A Constructional History of the Sash-Window c. 1670-c.1725 (Part 1)

by Robert Crayford, Hentie Louw
A Constructional History of the Sash-Window c. 1670-c.1725 (Part 1)
Robert Crayford, Hentie Louw
Architectural History
Start Page: 
End Page: 
Select license: 
Select License


A constructional history ofthe 
sash-window c. 1670-c.1725 




Since the topic of the sash-window was last addressed in this journal fourteen years ago by one of the authors1 it has had a surprisingly high public profile. Apart from the ongoing English Heritage and Georgan Group campaigns to promote the use and preservation of traditional sash-windows in historic buildings, several conservation courses in the country now provide for the study of the historic building crafts and their products, including wooden windows. In the Brooking Collection, based at Greenwich University, researchers and conservation practitioners have a valuable reference point for studying the development of historic building components in Britain. Sash-windows constitute the largest and most interesting part of this collection and have been the subject of successful touring exhibitions.

The obstacles one faces when making 'anonymous' features of historic buildings like their windows the object of serious academic study are of a different order from those normally encountered in traditional architectural historical research. Survivals of genuine pre-Georgan sash-windows, the topic of this paper, are rare, difficult to identify and inspect properly, and often impossible to link with any confidence to precise references in datable documentary sources. Moreover, the routine destruction of valuable evidence about ancient windows through the careless renovation of old buildings continues, because the value to architectural history of such basic elements is not generally appreciated and understood.

What we offer the reader in this paper is, therefore, not a definitive version of the way in which the sash-window developed constructionally over the first half-century of its existence, but an outline based on the on-site inspection of surviving windows from the period in about thirty major buildings, combined with information gleaned from other sources, especially contemporary building accounts and visual records. No doubt a clearer picture will eventually emerge as more survivals from the crucial early decades of the sash-window's existence come to light through restoration programmes and the application of the latest search technology. Successive rebuilding programmes in the past, and the I 8th-century practice in England of blocking up windows so as to avoid window tax must have preserved countless numbers of ancient windows which modern electronic scanning techniques could reveal. The recent discovery of an original sash-window from the Charles I1 era at the former royal palace at ~ewmarket~



gves but a foretaste of what might still lie hidden in the fabric of ancient buildings in this country.

Not that a 'forensic' analysis of surviving artefacts from the past will necessarily provide all the answers. It is our experience that a close inspection of an historic window asks almost as many questions as the answers it provides, because we know so little about the operational conditions that prevailed when it was made. Nevertheless, if properly executed, work of this kind, done in conjunction with documentary research, is uniquely well placed to gve insights into the world of the master craftsman from this period. It is more often than not the only language they spoke with any eloquence, and as such a precious legacy; not only worth conserving, but also worth learning from. It is a journey that takes us technically into what is currently the domain of the archaeologist, something which so far in this country only historians working in the field of vernacular architecture have attempted with any conviction. We believe that British architectural history in general will benefit from an approach which is moving closer to architectural historical practice in the USA, and hope to contribute to such a development.

The material collected for this paper divides naturally into two parts. The first, dealing with the background to the technical development of the sash-window over the chronologcal period, is based largely on information gathered from written and visual sources. The second is a collation of data derived from the on-site inspection of surviving windows and information on contemporary building practice found in historic records. It is necessary to publish the paper in this split format.


The question of the orign of the sash-window has been thoroughly explored by Hentie Louw in his paper of 1983, and his basic premise, namely that the sash-window was first developed in England after the restoration of Charles I1 from an earlier type of unbalanced French wooden sliding window, appears to have gained general acceptance, although subsequent research is beginning to reveal a pattern of development even more complex than orignally envisaged. It is the object of this paper to try and unravel this process.

The seventeenth-century revolution in fenestration of which the sash-window was the end product did not occur in a vacuum, nor was it achieved overnight. As we have found, it took nearly two generations, and countless incremental adjustments in workshops and on building sites all over the country, to perfect the technology underpinning the new type of wooden sliding window.What seems beyond dispute though is that the movement began in London.

The London building world from which the sash-window emerged about 16~0~ was in a state of turmoil. In the aftermath of the Great Fire and the subsequent rebuilding campaign the capital city's trades guild structure -under stress for much of the century owing to the rapid, unco-ordinated expansion of its population finally broke down. This accelerated the influx of building craftsmen from the provinces and abroad in order to meet the demands of the building boom, bringng together in one place an unusually high concentration of craft skills operative in an

Fig. I. The basic types of1 7th-century vertically sliding windows;

a. Type AI; b. Type Az; c. Type Bi; d. Type Bz

extremely competitive atmosphere. Simultaneously a revolutionary scientific move- ment, which included several leading figures with a speciahst interest in architecture, was actively promoting technologcal experimentation at all levels within the industry, while on the social front international cultural and technologcal interchange, especially with the Netherlands and France, had been encouraged by the exile of the British monarchy and its subsequent return in 1660 from a long period of exile on the Continent. It is difficult to see how the sash-window could have come about and developed in the way that it did had it not been for this particular set of circumstances, and the impact it had on the two major trades upon which progress in fenestration at that moment in time depended: joinery and windowglassmalung,as London became an international centre of excellence in both areas.4

Undoubtedly London's dominance, through her virtual monopoly of the critical areas of sash-window design related to technical expertise, materials and stylistic fashion, greatly accelerated the process by which the new window type was assimilated in British architecture. Even so it took several decades and much localized experimentation for the window to gain the structural format which was to remain the basis for its development ever since. Hentie Louw's earlier research has identified two basic types of vertically sliding wooden windows emergng in the course of the seventeenth century which set the pattern for the sash-window's development: those where the window opening is vertically divided in two by a central mullion, Type A, and those without such a division, Type B. Each category in turn can be further subdivided according to whether transoms have been used or not (Fig. I).

Other distinctions arose, as will be seen later, through the ways in which the construction of the windows developed. The transformation of these basic sliding- window types into sash-windows proper occurred when they were fitted with a counterbalancing system consisting of lines, pulleys and weights -a practice adopted seriously only by the British and the Dutch during the period in question. In Britain the development of the new type of window fairly quickly came to concentrate on


two varieties, Types A2 and B2, with the latter rapidly gaining favour from the 1680s onwards. A step-by-step re-creation of the course which this process of selection took is not feasible at present -there are simply too many missing links. All-wooden windows,

i.e. those where the window glass is fixed within a grid of thin wooden glazing bars rather than in a lead lattice, were still a novelty in post-Restoration Britain (as they were in Holland, and to a lesser extent, France at the time).5 Moreover, the fundamental shift that had taken place from the typical mullion-and-transom window- types of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, with their glass quarries set in a network of lead cames in iron frames, to the square-paned wooden windows of the late seventeenth century has left a trail of hybrid window forms and ad hoc fenestration patterns in its wake, reflecting the experimental nature of British architecture during this turbulent time,6 but making classification very difficult.

Eventually the essential rigour of the sash-window, and the large-scale adoption of a correct classical architectural language, of which it was to become such a prominent feature, would bring order to this development, but some of the previous individual- istic spirit still prevailed during the sash-window's early years, and one occasionally comes across very interesting combination types surviving in buildings from the period

the combined casement/sash-windows in the north front of Bradbourne, Kent,
1680).' More such examples may turn up in the future.

Bearing this in mind, our suggestion for a likely pattern of development must necessarily remain tentative. It would however appear useful, even at this stage, to try to identitt. a loose chronologcal sequence for the progress of the sash-window up to the end of the Baroque period (I~os),by which time the major teething troubles associated with any new technical development had been resolved and the sash- window can be said to have reached a state of constructional maturity. Equally important, it is only by this date that one can truly say that the sash-window had become an integral part of an uniquely British version of the Classical architectural idiom.

Generally speaking there seem to have been four different phases in the early development of the sash-window in Britain:

I c. I 660-c. 1675: Exploration and Invention
2 c. 1675-c. 1685: Transition from Type A2 to B2
3 c. 1685-c. 1705: Consolidation of Type B2
4 c. 1705-c. 1725: Maturity of Type B2

A detailed comparative analysis of the constructional characteristics of the various types of sash-window will be made in Part Two. What follows is a brief outline of the principal typologcal features:

Phase One There is no reliable visual evidence of the appearance of the very first wooden sliding windows in this country, i.e. up to 1670; the vast majority of them were destroyed in the fires of 1691 and 1698 in Whitehall Palace. Some idea can be formed ofwhat they may have looked like from similar windows from the I 7th century that have been recorded in France, and the Ofice of Works accounts for the period.8 What seems clear is that both types A and B were used, also that the glass was set either




Fig. 3. Reconstnrctions ofearly sash-windows: a. Double sash-window ofthe Az variety, installed

in Princess Mary's Closet, StlJames's Palace, October 1672; b. Sash-window ofthe Bz variety

installed on the principalfloor ofthe central block ofthe College ofPhysicians, London, probably in

December 1674; c. Sash-window ofthe Bz variety installed in the Privy Gallery,firstj400r,

James II wing, Whitehall Palace, 1685 /6

inspected, although much repaired could belong to the late-1670s alterations (Fig. 4). So far we have not been able to locate any surviving sash-windows of the B2 variety from this period. Convincing visual confirmation of their general appearance exists (Fig. 5), but it is rarely detailed enough to assist with constructional analysis. This is one of the most significant gaps in our current knowledge, because it is during this period that the shift towards the use of the B2 rather than A2 Type of sash-window seems to have occurred.

Phase 3 A watershed in the development of the sash-window in England was reached with the James I1 wing at Whitehall Palace by Christopher Wren, 1685-87. From that point onwards the B2 variety -the authentic 'English window'- became dominant. Survivals of this type of sash-window are relatively common for the turn of the century (Figs 6 and 7); less so for the early 169os, with Hampton Court by far the most important source (Figs 8-10), and extremely rare for the mid-1680s. The only reliably datable sash-windows from the latter date inspected by us are five windows on the west front of Belton House, Lincs., 1685-8 (Figs I I and 12), but engravings and


Let me know if the Joyner you recommend be in Towne and when I may have him come down hither . . .. in the mean time I think he will do well to enquire out Mr [Matthew] May in King Street Bloomesbury, desiring to see one of the Chassie windows made for my Lord Nottingham since that I resolve to have the very same made here for my new buildings. If your friend mentions Mr [Henry] Pelham to May he will be more ready to oblige him for this same May built Pelham's house [Stanmer Park] in uss sex.'^

We know from the the Burley accounts that May's sash-windows had been shipped there from London in August 16~8,'~

and the search for joiners must have been abandoned for there are no more references to this in Ashburnham's records until the end of 1704. By that time he had obtained the services of Nottingham's builder, John Lurnley, but he was no longer interested in the Burley-on-the-Hill sashes. In a letter dated 6 December 1704 he instructed his London agent to, 'Inform' himself of the 'names of 6 or 8 of the best masterjoyners in town to perform work in the best manner by the great, particularly Chassie ws, wainscotting in deal and Poland Oak, flooring with the best deal boards. Lett me know how much is demanded for such chassie ws as are at Hampton By the next April a satisfactory arrangement had been made, for Asburnham asked Hoare to send a message to 'John Symms the Joyner that his presence at Ampthill req.'21 It would take another year and a half before the work on the Ampthill sashes was finally completed.

