Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 20 March 2025

Notes

(1)       This article is taken from an unnumbered Issue of Vol. 1 of the

Ringmer Record published in the early spring of 1924. The

Ringmer Record was a monthly magazine first published in the

autumn of 1923 and edited by Mr. B. Gurr, the headmaster of

Ringmer Council School. We have not established how long its

publication continued₁ but the few issues we have seen all date from 1923 or 1924. For further information about this magazine see Ringmer History Newsletters 13,3 and 15,3. The issue from which this article is taken was lent to us by Mrs. Mary Kenward through the good offices of Anna Beckwith. We have not identified the author. The transformation he describes is due in the main to the initiatives and activities of John Christie in the years after World War I, described in more detail in Wilfred Blunt’s 'John Christie of Glyndebourne' published by Geoffrey Bles in 1968.

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 25 March 2014

Ringmer Church Before the Building of the Presesnt Tower in 1884-5

 

 

This drawing by John Harding is based on photograph P70 in the Ringmer 

History Study Group collection. This was probably taken immediately before work on the new tower began in 1884. As it shows most of the south wall of the church totally covered with creeper, some details have been added from an earlier picture, taken from the south east, in a collection of photographs of Sussex churches made in the 1870s by Amon Anscombe of Lindfield, now owned by John Kay.

 

The Study Group’s collection also includes two photographs taken while the new tower was under construction. P69 shows the builder, William F. Martin, with some of his men, while P317 was from Martin’s own collection.

 

The new peal of bells installed in the tower form the subject of the article by Caroline Randall and Michelle Barnes in this issue of Ringmer History, while the following article by Dr. William Heneage Legge provides some information about their predecessors.

 

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

CLAYHILL HOUSE

by

John Kay

Clayhill House is a large, isolated farm house, standing on a ridge of the weald clay in the northern part of the Ringmer Borough of Wellingham, and just to the east of the Uckfield Road.  The farms in this area were never part of the open field area of Wellingham, but were cleared from the Wealden forest in the medieval period, and held by freeholders.  The lands of Clayhill Farm run up to the boundary of the old demesne park called the Plashett, and include a small medieval castle mound 300 yards to the east of the house.

The farm is called the Plashett, or the Plashett Farm, at various dates from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries (1), and the name Clayhill is not used in connection with this property until the 19^th (in the 17^th century the name was attached to the farm now called Upper Clayhill (2)).  The name Plashett goes back to at least the 13^th century, when the Wellingham freeholders Master Robert de Wellingham and William Erche held a virgate of land in this area ‘at Plasset’ (3).

Architectural features

The house consists of three wings.  The central block runs north-south and contains the hall, with its massive external chimney on the west front (Fig.1).  The lower part of the chimney is of stone, and the elaborately decorated upper part of brick.  Dr W Heneage Legge has identified the stone as Caen stone, and suggested that it came from Lewes Priory on the basis of some carving in the Norman and Early English styles (4).  The north and south wings are both at right angles to the central block, the north wing being of the same height, but the south higher, and clearly built at a different time.

Large external chimneys such as that at Clayhill are sometimes found as later additions to medieval open hall houses, but that here seems to be original.  There is no indication that the joists over the hall in the central wing were a later insertion, and the rafters and roof beams are not smoke blackened.  The roof structures of the north and central wings are clearly in the same style, but that style is a most unusual one for Sussex.

The roof throughout the two wings is a double rafter roof, with the secondary rafters carried on the backs of large purlins, which in turn are trenched into and supported by the primary rafters of each truss.  A most unusual feature for Sussex is a very large ridge purlin – in most Sussex roofs earlier than the 19^th century no ridge purlin is present, and even in the 19^th century it is usually only a thin plank.  Houses built to this design in sixteenth and seventeenth century England are common, but they are characteristic of the north west and west country, and rare in the south east (5).

Fig. 1 Clayhill House from the north west.

The south wing is clearly a later addition – indeed it replaced an earlier south wing with the same alignment as the central block, the sawn off wall plates of which are visible in one of the bedrooms.  Its plan and its construction are both typical of those of many farmhouses of the seventeenth century found throughout the Sussex weald.  On the ground floor were a kitchen and a parlour, both served by a large central chimney block, with a pair of service rooms, probably originally unheated, beyond the kitchen.  On the first floor were three large chambers, with garrets above.  The roof has no ridge purlin, and the side purlins are tenoned into the principle rafters, and staggered from bay to bay.  These staggered purlins, the elaborately carved chamfer-stops on the ceiling beams throughout the wing and the English bond brickwork in the south wall together suggest a construction date close to the end of the seventeenth century.

Ownership

For almost 300 years, from before 1575 until 1860, Clayhill House and its farm were owned by a single family, the Newtons of Southover Grange in Lewes (1), and the history of the house and this family are closely intertwined.  An abbreviated family tree, based on Noyes’ article published in 1857 in the Sussex Archaeological Collections (6), is shown in Fig.2.  The genealogy published in Horsfield’s History of Lewes (7) differs from this in several respects, but in the two cases where independent checking has been possible Noyes’ version has proved the more accurate.

 

 

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 27 March 2019

PLASHETT PARK FARM 100 YEARS AGO

by

Anna Beckwith

George Lovering Andrew brought his young wife Constance and baby daughter Nellie to Plashett Park Farm in 1892.  His sister Agnes had married Constance’s brother Dashwood Buckingham, and the two families farmed side by side first in Essex, then in the ancient settlements around Clayhill.

George Andrew, farmer by profession, was a very religious man, a member of the non-conformist church and a lay preacher.  Quite a social circuit was to evolve between ministers, lay preachers and their families, both staying with them and holding meetings in their home.  On Sundays he and his wife used to attend the old Methodist Chapel in Station Street, Lewes (now a rather classy pine shop) leaving his pony and trap with the ostler at the White Hart.  Dr Scott Lidgett was Minister at that time and both he and Mr Gillson Gill were frequently invited to the farm.  He showed his concern for the children and folk living around the farm by opening part of his farm as a meeting house for Sunday worship.  One old pupil recalls the Sunday School held every week at the top of the Granary steps for the local children.  Attendance was keen and there were prizes for competence.  Adult gatherings were also a feature of farm worship.

As a farmer George Andrew was down to earth and efficient.  He kept a farm diary for most of his working days, from which this account of his early life is drawn (1).  Besides the factual record of each mans daily toil or allotted task, there is often a comment or anecdote illuminating for us the lot of the farming community in an age when agriculture depended on the pace of a man, the skill of his manual dexterity and his sheer physical strength.  Alive and well and still living in the village is Mr Luke Verrall, now aged 95, who worked for Mr Andrew and his son from a lad until his retirement at the age of 73.  He started work at 13 for 6/- a week as a carter boy at Ringmer Park Farm.  At 16 he went to work for Mr Andrew.  At that age he could do a man’s job for a man’s wage.  For working from 7 am to 5 pm six days a week he received 15/- a week plus his tied cottage.

On average the farm was run by three men and a boy, with additional hands for harvest and threshing.  A typical entry for a working Saturday, which was also payday reads:

22.4.1893. George (his Farm foreman) rolled tares and the ground he ploughed yesterday and began to harrow.  Pond filled.  Booth and boy jobbing about.  Sold calf bought off Carey to Jim Weekes for 32/6d.  Paid Ted 18/-, Booth 14/- Candy 8/- up to 4^th April.  Milk 5/5d skim milk 2/1d bread etc. 1/8d beans 8d. £2. 9. 10d.

Cows laid out first time.  Beautiful day – hot. (George and the boy were paid 2 weeks wages the following Saturday 40/- and 10/- respectively).

George and this man often drove flocks of ewes and lambs to Lewes, Uckfield or Chailey markets.  Seldom did they achieve the sale of all, so that the remainder had to be driven back again.  They carted chalk from the Southram and Earwig pits and flints from Lewes.  Crops were rotated and bone, nitre and phosphate used on the soil, and clover ploughed in as fertiliser.  Tares and mangel were grown for cattle feed and of course cattle dung used as manure.  They harvested wheat, oats and hay, grew potatoes, cabbages, Swedes and turnips and bred cows and sheep.  At one point it is noted that there are 320 chickens as well.

The old farming terms belong to a bye-gone age.  Swapping (cutting wheat with a scythe), winnowing, rolling harrowing, drilling, threshing, jobbing and spreading and hand milking. All were laborious processes not truly appreciated in this age of automation.

Stuart Andrew’s description of harvesting not many years later was that it took a whole day to cut and stook a 10 acre field of corn.  This had to be left for 10 days to ripen, and then carried and stacked in ricks, which took two men working in the fields, three men on the stack and another carting between the two.  It was then kept until after Christmas when Mr Hobden and his threshing machine gang were hired - the only serious mechanisation at this time.  Nowadays the same field can be harvested, threshed and the straw baled by one man with a combine harvester.

A large part of his income would seem to come from his diary herd.  His cows gave up to 120 galls of milk per week during the summer and this was sold to a Mr Talmay who had a dairy in Brighton.  He later supplied a Mr Adams also in Brighton and Mr Ford locally.  Mr Message a butcher took his ewes quite regularly.

As a farmer he depended upon the land and was wary of the caprices of the weather: crops and livestock were at the mercy of both.  On May 13^th 1893 he wrote “Our fields are like fallow fields owing to drought, our cattle will soon starve if it does not rain – no rain since March 1^st “ and again “Obliged to stock young clover as there is no grass and we keep losing lambs”. On July 16^th he noted joyfully “Had 6½ hours of beautiful rain this morning”.

However, he could not afford sentimentality towards his farm animals.  When his plough horse Blackbird dropped dead with a ruptured vessel near her heart, he lost no time in receiving 12/- for the carcase from the Southdown Hunt; likewise 8/6d for the carcase of a blind cow.  He had his Devon dog (Skip) shot because he was no longer of use for work.

His cows rejoiced in the names of Brindle, Cherry, Flecky, Smutty, Beauty, Punch, Mermaid, Bonny and Primrose.  One entry records his anxiety over Brindle, and a Mr Stock in Lewes diagnosing indigestion, for which he bought the cow ½ gal beer for one shilling.

As a tenant farmer of William Langham Christie his yearly rental was around £120 p.a. which was paid twice a year and commuted by 15%.  He was also liable for a highway rate, one payment being £3 15s 9d, a poor rate of £9 9s 4d and school rate of £2 18s 7d.  His pew rental for a regular place in chapel was 15/-d.

Perhaps it was the hazardous nature of his livelihood which called him to insure his life so heavily.  He paid the Prudential Insurance Company premiums of £15 p.a. and the Scottish Amicable a further £11 11s 4d or similar sums twice yearly.

He was a member of the Ringmer Parish Council and the Dairy Association.  Also, a staunch supporter of the Ringmer Liberal Association, as were most farmers in those days.  He subscribed 2/6d frequently towards funds, or possibly towards the cost of the numerous dinners he and Consy attended.

To understand the household economy you will have to remember that there were no labour saving devices, save the services of hired help.  Water was pumped from wells, heating by coal fires, cooking on a range and lighting by oil and candles.

Expenses in the home were recorded as stringently as everything else.  Every jot and tittle was accounted for daily: income on one side of the ledger – outgoings the other.  Detailed sums and accounts, milk yields etc. were crammed into margins.  Although payments are recorded for separate items, except at the grocer, it is tantalising that amounts are not, and it is left to speculation to wonder how much castor oil you received for 2d or beef for 4s 3d.

There is no evidence that Consy played the traditional role of a farmer’s wife but with three small babies that may not be surprising.  Although yeast is purchased occasionally, it would seem that the household bought their bread several times a week.  She did however preserve the soft fruits from the garden and made Christmas puddings.  But there are payments made to a Mrs Taylor at 1s 6d a day for washing and cleaning.

