.

Thursday 12 June 2014

The Remains of Coggeshall Abbey (2): Transactions 'n.s' Volume 15 Part 1

The Remains of Coggeshall Abbey (2)
By G F Beaumont, F.S.A.

An extract from Transactions ‘n.s.’ Volume 15 part 1.  This volume is available exclusively to members in digitized format.  To subscribe use the ‘Contact Form’ on this site.

The Abbey House

From the foregoing we learn, among other things, that the mansion in which Sir John Sharpe dwelt in 1518, and which Clement Harleston occupied in 1528, was still standing in 1647, and we conclude that there can be no doubt that it is in part represented by the abbey house.  It is conceivable from the fact that Sharpe was a wealthy man the house was built by him, but it seems much more probable that it was built by Harleston; the nominal rent of 9s. and the lease for 90 years suggest this, added to which he was not improbably inspired to its erection by the great work which was going on at Layer Marney between 1500 and 1525, and which he must have had constantly under observation, as, according to Morant,[1] he married a daughter of William Tey, of Layer-de-la-Haye, the adjoining parish.

That the house was originally considerably larger than it is now is obvious from the fine chimney stacks, of which there are four. In the ancient wall (probably Norman) which runs through the house from the front to the back[2] there are three stacks, of which two contain two chimneys apiece, the western couple being modern and those to the east of them ancient; and the easternmost stack contains three chimneys in a row, and there are four chimneys in a row in the east wall of the hall, the fireplace on the outer side of the east wall being exposed.  All the chimneys above the roof, except two which are round, are hexagonal.  The front wall of the house is 3 feet thick, and the wall which runs through the building, and is the oldest part of it, is 29 inches thick.  Towards the east end of this wall is a pointed Norman arch springing from stone scolloped cushion capitals, that on the east side being supported by a circular brick pillar, and that on the other side by a semi-circular respond of similar construction.  From the fact that there is a treble chimney stack in this wall, it would seem that what was evidently part of an arcade was adapted to serve as an inner wall of the Tudor mansion.  The fine window in the northern portion of the front wall has stone mullions and quoins, and a stone plinth runs along the entire front of the house.  The porch is of moulded brick and is apparently of the same date as the front wall.  It was originally of one floor the front wall, above the roof, being stepped and  rising to a point which was probably crowned with a finial, but a small chamber was added later, and as the stone which was inserted above the door bears the date 1581 and the initials R. B.A., the addition was doubtless made by Richard Benyan and Anne his wife, the latter as we have seen having become entitled to the leasehold interest in the property under the will of Thomas Paycocke in that year.  Although not very legible now, Holman,[3] in the early part of the eighteenth century, noted the initials and date as above.  The illustration of the house, which is from a photograph taken about 1886, shews that the 4-light Tudor window of the porch still remained; it has since been replaced by a 3-light window.  The Tudor window to the left of it was reduced in size at a much earlier date.  The hall and some of the upstair rooms are beautifully panelled in oak, probably contemporary with the erection of the house, but one piece of the work, though apparently not in its original position, bears the initials of Richard Benyan: it was, perhaps, the screen of the hall.

The abbey house mill, farm and lands, containing together about 143 acres, which had been in the Bullock family of Faulkbourne Hall for more than a century, were sold by the trustees of the will of the Rev. Walter Trevellyan Bullock in 1879, Mr. Sidney Pattisson purchasing the greater part of the property and Mr. Robert Appleford the mill, mill- house, pondwick, garden, etc., containing together about 16 acres.  The Law Union Insurance Company, who were afterwards in possession of the farm, sold it some years ago to the late Mr. N. N. Sherwood, who, dying in 1916, left it to his eldest  son, Mr. W. H. C. Sherwood.

From the time when the property was conveyed to Bromfield and Colbron in 1647, until the latter end of the nineteenth century, we have been unable to find any documents relating to the freehold of this property.  We have seen that the house was occupied by Geo. Nicholls in 1647, and it appears to have continued in his occupation for many years, for in 1666[4] he was assessed for six hearths, and the depositions in Boys v. Cudmore[5] in 1691 state that he resided at the abbey, being then aged 70.  Although as the chimneys shew there were at least nine fireplaces in the Tudor mansion, and probably there were many more, yet in 1666 the number had been reduced to six.  Notwithstanding that a great part of the house had been then destroyed - by what means we know not - it was then still apparently one of the most important houses in the parish, being exceeded only by the house occupied by Matthew Elliston, which was presumably the Home Grange (Boys v. Cudmore), and in respect of which he paid for twelve hearths, and the house occupied by Robert Merrills, which had seven hearths.

