ENGLISH ITS ART & HISTORY LAWRENCE WEAVER 4 ii' THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES ■'^•^i!^?£^^.^S^t?fSf€!^^^itSS^^?ti5!!^s:^S?l^^S.!S II) ENGLISH , LEAD>^ORK IE ITS-ART- e-r HISTORY «!: Bo «^^SiS^^^^^^^K»s5^i-s« A " But thou, thou meagre lead, Wliich lather threateiiest than dost promise aught, Thv paleness moves me moie than eloquence; And here choose I." THE MERCHANT OF VENICE. FLYING MERCURY AT HOLME LACS', UEREI-ORDSIIIKE. ENCLl If * i ^ J • 1T3ART • 6- HISTORY LAWT^NCE ^/ER:T.5A. r,o LONDON JtJo 13 -T- I\A.TSrORI) • Q1- MICH HOLBORN '' OOt: M C M IX CS't=>"-^^ /==^j>>^^^.i^jiB • e^^>. C^ •••<^* • Art Library W PREFACE. TiiK growing- sense of the decorative value of lead in architecture and the garden has created a demand tor a larger history of the leadworker's art, which shall show, with some fulness, what has been done in the past. Of books on the technical side of leadwork there has been no lack ; the sanitary plumber has a library ready to his hand. The art and history of leadwork have found but one protagonist, my friend Professor Lethaby, but he is a host in himself His little book, published in 1893, and long out nf print, reminded us of the forgotten spirit of old leadwork with so just a perception and so stimulating a sympathy, that I can do and would do no more than write myself down his disciple. Professor Lethaby relied on sketches, chiefly from his own charming pencil, for his 76 pictures. The 441 illustrations of this volume are almost exclusively from photographs or measured drawings. If ha[)ly this book be found to have merit, it will be, I think, in its presentment for the first time of a full series of the chief uses of lead which demand the judgment of the artist as well as the capacity of the craftsman. The scheme of the book has been to put into the hands of the architect, the sculptor, the garden designer, and the worker in lead, a book of some practical use. I have endeavoured to lay just so much stress on the historical side of my subject, as will show the development of design and treatment, while connecting the work with the workers and the days in which they worked. Details of a purely archaeological character I have tried to exclude from the text, and Roman coffins and the like have been slightly dealt with. Por the antiquary a Pibliography has been added, and the notes there given will perhaps be of use in clearing the ground for the student. Vox the owners and lovers of gardens I have attempted to identify some of the work of the sculptors of the eighteenth century who did so much for the archi- tectural side of gardencraft. The material which is available for illustration is so great in amount (particularly in pipe-heads, cisterns, and statues) and so scattered, that there are doubtless omitted both from illustration and reference many admirable examples, but a book has its limits. My collection of [)hotographs contains many examples which I should have included but tor the fear of overloading. Those who are familiar with a cistern here and a statue there may look for them in vain : I can only hope that every important class of subject is represented. I have made but small reference to traditional methods of working lead as belonging rather to the technical that the artistic history of the metal's uses. 1 631 157 viii I'REFACK. I-'or such matters I refer the student to my friend Mr V. W. Troup's achnirable lectures, and notal)l\ that published in " The Arts connected with Building-." Had I dealt with such details, 1 could Init have borrowed from him. ( )ne side of the history of leadwork, viz., the story of the Worshipful Company of riumbcrs, with the place of the craft amon;^ the City Guilds, 1 have omitted altogether. .Some day this fascinatin;4 branch of the subject will doubtless secure such an historian as the allied craft of the Pewterers found in Mr Charles Welch, f.s.a. It was, however, too bip- to include, and too important to trifle with, so 1 havi- left it. Mine has been largely the function of the com[)iler, and for such work the help of many is needful. It has been given so widely and with such freedom and kindness that I make personal acknowledgments in a following note. .My thanks are due to scores of people who have suffered me gladly when 1 pestered them for information, and wandered with my camera about their churchc's, houses, and gardens. The formal dedication is out of fashion, but the s\nrh wliich promptt-d it is always fresh. I lay down my pen with a lively sense of the sympathy and forbearance of those who have allowed me to dedicate to leadwork the leisure hours of many years — my mother and my wile. LAWRENCE WEAVER. 14 NORTHWICK TeRR.\CE, St John's Wood, N.W., November 1909. NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT. TiiK majority of the photoi^raphs that ilkistrate " English Leadwork " are either from the large collection which 1 accjuired from Mr W. Galsworthy Davie, or were taken by myself with the help of m\- life-hjng friend, Mr Benjamin H. Bedell. For other photographs, drawings, and information, 1 am indebted to various helpers, some of whose names appear in the text. Amongst others I now acknowledge the kindness of the following : — Captain Charles Lindsay (for the fine series of pipe-heads at Haddon Hall) ; Viscount Dillon, v.p.s.a.. Lord Bolton, f.s.a. ; thc' Rev. W. Woodlock, s.j. ; the Rev. E. Hermitage-Uay, the Rev. T. S. Cunningham, the Rev. Athelstane Corbet, Miss E. Morton, Miss H. M. Knox, the Editor of the "A. A. Sketch-Book," Lieut.- Col. C. Field, Lieut. -Col. (i. IS. Croft Lyons, f.s.a., and Messrs G. Harry Wallis, i-.s.A. ; J. Starkie Gardner, k.s.a. ; W. Niven, f.s.a.; Charles Angell Bradford, f.s.a.; Albert Hartshorne, f.s.a.; Philip M. Johnston, f.s.a.; Leonard Stokes, f.k.i.b.a. ; Alfred Harris, J. H. Allchin, .S. G. 1 h wlett, George Clinch, f.g.s. ; R. Eden Dickson, Ale.x- ander A. Liglis, W. 1 ). Ibudon, William Kelly, ¥. W. Troup, f.k.i.h.a. ; A. R. Goddard, Arthur T. Bolton, F.R.i.ii.A. ; .Stanley H. Page, H. T. Austin, W. .S. Curr, Ambrose P. Boyson, J. C. Brand, Geo. P. P)ankart, C. King. As some of the illustrations have appeared in magazine articles, 1 have to thank the proprietors of the Architeciural Review, the Burlington Magazine, Cou7itiy Life, The Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and others, for facilitating arrangements for reproduction here. To the Architectural Review I am indebted for the use of the initial letters of the chapters. It is probably inevitable that some who have aided me with illustrations have not Ijeen mentioned in the list above. To such I can only temper my thanks with full apology. Many hard things, mostly unjust, have been said about publishers, lioth before and since Bvron's savage witticism. That author, however, is happy whose work materialises in th(; hands of Messrs Batsford, of whom 1 can only say, in F\'rdinand's words, that they ■■ make m\' labours pleasures." L. W. CONTENTS. CHAPTKR I'Ar.F, INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER .... - xiii I. FONTS -..-.--- I Dustroyed and Incorrectly Described P^xantiples — Geographical Distribution — Classification by Design — Detailed Description of the Thirty Existing Ancient Fonts — Various F~ont-like \'essels. II. RAIN-WATER ITPE-HEADS - - - - - - ^3 Early Uses of Down-pipes — Hampton Court — Windsor Castle — Haddon Hall — Knole Park — Dome Alle}-, Winchester — Hatfield — Guildford — St Jolin's, Oxford — The Character of the Early Work. III. RAIN-WATER i'lFK-HEADS—Contin/wd - - - - 45 The Overlapping of Styles — Bolton Hall — Ston}-hur.st and Bideford — Local Schools of Leadwork — Shrewsbury, Nottingham, and Aberdeen. IV. CISTERNS -------- 65 Possibilities of Decorative Treatment — The Great Tank at St F'agan's — Methods of Making — West Country and London Cisterns Ccimpared — Detailed Descriptions of Examples Illustrated. V. MEDLT:VAL leaded spires - - - - - 86 The Character of Spires — Classification — " Collar " and " Broach " — Destroyed Cathedral Spires — Existing Leaded Spires — Scots Leadworkers — St Nicholas, Aberdeen — Old St Paul's — Chesterfield. Vi. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE RENAISSANCE - - -114 Wren's Steeples and the Sky-line of London — A Classification — Class (<«), The Two True Spires — Class (d), The Spire-form Steeples — Some Destro}-ed Steeples — .Scottish Examples — The Character of Wren's Work. VII. LEADF.D DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS— A LOST FOUNT. \1N - 132 Cur\es in Roof-lines, a Slow Development — The Use of Lanterns — Wren's Treatment of Domes and Lanterns — Class (c). Constructive Details of their Leadwork — Archer's Work — The National Gallery — Nonsucii and Cheapside — The Great P'ountain of Windsor. xii CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGE VIII. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUES - - - - - 146 Fairfax — Charles II. — William III. Marlborough — Prince Eugene — Queen Charlotte — Sir John Cass — George I. IX. LEAH FIGURES GENERALLY - - - - - 156 The Cross of Cheapside — Neptune at Bristol — Karne — Melbourne, Derbyshire — Giovanni de Bologna — Harrowden Hall — Wrest Park — Wilton — Nun Monkton — Methods of Casting — Hampton Court — Syon — Castle Hill — Deceit- ful Figures — Forgers of " Antique " Leadwork — Studley Royal — The Water Note in Leadwork — Eighteenth-Century References to Statues — Hardwick Hall— Glemham Hall— Enfield Old Park— Norfolk Market Cro.sses— The London Apprentice. X. VASES AND FLOWER-i'OTS - - - - - i99 Shenstone on Urns — Melbourne — Parham House — Hampton Court — Windsor —Wilton— Castle Hill. XI. SEPULCHRAL LEADWORK - - - - - - 207 Romano-British Coffins and Ossuaries — Medi;eval Coffins and Heart Cases — Absolution Crosses — Tomb Lettering. XII. VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD 212 Roman Pigs and Pipes — Pilgrims' Signs — Papal Bulhe — Ornaments on Wood- work — Charms — Tobacco Boxes — Ventilating Quarries. XI II. MODERX LEADWORK - - - - - - 222 P^onts — Rain-water Heads — Cisterns — The larger Architectural Uses — Plgures on Buildings and in Gardens — Fountains — V^ases — Clock-faces — .Sundials — Gasfitting — Inscription. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PAPERS, BOOKS, ETC., ON LEADWORK - 251 INDEX _.------ 259 I NTRODUCTION TiiK uses of lead in the earliest times were so various, that a stout \-olume might be made which would lead us to Egypt and Assyria, show thc' [)it^s ot lead stacked on the quays of Tarshish, make us see the Spartan of the sixth century B.C. casting his little votive figures, and surprise the prehistoric man plugging his earthen pots with lead. English leadwork, however, is large enough both as subject and title ; my text and illustrations rarely stray abroad, and then only for a passing comparison. 'Idle art of leadwork is as living as it is individual. Its chief applications are in architecture, where they are many and necessary. They begin with the severely practical, as in roofing and water supply pipes. They range through the objects which blend the useful and the decorative, such as fonts and pipe-heads, and reach the purely decorative in garden ornaments. The illustrations that follow are designed to show- that with few exceptions their subjects present two marked chanirieristics. llie material is tit for its uses, and its varied treatments befit the material. It has been objected to lead that it is a metal little individual. It has been suggested that everything made in lead would be better in some other medium ; that, in fact, lead's function is to take, for economy's sake, the place of some richer material. This attitude is founded on an imperfect study of the products of the leadworker's art, as a rapid survey will show. The fonts illustrated in tlu- first chapter, when seriously considered from the aspect of their possibility in other materials, give answer enough. The general character of the arcaded bowls with large figures is admittedly like that of the stone fonts of the .same period. There is, however, a delicacy of modelling in the floral decoration and in the detail of the robes, combined with a general softness of effect, which would be impossible in stone. The fineness of detail might be obtained in marble, but it would ]>(■ joined with a certain harshness unavoidable in delicately wrought stone. There remains the alternative of bron/.e, l)ut bronze calls for treatment more defined and le.ss homely than suits the character of lead. Bronze is the metal of the grand manner, a fitting substance for the effigies of kings. Lead has a lower place, but can take on a crentle dignity and simplicity incapable of transference to another period. How, it not in lead, could the motifs of the Pyecombe and Warborough fonts have been expressed ? If the history of pi[)e-heads set out in Chapters II. and III. be rightly considered, xiv INTRODL'CTION. they are seen to have tjiven what is the most attractive field for the ri;4ht use of lead in the minor building arts. Chapter XII 1. shows many good modern examples which have cautrht the spirit of the old work without slavish imitation. Despite, however, much precept from those who seek to raise the level of the crafts, very small is the number of people who make pipe-heads of merit, and this complaint is true of all leadwork which has artistic possibilities. The fault lies rather with the average plumber than with the averatfe architect. There is a clear enough call for good design and for a return to sound and traditioucd methods, but nearly all the " ornamental " leadwork done at technical schools is unspeakably bad. In more than one of the books on plumbing which have won a deservedly high place, hints on •'ornamental" work are given by instructors, who are past masters in technical mysteries. Most of the e.\amples used to mould the decorative sense of the student are wholly bad. Until the authorities of technical schools realise that the craft of leadwork must be taught by one who is an artist, as well as a technical expert, these grievous productions will be thought by the risine eeneration of plumbers to be " artistic." There are, of course, honourable exceptions. Professor Lethaby, Mr F. \V. Troup, and others have struggled manfully to fill London County Council students with a wise spirit, and individual architects have souo-ht to instil into the mature plumber some right feeling for his material. In practice, however, if good leadwork is wanted, the few firms who specialise are almost the only sources of supply. The Worshipful Company of Plumbers has done as much as, if not more than, any City Company to support and improve the craft it represents. If the Company would devote to some instruction in artistic righteousness a tithe ot the energy which it gives to improving technical conditions, a good and greatly needed work would be done. In the field of roofing, and as a covering for spires, lanterns, and domes, the long range of illustrations shows the yeoman service of lead to the larger needs of architecture. In this connection it is well to remember what .Sir Christopher Wren wrote in 1708: " Lead is certainly the best and lightest covering, and being of our own growth and manufacture, and lasting, if properly laid, for many hundred years, is without cjuestion the most preferable." He was then seventy-six, and the dictum is quoted from a letter to a friend, which set out the gist of his vast experience in building. It is fair to .say that for many buildings lead is still the "most preferable" to-day. As to its possibilities in the future, the subject of Fig. 406, and Mr Starkie Gardner's bridge (Fig. 405) are full of encouragement. In garden leadwork the decorative idea is supreme, and expresses itself in fountains, cisterns, vases, and statues. It may be true that for some of the portrait statues lead was employed because it was cheaper than bronze. So much may be conceded, but as to garden statues it is fair to affirm that it is a more suitable material. It has a gentle unobtrusive quality which harmonises with the domestic air of gardens. Bronze would be, under English skies, an absurd material for the engaging triviality of T/ie Kneelmg INTRODUCTION. xv S/az'c, or the rather stoili^y ladies who represent the arts at 1 lardw ick. If Bassanio was a Httle uncivil to " ihon meagre lead," at least its paleness moved him more than eloquence. This paleness is manifest in oarden ornaments as a silvery grey patina, and forms one of the most deliehtful features of lead, which in I'.noland at least must be regarded as the characteristic garden metal. Even for portrait statues in lead there seems no reason for undue apology. One may admit the coarser treatment that lead demands, and the absence of such finely modelled sinew and vein as bronze makes possible, but no one will affirm that good lead is less good than bad bronze. If, sometimes, where m(inc;y is strictly limited, a better artist and a cheaper material were employed, instead of a feelile artist and a costly material, our public places would not be the losers. Where the pedestal of a portrait statue is to be decorated by less important figures of an emblematic sort, why cling to a uniformity of metal ? With the [Kjrtrait figure in bronze, the lesser figures in lead would not only yield a pleasant diversity of effect, but also by contrast heighten the dominance of the greater statue? Before closing this introduction, I would plead for lead as oftering to the designer and craftsman a field of opportunity mo much neglected. Since for six centuries it held a place, small but distinguished, in the history of the building arts, it is not unreasonable to hope that it will win it back, and renew a sleeping but imperishable tradition. In matters artistic and architectural, the pursuit of novelty is apt to make for trouble. The sense of material that ought to be the basic sense in craftsmanship has been debauched by the fatal facilities of modern manufacture. In urging the claims of lead, the need of soft and simi)le modelling must be emphasised. In view ot the Norman fonts it sounds like attenuated paradox to speak of lead as a novel material. As, however, lead was almost forgotten during the nineteenth century, it offers jiroblems which are virtuallv new, and demands fresh thought which will be stimulated by study of the old work. ENGLISH LEADWORK: ITS ART AND HISTORY. CHAPTr-;R I, FONTS. Destroyed and Incorrectly Described Examples — Geographical Distribution — Classification by Design — Detailed Description of the Thirty Existing Ancient Fonts — Various Font-like Vessels. ^^^^'^^TS never fail of interest. They necessarily take a high place in Christian art, for they are the place of the first sacrament of the Church, and they aftbrd singular decorative possibilities. Their ecclesiastical significance is comparable only with that of the altar, yet unlike the altar the font fortunately has not been the battle-ground of iconoclastic zeal to any marked extent. In so far as fonts sometimes bear figures, they have been open to puritanical disapproval, and have suffered from the "axes and hammers" of the righteous. Their material, however, has never been the shibboleth ot theologv, which has made the English stone altar an aftair of ancient history, and a lost \ehicle of religious art and symbolism. Among" English fonts the thirt)' of lead which remain have an important it a small place. The greatest enemy of lead fonts, as of all lead objects, has been the intrinsic value of the material. The discarded stone font makes a convenient trough for watering animals, or will pleasantly decorate the parsonage garden when used as a flower-pot, but the lead font has higher uses. It can be turned into many bullets. There may be no present occupant of the bench of Bishops who, in his youth, converted a lead font into slugs for the shooting of rooks, but there is a stain on one episcopal conscience to-day in the matter of the fingers of the lead statue of a heathen god. Doubtless, therefore, in less enlightened days lead fonts have gone piecemeal on the same charming errand. Lead was much beloved of Henry VHI.'s Commissioners, as is obvious from the grim tale of fodders from conventual roofs, which added so markedl)' to the value of the monastic spoils. Monasteries would not have had fonts except where their naves or chapels were put to parochial use. Edward \T.'s Visitors, however, who purged the parish churches at the abolition of the chauntries. were probably not innocent in this matter. They would scarcely have omitted (from their inventories of superstitious objects removed) a storied font which so obviously meant money, if it could be done awav without too violent a local outcry. In those spacious days the Severn X'alley was rich in sixiils of leadwork from the roofless churches, for the river was the highway to the Continent. Perhaps it is because it was a drug on KXCiLlSH LKADWORK. the market that there is spared to Gloucestershire the largest number of lead fonts, nine in all out of the total of thirty, and six of Norman date. Unforgettable also are the economic ecstasies of the churchwarden era, and the iconoclasm of the Commonwealth, responsible for the destruction of many. In 1S78 when St Nicholas-at-Wade in Thanet was "restored," the lead font was also restored to its original condition of pig lead. The lead fonts once at Chilham, Kent, and at Hassingham, Norfolk, have gone the same ruinous road. Clifton Hampden. O.xfordshire, knows its lead font no more; about 1840 it was decreed "unshapely" (lead will get unshapely sometimes, but does not resi+;t being put into shape again) and was hurried to its doom. In 182S there existed in the church at Leigh, Surrey, a lead font, but it has since disappeared. W'ocjlhampton Church is included in some lists as possessing a tont " in which the lead is placed over stone and pierced, leaving an arcade and figures showing aoainst the stone backoround." We mav trust that this is the case, and that some day we may see so delightful a treatment. It is, however, doubtful. About sixty years ago the present church was built, encasing a Norman building. The opportunity was seized to bury the font under the floor of the north transept, as they could not sell it. The "oldest inhabitant" is res|)onsible for this information, and the advisability of digging for his hidden treasure has been suggested to the vicar. Pending a little spadework there is no more information than is here given. As recently as 1891 another has dis- appeared, but this by mischance, for when St Mary's Church, Great Plumstead, was burnt, the tont was melted. As far as can be ascertained this is the only destroyed lead font of which any record remains. Amongst Cotman's drawings of Norfolk antiquities there is a sketch, and another engraving exists in a fine collection of pictures of fonts in the librarv of the Society of Antiquaries. A drawing from the latter is here reproduced (Fig. i). Apparently the fire which encompassed its final destruction was not the first male\olent act in its history. It was when drawn (and Cotman's drawing agrees) much mutilated. The top of the tont had been neatly sliced oft. The upright objects round the bowl appear to be columns, which originally carried arches. The other ornaments are unusual, consisting of shields under the (thet)retical) arches, and a band of fat scrollwork encircling the bowl. It the elements really needed to consume a lead font, it is fortunate that example already so much damaged was chosen for their sport. Fir,. I.- -Font (destroyed in 1891), St Mary's, Great Plumstead. m FONTS. 3 Amoiv^" reputed lead touts which have been noted in various lists those at Clewer, Cherrington, Swymbridge, Chirtou, Wansford, Pitcombe, Marten, and A\ebury are n(Jt of lead. Clunbridge, Gloucestershire, which is sometimes described as possessing a font dated 1640, is probably a misprint for Slimbridge. The latter is. however, of date 1644, and there is no place named Clunbridge in Gloucestershire. Altogether fire and the devices of the wicked have left us but thirt\'. Of these, ten are made from three patterns (with .some small variations), lea\ing twentv-three separate designs. We may classify the thirty in two ways : — I. By their geographical distribution, and II. By the general character of their design. Arranged by counties they are as follciws : — Berkshire. — Childrey, Long-Wittenham (thirteenth centiir)-), Woolstone Norman). Buckiiiglunnshire. — Penn (date uncertain). Derbysiiire. — Ashover f Norman). Dorset. — Wareham (Norman). Gloucestershire. — Frampton-on-Severn, Llancaut (preserved at Sedbury Park, Llancaut Church being in ruins), Siston, O.xenhall, Tidenham, Sandhurst (these six are Norman, and all cast from the same patterns), Haresfield (fourteenth century), Down Hatherle\-, Slimbridge (Renaissance). Hampshire. — Tangley ( Renaissance). Herefordshire. — Burghill ('probably Norman), Aston Ingham (Renaissance). Kent. — Brookland (Norman), VVychling (probably Early English), E_\thorne H^ciiaissance). Lincolnshire. — Barnetby-le-\\'old (Norman). Xorfolk. — Brundal (probably Early English). Oxfordshire. — Dorchester (Norman), Warborough (thirteenth century). Surrey. — -Walton-on-the Hill (Norman). Sussex. — Edburton, Pyecombe (Early English), Parham (Decorated), Greatham House, Pul- borough (date uncertain). It is worth)' of note that there is no lead font north of Lincolnshire. Classification bv design gives us the following arrangement of the thirty: — a. Eleven, the chief feature of which is a large arcade, generally with prominent figures under the arches. — F"rampton-on-Severn, Siston, O.xenhall, Tidenham, Llancaut, Sandhurst (Gloucestershire), Dorchester : Oxfordshire)!, Burghill (of Burghill all is restoration sa\e the top of the arcade), U'alton- on-the-Hill (Surrey), Wareham, Ashover. b. Six, arcaded, but with other important decoration. — Brookland, Warborough, Long Witten- ham (the last two from the same patterns with variations), Edburton, Pj-ecombe (these two from the same patterns with variations), Haresfield. c. Three, not arcaded, with figure decoration. — Childrey, Brundal, K\'thorne. d. Nine, without figures or arcading, but with various decorations. — W\-chliiig, Woolstone, Barnetby-le-Wold, Parham, Tangley, Slimbridge, Down Hathcrley, .Aston Ingham, Greatham House (Pulborough). e. One, without any decoration. — Penn. Class A. — Fonts with Large Arcades and Prominent Figures. The si.\ Gloucestershire Norman fonts are tub-shapctl anil cast from the same patterns. (^nlv those at Oxenhall (Fig. 2) and Sandhurst (Fig. 4) art- illustrated, as the I'.XGI.ISH T.l-.AUWORK. Fio. 2. — Oxenhall, Gloucestershire. Fic. 3. — Dorchester, O.xfordsliire. FONTS. others are the same. With the exception of these four, which it would be superHuous to illustrate, this chapter includes one or more photographs (if every existing ancient lead font so far recorded. Four of the Gloucestershire fonts have an arcade of twelve, six arches being filled with scrollwork of a vigorous snake-like pattern, and six with seated figures. The latter are of great interest. Two figure patterns only have been employed. In bmh, the right hand is lifted in benediction, while the left hand holds a book, sealed in one figure, unsealed in the other — an Apocalyptic suggestion. The robes are richly ornamented, and Dr George Ormerod sugge.sted that the figure represents the Trinitas, but a more likely interpretation is Christ enthroned. The Llancaut example has ten arcades only, and the Sandhurst font eleven (six with scrolls and five with figures). The friezes are all decorated with a delicate floral pattern. The existence of these six fonts all cast from the same mould is a pleasant example of the stock pattern in the twelfth century. They suggest that the stock pattern is not in itself (if we accept the teaching of history) an evil thing. The odious character of most of the stock patterns of the last century, particularly of those which took their inspiration from the dreary atmosphere of the fifties and the Great Exhibition, has caused a not unnatural feeling that no archi- tectural detail is tolerable unless it is designed ad hoc. Where it is a matter of hand-wrought objects this nervousness of repetition is likely to stimulate fancy and make tor variety. f Where, however, casting in metal is concerne37 I it seems a more reasonable method to en- 1 courage repetition, as it enables a greater amount of thought and effort to be expended on the original pattern than is economically ipo.ssible ordinarily if only one object is made. Tlie Norman craftsman evidently did not fear to scatter replicas of his lead font once he was satisfied, as he might well be, with the original pattern. If six examples have persisted for about eight hundred years, it is reasonable to suppose that there were originally two or three times six made from the pattern. One cannot help wondering what shrieks about stock patterns would rend an outraged architectural heaven, if twelve or more modern churches were made to-day the artistic dumping ground of one pattern of font. Among the many treasures of the Abbey Church at Dorchester, Oxfordshire, is an arcaded Norman font similar in general character to the Gloucestershire type. Fig. 3 shows the complete font, and Fig. 6 a part of it, the latter to emphasise the peculiar beauty of the fall of the robes. The arcade is in eleven bays with a different figure seated under each arch. The number suggests the faithful apostles, but as each figure is nimbed, and as the hair falls on both sides of the face in all, it seems more likely that the modeller intendetl to represent our Lord in different attitudes. Here we have the same motifs of books and benediction. Two of the figures. Fii;. 4. —Sandhurst, Gloucestershire. ENGLISH LEADWORK. however, hold ke\s. Had this been so in onl\' one case, Saint Peter wouKl reasonably have been indicated. As there are two, they pro- bably symbolise the keys of Hell and nf Death in the hand of Christ. The oeneral treatment of the figfures on these two fonts is that ot Anglo-Sa.xon times, and this date was claimed bv the late Dr Geortre Ormerod for the Gloucestershire fonts (he wrote actually of the Tidenham example, but Oxenhall is identical), and by the late Professor Freeman for the Dorchester font. The architectural treatment of the arcading suggests Norman work, however. In the history ol art there must be few examples of conservatism so marked as in the case of the leadworker, and it is likely that we -Jf^^Ji^ Fig. 5. — Burghili. have here a Norman plumlier using Anglo- Saxon casting patterns. Patterns persist, and there is a natural tendency to use old ones rather than to make new ones in a rising style. To take a modern instance, present-day ironfounders of the unwiser sort discovered U Art Nouveau some eight years ago. Designers of the "glue and string" school rushed to the rescue. New patterns were made at great cost. The result is that, though V Art Noiivcaii is "dead and damned," its stringy tulips will sprout for many years on the fire- places of Suburbia. Tor this we have to thank the permanence of casting patterns. Fortunate, however, the same permanence which has preserved for us Anglo-Saxon modelling to give interest and beauty to a Norman font. It is probable, moreover, that the Gloucestershire and other fonts now de- scribed as Norman belong to the end of the twelfth century, if not to the beginning of the thirteenth. FONTS. 7 The font at Burghill, Herefordshire (Fig. 5), is interesting rather for what it was, and for what its stone base suggests, than for any present beauty. Early in the nine- teenth century the tower of the church fell and seriously damaged the font, which was placed in the vestry for safety. In 1880 it was restored, but in the effort to straighten the lead the lower part, which was very thin, perished. The upper part was then attached to the aggressively moulded bowl which was made for the purpose. The curves on the lower edge of the border appear to be the tops of lost arches. There were thirteen of them, and the contemporary stone base also has thirteen arcades ; Fii;. 7. — Walton-on-the-Hill, Surrey. they were probably designed together. The figures on the base, though much mutilated, appear to be those of our Lord and the apostles, and the lead arcades possibly repeated these figures or contained scrollwork similar to the alternate panels of the Gloucestershire Norman fonts. The carving of this base affords an excellent comparison between stone treatment and the treatment of like designs in lead (compare Figs. 3 and 5). Walton-on-the-Hill, Surrey, has a magnificent e.xample. Only three patterns are employed for the twelve seated figures, which have no nimbus. All three hold books, and two have the right hand uplifted in benediction. The top band of ornament, enclosed by lines of beads, is rich, and the spandrels have delicate ornament. It ENGLISH LEADWORK. I'K.. 8. — W arcliain, IIihslL Fig. 9. — Ashover, Derbyshire. FONTS. 9 is curious that, of the thirty, only two lead fonts should be other than round. The bowl at St Mary's Church, W'areham, Dorset, is he.\agonal, and twelve boldly modelled figures stand under the round-headed arcading. None has the nimbus, but as one holds a square-headed key, the figures are doubtless St Peter and the eleven apostles. There are no other marked evangelistic symbols ; either scrolls or books or both are in the hands of the eleven. It is to be noted, though, that the figures are cast from separate Ijatterns, and do not repeat, as for instance at \\'alton-on-the-Hill, .Surrey, where three patterns are repeated four times. It is worthy remark that no lead font is octagonal. The W'areham font stands on an octagonal base, which suggests that either the bowl or the base came from another church, the bowl probably, as being conveniently portable. The number eight was symbolically the number of regeneration (why so is not clear), but this symbolism did not attack fonts generally until the Perpendicular period. Symbolically lead fonts are weak. There is none either with the seven or the two sacraments, and the symbolism of the Brookland font is cosmic rather than Christian. The font at All Saints' Church, Ashover (Fig. 9), has been described as a stone font with leaden statues. This is perhaps a little misleading. The figures are not attached direct to the stone, but the stone bowl is covered by the lead casing which the figures decorate. For the twenty figures under the arches two patterns only were used. They are simply draped, and have neither mitre nor nimbus. Each carries a book, but the right hand is against the body and not lifted in benediction. The modelling is remarkable for its bold relief, which is about ^ inch in the figures. The top band of ornament has been damaged greatly, but the lower border is unhurt and beautiful. It is probably late twelfth-century work. Class B.— Fonts with Arcades, but with other Important Decoration. The e.xample at Brookland, Romney Marsh, may fairly claim to be the most interesting of lead fonts, if not, indeed, of all English fonts. It is 6 feet in girth, and its double arcading bears the signs of the zodiac in the upper tier, and delightful busv figfures, illustrative of the labours of the months, below. The heads of the arches bear the names of the signs in Latin and of the months in French, and as there are twenty arcades, eight appear twice, the duplicates being from March to October. This perhaps suggests that the patterns were not made for the purposes of this lont. If they were, and an arcading of twelve only had been used, the bowl would have been about 14 inches in diameter. This is smaller than any of the others, which vary from i8i inches at Down Hatherley to 32 inches at Barnetby-le-Wold. The mouldings running round the upper part of the bowl are thrice broken by added jianels, which are much rubbed but appear to represent the Resurrection. They are evidently an afterthought. The plumber's priestly client perhaps thought the decoration secular rather than spiritual, and called for these additions, unwillingly done may be, for one is crookedly fixed. The creatures of the zodiac and the scenes are freshly and gaily modelled. Dealing with them in order, beginning at the middle of the large illustration (Fig. 12), to the rioht of the seam and reading to the right, we have — 10 ENGLISH LEADVVORK. Fk;. io. — September to November Fig. 1 1. — May to August. Fig. 12. — Brookland : October to December, and January to May. FONTS. 1 1 Aquarius — January. — Above, Aquarius upturns his waterpot vioorously ; below, two-headed Janus drinks farewell to the old year, and welcome to the new. Pisces — February. — Above, the usual two fishes re\-ersed ; below, a seated hooded figure warms his feet at the chimney. Aries — March. — Abo\e, a patient-looking ram ; below, a delightful hooded figure ])runing a vine. (The lettering above the arch is incorrectly given as Caprlcornus.) Taurus — April. — Above, the bull, almost as lean as Capricorn ; below, a girl of slender graceful figure stands with tall lilies in her hand. She doubtless is a symbol of Rogation-tide. The "gang-days" fall generally in May, but sometimes in April. Fig. 13. — Long W'ittenham. Passing now to Fig. i i we find, reading from the left — Gemini— May. — Above, the twins, naked children ; below, a knight on a rather small palfrey, with a hawk on each wrist. Cancer^Juite. — Above, the crab is fortunately labelled, for it would not have been suspected ; below, a man mows with a scythe, whetstone at side. Leo — [uly. — Above, a leopard-like lion ; below, a man in a wide-brimmed hat is raking hay. Viro-o — Auo-Hsf. — Abo\-e, Virgo has a slim girlish figure, with a spike of corn in one hand and a vindemiatri.x in the other ; below, a man bends down reaping. 12 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 14. — \N'arborough. Passing" now to Fig. 10, and reading from the left, we get — Libra — September. — Above, Justice with bandaged eyes holding" even scales ; below, a thresher with flail uplifted over the sheaf Scorpio — October. — Above, the scorpion is a harmless creature, a frog save for his tail, which doubtless does the necessary stinging ; below, a figure treads the wine-press, (ir perhaps a cider \'at. Sagittarius — November. — Above, a cen- taur fires his shaft behind him ; below, a swine- herd in a delightful conical hat is apparently beating down acorns for pannage. Capricornus — December. — Above, Capri- corn is an amazing" creature (see to the left of the seam in the large illustration) and might have come out of the Bad Chiki's Book of Beasts ; below, a man is killing a wolf with an axe, a winter sport now happily fallen into disuse. The stone font at Burnhani Deepdale has similar subjects for the labours of the months, with some differences of treatment. An odd feature of the architectural treatment of the Brookland font is, that every third pillar of the arcading stands on a loop. The secular character of this font having impressed a clerical correspondent, he asked whether it expres.sed the following idea : — That the sequence of the months represents man's temporal exist- ence, and that baptism creates the spiritual life which .should inform our external life. The idea that the temporal life is shown as a microcosm of the eternal is delightful, but quite unlikely to have been in the plumber's mind. The twelfth- century men were probably little conscious of such subtleties, and just modelled the things they felt best and knew best and loved best, to the glory of God and with the artist's pleasure in doing a job well. The Warborough font is most decorative and came from the same plumber as the font at Long Wittenham, to be described ne.xt. Several of the ornaments are the same, though their arrangement varies. Both, too. have the pointed arcade at the bottom. Fig. 15. — Edburton. FONTS. 13 ;incl bishops apparelled as in the Childrey example, with the rl^ht hand in the act of blessing. The big middle feature of the Warborough bowl is a somewhat angular arch. Of the two circular ornaments, which appear under it and elsewhere on the bowl, one is a wheel with curved spokes, and one a beautiful geometrical design which suggests lacework. Mr Lethaby describes this font as Norman, i)ut the decoration seems more appropriate to the late thirteenth century. This bowl is of the maximum depth that is found, viz., 16 inches, and has only one seam. The circumference was cast in one piece, whereas most of the lead fonts were cast in four pieces (in addition Fig. 1 6. — Pyecombe. to the bottom) and joined. At Woolstone, however, there are two seams, and at Walton-on-the-Hill we find three. At Warborough, as with most of the lead fonts, there are the marks of the locks of the covers, which were made compulsorv 1)\" I'"(lmund Cantuar. in 1236. At Long Wittenham (Fig. 13) the tall arches are omitted. The upper half is divided into compartments and more plentifullv decorated with wheels. The Edburton and Pyecombe fonts help to keep up the high archaeological reputa- tion of Sussex. They lack figures altogether, and are probably the work of a Norman plumber of about 1 200 or later. Both fonts have the heavy fluted rim, the upper 14 ENGLISH LEADWORK, Fig. 17.— Brundal 1-k;. 18. — Eythorne. FONTS. IS arcading and the narrow middle bantl of scrollwork, l)ut there is no slavish likeness in detail or size. The lowest band differs in the two, the Pyecombe font (Fig". i6) having an arcading of fifteen, with tloral work within the arches ; the Edburton example (Fig. 15) shows the scrolls without the arches. The Pyecombe bowl is 6 feet in circum- ference and 1 5 inches deep, that of Edburton is 5 feet and 13A inches respectively. Though distinctively Norman in char- acter, the coming of (iothic is apparent in Fk;. iSa. — HarchfiL-ld, (llos. Fig. 19. — Eythorne. The general effect is pciiiai )s a little suggestive the trefoil heads of the upper arcading of embroidery, but very successful. The decoration of the Haresfield font (Fig. i8a) is paradoxical, and raises a some- what difficult question of date. The arcading has the character of fourteenth-centurv work, while the buttoned vertical shafts suggest the seventeenth. Several authorities consulted vary in their attribution of date, but as the cusping can hardly be post-Gothic, Fig. 20. — Childrcy. Fig. 21. — Wychling. i6 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 22. — Woolstone. and as there arc instances of such turned shafts being' used in fourteenth-century wood- work, the earlier date is liere adopted. 1 his font has a[)[jearecl in some lists as being of bell-metal, but incorrectly. Its diameter is 24 inches, the thickness of the rim is }_, inch, and of the sides generally a little over |- inch. Class C. — With Figure Decora- tion but without Arcading. The Childrey font (Fig. 20) is \ery simply treated. The twelve bishops who stand on low pedestals round the bowl all wear mitre, alb, and chasuble, and all carry a crozier ill the right hand and a book in the left. The modelling" is of a rather elementary sort. The I)rundall bowl (Fig. 17) is the only lead example left to Norfolk, a county rich in fonts. It is probably of late in the thirteenth century, and is the only one bearing an image of the crucifi.xion. The tleur-de-lys treatment of the lower border and of the vertical panels is as delighttul as it is naive. A notable feature of the Christ figures is that they are impressed. The font is in two thicknesses, the outer one very thin and the inner heavier and later. The Eythorne font has a figure of unusual type, seven times re- peated. Several conjectures ha\e been made as to who is repre- sented, but, as the figure is nude, perhaps Adam is the most likely. He holds a torch in his left hand. There is no difficulty in settling the date, for the artist has written it large, 1628, on four panels, a numeral to each panel. A sugges- tion that the seven lio-ht-bearino- figures are in some wa\' symbolic may well be dismissed. In 162S the sen.se of religious symbol was not very acute in depth, and is much battered and out of shape. I'lG. 2^. Uariutli) Ir \\ "id. The bowl is shallow, 10 inches only It no longer fulfils its use, a modern FONTS. 17 Fig. 24. — Parh.nm, .Sussex. Fig. 25.— Aston Iii^^:..uij, Herefordshire. i8 ENGLISH LKADWORK. stone font has taken its place. Of the five post-Reformatidii lead fonts it is notalile, in that it is alone in possessing' figure decoration. Class D. — Consisting of Nine Fonts without Figures or Arcading. The Wychlin^- bowl (Fij^'. 21) is a yood deal disfii;ured I)\ the ratliL-r a^^ressive modern woodwork which has been added, presumably to keep the leadwurk in shape. w» - 4 ]•'((;. 26 — TaiiijleN, Hants. Fig. 27. — Tanglcy, Hants. Fk;. 28. — Down HatliL-rlev. Fig. 29. — Slimbridge. It is the simplest of the pre-Reformation fonts, and, though ilifficult to date (the stringy ornament has a curiously modern look), it is probably of the end of the thirteenth century. It is an e.\ample of the chequered history of metal fonts. The rector states that the font was found when he restored the chtirch, built into a lot of lirickwork and " pnnidcntially FONTS. 19 saved from the hricklayers and smashers." Restorers have so often [)ruved the most finished of •■smashers" that it is refreshing- to find a church where these vocations have been kept distinct. At VVoolstone, Berkshire (Fig. 22), is the most architectural of the lead fonts. It altogether lacks figure work, and is in effect a sketch of a church. A narrow band .separates the top part of the bowl, which is divided into an arcading of twelve pointed arches. These, as do the thirteen arches below the horizontal band, possibly represent windows. .At the bottom of the bowl is a single arch the door. As there are ten Ixjld perpendicular straps and eight sloping thwarts, the church represented may be an early timber building which preceded the present church of All Saints'. One does not look in the thirteenth centur\ (which ma\- be conjectured to be the date of this font) for so pious a sense of archaeological record as this bowl suggests. It gives one furiouslv to think how much greater would be our knowledge of pre-Conquest buildings if medi:rval Fig. ^o. — Greathiim House. Fig. 31. — Penn, Buckinghamshire. builders had made a practice ot j)icturing in their new work the lineaments of the builtlings they had destroyed. A modern and dreary instance of this is the tablet set up in the Cit)" showing the passer-by what manner of church was .Saint .Xntholin's, Watling Street, before the passion for destruction took it trom our ken. Tlie Woolstone font, howe\'er, is infinitely sounder in principle, for the stor\' ot the lost church is told simply and unafiectedly, and the font is a witness of new effort and a continuing tradition of sanctity. A good deal less can be said for the St .Xntholin's tablet, which w itnesses but to destruction ami silence. -Still, hideous as it is, it is better than nothing. It is proper to add that some antiquaries reject the theory that the Woolstone font illustrates an earlier church. At Barnetby-le-\VoId (Fig. 23) the decoration is very conventional but eminentU' suited to the material. This font was lately rescued from a coal cellar. It had been j)ut to the base use of a whitewash tub, so has enjoyed the extremes of colour sensa- 20 l-.XGLISH LKADWORK. Fig. 32. — Gloucester Museum. Fig. 33. — Lewes Castle. Fig. 34. — Maidstone .Museum tion. The two lower bantls are alike in pattern and differ from the top band. It is presumabh' Xornian. The font at Parham (Fig. 24) is the only example unquestionably of the fourteenth century, and stands alone in treatment. There e.xists not only no other font, but no lead water butt even, which relies, as this does, chierty on lettering as decoration. The font is divided vertically and horizontally by long panels, each bearing the legend " H. C. Nazar" (Jesus Nazarenus) in beau- titul Lombardic lettering. The spaces so enclosed are filled with the shield of arms of one Andrew Peverell, who was knight of the shire in 1351 and probably gave the font. The Tangley font is sparingly decorated in a matter-ot-lact way. Six strips of baluster shape divide the bowl, and the ornaments be- tween are two roses (Fig. 27), three crowned thistles, and three Heurs-de-lys (Fig. 26). With such treatment it is .safe to assign the work to early in the seventeenth century. Slimbridge (Fig. 29) is quite in the ci.s- tern manner, with date, initials, and rosettes. Down Hatherley font (Fig. 28) is very small, but the ornament is ambitious. Round the bottom there runs a band ot Tudor crest- ing, which might well have been used, and probablv was used, to decorate rain-water heads. The stars are of a type familiar on London cisterns, and the lozenges are of a pleasant formality. Interesting too, among the late exam- ples, is that of Aston Ingham (Fig. 25). The date 1689 appears on the bowl as do the initials (unpleasant habit) of the givers of the font, \V. R. and \V. M. The acanthus leaves are good, which can scarcely be said (if tlie scrappy leafwork lielow the initials. There are also the inevitable cherubs and rosettes. F"or the font which stands on the law n at Greatham House near Pulborough, Sussex (Fig. 30), little can be said. It lias fallen to FONTS. 