The interactive yet individualistic nature of the contemporary building world and its impact on the actual building process itself is, we believe, better illustrated by looking closely at how the new architectural component was integrated in a variety of building projects covering the chronological period, than by attempting to establish a linear pattern of development. And, because of its seminal position with respect to the development of the sash-window in England, the appropriate place to start would seem to be with the work of the Office ofHis Majesty's Works under the surveyorship of Sir Christopher Wren, 1669-1718. More particularly it is the royal palaces which concern us here, since it was in these that the crucial first steps were taken in the 1660s to transform a foreign window type into one with a format more suitable to local conditions. Moreover, until the end of William 111's reign, whenever new-built palace projects materialized, the joiners in royal employ consistently appear to have influenced the pace as well as the nature of the development of the sash-window in the rest of the industry, both through the windows they actually made for the palaces and, subsequently, through the patronage they received from leading members of the aristocracy.


1 The Royal Palaces, 1669-1 703

The organization of the Office of Works itself during the period in question is sufficiently well known not to require further elab~ration.~~

The aspect of the way it functioned which had the most direct bearing on the development of the sash- window was the fact that the non-officer category of master-craftsmen were employed on a part-time basis only. Royal employment thus gave top-quality craftsmen in the business status outside the confines of the building industry, a ready introduction to the most influential patrons in the country as well as the freedom to exploit the resultant work opportunities to the full in private commissions. As far as the sash- window is concerned this arrangement effectively turned the Office of Works into a national training resource and information centre. The benefits of this, as will be seen presently, were particularly strongly felt from the mid-1680s onwards when major palace-building programmes -in which the new window type was a distintive feature -coincided with a new campaign of country-house building.

The intervening period, i.e. from about 1670 when the sash-window proper first appeared in the royal buildings to the first instance of the large-scale use of the fully developed Type B2 sash, the James I1 block at Whitehall (1685-87), is marked by steady but unspectacular progress. New sash-windows, presumably technically more advanced models, were progressively introduced in the various palaces as and when necessary as part of an ongoing programme of renovation/maintenance conducted by the Office of Works. In the case of Whitehall Palace (the most consistently occupied royal building during the reigns of Charles I1 and James 11) this piecemeal process of refenestration continued virtually seamlessly for over thirty years -from the early 166os, when the first wooden sliding windows of French origin were introduced there, until 1693 -making it the principal laboratory for the development of the sash-window in Britain, and its most likely birthplace.

The sash-window's introduction at the other royal residences was more particularly associated with specific rebuilding phases. Some of them shared the distinction with Whitehall of having had unbalanced wooden sliding windows ('chassis') in the first instance which were updated later: the work done for Henrietta Maria at Somerset House in 1661-63 and 1664/5 is a case in point; the fenestration of these apartments was upgraded when the building was redecorated for Queen Catherine in 1671/2, and again for the latter after Charles 11's death in 1685.~~

The Duke and Duchess ofYork's apartments at St. James's Palace, elaborately refitted in the early 166os, had chassis windows. Sash-windows were installed there and in the new apartments created for the two princesses in 1673/4 and 16~~/8.~~

It appears that Hugh May might have introduced some sash-windows at Windsor Castle when he remodelled parts of the building (1675-84), since there is record of a payment to the joiner,Thomas Turner, in 1675 for the making of, 'shashes and Frames for Shash windowes' there, but the extent of the work is not known.25

Likewise, at The King's House, Newmarket, Suffolk, remodelled by William Samwell, 1668-71, for Charles 11. The accounts for these alterations have not survived, and no extant contemporary views of the building are known, so there is little evidence to confirm the date of the ancient sash-window recently discovered in what used to be Charles 11's closet. References to the building in accounts from the 1675-77 period only mention iron casements, which would be in keeping with the building's rather lowly status in the hierarchy of royal residences. However, when the existing cross window frames in the Duchess of Portsmouth's bedchamber and closet were altered in February/March 1683/4 in order to take sash-windows, the joiners were also paid for 'takeing downe the Innermost Shasses of the King and Queens Lodgngs for the Glasier to mend and clense them.'26 This suggests that there were already sash- windows in relevant areas of the building, probably dating from the Samwell period,


which makes the likelihood of the above survival being authentic much stronger. Some caution has, however, to be exercised because of the contemporary practice of re-using old windows in new buildings.

The earliest wooden windows used at Hampton Court after the Restoration were casements, not sash-windows: in February 1668 joiners were paid for 'Making 3 paire of double Casements For the Qs Chapel1 Closett being 4 foot & half and Inch in hight & 2 Foot 7 Inches broad every paire.''' The first real opportunity for introducing the new window type presented itself with the addition of new lodgings for the Duke & Duchess of York on the east side of the Chapel Court, and a new range of rooms for Charles I1 at the sout-east corner of the garden front,in 1670-74. Special care was taken to ensure the highest standards ofjoinery for the interiors of the latter from the Master Joiner (and sash-window specialist), Thomas Kinward: a clause in his contract stipulates that 'all the wainscott Doores, and shutters be of extraordinary good clapp bourd of equall Colour and workemanlike doone, in goodnesse, stuffe and workeman- shipp at least equall to the lower Apartement of the Lord Berckeleys house.'28 As the need for maintaining stylistic unity with the existing fabric does not appear to have been an issue in this instance, the decision to opt for iron casements rather than sashes here suggests that the new window type had not yet gained the full confidence of the Oficers of the Works. Eventually, three sash-windows, each containing eighty 'choyce English squares being 10 Inches & 8 Inches' were installed at Hampton Court when the apartment called 'Paradise' was redecorated for Charles in July 1676.~~

The same conservative attitude regarding fenestration in new-built projects prevailed in Wren's only major domestic scheme for Charles 11, Winchester Palace, 1683-85. The contract in this case stipulates the use of timber cross-windows with iron casements throughout.30 What brought about a change of heart is not known, but Wren's next palace project, the Privy Garden Range for James I1 at Whitehall, 1685-87, received the very latest version of sash-window, the fully developed Type B2, thus helping to ensure that this particular form rather than the mullioned A2 variety become the preferred sash-window in Britain.

Whitehall Palace, James II Buildings, 1685-8. A large number of sash-windows were installed between January 1686 and November 1687 in Privy Garden Range : 265 in the main block, which included the Privy Gallery, Council Chamber and Chapel, plus a further 34 in the 'Add[itional] Building next Chapel', also known as the 'Lesser ~uildin~'.~'

Normandy squares were used throughout the building, all of which were provided and fixed by the Master Glazier, William Ireland, who also provided sixteen 24-inch plates for the two lanterns. Sir Thomas Duppa supplied the rest of the plate glass: '130 glass plates for Shash windows for her Majesty's Lodgings 12s per plate R78-o-o', in July 1686.~~

The joiners responsible for most of the work -John Smallwell, Charles Hopson, Roger Davis, John Gibson, William Cleare -were all leading London masters. In addition, two other joiners were involved who seem to have operated independently, and may have been foreigners: John Heysenbuttel and Edward Cannell. As far as can be determined all the new sash-windows were of Type B2, and with few exceptions had what was called 'strait arches'. Judging from the windows in the Council Chamber the square sashes on the main floor of the building were I 1'1I" high x 5'6" wide, with 5 5 panes of 12 x 94 inch each (Fig. 3c).33

A number of windows had semi-circular or 'compass' heads and seem to have been considerably larger than the rest. These were reserved for positions of prominence and received special attention, structurally as well as decoratively: The five compass windows installed by William Cleare in the Privy Garden fa~ade of the Roman Catholic Chapel in April 1686 at a cost of A46 12s. od. were I 5'6" high x 6'0" wide, with Normandy glass panes of II* x 8i inches in the two lower sashes, probably arranged in a 6/6 format;34 in September 1687 Charles Hopson provided a further seven compass windows for the chapel, 'wrought after an extraordinary manner to prevent ~arpin~.'~"he latter had previously, in February 1685/6, made the large compass window at the end of the Privy Gallery, only marginally smaller than those provided by Cleare for the chapel, for A8 19s. qd. This had Normandy panes of I 13x 93 inches in the two lower sashes.36 In June 1686 John Smallwell was paid for a 'compas Shas wrought round on both sides over a doorway' (i.e. backstairs to the queen's lodgngs). Similarly, in November of that year Abraham Harborow made a 'Compas Shasswindow wrought wth rounds on bothsides [of sashbars] at 2s. od. p. foote', between a passage and 'Stooleroom of the Little Bedroom', in the Duchess of Mazarin's suite.37

The Queen's Apartment on the Thames was built between February and December 1688, continuing with the same craftsmen. It too received square-headed sash- windows, but those on the river front, as can be seen from a sketch design by Wren,

c. 1687/8 (Fig. IS), show a significant advance on the windows of 1686/7; not so much in terms of their overall size (they were I 3 '0" x 5'6'1, but with respect to the size of the glass panes used, approximately 20" x 12" (obviously plate glass), seven panes high and four panes wide -foreshadowing both Hampton Court and Chatsworth.

With the James I1 buildings at Whitehall the sash-window had finally achieved a format that could satisfy the Baroque Age's quest for light. Over the next two decades both the square and compass headed Type B2 sash would be further developed as an intrinsic part of a new architectural language. Wren's designs for Hampton Court were a further step in this direction.

