the architectural profession in leeds 1800-50: a case-study in provincial practice

SAHGB Publications Limited

The Architectural Profession in Leeds 1800-50: A Case-Study in Provincial PracticeAuthor(s): Christopher WebsterSource: Architectural History, Vol. 38 (1995), pp. 176-191Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568627 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 20:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:08:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahgb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568627?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Architectural Profession in

Leeds 1800-50: a case-study

in provincial practice by CHRISTOPHER WEBSTER

Frank Jenkins identified the second half of the eighteenth century as the period during which the architectural profession began to emerge as 'something approaching.... the

pattern which we accept today.'1 This may be true of the London scene, but even by 1800, the availability of professional services in the provinces was still decidely patchy. It was during the first half of the nineteenth century that the profession developed to an extent where almost every moderately important town could boast of an architect or two. In West Yorkshire a mere handful of practitioners in the late eighteenth century had grown to dozens by 1853: twenty-three firms in Leeds, thirteen in Bradford, ten each in Halifax and Huddersfield, and three in Wakefield.2

Historical studies of the architectural profession in England, which include the first half of the nineteenth century, have been concerned almost exclusively with the practices of the leading London architects.3 None of them made more than a brief mention of the provinces.4 Yet while Soane, Pugin or Scott are clearly men who must be included in any study of the profession, their importance for architectural history is precisely that they were exceptional. A study of their practices reveals little about the profession as a whole, and still less about the provincial scene. A small number of provincial architects of this period have been well known for some time, for instance Harrison in Chester or Dobson in Newcastle, but their fame has arisen largely because of the similarities in the context of style or patronage with their metropolitan contemporaries. More recently, research has significantly enhanced the reputations of, among others, Richard Lane of Manchester and John Foster (the younger) of Liver- pool, but without addressing in detail the questions of provincial professionalism to which the study of these careers leads.

In contrast, this study is concerned specifically with practice in a major provincial town. Leeds at this time was a rapidly developing industrial centre, generating demand for large numbers of new buildings, and the money to pay for them. It was precisely the sort of location in which the emerging profession could be established most easily. The forty-one architects who had offices there in this period form a sample sufficiently large for a meaningful study to be undertaken, yet small enough to be essentially coherent, and manageable as a focus of study. A starting point in about 800 is chronologically



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS i8oo-o5

neat and, more importantly, entirely logical as it was in that year that the earliest reference to a Leeds resident adopting the title architect can be found in a directory. The terminating date of 1850 is arbitrary, but by then it seems reasonable to conclude that the demand for the professional services of architects was well established in the town. Throughout this study, it has been assumed that a directory entry is the sole prima-facie evidence for the existence of a practice, although the writer acknowledges that such a methodology is questionable. Certainly some entries refer to men about whom nothing is known and it is conceivable that they received little or no professional employment. At the same time, there were certainly individuals - excluded from this study - who are known to have produced an occasional design but never appeared in a directory as an architect.

Much of the material that follows is, of necessity, unremarkable, yet it is the undeniably prosaic nature of so much of what these Leeds architects were engaged on that makes their careers more typical of the thousands of men who made up the profession nationally than do the careers of Soane, Pugin or Scott. In choosing to examine a part of this numerically huge, but largely neglected, sector of the profession, the writer intends that this study will contribute a useful extra dimension to current understanding of the development of the profession as a whole. Any consideration of the emergence and growth of the architectural profession - whether locally or nationally - inevitably invites questions: why did the profession first appear when it did, and in the way it did; was an architectural profession inevitable or even desirable; is it appropriate to use the word profession when referring to practitioners in the first half of the nineteenth century? Such general issues have been dealt with elsewhere, and the writer does not intend to rehearse these explanations or suggest that, in these respects, the emergence of the profession in Leeds differed fundamentally from that in other parts of the country, although these issues receive some consideration in the conclu- sion. Rather this article is intended as an account of the profession in Leeds, looking at more parochial issues such as: from where did these architects come, and what were their backgrounds; the type and extent of their training; the nature of the employment they secured; the status they enjoyed; the extent of professionalism in the conduct of their affairs.

It is instructive to start by looking at some of the statistics of the Leeds practitioners. The directory of 1798 includes no architects, that for 800o has one, there was still only one by 1809, four in 1814, sixin I822, sixin I830, tenin 1837, eleven in 1843, thirteen in 1847, nineteen in I851 and twenty-three by i853.5 A total of forty-one architects practised in the town, either independently, or in partnership, during those fifty years. The provision is relatively modest early in the nineteenth century, but there is rapid expansion in the I83os and even more in the I84os.6

The backgrounds of these men show that they arrived at the position of 'architect' through a number of different routes. Some worked their way up through the building trades, no doubt seeking the higher status and greater financial rewards which the practice of architecture offered. For instance, Thomas Johnson appears in the 1793 directory as a 'plasterer', although he is known to have produced designs for buildings in the early and mid 1790s.7 However, in the directory of 1800 and in subsequent ones until his death in 1814, he is listed as 'architect'. Similarly William Lawrance is listed in

I77



ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 38: I995

the directories of 1798 and 1800 as a 'Joiner and Cabinet Maker' and in that of 1807 as a 'Raff Merchant', but from 809 onwards he is listed as 'Architect'. In fact it was in 1807 that the change of career took place, and he announced to his numerous Friends that he has declined the Business ofJoiner anc Carpenter . . . [and] begs Permission to offer his Service to the Public as an ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR, and VALUER OF BUILDINGS; and to inform them, that he intends carrying on the Business of RAFF- MERCHANT on his premises in Simpson's Fold, and shall be happy to receive a Share of their Commands.8

This was a pattern which continued throughout the half-century under discussion. James Simpson appears in the 1830 directory under 'Joiners and Builders', but by 1842 under 'Architects'.9 Christopher Dresser - probably the father of Christopher Dresser the designer - is an architect, in 1847, having appeared in the I845 directory as a 'Land Surveyor and Agent'. 10

Of the forty-one architects, a small number came to Leeds from either London or Edinburgh. In c. 8II Thomas Taylor arrived after working with 'Mr. Andrews, a builder of eminence in London'. Subsequently he spent eight years in the office ofJames Wyatt. In I819 R. D. Chantrell settled in the town. He had been a pupil of Sir John Soane from 1807 to 1814. Some time after 1826, John Clark decided to base himself in

Leeds, after beginning his career in Edinburgh. 1 It seems reasonable to suggest that this trio chose to move to Leeds because they recognized the opportunities which the town offered, since the local talent was of a modest order. Certainly such expectations were fulfilled, and between 1811 and c. 1840 they secured a very significant proportion of the town's principal commissions.

