Tag: the place

The Mysteries at the far end of the Uxbridge Treaty House

Anyone who has ever parked at the Crown and Treaty in Uxbridge has noticed the collection of oddities that is the far end of the Treaty House. Contrasting with the lovely main face of the existing building and the towering and artful chimney structures on its backside, the far end feels architecturally discordant, improvised and beat up. Things just don’t seem to make sense on that end of the building. And the closer you look, the stranger it gets…

Anyone who has ever parked at the Crown and Treaty in Uxbridge has noticed the collection of oddities that is the far end of the Treaty House. Contrasting with the lovely main face of the existing building and the towering and artful chimney structures on its backside, the far end feels architecturally discordant, improvised and beat up. Things just don’t seem to make sense on that end of the building. And the closer you look, the stranger it gets….

Part of my struggle with this end of the building is that its so difficult to unravel. Nearly 500 years of maintenance has left the mark of many obvious repairs, including a large section of concrete shoring on the end face of the building. There are multiple swathes of mismatched brick, and brickwork patterns that don’t match those of the other end of the building. There are bricked up windows, concreted windows, glaring repaired cracks and a jagged, abruptly-ended facade. There are windows clearly out of alignment with those on the rest of the building. It seems a mess. But why? How did it come to be this way? And most importantly to me: Which parts of this end of the building date back to the time of the 1645 treaty negotiations?

The Octagonal Turret

Protruding from the far end of the Treaty House is an octagonal “turret” structure. In my recent visit, I learned that this structure contains an iron spiral staircase that doesn’t quite make it all the way to the second floor (considering the ground level to be the first). At the top of these stairs, you cross into the main building at an intermediate landing, where you can then either jog to the right and ascend a few more stairs to reach the second floor, or proceed up a next, narrow set of stairs that carry you up to the rooms of the attic level.

In his excellent paper on the Treaty House (see my last article), the historian Dr. Richard Spence speculates that this “angle turret” (and its twin at the end of the long-demolished parallel wing) may have held the “good stairs” remarked upon in accounts of the 1645 treaty negotiations. This was not an important point in Dr. Spence’s paper, but I need to address it, as I have come to an important, different conclusion.

Reviewing the available historic imagery, it can be shown that this octagonal structure did not appear until likely a century after the majority of the original Treaty House was demolished in the 1750’s (of course, we are working all this out because there is no surviving imagery of the original house and grounds). For example, it is not present in the 1770’s “dilapidated” image of the Treaty House (see the left side of the graphic above). I believe this improvised structure was added no earlier than the middle 1800’s, perhaps at the same time a large building containing additional rooms was appended to the back side (the chimney wall) of the existing building.

The “Good Stairs”

Accounts of the 1645 treaty negotiations describe a large, well appointed main chamber in the center section of the house. This spacious chamber was on the second floor, and was remarked as having been accessed by “good stairs” at either end. In this context, “good” stairs meant they were roomy, comfortable and stylish.

This staircase could well have been remarked upon as an example of “good stairs”. It was was taken from a country house in Wrexham, Wales that was built in the 1600s. (photo credit: Wales Online)

Despite the extensive rework in this end of the building and that the probability that these “good stairs” have not existed for centuries, there are still important clues about them. In particular, the western end wall of the Treaty House contains two substantial, but oddly placed windows. Both are blocked off.

The lower of these two windows is among the largest windows in the building. If you examine the brickwork around it (see the photo below), you will see the same fine materials and nearly the same level of craftmanship as in the windows on the building’s primary face. Although this wall has endured many adjustments and repairs over the centuries, this window (and the brickwork patterns around it) testify that the wall itself is original.

  • The artful brickwork in the transoms of this closed off window on the back wall match those of the windows in the building’s primary face. Both the materials and workmanship strongly indicate this window was original.

But these two were not the only stairwell windows. Looking at the early 1800’s image of the “Crown Inn” (as it was known at that time), you will notice the current windows at this end of the building’s back wall do not appear in that historic drawing. Instead, the drawing shows yet another grand but oddly placed window, and a pair of smaller “sunlight” windows just under the eave of the roof above it.

