An Archaeological Interpretive Survey of the Old Castle, Scotney: Part II

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETIVE SURVEY OF THE OLD CASTLE, SCOTNEY: PART II

david martin, barbara martin and jane clubb

Documentary Research by Rupert Goulding

The medieval development of the Old Castle at Scotney was analysed in Part I (see volume cxxxi, 321-43). Part II continues the ownership narrative and the description of Scotney Old Castle’s architectural development over the 300 years from the mid sixteenth century. The documentary background given in this article has been summarized from Rupert Goulding’s detailed account which appears in fully-referenced form in the National Trust’s Conservation Management Plan for Scotney.

The Darell Family, Recusants, 1558-1608

The Darell family had been in possession of Scotney for 140 years when Thomas Darell II inherited Scotney in 1558, the last year of Mary I’s reign which may be why he is heralded as being the first Roman Catholic Scotney Darell. Subsequently families like the Darells suffered religious persecution (see below).

In 1563 Thomas II’s daughter, Mary, married the Protestant poet and writer Barnaby Googe. Thomas Darell II initially resisted their marriage, but Googe was retained by his relative Sir William Cecil, Queen Elizabeth’s chief advisor, who involved Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury in his protégé’s struggle. Parker allegedly had Mary removed from the Darell household until Thomas II relented; when he did he gave the couple Chingley Farm as a dowry. It was whilst resident at Chingley that Googe wrote The Foure Books of Husbandry; mostly a translation, but expanded with notes on his own farming experiments. In 1569 Googe wrote The Shippe of Safeguard, an attempt to convert his sisters-in-law from Roman Catholicism; the book was dedicated to Philipa and Frances Darell (d.1575). Googe has the distinction of being the first person to have a book of personal poetry published in English in the author’s lifetime.

Thomas Darell II seems to have derived some wealth from the iron industry, owning Chingley forge and furnace (now under the Bewl Reservoir). In 1548 a Thomas Darell (either Thomas II or his father) had complained about wood fuel being wasted at Scotney; and in 1589 the forge and furnace were sold to Sir Edward Culpepper. The Darell family continued in the iron industry, owning sites further away, but also leasing Chingley, presumably back from Culpepper. Thomas Darell II’s brothers, George and Christopher, both iron-masters, entered a syndicate at Chingley with Thomas’s daughter Ellen’s husband, Sir Edmund Pelham.

Thomas II’s son, Henry, a lawyer at Grays Inn, seems to have inherited Scotney in 1596. Prior to this we know of Henry’s financial problems; in 1587 he was involved in a lawsuit over rental of Scotney land for £10 with a Henry Fane, and in 1594 Thomas Dyke was awarded a judgement at the King’s Bench to seize goods to the value of £200 for debts owed to him. The Darells also suffered financial repercussions for adherence to Roman Catholicism, especially in 1601 when George Rivers JP managed to orchestrate a major sequestration of Henry’s estates. Between 1595 and 1596 a Henry Darell of Lamberhurst was fined £120 for non-attendance at the parish church, and another £60 by c.1610. Interestingly, these policies were devised by Sir William Cecil, Elizabeth’s chief minister, to persecute recusants; perhaps inspired by how it would affect his protégé Barnaby Googe’s in-laws! Henry Darell was twice before the Quarter Sessions for non-attendance at church in 1606. In 1608 Henry was executor for Sir Edmund Pelham’s will: at what point Henry died we do not know.

mid sixteenth-century expansion – the new west range

To judge from the style of the work, it was towards the end of his father’s life (or just possibly during the opening years of Thomas II) that a new two-storeyed west range was built against the interior of the southern curtain wall, projecting westwards from the (assumed detached) medieval kitchen block (Fig. 1). This west range is the present roofed section of the house. The ground-floor of the range appears not to have been of overly high status, whereas, in contrast, the first-floor suite was lofty (3.1m, or 10ft 2ins to ceiling) and seems to have been well finished (Fig. 2). On the ground floor the south wall reuses the medieval stone curtain wall, into which was added a single-light window with four-centred arched head. At this level the new north wall is also of stone, but the upper storey is wholly timber framed, with northern and southern external walls of exposed close studding interrupted at mid storey by a rail. Today only the principal timbers of the frame are exposed, but a fragment of close studding within the north wall is visible within a small cupboard, whilst other details of the wall infill framing are evidenced by peg holes, particularly in the south wall.

The two present projecting windows in the north wall are much later, but appear to represent reconstructions of earlier oriel windows upon the same sites. Furthermore, there is peg-hole evidence for a single large window in the south wall, but whether this projected or was of flush type is not at present known. In contrast to the side walls, the western end gable of the frame was brick clad from the outset and incorporated a projecting chimney, since partly concealed by adjacent wall thickening. The chimney heated the first-floor storey only – further proof of the higher status of the first-floor suite. It was subsequently much altered, but originally incorporated an external recess on the ground floor (Fig. 3) and had crow stepping to its offsets at around eaves level. Some form of cabin (perhaps a garderobe) was soon afterwards added to the southern side of the chimney at first-floor level, but only very slight remains of this survived the subsequent insertion of the projecting window visible in Fig. 3.

The joisting which supports both the first floor and the attic floor within the range was temporarily exposed during the 2008 repairs. Both floors incorporate narrow joists identical in depth to the principal supporting beams. Thus, those supporting the ground floor measure 80 x 260mm (3¼ x 10¼ins) and span along the axis of the range, supported by crossbeams, whilst those supporting the attic floor are 80 x 215mm (3¼ x 8½ins) and span across the building, carried by central girders. In both cases they supported flush under-plastered ceilings which masked all the structural ceiling timbers from view. Joists of this type were still quite new at this period and, as such, were still restricted to use in high-status buildings.

The west wing is capped by a massive roof, the constructional details of which were visible during the repairs undertaken in 2008. It is substantially built and, although plain, is extremely well carpentered. The constructional details are typical of the period in a house of this status. Like the frame below, it is constructed in three bays. It is of interrupted side-purlin construction incorporating two tiers of purlins, the upper tier windbraced in one direction, preventing the roof from racking towards the western gable. At this period the eastern end of the roof abutted the front slope of that over the adjacent kitchen, against which it was built. Interrupting the northern slope of the west range’s eastern bay is a half-hipped face gable. The sole purpose of the face gable was to provide sufficient headroom on the staircase which was located at this point. Thus, its existence as part of the new roof structure suggests that a staircase always occupied this corner of the bay. The present stair is later (see below) and is larger in plan than its (assumed) predecessor, a point indicated by the fact that the present staircase enclosure’s southern wall cuts across and blocks a first-floor doorway on its east and a second-floor doorway on its west.

