In an earlier blog, we looked at the different planning applications which were being submitted in the early part of the 20th century. Our work in cataloguing the planning files for Castle Ward Rural District Council has now reached the 1940’s and it is not surprising to note that the nature of applications began to change, to prepare for war.
We have come across the planning application, dated July 1940, from the Newcastle Education Committee, to install air raid shelters in the houses on the Cottage Homes site. Interestingly, these shelters were not below ground but were reinforced rooms on the ground floor of each building, beside the external side wall. They were only 5-6 feet wide, and each shelter had an emergency exit to the outside. I suspect these rooms were used as stationary cupboards or storage when the site became Police Headquarters. Another interesting point to note is that the plans cover all the houses occupied by the resident children, but the Masters House (which became the Chief Constable’s Office) was not included. Perhaps the Headmaster received an upgraded shelter!
LCW/G/1/Box 15/2083
It is also quite apparent from the applications, that the Ministry of Agriculture was keen to maximise home food production. In August and September of 1941, they made three separate submissions of plans to build hostels for agricultural workers at Whalton, Stamfordham and Ponteland. The plan for Middle Drive, Ponteland is dated 14th August 1941 and marked with the official stamp from the planning office, however the word ‘approved’ is clearly crossed out. We have no indication that any of these hostels were built.
However, in 1943, the same Ministry submitted plans for houses this time, planned for Capheaton, Belsay, Whalton and Stamfordham. The plans were approved on 8th April 1943, however using Google Maps & Earth, we can see that the Capheaton and Belsay plans never made it off the paper. The other plans were both for a pair of semi-detached homes at Stamfordham and Whalton. Stamfordham is easy to confirm, as the location was marked on the plan and the houses can clearly be seen at this location on Widdrington Drive in the village. Whalton was more difficult as the plan of the location does not appear to have survived, however further detective work suggests that these are the four houses appropriately named Castle Ward Cottages on the edge of Whalton, as the road heads towards Belsay.
LCW/G/1/Box 15/3019
Having planned for safety, and to house the agricultural workers, there was one slightly more unexpected matter to take care of – that of increasing numbers of prisoners of war. In May 1942, The Ministry of Works and Buildings submitted a plan for a proposed P.O.W. Camp, No.69 to be built on Middle Drive, Darras Hall. Records show that the camp was in use between 1945 and 1947. Once the prisoners had been repatriated, the development of housing in Darras Hall could continue and these days there is almost no sign that the camp ever existed. We say almost because the existence of this camp probably explains why some residents of Darras Hall have found German coins when digging their gardens.
One of the aims of the Northumberland Archives Charitable Trust is to improve and promote access to documents held within Northumberland Archives. Projects have been funded to list collections as well as adding descriptive content to existing collections. This additional information is added to our catalogue making the content available and searchable via the Online Catalogue on the Northumberland Archives website either at home or in the search rooms. The current cataloguing project focuses on a collection relating to two farming families in Northumberland, Atkinson and Marshall, who also had farming interests in Sutherland, Scotland.
In 1824 Adam Scott, a manager working on Atkinson and Marshall’s farming operation in Sutherland wrote to his employer Anthony Marshall for a reference to support his application to be Agent of the Australian Agricultural Company.
The Australian Agricultural Company was formed in 1824 following an inquiry into the use of colony land in New South Wales, Australia. Land, in the region of one million acres, considered to be waste land was identified as being suitable for agricultural development. The intention was to cultivate and farm the lands, using in part cheap convict labour, to produce fine merino wool which could be exported back to Britain.
When this request was made, Scott had been employed by Atkinson and Marshall for several years. The Atkinson and Marshall papers include some documents relating to the wages of shepherd’s and ‘men’ working the Sutherland farms. Adam Scott first appears in the year Whitsunday 1818 to Whitsunday 1819 which details his annual salary as
A little more context to this is given in a document entitled ‘Employment of Adam Scott, manager of Shin Farms, Sutherland, 26 May 1823 to 26 May 1824, working for Messrs. Atkinson and Marshall’. Details of his salary or ‘agreement for serving’ are:
cash £30
80 sheep grassed upon the farm
2 cows grassed all the year
1 cow grassed the summer half year
52 stones of meal [i.e. oatmeal]
Meal found for clippers; and Meal allowed for people who come to his house, upon business.
The sheep kept to be a fair proportion of ewes, yield sheep and hoggs.
