PONTEFRACT AND ITS MANORS
By JOHN O. E. HOLMES – 2004
PAGE THREE
THE NEW HALL
Transcript
from a book prepared for the visit of the Yorkshire Mechanics’
Institute, June 1881 by Richard Holmes and T. W. Tew.
The
Priory and other property of the Cluniac monks of St. John the
Evangelist fell at the suppression of the monastery into the possession
of the Crown, and shortly afterwards that portion locally situate in
Pontefract was granted to Lord G. Talbot, as appears by the Particulars
on the preceding pages. This Lord Talbot, as was commonly the case with
such grantees, was anxious to destroy the shell of what had been; and
appears to have been determined to get the materials away from the site
by any means. He accordingly commenced at once to use the ruins of the
Priory as materials in the construction of the New Hall; for on no other
hypothesis is the appearance of carved Early English and even Norman
work in the walls of a sixteenth century building to be accounted for.
The E.N.E. Courtyard front of the Hall had over the principal gateway,
engraved in stone, the armorial bearings of the Talbot family. The
shield had twenty-eight quarterings, and had as supporters, a Talbot one
side, and a horse on the other. Over the shield was an Earl’s Coronet
and the motto of the Talbots in Old French – "Preste d’accomplir".
The different bearings of the shield indicate that the Talbot family had
intermarried with the families of De Gournay, Mandeville, Butler,
Beauchamp, Stafford, Nevile, Burnel, Cavendish, Rutland, Hardwick,
Hastings etc etc; but on the shield, and engraved on the stone, all but
obliterated, was a date – 1591.
There are several reasons upon an examination of the structural details of the
Hall, for thinking the mansion to be of an earlier date than 1591. The
New Hall is finished with a Gothic string course peculiar to the reign
of Henry VIII and solid parapet peculiar to the close of the reign of
Henry VII; whereas most large mansions of the date of 1591 have an
imitation of an Italian cornice, and an open parapet. Then the windows
in the Hall, although the sections of the mullions and the transoms (ovolo
fillet) point to the reign of Henry VIII, and although most large
mansions erected in the latter part of the eighteenth century have lofty
windows, high enough for two or sometimes three mansions, yet the
windows here being of moderate dimensions in height, 6ft 6in and 7ft
8in, they point to the close of Henry VII’s reign. Then the "tout
ensemble" of the New Hall has a castellated appearance, which also
gives the impression of a Tudor rather than of an Elizabethan building.
The principal entrance to the New Hall and the North Tower, fell with a
tremendous crash, on 19th January 1828. The whole of the E.N.E. frontage
was then taken away; and with the materials a new farmhouse was built by
John Brice, and no trace consequently now remains of the entrance Front,
its embattled walls, its turret and its gateway entrance, in which
Italian columns and cornice would most likely have been found, if built
late in the century - an absolute decision is difficult. But the reasons
above stated and the absence in the building itself of all scroll or
scrap work, or other Elizabethan feature, lead to the conclusion that
the design is of older date than that engraved upon the stone shield.
Two other characteristics of these mansions are the introduction of
wainscoting instead of tapestry very early in the sixteenth century, and
the use of plaster mouldings and enrichments, together with the
increasing use of Italian details and Italian mouldings. Now, plaster
mouldings have been largely used in the ceilings of the New Hall, and
the 5in. mouldings still adhering to the walls in some of the rooms are
the lower mouldings of plaster coves to the ceilings. The ceilings again
have been divided into panels by the plaster mouldings, the main floor
beams forming the larger divisions of the panelling. This division of
the ceilings into plaster panel compartments, was the practice in this
style of mansion, and it continued to prevail until the introduction of
the coffered ceilings of later Italian taste.
The New hall has too much the appearance of a Tudor edifice to have been
built so late in the sixteenth century as the date on the stone shield.
The mansions built towards the close of the sixteenth century show the
Elizabethan style having unmistakable Italian features in their external
decorations, and especially in their principal entrance. This change is
very perceptible if, for instance; the Wolsey part of Hampton Court,
1514, be compared with Longleat, 1579, and with Hardwick Hall, 1579,
which last, though properly a 17th century edifice, is in the same style
as the later edifices of the 16th century. An example also of the early
plaster ceilings of the 16th century is in the withdrawing room of the
1514 portion at Hampton Court, and there was another illustration of the
ceilings of this period to be seen in an old house in Fleet Street, very
near Temple Bar, which is said to have been a palace of Henry VIII’s,
but really belonged to Prince Henry, eldest son of James I. It is now
occupied by a hairdresser.
