THE FOURTH DUKE OF NEWCASTLE

by Ken Brand

The Diaries of the 4th Duke of Newcastle, edited by Dr Richard Gaunt, have recently been published by the Thoroton Society. In the diaries the Duke reveals details of the early days of his Park Estate in Nottingham, which have not been widely known. Perhaps above all the diaries show the Duke was more kindly disposed towards the town than the local newspapers and the Town Council would admit.

The Duke started his diaries on 27 May 1822, the day the Duke’s eldest child Anna Maria died. Thus there is no mention of the Duke’s first attempt to develop his Park at Nottingham, the former deer park adjoining his Nottingham Castle. Earlier in that year he had commissioned John Jephson, a minor Nottingham architect and surveyor, to survey the Park and prepare plans of intended houses. During June 1822 Jephson advertised plots of land for development on Nottingham Park Terrace in the Nottingham Journal.

Later in the same year, on 26th September, the Duke’s wife Georgiana died two days after giving birth to twins, one a girl was still born, and the other, hastily christened George, died on 7th October. With his family life shattered and with the task of coping with his 10 surviving children taking precedent, any ideas of development were postponed and Jephson was paid off with £23-15-6d for ‘surveying the Park and making plans and elevations of intended houses’.

Although development of the Park was on hold, there were those in the town who were well aware of its development potential. On the 23 September 1824 a proposal was made to the Duke to let the Park on a lease of 99 years. The Duke noted ‘I shall require better terms and shall give a shorter lease, if I accept the plan at all.’ The following day he wrote to the architect Robert Smirke ‘to enquire if he can put me in a way of so disposing of the land in Nottingham Park on lease as at once to be profitable and be highly ornamental to the Town.’ Smirke was already working for the Duke, preparing plans for a memorial church for his late wife at West Markham.

This particular diary entry closes with the Duke well disposed towards the town. ‘I should wish to infuse a new spirit into the people of Nottingham and give them a taste for the fine arts – a beautiful thing might be made of the Park if properly planned and executed.’

Two months later, on 23 November, the Duke was visited by the Nottingham architect William Surplice who wished to lease the Park for building purposes. The Duke appears willing to negotiate the terms and insists ‘the plan to be ornamental, the houses good & the whole a credit to the good taste of the capital of the County.’ By coincidence or otherwise, Surplice had been in partnership with the unfortunate Jephson. At this time the original unknown speculator on the Park’s development is revealed as Charles Wright, the son of the Nottingham banker, Ichabod Wright of Mapperley Hall.

The Duke invited his agents Mr Chambers and Mr Leeson to Clumber on 21 December ‘to talk over & settle matters preparatory to making final arrangements about Nottm Park.’ This seems to imply that the Duke had rekindled his interest and optimism about developing the Park most likely without involving Charles Wright and his stream of confusing offers on leaseholds and terms.

The Duke’s dealings with Wright continued into January 1825, Wright being most persistent and the Duke most suspicious, but in the end Wright’s various propositions about leasing were dismissed – at one point the Duke commented ‘he wishes to obtain of possession of Nottingham Park & then destroy it as a good thing & merely turn it to his own grovelling advantage.’ Finally and briefly the Duke thought, ‘he had behaved very ill.’ William Surplice meanwhile had switched his interest to the Duke’s Thurland Hall paddock and on 28 March 1825 an agreement was signed giving Surplice 20 lots on a lease of 65 years at a rent of £56.

On 2 April 1825, possibly arranged through Robert Smirke, the Duke met with the architect Mr Hakewill and ‘settled with him to go to Nottingham for the purpose of planning the new town in the Park in the best and most advantageous manner.’

Hakewell did carry out surveys of the Park during 1825, but soon he is replaced as the favoured architect by Peter Frederick Robinson (1776-1858), an architect described by the eminent architectural writer Sir John Summerson as a ‘style conjuror’. The Duke’s first meeting with Robinson took place in Nottingham on 30 November 1825. With the assistance of a local steward they made a thorough survey of the Park the following day and eventually drew up a development plan that the Duke recorded ‘the scheme will take well & that it will be highly beneficial & productive to me & eminently ornamental & beneficial to the Town & County’.

