Contrebis 2019 v37

THE , LANCASTER: A REASSESSMENT OF THE MONUMENT

Michael Haslam

Abstract This paper examines the architecture of the Ashton Memorial and the relationship between its design and purpose. It concludes with the author challenging the received view that it was built as a memorial to Lord Ashton’s second wife.

Introduction The Ashton Memorial is one of six distinctive buildings in the Lancaster area (Table 1). All are visible from afar and from many viewpoints, against the backdrop of Morecambe Bay. This panoramic architectural display is a reminder of Lancaster’s history and its cultural and economic present. Lancaster and the Priory Church, both at the highest point in the city centre, are visible reminders of the origins of the town. The 73-metre-high spire of the Victorian Roman Catholic Cathedral is the tallest structure in Lancaster by a considerable margin. Bowland Tower at , three-miles south of Lancaster, is a distinctive original feature of the University. The two buildings housing Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear-power stations are striking landmarks. The Ashton Memorial is different in many respects. Its distinctive architectural style is unlike any other building in Lancaster, located in Williamson Park at the highest elevation between the city and the M6 motorway where the top of the lantern above the dome is 152.30 metres above sea level – nearly 50 metres above the Cathedral’s spire. The Memorial is visible from the Cartmel peninsula, from Heysham and Morecambe and it is the first identifiable building in Lancaster to be seen from the M6 travelling south from Kendal. It is the only one of the six recognised nationally and internationally, having been described as the grandest monument in England and a commemoration of Lancaster’s industrial past. It is the most prominent building on the skyline of Lancaster and a defining image of the city. Despite this, there are only three books devoted to the Memorial. There are a large number of pamphlets and leaflets describing the building; Lord Ashton’s life and work; advertising the Memorial as a venue for public events; and a smaller number of general articles in academic journals and brief references to the Memorial in several architectural books. A little information exists about the Memorial, often repeated in publications, including speculation on the reasons for its erection. This article examines the purpose of Lord Ashton’s Memorial given its location and design.

Building Height above Building Total height above mean sea level height mean sea level (m) (m) (m) (feet) 1. Ashton Memorial 107.00 45.301 152.30 499.69 2. Bowland Tower, Lancaster 62.00 44.03 106.03 347.88 University 3. St Peter’s Cathedral, Lancaster 30.06 73.002 103.06 338.14 4. Church 39.39 29.262 68.65 225.24 5. , Norman 37.51 21.33 58.84 193.05 6. Heysham Power Station 1 8.00 25.003 33.00 108.27 1 2 3 Notes: To the top of the lantern surmounting the dome. To the top of the spire/tower. Estimated. Table 1. Height of prominent landmark buildings in Lancaster and Heysham

63

Contrebis 2019 v37

Lord Ashton and events leading to his withdrawal from public life It is not intended in this paper to provide a detailed account of Lord Ashton’s personal life or of his career as an industrialist, politician and philanthropist. This has already been the subject of meticulous research (Gooderson 1966; McClintock 1985; Ashworth 1989). No new information or documentation about Lord Ashton’s personal life or of his thoughts and feelings are likely to be discovered in the form of diaries, letters or autobiographic notes because all his papers were destroyed after his death (Gooderson, 1966, 14).

The circumstances leading to building the Memorial and Lord Ashton’s subsequent withdrawal from public life are explained to provide background information to support the hypothesis that it was really a memorial to himself, rather than to his second wife. The memorial was to commemorate his legacy of prosperity in Lancaster and the public service he had provided. Yet there was mounting public criticism of Lord Ashton personally after 1895 when, as James Williamson, he was made a life peer, leading to his withdrawal from public life after 1911.

