"The Marlipins"
Home "The Marlipins" Chimney Piece Potted History of Museum

horizontal rule


THE ancient structure which bears the above singular name has been the subject of many conjectures as to its original purpose. Before proceeding to consider these, however, it will be best to describe the building in detail, as this course may tend, of itself, to throw light on the degree of probability attaching to some of the theories which have been put forward from time to time, and may, in doing so, reduce the number of those which are admissible.
First, then, as to situation. The Marlipins stands on the west side and at the south end of Middle Street, occupying the corner at the junction of that thorough-fare with High Street.
It is a simple parallelogram, of which the longer walls lie in the direction of Middle Street-that is to say north and south-while the shorter ones run east and west. From north to south it measures 48 ft., and from east to west 23 ft. 6 ins., these being outside dimensions. The walls are 2 ft. 5 ins. in thickness-and are, in this respect, the same as those of the Norman portions of the ruined chapel of Balsdean (near Rottingdean) and the Norman portion of the small ancient detached building at Old Erringham, which is probably also a chapel. (Doubtless, other Norman buildings also, have walls no thicker, but plans of these two are before me as I write, and being local examples, suggest themselves for comparison.)
At the north end is a comparatively modern erection which now goes with the Marlipins. The ground on which it stands, originally formed a part of the ad-joining property on the west side. The plan (Fig. 1) omits this erection, and shows the ancient part of the structure only.

The Marlipins consists of two storeys, the floor of the lower one being about 2 feet below the level of the street. The roof runs out to a gable at the High Street front, but the north end is hipped in, and has a small gablet only, at the ridge. On the east side, the roof is covered with Horsham stone. On the west and north sides the covering consists of modern tiles. The walls are built of flint rubble, partly in regular courses, with a certain proportion of hard chalk, and the older door and window dressings, and the angle-quoins, are, for the most part, of Caen stone, though other kinds are also used, some having been introduced in modern times by way of repairs.
The High Street front (of which more anon) is mainly arranged in a chequer of squares, alternately of Caen stone and flint, but this treatment ceases at the bottom of the gable. The latter is set back a few inches. from the line of the chequer-work, and is plastered.
Leaving the consideration of this south front for the moment, let us examine the other walls. Commencing inside. with the ground storey (which now has a pavement of rough concrete) there are, against the west wall, some modern brick piers, supporting bearers which help to carry the ends of the floor-joists over-head. In the north half of the same wall is one window with splayed jambs, but these are of brickwork. Further north still is what was, apparently, a doorway, which is now built up. Its main formation is not very early work, being of brickwork. The bricks, however, are of some age, and of the small and thin kind, unlike those in use to-day; they may be Tudor. Built into the jambs, however, are some stones with Norman tool-marks.
The north wall of the ground storey has been so altered as to retain but little of the original work above a line a foot or two from the floor.

The north part of the east wall too has been much cut about, altered, and added to. It has some remains of a fireplace (quite of modern times) and signs of what was, I think, another window with splayed brick jambs. This has been built up with stones which, again, seem to have Norman tool-marks. Some wooden posts against the wall perform functions similar to those of the brick piers against the west wall opposite.
A little north of the centre of the East Street wall are the mutilated remains of the oldest definite architectural feature of the structure-namely, a Norman window. A doorway has been hacked through it, but there can, I think, be little doubt as to its real character. It is quite unlike the other windows, which are all obviously later. The inside arch is semi-circular, and it contracts both in width and height as it nears the street side of the wall. The side splays of the sup-porting jambs have been spoilt by the cutting through, to form the doorway; but they would, as originally formed, doubtless have continued, till, with the arch, they culminated in a characteristic narrow Norman loop-hole kind of light, from 6 to 9 inches wide only, on the outer face of the wall (the inside width of the splay is 2 ft. 9 ins.). The semi-circular external window-head was probably cut in. a single stone. The whole would have been almost identical in size and shape, with the two little Norman windows of the detached building at Old Erringham already referred to.
Fig. 2 shows this window. What seem to be Norman tool-marks can be detected on one or two of the stones, but in general, the limewash of ages has confused such indications of date.
Thinking that the importance of this feature rendered it undesirable to rely merely upon my own conclusions, a copy of the photograph here reproduced on a smaller scale was sent to Mr. Philip M. Johnston, with some descriptive particulars, and a request for his opinion. This he most kindly and promptly gave, as follows

"I have looked very carefully at the interesting and clear photograph of an ancient mutilated window in the building called the Marlipins, at New Shoreham, and I think there can be no doubt whatever that it dates from the 12th century. My reasons for so thinking are:
1. The circular head.
2. Axe tooling on left jamb.
3. Concentric splay--only found in round-headed Norman windows, and the earliest pointed lancets, as at Rustington.
The window, as you say, resembles Old Erringham windows.
" I congratulate you on a discovery of great local interest."

In a further communication Mr. Johnston says, "I feel quite certain it is a mutilated 12th century example, about coeval with the earlier period of Norman work in St. Mary 'de Haura,' c. 1120."
The value of this opinion will be appreciated by all members of the Society.
Nearer to the south end of the building on the same side is what remains of a later window-possibly in its original form more like the window in the south front. The inside splay is however, a foot wider. Here again, the outer stonework has been replaced by a. modern sash, and the inside splays are mutilated, but the segment-shaped rere-arch remains.

Before leaving this side of the building we may note that there are three windows in it, lighting the upper floor. One immediately above the last mentioned, is apparently, partly ancient and of same date (probably 14th century), but is still more mutilated. It has a timber lintel (immediately under the wall-plates of roof) instead of a rere-arch. The two other windows, towards the north end, are modern. The curious old print from the British Museum (Fig. 3) indicates a small square only, at that part; and both this square and the opening just described appear to be built up.
The west wall seems to have had two windows to light the upper floor level, there being slight remains of stone jambs.