Hampton Court Palace, William HI Wing, 1689-1 702. There are significant gaps in the monthly accounts for the new building, at critical periods regarding the installation of the sash-windows. Fortunately, this is offset by the survival of large numbers of original windows relatively intact and accessible for inspection (Figs 8-10). A more complete building record exists for the contemporary work at Kensington Palace, but the latter was much more a matter of routine building and therefore less significant to this study, although some of the sash-windows there actually predate those at Hampton Court: preparations for the sash-windows at Kensington began in October 1689 and the sashes were put in by the Master Joiner, Alexander Fort and his team between September 1690 and the end of 1692, while work in finishing them off continued until January 1695 .38

Building work on the south or Privy Garden range of Hampton Court began in June 1689 and the two principal wings were roofed by the end of 1691, which means that all the main window openings were ready to receive the sashes. In September and November 1690, and February 1691 Samuel Carr the stationer provided, a total of '5 ream of Dutch Demy paper to make sashes before the glass was put up to preserve the

and the 12-foot high windows in two of the fa~ades in the Fountain or Quadrangle Court -presumably the twelve windows in the IOng's Gallery, which Fort was paid for, plus the eleven windows in the Communication Gallery (which are not mentioned in the accounts,but which still retain the original sashes from this period). The twenty- six casements referred to in this bill were rob ably those in the round windows. The only explanation for the '14 paper sashes oyled being 14 ft. high' mentioned seems to be that they were temporarily fixed in the unfinished sections of the building.43 It is interesting to note that the windows were painted before being glazed, which is contrary to modern practice.

The extent of the work still outstanding by March 1693 is gven by an estimate submitted by the Ofice of Work for the 'remainder of the Buildings to complete the new Quadrangle at Hampton Court'. This included: 'Plate glasse in 84 windows in the K & Q apartmt [i.e. principal floor south and east fa~ades plus Fountain Court] L2200'; 'Crowne glass & [Normandy] squares in 250 windows more L800'. An allowance of Ajgo was made especially for 'sashes, glasse, Shutters & Ironworke in Windows not finished'.44 The main effort was directed towards completing the Queen's Apartments, but how much was actually achieved by the time of her death in December 1694 is unclear. Getting the building sealed from the elements was an obvious priority and by March 1694 Lzo74 3s. 6d. had been spent on 'Glass & Glazier's ~orke'.~'

This accounts for much of the estimate and one can safely assume that the enormous sash-windows (16 feet x 6'10" in the Queen's Audience Chamber) with their plate-glass panes of 29% x 21: inches were in place by then (Fig. 8). Two engravings by Sutton Nicholls, reproduced in Ernst Law, The History ofHampton Court Palace, III (I@I), show the situation c. 169 j. The Privy Garden view (Fig. 19) shows two curious, balcony-like features on the principal floor, giving on to the King's State Bedroom and First Presence Chamber respectively, which appear to be sash-windows of the A2 variety. The accounts make no reference to these.

Little work other than basic maintenance was done on the palace after Mary's death until 1699 when William I11 resolved to complete the building, but with Talman rather than Wren in charge. Both men had submitted estimates for finishing the project which did not provide for any major work on sash-windows, although a fair amount of wainscot work (including the inside lining of windows and shutters), painting and glazing still remained to be done. However, many sashes were not operational yet and others needed repair. In June 1699, for example, joiners were employed 'in fastning up of 2 shashes and frames in the Queens Lodgings, which was blown down by the wind',46 and in December they were 'puting up peices on the outside of the Sashes for to keep out ye water and Weather, in puting on peices on the inside to keep the sashes from rattelir~~'.~'

It might have been problems like these which led, towards the end of 1699, to the replacement of Alexander Fort, who was responsible for the sash-work thus far, by Charles Hopson, to whom the task of making the rooms habitable now fell.

What this involved can be seen from entries like the following for February 1700 when the joiners were 'puting on buttons to keep the sashes from rattling throughout the kings front, in putting on peices on the outside to keep out the weather, in takeing downe some part of the sashes in the Communication Gallery for the Glasiers to glaze,

2 The Lauderdale Estates, I 670-82

The best insight into private building practice during the first decade of the sash- window's existence is gven by the archives of the Duke and Duchess of Lauderdale. This included the remodelling of Ham House, Surrey, as well as Thirlestane Castle, Lethington and Brunstane in cotl land.^^ From the records we know that the Lauderdales had sash-windows installed in several of their properties of which Ham was the most important. Altogether 53 sash-windows were installed in the new building at Ham House between March 1673 and December 1674, making it the first recorded large-scale use of this window type in Britain, and their method of production of particular interest to this

The picture that emerges from the surviving Ham accounts is not complete but it appears that the carpenter, Humphrey Owen, provided the outer frames for the sash- windows, as he did for all other window types, while the joiners provided the sashes and counterbalancing equipment and made the actual windows. Forty 'inch and quarter Clapboard leaves for the shasses', were delivered at Ham by the timber- merchant, Oliver Atkinson, in July 1672. By February 1673 work on the south or garden front had progressed far enough for the windows to be installed. An entry for carpenters' work in malung 'a shade for the Joyners' on the first of March confirms that the joinery was being prepared on-site. Towards the end of March the joiners were 'Easing all the sasshes', i.e. making them slide smoothly, and by 10 April these had been glazed and painted. From the glazier, Augustine Beere's account it can be deduced that thirteen windows (probably those in the centre on the ground and first floors) were double-glazed at that time with 'white inside glass' on the inside and 'Normandy squares' on the outside. Work on the sash-windows at Ham was to continue until December 1674 when those windows in the closets on the ground and first floors of the east and west fronts, orignally single-glazed, were doubled as well.57

The accounts gve the names of only three joiners, the master-joiner in charge, Henry Harlow from the Parish of %.Martin in the Fields, Thomas Galley(Gelly) and a certain Glover, without specifying their individual tasks. A letter from Lauderdale to Sir William Bruce, the Duke's Scottish architect, dated 15 April 1673, however, throws more light on the matter. In it he mentions:

. . . two excellent joyners, they are Germanes. They have wrought much for the finishing of this house[Ham], and have made the double chassees for the windows, in a word they are sober fellows, understand English enough, and most excellent workmen, both at that trade and for making of cabinets. Within these ten days they will be ready, and shall bring with them full instructions concerning the finishing both of Thirlestane Castle and Bruntston.They shall also bring paterns both for hinges and bolts, which by a patern may be very well wrought there.58

John Dunbar has identified one of these joiners as Mathias Jansen, a 'Dutch Joyner', who arrived in Edinburgh in July 1673, and who worked at Lethington (Lennoxlove) and Thirlestane until Spring 1676.'~ The more obviously 'German' joiners, Heinderich Meijners and Johan Christian Ulrich, worked on Lauderdale's Scottish estates from June 1677 to late 1679. Jansen was responsible for the sash-windows at Lethington, 1673/4, the first recorded instance of their use in cot land.^' The 'glass windows' there and at Thirlestane, which required substantial repairs four years later were probably


installed earlier since 'timber fitter for ye windows' was imported for the work at Thirlestane in February/March 1671 .61 Thomas Wauch, the Edinburgh glazier's bill for June/July 1678 shows these glass windows to have had wooden casements with glass quarries or 'lozens' set in lead.62 Meijners and Ulrich installed five 'Chassee Windows' in the Duke's closet at Thirlestane during this building phase,63 and probably also the other twenty sash-windows mentioned in a painter's account from this period.64 More were intended: an 'Estimat of the addition designed at the east pbell of Thirlestane Castle', dated 1681, allows for an item for 'timber for 40: window casements 20: of them shashes @ 20s: sterling per peece', and for the 'workmanship of the 20: shash windowes including shutters at 25s ster:p. peece', but building operations were curtailed by the death of the duke in August 1682.~~

John Slezer's rather fanciful series of engravings of Thirlestane Castle, datable to


show nothing that can confidently be interpreted as sash-windows, and none of the seventeenth-century sashes have survived at any of Lauderdale's Scottish properties. It is known that sash-windows, presumably Type A2, were installed at Kinneil House, West Lothian, before 1682, and at Drurnlanrig Castle, Lanarkshire in 1686,~~

both buildings being associated with the Scottish architect James Smith

(c. 1645-173 I), who, through his connexion with Bruce, was aware of developments in the field in England. But the technology was changng fast and in 1693/4 it was deemed necessary by the Duke of Hamilton to send a wright, James McLellan, to London specifically to learn how to make the latest type of sash-window for Hamilton Palace, ana ark shire.^^

While the appearance of the very first Scottish sashes remain unknown, for Ham House at least there is some verifiable visual evidence in the form of an elevational drawing of c. 1672 of the new south front, attributed to the project architect, William Samwell (1628-1676).~~ This drawing, illustrated in Architectural History, 26 (1983), Plate 32a, clearly shows sash-windows of the Type A2 variety. Unfortunately none of these have survived.

The records show that the seventeenth-century sashes at Ham were badly decayed by I730 and replaced upon the advice of the London architect and surveyor, John ~ames." However, the window openings are still the orignal ones and most of the internal shutters on the two principal floors have survived relatively intact, albeit reorganized to fit the alterations (Fig. 20).

The above-mentioned view of the south front of Ham House is of too small a scale to give a clear indication of the actual appearance of the type of sash-window. By good fortune two drawings from the period have survived presenting us with a unique contemporary record of what these sash-windows looked like (Figs 21 and 22). They form part of an album of miscellaneous drawings, at some stage owned by the Scottish architect John Adam(1721-92) and now at the V&A. It is described as belongng to the 'Circle of William amw well'," and includes a full set of design drawings for an unidentified house of a date corresponding with the Ham House conversion. The drawings for the windows and shutters do not appear to belong to the house design itself, and they correspond only partially with what we know of the Ham House situation, i.e. in the number of window panes in the sashes (sixty), and the general arrangement of the wainscot panehng and shutters.


joiners' work, dated 25 April 1684, includes '22 shash windows at L5 each/z shash windows at L5 each [the latter were later identified as sash door^]'.'^ Presumably the windows were delivered that summer, because the glazier went out to Combe in September, but work on the sash-windows continued until much later. The last 'parcell of glase' was only shipped to Combe in July 1686, bringng the total to '1392 squares of French Glasse conteining 10 inches and 1/4 the height and 8 inches and 1/4 the breadth or thereabouts at IS per square'.79 By November 1686 all sash-windows were included in the joiners' work measured, but the majority were only lined with wainscot and shutters after April 1688.~' By that stage John Syms was gravely ill (he died at the end of May) and Robert Ascough was charged with finishing off the job. The sash-windows installed at Combe during this building phase were not to last long, though.

