|’:, 111: 1 7i1-rc1.x 1 @ (Q51? 1111213110111 IS 011‘ 1\'151N'1‘ ’1‘11 111 \'A1\ ' 1.. 1%1{I1)(21C 1-‘1\1{.\1, B1{I1)1l1'1 By E. W. 1’A11K1N AT 21 1111-1-111114 111' 1111- j11i1111 S1111-(*()1]11I11111‘(‘ 111' 1111- 1\'1-111 A1'(-11:1-111111.111-211 S111-11-,1_y 211111 1111- (‘1111111-11 1111' 1111- 1’1'1-,s'1-1121111111 111 11111-211 1\'1-1111 in .111111- 19112, 21 1111-1111101" 1‘1~[1111'11-11 111211 21 111111s1- 211111 111111111i111111gs 1111111111 215 . B1'1(1ge 1“21r111, 2111 ,111'11L1_r1- 111-211' (‘211111-1'l111r_V, 1121s 111 $11111-1' 11111111-11121111 111-1111111111111. The f111l1111i11;_r 19111111211’ S1‘\'1‘1'£l1 1111-111111-rs 1'1.x-111-11 B1‘111g1-. 211111 111111111 111211111111 1111-.~‘ 112111 2111-1-2111.1’ 111-1-11 1'1-11111\'1-11 1'1-11111 1111- 111111x1-. At 111-31. 11121111-1-, 1111- 111111,<1- 2111111-211'1-11 111 111-21V1-1'y111'11i11:11'y1-igh11-1-11111- 1-1.-111,111'_V 11111-, 111111 21 11-11111 111‘ .-1111-1-11, .x-1111-s 111‘ 111-211111-1'1111211'11, 211111 111111 1111110 s1112111 1121_12< 211111 21 1111111'\1'21_\' 1111 1111- s11-1-1-1 1111111 (1’1211e IA). 11 was si111211,(-11 1111 1111-. 11111111 (‘211111-1'11111'_1' 111 1)111'1-1' 1112111, 1111111111 21.x‘ \\'2111i11g S111-1-1, 111 1111-, 1-1-1111'1- 111' 1111-, \'i1121§_v1- 211111 21111111.<1« 11i1'1-1-11.1’ 11I1p11si1e 11111 \Vh1t1- 11111'.<1-1 11111. 131-1111111 i1 11‘21.< 11 .’ 211111 1111111 l1111111111;1s (Fig. 1). The 1-01111111111115 j1-11_1- 111- 111'1-121111111; 211 1111- 11-11111 g211'1- 1111-, 111-st, 1-1111- 11121t 1111- 111'111.<1- 111i;1111 111- 111111-11111111-1' 1112111 11 2111111-211-1-11, 21111121s111,-1111111111111 111-111-1-1-d1-11, 211111 1111- 11111111 11111111-rs 111-re 1-xp11s1-11, this 111-e211111- 1111-r1-21s— i11g1y 1-V1111-111. '1‘111-. 1'ig111-11211111 1-1111 1111 the jetty p1'111'1-11 111 1111 1'211s1-, 111111 II121.\‘1{(‘(1 21 11111-1-11111-111-111111)’ 1\'21g1111 1-1111'.-1111-1-, 111111-11 it 11111 111-, 111111-11, 11-213 111 21 11ir1-ct 1i111- with 1111- g2111-11'21y 111111 11111 f21r111y211'11. Over this 11’21g1111 . 01111-11111-11 was f11111111 21 .\-1112111 111(‘(11(‘V’2l1 r1111111 17111111111-10 111111 a 111'2111.s'1'1-1-511 e1-011'11-post roof. '1‘h1-, r1’-11121111111-r (111111: 11011.90 112111 11111‘-1-, 111-1111 21 1,ypie211 fift1111111111—1-,1-,111ury W1-211111-.11 1101131-, 111111 11 1-1-1111211 h2111 11111-11 10 the roof, and small r11(1111s 1-111-11 side of it, the 1111111-r OIICS 111-111;; j1-1111-(1 out 211 the front. \\'h1-11 11'i11e l.11‘i1~k 1ir1=p121c1->1 111-122111111 1111-, f21s11i1111 111 Tudor times, the open, C1-1111211 111-111111 was 111.1 111ng1-,r 111-1-111-d, 211111 2111 upper 1111111‘ was usually 111s1-1'11-11 111 the 111111. In this 1111use 2111 evideiiee pointed to such 2111 21111-1'21t11111 1121vi11g 111-1-11 11121110 111 the first 112111 of the se1*1-11111311111111 century when :1 great firep121c1- was built at the r1-1211' of the 01d h2111 (Plate HA) and 2111 11pp1-.1- 1111111‘ i11sert~1-11, with joists protrudiiig over the lower timbers, and giving 111111’ 21 c11111i11111>us jetty 1111 the street front as far I as the 11'21go11 1-11tr:111c1-. Wiridows of this period disc1)Vered under laths 1 :5, ’ 1 I % and plaster’ Confirrn the date‘ 11. I\‘211111- 111-11' 12111-1', .~:|111\1'1I1;,r \\'21g1111 1-111171111-1-. .\. '1'111-111111<1-. s1-1-1111111111111-1'112111. 1311 |_/"111-1' 1). 1:111 .\. \’I'<-\\ <11" rvzu‘ HI‘ 1114- |:<>11.\*<'. Ii. H:~mz1in.~: of 01'iginu.| stzLir\\':1)'.( THE VANISHING H()USES ()I<‘ KENT A second ‘xnoderllizatiou’ of the house took place late in the eigI1teenth or early 11iueteenth century, when its general appearance 1)ee2m1e very much as it was in modem times. Mortises at the extreme right‘-l1:u1(1 end of the building sllowcd that zmother timbered house had once stood there, but it must have been pulled down not later than COW SHED L COW SHED - x YARD E o 10 23 WATLING STREET ,5“ FIG. 1. 137 .,......«-........,.. THE VANISHING HOUSES OF KENT the eighteenth century, when the wagon entrance was blocked and the way into the farmyard was moved further to the right. Fig. 2 shows the appearance of the house during these three main periods of its history. May we now look a little more closely at the origins and at the constructional details of Bridge Farm? Wagon Entrance 15th Century 17th Century % 18th Century l"Iu, 2_ l3.‘4 - ....i-. -.