eas a NaS) ri a eA re fits Bp ahs Ki ae ren ba eo seas res ign abarwedy, ¥e: fe a seers ke ener gee a ae Jt z See ee ace ee peta fs pare ae Re ama! rea . 3 HOT ke a at | Riis A History of English Brickwork A History of English Brickwork With Examples and Notes of the Archttectural Use and Manipulation of Brick from Medieval Times to the end of the Georgian Pertod By NATHANIEL LLOYD (Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) (Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries ) Author of “ Aspects of Houses in Relation to Wind, Rainfall and Sunshine,” “Garden Craftsmanship in Yew and Box,” etc. With an Introduction by SIR EDWIN L. LUTYENS, R.A. LONDON: H. Greville Montgomery, 43, Essex Street, Strand, W.C. 2. NEW YORK: William Helburn, Inc., 418, Madison Avenue. MCMX XVIII, Contents List of Subscribers Introduction - - - - - - Preface - - - - - A History of English Brickwork Antiquity - - - - ~ Mediaeval Brick - - - : Influences moe Revival - - Brick Sizes - a - - Prices, Wages and outer - - - Brickmaking~ - : “ - : : Terra-Cotta - - - - - - Statutes, Proclamations and Orders - - Tax on Bricks, 1784-1850 - - - Characteristics of Brick - - : 2 Factors : Form, Texture, Colour - - Association with other Materials - - Manipulation of Brick Bonds, Joints and Patterns - Diapers - < “ = _ : Inlay, Tracery and Strapwork - Brick Moulding = - 2 : S Gauged Work : = : - Carved Brick - - “ 2 Corbelling, Chimneys - - - Gateways, Garden Details, etc. - Porches, Doorways and Windows - Stairs, Vaultings, Arcading, Fonts, Pinnacles, etc. - - - Table of Brick Measurements Arranged according to thickness - Arranged chronologically : a Photographic Illustrations = S . Measured Drawings - - = = Index - - = - . = = Fireplaces, Tablets, : 86 i 89 = i = - 96 pees 101-397 - 398-440 ee eecesho = 441 List of Subscribers ABELL, G. J., Exmouth, Devon. AINSLIE, W. L., Rowney Bury, Harlow. AINSworRTH, W. J., LOWDEN SYNDICATE, LTD., 29, Regent-circus, Swindon, ALBIon Cray Co., Ltp. (R. Lawton, Managing Director), Woodville, Burton-on-Trent. ALLISON, ENGLISH & Co., Ltd., Union Brickworks, Birtley. Atty, Henry, Lrtp., Hesketh Bank, near Preston. ANDERSON, A. B. ABJORN (LTD.), Svedala (Sweden). ARMSTRONG, CHARLES M. C., F.R.I.B.A., Warwick. ATLANTIC TERRA CoTTA Co., 350, Madison-avenue, New York, U.S.A. Baker, F., & Sons, Brickmakers, P.O. Box 7, East Maitland, New South Wales, Australia. BARKER & Jones, LtD., Brick Manufacturers, Wallasey, Cheshire. Bates, EpwarpD L., London. BATSFORD, B. T., Ltp., London. BaTsFoRD, Harry, London. BEAUFORT SANITARY PIPE AND Brick Co., LTD., Beaufort, Brecknockshire. BEDINGFELD, Sir HENRY, Bart., Oxburgh Hall, Stoke Ferry, Norfolk. BENNETT & SAYER, LtD., Derby. Berry Hitt Coiieries, Lrp, (Brickworks Depart- ment), Stoke-on-Trent. BincLey & York, Brick and Tile Works, Sea Point, Cape Town, South Africa (John Foulds, proprietor). ae L., A.R.I.B.A., 11, Great Russell Street, BLAKELEY, A. AND F, W., Stoney Hills, Ware, Herts. BLockLEys, Lrp., Hadley Brick and Tile Works, Hadley, near Wellington, Shropshire, BOARDMAN, EDWARD Tuomas, F.R.I.B.A., Queen Street, Norwich. Botton, ARTHUR T., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., 10, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, W.C.2. Botton A., & Co., Ltp., Brick and Tile Manufacturers, Dale Road, Ipswich. Boot, CHARLES, Sugworth Hall, Sheffield. Borel, C. E., The Borough, Farnham. “BORNEO Co., Ltp. (Alexandra Brickworks), Singapore.” BraDsHaw, Gass & Hope, F.R.1.B.A., 19, Silverwell Street, Bolton. Brett, The Hon, OLiver, Watlington Park, Oxon. Bripce, W. J., Old Abbey Brick and Tile Works, Burscough. BroaD & Co., Ltd., 4, South Wharf, Paddington, W. Vii Brooks TAYLor, J., & Co., Ltp., Cambrian Brickworks, Neath, Glam. (Two copies.) Brown, WILLIAM, & Son, Brick and Tile Manufacturers, Redhill, Surrey. BROWNE, Miss E. A., F.R.G.S., 42, Finchley Road, N.W. Brownrice, Sir D., Bart., 9, Victoria Street, West- minster, S.W.1I. BUCKINRIDGE, JOHN C., 400, Park Avenue, New York City, U.S.A. BUCKMASTER, MARTIN Tonbridge. BURMESTER, J. W. STANLEY, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 13, Queen Annes’ Gate, Westminster. BurscoucH Brick AND TILE Works, Ltp. (‘‘Thorou- goods’’), near Ormskirk, Lancs. BURSLEDON Brick Co., LTpD., 13, Portland Street, Southampton. BURSLEM SCHOOL OF ART, Stoke-on-Trent. BURTENSHAW & GREEN, Ltp., Hailsham Brickworks, Sussex. Busck, ARNOLD, Kjobmagerghde 49, Copenhagen. A., A.R.C.A., The School, CAMPBELL, Mrs., Layer Marney Hall, Kelvedon, Essex. CANDIDO GERMAN, Serano 20, Madrid, Spain. CARTER, F. E., Ltp., Exmouth, Devon. CARTER, G. & W. H., Brick Manufacturers, Slaters and Tilers, West Hartlepool. CARTER, J. CoATES, Manor House, Prestbury, Glos. CHAPMAN, J. W., New Byron Brick Co., near Chesterfield. CiaytTon, E. S., Brasses, Staplecross, East Sussex. CLAYTON, GOODFELLOW & Co., Ltp., Atlas Iron Works, Blackburn. Cor, ALFRED, LTp., Crown Street, Ipswich. CoE, Mrs. Henry E., No. 5, East Tenth Street, New York, U.S.A. Cor, W. T., 43, Essex Street, Strand, W.C, CoLLigeR, W. H. & Co., Brick Manufacturers, Marks Tey, Essex. CoLuigER, S. & E., Ltp., Grovelands, Reading. Mie W. D., Ltp., Brick Manufacturers, Edmonton, CozENs, WALTER, 23, St. Martin’s Hill, Canterbury. CRESWELL, Harry BULKELEY, F.R.I.B.A., 11, Stone Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.2. CRoWBOROUGH Brick Co., Ltp., Jarvis Brook, Sussex. CruM, ALBERT, New Lynn, near Auckland, New Zealand. Crurt, T. G., Architect, Oaks Farm, Shirley, near Croydon, Surrey. CucuRNY HERMANOS, Calle de Claris no. 101, Barcelona, Spain. Vill LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS DANESHILL BRICK AND TILE Works, Ltp., Basingstoke, Hants, (Three copies.) DAVENHILL, R. E., The Shrubbery, West Hagley, Worcs. Davis, W., Folks Orchard Brickworks, Knaphill, Woking. Dawson & Co., Lrtp., Mendip Wharf, Battersea, S.W.11. (Clement B. Broad, Governing Director.) Dosiz, W. Gen, A.R.I.B.A., 36, The Temple, Dale Street, Liverpool. DownnG, J. N., Messrs. Burn & Co., Ltd., pee India. DRANSFIELD, FRANK, Wm. Dransfield & Sons, Bosom Hill Brickworks, Oldham. DunTon GREEN Brick, TILE AND POTTERY WorKS, Sevenoaks, Kent. Durst, AusTIN, F.R.I.B.A., 3, Raymond Buildings, Grays Inn, W.C. Dussautt, L. L., F.R.I.B.A., 39, Newhall Street, Birmingham. EarteE, CHARLES F., 14, Morden Road, Blackheath, S.E. Eastwoops, Lrtp., 47, Belvedere Road, Lambeth, S.E,1. (Three copies.) Epen, F. C., M.A. F.S.A., F.R.LB,A,, Square, W.C. Epwarps, E., Winstone’s Roofing Tileworks, Ltd., Taumarunui, New Zealand. Epwarps, J. C., Terra-Cotta Works, Ruabon. EMPLOYERS’ NATIONAL CoUNCIL FOR THE CLay IN- DUSTRIES, 25, Victoria Street, Westminster, S.W.1. Evans, H. A., Goldsmith Avenue, Portsmouth. 2, Bedford FAuDEL-PuHILLiPs, Sir BENJAMIN, Bart., Hertford. FEDERATION DES FABRICANTS DE BRIQUES ET DE MATERIAUX DE CONSTRUCTION DE LA REGION DU NorD DE LA FRANCE, 9, rue de Pas, Lille (Nord), France. FEILDEN, Colonel W. G. C., C.M.G., Rampyndene, Burwash, Sussex. Fercuson, P., Africa House, Kingsway, W.C.2. FIeLp, Mrs. BasIL, 14, Cambalt Road, S.W.15. (Two copies.) FLockTon, Cartes B., Architect and Surveyor, 15, St. James Row, Sheffield. FOLESHILL BRICK AND TILE Co., Lip. Coventry, Warwickshire. Forster, F. J., A.R.I.B.A., Sussex, Balls Park, Longford, “Yew Tree,” Ashington GARDNER Bros. AND ParKER Ltp., Brick, Tile and pat Manufacturers, Queen Street, Auckland, Garticx, G. H., District Bank, Ltd., King Street, Manchester. GEDDES, THe Rr. Hon. Sir AUCKLAND, G.C.M.G., K.C. B., Frensham, The Layne, Rolvenden, by Cranbrook, Kent. GILBEY, ARTHUR N., Folly Farm, Sulhampstead, near Re GILBEY, CHARLES, The Red House, Herts, GLADSTONE, raed R. M., Grosmont Brick Co., Ltd., Yorkshire Sawbridgeworth, i ae Giossop, Epwin, Brick and Ganister Works, Ambergate, _ | Derby. Gotp, H. A., M.C., A.R.ILB.A., 14, Bedford London, W.C.2. E Gotcu, J. A., M.A. (Hon.) Oxon., F.S.A., F. Bank Chambers, Kettering. GRADWELL, SYDNEY A., 29, Princes Street, ] GREAT FLOAT BRICK Co.: Lap, ego = Road, Ches. (F. Williams, Managing Gunn, Epwin, A.R.I.B.A., 80, v8 ings iddlesex, GUNVILLE BRICK AND TILE WoRKs, of Wight. HADFIELD-PENFIELD STEEL Co., U.S.A. Hatt, E. Srantey, M.A., F.R.LB. ae : Square, W.C. 1. jeer Hatt, W. W., Station Road, Hae r. a Walmersley Brickworks, ury. | HANNEFORD Situ, W., F.R.S. Edin., HannEn, The Hon. Henry, D.L., J.P., Harris, GEORGE, Brickfield House, HATHERN STATION BRICK AND be Loughborough. Hawkes, Henry, Whitemoor Bri HERTINGFORDBURY BricK Co., 1, Hertford (A. D. Skipp, pro a) Herts. District AssociaATION oF B FACTURERS, St. Albans. Herr, L. Kerr, F.R.1.B.A., Paternoster Hicerns, W. AND Son, Broughton Stre Manchester. > HicH Brooms Brick AND TILE Co., Wells. Hicson, Josep & Co., Daubhill B Hit, Mrs. Wyte, Balthayock by P Hinton, Perry AND DavENHILL, L Pensnett, near Dudley. =a Ho.ianps, Rosert (Exors, of), F Broughton, Salford. aS: Howarp, ALGAR, Thornbury Castle, Howrg, F.C., Estcourt, Mauchline, Hucues-Hucuss, M. E., FSA, Terrace, Regent’s Park, NW. Humpureys, Loyat E., Stapler I Hunt, WILLIAM AND EDWARD, FF.R ; Huntty Brick & FIrRECLAY Co., P.( Huntley, Auckland, New Zealand. ee OF CLAYWORKERS, 43, ae : IREDALE, J. HENRY, 26, Irwell Ch Chairman and Managing Brickworks, Ltd.). JENNINGS, GEORGE, South Western Potte Pa. JENNISON, J. W., 5, The Avenue, Consett’ Durhi Jounston, H. J. C., The Leeds Enea Lt LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS 1X Jongs, Francis, F.R.I.B.A., 178, Oxford Road, Man- chester. Jones, FreD. P., Managing Director, Buckley Junction Metallic Brick Co. Ltd., via Chester. Jones, W. Sipney, A.R.LB.A., Little Gables, Cheam. KEEBLE (1914) Ltp., London, W. KENNETT, J. AND G., 16, Southwick Road, Blackheath, Staffs. KryMErR BRICK AND TILE Co. (1914), Ltp., Burgess Hill, Sussex (M. Young, Director). Kine, Francis W., F.I.0.B., (Wm. King & Sons, Builders), 41, Market Street, Watford. Kretinc, RupyARD, Bateman’s, Burwash, Sussex. Kneren, Ropert H., Brickmaker, 5, Patrick Street, Peel, Isle of Man. Knox, J., The Chase, Nuneaton. LAGAN VALE EsTATE BRICK AND TERRA CoTTA WoRKS, Ltp., Stranmillis Road, Belfast (T. Courtland Hunter, Managing Director). Lamp, W. T. & Sons, 43, Shoe Lane, E.C. LavER, Puiip, F.S.A., 43, Head Street, Colchester. LAWRENCE, Tuomas, & Sons, Bracknell, Berks. Lioyp, R. W. I., 5, Albany, Piccadilly. LockE, ARTHUR, O.B.E., “Pyrlands,” Woking. Lomer, Major G., D.S.O., The Lunsford Co., Ltd., Bexhill-on-Sea. Lonpon Master Buiitpers’ AssociATION (Ernest J. Brown, Director), 34, Russell Square, W.C. LuTYENS, SIR Epwin L., R.A., 17, Queen Anne’s Gate, Westminster, S.W. Lyte, Colonel A. ARTHUR, Barrington Court, Ilminster, Somerset. MAIDENHEAD BRICK AND Tite Co., Lrp. (Horace Boot, M.I.Mech.E., Chairman.) MAtcotmson, VERNON A., J.P., Aston Bury, Stevenage. Mattsy METALLIC Brick Co., Ltp., Rotherham. MarrisGE, Basit H., Hatfield Peverel, Essex. MEDLEY, C. D., 13, Lambolle Road, N.W. MerRIAM, C. P., 52, Harley House, N.W.1. MippLepitcuH, B., The Park, Harrow-on-the-Hill. MILNER, The Viscountess, 14, Manchester Square, W.I. Mitton Hatt (SouTHEND) Brick Co., LTD. MITCHELL LIBRARY, THE, Glasgow. MiTcHELL, THomas, & Sons, Guildford Park Brick- works, Surrey. Montacu, The Hon. Mrs, E., Breccles Hall, Attle- borough. MooreE-SmitTH, J. R., J.P., F.R.I.B.A., 14, Union Court, Old Broad Street, E.C. Mountain, Mrs. H. S., Groombridge Place, Kent. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION PLASTERERS, GRANOLITHIC AND CemMENT Workers (A. H. Telling, Secretary), 37, Albert Street, London, N.W. NorMAN & Burt, Builders, London Road, Burgess Hill. Norris, R. A. (Managing Director, Leverstock and Acorn Red Brick Co., Ltd.), Hemel Hempstead. NorRTHERN ARCHITECTURAL AssocIaTION (J. T. Cackett, Hon. Treas.), Newcastle-upon-Tyne. NoTTINGHAM SCHOOL OF ART. NoTTINGHAM PATENT Brick Co., LtTp., 14, George Street, Nottingham. Oates, HERBERT (Oates & Green, Ltd.), Halifax. OcpEN, E., 11, Ferney Road, Chadderton, Oldham. OsMAN, ALBERT E., 94, Plantation Street, Accrington. Owen, J. Fenwick, Brick Manufacturers, Wheat- hampstead, Herts. PARKER, Curis. W., Faulkbourne Hall, Witham, Essex. PascaLL, Tuos. & Sons, Brick Manufacturers, Borough Green, Kent. Payne, J. Lewin, O.B.E., Bishopstone, Reculver, near Herne Bay. Pearson, E. J. AND J., Ltp., Stourbridge. PEARSON, J. E., Koelenhof Brick & Tile Co., Ltd., S.A. PLowmans’ BRICKFIELDS, Ltp., Upper Edmonton, N.18. as BRICK AND Tite Co. Ltp., near Ashford, ent. Poot & Sons, Hartley Wintney, near Basingstoke. Porter, Cuas., Enfield Red Brick Co., Middlesex. Powpritt, ARTHUR JOHN, I and 3, Hitchin Road, Luton. Pratt, FRANK, 23, Woodford Road, Watford. PRINCE, JOHN, Connah’s Quay, Flint. Procter, JoHN (Brickworks Director), 93, Halifax Road, Nelson, Lancs. RAVENHEAD SANITARY PIPE AND Brick Co, LTD., St. Helens, Lancs. RAVENHEAD SANITARY PIPE AND Brick Co., LTD. (William Heaton, Manager), Upholland Works, near Wigan. Ricuarps, Joun I., Brynhenlog, Lower Cwmtwrch, Swansea Valley. Riwer, T. & Son, Builders, 181, Union Street, South- wark, S.E. Ropinson, Major W. H., F.R.I.B.A., Hill Cottage, Linton, Kent. Rogson, J. S., Hales Place, Tenterden, Kent. ROTHSCHILD, Miss M., 42, Finchley Road, N.W. Row1Ey, Wm., The Metallic Tile Co. (Rowley Bros.) Ltd., Chesterton, Staffs. Royvat INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, per Rudolph Dircks, Librarian, 9, Conduit Street, W.T1. SALISBURY, The Marquess of, G.C.V.O., 21, Arlington Street, S.W.TI. SanKEy, J. H. & Son, Ltp., 74, Cheapside, E.C.2. Scotswoop Brick Co., Ltrp., Scotswood-on-Tyne. Scott, A. H., J.P., Florimel Court, Birchington-on-Sea. SETH-WaRD, MELviILLE, F.R.I.B.A., F.R.S.A., 104, Victoria Street, S.W. SHarp, Jones & Co., Ltp., Bourne Valley Pottery, Parkstone, Dorset. SmEED, DEAN & Co., Ltp., Sittingbourne, Kent (Six copies.) SmytH, J. R., Heathfield Towers, Youghal, co. Cork (Managing Director, The Youghal Brick Co., ss xX LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS SousTer, E. G. W., F.R.1.B.A., 3, St. James’s Street, S.W. 1, SouTHWooD Jonss, L., Danygraig Works, Risca, Mon. STEIN, JoHN G., & Co., Lrp., Silica and Firebrick Manufacturers, Bonnybridge, Scotland. STEPHENSON, A. H., J.P., Globe Brickworks, Garrison Lane, Birmingham. STONEHOUSE Brick AND Tire Co. Lrp. (Arthur Anderson), Stonehouse, Glos. STOURBRIDGE GLAZED BRICK AND FIRE Cray Co. LTp., Blowers Green, Dudley, ~ STUBBS, ERNEST, Macupa Brick and Tile Works, Uganda Railway, Kilindini, Kenya Colony. SussEx Brick AnD Estates Co., Lrtp., Horsham (J. Stewart Whitehouse, Managing Director). SUTHERLAND, The DuKkE or, Hampden House, Green Street, W.1. Tasor, Colonel JoHN CLEMENT, Giffords Hall, Stoke- by-Nayland, Suffolk. TANNER, Messrs. Henry, FF.R.I.B.A., 3, Hanover Square, W. THOMAS-STANFORD, CHARLES, F.S.A., Preston Manor, Brighton. THompson, C. W. W., F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., Architect and Surveyor, Bank Chambers, Rochester. THompson, R., Hoyland Brick Co., Ltd., Hoyland, Barnsley. THompson, WILLIAM, Brickworks, Chilwell, Nottingham. Tomson, Jas., York Road, Bellambi (Illawarra Line), New South Wales, Australia. THomson, Jas., jun., York Road, Bellambi (Illawarra Line), New South Wales, Australia. THOROLD, Sir Joun, Bart., Syston Old Hall, Grantham. Tusss, Percy B., F.R.I.B.A., 30, John Street, Bedford Row, London, W.C. 1. UNITED ALkatl Co., Ltp., St. Helens, Lancs. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LIBRARY, Gower Street, W.C.1. VEVERS, E. GWYNNE, Managing Director, Cattybrook Brick and Tile Co., Ltd., 15, Clare Street, Bristol. WALLEY, Cuas., Stafford Brick and Tile Works, Stafford. Ward, R. G. & Co., Ltp., Brick Makers and Merchants, 5, Laurence Pountney Hill, Cannon Street, E.C. Warne, F., Brickmaker, Newpond Brickworks, Reigate. WEAVER, Sir Lawrence, K.B.E., F.S.A., Hon. A.R.I.B.A., 38, Hamilton Terrace, N.W.8. ‘WEBB Bros, Ltp., 10, Colonnade, Cheltenham. WEBBER & STEDHAM, Brick Manufacturers, 23, Market Street, Torquay. WELLS, Douctas, F.R.I.B.A., 18a, St. Albans Road, South Kensington, S.W. WESTERN Counties Brick Co., Lrp., 7, Frankfort Street, Plymouth (S. B. Stedham, Managing Director). WHEATLY & Co., Springfield Tileries, Newcastle, Staffs. WHITFIELD, T. S., The Cobridge Brick and Marl Co., Ltd., Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent. WHITTAKER, C., & Co., Lrp., Accrington. Wicut, G. Winx, 150, Hope Street, Glasgow. WitEs, ARTHUR Ep., The Lincoln Brick Co., Ltd., City Chambers, Lincoln. Witiamson, Curr, Lrp., Fireclay Works, Stamford. Woop & Co,’s Brickworks, St. Helens, Lanes (Jno. J. Bate, Proprietor). WraGG, HERBERT, M.P., Swadlincote. WriGHT, Sypney A., Nettlebed, Henley-on-Thames, WricuT, W. T. & Co., Lrp., Brick and Tile Man facturers, Sileby, near Loughborough. YEATMAN, Léon, Syndicat des Fabricants de Produits Céramiques de France, Paris. YORKSHIRE AMALGAMATED Propvucts, Waterdale, Doncaster. YoucHaL Brick Co., Lrp., Youghal, co, Cork, (Ten copies.) Younc, T., Manager, Nairobi Brick, Tile and Pipe Works, Nairobi, Kenya Colony. Ltp., 27, Introduction HIS is a book that all who appreciate Bricks and Brick Building, and all Architectural Students, both young and old, who yet have aspirations to improve, should possess, read and digest. Mr. Lloyd has done real service to a great English Tradition, and I earnestly hope that English Architects and Builders will take heed and benefit so that our England will become yet more beautiful, and the prevailing methods that so mar our Country will cease ; and that the influence of this book will once more help to produce those beauties that were ours in times—alas—gone by. EDWIN L. LUTYENS. xi J . ' , ‘ Wate : ( : f Bag ts . 3 “ + ‘ 4 Preface HERE are probably more buildings in England constructed of brick than of any other material. Amongst these are some of the most interesting, the most picturesque and the most serviceable structures that we have in any material. Attempt has been made to illustrate all types, including buildings which are well known, but which are so important as to demand admission. The majority, however, of the buildings and details have not appeared in any book, and I have taken almost all the photographs specially for this volume. ’ It is important that the general public should have some knowledge of the possibilities of brick architecture, for with them rests the decision what domestic buildings shall be built and of what materials. Few persons are so uninfluential as not to be capable of expressing views which carry some weight. Should such views be based upon real knowledge of the subject, the greater will be their effect. There is another aspect in which this History should appeal to the man in the street. A mere perusal of its illustrations is calculated to open eyes to appreciation of buildings in villages and country towns at which they may previously have gazed, but certainly had not seen. new added interest to life, which even such slight acquaintance with architecture confers, can scarcely be over-estimated. Illustrations have been arranged chronologically rather than in types ; by this means diversity of forms in the same periods is best displayed. Every good brick building could not possibly be included, but it is believed that every important type 1s represented by at least one example. The claims of Architects have not been overlooked, and it is hoped the photographic details and drawings may be found serviceable. While in the South of England good brick buildings are now being designed and built, there are other districts where the potentialities of brick are ignored, and where its use is confined to the most utilitarian purposes. Such neglect 1 A share in the credit for such merits as the photographs may possess should be given to Mr. A. E. Walsham, whose instruction in the art of architectural photography (given ten years ago), has enabled me to avoid many pitfalls into which, but for his guidance, I must certainly have stumbled. xiii X1V PREFACE and degradation of the material, which Wren so highly esteemed, 1s lamentable, and must be prejudicial alike to designers and districts. Typical details are given of doorways, windows, ornaments, etc., which are often self-explanatory, but below each are notes, which may often save necessity for reference to the text. Dates are given also. Where these are upon the actual building, or are elsewhere recorded, they possess great interest and value. Others, which are only approximate, are based upon similar works elsewhere, the dates of which are known, but, as styles and details persisted in some localities long after they had been superseded in others, it may well happen that some of these may require correction in the light of further knowledge. It was thought, however, that an approximate date was better than none. In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the owners of buildings illustrated, who allowed me to examine and to photograph them, and for the very great kindness and courtesy which I invariably received. The measured drawings bear the names of the draughtsmen, all of whom have shown much interest and taken pains correctly to record measurements and mouldings. My thanks are particularly due to Mr. C. S. White, A.R.I.B.A., who made it a labour of love to measure up Willmer House, Farnham, all the details of which he recorded, not by guesswork from the ground, as is so often done, but by actual handling from ladders. The drawings of Cromwell House, Highgate, by Mr. L. Keir Hett, F.R.I.B.A., are also from measurements taken (in the same way) specially for this book, and should be particularly interesting to designers and brickmakers. Mrs. Buckmaster’s beautifully finished and conscientious drawings (often made from somewhat scanty material) speak for themselves. I wish also to express my grateful thanks to Captain C. W. Firebrace for help in research work, to Mr. Charles M. C. Armstrong, F.R.I.B.A., for the detail drawings of the gateway at Chesterton, and to Mr. Charles McLachlan, F.R.I.B.A., for lending me his thesis on “The Architects of the Renaissance in England and their Materials ”’ ; to Mr. Arthur T. Bolton, F.R.I.B.A., for the drawings of chimneys at Compton Wynyates; to Mr. Algar Howard for the photograph of his fine chimney at Thornbury Castle, taken some years ago, when scaffolding was up for repair work; and to Mr. V. A. Malcolmson for photographs of those at Aston Bury. I also wish to thank Dr. Philip Laver, F.S.A., for information regarding Roman and early mediaeval brickwork, and PREFACE = Mr. L. F. Salzman, F.S.A., for directing my attention to early illustrations of brickmaking which would not have been traced but for his profound knowledge of mediaeval literature. To Mr. H. Greville Montgomery, Hon. A.R.I.B.A., I am also much indebted for the interest he has shown and for the assistance afforded in arranging the production of this volume to exhibit to the greatest advantage the materials I have gathered. I do not think any author or any book can have been more fortunate in a publisher. I have taken some pains to acknowledge quotations, and to verify references, the result of the latter being to enable me to correct errors which have been copied and recopied for over 150 years. The tables of measurements, of prices and the details of methods of manufacture in the past may provide answers to questions which are frequently asked by those interested in the history of the industries of their predecessors. NATHANIEL LLOYD. Preface to Second Issue T is satisfactory to record that since this book was first published in December, 1925, no error has been pointed out which required correction, except the transposing of two illustrations on pages 301-2, (for which correction slips were immediately provided), and which is now amended. I take this opportunity of gratefully expressing my thanks to all reviewers who have so ably and kindly reviewed this History. The expression of their appreciation and the recent demands from overseas have brought forth this new issue. I do not think anything can so richly reward an author for his labours as such a “call,” to which, accordingly, I make my grateful bow. NATHANIEL LLOYD. GREAT DIxTER, NorTHIAM, SUSSEX, 1928. A History of English Brickwork HE origin of brick in England is buried in the mists of antiquity. The Romans are supposed to have introduced it, but it is certain that Roman or Continental influence prevailed here long before the Roman occupation. The practice of baking clay for other purposes than for pottery (a very ancient art) was current in early ages. Baked clay spoons were made in Sussex’ a thousand years before Cesar landed. Brick loom-weights (in a variety of shapes and sizes) have been found amongst Celtic remains, of earlier date than 100 B.C. Some of these are pyramidal in shape, others are like triangular tile-bricks 1} inches thick, having rounded angles and perforated to receive the cord. They are certainly burnt brick, though not burnt very hard ; in that respect they differ materially from the well burnt Roman tile-brick. “In a late Celtic tumulus at Hale Magna, Lincolnshire, a hand brick was found (viz., a cylindrical mass of clay bearing evidence of having been clenched in the left hand before baking). With it yellow, purple and pale red bricks (3} by 3 by 5 ins., 34 by 14 ins., 34 by 12 ins.) were also found. Apparently these had been moulded for the construction of a rude dome over a funeral deposit.’” Of Roman wall-bricks there is an infinite number of examples in this country. They vary greatly in size—some being square, but 18 by 12 by 13 inches is a common size, and while 1 inch thickness is general, bricks up to and even exceeding 3% inches in thickness are not uncommon. Some re-used in the Saxon tower of Trinity Church, Colchester (p. 255), are this thickness. Roman brickwork was built with thick mortar joints (j inch, 1 inch or more), and the bricks were hard and well burnt. Roman ruins have ever been sources from which materials have been obtained for later buildings. Colchester Castle (p. 101) shows lacing courses of re-used Roman bricks, binding the flint walling just as used by the Romans in the Roman wall (p. 357) close by. St. Botolph’s Priory Church, c. 1100 (p. 102), shows extensive use of Roman brick structurally, both in the interior and at the West end. Apparently the surfaces were plastered 1 “Neolithic Spoons,” by J. E. Couchman, F.S.A. Trans. Sussex Archzological Society, Vol. LXI., 1920. 2 « Archeological Journal,’ XVII., p. 63, 1860. I 2 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK over, including the intersecting arcading and the unmoulded orders of the doorways between the moulded stonework. St. Albans Cathedral, c. 1100 (p. 103), in the centre portion of which Roman bricks from the city of Verulamium were used, is an excellent example of good effect produced by use of thin bricks built with thick joints on a large scale.’ In the ‘‘ Dictionary of Architecture”? comparison is made between Roman and modern Italian bricks, and it is stated that 2 “The burnt bricks of the Romans, as may be seen by inspecting any of their works, are exactly like those of the present day in Italy, which latter are in fact tiles made of clay, beaten flat, dried on the ground, stacked edgeway in kilns and burnt by the flame of wood.” It is obvious that bricks so made would vary greatly in all dimensions as, in fact, Roman bricks do. Following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (and of civilisation) in the fifth century, together with the removal of Roman influence from Britain, was the period known as the Dark Ages ; a period when arts, crafts and industries languished. The Saxons, who occupied England during a great part of this period, were a pastoral people, who erected few buildings of a permanent character. Timber and thatch (materials which lay ready at hand) were more to their liking than brick and tile, which required preparation and time for manufacture. Where more permanent materials were required, bricks were taken from ruined Roman buildings, but no indications exist showing that the Saxons made either bricks or tiles. Saxon references to tegulae must not be assumed to refer to burnt tiles ; the term was applied to thin stones. In Aelfric’s Vocabulary of the Tenth Century, tegulae, the mediaeval Latin word for roof-tiles, is placed with varieties of stones, and translated “ hroftigla ” (roof-tiles), and the mediaeval Latin word “‘tessellae” (floor-tiles) as” ‘“lytle fetherscite florstanas,’’ that is little four-cornered floor stones. (Wright and Wulcker, Vocabularies, s.v. tegulae and tessellas.)* In all existing buildings of Saxon origin, where bricks have been employed, these appear to be Roman bricks re-used. There are many buildings prior to” the twelfth century containing such bricks, and it would be difficult to point to bricks before that time which can be said to have had other than Roman origin. 1 These walls were once plastered, however. 2 “Dictionary of Architecture,” Vol. I., p. 137, London, 1848. 3 “The Development of English Building Construction,” by C. F. Innocent. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 3 It should be remembered that the process of brick-making was a more lengthy one than it is now, on account of the time allowed for tempering the clay. We may dismiss Vitruvius’ statement that ‘“‘in Utica they allow no bricks to be used which are not five years old and approved by a magistrate’ as referring to unburned, sun-baked brick, but we do know that up to comparatively recent times a period of many months was allowed for tempering the clay. In 1570, Palladio, referring specifically to burnt bricks, says that drying bricks under shelter “‘ can’t be accomplished in less than two years.’ Whether such time was usually allowed for drying or not, it certainly was customary to dig clay in the autumn, turn once or more during the winter, and not mould into brick until spring, after which some considerable time was allowed to elapse before burning.’ The unsettled state of the country during the Dark Ages was unfavourable to industries requiring time for manufacture of products, and existing remains support a view that building was carried out with materials lying ready to hand, such as timber, stone and remains of ruined buildings, which required little time for preparation. Permanent buildings erected for purposes of defence were wanted quickly. These circumstances were not favourable to the conduct of so slow a manufacturing process as brickmaking. There are no records of brickmaking and no remains of brick (other than what appear to be Roman) between Roman and Mediaeval times. | In the Abbey buildings at Little Coggeshall, in Essex (pp. 104-5), are bricks, which certainly are not Roman, used in the construction of the Abbey and of St. Nicholas Chapel, adjoining, c. 1200-1220. These are used for wallings, for quoins, window dressings and internal mouldings. Those used for the Chapel quoins measure 12 by 6 by 1% inches ; those for the East window are 1} inches thick and fairly regular in size. The bricks are bright red in colour. In the flint rubble wallings are many pieces of brick and plain tile. The brickwork of this building 1s particularly interesting, because much of it is in its original condition and also on account of its mouldings. In the Abbey buildings are two early examples of brickwork. In the sub-vault of the Dorter is a brick doorway, c. 1200 (p. 256), having 1 “The Four Books of Andrea Palladio’s Architecture,’ Book I., Chapter III. 2 “arth for tiles to be digged and cast up before November, turned in February and not wrought before March.” Mee LANG EV (E477) Gy, 4b 4 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK jambs and two centred arch of two moulded orders. The bricks are purpose-moulded, and several show the same imperfection of the mould. There is a detached building (p. 104), three walls of which remain, built of flint rubble with a large proportion of brick. The windows (p. 283), which are entirely of brick, are lancet-shaped, with recessed jambs of two orders. Below these, inside, are recesses with pointed heads—all in brick. The bricks measure about 12 by 5} to 6 by 1% inches. The mediaeval brickwork of this Abbey is altogether different in character from the Flemish type of brick, shortly to be introduced. A little further North, in the County of Suffolk, is Little Wenham Hall, c. 1260-80 (p. 107), which is probably the earliest brick dwelling- house of its kind in England. The bricks used are of the true Flemish or Low Country type, measuring 9 by 43 by 2 inches, some 2} inches thick. These vary in colour, most being cream and greenish-yellow, with occasional pinks and reds. They are rough in texture and warped. The bases of the walls are of stone and courses of roughly knapped flints. A few feet up the brick walling begins. It has been suggested that the bricks may have been imported from Flanders by way of Ipswich, but it is at least equally probable that they were made locally, for we have authentic record of regular brickmaking in England from a period shortly after this. These bricks were of a type new to this country, and it is significant that the development of the use of brick in England synchronised with the adoption of this shape. Flemish weavers settled on the Tweed, in Herefordshire, and South Wales early in the twelfth century. Refugees from the Low Countries settled in Norfolk at Worstead at the end of the thirteenth century—the name of this village is still connected with certain woollen products, the manufacture of which was introduced into England by these refugees. These were followed at frequent intervals during the succeeding 400 years by similar immigrants, and the influence they exercised upon local architecture at various periods is obvious in those buildings which have survived. They appear to have introduced the art of brickmaking just as they introduced other industries; indeed, it would be surprising had they not done so. It is true also that bricks were imported from Flanders, but records of these refer to small quantities, which bear no relation to the immense numbers required to build a mediaeval castle. When superintending the repairs to Tattershall Castle, built c. 1440, Mr. William Weir submitted some of the bricks A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK a to the chemist of the Lincoln Brick Company for analysis and examination. The latter was quite definite on the point that the bricks could only have been made of Lincolnshire clay, on account of pebbles found in them, which he identified and which he believed were peculiar to the locality. It is, however, possible that quantities may have been brought as ballast; indeed, we know that small Dutch bricks were commonly imported from the fifteenth century and onwards. These, however, are quite distinctive in material and in make, whereas bricks of the type used at Little Wenham Hall do not differ from undoubted English-made bricks. Other examples of the use of such bricks is in the vaulting at Allington Castle, Kent, c. 1280, at Salmestone Grange, near Margate, and at St. Olave’s Priory, near Yarmouth. Such authorities as Bishop Lyttelton’ and Professor Thorold Rogers? were of opinion that bricks were not made in England (after Roman times) until the fifteenth century. It is probable, however, that bricks were made here early in the thirteenth century, and it is certain they. were made early in the fourteenth century. In the Pipe Rolls and Hull Ministers’ and Chamberlain’s accounts are records of the working of the Corporation Brickyards at Hull in the year 1303 and onwards.° At Beverley, in 1391, Richard Hamondson and two others came before the twelve keepers of the town and took of them the soil of the land called Groval Dyke, at a rent of 3000 tiles, called Waltyle,* and in 1440 a rental of 1000 Waltyle for the same purpose from Robert Collard, tilemaker, in the same locality is mentioned.’ Bricks, however, were being made at Beverley in 1344.° Mr. John Bilson, F.S.A., and Mr. Arthur F. Leach, F.S.A., have published a quantity of information derived from Hull accounts and Beverley accounts, which have corrected and greatly increased our knowledge of early brickmaking and brickbuilding in England.” We know that during the fourteenth century there was much brickbuilding in Hull. Leland, who died 1399, writing of Hull in the reign of Richard II. (1377-99), says :— “And in his tyme the town was wonderfully augmented for building . . . walls all made of brike as most part of the houses of the Towne at that time was.”’ 1 “The Antiquity of Brick Buildings in England in the time of the Romans.” ‘‘Archaeologia” I. Pub. 1757. 2 “History of Agriculture and Prices.” 3 John Bilson, F.S.A., in “R.LB.A. Journal” of 1908, p. 279. 4 Hist. MSS. Com., Beverley, MSS. 62. 5 Ibid. MSS. p. 128. 6 “The North Bar, Beverley,” by John Bilson, F.S.A. “The Building of Beverley Bar,” by Arthur F. Leach, Trans. ‘‘E. Riding Antig. Soc.,” Vol. IV., p. 47, 1896. 7 Ibid. 6 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK In the North and South transepts of Holy Trinity Church, Hull, c. 1315-20, the brickwork is in English Bond, the bricks being : South transept, g by 42 by 2% inches ; North transept, 92 by 43 by 23 inches. In the chancel, c. 1340, the bricks are 10 by 5 by 25 inches. The filling-in of the vaulting of the nave of Beverley Minster (second quarter of the fourteenth century) is done with bricks measuring 104 by 5; by 2 inches, and the bricks in the North Bar, Beverley (1409-10), (p. 108) are the same size, the joints are } inch thick and the bond is irregular. The only specially moulded bricks are the chamfered bricks, called ‘‘ squynchons”’ in the accounts, used for the jambs, arches of openings and recesses. The voussoirs are cut from these chamfered bricks ; the labels are of unmoulded brick ; the apices of labels are of carved brick ; and the corbel table has a dentil course between two projecting courses of plain brick.’ Reference has been made to the introduction of the Flemish type of brick by settlers in England from the Low Countries, but other influences popularised the use of brick here, especially in districts where stone was scarce. Of these two may be indicated, one of which was commercial, the other military, both being influences which have frequently determined architectural materials and styles. The beginning of that association of North German and Low Country towns in what was known as the Hanseatic League cannot be traced. It already was a working force in the twelfth century. Originally an association of merchants dwelling together in a fortified place for mutual protection, it ultimately became a combination of great cities, exercising © immense influence and power. In 1157, Henry IJ. granted important privileges to the Hanse of Cologne, facilitating their trading with London. In 1194, Richard I., when passing through Cologne, made further concessions, freeing these merchants of tolls and customs and extending liberty to trade at all fairs in the provinces. In 1250, London storehouses were erected. In 1259, Henry III. confirmed privileges already granted, but the merchants (in return for civic advantages) had to undertake certain civic duties, e.g. repairs to Bishopsgate. In 1448, there was a state of war between the League and England, which terminated in 1478, when the privileges of the League were restored.” A characteristic of many Low Country and North German towns included in the League was the use and 1 “The North Bar, Beverley,” John Bilson, F.S.A., whose are the above measurements. 2 “R.I.B.A. Journal,” 1894: ‘‘Influence of the Hanseatic League on Architecture,” by J. Tavenor Perry. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK q remarkable development of brick as a building material. Its use was not confined to everyday purposes, but was extended to the construction of elaborate Gothic churches, for which it was moulded, cut and carved. A notable example is the East gable of the Church at Prenzlau, where rose window, arcading and tracery are all of brick. It was natural that brick should be used as the chief building material, for Flanders, Holland and Germany North of Frankfurt, Posen, etc., included a large area in which stone did not exist or was relatively scarce. The afhliation of towns in this area for commercial purposes led to interchange and adoption of the same architectural forms, resulting in an architectural character common to the whole of this great district. Hull was one of the most important Hanse towns in England, and it is there we find some of our earliest records of making and building with brick. Its use spread slowly, however, until well into the fifteenth century, when another influence caused brickmaking and building in brick to be carried out in localities widely apart. The Rev. J. Kestell Floyer developed the history of this connection between conquest and architecture some years ago,’ when he drew attention to the effect of French architectural characteristics upon fifteenth century brick castles in England. The strongest evidences in support of this theory of French influence are the facts (i) that certain fifteenth century brick castles were built by English knights and peers, who had been engaged in wars against France, and had even established themselves in French castles for years, from which they organised raids and despoiled that country ; (ii) that what we term English bond, which was in use in France, became adopted generally in England in place of the irregular bond of early mediaeval work; and (iii) the intro- duction of diaper patterns on wall surfaces formed by flared headers of dark colour and partially vitrified. He points out that Ralph, Lord Cromwell, who built Tattershall Castle, c. 1440 (pp. 109-10, 373-4), was in France through most of the reign of Henry V., and was present at the taking of Caen, Courtonne, Chambrays and other places in 1418. Sir Roger de Fynes, builder of Herstmonceaux, c. 1446 (pp. 113-14, 375), fought at Agincourt and in subsequent engagements in the wars of Henry V. Lord Scales, builder of Middleton Towers in Norfolk before 1460, served in the French Wars, was present at Meaux and Avranches in 1439, and was seneshal of Normandy in 1434. 1 “The Archaeological Journal,” June, 1913: ‘‘ English Brick Buildings of the Fifteenth Century,” by the Rev. J. Kestell Floyer, M.A., F.S.A. 8 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Sir John Tyrrell, who built part at least of Heron Hall in Essex before 1437, was at Agincourt in 1415, and assisted in the superintendence of defensive works at Calais. Sir John Fastolf (Falstaff of Shakespeare) a distinguished soldier, was at the Siege of Rouen in 1417, and at the capture of many French towns. He was created knight-banneret on the field of Verneuil in 1424, for having captured the Duc d’Alengon, the price of whose ransom was to build for Sir John at Caister, near Yarmouth, a castle (p. 111), at his own expense like his castle at Verneuil. This, Mr. Floyer says, is common tradition, referred to in the eighteenth century by the antiquarian Grose, who found it in a manuscript then in the possession of Mr. Anstis, Garter King of Arms. It is interesting to note that the bricks of this castle are more roughly made and more irregularly bonded than similar work in contemporary buildings—an existing confirmation of the tradition that it was “ a contract job.” The bond of the earlier English buildings, such as Little Wenham Hall (pp. 107, 359), was very irregular, but in the fifteenth century Old English Bond had certainly come into general use, and persisted until the intro- duction of Flemish Bond, about the second quarter of the seventeenth century. Strangely enough, English Cross Bond and Dutch Bond, which are English Bond with stretchers breaking joint (p. 440), also used in French castles," were not adopted in England to any extent. The diaper patterns are also characteristic of mediaeval French brick buildings, where such patterns were developed to an extent unknown in the Low Countries. Comparison of Auffay in Normandy (p. 439), Herbault, Courcelles-du-Roi and these English castles show that the diaper work introduced here, at first tentatively, in the fifteenth century and freely in the sixteenth century, was certainly derived from French buildings. Amongst the best English examples are Little Leez Priory (pp. 154, 360, 437-8), Layer Marney Hall (pp. 139-41, 437-8), Sandon Church (pp. 129, 261), all in Essex, and the Bishop’s Palace at Hatfield (pp. 117-119, 440). In each of these the diapers go beyond the conventional diamonds ; much of the work being copied from French patterns. Some idea may be obtained of the elaborate nature of French diapers formed by vitrified 1 E.g. The towers at Rambures, Picardy. The gable of chapel at Tilloloy. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 9 headers and the development of such patterns in bricks of various colours from the examples drawn from Auffay and from a dovecote near Rouen (pp. 364, 439). For reasons given, we may conclude therefore that the manufacture of bricks in England revived in the twelfth century, and that under the stimuli of easily procured material, example set by settlers from the Low Countries and fashions introduced by the great who had lived in France, its popularity increased. No doubt, also, convenience of handling and the adaptability of the unit, which could be cut, moulded or carved and its colour or texture varied as desired, tended to promote its use in all localities, except those where easily worked stone was procurable in quantities. Where this was the case, it might often happen that brick earths were not available; plenty of stone not infrequently implying scarcity of clays. Brick Sizes HE following tables of measurements are from data collected during a period of several years by the writer, except in a few instances, where the name of the authority is given. So great is the variation in sizes of bricks in the same wall, indeed, often in the same course, that observers often differ in the records obtained. Herstmonceaux Castle is a case in point, where the thicknesses are given by Sir Reginald Blomfield as 2 inches, by the writer as 23 inches (some 21 inches, few 24 inches), and by the Rev. J. K. Floyer as 2} inches, the last being stated to be an average. Bricks at Herstmonceaux vary between 12 to 2% inches, and it is clear the recorders must have proceeded by different methods ; Mr. Floyer’s was probably a maximum and Sir Reginald Blomfield’s a minimum or nearly so. The writer has not taken a number of brick measurements and averaged them, because, unless a very great number was taken, that method would almost certainly prove incorrect, depending upon chance in selecting. The method adopted has been to endeavour to find the standard brick by examining a considerable wall area at various points (avoiding narrow spaces and piers, where special sizes might have been chosen to fit in), and to measure that size brick of which the largest number was found. No object was in view but to record the dimensions of the average brick, not the average brick dimensions, and no theory was in view, the support of which might influence selection. The tabulation was only made and its form determined when all the data had been collected. Brick dimensions have exercised a peculiar fascination upon all students of old brickwork, and many writers have endeavoured, more or less definitely, to date buildings by such dimensions. The results have not always been conclusive. This is hardly surprising when the nature of the material itself is considered. ‘Take Caister Castle, in Norfolk, built by Sir John Fastolf, who died 1459. If the story of its being built for him by the Duc d’Alencon is true, it may have been built within a few years of his capture in 1424. Here the majority of the bricks used are 83 inches long and 2} inches thick, but many are 8 inches and 93 inches long, and frequently 2 inches thick. A large number of measurements show that - ro A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK II four courses (four bricks and four joints) usually rise 11 inches, but many rise 12 inches, and some only 103 inches. Now it is true that the thorough burning which the mediaeval bricks usually received caused shrinkage and distortion, but the variations, as in this case, are too great wholly to be explained by such contraction. It is common experience to find bricks in a fifteenth century wall differing in length by as much as two inches, each being a whole brick, not a three-quarter-bat, and in thickness as much as three-quarters of an inch. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that moulds varied considerably in size, and that care was not always taken to fill them with clay. This is confirmed by the phraseology of later legislation. ‘‘ Moulds to be well filled’? ; ‘‘ Make bricks of .. . unsizeable dimensions ’’® ; and again, “ Inconveniences have arisen to the Public by Frauds committed in lessening the size of bricks under their usual proportion, without diminution in price.’ Taxation by the unit turned the scale in the other direction, for it then paid to make bricks larger, and dimensions of 10 by 5 by 3 inches accordingly were made the maximum size chargeable at the lower rate of taxation.” The tabulated measurements do not throw fresh light upon the size in relation to the date theory. They support the view of many writers that the ‘“‘standard”’ brick in the fifteenth century was 2 inches in thickness, but show that this was not always so, Caister and Herstmonceaux being notable exceptions. From the middle of the reign of Henry VIII. there was a general tendency (still subject to exceptions) to increase the thickness to 2; inches. This thickness (established by the Charter of 1571) persisted until towards the end of the seventeenth century, when bricks of 23 inches became general. Attempts to date buildings by brick dimensions have been useful only in a vague and general way. The suggestion that bricks varied in length as the ell or yard became the standards of long measure are untenable in view of the great variations found in every piece of walling. The wide disparity between brick measurements in one building and even in one course must prove a fatal objection to such a theory ; indeed, close scrutiny leads to the conclusion that care was not exercised in making 1 « The drying and burning will abate something in the thickness, but little in the breadth, and in the length inconsiderable.’’—‘‘ The Builders’ Guide,’’ Wm. Leybourne, London, 1684, p. 130. 2 Proclamation, 1625. 3 Preamble 12 Geo. I. c. 35. 4 Preamble 17 Geo. III. c. 42. 5 43 Geo. III. c. 69. 12 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK moulds, and that probably half an inch or even more was a common variation in any of the dimensions. At best, dating buildings by brick dimensions can only be vaguely approximate, and afford but slender aid to the more reliable architectural features and to precise historic records in determining dates. CERTAIN STATUTES, etc.. REGULATING BRICK DIMENSIONS 1571. Charter, Tylers’ and Bricklayers’ Company 13 Elizth. 9x 44x 2} when burnt2 1625. Proclamation. 1oCho 4, 9 x 48 x 2} when burnt.’ 1725. Statute. r2sGeo de 9x 44x 2} for Place Bricks. 9X 44x 28 for Stock Bricks. 1729. 3 Geo. II. 83x 4}x 2} within 15 mile radius. 1769. 1o Geo. III. 84x 4 x 24 within 15 miles. Sizes as 12 Geo. I. beyond 15 miles. 1776. 17 Geo. III. 84x 4x 2} every part of England. Notr. By 2 Geo. II. the Tilers’ and Bricklayers’ Company was divested of powers of administration which were transferred to the Justices of the Peace. Although the word brick was in use in France (briche, quoted by Godefroy, 1264, and old French brique)® it does not appear to have been used in this country until nearly a hundred years later, and not generally until the fifteenth century. In 1303 bricks were referred to as Tegulae* and were sold as such at the Corporation Brickyard, Hull. ees Tegularum muralium.$ 1353 Waltighel, sold also at Hull. 1357 Flaundrestiell.® 14.04 Walletiell.” Tiles were called Thaktiell.® 1405-6 Brike, at Hornchurch; perhaps ballast to London. 1409-10 Squynchon is the term used to describe chamfered bricks, probably purpose- moulded. 1409-10 Bricklayers were called Tilewallers. Tilers were tile Thakkers.! 1 Tilers’ and Bricklayers’ Company to administer in London and within 15 miles of same. 2 Within the City of London and confines of same. 3 “New English Dictionary.” Brick. 4 Pipe Rolls & Hull Mins. & Chambln’s Accts. 5 « Sacrist R. of Ely,” F. R. Chapman, Camb. 1907. Roll vi., p. 67. 6 Exch. K. R. Accts. 472, No. 4. 7 Fabric Rolls of York Minster. 8 Ibid. * “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,” J. E. T. Rogers, IV., 434. 10 « Accts. for Building N. Bar, Beverley,” p, 47. 11 “ Hist. MSS. Com. Beverley,” p. 47. 12 [bid. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 13 “* Brikes,” In 1416 “de Bricke”’ at Crockernend “de Brykes.” 1426 “License to the venerable fathers, Henry, Bishop of Winchester, etc., to enclose, crenellate, enturret and embattle with stones lime and ‘ brike’ their Manor of More in Rykmersworth.’”? F437 “Tegulas called Brike.’” 1442 Brike-leggers = Bricklayers.‘ 1444 ‘“Tegulis vocalis Breke.”s 1465 Brekemaker.® 1481 Brick Kiln, implied in Brick-Kilner. N.£.p. 148 5 Brekelayer.’ 1500 Bryche-levers.® F552 Bryche-Kylne, fornax lateraria. N.E.D. 1580 Brick-keele, fornax laterita. N.E.D. Amongst early references to brickmakers by name in accounts are :— 1334-5 Willelms Tegulatori who made bricks at Ely. 1357 Johanni Lovekyn supplied 1ooo fHaundrestiell for a fireplace at the Palace of Westminster.!° 1409-10 Willelmo Katerynson. Willelmo Rolleston. Roberto Puttok. Johanni Elward. who supplied bricks for building Beverley Bar. 1417. Michael flemyng was one of “les flemynges’’ employed to make “de Brike’’ at Crockernend (in Nettlebed parish, Oxfordshire) for building at Stonore—expenses in repair of manor of Stonor. The accounts are those of Thomas Warefeld, receiver of Thomas de Stonore. He paid Michael Warrewyk for “‘ the making of 200,000 bricks (de brykes) ”’ and for the ‘‘ working of the same material,” £40. Payments were also made to different (diversis) men for carriage of the said bricks (brikes) from Crockernende to Stonore. Also payments for hire of a house at Crockernend “‘ for the said flemyng making Brike ” and ‘“‘ to Thomas Tiler for repair of the roof of the house of Michael fdemyng.” These entries are particularly interesting as evidence that Flemish workmen were employed in making bricks, and it is reasonable to suppose that similar labour was responsible for the manufacture of brick elsewhere even in the previous century, during which many Flemings settled in 1 Mins. Accts. 112, 15. 2 Pub, 4. Hy. VI, pt. 2 (419), m Io. 8 “Pat, Rolls,” 1437, p. 145. 4 Pat Roll. Hen. VI., part 3 m, 21. 5 Exch. K. R. Accts. 503, No. 12. 6 Mann and Housen, Exp. 30%. ? Cat. Harleian MSS., 1808, I. 285-1. 8 Cocke Lorell’s B. (1843). ® Sacrist R. Ely. vi., p. 67. 10 Exch. K. R. Accts. 472, No. 4. 14 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK England. It is further evident that Englishmen were engaged in brick- making early in the fourteenth century and probably before. There is no doubt that bricks were also imported ; 1000 bought for a fireplace at Westminster in 1357 may have come direct from Flanders, and in 1444, “ 98,000 tegulis vocalis breke were received by indenture of Richard Bokeland, Treasurer and Victualler of the town and marches of Calais, for the walls and chimneys (caminis exterioris) of the outerward of the aforesaid manor of Sheen.” The inconvenience and expense of bringing such a cargo, even by water and as ballast is obvious, and the wide distribution of suitable brick-earths, together with the presence of Flemings, must have favoured home production. Small bricks were persistently imported from Holland, however, from the fifteenth century onwards; indeed, these bricks seem also to have been brought or imported by Dutch settlers even as far as to the United States. Washington Irving, writing in 1809 the story of “Rip Van Winkle,” speaks of “A little village of great antiquity having been founded by some of the Dutch colonists in the early times of the province (New York) just about the beginning of the government of the good Peter Stuyvesant and there were some of the houses of the original settlers standing within a few years, built of the small yellow bricks brought from Holland,” In England the same bricks are to be found at many places on the East and South coasts (I have found them so far West as Topsham, near Exeter), and often many miles inland. They vary in colour from saffron yellow to pale pink. Many are soft and all are irregularly shaped and have good texture. There are some built into the battered base of the South front of Herstmonceaux Castle, which measure 8; by 3% by 12 inches. There are small bricks, 7 by 3} by 1} inches, in the parapet of Tattershall Castle, c. 1431-49, but Mr. William Weir (the architect who conducted the restoration) thinks (from the nature of the clay) that these may be of local manufacture. A seventeenth century building with ‘‘ Dutch”? gable at Topsham has smaller bricks of similar make, which measure 6} by 3 by 1} inches, four courses rising 8 inches. At Sarre, Kent, in a gabled and dated wall (1687) they are 7 by 3% by 11 inches. At Higham, Northiam, Sussex, in internal seventeenth century work they are 63 by 31 by 13 inches. At 102, High Street, Rye, are two sizes, 6 by 3 by 14 inches and 7} by 33 by 1§ inches, the latter in an old chimney, entirely built of them (p. 335), where four courses rise 8 inches. 1K. R. Exch. Accts. 503, No. 12. A HISTORY OF MODERN BRICKWORK 1G All these bricks, and many others at places round the coast, are quite different from any English bricks. It has been suggested that they are similar to the modern Dutch clinker, but comparison shows there is no likeness in the clays. Enquiries made in Holland show that bricks akin to these old ones are still made in Friesland (North Holland); that they are used for building houses, but principally for chimney stacks, and that the clay from which they are made is the same. A slightly larger (7 by 3 by 13 inches) and pinker brick, known as the Klompje brick, is still imported here from Holland, of which stocks are always kept in London. Most of the records of brickmakers refer to men bearing English names, but it is more than probable that they were employers of Flemish workmen, just as Michael Warrewyk received payment for bricks made by “ femyngs.”’ Further, there is no reason to suppose the bricks of which these buildings were constructed were made from any other than the local brick earths; on the contrary, they usually bear every appearance of such origin. In 1437, “ William Weysey, brikemaker, King’s Serjeant, was appointed to search for earth suitable for making tiles (tegulae) called ‘ brike,’ and arrange with the landowner to dig such earths and to make such tiles.’ In 1442, “William Wesey, brickmaker, was empowered to impress as many masons and ‘ brike- leggers’ as he might require for the works at Eton.” In 1485 was issued a “Licence . . . to reteigne Richard Chezholme, brekelayer.’”4 The last name I shall quote is that of VENTURUS MANDEY, whom a tablet in Iver Church thus commemorates :— “ Beneath this place lies interred the body of Venturus Mandey, Bricklayer, son of Michael Mandey, Bricklayer, and grandson to Venturus Mandey of this parish, Bricklayer, who had the honour of being Bricklayer to the Honble. Society of Lincoln’s Inn from the year of Our Lord 1667 to the day of his death. He was studious in the mathematics and wrote and published three books for Public Good: one entitled MELLIFICIUM MENSIONIS or the Marrow of Measuring, another of MECHANICAL POWERS or 1 “Dutcu oR FLEMIsH Bricxs.—I am informed by one that they are 6} inch long, 24 inch broad, and 1} inch thick: another tells me that they are 6 in. long, 3 in. broad, and 1 in. thick. As for my own part, I never measured them. They are of a yellowish colour. They are sold for two pounds a thousand in London. They are commonly used in England for paving edgeways.”—“‘ The City and Country Purchaser,” R. Neve, London, 1703, p. 39. PP Pat; Nols. 1497). D.: 145. & "Pat: tRoll,” 20, Henry Vi;, pt. 3, 21- “ Catal, Harleian, MSS. 1808, i. 285-1. 16 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK the Mystery of Nature and Art Unvayled: the third AN UNIVERSAL MAT: MATICAL SYNOPSIS. He also translated into English DIRECTORIUM GENEI URANOMETRICUM and TRIGONOMETRICA PLANA ET SPHE LINEARIS ET LOGARITMICA . .. and some other tracts which he d have printed if Death had not prevented him. He died the 26th day of July 56 years and upwards. He also gave five pounds to the poor of this parish.” This type of Bricklayer seems to have died out. 1 Notes and Queries, 9S., 449, 30-II-190I. 1 4 5 5 Place and Building, Quantity. Hull 545350 cy) 92,000 Beverley 3,000 45 2,000 Hull 6,000 York 98,000 Beverley 11,000 29 32,500 Hull 1,500 Beverley 28,500 York 6,500 99 4,800 Beverley 4,800 Hull 5,750 3 2,000 York 6,000 1409-10 Beverley 1,000 1307-27 1357 1417 1430 1449 14.53 5* 1485 6 7 1518 1579 Prices, Wages & Output Description. Tegulae 33 9 Waltighel Walleteill Tegulae 39 Waltill Waltiell Waltiles Waltil Waltyle Walltyles Walltele Squynchon Price Per M. Made and sold at 7 Hull Corporation Brickyard. Includes carriage. 3/8 North Bar A/cs. 4/2 North Bar A/cs. All the above are taken from “‘’The North Bar, Beverley,” by John Bilson, F.S.A. Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Society, 1896. Ely Cathedral, Lodge Chapel For fireplace at Westminster 1,000 For Staple House, etc. 18,000 a . 100,000 Crockernende for Stonore Court 200,000 Cambridge 2,000 2. 2,000 London 2,500 Oxford 2,500 Cambridge, King’s Coll. 23,250 9 29 2,000 Walltiles Flaundrestiell Tegulis bb) de Brykes Walltiles Bricks 3/8 8/2 8/- 5/- 4/- at Kiln. 5/- 5/9 4/- 4/- 6/- 1 3/- 1 “Hist, and Antiquities of Convl. Ch., Ely.” Rev. J. Bentham, M.A.,p. 66. 7? Exch, K. R. Accts. 472, No. 4. 3 Mins. Accts. 112, 15. 5 Ibid, III., 432. 5a Ibid, IV., 439. 4 “Hist, Agricul. and Prices,” Prof, Thorold Rogers, III., 430. 6 Ibid. III., 438. 17 7 Ibid, III., 435. 18 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Date. Place and Building. Quantity. Description, —. er M, 11625 By Proclamation I., Ch. I. Bricks 8/- “at Kylne.” 21664 Cambridge 4,000 nA 18/- Winchester 2,000 ~ 18/- 8 1667 London S. 16/- on site. 41668 Extremes in Leybourne’s experience : g/- to 18/- 5 1683 Not stated — ss 13/- to 14/- 6 1702 Harting goo ne 14/54 71722 Cambridge, St. John’s 10,000 16/- 81749 London Place Bricks 11/- atkiln. [London. - a 14/- Westminster or ° 1749 »» Grey Stock Bricks 18/- London, Grey Stock . Bricks, best coloured picked 20/- to 22/- ,, 1 1754 Northiam, Sussex 15/- at kiln. Place Bricks 14/- Grey Stock Bricks 20/- 117756 London Re + s : 20/- Fine old Red Cutting Bricks 50/- 121788 Brandsby 1,4.00 cc 15/- The table of prices recorded for bricks covers a period of 480 years —from the beginning of the fourteenth to the end of the eighteenth century. The lowest prices recorded are 2s. 3d. per thousand at Beverley in 1344, and 2s. 6d. in the same year at the same place. Prices in accounts do not always state whether at the kiln or delivered. While there is a considerable number of recorded prices for bricks, few records exist of wages paid to makers of bricks. In 1334-5, 1/- per thousand was paid for making wall tiles for the new chamber at Ely.® In 1337, 11d. per thousand was the payment for making 18,000 tiles, but whether thacktyles or waltyles is not stated."* At Eton, in 1604, 3s. per thousand was the rate paid for making 100,000 bricks.” 1 Rymer’s “Foedera” XVIII., p. 33, ‘Proclamation Concerning Buildings, etc., London.” 2 “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,’ VI., 519. 3 « The City and Country Purchaser and Builder,” by S. P. (S. Primatt) London, d. 14 October, 1667. 4 “ Architectionice,’” Wm. Leybourne, p. 106, London, 1668. 5 J. Houghton, Letters, 1683. 6 “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,’ VII., 520. 7 Ibid. VII., 421. 8 “Tondon Prices,” Batty Langley, p. 2, London, 1749. ® Ibid. p. 10. 10 Lease, Earl of Thanet to John Weekes to set up a kiln at Tufton Place. 11 “The Complete Body of Architecture,” Isaac Ware, London, 1756, pp. 745 and 60. 12 “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,” VII., 422. 13 Item Willelmo Tegulatori pro facta xviij mill et lx tegularum muralium prec. millen xijd, 18s. Dat eidem ex curialitate Dni 2s. Sacrist Rolls of Ely, by F. R. Chapman, Camb. 1907, p. 67. 14 “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,” J. E. T. Rogers, II., p. 580. 15 Ibid. VI., 624. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 19 In 1651, 8th April, at Quarter Sessions, Chelmsford, the daily wages of ‘“‘ Makers of Brick and Tile and Burners of Wood Ashes and Lime were fixed.”’ Mid-March to Mid-Sept. Mid-Sept. to Mid-March. With meat Without meat With meat Without meat and drink and drink and drink and drink 8d. 16d. 6d. 12d. Whole Year Wages 3 li. Livery 10/- Their servants and labourers 6d. 11d, sd. rod. Whole Year Wages 50/- Livery 10/- Piece-work scale :— The digging of the earth, the striking and burning of every thousand bricks, without meat and drink, having straw and all other necessaries laid Dyes. 6d." “VALUATION OF GROUND FOR MAKING BRICK. “Ground near London, that hath good Clay three or four feet deep is very valuable for making Bricks. It may be accompted that a yard of earth square will make seven or eight hundred bricks. If the owner of the ground will not make the Bricks himself and so take all the trouble and profit, he may let the same for a certain rent to be paid out of every thousand ; he may account that he may have a thousand Bricks made and ready for use, all charges for workmanship in fitting the earth, sand and straw, making, turning and burning at seven shillings six pence or eight shillings a thousand ; he may add three shillings for carriage of every thousand to the place where the same are to be used, which carriage is either more or less according to the distance of the place ; the seven shillings six pence being added to the three shillings for carriage, amounts unto ten shillings and six pence; so that if the Bricks yield thirteen or fourteen shillings a thousand, there is two shillings and six pence profit on every thousand for the Ground, and so if more or less. ‘The Proprietor may afford the Undertaker a moiety of the profit at least and so may set certain rent which may be one or two shillings in a thousand, or more or less, according to the goodness and fineness of the Clay and the Ground lying convenient.’ In 1683, Houghton states that a moulder, working alone, will turn out 1000 bricks in a summer’s day of 14 or 15 hours. With the assistance 1 “V. C. Hist. Essex,” II., p. 52. Article by Christy Miller. 2 «The City and Country Purchaser and Builder.” S. Primatt, London, 1667, p. 32. 20 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK of a man to temper the earth and of a boy to carry to the hacks he will turn out 2000 in a day, or an extraordinary man 3000. The price for moulding being 4s. per thousand, the actual moulder would take half of this. “In London I have known them at several Rates, as from gs. to 18s. the Thousand. That for making the Molder (besides his attendants) hath between 4d. and 6d, a 1000, and about gooo is accounted a reasonable day’s work.”? In 1703, R. Neve says of stock bricks :— “For making and burning (besides the digging of the earth) Age have 6s, per thousand, which is 1s. more than they generally have for place bricks.’” In 1703, Neve says the rates were :— ** Molder 6d. per thousand. Bearer off 4d. os He that tempers the earth 4d. a He that diggs it éd. _ “COUNTRY. For making the earth ready (after it is digged, the digging not being reckoned in the making), molding, bearing off and burning, their usual price is 5s. per thousand. “LONDON, as above, 5s. to 6s. per thousand.” In 1734, William Leybourne says of output, that : “‘ A day’s work is commonly gooo, but a dextrous workman will make about 14,000 to 15,000 in a day.’* The ‘“‘ Dictionary of Architecture,” Vol. I., p. 139, states that a man will mould by hand 40,000 bricks in a week, and that there is a record of as many as 63,000 in that time.° 1 « The City and Country Purchaser and Builder.” S. Primatt, London, 1667, p. 130. 2 “City and Country Purchaser.’ * Ibid. R. Neve, pp. 44, 45. 4 “ Architectionice,’’ Wm. Leybourne, p. 63. 5 For comparison, the following particulars of output in 1923, furnished by Messrs. Broad & Co., Ltd., West Drayton, may be of interest. Per hour. Per day, 9 hours. Per week, 50 hours. An ordinary hand stock brick moulder .. 700 ‘ 6300 35000 A good ditto .. a Fo 750-800 6750-7200 35250-40000 An exceptional ditto * - T000 8500 47000 The day and week’s production is made By a sey which consists of six men and boys, viz., Moulder, Offbearer, Temperer, Flatty, Pusher-out (a boy) and Barrow-loader (a boy). An ordinary hand red brick moulder.. I12 II50 6000 An exceptional ditto AN 140 1200 6500 A stool of Hand Moulded Red Brick Male csasstees of:—Three Moulders and one man as Temperer, to wheel clay to pug-mill for the three Moulders. Each Moulder “‘flats his own walk,” loads his own barrow and sets down his own bricks. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK | 21 There are more references to wages paid to bricklayers than to their hours and output. These were often regulated by the local governors of the craft. At Beverley, 1461, an Ordinance provided that “Wage receivers or hired men called Journeymen, shall observe the constitutions and ordinances made as to them, as is noted in the ordinances of the burgesses of each art, and science in the town in their several places.” Further, Beverley ordinances concerning individual trades include the following :— “No carpenter or tiler, viz., Tilethakker, Tilewaller and Plasterer, who has not a regular apprentice, who works with him, to employ a journeyman without the consent of the master of the works with whom he works, and the latter may employ any journeyman he pleases and finish a job begun by one with another.” “ Carpenters, tilers and their servants, paviours and their servants and workmen shall observe these hours :— “From Easter to the Assumption (15th August) from 4 a.m. to 7 p.m. with an interval at 6 a.m. of } hour to drink; at 8 a.m. of 1 hour for breakfast ; at 11 a.m. of 14 hour to dine and sleep; at 3 p.m. $ hour to drink, otherwise they shall not be tardy, or absent from their work, on pain of 12d. to the community. From the Assumption to Easter they shall begin at daybreak and leave off when the light fails. At this season they may have at 9 a.m. } hour to drink or breakfast, 12 noon 1 hour to eat ; 3 p.m. } hour to drink.” “ No Carpenter, &c., &c., shall refuse to work with any burgess who wants him unless previously engaged on some other work; penalty, 6s. 8d.’ The summer hours work out at a week of 703 working hours, Saturday half holidays being unknown. The tabulated records of wages paid to bricklayers and their labourers shows not only the changes of rates with time, but also with locality. It might also happen that a man was paid extra for taking charge of the works, as appears to have been the case when the Rev. S. Finch wrote of the building at Whitgift Hospital, Croydon, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, February 18, 1596 :— “Henry Blease and John Greene, bricklayers . . . have joyntlye taken charge of the bricklayinge works and have xvd apeece the don.”’ That this did not work satisfactorily appears in another letter recording that Blease is taken to task for trying to make Kilner, a bricklayer, pay him iid out of his wage of xiiiid “ pretendinge he is under you and comoneth in by you . . . but you shall not have your will.” 1 Hist. MSS. Beverley, Cd. 284, London, 1900, p. 46. 2 Ibid. pp. 47-8. 3 Ducarel I., pp. 153, 156. 22 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK BRICKLAYERS. Wages per diem. 1 1309 Oxford Ps 19917 S i ead,- 2 1328 ” 3d. 8 1365 Aylsham eal 4 1379 Oxford Ath 5 1399 Hornchurch 44d. 6 1409 Dec. Beverley Bar — 4d. T 1410. July ns wt are” ® 1503 Oxford sid. ® 1545 Greenwich 10d., gd., 8d., 7d., 6d., eT aS75 if- mo F58o Eton 1/- 12,1603 Cambridge af 18 1626 as 1/2 ey iba Seen 1/- 141641 Cambridge 1/4 1653 Eton 1/8 15 1667 London : #1702 Bricklayer and man 4/2 say 2/6 1703 ditto AIO ai g- 1704 | f= 1705 : 3/- 1708 Bricklayer and man 4/6 say 2/9 1708 a tere 18 1749 London . hoe 18 1749 Country — al- 18 1923 Nov. ‘Trade Union rates in London: | : Bricklayer 1/74 per hour | Labo 1/ . S ms tS ‘ Week of 44 hours. | 1 “Hist. Agricul, and Prices,” II., p. 290. 2 Ibid. IL, p.299. —S—*-‘Ibid. IL, ] ‘ Ibid, Il., p. 321. 5 Ibid, IL., p. 327. . ie * “The North Bar, Beverley,” John Bilson, p. 43. Did short day affect wage? ? Ibid. ‘‘2 bricklayers and their men for 1 week, ros.’ oy We oe * “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,” III., p. 619. Bricklayer and man, old. per day. Soe | ab ® Ibid, IIl., p. 630. 10 Ibid. III., p. 641. 1 Ibid. V1, p. 617. m4 12 Ibid. VI., p. 624. 3 Ibid. VI., p. 634. M Ibid. VI, p. 638. 9 #* “City and Country Purchaser and Builder,” by S. P. gent. (S. Primatt) London, 14 October, 1667. Ld oa “Hist. Agricul. and Prices,” VI., p. 651. 1s. 8d. Se Jia 2G. et 17 Ibid. VIL. p. 493- 18 “London Prices,” pp. 84, 134. “ Architects’ Loan 4 Nov. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 28 Particulars of bricklayer’s output have especial interest at the present time, when there are so many complaints of restricted production. Sometimes such output may be inferred from the prices current for materials and labour, together with the cost of the total works, but so long as rates of profit are unknown, no precise information can be extracted. Certain writers give definite figures. In 1667, the year after the Great Fire, wages had gone up, and a contemporary writer’ gives the following information respecting bricklayers :— “The rate demanded by many of them is seven pound a Rod and they to find all materials ; or forty shillings a Rod and the Builder to find them.” For a rod of brickwork :— “4500 Bricks at 16s. the thousand is three pounds twelve shillings. “An hundred and a quarter of lyme at 1os. the hundred is 12s. 6d. “Two and a half loads of Sand at 3s. is seven shillings and sixpence. “As for the Workmanship, it is commonly accounted amongst ordinary Workmen that three indifferent Bricklayers and their Labourers to make and serve them with Bricks and Mortar, are able to erect a rod and more every day of low Party-walls and ordinary work ; you may reckon that they are not able to do so much on Front-work and Arching- work for windows and that it doth require some small time for to fit their scaffolds, which is some loss in their work ; so that if you give the Bricklayers after the rate of three shillings a day and the labourers one shilling and eightpence, the workmanship for the Bricklayers and Labourers, reckoning that a Bricklayer is able to lay (taking the Front and Arch-work with the Foundations and Party-walls) a thousand Bricks every day, one sort of work with another ; a Rod of Brickwork, after that rate for Workmanship will amount unto about 21 shillings and for the master Workman for supervising them, and for his scaffolds six or seven shillings a Rod. You may compute the same to amount unto six pound a rod, which may be reasonable for an agreement by the Great, Materials and Workmen being at the rates before mentioned ; or if it be only for the Workmanship, you may allow, taking the better sort of work with the worser, one pound eight shillings for every Rod, there being a Master Workman. Or for their ordinary work four or five and twenty shillings. And for the extraordinary work (having their bricks that front the street rubbed, which cost seven or eight pence the hundred rubbing) thirty-four or thirty-five shillings a Rod, it may be reasonable. But if you agree by the Great at the rate of six pound a Rod, materials and workmen being at the dear rate before mentioned, you have that into the Bargain. The ordinary rate for this sort of Brickwork before the late Fire was five or five pounds five shillings at the most for every Rod.” Several interesting facts emerge from this extract. At the date (1667), 1 “ The City and Country Purchaser and Builder,” composed by S. P., gent. (S. Primatt), London, dated 14th October, 1667. 2nd Edition by William Leybourne, 1680. 24 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK the rate being asked for building was £7 per rod for brickwork, the actual cost of which the writer analyses as follows :— DR To Bricks, sand and lime we i ay he ye te Mee « Labour— 3 Bricklayers, 14 days at 3s. (1000 p. diem) p- diem ne ses a eee 1206 3 Labourers at 1s. 8d. p. diem #5-% eee es Master workman for supervision and for his scaffolding hee L690 28 Unfortunately he does not separate the cost of supervision from the cost of scaffolding, but apparently the item of 7s. is for supervision and use of scaffolding, the erection of which was done by the workmen as well as laying bricks at the rate of 1000 p. diem, taking one kind of work with another. Another writer says :— _ “A Bricklayer with a diligent labourer in sound and new work (all materials being ready) may lay a thousand Bricks and upward in a day.”? In ‘‘ The City and Country Purchaser,” 1703, which enters minutely into costs of various operations, it is stated that “A Bricklayer and his Labourer (having all materials ready) will lay in a day about 1000 Bricks in whole work on a solid plane and some very expeditious fellows will lay 1200 to 1500.’ Leybourne, writing in 1700 and in a later edition in 1734, says :— “When all materials are ready a workman with his labourer (in whole work upon a solid plain) will lay in one day 1000 bricks, and some 12 or 1500.’ Batty Langley is still more definite. Writing in 1749, he gives times — for various kinds of brickwork as follows :— | 1. “Common, rough, unjointed Place Brick Walling, as foundations, party walls, etc. In this kind of brickwork a bricklayer and a labourer can lay 1500 bricks per day and not overheat themselves, which I have often experienced. 2. Common Place Brick Walling, as Garden Walls, Out-Offices, Carcasses of ordinary houses, barns, etc., in this kind of brickwork there is more care required in laying the bricks and consequently more time is employed than in rough walling ; and besides, there is also Time expended in scaffolding, which in Foundations is but little, and Jointing, not any; 1 « A Guide for Builders,” Wm. Leybourne, London, 1668, p. 106. 2 Page 51. 3 “ Architectionice,” William Leybourne, London, 1700 and 1734, p. 64. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 25 so that to lay a thousand Bricks per day, one day with another, is a reasonable day’s work for a Bricklayer and a Labourer, and which every Honest Journeyman will not fail to do. 3. Of Front Walling, faced with Grey Stock Bricks, where every four courses rise but 11 inches, with common joints. I have often experienced that a tolerable good brick- layer, without Hurry or Driving, but working of his own Free-will, will lay in very good Fronts 500 Grey Stock Bricks Per Diem, with common Joints, which is about 1 Brick per Minute, with great neatness.’”! This works out at about 4d. per hour wage for an 83 hour working day, Batty Langley reckoning the bricklayer’s wage at 3s. per diem. As, however, he says in his Preface that the day is “from Six in the Morning to Six in the Evening, including the usual times for Breakfast, Dinner and Refreshment in the afternoon, without Hurry or hard labour,” the day must have been about ten hours and the wage about 33d. per hour. His figures are based on London prices, but, foreseeing objections made to the applicability of these in the provinces, he says :— “But methinks I hear some object hereto, and say, That Country Workmen are slow, and don’t perform Works with that Expedition as our London Workmen do, and, therefore, there cannot be a fixed Quantity of Work ascertained for a Country Workman to perform ina Day. To this I answer, that Country Workmen can, if they will, do as much Work per Day as our London Workmen. For our best London Workmen are chiefly Country Men ; who have no more Hands than two each Man; as every of those in the Country have; And therefore, if by an idle Habit of Body, they will not move and work with the same Celerity and Agility of Body, as London Workmen do, let them starve in their obstinate Sloth.’ It may be of interest to quote some of the current rates for brickwork in 1749 from ‘“‘ London Prices.’”* Foundations, etc. - ... os aK a £5 6 op. rod and 12/8? profit. Carcassing, etc. Ae Pee ae ae Jt peo) x 16/- Fronts, where 4 courses rise 12 in. ae Ge ear af ESLY4= °° ., Fronts, where 4 courses rise II in. ra Omar roe ve 19/8 = The profit is reckoned at 123 per cent. on materials and 25 per cent. on labour. The same volume contains prices for almost every description of bricklayer’s work, and many prices for work in London and at Ipswich are also included in William Salmon’s ‘‘ Palladio Londinensis,”’ fifth edition, London, 1755. Under the heading ‘‘ The Art of Bricklaying,’ Peter Nicholson, architect (in 1835), says :— “In common walling, where there are few or no interruptions of apertures or recesses, the bricklayer will lay . . . a rod (4500 bricks) in 44 days.’”s 1 “London Prices,” pp. 83, 87, 100. 2 Ibid, VI.-VII. 3 Ibid, VII. 4 Ibid. pp. 85, 89, 94, 97. 5 “ Architectural and Engineering Dictionary.” 26 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK It will be seen that from 1667 onwards writers of books upon building prices and costs are agreed as to what a bricklayer’s daily output should be and the numbers of bricks which should be laid upon different kinds of work. The day seems to have been one of ten hours net working and, upon ordinary house building, taking one kind of work with another, but excluding rubbed, gauged or other fancy work and tuck pointing, 1000 bricks a day was a number which a man might be expected to lay, with the assistance of one labourer. ‘This allowed for their erecting their own scaffolding, as required. If a rate of goo bricks a day of eight hours (scaffolding being erected for the bricklayer) be a modern equivalent, the rate of working has not been maintained. Mr. G. H. Roberts, a Labour Member of Parliament, speaking of housing shortage at Wolverhampton Town Hall on 7th June, 1920, said that a bricklayer had been known in competition to lay 2238 bricks in a day, “ but the average he had been informed should be not fewer than 800, yet to-day the number laid did not exceed 500.,””! Extraordinary numbers of bricks have been laid in one hour of concen- trated effort, which bear no relation to what should be done by an ordinary bricklayer working hour after hour and day after day. The illustrations on p. 397 show Mr. Chris. Hull laying 809 bricks in one hour at Treeton, in Yorkshire, on November 24th, 1924.2 The work is of that rough description which the writers quoted reckon should be laid at the rate of 1500 a day. It will be seen that the cross joints are not well flushed up, a fault only too prevalent in ordinary work (even when done slowly) at the present day. On another occasion the same bricklayer laid 844 bricks in one hour.? These records were surpassed by Mr. John Wood, who laid 879 bricks in one hour at Scarborough. This was done on a straight g inch wall, but “‘ every joint had to be filled up.” The fact that several labourers assisted in bringing materials close to hand in these performances suggests not only that the average bricklayer should lay more bricks in existing conditions, but also that a still larger number might be laid by better organised supply and placing of materials. Correspondence in the press during the last six months on the subject of bricklayers’ output has tended to confuse rather than to clear up the 1 Ministry of Health Journal, “ Housing,” 21st June, 1920. 2 « Sheffield Daily Telegraph,” by whose courtesy the photographs are reproduced. 3 Ibid. 30th December, 1924. 4 Ibid. 29th, and 30th December, 1924. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 27, question. On the one hand writers have failed to take into account the variety of work done by a bricklayer, while the Union officials have defended their trade by vague generalities or misleading comparisons, such as, that there are now 36,000 bricklayers, as compared with 92,000 before the war, and that the annual output of bricks is now 5000 millions as against 3000 millions before the war, therefore fewer bricklayers must be laying more bricks.' It is clear that the fact that great numbers of bricks are laid by men not counted as being bricklayers, has been ignored. Another disingenuous defence took the form of complaint that there was a shortage of bricks and that this was owing to the machinations of brick manufacturers.? The fact that brickmaking is a seasonal trade is ignored as also is the exceptional demand for bricks in view of the large building programme for the current year. For a whole generation labour leaders have preached the doctrine that restricted output means work for more men. The more enlightened leaders now know this to be a fallacy, but the erroneous teaching cannot quickly be rectified. It is always interesting to compare wages with contemporary prices, and the following table shows at seven periods the respective prices of wheat from records by J. Thorold Rogers, and artizans’ wages with their purchasing power. It is not always possible to find records of bricklayers’ wages, but they were usually the same as for carpenters, and other artizans. Days worked to buy a Wheat, per Bricklayer Artizan quarter Date. quarter. per diem. per diem. of wheat. Authority for wheat. 1409-10 4/6 4d. Decr. 134 “8 Ch. Work & W.” 6d. July 9 7 “ 1495 4/02 8d. 6 “6 Cent. Work & W.,” p. 567 1533 7/8 8d. 11} » » P- 389 1593 18/43 7d.-8d, 27% 9 » PP. 390-1 1684 42/04 1/- 42 r ape 02 1749 29/- 2/- Country 144 Sidist ad. Ocha VLL.vod 3/- London 2 1923 Dec. 46/9 No.1 10/-Sussex 48 “The Times,” 8-12-23 Manitoba —__13/- London 34 It is obvious that wages did not follow fluctuations in the price of wheat, but the comparison is far from being a reliable one. For example, the i «Daily Herald,” 2oth February, 1925. 2 «Men waiting to build houses but manufacturers’ hold-up keeps work at a standstill.” —‘ Daily Herald,’’ 16th February, 1925; also ibid. 24th February, 1925. 28 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK hours worked now are less than two-thirds of what were worked in summer in the fifteenth century, and the artizan of that time did not enjoy our amenities of civilisation, in the form of public services, education, etc. Further, housing in the fifteenth century was so bad as not to be conceivable by us. The hut was not only without any sanitation, but was so deep in filth, so verminous and so unlike anything we know, as not to be comparable with even the worst modern slum. The difficulty of comparing mediaeval wages and prices is the measure of the impossibility of placing a cash equivalent upon the improved conditions of life. Brickmaking HE Roman thin bricks are believed to have been made by kneading plastic earth, beating it into shape and _ burning thoroughly in kilns, and, while, no. doubt, the bricks made in England during Roman occupation were made in this way, those of the mediaeval period and subsequently were made in moulds, after the Flemish manner. Failing illustrations of early brickmaking in England, and with the knowledge that the art was reintroduced here by Flemings and other refugees from the Low Countries, contemporary prints of brick- making as conducted in those countries are of great interest. The first, a very early one, is from a Netherland Bible published at Utrecht about 1425 (p. 390). It purports to be a representation of the Jews making bricks in Egypt, but, like all mediaeval representations of ancient scenes, it is really a picture of brickmaking as carried on in the artist’s own country at the time it was drawn. Such details as are shown do not differ much from modern practice. The kiln is not shown. The second, an interesting work, entitled IMANOITIAIA by Hartmannus Schopperus, was published at Frankfurt in 1568. It contains illustrations of many artizans, mechanics and others actually engaged in their occupations. Amongst these is Laterarius the brickmaker, or tilemaker. This is reproduced on p. 391, together with the Latin text and a literal translation of it. This apotheosis of the art of brick and tilemaking has been rendered as :-— THE BRICKMAKER’S SONG A house well builded is ne’er in vain, For it neither totters nor falls. So you may laugh at the lash of the rain On the face of your sturdy walls. Here’s my furnace; let none say it ill, For nobly it serves its turn, And here, the maker, with easy skill And prudence my bricks I burn. 29 30 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Away with the stones you have bought, rash wight, For the house you have builded high Stands naked now to the tempest’s might. Then come to my kiln and buy. Then here’s to Cinyra, Agriop’s son, Here’s to his brick-red shade, For he, so the age-old stories run, Founded our glorious trade. The illustration shows the moulder at work, but, although the bricks he has moulded are depicted behind him and under his moulding stool, he seems, at the moment the artist has caught him, to have been engaged in moulding a plain tile. Either he did not use a stock or the artist has overlooked it. In the background is a kiln and on the left a building in course of erection. Having regard to the intercourse between England and Northern Germany at this time, the illustration might equally well represent practice here also. The text may be regarded as an early instance of a brickmaker’s advertisement. Another instance of brickmaking is drawn from Maubeuge, Havre, etc., from a work published in 1761° (p. 392). This shows the operations of a brickyard at that date and a detail of moulding stool and implements from the same work is given on p. 390. The following are translations from the descriptions given by M. Gallon of tile and brickmaking :— “The work of the Moulder. The earth having been prepared, as stated above, the Moulder wets the frame, then sprinkles it with the dust or fine sand, which is in the trough. He spreads some of this dust on the table at the spot where he wishes to place the mould ; then with the bow (archet) he cuts some earth from the heap, which is by his side on the table and fills the mould tightly. He cuts away whatever protrudes beyond the edges of the mould with the same bow by passing the wire along the upper edges of the mould. He then recharges the mould by heaping up the earth at the angles with the strength of his wrist. He pares this off a second time with his bow and as its wire tears the edges a little, he replaces earth with his thumbs in the defective spots. Finally, he passes over it the strike (la plane), which he has wetted, so as to make the tile very smooth. The carrier, who is a stout youth, presents a pallet (palette) towards a little notch (entaille), which brings the upper side of the pallet level with the top of the table, on which the mould was filled. The Moulder slides the mould, filled with the earth, on to the pallet, and by raising the frame the moulded earth remains on the pallet. Before removing the pallets, the carrier forms the nib (le crochet) by raising the piece of earth attached to the tile, which had been formed in the notch of the frame.” 1 “Descriptions des Arts et Métiers” par Messieurs de l’Academie Royale des Sciences L’Art de Tuilier et la Briquetier. Vol. XXIV. Plate vi. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 31 From this description it appears that a stock was not used, that the tiles were made with nibs and that we use the same term “ pallet.” The description of brickmaking in the same volume is more detailed :-— “The moulder plunges his arms into the heap of earth, cuts off a piece weighing from 14 to 15 |b., throws it, in the first place, into the compartment (la case) of the mould nearest him, levelling it at the same time with his hand by heaping up the material in it, the excess of which he throws into the second compartment, which was not filled at the first charge, like the other one. He levels this compartment, too, by hand, heaping up the earth and filling any empty spaces. Seizing, at the same time, with his right hand, the strike, the handle of which is conveniently placed at the edge of the wetting trough, in which it has been soaking, he passes it firmly across the mould, to remove all that exceeds the 28 or 29 ‘lignes’ of thickness that the two bricks should be. He gives a tap with the flat of the strike, as with a trowel, on the middle of the mould to separate the two bricks one from the other and places the surplus earth by his side on the table. The Carrier at once draws the mould towards him by the ears and sliding it to the edge of the table, raises it with both hands, turning it over and adroitly placing it on its edge, so that the two bricks, which are soft, can neither fall nor get out of shape. He proceeds to carry the two bricks the length of his walk (cordeau), there he holds the mould close to the ground, as if he were going to place it on its edge, but suddenly turning it over he lays it with the two bricks flat on the ground and lifts up the mould. He takes great care to execute this last movement vertically, for if it were done in the least obliquely, the two bricks would certainly be deformed. The Carrier then returns to the ‘ minette’ (sand bin) with his mould. He throws this into the minette, which is filled with sand, sprinkles it lightly and rubs the sand on all round with his hand.’” Here again it is clear that a stock was not used, although, eighty years earlier, Houghton records its use in England; also that bricks were moulded in pairs in a double mould, such as may be seen in the illustration of a brickyard, and that two moulds were in use at one time. The mediaeval brick was made in a mould and burnt with wood fuel in a kiln.” At least as early as Elizabeth’s reign some kilns were called clamps, although not what we term clamps; indeed, long after “ soil”? was mixed with brick earth, writers use the terms kiln and clamp, as though they were interchangeable. Letters respecting the building of Whitgift Hospital, in Ducarel’s account of the town, etc., of Croydon, etc., relate that :— “ Weeks, your builder, hath been at your brick clamps and commends them for verie good.” Later, there seems to have been trouble respecting other bricks made for the same work, for we read :— “ Rednap came hither this day and as soone as ever he came into the yarde and sawe the bricks, his harte was deade ; he went to them and chose one here and there and knockt 1 “Descriptions des Arts et Metiers ”’ par Messieurs de l’Academie Royale des Sciences. L’Art de Tuilier et la Briquetier. Vol. XXIV., Plate vi. 2 1483-90. Howard Household Books (1841). “Item, to the Brykekyler (brickilner) of Eppswich vvjd.’’—‘‘ New English Dictionary.” 32 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK on it and said ‘he hoped there was better to be founde in the Parke.’ To the Parke we came and there wente from clampe to clampe and here he founde and there some one or moe good but not to the purpose of his owne expectation. Faine he woulde have excused himselfe but his handieworke spake against him ; and we were so rounde with him, that he burste out into tears, saying ‘ that was never the lyke served in anie worke, he was ashamde of it; he could not excuse it; it was the wickedness and deceitfulness of the yearth and albeit he could not thoroughlie make amends, yet he could be contente to do what lay in him ; but not of that yearthe.’ ” The writer goes on to say that they went “to the lome-pits beyond Dubbas Hill, near Haling-gate, where bricks had been made in time past, where he founde bricke moulde as contented him and agreed to give the Arch- bishop the making of 50,000, with allowance of 10,000 for waste.” He mentions that ‘“‘ wood must be had from the farm grounds ; water fetched in a cart.’ It will be noted that although bricks were spoken of as in clamps, wood is indicated as the fuel used. The letters are dated 1595. A reference of date 1679, mentions that ‘‘for burning a clamp of 16,000 bricks they use about seven tunns of coal.’”* This is stated to have been raw coal as brought from the pit. “In every Clampe or Brickkeele (besides the goodness or badness of the Earth and the well or ill ordering of the Clay) there are three degrees of Brick for goodness. The first and best sort are those which in burning lie next to the fire in the keele, which, if they have much salt-peter in them, they will run and be as it were glazed all over, and these, for lasting, exceed all the rest in that Keele although the Earth and making be the same. The second and most general sort for building are those which lie next in the Keele, to those before mentioned. The third and worst sort are those that lie on the outside of the Keele, where the fire hath not so much power as it hath over those nearer, and of these (outside Bricks) those that lie on the wind side of the Clampe or Keele in the time of Burning are the worst of all, for they will molder and turn to dust.’ In 1700, William Leyburn writes :— “In every Brick Kill (or Clamp) are three sorts of Bricks. Those next the fire are best burnt and such as have naturally much Nitre or Salt-Petre in them, will, with the violence of the Fire run, as if glazed over. And this sort some call Clinkers. The next to these in the Kiln or Clamp are best for General Uses. ‘The outermost in the Clamp are the worst; where the Salt-Petre is not digested for want of heat; and these will molder away like Dirt, with the least moisture; and this sort they call Samel or Sandal Bricks.” 1“ Bibliotheca Topographica,” Vol. II., pp. 152, 153, etc. 2 “Plot Staffordsh.” (1686), 128. 3 « The Builders’ Guide,” by William Leybourn, London, 1684. Book II., p. 129. 4 “ Architectionice,”’ by William Leyburn, London, 1700, p. 63. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK aR Samel, etc., is a corruption of salmony, having reference to the colour. It is interesting to read the different wordings of similar statements published at an interval of 16 years. The change in spelling of the word kiln is notable. In the following description of brickmaking, written in 1683, minute details are given of the mould and stock used. The Proclamation of 1625 refers to moulds, but does not mention the stock. It is probable, however, that this was used by the mediaeval brickmakers. It is possible that tiles were made on a stock in early times, and reference is made to this as being an established practice in 1703.' The description of 1683 states that the mould was shod with thin iron, but the stock was of wood, and no mention is made of its being protected. Probably the moulds used in earlier times were not shod with iron, but, in either case, the effect of placing the mould back on the stock, preparatory to forming each brick, resulted in wear of the margins of the stock, owing to the difficulty of replacing the mould quite accurately. In course of time the face of the stock became worn round the margins, and was repaired by a strip of leather or otherwise, the immediate effect of which was to form a raised margin round the face of the stock, which became a sunk margin round the brick.? Such sunk margins are continually found impressed in early bricks, made in England, and also in the small bricks imported from Holland, and warrant the presumption that bricks were made on the stock in the fifteenth century, while the writer has in his possession such a brick which was probably made in Kent in the thirteenth century. The word stock is old Norse, and Teutonic for a board or block, and there is no reason whatever for connecting it with the village of Stock in Essex. Letters respecting “The manner of Making Bricks at Ebbisham, in Surrey, in a Letter to the Worshipful Captain James T'wiford, now Sheriff of Bristol,” describe minutely the process of brickmaking then in vogue. ‘The first is dated 16th June, 1683, but others are not dated, though contemporary. “We make two sorts of Bricks, viz., Stock Bricks and Place Bricks. The Stock Bricks are made solid, strong and so hard, that we have laid them under a Loaden Cart-wheel, and yet they will not break.” 1 “The Mold is put on a Stock after the manner of Molding or Striking of Tiles.”—‘‘City and Country Purchaser,” R. Neve, p. 42. 2 This explanation of the cause of sunk margins to bricks is given by Mr. Arthur Harris, of Messrs. Broad & Co., Ltd. 3 J. Houghton, Coll. Lett., etc., Impv. Husb. ii., vi., 186. 34 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK “The manner of making them is thus: ‘We choose a piece of Earth that we commonly call Haste-Mould or a stiff Loam which is a mixture of a little Sand and a great deal of Earth without one bit of C/ay, this Earth is with us about three foot deep (although at some places ’tis twenty foot deep, as at Case-Holton, and several other places) and two yards square of it will make a thousand of Bricks every Brick being nine Inches and a half when ’tis made green, four Inches and a half over, and two Inches and a half thick; and the usual Price with us is to pay to our Landlord a Groat for every thousand we déliver out ready burnt.” “ Before Christmas we begin to dig as deep as the Earth allows, and lay it as level as can be, and end before Candlemass, that it may lye to mellow, that is, that the hard-lumps we dig may shake to pieces; which it will do either by help of Rain or Frost; when ’tis thus dug, we let it lie till Lady Day or Easter, when we seldom fear fair weather. Then we water the Earth well, and temper it with a narrow Spade about five Inches broad, that the Workman may hold out, with which we dig it down, and then temper it with our bare feet till it is in good case to make a Brick on, that is, like a piece of Dowgh, such as will just stick in the Mou/d or Frame when lifted up, and not fall off of it self; then we bring to the Earth a Table standing upon four Legs, about three foot high, five foot and a half long, and three foot and a half over, and load it with as much as ’twill well bear at the Right Hand and about half way ; at the other end are boards nail’d about nine Inches high to lay Sand in and in the middle we fasten with Nails a piece of board, which we call a Stock; this Stock is about half an Inch thick and just big enough for the Mou/d to slip down upon. Then we have a Mould or Frame made of Beech, because the Earth will slip easiest from it. This Mould, Frame or Voyder is made of the bigness of the Brick above said, only half inch deeper, to give way for the Stock aforesaid, and it must be shod with a thin Iron of half a quarter of an inch thick both on top and bottom and this keeps it from breaking and wearing out; we also have upon the table before the Mou/d or Frame a little Trough, that will hold about three or four quarts of water which we put in, and in it a strike to run over the Mould to make the Bricks smooth; this Strike is usually made of Firr, nine inches long, an inch and a half broad, and half inch thick, we have also on a little Form just by the Sand-Bin about 30 little pieces of Board twelve inches long, six inches over, and half inch thick, which we call Pa//at-Boards. When we are thus prepared with utensils, then one man strows Sand on the Table (as maids do Mea/ when they mould Bread) and moulds the Earth upon it, then rubbing the Stock and inside of the Moudd with Sand, with the Earth he forms a Brick, strikes it, and lays it upon the Pa//at, then comes a little Boy about twelve or sixteen years old, and takes away three of these Bricks and Pallats, and lays them upon a Hackstead, a rais’d place like a Balk, in a Field, or a Border in a Garden, which is a piece of Ground five or six Rod long, two foot over, with a Gutter on each side about a foot deep and as wide a top; which is made by digging half a foot deep, and the Earth that comes thence raises the Hackstead; this Hackstead must be well beaten, that it may be smooth, level and hard, and upon it the boy lays his Bricks edgeways, the thickness of the Pa//ats one from another, on each side of the Hackstead a row, and so that the Heads of each row may be two or three inches as under, and we lay them askew, thus < ‘a and when they are pritty hard, which in dry weather will be in a Day, then the Boy lays another Course crossways thus Ce x? till they come to be ten Course high, then they are covered with straw till they be hard and dry which usually is in three weeks A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK ous or a month, and then we burn them. One man without a man to temper, or Boy to carry them away, but to temper and lay them himself, will make a thousand in a Summer’s day viz., about fourteen or fifteen hours, but with a man to temper and a Boy to carry them and lay them as above, he will make two thousand, and an extraordinary man three thousand in a day; and the usual price for this tempering, making and laying is four shillings the thousand, and the maker’s part is as much as the Temperer’s and Boy’s. “Our Bricks being thus prepared, the next matter is to Burn them, which is after this manner: “When we begin a new Brick Ground, for want of burnt bricks we are fors’t to build a Kiln with raw Bricks, which the Heat of the fire by degrees durns, and this will last three or four year; but afterwards we make it with durnt bricks, which we reckon better, and we choose for it a dry ground, or make it so by making Dreyns round it. This Ki/n we build two Bricks and a half thick, sixteen Bricks long from inside to inside and 12 bricks over from inside and about fourteen or fifteen foot high; at the bottom we make two Arches three foot high, three Bricks broad, and seven Bricks long, that is five Bricks longer than the Wall of the Kz/n, and so the sides will be a Brick and a half each ; then we set the Bricks five Courses high, as they stand in the Hacksteads, then we set five Courses more, and allow every Course two or three Inches to hang over, so that at ten Course high there isa clear Arch. Of these ten courses one must be set close, and another you may run your finger between every Brick, and after that we set three Bricks upon them edgeways, thus, till they are five or six and thirty Courses high from the bottom. Then we begin with half a Bavin Fire at a time in each Arch, supplying it continually till the | W ater-Smoak be off; which is done when the Smoak begins to arise black, and usually in twenty-four hours, then we put in a whole Bavin at a time, and make the holes up with Bricks four Course high, to keep the Fire-Feeders shins from burning ; and thus we continue till they are at the top red fire hot, which is usually also twenty-four hours, and then we cease our Fire, and let them cool, and sell them as soon as we can for as much money as we can get, but usually about thirteen or fourteen shillings the thousand. The Prices for Making and Burning is seven shillings the thousand, the Wood three shillings the thousand.” From this extremely interesting letter we get an accurate account of making stock bricks on a board called a “‘ stock.’”’ Place bricks are only mentioned as another kind and no details are given respecting them. No “ soil’ is mixed with the earth, and the bricks are not burned in what we should call clamps. Another writer,’ in 1703, says of stock bricks :— “These differ not from Place Bricks in form, their difference lying concealed in the Quality of the Earth, they are made upon a Stock, viz., the Mold is put on a Stock, after the manner of Molding or Striking of Tiles and when one Brick is Molded, they lay him on a little piece of Board, a little longer than the Brick and on that Brick they lay another piece of Board, like the first, and on that another Brick, after this manner they lay three Bricks on one another and so they continue to strike and place them on the stage as they do Tiles, till the Stage is full and then they take each three successively and carry them to the Hacks and turn them down on their edges; so that there will be the thickness of a thin piece of Board betwixt each Brick. When the Hack is filled with one + R. Neve, “City and Country Purchaser,” p. 42. 36 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK heighth of Bricks, from one end to the other, they then begin to set them up upon those which were first laid on the Hack, by that time they will be a little dried and will bear the others; for they are Molded of very stiff Earth, When they set a second or third, etc., height or course, they cater them a little, as they call it, to prevent their reeking. When the Hack is as high as they think fit, they cover them with straw, as they do Place Bricks, till they are dry enough to burn. This way, Workmen tell me is more trouble than the other way, viz., Of making Place Bricks and for making and burning (besides the digging of the Earth) they Have 6s. per thousand, which is 1s. per thousand more than they usually have for making of Place Bricks. But they are forced to make them so, because if they lay them abroad in a Place to dry, as they do Place Bricks, the nature of the Earth is such, that they will burst to pieces.” Neve’s description is similar to Houghton’s, and one notices that straw is also used to serve the purpose of modern hack covers. Neve also describes building and firing a clamp :— “They strew sea coal all over the Clamp from bottom to top, viz., betwixt all the rows of Bricks; for they are not laid contingent in their vertical Rows and one Course of Brick is laid one way, and one another, as that there is small interstices betwixt all the bricks, for the sea coal to be strewed into, from the bottom to the top . . . they fire the wood and that fires the coal.’”! In 1749, Batty Langley wrote :— “Grey and Red Stock Bricks. . . . Of which the first are used chiefly for to face the Fronts of Buildings, either entirely by themselves or mixed with Red Stocks, commonly called Rubbed and Gauged Work; as in the arches of the Heads of Windows, Fascias, Rustic Quoins, etc.’”? . Place bricks were originally made and burnt quite independently of stock bricks. The processes are described :— “Place Bricks. ‘This is a general name for all sorts of Bricks that are made after the ensuing method, from whence they derive their name. Now Workmen tell me they are forced to have above one method in making of Bricks not for Fancy sake but out of pure Necessity ; the reason of which proceeds from certain different Qualities inherent in different Earths. But, to proceed. Place Bricks and Stock Bricks are the two kinds — that receive their names from the Method of their making. Place Bricks are generally made in the Eastern part of Sussex: so called because there is a Place just by where they strike (or mold) their Bricks, which is a level, smooth piece of ground prepared for the Bearer-off (who carries the Bricks from the Strikes) to lay them singly down in Rows, which they call Ricks) as soon as they are Molded and there they are left till they are a little dried, viz., till they are stiff enough to be turned on their Edges and Drest (that is cut off their Inequalities and Rugosities) and when they are dry, they carry them to the Hacks (or places where they Row them up, like a Wall of two Bricks thick, with some small intervals betwixt them, to admit the wind and air to dry them). When the Hack is filled, they are covered with straw on the top, till they are dry enough to be carried to the Kiln to be burnt.’ 1 “City and Country Purchaser,” pp. 48-9. 2 “London Prices,” p, 5. 8 “City and Country Purchaser,” 1703, p. 41. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK phy! Unfortunately no description is given of the process of moulding or wherein it differed from that of making stock bricks. Apparently it did differ, for reference is made to the necessity for removing inequalities, when partially dried, and Batty Langley (writing in 1749) says :— “Place Bricks are the most ordinary sort that are made . . . of which there are two kinds, viz., The common or ordinary sort and another sort, which is made with something more neatness, after the manner of a Grey Stock Brick, which are sold at a shilling a thousand more than the common sort, and are called ‘ Place Bricks made Grey Stock fashion.’ ’” This would bring the price to within 3s. of that at which grey stocks were sold. Isaac Ware (writing in 1756) says :— “ Grey stocks are made of purer earth and better wrought, and they are used in front in building, being the strongest and handsomest of this kind; the place bricks are made of the clay, with a mixture of dirt and other coarse materials and are more carelessly put of hand, they are therefore weaker and more brittle, and are used out of sight and where little stress is laid upon them; the red bricks of both kinds are made of a particular earth, well wrought and little injured by mixtures and they are used in fine work, in ornaments _ over windows and in paving.’ Batty Langley speaks of prices at the kiln, not at the clamp, but nevertheless, the practice of burning in clamps was well established in London years earlier. The Act 12 Geo. I. c. 35, forbad the mixing of “‘ Spanish,”’ i.e. fine cinders, with the brick earth, and also the practice, which then prevailed, of burning place bricks in the same clamps as the grey stock bricks, the place bricks being put on the outsides of the clamps, and so being insufficiently burnt. This was one of the “‘ abuses ’”’ mentioned in the preamble of the Act, but after a few years it was found inconvenient, and possibly difficult to enforce, and the Act of 3 Geo. II. expressly permitted the very methods the previous Act condemned. It appears, therefore, that the term “place brick” lost its original significance ; that in time they were all made “Grey Stock Fashion,’ and that the term “place brick’? became identified with those bricks, which, through being on the outsides of the clamps were insufhiciently burnt. In 1847, Smeaton described place bricks as “‘ the refuse of a burning, and are in fact those which have not been perfectly burnt ’—a definition equally applicable at the present day. The term “stock” is now very loosely used :—(1) Commonly applied locally to any brick most generally produced in a locality. (2) To all yellow bricks, especially if ‘‘ soil” has been mixed 1 “London Prices,” pp. 1 and 2. 2 “The Complete Body of Architecture,’”’ p. 59. 38 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK with the clay. (3) To red bricks, soiled and barnt in cane w: original sense, to bricks moulded on a stock. In the preceding quotations reference is made to the use oe red for rubbed and gauged work, but another and finer brick was. Boas : for this purpose. Ware says of this :-— a. “One of the red or cutting brick sort . . . for its excellence is s very” particularly mentioned ; this is the Hedgerley Brick; it is made at a village of the famous earth called Hedgerley loam. . . . This loam is of a yell very harsh to the touch, containing a great deal of sand . . . the bri are of the finest red that can be imagined. . . . The red cutting brick « finest of all bricks. In some places they are not at all acquainted with th they confound it with the red stock and use that for it. .. . The fine red B in arches ruled and set in puttey. . . . This kind is also the most Bi: cornices, ruled in the same manner and set in puttey.’? Aig 1 “The Complete Body of Architecture,’ Isaac Ware, 1756, p. 60. Terra-Cotta HE line of demarcation between moulded brick and terra-cotta is an extremely fine one, so fine as often not to be discernible. Comparison of some terra-cotta with some brick might lead an observer to suppose there must invariably be a wide difference between the two. Terra-cotta is often of fine clay, that may have been deposited several times by nature or of material ground exceedingly fine by artificial means. Brick, on the other hand, may be of coarse material, even containing pebbles and similar objects of relatively large size. Such brick cannot be confounded with terra-cotta. From time to time, however, we have to classify units of ordinary brick size, moulded of the fine or it may be of the coarse material. Again, we find larger blocks of elaborate decoration, which one might naturally regard as coming within the definition of “ terra-cotta,’’ but which examination shows to have been made in moulds from precisely the same clay as that of which the walling bricks of the structure are composed. At Sutton Place (p. 294) are tablets, moulded with lozenges, some of which are of clay similar to the terra-cotta of the window dressings, etc., and others of the deep red of the walling bricks. At East Barsham (pp. 147-51, 344-5), where there is a great variety of moulded forms, the problem of distinguishing terra- cotta from mere moulded brick is practically insuperable. Some observers have even recorded as terra-cotta the lumps of soft brick built in blocks about four brick-courses high and carved iz situ. The square tablets bearing modelled heads in relief or armorial cognizances, some of which are semi-glazed, must surely come within the limits of terra-cotta, and so one would be inclined to classify them until the similarity of their appearance and material to large square floor tiles or quarries inclines the scale of one’s judgment in favour of brick.’ The fine chimney at Thornbury Castle is (p. 343) built up of brick- sized units, moulded to produce elaborate patterns on the shafts, and amongst these are several tablets of brick bearing armorials in relief. Notwithstanding these, it is doubtful whether any authority would class this chimney amongst the sixteenth century terra-cotta work in England. 1 These show traces of artificial colouring of the surface—rougeing. 39 40 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK At Great Snoring (p. 125), the angle turret is decorated with panels having cusped heads, which are carried up as crocketted pinnacles, with floriated finials into the panels above. The angles are furnished with niches, with trefoil cusped canopies and finials. All these are native Gothic, in moulded or carved bricks as are the bricks of mouldings. Alone, this work would probably not suggest terra-cotta, certainly not foreign influence. But when we regard the detail of the strings we find quite another type of design. Here are tablets bearing portrait heads in relief as at East Barsham, each separated from the next by a brick moulded with a distinct Italian baluster, into the design of which acanthus leaf 1s introduced. In the lower string are tablets, alternately of lozenge and shield designs. Whence this new influence ? Who modelled the heads for the tablets ? The building of these houses can hardly have been carried out under the superintendence of a foreigner, for he would certainly have exercised more influence. Were some of the details imported, ready moulded ? If so, one would expect something distinctive in the nature and colour of the earths from which they are moulded. Indeed, it is because of the similarity of the materials that one is disposed to conclude that the work was done on the spot, as the carving was done. If that is so, then some of the moulds must have been imported, or an artist brought to make them, either of which alternatives would account for the Renaissance character of some units. The native craftsman was capable of devising and carrying out the other ornamental details. Ornament and tracery, which owed nothing to the Renaissance, are to be seen at Gifford’s Hall (p. 123) in strings, panels and label terminals, which are all brick, as are the armorial shields of the string under the tower parapets which are moulded in two halves, with vertical joints. Here is detail similar to that at East Barsham, without any trace of foreign influence, and the same may be said of the gatehouse at West Stow Hall (pp. 124, 267), where, also, there is a panel of tracery in moulded brick. If large blocks of moulded clay are to be called terra-cotta, then the moulded coping bricks at Little Wenham Hall would come under that title, and if all units of brick dimensions are to be styled brick, terra-cotta of egg and tongue moulding or guilloche executed by Italians in the same fine material as the windows would necessarily be included. Both these methods of classification are untenable, and we can only regard as A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 41 terra-cotta products which are moulded of a finer and more carefully prepared material than brick, whether the units are large or small. At Great Cressingham, in Norfolk (p. 156), are the remains of a sixteenth century building, which include turrets and wall surfaces of terra- cotta panels. The existing work starts from a terra-cotta string of foliated tracery. The angle ribs between the turret panels are of brick. The panels are of cream-coloured terra-cotta in large blocks (p. 346). These panels contain alternately a hand holding a hawk and a circular wreath enclosing a monogram, consisting of two J’s crossed and an E, the three letters being tied by a cord. These are the crest and initials of John Jenny and his wife Elizabeth, who are believed to have built the house about 1545, Which is a late date for English terra-cotta, probably the latest example we have. The whole of this work is in the Gothic manner, except the floriations of the tracery and the detail of the wreath. It is when we come to Layer Marney Towers, or Hall, in Essex, sixty miles away, that we find unmistakable evidences of foreign influence and workmanship. The North side of the great gatehouse, which is that seen as usually approached (p. 139), is sufficiently notable, the vertical lines of the square flanking towers of the central mass being emphasised by the horizontal lines of the low buildings on either side, which give value to and accentuate its great bulk. Passing through the archway and across the terrace we turn to see the group of four immense towers which furnish the gatehouse’s Southern elevation (pp. 140-1). They are seven and eight stories high, the pairs connected by a link of three high stories, each equal to two of the tower stories. The brickwork itself is of rich and varied reds, with diapers in many patterns traced in flared headers. The tower windows, strings and arched doorway are all English, but the great windows of first and second floors over the doorway (p. 292), like those of the first floor of the West building (p. 291), come from other hands, which are also responsible for the decorations of the tower parapets (p. 346). Here is terra-cotta that is not to be confused with brick ; fine in texture, creamy in colour. The mullions and transoms are square in section with baluster and other ornament on their faces, and the cusped heads are formed by scrolls and foliations. The cusping is possibly a concession to native tastes, but all else redolent of Italian influence. The 1 “Domestic Architecture of England during the Tudor Period.” Garner & Stratton, Vol. II,, p.142. Batsford, London. 42 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK semi-circular pediments, flanked by dolphins, which crown the angles of the towers, are of similar workmanship. Henry, Lord Marney, who died 1523, was a prominent personage at court, and some ascribe this work to the hand of Girolamo da Trevizi, or Trevisano,' who had come to England in the King’s service, and with whom it is thought Lord Marney must have come into contact, which may have led to his working at Layer Marney. This, however, is mere conjecture. Travelling further South to Sutton Place, near Guildford (pp. 142-5), _ we find more terra-cotta, also ascribed to Trevizi, but altogether different in design. The house encloses three sides of a quadrangle some eighty-one feet square. The fourth side, in the centre of which was the entrance gateway, flanked by towers only less important than those at Layer Marney, was destroyed in 1782. The house is built of bricks of rich red colour and two inches thick. The diapers are in brown and purple headers, few being vitrified. The parapet, turret, door and window dressings and ornaments (except a few forms in moulded red brick) are of terra-cotta. The blocks vary greatly in colouring, cream, buff, pink, mauve, saffron, red, orange and grey are indiscriminately mixed. The terra-cotta at Sutton Place is remarkably charming in its varied colourings, set off, as it is, by the rough texture and the rich red of the brick walling. The design of the details is English, the ornament Italian. The doorways are Tudor; those leading into the hall, from North (p. 266), and South have tablets set over them on which somewhat clumsy amorini are modelled. The windows (pp. 294-5) are Gothic in form and mouldings, but the hollows of the latter are enriched with arabesque ornament in relief. The blocks of which the turrets (p. 347) are built bear the initials of Sir Richard Weston, the owner, and his rebus, a tun. Here is a building in which the use of terra-cotta was not merely the introduction of details here and there, but was an essential element in a considered and coherent design ; the only one of its kind that we have. The regularity of its facades to the quadrangle is Italian, but that symmetry has not been maintained in the South elevation. We have now to consider-the examples of purely Italian terra-cotta 1 Dallaway in his “ Notes to Walpole” says:— Girolamo da Trevizi and Holbein introduced both terra-cotta or moulded brickwork for rich ornaments and medallions, or bas-reliefs fixed against the walls, plasterwork laid over the brick wall, and sometimes painted, as at Norwich, and square bricks of two colours, highly glazed and placed in diagonal lines, as at Layer Marney.”—Quoted by C. F. Hayward, in “ Trans. Essex, Arch. Soc.” Colchester, 1865, Vol. III., part i, p. 26, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 43 design in this country, which have been carried out unfettered by native predilections. ‘Terra-cotta is a material particularly suited for tablets and panels, such as the roundels at Hampton Court, which contain the busts of Roman Emperors (p. 348). These were the work of Joannes Maiano, who was paid £2 6s. od. each for them. At the Record Office is a letter from him asking for payments and describing them as “ rotundae imagines ex terra dipictae,” and stating that they were intended for ‘‘ Anton Cort.’ The beautiful tablet of Wolsey’s arms over the arch in the Clock Court, if not from the same hand, is of the same school. The same certainty cannot be maintained as to the authorship of the terra-cotta tombs at Layer Marney Church, at Oxburgh Church, and the Sedilia at Wymondham Church. Of these the tomb of Henry, Lord Marney, in the Layer Marney Church (pp. 349-51), is the most important, being complete with canopy and recumbent figure, the latter sculptured in touch. The detail is of the same character as that of windows and of the parapet pediment of the towers, the dolphins flanking each semi-circular pediment being slightly different in design and having finer detail, as might be expected of objects so much nearer the eye. The adjoining tomb of John, Lord Marney, who died a couple of years later, has a similar base, but lacks the canopy. Both tombs are of pale pink terra-cotta, which has been whitewashed, and they are generally ascribed to Trevizi. However that may be, Henry Lord Marney’s daughter, Grace, was married to Sir Edmund Bedingfeld, of Oxburgh Hall, in the county of Norfolk. Her husband’s mother, Margaret Bedingfeld, who died 1517 (by will dated 1513), provided : ‘““Fyrst I bequeathe my soul unto our Lord God, my bodye to be buried within the chancell of Oxburgh before the holy ymage of the Trynyte, where I will a chapell be made by my executors for husband and me.” The tradition at Oxburgh is that Grace Bedingfeld, or Marney, employed the artificer of the Marney tombs to go and make those in Oxburgh Church. Comparison of the tombs (pp. 352-4) confirms this tradition. They are clearly from the same hand, and some of the details are identical, as the dolphin pediments, the entablatures, etc., but the tombs at Oxburgh are far from being repetition work. The treatment of the pilasters is in the form of sunk panels, where at Layer Marney split balusters have been applied and each Oxburgh tomb has a superstructure (not identical) of 1 Cal. S.P. Hen. VIII., iii., No. 1355, from ‘‘Hist. Hampton Court Palace,” by Ernest Law, Lp. 50s 44. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK cylinders, crowned with small triangular pediments and amorini, while one tomb includes an arched entrance to the chapel. The story that the author of the Marney tombs was commissioned to go to Oxburgh is confirmed by the Sedilia in Wymondham Church (P- 355) Norfolk, which includes some of the details found at Marney and Oxburgh, with further variations. These Sedilia appear to have been designed as Sedilia, and bear no evidence of ever having been a tomb, afterwards altered to the present form. All these are also of pale pink terra-cotta, white- washed. ‘That these tombs, the Sedilia and the windows at Layer Marney are the work of one man or of one group of men, who worked and travelled together, there can be little doubt, but there is no evidence to connect them with any historic name. With the exception, perhaps, of a tablet or coat of arms here and there, this is the record of terra-cotta in England. Tombs at Arundel and in the City of London’ prove, on examination, not to be made of this material, and the fireplace at Layer Marney described as terra-cotta in the Historical Monuments Commission’s Report on Essex is of a hard marble. The history of terra-cotta is confined to fifty years ; its production the work of foreigners or of men working under their instructions, and perhaps some fragmentary efforts by English brickmoulders, using patterns by foreign designers. It is strange that the use of the material died out so suddenly, though the application of renaissance detail (from other than Italian sources) increased. Yet moulded brick continued to be made. On the whole, however, the Elizabethan brickwork was simpler, the brick chimneys less rich than those of the first half of the sixteenth century. Yet in less than a hundred years after the last bit of terra-cotta was made here, cornices, pilasters, columns and capitals were being moulded in brick- sized units, built up in the same and carved, where the Italian would have modelled and cast in terra-cotta blocks. | 1 Except, perhaps, the effigy of Dr. John Yong (d. 1 516), in the Museum of the Public Record Office, which is painted in colours, so that its material cannot be determined with certainty. Statutes, Proclamations & Orders ROM time to time legislation, national and local, has regulated the manufacture and sale of bricks and tiles. Extracts and summaries of the more important of these are given, but it is not practicable to follow the orders of local assizes, etc., which controlled such matters. One instance will suffice. In 1425-26, at Colchester, complaints had been made as to the irregularity of tile sizes and Quarter Sessions sitting at Chelmsford dealt with the matter— “diverse fourmes, more and less, none of them accordaunt to other, to noissance and harmyng of the said people . . . ordayned by Bailiffs and General Council. . . . No Tyle maker make no manner of tyle but all after a fourme . . . in Moothalle of said Towne, upon payne of xxs.”? No dimensions are stated. The oficial mould was to be kept at the Moothall and those concerned must refer to it. Mr. Bilson mentions an assize at York in 32 Elizabeth, which is stated to have fixed the size of bricks at 10 by 5 by 25 inches.” The Statute of 17 Edward IV. c. 4, 1477, which has so often been quoted, referred to tiles for roofing only. Batty Langley seems to have confused this with a Georgian statute (he also writes Edward III. for Edward IV.), and subsequent writers have faithfully copied his errors.’ As the statute formed a basis for clauses in subsequent acts relating to brick as well as tile making, the following extracts may be interesting :— “Item, Whereas in divers Parts of this Realm great damage hath been and daily is, and by liklihood in time to come will much increase, for Default of true seasonable and sufficient making, whiting and anealing of Tile, called plain Tile ; otherwise called Thaktile, Roof-tile or Crest-tile, Corner-tile and Gutter-tile, made and to be made within this Realm: Our Lord the King . . . hath ordained . . . the Earth . . . shall be digged and cast up before the first day of November next before that they shall be made and that the same Earth be stirred and turned before the First Day of February then next following the same digging and casting up and not wrought before the First Day of March next following : and that the same Earth . . . be truly wrought and tried from Stones: and also that the Veins called Malm or Marle, and Chalk, lying commonly in the Ground ... shall be... severed and cast from the said Earth. . . . Every such plain Tile . . . shall contain in Length Ten Inches and Half, and in Breadth Six Inches and a Quarter of an Inch, and in Thickness Half an Inch and Half a Quarter.’’4 1 “The Victoria County History, Essex,” II., quoting Benham, ‘“‘Red Paper Book,” p. 49. 2 «The North Bar, Beverley.” ‘East Riding Antiquarian Society Transactions,” Vol. IV., 1896, p. 47. 3 “London Prices,” p. 2. 4 “Statutes of the Realm,” II., pp. 463-5. 45 46 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Dimensions of the other tiles are also stated, and minute provisions for enforcing the Act, which Justices of the Peace in every country are to administer. The following condensation of the charter granted by Queen Elizabeth to tilers and bricklayers in London and suburbs within a fifteen miles radius was extended later to control of brickmaking, for it is mentioned in this relation in 12 George I. It is interesting as an important event in the history of the clay-working industry. CHARTER granted 3rd August, 1567, by Elizabeth to tilers and bricklayers in London. “The Queen. Know that we have granted . . . to Thomas Spenser . . . and all the other freemen of the mystery or art de le Tylers and Bricklayers of our City of London and the suburbs of the same, that henceforth they be . . . one body and one perpetual society incorporate of one Master and two Wardens . . . and the society of free men of the same mystery or art of Tylers and Brickleyers of London. And we ordain and appoint by these presents Thomas Spenser for the first and present Master and John Cawyer and Thomas Bradley for the first and present Wardens or guardians of the same mystery or art . . . de le Tylers and Brickleyers of London and by that name be able to implead . . . in any courts whatsoever. And that they havea common seal. . . . And that the said Master Wardens and Society be persons able . . . to acquire... lands... to the value of £50 a year... in aid of the . . . poor men and women . . . of the aforesaid society. . . . And moreover we have granted that the Master, Wardens, &c., and their successors be able to make ordinances, &c., for the government of the freemen of the aforesaid mystery . . . to appoint reasonable penalties . . . for infringing such ordinances, &c. . . . and . . . to receive into it any able honest and discreet workman, expert in the same mystery or art of Tylers and Brickleyers, and to expel any one from itt... We... grant... to the aforesaid Master, Wardens and society that they - - Shall have scrutiny, correction and governance of all and single freemen of the said Society . . . in the same city or suburbs. And of other freemen or foreigners . . . frequenting and using the said mystery . . . within the... city . . . liberties and suburbs . . . within . . . fifteen miles of the said city of London.” The following quotations (condensed) are from a Proclamation by Charles I. in 1625. Its regulations for treatment of earth for brickmaking are substantially those of 17 Edward IV. for tiles :— “ A Proclamation concerning Buildings and Inmates within the Citie of London and Confines of same. Orders concerning the true makinge and ratinge of the price of Bricks. The Earth to be dug between the feast of St. Michael the Archangel and St. Thomas the Apostle. Second digging or turning up before the last day of February, then following. * “Pat. Roll,” to Eliz., pt. 12 (1052) m. 35, 36. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 47 No digging or brick to be made within one mile of city gates or one mile of the Palace of Westminster. Moulding only to be done between the Feast of Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the last day of August. The moulds are to be well filled. The bricks are to be well dried before they are put into the Kylne and thoroughly burned, so as for the Assize every brick being burned contain in length nine inches, in breadth four inches and one quarter and half of a quarter of an inch, in thickness two and a quarter inches. The price of bricks wrought in goodness, size and manner as aforesaid, shall not exceed eight shillings a thousand at the Kylne.”” A Charter of 12 Ch. I. pt. 7, incorporating the bricke and tilemakers of the City of Westminster to ‘‘ search and view works, parcels and quantities of bricks, tiles, etc.,”” andto receive “ apprentices was withdrawn Srmtne 7th july three years later.’’ Pat. 15, Ch. I. pt. 23, N. 12. An Order made by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London, dated 29th April, 1667, and approved at the Council at Whitehall, 8th May, 1667, ordains :— “And that they (the Surveyors) do encourage and give directions to all Builders for ornament sake, that the Ornaments and projections of the Front-Buildings be of rubbed Bricks: and that all the naked part of the walls may be done of rough Bricks neatly wrought, or all rubbed, at the discretion of the Builders, or that the Builders may otherwise inrich their Fronts as they please.” The Order adds later :— ** The upper Rooms or Garrets may be flat Roofs encompassed with Battlements of Bricks covered with stone.” An act for rebuilding the City of London, 19 Ch. II. c. 3, 1667, begins by describing brick as ‘‘ comely and durable,” and after prescribing wall thicknesses for buildings of various heights, proceeds to say that : For encouragement of builders in case of combination or unreasonable exaction by brickmakers, tilemakers and lime-burners, Justices of the Court of King’s Bench, on complaint of Mayor and Aldermen, are empowered to call before them a number of brickmakers, etc., making and burning brick, etc., within five miles distance of the Thames, and confer with them to fix price of every thousand bricks, etc., and for carriage of materials. In case of combination or exaction of unreasonable wages by brickmakers, etc., the said Justices on like complaint are also empowered to limit the rates and appoint the wages of the said artificers, by the day, week, or ? * Rymer’s “Foedera,” XVIII., pp. 33, 34- 48 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK otherwise. Those who refuse to work for such wages to be committed to gaol for a month or to pay a fine not exceeding £10. In 1725, legislation became necessary in respect of brickmaking to strengthen the administration of previous acts by the Company of Tilers and Bricklayers and to bring the Proclamation of 1625 up to date. In this Act exception is taken to the mixing of “‘ soil called Spanish ” with the earth and to the use of breeze instead of coal as fuel. The use of the word “ soil”’ in two senses has caused some confusion exactly as to what is meant by the word “Spanish.” The “New English Dictionary” is certainly wrong in defining it as ‘‘ earth or clay unfit for brickmaking.” An advertisement in the “ London Gazette,” 20th to 23rd March, 1713, offers :— “Two closes of Pasture adjoining St. Pancras, in the county of Middlesex Together with two stools Earth, of Brick-Earth, ready dug and spanished, and between two and three Acres of Brick-Earth are to be Lett from Ladyday, next.” The inference is that the brick earth had been prepared by the addition of something called Spanish, and this is confirmed by the wording of the Act of 3 Geo. II. c. 22, which states that the Act of 12 Geo. I. forbidding the mixing of Spanish with the brick earth “‘ had been found inconvenient,” and proceeds to permit the mixing ‘‘ of sea coal ashes” with brick earth. It then authorises the use of cinders or breeze as fuel. This identifies “ Spanish” as a term for sea coal ashes. The following extracts are in the words of the 1725 Act, condensed. 12 Geo. I. c. 35 :— “To prevent Abuses in making Bricks and Tiles. To ascertain the dimensions thereof. To prevent all unlawful combinations amongst Brickmakers and Tilemakers within fifteen miles of the City of London, made to advance or enhance the Price of Bricks or Tiles.” It refers to 17 Edw. IV. c. 4 re tiles and to Elizabeth’s Charter of 3rd May of tenth year of her reign, granted to tilers and bricklayers of London to be one body corporate and whose powers extended a distance of fifteen miles. It proceeds to say that several orders have been made by the Master and Wardens of the said Society, which have been confirmed pursuant to Act 19 Henry VII. c. 7. This Act merely made valid the ordinances of bodies incorporate, and continues :— “ Notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, Orders and Ordinances, persons within fifteen miles of the City of London dig clay at unseasonable times of year, make bricks of + In “A Sure Guide to Builders,” London, 1729, B. Langley states that Spanish is Sea Coal Ashes, p. 172, and that the Company of Tilers and Bricklayers “did ignorantly represent (to Parliament in 1725) the use of Soactiah as most pernicious,” p. 173. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 49 bad stuff and unsizable dimensions, and do not well burn the same and in making thereof mix great quantities of soil called Spanish and in burning thereof use small ashes and cynders, commonly called breeze, instead of coals and burn the bricks, commonly called Grey Stock Bricks in Clamps, and the bricks commonly called Place Bricks in the same Clamps, on the outside of the said Grey-Stock bricks, by means whereof great part of the bricks now usually made are so hollow and unsound that they will scarce bear their own weight. And whereas there is at present no provision made by any law for the dimensions Br opaicks, ¢tc., etc. It is then enacted that “All earth . . . shall be dug and turned between the first November and the first of February ; no part made into bricks until after the first of March and no bricks made for sale but between the first March and the twenty-ninth of September. No Spanish shall be mixed with brick earth, nor any breeze used in the burning and all bricks shall be burnt in kilns or in distinct clamps, the Place Bricks by themselves and the Stock-bricks by themselves.” The dimensions of place-bricks are to be not less than g by 4} by 23 inches and of stock-bricks 9 by 4; by 23 inches. The Master and Wardens of the Company of Tilers and Bricklayers are given powers to enforce the Act. Apparently the Master and Wardens of the Tilers’ and Bricklayers’ Company did not effectually enforce the Act of 12 Geo. I. c. 35, for another Act was passed, 2 Geo. II. c. 15, which divested them of their powers and transferred them to the Justices of the Peace, but this Act was to cease mere2cth March, 1731. “The said Company having permitted and encouraged divers Persons to make bricks contrary to the directions Oborniser. ct... 7. they. are therefore divested of the aforesaid Powers so given them by 12 Geo. 1.” Then comes the Act of 3 Geo. II. c. 22 providing :— “An Act for amending the Acts therein mentioned relating to the making of Bricks.” “Whereas the Dimensions of Bricks and the making thereof without any Spanish and the burning of the same without cinders commonly called Breeze, either in kilns or in distinct Clamps by themselves, according to the Act of 12 Geo. I. has been found in- convenient and further directions were given by the Act of 2 Geo. II. It is now enacted that any person within fifteen miles of the City of London may make and burn any Bricks for sale which when burnt shall be eight inches and three quarters long, four inches and one-eighth broad and two inches and a half thick, And may make and burn in Clamps for sale or expose to and for sale Bricks made of real Brick Earth wherein may be mixed any quantity of Sea Coal Ashes, sifted or screened through a Sieve or Screen half an Inch wide and not exceeding twenty loads to the making of one hundred thousand of Bricks, each load not exceeding thirty six Bushels and in that proportion for any other number or Quantity of Bricks, and may use Cinders commonly called Breeze mixed with coal, in the burning of Bricks in Clamps for Sale. Stock-Bricks and Place Bricks may be burnt in one and the same Clamp.’ 1 «A Sure Guide to Builders,” p. 173. 2 The phraseology of the Act has been preserved, but the text has been condensed. 50 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 9 Geo. III. c. 37, revived and continued the last three Acts. 10 Geo. III. c. 49, continued the last four Acts and provided that :— “All clay which shall be dug in England to make bricks for sale shall be turned at least once between the first day of February and the time of beginning to make such bricks. Penalty ros. a thousand. Persons in London may dig Brick Earth for making Bricks at any time in the year, provided they turn it once before making the bricks. Sieves or Screens for sifting Sea Coal Ashes to mix with Brick earth not to exceed a quarter of an inch between the meshes of such Sieve or Screen. Any person is allowed to use Cinders (Breeze) in the Burning of Bricks in Clamps. Any person may make and burn Bricks within the City, &c., of London, which when burnt shall not be less than eight and a half inches long, four inches broad and two and a half inches thick. The dimensions prescribed by Act 12 Geo. I. for bricks made beyond fifteen miles of the City of London to continue.” 17 Geo. III. c. 42. Refers to expiry of laws heretofore made for regulating the dimensions of Bricks for sale and proceeds :— “ Inconveniences have arisen to the Public by Frauds committed in lessening the size of Bricks under their usual proportion without any diminution of price. It is enacted that, after first July, 1777, all Bricks made for sale in any part of England shall, when burnt be not less than eight and a half inches long, four inches broad and two and a half inches thick. Penalty 20s. per thousand Bricks, Quarter inch mesh for Screen for sifting Sea Coal Ashes to be mixed with Brick earth in the making of Bricks. Brick manufacturers are not to combine to advance or enhance price of Bricks and all contracts between Brickmakers for ingrossing of Bricks or hindering their free sale be null and void. Penalties: Brickmakers, £20; Clerks or Servants, Lio? The Worshipful Company of Tilers and Bricklayers of the City of London possess transcripts of their records made by John Miles in 1859. In addition to the Charters recorded, these include the following :— 13 Elizabeth (1571), which specified the dimensions of bricks as g by 4; by 2} inches. Of plain tile, 104 by 6; by 2 inches. Rough tile, 13 inches long and 1 inch thick, with “ depth convenient as it ought to be.”’ Cover tile or corner tile, ro inches long, ‘‘ with convenient thickness and depth as they ought to be.”’ It also ordains that “ Tilers and Brick- layers are not to lay in any house in the City of London or within 15 miles thereof, any crasier or samnel tiles or brick.’’? Also that “ Any that maketh chimnies shall cut and hew the champhlets two inches and a half square.” The Company’s charters of 2 Jas. I. and 1 Jas. II. dealt with the constitution of the Company and its powers. * The phraseology of the Act has been preserved, but condensed. * The phraseology of the Act is condensed, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 51 The Company seems to have lost its hold of the trade, many workmen were not attached to it, and there were frequent complaints of bad workmanship. On 1st July, 1658, the Common Council of the City of London ordered re-establishment of the Company to control all tilers and bricklayers and its minutes, following this order, show renewed vigour in its exercise of disciplinary powers. Early minutes record that apprentices were bound for eight years. The demand for bricklayers, tilers, etc., following the Fire of London in 1666 seems to have brought about a position similar to that of the present day, as the following extracts from minutes show :— ¢ Ig. 11 . 1666. This Court, taking into consideration that the rebuilding of the City of London will require a greater number of hands than the Freemen of this Company with all their apprentices can make . . . order. . .”; then follow various regulations increasing facilities for taking apprentices. These proved inadequate, however, and we read that :— ce 5. 11 . 1667. Notwithstanding the additional number of apprentices allowed the members of this Company . . . the Freemen are not able . . . to perform the work . which the rebuilding of the City requires. . . . Foreigners and Country bricklayers (through indulgence of the Act of Parliament) . . . employed in . . . said rebuilding SeeeekecD as many apprentices as they think fit. .... Order... .” Then follow further provisions for taking more apprentices. On the 21st October, 1667, the Company decided to take “a course in law with all Foreigners who do use the trade of Bricklaying in a larger extent than by the late Act of Parliament for rebuilding the City of London they are indulged in and allowed to do.”’ 7 Anne, fol. 263, enacts:— “That after the 1st day of June 1709 no Door Frame or Window Frame of Wood to be fixed in any House or Building within the Cities of London and Westminster, or their Liberties, shall be set nearer to the outside Face of the Wall than four inches.’” This is probably the first legislation respecting reveals, and the reasons given are that if placed very near the outside of the Wall ‘as has been the practice of Workmen,”’ they decay sooner and are more liable to be fired “Sin time of Fire.” 1 Quoted in ‘“‘A Sure Guide to Builders,” p. 167. Tax on Bricks, 1784—1850 ACTS :— 24 Geo. III. c. 24. Duty 2/6 per M. 27 c..13 Sch, A. Duty on imported Bricks 7/2 per M. Drawback on exported Bricks 6/8 per M. F. Duties of Excise 2/6 per M. 34 c. 15. Duty raised to 4/- per M. 43 c. 69. Duty under 150 cubic inches 5/- per M. over 150 cubic inches 10/- per M. 2 & 3 Vic. c. 24. Duty under 150 cubic inches 5/10 per M. over 150 cubic inches ro/- per M. 3. Vic. c. g. Repeal of all Duties, Drawbacks and Excise. HE duties on bricks produced two results, each being methods of evasion. The first was substantial increase in brick dimensions —a large brick paying the same duty as a small one—and this was met by the Act of 43 Geo. II., which imposed — double duty on bricks measuring over 150 cubic inches. The second was the extensive use of brick-tiles, also called mathematical tiles, which formed exceedingly close imitations of brickwork. They were probably in use many years before the introduction of the Brick Tax! and were made both as headers and stretchers, bedded in mortar and hung in the manner of Flemish bond, so as almost to be indistinguishable from brick walling. The use of painted wood applied at the angles to represent quoins assisted the illusion. The Garden House, Rye (p. 244), is built of timber framing on a brick base, the framing being hung with brick-tiles and having painted wood quoins. The inset shows header and stretcher brick-tiles. These brick-tiles were also nailed over ancient timber and plaster walls to make them weather-proof. 1 «The Dictionary of Architecture,” Vol. III., p. 49. London, 1849 and after. 52 Characteristics of Brick VEN a cursory survey must impress the observer with the wide- spread use of brick not only in this country, but all over the world. Yet it is a manufactured building material, requiring much time and labour for its production. It is obvious, therefore, that brick must possess certain advantages over other materials. Amongst these, the following may be noted :— (1) Brick earths are found almost everywhere. (2) The variety of these earths and the differing qualities that each possesses enables many kinds of bricks to be made. (3) Being made in moulds, the sizes may be regulated to any require- ments. For most purposes bricks measuring 9 by 44 by 24 inches are found convenient as capable of easy and quick handling by the bricklayer and presenting a pleasing appearance. (4) Brick is a “‘ warm material.’’ Its porosity makes it a good non- conductor. Brick walls having the usual 2} inch cavity make warmer dwellings than similar cavity walls of concrete. Buildings of the latter erected by Government during the war proved that the brick dwellings were much more popular with occupants for this reason.’ (5) Well-made, well-burnt brick has proved the most durable of all building materials, withstanding the elements for many centuries, without deterioration. (6) There is almost no limit to the variety of forms, textures and colours in which brick can be produced, nor to the multitude of ways in which it can be used. It is in these directions that we may hope for future development. 1 The Report, issued 1923, by the Building Research Board (No. 7) on “‘ Heat Transmission through Walls, Concretes and Plasters,” states that a wall having a cavity between two thicknesses of concrete block transmits 24 B-TH-U per sq. ft. per 24 hours, whereas a solid 9 in. Fletton brick wall transmits 14 B-TH-U in the same time.—Quoted by ‘‘ The British Clayworker,” November, 1923, p. 219. 53 54 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK (7) Economy not only in first cost and in the results which may be obtained, but also economy in maintenance. From time to time we hear of buildings built of stone, which has perished in a City atmosphere, not because it was inferior stone, but because it was not suitable for withstanding conditions in which it was placed. A case in point is the front of the Carlton Club, built about 1850, which has recently been refaced. The brickwork of Marlborough House, built by Wren 150 years earlier, like that of other brick buildings in the neighbourhood, has withstood the same conditions without any decay. Provided fashion does not oust brick in favour of modern substitutes (fashion often succeeds in substituting the worse for the better) brick seems likely to hold its own for all ordinary building works. The buildings illustrated in this volume are proofs of the durability of brick, and the many admirable qualities they possess are so largely due to this material as to merit the closest study. Success in handling building material has ever depended upon intimate knowledge of its capabilities and limitations. Of no material is this truer than of brick, and the masterpieces of brickwork owe as much to the craftsmen as to the designer. The failure of the late nineteenth century brickwork revival was owing to the designer’s failure to understand the material and to the extinction of intelligent craftsmen whose achievements in earlier work was the fruit of long and intimate experience. Factors FIREE factors are essential in brick for production of good visual results. These are Form, Texture and Colour. They should be found in brick used alone and also in brick in combination with other materials. Regarding Form in its most restricted sense, that is as applied to the individual brick, we find the Tudor brick possessed of considerable character in this respect. Whether this was produced by the rough methods of manufacture and by the very thorough burning or similar causes other than intention is immaterial. No two bricks were alike. They varied not only in their dimensions, but in shape. Some were twisted, most were hatched’ on bed, often on face, and this was one reason for building with thick joints. The prejudice against such bricks is generally owing to some supposed intention to associate them with fine ashlar or carved stonework of Renaissance character ; an association which might be quite unsuitable. This kind of brickwork properly belongs to the picturesque style. It is convenient to think of brick in parallels of dress fabrics—Tudor brick as homespun ;_ Restoration and early Georgian brickwork as faced-cloth, and rubbed and gauged brickwork as silk or satin. Such stone as Portland, moulded and carved, is like fine lace, which one would not use with homespun. Yet homespun has its uses and possesses decorative as well as utilitarian value. Texture is only Form on a small scale. It is produced by the slight irregularities of surface ; by roughness, in fact. All the best brick textures are obtained by use of coarse sand with which the clay is coated, or with which the mould is sprinkled before throwing in the clot of clay. If a smooth-surfaced brick is required, as for gauged work, fine sand will be suitable. If a rough, varied surface is wanted, then coarse, sharp and even pebbley sand must be used. In this way bricks can be produced with any degrees of texture ; no two bricks will be alike, but all will be superior to bricks mechanically roughened, whatever the pattern. Much of the interesting character of early bricks is due to the coarse sand used. + Hatched is the bricklayer’s term for curved. ey) 56 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK The third factor is Colour, but this does not lend itself to satisfactory illustration. It is the remarkable variety of colour which most impresses one when looking at Tudor brickwork. The general impression is of rich reds, but closer inspection shows deep reds, light reds, mauves, browns, blues and greys all built haphazard into the same wall. Such brickwork is a telling indictment of the modern brick, mechanically regular in form and colouring— the kind of brick which when built up as a wall, makes a red gash in the landscape and defies even the softening hand of Time. The Report of the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments in Essex says :— “The bricks used at Coggeshall Abbey of late twelfth and early thirteenth century dates, are of a warm red tone and generally from 1} to 2 inches thick; the fact that the majority of them are shaped to suit their present positions is an argument in favour of local manufacture. With the fourteenth century, the use of brick became more general in this part of the country . . . the brick of this period is of a much lighter shade, varying from red to a muddy yellow. The fifteenth and sixteenth century brickwork reverts to the warm red colour of the earlier work.”? The observations of this Commission were confined to Essex, but it is significant to note that the brickwork of Little Wenham Hall, in Suffolk, was largely of cream and muddy-yellow bricks, with a sprinkling of pinks and reds. Those at Allington Castle, in Kent, are pinkish in colour; and brickwork in the thirteenth century buildings at Salmestone Grange, near Margate, is similar to that at Little Wenham. However, we find the majority of the bricks at Dent de Lion (p. 116) a few miles from Salmestone, built in the fifteenth century, are chiefly creams and yellows. Possibly such differences in colours should be attributed to the character of local brick earths, rather than to period of manufacture. On the other hand the modern yellow Dutch clinkers are made from mud of the Scheldt. Early Flemish brickmakers who settled here may have used such material, and a percentage of chalk in the brick earths would produce the yellow colouring. Certainly there is a number of buildings near the East coast dating from the late thirteenth century and of the fourteenth century (the Commission quoted mention buildings at Colchester, Stanway All Saints and Fordham), where bricks are mostly pinky-red and muddy-yellow, and the point is certainly worthy of attention in relation to the question of imported or home-made early bricks. The fine colourings of the Tudor bricks con- tinued, more or less, throughout the sixteenth century, and good reds (more + “Roy. Comm. Hist. Monuments, Essex,” Vol. III., xxix. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK AG regular in colour perhaps and less rough in texture) are characteristic of the early half of the seventeenth century. About the second quarter of the seventeenth century we find examples of impending changes as at Kew Palace (pp. 173-5), Raynham Hall (p. 179), and Tyttenhanger Park (pp. 187-9), which culminated in the time of Wren. Gauged brickwork, of which we find a few instances in the second quarter of the seventeenth century, attained great popularity after the Restoration. It is not until the second quarter of the seventeenth century that we find examples of dressings executed with bricks of distinctly different colouring from that of the wallings. Bricks of lighter red colouring were picked out, or specially made, for such dressings. This had been the practice for many years before Moxon wrote :— “The best earth which we have in England for making bricks is in the county of Kent, from which we have most of the bricks, which are rubbed and hewed for the ornaments of the chief fronts in the City of London; the ornamental parts of which fronts are done with the reddest bricks they can pick from among them and the rough or plain work is done with the grey Kentish bricks.” The use of various reds, grey stocks and mauve stocks for wallings, with brighter reds as dressings, continued during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. In the second quarter we find paler and pinker wallings instead of reds, and an increasing tendency to use grey stocks, first those having, what Ware called “least of the yellow cast,’’ and later such pronounced yellows as malms. Ware writes :— ‘Of the manner of using bricks. We see many beautiful pieces of workmanship in red brick; and to name one, the front of the greenhouse in Kensington Gardens will be sure to attract every eye that has the least curiosity; but this should not tempt the judicious architect to admit them in the front walls of buildings. In the first place, the _ colour is itself fiery and disagreeable to the eye; it is troublesome to look upon it; and in Summer it has an appearance of heat that is very disagreeable ; for this season it is most improper in the country, though the oftenest used there, from the difficulty of getting grey. But a farther consideration is that in the fronts of most buildings of any expense, there is more or less stonework; now, one would wish that there should be as much conformity as could be between the general naked of the wall and these several ornaments which project from it, the nearer they are of a colour, the better they always range together . . . There is something harsh in the transition from red brick to stone, and it seems altogether unnatural; in the other the grey stocks comes so near the colour of stone that the change is less violent, and they sort better together. For this reason also the grey stocks are to be judged best coloured when they have least of the yellow cast ; for the nearer they come to the colour of stone, when they are to be used together with it, always the better. Where there is no stonework there generally is wood, and this being painted 1 “Mechanick Exercises,” Joseph Moxon, F.R.S., etc., London, 1682, 3rd edn., 1703. 58 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK White, as is commonly the practice, has yet a worse effect with red brick than the stone- work ; the transition is more sudden in this than in the other; but, on the other hand, in the mixture of grey bricks and white paint, the colour of the brick being soft there is no violent change.” It is obvious that Ware was determined to establish his objections to red brickwork, which he proceeds to do by these remarkable expressions of opinion. All the time it is clear he is conscious that existing buildings give the lie to his statements, and having, rather weakly, referred to the Wren “greenhouse” in Kensington Gardens (p. 2014) as “beautiful,” he passes on, merely warning the “judicious architect’”’ not to be tempted. One feels that the man himself wrote contrary to his own convictions, and that he was influenced by fashion, and fashion only. Ware’s preference for brick near to the colour of the stone ‘‘ ornaments” was anticipated by the builder of Hengrave Hall, Bury St. Edmunds (p. 146), in 1538, where much of the walling of the principal front is carried out in cream-coloured bricks, which are nearly the colour of the stonework. The tendency to build with grey, cream and yellow stocks which became general in London and its vicinity was not unconnected with the development of Kentish and other brickfields where the available earths produced these colours, and here mention should be made of those bright yellow bricks, called Malms,? a good example of the use of which is the elevation of Bath House, Piccadilly, and which are still used for gauged arches, etc. When we go further afield, we find red bricks more largely used, the duller and paler colours as wallings and the brighter reds for dressings. Another combination frequently seen in the country is the use of flared headers of silvery grey colour for wallings, with red brick dressings. The red bricks for these dressings are seldom of the brightest shades, often pale reds, and sometimes quite deep in colour. Calleva House, Wallingford (p. 227), has these grey bricks intermingled with dull, brownish reds. The house at Arundel (p. 252) has the centre portion in leaden coloured grey bricks, with red brick dressings, and the wings all red bricks. The house in the square at Wickham (p. 240) is built of silvery grey walling bricks, having considerable variety of tone and deep red dressings. The particularly soft colourings of these eighteenth century grey headers were, 1 “A Complete Body of Architecture,” Isaac Ware, London, 1756, p. 61. 2 Matm. ‘A white marl containing an admixture of clay.” —Jrnl. R. Agricul. Soc., xii, ii, 481, 1851, ‘‘ New English Dictionary.” Matms. ‘Workmen’s term for Marle Bricks.” ‘Outline of a Course of Practical Architecture.” C. Ww. Pasley, Chatham, 1826. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 59 perhaps, due to the fact that they were burnt in kilns with wood fuel. They were always headers, showing that these were picked out after burning, and no attempt seems to have been made to burn similar stretchers. No. 45, Lincoln’s Inn Fields (p. 242), built 1752, of grey stocks, without any red dressings, would be less interesting had not the designer rusticated the ground floor brickwork and emphasised the centre first floor window by surrounding it with an arch of the same bricks, projecting less than two inches from the face of the wall. The house at King’s Langley (p. 254) is of yellower brick, and dates from the Regency. The window arches and cills are plastered and painted white, as also is the woodwork of the doorway. The jalousies, ground floor window canopies, entrance door and iron railings are painted royal blue. How far this colouring is original it is impossible to say, but the association of royal blue with the yellow stocks has proved a particularly happy one. Association with other Materials RICK has been used with every other building material, invariably to the advantage of that with which it was associated. Like the Romans, the mediaeval builders realised the value of introducing Roman bricks amongst flint rubble and septaria in lacing courses and in units as at Colchester Castle (p. 101), where bricks are also used for quoins. The same use is made of these bricks at St. Botolph’s, Colchester (p. 102), and also for the arches, which were afterwards to be faced with carved stone. At St. Albans Cathedral (p. 103) we have Roman bricks in courses, with rough flint, also in courses, as well as the all-brick external walling of the tower, etc. In each of these the use of brick was for structural, not for visual, reasons, and the surfaces were afterwards cement rendered. _ Leaving Roman bricks, we find at Coggeshall Abbey the large thin twelfth and thirteenth century bricks used at St. Nicholas Chapel (pp. 105, 284) amongst the flint rubble and also for quoins and window dressings. At the rather earlier outbuilding of the same Abbey (pp. 104, 283) brick is used more freely for walls, windows and arches inside. At Little Wenham Hall (pp. 107, 359) the walls for five or six feet above the ground are built of stone and large flints (together with small pieces of each) in courses with angle buttresses of ashlar. At Tattershall Castle (pp. 109-110) and Caister Castle (p. 111) stone has been used for external dressings of windows, etc. At Hatfield (pp. 169-171) is Jacobean ashlar and brick. At Raynham, Inigo Jones combined brick and ashlar in his very distinguished elevations. In the East front (p. 179) the brick and stone wings compare not unfavourably with the stone central portion. It must not be supposed that in these and other important buildings brick was used with stone for economic reasons. Other details in the Tudor portion of Hampton Court Palace (pp. 137-8) witness that neither Wolsey nor Henry VIII. practised economy (a virtue never attributed to either), but it is apparent that they did appreciate stately building and the colour value of brick associated with stone. Sir Roger Townshend, for whom Inigo Jones 60 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 61 designed Raynham, so far from being a poor man, was famous for his munificence, and this building has been described by Sir Reginald Blomfield as “The most distinguished example of seventeenth century domestic architecture in England. It is particularly refined and accomplished. Quiet, reserved and dignified in the highest degree, it stands by itself.’ It is in such association with ashlar, and as employed later by Sir Christopher Wren, that we have the highest development of the use of brick with other building material. In a sense, brick is subordinated to stone when all mouldings and ornaments are executed in the latter, but brick possesses in a high degree the attribute of displaying these to the greatest advantage. The man who beyond all others realised this was Wren. To say that he handled materials is but faintly to express the way in which he mastered them, as may be seen in the following buildings actually by him or of his school. At Groombridge Place (p. 197) was used brick that was rough in form and texture, warm in colour, with thick joints. At Christ’s Hospital (now demolished) (p. 196), the rougher wallings of the structure were contrasted with the fine rubbed and gauged work of the wings and pilasters in the Ionic order, with which the South front was divided vertically and whose capitals of gauged brick were built up and carved. At School, Winchester (p. 198), moulded and carved stone is shown off by brickwork of deep red and rough texture. In the Fountain Court at Hampton Court Palace (p. 201), finely jointed, rubbed, red brickwork is associated with the light and dark of moulded and richly carved Portland stone, producing the gayest effect. Such use of brick by Wren has been well described by Professor C. H. Reilly (when referring to the entrance to Middle Temple) (p. 195) in the following words :— “The main wall face between the pilasters is in red brick, but what quality that red brick has! . . . How has Wren got such refined and delicate brickwork, rich in its slightly varying colour and yet smooth in its surface so that it accords absolutely with the broad stretches of stonework? He has done it by a method of which he was very fond ; witness parts of Hampton Court, by using very small—about 6 inches by 2 inches, instead of the ordinary g inch by 3 inches—soft rubbed bricks, which can be carved like cheese and yet stand the London atmosphere. These bricks consequently can have the finest possible joint, indeed of a masonry character, so thin that it can hardly be seen. Such brickwork is of course a highly artificial thing, a mere facing. Ordinary brickwork is a conglomerate material like concrete, in which the cementing mortars should be 1 “Hist. of Renaissance Architecture in England,” I., p. 118. 62 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK clearly shown. This rubbed brickwork of Wren’s, however, is very beautiful as he has used it here and makes a fine field for his big pilasters. What scale, too, he gets by them! This small building, three hundred years old, masters, merely by its scale and simplicity all the modern ones around it, good as some of them are. It proves again the lesson that the chief fault of our modern street architecture is that we dare not be simple and broad ; we dare not or are not able to give sufficient plain wall surface.” Amongst many fine country houses of the early eighteenth century, the designers of which are unknown, is Chicheley Hall in Buckinghamshire (p. 208). No wallings of mere stone could produce the brilliance which has here been attained. For richness of effect in form and in colouring it is unsurpassed. An unusual combination of stone, flint and brick is the Post Office, Wickhambreaux (p. 164), a result achieved in two periods, of which the brickwork belongs to the later. The Flemish practice of coating brick walls and moulded brickwork with plaster to represent stone was also in vogue in this country. Rendering walls of rubble or brick was practised in the twelfth century, but it is not until the sixteenth century that we find many examples of stone dressings simulated by plaster. Amongst many others are Layer Marney Church (pp. 132, 265) ; windows at Layer Marney Towers or Hall (p. 293) ; the gatehouse at Beckingham Hall (p. 157) ; the gardenhouses at Hales Place, Tenterden (p. 321); the doorway and windows of the Cale Hill stables at Little Chart (p. 270), where the door jambs and lintel are of stone, but the panel, pediment and ornament above are of plaster. At Stutton Hall (pp. 312-3) the Renaissance detail is plastered to represent stone, while the moulded brickwork of the earlier ornament is left in its natural state. At Eastbury House the principal doorway (pp. 271-2) is thinly plastered over the mouldings, etc., and the windows treated to represent stone dressings. One (p. 296) not restored is illustrated. The window at Goodnestone (p. 303) has additional interest because its sections are similar to the (re-plastered) earlier windows at Broome Park (pp. 176-8), a few miles away. The plaster used as rendering to represent stone in early work was of two distinct kinds. On some buildings it consisted of thin mortar, often of sea sand and grit. This is used at Hales Place, Tenterden, and Cale Hill, Ashford, both in Kent. In some other localities the rendering was of * “Country Life,’”’ 30th September, 1922, Vol. LII., p. 402. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 63 almost pure lime putty, with hair mixed, as may be seen in most of the Essex houses. ‘This latter treatment, of course, produced an effect of whiter stone than the sea sand would give. The treatment of the edges of such rendering is worthy of notice, see Breccles Hall (p. 163) as, also, the apparent absence of projection beyond the face of the brickwork, just as the stone it simulates would have been flush with the brick. Modern work and restorations often project half an inch or more and have clean cut splayed edges. White, painted cement rendering over brick, and white painted woodwork (notwithstanding Ware’s condemnation) have long been recognised as happily associated with red brickwork, as well as with bricks of grey and yellow colourings. The English designer has always realised the importance conferred upon his front elevations by a well-placed, well-designed entrance doorway. White, painted, wood doorways, with dark brown or dark green doors, were developed in this country during the second half of the seventeenth century, and during the whole of the eighteenth century, to much greater extent than on the Continent. The simplicity, bordering on severity which characterised the fronts of eighteenth century town houses (whether built of red brick or of grey stocks with red dressings) was relieved and given importance by the introduction of an entrance doorway in one or other of the orders. Examples may be found of all the five orders in doorways, but the Doric was most favoured, and it is remarkable to see the variety of ways in which this was treated. The hood over the South doorway at Tyttenhanger Park (p. 189) is an early example of such painted wood, the dating of which is assured by the treatment of the moulded brickwork to meet it below the brackets. Unfortunately the doorway, like the rest of the elevation, suffers from the aggressiveness of the heavy modern window frames. Wren, with his fine perception of fitness, used red brick successfully with white paint. Morden College, Blackheath (p. 205), built 1695, is a notable illustration of this treatment. Built of red brick, the quoins and the band at first floor level are rendered with plaster and painted. The brick columns of the entrance doorway are similarly treated ; carved and painted wood “‘ ornaments,’’ cornice, etc., are the same colour ;_ the Jalousies probably of green. It seems as though Portland stone were too costly, and it was desired to obtain such white effect as it might have produced after a half century’s exposure to the weather. 64 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK The brilliance produced by use of white paint with brick was realised also by the early eighteenth century builder. Two houses will serve to illustrate this. No. 179, Clapton Road (p. 218), has rich red rubbed and gauged dressings, which contrast with the duller walling bricks. The white wood- work, green door, green iron railings and white stone steps combine in a brilliant whole, which contrasts favourably with the dull colourings of later eighteenth and early nineteenth century exteriors. At Dedham, in Essex, is another house, built about 1732 (p. 236), with soft coloured wallings, rich red brick pilasters, cornice, niche and Ionic order (with white painted caps, bases and cill), window architraves and apron-pieces, contrasting with a green door and railings, the whole forming a delightfully gay and pleasing combination. ‘The same treatment, often less fully developed, is to be seen in most houses of the late seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century, many of which are illustrated. Of these, The Grange, Farnham (p. 209), is a quiet but original composition. No. 39, West Street, Farnham (p. 247), has an unusually handsome white, painted frieze. The painted pediment, cornice and capitals of pilasters at Finchcocks, Goudhurst (p. 228), are clearly substitutes for stone. The balustrades at Brick Alley Almshouses, Abingdon (p. 224), and in the parapet of the Old Hall, Ormsby St. Margaret (p. 238), are pleasing details, associated, as all are, with red brick of one shade or another. We find cut and moulded brick still used in the country up to the middle of the eighteenth century, but it was dying out, and the use of gauged and rubbed work became confined to arches, quoins and other dressings, with which the severely bare fronts of grey and buff stocks were relieved. The classic revival killed brick manipulation; stucco became supreme. Only in the provinces was red brick still employed, and then as the plainest wallings and, perhaps, with brighter red dressings. Manipulation of Brick Bonds, Joints and Patterns N page 440, eleven walling bonds are shown, the first six of which are found in the old examples illustrated. The early mediaeval brickwork was so irregular and often so intermingled with flint and stone that it cannot be classed under any system of bonding. Later, the Flemish type of brick, as used at Little Wenham Hall (p. 107), in the latter half of the thirteenth century, was built approximately in English bond (which we appear to have imported from France), but still very irregularly, and having a large proportion of stretchers on face. This has been called Flying or Yorkshire bond. It is the bond used at Beverley Bar, 1409-10 (p. 108), but at Tattershall Castle, c. 1431-49 (p. 109), the bond is definitely English, having fairly regular alternate courses of stretchers and headers. This bond continued in general use in this country until the seventeenth century, when we find buildings where Flemish bond (alternately a header and stretcher in the same course) has been used. Early instances are Kew Palace, dated 1631 (pp. 173-5), and Raynham Hall, built c. 1631-5. In the East elevation (p. 179) of the latter the pedimented wings are built in English bond, while the links between these and the centre are in Flemish bond. In the South elevation both English and Flemish bonds are found. Another pre-Restoration house built in Flemish bond is Tyttenhanger (pp. 185-7), built c. 1654. The evidence of these buildings disposes of the oft-repeated statement that Flemish bond was introduced after the Restoration. Wren used this bond, but did not confine himself to it. At Christ’s Hospital 1672 (p. 196), the wallings are built in English bond, but at School, Winchester, 1684 (p. 198), at Hampton Court Palace, c. 1690 (pp. 200-1), and at Morden College, 1695 (p. 205), Flemish bond is used. This steadily increased in popularity, until in the eighteenth century it was the bond most in vogue. English cross bond and Dutch bond, (also found in 15th century French castles) which are variations of English bond, produce the same 65 66 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK result (of making alternate courses of stretchers break joint) by different treatment at the quoins. Whole buildings are built in Dutch bond in Holland, but here its use is confined to limited areas, as the gables of Eastbury House, Barking (pp. 158-9), where the pattern of small crosses which they produce is discernible. Heading bond was also in favour in the eighteenth century, not only for circular work like the water cistern at Rye (p. 21 7), and the quadrant returns of the wings at Finchcocks, Goudhurst (p. 228), but also for whole elevations, as at The Old Hall, Ormsby St. Margaret (p. 238). One writer regards this as ‘‘ especially beautiful.”? Another use of heading bond was when the whole wall surface was to consist of grey bricks. As these were the flared headers and as, owing to the method of setting in the kiln, stretchers were not produced this colour, the walling had to be in heading bond as at Wickham (p. 240) and Arundel (p. 252). Monk bond, so largely used in mediaeval architecture in Germany and Sweden, and now so popular in the latter country, does not appear to have been adopted in Britain. This is the more surprising when the intimate relations between the Hanse towns and England is borne in mind. This bond consists of two headers and a stretcher in the same course. On a large expanse of wall it produces a pattern of zig-zags (rising seven courses), which like the crosses of Dutch bond, is particularly noticeable at some angles, and especially in certain lights. Being soft and unobtrusive, Is not distressing to the eye (pp. 365, 440). If this bond is varied at the seventh course the pattern is avoided. The thick joints of early brickwork were the natural result of the irregularity of brick sizes and shapes. The nature of the earths used and very thorough burning (we realise how thorough this burning was when we examine much old brickwork, without finding one brick which has succumbed to the weather), which resulted in hatching or warping. The consequent variations of dimensions often were not absorbed by the thick joint, so that perpends were ill-kept and sometimes cross joints came immediately over one another. This did not affect the strength of the walls ; so sound were the materials and work that a little laxity in method did not matter. An unpremeditated result, however, was to produce wall surfaces free from mechanical effect and rich in charming texture. Occasionally one finds the thick joints galleted with chips of flint (p. 360), * “London Prices,” Batty Langley, p. 130, London, 1749. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 67 but this more frequently occurs in masonry. Details of brickwork at various periods are shown on pp. 357-61. Brickwork of the first half of the seventeenth century was less variable, but retained the thick joint. The early examples of Flemish bond at Raynham (p. 179) and Kew (pp. 173-5) have more regular bricks and thinner joints, With Wren, the change became complete, and continued throughout the eighteenth century. Batty Langley, writing in 1749,' describes the joints then in use and which had been in use for many years. He refers to bricks 2} inches in thickness, and says there are three varieties of ‘Common Front Walling.” ia9 1. That whose courses are laid of the same thickness of mortar as Place Bricks usually are, viz., For every four courses in height, to rise one foot and jointed in the common manner. “2, That whose Courses of Mortar are laid so much thinner than the preceding, as for every four Courses of Bricks to rise but eleven inches in height, and jointed as aforesaid. “3. That whose Courses of Mortar don’t exceed quarter of an inch in height and consequently every four Courses of Bricks to rise but eleven inches in height, as in the last, with tuck-and-pat joints.” There is another treatment (‘‘ rubbed and edged work ’’) which he describes,” midway between common jointing and gauged work. ~ Red Stock Fronts rubbed and edged only, with common jointed courses and with Tuck-and-pat courses. This kind of Brick walling, when well performed, is very strong and beautiful . . . there is Time expended in rubbing, to face them, and for just to sharpen their arraces,” ¢ He also gives instructions as to the composition of “inside”? and “ outside ”’ mortars, one finer than the other ; ‘“‘the fine sort to the front courses and the other to the inside courses?”’ Two qualities of “‘ inside mortar” are described, one made with loamy sand, the other with sharp gritty sand.’ After commenting on the fact that “‘ tuck-and-pat”’ pointing nearly doubled the price of the work, he expresses himself as follows :— “Tt has an ill effect and looks as if the Mortar had no union with the bricks and was forced from them. Neither is it so strong or so beautiful as when worked with their courses jointed in the common manner as all the rubbed red-stock fronts are done of His Grace the Duke of Marlborough’s House in St. James’ Park, built by that great architect, Sir Christopher Wren.’ + “London Prices,”’ Batty Langley, London, 1749, pp. 91, 92. 2 Ibid, p. 126. 3 Ibid. pp. 99, 32 to 40. 4 Ibid. p. 100. 68 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Diapers The art of producing patterns on wall surfaces by the use of bricks (generally headers) of distinctive colour seems to have been introduced from France during the fifteenth century. An early instance is at Herstmonceaux Castle, but only here and there in tentative fashion. The Bishop’s Palace, Hatfield (pp. 117-9), has a variety of interesting patterns, and is the forerunner of the fuller development of such work in the sixteenth century. Continuous diamond patterns were most favoured; sometimes soft as at Rye House (p. 126), Gifford’s Hall (p. 123), and Bradfield (p. 135), where the walls were covered with pattern, or, more rarely, in strong contrast to the background, as at Farnham Castle (p. 130). Such diapers gave scale to a building which could not be obtained by an unbroken area of such small units as bricks, their smallness being emphasised by the thick mortar joints. These patterns were produced by picking out overburnt headers, often quite vitrified, for the purpose. These were darker in colour than the rest of the brickwork; purples, blues, greys and sometimes almost black. Although often referred to as “ black headers,’”’ they were seldom so dark. Owing to the excessive burning and consequent vitrification, they reflect light, and so photograph lighter in colour than the surrounding brickwork. Headers used for diaper patterns were not always of the colours mentioned. Sometimes deep red or brown bricks were used, and there was no attempt to obtain uniformity, any dark brick being chosen that would contrast with the rest of the wall. The result was that these diapers were not hard or mechanical looking, as are modern imitations, and often pains were taken to let the pattern die away here and there, and, perhaps, to reappear again. These patterns can be seen at Sandon Church (p. 129), Tolleshunt Major Church (p. 131), Hampton Court Palace (p. 138), Feering Church (p. 262), Layer Marney Church (p. 132), and elsewhere. At Feering the diapers low down are a soft grey, and become stronger in colour further from the eye. The buildings richest in this work are Layer Marney Towers or Hall (pp. 139-41) and Little Leez Priory (p. 154). Some of the work on these buildings is after the manner of Courcelles le Roi, but in none is _ there that riot of diaper in bands which is to be seen at Auffay (p. es A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 69 The Gateway at Dent de Lion, Carlinge, Thanet (p. 116), is built in bands of brick and flint, in courses of four of each. At St. Peter’s, Thanet (p. 362), is a gable wall having extensive diamond diaper in flints, which have been knapped to the size of a brick header; and at Sarre (p. BO 2)\eisea gable, dated 1691, in similar flints. In the eighteenth century blue headers were frequently built in Flemish bond, with red stretchers to produce a chequered effect. At Finchcocks, Goudhurst (p. 229), the whole of one elevation is treated in this manner; at Rainham, Essex (p. 232), the parapet only. As the diapers and patterns used here were derived from those in vogue in France, examples are given from Chateau d’Auffay, Normandy, and from Boos Manor, Rouen (pp. 364, 439). At Chateau d’Auffay brick and stone courses are alternated freely and ingeniously, and the present effect must owe much to the softening hand of time. At Boos the diapers and patterns are used in panels, where weakness inseparable from breaking the bond would not affect the apparent stability of the structure. The extraordinary variety of patterns is shown in the photograph on page 364, and in the detail drawing on page 439. Such work has greater interest historically than as practical art applicable to modern requirements. Inlay, Tracery and Strapwork Inlay with small pieces of brick or tile, such as one sees in Holland, where tympana and panels are to be filled with decoration, does not seem to have been adopted in England. A simple example is the herringbone inlay in the arcading of the triforium at St. Albans (p. 387), of pieces of Roman brick. The early thirteenth century tessarae from Rochester Cathedral (pp. 432-6) show a variety of patterns. The pieces of tile have been cut to shape by hand. An essential feature of this work is the thick joint. Modern imitations of purpose-moulded pieces made under pressure in steel dies and laid with a thin joint compare most unfavourably with the old work. Both may be seen at Rochester Cathedral. Herringbone work was not so uncommon as is supposed. The Roman pavement in the Forum at Colchester (p. 387) includes some, composed of small bricks, measuring 5 by 2} by 1} inches. There is a fifteenth century open fireplace at Cowdray Castle, Sussex, the lining of which is herringbone brickwork, and these are by no means exceptional 70 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK examples. At Salisbury is some fifteenth century walling in plain tiles herringboned in courses (p. 388). Some fifteenth century buildings, and many of the first half of the sixteenth century, have strings and panels enriched with brick tracery, generally trefoils and quatrefoils. The tracery of the sunk panel at Ewelme (p. 115) is characteristic of work still to be seen on old buildings at Bruges. The panels over the fireplace from Prittlewell (p. 384) show the same Flemish influence. It is interesting to note how one cusped-brick mould was made to serve for the trefoils and for the cingfoils. Another instance of panels may be seen in the old tower, b. 1437-9, forming part of the north front of Repton Hall, now the headmaster’s house at Repton School, Derbyshire. The same economy of moulds may be observed in the panel tracery at Gifford’s Hall (p. 123), West Stow Hall (p. 124), Colne Engaine Church Tower (p. 133), Layer Marney Towers or Hall (p. 291), and East Barsham Gatehouse (pp. 147-8). Two of these cusped bricks formed a trefoil arch in the panel at base of chimneys at Compton Wynyates (p. 429), and similar bricks are used for the piscina at Chignal Smealey Church, Essex, At East Barsham Manor House, Norfolk, are hexagonal panels, enclosing modelled tablets (p. 345), and the turret pinnacles are enriched by similar treatment (p. 151). The circular chimney at Methwold (p. 136) has diamond and zig-zag ornaments in relief. At Great Cressingham (p. 346) are panels of terra-cotta tracery, and at Hatfield the pierced parapets are of brick (pp. 168, 330), except for portions on the South side, which recently have been replaced in stone. In the seventeenth century another form of raised decoration of wall surfaces, called strapwork, came into favour, examples are illustrated at Godalming (p. 191) and at Farnham (p. 368), of which also measured drawings are given (p. 426). An important consideration in relation to these simple projections, often of unmoulded bricks, is the amount which they project from the wall face. The square and circle work at Farnham projects — 1jins., but that in the small panels of the dated house at Godalming scarcely more than $ of an inch. It will be seen there that although some of this decoration projects from the wall face, that above the cornice is recessed. Breaking wall surfaces by simple projections and recesses has always been a valued device of builders in brick, and there is almost no limit to the variety of ways in which this can be done. A broad and simple treatment is that adopted at the Ramsbury stables (p. 197), where vertical A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 71 divisions are formed by rusticated piers, rising to a simple corbel table and forming panels, in each of which is a handsome elliptic window of stone. Many country towns possess those severely simple brick houses, with rough block cornice and pediment of unmoulded brick, one course consisting of “dog-tooth”’ dentils or of ordinary dentils as the house at Arundel (p. 252). Sometimes special bricks called “‘ cogging bricks’’ were made to ensure good bond.’ Rustications of various kinds are further varieties of simple projections, sometimes assisted by the introduction of moulded imposts or key blocks. The doorway at Rye (p. 273) and gate piers near Canterbury (p. 3 28) illustrate these. The gable at Sarre (p. 203) has the whole face of the gable built in a plane very slightly in advance of the wall below, starting with a corbel of two courses. Below are rudimentary pilasters and sunk panels. The buildings at Guilton (p. 204), Reading Street (p. 202), and Bethersden (p. 207) include further applications of the same methods by country builders, who understood the material in which they worked. Brick Moulding Attempt was made in the last section to show important effects which may be produced by intelligent handling of ordinary unmoulded brick, effects which could hardly be obtained with stone without the intervention of the mason with his chisel. Brick is a material which also lends itself admirably to moulding and carving. The mouldings may be formed by shaping the clay in a wooden mould (now termed “ purpose-moulding ”’) or by cutting or by rubbing the burnt brick. All three methods have been employed from early times. At St. Nicholas Chapel, Little Coggeshall Abbey, c. 1220, the exterior of the East window (p. 284) consists of three lancet lights, enclosed in an outer order, all of brick. The dressings of the lights are plain chamfered, but the outer order has a hollow chamfer, cut by hand and exposing the dark cores of the bricks. The same window inside (p. 284) is plastered, but the bricks of the rear-arch are exposed. This is a moulded order of one roll, and the bricks are purpose-moulded and rubbed; other windows are similar. The arches of the Sedilia are built of bricks, the hollow-chamfers of which are hand cut, exposing the cores. A doorway (p. 256) of the sub-vault of the Dorter of the Abbey 1 Cogging Bricks, 10 X 4 X 2}. Used under coping bricks to project 2} in. each side, diagonally, to make toothing or indented work.