The probable location of this earlier staircase suggests the west range’s likely first-floor layout at this period. It suggests that the stairs rose to an ante-chamber occupying the southern part of the eastern bay, with a large two-bay heated chamber to the west (see Fig. 4). The storey height alone indicates the high quality of the chamber, and this is confirmed by the flush under-plastered design of the ceiling. The fact that the construction of the first-floor joisting (supporting the ground-floor ceilings) is of identical type suggests that the ground-floor western room was intended for more than service use, despite the lack of both heating and good windows. The layout at this level appears to have been a repeat of that on the floor above.

Garderobe Projection

Built into the angle between the new range and the medieval Ashburnham Tower is a garderobe projection, now capped by a lean-to-roofed cabin. The present tile-hung first-floor cabin is a late reconstruction, but the floor joisting is earlier, as too is the thick stone wall which projects eastwards from the Ashburnham Tower and contains within it the garderobe chute, which blocks the eastern gun port. The joists and the supporting stone wall containing the chute are likely to be of mid sixteenth-century date and would have supported a first-floor garderobe cabin positioned over the moat (at this point since infilled). The dating of the garderobe seem to be confirmed by peg-hole evidence in the wallplate of the south wall of the west range, the configuration of which suggests the wall was designed from the outset to incorporate a first-floor doorway giving access to the garderobe.

Alterations to the Kitchen Area

The design and constructional details of the new west range allow a little to be ascertained about the building to the east – the (assumed detached) medieval kitchen complex – against which the range was built. It is because of the alignment of the medieval kitchen that the plan of the west range is rhomboidal, rather than built with its cross walls at right angles to the curtain wall.

Because the new west wing incorporated high-quality accommodation, it might be concluded that by now the kitchen complex had been joined up to the medieval house. This is indeed possible, though it would be unsafe to assume this based solely upon the quality of the accommodation within the new range – lodgings which are separate from the main house are not uncommon at this period. What can be certain is that, as with the new range, the south wall of the ‘kitchen’ block was formed by the southern curtain wall and was capped by a timber-framed upper storey. Although only a fragment of the stone curtain wall in this area now survives (built into the south-eastern corner of the present main range) two fragments of the massive timber soleplate it supported remain trapped within the fabric of the later building. Sufficient of the plate’s upper face is visible to indicate that it lacks mortices, whilst the pressure mark of a former joist can still be made out: thus there were joists lodged over the plate. Given the absence of mortices, no doubt the joists projected to support a timber-framed upper storey, a hypothesis which makes sense of why the plate, and indeed the joists it supported, were retained when the adjacent area was rebuilt later (see below).

Another survivor from the kitchen is a fireplace built against the kitchen’s front (west) wall. This was much altered and its flue considerably modified subsequently (see below) but at this date it was a wide inglenook with a canted northern jamb, and probably originally a canted southern jamb also (since rebuilt). The long axis of the fireplace is built to the same alignment as the front wall of the main house. For this reason, the fireplace is aligned at a marked angle to the kitchen’s southern wall, which at this date was formed by the canted angle of the medieval curtain wall. Thus the medieval kitchen must from the outset have been built to the same alignment as the main house, despite the fact that by the 1550s it made use of the southern curtain wall – perhaps the original medieval kitchen had at some subsequent date been extended southwards until it met the curtain wall.

refurbishment of the kitchen area c.1600

It was during this phase that the developments at Scotney become complex, the analysis of which is not helped by the fragmentary nature of the surviving fabric. That this work did not involve a complete reconstruction of this area is shown by the fact that the soleplate of the earlier first-floor section of the canted south wall was retained, trapped within the ceiling (see above). This would not have been retained unless the earlier floor joisting (of which it formed part) was also retained. Also retained was the kitchen chimney, though its upper parts were much altered. Interpretation of the work is further complicated by the fact that two phases of works have been discerned. What is clear from the surviving fabric is that the earlier work was never completed as originally intended, for when building re-commenced it was undertaken to a slightly revised design, requiring alterations to be made to the first-floor window arrangement within the part already started. The break between the two parts could have been a few years, or it may simply have been a pause in construction over the winter months, during which a change of mind occurred.

South end of main range

One of the principal objectives of the c.1600 alterations was to square-up the canted southern end wall of the kitchen complex (Fig. 5). This was achieved by extending the structure out into the moat by rebuilding the southern wall (excepting a fragment at the extreme east end) and reconstructing the west wall northwards from the new SW quoin up to the earlier chimney, which was now much modified (Figs 6 and 7). The work was carried out in a mixture of brick and stone without, as far as can be told, incorporating any timber-framed construction. It incorporated stone ovolo-moulded windows absent of hood mouldings. The modification made during construction involved abandoning the intended walk-in eastern first-floor window in the south elevation and instead substituting a blind opening on the same site (see Fig. 8). This modification must in itself mean that the principal windows serving this part of the house were located within the east elevation, otherwise the main first-floor chamber would have been unlit.

There is no way of knowing what the internal layout of the earlier kitchen had been, but the size of the fireplace suggests that it had incorporated a large ground-floor room. This was all to change, for the extant southern stub of a north-south aligned internal partition, together with the configuration of the windows in the new external southern wall, show that two rooms were now incorporated at the range’s southern end, an arrangement which was repeated on both the ground and first floors (Figs 6 and 7). The available evidence suggests that the alterations to the southern end of the kitchen block provided a tall east-west aligned range capped by an externally dominant east-west aligned roof used as garret rooms. On the first floor the revised layout at this end of the range provided a relatively small western ante-chamber and a large, principal eastern chamber. Both chambers had very impressive storey heights of approximately 3.5m (c.11½ft) and were clearly intended as principal lodgings. The alterations made to the ground-floor layout allowed the formation of what seems to have been a specialized service room (with smoking chamber) in the newly formed western room.

The Smoking Chamber and Secret Compartment

The background to this is that from 1591 Scotney was the retreat of Father Richard Blount, a celebrated Jesuit priest, although not until 1598 was he looked for there by the authorities. Justices of the Peace raided the castle, while the Darells and their servants had been sent to Newgate Prison; the JPs left when Blount’s servant gave himself up as a decoy. It seems that the Darells had been interned in 1597, for a ‘Mistress Darell’ was allowed to leave Newgate Prison to deliver a child at Scotney that year. A second raid came from George Rivers JP at Christmas 1598; Thomas II’s widow and all her children were confined to ‘one room over the gate’. Blount was hiding ‘in another secret place digged in a thick stone wall’ and was able to make his escape.