Robinson was at this time (1823-6) working in Leamington Spa preparing a ‘Plan for the buildings about to be erected on the Estate of Edward Willes’, the streets around the later Beauchamp Square. There is some similarity in the layout with his later ‘Plan of Nottingham Park the Property of His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, Showing the intended Lines of Building’, dated May 1827.

With Robinson proceeding with the plans, the Duke appears to have received assurances from un-named sources that the development is sure to be successful. On 16 October 1826 the Duke contacted Robinson about an immediate commencement of building in the Park. On 20-21 November the Duke came to Nottingham to arrange with the architect the final preparations for building. ‘In the Spring we shall commence building the first house of a range…no delay shall take place when the proper season for building arrives.’

A diary entry for 28 November 1826 records ‘My plans at Nottingham have been announced & I have recd offers to build some houses.’ On 21st June 1827, the Duke signed the first agreement for building leases in the Park to William Patterson. Patterson was the builder who several years later with the young architect Thomas Chambers Hine formed the partnership of Patterson and Hine. Robinson informs the Duke he is convinced that ‘the scheme will now gradually proceed towards accomplishment, as so many enquiries are making & several offers made.’

Robinson reported again to the Duke on 1 September 1827 on how well building is progressing ‘already several houses are erecting, three are built.’ Two days later the Duke and his son, Lord Lincoln, met with Robinson in Nottingham, who conducted them around the building projects. The appropriate diary entry ends ‘…(there are) many offers for fresh buildings of the best description.’

Well-spaced diary entries for 1828 and 1829 refer to the progress made in developing the Park as an estate. On 20 January 1829 with ‘a great many buildings (have been) erected & roads formed’ the Duke is moved to add ‘…the scheme is now a favourite with the Town – so that its success is no longer in doubt.’ Later that year, on 23 October, amidst the euphoria the Duke admits ‘…they are not everything that I could wish’ but quickly resumes with ‘…altogether it is a very great improvement not only to my property but to the Park.’

There is in the Nottinghamshire Archive Office a copy of the deeds of 8-10 Park Valley made out to William Melville of Standard Hill. The deeds are dated 31 December 1828; they are signed by P. Robinson, of Lower Brook Street, London, and unexpectedly have an elevation drawing of the houses.

Thereafter the Duke appears to have left Robinson to get on with the building work, a routine that was shattered by the firing of the Castle on 10 October 1831 following the arrival of the news in Nottingham from London on 8 October that the House of Lords had thrown out the second Reform Bill. The Duke of Newcastle was known to be an implacable opponent of reform and although his Nottingham Castle was not occupied and in a semi-ruinous state it represented Newcastle and therefore was a prime target.

(Whilst it is generally accepted that Nottingham Castle was in a ruinous state at this time, two entries in the Duke’s diaries indicated that some attempt to repair the Castle had taken place. On 1 April 1824 the Duke notes ‘on inspecting the Castle I found it in bad repair…all in a very dilapidated state’. Then the entry for 23 August 1824 records (In Nottingham) ‘walked to the Castle where I am thoroughly repairing the whole & projected some improvements to the canal side.’)

The Duke first heard of the fire in a conversation with Lord Melbourne after attending a debate in the House of Lords on 11 October. Melbourne reported he had had bad news from Nottingham. In his diary the Duke recorded that Melbourne had said ‘…that Nottingham was in a shocking state & that the rioters had set fire to Nottm Castle.’ He own reaction was ‘I have heard nothing about it, & I hope it is not true, but I much fear that it is…’

The Duke received ‘authentic information of the destruction of Nottingham Castle by the mob’ the following day. This was probably through the letter, dated 11 o’clock, 11 October sent by his Nottingham agent Thomas Winter writing from Red Hill. Winter quickly comes to the point ‘I hasten to tell your Grace that the Castle was burnt to ruins last night and that the Mob are deliberately pulling down the inner walls at this time…They threaten very strongly to go to Clumber…’

Newcastle promptly had a long consultation with the Duke of Wellington, followed by a conference with officials at the Home Office, fearing this attack on Clumber was likely. In the evening he received news that all his daughters were safe at the house of his gamekeeper (?) Mansell. He received further letters on the situation at Nottingham from J.S. Gell of Leeson and Gell, Solicitors, and from the High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Thomas Moore.

