Lamb began working on two larger versions of this new centralised design at about the same time at opposite ends of the country; his revised scheme of Christ Church, West Hartlepool, Co. Durham, built in 1852–4 and his rebuilding scheme of St Margaret’s, Leiston, Suffolk, 1853–4. Both churches take the Quadrate cross form with a larger Latin cross superimposed as used at Aldwark, but the four corner spaces of the central nine spaces are now each large enough a form to serve as more than mere circulation spaces (Fig. 8). They either become additional seating areas or spaces for the organ, vestry or baptistery. At West Hartlepool the central space is now 60ft 9in long by 62ft 4in wide compared to the 27ft long by 31ft wide at Aldwark, but at Leiston
the east-west length becomes longer at 54ft 2in than the north- south width of 51ft 6in, giving more dominance to the principal axis of the church. Also for the first time, the four columns of the crossing form a perfect square compared with West Hartlepool and Aldwark where the width between columns across the nave was wider than that across the transepts giving more emphasis to the north-south axis.
Both churches also have short transepts to each side of the church, although they are square with gables rather than with a hipped polygonal-ended bay.The naves are longer and 28ft wide, finishing in a tall square tower centrally placed at the west end. At Leiston, this tower was the thirteenth-century original which had to be retained when the original very long and thin church was rebuilt and its location may have influenced Lamb’s design at West Hartlepool. He also continued in both churches with short chancels, not large enough for any seating, with that at Leiston only 12ft 6in deep. However, the pulpit is brought out in front of the chancel arch and well into the central space, placing it adjacent
Fig. 6: Aldwark, St Stephen, North Yorkshire,1851–3.Viewing layout showing initial success of a centralised plan with only four sittings unable to see the preacher.
to the north-east column of the four central columns, allowing the space between this and the chancel to have seating for a choir. These large churches with wide naves and chancels and Lamb’s central space called for a change in the way the spaces were roofed. The four corner spaces were large enough for their own roofs, rather than relying on a continuation of the transept and naves roofs at a lower pitch, which was all that was required for the smaller church at Aldwark. The nave roof at West Hartlepool is a larger version of the form at Aldwark with slight variations, using a single collar principal truss with single king- post and arched braces below, a form also used in the transepts. Leiston, however, despite the identical nave width, reverts to a hammer-beam roof as used at the Brompton Hospital Chapel. Lamb makes the central arch braces much larger and wider forcing the scissor truss higher up the roof so the rafters do not cross well below the collar but at the collar itself, where a king- post tie descends to meet the top of the braces. Lamb uses the scissor truss to a much more dramatic effect elsewhere in the church by forming two principal scissor trusses running diagonally from opposite columns at the crossing. This forms the valleys to the transept and nave roofs causing eight timbers to cross at the same point over the centre of the crossing in a wonderful demonstration of carpentry (Fig. 7).
There are two surviving seating layouts for Leiston; one in the ICBS records and one reproduced in a contemporary review in The Builder.12 As seems to be the norm, the pew numbers and
lengths given on the ICBS Form C totalling 835 seats do not relate to the unsigned and copied plan surviving in the ICBS records. This only gives a total of 655 sittings as the 135 seats in
Fig. 7: Leiston, St Margaret, Suffolk, 1853–4.The intersection of the valley scissor trusses over the crossing where it seems that eight timbers all meet.
the crossing and 24 in the choir are omitted, but strangely a note below says that ‘allowing for proportion for children will give the 690 required’. If the plan is taken in preference to the form and filled with all the full complement of people, then only 20 out of the 790 excluding the choir have a restricted view due solely to the two westernmost columns; a success of 97.4% including 120 people who Lamb seated in a full-width gallery at the west end (Fig. 8). It did indeed meet the design objective which, as the review in The Builder for 1854 put it, was for the church ‘to be commodious, and with little obstruction to the clear view inside’. The viewing at West Hartlepool is more difficult to determine, as there are no surviving plans showing Lamb’s original seating layout. A photograph taken from the west end looking east gives an indication of a seating layout from which it is possible, using pew sizes from his other churches, to produce a plan and see the viewing lines.13With a gallery at the west end,
there is giving a total of 880 seats excluding the choir of which only 35 would have had an obstructed view; a success of 96%. There are a great number of similarities between these two
Fig. 8: Leiston, 1853–4.Viewing layout showing Lamb’s larger centralised space with the additional spaces for the vestry and the organ. Note how the two westernmost columns obscure the view to the preacher. Based upon the ICBS plan.
churches with the central west tower, small chancel and west galleries, which is not surprising as Lamb was designing them both at virtually the same time. Each church was reviewed in the architectural press at the time, but while Leiston was described as ‘plain, neat and characteristic’ and with ‘materials of construction so disposed as to prevent a monotonous appearance’,14 West
Hartlepool was, in the opinion of The Ecclesiologist, ‘one of those uncouth and grotesque combinations of incongruous architectural tours de force, which it requires the inartistic and withal presumptuous mind of Mr Lamb to conceive’.15