Structural Survey and Research Summary
A more detailed article on the work involved in the restoration of the Windmill. Structural Survey
Measurements taken and recorded include all significant features within the tower namely, the relationship of doorways, windows, floors, stairways and beam pockets as well as a close examination of the coping- stones.
The recorded physical detail is continually being assessed to ascertain how known basic components of a milling process were arranged within the structure.
Recorded dimensions of the stone structure include an external diameter of 6.16.m (20.15 ft) and a 3.8m (12.5 ft) diameter internally at the base, giving a typical wall thickness of 1.2m (4 ft).
The height of the tower stonework is 9.0m (29.5 ft) with external and internal diameters at the top (the coping stones) of 4.7m (15.45 ft) and 3.8 m (12.5 ft) respectively.
The tower is slightly battered to a height of approximately 7.0m (23ft) giving a wall thickness of 0.45m, then rising to 9.0m.
The wall construction comprises limestone blocks of varying sizes at the inner and outer surfaces with limestone rubble in-filling.
The mill appears to have had four floor levels.
There are two identical doorways at ground floor level, more-or-less diametrically opposite each other, in a general southerly & northerly orientation.
Indications are that both ground floor doorways had two opening doors of typical 17th Century construction, which were “usually made from simple boards (planks), with external doors cross-boarded for strength”. – University of Newcastle GURU Electronic Working Paper No 35 section 4.
The doorway outer dimensions are 1.22m (4 ft) wide, 2.13m (7 ft) high with the doors recessed in from the outer wall by 0.46m (1.58 ft) at the base and 0.38m (1.25 ft) at the top.
The first floor level, - possibly the stone floor - is 2.44m (8.0 ft) above ground level and has an internal diameter of approximately 3.9m (12.8 ft).
At the ‘stone floor, there are two chimneys or ventilation shafts in a south-easterly and north-westerly orientation rising up between the inner and outer stonework and exiting at high level (5.5m. or 18 ft).
These chimney or ventilation shaft exits are situated in a position such that the prevailing south- westerly winds would create an up-draught across the openings hence drawing milling dust from the stone floor!
There are no visible signs within the rising ducts of fire/smoke residue, however, there is a possibility that such signs could have disappeared over time.
Research shows that later version mills had stone-cases built-in to encase the grinding stones thereby containing the dust generated through milling, which should have removed the need for ventilation shaft?
Windmills of the dimensions presented would almost certainly have had two pairs of under-driven stones, hence the greater height of ground to first floor level.
The great spur wheel then being located at the stone floor level.
A governor, if fitted would have been belt driven from the stone spindle – the centrifugal governor for millstones not having been in use until the late1700’s.
Though a sieve or bolter devise, for separation of the flour, had been introduced in 1614, a machine having three grading facilities, appears not to have been patented until 1765.
A centrifugal bolter was not available until 1850 – Freese (p16).
It is unlikely that either of these features would have been fitted retrospectively.
At second floor level – possibly the bin floor – where the internal diameter is approximately similar to the first floor with walls of 0.48m (1.57 ft) thick there are four apertures (north, south, east, west facing) passing through the inner and outer walls of the tower (currently bricked-up) which appear to have taken two horizontal beams of approximately 0.43 x 0.43m square section.
The orientation of these two beams appears to be south to east and west to north.
See attached floor plan
Could these beams have carried the great spur wheel and associated equipment also the grain storage bins.
Would they have provided an external structure for supporting a walkway around the outside of the tower, accessed externally?
The remaining major components would be typical of the era.
Two windows are situated at each of the second and third floors, the windows at 2nd floor level have a west and east orientation whereas the 3rd floor windows are facing south-west and north- east.
Currently, there is some doubt regarding the position at which the third, or top, floor – the dust floor - is situated.
There are nine recesses of dimension 0.127 x 0.127x 0.178m located around the inner wall at a height approximately 1.12m below the coping stones.
Two oak beams – possibly original – each of 4.15m x 0.15 x 0.23 section were in position at 1.3m below the coping stones.
There are also five regular sized sections built into the inner circumference of the tower at approximately 1.83m (6 ft) below the coping stones having dimensions, 0.46m (1.58 ft) in length, 0.18m (0.58 ft) high and 0.23m (0.75 ft) deep.
The floor plan, the photograph and the associated diagrams depict the relative positioning of these three sets of apertures – see figures 1,2 & 3.
Research Summary
Mills and milling in and around Much Wenlock, as with most other places at the time, was an important part of ‘estate development and had significant local social and economic influences.
A recent publication – ‘A History of Much Wenlock’ – Bellamy Vivien (2001) provides an insight into how the largest landowner and Lord of the Manor, the Prior of Much Wenlock’s Benedictine Priory, controlled law and order as well as fuel and food production for the locality, from the Norman Conquest until dissolution of the monasteries by Henry V111.
Bellamy highlights how the monks managed woodland and farms themselves and let land to tenants.
Before the introduction of the potato, in Tudor times, bread was the staple food for the majority; the flour was no doubt milled locally
Holt. R. ‘The Mills of Medieval England’ (1988) also provides an extensive presentation of the interactions of manorial lords and their legal rights for “enforcing tenants to use the manorial mill, and to extort an excessive fee for the privilege” thus ensuring a profitable return on their investment.
However, there were many demesne mills – mills held by freehold tenants- and some mills were owned and operated by feudal serfs.