James Williamson junior was born in Church Street, Lancaster, on 31 December 1842 and educated at Lancaster Royal Grammar School. His father (James Williamson senior) had established James Williamson & Sons (hereafter referred to as Williamsons) in 1844, manufacturing coated fabrics. James junior joined the business on leaving school in the mid-1860s and worked there for his entire life, taking full control when his father died in 1879 (LCC 2016). James junior is acknowledged as the driving force behind the rapid growth of Williamsons over thirty-years expanding into floorcloth, blindcloth and, in 1887, cork linoleum, with the ability to emboss, roll and block-print products. He developed the business into a very large undertaking with premises covering twenty- one acres at Lune Mills. By the early 1890s Williamsons employed 2500 workers, increasing to 3000 by 1900 and 4000 by 1911, approximately a quarter of the workforce in Lancaster (LCC 2016; Gooderson 1966, 267). Williamsons sold their products at competitive prices, specialising in the lower end of the market where they had a virtual monopoly in Britain (LCC 2016).

Williamsons occupied a large part of James junior’s working life, yet he found time to hold public office, developing a political career culminating in his appointment as Baron Ashton in 1895. He was a local philanthropist, gifting over £500,000 (about £30 million in 2019 money) in gifts, subscriptions and the erection of public buildings (The Times 1930). The Ashton Memorial was the only building that he financed that did not have a practical use and it was entirely his own idea. His political career and philanthropy are summarised in Tables 2 and 3. Williamsons was ranked amongst the largest manufacturing companies in Britain making Lord Ashton one of the richest men in the country leaving an estate of £10,500,000 (about £600–650 million in 2019 money) at his death on 27 May 1930 (LCM 2002a).

Position/Role Date 1. Town Councillor, Lancaster 1871–80 2. Justice of the Peace 1881–95 3. High Sheriff of Lancaster 1885 4. Liberal MP, Lancaster 1886–95 5. Peerage, Baron Ashton, of Ashton in the County 1895 Palatine of Lancaster 6. of Lancaster Castle 1921–30 7. Freeman of Lytham 1923 Table 2. Public Offices held by James Williamson jnr (Lord Ashton from 1895)

64

Contrebis 2019 v37

Building/Cause Date Amount (£) 1. Queen Victoria Monument, Dalton Square 2. 1906–09 155,000 3. Williamson Park  Phase 1: 1862–651 Phase 1: Conversion from quarry to parkland during  Phase 2: 18771 the Cotton Famine (1861–65)  1881 Williamson Park Phase 2: Driveway and walks created; bridge, lake, gifted to the Corporation waterfall and observatory built of Lancaster Phase 3: Erection of a bandstand, stone shelters, a  Phase 3: 1904 temple, a stone bridge, a fountain and a palm house 4. Endowment for the renovation of Williamson Park 1904 10,000 (Phase 3) 5. Ashton Memorial2 1904–09 87,000 6. Ashton Wing of the former County Asylum (Moor 15,000 Hospital) 7. Ashton House at Lancaster Royal Grammar School Details not known 8. Contribution to the building of the Royal Lancaster 1890s 9,600 Infirmary 9. Queen Victoria Hospital Building, Morecambe 1901 Not known 10. Landscaping of Lune Bank Gardens, , for 1904 1,000 local residents 11. Bought out Corporation Tolls 1887 Not known

12. Paid for the footbridge to the east side of the Details not known

Railway Bridge

13. Backed the government’s War Loan During World 3,000,000

War 1

Notes: 1 James Williamson snr; all other projects by James Williamson jnr (Lord Ashton). 2 The Queen Victoria Monument was intended for Williamson Park on the site of the Ashton Memorial. Lord Ashton paid for it to be relocated to Dalton Square.

