THE EAST DEANERY - BISHOP AUCKLAND An essay written for the Diploma in Archaeology and Local History, 1995

BARBARA LAURIE INTRODUCTION The East Deanery, Bishop Auckland, possibly the oldest inhabited house in County Durham, certainly the only one of the mediaeval collegiate establishments to survive, has been so sadly neglected that few knew of its existence, and only a short time ago it seemed consigned to dereliction. I have tried to piece together a history of the building, which has been very frustrating. Considering its importance, it goes almost unmentioned. Much of it can only be tentative. I have been helped in researching this essay by the kindness of many people, too numerous to mention. In particular, I could not have done without the cooperation of Jimmy Greenwood, the correspondence of Alan Trelford, Margot Johnson's loan of material in her possession and the practical help and encouragement of Peter Ryder. PART ONE - THE DEANERY SITE St. Andrew's, South Church, stands on high ground within a meandering loop of the River Gaunless at a point where the river abandons a sudden change of direction westward and curves round to resume its slow progress north to meet the River Wear. The site was well chosen; defensively elevated, with flowing water on three sides. Its Saxon cross suggests an early occupation, though the present church seems to be no earlier than the mid 13th century. Archaeological research of the area within the loop of the river, however, suggests that the church may have been occupying the only habitable ground. Martin Carver writes of excavation carried out for the Department of the Environment in 1978, 'It was concluded that all the land contained by the loop of the River Gaunless, apart from the long spur on the east side which carries the church and its cemetery, was formerly part of the river's flood plain, and was not occupied until the 17th century or later? This would explain the position of the Deanery buildings, well to the south of the church on similar high ground beyond the Gaunless. It also explains the rather curious preamble to Bishop Bek's ordinance of 1293 'reconstituting the collegiate church of St. Andrew Auckland' - '.yet hitherto none of its canons or prebendaries has resided in that church or even substituted a deputy, alleging that there are no houses or suitable places where dwellings could be built.' He therefore 'assigns a space to the south of the church among the canons for building new dwellings,' and orders them to do so within two years. If you go south from St. Andrew's church down Mill Lane and cross the small (originally packhorse) bridge, you will find yourself in another, broader loop of the Gaunless which contains, or has contained, several groups of buildings. The first you come to is East Deanery, for many years East Deanery Farm, and associated with it the remains of a number of farm buildings. To the west is another farm grouping, West Deanery Farm, with a farmhouse dating from the 1950s. Nearby, in between the two, is The Deanery, originally the farmhouse of West Deanery farm, now a separate dwelling. Its owner thinks his building may go back to the 16th century but says that subsequent alterations have erased most of the original. It was previously two workers' cottages of one storey, twice raised. The low land to the east of East Deanery was the site of Deanery Mill, its mill-race and several cottages. Of these there is now no sign. It is believed that the higher land south of this mill site might well reveal mediaeval buildings if excavated. It is with the East Deanery that this essay is concerned, believed to be the dwelling built by the canons in response to Bishop Bek's ordinance. I will refer to East Deanery as 'the Deanery', believing this to be its original title.

PART TWO - LOCATION We have seen the position of the Deanery in relation to St. Andrew's church. The position of the church itself requires some attention, since it poses the puzzling question of why the parish church of Bishop Auckland should be situated more than a mile from the village green, along a road that is such a by-way from the town proper that even seven hundred years of expansion have failed to integrate it and it remains curiously 'out of town'.

Matthew Richley, in the opening chapter of his 'History and Characteristics of Bishop Auckland'(1872) concludes 'It is most probable that it was founded before Bishop Auckland became the residence of the bishops of Durham' and points out that West Auckland is west of, and North Auckland (the old name for Bishop Auckland) is north of, St Andrew's Auckland 'from whence the others receive their respective names.' I would suggest that St. Andrew's is situated on a much more ancient site than the Bishop's Palace, being associated with an old pilgrim route which brought travellers from over the Pennines and through Teesdale along the old Roman road. This crosses the A688 just south of Raby Castle entrance, crosses the A68 at Hummerbeck and roughly follows the course of the Gaunless to Burns House where it meets Dere Street. Here the pilgrims on their way to St. Cuthbert's shrine in Durham would not turn left to North Auckland - that was a mere rural backwater. They would press ahead, joined possibly by others coming north from Piercebridge, and continue north-east to St. Andrew's. Pilgrims would be inclined to stop at holy places, and the ten remaining miles of their journey might well make St. Andrew's a natural overnight stay. We do not know enough about collegiate churches to know if hospitality was as much a responsibility of the canons as it was of monks, but this seems to me entirely probable. The Deanery was on the pilgrims' side of the river and the canons had built probably the only bridge in that area. The route itself does not cross the Gaunless but skirts the bend of the river and climbs up Canney Hill and on towards Durham. I would go further and suggest that the connection between St. Andrew's and pilgrims is stronger than this. In 1083 Bishop William de St. Calais ejected the secular canons from Durham Cathedral and installed monks in their place. It is a long-held tradition that some were sent to Bishop Auckland. A. Hamilton Thompson writes, 'The clergy who had previously occupied the church, 'having the name of canons but in no wise following the canonical rule' (Symeon of Durham) were given the option of remaining as members of the new community, but only one took advantage of the offer, not without some persuasion from his son who was already a monk. At this point in Symeon's manuscript a space of several lines has been left blank, in part of which has been written in a much later hand a note to the effect that the prebends of Auckland, Darlington, Norton and Easington were made for the dispossessed canons by provision of the Pope, 'that they might have a permanent source of income' Although there is no contemporary evidence to support this statement, it is certain that the groups of secular clergy whom we find associated with three of these churches, St. Andrew's, Darlington and Norton, little more than a century afterwards, recalled that community of seculars at Durham which represented the congregation of St. Cuthbert before 1083.' It seems to me that the displaced canons were probably dispersed to these places for a reason. They were wealthy and influential custodians of the shrine of St. Cuthbert, and might well have been placed at suitable points on pilgrim routes where their contacts and knowledge of St. Cuthbert could have been useful. These were not naughty monks who were being punished for misbehaving, as later, specifically fabricated stories would have it. 'The clerks

of the congregation which served the church of Durham and St. Cuthbert's shrine within it down to 1083 constituted a wealthy and powerful congregation. In so far as it is possible to discern, the Congregatio proper consisted of a provost or dean and seven clerks who, with their families, held designated portions of the lands of their church; associated with them was an unspecified number of priests and clerks who participated in the life of the church and the shrine.'(Meryl Foster) These clerks were being offered alternative accommodation by the Pope, not being hidden away somewhere. It makes sense to see them as guardians, no longer of the shrine, perhaps, but of the pilgrim routes of those coming to the shrine, four last stopping off places before the pilgrims reached Durham. Thus Darlington on the A1 would cater for those coming from the south. Norton, near the lowest crossing point of the Tees, would be on the route of those coming from the religious houses of the North York Moors - Whitby, Rievaulx, Byland, Guisborough and so on. Easington, directly east of Durham, would join the coastal routes north and south and the sea route via Hartlepool and funnel the pilgrims west to Durham. St. Andrews would cater for those from across the Pennines and visitors from such houses as Cartmel and Furness. Positioning the secular canons on the four most used pilgrim routes, each a day's march from Durham, may well have seemed an astute and diplomatic move to Bishop St. Calais, in what must have been, after all, a politically sensitive upheaval. If I am right, then, St. Andrew Auckland, a religious site from Saxon times, was given fresh impetus with the arrival of these clerks. But we know nothing of the church they were coming to. Rev. J.F.Hodgson believed that Bishop Stichill (1261 - 74) built the present church. 'It was built without reference to previous dimensions and without incorporating any of the previous structure.' Thus it is almost impossible to write about what went before. He believes it was completed in the year of Bishop Stichill's death, 1274. The canons from Durham can't have been satisfied with the current provision, probably on the church site. Hence in 1293 Bishop Bek complains that despite having 'abundance of prebends and means none of the canons or prebendaries has resided' and he makes arrangements for new quarters to be built on the other side of the Gaunless. It is that building at which we are going to look.

