Buildings Report 2022, Woolhope Transactions Vol 70 pp147-163.

Buildings 2022 By DUNCAN JAMES It is easy to assume that every historically significant building in the County has been found and given the protection of statutory listing, but this is not the case. One of the pleasures of investigating and recording historic buildings is that hidden ones continue to be discovered. Sometimes it can be little more than fragments of an earlier structure, although even these can contribute to our understanding of the past, but if their significance is not recognised the evidence can easily be lost during repairs, refurbishment, or remodelling. One discovery, 45-49 Mill Street, Leominster, the only known cruck building in the town, was reported in the Transactions for 2018.1 The building is 15th century in date and at the time of writing is being considered by Historic England for listing. Another hitherto unrecognised and unlisted cruck building that has been given the added protection of listing is Lower Hardwick House, Pembridge.2 Described in the listing as ‘a medieval hall house with C16 and later adaptations…an early and noteworthy example of an historic dwelling’, it also has a counterchange ceiling which adds to its importance. COUNTER-CHANGE CEILINGS Recent work, as yet unpublished, on the subject of counter-change ceilings has, so far, revealed a total of about ninety examples. These are coffered ceilings, with heavily moulded or steeply chamfered beams forming panels in which the joists in each panel are set in alternate directions, thus creating a chequerboard effect (Figure 1). In the first-floor room, the floorboards are also laid in alternating directions across the joists, so that the decorative nature of the chequerboard is in evidence, literally, on the floor above. Counter-change ceilings mostly belong to the second half of the 16th century and are frequently found inserted in the upper, or higher-status bay of a medieval open hall to create an upper storey. Some are also found in new buildings of that date, often in the solar crosswing. Figure 1. Nine-panel, counter-change ceiling, Church House, Yarpole. (Three panels are hidden above the adjacent corridor) TWNFC (70) 2022 147 DUNCAN JAMES The distribution of this high-status feature is concentrated in south Shropshire, north Herefordshire, and the Welsh border counties (Figure 2). Two outliers, just a few miles apart, have been found in Norfolk. There is also an important dispersed group in Devon and Somerset that may be earlier in date. Work to locate further examples is continuing alongside research to determine whether the ceilings are coeval with the buildings they are in or have been inserted into an earlier building. Figure 2. Distribution map for counterchange ceilings in England and Wales Some of the best examples, such as that at Little Moreton Hall in Cheshire,3 are very impressive indeed. There, in the withdrawing room of the house, the solar range has a twelve-panel counterchange ceiling with richly moulded beams and joists (Figure 3). It is almost certainly the work of the carpenter Richard Dale, who also made the spectacular bay windows within the courtyard in about 1560. There is clear evidence in the beam at the upper end of the hall to show that Dale had also inserted a six- or possibly nine-panel counter-change ceiling in the open hall.4 This was removed at some time prior to 1807.5 Figure 3. A plan of the hall and crosswings at Little Moreton Hall, showing the layout of the twelve-panel counter-change ceiling in the solar range ANGEL HOUSE, LONGFORD, KINGSLAND, HR6 9QS Lat./Long.: 52.248254, -2.811237 NGR: SO 44710 61428. Hereford SMR 42648. RCHME 19. Listed grade II. Kingsland has many buildings of interest, not least of which is Angel House, a 16th-century, timber-framed building, remodelled in the early 18th century (Figure 4). Luckily this remodelling has left the majority of the primary structure undamaged, in particular the dramatic counter-change ceiling in the principal room. The building was noted briefly by the Royal Commission in 19346 and in the Woolhope Transactions of 1969, but no detailed analysis has been carried out.7 The house stands alongside The Angel Inn and there is evidence that it was formerly also used as an inn, perhaps the precursor of the present Angel. Norman Reeves, in his book on the Leon Valley, makes a few TWNFC (70) 2022 148 BUILDINGS 2022 unsubstantiated observations concerning Angel House but if we are looking for facts, the house itself is the best source.8 It seems likely that there was a significant link between Angel House and the present building on the west side, which was a post office in 1888 (Figure 5) and still is. They share the site, and this is confirmed by evidence that ‘In 1891 Mrs Elizabeth Burden [of Angel House] had the double job of landlady and shopkeeper.’9 On the map the positioning of the lettering for ‘Angel Inn’ suggests that it included Angel House at that time. Figure 4. Angel House, Kingsland showing timber framing behind the brick facade Angel House consists of a two-storey, four-bay, timber-framed range, laid out on an approximate north-south alignment, which abuts, at its southern end, a three-bay, two-storey, timber-framed crosswing, on an east-west alignment parallel with the principal road through the village. The cross-wing first floor is jettied on the gable ends to the west and to the east. The south side of the crosswing, which faces the street, has been refaced in brick, with windows and