Holt reflects that throughout the thirteenth century “a large number of mills, not under the direct control of the manor (independent mills), survived “the less favourable conditions” brought about, in part, by the Black Death which swept England resulting in a population decline and stagnation ultimately making demesne agriculture un-economic.
The water mills serving the monastery upto and beyond the dissolution may have fallen into the ‘winter mills’ category identified by Holt. R. who identified Shropshire as being one of three counties where mills described in the Domesday Book were referred to as ‘winter mills’ because they were ‘marginal enterprises on inadequate streams’
Some could equally have been ‘fullers mills (the cleansing and thickening of cloth), as “fulling was found outside the town though it had ceased at Wigwig mill by 1695”. The monks would no doubt have had a need for the cloth produced.
However, these early independent mills of limited and irregular output capacity, production inefficiency and reduced profitability may have been adequate to satisfy the needs of their tenant, or serf-owners.
The fourteenth century saw a move by the Lord of the Manor to develop a windmill that would be more technologically advanced and presumably capable of greater outputs.
A major change would be to install a vertical brake-wheel instead of a horizontal one as in the water mills, this would required a robust vertical tower structure – this would have been a wooden tower mill.
At the turn of the 15th century the stone tower mill was introduced. These towers were able to hold bigger, more powerful and, presumably more efficient milling equipment.
This change would have required greater skills for designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the mills, consequently, only the landlords could have financed these developments. They would, therefore, enjoy greater control over the industry locally with the resultant financial rewards.
These activities would have been too expensive for a tenant or serf-owner to undertake.
The advent of the ‘soke’ (control of milling rights) also made the windmill a major asset to the lord with the income from mills being a significant contribution to the estate finances.
As the tower mill was being introduced the existing local water mills would have been approaching the end of their useful life; they may even have been under different ownership to the windmill.
The prime purpose for building the windmill could have been one of supplementing, or even replacing, the output of both the local and estate’s watermills!
The economic welfare of the local community would have been heavily dependent on the landlord and the continuing outputs from the estate mills.
The previous sections covering ‘site ownership, and the known ‘history of the tower’ indicate that it was built pre 1685 , the Lawley - Bertie site ownership era.
Why it was built, however, is still a matter of conjecture.
There is an opinion that the original tower height could have been less than the current height of 9m – by approximately 2m, ie. to the top of the batter. The stone work does not appear to support this view. The ‘line of stonework, internally and externally, at the lower level – 7m - does not appear to match, also the coping stones at the present height are ‘dressed’ and sized to exactly match the wall thickness.
A mortar analysis at selected heights within the tower may provide an indication as to whether or not the building is of two separate periods!
Hill. Richard L – ‘A History of Windmill Technology – makes reference to a mill at Zeddam (Holland) where;
“ there are now wooden winches inside the cap which engage with wooden gearing around the curb (fig 33).
He continues with a reference to some Dutch drainage mills where the cap contained a winch with anchor points on the wall.
Could these five elongated pockets shown in the figures 1, 2 and 3 be anchor points?
Efforts are continuing to establish the function of these two sets of construction features, the nine and five pockets, and hence confirm the position of the third floor level being at the two cross-beams.
Whilst the technical survey, detailed above, does not totally support a moveable cap, a ‘fixed cap’ mill would have been of limited output and incapable of meeting the ever increasing demand for milled grain.
This would not be a financially viable arrangement for the mill owner.
Identification of an original cap design remains a subject for further research, however, it is likely that the roof cap would be of similar construction to typical 17th & 18th century tower mills of the region, namely, wooden, boat shaped cap of appropriate physical dimension.
R.J. De Little “The Windmill Yesterday and Today (1972) (pp25-26) provides an insight into caps for Shropshire mills with,
“The tower of a very old mill at Gayton (Cheshire) is very short but strong, and is built from large red stone blocks. The cap of this mill is typical of Cheshire and Shropshire Mills”.
Whether the cap was fixed or it could be rotated remains a matter of conjecture,
Freese S. – Windmills and Millwrighting (1971) p7 states that,
“In brick or stone built tower-mills (the) curb is secured by four or more very long and substantial stay bolts reaching down 10 to 15ft into the brickwork, which may have to be chopped away to get at the bolts if the curb ever needs renewing”.
During the re-setting of the coping stones around the tower top no indications were apparent of such a curb attachment neither are there any signs lower down the internal surface of the tower where the end of bolts could be accessed!
Equally, there are no visible signs, externally, indicating that a tail-pole had been used to ‘wind the sails.
Holt also provides an insight into operational and maintenance problems experienced in tower mills (p123),
‘ The regular services of smiths, for instance, were called upon, as it was generally considered essential for certain parts of the mill to be made of iron.
Principally these were the spindle, usually called the fusillum, and the rynd or ynkum which was the iron fitting that held the upper millstone or runner, so that it rested on and moved with the spindle.
Not surprisingly, the spindle needed to be strong to support the constant weight of the millstone running perhaps at over one hundred revolutions per minute’.
The brief references included above are samples of available, documented, material covering the introduction and technological development of windmills in general. Their inclusion has assisted interpretation of the survey data of the Wenlock tower.
Amongst these references are some interesting similarities, and differences, to our site observations.
Wherever possible authenticated data from a wide source of, often sparse, records has being used throughout the research for this project.
Back to Much Wenlock Windmill Preservation Trust |
