DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION NEW CHIMNEY PIECE FOR NORTH GROUNDFLOOR ROOM

OF EAST CROSS-WING, YORK HOUSE

Uncovering and analysis of interior and exterior fabric during ongoing conservation and repair works to York House suggest a construction date at least as early as the mid 15th century, with significant interior and exterior evolutions to the late medieval core of the building during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, with less major, but significant, interventions during the 19th and 20th centuries. The interior as seen is a mixture mainly of late 17th and mid-18th century, but major elements, such as the large kitchen fireplace and the staircase probably date from the late 16th century. Earth plaster from the earliest period survives beneath later decorative finishes. Externally, the face of the north elevation probably dates from the late 16th century, as do the gables and the upper portions of the side walls, the building having been raised and improved at this time. Internally, the north wall is older, although window openings have been altered a number of times, most recently in the mid-eighteenth century. Globally, and in brief, a late medieval building on U-plan, with hall and two-storey cross-wings around a courtyard open to the north, underwent a major transformation following the dissolution of the Gilbertine Priory in 1539. If it was not before, the plan of the house was rendered an H-shape. Later, the rear H was infilled, creating a flush plane across the whole of the south elevation. Later still, a central range was added, slightly forwards of this and utilizing the indent of the H once more, within a giant order arch. The house may have been originally owned by the priory, or by the Clifford, Conyers or Eure families, and one of these carried out these major works after the Dissolution of the Priory. The building was probably raised at this time and a high status brick fireplace introduced into the south side of a central chimney already serving a late medieval kitchen fireplace to the north. A large kitchen fireplace was installed in the west cross-wing during the later C17, the surround itself having been purloined from the site of the former Gilbertine Priory, having been a kitchen fireplace there also (a very similar fireplace, but with slightly shorter span, survives in Abbey House, a building constructed entirely of spolia from the Priory buildings).

It is possible that the overhaul took in the construction of a brick vault in the west cross-wing at this time also. Other vaulted spaces are likely to survive beneath central range and east cross-wing, but at a lower level than that which remains open beneath the west. Stairs were introduced into the central hall, blocking the former dias end window, some of which survives in situ, other parts having been recycled into new window openings to the north of the new kitchen fireplace. A very accurate reconstruction of this window has been possible, on paper at least, from fragments that remain within the building, either recycled or in situ (see drawings attached).

It is possible, however, that the stair was recycled from the dismantled Eure mansion sometime shortly after 1674. The installation of the kitchen fireplace blocked two former windows in the west wall. These were not the first windows in these walls and date perhaps from the 1630s, having displaced timber window surrounds introduced during the C16 rebuilding. The outside of the west wall was refaced at the same time that these later windows were introduced, using Hildenley limestone almost certainly recycled from the priory ruins. A first floor ‘great chamber’ was created at the head of the stairs, from which all other first floor rooms were accessed. This was probably as part of the C16 rebuilding – the courtyard enclosed – but certainly after 1630, when the hall floor was laid and the arcade installed at the foot of the stair. During the later C17, at the same time as the kitchen fireplace was installed, former windows in the south of the

west wall were probably made into fireplaces with vertically rising stack and a fireplace and chimney installed in the first floor central chamber. This sits atop, and is no wider than the wall below. A wide brick surround was built in the central chimney of the east range also, with a second brick stack added to the earlier stone stack. During the C17 – possibly in two phases, either side of the civil war, and certainly by 1680 – wainscot had been installed throughout the interior, except for in the hall and kitchen. The hall received a new, geometrically patterned limestone floor, similar to that installed in Nunnington Hall c 1630 and which had first appeared in print in 1615. The rear indent of the south central range was infilled and brought flush with the south walls of the cross-wings, creating a narrow room running east west, as well as a roof terrace, both of which faced south and overlooked the garden and river. Windows at this time were perhaps square mullion and transom windows.