a central doorway. Figure 5. Kingsland, showing Angel House with the present Inn on the right and present shop & post office on the left. (O/S 25in., 1888) For the purposes of this short report and as shown in Figure 6, the bays and roof trusses of the crosswing are numbered west to east (bays 1 to 3, and trusses T1 to T4) and those of the main range south to north, (bays 4 to 7, and trusses T5 to T10). The evidence indicates that bays 1 to 5 and trusses T1 to T7 are coeval, while bays 6 and 7 are each of different (probably later) date. The Crosswing The crosswing (bays 1, 2 & 3) formed the solar or upper-end accommodation of the house, with primary fireplaces on the ground and first floors in the north wall of bay 1, and a later fireplace on the ground floor in the east wall of bay 3. Two of the three bays are of similar length, but bay 1 at the west end is about 10% longer on the ground floor and more so at first-floor level due to the jetty. The crosswing rests on a rubble-stone plinth that has been increased in width on the south front to create a foundation for the later brick facade. The principal, south elevation of the crosswing is hidden by the brickwork on the exterior but the framing is visible on the end elevations and on the interior, including both faces of the (mostly internal) north wall. TWNFC (70) 2022 149 DUNCAN JAMES The west gable elevation (at T1) has square framing, two panels high and six panels wide on the ground floor, with a now blocked central window. The jettied first floor has a plain, chamfered bressumer with curved brackets under each end above attached pillars. The first-floor framing is two panels high, but nine panels wide, in a layout that would be classed as close-studding if the panels were a little narrower.10 There is a central window and corner braces beneath the tiebeam. The roof truss has a cambered tiebeam with five studs (spaced to match the studs below the tiebeam) rising to the soffit of the collar. There are ‘V’ struts above the collar. The roof has a double tier of trenched purlins and the wall plates project, with curved brackets below. The east elevation is partially obscured by the adjacent building and the later chimney with brickwork that wraps around the south-east corner of the wing. The framing is similar to that on the west end although there are larger panels under the collar of the truss T4. There is also a first-floor jetty with a surviving bracket under the north end of the bressumer. The central first-floor window on the gable end had an oriel window but the projecting sill has been hacked back, although not removed completely, and the mullions reset (Figure 7). Figure 6. Ground plan sketch of Angel House On the ground floor the primary window survives although it has been partially hidden by the encroachment of the chimney stack (Figure 8). However, this window has been in a sheltered position and is the most important in the building because it retains the primary, projecting window sill and the primary mullions, which show that it was an oriel window, almost certainly indicative of the original form of the windows in both the crosswing and bays 4 and 5 of the main range.11 The heavy mullions are square in section, set on the diagonal and, for this gable-end ground-floor window, set closely together, almost certainly for reasons of security. Whether a similar close spacing of mullions was used for the other primary windows is not known. Figure 7. Angel House. First-floor window on the east face of bay 3 TWNFC (70) 2022 150 BUILDINGS 2022 As noted above, the south elevation is of brick to create what is, essentially, a symmetrical facade with a central doorway and window above, flanked by single windows to each floor. The brick is laid neatly in Flemish bond, with rubbed-brick, flat arches above the ground-floor windows. The first-floor casement windows each have two narrow mullions forming three lights, while those on the ground floor are a variation on the cross-light, with two narrow mullions and a single transom one-third down from the top. The central doorway has a doubleleaf door, opening onto a recessed lobby illuminated by a rectangular, glazed panel above the lintel. There is a small, pitched-roof hood, supported on double-ogee brackets. Figure 8. Angel House. The oriel window under the east-end jetty of the crosswing The Principal Range The main north-south range abuts the north sidewall of the crosswing, using it for closure and thus forming the internal south wall of bay 4. The range does not align with the middle of the crosswing but is offset to the east, to make room for the two-flue (primary) chimney stack with fireplaces on the ground and first floors in the north wall of bay 1. Bays 4 and 5 have square framing, two panels high on ground and first floor. The wide cross-passage doorway on the west side of bay 5 has a shaped doorhead in the form of a Tudor arch, but this is modern and probably not based on a lost original, since this was likely to have been higher up, just below the girding beam, as indicated by redundant pegging on each side of the opening. Another clue concerning the original form of the doorhead can be seen on the east side of the bay, where the primary cross-passage doorhead is still in place although the doorway is now blocked. The end wall of bay 5 (T7) appears to have formed an end wall of the range before bays 6 and 7 were added because it is faced-up towards the north. Had there been a further coeval bay to the north, then the upper, heartwood