David & Jenny Carter

Nimrod Research

Docton Court 2 Myrtle Street

Appledore Bideford

North Devon EX39 1PH

www.nimrodresearch.co.uk enquiries@nimrodresearch.co.uk

Wiltshire’s Nimrod Indexes founded in 1969 by Dr Barbara J Carter J.P., Ph.D., B.Sc., F.S.G.

May 2012

Building History (Statement of Significance)

No.1 Bridge Street (a.k.a. 1 Church Walk)

2

Contents:

Listing Description - - - - 3

Planning History - - - - 4

Census & Directory Records - - - 5

Old photographs - - - - 7

Property Description - - - - 10

Internal Photographs - - - - 12

Beam markings - - - - 17

Fireplaces - - - - - 20

Plaster moulding - - - - 23

Painted plasterwork - - - - 24

The Marwood Family - - - - 27

The Grenville Family - - - - 30

Sources for Place House - - - 31

Dendro-chronology Report - - - 36

Summary & Conclusion - - - 37

Addendum A - Historic Building Report - 39

N.B.

This is a SPECIFIC report on the history of number 1 Bridge Street, Bideford. For the general history of Bridge Street, and the complete row of buildings which comprise numbers 1 to 5 – see the separate GENERAL report. For the history of the Grenville family, and their connection with this building – see the separate ‘Grenville report’.

These reports have been separated to keep file sizes as small as possible

3

Listing Description – 1 Bridge Street: Royal Mail Public House (part) 1, Bideford Grade: II Date Listed: 8 November 1949 English Heritage Building ID: 375727 OS Grid Reference: SS4540726469 OS Grid Coordinates: 245407, 126469 Latitude/Longitude: 51.0168, -4.2053 Location: Church Walk, Bideford, EX39 2BU SS4526 BRIDGE STREET 842-1/6/14 (South side) 08/11/49 No.1 Listing NGR: SS4539026472

Above: Photograph of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge Street believed to be taken at the time of the listing of No.2 in 1973, when trading as the ‘Royal Mail’ Public House. Note that No.1 Bridge Street was listed in 1949. Left: However, note the chimneys which appear to be front-central on No.2 (above), do not appear on the photo of the same property also supposed to be taken at time of Listing in 1973. We assume that these chimneys were actually between Nos. 2 and 3.

Public House. Early C17, remodelled externally in mid C19. Solid rendered walls. Hipped slate roof. Rendered chimney on rear wall (visible from churchyard). 3 storeys. 3-window main front to Church Walk with raised band above ground storey. All windows in ground storey boarded up. At right-hand end C19 double doors with 2 moulded panels to each leaf. Box-framed sash-windows in upper storeys, the outer second-storey sashes with margin-panes. No openings in Bridge Street front, but raised band continues round. INTERIOR not inspected, but description by WH Rogers refers to early C17 broad-rib ceiling divided by inserted partitions: 'on the walls of a bedroom are the arms of Marwood of Marwood, a chevron between 3 goats heads caboshed, horned or'. (Rogers W H: Notes on Bideford: p.76).

4

As can be seen, the interior of this property was not inspected at the time of its listing in 1949. It would have been interesting to see what mention was made of the fireplace. W H Roger’s source notes were traced, and the exact wording from these, is as follows:

“At No.1 Bridge Street the ceiling is now divided up by party walls. It shows the same characteristics as the others [ie: plaster ceilings in Bideford], but is of a plainer type. On the walls of a bedroom are the arms of Marwood of Marwood, a chevron between 3 goats heads caboshed, horned or. [ref: Carew 320.1]” A sub-note says: “I have been unable to trace any connection between Bideford and the Marwood family”. [taken from William Henry Rogers ‘Notes on Bideford’. These notes are not dated, but are typed and a quarto-sized carbonated paper copy has been bound and deposited in the North Devon Record Office. According to Peter Christie, these notes were produced around 1935].

The ‘Coat of Arms’ reported as being in this location is interesting, although it didn’t say whether these Arms were painted, carved or appeared in some other form.

Former Planning History: None able to be determined.

5

Census & Directory Records: 1911 census Property unable to be found in 1911, as full searchable records are not yet available.

1901 census 6 Church Walk, Bideford William WOLLAND, head, 26, hairdresser & shopkeeper, employer, born: Bideford Evelyn WOLLAND, wife, 24, born: Bideford Grace WOLLAND, dau, 3, born: Bideford Francis WOLLAND, son, 3-mon, born: Bideford (taken from Class: RG13; Piece: 2160; Folio: 58; Page: 8) 1891 census 8 Church Walk, Bideford William P FULFORD, head, 32, coach builder, born: Northam Mary A FULFORD, wife, 29, born: Bideford Frederick W FULFORD, son, 7, born: Bideford Herbert F FULFORD, son, 5, born: Bideford (taken from Class: RG12; Piece: 1786; Folio 136; Page 12) 1881 census 6 Church Walk, Bideford William CRAIG, head, 77, cooper, born: Abbotsham Jane CRAIG, wife, 71, born: Abbotsham James HARDING, grand-son, 18, carpenter’s apprentice, born: Bideford Emily CRAIG, grand-dau, 13, scholar, born: London, Middx. James HARDING, border, widower, 50, sailor (merchant), born: Appledore (taken from Class: RG11; Piece: 2259; Folio: 46; Page: 8)

6

1871 census 9 Church Yard, Bideford William CRAIG, head, 67, cooper, born: Abbotsham Jane CRAIG, wife, 61, born: Abbotsham Charles CRAIG, son, 19, born: Appledore Hester M A CRAIG, dau, 16, scholar, born: Bideford Emily CRAIG, grand-dau, 4, scholar, born: Paddington, Middx. (taken from Class: RG10; Piece: 2201; Folio: 43; Page: 14) 1861 census Bridge Street, Bideford William CRAIG, head, 57, master cooper, born: Abbotsham Jane CRAIG, wife, 51, born: Abbotsham Jane CRAIG, dau, 28, dressmaker, born: Frithelstock Elizabeth CRAIG, dau, 28, dressmaker, born: Frithelstock James CRAIG, son, 17, cooper, born: Frithelstock Lucy CRAIG, dau, 15, scholar, born: Frithelstock Charles CRAIG, son, 9, scholar, born: Appledore Helen CRAIG, dau, 6, scholar, born: Bideford (taken from Class: RG9; Piece: 1502; Folio: 141; Page: 5) 1856 directory Miss Jane Craig, milliner & dressmaker, Bridge Street 1851 census Property unable to be identified with certainty. 1841 census Bridge Street contained about 22 properties at this time, but it is not possible to identify the exact buildings being investigated in this report.

