Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || The Evolution of the Office of County Surveyor in Essex, 1700-1816

SAHGB Publications Limited

The Evolution of the Office of County Surveyor in Essex, 1700-1816Author(s): Nancy BriggsSource: Architectural History, Vol. 27, Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies inArchitectural History Presented to Howard Colvin (1984), pp. 297-307Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568472 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 09:36

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.161 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:36:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568472?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


The evolution of the office ofcounty surveyor in Essex,

1700-1816 by NANCY BRIGGS

Writers on the history of local government from Sidney and Beatrice Webb to Esther Moir have commented on the slow rate of appearance of the county surveyor as a salaried officer. Thejustices of the peace only with the greatest reluctance admitted the necessity of appointing a permanent and professional skilled architect or engineer instead of farming outjobs to small local craftsmen.1 Unlike the clerk of the peace, the county surveyor has not hitherto attracted the attention of county or architectural historians. A recent study of bridge-building in Kent by Christopher Chalklin has drawn attention to the factors behind the increasing expenditure on this class of work from the 1770s leading to the employment of a regular surveyor to deal with bridges and county buildings in West Kent from 1796, although a specialist architect, D. A. Alexander, was subsequently employed for major bridges and the County Gaol at Maidstone.2

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Essex justices were responsible for the maintenance of about twenty-five county bridges, with an average total annual expenditure of?3 50.3 On 25 April 1704 Richard Porter, gentleman, was appointed the public surveyor, pursuant to the Statute of Bridges, 153 I, at a salary of?4o per annum; his salary was paid regularly until July I706.4 No successor appears to have been appointed, two justices being ordered at the October sessions to employ workmen to repair Abridge bridge.5 No separate accounts for bridge money have been preserved after 1702, but thejustices evidently found that it was a false economy to dispense with the services of a surveyor. Porter was 'restored' at the sessions held on io April 1711, the 'Court taking Notice of many large Extravagant Bills . .. for Workemen in Repairing Bridges and other Publick Workes and Buildings'. A surveyor was regarded as 'absolutely necessary to take Care thereof and Prevent their Exorbitant Demands'. Porter was to receive his former salary 'for his Extraordinary Pains and good service in saving the County from Excessive unreasonable Bills Charged by Workemen upon the Public Account'.6 At the same sessions, he was ordered to survey High Ongar bridge before the order of 3 May 1709 for its repair was continued.7 After his reappointment, Porter was variously referred to as the County Surveyor or Surveyor of the Public Bridges.8 Porter died in the spring of 1712.9 Edward Glascock was immediately appointed as Public Surveyor of the Bridges and Public Works at the same salary. 1o His



298 ARCHITECTURE AND ITS ORGANIZATION IN THE PROVINCES

work was supervised by the local justices; in April 1715 Chipping Ongar Bridge was to be put into such good and substantial repair as thejustices of that division 'shall approve of'.11 The justices' need for professional assistance is confirmed by an extra payment of ?5 2s. 6d. for 41 days and nights attending the repair of Matchins Mill bridge in Witham, Peet Bridge in West Mersea and Nayland Bridge on the Suffolk border.12 Nevertheless, on 4 October 1715 the court ordered that the office of surveyor of bridges 'be no longer continued'.13 Another appointment proved to be necessary in April 1718, it appearing 'that the county hath been notoriously abused and put upon by the workmen of several trades employed in the repair- Ythe public bridges belonging to this county. . . for want of a proper officer to take care therein'; Edward Turner was to receive an increased salary of ?6o per annum. 14 His duties included the care of the county's public buildings including the sessions house, where he laid out ?Io 4s. on gilt branches and a Spanish leather chair for the Crown court. 15 Turner's tenure of office lasted less than 18 months, his widow being paid his quarterly salary in October 1719. His successor, John Sparrow, was appointed Bridge Master at the same salary, on condition that he paid Mrs Anne Turner ?20 out of his first half year's salary 'in consideration of the said Mr. Turner's Extraordinary Rideing Charges he haveing been but one year in the said Office'.16