face of the cross-frame T7 would have been to the south to acknowledge the higher status of that part of the building.12 Bays 4 and 5 form a ceiled hall with a cross-passage passing east to west through the north end of bay 5, behind the principal chimney which has a large fireplace facing south into bay 4. The fireplace has an oak lintel with multiple taper-burn marks. The soffit has a narrow chamfer that turns at each end to the wider chamfer on the two stone jambs, one of which has a re-used section with a 14th-century moulding profile. On the first floor of bay 5 there is a fireplace in the west face of the large chimney stack. It has an oak lintel and chamfered stone jambs that, like the ground-floor fireplace, incorporate moulded stones of 14th-century date. The status of bay 4 is indicated by the ceiling, which is a counter-change, coffered ceiling of six panels, each with five plain joists (Figure 9). The main beams have steep, wide chamfers and broach stops, each with the points (unusually) trimmed back slightly.13 The chamfers show evidence of having been worked with an adze rather than a side-axe. The ceiling is coeval with TWNFC (70) 2022 151 DUNCAN JAMES bays 4 and 5, and not a later insertion, as the chamfered and stopped beams along the east and west sides are formed from the girding beams rather than being planted-on half beams. Figure 9. Angel House. The counter-change ceiling in bay 4 Bays 6 and 7 form the two-storey, service part of the house. It is slightly lower at the ridge and eaves than bays 4 and 5, with a marginally steeper pitch. The timber-framed wall on the west side is three panels high. The east sidewall of bay 6 is of stone replacing timber. Bay 6 has a service fireplace (now blocked) backing on to the north wall. The upper rooms in bays 1 to 5 were originally all open to the ridge but have had later ceilings installed, although those in bays 1 and 4 have since been removed. It is clear that there have been a number of refurbishment campaigns in which modifications and repairs to the fenestration have been carried out with some care, utilising diagonally set, square mullions, copied from the primary windows. The internal timbers have all been sand-blasted to remove dirt and, very probably, black paint. Luckily this has not obliterated the many coherent assembly marks on the cross frames that use both circles and lines cut with a race knife. 14 However it has perhaps removed at least half a millimetre of material from the surface of the timber, except in slightly raised areas where a series of painted numbers have been left, untouched by the sand blasting. Those carrying out the work clearly masked these areas off. It is thought that the numbers relate to the use of the building as a guest house. TWNFC (70) 2022 152 BUILDINGS 2022 Summary Angel House is a building of some considerable status. Bays 1 to 5 are the primary structure, bays 6 and 7 being later additions. The saw-mark evidence indicates that the primary timbers were pit-sawn using a technique that post-dates 1530/40.15 The counter-change ceiling suggests a date within the second half of the 16th century and there is tree-ring dating evidence from elsewhere in the County to suggest a more precise date. Tree-ring dating of a counter-change ceiling in The Throne, Hereford Street, Weobley (a multi-phase former inn) gave a timber-felling date of spring 1560. Dendrochronology dated a porch in the same building, also with a counterchange ceiling, but in this case with broach stops on the beams, to 1572-75.16 With this in mind it would be reasonable to propose a construction date within 1560-80 for the primary phase of Angel House. Angel House, as a 16th-century ‘new build,’ owes much, in terms of layout, to the deeply entrenched design of the medieval open hall that, in Herefordshire, ceased to be built in the decade before and after 1500, leaving the 16th century to be a period of modernisation, with the widespread introduction of chimney stacks, window glass, and ceiled halls. But the concept of the medieval hall lived on in respect of the orientation of the buildings, with the solar aligned towards the south-west quadrant, placing the service end to the north-east. The cross-passage was sited to pass through the lower end of the hall, with the upper bay of the hall containing the decorative elements of status. Finally, the most private and relatively inaccessible chambers were arranged to be in the solar. All this we can see in Angel House. The later service bays that have been butted up to bay 5 are of poorer-quality timber and poorer-quality construction, as befits their function. Truss T9 reuses a pair of earlier (probably 15th century) principal rafters. Since the primary phase did not include an integral service bay it may be that there was a detached kitchen, close to the property, that has been demolished. Regarding the early 18th-century brick refacing of the south elevation it should be stressed that bays 1 and 3 would not have had windows in the south side and certainly no doorway leading directly in to the solar. However, there must have been a small window in the south side of bay 2, at both ground- and first-floor levels, since otherwise the rooms in that bay would have been too dark. It is to be hoped that documentary evidence might, at some point in the future, reveal who built this important house. In view of the name of the house a strong connection with the church, which is in full view to the south, cannot be ruled out. TUDOR HOUSE, GREEN LANE, YARPOLE, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 0BD Lat./Long.: 52.278986, -2.780111. NGR: SO4688064827. Hereford SMR 21516. RCHME 6. The house is listed Grade II. This house was recorded by the Royal Commission in the 1930s, at which time it had been subdivided to form two dwellings, with an inserted doorway in the front of the crosswing.17 Since then this doorway has been removed and the framing restored so the house is once more a single dwelling. The Commission also noted that inside the north room there was ‘some original panelled plaster-work with enrichments, an eagle and a pomegranate’, but there is no trace of them now. As shown in Figure 10, the main, four-bay, two-storey, brick-fronted range of the house is laid out on a north-south axis with, at the north end, a two-bay, two-storey, timber-framed crosswing set close to, and parallel with, the road (Green Lane). TWNFC (70) 2022 153 DUNCAN JAMES Figure 10. Tudor House, Yarpole. The east elevation, with bays and trusses marked The Crosswing The crosswing is built above a cellar which, because the house stands on raised ground, has level access north onto the road. The walls of the cellar are of rubble stone and form the plinth for the sill beams of the house. The first floor is jettied on the front (east) elevation, with the jetty carried on the projecting ends of the girding beams and the ends of two ceiling beams above each side of the window. There are no jetty brackets. There is a replacement bressumer—the earlier one was moulded. The gable has a shallow jetty. The crosswing is probably c.1600 in date. The gable end of the crosswing has close studding, flanking a central window on the ground floor. On the first floor there is square panelling with paired diagonal bracing in each square to form diamond patterns on each side of the central window. The gable has a slightly cambered tiebeam, above which is diagonal cross-bracing forming six square (diamond) panels, and four triangular panels along the bottom. There are other examples of this gable decoration in Herefordshire such as those found at Throne View Cottage, High Street, Weobley, and The Cottage, East Street, Pembridge. The north sidewall has square framing, two panels high on the ground floor and three panels high at first-floor level. There are windows but all of these may be later openings. There are quite a few replacement timbers in the crosswing framing. The Main Range The main range has a first phase of three bays (bays 2, 3 &4) abutting the south side of the crosswing. A later bay (bay 1) has been added to the southern end although there is no evidence for this on the brick front, which is a single phase of building. The three first-phase bays (2, 3 & 4) may reflect an earlier, open hall layout on the site, and the present front door may be located close to what would have been the cross passage. The listing description states that the brick front was carried out in two phases, but I think this is incorrect. The two northern bays of the main range are decorated, especially the string course which has burnt bricks to create a chequerboard effect, but across the two southern bays the string course is plain. This does not indicate two phases—the decoration is marking out the two bays (3 & 4) of the ceiled hall or principal chamber, leaving the two service bays with a plain string course, although they do appear to have had lozenge decoration at first-floor level. Note also that the windows in bay 4 are larger, another indication that bay 4 was marked out for extra decoration. What also indicates that the front was a single phase is that the bricks are the same and, more significantly, there is a similar, rather ‘loose’ Flemish bond employed throughout on the brickwork. The brick facing, TWNFC (70) 2022 154 BUILDINGS 2022 with the string course, continues around the south, gable end of the main range, although the gable itself is of timber and weatherboarded. The Roof Structure Roof truss T2 and the framing below on the same line is faced up towards the south. It is weathered enough on that face to indicate that it formed the original end of the main range and that bay 1 is a later addition. Trusses T3 and T4 are both faced up towards the upper (south) end of the range. Later Additions To the back (west) of bay 1 is a single-storey extension with a catslide roof. On the south side of the rear bay of the crosswing there is a single-storey addition, also with a catslide roof. Summary It is suggested that there was a single-storey (possibly cruck-framed) open-hall house on the site, likely to have been 15th century in date, and that the present crosswing of c.1600 was an upgrading of the solar accommodation. The earlier open hall was demolished and replaced with the present timber-framed, two-storey, three-bay range that abuts the side of the crosswing. That the earlier main range was a single-storey structure is indicated by the fact that the first-floor south wall of the front bay of the crosswing did not have a primary doorway linking it with the first floor above bay 4; a later doorway had to be cut when the present main range was built. Then an additional two-storey service bay (bay 1) was added to the southern end of the range. Either then, or more probably later, in the early 18th century, the east front and south end of the main range were re-faced in brick. The rear walls were replaced in stone. WESTERN LYE FARMHOUSE, UPPER LYE, AYMESTREY, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 9SZ Lat./Long.: 52.28576, -2.89267. NGR: SO3920265665. RCHME 2. Listed grade II. This building was noted by the RCHME in c.1930 as ‘Upper Lye Farm.’ It was first listed (Grade II) in 1959, also as Upper Lye Farm. The listing was amended in 1986 with the name Western Lye Farm. The house and farm buildings are situated on the southern side of the narrow east-west road between Upper Lye and Limebrook. There is rising ground to the north and the house is built on a site that slopes down to the south. (Figures 11 & 12). Figure 11. Western Lye Farmhouse. East elevation TWNFC (70) 2022 155 DUNCAN JAMES The earlier part of the house consists of three bays (bays 1-3) laid out on an approximate north-south axis with, at the north end, adjacent to the road, a later phase in the form of a tall, two-bay crosswing (bays 4 & 5). Both principal phases are timber-framed but with some stonework and later brick work to bay 3. Figure 12. Western Lye Farmhouse, labelled as Upper Lye on the OS map of 1886 For the purposes of this report the orientation of the main range is taken to be north-south and that of the crosswing east-west. The bay and roof truss numbering is shown in Figure 13. These notes avoid discussion of the fenestration as this was not inspected closely. The Main Range—Bays 1, 2 & 3 Bays 1 and 2 have timber-framed sidewalls but bay 3 at the south end of the range is of brick. The structure retains significant elements of a medieval, cruck-framed, open hall into which a later floor has been inserted in bay 2, formerly the upper bay of the hall. The walls and part of the roof of bay 3 have been rebuilt. The bay contains a large chimney stack backing onto the site of the former cross passage. A recent balcony has been added to the west of bay 1 linking the first floor in bay 2 with the staircase landing in the crosswing. Roof truss T1 This is a tiebeam truss of uncertain date, laid against, but not attached to, the timber-framing of the crosswing sidewall. It supports double tiers of purlins and a ridge purlin. There is no collar and only the two ends of the tiebeam are still in place, the centre section having been removed, probably when the recent doorway was cut through to link the crosswing with the inserted balcony. This has compromised the structural integrity of the roof truss. Figure 13. Sketch plan of Western Lye Farmhouse TWNFC (70) 2022 156 BUILDINGS 2022 Truss T2 This truss is formed by a pair of curved, full-cruck blades, with a massive, cambered collar (Figure 14). There were two primary tiebeams at lower levels, but these have been removed. A later beam has been inserted at a higher level than the lost primary tiebeam. Lapped into the south face of the east cruck blade, and tenoned into a mortice in the wall post, is the short section of a wide beam, but the angle of the cut (which could not have been made with it in situ) suggests that it may be a later insertion.18 The cruck on the west side does not have a lap joint at the corresponding level although there are pegs that indicate a hidden mortice. Much is obscured, not least at ground-floor level where the inner faces of the cruck blades on both sides of the building have been hacked back, and later posts, face-pegged into place, added to replace the lost wood. The upper face of the truss is to the south. A metal tie, in the form of a substantial iron bar, probably of 19th-century date, has been inserted at ceiling level to arrest any spreading of the cruck frame. Figure 14. Cruck truss T2, north elevation. Western Lye Farmhouse Truss T3 Truss T3 is the principal cruck frame that would have been over the middle of the hall. This has a collar with the remains of arch bracing below the collar on the west side of the frame. The arch bracing is missing on the east side, where a later first-floor doorway has been inserted, but there are peg holes for a chase mortice which indicates where the bracing was fitted. Above the collar there are ‘V’ struts. On the south face of the truss, on and around the collar, the timber is heavily charred, probably because there was an earlier configuration of the present chimney stack that incorporated the cruck frame. It is also possible that the existing stack was preceded by a timberframed chimney that used the cruck truss to provide support. In certain circumstances oak will smoulder rather than burn rapidly, something that can happen over time within a chimney stack. The cruck frame, in addition to the mutilation from the charring and loss of arch-bracing, has had the lower part of the east cruck replaced and an iron tie fitted at ceiling height between the cruck blades. The tie is an iron bar, square in section, and possibly of earlier date than that on T2. Roof Truss T4 Truss T4 at the south end of the range is a relatively lightweight, king post design, probably of 18th-century date. The base of the king post is tenoned into a mortice in the tiebeam and secured TWNFC (70) 2022 157 DUNCAN JAMES with three pegs. On each side of the truss there are two lightweight raking struts from the tiebeam to positions under the purlins. The truss is hidden from the exterior by the brick end-wall of the range. Bay 1 This is the longest of the three bays. It is open from the ground floor to the ridge. Without further detailed analysis and recording of the frame (or through tree-ring dating) it is impossible to be certain that the wall framing is coeval with the date of the cruck blades, but it is less substantial than the wall framing in bay 2 and may be the