During daylight, all of these windows would have provided illumination of the stairs. They also would have provided generous views of the grounds to those using the stairs to pass between floors. The next figure is my initial cut at a possible elegant stair arrangement that aligns with the placement of these windows. I’m not yet convinced this plan is correct, but its good enough for now. To help with visualization of the original house design, I have “photoshopped” the rear wall of the building to reflect how it would have looked at the time of the early 1800s image of the “Crown Inn”.

This image depicts one possible stair plan capable of providing access to all three floors of the Treaty House. The rectangular column outlined in red is depicted as it would have appeared if you had been able to see it behind the brick walls of this corner of the house. Note: in this image, the back wall of the house has been photoshopped to illustrate what it might have looked like originally.

I assert that the original stairwell survived until at least the early 1800’s (and was probably removed in the middle 1800s when the building was expanded). If you look closely at the early 1800’s drawing from the banks of the River Colne, you will see there are no appended structures on the chimney side of the building, and no sign of the octagonal stair turret later appended at its end. This would have left an internal staircase as the only way to reach the second floor.

The presence of the second, smaller unaligned window higher up on the end wall indicates some continuance of the stairway to reach the rooms Sir John Bennet added to the attic spaces in 1623.

There is also a small set of stairs just above the modern main entrance by which the attic spaces can also be reached from the second floor. This cramped stairway has the feel of a fire escape or staff access. The stairs themselves are clearly modern, but some version of them were likely either original, or installed when the attic spaces were built out in 1623.

This small service stairway provides access between the attic and the second floor. It lies behind the second floor window over the main entrance. Although these specific stairs seem relatively modern, an earlier version of them may have been original.

The Puzzle of How the Center Span Intersected the Surviving Wing

Speculated layout of the original Treaty House and property from the 1994 paper, “The Place, Uxbridge, and Its Owners Up To the [English] Civil War” (1994) by Dr. Richard Spence.

The next mystery is most significant I have wrestled with since we returned from Uxbridge. How did the structure of the center span of the original building intersect with the surviving wing? The image above appears in Dr. Spence’s excellent 1994 paper on the early history of the Treaty House. The building arrangement he has drawn assumes what I am calling a “full corner join” of the original center span with the surviving wing (which is shown hashed, on the left in his drawing above).

I started from this assumption as well, but ran into an important issue when I tried to model it. Lets start with the footprint of the existing building (next figure). To avoid confusion, ignore the “octagonal” structure projecting from the right end of this figure (as we discussed earlier, this structure was not part of the original building).

There are two critical considerations. First, judging by the age of the bricks, the brickwork patterns and the existence of original (albeit closed off) windows, the end wall (towards the right in the graphic above) appears to be original. Second, there are fairly clear structural oddities in face of that end of the surviving wing. This must have been where the original building connected, but how, exactly?

A dimensioned model of the “full corner join” (as appears in Dr. Spence’s drawing) between the surviving wing and the original center span is accomplished by carrying the surviving end wall along as the rear wall of the original center span (as illustrated in the next figure). The problem I just couldn’t get comfortable with is that this would have made the center span significantly thinner than the wings.

I double checked my measurements and geometries, and found no flaw in them. For awhile, I wondered if the end wall might have been moved or rebuilt. But this would have involved a great deal of effort and resulted in less interior space in the building. Also, moving this wall would have implied moving the staircase behind it as well. Taken together, these make the possibility that the wall had been moved very unlikely. Next, I considered whether the front face of the original center span might have intersected the existing building closer to the adjacent bay columns. However, this would have landed the wall squarely in the middle of an apparently original window. None of these possibilities seems reasonable, including the idea that the center span wasn’t built to at least the same roominess as the wings.

I was describing my exasperation to Mary about the strange mix of clues at this end of the building when the light finally came on… I remember grumbling about how the large patch of concrete shoring made an ugly scar on an otherwise lovely building when the analogy of a scar rang a bell in my mind. I may even have stopped speaking in mid-sentence.

A 2018 photograph of the western end wall of the Treaty House.

What if a scar was exactly what that concrete shoring was? Not a hasty patch job to stabilize a weakened wall (as I had assumed), but the point of amputation of some part of the original structure? Was it possible the center span and the wings were were originally joined in a more complex, partially overlapped intersection? I had to admit it would have made the overall structure stronger…

This figure highlights the structural discontinuities evident at the western end of the surviving Treaty House.

