Secular Buildings

A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 6, the Borough and Liberties of Beverley. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1989.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


A P Baggs. L M Brown. G C F Forster. I Hall. R E Horrox. G H R Kent. D Neave, 'Secular Buildings', in A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 6, the Borough and Liberties of Beverley, (London, 1989) pp. 183-190. British History Online [accessed 24 May 2024].

A P Baggs. L M Brown. G C F Forster. I Hall. R E Horrox. G H R Kent. D Neave. "Secular Buildings", in A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 6, the Borough and Liberties of Beverley, (London, 1989) 183-190. British History Online, accessed May 24, 2024,

Baggs, A P. Brown, L M. Forster, G C F. Hall, I. Horrox, R E. Kent, G H R. Neave, D. "Secular Buildings", A History of the County of York East Riding: Volume 6, the Borough and Liberties of Beverley, (London, 1989). 183-190. British History Online. Web. 24 May 2024,


The size of burgage plots in the medieval town is not known but some plot widths in Saturday Market and Wednesday Market and along Butcher Row and Toll Gavel appear to have been as small as 9½ to 11½ ft. (fn. 1) That coincides with the usual size of the bays in known medieval buildings, but whether it was an original feature or was arrived at by subdivision is not clear. Examples of surviving houses with single-bay frontages are no. 13 Butcher Row, no. 11 Ladygate, and nos. 2 and 29 Saturday Market. By contrast other known medieval buildings, such as no. 15 Flemingate, nos. 6-8 Highgate (now demolished), and no. 49 North Bar Within, suggest that markedly wider frontages existed in what may have been less commercial parts of the town.

Exposed timber framing seems to have been the usual form of construction for houses until the 17th century. In 1540 Leland described Beverley as 'well builded of wood'. (fn. 2) The most common surviving building type has a twostoreyed range along the street, but there were presumably many single-storeyed buildings which for commercial or structural reasons have not survived. Although there are several instances where there is also a range running back down the plot, such as no. 15 Flemingate (fn. 3) and nos. 18-24 Hengate, the White Horse inn, there is only one, no. 11 Ladygate, where such a range ends with a gable on to the street. (fn. 4) Back lanes gave access to the rear of many of the houses and it is possible that others were reached by the narrow side passages that are still a feature of the town, but there is no evidence for the wide tunnel entrances found in many other medieval towns (fn. 5) or for the development of courtyard houses or inns. Nothing is known about the use or arrangement of rooms within the houses and no medieval halls have been indentified. The house which the town acquired for a guildhall may have had a hall, for the surviving 15th-century twin doorways at the east end of the later council chamber were perhaps entrances to service rooms from a screens passage.

Where they have been seen, as at nos. 11 and 33-5 Ladygate, the plinths on which the timberframed walls rest are of chalk blocks. Later raising of the street level (fn. 6) and the porosity of the chalk caused the speedy decay of the lower members of timber walls. One of the few original ground-floor walls to have survived is at no. 49 North Bar Within, at the junction with Tiger Lane. The plinth is below modern ground level and the wall has fairly closely spaced studs of relatively poor quality, with broad tension braces at the corners and close to the centre. The upper floor is jettied to both streets and there were brackets below the jetty. The framing of the first floor is similar to that below and both floors now have an infill of coursed brick. (fn. 7) Purpose-made wall tiles are an original feature between the studs in several other houses, such as no. 11 Ladygate, (fn. 8) and bricks laid in a herring-bone pattern also occur, as at no. 1 Flemingate, the Sun inn, (fn. 9) although it is not certain that they are original. A type of comparatively flimsy construction has been seen in Beverley in which timber framing was adapted to take brick infilling with a coarse plaster coating on both sides, finished with a coat of fine gypsum plaster on the inside if needed. (fn. 10) No evidence of wattleand-daub infill has been found.

Most of the other recorded timber-framed houses were jettied on the street front (fn. 11) and had relatively thin studs, but the majority did not have prominent bracing. The upper floor of the street front of nos. 6-8 Highgate was unusually elaborate in that it had a carved and moulded bressummer, broader studs, and a mid rail. It also retained a blocked three-light window with traceried head and a crown-post roof. It was probably erected in the later 15th century as part of a longer range. (fn. 12) Other crown-post roofs have been seen at no. 15 Flemingate, nos. 19-21 Ladygate, and nos. 30-4 Saturday Market. The roof at no. 15 Flemingate, which is in a rear wing, has a cambered tiebeam with small solid braces and a carved central boss suggesting a first-floor room of some importance. (fn. 13) At no. 49 North Bar Within joints on the surviving tiebeams are evidence for a crown-post roof of six bays over the range along the street. Roofs of simpler construction and without crown posts have been recorded on other timber-framed buildings, for example no. 11 Ladygate, but it is not clear whether they are evidence of lower status or of a post-medieval date. Timber framing also survives at nos. 7-9 and 23 North Bar Within. The pitch of the roofs and later evidence (fn. 14) suggest that the medieval houses were thatched, although when pantiles were in common use in the later 17th century a similar pitch was used. Steeply pitched roofs are still to be seen at nos. 19-21 Ladygate and no. 49 North Bar Within.