Table 3: Selected major philanthropic building projects by the Williamson family

The demise of Lord Ashton The elevation of James junior to the peerage in 1895 was the start of a sixteen-year campaign waged against him by various sources that eventually led to his virtual withdrawal from Lancaster public life, excepting his appointment as Constable of Lancaster Castle in 1921 (Table 2). As the Liberal MP for Lancaster, James Williamson had supported Prime Minister Gladstone in the Government of Ireland (‘Home Rule’) Bill of 1893 and financially contributed to Irish causes. Gladstone intended to recommend Williamson for a peerage but resigned in 1894 without making any nominations. Gladstone’s successor, the 5th Earl of Rosebery, who was the leader of the Liberal Imperialist faction of the Liberal Party, resigned in 1895 and included James Williamson in his resignation honours list in response to a written request from Gladstone to honour the arrangement. James Williamson’s peerage led to outspoken criticism from the 8th Duke of Devonshire, the leader of the Liberal Unionist Party, who joined Lord Salisbury’s third government in 1895 as Lord President of the Council. The Duke had become increasingly uneasy about Gladstone’s Irish policies and severed his relationship with Gladstone shortly before Gladstone’s resignation and strongly intimated that Williamson had bought his title in return for substantial contributions to Liberal Party funds, something both Rosebery and Williamson vehemently denied (The Times

65

Contrebis 2019 v37

1930). The sale of honours to rich businessmen and manufacturers anxious to find acceptance in London society was not new, hence the Earl of Rosebery’s insistence on receiving written confirmation from Gladstone (Hanham 1960). Despite his denial, Lord Ashton was subject to frequent criticism and derision in Lancaster by the press and Sir William Marriott of the North Lonsdale Division. This led Lord Ashton, before the 1910 general election, to write to voters in the Lancaster Division repeating his denial and threatening that if the accusations continued, he would withdraw his support from Lancaster (McClintock 1985; LCC 2016; The Times 1930).

The growth and popularity of the Independent Labour Party resulted in Lord Ashton being further challenged in 1907 when the local Labour leaders were trying to introduce recognition for unions which represented the unskilled workers of Williamsons and Storey Bros, two of Lancaster’s largest employers. Lord Ashton objected to being criticized for paying low wages and exploiting his workforce. He responded by claiming his skilled staff were paid union rates and his unskilled labourers received £1. 0. 3d (£1.01) a week, with a bonus for time-keeping. He lost no time in notifying the local press that this was more than his rival, Storey Bros, who were said to pay only 18s 6d (92p) per week (LCC 2016; LCM 2002a). Lord Ashton bitterly resented outside interference in his business and what he regarded as disloyalty and a rejection of his paternalistic approach to his workforce and the ingratitude of the people of Lancaster for his philanthropic gifts to the town (Gooderson 1966, 225). His response was to gather evidence from newspaper articles reporting on union meetings, written records of conversations overheard and reports on individuals and political meetings that were collected by trustees and senior employees. This behaviour created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust amongst all who were connected to him that was exacerbated by Lord Ashton’s withdrawal and isolation (McClintock 1985). Even the Ashton Memorial was not free from criticism. In February 1909 the Co-operative News referred to Lord Ashton as ‘Croesus,’ (the king of Lydia, known for his wealth) who squandered Williamsons’ earnings on ‘a gilded pinnacle’ (Gooderson 1966 216). Local people called it ‘the jelly mould’ (Gooderson 1966, 219).

In November 1911 there was a tied vote at a municipal election in Skerton between William Wall who was supported by the Trades Council and Lord Ashton’s Liberal nominee, John Turney, who both received 472 votes. The mayor gave the casting vote to Turney. Nonetheless, almost immediately Lord Ashton’s attitude hardened: notices were displayed at the manufacturing works in St George’s Quay rescinding the arrangement to pay any advance in wages and advising that employees would not be kept in work in times of strikes, and when the business or the economy slumped: only loyal men would be kept:‘… and we shall not, as in the past, keep those who are bereft of all sense of what is due not only to their employer but to themselves’ (McClintock 1985).

As a direct result of the adverse publicity and what Lord Ashton perceived was hostility and even contempt towards him, he declined to make further contributions to Lancaster charities, buildings and public events. He felt that Lancaster and its citizens had spurned his paternalism and benevolence, and he wanted no part in the town’s public life, although he continued to manage his business from Rylands House (McClintock 1985; LCC 2016). The opening of the Town Hall in 1909 was his last public duty and from 1911 he remained a recluse until his death in 1930.

