PART TWO:  THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS.

 

 

 
5.   THE CULTIVATION OF A COSMOPOLITAN CLIENT BASE.

 

'Go into the office of [an attorney], ask his charge for preparing a conveyance, and he is shocked almost out of his propriety at such an unprofessional question being put to him. Of course he cannot tell, though the title may have passed under his eye scores of times before.  A nice little play is enacted, the applicant is fascinated into good humour, and both are gracious at parting. The innocent is assured that only ‘the usual charges’ will be made.  Usual..!  Lawyers’ bills engender a deal of bad blood between them and clients; architects’ charges do not, because they are paid by commission. Between the architect and client warmth and affection exist after the bill is paid.'

 

                        The Liverpool Mercury, Thursday, 22nd July 1858, p. 2.

 

 

General Remarks.

 

A provincial Victorian architect with serious intentions, needed a different approach to prospective clients to his illustrious confrères in London. A renowned metropolitan man could direct his appeal to anyone across the country who admired his distinctive style  and wanted something similar.  He could develop a portfolio spread widely but thinly, and it was of very little consequence if as many or more people disliked his work as liked it if he had as many commissions in hand as he could manage.  A provincial architect's position was altogether different.  Logistically confined, perhaps, within a thirty mile radius of his office, the number of potential clients within reach was unlikely to be such as to enable him to alienate any with equanimity, and he was well advised not to allow himself to become too closely identified with any particular faction but rather to hold himself in as ambiguous a position as it was reasonably feasible to do.

 

 

Cognisant of this necessity, Mallinson and Healey drew their clients from almost every rank and profession of men, and occasionally women, who were ever likely to want to build.  Only a proportion of these were the respective patrons: others were chairmen of building committees or individuals holding respected positions, most frequently in the Church, who hoped to spend other people's money for them.  That was of no real consequence.  The relative importance of these different categories of people to the partners during the period 1854-57, can be gauged from the number of contacts they recorded with them in the day-books, albeit the status of some is unclear and/or dependent on the rôle they were playing on a given occasion.  With this in mind, seven categories are distinguished in the pie charts below, where it can be seen that while clergymen comprised almost half the total number (28 out of 59 = 47.5%), they generated a smaller proportion of the work (38.8%), while the reverse was true for the industrialists.  The most ill-defined group is undoubtedly the Nonconformists, since all those concerned were also prominent in manufacturing or commerce (mainly the latter).  Placing these men in the most relevant category often requires making difficult judgements.

 

 

Diagram V:  pie charts showing  (a),  the number of clients mentioned on ≥ 12 pages (days)

 in the day-books, grouped by rank or vocation, where each client is counted once only,

irrespective of the number of times his name occurs;

and (b) the total number of references to clients in the different categories.

 

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Gentlemen of the Cloth.

 

In the words of David Roberts, 'Most clergymen [in early Victorian England] thought that society was quite nicely put together'.  God in his wisdom had ordained that a few men should be rich and the majority should be poor so that the poor might find salvation in learning the virtues of sobriety, industriousness, contentment and obedience, and the rich might have opportunity to practise Christian stewardship and charity, and through their exemplary lives, to inspire those beneath them [1].  The rôle of the clergy was to console the afflicted, ameliorate destitution, admonish the selfish, and save those who were lost: God called them to tend His flock, not to try to remake society [2].

 

 

Of course it followed that to achieve so much, the clergy first needed to exist in sufficient numbers.  When Reverend Dr. W.F. Hook was appointed Vicar of Leeds in 1837, the population of his parish was fast-approaching 150,000, and although he had three assistant clergy in Leeds township itself and perpetual curates in eight outlying chapelries, only he and two of his in-township assistants possessed full cure of souls [3].  A similar state of affairs prevailed throughout the West Riding.  Yet when additional clergy were appointed, they needed a church or chapel-of-ease from which to operate, they needed accommodation for themselves and their families, and in the minds of some at least, if they were to build a sustainable congregation, they probably needed a school.  Here, then, arose a range of opportunities for the ecclesiastical architect: first and most importantly, a church needed to be built, then if relations between the architect and incumbent remained good, a commission for a parsonage and school might follow.  Clergy rarely paid the bulk of the costs of these buildings themselves, but they pleaded the cause of the architect with grantors and building committees, and from their elevated positions, their recommendations were often decisive. This certainly seems to have been the case with some of Mallinson and Healey’s reverend clients, who came from across the Anglican spectrum.  Thus the partners designed all three of these buildings for the Rev. D.C. Neary of Christ Church, South Ossett, and the Rev. Knight Gale of St. Andrew's, Listerhills, whose Evangelical credentials were displayed by membership of the Church Missionary Society in Neary's case [4] and by the delivery of some very intemperate anti-Catholic remarks at the 'Great Protestant Meeting' in Bradford on 10th October 1850 in the case of Knight Gale [5],  but they also worked around the same time for the Rev. John Bickerdyke of St. Mary's, Quarry Hill, one of the clergymen appointed by Dr. Hook in 1848 when he was trying to repopulate Leeds with High Churchmen more in accordance with his taste [6], whose church they restored in 1850 and for whom they designed a new parsonage in 1851. Of course it can only have helped in attracting business that both Mallinson and Healey were diligent church-goers themselves, but to have been equally acceptable to High men and Low, probably required some careful diplomacy.  Mallinson worshipped at Halifax parish church and was chosen as vicar’s warden by Archdeacon Charles Musgrave in 1855, ’56 & ’57.  He took the chair at the annual parish meeting on 26th March 1857 when Canon Musgrave was unwell and his credentials as a Church of England man were clearly beyond reproach.  Nonetheless, as a relaxed latitudinarian, neither he nor Healey appear to have taken any noticeable position in the heated debate over the 'correct' form of Anglican worship.

