Thomas Walker
[6] The hundred and fifty years after the building of Newton are the best documented and were the most prosperous in the history of the house. The Games' circle of relations widened both socially and geographically. The sums of money available for the improvement and decoration of the house were considerable. Ironically it was not a Games but Thomas Walker who contributed most to the late seventeenth-century splendour of the mansion, but his only surviving child was a daughter, Elizabeth, and with her marriage to Francis Jenkins of Hensol, Glamorgan, the Games connection with Newton was near its end. The dispersal of some of the contents in the 1720s did however result in the compilation of documents which add largely to our knowledge of the interior. In addition to these lists of paintings, fireplaces and other embellishments there are two very informative inventories. The first, of 1614, was taken on the death of Sir John Games and contains a detailed survey of the contents of the house. Just over a century later Thomas Walker's widow died and an equally painstaking inventory was made on that occasion. The interpretation of these sources is not easy and some of the problems they raise will be unresolved, but they do make possible a fairly accurate reconstruction of the interior as well as throwing light on the changing status and function of the rooms.
Already by 1614 there had been some re-arrangements of the rooms on the ground floor. There are references to `the Butterie' and `the ould buttrye' and to the new and old parlours. There is no reason to believe that the house had been extended by this date so these changes indicate different uses of existing rooms. Perhaps they were connected with the insertion of the impressive screen at the lower end of the hall. The original timberwork is simple, even crude; in the early seventeenth century classical decoration was applied and then c. 1700 a large pedimented door-case was superimposed. Finally the proportions of the screen were ruined in the nineteenth century when the present staircase was inserted. It is not possible to determine the precise location of all the rooms mentioned in the 1614 inventory, but some are defined by their size or position. There can be no doubt that the hall, kitchen and service rooms were on the ground floor; but identifying the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ and the two parlours is more difficult. The most likely explanation is that the `new parlour and the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ were on the first floor and that the `old parlour' was the room between the staircase and the kitchen. The hall was no longer the social centre of the house and its various functions were being taken over by smaller rooms such as parlours and dining rooms. The desire for greater privacy was an important influence on this development. It is significant that in 1614 the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ contained the most expensive furnishings at Newton; here were the only examples of wall hangings: the five peeces of Arras valued at £ 13 6s. 8d. By comparison the spartan furniture in the hall was worth only £3 5s. 0d. This suggests that the servants ate in the hall while the Games family dined upstairs in greater comfort.
By the early eighteenth century much had been done to change the appearance and uses of the rooms. The ground-floor ‘ould parlour’ of 1614 is described as the ‘Withdrawing Room’ in 1725. One of the lists of paintings makes it clear that the dining room was still on the first floor. The most interesting addition to the rooms included in the eighteenth-century lists is ‘The Great Parlour’. The one room sufficiently grand to warrant such a description is that over the hall. In 1614 it contained two beds and little other furniture and was referred to simply as ‘the chamber over the hall’ . A century later it had almost as many paintings as the hall as well as two tables (one marble, the other ‘alabaster sett in wood’), eight chairs, a couch and two ‘Painted Skreens’ . Today the room is one of the few at Newton to show some traces of its original decoration. There are fragments of seventeenth-century plasterwork on the walls beside the windows and above the fireplace. Below the ‘Great Parlour’ the hall had now regained some of its late medieval importance. It was furnished and decorated in a style appropriate to the formal centre of the building. Large paintings, Royal and family Arms covered the walls; the furniture included a big table and a reading stand but there was none of the more private, comfortable furniture which filled so many of the smaller rooms.
It is clear that in 1725 the house was furnished more completely than in 1614. The considerable number of chairs, tables, cabinets, looking-glasses and clocks testifies to the affluence of the owners. Exactly how much of this was bought by Thomas Walker is not known but he contributed significantly to the appearance of the interior in two ways. He purchased many paintings and by 1700 Newton housed a substantial collection. Walker also spent lavishly on fireplaces. A note of 1707 states, ‘There are several valuable Pictures & Pieces of painting hung up and Several Marble and Glass Chimney pieces fixed in the walls’ An undated document headed a ‘Note of Marble Pieces’ identifies ten rooms and gives the value of the fireplace in each. The total is £315. One was presumably the ‘Dapl'd Duffe Culer'd Chimney Pece’ specified in a receipt and which cost Walker £18 0s. 0d. The same room contains one of the few pieces of original ornamental woodwork although this is probably not in situ. It is likely that other improvements, which are not documented, date from the Walker era. The doorcases in the hall and the Great Parlour are quite imposing examples of late seventeenth-century design. However, the stairs which connect these two principal rooms, which were reconstructed c. 1700, are less impressive than expected; this is probably because they were built in the same position as the original stairs and here there was little room for a display of grandeur. Many of the rooms were panelled. In the eighteenth century an inventory of the paintings refers to ‘the Wainscott Chamber’ in 1872 the Cambrians were advised to look at the ‘richly panelled Hall'. At present there are some pieces of what look like seventeenth-century panelling in the room over the hall. Not content with these many alterations to the interior, Walker was probably responsible for the most striking change to the external appearance of Newton since 1582. The remodelling of the roof which resulted in the pyramidal structure to be seen today was completed c. 1700. The only dated building outside the house is the large barn to the east which has a datestone of 1697 - further evidence of Walker's zeal for improvement.
Before dealing with the paintings which did more than anything else to beautify the house, something should be said about the man who was chiefly responsible for the Newton of 1700. Thomas Walker is the one owner of the house about whom a substantial body of information survives. That being said, one has to admit to some perplexity as to his birth and burial places. Some of this confusion is explained by his wife's ancestry. Elizabeth was the daughter of Hoo Games whose unusual Christian name was derived from his maternal grandfather, Richard Hoo of Burnham Overy in Norfolk. It is this Norfolk link which explains why a Warwickshire gentleman who married a Breconshire heiress was to be interred in East Anglia. Walker's marriage meant that he became closely involved in the affairs of his adopted town. As a lawyer of some eminence - he was Reader and lay Treasurer of the Inner Temple - it is not surprising that he became Recorder in Brecon, an office he held from 1689 until his death in 1707. But like much else in his career this appointment was controversial: the previous Recorder, John Powell, in his letter of resignation had recommended Francis Lloyd for the position. The Corporation ignored Powell's advice and chose Walker. Hugh Thomas remarked on his generosity to the church of St. Mary in the town: ‘In the .year of our Lord 1691 (the church was adorned with several fine Marble Tables of the Pater Noster, Ten Commandments and the Creed all in English by the bounty of the Worshipfull Thomas Walker of Newton.’
However, Walker spent much of his time away from home, especially in London. His personal accounts show regular payments to servants and officers of the Temple. His absences from Newton meant that Elizabeth wrote to him giving local and family news as well as demanding special purchases to be made in London. A few of these informative letters survive and they help to fill out the picture of Walker. His combative nature clearly involved him in some risky situations. In January, 1688 Elizabeth chided her husband for concealing the news of ‘yr being run through ye body'; she complained that the servants at Newton knew of the incident a fortnight ago but they had not ventured to tell their mistress. During 1694-96 Walker was involved in a bitter legal battle with his brother-in-law Daniel Williams (of Penpont)over the terms of Williams' marriage contract. In this case Walker was accused of suborning a witness, Thomas Morgan, vicar of Llanfaes! Apparently he had persuaded the vicar to supply false testimony; in return Walker would `pay his debts and take him out of Goale' . (The choice of Thomas Morgan as an accomplice was unwise as he made at least two appearances in the ecclesiastical courts on charges of assault, immoderate drinking and conducting clandestine marriages.) It is probable that Elizabeth was referring to this case when she wrote in June 1696, ‘tis sorrowfull news to hear of another bout in chancery I pray God deliver us out of ye hands of our cruell Enemys.'