21 the low estate of a flower-pot. it was disestablished some forty years a^o, when Greatham Church was restored, and nothing" by way ol date can be hazarded, for it is a simple unassuming thing and reveals nothing". Rectangular, built up of sheet lead |- inch thick, and with little feet at the corners, its only ornaments are small circles on the faces. It has been suggested that this example was never anything" more than the lead lining of a stone font. Its rudeness of construction makes this theory a reasonable one, but it seemed on the whole better not to exclude it. Class E. — Without Decoration. The font at I'enii, lUickinghamshire, has only latcK" Ix'en added to the list of lead fonts (big. 31). It is uni(|ue in this respect, that it is the onlv one rounded at the bottom. It altogether lacks decoration, but has been scratched all o\-er with dates and initials, and amongst them is 1625. How much earlier than 1625 the font was made is a matter of pure conjecture. The history of the discovery of this font is instructive and has elements of hope, The bowl was coated thickly with colour, and had always been supposed to be of stone. The discerning knuckle tA' the vicar tapping it suggested that it was not stone, and the point of a knife confirnied his suspicion. It may very well be that other lead fonts exist which are masquerading" as stone, and, provided that the clerical penknife be gently used, other surgical experiment in the same direction nia) increase our list. Font-like Vessels. There remain the vessels that ha\"e sometimes been described as fonts, the use of which, however, seems doubtful. The lead vessel in the Gloucester Municipal Museum ( 1' ig. 32), though given in Mr Lethaby's list as a font, must be abandoned to some other use. It was found at the old W'oodchester Church in Gloucestershire. It is formed of four panels yk inches square attached to a circular base, which ]")robably ii a later addition. The facts militating against its being a font are : — 1. It has no markings on the edge where hinges or locks might have been attached. 2. It is much smaller than any known example, and 3. The decoration is unusual tor a font. It might, of course, have been a portable font; hut if so it probably W(.)uld have had handles. It weighs 20 lbs. 3^ oz. Alternative suggestions are, that it was a stoup or a reliquary or a lavabo. For its own sake it deserves illustration. The modelling" is of an exquisite delicacy. The scene, framed in a border ot trailing vine leaves, is the Deposition from the Cross. The dead Christ is on the knees of the Blessed Virgin, and His head and feet are supported by two kneeling figures probably representing St [ohn and St Mary Magdalen. Above the figures and set round the cross itself are the scourge, the crown of thorns, the sponge-bearing rod, the cock of Peter's denial, and other emblems of the Passion. Notable, too, are little busts of Herod 22 ENGLISH LEADWOKK. and of the High Priest, both of xillainous mien. Herod is crowned, and Caiapluis wears a mitre and a spiky t^eard. With regard to the vessel at Lewes Castle (I'ig. ^tj). it is ])rol)ably Anglo-Saxon. The evidence of its use as a font is slender, in fact confined to the existence of a cross in the triangle of ornament. There are the remains of iron handles; which seem to show that it was not an ossuary, a reliquar\-, or a stoup. It may ha\ e heen a salt-cellar. l>ut its use must remain conjectiu'al. Another ves.sel at Maidstone Museum was dredged from the Medway some years ago. It is rather damaged, and it also had iron handles. The decoration is mystifving. It has a classical feeling, and might be Romano-Hritish. At such a date, ho\ve\-er, th<,- river was the font, as objection was taken to still walci- lor baptism. To the earl\" Christians runnine streams were as the rivers ot living- water. In anv case tor so earlv a tlate the font would be too small, if it is to be saved as a font, a later date must be assigned. Perhaps it is of early Norman date, but it is an altogether vague and dubious object. There remains the chance of its being post-Reformation (an anti-climax after talk of Romano- British). .Some years ago Mr Roach Smith descriijed a lead vessel tound at P'eli.xstowc which he thought belonged to the tenth century. It had lost its rim, but seems to have retained some traces ot two or three flanges. It v\as 6 inches high, 31 inches in circLimference, and had an iron handle. There were tour ornaments on the outside, each being a stiff-stalked plant with leaves and flowers at its base, and also two branches, each like the central stem, ending in three leaves. The majority of stone fonts were lined with lead, and it is reasonable to assume that .some sucli linings were decoratively treated as has been done 1j\' Mr Bankart on the inside of some modern lead fonts which are illustrated in a later chapter. None seems, however, to have been recorded. On the outside of a discarded stone font preserved in the church ot W aldron, Su.ssex. there is an incision ot about 8 inches in length. In the upper part of this are small holes which may have served to secure a lead inscrijjtion, such as is found in some mediceval tombstones, and as remains of lead were found inside the basin, this theory is probably correct. It has been stated that the font at Chrjbham, .Surrey, is of lead with wooden panels. It can only be described as of lead in the same way that any lead-lined wood font would be. The bowl is entirely cased in, and it is impossible to say whether the outside of the lead is decorated. For this reason it has been e.xcluded from the list. In the writing of this cliapter the author has to express his great debt to Dr Alfred Fryer, F'.S.A. W ithout his help, both in coimsel and in illustiMtion, it would ha\'e been very incompletely done. The least that can be clone is to make clear (it is common knowledge to those whose hands are grimy with the dust of archreological "Proceedings") that Dr Payer's excursions into the histor\- of fonts in general are typical of all tliat is best in the stu'!y ot our national anti(|uities. 23 ] CHAPTER II RAIN-WATER PIPE-HEADS Early Uses of Down-pipes — Hampton Court— Windsor Castle— Haddon Hall — Knole Park — Dome Alley, \Vinchester— Hatfield — Guildford — St John's, Oxford —The Character of the Early Work. 'HE design ami trcutment of rain-water heads ma\- l:)e di\-ided roui^hK into two historical periods, one extending" from the earliest examples of the middle of the sixteenth century until about 1650, and the other includinn^ the \\'ork of the second half of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth centuries. After 1750 there is nothing' of much interest except a tew local schools, as, for example, those of Aberdeen and of Shropshire. In these and other scattered centres, the craft, instead of dying down into simple dulness, sometimes borrowed conventions from other sources, such as plasterwork, anrl ]jroduced examples which often lack a sense of material, but are not without decorative charm. The first period (with which this chapter deals) began before the Renaissance touched the plumber's art. It continued until the new ideas were established, and may fairly be called the Augustan age of English leadwork. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the English craftsman in lead had to some extent lost the pre-eminence which the lead fonts of the twelfth century had won for him. We can show nothing to compare with the flelicate crockets and leafwork of French mediaeval roofs, which Kurges so faithfully recorderl. When, however, stone gargoyles were abandoned for external lead down-])ipes and heads, the English plumber came into his own again, and at a time when his ideas of design were markedly fluid. Plumbers were conservative craftsmen, a reputation which they enjoy to-day. It is constantU' found that leadwork, judged by design and treatment, is fifty years or more l)ehind the stone car\ing and plasterwork contemporar\' with it. The reason for this is, doubtless, that no foreign leadworkers were imported with Torrigiano, or with the German craftsmen who followed when the Italians fell into evil political odour. Even had they come, they would have brought no tradition to disturb the English treatment which had held sway since the thirteenth centurx . The Gothic tradition, which persisted so long in the shells of buildings, and was discarded for Renaissance treatment at first onl\- in such details as stone carving, continued long in the details of leadwork. The foreign leadworkers art and fancy rioted in crestings and finials, but pi])es and pipe-heads seem to have left him cold. It is characteristic of the practical genius of Engli.sh building that the external down-pipe is a distinctively English method of dis- posing of rain water. The only interesting foreign rain-water head known to the author 24 ENGLISH LKADWOR 41 Fig. 35. — Gresford Church. i.s from a sketch of a Belgian e.xamijlL'. It nii-lit Ik- of the seventeenth century. Here the design is influenced liy the grotesque gargoyle, which vva.s sometimes, even in mediaeval work, made entirely in lead instead of, as usualK, in stone. In Itah' there are no rain-water jjipes e.xcept modern iron ones of the worst type. Though the Romans were often careful to conduct the rain water fall- ing on roofs to the ground b\" pipes instead of shooting it off Ijy j)rojecting spouts, there is no evidence that these pipes were other than of stone or terra-cotta. Thev used lead freely for service pipes, but apparently not for rain-water pijies. \'iollet-le-Duc, under " Concluite," .says that in the four- teenth century lead rain-water pipes were in use in England, but nowhere else, and sketches a most unconvincing lead head and PK ^k "^^Vl^^^^^^l length of square pipe. He unfortunately '" '^^ ^^P^IPq does not suggest where the head is to be found, and there is in England nothing .so early by two centuries. It has been said that fragments of pierced work in Gothic patterns, found at Fountains Abbey, formed parts of pipe-heads ; but the fragments in question seem rather to be parts of lead-ventilating quarries. There is, how- ever, an earlier reference than Viollet-le-Duc to English rain-water pipes. Henrv HI. in 1 24 1 (see the Liberate Roll) writes to the Keeper of the Works at the Tower of London: "We command you to . . . cause all the leaden gutters of the great tower through which rain water should fall from the summit of the .same tower to be carried down to the ground, so that the wall of the .said tower, which has been newlv white- washed, may be in no wise injured by the drop- ping of rain water nor be easily weakened." The use of lead down-pipes grew probal)lv rather from a desire to sa\-e water for domestic use than to avoid the splashing down on the wayfarer's head of the discharge from i)roject- ing .spouts. The use of porous building stone, liable to erosion through the water being blown against the walls in its fall, would tend to the same end. lead pipe of the thirteenth century in a vertical stone chase, sufficiently set in to allow of thin pieces of stone coming in front of the pipe in alternate courses of the masonry. li. -Hampton (Jourt. Viollet-le-Duc shows a RAIN-WATER FirE-HEADS. 25 The fixing;- of the- pipt- on iIk- face of the wall is apparently a later development, due to the greater simplicity of the method and the recognition of its flecnrative possibilities. Where down-pipes were not used, the lead coveriny the roof gutters was often dressed throuoh the openinL;- in the parapet, lined the channel of the .u'arn'oyle, and ex- tended beyond it, as on (iresford Church (F"io-. 35). In other cases, as at Uffinn'ton Church, the o'aro'ovle was a loni"' lead channel supported on an iron stay (illus- trated in Twopeny's drawings of " English Metalwork "). At Hard wick the lead L;'ari;oyles are Ijul^ed, slit, and twisted to the form of an Elizabethan puffed sleeve. At Lincoln Cathedral is a i^reat parapet flutter, illustrated in Cha])ter V. On the Mayor's Parlour, Derby, there is a curious nicked and curled lead gutter, with short round tapering spouts hanging from it at intervals. These spouts discharge Fig. 37. — Windsor Castle. Fic. -iS. — \\'indsor Castle. the water clear of the face of the i)uilding. This house is probably of the last quarter of the fifteenth century, and the little spouts are interesting as being embryonic down-pipes. Both Mr Reginald Blomfield and Mr Starkie Gardner, when writing of leadwork, refer to the head at Hampton Court Palace (Fig. 36), which bears the initials '■ H. R.," 26 l-.\GLISn LKADWORK. and the Fig. dale I 5 39- 25. -Haddon Hall. as l)ein;4 probably Fir. 4 1 . -Had iiall. Fig. 40.— Haddon Hall. the earliest remaiiiiiiL;, and with such authorities one does not liijhtK" disagree. Examination, however, pro\-es that so far from being of the sixteenth it is certainly of the nineteenth cen- tui'\". It is lix'sh looking, and the arrises are sharp. The resident surveyor, Mr Chart, to whom these sus|Mcions were communicated, sa\s that about forty years ago there flourished at 1 lampton Court a strenuous master plumber who renewed with some ferocity. Doubtless the existing heads are approximately like the originals, but the top mouldings are ugly and sutreest the \'ictorian pluniljcr at his coarsest. There are no authentic early heads with the same mouldings. Amongst the earliest heads are two at Windsor Castle, which are purely in the- old manner (Figs. ;^y and 38)- <^^iie is dated 1589 in bold figures, and both were originally on the Elizabethan ])ortion of the Castle on the north front, now part of the Royal Library. They were taken down in I'^ebruary 1904, re- paired, and jihotographed. The lion prances in vigorous mediawal style, and is a \ery blithe piece of modi-lling. .\11 the letters, ornaments, and cresting are a])plied. The plan of the heads is curioush- irrc'''Lilar and interesting. RAIX-WATl'-.R PIPE-Hi:.\l)S. f .tl A< ■ W ' U ' wiij^j W iljl j»-' Fii..>. 42-44. — I'li'i.-HiAi'S, H.MUii N Hall. 28 ENGLISH l,i:.\l)\\()RK. one c)i Fig. 45. — Haddon Hall Amongst other early elated heads there is (or was, it may have disappeared receiuK) 1583, at Chard, with simple batdemented cresting- and four pendants. At Burton A^nes are some fine heads hearing' date 1603, and there are simple battk-mented examples of 1609 '^'i '^he east side ot the tower at Lani^iey Marish, Bucks, and of 1631 oil a gabled house at Swindon. At Haddon Hall the lead heads are numerous, and like most things there, a liberal education. The continuous building which enables us. as we move from one room to another, to step from one centin-\- to another, and to see the development oi treatment and feeling, .say of wood panelling, in its best e.xpressions, does us the same kindness with the leadwork. The heads range from about 1580 to 1696, and begin- ning in work of purely Gothic feeling run on to the stiff vase-shaped heads which are the common form of the eigh- teenth century. The later heads are illustrated in the next chapter. Among the earlier ones some are direct descend- ants of the stone oaryovles. Indeed, the oan'ovles have been disestabli.shed in their favour. The lead .spouts from the stone figures which originally discharged clear of the liuilding were shortened, and now discharge into pipe-heads. In two cases the craftsman manifestly has been infiuenced b\' the gargoyle idea, and has fashioned the front of the heads as more or less human faces, one ot a settled melancholy (Fig. 40). the other expressing a slightly humorous dissatisfaction (Fig. 39). They are altogether a pretty jest in lead, and save tor the two laughing masks, prophetic of Dr Johnson, on an example of 1699 at Durham Castle, there are tew heads whicli are franklx' amusing. The spirit of the medi^evalist was e\'identl\' abroad when they were conceived (about 1600). We have here a grim pleasantry \'ery difterent Ironi the polite wit wliich suggested the arabesque masks of a tew years later (see Fig. 84). In Fig. 45 is shown a head on the Great Hall, Lower Court. A lonof embattled "utter clischaroes into one end. The head has a lleur-de-lys cresting and a tracery disc on the front, but no trace of Renaissance treatment. Dr Charles Cox, in a paper on Derbyshire Plumbery, has illustrated a head similar to that of Fig. 45, but without a gutter, and with a circular l-n;;. 40. — Haddon Hal !>; . \ 1 X -\Y AT I<: R F I P 1 : - H E A DS. 29 disc of a rather richer tracer\ than the simple wheel pattern of V\'^. 45. He dates it as probablv of the hrst half of the sixteenth century, irassibly of the time of Sir Henry V'ernon, who died in 15 15. The total absence of Renaissance feelin- makes this theory plausible, and if it can be maintained the head is the earliest extant. But one may be sceptical. The Exam Hall heads have a very similar fleur-dedys cresting-, but one is dated 1676. This is cited as showing- that the quite Gothic treatment does not necessarily indicate early work. Mr Lethaby figures in his l)o()k a head the same as this example, but he shows no gutter with it. Moreover, the top pipe socket bears, in his sketch, the Vernon boar's head erased, whereas the only existing head which has the boar's head on the top socket has a peacock dis- plaved instead of a tracery disc on the front (Fig. 41). If the Manners' peacock is indigenous to the head on which it is now fixed, it dates the heads some- where probably not earlier than 1577, when Sir John Manners went to live at Haddon on the death of his father-in-law, cer- tainly not earlier than 1567, when he married I^orothy \ er- non, and so demolishes the idea of a head of 1515. Probably a safe date is 1580. If the page is here some- what overcharged with names and dates, it is by wa\- of illus- trating the slow impact of the new ideas and the permanence of the Gothic spirit. The finest heads at Hadck)n Hall are unquestionably those on the north side of the Lower Court (Figs. 42 and 47). A delightful feature is formed by outer fronts of pierced tracer)-, which produce lights and shadows of amazing grace. This tracery, and the delicate cornice with dentils, form one of the happiest possible combinations of the traditional Gothic with the new ideas. The effect is sumptuous, and we can scarcely find an example in the minor arts where the overl ii)i)ing of the styles leaves a result so harmonious. The media;val tradition was dving, but, like Nature in autumn. Fig. 47. — Haddon Hal ^o ]':.\GL1S1I LEADWORK. was hcfautitul vvvn in tlcalh. I he new style was tiiuliii^ its way somewhat uiicertainlw hut with all the riotous tlelii;ht ol the child playint^' a new i^anie. It some ot thi' new forms were curious and Inhriil, all had the fasci- nation of experiment and the \ioour ol youth. Turnins^' to I'i^. 47, the three pendant knobs, the middle one pohoonal while the outer ones are round, are a pleasant relief to the line of the underside of the bowl. The head of Fi^. 42 is similar, save for the pierced cylinders which appear to carr) it. These deserve a word. It has been suo-gested that they carry the heads. Thev are simpl\- thin, hollow cylinders, and could onlv support the heads if they were the casini^^s of oak plugs, of which there is no evidence. 'rhe\- l-ii;. 48.— Haddon Hnll. are wiped on to the heads. The actual sup- ports, where there are any other than nails, are plain iron staples driven under the heads. The theory of oak plugs seemed so plausible, and indeed so practical, that the heads at Bolton Hall, which ha\e similar cylinders, when taken down at the recent rebuilding, were e.xamined to ascertain if there was an\- sign of plugs, but there was none. As similar cylinders occur at Coventry, and these have no i)lugs, the\- may be taken to be purely ornamental. Moreover, if these 1,„; 4g.— Haddon Hall. cylinders had a constructive significance, they would scarcely have been omitted from the heatl of Fig. 47 if they were needfu that of Fig. 42. The e.xample of I'ig. 43 is interesting by reason of the heart-sh; kmnel beiu'j omitted. ^ ^P ^ 4^1 i'nr iped RAIN-WATER PIPE-HKAUS. Still less touched 1)\' the risiiiL;' manner, but of a i^raver kind, is the castellated head decorated with tleurs-de-lvs of F"io-. 49, which is probahl) n{ the same date as that of l'\'^. 44. The latter is fixed in the Upper Court, and the initials are those of Sir John Manners, whose elopement with Dorothy Vernon qoes far to support our claim to be a romantic people. The heads of P i.^s. 46 and 4S, though on the same general lines of mimic castles, have each that touch of difference which gives a li\c-l\' interest. The e.xample of b'ig. 50 is ;i little l:)affling in its lettering M.I.C'j. M.l. probably stands for -Sir John Manners, and the G. beneath for Grace or George. Grace, llie eldest daughter of Sir Henry Pierpoint, married Sir John's eldest son, Sir Czeorge, on 2nd April 1594. Not only the heads, but the |)il)e sockets .show a wealth of care and in\ention. One is .shown in Fig. 51, the .shield bearing the arms of the Pembrugge family, a barry of six. Clearly the Haddon plumliers were historically minded, for it was about the niid 15- COUBLEt>- &s, Haudli.n Hall. 48 ENGLISH LEADWORK. head give the leadwork a pleasant individuaht)-. AimtlKM bio" shield of arms standinc;- above the bowl. Fi''-. 8S) is notal)le for the Returnint^' to lladdon Mall, there are some lieads in the L'|)j)er Court with rich arabescjue masks and l)alusters at the corners, which mark a break from the older manner, and have cjuite an Italian look. Even on them a sliuht projecting- embattled crestino" is retained for the delightful spots of shadow, which it throws on the top edj^e (Fi^s. 84 and 85). There are also several heads (Fi^s. 86 and 87) of very simple treatment, which are most difficult to date. They may be ascribed to about 1670. There is in the Guildhall Museum, London, the front only of a head, dated 1676, the top nf which is nicked and bent over in e.xactly the same wa\ . It would be hard to devise heads of such perfect simijlicity which yet should be so entirely suc- cessful. There Fig. 87.— Haddon Hall. IS not even a pipe socket : the outlet of the head is made rather smaller than the pipe. This is, of course, not a thing' to imitate, because though the junction of the pipe and pipediead is of satisfactory appearance, there must be trouble at the lower end of the length of Jfipe, where it joins to the ne.xt length. L'nless the lower length be fitted with a socket (though not necessarily ornamented) it will have a slovenly look, because it must be worked to a larger opening to take the upper pipe. At Hatfield some of the sockets are of the same size as the pipe, and the spigot ends of the pipes above are worked to a smaller size to make the joint. This, however, besides looking a lazy piece ot work, has the practical disadvantage that the bore and, therefore, the water-carrying capacity of the pi[)e is reduced. In practical points such as this it is not always .safe to follow the older work, which sometimes shows strange lapses. Jerry-buildins. old as laziness. Fig. 88. — Charlton House, Kent. is not a purely modern \ice ; it is as. R.\IX-\V.\TKR I'IPK-HKAUS. 49 The lon^" vase-shaped head (Fij^'. 82) is illustrated not so much for its intrinsic merit (it is rather dull) but because it was a common form throut^hout Eni^land for a century later. This type frecjuently has a lion's mask on the tace, as at Hampton Court (Fit;'. 93), and can be seen in scores in London on the Inns of Court and the city churches. Some at Hampton Court have the flat front covered with a very intricate monoj^ram of Georoe H. From 1700 onward one finds that a building' has generally only one type of head. The applied ornaments vary somewhat, but fancy was dying, and the wealth of invention we find at Haddon and Knole about 1600 had be- come ancient history. At Pounclisford Park, near Taunton, there is a very coni- plete SNStem of rain-water lead- work (Pig. 90). From the \alleys at- each side of a high-pitched roof the water descends through heads and pipes (obviously recent) into a pretty horizontal gutter with ornamental top edge. The outlet from this gutter conducts the water into a turreted head (Fig. 89) with pipe discharging into a handsome lead cistern. The "castle" treatment ot the head is so distinct from the stiff feeling of the pots of flowers which, with the date 1671, deco- rate the cistern, that one is tempted to think the head is earlier. As, however, the Dur- ham head of 1699 (Fig. 95) com- bines the same "castle" motive with a markedly classical cornice, we may take the Poundisford Park head as probably contem- porary with the cistern (which is illustrated in the next chapter). We have here a parallel in leadwork to the mingling of the two manners in stonework which appears on the Salisbury Chantry at Christ- church and elsewhere. The gutter is notable ; the same pattern, but doubled, appears on another house at Taunton, and in the Devizes Museum there is a similar gutter, which came from the Bear Hotel. Devizes. At East Ouantock's Head there is a head with a parapet of the same outline, which was evidently a peculiarity of the Somerset- D Fig. 89. — Poundisford Park. so ENGLISH I.EAUWORK. shire plumber. The same outline but in a feeble variation is found at Stan\vicl<, York- shire. A head not unlike that at Poundis- liird Park is on TorrinL;ton Church, r3e\()n- shire (Pi,i;'. 91). The corner turrets are less actively warlike than those of Poundisford Park, as becomes the peaceful nature of their home, and the \ine decoration which strus^'- g'les round the little parapet has a soft and pleasant air. The formal tlowrr ornament on the pipe socket has a peculiar interest, as it amounts almost to a trade mark of the west countrx plumber. Either at Taunton or Exeter there was apparenth^ an eminent family of leadworkers, who did the best of the ornamental work of the two counties over a long' period ot \ears. This (lower orna- FiG. 90. — Poundisford Park. ment crops up continually. it will be noticed on some of the cisterns illustrated in Cha])ter W. The head at Petworth, Sussex, dated 1654, is rather uninterestino-, but it has a certain dignity. The Durham Castle heads have an especial value historically, as showing the pains taken that heraldry should tell its story accu- rately. A head of 1661 fi.xed to the south wall of the chapel bears a shield with the arms of the See of Durham alone, which was then vacant. Fu'.. 91. — Torrington Church. RAIX-WATER PIPE-HEADS. Bishop Cosiiis' Corre- spoiiclence (Surtccs, 1870- 71, vol. 55, ]). 341) o-ives under " Durli;ini Repaire.s,' 8th May 1666: "Paid Alderman Myrcs, plummer, for 13 stone of lead co\er- in^' the oxell (it the foun- tain, mending the gallery leads, and a quarter's wayes for keeping' the pipes. £2. 6s. 3d." Very possil)]\ this important citizen was the author of the head dated 1661. The e.xample of Fii;'. 95 bears on the richly mantled round shield the arms in pale both of the Fk;. 92. — Durtiam Cast! .see and of Bishop Crewe. .As Crewe was a baron in his own riyht, we ha\'e as his personal mark the baron's coronet as well as the prince - bishop's coro- neted mitre which indi- cated his office. The tasselled labels of the niitn- stand clear of the flat sLir- tace of the head, and are unusualK' nari'ow . The lower member of the cornice is a delicate bead and reel moulding", the upper an ogee with a rich but shallow classical pattern worked on the face. Ihe baron's coronet Fk;. 93. — Hampton Court. Fig. 94. — Pctworthi. 52 ENGLISH Ll'.ADWORK. I'lL.. 95. -Durham Castle. iT'curs both (in the siclt- of the hi-ad and on tlu' (_-ar. In the latter ca.se it i.s enclosed h\ a moLildini^- which looks like the cast cable which is so pleasant and constant a feature in the old work, but is actually a Hat ribljon closeK' twisted. Unhappih', the orii^inal lead ])ipes have been abolished, and iron substituted. The alto^'ether odious cast-iron ear, which fastens the socket to the wall, seems a needless barbarity. Of all the offences of cast-iron pipe, surely the band ear of this type is the (greatest. If it serves no other purpose, thout^'h, it is a com- mentar\' \iL;'orous enouLjh on the distance we have travelled since 1699. Another head of 1699 (Fig. 92) has battlements with a pierced valance of Tudor ornament instead ot the classical cornice. The attempt to remain Gothic must have amused the plumber vastly. He has perpetuated his sense of humour in two Ijewiggecl and laughing faces on the lower part of the head. Very similar to the Durham heads are those of Bolton Hall (Figs. 96-99) though here the Renais- -sance Rubicon has been finally crossed. The only sugges- tion of mediiEval parent a g e wh i ch remains is in the pierced fronts of the cylinders. The variation of heraldic ornaments gi\'es great historic inter- est to the heads. The arms are those of Charles, si.xth Marquis of Win- chester, afterwards Duke of Bolton, and of his second wife, Mary Scrope. The design is some- what over rich, Ijut the modelling of the Paulet hinds and of F,g. 96. — Bolton Hall. RAIX-VVATER PIPE-HEADS. the Scrope chous^hs whiclT support the shields is especially vigorous. In one head the Paulet coat is SLipportecl by the Scrope chou^'hs, a hybrid arrangement due, doubtless, to the Scrope shield having been lost, and the gap filled by a plumber who was a Gallio in heraldr\". The cherubs are podgy in the best gravestone manner. The date deserves a word. The simple, clear figures oi the W'indsor and Knole heads are left behind for a [jretentious, huskv type, which accords with the general treatment of the head, but is not very 53 ■ -*- -— «. .■^- FiG. 97. — Bolton Hall. anmirahle m 1 Fig. 98. — Bolton Hal ts own right. A head on Winchester College has similar numerals. .About 1700 they were common. Bolton Hall was burnt down in 1902, but the leadwork escaped prac- tically unhurt, and Fig. 99 shows the heads as in place before the fire. The roof was covered with lead, which melted and cascaded into the heads and down the pijjes. However, no harm was done, as the melted lead settled down in the bottom length of pipe, whence it was removed by the simple method of splitting the )ipe up the back. A technical word mav be added as to the making of these heads, which applies, more or less, to all lieads of the late seventeenth century. The main bo.x })art is mafle of cast sheet-lead beaten to the shape and soldered u|). The cornice has been cast in lengths, mitred, antl .soldered on. The dentils and all other ornaments are separate castings soldered on. The substance of lead averages 10 lbs. to the foot, but varies between 7 and 12 lbs. The method of fi.xing, viz., simply soldering on from the tront instead of also pinning through to the back, is slovenly and unlike the best work at H addon ; hence the dropping off of ornaments, and muddled 54 KXGI.ISH Ll'.ADWORK. refixing". The overlapping acanthus leaves at the bottom of the head are characteristic of the period, and while giving an undeniable richness, do so at the price of tn)ubling the general effect. In 1678 there has ceased to l^e much reticence in the use of applied decolla- tion. There are no traces of gilding, colour, or bright tinning. The pi])e .sockets and ears have cable-moulded iiands, and are also decorated with the heraldic devices. The pipes used with the Hat heads are rectangular (5! inches l)y ^h inches), and with the angle heads are circular (4^ inches). The Hat heads are 2 feet i i inches wide by 2 feet 10 inches high over all, and the angle heads 2 feet 2.', inches from anijles to cdscc of ears. The Hatfield Park head, dated 1680 (Fig. 100), is a \-ery dignified work. Like the earlier heads of 1610, it rests on the stone cornice. There are few heads that accord so fitl\' with their architectural setting. The lead cornice is of a strong yet graceful moulding that matches the stone cornice. The two semicircular projections on the face of the head are taken up on the face of the pipe, and there is an economy in the applied ornament which is refreshing at this date. The whole effect, if a little stiff, is eminently scholarl}-. If there is a weakness, it is in the rather hard line ot the horizontal projection on the tunnel, which catches the light a little harshU. In this head one seems to see the hand of an architect behind the plumber. The earlier leadwork, save in one notable exception at Knole (Fig. 56), seems to have been done with little reference to the general treatment of the building. The plumber was probably told to provide the recjuired number of stack pipes and heads, and the design was left to his own fancv. There was a lack ot co-ordination, which produces results Fig. 99. — Bolton Hall. Fig. 100. —Hatfield. Fig. 1 01. — Winchester. I'lGS. 102-104. Victoria and Albert Museum. R.AIX-W.XTK,- JMl'E-HEADS 55 ^lc-l.,,luful enough, but diverse enouoh to prex-ent -;y un.ty, a detail e^en if it existed In the Cra scheme of the huildin. One cannot think c5^^" ones allown..- a pkn.ber any voice in the desi^^ Ihe earl) Pallad>an work with elex-ations in the grand manner did not admit of tl.e careful propor! fons o, as stonework bein, disturbed bv st^ks of lead p,pe. The thouoht of a down-pipe on the ^.Jt of the Banqueting Hall verges o,;,ro^,-" Pallad.anrsm was the death of leadwork The;e are down-pipes and heads on the side ele^-ation of \ ren s work at Hampton Court. The heads are lar^e and ornamental, but thev are not verN- ■nterestmo-. On the Jucl^es Loduinos at Win- chester ,s a head dated t687(Fi,J Tor). It s ■nteresnnn- that the shield, which was probablv pa.nte wn a coat of arms, is hxed to L hea ' "'> ' t the top and the bottom, and stands quite At S '^rV " ■'"' '''"^''"•^- ^-"^^^ '■" ^hesame wav. At South Ken.smo-ton Mt,seum there are on loan seven head.s from the Old Manor House of B:ckle b n>. Berkshire. lono- since destroyed. Thev are of two mam types, one rather pretentiouslv archi- tectural, the other of the funnel shape, which in its s mpler and undecorated forn. is L con.mon on a e e,ghteenth-century buildinos. One of the Jter (F.O- ,03) is redeemed from banalitN^ bN" the tu-o antler-hke ornaments and the undecipher- able monogram. It is altogether a rather sloienlv p.ece of work, and seems to be an amateurish copy made m 1705 ..f the head dated 1694 (Fi. 104), wh.ch has ornaments of great simplicitv and" distmction. ' The larger head (Fig. 103) is an excellent example of ,690; the twisted edging is not only rich, but ,ts softness seems pecuHarlv suitable to the materud. he pilasters are unusuallv treated They are fluted, with Ionic capitals, and have a dado of chequers, which lighten the design with a plea.sant spottiness. The three connections between the bowl and the funnel are also rare • they g-n-e the general effect of trusses, but are onI>- thm straps. The lettering is admirable, and S6 ENGLISH LEADWORK. i ^4* m-^W^^^^ Fig. io;. — Stonvhurst. tiiniu-l outlets stands for Sir Henry W'inchcomhe and I'liza- beth, one of his two wives ot this name. On the Lay Vicar's House and the Custom House, E.xeter, and also on the Stone House, Topsham, are simple heads of the end of the .seventeenth century, semicircular on ])lan, and edi.i'ed with a bold egg and tongue moulding. At Dartmouth, on .St .Saxiour's Church, a pipe socket is entirely covered by a large mask. With every desire to escape being gibbeted as a blind Gothic enthusiast, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the further we move from mediaeval into classical treatment, the less interesting do pipe-heads l:)ecome. Not only is classical detail substi- tuted for medieeval, but the change seems often to have destroyed the craftsman's sense of material. Of this perversion the Stonyhurst and Bideford heads (Figs. 105 and 106) are fair instances. The Stonyhurst head, shown in the photograph with a pipe by its side, is no longer in jiosition, luit four others, two exactly as the photograph, and two with added, still serve their original PPPPS>W""^^*^SII purpose. This work can be dated from the heraldic charges as being between 1689 and I 7 17, and is notable for manyrea.sons. It is the only highly decorated head, the front of which is cast in one piece, ap- parentK' from a car V e d wood p a 1 1 e r n. I t looks more like a Sussex iron fire-back than a lead heafl. The sharp modelling Fig. 106. — Bideford. R A I X-\V ATKR PI PE-HEADS. 57 shows that the pluml)cr h;ul ahdicateil his control, and was content to reproduce in lead what another had carved in an alien material. It is not su^^ested that no carved wood jaatterns were used in the earlier work, but at Stonyhurst the feeling of the pattern material dominates the finished lead instead of hein^' subordinate to it. As an e.xample of the richest possible heraldic treatment it is admirable. There is scarcely an inch of surface not covered either b)- the coat, crest, or mantling, and yet, owing to the unity of treatment, and the absence of dates, cherubs, initials, &c., there is no suggestion of overcrowding. The Bideford head (Fig. io6), which is also of about 1700, suggests a nervous horror of plain surfaces. It is a plaster- work rather than a leadwork desio-n. It shows not only an almost wanton luxuri- ance of ornament but also a lack of economy in material. The designer seems to have thought in trowelfuls of plaster rather than in weight of rather costly metal. The treatment has, however, one advantage over the Stonyhurst work in that the surfaces are rounded and easy, as becomes the nature of lead, and the general design is at least vernacular. Even if it Fig. 107. — Kram|)tuii Manor House. Fic;. 108. — Ciutter, Barnstaple. is a plaster design it is English and not foreign. The later English plumber mav have rather I)lun(lered with his material, Init he at least never borrowed ideas from such ingenious gentlemen as Artari and IJagutti. One does not often find the pendant S8 1-:.\GLISH LEADWOKK. knobs, there is soinethiny verv "•^! ■:^M fXHTED tmt SACm5 PLAA OF /AOULDUSG uKl tnere is soinetning very naive about the two leopards who are prancintr awa\- from the pipe alono- the brick wall. The modelling- of the stalks and leaves to the riL;ht aim] left of the bowl is in a naturalistic niaiuier, (|uite foreiL;n to the fat stiff ornament which llanks the shield. The cherub is the nmst ordinar\- touch on a (|uite extraordinary composition, \ "^ M^ which shows the riotous T^?' S , e^'^e with which the plumber played with his mate-rial. This head is but one of a pair : the second is similar. but hardly as rich. At Barn- staple there is a lead gutter with toy battlements and a rope moulding enclosing- ornament, which is a medley of vague flowers antl wings (Fig. 'io8). Very architectural are the heads at Frampton Manor House, Boston, Lincolnshire (Fig. 107). The fluted pilas- ters, the flourishes round the central panel, and the rich modelling of the lower part of the head give it a distinctly baroque effect. Altogether it is quite foreign in feeling. The pipe ears and the side wings of the head itself have deli- catel\- moulded watery crea- tures — swans and mermaids. There are leaves on each side oi the lower part of the bowl, connected with it by stems, and fi.xed to the wall — most unreasonable leaves that do nothing. This head is \ery characteristic of the early eighteenth century, and is certainly one of the finest existing of its type. At Mel- bourne, Derbyshire, there are several heads obviously cast from the same patterns. This is another case of the peripatetic habits of plumbers, for Melbourne is a long way from Boston. There is another, very similar, but less worried, on Sawley Church, Derbyshire. On a late and ugly head at Kendal there are creatures of a dragon sort. PLAflOFVPPBR BA/:;; ! TronI' Elevofi'on , nr^ T'arf.i:icvoh•* by s[)nttinL;- il with small (irnanicnts such as dates, small finLires and heraldic charges, the orilinary method of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 3. To model a considerable part of the surface in low relief, so as to [produce a certain unity of effect not obtained by simple panel treatment. This method obtains only in rich work, like the most elaborate e.xample at Lincoln's Inn (Fig. 147). 4. To make a mouUk-d Irie/e the dominant decoration, e.o;. the jardiniere at Charlton (Fig. 151). I o deal with them in order, apologies are needful tor the inclusion in this chap- ter instead of in the later chajjter on sepulchral lead- work ot the gruesome example given in Fig. i 24. Moreover, it is a reli(|uary, and not a cistern. Decoratively, how- ever, the two things are the same. The example is from .St Eanswith's, Folkestone, the bones are probably those of ^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the saint. We may put aside, r^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K* the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B* significance of this lead box and its contents. Decora- tively the idea is excellent. The surface is covered with a network of dots (one lozenge of which has been emphasised b)- the engraver for the sake of clearness). Each dot is lozenge .shaped, and near the i top of the box the lozenge pattern is crossed by a hori- zontal line ot the same dots. Whether this reticulation is intended actually to suggest a net, or is merely a pleasant conil)ination of dots and lines, seems not to be material. It is illustrated mainly as showing a type of decoration which might well be adopted fctr relieving flat surfaces in modern leadwork, and is in fact the only example that at all fits the first type classified above. The box has a rough cover (not fitted to it) which apparently was originally part of a Roman coffin. It has at one end, on the underside, five parallel cable mouldings. The relicjuar)' itself seems to be (for historical reasons too long to be set forth here) of the twelfth century. In F"ig. 125 is illustrated the exquisite lead cistern which the Fiu. 125. — Italian Tank, British Museum. British Museum CISTERNS. 67 possesses, but it is of Italian origin. The nature of the ornament suggests that it may be of the late fifteenth century, but it is obvious that the disfiguring inlet and outlet pipes are the addition of the Philistine. The conical top also seems to be no part of the original. The second and fourth bands of ornament are particularly interesting owing to their simi- larity in character to the frieze of the Bovey Tracey tank, and the remaining three bands are of the same family as the frieze of the Lincoln Cathedral example. These parallels are worthy of mention as showing that the decoration of the English leadwork of Renaissance times not only has roots in the earlier work, but is also allied to foreign examples. Two French cisterns at South Kensington, and one at the Cluny Museum, Paris, are also treated with horizontal bands covering the whole surface, a very delightful method which seems to have found no favour in England. There is one distressing feature in the attempt to trace the development of the design of flat surfaces in leadwork. No English rain-water cistern of ordinary tvpe exists that can positively be dated as being of the sixteenth century or earlier. The Builder of 23rd August 1862, gives a sketch of a cistern dated 1 5 — . The artist found it in the merciless hands of a dealer in building material, who doubt- less made unrighteous haste to convert it into saleable goods. It bore the initials E. R. in quatrefoils, and the royal arms with supporters and somewhat elaborate mantling. Except for the Gothic touch in the quatrefoils, it apparently did not difier much from the later ribbed examples. Parts of the front and ends were divided by ribs into square panels, having spots of ornament not now decipherable on the sketch. It had, howe\-er, two unusual features in moulded plinth and cornice. The earliest dated e.\ample known to the author is illustrated in Figs. 126-129. The Earl of Plymouth is the fortunate possessor, at St Pagan's Castle, Cardiff, of this magnificent example of English, or rather Welsh, water leadwork. It is a delightful feature on its stepped stone base in the middle of a round garden, between the main entrance to the Castle and the drive. Save for the battery of time it is quite circular. The dimensions are — height, 44 inches ; circumfer- ence about 240 inches. Each of the panels is \'^\ inches by 14! inches, and the frieze is ^\ inches in depth. The latter was not made in uniform lengths, but joined at irregular distances with a view, apparently, to interfere as little as possible with the more important features of the design. Weight of metal has not been spared. The cistern is as much as half an inch thick on the top edge, to which wise extravagance its per- FiG. 1 26. — St Fagan's : Detail of Recurring Panel. 68 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 127. — St Fagan's : Detail of Frieze. Fig. 128. — Round Cistern, St Fagan's, Cardiff. CISTERNS. 69 manence is largely due. Nowhere is it less than a quarter of an inch thick, as far as can be judged without the aid of calipers. The relief is slight on the repeating panels, about a quarter of an inch, increasing a little on the ro\al panel, and jumping to about three-quarters of an inch on the panel containing the Lewis arms. Thirtx out ot the thirt\-tw() panels into which it is di\-ided are cast from the same pattern, which is shown large in Fig. 126. The remaining two give respectively the royal arms, with the date 1620, and the arms of Sir I^dwarrl Lewis of Van, St P^agan's, Penmark Place, and Llantrithyd. This knight of man)- places bought the manor of St F"agan's from Sir William Herbert in 1615-16. The tank would, therefore, seem to be one of the things with which he beautified his new estate, unless indeed he brought it from Van, a place near CaerphilK and some six miles from Car- difl. There remains at \'an .some Tudor work and a large round dovecot. Ihe date doi-s not necessarily deny this, as it may indicate the setting ot the tank in its new place, but the nature of the orna- ment makes it likely that 1620 was the date ot its making. As, however, the panel with the Lewis arms was obviousK' (from its treatment and from the seams on the inside of the cistern) inserted after the main part ot the cistern was made, a plea.sant taste of doubt remains. Fig. 129. — St Pagan's: DL-tail of Royal I'anel. Fig. 1^0. — Cistern, Lincoln Cathedral: Detail of Frieze. It is likeU" that the cistern as it stands now is not complete. Probablv a fountain stood in it originally, with some conceit like a cuj)id or n\mph spouting ENGLISH LEADWOKK. water. If it was a local ])n)cluctinn it is a feather in the cap (unhappy metaphor) of the Welsh pUnnlier of the seventeenth century. Speaking" o-enerall\-, the main impression it o-ives is of a curious likeness in general treatment to the arcaded Norman fonts, of which there are six in Gloucestershire. The comparative nearness of these fonts makes it a not too lliL^hty su^-^'estion that they mav have influenced the design. At Kempston Hall, Dorsetshire, is an ans^le cistern with curved front divided by mouldings into six panels, ornamented with the date 1633, lions rampant, a fleur- de-lys, and the initials H. A. It would be unwise to dogmatise as to the date of the example of Fig. 131, which is at Lincoln Cathedral. It looks very early, indeed the ornament has a Havour of the fourteenth century, but is probably as late as 1650. Though plain it is full of interest. The running bands of ornament are unlike the usual formal treatment of flower motives (Fig. 130). The three vine patterns on gutters (illustrated in F"igs. 58, 61, and 62) all repeat, and have a definite composition. But these Lincoln flowers meander round their native tub in a pleasandy casual fa.shion, which is Lincoln Cathedral. Fig. 132. — No. 10 Downing Street. CISTERNS. 71 ru. foreign to the usual primness of leadwork. On the west country cisterns of the seven- teenth century the top and bottom bands of ornament have their ingenious little woodland scenes modelled in the same irregular way, but figures almost necessarily import a freer treatment. The Lincoln ornament is naive to the point of bein^- amateurish, and there is no effort to ij^ive the line of stalk a distinctive sweep, which would pull the design together. At Xo. 10 Downing Street, Westminster, there is a plain panelled cistern dated 1666. It is ver\' sparingly enriched, as only fi\'e ot the forty-four panels, into which the ribs divide it, bear ornaments, which are the date, a crown, and C. R. At Ayscoughfee Hall. .Spalding, Lincoln- shire, there is a fine cistern almost circular (Fig. 133) and about 3 feet in height. The winged coronet is an interesting ornament. It is rather unusual to find no frieze round the top of the cistern, such as we have in the Bovey Tracey and Poundisford Park circular examples, which are similarly divided into square panels. This is but one of many pleasant things at Ayscoughfee Hall, which, under municipal care, has a somewhat neglected look. Bolton Hall, Yorkshire, has a fine series of lead cisterns, which are of the .same period as the pipe-heads illustraterl in the last chapter. They stood originally at Fig. 133. — .\yscoughfee Hall, .Spalding. Fig. 134. — Bolton Hall, Yorkshire. the foot of the stack pipes, and it will be noted that the cistern at the right of the group in Fig. 134 is angled on plan to suit the angle pipe-head already mentioned. The semicircular plan of the larger ones is unusual, and a pleasant variant of the ordinary rectangular form. The simplicity of their treatment is in contrast with the 72 KXGLisH li:ad\vork. rather crowded ornament of the pipe-heads. There is no attempt to panel the fronts with ribs. On the larger cisterns the classical leaf moulding;" which runs round the to]) and bottom divides the semicircular front vertically with a double band. For the rest they !• u;. I • -i'rcnch Cistern, Fig. 136. — Nottingham Castle. South KensiniTton Museum. were content simply to apply the coat of arms of the Paulet and Scrope families, with their supporters. ( )n the small angle cistern the Scrope choughs support the Paulet shield, due probably to muddled refi.xing at some time when a number of the heraldic ornaments had dropped off, owing to liad work when the cisterns were first made. There are more appliedornaments miss- ing from late seven- teenth and eighteenth century leadwork than from that of the six- teenth and early seven- teenth centuries. The later men were more intent on piling on enrichments than in seeing that those they applied were hrmlv fixed. A 1 1 h o u g h cherubs are plentiful on the pipe-heads, the Bolton cisterns lack Fig. 137.— Exeter, 1694. their celestial presence. CISTERNS. 