And there it was. In the figure above, you can see the vestiges of where the center section of the house connected to the surviving structure. Looking at it now, I believe this odd, slightly protruding section of wall was once the last structural “rib” of the original center span. Rather than remove it, the bricklayers left it in place and bricked in the span between the rib structure to fashion a new outer wall for this part of the remaining wing.

The figure above illustrates what the footprint of this “offset join” of these parts of the building would have looked like. In this model, the outside faces of the center span’s walls would have been 23.5 feet apart–1 foot more than in the wings. Finally, I had a join concept that aligned with both the evidence and basic architectural sense!

Subtle Buttresses in the Structure

Although unconventional, this plan could explain a number of things. Considering this odd protruding wall section as a “filled in” vestigial rib from the end of the now absent center span helped me see it differently. And in the bargain may have resolved another minor mystery.

If you look at it closely at pictures of this protruding section of the existing building, you notice it is wider at the first floor than at the second. It didn’t make sense to me that this had been the shape of the center span wall. I didn’t know what to make of the odd protruding shape in it–that seems to be original. If this were the normal thinning of the wall structure at the succesively higher floors, the outer wall would have been left flat, leaving a ledge on the inside where it could support the joists of the next floor. This would have left the the outside wall flat, matching the adjacent, attractive face of the surviving wing.

I now believe the wall of the center span was vertically flat, with the lower portion of this structural “rib” protruding from it at this location only.

Temple Church in Middle Temple, London. The “ribs” protruding beyond the walls of the church are “buttresses”, meant to keep outward pressure from the settling of a large spanning roof from pushing the tops of the walls apart.

We’ve all seen something like this before, albeit on a much larger scale–in the construction of most historic churches in England. To illustrate what I mean, the image above is of the home church of the Templar Knights in Middle Temple, London.

When a large spanning roof (one without posts to hold it up in the middle) settles, it pushes outwards on the tops of the walls, weakening them. Buttresses brace the wall from its outside to prevent this spreading from taking place. Buttresses are a important part of why these ancient buildings have lasted so long.

In the case of the Treaty House, the span is moderate, and the large chimney stacks along the outside of the building and the bay columns along its inner face would provide a fair amount of reinforcement to the walls. It may be that the builder wanted this small buttress as a bit of extra reinforcement where these walls intersected.

Modelling what the offset join would have looked like

In the next set of images, I have scaled the “dilapidated” image of the Treaty House in the 1770’s so that it lies as closely as possible within a bounding box made from a modern photograph taken from nearly the same point of observation.

Comparing these images side by side reveals several notable things:

  • First, at some point, the walls above the second floor of this wing were extended upwards by several feet. This taller wall face makes the roof seem smaller than it was originally. This extension of the upper walls likely took place during the early 1800s remodel.
  • The 1770’s image of the Treaty House shows no other visible chimney flues except those of the the primary chimney stacks. It is not clear how this end of the building would have been heated, but suggests that the spaces at the left end of this structure were large enough that the existing fireplaces along the back wall were deemed adequate when the rest of the building was taken down. In the modern image, two new chimneys are present the left end of the modern roof. These were likely added in the early 1800’s remodel, as they appear in images made soon after that remodel was completed.
  • Although the residual structure that lies beyond the left end is depicted to be different than what is present today, it includes the same first floor portion of where the original back wall intersected the surviving structure.
  • The roofline in the modern photograph appears to increasingly sag as you move to the left. Although I have observed some localized sagging here and there on the roof, this general apparent sloping is mostly due to the image not being level and a bit of linear perspective shrinkage when looking at parts of the structure that are further away from the observer.
  • The 1770’s image shows that the curved gable was originally present on both ends of the surviving wing. At some point, the curved gable was removed from the far end of the building (furthest from Oxford Road) and replaced with a simpler, non-curved top. This was probably done at some point to salvage materials needed to repair the Oxford Road-facing gable. This curved gable is executed in curved stone, which would have been difficult to replace if some of it had been damaged.

In the figure above, I have highlighted the likely shape of the original center span at the plane it intersected the surviving wing. There are a few things to notice about this cross-section. First, there is no attic level in the center span of the building–the second floor would have had a high, vaulted ceiling to form the great chamber there. You will also notice that the walls are significantly thicker on the first floor than on the second. This trend almost certainly continued underground, with the walls expanding even further at the foundation level (see the next figure). This was a common construction technique to spread the building’s weight over a larger area to keep the building from settling into the ground.

