Enter the Brothers Adam--Their Marvellous Transformation of the Ruins
of Durham House and Yard into the Present Adelphi--The Magnitude
of the Project--Opposition of the City--Defeated by Special Act
of Parliament--The Adelphi Buildings only completed by Aid of
a Lottery--The Adams explain their Position--Robert Adam: His
History--His Death--James Adam--Some Poor Wit, including Walpole's, at
the Expense of the Architects.
ON a certain night in September, in the year 1768, "the Queen's Head
Alehouse, near Durham Yard in the Strand, fell down, but the family
being alarmed, happily no lives were lost." To such a neglected state
had Durham Yard and its surroundings become when, most opportunely, two
Scotch architects, the brothers Adam, arrived on the scene of decay.
All that was left of the former grandeur of Durham House consisted
of "a number of small low-lying houses, coal-sheds and lay-stalls,
washed by the muddy deposits of the Thames." The property was then in
the possession of the Duke of St Albans, from whom the brothers Adam
obtained a ninety-nine years' lease, dating from Lady-day, 1768. The
Duke, it seems, was in a parlous condition when he parted with this
property, for the small sum, be it said, of £1200 a year. For, in
a public print of January 13, 1770, it is stated that "the Duke of
St Albans, who is now confined for debt at Brussels, disposed some
time ago of the ground in Durham Yard in which the new square is now
building; but, before the money was remitted him, he created so many
fresh debts, that it is imagined he will remain there for life."
The architects effected a marvellous change over the district. By
allowing the wharves to remain, and throwing a series of arches over
the entire declivity, they "connected the river with the Strand by a
spacious archway, and over these extensive vaultings erected a series
of well-built streets, a noble terrace towards the river, and a house
with a convenient suite of rooms for the then recently established
Society of Arts." So said Peter Cunningham. Older authorities were
even more enthusiastic. That fine architectural draughtsman, Thomas
Malton, the younger (1748-1804), who was an eye-witness of the vast
change effected, praised the brothers highly, in his _Picturesque
Tour through London and Westminster_, in 1792: "To their researches
among the vestiges of antiquity," he says, "we are indebted for many
improvements in ornamental architecture, and for a style of decoration
unrivalled for elegance and gaiety, which, in spite of innovations of
fashion, will prevail as long as good taste prevails in the nation.
This judgment of the Messrs Adam, in the management of their plans, and
their care in conducting the executive part, deserves great praise;
and it must be mentioned to their honour, that no accident happened in
the progress of the work, nor has any failure been since observed--an
instance of good fortune which few architects have experienced when
struggling with similar difficulties. This remark will make a very
little impression on the careless observer who rattles along the
streets in his carriage, unconscious that below him are the streets, in
which carts and drays, and other vehicles of business, are constantly
employed in conveying coals, and various kinds of merchandise, from the
river to the consumer, or to the warehouses and avenues inaccessible
to the light of day; but he who will take the trouble to explore
these depths will feel its force; and when he perceives that all the
buildings which compose the Adelphi are in front but one building, and
that the upper streets are no more than open passages, connecting the
different parts of the superstructure, he will acknowledge that the
architects are entitled to more than common praise.
"The terrace is happily situated in the heart of the Metropolis,
upon a bend of the river, which presents to the right and left every
eminent object which characterises and adorns the cities of London
and Westminster; while its elevation lifts the eye above the wharfs
and warehouses on the opposite side of the river, and charms it with a
prospect of the adjacent country. Each of these views is so grand, so
rich, and so various, that it is difficult to determine which deserves
the preference.
"The manner of decorating the fronts of the shops and houses in Adam
Street is equally singular and beautiful. It may be proper here to
remark, what some future writer may dwell on with pleasure, that in
the streets of the Adelphi the brothers have contrived to preserve
their respective Christian names as well as their family name; while
by giving the general appellation of The Adelphi to this assemblage of
streets and buildings, they have converted the whole into a lasting
memorial of their friendship and fraternal co-operation.
