2.   THE SETTING.

'The parish of Halifax covers an area of 124 square miles or nearly 80,000 acres.  In 1574 it was stated by Camden to have contained a population of about 12,000 souls, and such was then the native, unreclaimed sterility of the soil in general, that he asserts there were more human beings, than beasts of all sorts besides, in that extensive tract of county.

 

                                                Yorkshire Gazette, 17th January 1829, p. 3

 

 

Historical Geography and the Religious Context.

 

The parish of Halifax was the largest in Great Britain at the dawn of the Victorian era.  It dwarfed neighbouring Bradford, with 25,289 acres, yet that too was vast compared with almost anywhere in the south. The county of Rutland, which contained over fifty parishes, comprised 97,500 acres in total.

 

 

Moreover, the topography of these great moorland tracts was challenging in all seasons, and journeys to the mother church, rarely attempted in normal times, could be long and arduous when they were.  Lying across the Pennine Chain, the two erstwhile parishes form part of a deeply dissected plateau, rising to an average height around 450m. (1,500 feet), cut through by a succession of east/west trending valleys descending to below 50m. (160 feet).  In the north and west, the fells formed of Carboniferous grits and sandstones are windswept, acidic, barren and intractable;  in the south and east, the overlying Coal Measures give rise to heavy, sometimes boggy soils, capable of reclamation for agriculture, but often holding greater potential for heavy industrial development.

 

 

This was thus a region transformed during the industrial revolution, and by the clothing industries in particular. 'The worsted industry was flourishing in Yorkshire as early as the middle of the thirteenth century.' [1].  It was 'apparently forsaken... in favour of the staple kerseys and dozens' [2], but reappeared in the late seventeenth century and grew rapidly in scale and importance with the development of mechanisation from around 1770.  John James, writing in 1866, described the development of the clothing trades in Bradford from an eighteenth century cottage industry to a position where, by 1850, 35,124 children and adults were employed, spinning and weaving in the mills, a figure 'prepared from the Returns of the Factory Inspectors of the House of Commons' [3], while Lunds’ Directory just six years later recorded 33,597 people involved specifically in worsted manufacture in the borough as revealed by the 1851 census, compared to 17,666 in all other trades together [4]. This went hand-in-hand with a population growth in Bradford from 29,794 in 1801 to 149,543 half a century afterwards, and in Halifax, from 63,434 to 141,113.  These populations were divided between thirteen discrete townships in Bradford parish and twenty-three in Halifax [5], many of which would have been little more than isolated farmsteads during the Middle Ages but several of which, by 1851, had coalesced into congested, pestiferous slums.  Speculative builders might take sole responsibility for the hastily erected, back-to-back and terraced workers’ housing springing up everywhere in narrow grid-row streets or enclosed yards without water or sanitation, but there was clearly a desperate need for the specialist architect across-the-board.

 

 

However, the greatest cause of anxiety for many of the great and the good was the shortage of church accommodation for the labouring poor, as articulated by the Archbishop of York in 1861.  It was, he said, 'important that those... who live in disregard of religion, curbing neither their passions nor their appetites, careful for the present but careless for the future, should have their spiritual wants attended to, and their hearts made to yearn for those blessings promised in the gospel, which are able to give them peace here and peace thereafter' [6].  This was merely the most recent formulation of a long-standing concern.  Unease over the Established Church’s lack of provision in the burgeoning towns and cities had been voiced by the Prince Regent as far back as 1818, following which Parliament passed the Church Building Act of that year and Commissioners were appointed to distribute the one million pounds (later one and a half million) set aside under the Act to support the building of new churches in 'parishes with a population exceeding [10,000] in which there was not church room for one-fourth, or in which more than 4,000 lived over four miles from the nearest church' [7].  Thus church construction assumed the position of a national priority even while it was becoming ever more evident that with the dramatic growth in the urban population, even the heroic efforts being made to rise to the challenge only amounted to running to stand still.  This is exemplified by the townships incorporated into Bradford borough in 1847 - Bradford itself, Bowling, Horton and Manningham - which had a combined population in 1801 of 13,264 and were served solely by the parish church with a seating capacity of 1,200 [8], corresponding to a provision of a mere 9.0%, and for which in 1851, after a huge increase in population and the building of several new churches, the figures were respectively 103,788 and 10,026 [9], equivalent to a provision of 9.7%.  The Ripon Diocesan Church Building Society had been established during this period (in 1838) and had already distributed grants totalling £5,180 for the building of churches and parsonage houses and for the endowment of the former by 21st March the following year [10].  Many more churches were built over the next few decades, yet the 1861 meeting in York, addressed by Archbishop Longley (after his translation from Ripon via Durham), returned to the same problem and now proposed the setting up of the York Diocesan Church Building and Endowment Society, with similar aims to the Ripon Society, attracting immediate contributions from some of those assembled after 'the [continuing] spiritual destitution of the West Riding' had been lamented by Lord Wenlock, and  the failure of the West Riding coal-owners to show the same concern as the East Riding landowners to supply the spiritual wants of the population, had been deprecated by the Hon. Admiral Buncombe, M.P. [11].

