Another Chalybeate Spring and Cold Bath at Tunbridge Wells

ANOTHER CHALYBEATE SPRING AND COLD BATH AT TUNBRIDGE WELLS By MYRTLE B. STREETEN, B.A., and ANTHONY D. F. STREETEN DURING the widenmg of the A26 adjacent to the Pantiles, Tunbridge WeUs (N.G.R. TQ 58153885), in April 1971, a chalybeate spring with a stone well sunk over it, and also a structure subsequently identified as a cold bath, were revealed on the edge of the Common, known as FontMU. Despite proximity to the new traffic lane, the Corporation has preserved the sites and made them available for public inspection, with the approval of the Lady of the Manor and the Commons Conservators. Thanks should also be expressed to Mr. S. E. Rigold, Mr. L. R. A. Grove and Mr. W. Taylor for their advice about identification and preservation, and to the County Archives Office for their co-operation in the search for documentary evidence. Full details will be deposited at the Reference Library, Royal Tunbridge Wells, but a brief summary of the research appears below. SITE A: CHALYBEATE SPRING The square chamber, which is just over 8 ft. deep, is constructed of roughly-worked sandstone blocks, surmounted by a brick 'beeMve' top, of later date, with a narrow circular aperture in the centre. Inside, vegetation deeply stained by chalybeate deposits, and an opalescent scum on the surface of the water, invited comparison with the Pantiles spring. Chemical analysis later confirmed the original assumption of a chalybeate spring, although there is much dilution by seepage of surface water. The footings of the structure rest on a narrow bed of irregularly compacted sandstone about 18 in. deep, tMough wMch the water rises, above a floor of natural clay, similar to that found beneath SiteB. TMs type of construction indicates a seventeenth- or eighteenthcentury date for the stonework and that the canopy is a nMeteenthcentury addition, possibly contemporary with the buried path wMch appears to lead from the spring to the site of a forge and some cottages which were demohshed in 1938. Associated finds confirm tMs datMg sequence: the presence of a 1911 coin at the bottom of the well indicates that the site has only become buried quite recently. On the other hand, tin-glazed earthen- 177 MYRTLE B. STREETEN and ANTHONY D. F. STREETEN ware from inside the weU, fragments of an apothecary's piU-rolhng slab,1 ointment pot, and glass pMal, aU from the base of the fiUMg around the structure, and a piece of vitreous slag2 embedded in the waU, confirm an earher date for the stonework. Archseological evidence, therefore, seems to imply a date c. 1700 and an association with the numerous apothecaries known to have been estabhshed on and around the Walks, at least sMce 1682. Documentary proof is, to say the least, elusive. Surveys foUowing excavation identify the spring with that marked on John Bowra's map of 1738, wMch also shows a stream runnMg alongside the road. We are told that 'Tunbridge Wells abounds with springs of this character'3 and Benge Burr writmg in 1766 says that weUs were sunk over 'the two principal of seven several sprMgs'* but there are no direct references to the precise location of any of them. Documentary evidence before c. 1700 refers only to 'mineral or medicinal waters . . .', as in the lease of 13th August, 1682, granted by Thomas Neale, Lord of tho Manor of Rusthall, to Thomas Janson.5 The Rusthall Manor Act of 1739, however, refers to disputes between the Freehold Tenants and the Lord of the Manor 'concerning the Inclosure of the Medicinal Springs or Wells of Water . . .'. TMs has, by custom, been presumed to be a mere legal reiteration safeguarding any possible misinterpretation of the term 'Springs' or 'Wells'; however, a subsequent phrase demands a reassessment of any such interpretation: 'The said Freehold tennants . . . have insisted, that the said Medicinal Springs, and the Wells of Water and the said Walks, and the Nine-pin or Skettle-pin place are part of or situate on the waste of the said Manor, called Bishopsdowne . . .'; the balance of the pMasing leaves no doubt that there were not only Medicinal SprMgs but also Wells of Water, on Bishopsdowne. The 'right to common' and 'other benefits in the said Walks and Springs' were claimed by the Freeholders; it is significant therefore that the copy of John Bowra's map, wMch accompanied the Rusthall Manor Act, has added an enclosure round the FontMll spring. Perhaps, tMs was one of the infringements wMch the tenants were complaming about? In printed sources before 1700 there is no such implication of another weU in use; Dr. Rowzee (1632)6 specifies 'two small springs 1 Tin-glazed earthenware. The arms depicted are those of the Apothecaries' Company and were granted in 1617. The latest known pill-rolling slab of this type is dated 1710, but there are many examples from the intervening period. 