The Great Fire in Lossenham 1275

The construction of a medieval priory was a major undertaking and was not undertaken lightly. Such a project could take several decades before the work was completed. A priory would be composed of a chapel, forming one side of the cloister garth with a refectory and kitchens usually on the opposite side to the chapel, a dormitory (with toilets) on another side and a chapter room where the community could assemble, a library, a prior's room with a parlour for receiving visitors, etc. This complex of buildings would require some skilled craftsmen. Under an architect or chief of works, there would need to be a number of skilled stonemasons who would shape and assemble the stonework for the foundations, the walls, doorways and windows. Following them would come the carpenters to shape the timbers for the flooring, the rafters and internal furniture. In addition there would be the unskilled labourers who dug the earth, moved material around and all the many other tasks.

Unlike the monastic communities which were much larger and had sizeable financial resources, the friars were mendicants or "beggars" who relied on offerings and gifts in order to survive. Hence, when Thomas Aucher, the lord of Lossenham, invited the Carmelites to found a priory near to their manor house, it was assumed that his family would bear the major part of the cost involved in building the new priory. When the first group of friars arrived, trudging over from Aylesford, their first priority would be to have somewhere to live. There might be a small building or some huts where they could take up temporary residence or, more likely, the Aucher family would have allowed them to stay in a wing of the manor house where they could use the family chapel for their prayers - and, of course, provide daily mass for the family and a priest for confession when needed, etc.

Planning the permanent priory buildings would have been the first major task and this could have taken some time. The design of the buildings was fairly standard but getting the necessary stone was difficult and expensive. There was local stone available within reasonable distance, but this was not of high quality. The best stone came from Caen in northern France but that was expensive. Lossenham was lucky in that sea-going ships could cross the Channel from France and sail up the Rother river around the Isle of Oxney and along the hillside where Lossenham was situated. The remains of a quay below the priory indicates that this might have been used for the unloading of Caen stone. A reasonable estimate would be that the preparation of the site and the laying of the foundations started some time in the 1250's.

The size of the community grew slowly during this period rising to around ten friars in the 1260's. By 1271, the walls had risen to a sufficient height for work to begin on the floors and the roofing. For this timber would be needed and the one person who owned most of the forests around Lossenham was the king. So, a petition was made to King Henry III and, on 16 July 1271, he issued orders for the friars to be given six oaks with their branches from the woods around Rolvenden. This would have enabled the work to progress more rapidly and so, on 20 January 1272, the king ordered the friars to receive another five oaks with their branches from the woods around Pease Hill (just north of Sevenoaks).

By 1275 the work on the roofs was well advanced and arousing some admiring and even some resentful remarks from those passing by. Then, in the autumn of that year, disaster struck. During the night, a great fire broke out and destroyed a large part of the newly erected timber floors and roofs and probably damaged some of the stonework. Fire was a common hazard in those days with hearth fires and lighted candles in use everywhere. In fact, there are records of fires in four other Carmelite priories. In 1490, the Carmelite Priory in Lincoln had a large fire which destroyed the church with its belltower, the dormitory and the library and, around the same time, the Carmelite Priory in Hitchin lost its library from another fire. In 1509, a major conflagration in Yarmouth destroyed the Carmelite Church and the Priory together with much of the neighbouring street. Finally in 1513, the Carmelite Church in Cambridge burned down. In fact, there was an instruction in the Carmelite Constitutions that the prior or subprior should visit each cell after Compline each night to check that the brothers were sleeping in their habit and scapular (which had to be worn at all times) and to check that all candles and other lights had been extinguished.

In Lossenham, it was quickly assumed that the fire had been caused maliciously. The buildings had only just been erected and were probably not yet in use, so it is unlikely that the fire was caused by the carelessness of the community. However, if the fire was intentional then who would have done it? Most of the local people would have welcomed the building of the priory. It added stature to the district, and many would have seen it as a place where one could go to attend mass or to make their confession. Some would have come on pilgrimage to pray before the statue of the Virgin Mary which would have been placed in a prominent position near the main altar. The one group of people who would have resented the arrival of the friars would have been the local clergy who could see that the priory would draw people away from their parish church and hence reduce their income.