-4. THE VANISHING HOUSES OF KENT EARLY HISTORY Little is known of this-, but there is little doubt that the farm was once part of the Bridge estate known in more recent times as Bridge Place. Hasted tells us that the manor of Blackmansbury, alias Bregg or Bridge was in early timeslpareel of the possessions of the Abbey of Saint Augustine, and belonged to the saeristry. After the dissolution of the monasteries the manor passed to one, Henry Laurence, and at his death to his son John. From him it was sold to a \Villian1 Partherich, and passed ultimately to his son Edward. In 1638 we read of the property being transferred to Sir Arnold Bracms, a gent-leman of Flemish origin. It was he who pulled down the old Court Lodge, and built 011 the site a large mansion known later as Bridge Place. This was sold in 1704 to Sir John Taylor of nearby Bifrons, who pulled down all but one wing of the mansion, which has remained until modern times. Of the farm with which we are concerned no separate mention is made, and we have only the structural evidence which tells its own story. I<‘11«‘riai<:N'r1I CEI\"I‘['RY As has already been stated, the farm house was originally a typical timber-framed \\'ealden house built during the first half of the fifteenth century, with a wagon entrance leading to the buildings behind it. Evidence supporting this date was found in such details as the moulding ofthe ercncllated beam at the service end ofthe hall, in the four-centred arches and the plain hollow spandrels of original doorways. The tall wagon entrance (Plate TB) had moulded jambs and a flat arch with the same hollow spandrels. Above this arch the small medieval room with its separate crown-post roof remained virtuall_v intact. Of the main part of the house most of the timher-framing remained. though much mutilated. The old front doorway was discovered under laths and plaster but (lirectly behind tl1is only the rear half of the cross passage survived. Here was one of the service doors, the back doorway itself with its short speer or screen still intact in the partition wall, and, on the ot her side of the back door a steep stairwapv. This proved to be one of the most‘ interesting finds in the house; its treads were worn and old, but on being tapped they sounded curiously solid. The foreman in charge of the demolition obligingly removed one of the treads and a riser. and underneath was discovered the solid block stairway which had once been part of the old house (Fig. 3). Apart from one missing tread the stairs were intact, an(l exactl_v similar to other medieval stairs still surviving in hcnt. and Essex.‘ Eight solid oak steps of 1 The most porfoct. surviving example of a medieval solid-l)lor-,l< stairway is at Old Boll Farm, at Ilarrietshmn. others are at l'iereo House. (‘haring, Rochester, Bust on near :tltlf'l"‘l()ll(). and in Essex at (treat Easton, Tliaxtod and Theydon. 139 THE VANISHING HOUSES OF KENT triangular section were nailed on to two sloping bearers, a third central bearer having been added at some later date. Each tread measured 3 ft. 3 in. by 7% in., rising 8 to 9 in., the angle of the stairway being thus about 47 degrees from the horizontal. The bearers were 5% in. wide by 3; in. thick, and were nailed to a heavy beam at the top, and to a baulk of oak 8 in. square behind the door sill at the bottom. Each triangular step was fixed by only two large hand-made nails near the bottom edge, and although some of the nail heads had rusted completely away, all the steps except one were still firmly fixed (Fig. 3 and Plate IIB). The house must have presented a Very attractive appearance at this time, for on the front of the house vertical timbers known as studs were set close together. The position of several of the earliest unglazed windows was noted under bressumers or wall-plates, where grooves for sliding shutters and__ ‘diamond’ mortiscs for oak window bars were found. ' SEVENTEENTH CENTURY In the first half of the seventeenth century alterations and improve- ments were made to the house, presumably by Sir Arnold Braems, the — wealthy Flemish merchant who purchased the estate in 1638. An upper floor was inserted in the old hall, the cross-girders of which were beauti- fully moulded, while the roof of the main part of the house was rebuilt at this time, re-using most of the old timbers. The great fireplace at the rear of the hall was added, and attractive windows with leaded diamond panes put in. These had mullions and transoms of ‘ovolo’ section typical of the period. and the glass was reinforced by vertical iron bars. Two windows at the front of the house measured 4ft. 4 in. wide by 3 ft. 8 in. high, and were bordered at the top and at each side by small two-light windows sometimes referred to as ‘frieze’ windows. At this time the protruding ends of the joists, over the front. jetty were covered by carved and moulded fascia. boards. fragments of which were found in situ. A ground plan of the house after these alterations