Some famous buildings and their story
Part 1
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the paragraph.
A superscript is denoted by ^x, for example und^r.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND THEIR STORY
SOME FAMOUS BUILDINGS AND THEIR STORY
_Being the results of recent research in London and elsewhere._
BY
ALFRED W. CLAPHAM, F.S.A.,
AND
WALTER H. GODFREY
Author of
_A History of Architecture in London_, _The Parish of Chelsea_, &c., &c.
ILLUSTRATED BY 108 PHOTOGRAPHS AND ORIGINAL PLANS
TECHNICAL JOURNALS, LTD. CAXTON HOUSE, WESTMINSTER, S.W.
PREFACE.
Not the least interesting branch of modern research is that which opens for us new chapters in the history of our own country and shows us the character and ambitions in the lives of our ancestors. The public have long been familiarised with the results of scientific inquiry into the organic structure and the habits of Nature, but the labours of the historian are too often hidden in treatises of too abstruse a form to attract the general reader. And even where an attempt has been made to present these subjects of human interest in a more palatable form we too often have to lament a looseness of expression and an indifference to historical accuracy which defeat every good purpose in view.
It is in the belief that a series of short papers, each embodying some definite contribution to local or national history, may yet be made of real interest to the average reader, that this collection of studies has been compiled. The majority of the articles appeared in the pages of the _Architectural Review_ under the title of “New Light on Old Subjects.” (February, 1911, to March, 1912.) My friend Mr. A. W. Clapham contributes those on the palaces of Nonsuch, Hertford, Havering, and Queenborough, the Tower of London, the Origin of the Domestic Hall, and the monastic buildings of Cockersand; Barking;[1] St. John’s, Clerkenwell;[2] Blackfriars[3] and Whitefriars[4] London. The reader is referred to the publications mentioned in the footnotes for Mr. Clapham’s detailed archæological examination of all the documentary evidences, and a full description of the excavations superintended by him at Barking Abbey.
[1] The Benedictine Abbey of Barking. _Transactions_, Essex Archæological Society. Vol. XII.
[2] St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell. _Transactions_, St. Paul’s Ecclesiological Society. Vol. VII. Part 2.
[3] On the topography of the Dominican Priory of London. _Archæologia._ Vol. LXIII.
[4] Topography of the Carmelite Priory of London. Journal of the British Archæological Association. March, 1910.
Of the remaining papers, I will merely add that they represent for the most part some particular studies in the more general examination of London buildings which I have undertaken. The articles on Chelsea are an amplification of the material prepared for the Survey of that Parish.[5] That on Crosby Hall is the substance of a lecture delivered before the London and Middlesex Archæological Association, soon after the Hall’s reconstruction. The interpretation of the original Specification of Elizabethan date for the erection of the Fortune Theatre was originally undertaken for Mr. William Archer, and the full details as here presented were first published in the _Architectural Review_. The only paper that deals with a subject outside London is that on Abbot’s Hospital, Guildford, which provides an excuse for a short account of the chief points of interest in the history of English Almshouses and their plans. I am indebted to Mr. Clapham for details of the building dates of Eltham Palace, which are preserved in the Record Office.
[5] “Survey of London.” Vol. IV. Parish of Chelsea, Part 2. London County Council.
Both Mr. Clapham’s and my thanks are due for the kind permission granted us to reproduce old plans and drawings wherever these are in private hands and also for the use of photographs. Care has been taken to acknowledge the source of each drawing in the text, with the names of those who have extended to us their courtesy and help.
WALTER H. GODFREY.
11, Carteret Street, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.
