The GREAT BARN at TITCHFIELD · Commonly, the Great Barn at Titchfield has been referred to as the Tithe Barn but the leading expert on wooden framed buildings in Hampshire, Edward

Titchfield Festival Theatre The Great Barn, Mill Lane, Titchfield

Introduction

Commonly, the Great Barn at Titchfield has been referred to as the Tithe Barn but the leading expert on wooden framed buildings in Hampshire, Edward Roberts, is unequivocal that it is a monastic Manorial Barn, and the term ‘Tithe’ is a misnomer, a view supported by Aston in his 1993 book, Monasteries. There does not seem to be much difference, practically or technically, between ‘Manorial’ and’ Tithe’, with reference to barns, as they both refer to the storage of food provisions, usually quoted as corn, acquired from local land. In the instance of the barn of Titchfield Abbey, the corn would come from both manorial demesnes and tenants. In consequence, for this monograph, the term ‘Great Barn’ is used. The building of such a large and magnificent structure, by a relatively small and poor monastery, at a time when the ravages of the Black Death, and subsequent plagues, had not been overcome, leads one to question whether there is some more important reason for the project. That question is explored, and the facts associated with the Great Barn are analysed, in the pages that follow. Aerial views, from satellite cameras, are shown below. See Figure 1 1

Bird’s-eye view from the East

Bird’s-eye view from the West

Bird’s-eye view from the South

Overhead

Bird’s-eye view from the North

156ft

41ft.

Fig.1


As is shown in the ‘Overhead view’ the size of the Great Barn is 156ft. (48m.) in length x 41ft. (12.6m.). width x 34ft. (10.5m) in height, and is the largest barn in Hampshire, and amongst the largest in Britain. Purely as an aside, it is interesting to note that, if it were used as a modern car park, there would be little difficulty in parking between 30 and 40 cars, with plenty of room for manoeuvring and exit from the vehicles. Going back to pre-modern times, it could be seen that over 100 reasonably sized carts could have been stored, getting on for 300 cattle sized animals in acceptable pens, and many thousands of carts-loads of produce, given adequate storage stalls. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the Titchfield Great Barn had multiple uses in the past, and has continued to be used for the storage of farm machinery. The following photographs show the Great Barn from a number of angles. See Figure 2

Fig. 2

East & South Walls East &North Walls

East Wall

West & South Walls

South & West Walls

2


Location Details The Great Barn is situated about half-a-mile to the north of the village of Titchfield, with restricted vehicular access from Mill Lane, the road from Titchfield to Wickham. It stands about 120 yards (100 metres) to the south-west of the ruins of Place House, formerly Titchfield Abbey, with which it has been associated throughout its existence. Also, two public footpaths cross the Great Barn parkland.

To Southampton

3

THE GREAT BARN

THE RUINS OF PLACE HOUSE ON THE SITE

OF TITCHFIELD

ABBEY

THE OLD GRAMMAR

SCHOOL

TITCHFIELD MILL

MILL LANE

RIVER MEON

FERNHILL FARMHOUSE

To Catisfield

A27

To Fareham Fig. 3 To Titchfield

To Wickham

N

OS MAP 2002

VIEW FROM THE PARKLAND LOOKNG NORTH-EAST


Constructional Details – based on Roberts - Two Dated Monastic Buildings at Titchfield The Barn construction consists of a collection of eight bays, of varying sizes, within a combination of timber-framed weatherboard and timber-framed stone walls standing on a flint-stone plinth, and with a magnificent, single-span, clay-tiled roof. Figure 4 (from the original drawing by Jonathan Snowdon) shows the layout in Plan View with the Front Eastern Elevation. The two front porches were added some 150 years after the original building was erected, and the two existing main rear doors at an indeterminate date, but well after the original construction. Detailed examination of the site would indicate that the Barn is located in its original built position and has not been subject to any relocation, but there has been considerable refurbishment over the years; recent buttressing and brickwork is evident at the southern elevation and southern end of the east wall.

