Basing House, Hampshire, England

BASING is first mentioned in the will of King Edred, who left to his mother 'the lands at Amesbury, Wantnge and Basing.' Under Edward the Confessor it was held by Altei, who could 'betake himself whither he would.' It was then assessed at 11 hides. In 1086 it was assessed at 6½ and was held of the Conqueror by Hugh de Port as the chief of his fifty-five lordships in Hampshire. He had seven serfs here and three mills worth 50s. The value of the place had increased from £8 to £16. When Hugh de Port subsequently entered the monastery at Winchester as a monk he was succeeded in his estates by his son Henry, who had a son John dc Port. John by his wife Maud left a son and heir Adam, who succeeded him in the latter part of the 12th century. Adam married Mabel granddaughter of Roger de St. John, and their descendants took the name of St. John. Their son was William, who married Godeheld Pagnell, by whom he had a son Robert. Apparently William had some dispute with the Crown concerning his lands, for in 1254 the king confirmed to Robert de St. John the land within the manor of Basing, which he, the king, had by judgement of his court recovered against William de St. John father of Robert. He was to pay annually 5 marks at Easter and 5 at Michaelmas for all service.

John de St. John, son of Robert, was returned lord of Basing in 1275, and proved his right to the liberties of the manor in 1280. He died in 1301, and in the following year it was agreed between his wife Alice and his son and heir John that she should receive as dower the manors of Chawton and Walberton in lieu of her dower in Basing, Shcrborne and elsewhere. John granted the custody of Basing and other manors for life to Thomas de Mareys, with ' a daily wages of 12d. and one coat, or 20s. yearly, a yearly salary of £4. . . litter and hay daily for two horses, and half a bushel of oats for the same every night, and brushwood for his chamber.' This John was the first Baron St. John of Basing, and was summoned to Parliament under that title in 1299. At his death in 1329 he was succeeded by his son Hugh, but Alice his widow held Basing in dower during her lifetime. In 1334 Hugh had release to himself and his heirs, 'for the special affection which the king bore him,' of the rent of 10 marks due at the exchequer for the manor of Basing. He died in 1337, and his son Edmund died without issue only ten years later. His heirs were his two sisters, Margaret wife of John de St. Philibert, and Isabel wife of Henry de Burghersh. Margaret inherited for her share the manor of Basing, out of which a rent-charge was paid to Elizabeth, widow of Edmund. She died in 1361, and her infant son a month later, so that Isabel, now wife of Sir Luke de Poynings, became sole heir to the St. John estates, of which she had seisin in 1362. In 1390 the manor was settled on her with remainder to her son Sir Thomas de Poynings, who succeeded to the manor in 1393. On his death in 1428 the barony of St. John tell into abeyance; his heirs were Constance wife of John Paulet and daughter of his son Hugh, Alice her sister wife of John Orell, and John Bonville, son of a third sister, Joan. A partition of the inheritance was made by the heirs, and Basing fell to the share of Constance and John Paulet. Constance was succeeded by her son John, who in 1475 settled the manor on his son John and his other sons and daughters.He himself had a lawsuit with his cousin John Bonville to compel him to give up the documents relating to their inheritance to some indifferent person, to whom they could go if they wished to verify their titles. It does not appear whether the action was successful, but Sir William Paulet, his grandson, son and heir of his son John, was called upon to show his title in 1537, and was presumably able to do so. The barony of St. John was revived in his favour, and he was created Marquess of Winchester in 1551.He survived four monarchs and retained high office during all the changes of administration, finally dying at a great age in 1572. His son John was his heir and died in 1576.William was the next to succeed, and died seised of the manor in 1598, leaving a son and heir William. John, son and heir of William, followed, and is famous for his staunch defence of Basing House against the Parliamentary forces. During the Commonwealth his lands were of course sequestered. It appears from the investigations of the sequestration committee that the accounts of the manor were not very satisfactory. Many of the tenants were in arrears with their rent, and were 'so miserably poor that nothing was to be had from them.' The rents of Basing and other lands of the marquess were granted to Robert Wallop in 1650. The estates of the marquess were restored to him in 1662, when an 'Act for confirming the estate of John Marquess of Winchester in certain manors and lands whereof the deeds and evidences were burnt and lost at the taking of the Castle of Basing' received the royal assent. His son Charles was created first Duke of Bolton, and Basing descended in the family till the death of Harry sixth and last duke, in 1794, when, in accordance with the will of his elder brother Charles, the fifth duke, it was inherited by the latter's illegitimate daughter. She married Thomas Orde, who took the name of Powlett in addition to his own and was created Lord Bolton in 1797. His great-grandson, the present Lord Bolton, is now lord of the manor.