Although Leeds was the largest of the West Yorkshire towns, and therefore the one which offered the greatest opportunities for a successful career, there is only one known instance of an architect who started in practice in one of the lesser towns of the region and subsequently graduated to Leeds. This was William Perkin who initially practised in Wakefield. 12 However, R. H. and S. Sharp, who had a successful practice in York from 1827, kept an office in Leeds in the early I840s, in addition to the one in York.13 Their attempts to exploit the Leeds building boom in this way seem not to have been successful; there is no known work by them in the Leeds area from the 840s. Similarly Hurst and Moffat of Doncaster opened an office in Leeds in c. 1840. 14 The bulk of their practice continued to be in the south and east of Yorkshire, although they also secured commissions in Leeds.

Several of the architects who appear in the latter half of the period under discussion had earlier been pupils or assistants of architects already established in the town. John Child was Taylor's clerk of works in the building of Earls Heaton Church, Dewsbury (1825-27), and in 1826 was referred to as a draughtsman. By 1834 Child had set himself up in independent practice as an architect.15 Elisha Backhouse was a pupil of Benjamin Jackson. In 1835 these two formed a partnership. By 1839, after Jackson's death, Backhouse was in partnership with William Perkin. 16

There was no consistent use of the titles 'pupil', 'assistant' or 'clerk of works', but any of these three labels could be a useful prelude to an independent architectural career. For instance the following three men were associated with Chantrell: J. P. Percy described himself as having been 'for some years assistant to Mr. Chantrell' when he announced

178



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS 80oo-50

the setting up of his own office in 1827; R. W. Moore stated that he was the 'late pupil of Mr. Chantrell' when he established an independent practice in 1843; and Thomas Shaw had been Chantrell's clerk of works in the rebuilding of Leeds Parish Church (1837-41). In 1842 he elevated himself to the rank of architect, establishing a partnership withJ. B. Chantrell, the son of Shaw's former employer. Chantrell had also been trained by his father. 17

Although all of the forty-one men practising in Leeds referred to themselves as 'architects', there was no consistent understanding of what the title implied during the first half of the nineteenth century, and the second issue that needs to be examined is that of terminology. Throughout the country, such allied professions as surveying, estate agency, land measuring and engineering were often associated with architecture, and it is useful to try to be more specific in relation to the Leeds practitioners. Certainly, some were professional architects as we would understand the term today. That is, they had undergone a thorough training, ran more or less reputable and, as far as can be judged, reliable businesses, and did not mix architecture with the building trades. Within this category one would place Taylor, Chantrell and Clark, and, later on, William Corson. However, even of these more 'high-minded' individuals few totally avoided the allied businesses. For example, Chantrell is known to have acted as an estate agent on occasions.l8 Benjamin Jackson is more diverse. He practised from c. I814 to his death in 1836. He is known to have produced a small number of designs, but appears to have devoted more of his time to estate agency, either selling or letting residential or commercial properties and building land. He included surveying within his range of skills. He produced plans for road widening, and in 1823 surveyed the roof of Hunslet Chapel. 19

Joseph Cusworth also produced some designs for new or enlarged buildings,20 but seems to have been more active as a surveyor.21 In the I817 directory he is listed as an 'architect and land surveyor'. On a number of occasions he undertook work for the Leeds Improvement Commissioners, mainly producing schemes for road widening.22 John Child was in practice from about 1830. He designed a small number of buildings,23 but also sold building materials, let houses, offered his services as a 'surveyor' to the Leeds Improvement Commissioners and, on at least one occasion, took a job superintending the building of a 'reservoir, well and cesspit'.24

J. P. Percy referred to himself in the I82os, as 'architect and civil engineer', John Cliff in 1845 was known as an 'architect, surveyor and valuer' and in I851, James Philips described himself as an 'architect and land surveyor'.25

There were others who engaged in activities which could have been seen as the province of the architect, but chose to work under a different title. Charles Fowler first appears in the directories in 1826 as a land surveyor and 'Building Agent'.26 Clearly this was his major area of operation, although he also produced some designs for buildings.27. It was not until 1845 that he chose to refer to himself as an architect in the directories.28 Josiah Major produced plans for laying out parks and squares, and, on occasion, seems to have produced designs for buildings.29 However, he referred to himself as a 'landscape and architectural gardener',30 rather than 'architect'. In addition there must have been countless examples during this period of a relatively modest building being designed by one of the tradesmen responsible for its erection, a man

179




who would have thought of himself as a builder rather than an architect. Frequently in the Leeds newspapers, an advertisement placed by a building committee intending to erect a new structure, and wishing to obtain a design, would begin 'To Architects and Builders. ..', as if the two activities were virtually synonymous.31

Trying to find answers about which building types were the responsibility of architects is highly problematical, although some conclusions can be reached. Basic- ally, the more prestigious the building, the greater was the likelihood of an architect's involvement. Thus, all the churches erected in this period were designed by architects, although some of the non-conformist chapels do not have architects' names attached to them. A single shop was unlikely to be by an architect, a row of shops might be, and a market building would have been designed by an architect. Houses are the most difficult building type to research, since records survived so rarely. There was a huge increase in the number of houses in Leeds; the provision of dwellings in the town approximately doubled between the censuses of 1821 and 1841, during which time nearly 9,000 houses were built.32 However, only a tiny fraction are associated with a particular architect, and these are almost always the largest houses. Only rarely did architects concern themselves with working-class housing.33 Occasionally an architect is known to have worked on an individual house, or short row of the larger terraced houses. However, it is the detached suburban villas of north Leeds which are most likely to have been the work of architects, though in only a small number of cases is their designer known. Nevertheless, the quality of many of these houses suggests the hand of an architect, and it is possible that a significant proportion of the working lives of at least some of the forty-one Leeds architects under consideration was devoted to the design and erection of these dwellings.