The continuing production of brick locally after the Middle Ages and its common use in the later 17th century suggest that it was available in the 16th and early 17th century, but no brick building that can be certainly ascribed to that period survives. In the later 17th century in Beverley, as in Hull, there was a brief flourishing of the style now known as 'Artisan Mannerism', which is particularly distinctive when it is executed in cut and moulded brick. (fn. 15) At no. 58 Flemingate there are moulded stringcourses and the windows are surmounted by pediments which are not supported by the flanking pilasters. (fn. 16) In a narrow passage behind no. 19 Highgate one elevation, which is dated 1671, is divided by a series of pilasters which run up to the eaves, and between them there are segmental and triangular pediments which do not appear to be closely related to the much altered openings below them. (fn. 17) The tall pilastered elevation was repeated in a more sophisticated form in stone on a house in North Bar Within that was later replaced by St. Mary's Manor. It was probably built for James Moyser, who had a house with 14 hearths there in 1672. (fn. 18) The two-storeyed front was seven bays long and had a prominent central doorcase with a hood supported by brackets. The central bay projected slightly and was surmounted by a pediment which continued the mouldings of the prominent cornice; the cornice was supported on the flanking bays by Doric pilasters. (fn. 19)

The projecting central bay continued to be a feature of Beverley houses into the early 18th century, for example at no. 65 Toll Gavel, of c. 1703, and no. 30 Highgate. The short lived Mannerist style, however, was replaced in the late 17th century by houses with a much flatter main elevation which was surmounted by a prominent cornice of brick or wood. At the back they often had steeply pitched gables with tucked brickwork in what appears to be a continuation of an older, more vernacular, tradition, but no examples can be ascribed to an earlier date. Newbegin House, which was probably built for Charles Warton (d. 1714), (fn. 20) and no. 54 Keldgate have fronts of seven bays with wooden modillion cornices and steep roofs with dormers. Both houses still have their original staircases with plain square newels, elaborately moulded strings, and turned balusters. (fn. 21) No. 54 Keldgate also has some of its bolection-moulded panelling and one overmantel on which there is a painting of an imaginary landscape. (fn. 22) Similar staircases survive in several other houses, for example no. 11 Butcher Row, no. 51 Keldgate, where there is also bolection-moulded panelling, and no. 65 Toll Gavel.

The use of brick, even for the smallest houses, had become general in Beverley by the earlier 18th century and it was varied only by the limited use of stone dressings, notably for keystones, sills, and gable kneelers, and by wooden cornices and doorcases. Much of the brick was locally made and is pale reddish brown in colour. Many Holderness brickmakers appear not to have adopted a standard thickness of 3" until late in the century, but at their best the bricks are uniform in size and texture. They were capable of being laid with thin mortar joints, notably on the smarter elevations where Flemish bond became general soon after 1700, for example at no. 7 Hengate, built between 1709 and 1713; (fn. 23) English bond continued in use in less prominent positions for another century or more. The even texture of the brick made it suitable for cutting and rubbing for shaped voussoirs which were often finished with bastard tucks. Cornices were sometimes made of moulded bricks, as on the fronts of nos. 9, 11, and 17 Toll Gavel, and when painted white, presumably by later owners, they have greater prominence. Simpler cornices consisted of a projecting course laid diagonally, a design which was used over a long period, or of single bricks projecting at intervals. For the cheapest work one or two oversailing courses were sufficient.

Thatch was used for roofs well into the 18th century. When houses were reroofed the cheapest alternative was pantiles, but the more fashionable plain tiling was sometimes used on those parts of the roof visible to the public. A rebuilding lease for a house in North Bar Without in 1731 required flat tiles for the front, as before, but pantiles at the back, (fn. 24) and another for no. 69 Minster Moorgate in 1758 stipulated flat tiles for the Lairgate frontage and pantiles for the east and north fronts. (fn. 25) A house in Eastgate in 1739 had flat tiles at the front and both pantiles and thatch at the back. (fn. 26) A more expensive pantile, imported from Holland, had its upper surface glazed brown or black. A tiled roof was specified for the rebuilding of a house in Highgate in 1744, 'if Holland tile then to be eaved with English tile', and the roof of the Routh almshouses, built in 1749, was to have 'blue Dutch tiles', (fn. 27) but no such tiles survive in the town. (fn. 28) The most expensive roofing material was Westmorland slate, which weathers to a pale greyish-blue; it was used on the Hall, Lairgate, (fn. 29) and Norwood House c. 1760. From the early 19th century improved communications allowed the use of the harder Welsh slate, with a roof of shallower pitch, but even well into the 19th century a roof might be of slate facing the street and of pantile elsewhere, as on nos. 2-4 Hengate.

