WAS DEDISHAM MANOR REALLY KNOCKED ABOUT BY WALLER’S TROOPS DURING THE CIVIL WAR?

2008-10-11T09:53:00.000-07:00

This is a question which has puzzled local historians ever since the Revd. Dallaway, Rector of Slinfold, wrote a Sussex History in the early years of the 19th century, in which he stated that there is a tradition that the manor house was ransacked by Sir William Waller’s Parliamentary troops in 1643, and afterwards left to decay.

It is true that the present Manor has an unsusual shape, taking the appearance of a surviving wing to a much larger edifice. According to Diana Chatwin’s structural survey report, it can be described as “a long narrow house; ten bays in length, and just one bay deep. The eastern end is the oldest, being Mediaeval, and various bits have been added on to it at different times, ending with a brick-built section at the west dating from the late 1600s. The Mediaeval part of the building extended further east than it does today and contained a large upper chamber, only part of which is now left.”

However, The WAS Field Unit has conducted a restivity survey around the perimiter of the house and could find no evidence to suggest footings of a much larger structure. I must stress that I am not saying there were none, but that none were revealed by the survey.

Personally, I have little knowledge of building construction, and leave such things to those who have wiser heads on their shoulders about such matters. I posed the question of the possibility of a larger building with a colleague, and having studied the structural survey carried out by Diana Chatwin, he observed “Is there any substance to the evidence or suggestions in the structural report, that the building was larger? Misreading a reference to a repair can easily lead to such an assumption. For instance, section 11 refers to an eastern crown post that indicates a further bay to the east. I immediately see two alternative explanations: a) Reuse of material; this is backed up by evidence of reused material elsewhere in the building; b) separate buildings (supported by the reference to butt-purlins) which have been consolidated into one at some time, and the last bay lost later due to lack of upkeep or even a sacking. Ditto to the west. Also, in the comments section it says, "There is no indication of whether this might have originally been a cross-wing or not." which I interpret as saying there is no evidence that we have a larger building with wings.”

It is interesting to read in Rodney Fleetwood Tatchell's "Manor Houses of Sussex " published 1931 as an offprint from RIBA Journal Vol xxxviii, No 16 and which won the coveted RIBA Prize Essay award in 1930, that "One does not find in Sussex, as a rule, mansions of very considerable size. Here is, indeed, the house of the yeoman-farmer or squire, and it seems consistent with the kindly domesticity of the County that her old houses should possess a quiet unpretentious charm".

My own views are well known as to the reason why I believe the manor takes on the shape it does, and that I sincerely believe that it stands on the footprint of a Roman long-house styled villa. No Roman Villas have been identified in the Slinfold area, and the close proximity of this structure to the Romano-British Settlement and Mansio of Alfoldean in an adjoining field, adds credence to this assertion. As yet, I must stress, I have no firm evidence that this is the case except that Winbolt reported in the 1930s that quantities of Roman CBM were found in the gardens of the manor house. Could they perhaps be remnants of a building predating the earliest portions of the existing structure?

The origin of the name Dedisham is also curious, and one postulation put forward by Richard Coates in his 1980-1 work Review of A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith (1979) The place-names of Roman Britain, Journal of the English Place-Name Society 13 pp. 59-71 [at p. 67] is that it stems from the word Mutuantonis, an alternative for Mansio. In his explanation, (and this is fodder for the Linguists amongst us). He says, “This name appears to be in the general area of Sussex, and R & S do some gymnastic philology to relate it to the river name TRISANTONA, i.e. the ubiquitous FL (U) plus TRISANTON- . It cannot be denied that they make a fair case. It was undeniably written inland, and so it seems just as simple to see this as an example of the form MUTATIONES “posting station” which is found as a place name as appreciable number of times on the continent. (Against this proposal and for theirs is an í in the final syllable…If this name referred to the posting station at Alfoldean, we could arrive at a neat origin for the peculiar name Dedisham, adjacent to Alfoldean. Assume two “British” forms: MUTATIO and a more fossilised oblique form MUTATIONE or plural MUTATIONES. MUTATIO is late British Mǖdądiǖ. MUTATIONE(S) is late British Mǖdadįǖn with Vulgar Latin pretonic short a. If you will allow the aphaeresis of MU-… we will have dắdįǖ and dadįǖn, yielding probable English Doddi and Dæddi(n). Curiously enough, we find early variations between two virtually identical forms to these in history of Dedisham (PNSx p.159); the editors of PNSx take it to be from a personal name. It is just possible rather, that it is a survival of (MU)TATIO(NE(S))….”