CONTENTS
AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
I. THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY 1
1. Nonsuch Palace, Garden Front—_Hofnagle_ 2
2. Nonsuch Palace, from the South—_Speed_ (1611) 7
3. Nonsuch Palace from the N.-W.—_Vetusta Monumenta_, Vol. ii. (1765) 8
4. The Banqueting House—drawn by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 12
II. THE FORTUNE THEATRE, LONDON (1600) 13
5. View of Interior—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 14
6. Swan Theatre, Bankside—_John de Witt_ 16
7. The Fortune. Plan (ground floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 19
8. The Fortune. Plan (upper floor)—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 20
9. The Fortune. Section through Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 25
10. The Fortune. Section facing Stage—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 26
III. THE TOWER OF LONDON AND ITS DEVELOPMENT 29
11. Chapel of St. John—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 30
12. Plan of Tower and Roman Wall—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
13. Plan of Tower and its Bastions—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 33
14. Towers on Eastern Wall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 34
15. Fireplace, Byward Tower—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 39
16. Blount Monument, St. Peter ad Vincula—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 40
17. Pediment with Arms of William III.—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 43
18. The Horse-Armoury—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 44
IV. THE ROYAL PALACE OF ELTHAM 47
19. The Hall from the South—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 48
20. Bridge over Moat. Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 53
21. Complete Plan of Palace—drawn by _Walter H. Godfrey_, from Plans in the _Hatfield MSS._ and the _Record Office_ 54
22. Interior of Hall—Photograph by _H.M. Office of Works_ 56
23. The Chancellor’s House—Photograph by _F. W. Nunn_ 61
V. THE ORIGIN OF THE DOMESTIC HALL 67
24. The Guildhall, York 68
25. Plans of Halls of Winchester Castle, York Guildhall, and Oakham Castle—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 72
26. Plans of Halls of Ashby Castle, Hertford Castle, and Warnford—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 73
VI. SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE AT CHELSEA 77
27. Sir Thomas More’s Family at Chelsea—by _Holbein_ 78
28. Plan of the House (ground floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 82
29. Plan of the House (first floor)—by _J. Symonds_ (c. 1595) 83
30. Plan for rebuilding (ground floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 86
31. Plan for rebuilding (first floor)—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 87
32. Another First Floor Plan—by _Spicer_ (c. 1595) 88
33. Estate Plan (c. 1595) 90
34. Plan of House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 93
35. Key-plan of Estate—by _Walter H. Godfrey_ 95
36. Bird’s-eye View of Chelsea Estate—by _Kip_ (1699) 97
37. Garden of Danvers House—by _J. Aubrey_ 98
38. Plans of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 100
39. Elevation of Danvers House—by _J. Thorpe_ (c. 1620) 102
VII. COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS CHAPTER HOUSE 105
40. Interior of Chapter House 106
41. Plan of Abbey—by _Alfred W. Clapham_ 109
42. Pier-capitals in Chapter House 111
43. Exterior from West 112
44. Exterior from East 112
45. Stalls from the Abbey (now in Lancaster) 115
46. Misericorde from Stalls 116
47. Another Misericorde 116
VIII. THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL AT CHELSEA 119
48. The Roof—Photograph by _London News Agency_ 120
49. Plan of Hall in Bishopsgate—by _W. H. Godfrey_ 121
50. The Hall from the West—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 125
51. Interior of Hall—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 126
52. The Oriel, Exterior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 129
53. The Oriel, Interior—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 130
54. Vault of Oriel—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 133
55. Detail of Roof and Window—Photograph _Architectural Review_ 134
56. Section through Roof 136
57. Plan of Hall at Chelsea 137
IX. THE PALACES OF HERTFORD AND HAVERING 139
58. Gatehouse, Hertford 140
59. Ground Plan, Hertford (_Public Record Office_) 142
60. Plan of Fortifications—by _A. W. Clapham_ 143
61. Havering, ground plan (_British Museum_) 148
62. Havering, first floor (_Hatfield MSS._) 149
X. THE NEW EXCHANGE IN THE STRAND 151
63. Elevation of Building (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 152
64. Durham House and Salisbury House—by _Hollar_ (Pepysian Library, Cambridge) 155
65. Durham House—from _Faithorne’s_ map 156
66. West Central London—from _Hollar’s_ map 156
67. MS. Plan of Durham House and the New Exchange (1626) 158
68. Plan of New Exchange (c. 1610)—by _Smithson_ 161
69. The New Exchange—by _T. Hosmer Shepherd_ 162
70. Plan of Site of Durham House (_Stow’s Survey_, Ed. 1720) 162
XI. ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM, CLERKENWELL 165
71. The Monastic Buildings—by _Hollar_ 166
72. Plans showing development of the Church—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 169
73. The Crypt looking East—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 170
74. East end of Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
75. South Chapel, Crypt—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 173
76. West front of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 174
77. West door of Church—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 175
78. Fireplace, St. John’s Gate—Photograph by _H. W. Fincham_ 176
XII. NORTHUMBERLAND HOUSE, STRAND 179
79. North Front (before 1874)—Photograph _London Stereoscopic Co._ 180