73 They are more plentiful on cisterns than on fonts. The Slinibridge font (see Chapter I.) dated 1664 miyht almost, e.xcept for its size, be a rain-water butt. It has tour cherulis, but seventeenth-century cherubs did not discriminate between spiritual and secular tubs, and took up their abode as readily on the latter as on the former. It is worth recording that we do not find En_f;lish cisterns decorated with religious emblems, if we except cherubs, which are as often profane amorini as heavenly products. On a French cistern at the .South Kensington Museum, illustrated here by way of comparison (Fig. 135), there is a panel of the Virgin and Child. Very lean and strenuous dogs are coursing round the frieze. The round tank, dated 1681, at Nottingham Castle is an admirable example of the plainer sort (Pig. 136). The arms are those of Henry Cavendish, K.G., and the "serpent nowed " is the Ca\'endish crest. The outward slope of the sides, from the top downwards, adds Fig. 13S. — Exeter, 1696. makes it less jjractical when it comes to cleansing- decorative interest to the tank, but it. After all, if one drinks water from a lead cistern, a few bacteria more or less are not of much account. ■,\n(\ se\-enteenth-centurv courage was undisturlied hv those pleasant creatures whose names make a point of ending in cocciis. There is a vigour about the decoration of Devonshire and Somersetshire cisterns of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries which cannot be claimed for the London work of the same date. The Exeter examples dated 1694, 1696, 170S, 1715, and 1724, and the tanks at Poundisfbrd Park and Bo\-e\" Tracev all ha\e a delii-'htful \ariet\' of flower and animal ornaments which are freshh' amusing. Probably the\" were made by the same plumber. Some of the ornaments which are seen on the tank of 1694 (Fig. 137) are repeated on that of 1724. Thev obviously are cast from the same or duplicate patterns. There is 74 KXGLISH LEAUWOKK. a delii;htful disregard of scale, is but little larper than the doys In a and s|)ortino- scene on the 1734 cistern the huntsman the stag has a cjuiescent air which does not quite match with the violent activity ot the three dogs (one higli in the air) which are after him. Iiut it makes a fjuite flramatic picture. The Deanery at E.xeter possesses two \ei-\' mtich alike, dated 1694 and 1 70S. The former is illustrated in P'.i-;'- '.i7' '^'ifl the admirable modelling of the \'ine pattern in the middle of the top tier of panels is worth)' of note. The cistern of Fig. 138, in the possession of Mr Harry Hems, at Fl.xeter, is a particularly good e.xample i)f simple panelling. It is dated 1696, and probably had all panels filled with devices, though two ha\-e gone. The six ornaments repeating at the right and left nf the fnmt are e.speciallv in- teresting. Perhaps the second from the right-hand top corner is the happiest, the vine pattern being em- ployed most successfully. The return ends are decorated with the same si.x ornaments. It will be noted that there are .square outlines niLind these ornaments, which suggest that the ornaments were cast separately and applied. This is not so, however. Fk;. 139. — Poundisford Parl<. Fig. 140. — Frieze of Cistern, Poundisford Park. The outline merely marks the edge of the loose pattern, where it \vas pressed into the casting sand. A word ma\- be added here as to the method of making this cistern, which CISTKRXS. 75 applies tu most ut this t\'pe. It was similar to that employed for Sussex iron fire-backs. The various ornament models were either temporarily fixed to the main pattern before it was pressed into the flat bed ot sand, or they were separately impressed after the main pattern hafl been em- ployed. Never, however, do we find in lead- work such freakish ornament as in one early fire-back, where the ornament is the impress of the moulder's hand, a trick amusintj enoujj^h, but .scarcely art. The front and sides of the cistern (Fig. 138) were cast in one fiat sheet, which was bent at the front angles, and also at the back, re- turning T,k inches. The return pieces are soldered to a sheet-lead l)acking. Two sta\ s of sheet lead 13 inches deep divide the inside into equal dis- tances ; they reach to within 6 inches of the top, and stand clear of the bottom. In the middle, tying the front and back, is a circular solid bar of lead i^ inches in diameter. Other dimensions are: length, 6 feet; height, 2 feet 4 inches; width. 2 Fig. 142. — St Mary's, Scilly. Fig. 141. — Bovey Tracey. eet ; greatest thickness, ^ inch. Ihe cistern at Poundisford Park, Taunton (Fig. 139), is shown in sequence to the illus- tration of the rain-water head in Fig. 89. It is dated 1671. The arrangement of the pots of flowers in the panels is formal enough, but fancy has been given rein in the little frieze that surrounds the tup. The scenes, as is befitting, liave a garden atmos])here. One pleasant-faced urchin is appar- ently about to help himself from a fruit tree, while another is con- templating a rather weedy dog. Trees nu'ngle with flowers, and altogether the composition is de- lightfully casual. The decoration of the Bovey Tracey tank (Fig. 141) is rather stiffer, and the frieze, though of a graceful ara- besque, has not the vernacular charm of the Poundisford Park example. The little figures in 76 ENGLISH LKADWORK. Fig. 143. — Cistern with Arms of the Fishmongers' Company, at Inwood. Fu;. 144. — Child's Bank, Fleet Street, 1685. CISTERNS. 77 I45- — <• liild's Bank, l-lect Street, 1757. Fig. 146.— The Record Office. 78 EXGLLSH LKADWORK. the panels are charming-. Justice with sword and scales has forgotten to bandage her eyes, and the lady with the cornucopia has rather the air of one of Miss Honeyman's Sallies. Hope holds her anchor with impressi\e stolidity, and the other little people have engaging" characters ot their own. At St Mary's, Scillv, one expects something rather unusual. One may be forgiven the vague hope of finding some graceful convention of daffodils on the leadwork that would accord with the subtropical atmosphere of the Isles. But London throws its influence afar. The cistern of Fig. 142 is not only of the ordinary London type, but even bears, which is unusual, the name of the maker. "Walker, London," a name one seems to have heard before. It is a royal cistern, and bears the initials and crown of Fig. 147. — Lincoln's Inn. George I. or II. The cherubs are very fully bevvinged, and the arms of the central panel are those of H.M. Ordnance Office, which controlled the Castle at St Mary's. In all the tanks of this type, and there are still scores in London, the ingenuity of the designer was busiest in the treatment of the ribs. There seems to be no end to the combinations of half circles and straight lines. This sort of design is an affair of set-square and compass, and frankly is not difficult. The London work is not rich in fancy. There is not in the modelling of the applied ornaments anything like the gaiety we find in the enrichment of work of similar date in the West of England. London plumbers dotted the faces of their cisterns rather mechanically with shells and stars and stiff little goddesses. On a cistern in the kitchen of the Brewers' Company, in Addle Street, the Brewers' coat of arms is repeated thirteen times, surely a little too often. For the rest it has CISTERNS. 79 Fiu. 148. — 4 Queen Square, Bloomsbury. Fig. 149. — 20 Hanover Square. 8o KXGLISH LK.XDWOKK. stars and shells between the ribs. A swai^ or two, howe\er. i;i\es it a little variety. It is singular that swags are so little used in leadwork, seeing that they were such usual enrichments in the allied craft of plasterwork. The City Coni- j)anies are rich in cistt-rns. There is one at the Bakers' Company dated 1720. At Inwood there is a Lon- don cistern dated 1685, which bears the arms of the Fish- mongers' Comj)any (Fig. 143). The modelling is distinctly better than the average, and Mr Starkie Gardner regards this tank as an example of the degree of relief that ma\" properly be applied to panelled leadwork. There are several e.xamples of merit in the Guildhall Museum, London. Child's Bank, Fleet Street, has three tc) its credit. Fig. 144 shows one of the best in Londt)n. It is dated 1685. The half panels return round the sides, and in this show a plea.sant disregard of the prevailing practices. The curlv, and there is an echo of history The little fimires are Fig. 150. — 44 (jreat Ormond Street. ornaments in the very are admirable. The stars are gay aiu small bust of Kin»>" Charles I. between the 6 and the 8 Fic. 151. — Charlton House, Kent. CISTERNS. 8i vii,n)rous and interesting-. Those at tiie right and left of the lower tier may ije taken to he Kini^- David harping on his harp. As to the remaining ornament, which occurs si.\ times, it is difficult to dogmatise. It suggests an exasperated prawn, or perhaps a fresh- water relative inhabiting London cisterns — anyhow a watery creature. A second cistern at the same Bank is dated 1679, and retains a little Gothic feeling in the fleur-de-lys, but .some Tudor roses are very feebly modelled. The tank of 1757 (Fig. 145) is the third of the series, and is a good example of the formalism of the later eighteenth - centurx' work. The some- what excessively whis- kered lions of the oval panels areamusing though, and the strips of rather aimless ornament down the side lighten the gene- ral effect. At the Record Office, in Chancery Lane, near the doorway of the Rolls Chapel, are four eigh- teenth-century cisterns, one of which is shown in I-'ig. 146. This surely reaches the zenith of the marine store style of de- coration. The plumber has made the front of his tank a museum of his pat- terns. He must have suffered from an acute horror of plain surfaces. It is an entertaining pro- duction, but one is grate- ful that it does not always happen. Mr Max Clarke has at his house in Queen Square a good example (Fig. 148), which yet has some technical failings. The patterns seem to have been carelessly used, with the result that the alignment of the ribs is very irregular. The star ornaments are poor compared with those on the tank of F"ig. 144, and the lettering is straggling and forlorn. The treatment of the coats of arms is rather more ambitious than successful. I- Fig. 152. — Charlton llm 82 ENGLISH LEADWOKK. I'lc. I s 3J- -Kaliiit; liberal education in the interlacing of ribs, almost Lincoln's Inn has three excellent cisterns. Ont panels with simple ribs, and alloi^cthcr lacking further ornanuint. The second (illustrated in I'ig. 147) is one of the most elaborate in England, ami shows some scholarship in its design. Though the outline of the ribbing is not unusual, the ribs them- selves arc richh modelled, and the trusses at the sides give. a strong architectural flavour. The trophy of fruits at the top and the mask are admirable of their kind. The vertical siri|)s of ornament at th<; ends, while good in them.selves, seem rather a mistake. One feels that the cistern would short of these strips, and finished outside the very good portion of the tank would not have been so good, dcci At 20 Han- over Square ( " the common lodging- house of learncfl so- cieties"), which shelters those who are wise in everything froui obstetrics to Irish folk songs, there is a tank in the area, visible trom the door- way (big. 149). If the I^ecord ( )ffice example vv a s a s t u d y in spotty orna- ment, this is a Runic in complexity, is very plain, divided into two iMG. 154. — iJL'ilfuril Row. ha\'e been better it il had stopped framing of husks. While the pro- )ratively there would have been a CISTERNS. 83 unity which now it rather misses. The third cistern in the Inn is dated a few years later than the last, and was evidently inspired by it. as the ribs and some of the enrich- ments are the same. Probably the same patterns were used. Near by, in Great Ormond Street, at the Xurses' Home ot the Children's Hospital, there was a cistern dated 1745 ( Fig- 150), evidently made from the same patterns as the two best e.xamples at Lincoln's Inn. The stone pedestal on which it stands is a modern addition, set up by Mr Frederick W'arre. He found the tank stowed away in a cellar, and as Lord ^'hurlow once lived in^ the hou.se. the scales of justice and the lictors' rods are appro])riate emblems of the threat Fig. i: -Richmond. Fig. 156. — ^ackville College, East Grinstead. 84 ENGLISH LEADWOKK. judge. He was only thirteen years old when the tank was made, so must be acquitted of ha\ino' any hand in its design. \'ery delightful is the little tank of Fig. 151, which Sir .Spencer Maryon Wilson of Eastborne has at Charlton House, Kent, it is not strictly a cistern (being only about 24 inches long and 1 i inches high), but rather a jardiniere. The decoration is more natural than is ordinarily found in 1714, and were it undated, fifty years earlier would be a reasonable attribution. Its great charm is in its colour. It is almost purely white, and might indeed have come from Blakesware, where Elia wrote of the " flower-pots, now of palest lead, save that a spot here and there, saved from the elements, bespeak their pristine state to have lieen gilt and glittering." .At Charlton no gilt sur\'ives, if it were ever there. As far as possil)le the illustrations tor this book are made strict!)" ad hoc h\ the omi-ssion of the surroundiuLis of the leadwork ; but the octaij'onal cistern at Charlton House Fig. 157. — Lead Puinjj-head. Fig. I qS. — Tenterden Street. (Pig. 152) would lose halt its charm if divorced trom its charming setting. It stands filled with water-lilies, and is a centre of spouting freshness in a rose garden framed in trees. Each face of the octagon is about 2 feet long, and tlie tank is a particularly ha])p\- e.xample of the panelled type. It was perhaps made in the time of Sir William Langhorne, as the initials W. L. appear on the tank. Originallv it was probably, as it is now. the base of a fountain. The upper part is an addition, and was but recently acquired. It is "antique" (precious word), and not old, but the swans and cu[)id make with the tank a most agreeable composition. There are two more cisterns at Charlton House with ribbing. They are dated 1774, but the octagonal one is probablv of the seventeenth century. The cistern at Ealing (Fig. 153) is another injustice tn Ireland. The rose and thistle occur several times, but the shamrock is not to l)e found. There are also two notable square patches of ornament that look like rich enibroider\-, and have an almost Gothic feeling. The dolphins give the needful watery touch. In a Bedford Row cellar is a cistern of the same date, 172^ and )ronaol\' y the same hand (Fig. 154). CISTERNS. 85 The outlines of the ribs are identical, and both tanks bear a pair of small busts, which perha])s indicate GeorLi'e I. and his consort. The crossed j^alm branches are very decorative, and there are several figures, includint;- a George and the Dragon. The lead tank of FIl;-. 155 is in the kitchen of a deli_y,-htful house on Richmond Green. It is Entrlish enough in all Init its ornament, and it has been suggested that the double-headed eagle is an indication that the house was in 1715a residence of the Austrian ambassador of that date. The \-erv interesting little cistern of l*"ig. 158 was taken from a demolished house in Tenterden Street, W., by Messrs Cowtan & Son. It is dated 1757. not a very fruitful period for symbolism, but the strips of zigzag may be there for a purpose. The same ornaments have not been found elsewhere, and, regarded simpK' as decoration, they are rather a harsh addition to an otherwise pleasant arrangement. the Neptunes are driving their teams in very spirited fashion, and the wreath is quite grace- f'ul, if a little attenuated. The baskets of flowers seem rather a mistake. At Sackville Col- lege, East Grinstead ( Fig. i 56), the i)anelling has a curiously halting but refined outline, and the enrichments are admirable and sparingly used. Pig. 159 shows four delightful low re- liefs in the possession of Mr Herbert Batsford. They pro- bably formed part originalK of a cistern, and are good typical work of the first half of the eighteenth century. r ^1 ■^ ^^; 'J ^m^ - - \ rl^" -1- < ^ ^Bv- • -mi Fig. 159. — Panels of tlie Four Season.s. Guildhall die same reliefs appear on a cistern at the Museum, London, which bears the date 1795 and the name of Sir John Cass. Pump-heads are less common than cisterns, but they are not very interesting. One of normal type is illustrated (h'ig. 157), which is rather early in date (for a pump-head). Others bear the stock cistern enrichments, such as shells, stars, and lions' masks. [ «6 ] CHAPTER V. MEDIAEVAL LEADED SPIRES. The Character of Spires — Classification — "Collar" and "Broach" — Destroyed Cathedral Spires — Existing Leaded Spires — Scots Leadworkers — St Nicholas, Aberdeen— Old Saint Paul's — Chesterfield. MONG the debts of gratitude which architecture owes to lead, there is none more weighty than its use in roofin;^'. The roof may be said to be the second need of architecture, as the wall is the first. The wall L;ives privacy, the roof brings protection. The spire is the supreme furm of the roof; it is the roof spiritualised. In its relation to the Gothic spirit it has a character all its own. In its essence it is the roof of a tower, but it intends more. It is a constructed symbol of aspiration, and its l)uilding is one of the greatest concessions to constructed beauty and symbolism which Gothic art has made. Since lead is the most efficient of all roofing materials, it is fair to say that, in the leaded spire, construction and symbolism have their perfect meeting. Among spires generally, those that are leaded take a small and rather forgotten but still honoured place. The leaded spire has a character all its own, and maintains its character of a spiritualised roof more intelligibly than a stone spire can do. The white, almost glistening, patina which comes with age on lead, where air is not befouled with cit\- smoke, makes the spire stand like a frosted spear against the sky ; and the slight twists, which almost every timber spire has taken, give a peculiar sense of life. These are "refinements" which do not fit any theories, but result from the sun sporting with a slender timber structure, made more sensitive by its metal coat. A .shingled spire is apt to twist (Cleobury Mortimer is an example), but there is none .shingled that compares with the inebriate vagaries of the leaded spire of Chesterfield. One of the most interesting points that arises with leaded spires, as indeed with all subjects, is the question of origins, and in this connection shingled as well as leaded timber spires must be mentioned. Mr Francis Bond in "Gothic Architecture in England," took some pains to classify spires of all tvpes. He divided them broadlv into Pathless and Parapetted. A fresh classification is now offered, on the same lines, but amended. Pathless — 1. Collar-type, e.g., Ryton. 2. Broach-type, e.g., Braunton, Barnstaple, Godalming, Ickleton, Swxmbridge, Almondsbur\\ 3. Pinnacled type, e.g.. Long .Sutton, and St .Nicholas, Aberdeen. MEDI/EVAL LEADED SPIRES. 87 Fio. 160. — Ryton, Northumberland. Fir.. 161.— Almondsbury, Glos. Fig. 162. — Harrow, Middlesex. (PalhUss Collar-type.) (Pathless Bivaeli.) (Parafetled Straifrhf-siJeJ.) Three Tvpic.\l Le.\ded Spires. Parapetted — 1. Collar-type, e.g., .St John's, Perth, the tower of which has a heavy over- sailinj^- parapet within which the spire stands. 2. Broach type, e.g., Hemel Hempstead. 3. .Straight-sided type, e.g., Harrow, Chesterfield, Minster, Great Baddow, Much Wenlock, Wickham Market. 4. Spirelets, ('.<,'•., East Harlino-, Wenden Ambo, Swaffham, Hitchin, Sawbridge- worth, and Ash, Kent. 88 ENGLISH LEADWORK. The pathless colhir-tvpe and bioach-typL- can best be ccmsidered together, for some confusion has arisen in the definition of leaded spires owing to the somewhat loose use of the word " broach. " The spires now described as "collar-type" are sometimes called "broach." The shingled spires {e.^., Shere, Tangmere, Merstham, Newhaven, and Plumpton) are all of collar-type, and mav be taken as the first remove from spires square 1)11 |)lan, which are simply lofty roofs. The spires of Southwell Minster have been restored in their original form as pictured in Dugdale (Fig. 163). and He.xham Abbey had a pyramidal roof on the way to being a spire (Fig. 164). The engraxing in . .;. Dugdale is some- what mysterious. It was drawn by .S. Anderton and e n g r a \' e d by n a \- i d K i n g. Some CO r n e r turrets are sur- mounted by tjueer pinnacles, shaped like bulging car- rots. These pin- nacles look as though they might have been leaded. 1 n collar - type spires the upper portion is octa- gonal, and the diagonal sides spread and bend outwards to the corners of the tower which they meet in a [joint. The vertical timliers ot the octagon are framed in a collar which is supported by the timbers of the lower part. The collar-type is probably an earlier form of the timber spire than the broach- type. Ryton has a leaded spire of strict collar-txpe, but in general proportions it is more like the lofty broach of Almondsbury than the squat, shingled collar-type .spires. The diagonal rii« meet in a very irregular line on the faces of the octagon (Fig. 160). f'lG. 163. — Southwell Minster. ( From Dir^dah-. ) Fig. 164. — Hexham Abbey. (From DugiiaU's " Monasticon .4iigli(aniim.^') MEDLE\'AL LEADED SPIRES. 89 Fio. 165.— Hadleigh, Suffolk. Fu;. 166 — Braunton. go ENGLISH LEADWORK. anc The essence of the broach is that the filhiiL;-!!! In-tween the angles of the tower the diaoonal faces of the spire is ot pvramidal form. Mr Bond says, when dealing with broach spires, "Just as the timber spire-torm was cojjied in stone, so the stone broach was copied in wood, c.o-., at Braunton, Devon." He does not, however, point out that there are more broach-t\pe than collar-type pathless leaded spires. Mr Prior, in his " History of Gothic Art in England," writes of "wooden lead-covered spires, first the models and then the copies of the stone." And again, " Almondsbury, Gloucestershire; Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire ; and Braunton, which, l)eing wood and lead productions of the Northamptonshire ' broach, may be conjec- tured as oriyinallv due to its influence." So much may be admitted with- out suggesting that the leaded broach is a slavish or unintelligent copy of the stone broach. It is a question of carpentry. The con- struction of the collar-type is more congenial to wood than is the broach. The octagonal framing calls (but not very urgently) for strut- ting at the base. In the broach the main framing is strutted by single timbers running through the diagonal faces of the octagon ; and this is not so satisfactory as the double strutting of the cardinal faces, which obtains in the collar-type. The question should, perhaps, be considered rather from the point of view of weatherine. The builder Fig. 167. Hereford Cathedral. From Dugdaiis " MonastUou ^'^ leaded spires had a simple pro- Angikamimr) h\itm to face. He had to put an octagonal spire on a square tower, and to jsrovide a weathering from the diagonal faces of the spire to the angles of the tower. In the case of shingled spires he elected to construct the collar-type ; in the case of leaded spires he u.sed both the collar-type and the broach- type, but the latter more commonly. While it is true that in stone broach spires the pyramiflal p,Q ,53. Rochester Cathedral. broach, borne on a squinch, buttresses the spire and has an (From Dugdale.) important constructional function, it seems equallv true that in timber spires the constructional significance of the broach or collar-type is less marked. From the weathering point of view, the broach-type is as efficient as the collar- type, and the broach is far the more attractive. MEDL-EVAL LEADED SPIRES. 91 ^ Hsg Regarding- the question of development, Mr Prior's view that the lead broach was inspired by the rise of the Northamptonshire stone broach is confirmed geo- graphically. The leaded spires of broach-type in Devonshire, Gloucestershire, and Surrey are comparatively near Northamptonshire, while the farthest lead spires, viz., Ryton, Northumberland, and .St John's, Perth, are of the collar-type. The question as to the proportionate numbers of collar-type and broach-type respectively that existed in mediteval times is impossible of answer. The grim comment on the English soldiers in the Crimea that "they showed a marked tendency to die," may fairlv be a|)plied to leaded spires. If the nation is happ\' which has no historw tin: national art of lead roofing must Ik- unhappy indeed, for it has more histor\" than being. This much is clear when we remember that not one of the cathedral leaded spires remains. Rude as are the sketches in Dugdale's " Monasticon Anglicanuni," there are some indications of the various types, though it would be unwise to build a theory on the prints, which on such questions as these can do no more than fortify guesswork. The central tower of Hereford Cathedral (Fig. 167) had a lead spire. it was apparenth' earl)- and of collar- type. , ^ The Chertsey Cartulary in the Record Office has a plan of the site of Chertsey Abbey, and a view of the Abbey Church shows a leaded spire. At Rochester (Fig. 168) the central tower was also crowned with a spire which, perhaps, was of broach- type. The spire-lights are (jueer little features. Among existing pathless collar-type spires that of Hadleigh, Suffolk (Fig. 165), calls for special remark. It properly belongs to the pathless class, although it now has a parapet. The latter is quite modern, and must, therefore, be disregarded for the purpose of classification. Before this addition of some thirty years ago, there was a wooden railing round the spire, which was called the cradle. This cradle was doubtless a piece of churchwarden carpentry, provided to make repairs easier. Originally, there is no doubt, the spire rose from the tower walls direct. The present parapet is a frank absurdity ; it protects no footway round the spire, and is merely a frilling in stone. Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, has a notable spire (Fig. 169). It is very low compared with the height of the tower, and has an odd treatment. The chief characteristic of the collar-type of shingled spire is that the sides do not run down Fig. 169. — Ickleton, Cambs. 92 ENGLISH LEADWORK \ i;>/7 ■"■ Fig. 170. — (lodalming. Fin. 171. — Barnstaple. MEDIEVAL LEADED SPIRES. 93 straight from the apex to the base, resting' on the tower wall. At the collar the line both of the cardinal and of the diagonal sides breaks outwards. This is true of Merstham, Pembury, Plumpton, Tangmere, and Newhaven, all shingled. It is also true of St John's, Perth, leaded collar-type. It is, however, not the case with Hadleigh, .Suffolk, and Ryton, Northumberland, both leaded collar-type. The peculiarity of Ickleton is that, though it is broach-type, the sides break outward about half-way down the broach itself, and so give it a strong superficial resemblance to such shingled spires as Merstham. It is, in tact, a compromise between the broach and collar t\pes, and supports the contention that the actual broach is as natural an angle finish tor a timber as it is for a stone spire. Ickleton spire is of date 1351. The lead has taken on a delightful patina partly bluish and partly a brownish grey. Of all lead spires Barnstaple is perhaps the most graceful and interesting (Fig. 171). It has stood for over five centuries. The alterations in the seventeenth century, when the spire-lights were opened, add con- siderably to its charm, as will be seen by a comparison with the neighbouring picture of Godalming,* which lacks the openings. It will also be noticed that the cardinal faces of Godalming spire stand a little within the wall ot the tower, whereas at Barnstaple the lead sheeting overhangs. Very valuable is the sense of perfect rooting at Barnstaple which this overhanging gives. It gains over Godalming also by its much more strongly-marked broaches and the almost impertinent little opening with louvres at the point of the broach. The little twist is enough to give it interest, without inspiring nervousness as does the spire at Chesterfield. The arrangement of the rolls at Godalming (Fig. 170) is simpler and more regular than at Barnstaple. Of the two methods that of Barnstaple is the commoner and the more interesting. It takes the middle course between the severity of the Godalming rolls and the almost self-conscious irregitlarity that obtains at Hadleigh (Fig. 165). Almondsbury (Fig. 161) has, for its height, very small broaches ; they strike the diagonal faces at a comparatively acute angle. With regard to the leading, the sheets are narrow, and the diagonal arrangement of the rolls is carried down to the base of the spire. There are no spire-lights, but very small openings for ventilation near the top. At Braunton, Devon (Fig. 166), however, there are gabled vertical spire-lights with luffer boards, and the rolls are gradually worked from a diagonal arrangement to the horizontal, half-way down the spire- lights, a treatment which adds much interest. At Swymbridge (like Braunton, near * See Bibliography (Sundry), "History of Godalming." •iG. 172. — CaiitL-rljury CiiUicdral. { From Diigdale. ) 94 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fin. 173. — Long Sutton. Barnstaple) the spire has gabled lights similar to Braunton, but the spire was restored a few years ago, and it may l)e that the existing spire is not an e.\act reproduction of the original. Following the order of our classification we come to the pathless pinnacled t\pe. The west front of Canterbury is still probably the most interestinij- west front in Enoland ; hut in losing the lead .spire on the north-west tower of Lanfranc, it has lost half the charm of its irregular grouping. The drawing by Thomas Johnson, part of which is shown in Fig. 172, is one of the best in Dugdale. It shows the spire as being of more .slender proportions than the view in Dart's " Canter- bury." In this it agrees with the painting at Lambeth Palace. The spire was removed in 1705. The Dugdale drawing seems to show that the pinnacles engaged with the base of the spire in the same way as they do at Long Sutton. If this were the case Canterbury would be of the pathless pinnacled type. The spire of Long Sutton (Figs. 173 and 174) is unique in England ; it is certainly very beautiful. Professor E. A. Freeman, in liis notes to Wickes's " Spires and Towers," is, however, very scornful about it. He says, "The examples of Witney and Oxford Cathedral .show that pinnacles may be very well combined with a broach spire, either with or without turrets, at the corners of the tower. Sutton shows an unsuccessful attempt in the same direction . . . the effect is very bad, being neither that of pinnacles set on the squinches, nor that of turrets rising, as they generally do, higher than the tower." Despite the eminence of the authority it will not be held generally that the effect is very bad. On the contrary, this spire and that of St Nicholas, Aber- deen (which was similar), seem quite extraordinarily successful, and, of the two, Long Sutton is the more cunningly designed. The plan at the joining of tower and spire is full of interest, whereas that of Aberdeen shows no particular in\ention. The achievement ot the architect of Long Sutton is the more notable, in that we have all the grace and beauty that pinnacles add to a spire, without any surrender of the " roof" idea, which goes when the parapetted type of spire is adopted, as, for instance, at Norwich Cathedral an< Kettermg. MEDI/EVAL LEADED SPIRES. 95 Fig. 174.— Long Sutton. Fig. 175. — AbL-rdcen. 96 ENGLISH LKADWORK. Mr Lethaby has pointed out the delightful effect which is gained at Loiil;' Sutton by the leaning inwards of the pinnacles, a refinement which Wickes apparently did not observ'e, for it is not brought out in his drawing. Probably Wickes had a poor idea of lead spires altogether, tor the only other he shows is that o| W'ickham Market. Later students are less scornful. ^Measured drawings of St Marys, Long Sutton, appear both in the "Spring Gardens Sketch Book" (vol. 5) and in the "Architectural Association Sketch Book" (vol. i ). A book on leadwork is not closely concerned with the insides of leaded spires, hut these measured drawings are a liberal education in timber construction. The boarding to which the lead is fixed at Long Sutton is rough oak, i inch thick, and the height of the spire is 84 feet 6 inches. It is, of course, quite impossible to suggest a date for the earliest lead spires, but this much is clear, that they are much earlier tlian stone spires. The towers drawn in the " Benedictional of Flthelwood " (tenth century) are covered with pyramidal roofs, but they can hardly be called spires ; and though the drawing of these roofs suggests leadwork, one canned build a theory on so uncertain a foundation. They may have been shingled. There is little doubt that Long Sutton is the earliest existing lead spire. Mr Francis Bond points out that it is "hardly clear ot transitional detail," and Mr Prior also puts it as early as the latter part of the twelfth century. Mr Bond in referring to the early spires and amongst them Long Sutton, says that they did not produce schools. While this is unquestionablv and unfortunately true as to Long Sutton, it may be that the spire of St Nicholas, Aberdeen, may have been influenced by Long Sutton. There is no documentarx evidence to bring in support, but it is a not impossible theory. The lead for the spire and roof of .St Nicholas was largely English, and why not the design.'' An English plumber, John Buruel, was employed to cover with lead the roofs of Al^erdeen University in 1506, and the spire of St Nicholas was being built at this time. Buruel might not impossibly have seen Long Sutton spire, and advised his Aberdeen friends to follow so admiralsle an example. Aberdeen seems to have taken to lead spires very early. The earliest ot the l)urgh seals (Fig. 176) bears what was conjectured by Mr Astle (" Vetusta Monumenta," \ol. iii., Plate 27) to picture a shrine of the patron saint. The three toy spires, which surmount the shrine, are represented as having reticulated coverings. The network probably indi^ cates lead rolls. By way of comparison it is worthy of note that the existing spirelet of Sawbridge worth, Herts, is leaded with a similar diamond pattern. Fig. 176. — Early Burgh Seal, Aberdeen. MEDIyEVAL LEADED SPIRES. The many records that persist of the medi;eval Scots jjlumbers give an agreeable vitality to the study of such of their work as remains. The most remote was one William of Tweeddale, a burgess of Andirstoun (St Andrew.'i). The burning of the choir roof of Arbroath Abbey took him north, and he there contracted to " thek the mekil quer " and gutter it all al)out with lead. "Thek" is, of course, equivalent to thatch. The most notable clause in this mediaeval contract provides that William shall, after the walls are parapetted, " dight " (or adorn) the work. Here are no specifications or bills of quantities, children of modern suspicion, but a large and free order to dight, and dight doubtless William did, though his handiwork has gone from our ken. His pay for the work was good, 25 marks (or /, 16. 13s. 4d.), liut his honour greater, for he was to get a gown and hood, doubtless a token of his mastership. Nor were his comforts forgotten, for dailv he received a pennv for his " novnsankis," " noon-shenk," or noon-drink, vidcro beer-money. It is eminently characteristic that this great craftsman was not merely a master of other men, but master of his craft, for despite his hooded gown, he worked his lead with his own hand, and had but two labourers to help. The abbot found the lead, William found the lirains to devise and the hands to work. Towards the end of the filteenth century the good burgesses of Aberdeen set themselves to build a new choir to their church of St Nicholas, and build they did for thirty-si.x years, with great scheming and stinting of themselves to find the wherewithal. Aberdeen was like London and Bristol in possessing a race of merchant princes. In 1474 David Menzies contracted with the Master of Kirkwork for " thre futhir of lead, ilke futhir contenand sex score of stanys, to be deliverit, God willand, gif wind and wethir will serve, betuix this and ■ Pasch next to cum apon the key of Aberdeen." This David Menzies seems to have acted precisely the same part of general manager of the city's expenditure on their church, as did the famous William Canynge the younger at Bristol, when he '' with the helpe of others of the worshipfulle towne of Bristol, kepte masons and workmenne to edifie, repayre, cover, and glaze the church of Redcliff," the St Mary Redcliff which is the chief glory of Bristol. This parallel from the south is given because it is good to emphasise what a great part the merchant adventurers played in the architectural energies of the Middle Ages. And, further, the works were almost con- temporary — Aberdeen, 1474, Bristol, 1442. Canynge's work followed the fall of St Mary's spire, and Canynge's name, connected inseparably with Chatterton's forgeries, is a link with a trayedv of Enolish literature. To return to Menzies and his fellow-citizens at Aberdeen. From 1474 to 15 10 the work at St Nicholas' spire went on, the lead being paid for largely by salmon, a staple export of the town. The carrying of the lead to Aberdeen was evidently no small matter, G I Fig. 177. — From St Nicholas, Aberdeen. 98 ENGLISH LEADWORK. t Vir,. 1 78. — St Johirs, Perth. l-'i(.. 179. — HeiiiL-l Hempstead. MEDI/EVAL LEADED SPIRES. 99 tor in 1500 the Provcjst himself, Sir John Rutherford of Tarland, went as far south as Berwick to bring it home. In the year of Flodden, 15 13, their labours came to an end, for the records show- that in November of that year Henry Reid "gifted" money for "up-putting of the weddercok," and John Cullan furnished the gold "lor gilting of the weddercok." Fig. 175 shows the steeple as it stood from P^lodden until 1S74, when it was de- stroyed by fire. It is some consolation, and no little good fortune, that from such early photographic days the negative remained from which the illustration has been made. It would seem from the ph()togra[)h that the Aberdeen pinnacles, like those at Long Sutton, bent in- wards slightly. Aberdeen's records of the great spire do not end, however, with the story of its building. In 1546 the bailies ordained their Master of Kirkwork to send to .St Andrews for a plumber "to reforme and mend the faltis of thair kirk." Again in 1559 "the lead thak " wanted repair, whether of the roof generally or of our spire is not recorded particularly. That further repairs to the leading were regarded as important works is clear from the admirable lead panel that came from the roof of St Nicholas, Aberdeen (Fig. 177). It bears the date 1635, the arms of the burgh, and its fine motto "Bon- accord." Another exists, made from the same pattern, but dated 1 639, and is a rather sharper casting. The size of both is i foot 4^ inches by i foot 6i| inches. They serve no purpose save magnilocjuently to remind us of the pleasure of some Master of Kirkwork in his labours. The patterns were probably carved in wood (robust and masculine work it is), pressed into the casting sand, and cast by the plumber on one of his roofing sheets. With the timber work of the great spire we are not so con- cerned as with its lead covering, but the name of the " Wright" who probably framed it remains, John Fendour. In those days there were no nice distinctions as to-day, between carpenter, joiner, and carver. Fendour was a " Wright," a worker in wood, and a master at his work. .Ml woodwork, ma.ssive or intricate, came from his hand. In 1495 he was building the roofs of St Nicholas, and in 1507-08 he made and carved the choir stalls and screen. Passing now from the pathless spires we come to the parapetted examples, and Class I., the collar-type. It is unusual for collar-type spires to stand within a parapet, but there are at least two examples, and one, i.e., St John's, Perth, is important (Fig. 178). The parapet is heavil\- corbelled out, and in proportion to the tower the- spire is very low and sciuat. Fig. 180. Danbury, Essex. lOO ENGLISH LKAUWORK. In cnnnection with St Nicholas', Aberdeen, we have already met Fendour, the car[)enler. In 1510 he at4reed with the s^reat Bishop William Elphinstone (an heroic timire in media;val Aberdeen, an episcopal Maecenas) to build the oreat central leaded spire of .St Machar's Cathedral, Old Aberdeen. Build it he accordingly diil, l)ut no trace remains, save the written contract. It was to be after a form and pattern given by the l)ishop to Fendour, to be substantially hewn and joined "as the steeple and prik (spire) of the kirk of -Saint Johnstoun is." Here we come into contact with the e.xisting. This likeness of the cathedral spire to that of St John's, Perth, must, howc\er, have been rather in the method of timber construction than in the actual shape and proportion. This seems to be proved by the freestone spires of the cathedral built b\- Eli)hinstone's like-minded successor, Bishop Gavin Dunbar, for he ordered them to match his pre- decessor's work. So closely, even slavishly, were his lordship's orders followed, that there appear in the stone spires sham dormers. Now dormers are proper enough to a timber spire needing ventilation, but not needful in a stone spire. The cathedral did not long ijJliIL ^ J The Cathedral. King's College, l-'ic. 181. — A Reproduction of Part of the Prospect of Old Aberdeen in Slezer's "Theatruni Scotice," 1693. enjoy its leaded spire. After ha\ing been despoiled of its lead and its bells, in 1560, it fell into ruin. Unhappily, not even an old drawing remains, such as Van den Wyngaerde's "View of London," dated 1543, showing the spire of Old St Paul's. -Slezer's "Theatrum -Scotia; ' (Fig. iSi) shows Dunbar's spires, but the great tower is covered with a low roof. The contract is, however, of peculiar interest as showing the great importance attached to the St John's spire. The outside bellcote is obviou.sly a late addition. At Danbury, E-Ssex (Fig. 180), there is an interesting if somewhat cross-bred collar- type spire. It is in fact an epitome of various methods of covering a timber spire. The lowest part from the collar downwards is covered with copper. The top part is leaded, and the middle is shingled. It is stated that the structure of the spire dates from 1402 ; but in 1749, when it was struck by lightning, the apex was burned. Perhaps the amount now leaded indicates the extent of the damage and of the restoration. The parapetted broach spire of Hemel Hempstead (Pig. 179) is probably of the fourteenth century, and is one of the loftiest remaining. ( )n the east face of the spire;, shown in the illustration, will be seen an ()])long lead plate about \i teet from MEDL-EVAL LEADED SPIRES. lOI the top. This plate covers a hole which was probably left for purposes of repair. At Chesterfield there is a similar opening". Among broach spires Hemel Hempstead is not a ver\- convincing e.\ample, since the parapet covers all but the top i)f the broach, and the spire looks straight- sided. At Durham (Fig. 183) and Ely (Fig. 182) Cathedrals the western towers appear to have been crowned with broach spires wliich came within the parapets. At Ely the spire was very slender. In 1174 Bishop Geoffrey Ridal built the west end and steeple. In 1454 Bishop William Grey " bestow'd great sums ot money on building the steeple and west end of his church." It is cjuite likely that the broach spirelet was Grey's work of 1454. It could not have been a copy of Ridal's steeple of i i 74. Ridal's work was probably on the lines of the pyra- midal ro!)fs (they can hardly be called spires) of Southwell Minster, which are illustrated in Fig. 163. Among parapetted spires and indeed among all leaded cathedral spires the place of honour must be given to Old St Paul's. In Fig. 1 84 is reproduced a rare engraving which shows the spire. Apart from its intrinsic charm it em- phasises the proud way in which St Paul's dominated London. The print cannot be claimed as in any sense contemporary, for the spire was destroyed in 1561. It is un- dated, but is said by those who are connoisseurs in these things to be of not very early in the seventeenth century. A great merit of the engraving is its (comparative) wealth of detail, which is absent from Braun and Hogenberg's view, drawn by Joris Hoefnagel, and also from Wyngaerde's. The latter was published about 1545, but is very sketchy. The important features of this spire, in its relation to those that remain, are its pinnacles. These "assert (to use Mr Prior's phrase) the English principle of angle accentuation." If the engraving is to be trusted so far in detail, the pinnacles themselves were of two stories and stood within the parapet. The Cowdray engraving shows the tower and spire of St Paul's. It suggests that the pinnacles, of which there were eight, engaged with the spire itself and were separated by a pathway from the parapet. If this was in Fig. 182. — Ely Cathedral. {From Dni^dah'.) Fh;. 183. —Durham Cathedral. ( From Diigdale. ) I02 ENGLISH LEADWORK. fact the case, the sj^ire occupied a positit)n midway between the pinnacled type, e.g.. Long Sutton, and the [)arapetted type, e.g.. Fig. 192, Minster. Dugdale's St PauTs gives the height of the spire as 274 feet and of the tower and spire together as 520 feet. Stow's figures are 260 and 260, and the engraving (of Fig. 184) says, "This spere wch was of tiber coverd with lead was in height 260 foot." The first steeple built in 1221 had become weak in 1515, and was thoroughly repaired "and a new cross with a pommel well gilt set on the top thereof" This pommel was large enough to contain ten bushels of corn. In 1561 lightning and the ensuing fiames Fig. 184.— Old St Paul's. {Reproduced hy permission frotii a print in the possession of the Society of Anliijuaries.) destroyed in four hours the proudest PLnglish spire. There seems to have been an idea of rebuilding it in 1639. On 29th October the Chamber of London received ^150 "towards the work of the steeple." Perhaps, however, "steeple" is here used loosely, and refers only to the tower. Quite different were the spires on the west and central towers of Lincoln (Fig. 185). They were obviou.sK" of the parapetted t\ pe, and stood well within the walls, leaving a path between the spire and the parapet. This jiath cuts off the spire from the pinnacles. Though the leaded pinnacles remain on the three towers of Lincoln, the\- cannot be regarded as organic parts of the spire, as are those at MEUL-EV'AL LEADED Sl'IRES. 103 Fig. 1S5. — Lincoln Cathedral. Fig. 186. — Norwich Cathedral. (From Dtigdalc.) l''iG. iS/.-Ripon Cathedral. Fig. 188. — Lead Ciestin>^, Exeter ("athedral. Fig. 1 89. — Parapet (lutter, Lincoln Cathedral. I04 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Lon;^" Sutton. In Vn^. 190 is illustrated the top of the central tower with its leaded pinnacles, melancholy reniintlers of what has i^one. The pinnacles were probably restored by Essex in 1775, when the tlimsy stone battlements were put up. The top of the central spire of Lincoln is said to have been 524 feet from the oTound. This figure sounds .suspiciously like a local attempt to .say 4 feet better than Old St Paul's, but as the spire was destroyed in 1548 by a tempest, the question remains unsettled. Whatever the height, the effect of the three spires must have been uni(|ue. Every one who does no more than pass Lincoln in a train must be impressed by the dominance of the cathedral towers. When the height was doubled by spires, the effect must have been amazingly increased. Other notable details at Lincoln are the lead-covered wood parapets (Fig. 191) and gutter (Fig. 189). The former from the ground looks like stone. It is on the west side of the south-east transept, and exactly copies the bulk of the stone parapets. Fig. 190. — Lincoln Cathedral. Fig. 19T. — Leaded Parapet, Lincoln Cathedral. The latter has sunk tracery panels .spaced not too regularK'. These have been copied at Canterbury Cathedral. Here also may be illustrated the lead cresting from Exeter Cathedral (Fig. 188). One half of the west front of Norwich Cathedral is shown (Fig. 186) for the .sake of the very lofty pinnacles, which were as large as the spire of a parish church. At Ripon the two west towers (one of which is illustratetl in Fig. 187) and the central tower had lead spires, all apparently of the straight-sided type without broaches. Few spires show the delightful whiteness, to which lead will weather with age. .so well as does Minster. In the corner photograph of Fig. 192 it will be noticed that the spire shows even whiter than the sky. Of this type of spire Professor Freeman, in his notes on Wickes's book, is so sweeping as to say that " when the spire rises within a mere ordinary battlement without any connection with the tower, the effect is always unpleasing." If this se\-ere standard were approved, the para[)etted MEDL^iVAL LEADED SPIRES. 