[Photo: Michael Wall.
(a) Chancel from Gri sham Chapel, looking South-East.
'Reproduced by permission of Trustees of Rritish Museum,
(b) Limpsfield Church in 1825, showing Box Pews erected in 1713
AND PULPIT WITH CLERK'S SEAT.
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL
for the year ended 31st December, 1966
The Council of the Surrey Archaeological Society has much pleasure in presenting
its 112th Annual Report with the Accounts for the year 1966.
INTRODUCTORY
During the year the work of the Society has continued to make good progress
in all fields. Details of excavations, publications and many other activities will
be found in later sections of this Report. The Council records with particular
appreciation and gratitude the action of His Grace the Duke of Northumberland
in placing on loan with the Society the archaeological collections of the late Helen,
Duchess of Northumberland. Some account of these is given below in the report
on acquisitions.
The Council also desire to express their grateful thanks for the bequest of a
collection of water colours of historic buildings in Ewell, made by the late Mr.
J. A. Rowles.
The Surrey Local History Council has made a fine start with a notable Sym-
posium which packed the Dorking Hall to capacity.
Plans are being drawn up for the organisation of rescue digs and for the better
co-ordination of Museum services.
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. E. S. Wood has resigned as Hon. Secretary and has been succeeded by
Mr. A. S. Gilbert, but he continues to represent the Society on a number of
important outside bodies.
Mr. R. W. McDowall has assumed responsibility for all questions relating to
the preservation of ancient buildings.
Mr. Christmas continues to assist the Honorary Treasurer, Mr. Coley. Mrs.
Chiles has resigned as Secretary of the Visits Committee, but continues to be
responsible for the distribution of the Bulletin. Miss C. Smith has succeeded
Mrs. Chiles as Hon. Secretary of the Visits Committee and has most generously
agreed to take over from Castle Arch the work in connection with the binding
of individual copies of the "Collections." This has made it possible for us to
continue to offer bound copies to those members who desire them.
Dr. Dance and her staff, together with a number of voluntary helpers at Castle
Arch, continue to be the keystone of the arch of our support and the Council is
most grateful to each of them individually and to Guildford Corporation for this
great help.
FINANCE
The audited Accounts and Balance Sheet covering the financial year to the 31st
December, 1966, are printed at the end of this report. It will be seen from the
Revenue Account that the additional income from increased subscriptions is in-
sufficient to cover the ordinary running expenditure of the Society, and that there
is a deficit of £121. Apart from some small additions to the working expenses.
this is mainly due to increases in the cost of the "Collections" and the Bulletin,
and on the income side that the interest received from the investment of the
Margary Fund together with the interest on the special deposit account £77 has
been credited direct to that Fund, and not brought into the general income. As
far as the "Collections" are concerned, Volume 62 cost £210 more than had been
provided, a provision of £1,300 has been made for Volume 63, which will be
issued in March, 1967, and is a double volume, and the sum of £400 has been set
aside for Volume 64. However, the appreciation expressed on all sides regarding
the Bulletin and the "Collections" shows how much they are appreciated by the
membership as a whole.
During the year a great deal of extra work for the staff at Castle Arch has
been caused by members continuing to pay their subscriptions at the old rate, and,
therefore, the attention of all members is drawn to the fact that the ordinary
subscription is now £2 per annum.
ACCOMMODATION AT CASTLE ARCH
A further setback must be reported to the hopes mentioned in the two previous
reports of re-housing the Society and Museum in larger and more suitable
premises. The development of the new Civic Centre at Guildford, where a site
had been earmarked to replace Castle Arch, was deferred, and no radical solution
to the problems of Castle Arch can be expected for some time.
Meanwhile, however, after some delay for town planning reasons, a start has
been made on adapting premises in Castle Street as additional storage space for
the Museum. This will enable more space to be released at Castle Arch for the
Society's growing library. We are grateful to the Corporation for this helpful
measure.
PUBLICATIONS
Volume 63 of the "Collections" was issued early in 1967. The Council regrets
that it was not possible to issue it before the end of 1966, but hopes that the next
volume will be out this year.
INDEX OF "COLLECTIONS"
Work is continuing on the preparation of an Index of Volumes 39-60 of the
"Collections" which has been undertaken by Miss J. M. Harries, to whom the
the Council are much indebted.
THE SOCIETY'S BULLETIN
The second year of publication of the Bulletin has seen an encouraging in-
crease in contributions, and the Council decided to allow the size to be increased
to six pages whenever there was sufficient material. This has enabled a wider
range of activities and discoveries to be publicised. That the Bulletin is appreci-
ated by many members was perhaps best indicated by the number of complaints
received when the September issue was unfortunately delayed as a result of a
misunderstanding with the printers. The Council is much indebted to the Joint
Editors, Mr. and Mrs. D. J. Turner, for the hard and exacting work which they
have put into this successful project.
GUIDES TO SURREY CHURCHES
In addition to guides being published in the "Collections," members have also
written new guides to Limpsfield and Pyrford Churches which will be published
shortly.
HISTORIC BUILDINGS
During the second half of 1966 six proposals to demolish listed buildings were
made. In three cases Preservation Orders were made, in one case planning per-
mission for redevelopment of the site was refused. In the case of the Bear Inn
and Culpeper House, Friary Street, Guildford, the Town Council decided to
oppose demolition. In one case the proposal was withdrawn.
MUSEUMS IN SURREY
The Council has continued to have under close review the question of an effec-
tive museums service in Surrey, and the part which the Society should play in this.
A sub-committee set up to recommend a policy in this matter reported during
the summer, and as a result steps are being taken towards closer co-operation
between the Society, local authorities and museums, and area museums federa-
tions and services. In this the Council has as objects the building up of common
standards of preservation, restoration, etc., the regular exchange of information,
the maintenance of a common index, the avoidance of needless fragmentation of
material, sharing in activities of mutual or public advantage, and acting in con-
cert on appropriate issues. Guildford Museum, in the Council's view, provides
the most convenient central point for this co-operation, and the most suitable
basis for a County Museum.
A standing Museums Committee has been set up to initiate and develop action
along these lines.