The Infirmary of the Monks

The lease to Harleston, in 1528, refers to the mansion as situate near to the infirmary of the monks, and the lease to Bacon, in 1603, describes it as  being next to the infirmary, so there can be but little, if any, doubt that the long building immediately south of the abbey house, and consisting of a groined passage with dormitory above and the oblong building at the southern end of it and into which the lower and upper floors enter by arched doorways, formed part of the infirmary of the monastery.  The illustration of the abbey house shews on the west wall of the long building and the north wall of the oblong building that there was a large vaulted apartment, perhaps the infirmary hall, adjoining those buildings.  It will be seen from the illustration of the dormitory of the adjoining building that there is a recess in the wall of the building beyond, and this would seem to have been used as a seat, from which the occupant had a clear view along the sleeping apartment.

The infirmary, or firmary, or farmery, as it was variously called, of a monastery, generally consisted of a set of buildings apart from the principal cloister buildings, but sometimes connected to them by a passage.  In some cases they were erected round a minor court and had a hall, a kitchen, and frequently a chapel.  The infirmary was, speaking generally, used for the sick and aged monks.  For descriptions shewing the general arrangements of Cistercian abbeys one cannot do better than refer to the learned papers of Sir Wm. St. John Hope[6] and Mr. Brackspear.[7] 

One of the illustrations is taken looking east through the groined passage.  The original ground level was 2 feet below the present level, so it is possible that some portion of the pavement would be disclosed by excavation.  The pointed trefoil headed arch, shewn in the other illustration, is in the west wall of the next section of the passage.

The Tanhouse Hall

This building is, in the documents, sometimes referred to as "a certain stable of old time called the Tannehouse Hall."  It seems doubtful from the references to it in the deed of 1647 whether the building was then standing or not, for the deed purports to convey the "building near the abbey called the Tannehouse Hall," and almost immediately afterwards "the cottages, tenements and buildings erected on the place where the Tannehouse Hall stood."  Of this building no more can be said than that the whole or some part of it had disappeared in 1647, and none of the present buildings are now known as the Tanhouse Hall.

The Chapel of St Katherine

This was still standing in 1647, and were it not for the fact that the chapel in the Abbey lane was, without doubt, known as St. Nicholas as well before as after the dissolution, as will be seen hereafter, one might perhaps have ventured the opinion that that building was the chapel of St. Nicholas.  Can it be that the detached building which is situate near the southern end of the existing range was the Chapel of St. Katherine?  It certainly has a chapel-like appearance, and it does not seem to answer to any other building referred to in the post-suppression documents.  It is true that the longer axis of the building is roughly north and south, but that fact is not conclusive against its ecclesiastical use as we have the case of the monastic church at Rievaulx[8] similarly orientated. The entrance to this building was on the north side.  For a plan and illustration of it see the Rev. E. L. Cutts' paper in vol. i. (o.s.) of the Transactions.  The chapel is said to have been enclosed round about by banks and ditches, a fact which militates against the suggested assignation, as the river on the one side and the buildings nearby on the other side would seem to have rendered such a protection unnecessary.  The definite location of St. Katherine's chapel, and with it the appropriation of the chapel-like building, remain  un­solved.  The building is of rubble, which includes a Norman capital, of which the illustration is a sketch.






[1] Vol I, p.100
[2] The plan in vol. i. of the Transactions (o.s.) is not quite accurate with regard to this wall. It is not at right angles to the front wall, but from the front to the back inclines in a somewhat southerly direction.
[3] M.S.in Colchester Museum
[4] Hearth Tax Return, 246/19
[5] Depositions of Will and Mary
[6] “Furness in Cumberland and Westmorland Arch. Trans., vol. xvi. “Fountains”, in Yorkshire Arch. Trans., vol. xv
[7] “Waverley”, in Surrey Arch. Trans.  “Hayles” in Arch. Journal, vol. lviii.  (1), (2) “Beaulieu”, a joint production in Arch. Journal, vol. lxiii
[8] Brit. Arch. Journal, vol. xix, p.323.  See also “orientation” in the Oxford Dictionary.

No comments: