General description and date of structure.
The largest of the three sections into which Aldwych Close was divided, when roads were formed thereon, was that lying to the south of Great Queen Street, and east of Wild Street. In 1618[[192]] Henry Holford leased to John Ittery the southern portion of this section, and on 13th August, 1629, Richard Holford sold the remainder to Sir William Cawley and George Strode in trust for Sir Edward Stradling and Sir Kenelm Digby.[[193]] A wall was erected parallel to Great Queen Street, and distant from it 197 feet, dividing Stradling’s part from Digby’s. The later history of Stradling’s portion, lying to the south of the dividing wall, is dealt with later.[[194]] Here we are concerned with that in the ownership of Sir Kenelm Digby, forming the site of the houses and gardens on the south side of Great Queen Street as far as Aldwych Close extended. The ground in question (including that purchased by Sir Edward Stradling) is described on 13th August, 1629, as “late in the tenure of Richard Brett and John Parker,”[[195]] and a petition of the inhabitants of the district, dated[[196]] 1st September, 1629, states that Parker and Brett had “divers times attempted to build on a little close called Old Witch, which has always lain open, free to all persons to walk therein, and sweet and wholesome for the King and his servants to pass towards Theobalds.” It is further alleged that Parker and Brett had been imprisoned for these attempts, “but now they have pulled down the bridges and stiles, and carried great store of bricks thither, and give forth threatening speeches that they will go forward.” The petitioners asked that the proposed buildings might be stopped, and expressed their willingness to take a lease of the close and plant trees.
Parker and Brett seem in this latest instance to have been merely acting for Sir Kenelm Digby, for the report[[197]] of the Commissioners for Buildings, made only nine days later, definitely mentions the latter as the person desirous of building. The Commissioners expressed themselves as adverse to Digby’s proposal, which for a time dropped.
On 27th March, 1630, both Digby and Stradling petitioned for a licence for each “to build a house with stables and coach houses in Old Witch Close.” The Attorney-General was instructed to draw the licence, but although Stradling in due course built his mansion[[198]], there is no evidence that Digby ever availed himself of the permission.
The ground seems to have been used as a garden[[199]] until 1635. On 13th April in that year Digby sold it to William Newton for building purposes. No licence to Newton to build can be traced, but on 7th May, 1636, one was granted to Sir Robert Dalyell,[[200]] who probably assigned it to Newton. From that document[[201]] it appears that the intention was to build “14 faire dwelling houses or tenementes to conteyne in front one with another neere 40 (fortie) feete a peice fitt for the habitacon of able men.” Permission to build that number of houses “to front only towardes Queene’s Streete” was granted, as well as “twelve coach howses and stables in some remote part of the said ground,” all to be built of brick or stone, “according to the true intent and meaning of our Proclamations in that behalfe published.”
Signature of William Newton.
Newton seems to have taken care that the houses erected on that part of Great Queen Street which was on the site of Purse Field should conform generally to the style of those built in accordance with the above-mentioned licence on the site of Aldwych Close[[202]]. The houses as a whole occupied 13 ground plots, having a total frontage of about 628 feet, and a depth of 200 feet. Their general character was the same throughout; the main cornices and front roofs were continuous, but the pilasters were so arranged as to indicate the separate buildings without the usual expedient of placing a pilaster partly on one plot and partly on another.[[203]] On the middle house was placed a statue of Charles I.’s Queen, Henrietta Maria. It has already been noticed[[204]] that Newton a few years later adorned the central house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields with a crowned female bust, and there can be no doubt that this was also in honour of the Queen.
Various statements have been made as to the designer of the houses on the south side of Great Queen Street. Horace Walpole, in his Anecdotes of Painting[[205]] writes as follows: “Vertue says that Mr. Mills, one of the four surveyors appointed after the fire of London, built the large houses in Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, but this must be a mistake, as we have seen in the preceding volume that Gerbier, a contemporary, and rival, ascribed them to Webb.” It is known[[206]] that Peter Mills built the original houses on the site of Nos. 66 to 68, Great Queen Street, but there is no evidence that he had any hand in the erection of other houses on the south side of the street.
The reference concerning Gerbier [1591?–1667], to which Walpole alludes as occurring in his previous volume, seems to be the following: “He [Gerbier] ridicules the heads of lions, which are creeping through the pilasters on the houses in Great Queen Street built by Webb, the scholar of Inigo Jones.” If this ascription could be found in any of Gerbier’s works it would be very valuable evidence, but it has not been discovered, and the passage relating to the pilasters contains no mention of Webb.[[207]]
Bagford [1650–1716], writing somewhat later, says:[[208]] “He [Inigo Jones] built Queen Street, also designed at first for a square, and as reported at ye charge of ye Jesuits; in ye middle whereof was left a niche for ye statue of Henrietta Maria, and this was ye first uniform street and ye houses are stately and magnificent.... These buildings were ye designes of ye Ld. Arundell, who was ye first that introduced brick building into England (I mean for private houses).”