In order to set up the new smoking arrangement with its secret compartment major alterations were made to the flue of the earlier kitchen chimney, forming an elevated smoking chamber projecting from the northern wall of the flue (Fig. 9). Associated with this, an ingeniously-devised stone compartment was formed immediately above the smoking chamber, accessed via a secret floor trap which was itself located with a ‘secret area’ immediately under the eaves to the north of the chimney. It was not only the northern half of the flue which was rebuilt at this time: to the south, the eastern tumbled part of the flue was removed (narrowing the original flue considerably) so that the chimney did not intrude into the corner of the new ante-chamber. Furthermore, an east-west aligned passageway was cut through the centre of the flue, giving access to the west range. This passage is now blocked, its blocked opening crossed by the south wall of the later stair well within the west range. The alterations to the flue seen extremely elaborate and, to large extent, unnecessary giving the amount of work they caused, with little gain. It seems likely that this was a deliberate ruse aimed at confusing anybody hunting for the secret compartment. If so, it was a good policy, for even today when the feature can be seen in a ruined state, it is extremely difficult to ascertain relationships of one part to another.

Depending upon the actual date of the alterations, the secret compartment could have been used to hide Father Blount during the searches carried out within the house in the 1590s: if so, it must have been very cramped for him, because it measured only 1.2-1.6m long, 1m wide and 1.2m high (4-5ft 3ins x 3ft 3ins x 4ft). If the secret compartment is later in date, it is very likely that it was installed in memory of Blount’s struggles.

Alterations to the main range, to the north of the kitchen area

Based upon the form of the late alterations, the northern part of the kitchen complex was probably retained at this period, though what can be certain is that by this date the kitchen complex had been joined to the house. This fact is indicated by a short section of wall which extends southwards from the SW corner of the medieval services and incorporates a square-headed ovolo-moulded doorway. The doorway, shown in Fig. 10, survives within the present eighteenth-century porch (see below).

What alterations were made to the northern part of the main house cannot be known, though the medieval remains incorporated into the northern end of the present ruin suggest that the hall remained open and in use at this period. However, to the north of the hall, where it is thought a parlour crosswing stood during the medieval period, there are indications of major re-design work. Here, in like fashion to the southern end of the kitchen area, a stone wall was pushed out into the moat, overcoming the canted alignment of the curtain wall in this area (see Fig. 5). There is, of course, no guarantee that this modification was of c.1600 date, it is only the similarity to the modifications at the opposite end of the range which suggests the likelihood. However, if this is the case, by this time the house extended continuously across the entire width of the island, very effectively dividing it into two parts.

Probable alterations to the West Range

There are two identifiable alterations of around this period: they cannot be sequenced and are not fully understood. Both involved modifications to the south slope of the roof over the west range.

The lower part of the western bay was modified by adjusting the purlins and forming some kind of link to the Ashburnham Tower, allowing access from the attic area, via a covered ‘bridge’, stepping down to a doorway cut through the tower wall. This gave access to the second floor of the Ashburnham Tower and, via the intramural stairs, to the first floor also. The doorway survives, though now converted into a window, lighting the medieval intra-mural staircase of the tower (Fig. 11). Other evidence of the ‘bridge’ is to be seen in modifications to the machicolations in this area. The likelihood is that the high-level link was formed by extending upwards the mid sixteenth-century garderobe contrived between the west range and tower (see Fig. 8). The present lean-to garderobe arrangement was only formed when the link was removed and the original roof slope reinstated.

There is a similar area of reconstruction at the eastern end of the roof slope. This may be associated with possible ‘additions’ built into the re-entrant angle between the west wing and the revised southern end of the kitchen block. However, it is thought more likely that in this instance the roof alterations are associated with the destruction of the eastern roof truss during alterations carried out in this area during the early seventeenth century. What is clear, however, is that something was either intended or actually built in the re-entrant angle between the two ranges, for the c.1600 west wall of the kitchen block incorporates a blocked first-floor doorway immediately to the south of the west wing’s south wall. The doorway could have been blocked as part of the plan modification work and certainly seems to have been blocked by the time of the next alterations in the 1630s. Regardless of whether the addition was ever constructed, the evidence suggests that it was intended to be a minor structure with thin walls – most likely it was planned as a garderobe projection.

The Fortunes of the Darell Family 1608-1720

Upon the death of Henry Darell sometime after 1608, Scotney was inherited by William Darell. It is this William who is believed to have rebuilt the southern half of the main range during the early 1630s, incorporating an imposing garden front designed in a Palladian style. Traditionally this attribution is based on the relaxation of the taxation burden on Recusants in 1630. How William Darell came to build such an aesthetically advanced building has not until now been accounted for, especially as he died with financial problems: he is seemingly otherwise historically invisible. Rupert Goulding has been able to establish a connection with a contemporary architect who designed similar elevations. William Darell’s mother was Margaret, daughter of Sir Edward Gage of Firle. More significantly, Margaret’s nephew (and so William’s cousin) was George Gage: diplomat, businessman and architect of Tart Hall, London. A comparison of the Scotney elevation with the only know drawing of Tart Hall, by Wenceslaus Holler, shows clear similarities (compare Figs 12 and 13): both buildings had three-storeyed facades, lateral string courses, small square ground-floor and second-floor windows, and a Piano Nobile lit by lofty rectangular windows.

William Darell died a debtor in 1638 whilst still quite young, perhaps explaining why his plans for Scotney were never fully executed. His brother, Henry, took over the estate’s management and paid his brother’s creditors. William’s widow was Elizabeth Appleton, with whom he had three daughters and four sons. These children were evidently young, for in 1640 Henry Darell petitioned the House of Commons regarding their education, describing Elizabeth Darell as a ‘violent Romanist’, employing a Catholic schoolmaster. He further noted that ‘Elizabeth keepeth her out dores locked up, the house being walled and double moated aboute; and keepeth the castle gates with gunnes and halbeards, to terrifie people from comeing there’.

The ownership of Scotney during the period between 1640 and 1720 has been confused in existing histories. It seems that as both father and son were called William and both married an Elizabeth, they have become conflated. We now know that the William Darell who died in 1638 was followed by his son, also called William Darell, who died in 1701. It was the second William Darell who married Elizabeth Warren, and this couple had the two sons, Thomas and Arthur, who were the last male Scotney Darells, dying in 1710 and 1720 respectively.