As already mentioned, the north wall of the building has been very much cut about and remodelled in modern times, so far as the ground floor portion of it is concerned. On the upper floor, however, it still retains some features of interest. The first consists of some indications of a stone jamb (apparently of another window) near the door which has been made through into the modern loft behind. The other feature is a very curious piece of walling between this doorway and the east wall. It is shown in Figure 4. The upper wall is composed of complete courses of chalk blocks, between which are other courses made up of alternate blocks of chalk and squares of flintwork. The general appearance is not unlike that of the inside of a mediaeval dovecote, with the openings for the birds filled in with flints. Without stressing the point in any way, it may be suggested that an early manorial dovecote on a part of this site may not be entirely improbable. But it must be admitted that where, in one or two squares, the flints are absent between the chalk blocks, the latter do not seem now to be of the L-shape which they would have been if intended for birds. They may have become damaged when the apertures were filled in, of course. On the other hand, the wall suggests that "pigeon-holes" of, perhaps, another kind, were required here, and that the spaces between the isolated blocks of chalk were not originally filled up, because, towards the lower part of the wall, where whole courses of flints take the place of the complete chalk courses, some horizontal joints in the wall are filled by very thin slabs of stone, which seem to be mainly inserted where they would have acted as bridges between the spaced chalk blocks just below. This suggests that the intervals between the said chalk blocks were not originally filled up with flints as they now are, and needed the thin slabs over them to sup-port the weight of the flints on the line above.

We now come to the front wall of the building (Fig. 5). It is this with which the general public is most familiar, its chess-board pattern being a feature
calculated to arrest attention. On the ground floor level there are two doorways, one at each corner. Standing outside, that to the right gives access down three steps, to the lower apartment, while the other leads to the stairs by which the upper floor is reached. These stairs are quite cut off from the lower room or cellar, and quite probably in this respect represent the original arrangement. The door at the foot opens outwards there being no room for its whole width to do so inwards. Both doorways have two-centred arches. The right hand one has a plain splay outside. The stair entrance has externally a square rebate for the door to lie in when closed. Both doorways have relieving arches over their stone door-cases. Between the two doorways is a window opening (Fig. 6) 18 inches in width, splaying to 3 ft. 4 ins., wide on the inner side of the wall. It has a segment-shaped, rere-arch. The outer stone window-case has a plain chamfer like that of the east door, and retains the holes for the iron grating which originally filled it. (In the drawing I have restored this grating and the stone sill.) There is an inside rebate which may have had a shutter. The outer arch is two-centred. The inside sill is stepped.

There is one window in the upstairs front. The British Museum view shows this as a small ledged door with a round (or elliptic) arch over it under a pointed one. The present appearance suggests rather that originally there may have been two lights with pointed arches under one pointed relieving arch. The latter remains, but has, now, a very "bodged" look--suggesting that when the mullion between the two lights was taken out, or fell out, the masonry above also partly fell, and was only roughly replaced. The inside of the window splays out to 5 feet in width, and has a single segment rere-arch.
Mr. Thackeray Turner, who examined the building on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, expressed the opinion that its date was early 14th century. Apparently, however, the original building was a 12th century structure, but the front dates, with practically all the old windows which have stone dressings and show any definite architectural features (except the Norman one), from the 14th century, to which period also I would assign the main floor supports and the older parts of the roof framing. There is, I think, definite evidence of a re-building of the front wall, in a feature noticeable on the inside of the east wall, close to the street front doorway. I allude to some stones which seem to have formed the inside angle-quoin of a former front return wall. Apparently there was, in the original front wall, no doorway close to this corner as now-it was further west.
I have found, in more than one quarter, a reluctance to accept as reliable for the front of the building, a date so early as the 14th century, and a disposition to believe that the work is at least something like 200 years later.
I can see no very convincing reasons for this. The right hand doorway and the small window, have every appearance of being genuine mediaeval work-of 14th century date, if not even earlier still. The Caen stone, too, is an argument against a later date, its use being uncommon after about 1325. There is, of course, a possibility of the material having come from some other building, but the date is not necessarily much (or any) later on that account. In this connection the parish church has usually been mentioned, but if any erection other than the original Norman one, provided the materials for the rebuilt front, it is more likely to have been the Carmelite Priory-not very far off, and, at the period in question, already disappearing rapidly beneath the waves of the Channel. But indeed, the whole theory of materials from another building is, I think, merely a legacy from the earlier archaeologists. They did not understand that a domestic building in the middle ages had practically the same architectural details as an ecclesiastical one. Here was an un-explained building with "church" doors and windows --and here was a parish church partly in ruins. What more natural than to connect the two things? Hence the legend that the Marlipins was merely a building of no particular antiquity, erected with materials from the ruined nave of the parish church-a case of putting two and two together, and finding that it made exactly twenty-two.
Some of the unwillingness which I have encountered, to accept an early date for the main doors and windows, arises apparently from a recognition of the fact that to do so almost inevitably carries with it the obligation to believe that the chequer work is equally early. Now there is a very prevalent idea that ornamental arrangements in stone and flint are not found before the 15th century. Then, too, the best-known of other local examples-viz. Steyning church tower---is admittedly late, and includes features which show this to be the case. There is, I consider, no doubt that the chequer here is part of the 14th century work. It stands in advance of the gable, certainly, but is flush with the stone door and window cases below-besides which, the thickness of the main front wall is no greater than that of the side walls. The wall of the gable is thinner. To have added the chequer in this way to a wall where it did not originally exist, would have involved "flaying off " the whole face of the work to a depth of about 5 inches from the original face as a preliminary. I find it quite impossible to believe that it would have been worth anybody's while to attempt to carry out so awkward and difficult an operation. We know definitely that from the middle of the 14th century onwards the building served purely utilitarian purposes, and there can have been no likelihood of a call for special architectural effect at the cost of so much trouble; for it should be noted that the flints are, here, an integral part of the walling, and not merely a thin veneer, which latter is, I believe, the case with most of the elaborate flint and stone work of the churches in the eastern counties.
Let us examine the chequer. It consists of squares of Caen stone (some squares being made up of two stones) alternating with "snapped" or "knapped" flintwork in regular courses-a fairly general average being about nine to a square. The squares are from 6 to 9 inches high, and about 9 inches wide. In connection with a possible re-use of the stone, it may be noted that three moulded stones can be found-two of them being apparently edge-roll mouldings. These are used vertically and look like 13th century work. The third is of more vague shape, and the moulding lies horizontally. All three may be re-used material from an older front wall. (There may have been alterations between the 12th century work and that built in the 14th.) The lower part of the front conveys no suggestion of anything but homogeneous work of one period. But all the upper part has caught the weather, and the joints having become partially washed out, the shadows thrown into them result in an emphasis of outline, giving a curious impression that the chequer is simply piled up dry, and without cement to hold it together. (This may have contributed, however unreasonably, to the notion that it is an added feature.)
Now, as already remarked, the Caen stone suggests an early date, and the accompanying use of snapped flintwork in regular courses, in no way conflicts with the theory of a 14th century origin. The walls of Alfriston church (c. 13601) provide a beautiful example of snapped and squared flints in courses; while all along, close above the plinth, and at other parts, these alternate at regular intervals with blocks of stone. There is snapped flintwork resembling that of the Marlipins, in the Edwardian Barbican of Lewes castle, and at the bases of its side drum towers there is even an approach to the stone and flint chequer. The Early English portions of West Tarring church have snapped flintwork. The bonding-in of such work with stone angle-quoins would almost inevitably suggest, at an early period, other combinations.
While investigating this matter I chanced to read that the 13th century outer walls of Burnham Abbey, Bucks., were composed of a chequer of flint and chalk blocks.2 I visited that building, and by the courtesy of the Mother Superior, was allowed to make an inspection. The chequer there is, in the main, smaller and rougher than at our building, a large number of the squares, both of chalk and snapped flints, measuring only about 6 inches each way. Some parts, however, are of larger pattern, and much more like that at Shoreham-while the whole is, quite obviously, mainly of 13th century date, evidenced by the numerous windows and doors of that period occurring in it. From the Abbey I went on to the village of Burnham. All this part of the county has been dealt with in a Government publication,3 which gives photographs, plans, and archaeological descriptions of the historic
buildings. The whole of the west end of Burnham church is in a chequer of flint and stone, resembling that at the Marlipins, and in the publication referred to its date is given as mid-14th century. The church was rather thoroughly restored in the 19th century, and with it the chequer-work; but the portion illustrated in Fig. 7 gives an almost untouched section, including (on the left) the jamb of a 14th century window, believed to be slightly earlier than the chequer and re-used here. In the same neighbourhood is Stoke Poges church. The tower of this (c. 1230) is of snapped flintwork in courses, and the south wall of the south aisle (also c. 1230) is of chequer-work like that at the Marlipins, as are, also, other parts of the church. Fig. 7 gives a part of the south aisle wall referred to.

