Country houses have been slightly glibly described as ‘prisons’, usually due to the restrictive social conventions, which stifled the freedom of the occupants. However, country houses have occasionally been repurposed as true custodial institutions, serving as prisons, youth detention centres, approved schools, prisoner-of-war (POW) camps from the 18th century to the present. This role is one which has been often overlooked in the history of the country house.
If one wished, it was always possible to cast the country house as a prison, of sorts. The restrictions placed on everyone who lived in one, whether as the lord or the lowliest servant, was a web of both explicit and implicit rules. Although they could, in theory, walk out of any unlocked door, the reality was that they were trapped, bound to the building.
Fiction has long played on this idea, weaving physical incarceration, with its psychological equivalent. There are the self-imposed emotional bonds which confine the jilted Miss Havisham to her decaying Satis House in Charles Dickens’ ‘Great Expectations‘ (1861), or the fear which entraps the governess at Bly House in ‘The Turn of the Screw‘ (1898) by Henry James. In ‘Rebecca‘ by Daphne du Maurier (1938), Manderley, the grand estate in Cornwall, becomes a place of psychological imprisonment for the unnamed narrator. Haunted by the lingering presence of her husband’s first wife, Rebecca, the narrator feels trapped by the oppressive atmosphere of the house and the expectations imposed upon her. More recently, in Sarah Waters’ ‘The Little Stranger‘, the decaying Georgian mansion of Hundreds Hall (played by Newby Hall, Yorkshire in the film), becomes a symbol of entrapment for its inhabitants as their financial decline echoes that of their place in society, leaving them isolated.
Newby Hall, North Yorkshire, represented the fictional Hundreds Hall in the 2018 adaptation of Sarah Waters’ ‘The Little Stranger’
Beyond these intangible confines, the house as a cell was perhaps most famously portrayed with Bertha Mason, Mr Rochester’s wife, confined as the ‘mad woman in the attic’ of Thornfield Hall in Charlotte Brontë’s ‘Jane Eyre‘ (1847).
Royal confinement
Beyond fiction, the country house has, at times of need, served in reality as a place of confinement – pressed into service as a working prison when circumstance demanded.
On 16 May 1568, Mary Queen of Scots fled to England seeking refuge from political turmoil in Scotland after the battle of Langside and spent her first night at Workington Hall, Cumbria. Mary had come to England in the hope of gaining support from the Catholic nobility and of appealing to her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, for political assistance in regaining her Scottish throne. However, because both women were descended from Henry VII, Mary possessed a strong claim to the English crown. This made her presence in England a direct threat to Elizabeth, particularly as Mary was a Catholic alternative to Elizabeth’s Protestant rule.
Although Mary was technically a guest, she was heavily guarded and this effectively marked the beginning of her nearly 19-year imprisonment before her execution. Mary was moved around regularly to thwart plots to free her, from castles to eventually the country houses of George Talbot, the 6th Earl of Shrewsbury (b.1522 – d.1590). The Earl of Shrewsbury, famously married to Bess of Hardwick, played a pivotal role in the confinement of Mary, having been appointed her custodian by the Queen. Throughout various periods, he held Mary at his family’s houses including Wingfield Manor, Hardwick Hall, Chatsworth House, and Sheffield Manor – all situated within a 15-mile radius in Derbyshire. Mary was finally moved to Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire, arriving on 25 September 1586. She was put on trial in October, and then executed in the Great Hall on 8 February 1587. Her long confinement within such grand yet guarded houses stands as a stark reminder of how the architecture of luxury could so easily become the architecture of captivity.
A prisoner of war
In wartime, country houses have been pressed into service in a wide variety of roles, with prisoner-of-war camps among the least glamorous. Stepping beyond the more obviously martial associations of castles, one of the earliest – and most notorious – examples was at Sissinghurst in Kent during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). The house, by this time had been allowed to fall in to a significant state of disrepair by the then owners, the Baker family. The government rented the property and adapted it to hold around 3,000 French naval prisoners, during which time it was further mistreated with the inmates destroying panelling, fireplaces, the chapel furniture, and leaving the garden a wasteland.
In 2008, a newly identified watercolour emerged that provides the most complete known view of the Elizabethan house during this period when it was a prison – and includes the chilling depiction of a double murder.
On 9 July 1761, whilst guarded by local, poorly-trained, armed militia, three prisoners who had escaped were being brought back to the camp. Their arrival caused a group of prisoners to rush to the fence out of curiosity. One of the militia, a hot-head called John Bramston, shouted that they were to come no closer or he would fire. He loaded his musket with three balls and fired at the group. One ball struck the wall, the other two each hitting a prisoner. One by the name of Baslier Baillie was wounded (shown top-left being helped by two friends), but another, Sebastien Billet, was killed instantly. Bramston was unrepentant. The picture is thought to have been painted by a Frenchman to record the crime – but in doing so also left a powerful visual record of a now much-altered house and its time as a prison.
World War II
During the twentieth century, several distinguished country houses were temporarily repurposed to serve the needs of war, their refined architecture providing an incongruous backdrop to confinement. At Huntercombe Hall in Oxfordshire, the late-Victorian mansion, with its commanding stone façade and landscaped setting, was requisitioned during the Second World War as a secure detention site, most notably for high-ranking German prisoners including Rudolf Hess, whose isolation lent the house an unlikely role in wartime diplomacy and intelligence. In north London, Trent Park, a neo-Palladian villa by Sir William Chambers, was adapted as a special interrogation centre, where senior German officers were held in conditions of deceptive comfort while their conversations were secretly recorded – its grand rooms thus becoming instruments of psychological warfare.
Similarly, Mytchett Place, Surrey, during 1941–42, this Victorian mansion was fortified and codenamed “Camp Z,” serving as a one-man prison wired for surveillance for the detention of Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess.
Further north, the Huntroyde Hall estate in Lancashire, long the seat of the Starkie family, was similarly turned over to military purposes, its once-private parkland accommodating prisoners and personnel within hastily erected compounds. As with Sissinghurst, the mistreatment during the harsh use as a prison was a significant factor in its later demolition. Earlier, in the First World War, the partly medieval Badsey Manor House in Worcestershire was similarly employed to house prisoners of war, marking a utilitarian phase in its long domestic history.
The changing attitude to the role of prisons
The use of country estates and their houses was partly one of necessity in wartime, but in the post-war period also reflected a change in attitudes towards a more therapeutic approach towards incarceration from the 19th-century focus on harsh conditions and hard labour as a deterrent.
Why country houses? They offered several advantages: privacy (away from cities, escapes less dangerous to public), space for agriculture and workshops (important for training prisoners in trades), and an existing infrastructure of accommodations and kitchens. Also, symbolically, placing prisoners in a “less oppressive” environment was meant to encourage self-respect and responsibility – a deliberate contrast to the austere walled prison. Askham Grange’s homely appearance was cited as beneficial for women.
The open-prison concept drew heavily on Alexander Paterson, who joined the Prison Commission in 1922. He argued that imprisonment should actively shape behaviour for the better, with inmates encouraged to develop through structured physical and mental activity.
In the 1940s, there had been a steady increase in the total number of people convicted of indictable offences. During a House of Lords debate on Penal Reform in November 1946, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, lamented the tendency towards increasing crime before WWII, stating that,
I take the five years 1934–1938. The number of young persons found guilty of indictable offences moved up from 10,000 odd in 1934 to 14,000 odd in 1938 – that is males; females from 1,300 odd in 1934 to 1,600 odd in 1938. …When we have the figures of 14,000 young men and 1,600 young women going up to the sort of figures we have to-day [1947], for the total number of persons – 78,000 in 1938, moving up in 1945 to 116,000…it is quite obvious that we have here a very real problem. (Source: Hansard – column 442)
The noble Lord’s figures indicated a serious issue so whilst not everyone convicted was incarcerated, there was a steady rise in the prison population:
The sustained increase in the total population by over 50% from 1940-1950, would place significant stress on any system of incarceration. However, attitudes had changed and the harsh conditions of punishment of the nineteenth century were now considered to do more harm than good, especially for young offenders. The Criminal Justice Act of 1948 introduced major reforms for young and habitual offenders. It barred sending under-21s to prison except as a last resort, directing them instead to borstal training or, for shorter terms, to detention centres.
This more enlightened perspective, which the Lord Chancellor was fully supportive in that same debate, created a requirement for a system which emphasised a more probationary approach via the borstal system. By relying on less stringent security, and often promoting training and useful labour – particularly agricultural – this created a means to reform and improve the lives of those who had been convicted. The Lord Chancellor welcomed that:
Thank goodness, we are now approaching the time when it will no longer be necessary to detain in prison for long periods persons who are ultimately going to serve their sentences in Borstal. The institutions we now have are of very varied types. Sometimes they are in a camp and sometimes they are in a country house, where the inmates can be engaged on agricultural work. We have also opened a new Borstal institution for girls at East Sutton Park in Surrey. That is a small institution and will take some fifty girls. (Source: Hansard – column 447)
Interest also developed in adapting elements of the short-lived but influential “Wakefield experiment,” introduced during the First World War to manage the most uncompromising conscientious objectors – the Absolutists – who refused all military orders. Previously held in ordinary prisons, they became the focus of MPs arguing for more humane treatment. The government resisted releasing them but agreed to trial a compromise by placing all COs under a new regime at Wakefield.