—‘‘ The City and Country Purchaser,”’ R. Neve, London, 1703, p. 39. 72 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK (c. 1220) has a two-centred arch of two-moulded orders, of purpose- moulded brick. An imperfection in the mould can be traced by the same flaw in several of the bricks. No cores are exposed in any of the roll- mouldings, which, however, were finished by axe and rubbing. The lancet windows (p. 283) of the outbuilding (c. 1200) of the same Abbey have recessed jambs of two orders, splayed within; some of the bricks forming these are probably purpose-moulded. At Little Wenham Hall, Suffolk, are large, moulded brick wall-copings, some of which are contemporary with the building (c. 1260-80), and others are Elizabethan renewals. In the accounts of the building of the North Bar, Beverley, p. 108, 1409-10, the following item appears :— “et Johanni Elward pro mille squynchon.”! Squynchons were specially moulded chamfered bricks used for jambs and arches. Bricks chamfered on two angles were used for vault ribs under the Bar. Both purpose-moulded and hand-cut mouldings are commonly found in later fifteenth century and subsequent work. Until the latter half of the nineteenth century cutting bricks by hand was done with a brick-axe, and this kind of work is still often called “ axed work,”” The brick-axe is referred to in 1548-62. The tools given by a master to an apprentice at Norwich at end of term of the apprenticeship, which was nine years—‘‘ a hamer axe, a trowell, a bryckaxe, a square and a compass.’”” Forming mouldings by rubbing on a sharp grit-stone was another method employed either alone or in conjunction with axing. The mason’s contract for the building of Hengrave Hall, Suffolk, in 1538, provided the moulded chimney shafts should be rubbed, the wording being “ roubed bryck all the schanck of the chymnies.’” ) The brick-axe seems to have continued in use for brick cutting until the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Its form and use are described as follows :— “A tool with two chisel-shaped ends, used by bricklayers for cutting bricks for gauged arches. The lines having been first marked on the brick by a species of small saw,‘ the axe is taken by the middle and held in a perpendicular position ; its edge is then applied to the brick where marked, and both being raised together, it is struck smartly on 1 “The Building of Beverley Bar,” by Arthur Leach, F.S.A. Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Soc. IV., p. 31. 2 “Norfolk Antiq. Miscl. (1880),” II., 10a, p. 5. ’ “History and Antiquities of Hengrave,” by John Gage, 1822, as quoted by Parker. 4 Known as a “tin saw.” A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK hiss a block of wood, by which the brick is cut into shape. The rough edges of the brick are then rubbed on a piece of grit stone.’ With this description is an illustration of a brick-axe similar to that of the Tylers’ and Bricklayers’ Company (p. 389). The scutch or scotch (pp. 393-5) has quite supplanted the brick-axe ,; indeed, I have been unable to find an old builder or bricklayer who recollects the brick-axe or its being used, although smaller axes for cleaning bricks were in common use until recent years. Experiments made with a brick-axe in the hands of a bricklayer who is expert in the use of the scutch show it to be far inferior to the latter in handiness, but the mediaeval workman was obviously possessed of a high degree of skill in its use. Recently the hack-saw (commonly used for cutting metal) has superseded the tin saw for making incisions, and has displaced the scutch for some brick-cutting. It is also used for cutting soft bricks. Skilled workmen, however, endeavour to keep this and other methods of brick-cutting secret, and are especially jealous that new recruits to bricklaying other than regular apprentices should not see them use these tools. A list of tools is given by Moxon in 1703, together with instructions for using them, as follows :— “A Brick Ax (illustration as that on p. 389) with which they cut bricks to what shape they please, as some for arches, both straight and circular, others for the mouldings of architecture, as archytrave; Friez and Cornice. A saw made of Tinn, to saw the bricks where they cut. A Rub Stone, which is round and is about 14 inches in diameter and sometimes more or less at pleasure, on which they rub the bricks, which they cut to several shapes and also others which they cut not, being called ‘ Rubbed Returns’ and ‘ Rubbed Headers and Stretchers.’ Some use a Float Stone, with which they rub the moulding of the brick after they have cut it with the ax, pretty near to the pattern described on the brick by the trammel from the wainscot or pasteboard mould, that so they may make the brick exactly to answer to the pattern or mould. Others use no stone at all, but cut the brick exactly to the pattern with their Brick ax, leaving the Ax strokes to be seen on the brick, which, if they be streight and parallel to one another look very prettily and is the truest way of working; but then they must take care to ax the brick off with an Ax that is exactly streight on the edge that the moulding on the brick be neither round nor hollow from side to side of a header or from end to end of a stretcher.’ The instructions given probably represent methods long adopted in brick-cutting, and are equally applicable to- -day, except that the brick- BE has been superseded by the scutch. The “‘tinn’’ saw is still in use.° 2 a Dictionary of Architecture,’ Architectural Publication Society, s.v. Brick Axe. ““Mechanick Exercises, or the Doctrine of Handy-Works,” by Joseph Moxon, F.R.S., etc., London, 1703. 3 In “The Architectural and Engineering Dictionary,” by P. Nicholson, London, 1835, it is stated that the tin saw is first used to cut lines } in. deep, ‘‘that the axe may enter and keep the brick from spaltering.” 74 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK It consists of a piece of thin sheet metal in a wooden handle, with which a shallow line is scored in the brick to the required outline. The scutch is a more accurate tool than the brick-axe, and now, as with the axe in Moxon’s time, a skilful workman will cut mouldings with it alone. When Moxon refers to a mould he means a template of the moulding to be cut. . As at the present day, the old builders, no doubt, prepared purpose- moulded bricks, when a large number were required, but there was also much axed work, probably because a skilful workman could mould, by cutting, a considerable number of bricks in a day. It may give some idea of time required if mention is made that the 7-inch bricks in the illustrations of brick- cutting (pp. 393-6) were moulded by scutch and rasp alone at the rate of seven an hour. The returns, which were left square at one end, requiring greater care, took fifteen minutes each. Had a large number been required, probably the output would have been twenty per cent. more. It is therefore apparent that where many moulded bricks were required, as for several window architraves, it would pay to have them purpose-moulded, but for a smaller number it might be more economical to axe by hand. Where work was far from the eye, often less care was taken than where near the ground. An instance is the top of the main cornice moulding at Willmer House, Farnham, which Mr. C. S. White (who measured it from ladders) informs me is well preserved, but that projections of individual members vary considerably—in some cases as much as three-eighths of an inch in a length of three or four feet of cornice. Such were the methods (together with carving, which will be treated later) by which builders shaped their bricks up to the second quarter of the nineteenth century. The illustrations of buildings and of details up to this date are worthy of careful study as being the work of men whose fertility of imagination and resourcefulness enabled them continually to vary old devices and to produce fresh combinations, always happy in design and satisfactory in proportion. Study of these is helpful to the student and designer, but to wrest details from these old buildings and re-assemble them can produce no better architecture than that of the late nineteenth century revival of brick building which did so much to discredit brick as a building material. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK ae Gauged Work Up to about the year 1630 brick was fashioned by purpose-moulding, by rubbing or with the brick-axe, and the bricks used were hard bricks. In early arched brickwork the bricks were not cut accurately as voussoirs ; the difference between the curve of extrados and that of the intrados being taken up in the joints. Where this would have resulted in too thick a joint, a piece of tile was inserted or a wedge-shaped piece of brick, after which the use of ordinary bricks was continued. For the small curves of Tudor arches, rough voussoirs were cut. Occasionally early work is seen where voussoirs have been cut with some care, as in the inner arch of the gatehouse at Gifford’s Hall (p. 123), but the bricks vary much; the error in one being rectified by increasing or diminishing the next. In gauged work the exact shape of each brick is carefully set out beforehand and strictly adhered to by the cutter. The difference between rough and gauged arches may best be realised by comparison of the Gateway at Breccles Hall (p. 315) and the Doorway at No. 3, King’s Bench Walk (p. 277). Reference has been made already to the change in thickness of joints about this time. Hitherto they had seldom been less than half an inch thick, but improved and more regularly shaped bricks, together with changes in fashion, in the course of the next forty years, reduced this for some classes of work to less than one-eighth of an inch, and to facilitate this accurate jointing softer bricks were eventually used which could more easily be rubbed down. The change was gradual, an early example being Kew Palace (p. 299), dated 1631, where the jointing scarcely exceeds a quarter of an inch and where key blocks and capitals are built up with the finest possible joints after accurate gauging. The Gateways at Chesterton (p. 317) and Forty Hall (pp. 318-9), both ascribed to Inigo Jones, are undated examples of early gauging. Cromwell House (pp. 185-6), built about 1650, has much cut, rubbed and gauged work, while Tyttenhanger, c. 1654 (p. 187-9), which has features in common with Cromwell House, and may be by the same hands, has the gauging more finely done. The brickwork of the fine gauged gate piers at 59-60, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, attributed to Inigo Jones (and so often regarded as early gauged work), must be of much later date than these examples. It is certainly of post-Restoration character ; indeed, it has been suggested that these piers 76 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK were removed and re-created in their present positions when the premises were divided in 1751-2.’ 3 A result of finer joints and to a greater extent of gauged work was to nullify the lack of breadth caused by so small a unit as a brick when its smallness was emphasised by a broad border of mortar joint round each. Wall surfaces became more homogeneous, and what they lost in texture was more than compensated for by the greater attention bestowed upon the execution of dressings, whether of other coloured brick or of stone. It is evident that rubbed and gauged work did not come in with the Restoration, but was already as well established here as the unsettled conditions of civil war would permit. On the 29th April, 1667, an order was made by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of the City of London, which is given in full on page 47, respecting the use of rubbed bricks and other enrichments of the fronts of buildings, showing the practice was not a new one. Such work increased rapidly in popularity. Allusion has already been made to Sir Christopher Wren’s use of it at Middle Temple Gateway and at Hampton Court Palace, c. 1690 (pp. 195, 200-1), Christ’s Hospital, 1672, also by Wren, has been demolished, but a portion of the front is illustrated (p. 196). His fine doorways in King’s Bench Walk are well known, but cannot be omitted (pp. 277-9). That at No. 4 is dated 1677. The dominating feature of brickwork of the second half of the seventeenth century and first half of the eighteenth century was the use of cut and moulded brick for cornices and pilasters. Kew Palace (p. 175) is an earlier instance, and there we have three orders superposed. At Broome Park, Kent (p. 176-8), the treatment is more simple, the scale is good, and the pedimented treatment of the attic confers distinction. Pocock’s School, Rye (p. 181), shows adaptation of the Tuscan order to brick. Sir Reginald Blomfield says of this :— | “The designer made no attempt to adhere exactly to the orthodox rules of the Tuscan order, the order which he followed approximately. He subordinated his order to the exigencies of his brickwork, that is, he designed all his mouldings with a view to their safe and easy execution in coarse jointed brickwork, so that each course is securely bedded and has sufficient bearing in the wall. Yet the work is by no means ignorant. All the members of the order are there, in suggestion rather than in literal transcript, and, as in the case of a good many buildings of this date in England, whose architect is unknown, this building was evidently the work of a strong and original designer. The arches over 1 « Survey of London,” Vol. III., ‘‘ The Parish of St. Giles in the Fields,” London, 1912, part I., p. 98. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK a7 the windows are straight brick arches, channelled to form voussoirs and key-blocks. These are of rubbed brick, but coarsely jointed.”? Close examination of the work confirms this description. It is astonishing to find how few moulded members there are, and how much has been accomplished by use of bricks of varying thicknesses and of tiles varying from half to one inch in thickness. A detail drawing is given of the central dormer and of the pilaster caps from measurements taken from a ladder (p. 418). At Barnham (p. 184) is another front in cut brickwork in two orders. Cromwell House (pp. 185-6) is one of the most refined specimens of moulded brickwork extant, exhibiting such exceptional knowledge and ability that it is surprising the exterior should have escaped any of that attention which has been lavished upon the staircase. Scale drawings and full-size details accordingly are given (pp. 398-402). Mention should be made also of Tyttenhanger Park (pp. 187-9), possibly from the same hand. Christ’s Hospital (p. 196) shows finer gauged work by Wren, and the Bluecoat School, Westminster (p. 199), which is attributed to him, includes great variety of detail. The front of the Unitarian Chapel at Bury St. Edmunds (p. 211) by an unknown architect, combines gauged, cut and rubbed brick, which produce a fine building, probably the most distinguished architectural feature in the town. Pallant House, Chichester (p. 212), is another attributed to Wren, but there is no evidence connecting it with him, and its only claim to such parentage is the fine quality of its design. Cut brick cornices such as this and many others were made from bricks of normal dimensions, as may be seen in the return section of that at West Farleigh Hall (p. 366), but Moxon (1703) says :— “The length of a brick being about eight inches, when its head is rubbed for hewing, it will not hang if it fall over more than is shown in the draught, which is about three and a half inches. But if you would make it project more, then you must cement pieces to the ends of your bricks for tailing or to make them longer.” The bricklayer, Venturus Mandey, whose epitaph is quoted on p. 15, seems to be the Venturus Mandey who produced a book with Joseph Moxon as joint author. If so, Moxon probably got his information regarding bricklayers’ work from Mandey. At Bradmore House, Hammersmith, the main cornice was of brick + “Renaissance Architecture in England,” p. ii., p. 356. 2 “Mechanical Exercises,’ by Joseph Moxon, F.R.S., etc., London, 1703. 78 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK and had projection of 19} inches from the wall face. The corona brick of this cornice was 18 inches long, so was well tailed in.’ Possibly the builder of the scanty block cornice at King’s Langley (p. 249) lacked confidence in his ability to tail in. Bradbourne (p. 213) is of approximately the same date as Pallant House, and like the house in Longbridge, Farnham (p. 220), includes skilful paueed and carved brickwork. Willmer House (pp. 222-3), in the same town, like Cromwell House, is an outstanding production of its period and worthy of the detail and fullvaize drawings, upon which Mr. C. S. White has expended so much care. It is about this time that Calleva House, Wallingford (p. 227), and Lockleys, Welwyn (p. 221), were built; very different handlings of the Doric order; another version of which, built later still, is Church House, Beckley (p. 239). The house at Hertford (p. 225) is an excursion into the Ionic order, and that in Tooks Court (p. 226) into the Corinthian (all in cut, rubbed and carved brick), rarer because more difficult of execution. Indeed, the Doric order is the favourite, and is to be found in many counties. The culminating point of excellence of design and perfection of execution in such work is achieved in the pediment from a house at Enfield, now in the Victoria and Albert Museum (p. 368), every part of which is built up of ordinary bricks. It will be seen that the angle bricks of the window architraves at Willmer House (p. 406) are large purpose- -moulded bricks, having the representation of a thin joint at the mitre incised, shewing recognition of the fact that the effect of brick units should be preserved and that the introduction of larger pieces is disfiguring. The same angles of the architraves at Kew Palace (p. 299), Cromwell House (p. 302), and Tyttenhanger (p. 302) were built of cut brick units. Such architraves, however, were the exception, but many buildings were built with red stock dressings, and also with red stock wallings. Batty Langley (1749) describes “ Plain walling, with rubbed and gauged red stock bricks, set in putty” as “ of all others the most beautiful.’” Of brick ornaments he says they are “‘ of various kinds, viz., Rubed only, and set in Front Mortar; or gaged, rubed and set in Putty. Those which are rubbed only are chiefly the sides or jaumbs of Windows and the external angles or quoins of buildings.” 1 “ Survey of London,” Vol. VI., ‘The Parish of Hammersmith,” pl. 14. 2 “London Prices,” Batty Langley, London, 1749, p. 130. 3 Ibid. p. 286 et seq. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 79 Later he particularises “Gaged and Rub’d Brick Ornaments . . . worked flush and having projection,” as friezes, window arches, fascias, architraves, rustics, beads, pilasters, Bit isaCtC... CLC. A modern definition of gauged work is that it “ consists of rubbing and cutting to any required shape, specially made bricks or ‘ rubbers,’ as they are technically termed.’ In the mid-eighteenth century gauged work was the term applied to work where “the workman must gauge or rub down the Red Stock Bricks; so that every five courses of them shall come level with every four courses of Place Bricks, worked up with them, with inside.’ A similar bond was obtained between pilasters or quoins and wallings. The object of the rubbing was to bring the bricks all to the same size, with sharp arrises, so that they might be laid with thin joints, as dressings, etc. At Bradbourne (p. 361), d. 1714, the gauged pilaster, in two colours of brick, bonds with the wall, every seventh course. As defined above, the term ‘‘ gauged”’ includes rubbing and cutting the special soft bricks to shape, as voussoirs and mouldings. The tools used for cutting hard bricks could be used, but much of the work was done by rubbing with a grit stone and cutting with a bow saw, having two wires twisted in place of a toothed blade. During recent years this saw has been abandoned in favour of a hacksaw, which is well adapted to all brick-cutting. Where a number of bricks have to be dealt with, wood boxes of the required shape are made, in which the brick is placed to guide the cutter. The soft bricks made for this purpose (containing a larger proportion of sand than ordinary bricks), if properly made and burned, are durable, withstanding the weather and even the London atmosphere. They are easily rubbed, cut or carved. ) 1 “London Prices,’ Batty Langley, London, 1749, p. 288. 2 “Bricklaying and Brickcutting,’”’” H. W. Richards, London, Igor. 3 “London Prices,” Batty Langley, London, 1749, p. 130, sec. 7: ‘Of Plain Walling, with rubbed and gauged Red Stock Bricks, set in Putty.” p. 13: “Red Stock Bricks, commonly called Rubbing Bricks.” 80 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK Carved Brick Brick carving has been practised from early times, and bricks of the soft cheesey type are well adapted to this purpose, indeed, the material itself suggests the treatment. At East Barsham the evolution is apparent. Over the doorway of the house itself (p. 149) is the coat of arms of Henry VII., carved in stone. Over the archway of the Gatehouse (p. 147), built several years later, are the arms of Henry VIII., carved in brick. The brick is built in in lumps, rising three or four courses of the ordinary brick of the walling. It has evidently been carved im situ, and the same treatment has been adopted for the janitor figures on each side of the arch and for the arms and other details over the arch on the other side of the Gatehouse (p. 148). At Great Snoring (p. 125) the tracery of the turret was probably carried out in the same fashion. Stone and brick have suffered equally, where they could be reached from the ground, but where sufficiently high to be out of reach of mischievous persons, the carving is well preserved. No effort has been made to break the lumps of brick by representing joints, as would have been done at a later period, and where the brick has been carved back to the wall face the effect is not pleasing. Builders of the seventeenth and eighteenth century avoided this mistake by building up soft brick for carving in ordinary brick units, with very fine joints, the bonding of which must have called for considerable forethought and ingenuity to avoid exposure of vertical joints on face where carved back. The Ionic and Corinthian capitals at Kew Palace (pp. 175, 368) are treated in this manner, though somewhat crudely. The volutes of the centre windows at Cromwell House and Tyttenhanger (p. 302) are good instances ;_ the Corinthian capitals at Tooks Court (pp. 226, 41 1) and also the cornice modillions are carved, the former of bricks built up, the latter of large brick lumps, while the pediment from Enfield (p. 304) has brackets, swags, amorini and capitals all carved in brick, built up with “‘ invisible ”’ joints. The bonding of the detail of the capital on page 368 is worthy of study. Other examples of carving are the doorway at Farnham (pp. 281, 424), the escutcheon and key-block over the niche at Abingdon (p. 325), and many similar details in other illustrations and tablets such as that at Yalding (p. 385). Attention may be drawn to the carving of the spandrels — at Little Leez Priory, c. 1536 (p. 268), and of those at No. 4, King’s Bench Walk, 1677 (p. 278), both carved back into the brickwork, also to the finials of the doorway at Eastbury Manor House (p. 272), which are uncommon. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 81 Corbelling, Chimneys Perhaps the most notable achievement by the brick-builders was their successful manipulation of corbels and, indeed, of projections of every kind. The earlier corbels, as at Tattershall (p. 110) and Caister Castle (p. 111), depended more upon the varying of brick thicknesses than upon mouldings. Later, in the fifteenth century and well into the sixteenth, more elaborate work is found (p. 333), only to pass into more simple forms as the corbel tables (which represented, formally, the practical machicolations) died out. Angle corbels of many designs continued to be built (p. 334), and simply contrived corbel or eaves courses were useful elements in the stock-in-trade of the eighteenth century workman. The importance of sufficient but not excessive projection is particularly obvious in chimney caps, where the slightest excess in the projection of sailing courses is emphasised against the sky. A projection of 2 inches on face becomes 2% on the angle, which would be too great, even where thin bricks are used. Few of the cap profiles given on page 427 exceed 15 inches in the projections of the unmoulded sailing courses. Had the bricks exceeded 2} inches in thickness, or had the shafts been slighter, even 13 inches would have been too great. Chimneys of Henry VIII.’s reign were richly and elaborately decorated with cut and also with purpose-moulded bricks. Great ingenuity was shown in the variety of spirals, of which many examples exist, as at Aston Bury, Herts (p. 339), and Titchfield Place, Hants. The convenience of brick as a material for building every description of chimney shaft is manifest in the number of stone buildings where bricks must have been brought from a distance for the chimneys. The fine chimney at Thornbury Castle (p. 343) is an instance ; other brick chimneys on stone buildings are at Hengrave Hall (p. 146), St. Osyth’s Priory (p. 341), and Bateman’s, Burwash (p. 336). Spiral and other brick chimneys in the fashion of those at Stutton Hall (p. 339), Leez Priory (p. 342), and Buckingham (p. 341), are widely distributed. Those at Aston Bury (p. 3394) are shown before restoration ; the illustration brings out clearly the detail of the moulded work and of the spurs. The fine chimneys at Plaish Hall, in Shropshire, are of these types. The story of their construction is a tragic one. When Judge William Leighton (at that time Judge of Assize at Shrewsbury) was building the 8 2 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK house, he enquired of the Sheriff at Shrewsbury whether there was in the neighbourhood a workman skilled in building these brick chimneys. The Sheriff replied that the only man he knew was one just sentenced to death by the judge himself for sheep stealing. On hearing this, the judge had the wretched man removed from his cell, taken to Plaish, and set to build chimneys. When this work was completed, he was returned to the place of execution, where, as the historian puts it, “‘ the judge made his neck to crack.” The judge’s enquiry shows that he hoped to find local workmen, and desired to have the ornamental chimneys constructed by them rather than import artizans from a distance. Apparently too (as might be expected) such workers in brick were limited in number in a stone county. Gateways, Garden Details, etc. The gateway was the immediate successor of the gatehouse. In the latter part of the sixteenth century it was no longer necessary to house a guard, but only to provide convenient access to the court or other enclosure attached to the house. The opportunity of emphasising such entrances was seldom overlooked; and although later an entrance might — be little more than a door in a wall, the sixteenth century gateway was second only in importance to the gatehouse it superseded. Typical examples are shown from Beverley (p. 308), Sturry (p. 309), Tenterden (pp. 310-11), Stutton (pp. 312-13), and Brook Farm, Chislet (p. 314). That at Hales Place, Tenterden (p. 311), 1s shown at several angles to exhibit the cut brickwork, the projections and the treatment of each elevation. The gateway at Stutton Hall gives entrance into a walled garden. The wall crenelations are weathered, and at regular intervals cut brick pinnacles similar to those on the gateway rise from the walls. The gateway itself is a study in evolution from old to new styles. The external elevation is mainly Gothic in design and detail ; a stepped gable between pinnacles of cut brickwork, and a four-centred arch, but this latter springs from rude capitals, which with the cornice are suggestive of the coming change. The garden elevation retains the pinnacles, but in other respects is frankly Renaissance in character. The stepped gable is replaced by a semi-circular pediment, the semi-circular arch springs from rude Tuscan A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 8 3 capitals, and the flanking piers are replaced by coupled pilasters, which support an entablature. The designer is still not very confident of his mouldings, and the arch is moulded with an ovolo instead of an architrave. In both elevations the work in the new manner is plastered to imitate stone. It would be difficult to find a more interesting instance of an attempt to embody new fashion with old methods. The gateway at Chislet (p. 314) includes a rude attempt to introduce columns and a triangular pediment. This unlearned design is redeemed by its material and the quality given it by its cut brick workmanship. At Arwarton (p. 316) is a late sixteenth century gateway. At Breccles Hall are two gateways (pp. 315-16), both mutilated, but both having interesting detail. The larger one has lost the finials, which must once have flanked the “ bullseyes.”” The treatment of the arch shows the introduction of wedge-shaped bricks at intervals to take up the thickness of the joints, to which reference has been made. The gateway at Chesterton (pp. 317, 412) is attributed to Inigo Jones, and is certainly a fine piece of work, which, like that at Forty Hall (pp. 318-9), also ascribed to him, is in his manner, and shows that appreciation of light and shade and ability to produce broad and dignified effects by simple means which are characteristic of his work. The doorways at Spalding and Barnham (p. 320) are simple treatments of wall openings. The garden houses at Hales Place, Tenterden (p. 321), are at each end of a raised terrace at the foot of the garden. The garden is enclosed by a low wall, which originally was of considerable height. The windows, now bricked up, have mullions of ovolo section. They and the attenuated columns were rendered with plaster of sea sand. The garden house at Roydon Hall (p. 322) is also one of two ona raised terrace. At Killigrews, Margaretting (p. 323), the wall within the moat has brick turrets at the angles, evidently to shelter one man on guard, and furnished with cross loops in four sides of the octagon. Three niches are illustrated, one from Hampton Court Palace with one from Finchcocks (p. 324), and the beautiful niche, in an order, of Carswell at Abingdon (p. 325). A good example of a gauged and carved brick niche (c. 1700) from Bradmore House, Hammersmith, has been re-erected in Geffrye’s Garden, Kingsland Road. A country-built but effective brick gate pier is illustrated from Tenterden (p. 326), and a drawing of the wall with its large purpose-moulded 84 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK coping on page 430. Rusticated piers are shown from West Stow (p. 327) and Canterbury (p. 328), and a simple one, with brick steps, from Northiam +326); “ The ae parapet at Hatfield has been applied to dwarf garden walls (p. 330). Some of these are moulded in fine material as terra-cotta; others of coarser earth, which includes small pebbles. The wall illustrated is well designed and carried out, and the cornice coping most satisfactory. The pier panels are pulvinated. The wall coping at Morden Hall is a good example of a type often seen (p. 331); a drawing is given on page 430. Other purpose-made copings are shown on page 432. Although not used as coping to a garden wall, the plain tile coping on the thirteenth century gable at Salmestone Grange, Margate (p. 388), is notable. Several gables are treated in this fashion, which is probably not earlier than sixteenth century work. Porches, Doorways and Windows It has been said that brickwork ‘‘ has not had much influence on the design of doorways of any pretensions.”! Not only, however, does brick lend itself to the execution of forms also carried out in stone or timber, but it impresses a character and quality peculiar to itself. The Saxon doorway at Colchester (p. 255) is certainly not less pleasing than it would have appeared if outlined in stone. The vaulting and doorway at Coggeshall Abbey (p. 256) might have been carried out in stone or brick; the design cannot be said to have been influenced by any material. The brick archways and doorways of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries followed their stone prototypes; and at East Barsham (p. 149), as already pointed out, we actually have the doorway to the house of stone with carved arms in stone over it, and the same idea carried out a few years later in brick at the gatehouse entrance. The differences in form of arch, in orders and mouldings, are differences of time, not changes necessitated by material. The porches of such Essex churches as Pebmarsh, Sandon, F eering and Layer Marney (pp. 260-2, 265) possess a sturdy ruggedness which has its own charm, and they have qualities of texture and colour which no stonework possesses, while in Kent the porches at Tenterden (pp. 269, 422), Guilton ? H. Tanner, in “Old English Doorways,” Batsford, London, 1903. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 85 (p. 423), and Old Charlton Church (p. 276) show practical handling of brick at different periods, which, provided bricks were used having the same texture and colour, would be equally pleasing to-day. Four centred doorways are represented in brick from Layer Marney (p. 264) and Barking (p. 271-2), and in terra-cotta from Sutton Place (p. 266). The semi-circular doorhead at Rye (p. 273) is an early instance of roughly gauged rustications, which, placed between two pilaster pedestals, is an impressive portal. Often seventeenth century brick doorways, like that at Barnham (p. 275), have been replaced by Georgian, painted, wood porches or doorways, but excellent specimens of finely gauged doorways remain, of which illustrations are given from King’s Bench Walk, Temple (pp. 277-9), Hertford (p. 280), and Farnham (p. 281); the last an uncommon design, as is that at Richmond (p. 282). The brick windows of the outbuilding (p. 283), of Coggeshall Abbey, have narrow lancet-shaped lights, deeply splayed to light as widely as possible within, of a type we associate with churches. In the twelfth century and long afterwards, however, there was not that sharp line of distinction drawn between sacred and domestic architecture, which we now recognise. ‘The windows of St. Nicholas Chapel (p. 284) are described under mouldings. The mullion brick from a destroyed window at Great Snoring (p. 285) is reminiscent of contemporary mouldings in stone and oaken windows. Another window much restored at the same house (pp. 286, 414) has been chosen for a measured drawing, as also have two at East Barsham (pp. 415-16). The windows at Small Hythe Church (p. 288) are filled with tracery in the Flemish manner, rare in England. The oriels at Faulkbourne (p. 112) and Rye House (p. 289), together with the corbel tables, must be by the same hand. Mullions having full rounded sections, like the ovolo, which is so frequently used in stone and oak, often look clumsy in brick, probably because the frequent horizontal joints exaggerate their thickness. Plain and hollow chamfers are particularly suited to brickwork, and are found in much sixteenth century work, the former at Sandon and Feering Churches (pp. 261-2), and the latter at Layer Marney (pp. 290-293) and Chignal Smealey (p. 290) and later at Eastbury Manor House (p. 296). The windows at Slyfield Manor (p. 297) are shown for their uncommon labels. The upper window frame is of wood, having carved rustications and pendants of similar design to those on the brick pilasters below. The window at Goodnestone (p. 303) is of the same 86 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK section as those at Broome Park (restored) (pp. 176-8), built thirty-seven years before. A number of good houses of the mid-seventeenth century have brick windows with architraves as at the Garden House, Old Charlton (restored) (p. 298), Balls Park (p. 301), Cromwell House (pp. 301-2), and Tyttenhanger (p. 302). The last two have centre windows accented by carved volutes. Such windows were succeeded by gauged arches, semi- circular, semi-elliptic and flat, as at The Grange, Farnham (p. 307), Church House, Beckley (pp. 307, 421), and Pallant House, Chichester (p. 307), where the keys are carved and soffits are cut serpentine. Willmer House, Farnham (pp. 222-3, 406), has window architraves of exceptional quality. Several forms of rustication are used at Bradbourne (p. 305) and Sawbridgeworth (p. 307). Venetian windows, as those at King’s Langley (p. 249), are general, but two at Colchester, one of which is shown (pp. 306, 420), with detail drawing, are exceptional in treatment. Stairs, WVaultings, Arcading, Fonts, Fireplaces, Tablets, Pinnacles, etc. The earliest stairs were rough work of the central newel type, like that at St. Botolph’s (p. 369), a development of which is seen in the stairs at Laughton Place (p. 372), where each stair is carried on a rough arch. Much better finished work is seen in the staircases at Faulkbourne Hall (p. 371), and at Oxburgh Hall (p. 370) (which must be by the same workmen), where the stair softs form one spiral vault built in cut and rubbed brick, a triumph of setting-out and craftsmanship. Each of these stairs has a moulded brick handrail in the outer wall, such as may be seen elsewhere in buildings dating well into the sixteenth century, as at Eastbury House, Barking (p. 159). Brick vaulting, c. 1220, exists at Coggeshall Abbey (p. 256) and within Beverley Bar, Yorks., 1409-10. It is found in many fifteenth century buildings. There is a bay window at Faulkbourne Hall, Essex, with ribbed vault in moulded brick and one similar at Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk. The porch at Feering Church is also vaulted and a corbel is shown on page 334. Perhaps the most remarkable of all are the vaultings at Tattershall Castle over the second floor corridor and over the third floor lobby (pp. 373-4). The latter has armorial bosses at the intersections of the ribs. A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK 87 Many churches of late fifteenth and early sixteenth century have brick arches and arcading. Perhaps that in St. Osyth’s Church is the most impressive, although the chancel arch was never completed. The illustration on page 376 is of the North aisle. At Chignal Smealey Church (p. 377) is early sixteenth century arcading north of the nave and a fine brick arch at the West end. The passage within the gatehouse at West Stow Hall (p. 378) has arcading of another kind, having split columns of Renaissance character on the piers. The brickwork is of bricks only 13 inches thick. The arcading of the cloisters at Wye College (p. 379) is simple, but produces a remarkable impression of repose and dignity. Chapel Viaduct, near Earls Colne (p. 380), built in 1847, though not of any antiquity, is an outstanding example of how charming a purely utilitarian structure may be if well designed. ‘This viaduct possesses much of the quality of Roman aquaducts in its picturesqueness. Resourceful craftsmen have often shown the adaptability of brick. Mention has been made of the gauged brick tomb at St. Peter’s (p. 356), and there exist at least three fonts made of brick. There is a very simple one at Chignal Smealey (p. 377); an early stone font on a sixteenth century brick stem in the church at Bradwell, near Coggeshall (p. 381), which 1s an excellent piece of design and workmanship, and a more ambitious fifteenth century brick font at Potter Heigham (p. 382), which has suffered from restoration. Brick fireplaces generally had four-centred or elliptical arches, moulded on the chamfer. Those illustrated (p. 383) are of fifteenth century date, but are typical of many others, also, in the next century. It is seldom that these fireplaces have brick mantels over the arches, but a stone lintel from Prittlewell, in the Victoria and Albert Museum, of the fifteenth century (p. 384) is surmounted by cusped panels of Flemish character, and over them a crenelated moulding, all in cut brick ; the effect of which is so satisfactory that one regrets the scarcity of similar work. Brick date-tablets are frequently seen on seventeenth and eighteenth century houses, usually of simple form, as sunk panels. The little order and pediment at Yalding (p. 385) is a more ambitious effort, executed entirely in cut and rubbed brick. The labels over the archways at Gifford’s Hall are returned in lozenge- shaped, raised panels, enclosing a carved rose (p. 385), all contrived from the ordinary bricks used. 88 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH BRICKWORK At Gifford’s Hall also are crocketed brick pinnacles (p. 123), where brick-on-edge courses are interspersed with the ordinary brick laid flat to reduce the number of horizontal joints. At Kew Palace (1631) (p. 368) brick on end is used for shafts of columns with the same object. The _ turret finials at East Barsham Manor House (pp. 147-5 1) are rich in cut brickwork, A detail is given also of the pinnacles at West Stow Hall (p. 386), which are not unlike those at Gifford’s Hall, but are surmounted by terra-cotta figures. Examination of the illustrations and measured drawings will reveal many other examples besides those to which reference has been made, but even these do not exhaust the ways in which brick can be successfully used. It may prove, however, that those given fairly exhibit the variety of purposes, the adaptability of the unit, and the scope for design and craftsmanship which lie dormant in what those who are ignorant of its qualities so frequently term “‘ common brick.” 5 oe c =circa, where date given is approximate. Date r1th cent. Cc, 1520-33 c. 1200 1220 13th cent. 1436 Late 15th cent. Cc. 1500 b. 1503 Cc. 1260-80 c. 1280 Cc 1335 1409-10 c. 1380 c. 1440 1448 Late 15th cent. Before 1494 c. 1480 1482 15th cent. Early 16th cent. - TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS Arranged according to thickness Building, Place, &c. Trinity Church, Colchester— Saxon doorway, Roman bricks West Stow Hall, Suffolk— wall under East passage arcading Little Coggeshall Abbey, Essex—outbuilding Little Coggeshall Abbey, Essex—St. Nicholas Chapel —quoins Salmestone Grange, Margate Ewelme, Oxon—schools, etc. Jesus College, gateway At V. and A. Museum, from houseat Prittlewell—mantel over stone fireplace Cambridge— Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 1% mostly 94 X 43X13 (1g and 1#) I2X 54X12 (rr —124) (6) (1) I2X6X 1} OFX 4E X15 8x 32x12 9tX 43 X1f 83 x 44 X 12 82x 44x 1f St.Cross Hosp., Hants.—turret} 94x 43x 13-2} in N.E. corner Gt. Court Little Wenham Hall, Suffolk —square tower, taken from hall roof Allington Castle, Kent — vaulting and arches only Beverley Minster, York—fll- ing in of nave vault North Bar, Beverley Thornton Abbey, Lincs. — gatehouse Tattershall Castle, Lincoln Queens’ College, Cambridge Carlinge (near Westgate), Kent—Dent de Lion gate- house Faulkbourne Hall, Essex— N.E. tower Bishop’s Palace, Hatfield, Herts. Oxburgh Hall, gateway tower Bacton Abbey, Norfolk Sturry Court, Kent—gateway Norfolk— 9X4tXx2 9X44X2 104 X54X2 104 X 54 X2 IIX5$X2 Average 84X4X2 8xX4—44 x If-2 82x 44X2 84X32 X2 9X4tX2 9X4X2 93 X43X2 84x 44xX2 89 d = date on building. Courses Rise 5105 4=10 4==10 4=10 4=9} A= 2 As rebuilt 4=94 Chequer work 4=10 4=11} 4=94 4=10} 4=11t 4=I10} 4=12} 4=I0f b = recorded date of building. Authority Sir R. Blomfield John Bilson John Bilson John Bilson William Weir Sir R. Blomfield Remarks Some 34 thick Reds Thirty measurements taken. Medium and bright reds Muddy yellows, few pinks and reds Reds Reds. ‘‘ Hist. Renaiss. Arch, in Eng.,”’ p. 351 Pinkish-reds Some 1} and 2 Mostly cream and muddy greenish-yellows. Oc- casional pinks and reds Rosy pink colour R.1.B.A. Journal, 1908, Pp. 279 Ibid. Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Soc., 1896, p. 47 Letter Purp.reds. ‘‘Hist. Renaiss Arch, Eng.,” p. 348 Four courses bricks, 4 courses knapped flints. Red (some yellow) bricks Rich reds Rich reds, many deep Medium reds Medium and dark reds Reds TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches Building, Place, &c. Early 16th | Old Vicarage, Methwold, 82x 44x2 cent, Norfolk Early 16th | St. Osyth’s Church, Essex— 94 X44X2 (1) cent. nave arcading Early 16th | Stock Street Farm, Gt. Cogges- 9X4}xX2 cent. hall, Essex—chimney : c. I5I0 Farnham Castle, Surrey— 9X44xX2 keep €. 1520 Hampton Court Palace, Mid- | 8 -8}x4}-—4x2 dlesex—E. side of Clock Ct. Cc. 1520 Layer Marney Towers, or Hall, 94 X 4% x2 Essex C. 1525 Sutton Place (near Guildford), 9X4}xX2 Surrey 1525 Hengrave Hall, Suffolk 94X4}x2 (many 2) C. 1535 East Barsham Manor House, 9X44xX2 Norfolk—gatehouse After 1536 | Little Leez, or Leighs, Priory, 94x 44xX2-—24 Essex—E. gatehouse Before 1638 | Pocock’s School, Rye, Sussex 84x 44X2 c. 1640 Balls Park, Hertford, Herts. 9X4¢X2 (some 24) 1640 Old Sick House, Winchester 94 X44x2 College, Hampshire 1683 Holy Jesus Hospital, New- 9X4}X2 castle-on-Tyne (some 9} x 44 x 2}) c. 1687 Sarre, Kent—house with Dutch 9X4}X2 gable and initials R.C. to iron tie Late 17th | Sowden’s Farm, Westfield, 9X48x2 cent. Sussex—external chimney c, 1315-20 | Holy Trinity Church, Hull, 9X 4% X 2zs Yorks.—S. transept c. 1315-20 | Holy Trinity Church, Hull, 92 X 43 x24 Yorks.—N. transept 1446 Herstmonceaux Castle, Sussex 93 X 43x24 _ —S. front of gatehouse Early 16th | East Horndon Church, Essex 82 X 44x 24 cent. (some 1%X2§) Early 16th | Chignal Smealey Church, 98 X 44X24 cent. Essex—S,. wall Early 16th | Feering, Essex—church porch | 9x 442 (24—2}) cent. 16th cent. | Rolvenden, Kent—Gate House,| 9 x 44 x 24 (84 —94) porch 1520-33 West Stow Hall, Suffolk— 94x 4X24 gateway Authority Remarks Deep reds Most orange-red Reds Reds, many blue headers Deep reds Reds, varied diapers in blue headers Deep reds, some lighter Cream, inclined to yellow Reds Medium reds Deep and some bright | reds Orange red Deep reds Pale pink, appear very hard Medium reds Medium reds John Bilson Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Soc., 1896, p. 46 : John Bilson All English Bond Thickness varies between 1? and 2§; many are 2} Deep reds Deep red. Diapers in blue headers Deep red, some lighter Rich bright reds, some brown, mauve, etc. Mid reds to light pinks Varied reds, modern re- pointing TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. Date | | d. 1607 c. 1635 c. 1680 d. 1697 Early 18th cent. c. 1710 d. 1711 d. 1718 c. 1790 c. 1340 Between 1424 and 1459 c. 1490 Late 15th cent. Early 16th cent. 15th cent. Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Building, Place, &c. Old Charlton House, Kent Raynham Hall, Norfolk King’s Head, Sissinghurst, Kent—external chimney Wren’s House, West Street, Chichester, Sussex Church House, Northiam, Sussex—front Montagu House, Culver Street, Colchester, Essex Unitarian Chapel, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk Willmer House, West Street, Farnham, Surrey House, Maltravers Street, Arundel, Sussex—wings quoins Trinity Church, Hull, Yorks. —chancel Caister Castle, Norfolk Rectory Towers, Suffolk St. John’s College, Cambridge, —gateway towers Hadleigh, Salmestone Grange, Margate, Kent—fire arch Canterbury Cathedral—Bell Harrv Tower Stair wall* Inside wheelhouse Killigrews, or Shenfield House, Margaretting, Essex — tur- rets at wall angles by moat Pebmarsh, Essex—church S. porch Tolleshunt Maior, church tower Essex— Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 94x 44X24 (some 2—24) 9t—10X 4} Xx 24 94 X 43 X 2$—24 9X 4X24 83x 44X24 84x 33X24 83x 4b x25 9X 44x 2$ 9X 425 X 24 84X4xX24 104 X 5 X 2x% 84x 44X22 (some 94 and 8) 9X 44X2} 84x 44x 24 83X4X 24 84X4xX 24-24 of X 43 X 2} 9X 44x 2} (24 and 23) 93 X 4} X24 (2 and 24) 94X43 X2 9X 44—44X 24 Courses Rise 421 4=10} 4=I10} 4=11} 4=10 4=94 4=94 4=I10} 4=I10} 4=I11 (some ro and 12) 4=10} 4=1I} Ae Aas 4=1t 4=11f 4=11} 4=I10} Authority John Bilson Sir R. Blomfield * Some re-used low down 8 x34 x2 (4=94) and some small 13” thick. 9] Remarks Most deep reds, some light. Rough texture. Black pointing pro- duces sombre effect Reds. Both English and Flemish Bonds Reds Red Pinky reds Light red stretchers, very dark headers Brownish-reds. All brickwork is gauged. Dressings 88 x 44.2, 4=88 bright red Reds. All brickwork is gauged Reds Reds Trans. E. Riding Antiq. Soc., 1896, p. 46 Inside light and deep plum reds. Outside the same and many buff and cream Diapers purply-black. Varied reds “Hist. Renaiss. Arch. England,” p. 351 Pink and putty colours Reds, some pink. Amongst earliest are muddy yellows Reds Medium reds Light reds, some buffs Reds, browns. Plum, brown, dark grey and other darker headers used for diapers TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. Date Late 15th or early 16th cent. c. 1520 Cc. 1530 Cc. 1530 d. 1534 1586 c. 1590 d. 1595 Late 16th cent. Late 16th cent. c. 1600 Cc. 1630-40 Cc. 1635 Refronted c. 1637 1640 Cc. 1645 Cc. 1654 d. 1665 d. 1691 d. 1698 c. 1700 Building, Place, &c. Rye House, Herts.