Information on a wider variety of tasks carried out by the county surveyor is available for Sparrow's tenure of office. In April 1720 he was ordered to view, accompanied by workmen, a horse bridge (Heybridge in Mountnessing) which was the responsibility of Alexander Prescott, esq.; an estimate was to be made of the cost of widening it as a cart bridge, which would have made it a county bridge. 17 This order may well have been connected with the justices' control, under an act of 1695, of the turnpike road between Shenfield and Ingatestone, which passed over Heybridge.18 Sparrow was paid ?io in April 1725 for his trouble and expense in viewing the condition of the highways which ought to be repaired out of the receipts from the turnpike gate at Mountnessing; these were to be surveyed and a report on the cost of repair made to Quarter Sessions. In October the county surveyor was ordered to attend the county solicitor as required in connection with the petition to extend the turnpike act.19 Sparrow was discharged from his office on i i April 1727.20. A few other counties experimented with the appointment of a paid surveyor during the early eighteenth century. In Derbyshire, Isaac Kirk, mason, was appointed surveyor of the bridges in 1713 at a salary of ?io, during the court's pleasure; he was discharged in 1716.21 The North Riding justices appointed two surveyors, each taking six wapentakes, at ?1 5 per annum, as an experiment inJanuary 1728, but abolished the posts in less than a year. 22

The appointment of Thomas Pennystone of Saffron Walden as county surveyor of Essex on i i April 1727 at a salary of ?6o marked the beginning of a thirty-year period of continuity. He is almost certainly to be identified as a member of a leading Quaker family and may have been acting as land steward of the Audley End estate towards the end of his life.23 A year after his appointment, the county surveyor was ordered to inspect the County Gaol and Houses of Correction and to report on the estimated cost of repairs; in July 1728, he was to order repairs to be done at Newport House of Correction, pursuant to his report to Quarter Sessions.24 This house of correction was



THE OFFICE OF COUNTY SURVEYOR IN ESSEX, 1700-1816 299

to be enlarged according to estimate in October 1740o.2s Other houses of correction also required attention: at Chelmsford repairs were ordered in May 1739 and a ward was to be enlarged, according to an estimate delivered into court in October 1743.26 Barking was to be examined in October 1744 and repairs according to estimate were ordered at the following sessions. When further repairs were ordered in April 17 50, three copies of the orders and estimates were to be delivered to the local justices who were supervising the work.27 In July 1746 the county surveyor was 'to View the House of Correction at Halstead in order for making Alterations to the same to Render it more convenient for the Prisoners Working'; repairs were ordered at the following sessions after his report was received.28 Repairs were ordered to the Gaol and Sessions House in Chelmsford in October 1740; a circular seat was to be provided in the Nisi Prius court in April 1746.29

Bridges continued to occupy most of the surveyor's time. As soon as Pennystone was appointed, he was ordered to make an urgent report on Sandon bridge.30 He would often have to attend local justices viewing bridges in need of repair before a report and estimates were made to Quarter Sessions; in April 1735 such orders were made relating to the Essex part of Nayland bridge and to Barking bridge. 31 Sometimes the local justices would be asked to order repairs according to estimates delivered into court; in May 1736 the county surveyor was asked to attend them with estimates for Langford and Matchins or Merchants Mill bridges. In early 1739 it was decided to rebuild the latter bridge in brick; two out of four named justices were to contract with Robert Warren for a sum not exceeding the estimate of ?213 18s. 9d.; the county surveyor was to attend the justices 'in Contracting for and in the management of the same'.32 Where repairs were ordered by Quarter Sessions as the result of an indictment for non-repair, as in the case of the Great Bridge at Wickford in October 1736, the country surveyor would order the work to be done under the supervision of two local justices, from whom he would have to procure a certificate of completion.33 It is not clear whether Pennystone's duties included the making of plans for bridges. In July 1751 three justices were ordered 'to get a proper person to make a plan of Woodford Bridge to be Built with Bricks and make estimate'.34 The surveyor's duties, however, including reporting on the execution of work on non-county bridges where a grant was being made out of county funids: an order was made in April 1741 for ?36 to be paid to John and Nathaniel Green towards the rebuilding in brick of Stone Bridge in Hatfield Broad Oak, the Greens undertaking to maintain the bridge; the grant was conditional upon a satisfactory report from the county surveyor on the rebuilding, which was received at the October sessions.3s

No permanent surveyor was employed by the Essexjustices for at least a decade after Pennystone's death in 1757, although work on three major bridges necessitated the employment of outside surveyors or architects. The main road from London entered Ilford by two bridges, with a short causeway between. Pennystone was ordered in July 1755 to report on the bridges and causeway; at the next sessions he was given instructions to attend two local justices and the Commissioners of the Middlesex and Essex Turnpike as directed.36 After Pennystone's death, the larger medieval stone bridge was demolished and rebuilt in brick between 1759 and 1764. The widow of Thomas Moor 'the Surveyor of the Work done at Ilford Bridges' was paid ?I5 in October 1761 'for the plans by him prepared and his care in surveying the said work'.37