Before the year 1485, the commencement of the reign of Henry VII, domestic
architecture in England can scarcely be said to have had any existence;
the mansions that had been erected were rather military than domestic;
they were fortresses not dwellings. With this monarch’s marriage
however, the terrible feuds between the Houses of York and Lancaster
came to an end, and a period of internal peace introduced a mode of
living, and with it a new style of domestic architecture. Englishmen
began to look for convenience rather than strength in their private
mansions, and elegance and social comfort began to be preferred to
fortified security. The growing feeling of domestic safety greatly
influenced the principal men of the time, in erecting magnificent
structures, well and solidly built and carried out in a grand and
imposing style of architectural decoration.
The chief characteristics of the Halls of this, and the following reign,
showed little therefore of the fortified ingredients of their
predecessors, beyond as in the New Hall, the parapets with which the
walls were surmounted; and these indeed appear to have been preserved
more for ornament than use. In the new class of domestic mansions the
thickness of the walls was reduced from nine feet and six feet, as at
Pontefract Castle, to 2ft. 10in. as at New Hall. The size of openings,
from being mere arrow holes for light, air, or defence, became enlarged
windows, with other more modernised arrangements influenced by the
requirements of domestic comfort and convenience, rather than of
fortified security. In Henry VIII’s reign 1509-1547, there is no lack
of examples of Halls and mansions. This King was not only himself a
builder, but he encouraged his nobles to follow his example. King Henry
himself built or repaired as is said, eleven Palaces and Halls.
The New Hall is accordingly one of the many large baronial houses built for
magnificent display, and not like the Castle of Pontefract, for defence,
though retaining the external appearance of a castellated mansion. That
the New Hall could not have been commenced so late as the closing years
of the sixteenth century, an enumeration of a few of the edifices of
that date will conclusively demonstrate. First on the list then towards
the close of the fifteenth century, in Henry VII’s reign, was built
"Tattershall Castle", by Cromwell, the first of the great
Cromwells. Thornbury Castle, Gloucestershire, was only commenced by
Edward Strafford, Duke of Buckingham, about the year 1511, and left
unfinished at his death in 1572, appearing never to have been roofed.
The older part of Hampton Court 1514, by Cardinal Wolsey; Layer Marney
Hall, in Essex, built by Sir Henry Marney, afterwards Baron Marney,
about 1520; Compton Winyate House built about the same time as Layer
Marney, the materials of Fulbroke Castle being appropriated by Sir
William Compton for the purpose: This house is now one of the mansions
of the Marquis of Northampton. Then, later in the century are Kenilworth
Castle, 1575; Burleigh House near Stamford, the seat of the Marquis of
Exeter, 1577; Longleat Wiltshire, 1579, the principal residence of the
Marquis of Bath: Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire, built by Elizabeth of
Shrewsbury, 1597, now the seat of the Marquis of Hartington; and lastly
Wollaton Hall 1616, Lord Middleton’s mansion, near Nottingham. The
pure Italian style however, of King James the first’s reign was
rapidly gaining the ascendency, and was destined to be permanently
introduced by Inigo Jones in the early part of the 17th century. From a
citation of these examples of the growth of domestic architecture during
the sixteenth century it appears that the New Hall could not have been
designed so late as the date on the stone shield, which may therefore be
a date inscribed when the mansion was roofed in, and was approaching
completion for residence.
There is another curious circumstance connected with the construction of the
edifice; the timber, where it is used as balk in beams, lintels, or
discharging pieces, has very old mortice holes in it, evidencing that it
has done duty before in some older building than the New Hall, and that
it must have been brought from some ecclesiastical building. An
examination of the outside stone walls also shows that at least three
different kinds of stone are used in their construction. The lower
portion of the south corner of the principal front is constructed of
Sherburn free stone; the South East wing of the same kind of stone as
the Castle from the Pontefract rock of Smith and Sedgwick, and which
from the age of its older weather stains must have been brought from
some old building; on the W.N.W. front this weather-stained stone is
mixed with the Pontefract Magnesian Limestone. The Pontefract Lime and
the Sherburn stones are used in lesser proportions than the older
weather-stained stone of the Pontefract rock, as if these two classes of
stone had been used to make up a deficiency in the older Pontefract rock
stone. Now if this older weather–stained stone be the material taken
from the Priory of St. John’s on its demolition, the date of the New
Hall must be earlier in the century than the date of the stone shield.
When the North Tower fell, and the E.N.E. portion of the principal
entrance to the Hall was removed in 1828, this shield of arms was taken
away by Mr. Alderman Perfect to his garden in Ropergate, where for many
years it adorned the arched passage from his house under the road to his
garden. In 1861, Mr. Wood of Monkhill, the then owner of the garden,
ascertaining the history of this shield, offered to return it to Lord
Harewood, by whom the offer was naturally accepted, with many
expressions of thanks. The shield was accordingly taken to Harewood,
where it can still be seen.