The fire was such a serious event that a royal commission was quickly established on 25th November 1275, under the leadership of Ralf de Freningham, a local lord, and tasked to discover its cause. This commission completed its work quickly and, on 4th January 1276, it reported that the conclusion was that: ... James, rector of the church of Werehorne, procured the burning of the houses of the friars of the order of Mount Carmel of Lossenham. William the clerk, his servant, was at the burning by his procurement; afterwards the said rector harboured the said William and retained him in his household; the damage done is estimated at £80. The damage caused by the fire must have been extensive and the sum quoted of £80 would be around £80,000-£100,000 in today's currency. The commission identified the culprit as William , the clerk to James, the parish priest of St Matthew's church in Warehorne, a village nine miles east of Lossenham. Curiously, judicial proceedings proceeded very slowly, and it was not until 1279 that the accused came to trial in Canterbury. However, before this trial could start another matter had to be settled. The court record of the previous case to be held states as follows: ...Brother Thomas of Newenden and brother Richard of Oxford, brothers of Mount Carmel, fought together in their cloister at Lossenham in the county of East Sussex so that the said Richard killed the said Thomas in the said cloister and immediately after having done this, he left his cloister and removed himself and wickedly hid himself in the countryside. He had no goods as he was a brother of Mount Carmel.

There are no other details known about these two Carmelites who were fighting but arguing between friars was not unknown and, as all religious would have carried a knife attached to their belt to be used at mealtimes and for other purposes, then such quarrels could have serious consequences. In this case, the fight led to the death of brother Thomas and immediately brother Richard fled the scene, throwing off his religious habit and disappearing into the distance. The court proceedings clearly implied that Richard was declared an outlaw and, as such, his goods and possessions would be confiscated. But, as brother Richard was a religious with a vow of poverty, he left nothing behind to be confiscated.

The reason for this fight becomes clearer when the next court case was heard, that is the trial of James, the rector of Warehorne, his clerk William and, surprisingly the same brother Richard who had been declared an outlaw. The court record reads: ... The aforesaid accusation that unknown malefactors set fire to the church of Lossenham and immediately fled. It is not known who they were. Afterwards it was stated in the coroner’s roll that the said brother Richard and James the rector of the church in Warehorne and the cleric William, had burned the said church. Not guilty. ... And the 12 jurors said, to their knowledge, that they are guilty of nothing. Again, likewise, they were set free.

Now, it is possible to guess at the reason for the quarrel between the two Carmelites. Brother Thomas of Newenden appears to have come from a local family and so would be aware of the stories about who were the culprits for the fire. If he had learnt that brother Richard was to be in court accused of being one of those who had caused the fire then he would have seen Richard as a traitor to the community, someone who had accepted a bribe from the rector of Warehorne to open the gate for his clerk and help him to start the fire. Surprisingly, despite the commission identifying the culprits for the fire, the jury at their trial declared them to be "Not Guilty". It would be interesting to know whether the jury came to this verdict because of a lack of evidence against the accused or because there was local support for the action of the rector of Warehorne.

Fortunately, the developing Carmelite community in Lossenham were quickly able to put this mishap behind them. Thanks to the generosity of the Aucher family and/or other local patrons, the building work proceeded. The completed Priory must have been quite substantial as, in 1517, the Lossenham Carmelites hosted a provincial chapter. Although the overall number of friars was diminishing in the sixteenth century, such a meeting would have brought two representatives from each of the 39 houses in the province plus the Provincial and any Doctors of Theology who wished to attend. The priory would have had to provide accommodation for around 100 friars. Local families might have helped in this matter and, of course, friars were prepared to sleep on the floor in any vacant space in the priory.