7

Old Photographs: 1837 engraving – entrance to St Mary’s Churchyard before the Church was largely rebuilt Note that there were 2 sets of gates – one to the Churchyard, and the other to Church Walk. One of the masonry gate pillars still exists, enabling us to fix the exact location of this entrance. The two-storey building in Church Walk can be seen on the right-hand side.

2012 photographs showing entrance to Churchyard, and one remaining masonry gate-post

8

1897: Looking up Bridge Street. The hairdresser’s of William Wolland can be seen at No.1 on the left-hand side, followed by the Royal Mail pub at No.2. Note that there is a front-door entrance to No.1 from Bridge Street – this was later changed to a small window, and today a larger-width window appears here. Facing onto Church Walk is a display window with late 19th century cornice. An earlier photograph of the same view. On the right-hand side are the old Grammar School buildings (demolished 1878), so this could be the earliest photo we have of this street. Note that there is a ground floor window facing onto Church Walk, but no upper windows are in view. It would appear that these were added sometime within the past 130 years. There is also a large chimney (from No.2 ?) which is no longer in existence.

9

1975: In the background can be seen No.1 Bridge Street, with a ‘Royal Mail’ sign, indicating that the pub had expanded into these premises from No.2 at this time. The policemen are there after a visiting man with a shotgun went into the Royal Mail pub, and ordered all the staff to leave. Although the police tried to persuade him, to give himself up, he sadly committed suicide in the premises. [North Devon Journal]

10

Property Description: Ground Floor: Floor: Parquet herringbone timber floor (good quality). Walls: Exposed masonry.

Masonry wall-openings between No.2 and No.1 have been well-formed, with good edges. Mid-way through each of the 2 openings, is a rebate formed in the masonry, to take a door jamb, although there are no signs that a doorway was ever installed. As the rebate is within No.2 it is assumed that the doors were meant to be seen from the lower side (No.1).

The side and rear walls show signs of possibly having been built on bedrock (or large lumps of stone have been used to provide a footing for the walls).

Dado paneling to external walls (recent). On the rear wall (left of fireplace) there is evidence of a number of blocked-up openings, presumably windows originally facing towards the churchyard.

Ceiling: Plasterboard & skim, on top of sawn softwood joists (5½” x 3”).

These are supported by a longitudinal beam of unusually long length (9.2metres), running lengthways down the building (not side-to-side as might be supposed). The exposed size of this beam is 330mm x 320mm. Again there were no obvious hand-tool or machine-tool markings, and the beam is of good quality (ie: dead straight for its entire length, no bends, twists or indentations). There is no detailing or chamfering, and the only feature of the beam are some markings in the middle of its length.

A central timber post (180mm x 180mm) has been used to support this beam, but this is not shown on the 1996 survey drawing, so is possibly a recent addition. At the Bridge Street end, a gap in the stain on the beam soffit shows that there was originally a post here (about 200mm x 270mm?), probably removed when the large window was added to this elevation. This beam now meets the window lintel, which is not the best structural support for the main beam of this building. At the other end, the beam is supported by the fireplace lintel, again not ideal in terms of structural stability.

Fireplace: 1600mm wide (described below, with photographs). Staircase: There is no staircase in this building between ground and first floors, and no

evidence that there ever was one within the lifetime of this floor structure.

11

First Floor: Floor: All the boards on this floor have been replaced with interlocking chipboard. Significant damage is being caused to this floor by water ingress. Walls: Plastered and painted, where these have decayed, it appears that these walls have

been lime-plastered. Chimney breast to front and rear rooms. Ceramic tiled walls to rear room (used as a food store).

Staircase: straight flight leading to second floor landing. Curved wall at top of stairs

suggesting where former winding staircase was located. Second Floor: Floor: large-width boards (some 410mm, some 330mm wide) visible at this level.

3 rooms with fireplace hearths to front and back rooms.

Given the rather untidy appearance of the ground floor frontage facing onto Church Walk, No.1 Bridge Street does actually have quite a symmetrical upper façade, when the more recent alterations to the lower level are stripped away.

12

Photographs: Ground Floor:

Left: Junction of main beam with window Right: Central post support. Lintel, showing marks of removed support.

Left: Bedrock(?) base to dividing wall. Right: blocked up openings to rear wall.

13

Masonry wall between Nos.1 and 2 Bridge Street, showing openings with reveals formed for door jambs.

14

First Floor:

First floor: showing evidence of damage caused by water ingress. Also mould forming on the beam below. (This has since been cured following roofing and other waterproofing works).

15

Second Floor:

Original floor boards appear to exist throughout this upper floor.

16

Roof:

Roof space and timbers to No.1 Bridge Street. There was no obvious form and structure to the timbers, which appear to have been patched together from various materials in fairly recent times. On the back wall however is evidence that this roof originally took the form of two adjacent gables.

Second floor beam exposed when roofing works were being carried out.

17

Beam markings:

Markings on the sides and base of the long beam in ground floor of No.1 Bridge Street. It was not immediately clear what these markings were – they were not carpenter’s marks, or pre-fabrication marks, and did not have any obvious meaning.

However, this image of similar marks on a spine beam of the Parklands Hotel, Ogbourne St George, Wiltshire, have been identified as Cargo Marks.