 

 

Moreover, it was also widely recognized that where the Established Church was absent, Dissent  flooded in.  In 1842 there were three places of worship for the Church of England in Halifax including the parish church, one for the Roman Catholics, and (probably) twelve for Nonconformists [12].  Bradford had six places of worship for the Established Church including the parish church, one for the Roman Catholics, and nineteen for Nonconformists [13].  That was not entirely an accurate reflection of their respective memberships admittedly, but the only religious census ever undertaken was that carried out in 1851 when ministers of religion were asked to complete returns of the numbers of attendees at morning, afternoon and evening services on Sunday, 30th March.  Much has been written about the shortcomings of this survey: not all ministers co-operated and even where the census was completed in full, it was impossible to know what percentages of their congregations had attended (and thus been counted) more than once during the day.  Indeed the returns for Halifax were particularly incomplete and unsatisfactory, but the fuller returns for Bradford recorded 10,155 attendances for the Church of England, 4,028 for the Roman Catholics, and 30,122 for the Nonconformists, giving a total of 44,305 [14]. The Church of England’s share was 22.9%.  Clearly there was work to do whenever the money could be found.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

The Confraternity of Grantors.

 

The Commissioners appointed under the 1818 Church Building Act were originally only empowered to divide large parishes into smaller ones with the consent of the patron and the diocesan, but a church could be constructed anywhere and designated a chapel-of-ease as that did not diminish the endowment of the mother church [15].  Accordingly, a set of conditions was drawn up and attention turned to the designs of churches that would be considered acceptable.  Economy was essential but 'buildings [would need to] be clearly recognizable as those of the Established Church: a tower would be necessary, perhaps even a spire' [16].  The maximum sum to be awarded to an individual building was set at £20,000.  'General undertakers' would not usually be permitted but 'every artificer [should] be separately contracted with to perform the work belonging to his trade' [17].  The choice of the site and the architect was to be left to the parish but all plans submitted to the Commission would have to be passed before the Crown Architects for their approval (replaced after 1832 by the Commissioners’ own surveyor) [18].  Such oversight was considered necessary as a generally low opinion was held of local architects.  Besides, the Commissioners had no desire to part too readily with Government money, but rather hoped to eke out the funds to achieve maximum effect.  With the passage of time, this would be taken ever more towards extremes, for while grants became smaller and smaller, there was to be no corresponding diminution in the Commissioners’ interference.  Thus there arose, over three and a half decades, the six hundred or so, 'Commissioners’ Churches', some well and substantially built, many others with the thin, starved appearance that so enraged Pugin in 1836:

 

'The church commissioners... require a structure as plain as possible, which can be built for a trifling sum, and of small dimensions, both for economy and facilities of hearing the preacher, the sermon being the only part of the service considered;  and I hesitate not to say, that a more meager, miserable display of architectural skill was never made... than in the mass of paltry churches erected under the auspices of the commissioners... - a disgrace to the age, both on the score of their composition, and the miserable sums that have been allotted for their construction.' [19].

 

 

However, the Commissioners were not the only people Churchmen could turn to for help with church building or restoration. The Incorporated Church Building Society (ICBS) had been constituted under the auspices of the Church of England a few months before the Church Commission was set up and before it was evident whether the Government would take any action if its own, with the aim of promoting 'public worship by obtaining additional church-room for the middle and lower classes' (in which, needless-to-say, only Anglican worship was envisaged), to which end it was to seek subscriptions and award grants in appropriate cases, not exceeding £500 or a quarter of the cost of the project, whichever was less [20].  After the Commission was established, the Society declared it would focus its efforts on helping parishes where the Commission would or could not [21], and since the Commission’s terms of reference prevented it from giving money to parishes with 'not more than' 10,000 inhabitants, a substantial part of the Society’s efforts was concentrated on those with less [22].  Nonetheless, any hopes applicants might have had that the Society would be easier to work with than the Commission were never likely to be fulfilled, not least because the Church Commissioners' own grumpy architect, John Henry Good, who succeeded the Crown Architects in 1826 and continued in post until 1857, was also the ICBS's examining architect from 1829-1848 [23].