 

Mallinson and Healey designed the rather modest church of Christ Church, South Ossett, thirteen miles southeast of Bradford, in 1850, and the parsonage and school & teacher’s house followed at three-yearly intervals (figs. 5a(i) - 5a(iii)). The church is pseudo-cruciform in plan (i.e. it has transepts but no true crossing) and has a short W. tower and S. porch but no aisles.  It is still in use although it has been stripped bare within. The parsonage seems to have been enormous by comparison and was probably a reflection of the size of Rev. Neary’s family.  The chamber plan shows six bedrooms but no water-closet [7], but this was not a matter of niggardliness or short-cutting for when Henry Hunt at the Queen Anne’s Bounty Office wrote to the Rev. Neary to say that before the Governors offered a loan, they would expect the plans to be amended to include at least one water closet, the Rev. Neary wrote back to say that it would be more trouble than it was worth, due to 'the difficulty of procuring water in all this neighbourhood'.  Indeed, the school plan may also show this was still an area of pioneer settlement, for the building comprised just two main classrooms at right angles to one another, one each for the infants and older children, which, unusually at this time, boys and girls were obviously expected to share.

 

 

Figs. 5a(i) - 5a(iii), Christ Church, South Ossett: 

(i) above, the church (built (1850); (ii) below left, the parsonage (1853), chamber plan, unsigned;

and (iii) below right, the  school (1856), ground plan, signed Mallinson & Healey, Bradford.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neary is mentioned forty-eight times in the day-books, usually to record sending him a letter. The nearest railway station to Ossett was a mile and a half away at Horbury until a branch line arrived in 1862 [8].  Healey made eleven inspection visits to the township during 1854-7 (on two of which he found Neary was away), and Mallinson made three, while Neary visited Healey twice and Mallinson, once, on the last occasion when the primary reason for the trip was to visit Canon Musgrave. This was, therefore, an architect-client relationship conducted mostly at arm’s length, but it appears to have been amicable, even if there was little opportunity for 'warmth and affection' to develop to a very great extent.  It may be significant, therefore, that neither Mallinson nor Healey seem to have felt it necessary to 'adopt' Neary as their particular client for both men seem to have attended to him indiscriminately according to their convenience.

 

The Rev. Knight Gale, in contrast, was scarcely more more than round the corner from Healey, and his vision for his church and school on Listerhills Road, was on a grander scale altogether (figs. 5b(i) - 5b(iii)).  Yet he can only be proved to have visited Healey in his office thirteen times during 1856-7 while his school was under construction, while Healey called three times on him, leaving two occasions when Healey found it more convenient to write a letter. The church (fig. 5b(i)) had been erected in 1851 and consisted of a long, six-bay nave with independently-gabled aisles, a chancel, and a tall, angle-buttressed northeast tower surmounted by a tapering broach spire lit by two tiers of gabled lucarnes. The aisle arcades were carefully fashioned of arches bearing two sunk quadrants supported on piers composed of four shafts with fillets, separated by hollows. This was an important building therefore, as was the school, although neither remain to be examined today except from their plans and assorted drawings.  The north and east elevations of the school (fig. 5b(iii)) were enlivened by four cross-gables and the former also boasted a tower with a broach spire rising above the entrance.  Windows were designed in elaborate Second Pointed (Decorated) style and there was subtle variation in all parts as, for example, in the height and width of the gables, the changes in the roof-line, and the ground floor windows in the master’s house, one of which was a bay window while the other was flat.  Finally, the parsonage (fig. 5b(ii)) was also a cut above the average:  the drawing room, dining room and study all boasted large bay windows, and there were five bedrooms on the first floor, besides a dressing room, bathroom, separate water closet, and a housemaid’s linen closet.  Money, it appears, had not been short here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figs. 5b(i) - 5b(iii), St. Andrew's, Listerhills (North Horton):

(i) above left, the church (1851); (ii) above right, the parsonage (1853), ground plan, signed Mallinson & Healey;

and (iii) below, the school (1857), north and east elevations, signed Mallinson & Healey, Bradford.

 

 

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Captains of Industry.