Woodford Bridge caused the Essex justices a great deal of trouble between 1763 and 1771. After expenditure of over ?200 on repairs after heavy floods, a contract was placed withJohn Phillips to rebuild the bridge; in April 1768 fourjustices were directed 'to apply to Mr. Phillips the Architect to perform his Agreement for the rebuilding of Woodford Bridge'; in the event of his refusal, they were to employ another suitable person. The new bridge was almost entirely destroyed during the next winter floods. The justices put the blame on the architect and set up a committee in October 1770 to report on 'what Allowances ought to be made by him to this County for the Damages sustained by his erecting a founderous and ill built Bridge'. The final settlement of the dispute took place in April 1771, Phillips agreeing to allow ?295 for failing to secure the foundations out of the payment due to him; plans and estimates were accepted for a new brick bridge with Portland stone quoins, piers, and facings.38 In the case of Ramsey bridge, three local justices were ordered in May 1764 to employ a proper surveyor, who was to report on whether it would be practicable to make a new bridge near the mill rather than to repair the existing one. Their choice appears to have been George Sawyer, who was ordered in October to provide an explanation of the total expense of rebuilding Ramsey bridge and of making the proper passages at each end. The explanation must have been satisfactory since an order was made in January 1765 to rebuild the bridge according to the estimate. 39George Sawyer was also employed in surveying Battlesbridge for three days at ios. 6d. a day, with five guineas for producing a plan and estimate, in I768-69.40

Even if security was given for the performance of a contract, the risk of the county being overcharged by workmen was iricreased in the absence of an experienced permanent surveyor. A committee was set up in October 1763 to examine the bricklayer's estimate and the bills of work and materials for the rebuilding of Great Bardfield bridge in 1759. The committee reported that the county had been overcharged ?i16 17s. 6d. for 574 ft of brickwork.41

Between 1767 and 1772 the Essex justices' main preoccupation was the planning and siting of a new gaol at Chelmsford. This major undertaking resulted in William Hillyer becoming county surveyor.42 A committee was set up in October 1767 to examine the state of the Common Gaol beside the river Can, with the assistance of some able and experienced surveyor or surveyors; they were to report to the next sessions on whether the gaol could be repaired in such a way as to meet the criticism of the grand jury at the last assizes; in the event of rebuilding being necessary, the committee was to procure a plan and estimate. The committee reported inJanuary 1768 in favour of rebuilding on a new site at the White Horse, but only decided in October to advertise for plans and estimates 'for building a spacious and commodious Gaol'. An approach to George Dance, who was working on the scheme for rebuilding Newgate Gaol, was suggested in January 1769; Dance first visited Chelmsford accompanied by Robert Baldwin on 18 February 1769 to survey alternative sites.43 Messrs George Dance and Co. were paid ?87 2s. 8d. in October 1771 for several journeys, plans, estimates, and other business relative to the erection of a new gaol; Baldwin's undated engraved plan may be related to this payment. Baldwin produced three plans for different sized plots on the site of the old gaol when he gave evidence at the House of Commons on 5 March

1771.44 While

Dance and Baldwin had been working on surveying land adjoining the site of the old




gaol, the Committee had still been considering the White Horse site in the centre of the town; in October 1770 Quarter Sessions unanimously approved plans by Mr William Hillyer the Surveyor for a gaol on this site and also for rebuilding the Sessions House. These plans were recommended by the Earl of Rochford as Lord Lieutenant, and may well have also had the support of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Bamber Gascoyne, for whom Hillyer executed designs for Bifrons at Barking. In writing to John Strutt on 27 September, Gascoyne shows detailed knowledge of Hillyer's plan. Quarter Sessions appointed Hillyer as Surveyor and ordered sets of the plans to be engraved.45 William Hillyer gave evidence at the House of Commons on 15 February 1771, describing himself as a surveyor, bred to the business, who had practised for fourteen or fifteen years. He had acted as surveyor to the public assembly room and all the buildings in the square at Margate, except those built by Sir Edward Hales; he had been appointed surveyor after being asked for advice on the cost of building and making several alterations in the plan. On being questioned about his knowledge of Shire houses, he agreed that he had no experience in this field. He had informed the justices that he would not make any charge for the plans, only for surveying; if the building was executed, the five per cent 'gratuity for surveying' would include the cost of the plan.46

