Description and history of Tudor House and of the Norman house traditionally known as "King John's palace" ..

A,

0
0
1

0
2

1

5
4
2

4

X

Hearnshaw
Tudor House

\

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES

Description and History

OK

TUDOR HOUSE

AND OF THE NORMAN HOUSE
TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS

"King Johns Palace,"

WITH NOTES ON

THE GUARD ROOM, UNDERCROFT and
NORMAN VAULT,

IN THE

County Borough of Southampton.

SET FORTH BY

F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D.,

Professor of History in the University of London :

R. MACDONALD LUCAS, F.R.I.B.A.,

Hon. Sec. of the Hampshire Architects' Society ;
AND

W. DALE, F.S.A., F.G.S.,

Hon. Sec. of the Hampshire Field Club
and Archaeological Society.

2nd Five Thousand.

SOUTHAMPTON.

At the Tudor House.

1914.

By Order of the Estates Committee of the

County Borough Council.

Cl.Ht

\>J(4A<A.^ a-fij^ fh iZUj /i /^^

SET FORTH BY

F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D.,

Professor of History in the University of London ;

R. MACDONALD LUCAS, F.R.I.B.A.,

Hon. Sec. of the Hampshire Architects' Society ;

AND

W. DALE, F.S.A., F.G.S.,

Hon. Sec. of the Hampshire Field Club
and Archaeological Society.

2nd Five Thousand.

SOUTHAMPTON.

At the Tudor House.

1914.

By Order of the Estates Committee of the

County Borough Council.

^^ J^

Description .\nd History

OF

TUDOR HOUSE

AND OF THE NORMAN HoUSE
TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS

"King John's Palace,'

WITH NOTES ON

THE GUARD ROOM, UNDERCROFT and
NORMAN VAULT.

IN THE

County Borough of Southampton.

PREFACE

PREFACE.

Tudor House and the Norman House which is
traditionally known as "King John's Palace" were pur-
chased by the Southampton County Borough Council
in 1911, at the instigation and during the Mayoralty of
Colonel Edward Bance, V.D., D.L., J. P., who was also
Chairman of the Estates Committee of the Corporation,
and were opened to the public as a Hampshire Antiquar-
ian Museum in 1912 by the then Mayor, Lieut. H.
Bowyer, R.N.R.

That these profoundly interesting buildings have
been preserved for future generations is also largely due
to the admirable public spirit of W. F. G. Spranger, Esq.,
J. P., of Springhill Court, Southampton, who bought the
properties some years ago when they came into the
market,' spent a large sum in restoring them, and
ultimately sold them to the Town at a price very much
below his actual outlay upon them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO AUTHORS.

To the accomplished gentlemen, Professor F. J. C.
Hearnshaw, M.A., LL.D., R. Macdonald Lucas, Esq.,
F.R.I.B.A., and W. Dale, Esq., F.S.A., F.G.S., who have
given so freely of their knowledge and limited leisure to
the writing of this little pamphlet, very grateful but
inadequate thanks are tendered. How such busy persons
found the time necessary for what is a much heavier
task than it seems at first sight, is best known to them-
selves ; but they have helped equally to make the
pamphlet what it is, and each has for the public weal
given freely of his best without fee or reward.

R. E. Nicholas, Hon. Curator.
1st. October, 1914.

^7 {^ ^ INTRODUCTORY

The Norman House and
Tudor House, Southampton

ARCHITECTURALLY DESCRIBED BY
R. MACDONALD LUCAS, F.R.I.B.A.

INTRODUCTORY.

TpHESE buildings present a very marked difference

in character, interesting not only as a matter of

construction but also as an indication of the greatest

change a nation can undergo — the change from internecine

war to peace.

Nowhere else in this country, I believe, can two
dwellings which are such fine specimens of their respec -
tive styles be found in proximity to each other : and the
contrast between them is emphasized by their position.
It is one so obvious that it may be desirable to invite
visitors to dwell upon it a little, as attention is apt to be
diverted from a broad fact when it is over -shadowed by
interesting details ; and one might thus chance to over-
look the repellant character of the one building and the
hospitable nature of the other.

The Norman House shows us the dwelling of men
established in the country but not yet of the country,
enforcing their laws by the sword, and secure against but
not with their neighbours, while the Tudor House was
clearly built by a man who was at home in the land, safe
in the companionship of his kindred and bom to abide
under the same settled laws as his neighbours.

The actual period at which the Norman House was
built is not certainly known, nor have we any knowledge
of its first owner ; but all authorities agree that the
character of its details and masonry is that of early
twelfth century work. It is possible, perhaps probable,

3

1G26340

THE NORMAN HOUSE

that of the few surviving fragments of Norman domestic
architecture in England, this is actually the oldest. What
we see now is a plain square stone building at the south-
west corner of Blue Anchor Lane. Its northern wall
remains practically intact for a length of about fifty feet,
and its western for about twenty-eight feet. How much
more of it there was we cannot be sure.