As a young wife she enjoyed the company of other young women who often called to take tea at the farm.  There were frequent trips to Lewes in the pony and trap.  For these excursions she was given an allowance.  Diary entries note “Gave Consy £5.  This quarters pin money”. Her brother and sister-in-law lived at Clayhill Farm which was conveniently close.  There were annual holidays to their original home in Chapelton, Devon and exchange visits by the Buckingham family.  Other highlights included Cattle Shows, Congregational teas, annual fairs, Ringmer races and even a Choir excursion to the Crystal Palace as well as more usual shopping expeditions to Brighton.

They appear to have good standing in the community and to be well acquainted with the local gentry.  At one Liberal Dinner he records ‘Capt. Brand and Bisgood of the Eighty Club present.  I proposed the toast and find I am a poor speechmaker’. Again, ‘The Hon. Chas. Brand gave me a brace of pheasants’.

We do not known how much Consy spent on clothes but George promised her £20 a year.  He on the other hand quite often bought items of clothing in Lewes, including several pairs of trousers ranging in price from 10/- to 16/-.  Shirts were from 2/6 to 7/-, a collar front 1/-, an overcoat 25/- and a jacket ordered from Povey the tailor 34/-.

On one spree to Carvills the furnishers they bought a featherbed and bolster for £2 17s 6d, a baby chair for 17/6 and bed sheets for £2.  Their cost of transport had to be reckoned too.  The pony had to be clipped at 2/6d the cart greased for 2/-,  the toll 1/- and an Ostler 1/6d.

Outdoor staff seemed comparatively reliable compared to the vagaries of the young maids of all work pressed into service at the farm.  The year 1893 opened with Candy who received board and lodging and 8/- per month in wages.  She left on 4.9.93 – we are not told why.  On 12.9.93 Emily Parsons came to live in at £10 a year, but was eventually dismissed on 10.1.94 because “….she was lazy and disobeyed orders and could not get down until ½ past seven mornings”. On 17.4.94 Maud Taylor arrived.  This time George was becoming a little sceptical and agreed to wages of 2/6, with the first month on trial.  She too left a month later.  On 21.6.94 Jessie Morley came to live in at 2/- per week, and there were others ….

One surprising aspect of country life gleaned from just two years accounts is the number of instances of ill-health.  I listed bad colds, influenza, bronchitis, pneumonia, neuralgia, stoppage, measles and a touch of pleurisy.  On most occasions they were thought sufficiently serious to warrant a call from Dr Heneage Legge of Ringmer, who subsequently called daily until recovery was made.  They were fortunate indeed to be able to afford such attention, as his fees ranged from £1 to £5 2s 6d per session.

Self medication was aided by cod liver oil, embrocation, quinine and the ubiquitous bottle of pills from the chemist (those advertised in the back of the diaries claimed to cure every ailment possible!).  Following the birth of her babies Consy had the services of a maternity nurse for a month who was paid 18/- and 21/- on two occasions.

George Andrew wrote his diary in the evenings and at the close of the factual details he recorded the changes in the weather: every nuance was noted.  Reading through these workaday jottings we see glimpses of the man beyond.  He rarely wrote anything on a Sunday because he was about the Lord’s business.  Despite the constant daily round he was sensitive to his surroundings.  Every April he recorded the first cuckoo heard and the first swallows seen.  Also such events as “A nightingale sings beautifully at the bottom of the garden”.

He doodled his wife’s name lovingly over the covers and many pages of his books.  One fine May morning he wrote “Consy got up this morning by ½ past 6 for a wander”. And while she was still holidaying in Devon, “I am longing for Consy to return”.

He recorded sympathetically, if somewhat euphemistically when family or staff felt indisposed.  On 22.2.94 he wrote “Agnes (his sister) poorly in bed (misfortune)”. His entry for 14.12.1893 ran “Boys jobbing about.  Consy taken ill after breakfast.  A little son arrived.  Fine day”. This was his announcement of the birth of his first son Stuart George Buckingham Andrew who is very much alive today and still taking an interest in his farm at Lower Clayhill.  On 16.11.1894 at the end of a very busy day with payments of wages he could again write “A son born today 4.30 a.m.”. This was Clifford, close brother of Stuart, who was to lose his life on a raid against Germany during the First World War.

The Andrews moved to Clayhill at the beginning of the century, but George retired in 1924 and sold the farm.  Stuart bought Lower Clayhill when he returned from the First World War and has in his time farmed all three farms of that name.  For the past twelve years he has lived with the younger members of his family at Clayhill House.

(1)   Altogether there are about 30 diaries, the earliest covering a period when he was farming in Essex, before coming to Ringmer.  This account is based mainly on those for 1892 and 1893, his first two years at Plashett Park Farm.  The diaries are at present in the possession of Mr Stuart Andrew at Clayhill House, but it is hoped that in the future they will be deposited in the East Sussex Record Office.

They are themselves worthy of attention as a mine of information and minutia about the life and middle class aspirations of the late Victorian period.

They are 13” x 8½” in size, card bound and entitled ‘Shilling Scribbling’ Diaries.  An almanac almost entirely covers the front covers, with notes of significance against nearly every day.  There you can discover Saint days, Bank holidays, game dates, long forgotten battles and historical data, literacy deaths and royal births.

The inside cover and first four pages are given over entirely to the Blackwood advertiser, with interminable details of postal regulations, interest tables, rates of exchange, maps and of course superb advertisements.  The actual diary pages are all interleaved with blotting paper.

The advertisements give us an idea about the clothes and furniture etc thought desirable for the status minded acquisitor.  There are also many and various pleas from religious and altruistic establishments offering support to the friendless and fallen, and comfort to the perishing.  Wicked looking sketches of appliances accompany the advertisement form the Surgical Aid Society, and a dramatic storm at sea for the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen.  All those societies relied on charitable donations.

It was interesting to note that in 1893 Beechams made toothpaste in collapsible tubes.  Their eulogy to their famous pills runs:-

“A priceless boon, a treasure more than wealth:

The banisher of pain, the key to health”.

A classical precursor to the modern advertising jingle.

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

RINGMER SCHOOL IN THE TWENTIES

by

Edith M. Courage (1)

I was born in 1915 and my father was a cowman at Gote Farm.  Large families were common in those days, and I had five brothers and three sisters.  Like most people we lived in a small cottage.  Ours was in Gote Lane.  My father worked seven days a week.  From Monday to Saturday he started at 5.0 a.m. and worked until 5.0 p.m. and then returned, carrying a lantern in the winter months, at 8.30 pm for the third milking of a few heavy milkers.  One Sunday in seven was called his day off but he still had to work from 5.0 to 8.30 am.  Mother was up at 4.45 a.m. to light the fire and make tea.

I started school when I was five and left at fourteen.  My first memory of being at this school was that it was so terribly cold.  There were two classes in each of the big rooms with just a big old boiler in one corner.  The old building was all there was.  The rooms were awfully cold and we got chilblains on our feet and I don’t like remembering that at all.  There were about 200 pupils but it was very difference from nowadays.  Now there are so many families in Ringmer, but then most of the families here were children of workers on either the farms or the building works, the saw mills or the brick works of the Glyndebourne estate or the children of local shopkeepers.  Many families had five or six children going to this one school so you had lots of brothers and sisters.  As they were in the same school as you, you felt you had a bit of company from home.

Mr Gurr, the headmaster, was very strict.  He would call out “One” and we put our hands on the seats of our desks, “Two” and we stood up, “Three” we let go of our seats and stood upright, and then left turn.  This we did every time we moved out of class, like a regiment of soldiers.  Woebetide the boy who did not raise his hat to him when he got to school.

There were two infant teachers, one teacher took Standard 1 and 2, another 3 and 4, another 5 and 6 and then the headmaster took Standard 7.  In those days you went up by your ability to do the work in a class, not by your age.  If we were good enough we went up and got into Standard 7 quite quickly and we stayed there for two or three years.  If you  were not so good then you could leave after Standard 5, so I think we had to work extra hard to try to get up out of Standard 5.  There were three terms in the year and no half term holidays or any other holidays during the year except Empire Day.  In those days attendance was very important.  At the end of each year the children who had full attendance for the year had their photograph taken with the headmaster.  This we thought a great honour.

The subjects taught were reading and recitation, which went together, writing, arithmetic, scripture, history, geography, composition and dictation.  For dictation we used to have a story read to us and we had to write it down, spell it correctly and punctuate it.  In the infants I don’t remember ever using a slate.  We had a book and a pencil from the start.  Later we wrote with pens.  A metal nib was fitted into the wooden handle and we had to keep dipping the pen.  There was an ink well in a hole in the desk and this was filled with blue-black ink by monitors.  We had to make thin up-strokes and thicker down-strokes.  There was a dictionary in the room but we would not be allowed to look words up to find out how to spell them.  Teacher would never have admitted that she could not spell a word or that she did not know anything.

The arithmetic seems fairly hard to me now.  My second cousin was 12 years old in 1900 when she answered these two questions in the headmaster’s periodical examination:-

1.      A pavement of 59ft. 7ins. X 58ft. 9ins. Consists of square tiles of equal size.  Find the greatest possible surface of each tile.

2.      A bankrupt paid his creditors 3s 9d in the pound.  What was the amount of his debt if his assets were £269 15s 4½d?

We had drawing and painting, needlework and the dreaded drill.  We had to stand in straight lines out in the cold and do bending, stretching and twisting exercises in time with each other.  There was no P.E. apparatus at all.  For needlework we used to practise very small and neat stitches.  We also learned to make neat patches.  This was a very important skill for clothes were repaired again and again when they began to wear out.  Dresses were passed down through the family.  Once I had a new serge dress and it scratched and itched horribly but I didn’t tell Mum.  It was the first new dress I ever had and I was not going to risk losing it.  When it was washed it got better and didn’t itch so much.  A lot of girls wore starched pinafores with bits of lace round the bottom.  They looked very smart but I don’t ever remember wearing one.  All the boys wore short trousers or ‘knickers’ as they were called.  They did not go into long trousers until they were 13 or 14 years old.

Lots of children, especially the boys, wore boots.  A new pair of boots was a great event.  Fathers mended shoes and boots in those days.  They would get a piece of leather and cut it to the size and shape of the sole and then nail it on top of the old sole with brads.  I remember mother telling me to keep out of father’s way when he was snobbing the boots.  He didn’t like the job anyway and he used to snob his fingers as well as the boots so he would get into a very bad mood.

There was no transport so you had to walk to school and home to dinner because there was no school dinner in the early days.  If it was a very rainy day, my mother did not want five of us coming home soaked through at midday and then having to go back, so she used to walk to school with a great big case full of dinner for us and then we could stay there and mother got the soaking.

In the playground we played with hoops, tops, skipping ropes and ball games and these all came in seasons.  During my time Mr Christie gave the school field which was a great event.  We were able to play cricket, football and stoolball and we competed against the schools in the district.  Because of this gift of the field we were able to keep up a high standard of sport and had an annual sports day of our own, again competing against Lewes and other teams in running, high jump, long jump and relay etc.  We went to stoolball matches.  Mr Shelton of Lovegrove Villas has a big van.  He was the taxi driver a well. He took us to matches.  Mr Christie also gave to the school three giant Christmas trees which were plentifully supplied with presents.  This made a very exciting Christmas for us and we would sing carols round the tree and then have our gifts.  We had an orange and a bag of sweets given by local traders.  It was a great event in our lives.  We had more Christmas presents off the tree at school than we did at home because Christmas stockings at home contained perhaps a chocolate mouse, an orange or apple and a few nuts and perhaps one other present and that was usually a pair of socks for the boys and a pair of knickers for the girls.