Early in February 1694 Winde was informed that a storm had damaged the windows severely. In return he recommended to Craven that,

. . . since the damage is soe considirable, as the charges will amount to 12 or 14pound, I am of the opinion that thier should be niew schases made to the dementions of the glass, soe as it may be saved and the mouldings to bee made out of two inche planke[the previous one were one and a half inch], and no astragal to bee on the weather syde, and if you please to lett Robin the [local] joyner, send the number of the windowes, and (their hght) and breathe, and what hee will have a peece for stufe and workemanshpe, I wd aquaint his Lordship withe it. .

Aparently this arrangement was agreed to, for a month later Winde wrote as follows to Sir William:

By Mr. La Moyne [measurer employed at Combe], I send you a model of the mouldings of the schase windowe. The styles are to bee 1.3inches, that wdl come to 40s. a windowe, 22 windowes comes to 44E, the waytes pulles and frames will sarve againe, and may be ajusted by the country joyner. They are of the same make as thoes at Hampton Courte and are of that strenght as no winde can injure thems2

That concludes the Combe Abbey correspondence. In view of the subsequent history of the house, especially in this century, it is doubtful if any of the seventeenth-century sash-windows survive. The 24-pane (12/12) shown in photographs of the building published in Country Lij, 4-11 December 1909, when the historic house was still relatively intact, also cannot be made to conform with the information gven in the documentation. The only configuration which comes close to fulfilling all the dimensional criteria is that in which the windows are allowed five panes in width with seven panes in height on the first floor, six panes on the ground. In other words, 2o/ I 5 and I 5/ I 5respectively, and of the B2 variety. The structural failure of the orignal windows in storm conditions can perhaps be ascribed to insufficient attention paid to the need to adjust a technology, initially developed for the mullioned Type A2 sash- window, to the broader, unsupported surface area of the Type B2 sash.

4 The Montagu Estates, 1675-1709

Another fascinating glimpse of the complexities of building at the time is gven by the records of Ralph, first Duke of Montagu (d. 1709).'~ From August 1674, when he first engaged Robert Hooke to design him a house in Bloomsbury, until his death in 1709, building activities rarely seem to have ceased at Montagu's principal seats: Montagu House, London, Boughton House, Northants., and Ditton Park, Bucks. Despite the conflicting nature of the surviving evidence of these projects they have a very special place in the history of the sash-window, being on the one hand linked with one of the people with the strongest claim to have 'invented' the new window type,84 and on the other, providing us with unigue confirmation of the physical appearance of sash- window Type A2 in its fully developed form.

Montagu House (1675-1709). Robert Hooke's diary is the only source on the construction of the first house on the site. He records that Montagu contracted for the joinery work in November 1675 with Roger Davis, the London joiner who had made the design model for the house in February/March that year.85 On 30 December 1675 there is an intriguing entry: 'Agreed with Davys for 6 frames and sasses for L24. Module for a Guinny. Treated about Irish Clapboord for 18d per foot.' The reference to a model suggests that a new design was involved; the problem is, for which building? The description fits in well with the windows Hooke had put in in the main front of the College of Physicians, but all the records suggest that these were in place by the previous ~ebruary.~~

Was Montagu House far enough advanced to have received these sash-windows by January/February 1676? We know that on 29 January Hooke and Sir Christopher Wren 'Discoursd about .. . framing !gla~se',~~

and at the end ofJune the former recorded that he 'Saw glasse defective by Mr. Haywards [i.e. John, the carpenter] ill framing' at Montagu ~ouse.~~

This suggests that some windows were installed in the western half of the building (which had been roofed by the end of April), perhaps as an experiment, for the bulk of the fenestration seems to have been done much later.

In January 1677 there is an entry for, 'glasse wanting [at 'Bloomsberry']', due to storm damage, suggesting that at least part of Montagu House was glazed by thena9 The central block of the house appears to have been finished in essence by December 1677, when the account of the builder, John Fitch, was closed, but work on the interiors and outbuildings was to continue for several years more (a new contract for the wings flanking the main courtyard was only approved in January 1679). A reference for 21October 1678 indicates the extent to which Montagu shared Hooke's interest in detailed building matters. The latter noted: 'At Mr Montacues. Walkd with him an houre in the Garden. Spake about sashes et~.~' It seems likely that the discussion was prompted by the work at Montagu House. At what point the building actually became habitable is unclear because of Montagu's itinerant lifestyle as ambassador at the time, but Hooke was overseeing alterations to Montagu's other London residence between February and December 1679. Montagu House still appears to have been unoccupied by the end of 1680 when Hooke's main diary ends. Entries for building work there at this point in time suggest that problems were encountered with the new windows. On Monday, 2 February 1680 Hooke recorded : 'to Mr Montacue. Looke with Scowan [Montagu's agent] sash window blown down', and both Davis the joiner and Hayward the carpenter did further work on the building during that summer. From the unpublished sections of Hooke's diary we learn that he was still directing work at Montagu House, including a 'Dutch Joyner' by the name of

1690/1, long after Hooke's involvement with Ralph Montagu has ended -i.e. towards the end of the second building phase -with largely maintenance and repair work recorded being done on the windows until the duke's death.92 It therefore seems likely that this is the arrangement depicted by Kip and Stowe two decades later, which means that the Magdalene College engraving probably shows, either the first house itself, or its newly restored state immediately after the fire, reflecting (as Batten maintained) in essence the fabric ofwhat was there before.93

The answer to the puzzle seems to lie in Hooke's diary. He records visiting Montagu House on 14 April 1680 with David Loggan (163~-c.1700), who three years earlier had produced the engraving of the courtyard of the College of Physicians mentioned above.94 This strongly suggests the latter and not Nicholls to have been the artist of the view in question, while a date of 1680 would explain the somewhat curious foreground with no garden and, what appears to be a builder's fence surrounding the building: the house was still under construction at the time with only the simpler rear elevation being presentable. If this is true then Montagu House I, during its short existence, must have been the most prominent and complete instance of the use of sash-window Type A2 in the country. It also proved to be its swansong. Hooke himself is not known to have repeated the experiment. Both his two major domestic projects following Montagu House, Ragley Hall, Wanvicks (1679-83) and Ramsbury Manor, Wilts (1681-86), as far as can be determined, were provided with sash-window Type ~ 2At Montagu House I1 (1687-c. 92) and the . ~ ~ alterations at Boughton (c. 1687) a compromise between the two window types was settled upon, reflecting the growing popularity of Type B2 in the 169os, and there are no other instances of the use of Type A2 sashes in significant new-built schemes known to us.

Because of the integrated nature of Ralph Montagu's estate a clearer picture of his building activities emerges from what is known about the work carried out simultaneously at his country seats, Boughton and Ditton Park.

Boughton House, Northants. c. 1687-1709. Work on renovating the Tudor mansion on the estate, and adding a new north wing to it, seems to have begun at the same time as the restoration of Montagu's fire-damaged London house. For the next two decades the two projects ran concurrently, sharing materials and craftsmen at every opportun- ity. The accounts show that this applied to actual salvaged windows from Montagu House as well. Three joiners were principally involved: a certain Mr. Dezeis, evidently a Frenchman, who worked at Boughton prior to 1691, and probably at Montagu House as well; a Peter heusset, who worked mainly at Montagu House from 1697 to 1708, but periodically travelled to Boughton and possibly Ditton for special tasks and, finally, Roger Davis, who worked on the orignal Montagu House and then became the principal joiner at Boughton, executing work there valued at more than &ooo over the period 169 I to 1708 .96

The accounts refer to twenty sashes, being installed in the house in January 1689; it is not possible to determine where.97 Between 1691 and 1694 Davis provided no less than 1307 foot of new two-inch-thick sashes in twenty-two windows on two floors in the apartments in the north-west pavilion. These no longer exist, but judgng from the thickness they must have been Type B2 originally.98 Davis worked on the


wainscoting in the adjoining state rooms over the central arcade in the summer of 1694, but there are no references to new sash-windows being made for the nine windows there, so re-used sashes from Montagu House probably served in the hasty preparations for William 111's visit to Boughton in October 1695. Two 'parcels' of sash-windows were sent from Montagu House to Boughton on 10March and 14 April 16~8.~~

Amongst these may have been the the nine 36-pane windows mentioned in the accounts as being 'coloured for Boughton' by Thomas Mum at Montagu House, and probably intended for the state apartments.loO This would explain the decision to opt for the by then old-fashioned Type A2 sash-window in the adjacent north-east pavilion. Many of the fourteen newly-made 36-pane Type A2 windows installed in the latter pavilion by Roger Davis between April 1699 and April 1~02'~'still survived relatively intact when inspected in 1984.

Confirmation that the notion of new work's constantly being used in combination with second-hand material from an earlier house at Boughton at the time, is not simply conjecture on our part comes from the provision made in Davis's bills for October 1702 to October 1703, 'For making 8 sash Frames & fitting the old sashes into them','02 i.e. in the remaining east face of the north-east pavilion. By good fortune some of these latter windows survive, amongst them one where the truncated sashes are of a curious construction, closer it seems to contemporary French joinery than anything in England. It could only have come from Montagu House and was most likely made by a French joiner; perhaps Dezeis? (Figs 26 and 27). Eventually, between October 1702 and October 1703, Roger Davis provided '505 foot of sashes made out of 2 Inch stuff in the 9 windows over the Cloysters at 2s per foot with new lines pullies & fitting them into the old Frames' -windows which he afterwards scraped in order to be vamished.'03 These Type B2 sash-windows received the bulk of the 21i x 163 inch bevelled plate glass panes supplied by Peletier in May 1703, at a cost of 13 shillings each.'04 No further work was done on the windows in the new north wing during the duke's lifetime, but sometime later in the 18th century all twenty-two sash-windows in the north-west pavilion were replaced by the Type A2 windows which are still in existence, obviously an attempt to restore some harmony in the fenestration of the facade (Fig. 25).

The evidence of the documents and the surviving fabric of the windows at Boughton therefore would seem to support the view that there was no specific architect in charge of this particular project of Montagu's, but that the design was arrived at in a piecemeal 'cut-and-paste' manner, re-using in the process as much as possible of the material salvaged from the restored Montagu House. The stylistic connexion between these buildings has often been noted. A comparison of the sizes of the windows in the north faqade of Boughton with what can be deduced from engravings of Montagu House,especially those in Vitruvius Britannicus (I7I 7), suggests that the correspondence is indeed close enough to have made the exchange of window components feasible with only minimum adjustments in situ, and thus to a considerable extent may have determined the proportioning of the faqade of the later building. It is ironical that a faqade considered as one of the most dignified and satisfying of its date could have come about in such an 'unarchitectural' way.