18

Timber imports and Cargo marks: The British Shipbuilding Industry made continually growing demands for good timber, which after the 1500s became increasingly more difficult to satisfy from local forests. British woodlands were over-exploited, and large quantities of good quality timber had to be sourced from elsewhere. In 1610 it was reported of Devonshire that "tymber for buyldinge and other necessaries for husbandrie are already growen soe extreme deare" that the inhabitants were driven to obtain supplies from Ireland, Wales and Flanders. By the late 1600s the British shipping industry increasingly utilised imports of Baltic timber, although supplies of smaller hardwood timbers for domestic use were still available after the 1600s. Most of the early Baltic timber imports were to London and other east-coast ports, but by the late 1700s, provincial ports like Bideford eventually found it economic to arrange their own direct imports. The size of vessels bringing in such timbers were generally between 250 and 400 tons, but smaller vessels of under 200 tons were generally used in places like Bideford. Large cargoes were often discharged at Appledore and floated up the river to Bideford on the tide. The import of lumber timber into Bideford might be investigated from Port Records, although we know that this took place over many years, so it would probably not be possible to narrow down a time-period linking our beams with one particular cargo. However, from the Exeter Flying Post we do know that in the period 1791 to 1793, the following lumber imports came into Bideford:

1 load lumber from Plymouth.

2 loads lumber from Portsmouth.

1 load lumber from America.

3 loads lumber from Drammen (Baltic). Other loads of baulk timber were brought into Barnstaple at the same time, from:

Cork (Ireland)

Christiana (Oslo, Norway)

Danzig (Prussia / Poland)

Drammen (Norway)

Frederickstadt (Norway)

Riga (Latvia)

St Petersburg (Russia) Up until 1807, the main source of imported timber was from the Baltic Countries and Norway, but with Napoleon’s blockage on Britain in 1806, Canadian timber became easier to obtain and economically more viable to import. Despite research in other parts of the country, no-one really knows the exact meaning of these marks, but they are probably a tally system used by the loaders to check quantites. Subsequent dendro-analysis of these beams failed to produce a datable result.

19

These imported baulk-timber beams were subsequently examined by Barry Hughes from the North Devon Maritime Museum; he is a knowledgeable expert on timber, its origins, and the methods used to import it. Upon first glance it was suggested that the natural assumption would be to assume that these are Canadian timbers, imported in perhaps the early part of the 19th century. However, it was confirmed that timbers of this size were being imported into England in the early 17th century, and probably as far back as the 16th century. He therefore confirmed that there was no reason why timbers of this size could not have been imported in the early 1600s, and used to construct this building at that time. The softwood joists which span onto this main beam, show signs of having been cut by a circular saw. Such saws did not appear in this country until the late 1700s, so it is concluded that these joists must be of a later date. No such saw marks were found on the main imported beams, these were all hand-tooled. Given the chronology known about the rest of the building, and that these timbers form the backbone of two other adjoining buildings, it was felt that their insertion at a later period in the history of these three buildings would not be likely. It is concluded that these timbers are almost certainly original to the build-date of this building.

= = = = = = = =

20

Fireplaces: At the south end of the ground floor is an imposing fireplace with raised brick & tile hearth. The hearth is of more recent construction, and it appears that the floor has possibly been lowered at some point, the hearth-level being the old floor level.

The fireplace lintel is mostly plain, but with a chamfered edge, and a toothed moulding at each end.

21

The fireplace reveals are formed from dressed-stone blocks, and therefore meant to be left exposed. A report by Historic Buildings Consultant John Thorp (included as an Addendum in General section of Report) reported: “Both have plain jambs and rather insubstantial oak lintels, which do not look like typical fireplaces from the grander late 16th century houses. The chamfer-stops on the lintels are rather distinctive. However they terminate each end with scroll stops. This decorative technique is essentially 17th century in date and commonly found in Devon houses of all social scales from c1600-1680. Scroll stops associated with bars occur as early as 1620-40 at Drascombe Barton in Drewsteignton but most appear to be from the 1660s as at 4 The Quay in Dartmouth, built in 1664.”

John Thorp also commented that: “the only other examples of this form of stop in all its detail known to this writer are on the second floor ovolo-moulded doorframe in the adjacent building, 2 Bridge Street, which is associated with a roof structure of A-frame trusses with dovetail-shaped lap-jointed collars, another element of the Devon vernacular tradition, which can be dated to the early or mid 17th century”.

22

The subsequent stripping-out work at first floor level uncovered an identical fireplace and lintel immediately above the ground floor fireplace. This had been covered by plasterboard and ceramic tiles, in a room designed to be a food store. The plasterboard had been fixed to vertical softwood battens recessed into the plasterwork.

Photographs showing the two ends of the first floor fireplace lintel. It should be noted that these mouldings are identical to the lintel on the ground floor, indicating that these 2 fireplaces have the same construction date. A subsequent dendro-analysis was carried out on the fireplace lintels at both ground and first floor level. This suggested an early to mid 17th century date – see report below for more details.

23

Plaster moulding: To the right-hand return of the fireplace was uncovered a section of moulded-plaster frieze.

Historic Buildings Consultant John Thorp examined this moulding and commented in his report as follows: “The frieze is a cast design set between horizontal strips of hand-run moulded plaster. The pattern is of interlacing foliage featuring pea-pods arranged around a circular boss and four-leaf motifs. In order to date this plasterwork it would be necessary to locate another example cast from the same mould and then date it by comparison with associated contemporary features. Unfortunately I have not been able to identify such an example, and without it the frieze could date any time from the 1560s to the 1670s. It may be relevant that Rogers mentions that the house includes an ‘early 17th century broad rib ceiling’ in his time (ibid.). Broad rib ceilings, alternatively known as enriched double rib ceilings, do not exist before the first decade of the 17th century. Most date from c1610-1640, but a handful are known from the 1650s or 1660s, such as those at Rixdale Farm, Dawlish and 15 The Strand in Bideford.” The West-country was well-served for moulded plaster decoration, as the well-known Abbot Brothers of Frithelstock were established experts in this field, and undertook many commissions of decorated plasterwork interiors to buildings within their area. Their pattern-book still exists in the North Devon Record Office. They may have been responsible for this work, but without proof of the use of this moulding design in other buildings, this is difficult to prove. From the comments above, it appears that this moulding was probably erected within a date-range around the 1630s ± 10 to 20 years.