The grandeur of the Ashton Memorial The Ashton Memorial is a Grade I Listed building and the principal building in the Ashton Memorial Gardens and Williamson Park which itself is Grade II Listed (Historic England 1953 and 1986 respectively). On 5 October 1904, within days of the death of Lord Ashton’s second wife, Jessy, he contacted the Mayor of Lancaster, Colonel Allen, seeking his agreement not to erect Herbert Hampton’s planned Queen Victoria statue in Williamson Park but to move it to another site

66

Contrebis 2019 v37 because he had something in mind to replace it. The following month on 8 November, Lord Ashton wrote to the Mayor confirming his offer. The Council agreed the statue could be moved to Dalton Square. Lord Ashton requested the Council to prepare plans for his proposed work to cost in the order of £25,000 to £30,000 (Gooderson 1966, 219).

Figure 1. Sir John Belcher (1841–1913) Figure 2. Portrait of Lord Ashton (1842– 1930) in Lancaster Town Hall

Sir John Belcher RA, then president of the Royal Institute of British Architects (Figure 1), was commissioned by Lord Ashton (Figure 2) to design the Memorial. After receiving Lord Ashton’s approval, Belcher submitted his plans to the Council. A wooden scale model was made and exhibited at The Royal Academy in London in 1906 and it has since been on display at the Memorial. Models were then a way of presenting designs, making it easier for people to understand and visualize its scale, massing and detail. Building commenced in 1907 and was completed in 1909 with some design and construction changes made by Belcher’s business partner, John James Joass. The final cost of the Memorial reported by the Council was £87,000 ( Archives A), nearly two-and-a-half times greater than Lord Ashton’s original budget. The Council’s financial ledger shows the final cost of the Memorial was £68,264.4s.7d at 30 October 1909 (Figure 3). It is possible the difference of nearly £19,000 was due to the improvements to Williamson Park such as the stone bridge over, and a fountain in, the lake; six oak and stone shelters; a new bandstand; a temple; and a palm house. The Memorial was opened to the public on 24 October 1909.

The architectural design concept The Ashton Memorial is built in an extravagant Edwardian revival of English Baroque architecture. Clad in white Portland stone with a distinctive copper dome surmounted by a lantern, the Memorial must have appeared out of context when it was first built in a city dominated by the use of local sandstone and Georgian and Victorian architecture.

67

Contrebis 2019 v37

Figure 3. Final ledger entry for the building of the Memorial (Lancashire Archives B)

Today the Memorial’s appearance is accepted as a key part of the city’s heritage. There is certainly nothing modest about its design and a better site for the Memorial would be difficult to find (Belcher 1909). John Belcher was an inspired choice of architect. He was the author of Essentials in Architecture (1907), and with Mervyn Macartney, Later Renaissance Architecture in England (1901). Their model was the monumental architecture by Christopher Wren, John Vanbrugh and Wren’s pupil, Nicholas Hawksmoor, two hundred years earlier. Belcher gained his reputation with the Baroque hall of the Incorporated Chartered Accountants building in London (1888–93). His other buildings with Neo-Baroque features include Colchester Town Hall (1898–1902), the Church of the Holy Trinity (Kingsway, London) and, with J. J. Joass who joined him in 1897, the Franco- British White City Exhibition (1908) (Curl 2005, 87). Edwardian Baroque was associated with distinctive towers and prominent domes giving buildings a sense of identity and importance (Wilkinson 2009, 119). By the end of the nineteenth century rolled-steel beams were superseding wrought iron, leading to steel-framed structures, clad in masonry as a precaution against corrosion. Baroque embraces many art forms from painting to architecture and interior decoration, often combining all three in a single design (Hollingsworth 1987, 103). The lower hall was originally intended to be used as a museum and the upper chamber as a lounge and reading room.

The design details The Memorial is constructed on what Belcher called a square terrace, raised 1.20m above the ground level to the east, facing the palm house where two short flights of steps with an intermediate landing provide access to the building. There is a further, slightly longer staircase leading to the terrace on the north elevation, and the grand winding staircase on the west elevation which divides near the bottom to curve around a fountain in front of a screen wall with two Tuscan columns in antis (a recessed portico with a row of columns), the staircase rising 17.25 metres above the lower park level (Figure 4).