The detailed construction of the Great Barn is illustrated in Figure 5 (from the original drawing by Jonathan Snowdon), and the eight bays are identified by two main trusses, with tie beams, between which is a minor truss, comprising cruck-type timbers jointed into the rafters and a stub tie beam, showing similarities to those used in ‘false hammer-beam roofs’, usually associated with high-gentry status buildings. Atop the tie beam level the structures are identical, with a collar above which is a king-post beneath the ridge beam. The whole configuration, and carpentry, is highly unusual and is unique in contemporaneous architecture in Hampshire, and can be described as one of the most majestic roofs of

4

Fig. 4 EIGHT BAYS TWO

PORCHES PLAN and EAST

ELEVATION


any barn in the Country. There are two features of particular significance. Firstly, the rafter assembly where the upper purlin is sandwiched between the principal rafter and an under rafter, which is a feature which had gone out of use in England in the 15th. century, but was common in France until much later and, secondly, the longitudinal braces between the king-posts and the ridge beam are very unusual and innovative. Despite the obvious quality of the construction, at some stage in the past, some doubt has been raised about the strength and rigidity of the minor trusses, and support props have been inserted under most of the stub tie beams (not shown in Figure 5) The outside walls were, initially, timber framed on flint-stone plinths and clad with weatherboards, as can still be seen on the eastern and northern aspects, and some of the original timber can be seen on the north elevation. The southern and western walls have been replaced by stone and brick at some stage in the history of the Barn, probably coinciding when there was plenty of stone available, associated with major structural reconstruction/dismantling of the Abbey/Place House, either at the dissolution of the Abbey or, the abandonment of Place House in the eighteenth century.

4

PLACE HOUSE

on the site of TITCHFIEL

D ABBEY

STABLE

Fig.