This system relied on a high degree of trust. Cell doors were left unlocked, prisoners could move freely within the prison, and a small allowance allowed them to buy writing materials and tobacco. Conditions were not freedom, but a clear improvement. Leisure and work were timetabled, with expectations of diligence and no “singing, shouting, whistling, or reading” during working hours. The experiment collapsed when the men rejected the rules they had helped draft, leading to their return to standard prisons. Even so, its central idea – combining restrictions with opportunities for responsibility and reform – would influence later thinking about penal regimes.
Entrance to Tortworth Court, Gloucestershire (Image from private collection)
Speaking during the same debate in 1946, the Lord Chancellor again highlighted that such facilities were being developed:
We have recently taken over a former hospital at Tortworth [Court] in Gloucestershire as what is called a minimum security prison for selected convicts. In that way we can do much towards their rehabilitation and their ultimate reassimilation into ordinary civilian life. (Source: Hansard – column 447)
This approach influenced the selection of suitable locations for the new prisons. At HMP Leyhill, the government repurposed an ex-American Army hospital camp on the Tortworth estate to create the first open prison in 1946. The adjacency of Tortworth Court (then still with the Earl of Ducie) gave the model of a country setting if not using the main house. Interestingly – the house was not taken as it was returned to the Earl; but by the 1950s, Leyhill expanded and did start using some estate buildings, thought the wider estate is still owned and managed by the Earl of Ducie’s family as Tortworth Estates.
Hewell Grange
Hewell Grange epitomizes the pattern for long-term penal conversion. An existing country house could be successfully integrated into the penal system for decades, effectively becoming a self-contained village (with a chapel, workshops, and housing all on site).
The grand main house, last great prodigy houses of its era, provided an environment, even when not used directly as cells for prisoners, was arguably more humane than a typical prison – former inmates often remarked on the beauty of the lake and gardens, which were part of a 250-acre landscape park laid out by Capability Brown, with formal terraces, a lake, and extensive service buildings. By the lake are also the ruins of Old Hewell Grange, the classical predecessor to the current house. After being superseded by the new Hewell Grange in the 1890s, it was accidentally gutted by fire and abandoned, and now survives as a roofless ruin, its classical form still partly visible among collapsed walls and encroaching vegetation.
The new house was built between 1884 and 1891 for Robert Windsor-Clive, later 1st Earl of Plymouth, Hewell Grange cost approximately £250,000 (equivalent to spending c.£39m today). Designed by George Frederick Bodley and Thomas Garner in the Jacobethan style, the red brick house with stone dressings features an E-plan, steeply pitched gables, clustered chimneys, and mullioned-transomed windows. Interiors include carved oak panelling, a double-height Great Hall with a minstrel gallery, and elaborately modelled plaster ceilings.
However, Hewell Grange also reveals both the potential and limitations of prison use: spacious and already built, the house saved the state construction costs in 1946; but by 2019, it was anachronistic and expensive to run. By the 2010s, the UK prison estate was being rationalized. In 2019 the Ministry of Justice announced the closure of the open prison at Hewell Grange, following a critical inspection report and also reflected the cost of maintaining an ageing mansion for modern custody standards. The prison formally closed in 2020, and the entire site was consolidated into one (closed) prison to the north east of the house, around 600 meters away.
Hewell Grange house is now vacant and lacking a clear future, beyond occasional use for filming and events. As is so often the case for heritage without a viable and sustainable purpose, its condition has deteriorated to ‘poor’ after closure, with concerns about lack of maintenance, resulting in it being placed on the Heritage at Risk Register. As of early 2022, the government put the property up for sale, seeking a new custodian to repurpose the historic estate once again.
It was apparently sold in 2023 to a hotel group but it’s unclear whether this fell through or they immediately put it back on the market, as it has been offered through Cushman & Wakefield, with 247 acres, for an undisclosed price. This inevitably raises questions about the future: will it return to a private residence, become a hotel or institution, or will it just be allowed to deteriorate until it becomes another country house to succumb to neglect, urban exploration or a mysterious fire?
Conclusion
The pattern of country house reuse reflects adaptability to historical moment. In wartime, necessity drove usage; in peacetime, policy experimentation and economic forces did. This practice peaked in the mid-20th century and today it would exceptionally unlikely for a house to be taken over for this purpose, with a clear preference for building dedicated facilities.
From a wider heritage perspective, Hewell Grange’s story is instructive as, unlike so many country houses that were demolished in the mid-20th century, the use as a prison provided a value and so it was preserved precisely because it found an institutional function. Now its preservation will depend on finding a sympathetic new use after its institutional life has ended.
A list of country houses used (either currently or previously) for incarceration by the state since 1900
Thomas, Roger J. C. Prisoner of War Camps (1939–1948): Project Report. English Heritage, 2003.
Robinson, John Martin. Requisitioned: The British Country House in the Second World War. Aurum Press, 2014.
Further research
Interestingly, the subject of the use of the country house for incarceration doesn’t appear to have been covered in depth academically, as far as I could discover. Given the numerous angles, this would appear to be an area which someone may wish to investigate further as the official records and related information would probably reveal a richer story than I have been able to share here. Happy to have a chat if anyone wishes to take it on.
Slowly, then suddenly, many estates grew silent. Carriages no longer clattered down the drives. Entrance halls no longer echoed to voices. Kitchens went cold. Staff quarters were emptied. Then, the contents were sent to the auctioneers. Finally, the house was broken apart; hammers and pickaxes the new sounds as hundreds of years of history were reduced to rubble.
One key questions which architectural historians have been trying to answer for a number of years is just how many UK country houses have been lost? The answer, for now, is overthree thousand. Each was a world on its own, but also part of the complex jigsaw of our national heritage.
Heath Old Hall, YorkshireWilton Park, BuckinghamshireEaton Hall, CheshireLindridge Park, DevonStoke Edith, HerefordshireBelvedere, KentFlixton Hall, Suffolk
The genesis for this area of research was ‘The Destruction of the Country House‘ exhibition, which ran from 9 October – 1 December 1974 at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London. I have written about it on a number of occasions so if you would like more insights into it, you can read my article on the 40th anniversary or my reflections on the 50th anniversary.
The position of the landed elites was considered the bedrock of society. The families provided political leadership, social aspiration, and were the centre of the local economy through their employment and expenditure. Land ownership was the passport to this elite status; the open market a safety valve which enabled ‘new money’ to mix with the old, to want to emulate them rather than remove them. This allowed new families to fluidly move up from merely wealthy to established gentry or nobility. After a few generations, the land functioned as an older form of ‘green-washing’, the verdant parkland obscuring where the family had started. Within a few short centuries (though sometimes it was just decades), they had become the elite.
Rounton Grange, Yorkshire – seat of the Bell baronets, of Rounton Grange and Washington Hall (1885). House demolished 1954.
However, the first half of the twentieth century was, for the owner of these large houses, often financially, socially, and politically challenging. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, which opened our markets to cheaper overseas produce, combined with the agricultural depressions of the latter-half of the nineteenth century, had undermined many of the assumptions about the financing of the country house. As debts grew, so the stark financial reality of the situation they were in began to dawn. For many, the path to recovery seemed to be to sell non-core assets such as artworks or outlying estates and hope that this would tide them over until their incomes, usually agricultural, recovered. For those who sold their land early and invested in the stock market, the crash of 1929, was another blow to their planning. As is so often the case, the markets remained against them longer than they could remain solvent.
When Aldous Huxley published his first novel, ‘Crome Yellow‘, in 1921, the challenge to the country house was already significant enough to feature as the fate of the imaginary Gobley Great Park;
‘A stately Georgian pile, with a façade sixteen windows wide; parterres in the foreground; huge, smooth lawns receding out of the picture to right and left. Ten more years of the hard times and Gobley, and all its peers, will be deserted and decaying. Fifty years, and the countryside will know the old landmarks no more. They will have vanished as the monasteries vanished before them.’.
Thankfully, Huxley’s apocalyptic vision wasn’t fully to come to pass. However, from the relatively low levels of losses in the nineteenth-century, the twentieth-century would bring decade after decade of destruction. It’s worth remembering that this was largely a crisis of the country house, not the wider estate. The land was considered more valuable as an income-generating asset and for the social prestige it conferred. Without the expense of the house – the maintenance, the staff, the general running costs – so the income was better able to meet their expenditures. Mr Micawber would be beaming with pride.
So, when seeking to bring their expenditure within the available income, the house was considered a necessary sacrifice. And with so many other families also facing a similar situation, the loss of any one house would be obscured by the loss of so many others. The problem with simple data is that it belies the dramatic local impact the loss of a house would have been. The country house and its estate embodied the idea of stability. The idea of a family owning the house and land and passing it down through the generations was – and arguably still is – embedded firmly in our national psyche, even if the family did change every few hundred years. The key difference in the twentieth-century was that there was often no other family to take their place.
In this dark era, houses languished on the market. This was often evidenced by adverts for the same properties appearing with sad regularity in magazines such as Country Life. It brought reminders of the increasing threats to the established order of the countryside into the drawing rooms and libraries of those most at risk.
Typical advert in Country Life magazine. Key aspects to note: the house is unnamed (though I think it is the infamous Burwell Hall, demolished in 1958), the language emphasises cheapness: ‘moderate price’, ‘modern conveniences’, ‘inexpensive gardens’. (Advert from Country Life, 10 November 1923, pg. XIII)
Each week, beyond the adverts in Country Life, ‘The Estate Market’ page offered a running commentary on the changes. For example, the headline for that page on May 5th 1922, was stark: ‘Demand for small properties’, with the opening paragraph stating, ‘The brightest section of the market is that in which the smaller properties are dealt with…’. Coverage includes the sale of Sudbourne Hall, Suffolk, saying it had sold with 500 acres, having first been offered as a whole but failing to find a buyer, it had been split up. The house was later demolished in 1953.
Another paragraph is headed ‘Mansions as sanatoria’ and writes approvingly of how Lords Londonderry and Boyne have both ‘generously offered’ Seaham Hall and Brancepeth Castle respectively for ‘hospital purposes’. Specifically, it states that Seaham Hall ‘…has had to be closed in consequence of taxation and the heavy cost of upkeep.’ (it survived and is now a hotel). It also mentions that Rendlesham Hall, Suffolk, has been sold for use as a ‘…retreat for drug-addicts and inebriates…’. It was also later demolished in 1949.
During the nineteenth-century, the available data shows that there were fewer losses; approximately one a year. However, when considering the data, there are a few caveats to remember. Critically, the data for the nineteenth-century is thinner than the twentieth-century. Fewer books had been produced, research was sparse, and even confirming if a property was of sufficient stature to be classed as a country house is sometimes challenging. Fire and replacement by a new house were two of the most common reasons.
So how many have been lost?
Quoted in The Daily Telegraph magazine in 2007, the leading country house historian of the lost houses, the late John Harris, said that:
‘At the time [before the V&A exhibition], we reckoned that about 750 houses [in the UK] had been pulled down between 1880 and 1970. Now we know it’s about 1,800.’1
Sadly, John’s estimate was still too low – 1,800 doesn’t even cover England alone.
The gazetteer at the back of ‘The Destruction of the Country House‘ exhibition catalogue listed a total of 1,099 houses (740 for England, 313 Scotland, 46 Wales, with NI not included). This list had been compiled by John, Marcus Binney, and another researcher, Peter Reid, and explicitly stated it was not exhaustive. The total for England was updated with the publication in 2002 of ‘England’s Lost Houses‘ by Giles Worsley which added 445, to total 1,185 for England. However, Ian Gow’s ‘Scotland’s Lost Houses‘ in 2006 listed only 308 (5 fewer than before) but also included examples of houses in cities (which I have excluded from that total).
The task of taking the ground-breaking earlier research forward and to resurrect the memory of these otherwise obscured houses, has now been taken up by amateur enthusiasts, supported by the invaluable work of historians who have focused on specific areas. I started researching the English lost houses in 2006, compiling what I hoped would become the most comprehensive record. All the details, including detailed histories and thousands of images, are shared on the Lost Heritage website.
Distribution of English lost country houses since 1800. Source: Matthew Beckett / www.lostheritage.org.uk
The scorecard of architectural losses
Each of these personal efforts has significantly increased the totals of lost houses with Scotland now standing at 545 (Disley), 390 for Wales (Baker), and 100 for Northern Ireland (Triggs – a particular achievement as they hadn’t been tallied previously).
The total number of lost houses for England alone has now exceeded John Harris’ original estimate for the whole of UK, having reached 2,019 (as at November 2024).
Overall, we can be confident that the number of UK country houses lost since 1800 now totals a remarkable 3,054.
Why does this matter? These houses and their particularly grand and hierarchical era and way of living has gone. It died, not in our leafy lanes, but in the battles and social change of the World Wars. The changes forced an evolution – and in that process, there are winners and losers. The tragedy was that the losers were often not inherently weaker houses, and in so many cases, they were some of the most interesting and significant. Beyond the random losses from fire and environmental causes, often what determined whether a house survived was their owners and their circumstances. For some, they were determined to ensure that the houses were reborn, albeit in a new way of living. For others, they were equally determined that that they would not pass what they saw as a burden to another generation.
In the specific losses to a family, and a locality, and to our architectural heritage, they were to be lamented. But in all of them, they possessed something of our shared heritage, and their loss, and the losses of the future, are pieces of the national jigsaw of our identity. As Simon Jenkins said, ‘Through them we hear the echo of our collective selves – and remember who we are.’2. We remember these parts of our history through the memory of these houses, and the roles they played in the life of our nation, both locally and nationally.
Request for help
If anyone has any further information on the lost country houses of England – either history, dates for losses, or family photos or recollections – please do contact me.
References:
1 – Campbell, Sophie, ‘Brideshead Detonated’ Telegraph Magazine, 20/01/2007 2 – Jenkins, Simon, ‘England’s Thousand Best Houses‘ (Penguin, 2004), vii
In September 1872,Queen Victoria was invited to stay at Dunrobin Castle in Scotland, seat of the Dukes of Sutherland. She naturally travelled by train, having used them for long-distance journeys since 1842. After being met by crowds at Inverness, her train left on the final leg in the late afternoon.
Just after passing the head of the Cromartie Firth, her afternoon tea was unexpectedly interrupted as the train stopped at Bonar Bridge station. Here, she records in her diary, ‘the Duke of Sutherland came to the door in such a curious get up, that I did not at first recognize him. He had been driving the engine since Inverness, but only appeared now on account of this being the boundary of the Sutherland railway.‘. The Sutherland being a private railway line which the Duke had conceived, financed and now enjoyed the privilege of running across his lands.
Such power and enthusiasm, stoked by immense wealth, were often the hallmarks of the development of the Victorian railway network. With it came the curious demands of landowners and aristocracy for the network to accommodate their personal needs, with the provision of not only private waiting rooms, platforms, and stations, but also entire railway lines.
Dunrobin Station for the Duke of Sutherland at Dunrobin Castle (Image: private collection)
Across the network, private train stations served royalty, aristocracy, industry, and the military. The control and influence of the landowners had an immense effect on the overall development of the railways, arguably more so than any other interest group. In the 1830s, the aristocracy were almost all opposed to the railways but attitudes changed as opportunities arose, resulting in the widespread granting of privileged access and rights to the railways.
This foundation for this article is based on research by others but focuses on the landowners and significantly expands the list of known instances. Importantly, it goes beyond just the better known private stations and identifies where landowners secured their own prerogatives regarding the use of the network in some way. The full list (PDF linked at the end of the article) runs to 114 examples; 72 in England, 33 in Scotland, 4 in Wales, and 5 in Ireland, across 57 different railway lines.
Definitions and caveats
One of the challenges of cataloguing is ensuring that there is consistency and clarity, so below are the definitions I have used:
Private station: a place on a railway line with one or more buildings, restricted to a specific group of people, to enable them to get on or off a train
Private haltor platform: an unstaffed location on a railway line with either no buildings or only temporary structures but with a platform, restricted to a specific group of people, to enable them to get on or off a train
Private waiting room: a purpose-built waiting facility, restricted to a specific group of people, within a station which otherwise remains open to use by the general public
Station of convenience: an otherwise publicly accessible facility on the network but where the location is known, or there is convincing circumstantial evidence, to have been determined by a local landowner
Based on these definitions, my research shows where there is evidence that the siting, service, or facilities of the stations were influenced by the proximity or power of the local landowner.
This research was just for my own interest so there are methodological challenges. I have not checked every station, though I did review all 16,000+ entries in Butt’s ‘The Directory of Railway Stations’ (1995) for references to the names of country houses or locations where I know one exists (or did exist) and other related books. I have also spend hours traversing the railway lines on the Ordnance Survey 1888-1913 maps via the brilliant National Library of Scotland website. My knowledge of Welsh and Irish geography and houses is not as extensive as for England and Scotland so other examples have almost certainly been overlooked. I am also definitely not a railway historian but I do love railways.
Also, there are the ‘possibles’. This is where although there’s no evidence of privilege, a station just appears to be closer to an estate than its urban namesake. For example, Eynsford station which is noticeably south of the village it’s named after but close to the lodge entrance for the Lullingstone estate. There is almost a gravitational distortion where the power of a local estate has pulled the station towards (or pushed it away from) it by varying degrees. These types have been added to a separate list as too circumstantial (but if someone has the GIS skills, they may be able to identify other anomalies). Also, I have not examined primary documents such as railway company or landowner correspondence.
For the landscape historian, it would also be interesting to compare maps of the estate drives before and after the arrival of the railways to determine if an owner took advantage of the new connections to change the introduction to the estate and house, and the subsequent impact on the development of the parkland and the impact on landscape design (approaches from stations, hiding lines or making a feature of them). An examination of appropriate sales particulars may also indicate the relative importance given to these facilities, especially compared to other attributes.
If someone has a list of railway company directors, cross-referencing their country houses may highlight others as it seems to have been a relatively common perk. Also, it’s hard to show where there was a negative influence; the landowner who did not want the railway near them and so forced the line away from what perhaps might have been the optimum route. Anyway, if someone did want to take it further, these are all good branch lines to explore.
Making tracks
The earliest history of railways can be traced to landowners, though not for the carriage of themselves. The first wagonways were created to assist with the extraction of mineral resources from their estates and transportation to shipping hubs. There is some dispute as to the earliest but one of the best developed was the Wollaton Wagonway. Constructed in 1603-04 by Huntington Beaumont, in partnership with Sir Percival Willoughby, it hauled coal from the Strelley mines on the latter’s Wollaton Hall estate.
The very first fare-paying passenger service in the UK – though using horses, rather than steam power – was the Oystermouth Railway at Mumbles, south Wales in 1807. The first railways in the modern incarnation to carry passengers and freight were the Stockton & Darlington, which opened in 1825, and the Liverpool & Manchester, which opened in 1830.