Under the Hundred of Loxfield Baker, Borough of Wadhurst, the 1662 Sussex hearth tax assessment includes William Darell, Esq. (William Darell senior’s son) assessed at 10 flues, followed by Henry Darell (William senior’s bother) at six flues. The likelihood is that both entries relate to Scotney, with William Darell occupying the southern part of the mansion, and his uncle, Henry, the northern part.

the ambitious building work of the 1630s

This was the major phase of alteration at Scotney – which, if completed would have transformed the building into something to rival such places as Petworth House for size and splendour (Fig. 14). In the event, less than half of the original design was built. The significance of the work which was completed is the advanced nature of the garden front which, as noted above, is likely to have been influenced (if not designed) by Darell’s relation by marriage, George Gage. Excepting this facade and the presence of a grand suite of ‘state apartments’, the work is unremarkable, having in many ways been cobbled together within the footprint of the earlier building, constrained by those parts of the earlier structure which were retained.

The plan in the mind of William Darell seems to have been to rebuild and remodel the main range as a lofty three-storeyed mansion, within the southern half of which were to be incorporated service rooms on the ground floor, a piano-nobile containing ‘state apartments’ on the first floor, and a further suite of less lofty chambers on the second floor. Externally, the objective was to achieve a grand symmetrical garden front (facing east) with a pedimented central section pulled forward. As with the existing house, this facade would have stretched right across the island site. Why he chose to face the principal elevation away from the direction of approach is unclear, especially as this display facade seems to have been totally hidden from public view. The implication is that Darell had plans for this eastern side of the estate – formal gardens perhaps, or a park. The design for the main approach from the west was far less ambitious, though if completed it too may have presented a degree of symmetry, offset on the site northwards in order to compensate for the west range and the angled entry through the gatehouse.

What was completed was the southern half of the main range, housing the principal private rooms. At this stage the medieval open hall was left standing, and almost certainly the high-end accommodation also, though the long-term plan appears to have been to either rebuild or remodel this part also to match the design of the southern section. The west wing was retained, though weathering courses and unused openings incorporated into the west wall of the mansion indicate that the intention was to remodel this too: indeed, the fact that the unused features were left so prominently visible suggests that this, rather than the hall part, was to be the next intended phase in the sequence of reconstruction work.

Given the sequence of reconstruction chosen, it is curious to note that the formal approach into the mansion was via the medieval hall, which it was not planned to reconstruct until a subsequent phase. The design indicates that a formal entrance hall was planned here, and it may even have been the intention to remodel the medieval hall for this purpose – this was certainly the plan in the short term. Whichever was the case, the approach to the new southern apartments was to be from the hall, southwards through a stone-architraved door, the cill of which was elevated 1.3m (4ft 3ins) above present ground level. An offset with associated skirting scar runs across the north face of the present wall, marking an elevated floor line intruded into the medieval hall. This shows that the intention was not to approach the door up a short flight of steps, but rather that the entire floor of the entrance area (presumably equating to the entire medieval hall) was to be elevated and that the re-located main external entrance was to be reached by a short flight of external steps.

The doorway from the entrance hall into the southern part of the house still survives, though its cill has been lost and visitors using the doorway today enter through the upper part of an intruded cellar door, with the threshold of the main entrance at near head height (Fig. 15). Most present-day visitors no doubt think the doorway to be a window with the area beneath the cill broken through. The opening is enriched with a simple projecting stone architrave of classical design (now mutilated). Curiously, and somewhat incongruously, the doorway is not central, but is crammed towards the front wall and, as such, does not form a particularly imposing entry to what must have been intended as the principal apartments of the house. This compromise, apparently, is a result of partially adapting an existing building, a decision which inevitably imposed constraints upon the design. The door led directly to the spacious landing of an imposing grand staircase hall with a short flight rising from it to the piano nobile and a second short flight descended back down to the ground floor. The latter allowed access to the garden, via a garden entrance located in what was (eventually) intended to be the pulled-forward central bay of the grand garden facade. Not only the garden, but also the ground-floor service areas could also be reached from this lower flight, but these rooms could also be accessed via the low ovolo-moulded doorway (c.1600) in the west front.

In the form the ruins survive today an external flight of steps built against the west front rise to an elevated entrance loggia above a porch, giving the principal means of access to the piano nobile. But this is a modification undertaken after 1758 (see below). The late eighteenth-century first-floor entrance doorway is thrust through an exceptionally lofty 1630s window, the cill of which was at the same level as the first floor. The reason for this exceptionally low cill is probably explained by the need to visually balance the cills of the corresponding window in the planned later-phase remodelled entrance hall. Although the cill of the adjacent window, serving the grand staircase immediately to the north, is today set at a standard height, there is evidence on the interior to suggest that this is a result of the late eighteenth-century alterations. This too was built initially as a tall window with low-level cill: it was apparently raised to its present level as part of these later alterations. What is unclear is whether the floor in the area immediately to the south of the grand staircase – the area lit by the lofty window – was kept low and was accessed off the staircase landing, or whether the floor was at the same level as in the other rooms within this part of the range, with the window cill at floor level.

Although the interior arrangement of the 1630s range was subjected to some modification during the late eighteenth-century (following demolition of the medieval hall) the basic layout remained unaltered and is known from plans made by the Hussey family immediately prior to demolition. As the reconstruction plans in Figs 16 and 17 indicate, the range was divided axially by a spine-wall, off-centred to west of central, following the line of the partition within the previously remodelled southern end of the range. On the ground floor the area to the south of the grand staircase was occupied by the service rooms – servants’ hall and kitchen in the larger rooms to the east, lesser rooms to the west. The ground-floor of the west wing continued to be accessed from the extreme southern end of the main range and likewise utilized as service areas.

Nicholas Cooper has pointed out that on the first floor the rooms extending down the eastern side of the range, returning across the south, seem to have been designed as a classic sequence of grand state apartments, with what was later called a ‘library’ in the larger western room, with other spaces used for circulation. The rooms on this floor were now loftier: they were 4.2m (13ft 9ins) from floor to ceiling, compared to 3.2m (10ft 6ins) on the ground floor and c.2.7m (8ft 10ins) on the storey above. The second storey seems only to have been reached from the staircase in the west wing and probably served as the Darell’s private chambers with, according to Hussey, a chapel at the southern end. The internal layout at this level at this period is uncertain: a plan as in 1837, drawn by Hussey based upon memory, provides some evidence. Above the second-floor rooms was the roof, at least part of which was used as an attic area, as indicated by a high-level window still extant in the western gable.

