Context 158 - March 2019

C O N T E X T 1 5 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 9 47 Jane Houlton is a retired business and economic development consultant, who worked with her late husband, Michael Devenish, 1949– 2016, director of CoDA Developments, on a research study into the architectural history of the Fountaine Hospital Almshouse. She completed the study for the FHA trustees after his death. Michael Devenish and Jane Houlton (2018) The Fountaine Hospital Almshouse, Linton-in- Craven: an architectural history . Unpublished study for the FHA Trust. Copy available at the British Library and at the RIBA Library. Jane Houlton (2018) An Almshouse for Linton: Richard Fountaine’s Legacy , Devenish Press. Available online from CL Hawley Books, http:// www.clhawley.co.uk/ richard-fountaines-legacy The central tower of the north facade of the Fountaine Hospital home address in the City of London, and his profession as a merchant of haberdashery.These facts made it possible to confirm various elusive, floating facts, and to go back to archives with much sharper search terms, leading in turn to further useful documents. The second pieces were facsimiles from the National Archives of Chancery lawsuits in the 1720s, in which the execution of the will was disputed. Unpromising apparently, but they were a goldmine, for in the affidavits attached, it became absolutely clear that the various Fountaine heirs not only had not been respon- sible for the commissioning and design of the Hospital, but had actively obstructed it, in order to increase their own share of the estate. The timing of their obstruction could explain flaws in the execution of the design, which seemed to have been interrupted midways, with parts of the building being inferior and clearly by another hand. The person responsible for the building emerged as one John Colton, executor for mat- ters in the north, who was handed the money and task of getting the Hospital built. He was from York, where we later learned Fountaine had strong connections, and this strengthened the case for William Etty being architect of the Hospital. Colton died in March 1724 – at a critical moment in construction, and in the legal actions; this supported the evidence from the building itself of an initial architect having been replaced, and costs reduced. Finally, once documents in Fountaine’s own hand, and other confirming material, came to light, Michael went back to the will and the 1723 indenture to look at them again in the context of what we now knew. Scrutinising the indenture, he saw that one of the witnesses was ‘William Etty of the City of York Gentlm’. It seemed an extraordinary coincidence that Etty, one of the most likely designer/architect/ builders of the Fountaine Hospital Almshouse would be present and witnessing a land sale document, were he not professionally engaged in some capacity in the design and construction of the building. It would seem implausible that there might be another William Etty of York who could be present at such an event. It would be unlikely, also, that any professional present would let such a commission slip through his possession, and let it go to another architect. So, although again not definitive proof, this was another piece of evidence to reinforce the case for Etty having been the architect of the Hospital. Michael died in 2016, and did not live to see the report that summarised all this research, or the recently-published book derived from it, but he saw the jigsaw that had been put together, and the story – coherent, he believed – of the origins of the building. The key person in the commissioning of the building appears to have been John Colton, the executor from York, and the most likely architect William Etty of the same city. Their lives and actions are poorly documented.What clarity might come from fur- ther research into these two, or from documents that might shed light on Fountaine’s wishes? What lessons would the budding architectural historian take from this? Apart, of course, from having the good sense not to take on a building where no primary sources exist. First, that there is no substitute for persistence, and that lateral thinking, and use of parallel sources that confirm your suspicions, can get you to where you want to be. Moreover, that luck and coincidence and unpromising sources can play a strong role. Absence of confirmation – such as Whitaker’s failure to name Vanbrugh definitively – should be weighed in the argument. That paying for material, even when you are reluctant, and doubtful of its value, can sometimes produce a goldmine of information. And go back and re-check source material once you have found out further facts. In the end – after all the mis-steps and frustra- tions and unresolved questions – there remains the building. Independent and strong, standing proud, on a quiet village green, providing hous- ing and shelter to this day, and still enthralling the passer-by with its imposing facade, and the enigmas of its gestation.