It may be asked why these examples from a distance should be brought forward as evidence of date for the Marlipins chequer. The answer is, first, that, on the evidence of the door and window openings (forming, apparently, all part of the same work) the date of the Marlipins chequer must be early. The nearest Sussex examples of similar chequer-work are, unfortunately, either definitely late, as at Steyning, or doubtful (as at Upper Beeding church, where the south wall of the chancel is partly in chequer). Next, the examples from Buckinghamshire closely resemble that at the Marlipins. Making allowance for the work of different photographers, I think the reader who examines Fig. 7 will admit that there is but little difference between the samples. Those from Buckinghamshire have the advantage of being definitely dated, in a publication which must be presumed to speak with some authority, and probably has behind it the considered verdict of local archaeologists. And in the publication referred to, the dates given are either earlier than or about contemporary with, the probable date of the more obviously ancient window and door of the Marlipins front.
To sum up the whole question of date as to this part of the building, however-while believing it to be of the 14th century, one may admit that there is some room for hesitation as to the exact part of that century in which one would suppose it to have been rebuilt. If the Caen stone was obtained from the original front, or, as above suggested, from the Carmelite Priory, the work may be of any time between 1325 and 1375. The older roof-trusses (see later) are, perhaps, more likely to belong to the second half of the century, and it seems reasonable to assume that a general re-construction of the building took place at one time.

Having now examined the walls, let us turn to the timber work. The flooring between the two storeys of the Marlipins is carried on substantial oak joists crossing from east to west, and additionally supported in the centre by a timber in one length from north to south--more than 40 feet long even now, when it has been shortened at the north end. Wooden posts with curved brackets springing from them supported this long timber (see Fig. 8)--one at each end, and one in the middle. The latter (Fig. 9) and the south end one, remain. Intervening posts have been added at a later date, and a fresh one substituted for the original one under the north end. The posts have, apparently sunk at this latter end, and the central beam is, in consequence, very much out of level. It also has a decided curve in its length. To correct these irregularities, the joists above it have been considerably wedged up, but even now the flooring is anything but level. There is a step in it, making its northern part-for about a quarter of the total length north to south -higher than the rest. Apparently a slight step existed in the floor even as originally formed, for the big beam below has in it a step of about 3 inches high at the same place. If so, the north end of the floor formed a kind of dais, similar to the present.