 

Mallinson and Healey’s clients from among the manufacturing class were relatively few in number but included several of real importance, notably (i) John and William Foster of Black Dyke Mills, discussed in chapter three, (ii) Edward Akroyd of Haley Hill, (iii) Charles Hardy of the Low Moor Ironworks Company, who was a major patron of the Church in and around Bradford and who built St. Mark’s, Low Moor, entirely at his own expense, and (iv) Messrs. Hague, Cook & Wormald of Dewsbury Mills, who were largely responsible for Holy Trinity, Thornhill Lees. Thus by no means all the work commissioned by industrialists, was industrial in nature, and some of the 'big names' that did ask Mallinson (for it was usually him) to do something at their Works, often only had a small job in mind.  For example, Samuel Cunliffe Lister’s name appears in the day-books, but only in connection with alterations he wanted made to an existing warehouse (probably the addition of an extra storey) [9].  

 

 

However, to focus instead on these men’s apparently altruistic undertakings, either for their work force or the wider community, it seems unlikely that piety was always their principal motive [10]. for since a tradition of paternalism still held strong among at least some landowners, it was always liable to rub off on aspiring captains of industry who wished to be seen to emulate them. The outstanding 'industrial squire' in West Yorkshire was, famously, Sir Titus Salt, who began building his model village of Saltaire in 1850 on a green-field site four miles north of Bradford [11], but he was anticipated by Edward Akroyd at Copley (1849-53) in the Calder Valley, south of Halifax, in an exercise Akroyd later repeated at Akroydon (1861-68), a few hundred yards from his home at Bankfield, Northowram. Lucy Caffein examined these and other developments in workers’ housing in the West Riding in some detail for the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in 1986 [12], but was unable to find the name of any architect who might have been involved at Copley [13]. It is interesting therefore, that Mallinson and Healey’s day-book for 1854 opens with three references to attempts by Mallinson to sign off the contractor’s and plumber’s accounts at 'Copley cottages', for work presumably completed the previous year, and while it is impossible to tell from this scant evidence, precisely what rôle the partners had played in this 'first effort to take working-class housing out of the hands of those speculators who wanted nothing better than slums' [14], it is evident that the partners were perfectly willing to design workers’ housing to oblige an established client, as witnessed by their plans and elevations for Sandbed Cottages, Queen’s Head, erected for John and William Foster at Black Dyke Mills in 1853.

 

 

The evidence for William Foster’s character is unsurprisingly only circumstantial.  Cudworth, who was usually diligent in his praise of anyone important 'round about Bradford', had little to say of him or his father beyond emphasising their energy and assiduousness in business [15], and Sigsworth’s comment about the 'sterner and even choleric side to [William’s] nature' and his excessive consciousness of the position he had come to occupy in society [16], was written seventy years after William’s death, by a write who had never met him.  Yet William appears to have been an exemplary employer by the standards of his day if one can judge from the plans for his workers’ housing.  Sandbed cottages consisted of two blocks of ten and one block of twelve back-to-back houses (figs. 5c(i) & 5c(ii)) and a terrace of five through-houses, presumably erected for overseers or other workers holding senior positions. The back-to-back houses (blocks A, B & D) all comprised four storeys, including a basement and an attic, and had, essentially, one room per floor, except that in blocks A & D (but not block B), this room was subdivided at chamber level by a thin partition to create a 'box' room 7’ 6' square, a main bedroom 11’ 3' by 15’, and a 'landing', 7’ 6' by 6’ 6'.  In contrast, eight of the houses in block B (two groups of four) had 'L'-shaped plans, resulting from setting the staircase in one behind the staircase of its neighbour, and these had a single bedroom at chamber level, 14’ by 16’.  The through-houses in block C each had two rooms at ground level and two bedrooms at chamber level, all with fireplaces, one room at each level measuring 16’ by 11’ and the other, 12’6' by 9’6'.  There was an attic and a small cellar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figs. 5c(i) - 5c(i1),  plans, section and elevations of Sandbed Cottages, Queen's Head,

signed Mallinson & Healey, Bradford, 1853:

(i) left, chamber and attic plan of block 'A';  and (ii) right, transverse section and end & front elevations of block 'A'.

 

 

These houses compare favourably with those Titus Salt was constructing simultaneously in the first phase of development at Saltaire, in the block between Albert Terrace and Caroline Street, comprising Herbert, Fanny, Edward and Amelia Streets [17].  Number 16, Amelia Street [18], today contains a total floor space of 559 square feet on the ground and first floors combined, while number 2, Edward Street [19], is smaller still at approximately 516 square feet.  These houses, which were never constructed as back-to-backs admittedly (although the houses at the ends of each row were), were built at an average cost of £120 each. Houses in blocks A and D of Sandbed Cottages by comparison, contained 273¾ square feet on each of the basement, ground and chamber floors, and perhaps half as much useful space in the attic, amounting to about 958 square feet in total, while the through-houses in block C, which had only a small cellar, had 294¾ square feet on the ground and chamber floors and, say, half as much in the attic, amounting to approximately 737 square feet. These dimensions suggest the Fosters were more than equal to the best of their confrères, at least in regard to their provision for their workers’ housing [20]. Moreover, Mallinson seems to have found William Foster personable enough.  This was very much to the partners’ advantage, of course, for there was always something William wanted doing.  Thus in August 1855 he wanted a shed for his porter’s lodge, in October he asked Mallinson to value a farm he was thinking of purchasing, in September 1857 he decided he would like a conservatory, and later the same month he wanted an extra window in his billiard room [21].  Indeed, this continual succession of minor tasks, given expression one at a time, seems to suggest a friendship had developed between William Foster and Mallinson and that they were meeting regularly, and one entry in the day-book may support this: 'In the afternoon, by cab with Mr. Carter to Queen’s Head.  Inspecting at Mr. Wm. Foster’s lodge and evening with him.'  [22].  Here lay the advantage of befriending clients and having a sociable and out-going personality.  Here also may have lain one of the reasons why Healey needed Mallinson every bit as much as Mallinson needed him.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Land and Its Duties.