A scenario, entirely conjectural, could well be that the Prefect of the cohort at the Mansio was living a reasonably comfortable life as part of the garrison to a substantial private estate. The Mansio farmstead had been built on the banks of the River Trisantona and under normal circumstances that would not only have been a great honour, but would also have increased his wages quite considerably. Could it be that he ploughed his money into having a Villa built for himself nearby, so he could live a life more in accordance with his new-found status, rather than remain billeted with his troops?

I leave that speculation there and now refocus upon the main thrust of this article. If Waller’s troops did not attack the Manor, what gave rise to the tale?

At the same time that I tackled a colleague about the manor house having been larger than at present, as a further comment to those given above, he went on to observe “I suppose I am having difficulty with the idea of a significantly larger manor house. Wouldn't this make it a "palace" and require the owner to be a lord of the realm or a bishop/archbishop? Is there any evidence of significantly larger manor houses? Or evidence that a lord of the realm owned the estate? Would the Earls of Onslow have sufficient wealth and status? I'm not sure that an earl is really high enough.”

What I find very strange is that if Dedisham Manor was such a large and imposing country “pile”,(a reasonable assumption to make if it were true that the surviving building was but a wing of a former larger building), then why is there no reference to the attack in any of the books on the Civil War, as indeed they do survive for other large properties in the County – Cowdray, Petworth, Parham, and even Stansted House? I have studied a plethora of books on the subject (see references below) and can find nothing whatsoever.

So what historical evidence do we have to the contrary, to support my assertion that it was not attacked.

Firstly, we have the matter of ownership. Sir Richard Onslow of Knowle Park, Cranley, purchased the house and estate in 1650 from Dame Mary Lewknor, relict of Sir Lewis Lewkenor, who then ceased her occupation of the property (SRO GMR Onslow 97/13/732). Sir Richard had already purchased The Manorial Rights from the 4-daughter co-heiresses of Sir Richard Blount, who died in 1629, but there was no written proof of title. Therefore, on 4th May 1636, a Finalis Concordia was resorted to (MP23 R21. WSRO).

Dallaway states that Dedisham was afterwards left to decay. What remains, he says, is just some of the offices which have for many years been occupied as a farmhouse. “While there is no documentary evidence to corroborate Dallaway’s statement, it does seem that from the mid-1600s, Dedisham was a farmhouse, rather than the mansion house it was previously, and for many years it was occupied by the Puttock family who farmed the land” (Chatwin, Diana, WSCT Feb 1989).

From this time, the Onslows became absentee landlords and Dedisham began to be occupied by tenant farmers. Sir Richard Onslow was of a wealthy and powerful family “which was to produce three Speakers to the House of Commons, were traditionally Lords Lieutenant of Surrey, and represented Guildford for 300 years. He found Cranleigh too remote to his political interests, and moved his seat to Clandon Park in 1641. During the Civil War he led the combined Surrey regiments on the Parliamentary side, and afterwards was speaker of the House of Commons during the Commonwealth. Being one of Cromwell's trusted aides his property would not have been harmed, or if so by mistake, he would have been amply compensated.” (Siney, Alan, unpublished manuscript Rudgwick’s Forgotten Industry: Dedisham Iron Furnace & Forge etc. Rudgwick Preservation Society ).

So, if it was not Dedisham Manor that was sacked, if indeed a sacking took place, where or what was sacked? May I postulate that the target was in fact Dedisham Forge which lay adjacent to the Manor and was at that time in the hands of a turncoat Royalist, who in all likelihood was supplying armaments to the King’s forces.

The Furnace house is dated to c1580 (Diana Chatwin, The Development of Timber-Framed Buildings in the Sussex Weald – The Architectural Heritage of Rudgwick), but this does not necessarily date the furnace.