York House in 1728. The house did not look like this by this time – see Buck’s 1720 sketch – which is an anomaly that has yet to be resolved, given the apparent accuracy of the Terrier map generally. It is likely, however, that the house had this appearance at the time of its acquisition by the Stricklands in 1784. During this period, a black (probably ‘Black Hoptonwood’ from Derbyshire, or Nidd Marble from the Ripon area) bolection mould fireplace was added to the fireplace of the central first floor chamber, with elaborate pitch-pine overmantle and full

wainscoting. Even this would seem an introduction into already existing wainscot, since pilasters have been sacrificed to accommodate its width. The wainscot may be earlier than the 1680s, therefore, or the fireplace was recycled by the Wentworths from Wentworth-Woodhouse, or from Boynton Hall by the Stricklands, under the influence of Palladian architects (Flitcroft and Kent respectively). This is the only room that survives fully wainscoted, although its south wall was later moved northward, reducing the size of the original room, to create a corridor landing at the top of the stairs. A reproduction balustrade was installed to the south of this landing, probably in the mid-18th century, possibly later. Its precise uniformity is in marked contrast to the original staircase, the turned mirror balusters of which are charmingly varied in diameter. The stair is lit by a large semi-circular window installed by Wm Strickland shortly before 1720. The wainscot throughout the house was probably seen as wood, with shellac finish, but was quite soon painted an olive green throughout, except perhaps where possibly older, oak wainscot survived (as in the south rooms of the east cross-wing). The arcade was installed at the foot of the stairs. It is pitch-pine, but was given a very convincing oak-grain finish (which was subsequently washed with less accomplishment with a much darker graining). The north west doorway (probably originally a window onto the courtyard) from hall to kitchen was blocked at this time also, a new doorway made to the south of the kitchen, into a lobby between the butler’s parlour and the rear of the hall, beyond the arcade, screening the service end from the main hallway. The service end of the house had switched from east to west end at the time of the introduction of the large kitchen fireplace.

The west wall was raised a further 18”, encasing the truss and rafter ends in masonry and encasing the earlier wall plate. Fireplaces and flues were introduced either in the 1630s or the 1680s and the ends of trusses and rafters were simply cut off where they abutted introduced chimney stacks, which were of brick, at least within the building. It would seem that originally the flues rose to a single chimney stack

directly above the moulded stone window introduced into an existing (probably medieval solar window) opening. This had two flues. Soon after, it would seem, this arrangement was amended to provide two separate stacks, one with two and one with three flues – a pattern that was copied during C19 replacement works. This renewal incorporated some tooled Hildenley limestone ashlar and plinth mould from earlier stacks, but these were probably of brick for the most part, with perhaps a limestone plinth. A Hildenley limestone cornice was probably added at this time, being classical in design, but not academically Palladian in inspiration, and probably contemporary with the major works to the south front, although there is some indication of recycling from elsewhere even here – an inexplicable ashlar stop to the southernmost cornice stone, for example. During the first half of the 18th century, and certainly by 1720, a further major transformation occurred, inside and out. Windows to north and south elevations were enlarged vertically, giving as much impression of symmetry to the north elevation as was possible within the constraints of the existing building levels. It may be that the window openings were already established and had been since the sixteenth century, which would explain the tolerance of differences in widths and heights of windows one cross-wing to another. No documentary evidence survives and the tooling to the clearly introduced calcareous sandstone jambs probably dates from ‘keying’ during the late nineteenth century addition of ordinary portland cement architraves, now removed. To the south elevation, new stone window surrounds of Palladian style were introduced throughout, as well as a similar Hildenley Limestone window surround in the large already existing window opening of the west wall (the position of this strongly suggests it is contemporary with the late medieval window of the south hall wall. It may have been a solar window at first, being reduced in width by the C16 brick crosswall, before this crosswall was again adapted at this point to allow a ‘properly’ proportioned window in the C18) and large semi-circular headed stair light window was introduced either new, or within an existing (if extended) medieval opening. The central range was extended forwards some 14” with the addition of a Hildenly limestone ashlar elevation within chamfered, rusticated quoins. A giant order arch was introduced at the centre passing through both storeys with similarly rusticated voussoirs and a dropped keystone. The heads of the windows have similarly dropped keystones between flat two-part heads, except to the gables, in which the window heads are flat, but still in three parts (a detail which was missed or ignored during nineteenth century replacement works, the gritstone attic window having a dropped keystone). A grand Palladian cornice was added above the central range. The former doorway from the attic to the Jacobean roof terrace was reduced, leaving a window only. The south face of the west range was also clad in Hildenley ashlar of good bed-height and given rusticated ashlar quoins. Similar treatment was not given to the façade of the east cross-wing, which retains its Birdsall calcareous sandstone quoins for the most part, installed probably in the 1570s along with those to the north elevation. Hildenley limestone doorways were installed to the west wall