It was not until July 1772 that the justices decided, as the result of a writ of mandamus, to put the Essex Gaol Act into execution. A committee was appointed to advertise for plans, estimates, and proposals for rebuilding the gaol on the original site; meetings were to be attended by the clerk of the peace and Mr William Hillyer the surveyor.47 Hillyer's plans were approved on 6 October 1772 and William Staines's estimate for ?14,576 was accepted on 25 May 1773. Hillyer received commission at 5% of ?786 16s. on the main bill of ?15,736 4s. 6d. with further sums amounting to ?57 is. 6d. on additional work in 1777.48

During this period the Surrey justices employed George Gwilt as a surveyor for work on the House of Correction at Southwark; like Hillyer, Gwilt subsequently became county surveyor on a fee or percentage basis without being formally appointed. Described as 'one Mr. George Gwilt a Surveyor', he provided a plan and estimate for repairs in November 1768, and was appointed to superintend this work and also the building of a new house for the Keeper of the County Gaol in I769.49

'Mr. Gwilt our Surveyor' provided the plan for the new House of Correction at Hangman's Acre in 1772, and that for the House of Correction at Kingston in 1775.s50 Gwilt, who rebuilt the County Gaol and Sessions House in 1791-99, was formally appointed the Surveyor of Bridges and other Public Works on I2July 1803 under the Act of 43 George III c. 59. He resigned at Michaelmas sessions 1804; at the following sessions the magistrates paid tribute to his 35 years' service, thus suggesting that his tenure of office dated from I769-7o.51

As in Essex and Surrey, the Suffolk justices had a permanent county surveyor by 1785, who was paid by a fee or percentage for each job of bridge repair or other county work.52 In Yorkshire, both the West and North Ridings had salaried surveyors. In 1743 John Watson, senior, was appointed jointly with Robert Carr for the West Riding. John Carr succeeded his father, but resigned in 1773 soon after his appointment in 1772 to the better-paid post of Surveyor to the North Riding at ?IOO per annum. His works




included Northallerton Court House and House of Correction, 1784-88, and York Female Prison (now Castle Museum), I779-8o.s3

In the third quarter of the eighteenth century a number of counties employed outside architects who specialized in prison architecture. William Blackburn (d. 1790), a friend of John Howard, designed a number of gaols and houses of correction in the last five years of his life, mainly for counties where no county surveyor had been appointed, Suffolk being a possible exception. In Gloucestershire, John Wheeler, the county surveyor, completed the County Gaol at Gloucester after Blackburn's death.54

Information on the activities of William Hillyer during his decade as county surveyor of Essex is available not only from Quarter Sessions order books, used throughout this paper, but also from the accounts rendered after his death, which probably occurred late in 1781 after his attendance at Quarter Sessions in October.ss In July 1772 the justices were considering two estimates for repairing or rebuilding Loughton bridge, one of which was to be executed 'under the Inspection of Mr. William Hillyer the Surveyor'; the arch for carrying off the flood water needed underpinning in October 1773. However, in the summer of 1780 Hillyer was ordered to make a new survey; his plan and estimate for rebuilding in brick at a cost of ?471 4s. 6d. were accepted in January 1781I and his final account included a charge of ?29 for surveying and superintending the work, which included widening the river.56 Plans for a brick bridge across the Stour at Nayland and for Small Lee Bridge in timber were produced in 1774.s57 Co-operation with the Suffolk justices was not so successful over Cattawade bridge; the Essex justices felt that rebuilding in brick and stone was necessary in October 1776, but the Suffolk justices apparently rejected Hillyer's plan and estimate, for which he charged 19 guineas.5ss The bridge was rebuilt in timber in 1790.59 The bridge at Abridge was rebuilt in 1777 at a cost of?493 3s. 6d. to Hillyer's plan, for which he charged two guineas.60 The plan for a new arch at Stifford bridge in 1779 also cost two guineas.61

Apart from the rebuilding of the County Gaol, Hillyer was also concerned with the rebuilding of houses of correction at Newport and Halstead. In April 1774 he was to examine the plan and estimate for rebuilding Newport House of Correction at a cost of ?647 3s. 5d., so it seems unlikely that he was responsible for the attractive facade dated 1775 and known as 'The Links'.62 His plan for Halstead House of Correction was referred to the justices of Hinckford Division in July 1781I; the specifications had been completed before his death and his final accounts include a charge of ?21 for plans, elevations and estimate. In April 1782, John Johnson, Hillyer's successor as county surveyor, was ordered to examine Hillyer's plans and designs and to survey the site; work was begun in the summer of 1782 and completed by July 1783.63 Hillyer's public duties also included the construction of a new gallows, replacing the one at Chelmsford demolished about 1780, 'to be fixed up from time to time as Occasion may require'.64 His travelling expenses appear in his final accounts: journeys to the bridges on the Stour and to Newport were charged at five guineas; shorter distances ranged from Halstead at four guineas, Stifford at three guineas, to the minimum charge of two guineas for Stone bridge at Hatfield Heath, Loughton bridge and Passingford bridge, nearer London. Attendance at Quarter Sessions at Chelmsford to make reports was also charged at two guineas; 'no charge appears to have been made for Chaises Horses or Expences'.65