"The building of the Adelphi was a project of such magnitude, and
attracted so much attention, that it must have been a period of the
utmost importance in the lives of the architects. In this work they
displayed to the public eye that practical knowledge and skill, and
that ingenuity and taste, which till then had been in a great measure
confined to private edifices, and known only by the voice of fame to
the majority of those who feel an interest in the art of building. The
extreme depth of the foundations, the massy piers of brickwork, and
the spacious subterraneous vaults and arcades, excited the wonder of
the ignorant and the applause of the skilful; while the regularity of
the streets in the superstruction, and the elegance and novelty of the
decorations, equally astonished and delighted all sorts and conditions
of people." The brothers had to contend with many difficulties ere
they accomplished their great work. In order to embank the river, it
was necessary to obtain a special Act of Parliament (12 Geo. III., c.
34, 1771). But, the Court and the City being then at variance, the
authorities of the latter vented their spite by opposing the bill,
the Lord Mayor, as conservator of the Thames, claiming the right to
the soil of the river on behalf of the citizens. The opposition was
very strong, but it was finally defeated, thanks, in large measure,
so Walpole states, to the influence of the Crown. Much acrimony was
displayed, and the newspaper press contained many arguments, mostly in
favour of the project. A curious and interesting letter on the subject
appeared in the _Morning Advertiser_ in May 1771:--
"Sir," it said, "I never was more astonished than upon reading in your
Paper the Petition of the City of London to His Majesty against his
giving the Royal Assent to the Bill for embanking the River Thames at
_Durham-Yard_, that there was not one Word in this dull Performance
against the Propriety or Utility of the Embankment. This was the only
Ground on which the City had any Title to interfere in this Business by
Virtue of their Right of Conservancy: But I find that though this was
what they originally let out upon in their Opposition. The Proof turned
out so strong against them, and the public Utility of the Embankment,
as well as of the Wharfs at that Part of the Town, was so clearly
demonstrated both to the Lords and Commons, that the City in this last
Stage of their Opposition think proper to pass over this very material
Circumstance in Silence, and are drove to rest their Complaints upon
two Circumstances totally new and different from what they originally
opposed it upon.
[Illustration:
_Dan'l Turner._
THE THAMES, FROM THE WATER WORKS, YORK BUILDINGS, ADELPHI.]
"First, They allege that this Bill appears to be destructive of the
ancient and valuable Rights and Properties of the City of London,
enjoyed without Interruption through a Succession of many Ages;
insinuating at the same Time that they are denied an Appeal to that Law
which knows no Partialities, but strictly gives to every Man his Due.
"Now, Sir, this Representation, if I were inclined to use as gross
and as harsh Epithets as the City of London do, might with very great
Truth be termed extremely false; for I myself heard Mr Lee the Council
for the City of London, fairly acknowledge at the Bar of the House of
Lords that the City knew nothing of their Right to the Soil of the
River till within these three Weeks; for this amazing Discovery was
fallen upon after this Bill had made a considerable Progress in the
House of Commons; and this valuable Property had passed unnoticed by
all the Magistrates of the City, as well as their Lawyers since the
Age of Henry VII. though now asserted to be enjoyed by them without
interruption since that Period: A very bold Assertion indeed after so
direct and so satisfactory a Proof of the contrary had been within
these few Days laid before the House of Lords: Yet this Assertion is
not more extraordinary than the Insinuation mentioned above; for all
the World may be convinced how groundless the latter is by having
Recourse to the Bill, in which they will find an express Clause,
reserving to the City a Liberty to try their Right at Law, and the
Value to be ascertained by a Jury: So very tender have Parliament been
in paying Attention to their Claim of Right, however frivolous and weak
it might appear to them.