The third question that needs to be examined concerns the geographical area over which the Leeds architects worked. Here the pattern is relatively clear: the second-rate talent - mainly those who combined architecture with other areas of business - worked almost exclusively in Leeds; the more skilled, 'professional', architects tended to work over a wider area. The latter point tended to be especially true if the architect had a particular specialization. For example, Thomas Taylor, who practised in the town from c. I 8 to 1826, came to concentrate on ecclesiastical designs, at a time when such a specialization was unusual. This enabled him to secure a large proportion of the church commissions which occurred during the second decade of the nineteenth century, in West Yorkshire and further afield. Thus he built or altered churches in Liversedge 1812-16; Bradford 18I 3-I 5; Colne (Lancs.) 18I 5; Luddenden (near Halifax) 1816-17; Huddersfield 1816-19; and Littleborough (Lancs.) 1818-20. After the passing of the I818 Church Building Act he received further commissions: Pudsey 1821-24; Sheffield 1822-28; Huddersfield 1823-24; Dewsbury 1823-25; and Ripon I826-27.34

Chantrell, in practice from 1819 to 1846, started his career as a designer of classical public buildings and initially appears to have worked only in Leeds. However, perhaps as a result of the vacancy in church architecture left by Taylor's death, he moved quickly to specialize in ecclesiastical commissions. During the twenty years from 1826 to 1846 he built or altered about fifty churches over a wide geographical area including: several in the Huddersfield region; in Derbyshire, Pontefract, Skipton, Keighley, Halifax, several in East Yorkshire and a whole series in the Parish of Leeds.35

I8o



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I800-50 I8I

John Clark came to specialize in the production of handsome public and domestic buildings in either the severe Greek or in more elegant Italianate idioms. He secured commissions in Bradford, Harrogate and Doncaster, and submitted designs for the Houses of Parliament competition and for proposed buildings in Manchester and Berwickshire.36

There appears to have been clear divisions in the employment of architects by particular religious denominations. Thus Taylor and Chantrell are known to have worked only for the Church of England, whileJames Simpson appears to have secured ecclesiastical commissions only from the non-conformists, and John Child was engaged almost exclusively for the Catholics. Simpson had an extensive practice designing chapels in Leeds, York, Scarborough, Derby, Barnsley, Newcastle (Staffs.), Hull, and Rochdale and Bury in Lancashire. By the I84os, with increasing numbers of architects practising throughout the north of England, such 'specialisms' were becoming unremarkable, and increasingly, Leeds architects tended to concentrate on working in or near to the town. C. W. Burleigh, who worked in the I84os and sos, had an extensive practice producing designs for schools, churches and parsonages. Although he obtained commissions in Thirsk, near Skipton, and near Doncaster, the bulk of his work was in Leeds. A similar pattern emerged for Perkin and Backhouse, who were in practice from the late I83os until after I850. They too had an extensive practice designing houses, public buildings and churches, but mainly schools and parsonages. They worked over a wider area than Burleigh, and frequently outside Leeds, but rarely did they venture more than about twenty miles beyond the town.37

On the other hand, commissions in Leeds were rarely given to architects based outside the town. Of more than one hundred commissions for public and religious buildings in Leeds during the first half of the nineteenth century,38 only a handful went to 'foreign' firms. Clearly the prizes on offer were sufficient to tempt architects from all over the country to enter competitions, but Leeds building committees and private patrons remained remarkably loyal to the local men, or men initially from outside the area who had chosen to settle in the town. Was this simply Leeds chauvinism, or perhaps the result of a belief that, at a time when the profession was not always held in high esteem, it was beneficial to have easy access to the architect should problems occur either during or after a building's erection?

For instance in 1819 a competition was held for a new suite of public baths. Entries were received from twelve architects including six from London, most notably, Decimus Burton and James Elmes; Thomas Rickman from Liverpool; Watson and Pritchett of York, (the leading Yorkshire practice of the period); a respectable firm from Doncaster; and three from Leeds architects, one of which, R. D. Chantrell's, was chosen. 39 Chantrell had, in fact, resided in the town only a matter of a few weeks before receiving the commission. In 1835, the new cemetery competition attracted seventeen entries, from a dozen cities. Three came from Leeds, including the winner, John Clark. 40

Of the sixteen new or rebuilt churches which the Parish of Leeds acquired in the first half of the nineteenth century eleven were designed by Leeds architects including seven out of eight in the years before 1842, despite a number of London architects who were actively seeking ecclesiastical work in the town. However after 1842, beginning with



ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 38: 1995

J. M. Derick's design for St Saviour's Church, a series of metropolitan architects was appointed to build churches in the town, including Scott, (St Andrew's 1844), and William Railton (Holy Trinity 1849). No doubt it was the appearance of The Ecclesiolo- gist - first published in 1841 - with its dogmatic but persuasive views about ecclesiastical architecture that caused the Leeds building committees to be more circumspect when appointing architects, lest they earned the censure of the Camden Society. And at about the same time, the launch of the Builder and the rapid spread of the rail network all contributed to a growing national pattern of architectural awareness at the expense of local traditions and loyalties.