One advantage of having a husband living in London for part of the year was that Elizabeth was in touch with the latest news and fashion. In January 1688 she concluded her letter with a request; ‘Pray let me know if ye Court is still in mourning & wt is most worne’. Walker was also asked to buy things for his wife and to arrange their carriage to Brecon. ‘We want six silver spoons & glass for ye chariot’ she informed him and went on, ‘If you can get any sauce pans or coper pots you may send ym by ye waggon' . The most interesting purchases Walker made in London were the paintings which adorned Newton. We do not know how many of the pictures were in the house before Walker's arrival but it is probable that he was chiefly responsible for accumulating the collection. There is evidence that he was buying pictures in 1689-90 and some of the purchases are listed in the inventories made later. In a letter of 5th October 1689 Edmund Glifford, who signed himself ‘Good Cosin’, wrote to Walker at Newton, ‘I have bought as many pictures of Doyley as comes to 10 li'. For ten pounds he got seven pictures, the most expensive of which was the portrait of ‘Anne of Bullen' at £3. The last of this batch, `A Parrott with foure grapes; this I gott into the bargaine' , was put in the dining room under the portrait of Rosamund. On another occasion Glifford bought on his behalf a number of works from one George Prideaux. Two of these were by renowned artists: ‘Cane & Abell 13s. ‘tis a true sketch of Tintorett’ and ‘Tantalus his head 6s. 'tis a true Originall of Rubens & worth 3 times that money'. One must beware of taking Prideaux's recommendations at their face value because he goes on to confide to Clifford that ‘I want money extreamly’. By the time he died Walker's collection was very considerable. A series of inventories of the paintings was drawn up in the early eighteenth century. They give a brief description of each item, their places in particular rooms and, in some cases, their cost and later valuation. The most complete inventory lists nearly two hundred pieces.
The rooms at Newton are spacious but not enormous and when one takes into consideration the area occupied by windows, doors and fireplaces one begins to appreciate how impressive - not to say oppressive - such a collection would seem to a modern visitor. The number and style of pictures in each room were guides to its importance or to the taste of the occupant. Patriotism and loyalty were displayed in the hall with large portraits of James I and William III in addition to two equestrian statues of St. George, one marble, the other alabaster. The Great Parlour contained thirty pictures; they included such diverse subjects as Louis XIV Biblical scenes and landscapes. One of the portraits was attributed to `Sr Peter Lilly. A number of rooms had paintings over doorways or chimney pieces but only the dining room had ‘One Large Seeling Piece’. One dined surrounded by Ladies: next to the chimney were Madam Walker and Madam Jenkins but ‘On Each side of the window, Rosamond and Jane Shore’. The only room in which the paintings followed one theme was in `The Wainscoat Chamber being Madam Walker's Room’. Here the widow had gathered a collection of pictures on religious subjects. They included the Holy Family, Saints Jerome, Ambrose and Sebastian also exemplary works such as the picture over the fireplace, ‘A Picture of Death's Head, the book of Life, and a letter giving warning’. However this conventional piety was not repeated in her daughter’s Dressing Room where these items are noted. ‘Lucretia after young Tarquin ravished her’; ‘Mary Magdalen’; ‘The Grand Cham of Tartary s Mistress’.