East Elevation (Garden Facade)

The importance of the 1630s work at Scotney is its garden front, of brick construction, but faced externally in neatly-dressed ashlar sandstone blocks. Now in ruins, the destroyed parts can be reconstructed with confidence from drawings made of it in the 1780s: that by the artist S.H. Grimm is reproduced in Fig. 18. As Fig. 13 indicates, it is an early example of a regimented, symmetrical, Palladian-style three-storeyed facade, the central storey far more lofty than those above and below. As built, it is divided into two parts: a main southern element seven bays in length, and a single-bay northern element which is pulled forward slightly. Almost certainly the long-term plan was for the single-bay projecting part to have formed the central feature in an exceptionally long, symmetrical, fifteen-bay facade in which the northern part would have replicated that to the south. In the event, only the return stub of this northern part was built and the much less lofty medieval house was retained instead.

The seven-bay southern element of the facade terminates at its southern end in a plain full-height buttress, cradled over the lowered medieval curtain wall. Both the buttress and the facade incorporate three tiers of string courses, plain save for a simple base moulding to the two upper tiers. These divide the elevation in its height, the whole capped by a heavy eaves cornice with a steeply-pitched hipped roof above. Regularly-spaced timber window frames set within plain eared surround, which are pulled-forward, rise from each string course, which in the 1630s design doubled as cills (middle tier modified subsequently). The frames have gone, but each window must have been of two panes, the central, more lofty tier augmented by transoms. At this middle level the surrounds are capped by hoods of classical design, with moulded ends, still further emphasising the importance of the central storey.

Intended as the central feature of the facade, the elaboration on the pulled-forward bay to the north is enriched, though still restrained. Here the toothed, but otherwise plain quoins project. The bay was capped by a pediment, standing forward of the hipped roof above. In contrast to the main part of the elevation, there is no low-level string course and the two upper tiers are enriched beneath by plain projecting dentil blocks, visible in Fig. 19. In the lower storey is the garden entrance, capped by a simple blank oculus. Like the windows, the doorway has a projecting eared surround, but here the surround takes the form of a simply-moulded architrave, as is also the case with the surround to the window immediately above. Here the classical hood is enriched with stops in the form of Ionic volutes (apparently imitating a stretched Ionic capital) supported by scroll foliage brackets – a very distinctive feature (Fig. 19). Above it is a fine-grained, white, limestone plaque carrying the arms of the Darell family, differenced to indicate the Scotney branch.

South and West Elevations

In marked contrast to the show facade at the rear of the house, the other elevations were far less accomplished, being a jumble of mixed styles (Figs 20 and 21). In fact, the south elevation represents an adaptation of what already existed, in that the c.1600 wall (including the window arrangement) was retained and an extra storey simply added above it. Here the wall is brick faced (to match that on the storey beneath), but rather than being punctuated by two windows as on the storeys below, there are three. From the late eighteenth-century drawings and the fragments which survive it can be ascertained that these second-floor windows were of identical design to those at the same level within the garden facade, except that in this instance the stone surrounds did not project.

The west elevation – the elevation fully visible upon approaching the mansion – was even more jumbled in its appearance (Fig. 21). Its southern end abuts the west range and incorporates weathering courses for an intended new roof of ‘M’ section, complete with a raised central valley. In this wall there is also a high-level doorway with arched head. This would have fitted under the raised valley of the intended ‘M’ roof, but in the interim the roof-line of the mid sixteenth-century roof cut diagonally across it. Therefore, in readiness for the intended rebuild, the doorway was temporarily blocked using a half-brick skin which was laid in daub so that it could easily be removed upon completion of the planned next phase of work. All the windows in this gable are at high level, being above the roof weatherings. That within the gable is more traditional in its design than those in the garden front in that it is entirely of stone, complete with ovolo-moulded stone surround and mullion.

The areas to the north of the west range incorporate a projecting wing with a two-bay front, separated from the west range by a recessed area of one bay, with string course. To the north of the projecting wing are a further two bays (also with string course) before the facade met the retained medieval hall. In this part the c.1600 ovolo-moulded ground-floor doorway was retained, but otherwise the openings have plain, projecting stone surrounds, originally fitted with timber frames. Inexplicably, at this period the first- and second-floor storeys within the wing had a timber-framed front, located between stone flanking walls. The framing has now gone, but the impressions of the timbers are still visible in the later stone encasing: it was of regularly-spaced studwork of a type which was just beginning to be adopted in high-quality houses at this period, designed to be masked both internally and externally by cladding/plasterwork. Most likely the external cladding took the form of a rendered covering, marked out in imitation of ashlar masonry in like fashion to the rendering applied over the close studding in the north wall of the west range, which was probably also applied at this period.

The west elevation’s lack of symmetry is perhaps misleading in that, had the medieval house to the north been rebuilt/remodelled to the same height, a symmetrical facade would probably have been achieved. Indeed, this likely intention probably explains the extant projecting wing in as much as, because of the layout of the site, the main entrance to the house would always have been north of central, contrasting with the centrally-placed garden doorway in the grand garden front. Thus, the face wing was probably incorporated in order to move the balance of the west facade northwards, thereby achieving symmetry about the main entrance doorway. Even so, the facade would never have looked elegant, being capped as it was by a series of hipped roofs which projected forward from the principal roof over the eastern part of the main range. A similar arrangement was used by Gage at Tart Hall but there the forward-projecting roofs were terminated using elaborate gables, rather than hips as at Scotney. Apart from the northernmost in the sequence, each of these forward-projecting roofs incorporated a heavy chimney cap rising from the range’s off-centred spine wall, still further marring the appearance of the elevation.

A second campaign of works in the 1630s, apparently associated with the abandonment of the intention to remodel or totally rebuild the west range, tidied up the junction between the main range and west range (toothed stonework had been left at the end of the main range’s return wall) and involved installing a new staircase on the site of the mid sixteenth-century flight. It seems likely that this abandonment of the grand plan for the house at Scotney followed William Darell’s untimely death in 1638.

Staircase in West Range

It would appear that, having made the decision to retain the existing west range unaltered, a new improved staircase was installed upon the site of its predecessor. The intention appears to have been to improve circulation between the new main range and the retained 1550s west range whilst, at the same time, providing a more elegant staircase with less-steep steps. Certainly the new staircase took up more space than its predecessor, for it not only blocks the passage constructed through the chimney flue c.1600, but also cuts across a doorway within the stud partition in the earlier roof, necessitating the insertion of a new doorway further north. To achieve the larger staircase it was necessary to modify the layout of the range’s eastern bay, sizing down the southern room and chamber and giving revised access to the principal western rooms by adjusting the door locations.