John Johnson was appointed on 5 January 1782 to succeed the late William Hillyer 'as Surveyor of the Gaol, Houses of Correction, Bridges and other buildings' on the same terms as his predecessor: For every Journey after the rate of Is. 3d. a mile out... For surveying and drawing of Plans Estimates and other Works at... the rate offive pounds per cent upon the money expended therein and for his Attendance at. . . Quarter Sessions. . . the sum of two guineas.66

The Essex justices had appointed an architect of some standing with a considerable private practice, who had designed some ten country houses, including Terling Place forJohn Strutt, an influential Essex magistrate, and Woolverstone Hall in Suffolk. The facade of the latter has affinities with the design of the Shire Hall at Chelmsford, Johnson's major work as County Surveyor. After making such an appointment, paralleled only by that ofJohn Carr a decade earlier in the North Riding, the justices had no need to look elsewhere when the timber-framed Shire House was found at Michaelmas 1788 'not in a fit condition for transacting the public business of the county'. At Epiphany Sessions 1789 it was decided to build a new Shire Hall to Johnson's design at an estimated cost of ?8,918, provision being made for a county room on the first floor. The building was completed in 1791, the committee reporting that the work had been 'completed in the most elegant and perfect manner, with a saving of near ?2,ooo under their original estimate'.67

Other counties, without county surveyors and mainly at a distance from London, employed or consulted outside architects of standing. At Hertford Robert Adam designed the Shire Hall (1767-69); this county employed Robert Palmer to build the County Gaol (1774-76), with additions by William Hillyer (1779).68 At Exeter James Wyatt suggested improvements to Philip Stowey's designs for the Sessions House (I773-75).69 The Shire Hall at Dorchester (I796-97) was designed by Thomas Hard- wick. 70 Thomas Harrison was responsible for the Shire Hall and other work in Gothic style at Lancaster Castle (1788-99). In Cheshire, his scheme for Chester Castle (1788- 1822) included the Shire Hall (179I-1801o); he was not appointed county surveyor until 1815, at a salary of ?ioO per anum.7 Johnson himself designed the County Hall at Lewes, Sussex (1808-12), using many of the same elements as at the Shire Hall, Chelmsford, including the Coade stone plaques ofJustice, Wisdom, and Mercy on the faqade.72 Apart from John Carr's work on the York Assize Courts (1773-77), two other county surveyors designed major county buildings. Thomas Rogers, Middlesex county surveyor, c. 1773-1802, was the successful competitor for the Middlesex Sessions House (1779-82). George Gwilt, whose official career has been alluded to above, designed the Surrey Sessions House (1798-99).73

The number of county bridges in Essex more than doubled during the course of the eighteenth century.74 Two bridges were taken over from Lord Petre who contributed half the estimated cost of rebuilding Chain Bridge in Mountnessing toJohnson's design for 'a wider and commodious bridge' in 1792 and of a brick bridge at Half Mile Bridge in Ingatestone in 1796; both bridges were 24 ft wide.75 The case of Battlesbridge illustrates the need for a competent and energetic county surveyor:Johnson pointed out in Michaelmas 1793 that the 'very extraordinary' estimate included a large proportion of work to be done on private property, a not uncommon occurrence; far too much




ballast was specified, but no allowance was made for five or six guide posts beside 'a deep ditch for a guide to travellers in the time of Floods'. The bridge was rebuilt according to Johnson's design with oak timber, iron braces, and brick abutments, coped with stone with stone lime mortar, at a cost of?6oo, in I795-96.76 The number of bridges on the Stour necessitated joint surveys with the County Surveyor of Suffolk in the case of Rodd Bridge, between Long Melford and Sudbury, in 1789, and of Dedham Bridge in August 1795 when Johnson and John Doughty were to meet to examine the results of severe damage caused by a flood in February." No design has been preserved for Moulsham bridge (1787) with its elegant use of Portland and Coade stone. His brick bridges can be judged from the surviving example with cast-iron paterae at North Weald (1785), the design being copied at High Ongar bridge (1787) which was rebuilt in 1913. One of his two surviving designs is also in brick with two flood funnels (Widford, 1803); the design for Ackingford bridge (i8o6) is for a timber bridge similar to the alternative design for Widford.78