In I824 Francis Goodwin from London secured the commission to build the new Central Market, yet he was not the first choice: initially Chantrell was appointed, but a disagreement with the Building Committee led to his replacement.41 Goodwin also sought the commission to design the new Corn Exchange in 1825, but rather surprisingly the job went to an otherwise almost unknown local man, Samuel Chapman.42 Anthony Salvin was another metropolitan architect who recognized the potential employment which Leeds offered. In 1822 he submitted architectural drawings at the Northern Society for the Encouragement of the Arts exhibition held in Leeds.43 In 1826, when it was decided to erect new Commercial Buildings in Leeds, Salvin was one of six architects invited to submit a design. This was a particularly interesting commission because the shareholders, rather unusually, cast their net widely when choosing the architect for their closed competition. Charles Barry, who had by this time produced several notable buildings in Manchester, was also invited, along with Goodwin whose recently completed Central Market must have given satisfaction, the two leading local men Taylor and Chantrell, and John Clark from Edinburgh.44 Quite how the committee came to know of Clark's existence is not clear, but he was selected as the winner. Subsequently, he chose to settle in the town and during the next thirty years enjoyed a successful and extensive practice.

Commissions given to outsiders for public buildings like the Central Market and the Commercial Buildings were fairly unusual. Buildings for the Church of England, as has been shown, usually went to Leeds architects, at least before the I84os. The pattern of employment of architects to design non-conformist chapels is rather more complex. At least twenty-eight chapels were opened between 1800 and 1840, although not all of these were new buildings. Many were designed by local men but others were designed by Joseph Botham from Sheffield, by Hurst and Moffatt of Doncaster and J. P. Pritchett of York.45

Leeds architects therefore secured a significant number of the commissions for buildings within the town itself, but for country house commissions in the rural area surrounding Leeds the picture was quite different. Here they had almost no success at all and, instead, architects with national reputations were usually employed. Part of the explanation is surely concerned with the social separation which existed between town and country dwellers. The situation was summed up by William White writing in 1837: 'Though Leeds was formerly connected with some of the principal families of the West Riding, some of whom made it their place of residence, others sustained offices in its Corporation and others interested themselves in the transactions of its affairs, it has long been totally abandoned by the aristocracy. Three distinguished noble families

I82



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I80o-5o

reside within a few miles of it [at Harewood, Temple Newsam and Methley] but are seldom to be seen in its streets; the independence of manufacturing wealth being inconsistent with both the pride of dignity and rank.'46

The wealth of the principal Leeds families could not hide their middle-class status. The rise of this class had produced a corresponding retreat of the upper classes. One way in which the upper classes exercised their superiority was in the employment of architects. Thus, within fifteen miles of Leeds, Bretton Hall was extended by Wyatville in c.I8I 5; Methley Hall was substantially remodelled by Salvin in I83o-36; Decimus Burton enlarged Grimston Park in I840; and Barry modernized Harewood in I843. The design of buildings on the estates of members of the Leeds middle-classes, who wished to elevate themselves to the ranks of the rural or suburban gentry, shows a more complex pattern. Benjamin Gott, a successful mill owner, employed Robert Smirke to remodel Armley House - only a few miles from the town centre - and the gardens were laid out by Humphrey Repton. Yet, when Gott wished to add a family chapel to the church in Armley, he employed a local man, Chantrell.47 Probably, the same architect was employed to design the school and almshouses in Armley, for which Gott paid. 48 Smirke and Repton also worked at Oulton Hall- about eight miles from Leeds - for John Blayds who had inherited money from a Leeds banking family. In 1827 he employed Rickman to build a church on his estate, although Chantrell might have been a logical choice. However, when in 1837 he required new stables, he employed Clark from Leeds.49 Following a fire at Oulton Hall in I85o he again looked to London, and employed Sydney Smirke to remodel the house designed by his brother.50 But Clark secured a number of commissions for suburban mansions in the I830s and 40s, built for wealthy Leeds industrialists;51 and Chantrell undertook substantial alterations at Rudding Park - twelve miles from Leeds - for Sir Joseph Radcliffe, although the house had been designed somewhat earlier, perhaps by one of the Wyatt family.52 The separation between the wealthy middle classes of Leeds and the landowning aristocracy and gentry of Yorkshire is further emphasized by the fact that there are no known examples in this period of Leeds architects gaining employment in the fashionable county town of York.

The final area of enquiry seeks to establish the kind of status - both socially, and as providers of a professional service to the public - that was enjoyed by the architects working in Leeds. At least some were respectable members of the middle class: five were members of the Leeds Library, a private subscription establishment;53 probably three subscribed to the town's Literary and Philosophical Society: Chantrell was not only a member, but on a number of occasions gave lectures on topics related to the history of architecture. 4 Four belonged to a masonic lodge.55 William Perkins was a churchwarden at St Mary's in the I840s, Jackson and Chantrell were among nineteen commissioners elected to administer the Leeds Improvement Act in 1835, and Chantrell was a member of the Council of the Leeds Botanical and Zoological Gardens.56 Interestingly, there appears to be no precise correlation between professional and social status. Chantrell, while professionally important, is equally notable for his involvement in Leeds' institutions and affairs. Yet Clark, arguably the town's most successful architect, seems to have had little social prominence. There is no evidence that any of the minor members of the profession enjoyed a high social status.