The staircase survives as built, except the lower flight was adjusted during the late eighteenth century in order to further modify the circulation pattern within the house. Originally, on the ground floor the stair was reached from the kitchen block only, with no direct communication between it and the ground-floor rooms within the west wing. In this original configuration a short lower flight rose direct from the kitchen within the main range to a quarter landing, where it turned through 90 degrees before rising via a straight flight to a half landing at mid-storey height (see Fig. 16). From here upwards the stair still remains in its original form, with a further flight rising to a half landing at first-floor level. This half landing gave easy access to the first-floor chambers within both the west range and the main range. A further three short flights, linked by two half landings, gave access to the attic rooms in the west range and, via the further short straight flight, to the second-floor gallery and chambers in the main range. The stair’s balustrading has symmetrically-turned balusters rising from decorated strings, all capped by grip handrails. Both the strings and handrails are jointed into decorated, rectangular-section newels which are each common to two flights and rise continuously up through the building. The timber is somewhat knotty and the carving crude, contrasting markedly with the quality of the earlier 1630s work, suggesting financial constraints.

Junction between West Range and Main Range

The only external modification in the second campaign which is identif-iable can be seen immediately to the south of the Library wing, in the recently built stone northern return wall of the west range. Because it had been intended to either remodel or rebuild the west range, the western end of this return wall had evidently been left with toothings in readiness for the next phase. Once this intention was abandoned, the toothed end was tidied up as a vertical reveal – the ‘repair’ is still clearly visible in the masonry.

The final Darrell occupation and the arrival of the Hussey Family

On the death of Arthur Darell in 1720 Scotney passed to a cousin from the Calehill branch of the family. George Darell, second son of John Darell of Calehill, acquired not only Scotney, but also legal challenges from Arthur’s sisters. These were finally settled in 1750 with £900 paid to Lucy Westbrooke. As a consequence of these challenges, George was required to sell off pieces of the Scotney estate to fund the settlements. In 1725 George Darell is recorded in the list of Sussex recusants being ‘of Lamberhurst’, and the same year being ‘of Goudhurst’; he married Mary Lowe in 1726 – the change in parish may be because, historically, the boundary ran through the house. The demolition of the Great Hall at about this time may have caused an administrative shift from Lamberhurst to Goudhurst, where the southern part of the main range and the west range was situated.

John Darell inherited both Scotney and its associated financial issues from his father at some unknown point. This would have been by 1758, when John commissioned William Clout to map his estate. These plans survive at Scotney alongside copies made by Edward Hussey III. Not only do these maps show the land holdings, but one map has drawings of the Old Castle’s front and rear elevations – unfortunately, they are not fit for reproduction here, but they show the exterior of the house in its 1630s configuration. John Darell’s first marriage to Catherine Bedingfield brought a dowry of £2,000; and after her death in 1761 John married a Rebecca Mary, daughter of a London tailor, with a £1,000 dowry. This was not enough and John had debts of £4,600 in 1768, and died a debtor in 1775.

Scotney was put into trust, possibly before John’s death, with the trust-ees being John’s son, John, and his widow’s subsequent second husband, Henry Hornby of Eltham. Scotney ultimately left the Darell family when it was sold to John Richards, a dancing master and property speculator from Robertsbridge. This may have been in 1774, and so relates to a sale particular which survived until recently at the Chequers Inn, Lamberhurst. Though now lost, a transcript gives a fairly full picture of the castle Edward Hussey was soon to acquire:

The mansion house [is described as having been] lately substantially repaired, and surrounded by a large Moat of running Water, well stocked with Fish; in the Moat an Island, and a Chinese Bridge over a small River; the Ground floor consists of Front and Back kitchens, etc., Housekeeper’s room, a Parlour; on the first Floor, 2 Parlours, a large dining-room, a Breakfast and 2 Dressing-rooms, 5 Bedchambers, a Study and Library; on the second Floor, 8 rooms; Kitchen and Pleasure gardens within the moat, planted with plenty of Fruit trees and Flowers; without the Gates a Garden, Shrubbery, Warren, Orchard, Coach-house, Brew-house, Stabling for 8 horses and other offices; a cold Bath with an excellent Mineral Well of the same quality as that at Tunbridge Wells.

Edward Hussey was already familiar with Scotney Castle before he purchased the estate in 1778. He was the ‘young Mr Hussey’ recorded in the diaries of Miss Pratt of Bayham Abbey, part of a regular social group who met in and around Lamberhurst, including at Scotney Castle. Edward’s grandfather had moved the Husseys from Staffordshire to Sussex, and lived initially in Battle, but in 1721 moved to Rampyndene in Burwash. Edward Hussey was a barrister of Middle Temple, though seems to have been more involved with cricket than the Bar, playing for England in 1797. Edward was also involved with the revival of interest in archery, which was to remain a tradition for the Husseys and Scotney.

In 1775 he married Elizabeth-Sarah Bridge (d.1793); their eldest son was also an Edward, born in 1780. In 1798 Edward Hasted published his History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, which provides a vivid image of Scotney:

About half a mile below Bewl bridge, near the east bank of the stream, is the mansion of Scotney, situated in a deep vale, and so surrounded with woods, as to give it a most gloomy and recluse appearance; it is a handsome stone building, and appears to be only the half of what was first intended to be built. It was moated round, and had, till the late Mr. Darell pulled them down, a stronge stone gate-way, with towers, &c. seemingly intended to guard the approach to it. The river, which here divides the two counties, once ran through the centre of the ground plat, on which the house stands.

Edward Hussey I died 1816; his son Edward II died the next year, 1817, in London after a long illness. Inventories made of the Old Castle on both deaths survive. In 1816 the castle had thirteen rooms with beds; such as the ‘Chintz Room’ and the ‘White Room’ with mahogany four-posters. The drawing room contained a harpsichord, the study ‘an ancient oak Cupboard’ and the ‘boarded Hall’ a ‘model of Castle and stand’. The entire inventory was valued at £800. The inventory made in 1817 is not valued, but does show some changes. The study was now called a ‘School room’, into which the harpsichord had been moved. The library now contained significantly more volumes, and a wine cellar is listed, containing 65 dozen bottles of port.