24

Painted plaster:

When the first floor fireplace was uncovered, an area of painted plaster was discovered to the upper right. The plasterwork overlapped the top of the timber fireplace-lintel, suggesting that these were of a similar age.

25

This is almost certainly the ‘Arms of Marwood of Marwood’ referred to in the listing description of this property. The shield has been cut through with a batten-recess, but the remainder is identifiable as the scroll-work surrounding the arms and shield.

Despite their damaged state, and that they didn’t appear to quite match the known Marwood Coat of Arms, it was initially felt that the Arms possibly were those of Marwood – they having been painted with some artistic licence, or from a slightly different branch of the Marwood family. It should also be noted that the original description was able to be done by someone who saw these in an undamaged form. Although the chevron appears to extend too far upward, and is at too steep an angle, its return to the bottom-left can be made out in this enhanced photograph.

26

The goat’s head device (of which only one remains on the painting) is rampant with its horns pointing back, rather than upward, but does appear to be caboshed (ie: animal’s head cut off from the body). The three downward-pointing elements are an attempt at being ‘erased a la quise’ (an heraldic term showing that the body has been violently torn off).

Above (left): another depiction of the Arms of Marwood. Above (right): an illustration of an animal’s head ‘caboshed’, and ‘erased a la quise’ – very similar to the base of our goat’s heads. The ‘Or’ mentioned at the end of the Marwood heraldic description, means gold-colour, and this is what we have on the wall-painting here. But the background is white, not red as it should be on the Marwood Arms. However, why is this particular Coat of Arms painted on the wall in this building? These are plainly not the Arms of the Grenville family, which are totally different….

Left: The Grenville (or Greenfield) Coat of Arms. Right: The devices from Grenville Arms incorporated into the Arms of Bideford.

The Grenville Arms show 3 clarions, sometimes thought to be a spear or lance rest, but as they are also known as ‘horseman’s rests’, it seems more likely that these depict saddles.

27

National Monuments Record Centre The NMRC at Swindon holds photographs of most of this Country’s historic buildings. A search was undertaken here for anything pertaining to the 5 properties being investigated here, and particularly for this wall painting. No such photographs appeared to be part of their collections.

The Marwood Family There are various branches of the Marwood Family, each having the same Coat of Arms, but with some minor differences in design or description. The ‘Marwood of Marwood’ family (meaning the branch of the Marwoods which actually came from Marwood in Devon) were investigated to see if a connection could be made with Bideford, or with any of the people believed to be associated with this building The last bearer of this particular Coat of Arms appears to be a John Marwood. Lysons Magna Britannia: volume 6: Devonshire, published 1822, describes the family as such:

Marwood, of West Marwood, near Barnstaple, from the time of Henry III. till the reign of Elizabeth, when two of the co-heiresses married Chichester and Wichalse. — About the beginning of the last century, James Marwood, Esq., (but whether descended from a younger branch of the Marwoods above mentioned I have not ascertained) purchased Sutton in Widworthy. J. T. B. Marwood, Esq., the last of this family, (which had removed into Somersetshire) died in 1811: his sisters and co-heiresses married Stevens (fn. 26), Wolcot, and Elton.

As regards the Parish of Marwood, Lysons Magna Britannia: describes this as follows:

MARWOOD, in the hundred of Braunton and in the deanery of Shirwell, lies about three miles from Barnstaple. The villages of Prixford, or Prixworthy, Mudford, and King's Heanton, are in this parish. A fair at Marwood for three days, at the festival of St. Michael, was granted to William Martin, in 1293. Church Marwood was in the family of the Lords Martyn, or Martin, from whom it passed to the Lords Audley, and descended to the Bourchiers, earls of Bath. A part of this parish is within the manor of Braunton Abbots: the remainder is freehold property, for the most part belonging to George Ley, Esq. of Lee House. West Marwood, or Westcote, belonged, in the reign of Henry III., to the Marwoods, who continued to possess it till the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when one of the co-heiresses brought it to the Chichesters of Hall, in which family it still remains. Westcote was originally the residence of the Westcote family, ancestors of the Lytteltons of Worcestershire, and of the Westcotes of Raddon: Thomas Westcote, the antiquary, was of the latter branch. Thomas Westcote, the head of the family, in the early part of the fifteenth century married the heiress of Lyttelton of Frankly, in Worcestershire, and removed hither. He took the name of Littleton, or Lyttelton, and was father of Sir Thomas Littleton, the learned judge, who, by some of his biographers, is said to have been born at Westcote.

28

In the parish-church is a monument for William Parminter, Esq, Inquisitor-general for the South-Sea Company, in Terra Firma, who died in Panama, 1737; Mary, daughter of Parminter, and wife of George Ley, Esq., 1726; and the families of Garland, Mervin, Chichester, and Hartnoll. In the church-yard are some memorials for the family of Ley. There was formerly a chapel at Westcote barton. The Liber Regis speaks of the chapels of Westcote and Whiteford, in this parish, both in ruins.