within the porch created by the giant order arch to the south wall and to the west wall, beneath the stair window. A drawing in Samuel Buck’s Yorkshire Sketchbook shows these works to have been executed by 1720 at the latest. Whilst Palladian in inspiration, their execution is far from the academic Palladianism of Colin Campbell and his followers. It is unusually tolerant of the existing structure and format of the building – working with and around this rather than sweeping it away. Alison Sinclair suggested an association with Hawksmoor and/or Vanbrugh and Buck’s drawing, along with William Strickland’s ownership gives this real weight of possibility. William Strickland and his father-in-law, William Palmes were both MPs for Malton (Palmes from 1678 until 1713; Strickland from 1685 until 1722) with strong links to London. Strickland was Lord Treasurer towards the latter part of his career. He employed Lord Burlington and William Kent at Boynton in the early 1730s. Both Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh were regular visitors to the Malton area, in association with their work to Castle Howard; Hawksmoor worked at both Beverley and York Minsters during this period also. That Strickland knew and associated with both architects in London is well illustrated by Sinclair who quotes in particular a letter Hawksmoor wrote to Lord Carlisle in 1726: “ I am extremely obliged for your Lordship’s own, and the interest you have made me and in particular for Sir William Strickland, who has treated me with all imaginable goodness and patronage.” (Sinclair, p 197) Stylistically, as well as in sensibility, the south elevation might have come from the drawing board of either man. The fireplace within the south room of the east cross-wing equally, its embellishment being very similar in style to that upon Vanbrugh’s Temple of the Four Winds at Castle Howard. If these architects worked for William Strickland at York House, it is highly likely that they did so upon the ‘Hunting Lodge’ also. A rusticated portico on Yorkersgate, now giving pedestrian access to the early C19 stables has always been called the Vanbrugh Arch locally, although it appeared in this location only during the first half of the C19. It has, however, been relocated from elsewhere – quite likely from the north elevation of the Hunting Lodge. The facing of this elevation is of Hildenley limestone in ashlar of similar dimension to that on the south front of York House. The portico also is of Hildenley limestone. Significant alterations took place within also, although it is unclear whether this occurred under the direction of Wm Strickland or immediately after the purchase of the house by the wentworth-Watsons in 1739. The wainscot above chair rail level was partially removed in the south bedroom of the west cross-wing as well as in the north bedroom of the east. The outer framework and ground of the former wainscot was left, but was infilled with lath and two-coat plaster to receive fabric, possibly silk wallcoverings.

The nails with which this was attached remain, as do traces of the earlier paint-scheme of the wainscot. All wainscot above chair rail level was removed from the groundfloor rooms of the east cross-wing. Finish plaster from this period survives in the south room, but in the north there were probably fabric hangings. In both rooms, a classical, Palladian cornice was installed. Elsewhere in the house, 1680s timber cornice survives even where much of the wainscot was removed (except in the north first floor room of the west cross-wing where none survived the attentions of C19 and C20 ‘improvers’ bar the doors and Palladian fire surround). Also in the groundfloor rooms of the east cross-wing, the timber beams were decorated with ornate plasterwork.