Johnson's experience in private practice may have been a factor in the employment of JohnJohnson, junior, and his partners on county business. They supplied materials for Moulsham bridge (1785-86), and held major contracts for the extension to the County Gaol (1787-94) and the Shire Hall (1789-91).7 The Essex justices do not appear to have criticized Johnson for this practice, unlike the West Riding magistrates who ordered in 1809 'that during the time Mr. Hartley is employed as Surveyor to the Riding and receives the salary thereof, neither he nor any of his sons shall be employed directly or indirectly in the execution of any works carried on by the Riding'.s80

Johnson's work, however, was subject to criticism from an outspoken justice, Montagu Burgoyne, who brought in Francis Aldhouse to survey the newly built Chelmsford House of Correction in i8o6; it was alleged that the brickwork was of insufficient thickness and poor quality. Johnson successfully refuted Burgoyne's serious 'charges against my professional Character', pointing out that he had faithfully served the County for more than twenty-five years with 'integrity assiduity and with every attention to aeconomy'. However, C. C. Western contended in 1821 that the building was 'neither secure, durable or commodious' as a result of Quarter Sessions' over-insistence on economy. 81When Johnson retired in 1812 at the age of eighty, the court recorded their thanks 'for his long, active, faithful, and meritorious services to this county during the space of more than thirty years'.82

OnJohnson's retirement, applications for the post of county surveyor were received from Robert Lugar, Thomas Hopper junior, John Ogle, and Dent Hepper; Lugar was appointed on 6 October 1812 on the same terms as the late county surveyor.83 Lugar resigned on 1i6July 1816 as a result of the report of a committee appointed to examine the accounts for rebuilding Causeway bridge in the parishes of Aveley and West Thurrock. The report was critical both of the accounts submitted for the use of Bayley's composition (supplied by MessrsJohn and Joseph Bayley, builders of Thayer Street, Manchester Square), and of the percentage method of remunerating the county surveyor. Lugar submitted two memorials in vindication of 'his character as a professional man', pointing out that he had discussed the design of the bridge with Thomas Telford and appending the latter's report, dated i6 May: the piles, platforms and inverted arch were considered 'judicious and absolutely necessary'. Lugar claimed



THE OFFICE OF COUNTY SURVEYOR IN ESSEX, 1700oo-1816 305

that he had not received more than ?250 per annum during his holding of the appointment and suggested that a fixed salary would be more satisfactory. The committee on the remuneration of the County Surveyor reported in favour of a salary of ?250, plus travelling expenses of is. 6d. per mile (out and home), calculated from Chelmsford. Thomas Hopper was apppointed on 15 October 1816, the unsuccessful candidates being John Ogle, William Robinson, William Feaster of Thornton near Pickering, Henry Provis of Bridge House, Paddington, who probably worked for the Grand Junction Canal, R. Barnes of Dedham, and John Kemshead of Whitechapel, who had been working in Johnson's office in 1802.84 When Hopper himself retired in 1856, a surviving member of the committee of 1816 reiterated the advantages of changing from a percentage to a salaried method of remuneration; Lugar was alleged to have received ?460 in 1815 and ?635 in 1815. These figures should be compared with Lugar's own statement and Hopper's salary of ?250, and those paid in Devon (?300oo), Dorset (?500), and the West Riding (?6oo).85