THE OLD GRAMMA

R

THE GREA

T

UNKNOWN

ABBEY

FISH

STONY BRIDG

ESTATE MAP of 1605/10

AISLE POST

ARCADE POST

ARCH BRACE

TIE BEAM

COLLAR

KING POST

YOKE RIDGE BEAM

PURLIN

MAJORTRUSS

MINORTRUSS

CRUCK-LIKE TIMBER

WIND BRACE

PASSING BRACE

PRINCIPAL RAFTER

UNDER RAFTER

STUB TIE BEAM

Fig. 5

LONGITUDINAL BRACES

DRAWING of the ORIGINAL INTERIOR

5


History For many years it had been thought that the Titchfield Great Barn was built in the late 15th. Century, but, recent dendrochronology examinations (1998 - Miles and Worthington) of the timbers in the walls and roof has attributed a felling date of 1408/9. Allowing for accumulating sufficient timber, the actual build was probably started in 1410 and, considering the size and complexity of the structure, and the comparatively simple technology of carpentry at the time, the Barn, it can be argued, would have been completed between 1412 and 1414. The land on which the Barn is situated was part of the estate controlled by the Abbots of Titchfield Abbey, who had been granted, in 1232, by special dispensation from King Henry III, permission for the Premonstratension order of white canons, named after the white coloured habits that they wore, to build an abbey. The foundation was controlled, on behalf of the King, by the Bishop of Winchester, Peter des Roches an important politician and churchman, and subsequent Bishops were, in effect, arbiters of all activities carried out by the Abbot, outside the normal activities of the Abbey. The Premonstratensians followed the Rule of St. Augustine and were not monks but canons regular and, besides engaging in a life of study and prayer, their work was ministering to the spiritual needs of the laity and the exercise of the pastoral office. They served as local priests and, in particular, that of the parish church of St. Peter in Titchfield and, possibly, those of adjoining parishes. In the medieval period associated with the foundation of the Abbey, Titchfield was a port of some significance, and Titchfield Haven, and the sea, stretched up to the town at high tide. In 1542 John Leland, the famous antiquary and traveller, reported that below ‘Warebridge’ (the road to Stubbington now known as Bridge Street) the water ‘ebbeth and floweth’. Warebridge refers to Weirbridge, situated across a weir, but there is no evidence of when a weir was constructed. The port of Titchfield provided trade with Europe and the south coast of England and would have enabled stone required to build the Abbey to be shipped to a very short distance from the site. It is thought that the Abbey location was chosen, firstly, because the stream which runs into the River Meon (the relatively modern name for Titchfield River) at that point, enabled a series of ponds to be constructed thus giving the Abbey ‘running’ water and food from the stock of fish, and, secondly, as it was located on the confluence of the main drove, and pack-horse, roads to Fareham, Wickham and Winchester. It could be argued, further, that the existence of the first historic crossing point of the River Meon at Stony Bridge, in the form of a bridge or a ford on the main route from Titchfield to Fareham in medieval times (one of the drove roads referred to above), also contributed to the reason for the choice of site. The earliest map in which the Barn is illustrated is that of 1605-1610, the significant part of which is shown in Figure 6. The location of the various buildings, with respect to each other, show considerable cartographic accuracy, probably due to fact that the map was commissioned to record the entire estate owned by the 3rd. Earl of Southampton, who would have used the most competent surveyor available. The new house built by Thomas Wriothesley, later to become Baron Titchfield, and subsequently the Earl of Southampton, referred to on the map as ‘the place’. The Great Barn, the Stables and the Ponds can be identified clearly, and the small building opposite the path to the Great Barn and close to the river, known to have been built in 1447/8 (1998 - Miles and Worthington), has been identified, from the notes of John Leland, as the Old Grammar School, situated by the river. The ‘Unknown Building’ is, almost certainly, monastic in origin, and it is thought that it might well be the ‘Infirmary’ for the sick in the parish, or a ‘Hostelry’ for the accommodation of visitors to the Abbey, but there are no further records or ruins to confirm its existence. The illustration, on the map, of the buildings themselves shows considerable artistic licence, particularly with respect to the Great Barn and Place House, although it is possible to identify most of the features which the current structures exhibit.

6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_St._Augustine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk


The Great Barn complex shows a number of buildings which are no longer in existence, although some of them refer to the concomitant farm, the main house of which is now known as Fernhill Farm House, and dates from the middle-Tudor period, at the latest. During the monastic years the farm, probably, was directly controlled by the canons, employing labourers who would not, necessarily, have lived on site. Under the ownership of the Wriothesley family, the ‘Home Farm’ would have acquired permanent staff, and it is suggested that many of the buildings shown on the 1605/10 map were built at this time. It is thought likely that, during the time that the Earls of Southampton occupied Place House, the farm became tenanted.

PLACE HOUSE

on the site of TITCHFIELD

ABBEY

STABLES

Fig. 6

THE OLD GRAMMAR

SCHOOL

THE GREAT BARN

UNKNOWN BUILDING

ABBEY FISH

PONDS

STONY BRIDGE

ESTATE MAP of 1605/10


The representation of the building labelled as ‘Stables’ is close to what we know of its appearance, although there is, now, only a very small ruin left to examine. The ‘Old Grammar School’ probably exhibits the closest resemblance to its current appearance. The next map, Figure 7, which gives a realistic representation of the Great Barn’s environs is the Surveyors map of 1753, which was commissioned by the Dukes of Portland and Beaufort, and the Delmé Family, who, in 1741, had acquired the Estate from the Dukes, at that date the beneficiaries of the Estate, by descent through the female line of the Wriothesley (the Earls of Southampton) family. This map is extremely accurate and has the benefit that it designates the names of the associated fields and paddocks, and particular attention is taken of those labelled NORTH and SOUTH SLAUGHTERHOUSE CLOSE. The wooded area between the two closes is known as Slaughterhouse Copse. It is interesting to note that the area labelled as THE BARTON is part of Fenny Hill Farm (now known as Fernhill Farm House) and that ‘The Barton’ is the medieval name for a farmyard or grain store. The Great Barn has grown an extension on the southern end of the eastern elevation, and the use of this extension can only be guessed at but, it can be assumed, that by this time the use would have a farming association.