The Marwood heiresses mentioned above, were children of John Marwood and Joan Warr. They had the following issue – all female:

Elizabeth, born about 1545, Westcote Manor, Marwood

Gertryude

Catherine

Mary, born Westcote Manor, Marwood

Elinor, born Westcote Manor, Marwood It is the above Elizabeth Marwood who married John Chichester c.1566. And the above Elinor Marwood married Robert Wichalse, also c.1566. [taken from Vivian's Visitations of Devon 1620, 1895 edition] There are no records pertaining to the other female children – either they died, or married into other families. Either way, it appears that this particular Marwood family died out in the late 1500s. They seem to have as good a pedigree as the Grenville family, having owned land at Marwood since the 1200s. This makes it all the more mysterious why these arms should appear in this property in Bideford. The positioning of the arms within the room also gave concern. The arms are painted off-set to the right of the fireplace, and with no other paintings visible. It is unlikely that these arms would have been the only decoration, unless they were central on this wall. The plasterwork was examined, and it was noted that the plaster underneath the arms had a base containing quantities of horse-hair, whereas the plaster to the left-hand side of the fireplace contained no hair, and was of plain lime-plaster construction. This indicates that some re-plastering has taken place, which would have obliterated any other paintings, which would have provided a balance within this room. We can speculate that this ‘balancing’ artwork was another Coat of Arms. Such arms would be displayed to indicate a person’s pedigree, although it is unlikely that Sir Richard Grenville would have needed to do this in Bideford. If he did, then we would have expected to see the arms of Grenville next to the arms of his wife’s family – but she was Mary St Leger, of the St Leger family from Weare Giffard. Sir Richard Grenville’s father was Sir Roger Grenville (c.1527-1545), and his mother was Thomasine Cole (1520-1586), dau of Thomas Cole of Slade. After the death of Sir Roger Grenville in 1545, she re-married Thomas Arundell. None of these families have Arms similar to the wall painting.

29

Historic Buildings Consultant John Thorp examined this painting and commented in his report as follows: “The position of the Marwood Arms here suggests that it was part of a larger scheme which extended across the full width of the chimneybreast. However plaster over the centre and east side of the chimneybreast has been replaced. All that can be said is that the arms are not those of the Grenvilles and that they cannot date earlier than the fireplaces in the chimneystack.”

During subsequent specialist plaster works undertaken to stabilize the mouldings and substrate of the painted plasterwork section, it was reported that the south wall against which the fireplace and flue shaft has been constructed, had a plaster finish going behind the fireplace wall. This indicates that this external wall pre-dates the insertion of this fireplace, and is therefore older.

Coat of Arms – Initial conclusion: We must conclude that no obvious connection with the Marwood family has been found which could relate to this family, or of land holdings in Bideford. Having now reached this conclusion, another theory was sought – and this is reported on at length in the separate Grenville family report, which should accompany this Building Report. In this Grenville Research, we have been able to show that these Arms were wrongly identified as the Marwood Arms, and are almost certainly the Arms of the Meredith Family of Leeds Abbey in Kent. Their daughter’s family married into the Grenville family, and Sir William Meredith is recorded as having control of various lands in Bideford, including the manorial lands of the Grenvilles, in the mid 17th century.

30

The Grenville Family: The Grenville family first appear as owners of lands in the Manor of Bideford in 1126, and their descendants held it until the 18th century. By 1200, the Grenville family had created the Borough of Bideford, and tenants could pay the lord of the manor twelve pence a year for a burgage plot of 6 acres, or sixpence a year for a house and orchard. Borough status was confirmed in 1238, and manorial courts were held in Bideford until 1882, when the Town Council bought out the last lord of the manor One lord of the manor, William de Greinville, became Chancellor of England in 1302 and Archbishop of York in 1305. In 1332 there were 30 Burgesses paying rents to the lord of the manor.

Some 16 generations after the first Grenvilles, Bideford’s most famous resident (Sir Richard Grenville) was born in 1542. Grenville's birthplace is unknown, but he spent much of his childhood at Clifton Arundell House after his mother remarried Thomas Arundell following the death of his father Sir Roger Grenville, who was Captain of the Mary Rose when it sank in Portsmouth Harbour in 1545. He was a cousin of Sir Walter Raleigh and the privateer Sir Francis Drake. At age 17, Grenville began law studies at the Inner Temple. At age 18 he inherited his estates at Stowe in Cornwall, and Bideford and Buckland Abbey in Devon, England. In 1565 Grenville married Mary St Leger (who outlived Grenville, dying aged about 80 on 9 November 1623. She lies buried at St Mary's Church,

Bideford.) The family initially lived at Buckland Abbey before moving to a newly built house at Bideford. [source: Wikipedia]. Buckland Abbey was later sold to Sir Francis Drake in 1581, so the move must have been before that date. Sir Richard Grenville’s exploits can be found described in many other sources, particularly in the recent book by Andrew Thomas Powell telling the story of the Lost Colony of Roanoke. However, it is Grenville’s occupation of properties in Bideford which is of specific interest to us, and of trying to confirm a link between him to the property under investigation here.

31

Sources relating to ‘Place House’ – home of the Grenville Family: a) The following article was found in the North Devon Journal for 1922: “In regard to a claim that the old Castle Inn, Allhalland Street, Bideford (now the headquarters of the local Church Lads’ Brigade), was the town house of the Grenvilles, whose family seat was at Stowe, North Cornwall, a writer recalls that the late Sub-Dean Granville, who wrote a history of Bideford, stated he could find no proof as to the Bideford House of the Grenvilles. He had made, he said, exhaustive research in relation both to Ford Farm and the Castle Inn, and found himself at last without anything to justify a positive declaration.” [ref: North Devon Journal: 17th August 1922, page 6, col.a]. b) Mr Pearce Chope writing in 1928, says about Richard Grenville that he “addressed his letters from Bideford, and he undoubtedly lived in the Manor House, known as Place House, which was the first house in ‘Churchyard’, on or near the site of the present Townhall.” [ref: North Devon Journal: 5th July 1928, page 7]. c) R Pearse Chope writing in 1929 about the Bideford Church Rate for 1672, says that “Place House (ie: the Manor House) was then also ‘on the Kaye’ [Quay], about seven houses from the south end and the Bridge, probably on the site of the Bideford Gas and Coke Company, where a handsome fireplace with the Grenville Arms is still preserved; but the Old Place House was still in existence being the first house in ‘Churchyard’ probably on or about the site of the present Town Hall and Library”. [ref: Devon Notes & Queries: Vol.15, page 105 (1929)]. d) 1672 Church Rate:

The Bideford Church Rate (mentioned above for 1672) was investigated, and found to be housed in the North Devon Record Office under Borough Council Records [ref: NDRO-2379A/Z11]. These consisted of 5 rolls of parchment, with seal, in which the streets of Bideford are listed under their respective headings.