Elizabeth Walker died in 1725 but a few years earlier preparations were in hand for the dispersal of the collection. The compilation of the inventories in 1722. It supports the idea that the pictures were to be divided among the family or sold. Letters from two Hereford dealers show some of the negotiations involved. Thomas Winston looked out the better works and offered £50 for them. His rather disparaging remarks about the pictures obviously upset Madam Walker but he justified his attitude writing that ‘I will assure yu that I think I bid yu as much or more than they are worth’. A second opinion was more encouraging. James Hill in a letter to Daniel Williams, Elizabeth Walker's brother-in-law, commented that ‘There are several good pictures in the collection but that some of the works were suffering from the effects of ‘Time and negligence’. Hill complained that his job of sifting through the paintings was made more difficult because of `the removal of the pictures into the same room, having made the catalogue useless'. We do not know how many pictures Hill or the other dealers bought but some certainly remained in the house. In 1748 a list was drawn up entitled an ‘Account of the Pictures in the Hall’ . This describes twenty-one items, most of which can be traced in the earlier inventories. The hall now contained a motley collection taken from almost all the rooms in the house. Whether the rest of Newton was now bare of pictures and this remnant was all that remained of Walker's splendid display is not clear.
How representative of Welsh houses was Newton in terms of furnishings and decoration? It is not easy to find houses of comparable status with similar contents. The few contemporary references to paintings in Welsh houses reinforce the impression that Newton was a spectacular exception to the general rule. An inventory of Abermarlais, made in 1756, describes a house of similar size which contained twenty-one pictures. Even Hafod, that extraordinary cultural mecca of nineteenth-century west Wales, was furnished with only fifty paintings. Samuel Pepys, a contemporary of Walker, left on his death sixty-one pictures, thirty-three of which were portraits. But only one collection that I know of provides a close and revealing comparison with Newton. This was assembled by a Londoner, William Cartwright, actor and bookseller during the reign of Charles II. Cartwright had two hundred and thirty-nine pictures, few of much value and only a handful attributed to named artists. The subjects were similar to those at Newton and both collections contained a few Dutch works of the sort which were becoming popular in the later seventeenth century. Such comparisons suggest that in this case at least provincial taste and style did not lag far behind the capital.
Today none of Walker's pictures are at Newton. It is not known what happened to the contents of the house after the estate was divided and sold during the eighteenth century. There are a few elusive reminders of Thomas Walker and the Games family in Brecon. A nineteenth-century local historian claimed that the bells of St. Mary's were donated by Walker. The chapel of Christ College contains a splendid brass chandelier inscribed, ‘The Gift of Elizabeth Walker of Newton, 1723’. Her memory is also preserved in the Games Almshouses which she and her sister endowed in the suburb of Llanfaes. The contract for their construction specified that a handsome inscription and coat-of arms be placed on the front of the hospital.’ But anyone searching for this will be disappointed. In the nineteenth century the Games Hospital was completely rebuilt in an undistinguished style and the imposing memorial to the donors was not preserved.
Already by 1614 there had been some re-arrangements of the rooms on the ground floor. There are references to `the Butterie' and `the ould buttrye' and to the new and old parlours. There is no reason to believe that the house had been extended by this date so these changes indicate different uses of existing rooms. Perhaps they were connected with the insertion of the impressive screen at the lower end of the hall. The original timberwork is simple, even crude; in the early seventeenth century classical decoration was applied and then c. 1700 a large pedimented door-case was superimposed. Finally the proportions of the screen were ruined in the nineteenth century when the present staircase was inserted. It is not possible to determine the precise location of all the rooms mentioned in the 1614 inventory, but some are defined by their size or position. There can be no doubt that the hall, kitchen and service rooms were on the ground floor; but identifying the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ and the two parlours is more difficult. The most likely explanation is that the `new parlour and the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ were on the first floor and that the `old parlour' was the room between the staircase and the kitchen. The hall was no longer the social centre of the house and its various functions were being taken over by smaller rooms such as parlours and dining rooms. The desire for greater privacy was an important influence on this development. It is significant that in 1614 the ‘Dineinge Chamber’ contained the most expensive furnishings at Newton; here were the only examples of wall hangings: the five peeces of Arras valued at £ 13 6s. 8d. By comparison the spartan furniture in the hall was worth only £3 5s. 0d. This suggests that the servants ate in the hall while the Games family dined upstairs in greater comfort.