—gatehouse Stutton Hall, Suffolk Roydon Hall, East Peckham, Kent—octagonal buildings in garden Hales Place, Tenterden, Kent —garden pavilions entrance archway well house Laughton Place, Sussex— towers Emmanuel College, Cambridge Arwarton Hall, Suffolk— gateway Hunt’s Farm, Crundale, Kent —brick window base Breccles Hall, Norfolk— chimney stack, E. end Elham, Kent—house in square Slyfield Manor, Great Book- ham, Surrey Forty Hall, Enfield, Middle- sex—gateway Broome Park, Denton, Kent Restoration House, Rochester 59-60, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London—gate piers Charlton Church, Kent—S. porch Barnham Court, Sussex Tyttenhanger Park, St. Albans, Herts.—S. elevation Mackerye End, Wheathamp- stead, Herts. Guilton, Kent—porch to cottage Wingham, Kent—row of cottages in street Chicheley Hall, Bucks.— below plinth, ‘rubbed and edged”’ above plinth, gauged Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 9X 4x2} (some 9X 42X2) 94X43X2t & 2} 9X 44X23 9X44 X 2x6 9% X 41s X 2} 9X 44x 2} 9X44X2} 9tX 44X24 94x 4#xX 2} 2} 9tX 44x 2} 9X4X2} (some 2 —24) 9tX 44x 2} 9X 44x 24 9X 44x 2} 9X4tx2}$-2 8X 32X24 9X 44xX2} 94% 44x 2} 93x 44x2} 84x 4X2} (some 2 & 24) 93 X 44X24 83x 4X2}—2} 84x 4x2} 84 X 4r°s X 2} 92 Courses Rise 4=I10} 4=11 4=11 4=10f 4=11} 4=10} 4=11 Authority Sir R. Blomfield Remarks Various reds. Vitrified headers deep purple Rich reds, some lighter Reds Reds Rich red colour “Hist. Renaiss, Arch. Eng.”’, p. 351 Deep and light reds Chimney apparently similar bricks, deep reds Most deep reds Light and plum reds Some early gauged work Light and plum reds Deep red, rough gauging. Dressings lighter reds Gauged. Probably re- built after the Restoration. Mostly deep red, part rebuilt Rich reds Reds TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED Dimensions of ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. ilding, Pl Walling Bricks ce Date Building, Place, &c. vinci, Rise Authority Remarks c. 1700 33, Mark Lane, E.C., London 74X3% X24 4=92 Bright reds and plum reds Late 17th | West Stow Hall, Suffolk— 91 X 44X24 4=114 Reds cent. gate piers d. 1703 Tichborne, Hants. — church 82x 42X24 4=I104 Flemish bond, red tower stretches grey headers 1705 Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.— 84X4xX2}4 4=11} Grey stocks angle Dressings 84x 4 x 2}, 4=114 lighter reds d. 1706 Corn Exchange, Rochester 8X 3% X24 4=94 Red. All gauged, fine joints c. 1710 Lullingstone Castle House, 84x 4X24 4=108 Reds Eynsford, Kent—entrance front d. 1717 Convent, Longbridge, Farn- 84x 32—4} 4=I10} Even coloured reds ham, Surrey x2—24 “rubbed and edged” 4 joints. Dressings 2+ thick with “invisible” joints d. 1744 Church House, Beckley, Sussex 84x 44X24 A oe Pinky-reds c. 1780 Maltravers Street, Arundel, 88x 4X2} 4=108 Reds Sussex—house, S. side, near hill c. 1713 Pallant House, Chichester, 84% 4 X 225 4=113 Dull reds up to 1st floor, Sussex brighter reds above. Dressings 73 x 3? x 24, 4=94, bright red c. 1530 Lullingstone Castle, Eynsford, 94 X 44 X 23 AES Deep plum-reds, some Kent—gatehouse lighter Cc. 1530 Cale Hill Stables, Little |g—9}x4}x24-—23 4314 Reds Chart, Kent Cc. 1535 Boughton Malherbe Place, 9X 44X23 4=11}4 Reds Kent—brick gable and chimney crow-stepped Cc. 1535 Sissinghurst Castle, Kent 9+ X 44x 23 4=11% Reds d. 1594 Cobham Hall, Kent 94 X 48 X 23 — (23) 4=11}4 Deep plum-reds, some lighter c. 1546 Beckingham Hall, Tolleshunt | 9} x 44 x 23 (2}—4) 4=112 Reds Major, Essex—gatehouse c. 1630-40 | Old Charlton, Kent—garden 9X 44X23 4=I104 The rebuilt elevation house includes Luton purples 1684 School, Winchester, Hants. 84x 44x 23 4=1It Deep and lighter reds c. 1700 Hampton Court Palace, 83 Xx 44 Xx 23 4=I0} Middlesex—garden wall d. 1713 Bradbourne, Larkfield, Kent 88 x 44x 23 fea Pinkish stocks, some yellow. Dressings, 8X 3§X 2x5, 4=94, bright reds d. 1729 Womenswold Church, Kent— 84x 4X2} Reds porch 93 TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. Dimensions of Courses Date Building, Place, &c. Walling Bricks Rise Authority in inches Late 18th | 6, Higham Place, Newcastle- 84 xX 44X29 4=11} cent. on-Tyne c. 1750 Arundel, Sussex—house in 9X 44X23 4=11} centre of Strand c. 1770 37, Crouch Street, Colchester 84x 4X29 4=11} —venetian window : c. 1550 Eastbury Manor House, Bark- 92x 44x 2} 4=12} Dark reds. Repointing ing, Essex—base of tower reduces apparent thickness 1555 Little Hautbois Hall, Norfolk 10X4}X2$ 4=11} Deep plum-reds (some 24) (some 4=10}) 1666 Bromley College, Kent 9X 44x24 4=118 Reds d. on gates c. 1672 Alms House, Richard’s Charity, 9X 4$x2} 4=12 Deep reds Goodnestone, Kent d. 1677 4, King’s Bench Walk, London 84x 32x 2} 4=11 Reds c. 1680 St. Peter’s, Thanet, Kent— 94x 44x24 4=12 Most deep purply-red, gabled brick house, 200 yds. some light red from Church ; d. 1687 Guildhall, Rochester, Kent 9X4xX2} 4==12 Purplish-red d. 1688 Blue Coat School, Westminster, 83x 4X2} 4=11} Grey stocks. Dressings London 8x4xX24, 4=I10} ins, Bright reds c. 1690 Hampton Court Palace, 83x 4X2} 4=I0} Bright red. Ga Middlesex—S. front to 1st piers 8 x 33 x 23, floor 4=104 ins. Above 1st floor the wallings are gauged Fountain Court, under arcad- 83x 44x 2} 4=I0} Red. Gauged ing c. 1690 Morden Hall, Surrey—garden 84x 4X2} 4==12 Deep reds, irregular wall surfaces 1695 Morden College, Blackheath, 9X4X24 4=12 Deep reds Kent Dressings lighter red 1699-1700 | 46, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, 8x 33x24 4=11} Reds London c. 1700 Ormeley Lodge, Ham Common, 84X 4X23 4-512 Deep reds Surrey c. 1720 Calleva House, Wallingford, 84x 44x 23 4=11 Greys and brown-reds Berks. Dressings 8X 4X 24, 4=11 ins. Rich rubbers c, 1720 28, St. Andrew’s Street, Hert- 84x 4x24 4=11} Yellow-reds ford, Herts. Dressings 8 x 3} x 23, 4=114, bright reds. Gauged 84 x 3x% X 2x4. 4=10 c. 1720 Wrencote, Croydon, Surrey 84 Xx 33 x 23 Reds Early 18th | Red House, Sawbridgeworth, 82 x 44x 24 4=112 Mauve-reds cent. Herts. 94 TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THICKNESS—continued. Dimensions of Courses Date Building, Place, &c. ee Peas Rise Authority Remarks Ciet730 Watlington, Oxon—house 84 X 44X24 4=114 Reds next to that with Doric doorway c. 1730 31, Old Burlington Street, 84x 4xX24$ 4=11$ Pinks and buffs London c. 1730 Sergeant’s Inn, Fleet Street, 84% 4X24 4=124 Yellow-grey and pink London stocks c. 1740 Underdown Farm House, 84X4X 2h 4=12 Light reds Eddington, Kent Cc. 1750 39, West Street, Farnham, 9X 44X23 Grey stocks (yellowish Surrey and some pinkish) Dressings 9 X 4 X 24, 4=9} Strings gauged 1752 45 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London 84 Xx 3$ Xx 24 Grey stocks, some pinkish Cu. 2767 Albany, Piccadilly 84X 4X 23 412 Buff stocks d. 1631 Kew Palace, Surrey 82 X 44 X 235 Rich re Early gauged WOTrk, d. 1631 “4 » by S. doorway 84X44X2} Gauged 7X 3}X2, 4=94 c. 1690 Near Canterbury, Kent—on 9X 44X28 AOE Reds Sandwich Road, gate piers, rusticated bricks, stone caps d. 1711 Westwell, Tenterden, Kent 9X 44X23 4=12} Reds 1717 Lockleys, Welwyn, Herts. 9X 4h X28 PS Plum-pink, red dressings recently coloured Dressings 83 X 45 X 2% —2#, 4=12 Gauged work 72x 3% X 27%. Very carefully gauged Gh 1725 Finchcocks, Goudhurst, Kent 9X 44X24 4=12} Reds. Dressings 9X 44 x 2t8, 4=12} 5/1730 Watlington, Oxon—house 9X 4% xX 22 4=12} Reds with Doric doorway c. 1736 Man. & Dist. Bank, King 9X 44X22 4=12 Pale reds Street, Manchester and half Houses in Rodney Street, Liver- 94 X43 X3 4=14 Reds, good texture 18th cent. pool 95 Date 11th cent. 1200 1220 c. 1260-80 c. 1280 13th cent. 1315-20 1315-20 c. 1335 c. 1340 c. 1380 1409-10 1436 c. 1440 1446 1448 c. 1459 Late 15th c. 1480 1482 c. 1490 2nd half of 15th cent. Late 15th cent. 15th cent. 15th cent. Late 15th cent. c. 1500 1503 TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS Building, Place, &c. Trinity Church, Colchester— tower—Roman bricks Little Coggeshall Abbey— outbuilding Little Coggeshall Abbey— St. Nicholas Chapel Little Wenham Hall Allington Castle Salmestone Grange, Margate Trinity Church, Hull Trinity Church, Hull Beverley Minster Trinity Church, Hull Thornton Abbey, Lincs.— gatehouse North Bar, Beverley Ewelme—schools, etc. Tattershall Castle Herstmonceaux Castle Queens’ College, Cambridge Caister Castle Carlinge, Dent de Lion—gate- house Bishop’s Palace, Hatfield Oxburgh Hall Rectory Towers, Hadleigh Faulkbourne Hall St. John’s College, Cambridge Bacton Abbey Canterbury Cathedral— Bell Harry Tower, stairwall in wheelhouse Jesus College, Cambridge V. & A. Museum, Prittlewell St. Cross Hosp., Hants.—turret in N.E. corner of Court Early 16th | Stock Street Farm, Great cent, Coggeshall Chronologically arranged Dimensions of Walling Bricks SOS in inches 14—3} thick 5=11} I2X54X 1} (1124) (6) (x3) I2X6X 1} 4=I10 9X4tX2 4=10 9X4hX2 98x 42x15 4=10 8x 3#x 1} 9X 43 X 2x5 92X43 x 24 104 X 54X2 To} X 5 X 235% IlLX54X2 10} X 54X2 9tX 44X13 4=93 84xX4X2 93X 4X24 4=11} 8x4—4}x1}-2 4=11} 84x 44x 2} 4=11 (some 9} & 8) (some 10 & 12) 832X442 4=94 9X44xX2 4=11} 9X4X2 4=I10} 9X 44X23 4=10} 84X32 x2 4=I0} 81x 44X24 4=11} 94 X 44X2 4=12} 84X4x2}—2} 4=11 9¢ X 44 X 2} 4=I11 83 xX 44x 12 4=I11 84x 44x 1 4=94 93X43 x1}—2} 9X4}x2 4=10} Authority Remarks Some as large as 93x 43x 2} Bilson Bilson Bilson Bilson Bilson Bilson Weir Blomfield Blomfield Low down, a few re-used 8x 34 X2,4=9$&some small bricks 1} thick Blomfield As rebuilt Some 14 and 2 TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED—continued Date Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent, Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Early 16th Early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. Late 15th or early 16th cent. Early 16th cent. 8 1510 2 1520 c. 1520 c. 1520 c. 1520 1520-33 1525 c. 1525 c. 1530 1530 1530 . 1530 . 1530 e fp © d. 1534 c. 1535 Cc. 1535 Cc. 1535 Cc. 1536 Dimensions of Walling Bricks Building, Place, &c. Arne, in inches Tolleshunt Major Church 94 X43 x2 9X44—44X24 Sturry Court 84X44X2 Pebmarsh Church, Ex.—S. 94 X 42 X24 porch (2 and 24) Old Vicarage, Methwold 82x 44X2 St. Osyth’s Church 94 X 44X2 (12) East Horndon Church 82x 44x24 (some 1$ & 23) Feering Church 9X 44X2 (24 & 23) Chignal Smealey Church 98 X 44X24 Salmestone Grange, Margate 84X 4X24 Rye House—gatehouse 9X 44X24 (some 9X 4#X2) Margaretting, Killigrews, or 9X 44X24 Shenfield House (24 & 23) Farnham Castle 9X44X2 West Stow Hall—passage 9444x114 (some 1% & 13) Hampton Court Palace—E.) 8-84 4}—4X2 side of Clock Court Layer Marney Towers, or Hall 9+ X43 xX2 Stutton Hall 93x 44x24 & 24 West Stow Hall ot X4X2t Hengrave Hall 94 X44X2—2} Sutton Place, near Guildford 9X44X2 Hales Place, Tenterden— 9X 44 X 215 garden pavilion entrance archway 9% X 425 X24 Hales Place—well house 9X 44x24 Lullingstone Castle, Eynsford 94 x 44X23 Little Chart, Cale Hill Stables Roydon Hall, East Peckham— 9% X 44X24 garden house Laughton Place 9X 44X24 Boughton Malherbe Place 9X 44X23 East Barsham Manor House 9X44X2 —gatehouse Sissinghurst Castle 91 X 44x 23 Little Leez, or Leighs, Priory 94X44x2—24 9-94 X 44X 25-23 97 Courses Rise 4=10} 4=10} 4=11} 4=10§ 4=10} 4=I104—I11 4=10} 4=10§ Authority Remarks TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED—continued [_————$—$—$_ $$ | A Cc. 1590 d. 1594 d. 1595 Late 16th cent. Late 16th cent. 16th cent. c. 1600 d. 1607 . 1630 . 1630-40 . 1631 «LOST 1635 1635 Before 1638 C. 1637 ee ee ee a c. 1640 1640 1640 Cc. 1645 Cc. 1654 d. 1665 d. 1666 on gates Cc. 1672 d. 1677 Building, Place, &c. Beckingham Hall, Tolleshunt Major—gatehouse Eastbury Manor House, Barking Little Hautbois Hall Emmanuel College, Cambridge Arwarton Hall Cobham Hall Hunt’s Farm, Crundale Elham—house in square Breccles Hall Rolvenden, Kent—Gate House, porch Slyfield Manor, Great Bookham Old Charlton House Forty Hall, Enfield—gateway Garden House, Old Charlton Kew Palace Kew Palace—by S. doorway Raynham Hall, Norfolk Broome Park, Denton Pocock’s School, Rye Restoration House, Rochester Balls Park, Hertford Old Sick House, Winchester College Charlton Church—porch 59-60, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London—gate piers Barnham Court Tyttenhanger Park, St. Albans Mackerye End, Wheathampstead Bromley College Almshouses, Richard’s Charity, Goodnestone 4, King’s Bench Walk, London Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 93 X 44X23 (24-24) of X 44 X23 10 X 4$ X24 - (some 24) 94 X 43 X24 9tX4$ X24 94 X 48X23 —23 2t 9X4X2} (some 2—24) 94 X 43X23 9X 44X25 (83 —93) 9t x 44X24 94X 44X23 (some 2—2}4) 94 X 44X24 9X 44X23 83 X 44 X 235 84x 44x 2} 9} X 10x 43 X24 9X 44X24 84x 44X2 9X4}x 2} 9X44X2 (some 24) 94x 44X2 9X 44x24 8 X 3¢ x 24 9X 4tX2} 98 X 44X24 84x 4X2} (2 and 24) 9X 44X24 9X 48x24 83 X 33 X24 98 Courses Rise 4=11} (some 4= 104) 4=10$ 4=11} 4=10} 4=11 4=11} 4=10} 4=108 4=II Authority Blomfield Remarks Gauged work, probably rebuilt Date c. 1680 c. 1680 1683 1684 c. 1687 d. 1687 d. 1688 c. 1690 c. 1690 c. 1690 d. 1691 1695 d. 1697 d. 1698 1699-1700 Late 17th cent. Late 17th cent. 2 1700 © 1700 c 1700 c 1700 Early 18th cent. Early 18th cent. Early 18th cent. d. 1703 1705 d. 1706 c. 1710 Building, Place, &c. King’s Head, Sissinghurst St. Peter’s, Thanet—gabled brick house Holy Jesus Hospital, New- castle-on-Tyne School, Winchester Sarre—house with gable and initials Guildhall, Rochester Blue Coat School, West- minster, London Morden Hall Hampton Court Palace—sS. front up to ist floor Near Canterbury, on Sand- wich Road—gate piers Guilton—porch to cottage Morden College, Blackheath Wren’s House, West Street, Chichester Wingham—row of cottages in street 46, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London Sowden’s Farm, Westfield West Stow Hall—gate piers Ormeley Lodge, Ham Common Hampton Court Palace, gauged niche S. front in garden wall Chicheley Hall, below plinth above plinth 33, Mark Lane, London, E.C. Church House, Northiam Red House, Sawbridgeworth No. 28, St. Andrew’s Street, Hertford Tichborne Church Tower, Hants. Queen Anne’s Gate, London Corn Exchange, Rochester Montagu House, Culver Street, Colchester Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 94 X 43 X 24-24 94 X 44X 2} 9X44X2 (some 93 x 44 X 22) 84X 44X 23 9X44X2 9X4X2$ 8$X 4X25 84x 4X24 84% 4X24 9X 44X23 94 X 44X24 9X4X24$ 9X 4$X 2 83x 4x 24-24 8x 33x24 9X 43X22 94% 44X24 84% 4X24 84 X 44X23 84 X 4X24 84 X 4x6 X 24 74 X 38X24 83x 44X2$ 83x 44X24 84x 4X24 83x 43X24 84x 4X24 8x 3X24 84x 32X24 ao Courses Rise 4=10}$ 4=12 4=10} 4=11f 4= 10} A=12 4=11f 4=12 4=10} A=11 Aa 12 fT 4=11} 4=10} 4=11f 4=10} 4=11} 4=12 4=10} 4=10} 4=9t 4=9} 4=11} 4=11f 4=10} 4=11f 4=9t 4=I10 Authority TABLE OF BRICK MEASUREMENTS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED—continued Remarks Gauged work Gauged work Gauged work Date ¢. 1710 c. 1710 d. 1711 do 7717 1713 d. 1713 arty 1717 d. 1718 . 1720 . 1725 . 1729 750 O- pte ker ee c. 1730 c. 1730 c. 1730 b. 1736 c. 1740 d. 1744 c. 1750 1752 c. 1750 1767 c. 1780 c. 1790 Late 18th cent. 18th cent. Building, Place, &c. Lullingstone Castle House, Eynsford—entrance front Calleva House, Wallingford Unitarian Chapel, Bury St. Edmunds Westwell, Tenterden Pallant House, Chichester Larkfield, Bradbourne Convent, Longbridge, Farnham Lockleys, Welwyn Willmer House, West Street, Farnham Wrencote, Croydon Finchcocks, Goudhurst Womenswold Church Sergeant’s Inn, Fleet Street, London 31, Old Burlington Street, London Watlington—house next to one with Doric doorway Watlington—house with Doric doorway Manchester and District Bank, 35, King Street, Manchester * Underdown Farm House, Eddington Church House, Beckley Arundel—house in centre of Strand 45, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London 39, West Street, Farnham Albany, Piccadilly, London Arundel—house S. side of Maltravers Street Arundel—house with pediment | S. side of Maltravers Street | 6, Higham Place, Newcastle- on-Tyne 37, Crouch Street, Colchester —venetian window 2nd half of | Liverpool—houses in Rodney 18th cent. Street Dimensions of Walling Bricks in inches 84x 4X2} 84x 44x24 83x 44 X 2} 9X 44X2§ 84x 4X 225 88x 4h Xx 23 84x 38-4} x2—24 9X 4hx2g 9X 44X24 84x 34X24 9X 44x 2d 84x 4X 23 83x4X2h 83 xX 4X24 BEX 4} X24 9X 43x 2} 9X 4tx 2} 84xX4X2h 84x 44x 2} 9X 44X25 84x 32X25 9X 44X24 83 X4X24 8X 4X2} 9X 41s X 2} 84x 44x 2 84x 4X23 93X44 X3 100 Authority CoLcHESTER CasTLe. c. 1078. Flint rubble and septaria. Stone and brick quoins and brick lacing. Courses of Roman bricks re-used in the Roman manner. Often such lacing courses are herringbone work. (See detail of Roman wall, p. 357.) 101 lied ie Re ain sth ein! n 12th century. W.elevation. Roman brick s Priory CHuRCH. (the moulded detail is of stone) and intersecting arches, also of Roman , Sr. BotoLpu re-used doorways icks, CoLCHESTER br 102 4 <1 é 4 St. ALBANS CATHEDRAL, llth century. Roman bricks, from the ruins of the Roman city of Verulamium, re-used. These long thin bricks, laid with thick joints, produce a wall surface of good texture. 103 (€gz “d ‘smoputm jo souajzut osfe 29¢) ‘sIapio OM} UI SMOPUIM JeouRT] “SHUG UeWIOY WO. JOUYSIP aymb are pue ‘Apysys Area “sut ELX4¢xZ| ‘sypug ‘s8uissexp youq ‘sem 3puq pue sqqns wy OZ] *2 « “SUIpjing peyoejeq] “Aaa TIVHSIDD0D FILL] “TIVHSHD90D FILL] = *KaSSq 104 ilding and the . Although made ich we find later at Little J a) wo = So) ES) & = | ie) 0.4 2) ore) ) ae eee _ oA 5-8 a em oan> m N .~.02 Bay oS 5 suas ts b= pot sia 7 plage at] 0 qu0°8 ney Ronifel: One Cie pee hm OK oo ® 2e.= Ss) oI —_ O [e) ae a io pe nes Oye yf arate & 2 pt <2 Be 29 6 eka, . =< X ox Do .2-c's ieee a= peta 62 Qiagen 4 Oo— +E a Ta Osnge we oS mG Oo 8 & ee o Ec o.8E =a 105 —_ , 4 ae} ake SALMEsTONE Grance, Marcate. 13th century. Brickwork and flint rubble with stone quoins and window dressings. The bricks are of Flemish dimensions, muddy yellow colour—some pale pink. Bond irregular. Bricks, #x4ix lf; 8x3}x 13 ins. 106 : s fee eine Surrotx. Lirrce Wenuam Hatt. c. 1260-80. Probably the oldest brick dwellinghouse in England. Bricks, 9X4} %2 ins.; four courses rise 10 ins. Colour mostly muddy cream and greenish-yellow, occasional pinks and reds. This is an early example of the Flemish type of brick. 107 Yorks. Nort Bar, Bevertey. c. 1409-10. Irregular bond. The only moulded bricks are the chamfered bricks used for openings and cut for voussoirs. The finials of label and centre arched opening are carved brick. (Details of costs, &c., pp. 17-21.) Bricks, 10352 ins. These dimensions are between those of the early mediaeval and Flemish bricks. 108 Photo by H. Carlton, Horncastle. Lincs. ‘TATTERSHALL Castie. Built by Ralph, Lord Cromwell, 1431-49 ; restored in 20th century. Bricks, Flemish type, 8x42 ins. (average) of Lincolnshire clay. Although the window dressings are of stone there is much moulded brickwork within. 109 ; 7 ‘ he ae | he 110 Photo by H. Carlton. brick corbel course of tower and the use of wing ion of parapet, she Interior before restorat brick, unmoulded except for plain chamfer. TATTERSHALL CASTLE. Catster CASTLE, near Yarmoutu. After 1424, when the Duc D’Alengon was captured, and before 1459, when Fastolf died. Reputed to have been built by the Duc D’Alencon for Sir John Fastolf as the price of the Duc’s ransom. Simply moulded bricks are used for the corbels. Bricks, 8} x 4} x 2} ins. (some 9} and 8 ins.); four courses rise || ins. (some 10 and I2ins.). Colour: Inside—Light and deep purply-reds. Outside—Light and deep purply-reds, and many buff and cream. HI Li Hi iif 112 The 103ins. Colour, rich reds. rise ; four courses ins. Rye House, which some authorities date c. 1520. . it by Sir Thomas Montgomery before 1494, N x be x ‘Bo CM ag ~ We 36 a3 . 8 ti 9 Ze gee © 8 Eso lates! SS thee! ie pO Ors Cee Pam] C) ot are re. mee Zao S65 fo) aw 4 oS BR < .— spi BE 7 oo “SS Essex. sosmMoo INO} Souk ig *9u0j}s Jo ssulssaIp IV ‘sur Fy | ast % qutol {sur 87x Ep x6 ‘SxPUg ‘SeuUET eB0y IS Aq g-Chp] “3M “FUSVD XNVEONOWISUIE] “XSSSAS 3 I HERSTMONCEAUX CasTLE. ENTRANCE GATEHOUSE (restored). The machicolation corbels are of stone. At Tattershall and Caister they are of brick. 114 ~suint Hay 1D Per UE AL be Es = i: 2 a = ¥ see eeeee 4 Oxon. Ewetme Atmsuouses. 1436-46. The pointed arch has recessed panel with cusping in moulded brick as in contemporary buildings at Bruges. 115 Twanet. Cariince, Dent pe Lion, Entrance GateHouse. Late 15th century. Wallings four courses knapped flints alternating with four courses bricks. Bricks, 8? * 442 ins.; four courses rise 9} ins. Colour, red (some yellow) bricks. 116 2194 [ TIeEY peyooi-uedo O51e] sopnyoul IOLL9}U] (‘Orb ‘d ‘sjteyop 99C) *suroyjed iodeip jo AyareA Tensnun st *yUOLT ‘'N “OST ‘Dd “OVIVd SATAY 41O dOHSIG *CTHIALVH “SLY ipeed PEAT Cs) 118 BisHor or Exy’s Patace. S. front. HATFIELD. lished Be dod Lada Cb GBtbe Die e ey &e, HatrieLp. BisHop or Ety’s Patace. Angle view of N. front, shewing mouldings, 119 ‘08Z| °2 Speur cram suoyeseye suey] ‘3g ‘ppeysurpeg "a Alus}{ IS 4q Mou—Ayturey eules ou} 4&q patdnose pue paumo TNS “Zgp] "P eusor] “Fy ‘ppysutpeg punupy ss Aq yng “AVN Woy TIVE HOUNEXQ “ATOMUON] 7 % 1 f tied ie B ve 120 OxpurcH Hatt. Enrrance GateHouse, 1482. Brince, 18th century. 121 xh EN a an aR al gh e5-2 OxpurcH HALL. GateHouse, 1482. Entrance from within court. Like other gatehouses, the towers of each elevation are of different design. 122 ANS AK \ RN A ty Be L\ oN x eo! Tin) niet eae poke haarbahyy ia. Ae ——" Gatehouse entrance from courtyard. Girrorp’s HALt. 16th century. Early Girrorp’s Hatt. StToke-By-NAYLAND. Gatehouse entrance to court. Spandrils and panels filled with brick SuFFOLK. Brick tablets moulded with arms. tracery. iid f “ 4 + ty TAth gy te % . “' r 124 homey $ fet ae ’ ef fe aeelets yf akatadetsl fr cyidee RRSP SOTA ciate ie psehctat ate shee ii > Fy * i: eat Hi Characteristic v ae Bieye S a) 3 b> o-s 25 5 a ~~ Ooh ee © 0 rare 3°38 o=— & Eels 232 Wg Cae hy oO g om ao BO a ° 7) [Ee =] er xR Oot 6 — oe Se i a ad = gs % = ws ae 400 “G tan 5 gp) 48 & O. jaa) 1520-33. cles, and terra-c West Stow Hatt. Gatehouse. tracery over arch, crocketted brick pinna finials. SUFFOLK. Norro.k. Great SNorinc Rectory. Early |6th century. The windows and chimneys are modernised. A mixture of Gothic and Renaissance details. Brick tablets in the manner of terra-cotta shew the new influence. The detail of turret was probably executed in lumps of soft brick, carved. 125 ees = cglaied 2 AER ‘ Nain yas also the units of the brick . > Gatehouse, temp Faulkbourne Hall. The oriel windows are 126 Rye House. somewhat similar to those at Faulkbourne Hall corbel-table arcades. Herts. rar + + sot ais «3 So Kent. LUuLLINGSTONE CasTLe. Gatehouse, first half of 16th century. Outer elevation. 127 1 ib sllsels Gateway. First half of 16th century. Inner front. The bricks forming the arches of the corbel- . (See detail, p. 333.) LuLLINGsTONE CASTLE. table are not cusped es A 55, ¢ 4 % x Fee se Essex. Sanpon. Sr. Anprew’s Cuurcu. c. 1502. Brick porch; brick tracery in W. window; brick diaper crosses, &c. The corbel-table arcading of tower is of unmoulded bricks; compare with that of porch. (See detail of porch, p. 261.) 129 oreg ori): ‘ mide Ui eraa a btnbalal ne, Brick h diamond-diapers. rick. wit corbel-table in moulded b Walls covered c. 1508. icolations of unusual design and FARNHAM CASTLE. Surrey. mach 130 fy tf, PPO Td ds abies py ey he Note Early 16th century tower. St. Nicuo.tas CuHurcu. ToLLesHuNT Mayor. Essex. change in buttress sections at third stage. 13] ‘QUO}S d}E[NUMIS 0} Ja}se[d YUM PoetepUer “orp “SMOPUIM ‘yoI0g ‘JaMo} UT YIOM Jedeiq ‘QZG] ‘2 ‘HOUNHD AANUV|A] YIAVT] 32 gles. Band of tracery of one cut brick St. Anprew’s Cuurcu. Brick upper part of tower early 16th cq © iam) aoe ae = be © ~ ° fe) o ~ i} wee on 2.5 ee acc [3] aoe =". cee Ej o+ cing Br 6 Mai cl Sy oS ie Rae 5 0 a > oe: OS Essex. Essex. Caste Hepincuam Cuurcu. Brick porch, crenellations and tracery, c. 1520. Brick ’ tower, 1616. 134 Particularly fine crowstepping with cusp- = Sz Wore! sat 0.9 _ a) a3 ee Og 3 5 ene =< me o ao (eo) 28 “ oH .o i o oO io ~ ~ Essex. 135 — ne * ! ' Yeu a | NorroLk. MetrHwoip. The Old Vicarage. Gable and Circular Chimney. Early 16th century. The diamond and zigzag brickwork in relief is of same pattern as in diaper work at Layer Marney and elsewhere. The labels over windows are cable pattern in moulded brick, 136 ‘medal pue uolerojser Aressao0u yonur Sutpuejsyj}imjou ‘JSoIo}UI jsoyeoIs eu sutaey sfouutyo youq pepfnour jo Ajourea SLOUI 9194} SI aIBYMON “QZG| ‘9 “eoueIQUA jedtouud Sy] “AOVIVG LYNOD NOLdWVH{ *xaSaTaaI]/) 137 = ate Hampton Court Parace. c. 1520. The Clock Court, looking through the archway to the Great Court. Terra-cotta Wolsey’s arms. Terra-cotta busts of Roman Emperors. 138 NEMA rah Cusped windows of terra-cotta. N. front. Layer Marney Towers or HAtt. Square towers instead of octagonal as in S. front. Essex. 139 ‘Tet WPT PLATTER HHH Riri: . ; . a te oe a (aie J jr 1520. c. Brick with terra-cotta transom windows and angle of Layer Marney Towers or Hall. Layer Marney. Built by Henry, Lord Marney. S.W. parapets, which are the work of Italian workmen. Essex. 140 Cusped windows and tower angle. i S LayeR Marney Towers or Hat. parapets of terra-cotta by Italian workmen. Essex. 141 8 ett asircon ‘puelsuy UI JUSUIeASTIyOR 2}{00-e119} JO UIUINS a4} Sse pepieser eq Aeul pue enbrun St asnoy [NyyNeeq sty] “e}09-e119} ee JouUeU URTTe}] OY} ul peynsexs ysnoyiye ‘o1yyor) ore sjteyap 94} ING ‘jeotjoururss are sjusureUIO pue sUOTeAZTA PY] = “7Q/| Ul peystoursp seM ‘SI9MO} pue Aemoyes goueljue 94} surpnyout ‘g[sueipenb jO apis YyUNoj oy] ‘“sepeys Aueul jo enlaces pue SSUISSAIP B}}00-B1I9 | “Sulypem Youg ‘“wWoyse/\ PIeYOTY IIS 4q yng ‘/-€7G] “4p “NN “GdOdC TING) Jeu AVIg NOLLAG . © tne. a 2 ws a rae 142 *poutejureu useq jou sey Aewurds sures oy} “daoda Tine) reou “AOVIg NOLING jnq ‘suolyessye ajsueipenb oy} jo yey} 0} Ieyiuus st [lejep souessteudy ey] “uOoTeAsTe "CS 143 *‘pored sty} ye fensn se jusujrede 94} jo pus suo je jou pue ‘a1]U99 OY} Ul paced St [Jey oy} 0} souRTJUS sYT "NY Suryooy] e[suerpenb 0} woNRAITS Jedtouug ‘quodaiiny) Jesu “AOVIg NOLLAS Sas eee ses Fac a 144 i pt ene ec ERY An instructive instance of Gothic builders’ adoption Angle view of principal elevation to quadrangle, th traditional forms. near GUILDFORD. PLACE shewing detail and projections. and combination of new details wi SUTTON 145 *sAouultyo Jo} pesn usaq sey xouq pey “re[yse pue yoUq penojod Yyons jo uoNeIOOSse aATeYe ynq sel & SI SY] “Yom Ie[yse oy} Woy uoneueA Suiseajd e st 4olIq pecepims-ysno1 ey} JO 91n}x9} OY] (Z) ‘Wun yeas ey] (|) : Aq peute}qo sovyjins jo Ayyenb ey], ‘9UO}s ay} Se INOjoo sures ay} Ajreou youq yng Auresio ul ying suteq uoljiod [exyue. jo sure ou} ‘Suipjing euoys VW “gcec] peystuy pue uosyy seuoyy IMG Aq ing ‘“SaNAWdY “ig Aung Jeu “TIVE] FAVYONAP{ “ATOLING 146 Norrotk. East BarsHam Manor House. Formerly called Wolterton Manor House. c. 1535. Built by Sir Wm. Fermor. S. elevation of Gatehouse. The coat of arms (of carved brick) is that of Henry VIII. (See detail, p. 263.) The ornaments of parapet, string and turret finials are of moulded brick, miscalled terra-cotta. 147 Zn ener oe Weer a tate 4 ¥-N i a East BarsHAM Manor House. c. 1535. Entrance Gatehouse. N. elevation to quadrangle, photographed from within porch of house. The crocketting, finial and coats of arms are carved in soft brick. The ornaments of string and parapet are of moulded brick. 148 ee Nee. Se : ? Sd ae East BarsHaM Manor House. Built by Sir Henry Fermor, c. 1525. Entrance photographed from within gatehouse. Ashlar is used for portions of the turrets, for the doorway and for the coat of arms. On the right of illustration is a portion of the tower in the same elevation. 149 ey Pd ry 147 Jf (f7 j // ae ee, a East BarsHaM Manor House. W. end of S, elevation. Porch and part of tower-turret. c. 1525, 150 "—- -—= East BarsHAM Manor House. The Tower and W. end of S. elevation. c. 1525. Many brick tablets bearing various devices in relief are built in with the wallings and in strings and panels. The turret on right is the only original, complete one. 151 Bruncer’s Farm. c. 1540, TENTERDEN. KENT. 152 ‘uUSsISop PeYy1OF Jo Ffus ore predyinos ay} JO SI9MO} pue [eM ‘AemMoyes ey, ‘eloereyo yIomyoUq pue wueyo |e Ao.14sep O} se AyTeotueyoour os 9UOPp Useq sey “oN ‘sAouutys ‘so[qes jo sulip[inq-o1 ayy : pesturepoul useq sey vsnoy ey “Cgc| 9 “TRA Suljoouu0-7) pue siamo] a[suy ‘ABMO}eD) souequy “TIVE] NOGAOY ‘“WVHXOGG ISVy “INA SS —— a? On ee Oe ee ee ee . After 1536. The diaper Inner Gatehouse from E 154 work and moulded brick chimneys are especially good. Litre Leez, or Letcus Priory. Essex. Kent. ‘TENTERDEN. Well House at Hales Place. c. 1540. An excellent example of good ator results achieved by simple means. Only two moulded bricks are used. 155 Pees” oe is much mutilated. ing a 7 5 ' NorroLk. GREAT CarssinaHAM Priory. c. 1545. The traceried panels are of terra-cotta. The build: No doubt the angle turrets had suitable finials. (Detail, p. 346.) 156 Aemayer) ‘oytYM pue yoeryq ut suloyed oLYeul0es ul Jayseid YUM pelepuel oie SIaMO} “ABMoyer) pue ‘asnoyeyer) oI. TL Te pzeAyino7y ‘OrS| °G “TIVH WVHONII0AG “YOlVIA] LNQNHSATITO le “XASS7] 157 > € avin ee Pn ne \ i re es ins. ; four courses rise 12} x 23 ins. ints almost to | in., which causes the bricks to appear only x 43 An early example of the Elizabethan type apartment over. Some of the gables are 3 4 iled with an Base of tower, Bricks, 9 1s Cé jo c. 1550, possibly later. , but mond pattern. 12 ting has increased the thickness of the in of Manor House. The hall no longer has an open roof ish cross bond, producing a d The recent po: 2 ins. thick. Essex. Barkinc. Eastrsury Manor House. S.W. angle. built in Engl a ee ee 091 ‘d ‘eH stoqineyy opirq] ye ssoy} se rojoereyo oules JO a19M saTqes jo sjeluyy ay], ‘euojs a}yernuIts 0} (p210}s01) Joyse,d YUM pieced} oe SMOPUIM 9y | *sutuueld [yEys sMoys pue ‘TeoIds} SI syoe}s o8r1e] OJUt sony jo Sulieyyes oy] ‘auo JO SUTeUIOI oY} UI UDs9S oq URS YOIyM ‘fleipuey yoIq YJLM seseoiie}s poulejuoo (snoutni 2U0) S}elIn} ey], “Nod [[euls e sasopous [TEM oy |. ‘JUOIE “SG = “ASNOP{ YONVIA] AUNALSVA Sse gees a 159 (‘6-81 “dd ‘Osnopy Jour] Aimqiseq yum ereduio’)) *‘uSISOp a4} 0} Jojoereyo oAls YoryM ‘spemy Yyouq ynd YM peystuy pue peyuey sejqes sary SMOPUIM IOULIOp SY] ‘eU0}S JUeseIdeI 0} (Pp2JO}seL) pesejsejd ere “ow ‘squrel ‘suol]fINnul MopuIM eyL, ‘syeYys Teuosejoo jo syoejs OM} OUI posoyyes ore sony Aouumys eyf “CCG| “2 “TIV]] SIOMLAV]Y FILLIY + “X1OANON 160 *AInyUusd }XOU 9} JO yied Ayrea oy} Ul pedojeasp PPweH AAT sooeyed yeols YoryM Woy adA} oY} 99S OM HU] “SSUISSOIP MOPUIM pue AemMIoop ‘sutonb IO} A[sutreds pesn useq sey sUo}s BIOYM YOUq JO VsNoy{ ueyjeqezi[y pezis-oyelepour e fo ajdurexo ouyy YW “RG] 9 «XUV SNAOJA “XASSY ‘spunwpa *1S fang ‘uvuavf [+H «9 004d 161 AR Hid tit Heaths REC A Ae AYRE RS - f STARA een! 162 Kent. Cosyam Hatv. Part of S. wing, dated 1584. The roof is behind a parapet. ‘a7e1S [eutst10 ut Ayysour ‘ouo}s jussaidai 0} pelopusl-jusuls ore sheq jo sutionb pue sMOpUI,\ “SMOpUTM pettosuel} pue peuornur ym ‘sAouUIIYS [BUIO}KO ‘soqes &q peuteigo Ajduits pape onbseinyoid V ‘0861 2 “TIVH sdtomg “ATOMMON] 163 d knapped flints. Repaired and altered (probably In stone an Earlier chequer work Post OFFice. WICKHAMBREAUX, 16th century) in brick. in Kent. Surrey. GREAT BooxHaM. Outbuilding at Slyfield Manor. c. 1600 or earlier. The treatment of labels and strings is unusual but effective. The coupled Ionic pilasters, caps and ornaments are of cut brick. 165 _ eentannls _ Surrey. GreaT BookHAM. StyrieLD Manor. c. 1600. The gable at one end rises from a cornice above Doric pilasters. The long front on the right is divided vertically by seven lonic pilasters. At first floor level each of these pilasters bears a shield on which is an armorial device, and above each shield is a fleur-de-lis carved out of soft brick, p. 167. The whole is carried out in cut brickwork except the Ionic capitals, which probably are terra-cotta. The ill-proportioned modern windows mar the effect. The original casements were probably similar to that at first floor of the outbuilding, p. 165. 166 9 cot tied ee Be NP Bh StyFieLD Manor. c. 1600. Detail of Ionic pilasters. 167 *‘peonpoqut ueeq aAey AeMIoop souerssteusy pue yodered pecreid Vv ‘fool daajs 24} 4M Jay}950} ‘peresddesip aaey sofqes ay} YOIyM WOLy “(191 *d) ad yredg sufojf] ayi jo yusudoyeaep e se pepreser 2q Aew sty], “sper Wysuq Oo} doop Wol} Inojoo ut Area syouq ey] ‘syurof jo suyutod yep ey} 0} onp si yIOMyMSUG ey} Jo soueIeedde siquios UL ‘LO9| ‘P “S3SNOH{ NOLTAVHD “LNT rrr ene, | PAann ern ~ at * 4 " ip SUE SSS | > { 168 COEE tal ‘7re19q) *2u0}s 4q peoe|der usveq sey jyodered 24} JO suUIOS UOT}eAVTA “SG OY} UO ysnoyjye “ouq pep[nou-ssodind jo ore Q0e119} 0} 9peljsnyeq pue jyodered peorerd sy], ‘spe Wsuq 0} ¥1ep ‘INO]OS UI SalIeA YIOMYSUG oY], “WOF o[duns eB sem yleg suXoy\] YOryM Jo uoTeAgja jo adAj ayy jo yuswrdojeaAsp ayeunyN sayy ‘woTyeATTa "NY “| |-Z09] “9 “SSMOR{ ATAMMLVYY “SLUS] ERP RTS SE UTD RAS SER OL EE NT RTE AE Oe 169 — = ee | vg eae ee ‘uJepour ore yaed 0} suse10s AeMoj}eS aul *sSulssop euo}s YIM youq SSUIM ‘9UO}S SI 91]U20 ayy “eg oO} uolyeAgTa ‘S “LE-Z091 °F “SSNOY{ ATAILVY “SLY = ESE al i eo dsungatzalstetak 0 ak fl Fi it 3; | Pin ABP LL BAL EL INE RM type, ete. 171 aa >> PS E. elevation from Maze shewing patterns of the pierced dwarf walls of 1607-11. b. Hatrietp House. Herts. ds. various perlo ‘nek, Aq poeytpout spremsoye sem jy] “yeep SIy Joye sxeaX ua} [HUN pejajduioo jou pue ‘rey Areyuourerpreg aut &q pedepep sem “0Z91 unseq ‘souo[ ostuy 4q uoyiod anus ey “PQc] “P ¥mNq ‘sSuUIM ay. “TIVH WVHd07) 0 Lie 1h “LNT 172 osn Ajreo pue “yIOM pesnes Ajrea AIOA aaey OM suipping sty} Uy Ui None Bhs Le eed ‘uoseal SIy} 10] ‘yUeoSep YoInNC Jo sem oYyM ‘Adio J Jonures &q ying (662 ‘SLI “4d ‘spreep 22g) “pug ysturs]_y Jo “uoTeAg|o Ss *SUOT}IOSUI Jo}e]T Be SMOPUIM YSes 9Y | ‘§ “GW ul punoj oq Aeut yorym jo so]durexo : er0y ying od} ay} jo sorqes peyueumped eqliosep 0} pesn AjepmM Wie} PY], “esnoZ] Yong] ey} se sieak (G| JOJ UMOUY SeM I ‘SaINnjeaf [eINJooHYoIe sy fo yunos9e uo pue oot “DOVIVG MAY isto) ahega oye) “ATAYAS 173 *BUTjSOI9}UI SI youd yey jo syuowped Jepnsuely opin &q ssuIm jo SMOpUIM JOO] ply} jo suydnoo au *‘soinjeey sures 9} jo Auew surejel ynq ‘quod soueljus 84} Jo yey} Ue} a[duns SIOU SI UOT}VAV]e SITY} Jo JUSUeAT} OY] =“UOTeAS[e "hj JO Uepsler) *|¢9| ‘P “SOVTVd AAS Life Dh, i wap ™ da aa Sg y ae ae 74 I Kew Patace. d. 1631. Centre of S. front. This building is one of the earliest examples of gauged brickwork in England, although of a rough character. The Doric pilasters on either side of the door were cut away some years ago when an ugly wood and glass covered way was erected ; since removed. The Ionic caps are built up of brick, gauged with “‘invisible joints” and carved. The Corinthian columns are built up of brick on end cut to correct section and having entasis. The capitals of these columns are also built up of brick and carved. The rustications, mouldings, &c., are of cut brick. The arches of semi-circular window heads are of cut brick and their keys of gauged brick carved. The cornices are weathered with plain tiles as at Pocock’s School, Rye, and at Barnham Court. 175 *puoq ysqsuyq *suO]epUNO} Jo JUSUIST}ES &q wey} uodn pesoduit UIeYS BY} POOjsy}IM oAeY UOTBATE “SG fo sdIUIOD pue sa[qes oy} yey} Uses 9q TIM 1] = “}[INq ueyM se yonur AI@A St UONeARTO SIG} sjoodso1 Jayj}O Ul ‘uepour st yorod ay [ ‘wouyessje “y 1o s.ueyuy “¢¢g| “9 “Nav AWOOUG “LNAS 176 SEAN RUS RMNBYS ST ued . 177 SSE ey i i i Hgshiabon eign bo si The E. porch and N. doorway are modern, otherwise there is little alteration. No ichness of gable-pediments. NE. angle. Broome Park. better example exists of variety and r KENT. “I9UeYIITY Plo] aye] Vy} Aq epeur suoyesajye urepour ore ‘sftejep uspies pue SMOPUIM aUIOS YIM Joy}eS0} ‘Aeq erUed 24} eAoge sjueuped pue saoruI09 ‘Aeq ojue0 ayy = *C¢g| *9 "waVg aNOONg “INTY 178 ‘osn [er9ues ul yey} sem puog ysysuy out} SIq} 0} dn se ‘Aypequcurtied xo A|qeqoid ‘spoued sututo[pe ul pesn ole spuoq Ysiue,.; pue ysysuy “uoljiod o1jU90 9U0}sS Te 24} yum Ayqeinoaeysun you oledui0d SSUIM 9U0}s pue xq ey TL *souo[ ostu] kg "6€9| (9 “TIVE, WVHNAVY 9 ‘“XTOAYON, I youq yno fo Ajourea e pue ‘ad Ay & yond e eyeloqeye jo safqes eery | 5) ee *pelojsor [[@—sfeuurryo “ELSWVHLOY = "NIGNIdYVEY SLUG] 180 Sussex. Rye. Pocock’s ScHoot. Before c. 1638. A vigorous piece of cut brickwork in the Tuscan order. The gauged elliptic window is modern. Few moulded members have been employed, but great judgment has been shewn in using tiles of various thicknesses and by careful study of projecting courses. This is an early example of gauged brickwork in arches, &c. English bond is used. 181 *paynqiiyje St SUIP[ing ey} WOYM Oo} ‘souof ostuy jo osUe}oeIeYS SEM YOIYM JouUeU poJoeyeun ‘o[dums oy} ul you eed 2142 Fey} FO SoURIsSUT JUSTJEOXS UY ‘a1}UD UOYeAVTS pus oY} Ul Al[eUIsIIO sem ABMIOOP 94] “[eUISIIO [Te Jou are syouq eyt ‘pearosoid Sem [teyep 24} ysnoyyye ‘A]SUIpIODDy “ON ‘sojdind uojn'] Aq peyueure;ddns syouq plo ey} pue ‘4y]INq-s1 eq 0} pey pure ‘ose sieaf alos pos[ng yuo soueue ayy *Amyued YI/] PIA] “NOLTIAVG NAGYV5) ‘NOLTYVHD qdiQ ‘INIy ad ory ¢ or tery Lt seat ap: aaE \ a 82 183 Hertrorp. Batts Park. c. 1640. A feature of this house is the window architraves. Colour, orange-red. Dressings, a slightly thicker brick roughly gauged or “ edged and rubbed.” Colour, yellow-red. Rough texture. English bond. A typical country and gauged hewing projections. 1eW S$ 184 part cut, part purpose-moulded Angle vy icks ; c. 1645. builder’s production in hard br BarNnuAM Court. English bond. ORAL TE SUSSEX. HIGHGATE. CROMWELL House. c. 1650. The cut brick volutes to centre window should be compared with those at Tyttenhanger Park, p. 302. The quality and variety of the brickwork is exceptionally good as also is its design. Measured detail drawings are given on pp. 399-401. Both English and Flemish bonds are used. 185 # f Hicucate. Cromwett House. c. 1650. Angle view, looking upwards, shewing refined nature of mouldings to window architraves, cornice, &c. Measured drawings, including full-sized details of the brickwork of this fine house, are given elsewhere. *‘puoq ysysuy euros :puoq yYsture,.] Apsojy] *sreok 09 3se] 94} suunp peinojoos useq jou sAey yng ‘Tensn uey} pel Jodsep jo ore ssulssoIp eut, “Yeuq mo jo “on ‘syueultped jo ssurp[nour PUL “49° uyof 0} peInqUHYy “WOT "SG “pog| “XUVd YAONVHNALLAT “SNVATY “LG “SLUI} 187 188 W. and S. fronts. 1654. Herts. Sr. ALBANS. TyTTENHANGER Park. A Ss “42 om = 0 4g a mas ao Y 0 » pa yas) =} 25 PG :¢ Ons Onn = =] sae cane os S is} gi & 85.0 Og + 28 6 8 dome? ° 2m Sel ee 58 oF & ~~ ~ oO Mm. 2) O 3 oO ag 6 ie. tas! 53.8 fe centre window and sim the centre w Sr. ALBANS. 189 ee os oe Gable end and one of five pediments d. 1655. 190 Wuirte Hart Inn. SCOLE. of front. English bond; the Flemish bond of panels is later, (4 NorFOLK. actA LHEAL = We I Shi) as ns ‘urd uey} s10ul JOU U9s}jJO SI 9dIUIOD sAOqe pue sjeued ut ylomdeys jo uotoafoid yong ‘poso]dura are SIaquioul peprnoul Maj s1syM ‘suotjooloid a] duns &q peonpoid spoye e[qeimupe jo o[duiexe Sulyuys V ‘€99| ‘(P ‘LadaLSG HOIH{ NI aSNOL{ “ONITVGOT) =" ATHAAS l 19 tay} jo Ayyiqejdepe pue siepfing ey} jo Ayesi90A 24} SM9Ys Vsay} Jo AyISI9AIp au, YoryM ‘yIOMMSUIG pepfnour pue jno jo ajdurexe Surjsezazut Jeyjouy 999, 9 “LAILS H *Teuejyeur ‘uoyeysnyyt Sulpeoeid eyt sutol[pe SIP, NI asnoy, “DONINTVGOr) “ATIANS 192 4 a“ soAvIiyore MOPUIM 9y} ‘pojsdureyjoy ye esoy} s[quieser scouumyo ey], “699 “P < » me ” ~ * ok y { ‘asueyus}A LL ve WOIj “NY PY} Jo ssoy} “aN"] SAUATAOVIA] “CaLSdNVALVAH \\ “SLY 194 Kent. Bromiey Cottece. d. 1666. Strongly marked vertical divisions by means of brick buttresses —— Mippie TempLe Gateway. d. 1684. By Sir Christopher Wren. The use of small bricks gauged and set with a very fine joint confers a certain scale upon the stone pilasters. See Professor C. H. Reilly’s remarks on p. 61. 195 F E iF E ‘= ; - 4 eh igets itt e'eee** ami ww erty 11h Tt Photo by Arthur Western Lonpon, E.C. Currist’s Hosprrat. 1672. Sir Christopher Wren. A notable example of his masterly handling of brick. The Ionic order is in gauged red brick, the capitals of the pilasters being built up of brick and carved. The cornice is of wood. ‘This wing is now demolished and re-erected at Horsham. 196 ‘pepe poos sutonpoid qustpedxe 9[duuts eole sieid yougq pereoysni au ‘089 ‘3D ‘safqeys mL “YONVIA] AUNESINVYT “SLTI MN ‘asodal pue Ayoydurts syt 107 ‘UMOUH SE oInjoopYyoIe JeAsIeyM ‘UMOUY SI ssnoy SI¥] ‘“S}UsWYstT]equia jnoYy WM ‘Mood poos jo Yyouq YUM peaosrtyoer aq Aeul yeyM fo [epoul e sI sulp[ing SIU. “UeTA\ raydojsiy) IG 0} peinqUHAYy “p/9| AMofeq “AVI a9qTaadNOOUT) = =LNAS 197 Fe AORTA a pe sy a RO oe 6°" 6.8 reabhiieyy! AE: IE Ea Sea's 9) => Silnsitetene tay ot ABET 1A = FA CHICHESTER. PaLLant House. c. 1713. This house is commonly ascribed to Sir Christopher Wren, and although there is no record to connect it with him it is not unworthy of his genius. The cut brickwork of the cornice, window arches, &c., is very good. The treatment of quoins of the centre portion differs from that of those at the angles of the building, which are chamfered. Ground floor dull-red bricks ; bright red dressings. First floor all bright red bricks. Gauged window arches and gate piers red rubbers. Dwarf wall, purply-red bricks. | Quoins are gauged and bond with walling every fourth course. 212 th : ce = = te -¥ haw “pei Wy Suq—ssutsserp ! MoTead ouros ‘syooys ysrurd—ssuryem ‘Inojo ‘sul f6 osu sesmoo moj ‘sut 37x §¢xQ ‘s8uisselq “SUI || ASI SesInoo INO} : “sul 37 x Fp x §Q ‘sBull[e \\ ‘sAOeYe pue yensnun ose sopsue oy} 1e siajsepid pefdnos euL *apecey oy} 0} Ayusip ureyi0d e yredult SMOPUIM JOO punois TT} 94], “Ou “pi Z] “INMNOddvUg ‘“CTaIdNaV] “LNay ‘e i aa Sabet beeper weg. * RRREIIEL Del TOY Aare nie ee 213 ing window-arch- front, shew i f W. view O 1714. Angle BRADBOURNE. &e. projections, LARKFIELD. KENT. keys, 214 ELL “P “APG “WHOIS “pIZ| “ANUNOSavVag “CTAUV] “LNA we ae —— Sa ae eR ge 2 I =. i 215 Kent. LarkrieLp. Brapsourne. E. wing of S. front. 1714. The walling bricks are stocks of varying colours, mostly pinkish, but many mauve, green, yellow, buff, &c. The dressings are bright red bricks gauged. The pilasters are built of buff stocks, with bright red bricks at angles ; all gauged and only one course in six bonds with the wallings. 216 Sussex. Rye. Building on domed crown of old water cistern, c. 1715, Built elliptic plan in heading bond. 217 F- Lonpon. 179 Crapton Roap. c.1715. The colour effect produced by the rich red gauged dressings, contrasting with the duller walling bricks, the white painted woodwork, green door and railings, and white stone steps, is one of the most satisfactory results of this period. 218 0 kt lle Se Oe Ee ES oS tae Surrey. Croypon. Frienps’ House. c. 1715, An all-brick building with contemporary gate piers and gate. 219 *IaFUOS soued Joyfeuls sfeos oy} 4Sosep yorym ssels oye[d jo sjooys OSILT jo sieq sulze[s oy} Jo [eAouIal &q pesonsep ysoulye SI YoIyM jo JOoYe [NFYNeeq sy} ‘YAOMAOIG pesnes P jo e[durexo ouyy e SI osnoy sity] *syutol 9[GISIAUL puke SxOIIg ‘Ul £7 YIM ying ore SSUIsseIp 94 |, ‘peSpe pue paqqns ‘syouq ‘sur f7-7 YM YM st Suypem oy], {|Z “P “BOIUDNOT] “LNAANOD 3H, uolyNn}ysqns pue ue ‘peqqni no “syurof ‘ut Uy ‘WVHNUV = “ARHYNS 220 74) iw. ii abhi +P y " A: Gite telat seeped ae aaewe eu ih i The Built 1717. Wallings plum-pink. Dressings bright orange-red, recently coloured. ally heavy. LockKLEys, WELWYN. attic is exception . Herts. tims | Re 9 a a, kK (me. a. i ie _ Surrey. Farnam. Witimer House. d. 1718. Perhaps the most remarkable elevation in cut and moulded brickwork extant. The whole front is gauged. The bolection mouldings of window architraves are exceptional. The cornice is also excellent. Measured drawings and details are given on pp. 403-7. Rich red bricks. 222 d. 1718. Angle view, shewing projections. Wittmer House. FARNHAM. 223 = 4 ~ ES AG \ Ce Tame: aye Be SurREY. *ssuIssoIp pesnes per peystuy ATysy SIOUI 9U} osejueaApe 0} YO smoys YoIyM suyyem jo pope perenbeyo oul sonpoid 0} puog ystwepy 3mq ‘sIayojes pel YM pesn useq Avy slopeoy (ysmyq) peyutA “euojs ay} ueY} JeHeq pereyyeem sey (peSnes pue ureyd) yromyouq ey, “g|/] “P “SASNOHSWTY ATTY wolug “NOGONIay ‘“sxwag 224 tN NARELLAN NE Ah aye +36 i ee ~ ) 2 i ta : ht S res 7 as ) ao “2 > My sf ss ri Bis co Ce a ee SE nae : 2: Pe ie AR OE ay OS Ale DR ee eee el > e : i ae - Hertrorp. 28 Sr. Anprew’s Street. cc. 1720. The Ionic order was less frequently employed than the Doric in‘ brickwork, and comparatively few examples exist. Of these, this building is probably the most interesting, although it cannot vie with the wide elevation of Christ's Hospital, now demolished, but one wing of which is illustrated on p. 196, The use of the same order in three sizes on the same elevation is unsatis- factory, the smallest appearing as the baby, but the gauged and carved work (the capitals are built up of brick and carved) are good. The pilasters are without entasis and somewhat lanky. 225 ee Lonpon, E.C. 11 Tooxs Court. c. 1720. Brick pilasters and capitals built up of brick and carved. Cornice of brick lumps carved. See measured drawings, pp. 408-11. 226 é De owe o- SM ~e-a2- a : Te av ¥ ma HG. bp 2 Cp os Oe re) f wt 2 Nal, Bk ngs include The each y at tring may ay ee ‘£008 Q°R Oo oo HH epee] A=W esha! Faas i} S029 Base =~ soe Sage a Be aaa a tes OA 5 Has? eh es Ee 6s oO - 0.8 c. 1720 a large percentage of vitrified grey headers wh dressings are in bricks of a rich red. The w floor, as are the strings at first and second floors Berks. WALLINGFoRD. CaLLevA House. not break the pilaster shafts. 227 “poom poyured-oytym pue youg SSCL =) “SHOOOHONI J *LSYNHANOT) "INT 228 s° ha EEE ‘ ¥ B@ECRN A 6 Ree Ae See VONMANERE RED say : hot LA nt roe zr é ep ‘iin aids hae Yok SB Pet bphe ? . pect ogee” mish bond produce chequered was pulled down 50 years ago. itrified purple headers in Fle , painted to simulate brick for symmetry, Garden, front. Goupuurst. Fincucocks. c. 1725. effect. The fourth chimney, built of wood KENT. *yoliq Jo no paAareo ore ssoeid uoide jo oe}yns oy L ‘oanyxe} poos syreduit syouq suljem ey} Jo ssouysnol ey, “yo usexyoiqun jo ssnoy yes VY “/7/| (P “TIVH WVITHAZII “adodTadINV) * ff 230 *s]fem you pez 9y3 0} Ajotea Sutsead jnq semMsem ue yredun srepeoy Ao18 Areafig *QZ7/| ‘9 “ASNOL] CIO AH], Seite ae oo ae * £ | 231 SSeS Essex. RarnnaM Hatt. Built 1729. Entrance front. A finished piece of work where the red gauged brick contrasts with the grey-yellow walling stocks, and these again with the Portland Stone quoins, base and keys and the painted cornice and doorway. This was the period of Palladian architecture, when everything was sacrificed to building in the Italian manner, a style to which, fortunately, brick was not well suited except when plastered over. Rainham remains essentially English in its classicism. 232 mb) 5 May 7 ‘Sime: 2 is my =/ | } |-G8 -GH ie = I i = i £ Teak ceatadalat beatunenenenemmemeamenmmmemat : mei Hifsy amt , ae Hn Se , : RS HI all Pa mia, oS ae we ; lt Pitty The only deviation from absolute symmetry is Built 1729. Garden Front. ; placed upon the centre line of the staircase and without regard to the Essex. RAINHAM HALL. the staircase window exterior, 233 “osnoy youd sAte}eo uy WA “LAFULG LHDINS| NI aSNnOY “HLYOMADCINIAVS 234 *SMOPUIM JOYIO fo esoy} UY} Jopim APYSI[s st 100p J2A0 MOpUIM jo 49¥ oY] ‘“sMossnoa ay} ur she Jo peoye Sutonpoid os ‘mojoo ut Apysiys SuLeyIp syouq Ul yInq ore sayore Jooy punols ey] = ‘“Wey} punol syeelq YoIyM ‘eotuloo 0} dn pores ore shey yore MOPUIM SY] OEL| °9 “LAFNLG LHOINY (Op ‘ON “HLYOMTOGIUaMVS ‘sLYa]Y 235 Another very gay colouring. Soft , white woodwork and steps, green door N Ro — on ON 7) o . sabe ae s On O 8 ei “ay oa teas 8 amp 7) on 8 [| a3 rs [= ie) mais 2 ° 2) Essex. and railings. 236 Berks. ABINGDON. Tompxkin’s ALMsHousEs. d. 1733. Grey headers have been freely used in the wallings. The gauged dressings are all of red brick. The panel and pediment treatment over the archway at the end of the alley with the short lengths of parapet over the centre doorways and the skilful use of rough and gauged brick in different colourings confer great distinction upon these humble dwellings. 237 cH +1) 1} # 4 rH a 238 c. 1735. The wallings are in heading bond throughout, which Batty | — < a5 a irs @Qee eee aE 3 o Eo oD B fe) = & = ms = bs oo Sl ie wn 28 [24 SP ss ao a) 4g | [a4 iS) Fab Sussex. Becxtey. Cuurcu House. d. 1744. A typical country builder's brick house. Yellowish-pink walling bricks, mottled grey with bright red dressings. 