Rooms of differing importance were distinguished by the choice of mouldings for doorways, chimneypieces, and cornices. Sometimes the painter would grain door panels in imitation of more exotic wood. (fn. 30) Chimneypieces might be of marble, as at Norwood House (fn. 31) and the Hall, Lairgate, of plain or carved wood, (fn. 32) or, from the 1770s, decorated with ornament of composition (fn. 33) or stamped metal. The plainest cornices were of the Doric or Tuscan orders. More ornamental, the Ionic was used either with modillions, as at no. 62 North Bar Without and no. 11 Saturday Market, (fn. 34) or with dentils, as at no. 51 Keldgate (fn. 35) and nos. 40-1 Saturday Market. Richer still were the Corinthian and the Composite. The latter has a two-tiered modillion or architrave moulding and was used in a front room of nos. 39-47 North Bar Within, the former Tiger inn. In due course a greater richness of decoration was introduced with the use of plaster ornament, typified by the stucco cornices at the Hall, Lairgate, and in the library at Norwood House. A cornice at no. 3 Hengate has a similar profile but without the foliage enrichment. (fn. 36)

The general use of ordinary sash windows may have come relatively late to Beverley; the building contract for no. 31 Newbegin (Newbegin Bar House) in 1744 provided for oak sash windows for the main front but lead and iron casements for the rest. (fn. 37) Tripartite sash windows of an unusual form were installed at no. 7

Hengate in the late 18th century. To allow easy passage into the garden the box frame was modified so that parts of the upper sashes could rise above both the architrave and room cornice. (fn. 38) External shutters were a common feature of houses in Beverley, and they survive at nos. 18-24 Hengate. (fn. 39) Elsewhere, some of the larger garden windows have fixed or dummy shutters.

Single-storeyed cottages remained in demand throughout the 18th century. (fn. 40) Sometimes an upper floor was added along with a new and shallower roof, as at no. 14 Hengate. Terraces were also being built, the earlier examples having two storeys and steeply pitched roofs, like nos. 13-17 North Bar Without, which date from the mid 18th century. When Cross Street was made c. 1827 it was at first intended to build threestoreyed terraces of houses there and in Register Square. Only a few houses were built, however, along with several public buildings. (fn. 41) In courts behind the older streets there were also groups of two- or three-storeyed houses with a single room on each floor, as at no. 38 North Bar Within.

The more fashionable houses of the period owed much to the patronage of several members of the local gentry. Two of the Moysers of North Bar Within were much concerned with architecture. John Moyser (c. 1660-1738), son of James, (fn. 42) was among those who secured the restoration of the minster from 1713 onwards, (fn. 43) and John's son James (c. 1693-1753) was an amateur architect whose designs included Bretton Hall and Nostell Priory (Yorks. W.R.) (fn. 44) and the Routh almshouses in Keldgate. (fn. 45) The Moysers' circle included the Hothams of South Dalton, one of whom, Sir; Charles Hotham, Bt., employed the London, architect Colen Campbell to design a large town house in Eastgate. (fn. 46) Building work began in 1716. (fn. 47) The cubical centre block was flanked by lower wings, with stables and service rooms on either side. The main staircase was of mahogany and cedarwood. (fn. 48) The entrance front had two reception rooms flanking the vestibule, but the principal rooms overlooked the garden. The elevations were of brick with ample stone dressings to the windows, Ionic porch, cornice, and crowning balustrade with urns. The internal detailing and supervision of the work were probably left to the carver and architect William Thornton, who was also then at work on the nearby minster. In 1719 Thornton was paid £730 for his work, (fn. 49) presumably including some carving: surviving fragments can be stylistically attributed to his firm. (fn. 50) The house had a short life. It was bought by the builder Thomas Wrightson in 1766 and he demolished it. (fn. 51) New houses that were built on the site incorporate carved decoration salvaged from the house. (fn. 52) The influence of Campbell's design proved to be limited. No one was to imitate his concealed roof or Anglo-Palladian dressings. Instead the typical later five-bayed fronts of the middling houses had tiled roofs and modestly dignified doorways: no. 8 Lairgate (the Cross Keys Hotel) and Walkergate House (fn. 53) are largely intact examples, while nos. 29 and 56 North Bar Without have had Victorian alterations.

The Moysers were also members of the circle around Lord Burlington, whose country seat was at nearby Londesborough. Burlington's influence in Beverley is most easily traced in almshouses, which had previously been built in a plain style typified by the Warton almshouses in Minster Moorgate. In 1727 Burlington's design for almshouses and a school in Kent was published (fn. 54) and the arcaded front was partly copied by the unidentified builder of the Tymperon almshouses in Walkergate and by Moyser at the Routh almshouses. The arcaded theme was repeated in an extension to Routh's almshouses in 1810 (fn. 55) and it was adapted again for twin lodges at nos. 45-7 Keldgate and elsewhere. (fn. 56)

Two large houses built in the 1760s, Norwood House and the Hall, Lairgate, display different characteristics. Norwood House was evidently built for the attorney Jonathan Midgley (d. 1778), on the site of a house that he bought in 1751. (fn. 57) Both elevations of the central block are treated as full length temple fronts, five bays long, flanked, by lower links and projecting wings. The pediment roof spans the full depth of the block, its shallowness necessitating a complex structure. On the main front a circular window in the tympanum forms the centre of a large carved wooden cartouche with extended chains of husks. The first-floor windows have floating cornices, that in the centre having full stone dressings, and the ground floor is wholly rusticated with a dominant entrance doorway. On the garden front the sole ornament is the doorcase. (fn. 58)