That some architect was commissioned by Newton to design the façade, and possibly the principal internal features, is most probable; but the above evidence is unfortunately not sufficient to enable him to be identified.
Hollar’s careful engraving (Plate 3) shows the long straight roof of the road frontage, but the rear elevations show that the roofs were varied for individual houses and were treated with gables. Whoever was the designer of the façade to Great Queen Street, he was probably employed by Newton as architect for the houses built on the west side of Lincoln’s Inn Fields three years afterwards. These show a distinct advance in design, being treated as a single symmetrical composition, with a central feature composed of three houses of increased height, the side wings being of equal lengths.[[209]]
The beautiful drawings by J. W. Archer[[210]] reproduced on Plate 16 exemplify the similarity of the two designs to a very marked degree, the only important difference in detail being that in Great Queen Street the Corinthian order was employed, in Lincoln’s Inn Fields the Ionic.
A description of the exterior of the only remaining fragment of the Great Queen Street houses, Nos. 55 and 56, will suffice for the whole. The front is constructed mostly of brick, the ground storey having originally formed a simple base for the Corinthian order of pilasters. These embrace the height of the first and second stories, the bases and capitals being of stone, the ornament of the latter boldly carved, and the volutes and abacus spreading to an unusual extent. (Plates 18 and 19.)
The pilasters were ornamented, if, as seems probable, it is to these houses that Gerbier referred when, writing about 25 years after their erection, he criticised certain “incongruities” perpetrated by those pretending knowledge in ornaments “by placing between windows pilasters through whose bodies lions are represented to creep; as those in Queen Street without any necessity, or ground for the placing lions so ill.”[[211]] These lions were probably of stucco, and affixed to the pilasters in a position similar to that of the ornaments of the Tudor rose and fleur de lis on the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and those at the eastern end of the north side of Great Queen Street.[[212]] Walpole,[[213]] writing in 1763, continued the ridicule of these offending ornaments, but by 1783 they must have been removed, for the engraving by Bottomley of the Freemasons’ Tavern (Plate 22) does not show them, nor can they now be traced on the brickwork of the pilasters.
Between the first and second floor windows is introduced a slightly projecting ornamental device in brickwork, of somewhat Jacobean character, which on the façade of the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields was represented by a band, formerly seen at No. 2, Portsmouth Street. The same feature is also shown in the Wilton House picture of Lincoln’s Inn Fields.[[214]]
Above the capitals the entablature has been much restored, and its former beauty correspondingly diminished. The architrave appears to have been of wood, with three fascias (Plate 19), and crowning this is the bed mould of the cornice, which has large wooden modillions, shaped and enriched with acanthus leaves.
The modillions support a cyma and fascia with panelled soffit, the cyma forming the front of a leaden gutter.
Surmounting the cornice was the high pitched roof, shown by Hollar, with hipped dormer windows, of one and two lights alternating. Though none of them retain the whole of their original construction, the two on the right of the illustration may possibly be in their original form.
The present Nos. 55 and 56 represent one half of what must have been the largest of the houses.[[215]] This was the mansion of which one of the earliest occupiers was the Earl of St. Albans (Marquess of Clanricarde).
The house may be identified in two ways. (1) The frontages of the house of the Earl of St. Albans, and of the three houses to the east, are stated to be 88[[216]], 44, 44 and 88 feet respectively, and the last mentioned house is said to be bounded on the east by a gateway, which, from the description, was obviously Middle Yard. The western boundary of the four houses in question may thus be shown to correspond with the western side of New Yard, i.e., the western boundary of No. 55. (2) On 23rd January and 8th February, 1639–40, Newton sold certain plots of ground, containing frontages of 41 and 45½ feet, having a depth of 190 feet, and after 120 feet diminishing in width from 83 to 60 feet. These plots are stated to be bounded on the east by the dwelling house and garden of the Earl of St. Albans. From the shape of the property disclosed by the above figures, and the actual frontages given, there can be no doubt that the houses afterwards erected thereon occupied the sites of the present Nos. 51 to 54.[[217]] The house of the Earl of St. Albans was therefore No. 55 and upwards.
The house was already in existence in January, 1637–8,[[218]] and as the licence for building had only been obtained in May, 1636, the erection of the house may, with practical certainty, be assigned to the year 1637.
In the 1638 deed it is described as “all that one new erected double messuage or tenement with appurtenances, scituate in Queenes Streete ... contayninge in front towardes Queenes Streete aforesaid 88 feet ... and sydinge eastwards upon the house in the tenure of the Lord Leiger Embassador of Spayne, together with a gardyn plott lyinge on the back side of the said messuage and adjoyninge thereunto.”