In the south room, an exquisitely enriched Baroque chimney piece was installed in front of the wider, c1570s moulded brick surround. This was possibly recycled out of Wentworth Woodhouse or Milton Hall during the works to one or other of the properties by Henry Flitcroft. It may have come out of Boynton Hall during Wm Kent’s remodelling of its interior in the early 1730s. It may in its original and intended location, commissioned by Sir Wm Strickland, designed by either Vanbrugh or Hawksmoor. If it came from Milton, then it may well – and is of sufficiently high quality to – have been designed by Wren, who was married into the Fitzwilliam family during the early 1680s. To the north, the surviving chamfered timber lintol of the earliest fireplace was sawn off at either end above the line of a C17 closing down of the opening and a brick arch built between the butchered ends, presumably to receive a Palladian fireplace of similar grandeur and status as that in the south room. Excavations show that this was subsequently given a hob grate in the late C18 and then replaced during the C19, when the opening was further closed down. The C19 surround was then replaced during the C20 ( probably in 1903) with a heavy oak, ‘ Arts and Crafts’ fire surround. There is a simpler, but well-proportioned Palladian fire surround in the north first floor room of the east cross-wing, which occupies a brick chimney breast that is unlikely to be part of the C16 alterations since it cantilevers forwards of the wall carried by the kitchen fireplace arch. This has moved downwards as the arch below

has spread and dropped, causing significant downward deflection of the floor. There was probably an earlier brick opening further back originally. This surround is likely to be a post-1739 addition, much more academically and precisely Palladian as its proportions are.

There is also a Palladian insert within the 1680s bolection fireplace, separated from the latter surround by marbled plaster panels to either side. To the south first floor room of the east cross-wing there are the damaged jambs of another fire surround. This is probably later, the mortar foot-print of a more structural, probably later C17 fire surround surviving on the hearth. All of these fire surrounds are made of a fine-grained, slightly creamy limestone. Although this may logically be Hildenley limestone, it is probable that they are of Portland stone, which was often of creamier hue in the C18 and which has fossil patterns very similar to those found in the fireplaces. It was the height of status and fashion during the first flush of Palladianism for fireplaces to be made of Portland stone and for the surface to be seen as such. That the earlier, Baroque chimney piece is also of Portland reinforces the possibility of its association with Wren (or Hawksmoor), whose use of Portland in the City of London, for St Pauls, as well as the city churches after the Great Fire, so enhanced its popularity and sent its use mainstream. All fire surrounds were subsequently blacked in keeping with later (and quite bizarre) fashion and have then been over-painted at the same time as the wainscoting as many as thirteen times, which had completely obscured the very fine detail and very high accomplishment of the south groundfloor room fire surround.

The Wentworth family acquired York House from the Stricklands in 1739, along with the former Strickland Hunting Lodge to the west, which underwent massive transformation in their hands, being extended upwards and outwards and its south facing open courtyard enclosed to receive entrance hall and staircase. It become a high quality and fashionable hotel. The south room of the west cross-wing of York House was probably reduced in size around this time and may also have been panelled with wainscot recycled from elsewhere to provide a parlour for senior servants, leaving a room separated from the kitchen and another room created by the reduction - as well as the servants’ stairs introduced at this time - by a doorway in the north east corner of the room (this door was made at the time that the doorway between kitchen and hall was blocked in the C17). It would seem that at this time the front of the central range to the north side was refaced – as well as the peaks of the north gables – using calcareous sandstone from Brow’s quarry on York Road, a quarry that the Wentworth’s owned. It would seem that at this time the front of the central range to the north side was refaced – as well as the peaks of the north gables – using calcareous sandstone from Brow’s quarry on York Road, a quarry that the Wentworth’s owned, and that the front doorway was centralized, a wear pattern on the stone floor suggesting that for a while, at least, after the closing of the courtyard, the front doorway was to the west of the current one, where there is now a window. It is uncertain whether the calcareous sandstone window surrounds were introduced at this time also, or were already in place. It is uncertain also whether or not these carried mouldings at the time of their introduction, which would seem quite likely. If they did, these were chiselled off to facilitate the addition of ordinary portland cement architraves (probably in 1903), which have been removed during the course of the current project. That the window surrounds are of calcareous sandstone is suggestive of their having been a Wentworth intervention. Why would Strickland not use Hildenley limestone, as he did everywhere else, especially given its superior quality and his ownership of the quarry? It is possible, of course, that the windows pre-date the Strickland intervention, and were carried out by the Eures, who built their mansion on the castle site out of calcareous sandstone. It is possible that they are window surrounds from the Eure prodigy house recycled into York House after 1674 when the prodigy house was dismantled. The blocked windows to the west elevation – previously blocked only with 2” bricks on edge – were reinforced by the addition of similar sandstone ashlar. This stone is carefully coursed to match the coursing of the limestone to either side, but is of a different geology and colour. This suggests very strongly that the intention was to limewash the façade, and remnants of a copperass pigmented limewash survive to all elevations, but particularly in the more sheltered areas within the giant order arch. The moulded stonework of stair window and doorway within the arch are pigmented also.