Fig. 7 SURVEYOR’S MAP 1753

PLACE HOUSE Partial Ruin

THE GREAT BARN

MILL LANE

STONY BRIDGE

THE OLD GRAMMAR

SCHOOL

THE FISH

PONDS

THE STABLES

TITCHFIELD RIVER

N

FENNY HILL FARM

8


The stables, also, appear to be intact and, by inference with the naming of ‘Horse Leap’ and Horse Slip’, still in use. It is apparent that Place House has suffered a catastrophe as there are portions of the buildings missing between the southern gatehouse and the northern accommodation areas. This could have been caused by the alleged fire at about that time, and might well have been one of the causes for the partial abandonment of the House, by the Delmé family, in 1781. The next significant map record is the Ordnance Survey of 1841, and the detail of the Fernhill Farm environ is shown in Fig. 8. The name of the farm has changed from Fenny Hill Farm to Fernhill Farm and the layout of the fields are very similar to those on the 1753 map. The Great Barn has now acquired another additional extension to the East elevation and, once again, it is assumed that this is for farming purposes. Slaughterhouse Copse is clearly seen and the Stables appear to have retreated into the ruin that they now evidence. A tannery has been built on the site now known as ‘The Fishermen’s Rest’, although it is not clear whether the present building is the same. The Abbey/Place House is clearly a ruin surrounded by orchards and ‘The Old Grammar School’ is no longer designated as a school but the Kennel Houses, probably for the otter hounds, as there is no record of any other hunting group being located in Titchfield (the ‘Kennel Houses’ refer to the two much later buildings added to the original Schoolhouse during the 17th/18th Centuries). It safely can be assumed that the OS 1841 map exhibits a high degree of accuracy, which has been demonstrated by overlaying this map onto the latest OS map (not shown in this report) where the degree of correlation was extremely precise.

THE GREAT BARN

OS MAP 1841 Fig. 8

SLAUGHTERHOUSE COPSE

9


An interesting aerial photograph of c1928, illustrated in Figure 9, shows a fully working farm, with the two extensions on the eastern elevation. It is known that one of the extensions, the right-hand one in the photograph, was a dairy which was operational until after the 2nd World War, and the other was a pen for pigs and cattle. Purpose (raison d’être) It has been commonly thought that the intended function of the Great Barn was for the storage and processing of corn, and its subsequent transfer to the local mill situated on what is now the junction of the A27 and Mill Lane. It is known that the Titchfield Mill has been on, or close to, that location since the 9th/10th century. Another use for the Great Barn, not previously considered, is for the storage of animal carcasses. The fact that the Abbey was situated on the junction of three drove roads might indicate that the area around the Great Barn would have been used for the assembly of the animals brought to Titchfield market. The evidence of having Slaughterhouse Copse and the two, similarly named, attendant fields, would indicate the existence of an adjacent slaughterhouse, and the location of a number of tanneries near to the Titchfield Mill would further strengthen the argument. The reference to ‘Fattings Leays’ on the 1605/10 map of the Titchfield Estate, also, might be a significant reference to pre-market animal preparation. It has always been referred to as a Manorial or Tithe Barn, but why was it built to such a large dimensioned specification? It is one of the largest barns in the Country, and Titchfield Abbey was one of the smallest monasteries, and well known for not being wealthy. How did they justify the expense, without financial help from other than their normal resources? There are no records of how much the Great Barn cost to build, but similar barns in other parts of the Country would indicate that £80/£90 would be fairly representative. In 1535 the annual value of the Abbey was assessed at £249 16s 1d (rather lower in 1410), and hence, the cost of the Great Barn would have represented well over 1/3 of this annual value; a sum that it would have been impossible for the incumbent Abbot to afford. It should, also, be noted that the Country was only just recovering from the Black Death and it was an extremely difficult time for landlords.