The Alterations in the second half of the Eighteenth Century

It is clear from Clout’s map, with its sketch elevations, that already by 1758 the house had been downsized by demolishing the old medieval hall and everything which stood to its north. In the place of the hall a small two-storeyed service outshut – effectively a semi-sunken cellar with a first-floor area at mezzanine level – was built against the north wall of the main range’s retained part. The loss of the hall, which from the 1630s onwards had served as the mansion’s grand entrance area, must have made the house very inconvenient to use, for the principal rooms continued to be on the first floor and could therefore now only be reached either from the west range or via the low, and rather mean c.1600 ovolo-moulded ground-floor doorway in the west wall of the main range. Clearly, if the house was to remain in use, it had to be improved.

Most of the developments were either carried out by John Darell or, more likely, by John Richards between 1758 and 1774, though some may relate to the first period of Hussey occupation; drawings made by Grimm in 1783 confirm that they had been undertaken by that date. Not surprisingly, they seem to have had the intention of improving access to the principal rooms on the first floor of the main range and of aesthetically developing the Old Castle, perhaps to provide a more unified western face for a building made of many different materials, styles and ages. Particularly obvious are the alterations made to the western gable wall of the west range, designed to absorb the attached chimney structure within the plane of the wall. The most striking aesthetic change, however, was to the west front of the main range, where a new external stair was built in order to provide easy first-floor access.

Modifications to the main range

The most obvious of the mid eighteenth-century improvements is immediately apparent by comparing a 1758 sketch of the main front (not reproduced here) with that drawn by Grimm in 1783. As a comparison between Fig. 21 and Fig. 22 makes clear, an elegant porch has been added over the ovolo-moulded service door, built into the re-entrant angle between the library projection and the main west wall. Although this provided a more appropriate adornment to this entrance, it was not its main purpose, for this doorway was returned to its original service function. The main purpose of the porch was to provide a firm platform (carried on a barrel vault) serving as a landing to an elegant external flight of steps rising to a new first-floor external doorway which led direct to the piano nobile. The new stair is of solid construction (with a barrel-vaulted dog kennel beneath), leading to an open-sided loggia serving as an elevated porch in front of the new semi-circular headed doorway intruded slightly off-centred through the earlier, lofty, 1630s window.

Probably also at this time the 1630s partly timber-framed and weather-clad front wall of the library wing was false fronted in stone, with the stonework on the ground floor merely built in front of the earlier ground-floor stonework. At the upper level the timber frame was simply built around and in front of – it has since rotted away and can be seen as empty horizontal and vertical ‘ghosts’ in the stonework. The false front is easily detectable from the exterior by the straight joints running up the north and south quoins. The windows in the new facade differ from those of the 1630s in that the heads incorporate alternating projecting voussoirs which break through the surround.

Little other structural external alteration appears to have been made to the 1630s part of the main range, though already by the 1780s the opportunity was taken of installing new window frames within the garden front. As part of this work, the first-floor windows within the seven-bay principal part of the facade were enlarged by lowering the level of the cills, cutting through the string course.

In order to better suit the house to its reduced size, other mid/late eighteenth-century alterations were made. At the northern end scars and offsets in the extant north wall indicate that the grand stair was now rebuilt in a sized-down form so as to allow an additional first-floor chamber to be created where the main landing had once been. The room was heated by a chimney added against the north wall: clearly visible in the plans and the late eighteenth-century illustrations, but now totally destroyed. At the opposite end of the range a brewhouse with at least two phases of roof lines, and therefore remodelled at least once was added onto the southern end of the main range, extending out into the moat upon a purposely-formed platform which extended up to the Ashburnham Tower. The first phase of this was as a small lean-to addition, but already by the time of Grimm’s drawing made in 1783 it had been rebuilt with a pitched roof turned perpendicular to the south elevation (see Fig. 18). This brewhouse, at least in its second phase, robbed the range’s south-western room of all direct natural light, having been built across that room’s only window. Indeed, access to the brewhouse was through this window, two lights of which were converted into a doorway. Plans of the house made immediately prior to demolition show a staircase in the brewhouse, rising to what appears to have been a servant’s loft within the roof of the outhouse – the staircase is shown in Fig. 23. No doubt there were other modifications too, but, if so, these cannot now be recovered.

Alterations to the west range

As a comparison of Fig. 23 and Fig. 24 with Figs 16 and 17 will make clear, considerable mid/late 18th-century alterations were carried out to the internal layout of the west range in order to improve the convenience of the accommodation. The present first-floor arrangement within the principal bed chamber, with ‘Gothick’ bed recess and adjacent closet dates from this general period, as too do the projecting ‘Gothick’ windows shown by Grimm, but since rebuilt (Fig. 25). On the ground floor the lower flights of the staircase were re­designed by totally removing the lowest flight and associated quarter landing, re-setting the next flight at a steeper level, and re-designing the half landing as a pair of quarter landings separated from one another by a step. By carrying out these modifications a passage was formed at the base of the stairs, giving a lobby served by a new external doorway cut through the range’s north wall, on the site of a window. Doorways to east and west connected to the main range and to a new parlour (panelled) to the west, formed by sizing down the existing room by inserting a passage area to the south.

Major alterations were made to the range’s western end wall, pushing out the wall flush with the rear face of the 1550s chimney and blocking the external recess at the base of the chimney so as to insert a new fireplace serving the parlour (Fig. 26). Improvements were also made within the roof of the range, providing the principal attic bedroom with a re-used Tudor fireplace and a gable window.

Possible alterations to the Ashburnham Tower

Although the present conical roof which caps the Ashburnham Tower is of nineteenth-century date, the illustrations made in the 1780s (including that reproduced in Fig. 25) indicate that already by that time a very similar-looking roof existed, capped by a lantern. This may have formed part of the late eighteenth-century alterations, though, if so, it is surprising that it needed replacing so quickly. Alternatively, it may have been added earlier, and although it has been decided not to show it in the reconstruction reproduced in Fig. 20, the tower may always have had such a roof.

Alterations made between the 1780s and 1837

A number of minor alterations were carried out to the house subsequent to the principal late eighteenth-century modifications, but prior to demolition. Some of the internal alterations to the west range, such as the first-floor bed recess for instance, would fit more comfortably around 1800 than during the late 1770s or 1780s. In similar fashion, alterations are known to have been made to the principal west front, probably aimed at improving its appearance. Principal amongst these was the addition of a parapet – clearly shown in Edward Hussey’s drawing made on the 30th June 1836 (Fig. 27) but not depicted in the drawings made during the 1780s. Likewise, Hussey’s drawing shows a bell turret added astride the ridge of the roof since the 1780s. These alterations are clear proof that modifications were still being carried out at this time.