To the west of the butler’s parlour at around this time, or a little later, a single room brick extension was added against an older garden wall. This may have been of two storeys originally, the upper floor accessed from the south west corner of the south first floor bedroom, but is currently of a single, flat-roofed storey and is in serious disrepair and decay. By 1784, York House was tenanted, initially by the Smithson family, lawyers locally as well as in London. Charles Smithson was born in the house and later became a great friend of Charles Dickens, a friendship that led Dickens to make numerous visits to Malton. Through the C19 and into the C20, various superficial and frequently damaging alterations were made to the building. Lining paper was pasted throughout the interior; anaglypta wallpaper was added to ceilings and ordinary portland cement window surrounds glued to the north elevation (these were universally loose by the time of the current repair works) in 1903. Thick and impervious gloss paints were added to the woodwork, obscuring much fine detail. Repairs to the west cross-wing were executed in opc and gypsum plasters. Much heavier gritstone chimney stacks replaced the earlier stacks upon the west wall, as well as the exterior stack of the central chimney. The exterior stack of the east chimney was replaced in 1989 with one of magnesian limestone. Both of these stones are aesthetically and geologically alien to the Malton area, as well as to the house. A bathroom was installed in part of the front first floor room of the west cross-wing, and a kitchen in an already partitioned section of the south groundfloor room of the west cross-wing. The large kitchen fireplace opening was progressively reduced in size. It was refaced with brick on the inside during the extension and adaption of its earlier flue, probably during the C17, perhaps in the earlier C18. The bricks of this lining are 2 ¼” high and different in character (being much more regular) to those above the fireplace arch and in the cross-walls introduced probably in the C16, as well as of the vault below. A range was probably built in the C18 and the opening was further reduced during the later C19 (early opc being used as part of this procedure, although the built closing was bedded in lime). Pipes for a back boiler were crudely cut through. In 1967, the hall, top landing of the stairs and central first floor room, as well as the two first floor rooms of the east cross-wing were carved up into smaller rooms and corridors by the introduction of stud walling. Apart from a crudely cut reception hatch opening through the wainscot of the south wall of the central room, no long-term damage was done by this, and it has all now been removed once more. At this time also, the wide first floor door through the east wall of the west cross-wing was blocked, the earlier, probably C18 door itself being left in situ. This has been reopened, along with the wide, earlier doorway below, blocked during the C17 and most of the historic layout of the house has been reasserted.

There is no doubt that York House, along with its gardens; alone and in association with the Talbot Hotel, is of exceptional architectural and cultural significance, extremely unusual in the storey and legibility of its evolution. It is a place of inspiration. It is essential that the future use of the site gives full weight to this significance. Justification, new fireplace: The design of the earlier, chimney piece of the north groundfloor room of the east cross-wing is, of course, unknowable, although its approximate height and width may be deduced from more recent plaster filling carried out upon its removal and by the extent of the unusual C17 panelling (horizontal boards) to either side. Both