105 Fig. 192. — Minster. Fig. 103. — Ciieat Baddow. io6 ENGLISH LEADWORK. straight-sided spires and the s|)irelets wdiild be ruled out. Only the pathless spires would pass the test, for there are no lead spires resemblino- the later stone spires which were connected with the parapet by pinnacles and flvino- buttresses. The rolls at Minster are vertical only, as are those at Great Baddow, Essex (Fig'. !9j;), where on each face there is only one roll between the angle rolls, and this ceases at the fourth horizontal division from the top. The little bellcote is an interesting" addition, but apparently recent. Harrow, on the other hand, is prodigal of rolls, there being three on each face between the angle rolls (Fig. 162). The spire is of the fifteenth century. On the lead near the base of the spire are writ large the names of the churchwardens of 1823, under whom the spire was repaired, and curiously enough, also the legend " Hannah Patman, ])luniber, 1823." This leadworking lady was carrying on the business of her deceased husljand. The spire of Chesterfield (Fig. 194), with its amazing twist, is a cause of such controversy that one needs, when dealing with it, to beha\e e\'en as Agag, and walk delicately. John Henry Parker, by writing" that "the lead is so disposed as to give the appearance of the spire being twisted " was not a little misleading. Some have gathered from this that the spire has an apparent but not a real twist. Hajjpily a good photo- graphic lens is not so subject as the retina to optical illusion, and the illustration is quite emphatic as to the reality of the twist. .As to the cause of the twist it is generally thought that the warping of the main timbers is responsible. Equally careful in- vestigators, however, have examined the timbers, and have declared with ecjual emphasis, indeed with equal heat [vciuniaii arclucologicitm is not far behind odium thcologicuii! in fer\our), that the timbers Fig. 194. — ChesterfiLld. MEDI/EVAL LEADED SPIRES. 107 rn Fig. 195. — W'ickham Market, Suffolk. Fig. 196. — Much Wenlock, Salop. io8 ENGLISH LEADWORK. show ci'crj' s/'i^ii, and that they show no s/^n of havins^ warped and sprung;' at the joints. One is a little suspicious when "spirals" are imported into architectural discussions. Some people want to read spirals into ever\-thing. Assumins:;", however, that we may properly look for a purpose in the twist of Chesterfield, the spiral theory seems just tenable. About 1370 practically the whole structure of Chesterfield parish church was rebuilt. The nave and tower are good ordinary work of the period, and we are asketl to assume that the architect determined on a spire which should give extraordinary dis- tinction to an otherwise ordinary church. The whole structure of the spire rests on tour massive beams which are built into the top of the tower, crosswise, forming on plan nine small squares. The corner squares are intersected diagonally by cross pieces which take the diagonal faces of the octagon. From each corner of the middle square rise the great stanchions which form the real core of the work. The spire is built in .sections from 18 to 20 feet in height, and it is affirmed that each .succeeding section is intentionally twisted at a regular degree above the one beneath. Obviously such a construction leads to all manner of difficulties in the direction of keeping the spire at all plumb. The theorist goes on to affirm that when the steeple rose to about two-thirds of its height the builder got alarmed at the amount it was out of plumb, abandoned the system ot twist, and made for the summit by the straight route. This theory is set out for what it may be worth. It is not vastly impressive, but experts in the mysteries of carpentry must be left to setde the point. That the twist is due to the great weight of the lead, and the warping of imperfectly seasoned timber seems a simpler explanation. It should be remembered that Chesterfield is not alone in possessing an erratic shape. The lead spire at Walsingham, Norfolk, though not so large, is considerably bent at a point about one-third from the top. The shingled timber spire of Cleobury Mortimer is also badly twisted.* One other point with regard to the Chesterfield spire deserves mention. The herring-bone arrangement of the rolls produces an optical illusion which, though more noticeable to the eye when looking at the actual spire, is also to be observed in the photograph (Fig. 194). It might be thought that the plan of the spire, instead ot being a plain octagon, is an octagon ot which the eight faces recede in V tashion inwards, or (to put it another way) that the plan is a sixteen-sided star, and that an imaginary line connecting the outer points of the star would form an octagon. This is not, of course, the case ; the suggestion of a star-shaped plan is purely an optical illusion. It may also be pointed out that the rolls are of herring-bone arrangement, as is more common with pathless spires, while vertical rolls are more usual with parapetted examples. .At the Church of Ottery St Mary is a delightful octagonal spire standing well within the parapet, and .so low and squat as to be almost of the ])roportions ot the octagonal leaded roof of the Chai)ter House of York Minster. W'ickham Market (Fig. 195) has especial interest in that it has an octagonal spire on an octagonal tower. A pleasant \'ariation from the ordinary apex is afforded by the mouldings which encircle it, the rolls on the two little stages .so made l)eing arranged spirally. One cannot help wishing that some builder of lead spires had liuilt an * The "twist" tlit-ory, .shortly described above, is set out in a long article in the Derbyshire Courier of 14th November 1903. MEDI.i:VAL LEADED SPIRES. 109 Fig. 197. — Ash, Rent. I'lG. 198. — Swaffham, Norfolk. Three Typical Le.vded Spirelets. Fig. 199. — Sawhridgtworth. octaoonal or, better, sixteen-sided sjiire, and arranged the main rolls in strongly marked spirals from the base uj). The result would be unrestful, but as it is presumably lln' business of a spire to aspire, it would have been an interesting experiment, and certainly amusing. Much W'enlock, .Salop (Fig. 196), has no vertical rolls between the angle rolls, and consequentK the horizontal sheets are ver\' narrow. There are openings with meagfre luffe r hoards, an( 1 below them some rolls arranged in network tashi on. w hich gives variety. This spire was erected in 1726, but the tower is ot the thirteenth centur\', so probabl\- the present spire took the place of an earlier one. I lO ENGLISH LKADWORK. St Maroaret's, Lcnvestoft, has a lead spire of the' straiKht-sided type standino' well within the parapet, and calls tor no special remark. For the hi-hly C.othic person, the parapetted spirelets, such as those at Hitchin and East Harling. can have no justification, except a purely decorative one. To people who want to 'ju^tity everything, a broach spire is a roof, and hells can be huno m it. For the laroe plain spire standing within a parapet there is less excuse, and for spire - lets none at all. They are. however, very delightful things, and .should be jealously pre-s^erved. A few years ago a good lead spirelet at Brandon, Norfolk, was taken down without any faculty being obtained. The criminal does not appear to have been dealt with in any suitable Gilbertian way, such as with melted lead, an omission one cannot sufficiently regret. There was a similar spirelet on St Alban's Abbey. Perhaps it was grimthorped. At St Alban's nothing is astonishing, but the spirelet has gone. Sawbridgeworth, Herts (Fig. 199). has a charming spirelet. The diamond shaped arrangement of the rolls on the upper part is unusual, and of happy eftect. The larger diamonds coming above smaller give a pleasant irregularity. The haphazard ar- rangement on the lower part is possibly the^'result of comparatively recent rej^airs. Ash, Kent (Fig. i97)--'Ot' this there is litde to .say save that the little spire groups oddly with the corner turret. Bramford, Suffolk, has a plain spirelet of considerable merit. The most notable spirelet is that ot East Harling, Norfolk (Fig. 200), which dates trom 1450. It is not only the most ambitious in luigland from the leadworker's • point of view, but the most beautiful. 1 he spirelet proper stands on an octagonal drum with vertical sides, also leade'4 ] CHAPTER \T. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE RENAISSANCE. Wren's Steeples and the Sky-line of London — A Classification — Class (a), The Two True Spires — Class (d), The Spire-form Steeples — Some Destroj-ed Steeples — Scottish Examples — Tiie Character of \\'ren's Work. P'HE lead steeples and domes of the Renaissance period fill an important niche in architectural history ; Init they do more. They have an eminent place in any survey of the art of Sir Christopher Wren, and they are largely accountable for the sky-line of the city of London. If Wren's achievements in this direction were cut out, very little would be left either of the skv-line or of this phase of the history of leadwork in England. If we could have accompanied the late Mr Samuel Pepys, RI.A., F.R.S., on one of his manv jaunts in his oallev down the Thames to Greenwich before 1666, we should have observed a sky-line, which, save for the dome of St Paul's, was not greatly different from that which Canaletto drew in i 767 (Fig. 207). Wren was careful in many of his new churches to preserve the outstanding features of the buildings which they succeeded, and by the leaded dome of St Paul's he re-estab- lished the dominance of the cathedral, which was to some extent lost with the destruction by fire of the great leaded spire of Old St Paul's in 1561. Splendid as are the steeples of \\ ren's parish churches, Canaletto's view (Fig. 207) (taken from the gardens which are now the site of Somerset House) shows how entirely St Paul's governed the sky-line of London. To-day it is different. St Paul's is still the supreme feature of the City (as Turner said, " The dome of St Pauls ;/m^\s London ") ; but commerce is crowding out the parish churches. Mr Pepys' galley being unavailable, a journey on a steamboat from Temple Pier to Cherry Gardens Pier* makes melan- choly travelling. Seen from the Temple, Cannon Street station is a hideous incubus on the City sky- line. It blots out all the Monument except from the gallery upwards (not a great loss perhaps), and every spire, save the tip of St Magnus, while the bridges at Blackfriars cut out the foreground. The City of London School on the left, with its lead lantern of unsatisfactory outline, almost wholly hides St Paul's. The miserable spikes on the corners of Cannon Street station add insult to injury, for they are, in outline, vulgar caricatures of the steeple of St Magnus. They serve only to remind us of what * The "Diary," 13th June 1664: "Thence having a galley down to Greenwich, and there saw the king's works, which are great a-doing there, and so to the Cherry Garden, and so carried some cherries home, and after supper to bed, my wife," &c. LEADED STEEPLES OE THE RENAISSANCE. 115 ;i wealth of steeples the station blots from sight. Maybe they are a mark of the eiioineer's feeble compunction. Once past Blackfriars Iiridye, the ten-storied warehouses of Thames Street make a wall impenetrable save for <4lini])scs of St Benet's, Paul's Wharf, and St Nicholas', Cole Abbey. St Margaret Pattens, and of course St Magnus, complete the list of what commercial London has left to be seen from the river. It is only from a lofty vantage ground like St Paul's or the Monument that one can now get any general grasp of the grouping as Wren left it. 'I he two photographs of Figs. 204 and 205, taken from the top of the Monument, show how little the church towers and spires count now that the office buildings are so high. They do, however, emphasise the contrast between the blackened lead spires and the white towers ; in Fig. 205, the lantern of St Edmund's, Loml)ard Street, against the Royal Exchange, and Si Peter's, Gracechurch Street (on the extreme right), against the mass of St Michael's, Cornhill. To attempt any classification of the ilomes, lanterns, and steeples of Wren's London is a difficult task, for in nothing did Sir Christopher Wren show the almost wanton lu.xuriance of his art more- markedly. For the twenty-eight lowers that are crowned with either spire or lantern. Wren employed stone for only nine, and leaded timber for nineteen. Lead may, therefore, claim the first place in his affections as a .spire material. These nineteen we mav divide into three classes. a. True spires. b. .Spire-form steeples. f. Lanterns. This is a loose and arl)ilrar\ classification, but Wren's maslerful \va_\ (it playing with architcciural elements and coniljining them in astonishing ways makes havoc ot any orderly description. He created within the sciuare mile of the City more forms of steeples than all the architects of the Middle Ages, and if as was inevitable, .some pay the penalty of rash experiment, others make an assured success. The attempt to set out the lines on which Wren proceeded is hampered at every turn l)y lack of evidence. We have little clue as to some of his more curious designs, but these were probably less arhitrar)- in their creation than may appear to us in the absence of such indications. Thai Wren was a close stuilent of his predecessors in llie art of building is easily proved. i)ut liis del)l to mediaeval sources is not generally realised. Imperfections of detail ought not to ol)scure an appreciation of the fact that his grasp of Gothic principles is rarely at faiilt. There is much in Wren's work otherwise inexplicable which may be traced to the wide catholiciu' of his jnind. It is not only difficult but impossible to point to another architect of his epoch, who, with anything approaching his succe.ss, seemed so nearly to have reconciled the opposing ideals of classicism and romanticism. To the union which he thus achieved must be ascribed the marvellous picturesqueness which, united with imposing mass, makes St Paul's the unique masterpiece amongst Rc'naissance churches. In connection with his large use of leaded timber spires it must be remembered that Wren was an architectural economist, and the results he achieved are the more notable, when considered in relation to the very limited means which were general!)- at his disposal. This is especially the case w ith the parish churches of the City. The use of leaded spires ii6 ENGLISH LEADWORK. enabled him to o-i\-e distinction and character to churches, where limitation of cost put stone spires out of the cjuestion. His followers, however, in many cases departed from Si Swithins St Mary Abchurcli. St La« rciice. Jcwrj-. Fig. 204. — The City from the Top of the Monument. (King William Street on the right.) Sl ^Iarg.^ret*s, Lothbiiry. St Edmund's, I-oinbard Street. .- k_J 1., St Peter's. Gracechurch. Fig. 205. — The City from the Top of the Monument. (Gracechurch Street on the right.) the excellent precedent which he had set. Some of the later classic spires woukl have been quite reasonable in leadwork, which allows of a certain quaintness of design, whereas LEADEIJ STEEPLES OE THE RENAISSANCE. 117 a u^reat masonry olielisk, such as we see in South-east London, is merely an architectural oclditx . Fii;. 206. — St Magnus from the Top of the .Monument. (Looking across London Bridge.) Fic;. 207.— Canaletto's View of London (Fart of), 1767. Anion- the nineteen leaded steeples there are only two which can be described as true spires, .St Swithin's, London Stone, and St Ahiroaret Pattens, Rood Lane. iiS ENGLISH LEADWOKK. Fig. 208. — St Swithin's, Cannon Street. Fig. 209,— St Margaret Pattens, Rood Lane. Their peculiar interest lies in the fact that in them Wren is in debt to his predecessors. They are, in their essential lines, Gothic. With St Swithin's this is especially the case. Mr Andrew T. Taylor in his admirable book,* suggests that the towers which have no steeples would stand them, and that those with steeples could do without them. While this is true of the majority, it is not wisely said in respect of St Swithin's. The top of the tower was obxiously designed purely in relation to the spire whirli sin-mounts "Towers and Steeples designed by Sir (". Wren," publisiied iSSi. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE RENAISSANCE. 119 it. Without the si)ire the scooped-out splays at the top angles would be meaningless and even absurd. Wren's problem was both simple and old, how to step from the square of the tower to the octagon of the spire. He attacked it with his usual queer mixture of boldness and compromise. The mediieval architect did not tamper with his stone tower. It began square ami finished square. The change to the octagonal was effected in the timber work, and in two main ways : by framing a collar {e.g., Ryton), or by constructing broaches {e.ff.. Godalming). Both of these methods involved diagonal bearers across the corners of the tower. At .St .Swithin's, Wren took a characteristic short cut. Bv trimmincr the tower angles to a splay he secured solid masonry to take both the cardinal and diagonal sides of his spire, and so simplified its timber construction. There is, moreover, another element of compromise. The method of recognising the step from the square to the octagonal liy obvious construction had hitherto been used only on towers without parapets. Wren, however, emphasises the break with a cornice topped by a balustraded parapet, and so gets the best of both worlds. The leading of the spire itself is purely Gothic in feeling. The oval shape of the spire-lights alone betrays its .seventeenth-century origin. Mr A. T. Taylor thinks the scooped-out splays of the tower not very happy, on the ground that the diagonal view brings them into painful obtrusiveness. If this be the case, the photograph of b ig. 208 shows the splays at their worst, but the worst does not seem very bad. Though the splays may fairly be said to obtrude, obtrusiveness is one of Wren's strong points, and even then the delicate frilling of the balustrade tones down not only the incidental coarseness of the splays, but also the inevitable baldness of the progression from tower to spire. St Swithin's may be taken as Wren's e.xercise in lead .spires in the earlier Gcjthic manner, which regarded a spire primarily as a roof, and, secondarily, as an architectural feature. St Margaret Pattens (Fig. 209) is of the later type of parapetted spire {e.g., Chesterfield), which, standing well witliin the lines of the tower walls, abandons the idea of a roof altogether. More significant, however, of the abandonment of the Gothic spirit while retaining the Gothic form is the treatment of the leading. The vertical rolls of St -Swithin's are replaced at St Margaret's by a .series of sunk panels, which cannot be regarded as so suitable a treatment for lead. This change may be attributed to Wren's desire to emphasise horizontal lines that would counteract the verticality of the spire proper. Sir Charles Barry in his last work, the Halifax Town Hall, proceeded on the same lines in the bold and vigorous spire that dominates his building and raises it out of its sunken valley site. These examples may be placed as Renaissance translations of a Gothic original, and be regarded as an example of the power of tradition in English building, even with (or perhaps especially with) such giants as Wren and Barry. The splendid stone spire of St Antholin's, which was wickedly and quite needlessly destroyed in 1875, was panelled in a similar way to that of St Margaret Patten.s. St Antholin's was finished by Wren in 1682 and St Margaret Pattens in 1685, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that the great success of this treatment in stone tempted Wren to essay the .same in lead. The likeness of the two spires is carried out even in the character of the spire-lights, which have similar pediments, but the towers are quite unlike. At St Antholin's an intermediate octagonal stage with semicircular buttresses on the diagonal faces marked the progression from the square of the tower I20 ENGLISH LEADWORK. to the octagon of the spire. In the case of l)oth these churches. Wren was careful to reproduce in t^eneral form the pre- Fire churches, both of which had loftv spires. Mr Rei^inald Blomfield groups the steeples of St Mary-le-Bo\v, St Bride's, and -St Margaret Pattens as "of their kind the most perfect specimens of Renai.ssance architecture in England." While it may be |)resumption to criticise anything that Mr Blomfield may say about Renaissance architecture, there seems room for the view that the steeple of St Margaret Pattens is partly in intention and wholly in outline a Gothic spire. Though it has admittedly all the simple beauty which Mr Blomfield claims for it, it can hardlv be claimed as beins"' in Wren's habitual manner. Mr Blomfield suL>;/ests that Wren's Gothic efforts such as St Mary Aldermary may have been "academical exercises for the entertainment of his (Wren's) friends." The lead spire of -St Swithin's, though Gothic in feeling, has a character at once natural and convincing, and does not need to be explained as an architectural humour. It and St Margaret Pattens are not in the same category as the seventeen other lead steeple.s, which owe little to the Gothic spirit and are s/n o-ene?-2S. We next come to Class [b). the spire-form steeples. It is a lame description, but ma\' serve roughly to group the eight existing steeples which are neither true spires like St Swithin's, nor simply lanterns like St Edmund's, Lombard Street. They are essentially hybrids, cunning compositions sometimes brilliantly successful, e.g., St Mar- tin's, Ludgate ; sometimes more curious than beautiful, e.g., St Mary Abchurch. They can be classified roughly by separating those whose terminal is an octagonal spirelet (St Peter's, Gracechurch : St Martin's, Ludgate ; St Augus- tine's, W'atling Street ; St Lawrence, Jewry : and .St Magnus, London Bridge) from the three which have a terminal square on plan (.St Mary Abchurch ; St Margaret. Lf)thbury ; and .St Mildred, Bread Street). Of these the two latter have abandoned the last flavour of Gothic feeling, for the topmost member is a frank obelisk. While it is undoubtedly the fact that the amazing variety of Wren's steeples, both of stone and of leaded timber, is to be attriliuted to the luxuriance ot his genius, some root in the past is to be found. The outstanding difference between the spire-form steeples and the true spires of the mediaeval builder is in the complex composition of the former as compared with the simplicity of the latter. A general glance at the illustrations will .show that each spire-form Wren steeple has three main divisions, which are usually — {a.) A domical or ogee roof; {b.) A lantern (either with open lights, as at St Martin's, or fitted with lufter boards, as at St Mildred's); and, (r.) A spirelet or obelisk. Fig. 2IO. — .St Mary Abchurch. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE REXAISSAiNCE. i: In early medic'eval work there seem to have been few important compositions of this kind. The steeple at Hulm Abbey, Norfolk, of two stories, consistin;^- of a . Fig. 211. — St Martin's, Ludgate. Fk;. 2 12.— St Mildred's, Bread Street. circular lantern and a short spire, was the nearest approach (Fiy-. 202), and there were doubtless man\- more si)irelet structures of timber covered with either shingles or lead 122 I'.XGI.ISM LEADWORK. wliich ma\' be t ikcii ;is the' j^roundwurk trom whiih later \ariclies ha\'c developetl. Fire has, however, left but few. When we come to the late Gothic spirelets of the tifteenth century, f.^,'., East Harlin^' (Fig. 200), we are on more solid ground, and the later forms of Swaffham and Chelmsford point in Wren's direction. The \ital difference between Wren's spire-form steeples and the great Gothic lead spires is in ihi- opc-n-arcaded lantern, which the fornn-r have and the latter have not. The m(-di;eval spires were glorified roofs, the later steeples were architectural features. So much may be said by way of e.xamin- ing the general features of Class [b) before proceeding to a description of the examples so groui)ed. •St Martin's, Ludgate Hill (Fig. 211), is doubly attractive. It is singularly inter- esting /«>;' sc ; its slenderness is a miracle of judgment in its relation to the Inilk of St 'Paul'.s. It has been already pointed out that W ren nowhere grapples with the transition ii'oni s(]uare to octagon in the lowest story of his lead steeples, as ditl the mediaeval people. At .St Martin's (as at St Switliin's) the change is effected at the top of the tower. From the tower walls, octagonal on plan, there springs an ogee roof with oval lights. The railed balcony is a bold device, but its success is the more ap|)arent when one com- pares the steeple of .St Mary Abchurch. In the latter church the lantern with open arches stands direct on the top of the ogee roof, and the effect is meagre and unhappy (Fig. 210). .At St Martin's the sharper pitch of the ogee roof, the cornice supporting the balcony, and the fact that the openings ot the lantern are onh in its upper half lead the eye gently from the tower to the top of the graceful the spirelet adtl a touch of delicate scholar- ■^"^C Fic. 213. St Marjsarct's, Lothlmry. snil^c ■let. lie an''le trusses at the base 01 shi[) which is far removed from Wren's sometimes brutal plainness. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE REN.AISSAXCE. 123 Fig. 214. -St Lawrence, Jewry. Fic. 215. — St Augustine's, Watling Street. 124 ENGLISH LEADWORK. St Mildred's, Bread Street (Fii^. 212), is a oood deal less inspired; indeed, it verges on the dull. The conca\e, ])\ramidal roof supports a square lantern which has rather feeble louvres, and the lantern is crowned with an obelisk. The steeple of St Lawrence, Jewry (Fig. 214), shows Wren in his strongest mood. The sharp breaks between the three .square stages of the lantern, which are accentuated b)- the vigorous cornices and the solid proportions of the octagonal spire, combine to give an effect which is certainly coarse. It only just escapes being oppres- sively heavy. It is worth noting that the gridiron vane is symbolic of the patron saint. It is likely that this is a post-Wren detail. Wren was essentially a man oi large view. In detail he con- stantly failed. Indeed, when one remembers the enormous number of buildings for which he was re- sponsible, it is astonishing that the details are so good. In strong contrast to this very masculine composition is the steeple of St Augustine's, Watling Street (Fig. 215). The outline seems almost trivial. We have here a notable example of Wren's practice of making his tower very plain and lavishing detail on his steeple. St Augustine's tower up to the cornice is jilain to the point of baldness. The piercing of the parapet and the pinnacles are very gay, and the outline of the steeple is as free as the vases make ii spotty. The lantern is not in hapj)) proportion. Its three divisions below the octagonal spirelet seem rather an effort, and it is too lofty for its bulk. In effect it looks attenuatetl. It is very elegant and clever, but Homer seems rather to have nodded. Here again, as with St Martin's, Ludgate, the idea was doubtless to effect a contrast with the mass of the cathedral, but it will readily be admitted that St Augus- tine's comes far behind ,St Martin's in result. The two are within a year of each other in date. It is an unhappy thing that the commercial buildings of the City are so insistent to put barriers between Wren's various churches, ami in particular to make it so difficult to realise their relationship to St Paul's. It has been well said that St Paul's bereft of the surrounding steeples would be like a mother itereft of her children. Fig. 216. — St Peter, Gracechurch. Fiu. 217. — St Benet, Cirace- chiiich (destroyed). LEADED STEEPLES OE THE RENAISSANCE. 125 Some authorities on Wren's work arc rather scornful about the steeple of St Margaret, Lothbury (Fig. 213), but for what sound reason it is difficult to imder- stand. It is the direct antithesis to such work as St Augustine's, Watling .Street. Ihe bold curves of the concave pvramidal roof and of the square cupola which comes above it, the simple massive mouldings of the cupola, the deep reveals of the lights, and the obelisk standing on gilt balls at the angles, all go to make up a ".solid masculine and unaffected" steeple. 'Were such a crime permitted as the destruction of St Margaret's (and the destroyer, as Voltaire said of Habakkuk, is capable du tout), we should lose a piece of Wren's work, which, if it is not start- ling, is eminently sound and characteristic. Without being hysterical, it is perhaps allowable to add that the steeple rising above the Bank and Throg- morton Street is a witness to the unseen which we can hardly afford to lose without more than the loss of a Wren church. The leaded steeple of .St Peter, Gracechurch (Fig. 216), is simple. The plain dome with four small round lights is surmounted by an octagonal lantern and spirelet. It is, I believe, the only spire-form steeple by Wren which has a dome base circular on plan. The e.\- qLiisite lantern of St Benet, Paul's \\ harf, is also circular at its base. In Fig. 206 appears St Mag- nus, London Bridge. P'ini.shed in 1 705, the tall, square tower changes into a stone octagonal I. intern, which is covered with a lead cupola. On this there stands a lead lantern, and above that a diminutive spirelet. Here we have the spire element treated with scant courtesy, in fact, a finial to the lantern and cupola. The destroyed .steeple of St Benet, Gracechurch (Fig. 217), rose to the height of 149 feet. Wren here, as in other churches, maintained the main feature of the ])re-Fire church, which, as Visscher's view shows, had a lofty spire. Wren finished his building in 1685, and it fell Fic. 218.— St Michael, Crooked Lane (destroyed). as little more than Fig. 219. — St Michael, (^ueenhithc (destroyed). 126 I-.\GLISn LKADWORK. to the destroyer in 1867, to the discredit of all concerned. While no two spires of Wren's desjo-ning- are alike, the general oudine of St Henet, IJracechurch, and its com- position of dome, lantern, and obelisk, furnishes the nearest approach to a favourite type. Of Michael one may fairly complain that he is a saint of ill omen in the matter of lead spires. The churches dedicated to him in Crooked Lane and Oueenhithe have perished. The former had a lead spire for its most notable feature. The tower stood at the west end, and was united to the church by its eastern wall only. Mr W. Niven, F.S.A., found a measured drawing, with plans, section, and elevation, in the British Mu.seum, and the elevation is reproduced in Fig. 218. As St Michael's was demolished as early as 1 83 1 to form the approach to the present London Bridge, it is almost forgotten. The pre-lMre church had a steeple, and, as Stow records that in 1621 the whole roof was "with strong and sufficient timber rebuilded, and with lead new cast covered again," the original spire may have been leaded. The Fire made entire rebuilding necessary, and Wren completed the tower and spire in 1678. The steeple was of unusual form. It rose in three stages, circular on plan, and tricked out with buttresses and vases. It fini.shed at the apex in an extraordinary spike, suggestive of the product of a gigantic lathe, altogether a very roguish composition, and reminiscent of some of the Dutch steeples. The steeple of St Michael, Oueenhithe (l^'g. 219), was very small, rising to a height of 135 feet. The obelisk did not rise squarely on its pedestal, luit on globes at the four corners, and the great gilt ship in full sail which served as the vane was big in proportion. The church was altogether an admirable example of Wren's work, and was done away in 1876. St Michael's, Wood Street, had a timber spire, but it was built later than Wren's restoration, was covered with copper, and of little charm. It was an uninteresting bLiilding altogether, and as some city churches have to be sacrificed, this St Michael's was suitable for handing over to the destroyer. The details of the actual leadwork of some of the foregoing steeples are given in the next chapter where also will be found descriptions of Class (c) of Wren's leaded steeples. By way, however, of throwing the light of comparison upon Wren's work, we may here turn to the consideration of some Scotch leaded spires. Edinburgh has one lead spire (Fig. 221) on St .Mary ^Llgdalen, the church of the Hammermen, to which guild the plumbers belong. Its ogee top gives it a late look, and indeed it is of the seventeenth century, but there is no departure from traditional methods. The projection at the base like a sentry-box seems a somewhat cumbrous method of l)roviding a suitable door to the roof of the tower. The building of the spire occupied from 1620 to 1625, and in the latter year there appears in the accounts of th(; Edinburgh Ilanimernieii the following item : — " Thomas Weir his compt of the leid imployit upon the theiking of the stcipill extending to ij'. iij^W stane viij lib. (265 stones 8 lbs.) at xxvj . viij the stane is iij"' Liiij lib. {£354 Scots)." Examination of the records of the Ivlinburgh building trades, and particularly of the Hammermen, fails to reveal either the word j)lumber or any reference to plumbing as a separate craft during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Leadwork seems to have been left to the wrights (carpenters) and masons. At a brewerv in Lcitli, which was .St Ninian's Church, there remains a lead lantern LEADED STEEPLES OF THE REXALSSANCK. 127 with the edges decorated with a spotty cresting similar to those at Aberdeen. St Ninian's (Fig. 220) was built about 1670, and while Wren did nothing just of this shape, it is of the same family as the London lanterns. The Bishop Elphinstone of Aberdeen, to whom reference has already been made, did not confine his architectural enthusiasms to church building. He was the founder of the University, built a great deal of it, and roofed his building with lead. The bishop was obviously bent on getting the best men he could for his work. In 1506 we find him employing no less a person than the plumber to the Kino- of England, one John Buruel. Unhappily, we cannot judge of Buruel's work, for none remains. About a hundred and fifty years later the plumber was again aliroad at King s College Chapel. Fig. 222 shows the very beautiful fleche, as to the date of which there is room for much doubt. Some facts can, however, be set down. Fig. 220. — .St Ninian's, Leitli (now a brewery). Fig. 221. — St Mary Magdalen, Edinburgh. In June 1638, a report was made by the Dean of Guild that it was " neidful that . . . the litle stipill be bothe theikit with leid and re])airit in the timber wark." If the steeple was old enough in 163S to need repairs, it was probably si.xteenth-century work, maybe as early as 1506. when the chapel was roofed with lead. In Gordon's "View of Aberdeen," done in 1660, the tleche appears, as also in Slezer's view of 1693 (Fig. 181). The initials C. R. on the spire make difficult)' l)v their " husky " character. They can hardly be so early as the repairs, which, presumably, were done after the report of 1638. We may perhaps conclude that the general form of the spire was the same all through the seventeenth century, and that whatever repairs were done in 1638, it was again thoroughly re-leaded about 16S0. when the C. R. initials and other ornaments were added. 128 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 222. — Kings Culli-gu ( 1i.i|k_1, Aberdeen. is curiou.sly bullions, il il is original, which is doubtful. The spire of Robert Gordon's College (Fig. 223) brings us into touch with a famous name. The architect of the buildino- was the father of the brothers Adam, and practised in Edinburgh. His connection with the lead spire, and indeed with the whole building, is some- what slender. The actual work is provincial in character, and represents, doubtless, the view of the Aberdeen mason and plumber as to what Adam ought to have designed. The notable features of the .spire are in its hexagonal instead of, as usual, octagonal j)lan, and in the wealth of surface ornament, in the panels are crown.s, thistles, Beurs-de-lys, and stars. In the most elaborate of the English leaded spires. East Harling, richness of effect is secured by the pinnacles and tlying buttresses. The .spire itself relies for interest on the reticulation of the lead rolls which pleasantly diaper the surface. The decoration of the King's College fleche was approached in a very different spirit. The surface was left plain and free from rolls, so that scope might be given for the invention of a formal design. It is alto- gether a work of scholar- ship rather than of fancy, an affair frankly of decor- ation rather than of con- struction, but very suc- cessful. In cleverness of invention it is comparable with Wren's London spires, but the small sur- face decoration is cjuite unlike Wren. King's College, Aber- deen, had other lead spire- lets. Reference to Slezer's \'iew will show four be- sides the chapel Heche. Gordon says: "The southe syde hes upon everie corner two halff round towers with leaden spires." That on the right fair representation of the Fig. 223. — Robert Gordon's College, Aberdeen. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE REXALSSANCE. 129 It lacks the refinement one would ex- pect, and is probably a free translation of Adam's plans. The house was finished about 1 744, but was not occupied at once by the boys of the foundation. It served, therefore, as a convenient barracks for Cumberland's men in the '45. The rolls on the spire are merely decorative, bossed over wooden batons, and not honest seam rolls. They were a short cut to texture, and helped the belated Gothic feelino- which the fleur-de-lys edging stimu- lated. The fat, moulded collar, half-way up, is a clever feature. We find this repeated on the Tolbooth spire in a modified form (Fig. 224). Of the latter Gordon wrote in 1661, " builded it wes anno 1191, and not long- since enlaro-ed and adorned with a towre and high spire covered with lead, wher they have ther commone bell and prissone." It was rebuilt by John Smith, architect, about seventv vears ago. He made extremelv careful sketches and measurements of the original work, a piety for which we may be grateful. The steeple as it stands repre- sents the original work very well. The point, of some value to establish, however, is comparative rather than historical. It the Gothic trimmings of these Aberdeen steeples be for a moment disregarded, they might be, both in their elements (of ogee roof lantern, and concave spire) and in their outline. Wren steeples. Wren cannot, therefore, be regarded as the inventor of the type of Renaissance steeple which in varied forms is seen in so man\- City churches. He was probably intluenced by the steeples of the Netherlands and Spain. He could hardly have seen many during his F"rench tour. Even if he did, he was then more occupied with the works proceeding at the Louvre and other examples of the grand manner. In his treatment of the lead itself Wren, 1-n;. 2.;4. ilic luiDoinii, .Aberdeen. I30 p:NGLISn LEADWORK. in practically every case, discardeil the media-\al character which is so insistent at Aberdeen. In no case does he make a i)attern on a steeple witli the rolls, still less does he employ such rollicking ornament as a rieur-de-lys edging to the ribs of a spire and a battlemented collar. It is amusing, if not very profitable, to specu- late as to what Wren would have done by way of an academical exercise in Gothic leadwork if he had attempted something on the same lines as his other Gothic details. One may, per- haps, be permitted to regret that he rejected any such temptation if it came to him. That he liked lead as a material is abundantly clear from the great extent to which he used it. It is equally obvious that he neither realised its decorative possibilities nor thought of it otherwise than as the most efficient roofing material, and as giving a broad colour contrast when used to crown a white tower. Wren thought and designed on broad lines. The quality of mystery in archi- tecture and the sense of craftsman- ship, which developed in the Middle Ages on parallel lines, were no stumbling-blocks to him. Had he conceived of the former as a necessary equipment for the architect he would certainly have dismissed it as foolish- ness. It is obvious from the details of St Paul's Cathedral that he took a keen delight in good craftsman- ship, and the bad detail in many of his parish churches, e.g., the plaster- work of the dome of St Stephen's, Walbrook, was doubtless a source of irritation. He was, however, a victim of the times he lived in. The Civil War had shattered the trades, and the difficulties in obtaining an adequate 5r VUcNus. London Bridge,. Fig. 225. number of skilled workmen must have been immense. These difficulties were accentuated by the Great Fire, which thrc^w the building trades into the confusion that follows infinite overwork. LEADED STEEPLES OF THE RENAISSANCE. 131 For every reason, therefore, it is idle to look in the mass of Wren's buildings for the tenderness and fancy in detail and for the beauty of execution which marked the leadwork of Gothic times and of the early Renaissance. Their place is taken, however, by a vigour of invention and a sanity of treatment which are characteristic of the man and of the idea behind his work. CHAPTER \TI. LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS— A LOST FOUNTAIN. Curves in Roof-lines, a Slow Development — The Use of Lanterns — Wren's Treatment of Domes and Lanterns — Class ((■) Constructive Details of their Leadwork — Archer's Work — The National Callery — Nonsuch and Cheapside — The Great Fountain of Windsor Castle. 'he leaded domes and lanterns of Wren's London churches are not only of L^reat intrinsic interest, but have an important place in the development of the roof idea as applied to towers. The dome of simple curve is a frankly foreii^n element in English architecture, and became acclimati.sed only by slow stages. With the cupola of ogee curve it was different. The genius of native building accepted with enthusiasm the ungeometrical and flowing line when it arrived by way of the ogee in the first half of the fourteenth century. For a time it was supreme and rioted freely, and sometimes absurdly, but still mosth" in such decorative positions as were afforded by niches and tombs. Hopelessly bad structurally, the ogee arch was rarely powerful enough in its attractiveness to take other than a decorative place. In English mediaeval architecture, at least, it never affected e.xternal roof-lines until Perpendicular times, and then only in rather trivial ways. At King's College Chapel, Cambridge, which was building from 1446 to 1540, the corner turrets finish with o"'ee finials, and these, and others like them, were the forerunners of the numerous ogee-roofed turrets of the early Renaissance, such as those at Hampton Court and at Abbot's Ho.spital, Guildford. P2ven in the case of the e.\ample at King's College, however, there is obviously no intention seriously to employ curves in roof work. Such finials are decorative trivialities employed to finish rather unimportant elements such as corner turrets. We have still no evidence of a desire to introduce curves into the crown of a tower. Where a tower was to be topped with a notable feature, a spire composed of straight lines in one combination or another was still the only treatment. (.Such towers as St Giles's, Edinburgh, and the Cathedral, Newcasde, are e.xcepted, where curved flying buttresses uphold a spirelet, but these from their rarit\" can scarcely be regarded as traditional. ) The development of Perpendicular tower building tended greatly to the elimination of the spire, as in the Somersetshire churches, where the wealth of pierced jmrapet and pinnacle took the spire's place. Had the ])rovisif)n of a stage above the tower proper remained an organic essential of the treatment of church towers, perhaps something in the nature of a great domed lantern would have been evolved in late Perpendicular times on the lines of the lead cupolas on the turrets of Hampton Court. LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 133 As it is, we have to wait for the full tide of the Renaissance before the dome comes into its (nvn, and to look to Sir Christopher Wren in particLilar for its noblest expression. The description " lantern," applied to such steeples as St Benet, Paul's Wharf, deserves attention. The original purpose of a lantern is obviously to give light, and the notable lead lantern of Horham Hall, near Thaxted, Essex (F'ig. 226), is the best possible example of this use. It is, in fact, a beautiful architectural expression ot the same need FlL llo.ham Hall. as is served In- the range of vertical roof lights in a modern billiard room. At Horham Hall the provision of light is the first consideration, and the craft of the plumber is spent on emphasising the window openings by vigorous vertical and cross lines rather than on l)eautifying the roof Horham' Hall was built at the beginning of the sixteenth century, and there is nothing in the design of the lantern to contradict so early a date. At Christ's Hospital, Abingdon, Berks (Fig. 227), the lights of the lantern were untouched by the plumber, who spent his energies on the ogee roof, with no little help Fig. 227. — Christ's Hospital, Abingdon. 134 ENGLISH LEADWORK. from the smith on the vane. The hospital was founded in 1553, so the lantern dated 1707 marks a period of renewed activity. A pleasant feature of this Abingdon lantern is the placing- of lead ornaments on the roof itself About half-way up, gilded crowns stand out and break the ogee outline, and are doubtless examples of many like decorative gaieties which have gone from other roofs with the passage of time and thoughtless repan Abinyilon is ri ich m lanterns, U or the e.\(|uisite market-house (attributed to Christopher Kempster, who worked under Wren at St Paul's) has a lantern of great delicacy of detail. The leaded lantern of Barnard's inn Hall, now the Mercers' School (Fig. 228), is probably as perfect an example as can anywhere be found of the right adjustment of the elements of light opening and roof The point where the tip of the ogee joins the finial has been \-er\- cknnsily rejjaired, but even with this blemish the com- position is altogether delightful. It is complete plumber's work. There is no shirking of the technical difficulties in- volved in sheeting with lead the mullions of the lights (as at Abingdon where the wood is left unprotected), and the pro- portion between the cusped openings and the sturdy mullions could not be bettered. This lantern, however, is purely an architectural feature. It does not light the hall, and may be regarded, there- lore, as of the type of roof fleche (as, for exam])le, that of King's College Chapel, Aberdeen, Fig. 222). The ceiling of the hall is comparatively modern, and it nia\' be that there was in the original ceiling an opening below the lantern, which woLild in that case have served to ventilate. The "lantern " idea is altogether absent from the hand- some lead turret roofs of Hampton Court (I'ig. 229). The richness of treatment there, the wealth of crocket and pinnacle and the great applied roses, make the roofs worthy successors of the most decorative of English lead spires, that of East Harling, Norfolk. The com|)osition is simple and natural. The lower octagonal stage takes up the lines of the brick turret, and is surmounted by an ogee cupola. Like the Barnard'.sMnn lantern, the feeling is wholly Gothic, though the rather non- FiG. 22S. — Barnard's Inn Hall, London (now the Mercers' School). LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 135 descript shape of the eight little finials gives an uncertain touch and indicates the arrival of new motives. The neglect by Wren of the decorative possibilities of frankly ornamental leadwork cannot be more acutely recognised than by comparing the wealth of detail in the Hampton Court turrets with the sobriety of, say, the lantern of St Benet, Paul's Wharf. Fine detail there is at St Benet's, but it is in the wooden cornice mouldings. The leadwork is subsidiary and pro- tective. In \Wen"s most orna- ' mented steeple, St Edmund's, Lombard Street, the decorative urns were apart from the struc- ture. At Hampton Court the ornament is oroanic, and has relation to the lines of the roof. With Wren the ogee form de\eloped into the bell-like outline of the lead roofs of the western towers of St Paul's. The form is more severe but still picturesque. Turning now to Wren's use of the dome in connection with the lanterns surmounting church towers, we take up again the classification begun in the last chapter and deal with Class (c). Possibly Wren's finest lantern is at St Benet, Paul's Wharf (Fig. 230). There is a peculiar in- terest attaching to this church, as Wren's great predecessor, Inigo Jones, was buried in the pre-Fire church in 165 i. Un- happily his monument was destroyed when the church fell to the flames. The church was rebuilt by Wren in 1685, and not only the exquisite lead lantern but the whole building is a miracle of sane and simple art. The photograph of Fig. 230 is of happy effect in showing the little lantern of St Benet against the bulk of St Paul's. It is impossible, within the compass of this book, to do more than touch on St Paul s, the greatest of all English leaded domes. It is not, moreover, in the same category as the lanterns of the City churches, which all meet the same architectural need, viz., that of furnishing a suitable crown to a square tower. At St Paul's the plan below the dome is circular, and the treatment is altogether siti generis. Fig. 229. — Hanii)ton Court. U6 ENGLISH LEADWORK. reversed arches giving a moulded In earlier chapters stress has been laid on the texture value in lead roofing of the rolls, which make the junction between adjoining sheets of lead. At St Paul's, Wren has emphasised this surface treatment b\' having the lead dressed over great moulded ribs, a feature which has been carried much further in Italy. In San Michele's great dome at Montefiascone the dome surface is constructed with contour of ribs and hollows all covered with lead. In Rome are several domes with highly developed ribbing. In general effect of outline the leaded dome of the Brompton Oratory follows this later type, and gives an idea of their character. In the dome of the Salute Church at V^enice we have the supreme e.xample of a plain ribbing which hardly interferes more with its surface than the simplest of welts could do, so that if lead sheets be used at all its characteristic joint lines could scarcely be less emphasi-sed. A passing reference must also be made to the great domes of Santa Sophia at Constanti- nople by way of comparing the characters of Byzantine and Renaissance domes. Perhaps the out-standing features of Wren's more conscious art are the elaborate lanterns sur- mounting the domes proper, ^^ ^i ii_ _^~"^»w» '^""^^ ^^'^ '^^^'- '•'^^^'- ^^'h^''^' '^he r BrHIl^^*^ I ^^^^^^*^^^B^^« dome is seen also from the inside, as at St Paul's, the inner and outer lines do not agree. In the case of lan- terned domes surmounting towers, as at St Benet's, this discrepancy does not arise, as the inside of the dome is not visible. It goes, however, to show that Wren's chief idea in St Paul's dome was to create an architectural feature dominating London, and to establish a relationship between the cathedral and the steeples of the parish churches. Returning to the smaller domes and lanterns covering towers, that of the destroyed church of St Benet Fink bore a marked general likeness to those of St Benet, Paul's Wharf, but with one notal)le difference. Fig. 230. — St Benet, Paul's Wharf. LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 137 At St Benet l^'ink (Fi^-. 