The roof is an interesting one. (Figs. 8, 10 and 11.) It was originally of a very usual mediaeval type, and the. remaining parts of this probably date, like the front of the building, from the 14th century. It is divided into four bays of about 10 feet 6 inches each, average. One of the original principals remains, intact, close to the inside of the front gable wall, and the three others, in all probability, resembled it, except the most northerly one, which had a difference noted further on. The form is as follows: ---Tie-beam. King-post supported by curved side-braces from the tie-beam. Curved brackets in turn from the King-post, running in the longitudinal direction of the roof to support a central collar-purlin above which latter the King-post did not extend. Struts raking upwards and outwards from the tie-beam to support main purling. There were no principal rafters, their absence being, perhaps, an indication of early date. The rafters are, as usual in these old roofs, placed the flat way, and there is of, course, no ridge-piece, each pair of rafters being simply halved, and pegged together at the apex. There are two wall-plates, one on the outside, and one on the inside of the thick walls, and there are connecting timbers from one to the other at intervals. The usual vertical ashler pieces rise from the inner plate to sup-port the rafters. There is a collar to each pair of rafters above, and resting upon, the collar-purlin. The last King-post north evidently never had the curved side-braces to support it from the tie-beam, as the mortices for them are absent; though this tie-beam, like the extreme south one, is original. These two are the only tie-beams remaining intact, of the original roof-formation. The north king-post is also original and intact. From each of the two intervening roof-trusses the centre part of each original tie-beam, and part of the King-post, is missing. Missing too, are the brackets which gave additional support to the collar-purlin from these King-posts. At some time---probably I think, in the 17th century-a storage floor was introduced into the roof. To get a clear space through, for this, it was necessary to sweep away the centre timbers, and to alter the roof-framing. Fresh tie-beams, about 2 feet lower than the original ones were therefore put across the building, under the old ones, (thus sacrificing some of the height above the main floor). The central portions of the original tie-beams, with about two-thirds of the original King-posts, were then cut away from the two centre roof-trusses, and queen-posts were introduced, carried by the new tie-beams and supporting cross-ties which in turn carried the main purlins in place of the original side struts. The new queen-posts received into their outer sides the remaining portions of the original tie-beams (Fig. 11).

In passing, I am inclined to think that the new formation was not so strong as the original one. A floor was put in, its joists spanning from one new tie-beam to another, in the two north bays. The new tie-beams, Queen-posts and collars were chamfered. There is an additional tie-beam like the others, under the original truss also inside of the south gable wall, and it looks as though the storage floor was originally intended to fill the two remaining bays and thus to reach the front wall. This intention was apparently abandoned, as, though there are mortices for the floor-joists on the south side of the later tie-beam of the central truss, there are none to correspond on the later ties of the two south principals.
As already noted, there is a gablet at the north end of the ridge, below which the roof is hipped in.

The following are notes of various theories which have been suggested from time to time with regard to the origin and purpose of the building we are considering.

  1. A building erected of materials obtained from the ruined nave of the Parish Church. Considering the long documentary history of the structure, the materials must have been available at an early date. This can scarcely be the case, as there is evidence that the nave of the church was intact down to a date considerably more recent than the Reforma-tion. (Other points in this theory have been already dealt with).
  2. A Chantry. There is no indication of the building having served any ecclesiastical purpose. It is not at all like a Chantry chapel. A "Chantry" does not necessarily imply a separate or special building.
    It was an institution rather than a place. In the Chantry returns temp. Edw. VI., the reference to that at New Shoreham is:-"The Chauntrey there scituat in the parish. church of New Shoreham."4 When held in a parish church, it is probable that even a separate altar is not necessarily to be presumed. Finally there is no evidence that any of the Chantry lands included the site of this building.
  3. One of the two Hospitals known to have existed in Shoreham in mediaeval times-St. Katherine,5 or St. James. If these were Infirmary Hospitals, the first syllable of the name "Mal" might be presumed to have some bearing on the matter, but the small amount of information as to both these institutions, overlaps, as regards date, the documents referring to the Marlipins, which had, it is quite certain, no connection whatever, with them.
  4. All that remains of the Carmelite Priory. The old view from the British Museum is described as a view of this building. The drawing by Nibbs is also so described. The Priory, however, is definitely known to have been situated south of the High Street, and the grant of- an acre and a half of land, given to it by Sir John de Mowbray in 1348, "extended to the High Street on the north."6 This particular grant was to enable the Priory to move further from the sea, which had begun seriously to threaten its existence.
  5. A kind of Meeting-house for the Knight Templars. This theory was first put forward in a paper read to the Hampstead Antiquarian and Historical Society in July, 1919, by Mr. Burton Green, who may. be described as one of the veterans of the Sussex Archaeological Society, having contributed to its Collections the important article on Shoreham, which appeared in Vol. 27. The suggestion is, that the name " Malduppinne " found in the 14th century document quoted further on, is derived from Mal Dubbians-the meeting place of the Knights (Dubbians) and that the building was "La Temple" or some other part of the Templars' property referred to in numerous ancient documents. Against this theory, there is the grave objection that the documents referred to seem to make it evident that all the Templars' property was south of the High Street and close to that of the Carmelites, by whom it was eventually absorbed. First, however, it had been granted (on the suppression of the Knight Templars in 1308) to the Knights Hospitallers of St. John. If the "Temple" or any of the possessions in question, had any connection at all with the Marlipins, it is almost inconceivable that no reference to the fact should have been found in at least the first of the Ancient Deeds given further on. This deed bears a date less than 40 years after the suppression of the Templars. The tenacity with which associations cling to property is evidenced in the case of our building, by the length of the period after the Reformation during which references to the Prior of Lewes figure in the deeds. There seems a failure to really connect any of the "Temple" deeds with the Marlipins site.
  6. A store for wool and hides, or for wines. Mr. Cheal, in "The Story of Shoreham," makes this suggestion, and also says " The words ` Malduppinne' and `Malappynnys' present a problem which is not easy of solution. It is possible that the terminations `ppinne' and `ppynnys' (pin and pins) suggest a connection with `pin,' which is a barrel of brandy or wine containing ten gallons. In such a con-nection the word would possibly mean `place (or house) of the pins' (i.e. of wine or brandy)." I may add to this, that " pin" is still used for a small (42 gall.) cask of beer.
    It is probable that we are here much nearer to the truth than in the case of theories 1 to 5. In the matter of the wine, one may indulge a passing speculation as to the possibility of the "Mal" having any reference to the storage here, more particularly, of that "corrupt wine" which, we are told, was (unkindly enough) generally sent to Ireland .7 Ducange8 gives a word which has a sufficient re-semblance to some of the spellings of "Marlipins" to suggest that, taken in conjunction with other circumstances, it provides a solution of the problem of the original uses of the building. The word in question is "Malpenning "-and its meaning may be translated thus:-"The payment of a penny by a certain custom for having any faculty or privilege." (From the Saxon Male, tribute, tax; and Peny, a penny). Probably the "penny" would cover mone-tary payments generally. A Charter of the year 1264, in Maximilian Henricus, in the Apology for the Archbishop of Cologne, part 2, page 62, says:-
    " Yet so that pence for ale, and pence which are called Malpenning be not received from ecclesiastical and religious persons."9
    It will be noted that, in the above, "pence for ale" and "pence which are called Malpenning" are referred to as though they were not .altogether dissimilar things. Now at Shoreham, in the 13th century, we are told that the brewers, whose trade was particularly active, paid "2 marks yearly to escape the vexations of the manorial court."10 This may be described, surely, as "pence for ale" and also as a customary payment" for having a faculty or privilege." In the 12th and 13th centuries, of course, the town was an appanage of the De Braose family. It was complained of the 13th century representative of this race, that he took from each ship conveying wine "one cask from before the mast and one cask from behind." If he stored them in the Marlipins, it may still be that the word "pin" is partly responsible for the name (supposing a Saxon derivation for the first syllable, and a French one for the second) making it "the tribute from casks"-their contents, that is to say. But as De Braose claimed "toll and other customs belonging to the port from time immemorial, and took toll also at the bi-weekly markets, and the annual fair, and claimed tolls not only from wine but from bags of wool and lasts of hides," it seems likely that this building was his general toll or custom house, and that here were received the shipping customs of the port, the tolls of the market, and, in fact, all the various contributions which he seems to have been an adept in exacting from all and sundry. As regards market and fair tolls, rentals for stalls, etc., the situation of the building in the centre of what was undoubtedly the mediaeval market-place, is exactly what might be looked for.
    Our late member, Dr. Grayling, visited the Marlipins very shortly before his death, and subsequently wrote a letter about it to Mr. E. F. Salmon. By the kindness of the latter, I am able to give some extracts which from such a source will, I feel, be welcome. Dr. Grayling Wrote:

    "It is exactly a replica of another building of the same date that formerly existed at Milton Swale in Kent-and for the same purpose, viz. a custom house at the head of a waterway. We may at once dismiss that Marlipins contains any materials from the nave of the church-as has been supposed. The building seems to be late 14th century in most part. . . . The most interesting feature (under this head-windows) is the window close to the street---it is a `business' window . . . from which a person outside could transact any business without entering. . . :"
    "We do not always remember how much `business' is still done at windows--railways, large shops, etc., workshops. Up till lately every village post office had a window independent of the shop-which opened on the street for sale of stamps and enquiries. And through an upper opening often the letter bags were thrown in."

The remarks about the " business " window are interesting. This one is somewhat high above the inside floor for the purpose--just on 4 feet to the main sill and another 8 inches higher still to the outer sill. The grid too did not allow much space for passing things through though it would have served for money, and been as effective as a bank cashier's grid. The street level is probably about 9 inches higher than in the middle ages--about the height of the top step at the south-east doorway, perhaps. This makes the window sill a fairly convenient seat-height from the pavement, and it may be remarked that the principal "business" of the window at present, seems to be to provide a resting-place for one of Shoreham's "leisured" in-habitants, who may, all too often, be seen ensconced there, obstructing the sun from this decidedly "ancient light."

In the year 1330, a commission of oyer and terminer was issued, to enquire into a complaint made by a certain Richard de Peshale, Knight.11 There is a fair amount of information concerning this individual, much of it very interesting, but to go fully into it would lead us too far afield. Suffice it to say that he was connected with the De Mowbrays, having married Alina, the daughter and heiress of William de Braose, widow of John de Mowbray and mother of another John de Mowbray. Peshale himself had a daughter by this lady. In spite of sundry debts and difficulties, he seems to have been held in esteem by the King and his own social equals. Amongst those of inferior station he incurred opprobrium and dislike. Apparently he sometimes took on the role of debt-collector, and it is probable that this did not add to his popularity. There were sundry commissions to enquire into alleged oppressions of the tenants of his Welsh manors. In Bedfordshire attacks on his property and servants took place, and in Shoreham similar proceedings were attended by "a certain liveliness" (perhaps appropriate to a naval town), which resulted in the Knight himself being wounded and many of his servants placed hors de combat. Incidentally, it is a little curious to note that the Welsh tenants, whom one would have expected to have shown the greater turbulence, seem to have limited themselves to constitutional complaints to the proper quarter--whereas the reputedly stolid and patient inhabitants of Sussex, took the matter into their own hands to some purpose. Possibly the sea-faring element at Shoreham (an element never con-spicuously law-abiding during the middle ages) was responsible for the difference. A large number of people, nearly 40 of whom are named, were charged with being concerned in the trouble at Shoreham 12 
Some appear to have been tradesmen of the town. Several of the names have interest in connection with the Marlipins, no fewer than five figuring in the first of the ancient deeds quoted below-viz. Stephen Must, Reginald le Cartere (through his widow and son), Robert le Puffere, John Bernard, and John Swele. Stephen Must seems to have held the Marlipins during the early years of the 14th century, and had conveyed it to John le Pottere. Must was one of those found guilty of participating in the attack on Peshale, and had to find part of the sum of 500 awarded as com-pensation to the Knight. This may have had some-thing to do with his leaving the Marlipins. Even so, it would appear probable that it did not deter him from being again concerned in an attack on the servants and goods of the same Knight about a year afterwards 13 The list of persons then named includes a Stephen Bust, who may quite probably have been the same person. The alteration in the first letter may be due to the original document being partly illegible. To modern ears it gives, considering all the circumstances, an odd, and slightly humorous sound, to a name which even in its original form was a little peculiar.
The Reginald le Cartere whose wife Julian obtained the Marlipins from John le Pottere, had been acquitted on the charge of participation in the riot. The other three names (among those fined in company with Must apparently) all figure as witnesses to the first deed given below.
A curious feature of the large number of attacks made on Peshale's property in various counties, is the occurrence of the name of a John de Mowbray in more than one case among the delinquents. Notwith-standing this, a document exists14 in which John de Mowbray expresses his indebtedness to Peshale for his "grateful service" to himself and his mother Alina.
It would be interesting to know whether John le Pottere actually carried on the manufacture of pots or vessels of any kind (earthenware, metal, or wood) at the Marlipins.
The "tenement of John Prede on the west and north" evidently occupied the ground now covered by the inn called (after the ancient building) "The-Marlipins," and also that occupied by the compara-tively modern sheds on the north of, and now belong-ing to, the Marlipins proper. The inn was formerly called " The Ship," and its outbuildings formerly included these north sheds, which show curious evidence of having been cut off from the rest at some time, without any of the usual proper "making good."
The third and subsequent deeds describe the building practically as it is now-a cellar with a loft over-and it is evident that it was much the same even at the date of the first of these deeds. In this third one the " Otmarcat " and " Cornmarket " of the earlier documents give place to Procession Street-while the street on the east for the first time gets a name-"Moderlovestrete." Both names suggest an origin connected with the church.
For the rest, the deeds may be left to speak for themselves