However another and more important occasion in the school was Empire Day, which was 24^th May.  The flags used to be flying and we were all very proud.  On this day the May Queen who we used to choose by ballot, was crowned and we would then perform country dances which we had been practising.  Two of them were Gathering Peascods and Circassian Circle.  Then we would sing national songs such as Jerusalem and our school song which was written by Mr Gurr and was revived for the Centenary Celebrations in 1979.  Tea was provided by the W.I. and served on the desks.  The desks were arranged in groups of four and we were asked to bring a tablecloth, and we had to decorate our little table with paste-pots full of wild flowers and there was a prize for the one who had made the best job of it.  We walked out to pick our own wild flowers and we were only allowed little paste-pots not bought vases so that we were all alike.  We were served a lovely tea and then came prize-giving.  One year I saw all these books stacked there, quite thin little books, but one book was twice the size of all the others and we all wondered who would get the lovely big book and I got it.  Inside it had: ‘1927-1928.  Ringmer Council School, Edith Richardson, Seniors. For Attendance, and Reading and Recitation’.  Teachers decided to give this big book as a combined prize.

School uniforms started in my time.  Mr Gurr was keen for boys to wear caps with the badge on – and to raise them!  Girls had no hats so the Needlework teacher bought a large amount of navy blue material and we sewed this up the side and put a button on each side and a badge on the front and then we had school hats too – and funny looking hats they were!  Children wore these for Sports Days in races.  That was the start of school uniform.

This was one of the first schools in the county to serve school dinners.  A two-course meal was cooked in a small canteen by the school house and served by senior children.  The needlework class made them all little white hats and aprons to wear.  I thought the school dinners were lovely.  We had liver, bacon, casseroles, sausages and milk puddings or custard.  The price of the dinners was 1s 3d per week for the eldest child and 10d for other in the family.  Even this was too expensive for many children.  It can been seen that even in the short time I was at school three important changes were made; one, the school field, two, School uniforms, and three, school dinners.

Today I have six grandchildren attending Ringmer schools.  I look back with great affection to my days at Ringmer school, but I regret that I did not have the opportunities my grandchildren have, of learning not only a much wider variety of subjects, but playing instruments, visiting places of interest, swimming etc., and all this in comfortable warm surroundings.

I hope they make the most of their opportunities.

(1)          This article was edited by Derek and Kathleen Denyer from a tape recording of a talk given by Mrs Courage to the children of Ringmer Primary School.

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

CONFESSION OF A DELTIOLOGIST

by

Bob Cairns

Half of you can start by taking a cold shower because a deltiologist is nothing more exciting than a collector of old picture postcards – we all have to be called something! Probably the remaining half of you are wondering what the dickens this has got to do with local history anyway.  Well, this particular deltiologist collects old postcards of Lewes and villages within a 10 mile radius of it including Ringmer, of course, Barcombe, Firle, Glynde and Laughton.  Old in my terms, 1900-1920, is young compared with the villages’ history and some local historians don’t even consider that the period since the 18^th century has actually happened.

With many villages though, and Ringmer is no exception, the greatest development and change in lifestyles has taken place during the last century.  Old postcards offer a fascinating glimpse of life 80 years ago before private transport and the various communication systems overcame distance and ended communities’ isolation.  My cards offer the vehicle by which I can step back to those quiet times although no doubt older readers will say that the hustle and bustle of activity existed even then.  It is easy to get a rose tinted view of life in the “good old days” as most cards show the better views of towns and villages, rarely the slums and it was difficult given the photographic technicalities faced to obtain unposed action shots.  Even so, postcards offer a unique pictorial record of our recent history.

I leave Ringmer for a short while to give you a potted history of the picture postcard (1).  It all seems to have begun in 1865 when Dr Von Stephen, the virtual founder of the Universal Postal Union, proposed the introduction of an open letter sheet, the size of an envelope, at an Austro-German postal conference.  They were eventually introduced in Europe in 1869 and were followed in Great Britain from 1 October 1870.  At this time the cards were plain and did not carry any picture or illustration.  Odd advertisements and monograms began to appear on them and in the 1880’s and 1890’s sketches were added of foreign resorts.  In Britain no such illustration was allowed until 1894.

New regulations given the full backing of a Treasury warrant were published in the London Gazette allowing the printing of picture postcards from 1 September 1894.  Still no message was allowed with the reverse side used solely for the recipient’s name and address.  In 1897 though the GPO relented and allowed the following instruction to be placed on cards:

“Nothing may be written or printed on the address side of any postal packet which either

by tending to prevent the easy and quick reading of the address or in any other way

is likely to embarrass the officers of the Department in dealing with the packet”.

From 1902 this restriction was removed and half of the address side was given over to a message and no doubt sorting office staff have been offended ever since.

The heyday of the picture postcard was a period of 20 years between 1895 and 1915.  The number of postcards mailed during 1895 in this country was 314 million and in 1900 it was up to 419 million, about 10 cards for every man, woman and child in the country and by 1914 this in turn had more than doubled to 880 million.  I have got about 2000 cards so will the rest of you please stop hoarding the remaining 12,000 million and let me have some of them!  What must be remembered of course is that at the turn of the century there was a reliable and efficient postal system and a writer could have complete confidence in their picture postcard reaching its destination within 24 hours.  The Post Office delivered up to six times a day and a card posted to any destination in the United Kingdom was guaranteed to arrive within 24 hours.  What price first class mail?

Picture postcards covered all facets of life.  Some cards of, for example, royalty were printed literally by the million by national companies such as Raphael Tuck and Valentines both of whom still produce cards today.  At the other end of the market local publishers were quickly on the scene to cover local news and events.  Most towns and villages during the golden 20 years period would have been much visited by photographers and their visits with the paraphernalia of their trade would always arouse much local interest.  You only have to look at the odd postcard to see how children in particular were attracted to the camera’s lens.

In themselves postcards are no more than pleasant to a casual observer although obviously to collectors they offer far more.  To an historian they provide clues to events long forgotten and the buildings which have disappeared or been substantially altered and hint at that quiet pace of life which I earlier alluded to.

I know of about 160 different cards published of Ringmer.  110 of them are in my collection and 40-50 have been shown to me by other collectors and residents in the village but I have not so far been persuasive enough for them to hand them over.  Even so, that small number still manages to show most views of the village, major events and its well known characters.  My Ringmer cards cover a number of significant local events and I have chosen to highlight two of these, mainly because they were the first two that I was able to unearth details about.

I have six or seven cards which provide a fine photographic record of a military funeral held in Ringmer on 27 January 1909.  The cards are produced by two different publishers.  The deceased was an old soldier, William Kingsborough, who was buried with full military honours (2).  A Crimean veteran, he had lived with his daughter Mrs Charles Clarke at Bradford Cottage, Green Lane, Ringmer for the last three or four years of his life.  On 1 March 1854 he enlisted in the Fourth Royal Irish Dragoons at Crumlin in County Antrim, and saw service with them at Balaclava and the Siege of Sebastapol and it seems he was always ready to give his own vivid account of these famous battles.  He received the Crimean and Turkish medals and also seems to have served in India.  In 1884 while serving in the Second Dragoon Guards he was in the escort which provided ceremonial cover for the Shah of Persia when he travelled from Woolwich to London.  Mr Kingsborough was discharged in 1876 and became an out-pensioner of the famous Chelsea Hospital.  He appears to have stayed there only for a few years because my next note is that he retired at the age of 70 due to failing eyesight after 20 years of working for a Brighton Corporation contractor, Mr Wooley.  He moved this time to live with his daughter and regularly walked into Ringmer from Green Lane up until his death.

Under the recently introduced National Insurance Act he was entitled to a pension of three shillings a week from January 1909 but lived long enough to draw it three times only.  He had been receiving a small allowance from the Lord Roberts’ Veterans Relief Fund.  The funeral was a major event and drew crowds from Lewes and the surrounding district.  The Fourth Royal Irish Dragoons were at that time based at the Preston Barracks and they and their band led the cortege.  Twelve men and two no-commissioned officers comprised the firing party who let off three volleys whilst the Last Post was played.  A grey pony drew the hearse but unfortunately the only card in which it appears shows only a very small portion of its back.  The road to the church was thickly lined with people, young and old, and school children lined up with their teachers, the boys saluting as the hearse passed by.  It is noted that there were two wreaths on the coffin, one from his daughter and another from a Mr and Mrs Jackson of Ringmer.  The Reverends Gribbell and Furnival officiated at the funerial.

My second event is illustrated by three cards published by Bliss and Co, County Studios, Lewes and is the unveiling of the war memorial on 15^th August 1920 (3).  The task was performed by Brigadier General Gore-Anley, CBE, DSO whose association with Ringmer, if any, is unknown to me.  He was thanked by Mr J Moffatt-Smith JP on behalf of the parishioners and short addresses were given by the Reverend E Griffiths (the Head of Lewes Grammar School) and the Reverend W E Bremner of the Lewes Tabarnacle Church.  The Vicar of Ringmer, the Reverend G R Leefe and the Rural Dean, the Reverend K J Poole, were also in attendance.  A military guard was provided by the Royal Engineers from the Maresfield Camp and they fired three volleys which were followed by the rolling of muffled drums and two trumpeters played the Last Post.  Numbers in attendance were boosted by scout troops from the village, Hove, Uckfield and Lewes and numerous ex-servicemen.  The choir from the Parish church was also there but quite what their role was I have not been able to find out.  The memorial was designed by a Mr Dudley Kibbler, an artist and sculptor who lived at Ashcroft, and was present at the unveiling.  The memorial was made by Norman and Burt of Burgess Hill in Portland Stone.  The fine work of the Ringmer Branch of the Royal British Legion has kept the memorial in its original state.

Most Ringmer cards appear to have been published locally and mainly for sale by local shopkeepers.  A particularly fine photographic series was published by Mr G F Burtt, a photographer who lived in Ringmer.  A couple of other cards which carry no publisher’s name give the photographer’s initials as GFB and these were probably also published by Mr Burtt. Another prolific local publisher was the Metzotint Company of York Place, Brighton.  The site of their premises is now occupied by the multi-storey car park at the rear of London Road.  Their fine photographic cards are always inscribed in a distinctive italic script.  This firm must have covered virtually every village and town in Sussex between 1900 and 1910 and one can imagine the excitement that their photographer must have generated when he arrived to set up his equipment.  In fact given the equipment of the time and particularly the need to expose photographs for such a long time I can only marvel at their crisp results.

Another fine series was produced for Mr H G Bradford who owned the shop that subsequently passed into the hands of Messrs Moores before the lovely building was demolished to be replaced by the Ringmer service station.  Miss Moores kindly gave me a photographic card of the store showing it in 1905 with the windows displaying goods of every description.  One shows all manner of clothing and is predominated by straw bonnets whilst the other window has an appetising array of foods including Camp Coffee and Cream Custard, whilst in complete contrast an advertising sign over the door encourages villagers to buy Sankeys Food for Cattle.  Other cards were produced in large numbers for Messrs W J Crowhurst and W Wilmshurst, both of whom seem to have occupied the Post Office at various times.

Equally interesting to historians can be the messages on the reverse of the cards for these very much reflect the social order of the day.  Many were in fact sent by the working classes and particularly by servants.  One sent in August 1905, for example, from Ashcroft, from one servant to another at Upper Stoneham, mentions a recent visit to the Ringmer Flower Show.  Another card of Ringmer found its way to New Zealand.  It was addressed to Fred Jarvis and reads:

“How do you like New Zealand?  Do you want to come back? I wish you were

here  sometimes.  Are you still in the foundry trade?”