I83




Despite this apparent desire for respectability, and evidence indicating a move towards greater professionalism, the architectural scene in Leeds of the period was not without its scandals, some of which were aired very publicly. Writing in 1848, after more than twenty years of successful practice in the town, John Clark, clearly in

disgruntled mood, felt obliged 'to bring prominently under the public attention, and to

expose the evils of the hollow, mis-called system of competitions which has unhappily gained a footing in Leeds as well as elsewhere, - a system as injurious to architecture and its professors as it is disgraceful to all who sanction it.'57 Two decades earlier, Taylor too had hinted at his dissatisfaction with this system of selecting a designer: in answer to rumours that he had been an unsuccessful entrant in the Corn Exchange competition in 1825, he informed the Intelligencer that his ecclesiastical work had rendered him too busy to make 'plans tor speculation'.58 This is hardly surprising since

only a few months earlier, Taylor had gained second place in the Commercial

Buildings competition, only to learn later that the committee had been negotiating with Clark - who was the eventual winner - throughout the duration of the lengthy judging of the competition.59 Thus, whatever the drawbacks of this system were, Clark had initially done rather well out of it, and it seems clear that his complaint in 1848 was prompted by his failure to win any of four recent competitions. Nevertheless, his critical views cannot be dismissed merely as pique; it was a system open to

skulduggery, as the following cases illustrate. In 1820, the Commission administering the 1818 Church Building Act announced

that Leeds was to have three new churches. Initially Chantrell and C. A. Busby of London secured two of these jobs. Busby's associate, Francis Goodwin, had earlier been very successful in securing work from the Commissioners, so much so that they questioned his ability to manage all the schemes he had in hand, and resolved that he should receive no more for the time being. In an attempt to overcome this restriction, Goodwin induced other architects to offer his designs as their own, on condition that the fee would be divided between them. There is sound evidence for thinking that Goodwin attempted to secure the Quarry Hill (Leeds) commission in this way using Charles Busby as his intermediary 60 and may have had similar dealings with Chantrell over Christ Church, Leeds. It is undeniable that the west front of Christ Church bears

many similarities to Goodwin's/Busby's designs of this period, and none at all to Chantrell's. Alternatively, perhaps the 'Local Committee' in Leeds asked Chantrell to plagiarize the Goodwin design, or at least to modify his west elevation to incorporate the principal features of a Goodwin scheme.

When the six entries for the 1825 competition for the new Commercial Buildings were submitted, the Intelligencer devoted a good deal of the space to the examination of each of the schemes. The second article finished with: '. . The remaining design is Mr. Chantrell's; but before we attempt to specify either its defects or merits, we shall presume to advert to some rumours recently circulated respecting Mr. Chantrell himself, which, unless disposed of, would render all remarks upon his production a mockery. We come then broadly and directly to the point. It is stated, that some prejudice prevails against this gentleman for his professional conduct relative to the Philosophical Hall and the Central Market, and that in consequence, if his Design and Plans, etc. for the Commercial Buildings, were unexceptionable, they would still be

I84



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I80oo-o

rejected by the Subscribers at large, as well as by the Committee. Now if this be fact, may we not ask, without pretending to be Mr. Chantrell's advocates,whether it would not have been fairer towards him and the Subscribers not to have invited him to send in a Design at all in the present case? Why solicit him to become a competitor for the prize, if, whatever his deserts, he was foredoomed never to obtain it?'6t

But perhaps the most remarkable case of impropriety surrounded the competition for the new Borough Gaol in 1843, which was won by Hurst and Moffat, with Perkin and Backhouse placed second. Because the committee could not agree a fee with the winners for superintending the erection of the building, they then invited Perkin and Backhouse to build Hurst and Moffat's winning design, which by this time had been approved by the Secretary of the Home Department in London. Subsequently the Inspector of Prisons suggested additional accommodation was desirable, so Perkin and Backhouse were then given the opportunity of presenting a substantially new design - with a larger budget - much to the annoyance of at least one of the unsuccessful competition entrants - Clark - who not unreasonably asked why all the entrants were not given the chance to submit revised schemes.62

Disparity between the estimated and actual cost of new buildings was a further area of professional acrimony and public concern. Even Clark felt obliged to admit that 'architects' estimates are everywhere vilified as things in which no confidence can be placed; and what wonder that it should be so?'63 In some cases, costs more or less doubled during the course of building operations, as for instance was the case at Clark's own St George's church of 1836-38, or so it was claimed by a rival professional.64 However, in fairness to the architects, often the increases could be largely accounted for by extra work specified by the clients. Perkin and Backhouse noted that committees invariably changed their mind during the course of the work, especially if there were alterations in membership.65 And despite the enlarged bills, building committees were by no means always dissatisfied. Chantrell's Public Baths of I8I9-2I eventually cost ?7,053, although it had been the committee's initial intention to spend no more than ?2,500. However, on its completion, the committee, despite having spent more than they had intended, recorded that Chantrell's 'attention to his duty has fully warranted their warmest approbation'.66 It is not intended to suggest that there was anything unusually incompetent or corrupt about the profession in Leeds when compared with the rest of the country. 67 Indeed, a recurring theme in the study of nineteenth-century architecture nationally is the extent of public disquiet over the conduct of the profession, and the consequent low esteem in which it was often held; Pecksniff was surely a readily believable character for Dickens' readers.

The fees charged by architects - or offered by clients - was another area of practice which deserves attention. Where architects appear to have adopted a standard scale of charges, it may be taken as further evidence of the new professionalism. However, in other instances, remuneration could be a further cause of public concern. Clark stated that it had always been his practice to charge a standard percentage fee for public works - although he doesn't say what this was - but he negotiated fees for private work.68 Chantrell's practice seems to have been to charge a commission based on the total cost of the project for large jobs, which usually worked out at about five per cent.69 However, for minor works he charged for the time involved - 2 gns per day in the

i85




I83s70 - plus expenses, which could amount to significantly more than five per cent of the total cost. A fee of five per cent was probably a widely used norm for Leeds architects by c. 1830, but there were variations. Clark stated that some architects - but never himself, he was anxious to make clear - would charge the client a lower figure but then claim a commission for 'extra work' from the contractors, a policy Clark believed to be morally indefensible. 71 Elsewhere, it appears that a building committee would offer a set fee of less than five per cent to the architect superintending the erection of their building. Although Hurst and Moffat had won the Borough Gaol Competi- tion, it was their inability to agree a fee with the committee that had led to their losing the job.72 Clark wrote that the Guardians of the proposed new Industrial School in Leeds were explicit that they would only appoint an architect willing to execute his

design for a set fee, again of less that five per cent. 73 Perhaps it is not surprising, given the extent of all of the foregoing questionable conduct, to learn that only four of the

forty-one architects who practised in Leeds became members of the Institute of British Architects. 74