239 ‘jaye pesonbeyo e sonpoid puog yYstwie[,f Ul yInq siepeoy AeIs pue SIayo}e1s pal ‘smopuIM IOOY punois oy} Mopg ‘SYouUq pel YoU ssulssoiq “Ssopeoy Adis ‘ssureA\ “(C/| “9 “AYVNOG NI ASNOFY “WVHXOIA\ “SLNVH j. : Dorset. Branprorp. Eastway House. c. 1750. Brick of two colours. Stone coping to parapet. Brick keys to window arches. By carrying up the centre of parapet as a pediment an exceptionally large dormer window is provided, 24] *‘Teusyeur Ajeuroy jo esn jnAYysnoyy eules oy} FIqIyxe IooH punois jo seyore MOpuUIM pue [[eM jo UoTeosn1 oy], ‘o0e} TEM oy} WOIT suo1oeloid pepjnowun 9] duis &q pewoj siojseid pue yore ey} Aq SMOpUIM at}U99 oY} JOF peiNoes St uoouysiq] ‘Ssxotaq 3x90}s Aart ‘TCL| “4 “Saal NN] S.N'IOONTT Gh (many d first floor openings. Mid 18th century. Walling in brown and grey headers hich are used to connect ground an 3 Q 2 on 5.6 aa auc Ss Ory aah rks is oO iS DorsET. vitr1 242 &q pue siajsepid s1q ou} 4q PeAe]eL st UOTeAsTe sIy} JO Ssouy[np ey], the PERLE ER PREETI dee Pe TI TT *pesnes Sl JUOI} 9[OYM ay] *s3ULNS oy} "GGZI “TIVH XOway *ADGIYENO |, *LNIS 243 Sussex. Rye. c. 1755. Garpen Room at Lams House. Brickwork imitated by the use of brick tiles, with which the walls are faced above the cellar door. The quoins are wood. These tiles were little used after the brick tax was discontinued in the middle of the 19th century. Inset shews header and stretcher brick-tiles. 244 ‘TeMOIIO-TWles ole SSUIM oY “SetyoIe MOpUIM JOo}Y 38] jo Shox payeousni oy} pue ‘MOPUIM 91]U99 Jo SMOSSNOA YSUq Nd 2Y} ‘esinod Suljs pepmou oUt ore SoInjes} Yolq Jorys oy f “QOL “2 “aSNOPY a0dIuaTIq “WVHONIA\ “LNA 245 ae me sri apa AMA Oe i is 5 ese ee eyed Booptes Cius, Sr. James’s Street. By R. and J. Adam, b. 1765. Yellow-grey stock bricks. The porches and dressings stucco painted. A characteristic example of the use of brick by the brothers Adam. 246 =e ale eT REE to, sear << PASE tal fie i 3 Surrey. FarnnaM. 39 West Srreet. c. 1770. The treatment of the brick bands and centre windows of first and second floors is noteworthy. Such use of painted wood is well associated with red brick ; it would be ineffective with stone. 247 3} d ‘ G G (Och ae poyured pure ‘aAviqiyore “yore 9} “MOpUuImM uelyUIA YUN “0 Pag ‘aie eee Ge LE aie aes *XaSSH 248 am meas (| ffl } Pua | Mh ven | ill H al “2 4 ok oe : ” Herts. Kine's Lancizy. c. 1770, House. with four Vanehaseindeane om flat elevation which suffers from lack of shadow-producing projections, 249 “SMOPUIM popeey-punol 94} jo eoed ay} oye} SoyoIU youq pesnes ‘sojsue 24 iV ‘reTyse pue syouq 4903s AIS Jo uoljeroosse [NYS YW “77/1 4“ pueloH Aluo}] 4g *“LATULG S SaINv{ ‘LG “aNTD SSsxo00ug a, a eae oe Sere ee “uot suyselojuiun ue oq prnom ‘uloy} JNOYUM “yeyM Oo} Joyoereyo OAIs ‘qoeq jes ere SMOpUIM IoOy punois 24} Yorym Jepun ‘sosdiyje-tures MUL “OSL °2 “Legals TILSV,) NI asnOxR} = “WVHNUY.j “ATUINS 251 ‘suoljeued AULUI 0} a[qeidepe SI pue ‘SatjUNOD UJEYINOS 9Y} Ul peAojdure Apuenbeyy SI 9dTUIOD 9Y} SUIUIOF 9SINOo seve [duns ayy ‘A1ojORjstyes Jou Si suorjiod jenba jsoulje esay} OJUI AT[eOT}19A UOISIAIP 9Y ], ‘suionb je syoliq pet YUM siepeoy Aeis jo SI oljue. oY], “YSU pel jo oie SsuUIM oY, (6/| °9 “LAAYLG SUAAVULTVIA] NI aSNOF{ 9 “TaGNNUY "XaSsng 252 Sussex. COTTAGE NEAR Rincmer. Late |8th and early 19th century type. The treatment of the house at Blandford, p. 242, is here further developed into patterns, rarely found in colours in England. The walling bricks are soft silver-grey, the dressings pale vermilion, but deep red dressings are often associated with the greys. Bright reds are always avoided, as indeed all strong contrasts should be. 253 House with bow windows. c. 1795. CULLOMPTON. Devon. “YIOMYOLIG OY} JO INOTOS ay} YIIM [[aM Sp1o;Oe yorym ‘en[q [esoy peqyured ore ssullel uo oy} pue oselflel} ‘spooy MOPpUIM ‘sotsnoyel ‘JOOp ey} 2IYM ‘oy M peyuted ere seyore MOpUIM pue AemMIoop ‘aotulod ey} esnoy sty} U] *ZULINO[OD snotuoulTeYy YUM uoTeloOsse Aq peyesorpoure oq Aeut Youq MoOTIPA jo souvreadde suiseojdun oy} UeAT (‘potred A0u989y4) *AVIONVY] SONI LV aSNOFY ‘SLUAH r _ ~ Mtn 254 v | Hl me Ong Tee SSCS data Essex. Cotcuester. Trinity CuurcH Tower. Saxon doorway built with Roman bricks re-used, Bricks vary from |} to 3} ins. Five courses rise ||} ins, 255 Essex. Lurrrie CoccrsHatt Appey. Sub-vault of Dorter Corridor, c. 1220. Brick ribbed vaulting and doorway. The orders of doorway are built of purpose-moulded bricks. An imperfection in the mould can be traced in several bricks. 256 Ru ewe ae op Merry ~ ” ie ee weq~ eee | i be a mt 3 * Essex. SHENFIELD. Cxurcu oF St. Mary THE Vircin. Late [5th century. N. doorway surmounted by brick crenelated offsets, 257 { \ 4 h it j i gee all ¢ * he Sa a dedcete ofa SGNa2a6 . Brick stops, Gatehouse entry to Early 16th century. courtyard shewing detail of brick panel and spandrels filled with tracery label and tassels in carved brick terminating moulding above them. Girrorp’s HALL. NAYLAND. SUFFOLK 258 PF. he PEE AE, TF _ - ai SurroLk. Naytanp. GiFrorp’s Haut. Early 16th century. Hall door from courtyard (at one time plaster-rendered) having much good brick detail. 259 iy UG Ach is Early-16th century. gaine Church Porch and on a chimney Right and left of the fourth offsets triangular in slight relief. 260 JouN THE Baptist. c i Sal ns yO 63 f Baas Boh go TS bc O 6 we pier S0U,4 — + O BSG p Se ane ra = a & § ae oe — 25 3 o ee eae A 83 2 eee te Oss Essex. aving A sturdy design h . 1502 ¢ Cuurcu Porcu, . ANDREW'S Sr SANDON. good brick detail Essex. _— 26 oO k ' plat ick imply ibbed. The rted by three-centred br The arch has a d with chamfers and s rick vaulted and r Early 16th century. double label—four centred and square. The roof is b iously worke moulded cut bricks. Porch diapers are soft greys below, ls ingen Att Saints’ Cuurcu Porcu. FEERING. benches on each side of the interior are of brick suppo arches. The crocketting of the finials Essex. becoming darker as further from eye. aecOe —— aS ae i : Norro.k. East BarsHam Manor House. Gatehouse. c. 1535. This is entirely brick (purpose-moulded, cut and carved). The coat of arms, Henry VIII's, are formed by building-in projecting lumps of soft brick (each rising three to four courses of the walling brickwork), and carving the arms in situ as Henry VII's arms are carved in stone over the hall doorway, which can be seen through the arch. The figures of porters (under canopies) on each side of the arch, which have been mutilated, are similarly worked, 263 ee Fe tak Sense ainda mys © Essex. LAYER MARrNEY Towers or HALL. c. 1520. Doorway on N. side. The hollow moulding is wide and deep. 264 ~ Te rway bu ims, 1520. S. Porch. W. doo Much plaster-rendering rema c. Mary’s Cuurcu. Sr. up. Above drip is crowstepped capping Layer Marney. ESsEx. 265 aq? ee r v ges isnt, © Cal dL3: near GUILDFORD. PLACE, terra-cotta. SuTTON N. doorway from court to hall, of buff d Above are terra-cotta plaques, each bearing amorini and separate by red brick or terra-cotta balusters. 266 AY ee re Teme ne =. if ry itt 4 KA » BOD. Pp ’s Hall, All red brick of varying colours. oe gn from that at Gifford 1520 Gatehouse. yet toned down. ry over archway of different desi Modern re-pointing has not SurroLk. West Stow Hatt. Brick trace 267 AA SEE! VGA o> Le tN Tea bo ee cb 7) BE OR we. » cee bd ee Like, Late Oe SE Essex. LittLe Leez or Leicus Priory. Built after 1536. Inner doorway of outer gatehouse. The carving in spandrels was done after building. 268 Kent. TENTERDEN. Bruncer’s Farm. Porch. c. 1540. Crowstepping which continued to be used to the end of the 17th century. The final ste See Well House at Hales Place, Tenterden, p. 155. 269 p has been turned in resetting. > Kent. Lirrce Cuart. Care Hitt Sraszes. Ist half of 16th century. The door lintel and jambs are of stone. The panel, pediment and ornament, together with the window mouldings, are brick plastered. 210 WS SVN Fe. id ’ sR At, . con At a at af * < haf >” . — 4 = ee Ar for fe, on, yf 4 igs hl re if oy A SF Pi? bad as | » Ds 4 5 / ; = Spy Oe on =e epee ae a Essex. Barkinc. Eastsury Manor House. c. 1550. N. Entrance doorway of cut brick plastered. 27) Eastpury Manor House. Detail of doorhead in cut brick. 272 Sussex. Rye. Pococx’s Scnoot. Before 1638. Detail of doorway, see p. 181. 273 Kent. Rocuester. Restoration House. Brick Porch. The house, built 1587, was re-fronted with brick about 1640. The arches are roughly gauged. 274 = Tl "ti ene, SRT tes fe Sussex. BARNHAM Court. c. 1646. Cut red brick doorway in Doric order. Thick tiles are used for fillets. 275 The pediment probably rebuilt. . ings hand cut Mould Oxtp CHARLTON CHuRCH KeEnrT. 276 rick Rubbed and gauged b s Bencu Wak. c. 1677, Sir Christopher Wren. . 3 Kina’ LoNnDON 277 = ; ew seeenee ae eee ee oo Lonpon. 4 Kinc’s Bencu Wak. d. 1677. Sir Chri acs : ristopher Wren. Rub brick. Compare the treatment of the spandrels ai eer Lite poor gee 278 aie ‘OLAN Tris Hi | Lonpon. 5 Kinc's Bencu WALK. c. 1677. Sir Christopher Wren. Bricks, 7} x 33 x 2ins.; four courses rise 8} ins. Gauged, fine joints. The Corinthian capitals are of stone, 279 HERTFORD. 28 Sr. ANDREW'S STREET. c. 1720. 280 Capitals | g x a built up and carved. a Sina a sere RERMODA we ~ ¥ z ein tie ae ihe ok = eo wes, ee oe Bee TERESI es ee aati bs Pas: SurrREY. FarnuaM. The Convent. Longbridge. d. 1717. Front and angle views of cut, gauged and carved brick doorway. 281 Surrey. RIcHMOND. Gauged red brick doorway at 3, Parkshot. Late 18th century. The hollow is a quarter ellipse. 282 : x sut | 1x9 VSXZI “yu “squrel pededs ‘smopurm your] ypg “9Qz| “2 “BuIping peyseiep ‘Aagay “TIVHSID905 TLL] “xasSy 283 *puey &q peystuy A}qeqoid ‘ pepfnoui-asodind are ssuIp[noul ey], “MOPULM '{\ JOLIe}U] ‘OZ7Z| "2 “IddVHD) SVIOHSIN] OCC Oe PRR ESAS? *‘pesodxa ore Sxolq jo $9109 “MOpUIM “7A TOMO} RY out 5 algte, puey SI Jopyureyo MOT[OY eu LG “TIVHSH9907) ATLL] =“ XaSSf 284 yed window at #54 ins. high. re) x4 4 h* * an err arta woah aera remnpatatrt oad BS 2 } oh f as a Pare vats; FP — . Purpose-moulded mullion brick from destr 285 y. Early 16th century. Colour, pinkish red traces of plaster rendering. o Z [a4 1 ZSe wo 8 o vo ey ms ORS = os 6 4G 70 sid eure wo .O en ee SOR Za “sold Ile ore u989M49q SIoysnyeq out pue ‘speoy sulleeq syo[qP4 eu ‘sduin] wody pedAreo soidoues [oyenburo YM suljeued yon} OY] "PIP “cal ‘sulmMeIp 89G *pe10}sel ‘MOPUIM WYS1]-9014 L 0 aed 7% PDA 3 “AYOLOAY ONTYONG LVIUD tae 1 hp “TOAUONY Ms “* Bin reece ce, 286 ee ri a tae a ee Norrotk. East BarsHam. Manor House. iY 1 c. 1525. Tower windows. See drawings, pp. 415-16. 287 % P ¥e So ¥ . aa 3 «Hat ed 4 "4 J a ~~ Ae : mR napemyeinioun.. t Sas Kent. SMALL Hytue Cuurcu. c. 1507. N. window filled with brick tracery of Flemish character. 288 \3 e) ‘ » 2 ie Sar a thi, : iS ay =. APR pare with ve splayed E cme Os 5 aS Les | in ©] se Ft — 23 i 5 Gatehouse. contemporary oriel in N. front of Faulkbourne chamfers. Rye House. Hoppespon. Herts, 289 “y[NSel asreoo tet e sutonpoid ‘ssouxyoryy yuoredde St oSeaIOUL O} SI UOT][/NUI yplq e jo sjutol [equozi10y Aueul 24} JO eYo oy} Inq ‘szutol [ewozLIo0y Maj yng ee soy} 9UO}S UJ “9U0}S UT Six so[durexe yU9][e0x9 Aueul OS yoIyM jo ‘poised ueyjoqeziyy oy} jo ‘Sul ~PjMour ofoAo ay} SI UY} SUOT][NU YotIq 0} peyins Jo}jeq ere sroyueyo pedeyds pue MoTOY] ‘Siefureys MOTOP] *Ainjueo yig| A[tee ‘MopuIM "Gg “HOUNHD ATTVEANG IVNOIHD *XaSS ‘pl ‘d ves ‘]feurs AOA St suljnopuey JO 4SO9 ay} Je ‘ATOOeIY Youq Ulepour jo eimyeu ArOJKjsyesuN oy} fo asned ouUO SI [Ie}ep yons 0} uoTjUe}eUy = *xoLIq peplnou-ssodind oS] e plnom uey} eoueleodde suiseojd oloul e syusseid pue poued sty} jo 310M ayy jo peordéy SI JUSU}eeT] YONG ‘psulloj Ajxeytunis ere Ais0ey ey} JO suOloesiajUI Jey}Q “pus UO jes pue ‘pepjnoul-puey ‘syxolIq Aleutplo jo peALjuod ole suOI][NU pue WosUe Jo suOT}eSIOJUL OY] *SIofUIeYD MOTOFT ‘QZ “9 “MOpUIM “M\ “HOYNHT) AUNUVIA] YAAV] “XASSH rt ack OO 290 ieee ee erie A | Pe ; rot ce al ; Rock @akws BOs , ) ae Uses. Wakes: vx Amt iw Rey . ant: wR a CSET dae * slink pamionemn . we mmc emma | | SD LUCK EPRICE RI ECS tt AWE tes i bs \& rem { Decale ee ey it > 291 a ~ re oe v4 Z <% ey eer 2 ant ; ‘ * ig ae - . Sees va prey ee. Pare eye eet . aye BS - ~ 5 aes oe at a ‘ » 3 9 oO GF mas See Fo mw De ae 425 ae ai - o§ pic) Essex. Essex, Layer Marney Towers or Hat. Interior of terra-cotta window over N. doorway of gatehouse. Colour, cream. 292 “5 ‘ ae a ee , erie Ss * — we wy Se aa ayaa, Af 4 <<. Se ee te : Essex. Layer Marney Towers or Hatt. c. 1520. The first floor oriel window projects only slightly until up to the corbelling of the hood, where it increases. The moulded string is carried up over the ground floor window as a label. The window mouldings combine rounds and hollows. 293 arr Sai aj bos 53 : sa SoS oO aie) Ise} > [e} 13) L ie} or ~ oO be a fom) NN wn ON SOE fx] os 1S) cA a? Ans S & — 570 (dP! [a0 og ei (o) A ‘ 25 +=) O38 , on ts es = WN 294 aa we a tan in The Four-light terra-cotta window. if c. 1523- Sutton Pace. hollows are enriched with arabesques in relief, Surrey. GUuILDFoRD. 295 *Ssulppnour fo) (o.VQ) “JoUUeCUI ory}or) Oj MOpUIM ueljous A oy} Jo uoyejdepe uy “$99| “4 “TIVE NAO], NOLONITLVA\ *NOXQ 0} Jayseyd perojselu ‘6lP tol ‘sulmelp 229G ‘9Uu0}s yuosoider JIM pdlepuel ‘suUIpjNoUI JeyuIeEyD MOTOU ‘MOPUIM Ups Pore Pl eed 1S pul “0GG| °9 “ASNOP{ YONVIA] AUNALSVY “ONIMUVG “XASSY 296 : Ae teen ne Aiea Surrey. GreAT Booxuam. Styriecp Manor. c. 1600. Outbuilding. The first floor window-label is continuous across the whole front. The wood frame of first floor window is original. Its ornament is similar to that of the brick pilasters, 297 a a ed SI yIOMPpOOM ou L *Ainyuso ui ‘Peet “yNgoel u99q oAey uotjeAgyo stq} fo syreg *[eulsi10 jou ‘sauof OStuy 0} ponqiayyze ‘uoyIeYD P[O 38 YSNO}{ Ueprer) *"NOLTVHD “INAS 298 Kew Patace. d. 1631. Very early gauged work. Ionic capitals gauged and carved. 18th century woodwork. 299 Sussex. Rye. Pocock’s Scuoot. Before 1638. Detail of dormer window, &c. The . ellipse, within the rectangle, is modern. Tiles of various thicknesses have been used to form fillets ; see detailed drawing, p. 418. 300 “seynjoa youq peAreo : YM MOpUIM exUa0 Jo aARITYOIY “pC9] "9 “MUVg AAONVHNALLA |. “SARIWYOI MOPULA\ “pO] ‘9 “AAV STIVG “auoOdLUaL] il i oe ears 2 s H 4 ss ; eo oe ° : 2 SO GAR2 2a D8 — AAI i HAY H a te Ss oh sf # tH} Te es ee ee ke . Sate “a Wie ni MOPUL A ‘0S91 °° ‘ZOr ‘d ‘sulmeip 295 “ASNOH{ TTAINOU) “ALVOHOIY “ON ‘soAeIpIyore *NOGNO'T ASNOH{ TIEAWOUD lor-66¢ “Ad ‘ssUIMPIP 9295 *soynjos youd peAreo YyIM MOpUIM 91]U99 jo oavnryory “0691 “9 ALVOHOIL] “NOCNO'T 302 - PP ming Me Kent. Goopnestone. RicHarp's Cuariry ALmsuouses, 1672. Moulded brick window rendered with plaster. The mouldings, sections of which are shown, are similar to those of windows at Broome Park, c. 1635, and the left lead light is probably original. 303 *peareo pue yoriq jo dn jJIng ore speyides ueryjyULIo-) ey] ‘potied usIA\ 94} Jo YIOMYSIUq peAreo pue peprnoul ‘pesnes jo jue}xo a[durexe ysouy 94} sdeyleg ‘“Ainjuso Yi/| ee] ‘WinesnyA] Weq;y pue elojorA Ul Mou ‘ppeyeaq ye esnoy wolf jUsUIpeg MOpUT)\ = *XASATAAIIA] ‘wunasny “Wy puv*, fo 4v}asoag pun 40,02 1q ayy fo woissiiumdsad Aq 0J0Y4d NSM cee i | nn rn ee er TO ae ware t 304 *yoUq pesnes ul syoru pue smopuIm YueT ‘smopuIM ondyyy ‘p[/| ‘P “INYNOGdVag ‘dTalawIV] *.LNIY 305 Eee eee r ies “you pesnes pue peqqni fPooater mene mn tonne exer We fn ARR § ul MOpUImM uelyjoud A “LATULG HONOND ‘/¢ ‘WILSAHI107) "XASS7] 306 Semi-elliptic window arch, Church House, Beckley, d. 1742. Rusticated window at Red House, Sawbridgeworth. Pallant House, Chichester, c. 1713. Carved brick keys. The Grange, Farnham, d. 1702. The brick arch is unusual. 307 Photo Wreathall and Wright, Beverley. Yorks. Bevertey. Archway at the Friary. 308 — SP a ee Kent. Srurry Court. Entrance gateway (inside), Early 16th century. Modern coping. 309 310 Hates Piace. Gateway. c. 1530. From within. TENTERDEN. Kent. Kent. ‘TENTERDEN. Hates Pace. c. 1530. Angle view and front of gateway. 311 SurroLk. Srurron Hatt. c. 1530. Gateway, from without. The four-centred arch springs from piers having capitals of Renaissance character. The archway is plastered over the brick, and has crowstepped gable. 312 mae eres Sa Ce ee SurroLk. Sturron Hatt. Gateway, from garden. The arch is semi-circular, and the capitals from which it springs are more definitely of the new manner than those of the front, These are flanked by coupled Tuscan pilasters supporting an entablature; all rendered with plaster. The crowstepped gable of front is backed by a semi-circular pediment. The cut brick moulded finials with open, crocketted terminations are similar to those in front. Here we have notable architectural development from’ one elevation to another of the same structure. ‘ 313 Kent. CuisLeT. Gateway at Brook Farm. A country builder’s crude production of much vigour and dignity. 314 ‘odeys Spam 0} pexe Ayysno1 ‘ory pue yougq jo seocid YIM P®[[¥ St syurol jo ssouyoryy e1}xe OY} USY} Ppue MoU jnq ‘sNIpeI sy} 0} Jno JOU oJe sIIOSssNoA ey, ‘sesdyje ey} suryuey sfetuy Yolig yno sem a19y} Ayqeqoig *ABMayey eoueyUy ‘Ogc] “2 “TIVH S¥TOOsYg ~“ATOANON NorFro_k. BreccLtes Hatt. Garden Wall Gateway. SuFFOLK. ARWwARTON Hatt. Gateway, c. 1590. 316 "yore OY} JO SIIOSSNOA poyeoysni oy} &q ueyorq nq ‘ysno1y} pouxeo ore szojseid 24} JO Spjnoulpeq pue sulyoou ey], “INojoo poos jo ‘pal doep ere syouq xy] “yom pesnes jo ejdurexe Ajreo AJOA © SI ST} ‘J9e1I09 si SuIpfing jo eyep poyndel ey} jf] “Z¢Eg| “q “Seuof OStuy 0} peynquye AeMayer) “NOINAISHHD “AUIHSMOIAYV 317 ey} Jo suoqeoysni oy], souo F ostuy 4&q peusisop ‘sulsnes Ajreo se Suljso190}UI ale Wt JaAO Yore Jey oy} pue yore OSIL] ‘sj[fe@q euojs Aq poeyuNnoULns A]IOULIO} O1OM sjetuy ey] “¢¢g| °9 ‘“WoyUAeY SBJOYDIN] AIG 10F useq eAey O} peindeay *predyinord 0} Aemoyery) soueyUuy “TIVE ALYOL ‘CTAIINY “XaSaTACI]A] 318 Mipptesex. EnrieLp. Forty Hatt. Gateway from within, attributed to Inigo Jones, c. 1633. A simple design producing fine effect by skilful handling of light and shade. Without being clumsy it has that solidity which characterised his work. 319 *‘preAyinoy 0} AeMoayer) “LYNOD WVHNYVG “XaSSAS *syoliq pepfnoul OM} YIM peonpoid sSuIp[nour uolAsyo oyy = ‘yeM uepres ul }pInNgel ‘uU] Ieig plo woy AeMIOOC] “ONIGTVdS = *SONIT ‘aainbs gy *sqqnqs *CQ svmoyy fo tsazanoo &q 004d 320 Garden Pavilion. c. 1530. Columns, doorway and Hates$PLace. one. windows plastered to simulate st TENTERDEN. KENT. 321 1r, Garden House, one of a pa reo 9) 322 Roypon HALL. East PeckHAM. KENT. Essex. MARrGARETTING. KILLIGREWS, formerly Shenfield House. Early 16th century. One of the octagonal turrets at angle of moat, furnished with cruciform loops and entered at back by doorway with four-centred head. 323 SONS cece ae *SHDOOHONIY *90UBIIUS I9AO *“LSHNHGnor) ANCES ng 4q eyIN 106912 “UdTA\ Joydojsiy) ‘SOVIVqd 1aNOD NOLdWV}] “XaSATACIIA] 324 Berks. ABINGDON. CARSWELL or CASTLEWELL. Gauged brick niche with gauged and carved cartouche and key. d. 1719, Bricks, 8§ 4423; four courses rise 9 ins. 325 Kent. TENTERDEN. FincH Den. Gate pier and wall coping. See p. 430. 326 SurFrotk, West Stow Hatt. Rusticated brick gate piers. 327 (formerly at icated gate piers ls and ball terminals. Cd 5 as Q, oS sO 5 a 26 o % Sis ° Go = oO ows oOo potate ale e2 > os age) m.2 ee &&§ 26 p 333 Rests J eae Se a Le | | | a | Bucxs. Wenpover. Corbel course. INCHCS . Brees id ee es a Littte CHart. Cave Hitt Srasres. Eaves course. Sussex. ARUNDEL. Dentil eaves course used as cornice. = ne: Patan | WINCHESTER. Corbel course, headers and tiles. BarKING. EASTBURY COLCHESTER. Gray’s Inn, W.C. House. Corbel. Montacu House. Corbel. Corbel. Kent. -ELtHAM. Corbelling of gable to over- Lewes. BarBicAN Essex. FEERING CHURCH Essex. Hornpbon sailing upper storey. House. Corbel. Porcu. Corbel, Cuurcu. Corbel, internal angle. internal angle, Eaves Courses AND COoRBELS. 334 “INO[OD YUIg “SUT g aSLI SasINod MO} "ELMER EL SO OTA, dee oor “IRULG HOIH ‘Z| “JAY Curtis GREEN Farm. BENENDEN. Kent. Gate House. ROLVENDEN. KENT. 335 Sussex. BurwasH. Batemans. d. 1634. Sussex. SALEHURST. Beecu House. Sr. ALBANS. Sussex. BuRWASH. TYTTENHANGER. c. 1654, RAMPYNDENE. d.. 1699, Cuimneys. Square sections. 336 Kent, Marpen. Cuurcu Farm. Kent. SissincHurst. Kincs Heap INN. SISSINGHURST. EXTERNAL CHIMNEYS, late 16th or early 17th Century. Corbelling of chimney 337 1535 Cc. SIssINGHURST CASTLE. Kent. we tor NortuiAm. Domons. Sussex. CRUNDALE. Wye. KENT. SANDHURST. KENT. OcTAGONAL CHIMNEYs. 338 Pr aE, cy : amd Hig HY oP y: SMF TEA) fl Bete, jie Ht} a iz i, w af By) * aa eS ad teen 7 1st Shadi ty, cman, Hampton Courr Patace. c. 1520. Chimneys built of purpose-moulded bricks, shewing corbelling out from wall. 340 "AUOL S,HLASQ “LS *XaSS7] 2 Aynqua’) yg | Arey “WVHONIADNG "SAUNWIHD) ‘IValdS “aSNOH{ AA “SLUIH “TIVH 10 SYAMO |, AINUVIA] MIAV] = “XASSY 34| ce. 1536. Littte Leez or Letcus Priory. 342 eer TN Photo by courtesy of Algar H. S. Howard, Esquire, Windsor Herald. Gros. THornsury Castie. d. 1514. Probably the finest chimney of cut and moulded brick. 343 East BarsHaM Manor House. c. 1525. The original caps have been destroyed. 344 Great Snorinc Rectory. Early 16th century. String course with brick tablets moulded in the Italian manner. al rt SG NS Wiggs ne . ; , . + eS See SP, TRESS A 6 eit. ( East BarsHaM Manor House. c. 1525. String of tower; hexagonal panels of cut brick containing moulded brick tablet portraits. The Stapleton lion and the Wode saltire between four staples. 345 NorroLk. GREAT CrEssINGHAM Priory. c. 1545. Detail of terra-cotta turrets and panels. 346 "a a * fess ich turrets are dow dressings. cotta win il of terra-cotta blocks of wh 1 © E oO oe . 6 § Ze ie ao ao GA Ero Sates © $.c ao mre! ce Yee a 8 N Por) its at . Sb oO © oe w.& & =U"9 As age zB om Boas |e) Age Deta ., Initia GUILDFORD built. R.W 347 ‘ourfey\] ep Tuueaory uerey] ey} Aq suze s AasjoM Jo j2[qQe} e}09-e119} pue sio1edury uewoy jo senbeyd eyoo-eue], “Q7¢] ‘9 “SOVIVd LUNOD NOLdWVH « wel Oval @ wd @ & “ . 348 Essex. Layer Marney Cuurcu. ‘Terra-cotta tomb of Henry Lord Marney, 1524, with black marble recumbent effigy. N. elevation. Pale pink terra-cotta, whitewashed. 349 LayeR MArney Cuurcu.. S. elevation of terra-cotta tomb. 350 Rw? oP bee \ antes Layer Marney Cuurcu. Detail of terra-cotta tomb. The semi-circular pediments with dolphin crestings are refined copies of the Layer Marney Towers parapet copings, and are repeated on the Oxburgh tombs. 35] 1525. feld tombs. c. ing One of the terra-cotta Bed OxpurcH CHURCH. NorFoLk. 352 YG Sie faB, ee a ©] = © Og oe Sc 5 oO 4 a © 3E ga TMG Oo Q fe} mast One — > od SoH ae © 8 4.0 Ol a5. 43 324 Bid @ es a) ec Of -o ae} fe} fe Bin Oo BOIS WM Pp ae oe oO © roe t-g oO 8s UT Hw og O MZ on Hat 1 oo = . OxsurGH CHURCH terra-cotta, ornament 353 OxpurcH CuurcH. Detail of terra-cotta archway to Bedingfeld Chapel 354 F teed ‘ Norrotk. WyMonpdHAM CuHurcu. Pink terra-cotta Sedilia, whitewashed, by same Italian workmen as the Marney and Bedingfeld tombs. 355 Cilo2os “C69 l “Pp “qeys 9uoysS YM Squro} 2[ 42 yougq p24 pesnes 9014} fo 2ugQ) “davVAHDaNH) SMaLad "LS *LUINVH Te 356 Essex. CoLcHEsTER. Roman wall of roughly faced septaria laced at regular intervals with four courses of bricks. The lowest lacing course goes through the wall which has a core of cement and rubble. Similar methods were adopted in building the Norman castles where Roman bricks were re-used in the same way. A.D. 65. (See p. 101.) =py *oT9y peidope 919M SuOIsuSUlIp ypuqd ysis] “Iaqjos pue Ts 9uI0S ‘por s10jeq ‘syoUq [eASeIpeUr jsaljie~a oY} jssuoure ole esoy] ‘Sul (| deep ore ysour ‘*sut f¢xQ| x FE] Semmseour yreurYoUEq YM yoUq esl Ssasmoo ANOF surf) xQx7Z] ‘Sezis : per yysuiq mojo ‘Q7Z] ‘9 ey, “Youy “sur f¢ 0} “Ul | WoIZ sxoIq UPUIOY Jo suIoN() *AInjUeD ‘utonb jo [tej@q = “Tad VH") SVIOHOIN “LG “TIVHSAD902) STLIIY =“ XaSSH Yi[| “JeMo] uoxeg jo a]sue jo pieyeq "HOUND ALIN], “WaLSIHITOD me { e. pe A sia Sg ee p” oi A Z we es acm = ——e ae 358 *sasInood SsuIpesy Aueul YIM Tensei SI puog ey], ‘refyse pue july ‘eu0}s jo pesoduros ore s[[eM Jo saseq oy] "[PA2| punois BAOQP J99} MOF B USZe] SI [leJop sAOGY “Je}OVIeYO YsSIUIs],J Jo syxorIq Jo so[durexo Ayiea ore S¥yollq esey], “HOry} ‘sur t7 919M Auew pue “sul ip 0} p 4pm : “sul ¥6 0} £9 Wolf poles syysue] ‘SUI J] 9SOI SasINOD INO}J pue “sul 7 x tp X6 210M (euy SUuO] 2 OF YIM perzedure} jou A]yueplAs pue joor woly peinseoul) I2MO} Ul AytroleyAy ‘IMojOo se YonNuUI se Area SOZIG “POTfLI}IA Ayjpeused auwios ‘peuimnq Te” sxyouq yy “Amyueo yig|] eWos ‘eutsio Aueul *yoliq peplnou-ssodind jo ssutdo-) *ysnol AIaA aIN}X9T “Spal dosp pue SI] ‘syuid [euotsesz0 ‘mood ystuse1s pue uleeIo AjTysour ‘mMoyoo ut Apeois AIeA syolq 94], “08-097| “9 “TIVH WVHNA)\ FTLLIY 9 “ATOdIAS BSy) Oxsurcu Hatt. N.E. angle of gatehouse. b. 1482. Bricks, 9x 4x2 ins.; four courses rise 10? ins. English bond, but still irregular, with many headers in stretching courses. Colour, medium reds. Litre Lez or Letcus Priory. c. 1536. 93 x 44x 2ins—many 2}ins.—some less than 2ins.; four courses rise 103 ins. Colour, medium red, English bond, regular, except where broken for sake of diaper work. The light headers are the vitrified dark bricks which reflect light. CotcHEsTeR. Muci at Bourne Ponp. d. 1591. Joints galleted with chips of flint. Kent. Broome Park. c. 1635. Brickwork under ground floor window, E. front. Bricks red, 83 (some 92) x 44x 23 (some 2 and 2) ins.; four courses rise 103 ins. The joint is still thick, but soon began to be built thinner. Kent. Brapspourne. Dated 1714. Gauged brick pier (in two colours) and plain walling. The bricks are encrusted with greyish green lichen. The walling brick joint is § in. thick, and the bricks have become more regular. Flemish bond. 361 *yorlq 0} Aais eyed woy Area syuly ey], “eM youg ul srepeey yur peddeuy jo redeiq ‘Aimjueo yyy] "sualag “LS LV Mae “LANVH [, (2) ‘saovjd ul Aeme soip pue AjIsuazur Ul selteA YOIYM ‘Uso sITja1} Sutuos sIepeey AeI1s enjq YOS “¢¢c¢{ “9 “ATISVD ISUNHONISSIS (9) [fe e]Ge8 Yyouq ul siopesy jury peddeuy ut oyep Jodeiq *|69| ‘P “auYVS “LNAY (2) “SUVLIC, WdVIC] °) @ () 362 Hants. St. Cross Hospitat. c. 1503. Chequer work of stone, flints and bricks. 363 Photo by courtesy of Lt.-Col. J. H. Cooke. Rouen. Boos Manor. Dovecote. 15th century. For details, see p. 439. ForeIGN EXAMPLE. 364 C. Johansson, architect. of Photo by courtesy 1g-Zag 1 German and Swedish work. Mopern Burtpinc built in Monk Bond (two stretches and one header in the same course), shewing z ForeIGN EXAMPLE. pattern produced. This bond is largely used in mediaeva STOCKHOLM. ‘STIVIAC] FOINYOD “suryley pue puoq SULMOYS 99109 Jo WoNsI9G *‘syouq peqqni pue yno ‘pesner *syoliq pepfnour *TIVH HOTTY] LSaA\ ‘p7L| ‘2 “TIVH HOITaV] LSaQ\ “LNA -asodind pue jn “¢p9| °9 «“LNNOD WVHNUVg “Xassns Sussex. Becxtey. Cuurca House. d. 1744. Detail of pilaster cap and cornice. Atypical country builder’s job in cut and rubbed brick. 367 Kew Patace. d. 1631. Corinthian columns and window with gauged and carved brick capitals and key block. Detail of capital. Shaft of bricks on end. Photo by permission of Director and Secretary of the V. and A. Museum. FarnuamM. Ot tp Town Hatt. Gauged and carved brick Corinthian capital from a house at ENFIELD, c. 1670. Strapwork. now in Victoria and Albert Museum. Late 17th century. See p. 304. 368 icks. ir of Roman br 12th century. Newel sta 369 Sr. Borotpy’s Priory CHurRCcH. COLCHESTER. i . ' k b 3 he oh Norro.k. OxpurcH Hay. b. 1482. Cut brick stairs with moulded brick handrail. Probably by the same workmen as that at Faulkbourne Hall. 370 Essex. FAULKBOURNE Hatt. Before 1494. Brick Newel stair with moulded brick handrail. 371 Sussex. LaucHTon Piace. d 1534. Newel stair. 372 Photo H. Carlton, Horncastle. Lincs. TATTERSHALL CastLe. 1431-49. Ribbed vaulting of moulded brick over 2nd floor corridor, 373 Horncastle, Photo H. Carlton, c. 1431-1449. Moulded brick-ribbed vaulting over 3rd floor lobby. Lincs. TATTERSHALL CASTLE. 374 ‘syoliq pep[noul jo ore squ ey] “suotjoes SUIMOYS ‘UOT}Je1OJSaI 910faq Sululois pouiny “9 “6061 Uayn] ‘aainbsg ‘Koy -q *[ fo Ksajanoo &q oJ0Yd ctrl *Te\IOUL Yim Pperepuel “ATLSV) XAVAONOWLSYALY 375 aaead aad oe oe 4 i 376 Wares , loge 06 tem ore « Essex. Str. Osyru’s Cuurcu. Brick arcading. Late 15th century. Essex. CuHiGNAL Smeatey. St. Nicuotas Cuurcu. Early 16th century. Tower arch, nave arcading and font of brick. 377 378 Kent. Wye Coxtecr. Brick cloisters. 18th century. A dignified result, produced by simple, unmoulded brick units. 379 “HId VX] NYACOTAT anbsainjoid ey} Suyeoer seid pue seyore pouowsodoid-yey, “spg] WING “LoAaVIA TWdVHD *sjonpenbe ueUIOY “ANTOD) STUV “XESS 380 Essex. BRADWELL-JUXTA-COGGESHALL. Hoty Triniry Cuurcu. Stone font on brick base. Early 16th century brickwork. 381 Norrotk, Porrer HeicHam CuurcH. 15th century. Brick font. Modern flooring tiles have been used for recent repairs. 382 Kent. MarcaTe. SALMESTONE GRANGE. [5th century brick fireplace. Pink and putty coloured bricks, 83 424; four courses rise 12 ins. Norrotk. Oxpurcu Haut. b. 1482. Brick fireplace in King’s Chamber. Pinky-red bricks, chamfered arch and jambs, moulded and stopped. 383 EI Rotem an REE MO ae mre mH Me a ork on te are Photo by permission of the Director and Secretary of the V. and A. Museum. Essex. PritrLeweLt. Now in Victoria and Albert Museum. Late [5th century. Crenelated brick mantel (over stone fire-arch), with panels of brick tracery and painting on plaster. The unit brick of one cusp has been used for trefoils and cinquefoils. 384 29" pue Surpjnour oop fo [f39q *TIVH S,duodalty *yeulutte} “MTOdANG *suoide pue seyoie MOpUIM ¥Youg peqqni pue yno ‘pesnery *y21qe} YOU peqqni puke ynd ‘pesner ONICGTIVA LV ASNOH *LNIS 385 “B}YOo0-elI9} fo ole sjetuyy ab *syoumn} AeMs}eS 0} sepeuutd fo Trerd “€¢-02S1 ‘3 “TIVH, MOLS Isai “WTOdINS Photo by courtesy of A.G. Wright, Esquire, Museum, Colchester. Sr. ALBANS CATHEDRAL. Triforium arcade, 11th century, of Roman bricks re-used on Herringbone brick on edge paving from Forum, Saxon balusters from an earlier building. Colchester. Sizes, 5X2}x1 to Itins. Red. Herringbone inlay of tympana in brick. oe , Deh cts _ eee re . = *, ey es 7 5 ate oK Brick Nogging to timber framing, originally rendered with plaster and coloured, from Cottage at Tichborne, Hants. 387 Coping of plain tiles on 13th century n, see p. 106. ~Marcate. SALMESTONE GRANGE. gable wall. For side elevatio on MD eee o SAS zs ov a 2 ie bore tn AEE i ol Oo,” igs ag pra s BAAG eS 8 O° ) nie Syke 0 8 Oe —32 TOs ae a n OT oO Ga eal <2 I oO 2 an es 88 8 8.8 Ne} —=—— ins 5S . ee SS fey “eas >. as) a= . 8 8&6 2 | ma 3.8 oS ip) *sq] <9 ‘WY Stam : SUI € x SCZ ‘QZIS “yH pepesiedns sey Yyojoos ey] = SYolIq uo “On ‘sSuIp[Noul 8uljno IOF OPQ] Inoge o} dn pesn Joo] ey} sem sty] *Aueduio’) Siodkepyoug pue (SI9]A Lye Ayiodoid 24} ‘oxe *Ug PIO ‘Z "SZO p] “SQ[Z ‘WYSIOM S*sUIC XZ] ‘AZIG ‘syoUq Plo Yo Je}oul Sutuesyo Joy AQuesel [QuN pesn se oxe Suluea[ youg *| 389 “PROD PP BVO] FEEPFY YP PHS SED Uses ne f, ve Af hete Oar tre a ae — - + forrdest. En Wier ons fo miosrer Illustration purporting to represent the Jews making bricks in Egypt, but actually shewing brickmaking in the Netherlands, c. 1425, see p. 29. From Nederlandische Bijbel, Utrecht. b 7 333 2 Hoes oS ra ws 7 ALE Bf me AD BSS Om Nee, OS ANN RL NY, 3 188 3) iy : eee Moulding stool and implements as used in Northern France (Maubeuge, Havre, &c.), c. 1761. There is no “stock,” otherwise it is very like a modern outfit. For description of contemporary moulding, see p. 30. 390 Laterarius, Der Ziegler. > dy, Y ijt s: INS S ne dee — es, \ q A ill \ — Omnia fornaci laterarius adler noftrey ss ; soa ee an we [Translation.] ‘* | ATERARIUS—THE BRICKMAKER.” Roofs on houses, when firmly wrought, nowhere totter ; ever they stand, safe from rainy showers, whether a common party wall be a-building in a house or whether you raise sturdy outside walls. All things I lay to my kiln, I, the Brick- maker, and prudently and with ease and skill I cook my bricks. Let him come to me and lay aside the stones he has too hastily bought, whose lofty house lies open to the winds. The ancient legend proves that Cinyra, son of Agriops, was the discoverer of this most noble art. c. 1568. See also p. 29. From “WANOIIAIA,” by Hartmannus Schop- perus, pub. Frankfurt, 1568. 391 SAA | Yestae| ANN) ne ed Brickmaking in Northern France, c. 1761. (See p. 30.) From “ Descriptions des Arts et Metiers,” par Messieurs de l’Academie Royale des Sciences, Vol. XXIV., Plate VI. 392 ‘pL d 20g ae & *oyeydure} yum “SONIGTNOJA] ONILLAD) JO GOHLASA] GNV STOO], NaadOj/] 9uTyNo Ssurpleyy “TOUUTeY Ss Jone ede tt “ONLLLAD MONG Gav] . “ul pespem ape] YIM Yo NIG IO Y9}09G ‘Ol “I94}s[Og 6 *‘JoumuteYy qny) *Q *sasseduio’) We ‘dsey me) *sapelq yo Mog XG Y Me Vi "PAP < |— *$]00 |. 393 a *9[sue jeurequt 24} suye[duio7 “ONILLAD NOG GV] “SuIp[NOW IepMoAo-TUles SUIULIO; 0} Aroyeredaid Jepueyo sunny = Cae BAe. 394 ‘dsei yum Sulystut J “ONILLAD) MOG GaVH *ouojs @ punol sutyjor) 395 ‘9]8ue [euse}x9 oy} ye arenbs e UIIO} 0} peddojs ueeq sey suo jo Sutpjnour eu *syouq paie[duros OMT, “ONILLND Alig GUVH 396 Photos by courtesy of The Sheffield Daily Telegraph. Chris. Hull laying 809 bricks in one hour at Treeton, near Sheffield, on November 24th, 1924. (See p. 26.) Mopern EXAMPLE. 297 398 THE ROOF, DORMERS AND CUPOLA ARE OMITTED om | Mh UTIL SS NUNIT | TE | | Leia | l | | hal al ll TTT AOE | | WV TTT/e “tll AAC \ \ MTT ‘ll =i filleaes TIT RREERE NAT ue il oT (nes \s08 DTN ill HTL E| | i zl | TT | i= ay ey i A dees | caw IQUURUeeruuaeenentitt FITS TWAINDD | it STATA TTT | gua | espa sg abelial NPL Ee a8 jaue HUTT et ia Lt | | PTT te | 4 uf ame eee see Dee! s! i | iH = : <= =| + EAS He ee | a = [ees ak s : = ee Pay Pe i | a Mt || | | li WN ital ml Ie 2% hohe F 2 al | S z ala | S 5 Z Z re a : A : TA a Tana li Ly 1 : a s aa SW 7777? Mn TT | ee ae re re een ee irre eevcgy | il | eee a ATT PLAN THRO’ WINDOWS. ae ran § AA iy | CC | esep ee ea ice mil eS , = i ee a a) — = a ee -——+ = NM tee er Oe gt davaarannatnnaniaitii IAN : e E : z Z E coer ol PHU TA HUTT | AN Ll awa r NAA cae H| lh Hl angen gS TI saint gE | a U7 077) i | women | LL ; vot * : a * - Sibeeaedlineah é a Namie’ ‘ . ¥ ES ES Re ag seme . I eee ee es . . . ' J — eS - . sah say mL te ne etl tm - er ~ on ey ~- one rr nae le arene al ; ~ a Ne ; —. - 5 Sees. BTN) : ¥ a _ a 4 aI RM AL EMH TsHENNTT it iy ‘ q fesnedeee et em HoH f Tit a | | eee Ey | VY SEE a TLE a == ae he ARGHITRAVE. CENTPAL #7 FL WINDOW. QUARTER FULL SIZE 7 = r . f . . ‘ . , : - 5 ‘ . ] 4 ‘ ; “ < : — aa ee Si ae ic Sa oe 3\ & 2 aaa | SS fe Ss S 8 iE ze SESE - = =8 ee TT : Wee Baca . -§ at N|| | ZG | erry = L.KEIR HETT. mens €F DELT lr ee ee ee ee i se sap) oes Aw nema: Niiaaer sate v ee ce on ‘ " ee - A ¥ ; 7 eats di aoe A, # = * YS 7 ! J . ’ q 2 c : % 1 s a al ' + } & \ 3 ‘ t r y an ha 9) x a Pe + - é fois aint i é ' “ \ oa i cee & z rs : . | » t > . _ . 7 ? . = per % = i " os 5 S hria 13 swam 1 IH Y/7NT AOOT LIAL <= MONIM TPAIND OL ANellDdY (7m) T¥4 NOUILG SNIONIO JO JOVI JS WWLAG -ALlSmebalbete FLVOHOH “ISNOH TTENWORD vs LINGO) ddl » I yOOld QNTOWD = SMOMNIA OL TLS . « ‘a +3 wo T4A APA 3 poe | | : S 1790 43 SNIW ‘/ 1 IH yy Zy7 shyy ONM ANALY = AOCNLA AVI TWALNID WraliiDay = MOCNIA SVE We Tid IV ODARGe “] . ‘SS ea THAWOdDS ys) >a SYTMILTALS T1Y SMFHS HOIHM 2, YIGWIW LdIWI SIAN YIIVIH HLIM ANLUNG SIOINIOD = FION DINIQD AMMO! " } sr is D SRA WEN ue a ka SERS } Rieter e ; - is ~~ as a es Ts ke i é a Se ae 4 * cos * ; ° eee (aie | ‘6 ae “3 = : . Add a E e , eee ar ae re " § ay : z ; ; | e £ a ’ i 3 ; | * } * ; | 3 : ; . ‘ 7 ¥ = .. ~~ . ¥ ” ) v. * > - . =F Wha bs x : - eA i : : : { | 4 = ey T ’ . fe > a ¢ © ‘ : ¥ ) Am ks sy, m m hw eae mn = re ss 8. # 4 & % = \ + > , | | a ee ee eS Yes SS ee ri CT Aa ron Saas ia HD | jrececmmenenn | BA > — <= scene A Ess SS | 1 SS fe (Ss Roeree (Li as a | i |) =e 0 ee {jaa @ EE PoE} (2 a BSS | | (= Sa ee eee imi aa [2 i SE BEES EES! 1a a as ica @ ees j= 5 se ee 1 oe | a | SS Ee iia se Sea 2) a BS 1k: | Sau | (eos oer § tee?! et 8 eS (2) a SSS Ss 0d f SS Sa a ee (ies 6 ao 1) Pi SSE | SS Te | eae a i a= {<0 ) a SS | ee = ( Sey & ras jc 2 ese (CSD 2 SA ESS 1 1 ae) * LSS OES FS (iG ee (3 | ae ed | ss | (i —SSSses 0 (i) [St a SET | SI 1S | eee 9 Ee 1 Sae BCs CoS) SSS GSS IS aa | EE PS ee BE (Ce ae (kon | oS iG? SSS (if i CASS | ST | ae Fe is ese 12) Ee es |e 1S | SS AN Oa 1a s es ee 1 See ( Sees i | § Sat ii} SSS) SS SE b) (Oe) See tae 2 eS ES 2 a ESSSs Re) SS (ES) SS lp asa (2) eS (SSN ate 1S 6 ee d ae in pS (li) EERE SS | Ea i =a | SP i) J St Ese | Ls 2) es 5 ae 1S | ES STS | TT (a) Ses ES 1 RS SSE (ill: PTA SES | SE = SSS aS se ica @ wes i a PS | | | eh | SR eEN B Ue. lise i ES (cS) Ss SS | SES! = i Seas be =: SS (ly a SS | TS 1. TT 1h Ba (a Gg Boars (22) [Se ee | | 1 ES | a ee 8) 2 (2S! | Cae LETS | SES | 1S) SSS 1 Tae. 1B Se 1S) es Rese | 1 | A SEES 0 SE | (a eee [RS ) 2 SSS A | eas | 1D | SSSR F AEE | (it a BRN iS) aa ES 1) aN | GaN ie 6 A eet (If NS CT | TR | =) Se 5 | ke @ EES (Ss) Ss PS ES (OSS | ee 1 | es ae eee | GE Ses Sees | |] 3 | pa G «PLAN* » SHOWING * ANGEL + TREATMENT Yl, i coo an NQQ Qi t .3?wSCSCD5CKCCK7?}D ZIT TTLLTIOLL —_——— WR QW QI WWW NM GQ] AWW I IA Tg 0 HH SL ve [mix ee yy UX WIM \ AS V MMMM : | WLM MMM hope WMA MAL SSK AIH HHysyy HH Hyqqgqs0 Hysuyz Hv 0g 4s 7 LEST im Se Se Saeco SKREEESS NN et eee ea MMMM 3H WoW MMA aa ae MMMM a MMMM C.S.WHITE- MENS: £7 DEL. ee A SSN S$ LL [ _ pq pp 9 J gp LHS $pp/wuywVV, al vay Ws Yyyrlliddddiddiddibpsdididdddidittoddditdbéd Medd — e ¥ 4 . 1 , > I ; 5 BN ‘ ‘ Brheentinins BR See AI SRR ZERO ne amt soe ARE nin Nn A CI NEI i hm a . f- : BY vee ; Mbp mespiiiny Sg Ane eM SLE. abe ai aerate ea aati AH Min eg tiie aca A a na ee ABR Te, at lal ti re Se Vana , | ’ ' 4 ‘ 5 a : ‘ 2 , a oN : % ¥ ene ay . Pre ope pt a nce ogy ag AE ae i OTTER TM a aA Ne Pane * <- hae: és 7 ; i ies dows w i ear 9 se e hs Te We Bein ‘. ‘ . Ae Ohm setts gts ; * i t i i . s * t + A - eo) )) * 4 ~ I. * - Rey vet NOW YO1IN I se ae iit -WVHNUV4- -FSAOH AUIW TUM: -JDINAOD SNOILVITLEAY: 10 dQ: 405 -Ni-pf 20 dO] | ISVE -WILSVIId - | | Gg 0 dV) WA#ALIVTId -IV ldd¥ abd - AO - NOLIDIS - avi7 || 2OINAOD:- WKH 10 SP/S PSK / / OL - Ef & ERS iy Paes ON FIRST: FLOOR: WINDOWS TRL SPER OjQ}= US |e is eh Ta) S33 ye f22t MOCK) Mc YO / « Fie C.S.WHITE MENS ET DELL: WILLMER HOVSE FARNHAM ur sali euaas ne es W a a ge eget anole oa pa Pen sa ian te epg ws = thine ' 4 j i | it. 2 : }. en oe > psp nt ‘ i Fede gen Sond a By ; fe aime ee at oe ee by EN een awe 407 -LT70- L3+SNIN- LIT f+) - g meh; ‘TTS : -AWOOH iJ rE , } TTIS 17/1 + GOOW# COO TL HCE —— a “ONT ALS - *WOOlTL KC * GVOW: 019 »JOOM avIT SAWOOTA aC * sc: Wy. 4 AMV ALTHO dV -WOOT# nC: ‘MOUNT - LOVE ia & -WVHNUVd- ISAOH MIWTILM INN NN LI eT = OOO — | : SSaG EERE eee ae OG BE ve CGCN al ae oseassdanttesatecstestocrsstensaneetastteraezavecetseraneneterte won NE ae Suazas gas ssusastasaseverasesiressvararseeratee! Seal sseeenaauearsnres ———— a UST TTT Te nT ee —————— 1 ja TELL HITT . AO UII TMT TTT i SSeEeqmn SPILGIGEI =) BI OREN ON EY fas = PT Pee fc caus ie | | =imls rE = aa —— = —————_—_— =—z a) 1 = ( al ol Pe ee ia { | | —=| = ‘ies CONN (0 iS ‘ | im a = os) om | Se iii = Es >= a nil | ——— OO ——" | ee = NL | Bil | 7 = AUaniasniiaes ices ] —— at — el | Re a BDINERURE ——S : We WY ili AN 2=N = Wr yak “EDIE og 97 AS Bs aAQdOQTUATATUVHANATAAAAATVVTGNVOARVOAANGAOAAA AAA rl] ||| |: == : = =o 3 VIGIL Ha 2 manne | ae (coe em LLL TT Her HOUT} El EB 6A baie. 1D (aa i) tae ES hee ee LON DON ey A 1 soa age ome ett — le tga! wet pelt et lhy apse . bi polity seer om agaon tt er Baers at Pits wee HS ear. Bey cS Nee ance as, ane Cas” Gay ulti i ates” ania, ean as maar 34-8 + oe ae a be. —— he rpg veparetioné: eerarge ir potest ders can pip = xtewe sees noieanunanes sa Bard Sade Vote ae Erte! ag 4 by eh ais al Te a aE rae * - = . si - * h bs a € ak ~ . —— ~ - i = len 3 ¢ “< bee ore ‘ wet i. : -_ - = + : _ _ “ ‘ pi ~_ _ ‘ - A e . =e awl x > ‘ ‘ Y é Pes oy “ 2 . ~a be 2a a BOOT * 4 12 INCHES \ PO AAMT seas . WW SECTION OF ENTABLATURE \ a (EZ Gp st ae CARVE D X A Lf — \ No. 11 TOOKS COURT, n . é P 4 + Bi oe, SB SA 4 ' 7 2 + Fw. ye amie ede. > ten kee? * if (1, eveeamn Seta Age “ecient Rt sbete lati Rasen acdnifiter et ee r rate eal gi cas ae Oe ee ok ‘ : ee Nae Tec Fs 413 Ng 9 A || | | | | | © ha as Mel ea ca aa ae | ala | na | Reema | ST a | | A | A | | | A | | | | | | Sew a | ea ARR eee | AS | AP | A | | NN | | | i ES | ES | a | ee oa | | | ERS ol | oe 4s | Near sso =< tT] ial ‘bed ——— | 7 2 SB, Y a Ss erie eo fselte || pbs Sa i SS RaSh ees ee KD [ve Ss a 2a. eee Ao NVO it 2 PSS SITS Petia |e (Oot es eos A Co eile a | | || || | | | | Ee a a a |) | ee oe (ee I IP S/R | ee || Dorothy M. Buckmaster del. INCHES | . FEET im 9 6-3. 0 1 pe. 3 4. 5 6 Di SCALE BISHOP OF ELY’S PALACE, HATFIELD ; Window c. 14 80 i ai Ss eS Se at mH See eee ; Ls omen SS AONE Cte LENS F q : ¥ : : ; 4 ; 2 ¥ % ‘ H ah bis FB) 4 » 2 i i = A . 7. % ae - ; ~< > jo 3 ; ; ‘ : ; z % r ere - , 4 } $ ; Lah ’ = : : % ” ; . : - si ; - 5 vr " ~ ~ os ~ : : ; "i - vt ae om —_ Vy eon ge «rnp premet or ee ee ee 7} _ 2 -_ “ 2 “ee ame sid ig _ ‘4 - - ~ o Blin —— < bated « ; 7 i : i yore ; ‘ : 5 , a ~ - ‘ ‘ a ‘ ' ei B pneu Scars Hops ind ‘ la : of Mom Ae 7 een 4 4 : H - 4 : y ” -— ~ , eae mamas | - Senne a sas . Y a Reet Sac St, 7 ee - pa . J ; = 4 ——— — - ~ a 7 4 » ~ a y ‘ : = Newel : a ; j ia tae. a : ' + 7 | = t t 3 2 Hy A ~ a $ ba ; “A “ aa ~ ew ff ’ — $e oe - “? ~ a i . we - .o- - r = ‘a i . et ee mi : B i = r H ‘ : e Be i ? ~ % bee j i ¢ Be x SS, > p ES SN = Ce ee Siamile - So eee a a _ | a a ae ! | SCALE INCHES FEET i ¥§ 6 3 te) 1 pv) 3 4 5 6 WINDOW AT GREAT SNORING RECTORY, NORFOLK Early 16th century ; ootiied ee pe pages . i oo ' ete! a es ‘ ‘ t en | . a figs, eee tl: ir ee £ meee mene ee tee | ; it eS Na i ne a ee . a a oe en OR een yet ~¢— fi Re hen — ee “ 3 - eg a epee panne es a aye Sh ¥ TPS dyad heath 5 i eae ad ti i Ra i a a 1 tee) | ei ha rea ISS eat Bz See Ei bay ae raps | a a F aoe Lina 5 Gp ome an me SS el eS a eS Se SS) ma Nor ini al iy int tik HN ial ; DX UB eee eee BE 7, SE BORD RMOOABE BAR ET ask! a kL) \ } BSS SSeS GASSES y pa SRE? ed Lae a SS A CS Ni | ) Suna Sa = ey wae i 7 | OS (cee Ss a se re ial yee lal ya ev Osea =====5(9) aes 2 ee \1 Dorothy M. Buckmasser del. SCALE EAST BARSHAM MANOR NORFOLK HOUSE, 1525 c. 1st floor window of tower. Owing to the plaster rendering, the jointing at mitres, etc., cannot be completed Berry ART hee ee Raper ee | as 2e- oamt s ciwange ter hy tie page -'S ee oe meee | 2 : z naps hee ig nv eo 2 a. a id bah uae ‘ - 2 . xe ; ie 4.1 i - oi Se ee eee Pee Deemer a —_— - nares pe og aay > a . - 4 RED a ial Pe a A: OE ea ne SE ipa accel sep. E i ak eee ws er os . : xo NE Seema § Pu spepeape ee ee one Sa Sa Piet : aed eS a OI i ip e nn on oe ee ere P; j raat - b ‘ + ae a ly OT oes ‘y & x ; =: 5 “mate i a ie 4 d ae ae t : ‘es & iv a ese. “ eines é, . Pe . ? ae iG. s i Vly aplacks ee ee ei En le te by . * = ., b ai LFF. a : ; ate! Fee bom, Aire Fir ay hom ere a OE In te et tie epee rae ami: oe tinny od hes _ aa i) Fld an le Dre ina! ep Beas irtegeys bight malting male ap lh cramer «ny im llalg ‘ ns Seat eh abantiins oe Ans eupeey raeees SE Oa A Ee ae eee 7 oe Pea ‘ a s} ere Qe Ao Sag Eee Lg cone map rm A Pane Ry aie os eek geen pa - _ .- te ee ee ay vary ee zo aes . Be 1% ier rate 3 a ‘ > - ie. Seda aeechatcimres ne \ + ee ; ee a F : 4 ae ee i Poe a ri : by, « dy b Pa a ae t i A * >. - ‘ . , + as - 7 -" Line oe 1. ae ae oe lee, ae ay Se “e ‘ 416 aoe oe meso) Sore eve ser | GE A se Be es ay DSSS Sesser EES : (:oesulaseeeeeeeoaasamey G, Sos vee ere on ~ Ce pe ee ee ee ee Ta SS eH HoH eae ee a a ea EY, CORSE EEE EEE TT go a es A TS EN fg | Ag GT oY Dorothy M. Buckmaster del. FOLK SCALE fad Ss Z, of Cp) ae © aii ad OS ZL, < a. =, < T cp) oo 4 aa) 2 Ga Hay + a 1+ Ea Gee Sd 7 ine | El | SPORT ip SRR PAY EVO N72 BEI DS } Sees S PSY ise) 7 Bae||ra ar wk ee ane [aes ee. (= (aiesieat Nenad {. 5) ee eer pe al le ee ee [= } ee as l P=) 1 peel | oes te! 4 ri DECI D sat || | esp Rit || ed y SSA ee it tt ee THERE fee th ies ie tae tient {2s |S GUILDFORD Near and Half Elevation: CED 2 SUTTON PLACE, Bay Window. P lan [1 lia ———— == ee ee PL eS See a a oe i ll 12 13 Dorothy. M. Buckmaster del dg i PL NC ES Ee SS eee ea a |e ee ey ee ae eee Eee | eS Ear Lea Pe | Fa faa | pe eS ol eee Fes Ez eS | ia oer ae Ea aed pea Bie Ti AE SL a a a pitt LU ee i SO TNT HI f HI ASSS HUM PSR STE HERS SOS EOS TEE oh He OO OSH [1h [Esl remmemecil) attiaiel Py es TUT PT TH ec HHH HME HHS LTTE REE Aer TPE eee Uh mien Lenigays TOO COO E LU] CEE TTT EL AR IHU Ha TH Tilt |e vtlatads i FLELE PUFA UU ct AL qe “OO i ULE Hine HL rLr a HAH AWE ESS) [= Heeb PIRI br ESS before 1638 ablature a caps and ent dormer, pilaster POCOCK’S SCHOOL, RYE Wnts ol. centre J i e _— al” ee : , ¢ @ ra ie$y ’ ee e Ao a em , : bone - ~ os fhe Se o Pile oe = as . é ie - i __" Se os By a en oes mp , 7 _ i res KU ate F esas ee pee weer _ rs nena et $a oat parpie ehrics =m toile ope meant okie | Pe tse tins ee : Se ee ee amen S 93 ~ aw 2 4 tees ee Ee en ee ee wv . ee ie tee i of ‘ k ni ~ " ~~ ; Ki q 4 = ; rk See . rs i ? 7 a a o~ ¥ ~ ihe > - ~p ied = a a a r As CP gh 1-day Wn Lode Rabe page gre: - — : = : =e = + id Phen Cpr bey ¢ 4 * oa : ry, } ’ ' < ver Fi { i Y 2 ° « ; % Lg \ * F ; ol - _ > ‘ 4 +. ‘ ‘ J Cd) el Ee Jot | ae aie SIE Jt 1 we Jt ib we = rr nae AL isa leenl is aj al Le of Saas ead i. em eee iy eal ae eee | | [See Deine Sea eqs ree it 7. ees Rieko Hy FiB€ — ae 7 a S Be as Can rs ee ee ue earl | ee Pe Seawe SSa tal oe le Ase ee iL ey ) Pada foes | is eg LL 5 es ee he nA ee | oe aa Peas , SSS 55 (ee ee ee ee ee FEET INCHES 2 3 4: je < Te) ie)) w O a Dorothy M Buckmaster del. BARKING, ESSEX. EASTBURY MANOR HOUSE c 1550 | | lel tent ree ee sare 7s ceed ct : : ty anh fp heals mamas -m i GR ii } ; . e: 5 3 det ar im ee ‘. A A ee ea — ts a a | te | Le RE are ame name Le fcr Yt tit ft 1 ewooumw avo inti: sa i. Pee 2 ie seaas Leen \nilhite sD Sentence: ignealtneicaiie no ecil on eabtlied dealiaticemenadeseden a es > eet + AO AE A I OL NR ON a CT 5 Nel TE A A AL Pp en nN pra ec Ca Peo i Re Re an nate einen Senet erlinemanr iain etn ai. mei mlindy tes yerepne-—mnnamy toes il eso ae ae em me = { AE PO Say a ae ee eee Tete) wee a ee eae race “Ss _ ; > ¥ ar - | bs ; 4 - i : ; Ihe reece til npn chatty lt ytd elit at am-tea lagl t adcom l a cell ha atin a lll ae te hand ie See oy | tl ; a t ; } penesoce " pamateil = tetera Sh pent 2s ne ie r= oN nee mee | - a Oe ; ; "~? i; 3 ‘ ee: 3 : ; ‘ ; + i, * i : ee ee ee ee t (rae | oe ae oe Ss> = neal gests, | i * oS “ ee moans sich srpllivehi steam amare o } ‘i ; : ; — ~ ety camer = ten att Bt Se eee | ae ep he me te , ) a eS ae ik. oe iene iF eo | ee ae oe ts Sate ey a ee Rae eg : 3} I i : 4 4 | Fl 4 ; 7 beet = = i he 4 t 4 ' ee j F i rt een greater: ered ; : es ; ; {2 tt i i : st bn : i! el ¢ . an eee al oe ‘ 3 iY A - .) ene | 1 ry fs i re es ee, } i “ " eee ; j i j ; a 3 paces WT tt et . as ie j i § f - : Le mee oe 4 Ps oe ; 4 vee a } I ; \ ie 4 i ' -. . Las 4 i: 14 i r 44 15 | ee a / i 2 7 vale oe - j th. ; a i Y i oe bs a ne —_ ~ f i - { e°4 - ¥ — mee i , ~ is de ere | } be athe t t 4 fAlediectas ‘ usiiinitihineaspicie aaa — ‘ - be — aremaapitee case aenlinsntinretairhaeanlipiea call a bE of R F ; : - arate terse persihag ieee . Pi a4 fe * ¢ ‘ s* . = ; ; ; : ; ; t 4 i on " ’ si , i Hl ans a ; - j SIM pe } ny Se H 5 - ) : = é a. . Po ey | i pd \ { i { j - - ‘ } - i } & i | i epee ae 18 Sow, 5 Pt | Pr. f ~ : : t t ‘ : : 2b ah i aot , . ee pEE . : i ie & 2 ‘ aoe fe. Tae + : LOOKING UP a | 6 | a YY ie ae Oe - foo S—~*=S:~S~«*sé« CHU RCCH|_ HOUSE, BECKLEY, Gia | : | Semi-Elliptic Window Arch. d. 1744 , i “a ¢ = ew a z 4 * < af 7 . 