C.B.A. GROUP 11A
The standing committee met twice during the year. A matter of particular con-
cern is the promotion of Industrial Archaeology in the area, and it is fortunate
that Mr. S. Harker has offered his services as co-ordinator for the Group in this
field. The Committee also considered the subject of the preservation and schedul-
ing of buildings.
The Annual General Meeting was held at Tunbridge Wells on Saturday, 1st
October, and our President, Miss Kathleen Kenyon, was in the chair. Mr. J. H.
Money gave an illustrated talk entitled "Early Iron Working in the Weald."
The first Group 11A Symposium was held on Saturday, 26th November at the
Institute of Archaeology, London. The subject was "Science in Archaeology" and
the meeting was very successful with a succession of talks by specialists distin-
guished in their various fields.
SURREY LOCAL HISTORY COUNCIL
The Surrey Local History Council held its first Annual General Meeting on
12th March, 1966, at Dorking. The Chairman, Mr. R. Dufty, reported on the
proposed programme of work, and three speakers told of the assistance which
can be given to Local History Groups by other organisations. A "List of Sources"
is in preparation, and will probably be prefaced by a "guide to methods." The
Council is interested in a List of Maps, which it is now understood is likely to
be sponsored by the County Council and the Record Society. A scheme for
collecting local history records awaits a volunteer to tackle this work. A list of
organisations interested in local history directly and indirectly is being compiled.
It is intended that it should be combined with a similar list of organisations
interested in archaeology being prepared by the Society. A Symposium on local
history jointly sponsored by the Society was held at the Martineau Hall, Dork-
ing, on 5th November, and the six talks, together with the attendant exhibition
and bookstalls, attracted a capacity crowd. The next Annual General Meeting will
be held on 8th April, 1967, and the speaker will be Mr. N. Cook, Director of the
Guildhall Museum. There are now 25 member organisations of the Council.
EXCAVATIONS
In addition to the principal sites at Weston Wood and Rapsley a number of
other excavations were undertaken, although excavation of the glasshouse at
Alfold had to be postponed through illness. Brief details of the year's work
follow:
Weston Wood, Albury : Mesolithic Settlement (T.Q. 053485). Excavation has
continued at weekends throughout the year under the direction of Miss Joan
Harding. It has been mainly with the investigation of the Mesolithic Horizon.
The area of maximum occupation appears to coincide with that of the Late
Bronze Age hearths and is sealed four feet below the present forest level. Meso-
lithic type flints are distributed in the horizon of wind blown sand which imme-
diately underlies the Late Bronze Age occupation layer and which extends to a
further depth of some two to three feet.
One clearly stratified hearth has been found. This contains sufficient oak
charcoal for a C14 analysis. Five other areas containing charcoal and calcined
flints suggest further hearths. The identification of structures is made difficult by
the presence of natural concentration and scatters of carstone over parts of the
site; but a circular area, twelve feet in diameter, cleared of carstone and near
the hearth indicates a shelter.
The flint industry is very late Wealden in character, and a provisional date of
not earlier than 3500 B.C. has been suggested. It includes two small core axes.
16 end-scrapers. 12 burins, three awls and two narrow tranchet arrowheads. More
than 100 microliths have been found. These are notable for the number of very
small scalene triangles which almost equal that of the obliquely blunted points.
There are no Horsham points. There are many micro-burins and cores.
Scattered sherds of a Neolithic tripartite Peterborough bowl have been found
not far from the Mesolithic chipping floors and hearth. With a little spring rising
not far away, this sheltered hillside would have made a suitable resting place for
wandering peoples.
Rapsley, Ew hurst — Roman Villa (T.Q. 080415). Excavation has been continued
under the direction of the Viscountess Hanworth. Site 2, the field, is finished,
and the land has been returned to its owners. This year the western and
southern boundary walls, two entrances, several pits, an early enclosure system
of ditches which contained stake holes, a further masonry building outside the
boundary wall, and a timber building of Period 2 beneath the southern building,
were all examined. More work was also done on the basilican building, and a
shrine was found. This was a timber structure with a curved northern wall. Its
dimensions were 31ft. 6ins. by 15ft. 9in. It had a tessellated floor, and half circle
tiles indicated some form of pilaster. In the centre was a solid masonry semi-
circle, 8ft. 6ins. by 9ft.. with vestiges of an edging wall. It had been rendered with
opus signinum and it might have been a basin. A drain led southwards to a
soakaway outside the boundary wall. The shrine was contained in a temenos
area not yet fully excavated but approximately 42ft. square. A preliminary
examination of the Samian indicates a late Antonine date for the shrine (as also
for the bulk of the masonry of the villa), but continued use may be inferred by
painted New Forest pottery in the drain.
An enamel disc brooch in good condition was found during the final weekend:
it is now at the Institute of Archaeology undergoing conservation treatment. A
brass coin of Trajan was found at the bottom of a rectangular rubbish pit con-
taining much burnt material of late second century date. An almost complete
carinated first century vessel was found in a pit with dateable Samian ware,
several plain pieces of "Mural Crown" vessel were also found, but no decorated
sherds. Work will continue on Site 1 in 1967, subject to the owners' permission;
a resistivity survey has indicated a possible further building which would com-
plete a courtyard. Much credit is due to the volunteers who worked in conditions
which were often far from pleasant, due to heavy rainfall.
Ashstead Forest: Roman Tilery (T.Q. 178602). In spite of very bad weather
two areas were examined under the direction of Mr. J. N. Hampton. At the site
of the kiln excavated in previous years, another but smaller clamp kiln was identi-
fied. It appeared to be of one phase, which leads us to hope that it may be pos-
sible to clarify structure details and the firing method.
At the other site, south of the main villa building, a slight low wall consisting
of brick with some flint was set in a "mortar" of buff clay. Although only a
short length was identified, it does suggest the sill wall of a timber building, and
this hypothesis is supported by the number of iron nails recovered, together with
a few fragments of window glass. Close to the wall a gulley with burnt sides
represented an earlier phase. It contained charcoal, pottery and burnt material.
Further excavation is planned for 1967.
