Previous Toc Next

    THE STORY OF SHOREHAM         FORMER WATER-MILLS AND WIND-MILLS  
                             
water-mills. A careful examination of the exterior of the west wall of this cottage reveals some blocked openings of 13th century date, and a blocked arch, where it is possible that the spindle of the mill-wheel came through.   It is not improbable that the other mill stood a little further north, about where the barn is-and the wheel of this would have been turned by the water running over it from the pond behind, thence flowing south-or falling into another pond and turning the other wheel from below, which was anciently, and is, indeed, at the present day, a quite usual method of turning a mill-wheel where the exigencies of the case demand it. That it was so in this case we are led to believe from the result of calculations   Old and New Shoreham, inasmuch as we find the family continually referred to in the records at this period. It appears that some members of the family had an interest in another mill, which is, however, expressly stated to have been in New Shoreham.
  A reference has already been made to Mill Lane, which is quite obviously an old road sweeping up from Shoreham to the hills, and it partly forms the parish boundary, always a sure sign of antiquity in a highway.
  Dismissing from the mind the modern windmill (lately removed) which stood near Buckingham Road, we may take it that the " Mill Lane " took its name from a water-mill which was in all probability situated somewhere near the present Cemetery lodge. The lane, continued towards the hill, would have been carried on a causeway, and the water falling down from the upper mill-ponds at Little Buckingham would have been dammed back by the causeway in sufficient volume to provide a decent head of water to turn this third mill situated just within the boundary of New ,Shoreham.
        worked out from levels taken on the site.  
                 
Picture   Two mills are again mentioned in a "Fine," dated 52 Henry III. (1268). Though not specially defined as watermills, it is quite reasonable to believe that they were identical with those mentioned earlier in the century.  
    It appears from an Assize Roll, dated 7th Edward I., that this last-named mill was owned by a certain William Baudefar and that he died, leaving a widow, Isabel, and son, John, his heir, then under age. Isabel, " who after William's death had the custody and bringing up of John and who held the mill in soccage, demised it to Master Robert de Blechington, the Vicar of Old Shoreham, for a certain term of years for 30 marks. Apparently this term had not fully expired when the Vicar was asked to relinquish his tenancy of the mill. When the case was gone into, Master Robert de Bletchington said that he claimed nothing in the said mill unless the term aforesaid, and pleaded for judgment as to whether John Baudefar was entitled to occupy the mill, before he attained his legal age. The case resulted in an agreement by which John Baudefar was to recover the mill from the Vicar, but the latter was at liberty to obtain, if he wished, a writ of agreement with Isabel, to whom the custody of the mill was to be committed until John attained his lawful age.
  The fine in question was an arrangement or agreement between Richard Baudefar (son of John Baudefar) and John Baudefar (the latter probably a brother or cousin of Richard) concerning 2 virgates of land, one mill, one half of a mill, and 3s. 10d. rent in Old Shoreham, and 40 shillings rent in New Shoreham, 2 1/2 virgates of land  
         
in Kingston and Southwick and 20 pence rent in Southwick.  
Richard granted all the above to John for the whole life of the said John, who was to hold it of Richard and his heirs, rendering 10 shillings and ninepence at three separate dates, viz., 9d. at Easter, 5s. at the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, and 5s. at the Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle for all service.  
After the death of John the property was to revert entirely to Richard and his heirs. If, however, Richard died before John and also left no heirs who survived John, the property in its entirety was to remain absolutely with John's heirs. There was no provision as to what was to happen if John left no heirs.  
  Isabel Baudefar had also demised ten acres of land and seven acres of meadow, with appurtenances, in Shoreham, to Master Robert de Blechington for three years and recovered possession of the same in like manner with the mill.
             
  The Baudefars appear to have been noteworthy people both in     The widow, on behalf of her son, also made a claim respecting
                             
          46             47    

Previous Toc Next

Copyright © Martin Snow 2002 All rights reserved
Revised 27 February 2002