The Stockton & Darlington was proposed as a challenge to the Earl of Strathmore’s proposal in 1818 for a canal from his Evenwood colliery to the river near Stockton, using the statutory powers of compulsory purchase to acquire the necessary land. Commercial interests in the places bypassed by the Earl’s canal considered building their own canal but were persuaded to consider the then revolutionary idea of a public tramway or railway (they hadn’t decided which, even when the Stockton & Darlington Railway Bill was put before Parliament in early 1819). In an early sign of the influence of landowners, Lord Eldon opposed the bill due to the loss of substantial ‘wayleaves’ income paid by canals to cross his land, until they agreed substantial compensation. The Earl of Darlington opposed the idea due to the potential negative impact on his foxhunting and so the route was duly altered to avoid his favoured coverts.
The bill finally received Royal Assent on 19 April 1821, duly authorising a line with a total distance of 36.75 miles, which included a main line of 26.75 miles from the Witton Park colliery to Stockton-on-Tees. From this foundation, what’s particularly remarkable about the development of the railway is the scale and pace. By 1852, there were over 7,000 miles of rail track in England and Scotland, and by 1875, over 70 percent of the ultimate total route mileage had been laid. To emphasise the value of the rail industry, the gross revenue in the period 1870-75 was £254.1m, just slightly ahead of the equivalent revenue for the coal industry at £248.7m.
From the start of the idea of transportation using fixed routes – whether roads, canal, or rail – the power of the owner or occupier of the land has been paramount. This has had a profound impact on the pattern of land use across the country, initiating or accelerating urban growth, or stifling it. The routes ultimately took the path of least resistance; be it geographic, political, legal, or financial. It’s hard to underestimate the profound effects that these decisions have had in the shaping of the country as it is today – the towns which became cities, those which missed out, and the patterns of land usage which affects every aspect of our lives.
Railways: friend or foe?
With any revolution, the outcome is often simultaneously reviled and glorified. The sinuous spread of the railways across Britain and Ireland from the 1820s was both of these and more. At first, it was a dirty, noisy, dangerous contraption. Loathed by the poet William Wordsworth, he lamented in an 1845 sonnet its ‘rash assault‘ on ‘thou beautiful romance Of nature‘. Three decades later, John Ruskin’s contemptuous descriptions of his fellow travellers in Letter 69 of ‘Fors Clavigera‘ did little to add any glamour, describing how ‘The rest of the crowd was a mere dismal fermentation of the Ignominious.‘. By contrast, no lesser figure than the artist J.M.W. Turner looked at these same engines and painted a projection of power and grace.
As the prestige of the railway grew anyway, not least through the patronage of Queen Victoria, so too did the opportunities, especially for well-connected landowners. Certainly, there was the chance for investment and profit. Beyond that, perhaps one of the most attractive was to bring convenience and pre-eminence to those who could bend the tracks to their will. It was the opportunity to appropriate a public good for private benefit through their influence on the infrastructure of the burgeoning rail network.
The manipulation of the power of the network took various forms. From the heights of entirely private stations endowed with powerful legal rights to halt trains, to the creation of exclusive facilities at otherwise public stations, the power also manifested in the overt influence of siting stations to create new approaches to their country estates.
Obstruction and opportunity
In the early days, the main concern for the landowner was how to avoid the dreaded statutory powers of compulsory purchase which had forced the canals through their lands. This meant that the railway surveying parties were often met with outright hostility and occasional violence (see ‘The Battle of Saxby’ aka ‘Lord Harborough’s Curve‘). Where physical methods were unsatisfactory, landowners often deployed their greatest weapons – their wealth and the law.
George Stephenson, and his son Robert, were two of the most successful and prolific railway engineers of the era. They stated that the ideal railway should follow the most level route, which could be constructed the most economically, but which should avoid the park and gardens of country estates. In reality, it was rarely possible to satisfy the first two requirements given the resources employed in the protection of the third.
Each proposed railway required two key components; an Act of Parliament to authorise the development and operation, and substantial capital, of which a portion had to be deposited when the draft Act was laid before Parliament. These Acts were a hostage to the demands of the often hostile landowners who sought to either include their every demand or very generous financial terms, which, if the bill passed, would satisfy them (win!), or increase the build costs for the railway to point where it became uneconomic to continue (win!). For example, the Duke of Cleveland opposed the Northern Counties Union Railway but agreed to sell his land for £35,000 above its market value, knowing that it would likely bankrupt them. It did and delayed the railway reaching Barnard Castle for over ten years.
If they objected to the railway for aesthetic reasons, they might demand an expensive features which benefited them such as a tunnel to hide the line (Marley Tunnel on the South Devon Railway for Sir Walter Carew at Marley House, the Haddon Tunnel on the Midland Railway for the Duke of Rutland at Haddon Hall, or the Gisburn Tunnel on the Blackburn-Hellifield line for Lord Ribblesdale at Gisburne Park). Alternatively, an elaborate ornamental bridge such as the two on the Coventry-Leamington line: one for the Gregorys of Styvichall Manor, and the second for Lord Leigh at Stoneleigh Abbey, or the particularly fine example on the Shugborough estate for Lord Lichfield.
However, as the railways became more powerful and wealthy and socially acceptable, smarter landowners saw an opportunity to influence the development of the railway, bolster their local prestige, and also make substantial amounts of money.
Others were more amenable. When George Stephenson proposed a route for the London & Birmingham railway through Uxbridge, Amersham & Aylesbury, every affected landowner rejected it. However, the Countess of Bridgewater at Ashridge Park, summoned Stephenson and suggested that the line followed the Grand Junction Canal through her land at Berkhamsted and Tring. Scottish landowners often supported the railways as a means to more easily transport their coal and provide quicker and easier access to their remote houses. The Duke of Devonshire provided land for free to the Cromford & High Peak Railway, and in actual Devon, Sir Thomas Acland gave his land in the north of the county as it increased the value of what he retained, and Sir John St Aubyn was as generous in the south. In Essex, Lord Taunton actually returned £15,000 of the £35,000 he had received when he realised that the effect of the railway on his estate was less than anticipated.
‘This train will be calling at…your house’
Wealth is power, and power is best demonstrated through its use. Being able to have a train line or station built to serve your country house and securing rights to demand that the public service be altered to your whims is a very piquant demonstration of both.
Private railway lines
Many ducal estates appeared to have been somewhat allergic to the railways, with them neither running through their land or even that close. This can be seen in Nottinghamshire, where the Thoresby, Welbeck, and Clumber estates cover an area of almost almost 100 square miles without a line running through it. The Duke of Atholl objected to almost all railways, and specifically, the Perth & Dunkeld Bill of 1837, primarily to protect his income from the tolls on the Dunkeld bridge. The Duke of Buccleuch’s vast Scottish estates blocked almost every route from Carlisle to Edinburgh and Glasgow. Eventually, a line was created but he forced it to be over 1.5 miles from Drumlanrig Castle and via a (undoubtedly expensive) 0.75 mile tunnel.
By contrast, the Duke of Marlborough took after the Duke of Sutherland and privately financed his own line; the 4-mile branch line, the Blenheim and Woodstock, which connected his seat at Blenheim Palace to the Great Western Railway at Shipton-on-Cherwell. The Blenheim and Woodstock ran privately from 1890-1897, before being absorbed into the Great Western, though it eventually closed in 1954. The Duke of Sutherland’s Railway was longer, both in distance, at 17 miles, and operating privately, from 1870 until 1884, when it became part of the Highland Railway and which is still part of the Far North line today.
Private lines were clearly a very expensive indulgence and the creators seemed happy to eventually pass responsibility for them to existing, larger operators. Although they lost some of the prestige of having their own exclusive line, they also would have no longer been liable for the undoubtedly substantial running costs. After all, a wealthy person doesn’t remain one by spending money. Other, perhaps wiser, landowners took the ‘have your cake and eat it approach’ by requiring stations to be sited for their convenience and their exclusive use. They occasionally also enjoyed legally enforceable powers to stop trains on the lines provided by the public operators who wished to take their routes across their land.
However, the first private station was a mere wooden shed, opened in 1838. It seems that Sir John Tyssen Tyrell was the first to demand such a right when the Eastern Counties Railway (ECR) sought to use part of his estate are Boreham House, Essex, for the route of their new line. He also secured the right that he could stop any train which passed through. This agreement remained in force until his death in 1877 when, in perhaps an expression of frustration at these type of arrangements, the ECR demolished the wooden shed within a day or so of his funeral, thus rather emphatically terminating the arrangement.
Coloured print, dating from 1831, of Boreham House, Essex, seat of Sir John Tyssen Tyrrell, who had the first private railway station in 1838. (Image source: http://www.ancestryimages.com/)
These stations are fascinating examples of the power of land ownership. Some ownership was subtle, others more overt, and Seaham Hall station was definitely the latter. The arrival of the railway to Seaham was part of an ambitious plan to transform the seaside village into a major harbour, primarily for the shipping of coal from the Durham coalfields. The coalfields were originally part of the vast inheritance of Lady Frances Anne Vane-Tempest of 65,000 acres which included large tracts of County Durham. After her marriage to Charles William Vane, 3rd Marquess of Londonderry in 1819 (who had to take her surname as part of the deal for her inheritance), they developed the idea of a more efficient and integrated approach to the extraction and transportation of coal.
Seaham Hall was originally the seat of Sir Ralph Noel (who, coincidentally had also taken his wife’s surname to qualify for a substantial inheritance), but was acquired by the Vanes in 1821 for £63,000 (equivalent to £5.7m at 2021 values) at what was intended to be the gateway to their domain. With their extensive control of the land required to develop the railway across the entire county, agreeing to a private railway station was a small indulgence in deference to their influence.