fireplaces had full ceiling height overmantles during the C17 and again in the C18, as evidenced by the remnant timber blocks to which they were fixed flush with the C18 lath and plaster walls. These over-mantles would have been of wood and no speculative restoration of these is contemplated. It is the wish of the current owner, however, to replace the existing C20 fireplace with one more appropriate to the otherwise Palladian flavour of the room. It would seem essential that such a new surround should be designed specifically and not bought off the shelf, however. It would not be appropriate either to introduce an antique fireplace of the period from elsewhere. Nor, it is felt, would a reproduction of the surviving Baroque fireplace in the adjacent room be either honest or guaranteed not to deceive in the future. The scale and grandeur of the Palladian fireplace that survives in the north first floor room is appropriate to its location, but not to one of the C18 reception rooms on the groundfloor, which will have been possessed of greater display. However possible, a copy of the Baroque chimney piece would fail to show due deference to the skill of its carver. Nor would it recognise and would likely distract from the simple cultural value of the original: product of the labour of a highly skilled individual operating in a particular time and culture. Its possible association with Wren, and with the carvers at St Pauls would make any reproduction more, not less, ethically dubious. The exact provenance of this fireplace warrants further study and investigation. Whilst very clearly Baroque in inspiration, it does exhibit a pulvinated frieze, a detail of Roman architecture that first appeared in England in Palladio’s Four Books on Architecture. Whilst Inigo Jones, and doubtless Christopher Wren had independent and private access to the Four Books, the first publication of it in England was Leoni’s 1715 edition, followed in 1738 by Isaac Ware’s. According to proper proportion, however, the mantle is too shallow for the pulvinated frieze, and the leaf carving upon the pulvinated sections of the frieze are far too naturalistic, lacking the stylistic formality of Roman originals. The flower garland of the flat section of the frieze is also entirely naturalistic. The egg of the ovolo of the entablature/head/jambs is replaced by a naturalistically carved sea-shell (this motif is reflected, alternately with more conventional eggs upon the plaster cornice of the room). Otherwise, the form of the enrichment is formally of the Corinthian/Composite order. Whilst nodding at and utilizing classical example, therefore, and demonstrating an awareness of Palladio, this fireplace is Baroque and not Palladian in sensibility. Quite how it came to be introduced into York House in the mid-C18, then, at the time of a clear Palladian intervention requires some explanation. Henry Flitcroft’s sweeping away of the Baroque at Wentworth, and of a whole elevation from the Tudor period at Milton Hall (he would have removed the surviving Tudor front also, had he had his own way) is probably the key. It is clear that the fireplace was originally designed to have been embedded 2 inches into a wall, the

carved detail ending 2” before the backs of the stones. These are currently, and necessarily, forward of the wall-line today because the fireplace sits against an earlier, probably C16 brick fireplace surround. The chimney piece has come from elsewhere, therefore. Only further research will show whether its removal from Flitcroft’s withering glare was from Wentworth Woodhouse or Milton Hall. If the latter, then the association with Wren would be most seductive of all, since he was married into the Fitzwilliam family. Whatever the conclusion, the cultural value of this chimney piece should not be underestimated and must be respected in any new fireplace in the adjoining room. Given our current understanding of the role of the Wentworth’s in the last high status overhaul of the house, soon after their acquisition of it in 1739, and given that there is very strong circumstantial as well as physical, architectural evidence of their having drawn heavily upon Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture, the most comfortable approach would seem to be to return to the source of inspiration for the C18 evolution of the house – Palladio’s Four Books of Architecture - and design a new fireplace with the benefit of our modern understanding of the grammar of the orders. This would engage proper proportion and therefore be readily distinguished from the earlier ‘Palladian’ fire surrounds in the building. A scale drawing of the proposed fireplace is attached. This would be carved in Richemont Normandy limestone, clearly distinguishing it from the Portland stone originals, whilst not entirely jarring with these in colour or character. Careful excavation of the hearth has shown the 1903 oak surround to have been the fifth surround in this location. The earliest hearth was wide and 12” lower than the existing floor level. Whilst this was probably the late medieval kitchen fireplace, since the service end of the house shifted to the east cross-wing probably in the later C16, but certainly by the Later C17, the polite end of the house was in the east cross-wing and the fireplace designs within this room will have reflected this, as does the surviving C17 niche. It is the opinion of the owner that the C20 oak surround does not do sufficient justice to the status of this room and that this would be more appropriately articulated by the proposed new chimney piece.

C17 niche and wainscot at lower levels, C18 C18 plaster and cupboard above and either side

Later niche to east wall

Original fireplace with C17 closing and C18 brick insertion between stubs of possibly C15 timber lintol

Palladian chimney piece, west cross-wing

C16 brick fireplace behind Baroque surround