 

 

As for the Ripon Diocesan Church Building Society, this obviously existed purely to assist church building within its jurisdiction, but for any project that was eligible, it often proved the most generous [24].  From 1841 it became the Society’s practice to hold its annual general meeting conjointly with the Ripon Diocesan Board of Education, established that year 'to promot[e], improv[e] and extend... popular education according to the principles of the Established Church' [25].

 

 

When it came to other types of buildings associated with the Established Church, however, there were other bodies to approach.  Thus in the case of parsonages, where ancient buildings urgently needed renovating and new ones were required as the Church sought to reduce pluralism, an incumbent might seek an interest-free loan from the Queen Anne’s Bounty Office, originally established in the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14) to redistribute royal taxes on ecclesiastical benefices known as the First Fruits and Tenths, which had long been misappropriated [26].  The money was expected to be repaid at 5% per annum [27].  Then associated with Queen Anne’s Bounty Office from 1835, if only because it had similar objectives, was the Ecclesiastical Commission [28], embodied that year under the style of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Commission and tasked with overseeing a fairer distribution of the Church’s income [29].  This was highly controversial:  interference by a secular Parliament in the property rights of the Church met enormous resistance, notwithstanding that it was generally recognised there were some extreme inequalities. The Cathedrals Act of 1840 established the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Common Fund, which, in exceptionally vague language, was to be used to make 'additional provision... for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance is most required, in such manner as shall... be deemed most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church [30]. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners set out their 'Rules and Instructions respecting Parsonage Houses, to which strict Attention [was] particularly requested' in a document published in 1859 [31].  Architects had to submit:  (i) 'a block plan of the site, with the points of the compass marked, showing the position of the house, and the directions of the drains, etc., together with sections indicating the slope of the ground (if any), and a description of the substratum on which the house is to be built, whether loam, sand, clay, chalk, rock, or otherwise';  (ii) 'a plan of each floor, including basement and attics (if any)';  (iii) 'a plan of the roofs';  (iv) 'an elevation of each front';  and (v) 'two sections, at the least'.  There then followed details about how the specification was to be set out, the materials to be used for the building, the required thickness of the walls and scantlings of all the timbers, and even the number of coats of paint to be applied (four).  The award of a grant had to be truly necessary to justify the work and trouble applying for one created.

 

 

Provision was made for Church schools through the auspices of the National Society, founded in 1811, which obtained its funds through the dutifulness of church-goers, as William Cobbett had complained in 1823 [32] in typically sardonic language and whose hopelessly optimistic aim was to establish a church school in every parish throughout the land.  To this end, grants were awarded to parishes subject to three conditions: (i) that money would only be given to supplement local effort, not replace it;  (ii) that new schools had to be opened free from debt; and (iii) that building sites had to be freehold or, as a minimum, held on a sufficiently long lease to satisfy the committee [33]. Stipulations affecting architects included that they should enclose a minimum floor area of six square feet per child (which although extraordinarily cramped by today’s standards, was considered generous at the time) and that ceilings should be at least nine feet high (raised to ten feet in 1825) [34]. This regime was modified in 1834 when the government began to provide the Society with an annual subsidy - an award which had the inevitable long-term effect of diminishing both the Society’s and the Church’s influence and authority.

 

 

Thereafter, until the passing of William Forster’s Education Act of 1870, it would doubtless have proved just as difficult to accommodate the conflicted but inexorable rise in demand for better standards in literacy and numeracy, as it would to have made adequate provision for religious worship or the decent lodging of the clergy, even had the population been stable, which it manifestly was not [36].  As matters stood, with the population of England and Wales rising from 9.9 million in 1801 to 17.9 million five decades later, these things were completely unachievable without what would then have been considered a wholly unacceptable level of government interference.  Moreover, the difficulties were underscored, if not necessarily exacerbated, by Robert Peel’s perfectly sensible New Parishes Act of 28th July 1843, under which, with the agreement of the diocesan only, and with the purely token concession that the incumbent should be given the opportunity to object, 'Parishes, Chapelries, and Districts of great Extent, and containing a large Population, wherein or in Parts whereof the Provision for Public Worship and for Pastoral Superintendence is insufficient for the Spiritual Wants of the Inhabitants thereof' [37] could be subdivided into new parishes, which then, of course, needed churches, parsonages and schools of their own.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

 

The Climate of Professional Competition.