Fig. 9 AERIAL PHOTO c1928

10


other issue

The Arms of Bishop Beaufort

Titchfield has been associated with Royalty for most of its existence, being a Royal Estate in the Saxon/Norman period and, as detailed above, the Abbey was built following special permission from Henry III in 1232, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Winchester. In 1393, Richard II visited the Abbey and stayed with his bride, Anne of Bohemia, and the then Bishop was the renowned William of Wickham who, for obvious reasons (his birthplace was the next town to the north of Titchfield), would have been very familiar with Titchfield and its prestige. It is extremely likely that the Bishop of Winchester would have been intimately involved in the planning for building the Great Barn, and he would be the obvious source of finance. It has been noted on many occasions that, in medieval times, the Bishop of Winchester was very wealthy and had numerous resources at his disposal and he had access, directly, to the Monarchy; the King in 1408/9 was the Lancastrian Henry IV, having usurped the futile Plantagenet King, Richard II in 1399. Henry IV was nearing the end of his reign and his son, the future Henry V, was having increasing influence in affairs of state, and was busy fighting Owen Glendower in Wales and possibly preparing for the 100 years war with France to be re-established, after the cessation of hostilities initiated by Richard II, particularly as the French King had sent an army to support Glendower. The Bishop of Winchester at the time of the building of the Great Barn was Henry Beaufort, who succeeded William of Wickham, and was half-brother of King Henry IV, sharing the same father, John of Gaunt, but different mothers.

Figure 10 illustrates the relationship of Henry V and Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester.

Edward III

John of Gaunt m.

Blanche of Lancaster

Katherine Swynford

Henry IV Henry Beaufort

(1) (2)

Henry V

Fig. 10 Henry V – Henry Beaufort

Family Tree

Edward The Black Prince

11


It is interesting to note that Geoffrey Chaucer was a protégé of John of Gaunt and had married the sister of Katherine Swynford, Henry Beaufort’s mother. This would not have hindered his career, but his ‘Canterbury Tales’, written in the late 1380s, assured his immortality in English literature. Henry Beaufort was, therefore the uncle of Prince Henry (Henry V) and became his tutor and close friend and continued to serve as Chancellor of England under Kings Henry IV and Henry V and Henry VI. It is chronicled that Henry Beaufort was one of the most brilliant men of his time and was elected as Chancellor of Oxford University at the age of 20, and Bishop of Lincoln one year later. He has been described as precocious and scheming, but that would have been of great advantage in the politics of the Lancastrian court and helped him to accumulate his vast fortune, which he used to help Henry V in his military campaigns. It is quoted that, at the end of the King’s Normandy campaigns, Henry Beaufort was one of the largest creditors to the Government, due to the large loans that he had made to finance the wars. This close relationship of Henry V with Henry Beaufort, the Bishop of Winchester, opens up a highly plausible reason to explain why the money to build the Great Barn c1410 was acquired and why Henry V stayed at Titchfield Abbey before embarking for Agincourt. Prince Henry knew that he would be inheriting the Kingdom on the death of his father, Henry IV, and he did, indeed, make attempts to persuade the King to abdicate in his favour during the period 1409-1411, with no success and a temporary lack of favour, both for himself and Henry Beaufort. However, a reconciliation was achieved, but the King’s poor health deteriorated further and he died in March 1413, leaving the Country to be reigned by the 25 year old, highly competent and popular military leader, King Henry V, one of England’s most admired and glorious monarchs. During his upbringing, Prince Henry would have been familiar with the perceived right of the King of England to the French throne, mainly instigated by his great-grandfather, Edward III. Following his defeat of Owen Glendower in Wales in 1409, and the sad lack of bounty which that war had generated, his thoughts and plans would, it seems highly likely, have concentrated on how he could further these claims and, also, avail himself of the rich spoils, which a campaign in France, potentially, could provide. In order to go to war with France, Henry V would have had to assemble an army of soldiers, their back-up personnel and such armaments that a late medieval army required, and sufficient ships to transport them to a suitable point in France. In addition, there would have been the necessity for sufficient victuals for their congregation in the English encampment, the sea voyage and their subsequent march to find the enemy. Following the example of his great-grandfather, Edward III, in 1346 before the Battle of Crecy, he chose the Solent area and the environs of Southampton as his muster point and, thus, a second example of an early ‘D-Day Landing’ was initiated (that of Edward III being the first). Henry proved that he was a genius at organising such an undertaking and his efficiency in all aspects of medieval warfare was vastly superior to that of the French. The lords and knights were ordered to bring the number of troops that they had at their command, and the captains of the archers, which comprised almost three-quarters if the army, were summoned by the King to have them ready for service. There was little difficulty in finding sufficient men for a war led by such a popular commander, as the spoils to be accumulated after a success in battle could be a relatively large fortune. In all, Henry V collected together an army of 10000 men, consisting of knights, men-at-arms and archers, many of which would have been mounted, and this number included Henry’s own personal household troops. Every soldier was ordered to arrive fully kitted and armed and to provide their own horses, most of which would have been provided by their commanders who, of course, received a far larger part of the expected booty.