The entrance is through a semi-circular-headed door-
way in Blue Anchor Lane, with arch and jambs simply
chamfered. The necking or capital from which the arch
springs is one of those crude Norman mouldings that hark
back through Roman to Greek architecture ; and over the
arch is a small double-chamfered label or dripstone, in
connection with which it may be noted that the earliest
"dripstones" were not devised to drip, and were thus
obviously not invented for the purpose of throwing water
away from the arch as did the later ones. It is not un -
reasonable to think that the Norman label may be but the
impoverished descendant of the Greek cornice repeatedly
diminished since the Roman period, during which it was
adapted for use over round-headed openings.

In the northern wall is the doorway just mentioned ;
and in the western are chamfered jambs indicating two
wide openings which were filled in (probably during the
fourteenth century) with masonry in which two oillets are
formed. The walls are rather over two feet thick.

Two windows in the west wall and one in the
north, are of the same size but not of precisely similar
construction ; and there is a difference of three inches
or so in the thickness of the walls, the western being
the thicker. Every one of the windows is divided ex-
ternally by a balluster-shaft with base and foliated
capital into a pair of narrow round - headed openings, while
on the inside of the wall the whole opening is spanned by
one arch about three and a half feet wide. Of these open -
ings,the one on the north has plain internal jambs, but those
on the west have five-inch "roll-mouldings" worked on the
angles, continued up each side and around the arch, starting
from square bases of slight projection at the level of
their sills.

THE NORMAN HOUSE

In the north wall portions of a stone fireplace, a
chimney supported on corbels, and two recesses, one
round -arched, with oillet, the other square -headed, may
still be seen/

THE TUDOR HOUSE.

In the Tudor House, built by a wealthy townsman
named Henry Huttoft, and completed and occupied by
him in 1535, Southampton possesses a remarkably inter-
esting building designed and arranged for the double
purpose of a house of business and a private residence.
Huttoft was the chief officer of Customs ; and it is no
doubt owing to the fact that he occupied this house in a
dual capacity that there are two front doors opening upon
St. Michael's Square. It is a large house of four stories,
including extensive cellars and attics ; and many families
have inhabited it since Huttoft's time, for it has been
divided and subdivided again and again. In the course
of these alterations many features of the old building
were mutilated or destroyed, and to some extent the
original plan has been obliterated. All therefore that I
can attempt to do is to endeavour to indicate with due
diffidence a few points upon which others, who also like
to study and dream over the works of their forefathers,
may reconstruct for themselves and to their own ideas
the house which Henry Huttoft built for his business
and pleasure in the early part of the sixteenth century.

The entrance now used by visitors is at the north
end of the front and the door under the curious open
porch gave direct access originally to the Great Hall.
Before the recently -erected partition was put up to form
a passage, this apartment had a length of 32 feet ; and
as the partition is quite unnecessary, it may perhaps
some day be removed and the proportions of the Hall
again displayed. This was the entrance to the domestic

* Forty-five years aKo there was a secret passaKe in the iipt<er t»rt of the
East wall, but the inner side fell away through neglect. Near the South end of
this wall can still be seen a narrow window-slit which afforded light and ventilation
to the passage.

S B

THE TUDOR HOUSE

apartments occupied by the family of Huttoft. The
other street entrance at the south end of the same front
was used by persons coming to Huttoft on business ; and
the small room adjoining and the spacious hall out of
which that room opens (and in which a modern staircase
has been recently constructed) were his offices for the use
of himself and his clerks. Under this entrance is a fine
stone -vaulted cellar, with remains of an old doorway
indicating the level of the street in Huttoft's time, and a
small doorway of sixteenth -century date at the opposite
end, where the vault has been cut into and the floor-space
reduced by a modern stone wall enclosing a flight of steps.
The three stone steps ascending from this doorway are
original ; but the cemented steps continuing the ascent
are modern. These steps were formed to gain access to
the very extensive cellars, in the walls of which masonry
of the Norman period may be noticed. A large stone
corbel facing the foot of the flight now supports nothing
except archaeological conjecture and is useless save as an
indication that a beam -end of some earlier building rested
on it. An interesting suggestion has been put forward
by Mr. Charles Cooksey that the whole of this site was
once covered by stone buildings of a pre -Norman and
even pre -Saxon period, and that in these cellars, in the
Norman house and elsewhere, we see their remains ; but,
as is perhaps inevitable, the basis of this theory is at
present very slight. The great size of some of the oak
iDeams in the cellars should be noted, as also the large
stone -arched fire-place directly under a similar one in the
Banqueting Hall.

With such an extensive basement ready to his hand,
Huttoft perhaps utilized it for under -ground kitchens,
buttery, larders and stores. He may thus have been the
inventor of an arrangement which is still the bane of the
terrace house, and have so earned the hatred of genera-
tions of weary-footed domestics. However, it is quite
possible the kitchens were on the ground floor in a
western wing, with an entrance from Blue Anchor Lane.

At the back of the Great Hall is another large and
much more lofty apartment, possibly the Banqueting

THE TUDOR HOUSE

Hall. Here the ceiling is of panelled oak, and I am
indebted to Mr. Inkpen (of Messrs. Stevens and Co., the
builders who did extensive restorations a few years ago)
for the information that three ceilings had to be cleared
away to open it up. Of the two windows, the small one
was found almost in its present condition, but the large
is practically new except for two or three stones which
gave slight indications as to size and design. The stone-
work of the doorway is original, and one half of the
fireplace exists as Huttoft left it.