The Hall, Lairgate, was the town house of the Pennymans who, with William Constable of Burton Constable, were the great patrons of the later 18th century. Constable's influence may have prompted the employment of Timothy Lightoler and others, then working at Burton Constable, on the organ screen at the minster in the 1760s. (fn. 59) Constable and the Pennymans commissioned designs from John Carr of York in the 1750s and 1760s. Carr also designed the assembly rooms in Beverley in 1760 and perhaps the racecourse grandstand on Hum, which resembled other grandstands of his. (fn. 60)

Thomas Pennyman bought a house called St. Giles in 1753 and it had been rebuilt by 1765, when it was acquired by Sir James Pennyman. (fn. 61) By the mid 19th century it was known as Beverley Hall, and later as the Hall. (fn. 62) Its many windows looked on landscaped grounds that extended from Lairgate to Westwood. The house, which was originally seven bays wide and two rooms deep, shows an adaption of a style of the 1690s, with massive hipped roof, bold cornice, and stone angle quoins. About 1771 it was enlarged westwards with two much bigger rooms, the new dining and drawing rooms. Sir James Pennyman was ambitious. The drawing room has a Chinese wallpaper comparable to one at Nostell, and Pennyman's architect (almost certainly John Carr) provided a ceiling duplicating one that Carr had designed for Thirsk Hall (Yorks. N.R.). (fn. 63) Both rooms had finely carved marble chinmeypieces, and the doorways framed carved and crossbanded mahogany doors. (fn. 64)

The Adamesque style adopted by Carr was echoed in the refurbishment of nos. 30-2 Lairgate (the Lairgate Hotel), where a new doorcase and fanlight, staircase, and staircase ceiling all differ little from comparable examples in London. (fn. 65) Richly carved work of the period also survives at nos. 6-8 Newbegin, which were built between 1773 and 1784. (fn. 66) Simpler variations occur at no. 3 Hengate, nos. 3-5 Ladygate, and nos. 55-63 North Bar Within. (fn. 67) The doorways of the last group have Gothic fanlights, a quirk repeated at no. 39 North Bar Without, built by William Middleton in 1769-70 for Ferdinand Stanhope, (fn. 68) and at the assembly rooms, for which Middleton had been the building contractor. (fn. 69) The North Bar Within terrace was therefore probably Middleton's, too. Later in the century, perhaps under the influence of his son and partner John, the firm built several houses with doorcases that have elongated Doric columns beneath shallow pediments: examples are nos. 72-4 Lairgate, the building of which was ordered in 1797, (fn. 70) and no. 40 North Bar Within and no. 2 North Bar Without, both of 1792-4. (fn. 71)

Architects and craftsmen such as the Middletons and the Wrightsons (fn. 72) kept abreast of changes in fashion with the help of architectural pattern books. From the 1770s the catalogues of firms that made composition ornament, such as Coade of Lambeth, were also available. Similar sources may have been used for some of the cast lead fanlights still to be seen, for example at no. 24 Lairgate.

The largest houses in the 18th century, notably the Hotham house, Newbegin House, Norwood House, and the Hall, Lairgate, were widely distributed in the town. The only factor that their positions had in common was a potential for developing a large garden behind the house. At Norwood House the landscaped garden was begun by Jonathan Midgley, who bought a 3-a. close in 1751 and enlarged the site in 1758; a further 6 a. were added in 1803 by William Beverley. (fn. 73) Houses with a third storey, suggesting a degree of prosperity, are mainly to be seen along the main axis of the town from North Bar Without to the minster, with a few in Keldgate, Lairgate, and Walkergate. Nevertheless, in all of those streets there survived into relatively recent times cottages of a modest character. With the possible exception of the area around North bar it seems that no part of the town was socially distinctive.

Terraced housing became more frequent in Beverley in the later 18th century and nos. 55-63 North Bar Within were not exceeded in size by anything later; all but one of the houses are of three bays and they are three storeys high with attics. The ground floor is raised a few feet above the street but as is usual in Beverley there is no basement and the front door opens on the pavement. (fn. 74) Smaller in scale is a terrace of 8 houses in Landress Lane, perhaps of c. 1800, and another of 14 early 19th-century houses on the west side of Albert Terrace. Nos. 103-13 Walkergate, of c. 1820, are built of white brick and have prominent paired doorcases and small front gardens. White brick, which was presumably not locally made, never became fashionable in Beverley.

Of the diverse elements of the Regency style, Gothic is poorly represented. No. 110 Lairgate was built in the Regency style by 1828, with a Gothic porch added later. (fn. 75) The Grecian form of the Classical style was used for the sessions house and the entrance to the gasworks. (fn. 76) The true Greek revival is best displayed in no. 11 Cross Street, which Edward Page was building for himself in 1834. (fn. 77) The house takes the form of a stuccoed 'villa' with stuccoed links and white Gault brick wings; above the Doric columned entrance is a cast-iron balcony, and there is a deep Italianate eaves cornice. Other buildings in former newsroom in Cross Street, (fn. 78) and, a little the Greek revival style are the guildhall, the later, the former Savings Bank, Lairgate, of 1843-4, (fn. 79) which has Ionic capitals. Also Greek are marble chimneypieces like that in the library of Norwood House. (fn. 80)