PART THREE - HISTORY Bishop Bek also ordered that there should be a change of title. 'Also, since a title adds to importance, the style of vicar hitherto used in the church is to be changed to dean.' He stipulated that the Dean and his successors must reside and those prebendaries who did not reside must employ vicars having a specific hierarchy and paid at commensurate rates. He does not give the exact number of prebendaries, but it was probably a dean and eleven prebendaries who together with the Bishop, who was appointed his stall in the choir in rank with the rest, made up thirteen. The deanery at St. Andrew, Auckland, then, seems to have been the home to a dean and an unknown but probably small number of resident canons. A. Hamilton Thompson says, A certain number of prebendaries bound themselves in residence. This entitled them to a share of the common revenues of the Chapter, therefore it was in their own interests to be few, and therefore by far the greatest number were non-resident. It was also home to eleven vicars whose duties included singing daily Mass in the choir and taking services at the prebendal churches which in some cases, were quite a distance away. Each canon, resident or non-resident, had to employ a vicar out of his income. Some of these vicars were priests, some deacons and some sub-deacons. The prebendal churches as they were later re-organised by Bishop Langley were: churches served by priests, Auckland Episcopi, Eldon Major, Eldon Minor and Shildon and Byres. Churches served by deacons - Fitches, West Auckland, St. Helen's, Escomb. Churches served by sub-deacons: Morley , Witton and Woodfield.? The vicars clearly had plenty to do. The dean was 'responsible for the cure of souls in the parish and the upkeep and repair of the chancel, for which he had the altarage and small tithes of the parish.' (Hamilton Thompson). He also 'corrects, controls the choir and punishes wrongdoers.' What then was the role of the canons? The vicars clearly had plenty to do. The dean was 'responsible for the cure of souls in the parish and the upkeep and repair of the chancel, for which he had the altarage and small tithes of the parish.' (Hamilton Thompson). He also 'corrects, controls the choir and punishes wrongdoers.' What then was the role of the canons? Successive bishops relied on them as educated men to serve them in their households and offices of state. It was a way of rewarding officers of the court without actually paying them. Bishops of Durham found employing these secular clergy particularly useful in their long-running battle for power with the Prior of Durham. These men would take an income from the deanery but, apart from a duty to appoint a suitable vicar and pay him, probably took no part in the life of the deanery. 'The corporate life was practically confined to the vicars chorale.' (Hamilton Thompson). Kings made good use of their right to appoint during vacancies. The names of appointees from the patent rolls suggest a high proportion of foreigners - Master Walter de Dyva, Bishop elect of Valence, Stephen de Malu Laco, king's clerk, Master Louis de Bello Monte, king's clerk and kinsman. And many more. Some of these men seem to have been given a less than friendly welcome. In 1312, ten days after Stephen de Malo Lacu was granted a prebend, the king issued a 'Mandate directed to all sheriffs, bailiffs and other ministers of the king for the arrest of all persons attempting by citations, appeals or any other manner to disturb Stephen de Malo Lacu, king's clerk, in the peaceable possession of that prebend in the church of Auckland in which the King has collated him.' Three months later things do not seem to have improved. The King issued 'Protection for one year for Stephen de Malo Lacu, parson of the church of Houghton and prebendary in the church of Aukland'.

Popes often had a hand in nominations. The custom of giving prebends to foreign favourites by the Pope led to much ill-feeling and in 1351 the Act of Provisors sought to bring such appointments to an end. It does not seem to have been very successful as far as St. Andrew's Auckland was concerned. There was also much danger in the 14th century due to constant warfare with the Scots. 'In 1314 the then dean obtained a licence of non-residence on account of the disturbed state of the country, owing to war with Scotland.'(V.C.H.) In 1406 Thomas Langley became bishop, and seems to have taken a particular interest in the Deanery. Two years later, with the co-operation of the king, Thomas Lyes was being exchanged north to St. Andrew Auckland. Thomas Lyes was to become Dean of Auckland and 'the most valued of Thomas Langley's diocesan ministers'. (R.L.Storey) During this period the deans of Auckland were often important men in the diocese. Several of them became Bishop's Chancellors. However Bishop Langley seems to have been unimpressed by the previous regime, took strong action against the dean and replaced him with Lyes. Lyes lived at Auckland continually until1431, spending considerable sums on the repair and rebuilding of the property of the deanery and in the exercise of hospitality. In 1431 he became rector of Bishop Wearmouth and Thomas Hebbedon became dean. Lyes had been a member of Langley's household from the beginning of his episcopate and when the bishop died, Lyes was the executor of his will and was bequeathed the bishop's best chalice. In 1428 when Lyes was dean, the prebendary arrangements were somewhat altered and a revision of the statutes led to 'some rearrangement regarding the evidentiary dwellings'. Under these conditions the college of Auckland existed until the reign of Edward VI. 'The later history of these colleges, in so far as they have any, is tranquil' Of them all, it is possible that Auckland continued to maintain something of the aspect of a collegiate establishment longer than the rest.'(Hamilton Thompson) However, somewhere about this time, there occurred a revolutionary change. The whole collegiate establishment moved to the 'New College' in the grounds of the Bishop's Palace. This was the quadrangle of buildings to the west of Scotland Wing behind the properties in the Market Place, and including the white houses by the Castle gateway, then facing inward. But all reference to this move seems to have been lost. Reverend J.F. Hodgson expresses my own frustration when he says of it, 'an incident nowhere else either mentioned or even incidentally referred to.' The only clue to this transfer that Hodgson can find is that Bishop Booth (1457-76) 'built at his own expense the stone gateways of the College of Auckland with their appurtenances' (Raine, History of Auckland Castle). Hodgson writes, 'As the gateway would pretty certainly constitute the finishing touch of the new structure, it should fix its erection and occupation by the canons about the middle of the 15th century clearly enough.' Raine quotes references to repairs made at the Castle. The earliest is in 1458 'for making a storehouse for coals, wood, etc in the New College 20s 2d.' This gives us a date before which the move must have happened. There are a number of references to 'the College of Auckland' and also to 'the schole howse in ye colledge' and 'cantator of the college of Aukeland and of the scholars there.' Whether there had been a school and/or a schoolhouse at the Deanery seems probable, but of this, there seems to be no written evidence. J.J. Vickerstaffe has correlated all references to a school in Bishop Auckland and says 'it is impossible to date precisely the grammar school at Auckland.' The earliest dates he can find are in the 1480s, by which time the New College was in use. It is quite probable that a school was in operation while the canons were still at the Deanery. A.F. Leach writes, 'There can be no question that a church of this magnitude maintained a grammar school.' It is possible that the need to expand educational facilities was a deciding factor in the move to the Palace. There is a reference to the Deanery in 1470. 'Paid to John Robson, carpenter, for making two beds of bord at the Denry by my lord's order, for the boys of Lord Fitzhugh and Lord Lovell, 9d.' This refers to six young noblemen who had been made wards of the bishop after their fathers were in trouble for rebellion against Edward IV, and probably does not refer to educational provision. So the exasperating question of the move from the Deanery to the New College cannot definitely be solved. I think, however, that there is a good chance it happened while Lyes was dean. By 1538, Leland in his 'Itinerary' is writing, 'Nothing remained near the parish church itself save the Dean's great