To have a house kept, and his expenses paid, when from home, on business.
In August 1824 Anthony Marshall wrote about Adam Scott’s character and qualifications; it is clear from the correspondence that Marshall held Scott in high regard. Having learned of Scott’s “intention to offer himself as a candidate for the situation of agent”, Marshall states that Scott has had “sole management of a very large sheep farm in Sutherland” for upwards of nine-years, suggesting that Scott’s employment predates the wage accounts above.
His character is described as:
“[he has] conducted himself in a way highly creditable to him and in every respect satisfactory to us”
“[he has] much activity of body, and mind, and [is] capable of enduring great fatigue, he is sober, steady”
Scott’s abilities are also described:
“for the management of a sheep farming concern of whatever extent, there is no man, with whom I have ever been acquainted, upon whose skill and conducting I would place greater confidence”
NRO 550/16
The confidence expressed by Anthony Marshall, however, did not appear to be shared by Adam Scott himself. The following month Scott wrote to Marshall stating that “the person the company wants must be more a factor than a sheep farmer; and would require abilities and education such, as is not to be found in a humble individual like me”. Scott goes on to express that he lacks the necessary experience; the role requires experience in business, land surveying, magistrates as well as employing subordinate agents and hundreds of labourers. Scott’s letter accompanies a more formal reference document in which he asks Marshall to be ‘candid’ in his responses about his capabilities as he does not wish to “deceive the company and obtain a situation, I am not able to fulfill”.
The reference asks a range of questions relating to personal characteristics such as moral character, conduct in social life, temperate habits as well and capabilities to do the job in question. Marshall still praises Scott’s capabilities, but as requested also responds candidly:
“Tho’ he [Adam Scott] has not had the advantage of a liberal education, he is, in my opinion, quite capable of conducting a correspondence, by letters; upon farming subjects”
“he has not had much experience as an agriculturalist. But, as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, he perfectly understands the system, as it is practised in Scotland”
“Almost the whole of his life having been occupied, as a farmer he can not be supposed to possess very much knowledge of general business; but he is in my opinion, very capable of acquiring it”
“…as far as the rearing and management of sheep on the Company’s objects – and as a steady, sober, active and persevering man, I can with confidency recommend him”
Marshall concludes the reference by acknowledging that Scott lacks experience particularly in land surveying, as a magistrate and controlling subordinate agents and labourers. He also notes that Scott “has not been accustomed to manage merino sheep”, the breed of sheep being farmed in New South Wales as opposed to the Cheviot sheep farmed in the Sutherland farms.
We do not know what happened to Adam Scott next. Robert Dawson was the Chief Agent for the Australian Agricultural Company between 1824 to 1828. Whether Scott was successful in a ‘subordinate position’ or decided to remain in Scotland is unknown. The correspondence relating to the employment reference is the last to refer specifically to Adam Scott whilst working for Messrs. Atkinson and Marshall. There are documents that refer to ‘Scott’ however, whether is this Adam or perhaps one of his brothers who also worked for Atkinson and Marshall? The only hint is a letter from Marshall to Thos. Scott in 1840 where he asks that “I beg to be remembered to…my old friend Mr. Adam Scott, when you see or write to him”; suggesting that Adam Scott is unlikely to be in Australia!
The Atkinson and Marshall papers are still being listed, so the documents referred to do not have reference numbers yet. When completed, the online catalogue can be searched using terms ‘Adam Scott’, ‘Australian Agricultural Company’ or ‘wage*’ to locate the Reference Number.
This blog has been researched and written by Shelley Lanser, one of the volunteers on our maternity care project. Project volunteers are researching maternity care in Northumberland with particular focus on Castle Hills Maternity Home, Berwick, and Mona Taylor Maternity Home, Stannington. In 1943, Lady Ridley gave an address at the opening of Mona Taylor Maternity Home. She was also heavily involved in the Newcastle Babies Hospital for many years and organised the evacuation of the Hospital to her home, Blagdon Hall, during World War Two.
NRO 08415/31 – Guests at a Northumberland wedding. Ursula Ridley is the lady standing next to the young boy, nd. [c.1955]
Ursula Viscountess Ridley was a woman who cared about the poor, about women and – above all – about children.1 This is the first of several blog posts about Lady Ridley, wife of the third Viscount Ridley.
