High Country History Group

This is the third quarterly Newsletter of the High Country History Group. We have now set the programme for the next nine months. At the outset of the Group in April, the undertaking was to offer four talks, two walks or activities and a local visit. By March 2001, this will have been exceeded, the bonus being the Annual General Meeting!

The Committee intend to keep the programme of talks relevant, interesting and varied. Broadly, themes that are pursued will include buildings, places, social themes, people and aspects of planning, conservation and archiving. These themes are reflected in the programme. The Committee hopes to combine the AGM with a Members Evening, the form of which has still to be decided.

Another Summer Walk within the High Country is planned. There are opportunities for interesting local visits, both inside and outside the High Country. An outside visit to Hatfield Broad Oak will take place in June, and there will be more about the reasons for visiting Hatfield Broad Oak in a later newsletter.

Project?

In addition, it is hoped that members will participate in a group project. There have been many suggestions from the acting committee; these include capturing a photographic record of the High Country today, archiving old photographs and writing some histories of aspects of the area. Do you have a pet project that you would like to propose? Better still, would you like to lead the group in that project? Please let the Editor know.

A number of members, and some non-members, have already indicated their wish to visit Copped Hall on Sunday, 1st October. A short letter accompanies this Newsletter to each of those members, individual or family. If you are not one of those to receive a letter, yet you still wish to visit, then please contact Rob or Anne Brooks 3and let us know that you will be joining the party.

Visit to Copped Hall

Look Back in Ongar

The smallest house in the High Country conceals its appeal. While Sir Thomas Smyth was conceiving and building the fine Hill Hall, an artisan was eyeing a strip of waste land by the side of the road in the north of the High Country. The outcome was Oak Cottage.

Oak Cottage, Clatterford End, with its oak tree relief in the external plasterwork, is thought to be a rare survival of a squatter’s dwelling¹. The practice of building a house on a piece of land to which the squatter had no title was widely encountered. Suitable sites were sometimes found on common land or in woods, generally well away from villages. Of their nature, such margins would occupy poorly productive or steeply sloping land or regions liable to flood. The dwelling erected would likely be of rudimentary construction with no garden and foregoing such amenities as a back entrance². They were common in areas such as the New Forest. Generally, the squatter had no immediate right to the land but in English law “squatter’s rights” rested on the concept of adverse possession, the adverse possessor having been in peaceful and undisputed possession of the land for 12 years³.

At the time of the building of Oak Cottage, the increase in such dwellings across the country was of concern; not only were they uncontrolled, they were often poorly built and poorly maintained. An Act, passed in the reign of Elizabeth I, sought to restrict such developments by “cottagers and paupers”. A second act in 1662, the Act of Settlement, set out to limit these developments by restricting the movement of those citizens who were not freeholders or who could not afford a rent of £10 per year. There followed “ideologically inspired squats” and on one occasion paupers squatted in the towers of Windsor Castle⁴.

Returning to Oak Cottage, the original house was, notably, very small. A single room on the ground floor led to the only room on the second floor. The floor dimensions are just 4.88m by 3.66m. A chimney (1.98 x 1.22m) heats the ground floor. Although, the base of the chimney is built of bricks, commonly used in the 16th and 17th centuries, there is some evidence to suggest that this chimney might have been be a replacement for a timber framed stack.

There is further evidence of some structural changes. The floor appears to have been raised, 76mm in the west wall and 180mm in the east wall, the discrepancy apparently to correct the building’s list to the east. The present door and window have been added to the east wall, and no evidence of either is apparent in the original frame.

The very survival of Oak Cottage perhaps indicates a higher standard of construction and craftsmanship than is hinted at above. The timber framing is properly constructed. All the studs were pegged into the wall plates and tie beams. Both north and south walls had primary bracing, but this remains only on the latter. The side walls are lightly braced. Interestingly, each of the four corner posts is a different shape, the builder probably using just what he had available at the time. The conclusion is that the squatter was maybe a carpenter with good knowledge of contemporary building techniques.

John Walker has summarised some of the dating features. The use of jowled corner posts declined towards the end of the 16th century. Joists are very narrow and laid on their narrower side, suggesting a date later rather than earlier in the 17th century. The primary bracing in the end walls was common in the early 17th century. However, evidence of open diamond mullion windows and a frame that was once exposed argues towards its construction in the first half of the 17th century. The conclusion is that Oak Cottage is indeed contemporary with Hill Hall!