My favourite card has the message:

“I saw this poor old man, he looks as if he might live for some time”.

and is on the reverse of a fine card by the Metzotint Company showing Henry Waller aged 88 who in 1904 was a Ringmer postman.  The card boasts that in 40 years he walked 160,000 miles.  The message is rivalled by that appearing on a card of the Lower Clayhill area which reads:

“People all very excited here today over the polling….I shall be on the Parson’s side.

Three of my favourite are L----S.  I want to know if a few more then I am one. J is one

already.  I get teased about it” (sic).

On the card’s picture side the contradictory, “My wife’s a rank Tory” appears.  Nothing appears to have changed with politics!  Other cards were used to seek the purchase of linnets from a dealer in London, refer to a holiday spent at the Anchor Inn and to chickens being available at various prices from two shillings to eight shillings.  So the local historian who wishes to put together a picture of the community as it was would do well to look at both the front and back of postcards.  The East Sussex County Records office at Pelham House in Lewes has a fine and diverse collection and the Sussex Archaeological Society also has a good number, as do many branch libraries, in particular Brighton Central Library.

Without the obvious date of a postmark, postcards can sometimes be difficult to date.  The following however gives some general clues:

1.      Cards had divided backs from 1902 onwards

2.      Look at the style of dress and be alert for signs or motor vehicles and other transport.

3.      Look at the notices in shop windows and on billboards which under a magnifying glass can throw up dates of auctions , shows etc.

4.      “Affix ½d stamp” will appear on unused cards up until 1918.

5.      Notice the publisher of the cards.  With local shopkeepers these can be dated to his/her occupation of the shop with the help of local directories.

6.      Ask somebody like myself who knows more about cards than local history but who in return will expect to ask you about your Ringmer knowledge.

The Ringmer History Study Group has, I think, shown that history study does not have to be stuffy.  Certainly it demands discipline, methodology and the nose and ears of a detective but it should also be fun.  I am using my postcards to concentrate on Ringmer’s recent history and hope that they have offered something to the readers of this magazine as well.  But whatever you do with old postcards don’t collect them!   I hate competition!

(1)   C.W. Hill ‘Discovering Picture Postcards’ (Sale Publications, Tring)

T & V Holt, ‘Picture Postcards of the Golden Age’ (MacGibbon and Kee, London

A Byatt, ‘Picture Postcards and their Publishers’ (Golden Age Postcard Books, Malvern).

(2)   Sussex Express 1909.

(3)   Sussex Express 1920.

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

RINGMER POOR IN CHAILEY UNION, 1835 – 1841

by

Margaret Diggle

“An orphan of a workhouse – the humble, half-starved drudge – to be cuffed and buffeted through the world – despised by all and pitied by none”.

Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

Our view of the nineteenth century workhouse is inevitably coloured by Dicken’s savage attack with its indelible image of Oliver asking for more.  The sufferings of the paupers are represented as the result of sadistic cruelty on the part of the officials; no allowance is made for conflicting pressures or good intentions gone wrong.  A study of the Chailey Guardians’ Minutes (1) kept week by week during the period when Oliver’s childhood allegedly occurred may not entirely refute Dickens’ allegations, but may give a more balanced picture.  They also throw light on life in a poverty-stricken area of East Sussex, but as Ringmer paupers went to all three houses of the Union, some reference must be made to conditions elsewhere.

Previous to the Poor Law Act of 1834 the entire responsibility for its poor rested on each parish.  An article on Ringmer Workhouse (1787-1806), based on a book containing accounts and inventories during this period, appeared recently in Sussex History (2).  This gave hints of how the poor of Ringmer fared under this earlier regime.  In 1834 the administration of the Poor Law was put into the hands of large “Unions” of parishes.  The Unions were controlled by boards of guardians who came under the central authority of three Poor Law Commissioners.  The intention was to abolish the system whereby low wages were supplemented by relief in cash, the amount depending on the price of bread and the size of the family, thus, it was believed, encouraging improvidence, and the irresponsible procreation of children.  Outdoor relief must now be kept to a minimum, and those who could not support themselves outside were to be subjected to the meagre charity of the workhouse.  Each parish did, however, retain some responsibility for its poor and had its own overseers.

Chailey Union comprised Chailey, Ringmer, Newick, Wivelsfield, Ditchling, Street, Westmeston, East Chiltington, Plumpton, Hamsey and Barcombe.  The Union was divided into two districts, Chailey and Ditchling.  Chailey district included Chailey (population 1030), Barcombe (931), Newick (724) and Ringmer (1271).

John Attree and Stephen Lowdell represented Ringmer on the Board of Guardians which first met on April 3^rd 1835 under the chairmanship of the Rev. Thomas Baden Powell, vicar of Newick, and at once formed a committee to decide whether a new workhouse was to be built.  After attempts to find land for this purpose failed, it was decided to make do with the existing buildings, with alterations as necessary.  A new workhouse was not erected till forty years later.  The building at Ringmer was to be appropriated for children of both sexes (kept strictly segregated), that at Chailey to receive able-bodied males, and at Ditchling the aged of both sexes.  Able-bodied females were to be admitted to any establishment, no doubt because of the domestic help they could give.  The workhouses were to be rented by the Union from the parishes.  In 1836 there was an attempt to remove Ringmer from the Chailey Union to avoid the expense of adapting the building for the children.  The guardians pointed out that Ringmer was separated from the rest of the Union by the Ouse, and could be conveniently transferred to Firle, where there was a larger workhouse which could accommodate the school.  It was, they said, “desirable in these times when farmers are overwhelmed with expenses to be as cautious as possible in creating a debt for the building of workhouses”.

Nothing came of the scheme.  Ringmer workhouse and building were insured at the Sun Insurance Office for £400, with furniture, clothes, provisions and stores for £150, and an application was made for a loan of £300 for alterations.  But the guardians still hoped to rid themselves of their responsibility for the children’s education, and in 1838 tried unsuccessfully to unite the four Unions of Chailey, Lewes, Firle and Newhaven in the duty of receiving and educating the children.  The following year they proposed to merge the school at Ringmer with Uckfield, but the Uckfield Guardians pleaded insufficient accommodation.

It must be remembered that since 1601 paupers had been supported by a poor rate levied on all the inhabitants of a village who were not by poverty exempted.  Even agricultural labourers might be obliged to pay – a Minute of May 4, 1883 states “that there was no reason why General Washer at Ringmer should be excused paying the poor rate”. In spite of his apparent status “General” was, according to the 1841 census and the Parish Register, an agricultural labourer with an unusual first name.  The parish of Ringmer was not wealthy, and one can imagine the dismay of the parishioners when payment was requested by Mr Richard Knight’s executors of a longstanding and long forgotten debt of £170.  They asked the Poor Law Commissioners for permission to borrow the sum from the Poor Rate, but were told this was not legal, nor could they raise a mortgage on the workhouse.  Finally the Chailey guardians consented to purchase Ringmer Workhouse from the parish for the sum of £300 and thus enable the parishioners to settle the debt.

In 1839 it was agreed that the parish of Ringmer be measured, mapped, and valued for the “Parochial Assessment Act”.  Mr R Lower was appointed to perform this task, which was completed in 1840 and the map exhibited at the Anchor Inn in January 1841 “for the inspection of the landowners and occupiers”. This appears to be the Tithe Map still in existence.  In 1840 the rate-payers were given the right to inspect the Union’s accounts.  No doubt they exercised a strong and steady pressure on the guardians.

But the troubles of the guardian under the new system were not only financial.  No longer free to manage their own affairs, they were controlled by the Poor Law Commissioners who had no intimate knowledge of local problems and conditions.  They represented to their masters the difficulty of carrying out the rule that no relief be given to paupers not resident in their parishes (except in emergencies) “especially in cases where the families are extremely large and the paupers are earning largely (yet not sufficiently wholly to keep them) in a species of employment which they cannot carry on in their own parishes”. There were four such families with settlements in Ringmer. Then there were the children who “according to the long established practice of parishes in this neighbourhood have been ‘put out’ on a yearly hireling”. The Commissioners were firm that for children an allowance for clothes could be made, but “on no account a weekly payment of money”, and that after the present contracts expired no premium could be given.  Relief in aid of wages to all able-bodied men non-resident in their parish was to be discontinued; relief to bastards must be limited to 1s. 6d. a week, and only given in kind if the child remained with its mother.

The determination of the Poor Law Commissioners to cease to supplement wages from the poor rate and as far as possible give relief inside rather than outside the workhouse was bound to cause difficulty; yet in February 1837 the guardians resolved “that it is the unanimous opinion of the Board that the beneficial effects of the Poor Law Amendment are amply proved not only by the great reduction in the sums levied for the relief of the poor (3) but, which is more important, by the improved moral and physical conditions of the poor themselves”. The Board supported the petition to be presented by the Duke of Richmond in the House of Lords and by Mr Cavendish and Mr Curteis in the House of Commons asking Parliament not to take any measures to alter the efficiency of the Poor Law Act.

The paupers of Ringmer had a different opinion and did not settle peacefully for the new regime.  The relieving officer Mr Awcock Bull (who did not live up to his formidable name) reported that on May 22^nd, 1835, “on entering his duties at Ringmer he was interrupted by violence in the performance of his duty and that being put in fear he was induced to pay £17. 13s. 2d. instead of £9. 15s. 6d., the amount ordered by the Board for payment in money, the paupers refusing to receive any relief in kind”. According to Lewes Quarter Sessions Rolls (4) 40 or more “unlawfully riotousy and routously assembled together”. They made “a great noise riot and disturbance”. The affair lasted for two hours “to the great disturbance and terror of residents and passersby”. The four ringleaders of the riot, James Blaber, John Trigwell, William Oliver and Joseph Ford, were committed for trial at the June Quarter Sessions.  Meanwhile their wives were allowed 3s. 6d. each with 1s. 0d. for each child per week.  The four were convicted of riotous obstruction, and the first three named condemned to eight months hard labour in the House of Correction.  Joseph Ford got off with six months (5).  The guardians were mainly concerned about the bill for the prosecution which amounted to £23. 8s. 8d.  They applied for help to the “Voluntary Association for the Preservation of the Peace” to defray the whole or part, but were told that the prosecution of the Ringmer rioters did not come within the objects of the Association.  In November “three paupers from Ringmer were admitted into Chailey Workhouse on Saturday last and they quitted without notice after remaining about 2 hours”. Furthermore on December 30^th there was a riot of Ringmer paupers at Chailey.  The names and ages of the six ringleaders were:  William Martin (aged 30), Robert Seal (16), John McConechie (21), Thomas Lee (19), William Imms (24) and John Seal (19).  They were all committed to the House of Correction.  No wonder the Chailey guardians wanted to wash their hands of Ringmer.

More is reported of the family of Blaber, and of William Oliver, rioters.  Henry Blaber, aged 8, was in February 1836 moved to Ringmer Workhouse, while his sisters aged 3 and 5 went with their mother Martha Blaber to Chailey.  A year later a certain Esther Blaber was ordered to be discharged from Chailey if she continued to misconduct herself.  In July 1837 the overseers were ordered to take immediate steps to enforce the order made on Blaber for the support of his children and in September they were requested to attend the magistrate’s bench at Lewes to explain why they had not enforced this order.  This may have been James Blaber.  The final notes on this unfortunate family concern a young Blaber – the minutes omit his Christian name; the Medical Officer, Mr Verral, is asked to report more fully on the case of Blaber, the boy who was struck by Reynolds at Chailey Workhouse.  Finally in July 1840 clothing, the cost of which was not to exceed £1. 5s. 0d., was granted to Blaber on his going into service.  This may well have been Henry who would now be 12 years old.  Another of the rioters, William Oliver, absconded in May 1838 and left his wife and family chargeable to the parish.  In September a reward was offered for his apprehension, and a year later it was claimed by, and awarded to H. Jones and E. Haycock (6).