It is not known what happened to Scotney between Edward Hussey I’s death and the time his grandson, Edward III, reached maturity in 1828. The family were certainly resident at the old castle on occasions; their stays are recorded in Edward III’s book of memoranda. Edward III’s mother refused to live at the castle as the bad air caused the early deaths of her father-in-law, husband and then daughter Ellen Louisa. As a consequence she moved the family to St Leonards on Sea. After reaching his maturity in 1828 Edward Hussey III became actively involved in his Scotney Estate. That year he commissioned an estate map; and in the following years was involved in the re-routing of the A21, tree planting and land drainage. Edward Hussey certainly had concerns with the Old Castle. From 8 September to 1 December 1833 he recorded the temperatures at a variety of locations around the moat and river course, as well as at the New House site. At one point he made a list of ‘objections to the Present House at Scotney’. These included a lack of dressing rooms and bedrooms, the cold and damp in the evenings, the noises and smells emanating from the kitchens beneath the dining and drawing room, the lack of a pleasant north-east view, ‘hills every way going out’, and that the entrance was bad in wet weather.

It was on the 30 October 1834 that Edward Hussey III first wrote to the architect, Anthony Salvin, with regards to designing a new house, the day after visiting his friend Robert Alexander at Somerhill, Tonbridge, where Salvin had been working on the Jacobean house. The first stone of the New House was laid on 25 February 1837 and Edward moved from the Old Castle to Down House, Lamberhurst, on 16 March 1836 ‘for purpose of taking down old house’

Having moved out of the old castle, the west range of the mansion was retained for staff accommodation, but the main range was selectively dismantled to the ruined state it is today, carefully designed to serve as a romantic landscape feature. Some new fabric was inserted in this process of ruination in order to block former internal doorways which became exposed in the east face of the west range, and at the same time three small lean-to roofs were added to protect vulnerable features.

acknowledgements

In 2008 a programme of quinquennial repairs were put in hand at Scotney Castle, and, as part of this work the National Trust took the opportunity to carry out limited targeted recording of those parts not normally accessible. This work coincided with the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan for Scotney. With this in mind, the Trust extended the recording by commissioning Archaeology South-East, University College London, to carry out an interpretative survey of the house as a whole.

Throughout the project there was a close working relationship between the project staff of Archaeology South-East and the regional office of the National Trust at Scotney, in particular with Rupert Goulding, who was responsible for preparing a Conservation Management Plan. Elements of Rupert’s work have been incorporated within this report, in particular with regards to his research into the documentary background of the site. We are extremely grateful to him for making available pictorial information regarding the castle, particularly 18th- and 19th-century plans and drawings. In addition to Rupert, we would also like to extend our warmest thanks to the National Trust staff in general, and in particular to Caroline Thackray (former Territory Archaeologist) and Emma Slocombe (Curator) for their help and encouragement throughout the project. A close working relationship between Archaeology South-East and the contractors, A.T. Palmer Ltd was essential for the success of the project: their cooperation throughout cannot be faulted, and for this we wish to thank, in particular, the help of their site representative, Colin Maddocks. Finally, we would like to extend our thanks to the well-known expert on Polite architecture, Nicholas Cooper. He showed us utmost patience in discussing the finer aspects of the building’s design, and, in particular, whilst putting us right – politely – regarding the dating of the 1630s garden elevation: being primarily involved in more humble dwellings, we found it hard to accept the date normally attributed to the work and, for a long time, seriously considered that a much later date was more likely.

Fig. 1 Outline plan showing position of the new west range, built during the 1550s.

Fig. 2 Reconstructed long section and cross section through the new west range.

Fig. 3 Formerly projecting brick chimney built into present western end wall. Note the arched head of former external recess (now partly hidden by shrubbery).

Fig. 4 Plans of the ground and upper floors of the new west range (some features conjectural).

Fig. 5 Outline plan showing the rebuilt services, on the site of the original kitchens, of the c.1600 phase.

Fig. 6 Reconstructed ground-floor plan of the kitchen range c.1600.

Fig. 8 Reconstruction of the eastern end of the South elevation c.1600. (Parapet, etc., on Ashburnham Tower conjectural.)

Fig. 7 Reconstructed first-floor plan of the kitchen range c.1600.

Fig. 9 Cutaway reconstruction drawing of the chimney complex as revised c.1600; viewed from the south-east showing the secret compartment, secret entrance area under the eaves and passage through the flue.

Fig. 10 Square headed ovolo-moulded doorway c.1600 (surviving within late eighteenth-century porch).

Fig. 11 Inserted doorway (now a window) which formerly gave access, via a demolished link, from the roof of the west range to the second-floor chamber in the Ashburnham Tower. The head is stepped to suit the angle of the former stair which led down from the attic room.

Fig. 12 Much enlarged detail of Tart Hall, London, as drawn by Wenceslaus Holler in the 1630s.

Fig. 13 Reconstruction of the 1630s garden facade at Scotney.

Fig. 14 Outline plan of the 1630s alterations to the Main Range.

Fig. 15 Doorway leading from entrance hall to the grand staircase. The base of the doorway is the point where the projecting surround terminates; an elevated floor crossed the entrance hall at this height.

Fig. 16 Reconstructed 1630s ground-floor plan.

Fig. 17 Reconstructed 1630s first-floor plan.

Fig. 18 Extract from S.H. Grimm’s 1783 illustration (BL Add MS 5670, f.1) showing the exterior from the south-east after the cills and window frames in the 1630s garden front had been lowered. Contrary to the illustration, the string course does not step and there were seven, rather than six windows.

Fig. 19 Surviving detail of first-floor window head, coat of arms and enriched string course.

Fig. 20 Reconstruction of the 1630s south elevation. Compare with Fig. 8. (Parapet, etc., on Ashburnham Tower conjectural.)

Fig. 21 Reconstruction of the 1630s main front (west) elevation.

(Surviving and lost earlier fabric not differentiated.)

Fig. 22 Reconstructed west front of main range following late eighteenth-century alterations.

Fig. 23 Reconstructed ground-floor plan following late eighteenth-century alterations part based on plan drawn in 1837, room names as given then.

Fig. 24 Reconstructed first-floor plan following late eighteenth-century alterations.

Fig. 25 Extract from S.H. Grimm’s 1783 illustration (BL Add MS 5670, f.1 (2)) showing the exterior from the north-west. Note the end lean-to outshut on the left with, to its right, the stairs rising to the porch. The projecting windows were subsequently rebuilt.

Fig. 26 Reconstructed western gable wall of west range following late eighteenth-century alterations.

Fig. 27 Sketch of the house made by Edward Hussey in 1836 immediately prior to partial demolition.