First published in
BRITISH BRICK SOCIETY INFORMATION 133
MAY 2016
Our particular interest is in endeavouring to provide a better but cheap means of utilising brick as an historical dating medium at least in our local area. We cannot afford extensive laboratory work but what can be done inexpensively is to amass information and to process it. It is with this objective in mind that we sought to categorise the bricks at Old St Albans Court, a Tudor Manor with documented seventeenth-, eighteenth- and nineteenth century changes, and make the information available for a wider benefit.
Old St Albans Court is at Nonington, a collection of three hamlets midway between Dover, Canterbury, and Sandwich where there are substantial deposits of brickearth,[1] material traditionally dug in the Autumn, allowed to over winter and then moulded in the Spring. Evidence of brick making activity has been observed at the western edge o f the village by Butter Street and Holt Street farm and the name Brickfield Piece in Fredville Park perhaps is a relic of the construction of the eighteenth-century manor house there.[2] Similar remains have been observed near Beauchamps Lane at the eastern end of the village [3] which adjoins Old St Albans Court. The earliest brickmaker so far discovered is William Knowles who is recorded as standing surety at the 1600 Quarter Sessions [4] but he was probably one of a number as the later census reflects a continuing activity. The 1841 census contained seven builders and bricklayers; the 1851 census ten; eight in 1861; twelve in 1871; sixteen in 1881 and ten in 1891 and 1901. This was in a total working male population of approximately two hundred and fifty, the vast majority of whom worked in agriculture.[5]
Fig. 1 The medieval manor house at Old St Albans Court, Nonington, Kent, with the 1556 brick tower and chimneys after architect George Devey had removed all later additions circa 1878.
Old St Albans Court itself, named locally after its owners, the Abbey of St Albans from 1096 until 1540,[6] probably started as an open hall, perhaps a Wealden type structure[7] in the early 1300s. A wing was added with a stone-lined garderobe at the far end somewhat later[8] but the whole was rebuilt substantially in brick in 1556.[9] A large excavation, first recorded in a 1501 Abbey Rent Roll, is shown close to the house on a 1629 Estate Map [10] which is assumed to have been the source of the brickearth and there is leasing evidence of brick kilns close by in 1665[11] We know that there was a further rebuilding and reshaping of the house in 1663[12] and it seems highly unlikely that any other than these sources would have been used. Further substantial work in brick was undertaken in 1790.[13] All this is in documentary records as well as confirmed by archaeological excavation where the bricks in situ have been revealed by archeaologists.[14] The same applies to work carried out in 1869 by George Devey in rebuilding the Stable block and in 1876-8 when he built the (Grade 1 listed) new St Albans Court for William Oxenden Hammond on a rise above the ancient manor house.[15] In addition to the evidence of brick kilns on the estate from the seventeenth century onwards, brick making was carried on in the nearest hamlet of Easole into the twentieth century.[16]
Our process has been to record the sizes, shapes and colours of the bricks in situ at the relevant times, and also to analyse the mortar. The tables are not set out here but are available online and in print in Archaelogia Cantiana, 136, 2015, pages 281 -293.
Fig.2 Major extensions to the medieval manor house were built in 1666, extended in 1790, and demolished circa 1878.
Obviously, where they are still in situ, only the visible dimensions of the bricks can be recorded. Since this is, in effect, raw data, we have drawn a few conclusions against national standards and made some observations on our own bricks but any wider context by definition will require more information.
The first conclusion, something of a surprise but understandable by hindsight, was that the bulk of bricks used by Devey in his works were handmade presumably locally half a mile down the road in Easole by Henry Maxted. ‘ Builder and Brickmaker’, and his eight strong workforce recorded in the census. The nearest railway station at that time was about three miles away over country lanes at Adisham and we know the stone for Hammond’s new Pulham garden [17] came via that route as probably did the heavy duty engineering bricks but since the skills and materials were effectively on site, it was clearly more economical to take advantage o f that for the bulk requirements even though the extensive manufacturing capacity o f the Sittingbourne brickworks was less than an hour down the main railway line to London.
Fig.3 George Devey’s 1869 stables at Old St Albans Court, Nonington, Kent, with diaper brickwork.
On the other hand, Devey was clearly intrigued and excited by the different forms and shapes that brick could provide and his exuberance is well displayed in a number of architectural details known to be typical o f his style.[18] Evident in the stable block are ragstone footings rising unevenly into brickwork to invite belief it is built upon medieval ruins; a battlemented tower is decorated with diaper work and ringed with corbelled machicolations, both of which also feature in the adjoining gated entrance to the courtyard, the gate itself outlined with a hood mould of brick; tumbled-in bricks form gable end eave slopes; and a Dutch triangular pedimented gable sits above the courtyard clock.