By the early eighteenth century much had been done to change the appearance and uses of the rooms. The ground-floor ‘ould parlour’ of 1614 is described as the ‘Withdrawing Room’ in 1725. One of the lists of paintings makes it clear that the dining room was still on the first floor. The most interesting addition to the rooms included in the eighteenth-century lists is ‘The Great Parlour’. The one room sufficiently grand to warrant such a description is that over the hall. In 1614 it contained two beds and little other furniture and was referred to simply as ‘the chamber over the hall’ . A century later it had almost as many paintings as the hall as well as two tables (one marble, the other ‘alabaster sett in wood’), eight chairs, a couch and two ‘Painted Skreens’ . Today the room is one of the few at Newton to show some traces of its original decoration. There are fragments of seventeenth-century plasterwork on the walls beside the windows and above the fireplace. Below the ‘Great Parlour’ the hall had now regained some of its late medieval importance. It was furnished and decorated in a style appropriate to the formal centre of the building. Large paintings, Royal and family Arms covered the walls; the furniture included a big table and a reading stand but there was none of the more private, comfortable furniture which filled so many of the smaller rooms.
It is clear that in 1725 the house was furnished more completely than in 1614. The considerable number of chairs, tables, cabinets, looking-glasses and clocks testifies to the affluence of the owners. Exactly how much of this was bought by Thomas Walker is not known but he contributed significantly to the appearance of the interior in two ways. He purchased many paintings and by 1700 Newton housed a substantial collection. Walker also spent lavishly on fireplaces. A note of 1707 states, ‘There are several valuable Pictures & Pieces of painting hung up and Several Marble and Glass Chimney pieces fixed in the walls’ An undated document headed a ‘Note of Marble Pieces’ identifies ten rooms and gives the value of the fireplace in each. The total is £315. One was presumably the ‘Dapl'd Duffe Culer'd Chimney Pece’ specified in a receipt and which cost Walker £18 0s. 0d. The same room contains one of the few pieces of original ornamental woodwork although this is probably not in situ. It is likely that other improvements, which are not documented, date from the Walker era. The doorcases in the hall and the Great Parlour are quite imposing examples of late seventeenth-century design. However, the stairs which connect these two principal rooms, which were reconstructed c. 1700, are less impressive than expected; this is probably because they were built in the same position as the original stairs and here there was little room for a display of grandeur. Many of the rooms were panelled. In the eighteenth century an inventory of the paintings refers to ‘the Wainscott Chamber’ in 1872 the Cambrians were advised to look at the ‘richly panelled Hall'. At present there are some pieces of what look like seventeenth-century panelling in the room over the hall. Not content with these many alterations to the interior, Walker was probably responsible for the most striking change to the external appearance of Newton since 1582. The remodelling of the roof which resulted in the pyramidal structure to be seen today was completed c. 1700. The only dated building outside the house is the large barn to the east which has a datestone of 1697 - further evidence of Walker's zeal for improvement.
Before dealing with the paintings which did more than anything else to beautify the house, something should be said about the man who was chiefly responsible for the Newton of 1700. Thomas Walker is the one owner of the house about whom a substantial body of information survives. That being said, one has to admit to some perplexity as to his birth and burial places. Some of this confusion is explained by his wife's ancestry. Elizabeth was the daughter of Hoo Games whose unusual Christian name was derived from his maternal grandfather, Richard Hoo of Burnham Overy in Norfolk. It is this Norfolk link which explains why a Warwickshire gentleman who married a Breconshire heiress was to be interred in East Anglia. Walker's marriage meant that he became closely involved in the affairs of his adopted town. As a lawyer of some eminence - he was Reader and lay Treasurer of the Inner Temple - it is not surprising that he became Recorder in Brecon, an office he held from 1689 until his death in 1707. But like much else in his career this appointment was controversial: the previous Recorder, John Powell, in his letter of resignation had recommended Francis Lloyd for the position. The Corporation ignored Powell's advice and chose Walker. Hugh Thomas remarked on his generosity to the church of St. Mary in the town: ‘In the .year of our Lord 1691 (the church was adorned with several fine Marble Tables of the Pater Noster, Ten Commandments and the Creed all in English by the bounty of the Worshipfull Thomas Walker of Newton.’