2 Vitreous slag was commonly associated with the Wealden iron industry of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. 3 John Britton, Descriptive Sketches of Tunbridge Wells and the Calverley Estate, London, 1832, 80. * Thomas Benge Burr, The History of Tunbridge Wells, London, 1766, 18-19. * K.A.O., U749 T2. 8 Lodwick Rowzee, The Queenes Welles, London, 1632, 34. 178 A. Fonthill Site B: Cold Bath, Photo: Kent & Sussex Courier 1766, with nineteenth-century Brick Canopy above. I ^1 yyf -,- X"' '^W#-•£ -• ..-. •••# - . . . ;• T - ' ^ s f i ^ * ^ " ^ - „ - . . ' X ' - " v X X - ' ; " "•*. \ ' T1 • .--• i-.* '* • -• -•• '• .. %'• •' X- '.J'* .r= '• Xi,. P*o(o.- yl. P. f. Streeten B. Fonthill Site A: Interior of Stone Chamber sunk over Chalybeate Spring, dating from c. 1700. [face p. 178 ANOTHER CHALYBEATE SPRING AT TUNBRIDGE WELLS contiguous together', and Ceha Fiennes' very detailed description (1697)7 also refers only to 'two with large Basons of stone'. However, a 'new draw-weU' mentioned m the WiU (dated 1706) of Edmund Baker the Elder,8 on Ms property 'commonly caUed the Rockhouse on Bishops Downe . . .' must have been bmlt at about the same time (1705) that Thomas WeUer decided to allow Edward AUen to build 'a small drMMng box'9 on the Walks, to replace the old one wMch can be located on MartM O'Connor's map (1725). Perhaps, some improvement to the drinMng-box was necessary because of the rivalry afforded by the new draw-weU? Curiously enough, tMs weh is described as beMg at the end of the 'garden plott'8 wMch is 32 ft. from east to west of 'my httle new-bmlt house',8 where Mercy Chambers is to hve after Edmund Baker's death. Bowra's map also shows the sprmg as approximately 32 ft.—east to west—from the nearest of two 'Deepers Houses'; Edmund Baker's property also included an ironmonger's and a turner's shop, a forge, and a 'turf-house'. Again, Bowra's map marks a forge with an adjacent 'hovel'. The crux of the problem is, however, 'the house where I myself now hve', wMch is 'on land commonly caUed the Rockhouse, on Bishopsdowne'. Although there are a number of documents referring to the Rockhouse, no such property is marked on Bowra's map nor apparently on any other. He does, however, show houses near the rocks and other buildings near the forge and the spring. Whatever speculation may remain about the exact location of 'the land commonly caUed the RocMiouse' there can be no doubt that all the evidence confirms that the sprmg was in existence in 1738, that it had been enclosed and was undoubtedly associated with the local apothecaries. SITE B: COLD BATH As with Site A, two phases of construction appear to be represented. The lower part of the structure, taMng the form of an eUiptical basM of finely worked stone approximately 3 ft. deep, seems to be earher than the barrel vault wMch covered it. Although all but a smaU section of this was destroyed in the course of the roadworks, it is possible to see that it rested on a crude rectangular base of stone and tUe wedges on top of the eMptical structure. The quahty of this transition from stone to brick contrasts so strongly with the fine craftsmansMp of the worked stone blocks that the brick must be an early mneteenth-century 7 Ed. Christopher Morris, The Journeys of Oelia Fiennes, London, 1947; the Northern Journey and the Tour of Kent (1697), 133. 8 K.A.O., LT749 T16. • K.A.O., 6TT38 T32. 179 MYRTLE B. STREETEN and ANTHONY D. P. STREETEN addition, though not later than c. 1850 because of the use of lime mortar. Excavation revealed an irregularly brick-paved floor, shghtly damaged in one corner, where it was apparent that the structure rests on clay. The method of filling and emptymg the basin cannot be defimtely determmed, but the workmen refer to a spillway stone, which was subsequently found on the spoU heap, and wMch is said to have come from the damaged portion of the structure. At present, surface water merely trickles M around the stones, and, although tMs may have been the origMal intention, deliberate filhng, possibly from the nearby spring (Site A), 33 ft. away, seems more likely. The basm itself contained a quantity of early mneteenth-century d6bris, with two anomalous fragments of late seventeenth-century glazed brick, but the absence of any stratification, either by soil or date imphes dehberate filhng in. Archseological evidence, therefore, points to an eighteenth-century date for the stone basin, with the addition of a brick barrel-vault M the early mneteenth century. WMle archseology can Mdicate the nature and possible date of the structure, its