High Country History Group

Anne Padfield delivered the first talk to the High Country History Group. The talk was held in the Parish Room, St Mary’s Church, Stapleford Tawney, on Thursday 24th February. The talk presented an illustrated tour of a large selection of local buildings having historic features or connections. The buildings were mainly drawn from the High Country area. Several recurring themes accompanied Anne on her tour.

The re-use of buildings formed one theme. Ivy covered, Ivy Cottage, in Greensted Green, now a domestic building, was originally a small, local school. The building that houses the Piggott Brother’s business was the local Workhouse, serving several neighbouring parishes. A smithy has been incorporated into Cutlers Forge Cottage. Public houses have been converted into domestic buildings. Re-use or development of a building was often accompanied by the extension of the building, the present fabric then dating from two or three distinct periods. Clear indications of such modification can often be discerned in variations in the level of the roof; for example, The Talbot, previously the “The Talbot Inn”. In the case of the “The Woodman”, it is the domestic building that has been converted into a pub.

Clues to the previous style and age of the house can still be evident in present, visible features. Clues from internal features include blackened roof timbers, associating the building with an original hall house construction, where the smoke from a central fire drifted through a hole in the roof. There are good examples in the area at “The Woodman” and Clements Farm, Toft Hill. Internal features illustrated included bread ovens; for example, in Mole Trap Cottages and Little Timbers, Mount End.

The slope of the tiled roof on “The Woodman” is steep and the construction of the roof has been strengthened at a later date. This suggests that the roof was likely to have been thatched originally. The orientation of the joists in the same building further indicates an early date for its construction. The vestiges of mullioned windows can be seen in several buildings in the area, dating the buildings to before 1560–70 when mullions gave way to the use of glass.

Among easily visible external features, chimneys, the size of which often displayed the wealth of the owner, were frequently illustrated in the talk. There are good examples of large chimney groups in Ongar, High Ongar and at Lawns Farm, Stanford Rivers, where the chimneys are imposing. On closer inspection, it can be seen that some chimneys have been either rebuilt or reduced in height at some point during their life. Sometimes clues have occasionally been obscured, for example, much later brick cladding of the exterior of Does Farm, Stanford Rivers.

Other houses referred to included Great and Little Tawney Hall, the latter being Anne’s own house. The tour had commenced with St Andrew’s Church, Greensted. The church was much restored in the middle of the 19th century, because of the partial decay of the oak timbers. However, remarkably, it is the only survival of an English log church. Anne finished her talk at Hill Hall. Following its use as a women’s prison, and a disastrous fire in 1969, the building has recently been restored by English Heritage. It is notable architecturally in its very early incorporation of certain classical features by the enlightened owner, Sir Thomas Smith, a real Renaissance man, in the mid 16th century.

Anne Padfield’s talk demonstrated very clearly her knowledge, feeling, and enthusiasm for village building. Anne displayed a scholarly approach to its history and its evidence. Above all, the talk encouraged the wider appreciation of the subject. The audience, totalling 45, will be persuaded to look on this visible, often familiar evidence with new eyes.

The Lavers History Group have published a collection of photographs and postcards of High Laver, Little Laver and Magdalen Laver. Including the front cover, there are 55 illustrations.

The views mostly depict buildings, but there are also farming scenes, school groups and memorable local residents. Some interesting pairs of photographs, some pre-war, show houses before and after their restoration.

There is an amusing scene of a lady, wearing hat and very long dress, cycling through the watersplash at Hull Green Corner, Little Laver.

Inside the cover is reproduced the programme of “An Olde English Village Fete”, held on Saturday, June 2nd 1945. The period is evident from attractions including boxing by the RAF and refreshments with the caution:
“owing to food rationing difficulties, please partake of ONE tea only”.

On the back cover there is a map showing the siting of the illustrations. This is a worthwhile, well-produced item of great interest to the Lavers and surrounding areas.

Copies are available from Patrick Streeter at £2.50 each.

This book is subtitled Chapels and Meeting Houses in the County of Essex, including Outer London.

The book contains four directories of such buildings, those still standing and those demolished but not replaced, for both present-day Essex and the London boroughs which used to be part of Essex.

It is well illustrated with eight pages in colour. The commentary, although light, is informative and up-to-date.

