THE CLARENDON BUILDING
When Archbishop Sheldon gave money to erect a
building for the ceremonial acts of the University, he
stipulated that provision should also be made for the
accommodation of its printers. The compositors and
presses were accordingly installed in the Sheldonian
Theatre in 1669, but for various reasons this arrangement proved unsatisfactory, and before the end of the
17th-century accommodation for the presses had been
found elsewhere, partly in the Schools Quadrangle, and
partly in a special building erected to the east of the
theatre. The financial difficulties of the Delegates made
it impossible to house the press in a more satisfactory
manner until the publication in 1702–4 of Clarendon's
History of the Great Rebellion brought them a substantial increase in income. It was the profits derived from
the sale of this famous work which, together with the
sum of £2,000 paid by John Baskett, the King's Printer, for the lease of the University Press, made possible
the erection of a new printing house designed for the
purpose. (fn. 1)
In 1710–11 the Vice-Chancellor's accounts record
the purchase of several 'old houses next the Theatre' for
the site of the new building, 'the whole area of Ground'
thus cleared making 'a spacious Compass'. (fn. 2) According
to a note made by Hearne in 1712, 'The University
gave to Townesend & one Haukes an Architect in London an hundred Guineas only for viewing the Ground
on wch they are building the new Printing House, besides divers Treats.' (fn. 3) 'The line propos'd for ye South
side of ye Print-house' is marked on one of a series of
plans of the Schools area prepared under Hawksmoor's
direction at this period. (fn. 4) But there is no reference to
his remuneration until 1715, and Hearne's statement
must have been inspired by the payment to William
Townesend on 17 Feb. 1711–12, of £100 'for ye
new Printing House'. (fn. 5) According to Dr. John Ayliffe,
'The Plan or Model of this Structure was contrived by
that ingenious Artist of a Mason, Mr. Townsend of
Oxford'. (fn. 6) Ayliffe was a fellow of New College, and he
was writing while the new printing house was actually
in course of erection. But Hawksmoor's letters to
Henry Joynes, the comptroller and clerk of the works
at Blenheim, who was also acting as his assistant, show
that he was in charge throughout, (fn. 7) and at a meeting of
the Delegates held in Oct. 1715, on the completion
of the building, it was agreed 'to gratifie Mr. Hawksmore for his care in drawing & supervising ye whole
worke of ye New Printing house' by a gift of £100. (fn. 8)
In the Clarke collection at Worcester College there are
several alternative designs for the building, some of
which bear explanatory notes in Hawksmoor's characteristic calligraphy. The Doric elevation actually
adopted (with some slight modifications) is, moreover,
endorsed in Dr. Clarke's hand as a 'Designe for the
Printing house at Oxford by Mr. Hawksmoor'. (fn. 9) As
Clarke's advice had been asked by the Vice-Chancellor,
he is not likely to have been mistaken, especially as he
had in his possession a rejected design which there is
good reason to attribute to Townesend himself, and
which in no way resembles the building as erected. (fn. 10)
A case for Townesend's authorship of the executed
design has, however, been put forward by Mr. W. G.
Hiscock in A Christ Church Miscellany (1946). (fn. 11) He
believes that a second payment to Townesend on
3 Mar. 1711–12, amounting to £200, must have
been 'payment for [his] design', and argues that the
'belated payment' of £100 to Hawksmoor in 1715,
'two years after the masonry was finished', cannot have
included 'the fee for the design'. But the accounts show
that the carvers and joiners were still at work in 1715,
and Townesend himself did not receive his last payment for workmanship until 1716–17. There was
therefore nothing belated about Hawksmoor's remuneration, and the fact that, crippled with gout, and
with duties to perform elsewhere, he 'was not in touch
with the details', and relied on Joynes for reports of
progress, does not prove that the design was not his.