I, John le Pottere of New Shorham, have given to Julian, who was the wife of Reginald le Cartere, of New Shorham, a stone corner tenement which is called Malduppinne which I had formerly by the gift of Stephen Must, situated in the vill of New Shorham in the market place called Otmarcat, between the tenement of John Prede on the west and north and the King's streets on east and south, to hold . . . for the whole of her life of the chief lord of that fee . . . and after the decease of the said Julian, the aforesaid tenement with all its appurtenances to remain to Richard, son of Julian, . . . and his heirs and assigns. . . . In testimony whereof to this present charter I have apposed my seal at New Shorham the first day of August 20 Edward III., and in the 7th year of his reign over France.
These witnesses: John Hemeri, then bailiff of the said town, John Swele, Robert Puffere, John Bernard, William Lamb, Thomas Robyn, Richard Seman, Robert Barbur, Thomas Chaunce, Walter Fraunke, Robert Larie, John de Beauchamp clerk and others.
(No seal.)
(Endorsed) Malduppinne.
We, John Stempe, John Martyn and John Sharpe have given ... to Thomas atte Vanne of Southamton a stone corner tenement which is called Malduppynne which same tenement, we late had by the gift and feoffment of Robert Colman, late of New Shorham now deceased, and is situated in the vill of New Shorham aforesaid in the market place called Cornmarket, between a certain barn called Prede formerly John Merlot's on the west and north and the King's streets on the east and south, to hold . . . of the chief lord of the fee. . . . In testimony whereof to this our present charter we have apposed our seals.
These witnesses: John Cookson, then bailiff, John Lewger, George Legat, William Okynden, William Byshop, William atte Stone, William Bakere and many others.
Given at New Shorham aforesaid, the last day of the month of August, 18 Edward IV.
(No seals extant.)
I, John Sharpe, senior, of New Shorham, co. Sussex, have remitted to Thomas Dymmocke, of the vill of Suthampton, Merchant, and his heirs all my right, . . . in a certain cellar and in a chamber or loft above the cellar built, situated in New Shorham, in co. Sussex, called Malapynnys, between a certain street there commonly called Moderlovestrete on the east and a certain garden of the lord of that vill of New Shorham on the west and north and another street there called Processionstrete on the south, to hold . . . of the capital lords of that fee. . . .
In testimony whereof to the present I have affixed my seal. Witnesses: John Cokson, Robert a gate, Ralph a gate of New Shorham aforesaid and many others.
Given at Shorham aforesaid the 8th day of the month of September, 4 Henry VII.
(Seal wanting.)
I, John Sharpe, senior, of New Shorham in county Sussex, husbandman, have given to Thomas Dymmocke, of the 'will of Suthampton, merchant, a certain cellar with a certain chamber or loft above it situated in New Shorham aforesaid called Malap-pynnys, between a certain road there commonly called Moderlove-strete on the east and a certain garden of the lord of the said will of New Shorham on the west and north and another street commonly called Processionstrete, . . . . to hold of the chief lords of those fees
. . . In testimony whereof to these presents I have apposed my seal.
These witnesses: John Cokson, Robert A gate, Ralph A gate and many others.
Given at Shorham. aforesaid the eighth day of the month of September, 4 Henry VII.
(Fragment of seal.)
I, Thomas Dymmocke, of the town of Southampton, merchant, give, grant and by this my present charter confirm to Richard Benyamyn of Lewes, a certain cellar with a certain chamber or loft thereabove built, situated in New Shorham, in county Sussex, called Malappynnys between a certain street there commonly called Moderlovestrete on the east and a certain garden of the lord of the said vill of New Shorham aforesaid on the west and north and another street there commonly called Processionstrete, with its appurtenances on the south, which said cellar and chamber or loft aforesaid, I, the aforesaid Thomas late had by the gift or grant of John Sharpe, senior, of New Shorham aforesaid as by the charter thereof to me made fully appears to have and to hold the said cellar and chamber or loft aforesaid, with the appurtenances to the said Richard, his heirs and assigns for ever of the chief lords of that fee... Know ye further that I, the aforesaid Thomas constitute as my attorney and put in my place my beloved in Christ John Hunt as my true and lawful attorney to enter in my place and name into the said cellar and chamber or loft, with the appurtenances and to deliver full and peaceful seisin thereof to the aforesaid Richard, his heirs and assigns for ever according to the form and effect of this my present charter. In testimony whereof to this my present charter I have affixed my seal.
Witnesses: John Cokeson, Robert Furber, Richard Snape, John Frye, and many others.
Given at Shorham aforesaid the 14th day of March, 11 Henry VII. by me Th. Dymok.
Seal, 3 roses on stalk.
We, Thomas Adam, clerk and Thomas Theccher, gentleman, have given to . . . . Henry Coby, Richard Rolle, Thomas Filde, Thomas Trower, John Cheverell and John Delve, junior, a certain cellar with a certain chamber or loft built above it situated in New Shorham in co. Sussex called Malappynnys, between a certain street commonly called Moderlovestret on the north (sic) and another street there commonly called Processionstret on the south with its appurtenances, which same cellar and chamber or loft aforesaid, we . . . late had by the grant or gift of the last will of Richard Bengemyn now deceased as by the said will fully appears To have and to hold
the aforesaid cellar and chamber or loft to the aforesaid Henry, Richard, Thomas, Thomas, John and John Delve, junior, their heirs and assigns of the chief lords of that fee by the services thereof due and of right accustomed for ever by these presents. And further know ye that we the aforesaid Thomas Adam, clerk, and Thomas Theccher constitute as our attorney and put in our place our beloved in Christ, Thomas Garston, our true and lawful attorney to enter and deliver full and peaceful seisin thereof in our place and name in the aforesaid cellar and chamber or loft with all the appurtenances to the aforesaid Henry Coby, Richard, Thomas, Thomas, John and John Delve junior, their heirs and assigns according to the form and effect of our present charter.
In witness whereof to this our present charter we have opposed our seals.
Given the first day of the month of October, 15, Henry VII. (No witnesses.)
(Fragment of seal.)