This excellent graphic of historic wall construction from the University of West England at Bristol shows a variety of solid wall constructions, including their foundation footings.

The next figure takes the modelling further, showing a roof plan and a projection of the center span away from and onto the surviving wing.

I am quite interested in any feedback from the community on this most recent work, and particularly any examples of relevant historical architecture from this period. I am considering using my next article to pose some specific questions for input from the community following this project. I am intrigued by the idea of seeing what a bit of historic architectural “crowdsourcing” might turn up regarding a set of points I could use some help with!

Most importantly, I am hoping that when the artist supporting this project (Rhonda, who many of you met while we were in Uxbridge recently) gets the real 3D computer model of the structure in place, we will be able to look more closely at how the plane of the center span’s roof might have reasonably intersected the end gable. I am hopeful that will finally explain the shape of the concrete “scar” on the end wall of the existing building.

Life is interesting. And recently, it got far more so. Its not uncommon to find an earnest discussion of how the problems we face should be solved. But I was offered something very few people ever are: an opportunity to put my thoughts on what my country needs to the test.

I had the honor of being asked if I would be willing to be the candidate of the Forward Party to run for a seat representing Colorado in the US House of Representatives.

The Unites States Congress in Washington, D.C.

Each time I have have travelled to the UK, I have been asked what to make of the chaos and extremism that has manifested in American politics. Its an understandable question (and one I have thought much about). I think there may be some comfort in my answer. You see, we Americans do make progress as a society. Within the short span of my own lifetime, we have gone from a racially segregated society (i.e. before the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to white Americans electing a black man for president–twice.*

The understandable consternation is that on the path of progress, our society seems to find its way by lurching left and right like a drunken sailor. We somehow need to discover the consequences of bad ideas (and policies) by crashing into them. Then, we recoil (newly educated and muttering), before veering off in another direction. In the long run it seems to work, but its not pretty.

So my answer to my overseas friends has been: think of American politics as a pendulum. Its average position over time is its reasonable center. But you just have to grit your teeth while we take various reasonable underlying intentions too far. It will eventually swing back. I expect the current bewildering political scene to resolve itself in about 5 years.

In the current, embarrassing lurch, both of our major political parties have been co-opted by the extremists in their ranks. In an attempt to appease the torch and pitchfork waving gangs within their ranks, both parties seem determined to put up presidential candidates that would have little chance against even a modestly solid opponent. Each party is counting on disgust with the other party’s candidate to motivate their moderates to hold their nose and vote for their own, “less bad” candidate. And that’s where a third party in America may just have its moment…

There are currently two notable political movements trying to organize the moderate middle of America: the Forward Party and No Labels. Unlike other issue-driven parties (like the Green Party), these two are founded on the same basic premise–that it’s time for the moderate middle of American society to find its political voice. I support them both.

Apparently, I had been noticed in online Forward Party discussions I have participated in. It turns out that someone I respect, (and had gotten to know) was part of the Colorado leadership of the party. He also knew that I live in District 4.

It was a shock when he contacted me with a bombshell of a question: would I consider running for the seat being vacated by Congressman Ken Buck representing Colorado’s 4th district?

This seat is actually in the national spotlight, as Ken Buck is retiring early. Although he planned to retire at the end of his term, it is believed he chose to do so early to disrupt the survival plans of an embarrassing (and extremist) current representative of Colorado who was on track to lose her current seat in this fall’s general election. To avoid this, she had recently switched districts to run for the seat Ken Buck was planning to vacate. But with his early retirement, there will now be a special election in June, placing her in an awkward situation. If I ever find myself in the same room as Ken Buck, I intend to offer to buy him one of Colorado’s excellent craft beers.

For my part, it was an honor to be asked. And it was an opportunity that will not come again. In the vetting meeting, I was introduced to a spectrum of the people who are among the leadership of the party, from both the state and national level. It was a very candid conversation, and one that left an admiring impression on me. These are good people. They are talented and dedicated hard workers who who care deeply about the country. They struck me as the very embodiment of the ethos of “country over party”, and they expected the same of me. They cared deeply about ending the extremist antics that dominate our politics and threaten both our country and the stability of the larger world. They wanted to ensure that I shared the values of the party, and that I believed in the primacy of the rule of law. So it was a very comfortable conversation–I could not be more aligned with the need for a party committed to the principles this country was founded on (even if we haven’t always lived up to them).