On the 13 October he set out early for Clumber, travelling via Newark. He called on his daughters before going on to Clumber where he arrived at about 11pm. He found the house stripped of its finery and staffed with well-armed soldiers. In the end such military preparations proved to be unnecessary.

The Duke sent for Robinson, who arrived on 30 October. The Duke ‘gave him full instructions for valuing Nottm Castle & respecting other matters relating to my property at Nottingham which is now becoming of some value.’ The valuing of Nottingham Castle was no doubt in preparation of his case, claiming damages for the destruction of the Castle. The claim, eventually against the Hundred of Broxtowe, was heard over two days in August 1832 at the Summer Assizes in Leicester, with the result announced on 9 August.1

Writing bitterly in his diary on the following day the Duke records ‘The verdict of the Jury, £21,000 damages – This amount is nothing Equal to what I expected = The lowest I expected was 25 – or thought perhaps 30 000 might be obtained – not that 60,000 would rebuild & reinstate the Castle.’ He thought his law expenses would be £2,000. His entry ends ‘The hundred (of Broxtowe) & county gentlemen have behaved abominably throughout.’

The Duke’s expert witnesses were Robinson and Edward Staveley, the Borough Surveyor of Nottingham. The Hundred of Broxtowe relied on Henry Moses Wood, an architect and the Assistant Borough Surveyor of Nottingham; William Cubitt, the London building contractor; and James Nicholson, an architect and builder of Southwell. Wood in his submission referred to the Park: ‘Part of the Park is set apart for building ground, there are now from forty to sixty houses in the Park.’ Robinson’s evidence also made reference to the Park: ‘There are many houses in the Park on the Terrace, which continues from Standard Hill round till it comes to Derby Road. I attempted to make them look well.’ On ending Robinson admitted ‘I cannot say how many acres there are in the Park.’

It was some time before the Duke ventured to Nottingham, when he did on 16 November 1832 ‘…the fog was so thick I could not see the Castle. I felt heart sick at being in the neighbourhood of so much villainy, spoilation & malicious mischief.’

An even greater length of time was to pass before the Duke actually saw the ruined Castle. In the diary entry for 8 April 1842 the Duke writes (in Nottingham) ‘I took my daughters to see the Castle & Park, it was the first time that they had seen them & they were much struck & pleased with the Magnificence of the Situation, & indignant of destruction of Such a noble building – it was the first time that I had Seen it, since it burned.’

On 29 May 1839, a few days before the 1839 Nottingham Derby Road Lammas Fields Enclosure Act was to be presented to Parliament, the Duke received details of the valuation of his Nottingham property from his agent Mr Buckley. A delighted owner recorded that Buckley ‘had made amount to an Enormous Sum Somewhere about £180,000 I think for 91 acres in the Park & between 80 & 90 in the Meadows – present rent about £600.’

Thus it was important to Newcastle that he protected his interests in the Park against the enclosure of the open fields between the Ropewalk and Derby Road. On 10 June 1839 the Duke went to the House of Lords ‘I wish to insert a clause to enable me to make a tunnel for communication – This the parties are unwilling to grant & wished me to be contented with undertaking (?), this I told them I could not be, & upon the attorney for one of the parties saying that he could not advise his clients to consent to a clause – I told him that I should oppose the bill & soon brought him to his senses.’