At the north end of this room a screen shuts off one
passage and carries another on the first floor which later
probably served as a gallery for musicians on festive
occasions ; and it is thought that the main staircase of the
house may have been in the place now occupied by the
staircase of the caretaker's rooms ascending to the west
end of the gallery, from the opposite end of which three
or four steps led up to the rooms over the Great Hall.
This would be quite in accordance with what we know
about staircases of periods anterior to Elizabeth's time ;
they were small and insignificant, often tortuous, and
seldom decorated in any way.

The arrangement of the first floor rooms and those
in the roof does not call for any detailed description, but
the elaborately arched and panelled ceilings of oak should
l^ noticed, and also a large cupboard on the right hand
side at the top of the attic stairs. This it is conjectured,
may have been what is called a " Priest's Hole," or place
of refuge during the persecution of Roman Catholics in
the days of Henry the Eight and Queen Elizabeth, but
to my mind this is not probable.* A real hiding place of
this kind existed till 1912 at No. 17, High Street, where
there were considerable remains of a house once occupied

'Since Mr. K. Macdonald Lucas wrotetbis, the removal of the panelling
at the side of a cupboard in the North-Kast first floor room of Tudor House has
revealed the entrance to a hidden way to the floor above. Many ancient bouses
contain these quaint passages and hidie-holes, the commonest beintt the Priest's
Koom, from which the Rev. Father emerged to practice the rites of tbe forbidden
religion While not necessarily an escape for priests, this secret passage speaks
of the curiously furtive life which the gentlemen of England were compelled to
lead in the late 16th and I7th centuries— Roman Catholics at first, ai>d later those
who " held for the King."

THE TUDOR HOUSE

by Charles I., but this house was entirely destroyed in the
year mentioned to make way for furniture - showrooms.

In Huttoft's time oak was in general use both for
ships and houses, and very often when ships were broken
up, their timbers were used again on land. In the floor
over the cellars, near the arched fireplace, may be seen
timbers that have served previous uses ; and there are
probably more in the building that have spent many years
at sea. Here and there are quaint bits of carving
representing foliage, grotesque figures or animals.
Huttoft's son-in-law, an Italian named Guidotti, may have
had a hand in this if, as I surmise, he lived at No. 50,
High Street, and appreciated spirited carving such as may
be seen in the two magnificent fireplaces, now in the
Magistrates and Barristers' rooms at the Guildhall Offices,
Bargate Street. These fireplaces were rescued at a cost
of only £60 from the former building during alterations
which were made in 1906.

The upright timbering now visible in the internal
walls may have been originally covered with plaster or
tapestry, such having been the custom in the middle ages.

After a careful study of the building it is pleasant,
and by no means difficult to conjure up a mental vision,
hazy but still alluring, of a Tudor household, and of the
respected Master Henry Huttoft building for himself
and his family a house and offices worthy of his position
as Chief Customer of Southampton and sometime Mayor
of the town ; and for the pleasure we derive from such
dreams of bygone days we owe him our gratitude for
having built so lastingly and well.

THE NORMAN HOUSE

THE NORiMAiN HOUSE

HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED BY
PROFESSOR F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D.

ITS TRADITIONAL NAME :
"KING JOHN'S PALACE."

The popular name of the Norman House at the
present day is " King John's Palace." This name would
have suited it well if it had ever been a palace, and if it
had had any association with King John ; but as we have
no cause to suppose that it had any connection whatsoever
either with John or any other king, the name is open to
the objection which Voltaire urged against the term
"Holy Roman Empire" viz: that each individual portion
of it connotes a distinct and separate historical error. If
we ask how and when the erroneous name "King John's
Palace" became attached to the Norman House, I think
that we shall have to place responsibility upon Mr. John
Duthy, who in his "Sketches of Hampshire," published
posthumously in 1839, wrote concerning this building : —
*We venture the conjecture that it was a royal palace,
and though we cannot even guess at the date of its found-
ation, or the name of its first possessor, there seems suffi-
cient reason to conclude that it was inhabited by King
John on the occasions of his not unfrequent visits to the
town." Mr. Duthy admits that he is merely making a
conjecture ; but as he proceeds to give the grounds of his
supposition it is necessary that we consider them.

Mr. Duthy finds in the Close Rolls of the thirteenth
century two facts ; first that the King had some houses
in Southampton, and secondly that they were situated
upon or close to a quay. In 1222 the bailiffs of South-
ampton were ordered to repair, "our quay in front of our
houses," and two years later they were again commanded
to attend to " our quay at Southampton, lest In- means of
that quay some damage accrue to our houses at South -
ampton." Now Mr. Duthy rightly concludes that the

THE NORMAN HOUSE

terms of these extracts from the Close Rolls prevent us
from identifying the King's houses either with the Castle
itself on the one hand, since that stood high above any
reach of the water, or with the Norman building (mis-
called "Canute's Palace") in Porter's Lane, on the other
hand, since the quay near which that stands was not
constructed till the thirteenth century.