231) the cupola was square 011 plan, at Paul's Wharf we have a true dome, circular on plan. Wren here goes about his work in a straightforward way. There is no attempt to mask the change from square to round by corner v^ases or any like device which might have tempted a lesser man, and the steeple is by so much the gainer in breadth and simplicity. We may note a similar directness in the domes flankinof the tower of St Clement Danes. St Benet Fink was rebuilt by Wren in 1673 '^""^1 demolished in 1844. It stood on the south side of Threadneedle .Street, where the late Mr Peabody now sits in bronze. The cupola with lantern was a fine feature of one of Wren's most ingeniou.sly planned churches. The site forbade a rectangular plan, so Wren turned it into a decagon and attached the tower to its western face. It will be noted that this lantern, though similar in design to that of St Benet, Paul's Wharf, is smaller in proportion to the cupola, and the cupola lights are less im- portant. The illustration of Pig. 231 shows what London has lost in losing St Benet Fink. The two Wren lanterns, which defy classification perhaps more vigorously than any other of his church steeples, those of .St Nicholas, Cole Abbey, and St Edmund, Lombard .Street, may perhaps be grouped together on the ground of a likeness in curious outline. The former was rebuilt in 1677, and the latter in 1690. Both are characteristic work, examples of Wren's wealth of inven- tion. The lantern of St Nicholas (Fig. 233) has been a good deal abused, and not alto- gether without reason. Wren's use of a railed balcony at St Martin, Ludgate, was a bold stroke, which is justified in the result. Hardly so much can be said for the like feature at St Nicholas, Cole Abhev, and above it Wren seems to have lost himself in a kind of architectural marine store. At St lulmund's, Lombard Street (Fig. 232), the lantern is coherent and of admirable proportion. The lantern with its louvred lights forms a satisfactory stage between the tower and the little concave spire surmounting it, but perhaps in none of his steeples did Wren break away more violently from traditional treatment. It is unfortunate that .St Edmund is so little visible. It is only from .St Clement's Lane Fig. 231 -St Benet Fink. 138 ENGLISH L1;AD\\0RK. that it can be seen at all satisfactorily. From Lombard Street the steeple is hardly within si^ht, so narrow is the street and so lofty the tower. During the latter part of 1907 the lantern needed re-leading, and the opportunity was taken to remove the twelve flaming vases which, as the illu.stration shows, formed so notable a feature. They were of wood covered with lead ; the wood had rotted ; restoration was certainly needful. The failure to replace them is, however, serious. They were a characteristic feature of Wren's design, and the plea of lack of money for the work sounds absurd in Lombard Street. A few notes may be added here as to the workmanship of the leadwork on some of Wren's steeples, described in this and the last chapters. hi the case of .St Swithin's (Fig. 208), the top of the spire is a rough tree post sitting on a stiffening floor. The spire is boarded with 6-inch battens 2 inches apart on a framing like a stud partition, braced by 8 inches by 5 inches angle rafters, and has uprights 5 inches by 2^ inches. The main ribs at the angles of the octagon, at the base of the spire, are 12 inches by 8 inches and have a bracing 7 inches by 5 inches in shape of St Andrew's Cross, halved together and held by axle pins, with wedges. There are many rough iron straps. The lead sheeting has \ertical welts which are ih inches wide and project if inches, hi the top sheet of each face of the spire there is no welt, in the next two lower sheets there is one middle welt. The next sheet has a spire-light. The six next sheets are in three widths, divided by welts. Each sheet is 5 feet 4^ inches deep, and there are ten in all. Each sheet has two clips. The welts at the angles do not differ from those on the face.s. The oval lights touch the spire faces at the bottom and stand out perpendicular. Their lead is in two sheets ; the division comes at the middle horizontally. The lights have at the back an oval cup for weathering purposes, which reaches to half their height. They have been made in ship's carpenter fashion with cur\ed ribs and open battening arranged like the boarding of a boat. At St Augustine's, Wading Street (Fig. 215), the pUimbing is of a much more elaborate kind. At the base of the biy- consoles the face sheet on each side is turned F"iG. 232.-81 Edmund's, Lombard Street. (Photographed before the leaded vases were removed LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 139 over to form a welt on the back of the console on both edges so that the effect of fluting is gi\-en. The base of the s])ire has angle pilasters, the edges of which are formed with welts in the same way, and the lead-covered cornice is returned to form caps for these pilasters. The welt is i^ inch. No clips are used for the sheets, but they are fastened with lead- headed nails. There are no soldered dots. The louvres are not covered with lead. The impost of the arch is a solid block of wood covered with lead, and the shield at the top of the arch is a casting. Without ladders it is impossible to reach the \-ases, but they are almost certainly castings. The mouldings generally are of some comple.xit}-, and the lead has been well dressed over them and nailed freely. At both St Swithin's and St Augus- tine's the leadwork seems to be that origi- nally fixed. At St Nicholas, Cole Abbey (Fig. 233), it has been renewed altogether, as has also the iron railing. The panelling on each face is 12 inches by 4 feet 6.V inches with 5-inch by 2. "i -inch mouldings, and the cornice is I 2 inches. The loss of interest caused by the re- leading of the steeple is very marked. It is certainly a point to be insisted upon, that in any restoration repairs only should be permitted so that the original plumbing method is scrupulously followed. The lead should always be recast in the .sand, as is the practice at Westminster Abbey, and no modern milled lead and wooden rolls, &c., should be used. St Margaret Pattens (Fig. 209), is not- able for the great size of the lead sheets, which are cast, and a full eighth of an inch thick. At the base of the spire they are nearly 8 feet wide and about 6 feet deep. Externally there are five soldered dots to each sheet, but inside there are in addition a large number of secret tacks, two to each face of the octagon, spaced 2 feet apart vertically. The welts at the angles are if inches projecting ih inches. The moulded stiles of the panels are 10 inches wide inclusive of 2| inches moulding, while the depth of the panel on the face is if inches, and there are three clips to each panel. The lead is dressed over the pediments of the spire-lights, but there are no lead coverings to the louvres. About two years ago two new sheets were i)ut up, and an inscription Fig. 233. — St Nicholas. Cole .Vbbey. >40 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Scivs that the spire was re-leaded in 1834, but this can liardly a[)])l\' to the whole work, for some of it seems contemporary with the spire. The timbering is on the same general lines as at St Swithin's, but the central post only comes down from the apex as far as the level of the top tier of spire-lights. The angle posts are 9 inches by 5^ inches put tlat-wise with I^evelled faces, and the sides are framed and cross braced, the latter being 7 inches by 5 inches, and of St Andrew's Cross form. Many of the old iron straps remain, but some further cross ties and braces have been added in modern times. The boarding is 9 inches by f inch, spaced 3 inches apart. The obelisk of St Margaret Lothbury (Fig. 213) is framed on four 9-inch by 9-inch posts, 3 feet 6 inches ai)art, which come down on to two 12-inch by 12-inch beams which cross the top of the tower and I . rest on wall f)lates. Diagonal beams and braces run from the junctions of posts and main beams to the corners. The round and hollow curves of the spire outline are formed by cradling from this central core. In this respect the construc- tion is analogous to St Paul's because the obelisk really runs on through the ap- parent ogee outline which supports it. The curved ribs are 5 inches by 3 inches, and 14 inches apart, with close boarding instead of open as at St Swithin's. The oval spire- ligrhts have ^ feet bv 2 feet openings. The details of the leading cannot be seen, as there is no door to the outside, and could be inspected only from cradling or scaffolding". The lantern of St Benet, Paul's Wharf (Fig. 230), is peculiarly interesting. There are eight posts to the lantern, 9 inches by 4 inches, spaced to give openings 14 inches wide, and the attached consoles between project 12 inches at the bottom and 4 inches at the top. They are sheathed with lead all round, with welts at the edges of the console and one at the back, inside the lantern. The work has been freely nailed with lead-headed nails, but many of these have gone. The inside diameter of the octagon is 5 feet, the height of the console to the entablature 5 feet 9 inches, and the entablature about i foot 9 inches, with a projection of 10 inches. The wood mouldings are covered with lead throughout. The horizontal sheet joints are arranged so as to give a drip at the bottom edge of the top fillet of the moulding. The dome below this lantern has tapering ribs projecting about 2 inches, with two antrle welts giving a fluted face. Between the ribs are three Fig. 234. — St Philip's, Birmingham. LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 141 sheets showing" two welts. The welts above the lantern are worked in the same way, indeed fat welts are the great feature of this steeple and give its rich appearance. The lead sheeting of the dome is carried on battening 3 inches by i inch, 2 inches apart, the chief interest of which is that it is placed diagonally. The eight posts of the lantern rest on as many inclined 8-inch by 6-inch braces secured at the feet by a framed tioor over the top of the tower. The curxature of the dome is formed by 2o-inch segmental cradle pieces on the back of the braces with a greatest projection of about 18 inches. The strength and simplicity of these Wren spires is no less admirable than the design. It is hoped that these details of their construction and lead covering may be found instructive, and may lead to more attention being given to the subject, particularly when repairs are under- taken. Before leaving London's leaded steeples a point of » colour is worthy of note. In the country the tendency ^^■ of lead is to weather to a silvery grey, and sometimes ,11 so brightly that spires look as though they have been whitewashed, whereas in many cases the stone tower has weathered to a dark hue. In London the precise opposite is the case. The Portland stone has remained white, while the leaci of the spires has been blackened by smoke and impurities. How white the church towers of London can look may most sensitively be realised in Westminster on a November day. The black fog will sometimes hang over the Thames long after the sun has driven it from the north and west, and against this heavy background the sun-lit western towers of the Abbey take on a snowy whiteness. On one observer, at least, the effect has been so to magnify and ennoble these not too beautiful towers, as to convey somewhat the impression that Coleridge took from the architectural dreams of Piranesi. By way of comparison with Wren's treatment of leaded domes and lanterns, Archer's tower of St Philip, liirmingham (Fig. 234), is illustrated. The tower proper is certainly the finest part of this fine composition, but the dome is a very notable achievement. It may be felt that the columns supporting the small cupola are a little attenuated, and the balcony railing rather trivial in detail, but, taken altogether, the work bears comparison with all but Wren's best work. The detail of Archer's leadwork is careful, but a littk; undersized for the bold rococo character of the tower. The columns supporting the cupola are cased in lead, which is heavily seamed at the joints. The capitals have elaborate acanthus leaves in gilt cast lead, and the bases are cast in rings and fitted round the columns. St Philip's is altogether a notable church in a city not too notable for architectural beauty. Archer's Garden Pavilion at Cliefden has a leaded cupola that will also repay stud\. The leaded dome of the National Gallery (Fig. 235) is very different but distinctly Fig. 235. — National (iallcry. ■42 I'.NGIJSH LEADWORK. lUBBB mtmsoE 'r^p::^^f^^i:iPW Fig. 23O. — The I'loyicSb ol lAlward ^ I. (part ol engraving) sliuvMnL; t lulusniillis' Row and Chcapside Cross. {Reprodiiied hy permission oj the Society of Antii/uaries.) interesting. Built as late as 1839 by Wilkins, the dry classic detail of the leadvvork is almost as far removed from Wren's straightforward rather thoughtless manner as from the luxuriant crocketting of the best mediaeval work. It shows an appreciation of the value of pattern on bold curved surfaces, even if it fails altooether of an understanding' of the rii'ht treatment of lead roofs. It is doubtless inspired by the classic idea of a bronze scale roof. It is hardly necessary to do more than mention the steeples of St James, Piccadilly, and of St Ann's, Soho. Both are disfigured by clocks. Wren was not responsible for the first; S. P. Cockerell was for the second, of which we may say, with John Timbs, that it is a "whimsical and ugly excrescence. " We have so far dealt with lead coverings for spires, domes, and lanterns. There remain roofs and walls. With simple roofing it is not proposed to deal, as the many interesting points raised are mainl\- (juestions of technical detail and not of ornamental treatment. One delightful little decorative detail, however, may here be noted. The little mask (Fig. -37), about 3 inches long, is one of eight fixed at the ends of piend rolls (of lead) of a small octagonal larder at Scotston House, Aberdeen. It is probably of about 1800. Of lead coverings for walls in Britain there is litde history. Mr Lethaby has quoted the case of the Saxon church at Lindisfarne. Eadberht, bishop of that place in a.d. 638, Fig. 237.- -Aberdeen Mask. LEADED DOMES, LANTERNS, AND WALLS. 143 took off the thatch and covered it, both roof and walls, with lead. Mr J. Park Harrison claims that this church is to be identified with a building which is shown on an illuminated ALS. in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. If this be true the lead was clearly in the form of tiles or shingles and not in the form of sheeting as in the case of a mediaeval spire. Unhappily the great leaded timber buildings are in the limbo of history, and there are gaps and uncertainties in building records which make it difficult accurately to establish uses. Mr Starkie Gardner, in his admirable paper on " Lead Architecture," sought to prove that the chief glory of Nonsuch Palace was in the decora- tive leadwork, and rather scoffed at the idea that the modelled panels which appear in Hoefnagel's view were of any sort of plaster. Mr Maurice B. Adams, in a note in the R. I. B. A. Journal, says that " Pepys describes the building as sheeted with lead." That is hardly the case. Pepys' own words are now set down in parallel column, with the description of Nonsuch by a much more competent observer, John I^velyn. Pepys' Di.a.rv. 1665. Sept. 31. "... Walked up and down the house and park ; and a fine place it hath hereto- fore been, and a fine prospect about the house. . . . And all the house on the outside filled with figures of stories, and good paint- ing of Rubens' or Holben's doing. And one great thing is, that most of the house is covered, I mean the posts, and quarters in the walls, covered with lead, and gilded. " I walked into the ruined garden . . ." (Note. — Nonsuch Palace, near Epsom, was in sufficiently good repair at this time for the Exchequer to be moved there during the Great Plague. It was Exchequer business which took Pepys to the Palace. — L. W.) Evelyn's Diary. 1666. J cm. 3. " I supp'd in None-such House . . . and tooke an exact view of the plaster statues and bass relievos inserted 'twixt the timbers and punchions of the outside walles of the Court ; which must needs have been the work of some celebrated Italian. I much admired how it had lasted so well and intire since the time of Henry VIII., ex- pos'd as they are to the aire : and pitty it is they are not taken out and preserv'd in some drie place ; a gallerie would become them. There are some mezzo-relievos as big as the life, the storie is of the Heathen gods, emblems, compartments, etc. The Palace consists of two courts, of which the first is of stone, castle-like, by the Lo. Lum- lies, the other of timber, a Gothic fabric, but these walls incomparably beautified. I observ'd that the appearing timber pun- chions, entrelices, etc., were all so cover'd with scales of slate, that it seem'd carved in the wood and painted, the slate fastened on the timber in pretty figures, that has, like a coate of armour, preserv'd it from rotting." These two e.xtracts should be read together. Pepys only claims lead-covered posts, and is quite silent about lead panels. There is no evidence that his story of Rubens and Holbein providing the exterior paintings contains a word of truth : but, in any case, it is evidence for something very different from cast-lead panels. Evelyn is definite about the plaster statues and reliefs, ami his "scales of slate" aboli.sh lead covering even for the main timbers. 144 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Where there is a conflict of testimony, we must consider credibility of witnesses. Pepvs was an acute observer, but of men and manners nither than of buildinj^s. Evelyn's architectural taste was hiohlv trained bv lono- residence in Ital\-, and his eeneral accuracy of observation and his detailed description of Xonsuch may make us hesitate to reject his evidence. It would be pleasant to give leadwork the benefit of any doubt, but even if we accept the leaded posts and quarters of Pepys, and assume a slate-like, scale-like treatment for their leading, we must reject any idea of lead statues and reliefs. The evidence from Stow as to the lead panels on Goldsmiths Row. Cheapside, is explicit. In the view reproduced in Fig. 236. the " Goldsmithes armes and the likenes of woodmen in memory of his name (Thomas Woods) riding on monstrous beasts, all which is cast in lead, richly painted over and gilt," are unhappily covered b\- the draperies hung out for the royal festivities, but the two long panels with scroll ornament (to the left of Cheapside Cross) may be taken to have been of modelled cast lead. Thomas Wood was sheriff in 1491. English Lead Fountains — Thk Great Example at \\'ixdsor. Professor Lethaby in " Leadwork " devoted a chapter of one and a half pages to fountains, a measure of the poverty of English leadwork in this direction. In the chapter on lead statues generally there are described various figures which do service as fountains, but they had no characteristics which seemed to call for their segregation in a separate chapter, and it is best to include here (for want of a better place) some account of a great lost example. Had any reasonable drawing remained of the fountain that once stood in the Upper Court of Windsor Castle it would have justified special treatment, but the little sketch in Xorden's view of Windsor Castle in the reign of James I. is obviously inadequate when compared with the descriptions in the building accounts. Either the fountain was re-modelled between 1555 and 1607 (the date of Norden). or we must accept his sketch as only a vague indication. The particulars given in Tighe and Davies' " Annals of Windsor " are full enough to indicate how serious was the loss to the history of leadwork when that splendid structure was destroyed. A plan by Hawthorne makes it clear that the base was octagonal and of stone. That the stonework was an important element is obvious, for Roger Amice, surveyor, was paid £^ ' for viewing and appointing stone at Reading for building of the fountaine." It was railed about with wood, for which work carpenters were duly paid. On the stone base was a great tank, which may probably be identified with " the great lead jaanne," for the carrj'ing of which from London to Windsor is. 4d. was paid. Xorden's view suggests that the lead tank was co\ered in by stonework on the outside, that the pillars were also of stone, and the lead confined to the ogee roof and its ornaments. The dragon is shown gilt and standing in the tank. There is no sign of the other roval beasts mentioned in the accounts. LEADED DOMES. LANTERN'S. AND WALLS. 145 It was on 9th October 1555 that the pipe conveying the water from Hlackmore Park wa.s brought into the Upper Court, and "there the water plenteously did rise 13 feet high." The fountain was part of a reservoir scheme, and " of curious workmanship." By collating the fragmentary indications in the building accounts with Norden's sketch, it would appear that the fountain in general form resembled that of Trinity College. Canibricige, which was built only forty-six years later, but its detail doubtless retained more of the Gothic spirit. The making of wood patterns for the plumbers was a considerable item. The carpenters made the " greate mould in the plomberv," also " cisterne cases and other necessaries for ye fountaine.' Carvers wrought " scouchions in wainscott to make patterns for the moulds of the scotcheons and badges to garnish the cisterne and topp of the fontaine." The chief decorations of this fine structure were the si.\ " beasts royall, viz., the eagle, the lyon, the antilop, the greyhound, the gryffith (varying between 5 feet and 6 feet high), and the dragon with his base (13 feet 4 inches high)." The carvers were paid 6s. 8d. a foot for carving them ; and it would seem that another item, " founders casting paternes in metall to garnish the cesterne and top of the fountain," shows the ne.xt step, the casting of the beasts in lead. The harte is mentioned later in the painting account, and is necessary to complete the scheme, but must have been carved at some other time. There seem to have been escutcheons and coats of arms in stone on the lower part of the fountain and in lead above. Carvers were paid for " carthowges and scouchions " (carthowges and cartushes are both delightful spellings for cartouches), and plumbers for " sodering the amies about the fountaine." It was the work of the latter to " lead the lavatory," and that the leadworker was the main craftsman on the work is clear from the following : — " To fohn Puncherdon, serjant plunier, and Henry Deacon, for finishing and garnishing of the fountaine in great, as it was agreed between the Lord Treasurer and them, £60." The painters' accounts give us the final touches, and indicate the gay and splendid work that Puncherdon completed. They painted and gilded one great vane with the King's and Queen's arms with a great Imperial crown, and did the same for the lion and eagle that held it up. Thev painted the gryffon (the gryffith of the earlier reference), harte (not mentioned in the carving accounts), the greyhound, and antilope, holding up four compartments with four badges crowned within them, and finally we read of the painters working on the " top of the fountaine with all cartushes, pedestals, armes, beasts, pendants, compartments, pillars, cornice, architraves, and friezes." The fountain must have had eight pillars, from which sprang arches, probably round. Above the cornice there was a roof of ogree outline, and standing on the cornice were the roval beasts with their gilded vanes flashine in the sun. [ '46 ] CHAPTER \'III. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUES. Fairfax — Charles II. — William III.— Marlborough — Prince Eugene — Queen Charlotte— Sir John Cass — George I. I'. A I) portrait statues do not need an apolot^y, but it may fairly be said of lead in this connection that it takes the place of bronze for reasons economical. It is hoped that the ne.xt chajiter will not only justify the use of lead for garden figures of a more or less trivial and purely decorative character, but establish for it a fitness peculiar to the garden atmosphere. In the case of the Marlborouzli and Eugene figures (Figs. 242 and 243), though they are portrait statues of a portraiture quite serious, they are also, in their present home at Glemham Hall, garden ornaments. In the case of the Queen Square statue (Fig. 245), it also stands in a garden, as do the Hoghton Tower IVilliam III. and the WVest Park William III. When we come to the equestrian figures a defect must be admitted. The weight of the horse's body and ot the rider is a heavy stress on the horse's three lead legs, and in the case of the Petersfield IViliiaiii III. a stay rod has been summoned in aid, an addition frankly disturbing. Yet even here no worse has happened than in the case of some stone equestrian figures, which have also needed support. The portrait of the great Lord Fairfa.x (the earliest in order of date) is not only a fine achievement in sculptured likeness of a strong type, but is probably the oldest lead portrait bust in England. It is in the Council Chamber of the York Philosophical Societv, b\ which Society it was bought in 1879 at Sheriff Hutton near York. It had belonged to Mr Leonard Thompson, whose family bought the Park Estate from the Ingrams of Temple Xewsam in the reign of Charles II. So far we are on solid ground and have a grasp of facts, Fig. 2 38. — Fairfax. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUES. 147 but the information is not very fruitful. To what artist may we attribute this very notable bust, for whom and when was it modelled .•' We are oblioed to fall back on conjecture and comparison. No local will mentioniuL;" the bust has yet come to light; it is impossible to say, therefore, whether the original possessor of the bust was " Black Tom " himself or some member of his family. At Leeds Castle, Kent, which once belonged to the Fairlaxes, there is a bronze bust of which the York lead bust is an e.xact replica. For the lead bust there may safely be claimed the greater claim to interest. Though the epithet "unique" is a dangerous one, it is fair to apply it to a lead portrait bust of the middle of the seventeenth century, and the same cannot be said of bronze. The questions of authorship and date are bound up together. There is no signature or other mark on the York bust, and we turn, therefore, to the evidence of its portraiture. In 1644 was fought the battle of Marston Moor, out of which Black Tom came with a wound in his left cheek. This scar appears in the bust as in most of the ])ortraits, and the bust cannot, therefore, be earlier than 1644. After Xaseby, in November 1645, ^^ enamelled jewel in- corporating a portrait of Fairfax and made by Bordier was presented to him by his Parliamentary admirers, and he wore it round the neck on a chain. This jewel, known as the Nasebv enamel, which was in the possession of Thoresby, the famous Yorkshire antiquary, and at his death was bought by Horace W'alpole, appears in portraits by Bower and others. It is likeK' that the Naseby jewel w^ould have appeared in the York bust if Fairfax had possessed it when the bust was modelled. The year 1645 may be taken as the most notal)le of Black Tom's career. Aged thirty-five, he had won the supreme military position on the Parliamentary side by sheer capacity, and, as has happened to other successful generals, there was a rush to immortalise his features. In this year Thomas Simon executed four medals of Fairfax, and these are very similar to the York bust in armour and cast of features. Abraham Simon, the brother of Thomas Simon, and the " \irtuoso fantastical " of John Evelyn's phrase, was a modeller of large portraits, and it seems very likely that towards the end of 1645 Fairfax entered on a debauch of sitting for his portrait — to Thomas tor the medals, to Aliraham for the bust, and to Bordier for the Xaseby jewel. The attribution to Abndiam .Simnn of the l)ust is nothino- more than a Q-uess, but it seems 1-iG. 239. — Chailes 11., Edinburgh. 148 ENGLISH LKADWORK. a reasonable one. Andrew Karne was in York somewhere between 1633 and 163S, hut we do not know of his being there as late as 1645. He is a possible but unlikely author of the bust. In Parliament Square, Edinburgh, is an equestrian lead statue of Charles II. as a Roman general (Fig. 239). The face has that saturnine look (not inappropriate to Saturn's metal) which is shared by the "shaven " portrait of the Merrv Monarch bv Sir Godfrey Kneller. The horse and rider are about 10 feet in height, and on the back of the tunic there is a winged cherub as an ornament, a little inappropriate to the Roman guise. The legs of the horse are untortunately splitting somewhat and need repair. King William HI., however, is the king of leadwork. At Dublin, in Colleofe Green, his statue has been the sport of contending factions. Warlnirton, White- law, and \\ alsh in their " History of Dublin " incorrectly describe this figure as being of bronze, and they go on to sav. " By an effusion of more loyalt\' than taste, both statue and pedestal get a new coat of paint every year." The Corpora- tion of Dublin no longer paint the pedestal, which is of stone, and is orna- mented with trophies of arms in the marine store style of decoration, but the figure is still painted brown to imitate bronze. One good feature, appropriate to leadwork, remains. The trappings of the horse, the cross gartering of the King's Roman legs, his laurel wreath, and parts of his tunic are gilt. Being Roman, he abstains (as do Charles at Edinburgh and \\ illiam again at Petersfield) from using stirrups. Redgrax'e was mistaken in attributing" the Dublin IVil/iaiu III. to van Nost. The Corporation muniments record that the commission was given to Grinling Gibbons, and he received payment for the statue, which was set up in 1701. A pasquinade on artists who worked in Ireland, by the vitriolic John Williams, says that the younger van Nost was the son of the van Nost ot Piccadilly who made lead garden figures, and that he went to Dublin in 1750. It is perhaps not too speculative to suggest that van Nost pcrc tlid the actual casting of the statue for Grinling Gibbons, and that the connection with Ireland so established led the younger \an Nost to decide on an Irish career. \'an Nost fils was also a maker of lead statues, for the Corporation of Cork invited him to Ireland some time after 1780 to make a statue of one Mr Lawton. .Most, however, of his work is in stone, Imt in the upper yard of Diiblin Castle there are lead Fig. 240. — William III., Petersfield. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUKS. 149 figures liy him of fitsticc, Pcac-, and Mars, which were put up in 1753. The fii^ure of George II. in St Stephen's Green, Dubhn, he did in 1758 for the Corporation. They advertised for designs and selected van Nost as " the most knowing and skilful statuary in this kingdom," but he elected to do George II. in stone, not in lead. In an old Dublin newspaper of 1765, among the London in- telligence there is the following note : " .Mr van Nost, an eminent statuary from Dublin, is lately come over to take a model of His Majesty for a lead statue which is to be erected in the E.\change about preparing in that metropolis." There is e.xtant an advertisement by the younger van Nost of casts of a bust of King William, which he originally did in marble. These busts were probably in lead, and it would be most interesting to know if one ot them survives. He died in Mecklenburgh Street, Dublin, in i 7S7. Of the authorship of the equestrian Witliani III. at Petersfield, nothing is known (Fig. 240). It stood originally in front of the house of the Jolliffe family. When the house was demolished It was moved to the square at Petersfield. The drapery of the figure is of a freer type than the Dublin example. The outstretched arm gives it more action, but at the loss of some dignity. Both are inferior to the splendid brass statue of William III. at Bristol bv Rysbrack. The Bristol horse is a particularly fine creature. It would be satisfactory to find some justification for labelling a JFii/iain lead statue with the name either of Rysbrack (T693-1770) or Roubiliac (1695-1762), but there is not a tittle of evidence. That Roubiliac worked in lead we know ; that he learnt it from .Sir Henry Cheere (i 763-1 781 ), to whom the Queen Charlotte is attributed later, we may guess. He left Cheere on securing a commission from Jonathan Tyers for a figure of Handel to stand in Vau.\hall Gardens. For this same Tyers he did a Milton in lead "seated on a rock, in an attitude listening to soft music," and his Cass is described later. It is, however, to some competent artist of the calibre of Rysbrack or Roubiliac that we must look for the authorship of the lead figure of William III. now at Hoghton Fig. 241. — William III., Hoghton Tower. ISO ENGLISH LEADWORK. l-ii;. 242. — Pnncc Eugene, Glemham Hall. wears costume in all respects Roman save for the ridiculous addition of a wig. In other enorravinos where he is made to look somewhat ethereal, and is crowned with laurel, he pertinaciously retains his wig". Even as a little hoy he is bewigged. Everywhere a wig but in this statue. No complaint is made of this notable absence as of something indecent, but it is clear that here we have evidences of a statuary who disregrarded the con\entions. Had William been represented as at Dublin, Petersfield, and Bristol in Roman costume, the absence of the wig would wring no withers, but at Hoghton Tower the cuirass indicates the military dress ot his time, and his arms are not bare in the Roman manner. There is a directness and simplicity Tower, Lancashire (Fig- 241). The por- traiture is strikingly good, and the easy pose of the figure bespeaks an artist of no little abilitv. One detail is amazing, the absence of a wig. There is no portrait among the scores of engravings at the British Museum where this is lacking. In one emblematic engraving, where Britannia offers W illiam the sceptre and an angel is crowning him, he Fig. 243.— Marlborough, Glemham Hall. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUES. 151 K'rh:i|)s SLitraests it was done by an Englishman rather than bv a && about this work which foreigner. When Henry, Duke of Kent, laid out the grounds of Wrest Park, an avenue was planted in honour of the Re\-olution of 168S, and a lead statue of William III. set up in front of the Pavilion. It faces up the lake towards the house, and the pedestal is inscribed to the King's " Glorious and immortell memory." The sword which is seen in Fig. 244 resting against the pedestal is ordinarily carried under His Majesty's right arm. As, however, it has obviously nothing to do with the statue, the author removed it before photographing'. The treatment of the mantle, &c., is closely akin to that of Grinling Gibbons' bronze statue of James II., which, after much travel, is now in front of the west elevation of the new Admiralty block. The detail is, as becomes lead, somewhat coarser. The name of the sculptor is lacking, but the statue is clearly from a very competent] hand. At Glemham Hall, Suffolk, are two delightful lead figures of Prince Eugene and of John Churchill, first Duke of Marl- borough. The Eugene shows him with drawn sword, in a slightly theatrical atti- tude, wearing a bulky wig and the collar of a Knight of the Golden F"leece. He lived from 1663 to 1736. The best way to date' Eugene is by the fatness of his face. There is an engraved portrait of 1701 (when he would be thirty-eight years old) which re- sembles our statue. A portrait of 171 2 shows him with his face longer and thinner, and in another of 1735 this cievelopment of gauntness is very marked indeed. Most of his portraits, notably that by Sir Godfrey Kneller, shows him with his marshal's baton in his hand. There seems to be none with a drawn sword. The Mai'lborough is a splendid figure of great ease and nobility of pose. The wig is luxuriant, and while the duke carries his baton he wears no order. He looks rather younger in the statue than in the Kneller portrait of 1705, but otherwise the statue as a portrait is excellent. It is perhaps not impertinent to remark the continuing faithfulness to type of the Churchill family. Fii;. 244. —Statue of William III. at Wrest Park. ENGLISH Li:.\l)\VURK. As to the authorshi]) (if thf (jlemham Hall figures there are no facts to give. Rysbrack did the monument of .Marlborough at lilenheini, but these statues are probably earlier, and it seems safe to date them as c. i 700 if they were modelled from the Hfe. The lead statue of a (|uec-n in Oueen Square, Bloomsbury, has been variously described as of Oueen Anne, and of the consort of George I , Queen Charlotte. It presents some difficulties, but the evidence seems to be in favour of Oueen Charlotte. Mr Henry B. Wheatley in his "London Past and Present" is on the side of Queen Charlotte, and says that the statue was preseiiled by General -Strode. Strode does not appear in any biographical dictionary, but he seems to have been a kind of Carnegie of public monuments. The equestrian statue of the Duke of Cumberland, modelled by Cheere (of whom more hereafter) and set up in Cavendish Square in 1770, was given by Lieutenant-General William Strode. It is not recorded whether this was of bronze or of lead. It was taken down to be repaired in 1 868, and incontinently disappeared. The need of repair and the subsequent vanishing point to lead rather than to bronze. Strode also set up in Stratford Place a pillar, which made haste to fall t-v~<^7a — ~lL^.f "^^^^ '•*^ '^■^j^^rs down a few years later. Assuming, there- in vXS- ■''i^^3P^5^>^"(\'^2ti ' ■■ *'"^'' ^^^^ Strode gave the statue in Queen .Square, it is more likely to have been of Charlotte, who was pursuing her dull and decorous course as consort in 1770, the date of the Cumberland. Strode was apparently a courtier, and would have been less inter- ested in Anne, who was even then un- questionably dead. The giving of the Cuuihci-land statue is strong evidence in favour of Charlotte. Sir Henry Cheere was the most notable modeller of lead statues then flourishing. As Strode was his customer for the Cumberland, what more natural than that he should s^o to him for the Chariot I e ? The evidence of the figure itself is puzzling, but the balance is in favour of Charlotte. She carries a sceptre in her right hand, wears a crown, and carries no orb. Her robes are of the ordinary coronation type, and she wears no orders. All this suggests Charlotte. Every engraved portrait of Queen Anne wearing a crown, of the scores examined (except one), shows her also with the collar and star of the Garter and the George. The one exception is a fanciful sketch, from which a formal ornament like the collar might not unnaturally be omitted. The portrait statues of Anne in Queen Anne's Gate, at Blenheim, and in St Paul's Churchvard, not onlv have the Garter ornaments but also Fig. 245. — Queen Charlotte, Queen Square. LKAD PORTRAIT STATUES. 153 the orb. Were the Queen Square figure of Anne, it would certainly have the orb and the collar and star of the Garter. The portrait of Charlotte by Reynolds shows her seated in coronation robes similar in general character to those of the Queen Square statue in respect of the corsage and sleeves, and there is a sceptre on a cushion. Here again we find no orb and no Garter ornaments. The chief difiiculty of the statue is in the hair. It is arranged in heavy curls hanging down over the neck, and is very similar to that of the .Iiiiic in Queen Anne's Gate. In the Revnolds picture of Charlotte the hair is done up in the usual late eighteenth-centur\" manner, and only one curl strays on to the neck. In this the engraved portraits of Charlotte agree, save for one at the age of twenty-three, which shows as many curls as the statue does. It is possible, however, that Francis Bird's statue of Anne, set up in 1712 in St Paul's Churchyard, may have crystallised the long curls into a queenly convention, which the later statuarv, who did the Charlotte figure, thought well to follow. The features tell little. Charlotte was very plain, and in life her nose was markedly snub. The Queen Square statue has a non-committal sort of nose, neither Roman like Bird's figure of Anne, nor honestly snub like Charlotte's less flattering portraits. Accurate portraiture, however, was not universal in the statues of those days, i\o:, the Aiiiic of Queen Anne's Gate has a nose not at all Roman. This last statue and also the George II. in Golden Square have been included in lists of lead statues, biit incorrectly. F)Oth are of stone — the Anne of Portland stone, the Geo7'gc II. of some more friable and coarsely grained stone, which now shows ominous cracks and is like to perish before long. The most satisfactory lead portrait statue extant, as far as detailed knowledge of it goes, is that of Sir lohn Cass. high u[) in a niche on the new building of the Cass P'oundation Institute Street, E.C. (Fig. 247). In 1710 Cass established a school, in 17 18 he died, and in 1750 the trustees of the charity " resolved that it be referred to the Treasurer to prepare a statue of Sir John Cass to be made by a skilfull Artist in such manner as he shall be advised, and that the same be erected in the Niche for that purpose in the Front of the sd. schoole." Si.xteen months later Mr Treasurer wrote, "acquainting the Board he had agreed with Mr Roubilliac, statuary, for making Sir John Cass's effigies." The sculptor borrowed .Sir John's picture "to fform the effigies by," and a month Fic. 246. — 'I'he Old Cass .School (destroyed). It stands in lewrv 154 ENGLISH Ll-.ADWORK. later "attended with a modelle," and such of the Trustees present as remembered Sir John Cass in his lifetime gave Mr Roubilliac the best description they could of " Sir John's persone. " In November 1751 the statue was ready to be set up, and the treasurer "was of the opinion it would be proper for some of the Trustees to yo and see the Statue at Mr Roubilliac's, in St Martin's Lane." ^■v... On the 9th January 1752 it was "resolved that the Treasurer do pay Mr Roubilliac the sum of one hundred pounds." The minutes of the trustees from which the above extracts are taken are full ot detail with one odd omission, the material of which the figure is made. With the single e.xception of the lost Milton made for X'auxhall Gardens no other lead figure can be attributed to Roubilliac. The engraving (of which part is reproduced in Fig. 246), dated 18 10, shows the figure in its original place. The figure is too high in its new position, and should be moved into the board room of the Governors. This statue does not suffer from the fantastic artificiality which is characteristic of so much ot Roubilliac's work, notably of the Nightingale monu- ment in Westminster Abbey. Sir John Cass is given a calm and dignified pose, very different from the buoyant triviality of the Shakespeare at the British Museum. The detail of the robes is exquisitely clean but does not suggest undue effort. There is none of that restless straining after characterisation which appears in the heads that Roubilliac modelled • from the life. .Among lead portrait statues the Cass has no equal except the William III. at Hoghton Tower, and that it was modelled ad hoc for architectural use gives it an added interest. J. T. Smith records that the Cass was at one time painted various colours to give it a life-like appearance, in the manner of the wax figures at Westminster. Garden figures were often tricked out in the same fashion. In Leicester Square there stood a gilt lead statue of George I. It was originally made by van Nost for Canons House, Edgware. It was set up in Leicester Scjuare Fig. 247. — Sir John Cass. LEAD PORTRAIT STATUES. 155 by Frederick, Prince of Wales, to annoy his father, George II. I)cin;^- in 1872 much damaged, it was sold for ^16. In Grosvenor Square there was erected in 1726 an equestri in statue of George 1., said to have been by van Nost, and, if so, doubtless a replica of the Canons statue. In 1727 this figure, which was "doubly gilt," was defaced by a partisan of the Pretender, and it has since disappeared. Malcolm speaks of Vancost of Hyde Park Corner (doubtless John van Nost) as modelling a statue of George I. from that of Charles I. in 1721, so presumably van Nost thought it safer to follow Hubert le Sc£ur than trust to his own unaided ideas. As this chapter luas goino- to press, nezcs came of the sale of some of the Gleinham Hall figures, among them the Marlborough and Prince Eugene. [ 'S'^ ] CHAPTER IX. LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY. The Cross of Cheapside — Neptune at Bristol — Karne — ^Melbouriie, Derbyshire — Giovanni de Bologna — Harrowden Hall — Wrest Park — Wilton — Nan Monkton — Methods of Casting — Hampton Court — Syon — Castle Hill — Deceitful Figures —Forgers of "Antique" Leadwork — Studley Royal — The Water Note in Leadwork — Eighteenth-Century References to Statues — Hardwick Hall — Glemham Hall — Enfield Old Park — Norfolk Market Crosses — The London Apprentice. 