To conclude, some explanations for the apparent huge growth and - in most cases - enhanced status for the profession in this period are proposed. Certainly, there was a considerable increase in building activity, but this would not in itself fully justify the appearance of so many more architects. One explanation is that the increase is

part of the pattern of growth of all the professions during the nineteenth century, and it is helpful to see the statistics of the Leeds architects in a wider context. The

doubling of the number of firms in Leeds between the directories of 1843 and 1853 - from eleven to twenty-three - is broadly in line with the national figures: the census returns for 1841 and I85I show an increase from 1675 to 297I.75 Or if a range of professions in Leeds is examined, some interesting facts emerge. Between the directories of 1817 and

I

851, the number of architects rose from four to twenty-three, i.e. an

approximately six-fold increase. This is almost exactly the size of the proportional increase in the number of insurance agents in the town during the same period, but rather greater than the increase in the legal and medical professions - which tripled - and the accountants, who quadrupled. It was significantly less than the increase in stockbrokers, who showed the most dramatic increase, from none to

thirty-three.76 A second reason for the increase in the number of men calling themselves architect is

that during the first half of the nineteenth century, the 'profession' subsumed a wide variety of more or less associated occupations. These ranged from assessing rents and measuring properties at one extreme, to surveying and civil engineering at the other. No doubt it was the superior status which the term 'architect' implied, with its implications of intellectual and artistic ability, perhaps even of taste and connoiss- eurship, and the possibility of achieving wealth and occasionally fame, which encour- aged such a diverse range of occupations to adopt the title, and thus swell the ranks of the profession substantially. The practitioners in Leeds included several men whose businesses appear to have included little that could be termed architectural design. There are others who make only a single entry in the directories, and about whom nothing is known. Here one might conclude that their membership of the profession was wholly bogus, a speculative but failed attempt to ascertain if a career could be

I86



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I8oo-50

launched merely by renting an office, purchasing a brass door plate, and obtaining an entry in a directory.

The third explanation for the growth in the profession is as a result of their increasingly coming to be seen during the first half of the nineteenth century as an essential factor in the building process. In this context, a practice like C. W. Burleigh's is illuminating. Clearly he was busy during the I840s, but much of his work was on relatively modest commissions like schools or parsonages, which fifty years earlier would more likely have been 'designed' by their builder. This perceived need to employ an architect came about arguably for two main reasons. Firstly because aesthetic standards had risen, and even quite modest buildings were expected to be an ornament to the town. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, was the belief that an independent architect was essential to protect the interests of the client, just as Soane had stated as early as I788.77 Perhaps central in helping to establish the architect's fundamental role was the Commission for administering the I818 Church Building Act. Although the projects which they oversaw were relatively few in number, they set a standard of professional competence on which they were uncompromising. They allowed architects a fee which was a fixed percentage of the cost of the work, and they had specific requirements in terms of the types of drawings which were to be submitted. Most significantly, they set standards which the local builder/architects or surveyor/architects could not match. This had the effect of further dividing the profession into architects on the one hand, and the surveyors/measurers/builders/ estate agents on the other. The need for the Commissioners to be prudent in the spending of their money was clearly important. It was a model ideally suited to the 'committee' patronage which is so much a part of the post-Waterloo building scene throughout England. For the committee, assembled to erect a mechanics' institute, a corn exchange, a school or a market, the Church Commissioners' employment of architects provided an excellent model to follow. Even down to the erection of a modest residence for a schoolmaster, the rule seemed to be clear: wherever public money was being spent on a building, it was essential for all concerned that an architect be employed to control the finances and to manage the project.

Thus by about I850, there existed in Leeds a group of men calling themselves architects, who were seen by the public as offering a fairly clearly defined service. This came at the end of half a century during which the profession in the town had seen its inception, then refined its function and established its necessity, enabling the nineteen architects listed in the directory for i851 to constitute a fundamentally coherent professional grouping, largely detached from such allied activites as building and estate agency.

I87



I88 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY 38: I995

APPENDIX

ARCHITECTS LISTED IN LEEDS DIRECTORIES, AND DATES OF DIRECTORIES

Date of publication of directory

\0 \0 0 0 0 n-H - - w - ' _ . ' s o - '). 00 \ - 00 1 O O 0 0 4 4- -1 :O t s --

Thomas Johnson V / I William Lawrence I J I/

Benjamin Jackson V \/ I V \/ JI\/ / / Thomas Taylor/ I / / J/ Lawrence Ingham IJ

Joseph Cusworth I/ / V J I I I/ I I Henry Chambers V J I V R. D. Chantrell , , , , V Samuel Chapman J V / Charles Fowler V

James Simpson I/ V / /

John Clark 7 J 7 V J

John Child J

/

J

/

I Jas Percy V/ / I

William Perkin J I V H. Tuckington 7 I Elisha Backhouse I

IMark Holmes/ I I/ William Wells I Perkin & Backhouse/ V V V I J Chantrell & Son V

/

VJ Chantrell & Shaw 7 J / Nevis Compton V / I Hurst & Moffatt V/ R. H. & S. Sharp I R. William Moore V J J

Joseph Thompson I l l Charles Burleigh v

John Cliff I I

Christopher Dresser V/ Henry Garland J William Jordan I Shaw & Dobson I William Corson Jeramia Dobson I William Hill I