The Congregational Chapel that existed in Stanford Rivers, and was demolished in 1927, is listed.

Profits from the sale of the book will go to the Historic Chapels Trust.

The group is currently in a “chicken and egg” situation: rules are being written, but a team is needed to progress both rules and activities.

Volunteers were invited following the December issue of the High Country Community Magazine and the initial meeting of the Group.

This team is referred to as the Acting Committee, consisting of:

Rob Brooks
Kevin Dowsett
Keith Farrow
Shirley Fisher (Secretary)
Patrick Griggs
Martyn Lockwood (Newsletter Editor)
Anne Padfield
Yvonne Woollerson (Treasurer)

It is expected that a properly elected committee will be formed in due course.

On 1st January 1900, celebration of the new century in London was muted due to the Boer War. British forces were under pressure and resources were stretched.

In Stanford Rivers, however, planning for the Jubilee had begun earlier. A public meeting was held in March 1898 to decide how to commemorate the event.

A local paper reported:

A lively debate took place, led by Mr. Mugleston of Littlebury Hall, who described parish issues and proposed various commemorative ideas:

A hospital
A parish nurse
A reading room
A school bell
A fountain in the school yard

Eventually, it was agreed:

A school bell should be installed
Tea should be provided for both adults and children

However, disagreement followed. A later private meeting reversed the decision:

The bell was replaced with a fountain
Meat was to be distributed to the elderly

The local press humorously reported widespread discontent:

Black flags were displayed on Jubilee Day
This was not disloyalty, but dissatisfaction with the modest celebrations

Further disputes arose over funding:

Mr. Mugleston claimed the project lacked funds
Concerns were raised about using school funds

“Old Nat Wilson” countered:

The school water supply was inadequate
A fountain was more beneficial than a bell
Suggested additional community benefits such as food and prizes

Mr. Mugleston opposed:

Objected to using school funds
Questioned financial fairness

Despite disagreements, the fountain was eventually built.

The Fountain
Opened by Lady Cunliffe Smith
Located in front of Stanford Rivers parishioners
Built by Messrs F. N. Noble and Sons
Architect: Mr. F. Rowntree of Glasgow
Cost: £90

The fountain still remains today, though the school no longer exists. Local residents have successfully opposed its removal.

Horse - stealing had always been a serious problem in rural areas.
In 1825 James Mallett had been hanged for stealing a horse at Stanford Rivers. In 1885, the Chief Constable of Essex William Poyntz, published the following account of an incident that had occurred in Ongar in General Orders as an example for the rest of the force.

" A case having occurred at Ongar in which a considerable want of ordinary sharpness and intelligence shown by an Inspector and constable resulting in the escape of a horse stealer, the Chief Constable hereby publishes the facts as a warning to members of the force to be more carefull under similar circumstances. On the nigght of 30th ultimo, at a quarter to eleven, a man rode into Ongar on a horse with only a common halter and without a saddle and bridle. He was stopped by the Inspector and challenged as to where he had got the animal and where he was going. His answers being satisfactory the inspector allowed him to pass. He was then met by the constable who, in a similar manner stopped, questioned and permitted him to go on his way. Next morning it was reported that the horse, one of considerable value, had been stolen.

Though it was entirely an error of judgement on the part of both officers still considering
(1) the time of night,
(2) that horse stealing is prevalent around Ongar, (
(3) there was only a common halter on the horse and it was being ridden,
(4) that the place the thief stated he had bought the horse was only a short distance from Ongar, and
(5) that the county cart and horse were available at the station and might at once have been used to ascertain whether the man's statement was true or otherwise.

The Chief Constable is of the opinion that both officers acted very unwisely by their mistaken confidence, and as the expense to the county endeavoouring unsuccessfully to trace the thief amounts to £1.17s.9d he directs that two-thirds of this sum be defrayed by the Inspector and one- third by the constable."

On the 1st January 1900, the celebration of the new century in London was muted. The Boer War was not going well. Ladysmith was under siege. British Army equipment was being out performed by the enemy’s. Combat deficiencies were to be put right by compulsory army training; even ‘voluntary conscription’ was being proposed. Money had to be raised to support the war through both lottery and public subscription. Perhaps as a distraction, there was a familiar debate in the letters page of The Times about whether the new century did actually start on the 1st January 1900 or would follow in 1901, (surprisingly one letter referred to correspondence echoed in the same pages in 1800!).