 

It was a familiar aphorism in the mid-nineteenth century that 'land had its duties as well as rights' and this was seen or heard regularly in the press and public discourse.  The duties of landowners by various accounts were many and wide-ranging, and extended from 'erect[ing] comfortable dwelling houses for their tenantry and cottages for the labourers' [23], or 'providing ... schools for their poor parishioners' [24], on the one hand, to taking an interest in their 'humble pleasures... by mingling with them, and giving them the advantage of their counsel and presence' [25] on the other.  Such men obviously stood for 'the stability of the social order' and were generally 'adherents of the traditional High Church, the High Church of the days before Ecclesiology and Oxford Romanizing' [26].

 

 

Mallinson and Healey’s clients included several substantial landowners - men who had no need to burden themselves with commerce or manufacturing (although their fathers may have done so or even they themselves in their youth), and who viewed the Church as the bedrock of society.  One such was John Hollings of Whetley Hall, who paid for the building and endowment of St. Paul’s, Manningham, in 1846 [27], 'in consideration of which... [he was given] the appointment of the first two incumbents' [28].  A second was John Foster of Slack, Hebden Bridge (not to be confused with John Foster of Black Dyke Mills), who inherited extensive estates from his father and was described as 'the most munificent contributor' to St Thomas the Apostle, Heptonstall [29], albeit that that church had many significant subscribers.  Patrons among the nobility included George Howard, the Seventh Earl of Carlisle (1802-64), who paid for the entire cost of St. John’s church, Welburn, a mile and a half south of his seat at Castle Howard [30], and Henry Lascelles, the Third Earl of Harewood (1797-1857) and his wife, who were responsible for the construction of Weeton School (1855) [31], made a significant contribution to the construction of St. Mary Magdalene’s, East Keswick (1856) (where they also donated the site) [32], and had earlier been the sole patrons of the ambitious church of St. Barnabas, Weeton (1851), although here they did as Edward Akroyd was to do five years later at Haley Hill, namely turn to the metropolis in the person of George Gilbert Scott.  However, the Earl and Countess may also have subscribed to the reconstruction of Mallinson and Healey's St. Peter’s, Thorner (1854) [33], and the Countess alone, to the partners' new church of St. Peter, Arthington (in 1862, after the Earl had died).

 

 

John Hollings of Whetley Hall (1814-64), was a man of 'retiring disposition... [who, though] never taking an active part in public life, was a very zealous Churchman [who] probably did more than any other single person to advance the ten churches movement at Bradford.' [34].  His father, Thomas, had been 'engaged in the worsted trade..., to which business [he] and his elder brothers... were brought up', but an uncle, Joseph Hollings, 'a man of considerable means, residing at Whetley Hall', bequeathed his estate to John and his elder brothers, who both died unmarried, leaving the property exclusively to John, who was now married to the eldest daughter of the Rev. Canon Welby Mitton [35], incumbent of St. Paul’s, Manningham, whom he himself had presented to the living!  This fortuitous set of circumstances should not obscure Hollings’s genuine commitment to the Church in and around Manningham, however, which was to be witnessed again thirteen years after he had moved to Surrey for his health, when he returned to attend the consecration of St. Luke’s, Victor Road, Manningham, to which he had contributed £2,200 [36].  

 

 

Hollings probably first met Healey soon after the latter moved to Bradford because Healey worshipped in Manningham week by week (even though he lived in Little Horton).  Hollings receives many mentions in the day-books and his dealings are exclusively with Healey throughout.  Usually the subject of their meetings concerned alterations already being carried out at St. Paul’s (chiefly the widening of the S. aisle), less than a decade after the church’s original construction, occasionally it was about the erection of St. Philip’s, Girlington, three-quarters of a mile to the west, where Hollings was one of the donors and possibly chairman of the building committee, or the building of Manchester Road schools, with which Hollings’s connection is unclear, and sometimes Healey makes no mention of the purpose of Hollings’s visit at all, leaving open the possibility that he turned up merely to see what Healey was doing.  This gains some substance from the fact that he then occasionally accompanied Healey on inspection visits to sites in which he had no discernible financial interest.  Conceivably, his relationship with Healey, built up through their mutual attendance at St. Paul’s, had given him the status of a leisured, inquisitive friend.