Benjamin Jackson II I

James Phillips I Thomas Shaw I

James Thompson I

Charles Tilney I



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I800-50

NOTES

I F. Jenkins, Architect and Patron, Oxford, 1961, p. 9I. 2 D. Linstrum, West Yorkshire Architects and Architecture, 1978, pp. 32-33; W. White, Directory and Gazetteer of Leeds, Bradford Sheffield, I853. 3 For instance: H. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects, 1978, pp. 26-41; F. Jenkins, op. cit.; B. Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession in Britain, I960; A. Saint, The Image of the Architect, New Haven, I983. 4 The most useful study of the profession in a provincial location in D. Linstrum, op. cit., chapter I. Material from this source is gratefully acknowledged as a starting point for the present work. 5 J. Ryley, The Leeds Directory, Leeds, 1798; Binns and Brown, A Directory ofthe Town ofLeeds, Leeds, I800, p. 33; F. Baines, The Leeds Directory of 18o9, Leeds, 1809, p. 44; Wardle and Bentham, The Commercial Directory for 1814-15, Manchester, 1814, p. 73; E. Baines, History, Directory and Gazetteer of the County of York, Leeds, 1822, p. IOI; W. Parsons and W. White, Directory of the Borough of Leeds..., Leeds, 1830, p. I27; W. White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of the West Riding, Leeds, 1837, p. 623; W. White, Directory and Topography of the Borough of Leeds, Leeds, 1843, p. 128; R.J. Charlton, Charlton's Directory ofthe Borough ofLeeds, Leeds, 1847, p. 15 I; W. Slade, Slade and Roebuck's Directory of the Borough and Neighbourhood of Leeds, Leeds, I85I, p. 467; W. White, (1853) op. cit., p. 216. 6 The Appendix lists these architects with the chronological spans of their careers, according to the entries in the relevant local directories. 7 P. Barfoot andJ. Wilkes, The Universal British Directory, I793, 3, p. 539. Linstrum, D. op. cit., p. 379. 8 J. Ryley, op. cit., p. 33; Binns and Brown, op. cit., p. 35; Wilson, G., A New and Complete Directoryfor the Town of Leeds, Leeds, 1807, p. 33; Leeds Mercury, I7 January 1807. A raff-merchant dealt in foreign timber. 9 Pigot, Directory of Yorkshire, I830 p. IOI3; W. White, Leeds and West Riding Directory, Leeds, 1842, p. 128. o1 R. J. Charlton, op. cit., p. 15I; Williams, Leeds Directory, Leeds, 1845, p. 68.

II F. Beckworth, Thomas Taylor, Regency Architect, The Thoresby Society, Leeds, No. 94, 1949, pp. II-12; C. Webster, R. D. Chantrell, Architect. .., The Thoresby Society, Leeds, second series, 2, 1992, pp. 15-37; Linstrum, op. cit., p. 374. 12 Linstrum, op. cit., p. 383. 13 Colvin, op. cit., p. 728; W. White, (1842) op. cit., p. 128. 14 Ibid. 15 Papers of Church Building Commission, Board Meetings Minute Book 30, p. 19; Linstrum, op. cit., p. 374; E. Baines, and Newsom, General and Commercial Directory of the Borough of Leeds, Leeds, 1834, p. 248. 16 Leeds Intelligencer, I7January 1835; E. Baines, and Newsom, A General and Commercial Directory ofthe Borough of Leeds, Leeds, 1839, p. 251. 17 Leeds Intelligencer, I February 1827; 28 January 1843; 25 June 1842; W. White, (1842) op. cit., p. 128; R. W. Moore, A History ofthe Parish Church of Leeds, Leeds, 1877, p. 54. I8 For instance: Leeds Intelligencer, 28 June 1827. I9 He first appears in the directory of I814; his death was mentioned in Leeds Intelligencer, 22 October 1836. His designs include St Mark's Terrace, Leeds (Leeds Intelligencer, 3 I May 1832) and new building at the rear of the Leeds Library, 1823 (unclassified papers in the Library archives). See further: Leeds Intelligencer, 2 August 1832, 9 August 1832, 5 October 1833; Leeds City Archives (West YorkshireJoint Archive Service, Leeds Office, DB /197/254; Archives of the Incorporated Church Building Society, Lambeth Palace. 20 Enlargement of Albion St Methodist Chapel, Leeds (Leeds Intelligencer, 20 March 1823); he submitted a design for the Leeds Baths, I819. (Baths Committee Minute Book 1818-27, Leeds City Archives (West YorkshireJoint Archive Service, Leeds Office), DB 276). 21 For example: he surveyed the roof of the Leeds Library 1818 (unclassified papers in the library archives). 22 E. Baines, Directory ofthe Town and Borough of Leeds, Leeds, 1817, p. 75; Leeds City Archives (West Yorkshire Joint Archive Service, Leeds Office), DB 197/24I. 23 For instance St Anne's Catholic Church, Leeds, Leeds Intelligencer, 22 September 1838. 24 Leeds Intelligencer, 12 August 1837, 15 June 1844; Leeds Improvement Act, Commissioners' Minutes, Civic Hall, Leeds. Meeting of 2I September 1842; Leeds Intelligencer, I September I844. 25 Ibid., I February 1827; 28June 1845; 25 October I85I. 26 E. Baines, (1826) op. cit., p. 166. 27 He was awarded the second premium for a design for the South Market, Leeds, 1823. (Archives of the Thoresby Society, Leeds, TS Box A). 28 Williams, op. cit., p. 270. 29 For example, he produced a plan for laying out Woodhouse Moor. (Leeds Intelligencer, 27 April i833); and in 1828 a plan for laying out Hanover Square, Leeds which may have included designs for buildings. (Leeds Intelligencer, 31 July 1828).