Another stucco-fronted 'villa' was St. Mary's House, North Bar Within. Henry Ellison bought the existing house there (fn. 81) with 3½ a. in 1794 and enlarged the grounds in 1796. (fn. 82) Within a few years he had built the new house, further back from the street than the old one; the main block had a large bow window on the east or garden front and two smaller ones on the south. (fn. 83) Among changes made by 1853 were the replacement of the south-facing bows by a conservatory and, inside, the installation on the staircase gallery of wrought-iron communion rails from the minster. (fn. 84) Later changes included the addition of a Doric porch on the entrance front. Evidently also stucco-fronted was Grove House, which Pennock Tigar built next to his works at Grovehill c. 1830. (fn. 85)

The earliest surviving purpose-built shop fronts are of the mid 18th century. An example of a projecting front is at no. 28 Saturday Market, a three-sided bay still with its folding shutters and with a pentice roof running across both window and doorway. In the later 18th and early 19th century shop windows and doorways were usually integrated and the glazing was taken close to the pavement. The typical window was a shallow bow beneath a straight fascia, as at no. 6 Eastgate, no. 14 Norwood, and nos. 32-4 Saturday Market. In those examples the shutters were stored indoors, but at no. 27 Saturday Market they were kept in lateral boxes that were integral features of the design. The slightly later front at no. 25 Wood Lane is scarcely curved and the detailing simple. (fn. 86) By the mid 19th century bow-windowed or canted bay-windowed shop fronts appear to have been a usual feature of many commercial premises. (fn. 87)

The transition between Georgian and Victorian styles spanned several decades and even as late as the early 1850s builder-architects like James and Marmaduke Whitton found ready purchasers for their conservatively designed houses in Willow Grove and on the west side of North Bar Without. (fn. 88) The former are of Gault brick but nos. 7-9 North Bar Without are stucco-fronted. The most obvious change in the Victorian period lay in the greater frequency of three-storeyed facades, and there was also a demand for garden space, especially for a garden at the front, however small. Already by the 1820s a front garden was a desirable amenity; the now demolished 12 houses of Providence Row, Wilbert Lane, built before 1828, (fn. 89) for example, each had a front garden. Many houses were still built without them before 1840, however, and it was only by the 1870s that they became a standard feature. Terraced houses with front gardens are to be seen in Grayburn Lane, Wood Lane, Woodlands, and elsewhere. Regent Street was among the few late Victorian streets built without front gardens.

The development of the area between Trinity Lane and Wilbert Lane was begun in the 1840s and was the work of the land agents Edward (d. 1855) and Gregory Page (d. 1869); (fn. 90) they laid out Railway Street as an approach to the station and, to the north, George Street and Wilbert Grove. Railway Street was eventually to be lined with three-storeyed terraces, the other streets with more modest terraces and business premises. Gregory Page first built no. 13 Railway Street as his own residence; it is a generous double-fronted house with pedimented Ionic doorcase. Later plots were of only half the width and the houses have plainer doorways. By 1851 only five houses had been built in Railway Street, (fn. 91) and it was many years before the site was fully developed. Some of the later houses, for example in Wilbert Grove, were given front gardens.

In the mid 19th century some of the larger houses had gardens laid out as small parks, for example no. 29 Keldgate, the Hall, Lairgate, no. 56 North Bar Without, Norwood House, and St. Mary's Manor, while on a smaller scale there were other gardens planned in the fashionable villa style, such as those at Newbegin House and Walkergate House, with shaped beds and flowing paths. (fn. 92)

Using powers granted by a series of Acts designed to improve public health and housing, the local board of health in 1862 appointed a borough surveyor, and bylaws made in 1868 included a provision that plans of new buildings should be submitted; the first plans were considered early in 1869. (fn. 93) Although not required under the bylaws elevations were sometimes submitted, too; they reveal, for example, that the sacrifice of Georgian bow-fronted shop windows could be offset by the introduction of first-floor bay windows, as at no. 41 Saturday Market in 1870. (fn. 94) The bylaws also governed the layout of buildings and the standards of construction to be observed. In addition to building and rebuild ing on sites in the older parts of the town, speculative builders were responsible for much piecemeal development of land along, for example, Grovehill Road, Holme Church Lane, and Norwood, fitting houses and new streets into the existing field pattern. No attempt was made to design the layout of larger areas until the corporation began to build housing estates after the First World War. (fn. 95)