 

 

St. Paul’s, Manningham, is a proud church surmounted by an octagonal broach spire, 'confessedly erected against the twin evils of Chartism and Dissent' in Malcolm Hardman’s insightful phrase [37], standing on a slight rise at the top of Church Street (figs. 5d(i) & 5d(ii). It was described by the reporter at the ceremony for laying the foundation stone (who therefore had to base his description solely on the plans and elevations) as

 

'the means of supplying a large and destitute population with the means of spiritual life...  The edifice... will be in the style of architecture prevalent during the reign of King Henry the Third, generally known as ‘first pointed’ or early English style [sic].  It will be a cruciform structure, consisting of a nave with north and south aisles, clerestory and south porch, north and south transepts, a spacious chancel with sacristy on the north side, and a central tower and spire 140 feet high...  The timbers of the roof will be exposed to view [they are no longer];  the seats, low and of unobtrusive character, will afford accommodation to upwards of 600 worshippers;  there will be no galleries, and the whole of the interior moulded work will be of stone.' [38].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figs. 5d(i) - 5d(ii), St. Paul's, Manningham:

(i) left, the church as designed, viewed from the southeast; and (ii) right, the church today from the east.

 

 

This is the building which, in most of its essentials, survives to the present day. The widening of the S. aisle was carried out under Healey’s direction barely ten years after the building was first completed.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Trade and Dissent.

 

For most earnest church architects working in the metropolis, building chapels for Dissenters was little short of taboo.  Not only did they often recoil at the idea themselves, since many were of High Church or Tractarian persuasion, but they knew that to do so would count against them with their clients. The die had been cast by the Cambridge Camden (later Ecclesiological) Society, founded in 1839 by J.M. Neale and Benjamin Webb, undergraduates at Trinity College, in their redoubtable Ecclesiologist magazine...

 

'At present there is nothing to hinder the most ignorant pretender [to the architectural profession] to applying his unhallowed hands to so sacred a thing as church-building.  Fresh from his Mechanics’ Institute, his Railroad Station, his Socialist Hall, he has the assumption and arrogance to attempt a church.  Let it be remembered what a church is - a building set apart for the holiest purposes... - is such a building to be attempted by a 'Mr. Compo', a mere builder fresh from a neighbouring meeting house?' [39]

 

 

This made it perfectly plain what the would-be offender was pitted against, yet Mallinson and Healey seem to have been serenely unconcerned about generating disapprobation. One reason was probably that since some of the biggest manufacturers in the West Riding were Nonconformists themselves, Dissent wielded too much clout to be snubbed or ignored. Titus Salt, for example, was brought up at the Horton Lane Independent Chapel [40], and in building Saltaire, created in his Congregational church, the most ostentatious building in the village.  Nevertheless, most of Mallinson and Healey’s Dissenting clients were tradesmen rather than industrialists, and Mallinson and Healey designed or altered at least eight chapels for them - possibly more, since most of the surviving evidence comes from the four day-books [41], raising the question of whether other provincial architects, noted for their work for the Established Church, built more Nonconformist chapels than is generally recognised. This may have been more or less acceptable depending on the attitude of the local Anglican minister: 'religious diversification... in Yorkshire in 1851', as John Wolffe pointed out, 'could be highly confrontational in some areas and readily consensual in others' [42].

 

 

Scottish Presbyterianism can reasonably claim to be the oldest of Old Dissent, with roots going back to Calvin (1509-64).  The foundation stone for Mallinson and Healey’s 'Scotch' church on the corner between Infirmary Street and Westgate, was laid with much cheering and laughter on Tuesday, 16th May 1848, James Cochrane wielding the trowel [43].  All did not go well however, for on 5th September, an unsecured section of the parapet crushed and killed three workmen when it suddenly fell to the ground [44].  The chapel was duly completed nonetheless, and remains to be examined today:  it is formed of a simple rectangle, three bays by five, with a W. façade facing squarely on to the road, demonstrating Christopher Wakeling’s point that Nonconformist buildings 'with no need for orientation, have a greater opportunity for the display of façades or street frontages' [45].  This is further illustrated at the former Independent chapel in Rastrick.

 

 

Wakeling traces the shift in the Independents’ preferred style during the course of the 1850s from classical to Gothic [46]. Mallinson and Healey built two chapels for the Independents, designed a third that was not built (Cleckheaton, 1857), and were responsible for alterations at two more (Providence Independent Chapel, Elland, 1855, and Zion Independent Chapel, Halifax, 1856). Springfield Independent Chapel, Dewsbury, was designed, built and consecrated in the space of eleven months at the instigation of Messrs. Crawshaw and Lee, although another promoter, a Mr. Ingham, was prominent during its construction.  Messrs. Crawshaw and Lee first called upon Mallinson to propose the construction of the building on 3rd January 1856.  Healey worked intensively on the design during February, the foundation stone was laid on 25th March, and the building was opened on 26th November.  Messrs. Crawshaw and Lee, who specified at the outset that they only had £1,800 to spend, persuaded Healey to agree 'to charge Commission on that sum only [even] if the Contracts should exceed it' [47].