These Church Rates listed 45 properties under the heading of “Backs and Quays, from the North to the South End” (these appear to be the Quay-side buildings and the associated properties behind).

32

Seven entries up from the end we have the following entry (illustrated above):

“The owners or occupants of Place House ffower [ie: four] pence” This refers to the new house built by the Grenvilles on Bideford Quay. Under the properties listed in Bridge Street, we have the following listed:

Mr Robert Boole or his tenant for the New Inn. Dionisia Lange widow or her tenant Stephen Trott. Daniell Laynes for Punndgarden. The said Earle for a stable. Wilmott Younge widdowe for a house. Mr John Frost or his tenant for his house in this street. Syu~e(?) Kill on side the water & the fourther house there. Pauper John Saunders for his house. John Son Morcombe for his house & John Saunders house. Richard Wilmington for his house there. John Whitfield for the house he lives in. John Gordinge for his house there. John Barnes for his house there. Etheldred Beaple or his tenants. The said Earle for pule(?) Scome(?) Lakes house.

This gives a good representation of the number of properties in Bridge Street at this time. It’s interesting to see a ‘New Inn’ here at this time, but there is no obvious sign of Place House, or anything relating to the Grenvilles. However, under the heading for ‘Churchyard’ we find the following:

Mr John Hill for the old place house – two pence. Peter Moyse for his house – one penny. Dorothy Bragg for a house and garden – one penny. Ann Powe widdowe for her house – one penny. William Wilmotts for three houses – two pence.

33

Here we have a clear reference to the ‘Old Place House’ still being in existence in 1672, and being charged a rent double that of the other houses here. A Mr John Hill is said to be responsible for paying this rate. (The ‘Mr’ designation is a sign of him being gentry). e) Hearth Tax: Knowing this, we were then able to locate the name of ‘John Hille’ on the Heath Tax Records for 1664, as seen below, where he is paying 2d.

[ref: National Archives E 179/102/530]

f) History of Bideford sources: From the Chronological History of Bideford included earlier, we had these references to the house of Sir Richard Grenville at Bideford:

1586 – In a letter of 27th Feb, Richard Grenville mentions being ‘at Bedyford’. A later letter says “At my howse in Bideford this 19th day of May 1589”. [Quote: “He lived at Place House situated on the north side of the Church-yard. Place House is mentioned in the Sessions Book as late as 1790” – Source: A Concise History of Bideford].

1670 – The Earl of Bath purchased a house and garden in Maidenstreet for making a new street or passage between Maidenstreete [Meddon Street] and Highstreet [this new road is assumed to be Buttgarden Street, first mentioned in 1671]. He also gave “a plot of the garden of the old Place House for enlarging the churchyard on the north side thereof”. [Source: A Concise History of Bideford].

Despite much searching, we have as yet been unable to trace the source information regarding this exchange of land in 1670.

34

g) Session Books: We investigated the claim that Place House was mentioned in ‘Sessions Books for 1790’. There was no explanation as to what these Sessions Books were, and it was initially assumed that these were Borough Council Session records. However, a search of deposited records at the North Devon Record Office failed to find much from this period, and no records at all entitled ‘Session Books’. It was then considered that these might be Quarter Sessions, of which records did exist for the period around 1790, indeed these were catalogued as being ‘Session Books’, so this seemed to be the most likely source. The Quarter Session records for 1790 were examined, and the following references noted:

25th February 1790 – The surveyor of the Highways for a broken and dangerous grate near the Town Pump in Bridge Street – repaired.

25th February 1790 – John Clevland esquire Lord of the Manor for not repairing the broken rails in Bridge Street – postponed until Mr Clevland’s return from London.

19th May 1791 – The Lord of the Manor for a Dangerous Bridge without rails in Bridge Street.

19th May 1791 – Robert Shute and James Piper for not repairing the rails before their gardens in Bridge Street.

Various other similar matters were recorded, mentioning Bridge Street, but none could be found in 1790 or in any of the surrounding years, which suggested the existence of ‘Place House’ at this time. At this time, we are therefore unable to confirm the source of the suggestion in this publication, but this could be worthy of further investigation.

35

i) Other sources: Andrew Thomas Powell’s book on Grenville and Roanoke, makes the following statements: Page 4: “The Grenville’s had a house in Bideford long before the arrival of Sir Richard in 1542, for in building his own home there, Sir Richard referred to it as the family’s ‘new place at Bideford’.” Page 5: “The presence of his (ie: Sir Richard’s) grandfather’s monument in the parish church of St Mary’s, Bideford would appear to have a reasonable case for claiming to be that birthplace.” Page 7: “Regarding the Grenville family house at Bideford, it seems they began building it around the early 1580s. The exact location of the house at Bideford has long remained a mystery.…” Page 232: “In 1589, when Pedro Diaz made his deposition to the Spanish authorities in Havana,… he spoke not only about Grenville’s voyage home of 1585 but also the voyage of 1586 and his time as a prisoner of Grenville (along with approx twenty Spaniards). The most fascinating comment is his account of being made to help build Grenville’s house at Bideford. It is extraordinary to consider the thought of Spanish slaves working on projects in the rural tranquility of small-town England.” Page 242/3: “Picture the Quayside, Grenville’s newly built house presiding over it. ….the streets of Bideford would have been home to the comings and goings of many of the West Country’s landed gentry. The St Legers, the Queen’s commanders of Munster in Ireland, the Arundells, one of the most powerful families of Cornwall, and conceivably even Sir Walter Raleigh may well have walked those streets, all being entertained by the Grenvilles at their new house.”