 

There was, therefore, a lot of work available for architects in West Yorkshire in the 1840s and ’50s, and one might reasonably expect professional men quickly to have been drawn in.  However, although it is difficult to assess the precise level of competition faced by an architect in the sub-county during these years, standards were inevitably low in a profession anyone could join, and there were certainly less men who were hopeful of breaking into the ecclesiastical field than were making the attempt in the domestic or industrial.

 

 

No methodology meets all possible objections where establishing a negative is concerned, but probably the best demonstration of the shortage of competent church architects  involves counting the churches built within the historic boundaries of the West Riding between 1818 (the year of the million pound grant) and 1844 (the year before Mallinson and Healey entered into partnership) and considering them individually to see who built them [37], and this exercise reveals that about one hundred and twenty-eight churches (depending upon which 'restorations' or 'rebuilds' are thought to justify inclusion) were designed within this period by forty-two different architects or architectural firms of whom twenty-eight were responsible for one church only [38], five were dead by 1845 [39], five more were based outside the West Riding [40], and the remaining four were Robert Dennis Chantrell of Leeds, who had designed twenty churches to date but would shortly be relocating to London [41], Joseph & Robert Potter of Sheffield, who designed three, J.P. Pritchett of York & Halifax, who designed nine, and Walker Rawstorne of Bradford, who designed six. This, to put it no higher, does not suggest a business environment crowded with established ecclesiastical architects where any new entrant into the profession would struggle to raise his head.

 

 

Moreover a similar conclusion is reached when an examination of the contemporary trade directories is made.  William White’s Directory... of the Yorkshire Clothing Districts for 1842 records a grand total of twenty-six men describing themselves as 'architects' in the five towns of Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Leeds and Wakefield together, nine of whom are among the forty-two men referenced above, while of the remaining seventeen, none seem to have designed any churches at all.

 

 

All this runs counter to the generally accepted notion that significant architectural contracts in the Victorian period were awarded through hotly subscribed competitions.  This may have been the case in London and was, admittedly, also true of some of the more important municipal buildings erected contemporaneously in the provinces.  Thus there were an unspecified number of entries in Halifax to the competition to design the public baths in 1857 [42], and in Bradford to the competitions to select an architect for the Bradford 'Peel' Monument in 1853 [43] and for the new Horton College in 1858 [44].  There were thirty-two entries for the competition to design Bradford Town Hall in 1869, although significantly here, 'nearly half [were] from London, some from even further afield and very few from West Yorkshire' [45].  Moreover the competition may have been largely spurious anyway since the award went to the Bradford firm of Lockwood and Mawson (formed in 1849) as some of their more perspicacious co-entrants may have suspected it would all along.  A letter published in The Bradford Observer on April 24th, 1862, addressed this concern directly:

 

'I may point to one or two disadvantages to which competitions are undoubtedly open...  1st. It is evident the cream of the profession won’t compete, because such men, having already large businesses flowing in spontaneously, can’t waste their time on uncertainties, and even if the competition is limited, the objection applies equally; 2nd. The only supposition upon which competition can be desirable is, that they are really open, or, if limited, that not a particle of bias be allowed to operate.  Will each member of the committee pledge himself that he will not look at a single sketch, plan, or motto, before the competition day?  nor acquaint himself with the authorship of a single plan before the final decision has taken place?  Because unless this, and the whole of this, is absolutely adhered to, competitions are illusions.' [46]

 

 

However, when it comes to finding any evidence for ecclesiastical architectural competitions in West Yorkshire, this proves to be very slight.  A competition for a new Independent chapel at Lister Hills, Bradford, attracted 'several designs' in 1851 [47], but the only proven competitions held for the Church of Engand in which Mallinson and Healey were involved appear to have been at Llandeilo (Carms.) in 1845, Heptonstall in 1849 [48], Bacup (Lancs.) in 1859 [49], and Bramley in 1860/61 [50].  Certainly the industrialist, Edward Akroyd, did not hold one when he decided to build All Souls’, Haley Hill, in 1856;  nor did the Conservative politician, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, when he was contemplating building All Saints’, Horton, in 1860, and these buildings were, architecturally, the most important Victorian churches erected in Halifax and Bradford by a comfortable margin.  That is not to say that such competitions may not have been more usual in other parts of the country, and at Llandeilo, for instance, no less than '[f]ifty-two architects entered the hopelessly organised competition of 1846 for a large Gothic church at under £3.000', Mallinson and Healey among them - understandably, since this was advertised at the very outset of their partnership, when they would obviously have been intent on establishing themselves.  Even then, however, no great amount of time was wasted on this speculative venture for Healey simply sent off a lithograph of the church he had just designed for Mytholmroyd, viewed from a different angle, and, naturally enough, with all references to its original destination removed [51].