Hence Mr. Duthy infers that " King John's Palace "
near the West Quay must be alluded to : but he fails to
note two points which to my mind irresistibly lead to a
different conclusion. In the first place, he does not remark
that the quay, equally with the houses, is called the King's :
it is " Kayum nostrum." In the second place, he ignores
the significance of the fact that in the Close Rolls for both
1214 and 1215 the quay is expressly called "Kayum castri
nostri " i.e. the quay of the King's Castle. Now the quay
known as the West Quay, which faces "King John's
Palace," was the town quay and not the King's quay.
Moreover it did not serve the Castle, which had a quay of
its own, known as the Barbycan. Hence I conclude that
the "King's houses" abutted upon the Castle quay and
were in fact none other than the Castle outbuildings
which lay along the shore at the foot of the castle mound,
between the sites now occupied by the forty steps to the
North and Corporation workmen's cottages to the South.
It is quite possible that the still -existing vaults on the
western esplanade formed a part of these King's houses.
For, as Mr. Hudson Turner, the eminent authority on
Mediaival Architecture, remarks, "it is well known that
the term 'domus' was applied to various structures raised
within the enceinte of a Mediaeval fortress" and was by
no means confined to dwelling-houses.

I see, then, no reason at all for accepting the
" conjecture " that the Norman house at the bottom of
Blue Anchor Lane was ever a " King's house," still less
a " Royal Palace." It has interest enough of its own as
a very early example of Norman domestic architecture,
without attaching to it baseless legends connecting it with
King John or any other monarch more respectable than
King John.

10

THE NORMAN HOUSE

The Norman and Angevin Kings, on the occasions
of their visits to Southampton, would no doubt always
stay at the Castle, and not in any low -lying, undefended
house. This is not wholly a matter of conjecture, for the
one royal letter dated from Southampton which remains
to us, \ iz. that of Henry V. to the King of France, is
inscribed from the "Chastel de Hantonne au rivage de la
mer." We may dismiss, then, from our minds as devoid
of historical foundation the legend that the Norman house
was a "Royal Palace" of any King whatsoever, whether
Angevin or earlier than Angevin.

ITS HISTORY.

The date of the building of the Norman house is
assigned by Mr. Hudson Turner to the first half of the
twelfth century. These are his words : *' It is nearly
perfect, except the roof, and is probably one of the oldest
houses remaining in England, being of rather earlier
character than either the Jews' house at Lincoln, or those
at Christ Church in Hampshire, lioothby Pagnell in
Lincolnshire, or Minster in the Isle of Thanet, all well-
known instances of the domestic architecture of England
in the twelfth century, many of them belonging to the
latter part, whilst the present example may perhaps be
safely referred to the earlier half of that century."

Of the history of the Norman house during the
first two centuries of its existence we know nothing.
Nor do we know anything of its successive inhabitants,
though the structure of the basement of the house suggests
that they were merchants whose business lay upon the
West Quay, whether it were import of wine or export of
wool, or both. The first incident in its career which is
reasonably certain is that, in common with many other
houses in the south-west quarter of the town, it met with
disaster at the hands of the French on 4th October, 1337.
On that day the town of Southampton was sacked and
all but ruined. The event made a great sensation tiirough-
out England at the time and it is recorded in nearly a
dozen contemporary chronicles. Stow, the Elizabethian

II

THE NORMAN HOUSE

Antiquary, has summarised the more vivid details of the
invasion thus : — " The 4th of October fifty galleys, well
manned and furnished, came to Southampton about nine
of the clock and sacked the town, the townsmen running
away, for feare. By the break of the next day they which
fled, by the help of the country thereabout, came against
the pyrates and fought with them, in the which skyrmish
were slain to the number of three hundred pyrates together
with their captain, the King of the Sicilies sonne." To
this young man the French King had given whatsoever
he got in the Kingdom of England. "But, he being
beaten down by a certain man of the country, cried out
' Rancon, rancon ' : notwithstanding which the husband-
man laid him on with his clubbe till he had slain him,
speaking these words, 'Yea,' quoth he, 'I know thee well
enough ; thou art a Francon, and therefore thou shalt die,'
for he understood not his speech, neither had he any skill
to take gentlemen prisoners and to keep them for their
ransome. Wherefore the residue of these Genoways,
after they had set the towne on fire and burned it up quite,
fledde to their galleys, and in their flying certain of them
were drowned. After this the inhabitants of the town
encompassed it about with a great and strong wall."

This statement concerning the wall means that the
town's fortifications, which had hitherto been strongest
on the landward side, were completed on the seaward side,
where naturally the main brunt of the French attack had
been felt. Hence over the west front of the Norman
house was erected, probably with materials found in the
ruined interior, part of that curious arcade work which
still remains as one of Southampton's most remarkable
architectural relics. Moreover the wide archways which
had given entrance to the basement of the house from the
quay were filled with masonry, only oillets being left
through which archers could shoot their shafts.

From that date down to the present — a period of
nearly six centuries — the external appearance of the
Norman house has, in all probability, undergone but
little change. The interior, however, has no doubt seen
many mutations before attaining its present condition.

12

THE NORMAN HOUSE

THE TLDOR HOUSE

HISTORICALLY DESCRIBED BY
PROFESSOR F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A., LL.D.

ITS LINK WITH THE NORMAN HOUSE.