Ditton Park, Bucks. c. 1700-c. 1705. Montagu acquired the property with the medieval house in 1688 and started renovating it as his second country seat about a decade later. In March 1700 the French joiner,-peter Rieusset, was for mending sashes for ~itt0n.l'~

He was again recorded preparing material for transport to Buclunghamshire

in the summer of 1703, including a 'case for to put in the Old Sashes in the Green I7113

house for Ditton of 6'6" by 2. 106 A painter's bill for April 1705 reveals the full extent of this exchange. From the large number of Type A2 sash-windows of different format, double as well as single, painted at the time it can be deduced that the whole house plus the stables was fitted out with discards from Montagu ~ouse.'~' The practice seem to have continued in the next generation for amongst the Montagu papers at Boughton there is a note stating that another batch of 'sixty eight old sashes', stored until then in the Great Lumber Room at Boughton, was despatched to Ditton in February 1~3~.~~~

AS last in line in Montagu's building hierarchy Ditton clearly had become a depository for old sash-windows from Montagu House and Boughton, which make its destruction when a new house was built by Atkinson in I 8 13-17 a real loss for the study of the seventeenth-century sash-window.

5 Chatsworth, Derbyshire, 1685-1 707 The sash-windows which Charles Cotton sang the praises of in his famous poem on Chatsworth (published in 1681 as part of The Wonders ofthe Peake) were installed by the third Earl of Devonshire in the Elizabethan Chatsworth sometime after 1676, and are thought to have contributed to the partial structural collapse of the building;lo9 thus hastening the erection of the Baroque palace which is the subject here. These may well have been Type B2 windows, talung account of Cotton's phrase, 'Where now whole shashes are but one great eye', as well as the evidence of the painting of the remodelled Elizabethan house by Siberechts. As such they must have been very much a novelty in the area (the only building in that part of the country known to have had sashes by 1680 is Lyme Park, Cheshire, where Richard Legh had alterations made c. 16~5-8~)."~

The windows installed in the Baroque building belong to a new chapter in the history of the sash-window, the point when the Type B2 sash began to dominate as the most popular variety.

The first reference to joiners' work on the site is ofJohn Hallam (apparently a local man) dismantling the wainscot in the south front of the old house in January 168~.'" By August of that year a contract for work on the new south front was made with Wiham Lobb, a London joiner, but it was not until 1689 that the 'London Joyners' (Henry Lobb, presumably a relation, and Robert Owen) became engaged with the project on site. In September 1689 we find, apart from 'six tonnes of wainscot wood' imported from London via Bawtry, payments made for the carriage of '24 shashes wayed at 17 lb', comprising '72 pieces', plus '26 james[jambs] 13 lb'.'12 This is the exact number of sash-windows installed in the new south facade. However, it would appear that the windows were not yet in position by the end of September 1691 when Alexander Fort, Master Joiner to the Office of Works, was brought in by Sir Christopher Wren to measure and value the carpenters' and joiners' work at ~hatsworth."~

They were definitely in place by October the following year.114

In August 1694 wainscot boards arrived for the shutters of the Queen of Scots Room on the courtyard side of the east wing, followed in February 1695 by '80 Wainscot boards and Planks for window frames on ye East side', plus '48 peeces of oak from Shinvood for Heads and Sills for the windows . . . wai~lscot boards and planks for window shutters on the East side'.'15 Henry Lobb (who previously did some work on the garden houses at Hampton Court, as well as Kensington palace)'16 was the joiner in charge of this work. From the above, and the entry for 'thatching a shed for ye joiners to worke in' in the accounts for 1696,"' it would appear that the east-front windows were being made on site. They were installed the same year according to payments to: the smith for 'holdfasts for the Joyners for putting up the sash frames on ye East side', plus '46 pins for ye pully wheels for ye sashes on the East side'; 'Mr Lobb Joyner on account of his bargains for joyners work on the East side'; Gerret Johnson (Jensen) for 'glasse sent to Chatsworth' totalling up to A3So.118In 1696 too the smith received payment for 'an Engn to cleane the windows on ye South Front LO-9-6"19 (surely the first of its kind in Britain)

It was at this point that Celia Fiennes visited Chatsworth. Her enthusiasm for what she found bears testimony to the impact that the revolutionary developments in fenestration had on contemporaries:

. . . in the front [east] is 7 large windows the glass is diamond cutt and all off large Looking- glass, the panes bigg 4 in a breadth 7 in height [i.e. number of panes per window]; to the garden ward was 12 Windows of the same glass 4 panes broad 8 long [i.e. in the state apartments, south front]; the lowest windows are made with Grates before them and are for birds an Averye [as at Ham House] and so loolung glass behind; . . . at the end of the dineing roome ia a large door all of Looking-glass, in great pannells all diamond cutt, this is just opposite to the doores that runs into the drawing roome and bedchamber and closet, so it shews the roomes to look all double; . . . all the windowslin the duchess's closet] the squares of glass are so large and good they cost 10s a pannell; . . . the windows [of the private bathing room in the grotto] are all private glass [i.e. obscured, see be10w.l~~

The sash-windows at Chatsworth which Celia Fiennes referred to have been altered over the years and no longer reflect what she described. The sizes of the glass panes are not mentioned in the accounts except for the glass door which she so raved about: in 1692 Jensen, the glazier, received a special payment for 'the Glass door containing 8 glasses 4 of the 40 inches long & 4 being 29 inches each; for the moulding which goes round and parteth the glasses & ornaments LIOS-OO-OO."~~

With public recognition like that from Miss Fiennes it is no wonder the First Duke of Devonshire decided to continue building.

The greenhouse was built 1697-98; John Hallam made and installed the sashes that still survive there in 1698,'~~

and in 1700 the duke embarked on another ambitious building campaign with a new set of craftsmen, including the joiners, Jonathan Barker and [?I Chaplain. The mason who won the contract for the new west wing, John Fitch, was at the time connected with the building of &veton or Keiton Park, Yorkshire (1698-1704). The &veton connexion is significant, because we know that the sashes there were based on those installed c. 1697 in the ballroom of Princess Anne's new apartment in St. James's so it is likely that a London model again served; just as it seems quite plausible that the sash-windows in the south and east

Three different teams ofjoiners were responsible for the sash-windows at Blenheim, all from London: the Hopsons, father Charles and son John; the Smallwells, John Snr and Jnr (all of whom previously worked at St. Paul's and royal projects), and were engaged on the project from c. 1707, and, Robert Barker and his assistants, who seem to have joined in 1709. The work was conducted according to a rolling programme, with the different crafts following each other, as far as possible, in a set sequence, overlapping as circumstances dictated. All master joiners spent a fair amount of time on site albeit for limited periods, and their involvement with various parts of the building is carefully recorded in the accounts; to an extent that most windows could be connected with a specific team ofjoiners, if one had access to detailed plans of all levels. These do not seem to exist, and with little evidence of zoning in the allocation of areas of operation one cannot but marvel at the degree of on-site flexibility and co- ordination achieved as the craftsmen worked their way through the complex project. The logstical problems that had to be overcome, for instance, in the ordering, making and installation of expensive prefabricated units like the sash-windows on the basis of such scanty information must have been considerable.

The likelihood of having to make on-site adjustments as work progressed was clearly a matter of routine for buildings at the time. There are numerous instances of this in the records. Sometimes these alterations were intended, as was the case with the masons' having to dress the stonework of the windows in order to accommodate the sash-windows after these had arrived on site. A typical entry for this from 171 I reads: 'Cutting ye Jambs of windows for ye Chash frames to goe close to ye Dovell [the protruding section of the jamb behind which the sash-box fits] to prevent ye wether Driving in and plugg holes [for wooden pluggs] to fasten [nailed with holdfasts] the said frames to the At other times there were structural reasons. For example, in February 1709 Edward Strong the mason was 'cutting away the window Jambs to gett them under the Shash frames before the st[one] stools were put In by reason of making the Inside of the Middle peers thicker & consequently the Windows less the Better to support the weight above.'12' But unexpected and costly changes also arose from new instructions by the architect, and the Duchess's periodic interventions, such as the partial rebuilding of the west bow in 1706, and the splay of the stone jambs of the windows in her and the Duke's apartments in July and December 1708, 'for the better conveniency of light'.128

The first contract for joinery was with the Westminster joiner Charles Hopson (soon to become Sir Charles). It dates from 25 September 1707 and states precisely how the work is to be measured, the quality of the materials, the prices per unit, and, in the case of the windows, how it was to be constructed:

For Sashes and Frames both parts to slide made according to a pattern the bars all solid and Inner Rail lapover to be zin 1/4 when wrought with line pullys and hanging and fixing the same. Lead for Weight found p my Lord Duke at p Foot Sash and Frame -2s 6d For the Compass head of the same Sashes made as aforesaid the semi circle measured as if square and no Deduction made for being Circular at p foot -3s For the Sashes and Frames of like Scantling and like quality being bent in form of a Cyllender and having a Circular head at p foot -5s


For inside sashes fixed without Lines or Puhes of a less scantling vizt out of 2 inch stuff at p foot -2od For Inside sashes that move made out of 2 inch stuf fight Wainscot-IS ~od

Finally, a memorandum stipulated that the duke was to be responsible for the cost of transporting the material from London to ~oodstock.'~~

Presumably the other joiners also received contracts like this but none are recorded.