 

 

Of course it is another significant step from all this circumstantial evidence to the conclusion that the building of new churches in Halifax and Bradford parishes in the period 1818-45 was actually constrained by the lack of architects available to design them, but what is beyond dispute is that very few were built.  John James spoke of the 'pause of twenty years' in church building in Bradford between the opening of Christ Church, Darley Street, in 1815, and the opening of St James’s, Manchester Road in 1836 to the designs of Walker Rawstorne [52].  Halifax is less well provided with contemporary local histories but there seems only to have been one church erected there in this period - St. James’s of 1831 (demolished), designed by John Oates [53].  Moreover, of the one hundred and four churches The Buildings of England records as constructed in the West Riding between 1845 and ’63, eighteen (17.3%) were designed by known London architects, thirty-three (31.7%) were designed by Mallinson and Healey, and only twenty-eight (26.9%) were designed by all other known West Yorkshire architects together (table 2 below).  Thus a shortage of local architects could always be supplemented by men from the metropolis and elsewhere, but that too suggests a lack of native talent and it probably appeared more reasonable to engage an architect from a distance if one proposed to build on a grand scale.

 

 

Table 2:  Churches Built in the West Riding, 1845-63, recorded in the West Riding volumes of The Buildings of England,  excluding buildings designed by Mallinson & Healey.

 (West Yorkshire architects are shaded in grey.)

 

ARCHITECT

CHURCHES

 

ARCHITECT

CHURCHES

ATKINSDON, J.B. & W. (York)  [1]

Carlton (1862) 

 

HUGALL, J.W.  (Cheltenham)  [2]

Ackworth (1855)

BACON, H.F. (?)  [1]

Mickelfield (1860) 

 

 

Spofforth (1855) 

BONOMI & CORY (Durham)  [2]

Dewsbury (1848)

 

JONES, George Fowler (York)  [1]

South Milford (1846) 

 

Oxenhope (1849)   

 

LAMB, E.B. (London)  [1]

Blubberhouses (1851)

BOYCE, P. (?)  [1]

Maltby (1859)  

 

MITCHELL, Joseph (Inverness)  [1]

Heeley (1846)

BURLEIGH, C.W. (Leeds)  [1]

Horsforth (1847)  

 

MOFFAT, W.B. (London)  [2]

Askern (1852)

BUTTERFIELD, W. (London)  [6]

Cautley (1847)

 

 

Fenwick (1852) 

 

Cowick (1853)

 

SHARP, PALEY & AUSTIN (Lancs)   [1]

Rylston (1853)

 

Huddersfield (1853) 

 

PEARSON, J.L. (London)   [1]

Eastoft (1855)

 

Pollington (1853)

 

PERKINS & BACKH’SE (Leeds)  [5]

East Morton (1849)

 

Baine (1854)

 

 

Cullingworth (1851)

 

Hensall (1854)  

 

 

Burley (1853)

CATES, A.H. (York)  [2]

Grewelthorpe (1845)

 

 

Farsley (1853) 

 

S. Stainley (1845) 

 

 

Bramley (1861) 

CHANTRELL, R.D. (Leeds)  [4]

Halifax (1847)

 

POWNHALL, F.H. (Middlesex)  [1]

Carlton-in-Craven (1859)

 

Armitage Br’ge (1848)

 

PRITCHETT, J.P. (York)  [1]

Brampton Bierlow (1853)

 

Keighley (1848)

 

RAILTON, William (London)  [1]

Meanwood (1849)

 

Middleton (1852) 

 

RAWSTORNE, Walker (Bradford)  [1]

Eccleshill (1846)

CHILD, Charles (of Halifax) [ 1]

Todmorden (1846) 

 

RUSHWORTH, T. (?)  [1]

Greetland (1860)

CORSON, W.R. (Leeds)  [1]

Greenhow (1857) 

 

SALVIN, Anthony (London)  [1]