At this point, we refer you to the extensive report produced for the Grenville Family, and their financial affairs in Bideford.

See ‘Grenville Research’ report

36

Dendro-chronology Report: In March 2012, a dendro-chronology (tree-ring dating) report was commissioned for some of the timbers discovered in Nos. 1 to 5 Bridge Street, and the following timbers from No.1 were sampled:

Ground floor ‘baulk’ pine timbers.

Fireplace lintel, ground floor

Fireplace lintel, first floor

Ceiling (roof) beam at second floor level The summary of the results from No.1 were as follows:

The ground floor pine timbers were unable to be dated. No match could be found for these from any database. This is not unusual for pine timbers. However, the timbers were found to be identical in age and origin to the other ground floor beams in No.2 Bridge Street.

The samples taken from ground and first floor fireplace lintels were able to be dated, but they did not contain sapwood (the ground floor sample only showed the heart/sapwood boundary, and the first floor lintel contained no sapwood boundary at all). The last growth ring on each of these dated to 1606 and 1583 respectively. Sapwood normally contains between 15 and 40 annual rings, so this allowance has to be added to the above. An estimated felling-date was therefore only able to be calculated for the ground floor lintel, and this was between 1621 and 1646.

The second floor ceiling beam was able to be dated, but only showed the heart/sapwood boundary, the last dated growth ring being 1596. An estimated felling-date for this beam therefore falls between 1611 and 1636.

Cross-referencing was made to try and determine the origin of the above timbers. The results were not definitive, but the strongest result came from the above ceiling-beam sample, which had a very high match with timber from the Egloskerry area in Cornwall. As such this is likely to have been part of the Grenville estates, which would have been a most logical source for the supply of timber for one of their buildings.

See the Dendro Report by Nottingham Tree-Ring Dating Laboratories for full details of the tests and results carried out on these timbers.

37

Summary – 1 Bridge Street: The orientation of No.1 Bridge Street is not onto Bridge Street – there are no upper-floor windows to this elevation, and historic photos show just one small window at ground floor level. It is plainly a building which faces Church Walk, hence its historical address being in ‘Church Walk’. The earliest known photograph shows that the upper right-hand windows facing Church Walk did not exist until later in the 19th century. Only the end part of this wall can be seen in the picture, so we are unable to tell what other openings originally existed on this elevation, but this is strange for a building with such an outlook not to have some visible windows. The ground floor level seems to have been lowered by as much as 300mm (12”), as indicated by the possible bedrock in the party wall, and the raised hearth at one end. The imported pine beams in the ground floor appear to have ancient origins, and it has been determined that there is no reason why these should not date back to the early 1600s. It is possible that the original façade facing Church Walk was half-timbered and jettied out over the pavement and when this facade decayed, the wall at ground floor level was extended upwards in place of the original. This could explain why the first floor fireplace is not central to the room. It could also explain why the main pine beam runs lengthways to the room – spanning between two substantial stone walls, with secondary beams taken off these, and into the outer half-timbered wall. The lack of a staircase linking the upper levels suggests that Nos. 1 and 2 have been linked for at least the time that this first floor structure has been in place, enabling access to the upper levels via No.2. The possible Georgian fireplace and doorway at first floor, and the original door at second floor level support this suggestion. At the roof level, no ancient timbers were found in the pitched roof, although a ceiling beam dated to about 1630 ± 10 years. Documentary sources have shown that this site was the location of the Grenville family’s original Manor House (called ‘Place House’). Dates obtained from dendro-chronology average to about 1630, and indicate that major re-building works occurred around this time, including erection or insertion of fireplaces. However, the wall at the back of the fireplace, has a plaster surface which goes behind the fireplace walls, so is obviously of an earlier date. This wall may therefore be a remnant of the original Manor House. The blocked-up openings in this wall at ground floor level show that something was happening here prior to the 1630s insertion of the fireplace. Understanding the Coat of Arms on the wall painting has been the key to understanding the history of the current building. Research in the separate ‘Grenville Research’ report has determined that these Arms belonged not to the Marwood Family, but to the Meredith Family, and descended to a daughter who married into the Grenville Family in 1652. They must therefore have been part of a redecoration scheme to commemorate this marriage.

38

In the 1672 Church Rates, we see that John Hill was responsible for the ‘Old Place House’, and we also find him paying Hearth Tax in 1664. In 1670 part of the garden of Old Place House was given up to extend the Churchyard. After that, the building survived largely unscathed, apart from 20th century works, but much of its underlying structure can still be determined.

= = = = = = = = =

Conclusion: Had it not been for W H Rogers notes mentioning the remains of a 17th century broad-rib ceiling in this property, the Listing Description would probably have described this building as a 19th century construction, as it did for the neighbouring buildings. Dendro-chronology has shown this early 17th century date to be proved correct. Historical research has shown that this site has been the Manor House of the Grenvilles, with a document from 1256 placing this family’s lands exactly in this location. We have also demonstrated that in the early 1540s Roger Grenville and his wife were living there, and that this was where the celebrated Sir Richard Grenville must have been born in 1542. Further research has confirmed that this was the ‘Old Place House’ of the Grenvilles, and that in 1585 Sir Richard Grenville built a ‘New Place House’ on the river frontage at Bideford. The Old Place presumably fell into decay, and around the 1630s was heavily re-built into the form we see today, using timber from their estates in Cornwall. Given the now-proved history of this building and its connection with one of England’s most celebrated mariners and explorers, it seems fitting for this building to be fully and properly restored, and to find a purpose befitting its status.