would have shown two large rooms with two small service rooms at the west end, the rear one of which contained the steep solid block staircase. The corresponding stairway at the far side of the hall must have been removed at this time, and no trace of a main, staircase of this period could be found. EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Late in this century or early in the nineteenth, the house received its second and final ‘niodernization’. All older win(lows were covered with laths and plaster, the three small bays on the street. front were inserted also the three corresponding sash windows on tl e ‘loor above. The old 140 Q E. 6. I; I? 3 Tu THE VANISHING HOUSES OF l\'l<7N’l‘ front doorway was blocked, and a new and narrower one let in between the two left-hand bays. Behind this, a narrow passage now led to the newel staircase built out at the back. The brickwork surrounding this showed it to be later than the great fireplace. ‘.\ L’’//.,_ 2' ' Wall it THE VANISHING HOUSES OF KENT The wagon entrance was now blocked, and, as has already been stated the entrance to the farmyard moved further to the right. At the rear the bread oven was probably added during the 1638 alterations, when red brick floors were put in on the ground floor. The copper dates from the nineteenth century. FARM BUILDINGS Of these, the great barn and the cowshed to the left of it undoubtedly date from the fifteenth century, though both had been much restored and had newer roofs. The main posts, tie-beams and other timbers of the barn were original, though patched and repaired in places, the outside had been covered with weatherboarding. The cowshed had only a few of its original timbers left, and had been largely rebuilt, with an infilling of red brick. The rest of the sheds were nineteenth century or modern. This house had many points of close resemblance to Durloek Grange, the first house reviewed in this series? both houses had belonged in the first place to the Abbey of Saint Augustine, and in both cases the last owner was the then Marquis of Conyngham. Both houses must have been built very nearly at the same time, perhaps by the same master carpenter of Abbot Hunden, exactly similar details of design, mould- ings, construction and so on seem to confirm this. '2 Ar('l1.Can.t., lxxvii (1962), 82-9], 142 (A THE CHURCH OF S. MARY AND S. EADBURG, LYMINGE By EDVVARD GILBERT LYMINGE, near Folkestone, was royal property belonging to King Ethelbert of Kent and was given by him to his daughter S. Ethelburga, (Eadburg) when she retired to Kent after the death of her husband, King Edwin of Northumbria in A.D. 633. Here she founded a double monastery. Her church, dedicated to S. Mary is last heard of about AD. 840. Then in A.D. 960 a certain Athelstan gave money to ‘the church of Lyminge’ which may well have been for rebuilding. At about the same time the site came into the hands ofthe Arehbishops of Canterbury, namely Dunstan at that date} The present church is built over the original S. Mary, which must have been badly ruined. 1t is unlikely that such ruin dates after l)unstan’s time: there is no period when the site is likely to have lain desolate for long enough to achieve it. Hence there is a natural probability that Dunstan found a ruined site, and there is a clear implication in (‘zoscelin’s account? that Dunstan rebuilt it. So much is this so that the great Italian scholar Rivoira regarded Lyminge church as a dated church of c. AJ). 965,3 as did Sir Giles Gilbert Scott‘ and (‘anon Jenkins,5 who knew it better than anyone. Baldwin Brown“ thought it. was rebuilt by the ("onqueror’s archbishop Lanfrane, about 1085. But there is no written evidence for tl1is, although of course he had the site, and in fact built an archiepist-opal palace here of which no trace remains. The old nave was a simple rectangle (Fig. 1) about 60 ft. long and 27 ft. wide, though the western termination is uncertain owing to the loss of the original quoins. The chancel was nearly square measuring about 24 ft. by 20 ft. internally. It is however, the fabric which is so interesting and made Baldwin Brown think it must be Norman. It consists of a rubble of small stones and flint mostly uncut, with some Roman tile. What is remarkable is the etliort. to treat this deeoratively, use being made of beds of canted stones, often misealled herring bone, eordons ofthin stones and Ronian tile, invariably single, plainly imitated from Roman work but not Roman work, and beds of larger stones 1 Arch. (.'(mt., ix. Inc. Cit. Lombartlic A rrlzitrcture, 2, 290. 1li.s'tory of (,'/mrc/z Architecture. Arch. Cr1nf.. ix. Arts in Ear/N Ifnglmzrl. 2. 469. ( outrun I41}