Reference to Political Histories for Sussex, and to recent publications of Waller’s own Despatches slowly allowed the unravelling of this conundrum.

Dedisham Forge had been in the hands of the Middleton Family since at least 1597 (PRO, REQ2 166/46), then known as Detsom Forge. The Middletons also had other Ironworking interests, and in 1595 John Middleton had leased Gosden Furnace at Lower Beeding to William & Neville Cheeseman, with part of the deal being that the Cheesemans would supply Middleton with sows (iron ingots). Gosden Furnace was on the site of what is now Leonardslee Gardens, where the ponds have since been landscaped.

The document here referred to contains depositions that Thomas Middleton had in the Maytide of 1597 taken divers tons of sows laying at Gosden Furnace and carried them to Detsom Forge. Basically, it had been stated that the Cheesemans at Gosden were producing “the worst Iron in all of Sussex”(Cleere & Crossley, The Iron Industry of the Weald, Merton Priory Press 1995) and it would appear that Middleton had taken it upon himself to replace the inferior stuff previously delivered or to take more than the agreed amount to make up for its poor value. (Alan Siney, ibid). It took until 1602 to resolve the issue.

Dedisham Furnace and forge were in common occupation during this period and it would certainly have been easy to carry sows a little over a quarter of a mile from one to the other. From Gosden to Detsom, however, was a different matter and was a very long way to cart the heavy sows, but not as far as some (Cleere & Crossley, ibid.), and must have contributed not inconsiderably in churning the roads into impassable tracks.

The Middletons still had an interest in Dedisham Ironworks and grew in status. John Middleton bought Hill’s Place in Horsham in 1608, and was elected the Member of Parliament for the town in 1624. His son, Thomas, was elected in 1640 when on 3rd November the Long Parliament met at Westminster. Sussex returned 28 members, who, judged by their subsequent conduct, may be classed as 17 Roundheads and 11 Cavaliers. Thomas Middleton was on the Parliamentary side.

Following the outbreak of the Civil War, it became clear that Sussex was principally for the Parliamentary cause, and the last strongholds of Royalist support were captured in the early part of 1643. Waller took Chichester early that year and the two most powerful men in the county were Colonel Anthony Stapley and Colonel Herbert Morley. Waller moved to Hounslow in Early November to muster further troops and made Farnham his base of operations. This left Sussex exposed and the Royalists retook Chichester on 22nd November and this had to be retaken by Waller in December. This showed how shaky the parliamentary hold on the County actually was and by late 1643 all those who had relied on the mud of Sussex as a protection against Royalist invasion were soon awakened. At the beginning of December, taking advantage of a sharp frost, the Royalist forces under Lord Hopton advanced into the County via Petersfield, Hastings, and Marsden, and thence over the downs to Arundel. Sir Edward Ford was in command of a Regiment of horse in Hopton’s Army and he, with Sir Edward Byshopp, arrived before the gates of Arundel on 6th December, whereupon they captured the town and laid siege to the Castle, which soon fell. Col Morley attempted a counter-attack but suffered a reversal at Bramber Bridge.

Now, what has all this to do with Dedisham Forge, I hear you readers ask.

Although the Royalist advance across the Adur was prevented, the prospect of the Parliamentary party looked bleak. Their only hope lay in the intervention of Waller and he was known to be in difficulties. It is not surprising that one at least of the Parliamentary leaders should seem to have thought it advisable to curry favour with the other side. It was at this point that Thomas Middleton, MP for Horsham, changed sides.

In August 1644 articles were formulated against Middleton alleging that in the previous December when the King’s forces invaded Sussex, pretending himself to be sick, he would not in any way show himself against the King’s forces but discouraged the countrymen who took up arms for the Parliament when the King’s forces were within a few miles of Horsham and that he was in all probability consenting to bring in some of the King’s forces to take Horsham (Portland MSS, [Inst MSS Com] i, 183).