The ruins of Basing House have been very carefully and thoroughly excavated by Lord Bolton, and a plan, which is at any rate intelligible, can now be obtained. The arrangement of the site is of considerable interest, the earthworks of a castle of the mount and bailey type having been in the first place adapted to the terraces and walled gardens of a 16th-century country house, and in the next century hastily strengthened by lines of outworks and ditches during the civil wars. Some of the latter have been levelled out in modern times, and the cutting of the Basingstoke Canal about 1780 has destroyed the appearance of the north and east sides of the inclosure, but the mount or citadel with its ditch and parts of those which surrounded the two baileys are still in very good condition. The fall of the ground is northward towards the marshy valley of the Loddon, which must have formed an important item in the mediaeval defences, and on the brow of the slope is the principal earthwork, already referred to as the mount. This belongs to an uncommon type, of which Old Sarum and Castle Rising are examples, in which the diameter of the circular earthwork is very large, and instead of being a flat-topped mount it becomes a high rampart of earth surrounding a circular inclosure, the level of which is but little higher than the general ground level outside the ditch. The diameter, taken from the crest of the rampart, is not less than 100 yds. in the present instance, and the bottom of the ditch is nearly 40 ft. below the same point. The entrance is from the north-east, through a break in the earthen rampart, opening to a court or bailey bounded on all sides by a ditch, and having to the east another court which was defended in like manner. The canal running along the east side of the second court has destroyed the evidence of its original defences, but the general disposition of the earthworks is clear. Basing seems to have come into importance only when Hugh de Port, the first owner after the Conquest, made it the chief manor of the fiftyfive which he held in the county, and it is probable that the citadel and two courts are his work. The earliest mention of a castle here, contained in a midI2th-century grant by John de Port to Sherborne Priory, is rather puzzling, as it refers to the 'old castle of Basing,' implying as it would seem that there was also a new castle at the time. But that the 'old castle' was that whose remains exist to-day is clear from a mention of the chapel of St. Michael ' in the old castle' in 1 349, undoubtedly the castle chapel or Free Chapel of Basing; so that if any part of the defences, or any other work at Basing, was ever known as the new castle, the name has long fallen into disuse.

In 1261 Robert de St. John had licence to strengthen his dwelling at Basing with a stockade, but no other reference to the mediaeval buildings on the site is known. Now that the site has been cleared, it seems that some foundations in the citadel are older than the early 16th-century brickwork which forms the main part of the ruins, and these are doubtless part of the mediaeval castle; but they are too fragmentary to give any idea of what its plan may have been, or its extent. One piece of 12th-century detail has been found on the site, the voussoir of an arch, but this by itself cannot be taken as evidence of the character of the early buildings; and the fact that the bulk of the objects found—and everything found has been most scrupulously preserved—dates from the 16th and 17th centuries shows that a very clean sweep must have been made when the brick house was built.

Its date is fixed by a licence to crenellate, granted to Sir William Paulet in 1531, which refers in the customary terms to a building of stone and lime, though the actual material is red brick with stone dressings. It is difficult to distinguish between the dates of the various parts, and Sir William evidently added to his original work at several times during his long life: probably the work in the 'citadel,' called in the 17th-century accounts the Old House, was the first to be done, and the buildings in the east court, 'the New House,' followed at some interval. A stone preserved in the museum on the site records the completion of some work in 1561, but it is uncertain to what part of the building it refers. The arrangement of the buildings is dictated by the position, and follows no normal type, nor is it possible to identify any but the most obvious parts of the plan.

The circular rampart was at this time strengthened by a red brick wall on the outside and a line of buildings set against its inner face, the area within the rampart being divided into several courts. The principal court was at the north-east, entered directly from the gatehouse, and was fan-shaped, having the great hall on the west side, with kitchen, butteries, &c, on the north-west. The ranges of building on either side of the gatehouse have cellars, and under the hall is a large cellar, the walls of which remain up to the ground level, but everything has been destroyed above this point except the walls set against the rampart. South of the hall is a block which doubtless contained the principal living-rooms, the great chamber, &c, overlooking a second court on the south-west, while a third and somewhat smaller court, of a regular rectangular shape, was at a little distance to the south. There was a small court on the west of the hall and another at the south-east of the site, east of the rectangular court. The kitchen at the north-west of the hall was a hexagonal building with large fireplaces in three of its sides, and the rooms on either side of it had ovens in the thickness of the walls, and were doubtless bakehouses or something of the sort, while another room north of the great hall shows remains of two large fireplaces set against the rampart, and was evidently a second kitchen. The hall itself was a fine room measuring some 60 ft. by 25 ft., with screens at the north end and a northeast porch, and a shallow bay window at the southeast; at the north end beyond the screens a broad flight of steps leads down to a cellar beneath the hall, formerly covered with a brick vault and lighted by two small windows on east and west; on either side of the entrance to the cellar are rooms in the mediaeval position of buttery and pantry, that toward the east having a bay window looking into the principal court.