Much of the demand for larger houses in the town in the later 19th century came from business and professional men, both local and from Hull. Most attractive to them were sites in New Walk and North Bar Without, and west of the town centre near Hurn and Westwood. Richard Hodgson, for example, moved from the house near his tannery in Flemingate in 1854 to Westwood Hall, which he had built in Westwood Road, (fn. 96) and Charles Simpson built Westwood House (now part of Westwood Hospital) in 1858. (fn. 97) In some cases it was thought sufficient to enlarge an 18th-century house, as at no. 4 North Bar Without, or to add fashionable stucco, as at no. 29 in the same street. William Hawe (1822-97), of Beverley, carried out many such alterations, but he was among the architects who put up new houses, too. (fn. 98) He preferred the Classical style, as shown in the mansard roofs and French detailing at nos. 2-10 New Walk, built c. 1870. (fn. 99) In contrast the Hull architects R. G. Smith and F. S. Brodrick built nos. 9-11 New Walk c. 1878 in an uncompromisingly high Victorian manner; Brodrick himself lived in one of them. (fn. 100) They used a wholly different, halftimbered, style for no. 43 North Bar Without, built in 1880 for J. E. Elwell, the Beverley woodcarver. (fn. 101) Elwell himself imitated the style next door at no. 45 in 1894 and at nos. 4-6 across the road in 1892-4. (fn. 102) The influence of Smith and Brodrick grew rapidly. They designed the new county hall (fn. 103) and then in 1893 built nos. 35 and 44-6 Westwood Road in a similar Flemish style. (fn. 104) Nos. 3-5 were equipped with bathrooms, a novelty for houses of that type, and in their detailing and the use of both common and stock bricks they show a standard of design well above that of Smith and Brodrick's rivals building smaller terraced houses.

Other Hull architects who worked in Beverley included Cuthbert Brodrick, who designed the semidetached pair that is now no. 37 North Bar Within in 1861, (fn. 105) Thomas Marshall, at nos. 202 St. Giles's Croft in 1883, William Marshall, at nos. 52-4 Westwood Road c. 1877, and William Thompson, at nos. 19-21 New Walk in 1878.

By the 1890s the influence of national styles which were disseminated by manuals of design and construction had become paramount, as is shown by window and door detailing, especially in the use of coloured tiles to decorate the dadoes of entrance porches (fn. 106) and of decorative woodwork for doorways, windows, and cornices. Another common feature, now almost lost, was the use of cast iron for railings, gates, and window balconies; a balcony survives at no. 18 St. Giles's Croft. Cast iron was also employed for several decorative downspouts, as at nos. 2531 New Walk, of 1883, (fn. 107) and Highgate House, on the corner of Wednesday Market and Lord Roberts Road. (fn. 108) Internally, cast iron was used for the staircase balustrade of York Lodge, York Road, designed by Rawlins Gould of York in 1869, (fn. 109) at no. 37 North Bar Within, (fn. 110) and at no. 62 North Bar Without.

The typical earlier 19th-century doorcase was of wood, with plain wide pilasters supporting a simple entablature, as at no. 28 Norwood. For greater show freestanding square piers were used, in Doric form at nos. 1-3 Norwood Far Grove and Corinthian at nos. 118-20 Norwood (fn. 111) and nos. 19-21 New Walk, built as late as 1878. The applied doorcase was displaced by the inset porch, with a plain lintel, as at nos. 25-9 Woodlands, of 1863, (fn. 112) with a brick Gothic arch, as at nos. 69-77 Norwood, of 1871, or, most often, with a debased arch and moulded classical architrave. Sometimes the arch was segmental, as in St. Giles's Croft, or semi-elliptical, as in Grovehill Road. (fn. 113) It is uncertain whether the arches are of stone or cast cement. More economical are nos. 2-3 Fosters Yard, Beckside, where William Hawe used plain brick segmental arches for both the inset porches and the adjoining windows in 1885. (fn. 114) The plainest opening of all was a revival of an early 18th-century type, still to be seen, for example, on the east side of Highgate and at no. 65 Toll Gavel. Among secondary details the use of thin stone slabs, sometimes with dummy joints to simulate brickwork, for window heads became frequent after 1800, with the insertion of a plain or carved keystone as a later variation. At eaves level projecting wooden boards supported a moulded wood or a cast-iron gutter, as at nos. 13-33 Railway Street.

For shop fronts from the 1820s or 1830s there was a gradual increase in the use of plate glass with flat-fronted windows. Such was the case at no. 42 Toll Gavel, where the snake-entwined columns indicated a chemist's shop. At no. 34 Toll Gavel a Red Indian sign for a tobacconist's survives behind the Victorian Gothic shop front; both there and at no. 20 North Bar Within the later shop front is noticeably higher than the older interior behind it. A move towards larger pane size is represented at no. 11 Saturday Market and a little later, c. 1850, by the use of full-height panes set into arched tops, as at nos. 99-101 Walkergate. By the 1870s much larger panes of plate glass were being used, held in slender turned colonnettes. (fn. 115) At nos. 2-4 Hengate, of c. 1860, which may have been built as a furniture workshop and warehouse, the first-floor display windows have pairs of lights opening inwards and a light iron balcony. (fn. 116) Among other business premises the bank at no. 63 Saturday Market, designed by William Hawe in 1863, (fn. 117) is one of the few Victorian buildings in Beverley that is not domestic in scale or detail.