It would have been a long-shot candidacy, but I am not averse to fighting a good fight. But in the end, I couldn’t get past the fact that politics at that level is a bare-knuckle, dirty fighting brawl. In this sphere, your ideas will never see the light of day if you don’t have the resources (political connections, personal wealth and lawyers) to win the disinformation wars against special interests and political opponents variously threatened by the solutions you are advancing. And there are clearly those who would have a hard time getting their heads around some of the solutions I would have fought for…

For example, I feel our immigration problem is only complex because we have corrupted ourselves. America is a country of immigrants. It is one of our core strengths. We should open the gates wide to facilitate the legal and timely inflow of people who want to work, share our values, and are willing to live within our laws. We should also offer a requirements-driven path to eventual citizenship for those who want it. But there’s a sticky part: we need to start enforcing our existing laws–not by cracking down on illegal immigrants, but by prosecuting those Americans who exploit those migrants. Eliminate the demand for unlawful labor. If you’re going to win that one, you need to bring more than a knife, because that will be a political gunfight.

A boat of illegal migrants arriving at Dry Tortugas during our camping trip there in November 2022. I will never forget the sight of one of them drop to his knees and kiss the sand (after travelling over 100 miles of open water in a rickety boat) for a the chance to have what I was born to. Dry Tortugas is a remote spit of sand in the Gulf of Mexico that hosts a historic anti-piracy fort from the 1700’s.

So, I was assessed as an engaging, effective speaker and a natural advocate for the Forward Party’s values. The fact that I am not a career politician is an advantage. Having spent 15 years volunteering at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science established a clear background of service. My personal background in agriculture (born to a ranching family and raised in Wyoming), energy (a year in the oilfield as a wireline technician) and technology (I have 5 patents and was most recently a Product Owner for Cybersecurity and Enterprise Architecture at a satellite imaging company) would also have served me well.

In the end, I had gotten unanimous support to be nominated as the Forward Party candidate. They recognized I was a political novice, and were ready to line up resources to help me round out my knowledge of key issues, fundraise and create a plan for media engagement. But a thought I had posed in the vetting meeting rang in my ears for the weekend I had to think about it: “If I could cure cancer it would be one thing–I’m not afraid of a fight. But I have to think hard about putting my family through a wood chipper if I don’t have the resources to accomplish something worthwhile.” We have to make choices in this life, and ego alone is a poor reason to derail the meaningful life Mary and I have built together.

So, with clarity and some mixed emotions, I ultimately chose to thank them for the honor of their consideration and to decline the offer. Although I think there will always be some part of me that will wonder, “What if…”, I believe my path is to serve in other ways. Nothing would make me happier than to help the candidate they ultimately find carry their message to the voters and win that seat in congress.

* Unsurprisingly, more than 90% of black voters voted for Obama in the 2008 elections. Far less known is that it was the white vote that put him in office–there were more than 2 white votes cast for Obama for every black vote he received.

Gunter’s Chains and Satellite Imagery: An Analysis of the 1775 Survey Plan at Uxbridge

A unique 1775 survey plan from the Uxbridge Archives is analyzed using modern tools and satellite imagery, resulting in some surprising insights into the spatial accuracy of this early engineering document.

Although I have been able to do a great deal of research from America, some portion of existing historical material simply isn’t available online. In the end, there is no substitute for time spent a fluorescent-lit archive amid a sea of box-laden shelves–or comparing notes with members of the local historical community.

I was reminded of this truth while we were in Uxbridge recently. A member of the Uxbridge History Society shared a hand-drawn copy of a 1775 plan drawing from the Uxbridge Archives, and his own rare copy of a paper about the Treaty House by an accomplished modern historian. These two local documents provided a small trove of information that filled in a gaps in what I’ve been able to find–and one that disproved part of the model I’ve been developing of the original Treaty House structure. So, with thanks to Tony for sharing this information, I’ve been back at work on the Uxbridge Treaty House part of the Lane Project!