The block at the south of the hall, already noted as that which probably contained the chief livingrooms, seems from its construction of flint and stone instead of brick to be of an earlier date than the 16th century, and other work to the south-west, forming part of the walls of a cellar, is also of the same material and earlier than some red brick walls built against it. Walls underlying the 16th-century brickwork exist on the south side of the second court, but have no features by which their date may be more closely fixed. The brickwork itself is clearly of several periods, and bricks of 2 in., 2¼ in., and 2½ in. are used; the limits of possible date must lie between 1530 and 1645, and it is probable that some of the brickwork is as late as the time of the great sieges of 1643–5. At the north-east are the remains of the gatehouse, a fine building with a central entrance passage and round turrets at its four angles; in the diary of the Marquess of Winchester, who defended the house during the siege, it is described as 'the loftie gatehouse with foure turrets looking northwards.' It opened to a brick bridge over the dry moat, which still remains in part and forms the principal approach to the citadel, the only other being from the south by what was probably a drawbridge over the moat; only its foundations now exist. Within the first court the gatehouse was flanked by ranges of buildings with cellars, which show clear evidence of alteration, the second room from the gatehouse on each side having been enlarged and, perhaps, carried up as a tower; the presumption that this was done to strengthen the defences seems reasonable, and the work may therefore be of the date of the siege. The inner facing of the eastern rampart at the north-east is also of later date, as some of the 16th-century detail is used up in its footings, and this work may be contemporary with that just noticed. A narrow range of building with two projecting stair turrets at the south-east of the first court preserves in its cellar the remains of some curious drawings, chiefly of ships, which seem to be of 17th-century date, and its arched doorway at the east end is still perfect, but shows many traces of fire.

The least well preserved part of the Old House is the eastern part, which is reduced to a very fragmentary condition, and its plan can only be guessed at. In one place there has been a small open court against the rampart wall, and the base of a moulded brick chimney stack remains on the wall, and further to the south is the base of a stair. To the north of the third court, already noticed, is a large wellpreserved pit some 20 ft. deep, built in flint and stone, and spanned near one end by two thin walls carried on brick arches, set close together but at different levels. Half the bottom of the pit is paved with stone slabs set at a considerable slant, while the other half is merely the natural sand, and the entire absence of black soil makes it doubtful whether this could have been the shaft of a garderobe, as at first sight seems probable. It may be suggested that its original use was that of similar pits in use at the present day in Holland and elsewhere, namely, cold storage, for preserving provisions in hot weather. There are two wells within the circular rampart, the principal one being in the middle of the first court; a good supply ot water is obtainable at about 40 ft. from the surface.