The Tudor house is linked to the Norman not only
by the circumstance that they are near to one another
and form parts of one property, but also by the closer
arch aio logical tie that the foundations and cellars of the
Tudor house are of Xorman construction. It is probable
that the Norman superstructure was destroyed in the
great conilagration of 1337, and that on the base which
survived a fourteenth century house was erected, which,
in turn, at the beginning of the sixteenth century gave
place to the present splendid half-timbered mansion.

ITS BUILDING.

When Leland, Antiquary to King Henry \TII,
visited Southampton during the course of his extended
tour round England and Wales, to which he devoted the
eight years 1534-42, he remarked : "There be many fair
merchauntes houses in Hampton, but the chefest is the
house that Huttoft, late custumer of Hampton builded in
the west side of the town."

He mentioned, in addition to Huttoft's house, four
other fine houses, among them that of Guidote, an Italian.

Now there is every reason to believe that " the house
that Huttoft builded " is'the present Tudor house. First,
Leland himself tells us that it was situated "in the west
side of the town " ; and Tudor House is the only con-
spicuously fine house in that quarter. Secondly from a
Muster Roll of 1544 preserved among the borough
documents, we learn what arrangements were made at

13

THE TUDOR HOUSE

that date for the defence of the walls. We find that Mr.
Huttoft's garden came down to the walls of the town and
we are able to fix its precise situation by reference to the
other properties mentioned in order. The tower behind
Bugle Hall was assigned to the coopers : the West Gate
to Mr. Baker; the tower behind Thomas Marsh's to the
vintners and others ; the tower " against Mr. Huttoft's "
to the weavers and others ; and the tower next Bedille's
Gate to the butchers and others. The tower "against Mr,
Huttoft's " can only have been that which commanded
the portal of Blue Anchor Lane, and Mr. Huttoft's
garden can only have been that of the Tudor house.
The date of the building of the house by Huttoft cannot
be precisely determined ; but in an extant letter of his
preserved in the Public Record Office he speaks of it as
complete in 1535. Under date 16th June, 1535 he writes,
" I have made little waste [of money] except in building
my poor house."

ITS BUILDER AND HIS FAMILY

Now, who was Henry Huttoft, the builder of Tudor
House ? Our local records do not tell us much. From
the lists of borough ofificers we learn that he was sheriff
in 1521, and mayor in 1525 and 1534. From the
Burgesses' Book we discover that during his second
mayoralty he conferred the dignity of burgess upon
Anthony Guidotti, of Florence, "without the consent of
his brethren and contrary to the order of the town "—a
circumstance which led to Guidotti's expulsion from the
burgesship in 1541, when Mr. Baker was mayor.

But if the Southampton borough documents tell us
little, their deficiency is by a happy chance more than
made up by the exceptional fulness of information which
comes to us from the State Papers preserved in the
Public Records Office, for it appears that Henry Huttoft
attached himself and his fortunes to Thomas Cromwell,
Earl of Essex, and among the Letters and Papers of the
Reign of Henry VIII, calendered by Mr. Brewer and
Mr. Gairdner, are a score or more of letters in Huttoft's

H

THE TUDOR HOUSE

own hand which reveal to us a good deal concerning the
man and his affairs.

Huttoft obtained his appointment as collector of the
King's customs in 1534 by favour of Cromwell. He was
seeking it, however, as long before as 1522 through
favour of Cardinal Wolsey. On 28th August, 1522,
James Betts, of Southampton, wrote to Wolsey to
announce the expected demise of Richard Palshide, the
then customer. He begged Wolsey's support for
Huttoft, who he said had been brought up and trained
in the work by Sir John Dawtry, himself once customer,
and he assured Wolsey that Huttoft was " a man of
gravity and substance and one of the best in the town."
Palshide, however, had twelve more years of life in him;
and Huttoft had to wait till 1534.

During the intervening years, nevertheless, he was
often engaged upon the King's business. In April, 1523,
for instance, he was at Portsmouth consulting the Vice-
Admiral concerning the detention of a merchant vessel
which the Spaniards had captured and brought into
Southampton Water. In 1524 he collected and sent up
to London £182 6s. 8d. as a loan towards the war with
France. In 1531 he accompanied the Earl of Wiltshire
on an expedition to Spain, the object of which was to
get hold of and destroy two enemies of the Government,
sea-rovers, probably Papists supported by Spain, named
Thomas King and William Calverley. For his trouble
and expense he received from the Treasury £64 4s. Od.

In 1533 (18th August) began his extant correspond-
ence with Thomas Cromwell, who at that time was just
rising into power and importance. His first letter was
concerned with Beaulieu Abbey. The abbot, Thomas
Skevington, had just died, and Huttoft begged -and
begged successfully — that John Browning, Abbot of
Waverley, might be appointed to the office. " He will
do his duty every way, " wrote Huttoft, " and if you knew
his manner of living, you would be his assured good
master. " A fortnight later he wrote to Cromwell again,
thanking him for granting his petition and sending to him
for transmission to the king a present brought by some