Aberford (1861)

CROSSLAND, W.H. (Huddersf’ld)  [2]

Huddersfield (1862)

 

SCOTT, George Gilbert (London)  [6]

Wakefield (1846)

 

Ossett (1862) 

 

 

Weeton (1851)

DERICK, J.M. (Dublin)  [1]

Leeds (1845) 

 

 

Bilton (1855)

DOBSON, Jeremiah (?)  [1]

 Gomersal (1850) 

 

 

Cadeby (1856)

DYKES, W.H. (?)  [1]

Outwood (1857) 

 

 

Doncaster (1858)

EATON, JOHN (?)  [1]

Denshaw (1862) 

 

 

Haley Hill (1859)

FLOCKTON & SON (Sheffield)  [3]

Sheffield N.  (1849)

 

 

Huddersfield (1859) 

 

Sheffield City (1854)

 

SHAW, George (Saddleworth)  [1]

Friezland (1848) 

 

Netherthorpe (1856) 

 

SHAW, Thomas (Leeds)  [1]

Embsay (1852) 

FRANCIS, Horace (?)    [1]

Balby (1847

 

TROTMAN, Ebenezer (?)  [1]

Fairburn (1846)

GRIMTHORPE, LORD  [1]

Doncaster (1858)  

 

WALLEN, William (Huddersfield)  [3]

Milnsbridge (1845)

HADFIELD, M.E. (Sheffield)  [3]

Ulley (1850)

 

 

Oakworth (1846)

 

Chapeltown (1859)

 

 

Shepley (1848) 

 

Charlestown (1860) 

 

WALTON, W. (?)  [1]

Milnsbridge (1845) 

HAWKINS, Rohde (Sheffield)  [2]

Gargrave (1852)

 

WILSON, James (Bath)  [1]

Whitley (1860)

 

Birstwith (1857) 

 

TOTAL :  71 CHURCHES, inc. 28 by

West Riding architects

 

 

 

Finally, there was, of course, also a potentially self-perpetuating aspect to this lack of skilled professionals in a society of limited mobility, played out in the absence of opportunities for good local apprenticeships.  Indeed, the single exception in West Yorkshire during the second quarter of the nineteenth century would surely have been a pupillage with Robert Dennis Chantrell in Leeds, and as Chantrell is known to have taken two, three, sometimes four pupils at a time, then on the basis that the normal length of service was six or seven years, approximately eleven or twelve young men passed through Chantrell’s office between 1819 and 1847, among whom were two of Chantrell’s own sons [54].  What an apprentice would have learnt from Chantrell might easily not have been learnt from a lesser man elsewhere, including not only Chantrell’s concept of professionalism but also his way of managing projects over a relatively wide geographical area, his efficient oversight of office staff and his direction of contractors [55].  By developing a reputation for solid and even-handed business practices, Chantrell ensured he was always busy, being called upon to design some thirty-four churches across the country (including complete rebuilds and unexecuted designs), five parsonages and seven schools during a twenty-eight year period, as well as to manage a very full portfolio of domestic work, restorations and repairs, and the frequent carrying out of inspections on behalf of the ICBS.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Conclusion.

 

Thus it can be seen that by the mid-1840s, the demand for new churches was firmly established and could reasonably be projected to continue into the future, while equally importantly, the shortage of local architects competent to undertake the work had also become clear.  Yet this situation had arisen in spite of the local practitioners several innate advantages: (i) he was familiar with the problems and opportunities presented by the regional terrain and topography or, when unacquainted with a potential building site, could easily become so;  (ii) he could take advantage of his local knowledge to find significant economies (for example, in obtaining suitable building materials from the nearest available source);  (iii) he held out the prospect of more frequent and substantive liaisons with the client; and (iv) he could provide closer supervision of on-going construction work, including a rapid response to any unforeseen problem that might suddenly occur.  These obvious gaps in the capacities and understanding of more distant confrères were crying out for exploitation.  Moreover, it was also apparent that this was an area of operations where new entrants into the architectural profession might have most difficulty gaining a foothold and where established practitioners, known and approved by the relevant, often conservative grant awarding bodies, were in a particularly strong position.  For anyone who could obtain such acceptance, or had fortuitously inherited it from an approved master, this therefore presented an obvious path to follow;  and if, in setting up a new practice, one was, notwithstanding, uncertain about one’s abilities to fulfil one’s new rôle, there could be no better way of bolstering one’s position than to take as partner a man whose experience and skill lay precisely in this critical area.