house and barns and other houses of husbandry' but at Auckland, he found 'a Colledge with a Dene and Prebends in it, and a quadrant on the south-west side of the castle for ministers of the Colledge.' By this time, the value of the deanery and the prebends had lessened considerably. In 1291, the revenues of the collegiate church were 249 13s 4d. In 1584, they were 171 10s 4d. Also, the gap between the income of the dean and the prebendaries had increased greatly. 'By 1535, it is clear that these prebends were no longer significant reward, since vicars had to be paid a living wage, and this seems to have been effectively insisted upon. By contrast, the deaneries were still important forms of patronage and reward' The deans no longer performed their original functions of residing and providing a cure of souls.' (D.M. Loades). At the Dissolution the dean became vicar of Auckland, but his stipend, now that the deanery was dissolved, was only 20 per annum, a poor living. Moreover, the Crown claimed the Deanery buildings, and there was now no residence for the vicar of the largest parish church in County Durham. Nor was there to be one until Bishop Barrington presented the house in the Market Place at the beginning of the 19th century. In 1548, after the Dissolution, the Deanery was leased to Sir Hugh Ascue, knt. The following paragraphs give some extent of the lands over which the Dean had rights. 'Also were leased the late deanery of the collegiate church of St. Andrew Aukeland, then dissolved, and all lands, tithes, etc in Aukeland St. Andrew's, Aukeland Episcopi, Aukeland St. Helen's, Redworth, Fishebourne, Lyntisgrene, Woodhouse, Hamsterley, Wotton and Estcombe in the said bishopric of Durham' Ascue also rented land in several other places in northern England, and was granted a rent at 20 per annum less than their value 'in consideration of his service to the crown.' From this point on, the deanery is a farmhouse and has severed its ties with the church. It is however probable that for the previous hundred years at least, it has been, to all intents and purposes, a farmhouse, the dean's own private source of revenue after the canons were rehoused at the palace. It is unlikely that Sir Hugh Ascue farmed it himself, and it seems reasonable to assume, even with the limited information available, that for the rest of its history as a farmhouse, which lasted until 1969, it was never owned by the people who farmed it except for a brief period between 1921 and 1956. For the rest of that long time, absentee landlords were using it as a means of raising money and, it would seem, spending as little as possible on the building. Perhaps we should be glad of the lack of change that this has ensured. The tenants before 1783 are difficult to ascertain. By 1783, Miles Sands owned the deanery and rented it to Timothy Brown. By 1803, it had been sold to the Spencers of Helmington Hall who rented it to Mary Brown. The Brown name continues and becomes Timothy and Thomas Brown. We see from the census returns that both Tim and Tom were born in the Deanery and that neither was married. In Whellan of 1856 Tom is alone, then still alive at seventy in 1861, he has acquired since the previous census a young wife and a son of nine. However by 1871 the Browns have vanished and we first hear of the Sowerbys. The property continued to be owned by the Spencer family but seems to have been in the common ownership of several people. There was a swathe of land known as the Spencer Estate which ran along the Gaunless from the Deanery to St. Helen's church. After 1871, William Sowerby figures in the census returns, and after 1910, his son, Arthur. At some time during this period the Victorian extension was probably added, a one-room, two-storey projection in the middle of the west wall. Otherwise, the house seems to have retained very much its original proportions. In 1921, Arthur Sowerby bought the Deanery, and the family continued to live in it until 1956. In 1948 Arthur's son, being on his own, decided to live in the two rooms of the Victorian annexe, and invite the Pallister family to rent the main block and farm a good deal of the land. Electricity had been put in two years before, but there was only one cold tap in the house. Before electricity, there was a paraffin lamp on a chain in the kitchen

suspended over the table and 'candles in the other end.' (Fred Pallister). His mother used to wrap towels around the shelves of the oven to put in their beds against the cold. In 1956, Mr. Sowerby moved out, and in 1969, the Pallisters. Then followed a very sad period in the history of this fine old building. After almost seven hundred years the building was allowed to deteriorate, unrecorded and ignored, a prey to vandals. However in 1975 the building, much deteriorated, was saved by Alan Trelford. Ten years later it was bought by Jimmy Greenwood and converted into a pub-restaurant, but is now a private house. Service quarters were added to the west side and a few alterations made to the fabric, but the building remains essentially as it has been for most of its history, while being given a new lease of active life. PART FOUR. THE BUILDING 1965 - 1995

The Lower Floor What follows is a description of the building in 1995. Since, however, additions and alterations have been made since 1975, my aim is to piece together information as to what it was like when a farmhouse, what discoveries were made when renovating it, and what it looks like now. I therefore quote from Fred Pallister who lived there as a young man, used the correspondence from Alan Trelford, now living in France, and the experience of Jimmy Greenwood as well as the description by Peter Ryder written in 1965, an appraisal of 1973 by Wilf Dodds, an Interim Report of an archaeological excavation by Susan Mills, and several other sources. Final additions to my text have been made after visits by Peter Ryder in August 1995. The building runs north-south and is of two storeys, four rooms in length. It is of rough-coursed sandstone rubble with dressed quoins, door frames and windows. Three of the four downstairs rooms are tunnel vaulted, with through masonry construction. It is approximately 98 feet in length and 25 feet in width, giving internal proportions of roughly 23 feet by 18 feet upstairs and less downstairs due to the vaulting. The southern section is smaller than the rest. The Victorian extension on the west wall, which is first in evidence on the ordnance survey map of 1897, is a plain structure of one room up and down and does not concern us. All other recent additions are on the west wall. The most northerly rooms on the upper and lower floors were for many years farm buildings, cut off without access from the rest of the house. Downstairs was an implement shed with a granary above. Access to the granary was by an external staircase still in use. Access to the implement shed had been cut through as a large, segmental brick arch (now French window) in the south of its east wall. Photos of the late 19th century show before this there was a normal sized square doorway, probably inserted. Wilf Dodds, in 1973, writes that on the left side of this door 'several quoins and a barhole indicate the existence of an original door, one of the quoins being a rescued mullion.' This evidence is no longer obvious. North of this an external stair leads up to a first floor door. It turns at a 90 degree angle, but before the machinery