The New House was entered from the west through a gatehouse with turrets at two and probably at all four angles, and consisted of two courts surrounded by ranges of buildings. The evidence for the exist- ence of two courts is established by the accounts of the siege, but no trace has been found of any range dividing into two the irregular four-sided area which the foundations of the house inclose. Little can be said of the buildings, which were all of red brick and evidently of considerable strength: there was a second gatehouse on the south-east, and turrets at intervals all round the inner side of the buildings. At the south-west was a well-house with a large well 50 ft. deep and of oval plan, about 11 ft. by 10 ft., its sides built in brickwork 2 ft. 6 in. thick; it has now been cleaned and roofed over, and is in excellent preservation. The east side of the house is repre- sented by a few fragments of brickwork, the destruc- tion being largely due to the making of the canal which runs close by, but it is also to be noted that this was the part of the house which suffered most in the siege. The New House was, according to contemporary accounts, a very magnificent building, so much so that to save the expense of keeping it up part was pulled down, apparently in the first decade of the 17th century. A view of it from the east, taken apparently about 1645, and showing the breach made by the Parliament's batteries, gives some idea of its extent, the many turrets breaking the skyline giving it a very stately appearance. This view exists in several copies, that in Warner's History of Hants being very little understood by the copyist, who has added a wide moat full of water and crossed by a causeway. The terraces and walled gardens already referred to as part of the 16th-century lay- out are to the north, on the slope of the valley, and make a most picturesque setting to the site. Their red brick walls are of no particular strength, having been built for beauty and not for defence, but played their part in the siege, and still show traces of rough loopholing for musket fire. At the north-west angle is an octagonal pigeon house, preserving its revolving ladder, and this point was known as the Basingstoke bulwark, and was the scene of a good deal of fighting. Close to it an eastern platform has been thrown out into the ditch, and is perhaps the site of the 'blind' made of timber and earth made by the garrison in 1643 to command the mill on the Loddon just opposite. A terrace runs northward from a point north-west of the Old House, and its line is continued by the wall which joins the pigeon house at the north-west angle of the gardens. At the end of the terrace nearest the old house is a small brick building now used as a museum, the lower part of its walls being old, and there is evidence that a building adjoined it on the east, part of its arched cellars remaining. It has been called a banqueting house, but was probably a garden pavilion or something of the sort. To the east of it, is a piece of ground, now an orchard, which seems to have been used as a cemetery during the siege, burials being found in it wherever the ground is disturbed. Eastward from the pigeon house the garden wall runs to another octagonal turret, and thence irregularly to the main gateway of the inclosure. The wall is much broken down, but part of a small embattled turret is still standing. The gateway has been carefully repaired of late and its four-centred stone arch is perfect, with the Paulet arms above; it is doubtless the work of the first marquess. From this point the wall continued eastward for a short distance, then turning south, and eventually joining the south-east angle of the New House, but all this part has been destroyed by the canal. The main approach to the two houses was by a road walled on both sides starting from the north-east gateway and running westward, skirting the first bailey or court, and entering it from the north-west by a bridge over the ditch and a square gatehouse with angle turrets. From this point the road went to the bridge in front of the gatehouse of the Old House, a branch continuing eastward to another bridge and gatehouse giving access to the New House.

The masonry details found on the site are largely from the stone cappings of the turrets with which the house abounded, from the mullions of the windows and from stone strings, gargoyles, &c., all being of late Gothic type, dating from c. 1530–40. Hollar's general view of the house, taken about 1644, shows the appearance from the south, with an embattled curtain wall round the Old House, over which the gables, chimneys and turrets rise. The large gabled block at the south end of the hall is recognizable, but otherwise the drawing is probably not very dose to the original. A few pieces of moulded brick cusping show that tracery of this sort was used, and a very fine terra cotta medallion of one of the Caesars, like those at Hampton Court, witnesses to the use of first-class work of Italian style here as at the Holy Ghost Chapel and elsewhere in the county.

The pottery, iron, &c., found on the site are all carefully preserved, and make a very interesting collection, not from its rarity, but from its claim to represent the ordinary utensils of the time. Numbers of shot of all sizes, and fragments of thirteen-inch shells thrown by the mortar in 1645, the final siege, are to be seen, and small objects of common use are plentiful.

Royalty was frequently entertained at Basing House during the long life of the first Marquess of Winchester, (fn. 56) and by his successors till the house was taken and demolished in the civil wars. It has never been rebuilt, though, according to a continuator of Camden's Britannia, one of the Dukes of Bolton built 'some convenient lodgings'out of the ruins. These 'lodgings' were to the north, on part of the land of the grange: the house here was pulled down about 1740, and only the fine red brick piers of its entrance gate now remain. Its materials were taken, it is said, to Cannons near Kingsclere.

Among the liberties of the manor to which John de St. John laid claim in the 13th century were free gallows, tumbril, pillory, free warren and assize of bread and ale. He declared that his ancestors from time immemorial had enjoyed these liberties with the exception of free warren, which was granted to his father Robert de St. John by Henry III. His rights were acknowledged, and the sheriff was ordered to allow him to re-erect the gallows, pillory, and tumbril, which had fallen down through age. A free fishery is also mentioned as an appurtenance of the manor.

Of the three mills in Basing mentioned in the Domesday Survey as belonging to Hugh de Port one appears to have been appurtenant to the manor. The other two were conveyed by John de Champayne to Peter des Roches in 1324. Peter des Roches quitclaimed them to John Brocas and Margaret his wife in 1339, and in 1357 John Brocas sold them to John de St. Philibert. They are again heard of in a suit between John Paulet and William Brocas in 1502. A mill worth 20s. was attached to the church of Basing at the time of the Survey, but which of the four mills are represented by the existing Lower Mill and Old Basing Mill it is difficult to say.