Hopefully, as the excavations proceed, it will become possible to make better estimates of the layout of the Priory and its capacity. Will we, though, find any traces of the Great Fire of 1275?

Richard Copsey, O.Carm.

The Will of Thomas Winterbury

In another of our occasional pieces looking at the community around Lossenham through the evidence of wills, let me introduce you to Thomas Winterbury. Thomas ‘the elder’ was a grandfather and a widower, living in Sandhurst and it would seem that by 1501 his health was declining. On the 13th of August he decided it was time to make his will.

Thomas’s will gives us no indication of how he had made a living; he left no business utensils or other items suggesting a means of income. Instead it is clear that, understandably, his main concern was for the health of his soul - in other words, what would happen to him after his death. So how did he write this concern into his will?

In the first place, Thomas requested burial in the churchyard of St Nicholas in Sandhurst, giving ten shillings for his burial expenses and leaving twelve pence to the high altar of the church ‘for my tithes forgotten’. This is a standard bequest found in virtually every pre-Reformation will.

He then requested that ten shillings be spent at his month’s mind and ten shillings more was to be spent at his year’s mind for the benefit of his and his former wife, Johanne’s, souls. The month’s mind and year’s mind were both typical ‘anniversaries’ for a dead person, usually celebrated with prayers or masses sung by a priest or chaplain in the church. Such events had a profound importance, as it was universally believed that one’s soul would ultimately go either to heaven or to hell, after a period in purgatory. Purgatory (from the Latin purgare - to clean/purify) was where the soul went, hopefully to be cleansed of sin, before entering heaven - or not, in which case it went to hell. It was widely held that the more prayers were offered up for your soul whilst it was in purgatory, the more likely it was that you would be cleansed of sin and saved - hence the buying of masses and prayers in the years following death.

Thomas was a man with substantial economic resources, but he was also so concerned about his soul (did he have much sin to cleanse? Or was he just very devout?) that he chose to use these resources to ensure that his soul would be saved, rather than damned. His will therefore specified that

my messuage (property) with all the houses thereto belonging and pertaining with iii gardens and iii crofts of land lying in Sandhurst upon the dennes of Silverden and Osynden (Silverden can still be located to the north of Sandhurst Cross)


were to be leased out by his executors for six years. From the profits arising, ten shillings were to be distributed every year

in diriges and masses to be done in the church of Sandhurst for my soul, my wife’s soul and for all Christian souls. The residue of the said 10s if any be to be distributed in diriges and masses and poore people.


After those six years, Thomas’s son (Thomas the younger) was to inherit the properties. Even then, however, the will specified that if Thomas the younger were to die without heirs, the properties were to be sold to fund

an honest priest to sing in the church of Sandhurst or else where my executors will assign, to sing for my soul, my father and mother’s souls and all Christian souls for three years: ten marks a year to sing yearly as the money will be received.


Unusually, and touchingly, Thomas the elder was also so concerned for his son’s soul in the event of his death, that he specified that 3s 4d was to be spent at his son’s ‘outbering’ (burial), then at his month’s mind, and then at his year’s mind. He added

And so yearly I ordain in masses and diriges to be done in Sandhurst church for the soul of Thomas Winterbury, me, my wife and all Christian souls for six years after Thomas’s death every year 3s 4d.


Apart from modest sums left to a couple of other beneficiaries, including 3s 4d to the Prior of Lossenham and 13s 4d to his granddaughter Elise, it was clearly the health of his and his family’s souls which dominated Thomas the elder’s thoughts when he made his will. Let us hope that these final arrangements gave him some measure of confidence as he faced his last few weeks and whatever lay beyond. Probate was given on his will in October the same year.

Rebecca Warren

Supporting the RFS to get woodlands into management

In the last couple of years there have been some rather conflicting press stories associated with woodlands and forest and the international community’s ongoing efforts to slow the effects of climate change. As someone who works in the land management sector, I am regularly confronted with the confusion this creates in the British countryside!