 

 

NOTES:

  1. Eric Sigsworth, Black Dyke Mills - a History (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1958), p. 1.

  2. Herbert Heaton, The Yorkshire Woollen and Worsted Industries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920), p. 264. Cited by Sigsworth.

  3. John James, Continuation and Additions to the History of Bradford  (Bradford: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer, 1866), pp. 231-232.  31,524 is the sum of the figures given in the table on p. 232.  Notice that females outnumber males by approximately 2:1.

  4. J. & C. Lund,  Lunds’  Bradford  Directory  (Bradford: J. & C. Lund, 1856),  p. 9.  Curiously, however, these figures show males slightly outnumbering females, by 16,881 to 16,716.

  5. White, Directory, 1842, pp. 318 & 381.

  6. The Most Reverend Charles Longley in the Yorkshire Gazette, 2nd February 1861.

  7. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 41.  There is a misprint here, however, for '1,000' should read '10,000'  (cf. Port, p. 38).

  8. This figure is taken from Mallinson & Healey’s undated and unexecuted plans for the church’s rearrangement, drawn up c.1850.  (Bradford, West Yorkshire Archives, DB1/C3/13.)

  9. Tony Jowitt, 'The Pattern of Religion in Victorian Bradford'  in  Victorian Bradford, ed. D.G. Wright & J.A. Jowitt (Bradford: City of Bradford Metropolitan Council, 1982, pp. 37-61),  p. 43.

  10. Yorkshire Gazette, 6th April 1839, p. 6.

  11. The York Herald,  2nd February 1861, p. 11.

  12. White, Directory, 1842, pp. 383-4.

  13. White, Directory, 1842, p. 320.

  14. Jowitt, 'The Pattern of Religion', p. 43.

  15. 'The modes, therefore, by which the commissioners would effect the purposes of the act, were threefold:- First, by the complete ecclesiastical division of parishes;  secondly, by the district division of parishes, not affecting the endowments of the present benefice; and thirdly, by the building of parochial chapels.'  (The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hansard, 37, 16th March 1818.)

  16. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 49.

  17. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 50.

  18. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 51.

  19. Pugin, Contrasts, pp. 27-28.

  20. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, pp. 27-28.

  21. Although as the years went by, this seems to have been honoured in the breach almost as often as the observance.  Two churches illustrating this by Mallinson and Healey are St. Michael’s, Mytholmroyd, to which the Church Commissioners gave £300 and the ICBS, £230, and Christ Church, Barkisland, where the Commissioners £150 was topped by £180 from the ICBS

  22. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 38.

  23. Gill Hedley, Free Seats for All (London: Umbria Press, 2018), p. 80.

  24. Grants awarded by the RDCBS to churches by Mallinson and Healey included £375 to Christ Church, Barkisland, more than the Church Commissioners and the ICBS put together, and £500 each to St. Philip’s, Girlington, St. Luke’s, Broomfields, and St. Mary’s, Laisterdyke.

  25. The Leeds Mercury, 4th December 1841, p. 4.

  26. G.F.A. Best, Temporal Pillars, pp. 21-34.

  27. Timothy Brittain-Caitlin, The English Parsonage in the Early Nineteenth Century,  p. 19.

  28. It is important not to confuse the Ecclesiastical Commission with the Church Commission, which were entirely distinct bodies with different objectives and income derived in different ways.

  29. Best, Temporal Pillars, pp. 296-347.  But see also William Cobbett, Rural Rides, 1830 (London: Penguin edition,  2001), p. 21.

  30. Best, Temporal Pillars, p. 351.

  31. Bradford, WYA, BDP33/15/2.

  32. Cobbett,  Rural Rides, pp. 139-40.

  33. Henry James Burgess, Enterprise in Education (London: S.P.C.K.,1958), pp. 29-30.

  34. Burgess, Enterprise in Education, pp. 31-32.

  35. Although Cobbett would not accept the fact.  See Rural Rides,  pp. 36, 48-49, 139 & 149-50.

  36. New Parishes Act, 1843, paragraph ix.

  37. This information can be obtained reasonably adequately from The Buildings of  England  - Yorkshire West Riding if the latest  two-volume edition is used in conjunction with the previous one-volume (1967) edition.  The former comprise: (i) Nikolaus Pevsner and Peter Leach, Leeds, Bradford and the North (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2009); and (ii) Nikolaus Pevsner and Ruth Harman, Sheffield and the South (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2017).  These volumes provide a comprehensive survey of all nineteenth century churches built in the West Riding and still extant at their respective publication dates.  However, since a considerable number of churches were closed and/or demolished during the second half of the twentieth century, the one-volume edition, by Nikolaus Pevsner and Enid Radcliffe (London: Penguin, 1967) which did not attempt a comprehensive survey, is needed to identify many of those.  This still omits, of course, churches demolished before 1967 and churches not included in the1967 edition, which were demolished before the research for the 2009/17 editions was undertaken. 