access was cut, it ran down to the smaller door and only turned for the last couple of steps. The stair was also rebuilt in the 1950s or 60s (Pallister) after it collapsed. Previous to this, it had contained a duckhouse with a pointed, headed doorway, but was rebuilt without a door. The duckhouse was said to be the entrance to a tunnel to the church. However, digging in the area east of the steps revealed no signs of it. The position of this stair is interesting as it covers a small window only visible internally, with splayed sides and a round arch, which seems to be original. It was possible to go through this window into the space under the stair. (Trelford). Dodds called this 'an oven with the entry finished with a gritstone surround provided with rebates and slots for the fitting of shutters or originally glazed frames.' The evidence for shutters or frames no longer exists. There is no evidence to suggest that this was an oven, for example no flue and no evidence of the effect of heat on any stonework. This room is barrel-vaulted and this 'beautifully made opening' (Trelford) running through the vaulting, which is solid masonry throughout, suggest its originality. The external stair, therefore, which has been called original, is almost certainly not so. In 1965, there was a 'broken opening' in the north wall of this room 'possibly occupying the site of an earlier door' (Ryder). This was made into a window by Alan Trelford, and a further door in this wall to the west was constructed at a later date by Jimmy Greenwood for access to the northern additions. The west wall contained 'a small window, externally only a ragged hole in the wall' (Ryder), 'a gritstone surrounded window' (Dodds), which is now filled and covered with panelling inside. Its shape, probably much widened, with no original surround, can be traced outside. Also externally on the west wall, at ground level only, are the remains of a buttress starting from the end of the wall and extending about five feet south. The door in the south wall of this room was broken through by Alan Trelford into a further vaulted room. This was an 'outside' wall for many years, and any previous doors in this wall are not in evidence. The wall itself seems to have been part of the original structure. Externally, between the first and second sections, and aligned with the dividing wall, is 'a full height buttress of three reductions, possibly 13th century in date, and not bonded into the main wall' (Dodds). Hodgson calls this 'a tall, well proportioned 14th century buttress' and Pevsner calls it 'an original buttress' by which he means 13th century. Ryder says, 'The upper parts are keyed into the wall but the lower part seems to be built up against the dressing of the doorway on the south, suggesting that the whole buttress is secondary, possibly late 14th century.'

Immediately south of the buttress is an external door leading into the second room with 'run-off chamfers, probably originally a shouldered head but truncated' (National Heritage Listing 1991). Dodds calls it 'a plain doorway with a relieving arch above it, that may indicate a removed, worked lintel.' M.O.H. Carver calls it 'an inserted door.' The rear of this doorway is interesting, since it runs through the vaulting. It has a perfectly formed symmetrical arch which is very difficult to construct after the vaulting is in place. Contrast it with the doorway opposite, recently put through to modern additions. This room used to be the farm kitchen and until recently had ham-hooks hanging from the ceiling. The only water supply to the building was a cold tap behind this door. To the south of this door is a window which is problematic. Trelford thinks it was 'a narrow window like the one hidden by the north staircase.' Ryder described it as 'an almost square window with a chamfered surround (head and the top stone of the north jamb are restoration, perhaps late 19th century or early 20th century - chamfer on south jamb recut to match up with the new lintel). Its dressings are rather like those of the three-light windows in section three, so it may be another 16th century insertion: perhaps it originally had round-arched lights.' The rear gives us no clues as it is modern plastered and asymmetrical. In an old photograph, this window appears to

have a stone mullion, and on the present sill there is a section of mortar which could indicate a removed mullion.

To the south of this window is an area of wall roughly the size of a door that is obviously a modern repair. This is a hole that has been broken through for access to the newel stair. It is tempting to see this as an enlarged original aperture, but it was not there in 1965. I do not know of any old openings to the west wall of this room. Inside this room, in the south east corner, is the outline of a newel stair which for many years opened into this room. I quote from Alan Trelford. 'The spiral staircase prior to 1975 broke out via a crude opening into the northern vaulted section at ground floor level. The steps did not run into the room properly. When we had finished breaking through into the hall section, everything looked right.' Dodds notes the step up from this room into the newel stair. There is a fireplace on the south wall of this room which backs onto a similar, larger one in the room beyond, creating a wide 'chimney wall' which is only roughly aligned with the newel stair. Are they of the same age? If so, would not the newel stair have been built within the width of the chimney wall? The chimney width creates a short passage to the right of the fire on the west wall. A modern breakthrough into toilets has necessitated carrying this passage further north. The third room is not tunnel-vaulted but has 'a ceiling with chamfered beams at approximately one foot intervals' (Dodds). Jimmy Greenwood has been told that these are unlikely to be pre-14th century. A square of ceiling in the south-west corner has had to be replaced since a staircase was inserted at some time leading from directly in front of the main door up the south wall and turning right. The main door is in the south of the east wall. English Heritage describes it as 'a Tudor arched door with chamfered stone surround', Dodds as 'a Tudor doorway with a four-centred arch above.' Ryder also identified it as 'a door with a chamfered, flat-pointed head, apparently an insertion of Tudor date.' North of it is 'a three-light mullioned window with hood moulding over it. The lights are round-headed with pips in the corner- devolved tracery - with a similar one in the upper storey' (Dodds). 'A window of the same date as the door with three lights with elliptically arched head under a square head, with a hood mould typical of the date' (Ryder). '16th century stone mullion windows with label moulds' (National Heritage 1991). M.O.H. Carver says that this section 'dates more probably to the mid-17th century than to the late Perpendicular period proper.' However the 1972 Listing describes them as '15th or early 16th century.' There are two more similar windows upstairs but unlike this one, they are not recessed. The only windows known to be similar to these are the clerestory windows of St. Helen, Auckland, one of the churches served by the Deanery. These are two light windows with arched heads under a square head, with similar spandrels but no label moulds. The clerestory and battlements at St. Helen's were added late in the 15th century. The connection with St. Helen's and the rarity of the design suggest a similar date might apply here To the right of this window is a small window with no remaining original surround. It is positioned just before the original opening to the newel stair and would have 'guarded' it. Was it originally a loop as in the newel stair? Further north on this wall, at the height of the top of the three-light window is a corbel whose function is not clear. Dodds described it as 'a heavy, quarter-round corbel protruding a good foot.'. The external walls of this section show three squares of inserted masonry, two of which seem to correspond to two of the internal beams. The third does not. Ryder writes, 'the sockets of two of the heavy, square first-floor ceiling beams show externally as infilled square panels.' He also noted discrepancies in the masonry. 'The junction between the 16th century masonry of the rebuilt east wall and the earlier wall to the north shows; lower section irregular, but the upper, set back a little to the south, includes quite a length of straight joint. This line seems to reflect the profile of the internal stair turret, which survived the rebuilding.'

On the west wall of this room, an opening opposite the main door has been enlarged into the modern extension. Ryder wrote in 1965, 'In the west wall are two small, blocked rectangular windows, the north partly hidden by the Victorian extension.' It is now impossible to see these. This wall had been broken through into the Victorian extension with a doorway inside a wide arch. Alan Trelford thinks that this may have previously been the position of a second three-light window like the one in the east wall. This is also mooted by Dodds. The top of an arch similar to the arch on the window opposite is just visible above the men's toilet entrance, and the widths of the arches are similar. Some time in the 50s the arched heads of such a window, corresponding exactly to the windows in the room above, were ploughed up in the field at the back. They are in the garden of the house behind. Externally on the west wall, now completely covered by later additions, were observed the remains of another architectural feature, now lost. 'Externally are the foundations of a projection from the wall. This has been the full height of the wall as the scars of its removal may be seen on the wall. It might have been a wide buttress, but its width and a similar structure, complete, further north on the same side of the building, suggested that it housed garderobe shafts.' (Ryder 1965). This feature was noted by Alan Trelford and examined by archaeologists.