Ursula’s father was Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944)2, the famous architect. Edwin Lutyens is described as a shy and inarticulate man who hid his shyness with non-stop quips and jokes.3 Ned, as he was familiarly called, was born in 1869, the tenth child and the ninth boy in a family of ten boys and three girls.4 His father, Charles Lutyens (1829-1915)5, was a gentleman, a member of a military family,6 also an eccentric bohemian7. As well as having served in the army, Charles was a painter whose works were exhibited in the Royal Academy. In his later years, Charles began to go blind and his income from the paintings dropped off, leading him to make unusual economies in the household. Ned was affected by the change in his family’s lifestyle and worried all his life about money.8 Ned’s mother, Margaret “Mary” Gallwey Lutyens (1832/3-1906)9 came from Ireland; her father was a General in the Royal Irish Constabulary.10
Ned took his first commission when he was barely 20, for a nine-bedroom house.11 In that same year he met Gertrude Jekyll, the noted garden designer, with whom he would work closely in future years.12 She was to heavily influence his career. She not only created gardens for the houses he designed, but provided many social contacts with people who had the wealth to employ him. One of these contacts was Edward Hudson, founder of Country Life magazine. Hudson did many double-page spreads of photographs in his magazine showing the Lutyens-Jekyll houses and gardens, which in turn found them both more commissions.13 Hudson became Ursula’s godfather.14
Lutyens went on to become an extremely prolific designer, accepting in the neighbourhood of 800 commissions during his career including an astonishing range.15 Some of his most famous designs include Queen Mary’s Doll House;16 war memorials such as the Cenotaph17 in Whitehall and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing at the Somme, in France;18 the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.;19 Arts and Crafts houses, including Munstead Woods,20 built for Gertrude Jekyll; several castles, including Lindisfarne Castle on Holy Island (commissioned by Edward Hudson);21 and the Viceroy’s House in New Delhi, now called Rashtrapai Bhavan, residence of the President of India.22 Lutyens was knighted in 1918.23
Ursula Lutyen’s mother was Lady Emily Bulwer-Lytton (1874-1964), daughter of Edward Bulwer-Lytton, (1831-1891)24, 2nd Baron of Lytton (later the 1st Earl of Lytton), who was Viceroy of India between 1876 and 1880. Unfortunately, he was never very good at managing his finances and when he died in 1891, while serving as Ambassador to France, it was found that a dishonest “man of affairs” had left the Earl’s widow badly off.25 Emily’s mother was Edith Villiers (1841-1936)26, of the aristocratic Villiers family.27 After her husband died, Countess Lytton became a lady-in-waiting to Queen Victoria, in order to fund the education of her sons at Eton and Cambridge.28 Emily is described as having a strong personality and a bit of a temper;29 she would fight to get what she wanted.30 Though initially Emily’s mother was against their engagement,31 she was won over eventually. The couple were married in August, 1897.32
The Lutyens’ marriage was strained by the fact that Ned and Emily had little in common other than being intensely romantic. She loved the countryand the seaside; Ned cared for neither unless he had work there.33 She was interested in women’s rights;34 he thought women belonged at home.35 The sharing and discussing of books was important to Emily36 but books meant little to Ned.37 Emily grieved that they didn’t share any interests.38 A couple of years after the birth of her youngest child, she became deeply involved with Theosophy,39 a new religion at the time, teaching about reincarnation and mixing western and eastern beliefs. Theosophy was popular among a number of Edwin Lutyen’s wealthy clients and all of his children, with the exception of Ursula, were followers at some point.40 Emily become vegetarian shortly after they married.41 They had few common friends.42 Ned dreamed of domestic bliss in a white house they never built;43 Emily had no interest in domesticity or in running a house with servants.44 They spent large amounts of time apart: once Ned won the commission for the Viceroy’s Palace, he spent winters in New Delhi and summers at home.45 However, Emily routinely took the children to the seaside for several months in summer. (During one holiday at the seaside, she and a friend would read fairy stories aloud to prostitutes in hospital with venereal disease). 46 Even their weekends were largely separate. Emily had insufficient confidence or motivation to entertain Ned’s potential clients and disliked attending the Saturday to Monday invitations important to his business. Over time it was understood that he was available on his own,47 and his wit and humour made him a popular house guest.48 When apart they wrote letters to each other almost daily, sometimes twice a day, leaving over 5,000 letters written during their forty-seven-plus years of marriage.49