Secondly, local manufacture was far from the machine accuracy o f the bricks pouring out of those extensive brickworks around Sittingboume from the mid nineteenth century onwards: of the 1869 and later bricks measured, the length could vary by up to ‘A inch either way and the breadth and thickness by up to ‘A inch. Local mould making was clearly not a precise business but differences of six percent and more on all the dimensions against a hundred-year-old standard suggest that this was not a priority for architects engaged on country work, at least in our part of Kent. George Devey was a man with a national reputation but there is some evidence that he was impatient of this sort of detail although, as we indicate above, he was very conscious of the overall impact of his work.
Thirdly, the 1790 bricks had an even greater variation from the standard with length varying from XA inch under to 1 ‘A inch over. However, as with the 1870s brick, they look solid and well-made and have stood well the test of exposure and time. We judged from what we measured that there was no discernible impact from the Brick Tax which might reflect that economies in cost did not figure as significant in the eyes of the owner, William Hammond, and the conservatism of the brickmakers and more likely the facility for the bricklayers precluded any significant change.
Fourthly, the earlier Tudor and Stuart bricks have a different consistency, being softer than their later counterparts and also not such a strong red as the 1870 brick. This may be a function of time but more likely is due to firing techniques. The local brickearth does not appear to vary but that is not a scientifically supported observation. On the other hand, the blue headers always seem to have been well burnt whatever the period. The variation in length is not as great as in later bricks although bricks up to 10 inches long are not uncommon, a trait which was still evident in 1790. The width, however, could be up to 5XA inches but not less than 4% inches. With a depth between 2 and 2 ‘/2 inches, these bricks appear recognisably wider and less thick than later products.
Fifth, the stone wall backing the garderobe noted in the first major enlargement of the house contained a few small yellow bricks, uniquely so, since none have found elsewhere in the visible fabric of the house or on the excavated site. These appear to match bricks being excavated currently by the Dover Archaeological Group under the direction of Keith Parfitt from what appears to be a substantial and rich manor house provisionally dated to the first half of the fourteenth century, built on a rise about half a mile to the west and called Beechams or Beauchamps. No evidence exists of any yellow brick being made in the Nonington area at any time but they appear in colour to be similar to the earliest bricks used in Sandwich and therefore would have come by road from Sandwich.[19]
These particular bricks were most probably brought the short distance down to Old St Albans Court from the Beauchamps site by the Hammonds who bought it in 1556 having previously rented it. However, the provisional dating o f the site where they are in situ is early 1300s, a century and a half before brick making is known in Sandwich, so these may well be Low Country imports. Potentially, this could be evidence for what may be some o f the earliest medieval building in brick in East Kent but to date, archaeology although still in progress has not yet uncovered their point o f use on the site itself.
Sixth, there is a garden wall with an incised 1849 brick in situ. Bricks similar to these appear in the south eastern front of the house and from their position suggest that they date the removal of the external wall which had formed the last vestige of what had been the hall of the medieval house and its replacement in brick.
Finally, the only frogged bricks at Old St Albans Court look machine made and are in the excavation exposed foundations for the additional tower and bay added in 1869 at the front of the house which were then removed together with everything post medieval in the old manor house after the completion o f the new manor house by Devey in 1876.
The mortar analysis was not conducted under microscopic laboratory conditions. After weighing, the sample was crushed, not ground, and examined by eye for its description. Hydrochloric acid was added to it diluted slightly (about 1:3) with distilled water in a glass beaker to dissolve the lime binder. The chemical reaction, dispersion, was studied to determine whether it was a lime rich mix. The sample was then left for 48 hours for the aggregate to settle and drained o ff carefully, then washed in distilled water and separated by pouring through a paper filter and left to dry. This dry sample was weighed so it could be compared to the original weight and thereby the proportion of lime binder calculated. Then the original gauge, or mix ratio, was established.
Fourteen mortar samples were taken of all phases of brickwork from the 1556 Tower interior through to the foundations of the 1666 work to the Devey 1876 restoration. Their dry weight ranged from 2.5g to 15g dependant on the accessibility and availability of each sample. Every one of the samples was of lime mortar. Slightly surprisingly, no cement at all was found in the later nineteenth-century samples.