However, the family only used Seaham Hall infrequently as they owned other properties including the palatial Wynyard Hall in the same county but also time at Mount Stuart in Northern Ireland. The station opened in 1875 as part of the Londonderry, Seaham, and Sutherland Railway, with the Marquess enjoying the right to ‘to stop other than express trains within reasonable limits‘. This right was retained until 1923 (though only exercised four times between 1900-23) when the line came under the control of the London & North Eastern Railway who requested this privilege be extinguished. Once this was agreed, the station was closed.
For those who were directors of railway companies, a private station was a considerable perk of the job. George Hudson (b.1800 – d.1871) was famed as ‘The Railway King’ due to his extensive influence over the Midlands rail network. Initially, he was lauded for financing and pushing the creation and ambitions of the York and North Midland Railway (YNMR). Ultimately, both his finances and reputation were ruined through his dubious practices. His achievements included facilitating the railway connecting London and Edinburgh, making York an important railway junction, and merging smaller railway companies to create the Midland Railway.
Hudson was a strategic thinker who saw possibilities, which included how to stymie his rivals. One example was leasing a competing line, the Leeds and Selby Railway, for £17,000 per year and promptly shutting it to ensure trains had to use his route via Castleford. Another example was his purchase of the Londesborough Hall estate, just north of the town of Market Weighton, Yorkshire, which despite its small size, was the junction for no less than four branches of the North Eastern Railway.
The estate was purchased in September 1845 for the substantial sum of £500,000 (c.£52m – 2021 value) partly to frustrate the plans of a rival, George Leeman, to build a line from York to Market Weighton, and partly as an investment for his sons. With the new line running from Market Weighton to York, completed in 1847, Hudson wanted to add his own private station and so had one built at the end of a grand avenue of trees to the west of the house on that line. As Hudson’s dubious empire collapsed around him in the late 1840s, one of the accusations was of inappropriately having used NER’s own money to build the station without authorisation and formed part of their claim against him which totalled £750,000. Londesborough Park was sold in 1850 to help pay his debts and the private station closed in 1867. The station building was renamed Avenue House and survived as a private home until it was demolished in the 1960s. Remarkably, where there was once four lines, there are now none connecting to Market Weighton.
Relatively few owners really wished for the expense of building and maintaining a full station, so some opted for a cheaper version.
Private halts or platforms
The halt was usually a rather primitive structure, often scarcely more than a small platform and shed to serve as a waiting room – though some were more substantial. However, that didn’t mean they wouldn’t be invested with substantial powers to command that the mighty locomotives stop there as they would the grandest metropolitan station, but with the advantage of substantially lower running costs.
Some of the remotest examples of private railway use were in the Scottish Highlands. With very infrequent usage, there was little need for a substantial building – though those having to wait in the rain may have disagreed. At the most basic level, the station was simply a raised wooden platform, long enough for a carriage or two, with a rough access drive to rejoin the nearest road. Yet, these platforms were vital in securing the agreement of the landowner to allow the railway to cross their land.
For those with a little more investment in their comfort, a small wooden building was often considered sufficient to meet their needs. For others, they blurred the lines between the halt and a station.
At the latter end of the scale, Avon Lodge Halt, Dorset, is perhaps one of the more infamous over a dispute as to when is a train service not ‘ordinary’. The halt was one of two built to secure the agreement of James Howard Harris, 3rd Earl of Malmesbury, for the Ringwood, Christchurch and Bournemouth Railway, which opened in 1862, to cross his land. As with most of these agreements, it was included in the legislation authorising the construction of the railway, giving it full legal force. Specifically, Section 27 of the Ringwood, Christchurch and Bournemouth Railway Act 1859 states that:
That the company shall erect and for ever maintain a lodge at the point where the railway will cross the occupation road numbered 29 on the plans deposited for the purposes of this Act in the parish of Ringwood, being the northern entrance to Avon Cottage, and the owner or occupier for the time being of Avon Cottage shall at all times have the right of exhibiting at that lodge a road signal, being a red flag by day and a red lamp at night, for the purpose of stopping any “ordinary” train to set down or take up passengers; and whenever such signal shall be visible in reasonable time for the purpose, the company shall cause any such ordinary trains to stop at such point, and shall take up and set down passengers accordingly.
Avon Castle, Hampshire, for which Avon Lodge Halt was built (Image source: Alwyn Ladell / Flickr, used under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0))
However, just a year after it had opened, in June 1863, Avon Castle and the halt were for sale. No copy of the sales particulars seems to be available but one can imagine they extol the virtues of the halt and the associated legal powers. The house and halt sold that year to John Edmund Unett Philipson Turner-Turner for £14,300 and it would be fascinating to know how much of the value was attributed to the halt and the associated privileges.
The arrangements continued until March 1873 when a dispute arose as to the meaning of the word ‘ordinary’. In that year, the London and South Western Railway had started an express Bournemouth-London service. Having to stop at Avon Lodge would delay it to such an extent, and inconvenience the other passengers, as to make it commercially unviable. As stated in the legislation, the owner of Avon Castle had the rights enabling the ‘stopping any “ordinary” train‘ and Turner went to court to force the railway to give him the power over the express. However, in January 1874, the judge disagreed that ‘ordinary’ applied to the express service so the Turners had to to satisfy themselves with local trains.
Despite this setback, Turner continued to push the boundaries of his powers under the legislation. The original privilege was clearly intended to apply to the owner and their family. However, during the early 1890s the house became a hotel (as shown on the Ordnance Survey map). To what was probably the considerable irritation of the train company, the hotel made it a feature that trains would be stopped at their private station – an odd democratisation of the original aristocratic privilege. The Turner family sold up in 1901, and due to dwindling passenger numbers, the station was closed in 1935.
Advert from Hampshire and Isle of Wight Illustratedfor Avon Castle Hotel, Hampshire, including that ‘Trains stopped at Private Station’ (Image source: Alwyn Ladell / Flickr, used under Creative Commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0))
Private waiting rooms
For those who wished to avoid the expenditure of ownership but still have some physical manifestation of their power, a private waiting room was an expedient solution. It carved out something private from the public space, creating a sense of ownership through often luxurious fittings and exclusive access.
Private waiting rooms could be combined with the latent power of having influenced the siting of the station. One imagines that those locally would have been acutely aware of the abstract power which had created the physical presence of the station so the idea of a permanent reminder of that power within the station buildings wouldn’t have seemed so surprising.
When Clifton & Lowther station, Cumberland, opened in 1846 on the Lancaster & Carlisle Railway (part of the London & North West Railway), it was the nearest for the Earl of Lonsdale at Lowther Castle. The line displays all the characteristics of landowner influence; a line which curves eastwards around the entire parkland with most of it hidden in a series of cuttings with the station carefully sited away from the main north/south axial views from the castle. The price the Earl extracted for the station was the right to stop any train which was due to pass through, even if it wasn’t scheduled to stop there. In 1862, the Eden Valley line opened, providing a better alternative for cross-Pennine passengers. This led to a reduction the number of trains using Clifton & Lowther, though it didn’t close to passengers until 1938. However, a new station, Clifton Moor, was opened on the new line in 1862, it featured a dedicated private waiting room for the Earl and his guests. It’s not known how often the station or the right to stop trains was used but the station closed to passengers in 1962 with the Earl’s waiting room converted into a private house.
The private waiting room enabled a degree of subtle, yet paradoxically overt, ownership by the landowner over an station, acting as yet another reminder of their local influence.
Station of convenience
Perhaps the wisest owners were those who were happy to share the facilities but by the mere fact of choosing the location of the station, secured the greatest personal convenience for themselves.
A majority of these stations were the product of the nineteenth-century, but a handful were created at the turn of the twentieth-century, demonstrating the continuing power of the landowners. One of the most notable was the station at Acton Turville, Gloucestershire, in 1903. The actual name of the station was Badminton after the nearby stately home of the Duke of Beaufort. Given the heavy financial demands of many landowners, the Great Western Railway must have been delighted when His Grace agreed to provide the land required for the railway for free. The only requirement was for a station at Badminton to provide access for the Duke, family and guests and that express trains were required to stop should any of this exclusive group wish to alight. The station was a late arrival, opening in 1903, but featured a suitably plush, red-carpeted waiting room with ducal crest. However, the GWR’s delight had turned to frustration by 1963, as due to the immense inconvenience of having to stop express trains and also otherwise low passenger numbers along the line, British Railways asked Parliament to set aside the agreement. However, Parliament upheld it and so despite closing all the other stations on the line, Badminton retained its passenger service until 1968, when the Duke finally agreed to cede his rights, making it one of the last to enjoy such privileges.
For the landowner who prioritised convenience over exclusivity, simply enjoying the privilege of placing a station at the most convenient position was sufficient. Though they had to share the facilities with the public, the absence of financial responsibility and the overt class divisions meant that these stations were perhaps the most egalitarian of these arrangements.
For some landowners, this was a chance to rethink the landscape of their estates. Owners traditionally considered the approach via the roads and estate drive, owners may now have to consider how to hide the train itself whilst creating access and a suitable sense of arrival for their guests. For some, this was as simple as extending or creating a road and adding a new gate such as Station Lodge leading from Brodie Castle, which faced Brodie station when it opened in 1857 on the Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway.
Similarly at Newstead Abbey, a grand avenue of trees emphasised that the approach from the station was an important element of the grandeur of the estate.
Another example shows the lengths to which a landowner would go to when creating a sense of arrival. At the now demolished Blankney Hall, Lincolnshire, the owner, Henry Chaplin, had the option of simply taking his guests along the public roads, from Blankney & Metheringham Station, which opened in 1882 on the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway. Instead, he created a parallel access road which ran for almost a mile on his land, grandly demonstrating his estate and also providing a higher degree of privacy.