NOTES

I S. and B. Webb, English Local Government: The Parish and the County (1906), pp. 512-21; Esther Moir, The Justice ofthe Peace (1969), p. i18. 2 C. Chalklin, 'Bridge Building in Kent, 17o00-183o: the Work of the Justices of the Peace', Studies in Modern Kentish History presented to Felix Hull and Elizabeth Melling, ed. A. Detsicas and N. Yates (Kent Archaeological Society, 1983). 3 Chalklin, p. 50; Essex Record Office, Bridge Money Accounts, 1671-1702, Q/FAc I; D. H. Allen, Essex Quarter Sessions Order Book, 1652-1661, Essex Record Office Publications No. 65 (Chelmsford, 1974). 4 ERO, Q/SO 3, pp. 188, 244. 5 ERO, Q/SO 3, p. 254. 6 ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 23. 7 ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 5. 8 ERO, Q/SO 4, pp. 24, 69. 9 ERO, Q/SO 4, pp. 98, 173. io ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 96. II ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 267. 12 ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 244. 13 ERO, Q/SO 4, p. 319. 14 ERO, Q/SO 5, P. 25. 15 ERO, Q/SO 5, p. 80. 16 ERO, Q/SO 5, pp. 126, 140. 17 ERO, Q/SO 5, P. 177; K. C. Newton, Highways and Byways ofEssex, ERO Publications no. 48 (Chelmsford, 1969). 18 7 and 8 William III c. 9; J. H. Holmes and K. C. Newton, Highways and Byways ofEssex, ERO Publications no. 23 (Chelmsford, 1955), 7-8. 19 ERO, Q/SO 6, pp. 58, 64, o100, 107. 20 ERO, Q/SO 6, pp. 196, 372. 21 J. C. Cox, Three Centuries ofDerbyshire Annals (London and Derby, 1890) II, 222. 22 Webb, Parish and County, p. 515, quoting North Riding Q.S. Records, vinii, 179, 182. 23 ERO, Q/SO 6, p. 196; W. Addison, Audley End (1953), pp. 83, 171; Will of Thomas Pennystone, gent., Saffron Walden, 1757, ERO, D/ACR 16/113. 24 ERO, Q/SO 6, pp. 250, 277. 25 ERO, Q/SO 7, p. 289. 26 ERO, Q/SO 7, PP. 152; Q/SO 8, p. 91. 27 ERO, Q/SO 8, pp. 145, 151; Q/SO 9, p. 17. 28 ERO, Q/SO 8, pp. 246, 262. 29 ERO, Q/SO 7, p. 289; Q/SO 8, p. 229. 30 ERO, Q/SO 6, p. 195. 31 ERO, Q/SO 6, p. 719.

21




32 ERO, Q/SO 6, p. 792; Q/SO 7, p. 132. 33 ERO, Q/SO 7, p. 20.

34 ERO, Q/SO 9, pp. 77, 113, E.J. Erith, Woodford, Essex, 16oo-1836, Woodford Historical Society, x (1950), 98; V.C.H. Essex, VI, 342. 35 ERO, Q/SO 7, pp. 343, 398. 36 V.C.H. Essex, v, 186-87; ERO, Q/SO 9, PP. 290, 309. 37 V.C.H. Essex, v, 187, pl. f. p. 234 (medieval bridge); Essex Review, viII, io8 (eighteenth-century bridge); ERO, Q/SO 10, p. 312; ERO, Q/ABb I, unsigned grey wash plan and elevation. 38 ERO, Q/SO ii, p. 269; Q/SO 12, pp. 7, 31-33; Erith, Woodford, pp. 98-99; V.C.H. Essex, VI, 342. 39 ERO, Q/SO II, pp. 17, 35, 50-51, 58-59. 40 ERO, Q/SO 12, p. 302; Q/SBb 258/IIA. 41 ERO, Q/SO 10, p. 428; Q/SO II, pp. 5-6; Q/SBb 235/10, 237/I. 42 For Hillyer, see H. Colvin, Biographical Dictionary ofBritish Architects, 16oo-184o (1978), p. 418. 43 ERO, Q/SO I I, pp. 213, 256, 302, 312, 345, 346, 368, 391; The several Petitions and Evidence laid before Parliament for and against obtaining a Bill to remove Chelmsford Gaol, [1771], 50 (copy in ERO, D/DBe OI). 44 ERO, Q/SO 12, p. 82; for Baldwin, see Colvin, pp. 84-85, citing engraved design (BL, Kings Maps, xiii, i f); elevation in ERO, Mint Portfolio (Chelmsford); Several petitions. . ., p. 5 i. 45 ERO, Q/SO 12, pp. 4-7, 53; ERO, T/B 251/7 (Xerox copy, typescript volume of letters from Bamber Gascoyne toJohn Strutt, Strutt MSS, Terling Place; 20 August, 27 September 1770); ERO, Q/AGb 1/2.