13

I89




30 W. White, (1837) op. cit., p. 582. 31 For instance, in the case of the new South Market, Leeds. (Leeds Intelligencer, 26 June 1823). 32 D. Fraser, (ed.) A History of Modern Leeds, Manchester U. P., 1980, p. 73. 33 For instance, Clark designed 'cottages' at Sheepscar in 1832 and in Marsh Lane in I833. In both cases he was working for the Borough of Leeds. Leeds City Archives (West YorkshireJoint Archive Service, Leeds Office, DB 197/287 and DB 197/292). 34 Colvin, op. cit., pp. 818-19. 35 Webster, op. cit., pp. I49-5. 36 Colvin, op. cit., pp. 2I5-I6; drawings for the Manchester and Berwickshire buildings were exhibited in the Leeds Public Exhibition, 1839. 37 These are listed in Colvin, op. cit., p. 738; for the Rochdale chapel, see Leeds Mercury 29 August 1840; nineteen editions of the Leeds Intelligencer between 1846 and 185o contained advertisements requesting tenders for Burleigh's buildings; the Leeds Intelligencer of 1839-51 contain forty-nine advertisements requesting tenders for Perkin and Backhouse's buildings. 38 Netlam and Francis Giles' plan of Leeds of 1815 lists forty-eight churches, chapels and public buildings, whereas by 1844, when Charles Fowler produced his plan, the number had increased to 181. 39 See Fraser, D. (ed.) op. cit., pp. I08-09; Leeds Public Baths, Committee Minute Book 1818-27, Leeds City Archives (West YorkshireJoint Archive Service, Leeds Office). 40 R. F. Fletcher, The History of the Leeds General Cemetery Company, unpublished M. Phil. Thesis, University of Leeds, 1975, pp. 3 I-32. 41 Leeds Intelligencer, 7July 1825. 42 Leeds Intelligencer, 8 September I825. 43 Thorp, W. H. John N. Rhodes, Leeds, I90I, p. 14. 44 Leeds Intelligencer, 23 June I825. 45 Grady, K. The Georgian Public Buildings of Leeds and the West Riding, The Thoresby Society, Leeds, 1989, pp. 164-67; Leeds Intelligencer, 12 February 1824; Linstrum, op. cit., p. 379; Leeds Intelligencer, 30 January 1841. 46 W. White, (1837) op. cit., p. 496. 47 V. M. E. Lovell, 'Benjamin Gott of Armley House Leeds' Thoresby Society Miscellany, LIX part 2, No. 130, pp. I77-22I; Leeds City Archives (West Yorkshire Joint Archive Service, Leeds Office), Richmond faculties, RD/AF/2/2, No. 7, 1825, Armley. 48 R. V. Taylor, Leeds Churches, 1875, p. 99. The design is attributed to Chantrell on stylistic grounds. 49 Linstrum, op. cit., p. 374. 50 Colvin, op. cit., p. 745. 51 Linstrum, op. cit., p. 374. 52 Leeds City Archives (West Yorkshire Joint Archive Service, Leeds Office), Radcliffe of Rudding, II/399. 53 They were: ThomasJohnson, R. D. Chantrell, John Clark, C. W. Burleigh, S. D. Martin. The information is taken from various editions of the Register of Members, kept at the Library. 54 Leeds Intelligencer, 14 March 1840; 15 April 1843. Chantrell was certainly a member. The membership included a Benjamin Jackson, and a Samuel Chapman, but since no record of these members' addresses exists, it is not absolutely certain that these men are the architects of the same names. General Minute Book, Leeds University Brotherton Library, MS (Deposit) 1975/I/I. 55 A. Scarth and C. A. Brian, History of the Lodge of Fidelity, Leeds, 1894. The architects are : Taylor; Chantrell; Nevis Compton; and William Perkin. S. D. Martin and William Hill, both in practice in Leeds before I850, joined the lodge after 1850. Also listed is Samuel T. W. Gawthorp, who described himself an 'architect', but is otherwise unknown. 56 Leeds Intelligencer, 8 October I842; 3 January 1835; 23 December 1837. 57 Ibid., 26 February 1848. 58 Ibid., 8 September 1825. 59 F. Beckwith, Thomas Taylor, The Thoresby Society, Leeds, 1949, p. 69. 60 See C. Webster, The Life and Work ofR. D. Chantrell, Architect, M.Phil. thesis, University of York, I985, pp. I72-78. The dispute which followed the rejection of Busby's design is fully documented in the following: M. H. Port, 'Francis Goodwin 1784-1853', Architectural History, I (1958), pp. 60-72; Monthly Magazine, iv (1822), pp. 211-12; Busby published a pamphlet defending his designs, a copy of which is in the Victoria and Albert Museum Library, Box I, 35J. 61 Leeds Intelligencer, 3oJune 1825. 62 Ibid., 26 August 1843; I November 1843; II March 1848. 63 Ibid., 26 February 1848. 64 Ibid., 4 March 1848. 65 Ibid., 14 November 1846.

I90



THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION IN LEEDS I800-50 I91

66 Leeds Public Baths, Committee Minute Book, 1818-27, Leeds City Archives (West YorkshireJoint Archive Service, Leeds Office), DB 276. 67 A. Gomme et al, Bristol an architectural history, 1979, appendix 3, pp. 428-29, discusses similar practices in the conduct of competitions in Bristol. 68 Leeds Intelligencer, 25 March 1848. Several examples are quoted in 69 Webster (1985), op. cit., pp. 435-63I. 70 Papers of the Incorporated Church Building Society, Lambeth Palace Library, File 1422 (Holmbridge). 71 Leeds Intelligencer, 25 March 1848. 72 Ibid., ii March 1848. 73 Ibid. 74 They were: William Hurst (FIBA, 29 February 1836); Samuel Sharp (AIBA, 4July 1836); R. D. Chantrell (FIBA, I8July I836);Nevis Compton (AIBA, 27January 1845). William Perkin and William Hilljoined after I850. (RIBA Library, British Architectural Biography 1834-1914). 75 Quoted in Kaye, op. cit., p. I73. Unfortunately no census figures for membership of professions exist before I841. 76 The writer is grateful to Professor Maurice Beresford for supplying this information. 77 1. Soane, Plans, Elevations and Sections of Buildings executed in several Counties, 1788, p. 7.



the architectural profession in leeds 1800-50: a case-study in provincial practice

Documents