The structure of the Memorial is very complex, having three distinct vertical sections above the terrace. The first and lowest part of the Memorial rises from the terrace to the underside of the first balcony level and is square on plan with splayed corner angles. Internally there is a single octagonal hall 17.11 metres wide at the lower level surmounted by an internal octagonal dome, the height from floor level to the crown of the dome being again 17.11 metres.

68

Contrebis 2019 v37

Figure 4. The grand staircase up to the Memorial

The second and middle section of the Memorial’s superstructure is circular on plan in the form of a drum and contains a single chamber up to a second external balcony level which is surmounted by a wholly internal dome, smaller in diameter than the dome below it. Above the second balcony level is the third section supporting the outer copper-clad dome. The upper and final section of the Memorial appears visually to be stepped back from the drum below. The drum, however, is a constant diameter for its full height to the base of the external dome. This is an illusion created by the second balcony oversailing the drum with a colonnade (or peristyle) of paired Corinthian columns built around the drum perimeter in alignment with the external edge of the second balcony down to the first balcony level. The short section of the drum between the second balcony and the base of the outer drum has no such colonnade, with the line of portal windows visible externally built in the upper wall of the drum. The reason for the two upper domes is purely aesthetic. It is not possible to have a single large-diameter dome on top of a drum that gives the correct appearance both internally and externally (Figures 5 and 6). Here Belcher has copied the same illusion that Christopher Wren created at St Paul’s Cathedral in London in 1675 and Fillipo Brunelleschi before him at Florence Cathedral in 1436

69

Contrebis 2019 v37

Figure 5. Section through the Memorial Figure 6. The drum and colonnade (peristyle) showing the three domes, the terrace and the two balcony levels

The four external elevations at the lower level are relatively plain with recessed porticoes containing two centrally-paired Tuscan columns and two single columns at the sides (together referred to as tetrastyle). The four corner angles externally each have an open pedimented round- arch window opening. The architecture of the upper level of the Memorial is far more complex, hence the attribution of Baroque styling. The upper level has a subsidiary tower at each corner with two sets of paired Corinthian columns at the diagonal point under a cupola (a small dome). Interrupting the line of Corinthian columns around the drum above at the cardinal points is an aedicule (an architectural surround) with an open segmental pediment above. Below three of the aedicules there is a projection from the drum wall with shields showing the sculpted decoration of a ship, a railway locomotive and a reaper, and above each pediment on three sides are allegorical figural sculptures by Herbert Hampton representing Commerce, Science and Art (Historic England 1953). On the west elevation a staircase projection rises above the pediment. Above the outer dome a lantern surrounded by a balustrade provides ventilation to the void below between the upper internal dome and the outer external dome which is accessed by a winding staircase in the void.

The hall at the lower level of the Memorial has a floor of white Piastraccia marble inlaid with black Tinos and red Rosso Antico marble laid in a geometric pattern (Figure 7). The dome above is decorated by four large figural groups painted in fresco by George Murray representing Commerce, History, Art and Science (Figure 8) (LCM 2002b). Between these groups are figures of the four seasons above the windows accompanied by the Arms of Lancaster (Belcher 1909). Suspended from the crown of the dome is a large electrolier (chandelier). The circular chamber at the upper level is reached by two staircases in the angle turrets providing access to the second viewing balcony and a further staircase leads to the upper gallery. The dome above is in sixteen bays pierced by eight portal windows which provide illumination to the gallery (Figure 9). Further light is

70

Contrebis 2019 v37 provided by four stained-glass windows decorated with the Arms of Lancaster while the stained- glass western window contains the Arms and motto of Lord Ashton (White 2006, 17)

Originally to have been built entirely of stone, a steel frame and load-bearing brick were used instead, clad with Portland stone. Considerable use was made of concrete where this was not visible. In 1930 Lady Ashton and Lord Ashton’s daughter, Countess Eleanor Peel, needed to fund repairs. There was a serious fire in 1962 (Ashworth 1989). Later the high fly-ash content in the concrete and water ingress led to rusting of the steelwork and loss of structural integrity. The Monument was closed in 1981 and restored in 1985–7 (White 2006).