same date as the late 17th-century crosswing. The RCHME sketch plan of 1931, held at the National Monuments and Records Centre, Swindon, shows this bay with an axial ceiling beam supporting a first-floor level. Since then, this floor has been removed and the present balcony installed along the west side of the bay, linking the crosswing with the first-floor level in bay 2. It very probably makes use of the earlier axial beam which has been moved to one side. A doorway has been cut through the side of the crosswing to give access and a modern doorhead inserted. As mentioned above, the insertion of this doorway has involved cutting the T1 tiebeam, which has led to structural problems. Bay 2 Bay 2 has cruck trusses at both ends and wall framing that is almost certainly part of the primary build. The bay was originally open to the ridge but now has an inserted, six-panel, counterchange ceiling of late 16th-century date.19 The beams and half-beams have wide, steep, slightly hollow chamfers and diagonally cut stops. The joists are now hidden and a transverse beam on the east side is missing, presumably because the south-east corner of the bay was the site of a later staircase (shown in an RCHME sketch of 1931). Also marked on the sketch plan is a wide doorway (since removed) in the west wall of bay 2, adjacent to the north side of T2.20 It is almost certain that this was not a primary feature. On the south side of the bay is a fireplace with a long, oak lintel that indicates the original size of the fireplace opening. The chimney stack is principally of stone, but the fireplace has been remodelled and partially infilled with brickwork so that it now has three components: on the left, a copper for heating water; on the right, a bread oven; and in the middle a fireplace, now with a woodburning stove in place. The copper is still in situ within a deep recess, with a cast iron door at the base for access to the hearth. Above the copper the fireplace lintel has been cut to form an arch. The bread oven has a cast iron door (marked No.18) and a curved iron support under the brick arch above the opening. The width of the present fireplace suggests that it may have been fitted with a cast iron grate and register plate. The bricks are handmade and have been fired at a low temperature. It is likely that the fireplace was remodelled in the 19th century. Bay 3 The bay is mainly occupied by the massive stone base of the chimney stack. The 1931 plan of the house indicates that there was a recess, possibly a fireplace, on the east side of the stack heating what would have been a small room. The floor area is a little more generous at first floor level although the chimney stack is still a dominant feature. The Crosswing This is a two-bay, timber-framed, two-storey wing with attics and a cellar, laid out on an eastwest orientation. It is built on a high plinth of stone and brick. The roof is hipped. The high plinth TWNFC (70) 2022 158 BUILDINGS 2022 means that the ground floor is two panels high while the first-floor level is three panels high. The attic storey has a single row of panels beneath the eaves. When built, probably in the late 17th century, the framing panels would have been infilled with wattle and daub, much of which has been replaced with brick infill. On the north side of the range there are two chimney stacks of stone, with brick dressings and brick chimney shafts. The larger one is that to the east, with two flues, which relate to a service fireplace on the ground floor of bay 5 and a fireplace on the first floor. The smaller stack to the west has a single flue that relates to a former fireplace on the ground floor of bay 4. The wing is remarkably complete, with a primary staircase that rises to the attics. The original newel posts are still in place as is some of the glazed partitioning at first-floor level. Each of the two attic rooms is lit by a south-facing dormer window. The roof structure is primary with hipped ends to the east and west. The central roof truss has an interrupted tiebeam with a doorway linking the two bays. The fenestration in the ground-floor west wall of bay 4 has undergone radical change, as has the framing in that area. The cellar is under bay 4. The present access is from a flight of internal steps. There is a central, north-south, drainage channel. The primary access was via external steps on the south side of the bay. This route has been lost and the steps infilled due to introduction of a modern door in the framing at ground-floor level. Discussion The earliest part of the house is bay 2 with a cruck truss at each end and with primary wall framing on the east and west sides. It is almost certainly 15th century in date—perhaps 14401460, although there is insufficient surviving structure, such as doorheads, window details, windbraces, moulding profiles etc., to make a more accurate assessment on stylistic grounds. Bay 2 formed the ‘upper’ bay of a two-bay hall; the ‘lower’ bay would have been on the site of bay 3 and, to the south, there would possibly have been a service bay on the site of the former pigsty—see the note below about the possibility of a byre-end. A cross passage would have passed through the southern end of the lower bay, behind the present chimney stack. The ‘upper’ bay of the hall is marked by the six-panel, counter-change, inserted ceiling. There are many examples of these in the surrounding countryside on the border with Wales. They were added to open halls in the last quarter of the 16th century