46 Several petitions. . ., pp. 9-12. 47 ERO, Q/SO 12, pp. 137-38; for abstract of gaol proceedings, 1767-73, see ERO, Q/AS 2/4/6. 48 ERO, Q/SO 12, pp. 171-72, 234, 511, 527-28; Q/SO 13, pp. 120-21; ERO, Q/FAc 5/1. 49 Surrey Record Office, QS 2/1/22, pp. 230, 231; QS 5/I/I, pp. 43-45; 47; for Gwilt, see Colvin, pp. 369-70. 50 SRO, QS 5/I/I, pp. 98, 136, 168, 190, 221, 222, 230, 233,249. 51 Colvin, p. 370; SRO, QS 2/1/32, pp. 427-28; QS 2/1/33, pp. 16-17, 97-98; QS 5/4/2. 52 Webb, Parish and County, pp. 518-19, quoting Q.S. Minutes, 18July, 6 August 1785, 28 April, 15 May 1786. 53 Colvin, pp. 189-92, 11 I, 867-68. 54 Colvin, pp. 113-14, 881. 55 ERO, Q/FAc 5/1- 56 ERO, Q/SO 12, pp. 138, 258; Q/SO 13, pp. 119, 144, 159; Q/FAc 5/I; V.C.H. Essex, IV, 113. 57 ERO, Q/SO 12, pp. 285, 286, 307; Q/FAc 5/1; D. M. M. Shorrocks, 'John Abell's Bridge, Nayland', Essex Review, LXI, 225-32 (photos of bridge), ERO, Q/ABb 2 (plan and elevation attached to contract and specification, 5 November 1774). 58 ERO, Q/SO 12, p. 497; Q/FAc 5/1. 59 ERO, Q/SO 14, pp. 432, 549. 60 ERO, Q/SO 12, p. 528; Q/FAc 5/1i. 6i ERO, Q/SO 13, pp. 26, 44; Q/FAc 5/i. 62 ERO, Q/SO 12, p. 309; N. Scarfe, Essex: a Shell Guide (1968), p. 145. 63 ERO, Q/SO 13, p. 206; Q/FAc 5/I; Q/SO 13, pp. 284, 299, 30oo, 314, 371; N. Pevsner, Buildings of England: Essex (1965), p. 219. 64 ERO, Q/SO 13, p. 159. 65 ERO, Q/FAc 5/I; Q/SO 13, p. 263. 66 ERO, Q/SO 13, p. 263, 370; forJohnson's official career, see Colvin, pp. 462-63, andJ. Simmons, Parish and Empire (1952), pp. 129-35.

67 ERO, Q/SO 14, p. 230; Simmons, 133-35, R. Negus, A Short history of the Shire Houses of Essex (1937); for Johnson's domestic architecture, see Nancy Briggs, 'Woolverstone Hall; some reflections on the domestic architecture ofJohnJohnson (1732-1814)', Proc. Suffolk Institute ofArchaeology, xxxIV, 59-64. 68 Colvin, pp. 50, 614, 418. 69 Colvin, p. 787. 70 Colvin, p. 389. 71 Colvin, p. 396; D. Watkin, The Buildings ofBritain: Regency (1982), p. 81. 72 R. F. Dell, 'The building of the County Hall, Lewes', Sussex Arch. Colls. c, I-Ii; J. Catchpole, 'The Restoration and Repairs to the Front Elevation of County Hall, Lewes, 1958', Sussex Arch. Coils. c, 12-23.

73 York Georgian Society, The Works in Architecture ofJohn Carr (1973), p. 36; Colvin, pp. 370, 705. 74 Guide to the Essex Record Office, ERO Publications no. 5I (Chelmsford 1969), 13, ERO, Q/ABz 2/1.

75 ERO, Q/SO 15, P. 92, Q/SO 16, pp. 194, 257. 76 ERO, Q/SO 15, pp. 335, 365; Q/SO 16, pp. 81, 256, 437. 77 ERO, Q/SO 14, p. 359; Simmons, p. 133. 78 ERO, Q/SO 13, pp. 488, 510; Q/SO i4, p. 84; Q/ABb 3, 4. 79 ERO, Q/FAb 5o/i (No. 7); Q/FAb 50/4 (No. 18); Q/FAb 60/I, 4; Q/SO 14, p. 260; Q/AS 2/4/5.




80 Webb, Parish and County, p. 519, quoting Q.S. Minutes, io April 1809; for Bernard Hartley I and II, see Colvin, p. 398. 81 ERO, Q/SO 20, pp. 18-24; C. C. Western, Remarks on Prison Discipline (1821), pp. 91-94; Simmons, p. 13I1; Colvin, p. 63. 82 ERO, Q/SO 21, p. 588; Simmons, p. 136. 83 ERO, Q/SO 22, pp. 40-41, Colvin, 526-28, 433-34, 413,600. 84 ERO, Q/SO 24, pp. 22-23, 116-25, 194-98; Colvin, pp. 6oo00, 486, 704; ERO, D/DKe A3. 85 Essex Standard, 17 October 1856; Webb, Parish and County, p. 520.



Documents

Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || The Evolution of the Office of County Surveyor in Essex, 1700-1816