Figure 7. The marble floor in the lower hall Figure 8.The decorated ceiling in the lower hall

Figure 9. The decorated ceiling in the upper chamber

A discussion on the purpose of the Ashton Memorial Nearly all authors writing about the reason for the Memorial being built have made a strong connection to the death of Lord Ashton’s second wife, Jessy. Indeed, Lord Ashton dedicated the Memorial to his family on a plaque erected inside the Memorial, backdated to the year of her death in 1904. However, Lord Ashton never publicly stated that the building was to be in memory of his second wife and nor is it clear why he would do so. It seems highly improbable that Lord Ashton would have been in a position to write to the Mayor of Lancaster, Colonel Allen, within days of his wife’s death with such detailed proposals for a memorial. This suggests that the idea had been in his mind for some time. Outwardly Lord Ashton disliked pretentious display intended to draw attention to himself and had a lifelong obsessive dislike of publicity, but inwardly he was a troubled man, dogged by criticism of his paternalism as an employer and his rejection and humiliation by the people of Lancaster. There is no record of any client design brief having been provided by Lord 71

Contrebis 2019 v37

Ashton to John Belcher or of notes that may have been taken by the architect from meetings with his client. The only clue lies in Lord Ashton’s first letter to the Mayor in October 1904, advising that he wished to build a ‘useful,… ornamental,… [and] very large’ structure in the Park. There followed a second letter to the Mayor on 8 November confirming his offer ‘to erect a useful and ornamental structure in place of the Queen’s memorial’ (Gooderson 1966, 219). Despite Lord Ashton’s unquestionable success as a businessman and extensive experience as a politician mixing with the aristocracy, he may have lacked the classical education to have known the precise form his memorial could take. Belcher on the other hand would have been in no doubt. The choice of Baroque architecture was inspiring: it indirectly expressed recognition of the revival of the Greco- Romano style of architecture and provided a conscious link to antiquity as a desirable model of perfection or supreme excellence. It conveyed the Greek qualities of harmony, proportion, rationality and balance and the Roman ideals of utilitas (usefulness), firmitas (stability) and venustas (attractiveness) to achieve Lord Ashton’s aim of a bold, impressive, prominent building.

Architectural styles and building types are influenced by historical changes during the period of their revival which, it is argued, led Lord Ashton to choose an architectural language that reinforced his social and political status. It is very rare for a building like the Ashton Memorial to be erected at the expense of a private individual, and the fact that Lord Ashton possessed the wealth to do so identified him as someone who was important in society. It is equally likely that his decision to build a monument was announced in a fit of resentment at his treatment by the press and the rise of the Labour Party which cut away the ground from beneath his Liberal stance. Perhaps there was a growing belief that his many benefactions were unappreciated by the people of Lancaster. Belcher’s main aim was to offer a design different from anything else in Lancaster and to attract attention through novelty of invention by designing a building that would stand out and dominate its surroundings. From Lord Ashton’s point of view such a building was a means of self-veneration in order to preserve for posterity his name and that of his family, and also act as a reminder of what he had done for the people of Lancaster. The prominence, elevation and architectural style of the Ashton Memorial represented a conscious assertion of Lord Ashton’s perception of his achievements, benevolence and paternalism. When human intention prevails, architectural design becomes a mirror of a patron’s personality expressing idea and purpose. The internal functionality of the Memorial was secondary to creating an impressive monumental effect. Creating the impression the building would make on the passing public was a more important function than the pleasure it might give to the users of the building. The Ashton Memorial is unquestionably a monument, unlike the Heysham Power Station, Bowland Tower, St Peter’s Cathedral or the Priory Church: however tall and impressive these may be, they will never achieve this status. Lewis Mumford was quite clear that dignity, wealth and power are inseparable from the conception of monumentality: he might also have added pride as well (Mumford 1949, 173).