The principal entrance to this mansion was from the E.N.E. The main approach
was by a carriage drive from the old road from Leeds by Ferrybridge and
by the north of the windmill on St. Thomas’s Hill to Ferrybridge; and
there appears to have been a porters lodge and gateway, under which
visitors passed on their way to the main entrance of the Hall. The plan
of the mansion comprises, besides the building, an enclosed garden to
the S.S.E., 122 feet by 105 feet, terminating on the south and east
corners with towers, each 20 feet 6 inches, by 19 feet 6 inches. On the
W.N.W. side there is another walled garden, 310 feet by 170 feet; the
communication with the two gardens being by a gateway. The arch to this
garden gateway is Gothic or Pointed on the outside, with a face arch
apparently added inside, and in Elizabethan or rather the style of King
James I’s reign, 1604. In the garden wall on the west side are two
large ovens for baking bread, both in excellent order. The largest is
nine feet, and the smaller four feet in diameter. Both are lined with
brick and dome-shaped, and they were intended to be the bakeries to the
mansion. The Hall was supplied with water from a well on the N.N.W.
corner, filled up some twenty years ago, but there is a new well on the
other side of the mansion for the use of the farm, sunk through the
Lower Magnesian limestone into the bed of the Pontefract rock. This well
is 40 feet deep and the supply of water in it, even in a dry season, is
10 feet. Part of the extended E.N.E. side is flanked with extensive
stabling. Above are granaries, and the roof is constructed of oak
timbering of extraordinary solidity.
The plan of the New Hall consisted of a basement, a ground floor, and first
and second stories, the basement consisting of cellars, kitchens and
offices of various kinds. The outside dimensions of the ground floor
plan above the plinth are S.S.E. front 105 feet, W.N.W. front 58 feet 8
inches. The ground floor consisted of an entrance hall of noble
proportions, a vestibule into the S.S.E. garden, staircase and general
living rooms. On the first storey are some state apartments, and on the
second a magnificent ballroom, 90 feet long, running the length of one
wing of the Hall. The other principal rooms are on an equally large
scale, and there are also most suitable offices and convenience for a
considerable family establishment.
The bay of the S.S.E. front between the ground floor and first storey is
ornamented by a stone shield, engraved with armorial bearings. The
quarterings are nearly obliterated, but the shield differs in many of
them from the shield removed from the E.N.E. front. Over this shield is
a Barred Helmet and a Talbot. Some of the quarterings belong to the
family of the Pierrepoints, Stapleton of Carlton, Pembroke, Nevile, and
the Talbot family. Beneath on the same front there is (on the right of
the mansion) a crest (a Talbot passant), and on the left, a Horned Bull
rampant, the crest of the Dukes of Kingston. The height of the bay
mullioned windows to the ground floor is 6 feet, and to the first floor
7 feet 3.
Internally the height from the kitchen floor of the basement to the floor of the
entrance hall is 11 feet 6 inches, from the floor of the entrance hall
to the floor of the first storey 13 feet 10 inches. The height of the
first storey from its floor to the level of the floor of the second
storey is 18 feet 8 inches. The depth of the plaster moulding to the
ceilings of the ground and first storey is 5 inches. The depth of the
cove to the ceiling of the first storey, from plaster moulding to floor
level of the second storey is 3 feet 6 inches, making the vertical
height of the first floor walls 15 feet 6 inches. The total height from
the kitchen floor to the floor of the second storey is 44 feet. The
ballroom on the second storey is in three divisions, by two pairs of
folding doors; the width of the door openings being 14 feet 6 inches.
The height of the second or ballroom storey cannot be measured, the
walls being in a dangerous state. The four towers, one at each corner of
the Hall, each measured 13 feet 3 inches by 10 feet 6 inches, and the
tower at the south corner was a staircase tower leading from the
basement up to the leaden roof of the building. The stairs were of solid
oak. The newel posts measured 5 inches square and they were sunk-panelled,
tending to strengthen the conclusion that the mansion is older than the
date on the shield; since in Elizabethan and the succeeding styles of
architecture, the swelled or balluster-formed newel was almost
invariably used, and the staircase ballusters are usually similar in
form, showing the increasing prevalence of Italian forms and details.
The windows of the Hall were glazed throughout with glass in small
squares and of a dark green colour.