The original mansion therefore occupied the site of the present Nos. 55 and 56, and adjoining property in New Yard, together with that of the western block of the present Freemasons’ Buildings.
The first division of the house took place in, or shortly after, 1684. In that year Lord Belasyse purchased the property, and at the date of his will, five years later, the house had for some time been in double occupation.
The division had, however, not been carried out in a very thorough fashion. In 1718 it was stated that “there are severall roomes, chambers and other apartments ... which interfere or mix within each other very inconvenient for separate familyes to inhabit therein severally and apart from each other.” In that year, therefore, an arrangement[[219]] was made whereby “the kitchen under a roome heretofore called ... Mr. Stonor’s dressing-roome,[[220]] the larder backwardes next the garden under part of a room ... called Mr. Stonor’s bedchamber ... which were then both used and enjoyed with the house in possession of ... Henry Browne ... were to be added to the inheritance of the house of the said Thos. Stonor in exchange” for “the cellar under the foreparlour next Queen Street, and the uppermost room or garrett over the said parlour, the lesser cellar adjoyning to that last before mentioned cellar and the room backwards next the garden up two pair of stairs over the back parlour, and upper with drawing roome,” structurally part of Browne’s house, but occupied as part of Stonor’s.
Other alterations took place in 1732–3, when the western half was divided, and probably portions of the present party wall, to the east of No. 56, date from this and the earlier period.
During the last century many further alterations and partial rebuildings were carried out. Shortly before 1816, the extensive grounds in the rear were utilised for buildings, for in a deed[[221]] of that year reference is made to “all those stables, coach houses and workshops and premises erected ... in New Yard ... and which before the erecting of the said ... stables, coach houses, shops and other premises, was a garden ground.”
Subsequently the external west wall was rebuilt, and the south-western premises, extending over the entrance to the yard (see Plate 17) were erected.
The eastern half of the original mansion seems to have been demolished between 1840 and 1846, for J. Nash, in a sketch made in the former year, gives the complete elevation, whereas Archer in 1846 (Plate 16) shows a commonplace building on the site of the eastern half.
Nos. 55–58, GREAT QUEEN STREET IN 1840.
Having regard to the many alterations which the premises have undergone, it is not surprising that very little of the first building is left. Of the original walls remaining, that to the street is the most important. Several of the chimney breasts, and parts of the walls to which they are attached, are also original work, but it is extremely doubtful if any of the external walls at the rear is coeval with the erection of the house. This will account for the fact that Evelyn’s “long gallery”[[222]] no longer exists.
The notable feature of No. 55 internally is the staircase. Although the treads and risers are modern, the deal balustrading between the ground and first floors may date from the erection of the house in 1637, or from its re-occupation by the Digby family after the Restoration, i.e., before 1664 (see p. 52). The staircase extends from the ground to the first floor. It is constructed of straight strings, moulded and carved; the centre moulding has a band of laurel leaves and berries alternating with oak leaves, acorns and oak apples, while the upper member is enriched with acanthus. The three newels are square. The one at the ground floor level rests on the 19th-century floor, and has a simple capping of mouldings similar to those on the handrail. The newel at the half landing is of similar design to that below and receives the strings of both flights. The newel at the first floor level has a modern capping, but carries the original pendant below, the enrichment taking the form of the open flower of a waterlily. The balusters are turned as ornamental pillars, their capitals being floriated together with the vase-like swellings included in their bases. Two of the base members are also carved. The handrail of the lower flight is notched and fitted to the string of the upper, the mouldings continue along the string downwards to the newel, and a triangular panel fills the spandril space beneath instead of diminishing balusters.
The simple character of the elliptical archway at the end of the passage leading from the street to the staircase may be noted.
On the second floor of No. 56, is a deal balustrade (Plate 21), which doubtless formed part of the original staircase landing, but has now been adapted to protect an opening in the floor. The detail is very similar to that of the staircase formerly at No. 52, Lincoln’s Inn Fields,[[223]] which was erected shortly after this date.
The panelling of the room at the end of the ground floor passage is apparently contemporary with the erection of the house.
The present front room on the second floor was at first two separate apartments. Near the end of the 17th or early in the 18th century, a wide opening was formed in the partition, the original door and doorway, and part of the surrounding wall being, however, left. Probably at the same time, the little lobby and powder closet were formed. The latter has a small opening in its southern wall.
The small staircase in front of the opening leading to the attics appears to have been erected about 1732–3, as also the portion of the staircases leading from the second to the first floors, and a short length of balustrading (Plate 21) at the first floor level.
The front room on the ground floor was dismantled early in the 19th century and nothing of interest is left.