See important guidance on the use of this record.

If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary

The medieval perimeter wall of the Bishop's Palace survives on the west side for a length of c120 metres. A small section circa 11 metres long also survives on the south side.

Location

Protected Status

• Scheduled Monument 1008679: Bishop's Palace

Other References/Statuses

• Old DCC SMR Ref: SX87NE/1/4
• Old Listed Building Ref (II)
• Old SAM County Ref: 297
• Old SAM Ref: 24838

Monument Type(s) and Dates

• WALL (Medieval - 1066 AD to 1539 AD (Between))

Full description

Department of National Heritage, Bishop's Palace, Chudleigh: Inspector's Report (Un-published). SDV340551.

Ancient Monuments, 1953, Chudleigh, Bishops' Palace (Schedule Document). SDV340550.

Laithwaite, J. M., 1987, The Bishop's Palace at Chudleigh (Report - Survey). SDV338012.

Gibbons, P., 1993, Bishop's Palace, Chudleigh (Un-published). SDV338010.

The perimeter wall of the Bishop's Palace survives on the west side for a length of c120m. At the farmhouse it is incorporated into back of modern garages. Between garages and remains of vaulted building it is interrupted by a square tower-like structure projecting to west. Wall extends to south, beyond vaulted building, and is lost in hedgeline. No coping survives. Highest point is 2.7m. Putlog holes and splayed arched loops noted between tower and terrace; putlog holes north of tower in area subject to recent repairs. Evidence of former opening immediately north of tower, but this area has been recently damaged. A section of the wall is visible along south perimeter, where it retains higher land to south, surviving to c 0.6m above the terrace. The remainder has the appearance of a later field wall. On east side the only visible remains are an isolated section 8m long, 2m high, overgrown by hedge 9m south of stables

Department of National Heritage, 1996, Bishop's Palace (Schedule Document). SDV340552.

Parker, R. W., 1999, Archaeological Recording at Palace Farm, Chudleigh (Report - Survey). SDV336345.