What of the guardians claim that the physical conditions of the poor were improved since the new Act came in?  Dickens in Oliver Twist depicted a Board (one presumably meant to be typical) which offered poor people the alternative of “being starved by a gradual process in the house, or by a quick one out of it”.  They issued “three meals of thin gruel a day with an onion twice a week and half a roll on Sundays”. The three workhouses under Chailey were rather better served.  Tenders for grocery provisions at Ringmer in 1835 were as follows: Good bacon 4½d. Greens ditto 4d., Flat Danish cheese 4½d., Pickled pork 4d., third Cork butter 8½d., Souchong tea 2s. 8d. and 3s.8d., moist  sugar 6d., 6½d., and 7d., Best London yellow soap 5½d., Salt 1s. 6d. per bushel. Probably the good bacon and the tea, at any rate the more expensive kind, were for the governor.  Clothing included Dowlas shirting, drab nankeen, blue stripe, blue baize, blue linsey, women’s and girls’ bonnets (with ribbon) at 2s 2d. each (girls’ 2s. 0d.).  A record in 1836 mentions butcher’s meat for Ringmer.  However in this year the guardians took into consideration “the necessity of making a reduction in the dietary of able-bodied paupers”.  “Dietary No 2” was adopted by the guardians, but they stipulated “discretionary power to substitute 1½ pints of gruel in lieu of cheese or butter for breakfast”. Those employed on hard work were to have an increased diet as long as the work continued but the increase, 2oz of bread at breakfast and supper, and ½oz of cheese at dinner, sounds hardly generous.  Moreover the governor of Chailey later suggested that the extra allowance was unnecessary for the men employed (for 8 hours a day) at the flour mill;  the medical officer agreed and the allowance for these workers was stopped.  At Chailey in 1838 Sunday dinner consisted of 4oz bread, ½ lb meat pudding, 1lb potatoes, and on Thursday meat pudding and potatoes with 1oz cheese but only 3oz of bread.  We do not know how much meat there was in the pudding or of what quality, but the meal sounds filling, if lacking in vitamins.  It is significant that when dietary No. 2 was adopted at Ringmer the master requested that his salary be increased.  He received an extra £12, with the proviso that he should subsist otherwise on the same rations as the children.  But one could buy a nice lot of extra food on £12 a year.  It cannot have been popular with the inmates that “smoking and the use of tobacco was not to be allowed at Chailey Workhouse”. Saddist of all, in December 1840 “it was considered not advisable that any extra allowance should be given to the paupers in the workhouses this Christmas”. What would Dickens have said to that?

The guardians were responsible for the paupers’ general health; the appointment and supervision of medical officers was part of their duty.  No officer stayed long at Ringmer until Henry Chambers Verral was appointed in March 1837 at a salary of £35 per annum.   In 1838 Chailey Union was divided into medical districts, No.2 consisting of Ringmer, Hamsey and that part of Barcombe south of the stream to the Ouse from Bevans Bridge.  Mr Verral was put in charge with an increased salary of £57. 15s.. 0d.  One of the M.O’s most important duties was vaccination.  The workhouse children were vaccinated.  In December 1836, and in April 1838 the M.O. was ordered to supply this service to the other paupers.  In 1840 there was a new Act for the extension of vaccination, and probable numbers of those who had not been done were required.  The M.O.s must now supply a service to the general public (who paid 1s. 6d. per case) as well as to the paupers, and for this purpose Mr Verral attended at Ringmer Workhouse from 2 to 3 p.m. on Mondays, while Mr Bull vaccinated on Tuesdays at his residence at Barcombe.  Other duties included ordering a special nourishment as necessary, and of course attending confinements – a nurse was rebuked for not visiting Mrs Henty after her confinement.  Mental cases were sent to Bethnal Green Asylum, but they were not forgotten.  Inquiries were made as to their condition and whether they were fit to return.  Outdoor relief was given to those temporarily incapacitated by severe colds, lumbago, diarrhoea etc.  The board kept an eye on the children, requesting Mr Verral to inform them whether proper attention was being given to apply the remedies ordered by him.

The workhouse school existed in Ringmer till 1873.  In 1835 the Rev Thomas Baden Powell was asked to make arrangement for its founding, and to obtain through the SPCK bibles, prayer books, tracts and schoolbooks for the use of the workhouses in the area.  In October Mr and Mrs Bray were appointed to be in charge, at a salary of £5 per year, Mr Bray and his daughters undertaking the tuition.  20 children’s bedsteads for two children each were purchased; and two pigs to consume the rubbish.  But apparently the pigs were not a success as three months later they were disposed of and “no more were to be purchased at the expense of the Union”. Mr Bray was not an entire success either – in May he absented himself from his duties at Ringmer and was told that in future he should not apply himself to any other business.  In the following January he gave in his notice (7) and was replaced by Mr and Mrs H Jones (at £40 per year) but they resigned in November.  Mr and Mrs Unwin (£52 per year – this was the extra £12 after the change in diet) stayed for over two years.  It was when they left that the guardians made their abortive attempt to move the children to Uckfield.  When this failed Mr Fred Shackleford aged 32, of whom more hereafter, succeded to the post, with his wife as Matron.

The task of Master cannot have been easy.  Although numbers were probably never more than half the 80 to 100 pupils (8) first envisaged for the school, age and ability would vary, and families of children enter and leave at irregular intervals.  Apart from the necessary grounding in the 3 Rs, the main aim of the education was religious and practical.  When the school was first opened letters were sent to the parochial clergy asking them to assist in the supply of books “with the earnest request that they will catechise the children and visit the sick, aged and infirm”. In August 1838 it was declared “expedient to provide for the religious education of the children in Ringmer by the appointment of a chaplain at £25 per annum, the chaplain to attend the workhouse twice a week during school hours to read morning and evening service of the Church of England and that he superintend the religious and moral education of the children in the principles and according to the forms of the Church of England and he direct the schoolmaster and schoolmistress in plans conducive to their children’s knowledge of the word of God and of their religious duties”. Previous to this the Rev Constable, vicar of Ringmer, had been responsible for the children, and at the meeting in September he was thanked for his attention to them.  However, no one applied for the office of chaplain, so presumably the Rev Constable had to continue his duties, and the guardians to reply as best they could to the letter received by the Poor Law Commissioners from Lord John Russell asking for particulars of religious instruction and of education in various parishes of the Union.  The attendance of the boys at Sunday School in Ringmer was discontinued, presumably because it was no longer considered necessary.

Practical education was important too.  The governor of Ringmer was authorized to pay a man 1s. 8d. a day to teach netting and to find someone to teach straw plaiting to the boys.  The girls were to be set to work to make clothing for the inmates.  One boy, David Ranger, was evidently specially skilled as he was sent to Lewes to teach straw plaiting to the children there.

Bu to return to Mr Shackleford, appointed governor at Ringmer in August 1839.  The governors believed they had done well in this appointment and nine months later they resolved “that the unanimous approbation of the board at the general attention of the governor and matron of Ringmer Workhouse to the instruction and management of the children of both sexes should be signified to them”. However, the following December they were disturbed by “several charges made by parents of children at Ringmer Workhouse of severe and cruel treatment by Mr Shackleford” and they took these complaints seriously enough to make an enquiry.  Considering the sort of treatment the children of the well-to-do received at this period in their schools without anyone complaining the concern shown by the guardians is to their credit.  They found, as might be expected, “some charges frivoious and others greatly exaggerated”, but, they added, “more harshness and severity has been exercised in the punishment of the children than is necessary or right and Mr Shackleford has in some instances persisted in personally chastising the girls after being directed by the guardians to desist from doing so, and had it been necessary to employ manual chastisement application should have been made to the board and the necessity proved”. Mr Shackleford was to be admonished to “exercise more temper and moderation in the punishment of the children in future”.

There were other charges – a boy or boys were sent to Brighton to deliver a parcel from Mr Shackleford.  The board strongly disapproved of the boys being so employed, nor did they approve of their being taken out to accompany Mr Shackleford while shooting (the boys might have held a different opinion on this last point).  He was also ordered to discontinue cropping a portion of the garden expressly for the use of his pigs.

In spite of listing these misdemeanours the board were bound in justice to say (a) that the children had been better taught and (b) had greatly improved in manners, appearance, orderly conduct and intelligence.

The charge that he had stinted them cruelly and excessively in their meals by way of punishment was disproved by their healthy appearance.  The guardians concluded “very high testimony has been borne to Mr and Mrs Shackleford by highly respectable people living in the immediate neighbourhood”. So the Shacklefords wre not dismissed; but their future conduct is not recorded for us, as unfortunately the Minute Books between March 1841 and May 1958 are missing from the East Sussex Record Office.  Our study of the early years of Ringmer’s membership of Chailey Union must therefore come to an abrupt close at an interesting moment.  But we can take up the tale from 1858 to 1873 in a future article.

How do the Chailey guardians compare with the Board to which the wretched Oliver Twist bowed as instructed by Mr Bumble?  The eight or ten fat gentlemen on this Board had determined on a deliberate policy of starving paupers to death.  When J Ingram Esq., Vice-Chairman of the Chailey Guardians, died they declared they had “lost a kind friend and neighbour, a zealous and indefatigable guardian in whom were united the gentlest and most humane disposition with the firmest resolution to carry out the sound principles of the Poor Law”. Did Mr Ingram sometimes find his humane disposition in conflict with his zeal as a guardian? Possibly.  But there is no suggestion of sadism on the part of the guardians in the minutes.  When it occurred in Mr Shackleford’s treatment of the children they showed active concern and admonished him.  They were conscientious – only very seldom were meetings cancelled for lack of a quorum.  They may have sometimes, in obeying their Poor Law masters, been driven to harsh decisions, but they seem to have tried to balance their responsibilities to the ratepayers pockets and to the needs of the poor as fairly as they could.  Would we have done much better?

(1)   East Sussex Record Office (ESRO) G2/1a/1

(2)   Sussex History, The Journal of the Federation of Sussex Local History Societies, Vol 1 No. 8 Autumn 1979, pp 15-18.

(3)   In the minute of May 27, 1835 it is stated that the Relieving Officer for the Chailey Division paid out £40 in outdoor relief.  In the corresponding week of 1836 the sum was £19. 17s. 7d., and the next year it had dropped to £16. 18s. 2d.  However after 1837 the sum increased, and in 1839 was £39. 8s. 5d.

(4)   Midsummer Session 1835 (ESRO)  QR / E830

(5)   Quarter Sessions Record Book, 1835/6, ESRO QO / EW54 Houses of Correction were instituted in 1609 to deal with rogues and vagabonds, women with bastard children and parents who abandoned children to the parish.

(6)   Oliver was not so lucky as Thomas Shoesmith of Hamsey – the Hamsey overseers were three times ordered to deliver his children into his charge, but after appearing before the Board he got away and a reward was offered in vain. Ringmer Workhouse had to receive his children, and in the 1841 census 2 Olivers and 3 Shoesmiths are recorded as in the workhouse school.

(7)   According to the 1841 census Mr Bray was then 60 years old, and residing in Ringmer on Church Hill.

(8)   The census of 1841 shows the number of children in the school to have been 22. According to later Guardians’ Minutes (ESRO G2/1a/2 to 5) there were 37 children at the end of May 1858, and the number never rose above 50 (in Feb. 1863).

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

HEDGE DATING AND THE POTTERS’ FIELD AT RINGMER

by

Eileen Howard and Monica Maloney

Hedge dating forms a fascinating bridge between natural science and history. However, it is not as straightforward as would first appear. The limits of a hedge have to be clearly defined, and the original hedge structure, as well as other factors, have to be considered when applying Hooper’s method of hedge dating (1). Nevertherless it is generally recognised that older hedges contain more woody species than modern ones (2).