In 1984, Oak Cottage was in need of some restoration. The plaster was stripped to expose the timber frame. While scaffolding poles supported the wooden sill, foundations, of concrete and some depth, according to the current building regulations, underpinned the cottage for the first time in its 350 years existence. Modern amenities were added to the cottage in a new construction at the south end to replace the lean-to outshot.

The entry in the burial register at Stanford Rivers read: “William NAYLER, aged 25 of Ilford, buried on the 20 August 1816 by the Rev DOWDSWELL, the Rector.” Nothing unusual in this, but at the bottom of the page the Rector has added a note “Convicted at the Summer Assizes at Chelmsford and suffered death accordingly for a burglary at the house of ……(unreadable)”

The Chelmsford Chronicle July 31 1816 reveals the story!

William Nayler together with 3 other men Ambrose DEATH the elder, Ambrose DEATH the younger and Edward SMITH were indicted for a burglary in the house of William NOK[E] on the 12 May 1816 and stealing Bank of England and other notes, wearing apparel and culinary articles therein.

William Noke was a farmer residing with his housekeeper Rebecca READ at Toot Hill in the parish of Stanford Rivers. On the night in question the two of them had retired to bed when Noke was awakened between 11pm and midnight by a noise at the brewhouse door. Looking out of the window he saw a man standing before him with a gun. Noke asked him what he wanted to which the reply “he came for money and money he would have.” Mr Noke somewhat alarmed fetched four notes which he threw down to the man. The gun was then pointed at Noke and the man said, “if you do not come down I will blow your brains out.” He then heard the door burst open and he went down where he found that one or two men had entered the house via the parlour window and forced the lock of the door. Noke then told the court that he heard another person ‘stabbing’ at the kitchen door with what he perceived to be a plough coulter. Altogether there were four men in the house.

The housekeeper Rebecca Read alarmed by all the noise hid in the attic where she was soon discovered and forced to hand over £11 in Bank of England notes, her life savings. The men in addition to the money stole a copper kettle, coats, waistcoats, breeches, saucepans, a pepper box, window curtains, an umbrella and several other articles.

The four men were from the Ilford area, Death the younger and Nayler lodging with Death senior. A witness for the prosecution John WARD who lived next door to Death told the court that it was Nayler who proposed carrying out the burglary. Ward said that he was obliged to go along with the men as Nayler threatened to shoot him if he did not. A further man referred to in the newspaper report as SEYMOUR was also present. The men agreed to meet at the Fairlop Tree and then on towards Toot Hill. They stopped at The Talbot PH at North Weald, where Smith and the younger Death went in to get drinks, bringing out gin to the others who remained outside. The men then went on to the farm. Nayler waited at the front of the premises whilst the other five went round the back. It was Seymour who entered the premises via the kitchen door having forced it open with the coulter.

The men returned to the house of Death where they divided up their booty, the Deaths hiding their share under the floor in the house. A further witness William MOORE a carter to Mr WELSTEAD told the court how he had met the men about a quarter after four and asked them “where the deuce have you been at this time of night?” The reply was “ we have been crawling some where or other.”

John SACKET and Christopher GARDENER described as ‘officers’ Bow Street Runners?), told the court of the arrest of the prisoners and the discovery of the property at Death’s house.

All four were found guilty and the Judge, Lord Ellensborough passed the death sentence on all of them. He described Death senior and Nayler as being prominent in the atrocity, the one by leading his son in the night of the Sabbath to break open the door of a poor defenceless old man, the other by going prepared with a loaded instrument of death. Lord Ellensborough most earnestly recommended that they turn their eyes to the Almighty Creator, but more especially the two he had already mentioned for they could expect no mercy here, and ought only to expect it by the most sincere contrition and repentance above.

William Noke is possibly the William Noakes, a farmer from Colemans Farm, Toot Hill, who died Dec 28th 1840, aged 92.

John Ward and Seymour appear to have turned King’s evidence to avoid prosecution.

Why Nayler buried in Stanford Rivers churchyard remains a mystery.