The next document which -has interest in connection with our subject is Roll 452 of Ministers' Accounts, Edward VI.:
"Office of Collector of foreign rents in Shoreham. Received 6s. 8d., for farm of a tenement called The Prior of Lewes Celer in Shorham in the tenure of Thomas Graveshend demised to him by Indenture, as it is said."
There are identical entries in Rolls 453, 454, 455, and 456; 457 is similar except for the spelling, which is "pryor of Lewes Seller in Shorham." So far, there is nothing to identify these entries with the Marlipins, but the necessary connection is established a little later on. It is evident that Lewes Priory had long had interests in Shoreham. There was an early grant of lands to it by a De Braose. The men of the Priory had privileges in connection with the ferry which crossed from New Shoreham to Lancing; and in 1457 the Prior with others answered for the profits of 60 acres of land "in the port of Hulkesmouth alias Shorham."15
The Editor has very kindly sent me the following from an isolated Court Roll of 1572, among the Shoreham records at Norfolk House:-
"John  Gravesende who held of the lord freely a cellar called le Malapyns by a rent of 14d. yearly; and a parcel of land lying in New Shoreham between the cellar late of the prior of Lewes and  the highway on the south and a messuage and garden late of Thomas Shilter on the north, by a yearly rent of 12d., has died seised thereof since the last Court. John Gravesende his son and heir is of full age and gives to the lord for relief 2s. 2d., and does fealty."
Mr. Salzman makes the following comment on the above:-
" From the wording one would imagine that the Malapyns cellar and the Prior's cellar were not the same, but taken in conjunction with your other evidence, I think we must conclude that they were alternative names; probably the description of the `parcel of land' was taken from the original grant in which the bounds were given in that form. The cellar must obviously have come into the hands of Lewes after 15 Hen. VII; it is unlucky that the grant is not with the other ` Ancient Deeds' among the Lewes charters;-possibly it was a bequest."
Adopting the suggestion that the " cellar called le Malapyns" and "the cellar late of the prior of Lewes" are one and the same, the last six words of the latter being merely for additional identification-the "parcel. of land" may be that portion of the former "garden on the west and north" of the Marlipins, lying west of the latter, and which eventually became the site of the "Ship" inn. If this is the correct interpretation, this part has its north, south, and east boundaries defined in the extract, but not its west one, viz.-north, a garden-south, the street-east, the Marlipins.
For some time after this there is no very definite information. A deed of 31 Elizabeth16 is too vague and general for positive identification with the site of the building. With the 17th century, however, we get on to somewhat firmer ground. In 1664, John Cheal of Shermanbury, conveys to Henry Dallen-der of New Shoreham, the inn called the "Ship," together with a barn, stable, and garden thereto belonging commonly called the Pryor of Lewes his seller situate in New Shoreham. There is reason to think that the "Ship" and the Marlipins were held together (practically continuously) from this time onwards, and that the latter may be understood to be included even in the case of one or two documents which do not specifically mention it.
At the time of the 1664 conveyance, the "Ship" inn seems to have been in the occupation of Richard Forty and Silvester Symes. This is interesting in connection with the theory that the earliest use of the Marlipins was as a custom-house-for Forty seems to have been an officer of Customs. In 1673 Adrian Poullen, master of the good ship " St. John," of Dieppe, complained that having taken refuge at Shoreham to escape Dutch privateers which had chased him while voyaging to St. Malos, he had been boarded in the English port by "R. Forty." The latter came on board the ship as an officer and with others, although the master's papers were in order, "seized the goods therein for the King of England's use and his own, and by his order the broad arrow was set upon 3 packets in the ship." An enquiry was held at the " Lyon" at Steyning, when it was stated that Forty had detained the goods till the previous night, when he had returned them, under an order from the Exchequer.17 (Possibly they had been stored in the Marlipins. )
Henry Dallender, of the 1664 deed, died without issue, and was succeeded by Nicholas Dallender. The property then passed by marriage to the Padwicks (between 1677 and 1692) Thomas, a citizen and draper, of London, and Ann his wife, the latter being sister and heir to Nicholas Dallender. The Padwicks mortgaged the property (for 1000 years) to John Bernard. It is interesting to note the recurrence here of the identical name of one of the delinquents in the 14th century riot, and witness of a deed shortly afterwards.
From the Padwicks the property seems to have passed in 1696 (first by a year's lease and subsequently in the usual way) to Elizabeth Eaton of Horsham. This lady would appear to have married a certain John Innott, for in the time of Queen Anne (1703) John Innott, Brewer, of New Shoreham, eldest son and heir of "John Innott and his wife Elizabeth" conveyed the "Ship" (without specific mention of the Marlipins) to Henry Stone, shipwright. From other documents we find that the Marlipins was also held by Henry Stone as well as the " Ship," and after his death and that of his wife (about 1710) their son William was in possession for about 40 years. Trouble arose from William Stone trying to sell the property instead of letting it pass, as it should have done, to his four sisters. In these documents, after mention of the "Ship" Inn, the description goes on:-" With one barn and garden and one pile or parcel of building on the east side adjoining called the Malthouse or Sceller heretofore belonging to the Prior of Lewes."
Evidently the sisters made good their claim, for in 1751 they conveyed the "Ship" and the Marlipins "formerly called a malthouse or scoller and belonging to the Prior of Lewes" to William Foster. The latter, in a will proved in 1776, bequeathed "a messuage (apparently the "Ship") now m the occupation of John Dean, Victualler, together with the upper and lower Marlipins adjoining to the same messuage, the upper in his own possession, the lower in the occupation of John Innott, Brewer (possibly a son of the John Innott who sold to Henry Stone in 1703) to his nephew William Foster, shipwright (after his own wife should have died).
The two daughters of William married mariners and conveyed the property subsequently to John Foster, who was already in occupation with a certain Richard Puddick, and was Comptroller of His Majesty's Customs-at both Brighton and Shoreham apparently. This was in 1806, and here we return again to the supposed earliest associations of the building. It was now referred to as "a warehouse or storehouse, called or usually known by the name of the Marlipins."
At this time Moderlovestrete on the east, had become Patching's Lane. The deed quotes, in addition to giving the more modern description just referred to,
the way in which the property had been described in ancient deeds, including the "Scoller" belonging to the Prior of Lewes.
I am unable to give exact details of the history of the building in more modern times. For a long time previous to the last sale it had been a builder's shop, being owned by Messrs. Gates. I understand that it was at one time an engineering. works, and was then rather roughly used. During the great war it served a national purpose, the ground storey being fitted up as a rifle range for the troops.
With regard to the street on the east, it seems at first sight a singularly clear corruption from "Moder-love" to "Middle" Street.
One naturally supposes an intervening -Muddle "-softened to "Middle" subsequently-or perhaps a progression from "Moderlove" to "Muddy Lane"-with the necessity for its frequent "patching" as the origin for the " Patching's Lane" of 1806; but un-fortunately for this hypothesis, Patching is known to have been the name of a local weaver. Other persons names have also been given to the thoroughfare--e.g. Norton. Nor does it help the required sequence of corruption to know that it was once "Post Office Lane." The suggestion that this had any connection with the required "missing word" seems not only to be needlessly sardonic, but involves crediting the people of Shoreham with an exceptional capacity for obliquity of reference. There was possibly a Post Office once at the bottom of the street.
The probability is that the quaint mediaeval names of Moderlove and Procession Street were discontinued no great while after the Reformation.