15

THE TUDOR HOUSE

merchants from distant lands. This present consisted of
" two musk cats, three little monkeys, a marmazat, a
shirt of fine fabric, a chest of Indian nuts, and four
earthenware pots called purselandes." In April, 1534,
he was busily engaged in hunting down on Cromwell's
behalf a certain Gilbert Pecock, warden of the Friary in
Southampton, who had been marked down for punish-
ment by reason of his anti- Reformation zeal. Before
long he managed to secure him, and he sent him to
Cromwell together with a letter begging favour for him
on the ground that his behaviour had been good and his
government of his convent excellent. That same month
(April, 1534) Palshide, the customer, died, and Huttoft
was appointed to succeed him. His letter of thanks to
Cromwell is dated May 8th, 1534. Twelve months after-
wards (I6th June, 1535) he was writing to his patron in
a very different strain. His prosperity had received a
rude and unexpected check. The blow had come from
Anthony Guidotti who, we learn, was his son-in-law, "so
taken in an unfavourable hour." Guidotti, who was an
importer of wine on a large scale and a buyer for the
King himself, had absconded, leaving Huttoft heavily
bound for his debts. He wrote to Cromwell in a state
of distraction : " An urgent cause of adversity," he began,
" constrains me to desire your favour." Then he told
him of the flight of Guidotti, in whose truth and honesty
he had fully but mistakenly trusted. The desperate part
of the case was that Guidotti owed the King £753, with
another £587 customs duty soon to fall due. It was in
respect of this that he begged Cromwell's aid. " You
have known me about 25 years," he pleaded, "and never
to have done contrary to my word and promise. For
this unhappy Guidotti I have so entangled myself that
unless you help me I am undone." "l will," he promised,
" strain myself to the uttermost, but hope the King will
be gracious to me and give me time." With the letter
he sent his son, John Huttoft, to plead his cause in
person. " Give credence to my son " he begged ; and
finally, in a postscript : " Whatever becomes of me, be
good to my son."

16

THE TUDOR HOUSE

In reponse to this appeal Huttoft apparently obtained
some relief, for on 25th January, 1537, he wrote to
Cromwell : " I shall never forget your benefits to me at
all times." The debts, however, in which his defaulting
son-in-law, Guidotti, had involved him were still undis-
charged, and the creditors were very troublesome.
Huttoft, in fact, never managed to the day of his death
to rid himself of this load of vicarious liability. In 1539
he sent his *' poor wife " to intercede for him with
Cromwell. She carried with her a " simple and rude
letter " from her husband in which he declared his
" sorrowful state." One gathers that his health was
failing at the time, for next year (December 1540) John
Mille was made customer of Southampton in his place,
and in 1542 he was dead. There is in the Public Records
Office a memorandum, dated 26th April, 1542, of the
" Debts owing by Harry Huttoft and Anthony Guydotte
unto the King's Majesty." Guidotti's liabilities reach
the very large sum of {6,Q51. For £l,Z11 of this total
Huttoft is bound and in addition he owes ;^100 on his
own account. That these debts had troubled Huttoft
much more than they had disturbed the King's serenity
is amusingly evident from a report of an interview which
Huttoft had with the King himself at Kingston-on-
Thames on 21st March, 1540. Huttoft enlarged on the
villainy of Guidotti and was much surprised to find that
the king knew nothing of the matter at all. However,
the king cheerfully promised that, if Guidotti did not
behave properly in the future, " his body should be
punished."

Guidotti's debts were not the only source of trouble
to Huttoft during his declining years. In 1537 his
mercantile ventures suffered heavily from pirates. One
of his ships, he told Cromwell in a letter dated 21st
August, had been boarded off Scilly and completely
despoiled ; another had been stripped by Spaniards as
she was on a voyage to Bordeaux ; while a hoy laden
with wheat had fallen a prey to the men of Dieppe.
Further, he was involved in local quarrels. So early as
October, 1534, he had been summoned to London to repel

17

THE TUDOR HOUSE

charges made by his " adversaries." In 1538 he was
engaged in a conflict with Sampson Thomas, his successor
in the mayoralty, in which both the Bishop of Bangor,
at that date occupying North Stoneham House, and
Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, were called upon to
intervene. In 1541 the unfriendliness of the mayor,
Walter Baker, and the Corporation was shown by the
harsh words (already quoted) with which they dis-
burgessed Guidotti — an act which in itself was probably
not distasteful to Huttoft. In 1541, indeed, the fortunes
of Huttoft were clearly in the descendant. During
the preceding year his patron himself, Thomas Cromwell,
had fallen, and he had no longer a powerful friend at
Court.

The great work of Thomas Cromwell during the
years of his ascendancy (1533-40) had been the dissolu-
tion of the monasteries. It is not marvellous, therefore,
that Huttoft had become involved in the business. He
was apparently a religious man, on excellent terms with
the regular clergy. In 1533 he had secured, as we have
seen, the appointment of his friend, John Browning, the
Abbot of Waverley, to the Abbacy of Beaulieu. In 1535
(16th September) he and John Mille jointly wrote to
Cromwell begging his favour on behalf of the religious
houses at Beaulieu, Quarre, Netley, St. Denys and
Mottisfont. He seems to have been on specially friendly
terms with the last Prior of Mottisfont, William Crysse-
church (Christchurch). That he himself had been a
benefactor of the Priory of Mottisfont is shown by the
fact that upon the soffit of the still extant pulpitum his
arms as sheriff appear together with those of the founder
of the priory and six other benefactors.