Influencing the siting of stations to the landowner’s convenience seems to have been the most common approach; a powerful but quiet means of both exerting and exhibiting power.
Ireland
Prior to the Irish War of Independence, which ended in the creation of the Irish Free State in December 1922, the railways on the island of Ireland were managed and integrated with the rest of Great Britain. The history of the railway in Ireland ran broadly in parallel with that of the mainland. The Dublin and Kingstown Railway (D&KR) was built in 1834 with dozens of other companies being formed in the following decades. At its peak, by 1920, the rail network extended to 3,500 route miles. The process for the authorisation for the development through the use of Parliamentary legislation and so too came the demands for landowner privileges, though much fewer than elsewhere with only five identified so far.
How to catch a train (station)
The exact discussions by which these concessions were raised, negotiated, and agreed are not obviously unavailable, though there are probably meeting notes in a rail company or landowner’s archive somewhere. The negotiations would have been probably conducted by the land agent for the estate and the family lawyers, under the direction of the landowner.
The era was heavily influenced by those with wealth, those who controlled access to land, and those who had parliamentary influence. For a majority of these private stations and concessions, conveniently those who secured such privileges often had at least one of these three – and sometimes all of them.
Although the 1832 Reform Act had abolished the ‘rotten boroughs’, for many landowners, their control of large areas of a particular location often enabled them to secure their local parliamentary seat, to neatly complement their country seat. These concessions – particularly a private line or station, with stopping rights – required legislation, and landowners who were also MPs were in a prime position to ensure that such amendments were drafted favourably, included in the draft bills, and supported by fellow MPs.
Another important factor was that the financing of the development of the railway was provided entirely by private capital. For those able to commit substantial amounts, their status as an investor could be enhanced with a directorship of the railway company.
So, the wealth which enabled someone to become a landowner (and therefore provide the vital permission for the line to cross their land), also enabled them to be able to invest enough to become a director, whilst sometimes also being an MP. These overlapping spheres of influence can be seen in the total number of MPs who were also directors of a railway company:
Parliamentary period
Directors as MPs
As a percentage of total MPs
1865
157
22% (of 713)
1868-84
124
16% (of 783)
1885-91
83
12.5% (of 663)
1892-1905
73
10% (of 740)
1906-14
42
5.7% (of 739)
Number of railway company directors who were also Members of the House of Commons (Source: Appendix 14, ‘Railwaymen, Politics & Money‘ Vaughan, Adrian)
From the number and widespread distribution of these privileges, it seems that they were quite a common and accepted perk of their support – or at least acquiescence – where the route crossed their land.
The last train will be departing…
Given the significant inconvenience and obvious inequality and inconveniences that these privileges created, their long-term survival was always unlikely. A combination of the amalgamation of the train operating companies, the professionalisation of the service, and the introduction of external capital, all diluted the leverage that created and sustained these special arrangements.
The contractual rights were well known and easily referenced in the debates in the Houses of Parliament on the British Railways Bill. Clause 34 was specifically included to target those covenants ‘requiring that company to provide and to maintain a station for the use of the vendor of the land’, of which the Minister, John Hay, claimed that the Railways Board had said there were over 100 in the Western Region alone. The rights of the landowners were in some ways considered more with frustration and amusement than any great outrage. John Dugdale (Labour MP for West Bromwich, 1941-1963) rather wryly dismissed the situation saying:
“I am not entering into the question of the Duke of Beaufort’s agreement. I am sure we are all sorry for him. Apparently he is a very distressed man. It is a sad thing; here is this great gentleman who unfortunately finds that there is no railway station between Swindon and South Wales at which a train will stop and he has to go in his motor car to Swindon. It is a great hardship for him, and we are distressed that it could happen to him…”
Though the Duke of Beaufort managed to protect his rights until 1968, the British Railways Act of 1963 finally ended almost all such indulgences. At a stroke, it removed an extensive, complex, and eccentric pattern of privilege, created by the unique circumstances of the birth and growth of the railways.
Almost certainly. For the reasons outlined in the methodology, there will be others which relate to country houses which I’ve missed. So if you are aware of them (or any mistakes), please do feel free to share your knowledge in the comments and I’ll update the list below accordingly.
Selected bibliography | Credits
Paterson, Anne-Mary, Lairds in Waiting (Dorchester: The Highland Railway Society, 2021)
Also, credit to all the enthusiasts and experts who have contributed to Wikipedia, Railscot, and numerous individual websites, whose help has been invaluable.
In the fresh night air, they made their way across moorland and parkland towards a number of darkened country houses, their fierce determination matched only by their inexperience as ‘terrorists’. The flames from their arson attacks engulfing the country houses of their political opponents signalled a calculated escalation; attacks on property to further their cause.
Frustration is often at the root of violence and, without a release valve, the impulse to retaliate escalates. Property is inherently symbolic and can simultaneously embody beauty, power, wealth, status, but also hierarchy, division, oppression and domination.
This article looks specifically at instances where country houses suffered destruction as an outcome of organised violence. The targeting of country houses in the UK in peacetime in this way is rare but such bursts of architectural iconoclasm are not unknown and span centuries of anger. This was intended to be a short article, but it turns out that it will now be published in three parts as there’s a bit more than I thought. Each part will focus (mostly) on one violent campaign: one driven by religious differences, one political anger, and one democratic inequality.
For context though, let’s start with the two obvious campaigns which resulted in the destruction of country houses; the English Civil War and the Irish War of Independence.
English Civil War (1642-1651)
War has often led to tragic wholesale destruction. However, it’s worth noting that during the English Civil War, although it is estimated that between 150-200 country houses were destroyed (and many others were damaged), the destruction was broadly linked to military considerations such as the actual or potential use as a barracks or defensive structure, rather than wanton vandalism.
When the royalist Sir William Campion identified that Chilton House, Buckinghamshire might be used as a parliamentary garrison, he wrote ‘my fancy this morning did much envite mee to set fyre to the house’. Instead, Sir William was ordered to pull down the outer walls and remove the doors, leaving it intact but uninhabitable (c.f Besselsleigh, Oxfordshire). However, when, in 1645, the royalists withdrew from Campden House, Gloucestershire, they burnt it down to prevent any possible future use.
This controlled approach, for political and legal reasons, was evident on both sides. As the long-term intention was to occupy, rather than destroy, the orders to target attacks and undertake measured actions limited the authority of commanders to raze towns and buildings. To keep the common soldiers of both side in line, the orders issued to prevent indiscriminate destruction threatened transgressions with the death penalty.
Aesthetic considerations were also a factor. The activities of the parliamentarians were directed by the Committee of Both Kingdoms (1643-1649) which issued instructions that certain houses be protected as far as possible, including Burghley House, Cowdray, Chatsworth House, and Hardwick Hall. Specifically, in response to a request in 1646 for permission to burn down High Ercall House, Shropshire, the committee stated that, in general, it did not ‘think it fit that all houses whose situation or strength render them capable of being made garrisons should be pulled down. There would be then too many sad marks left of the calamity of this war.’.
Irish War of Independence
The most prominent example of an organised campaign of country house destruction is the sustained campaign in Ireland in relation to the struggle for independence.
Beyond these periods, the country house has been targeted in at least three distinct occasions; the first, a localised religious pogrom, but one which focused on destroying property, rather than lives.
The Birmingham Riots of 1791 (aka: the Priestley Riots)
‘House of the Rev. Dr. Priestly and Elaboratory, Fair hill’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
Birmingham in the 18th-century was notoriously riotous. The people rose up in relation to high food prices (1766, 1782, 1796, 1800), and targeting religious minorities (Dissenters in 1714 and 1715, Quakers and Methodists in 1751 and 1759, and Catholics during the Gordon Riots in 1780). Into this febrile atmosphere, there was the usual tensions of the ages, which corruption, prejudice and alcohol could only exacerbate.
The swirling currents of international events often cause waves which break on distant shores. The French Revolution in 1789 caused deep concern in England across all levels of society, predictably more for the church and aristocracy. This led to heightened fears around activities which may be seen to sympathise with such radical ideas. For some, though, the radicalism aligned with their own intellectual spirit of curiosity; as willing to explore new political ideas as they were the physical world.
On 14 July 1791, in the Royal Hotel, Birmingham, a dinner was held by a group of the city’s prominent intellectuals, scientists and industrialists. Many were connected with the Lunar Society, an informal social club which met each full moon, whose membership encompassed a broad range of interests. Chief among them was science, and one of the leading members was Joseph Priestley (b.1733 – d.1804), a chemist perhaps best known as being credited with the discovery of oxygen.
Ticket for the dinner at the Royal Hotel celebrating the second anniversary of the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1791. (Image source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Hotel,_Birmingham (Public Domain))
Priestly was complex figure and combined his extensive scientific knowledge with a deeply-held Christianity and contentiously attempted to combine the two. He brought a scientific sense of discussion to theology, tolerating ideas other than his own, which led to his part in the founding of Unitarianism. Perhaps most controversially, he also was a strong supporter of the French Revolution.
Priestley, along with others, had organised the 14 July dinner to celebrate the storming of the Bastille, which marked the start of the French Revolution. The event was blamed as the cause of the riot, but in reality this was merely a pretence, for there had been a long-running friction between the established church and dissenters. Those attending the dinner had sensibly proposed the first toast to ‘Church & King’ to express their loyalty and had left some hours before. Priestley, speaking later, reported that:
“When the company met, a croud [sic] was assembled at the door, and some of them hissed, and shewed [sic] other marks of disapprobation, but no material violence was offered to any body. Mr. Keir, a member of the church of England, took the chair; and when they had dined, drank their toasts, and sung the songs which had been prepared for the occasion, they dispersed. This was about five o’clock, and the town remained quiet till about eight. It was evident, therefore, that the dinner was not the proper cause of the riot which followed: but that the mischief had been pre-concerted, and that this particular opportunity was laid hold of for the purpose.”
