1 (a) Plan of the medieval portion of Cuttle Pool Farm.
Cuttle Pool Farm (SP 200753), tree-ring dated to 1478/9 (VA 24.41) (Footnote 1), illustrates an unusual stage in the development of chimneys, in possessing both a smoke bay and an open hall. The house stands on an isolated site near a large pool (now drained) with a water mill, for which it may have been the mill house. Documentation for the house is limited. The manor of Knowle belonged to Westminster Abbey until 1541 and some medieval court rolls survive, but not for precisely its building date. The farm is recorded in a lease of 1747, when it apparently comprised 47 acres (Warwickshire County Record Office (WRO) CR1327), which had increased to 68 acres by 1816 (WRO CR2151/107). In 1605, it was a copyhold including a house of four bays, a barn of three bays and 50 acres of land (WRO Z675(sm), p.27; PRO LR2/228).
1 (a) Plan
of the medieval portion of Cuttle Pool Farm.
(b) Section of truss T1, viewed from S. On the first floor, the stud pegs in the tiebeam are concealed but the gaps in the studding suggest the presence of a window matching that on the ground floor. T2 is similar to T1.
(c) Section of truss T3, viewed from S. T4 is similar to T3.
The house (Figure 1a) is oriented N-S, with its gable towards the access lane. and the original structure is now of 2½ bays, having lost one bay (presumably) from the southern end. In the 18th century, the external walls were replaced in brick, bay IV was rebuilt and the house extended to the N, masking and preserving the original N gable wall. Here, close-studding survives at first floor and gable level, with corresponding mortices on the ground floor (Figure 1b). Similar close-studding remains on the E side of Truss T2 at first floor level at slightly wider spacing (with peg-holes in the tiebeam continuing over the fireplace); peg-holes for the ground-floor close-studded wall are visible in the ceiling beam to the E of the fireplace. The wallplates survive in bays I and II and on the W side of bay III, and peg-holes in them show that the side walls of bay I were close-studded (with gaps for windows on both sides), but that the bay III framing was of large panels. The brick back-to-back fireplaces are not closely datable but are probably of the late 16th or early 17th century. It appears that after the insertion of the chimney, the house had a lobby entry (an early example for Warwickshire) but the original entry position is uncertain.
The roof trusses have clasped purlins with close studding in T1 and T2, queen struts below the collar in T3 and T4 (whose wallposts have been removed) (Figure 1c). The purlins and wallplates have bladed scarfs at T3, and they continue 1 m beyond T4, clearly indicating the original existence of a further bay. Both T3 and T4 are infilled between tiebeam and collar but not above; the positions of widely-spaced studs below each tiebeam can be identified from pegholes and mortices. The whole roof from T2 to the ends of the purlins beyond T4 is heavily sooted, including the S side of T2 and both sides of T3. An inserted extra collar rests on the purlins, 1.2 m S of T3 (at T3a on the plan). This collar has wattle-and-daub infill above it which is sooted on the N but not the S side. Mid-way between T3 and T3a, two pairs of rafters carry pegs 52 cm below the roof apex. These are undoubtedly the fixings for a louvre ; they would have attached horizontal membersto the rafters, carrying the vertical supports of the louvre itself (Footnote 2).
The original ceiling in bay I comprises an axial beam and heavy (30 cm wide) joists at 60 cm centres, tenoned (bare-faced) and pegged to the beam; the joists on each side alternate, presumably to avoid weakening the beam. Both beam and joists are chamfered with straight-cut stops. An original stair trimmer adjoins the N side of T2, and two mortices in the side of the trimmer may have held the stair supports. A later trimmer in front of the fireplace has cut away the end of one joist; this may have created space for a later chimney set in front of the early one. The inserted ceiling in bay II has a transverse beam and unpegged joists, both with step stops. The trimmer in front of the left jamb of the fireplace appears to be original, and its possible purpose is suggested below. The modern stair has caused the removal of joists on the E side.
In the overall layout of the house, bay I was clearly a smart floored end, presumably a parlour with chamber over. Bay II was the hall including an open hearth (from the soot and the louvre) and the replaced single storey bay S of the hall is likely to have been a service room. The space between T2 and T3 can clearly be identified as a smoke bay, with extensive sooting of the trusses on each side of it. The presence of the adjoining open hall makes it likely that the smoke louvre served the parlour, although any evidence for the fireplace has been destroyed by the insertion of the back-to-back stacks. The stubs of a series of iron hooks in the W wallplate indicate that the smoke bay was also used for smoking bacon or ham. Access to this space must have been by a ladder from the hall, as the other wall was close-studded; the continued need for this ladder perhaps explains the trimmer in the inserted hall floor.
The extensive sooting at the S end of the hall makes it likely that the open hearth was conventionally placed in the centre or towards the lower end of the hall. Thus, the louvre must primarily have served the smoke bay and only incidentally the hall, and its presence is the most surprising feature of the house. Other recorded smoke bays have exit holes within the bay and there seems to be no precedent for a louvre outside the bay (Footnote 3). The insertion of the additional partition (T3a) seems to have converted the louvre into a chimney, and the absence of sooting on the S of this partition indicates that the hall open hearth was disused thereafter. Either the parlour fireplace was reversed to serve the hall, or the smoke bay was divided internally to create back-to-back fireplaces (for which no structural evidence has been identified). A light ceiling must also have been inserted between T3 and T3a, so that the smoke no longer penetrated into the rest of the hall.
Although timber chimneys are not uncommon in Warwickshire, only one other smoke bay has been recognised This is inserted into the hall above the original hearth in an urban-type Wealden house (The Old Bell, Tanworth-in-Arden) (Footnote 4); the louvre was presumably at the same location (obscured by a later chimney). Even in relation to areas where smoke bays are relatively common, the present example is extremely early (Footnote 5). This early date and the unusual layout of the smoke bay and louvre at Cuttle Pool suggests that it was an experiment, and indeed one that was only partly successful. Could the idea of a smoke bay have been suggested by someone with south-eastern connections, perhaps involved with the Westminster Abbey estate administration but, in its implementation by a Warwickshire carpenter, the local tradition of using a smoke louvre was not abandoned?