It is thought Ned may have had an affair with Lady Victoria Sackville (mother of Vita Sackville-West), a married woman.50 They were certainly good friends, calling one another MacSack and McNed.51 This relationship began a couple of years after Emily wrote Ned that she would no longer have sexual relations with him.52 After Ned’s death, while working to organise her father’s letters, Ursula expressed the hope that her father had found some physical fulfilment with Lady Sackville.53 In one of Emily’s letters to Ned she encourages him to find another woman; his reply was that he couldn’t possibly afford to keep a second woman in the manner which she would deserve.54 Emily may have had an affair with Krishnamurti, a much younger Indian man who at one point was considered a messiah among the Theosophists.55 However, he was said to have a horror of sex and, while he returned her affection,56 they both worked to have a “higher love.”57 Whether or not there were affairs, Ned and Emily grew much closer in their later years, particularly in the last decade or so of Ned’s life when his commissions were not as numerous and Emily had lost interest in Theosophy.58
Ursula Lutyens was born into this family on the 31st of October 190459 in London, the middle child of five. She had an older sister, Barbara “Barbie” (1898-1981), an older brother, Robert (1901-1972), and two younger sisters: (Agnes) Elizabeth (1906-1983) and (Edith Penelope) Mary Lutyens (1908-1999).60 Barbie and Ursula were close. Not much is said about her relationship with her brother, but that with her younger siblings was marked by squabbling and jealousy of one another. Ursula was widely acknowledged as her father’s favourite, possibly because he found her the least taxing to be with.61 She was described as “charming” and “talented” as a child.62 Also (aged 4) the prettiest of her siblings, and an unredeemable flirt. Her siblings thought her a show-off. 63
The whole family had a deep appreciation for the Nannie. The anniversary of Sleath’s arrival was celebrated each year; they called it her “Nanniversary.”Alice Louisa Sleath was 24 years old when she joined them in 1898; she remained with the family until her death in 1938, aged 64.64 Ned, like most men of the day, left child rearing to his wife. Emily, in the usual aristocratic way, left the care of the children to the Nannie.65 Nannie Sleath was the most important person to the children.66
2. Stamp, Gavin, “Lutyens, Sir Edwin Landseer (1869-1944), in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. 34, Ed. HCG Matthew and Brian Harrison, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, 817-825.
3. Lutyens, Mary, Edwin Lutyens by his daughter (London: John Murray, 1985), p ix.
4. Lutyens, p 1.
5. Stamp, p 817.
6. Ridley, Jane. The Architect and His Wife – A Life of Edwin Lutyens (London, Chatto & Windus, 2002) 7-8.
7. Lutyens, p 22.
8. Stamp, p 817.
9. Ridley, p 9.
10. Lutyens, p 22.
11. Lutyens, p 24.
12. Lutyens, pp 27-28.
13. Lutyens, p 65.
14. Lutyens Trust America, “The Life and Legacy of Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944)”, Martin Lutyens, Robin Prater and Jane Ridley, May 10, 2020, Webinar, 3.47 to 3.58, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARILhNz-OJg&t=2489s.
33. Percy, Clayre and Jane Ridley, The Letters of Edwin Lutyens To his wife, Lady Emily, (London:Collins, 1985), p 149.
34. Ridley, pp 148, 307.
35. Lutyens, p 77.
36. Lutyens, p 11.
37. Lutyens, p 77.
38. Lutyens, p 89.
39. Ridley, p 321.
40. Ridley, p 122.
41. Lutyens, p 131.
42. Ridley, pp 110-111.
43. Lutyens, p 59.
44. Percy, p 296.
45. Ridley, 168.
46. Lutyens, p 60.
47. Lutyens, p 191.
48. Ridley, p xi.
49. Lutyens, pp 196.
50. Lutyens, p 155.
51. Ridley, p 247.
52. Lutyens, p 199.
53. Lutyens, p 213.
54. Ridley, p 191.
55. Lutyens, p 122.
56. Lutyens, p 200.
57. Lutyens, p 249.
58. Lutyens, p 61.
59. Stamp, 823.
60. Ridley, p 170.
62. Lutyens, p 148.
63. Ridley, p 170.
64. England, General Register Office, PDF copy of an entry of death, for Alice Louisa Sleath, died 4 Feb. and registered 5 Feb. 1938; a copy of an entry in the certified copy of a register of births in the registration district of St. Marylebone, County of London.