Wanborough : Round Barrow on Hog's Back (S.U. 937484). This excavation
was started by the boys of Charterhouse under Mr. E. E. Harrison and was con-
tinued by volunteers under the direction of Mr. A. J. Clark. Although reduced
by ploughing to a height of 3| feet, it had been a magnificent bell barrow, char-
acteristic of the Bronze Age Wessex Culture : the diameter of the mound was
about 75 feet and of the ditch 120 feet. This had been 8-9 feet wide and at least
3 feet deep, with a flat bottom and almost vertical sides. The main burial was
lost, as the centre of the mound had been much cut about by robber trenches
intersected in turn by a well-cut trench apparently made under the direction of
the Committee of our Society in 1858 (a fact discovered in Volume II of the
"Collections" and probably relating to this barrow). Tool marks, some made
by a blade \\ inches wide, others by a point only \ inch wide, were found in the
ditch bottom at one place, and a mould of them was taken with Ruvulex latex
emulsion. The south-west quadrant of the barrow was almost completely stripped
in an unsuccessful search for secondary burials: however, it did produce several
Roman objects — an iron arrowhead, an early brooch and eight bronze coins that
probably formed a second century hoard. Romano-British sherds associated with
a rapid filling of the upper part of the ditch indicated ploughing up to the foot
of the mound in that period. A grave containing a skeleton had cut into the
ditch filling on the east side; a coin two inches above its chest suggested a Roman
date, although this could have been fortuitous and the burial later.
In view of its proximity to the village and the lack of other likely mounds, it
seems very probable that this is the Wen Barrow which gave its name to Wan-
borough. The barrow has since been destroyed by road widening.
Woodlands Park, Oaklawn Road, Leatherhead : Romano-British Site (T.Q.
151587). Excavations were carried out in September, 1966, under the direction
of Mr. F. A. Hastings. A large area roughly paved with flints was revealed and
this had been extensively robbed in places. Adjacent to the paving was a shallow
drainage ditch filled with dark soil containing pottery including Samian ware,
charcoal and some bone. Excavation of this feature will be continued next season.
Trial trenching over a large area of the summit of the hill was completely nega-
tive. Quite a lot of pottery and some roofing and flue tile was found in the top-
soil, but this had obviously been spread by tree-blasting when the site was cleared
for cultivation in 1960. It was originally thought that the evidence from the trial
trenching in March was enough to suggest that the site of a Roman building had
been discovered, but further indication is now required and a resistivity survey
will be carried out. The quantity of pottery suggests an important site. Thanks
are due to Mr. F. W. Blake, the farmer, for his kind co-operation.
Badshot Lea, Farnham : Moated Site (S.U. 863486). The village of Badshot
Lea lies some two miles north-east of Farnham. When word was received that
the moated site at Park Farm was threatened by impending development, arrange-
ments were made for the Farnham Field Research Group and the Surrey Archaeo-
logical Society to carry out an investigation of the site.
Excavations commenced at Whitsun, 1966, under the direction of Mr. I. G.
Dormor. A resistivity survey of the area enclosed by the dry moat ditch (Site 1)
was carried out and the main grid was laid out in accordance with the results.
A Tudor brick wall and a large quantity of pottery of the same period was found.
Among the finds from Site 1 was a 14th century English token. In August the
excavation was transferred to the area enclosed by the wet moat. Here, on
Site 2, two Tudor brick drainage culverts and associated chalk floors were found
along with the partly robbed walls of an earlier building. A sealed Tudor rubbish
pit contained a great many sherds of green glazed and coarse wares. The moat
is walled in places and work carried out therein by a diving team would suggest
that it was dug in the first period of occupation of the site in the late 13th cen-
tury and the revetting walls added in Tudor times. The partial filling of the moat
probably took place in Georgian times when the site was cleared for the con-
struction of the Period III house. Excavation will continue on Site 2 throughout
1967. It is hoped to examine the Tudor house and the earlier structures.
THE FOLLOWING EXCAVATIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE S.A.S.
Watendone Manor (T.Q. 321594). Excavations have been carried out during
the summer by the Bourne Society to locate the site of the deserted medieval vil-
lage of Watendone. Traces of buildings were found with pottery from the 13th
to 17th centuries. The foundations of a flint structure measuring 48ft. by 62ft.
were found which are probably the remains of the church mentioned in Domes-
day. Outside the north-west corner of this structure there were signs of occupa-
tion, i.e., charcoal mixed with loose flints, a hearth, pieces of painted glass and
pottery of the 13th century. To the north of this flint structure 14 burials were
found; there were no grave goods associated with the burials. The burial ground
probably covered about one acre, but this has not yet been fully excavated. The
Bourne Society was helped by Mr. A. J. Clarke with a resistivity survey and by
Mr. B. J. Philp who directed a mechanical excavator which enabled them to
locate the site quickly in an area about eight acres in extent.
Mitcham : Discovery of Burials (T.Q. 267691). In late October. 1966, work-
men, excavating trial holes on derelict land at the north end of Phipps Bridge
Estate, found two adult burials. The skeletons were extended in shallow graves,
oriented north-south, and apparently without grave goods. The police pathologist
pronounced that they were at least three hundred years old.
A trial excavation, directed by Mr. D. J. Turner, was arranged by the Merton
Historical Society with the help of the Beddington, Carshalton and Wallington
Archaeological Society. Over four hundred square feet of trenches were dug but
only one further skeleton, of an adolescent, was found. This burial was also in
a shallow grave, oriented north-south, and had no grave goods. There was a
scatter of medieval pottery in the top soil and a flat bottomed ditch containing
Romano-British pottery was found.
The orientation of the burials suggests pagan rites. The site is too far from
the well-known Mitcham Anglo-Saxon cemetery for it to be part of it and too
close for it to be probable that this is another Anglo-Saxon burial ground. The
site was part of the common fields of Mitcham until enclosure.
There is a possibility that further excavation may be undertaken here before
development takes place.
Southwark. The Society, as one of the constituent bodies of the Southwark
Archaeological Excavations Committee, helps to support a varied programme.
The main sites in 1966 were:
Borough Market (T.Q. 326802). Excavations were carried out under the
direction of Mr. G. J. Dawson on behalf of the Southwark Archaeological
Excavations Committee by the Southwark and Lambeth Archaeological Society
at 4 Southwark Street, Borough Market. The excavations took place in a small
cellar which had a considerable amount of loose rubble in it which constricted
the area available for excavation to 15ft. by 5ft. The middle of 8ft. of this was
a modern wall which destroyed all earlier features.