The 'fine Modell of Right Wainscott' of the building, made that same month by John Smallwell is said to have shown the windows together with other interior details, but unfortunately it does not survive.130 Neither does the (from our perspective) more important 'modell for one of the Windows in the Grand Story', provided by Smallwell in November 1~09.l~'

An instance of the latter practice is recorded for December 1709 when the newly arrived Robert Barker provided 'several patterns for Shashes of 2 In. and 4Stuff one with Astragal and Block, one Glewd in the same manner, the first and second Solid and one for the Inch & 3/4 sashes -Lo-16-0'' in connexion with the work he was doing in the east and west service wings.'32

The first batch of 115 sashes, 'Estimat 16 to Load at 18s p Load' was shipped by Hopson to Oxford, and from there carried to Woodstock in May 1708. More were to follow in JU~~.'~~

The 'pattern Sash and frame' for the duchess's bedroom arrived in December 1708, separately packed, together with windows for the 'Grand Story' and attic.134 It was probably carved on site by Grinling Gibbons who, ten years earlier had carved the grand decorative sash-windows for the organ-cases at St. Paul's ~athedra1.I~~ There were four more deliveries of windows recorded, in February and November 1709, May 1710 and June 171 I. The second, for windows made by John Smallwell, gves a clear indication of how they were transported: it provides for 'paclung up 94 Sashes in 22 Parcells. 10 Compass heads in 5 parcells. 10 sills in 5 parcells, 20 outside linings for the frames, 20 Inside pei~es'.'~~

Two cases of 'door and Window moldings' followed a month later.I3'

Like the sash frames the glass came from London, packed in special cases prepared by the joiners as directed by the chief glaziers, Isaac Eeles and Thomas Davis. The joiners also provided templates. In November 1709 John Smallwell made a 'pattern for the Glass men to Cut out the Glasse for the Compasse heads'; in August 1710 John Hopson was making 'molds for ye plate & Crowne Glasse', and likewise Smallwell that ~ecember.'~~

This, and the references to 'cases with partitions' indicate that much of the glass was cut to size in London to be fixed at Blenheim presumably by the glaziers travelling with the glass. It would appear that in the later stages of the project the fixing was done by the Scrivens, local glaziers who also provided some crown glass, sash weights and carried out repairs. The putty came with the glass, but the joiners were additionally paid for 'glewing slips into the sashes to secure the plate glass', because of its preciousness: the plate glass supplied by Thomas Davis in October 1710, for example, cost 6-7s. per foot, and in that particular case he provided no less than 2745 foot 6inches of it for the 'Grand floor part ofye South front, West front and North Front of ye Grand Pile & ye two Quadrants there'.'39 With an average wage for a joiner at 3s. for a full day's work as a comparison it is easy to see why such care was taken to protect the plate glass; according to the accounts it travelled wrapped in 'tow paper'. By December 1711, when the last entries for glazing were made A1266 2s. gd. had been spent on plate glass, A419 15s. 3d. on crown, and the house was not fully glazed.

William Hargrave the painter's contract of 20 April 1709 provided for 'Sash Frames 3 times done in Oyl at p Frame -1s 6d'; Sash Lights done 3 times the outside at iPLight-I .id'; 'Inside work plain white 4 times done in nut Oyle at p yard -12d" O In December 1709 a temporary wooden shed was built for the painters, which was replaced by a stone structure in February 1~10.l~'

But time was running out for the builders. In 171 I, when official funding for the project stopped, the house was still far from complete. With Vanbrugh's encouragement the craftsmen, many of whom were owed large sums of money, continued worlung. The windows were painted between June and October 1712. Hargrave's final bill included '73 36 Chash lights painted on both sides at qd each', and '401 Chash frames painted Do at 18d Each side'.14' In the summer of 1712 the Smallwells were busy 'caseing' (i.e. boarding up) all the finished windows, sometimes having to open them again for the painters benefit.143 At the same time John Hopson was still installing new windows all over the building. His bill for October 1712 came to A518 12s. 4s.,144 but when building work was finally suspended soon after, much of the fenestration was still unfinished, i.e. judgng from the claim by Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough in 1716 for work that had to be completed afterwards by the Duke at his own expense. This included : 'The greatest Part of the Joyner's work in the Body of the House and offices, & a great Number of the Sash windows'; 'Great part of the Painting in the Body of the House and OfEces. . .; Entirely the finishing of the Gallery except Sashes and some lazei in^'.'^^ It is only when one considers the scale ofthe undertaking that this statement begins to make sense. When the eighth Duke was asked how many rooms Blenheim had he replied: 'I am not sure, but I know I paid a bill this Spring for painting a thousand windows."46 It was projects like these which finally consolidated the position of the new window type in Britain. (Figs 29 and 30)

7 Newton Hall, Co. Durham, 1717-23

When Sir Henry Liddell in 1717 contracted for the rebuilding of his house just outside Durham City the sash-window was still very much a novelty in the area. The terms of an agreement between the Joiners' and House-carpenters' Companies in nearby Newcastle upon Tyne in 171 I makes it clear that sash-windows were known and used by then, and were considered to be joiners' rather than carpenters' work.'47 Corbridge's map of 1723 for the same town show some prominent houses with such windows, but these probably date largely from about 1720, and even then the sash- window was far from being established as a feature of the architecture of the regon. There is no definite evidence of prior use of sash-windows in Durham when Newton Hall was planned, so the initial decision to opt for cross windows was an obvious one. (A very rough early design, c. 1717, for the front faqade of the house shows cross- windows of 7 foot 10inches by 4 foot on both fl00rs.l~~)

However, by 1723 sash-windows had been chosen instead and it is their manufacture which is the principal object of a series of letters, sent over a period of two months

L[Liddell at Ravensworth Castle] are 4 p[ar]ts of ye woodwork composing ye joints of wt containes the Glass, which you will approve.'151 The reference to 'parts of woodwork' here is clearly to the junction of the glazing bars intended for the sash- windows, a practice which we have encountered in some of the earlier case-histories given above.

A letter postdated 23 July reveals that a joiner by the name of Pornroy had in the meantime been engaged by Sir Henry to make the rest of the windows for Newton Hall. He informed his son of the situation:

I hope yo will have no more course to complain of Pomroy unless in point of Time 6 weeks being more yn yo can well allow. He hopes to finish yr seven windowes a week sooner. He has orders to dis~atch 4 or ( with all ~ossible meed that thev mav be sent down. three for the

, ,

stareshead and 'over the s in in^ ~iommay' be better dispenct with. I hope his future performance by you direction will give content. For yr best workmen, & nicest persons in considerable buildings for themselves keep him Imployd so am first to Induly[?] on time that yo best hands be at my work. He proposes sending back cases [ie. sashboxes]; but yt seemes not worth ve while all things considered. Wee mav find lead. & strings cheaoer vn here. tho doubt

" L,

must Gythe best pricFam sure more yn off&d to you: In box with Cuddys writing yr bror would find a Specimen of sash work yo wont ~is1ike.l~~

The other 'specimen of sash work' was for the new building then being planned for Sir Henry at Ravensworth Castle. From the correspondence it would appear as ifJohn Bright had a hand in the alterations at Ravensworth as well. (Sir Henry obviously had the greatest admiration for Bright's taste and architectural knowledge.)

Their letters must have crossed for two days later Sir Henry wrote again: 'I apprehended matterialls might be scarce, and workmen not so expert as here. These Reasons as Iremember made me proceed prices with Pomroy tho at an advanc[emen]t to wt was offerd in the Country. Yesterday Mr Pomroy was writ to upon receipt of yours. Iexpect to see him toomorrow to order four [six deleted] sashes with Expedition. The defect in those Reserved for the North front being I sup ose a defect of Frames formerly complaind which I wish had been Explaind in ye last."3 From this it would seem that the defective sashes referred to in the letter of June 25 had been relegated to the rear faqade of the hall, with Pomroy now preparing new sashes for all twelve windows in the main front (Fig. 3 I) according Bright's instructions.

This is confirmed by Sir Henry in his next letter, dated 30July, when he wrote: 'By your Directions Comunicated to Pomroy I hope he be perform well, and that glass was of ye best sort. I would not have yo too sparing in what may set of the work yo so kindly engag'd in. New wainscot in little pads and old made usefull else where I think a good contrivance, the little closed [closet] may be converted into a Bufett, or not as yo think best, not knowing other convenience below for paprs etc. I refer to yo contriving the windows now divided as may be most ornamental in ye parlr or as yo judg best."54 Amongst the Bright Papers at ShefTield City Archives there is an elevation for a sash window which, although not identified as such, in every other respect would seem to comply with what these 'directions' might have been (Fig. 32). This drawing, which as far as we know is the only one of its lund that has yet emerged from this period, may have been drawn by Bright himself. However, the way in which the information is pven suggests that a professional hand was involved, most


windows which demonstrate how far this process of assimilating the new window type in the regional architectural idiom has advanced: Seaton Delaval Hall (1718-z9), Lurnley Castle (1721-28), both by Vanbrugh and of national significance; the Banqueting Hall, Trinity House, Newcastle (1721), Bavington Hall, Northumberland (I~ZOS),

of reg~onal importance only. Since the North-East is one of the more isolated parts of England, one can safely assume that this was the case for most parts of the country.

Part Two of the paper (to be published in vol. 42 of Architectural History), will be devoted to a detailed analysis of the constructional development of the sash-window over the first half a century of its existence. By trying to find answers from the historical documents and windows to questions like: How was it made?; What was it made of ?;Why was it made like that?; What was it used for?; we hope to throw new light on the manner by which such an enduring monument to one of the most revolutionary periods in British architectural history came into being


To follow in Part Two of this paper whose publication has been made possible by a generous grant from the University of Newcastle.


I H. J. Louw, 'The Orign of the sash-window', Architectural History, 26(1983), pp. 49-72, hereafter referred to as 'Origin'. 2 A. P. Baggs,'The Earliest Sash-window in Britain?', The Geovgian Group Journal, VII (1997), pp. 168-71. An English Heritage internal report on this find is currently in preparation in advance of the window's conservation and reinstatement. 3 For the evidence supporting this date see Louw, 'Orign', pp. 62-65. 4 The socio-technological factors related to the early history of the sash-window are discussed in detail in

H.J. Louw, The Origin and Development qf the Sash-window in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, with special reference to Enfland (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oxford University, 1981, hereafter referred to as Origin GDevelopment),pp. 50-173. See also, H. Louw, 'Demarcation Disputes between the Enghsh Carpenters and Joiners from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries', Construction History, 5 (1989), hereafter referred to as 'Disputes', pp. 3-20; H. Louw, 'Wlndow-glass making in Britain c. 1660-6. 1840, and its Architectural Impact', Construction History, 7 (1991), pp. 47-68. 5 For a full discussion of this important development see, Louw, Origin G Development, pp. 66-84. An excellent series of publications with measured drawings of historic joinery from the period had been compiled by the Centre de Recherches sur les Monuments Historiques, Paris. See especially, vol. IV: FenCtres (Menuiserie) 2chassis coulissants (Paris, n.d.); for the Netherlands see, H.Janse,Vensters (Nijrnegen,rg71), H.Janse, 'Vensters met openslaande ramen in de tweede helft van de 17de eeuw', Bulletin KNOB, Jg.77 afl.3/4 (1978), pp. 170-76. 6 For a well-illustrated overview of the varying classicizing trends and their impact on fenestration during the period immediately preceding the advent of the sash-window in England, see T. Mow1 and B. Eamshaw, Architecture without Kings: 7ke Rise ofPuritan Classicism under Cromweil (Manchester, 199 5). 7 A series of seven windows on the first floor, north front, above the entrance. These windows of Type A2 have casements in the one halfand sashes in the other. All details suggest a date of c. 1680 rather than early 18th century, the most likely candidate for builder being Judge Thomas Twisden, who retired to Bradbourne in 1679 and died in 1683. There is, however, no record of any building work at the house during the late seventeenth century. 8 For an illustrated analysis of this see, Louw, Onkin G Development, passim.