Ringmer is known to have been a centre for medieval potters (3). Although many of the original fields have now been built on there are still some, with hedgerows, along the north side of Bishops Lane known to have medieval kilns and other evidences of potters’ activity. The botanical nature of these hedges was investigated to see how their structure related to historical records, including old maps.

The fields selected included Bishop’s, 484; Potters, 494; Little Wish, 483; Kiln, 485; Barn, 486; and Barnett’s Mead, 707. The field names and numbers are taken from the schedule of the Ringmer Tithe Map of 1840. Some of the names appear to be related to pottery activity. Most of these fields are around 5 acres, and are characterised by the frequency of footpaths and little ponds (Fig. 1).

The hedges were broken down into a number of units according to criteria by Willmot (2).  These included the abutment of adjacent hedgerows, and abrupt changes in alignment, species composition or shape of bank.  Max Hooper (1) devised a method of hedge dating from his observations on the frequency of woody species in hedgerows and their relationship to documentary evidence.  He suggested that the presence of each different woody species in a 30 yard hedge length (ignoring first and last 10 yards of any hedge because of atypical conditions at hedge corners) would indicate approximately 100 years in age.  Thus the presence of ten woody species in 30 yards could indicate an age approximating to 1000 years.  So far no reasonable explanation has been put forward to account for this phenomenon.  Certain species such as Field Maple, usually appearing with four, and Spindle with six, other species, are also considered important in hedge dating (4).  As the difference between a yard and a metre is relatively short, and the whole concept is only an approximation, 30 metres has been substituted for 30 yards, following the example of Brodie and Westall (5) in their work on Elms in hedgerows.

Fig. 1. The Potters' Fields North of Bishops Lane

It was found to be more profitable to modify Hooper’s method by noting the presence of each woody species at metre intervals along the hedge.  In addition herbs indicative of ancient woodland, e.g. Bluebells, Dogs Mercury, Primroses and Wood Anemones, were recorded.  Five samples of 30 metre stretches, not necessarily consecutive, could be selected and an average number of woody species determined.  Distribution of species along the hedge was recorded and the relative frequency of species indicated.

Types of Hedgerows

Documentary evidence suggests that the hedges associated with the potters’ fields could be placed into three categories relating to age. Probably the oldest would be the hedge along the southern edge of the Open Field system of Norlington, together with remnants in the hedges along Norlington Lane and Bishops Lane. Perhaps slightly later would be the hedges separating the fields shown on the 1704 map of the Delves House estate and the 1840 Tithe Map. Lastly there are modern hedges only shown on maps more recent than the 1840 Tithe Map, as along part of Bishops Lane in the region of Kiln Field and Barnett’s Mead, Nos. 22 and 23, and also part of Barnett’s Mead, Nos. 24, 25 and 26, associated with a building plot (since removed).

The fields along Bishops Lane have clay soil with varying amounts of sand, derived from the underlying Gault Clay and Lower Greensand. Their reaction is mildly acid, but nearer neutral under trees and along roadsides. The area is near enough to the chalk downs for the presence of chalk lovers such as Dogwood and Privet.

Most of the hedges bordering arable fields and roadsides are currently cut to about 1½ metres, but a number of hedges towards Norlington Lane alongside grazing land, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 19, 6, 7 and 8, have not recently been managed, and contain trees of considerable height.  However it is considered, that type of management may have little influence on species composition (2, 4).

A hedge is essentially man-made.  Many of the earliest hedges were probably derived from woodland by assarting, i.e. leaving strips of woodland round newly cleared fields, or at least using a mixture of woodland species for this purpose.  Relics of old woodland often contain Hazel, Spindle, Dogwood, Field Maple and Oak and have woodland herbs in the ground flora (6).  The most popular shrub planted to form our hedgerows has been Hawthorn (7), but other species have been used including Blackthorn, Holly, Apple (4), Gorse near heathland, Wild Plum and Privet near cottages, as well as Oak, Ash, Elm and Maple (8).  Blackthorn, Rose, Ash and Elder are the most frequent colonisers of hedgerows (6).

Fig. 2. Distribution of Species Along Hedges

Structure of Hedgerows of Potters’ Fields

It is not easy to distinguish between a hedge of many species derived from old woodland and an old hedgerow colonised by numerous species (6). It is possible that part of the Norlington Open Field boundary hedge, running eastwards from Norlington Lane, could have been derived from old woodland. It is the only hedge containing a section, No. 17, with as many as eight species per 30 metre stretch, including Hazel, Dogwood, Field Maple and Oak, together with a ground flora including Primroses and Bluebells (Fig.2 table 1). Rather surprisingly Spindle was not observed there, but in this area it was seen only in one hedge, No. 30, bordering Barnett’s Mead and near habitation.

A hedge running northwards from Bishop’s Field, No .7, may also form part of the Norlington Open Field system.  However, it is in a degenerate condition with many unidentified tree stumps, and cannot easily be assessed (Table I).  Rather surprisingly it terminates with an ornamental Cherry with root suckers from another variety.  The hedgerows between Bishop’s and Potter’s fields, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, show few signs of recent management and are somewhat degenerate.  The presence of a variety of mature trees, together with Hazel in two sections, Nos. 4 and 5 (Table II), nearest the Norlington Open Field boundary, could possibly indicate a woodland origin.

Although Hawthorn is the predominant woody species of the roadside hedges (Table III) and two of the modern ones (Table II) this does not apply to parts of the Norlington Open Field boundary nor to the hedges between the potters’ fields (Tables I, II). These hedges appear to have been built of thorn, Hawthorn and Blackthorn being used without particular pattern.

A number of hedges between fields shown on the 1840 Tithe Map have been removed, but sometimes trees, particularly Oaks, have been left marking their original position. Nearly all the remaining hedges between the fields and much of the Norlington Open Field boundary had around six woody species per 30 metre stretch, including Field Maple (Tables I, II). Assuming the hedge to have been planted with thorn this would give an age of about 500 years. Thus they would have been planted in the fifteenth century, at a time when the potters were still active.

Lower figures occur where the hedge was too short for an accurate estimation, and also along the north side of Kiln, No.21, Barn, No. 33 and Barnett’s Mead, No. 31 (Tables I, II).  These could have been replacement hedges, as they show some features in common in having relatively high counts of Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Dogwood, with similar amounts of Rose and a little Elder.  The higher number of species in No. 21 might be attributable to its greater length.  The two hedges with higher counts, Nos. 30 and 13, (Table II) included domestic fruit trees and were both associated with buildings and concrete paths.

Table 1. Boundary Hedge, Norlington Open Field System
Table 2. Hedges Between Fields	Hedges Between Fields (continued)	Hedges Between Fields (continued)
Table 3. Roadside Hedges
Notes to the Tables

Roadside hedges elsewhere have been found to have more woody species than would have been expected (2, 6).  Splash and road-making materials tend to increase the alkalinity of the adjoining soil.  Many hedges may follow ancient pathways, but subsequent repair, re-alignment and associated damage may provide increased opportunities for colonisation.  In addition passing vehicles may introduce species, e.g. the prevalence of Apple trees along roadsides.

Bishops Lane was part of a pathway from Saxon Wellingham to the Broyle forest, but the present hedge composition is variable. The hedge along Bishop’s Field, No., 1 appears to be a mixed one (typical of old hedges) with similar amounts of Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Dogwood and hybrid Hawthorn (Table III). The presence of Bluebells here could also indicate an ancient hedgerow. However the remaining hedges of adequate size, Nos. 11, 20 and 22, along Bishops Lane, were dominated by Hawthorn.

There appears to have been some re-alignment between the 1840 and 1873 maps of this road between South Norlington House and the site of the houses built near the forge in 1981. Hedge No. II contains a high proportion of Privet (Table III) and may have been planted at the time of the construction of Lionville Cottages. Only hedge No. 20 is still in the same position as that shown on the 1840 Tithe Map, and it is the only section along this part of Bishops Lane to contain Field Maple, indicating an age of approximately 400 years (4). The sections less than 200 years old had a high number of species (Table III) but they included Blackthorn, Rose and Ash, which are early colonisers (6), also Privet, and Elm suckered from nearby trees or stumps.

The section along Norlington Lane cannot be assessed as it also forms a garden hedge.

Concluding Comments

Part of the Norlington Open Field boundary is the oldest hedge. It is not very straight, the species distribution is intermittent, and there is one section with the highest species count per 30 metres, containing Hazel, Dogwood, Field Maple and Oak with Bluebells and Primroses. The sections along Barn Field with lower counts could be replacement hedges.

The hedges separating the fields with approximately six species per 30 metres, and containing Field Maple, could have been planted by potters in about the fifteenth century, perhaps to fence in stock. Most of the modern hedges from the 19^th century appear to have been planted with Hawthorn.

Roadside hedges had a high species count even when definitely less than 150 years old, but they contained early colonisers as found by Pollard (6) and Willmot (2).

The estimation of hedge age according to Hooper’s method appears to bear some relationship to documentary evidence. However there are some anomalies, including the high number of species in a recent hedge along Bishops Lane, No.22 (Table III), but our more detailed method of counting has provided further information with which to estimate a hedge date with greater accuracy.

The presence of Elm in hedge No. 22 along Bishops Lane is associated with a nearby tree. The patchy distribution of species along the Norlington Open Field boundary, No. 17 (Table I, Figure 2) endorses its ancient origin. In addition it appears that many of the hedges other than roadside ones were planted with two species of thorn (Tables I, II), thus decreasing the estimated age by 100 years.

The study of the hedges of the pottery fields at Ringmer has indeed been an interesting and rewarding project.

References

1. Pollard, E., Hooper, M.D. and Moore, N.W. 1974. “Hedges” New Naturalist Series, Collins

2. Willmot, A. 1980. “The woody species of hedges with special reference to age in Church Broughton Parish, Derbyshire”. Journal of Ecology. Vol. 68, p.269 - 285.

3. Hadfield, J. 1980. “The excavation of a medieval kiln at Barnett’s Mead, Ringmer, East Sussex”.  Sussex Archaeological Collections. Vol. 119. p.89-106.

4. Hooper, M.D. 1971 “Hedges and Local History”, p.6 -13. Bedford Square Press.

5. Brodie, I and Westall, P. 1981. “Elms in hedgerows” British Ecological Society. Southampton.

6. Pollard, E. 1973.  “Woodland relic hedges in Huntingdon and Peterborough”. Journal of Ecology. Vol. 61. p.343-352

7. Bradshaw, A.D. 1971. “The significance of Hawthorns” in “Hedges and Local History”, p.20 - 29. Bedford Square Press.

8. 6^th Earl of Haddington. c.1733. (re-issued 1953).  “Forest Trees” (Ed. M.L. Anderson). Nelson, Edinburgh.

Details

Parent Category: Ringmer Past

Last Updated: 21 November 2013

 

THE MEDIEVAL POTTERS OF RINGMER

by

John Bleach

Introduction

We know (or think we know) a considerable amount about various aspects of Ringmer pottery production during the medieval period.  We have a good idea of what sort of pottery was made, we can locate with a fair degree of certainty the area of activity of the industry in the parish, we can make a reasonable statement on the duration of the industry, we can make informed comment on the market area of the pottery, we know how many potters there were at various times between the late 13^th century and the early 16^th century but …….who were they?  It is the object of this short paper to attempt to answer that question in respect of a 20 year period from about 1285.  Firstly, however, a brief review about what is known of the Ringmer pottery industry may not be out of place.

i) The Pottery

During the last 15 years numerous sherds of locally produced medieval pottery have been recovered from various sites on and around the village green.  The evidence of these thousands of fragments suggests that cheap domestic ware was overwhelmingly the major produce of the Ringmer kilns particularly during the 13^th and 14^th centuries (1).  Chimney pots (2) and tiles were also produced.  Tile fragments have not been found in anything like the quantity that domestic ware has been but they were probably produced fairly regularly as an early 14^th century manorial document makes specific mention of the making of tiles (3).  Very little pottery that can be definitely dated to a time before 1200 or after 1400 has been found but evidence from other sources suggests that it was being produced (see iii below).