purpose is more difficult to determine. There is no reference to it on John Bowra's map of 1738, although the approxhnate site is occupied by two 'Deepers' Houses'. However, the Benge Burr reference (1766) to a cold bath laid down 'about a furlong from the Walks'10 might well apply to the site. His dating is ambiguous; 'withM these very few years'11 has usuaUy been assumed to refer to 1708, when he is discussing the construction of the Cold Bath at RusthaU in the precedmg paragraph. However, in a later comparison, Rusthall is referred to as 'the antient bath' thus implying that it had been in existence considerably longer; it would, therefore, appear that he means that the second bath was constructed witMn a few years of the time of writing, that is, shortly before 1766. Comparison of the FonthUl structure with the RusthaU cold bath shows remarkable similarity not only in the method of construction but also in the shape and proportions. Although the Fonthill bath is slightly smaller, the worMng of the sandstone blocks and the spillway stones are strUdngly alike, and leave httle doubt that the Fonthill structure is a cold bath. SMiilarly, although the bath known as Adam's WeU (1768),12 near Langton, is rectangular, it is also constructed of worked stone blocks and the size approximates to that at Rusthall wMle the depth is similar to Fonthill (Eig. 1). In the light of this, a very grave doubt must faU on the local tradition that a cold bath was laid down M the time of Queen Anne 10 Thomas Benge Burr, op. cit., 61. 11 Ibid., 60. 18 J. Sprange, The Tunbridge Wells Guide, Tunbridge Wells, 1817, 40. 180 STRUCTURAL COMPARISON worked stone FONTHILL c.1766 COLD BATH: RUSTHALL 1708 • - f l - Brick - Base of canopy j = - Modern cement lining W ADAM'S WELL 1768 Water level plgl - Wood PIG. 1. Structural Comparison of eighteenth-century Cold Baths in the Vicinity of Tunbridge Wells. MYRTLE B. STREETEN and ANTHONY D. P. STREETEN on the site of the later bath-house (now Messrs. Boots, the Pantiles). TMs is further borne out by the correspondence concermng the construction of the new baths (1800-1803) by the Lady of the Manor, Mrs. Shorey, who was expressmg great anxiety about the possibihty of damage to the chalybeate sprMg wMch might occur if baths were constructed. She was constantly reassured by Mr. Groves, her agent, who explaMed that 'the Cold Bath I should thmk would almost form itseh? with httle expence or trouble on the same surface as the Well now Is . . .'.13 Surely if a bath already existed the original foundations would have been utilized? Printed material supports tMs view: Paul Amsmck, writmg M 1810, says that 'the sprmg . . . was enclosed by a triangular stone wall, and in this state it continued untU witMn these few years .. .'u (i.e. untU the construction of Mrs. Shorey's bath-house). He also explaMs that 'Baths had frequently been demanded at Tunbridge WeUs. There was indeed an excellent cold bath near Rust-Hall Common; wMch had formerly been an appendage on a place of public entertainment: but tMs was at too great a distance for Mvalids: difficult of access; and moreover M a very dilapidated and uncomfortable condition. Warm baths there were none. It was suggested that some benefit might be derived from baths composed of mMeral water, and . .. Mrs. Shorey . . . put in her exclusive claim to the advantages of the undertaMng . . ,'15. AgaM, surely the implication is that these new baths were not only the Mst warm ones but also the first on the Walks composed of mineral water? An earher Queen Anne bath on the site would have been unhkely to use any source other than the adjacent chalybeate spring. Thus the local tradition of a cold bath on the site of the later bath house must now be discounted. The FontMH bath therefore seems to have enjoyed only a very short period of use, as it would undoubtedly have fallen out of favour with the construction of Mrs. Shorey's 'handsome edifice' 50 yds. away. A print of 182716 supports tMs view, because, although the barrel vault is clearly marked, it is of mMor importance M the picture, which suggests that the Fonthill bath was of little interest by that date. There can be httle doubt that the recently uncovered structure on the part of the Common Miown as FontMU, is a cold bath dating from c. 1766 and that it is the one mentioned by Benge Burr, 'about a furlong from the Walks'. It was still visible in 1827, but archseological evidence and omission from subsequent maps and guide-books suggest that it was fiUed m and covered over at about that time. » K.A.O., U749 E88. 14 Paul Amsinck, Tunbridge Wells and its Neighbourhood, London, 1810, 33. 16 Ibid., 34:. 16 W. Marshall, Cabinet of Fashion, Holborn, London, 1827. 182