  • 1. O.S. Map 1/1,056, Beverley 1-4 (1853-4 edn.); R.C.H.M. Beverley, 23.
  • 2. Itin. ed. Toulmin Smith, i. 46.
  • 3. Illus. R.C.H.M. Beverley, 64.
  • 4. Ibid. 23.
  • 5. The entry at no. 49 North Bar Within was formed after c. 1840: Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 8.
  • 6. e.g. Min. Bks. 2.
  • 7. Illus. Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 8; Hall, Hist. Beverley, 40; R.C.H.M. Beverley, 63. Similar framing at Church Cottages, North St., York, has been dated to the late 15th cent.: R.C.H.M. City of York, iii (South-West), 98-9.
  • 8. Cf. R.C.H.M. City of York, iii, pp. lxxi, 105.
  • 9. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 44.
  • 10. e.g. at the guildhall (below, Public Inst.) and the Dominican friary, where paintings on the gypsum plaster survive (above, Relig. Hos.).
  • 11. For illus. of other examples now demolished see Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 1, 2, 50.
  • 12. E. Mercer, Eng. Vernacular Hos. 220; illus. Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 3; Hall, Hist. Beverley, 44; see above, plate facing p. 29.
  • 13. Cf. Red Lion, Merchantgate, and no. 16 Coney St., York: R.C.H.M. City of York, v (Central Area), 122, 238.
  • 14. H.R.O., DDBC/16/54 (1711), 87 (1722).
  • 15. For illus. of example now demolished see Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 35.
  • 16. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 46.
  • 17. Cf. Crowle Ho., Hull: V.C.H. Yorks. E.R. i. 443-4; see above, plate facing p. 29.
  • 18. P.R.O., E 179/205/504.
  • 19. Illus. R.C.H.M. Beverley, 58.
  • 20. In 1684-5 a ho. in Newbegin belonging to the Wartons was occupied by Sir Hen. St. Quintin, Bt., but soon afterwards Chas. Warton took it for his own use and prob. rebuilt it: Y.A.S., MS. 661, p. 137; R.D.B., AP/228/379. St. Quintin occupied a ho. there with 12 hearths in 1672: P.R.O., E 179/205/504.
  • 21. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 48-9.
  • 22. Illus. ibid. 48.
  • 23. R.D.B., A/105/149; D/58/94; see above, plate facing p. 29.
  • 24. H.R.O., PE/1/367.
  • 25. Ibid. PE/1/842, minster no. 54.
  • 26. Ibid. DDBC/16/137.
  • 27. Ibid. DDBC/16/156; ibid. PE/1/842, char. no. 34.
  • 28. Some may be seen on the former domestic offices at Burton Constable.
  • 29. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 74.
  • 30. H.R.O., DDBC/3/119. There are doors in simulated mahogany at the Hall, Lairgate, taken from other hos., and in oak at no. 7 Hengate.
  • 31. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 71, 83.
  • 32. A contemporary carved chimneypiece from no. 39 Saturday Mkt. (now demolished), built between 1761 and 1769 (R.D.B., AB/231/498; AM/36/57; Min. Bks. 40), was removed to no. 7 Hengate: illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 82-3.
  • 33. e.g. at no. 72 Lairgate: illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 81.
  • 34. Illus. ibid. 58, 64.
  • 35. Illus. ibid. 56-7.
  • 36. Illus. ibid. 77.
  • 37. H.R.O., DDBC/19/7 (transcribed Hall, Hist. Beverley, 68-9).
  • 38. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 5. Similar garden windows are at no. 29 North Bar Without, Norwood Ho., and Walkergate Ho.
  • 39. Illus. ibid. 43, 78.
  • 40. Illus. R.C.H.M. Beverley, 79.
  • 41. H.R.O., DDBC/20/7; Min. Bks. 135, 141; below, Public Services (dispensary); Social Inst. (newsroom, mechanics' inst.).
  • 42. Above (this chapter).
  • 43. Min. Bks. pp. xiii-xiv; below, Churches.
  • 44. D. Linstrum, W. Yorks. 66-7, 382.
  • 45. Below, Charities. For the Moysers see H. M. Colvin, Biog. Dict. of Brit. Architects, 1600-1840, 565-6.
  • 46. Vitruvius Britannicus (1967), i, C. 2, pl. 87.
  • 47. K. A. MacMahon, 'Beverley Ho. of Hotham Fam. Trans. E. Yorks. Georgian Soc. iv (3), 37-49.
  • 48. York Courant, 3 June 1760.
  • 49. H.U.L., DDHO/15/5.
  • 50. Cf. carving from the ho. preserved on staircase of Beverley Pub. Libr. (illus. Trans. E. Yorks. Georgian Soc. iv (3), facing p. 48) and Thornton's work at Beningbrough Hall (Yorks. N.R.) and Wentworth Castle (Yorks. W.R.).
  • 51. R.D.B., AI/24/51; Oliver, Hist. Beverley, 297 n.
  • 52. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 52, 54.
  • 53. Illus. ibid. 67.
  • 54. W. Kent, Design of Inigo Jones (1727), pl. 52-3.
  • 55. Below, Charities.
  • 56. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 66, with other examples of arcades now demolished.
  • 57. R.D.B., 11/446/847; AZ/283/460. A rate assessment of 1766 suggests that it had not been built by then: H.R.O., PE/1/114 (back).
  • 58. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 70, 78; see below, plate facing p. 268.
  • 59. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 25.
  • 60. Below, Social Inst.