The modern cellar had destroyed all features dating after c. 1300 except for
the bottom of one pit which cut down to the natural and which may be late
medieval or post-medieval. Apart from this the latest feature on the site was a
deep ditch of which the top fill at least was earlv medieval but it is possible that
the ditch was cut in Roman times since the lower layers seem to contain only
R-B pottery.
Elephant and Castle (T.Q. 319789). Excavations were carried out under the
direction of Mr. G. J. Dawson on behalf of the Southwark Archaeological
Excavation Committee by the Southwark and Lambeth Archaeological Society
on a large cleared area fronting on to Newington Butts immediately south of
the Metropolitan Tabernacle. The area lay close to the village of Newington,
but on the earliest maps it is shown without any buildings though such existed
on both sides of it. In the time available it was only possible to excavate an
area 10ft. square.
No features earlier than the end of the 18th century were found. Three
periods of brick walling were found, all of 19th or 20th century date, and two
brick-lined circular pits. These pits may have been cess pits, but they lay on
top of a clay layer and this would have made drainage from them difficult.
Also there was no black organic layer at the bottom as there should have been
if they were cess pits. Therefore it is more likely that they were wells. Below
the 19th century building lay a thick layer of light grey silt containing four or
five sherds of medieval pottery.
It is known that a stream, called the Tigris in the 19th century, flowed
alongside the north boundary wall of the site and another stream seems to
have joined it from the south. The excavation showed that the area must have
been liable to repeated floodings from these streams until they were converted
into sewers in the 19th century and that this prevented settlement until then.
Post-Medieval Site, Lambeth (T.Q. 306788). A site in Lambeth High Street
was examined under the direction of Mr. B. J. Bloice. Eighteenth and nine-
teenth century buildings were planned, including a corner fireplace. Sealed
under these was a furnace and layers of ploughsoil with early post-medieval
pottery in them. The site has produced an amount of Delft and stoneware
material but was rather disturbed.
Kennington Palace (T.Q. 312782). Excavation work under the direction of
Mr. G. J. Dawson was carried out on the site of the medieval Kennington
Palace. The plans of the hall, principal chamber block and two or three
subsidiary ones have been obtained, besides a possible stable, garden enclosure
and two ditches. The Tudor long barn and the basement of one of the Tudor
manor houses have also been plotted.
Park Street (T.Q. 324803). Excavations were carried out under the direction
of Mr. G. J. Dawson on behalf of the Southwark Archaeological Committee
by the Southwark and Lambeth Archaeological Society on a strip of land at the
north end of Courage's car park in Park Street. A trench 55ft. by 10ft. was
laid down, but the western forty feet or so was solid concrete and excavation
there was impossible, so the excavated area was only approximately lift, by
10ft. Another major problem was water: the trench had to be pumped and
baled dry four times.
The earliest feature on the site was a layer of sticky grey clay which was
at least eight feet thick (its base was not reached). It contained a few bones
and tiles, mainly in its upper parts. Immediately on top of this was a flimsy
floor made of re-used roofing tiles perhaps associated with two post holes, one
of which may have been repaired. Over this were several layers of occupation
debris full of kitchen refuse dating from the late 16th century at the bottom to
early 17th century at the top. Cut a little into the top of this was the remains
of a brick building with a chimney breast and, outside this building a brick and
stone surface which is probably Naked Boy Alley. Both of these features can
be dated to the middle of the 17th century. The building had been altered
at some time during its life and was demolished in the mid-1 8th century by
Thrale to create a garden opposite his house (see Survey of London, Vol. XXII,
Bankside, p. 78).
Three important points have been raised by this excavation :
1. Roman Channel. The evidence for this was slight, but the grey clay still
existed at Oft O.D. at which level Mr. Marsden found peat with R-B material
on it on the other side of Park Street. Thus it would suggest an area of lower
land, if not a channel, here in Roman times.
2. The development of the marsh. Both here and at Emerson Place it
would seem that the river was still depositing clay up to c. 1500 or later, and,
since this clay has almost no organic content this would suggest that the river
covered the area at most high tides. Not until some time in the mid or late
16th century was the area used, even for farming. This would suggest that
some time in the early 16th century work was carried out on embanking the
river.
3. Alleyways. Alleys are a characteristic of Southwark on the earliest de-
tailed maps, but the Park Street evidence may suggest that they are a post-
medieval development, probably part of the decline to slum conditions which
occurred in Southwark in the late 16th and 17th centuries. It is interesting to
note that the first development of the site, in the late 16th century, was on a
more spacious scale and it was only in the 17th century that more houses were
crammed into the same place.
Horley, Court Lodge Farm (T.Q. 273431). In November a second season of
excavations were completed at this site by Dr. G. P. Moss. The work was organ-
ised by the Holmesdale Archaeological Group in conjunction with this Society.
The medieval manor house of Horley was clearly in the vicinity of this site.
A drainage ditch leading towards the moat was traced for 17ft. starting about
43ft. from the edge of the moat. Cutting across the ditch there was a deep pit
2ft. by 5ft. Two short pillars of unmortared bricks were found near opposite
corners of the pit. Their function is unknown. Several well-formed post holes
were uncovered including four, each 4ft. apart and 2ft. from the ditch. Some
crude post holes clearly were derived from a fence leading to the corner of the
great tythe barn (pulled down in August). A large area was cleared showing only
ill-defined features. During the closing stages of this season's work the wall of
the manor house was mainly located by a robber trench, back filled with mortar
and soil and traced for 35ft. This may well correspond to the north wall of the
building shown on the 1602, 1799, 1812 and 1846 maps. A possible sleeper wall
trench of an earlier building was found lying immediately adjacent to the robber
trench.
Due to the lack of stratigraphy the dating of features is as yet not possible.
Considerable quantities of sherds have been found dating from about the twelfth
century to the present day. The many high quality decorated sherds include a
medieval face-on-front jug which shows similarities with pottery from Rye (cf.
Sussex Archaeological Collections, 101 (1963). p. 132). Two sherds of German
Westerwald salt glazed stoneware have been found and a selection of clay pipes
of all ages. A 15th century French jetton also was uncovered.