Two days later the Duke’s diary entry confirms his successful intervention. ‘I have endeavoured to secure my interest by introducing a clause into the Bill in Committee tomorrow, which we have drawn & prepared for the purpose – I have been obliged to fight hard to secure this privilege.’2

The Park does not appear again in the Diaries until 4 November 1843 ‘I have not looked over the Nottm property for a long while – I have now altered on the spot the several lines of road for communication in & out of the Park, & have devised a general arrangement of the Park property, which I think will be a very great improvement upon the proposed plan.’ Thomas Winter, his local agent, reported that the value of the Park property and land at Basford was ‘little short of a million of money at £8,000 an acre - or half that sum at about 16s a yard.’ No wonder the entry concluded ‘My visit to Nottingham was very satisfactory.’

The Duke was in determined mood when he went to Nottingham on 11 April 1844 ‘in order to make a complete & final arrangement of my property there, so as to turn it to the best advantage. We have been closely…marking out the roads of approach & minutely considering how to form the entrance to the Park from the town combining convenience, economy & beauty’ ‘We mean to try if the rock be sufficiently good and strong to pierce it through & form a natural arch if this can be accomplished it will not only be the handsomest mode, but the saving in expense will be very considerable.’ He arranged for workmen to test out the qualities of the rock. The entry ends ‘We have carefully examined the various points of ingress & exgress & we have marked out in a rough manner all the lines – but they will require much alteration & further consideration tomorrow.’

On the following day the Duke was up at the Park very early and ‘having viewed & finally settled all our lines & having proved the rock to be good so that it will be safely excavated, I have settled that a small gallery sufficient to hold two men shall be pierced through the hill at somewhat about the right level from the street in the old Lammas fields to the opposite side in the Park & then a perfect judgement may be formed of its practicability & proper alignment.’ ‘This & the roads & scenery around with the many peculiarities of gardens, houses, rocks, hills, valleys &c will be as striking & peculiar as anything to be seen anywhere. I am satisfied that there is nothing like it in the Kingdom.’ Having arranged for surveys to be prepared and submitted to him for approval and execution the Duke left Nottingham for Clumber a little after 8pm well contented.

The Duke decided upon the plan of the new roads in the Park, particularly the approach through the tunnel, on 27 May 1844. On the same day he made arrangements for the sale of his town property in Nottingham and provisionally for later sales of parts of Basford and the Park. A later note of 29 December 1844 records ‘I have now sold all my house property in Nottingham. The contract for the last house in Pelham St was signed yesterday, & deposit paid.’ He adds that there are still a few lots of building land on the site of Thurland Hall, which the Duke was compelled to have demolished in June 1831; still unsold ‘they go off heavily’.

His attendance at the Nottingham Assizes on 25 July 1844 gave the Duke an opportunity to look over his property in Basford briefly ‘but sufficient to convince me it is a valuable estate.’ More importantly he ‘passed a very considerable time in the Park – my tunnel is made – I went through it.’ On inspecting the formation of the new road at the Barracks end of the Park, I found it hideous & have been obliged to alter it & take a new line, which will not be so handsome, but it will be far better for building purposes. This will be my final alteration I believe. With this new line I meet every objection, but that of superior effect and beauty on the first line.’

There are just two further entries in the Diary concerning the Park; the first is for 13 March 1847. Once again in Nottingham for the Assizes the Duke used the occasion to visit the Park. ‘I had a walk in the Park & made a survey of what had been done, & found many things done of which I had no knowledge. My steward Wilmot has been playing many awkward tricks, & I fear that he is little better than a rascal.’ The second, for the 3 July 1847, refers to a meeting in Nottingham with Thomas Winter ‘who looks after all my building & local concerns here’. ‘I find that the schemes, which we had in view here will not be improvements & that [there is nothing to (?)] do but to adhere to the original plans.’