The fireplace previously mentioned in this room was opened out by Alan Trelford - 'a small modern fireplace with above it, a hollowchamfered moulding which surmounted a former fireplace' (Ryder), 'a good Tudor fireplace' (Dodds). To the right of this fireplace, the wall bellies out irregularly, and then in again to meet the ceiling beam. Below it is the original entrance to the newel stair. This had for many years been blocked up and the recess used as a cupboard. The floor in this room was lowered by Alan Trelford in 1976. He writes that 'the new floor level was discovered to align with a) the large fireplace, b) the door to the spiral staircase and c) a door through the south wall of this room, previously hidden.' However, the floor level was raised again by Jimmy Greenwood to accommodate the new hearth arrangements so the door to the staircase is now four inches lower. The room south of this one had previously been entered through a plain doorway inserted into the south wall just to the left of the main door. The earlier doorway was found further to the west, previously hidden by the inserted staircase. It splays widely inwards and has an unconvincing lintel which hardly seems to overlap the jambs. The relieving arch and the area between are rough. Its construction shows it was never intended for an external door. It had a rear wooden lintel which now forms the lintel of the entry to the men's toilet. (It had to be moved because one end was rotten.) It was left as a window due to the height of the next room's floor, but once Jimmy Greenwood had lowered the floor, it became a doorway again.

Through this doorway is entered what was traditionally the dairy - the third tunnel-vaulted apartment. It had no external doors. A window on the west wall has been enlarged as an entrance to a modern extension. Dodds calls it 'an original window engineered through the barrel-vault.' Ryder wrote in 1965 'at the south end of the west wall of the chamber, there has been a small rectangular window, chamfered round externally. This has been crudely enlarged at some time and externally only half the head and the north jamb remain.' There are no other external openings. When this room was used as a dairy, it had a modern wall, one brick wide, extending across it, east-west and ending half-way across this window. It

was said to be 'a lock-up for wayward monks'. In the north-east corner of the room was a hole in the floor referred to as 'the well'. Fred Pallister says that in their day, the floor of the dairy, then stone-flagged as was the rest of the ground floor, was always wet. 'If you wanted to swill the floor, you need never take any water in, just brush away the moisture that was there.' They didn't use their 'well' for raising water but for brushing away the water that collected and for 'swilling away the blood and that if we were cutting up meat.' He doesn't remember a supply of water in the well. Alan Trelford took up the stone flags and revealed 'a herringbone brick-laid floor. This was laid to form a rectangular recess which had a depth of about two feet. It was normally dry.' Jimmy Greenwood subsequently poured 'vast quantities' of concrete to fill it and reduced the floor to conform with the hall next door, thus bringing into use the doorway. The external walls of this fourth room are more problematic. The west wall is aligned with the west wall of the other three rooms and there was at the south end 'a projecting mass of masonry which might have been a buttress' (Ryder). It is now no longer visible. Dodds writes, 'At both back and front, there are end buttresses that indicate that this block at one time extended further south.' Early photographs show that the roof edge at the gable end has a very ragged appearance. There is now a recent addition on the west wall. The south and east walls of both stories were completely rebuilt by Alan Trelford due to dangerous instability.

He also rebuilt the steps to the upstairs room. This had originally been an earth ramp on a stone built base for horses going to the upper room, which was a smithy. Within this ramp, a door led into a coalhouse (Pallister) now blocked. If this is traced on the Durham County Council plans of 1975, it seems that the wall under the ramp in the coalhouse, presumably representing the original building line, is in line with the rest of the east front. However, the east wall of the room was independent of the ramp and continuously set back from the room next door. To the south of this room used to stand a rubble and pan-tiled building of a much more recent date containing boxes for calves and earth-closets. These were the only toilets available until 1975. They were taken down by Alan Trelford in 1977. This area immediately south of the main block was the site of an archaeological dig in 1980-82. The upstairs rooms have much more imposing dimensions. 'They seem to have been important apartments' (P.F. Ryder) The northern one, the former granary, now a sitting room, retains its original proportions, a corner in the north-east being taken out for a small porch to screen the external door. This door seems to have been broken through in comparatively recent times, and was left as a rough opening until given quoins and a new lintel by Alan Trelford. It seems reasonable to assume that such a rough opening was never meant as an access to a living apartment. The porch contains a step up of about a foot, so that the floor level of the first three sections is a foot higher than the bottom of this door.

Upper Floor

Near it, further south, are the outline remains of another opening, largely consisting of an arched head which could have formed the top of a window or a door. It is now very difficult to hazard an opinion. However those who saw it some time ago, including M.O.H. Carver, seem convinced it was the original door to this room. In particular, Reverend Hodgson, writing in 1898, is confident enough to give us a drawing of the door as it used to be, calling it 'the doorway which originally gave access.' Accepting this as the original doorway, however, gives us a problem with the original window directly beneath it, if we believe that the stone steps were part of the original structure.

Peter Ryder thinks 'its sill has been lowered at some time, but this is clearly secondary, as it drops well below the large gritstone dressings of the original window jamb. Is this a window of c1300?' Alan Trelford writes 'I had a good look at this door to see if a complete doorway existed in behind the mortar, but to no avail.' South of this arched door, is one of a pair of interesting windows, the other occurring at the other side of the buttress in the next room. They are mullioned and transomed windows of two lights with trefoil heads and a square soffit, having label-moulds with turned-back ends. They are similar except that this one seems to have been significantly longer than the one to the south, and once was the only one with a transom. Or was it extended downwards to facilitate unloading grain? Peter Ryder says 'the trefoils are really open circles, barely connecting with the main light beneath, with pierced spandrels and rollmoulded surrounds' and thinks they might be late 14th century.Photo - buttress and upstairs window

Hodgson calls them 'the two original windows of the upper storey' and says 'the windows, which form the most striking features, are square-headed, of two lights, one of them transomed, and having the tops of the upper ones foiled in the same very peculiar and singular fashion as is seen at Raby, and which I have never met with elsewhere. That they proceed from the same man who was employed by John Lord Neville in the erection of his castle there in 1379 cannot, I think, be doubted.' Raby was granted licence to crenellate at that time but had been built earlier. 'The name of the Master Mason usually associated with Raby is John D'Ireby. Masons' marks associated with his work during the period 1340-70 have been found in various parts of the castle. Exactly when the trefoil windows of the chapel were inserted is not know, however. The chapel would seem to be later than the bulk of the castle - latter part of the 14th century or early part of the 15th century.' (Elizabeth Steele). This leaves us doubting Hodgson's assertion that these windows are original. M.O.H. Carver says that despite Hodgson's remarks about the links with Raby, 'the possibility remains, however, that the hall and the windows in it [by which he means the two-light trefoils] were erected as demanded by Bishop Bek within two years of 1293 with interesting and important consequences.' Dodds writes of the window in the northerly upper room, 'the left light has on the inside the remains of an original shutter with the staple in the mullion for fastening.' There are no signs of doors or windows in the north wall of this room. The door through the south wall shows no antiquity. Trelford writes, 'There was a connecting doorway. It was placed centrally east-west but was devoid of any nice quoins or stonework.'

On the west wall is a small rectangular window such as is to be found several times on the west wall. When Dodds examined it, he said it had 'a similar frame to the oven but still retains its original shutter with oak slide latch.' An interesting feature of this room is a blocked, arched doorway (four-centred arch?) at the very north end of the west wall, with chamfered, rounded jambs and arch. Its shape can be traced on the external wall, as can a faint vertical scar where a buttress/garderobe shaft has been. This north-west corner is quoined on the lower level but not on the upper.