2 ‘ § , UOT eva a oS | ’ — P, oF ~\ A * “ r mi “ ~~ 7h pn Tine, , a a » a” ‘nie Pad = , A e 9 a ws a a a ll a poe, x. a ve, ~~. a ~ See > ” no _ ¥ f = g a ail eT ae ele — ter pathlnbartnineten emt cm Nate thllalete especie 1a ce Meh tN arte Po tiasat tg anchins + mii lia mses - eens mel ae a pi i ees a ¥ ¥E4 4 Cnnlayg dhl agitate agen csi 72 1h) Yaa. obor = Prog INEM NAHOYWEINAL WHVA SWAHON AYE >A Os [| | | | | | | | [me | eee PRC es |S | | a | | [| | es [ee [ei [ [ee [es [ee ee eles e— aa IL Le ea ee ee eee FS | anaes | | | | em | | | |e [a |e |e a | ee CE [ae || ee | | es | es (er se | a | a [| || | [ea |e fe | ees | [en | | mm | eres [eee | || a | [| [ee [ce | | i ® 4 + ’ ‘ a ae a I Le is ; : < ~ ams: or * +i i s] eye a ss — j PP : ‘ ye E : ere hor: 4. _ Jom nf i . . : arntos - ie — se UU Dorothy MB wckmasser del, INCHES BREN Gee Goria TO 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 ee SCALE GUILTON, KENT Porch of House. d. 1691 423 a“ “| * é 7 * ~ ¥ gf ee ¥ ~ ua 4 Fa et ene So eed a ee a eee - ae . s sanokl b doa h cr 424 ; ee a ras Sig Se 4 aoe emer Por re | E D ( E i : ; ' E E ‘ ; : i E E : ! b fi [ L F f E U L E [ r : i E L if i a ro RUMEN Ze 4 oh ve Oe 0 aw Ba al) OL JIL WU UU FA oe a ae es Vr | 6 yf oes Bae ©) ae 3 O oe et E Sy a | Ate So ime Sn WA Ol _L_U as rem aevemes ... | Seal Wag es || * Bin EAS ] ons i i AT] ] seta OC IC OL ‘le eA LA EST Lt AL Nt or INS) ee ee ee a Ip) re en ie LL DS id, FOC IC IOV VAIN IC : - em | | He SHULL IOC Is FOC _IC_JIO i il en goat ee S| ee fie a Te ll ie iL scene PED YE arvoneey eer 1 ee ee a i a ie) So ee ll = ae Pee Pod tte as te he ll me th Feet hee to ee ka ll ee ee el Ae ee dh ee | Pee i RUGS NT spoon ments ' eee eee et Hot IC Jo il Lee he 115g ee eae! i oo ae a pbs hele ec ee i Pete ul Lit ACE GUIS: wee: hae i 2 aa Sia 0 8 as [a I POCO +++ HL ee TT Th Tho SS See iit 11 ers fae oS a OR Raa G82 ice aw [es Paes Doli) or oe eae 2c ee 6 Gb py] | ww PoC JOH +H a ee Sg ae ai cong 5 ed ae Se mae elit) i, ieee 2 0 ae pulse rt io: ta) So CL NO ie eRe: Pt a a a a gg eel a Biosoc Sg Thee IES et eet Ly iene i oe eh fees Bil Ee ey siec) nae maa Cea ee oe eee Har Oo ee nT Ti cay pe oH or | Rey oh Pe eel Lae Le. INCHES FEET 2963.0 1 2 3 4 6 rf 8 Ol SCALE Dorothy M. Buckmaster del. THE CONVENT IN LONGBRIDGE, FARNHAM — Cut, pubbed. and carved, gauged back doorway. a 1 71 we ss pie ee ‘ Mp eg ee Re i * ; we Se ye 5 ors in9 eo roe eans ee - Due ht ate i ena al mcm HI. aeiL j Ht , = He = : a a oie ie eo 3 | ite if H a + ‘a | oe ALLY t | j. i ‘2 ae - ind : - : von beats ay i . ' | | f 8 ERLE ok Oe een yo ed COIN EY SERINE 0s MESO Ro ee rs eer ee Oe a wane A ae ae rete ay a ee gt ve Nae -- am " : as a < I 425 MYHOMAMOTH LAO WVHNYVA TIVH NMOL AIO Aanjuao pe I rb), -Lraq -La-sx7y -ZLIHM SD. PELL fe TIVO OASYS \ \ WX AN SPREE NAT AERT. Y BESS VERGE TEAR AR Ta yan linw<== ee | oe Sy ae fF Lo eee eee Sa ee TT \ es |e DWE ae SAANAARANANS Le ed NSF SSS a WS: ASL iL AANA ATA SS BN MNS TOOT“ "07S NDIAG OMi mS SSS SS Ses ‘ 7 WN ; L_ WN NS me vy i - eee Canteen nen ; aiie-GP. wi ; im. '-, a — - ~_ ~ — — - Beer nae INA at nd ot mene Side ~ oe. . a : Ae a bie Chee tmp RCI ree t } x = as Sais . a f ee oe Snaemebaiieroad \ “ Lae YP ea ae ees aaa i edd deel ee 2 aie ve ‘ ate hs / Millia," seieeete dagen mimeabemmatenetined 2 Z (Lf CREE. Rs AL ats ; oa i e+ yp a wie 3 : fe ~ ae ee tee - nye , , } : i 4 ‘ t u¥ P Rei : 4 rr ; eRe WEE EO ee : * * Xa ct ee a F = > Le : ‘* ca polocy, il Ain i \A F a Ra: ) 4 aE = = i mu Ll a. ler oO ia = dad ee a k qt = lo 7 : ri i = - Faas lt r (— : = ee: ff il "tail 3 Dey ul EA Fr cn rare = te | iE = 7 O I~ i ‘ , fe ~ Kan f 0 | i ql es bi : Sv ty ed es salle =n, 5 i ie i 1 } = : || i ANE ; I) | E (| {| | | i tl i 2 o | \S) Freya || Ea ll om a : 2) - i ll ‘ e : iY = HH | | . N | | _ it yi 2 “ ns eel ly — = res UW | H | os y — eS: a 7) Ht i 3 ; : ie i RMIT) = Sg earns 7 i i { = : lll eee S i (dh Lo ' PAVEMENT - - PAVEMENT- “GROVND- LEVEL: 20 py | - SCALE - of. Fe by: « o De yt ob. : see SPATE RSS, OK & es aot wincaa Nair i j od. tnd , > 2 A tonal PROFILES OF BRICK CHIMNEY CAPS These caps are built of thin bricks, except No. 16, and certain others where a specially thick brick has been used for certain members. he projection of the sailing courses does not exceed 13 inches on face, some have less. If the bricks used were more than 2} inches thick, the projections would have to be reduced. The extent to which the crowning course is set back is important and varies with the design of the cap, e.g. Nos. 2, 4and7. In several of these caps the courses have not been re-set since they were built. RNY OR RY anid Be PEROT = ES NN i ES a ae oe es | es iss 8 ae Se a = — = 7 ET ES | ee ee ——— Sea a Be - Saat Sa a ae <—| r=} aS eee | a jes seme et cet are! eet oie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 se 10 1 At Marden, 3 Sutton Place, 5 Parkgate Farm, 7 Batemans, 9 The Cot, Kent Guildford, Tenterden, Burwash, Biddenden, Surrey Kent Sussex Kent 2 Sutton Place, 4 Beech House, 6 Lower 8 Gate House, 10 Groombridge Guildford, Salehurst, Standard Farm, Rolvenden, Place, Kent, & Surrey Sussex Ninfield, Kent 102, High St., Sussex Rye, Sussex * Sa5=3 —2 = > a eee = = S555 => == ae Sam aeeee == aes) ee = =o LS Ses P| a ia See aca eas ce 2 Se Ee SA pone Sone ee “6 sa | ee ar) = ae ee | Bae 22%) | ae a | Sa) ae: El Gee Gees Fs MER CNIS Tae UD GEES GS 6) (Se ee es I eee , y ELEVATION LARGE STACK ON TOWER. V, iS KoXoe PLAN OF STACK Boll fran « 4 — ww \ nee ? ee ae : ba JAR @SsIMAy 4 my, same ef 4 ; - Q So Ge Pt i po ey Sel pad 3 ~ Be snap aT AES * : ~~ f — j aeaenme, “ # k a 4 4 Ya 429 @hunney Stack in Brickwork r Ole Examples from aaah SS Gompton Wynyates Se =< arunckshite . a ——— so —= mene ee SS SS = ee — =i ! | eu J a mes Eas Sty SS SS EERE ES BF (os AEE BREE Eo ] ES € a PR Ss eee — \oeenr72) "BEIT oa WEED. SSC WAR es ey WCE WE ee ey SF Sep EAT Sd So ee, GS Ie ss Sa ea | rm Spe Beggin wma en ae ees | = = > - ‘macetan wevanel Sikes scomncca b ea eS Sa tL ln Sareea S &—/7 Ys / |: a ee ——. e Pe aH oa | ) ene | Rr 2 | eae ee MOREE! Cs ee Cee = a Re) Gee SESS CM aR SS Sea Paes — ee Se a Bee (EEN BESTT oer sw Se Se Pe GES De er BS oe a — a 2 RE ITE SENT at Pe PS Ee Bs fer, ————S————— Sj — 7 = Gy, em. 5] RN EES TS Claes a. | Saeeeeee a eS reas = 4 ——_- 2 ee : eee : x a ees GRRE DISSE SE —_——, . —_— {—— ——— — ’ ME EES SEES KES Ba BP AS) EE PS LZ 4 EMS Bet 5 [ 3 eee EE TER ET Wa |. cee it " = = On mis me ee a aN ie CHIRINEY on SOUTH END ELEVATION oF CHIMNEY ES Elevation track wall ELEVATION. west ewe STACK a TOWER. SOUTH ahove Chapel o eS ne eS | wise Nec ELEYA TION ee Seale eae meee: ls , E 4 m: a SCA Ie for DETAILS AM TBC | SE DETAIL OF PANEL AT BASE OF CHIMNEY —_— Bi Gas acoe ih re Nidenoe . ~ . - the - iim amg tom a oP ab aoa sie hepa meee ~~ . ; : Legolas x : Mea oe | nul! mnie - ¥ tes } ~ * regen et ae it 430 Surdoo rw Je uOTIIg WIOAANS ‘TIVH GYOITAW ONOT Surdoo re uapavs) INaIM ‘NACGWALNAL NAG HONTA Surdoo re ye WOT}EG RAYMMAS “TIVH NAGYOW Saree iH = tie ie j ee Seen. ae Seem eae aa al nce he ce ae 7 eae) ee «agg neeeh cite ont = 3 ; j res ha ee a ee ee Oe a * id Sem ie tre om tel cient eet nce a aay ep ty aerate ers :3 ne Pro oF rf : es Hy ™ } ' oe " = ' * ; : : : teat napuhis Meaney Ne Raclata dining = = = — => S SS SS = = S SS UMMM: BRICK ‘TESSERAE. ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL Early 13th century urns 84 434 MM CN 10)1//// /) YT: ‘“SAHINI BRICK ‘TESSERAE. ROCHESTER CATHEDRAL. Early 13th century 436 INCHES. TLL “i NJ ~W| |b MM HUWw—WV—V—'““=_a 4, 4 MMM: ‘Y UMW “ie 5 m ‘ g : ‘ ; 2 th s 7 : i f 5 ae ; bag i= Alas 4 4 é ce 7 : a ms 2 i - o 3 ee F i Se mS i ite : ¢ a : 7 - j 2 b Cry hubslsls ts woth Mi ate Ere « = engnag ~ 7 Spe < - ., eae _— fT ie ores . Bom i 2. F ;. 7 a u ; : t j : a : at ’ 7 438 DIAPERS v | i i f if i LL a eC) ss fecal li il L 4 LC a ce cee) ae ee a ___ a a" ae fa f= ILC ml C oC oa (eee een IC _C_IggiC_IC Cc i ae CCCI eC SE Ee ee ee ef eee ee Site (Salcal |e alles ee, | | 1, Sutton Place 2, 3,4, 5, 7, Layer Marney Towers 6, 8, 9, Leez Priory, Essex Dorothy M Buc 71a DIAPERS 2 courses stone 7 courses stone IN SAMs | SS el a a | |e |e | ee ee ee J al ee ee a ee ee en eee | See 13 SS a a oe eee ee oe ee ee ieseoiee a) Ce | LJ UA U i ea] = “II ie LE | _ie NEREAS fee 2 (eee) we L___) a C_ ICL) ; § courses s ] Lay LIL | P | L | LU U -L iL i il [| i : L i! L om i =e a N win wa wa S »S - eS ee ay 5 courses stone ame, am, 7 wane e/a 2S ane ee Se se wi) Va wy FOREIGN EXAMPLES 1. Chateau d Auflay, Normandy 2-8. Dovecote at Boos Manor, Rouen, 0 eee eae [ae] Ca Eee poe) is} eal see pp. 9, 364 Wo coisa beick® and only 5 shewn i Se. ree “ ’ r x waned bet Sc tg ead DIAPERS & BONDS I 8S Bes) ae ee as ae ees) a2 (Ze |, SO ES Ve Aa I JC) a oe ENGLISH BOND. Alternate courses of leaders and stretchers. The second brick of heading course is a closer. a _ ENGLISH CROSS BOND. Stretchers breaking joint. The second brick of alternate stretching corsacs is a header. Srick DUTCH BOND. Stretchers breaking joint. The first stretching course begins with a % then a header brick, then stretchers. The first brick of second stretching course is a ? brick, then stretchers SaaS 4 Seo FLEMISH BOND. Alternate stretchers and headers in the same course. BS 5 HEADING BOND. All headers except a # brick at quoin in alternate courses. STRETCHING BOND. All stretchers, except that alternate courses have a header at quoin. 1. EAST HORNDON CHURCH, ESSEX. 2,3& 4, BISHOP'S PALACE, HATFIELD. FLEMISH GARDEN WALL or SUSSEX BOND. Three stretchers. then one header in every course. oo Sos Sass eee ENGLISH GARDEN WALL BOND. Three stretching courses to each heading course. YORKSHIRE or FLYING BOND. (From Little Wenham Hall.) Foreign Example—MONK BOND. Two stretchers then one header in the same course. -~ oun tee ae % [ ih as rere eee en NI A pA nifD Nm aN Ai esl emt it er eb epeynalatlteteaetrir pity i fae , . % > 2 + hee . awl “s baled - ¢ i : ; TS re Rr I we as et ROR aE IRA AND Sep eet eR hee een ening ene s eee ee ee i ee ew re ns Oo ED ee eee 7 “OF OR Sih PAE gna i An i A tare carne, Satin magne laa GA el a ile NE IN ly PE ee ar eI RTI rem IU ig ge na Ee tae CE SRIRAM Yio" at er Setaer : SRK TS PS " ty . . = wy I lpg ony re ee ae oe eee abe Smite si b a stl : Stare & . b eatin sce ’ ; iene ames Oa Ban P w ETE BER: BD OS SS ob I ? - Ps a T ial ' i A “ ett oe - 4 - — om bags ae ait Ba y : rye, y Index. Pages 1-100 Text. ABINGDON, Berks. Brick Alley Almshouses, 64, 224 Carswell or Castlewell, 80, 83, 325 Tompkin’s Almshouses, 237 Académie Royale des Sciences, 30-1, 392 Acts regarding bricks, 45-51 Albany, Piccadilly. See London, W. Allington Castle, Kent, 5, 56, 89, 96 All Saints’ Church, Feering. See Feering. Almshouses. See under Place. “ Antiquity of Brick Buildings in England, The,” 5 Arcading, 87 Chignal Smealey. St. Nicholas Church, 87, 377 Colchester. St. Botolph’s Priory Church, 102 Earls Colne. Chapel Viaduct, 87, 380 St. Albans Cathedral. Triforium, 387 St. Osyth’s Church, Essex, 87, 376 West Stow Hall. Passage from gatehouse, 87, 378 Wye College Cloisters, 87, 379 Arch, Chignal Smealey. St. Nicholas Church Tower, 87, 377 “ Architectionice,’’ by Wm. Leybourne, 18, 24, 32 “ Architectural and Engineering Dictionary,’ by Peter Nicholson, 25, 73 Architrave, door. See Door mouldings. Window. See Window mouldings. Archway, Beverley. The Friary, 308 “ Art of Bricklaying, The,” by P. Nicholson, 25 Arundel, Sussex. Houses in Maltravers Street, 58, 66, 91, 93, 100, 252, 334 House in Strand, 94, 100 Arwarton Hall, Suffolk. Gateway, 83, 92, 98, 316 Association of brick with other materials, 60-4. Aston Bury. See Stevenage. Axe, brick, 72-3, 389 Brick-cleaning, 389 Auffay, Chateau d’ Normandy, 8, 9, 68-9, 439 Bacton Abbey, Norfolk, 89, 96 Balls Park. See Hertford. Balustrade, pierced. Purpose-made brick, Hatfield House, 330 Bands, brick and flint. Dent de Lion, Carlinge, 69, 116 Barking, Essex. Eastbury Manor House, 62, 66, 80, 85-6, 94, 98, 158-9, 271-2, 296, 334, 419 Barnham Court, Sussex, 77, 85, 92, 98, 184, 275, 320, 366 Bateman’s. See Burwash. Bath House, Piccadilly. See London, W. Beckingham Hall. See Tolleshunt Major. Beckley, Sussex. Church House, 78, 86, 93, I00, 239, 307, 367, 421 Beech House. See Salehurst. Benenden, Kent. Curtis Green Farm, 335 Bethersden, Kent. Sparrowhatch, 71, 207 Bevel for brick cutting, 393 Beverley, Yorks. Brickmaking, 5, 17, 21 “Building of Beverley Bar, The,’ by Arthur F. Leach, 5, 72 Friary, 82, 308 Minster, 6, 89, 96 North Bar, 5-6, 12, 22, 45, 65, 72, 82, 86, 89, 96, 108 “North Bar, Beverley, The,” by J. Bilson, 5-6, 22, 45 Pages 101-397 Photographic Illustrations. 441 Pages 398-440 Measured Drawings. “Bibliotheca Topographica,” 32 Biddenden, Kent. Cloth Hall, 431 Bilson, John, 5, 22, 45, 89, 90, 91, 96 Bishop of Ely’s Palace. See Hatfield. Blackheath. See London, S.E. Blandford, Dorset. Eastway House, 241 House at, 242 Blomfield, Sir Reginald, 61, 76-7, 89, 91-2, 96, 98 Bluecoat School. See London, S.W. See also London, E.C. Christ’s Hospital (now at Horsham). Bolster for brick cutting, 393 Bonds, 6, 8, 65-6, 440 Dutch, 8, 65, 440 English, 8, 65, 440 English Cross, 8, 65, 440 English Garden Wall, 440 Facing, 440 Flemish, 8, 65, 440 Flemish Garden Wall, 440 Flying, 65, 440 Heading, 66, 440 Mediaeval, 6 Monk, 66, 365, 440 Old English, 8, 440 Stretching, 440 Sussex, 440 Yorkshire, 440 Boodles Club. See London, S.W. Boos Manor, near Rouen. Dovecote, 9, 69, 364, 439 Boughton Malherbe Place, Kent, 93, 97 Bradbourne. See Larkfield. Bradfield Hall, Essex, 68, 135 Bradmore House. See London, W. Bradwell-juxta-Coggeshall, Essex. 87, 381 Breccles Hall, Norfolk, 63, 75, 83, 92, 98, 163, 315-6 Brick Alley Almshouses. ‘See Abingdon. Brick axe, 72-3, 389 Bond. See Bonds. Burning, 32-3, 35-7 Holy Trinity Church, Carved, 78-80. See also Brick, cut. Abingdon. Niche at Carswell, 80, 325 Barking, Eastbury Manor House, Doorway 80, 271-2 East Barsham Manor House. Gatehouse, 80, 84, 147, 287 Enfield (now in V. & A. M.), 78, 80, 304, 368 Farnham. Convent, Longbridge, 80, 281, 424 Great Snoring Rectory, 80, 125, 286 Hertford. 28, St. Andrew’s Street, 78, 225, 280 Kew Palace, 80, 299, 368 Little Leez Priory. Spandrels, 80, 268 London, E.C. King’s Bench Walk, No. 4. Spandrels, 80, 278 Tooks Court, No. 11, pp. 78, 80, 226, 411 N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 80, 302, 400 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 80, 302 Wallingford. Calleva House, 78, 227 Welwyn. Lockleys, 78, 221 Yalding. House at, 80, 385 Chamfered, 71 Characteristics, 53-4 44.2 Brick—continued Cogging, 71 Colour, I, 4, 14, 357-61 Cut, 76-8. See also Brick, carved. Barnham Court, 77, 184, 275, 366 Bury St. Edmunds. Unitarian Chapel, 77, 211 Chichester. Pallant House, 77, 212, 307 Kew Palace, 78, 299 King’s Langley. House at, 78, 249 London, N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 78, 301-2 Rye. Pocock’s School, 76-7, 181, 418 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 77, 187-9 West Farleigh Hall, 77, 366 Cutting. Tools and methods, 393-6 Dutch, 5, 14-5, 56 Early, 1 Factors, 55-9 Flemish, 4, 5, 56, 65 Importation of, 4-5 Sizes, 4 Form, 55 French, 12, 30, 392 Gauged, 38, 57, 75-9. See also Brick, rubbed and gauged. Abingdon. Carswell, 325 Barnham Court, 366 Beckley. Church House, 78, 239, 307, 367, 421 Chichester. Pallant House, 78, 212, 307 Chesterton, Warwickshire. Gateway, 75, 317 Enfield. Forty Hall, 75, 318-9 Window pediment (now in V. & A. M.), 78, 304, 368 Farnham. Convent, Longbridge, 281, 424 Willmer House, 78, 222-3 Hertford, 28, St. Andrew’s Street, 280 Kew Palace, 75-6, 175, 299, 368 Larkfield. Bradbourne, 79, 213-6, 305, 361 London, E.C. Christ’s Hospital, 77, 196 King’s Bench Walk. Nos. 3-5, pp. 277-9 N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 75, 185-6, 301-2, 398-402 S.W. Bluecoat School, Westminster, 77, 199 W.C. Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Gate piers at Nos. 59-60, p. 75 Richmond. No. 3, Parkshot, 282 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 75, 187-9 St. Peter’s, Thanet. Tomb in Churchyard, 356 Wallingford. Calleva House, 78, 227 Welwyn. Lockleys, 78, 221 Grey, 56-9, 242 Stocks, 36-7, 59, 242 Hand-cut, 71 Hatched, 55 Klompje, 15 Layer. Hours, 21, 25, 28 Output, 21, 23-8 Wages, 21-8 Laying. Modern example, 26, 397 Maker. Output, 35 Making, 29-38 Prints depicting, 29-30, 390-2 Mauve, 56-7 Measurements. Table of, 89-100 Moulded, Great Snoring Rectory. String course, 345 London, N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 77, 185-6, 301-2, 398-402 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 77, 187-9, 302 Moulding, 71-4 Mullion, Great Snoring Rectory, 85, 285 Origin of word, 12 Place, 33, 35-7 Prices, 17-8, 35-7 Purple, 1 Purpose-moulded, 4, 53, 71-4, 78, 285, 330, 366, 406 INDEX Brick—continued Red, 1, 4, 38, 56-9, 356-61 Roman, 1, 69, 101-3, 255, 357-8 Colchester Castle, 1, 101, 357 Trinity Church, Saxon Tower, 1, 255, 358 Comparison with modern Italian, 2 “7 Plastered surfaces, 1-2 — St. Albans Cathedral, 69, 103, 387 St. Botolph’s Priory Church, 102 Sizes, 1, 358 : Rubbed, 38, 57, 61, 76-7 a Beckley. Church House, 367 — Rye. Pocock’s School, 76, 181, 418 3 Rubbed and gauged, 38, 57, 75-9. See also Brick, gauged. Bury St. Edmunds. Unitarian Chapel, 77, 211 Farnham. Convent, Longbridge, 220 y London, E.C. King’s Bench Walk, Nos. 3-5, Tae ei Doak aie ie PP. 277-9 West Farleigh Hall, 366 Yalding. House at, 385 Sizes, 10-16, 89-100, 104-16, 357-61 Celtic, 1 Dutch, 14-5 English, 5, 89-100, 357-61 Flemish, 4 Mediaeval, 3-4, 357 Roman, I, 35 Spelling of word, varieties, 12~3 Stock, 33, 35-6 Texture, 4, 53, 55 fe Tudor, 55 Yellow, 1, 4, 37, 56-9, 359 “Bricklaying and Brickcutting,”” by H. W. Richards, 79 Brickmaker’s Song, 29, 391 Brickwork, Foreign, 364-5, 439 “British Clayworker,”’ 53 Bromley College, Kent, 94, 98, 194 Brook Farm. See Chislet. Brooks’s Club. See London, S.W. Broom Park. See Denton. Brunger’s Farm. See Tenterden. Buckingham. Spiral chimney, 81, 341 a “ Builders’ Guide, The,” by Wm. Leybourne, 11, 32 iy Burwash, Sussex. Bateman’s, 81, 336 jet. Dera Rampyndene, 336 , ’, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk. Hengrave Hall, 58, 72, 81, 5 90, 97, 146 Unitarian Chapel, 77, 91, 100, 211 CaIsTER Castle. See Yarmouth. Cale Hill Stables. See Little Chart. Calleva House. See Wallingford. Cambridge. Emmanuel College, 92, 98 Fitzwilliam Hall, 230 ' Jesus College Gateway, 89, 96 King’s College, 17 Queens’ College, 89, 96 St. John’s College, 18, 91, 96 Canterbury, Kent. Cathedral. Bell Harry Tower, 91, 96 on Sandwich Road. Gate piers, 71, 84, 95, 99, 328 Capitals, Chimney, 335-44, 427 Pilaster, 167, 175, 181, 196, 206, 239, 275, 277-80, 368 Carlinge, near Westgate, Thanet. Dent de Lion, 56, 69, 89, 96, 116 Carswell. See Abingdon Castle Hedingham Church, Essex, 134 Castle Street. See Farnham. Castlewell. See Abingdon. Celtic bricks. See Brick. Chamfer cutting, 394 Chapman, F. R., 12-3, 18 Characteristics of brick, 53-4 INDEX Charlton, Kent. Church Porch, 84, 92, 98, 276 Garden Pavilion at Old Charlton, 86, 93, 98, 182, 298 House, 91, 98, 168 Chequer work. St. Cross Hospital, 363 Wickhambreaux Post Office, 164 Chesterton, Warwickshire. Gateway, 75, 83, 317, 412 Chicheley Hall, Bucks., 62, 92, 99, 208 Chichester, Sussex. Pallant House, 77-8, 93, 100, 212, 307 Wren’s House, West Street, 91, 99 Chignal Smealey Church, Essex, 70, 85, 87, 90, 97, 290, 377 Chimney caps. See Capitals. Chimneys, 81-2, 335-44 Benenden. Curtis Green Farm, 335 Buckingham, 81, 341 Burwash. Bateman’s, 81, 336 Rampyndene, 336 Bury St. Edmunds. Hengrave Hall, 81, 146 Compton Wynyates, 70, 428-9 East Barsham Manor House, 344 Hampton Court Palace, 340 Hoddesdon. Rye House, 341 Layer Marney Hall, 341 Little Leez Priory, 81, 342 Marden. Church Farm, 337 Methwold. Old Vicarage, 136 Northiam. Domons, 338 Plaish Hall, 81 Rolvenden. Gate Farm, 335 Rye. No. 102, High Street, 14, 335 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 336 St. Osyth’s Priory, 81, 341 Salehurst. Beech House, 336 Sandhurst, Kent, 338 Sissinghurst. The Castle, 338 Kings Head Inn, 337 Stevenage. Aston Bury, 81, 339a Stutton Hall, 81, 339 Thornbury Castle, 39, 81, 343 Titchfield Place, 81 Wheathampstead. Mackerye End, 339 Wye, Kent. Crundale, 338 Chislet, Kent. Brook Farm, 82, 314 Christ’s Hospital. See London, E.C. (now at Horsham). Church Farm. See Marden. Church House. See Beckley and Northiam. “City and Country Purchaser, The,” by R. Neve and S. Primatt, 18-20, 22-3, 33, 35-6, 71 Clapton Road. See London, E. Cloisters, Wye College, Kent, 87, 379 Cloth Hall. See Biddenden. Club Hammer for brick cutting, 393. Cobham Hall, Kent, 93, 98, 162, 172 Coggeshall Abbey. See Little Coggeshall. Cogging bricks, 71 Colchester, Essex. Bourne Pond, Mill at, 360 Castle, 1, 60, IOI, 357 Crouch Street. House in, 86, 94, 100, 306, 420 Forum, 69, 387 Montagu House, Culver Street, 91, 99, 334 St. Botolph’s Priory Church, 1, 60, 86, 102, 369 Trinity Church Tower, 1, 84, 89, 96, 255, 358 West Stockwell Street. Houses in, 248 Colne Engaine, Essex. St. Andrew’s Church, 70, 133 Colour of bricks, 1, 4, 14, 37-8, 56-9 Celtic, 1 Dutch, 14 Flemish, 4 Low Country type, 4 Colour of terra-cotta, 42 Compasses for brick cutting, 72, 393 “Complete Body of Architecture, The,” by Isaac Ware, 18, 37-8, 57-8 Compton Wynyates, Warwickshire, 70, 428-9 Convent, Longbridge. See Farnham. 44.3 Coping, tile. Margate. Salmestone Grange, 84, 106, 388 Copings, wall, 83-4 Biddenden. Cloth Hall, 431 Hoggeston, Bucks, 332 Long Melford Hall, Suffolk, 430 Morden Hall, Surrey, 84, 331, 430 Stutton Hall, Suffolk, 331 Tenterden. Finch Den, 83, 430 Corbels, 81-2, 334 Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 334 Bradfield Hall, 135 Colchester. Montagu House, 334 Elham, Kent, 334 Feering. Church porch, 334 Horndon Church, 334 Lewes. Barbican House, 334 London, W.C. Gray’s Inn, 334 Ramsbury Manor, 70, 197 Sarre, Kent. Farmhouse, 71, 203 Wendover, Bucks, 334 Winchester, 334 Corbels. Machicolation. Farnham Castle, 81, 130 Faulkbourne Hall, 81, 112 Herstmonceaux Castle, 81, 113-4 Tattershall Castle, 81, Iog—10 Yarmouth. Caister Castle, 81, 111 Corbel Tables, Colne Engaine. St. Andrew’s Church, 133 Farnham Castle, 130 Faulkbourne Hall, 333 Layer Marney Hall, 139-41, 291, 333 Little Leez Priory, 333 Lullingstone Castle, 127-8, 333 Redbourne Church, 333 Sandon. St. Andrew’s Church, 129 Corinthian Order. See Order. Corn Exchange. See Rochester. Cornice details. Barnham Court, 366 Beckley. Church House, 367 Chesterton, Warwickshire, 412 Farnham. Willmer House, 404-5 London, E.C. No. 11, Took’s Court, 409-10 N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 186, 401-2 West Farleigh Hall, 366 Cottage. See Guilton. Cottage, near Ringmer. See Ringmer. Couchman, J. E., 1 “Country Life,’ 62 Courcelles le Roi, 68 Cowdray Castle, Sussex. Fireplace, 69 Crenelations, 107-54, 257, 261, 265, 331, 384 Crockernende for Stonore Court, 17 Cromwell House. See London, N. Crouch Street. See Colchester. Crowstepping, 135-6, 142, 152-3, 155, 163-4, 260, 269, 309, 312, 422 Croydon, Surrey. Friends’ House, 219 Wrencote, 94, 100 Whitgift Hospital, 21, 31 Crundale. See Wye, Kent. Cullompton, Devon. House at, 253 Curtis Green Farm. See Benenden. Dark Ages, 2-3 Dedham, Essex. House opposite Church, 64, 236 Delbridge House. See Wingham. Dent de Lion. See Carlinge. Dentil eaves course. See Arundel, 334 Denton, Kent. Broome Park, 62, 76, 86, 92, 98, 176-8, 361 “Descriptions des Arts et Métiers,”’ 30-1, 392 “Development of English Building Construction, The,” by C. F. Innocent, 2 Diaper Patterns, 8, 68-9, 262, 362, 437-440 Auffay, Chateau d’, Normandy, 68-9, 439 44.4 INDEX Diaper Patterns—continued Boos Manor, Rouen, 69, 364, 439 Bradfield Hall, 68, 135 Courcelles Le Roi, 68 East Horndon Church, 440 Farnham Castle, 68, 130 Feering. All Saints’ Church, 68, 262 Goudhurst, Finchcocks, 69, 229 Great Snoring Rectory, 125 Guildford. Sutton Place, 438 Hampton Court Palace, 68, 138 Hatfield. Bishop’s Palace, 68, 117-9, 440 Herstmonceaux Castle, 68, 113-4 Hoddesdon. Rye House, 68, 126 Layer Marney Church, 68, 132 Hall, 68, 139-41, 437-8 Little Leez Priory, 154, 437-8 Rainham Hall, parapet, 69, 232 St. Peter’s, Thanet, 69, 362 Sandon. St. Andrew’s Church, 68, 129, 261 Sarre, Kent, 69, 362 Sissinghurst Castle, 68, 362, 437. Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 68, 123 Small Hythe Church, 437 Tolleshunt Major. St. Nicholas Church, 68, 131 “Dictionary of Architecture,” 2, 52, 73 “Domestic Architecture of England during the Tudor Period,”’ by Garner and Stratton, 41 Domons. See Northiam. Door mouldings, Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 271-2 Guildford. Sutton Place, 266 Layer Marney Hall, 264 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 385 Doorways, Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 80, 85, 271 Barnham Court, 85, 275 Colchester. Trinity Church, 84, 255 Farnham. Convent, Longbridge, 85, 281, 424 Guildford. Sutton Place, 85, 266 Hertford. No. 28, St. Andrew’s Street, 85, 280 Layer Marney Hall, 85, 264 Little Chart. Cale Hill Stables, 270 Little Coggeshall Abbey. Dorter corridor, 71, 84, 256 Little Leez Priory, 80, 268 London, E.C. Nos. 3-5, King’s Bench Walk, 75-6, 85, 277-9 Painted, 63 Richmond. No. 3, Parkshot, 85, 282 Rye. Pocock’s School, 71, 85, 273 Shenfield. St. Mary the Virgin, 257 Spalding. Old Star Inn, 83, 320 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 259 Doric Order. See Order. Dovecote. Boos Manor, Rouen, 9, 69, 364, 439 Drips, brick. See Labels. Dutch Bond. See Bond. Bricks. See Brick. Duty on bricks, 52 Dwarf walls, pierced. Hatfield House, 84, 171, 330 Dwellinghouse, earliest brick, 4, 107 Ears CoLnE, Essex. Chapel Viaduct, 87, 380 East Barsham Manor House, Norfolk, 39-40, 70, 80, 84-5, 88, 90, 97, 147-51, 263, 287, 344-5, 415-6 Eastbury Manor House. See Barking. East Horndon Church, Essex, 90, 97, 334, 440 East Peckham, Kent. Roydon Hall, 83, 92, 97, 153, 322 Eastway House. See Blandford. Eaves course, Little Chart. Cale Hill Stables, 81, 334 Eddington, Kent. Underdown Farm, 95, 100 Elham, Kent. House in Square, 92, 98, 334 Ely Cathedral, 17 Emmanuel College. See Cambridge. Enfield, Middlesex. Forty Hall Gateway, 83, 92, 98, 318-9 Window pediment (now in V. & A. M.), 78, 80, 304, 368 English Bond. See Bond. “English Brick Buildings of the 15th Century,” by Rev. J. Kestell Floyer, 7 English Cross Bond, See Bond. English Garden Wall Bond. See Bond. Ewelme, Oxon. Almshouses, 70, 115 Schools, etc., 89, 96 Eynsford, Kent. Lullingstone Castle, 93, 97, 100, 127-8 “-Facine Bond. See Bond. Factors in brick, 55-9 Farmhouse. See Sarre, Kent. Farnham, Surrey. Castle, 68, 90, 97, 130 Castle Street, House in, 251 Convent, Longbridge, 78, 80, 85, 93, 100, 220, 281, 424 Grange, The, 64, 209, 307 Old Town Hall, 70, 368,-425-6 West Street, No. 39, pp. 64, 95, 100, 247 Willmer House, West Street, 74, 78, 86, 91, 100, 222-3, 493-7 Faulkbourne Hall, Essex, 85-6, 89, 96, 112, 371 _ Feering, Essex. All Saints’ Church Porch, 68, 84-5, 90, 97, 262, 334 Ferox Hall. See Tonbridge. Finchcocks. See Goudhurst. Finch Den. See Tenterden. Fire of London, 51 Fireplaces, Cowdray Castle, 69 Margate. Salmestone Grange, 383 Oxburgh Hall, 383 Prittlewell (now in V. & A. M.), 87, 384 Fitzwilliam Hall. See Cambridge. Flemish Bond. See Bond. Bricks. See Brick. Garden Wall Bond. See Bond. Workmen. Employment of, 4, 13 Floor tiles, 2, 69, 432-6 Floyer, Rev. J. Kestell, 7-8 Flying Bond. See Bond. ‘“‘Foedera,” by Rymer, 18 Fonts. Bradwell-juxta-Coggeshall. Holy Trinity Church, 87, 381 Chignal Smealey. St. Nicholas Church, 87, 377 Potter Heigham Church, Norfolk, 87, 382 Form in brick, 55 Forty Hall. See Enfield. Fountain Court. See Hampton Court Palace. French bricks, 12, 30, 392 Friends’ House. See Croydon. Fuel for brickmaking, 31-2 Gases, Abingdon. Brick Alley Almshouses, 224 Abingdon. Tompkin’s Almhouses, 237 Barnham Court, 184 Bethersden. Sparrowhatch, 71, 207 Bradfield Hall, 135 Denton. Broome Park, 176-8 Godalming. House in High Street, 192 Great Bookham. Slyfield Manor, 166 Guilton Cottage, 71, 204 Harpenden, Rothamsted, 180 Kew Palace, 173 Methwold. Old Vicarage, 136 Raynham Hall, 179 Reading Street, Thanet. Vowel’s Cottage, 71, 202 Sarre. Farmhouse at, 203 Scole. White Hart Inn, 190 Wheathampsted. Mackerye End, 193 Winchester. House in Hyde Street, 206 St eae Pen ee SOR rae ger en ee ae ae, BATS: ce > ihr Ee poe ee bi? elie eb Bree ie ati ye Bats oat Pali alc Rigo se sii 18 ieee ths sit hd Vier tae <> aS vement. a Bw wt be Ee co ee a INDEX Gage, John, 72 Garden Houses, Pavilions, etc. Hall, 83, 322 Old Charlton, 182, 298 Tenterden. Hales Place, 62, 83, 321 Room, Rye. Lamb House, 244 Wall, Biddenden. Cloth Hall, 431 Garner and Stratton, 41 Gate Farm. See Rolvenden. Gatehouses. Beverley. North Bar, 108 Carlinge. Dent de Lion, 116 East Barsham Manor House, 80, 84, 147-8, 263 Hadleigh. Rectory Towers, 124 Hampton Court Palace, 137-8 Herstmonceaux Castle, 114 Hoddesdon. Rye House, 126, 289 Layer Marney Hall, 41, 139 Little Leez Priory, 154 Lullingstone Castle, 127-8 Oxburgh Hall, 121-2 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 123, 258 Thornton Abbey, 89, 96 Tolleshunt Major. Beckingham Hall, 157 West Stow Hall, 40, 124, 267 Gate Piers. See Piers. Gateways, 82-4 Arwarton Hall, 83, 316 Barnham Court, 83, 320 Beverley. The Friary, 82, 308 Breccles Hall, 83, 315-6 Chesterton, Warwickshire, 83, 317, 412 Chislet. Brook Farm, 82-3, 314 Enfield. Forty Hall, 83, 318-9 London, E.C. Middle Temple, 61, 76, 195 Sturry Court, 82, 309 Stutton Hall, 82, 312-3 Tenterden. MHale’s Place, 82, 310-1 Gauged work. See Brick, gauged. Geffrye’s Garden, Kingsland Road. See London, W. Bradmore House. Gifford’s Hall. See Stoke-by-Nayland. Godalming, Surrey. Houses in High Street, 191-2 Goodnestone, Kent. NRichard’s Charity Almshouses, 62, East Peckham, Roydon 85, 94, 98, 303 Goudhurst, Kent. Finchcocks, 64, 66, 69, 83, 95, 100, 228-9, 324 Grange, The. See Farnham. Gray’s Inn. See London, W.C. Great Bookham, Surrey. Slyfield Manor, 85, 92, 98, 165-7, 297 Great Coggeshall, Essex. Stock Street Farm, 90, 96 Great Cressingham Priory, Norfolk, 41, 156, 346 Great Snoring Rectory, Norfolk, 40, 80, 85, 125, 285-6, 345, 414 “Greenhouse, The.’’ See London, W., Kensington Palace. Grey Bricks. See Brick. Groombridge Place, Kent, 61, 197 “Guide for Builders,” by Wm. Leybourne, 24 Guildford (near), Surrey. Sutton Place, 39, 42, 85, 99, 97, 142-5, 266, 294-5, 347, 417, 438 Guilton, Kent. Cottage, 71, 84, 92, 99, 204, 423 HACK-SAW, 73-4 Hadleigh, Suffolk. Rectory Towers, 91, 96, 124 Hale Magna, Lincs. Celtic brick, 1 Hale’s Place. See Tenterden. Ham Common, Surrey. Ormeley Lodge, 94, 99 Hammer, bricklayer’s, 393 Hampton Court Palace, Middlesex, 43, 60, 65, 76, 83, 90, 93-4, 97, 99, 137-8, 200-1, 324, 340, 348 Hanseatic League, 6 Harpenden. Rothamsted, 180 44.5 Hatfield, Herts. Bishop of Ely’s Palace, 8, 68, 89, 96, 117-9, 413, 440 Hatfield House, 60, 169-71, 330 Hayward, C. F., 42 Headers, ‘‘black”’ or vitrified, 8, 68 Heading Bond. See Bond. Hengrave Hall. See Bury St. Edmunds. Heron Hall, Essex, 8 Herringbone brickwork. Fireplace at Cowdray Castle, 69 Inlay. St. Albans Cathedral, 69, 387 Nogging. Cottage at Tichborne, Hants, 387 Paving. Forum, Colchester, 69, 387 Walling. No. 56, The Close, Salisbury, 69, 388 Herstmonceaux Castle, Sussex, Io—-I, 14, 68, 90, 96, I13-4, 375 Hertford. Balls Park, 86, 90, 98, 183, 301 28, St. Andrew’s Street, 78, 85, 94, 99, 225, 280 Highgate. See London, N. Cromwell House. Higham. See Northiam. Higham Place. See Newcastle-on-Tyne. “History of Agriculture and Prices,’ by Prof. Thorold Rogers, 5, 12, 17-9 ‘History and Antiquities of Hengrave,’’ by John Gage, 72 “History of Hampton Court Palace,’ by Ernest Law, 43 “History of the Renaissance in England,” by Sir Reginald Blomfield, 61, 77-8 Hoddesdon, Herts. Rye House, 68, 85, 92, 97, 126, 289, 341 Hoggeston, Bucks. Wall coping, 332 Holy Jesus Hospital. See Newcastle-on-Tyne. Holy Trinity Church. See Hull. Horndon Church. See East Horndon. Horsham, Christ’s Hospital. See London, E.C. Houghton, J., 31, 33, 36 Hours, bricklayers’, 21, 25, 28 Howard Household Books, 31 Hull. Centre of brickmaking, 7 Hull, Chris., 26, 397 Hull Corporation Brickyards, 5, 17 Hull. Holy Trinity Church, 6, 90-1, 96 Hurstmonceaux. See Herstmonceaux. Hyde Street. See Winchester. ImporTATION of bricks from Flanders, 4 Holland, 14-5 “Influence of Hanseatic League on Architecture,” by J. Tavenor Perry, 6 Innocent, C. F., 2 Ionic Order. See Order. Italian modern bricks; comparison with Roman, 2 Jesus College. See Cambridge. Johansson, C., 365 Joints of brickwork, 1, 6, 66-7, 360 Jones, Inigo, 60, 75, 83, 179, 317-9 KENSINGTON Palace, Greenhouse. See London, W. Kew Palace, Surrey, 57, 65, 67, 75-6, 78, 80, 95, 98, 173-5, 299, 368 Killigrews. See Margaretting. Kiln. Spelling of word, 32 Kilns, brick, 31-3, 35 King’s Bench Walk. See London, EG: King’s College. See Cambridge. King’s Head Inn. See Sissinghurst. King’s Langley, Herts. Houses at, 59, 78, 249, 254 Klompje brick. See Brick. Knight Street. See Sawbridgeworth. LABELS, brick, 87, 165, 260, 262, 264-72, 286-7, 290, 293, 297, 413-5, 417, 419 Terminals, Great Snoring Rectory, 286, 414 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 87, 385 446 INDEX Lamb House. See Rye. Langley, Batty, 18, 22, 24-5, 36-7, 45, 66-7, 78-9. Larkfield, Kent. Bradbourne, 78-9, 86, 93, 100, 213-6, 305, 361 Laterarius, brickmaker, 29, 3901 Laughton Place, Sussex, 86, 92, 97, 372 Law, Ernest, 43 Layer Marney, Essex. Hall or Towers, 8, 41-4, 62, 68, 85, 90, 97, 139-41, 264, 291-3, 341, 346, 437-8 St. Mary’s Church, 62, 68, 84-5, 132, 265, 290, 349-51 Leach, Arthur F., 5, 72 Lewes, Sussex. Barbican House, 334 Leybourn, Leybourne or Leyburn, William, 18, 22-4, 32 Lincoln’s Inn Fields. See London, W.C. Little Chart, Kent. Cale Hill Stables, 62, 93, 97, 270, 334 Little Coggeshall Abbey, Essex, 3, 56, 60, 71-2, 84-6, 104-5, 256, 283-4, 358 Little Hautbois Hall, Norfolk, 94, 98, 160 Little Leez (or Leighs) Priory, Essex, 8, 68, 80-1, 90, 97, 154, 268, 342, 360, 437-8 Little Wenham Hall, Suffolk, 4-5, 8, 40, 56, 60, 65, 89, 96, 107, 359 Liverpool. Houses in Rodney Street, 95, 100 Lockleys. See Welwyn. London, E. Clapton Road, No. 179, pp. 63, 218 E.C. Christ’s Hospital (now at Horsham), 61, 65, 76-7, 196 King’s Bench Walk, Nos. 3-5, PP. 75, 80, 85, 94, 98, 277-9 Mark Lane, No. 33, PP. 93, 99 Middle Temple Gateway, 61, 76, 195 Sergeant’s Inn, Fleet Street, 95, 100 Tooks Court, No. 11, Pp. 78, 80, 226, 408-11 N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 75, 77-8, 80, 86, 185-6, 301-2, 398-402 S.E. Morden College, Blackheath, 63, 65, 94, 99, 205 S.W. Bluecoat School, Westminster, 77, 94, 99, 199 Boodle’s Club, St. James’s Street, 246 Brooks’s Club, St. James’s Street, 250 Marlborough House, 67 Queen Anne’s Gate, 93, 99, 2I0 W. Bradmore House, Hammersmith (Niche, now at Gefirye’s House, Kingsland Road), 77, 83 “Greenhouse, The,” Kensington Palace (now called Orangery), 58, 2o1a Old Burlington Street, No. 31, Pp. 95, I00 Piccadilly. Albany, 95, 100 Bath House, 58 W.C. Gray’s Inn. Corbel, 334 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, No. 45, PP. 59, 95, 100, 242 No. 46, pp. 94, 99 Nos. 59-60. Gate piers, : 75» 92, 98 “London Prices,”’ by Batty Langley, 18, 22, 24-5, 36-7, 45, 66-7, 78-9 Longbridge. See Farnham. Long Melford Hall, Suffolk. Wall coping, 430 Lullingstone Castle. See Eynsford. Lyttelton, Bishop, 5. ” ” ”? a” ” ” MACHICOLATIONS, See Corbels. Mackerye End. See Wheathampstead. Maiano, Joannes, 43 Malms, 58 Maltravers Street. See Arundel. Manchester & District Bank, King Street, Manchester, 95, 100 Mandey, Venturus; bricklayer, 15-6, 77 Manipulation of brick, 65-88 Marden, Kent. Church Farm. Chimney, 337 Margaretting, Essex. Killigrews (or Shenfield), 83, gI, 97, 323 Margate (near), Kent. Salmestone Grange, 5, 56, 84, 89’ 91, 96-7, 106, 383, 388 Mark Lane. See London, E.C. Marle bricks, 58 Marney, Henry Lord, 42 Maubeuge, Havre, 30, 390, 392 Mauve bricks. See Brick. ““Mechanick Exercises,” by J. Moxon, Sy Pris ed Medieval bricks, 3-4, 14-22, 31, 358 Methwold, Norfolk, 70, go, 97, 136 Middle Temple Gateway. See London, E.Cc. .Middleton Towers, Norfolk, 7 Miller, Christy, 19 Moat wall. Killigrews, Margaretting, 83, 323 Monk Bond. See Bond. Montagu House. See Colchester. Morden College. See London, S.E. Morden Hall, Surrey. Garden Wall, 84, 94, 99, 331, 430 Moulders; output of, 19-20 Wages, 18-20 Moulding, brick. See Brick moulding. Moxon, Joseph, 57, 73, 77 Moyns Park, Essex, 161 Mullion, brick. Great Snoring, 85, 285 NAYLAND. See Stoke-by-Nayland. “Neolithic Spoons,”’ by J. E. Couchman, 1 Netherland Bible, published at Utrecht, 29, 390 Neve, R., 15, 33, 35-6, 71 Newcastle-on-Tyne, Higham Place, No. 6, PP. 94, Ioo Holy Jesus Hospital, 90, 99 Newel stair. See under Stair. Niches. Abingdon. Carswell, 83, 325 Dedham. House opposite Church, 236 Enfield. Window pediment (now in V. & A. M.), 304 Goudhurst. Finchcocks, 83, 324 Hampton Court Palace, 83, 324 Larkfield. Bradbourne, 305 London, W. Hammersmith. Bradmore House (now in Geffrye’s Garden), 83 Nicholson, Peter, 25, 73 Nogging, brick. Cottage at Tichborne, Hants, 387 North Bar. See Beverley. Northiam, Sussex. Church House, 91, 99, 329 Domons., Chimney, 338 Higham. Size of bricks, 14 Price of bricks in 1754, 18 OLD CHARLTON. See Charlton. English Bond. See Bond. Hall (The). See Ormsby St. Margaret's. House (The). See Sevenoaks. Sick House. See Winchester. Star Inn, See Spalding. Town Hall. See Farnham. Vicarage. See Methwold. Water cistern. See Rye. Orangery. See London, W., Kensington Palace. Orders. Corinthian, 78, 80, 175, 226, 279, 304, 368, 408-11 Doric, 78, 175, 199, 216, 221, 227, 239, 275, 278, 366-7 Tonic, 61, 64, 76, 80, 167, 175, 184, 196, 225, 236, 280, 299, 306, 425 Tuscan, 76, 181, 206, 418 Oriel windows. See Windows. Origin of brick, 1 Origin of the word “ brick,” 12 Ormeley Lodge. See Ham Common. Ormsby St. Margaret, Norfolk. The Old Hall, 64, 66, 238 Outbuilding, Slyfield Manor. See Great Bookham. “Outline of a Course of Practical Architecture,” by C. W. Pasley, 58 Ss INDEX Output of bricklayers and moulders, 19-28, 33 Oxburgh, Norfolk. Church Tombs, 43-4, 352-4 Hall, 86, 89, 96, 120-2, 360, 370, 383 PaLvapio, Andrea, 3 “Palladio Londinensis,” by W. Salmon, 25 Pallant House. See Chichester. Panels, terra-cotta. Great Cressingham Priory, 156, 346 Parapet, brick, pierced. Hatfield House, 70, 83, 169, 330 Terra-cotta. Layer Marney Hall, 346 Pasley, C. W., 58 Passage from Gatehouse, West Stow Hall, 378 Pebmarsh, Essex. Porch of St. John the Baptist, 84, 91, 97, 260 Pediments, brick, 166, 173-4, 177, 179, 181, 184, 190, 192-3, 195-6, 220, 224, 238, 252, 309, 314, 317-9, 325, 334 Door, 225, 252, 275, 277-80 Window, 181, 188-9, 225, 300, 302, 304 Perry, J. Tavenor, 6 Piccadilly. See London, W. Piers. Church. St. Osyth’s Church, Essex, 376 Gate, near Canterbury, 84, 328 London, W.C. Lincoln’s Inn Fields. Nos. 59-60, PP. 75, 92, 98 Northiam. Church House, 84, 329 Tenterden. Finch Den, 83, 326 West Stow Hall, 84, 327 Pinnacles, East Barsham Manor House, Turret, 88, 147-51 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 88, 123 West Stow Hall, Turret, 88, 386 Piscina. Chignal Smealey Church, 70 Place bricks, 33, 35-7 Plaish Hall, Salop, 81 Plaques, terra-cotta. Hampton Court Palace, 43, 348 Plastered surfaces, I-2, 62-3 Pocock’s School. See Rye. Pointing. See Joints of Brickwork. Porches. Castle Hedingham Church, 134 Charlton Church, 85, 276 Feering. All Saints’ Church, 84, 262 Guilton. Cottage at, 84, 204, 423 Layer Marney. St. Mary’s Church, 84, 265 Pebmarsh. St. John the Baptist Church, 84, 260 Rochester. Restoration House, 274 Sandon. ~ St. Andrew’s Church, 84, 129, 261 Tenterden. Brunger’s Farm, 84, 269, 422 Post Office. See Wickhambreaux Potter Heigham Church, Norfolk. Font, 87, 382 Prices of bricks, 17-8, 35-6 Primatt, S., 18-20, 22-3 Prints (old) of brickmaking, 29-30, 390-2 Prittlewell, Essex. Fireplace now in V. & A. M., 70, 87, 89, 96, 384 Proclamations regarding bricks, 45-51 Purple bricks. See Brick. Purpose-moulded bricks. See Brick. QUEEN Anne’s Gate. See London, S.W. Queens’ College. See Cambridge. RAINHAM Hall, Essex, 69, 232-3 Rambures, Picardy, 8 Rampyndene. See Burwash. Ramsbury Manor, Wilts. Stables, 70, 197 Rasp for brick cutting, 393, 395 Raynham Hall, Norfolk, 57, 60, 65, 67, 91, 98, 179 Reading Street, Thanet. Vowel’s Cottage, 71, 202 Rectory Towers. See Hadleigh. Red bricks. See Brick. Red House. See Sawbridgeworth. 44.7 Reilly, Prof. C. H., 61 Repton, Derbyshire. Hall and School, 70 Restoration House. See Rochester. Ribs, vaulting. Herstmonceaux, 375 Tattershall Castle, 86, 373-4 Richard’s Charity Almshouses. See Goodnestone. Richards, H. W., 79 Richmond, Surrey. No. 3, Parkshot. Doorway, 85, 282 Ringmer (near), Sussex. Cottage, 253 Roberts, G. H., M.P., 26 Rochester, Kent. Cathedral. Tesserz, 69, 432-6 Corn Exchange, 93, 99 Guildhall, 94, 99 Restoration House, 92, 98, 274 Rod of brickwork. Wages for a, 23, 25 Rodney Street. See Liverpool. Rogers, Prof. Thorold, 5 Rolvenden, Kent. Gate House, 90, 98, 332, 335 Roman bricks. See Brick. Roof tiles, 2. Rothamsted. See Harpenden. Roundels, terra-cotta. See Plaques. Roydon Hall. See East Peckham. Rubbed bricks. See Brick. Rubble, 60, 62 Rustication. Canterbury. Gate piers near, 71, 328 Ramsbury Manor Stables. Piers, 70, 197 Rye. Doorway, Pocock’s School, 71, 273 West Stow Hall. Piers, 84, 327 Rye House. See Hoddesdon. Rye, Sussex. Garden Room at Lamb House, 244 House. No. 102, High Street. Chimney, 14, 335 Old Water Cistern, 66, 217 Pocock’s School, 71, 85, 90, 98, 181, 273, 300, 418 Rymer, 18 “Sacrist Rolls of Ely,” by F. R. Chapman, 12-3, 18 St. Albans, Herts. Cathedral, 2, 60, 69, 103, 387 Tyttenhanger Park, 57, 63, 65, 75, 78, 80, 86, 92, 98, 187-9, 302, 336 St. Andrew’s Church. See Colne Engaine. See Sandon. St. Andrew’s Street. See Hertford. St. Botolph’s Priory Church. See Colchester. St. Cross Hospital, Hants. Turret in Great Court, 89, 96, 363 St. John the Baptist Church. See Pebmarsh. St. John’s College. See Cambridge. St. Mary’s Church. See Layer Marney. St. Mary the Virgin’s Church. See Shenfield. St. Nicholas Chapel. See Little Coggeshall. St. Nicholas Church. See Tolleshunt Major. St. Olave’s Priory. See Yarmouth. St. Osyth’s Church, Essex, 87, 90, 97, 376 Priory, 81, 341 St. Peter’s, Thanet, 69, 87, 94, 99, 356, 362 Salehurst, Sussex. Beech House. Chimney, 336 Salisbury, Wilts. No. 56, The Close, 70, 388 Salmestone Grange. See Margate. Salmon, William, 25 Sandhurst, Kent. Chimneys, 338 Sandon, Essex. St. Andrew’s Church, 8, 68, 84-5, 129, 261 Sarre, Kent. Farmhouse at, 14, 71, 90, 99, 203, 362 Sawbridgeworth, Herts. Red House, Knight Street, 94, 99, 234, 307 No. 40, Knight Street, 235 Saxon buildings. Use of Roman bricks, 2, 255 Schopperus, Hartmannus, 29 Scole, Norfolk. White Hart Inn, 190 Scotch. See Scutch. Scutch (or Scotch) for brick cutting, 73, 393 Blades, 393 448 INDEX Sedilia, brick. St. Nicholas Chapel, Little Coggeshall Abbey, 71 Terra-cotta. Wymondham Church, 43-4, 355 Sergeant’s Inn. See London, E.C, Sevenoaks, Kent. The Old House, 231 “Sheffield Daily Telegraph,” 26 Shenfield House. See Margaretting. Shenfold, Essex. Church of St. Mary the Virgin, 257 Sissinghurst, Kent. Castle, 68, 93, 97, 338, 362, 437 King’s Head Inn. Chimney, 91, 99, 337 Sizes of Bricks. See Brick, sizes. Slyfield Manor. See Great Bookham. Small Hythe Church, Kent, 85, 288, 437 Sowden’s Farm. See Westfield. Spalding, Lincs. Old Star Inn. Doorway, 83, 320 Sparrowhatch. See Bethersden. Stables, Cale Hill. See Little Chart. See Ramsbury Manor. Staple House, 17 Stair, newel. Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 86 Colchester. St. Botolph’s Priory Church, 86, 369 Faulkbourne Hall, 86, 371 Laughton Place, 86, 372 Oxburgh Hall, 86, 370 Statutes regarding bricks, 45-51 Steps. Church House, Northiam, 329 Stevenage, Herts. Aston Bury. Chimneys, 81, 3392. Stock for brickmaking, 30-1, 33-5 Stock bricks. See Brick Stockholm. Modern Building in Monk Bond, 365 Stock Street Farm. See Great Coggeshall. Stoke-by-Nayland, Suffolk. Gifford’s Hall, 40, 68, 70, 75, 87-8, 123, 258-9, 385 Strapwork. Farnham. Old Town Hall, 70, 368, 426 Godalming. House in High Street, 70, 191-2 Little Chart. Cale Hill Stables, 270 Stretching Bond. See Bond. String course. Great Snoring Rectory, 345 East Barsham Manor House, 345 Sturry Court, Kent, 82, 89, 97, 309 Stutton Hall, Suffolk, 62, 81-2, 92, 97, 312-3, 331, 339 “Survey of London,” 76, 78 Sussex Bond. See Bond. Sutton Place. See Guildford. TABLET. House at Yalding, 87, 385 Tattershall Castle, Lincs., 4, 7, 14, 60, 65, 81, 86, 89, 96, I09-10, 373-4 Tax on bricks, 52 Tegulae, 2 Template for brick cutting, 393 Tenterden, Kent. Brunger’s Farm, 84, 152, 269, 422 | Finch Den. Gate pier and wall coping, 83, 326, 430 Hales Place, 62, 82-3, 92, 97, 310-1, 321 Well House, 92, 97, 155 Westwell, 95, 100 Terra-cotta, 39-44 Comparison with brick, 39 Great Cressingham Priory, 41, 156 Guildford. Sutton Place, 42, 142-5, 294-5, 347, 417 Hampton Court Palace, 43, 138, 348 Hatfield House, 84, 169-71 Italian influence, 42-3 Layer Marney Church. Tombs, 43, 349-51 Hall, 139-41, 292, 346 Oxburgh Church. Tombs, 43, 352-4 Plaques or Roundels. See Plaques. Wymondham Church. Sedilia, 43 Tesserae. Rochester Cathedral, 69, 432-6 Tesselae, 2 Texture of brickwork, 4, 55 Thornbury Castle, Gloucestershire. Chimney, 39, 81, 343 Thornton Abbey, Lincs. Gatehouse, 89, 96 Tichborne, Hants. Church Tower, 93, 99 Cottage. Brick nogging, 387 Tichfield Place, Hants., Chimney, 81 Tile; early name for brick, 15 Making, 35 Tilloloy, France. Gable of Chapel, 8 Tolleshunt Major. Beckingham Hall, 62, 93, 98, 157 St. Nicholas Church, 68, 91, 97, 131 Tombs. Arundel, 44 Brick. St. Peter’s Churchyard, Thanet, 87, 356 City of London, 44 Terra-cotta, Layer Marney Church, 43, 349-51 Oxburgh Church, 43, 352-4 Tompkin’s Almshouses. See Abingdon. Tonbridge, Kent. Ferox Hall, 243 Took’s Court. See London, E.C. Tools for brick cutting, 389, 393-5 Topsham, Devon. “Dutch” gable, 14 Tracery, brick, 70, 115, 124, 129, 133-4, 136, 147-51, 156, 258-9, 265, 267, 272, 288, 290, 345-6, 384 Bruges, 70 Colne Engaine. St. Andrew’s Church, 70, 133 Compton Wynyates, 70, 429 East Barsham Manor House, 70, 147-51, 263, 345 Ewelme Almshouses, 70, 115 Great Snoring Rectory, 80, 125, 286 Layer Marney Hall, 70, 291-2 Methwold, 70, 136 Prittlewell. Fireplace now in V. & A. M., 70, 384 Small Hythe Church, 85, 288 Stoke-by-Nayland. Gifford’s Hall, 70, 123, 258-9 West Stow Hall, 70, 124, 267 : Tracery, terra-cotta, Great Cressingham Priory, 70, 156, 346 Trade Union rates for bricklayers, 22 Treeton, near Sheffield, Yorks. Modern example of brick- laying, 26, 397 Trevizi (or Trevizano), Dirolamo, 42 Trinity Church. See Colchester and Hull. Tuck-and-pat pointing, 67 Tudor brick. See Brick. Turrets, brick. Cobham Hall, Kent, 162 East Barsham Manor House, 70, 147-51 Great Snoring Rectory, 80, 125 Little Leez Priory, 154 Margaretting. Moat wall at Killigrews, 83, 323 Tolleshunt Major. Beckingham Hall, 157 West Stow Hall, 386 Turrets, terra and brick. Great Cressingham Priory, 156 Terra-cotta, Great Cressingham Priory, 346 Guildford. Sutton Place, 347 3 Turret pinnacles. See Pinnacles. Tyttenhanger Park. See St. Albans. UNDERDOWN Farm. See Eddington. Unitarian Chapel. See Bury St. Edmunds. VALUATION of ground for brickmaking, 19 Vaulting, Beverley. North Bar, 86 Faulkbourne Hall, 86 Herstmonceaux Castle, 375 Little Coggeshall Abbey, 84, 86, 256 Oxburgh Hall, 86 Tattershall Castle, 86, 373-4 Viaduct, modern. Chapel Viaduct, Earls Colne, 380 Victoria and Albert Museum. See wnder Enfield and Prittlewell. Vowel’s Cottage. See Reading Street. WacEs of bricklayers and moulders, 18-28 Wall coping. See Coping. = ; INDEX Wallingford, Berks, Calleva House, 58, 78, 94, 100, 227 Wall tile; old name for bricks, 12, 17 Ware, Isaac, 18, 37-8, 57-8, 63, 201a Watlington, Oxon. House with Doric doorway, 95, 100 ss House next to that with Doric doorway, 95, 100 = Town Hall. Venetian window, 296 Weir, William, 4, 14, 96 Well House, Hales Place. See Tenterden. Welwyn, Herts. Lockleys, 78, 95, 100, 221 Wendover, Bucks. Corbel course, 334 West Farleigh Hall, Kent, 77, 366 Westfield, Sussex. Sowden’s Farm, Chimney, 90, 99 West Stockwell Street. See Colchester. West Stow Hall, Suffolk, 40, 70, 84, 87-9, 90, 93, 99, 124, 267, 327, 378, 386 West Street. See Farnham. Westwell. See Tenterden. Wheathampstead, Herts. Mackerye End, 92, 98, 193, 339 White Hart Inn. See Scole. White paint; use of, 63-4 Whitgift Hospital. See Croydon. Wickham, Hants. House in Square, 58, 66, 240 Wickhambreaux Post Office, Kent, 164 Willmer House. See Farnham. Winchester, Hants. House in Hyde Street, 206 Old Sick House, The College, 90, 98 School, 61, 65, 93, 99, 198 Windows. Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 85, 296, 419 Chichester. Pallant House, 307 Chignal Smealey Church, 85, 290 East Barsham Manor House, 85, 287, 415-6 Farnham. The Grange, 86, 307 Willmer House, 86, 406-7 Goodnestone. Richard’s Charity Almshouses, 85, 303 Great Bookham. Slyfield Manor, 85, 297 Great Snoring Rectory, 85, 286, 414 Guildford. Sutton Place, 294-5, 417 Hatfield. Bishop’s Palace, 413 Hertford. Balls Park, 86, 183, 301 Kew Palace, gauged work, 299 Layer Marney Church, 85, 290 Layer Marney Hall, 291-3 Little Coggeshall Abbey, 85, 283-4 London, N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 86, 301-2, 400-402 Sawbridgeworth. Red House, 307 Smallhythe Church, 85, 288 Window Arch, Beckley Church House, 86, 307, 421 Farnham. The Grange, 86, 307 Bay. Guildford. Sutton Place, 294, 417 Dormer. Rye. Pocock’s School, 300, 418 Elliptical. Bury St. Edmunds. Unitarian Chapel, 211 Larkfield. Bradbourne, 305 449 Window—continued Mouldings. Barking. Eastbury Manor House, 296, 419 Charlton. Garden House at Old Charlton, 86, 298 Colchester. No. 37, Crouch Street, 306, 420 East Barsham Manor House, 85, 287, 415-6 Feering. All Saints’ Church, 85, 262 Goodnestone. Richard’s Charity Almshouses, 85, 303 Great Snoring Rectory, 85, 286, 414 Guildford. Sutton Place, 295, 417 Hatfield. Bishop’s Palace, 413 Hertford. Balls Park, 86, 301 Kew Palace, 299 London, N. Cromwell House, Highgate, 301-2, 398-402 St. Albans. Tyttenhanger Park, 86, 302 Sandon. St. Andrew’s Church, 85, 129, 261 Oriel. Faulkbourne Hall, 85, 112 Hoddesdon. Rye House, 85, 289 Layer Marney Hall, 293 Pediment. See Pediments. Rusticated. Larkfield. Bradbourne, 86 Sawbridgeworth. Red House, 86, 307 Semi-elliptical. Beckley. Church House, 86, 307, 421 Terra-cotta. Guildford. Sutton Place, 294-5, 417 Layer Marney Hall, 291-2 Venetian. Colchester. Crouch Street, 86, 306, 420 Ai West Stockwell Street, 248 Watlington Town Hall, 296 Wingham, Kent. Delbridge House, 245 Row of cottages in street, 92, 99 Womenswold Church, Kent. Porch, 93, 100 Wood, John, 26 Wren, Sir Christopher, 57-8, 61, 63, 65, 67, 76-7, 195-6, 198-9, 200-1, 205, 212, 277-9, 324 Wren’s House. See Chichester. Wrencote. See Croydon. Wye, Kent. College Cloisters, 379 Crundale. Hunt’s Farm, 92, 98, 338 Wymondham Church, Norfolk, 43-4, 355 YALDING, Kent, 385 Yarmouth (near), Norfolk. Caister Castle, 8, 10, 60, 81, 91, 96, III St. Olave’s Priory, 5 Yellow bricks. See Brick. York brickmaking; prices, 17 Yorkshire Bond. See Bond. . ’ PRINTED BY W. HEFFER & SONS LTD., CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND > ” a wr, | oF ert se : > = ‘ My ; ; ? : ~ sd _ x .. « h ” : : = — = : : * . ~~ — * : ; ; - ty ¥ e ° ~~ ” D : ; ; . : —— ~ > > + ; . : ; c . - - \ ie ee ne Pe en a mm _ ae Oe =a, Sen os