The writer feels that these notes should not conclude without an expression (on behalf of all archaeologists) of gratitude to the present owner of the building, for his timely and public-spirited action in acquiring it, with the object of preservation. This temporary measure
was taken to allow time for funds to be raised by public subscription. Had Mr. Burstow not adopted this course, there can be little doubt that one more relic of the past would have been swept away, or so altered as to have its interest destroyed.
There should be added a word of appreciation of the spirit in which the matter was met by the late owner, Mr. R. A. Gates, who arranged special terms on under-standing that the purchase would be solely in the interests of archaeology.

NOTE.-The photos illustrating this article, where not otherwise described, are by Pannell, Hove.

1 S.A.C., Vol. 42, p. 157.
2 Burnham Abbey Bucks. (Harold Brakspear). Arch. Journal Vol. LX.
3 Buckinghamshire (South), published by H.M. Stationery Office.
4 S.A.C., Vol. XVI., p. 235.
5 The Court Rolls of Shoreham show that in 1656, Richard Poole held " St. Katherines peice, on which a stone windmill now stands, in Old Shoreham." This suggests that the site of St. Katherine's Hospital was probably in Old Shoreham.-ED.
6 Pat. R., 22 Edw. III., pt. ii., m. 14.
7 Mediceval Byways (L. F. Salzman), p. 163.
8 Ducange, Glossarium, etc., Vol. IV., p. 375.9 Ducange. Another word in the Glossarium is " Mailla " signifying a special coinage apparently other than that of the ordinary mints.
10 English. Industries of the Middle Ages (L. F. Salzman), p. 287.
11 Cal. Pat. Rolls, Edw. 111., 1327-1330.
12 Cal. Pat. R., Edw. 111., 1327-1330.
13 Cal. Pat. R., 1330-34. 
14 Cal. Close R., 1327-30.
15 The Story of Shoreham, H. Cheal, p. 19.
16 This deed contains the surname of the late owner of the building, viz. Gates.
17 S.A.C., Vol. XXXVIII., p. 147.


From Sussex Archaeological Collections LXV, MCMXXIV
Reproduced by courtesy of the Sussex Archaeological Society (SAS). 
SAS grants this licence for the stated purpose in respect of such rights as SAS may have over the articles, 
but those rights may not include the author's copyright in the words and/or images.

horizontal rule

All views are personal to the contributor(s) and are not intended to reflect those of the SAS or others involved
Copyright 2002/6 Martin B Snow All rights reserved
Modified 27 March, 2006