In June, 1533, he had secured for the prior a lease
of King's Somborne Rectory for forty years at a rent of
twenty marks a year. On 26th March, 1536, he wrote a
special plea to Cromwell that, amid the general destruc-
tion, he would spare Mottisfont. " There is much talk
here," he said, " of the suppression of religious houses.
Let me be a suitor for one, viz., the house at Motifunt
where there is a good friend of mine with as good a

I8

THE TUDOR HOUSE

master and convent as is in the country." He realised,
however, that his plea was a forlorn hope, and that the
fate of Mottisfont as a religious house was sealed, for
he added : " If none are to be reserved, but all must pass
one way, please let me have it towards my poor living,"
He probably hoped to be able to make some provision
for his friend, the prior. The priory was duly dissolved
before the close of the year: but Huttoft did not get it
It went to a more powerful claimant, Lord Sandys of the
Vyne. Possibly as some compensation for his disappoint-
ments respecting Mottisfont, before the close of the same
year (November, 1536), Huttoft was made Keeper of the
house and park of the royal manor of Wade, Hants, and
bailiff of the same manor, with 6d. a day. On 20th
March, 1538, Huttoft wrote an intercessory letter on
behalf of Thomas Stevens, the successor of his old
protege, as Abbot of Beaulieu. Perhaps it was not
wholly vain, for though the Abbey was dissolved and
given to Wriothesly, the Abbot (who had made himself
complacent to the government) was consoled by a pension
and a rich living. The religious conflict to which
the dissolution of the m.onasteries gave rise was one of
peculiar bitterness. In 1536 it led to the rebellion known
as the Pilgrimage of Grace. Huttoft was one of those
who received special letters from the government respect-
ing measures to he taken for its suppression. Even
when armed resistance was put down, hostility manifested
itself in violent words. On 14th September, 1539, Huttoft
was one of a bench of magistrates who examineda certain
Edward F^oster, a gunner, concerning seditious utterances
said to have been made by him, " If the King's blood
and his own," he was alleged to have said, " were both
in a dish or saucer, what difference were between them,
or how should a man know one from the other ? " : and
further, " If the Great Turk would give one penny a day
more than the King, he would serve him against the
King."

Concerning Huttoft's family, some slight informa-
tion can be gleaned from these same Letters iitid Papers
of the Reign of Henry VIII. Allusion is made to a wife

19

THE TUDOR HOUSE

and three children. Who the wife was we do not know.
We gather that she survived her husband, and continued
to live in the Tudor House. In 1550, however, the
Gardens formerly rented from the town by Henry Huttoft
were in the occupation of x^dryan Mason, parson of All
Saints. The heirs of Henry Huttoft — or Whittoft as he
is sometimes called — are mentioned year by year as
Freesuitors of the Court Leet down to the year 1594.
Of the three children mentioned in the State Papers, one
was a daughter, married in an evil hour to Anthony
Guidotti, the Florentine merchant. She must have spent
several unhappy years during her husband's exile and
her father's alienation. Guidotti, however, whatever his
faults, strove diligently to discharge his obligations and
make his peace with Cromwell and Henry VIH. W^e
have a long letter written in Italian from Naples (20th
March, 1537) to Cromwell in which he tries to win favour
by reporting that he has arranged for twenty -five Floren-
tine silk weavers to migrate to Southampton and to settle
there in order to plant the silk industry in the town. He
takes occasion to beg Cromwell's grace on behalf of his
father-in-law Henry Huttoft, who he admits has
"suffered enough " on his behalf. That Guidotti even-
tually succeeded in satisfying the Government is evidenced
by the fact that in April, 1550 he was knighted by
Edward VI. for services to the State. He died in
December, 1555. Fourteen years afterwards (March,
1569) his Southampton house, " late called my lady
Guidotte's" — i.e. the home of Henry Huttoft's daughter —
was in dangerous disrepair.

One of Henry Huttoft's sons was called John.
Several of his letters, written from Southampton, sur-
vive. His father's influence with Thomas Cromw'ell
sufficed to procure for him Government employment.
On 2nd October, 1539, he was appointed a clerk of the
signet. In 1540 he received the exalted office of Secre-
tary in the Household of the Queen — the Queen at this
particular time being Anne of Cleves, the elect of Crom-
well. We do not know what subsequently happened to
John ; but his good fortune can hardly have survived

20

THE TUDOR HOUSE

the shock of the execution of Cromwell and the divorce
of Anne.

A second son of Henry Huttoft was distinguished
by the name of " Cokerell." He is mentioned once only
in one of John's letters (20th August, 1537). We have no
information about him.

I have dwelt at rather disproportionate length on the
personal histories of Henry Huttoft and his family,
because they throw light on the stirring events of the
period, and because, though the materials for their
construction lie open in the Public Records Office, no
one else so far has taken the trouble to collect them and
put them together. Perhaps the prolixity of personal
detail is the more pardonable because there is so little to
say respecting Tudor House itself.

ITS ROYAL VISITORS.

If only the old house itself could speak, what stories
it could tell of the doings of the dozen generations who
have dwelt within its walls or have passed athwart the
Square beneath its windows. Tradition associates it
doubtfully with two royal visits. Henry VHI. is said to
have brought Anne Boleyn beneath its roof. Philip of
Spain is supposed to have made it his lodging during his
three days sojourn in Southampton (20th to 23rd July,
1554) prior to his marriage with Queen Mary at Win-
chester. It is impossible at this late day either to confirm
or disprove these legends. There is nothing impossible
or even improbable in either of them.