The extensive records of Christ's Hospital have illuminated many aspects of
Court Lodge Farm from their purchase in 1602 to 1847, when the old manor
house was dismantled for building materials. It is hoped to resume excavations
at the site next Easter.
SYMPOSIUM
The fifth annual Symposium on recent archaeological work in South-East Eng-
land was held in Guildford on 26th March and was attended by some 150 people.
The following papers were read :
Mesolithic Site at Orchard Hill. Carshalton : Mrs. M. Turner.
Roman Villa at Eccles, 1962-5: Mr. A. P. Detsicas.
Romano-Gaulish Clay Figures: Mr. F. Jenkins.
Romano-British Ironworks at Bardown: Mr. H. Cleare.
Anglo-Saxon Cemetery at Orpington : Mr. P. J. Tester.
Excavations in Kennington: Mr. G. J. Dawson.
Royal Abbey of Faversham: Mr. B. J. Philp.
St. Anne's Chapel, Chertsey: Mr. W. J. Bult.
Two Late 17th Century Vaults at Cheam: Mr. D. R. Cousins.
These symposia, which provide an opportunity for the exchange of ideas and
information between both societies and individuals engaged in excavation work,
continue to prove popular and valuable. It was realised that conditions were
now right for permanent arrangements to be made for the continuance of these
functions. In his vote of thanks to the speakers, Mr. K. W. E. Gravett, who
had been connected with their organisation since their inception, announced his
retirement, and that responsibility for the Symposium had been assumed by
the Excavations Committee.
VISITS AND LECTURES
The following meetings and lectures were held during the year :
10th February. Stationers' Hall and St. Sepulchre's Church, Holborn Viaduct,
and Roman City Wall in basement of G.P.O. Organiser, Capt. Wilson.
12th March. Lectures in Guildford. Mr. Victor Smith spoke on English
Country Houses, and Miss Joan Harding on the Late Bronze Age Settlement at
Weston Wood.
16th April. Visit to Brighton in conjunction with the Brighton and Hove
Archaeological Society. Organiser, Capt. Wilson. Visit to Hollingbury Hill Fort,
Stanmer Park, and Brighton Museum, and conducted party round the "Lanes."
7th May. Visit to Essex. Organiser, Mrs. Chiles. Visit to Greenstead Church.
Speaker, Mr. R. S. Simms. Blackmore, described by the Vicar. Visit to Brad-
well Lodge, St. Peter's Church (on the Wall), Maldon Church. Speaker, the Vicar.
4th June. Godalming visit. Organiser, Mrs. Sidney Smith. Visit to the
Church, Westbrook House and The Old Mill- Also Peperharow and Church.
9th July. Visit to Great Bookham Church, in conjunction with the Leather-
head and District Local History Society.
23rd July. Guildford Town Walk. Organiser, Miss J. Carter. 50 members
attended this very well thought out and interesting day.
10th September. Walk — Betchworth to Dorking, in conjunction with the
Holmesdale Club.
15th October. Visit to Westminster Abbey 900th Centenary Exhibition. Or-
ganiser Mr. R. S. Simms. Mr. MacMichael, Assistant Librarian, conducted the
party.
27th October. Lecture in conjunction with the Bourne Society by Mr. Austen
Clark, "With a Camera in the Bourne Valley."
12th November. Lecture in Guildford. Mr. B. K. Davidson on "The Saxon
Town of Thetford," and Viscountess Hanworth on The Roman Villa, Rapsley,
Ewhurst.
2nd December. Treasure Trove — Joint meeting of the Society and the Bourne
Society.
The Council wishes to record its thanks to the organisers, to the lecturers at
the meetings, and to all who contributed to their success.
LIBRARY
During the year 75 books were added to the Library by gift and purchase.
The Council wishes to express its grateful thanks to those members who have
generously presented books, pamphlets and other graphic material to the Library.
The Council is indebted to all the members who have assisted with the work
of the Library, and especially to Mrs. Murphy for her regular help with so many
tasks.
ACQUISITIONS
Printed Books and Pamphlets
Gifts
From: Miss P. M. Brewer: Blaker, N. P.. Sussex in Bygone Days (1919); Miss
E. M. Dance, Lewis Carroll and Guildford (1966); Harley, J. B., English County
Map-making in the Early Years of the Ordnance Survey. The Map of Surrey
by Lindley. J. and Crossley, W. (1966); I. Dill: Margary, I. D., Military Field
Kitchens of the 18th Century (1965); Mrs. Garland: Hawkins. M. and Web-
ster, T., A Short History of Molesey (1966); Miss B. Hills: Knight. E. C. W.,
The Church of St. Mary, Chiddingfold (1966); Mrs. F. H. Murphy: The Salva-
tion Army Service of Thanksgiving (1965), Guildford Cathedral, Thanksgiving
Service for Completion of the Building (1966); D. J. Turner: Greenwood, G. B.
(Edited by). Notes Towards a History of Hersham (1966); T. E. C. Walker:
Historical Association, English Local History Hand List (1965); G. R. Wells:
Voysey, R., Voysey's Rural Rambles (Book 3) (1939), Stephen, E. F., Two
Centuries in the Local Coal Trade: the Story of Charringtons (1952); the
authors: Cox, R. C. W., Some Aspects of the Urban Development of Croydon,
1870-1940 (1966); Gosney, D. C, Story of Grafham Grange (1966).
Purchases
Wheeler. K. S., Geographical Fieldwork (1965); Willis, A. J., Winchester Ordi-
nations, 1660-1829, Vol. 11 (1965); Gross, C, A Bibliography of British Muni-
cipal History, 2nd Edition (1966); Temple, N., Farnham Inheritance, 2nd Edi-
tion (1965); Wrigley, E. A., Introduction to English Historical Demography
(1966); Pevsner, N.. Buildings of England, Berkshire (1966); Bond, M., The
Records of Parliament (1964); Emmison, F. G., Archives and Local History
(1966); Harris, J. M., Holy Trinity Church, Knaphill, 1907-1957 (1957); Elim,
Rev. C. R. S.. Some Notes on East Horsley Church and Parish (1908); Harper,
C. G., Southwark Past and Present (n.d.); Rendle, W., St. Thomas's Hospital.
Southwark (1883); Bell, W. J., Esher and District (n.d.); Reynolds, L. F.. A
History of the Clapham Congregational Church (1912); Hall, E. T., Dulwich,
History and Romance, 967-1916 (1917); Goodliffe, W., Horsham and St.