The surviving ruins and earthworks of the Bishop's Palace occupy a large triangular area lying to the south of the farm buildings. The area is bounded to the north east by rock road (which may represent the original approach to the palace) and to the south east by a footpath leading along the top edge of a deep quarry. The farmhouse and farm buildings lie in the valley bottom between 70 and 90m north of the ruins; these structures were close to the demolished gatehouse, and probably preserve the northern limit of the palace precinct. The western edge of the precinct is defined by a 120m length of wall, parts of which contain medieval arrow slits and other features. Part of the south wall remains, but the east wall does not survive and the extent of the precinct in this direction is unknown.
The south boundary wall survives for 11m at the south west corner of the site. It is constructed of local rubble stone bonded with creamy-white lime mortar, and contains 2 putlog holes. No trace of a coping or plinth remains, and it is likely that the wall has been truncated. To the east of this section of wall the line of the medieval precinct is uncertain, and has probably been destroyed by the encroachment of the quarry and the widening of the roads. The walls on the south east and north east sides of the site are irregular and of much cruder construction than the medieval masonry, consisting of mud-bonded rubble with no putlog holes or other features. These walls are likely to be post-medieval. Much of the north east boundary of the site is formed by hedge banks and the line of the precinct wall cannot be discerned with any confidence. A small area of possibly medieval masonry survives on this boundary, close to the farm buildings and standing to a considerable height. This wall is much obscured by ivy; it does not appear to contain either putlog holes or arrow slits and the character of the masonry is unlike the medieval work elsewhere. It is therefore possible that this wall relates to post-medieval farm buildings rather than to the palace itself. On the west side of the farmhouse the boundary of the precinct is clearly defined by the surviving lengths of perimeter wall, extending 100m from the farmhouse to a modem gateway south of the ruins. The wall is broken at a distance of 40m from the farmhouse by an rectangular projection, beyond which the wall changes alignment. Below the projection the precinct wall is well constructed in local rubble stone and shows evidence of 3 building lifts, rising to follow the contour of the land. This part of the wall apparently contained putlog holes, though none are now visible due to later repairs. It does not retain any arrow slits and it is on a different alignment from the wall to the south, but despite this it may well be of medieval date. The rectangular projection projects through the line of the west perimeter wall into the adjoining field. The quoins at the external comers of the projection consist of large limestone blocks and are quite substantial, but the walls themselves are very irregular and do not appear to be bonded with the adjoining precinct wall. The original mortar type could not be determined with confidence. This building has been tentatively interpreted as the base of a mural tower (see Laithwaite 1987) perhaps similar to that surviving among the ruins of the Bishops Palace at Paignton. The walls of the projection seem insufficiently thick to have supported a tower (though this may be a result of repair or rebuilding above thicker, deeper foundations), and it seems more likely that the projection is the remains of a smaller building. The west wall contains a clear vertical break (visible internally) which may represent the jamb of a blocked opening. Unfortunately no corresponding jamb or break was visible due to the dense covering of ivy, and no stone dressings or other datable features remain. There is insufficient evidence to show whether this structure originated as a medieval building connected with the palace or simply as a farm building. Adjoining the rectangular projection is an opening in the wall fitted with a modem farm gate. The south jamb of this opening is slightly rebated, and it is possible that an earlier gateway existed in this position. For 60m south of the gate the boundary is formed by a high wall, 0.76m thick, constructed of local rubble stone bonded with white lime mortar. The lower part of the wall is partially buried and the wall has also been reduced in height. It is not known whether it was originally surmounted by crenellations or by a coping. Parts of the wall have collapsed and almost all is densely covered with ivy, but the wall contains many putlog holes and a series of narrow windows or arrow slits. These slits measure approximately 0.1 by 0.6m. They have no dressings or mouldings, and are difficult to see from outside the precinct. Internally the slits have deep, splayed embrasures with arched heads, which measure 0.84 by 0.8m at their widest. Six arrow slits were observed; 2 of which, to the south of the vaulted building, are extremely ruinous. Two blocked slits can be seen within the later shed attached to the west side of the vaulted building, and beyond this to the north two further slits survive intact. The arrow slits appear initially to be grouped in pairs; however this is probably accidental. Several may have been destroyed by the collapse of parts of the wall (immediately south of the vaulted building) or by the insertion of doorways or other openings in the wall (two such openings can be clearly distinguished within the modem shed to the nw of the vaulted building). If it can be assumed that the arrow slits were spaced at regular intervals, between 6 and 7m apart, there would be room for nine in this stretch of wall.
The defensive capacity of this wall is somewhat limited; it is very thin and the arrow slits are small, with narrow embrasures limiting their effectiveness for archery (J. Freeman pers. comm). The arrow slits could perhaps have been intended as decorative features; however they are not distinguished by dressings or other architectural features. The severity of the architecture, without dressings, buttresses or other articulation, certainly gives an impression of utility.
Beyond the ruins of the vaulted building the wall terminates at a modern gateway. This gateway cuts the wall and may be a modern opening. The north jamb of this opening had cracked due to a tree growing within the wall core. This has now been removed and the jamb has been rebuilt. Beyond this gateway the remaining 47m of the boundary is formed by a hedge running on a slightly different alignment than the medieval wall to meet the s boundary. Fortunately, part of the medieval s boundary wall survives. This has a wall scar at its west end which fixes the position of the south west corner of the palace precinct some 3.5m west of the existing corner. The stone precinct wall thus seems certain to have continued to this corner. The remains of the wall were not visible within the dense foliage of the hedge, but it is possible that they survive below ground. It is not known if the arrow slits and other features also extended beyond the existing gateway. The west perimeter wall is well preserved, and is divided into upper and lower sections with quite different characteristics. The lower section has a pronounced series of building lifts, but no other architectural features, while the upper section features arrow slits which seem to have been regularly spaced along its length. The rectangular projection at the junction between the two sections of wall is difficult to date and interpret. It may be a post-medieval rebuilding; however it does seem to mark the change in the character of the perimeter wall. The possibility remains that the palace precinct had inner and outer courtyards with different degrees of fortification. The RCHME plan of the earthworks shows a linear earthwork running across the palace precinct from the south end of the rectangular projection to the hedge alongside rock road. This may represent the line of a wall dividing the precinct into two courtyards. It is possible that the dividing wall terminated with mural towers similar to that surviving at Paignton. The arrow slits in the south section of the wall could provide a level of protection against limited egression, such as local brigandage or lawlessness, but may have been constructed simply to impress or to provide a prospect over the adjoining countryside.

Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, 1999, The Bishop's Palace, Chudleigh (Report - Survey). SDV338015.

Parker, R. + Allan, J. + Fletcher, M. + Higham, R. + Laithwaite, M., 2006, The Bishop's Palace at Chudleigh, 203-210 (Article in Serial). SDV338151.

Lengths of stone boundary wall standing up to 2.9m high define three sides of the enclosure. These are probably of medieval date indicating that the modern site boundaries correspond to those of the palace precinct. See article for full details.

Sources / Further Reading

Associated Monuments

Associated Finds: none recorded

Associated Events

• EDV4200 - Archaeological Projects at the Bishops Palace at Chudleigh

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.