It is interesting to note that Middleton, who resided at Hill’s Place, seems to have been absolved of this accusation, but he was again arrested in 1648 on a charge of being concerned in the rising which took place at Horsham in that year. (Cal, S.P.Dom., Chas I, dxvi, 76)

Sir William Waller marched out of Farnham on 17th December 1643 to meet the Royalist forces in Sussex who were in possession of Petworth, Cowdray, Stansted and the Castle at Arundel. The frost was still holding and Waller was able to move with great rapidity. He “wheeled-about” towards Midhurst, hoping to surprise the Royalists at Cowdray, but they got wind of his ploy and escaped to Arundel. He then advanced upon Petworth, finding the enemy had also fled before him (Hopton towards Winchester, and others to Arundel). Thus there was very little check to his advance, and he reached Arundel by 19th December 1643. The castle held out for 17 days but eventually fell on 6th January 1644.

Immediately upon investing Arundel Castle, Waller sent 2000 horse and foot and two “drakes” to besiege “My Lord Lumley’s howse in Sussex” (at Stansted, in the Parish of Stoughton) then in the possession of Richard Lewknor, a Royalist, who surrendered at once. A force was also sent to destroy (or more probably, to capture) the Ironworks in St Leonard’s Forest which was presumed to be furnishing ammunition for the Royalist cause (Stanford, Thomas; Sussex in the Great Civil War & the Interregnum 1642-1660 [1910], p94).

John Adair, on page 131 his book “Roundhead General, A Military Biography of Sir William Waller, writes; “Having settled his men into their winter quarters, and cleared the Royalists out of one important Sussex iron works, Waller journeyed to London, which he had reached by 25 January” (1644).

I have taken a look at all possible iron-works present at the time in question which were situated in St Leonard’s Forest, and there are only 3 of any consequence, and all under Middleton ownership:

(1) St Leonard’s furnace & forge, 2 sites named (a) Upper Forge, and (b) lower Forge; situated 1.25 miles N by W of Lower Beeding Church. According to Straker, these 2 sites must be considered with Godsen Forge which is situated below Leonardslee and treated as one entity.

To all intents & purposes, it would appear that these are the ironworks that Waller’s troops attacked. The works here were the most considerable in West Sussex. In 44 Elizabeth, the whole forest was leased by the Crown to Sir John Caryll “In this lease, the various forges, and all the instruments belonging to them, are enumerated.” (Cartwright). “They were afterwards employed for military stores for the use of government, and so remained till 1643, when Chichester and Arundel were taken by Sir William Waller. A part of his army was dispatched for the purpose of totally destroying these and other ironworks belonging to the Crown, or to Royallists, which have never since been restored.” (Dallaway). Now, Dallaway has long since been censored for gross inaccuracies, so much so, that parallel sources have to be employed to support events or dates to which he relates. I do, in this instance, challenge Dallaway’s assertion that the sites were in use at that time.

In 1665 the Royal possessions in and about the forest were surveyed, the Upper forge being valued at £27 and the Lower Forge at £32 per annum. They were claimed by one Walter Pawley who had bought the lease, but the claim was not admitted by the Commissioners as they stood on the Forest. They also reported that the furnace was “decayed and downe aboute fortye yeares past”, which would make it about 1615. (Parliamentary Surveys, 317. p35), and therefore certainly not in use circa 1643. This then, would leave just Gosden of the three in this group still active during the Civil War.

Another point worth picking up on is Dallaway’s statement “and other ironworks belonging to the Crown, or to Royallists” (in St Leonard’s Forest - Ed) which I take to refer to Gosden, Warnham, and Detsom.

(2) Warnham Furnace; with its large pond still in water, and ancient corn mill, is situated about 1.25 miles North of Horsham Church. This was indeed a Stuart Furnace, 1st mentioned as being leased from John Middleton of Horsham on May 22nd 1607 to Sir John Caryll at a peppercorn rent for 1000 years. It was ruinous by 1664.

(3) Dedisham or Rudgwick Furnace & Forge, which was also gone by 1664.

The date Waller sent his troops off to destroy the “St Leonard’s Ironworks” fits the 1643 date for the purported sacking of Dedisham Manor, and I just wonder if the Ironworks referred to, was none other than those belonging to Middleton.

This would make sense, firstly to secure new sources for the supply of badly needed armaments and at the same time deprive the enemy of such a valuable asset.