  • 61. R.D.B., W/419/844; AG/77/136-7; above, Relig. Hos.
  • 62. O.S. Map 6", Yorks. CCX (1855 and later edns.).
  • 63. Works in Archit. of John Carr (York Georgian Soc.), 32.
  • 64. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 74-6, 78, 83.
  • 65. Illus. ibid. 52. The owner from 1780 (R.D.B., BC/414/654) was Peter Acklam, who m. a Warton heiress: Povilson, Beverlac, facing p. 499.
  • 66. R.D.B., AS/52/79; BF/368/620; BH/154/277.
  • 67. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 77-8, 80.
  • 68. Min. Bks. 49-50; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 9, 38.
  • 69. H.R.O., DDBC/21/95.
  • 70. Min. Bks. 80.
  • 71. Ibid. 76, 78; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 39, 78, 80.
  • 72. For the Wrightsons see Hall, Hist. Beverley, 45, 47, 55-6.
  • 73. R.D.B., AA/79/159; CE/528/800; cf. plan of 1795 (Beverley Friary Trust, ho. open day programme, 1981, copy in Beverley Pub. Libr.); Wood, Plan of Beverley (1828).
  • 74. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 38.
  • 75. Wood, Plan of Beverley (1828); illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 96.
  • 76. Below, Public Inst. (sessions ho.); Public Services (gasworks).
  • 77. R.D.B., EX/107/120; EX/108/121; White, Dir. E. & N.R. Yorks. (1840), 168; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 91; see below, plate facing p. 268.
  • 78. Below, Public Inst. (guildhall); Social Inst. (newsroom).
  • 79. Hull Advertiser, 17 Mar. 1843; 12 Apr. 1844; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 91.
  • 80. In 1833 bookcases in the libr. had painted Gothic doors and battlemented cornices: sale cat. (copy in B.L., printed bks. SC 1073, p. 23); chimneypiece illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 91.
  • 81. Above (this chapter).
  • 82. R.D.B., BU/272/419; 87/502/796. The ho. had been sold in 1785 by Wm. Strickland, who had m. Diana, dau. and coheir of Jas. Moyser: Foster, Pedigrees of Yorks. iii.
  • 83. H.R.O., accession 1102 (sale particulars, 1826); Oliver, Hist. Beverley, 288 n.
  • 84. O.S. Map 1/1,056, Beverley 1 (1854edn.); G. P. Brown, Lost Treasures of Beverley Minster, 2-5, 9.
  • 85. R.D.B., DT/399/434; Reg. of Electors (1832); White, Dir. E. & N.R. Yorks. (1840), 163; illus. Deans during 50 Years (copy at H.U.L., DDMM/29/41).
  • 86. All illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 84-5.
  • 87. O.S. Map 1/1,056, Beverley 1-4 (1853-4 edn.); Brown, Old Beverley, pl. 21-2, 28-9.
  • 88. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 5, 93.
  • 89. Wood, Plan of Beverley (1828).
  • 90. Beverley Recorder, 13 Oct. 1855; Beverley Guardian, 15 May 1869.
  • 91. R.D.B., GQ/337/350; GT/311/397; GU/90/113; HB/386/468; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 93.
  • 92. O.S. Map 1/1,056, Beverley 1-4 (1853-4 edn.).
  • 93. H.R.O., BC/IV/11/2, s.vv. 12 May 1862; 26 Oct. 1868; 12 Apr. 1869. The plans are in H.R.O.; unless otherwise stated they are the source for dates and architects cited below.
  • 94. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 79.
  • 95. Above, Mod. Beverley.
  • 96. R.D.B., HB/121/164; HB/221/283; HC/116/151; HD/38/55; HD/277/334; HE/112/139; Reg. of Electors (1854-5). It may have been the 'mansion ho.' for which Cuth. Brodrick invited tenders in 1853: Hull Advertiser, 24 June 1853.
  • 97. P.R.O., RG 9/3568; RG 10/4768; RG 11/4740; R.D.B., 481/197/151; Beverley Guardian, 4 Sept. 1858.
  • 98. For list of work by Hawe see Halt, Hist. Beverley, 100; Beverley Independent, 3 Apr, 1897 (obituary).
  • 99. Tenders invited: Beverley Guardian, 10 July 1869; 2 Dec. 1871; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 94.
  • 100. Kelly's Dir. N. &. E.R. Yorks. (1879), 348.
  • 101. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 9. For interior carving by Elwell see ibid. 83, 87, 97, 99.
  • 102. Illus. ibid. 9, 36; see above, plate facing p. 141.
  • 103. Below, Public Inst.
  • 104. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 5, 97.
  • 105. Beverley Guardian, 27 July 1861; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 9.
  • 106. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 102.
  • 107. Date on bldg. The only decorative brackets that remained in 1988 were at the rear of no. 25.
  • 108. Illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 89.
  • 109. Illus. ibid. 88.
  • 110. Illus. ibid. 89.
  • 111. Both illus. ibid. 95, 102.
  • 112. Illus. ibid. 103.
  • 113. Both illus. ibid. 102.
  • 114. Illus. ibid. 95.
  • 115. Several illus. ibid. 84-5.
  • 116. Belonging to the Watsons: R.D.B., HE/307/358; IG/69/95; 2/37/35 (1898); 2/145/143 (1898); P.R.O., RG 9/3569; RG 10/4768; illus. Hall, Hist. Beverley, 2.
  • 117. Tenders invited: Beverley Guardian, 14 Nov. 1863.