Analysis of the 1775 Survey Plan

Digging through materials related to the 1775 plan drawing at the Uxbridge Archives, I found that this document was a survey plan for the proposed straightening of the Oxford Road. This project, when completed, would irrevocably break up what remained of the original, proud property of “The Place”, two decades after the majority of the main house had been taken down.

The 1775 survey plan document in Uxbridge is actually a photostat of a negative of the original document, which is likely located at the main London Archives. This plan was produced as part of an engineering survey of the site for the planned road project.

This is an extraordinary artifact, as it is not a sketch or artist’s impression of the scene. Rather, it is an engineering drawing that includes a surveyor’s scale, and was thus intended to be as accurate as it could reasonably have been made. The graphic below was taken directly from the document at the Uxbridge Archives. The information it contains is singular. Most diagrams I’ve been able to find of this area do not contain this level of detail, and are from after the new road was already in place.

This diagram was taken directly from a photograph of the 1775 survey plan from the Uxbridge Archives.

There are several unique insights contained within this image. For instance, although I had read about an older “pack and prime” bridge that had been built in two segments over the Colne, I’d never seen an illustration of it. In the figure above, it is denoted as the “old” bridge. It also shows the footprints of the “Swan” alehouse and that of the remaining wing of the Treaty House (both of which still exist today).

Despite the fact that the scene depicted is of the grounds decades after the main house had been taken down (and the property was already being sold off in parcels), many vestiges of the original grounds are still evident. For instance, the image clearly depicts the twin octagonal gatehouse (“lodges”) that flanked the original entrance to the property. Especially useful to me is the shape of the “old” Oxford Road as it arcs around the property. Before this document, I haven’t seen anything definitive about the shape of the original property. The wealth of other details (walls, fences, cultivated fields, ditches and buildings) provide a unique and satisfying view of “the neighborhood” around the Treaty House property at that time.

There are several odd things about this image also. The Frays Stream (at right) is not a straight channel (as it is depicted), nor does it intersect the bridge and the town mill at the angle shown. Also, the gatehouses are placed at an odd geometry relative to the remaining Treaty House wing. as though the person drawing it didn’t realize that those structures were related. Prudent architectural sense would have placed the gatehouses parallel to, and centered upon, the original center span of the house. To get a better feel for what can be trusted in this image, I decided it was time to do some analysis!

What is a Gunter’s Chain?

A Gunter’s Chain. Image credit: Victorian Collection

The text in the image refers to a “Gunter’s Chain” and provides a scale of 10 of these rulings in a line. A Gunter’s Chain was named after the English Clergyman and mathematician who introduced it in 1620, Edmund Gunter. It is a durable set of 100 links in a chain that is a total of 66 feet long, and is used exactly as we use a tape measure today–but for surveying.

Having a surveyor’s scale in the image was simply too much for my inner nerd to pass up! First, leveraging the provided scale, I created a 2D “Gunter’s Chain” grid, which I laid over the survey image (see image above). Since each square in this grid represents 66 square feet, this grid can be used to make measurements on the image. Overlaying the 1775 survey drawing over modern satellite imagery of the same scene and using online distance measuring tools, I can use enduring elements in the scene to assess the accuracy of the original drawing.

First, I had to confirm that the accuracy of the online distance measurement tools themselves. If the measurement errors were larger than what I am trying to determine, then there is little point in going any further! Using the “measure distance” feature of Google Earth and repeating a specific measurement of a significant distance (approximately 1,000 feet apart in the image) achieved results with a “standard deviation” of about 1.2 feet. This is good, as this amount of error includes any intrinsic error in Google’s measurement tool and also my ability to reliably choose the exact same spots to measure each time. Next, I measured the roof peak of the Treaty house multiple times, and consistently got measurements of +/-6 inches compared with measurements of the building I made while recently in Uxbridge. Bottom line? These tools are more than accurate enough for this job!

Satellite imagery of the area around the Crown and Treaty, overlaid with the 1775 survey image. It was rotated to align the road in front of the Treaty House, and then scaled until the interior bridgeheads matched.