However, Walker spent much of his time away from home, especially in London. His personal accounts show regular payments to servants and officers of the Temple. His absences from Newton meant that Elizabeth wrote to him giving local and family news as well as demanding special purchases to be made in London. A few of these informative letters survive and they help to fill out the picture of Walker. His combative nature clearly involved him in some risky situations. In January, 1688 Elizabeth chided her husband for concealing the news of ‘yr being run through ye body'; she complained that the servants at Newton knew of the incident a fortnight ago but they had not ventured to tell their mistress. During 1694-96 Walker was involved in a bitter legal battle with his brother-in-law Daniel Williams (of Penpont)over the terms of Williams' marriage contract. In this case Walker was accused of suborning a witness, Thomas Morgan, vicar of Llanfaes! Apparently he had persuaded the vicar to supply false testimony; in return Walker would `pay his debts and take him out of Goale' . (The choice of Thomas Morgan as an accomplice was unwise as he made at least two appearances in the ecclesiastical courts on charges of assault, immoderate drinking and conducting clandestine marriages.) It is probable that Elizabeth was referring to this case when she wrote in June 1696, ‘tis sorrowfull news to hear of another bout in chancery I pray God deliver us out of ye hands of our cruell Enemys.'
One advantage of having a husband living in London for part of the year was that Elizabeth was in touch with the latest news and fashion. In January 1688 she concluded her letter with a request; ‘Pray let me know if ye Court is still in mourning & wt is most worne’. Walker was also asked to buy things for his wife and to arrange their carriage to Brecon. ‘We want six silver spoons & glass for ye chariot’ she informed him and went on, ‘If you can get any sauce pans or coper pots you may send ym by ye waggon' . The most interesting purchases Walker made in London were the paintings which adorned Newton. We do not know how many of the pictures were in the house before Walker's arrival but it is probable that he was chiefly responsible for accumulating the collection. There is evidence that he was buying pictures in 1689-90 and some of the purchases are listed in the inventories made later. In a letter of 5th October 1689 Edmund Glifford, who signed himself ‘Good Cosin’, wrote to Walker at Newton, ‘I have bought as many pictures of Doyley as comes to 10 li'. For ten pounds he got seven pictures, the most expensive of which was the portrait of ‘Anne of Bullen' at £3. The last of this batch, `A Parrott with foure grapes; this I gott into the bargaine' , was put in the dining room under the portrait of Rosamund. On another occasion Glifford bought on his behalf a number of works from one George Prideaux. Two of these were by renowned artists: ‘Cane & Abell 13s. ‘tis a true sketch of Tintorett’ and ‘Tantalus his head 6s. 'tis a true Originall of Rubens & worth 3 times that money'. One must beware of taking Prideaux's recommendations at their face value because he goes on to confide to Clifford that ‘I want money extreamly’. By the time he died Walker's collection was very considerable. A series of inventories of the paintings was drawn up in the early eighteenth century. They give a brief description of each item, their places in particular rooms and, in some cases, their cost and later valuation. The most complete inventory lists nearly two hundred pieces.