= = = = = = = = =

39

Addendum ‘A’ – John Thorp – Keystone Building Report:

1 Bridge Street, Bideford, Devon

OS Ref. ST 45390 26472 Report K810

Grade II listed building

The Brief

John Thorp of Keystone Historic Buildings Consultants is contracted by David Carter of Nimrod

Research on behalf of the owner to provide a brief appraisal of the historic painting and fragment of

ornamental plaster frieze recently uncovered in the property. This report comprises a description

and discussion of these features related to their physical context and in relation with other features

found in Nos 1 and 2 Bridge Street, Bideford.

The on-site survey was entirely non-invasive and, although much of the building fabric has been

uncovered in previous and on-going building works, it is possible that future works will discover

historic information that might refine or even alter the conclusions contained in this report.

Setting

David Carter’s documentary research has established that the Bideford town house of the

eminent Grenville family occupied a site on the north side of the churchyard, which he identified as

Place House. Quoting secondary sources a part of the garden of “old Place House” was sold to the

church for the enlarging of the churchyard in 1670.

However a new Grenville house was down on the quayside by the 1640s for Sir Bevil Greville

(died 1643).

Nos 1-5 Bridge Street are situated along the south side of Bridge Street rising up the hill from

Church Walk at the east end. No 1 is the corner house. The houses show no sign of antiquity on

the outside but Nos 1 & 2 include features which can be dated earlier than 1700.

40

The Features in No 1

The chimneystack. A chimneystack projects inside the building on the south wall. At ground

floor and first floor levels it contains similar fireplaces. They have jambs made up of dressed stone

blocks and chamfered oak lintels with complex stops, comprising a filleted bar to a flat finishing with

a filleted scroll stop. The second floor fireplace is blocked.

The plaster at first floor level. The chimneystack is plastered at first floor level. Original

plaster remains only at the right-hand (west) end of the chimneybreast and on the adjacent side.

This comprises a base coat of haired mud plaster finished with a skim of lime plaster.

On the right side there remains a small section of an ornamental plaster frieze. It is a cast design

set between horizontal strips of hand-run moulded plaster. The pattern is of interlacing foliage

featuring pea-pods arranged around a circular boss and four-leaf motifs. The frieze has been

removed from the rest of the room and replaced with plain lime plaster. This includes the front of

the chimneybreast where similar plaster has replaced the original over the fireplace.

The painting. The surviving primary plaster on the right-hand (west) side of the chimneybreast

includes the remains of a painting representing an heraldic achievement. Despite being cut through

by a horizontal strip for a narrow stud the arms are still readable and appear to represent the arms

of the Marwood family (as identified by W H Rogers in his Notes on Bideford, p.76), surrounded by

scrollwork. The painting is of competent craftsmanship, but employs a limited palette of red, black

and ochre yellow.

Dating and Discussion

Taken together the features of the southern chimneystack can be dated on stylistic grounds to

the 17th century, and maybe the mid rather than the early 17th century.

The first is the surviving fragment of the ornamental plaster frieze. In order to date this

plasterwork it would be necessary to locate another example cast from the same mould and then

date it by comparison with associated contemporary features. Unfortunately I have not been able to

identify such an example, and without it the frieze could date any time from the 1560s to the 1670s.

It may be relevant that Rogers mentions that the house includes an ‘early 17th century broad rib

ceiling’ in his time (ibid.). Broad rib ceilings, alternatively known as enriched double rib ceilings, do

not exist before the first decade of the 17th century. Most date from c1610-1640, but a handful are

known from the 1650s or 1660s, such as those at Rixdale Farm, Dawlish and 15 The Strand in

Bideford.

41

Secondly there is the painting. Dating such features is notoriously difficult and I know of no

other heraldic examples apart from the Royal Arms. The position of the Marwood Arms here

suggests that it was part of a larger scheme which extended across the full width of the

chimneybreast. However plaster over the centre and east side of the chimneybreast has been

replaced. All that can be said is that the arms are not those of the Grenvilles and that they cannot

date earlier than the fireplaces in the chimneystack.

The fireplaces are the third element to discuss. Both have plain jambs and rather insubstantial

oak lintels, which do not look like typical fireplaces from the grander late 16th century houses. The

chamfer-stops on the lintels are rather distinctive. However they terminate each end with scroll

stops. This decorative technique is essentially 17th century in date and commonly found in Devon

houses of all social scales from c1600-1680. Scroll stops associated with bars occur as early as

d1620-40 at Drascombe Barton in Drewsteignton but most appear to be from the 1660s as at 4 The

Quay in Dartmouth, built for the mariner Robert Plumleigh in 1664. Interestingly the only other

examples of this form of stop in all its detail known to this writer are on the second floor ovolo-

moulded doorframe in the adjacent building, 2 Bridge Street, which is associated with a roof

structure of A-frame trusses with dovetail-shaped lap-jointed collars, another element of the Devon

vernacular tradition, which can be dated to the early or mid 17th century.

Conclusion

Although the site of Nos 1-5 Bridge Street, Bideford, would seem to be the site of Sir Richard

Grenville’s Bideford house the older features exposed in Nos 1 & 2 would seem to suggest an early

or mid 17th century date for these houses, or at least the exposed features.

February 2012

Text and photography by John R.L. Thorp

Keystone Historic Buildings Consultants

3 Colleton Crescent

Exeter

Devon EX2 4DG

Conditions and Limitations

This report has been prepared for use by David Carter of Nimrod Research on behalf of the

owner his professional advisers and not to give assurance to any third party.

42

The purpose of this report is to give an opinion on the specific matter which was the subject

of the request and not to comment on the general condition of the buildings.

Parts of the structure which are covered, unexposed, or otherwise concealed and/or

inaccessible have not been inspected.

Acceptance of the report will be deemed to be acceptance of the terms of engagement and

limitations.

No copies, either whole or in part, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, or stored in retrieval systems, without prior written

authorisation of Keystone Historic Buildings Consultants unless they are for use by David

Carter of Nimrod Research on behalf of the owner and his professional advisers.

No liability for use by unauthorised persons shall be accepted.

= = = = = = = = =

[Report ends]