HUXLOE HUNDRED 



BURTON LATIMER 



Croxton Abdiy. Or 

 a bend betzoeen iix mart- 

 Uis xuble. 



session of the manor.*' He seems to have sold it 

 to Ricliard Fermor, a merchant of the Staple of Calais 

 who was attainted under Henry \'1II, but when par- 

 doned in 1550, only tenements in Burton l.atinier 

 are mentioned among the lands restored to liim.*^ 

 The Prior's manor was apparently incUided amongst 

 them, since his son, Sir John Fermor, together with 

 his wife, sold it in 1555 to Richard Humphrey.'^ Tiie 

 latter died seised of it in 1557," but its later history 

 does not appear. In 1803 William King claimed to 

 have a manor in Burton Latimer, wiiich may iiave been 

 the Nether manor."' 



The Abbey of Croxton held a manor, called 

 'THINGDEN and BURTON LAJIMER, with lands 

 in both townships. Its history 

 appears under Fineden.®' 



The lords of the manor of 

 Burton Plessy held a view of 

 frankpledge, to which, in 

 1285, the tenants of the Prior 

 of Bradstock did suit."* The 

 Farls of Gloucester also held 

 a view of frankpledge for the 

 township of Burton, with- 

 drawing suitors from the 

 Abbot of Peterborough's court 

 for the Hundred of Huxloe.* 

 It passed by inheritance to 



the Earls of Staflord,^ and came into the hands of the 

 king.' 



In 1803, Henry, Duke of Buccleuch and his wife 

 Elizabeth owned the Honour of Gloucester Fee in 

 Northants, to which the view probably belonged. 

 They also claimed to own a manor in Burton Lati- 

 mer.** 



Two mills were attached to the manor in 1086, 

 paying l6i. a year.* One mill is mentioned in 1220 

 as part of the inheritance of Margery Foliot,^ and 

 presumably passed with the manor of Burton Latimer. 

 The second mill seems to have been assigned to the 

 Malemains, whose sister Hillary granted it to the 

 Priory of Bradstock.' The Priory of Bushmede 

 also had a mill in Burton Latimer at the time of its 

 dissolution.'* 



The church of ST. MART THE 

 CHURCH VIRGIN consists of chancel 41 ft. 6 in. 

 by 18 ft., with modern south vestry, 

 clearstoried nave 71 ft. by 17 ft. 6 in., north and south 

 aisles 11 ft. wide, north porch, and west tower and 

 spire. The width across nave and aisles is 44 ft. 6 in., 

 and the tower is 13 ft. square, all these measure- 

 ments being internal. 



The church throughout is built of rubble, with 

 leaded roofs to nave and aisles, and high-pitched 

 modern tiled roof to the chancel. The aisle parapets 

 are plain, and those of the clearstory battlemented. 

 The church was extensively restored in 1866-68, when 

 the tower and spire were taken down and rebuilt with 



•* Early Chan. Proc. bdlc. 406, no. 42 ; 

 Anct. I). A. 5400. 



•'Bridges, op. cit. i, 290; Cal. Pat. 

 1550-2, p. 22-23. 



•• Fett of F. Northants. Mich. 2 & 3 

 Ph. and Mary. 



" Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. ii), cxiv, 3. 



"* Pnv. Act of Pari. 43 Geo. Ill, 

 C65. 



•• S«e btlow. 



•• Cbm. Petrob. (Camden Soc), 109. 



The prior was later allowed a view : Plac. 

 de Quo fVarr. (Rec. Com.), 548-9. 



' Chron. Petrob. 109. 



' Cal. Pat. 1401-5, p. 349. 



• P.R.O. Ct. R. ptf. 194, no. 40. 

 •• Priv. Act of Pari. 43 Geo. Ill, c. 65. 

 « V.C.H. Northanti. i, 342*. 

 ' Feet of F. case 172, file 17. 



• Stowe MS. (B.M.), 925, fols. 152, 

 1521/, 153; Feet of F. case 173, file 40,. 

 no. 657 i Mich, z & 3 Ph. and Mary. 



the old materials, and the flat roof of the chance! 

 removed. In 1882, the porch was restored, the vestry ' 

 rebuilt, an organ recess constructed on the north 

 side of the chancel, and the nave reseated. All 

 the walls are plastered internally. 



A prc-Conqucst stone with plait-work upon it 

 was re-used in the rebuilding of tlic tower, but no 

 part of the present building is older than the 1 2th 

 century, in the early part of which there was an 

 aisleless church, the nave occupying at least the 

 existing three west bays and probably a fourth farther 

 west, of which only half now remains.' The south 

 wall of this building was pierced c. 1 1 30 by an arcade 

 of four round arches, three of which, with a half 

 arch at the west end, and three piers still remain. 

 The eastern arch has a chevron moulding on the 

 nave side, the second a roll, while the others arc 

 unmouldcd, and all are plain facing the aisle. The 

 cylindrical piers have moulded bases and scalloped 

 capitals, the square abaci of which, in two of the 

 piers, have incised carving on the north face. No 

 north aisle was made at this time, but a transeptal 

 chapel was added on the north side at its east end, 

 entered through a round arcli, one of the jambshafts 

 of which remains in the compound pier of the 

 north arcade. This arch, which is equal in height 

 to the opposite arch in the south arcade, was originally 

 lower, and is now stilted on the west side : it has an 

 edge-roll towards the nave, and its impost blocks 

 remain on both sides. 



A north aisle was added c. 1200, an arcade of three 

 bays with pointed arches of two chamfered orders 

 being cut through the wall west of the transept, two 

 and a half bays of which remain. The eastern pier 

 is a small square with large attached shafts, and the 

 western pier is cylindric.il, both having moulded 

 bases and capitals with good stiff leaf foliage. The 

 half-round east respond, which forms part of the 

 compound pier of the transept, has also a stiff-leaf 

 capital and square abacus, and the pier has also shafts 

 at the angles with foliated capitals and moulded 

 bases above a chamfered plinth. From the north 

 aisle an arch (now destroyed) was made into the 

 transept, springing from short angle-shafts in the 

 wall and from the back of the compound pier, some 

 2 ft. beow the arches of the nave.' 



The great west tower was built in the second quarter 

 of the 13th century, and intruded on the west end 

 of the 12th-century nave, cutting it short by half a 

 bay, and shortly after, about 1250, the nave was 

 lengthened to the east by three bays, the old arches 

 immediately adjoining the new work being adapted 

 to it — on the south side by leaving a portion of the 

 12th-century respond capital above the capital of 

 the new pier, and on the north by the retention 

 of the impost block, new piers taking the place of the 

 original east responds. The aisle walls appear to 

 have been rebuilt at the same time, except, perhaps, 



•• Rent & Surv. (P.R.O.) ptf. 20, 

 no. 15. 



' It was of comparatively modern date. 



® The massive stonework beneath the 

 eastern piers of the present nave suggests 

 that the early nave extended farther east, 

 but the length seems abnormal for an earlj 

 12th-century building. 



' There are indications of a transverst 

 arch across the south aisle in the same 

 position. 



183 