BAS1NG BYFLEET (Basing till xvii cent.) seems originally to have been the land in Basing which formed the endowment of the church. It appears in 1234 among the possessions of the newly-founded priory of Selborne, to which Peter Bishop of Winchester had granted the church of Basing with its appurtenances in his foundation charter. The land was held of the Priors of Selborne apparently till the dissolution of the priory in 1486. It did not follow the other lands of the priory into the possession of the Master and fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, but was retained by the Bishops of Winchester, of whom it was thenceforth held. It is first called a manor in 1389, and took the name of Byfleet from the family which held it for three centuries.

In 1260 Ralph de Basing was holding this fee in Basing. He was party to a fine in that year with the Prior of Selborne concerning services which he owed for his freehold. It consisted of one messuage, one carucate of land, and one mill with the appurtenances; and the prior demanded a yearly rent of 60s., 'which service the said Ralph at first did not recognise.' It was agreed that Ralph and his heirs should pay the 60s.He appears to have been succeeded by Sir John de Basing, on whom the land was settled in 1333, with remainder to his heirs. His son and heir John released in 1343 to Joan his father's widow all his rights in Basing. In 1389 the manor was in the hands of Thomas Byfleet, whose wife Alice was probably the heiress of John de Basing. Thomas son of Thomas was in possession at the beginning of the 15th century, and died in 1408. Another Thomas, probably his son, mortgaged the manor in 1448 to Roger Inge. His nephew Thomas Byfleet died seised in 1500, leaving a brother and heir John. John was succeeded by his son Thomas and Thomas by another John. Robert Byfleet, son of John, died in possession in 1641, after settling the manor on his son Thomas and his wife Mary daughter of George Speake. It seems probable that Thomas and Mary left co-heiresses, for Weston Browne with Mary his wife, and Anthony Bedingfield with Margaret his wife,each dealt with a moiety of the manor by fine in the reign of Charles II. One half was conveyed to Francis Bacon, the other to Peyton Bacon and Robert Hastings. Before 1725 the whole must have been purchased by the Limbrey family, as Henry Limbrey was in possession in that year. Basing Byfleet remained in the family, following the descent of their manor of Hoddington to Magdalen Limbrey wife of Richard Sclater, and subsequently to George Limbrey Sclater-Booth, second Lord Basing, the present lord of the manor.

Byfleet is now a farm-house standing to the north-east of the church; the house, which is built of red brick with tiled roofs, is almost wholly modernized.

The liberties of tol, theam, and infangentheof in this manor were granted to the Prior of Selborne in 1234. Henry III also granted that their lands here which were within the bounds of his forest should be free 'of regard and views of foresters' and other officers, and that the prior and his men should be immune from suits, summonses and pleas.

CUFAUDS was for centuries in the hands of a family of that name; they held it of the Crown as of the manor of Basingstoke.

William Cufaud is the first member of the family of whom there is any record. He paid an impost of 20s. to the Exchequer in 1167. In the next century certain lands in Basingstoke with a meadow called La Cufauldsmede were held of Robert Cufaud. According to the traditional pedigree of the family a William Cufaud held the manor in the reign of Edward I and had a son John. The latter was succeeded by his son John, who was member of Parliament for Basingstoke in 1295 and 1302. He had a son Alexander, and Alexander was succeeded by Thomas. John Cufaud did fealty in 1440 for lands that had belonged to Ralph Cufaud, and Thomas, probably son of John, was lord in 1443. His son William married Ellen daughter of Richard Kingsmill, and had by her a son John, sometimes called William. John had a son Simon lord of the manor in 1567. He left it at his death in 1588 to his great-nephew Simon, grandson of his brother William. The younger Simon died in 1619. He left five sons, of whom the eldest, Matthew, was lord in 1637. He followed the example of his great neighbour the Marquess of Winchester in supporting the king, and his lands were sequestered in 1646, but were leased to him by the County Commissioners for £45 a year. He compounded in 1655, and Cufauds was inherited at his death by John Cufaud, who died in 1701. Henry Cufaud was lord of the manor in 1732, and his widow Martha sold it in 1737 to Christina Broughton and Francis White. Nearly twenty years later John Waters dealt with the manor by fine. He was still in possession in 1769, when he sold Cufauds to John Chute, who owned the neighbouring estate of The Vyne in the parish of Sherborne St. John. From that date it has followed the descent of The Vyne (q.v.), and Mr. Charles Lennard Chute is the present lord of both manors.