Author profile Michael Haslam is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (retired) and obtained a Postgraduate Certificate in Architectural History from the University of Oxford and an MA in History from the University of Lancaster. His research interests lie in medieval architecture, Victorian Gothic Revival and architectural history in the North-West. Email: [email protected]

References Ashworth S 1989 The Lino King: The Life and Times of Lord Ashton. York: Village Belcher J 1907 Essentials in Architecture. London: B.T. Batsford Belcher J 1909 Current Architecture. The Architectural Review 25, 248–52 Belcher J and Macartney M 1901 Later Renaissance Architecture in England. London: B.T. Batsford Curl JS 2005 Dictionary of Architecture. Kent: Grange Books

72

Contrebis 2019 v37

Gooderson PJ 1966 Lord Linoleum: Lord Ashton, Lancaster and the Rise of the British Oilcloth and Linoleum Industry. Keele: Keele University Press Hanham HJ 1960 The Sale of Honours in Late Victorian England. Victorian Studies 3(3), 277–89 Historic England 1953 (updated 1995) Ashton Memorial. List Entry Summary. List Entry Number 1288429. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk Historic England 1986 Ashton Memorial Gardens and Williamson Park. List Entry Summary. List Entry No. 1000942. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk Hollingsworth A 1987 British Building Styles Recognition. London: Ian Allan Lancashire Archives A Lancaster Civic Society DDX2833 Box 3, letter from Charles Wilson 15 October 1984 Lancashire Archives B Ledger relating to the building of the Ashton Memorial 1905-1910. MBLA/ ACC 11602/25 LCC (Lancaster City Council) 2016 Lord Ashton – the Lino King. Available at: https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/the-council-and-democracy/civic-and-ceremonial/lord-ashton-the-lino-king# LCM (Lancaster City Museums) 2002a Lord Ashton ‘The Lino King’. Lancaster: Lancaster City Museums (Text by Sue Ashworth) LCM (Lancaster City Museums) 2002b Nature’s Daintiest Bounty ‘Williamson Park and the Ashton Memorial’. Lancaster: Lancaster City Museums (Text by Sue Ashworth) McClintock, ME 1985 Lord Ashton and Lancaster. Lancaster: Lancaster University, Centre for North-West Regional Studies Mumford L 1949 Monumentalism, Symbolism and Style. The Architectural Review 105, 173–80 The Times 1930 Obituary: Lord Ashton – A Wealthy Recluse. The Times Digital Archive 20 May 1930, 18 White A 2006 ‘The Folly to End All Follies?’ The Ashton Memorial, Lancaster. The Follies Journal 6 Winter, 5–22 Wilkinson P 2009 The Pocket Guide to English Architecture. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books

Bibliography Adam R 1992 Classical Architecture: A Complete Handbook. London: Viking Banister Fletcher, Sir and Musgrove J (ed.) 1987 Sir Banister Fletcher’s ‘A History of Architecture’. London: Butterworths De la Hey C 1986 Monumental Wrenaissance. Country Life 18 December Hartwell C and Pevsner N 2009 The Buildings of England, Lancashire: North. London: Yale University Press Irving M 2007 1001 Buildings you must see before you die. London: Cassell Illustrated Wilkinson P 2000 The Shock of the Old: A Guide to British Buildings. London: Channel 4 Books

Pictorial acknowledgements Figure 1. Photograph of Sir John Belcher. Source: Pinterest available at: http://www.pinterest.co.uk Figure 2. Photograph of a portrait of Lord Ashton. Source: Pinterest available at: http://www.pinterest.co.uk Figure 3. Final Ledger entry for the building of the Memorial. Source: Lancashire Archives B. Ledger relating to the building of the Ashton Memorial 1905–1910. Reference MBLA/ACC 11602/25 Figures 4, 6–9. Photographs taken by the author Figure 5. Section through the Memorial showing three domes and two balconies. Source: Lancaster City Council, Regeneration and Planning Services, copied from John Belcher’s drawing ‘Section shewing position of new structure & palm house’.

73