9 H. M.Colvin, 'The Practice of Architecture 1600-1840: The Building Trades', A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, (~gg~), Idem., 'The Beginning of the Architectural Profession in

pp. 21-28; Scotland', Architectural History, 29 (1986), pp. 169-74; J. G. Dunbar,'The organisation of the building industry in Scotland during the 17th century', Building Construction in Scotland: Some Historical G Regional Aspects, (Edinburgh/Dundee, 1976), pp. 7-15. 10 E. B.Jupp, An Historical Account ofthe Worsht$ful Company ofCatpenters ofthe City ofLondon (1887), pp. 296, 301-02. 11 H. Louw, 'Of "Ancient Rights and Priviledges": Demarcation Disputes between the Companies of Joiners and Carpenters, Millwrights and Trunkmakers of Newcastle upon Tyne c. I 580-c. 1740'~Archaeologia Aelianae, 5th Ser. vol. XVII (1989), hereafter referred to as 'Ancient kghts', pp. 93-115. 12 The Newcastle Joiners' Company, in the 169os, relaxed their rules against the employment of foreigners specifically in order to attract metropolitan journeymen to teach them the latest techniques in woodworking, (Louw, Disputes, p. 13), and in May 1702 a Newcastle joiner was ganted the freedom to work in the London Liberties, a very unusual step for the period (Louw, 'Ancient Rights', p. 100). For a Scotttish example see below note 68. 13 Northants. Record Office, Cat. I5B/45. Information from H. M. Colvin. 14 Chancery suit of 1692/4. PRO.C.~/~IO/~

& 27. Sir James Smith et al. vs. James Friend, Builder. Contract for I3 houses 1686, left unfinished in 1688 when materials, including prefabricated sash-windows were surreptitiously removed from site. Information from Frank Kelsall. Sir John Summerson (Georgian London, 3rd Ed., 1978, p. 49) concludes that these housing schemes still had cross windows, but there were obviously exceptions. 15 C. F. Montgomery, 'Thomas Banister on the New Sash Windows, Boston,1701',~ournal ofthe Society of Architectural Historians, 24 (1965), pp. 169-70. 16 H. W. Robinson and W. Adams, The Diary ofRobert Hooke, 1672-80 (1935)~pp. 446-47. 17 H. M. Colvin, 'Robert Hooke and Ramsbury Manor', Country L$, 23 January 1975, p. 195. 18 Letter Books, 1st Baron Ashburnham, Ashbumham MSS, Sussex County Record Office, Lewes, Sussex. Cat. no. 4463. Information from John Bold. 19 Thirty-eight chests of 'Shaush window' and four chests of window glass arrived via Spalding and Stamford on 29 August 1698; ten more chests and four cases of glass on 23 November. Finch Papers, Leicestershire Record Office. Build~ng Accounts Burley-on-the-Hd. Cat. No. DG7/1/128, vol. 3 fols. GG. 13, 18. Miss Pearl Finch, in her History of Burley-on-the-Hiil, Rutland (I~oI),p. 57, quotes an extract from an undated contract document between Lord Nottingham and the carpenter Matthew May, whlch required the latter to: '. . . saw sett make and sett Sash Storys at Burleigh at seven shillings for each frame [and to] make sashes for all the Windows of the best Wainscott of one inch and three quarters square according to the Modell thereof given and shall find the said Wainscott and also the best lines and Pulleys of four inches diameter with brass collars and iron pieces and also such like lines and Pulleys for opening and shutting the same, and cast and make the weights at one shilling and sixpence the square foot the said Earl finding the lead'. 20 Ashburnham MSS 4463. 21 Ibid. 22 On this see especially H. M. Colvin,(ed.), The History ofthe King's Works, v: 1660-1782 (1976), Part I, Chapters 1-3. 23 Louw, Origin, pp. 60-61; King's U'orks, v:254-59. 24 King's Works, v:z33-35 25Ibid., p. 318 n.3. 26 PRO, Ofice of Works Accounts, 5/38, hereafter referred to as Works. 27 Works, 5/10. 28 King's Works, V:ISS. 29 Works, 5/27. 30 Trze Wren Society,v11:3o-31, 59. The carpenter's accounts for the building provides for 402 cross-windows on three floors, and there is a reference to casements being kept in a dry store. These would account for the bulk of the windows, but an entry, dated 21 October 1683, for 'Joyners worke, Shasses, Glass, Ceilings, Painting, and Locks and Marbles for Chymnys and Pavings', being stored elsewhere 'towards the next yeare's worke'(p. 57), suggests that some sashes were to be used in special locations. 31 See Wren Society,v11:86-134, for the accounts.These are not entirely complete. See also, Works 5/54.


32 Wren Society, v11:1o8. 
33 Based on a comparison of a scale elevation/section of c. 1685(Wren Society, ~II,Plate XIII~), with the 
accounts, especially the glazier's bills. 
34 Based on a comparison ofpartplan of chapel c. 1687 (King's Works, v, plate 39B), with accounts, especially, 
Wren Society, VII: 105-06. 
3 5 Wren Society, ~II:

I27. 36 Ibid., pp. 103, ro5. 37 Works, 5/54.

3 8 Works, 19/48/1 ; Wren Society, ~II:

143-83 39 Wren Society, 1v:49. 40 King's Works, v: 162. 41 Wren Society, 1v:49. 42 Ibid., 53. 43 In January 1699 Robert Streeter, Sergeant Painter was paid for a filrther '6 paper sashes oyled 14 ft by 5' together with the painting of '26 large sashes: 32 lights in each . . .fronting the Private Garden [Privy Garden?] 15 ft high (Works, 5/50). 44Wren Society, 1v:57-58 For dating see King's Works, v:162. 45 Ibid., p. 24, Pipe Roll 2:April 1691-March 1694. Pipe Roll I, which covered the period., I April 1689-March 1691 included a further A919 5s. II~.for glass (Ibid., p. 21). The specimen accounts only mention one payment for William Ireland in 1691, which came to A75. 46 Works,5/50. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid.

49 Works, 5/50, 5/53.

50 Wren Society, 1v:62. 
5I Works, 5/53. Information from Mr Gerald Heath. 
52 King's Works, v:169. 
53 Ibid., p. 176. 
54 Roger North, OfBuilding, ed. H. M.Colvin and]. Newman (Oxford, 1981), p. 57. 
55 For an excellent overview of this see J. G.Dunbar, 'The Building Activities of the Duke and Duchess of 
Lauderdale 1670-82', ArchaeologicalJo~mal,CXXXII (1976), pp 202-30, hereafter referred to as 'Lauderdale'. 
56 The Ham Accounts, which are probably unique for this period outside the royal accounts, for the amount 

of detail they gve on the building process, are with the rest of the Lauderdale papers in Buchnster, 
Leicestershire. ( Tollernache Papers, Buckminster Estate, Leics. RcHM(1979), Cat. No. 648, hereafter referred 
to as Tollemache). Inspected by hnd permission of Sir Lyonel Tollemache. 
57 Tollemache 648. Items: 436, 438-43, 445-46. Note: the figure of 26 sash-windows previously pen as the 
total for the Ham House extension (Louw, Origin, p. 64) did not take account of those in the side elevations. 
58 Dunbar, 'Lauderdale', p. 208. 
59 Ibid. 
60 Ibid., p. 219. 
61 Ibid., p. 204. 
62 Tollemache, 648, Item 645. 
63 Ibid., Item 648. 
64 Ibid. Undated, but identifiable as the work of the Dutch painter, Edward fichus, who was employed at 
Thirlestane 1677-79. On him see,Dunbar, 'Lauderdale', p. 21 I n.30. 
65 Tollemache, 648, Item 649. 
66 Dunbar, 'Lauderdale', pp. 21 1-12. 
67 Information from John Dunbar: letter dated, 25 August 1676. 
68 Idem. Considering the interest that the Duke and his architect, James Smith, displayed in Wren's work, 
especially Hampton Court (on this see, J. Macaulay, 7he Classical Country House in Scotland 1660-1800, 1987, 

p. 36), the sashes in the latter building probably served as a model for Hamilton Palace as well. 
69 Currently on display at Ham ~oise in the ante-room to the library, together with the later Slezer view 
which curiously shows the south front with cross windows. 