 

 

Cleckheaton Independent Chapel seems to have caused the partners some difficulty.  They were asked to submit two designs to the building committee (more accurately, a rebuilding committee), one in Grecian and one in Gothic style [48], and actually submitted three [49], but after all the work this involved, traceable to at least a fortnight of Healey’s time, the committee decided to pass the job to Lockwood and Mawson [50] - a decision probably made more on religious grounds than architectural ones, since Lockwood was a Congregationalist [51].  This seems to have been a rare set-back for Mallinson and Healey, although in venturing into building for the Independents, they can hardly have been unaware that they were trespassing on Lockwood’s private turf. 

 

 

The Independent chapel in Rastrick will be considered in detail in chapter 6.  The principal contact here was Thomas Ormerod, who ran his wine and spirit business together with his brother, Hanson (1806-90).  Mallinson would surely have known both men as a native of Brighouse himself, and their different religious allegiance was obviously no barrier to friendship, for the day-books record four occasions when one or both brothers was invited to dine [52].  The brothers seem to have been of very different character, however, for although both played an active part in local affairs and were of strong Liberal conviction [53].  Thomas was an upstanding deacon at the chapel for more than three decades [54], renowned for charitable works such as his twenty years as honorary treasurer to the Brighouse Local Board [55], whereas Hanson was a comparatively irascible character, at least when drunk [56].  Here again, however, Mallinson seems to have been equally comfortable in either man’s company - a testament either to his sociability or a hard-bitten determination to be sure to befriend clients.

 

 

The two remaining Nonconformist chapels where Mallinson and Healey are known to have been involved were Norcroft Place (Richmond Terrace) Wesleyan Chapel, Bradford, where they designed a 'neat commodious structure in the modern Italian style of architecture', which accommodated 1,100 people and had an adjoining school and master’s house, all for a total cost of £2,800 [57], and Infirmary Street Baptist Chapel, Bradford, where the partners were responsible only for alterations and repairs. The former, which appears to have been Mallinson and Healey’s only work for New Dissent, was opened in 1853, with the result that the day-books record only the designing three years later of an organ case for an organ supplied by Mr. James Rhodes, proprietor of the pianoforte and harmonium showrooms at 10 & 11, Darley Street [58].   Healey took the dimensions of the proposed organ site at Norcroft Road and passed them on to Rhodes for his consideration [59].  However, the curious point here is that it seems to have been this same James Rhodes who was the principal instigator of the repairs at Infirmary Street Baptist Chapel, suggesting this might have been an example of a coincidental business contact generating more business for the other protagonist in the future, albeit since the dates for the new organ at Norcroft Road and the chapel repairs at Infirmary Street roughly coincide, it is not clear in that case who may have been generating work for whom! [60]

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Honourable Friends.

 

While Thomas and Hanson Ormerod were known to be ardent Liberals, equally good clients came from other parts of the political spectrum. The industrialist Edward Akroyd (1810-87) was an old-fashioned moderate Whig who moved steadily to the right during the course of his lifetime and was briefly Liberal Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, 1857-59, and later, Liberal-Conservative (Peelite) Member for Halifax in 1865 and again in 1868-74.  His journey in matters of religion was probably still more marked for although brought up as a Methodist, he joined the Church of England some time before 1860, and soon after that, was elected as a committee member of the unbridled Cambridge Camden Society.  He was heavily involved in railway business and local charities and organisations, which included being the founder of the Yorkshire Penny Bank in 1859 and Honorary Colonel of the 4th Yorkshire West Riding Rifle Volunteer Corps from 1861, a position that was especially dear to him [61].  For him, Mallinson and Healey built a large mill shed, 1854-55, and an expensive little cemetery chapel halfway up Haley Hill, as well, perhaps, as some of the workers’ cottages at Copley village, previously discussed. The construction of the cemetery chapel will be considered in the next chapter.  When it came to the building of his model church, however, two hundred yards down the hill on the opposite side of the road, after initially tantalising Healey with the prospect of the project, as a result of which Healey wasted several days drawing up preliminary designs [62],  Akroyd quickly passed the job to George Gilbert Scott in London, who went on to design the surviving albeit now redundant church of All Souls’ [63].  The effect this may have had on the architects' feelings, of course, can only be a matter of speculation, but perhaps they were inured to such setbacks and, in any event, they doubtless kept their thoughts to themselves as Healey continued to work on the mill shed and cemetery chapel.  In fact, as with Hollings and Healey, so Akroyd and Mallinson probably met every Sunday for Akroyd worshipped at Halifax parish church, where he rented seat number 22 in the north aisle and where he would have been almost bound to have exchanged pleasantries with the churchwardens [64].