On the ground floor the entrance hall was 46 feet long by 25 feet 8 inches
wide, the audience room was 21 feet 3 inches by 20 feet 6 inches, the
serving room was 23 feet by 15 feet, the withdrawing room was 22 feet by
19 feet 6 inches, the private room was 19 feet 6 inches by 16 feet 9
inches, the parlour was 18 feet 6 inches by 12 feet 3 inches, while the
grand staircase, 6 feet wide, occupied a space of 19 feet 3 inches
square.
Truly a grand old mansion, a fitting residence for a gentleman of rank and
wealth; and which judging from the few fragments left of its cornice
coves, has had an interior of great magnificence. The plastering and
plaster moulding still adhering to the walls, though the building has
been unroofed for nearly four score years, are standing proofs of
excellence in materials and workmanship. Whatever may have been the
reason, this mansion was never completely finished, nor does it appear
that any member of either the Talbot or the Pierrepoint family really
resided in it. The Civil War of King Charles put a sad stop to the
building and the completion of domestic edifices in the style in which
it was built, and perhaps to this cause may be partly attributed the
non- residence of those for whom it was designed. We find, however, that
Henry Talbot, fourth son of Lord George Talbot, the grantee of the
Priory property, who had become Earl of Shrewsbury and married Gertrude,
daughter of Thomas Manners (Earl of Rutland), had a daughter named
Gertrude after her grandmother. She married Robert Pierrepoint who, on
June 29th 1628, was made Baron Pierrepoint, and on May 25th 1629, was
created Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull.
This Kingston family retained the property for some generations but it
ultimately went by purchase to another branch of the same Pierrepoints.
For, about the beginning of the eighteenth century Sir William Dawes
sister, Elizabeth, married William Pierrepoint. This lady, Elizabeth
Pierrepoint, widow of William Pierrepoint, Nottingham, bought the New
Hall with the other property formerly belonging to the Priory, of the
Duke of Kingston. She bequeathed this property to her nephew, Sir D’Arcy
Dawes, son of her brother Sir William Dawes. Sir William Dawes was a man
of exemplary conduct. On 24th March 1713, he was translated from the
Bishopric of Chester and became the 77th Archbishop of York. He died
April 30th 1724 and was buried at Cambridge. Sir D’Arcy Dawes married
one Sarah Roundell and they had an only child, Elizabeth, who married in
1746 Edwin Lascelles, and thus the New Hall, the Priory Lands, with the
Pontefract Rectorial Tithes, and the Pierrepoint Tithes of Glasshoughton,
came into the possession of the Right Honourable the Earl of Harewood.
When on 21st March 1646, the soldiers of the Commonwealth entered the
town of Pontefract, they took possession of the New Hall, Monkhill and
Baghill, and soon began to dig trenches and erect strong earth works,
not only round the Castle, but round the mansion also. During the third
siege too, the Castle and the Hall were surrounded by these
entrenchments and on 14th December 1648, the works were wholly
completed. These lines of circumvallation, consisting of a double
rampart and a ditch between, with redans and bastions for defence,
enclosed an area round the Hall of 462 by 350 yards. The S.S.E. angled
bastion in the earth works round the Hall commanded the road from
Ferrybridge, and was a defence to the outlying Tanalian guard, 130 yards
distant, while the guns from Colonel Dean’s fort commanded the New
Hall and protected it from any attack by surprise from the Royalist
garrison in the Castle. The Hall however, did not escape with impunity.
It was hit several times by the cannon balls from the Royalist guns, and
a cannon ball weighing 5lbs was taken out of one of the W.N.W. walls of
the mansion not many years ago.
After the Civil War, the building was neglected, but it was not until the
present century that its dismantlement began, when the country was in
the midst of troubles foreign and domestic. In March 1812, the Luddite
riots began in Nottinghamshire, and spread into the other manufacturing
districts, causing such great mischief and alarm, that the noble owner
of the New Hall, partly because the lead on the roof was continually
being stolen by petty depredators, but chiefly, lest the Luddites should
strip it for melting into bullets, had it entirely taken off. The
timbers were then exposed to the weather, and soon the whole fabric
began to crumble into its present ruin, becoming a prey to the bats and
the owls. Year after year portions of the upper part of the fabric fall
and year after year the destruction of the whole becomes more imminent.
Every storm leaves traces of its violence, and not a winter passes
without doing somewhat towards reducing the wreck into a heap of
fragments. And thus this well designed structure, the proposed abode of
nobles, remains a monumental warning of the punishment of Sacrilege.
©John O.E. Holmes, 2004
PAGE ONE |
PAGE TWO
Other studies by John Holmes
Pontefract Elections
Pontefract Mill Hill Sand Tunnels
Pontefract and its Manors Part One
|