The earlier building from 1556 to 1666 had strong lime rich mix ratios on average of 1:2 (1 lime: 2 sand), using a very soft sand of rounded grains, not well graded, light grey/brown in colour. Perhaps the strong gauge was used as it was known the sand did not contain any larger grit fragments for strength, as is the case with modem sands (i.e. sharp sand used in many conservation repair mortars). Maybe river sand was used. This gauge (1 lime:2 sand) may also suggest the mortars were “ hot-mixed lime” whereby quicklime (calcium oxide) is mixed with damp 17 sand/aggregate rather than slaked with water to a putty (calcium hydroxide) first, and then mixed with the aggregate. A standard gauge for “ hot-lime” mixes is 1 quicklime: 3 aggregate which gives an equivalent gauge strength f at least 1:2(1 lime: 2 aggregate) once the mortar has fully matured and carbonated.[20]
Fig.4 Identified bricks at Old St Albans Court, Nonington, Kent.
Of the four 1790 building samples, all were different in their mix ratios. The culvert samples ranged from 1:1 to 1:4, and were different in appearance as were the aggregates used which may be because this was a culvert, and out of sight, so appearance was of no importance.
The three Devey restoration samples had an average mix ratio of 1:3, with two of them containing red angular fragments, possibly brick dust used as a pozzolan (a strengthening additive possibly as an alternative to cement), and the other with black/grey aggregate indicating the use o f burnt goal ash or charcoal for colouring.
Finally, in terms of the brickwork itself, we should record that the 1556 brickwork is in English Bond with alternate courses of headers and stretchers. There is no extant 1666 walling in place that we can identify with certainty, or 1790 above ground work. However, we do have culverts and cisterns of the 1790s which display a fairly regular English Bond clearly designed for strength underground. The 1869 and 1876 Devey brickwork is English Bond and we have commented earlier on his elaborate use architectural decoration. Interestingly, the face work he applied to the existing outbuildings on the NE boundary of Old St Albans Court is in Flemish Bond with each course consisting of alternate headers and stretchers. This raises the question of whether Devey or the builder decided this!
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. J.G.O. Smart. G. Bisson, and B.C. Worssam, Geology o f the Country around Canterbury and Folkstone, London: HMSO, 1966, p.236.
2. Observations recorded by Clive Webb on the Nonington Village Website, 2009.
3. Webb, 2009.
4. Kent Quarter Sessions, 3 July 1600.
5. Census Returns for Nonington, 1841-1911, London: National Archive Office (Public Record Office); occupational statistics for individual parishes available The National Census: England, London: HMSO.
6. E. Hastead The History and Topographical Survey o f Kent, 2nd edition, London, 1791-1801, volume IX, pp.251- 262; the volumes reprinted Wakefield: EP Publishing, 1974.
7. K. Parfitt. H. Jones, and P. Hobbs, ‘ Investigations at Old St Albans Court, Nonington, Kent Archaeological Review, 146, Winter 2001, p. 134.
8. Parfitt, Jones, and Hobbs, 2001.
9. P. Hobbs. “Old St Albans Court. Nonington’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 125, 2005, pp.273-287, endnote 50.
10. K.HLC, U442 P30.
11. K.HLC, U471 T511.
12. Topographical Miscellanies, London. 1792, vol. 1, London and Kent: ‘ St Albans Court’ .
13. Mss Family History; Hobbs, 2005, endnotes.
14. Howard Jones, ‘The Architecture of Old St Albans Court’, unpublished article, 2002.
15. J. Allibone. George Devey, Architect, 1820-1886, London: British Architectural Library, 1991, pages 56-57, and 22, 28. 43, 98. and 111.
16. C. Webb, 2009; David Lewis, personal communication; Census Returns; about 65% of the male working population of Nonington were engaged in agricultural activities but 20% of the remainder were involved with bricks in 1891.
17. Ian Sayer, personal communication. Ian was the last head groundsman for Nonington College and his grandfather worked for the St Albans Court estate and is recorded in the official obituary as having prepared the mausoleum at the funeral of William Oxenden Hammond, who commissioned the new St Albans Court in 1876.
18. Allibone, 1991.
19. The road from Sandwich to Nonington was straightforwardly via the Woodnesborough Gate and, for example, the Crown assembled no less than 6,000 carts in Sandwich as well as a mass of miscellaneous other supplies for the 1359-60 campaign in France, so nobody would have minded or even noticed a few day trips down the road to Nonington, particularly when ordered by the commanding general. H.J. Hewitt, The Organisation of War under Edward III, 1338-62, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1966. In the author’s experience, similar practices were alive and well in the latter half of the twentieth century.
20. N. Copsey and B. Gourlay, in The Journal o f the Building Limes Forum, 22, 2015, pp.70-72.