In a rather surprising diary entry on 10 March 1848, in a period of renewed Chartist activity, the Duke records that he has written to London to offer Nottingham Castle for an armed depot of arms and stores, as well as barracks. ‘I have always considered this to be a most important station & have several times offered it, but the D. of Wellington chose to set his face against it, & it has been rejected.’ The Castle was still of course in its ruinous state, almost untouched after the fire of October 1831. Somewhat ironically Feargus O’ Connor was at this time the Chartist M.P. for Nottingham, the only Chartist ever elected to Parliament!

The Fourth Duke became suddenly seriously ill with pleurisy on 28 October 1849 and his diary entries virtually ceased at the end of that year; thereafter he recorded only a few facts from memory. He died at 3.30pm on 12 January 1851.

Ken Brand

(Continues)

Unhappy Reactionary: The Diaries of the Fourth Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyne 1822-1850 edited and with an Introduction by Richard A. Gaunt is published by the Thoroton Society in their Record Series Volume 43 2003. 321 pages ISBN 0 902719 19 1 Price £19.95 + £6 postage and packing. Thoroton Society members not subscribing to the Record Series can purchase a copy for £15 + £6 p&p.

1 A transcript of the proceedings of the court action between the Fourth Duke of Newcastle and the Hundred of Broxtowe can be found as an appendix to John Hicklin’s History of Nottingham Castle, published in 1836.

The question remains what did the Fourth Duke intend to do with his compensation from the Hundred of Broxtowe? Although his diary entry for 10 August 1832 reflects ‘not that (£) 60,000 would rebuild & reinstate the castle’, at the end of September 1832 he was eying up the Hafod Estate in Cardiganshire, which had recently become available. He was of course still smarting, possibly even livid, over the loss of some £200,000 through the redistribution of Parliamentary seats as a result of the 1832 Reform Act.

The Duke’s notes on 19 October ‘about a fortnight or three weeks ago I made Enqiries respecting the Hafod Estate…the price then Sent to me was about £100,000…yesterday I recd a letter from a Mr Harris, a person concerned, who offered the whole estate, timber, all Effects in the house, library, Statues, pictures, furniture, china &c wines in Short Every thing for 65 000 – I shall offer £50 000 & I think I Shall certainly have it at that price – It must be a beautiful & most desirable possession in many respects & if one could discover & work a rich mine there I should then be completely Set up in the world – for at present my means are very inadequate to my wants-’

By 19 March 1833 the Duke had received written conformation of his purchase of Hafod for £62,000. He felt that price was £12,000 more than it was worth at present ‘I have been much played upon by the parties Concerned in the Sale & driven up the price.’ To help finance this purchase the Duke had to sell, he chose to dispose of his Yorkshire properties where he had lost his influence through reform.

So for the next few years the Duke’s commitment was elsewhere, although as noted his interest in his Nottingham assets, if only for their potential value, was rekindled in the late 1830s. However by November 1844 the Duke was itching to move on, writing in his diary he was in a reflective mood ‘-& if I could part with Hafod I should be in a flourishing condition.’ Indeed he soon was for in July 1845 he completed the sale of Hafod to Mr Hoghton for £105,000, an apparent profit of some £27,000. However the Duke did record that he might have had an outlay of £50,000 on ‘improving’ the Hafod Estate.

There is some evidence that whilst Hafod was in his possession the Duke carried out, to use a modern expression, some asset stripping at least as far as the library was concerned!

2 Part of the text of the 1839 DERBY ROAD LAMMAS FIELDS INCLOSURE ACT. 2° & 3° VICTORIÆ, Cap.32 856/857

‘That it shall be lawful for the Owner of the said Park for the Time being, and he is hereby authorized and empowered, at any Time or Times hereafter, to make and construct, and from Time to Time to maintain, a Carriage, Horse, and Foot Way, by means of a Tunnel under some Part of the Lands to be inclosed by virtue of this Act, between the said Park called Nottingham Park and the said Turnpike Road or Highway, or between such Park and any One or more of the said Streets to be formed on the Lands to be inclosed by virtue of this Act, such Tunnel to be of such Dimensions as the said Duke, his Heirs or Assigns, shall think proper;’