Leonard's Forest (1905); Dawber, E. G. and Davie, W. G., Old Cottages and
Farmhouses in Kent and Sussex (1900); Taylor, H. R., The Old Surrey Fox-
hounds (1906); Sturt. G., The Wheelwright's Shop (1943); Cousins, S.. The
Dorking British School (1919); Christophers, R. A., George Abbot, Archbishop
of Canterbury, 1562-1633 (1966); Humphreys, D. W.. Local History for Students
(1966); Rolston. G. R., Haslemere, 1850-1950 (1950); Lewis, M. J. T., Temples
in Roman Britain (1966); Stevens, I. D., Story of Esher (1966); Dunbar, J., A
Prospect of Richmond (1966); Corcoran, J., The Young Field Archaeologist's
Guide (1966); Bass, G. F.. Archaeology under Water (1966); Massingham, B.,
Miss Jekyil, Portrait of a Great Gardener (1966); Hudson, K., Industrial Archae-
ology of Southern England (1965); Smith, D., Industrial Archaeology of East
Midlands (1965); Vine, P. A. L., London's Lost Route to the Sea, 2nd Edition
(1966); Wacher. J. S., The Civitas Capitals of Roman Britain (1966); Fames,
K. G. and Mason, M. T., The Windmills of Surrey and Inner London (1966);
Marshall, — , Agriculture in Surrey (1798).
Reviews
Merrifield. R., The Roman City of London (1965); Forge, Lindus, Oatlands Palace
(1966); Rivet, A. L. F., Town and Country in Roman Britain (1966); Thomas.
S., Pre-Roman Britain (1965).
Prints, Maps and other Graphic Matter
Gifts : From Prof. S. S. Frere, two large-scale plans and two volumes of explana-
tory notes, of the Roman Road. West Wickham to London, from the papers of
the late B. F. Davies; from T. E. C. Walker, Notes on the Godalming Sema-
phore; Price list of parts of the Victoria County History available from the
Institute of Historical Research; from the County Librarian, print of Brockwell
Hall; from A. S. Gilbert, transparency of the keystone of an arch, now at
Langley Park Road, Sutton, perhaps from Somerset House; from Mrs. Rice,
newspaper cuttings relating to Woking; from Miss Irene Codd, typescript cor-
rections to The Story of Esher by I. D. Stevens; from The Beddington, Walling-
ton and Carshalton Archaeological Society, typescript report of West Lodge,
Carshalton, by K. W. E. Gravett; bequest of Mr. J. A. Rowles, nine water
colours of Ewell.
Museum Material for Deposit in Guildford Museum
Gifts: From Mrs. Meade- Waldo, miscellaneous flints (some Surrey); from Prof.
S. S. Frere, box of surface flints from Sanderstead; from Mr. Airey, Neolithic
Stone Axe from Coulsdon; from M. E. Farley, medieval sherds from Hell Shaw,
Limpsfield, and Kitchen Grove, Titsey.
Loans: From His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, one Romano-British pot
and a quantity of sherds, 78 Roman coins and other miscellaneous archaeo-
logical specimens, quantity of chalk fossils, all from the Albury Estate.
GUILDFORD MUSEUM
Mr. E. S. Wood remains the Society's representative on the Library, Museum
and Arts Committee of Guildford Corporation, with Mr. N. P. Thompson as his
deputy.
Among the more interesting accessions during the year, in addition to those
deposited by the Society as described above, the Curator reports the following:
A collection of medieval and 17th century pottery sherds, including kiln wasters
of both periods, from Ash Street, Ash (the sherds from Manfield School, Ash,
mentioned in last year's report were found very near and are obviously part of
the same site): flint and stone axes of various periods from Frimley (temporary
loan only), Limpsfield and Woking: some hundreds of 19th century prints, draw-
ings and other graphic material relating to Guildford and neighbouring villages,
a gift from Mr. H. W. Stevens, which will be kept together as the Stevens Col-
lection.
MEMBERSHIP
At 31st December, 1966, there were 1,011 members; honorary 8, life 50, sub-
scribing individual 833 and institutional 120. During the year 11 members died,
100 resigned, and 27 were struck off under Rule VII. There were 85 new mem-
bers, six of them being institutional. The net loss is thus 53.
OBITUARY
Major H. C. Patrick, D.L., who died on 9th December in his 84th year, is one
who will be greatly missed in every walk of life (and they were many) with which
he was connected, and in none more than in the Society, which he joined in
1938. He was a member of the Council continuously from 1949 until his death,
except that in every fifth year, according to the rules of the constitution, he had
to stand down for one year. He was also local secretary for Farnham and a
member of the Visits Committee. Any expedition he led was always interesting
and well organised. As a resident of Farnham and a member of the Urban Dis-
trict Council (for three years its Chairman) he did everything he could to pre-
serve the charm of the old town, and he was very interested in the opening of
Willmer House as its museum. During the restoration of the church, while he
was churchwarden, he found the old hatchments, dirty and neglected, in a room
in the tower. He had them cleaned and put in good order and they now hang
on the walls in the nave and transepts, giving beauty and colour and demon-
strating the historical connection of the church with old Farnham families of
note. He also took a great interest in keeping Farnham's footpaths open and,
until recently, when the Ramblers' Association took on the work for him, walked
them all himself before the review of the Definitive Map. He served for many
years on the Parochial Church Council and was a Deputy Lieutenant of the
County.