We know that tropical forest are being felled in an unsustainable manner, and at an alarming rate. And that in Britain the Government has set the incredible target for the creation of 30,000 hectares new woodland each year for a decade in an effort to capture and lock up carbon. The headline and perhaps misleading message from these international news stories is that “tree felling is bad”, bad for the local wildlife and soils and bad for the climate.

However… as with all things in life, it is not quite that simple! Almost every ancient woodland in Britain has a history of past management by people for the commodities of the day that it could provide. Commodities such as timber, fuelwood, hunting and provision for livestock (grazing, shelter, bedding and fodder). The woodlands and associated wildlife which we so greatly value today are a product of this past activity.

Today it is estimated that only around half of the 325,000ha of woodland in the south-east is currently in active management, with many areas either undermanaged or unmanaged by their current owners. Many of these woodlands will have had a long and rich history of past activity, and unfortunately the current inactivity can result in a decline of many of the woodland plants and invertebrates that we value across the region. Through lack of recent management, many of these woodlands are becoming dark and cold places that offer fewer opportunities for wildlife. And the recent messaging about deforestation and the need to lock up carbon does not help the situation.

On balance, felling trees within a woodland in a sustainable manner in south-east England is a positive activity for people, for wildlife, for the woodland and for sequestering carbon! Much of the felled wood provides renewable timber products - many of which have long life-times and therefore store carbon. Coppice re-growth and newly planted trees are fast growing and so store carbon more rapidly than ageing trees. And the result within the woodland is temporary open space alongside tracks and rides and within felled coupes – providing light and warmth for flora and invertebrates and all that feed on them. And so felling trees is not all bad!

And so to the Royal Forestry Society (RFS) which has incredible tenure in education and promotion of sustainable woodland management over the past 135 years. The Janus Foundation was therefore pleased to recently receive an application for grant support from the RFS for a project to support woodland management in Kent. The project constitutes a three-pronged approach to support and encourage woodland management in this part of the country, but with opportunities to both expand the coverage as well implement ‘lessons learnt’ elsewhere.

And so to the three prongs:

Education - to provide a future, skilled workforce. Working with local schools to raise the profile and generate interest in woodland management as a possible career path. To include outdoor education, bringing children out in to the woodland to enthuse them about the opportunities and enjoyment from working in woodlands.

Understanding – finding and bringing together local woodland owners to better understand the factors inhibiting woodland management and to provide some solutions. In essence, what are the obstacles and how can we overcome them by working together?

Research – to develop the designs of small, cost-effective structures for drying firewood using air movement and sunshine. Through building prototypes, to demonstrate how moisture levels can be reduced in firewood in a cheap and environmentally-friendly way. (This research proposal is in response to the recent Clean Air Act – which places responsibility on the firewood supplier and the user to ensure they are burning firewood with 20% moisture content or less. Important legislation for environmental health, but we don’t want it to be a barrier to small-scale woodland management).

We are delighted to confirm that the Trustees of the Janus Foundation unanimously supported the proposal to the full value of the grant application. And we now very much look forward to working with the RFS as they embark on this three year project. And we look forward to updating you on this project along the way through this newsletter.

And if you know someone who owns an unmanaged woodland, give them a gentle nudge!

Archive headings

Unlike books, archival records are not understood on their own as individual items. Their meaning comes from their relationship with other records and the people of organisations that created and used them. When archives are listed or catalogued, the aim is to describe and preserve these relationships.