21

THE GUARD ROOM

The Guard Room.

DESCRIBED BY W. DALE, F.S.A., F.G.S.

Immediately by the side of the West Gate of
Southampton is preserved a large room which is
commonly called the "Guard-room." Viewed from
Cuckoo Lane, the exterior does not appear to carry
with it any great air of antiquity. The room itself is
on an upper floor, and the boarding of the outside has
doubtless often been renewed. Upon looking at it more
closely, it will be seen that the limits of the room are
marked by stone work to a considerable h-eight, and
that the super -structure only is wood. The flight of
stone steps by the side of the Gate was evidently
designed, not only to give access to the chambers over
the Gate, but also to the room, the present entrance
being only a temporary one cut through the flooring.
The fine timbered roof is also ancient, and has a good
effect when seen from end to end. A few portions of
the old wattle and daub " walling also survive,
particularly where it divides the room from the "allure"
or passage which runs along the wall. To what purpose
the basement was put we do not know. Possibly it
was only used for Stores. It is evident, however, that
there was an object in making this large upper room
level with the walk along the wall, and in connecting
it so intimately with the defences of the Town. Here
was the great landing-place for Southampton, the West
Quay. The Town Quay did not exist ; and thick mud
banks as well as a more exposed situation rendered
landing elsewhere difficult. The picturesque arcading
a little further West was not done for effect but economy,
the object being to make the wall wide enough for men
at arms to walk up and down. There is little doubt
but that this space for patrolling extended through the
West Gate and to the arcaded wall, the " allure " by
the side of the " guard room " being part of it. It
must also have extended further, controlling, in fact,

22

THE GUARD ROOM

just that part of the Town most liable to attack. The
arcading and strengthening of the walls date from the
closing decades of the 14th Century, when our neighbours
the P'rench were particularly hard upon us ; and we
are probably not far wrong in assigning the guard - room
to the same period, and in saying that it was constructed
for the use of those who kept watch over the defence
of the Town. It is but fair to add, however, that there
are those who consider it was simply a room used by
one of the Trading Guilds of the town.

The '' Undercroft."

DESCRIBED BY W. DALE, F.S.A., F.G.S.

This charming fragment of 14th century domestic
architecture has been spared from destruction almost
by miracle, workmen actually standing ready to destroy
it in anticipation of the order to do so. When we
consider how little we know of the domestic buildings
of the middle ages, we must feel proud that Southampton
can shew, within one stone throw, specimens of dwelling-
houses of the 12th, 14th and 16th centuries. The
" Undercroft " was not originally below the level of the
ground, although the street has risen, with the lapse of
time, above the windows. The apartment here preserved
was but the ground- floor of a considerable house, and the
steps which remain led to the upper apartment. At the
period when it was built, stone was scarce in these parts,
and brick -making not practised, so that the upper part
was only timbered, and so has perished. The house was
either the habitation of some important resident or was
used for public purposes. As to its date there is no doubt,
for by the side of the beautiful hooded fire-place, so like
that in the " Novices" Room " at Netley Abbey, appears
the "ball -flower" ornament in use only in the earlier
years of the 14lh century. One of the corbels from which
the ribbing springs is also the head of a woman wearing
the wimple of the same period. Tradition has called this

23

THE UNDERCROFT

building " Pilgrims' Pit " ; and we know that the great
religious house of Beaulieu had possessions in this street.
In this part of Southampton great numbers of pilgrims
landed to visit the shrine of St. Swithin at Winchester,
and so to journey to Canterbury. The "Pilgrims' Hall"
at Winchester was built for their accommodation ; and
" Pilgrims' Pit," close to the landing place at the West
Quay, may have been an establishment maintained by the
Abbot of Beaulieu for the same purpose, and supplementary
to the greater hostel of God's House further round the
Shore.

The Norman Vault.

DESCRIBED BY W. DALE, F.S.A., F.G.S.

Just to the north of the ancient sally-port of the
Castle is a fine barrel vault, of Norman date, and some
60 feet in length. Up to quite a recent period the only
entrance to this Vault was by a small window in the Town
Wall : but a few years since the doorway which gave
access to it from the water was opened up by the Corpor-
ation and it can now be entered and viewed in comfort.
Situated between the Town Wall and the Castle mound,
it was probably constructed partly to resist the thrust of
the buildings near it; but its main purpose was to accom-
modate the stores required for the Kings who lodged in the
Castle, their retainers and guests. Through the doorway
now available these stores of wine and food were brought
in from the water, which then washed the shore ; and
the inner angles of the door -way are rubbed round at a
height which, allowing for the rise in the level of the
floor, corresponds with the shoulders of the Norman
labourers. The ribbing has been removed from the roof,
as has the vaulting stone, if indeed it ever had any. The
arch was turned by pouring hot lime on to a temporary
roofing of planks, the impressions of which are as plain
as on the day when the wood was removed after the lime
had set. At the North end there are remains of stairs
and a doorway to the Castle area.

24

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

Form L9-Series 444

AMPHLET IINOEI
Syroeut*, N. Y.
Sto<klen. ColK.

DA

690

S7H5