Whipped up by local agitators, who provided both incendiary pamphlets and alcohol, a mob arrived that evening at the Royal Hotel, eventually smashing every window. The crowd were persuaded to move on by the proprietor, Thomas Dadley, but, either as directed specifically or of their own volition, decided to target the places of worship, businesses, and houses of those Dissenters who had been attending the dinner, whose names had been published in local newspapers.
The mob moved on, their violence now destroying nearby religious meeting houses associated with Priestley. The local magistrate, who had been inciting or restraining the mob depending on the account, now realised that there was no controlling them. Their targets were now the Dissenter’s homes, both in the city, and in what was then the surrounding countryside (these areas having subsequently been engulfed by the growth of the city).
‘Rioters Burning Dr. Priestley’s House at Birmingham, 14 July 1791’ by Johann Eckstein (Image source: Wikipedia / Susan Lowndes Marques Collection). Some artistic liberty has been taken as the attack was at night.
Thursday 14 July
The first country house to be targeted was Joseph Priestley’s in nearby Fair Hill (which is today, Sparkbrook), less than two miles from the Royal Hotel. A plaque affixed to the side of the 1960s house which currently occupies the site commemorates that this was once a place of renown. On learning that the mob was heading in their direction, Priestley and his wife fled. Their son William bravely remained, but the house and laboratory were ransacked and burnt, the content either stolen or destroyed, including ‘the most truly valuable and useful apparatus of philosophical instruments that perhaps any individual in this or any other country, was ever possessed of.’
The rioters then appear to have decided that this was a sufficient achievement for the day and dispersed – but their work was not yet complete and they met again the next day.
Friday 15 July
The rioters had now split themselves into two groups, one to target the Dissenters houses and property in Birmingham, whilst the second group formed raiding parties to target their country houses in the nearby areas.
‘Baskerville House, the Residence of John Ryland Esq’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
On Friday 15 July, the destruction continued with Baskerville House, on Easy Hill (now Broad Street) being attacked around 2pm. As had become part of the modus operandi of the mob, they ransacked the house for valuables, food, and drink, and then set it alight. Unfortunately, several of the most inebriated attackers failed to escape the house as it was burnt and were killed.
‘Bordesley Hall, the Seat of John Taylor Esq’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
At the same time, a separate group of rioters, descended on Bordesley Hall. It was rebuilt in grand style in 1757, replacing a nearby medieval moated manor house, for the button manufacturer and banker John Taylor who spent some £10,000 on his works. He had emparked 15 hectares of land and laid out an ornamental pool on the brook with an island, bridge, and grotto. Exotic shrubs and swans were imported to complete the scene. When the crowd arrived, ‘There five hundred pounds were offered them to desist, but to no purpose, for they immediately set fire to that beautiful mansion, which, together with its superb furniture, stables, offices, green-house, hot-house, etc. are reduced to a heap of ruins.’ (Matthews).
It was rebuilt but demolished in 1840 when the estate was sold off for housing development.
Saturday 16 July
As the violence moved into the third day, the pretence that this was just the frenzied actions of a spontaneous mob was clearly false as more houses were destroyed by groups of men and women, sent with specific intent.
‘The mob being now victorious, and heated with liquor, everything is dreaded’
A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791, pg. 5
‘The House of William Hutton Esq, Saltley’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
Their next target was the home of William Hutton, bookseller and paper warehouse owner, but also a significant figure in Birmingham history, having published the first history of the city in 1781. His success enabled him in 1769 to build a small country house called Red HillHouse in Washwood Heath, approximately three miles from Temple Row.
He later recorded that, ‘The triumphant mob, at four in the morning, attacked my premises at Bennet’s Hill, and threw out the furniture I had tried to save. It was consumed in three fires, the marks of which remain, and the house expired in one vast blaze. The women were as alert as the men. One female, who had stolen some of the property, carried it home while the house was in flames; but returning, saw the coach-house and stables unhurt, and exclaimed, with the decisive tone of an Amazon, ‘Damn the coach-house, is not that down yet? We will not do our work by halves!’ she instantly brought a lighted faggot from the building, set fire to the coach-house, and reduced the whole to ashes.’
‘The House of George Humphrys Esq, Spark Brook’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
Meanwhile, back in Sparkbrook, where the ruins of Joseph Priestley’s house were probably still smouldering, the mob returned, marching on the substantial Sparkbrook House. Home to furniture retailer George Humphrys, ‘He had prepared for a vigorous defence, and would most certainly have been victorious, for he had none but rank cowards to contend with.’ (Hutton). It was reported that, ‘The people who demolished Mr. Humphrys’ house, laboured in as cool and orderly a manner as if they had been employed by the owner at so much per day.’ (Matthews).
‘Moseley Hall, the Residence of Lady Carhampton’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
Their next target was Moseley Hall, also owned by John Taylor, whose other property, Bordesley Hall, had been burnt down the previous day. In a rare vignette of compassion, as Moseley Hall had been rented to the elderly dowager Lady Carhampton (mother of the Duchess of Cumberland), she was given a grace period to enable her belongings to be removed before the fire was started. Curiously, the mob offered genuine assistance to help her do so and protected her belongings in the four waggons it took to take them to safety.
‘The house was spacious; and the conflagration appeared from the town most tremendous. The fury of the mob being directed against this fine building, did not proceed from any hatred to the Lady, but because it was the property of Mr Taylor, whose other houses have been burnt down’
A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. pg. 7
Also razed as Kings Heath House, in King’s Heath (approx. four miles from Temple Row), owned by John Harwood. To the north-east, Wake Green House, in Wake Green, owned by Thomas Hawkes was similarly destroyed (though first having earlier sheltered Joseph Priestley as he fled the attack on his home).
‘The House of William Russell Esq, Stowell Green’ – drawn by E.H. Witton for A.B. Matthews’ ‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham.)’ (Birmingham: Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863)
William Russells’ house was the final target of the day, though the family had left earlier in the day. William remained to face the mob, but it was claimed that ‘Some pamphlets, of an inflammatory nature, and a private printing press, being found in the house of Mr Russell, were the cause of its being burned.’. (Matthews)
Sunday 17 July
The mob was reported to now be around 2,000 strong. More were joining each hour, including ‘several thousand’ miners from Dudley, Woodside, and Wednesbury, with one fearful estimate that the numbers could, or had already, reached ten thousand. It was clear that the campaign was not just limited to country houses; all property of Dissenters was targeted, including town houses, commercial premises, meeting houses, and mills. By now, those seeking to stop the violence had called on the military to oppose the mobs as they feared that the entire town and others nearby, including Kidderminster, were going to be destroyed, but also that costs of repairs for existing damage would lead to significant tax increases.
The pace of destruction now slowed and the only country houses targeted (but not destroyed) were Ladywood House, the home of Harry Hunt, and Hay Hall at Hay Mills, the home of Joseph Smith.
Edgbaston Hall was the home of Dr William Withering, the noted botanist, who, though not a Dissenter, was known to be a friend of Priestley, therefore his house became of interest to the mob. Luckily for him, his staff were able to delay the mob’s attacks until 64 men of the 15th Regiment of Dragoons arrived from Nottingham to successfully oppose the rioters.
Total losses from the attacks were estimated at £80,000 (approximately £144m on an income value calculation), of which, John Taylor portion was the most significant, totalling £25,000 (approximately £45m – income value).
Monday 18 July
With soldiers continually arriving in Birmingham, the scene became even more tense as the rioters had by now looted several sword factories and were partially armed. In skirmishes, the rioters had actually successfully defended themselves against the soldiers, who retreated to await reinforcements. Later, with the addition of significant numbers of troops, the will of the mob was checked – or, as it was put in a rather understated report:
‘…the magistrates, and some of the principal gentleman of the neighbourhood, explained to them the illegality of their proceedings, and informed them of the immediate and subsequent consequences thereof, which had the desired effect; they dispersed in several small parties, and left the town in possession of its former tranquillity.’
With the riot over, the good townsfolk of Birmingham went back to their usual lives. Protected by the same establishment who had instigated the violence, there appears to have been few consequences for those involved beyond the hangovers and deaths by misadventure and violence, which accounted for some sixty rioters. For those targeted, their lives were forever changed. Many left whilst some rebuilt their lives – but the shadow of violence is one which clouds a life long after it has passed. Joseph Priestley never lived in Birmingham again, moving first to London, before settling in Pennsylvania for the last ten years of his life.
So ended one of the most organised and destructive spasms of peacetime violence against country houses in the UK. The country house was to remain at peace until four decades later, political (rather than religious) anger was to again place them in danger.
Conclusion
Remarkably, the country house was then to remain almost sacrosanct, safe from targeted campaigns of destruction for another half-century until, again, anger spurred action. Part II examines this second outbreak of violence and the country houses it touched.
The Birmingham Riots 1791 (William Dargue – A History of BIRMINGHAM Places & Placenames from A to Y)
‘The riots at Birmingham, July, 1791. (An authentic account of the dreadful riots in Birmingham, occasioned by the celebration of the French Revolution, on the 14th of July, 1791, etc. Views of the ruins of the principal houses destroyed during the riots at Birmingham. Vues des ruines, etc’ / [preface by A. B. Matthews] (Birmingham : Arthur Bache Matthews, 1863).