Little destruction of ironworks took place during the Civil War. The only known instances are these in St Leonard’s Forest. It is interesting that those nearby at Tilgate, despite its reputation for having cast ordnance for the Crown, appears to have escaped. (Cleere & Crossley, Ibid. p183). No, this was undoubtedly a one-off targeted attack. One can imagine what a pleasantly rich taste in the mouth Sir William Waller must have experienced revelling in the knowledge that he was smacking down such a turncoat as Middleton by taking possession of his Ironworks.

The only fly in the ointment which a colleague has pointed out to me, is that the Dowager Lady Lewknor would still have been in residence at Dedisham Manor; and Sir Richard Onslow, as Lord of the Manor of Dedisham, would more than likely have easily learnt of any duplicity by Middleton. So if Dedisham Ironworks was taken by Waller's men in 1643, we must assume that it had fallen into the hands of the Royalists. If that were case, then there is a good chance that Mary Lewknor would have provided hospitality to the occupying royalist officers, or the officers assumed she would and occupied it despite any dissent. If this were the case, then Waller's men would have taken and occupied the Ironworks, but could probably have sacked the manor house, especially if the royalists present had tried to defend it.

So did they or didn’t they? The Jury is still out on this one…………

References:

Adair, John. Roundhead General, The Campaigns Of Sir William WallerSutton Publishing,, Stroud. 1997. ISBN 0750913126

Adair, John Roundhead General - A Military Biography of Sir William Waller Macdonald, London 1969 ISBN 0356026418

Albery, William. A Parliamentary History of the Ancient Borough of Horsham 1295-1885. Longmans Press. 1927.

Burne, Lt Col Alfred & Young, Lt Col Peter. The Great Civil War, a Military History of the Civil War 1642-1646. Windrush Press 1998 ISBN 1900624222.

Chatwin, Diana. The Development of Timber-Framed Buildings in the Sussex Weald – The Architectural Heritage of Rudgwick 1996 ISBN 0907264999

Chatwin, Diana, Structural Survey Report on Dedisham Manor (unpublished)

Chatwin, Diana, Article in West Sussex County Times February 1989

Cleere, Henry & Crossley, David. The Iron Industry of the Weald, Merton Priory Press 1995 ISBN 898937044

Coates, Richard. Review of A.L.F. Rivet and Colin Smith (1979) The place-names of Roman Britain, Journal of the English Place-Name Society. 1980/1

Dallaway, Revd James, History of the Rape of Arundel 1815

Field, John. Full Relation of Late Proceedings of Sir W. Waller, 8th January 1644 .(the account of the siege of Arundel is mainly based on Waller’s own despatches which were promptly published and have been several times reprinted.)

Fletcher, Anthony, Sussex 1600-1660, A County Community in Peace & War. Phillimore 1975 ISBN 0850333768

Gardiner, Samuel R. History of the Great Civil War, Vol 1 1642-44. Longmans Green & Co, 1904, reprinted by Phoenix Press 2002. ISBN 1842126393

Gaunt, Peter. The Cromwellian Gazeteer. An Illustrated Guide to Britain in the Civil War & Commonwealth. Wren’s Pubn. 2000. ISBN 0905778480.

Horsfield, Thomas Walker, History, Antiquities & Topography of the County of Sussex. Sussex Press, Lewes. 1835.

Newman, P. R. Atlas of the English Civil War. Routledge 1998. ISBN 0415196094.

Siney, Alan. Rudgwick’s Forgotten Industry: Dedisham Iron Furnace & Forge etc. Rudgwick Preservation Society, unpb ms. c1997

Spring, L. The Campaigns of Sir William Waller’s Southern Association 1643-1645 Stuart Press.

Stanford, Thomas; Sussex in the Great Civil War & the Interregnum 1642-1660 [1910]

Straker, Ernest, Wealden Iron. David & Charles, 1969 ISBN 715344706

THE SACKING OF DEDISHAM MANOR

WAS DEDISHAM MANOR REALLY KNOCKED ABOUT BY WALLER’S TROOPS DURING THE CIVIL WAR?