80. Plan in the _Smithson_ Collection 185
81. View from River (c. 1650)—by _Hollar_ 186
82. The same, engraved in _Londina Illustrata_ 191
83. North Front—after _Canaletto_ 192
XIII. THE ABBEY OF BARKING, ESSEX 197
84. Remains of South Transept—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 198
85. Plan of the Precinct 202
86. The Curfew Gatehouse—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 203
87. The Saxon Cross—Photograph by _A. P. Wire_ 204
88. Plan of Abbey—by _A. W. Clapham_ 207
XIV. ABBOT’S HOSPITAL, GUILDFORD, AND ITS PREDECESSORS 215
89. Front of Hospital 216
90. Plans of Infirmary Types— Beamsley Hospital, Yorks; St. Mary’s Hospital, Chichester; The Bede House, Higham Ferrers; Browne’s Hospital, Stamford 221
91. Quadrangle, Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick 223
92. Great Chamber, Whitgift Hospital—drawn by _W. H. Godfrey_ 224
93. Leicester’s Hospital, Warwick, Plan 226
94. Leicester’s Hospital—drawn by _W. H. Godfrey_ 227
95. Whitgift Hospital—Plan by _W. H. Godfrey_ 229
96. Abbot’s Hospital, Plan 230
97. Abbot’s Hospital, Courtyard 231
98. Abbot’s Hospital, Lower Hall 232
99. Abbot’s Hospital, Upper Hall 232
100. Abbot’s Hospital, Detail of door—drawn by _Sydney A. Newcombe_ 235
XV. THE FRIARS AS BUILDERS—BLACKFRIARS AND WHITEFRIARS, LONDON 239
101. Blackfriars, Norwich 240
102. Plan of Austin Friars, London—drawn by _A. W. Clapham_ 249
103. Plan of Greyfriars, London 251
104. Preaching Cross, Blackfriars, Hereford—from _Britton_ 252
105. Blackfriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 254
106. Whitefriars, London—Plan by _A. W. Clapham_ 264
XVI. QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE AND ITS BUILDER, WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM 269
107. Queenborough Castle—from a Drawing by _Hollar_ 270
108. Queenborough Castle—Plan from the _Hatfield MSS._ 273
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY
I.
THE ROYAL PALACE OF NONSUCH, SURREY.
The wanton destruction of the celebrated palace of Nonsuch, sacrificed to the extravagance and consequent embarrassments of the first Duchess of Cleveland, was probably the heaviest loss which English architecture has suffered since the Dissolution of the Monasteries. As an example of domestic architecture, just at the period of its transition, it was unique in combining in one building the familiar and almost unaltered features of the old English home with the most daring and fantastic ideas of the Italian Renaissance. Any additional information, therefore, which bears upon its character is of special value, not from an archæological so much as from an architectural point of view. Hence the discovery of an entirely new view of Nonsuch Palace is ample excuse for marshalling once again the facts of its architectural history.
The building activity of the first two Tudor kings is a somewhat neglected subject, since nearly all their greatest works have perished and the modern mind refuses to visualise the gorgeous descriptions of the chroniclers, even when illustrated by the somewhat bizarre creations of contemporary artists.
And yet the more the subject is studied the more the conclusion is forced upon one that the old-time historians were guilty of little exaggeration, and that the Tudor palaces were amongst the remarkable buildings of Europe. The Spanish gentlemen who accompanied Phillip II. to England were amazed at the magnificence of the palaces of the English kings, in comparison with which they admitted the Alcazar at Madrid, the residence of Castilian royalty, was a thing of no account.
Henry VII.’s chapel fortunately remains intact as an example of the structure which a Tudor king (otherwise noted for his excessive parsimony) thought suitable for his tomb-house. His palace at Richmond and his great hospital at the Savoy were on a corresponding scale of profusion. With his son Henry VIII. the ideas of the Renaissance were given a freer hand. The father had employed an Italian to design his tomb, and the son, towards the close of his reign, invited Italian architects to design his buildings.
The architectural works of Henry VIII. consist chiefly of a series of palaces, no fewer than five, which he erected in the course of his thirty-eight years’ reign, apart from a number of manorial residences, such as his riverside mansion at Chelsea. Of these palaces, Bridewell, Guisnes, and Nonsuch have entirely vanished, but the gatehouse and other remains at St. James’s exist, and the mutilated remains at Beaulieu, in Essex, are still remarkable.
It is with the latest (in point of date) and in every way the most remarkable of these that we are at present concerned. The palace of Nonsuch achieved a reputation throughout Europe which has never been accorded to any other English building before or since.
Situated on the richly-wooded slopes of the Surrey hills, amongst the fairest prospects in the Home Counties, the ancient manor-house of Cuddington (between Cheam and Ewell) appears to have early attracted the attention of Henry VIII. In 1538 he acquired the manor from Richard de Cuddington, and with a delightfully Tudor directness proceeded at once quietly to remove the church and village and divert the roads, that nothing might interrupt the view from his windows or destroy the symmetry of his house and grounds. The site being thus cleared of its ancient buildings, the new palace was begun.
Many tons of stone quarried at Merstham, in the Reigate hills, were used on the works, and the great priory church at Merton was destroyed piecemeal to provide materials. The accounts still existing for the year 1539 preserve the names of every man employed, from the clerk of works to the labourers and apprentices, some 230 in all.
Although it had been in progress for nine years, Nonsuch was still incomplete at Henry’s death in 1547, but was nevertheless far enough advanced to be habitable.