It would seem then that the Ringmer potter directed his attention for at least 200 years and perhaps much longer largely to household utensils such as cooking pots, jugs and bowls.

ii) The Location

A recently published sketch map shows the locations of possible medieval kiln sites and areas associated with the word ‘pot’, e.g. Potters Field and Crockendale (4).  Two or three possible kiln sites are not marked, viz. at Lower Barn Farm, at the main entrance to the grounds of Delves House (5), and in the vicinity of Norlington Villas in Norlington Lane (6).  These sites together with those shown on the map are all on gault clay.

This soil, as doubtless many local readers are aware, is not easy to work, and it is likely that the clearing and colonization of it occurred at a considerably later date than the creation of the Anglo-Saxon settlements of Wellingham, Norlington, Ashton, and Middleham with Gote (7).  The fields on the north side of Bishop’s Lane, perhaps the major area of potting activity, were probably cleared from the north, i.e. from Norlington.  It is fairly certain from evidence of later deeds and maps that the medieval open field system of Norlington extended as far south as the northern hedges of Bishop’s Field, Kiln Field, etc., a boundary that can still be traced on the larger scale O.S. maps.  This boundary also marks the junction between the gault clay and the easier to work lower greensand and head clay deposits.  It seems reasonable to suggest therefore that the Norlington open field extended as far south as the land remained relatively easy to cultivate and that beyond was the heavy and intractable gault on which oaks flourished.  It would have been largely wasteland which would have been cleared and colonized as need dictated.  Over what period of time this process occurred we do not know but it might have been in progress by the late 11^th century as there is a possibility that there was potting activity in the area at that time (see iii below).

iii)     The Duration

Until very recently there has been no solid evidence that pottery production in Ringmer predated the early 13^th century.  In the light of work published earlier this year, however, it is not known that pottery was made in Ringmer as early as the first half of the 12^th and possibly in the second half of the 11^th century.

The evidence does not come in the form of pottery but in that of charcoal deposits, presumably the remains of firing fuel, found in a kiln context.  Examination of the finds using the carbon – 14 dating technique produced the following result (8):

Sample 1	1090  + or -  60 years
Sample 2	1070  + or -  70 years
Sample 3	1210  + or -  70 years

Just how long pottery continued to be made in Ringmer is not clear.  As has already been mentioned very little (if any) pottery has been found that can be dated confidently to the 15^th century.  Documentary sources, however, do mention potters throughout the 15^th and into the 16^th century (see v below).  Form the 1530’s potters seem to disappear from the record to be replaced during the latter half of the 16^th century by brick and tile makers (9).

Perhaps the decline of the potter and the rise of the brick and tile maker is reflected in two references to what may well be two members of the same family.  In 1452 a commission was given to the sheriff of Sussex to arrest amongst others John Jelot of Ringmer, ‘potter’ (10).  In 1534-35 Wm. Aderolde, master of works at Lewes Priory bought 350 brickstones and 115 ridge tiles from John Gillott of Ringmer (11).  John Gillott would probably not have described himself or been described as a potter.

iv) The Market

For the whole of the period of the suggested possible duration of the industry, Lewes, some three miles distant, was one of the most important marketing centres in Sussex.  Late 11^th century references point to it being an established trading centre with a daily market (12).  In the early 16^th century in terms of the wealth of towns based on taxation returns, Lewes ranked second to Chichester in the county (13).  Though liable to the fluctuating fortunes bound to be met with during the intervening 450 years, there is little reason to doubt that its position on the major east-west routeway in the county and on a navigable river within a few miles of the coast maintained it as an important market centre.  Given this it seems not unreasonable to suppose that much Ringmer pottery was marketed in Lewes – we may perhaps visualise the potters bringing their wares into Lewes by packhorse or cart and setting up a stall in the market there much as the medieval potters in and around Oxford must have done (14).

Another factor that may well have had some effect on the marketing possibilities of the pottery was the situation of Ringmer in relation to the weald to the north.  Throughout the medieval period Ringmer was part of the manor of South Malling.  This estate, owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, stretched from the River Ouse at Lewes to the Sussex-Kent border at Wadhurst.  North-south communications within the estate seem to have been very important (15) and it is quite possible that passage through the weald, notoriously difficult at certain times of the year, was relatively easier within the confines of the estate.  Thus Ringmer pottery may have had less difficulty than might be expected in gaining access to the increasingly populous Wealden area of the estate.  As an aid to trade during the 13^th century regular markets were being set up throughout the county and by the end of the century every other day was market day somewhere on the estate – Uckfield on Monday, Ringmer itself on Tuesday, Mayfield on Thursday and Wadhurst on Saturday (16).

From at least the later 11^th century therefore, Ringmer pottery had an urban market outlet on its doorstep and to this was added during the 13^th century a number of markets in the weald to the north.  Obviously opportunity for marketing the pottery was not lacking.

It is difficult to say whether these opportunities were taken, though finds of Ringmer pottery in Lewes and a number of the Ouse valley settlements do tend to substantiate the suggestion that Ringmer pottery was marketed in Lewes (17).  No pottery from sites to the north has been identified as having Ringmer origins (18).  This perhaps indicates that Ringmer potters did not look to the wealden market.  There may have been no need for their product – the evidence of place names suggestive of pottery production, viz. ‘Potter’s Green’ in Buxted and  ‘Crockstead’ in Framfield, both of which have 13^th century associations (19), leads one to suspect that the weald to the north of Ringmer might have been self-sufficient in the cheap domestic earthenware that most households used.  On the other hand it might indicate that none of the pottery finds in the area have been closely studied by anyone familiar with Ringmer ware.  Most of the Lewes and Ouse valley finds were identified by people very familiar with Ringmer ware and therefore able to make the connection.  More work needs to be done on pottery found in this area of the weald before any conclusions can be made on this matter.

A further problem is met with on learning that Ringmer pottery has also been found at Michelham Priory and Battle Abbey (20).  Does this suggest a trading area to the east?  In the opinion of the writer – probably not.  The location of these finds can be explained perhaps by reference to the perambulations of medieval prelates.   Remember that Ringmer was owned by (and in the diocese of) the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Bear in mind that medieval prelates regularly travelled round their sees with their households (which would include a kitchen (21) staying a week here, a fortnight there etc.  Bear in mind also that the Archbishop of Canterbury would not restrict himself to his own see but would often visit others within his province.  Using the evidence of dated letters (22) a reconstruction of the itinerary of one such archbishop, John Pecham (1279-92), can be made for a two month period of the summer of 1283 with interesting results.

May 13             Mortlake (Surrey)

May 21-28        Slindon (one of the abp’s West Sussex estates and a peculiar of the diocese of Canterbury).

May 29             Nytimer (in Pagham) (Ditto, as Slindon)

He is then lost sight of for 16 days but presumably passed through South Malling and Ringmer on his way to:

June 15                       Battle

June 16                       Michelham

June 17                       Bexhill

June 18                       Battle and Bexhill

June 19                       Michelham

June 22 to July 12      South Malling

July 15                         Mayfield

July 21                         Otford (Kent)

Other medieval archbishops doubtless pursued similar itineraries and I do not think it too far fetched to suggest that Ringmer pottery might well have been carried to such places as Michelham Priory and Battle Abbey by the attendant household.  Indeed it would not surprise the writer if, upon close inspection of any pottery round at the sites, some from Ringmer is discovered at archiepiscopal residences such as Mayfield, Slindon, Croydon and even Canterbury itself.

Pottery found at Selmeston and Hangleton has been tentatively ascribed to the Ringmer kilns but these identifications are by no means certain.

Any conclusions drawn about the market area of the pottery from the finds mentioned above must be unsatisfactory – all that might be said is that, apart from the immediately local market of the hamlets within Ringmer parish (this much I think can be assumed), the potters would look to Lewes as a regular market outlet, and perhaps to the occasional sale to restock the earthenware needed in the archbishop’s travelling kitchen when it was in the area.

v) The Potters – how many?

The figures in the following table, with the exception of that for 1403/4, have been gleaned from the Sussex Record Society (SRS) vol. 57, Victoria County History (Sussex) (VCH Sx) vol. 2, and two articles by W.H. Legge that appeared in “The Reliquary and Illustrated Archaeologist (Reliq).  The figure under 1403/4 is taken from a ms. (manuscript or manorial document?) in the Gage collection of archives in the custody of the East Sussex Record Office (ESRO).

c	1285	5+(?) (Note 1)	SRS 57
	1305/6	8	SRS 57 p.138
	1349	6	VCH Sx 2, p.251
	1388	3	ditto
	1395	4	ditto
	1396	1 (Note 2)	ditto
	1403/4	6	ESRO Gage Box 11/3
	1427	7	Reliq. Apr. 1902 p.80
	1435	7	Reliq. Apr. 1902 p.81
	1440	3 (Note 3)	ditto
	1457	0 (Note 4)	VCH Sx 2, p.251
	1485	7	ditto
	1516	5 (Note 5)	Reliq. Jan. 1903 p.4
	1517	0 (Note 5)	ditto
	1530	7	VCH Sx 2 p.251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note 1    See suggested identification of potters in vi below.

Note 2   Document records that three potters died this year.

Note 3   Document records that four potters have died.

Note 4   Document records ‘because they are dead and no one has taken their place’.

Note 5  Document of 1517 records that nothing is received from the five potters of Ringmer ‘because they are dead and no one fills their place’.

The manorial documents from which most of these figures are derived recorded, inter alia, the total Michaelmas rent from potters for licence to dig clay in the Broyle.  Each potter paid 9d for the licence, thus their total number is easily calculable.  The table then records the number of potters who paid 9d at Michaelmas for licence to dig clay in the Broyle.  As Le Patoureol points out, “in so far as they are concerned with the potter at all, manorial documents are interested in him as a consumer of clay” (23).  These “consumers of clay” might well have employed others to assist them, as it were, in the consumption.  The table therefore does not necessarily tell us how many people were actually involved in the production of pottery at the given time – those figures might have been greater.

It does, however, point not only to the fluctuating fortunes (due as much perhaps to periodic outbreaks of disease as anything else) but also to the resilience of the industry.  As least twice there were no clay payments made and on at least one occasion only one payment was made.  On four occasions the documents speak of numbers of potters dying and not being replaced, and yet within a few years of each occasion six or seven potters are recorded as making clay payments.  Unlike the thirteen strong community of potters at Hanley (Worcs.) that was wiped out by the Black Death and did not revive (24), the Ringmer community, though it did not escape, very obviously survived the vicissitudes brought about by the famine and disease which made such regular inroads into the medieval population.  Factors that may have been instrumental in its survival include the low clay payment that was stationary for more than 200 years (by the early 16^th century the 9d payment must have been considered a snip), the accessibility and market opportunities of Lewes, and perhaps successive lords of the manor in whose interests it was to have a supply of earthenware readily available at one of the furthest points of their regular perambulation route.

vi) The Potters – some individuals

This section is based largely on the two published manuscripts that between them form one of the major sources for the history of medieval Ringmer, viz. a custumal of c1285 and a rental of 1305/6 (26).  The period covered by these documents, in terms of the duration of the industry, is very short, and obviously they cannot show such things as, for example, family involvement over a period spanning a number of generations.  They do, however, afford a glimpse of the potters and their land holdings a this period.