when open hearths were being replaced with chimney stacks, which made it possible to have a first-floor level. The decorative nature of the ceiling was reserved for the higher status of the upper bay of the hall. The upper end accommodation (the ‘solar’) would have been on the site of bay 1. Here, the wall framing and roof structure is not primary, and may have been inserted when the late 17th-century wing was added. The building of the crosswing marks an important increase in wealth, possibly following the construction of the large barn adjacent to the road, which could indicate a period of prosperity. Byre-end The usual layout for medieval halls would have placed the solar or upper end of the building towards the south-west, with the service end to the north-east, keeping it cool for food preparation and storage.21 However, Western Lye Farmhouse is on a sloping site and has been built to place the service bay at the (physically) lower end. This may be because this was a byreend house in which the service bay was used instead to house animals, the downhill position being essential for drainage. It is possible that the pigsty was an echo of the earlier use of that TWNFC (70) 2022 159 DUNCAN JAMES part of the range. It is thought that a byre would have been used to house important animals such as bullocks (the power to draw the plough) or other prized animals to keep them safe overnight. The border area in the 15th century was vulnerable to raiding from Wales, or so it is thought! EATON HALL, STOKE PRIOR LANE, EATON, LEOMINSTER, HEREFORDSHIRE, HR6 0NA Lat./Long., 52.2183419, -2.7204804 NGR: SO5088058035 RCHME 5. Listed Grade II. Figure 15. Eaton Hall. South elevation Eaton Hall is about a mile south-east of Leominster. It is a more important building than the grade II listing suggests. It is a base-cruck, timber-framed hall house of considerable size and status, that has been encased in later stone and brick (Figure 15). It was one of the many monastic granges or burys, such as Ford, Hennor, and Ivington, built by Leominster Priory (a cell of Reading Abbey) to manage their extensive holdings of land.22 The high quality of the timber structure at Eaton marks it out as having an ecclesiastical connection. Eaton has been confused at times with Eyton, a village two miles north-west of Leominster, because both names have a suffered a wide variety of spellings. I have argued that the claims made by many historians, of an ancient link between the Hakluyt family and Eaton, arise from this confusion and are misleading. The error appears to stem from John Price who, in his book of 1795, misquotes Leland’s reference to the Hakluyt family, placing them in the township of Eaton rather than Eyton.23 This is picked up and repeated by Jonathan Williams in 1808.24 Then, in 1862, there was the Rev. G. F. Townsend who continued the error.25 More recently it was repeated by the Royal Commission in the publication of 1934 concerning Eaton Hall: ‘The property belonged to the family of Hackluyt, and Leland records that William Hackluyt, who was with Henry V at Agincourt, built a house in the village.’26 Leland’s text is a clear reference to Eyton since he even noted that it was west-north-west of Leominster. He wrote that he travelled: From Leonminster to Eyton a mile of by west northe west. One William Hakcluit that was with Kynge Henry the 5. at the batell of Egen Courte set up a house at this village, and purchasyd lands to it. He had one St. George, a nobleman of Fraunce, to his prisoner. Hakcluit now lyvynge is the third in descent of the house of Eiton. 27 TWNFC (70) 2022 160 BUILDINGS 2022 So, Leland meant Eyton, north-west of Leominster, not Eaton, which is south-east of the town.28 Further evidence supports this association of the Hakluyts with Eyton; Thomas Hakluyt, Secretary of The Council in the Marches of Wales, based at Ludlow, had a house in Eyton,29 whilst his son, Richard Hakluyt (the elder) inherited land there following the death of his father.30 In addition, there is a very strong argument that Eaton Hall could not have been the principal, ancestral house of the Hakluyt family in that, as a grange of Leominster Priory, it would only have been ‘available’ for secular use following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1540. There is certainly evidence to indicate that it was occupied by a member of the Hakluyt family after this date, and although there is no mention of Hakluyt in Eaton in respect of the 1545 subsidy tax,31 the name ‘Thomas Hackluytt of Eaton Grange’ does appear in a ‘grant in fee’ dated 1578.32 It is known that Eaton was sold to Wallop Brabazon at some time between 1613 and 1630 so the name Hackluytt can be associated with Eaton for perhaps c. fifty years. 