Although principally known as a ‘landscape gardener’ – a job title he invented even if the role was already well-defined – Humphry Repton was clearly a man who understood that an estate was a composition of many parts and that architecture had a vital role to play in the success of his schemes. The challenge in assessing Repton’s contribution to architecture is that of his collaborations; what sprang from his inventive and knowledgeable mind, and what came from those he worked with, including his sons, John and George, and also that leading proponent of the Picturesque, John Nash.
Humphry Repton (b.1752 – d.1818) had a lifelong passion for gardening, but it was not his first career. After starting in business as a general merchant in Norwich, which failed, Repton decided to retire to the countryside and live with his sister and husband in Sustead, near Aylsham, in Norfolk. With his father’s prosperity and sister’s indulgence, he developed his interest in botany and gardening. After a brief period in 1783 as private secretary in Ireland to his neighbour William Windham of Felbrigg (he resigned after a month), Repton took a cottage near Romford, Essex, and decided to focus on turning his interest into a career. Fortunately, circumstances meant that he was well placed to do so with his deep horticultural knowledge, his superlative skills as a watercolourist, which he used to create his visions in his beautifully produced Red Books, plus opportune timing, with the death of Lancelot ‘Capability’ Brown in 1783 creating a gap for someone with Repton’s grand ideas.
Although the setting of a house was a key consideration for any architect of the era, few thought of themselves as landscape gardeners (Decimus Burton (b.1800 – d.1881) was something of an exception). However, those who were of that profession seemed to not only have an opinion on architecture but also apparently felt confident that they could also practice in this as well as their primary domain. For Repton, although not trained as an architect, he saw architecture as ‘an inseparable and indispensable auxiliary‘ to his efforts. Repton was usually brought in after the house was complete and his plans would be presented in one of his famous Red Books, leather-bound volumes of his ideas for a specific property, in which he set out his vision of the landscape as it was, including the current house. In it, Repton would often include his criticisms of what was there and include his suggestions for sympathetic alterations which would better enable the house to fit within his vision.
Detail showing possible changes to example house – Plate III, State B from Repton’s ‘Sketches and hints on landscape gardening‘ (1794) – source: copy held by University of Wisconsin and kindly shared online
A measure of Repton’s boundless confidence in his own abilities can be seen in whom he felt able to criticise for their architectural efforts, including Sir John Soane, probably the leading architect of his era. Repton was commissioned to create a landscape at several of Soane’s commissions, usually appearing a year or two after completion, including at Mulgrave Castle, Moggerhanger House, Aynhoe Park, Holwood House and Honing Hall. In the case of the latter house, Soane had made extensive alterations in 1788, and in Repton’s Red Book, produced in 1792, he criticised Soane’s work saying:
The proportions of the house are not pleasing, it appears too high for its width, even where seen at any angle presenting two fronts; and the heaviness of a dripping roof always takes away from the elegance of any building above the degree of a farm house; it would not be attended with great expence to add a blocking course to the cornice, and this with a white string course under the windows, would produce such horizontal lines as might in some measure counteract the too great height of the house. There are few cases where I should prefer a red house to a white one, but that at Honing is so evidently disproportioned, that we can only correct the defects by difference of colour, while in good Architecture all lines should depend on depths of shadow produced by proper projections in the original design. (1)
In the illustrations in the Red Book for Honing Hall, Repton boldly showed the house, not as it was, but with his suggested improvements. Repton had form for his criticisms of Soane, having been asked, in 1790, to review the newly completed Tendring Hall, Suffolk, (demolished 1955) where he wrote:
…had I been previously consulted the house would neither have been so lofty in its construction nor so exposed in its situation.
For a man with no formal architectural training to be so forthright in his judgements gives a sense of Repton’s confidence in his own abilities. Luckily (for Repton), it’s likely that the notoriously sensitive Soane never saw these criticisms and they maintained cordial relations for many years. Repton’s comment about rarely preferring a red house to a white one is also corroborated by other Red Books, including the designs for Stansted Hall, and Rivenhall Place, in Essex and Hatchlands Park, Surrey.
Images showing proposed exterior changes from H. Repton’s Red Book for Hatchlands Park, Surrey (1800) – source: The Morgan Library & Museum
Repton’s architectural contributions are often overlooked as he was never enough of an architect to be considered as one, and, in general, those primarily interested in his landscapes are insufficiently interested in his architecture. A prime example of this (not mentioned in Colvin, or Stephen Daniels’ book, except buried in an endnote) is Repton’s vision for Port Eliot, Cornwall, the seat of Lord Eliot. In 1792, in one of his earlier commissions, he was brought in for his advice on the estate. Repton assumed the role of architect and provided, in the Port Eliot Red Book, a broader set of broadly Gothic proposals which brought house, church, estate and even the nearby town into his remit. This expansive approach to his brief was a challenge for Sir John Soane who was asked in 1794 to contribute his ideas – but now within a Gothic framework set by Repton (a style to which Soane was hostile), whose designs had found a level of favour with Lord Eliot, and which he adapted.
One of the key questions when considering the architectural improvements suggested by Repton is to what degree they were his and what had been conceived by his eldest son John Adey Repton (b.1775 – d.1860). J.A. Repton had been a pupil to William Wilkins where he developed a profound understanding of Gothic architecture. He had then moved in 1796 to the office of John Nash, with whom the elder Repton had established an arrangement to pass on any architectural commissions in exchange for 2.5% of the cost of the work – an agreement which Nash failed to honour, leading to the partnership being terminated in 1800.
Nash has a chequered reputation professionally and this extended to those in his office, including J.A. Repton but left to become his father’s assistant when the agreement between Nash and his father ended. Nash was unfortunately a champion of the Picturesque but not of his assistants; he never acknowledged J.A. Repton’s significant contribution in various schemes. Unfortunately, John was to suffer the same issue to a certain extent with his father, though he was later clearly credited for his assistance ‘in the architectural department‘ for designs for a number of houses including Stratton Park, Scarisbrick, Panshanger, and others.
In the Port Eliot Red Book, eighteen of the drawings are signed by the son and are probably his designs, however the scheme as a whole is attributed to the elder Repton, though he may have been angling for this to be a major commission for his son. Unfortunately for the Reptons, their grand vision for Port Eliot was never going to be realised, mainly due to financial constraints, though Soane was to provide an alternative scheme which he diplomatically managed to agree with Lord Eliot – much to Repton’s chagrin, later writing:
my beautiful plan for Port Eliot…my design for bringing together the house and the Abbey did not suit the fancy of my fanciful friend [Soane] (who knows but little about Gothic) so the plan was totally changed.
Repton’s architectural work was significant enough to merit inclusion in Howard Colvin’s seminal reference work, ‘A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840’. The most important was the work at Welbeck Abbey in 1790 to remodel the east and west fronts (and the Red Book contains designs for an entirely new house) but the other entries are relatively insignificant – minor works in 1792 at Honing Hall, the enclosing of the courtyard at Sarsden House in 1795 to create a domed ‘hall of communication’, and a new entrance to Uppark in 1805. Beyond that, his association with John Nash meant he had an insight into the ‘cottage orne’ style and which Repton used in his design for a new ‘lodge of a new and singular description‘ comprising two thatched cottages on the Isle of Wight, one either side of the road.
Lodges at the entrance to Mr Simeon’s grounds on the Isle of Wight, designed by H. Repton (Image from ‘A New Picture of the Isle of Wight‘ by W. Cooke (1808)
Beyond that, his architectural contributions were mainly the designs within the books on landscape gardening. The most important of these were ‘Sketches and hints on landscape gardening : collected from designs and observations now in the possession of the different noblemen and gentlemen, for whose use they were originally made : the whole tending to establish fixed principles in the art of laying out ground’, published early in his career in 1794, and the posthumous collection published in 1840, ‘The Landscape Gardening and Landscape Architecture of the late Humphry Repton’.
So, can Repton be considered an architect as well as a landscape gardener? On balance, his position seems to be more that of ‘frustrated architect but successful critic’. Repton doesn’t seem to have been able to establish a reputation as an expert on architecture, possibly because his commentary was often only available in the Red Books, with their naturally limited circulation. Also, his work was usually after the house was already built and often only recently finished, meaning the owner was unlikely to consider making significant changes very quickly, leaving few opportunities for him to showcase the talents he clearly thought he had.
However, his work was influential on the practices of contemporary and later architects, forcing them to acknowledge that their buildings did not exist in splendid isolation and had to be considered as whole; a three-dimensional, interactive, ever-changing landscape painting. Open, expansive parklands had the effect of placing the building on a visual plinth, majestic but with an aloof air. Repton firmly brought all the elements together, blending both Gothic with greenery and the Palladian with the planting. His architectural contributions reflect this sensitivity and with more opportunities he may have been even more influential in the field of architecture, much as he dominated the landscapes represented so beautifully in his famous Red Books.
(1) – Humphry Repton, Red Book for Honing Hall [1792], quoted in ‘The Surprising Discretion of Soane and Repton’ by Gillian Darley, in the Georgian Group Journal vol. XII 2002
Apologies for the long gap between articles – happily, just after I posted the last one in September 2017, our beautiful son was born. Mother and baby were, and remain, fine and his sister clearly loves him. However, as anyone with experience of small children knows, they’re justifiably demanding and, combined with having a day job, it’s meant I haven’t had the time to write, but as he gets a little older hopefully I should now be able to again…at least in some capacity, though they’ll remain sporadic. Tweeting is easier to do regularly, so please do follow @thecountryseat and @lostheritage. OK, on with the show…
– Stephen Daniels
– Dorothy Stroud
The Country Seat 