The rooms at Newton are spacious but not enormous and when one takes into consideration the area occupied by windows, doors and fireplaces one begins to appreciate how impressive - not to say oppressive - such a collection would seem to a modern visitor. The number and style of pictures in each room were guides to its importance or to the taste of the occupant. Patriotism and loyalty were displayed in the hall with large portraits of James I and William III in addition to two equestrian statues of St. George, one marble, the other alabaster. The Great Parlour contained thirty pictures; they included such diverse subjects as Louis XIV Biblical scenes and landscapes. One of the portraits was attributed to `Sr Peter Lilly. A number of rooms had paintings over doorways or chimney pieces but only the dining room had ‘One Large Seeling Piece’. One dined surrounded by Ladies: next to the chimney were Madam Walker and Madam Jenkins but ‘On Each side of the window, Rosamond and Jane Shore’. The only room in which the paintings followed one theme was in `The Wainscoat Chamber being Madam Walker's Room’. Here the widow had gathered a collection of pictures on religious subjects. They included the Holy Family, Saints Jerome, Ambrose and Sebastian also exemplary works such as the picture over the fireplace, ‘A Picture of Death's Head, the book of Life, and a letter giving warning’. However this conventional piety was not repeated in her daughter’s Dressing Room where these items are noted. ‘Lucretia after young Tarquin ravished her’; ‘Mary Magdalen’; ‘The Grand Cham of Tartary s Mistress’.
Elizabeth Walker died in 1725 but a few years earlier preparations were in hand for the dispersal of the collection. The compilation of the inventories in 1722. It supports the idea that the pictures were to be divided among the family or sold. Letters from two Hereford dealers show some of the negotiations involved. Thomas Winston looked out the better works and offered £50 for them. His rather disparaging remarks about the pictures obviously upset Madam Walker but he justified his attitude writing that ‘I will assure yu that I think I bid yu as much or more than they are worth’. A second opinion was more encouraging. James Hill in a letter to Daniel Williams, Elizabeth Walker's brother-in-law, commented that ‘There are several good pictures in the collection but that some of the works were suffering from the effects of ‘Time and negligence’. Hill complained that his job of sifting through the paintings was made more difficult because of `the removal of the pictures into the same room, having made the catalogue useless'. We do not know how many pictures Hill or the other dealers bought but some certainly remained in the house. In 1748 a list was drawn up entitled an ‘Account of the Pictures in the Hall’ . This describes twenty-one items, most of which can be traced in the earlier inventories. The hall now contained a motley collection taken from almost all the rooms in the house. Whether the rest of Newton was now bare of pictures and this remnant was all that remained of Walker's splendid display is not clear.
How representative of Welsh houses was Newton in terms of furnishings and decoration? It is not easy to find houses of comparable status with similar contents. The few contemporary references to paintings in Welsh houses reinforce the impression that Newton was a spectacular exception to the general rule. An inventory of Abermarlais, made in 1756, describes a house of similar size which contained twenty-one pictures. Even Hafod, that extraordinary cultural mecca of nineteenth-century west Wales, was furnished with only fifty paintings. Samuel Pepys, a contemporary of Walker, left on his death sixty-one pictures, thirty-three of which were portraits. But only one collection that I know of provides a close and revealing comparison with Newton. This was assembled by a Londoner, William Cartwright, actor and bookseller during the reign of Charles II. Cartwright had two hundred and thirty-nine pictures, few of much value and only a handful attributed to named artists. The subjects were similar to those at Newton and both collections contained a few Dutch works of the sort which were becoming popular in the later seventeenth century. Such comparisons suggest that in this case at least provincial taste and style did not lag far behind the capital.
Today none of Walker's pictures are at Newton. It is not known what happened to the contents of the house after the estate was divided and sold during the eighteenth century. There are a few elusive reminders of Thomas Walker and the Games family in Brecon. A nineteenth-century local historian claimed that the bells of St. Mary's were donated by Walker. The chapel of Christ College contains a splendid brass chandelier inscribed, ‘The Gift of Elizabeth Walker of Newton, 1723’. Her memory is also preserved in the Games Almshouses which she and her sister endowed in the suburb of Llanfaes. The contract for their construction specified that a handsome inscription and coat-of arms be placed on the front of the hospital.’ But anyone searching for this will be disappointed. In the nineteenth century the Games Hospital was completely rebuilt in an undistinguished style and the imposing memorial to the donors was not preserved.