Mr. Frederick Bevan Burgess, who became a member in 1962, has died at the
comparatively early age of 55. As a youth his interest in old stone-carved
memorials was born and developed through his visits to the Suffolk churchyard
by his parents' home. Eventually, becoming an art teacher, painter, designer and
lecturer, he devoted much of his leisure time to scouring churchyards all over
the country, recording and photographing outstanding examples of 18th century
craftsmanship in design and lettering. His exhibition in 1952, sponsored by the
Arts Council, and showing the fruits of his efforts over 20 years, was shown in
the provinces, and later in London. In 1963 his volume English Churchyard
Memorials was published (reviewed in the "Collections," Vol. XLI). Thereafter,
by lecturing, writing and organising exhibitions, Mr. Burgess sought to promote
interest in such memorials, and greater appreciation of their artistic and historical
value, and pleaded for their preservation. For many years his wife has shared
his keen interest and given him practical assistance. The summer walk round
Epsom graveyard, originally organised by Mr. Burgess for this Society and the
Bourne Society, will now be led by his widow, Mrs. Pamela Burgess, who intends
to carry on his researches.
Mr. C. M. Duncan, D.S.O., M.C., J. P., who died on 17th December, 1966, had
been a member of the Society since 1932. A prominent citizen of Reigate, he
was for 30 years a LP., was Chairman of Reigate Borough Bench, and held many
other local appointments. He took the chair at local meetings arranged by the
Society in 1960 and 1962. He was a grandson of Dr. Henry Duncan of Rothwall,
Dumfriesshire, who founded the Savings Bank Movement in 1810.
The Council also reports with regret the death of the following other members:
Mr. B. R. Bonas, Mr. C. H Heath, Mrs. E. N. T. Griffiths, Mr. P. A. W. Roffey.
Sir Osmund Cleverly and Miss Marson.
OFFICERS, COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES
At the 1966 Annual General Meeting, Miss Kathleen M. Kenyon, C.B.E.,
D.Litt., F.B.A., F.S.A., was re-elected President of the Society. The Honorary
Secretary, Mr. E. S. Wood, B.A., F.S.A., to the great regret of the Council,
having found it necessary to resign, was elected a Vice-President of the Society.
Both the Council and the members of the Society at the Annual General Meeting
offered him their most grateful thanks for his long and valuable service as the
Honorary Secretary. He was succeeded by Mr. A. S. Gilbert, C.B.E., LL.M.
All the other Honorary Officers were re-elected. On the Council's nomination
The Viscountess Hanworth, Mrs. J. T. Banks. A.L.A., and Messrs. I. G. J.
Dawson, B.A.. J. N. Hampton, A. T. Ruby, M.B.E., and N. P. Thompson were
elected to serve until 1970. The Honorary Auditor, Mr. A. A. Wylie, F.C.A.,
was re-elected.
The following served on Committees during the year:
Library Committee : Mr. T. E. C. Walker, F.S.A. (Chairman), Miss P. M. St. J.
Brewer, A.L.A. (Hon. Librarian), Miss E. M. Dance, M.A., Ph.D., Mr. E. E.
Harrison. M.A., F.S.A., Miss M- D. Liggett, B.A., F.L.A., Mr. J. L. Nevinson,
F.S.A., Mr. A. S. Gilbert, C.B.E., LL.M.
Excavations Committee : Mr. A. W. G. Lowther, A.R.I.B.A., F.S.A. (Chairman),
Messrs. B. P. Blake, A. J. Clark, F.S.A., I. G. R. Dormor, J. N. Hampton, The
Viscountess Hanworth, Miss Joan M. Harding, Messrs. E. E. Harrison, M.A.,
F.S.A., F. A. Hastings, F. W. Holling, N. H. Nail, N. P. Thompson (Honorary
Excavations Organiser), D. J. Turner, B.Sc, E. S. Wood, B.A., F.S.A., A. S. Gil-
bert, C.B.E., LL.M.
Visits Committee : R. S. Simms, F.S.A. (Chairman), Capt. M. A. Wilson, R.N.R.
(Honorary Treasurer), Major H. C. Patrick, D.L., Mrs. J.T. Banks, A.L.A., Miss
J. M. Carter, Mr. H. V. H. Everard, B.Sc., Mrs. M. N. Trier, Miss C. Smith
(Secretary).
Museums Committee: Mr. E. S. Wood, B.A., F.S.A. (Chairman), Mr. E. E.
Harrison. F.S.A., Mr. J. G. W. Lewarne, Mr. J. L. Nevinson, F.S.A., Miss Joan
M. Harding, Miss E. M. Dance, M.A., Ph.D., Mr. J. C. Batley.
REPRESENTATION
Council for British Archceology : A. J. Clark. E. S. Wood.
Council for British Archceology, Group 10 : D. J. Turner.
Council for British Archceology, Group 11 A : E. E. Harrison.
Library, Museum and Arts Committee, Guildford Corporation : E. S. Wood,
N. P. Thompson.
Southwark Archaeological Excavations Committee : E. S. Wood.
NOTICES
All subscriptions are for the calendar year and are due on January 1st. Members
two pounds; associate members (relatives of members living in the same house)
ten shillings; junior members (between 16 and 21) ten or twenty-five shillings
(without or with the "Collections"). Cheques should be made payable to "The
Surrey Archaeological Society."
Membership : The Honorary Secretary urgently requests members to inform
him at once of any change of address: failure to do this may result in members
not receiving the publications and circulars to which they are entitled. He
would be obliged if they could notify him of their intention to resign, and
also if they learn of the death of any member. Candidates for election to the
Society must be nominated by two members on a form obtainable from the
Honorary Secretary.
Gifts, when relevant to the work of the Society, will be gratefully accepted
by the Council; it may not however be in a position to accept all offers. The
chief categories of acceptable gifts are: Printed books and pamphlets relating
to Surrey or standard archaeological works: lists of particular desiderata are
published from time to time; maps, prints, original drawings and other graphic
matter relating to Surrey and areas immediately adjacent: MS. material relating
to Surrey and embodying the results of original research (for example, collec-
tions made for parish histories); archaeological finds or other objects bearing on
the history of Surrey, for deposit in Guildford Museum (these should in every
case be accompanied by full particulars regarding the place of origin, and date
and circumstances of finding); furniture or other equipment suitable for use in
the Library, Stock or Students' Rooms. The County Archivist, Surrey Record
Office, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, and the Curator-Archivist, Guildford
Muniment Room, Castle Arch, Guildford, welcome information about records
relating to Surrey, including manorial documents, estate and other accounts, title
deeds, maps and plans, letters, and family business records, and are pleased to
accept them from owners and custodians, either as gifts or on deposit.