The beams in this room were described by Peter Ryder as 'two old oak beams forming the bases of modern trusses.' Hodgson writes that this room 'still retains the two massive oak tie beams of its original roof.' The next room has been divided into kitchen, bedroom and passage but originally must have had similar dimensions. The second of the two-light trefoil windows is in the middle of the east wall and in the west wall is a similar rectangular window to that in the previous room. Just south of this window is an external feature which Peter Ryder thought might have been a garderobe, but Alan Trelford is convinced, after subsequent work, was a chimney. He writes, 'I discovered a fireplace of some antiquity on the west wall of the first floor aligned with the external buttress. The upper section of the chimney had disappeared - there is often a problem with the long term stability of such chimneys.' This buttress is now boarded up in the ladies' toilet but part of it can be seen externally.

The south wall of this room is the 'chimney wall' but there is no indication of a chimney in that position in this room. At the east end of this wall, the newel stair enters, and through its doorway is a small rectangular loop in the east wall in the stair. That it was originally heavily defended can be seen from the holes on either side of the door frame for taking the locking bar which would be slid across when the door was closed. It slid into a recess in the external wall when in position, and when not in use, into a much deeper recess on the other side. The door must have been hinged on the external wall as a recess in that wall seems to have been formed to accept it. Margaret Wood (The English Medieval House) says, 'Several 13th century doorways,

when near an angle, are provided with a recess in the adjoining wall into which the open door can be set back.' Dodds writes, 'no fixtures of any sort for the hanging of a door of normal type, though bar holes on either side indicate a closure of over one inch in thickness.'

The upper doorway of the newel stair is rectangular, and Ryder points out that the section of wall containing the drawbar 'bulges out oddly.' In the south-west corner of this room are two more doors with two different heads, yet it is tempting to think that both are original. That in the south wall is arched in a strikingly similar way to the blocked, arched aperture in the most northerly upper room, with plain chamfered jambs and arch. It is set in a wall which probably corresponds to the original wall upstairs and down, slightly to the south of the newel stair but joining it. However, the way this wall runs into the west wall by the second doorway might cast doubt on this.

The second doorway, in the very south of the west wall, now opens into the Victorian extension but previously seems to have been blocked for some time. It is narrower and lower than the other one and is a Caernarvon arch of a sort found in the late 13th and 14th centuries. 'The shouldered lintel or Caernarvon arch had appeared in doorways towards the end of the 13th century.' (Margaret Wood).

Through the lancet arch, also previously blocked, is another impressive chamber. Immediately to the right of the arch, the wall is cut away, seemingly to accommodate the door to the Victorian extension - though there seems no reason why this should have been done. There is a suggestion that the height of the cut has been raised. Peter Ryder suggests that it originally served a lower door like the one on the other side, that is, two garderobes for two

different rooms placed side by side in one turret. The O.S. map of 1857 shows what seem to be garderobe extensions, both here and on the far north of the west wall. This room has three-light windows on its east and west walls similar to the one on the east wall of the room below, though not recessed. Again it has old chamfered beams. In the north-east corner is the bulkhead of the newel stair, on this floor quite regular. Next to it is a small Georgian fireplace above the fire below. There have been three fireplaces in this room. The other two are now blocked, and were in the south wall. Alan Trelford, who uncovered them, described the smaller one near the middle as 'a small 19th or 20th century fireplace.' This room used to be divided into two bedrooms, which explains two 'modern' fireplaces. The third one was 'a large fireplace with nice quoins but no lintel or arch over. It looked quite early.' (Trelford). This fireplace, for which no corresponding one can be found on the floor below, ran out through a chimney which used to be there before 1975. At the other, east, end of this wall is a door which corresponds in shape to the Caernarvon arch in the second upstairs chamber but is in wood, not stone. It is pegged and showing shrinkage. When this wall was the external house wall, this doorway was blocked with two-inch brick on the south side. (Dodds) and the arch formed the door to a cupboard set in the thickness of the wall. Now it leads through to the next chamber, having two steps on the south side due to a drop in floor level.

The east wall of this next chamber, above the ramp, partially overlaps this doorway. An indication that the position of that wall has changed? The external doorway and south window in this last chamber were built by Alan Trelford, and the (original) west and north walls are plastered over. A darkened area on the west of the north wall suggested a fireplace, which could have used the same flue as the oldest one in the previous room. Dodds found this room 'originally had two small forges in the north-west and south-west corners: only the south one remains but there are two pair of bellows.' Bryan Featherstone of 'the Deanery' tells me that 'the big oven in the south-west corner was a bread oven, possibly Victorian.' Ryder found in this room 'on the east wall, two projecting corbels, the southern of which carried the end of a roof truss, probably old. Higher up, in the north wall, is a small rectangular opening into the attic of the central part of the house.' It can be seen from previous photographs that this attic opening was moved downwards, seemingly to accommodate a subsequent change in roof height.

Ryder also noticed, externally 'at the south end of the west wall, a blocked, rectangular door or window with a plain, square head.'

The lower doorway has rounded jambs and a squared head. The steps are of one slab with the narrower end forming part of the newel. Four of them are formed from medieval cross-slab grave covers. The top tread is 'in sandstone with a bracelet-form head, early to mid-13th century'. The three others are roof slabs, whitewashed over, so are more difficult to date.' (P.F. Ryder) The suggestion of another can be seen within the resting-hole of the crossbar. A further cross-slab was found broken in three pieces during the 1980 excavation at the south end of the range and is thought to be of early to mid-12th century date.

Peter Ryder points out that the upper door of the newel stair has 'an east jamb of rounded section; the west jamb looks as if it might pre-date the adjacent wall of the stair-well. (Was the doorway ever external?) But it is difficult to be sure.' This stair is unusual in rising anti-clockwise, which gives advantage to a right-handed attacker. Margaret Wood points out that in the 13th century, they were 'mostly clockwise, but sometimes the reverse for convenience, especially towards the end of the century.' In St. Andrew's Church, there are two spiral stairs, one ascending clockwise and one anti-clockwise. Dodds thought this stair had been widened at some time. 'It has originally been quite narrow but has been widened in antiquity and the extra width accommodated by making a shallow, round-headed alcove in the wall that has exposed a large, constructional beam.' I cannot see evidence of widening as the steps are of one piece of stone, cut for the purpose. My interpretation of the exposed beam which obtrudes on the south side of the stair, and was clearly not intended to do so, is that the beam was inserted at a later date than the stairs' construction and had to impinge on it. The Roofs The question of whether the Deanery had exposed roof beams or ceilings on its upper floor is a difficult one. R.W. Brunskill writes 'In the medieval hallhouse, tall windows with a few narrow lights were needed for the main hall or solar, both rooms being open to the roof. This was necessary to accommodate a central hearth.' Margaret Wood writes, 'The wall fireplace caused the decline of the lofty open hall. Height was no longer necessary, and the hall could have a low ceiling, which made for comfort and warmth.' The Deanery, then, possibly had an upper storey open to the roof, but since at least one, probably two, wall fireplaces are in evidence, this is not necessarily true. Alan Trelford writes, 'The roof timbers in the central section are quite nice, with abundant carpenters' marks and a through purlin structure. The ceiling beams at ground and first floor level are also quite handsome in this central section. The roof timbers in the vaulted sections are robust but not as old as in the central section.' Dodds writes, 'The roof structure is best seen in the upper

chamber at the north end which shows a simple collar beam truss with no support and resting on the wall plate beam.' Ryder saw 'some kerb-principal trusses, which seem to be usually of late 15th or early 16th century date.' A look at the various roof heights will confirm Alan Trelford's suggestion that the third section has the oldest roof structure. An early photograph shows that the north gable end seems to have had the same height and angle as the third section at one time, and that they probably had a continuous roof. The copings of the roofs were added by Alan Trelford. The small window, access to the attic in the most southerly upper room, later moved lower, suggests that that roof also had probably been in line with the others. I am told by Fred Pallister that the two northerly sections were roofed with grey slates before 1939. The next section had pan-tiles with spreaders (stone slabs). Our earliest photograph shows pan-tiles and spreaders in both southerly sections. Alan Trelford writes, 'The stone slabs on the roofs were pegged with bones - sheep's bones I was told, which seems probable; I was also told monks' finger bones but this seems improbable.'

