An Historian's Work is Never Done

When I first started researching this article I had been trying to uncover who the owner of St. Mary's House had been in the 17th Century. If you have read any of my previous articles you will know that St. Mary's started life off as a Medieval Inn, built by William Waynflete (Bishop of Winchester, and founder of Magdalen College, Oxford) in the 1470s. However, only a century later the inn had fallen into disrepair, with three of the four sides of the courtyard inn being destroyed completely, with only the east wing remaining.

This could have been the end for St. Mary's, but some time in the late 16th century someone took it upon themselves to return the building to its former splendour, converting the house into a lavish dwelling, complete with wooden panelling, gilded wallpaper, and spectacularly carved fire surrounds (if you would like to find out more about this transformation, I recommend my article 'An Inn, A Restoration, and a 17th Century Wheeler Dealer').

The person who undertook these extravagant alterations would have been extremely wealthy, and of course, must have been someone of notoriety within the locality. But unfortunately their identity has remained shrouded in mystery. The purpose of my research for this article had been to find out who this enigmatic restorer was, intending to trace the history of the house back through centuries of documents, publications and records to finally uncover the age-old mystery. However, I am sorry to say that the conundrum is yet to be solved, as this article will now recount...

The Bramber Poll Book

The earliest document from the 18th century that I had located in my previous articles which most certainly showed the owner of St. Mary's, was an elevational drawing of the house from 1768. This document is located in the West Sussex Record Office, and is one of a number of drawings included in a 'Bramber Poll Book.' The Poll Book is not a resource that is unique to Bramber, records of this kind are found all across the country, and were designed to record the names, residences, and votes of people partaking in elections. However, what does appear to be unique about the Bramber Poll Book is that it includes a drawing of every house resided in by an eligible voter. This survey of houses was commissioned by Sir Harry Gough, and was designed to emphasise his ownership of all of these buildings, which he had purchased as part of his plan to assert political dominance within the area.

The Bramber Poll Book Elevational Drawing of St. Mary's House as it was in 1768.

From this drawing we not only know that the house was owned by the Goughs in 1768, but the drawing also indicates the tenants of St. Mary's House in this period; in the south portion of the house resided a 'Wheeler Welling,' whilst the North section was then recently occupied by the Late Thomas Baker. From the provision of these two names I was able to take my search even further into the past.

The House of Commons Account of 1769

Around the same time this document was published, a debate was occurring in the House of Commons as to who had a voting right in Bramber in 1769. In this period only certain householders and landowners had a right to vote, and this was determined by the house in which they lived, and whether it had historic voting rights. The document from the House of Commons includes oral accounts from the residents of Bramber regarding who lived in each dwelling, and so can reveal vital information regarding St. Mary's owners and tenants. One account stated:

“John Hunt Said that at the Time of the Election Thomas Baker and Wheeler Welling lived in a house previously occupied by Thomas Waller. That Waller occupied the whole of it 60 or 70 years ago.”

So from this account, we learn that prior to Welling and Baker's occupation, St. Mary's was occupied by a Thomas Waller, in c.1700. In the same account a man named Edward Read also comes forward to confirm that the house was occupied by Waller, and that Waller lived their alone, using the building as a Public House.

The accounts form the House of commons can also shed light on the historic changes to building fabric, that may have been lost over the centuries. John Hunt continues:

"Thomas Hodges Succeeded Waller in living there, and invited Wheeler Welling into the southern part to dwell, another entrance was added at this time. They both lived there at the election of 1714. Thomas Baker’s part of the house was called the kitchen end, and Wheeler’s was called the parlour end. There were six rooms downstairs – Kitchen, parlour, pantry and ‘other places’, and a wall built 1710 between north and south."

From this description we not only learn that a man named Thomas Hodges succeeded Waller as the occupant of St. Mary's, but we also learn that the house was divided into two dwellings at this time, with a wall being built to separate the north and south sections, and a new entrance also inserted. However, this is as much as the 1769 document can tell us, there is no mention made of who actually owned the building, only who occupied St. Mary's as tenants, so to continue the search for St. Mary's owners we must investigate further into the past.

The House of Commons Account of 1715

Often historical research is a game of connecting the dots, constantly searching for snippets of information that might lead to a new discovery or further revelations. This was true in the case of Waller, the tenant noted as residing in the house in c.1700. Once his name was known and could be directly associated with St. Mary's then it was possible to search for further documentation relating to his occupancy. This led me to another debate in the House of Commons, in which Thomas Waller gave his own account of living at St. Mary's from 1699-1715. The document states:

"Waller says he lived in part of the house for 16 years, and that the only division then was between the house and the stable, that the house was held from one lord, and the stable from another, and that he paid half a crown a year to the Duke of Norfolk."

This account may seem underwhelming to the casual reader, but for the historian it is gold dust. Not only is Waller confirming his occupation of the house, providing a specific date, but he also notifies us as to who the owner of the house was - "he paid half a crown a year to the Duke of Norfolk."

Henry Howard, 7th Duke of Norfolk published by John Smith, after Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt

mezzotint, circa 1683-1729.

Previous accounts of the History of St. Mary's have assumed that the house had always been owned by the Goughs, but no concrete evidence was ever found confirming this. With the discovery of this account from Waller, it can now be said with more certainty that the owner of St. Mary's in 1699 was in fact, the 7th Duke of Norfolk. A number of surveys and documents relating to the 7th Duke of Norfolk's lands in Bramber are located at Arundel Castle Archive, but unfortunately due to Covid-19 I have been unable to explore these avenues further. It is clear, however, that some time between 1715 and the mid-18th century the house must have been sold to the Gough family, and certainly by 1768 when the poll book drawings with utmost certainty list the Goughs at the owners of St. Mary's.

The Trail Goes Cold

Prior to the Duke of Norfolk we know that the house was likely owned by Nicholas Barbon, as detailed in the article, An Inn, A Restoration, and a 17th Century Wheeler Dealer. Barbon died in 1698, and if the house passed from him to the Duke of Norfolk at this time, then Waller's account of paying rent to the Duke of Norfolk in 1699 would still fit our established timeline. However, this is where the trail runs cold. The next known owner is Francis Shirley, who is listed as the owner of 'the chappil howse or seller on the south side of Bramber bridge" in his 1569 will.

Nicholas Barbon, the property speculator who purportedly owned St. Mary's in the 1690s.

This leaves a gap of over 100 years where evidence is just too sparse to suggest who the owner of St. Mary's was in this period. Unfortunately for us, this is also the period in which most of the lavish restorations and decorations were carried out (with gilded wallpaper, trompe l'oeil panelling, and carved oak staircases being installed), but until further evidence comes to light (perhaps once I have had a gander through those Arundel Castle Archives) the owners and tenants of St. Mary's in the 17th century will remain an interminable mystery.