 

 

Healey met with better success with Akroyd’s friend from across the aisle, Sir Francis Sharp Powell M.P. (1827-1911), who subsequently commissioned Healey to design his magnum opus at Little Horton Green in 1860-62.  Powell was Conservative M.P., by turns, for Wigan, Cambridge, the Northern Division of the West Riding, and Wigan again, for a total of thirty-three years.  A latitudinarian in matters of religion, he was 'an enthusiastic and indefatigable supporter of denominational schools and Christian education' [65], a Justice of the Peace, a member of the Bradford Board of Guardians from 1862 [66], and a strong supporter of public health and sanitation legislation in the Commons [67], none of which prevented him from taking a minute interest in the construction of All Saints’ church, Horton, which Powell paid for in its entirety.  The correspondence between Powell and Healey from its conception until Healey’s death, is by far the most extensive that still survives between Mallinson and Healey and any of their clients:  Powell sent regular suggestions to Healey which Healey accepted when he felt able, Healey made a very determined point of explaining to Powell some of the errors he considered Scott had made at Haley Hill and which he (Healey) would avoid at Horton [68], Powell lent Healey books [69], and Healey made frequent apologies for his slowness to complete the work after his 'paralytic attack' (stroke) [70]. All of this correspondence was conducted with great courtesy on both sides, but whether the architect-client relationship would have led to other commissions cannot be told, for before the church was completed, Thomas Healey was dead.

 

 

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

 

Conclusion.

 

Mallinson and Healey’s clients were drawn from across the religious and political divides and lacked the degree of kinship the clients of their metropolitan confrères generally displayed. They were mostly High Church Tories, firm in their conviction about the rightful order of society, conversant with the latest notions concerning churchmanship, and if not equally confident about the verities of religion, then at least determined to whistle vigorously in the dark. Their religious and social standing required them to employ architects with the appropriate ecclesiological and artistic credentials. Conversely, to quote Edward Kaufman:

 

'What did the local architect represent for [his] patrons? He was convenient and presumably deferential.  But most of all, he was part of the structure of [vernacular] society... [To] hire the local architect was to reinforce [the patron's] regional ties...  [W]hatever political or practical considerations were involved, a strong exercise of taste - such as a choice between two metropolitan architects might force one to make - probably was not.' [71]

 

 

As to whether, over time, the attitudes of clients in general increasingly approached those of their architects or architects were moulded by the world-view of their clients, there is at least no doubt that the two grew increasingly like one another.  So it was with Mallinson and Healey, but Mallinson and Healey’s clients were an eclectic assortment:  Liberals and Tories, Churchmen and Nonconformists, landowners with no need to work and the most industrious of manufacturers and tradesmen.  As Butterfield and Street reflected the nature of their clients in their churchmanship, social attitudes and politics, so, in sum, did Mallinson and Healey.  But they were men of the middle ground: latitudinarians in religion, neither radical nor conservative in social matters by the standards of the day, and equally comfortable in the company of Tories, Whigs, Reformers, or even those with Chartist sympathies.  Here, without doubt, lay one of the elements of architectural success in early Victorian West Yorkshire.

 

 

NOTES:

  1. David  Roberts,  Paternalism in Victorian England (London: Croom Helm, 1979), p. 152.

  2. Roberts,  Paternalism in Victorian England, p. 150.

  3. Harry W. Dalton, Anglican Resurgence under W.F. Hook in Early Victorian Leeds (Leeds: The Thoresby Society, 2002), pp. 10-11.

  4. Leeds Intelligencer, 12th August 1854 (p. 7).

  5. Supplement to the Leeds Intelligencer, 14th October 1854 (p. 1).

  6. Dalton, Anglican Resurgence under W.F. Hook in Early Victorian Leeds, p. 70.

  7. Morley,  WYA, WYL555/46.

  8. David Joy, A Regional History of the Railways in Great Britain - South and West Yorkshire  (Newton Abbott:  David & Charles, 1984), pp. 86 & 89.

  9. D/B, 9th September 1856.

  10. Charles Hardy of the Low Moor Ironworks Company was a striking exception.

  11. Jack Reynolds, The Great Paternalist - Titus Salt and the Growth of Nineteenth Century Bradford (London:  Maurice Temple Smith, 1983), p. 285.

  12. Lucy Caffyn,  Workers’ Housing in West Yorkshire, 1750-1920 (London: H.M.S.O., 1986).

  13. The architect at Akroydon was W.H. Crossland, with some input from George Gilbert Scott.

  14. Pevsner & Radcliffe, The Buildings of England -  Yorkshire: the West Riding,  p. 64.

  15. William Cudworth, Round About Bradford (Bradford: Thomas Brear, 1876), pp. 113-121.

  16. Sigsworth, Black Dyke Mills, p. 364.

  17. Reynolds,  The Great Paternalist, pp. 266-7.

  18. As advertised for sale on 'Zoopla', January 2019

  19. As advertised for sale on 'On the Market', January 2019.

  20. The Foster family had no need to be cheeseparing admittedly.  When William died in 1884, his estate was valued at £1,180,000.  Largely as a result of his paternalism, when Titus Salt died in 1877, his estate was worth a mere £400,000.   (Brian R. Law, Fieldens of Todmorden (Littleborough: George Kelsall, 1995), p. 232.)

  21. D/B, 20th August 1855, 10th October 1855, 17th September 1857, and 24th September 1857.

  22. D/B, 5th September 1855.

  23. The Scotsman, 3rd July 1850, p. 3

  24. The Coventry Standard, 15th January 1858, p. 4.

  25. Wetherby News & Central Yorkshire Journal, 9th September 1858, p. 1.

  26. Edward Kaufman, 'E.B. Lamb - a Case Study in Victorian Architectural Patronage' (The Art Bulletin, 70/2, June 1988, pp. 314-345), p. 324.