The Archaeological Investigation This was carried out from 1980 to 1982 in the area immediately south and immediately west of the range, the results of which have not yet been published. Interim reports, however, indicate that the substantial foundations found to the south of the south wall were original to the house. 'The quality of the masonry suggests that the foundations were those of a substantial well-built structure It is probable that these foundations represent the original limit of the medieval range.' (Susan Mills). A stone-cut drain was also investigated, running southnorth along the west wall and bonded into it. 'This may have been part of a whole latrine system linked with the west side of the building. The area west of the culvert seemed to have been used as a refuse dump. 'The south-west and south-east corners of the wall foundations appear to have had later (?) adjuncts built into them' The south-west corner did seem to have been bonded with the main structure, but it is difficult to say when.' The area within the excavated walls showed 'a pocket of wall plaster painted with red, black and yellow designs', pottery of the 14th and 15th centuries and five mediaeval coins. (Awarded to finder). The third report concludes, 'There had clearly been several structural alterations to the south side of the building' and the introduction states 'It seems likely that almost the entire basic structure was built between 1293 and the early 14th century'. (Susan Mills) PART FIVE - INTERPRETATION Opinions vary as to whether the building is all of one date. My own conclusion is that it was built as a first floor hall of four bays and two storeys as at present. The east front, however, has had considerable alteration. The original east wall of sections three and four has been completely replaced, and the south wall has been moved a few feet further north. The west side, now very difficult to trace due to recent additions, had up to 1975 undergone comparatively little change. Even as late as the O.S. map of 1857, three out of the five medieval abutments to the west wall are in evidence. The ruins of a fourth remained until 1979, and the fifth was excavated in 1980. Three of these were garderobe shafts. The upper floor seems to have been divided into two rooms, possibly four, each having its own garderobe. The northernmost upper room still has the external door, and the marks of the garderobe shaft on its west wall. The middle two upper rooms probably shared a garderobe shaft, with separate entrances side by side in the centre of the west wall. The internal dividing wall narrows at its west end to

accommodate the doors. The foundations of a garderobe shaft for the remaining upper room were exposed by archaeologists in 1980 in a line with the west wall but further south. They concluded that the original extent of this section would make its north-south dimensions similar to those of the other three sections. There was a capped culvert running the length of the west wall which was excavated by archaeologists at the south end and represented 'part of a whole latrine system linked with the west side of the building.' (S. Mills) The land slopes south to north and drains into the river. The drainage would have been diverted into this culvert as at Mount Grace Priory, to provide a water-washed latrine system for the upper floor. The remaining two features were, I think, buttresses in the lower section. Buttresses are needed to ground the thrust of a tunnel vault. They continued as chimneys on the first floor and occur between the garderobe shafts. That in the second upper room is still there minus the top part of the chimney. In the third room, the subsequent window insertion meant the chimney has been dismantled from the upper storey. These fireplaces probably originally had hoods projecting into the room. This gives us fireplaces for two upstairs rooms. Does this mean that originally there were two large upstairs rooms, with a garderobe in each of their two western corners? This is quite possible. Does it also mean that the upper rooms, having wall fireplaces, had ceilings rather than beams open to the roof? This question I am not able to guess at, not having been in the roof space, but it is also possible. I would suggest that the present chimney wall which gave fireplaces to two of the lower rooms was originally a simple wall, and that the chimneys were a later modification. It is unlikely there would have been provision for fires on the ground floor. Cooking would probably have been done outside the main building in a subsidiary structure. The windows in the west wall seem to have been few and small. A small one remains in each of two upper rooms and similar windows have probably been obliterated by later alterations in the other two. Downstairs windows are bound to be fewer since they had to run through vaulting. We have seen evidence of such windows in the most northerly and the most southerly of the lower rooms. It is possible that the middle two lower rooms did not have windows on the west side because of proximity to the buttresses, though Peter Ryder thought he saw evidence for two in the third room. In view of the possible uses of the ground floor - storage, animals, brewing, defence? perhaps not so many windows were needed. I have been writing as if the ground floor were constructed as a through vault. This I believe to be true. However if true, it poses two quite large questions. The first is the feasibility of through vaulting, involving a considerable mass of masonry, being removed to create a room of quite different proportions. I have been met with scepticism. Nevertheless, the existence of medieval vaulting on either side must pose the question. I would cite the state of the wall above the entrance to the newel stair as evidence that changes have taken place in the wall structure. The intrusion of the large beam into the wall of the newel stair shows that the beams are a later addition. The comparative smoothness of the remaining walls seems an argument against the vault having been removed. However, Peter Ryder's observation of the external walls takes the idea further - that this section was taken down and rebuilt, the east wall if not the west. The second difficult question involves the dimensions of section four, which seems to be on a different scale from the other three sections, therefore questioning the idea of a continuous vault and continuous external walls. The vault is certainly narrower. The west wall is continuous, and if the wooden Caernarvon arch doorway in the third upper room is taken as an internal door, it seems to point to the east wall having been continuous also. It certainly gives the impression of an internal door. However, Peter Ryder tells me that he knows of a similar wooden door which was external. The fact that the present east wall of the most southerly upper section overlaps it, therefore, means either that the last section post-dates it, which does not tally with its west wall, or that the east wall has been rebuilt further west. I would suggest the latter, that it was rebuilt further back at the same time that the east wall of the adjoining section was rebuilt, so that suitable quoins could be inserted into the adjoining section. The roof of the last section also seems to have been lowered from its previous position as continuous with the rest, as seen from the position of the attic opening. The south wall seems to have been originally farther south (cf. the archaeology report) giving us an upper room of dimensions on a par with the others. This leaves us with two queries, however - the relative smallness of the vault and the difference in floor level at first floor level. As to the smaller size of the vault, one explanation suggests itself. The land rises from north to south, and this rise

seems to have been greater in the past. If they were building to the same height on a slope, would not the vault have to be narrower?

Another possibility is that the building turned east at this point round a court, and another building slotted beside the narrower section and ran east. There are no windows on the east wall of section four. This, however, does not explain the overlapped wooden doorway. I suggest that the east wall of section four was originally in a line with the reset of the building, and that the narrowness of the vault is a result of the slope of the land. It seems probable that the removed vault of the previous section was smaller than the vault of the one before.