The celebrated Sir Thomas Cawarden, Master of the Revels, was warden of the palace and parks of Nonsuch during the final years of Henry VIII. and in the time of Edward VI., but in 1557 Queen Mary granted the building and parks to Henry, Earl of Arundel, and his son-in-law, Lord Lumley, who eventually completed it by adding the outer courtyard.
Under Queen Elizabeth Nonsuch reached its zenith. For many years it was her favourite residence, and after her death it rapidly declined. Sold by the Commonwealth, it reverted to the Crown at the Restoration, and finally came to an ignominious end at the rapacious hands of the Duchess of Cleveland, who destroyed the house and cut up the park into farms.
What is known of the building itself is derived chiefly from the Parliamentary Survey taken in 1650 (which gives a detailed account of the palace and grounds) and from two views—one by Hofnagel (published in Braun and Hohenberg’s “Civitates Orbis Terrarum”) and the other an inset in Speed’s Map of Surrey. Both of these represent the garden or south front of the house, and the appearance of the north front and sides has up to the present time been quite conjectural. I am able, however, to reproduce a third view, taken from the north-west, showing this front and the flank of the building. The original engraving (from a picture then in the possession of Lord Fitzwilliam) was published by the Society of Antiquaries in 1765, with the title “Richmond Palace from the Green.” That this picture is not Richmond, but Nonsuch, is capable of easy proof. The angle-turret on the extreme right at once suggests this, and a careful perusal of the Parliamentary Survey leaves not the slightest doubt on the point. The avenue, the bowling-green, and the two gatehouses, the inner one with its clock-turret, are all fully described, and one can only be surprised that this interesting fact has never before been discovered.
The palace consisted of two main courtyards surrounded by buildings and almost equal in size (the outer 115 ft.[6] by 132 ft., the inner 137 ft. by 116 ft.). The style employed in the first of these presents nothing extraordinary. Built, according to Evelyn, by Lord Lumley, but more probably by his father-in-law, the Earl of Arundel, early in Elizabeth’s reign, it was constructed of stone throughout, with a handsome gatehouse three stories high, with octagonal angle-turrets in the centre of the north front. This gate stood on the axis of the great avenue that led up to the house from the London Road.
[6] The transcript of the Survey in _Archæologia_, Vol. V., gives this dimension incorrectly as 150 ft., an error copied by all succeeding writers.
Nonsuch had the unusual arrangement amongst English Tudor plans of two gatehouses, the one behind the other. This was probably due to the outer courtyard not having been contemplated in the original design. The inner gate stood between the two courts, and was, with the whole of the buildings behind it, the work of Henry VIII.
The architect appears to have been a Florentine artist named Antonio Toto dell’ Nunziata, upon whom Henry VIII. conferred a patent of denization in 1538. He is referred to by Vasari (_Lives of the Painters_), who asserts that he entered the service of the King of England, for whom he executed numerous works, and more especially the principal palace of that monarch, by whom he was very largely remunerated.[7] His name occurs with some frequency in the records of the later years of Henry VIII. He resided in the parish of St. Bride, Fleet Street.
[7] Professor Blomfield throws doubts upon Toto as the author of the design.
In 1544 that much-discussed Italian, John of Padua, makes his appearance as Devizer of the King’s Buildings, and as Nonsuch was the most important then in progress, it is quite possible that he also was employed upon the works.
This first building, the joint product of Italian design and English craftsmanship, was entered from the north by an ascent of eight steps under the inner gatehouse, which is described in the Survey of 1650 as “of free stone three stories high, leaded and turreted in the four corners, in the middle of which gatehouse stands a clock case turreted and leaded all over wherein is placed a clock and bell.” The remarkable appearance of this gate is best shown in Speed’s view, which also shows the charming oriel window (somewhat similar to that at Hengrave Hall, Suffolk) over the inner arch, and the sundial above.
The remainder of the building was two stories high, of which the walls of the ground floor, according to the Survey, were of stone and the upper portions of timber. Externally, however, the garden or south front was of timber construction from the ground up. Facing the privy garden, with its marble fountains, obelisks, and pyramids, this front was flanked by two polygonal turrets five stories high, carried up well above the main building and finished with lead parapets and lanterns with heraldic lions bearing standards, “the king’s beastes” of Tudor documents, on every angle. “These turrets,” says the Survey, “command the prospect and view of both the Parks of Nonsuch and of most of the country round about and are the chief ornament of the whole house of Nonsuch.”
In the centre of the front was a large oriel window, probably to the Presence Chamber, which was on the first floor.
The building was a timber frame, the spaces between the studding being occupied by pargetted panels bearing the celebrated series of “statues, pictures, and other antique forms,” which aroused such universal admiration during the century and a half of their existence.