'HE anti(]uary may lie pardoned a not unnatural desire to prove early dates, and lead statues would lose some of their importance if no record of them in Flngland could be found earlier than the seventeenth century. Mr Edmund Gosse has complained of the scantiness of the records of sculpture even in the eighteenth century, and one mi^ht despair of finding" anything in the way of mediaeval lead statues were it not for the records of the Cheapside Cross. In J. T. Smith's " Antiquities of London," there is a rough picture of the destruction of the Cross by the Puritans, and under it the legend : — "The 2d of May 1643 the Cross of Cheapside was ])uird down. A Troop of Horse and 2 Companies of Foot waited to guard it, and at the tall of the top Cross, Drums beat, Trumpets blew, and multitudes of Caps were thrown in the Air, and a great shout of people with joy. The 2d of May the Almanack sayeth was the Invention of the Cross and the 6th day at Night was the leaden Popes burnt in the place where it stood, with ringing of Bells, and a great acclamation and no hurt done in all these actions." " Leaden Popes," a very stimulating reference. Now the history of the crosses in Cheapside is shortly as follows : — The first was a stately cross of stone, built by Edward I. in 1290 in memory of Queen Eleanor. This fell into disrepair, and was rebuilt in 1441 at the expense of the City of London. Henry VI., in connection with this second cross, granted to John Hatherley, Mayor, licence "to re-edify the same in more beautiful manner." Hatherley "had licence also to take up two hundred fodder of lead for the building thereof and of certain conduits and a common granary." Two hundred fodder represent roughly 200 tons, and possibly some of this lead went to the making of the " leaden popes " that were burnt in 164,3 i^i the place where the Cross had stood. It was building from 1441 to i486, and Stow mentions that it was "at the charge of divers citizens (notably John Fisher, mercer) curiously wrought." By 1581 people had come to be irritated by emblematical figures, and the Cross was almost demolished, and the images defaced, but it was repaired. Incidentally the Philistines of that day wanted to move it to make a street improvement. In 1599 the timber of the Cross at the top "being rotted within the lead," the top was taken down, but the Privy Council ordered repairs. LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY. 157 After a year's delay, and more commands from Queen Elizabeth, a cross of timber was framed and set up (in 1600), covered with lead and oilded, but the image of Our Lady was a^rain defaced. On the accession of James I. it was railed in, repaired, and beautified. Its final downfall has already been described, a destruction which Evelyn witnessed, " 1 saw the furious and zelous people demolish that stately Crosse in Cheapside." Several illustrations of the Cross remain. It was of a purely monumental type, not practically a building, as was Paul's Cross. Among the Thomason Tracts at the British Museum is one entitled "The Downe-fall of Dagon," which was doulnless published in or soon after 1643. It is a delightful publication, and purports to be not only a description of the Cross, but also its last will and testament dictated by itself, and its epitaph, " Dagon," beino- a puritanical pet name for it. In the will we find, " Item, I give to the Red-Coate souldiers all the lead which is about me to make bullets if occasion be ; if not, I give it to the Company of Plummers to make cisterns and pumps with. " The illustration shows three of the figures bearing pastoral staves, and though it may be claimed that these would l)e bishops not popes, there is other evidence. In the Crace Collection of prints is one of Cheapside Cross as it appeared in 1547, with part of the procession of Edward \l. on his way to his coronation at Westminster. This print shows, in the lowest tier of figures, one with a triple crown. In another print, a Representation of the Demolishing of the Cross, one figure wears a mitre, but there is none with a triple crown. In the Pepysian Library, Cambridge, there is a picture of the third Cross built of leaded timber in 1600, and in the Crace Collection a copy of the drawing as well as an engraving after it. Here again in the lowest tier of figures is one with a head-dress which is certainly not a mitre, and though it is not an accurately drawn tiara, it is differentiated from the next figure, which wears an obvious mitre, and may fairly be claimed as the triple crown. Stow says, " The lowest Images . . . being of Christ, his resurrection, of the Virgin Mary, King Ed. the Confessor, and such like." "Such like" is not very definite. So much for the "popes." Now as to the "leaden." We have established the very large use of lead by John Hatherley. To quote again from " The Downe-fall of Dagon," " Some report divers of the Crownes and scepters are silver." Now silver ornaments are much more likely to have been applied to lead than to stone statues. There is also the evidence of the frequent regilding of the Cross on the occasion of royal progresses, &c. Lead statues are much more likely objects so to be gilt than stone fipfures. From the somewhat rude sketches of the Cross which remain, the figures which decorated it seem to have been about twenty in number. The evidence suggests that John Hatherley adorned the second Cross with these figures, in lead, and that the statues were of popes and saints. The date 1600 is a very unlikely one for the production ot ecclesiastical figures of this character. Probably the rebuilding of 1600 consisted merely of placing on the leaded timber framework the "leaden popes" that came to so untimely an end in 1643. We may turn now to the later work, where we are on more solid ground. It is an unhappy thing that, with the exception of the Neptune of Elizabeth's reign at Bristol, there is no English lead statue of the sixteenth century or earlier, at least none has been recorded. Of mediaeval lead statues there must have been plenty, but in England they have not survived. The Neptune of Fig. 248 stands in the street at Bristol, in the shadow of the leaning 158 ENGLISH LKADWORK. tower of the Temple Church. The figure (if a locil tradition recited on the pedestal has any value) has an historical interest which gi\es it an important place amonc^' English lead statues. The story has it that the pumps from captured ships of the Spanish Armada provided the material, and that it was given by a Bristol plumber to celebrate the great defeat. Even if this story is not true, the figure is certainly old, as lead statues go, and it may be accepted as sixteenth-century work. Mr Lethaby thinks "the limbs are con- torted with too much life,"' and it is certainly a coarse piece of modelling, but it is the most interesting figure in Bristol. We come next to the leadwork done by Andrew Karne (or Kearne), variously described as a Dutchman and a German. Horace Walpole relates of him that he was brother- in-law of the sculptor Nicholas Stone the Elder, for whom he worked. At Somerset Stairs he carved the river-god which answered to the Nile, carved by Stone, and a lioness on the water gate of York Stairs. He died in England, and left a son who was living after 1700. The date of his birth seems unknown. The most definite and interesting fact about him is contained in Sir Henry Slingsby's Diary. About 1625 Slingsby began to build the Red House, Marston Moor, and writing in 1638 of the oak staircase (which in 1861 was removed to the chapel), he says : " Ye staircase yt leads to the painted chamber was furnished ye last year by John Gowland. Ye stair is about five feet within the sides in wideness ; ye posts eight inches square ; upon every post is a crest set of my especial friends and my brother-indaw, and upon that post yt bears up the half pace . . . yt leade to the painted chamber, there sits a blackamore cast in led by Andrew Karne, a Dutchman, who also cut in stone ye statue of ye horse in ye garden. The blacka- more sits holding in either hand a candlestick to set a candle in to give light to ye staircase." The "blackamore in led " sits there still (Fig. 249), and is the earliest lead statue in England to which an exact date can be given, for there is no documentary evidence as to the Neptune at Bristol. The black boy's candlesticks have unhappily gone, and one arm with them, but he is still a pleasant boy. The majority of lead garden statues are the product of Georgian times, but the seventeenth century saw their use well established in the pseudo-classic atmosphere in which they chiefly flourished. C. G. Gibber was born in Flensburg, Holstein, in 1630, and, in Colley Gibber the dramatist, had a son more famous than himself He was originally employed by John, the son of Nicholas Stone. Peter Gunninoham savs of him that "his residence in Rome and the cjeneral favour Fig. 248. — Neptune at JJristol. LEAD FIGURP:S GENERALLY. 159 extended to classic subjects . . . induced Gibber to carve allejTories and oods. He per- formed for the vista and the grove what Thornhill and La Guerre did for the ceilings and the walls. Neptune with his Tritons appeared in the midst of the pond, Diana and her nymphs in the recesses of the grove, Venus adorned some shady arbour, and Minerva or Apollo watched by the portico." From this one would suppose that Gibber was the first to use gods in the garden, but Nicholas Stone the Elder (i 586-1647), the father of Gibber's employer, was engaged in 1632 on statues of Gupid, Venus, Ceres, Hercules, and Mercury for the Paston family, and one may assume some of these were for the gardens of Oxnead. Mr A. E. Bullock, who has written so fully of Nicholas Stone, has found no reference to his having worked in lead. Careful search has also failed to identify Gibber with any lead figures. He delighted in freestone, tor it is easily worked, and god after god could be turned out rapidly to satisfy the urgent demands of the cognoscenti of his day. A few years of rain and frost, and the insidious creeping of lichen, produce in a free- stone statue an air of desolation and decay. Hence the recourse to lead for " Homer. Cresar, and Nebucadnezar, All standing naked in the open air," for frost, which will split a stone figure, leaves lead unhurt. It is interesting to note that Pepys had a word to say about garden statues, as indeed about most things that minister to the pleasures and graciousness of life. He spent a Sunday afternoon at White- hall with Hugh May, who was near to getting the post of surveyor to Gharles II., but happily lost it. It was given to Sir Christopher (then Dr) Wren. Hugh May was doubtless, as Pepys says, "a very ingenious man," but one trembles to think what we should have lost if he had been the architect of St Paul's and the Gity churches. About gardens May seems to have been sound, and told the diarist that " we have the best walks ot gravel in the world, France having none, nor Italy, and our green of our bowling alleys is better than any they have. So our business here being Ayre, this is the best way, only with a little mixture of statues or pots, which may be handsome, and so filled with another pot of such or such a (lower or greene as the season of the year will bear." While "a little mixture of statues " is here admitted as being part of the " best way," Hugh May unfortunately did not enlarge on the question of material, or refer to the subjects he thought fit for such figures. However, "our liusiness here being Avre " is Fig. 249. — .At the Red House, Marston Moor. i6o ENGLISH LKAD\\( )RK. a delightful English touch, for which we muy well Ije grateful, and forgive him for omitting to descant on the charms of statues and pots when of lead, or the statues which came up to his standard of "handsome." Most of our knowledge of the makers of lead statues comes from the anti(iuarian writings of |. T. Smith. He has been quoted at large by Mr Lethaby, so the bare facts only need be here set down. John van Nost, a sculptor who came to England with William 111., started the first lead yard tor the regular supply of garden figures in Piccadilly. We are told that Fig. 250. — African Slave, Melbourne. Fig. 2; I. — Indian Slave, Melbourne. there was a .sale of his effects in 171 1, but this was doubtless a temporary reverse only, for John Cheere did not take over the van Nost yard until 1739. We will trace his work as far as we may, in face of the difficulty that there are few subjects so deplorably lacking in documents as the history of sculjjtors and scul[)ture of the seventeenth ami eighteenth centuries, or one which would better re])ay careful research. The gardens of Melbourne, Derbyshire, which were remodelled by Henry Wise, are a mine of leadwork. The figures, or many of them, came from John van Nost early in the eighteenth centur\-. and the accounts are preserved, 'i'here is an item of "Young Triton with brass pipe in middle, /,6. 9s. od." Perhaps this is the delightful bo\- of LEAD FIGL'RKS GENERALLY. i6i ¥\fj. 25^, though Triton seems hardly a proper description. However, there is no Triton of the fishy sort, and the brass pipe which makes him a fountain is possibly enough to identify him. There are two Kneeling Slaves in the upper garden, h'igs. 250 and 251. They were until lately painted black with white waist cloths, but when recently mended the paint was fortunately removed. These slaves are the most common of lead garden statues. One is markedly negro in hair and li[)s. and has always been called "the Black-a-Moor," the other is a turbaned Fic:. 2^2. — Melbourne. Fig. 253. — Melbourne. figure of Indian t\ pe. linth are about 3 feet 6 inches in height to the top of the tray. They cost ^,30 the pair. At Melbourne they carry stone trays, and on them lead va.ses. Sometimes they carr\ siindials. The pose is admirable. The tracing of the supply of these figures is not without interest. There is a pair at Glemham Mall, Suffolk, which came from Campsey Ash, when it belonged to the Shepherds. The best known e.xample is the Black-a-.Moor in the gardens of the Inner Temple. It is dated 1731, and its former home was Clement's Inn, where once the following verses were found attached to it : — L i62 ENGLISH LKADWORK. " In vain, poor sable son of woe, Thou seek'st the tender tear ; From thee in vain with pangs they flow, For mercy dwells not here. From cannibals thou fledst in vain. Lawyers less quarter give ; The first won't eat you till you're dead, The last will do't alive." Lord Algernon Percy has another slave at Guy's Cliffe. There was one in the gardens of Sandywell, Gloucestershire, now laid waste. There are others at Knowsley, Arley, Aldenham House, Herts ; Norton Conyers, Yorkshire ; Slindon Park, Sussex ; Purley Hall, near Pangbourne ; Ockham Hall, Surrey ; and Mr Philipson-Stow has one which came from Covvdray. Reference will be made later to a variant in which the Black-a-Moor's face is that of a boy, but the figure and pose the same. It has been suggested that this figure is alter one by Pietro Tacca, who modelled the wonderful group of galley slaves at Leghorn. No evidence of this is, however, to be found. Van Nost must have found the lead slave trade brisk and remunerative, for the list is doubtless far from complete. Replicas must have perished in scores when formal gardens were abandoned for what Mr Lethaby delightfully calls " mean productions in the cemetery style, an affair of wriggling paths, little humps and nursery specimens." In such futile parodies of gardens the lead statue was an offence and a hissing. The Melbourne atuor-ini are chubbily pretty, and the story of quarrel and reconcilia- tion, told in the four groups of two, gives a dramatic touch which is pleasant. Figs. 254- 256 show the progress of the quarrel, which arose out of a struggle for a garland. The fourth group shows them healing" their quarrel with kisses. These groups were modelled by van Nost in 1699, and were supplied in 1706 for ^42 the four. The single figures are perhaps more admirable. The artist had no story to attend to, and the modelling has benefited. It would be difficult to find figures of a happier grace than those of Pigs. 252 and 253. The pose of the boy of Fig. 252 is very like that of a bronze Cupid of the school of Andrea del Verrocchio in the .South Kensington Museum, while the other is a little reminiscent of the Boethos figure ot a Boy loith a Goose. Both stand on pedestals in the middle of large sunk basins of masonry, and gaily spout up water through brass tubes. Their brothers of Figs. 2 58 and 259 were liusy with archery. Though the bows have perished, and the arrows have long since found their mark, the look of mischievous intent remains, and they doubtless smote some lingerers in these gardens in anacreontic fashion, \>.i'Tw ij^rap won-ep oT(rTpQom the fact that the Cupid making his Bow at Wilton (Pig. 271) is cast from the same pattern as one at Melbourne, it is reasonable to assume that the Wilton lead- work came from the yard of van Nost or his successors. The right hand boy of the pair in Fig. 270 has so benevolent a forehead that he looks unduly elderly, and his brother with the bowl-shaped hat is a little half-hearted in his gesture. The Wilton anioi-ini alternate with delightful lead vases (illustrated in a later chapter) round the formal garden. The most important leadwork at Wilton is, how- ever, the equestrian statue of Marcus Aure- lius on the arch designed by Chambers. It is very similar in general character to the William III. at Petersfield. On the front of the house which looks towards the river and the Palladian Bridge, and sitting high on the parapet, is a lead figure of a woman (Pig. 272), which was certainly added well after the time of Inigo Jones, and is frankly a somewhat disturbing element. Of Charpentiere (or Carpenter), who ilied in 1737, being then o\er sixty, we have rather more information than of John van Nost. He had been his assistant before setting up in business for himself Pie supplied in Fir.. 269. — .+;neas and .\i WiLsi I'ark. IJO ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 270. — Wilton. different fioure, and the late Mr F. Warre had a small Fame 3 feet 2 inches high. In 1702 Carpenter must have been well known, for we find Thoresby writing in his diary : " .Sat up too late with a parcel of artists ... Mr Carpenter, the statuary, and Mr Etty, the painter, with whose father, Mr Ettv, sen., the architect, the most celebrated Grinling Gibbons wrought at York." In 1 7 14 (iith May) Thoresby again " walked to Piccadilly to Mr Carpenter's, the carver's," and saw "curious workman- ship of his in marble and lead." 1722 and 1723 to Ditchley, O.xfordshire, the .seat of Yiscount Dillon, the lead figures of Fame (I'ig. 273) and a Roman Soldier, which stand on the parapet. The bills for them amounted to ^35 and £20, and the figures are 7 feet 3 inches high. Fame is trumpeting lustily, and has a spare instrument in her left hand for emergencies. The Roman Soldier might easily have been deadly. His uplifted arm became loose, and was recently for safety's sake removed and replaced by a wooden arm. As the lead arm weighed 40 lbs. the precaution was wise. Fame seems to have been a favourite subject with Georsfian statuaries, for the Fame in the wardens at Nun Monkton is a Fig. 271. — Wilton. LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY. i/i Walpole tells us that Carpenter was much employed by the Duke of Chandos at Canons, and apparently shared the Duke's work with his old chief, for van Nost certainly did the statue of George I. The presence of Fames and Roman Soldiers, though not from the same models, both at Ditchley and at Nun Monkton, makes it aj)propriate to illus- trate the latter figures at this point, though nothing" is known of their origin. The Nun Monkton collection of figures is particularly fine, and is of especial interest as nearly all the types of eighteenth-century garden sculpture are represented. In addition to Fame, j^lump and trumpeting, already mentioned (Fig. 274), there is a graceful young woman masquerading as a soldier (Fig. 276), and affecting a most unmilitary pose. There is also a real male Roman soldier. Fig. 273. — Fame, Ditchley. Fig. 272. — On the Parapet, Wilton. Another figure is a rustic maiden (Fig. 275) regarding some fruit with a languid air, and, best of all, a really vigorous gentleman of buccaneering aspect (Fig. 277) pledging the garden world with the contents of his little barrel. He is rather Dutch than English, which is hardly astonishing when it is remem- bered how many sculptors from the Low Countries settled in England. At Bicton, Budleigh, are four figures of the same character as those at Nun Monkton. There is a girl very like the rustic lady of Fig. 2"]^^, but cast from a different model, a vigorous figure of a Moivcr (Fig. 278), the pretty shepherdess of Fig. 279, and an elegant young man in knee breeches, most elegantly laying his hand on his heart, doubtless for the EXGI.ISH LEADW'ORK. bciKlU of ihe shepherdess. At the Bridge House, Wcybridge, are a Cvnibal Playci- and an .1 polio. The statues of Nun Monkton stand on hoth sides of a shady \vali<, and look alto- gether charming. The right placing ot figures in a garden is their justification. In the Annual Register of 1764 William .Shenstone, the poet, unburdened himself of some " Unconnected Thoughts on Garden- ing," which are marked by e.xcellent sense. These thoughts are reprinted in Volume II. of his works published in 1777. They were doubtless the outcome of musings in his garden at Leasowes. For lead statues the poet pleads with jud'-nient, and, amongst much that is delight- FiG. 274. — Fame, Nun Monkton. ful, writes : " By the way, I wonder that lead statues are not more in vogue in our modern gardens. Though they may not express the finer lines of an human body, yet they seem perfectly well calculated, on account of their duration, to embellish landskips [^su], were they some degrees inferior to what we gener- ally behold. A statue in a room challenges e.xamination, and is to be examined critically as a statue. A statue in a garden is to be considered as one part of a scene or land- skip ; the minuter touches are no more essential to it than a good landskip painter would esteem them were he to represent a statue in his picture." This excellent good sense is the more notable when it is borne Fig. -At Nun Monkton. LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY '/o in mind that by 1764 lead garden statues had fallen into some disrepute, and the palmy days of the Piccadilly lead founders had gone for qver. Of the making of lead statues a word may here be added. All the I':nglish e.xamples seem to have been cast. For cast figures one of two methods would be employed: for fio-ures of which one only was wanted, the lost-wax process ; for stock patterns like the Kneeling Slaves, a set of casting patterns and core stocks. 1 here are no modern methods of making a lead statue to supplant the old. When one turns to bronze and copper, there is the elasticity ol electrotyping in copper as an alter- native to casting in bronze. It is not perhaps generally known that some large statues which appear to be bronze are, in fact, iHiilt u|) from thin copper electrotypes on an iron skeleton framing. This is analogous to the building up of lead figures troni hammered sheet lead. This method was employed in mediaeval France. The lead was beaten out on a model of car\ed wood, and the edges of the adjacent pieces either soldered or lapped. An internal framing of a main rod with struts ensured rigidity. For such figures as angels with wings outstretched, the repousse method is ob\-iously the best, as it makes for a con- vincing lightness of appearance, while strength need not be sacri- ficed. In England it never found favour. Nor is the omission con- fined to statues. On pipe-heads repousse work was but slightly employed. The beating-up of pat- terns in relief seems to have been avoided, except on some of the eighteenth-century vases where the type of decoration often called particularly for repousse work. Giacomo Leoni, an architect imported by Lord l)urlington (and employed as the "ghost" of that ingenious nobleman), showed some forty statues on the elevations of the palace which he designed for Thomas Scawen at Carshalton Park, but, perhaps l-'iG. 276. — The Military Girl, Nun Monkton. ■74 ENGLISH LKAUWORK. fortunately, never built. It is evident that one of the figures was to have been the same Gladiator that we find at Burton Agnes (Fig. 280). The entrance gates and a Httle bridge are the only features of this pretentious scheme that ever took shape. As the two statues on the stone piers that flank the gates are of lead, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the other forty would have been of the same material. One may regret the lead statues, but the house was best unbuilt, as it was a ponderous and not very successful e.xercise in a very bulky manner. The two statues on the gate piers are of Diana (Fig. 281) and Adcvon, and give an added interest to a range of admirable wrought ironwork. The carving of the very fine stone piers has been attributed to Cata- lini, and the statues to van Nost. There is perhaps no more delightful use of lead figures than in the middle world where garden craft and architecture meet, the entrance of a great park. The groups of three charm- ing boys upholding trophies of fruits give its name to the Flozi H ^^^^^^^^^^^Hh^I^^I ■ \-,,^,iL^^^H Fig. 31S. — Kneeling Boy .Slave, Enfield. Fig. 319.— At I-.nfield Old Park. ■em[)loyment by the first duke at Chatsworth, to adorn' with statues and a fountain the lawn facing the south front. The lead figures now at Hardwick are, however, certainlv later than Gibber, and it is probable that they stood by the south front, and were removed when the sixth duke replaced them by copies from the antique. Of the six figures four are illustrated. The ladies have a solid Teutonic air, and while there is a certain cleverness in the draping of Sculpture (Fig. 309), there is a lady {not illustrated) with a violin whose clothing is an exercise in drapery instinct with the N 194 ENGLISH LEADWORK. spirit of compromise. It suggests the effort of an intelligent Papuan to absorb the researches of Professor Baldwin Brown into ancient Greek dress, and to apply the know- ledge to native needs. The goddesses who look after trumpets and painting" (Pigs. 311 and 310) are not very notable. Of the youths, one is Bacchanalian with uplifted cup, and owing to the lead having given, is now leaning over in a way that befits a Bacchanal. The other is of somewhat lascivious aspect with a flute (Pig. 312). It will be noted how cleverly the stability of the figure of this piping god is assured by making it lean against a tree trunk. The Hardwick Hall figures are average examples of eighteenth-century tvpe. The ladies have a look of massive complacency, which would induce boredom in a galler)', but is not without merit in the restful atmosphere of a formal garden. The leaden treasures at Glemham Hall are not confined to portrait statues. While the head of the Pa)i (Fig. 314) lacks the subtle characterisation of the Castle Hill bust, the figure is a notable one, and it is unfortunate that the god has lost his |)ipes. The tree trunk with its goat's skin is a thoroughly practical accessory as it helps to stiffen the figure. The hooded fig-ure of Winter with arms akimbo, and lean thiehs, is also admirable (Fig- 313)- At Godinton, Kent, is a charming pair of dancing figures, one at each end of the fish pond ; the boy has cymbals, the girl holds what apparent!)- was once a branch in one hand, and in the other a bunch of flowers. There is also a Cupid with sundial from the same pattern as the example illustrated in Fig. 301. The lead fauna of gardens have no more notable representatives than the Ostriches (Fig. 316) and the J^oar at Myddelton House, Waltham Cross. Originally they all adorned Gough Park. The birds stood on the top of the house, and the pair ot boars (one has since been stolen) on the gate piers. Mr [ohn POrd, F.S.A., of Enfield Old Park, has happily got copies of the invoices, so we know the provenance of these delightful creatures. To Captn. Goff. Bot. of Jno. Nest, Sept. 21, 1724. {Note.- 2 Estridges 6 ft. high ----- 2 Cocketresses ----- - Carridg .---.. paid Nov. 6, 1724. Bot. of T. Mailing. 1720. Aug. 23. Neptune - . - - Mercury and Fame - Nov. 17. 2 Boares - - - . 2 large vases Waggon and Car pd. Nov. 23, I 720 This " Goff" was Captain Gough of the Merchant Service of the East India Company and a director of the Company. He was also father of Richard Gough, sometime director of the Societ)' of .Antiquaries, who wrote the earliest pa|)er which tlcalt with Icatl fonts, published in Archccologia in 17S9. I )oubtlcss his father's "cocketresses" (would that these Nesf ' is possiblv John ■ 7'a// No St.) - - £^0 1 ■4 £27 14 - £2, 12 12 8 8 - -5 - I 17 /:6s '7 LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY. 195 charming creatures had not flown to limbo) stimulated his interest in leadwork ; anyhow he is the father of its history. Perhaps his greatest monument is the persistence with which the mistakes he made in his paper have been copied and recopied in succeeding papers on the subject. The Boar, shown in Fig. 315, was the Gough crest. The ostriches now stand on either side of a bridge over the New River, where it runs through the gardens of Mr Henry Bowles' house. 1 am told that these fine birds are not cor- rectly modelled, as they should not have " flight feathers. " Cap- tain Gough must have had them made from sketches which his sea-faring acquaintances or he himself had secured, and either draughtsman or sculptor went wrong over the feathers. The skin of the leg's is, however, well shown, and altogether they are notable work. Not only is Mr John h'ord the possessor of much leadwork, but of a collection of the disjecta ■membra of demolished historical buildings which may safely be called unique. The two carved stones which form the base for the Kneeling Slave of Fig. 318 once supported the chancel arch (one on either side) of .St Mary Somerset in Lower Thames Street, the first of Wren's churches to fall to the destroyer. The arcading in the back- ground of the photograph came from the top of the tower of St Dionis Backchurch, also a Wren building, when it was destroyed in 1878 under the Union of Benefices Act. These two examples are given because they come into the leadwork picture, but they are merely representative of dozens equally interesting. Of the Kneeling Slave himself it is to be noted that he is markedly younger in countenance than the elder African slave at Melbourne and elsewhere, and his history is known. He stood since about 1730 in the gardens of Bush Hill Park, and was bought originally by John Gore, who lived there and died in 1763, the last surviving director of Fig. 320. — At Devonshire House, I'iccadilly. 196 ENGLISH LEADWORK. s ibv^l Fig. 321. — Butter Cross, Swaffham. (The lead Spirelet in background is dealt with in L'ailicr Chapter.) tend to fall out of shape, and that became like "crooked billets," he doubtless had in mind such figures as that of Fi^'. 320. Despite that noble amateur's scorn, he filled the t^ardens of the Villa that he de- signed (not unaided) at Chiswick with lead statues, and this one was removed to Devon- shire House by the late Duke, when he dismantled the Villa. It is obvious that a material which needs to be sta\-ed with irun rods is profoundly unsuited to a figure which does not stand well over its base. The Earl of Burlington had the sense to complain of the behaviour of unsuitable lead figures, btit apparently not to choose those which were not liable to collapse. At Devonshire House there are also a replica of the Gladiator at Burton Agnes (Fig. 280), and a yoiitli bearing a lamb on his shoulder. In Norfolk there are two delightful market crosses, at Swaffham and Buneav. Ihouoh not e.xactly alike they are similar, and consist of a circular colonnade with domed lead roof surmounted by a lead statue. the South Sea Company. High up on a parapet is a lead fniio. In the garden is a fine Bacchus (Fig. 317). and a dancing mounte- bank-like figure of very delicate modelling, which is German or Flemish, certainly not English. The queer apparition ot big. 319 is illus- trated rather for the arcaded jardiniere than for the bust. The latter is all that remains of a complete statue, and in its mutilated state has found a resting place in the fiower-pot, which from its arcading has an early font-like look. rhe top mouldings, however, betray it for a seventeenth or eighteenth century jardiniere, but a pleasant one withal. There are also a Shepherd and Shepherdess in lead at Enfield Old Park, replicas of those of Figs. 305 and 306. When Lord Burlington uttered his dictum against lead statues, on the ground that they irms Fig. 322. — Ceres at Swaffliam. LEAD FIGURES GENERALLY. 197 It was set up in 1690, and At SwafFham the figure is Ceres bearing the horn of plenty (Fig. 322). It is said to have been executed by a French artist, and cost ^200, an amazingly big sum. The cross was built by the Earl of Orford in 1783. Butter was sold by the yard at markets held under the dome of this cross (so called doubtless because there is no cross). Let us mourn a decayed industry. The similar cross at Bungay bears a lead figure o{ Astrcca. was also a butter cross. Amongst other pleasant uses to which it was put were as a cell for prisoners, a whipping post, and a place for the stocks. Under the dome a hook remains, from which hung a cage in which prisoners were e.xhibited. Altogether Astrtca has seen life during her 218 years on the dome. The figure of Charity in lead is a not unusual ornament of almshouses and the like. At Great Yarmouth she appears at the Fishermen's Hospital, and bears an infant in her arms, while a young child clings to her knee. The hospital was built in 1702. A similar idea is expressed by a group on the pediment of the main front at W'impole, where Charity, a girl, ministers the cup of cold water to Poverty, an old man. Fig. 323 shows a compara- tively modern example. On a balcony of a house in Park Lane are lead Caryatides, and ver\- graceful they are with their wind- swept draperies. They were erected about eighty years ago, and their great weight nearly pulled down the whole balcony. When repairs were being done, the figures were found to be full of large chips of white marble, obviously the waste product of some statuary's yard. The last illustration of this chapter is not the latest in date, but a long chapter may be forgiven tor disarranging a date, that it may carry the sting of a moral in its tail. P^iG. 323. — Lead (Caryatides, Park Lane. 198 p:nglish lkadwork. In 1903, Newcastle Street, W.C, was destroyed, and with it the workshop of Messrs Dent & Hellyer. a firm of plumbers established there in 1730. In a verandah of "Ye Olde Plumbers Shop" stood the lead figure of a London Apprentice (Fig. 324). It is l)elieved to have been modelled for Lancelott Burton, a predecessor, in 1769, of Mr S. Stephens Hellyer in the freedom of the Worshipful Company ot Plumbers. Unsuccessful search was made at the old workshop for patterns of the Apprentice, and also of four other lead figures, now perished, that stood beside it. This suggests that th e lead figure trade of the eighteenth century was confined to the statuaries of the Piccadilly lead yards and that the plumber proper confined himself, so far as decorative work was concerned, to cisterns and other domestic objects. Perhaps, however, the Apprentice, a lively and admirable figure, was cast in Lancelott Burton's shops and the mould forthwith destroyed. In 1906 the Plumbers' Company presented, in the hall of the Old Charterhouse, George Peale's pageant "The Masque of Lovely London " which had lain dormant since its first performance to Lord Mayor Wolstane Di.\ie in 1585. In the hall stood the leaden Apprentice, and the living apprentice in the pageant was clad like him as he spoke the plea — " That lovely London may one day enjoy The power that now lies dormant in the boy." The Worshipful Company of Plum- bers is to-day honourably distinguished by the zeal with which it fosters the practice ot apprenticeship. Thoughtful sociologists are agreed that apprenticeship must be added to the technical training in schools if right craftsmanship is to be restored. The leaden Appi-entice stands therefore, not only as a fragment of London's history, but as one of the ideals in which are bound up the present aims and future hopes of the Art of English Leadwork. Fic;. 324. — The London Ap[)rentice. [ '99 1 CHAPTER X. VASES AND FLOWER POTS. Shenstone on Urns — Melbourne —I'arham House — Hampton Court —Windsor — \\'ilton— Castle Hill. EFERENCE was made in the last chapter to Shenstone's views about lead statues. Hear him on the question of vases : " Urns are more solemn if lart^e and plain ; more beautiful if less ornamented. Solemnity is perhaps their point, and the situation of them should still co-operate with it." In Shenstone's famous garden at the Leasowes in Shropshire, there stood in the Lovers' Walk an urn, " inscribed to Miss Dolman," but it is not stated whether it, or the statues which are mentioned, were of lead. It may be doubted whether the eighteenth century took very heartily to Mr Shenstone's claim for solemn urns, but some at least are a kind of tragic trappings in oreat ^- y Fig. 354A.— Honeysuckle Ornament. Fic. 3541-..— Four-leaved Ornament. Ornaments from Lead Coffin found at Tortington I'riory, Sussex. [ -^'-^ ] CHAPTER XII. VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD. Roman Pigs and Pipes — Pilgrims' Signs — Papal Bulla; — Ornaments on Woodwork — Charms — -Tobacco Boxes — Ventilating Quarries. X "omnibu-s" chapter is not a very satisfactory way of providing a place for odd items which are difficult of classification, but it is perhaps a better device than to smuggle them into the introductory chapter as is sometimes done. In this book, moreover, there has been a steady purpose to emphasise those uses of lead which are practical and capable of more extended revival. With one or two exceptions, the objects dealt with in this chapter belong solely to history. In the pig of lead found at Chester (Fig. 355) we have lead in its simplest form as a ^^-tS^m/GW^lhMl DmtsM^Mt Fig. 355. — Roman Pig. manufactured article. This e.xample was a stray from a consignment of pigs paid to the Roman occupiers of Chester by the Deceangi, a Flintshire tribe that busied itself with lead mining. It bears, as do most of the Roman pigs, the name of the reigning emperor. The pipe shown in Fig. 356 is particularly interesting, as the inscription tells a long story. Roughly translated, it runs, " These pipes were laid when Vespasian and Titus Fig. 356. -Roman Inscribed Water-Pipe. were Consuls for the eighth and ninth times respectively, and when Cnaeus Julius Agricola governed the Province of Britain." The date is a.d. 79, and the pipe is of interest as showing that the elaborate water supply of Rome found its imitators in the Roman colonies in Britain. Of this there is further proof amoii''- the Silchester finds, which VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD. 21 j:>/- The Fig. 357. — Roman Methods of Jointing. include a flanged pipe about 16 inches long and 2 inche.s in diameter, and fragments of sheet lead with edges snipped to a rough fringe. The jointing of the Chester pipes is of tun kinds, both shown in Fie. upper was formed by pouring molten lead into a mould of earth round the ends to be joined ; the lower has the sur- face comparatively smooth, and appears to have been made like a modern wiped joint. The Silchester pipe- referred to above has a keeled longitudinal seam. Other pipes ha\-e a longitudinal Ijutt joint, which was prolxibK soldered, but the solder has perished. There are no decorated lead objects at Silchester, but several steelyard weights with iron eyes cast in. Mr Lethaby has figured a Roman jewelled lead cup in the British Museum, but it was probably made abroad. In general decorative effort seems to have been reserved for the sepulchral objects described in the last chapter. When we come to mediaeval times, the wealth of small objects is almost bewildering. The most interesting of these are the Pilgrims' Tokens. Erasmus in his "Pilgrimage" represents one of his interlocutors as meeting a pilgrim and addressing him thus: "Thou art . . . laden on everv side with images of tin and lead." The custodians of shrines did a thriving trade in these small memorials of pilgrimages, which most commonly took the form of round, oval, square, or lozenge shaped plaques hav- ing either a loop for sewing to the dress or pins for use as brooches. These signacula represented an infinite variety of subjects, of which a good idea can be formed by reference to the catalogue of the London Guildhall Museum. Most of the Guildhall tokens have been found in the Thames. An enormous quantity has also been dredged from the Seine. The ampulla; sold at Canterbury were among the most popular. They have been variously said to have held a solution (one would suppose dilute) in water of the blood of St Thomas a Becket, dust gathered round the saint's shrine, or oil from the lamps Fig. 358.- Small Am- pulla, York Museum. Fig. 359. — Draw- ing of Reverse of the Canter- bury Ampulla, York Museum. Fig. 360. — Canter- bury Ampulla, York Museum. 214 ENGLISH L]-:.\D\\OKK. burning there. Whatever they held, they are in effect Httle leaden bottles 3J; inches long, and were himg round the neck. On one side (Fig. 360) is a bishop in rolies with mitre and staff. On the narrow fascia round the ampulla is the legend, " Optimus egrorum tnedicus Jit Toma boiioriim " — The best physician for the good in\-alid is Thomas. On the reverse (Fig. 359) is a representation of the rite of extreme unction, which is being ad- ministered to the sick man by two priests. Fig. 358 also shows a small ampulla. Fig. 361 shows five examples from a private collection, including a S/ Eihvard the Confessor, a Virgin and Child, and a Crucifixion. Other common forms are a W croivned {ox St Mary of Walsingham, scallops for St James, and a 7" for .St Thomas a Becket. The legend on the Canterbury ampulla indicates the popular belief in the curati\e properties of some at least of the tokens. Sufferers from ague would put their trust in Sir John Schorne, a saint of high repute in that connection. On an emergency (doubtless in the intervals of curing ague) he conjured the devil into a boot, and is represented on his token with the enemy thus conveniently restrained. Other signs were the Vcruicle, or likeness of Our Lord, and the Head of St fohn Baptist. A curious classical parallel to these mediaeval objects is to be found in the lead figurines of the sixth century B.C., found at Sparta on the site of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia. The types represented include heraldic animals, goddesses, and warriors. They were cast from moulds on one side only, and from their rough tech- nique it would seem that the same methods were employed as for the mediaeval signa- cula. Their purpose was votive, and save for the fact that the Spartan offered them at the shrine, whereas the mediaeval English- man took them away by way of remem- brance, the separation of about twenty centuries means but a small difference in intention and execution. A considerable number of the mediaeval stone moulds in which the tokens were cast remain. Shrines were not responsible, however, for all these tokens. They were used in abbeys as vouchers for attendance in choir, like the timekeeper's brass numbers in a modern factory. Lead medals, too, were struck for the Festivals of Fools in the Middle Ages, and mock coinage was struck in lead by the Hoy Bishops, who were elected to commemorate the Murder of the Innocents. Altogether the output of small decorative lead objects in mediaeval times was great, and collectors have sought them eagerly. Demand creates supply, and about 1857 two ingenious workmen named O'Flanagan, also Fk;. 361. — Pilgrims' Tokens (actual size). VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD. 215 known to fame as Billy and Charley, conceived the brilliant idea of forcing- them in "reat numbers, and "discovering" them during excavations. Archaeologists either believed or Fig. 362. — Top and Bottom of the Hox. Fig. 363. — The Box with the Lid on. InilocL-nt IV. (1243 1234). eTr»ro :M^ disbelie\ed in the discoveries, and many hard words were .said, and legal proceedings even were taken. It was sufficiently proved that the output of Billy and Charley ran into many thousands, and at the Guildhall Museum the .so-called "Dock" forgeries are set apart and frankly labelled. The mock tomb of Figs. 362 and 363, consisting of a box with four feet and a lid, is obviously a forgery of this jaeriod, and probably the most ambitious that was achieved. Other examples are spear-heads, daggers, seals and rings. IVIany are decorated with dates of the eleventh century in Arabic numerals ! Papal seals or bullae, whence the document itself got the name of bull, form an important series of small lead objects, of considerable historical interest. In 1878 Pope Leo XIII. ordained that papers of minor importance should have wax seals, lead being reserved for the more solemn documents. The earliest bulla in the British Museum is one of John V. (685-686), and from his pontificate until thirty years ago, every papal document had its lead .seal appended. When the communication was a pleasant one, it was attached by threads of red and yellow silk ; if in forma n'oorosa the thread was of hemp, a grim suggestion. Fig. 364 shows a .series of four bulte found in .Sussex. The obverses bear the name of the Pope, and the reverses conventional heads of St Peter and St Paul with the labels over them, SPA (for Sanctus PAulus), and SPE (for f.g. 364.^Papal Bulte found Sanctus PEtrus). Three ot the popes figure in the " Divina in Sussex. .\ichulas 111. (1277-12S0). .Mailiims W. 11281-1283). Clement \'. (1305-1314). 2l6 ENGLISH L1':AD\V0RK. Commedia." Nicholas III. was in Hell amongst the simonists ; Clement V., who exiled Dante, was '•licked by ruddier Hames," while Martin 1\'. had the easy fate of fasting in Purgatory to purge his sin of gluttony. There are lead impressions of seals in various museums, which are apt to mislead. They (or some of them) have the appearance of anticjuities. Figs. 365 and 367 show examples at York which have been taken for pilgrims' signs, &c. They are simply modern fl§ casts of conventual seals. The little medallion /Zs l''S- 366 is probably foreign, and was y Fig. 365. Fig. 366. (In York Museum.) Fig. 367. apparently used as a seal on a cord like the many examples of lead seals used by cloth and other merchants for sealing bales of cloth in bygone days. The Post Office of to-day uses similar seals, but does not waste ornament on them. Lead has been used for every sort of unlikely purpose, for things as diverse as tickets for eighteenth-century dances, and the book cover of an Anglo-Saxon manu- script of Alfric's homilies. It may be hoped that no enthusiastic leadworker will regard either of these as suitable precedents. Among its less usual architectural u.ses may be mentioned its substitution for wood carving in the ornamentation of rood screens and the like. At Worsted, Norfolk, the .screen panels have figures painted on a gesso ground, and the bands of ornament beneath the figures and the spandrels above them are {or were, for the church was restoi'ed a few years ago) of lead painted and gilt. In Mr Francis Bond's book on "Screens'" there is a note by Mr \\^ Davidson on the eilt lead ornaments of the Ranworth screen and the Burlingham pulpit. The Ranworth ornament is "a close imitation ot a star-fish." It is doubtful whether much justification may be found for the use of lead on the ceiling of Wolsey's Closet at Hampton Court. It clearly usurps the place of plaster, and tor no visible reason. Doubtless the work is by an Italian hand, and while its richness makes it an interesting study (see P'ig. 368) it must be regarded as technically a freak, and need not here be discussed at length. The ribs of the ceiling are of wood and the panels o'i papier madid, but the leaves at the inter- sections are of lead, as are also the letters of Wolsey's motto on the frieze. Round the beautiful painted chest in the parvise of Newport Church, Essex, runs a gilt lead traceried band of exquisite delicacy. The existing work is a careful restoration from some scraps of the original, which are to be seen at the South Kensington Museum. The use of lead for such purposes as the decoration of furniture, is open to some Fic. 369. VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATION'S OF LEAD. 217 question, but in the case of the Newport chest the end fully justifies the means, for the same effect of delicate richness could not have been obtained by the woodcarver. Mr Harold Brakspear, F.S.A., has drawn attention to (and has figured in Archcrologia, Fig. 368.— Ceiling, with Lead Enrichments, Hampton Court. 2l8 ENGLISH Ll'.ADWORK. Fig. 370. — Tobacco Box, ?\Iaidstone ^luseum. vol. l.\., part 2) some little lead panels of fifteenth-century open tracery, found at -Stanley Abbey, similar in form to those of Fii^'. :iJ^. He points out that though they are generally supposed to be ventilators, the fact that rivets were found attaching a small piece of sheet iron to which the leadwork was originally fi.xed, goes against this supposition. Obviously rivets and sheet iron have nothing to do with lead glazing, and it seems likely that we have here a case of lead tracery being used to decorate an iron box or other object of domestic use, and that so far it is analogous to the decoration of the Newport chest. Cognate in character, though widely separate in date, is the inlaying of the west doors of St Pancras Church l)y Inwood with lead mouldings. In this case, however, lead is simply a cheap substitute for wood. Robert Adam used lead for the enrichments of mantelpieces and the like, as carton pierrc would be employed. In some eighteenth- century mantelpieces panels in low reliei depicting some conventional classical scene were sometimes cast in lead. Doubtless the {patterns used for garden vases thus served a double purpose. There is .something to be said lor the eighteenth-century i)ractice of making the ornaments of wrought-iron staircase railings in lead. Fig. 369 shows a scholarly example of this, but the lead is here stiffened by tin or antimony into an alloy of considerable hardness. Pure lead would obviously have been too soft. Here lead takes the place of bronze or brass for cheapness' sake. Speaking generally it seems fair to employ lead for modelled enrichments where a large number are required of the same design, as for e.xample the gilt stars that were so freely used on Gothic ceilings, and parts of the pendants of the ceiling of Hampton Court Chapel. It is, however, difficult to find a suitable commentary on the restorer of a church near O.xford, who fini.shed off a rood screen with a cresting cast in lead from an old wooden model, and grained it oak colour ! As lead is the metal associated with Saturn, an often unfriendly planet, the pur- veyors of magic and spells did not neglect it when the agreeable business of curse-making was afoot. Some years ago an engraved lead tablet of Romano- British date was. discovered at Bath. It is doubtful whether it records a curse on nine guests who were suspected of stealing a tablecloth, or a statement that one Ouintus received 500,000 lbs. of copjier coin for washing a lady named Vilbia. If the latter, their hydropathics seem to have cost them more. A lead disc inscribed with the symbols of Saturn has been found in a Cornish garden, deposited there for magical jxirposes. Mr W. Paley Baildon, F.S.A., in a highly entertaining paper has illustrated and Fig. 371. — Lead Dogs. VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD. 219 ffli CO CM if) U I o z described a lead plate engraved with eighty-one squares on one side, and, on the other, " That Nothinge rnaye prosper Nor goe forwarde that [Raf erased] Raufe Scrope take in hand," and underneath this pious wish are the names " Hasmodai, Schedbarschemoth, and Schartatan, with three astrological symbols. These pleasant names belong to the spirits of the moon, who are thus invoked against the unhappy Scrope. For coinage lead, owing lioth to its softness and the ease of forgery, is obviously unsuitable, but owing to the small supply of royal coinage at various periods local issues of lead tokens were made to supply the pressing need of currency. They were used chiefly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in Ireland largely at the end of the eighteenth. The British Museum contains many examples of foreign medallions in lead, exquisitely and delicately modelled. INIany of these were doubtless struck or cast to test the perfections of die or model, and though in original intention fugitive, have survived by accident. The distinctive colour and texture of lead make it more appropriate for some subjects, even it finely detailed, than bronze, and the admirable condition of the man\- remaining small lead medallions and delicate reliefs is sufficient answer to the objection that they have undue liability to damage. Lead was used considerably in the eighteenth and early part oi the nineteenth century for tobacco boxes. A common form is a square box on small feet with hunting scenes in low relief on the sides. In the Maidstone Museum is a lead box (Fig. 370), said to have been dug up at Tel-elTvebir in 1882 by a soldier, who found it full of wheat. There is a rosette on each side, and the handle of the lid is a negro head. The soldier was probably a relation of "Billy" or " Charley " aforementioned. Negrohead is an historic brand of tobacco, and if the pot was found at Tel-el- Kebir, it was certainly taken there from England. The finding of wheat in it was an artistic touch, worthy of the land of mummy wheat. Tobacco stoppers of quite elaborate patterns were also made of lead as early as the seven- teenth century. The delightful dogs of Fig. 371 take us Fig. 372. — Lead Candlestick, Maidstone Museum. Fig. 373. — Quarries, York Museum. 