That leaves us with the floor height. On entering the most southerly upper room from the room before, the difference in height makes one imagine that one is entering a much smaller building. In reality, it is the height of the third section which would have been raised. When it was first built the Deanery had a low ground floor and a high first floor. Two hundred years later, this was being reversed. I think that the new beamed ceiling probably raised the floor height of the room above by about a foot, and the mortar floors of the two upper rooms to the north were raised by the same amount. During the rebuilding, the fourth upper room had been consigned to being an outside room so it did not have the same treatment. The external door in the most northerly upper room can be seen to be about one foot below the floor height. I think, then, that when it was built in response to Bishop Bek's ordinance of 1293, the Deanery was a first floor hall of important rooms over a continuous vault which grew narrower with the rising land. The two northerly upstairs rooms together probably made up the principal room, with a dais at the north end. The other two upper rooms possibly began as one room but were subsequently divided. Windows probably had shutters rather than glass, and the roof would be of stone slabs or possibly of oak shingles to give a steeper angle. The building had continuous east and west walls, and a south wall a few feet further south than at the moment. The floors were connected by a newel stair leading from the third lower room to the second upper room, adjacent to a wall which did not include fireplaces. The stair probably contained two loops, the lower one having been removed before the present century. Latrines and fireplaces were provided on the first floor but not on the ground floor which was a service area. The west wall has been described. The east wall is more difficult to envisage. The door in the second lower section is an original entrance, possibly the only one. Perhaps the later entrance in the third section is on the site of an original door. Downstairs there may have been a window in each bay, through the vault, like the one in the most northerly section, but probably not in the southern section. Those windows in the upper stories would probably have been simple arched windows like the blocked 'door' in the most northerly upper section, which was probably a window. These windows would later be enlarged to accommodate bigger windows, so are now difficult to trace. R.W. Brunskill writes, 'Except where needed for defensive purposes, external staircases were rarely used to give

access to upper stories. When found in farmhouses, they usually served a granary or other storeroom rather than the domestic premises.' Whether there would have been a need for an external door in the upper storey, I am doubtful. If so, it might well have had a wooden ladder, easily removed, since the two stone stairs are of later date. About a hundred years later or less, possibly around the time that John D'Ireby was Master Mason at Raby, the twolight trefoil windows seem to have been inserted. Possibly at the same time, possibly earlier, it was decided that the vaulting needed buttresses on this side also, since the buttress seems to be of the 14th century. A through vault might well need two buttresses. The other one, probably on the third section, was probably removed when that section was rebuilt since the vault had been removed. Does this partially explain the line in the masonry that Peter Ryder noticed?

The big changes seem to have come in the early 16th century. This would be after the canons had moved out to the castle and the Deanery had become a manor house. It was converted to a gentleman's residence by taking the vault out of section three and virtually rebuilding that whole section. A higher ceiling was inserted and the heights of the upstairs floors adjusted, except for section four which became narrower due to quoins being inserted in section three. This was possible because of the narrower vault, which retained its entrance from the house and became the dairy. This entrance, however, was probably rebuilt or modified at this time, as the door intrudes into the vaulting of the lower room and such an important doorway would not have been necessary formerly. The upstairs gained a door in the upper storey and a ramp, and the wooden doorway to the next room was blocked up with bricks, the interior side becoming a cupboard. A chimney wall was built to heat the two middle lower rooms and windows inserted in the third section as befitted a gentleman's residence, two upstairs and two downstairs. Also a more modern - or possibly a new - doorway was built. Because of the enlarged windows in the upper third section, the fireplace in the west wall had to go, though the buttress, no longer needed to counteract the vault, seems to have been left. This left this chamber unheated, since fireplaces do not seem to have been provided upstairs in the chimney wall. The upper second chamber still retained the west wall chimney. The large fireplace in the south wall of the third upper section was probably built at this time. Its chimney would serve the double purpose of providing for a fire in the room next door, now an outside service room. Whether it was a smithy at this time or a bakery is not known, but it appears to have been both in its time. The kitchen needed more light and the square window was probably now inserted, shorter than its contemporaries because of the vault but possibly with two lights, rounded heads and a stone mullion. The north wall of the kitchen was blocked and the room at the other side became a service room, accessed by a door north of the buttress. It is probable that the uppermost northerly room remained part of the house and only changed to agricultural use later. Only two bedrooms are listed in the 1622 inventory, but quite possibly there was no wall between the two northerly upper rooms, making the first bedroom very large. It certainly had more than twice as many possessions in it, according to the inventory, than did the other bedroom. If that is the case, the external stair must have been built later. So when did all these changes come about? It has to be some time between the canons moving up to the castle (unknown; probably c.1450) and 1622 (the inventory). The date that springs to mind is 1548, when Sir Hugh Asque took it over after the Dissolution . If Sir Hugh had lived in it himself, this would be more believable. But with all those properties, it does not seem likely. It is more likely to have been in the days after the canons moved out, when the sole occupant of the Deanery was one of those deans whose income must have been considerable and whose self-esteem even more so, because of his importance in the diocese. There are several to choose from. Thomas Hebbedon was dean for four years from 1431. He was of noble birth and Spiritual Chancellor to Bishop Langley, but is possibly too early. William Sherwood (1485-98) was dean at the same time that John Sherwood was

bishop (1484-94). Were they brothers? The Surtees Society editor says he has not been able to find a family connection, but they are buried side by side in the English Cemetery in Rome. Robert Hyndmer (1541-48) is possibly the most likely candidate. He was dean of Lanchester and Auckland, and Temporal Chancellor to Bishop Tunstall. The only architectural clue we have, apart from a general partiality to the word 'Tudor' is the connection with St. Helen's, which would fix it in the late part of the 15th century. If it wasn't for the fact that most other people identify the alterations as Tudor, I myself would be inclined to guess at the mid-15th century. The door and window shapes would accord with that time and we must remember that the men who came to the Deanery would not be far behind the latest fashions. Margaret Woods quotes examples of undercrofts becoming parlours in the 15th century, one with remarkably similar windows. But this is largely conjecture. Other than the above, I must leave this important change dateless. Whenever it was, it was a long time until the next change. The Victorian extension was added sometime between 1845 and 1857. It meant knocking out one of the three-light windows for the downstairs connecting door, enlarging the garderobe door in the third upper chamber for access upstairs, and sealing the garderobe door next door. Probably about the same time the stairway in the third section was inserted, necessitating a new door through to the lower southern section and the closing up of the fireplace in the upper third section. A new fireplace was cut next to it, avoiding the stairs. The upper third section had been divided into two bedrooms, probably in Georgian times since the fireplace seems Georgian. Now the door through to the second upper section was blocked. It was probably at this time that access was cut through to the newel stair from the kitchen, and the upstairs northern half was reached from there. The previous stair entrance was converted to a cupboard. Perhaps before this, the most northerly upper room had been converted to agricultural use, an outside stairway provided, the arched window lowered for access and the second upper section divided into two rooms. It was now possible to close off the connecting door in the middle of the lower floor and the house became two separate living quarters, despite the fact that there was only one cold tap. Later, the Victorian extension was inhabited separately and the house contained three families. Other changes, for example the change from the garderobe sanitary system to earth closets and the unexplained curtailment of section four, I am unable to throw any light on. This gradual process of decay was vastly accelerated once the building was left to stand empty after 1969. No record has ever been made of the changes it has experienced. Our grateful thanks are due, then, to the two men who have rescued it from dereliction.

Many Thanks to Barbara Laurie.