Seeking similarities with recent events, it is not easy to find expressions of any widespread celebration either in London or locally. However, maybe this was fortunate. Memories of the 1897 Jubilee of the Queen's Accession were still fresh in the memory. In Stanford Rivers, a public meeting was held to decide how the Jubilee should be commemorated. In March 1898, a local paper reported discontent.

"Bright-eyed, ruddy-faced and genial Mr. MUGLESTON of Littlebury Hall, Stanford Rivers, has given us a call to tell us of the woes of that parish. The tornado of the QUEEN'S Jubilee, it seems, is still blowing over it. When the Jubilee was in prospect a public meeting was held to consider what should be done. Plans were proposed in goodly variety. One wanted a hospital; another, a parish nurse; a third, a reading-room; a fourth, a bell to call the school children; a fifth, a fountain in the school yard, and so on.

When all these bewildering subjects had been threshed out, it was resolved on the motion of Mr. MUGLESTON, that the school bell should be provided, and that a tea should be given both to the adults and the children of the parish. Everything then promised to flourish like a field of goodly wheat; but some enemy went about and sowed tares .... "

A separate private meeting was then organised which reversed the decision, replacing the bell with a fountain and distribution of meat to the elderly. The local paper, perhaps tongue in cheek, proceeded:

"The news, we gathered from Mr. MUGlESTON, fell upon Stanford Rivers like a shower of sleet. Discontent reigned supreme, and on Jubilee-Day, when the rest of the world was merry with music and dancing, three black flags were exhibited - not out of any sort of disloyalty to our beloved Queen, but in disapproval to the exiguous nature of the local rejoicings."

It was claimed by Mr. Mugleston that the splinter group, now in the course of building the fountain, had run short of money, despite, apparently, "availing that the supply of water to the school was quite satisfactory. Mr. Mugleston now' refused to pay his share of the voluntary rate in aid of the schools. The paper concluded:

"We can only hope that order will soon prevail at Stanford Rivers as at Warsaw". Warsaw?

Old Nat Wilson replied by letter. Old Nat pointed out that the water supply to the school was inadequate. 200 "thirsty little souls" having to drink water from the ditch just as he himself had 40 years before. He further claimed that after three inconclusive public meetings, Mr. Mugleston had asked him to form a committee and carry out his own plans. A fountain or monument of York stone was suggested. Furthermore, a "substantial" tea was to be provided for the women and children of the parish, a medal for each child over 15, enhanced prizes for the school sports, and beef to the cottagers over 60. Old Nat, while on the one hand acknowledging the necessity to "cut our coat according to the cloth", clearly believed he had an 'unfettered social mission in "sowing milk and honey for the dear little children" rather than erecting a bell "ting-tangling" in their ears.

Mr. Mugleston disagreed. The Government grant to the school was £150 and 15s for each child with any deficiency taken up by a rate. He observed that this rate was not paid by Old Nat, it being contributed by his landlord, Old Nat's house being assessed at £4 p.a. It was not right for the money for the fountain to be taken from these funds. "Will it be passed by the auditor?" Mr. Mugleston queried.
The correspondence became precise but embittered. The sower of the tares was not Old Nat but Mr. Mugleston who had sought to disrupt the meeting himself. Old Nat surmised that Mr. Mugleston "has been among the aristocrats since last May, and so has greatly refined the word feed into high tea". Mr. Mugleston was accused of only paying half his rate, about 30s a year, towards "our beautiful commodious school". Old Nat, a ratepayer, stuck to his guns.

The fountain was opened by Lady Cunliffe Smith in front of the Stanford Rivers parishioners, assembled en masse, in September. Through the tap, water from the terra cotta fountain gushed forth ‘bright and clear’. Two gun metal cups inscribed ‘VR’ were attached. The fountain was built by Messrs F.N. Noble and Sons, the architect being a Mr. F. Rowntree of Glasgow. The cost was £90 in all.

The school has gone, but the fountain remains today. In recent years, local residents have successfully opposed the removal of the fountain by the local authorities.