In any case 18th-century architects habitually supervised works in their charge from a distance. As for the
£200 which Townesend received on 3 March, it was
usual to make advances to the contracting mason at the
commencement of the work, and, in the absence of the
original contract, it is reasonable to suppose that it was
an initial payment for masonry. The suggestion that
it was 'payment for Townesend's design' is unsupported by any other evidence, and such generous remuneration merely for an architectural design would
not have been in accordance with 18th-century architectural practice. Unless any further evidence should
come to light, it would therefore seem that Dr. Ayliffe's
statement must be rejected. (fn. 12)
Hearne records the laying of the foundation stone
on 22 Feb. 1711–12: 'Yesterday Morning about
9 Clock the Foundation Stone for the New Printing
House was laid on the South Corner of the West side
Foundation at Wch time Basket gave the workmen four
Guineas. They dug 15 feet before they arriv'd at
Gravel for a Foundation. (fn. 13) In March, Hawksmoor
was writing to Joynes for information about the price
of mason's, carpenter's, and plumber's work in Oxford,
'that I may proceed to make an Estimate &c., and Draw
ye heads of a Contract'. (fn. 14) The contract has been lost,
but the master-mason was William Townesend, and
the names of the other craftsmen employed are known
from the Vice-Chancellor's accounts. (fn. 15) The building
was provided with two pairs of stairs on either side of
a central passageway, because, as Hawksmoor noted on
one of his drawings, there were '2 distinct Companys'
of printers—the 'learned press' under the direct control
of the Delegates, and the 'Bible press' conducted by
John Baskett. By Oct. 1713 the building was ready
for occupation, (fn. 16) and in Oct. 1715 the ViceChancellor rendered an account of 'all Moneys paid
and disbursed on Account of the New Printing House',
amounting to £6,185 13s. 9d. (fn. 17) This, however, did
not include the carving in the Delegates' Room, upon
which £78 4s. 4d. was spent in 1717–18, nor the
statue of Lord Clarendon, for which 'Mr. (i.e. Francis)
Bird' received £55 in 1721. (fn. 18) The lead statues on the
roof, formerly nine in number, represent the Muses,
and were designed by Sir James Thornhill, whose
drawings for them are preserved in the Clarke collection at Worcester College. (fn. 19) According to an entry
in Hearne's 'diary, dated 12 Nov. 1717, 'Last week
began to be put up upon the new Printing House in
Oxford, a Parcell of Heavy Leaden Statues call'd the
nine Muses. These leaden Statues had lain at ye
Wharf above Two Years, having been first of all refused. But Basket at last prevail'd with the Delegates
to take them, and by that means he hath got more
Money from them, these statues coming to about six
hundred Pounds.' (fn. 20) In fact the Vice-Chancellor's accounts show that they cost the University only £300. (fn. 21)
Their place of origin is not mentioned, but it is likely
that it was John van Nost's leaden figure manufactory
in Piccadilly, for in March 1719–20 Dr. Clarke and
Townesend went up to London in order to bespeak
some 'Vases for the printing house', and 'agreed with
Mr. Noist for 80li for the three, to be delivered to the
Oxford barge'. (fn. 22) These vases were intended to occupy
vacant pedestals on the roof, where they can be seen in
Williams's view of 1732–3, but they have since disappeared. It is uncertain who was responsible for the
fine wrought-iron gates. In one of his letters to Joynes,
Hawksmoor speaks of Mr. Ireland the smith, who
'came downe to Oxford last Sunday, to view ye printing
house, in order to take measurs for ye iron fence', but
there is no reference to Ireland in the accounts, and the
only payments for work of this kind are £250 'to Booth
for Ironwork' and £150 9s. 9d. 'to Medley the Smith'.
In 1831, on the completion of the new Clarendon
Press in Walton St., the old Printing House was 'appropriated to the general business of the University', and
Sir Robert Smirke was employed to adapt the interior
for use as a registry and for the accommodation of the University police, with lecture-rooms on the first floor. (fn. 23)
The Delegates, however, retained the finely panelled
room in which their meetings are still held.
The Headington freestone of which the building is
constructed has not proved a durable material, and
extensive repairs were required in 1812 and again in
1920, when much of the exterior was patched with
Clipsham stone.