I did not expect the survey map to be perfect. After all, it provides an overhead perspective drawn using only ground observations using 1600s technology. But I was pleasantly surprised how well the survey image laid onto key parts of this scene. In particular, the spatial relationship between the new roadbed and the bridgeheads at either end of it was nearly perfect. Also, the surveyed distance from one bridgehead to the other was 11 “chains” (726 feet). This matched satellite measurements (705 feet) of the same distance fairly well (given that I did not have clear visual targets for making this measurement).

But there were also some unexpected misalignments (see the analysis graphic above). The depicted footprints of the Treaty House and the Swan are both misplaced by at least 20 feet (in different directions), and both are somewhat rotated from their true orientations. Also, the twin gatehouses are depicted significantly closer to the new road bed than the “52 yards” the roadbed was (separately) recorded to have been moved.

The explanation for the variation in accuracy is that certain parts of the scene were carefully surveyed, while others seem to have been drawn in for completeness. If you look closely at the plan, you will notice a grouping of 5 points called out near the Colne bridgehead (labelled A, B, C, D and E). These are specific survey points that surround the planned roadbed where it approaches the new bridgehead. In fact, the text on the plan calls out how much fill dirt would be needed to fill in this part of the road. It also makes sense that the width of the island was more accurately measured, as the length of this section of new road would have been a key metric for the project.

But those areas which lay outside the new roadbed were not directly relevant to building the new road. These details were made for completeness of the scene, and it appears were less accurately captured by the engineer that created this plan. The next graphic of the scene summarizes which regions of this diagram I was able to validate as accurate, and others that are either suspect, or were revealed to be inaccurate.

Dr. Richard Spence’s Article on “The Place”

The second important artifact I obtained in Uxbridge was a paper published in the Autumn 1994 edition of The Uxbridge Record (by the Uxbridge History Society). This is an excellent paper about the early history of “The Place” (as the Treaty House property was originally known) and those who built and later owned it.

I was surprised to learn that the author, Dr. Spence, was not a local resident–he was from Leeds, far to the north. Like myself, Dr. Spence’s attention seems to have been drawn to Uxbridge by a thread of his primary research focus. After losing his role as a Senior Lecturer at Leeds and Carnegie College during a educational consolidation at age 54, Dr. Spence retired early and threw himself into the topic of his original PhD thesis: the history of the Clifford family (Earls of Cumberland). He authored several books regarding the Cliffords and several places related to the family.

The thread that seems to have brought Dr. Spence to the Treaty House was the granddaughter of Dr John Hughes, who originally built “The Place” in ca 1535. In her adulthood, this daughter (Grissell) married a man named Francis Clifford. The newly married couple first lived at “The Place” while Francis was constructing a bold new home amidst the rest of the Clifford family in Londonborough. Some years later, Francis succeeded his brother and became the next Earl of Cumberland. Lady Grissell (daughter of Uxbridge and raised at “The Place”) was now a countess.

Apparently pursuing this marital link between the Cliffords and Uxbridge, Dr. Spence became interested in the Treaty House and wrote his excellent paper on it in 1994. This paper was a privilege to read. I would have loved to have met Dr. Spence, but he died in 1999–5 years after making this unique contribution to Uxbridge history. The Guardian news site has a wonderful online obituary that describes him (Richard Turfitt Spence) as a warm, gentle and witty historian and an avid club cricketer. I was able to find 6 books he published, most available on Amazon. Unfortunately, I was unable to find a photograph of him, or I would have included it. So, with a salute for excellent, singular work and the significant help it has provided me–many thanks, Dr. Spence, and rest well.

For my work, there were several worthwhile discoveries in the Spence paper. First, while Lady Grissell and her husband Frances Clifford were living at The Place, arrangements were made to receive a visit there by Queen Elizabeth I (and her retinue) in October 1592. His description of the effort undertaken was fascinating, although Dr. Spence tells it is not clear the visit actually happened. Recall that this royal visit would have taken place only a few years after the Elizabeth I had so capably led the defense of England from the invading armada of King Phillip II of Spain in 1588. For Americans who aren’t familiar with this, watch the academy award-winning movie, Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)–it was Elizabeth I’s “Churchill” moment. She was at the height of her power, and her reign was an era of prosperity and relative stability compared with the chaos and religious whip-sawing of the country by King Henry VIII and his immediate successors. I suspect if this royal visit had actually taken place, it would have been an important local event that would have become part of the fabric of the property. The additional notoriety might even have saved the estate from its ultimate fate…

A few years after Francis Clifford and Lady Grissell had moved to their new mansion at the Clifford family seat in Londonborough, the Uxbridge property was sold to Sir John Bennett in 1613. Apparently, the new Earl Francis Clifford had inherited significant debt along with his new title, and the sale of “The Place” was necessary to help resolve them.

