C O N T E X T 1 2 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 3 49 characteristically experimental and brave.’10 The small panes of glass turned out to be a fundamental design flaw. Work had to be done to repair damage caused by leaks just a year after the gallery was completed.11 This proved to be a continuous problem. A glazed cover was installed in 1974 around the perimeter of Nash’s roof. This, only ever partially successful, has now come to the end of its life and water ingress continues. Hence the current project to install a secondary roof, leaving Nash’s iconic structure protected beneath. To make way for the new gallery and stairs, Nash had to carry out considerable demolition and reconstruction work, literally carving out sufficient space. Had he unwittingly weakened the building in his aim to make a grand statement for his client? He had certainly built in a timebomb, an ingenious idea but high-risk for the future. Because of the gallery’s position at the heart of the house, his lead rainwater downpipes are internal, buried in the north wall of the Picture Gallery. These pipes have not failed yet, but they are obviously hopelessly positioned for any maintenance. Much of the other original lead elsewhere on Nash’s roof is now very tired, which does not inspire confidence. Despite the technical difficulties, the overall impression was, as might be expected from these two ambitious men, full of impact, with lavish use of gilding.12 But was it a triumph of show rather than substance? Had Nash, with his reputation for experimentation, cutting corners and flashy-but-flawed designs, built this gallery for theatrical effect without concern for its long-term performance, or had he really thought it through? This was a huge worry as we started to assess the stability and load-bearing capacity of the 200year old gallery. We are about to put a secondary roof, weighing about 20 tonnes, fixed at four points into the compromised south wall, above the whole expanse of some 158 square metres. This will potentially change the dynamic of how the structure behaves. There is also the worrying knowledge that Nash had unsuccessfully used iron at Corsham Court in Wiltshire just prior to the Attingham commission. There a ceiling collapsed and a pair of iron staircases sank into the floor. It was described as an unmitigated disaster. Perhaps Nash did not understand his materials, but he claimed that it was a building rather than a design fault. On the other hand, almost contemporaneously, Nash used cast iron for structural beams at Aqualate Hall,13 which he remodelled between 1806–9. Aqualate’s archives contain a drawing of an ‘iron trussed girder’. During investigations14 at Attingham, there was much excitement when similar iron trusses were found supporting the east and west walls of the gallery. Wrought-iron tie bars were also found which appear to locate the trusses to the softwood beams supporting the ends of the cast-iron roof. In addition, there was a sense of boldness and confidence about the way in which the east and west curved iron ribs sit on the wall-plate.15 Perhaps Nash had thought a lot more about strengthening the structure than we had previously given him credit for. For the architects of the early 1800s, iron began to offer not only structural possibilities, but also more design and aesthetic freedom. Regency domestic interiors could contain larger, more open spaces as the traditional loadbearing timbers began to be replaced by cast-iron beams. Nash was the man who seems to have first exploited these possibilities and sometimes paid the pioneer’s price for experimentation. Even later his work continued to be flashy but flawed: there was a history of corrosion and rot at Brighton Pavilion and dismissal for irregularities over the building of Buckingham Palace. On his death, the damning contemporary opinion was: ‘an execrable architect, devoid of taste, genius and originality, infatuated with self-conceit, and fit only to pander to the depraved longings of a tasteless age’.16 The 2nd Lord Berwick and Nash were indeed flashy and both had their shortcomings and weaknesses, suffering humiliating personal and professional failures that they tried to evade. Both craved approval: they were ambitious to create a legacy and a name for themselves that others would admire and envy. Perhaps both hid behind a facade of fashion and theatricality. Whatever their flawed characteristics, their collaboration as patron and architect is, in Attingham’s case, a rare and ground-breaking example of successful architectural innovation. This survives in its original form, and in a number of remarkable Regency decorative schemes which we are now reviving and appreciating anew. Sarah Kay, project curator at Attingham Park. A different version of this article appeared in the National Trust e-publication ABC. Sources James Stevens Curl (2011) Georgian Architecture Terence Davies (1973) John Nash: the Prince Regent’s architect, David and Charles London Gazette, issue 20380, p3166 Michael Mansbridge (1991) John Nash: a complete catalogue Emma Nock (2012) Attingham Park Picture Gallery, Archive Research Project for the National Trust, March Richard Suggett (1995) John Nash, Architect inWales Notes from Georgian Group Nash Symposium, September 2000 1 Richard Suggett, Georgian Group Nash Symposium, 2009 2 Professor DavidWatkin, Georgian Group Nash Symposium, 2009 3 Emma Nock, Notes on Early Structural Uses of Iron, Archive Research Project for the National Trust, p7 4 Quoted by Richard Suggett, Georgian Group Nash Symposium 2009 5 Their relationship must have prospered, and the 2nd Lord Berwick must have been happy with the results, as Nash went on to carry out another commission for him on his London house in Grosvenor Square in 1812, the year of Thomas’ marriage. 6 She had had ‘une affaire de coeur’ with a cobbler at the age of 13, became the courtesan of Lord Ponsonby in 1808 (once he had dropped her sister Harriette), and was then seduced by Lord Deerhurst (of Croome) by the age of 14. 7 In 1824 by Mrs Arbuthnot, a socialite 8 Nash’s description of himself in a letter to Sir John Soane in 1822 9 The first iron bridge, down the road in Ironbridge, was built in 1779, and Ditherington Flax Mill in Shrewsbury, the oldest iron-framed building in the world, was completed in 1797. Nash also appears to have used some iron within the structure of Cronkhill’s tower, which would just have pre-dated the Picture Gallery. 1o Emma Nock, Archive Research Project for the National Trust, 2012 11 A bill from Joseph Alcock for £42 in October 1807 was for ‘repairing the damage done by the rain to the four Scagliola Columns and four Pilasters in imitation of Porphyry in the Gallery’. 12 Katherine Plymley, a contemporary visitor, commented on the gilding in her diary for 1808. ‘The mouldings are all gilded, & the cornice very rich, deep & gilded – the window frames gilded…’ 13 In Staffordshire 14 By Robert Demaus, February 2012 15 The east and west iron ribs are lighter in cross section than those on the north and south walls. They rely on gravity and a simple tapered notch and lug to locate themselves, but there is no bolt or firm fixing. Robert Demaus stated in his report: ‘Nash’s use of cast iron at Attingham, and also at Cronkhill, is highly innovative and seems to demonstrate that he had a keen understanding of engineering and materials, for which he is not often credited.’ 16 A correspondent to TheWelshman in 1844, quoted by Richard Suggett, p104
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=