  38. Viz:  (i) Thomas Anderton (?);  (ii)  William Anderton (?);  (iii) A.H. Cates of York;  (iv) John MacDuff Derrick of Oxford, London & Dublin;  (v) John Dobson of Leeds;  (vi) Rev. John Fearon of Hebden;  (vii) John Freeman (?);  (viii) Matthew Habershon of Derby;  (ix) Matthew Ellison Hadfield of Sheffield;  (x) Lees Hammerton of Wakefield;  (xi) John Harper of York; (xii) Thomas Hellyer of the Isle of Wight;  (xiii) W.J. Hindle (?);  (xiv) George Fowler Jones of York; (xv) George Knowles of Leeds;  (xvi) John Lister (?);  (xvii) Perkins & Backhouse of Wakefield;  (xviii) Joseph Mitchell (?);  (xix) Thomas Richardson (?);  (xx) H. Rogerson (?);  (xxi) Anthony Salvin of London;  (xxii) Sir George Gilbert Scott of London;  (xxiii) Benjamin Broomhead Taylor of Sheffield;  (xxiv) William Wallen of Huddersfield;  (xxv) Lewis Vulliamy of London;  (xxvi) Henry Ward (?);  (xxvii) Watson & Pritchett of York;  and (xxviii) 'a young lady in the neighbourhood ' (of Dacre, near Harrogate).

  39. Viz:  (i)  Peter Atkinson junior of York (d. 1843), who had designed fourteen churches;  (ii) William Hurst & partners of Doncaster & Sheffield (d. 1844), who had designed eleven;  (iii) John Oates of Halifax (d. 1831),  who had designed ten;  (iv) Thomas  Rickman of Birmingham (d. 1841), who had designed four;  and (v) Thomas Taylor of Leeds (d. 1826), who had designed ten.  (Total 49.)

  40. Viz:  (i)  Ignatius Bonomi of Durham, who had designed three churches;  (ii) John Clark of Edinburgh, who had designed two;  (iii) R.S. & H. Sharp of York, who had designed four;   (iv) Sharp, Paley & Austin of Lancaster, who had designed two;  and (v) George Webster of Kendal, who had also designed two. (Total 13.)

  41. Webster, R.D. Chantrell, p. 143.

  42. The Leeds Mercury, 15th August 1857, p. 4.

  43. The Leeds Times, 21st May 1853, p. 2.

  44. The Bradford Observer, 5th August 1858, p. 8.   There were more than forty entries and the winner was H.J. Paull of Cardiff.

  45. Jon Burgess, Lockwood and Mawson of Bradford and London (unpublished doctorial thesis, de Montfort University, Leicester School of Architecture, 1998), pg. 89.

  46. J.A.H., Woodbank' to the editor of The Bradford Observer,  22nd April 1862.  The Bradford Observer, 24th April 1862, p. 7.

  47. The Bradford Observer, 2nd October 1851,  p.4.

  48. he Ecclesiologist, New Series 36, April 1849.

  49. For unspecified cemetery buildings.  There were only three entries, of which Mallinson and Healey's was one.  (The Bradford Observer, 17th February 1859, p. 5.)

  50. On this occasion, Mallinson and Healey comprised one of three firms invited to submit entries, the others being Lockwood & Mawson and Perkins & Backhouse.  Perkins & Backhouse were awarded the contract.  (The Leeds Intelligencer, 5th January 1861, p. 5.)

  51. Thomas Lloyd, Julian Orbach and Robert Scourfield, The Buildings of Wales:  Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 248.  The competition was won by Edward Davis of Bath but the job was eventually passed to Sir George Gilbert Scott.

  52. James,  Continuation and Additions to the History of Bradford, p. 183.

  53. Port, Six Hundred New Churches, p. 344.

  54. Webster, R.D. Chantrell, p. 165.  Chantrell had four sons altogether.

  55. Webster, R.D. Chantrell, pp. 174-180.

CHAPTER 3.  ►