70 Tollemache,648, Item 446. Viewer's report by John James dated 16 June 1730. The relevant passage reads: 'The Weather gets in under many of the Sills of the Windows, so as to have rotted the Wainscoting beneath 'em, and there indeed requires a Repair of the Windows throughout the House; The Sashes being all unfit to Stand, and most of the other Lights requiring to be secured at their sills, and Transoms, where they now admit the Wet'. 71 V&A, Prints, Drawings and Paintings Collection, Cat. No. E432 1-36. 1981.The relevant items are: 25-26. 72 Edited and published by H. M. Colvin as 'Letters and Papers relating to the Rebuilding of Combe Abbey, Warwickshire,1681-1688' in, Walpole Society, vol. L (1984), pp. 248-309. 73 Ibid., Item 12, p. 265. 74 Ibid., Item 42, p. 276. 75 Ibid., Item 45, p. 277. 76 Ibid., Item 53, p. 281. 77 Ibid., Item 56, p. 282. 78 Ibid., Item 97, p. 301. 79 Ibid., Item 101, p. 308. 80 Ibid., Items 81 and 98, pp. 293 and 304-06. 81 Ibid., Item 84, pp. 295-96. 82 Ibid., Item 85, p. 296. 83 Montagu Papers, kept at Boughton House, Northants. Catalogue No. 100: three volumes of 'Bills and Vouchers paid by the Executors of Duke Ralph 1712', contain the building accounts related to Montagu House, Boughton and Ditton Park. Inspected by kind permission His Grace the Duke of Buccleugh. 84 Louw,Origin G Development, pp. 39-46. 85 Robinson & Adams, Diary, p. 194. Entry for 13 November 1675 86 Ibid., p. 205. According to an entry in the Annals ofthe College ofPhysicians (kept in library of the Royal College of Physicians, London, hereafter referred to as Annals), the major rooms on the first floor of the central college building, in which the six sash-windows shown on the Loggan engraving of c. 1677 came into use on 25 February 1675 (Annals:IV, fol. IIIa, p. 172). These were probably installed by Roger Davis who was responsible for all the joinery in the building (Robinson & Adams, Diary, p. 122. Entry for 25 September 1674). Hooke, in his diary, noted that glazing was started on the new college builchng in September 1674, and on 4 December he passed the glazier's bill (Robinson & Adams, Diary, pp. 122, 133) See also M. I. Batten, 'The Architecture of Dr. Robert Hooke', Walpole Society, xxv (1936-37), pp. 89-90; G. N. Clark, A History ofthe Royal College ofPhysicians, London (Oxford, 1964), vo1.1: 329-33. 87 Robinson & Adams, Diary, p. 215. 88 Ibid., p. 239. 89 Ibid., p. 268. Entry for 13 January 1676/7 90 Ibid., p. 382. 91 Hooke Diary, Guildhall Library, MSS. 1758, Entries for: 2 April, 19 June, 12-13 August 1681; 2 June, 5 August, 25 August 1682. 92 Phil Harris, the locksmith, was paid for '120 brass buttons for sashes at ~d .p peice', at Montagu House in January 1690, and again for '62 brass buttons for sashes . . . [and] . . .4 gilt buttons ditto', in July 1691 (Montagu Papers, vo1.1, fols. 245, 249). At a maximum of two lifts per sash for Type B2, or four maximum for the A2 sash (two for each half), this provision was sufficient to cover most of the windows in the main building, i.e. the 26 Type B2 sashes indicated in north and south fronts in the early 18th century engravings, plus at least 32 Type A2 sashes. Whatever the case may have been this entry alone suggests a substantial refenestration pr&ramme. There are no further references the replacement of windows on anything like this scale for the London property amongst the Montagu Papers. 93 Batten, op. cit., p. 96. There are a number of topographical views by Sutton Nicholls in the Pepys Collection at Magdalene College, Cambridge, incluchng a signed engraving of the north front of Kensington House reliably datable to 1690 ( Wren Society, plate on page 241), which is the closest in style to the view of Montagu House, but there is no proven connexion. Dr. Luckett, Pepys Librarian, regards the latter drawing to be pre-1686. 94 Robinson &Adams, Diary, p. 443.


95 For Ramsbury see, H. J. Louw,'New Light on Ramsbury', Architectural History, 30 (1987), pp. 45-49. Judgng from Kip's engraving of Ragley, c. 1698, the house had Type B2 sashes throughout. 96 Montagu Papers, vol. I, fols, 82-123. There is a reference at the end of Davis's account to 'The Ballance of a former Account stated by Mr Dezeis before the Year 1691' (fol. 123). 97 Ibid., vol. I, fol. 241: Phil Harris, locksmith's account dated January 1688/9, for 'work delivered at Montagu House to go to Boughton. . .. For 40 brass buttons for Sashes'. 98 Ibid., vol. I, fols. 82-88. The reference to work on the wainscot in the Ing's Chamber in July 1694 is on fol. 84. 99 Ibid., vol. I, fol. 459. roo Ibid., vol. 2, fol. 954.

IOI Ibid., vol. I, fol. 88. 
102 Ibid., vol. I, fol. 98. 
103 Ibid., vol. I, fols 90, 98. 
104 J. Comforh,'Boughton House', Country L@, 10 September 1970, p. 626. 
105 Montagu Papers, vol. 2, fol. 693. 
106 Ibid., vol. 2, fol. 64s. 
107 Ibid., vol. I, fols. 177-79. 
108 Ibid., Cat. 100, According to a note attached to an Inventory dated 1735. 
109 F. Thompson, A History ofchatsworth, (1949), p. 19. 
IIO On this see J. Cornforth, 'Lyme Park, Cheshire', Country L@, 12 December 1974, pp. 1858-61. This 
work included new Type B2 sash-windows installed c. 1678-80 by a joiner named Willuns -possibly the 

John Wilkins who, with Wdiam Cleare, installed the sash-windows in Sir Robert Howard's apartments at Westminster, September 1673 to December 1674 (Works 5/25) A letter by Legh of 1678, quoted by Lady Newton in her The House afLyme (1917, p. 277), complained about the cost of these: 'Wilkins asketh 4s a yard for workmanship of plain wainscot and I find meat, and 2s a foot for Shass windows, that is 18s a square yard and he find timber, which you know is noe great matter'. Some of these sash-windows are shown in a painting of c. 1690 of the north front of Lyme park, and in an extant design of c. 1680 for a new parlour (Country Life, art. cit., Figs 2 and 6 ). At Chatsworth the joiner, John Hallam, has paid in 1698 for taLng the glasse 'but-of the old sashes and cleaning the rabbits' (presumably for re-use). Devonshire Papers, Building Accounts Chatsworth, vol. 4, fol. 43. Used by permission of His Grace the Duke of Devonshire. I I I Devonshire Papers, vol. 2, fol. 6. 112 Ibid., vol. 2, fol. 50. 113 Wren's 'Valuation of the Building of Chatsworth'(1692) is published in full in Wren Society XVII (1940), pp.22-39. Alexander Fort's measurement, dated 25 September 1691, includes the carpenters' work and woodcarving on the interior but only about A60 worth ofjoinery done by Hallam, with no reference at a!l to the sash-windows for the south front, which we know from the records to have been on the site since September 1689 (see above note I 12). It is possible that this may have been regarded as a separate contract, like the windowglass. Only the stonework was comprehensively valued. 114 Devonshire Papers, vol. 2, fols 89, 97E, 102. I I 5 Ibid., vol. 3, fol. 18. 116 Wren Society IV: 32; VII: 177. For period 1689-91. I 17 Qevonshire Papers, vol. 3, fol. 44. I 18 Ibid., vol. 3, fols 36, 42, 57, 73. Jensen (Johnson) the glazier's total bill for glazing the east wing, when it was finally closed on 29 July 1698, came to A400 (Ibid., vol. I, fol. 148). He had previously been paid E3oo for window glass provided for the south wing up to March 1691 (Ibid., vol. 2, fols 58, 78). I 19 Ibid., vol. 3, fol. 42. 120 C. Morris,(ed.), TheJoumeys ofCelia Fiennes, (1949), pp. 98-100. Celia Fiennes, who had an exceptionally acute eye for architectural detail, gave a useful picture of the progress of the sash-window in England between 168j and 1703. 121 Devonshire Papers, vol. 2, fol. 97E. 122 Ibid., vol. 4, fols 12, 20, 25, 29, 3 j. 123 That is, according to the contract with David Brand, carpenter of the Minories,London, dated 3 March 1698, quoted in&umal afthe Warburg G Courtauld Institutes, XVIII (1955), p. 131 n. I. It stipulates that the sash- windows were made 'in such a manner as the Princess' sashes are hung in the ball-room at St James Palace'.

124 Devonshire Papers, vol. 7, fols 89, 94. The final design for the west front. undated and unsigned, has survived in the Chatsworth Archives. It shows the pattern for the fenestration (at all levels in one bay) which corresponds with the present arrangement. See Wren Society, XVII. plate XXXIII. I25 Blenheim Account:, British Library. Add. MSS. 19591-1 9604. 126 Ibid., 19598, fol. 37: Bill Edward Strong, September 171 I. 127 Ibid., 19596, fol. 12. 128 Ibid., 19595, fols 61b, 118. 129 Ibid.,19591, fols 100-or. Register of Warrants 81 Contracts 1705-09. Hopson was paid according to these rates for work done on the east wing in April 1710 (19597, fols 35b, 36, 36b). 130 Ibid., 19594, fol. 77. 131 Ibid., 19596, fol. 126. 132 Ibid., 19595, fols 134-35. 133 Ibid., fols. 34b, 58b. I 34 Ibid., fols. 123b, 124. 1;s Ibid., vol. 19595, fol. 123b. Smallwell was paid for rnaking a special case for transporting this window from London, as well as for paper sashes for Gibbons's workshop on site. The carving of windows is not specifically mentioned in the accounts, other than a provision made by Vanbrugh for such work on the windows of the saloon in 1714, which was never executed (D. Green, Blenheim Palace, 1951, pp. 86, 247). Since Gibbons was responsible for carving the large sash-windows for St.Paul's organ cases, made by Charles Hopson between July and September 1697 (Wren Society xv pp. 32-33), it can be safely assumed that it was he who carved the Blenheim windows as well. Some of these still survive in the duke's private apartments. 136 Rlewheim Aaourzts, 19596, fol. 126; 19597, fol. 47b; 19598, fol. 21. 137 Ibid., 19596, fol. 127b. 138 Ibid., 19596, fol. 126b; 19597, fols. 87b, 116. 139 Ibid., 19597, fol. 106. 140 Ibid.. 19591, fol. 114. 141 Ibid., 19596, fol.131: 19597, fol. 13b. 142 Ibid., 19598, fol. 87. 143 Ibid., fol. 77. 144 Ibid., fol. 91. 145 Quoted in Green, Rlenheim, pp. 264-65. 146 Ibid.. p. 286. 147 Louw, 'Ancient Rights', pp. 96-97, 108-1 I. 148 Werztworth tVoodhouse Mu~iments, Brkht I'apers, Shefield City Archives, Cat. No. WWM: BR, 177(9). Drawing of the west front of Newton Hall, Co. Durham c. 1717. I am indebted to Mr Martin Roberts of Durham City Council Architects' Department for information on this archive. 149 Br&hr I'apers, BR 173 (4-1 I). 150 Ibid., BRI~~

(9). 151 Ibid.,BR173 (7). I52 Ibid., BRI~~

(5). 153 Ibid., BRr73 (4). I 54 Ibid., BRI~~

(8). 155 Ibid., BRI~~

(6). Building account for Newton Hall titled. 'Newton November 5th 1717'. The drawing (WWM Add. Report Cabinet A Drawer 7), is neither dated nor signed. 156 Bvight Papers, BR173 (6). I 57 lbid., BRI~~


  • Recommend Us