The major parts of both the custumal and the rental are given over to listing the tenants of the manor, their land and the rent and services owed to the lord.  The tenants holding land in Ringmer are in four sections, each section relating to one of the settlements within the parish, Wellingham, Norlington, Ashton and Gote and Middleham.  Within each section the tenants are listed according to the type of land held, i.e. free land, customary land and cottar land.  The documents also contain what might be termed summaries in which special payments by certain tenants along with their services are recorded.  It is here that reference to potters is usually found.  Armed with the information from the summaries it is possible to refer back to the main body of the text of the documents and identify at least some of the potters and their holdings from amongst all the other tenants.

As if to thwart this intention the 1285 custumal contains the following note which is incidentally the earliest known documentary reference to Ringmer potters – “but note that there is not reckoned in this roll thus far the rent of the potters nor their hens or eggs.  But Stephen the clerk will inform us of these matters” (20). {Hens and eggs were common form of payment for certain ‘rights’ in the medieval period – the 1285 custumal records for example show that the customary tenants of Wellingham “must give 1 hen at Christmas and 5 eggs at Easter which are called foresters-hennum for which they shall have their common in the Broyle” (p.90).} Since there is no further mention of potters or their rents in the roll it seems likely that Stephen the clerk did not inform the relevant persons.  Why? – we do not know.  The 1305/6 rental is better informed.

“For 8 potters at Michaelmas, 6s.  And at Christmas, 400 eggs.  And at Easter, 400 eggs, and each of them shall reap 3 roods of vetches and they must hunt.  They shall have clay for the making of tiles and loppings from fallen trees in the wood”.

The rental also notes that at Christmas and Easter “the potters’ hens increase and decrease” (27).  This seems to be a recognition of the fact, borne out by the table in v (above), that for whatever reason the number of potters varies from year to year.

Can this information about special payments etc. be matched up with any of the tenants, their holdings and land rent that appear in the main body of the text?  Archaeological evidence suggests that one of the major areas of activity of the potters was on the gault clay outcrop immediately to the south of the Norlington open field and north of Bishop’s Lane.  It is known from later documents that most of this area was freehold of the manor – thus it seems reasonable to begin searching for potters amongst the free tenants of Norlington.

There are some 25 free tenants holdings in Norlington, about a third of which are no more that very small amounts of recent assart (28).  Of the more substantial holdings it is noticeable that a few of them have two characteristics that are not associated with free tenant holdings anywhere else in Ringmer.  Firstly that they pay rent at one term of the year only (Easter) and secondly that they owe a reaping service.

Almost without exception the free tenants of Ringmer pay their rent at two, three or four terms of the year.  Also by far the majority of them do not have to do any agricultural services.  Thus to find a number of free tenants only paying rent at one term of the year and owing a reaping service is, to say the least, unusual.  But what if they were potters?  The payment of the Michaelmas clay rent would, as it were, balance the rent paying formula of these holdings.  They would be falling in line with numerous other free tenant holdings in Ringmer that pay rent at Easter and Michaelmas.

The reaping service, though it is not known why it was imposed, would be in line with the known reaping service of the potters.  It is worth noting that the crop to be reaped was a legume – there were very few other tenants, free or customary, in Ringmer who reaped legumes as a service and there is nothing to suggest that any of these others were involved in the production of pottery.

It does not seem unreasonable to suggest therefore that the Norlington free tenants listed in the table below were in some way involved in pottery production.  The table also gives information from the 1305/6 rental (29).

Tenant			Rent					Reaping Requirements
	Acreage			Easter		Michaelmas
	1285	1305/6		1285	1305/6	1285	1305/6	1285	1305/6
A	5	5		9½d	9½d	-	-	1a	1a
B	7	7½		9d	9d	-	-	3r	3r
C	6	7		10d	10d	¾d	¾d	½a	½a
D	5	5*		10d**	10d	-	-	2a	2a
E	1	1		5d	5d	-	-	1a	1a
F	-	2***		-	4d	-	3d	-	1a

*           And one croft – not recorded in 1285

**         And two ploughshares at Christmas – not recorded in 1305/6

***        “in Aleynescrofte” – this holding is not recorded in 1285 with a reaping service.

Tenant Key:

A          Wm. Bysshop 1285 and 1305/6

B            Thurgod Kempe 1285 and 1305/6

C            Alexander Sire 1285,Wm. Burdon “for a tenement that belonged to Alex. Syre” 1305/6

D         Wm. .Eselin, neif, 1295, Wm. son of Wm. Eselin, 1305/6

E          Wm. son of Philip de Middleham, neif, 1285 and 1305/6

F          Robert ater Rede 1305/6

As with the table in section v (above) the number of tenants listed here is almost certainly not a full complement of these involved in pottery production.  There were probably others and one that perhaps can be identified in 1285 is Thomas Figul’, i.e. potter, who appears in a list of names of “cots (coteriis) of freemen” in Norlington (30).  Probably Thomas was a tenent of one of the free tenants listed above.  There may well have been others like him but they cannot be identified from the material to hand.

Most of the changes that occurred between 1285 and 1305/6 are those that might be expected, i.e. change of tenant.  One major change, however, is the addition of a two holding to the list, viz. Robt. Ater Rede  “in Aleynescrofte”. (The apparent increase in size of the holdings of Thurgod Kempe and Alex. Sire/Wm. Burdon is explicable in terms of scribal error.  It is quite possible the meadow mentioned in the description of the holding in 1285 may have been counted twice in 1305/6).

Robert’s two acre holding of 1305/6 was held by Alexander Shrippe in 1285 for 7d p.a., paying 4d at Easter and 3d at Michaelmas.  There were no services due from the holding in 1285.  There is nothing to distinguish it from numerous other free tenant holdings in Ringmer and it was probably an ordinary agricultural holding.  By 1305/6 it had acquired a reaping service.  It seems likely that at some point between 1285 and 1305/6 the land had, if not changed the use to which it was put, an additional use which demanded the imposition of a service.  Given the possible location of the land (later deeds suggest that it may have been a part of that which became Kiln Field) and the use to which so much of the adjoining land seems to have been put, it is not unlikely that this additional use was connected to the production of pottery.

If the use to which this land was put has indeed changed even if only in part from agricultural to the manufacture of pottery it could be that it reflects a period of relatively prosperity for the potters – with this possibility in mind it is worth noting that in 1305/6 there were eight potters mentioned in the manorial documents, the highest number ever recorded.  Since the highest number of potters recorded after this date is seven it may be that Robert’s holding represents what might be termed a marginal potter site, and that when demand for pottery could be met by the kilns on the regular potter holdings this land reverted to an agricultural use.

How the holdings acquired various amounts of reaping service is not at all clear.  The total service in 1285 was 21 roods and at three roods to the potter this suggests a total of seven potters.  This accords well with what might have been, with the exception of 1305/6, the full complement of potters.  Further information from later manorial court rolls might throw some light on this.

There is no obvious relationship between acreage, rent and service due.  However, the two tenants described as neifs had, on the one part a very heavy service, and on the other part a relatively high rent.  Whether these heavier service and rent obligations had anything to do with their status as neifs is impossible to say.

These very few men then are some of the Ringmer potters.  With the exception of Robert ater Rede they were probably not wealthy or locally important people.  Mostly they each held a few acres of land, some of which was doubtless put to agricultural use, and they paid around 1s 6d p.a. for their land and their clay licence.  They were, however, not the poorest people in Ringmer by any means.

Robert ater Rede, on the other hand, may have been one of the wealthiest.  He seems to have held land in Ashton and Gote and Middleham as well as in Norlington, one of the very few free tenants to hold land in more than one of the settlements (31).  His Norlington holding may well have been the area around Delves House which was the nucleus of what was to become the manor of Delves.  He may not have been a potter in “Aleynescrofte” for very long but there is plenty of archaeological evidence that the area around Delves House was much utilised for pottery production in the medieval period.  Thus it may be that he was a potter of a rather different standing to the others.

Postcript

It is perhaps fitting that the rediscovery of the knowledge that there was pottery production in Ringmer in the medieval period should be down to one whose occupation was that which took over from pottery making in the 16^th century – brickmaking (32).  The story of this industry in Ringmer would make an interesting paper in a future issue of this journal.

References

1         See for example L(ewes) A(rchaeological G(roup) Newsletter no. 37 refers to an excavation in 1973 and the recovery of a “huge amount of 13^th century pottery”. (I am grateful to Monica Maloney for drawing this reference to my attention.)  Also – Hadfield, J.I. “Excavation of a Medieval Kiln at Barnett’s Mead, Ringmer, East Sussex” S(ussex) A(Archaeological) C(ollections) 119 (1981), 89-106.

2         Hadfield, 101 – 2   Dunning, G.C. “Medieval Chimney Pots” in “Studies in Building History” (ed. M. Jope).  (London 1961)

3         Sussex R(ecord) S(ociety) 57 – “Custumals of the Archbishop’s Manors in Sussex” (ed. B.C. Redwood and A.E. Wilson), 138.

4         Hadfield, 90

5         O.S. map with sites marked by E.W.O’Shea of the L.A.G. (unpublished)

6         Ex inf. Vic. and Sheila Gammon.

7         Brandon, P. “The Sussex Landscape”, 87-8 (London 1974)

8         Hadfield, 105

9         Victoria County History (Sussex) 11, 253

10     Calendar of Patent Rolls 1446-1452, 537 (London 1910)

11     Public Record Office SC6/H VIII/3527. (I am grateful to Judy Brent for drawing this reference to my attention.)

12     Domesday Book f.26a (Sussex section translated and edited by J. Morris and published by Phillimore of Chichester, 1976) and Victoria County History (Sussex) vol. 7, 31 citing SRS 38, 7-9.

13     Cornwall, J. “Sussex Wealth and Society in the Reign of Henry VIII”, 16, in SAC 114 (1976)

14     Map showing the earthenware stall in Oxford market in Salzman, L.F. “English Industries of the Middle Ages”, 327 (London 1964 reprint of 1923 ed.)

15     SRS 57, 35-7

16     Uckfield – SRS 57, 95.  Ringmer – C(alendar) of Ch(arter) R(olls) II, 268.  Mayfield – C.Ch.R. II, 38.  Wadhurst – C. Ch.R. I, 432 and SRS 57, 95.

17     Hadfield, 104 and the references given there

18     Hadfield, 104

19     Mawer, A. and Stenton, F.M. “The Place Names of Sussex” II, 391 and 393.

20     Ex inf. Anthony Streeten.  Reports are forthcoming: Michelham in SAC – Battle as part of the report of the recent Dept. of Environment excavation there which may appear as a Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries.

21     For an account of one such journey in 1290 of Richard Swinfield, Bishop of Hereford see Moorman, J.R.H. “Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century”, 187-191 (Cambridge 1955).

22     Martin, C.T. “Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, …” Rolls Series no. 77 in 3 vols. (London 1882-6), letter nos. CCCCXXV-CCCCLVIII

23     Le Patourel, H.E.J. “Documentary Evidence and the Medieval Pottery Industry”, 113, in Medieval Archaeology 12 (1968), 101-125.

24     Le Patourel,  108

25     SRS 57

26     SRS 57, 116

27     SRS 57, 138

28     SRS 57, 99-100

29     SRS 57, 101

30     SRS 57, 101

31     SRS 57, 127 and 129

32     For the first published notice see The Antiquary 19 (June 1894), 236.  The opening sentence attempts to associate the finding of the pottery production site with a rather better known aspect of Ringmer’s past. “In a large field at Ringmer, Sussex (almost close to the house in which Gilbert White lived and wrote), and known, if not from time immemorial, for at least more than 200 years, as the ‘Potter’s Field’, there have just recently been discovered ……”.