33 It is significant that the 1578 reference is to a ‘grange’.34 A search through maps of the site revealed that there appear to have been fishponds, and that there was a mill, fed with a curved channel taking water from the river and thence to a sluice and a long tail race (Figure 16). The southern half of the north-south barn range also contains the remains of an aisled barn, probably of 13th-century date. The side aisles have been removed. Few, if any, barns of this date survive in the County.35 There are also references to a former chapel on the site.36 All these features would form the components of a monastic grange. Figure 16. Eaton Hall, OS 6-inch map 1902 Some account of Eaton Hall was made by the Royal Commission and a ground plan was published (Figure 17). It is clear that the northern bays of the east crosswing are of particular interest as there is close studding on the east elevation and an early doorway at the north end, with wide bracing forming a two-centred door head. These features are shown in Figures 18-20 Figure 17. Eaton Hall, ground plan. (RCHME 1934) Very few of the granges attached to Leominster Priory have survived. Eaton Hall stands on an historic monastic site where much remains, both above ground and almost certainly hidden below the surface, to indicate the layout and how the community was organised. TWNFC (70) 2022 161 DUNCAN JAMES Eaton Hall: the east crosswing. Figure 18 (top left). East elevation Figure 19 (above). North elevation Figure 20 (left). Sketch of north-elevation doorway NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Duncan James, ‘Buildings 2018’, Trans.Woolhope Natur. Fld. Club (henceforth TWNFC), Vol. 66 (2018), pp. 17779. 2 Listing number 1481993. Lat/long 52.20508, -2.87450. 3 Lat/long 53.12722, -2.25181. 4 There is structural evidence for this at the upper end of the hall. 5 A drawing of the Great Hall by John Sell Cotman, dated 1807, shows the hall without the inserted ceiling. 6 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Herefordshire. Vol. 3 – North-West, (H.M.S.O. Kingsland, 1934), Monument No.19, p.84. 7 J. W. Tonkin, ‘Buildings, 1969’, TWNFC, Vol. 39 (1969), Part III, p. 484. 8 Norman C. Reeves, The Leon Valley; Three Herefordshire Villages, Kingsland, Monkland & Eardisland, (Phillimore, 1980), pp. 52-3. 9 R. Shoesmith & R. Barrett, The Pubs of Leominster, Kington & N.W. Herefordshire, (Logaston, 2000), pp. 270-1. 10 ‘In close studding the spaces between the studs are approximately the same width as the studs.’ Recording Timber- TWNFC (70) 2022 162 BUILDINGS 2022 Framed Buildings: an illustrated glossary, (Council for British Archaeology, 1996). 11 The wide window on the ground floor of the east side of bay 4 has weathering marks on the posts alongside the sill indicative of the overlap of the ends of an oriel window sill that has been hacked back. 12 Unwritten rules concerning the orientation of crossframes were observed with remarkable diligence. 13 A similar design of broach stop can be seen in the west wing of Black Hall, Aston, which is about a mile north-west of Kingsland. 14 D. James, ‘Carpenters’ Assembly Marks in Timber-Framed Buildings’ Vernacular Architecture, Vol. 49 (2018), pp 1-31. 15 D. James, ‘Saw marks in vernacular buildings and their wider significance.’ Vernacular Architecture, Vol. 43 (2012), pp 7-18. 16 D. James, ‘The Throne, Weobley, An Analysis and Selective Recording of the Building,’ March 2012, an unpublished report produced in advance of a planning application. Also, Vernacular Architecture, Vol. 43 (2012), pp 79-80. 17 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Herefordshire. Vol. 3 – North-West, (H.M.S.O, 1934). Yarpole, monument No. 6, p.216 18 Having reflected on this point, it is possible that the tie beam was cut and that later, the cruck blade has sunk, perhaps through rotting of the base, pulling the short section of tiebeam to the present angle. 19 See TWNFC, Vol.43 (1979), p.74. 20 The 1931 plan in the Historic England archives at Swindon fail to illustrate the north chimney stack and fireplace in bay 4 of the crosswing although it can be seen in the photograph of that date. 21 D. James, ‘An Investigation of the Orientation of Timber-framed Houses in Herefordshire’. Vernacular Architecture, Vol. 34 (2003), pp. 20-31. 22 ‘Grant and confirmation by Richard [de Capella], bishop of Hereford, to Reading Abbey and Abbot Hugh [I], of the church of Leominster…Ford, Hennor, Eaton, Hampton [Wafer], Stockton...’. B. R. Kemp, (ed), Reading Abbey Cartularies, I, (1986) Camden Fourth Series, Volume 31, p. 287. 23 John Price, An Historical & Topographical Account of Leominster and it’s Vicinity, (1795) , p. 158-160. 24 Jonathan Williams, The Leominster Guide, (1808). 2nd edition Eric Turton (ed.) (2000) Leominster Folk Museum. p. 137-8. 25 G. F. Townsend, The Town and Borough of Leominster, (1862) pp. 42-3. 26 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England, An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Herefordshire. Vol. 3 – North-West. (1934) H.M.S.O. Leominster Out, monument No. 5, p. 128 27 John Leland, The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535-1543, part V, p.75. A modern English transcription of the Itinerary has been prepared by John Chandler, John Leland’s Itinerary - Travels in Tudor England, (1993) Sutton. The Herefordshire section is, pp.213-229. 28 E. G. R. Taylor, The Original Writings and Corresponence of the Two Richard Hakluyts, (1935) Hakluyt Society, p.2. 29 D. James, ‘The Herefordshire Hakluyt Houses’. (January 2017), Hakluyt Society Journal. 30 E. G. R. Taylor, The Original Writings and Corresponence of the Two Richard Hakluyts, (1935) Hakluyt Society, pp. 2-5. 31 M. A. Faraday, Herefordshire Taxes in the Reign of Henry VIII, (Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, 2005), p. 389 item 47Wp16 (for Eaton). 32 Mrs Baldwyn-Childe & John Amphlett (Ed), The Kyre Park Charters, (Worcestershire Historical Society, 1905), p. 69, item 254. 33 Charles J. Robinson, A History of the Mansions and Manors of Herefordshire, (1872), p. 175. 34 See note 32. 35 My attention was drawn by Nick Joyce to this rare survival . 36 John Price, An Historical & Topographical Account of Leominster and it’s Vicinity, (1795) pp. 160-1. TWNFC (70) 2022 163