Sir John Bennett was already a significant landholder in the area who desired a convenient and enviable estate commensurate with his status. Sir John undertook the first great renovation and improvement of the property in 1623. As part of this costly expansion, the attic areas of both wings were built out to provide additional accommodations for his 10 children, 40 grandchildren, servants and guests.

Dr. Spence tells that the original chimney structures contained a single flue in each turret. But as hearths were added to heat the new rooms in the attic spaces, additional flues for them were carefully fitted into the center turrets of the chimney structures. Additionally, Dr. Spence notes there may have been a revamping of an original “great hall” in the center span of the building. This update (which likely also included the fitting of the famous carved paneling) would have created the elegant spaces utilized during the treaty negotiations in 1645. With the completion of this work, the significantly upgraded property took on a new name, becoming known long after Sir John’s death as the “Bennett House”.

There was one important detail in the paper I need to disagree with. Dr. Spence about. He speculates that the “good stairs” described to be at both ends of the center span’s main chamber were contained in angle turrets (as exists at the far end of the building today). However, that octagonal structure is not present in depictions of the building from the post demolition period of the latter 1700s. Although quite functional (having used them), it’s difficult to imagine anyone remarking upon them as “good stairs”. But most telling is the presence of filled-in windows in the end wall of the building which are unaligned with floors. These windows are clear evidence that an elegant stairwell was originally located within the end of the existing wing.

Reviewing the brickwork that connects the octagonal structure to the far end of the building (and various images of the building over time), my own suspicion is that it was added sometime during the middle 1800s when the Treaty House (and the large building appended to its backside) served as an Inn.

Finally, I was amused to read Dr. Spence’s mention of a “hearth tax” of 20 hearths on the property in 1674. This caused me to smile because the three chimney structures of the existing wing alone contain 12 flues. If the opposite wing was symmetrical, there would have been 24 flues before even considering those needed to heat the large center section of the building! My current model estimates there were an additional 2 flues at each end of the center span of the house and at least 2 full sets of chimney stacks along its back wall. This would have resulted in a total of around 34 hearths in the house at the time this tax was assessed. Apparently, tax dodging is a very old game indeed!

Layout of the Original Treaty House

A sketch from DR. Spence’s paper showing how he believed the original Treaty House was laid out.

Dr Spence’s paper includes a sketch of what the original structure might have looked like. Apparently, Dr Spence shared my suspicion that the spatial relationship of the remaining wing and the gatehouses depicted in the 1775 survey plan was not fully accurate. As Dr. Spence has illustrated, it is far more likely the twin gatehouses would have been centered on the house and arranged parallel to the face of the center span.

In my next article, I will share the the resolution of some nagging incongruities with the simple layout depicted above. There is more to know about how the wings actually attached to the center span. The clues lie in the tortured walls at the far end of the remaining structure…

For the last few years, Mary and I have been discussing the possibility of an extended visit to the UK that would allow me to do some much needed in-person research for this project. With the wind-down of the pandemic and the passing of a much loved, furry member of our family last year, we have decided it’s time.

We are both excited and nervous, of course. Its already hard to think about being away from our friends and family for an extended period, but this is something we don’t want to look back on later and regret not doing when we could still do it well. Having made new friends in Uxbridge, we are very grateful we will have a community to make our own for awhile. It will be wonderful to do simple things like making meals together!

Of course, we plan on making the most of the opportunity for adventure, and are bringing our road bikes and hiking poles. We are looking forward to exploring a great deal of England, Scotland and Ireland (and our most yearned-for places in Europe) in our down time!

For now, we still have quite a few arrangements to make, including finding a fill-in drummer for my band. Regarding my research, I am filling out my list of topics I haven’t been able to run to ground from America. I will also have to decide which books I will really need to have with me. But by this fall, I hope to be putting in some quality time in the archives of London, Oxford, Northampton and Somerset. And making time to meet with some acquaintances we’d enjoy seeing again–especially without having to rush the visit this time!