220 ENGLISH LKADWORK. further back. Tliey are probably of Queen Anne's time, and well represent the spaniel type, that was popular then. They are in the possession of Colonel G. B. Croft Lyons, F.S.A. It must be admitted that for most domestic objects lead is unsuited. Pewter, by reason of its fine texture and hardness, is in every way more suitalile for such thinL;s as Fig. 374. — Lead Ventilating ()uarries. candlesticks. There is, however, in the Maidstone Museum a lead candlestick which is shown in Fiy,'. 372. The commonest kind of pewter is that which has a great pro- portion of lead, and this candlestick is probably of such bad pewter rather than of yood lead. Among the most important of all the uses of lead is in glazing, but any detailed study of this belongs more properly to a history of glass, as the lead is clearly the subordinate material. There is one class of objects, however, lead ventilating quarries, VARIOUS OBJECTS AND DECORATIVE APPLICATIONS OF LEAD. 221 which i)erhaps may here be described, as their beauty depends wholly on the modellino- of the lead itself. There are two examples in the York Museum (Fig. S73)' ^"3 F'g- 374 shows a series got together by Mr J. Starkie Gardner, F.S.A. The square example with Gothic tracery is particularly delightful. At South Kensington is one that bears the name of the plumber who made it. There are many at Hampton Court. They are used, one or two in each window, in place of glass quarries, as air inlets, and are perhaps the only contrivance for ventilating which is not markedly ugly. The glazing of fanlights over eighteenth-century front doors was frequently done with leading of delightful outlines, and with rosettes and other enrichments. Illustrations of these are omitted, as they belong rather to the history of leaded glazing, which is another story. In the early days of fire insurance, when one's house needed to be labelled to secure the kindly attentions of the firemen, the labels were frequently of lead. The author has a very pleasant example in a Royal Exchange tablet, which was coloured and gilt. There is a good collection at the London Guildhall, including signs of the Hand-in- Hand, the London, and the Sun Offices. Parish boundary marks were often cast in lead. The City of London made lead shields-of-arms as ownership marks, and at the Guildhall is a well-modelled lion, with "MC 1693" beneath, the mark of Morden College. The device vulgarly known as the Southwark Arms, which is the ownership mark of the Bridge House estates, was frequently cast in lead. It is hoped that the Bibliography of this volume will not be altogether neo-lected. The notes give references to many odd uses of lead which are not of enough importance to be incorporated in the main text. [ 222 ] chaptp:r XI 11. MODERN LEADWORK. most of the Fig. 375. — l-'ont at Edinburgh. (.Showing Decoration inside Bowl. ) Fonts — Rain-water Heads — Cisterns — The larger architectural Uses — Figures on Buildings and in Gardens- Fountains — Vases — Clock-faces — Sundials —Gasfitting — Inscription. I HEN the late Mr J. Lewis Andre wrote in 1888 a paper on English Ornamental Leadwork, he .said : "1 am compelled to come to the conclusion that applications of ornament to leadwork belong to bygone times, and that a revival at the [)resent day is hardly to be expected." Twenty years have gone by, and happily Mr Andre is proved to have been no prophet. The revival is real, active, and increasing. Its products will now be illustrated in the same order, roughly, as in the chapters dealing" with the old work. Fonts. Among modern fonts there seem to be none that rival, or indeed endeavour to imitate the .splendid figure treatment of Norman times, when apostles and saints .sat beneath elaborate arcading. The font of Fig. 376 is, however, very fully treated, and has much unj^retentious charm. The relief is soft and fiat, and the symbolism interesting. The fi.sh in the wide middle band are the common s\-mbol of Christianity, and their natural swimming motion suggests the living waters of baptism. On the upper band appear four panels which represent the elements, a symbol which seems natural rather than spiritual, and the lowest band is made up of lilies, also a symbol of baptism. Fig. 376. — Font at Kdinburgli. MODERN LEADWORK. The inscription round the top reads : — 223 " NISI i,)UIS RENATUS FUERIT EX A(JUA ET SPIRITU SANlTO Nf)N rOTEST INTROIRE IN REGNUM DEI." One of the most interesting features of this font is its practical arrangement. Reference to the illustration (Fig. 375) will show that there is a small basin provided at one side. The main part of the font is filled with water which is blessed by the archbishop Fic. 377. — St Albaii's, Leicester. Fu;. 378. — St Alban's, Leicester. (liotlom of ]!owl.) Fig. 379. — Font with Lily Decoration. Fig 380. — Saucer Top of Font. once every year. The infant to be baptized is held over the small basin, from which the water used in the rite runs to earth. The font is an unusual but interesting shape on plan. The addition of the small oval basin indicated an octagon with two cardinal faces longer than the others. By making the cardinal faces rather convex, and the diagonal faces a little concave, a vague cruciform suggestion is given, and the outlines lake on the easy flowing feeling that is so appropriate to the nature of the material. The font is 224 KXGl.ISH LK.\D\\(JRK. 3 feet 6 inches hi.^h, and stands on a stone plinth, which hollows as it meets the floor to allow room for the toes of the officiating' priest — a very practical thought. The font was made by Mr l>ankart h)r Mr R. S. Lorimer. R.S.A., for a Roman Catholic church in EdinhurL;h, and its whole treatment is orii^inal without being strained or precious. The fonts of Fig. 2)77 •i''"-^ Fig- 379 ^i^e also by Mr Bankart. Ihe former is at St Alban's Church, Leicester, and was made for Mr Howard rhompson, architect. An interesting feature is the decoration of the bottom of the bowl. It is a fresh and good idea to mitigate the usual bareness of the inside by ornament, and the crown of thorns and the crown celestial are added as emblematic of the difficulties and rewards of the Christian life entered by the gate ot baptism. The vine is less appropriate, as being identified with the other of the two great sacraments, and, however pleasant a treatment decoratively, is a confusing emblem on a font. In the example shown in Fig. 379 the lily is again used as on the Edinburgh font, and though the a.d. and the date are a somewhat aggressive size, the design is more satisfying than that of Fig. t,". A most in- teresting feature of both these smaller bowls is in the saucer-shaped top, which is shown placed on the bowl in the case of Fig. t^'j'j, and separatei)' in Fig. 380. With bowls of con- siderable water capacity, such as these, there is a practical difficulty in filling them, and this is often overcome in an odious way by the placing in the font of a small jug and basin, as though the font were a kind of spiritual lavatory. The saucer top is a practical way out of the diffi- culty, as it holds but little water. Dr Yeatman- P)iggs, Bishop of Worcester, was consulted as to the liturgical propriety of the saucer, and he agreed to its use, provided that it were made readily remo\able. The rubric of the Church of England provides, "if the child may well endure it, the priest shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily," and this use obtains in a few^ parishes. Were the saucer top fixed to the bowl this would be impossible ; by its being- made loose the font is suitable for both immersion and sprinkling. Mr Arthur Grove modelled the font shown in Fig. 381 to the design of Mr H. Wilson, and it was cast by Mr Dodds for St Mark's Church, Brithdir, Wales. The decoration is of that soft and sim]:)le kind so entirely suitable to leadwork, and the broad horizontal margin round the top of the bowl emphasises a heavy material. It is a most admirable thino. Fic. j8i. — Font at Britlidir. Rain water Pipe heads. The rexived interest in the use ot with some rather evil inlluences. lead for pipe-heads and gutters has had to struggle Fig. 382. — Intermediate Head instead of Swan-neck. Fig. 383. — Welbeck Abbey. '~''' n ifc r'^ i i ii Si.. ^ W <«. <^ V %><%.' Fk;. 384. — Designed by Mr Arthur Grove. ^^ 7*- s lie,. ;Sv - Charwclton Church. 226 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 389. — Manchester Cathedral. Since the end of the eij^hteenth century, when the traditional treatments of lead died out, cast iron has held almost undisputed sway. It is true that the conditions of modern building usually put lead pipes and heads out of the question on the simple score of cost. Moreover, cast iron, if reasonably heavy, is a quite satisfactory material ; it only becomes MODERN LEADWORK. 227 ridiculous when historical leadwork is used as a slavish basis for its design. There is, haij])ily, a growing perception that cast iron has a, character of its own, and that it can be treated to look like itself. When, however, lead as a decorative material was rediscovered, the ideas of leadwork design were quite incoherent. Some astonishing results followed, notably the transfer to leadwork of the sense of sharpness, which is proper to iron, but eneath the rope-niouldiny- give an agree- able spottiness, and the increased projection of the left-hand end and its funnel outlet preserve the character of pipe-head. Long heads are apt to degenerate into simple gutters, and so lose their character. At Charwelton Church, the late Mr Chris- topher Carter designed an admirable system ot water leadwork (Fig. 385). The parapet gutter guides all the water from the low-pitched roof to the break over the trough gutter, which in turn discharges into a funnel-shaped pipe-head. The stone corbels on which the trough rests give an easy sense of stability. The pierced valance which hangs from the lead parapet is in pleasing^ alignment with the trough, and reverts (no doubt unconsciously) to an early Aberdeen use of such decorative lead valances. The arrangement is altogether well conceived, and the ornament thoroughly suited to the material, and yet modern in feeling. The two heads of Figs. 386 and 387 tend more to the feeling of historical leadwork. Mr F. S. Chesterton would seem to have studied the Knole heads in deciding on a turreted type, as Mr Lutyens has done in some of his leadwork. In one detail Mr Chesterton is deliohtfully archaic, but with entire success. Hardened students of leadwork may be excused if they get a shade weary at times of rope mouldings. The horizontal bands in this case are of lead strip, twisted and soldered on. In this they recall a Romano-British coffin at York, a far cry for a precedent. The head of l-'ig. 387 is on the coloured house in Addison Road, designed b\' Mr Halsey Ricardo, and is vigorously coloured and gilt. The shaped outline of the back continued below the box of the head is unusual. The ears of the old heads have generally .square outlines. The shaping, however, is a legitimate oppor- tunity for variety. Messrs Wimperis «& Best have Fic. 393.— Designed by Mr F. W. 'I'loup. (Ml 111 -i Fig. 394. — Horslcy Hall. Fig. 395. MODF.RX LEADWORK. 229 succeeded (in the head of Fii;-. 388) in a desi^m showing- some originality of form without any ill-treatment of the material, by no means an easy task. The moulding of the top is gay without being trivial. This head is from the works of Messrs .Singer of Frome. The majority of such modern pipe-heads as are designed and made on right lines, are built up of cast sheet metal. Messrs Singer use both this method, which is simple plumbing, and also bo.x jjatterns such as are employed by ironfounders. There is much to be said for the latter method, particularly where several heads are to be made of one design and size, but it is an objection that l^papg^^^^ ^ro>=;->c-~g?;a^ _^ the surface of the lead is always a sand '^ B^ "' ' 1j|r surface. The method of building up from " ^" " T cast sheets gives the alternatives of using jii a either the sand surface or the coolingf surface. U M «^i Fig. 396. — By Mr Bankart. Fig. 397. — Piscina Outlet. Furthermore, with bo.x patterns there is more temptation to depart from a natural treat- ment of the metal, and indeed entirely to forget it. Of the many heads made l)y Mr Bankart, illustrated in Figs. 389 to 392 and 396, it may be said that they show originality, while they preserve the right traditional feeling. Fig. 389 is one of a series fixed at Manchester Cathedral. The lily, .St George and the Dragon, and the fieur-de-lis are the chief tinned ornaments, and are appropriate enough, for the cathedral is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, St George, and St Denys. The .St George ornament needs special comment. It is almost pictorial, and though there is ample historical authority for masks and small figures in cast relief, I know of no similar use of tinning for figure work. The treatment is, however, purely con\entional, and seems perfectly justified. The long plain funnel of Fig. 390 is a happy example of the pipe-head reduced to its simplest and most practical form. The fioral ornament redeems it from baldness, and the head is a pleasant change from the sometimes distorted and troubled outlines which derive from wild searches after originality. The character of the flower ornament is sound. .Some of Mr Bankart's early work showed an undue delicacy in its surface ornament, and suggested embroidery rather than leadwork, but his later work is ma.sculine and unaffected. The head of Fig. 392 is good, but the " embroidery" Fig. 398. — Lead (Uutcr. 230 ENGLISH LEADWORK. criticism may be levelled against it to a small extent. The surface decoration of the pipe is attractive. The barber's pole and chevron decorations of the head of Fig. 391 are done in bright tinning, and the design generally is simple and appropriate. It is based on the turreted fancies of the seventeenth century, but with enough difference to make the feeling frankly modern. The shaping of the top edge gives it an architectural character, yet without affectation. The early seventeenth centur\ insj)ired the example of Fig. 396, and the decoration is simple and appropriate. The head of Fig. 393, designed by Mr F. W. Troup, and made by the late Mr Dodds, has good simple outlines, and the pierced ornament is unaffected and pleasant. Messrs Georae Wraoore Ltd. have carried out man\' important pipe-heads to the designs of various architects. The example of Fig. 394 was made for the restoration ol Horsley Hall, Hexham, to the design of the architect, Mr G. H. Kitchen. It is a sober thing, in strict subordination, as heads should always be, to its architectural surroundings. The head of Fig. 395, also made by Messrs Wragge, is one of the simple sort welcome on any building, and markedly Fi( 399- -Desitrned bv Mr Ernest Newton. Fig. 400. — A Garden Tank, by Mr Bankart. better than a head full of design, unless the design is restrained and appropriate. The gutter of Fig. 398, made by Messrs Henry Hope & Co., has decoration of an excellent simplicity. Earlier than pipe-heads were gargoyles, and on Hardwick Hall is an example, which has been copied by Mr Bankart for another purpose (P'ig. 397). It is fixed on an external church wall to discharge water from a piscina into an earth drain, an open-air arrangement which .seems open to some liturgical objection. The same treatment of bulging and piercing appears on the stem of a pewter sepulchral chalice of the thirteenth century, which is in the possession of the .Society of Antiquaries. MODERN LEADWORK. 231 Cisterns. Leaving rain-water heads for cisterns, one welcomes the many admirable things which ha\'e been done for the beautifying of formal gardens. Figs. 402 and 403 show examples based on the traditional lines of dividing the surface into small compartments, and putting Fig. 402. ■ Noah's Ark " Cisterns. Fig. 403. a little ornament in each. They are decorated with the same subject, Noah's Ark, and show the widely differing treatments which can be employed with propriety in such work. In Fig. 402 the models are of the simplest. The wooden creatures of the child's Noah's .Ark were impressed in the sand, and show the grain of the wood quite unaffectedly. In Fig. 403 the animals, Noah, and his ark are freshly and vivaciously modelled, and the camel swings after the hasty elephant in most convincing fashion. The donkey is peculiarly delightful, and the creatures altogether are very engaging. 232 ENGLISH LKADWORK. Decorative humour is ordinarily a dangerous trade, but here it is successful. Both these cisterns were made by Mr Dodds, as also that of Fig. 399, a dignified design by Mr Ernest Newton. In the old cisterns the varieties of shape were few. They Fii;. 405. — Leaded Bridge by Mr J. Starkie Gardner. were circular and segmental, rectangular or regularly polygonal. Irregular plans add interest, however, and a moderate divergence from the more obvious shapes is a .safe departure from traditional methods. The frieze of the cistern of Fig. 399 is pleasantly formal, but has a slight sense of sharpness not cjuite satisfactory. MODERN LEADWORK. The disposition of the bands of ornament on the tank of F'v^. 401 is unusual and attractive. The height of the tub made orioinally by Mr Bankart for his own garden (Fit;-. 400) is a notable feature. There is no old cistern of any- thing like these propor- tions ; that at Lincoln Cathedral is the nearest to it. The bunches of flowers and the little creatures — a newly- hatched chicken, a squirrel, &c. — are appro- priate garden decora- tion. The informality of the thing is a feature that one likes, as a change, in a craft which usually relies for safety ona stiff conventionality. Larger Con- structional Uses. When one turns to spires there is little to record. Many modern leaded spires have been built, and some spirelets of a very elaborate char- acter, e.o-., by Street on the Law Courts, but traditional methods have been closely followed in most cases. The spires of Gothic style have generally been built without large spirelights, the absence of which is characteristic of the Fig. 406. — Die Bleiern Kirche, Strelsau. (Sir Charles Nicholson, inv. et del.') 234 ENGLISPi LEADWORK. Fig. 407. — Redcourt, Haslemt're. mediaival examples. It was, perhaps, Sir Gilbert Scott's failure to grasp this outstanding character of the great early leaded spires that accounts for the unloveliness of the leaded spire he built on St Nicholas, Lynn. It consists of a lower, straight-sided, octagonal stage, with great mullioned windows on four faces and broaches on the other four, and for the upper stage, an ordinary octagonal spire. The broach is one of the earliest, as the big spirelight is one of the latest features in the development of leaded spires, and the attempt to merge conflicting traditions breeds a sense of anachronism as well as ugliness. Fig. 408. — Insurance Building, Pall Mall. MODERN LEADWORK. 235 Somethino- by way of constructive suggestion for the future may perhaps be made. Mr Lethaby when dealing with lead as a roofing material points out that metal architecture was in early days the architecture of the poets. That is hardly its character to-day. It is unquestionable, however, that much thought has been given to the use of iron con- struction, if hajjlv it might be made as beautiful as it is often useful. Critics of architecture have laid down with dogmatic impressiveness that, concealed in the womb of time, there must be an adequate steel architecture which shall be a;sthetically satisfying, but its arrival lingers. The illustrations of Chapter V. .show how beautiful lead spires can be and are. They certainly held a high place in the affections of the mediaeval architect. The lead gave him no trouble ; he gained infinite variety of surface by different arrangements of the rolls ; he outlined great cartoons on the faces of his .spires (as at Chalons-sur-Marne), and Ijlazoned them with gold and colours; he wanted the metal-cased architecture of the poets, and he got it ; his diffi- culty was that he could not keep it. His timber framing was in danger of fire from above and fire from below. Lightning conductors have minimised if they have not rendered impossible the former disaster, but there is always the danger to a timber spire from fire arising in the belfry stage or in the l)ody of the church. There is, however, a sound alternative. Spires can be built in steel and sheathed in lead, and will defy the flames. Here there is room for effort, and the possibility of notable achievement. The has but to carry itself Here Fig. 409. — Sandroyd .School, Col)hani. construction should present no difficulties. The spire is a field, not unimportant even if it be small, where steelwork mav come into its own ; may come faithfully and gracefully ; may be the metal bones of a metal architecture. It preserves the initial idea of a spire that it is a glorified roof; and the lead surface gives opportunities for colour treatment that a stone spire cannot g-ive. Had the mediaeval architect found the material to his hand, it seems reasonable to suppose that we should be pointing to-day to his leaded steel spires as notable examples of the Gothic spirit. Fig. 406 shows a design for a leaded steel tower which .Sir Charles Nicholson has done to illustrate this suggestion, and it will not be attributed to the author's friendship if this Bleiern Kirche is described as being instinct with the poetry and mystery which are the characteristics of great architecture. It may be hoped that some ecclesiastical Maecenas will be found, for whom can be materialised this dream church encrowned with lead. So far it has only been liuilt in .Strelsau, and 236 KXGI.ISH I.i:.\D\VORK. its date is February 1906. Strelsau is little visited by architectural tourists, but when it is visited the natives speak of the Prisoner of Zenda. People have gibed, and justly, at the papering of steel skeletons with stone, of which the Tower Bridge is one of the most dismal examples. Had the bridge Ijeen treated as was the litde leaded bridge over Northumberland Street, Strand (Fig. 405), what a magnifi- cent and honest structure it would have been! Mr .Starkie Gardner, who built this bridge connecting the Grand Hotel with its anne.xe, for Mr William Woodward, has pleaded the merits of this admirable fireproof construction tor streets of shops. The fronts could then be almost entirely ot lead and glass, but so sane and practical a method of building presupposes a drastic modification of the building by-laws. The large flat surfaces which are the natural outcome of ferro-concrete construction also lend themselves to decora- tive treatment with lead panelling. One modern use of lead for covering buildings has so little root in the past that it may be regarded almost as an invention, viz., the sheeting of brickwork. Mr Ernest Newton has been active in this, and his happ\- example has been somewhat widely followed. Wm ^H^ The charm and Aalue of Mr Newton's handling of the lead sheetiny at Martin's Bank, Bromlev, and at Red- court, Haslemere (Fig. 407), are greatly increased by the skill with which he has brought this unusual treatment into relation with the normal uses of lead for gutters, heads, and down-pipes. Particularly is this the case at Haslemere, where the sheetino- of the circular bav beneath the gutter has an effect entirely natural and even inevitable. The decorations on tlie gutters are of that simple unaffected sort which accords best with any extensive use of lead. One is ordinarily a little tired of heart-shaped orna- ment, but it should be remembered that Mr Newton was employing it before the dreary vagaries of New Art had made this natural outline wearisome. The heart outline was, moreover, consistently favoured by plumbers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and may be regarded as traditional in leadvvork. The work was done by Messrs Wenham & Waters. The main ornament on the Haslemere bay has been vigorously coloured. Mr Xewton has employed the quite straightforward medium ot oil paint, and has therein departed from the older method of transparent colours. The objection to oil paint is that it veils the texture of the metal. Perhaps a better way is to have transparent colours, such as madders, ground in a wax medium and painted direct on the lead, the whole being afterwards treated with parchment size. Brilliance Fig. 410. — .\t W estniinster Cathedral. MODERN LEADWURK. 237 is increased if the lead be tinned or gilt before the colour is applied, and initial oiklino- will add to the effect, even if the colour to be used is solid— t'.^^., vermilion. For any Fig. 411.— The Dragon of Wales, Cardiff Law Courts. colour treatment e.xcept gilding, which is always .satisfactory, a reasonably clean country air is needful ; in a smoky town the colour, however applied, will mock the effort in a few month.s. 2^8 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 412. — Piitti Upholding Globe. factory. P^or such work the milled sheet lead of commerce is a hopeless, textureless, pasty material to be avoided. Cast sheet should always be used. Amongst the larger e.xterior uses of lead may be mentioned some of the late Mr Bentley's work. He was an enthusiast in Icadwork, and as far back as the sixties built the little chapel of the Convent of the Nuns of the Perpetual Adoration at Taunton. The fleche is surmounted by a leaden figure of an angel in the manner of the great French roof- builders, but the fieche itself is shingled instead of Mr Guy P)awber has heavily gilt the delightful leaded parapets to the bays of his Insurance Build- ing in Pall Mall (Fig. 408), and the brilliance of the interlaced orna- ment is of very happy effect. Here the lead is fixed on a concrete backing 4 in. thick. This work was done by Mr Bankart, as was also that at Sandroyd School, Cobham (Fig. 409). An added delicacy is given by the slight pierced valance on the other side of the gutter. This piercing is taken up on a more elaborate scale for the rain-water head adjoining. In the ordinary way the restrained use of ornament, such as the latter example indicates, is the best treat- ment, but the general richness of detail of the Pall Mall building demanded a greater elaboraticMT, and the result is eminently satis- Fin. 413. MODERN LEADWORK. being leaded. The pipe- Heads and roof-work at Westminster Cathedral, executed by Messrs Matthew Hall & Co., are full of interest. The dome of the campanile is a most refined piece of leadwork design, and the headcross on the choir roof (Fig. 410) repays study. There is a lead spire- let on the church at Wat ford which Mr Bentley designed, slender, and in delightful contrast to the massive flinty tower. Figures. When we turn to lead figures, their principal use Fii;. 414. — Finial on Summer House. in modern work has been in gardens, but the biggest decorative work in cast lead ever done in this country is the great dragon on the New Law Courts at Cardiff It is 8 feet high and weighs 4 tons. The model was made in clay by Mr H. C. Fehr for Messrs Lanchester & Rickards, and the plaster cast of this model was used by Messrs .Singer of Frome as a pattern for reproduction in lead. It was cast in ten pieces and soldered together. It is a lively piece of modelling and a bold essay in mas- sive heraldry. It seems, however, rather too lively Fig. 415. — .\t Barnet Court. Fir,. 416. — .\t Ikirnet Court. 240 ENGLISH LKADWORK. Fic;. 417. By the Bromsgrove (iuild. Fig. 418. for so grave and admirable a building, and one could wish that the national aspirations of the Principality had been satisfied by some less disturbing presentment of the Dragon of Wales. As to the fitness of casting such a detail in lead, there is, however, no doubt. The character of the subject forbids stone, bronze would be a wastefully costly material for work so far removed from close view, and the architects are to be congratulated on reviving a good tradition by employing lead. A trio of putli upholding a burden is an old enough, but always attractive device. The group shown in Fig. 412 has strong characteristics. It was designed and executed MODERN LEADWORK. 241 by the Bromsgrove Guild from rough sketch suggestions made l)y Mr J. J. Burnet, architect. A pleasant feature of the scheme is the encircling of the openwork globe by a band decorated with the signs of the zodiac. These, and indeed all the details, are freshly and agreeably modelled, and with the softness appropriate to lead work. The Bromsgrove Guild was also employed for the two t delightful figures at Barnet Court (Mr Arnold Mitchell, architect) shown in Figs. 415 and 416, and for the angel for a lych-gate (Mr W. E. Webb, architect) of Fig. 420. The little people at Barnet Court are tenderly done. The sportsman with his acute hound is evidently bent on \er\ moderate bloodshed, while his little sister is actively concerned for the com- fort of her frog. They are both admir- able, and look the better for being in their brick niches. The British climate is more appro- priate for draped figures, such as those at Barnet Court, than for the nude, like the Bromsgrove Guild's statue, shown in Fig. 417. It may be doubted whether the posed arm is a wise feature in a lead statue, as it is apt to become the "crooked billet" of Lord Burlington's criticism, but the figure is a charming conception, and on a sunny day would be an exquisite touch of life in a garden. One can imagine it posed in the midst of an ornamental water, surrounded by some such watery figures as the boy riding the sea-horse (Fig. 413). This is a peculiarly happy piece of modelling, also by the Bromsgrove Guild. It is as impossible as it is unwise to make rules, but in a general way it may be said that nude figures for the garden are better used in connection with ornamental waters. These Bromsgrove figures seem to owe something to F'rench in- fluence, and a very proper influence it is, when it is remembered how much the Idea of formal gardens owes to the great F'rench gardeners of the past. The cupid of the heavy legs (Fig. 414) is a pleasant archer, though he looks rather middle-aged. He serves as a finial on a reed-thatched summer-house at Fig. 419. — Terminal- " Pan " for Ardross Castle. Fig. 420. — Angel on I.ych Gate. 242 ENGLISH LEAUWORK. Kinfauns Castle, Perth, and was made by Mr Charles Hcnshaw of Edin- burgh for Mr I"". W. Deas. tW'hen all is said, there is no figure more absolutely appropriate to the garden than Pan, and the terminal figure at Ardross Castle (Fig. 419) is a worthy successor to the Pan at Glemham Hall, if it lacks the fine dignity of the Castle Hill bust. It is a far cry from the Piping God to the Lady of the Lych Gate (Fig. 420), which is hardly so successful as the garden figures from the Bromsgrove studios. Perhaps it is a fad to cavil at lady-like angels, but if the unseen ministers are to be represented as markedly of one sex or the other, there .seems more justification for a male tendency. It must be admitted, though, that the artist in this case is on the side of the big battalions, as the modellers and limners of angels are, for artistic purposes, almost uni- versally feminist. P^igures of this type are peculiarly suited to lead, as there are no outstretched arms to run the risk of damage or collapse. Mr Arthur T. Bolton has made very effective use of leadwork at the new Hamburg- America Steamship Offices in Pall Mall (Fig. 421). P~<)r the covering of the dome and obelisk sheet-lead, cast in sand, 7 to 8 lbs. per foot, has been used, and this part of the work has been done by Messrs Dent & Hellyer. The smaller gussets between the main ribs are in one piece, and in the larger gussets there is a central welt uniting two sheets. The welt is recessed at the back of the big Fk;. 421. — Hamburg-America Steamship Offices. boss, which is of beech, with the lead sheet beaten over it. dome and the boss is wiped. The base of the obelisk is a large collar wrought in one piece. This required very careful work in contracting the lead to form the neck between the circular flange bossed over the ribs and the square base of the obelisk. There is one vertical seam only to the obelisk, and the raised bands cover the horizontal joints. The vane is in cast bronze. The Tritons were modelled by Mr W. lie |() int between the l''ii;. 422. — Ingram House, Stockwel AIODERX LEADWORK. 243 Fig. 423. — The Mermaid's Fountain. Fagan, and cast in lead by Siynor Petretti. The whole composition is successful. There is enough life in the Tritons to make them interesting, but the\- are sufficiently subordinated to the whole to prevent any sense of restlessness. The figure of Apollo at Ingram T^ouse, Stockwell (Fig. 422), is another excursion into architectural leadwork by Mr Bolton. The sun-god and his attendant eagle and owl are cast in one piece, which measures about 6 feet in width, a considerable casting. It is stiffened at the back by iron bars, which are sunk partly in the lead and partly in a cement backing. The nimbus was cast separately, and its rays were ridged to secure the needed stiffness. Fountains. Among many charming modern garden ornaments there are none more attractive than those modelled by Lady Chance. Neptune's Horse (Fig. 424) spouts water from the mouth, and has been successfully used in touiitain composition. The Dolphin (Fig. 425) also emphasises the water note in gardens. Mr Bankart made the fountain of Fig. 427, very pleasant work, which now stands in the middle of a fine octagonal lead tank. Its design was obviously greatly intluenced Fig. 424. — Neptune's Horse. 244 ENGLISH LKADWORK. Fig. 425. — For an Italian Garden. bv the Dutch example in the South Kensington Museum. Oi quite another character is the very fine fountain modelled for Mr John Belcher, R.A, by Mr Alfred Drury, A. R.A. (Fiu". 426). The strong model- ling- of the pnili, and the fat. easy lines of the bowl are entirely admirable. In all that concerns Fig. 426. — Lead Fountain, by Mr Drury. :\IODERN LEADWORK. 245 the leadwork of the narden, the activities ol the artists who compose the Broinsi;rove Guild have been various and honourable, and their fountains are not the least pleasant of their output. For a garden in the West of Scotland the Guild made to Mr R. S. Lorimer's design the charming mermaid fountain of Fig. 423. This lady of the waters is grasping an unwilling fish, and the modelling is full of vigorous erace. We have the same motive of the fish in the attracti\'e fountain nf Fig. 41S, p. 240, also made Ijy the Guild. Cupid holds his dolphin, ready to spout into the vase, and his pose is lively without being unrestrained. Vases, Sundials, &c. For garden vases no material ecjuals lead, for stone and terra-cotta are markedly perishable. The example of Fig. 429 was designed by Messrs Wimperis & Best ; that of Fig. 428 bv Mr John Belcher, R.A. Both were cast by Messrs .Singer & Son. The former owes some- thing in idea to the pair of magnificent vases at Hampton Court Palace, where nude female figures form the handles, l)ut the design of the vase itself is (|uite different. The treatment errs perhaps rather on the side of sharpness, I'lG. 428. — Flower Pot at Instow Park. Fig. 427. — Fountain hy Mr Dankart. but it is a successful composi- tion. The squatness of Mr lielcher's vase is peculiarly appropriate to the material, and seems to demand growing- plants. The Bromsgrove Guild has made vases of many diversified types, as is shown by Figs. 430 to 432. The 246 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fig. 429. — Designed by Messrs Wimperis &: Best. Fii;. 430. — A Simple Design. Fig. 431. Vases by the Bromsgrove Guild. Fig. 432. MODERN LEADWORK. 247 Fk;. 433.— By .Mr A. 15. Laidlcr. first is \'ery simple, with hokl mouldings. The second seems to err on the side of too naturalistic a treatment of foliage, but the third (Fig. 432), with its little cable-moulded l)anels, is quite delightful, and is as perfect an ornament for a modern garden as the severer example of Fig. 430 would be if added to an old garden of the eighteenth century. Professor Lethaby has been so often quoted in these pages that it is a particular pleasure to illustrate the very attractive and rightly treated pot of Fig. 436. The fiower-pot of Fig. 433 is illustrated, not for any beauty or fitness of design, but rather as a technical totir de force. No part ot it is cast. It is entirely beaten up, and, with the exception of the horns, out of a single sheet of lo-lb. lead, 6 feet 6 inches by 6 feet 6 inches. There are eighteenth-century vases with the same ram's horn treatment. The maker, Mr A. B. Laidler, is a capable worker in cast lead as well as wrought, Init it is refreshing to find technical skill in the working of sheet lead put to some other uses than mere sanitary plumbing. He has since done work of more artistic value, e.g., the memorial tablet of Fig. 441, and the sundial of Fig. 434, designed by Mr D. W. Kennedy. It is a pleasant ex- ample of the simplest and cheapest treatment proving effective. The pillar of the dial consists merely of four lead pipes with bead and reel mouldings in the hollows between. The top is decorated with Old Time and his scythe, the hour-glass, and cherubs' heads. It is altogether a masculine bit of work. The art of modern leadwork owes a great debt to Mr F. W. Troup, and his own designs . always strike the right note. The sundial of Figs. 435 and 437 is a pleasant object, suitably decorated, and the blank clock-face of Fig. 439, is an example of an unusual but entirely suitable use of lead. Messrs Henry Hope & Sons have recently made a clock dial with cable edging, which is simple and successful. Fig. 434.— Inexpensive Sundial in Lead. The sundial of Fig. 440, by Mr James 348 ENGLISH LEADWORK. Fu.. 435. — Face of Sundial Illustrated Below. Fig. 436. — Pot designed by Professor W. R. Lethaby. Fig. 437. — Sundial with Tinned Face. Fig. 43S. — Gas Fitting, with Ornaments of Lead Parcel Gilt. MODERN LP:ADW0RK. 249 Fig. 439. — Blank Clock Face. Fig. 440. — Sundial with Jasper Discs. Cromar Watt, is like goldsmith's work in lari^'e. He ha.s called in aid di.scs of jasper, dull red and greyish- yreen alternately, and the ornament is a good deal relieved by gilding. The whole effect is rich and interesting. Unusual amongst ecclesiastical leadwork are the gas standards desicrned bv Sir Charles Nicholson for the Catholic Apostolic Church, Gordon Square, W.C. Messrs avoid a stall. In the beautiful little chapel of All Saints', Belclare, County Mayo, is the lead memorial tablet of Fig. 441. Some parts of the background are painted a strong bli Lockerbie & Wilkin- son, of Tipton, made them (Fig. 438). The whole of the work, except the piping and sta)s, is in cast lead parcel gilt. P'or bowls such as that from which the burners issue, cast lead seems as reason- able a material as re- pousse brass or copper (which are ordinarily used for such work), for these latter, when pierced, have a thin and papery look. The unusual bend- ing of the standard is a practical device to lSCZi>; • CUORYOFCOD IN h ARTHUR MA' •THE BELOVED* OF Henry DSfi Mar.yChristinaLivin6! 1:ieuTI!:b*T.''ConnaughtI? whOhavimg passed UNJ THROUGH ALL THE ra THE War IN South A WAS Billed wHiLSTHu' NEARM jLLINtAI*-J5_S ACEp2§'- s* Fig. 441.— At All Saints', Belclare. and the lettering" and ornaments are gilt. The tablet has a quiet charm which has dis- tinguished few me- morials of the war. Sir Charles Nicholson was architect for chapel and tablet, and the latter was modelled and cast to his design by Mr Laidler. A FIRST ATTEMPT AT A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PUBLICATIONS RELATIXC; TO THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LEADWORK BOOKS AND ARTICLES IN TRANSACTIONS OF SOCIETIES, &C. SOURCES OF LEAD, ROMAN PIGS, &C. THE EARLY METALLURGY OF SILVER AND LEAD : PART 1. LEAD. By William Gow- land. Archicologia, vol. Ivii. .\ valuable and learned paper. Describes early pro- cesses and development of smelting. Illustrates many Roman pigs, and a few early objects, cofHns, &c. SOME RO^L\^IO-RRITISH SOURCES OF LEAD. By Charles Perks. Birm. and Mid. hist., xiii. I-I2. RELICS OF EXU.MER.\TIOX OF HLOCKS OR PIGS OF LEAD AND TIN DISCOVERED IN GREAT BRITAIN. Hy Albert Way. Arc/t. Jour., .\vi. 22- 40. NOTICES OF ROMAN PIGS OF LEAD FOUND AT BRISTOL, AND OF METALLURGICAL RELICS IN CORNWALL, IN OTHER PARTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, AND ALSO ON THE CONTINENT. 15y .Albert Way. Arch. Jour., .\xiii. 2y;-Z()0. PIGS OF LEAD OF THE ROMAN PERIOD IN BRITAIN. By J. D. Leader. Brit. Arch. Assoc. Jour., N.S., iv. 267-271. RO.MAN PIGS. By J. Roach Smith. Collectanea Antiqua, vol. iii. ON ROMAN INSCRIBED IN BRITAIN. By Assoc. PIGS OF LEAD FOUND W. de Gray Birch. Jour., N.S., iv. 272- Brit. Arch. 275. ACCOUNT OF TWO PIGS OF LEAD FOUND NEAR RII'I.EV, WITH THIS INSCRIPTION ON THEM : "imp. CAES. DOMITIANO AUG. COS." By Rev. Sam. Kirkshaw. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, xli. 560. REMARKS ON AN ANCIENT PIG OF LEAD LATELY DISCOVERED IN DERBYSHIRE. By Rev. Samuel Pegge. Arch., v. 369-378. DESCRIPTION OF A SECOND ROMAN PIG OF LEAD FOUND IN DERBYSHIRE; NOW IN POSSES- SION OF MR ADAM WOLLEY, OF M.\TLOCK, IN THAT COUNTY, WITH REMARKS. By Rev. Samuel Pegge. Arch., vii. 170-174. DESCRIPTION OF ANOTHER ROMAN PIG OF LEAD FOUND IN DERBYSHIRE. By Rev. Samuel Pegge. Arch., ix. 45-48. ON THE DISCOVERY OF A ROMAN PIG OF LEAD FOUND ON MATLOCK MOOR, DERBYSHIRE. By Rev. J. C. Cox; and ON ITS INSCRIP- TION, by F. J. Haverfield. Proc. Soc. Antiq., 2nd S., xv. 185-189. THE ROMAN NAME OF .MATLOCK, WITH SO.MK NOTES ON THE ANCIENT LEAD MINES AND THEIR RELICS IN DERBYSHIRE. By W. de Gray Birch. Brit. Arch. Assoc, N.S., vi. 33-46, 1 13-122. ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF WIRKSWORTH AND ITS LEAD MINI.NG. By William Webb, M.D. Jour. Derbyshire Arclucol. and N. H. Soc, vol. vii., p. 63. Illustrates two pigs. Gives references to working in Romano-British and Sa\on times and later. Wirks- worth provided the lead coffin in .\.i:). 714, for the body of St Guthlac of Croyland. Illustrates dish for measuring lead ore. ON THE DISCOVERY OF A FOURTH INSCRIBED PU; OF ROMAN LEAD IN DERBYSHIRE. By the Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.U. ; Prof. F. Haverfield, P\.S..A. ; and Prof. Hubner. The Antiquary, vol. xxix., 218-223. Gives illuslr.itions of pig found and of two otiiers. LEAD MINING. VICTORIA COUNTY HISTORIES OF ENGLAND : VOL. II., DERBYSHIRE, pp. 323-349. By Mrs J. H. Lander and C. H. Vellacott. .\ full history of the most important industry of Derby- shire in bye.gone days. It deals fully with all evidences firom early docinnents as to the customs and regulations of mining. BIBLIOGRAPHY THE TRAFFIC BETWEEN DEVA AND THE COAST OF NORTH WALES IN ROMAN TIMES. 15y George W. Shrubsole. CltesUr and North Wales ArJt. and Hist. Soc, vol. i. (N.S.;. illustrations of three pigs. THE ROMAN PIGS OF LEAD DISCOVERED NEAR CHESTER. By Rev. Rupert H. .Morris. Chester Arch, and Hist. Soc., X.S., Iv. 68-79- PIG OF LEAD IN CHESTER MUSEU.M. By Egerton Phillimore, M..\. Arch. Cain- brensis., 5th S., viii. 137. THE CHESTER PIGS OF LEAD. By Professor J. Rhys. Arch. Cambrensis, 5th S., ix. 165- 166. THE ROMAN PIGS OF LEAD DISCOVERED NEAR CHESTER. With a Letter by Professor John Rhys of Oxford, jour. Cluster Arch, and Hist. .Soc, N.S-, iv. 68-79. EARLY LEAD MINERS F.ROUGHT FROM THE HIGH PEAK TO WORK IN FLINTSHIRE. By Henry Taylor. Chester and X. Wales Arch, and Hist. Soc, X.S., viii. 112-114. Notes on an entry in the Patent Roll of 4 Richard 1 1. INCIDENTS IN THE BUILDING TRADES OF LONDON IN THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. By W. Culling Gaze. Builders' Journal, 26th June 1907. Included are some interesting records of medineval plumbers. ON THE PRICE OF LEAD IN THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII. (ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS). By W. H. Black. Jour. Arch. Assoc, vii. 304-306. .\ fother equalled igi cwt. Lead cost a halfpenny per lb. ON LEADVVORK GENERALLY. LEADWORK OLD AND ORNAMENTAL AND FOR THE MOST PART ENGLISH. By \V. R. Lethaby. With 76 illustrations, 8 in. by 5 in., pp. 148. Macmillan & Co., 1893. This altogether admirable little book, often quoted in the preceding pages, did more than anything to revive interest in the art of leadwork. LE.\D\V0RK. By W. R. Lethaby. -A. paper read before the .Society of Arts, and printed in their/o«r;w/of 9th .^pril 1897. .\ footnote to Mr Lethabv's book. 0RN.4MENTAL LEADWORK. W. Burges. The Ecclesiologist, December 1856. This admirable paper has been used largely by .\lr Lethaby in his book, but as it deals chiefly with French work it has been little drawn upon for the purposes of this volume, LEADWORK. By F. W. Troup, F.R.I.B..A.. Jour. Roy. Inst. Brit. Architects, 3rd .S., vol. xiii., No. 10. Chiefly practical notes on working in lead. ORNA.MENTAL LEAD AND LEAD-CASTING. By F. W. Troup, F.R.I.B.A. Jour. Roy. Inst. Brit. Architects, 3rd .S., vol. vii., No. 13- A full review of methods and processes, with long quotations from Burges, \'iollet-le-Dnc, and Felibien. EXTERNAL LEADWORK. By F. W. Troup. -A Chapter in The Arts connected with Build- ing. Published by B. T. Batsford, 1909. LEADWORK, ANCIENT AND MODERN. By Charles Hadfield, F.R.LB..\. A lecture before the Sheffield Art Crafts Guild. The British Architect, 1904. Deals with leadwork generally, and prints extracts from buiiding-roU of \'ork Minster dealing with plumb- ing work. ENGLISH ORN.VMENTAL LEADrt'ORK. By J. Lewis Andre. Arch. Jour., ■sXv. 109-119. This paper ranges over the whole subject. THE REVIVAL OF THE HANDICRAFTS: LEAD- WORKING. By J. Starkie Gardner. The Magazine oj Art, ?vlay 1900. -A general article with illustrations of the Melbourne leadwork, ot ventilating quarries, and of a modern dragon in lead on a wrought-iron terrace screen. LEAD ARCHITECTURE. By J. Starkie Gardner. Jour. R.I.B.A., xi. 141-157. An excellent paper followed bv an interesting discus- sion. It deals largely with the historical evidence for the larger architectural uses of lead. OLD LEADWORK IN EXETER AND THE NEIGH- BOURHOOD. By Harbottle Reed. Exeter Diocesan Arch, and Arch. Soc, 3rd S., i. 165-172. Deals with general leadwork with special reference to pipe-heads. Some fine gutters on houses now demolished are illustrated. ON DERBYSHIRE PLUMBERY ; OR WORKINGS IN LEAD. By J. Charles Cox, LL.D. Derbyshire Arch, atid N.H. Soc, vol. ix. \ good general review of the county leadwork. List of fonts incorrect. Illustration of very early gutter at Derby. OF GARDEN ORNAMENT : THE USE OF LE.\DWORK IN GARDENS. Anonymous. Country Life, 15th July 1899. Illustrations include the '' Cain and .-Vbel," a fox with fowl in his mouth, a sportsman le\elling a gun, and two of the vases at the Villa at Chiswick. OF LEADEN GARGOYLES, M.\GDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD. By Richard Davey. Country Life, 27th October 1900. If the gargoyles illustrated were not luiquestionably of stone this article would be of value. .\s things are, however, the comparison with the Xotre Dame stone gargoyles and the regret that Victor Hugo never "be- held the leaden gargoyles of Maudlm '' fail to impress. OF GARDEN ORNAMENT : LEADWORK AS GARDEN DECOR.\T10N. By Richard Davey. Country Life, 14th .April, 28th .April 1900. In addition to several photographs of the Melbourne leadwork are "The Rape of the Sabines " at Painshill, the vases at Drayton House, a " Faun ' at Peover Hall, and " Flora '' at Drayton. FORMAL GARDENS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND. By Inigo Triggs. Published by B. T. Bats- ford. Leadwork illustrated includes the following : — Longford Castle: "Flora." by Sir Henry Cheere, in garden temple. Bclcombe Brook : " Perseus " in garden temple (not the same as at Melbourne). Stoneleigh .\bbev : vases on gate piers. Rousham: "Bacchus." Canon's .Ashby ; "Shepherd" playing flute. Nun Moncton : statues. Wilton House : amorini. Chiswick House ; two vases. Knfield Old Park : vase. Pens- hurst : \ase. Iford Manor: vase. Victoria and .\lbert Museum and ICnfield : Cisterns. Drayton House, Northants ; four vases. .\lso other objects not noted above as they are illus- trated in foregoing chapters. IMRLIOGRAPHY. !53 THE llKCORATIVE TREATMENT OK MKTAl. IX ARCHITECTL'KE. By George H. Birch. Society of Arts, Cantor Lecture, April 18S3. Contains an eloquent plea for leadwork and a number of references to examples. Also states that the statue of Shakespeare on tlu- porch of Drurv I^ane Theatre is of lead. FOXTS. OBSERVATIONS ON FONTS. By Richard (Jough, Dir.S.A., 1789. Archceologia, vol. x. 183- 209. This appears to he the first reference to lead fonts, (lough mentions four only — Brookland, Dorchester, Wareham. and Walnisford. The last is not of lead now, but [lerhaps since 1789 the font Gough refers to has been destroyed. The Brookland font Gough attributes to the time of Hirinus. .As he died in 650 .\.D. we must reject this date. .•\shover is mentioned as having lead figures on a stone font. LEADEN FONTS. Alfred C. Fryer, I'h.D., F.S.A. Arch. Jour., Ivii. 40-51. .