Below is an alphabetical list of the archival 'boxes' that form a 'quick look list' for the Lossenham Project:

  • Agricultural Tithes Newenden
  • Archery
  • Book Catalogue
  • Carmelites
  • Castle Toll
  • Coins
  • Demesne Tenures
  • Ecclesiastical
  • Estate Maps
  • Field Names
  • Flood Levels
  • Genealogy Families Kent
  • Hasted
  • Hexden Channel
  • Historical images
  • Historical sources
  • Horseshoes
  • Ironworks
  • Jill Eddison
  • Kensham
  • LP Gazette Newenden and Rolvenden
  • Lossenham
  • Lossenham Friary
  • Lossenham Project Field work
  • Lossenham Project PCC Wills
  • Lowden Manor
  • Map Library
  • Marsh and Drainage
  • Maytham Wreck
  • Medieval Bridges
  • Medieval History Kent
  • Millstones
  • Moats and Moated SItes
  • Natural History
  • Newenden
  • Ordnance Survey Maps
  • Place Names
  • Ploughing
  • Register of Newenden 1897
  • Romney Marsh
  • Rother River
  • Roundhouses and Marsh Forts
  • Samuel Bishop
  • Secondary Research Index
  • Smallhythe Place
  • Weald of Kent
  • William of Cassingham
  • Windmills

These archive 'boxes' contain different numbers of documents which are available upon request by emailing archivist@janusfoundation.org

Research material is available to researchers and community members. The archivist can also perform a keyword search on the documents for you.

Likewise if you have any articles, documents, images, photographs which you would like to be considered for the archive, please do not hesitate to forward your suggestions.

A Research Agenda for The Lossenham Project

The Lossenham Project is well into its second year now, and a lot of work has been done, and is ongoing, to investigate the historic environment not only of Lossenham itself, but also the wider hinterland of the Rother and its tributary watercourses. We use the term ‘historic environment’ in its widest sense to mean the archaeological and historical records, and the historic landscape. The historic landscape is all aspects of the landscape that has been affected by human activity. Which means most of the landscape as we see it today; little if any is unaffected by human hands. The historic environment of The Lossenham Project is, then, a very big subject indeed, and spans (at the very least) the entire post-glacial period since the last Ice Age, some 10,000 years or so.

There are thus very many ways we could approach this study, many fruitful avenues of research to follow, and many questions we can ask and seek to answer. The truth is, of course, we will never be able to fully explore or question every single aspect of the historic environment of Lossenham, much less of the entire Rother system and its surrounding parishes. We will all pass into the realms of history (and archaeology) ourselves long before that would be possible, not least because in this game any answers you do get have a tendency to generate yet more questions!

Thus, we must focus our efforts. That being said, we intend to do, and are doing a lot; the project has already made significant progress on improving our understanding of the archaeology, history and landscape of this fascinating area. But as the project has matured, it has now become clear that we need to develop and agree a research agenda for it. Research agendas are an integral part of the good management of such research projects. English Heritage (now Historic England) published guidance on this some years ago, known as MoRPHE; ‘Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment’. In addition, Historic England supported and funded the development of a series of regional research frameworks for England, involving input from a wide range of academics and heritage professionals. The relevant one for us is the South East Research Framework (SERF). This covers the counties of Kent, Sussex and Surrey, and is based around a series of thematic and period-based papers. These can be viewed online at: https://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure-and-community/history-and-heritage/south-east-research-framework

So, we have begun work on a Research Agenda for The Lossenham Project. This is not intended to be a straitjacket (which can be a risk with such things if too rigidly applied) but it is needed to focus our collective efforts on the most promising and interesting research questions within the project area. The draft version directly relates to the themes and periods defined by SERF, which will make it easier to fit our work into the bigger picture of the historic environment of the region. Having said that, I have been struck by how many of the distribution maps of key sites and finds within the SERF resource assessments show little or nothing in the Rother valley area. This underlines the research value of The Lossenham Project; all those of us participating in the project are helping to shed more light on an under-studied and very poorly understood part of south east England. However, it is already apparent that there is much to be found here, and I look forward to working with many of you in the coming months and years to remedy this. At the time-of-writing the Lossenham research agenda remains a work-in-progress. Its creation will be a collaborative process, and indeed it is my intention that many of you reading this will get a chance to contribute your thoughts and questions to it. And in fact, it will never really be finished; it will be a living document that continues to evolve as long as the project continues. So, watch this space!

Andrew Richardson