12


The supply of materials for the army was the most important, and difficult, problem facing an invading army. Henry solved this problem by using the Lord Mayor and aldermen of London and the sheriffs of the cities and shires to acquire ‘corn, bread, meal, or flour, wine, ale, or beer, fish, flesh, or any victuals, cloth, linen, woollen, or any merchandise, sheets, breeches, doublets, hose, shoes, or any other manner of armour, artillery, or any other stuff’, and that ash was to be used only for bows and six wing feathers were to be taken from every goose in the Counties, as flights for the archer’s arrows. Also, there would have been a demand for a large number of transport wagons and siege equipment; To maintain an army in the good order requires an enormous number of back-up staff to keep the troops provisioned and content in body and soul. There would have been tradesmen, specialists in many fields, servants, cooks and bakers, musicians, medical personnel, chaplains, musicians and the inevitable hangers-on. It is estimated that these could number up to 5000 extra, for whom additional shipping and accommodation would have to be provided. Apparently, Henry had little difficulty in finding the 1500 ships that he required to transport his army across the channel. His method was to commandeer all ships, whether English or foreign, which were in the vicinity of the English east and south coast, and to force them to obey his commands, although he was not ungenerous in his payment for the use of the ships. Henry, also, had some 30 ships in his navy which he used to clear the way for his armada. It is clear that it was impossible for 15000 men and 1500 ships to have used the port of Southampton, and the troops would have been stationed along the coast between Portsmouth and Southampton. They would have boarded their vessels from any convenient harbour, of which Titchfield, then a significant port would have figured largely, especially as Henry V is known to have stayed at Titchfield Abbey prior to the embarkation. The shores and surrounding area would have resembled the pre-invasion zone of the ‘D-Day’ preparations in World War II, although with rather fewer numbers, especially heavy equipment, but comparable in complexity and difficulty because of the lack of technology and communication at the time. The troops, back-up contingent and animals would not have been given accommodation, and they would have slept in the fields, but the materials and victuals which had been accumulated would have needed shelter, if it were available. Due to the almost complete lack of suitable buildings in the early 1400s, it can be assumed, without any reasonable doubt, that the Great Barn at Titchfield would have been commandeered by Henry for the storage of these essential supplies. However, given the close relationship of Henry V and his uncle, tutor and friend, Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, it is suggested that the Great Barn was built for the purpose of storing the victuals and materials for the impending war with France. Whether it was paid for by the King or Henry Beaufort is not of great significance, as Beaufort was responsible for a considerable part of the finance for the war. It does, however, provide a very plausible reason for the building of an enormous barn for a relatively poor monastery, with no means of justifying such an expense. There are many reasons to believe that the Bishop of Winchester would have made the final decision on the building of the Great Barn of Titchfield, and he was one of those who knew the plans of Prince Henry, the future Henry V. It is worth noting that Henry Beaufort became Cardinal Beaufort, and was instrumental in organising the marriage of Henry VI, the son of Henry V, to Margaret of Anjou, and attended the wedding in Titchfield Abbey in 1445, further evidence of his relationship with Titchfield. Also, of course, he figured in Shakespeare’s play Henry VI, part 2 in which he dies in his bed, in the presence of the King.

14

Documents

The GREAT BARN at TITCHFIELD · Commonly, the Great Barn at Titchfield has been referred to as the Tithe Barn but the leading expert on wooden framed buildings in Hampshire, Edward