Articles and Notes for Publication : The Honorary Editor is collecting material
for forthcoming Volumes. Now that the Volume appears annually there is no
accumulation of unpublished material and the Editor will be glad to consider
papers and notes. These should be typed and as free from error as possible.
Corrections and alterations, especially once such articles have been set up and
are in proof stage, add materially to the cost of production.
Excavations : Members who wish to assist should respond to the notices in
the Bulletin. A wide variety of skills is required, including surveying, drawing,
washing finds, etc., as well as the hard work of digging. Institutions on the list
may normally nominate one person for this. These restrictions are necessary
on some sites, because the number of volunteers often exceeds the number
which can be accommodated on a site of limited area, but larger sites of
more general character are advertised in the C.B.A. Calendar of Excavations,
and on these any volunteer is welcomed. Members should enquire in advance
whether any special equipment is needed, but should, in any case, always bring
a pointing trowel.
The Surrey Record Society was founded in 1913 for the sole purpose of publish-
ing editions of Surrey records. Members who use these publications in the course
of their historical and archaeological searches are asked to assist the work of
the sister society by becoming members. The subscription is £2 a year. Further
details may be obtained from the Hon. Secretary at Castle Arch.
All Communications should be addressed to the appropriate officer of the Society
at Castle Arch, Guildford, except that letters relating to Visits should be sent to
the Hon. Visits Secretary, Elyots, Minster Road, Godalming.
SURREY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
REVENUE ACCOUNT FOR THE
Year to 31st
Dec, 1965
£ £
70
49
40
27
927
900
Castle Arch Rent, etc.
Excavations Expenses
Library Books
Collections :
Deficit on Volume 62 ...
Less C.B.A. Donation ...
Further Provision Vol. 63
Provision Volume 64
130
Visits and Lectures Expen-
diture
9
121
Less Receipts
107
Symposium Expenditure ...
72
Less Receipts
35
—
304
Bulletin Expenses
106
Secretarial Expenses
214
Printing and Stationery ...
70
Postages
18
Sundry Expenses ...
52
Subscriptions to Allied
Societies
£1894
£ s. d.
290 18 3
75 0 0
£ s. d.
75 9 3
104 10 11
70 9 4
215 18 3
400 0 0
400 0 0
85 2
80 0
0
6
63 13
25 6
0
6
1015 18 3
5 1 6
38 6 6
366 14 10
129 17 6
181 15 4
58 12 1
19 15 1
52 13 6
£2119 4 1
CAPITAL ACCOUNT
—
Fire Extinguishers
60
Compensation Returned ...
35
Cost of
Rules
Printing Revised
471
Adverse
Year
Balance for the
566
2782
Balance carried to Balance
Sheet
£3348
£ s. d.
18 7 6
121 1
1
139 8
2712 10
7
10
£2851 19
5
SURREY ARCH/EOLOGICAL SOCIETY
YEAR ENDED 31st DECEMBER, 1966
Year to 31st
Dec, 1965
£ £
1014
280
129
1423
471
£ s. d.
948 Members' Subscriptions, Current Year 1529 19 0
8 Members' Subscriptions, Arrears
58 Tax Recovered from Covenants
269 Interest on Investments and Deposits
11 Margary Fund — Net Balance
226 Sales of Publications
97 Less Expenditure thereon
d.
Adverse Balance for the Year
24 14
68 11
7
2
1623
200
174
4
9
8
q
... 200 9
8
8
... 229 15
55 7
7
0
7
1998
121
3
1
0
1
£1894
£2119 4 1
£
3211
47
10
80
CAPITAL ACCOUNT
Brought forward 1st January, 1966
Entrance Fees
Donations
Life Subscriptions
£ s. d.
2782 1 5
59 5 0
10 13 0
£3348
£2851 19 5
SURREY ARCH/EOLOGICAL SOCIETY
BALANCE SHEET AS
31st Dec,
1965
£ £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
Capital Account
2782 Balance as per Account
Annexed 2712 10 10
The Margary Fund
Balance as at 1st January,
1966 7452 0 0
Interest on Conversion Stock 363 0 0
7452 Interest on Deposit Account 77 7 0
440 7 0
7892 7 0
Provision for Cost of Collections
Volume 63 1300 0 0
1700 Volume 64 400 0 0
1700 0 0
Notes: 1. The Current Market Value (February, 1967)
of the Securities held by the Society was,
on Investment Account £3,660, and on
Margary Fund Account £5,974.
2. The Balance Sheet excludes the value of the
Society's Exhibits, Books, Furniture and
Equipment.
3. For Insurance purposes, the Society's
Library Books, Maps, Prints and Collec-
tions were last valued in October, 1965, at
£8,533.
DENYS J. COLEY, Chartered Accountant,
Honorary Treasurer.
£11934 £12304 17 10
SURREY ARCH/EOLOGICAL SOCIETY
AT 31st DECEMBER, 1966
31st Dec, 1965
£ £ £ s. d. £ s. d.
Investments at Cost
£1000 4+% Defence Bonds 1000 0 0
3568 £2800 5% Conversion Stock 1971 ... 2567 17 0
Investments on Margary Fund per contra
3567 17 0
7452 7892 7 0
5999
1453
£6050 6% Conversion Stock 1972
at cost
Trustee Savings Bank Special Deposit
Current Assets less Liabilities
Cash at Bank on Current and Deposit
Account
Cash in Hand
Debtors and Debit Balance ...
5998
1893
16
10
5
7
872
13
895
13
1
3
8
8
885
78
908
5
4
963 £ 908 5 4
37 Less Subscriptions paid in
advance ... ... ... 14 7 0
49 12 Provisions for Current
Expenses 49 4 6 63 11 6
914 — — 844 13 10
£11934 £12304 17 10
Report of the Auditor to the Members of the Surrey Archaeological Society
I have examined the Revenue Account and the above Balance Sheet of the
Surrey Archaeological Society together with the books and vouchers presented to
me, and I have verified the assets to the best of my ability. In my opinion, these
accounts correctly set forth the position of the Society's finances.
A. A. WYLIE,
Chartered Accountant, Honorary Auditor.
"Winton," 46, London Road, Guildford.
11th March, 1967.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11