  27. Cudworth,  Manningham, Heaton and Allerton (Townships of Bradford), Treated Historically and Topographically (Bradford: published by subscription,1896), pp. 100-102.  However, Cudworth is slightly at  odds with the report on the laying of the church’s foundation stone in The Bradford Observer for 6th November, 1846, which  said  that John Hollings contributed £3,000 towards the building and endowment, with the clear implication that additional money was obtained elsewhere.

  28. The Bradford Observer, 5th November 1846, p. 8.

  29. The Leeds Intelligencer, 25th May 1850, p. 7.

  30. Yorkshire Gazette,  22nd April 1865, p. 4.

  31. D/B, 12th May 1855.

  32. Subscription list, dated 1856.  LPA, ICBS 5025.

  33. The Leeds Intelligencer, 1st December 1855, p. 8.

  34. The Leeds Mercury, 26th February 1884, p. 5.

  35. Sheldrake’s Aldershot & Sandhurst Military Gazette and Farnham Chronicle, 15th March 1884, p. 8.

  36. This was in November 1880.  The church was designed by T.H. & F. Healey, suggesting Hollings retained his ties with the Healey family, eighteen years after Thomas Healey’s death.

  37. Malcolm Hardman, Ruskin and Bradford (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p. 54.

  38. The Bradford Observer, 5th November 1846, p. 8.

  39. The Ecclesiologist, 1/5 (March 1842), p. 66.

  40. Reynolds, The Great Paternalist, pp. 42 & 68.

  41. A possible ninth chapel was Trinity Road Baptist chapel, Halifax, which receives one mention in the day-books, on 29th October 1855, when Mallinson recorded that he examined the carpenter’s bill of extras there. The chapel was still not complete at this time but whether Mallinson and Healey were responsible for it is unproven.  Demolished in 1965, it was clearly a significant building for it cost £4,500 to construct (Bradford Observer, 12th September 1861, p. 5).

  42. John Wolffe, 'The 1851 Census and Religious Change in Nineteenth-Century Yorkshire' (Northern History, 45/1, 1998, pp. 71-86), p. 85.

  43. The Bradford Observer, 25th May 1848, p. 8.The Bradford Observer, 14th September 1848, p. 5.

  44. This was not the only instance of a workman being killed whilst erecting one of Mallinson and Healey’s churches.  In 1863 one of the builders of St. Peter’s church, Arthington, was similarly crushed to death when he prematurely removed the   supports to one of the internal arches  The Leeds Times, 15th August 1863, p. 3.

  45. Christopher Wakeling, 'The nonconformist tradition: chapels, change and continuity',  in  The Victorian Church, pp. 82-97 (p. 83).

  46. Wakeling, 'The nonconformist tradition: chapels, change and continuity', pp. 88-89.

  47. D/B, 5th January 1856.

  48. D/B, 9th January 1857.

  49. D/B, 13th February 1857.

  50. Burgess, Lockwood & Mawson of Bradford and London, p. 52.

  51. Burgess, Lockwood & Mawson of Bradford and London, p. 34.

  52. D/B, 7th October 1854, 17th March 1855, 24th January 1856  & 1st August, 1857.

  53. Huddersfield Daily Chronicle, 27th June 1874, p. 7.

  54. The Huddersfield Chronicle, 19th September 1879, p. 3.

  55. The Halifax Courier,  23rd May 1868, p. 5.

  56. The Leeds Intelligencer, 7th May 1859, p. 7.

  57. The Leeds Times, 16th July 1853,  p. 8.

  58. See, for example, The Bradford Observer for 5th November 1857, p. 1.

  59. D/B, 24th March 1856.

  60. See, for example, D/B, 31st October 1855.

  61. Malcolm Bull’s Calderdale Companion.

  62. D/B, 12th, 13th, 15th & 16th January,1855.

  63. t has now been carefully restored by the Churches Conservation Trust after serious vandalism following its redundancy in 1979 and equally serious deterioration resulting from the 'catalytic reaction between the limestone and sandstone' Scott employed in its original construction. (Gavin Stamp, Gothic for the Steam Age (London: Aurum  Press, 2015), p. 24.)

  64. Halifax pew rent book, Wakefield, WYA, WDP53/7/6/1.

  65. Henry L.P. Hulbert, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Baronet  (Leeds: Richard Jackson,1914), p. 90.

  66. Henry L.P. Hulbert, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Baronet, p. 129.

  67. Henry L.P. Hulbert, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Baronet, p. 125.

  68. Thomas Healey to Sir Francis Sharp Powell, llkley, 27th June 1860.  Bradford WYA, B-P papers, 16D86/2957.

  69. Thomas Healey to Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Bradford, 21st August 1861.  Bradford WYA, B-P papers, 16D86/2958.

  70. For example, Thomas Healey to Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Bradford, 13th August 1860.  Bradford WYA, B-P papers, 16D86/2958.

  71. Edward Kaufman, 'E.B. Lamb', p. 343.

 

CHAPTER 6.  ►