\\\ altogether adniir.d}le and e.\haustive paper which has been drawn upon freely ni the foregoing chapter on fonts. NOTES ON FONTS, .\lfred C. Fryer, Ph.D., F.S.A. Arch. Jour., vol. Ixiii., No. 250, 97-105. On Penn, Grealham, and Fiurghill fonts, and the vessels at Gloucester, Maidstone, and Lewes all described ante. BROOKLAND, KENT, DESCRIPTIO.X OF CURIOUS LEADEN FONT IN THE CHURCH OF. Arch. Jour., \'\. 159-164. SOME OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEADEN FONT OF BROOKLAND CHURCH, ROMNEV MARSH. By Herbert L. Smith. Arch. Cant., iv. 87- 96. THE LEADEN FONT .AT BROOKLAND. By Rev. Grevile M. Livett. Arch. Cantiana, xxvii. 255-261. LEADEN VESSEL, PKOBABLV THE LINING OF A FONT NOW AT GREATHAM. By R. Garraway Rice. Proc. Soc. Antig., 2nd S., xviii. 294-303. Dealt with in ''Fonts'" chapter. .Mr (iarraway Rice rejects idea of the \'essel being a font in fa\our of theory that it is a lining. AN ANCIENT LEAD COFFER FOUND AT WILL- iNt;DON. By M. .A. Lower. Suss. Arch. Coll., i. 160. The object now in Lewes Castle, dealt with in chapter on Fonts. It was found in a cutting in 1847. This paper claims it as .\nglo-Saxon of tenth ceruur\ . FONTS AND FONT COVERS. By Francis Bond. 1908. Henry Frowde, Oxford L'niversity Press. This admirable book illustrates fourteen of the lead fonts, and the classification follows that of the present author. SEPULCHRAL LEADWORK. REMARKS ON THE ORNAMENT.\TION OF ROMAN COFFINS WITH ESCALLOP SHELLS. By Henry Charles Coote. Land, niid Afulill. Arch. Soc, ii. 268. Escallops symbolise the sacrifice made In tile mit/ics of the buried. This paper also gives an account of two lead Ronian cofhns found at East Hani. RO.MAN LEAD COFFIN DISCOVERED .AT CANTER- BURY. By Charles Roach Smith. Arch. Cant., xiv. 35, 36. Roman : the coffin had two diagonal lines of cord moulding on the top, with well-nindelled rose at inter- section and four simpler circular ornaments half-way between intersection and cortiers. LEADEN COFFIN, RHVDDGAER. By W. Wynn Williams. Arch. Camb., 4th S., ix. 136-140. Remains of a Ronian coffin. Has lettering C.AMVLO- RIS HOI cast in relief; lettering is nio.st unusual on coffins, indeed this is perhaps a uniijue e.xample. NOTES ON SOME LEADEN COFFINS DISCOVERED .AT COLCHESTER. By Charles Roach Smith. Brit. Arch. Assoc, ii. 297-303. Roman -. ornaments were bead and reel rods, escallops and rings. C. R. S. also gives sketch of coffin found in 1794, with attractive design of escallops and rope moulding. ROMAN LEADEN COFFINS DISCOVERED AT COLCHESTER. By Henry Laver. Essex Arch. Soc, N.S., iii. 273-277. Roman 1 beaded rim and beaded crosses ; a queer 2-inch pipe issued from lid above where face of corpse would be. .Also child's coffin with beaded crosses. LEAD COFFIN FOUND IN THE MINORIES, 1853. By J. Y. Akerman. Proc. Soc. Antiq. First Series, iii. 17. Romano-British with escallops and beaded rods. Xow in British Museum. NOTICE OF A LEADEN COFFIN, OF EARLY FABRIC, DISCOVERED AT BOW. By Charles Roach Smith. Arch., xxxi. 308-311. Ronian ; with cable moulding. COLLECTANEA ANTIQUA. By J. Roach Smith. For Ronian Coffins and Ossuaries, see vols. iii. and vii. Some subjects ilealt with in the Collectanea are re- statements of finds that had already been described in Archaeological Proceedings. ROMAN COFFINS OF LEAD FROM BEX HILL, MILTON, NEXT SITTINGBOURNE. By George Payne. Arch. Cant., ix. 164-173. Roman : three found. One is in Maidstone Museum, with crosses of bead and reel rods and Medusa heads ; another had, in addition, lions, jug-like ornaments, and a sword blade. The lions are unique as coffin ornaments. Note infrequency of use of escallops on Kentish Roman coffins. ROMAN LEADEN COFFINS AND OTHER INTER- MENTS DISCOVERED NEAR SITTING- BOURNE, KENT. By George Payne. Arch. Cant., xvi. 9- 1 1 . Roman : rope moulding, rings, o.ven yokes. .A lead ossuary was found near by. ROMAN LEADEN COFFIN DISCOVERED .AT PLU.M- STEAD. By George Payne. Arch. Cant., xvii. lo-i I. Roman : bead and reel ornament all round the lid near the edge. LEAD COFFIN FOUND AT CHATHAM. By George Payne. Proc. Soc. Antiq., vii. 415. Romano-British : escallops and billet ornaments. ROMAN COFFIN OF LEAD AT CHATHAM. By .1. A. Arnold. Arch. Cant., xii. 430-431. Found between Crayford and Bexley. Roman ; beaded ornament on seams and escallop shells. !54 BIBLIOGRArilV NOTICE OF A LEADKN COFFIN DISCOVKRED AT HEIGHAM. By Robert F'itch. Xorfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc, vi. 213-216. Unornamented; probably Konian. THE DISCOVERY OF LEADEN COFFINS IN LEICESTER. By G. C. Bellairs. Leicester Architect and Arch. Soc, iv. 246-249. Roman: three, one with shght striated pattern, two without ornament. DISCOVERV OF A ROMAN I.KADEN COFFIN NEAR BISHOPSTOKE, HANT.s. By Francis Joseph Baigent. /'roc. Soc. Antig., 2nd S., ii. 327- 329- Devoid of ornament. WEEVER's "FUNERAL MONUMENTS." Ed. 163I, p. 30. Reference to Roman coffin of about 239 A.i)., with escallop shell ornaments — found at .Stepney. ACCOUNT OF A LEADEN COFFIN TAKEN OUT OF A ROMAN BURYING- PLACE NEAR YORK. By Ralph Thoresby. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, xxiv. 1 864- 1 865. A ROMAN COFFIN FOUND AT BRAINTREE. By G. F. Beaumont. Essex- Arch. Soc, vii. 401-402. SOMERSETSHIRE ROMAN LEAD COFFINS. NoteS by H. St George Gray. Somerset and Dorset Notes and Queries, vol. ix. 8, 58, 230. .\t Taunton Castle Musemn is a small piece of a coffin. with plaited-uork design, found near llchester. Lead coffins are scarce in Somersetshire. LEAD COFFIN AND TWO OSSUARIES FOUND AT ENFIELD. By R. A. Smith. Proc. Soc. Antiq., xix. 206. Romano-British : coffin has rope mouldings in saltire and star arrangements with scallop shells. Ossuaries plain. See for notes on inhumation and urn burials. .\CCOUNT OF TWO LEADEN CHESTS, CONTAIN- ING THE BONES, AND INSCRIBED WITH THE NAMES, OF WILLIAM DE WARREN AND HIS WIFE GUNDRAD, FOUNDERS OF LEWES PRIORY, SUSSEX, DISCOVERED IN OCTOBER 1845, WITHIN THE PRIORY PRE- CINCT. By W. H. JMaauvv. Arch., xxxi. 438-442. Blaauw suggests that the bodies were put into the lead coffins about sixty years after Gundrada and William died (1085 and 1088 respectively), making date of coffins about 1 150. ON THE DISCOVERY OF THE REMAINS OF WILLIAM DE WARENNE AND HIS WIFE GUNDRAD.\, AT LEWES. By C. L. Prince. Sussex Arch. Colt., xl. 170-172. THE ANCIENT STONE AND LEADEN COFFINS, &C., IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH. By Edward Richardson. Published 1845. Deals fully with the medi;i;val lead coffins and illus- trates them. Richardson attributes them to the beginning of the thirteenth century. DISCOVERY OF STONE COFFINS, LEADEN SEPUL- CHRAL CHEST, SKELETONS, AND INCISED SLAB OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY AT DRAYTON. By J. Wodderspoon. Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc, -Ml- The "leaden chest" described was. in fact, a lead shell enwrapping the body like an Kgyptian mummy case, which was placed inside a stone or wood coffin, or buried without. EFFIGY OF KINf; RICHARD, CCEUR DE LION, IN THE CATHEDRAL AT ROUEN. By Albert Way. .-Ircha-ologia, xxix. 202-216. In addition to the effigy the lead heart casket is de- scribed. It consisted of two bo.\es one within the other. The lettering engraved inside the inner box has been re- protlucetl by Mr Lethaby in Leadwork. The heart was found " withered to the semblance of a faded leaf." The lead casket was enclosed in a sumptuous gold and silver casket, which was sold towards the ransom ot St Louis in 1250. ST EANSWITH'S RELIQUARY IN FOLKESTONE CHURCH. By W. A. Scott Robertson. Arch. Cant., xvi. 322-326. This is illustrated and described in "Cisterns" chapter. W, .\. S. R. gives details of its finding. LEAD RELIQUARY OF ST WITA AT WHITE- CHURCH CANONICORUM. By C. Druitt. With early thirteenth-century inscription, otherwise plain. LEAD COFFINS .\T WEST THURROCK CHURCH, ESSEX. The Antiquary, 1906, p. 326. Thirteen were foimd of mmnmv case shape, one being dated 1607. WOOLLEN CAP AND SHROUD DISCOVERED IN A LEAD COFFIN AT WINDSOR. By Charles H. Read. Proc. Soc. Antig., xvii. 225-228. The "lead" interest here is that Mr Gowland notes that the first record of rolled lead in England is in 1670, when a company was formed for its manufacture. The coffin was of rolled lead and of about 1670. LEAD COFFIN REMOVED FROM ST MILDRED'S, BRE.\D STREFH". The Antiquary, 1906, p. 402. Of Sir Nicholas Crispe, 1665. Of mummy case shape, " with the form of the body, head, and neck roughly followed — the arms crossed in half relief, the nose repre- sented by a sharply-cut and raised triangle, the eyes, brows, and \vide smiling lips liy incised lines." OBSERVATIONS ON THE MONUMENT IN CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL CALLED THE TOMB OF THEOBALD, AND AN ACCOUNT OF TWO ANCIENT INSCRIPTIONS ON LEAD DISCOVERED IN CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL. By Henry Boys. Arch., xv. 291-299. The inscription on lead sheet found in the lead coffin of .\rchbishop Theobald, the immediate predecessor of St Thomas k Hecket, is in a good Roman lettering. LEAD LETTERING IN GRAVE SLAB. By C. Hodgson Fowler. Proc. Soc. Antiq., xii. 4 1 1. Date about 1300. Camden's Britannia. Folio, vol. i., p. 59, edition 1789. .An illustration is given of the inscribed lead cross which was reputed to ha\-e been found in Arthur's {atso reputed) grave at Glastonbury. LEADEN BOX AND CROSSES FROM RICHMOND. By Ed. Charlton. Arch. .-Eliana, N..S., ii. 46-50. Hox contained earth and four rude crucifixes in lead. Origin, date, and purpose doubtful. notes upon the DISCOVERY OF A NUMBER OF LEADEN GRAVE CROSSES NEAR THE GREY friars' M0N.\STERY, NEWGATE STREET, LONDON. By F. G. Hilton Price. Proc. Sac. Antiq., N.S., xxi. 12-20. F-ighty-nine were found varying in length from 6i to 2^ in. long, without ornament, and very roiighlv cut out of sheet lead with a chisel ami then roughly hammered. They are absolution crosses, and were doubtless made in a great hurry to bury on the bodies of the friars who died during the Hlack Death. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 255 OBSERVATIONS ON CERTAIN SEPULCHRAL USAGES OF EARLY TIMES. By \V. M. Wylie. Archceologia, vol. x.\xv. Deals with absolution crosses found near Dieppe. 'I'hey were rudely cut out of sheet lead. Long absolu- tions were scratched on. The crosses were laid on the breast of the buried. There are interesting references to Abelard and Heloise and to similar crosses found at Lincoln and Chichester, and illustrations. SEPULTURES CHRETIENNES DE LA PERIODS ANGLO - NORMANDE, &C. By L'.A^bbe Cochet. Arclucologia^ vol. xxxvi. 258-266, and xxxvii. 37-38. These two papers deal with the same subject of lead absolution crosses as Wylie's paper, but more fully. LEAD CROSSES FOUND AT BURY ST EDMUNDS. By Samuel Tymnis. Proc. Soc. Antig., iii. 165-167. Three absolution crosses, two inscribed. A LEADEN CROSS FOUND AT BURY ST EDMUNDS, &c. By Edmund Waterton. Proc. Soc. Antig., 2nd S., ii. 301. .\n absolution cross, inscribed, and a lead matrix of a seal. Aken Proc. A LEAD CROSS. By J. V. Soc. Antig., iv. 212-213. .\n absolution cross inscribed, also bearing date 1136. EXCAVATIONS .\T ST AUSTIN'S ABBEY, CANTER- BURY. By W. H. St John Hope. Arch. Cantiana, xxv. 237. Mr Hope here illustrates and describes a lead memorial plate and an absolution cross. AN INSCRIBED LEADEN GRAVE CROSS FOUND AT SOUTHAMPTON. By W. Dale. Proc. Soc. Antig., 2nd S., xx. 169. Found at a considerable depth when excavating. It commemorates one LMelina, and is thirteenth century or earlier. On the reverse side is engraved " .\ve Maria . . . mulieribus," Illustrations of both sides given. AN ACCOUNT OF HUMAN BONES FILLED WITH LEAD. By J. Worth. Arch., iv. 69-72. .\n odd account written in 1774 offering no intelligent explanation of a queer find. LE.AD SE.XLS, BULL.E, AND TOKENS. ON ROMAN i.KADEN SEALS. By Charles Roach Smith. Loud, and Middl. Arch. Soc, v. 433 435- ON RO.MAN LEADEN SEALS. By Robert Blair. Arch, .miiina, N..S., viii. 57-59. .\ctually of pewter. Used on strings like papal bullae. LEADEN SLABS FOUND .KT BROUGH CASTLE. By B. Williams. P?-oc. Soc. Antig., First Series, iii. 222. Seals for letters or for marking clothes of Roman soldiers. ON PAPAL BULL.E FOUND IN SUSSEX. By -Ambrose P. Boyson. Sussex Arch. Coll., xlviii. 99-103. The author is particularly indebted to Mr Boyson for kind permission to draw oa this admirable and lucid paper. See ante. ILLUSTR.\TION OF PAIR TONGS WITH DIES FOR FORGING BULL.« OF PIUS I!. Jour. Arch. Assoc, vol. ii. 97. NOTES ON PONTIFICAL BULL.t, WITH REFER- ENCE TO THAT RECENTLY DISCOVERED , IN CHETWODE CHURCHYARD. By E. P. Loftus Brock. Pucks Records, v. 71-73. Of Innocent VI. (1352-1362). ON A LEADEN BULLA FOUND AT WARMINSTER. By Rev. John Baron. Wilts. Arch. Soc, xvii. 44-45. On obverse: " Bonifatius 1'. P. VIH." (date, 1389- 1404). On reverse : SPA (St Paul), SPE (St Peter), and the two heads with beading round each. This is common type of bulla. DISCOVERY OF A LEADEN BULLA AT HAU(;H- MOND ABBEY. By Rev. W. G. D. Fletcher. Shropshire Arch. Soc, 3rd S., i. 283-284. Of Pope Urban VI. (1378-1389). Refer also to Brit. .Mus. Catalogue of Seals, vol. vi., plate vii.. No. 21889. -^'so pp. 286, 287 of same volume. NOTES ON THE LEADEN BULL.« OF THE ROMAN PONTIFFS. By Edmund Bishop. Proc. Soc. Antig., 2nd S., xi. 260-270. .\ learned review of the whole history of papal bullae, with special reference to examples in British Museum. ON A LEADEN SEAL OF HENRY IV., FOUND AT CATCHDURN, NEAR MORPETH. By W. Woodman. Arch. .-Eliana, x. 191-192. The seal of the Chancery of Berwick. PILGRIMS' SIGNS. By Cecil Brent. Arch. Cant., xiii. 1 1 1-115. .\nipull.Te here stated to have contained blood of Thomas k Becket mixed with water. The religious guilds sold the tokens. Paper includes a descriptive schedule of various signs. brent's "CANTERBURY IN THE OLDEN TIME." 2nd edition, p. 51. Moulds for casting lead tokens. NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF PILGRIMS' SIGNS OF THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH CENTURIES. By Rev. T. Hugo. Arch., xxxviii. 128-134. Two good plates illustrating examples are given. r. H. says ampullae were lacrymatories \vide other theories J. Quotes the Colloquy of Erasmus, which crops up in nearly every paper on Pilgrims' Signs. PILGRIMS' SIGNS AND LEADEN TOKENS. By Charles Roach Smith. Brit. Arch. Assoc, i. 200-212. .\mong the signs are described " Vernicles," or like- nesses of our Lord, and the head of St John Baptist. Some such signs were used as "medals of presence" (much as modern factory hands use numbered discs) in great churches by those whose duty it was to attend choir. Tokens were issued by tradesmen for local circulation. NOTES ON PILGRIMS' SIGNS OF THE MIDDLE .\GES, AND A STONK MOULD FOR CASTING LEADEN TOKENS, FOUND AT DUNDRENNAN ABBEY. By Dr Joseph Anderson. Proc. Soc Antig. Scot., xi. 62-80. The custody of the moulds for casting pilgrims' signs was often vested in the sacristan, as at the church of St Mary Magdalen at St M.ixiniin, Provence. The plant at Walsingham greatly mystified one of Thomas Crom- well's Visitors. The Dundrennan mould cast six signs at once, an indication of their extensive use. 2S6 BIBLIOGRAPHY. RKMARKS ON A LEADKN AMPULLA IN THE YORK MUSEU.%L By Charles Baily. Jour. Arch. Assoc, vi. 125-126. Part of the substance of this paper is incorporated in the text, ante. pilgrims' badge. By A. W. Franks. Proc. Soc. Antiq., iii. 242. Of St Thomas of Canterbury. MOULDS FOR CASTING PILGRIMS' SIGNS FOUND AT WALSINGHAM AND LYNN. By Rev. C. R. Manning. Norfolk Arch. Soc, i.\. 20-24. Made of white lias stone. The signs were stars, in- cluding representation of the .Annunciation, &c., and were cast ti\'e in a row. M.VIHRAVAL, .MOULD FOR CASTING TOKENS FOUND .\T. Powysland Club, vi. 217-220. COLLECTION DE PLOMBS HISTORIES, TROUVES DANS LA SEINE. Par .\rthur Forgeais. Paris, 54 Quai des Orfevres (published in 1865). Only the third volume of this monumental work has come into the author's hands. It deals with Imagcrie Rcli^ieitse . and illustrates and identifies a large series of pilgrims' tokens. PiLGRi.Ms' MADGES. By A. W. Franks. Proc. Soc Antiq., iii. 302. Byzantine : very similar to English badges. FORGERIES AND COUNTERFEIT ANTIQUITIES. By T. Sheppard. The Atitiqiiary, vol. xliv. 209. Illustrates several " liillys and Charlies" of the pilgrims' sign variety. LEADEN TOKENS. By Rev. I). H. Haigh. Num. Chron., vi. 82-go. Deals largely with the mock coinage of the F^oy Bishops. LEADEN TOKENS. By G. C. Yates, F.S.A. Trans. Lane, and Chesli. Antiq. Soc, x. IU-121. The use of lead tokens by way of additional coinage of small value arose owing to the small supply of Royal coinage. The practice fiourished despite constant laws and edicts against it. Erasmus notes, in 1499, the " plumbeos .\nglias" then in common circulation. They were used chiefly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and bore generally very rough representations. See Cleveland's Midsummer Moon^ where he writes, "the King's image is sometimes stamped on lead, and nature's mint coynes monsters." CATALOGUE OF LEADEN AND PEWTER TOKENS ISSUED IN IRELAND. By Aquilla Smith. Kilkenny Arch. .Soc, N.S., ii. 215-221. Earliest of 1578, with beautiful cable edging. Majo- rity of end of eighteenth century. Tradesmen's tokens : many illustrated. One Cork example cast in brass mould. COLLECTANEA ANTIQUA. By J. Roach Smith : — Lead Tokens in vols. i. , ii., iv. , vi., vii. ,, Bullae in vol. i. Medals in vol. i. ,, Seals (Roman) in vols. iii. and vi. ,, Lawsuit in 1857, arising out of forgery of Pilgrims' Signs, in vol. v. SUNDRY. LEAD CELT. By C. H. Read. Proc. Soc. Antiq., xvi. 329. .\ mould for bronze celts ; illustrated. LEAD CELT FOUND AT ANWICK. By E. K. Clark. Proc. Soc. Antiq., x.k. 258. Now in Leeds Museum. .Appears to have been an experimental casting used in making of bronze celts. LEAD COIN BROOCH FROM BOXMOOR. By R. A. Smith. Proc. Soc. Antiq., xix. 21 1. ON THE USE OF THE SLING AS A WARLIKE WEAPON AMONG THE ANCIENTS, ACCO.M- PANYING A PRESENT TO THE SOCIETY OF A LEADEN PELLET, OR SLING-BULLET, FOUND LODGED IN THE CYCLOPIAN WALLS OF SAME IN CEPHALONI.A. By Walter Hawkins. Arch., xxxii. 96-107. .\ learned and dreary treatise on sling-bullets. A SLINGER'S leaden BULLET FRO.M NAUPOR- TUS. By J. B. Pearson. The Antiquary, vol. xliv. 69. LEAD LAMP, SAUCEPAN, ETC. By H. M. Scarth. Proc. Soc. Antiq., vi. 190. Romano-British objects found in Somersetshire. ROMAN AND OTHER OBJECTS FROM VARIOUS SITES IN CHESTER. By R. Newstead. Chester and North Wales Arch, and Hist. Soc, vol. viii. (N.S.). lUustralions of Roman water pipes. REMAINS OF LEAD QUADRANGULAR VESSEL. By A. W. Franks. Proc. Soc Antiq., iii. 93. Decorated with scrolls, a human figure and inscription, CVNOBARRVS FECIT VIVAS. ON A ROMAN P.ATELLA AND A LEADEN VESSEL FOUND IN REDESDALE. By T. Stephens. Berwickshire A'at. Club, xi. 128-130. ON A LE.ADEN MEDALLION OF DIOCLETIAN AND MAXIMIA.N. By Mdme. La Saussaye. Num. Chron., N.S., iii. 107-111. Trial piece of a medallion evidently intended to be struck in a precious metal. NOTES ON FOUR LEADEN WEIGHTS, OF SUPPOSED ROMAN ORIGIN, IN THE GROSVENOR MUSEUM, CHESTER. By Thomas May. Chester and A'. Wales Arch, and Hist. .Soc, N.S., ix. 129-131. SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON TWO PIECES OF LEAD WITH ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS UPON THEM, FOUND SEVERAL YEARS SINCE IN YORKSHIRE. By John Ward. Phi/. Trans. Roy. Soc, xlix. 686-700. LEAD OBJECTS FROM THE SEINE. By A. W. Franks. Proc. Soc. Antiq., iv. 75. I''ace of a Gaul and kneeling female figure. METALLIC ORNAMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS TO LEATHER. By Rev. A. Hume. Lane. and Chesh. Hist. Soc, N.S., ii. 129-166. Some lead tags or pendants attached to ends of straps are illustrated. NOTICE OF SO.ME REMARKABLE INSCRIPTIONS ON LEAVES OF LEAD, PRESERVED IN THE MS. DEPARTMENT OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. By W. de Gray Birch. Arch., .xliv. 123-136. The inscriptions are in Greek and Latin, and of doubt- ful dale from the eighth to thirteenth centuries. LEAD AS A COVERING FOR SAXON CHURCHES. J. Park Harrison. Arch. Oxon., part 4. ]^I15L10GRAPHY. 257 THE INSCRIBED LEADEN TAliI.ET FOUND AT BATH. By VV. de Cray Birch. Jour. Arch. Assoc, xlii. 410-412. Roman : attributed to between second and fifth centuries .\. D. See text of book. ON A LEADEN TABLET OR BOOK COVER, WITH AN ANGLO-.SAXON INSCRIPTION. By Thomas Wright. Arch., xxxiv. 438-440. The lettering is an inscription by way of preface to the manuscript of ,\lfric's homilies which the cover originally encased. Date probably about A. d. iooo. DECOR.VTED LOZENGli OK LEAD. liy -Albert Way. Proc. Soc. An fig., v. 475. Anglo-Saxon : a curious object, use conjectural : illustrated. LEAD MATRIX FOR IMPRESSINC CONSKCR.ATED WAFER. By W. D. Bruce. Froc. Soc. Antiq., First Series, i. 179. Unfortunately merely noted, not illustrated. COLLECTANEA ANTIQUA. By J. Roach Smith. Lead cover of box or cup, decorated with the Visit of the Magi, ^c. , found in Thames in 1846, vol. i. Lead cover of Reliquary found in the Sonime, vol. ii. LEADEN VESSEL, POSSIBLY A CHRISMATORY, FOUND AT EVESHAM. By J. A. Johnes. Proc. Soc. Antiq., First Series, ii. 186. .\n illustration is given ; vessel much damaged. Ornament apparently represents murder of St Thomas a Becket. LEAD WEIGHTS OF THE FOURTEENTH CEN- TURY. By C. V. Colher. Proc. Soc. Antiq., XX. 13. LEAD HER.ALUIC PLAQUE. By Archdeacon Pownall. Proc. Soc. Antiq., xi. 112. (ierman ; a fine decorative work : illustrated. THE PARISH AND CHURCH OF GODALMING. By S. Welman. Published 1900 by Elliot Stock. Mr Welman conjectures that in the luuiteenth C-'nlury the present spire was built, replacing a collar-type spire of about 1220. His examination of the evidence afforded by the existing timbers led him to believe that originally the spire was parapetted, and that the broaches were added about 1716, and are therefore comparatively modern. The fact (referred to ante in the text) that the lead does not "drip" the wall, gives colour to this theory, which need not, however, be too readily accepted. I do not regard it as proven. — L. W. -ANNALS OF WINDSOR. Tighe and Davis. 165-166. Extracts from building accounts dealing with the great lead fountain that stood once at Windsor Castle in the U pper Court. ON A FILTERING CISTERN OF THE FOUR- TEENTH CENTURY AT WEST.MINSTER ! ABBEY. By J. T. Micklethwaite, F.S..\. ArcluTologia, Hii. 161-170. The cistern was of lead, but was havocked in 1544. and it does not appear that it had any decorative character. ON ANCIENT .MOULDS FOR CASTING METAL HORN BOOKS FOR CHILDREN. By Sir George Musgrave. Arch., xxxiv. 449-450. Moulds made of hone-stone for lead casting. A LEADEN CHARM MADE UNDER THE IN- FLUENCE OF SATURN. By E. J. Pilcher. Bibl. Arch. Soc, xxviii. 284-285. Disc 2J in. in diameter, incised with symbols of Saturn. If engraved under an unlucky aspect of the planet the charm would inevitably cause the ruin of buildings. A SIXTEENTH CENTURY LEADEN CHARM FOUND AT LINCOLN'S INN. W. Paley Baildon. Proc. Soc. Antiq., 2nd S., xviii. 141-147- See text of book. INSCRIBED LEADEN TABLET FOUND AT DV.MOCK, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. By E. S. Hartland. Reliquary, 1897, 140. -An imprecation on one Sarah Ellis. There is also described a similar plate from Gatherley Moor. LEAD INKPOT FRO-M WILSFORD. By J. E. Nightingale. Pruc. Soc. Antiq., xiii. 240. Illustrated. ON A LEADEN TOBACCO STOPPER FOUND AT CASTLE EDEN. By R. M. Middleton, jun. Arch. ^Eliana, N.S., vol. x. Of the seventeenth century. Shaped like a Runic cross with an included ring. Foot of cross used for pressing the tobacco into the pipe. Other examples in Guildhall Museum. THREE LEAD TICKETS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By F. Willson Yeates. Num. Chron., 4th S., ii. 74-77. .Admission Tickets — 1. Of 1732 for the Glasgow As.sembhes (public dances). 2. Of 1772 for the Pantheon Ciardens in Spa Field, Clerkenwell. 3. Of 1773-1774 for Co.x s Museum. Mote. — There have been omitted from the above bibliography the titles and details of over forty con- tributions to various magazines from 1905 to 1909, by the .Author of this book, as all that seemed likely to be of permanent interest has been incorporated in the fore- going pages. INDEX. Note. — In this Index the ordinary figures are for references to the Text, and those in lieavier type denote Illustrations, which are referred to under their figure numbers. Only the siib-hvadings of the Bibliography have been indexed, as detailed references would have swollen this fndex to univieldy dimensions. Abbot's Hospital, Guildford, pipe-heads, 39, 69 73, 78, 45 ; turret, 132 Aberdeen — King's Collesie, fleche, 127, 128, 222, 134 Pipe-heads, 23, 63, 121, 123 Robert Gordon's College, spire, 12S, 223 .St Machar's spire, 100 St Nicholas, panel on roof, 99, 177 ; spire, 86, 9-4, 175. 96, 97 Scotston House, mask, 142, 237 Spires on seal of, 96, 176 Tolbooth, spire, 129, 224 University, lead roof, 127 Mew of, Slezer's, 100, 181 .•\hingdon, Christ's Hospital, lantern, 133, 227 Absolution crosses, 210 and Bibliography Actieon, statue, 1 74 .\dam enrichment, 64 ; on vase, 201, 329. 218 .•\dam, Robert, work at Syon, 175 Adams, Maurice B., quoted, 143 .'Vddison Road, pipe-head, 387, 22S ..-Eneas rescuing Anchises, 166, 269 African Slave, see Kneeling Slai'e Aislaby Hall, statues, 191 Albert Gate, Stags at, 175, 287 .-Mdenham House, statue of Slave at, 162 .Almondsbury, spire, 86, 161, 90, 93 Amorini, 162 et seq., 252-259, 270, 271, 282, 294, 301, 413, 414, 418 Ampull.e, 213, 358360 Amsterdam Museum, statue at, 184, 304 Andre, J. Lewis, quoted, 222 Andromeda at Melbourne, 164, 261 Angel, statue on lychgate, 242, 420 : statue at Taunton, 238 Angels, making of statues of, 173 Anglo-Saxon patterns, 6 Anne, Queen, statue, 153 Annual Register, 7%^, quoted, 172 " Antique " leadwork, 181 Apollo, statue, 172, 191, 422, 243 Aprons, lead, 34, 36, 58 Archer's leadwork, 141 Architectural Museum, the, 59 .\rley, statue of Slave at, 162 A>-t Nouveau, 6, 31, 236 Ash, Kent, spirelet, 87, 197, 1 10 Ashover, font, 3, 9, 9 Aston Ingham, font, 3, 25, 20 Astrcea at Bungay, 197 Austrian Eagle on cistern, 85 Avebury, font, 3 Avington House, statues at, 190 Ayscoughfee Hall, cistern, 71, 133 B Bacchanal, 194 Bacchus at Enfield Old Park, 317, 196 Baildon, \V. Paley, F.S..\., quoted, 218 Bakers' Company, cistern, 80 Bankart, Geo. P., 22, 224 et seq. Barnard's Inn, lantern, 134, 228 Barnet Court, modern statues, 415. 416, 241 Barnetby-le-Wold, font, 3, 9, 23, 19 Barnstaple, gutter, 108, 58 : spire. 86, 171, 93 Barry, Sir Charles, 119 Bays sheeted with lead, 236 Bedford Row, cistern, 154, 84 Belcher, John, R..\., 244, 245 Belgian pipe-head, 24 Bell-metal, 16 Benedictional of Ethelwood, 96 Bentley, the late Francis, 2 38 Bicton, Budleigh, statues at, 171, 278, 279 26o INDEX. Bideford, pipe-head, 57, 106 Biel House, Cow at, 1 79, 292 ; Gamekeeper ;it, i 7y, 291 " Billy and Charley," forgeries by, 2 1 5 Bird, Francis, statue by, 153, 175 Birmingham, St Philip's, dome, 234, 141 Blackamoor, The, 161, 250, 318, 195 ; see also Kitee/ini^ Slave Blenheim, statue oi Marlborough at, 152 Blomfield, Reginald, A.R.A., quoted, 25, 41, 120, iSo Bloxham Hall, statue once at, 179 Boar, at Myddelton House, 194, 315 Bodleian Library, pipe-head, 40 Bologna, Giovanni de, 165 Bolton Hall, pipe-heads, &c., 30, 52, 9699, 134. 71 Bolton, Arthur T., designs by, 242, 421. 422 Bond, Francis, quoted, 86, 96, 216 Book cover, of lead, 2 1 6 Bordier, 147 Boston, pipe-head, 58, 107 Boundary marks, 221 Bovey Tracey, cistern, 67, 73, 141, 75 Bowles, Henry, leadwork belonging to, 195 Boy with Dog, at Rousham, 180 Brakespear, Harold, F.S.A., quoted, 217 Bramford, spirelet, no Bramhall, pipe-head and gutter, 36, 62-64 Brandon, spitelet, no Brattishing, 39 Braunton, spire, 86, 166, 90, 93 Brewers' Company, cistern, 78 Bridge, leaded, 405, 236 Bridge House, Weybridge, statues, 172 Bristol, statue at, 157, 248 Brithdir, modern font at, 224, 381 British Museum, objects in, 66, 125, 207211,354, 213, 219 Broach spires, 86 et seq., 234 Bromley, Martin's Bank, leadwork at, 236 Brompton Oratory, leaded dome, 1 36 Bromsgrove Cuild, leadwork by. Chapter X HI. passim Bronze statues compared with lead, 164 Brookland, font, 3, 10-12, 9-12 Brundall, font, 3, 17, 16 B//eea>/eer atalue, 171, 277 Bucklebury, pipe-heads liuni, I02 104, 55 Builder, The, quoted, 67 Bulla;, Papal, 215, 364, and Bibliography Bungay, Market Cross, ig6 Burford Church, lead tablet, 21 1 Burgos, 23 Burghill, font, 3, 5, 7 Burlingham pulpit, lead ornaments, 216 Burlington, Lord, quoted, 173, 196, 241 Burlington \'illa, leadwork af, 166, 175, 196, 199 ISurnham Deepdale, font, 12 llurton Agnes, Gladia/or, 174,280; pipe-head, 28 Hmton, Lancelott, 198 ilLirucl, John, 96, 127 P.ush Hill Park, K>ieeli?ig Slave once at, 195 I'liists, lead, at Castle Hill, 180, 295; at Ham House, 180; at York, 146, 238: in vase, 204, 337 Cain a/id Abel, 166, 263 Cambridge — King's College Chapel, 132 St John's College, pipe-head, 40 Campsey Ash, statues once at, 161 Canaletto, engraving by, 114, 207 Cannon Street Station, 114 Canon's House, Edgware, statues once at, 154, 17: Canons Ashby, pipe-head, 109, IIO, 59 Canterbury Cathedral, gutter, 104; spire, 172, 94 Cardiff, see St Fagan's Cardiff I-aw Courts, The Dragon of Wales, 239, 41 1 Carpenter or Charpentiere, a statuary, i6g, 170, 171 Carshalton Park gates, statues on, 173, 281 Carter, Christopher, design by, 228 Carter, Thomas, of Knightshridge, statuary, 175 Carton pierre, 2 1 8 Caryatides, Park Lane, 197, 323 Cass School, the old, 153, 246 Cass, Sir John, 85, 153, 247 Castings of lead, 41, 53, 173, 229 Castle Hill, busts, 177, 293, 180, 295,; lead seat, 180, 344; statues, 175 et seq., 289, 290, 296299; vases, 205, 340, 341 Catalini, carving by, 174 Ceiling ornaments of lead, 216, 368 Celts, leaden, Bibliographv Ceres, Swaffham, 196, 322 Chalices, sepulchral, 210, 230 Chalons-sur-Marne, spire, 235 Chambers, Sir William, 169, 177 Chance, Lady, modelling by, 243, 424, 425 Chandos, Duke of, employer of van Nost, 171 Chard, pipe-head, 28 Charity, statues, 197 Charity Children, statues, 191 Charles L, bust of, on cistern, 80, 144 Charles H., statue of, 239, 148 Charlton House, Kent, pipe-heads, &c., 46, 83, 88 ; jardiniere, 66, 151, 152, 84 ; vases, 336, 204 Charvvelton Church, modern leadwork at, 385, 228 Cheapside — Cross, 236, 144, 156 Goldsmith's Row, 144, 236 Cheere, John, 160, 175, 188, 189, 190 INDEX. 261 Cheere, Sir Henry, 149, 152, 191 Chelmsford, spirelet, 122 Cherrington, font, 3 Chertsey Abbey, spire, 91 Chest with lead tracery, 216 Chester, pigs of lead, 212, 355, and Bibliography Chesterfield, spire, 87, 93, 101, 194, 106, 108 Chesterton, Frank S., pipe-head designed by, 228, 388 Childrey, font, 3, 13, 20, 16 Child's Bank, cisterns, 144, 145, 80 Chilham, font, 2 Chirton, font, 3 Chiswick — Burlington Villa, 175, 196, 199; &ot.w« statue at, 166 Hogarth's House, vase, 201 Chobham, font, 22 Christ Church, Oxford, Merciny at, j66 Christ's Hospital, pipe-head, 64 Cibber, G. C, sculptor, 158, 193 Cisterns, Chapters I\'. and XHI. "Cit's Country Box," quoted, 191 City of London School, 114 "Clandestine Marriage," quoted, 187 Clarke, Max, cistern, property of, 81, 148 Classifications, cisterns, 65 ; fonts, 3 ; spires, Gothic, 86-87 ; spires, Wren's, 115 Clement's Inn, Slave statue once at, 161 Cleobury Mortimer, shingled spire, 86 Clewer, font, 2 Cliefden, cupola, 141 Clifton Hampden, font, 2 Clunbridge, font, 3 Cluny Museum, 67 Cobham, Sandroyd School, leadwork at, 235, 409 Cockerell, S. P., 142 Cockelresses, 194 Coffin plates, 210, 211 Coffins, Romano-British, 37, 66. and Chapter XI.. 345, 228, and Bibliograpliy Coinage, mock, 214; emergency, 219 Collar-type spires, 86 et seq. Colour of spires, 141 Compton Place, vases, 199, 327 Condover Hall, pipe-head, 40, 116, 63 Constabulary Office, Shrewsbury, |)ipc head, 62, 116 Cotman, 2 Coventry, pipe-heads, lStc, 30, 36, 61, 80, 81, 45. Coiv, at Biel House, 179, 292 Cowdray, engraving of picture at, loi : Slave statue once at, 162 Cowtan &: Son, cistern, 85 Cox, I)r Charles, quoted, 28 Grace Collection, 157 Cresting, lead. 188. 104 Cromwell, Thomas and Oliver, 113 Cross.es, absolution, 210 and Bil'liogi-aphy Cross, on Westminster Cathedral, 239, 410 Cumberland, Duke of. statue of. 152 Cummings, Erskinc, drawing b\, 6] Cunningham, Peter, quoted, 158 Cup, of lead, jewelled, 213 Cupid, 181, 301, 194 ; see also Amoutii Cupid Making his Bo7V, \\"ilton. 169. 271 Cupid on Sivaii, at Rousham, 180, 294 Curse tablets, 218 Custom House, Exeter, pipe-head, 56 Cylinders, pierced, on pipe-heads, 30 Cymbal Player, statue. 172, 289, 177, 180 D Danbury, spire, 100, 180 Dartmouth, St Saviour's, pipe socket with mask, 56 Dawber, Guy, 23S Deanery, Exeter, cistern, 74, 137 Delvaux, Laurent, statuary, 175 Dent & Hellyer, statue belonging to, 198, 324; work by, 242, 421 Deposition from the Cross, on lead vessel, 21, 32 Derby, Mayor's parlour, spouts, 25 Derbyshire, pigs of lead and mining, see Bibliography Devizes, Bear Hotel, gutter, 49 Devonshire House, Piccadilly, sphinxes, 175 ; statues, 320, 196 Diana, statue, 174, 281, 192 Dickenson, a statuary, 169 Dillon, Viscount, statues owned by, 1 70. 273 Ditchley, statues at, 1 70. 273 "Dock" forgeries, 215 Dodds, the late William, 224 et seq. Dogs, 178, 299, 219, 371 Dolphin, 243, 425 Dome Alley, Winchester, pipe-heads, &:c., 34, 58 60 Domes, Chapter ^'II. Donatello, 164 Dorchester, font, 3, 3, 5, 6 Dorney Church, lead plates, 211 Down Hatherley, font, 3, 9, 28, 20 Downing Street, No. 10, cistern, 71, 132 Dragon of IVales, in lead, 239, 411 Drayton House, Samson, statue at, 166 ; vases, 206 Drury, Alfred, .A.R..\., modelling by, 244, 426 Dublin, statues at, 148, 149 Dugdale's Monasticon, reproductions, 163 et seq. Durham Castle, pipe-heads, 28, 37, 49, 50, 92, 95 Durham Cathedral, spires, 10 1, 183 Dutch fountain, 184,304 Dutch ideas in English gardens, 184 Duxford, spirelets, 1 1 2 262 INDEX. Eadberht, Bishop, leadwork liy, 142 Ealing, cistern, 153, 84 East lirinstead, cistern, 156, 85 East Harling, spirelet, 87, no, 200. 201. 112. 122 East Quantock's Head, pipe-head, 49 Edburton, font, 3, 15, 13. 15 Edinburgh — Modern font, 222, 375, 376 St Mary Magdalen, spire, 126, 221 Statue of Charles II. at, 148, 239 Electroty ping statues, 173 Elia, quoted, 84 Elphinstone, Bishop, 100, 127 Ely Cathedral, spire, 101, 182 Enfield Old Park, statues, 189. rgs, 317, 319 ; vase, 206, 342 Erasmus' Pili^rimage, cjuoted, 2 1 3 Eugene, Pnnce, statue, 1 46, 242, 151, 155 Evelyn, John, quoted, 143. 147, 157 Exeter, gutter, 37 ; pipe-heads. 50, 56 ; cisterns, 137. 138, 73 E.Keter Cathedral, cresting. 188, 104 Exton, stone spire, 1 1 1 Eyam Hall, pipe-head, 29 Eythorne, font, 3, 18, 19, 16 Fagan, W., modelling by, 243 Fairfax, Lord, bust of, 146 ct seq., 238 Fame, statues, 170, 171, 273, 274, 192 Fanlights, lead enrichments of, 221 Faun with a Dog, at Studley Royal, 182 Fehr, H. C, dragon modelled by, 239. 411 Felixstowe, lead vessel found at, 22 Finch, H. W., modelling by, 227, 383 Finial, statue as, 414, 241 Fire insurance labels, 221 Fireproof construction, leaded, 236 Fish, decoration on font, 222, 376 Fishmongers' Company, cistern, 143, 80 Fleche, Aberdeen, 127, 222; Law Courts, London, 112, 233 Flora, statue, at Syon House, 175; at Avington House, 190 Flower-pot gate, Hampton C'ourt. 174, 282 Flying Mercury, see Mercury Fodder of lead, 156 Folkestone, St Eanswith's reliquary, 124, 66 Fonts, Chapters I. and XIII., and lUbliograf'in Ford, John, F.S.A., 195, 206 Forged "antique" leadwork, 181 Fountain, once at Windsor, 144 I'^nnilains Abbey, lead oljjects found at, 24 I'ounlains at \'ersailles, 1S5 Fountains, modern, 243, 418, 423 427 Four Seasons, The, on cistern. 85, 159 ; as statues, 1 87, 308; on vase, 199, 325 Fox 'with Foivl, 1 7 9 Frampton Manor, pipe-head, 58. 107 Frampton-on-Severn, font, 3 Freeman, I'rof. E. A , quoted, 94, 104 French cisterns, 67, 135. 73 : roofs, 23 Fryer. Dr Alfred, F.S..-\., 22 and Bibliography — Fonts Furniture, with lead ornament, 216 Gamekeepers, statues, 169, 179, 180, 291 Carden ornaments, Chapters VIII., IX., X., XIII. passim, and Bihliograpliy Garden seat in lead, 180, 344 Gardner, J. Starkie. F.S.A., leadwork by, 236, 405 ; quoted, 25, 143, 221 Gargoyles, 23, 35, 25, 28, 34 Geographical distribution of fonts, 3 ; of spires, 91 George I., statue, 154 George II., monogram of, 49 ; statues of, 149, 153 Gibbons, (Jrinling, 148, 151, 170 Gilding of lead, 40. 44, 144, 145, 190. 216, 221, 228, 23s Gillet, Nicolas Francois, statuary, 18 1 Gladiator, statue, at Burton Agnes, 174, 280 : at Devonshire House, 196 Glazing, uses of lead in, 220 Glemham Hall, statues at, 146, 155. 16 1, 242, 243, 313. 314 Gloucester .Museum, font-like vessel, 32, 21 Godalming, spire, S6, 170, 93, and Bibliography Godinton, statues at, 194 Goldsmith's Row, Cheapside, 236, 144 Gordon's College, .'Xberdeen, spire, 128, 223 Gordon's Vie^v of Aberdeen, 1 2 7 Gosse, Edmund, quoted, 156 Gough, Richard, 194 and Bibliography — Fonts Gough Park, Boars and Ostriches once at, 194 Grave slab, of lead, 2 1 1 Great Baddow, spire, 87, 193, 106 Greatham House, font or font-lining, 3, 30. 20 Great Ormond Street, cistern, 150, 83 Great Plumstead, font, 2, I Great Yarmouth, spire, 113 Gresford, gargoyle, 35, 25 Greyhound. Castle Hill, 178, 298 Grimsthorpe, pipe-head, 64 Grinling Gibbcjns. 148. 151. 170 iM)i:x. 263 Grove, Arthur, font modelled by, 224, 381 ; [npc head designed by, 384, 227 Cuildford, Abbot's Hospital, pipe-heads, 39, 69-73' 78, 45 ; turret, 132 Guildhall Museum, London, 48, So, 85, 2f3, 215, 221 Guy's Cliffe, Slave statue at, 162 H Haddon Hall, pipe-heads, 39-54i -§ ^^ ■*''!/•' 4ii 82, 84-87' 48, 53 Hadleigh, Suffolk, spire, 165, 9<) 93 Hall, Matthew, & Co., leadwork by, 239, 410 Ham House, Petersham, busts at, 180 Hamburg-America Steamship Offices, leadwork at. 242, 421 Hammermen Guild, Edinburgh, 126 Hampton Court, ceiling ornaments, 216, 220, 368: Flower-Pot Gate, 174,282; pipe-heads, 36, 25, 26, 49' 93' 55' statues, 167; turret roof, 132, 134, 229; vases, 202, 333; ventilating quarries at, 221 Hanover Square, No. 20, cistern, 149, 82 Handel, statue of, 149 Hardwick Hall, gargoyle, 25, 230 : statues, 309 312, 1 93 Haresfield, font, 3, i8A, 15 Harlequins, statues, 169 Harrison, J. P., quoted, 143 Harrow, spire, 162, 87, 106 Harrowden Hall, statues at, 1 66, 263, 264 Haslemere, leaded bays at Redcourt, 4071 236 Hassingham, font once at, 2 Hatfield, pipe-heads, 65, 67, 68, 38, 41, 48. 54, loO. 61, 63 Hawthorne's plan of Windsor, 144 Heart caskets, 208, 210, 353, 354 Hemel Hempstead, sjiire, 87, 90, 179, 100 Hems, Harry, cistern belonging to, 74, 138 Henri Quaire, bust, 205 Henry HI., 24 Henry VHI., i Henshaw, Charles, 242 Herbert, (ieorge, 38 Hercules, statue, at Hampton Court, 167 ; at Shrews- bury, 307, 192 : at Winton, 179 Hereford Cathedral, spire, 167. 91 Hexham .\bbey, spire, 88, 164 Hitchin, spirelet, 87, no Hogarth's House, vase, 201 Hoghton Tower, statue at, 146, 241 Holme Lacy, Mercury at, 165 and I'rontispiece Honeysuckle ornament, mediaeval, 2 1 1 Hope, Henry, & Sons, gutter made by, 398. 230 Horham Hall, lantern, 133, 226 Horsley Hall, modern pipe-head, 394, 230 Hovingham Hall, statue at, 166 Hulm Abbey, iii, 202, 121 Husson, Pierre, quoted, 184 Hyde Park Corner, leadyard, 18 I Ickleton, spire, 86, 91, 169, 93 "Imaginations in lead," 169 Imprecations, lead a suitable metal for, 218, 219 Incised and leaded inscriptions, 210 Ingram House, Stockwell, 242, 422 Inner Temple Gardens, statue, 161 Inns of Court, London, pipe-heads, 49 Inscription on Roman pipe, 212, 356 Inscriptions, incised and leaded, 210 and Bibli<);^raphy Instow Park, flower-pot at, 245, 428 Insurance, fire, tablets, 221 Inwood, cistern at, 143 Inwood's use of lead mouldings, 218 Ireland, pipe-heads in, 64 Italian tank, 66, 125 J Jardinieres of lead, 84, 151, 196, 319 Johnston, Philip, F.S.A., find of coffins by, 211 Jointing pipes, Roman methods, 213, 357 Joliffe lamily, 149 Jones, Inigo, 55 Juno, statue, 196 Justice, statue, 149 K Karne, Andrew, statuary, 148, 158 Kelly, William, 63 Kempston Hall, cistern, 70 Kendal, pipe-head, 45, 58 Kennedy, D. W., design by, 247, 434 Kensington, High Street, modern pipe-head, 388, 228 Kent, William, architect, 180 Kettering, stone spire, 94 Kew Gardens, vases, 200 Kinfauns Castle, statue at, 242, 414 King's College, Aberdeen, fleche, 127, 222 King's College, London, pipe-head at, 64, 122 Kip's view of Hampton Court, i 74 Kitchin, G. H., pipe-head designed by, 394, 230 Kneeling Hercules, i 79 Kneeling Slave, itdXne, 161, 173, 182.250,251, 195,318 Knole Park, pipe-heads, 32 et sc,/.. 5557, 38, 41, 53, 54, 61 Knowsley, statue of Slave at, 162 264 INDEX. Lace gateway, Syon, 175 La Granja, fountains, 185 Laidler, A. B., leadwork executed by, 247, 433, 434, 441 Lanchester & Rickards, use of lead by, 239, 411 Langley Marish, pipe-head, 28 Lantern, meaning and use of word, 133 Lanterns, Chapter VIL Lavabo, vessel conjecturally used a-^, 2 i Law Courts, London, flfeche, 112, 233 Lay Vicar's House, Exeter, pipe-head, 56 Leaden Popes, on Cheapside Cross, 156 Leasowes, Shenstone's garden at, 172, 199 Leeds Castle, Kent, bronze bust of Fairfax at 147 Leicester, modern font, 377- 378i --4 Leicester Square, statue once in, 154 Leigh, font once at, 2 Leighton Bromswold, pipe-head, 37, 66 Le Notre, Andre, 186 Leoni, Giacomo, 173 Lethaby, Professor, quoted, 13, 21, 29. 36, 96, 14-', 158, 160, 162, 189, 202, 210, 211, 213, 235; design by, 247, 436 Levens Hall, pipe head, II7, 61 Lewes Castle, font-like vessel at. 33. 2 2 Lilies, decoration on font, 222-224, 376' 379 Lincoln Cathedral, cistern, 67, 130. 131. 70 ; gutter, 25, 189; parapet, 104. 191 ; spires, 102, 185. 104, 190 Lincoln's Inn, cisterns, 66, 147 Lindisfarne, ancient church, leaded, 142 Lions, at Southampton, 174, 286; at Syon House. 175,285 Lion and Lioness, at Castle Hill, 178, 296, 297 Lion and Unicorn, at Hampton Court, 174, 283 284 Leith, St Ninian's, lantern, 126, 220 Lewes Museum, coffins, 211 Llancaut, font, 3, 5 Llanelly, pipe-head, 59 Lloyd, R., "Cit's Country Box," quoted, 191 Lombardic lettering, 20, 24 London Apprentice, statue, 198, 324 Long Sutton, spire, 86, 173, 174, 94, 96 Long Wittenham, font, 3, 13, 12, 13, 208 Lorimer, R. S., 245 Louvre, vase from, copied in lead, 200 Lowestoft, spire, iio Ludlow, pipe-heads, 63 Lydney Park, pipe-head, 1 13, 61 Lynn, St Nicholas, spire, 234 Lyons, Col G. B. Croft, F.S.A., 220 M Magdalen College,Oxford, gargoyles, see Bibliuj^raphy ; pipe-heads, 40 Magic and spells, lead a vehicle for, 21S Maidstone Museum, candlestick at, 372, 220; coffin, 207, 315; font-like vessel, 34, 22; tobacco-box at, 218, 370 Manchester Cathedral, modem pipe-head, 389, 229 Manning, a statuary, 169 Marcus Aurelius, at Wilton, 169 Marlborough, statue of, 146, 243, 151, 155 ALars, statue, 149, 192 Marston Moor, The Red House, statue at, 158, 249 Marton, font, 3 Mary, Queen, 36 Masque of Lovely London, The, 198 iNLisse on Pewter, (juoted, 40 Mastic decoration, 33 May, Hugh, 159 Mayor's Parlour, Derby, gutter, 25 Medallion, lead, 216, 219, 366 Medals, lead, 214 Medici Venus, 178 Melbourne, Derbyshire, leadwork at, 58, \6o et seq., 169, 199, 250-262. 325 Mercer's School, lantern, 134. 228 Mercury, at Holme Lacy, 165 and Frontispiece; at Melbourne, r66, 262; at Oxford, 166; at Rousham, i8o Mermaid's Fountain, 423, 245 Merstham, shingled spire, 88, 93 Military Girl, statue, 171, 276 Milton, statue of, 149 Milton-next-Sittingbourne, coffin found at, 207. 345 Minster, spire, 87, 104, 192, 106 Mitchell, Arnold, use of lead by, 241 Montefiascone, dome, 1 36 Morden College, ownership mark. 221 Moulds, for pilgrims' tokens. 214 Moiver, statue, 169, 171, 278 Much Wenlock, spire, 87, 196, 109 Museum, British, see British Music, statue, 311, 194 Myddelton House, Boar, 315, 104; Ostriches, 316, 194; vases, 200, 201, 328, 329, 343 N Naseby Enamel, the. 147 National Gallery, dome, 141, 235 Neptune, statue, 157, 248, 182, 185, 188 Neptune's Llorse. 243, 424 INDEX. 265 Netherlands, probable influence on Wren's spires, 129 Newhaven, shingled spire, 88, 93 Newport Church, Ess;x, lead ornament on chest, 216 Newton, Ernest, designs by, 399, 407, 232, 236 Nicholson, Sir Charles, designs by, 406, 235, 24S, 438 Niven. William, F.S.A., quoted, 126 Noah's Ark decoration, 231 Nolhac, Pierre de, quoted, 186 Nollekens, Lite of, quoted, 187 Nonesuch Palace, 143 Norden's view of Windsor, 144 Norton Conyers, statue of S/ Slave, statue Sle. 133 Spanish Armada, lead from, 158 Sparta, lead figurines found at, 214 Sphinxes, at Castle Hill, 175, 298; at Chiswick, 175 ; at Devonshire House, 175; at Somerset House, 175 ; at Syon, 175, 288 Spirals, 108, 109 Spire-form steeples, 115 Spirelets, 87 et seq., 239 Spires, Chapters V., VI , and XI 11. Stags, at Albert Gate, 175, 287 Staircase railings, 218, 368 Stanley .Abbey, lead tracery found at, 21S Stanwick, pipe-head, 50 Stars, of lead, on ceilings, 218 Steel construction leaded, 235, 405 Steelyard weights, Roman, 213 Stock patterns, 5, 46 Stokes, Leonard, i \ i Stone, Nicholas and John, 158 .Stonyhurst, pipe-head, 56, 105 Stoup, conjectural, 21, 22, 32 Stow, John, quoted, 102. 126, 156, 157 Straight-sided spires, %i et seq. Straps, of lead, 55 Stratfordon-Avon, spire, once leaded, 113 Strawberry Hill, decoration, 64 Strode, General, 152 Studley Royal, statues at, 166, 182, 303: vases, 204, 334 Sundials, 161, 301, 181, 247, 434, 437, 440 Sussex iron fire-backs, 56, 75 -Swaffham, Butter Cross, 196, 321 ; spirelet, 87, 198, 112, 122 Swanneck, treatment of, 382, 383, 227 Swindon, pipe-head, 28 Swymbridge, spire, 86, 93 Sjea, statue once at Melbourne, 1 66 Sydney, Sir Henry, heart case, 2 1 o, 354 Symbolism, 9, 16, 64, 85, 222-224 Syon House, Lions, Sphinxes, and F/ara, 175,285, 288 Tacca, Pietro, 162 Tangley, font, 3. 26, 27. 20 Tangmere, shingled spire, 88, 93 Taunton, angel on fleche, 238; pipe-heads, 49, 50 Taylor, Andrew T., quoted, 118 Temple Church, coffins, 208, 349-352 Temple Dinsley, Old Time at, 167, 268; vase, 201, 330 Tenterden St., cistern from, 158, 85 Thames, pilgrims' tokens found in, 213 Theobald, coffin jilate of .-Xrchbishop, 210 Thomason " Tracts," quoted, 157 Thoresby's '• Diary," quoted, 147, 170 Thorpe-le-Soken, spirelet, 1 1 3 Tickets, dance, in lead, 216 Tidenhani, font, 3, 6 Time, statue, 167, 268 Tinning of lead, 2,2, 37, 38, 40, 44, 229, 237 Tobacco boxes, 219, 370 ; stopper, 219 Tokens, coinage, 219 and Bibliography Tokens, pilgrims', see Pilgrims Topsham, Stone House, pipe-head, 56 Torrigiano, 23 Torrington, pipe-heads, 50, 91. ill. m Tortington Priory, coffins, 211, 354 a and b Tower Bridge, a lost opportunity, 236 Tower of London, down pipes fixed on, 24 Trinitas, The, depicted on font, 5 Trinity College, Cambridge, fountain, 145 Triton, a Dutch figure, 184, 304 ; at Melbourne, 160 Trophies of Arms, Hampton Court, 174, 283 Troup, F. \V., quoted, 40 ; work designed by, 230 et seq., 393. 437' 439 Turner, J. M. W., quoted, 114 Twopeny, William, 36 u Uffington, gargoyle, 25 University College, London, statues, 190 Upton Court, lead apron, 36 V Valiance, Aymer, F.S.A., cjuoted, 36 Van Nost, statuarie-s, father and son, 148, 154, 160, I 162, 171, 174, 190, 199, 205 268 iMji;.\. V'auxhall Gardens, statue- once at, 149 Venice, dome of Salute Church, 136 Ventilators, lead. 218, 220, 221, 373, 374 Faius, at Castle Hill. 177, 290 Fenus, de Medici, 178 Vernon family. 29, 31 V'errocchio, Andrea del, 162, 164 Versailles, statues at, 185, 186 Vine pattern. 34, 58. 36. 61. 62. 37, 130. 377 \'iollet-le-l)uc, quoted, 24, 40 JO. 74, 224. 1^8 w Waldron, font, 22 Walls, leaded, 142-144 Walpole, Horace, quoted, 147, AN'alsingham, spire, 108 Waltham Cross, vases, 200, 201, 328, 329, 343 Walton-on-the-Hill, font, 3, 7, 7. 9, 13 \\'ansford, font, 3 Warborough, font, 3, 14, 12, 13, 208 \\'areham, font, 3, 8, 9 Warenne, William de, coffin, 208. 348 Warrington, down pipe, 62 Watford Church, spirelet by J. K. Hentley, 239 Wax, lost-wax process, 173 Weald Hall, J^ox at, 179 Webb, W. E., use of lead by, 241 Weights, Roman, 213 and Bibliography Welbeck Abbey, modern pipe-head, 383, 227 Wenden Ambo, spirelet, 87 Wenham & Waters, lead work by, 236, 407 Weybridge, Bridge House, statues, 172 Wheatley, H. B,, F.S.A., quoted, 152 Wickes, quoted, 94, 96, 104 Wickham Market, spire, 87, 195, 108 Wilby, stone spire, 1 1 1 Wilkins, use of lead by, at the National Gallery. 142 William III., statues, 146, 148, 24O, 149. 241, 244. 151 Wilmington, grave slab. 211 Wilson, H,. design by, 224, 381 Wilson, Sir Spencer Maryon. of Eastborne, leadwork in possession of, 84 Wilton House, Amuri/il, 169, 270. 271 ; Mama Aurelius, 169; vases, 338, 339, 205 : ll'oman on Parapet, 169, 272 Wimperis & Best, vase designed by, 245, 429 Wimpole, Charity and Poverty. 197; Samson, 166 Winchester College, pipe-head, 53 ; Dome Alley, pipe-head, 34, 58-60 ; Judge's Lodgings, pipe- head, lOl, 55 Windsor Castle, fountain once at, 144, 145 ; pipe- heads, 37, 38, 26, 34, 44, 53 ; statues once at, 167 ; vases at, 335, 204 Winter, Glemham Hall, 313, 194 Winton Castle, statue at, 179 Wise, Henry, 160 Witney, stone spire, 94 Wollaton Hall, pipe-head, 64 Wolse\'s Closet, Hampton Court, ceiling, Woodchester, lead vessel from, 21, 32 Woolharapton, font, 2 Woolstone, font, 3, 13, 22, 19 Wootton Wawen Hall, vase, 205 Worsted, Ncjrfolk, lead ornament on woodwork, 216 Wragge, George, Ltd., work by, 230, 394. 395 Wren, Sir Christopher. 44, 55, 113. 114 ft sei/., 151) Wrest Park, statues, 146, 151, 244, 166, 265267. 269; vases, 202, 331, 332 Wrestlers, statue, 166, 264, 303, 182 Wychling, font, 3, 21, 18 Varmouth, Great, Charity statues, 197 ; St Nicholas' destroyed spire, r 13 York Minster, Chapter House, 108 York Museum, quarries in, 221, 373 \'ork Philosophical Society, bust of Fairfax at, 146, 238 16, 368 Zodiac, signs of, on font, 9 frinled at ThI-; D.\K1UN I'KESS, Jill in I'll I 'jli n(^ ojou wj/»e L 006 277 46f JBflAHV FACILiri D 000 574 009 7 4