"A few Words in the saving Clause is the Foundation of the second
weighty Complaint in the City's Petition to the King, it being
there asserted that the City insist that the Persons who apply for
Liberty to embank ought to make Satisfaction for the same; and this
Allegation is stigmatised with the severe Terms of groundless, false
and contradictory to the City public Declarations in both Houses of
Parliament. Whether the City have not been rash in making these bold
Assertions, we leave the candid Public to decide, after reading the
following Extracts:--
"Extract from the Report of the New Bridge Committee, to whom the
Petition for Leave to embank Durham-Yard, &c., was refer'd; which
Report is signed by Sir Robert Ladbroke, and many others of the most
respectable Citizens of London, who, reported in Favour thereof,
provided that a Clause be obtained, 'subjecting the Ground taken
out of the River with the yearly Payment of a Farthing, a Square
superficial Foot, redeemable on Payment of twenty years Purchase, and
for appropriating the Quit Rent and Purchase Money to the Fund created
by Parliament for repairing, lighting, and watching the Bridge.'
"Extract from the Case of the City of London printed by them, and
handed about to the Members of the House of Commons. At the second
reading of the Embanking Bill, which concludes thus: 'However a Bill
is now brought in to embank the River, and to vest in the Owners of
the adjoining Houses the Soil to be embanked not only against the
Representation of the City of London, the Conservators of the River,
but without any Regard to their Claim or Right to the Soil to be
embanked, and a Property of immense Value to be taken from the Public
without any Consideration': And this was the general Language held by
the few Advocates for the City in the House of Commons, until a new
Doctrine was broached by Mr Dunning, who discovered that this valuable
Property could not be estimated by any Jury at above Five Shillings
Value; and to this last Doctrine the Party have since adhered; for
Lord Camden, in his Speech to the Lords, declared, that no Jury could
value the Soil embanked at one Farthing; and these great Lawyers are
entirely right; for by the Usage of the River, the Proprietor of every
Wharf has an exclusive Right of Frontage or Water-way to Low-water
Mark. Therefore whether the King or the City are the Proprietors of the
Soil, neither the one or the other could have embanked to the Exclusion
of the Proprietors of the adjoining Wharfs; for in this Event no Wharf
upon the River Thames would be of the smallest Value; consequently no
Persons whatever could have made any advantage of this Embankment but
the Parties to the Bill. If this requires any Confirmation, the Bill
obtained by the City for the Embankment at Blackfriars establishes it
beyond a Doubt, for that Bill vests the Ground obtained off the River
in the Proprietors of the adjoining Wharfs and Houses.
"When this is thoroughly understood, how ridiculous must the City
appear, and how much do they degrade themselves, by carrying a
Petition to the Throne, after having squandered their Treasure in an
Opposition, the Object of which is to acquire a Property not worth one
Farthing to them; setting up an ostentatious Parade of an Infringement
of that Property which they knew they have no Right to, and if they
had ought undoubtedly to be given a public Use, upon having a proper
Compensation allowed them for it, which is done every Day in Cases of
Roads, Navigations, and other Improvements of public Utility, even
where private Individuals are to be the principal Benefactors.
"A great City ought not to act the Part of the Dog in the Manger, but
should encourage every Scheme of public Advantage. These formerly have
been the Sentiments of the City of London, when that City was under
the Guidance of grave, respectable and wise Magistrates, not heated by
Party, or misguided by violent or factious Views." The storm raised by
the projected building drew from Granville Sharp, the philanthropist,
a curious, but extremely dry, pamphlet entitled _Remarks Concerning
the Encroachments of the River Thames near Durham Yard_. It was dated
from the Old Jewry, August 10, 1771, but it was too late to be of any
service, for the Act allowing the embankment of the river had been
passed.
Even then misfortune dogged the footsteps of the courageous brothers,
for they became involved in financial difficulties, and eventually
had to complete their buildings by raising money by means of a public
lottery. Some of these difficulties were alluded to by sympathetic
friends in the press. "The Adelphi buildings," one of them hears, "were
mortgaged for a loan of £70,000 previous to the late unhappy failures
of the banks, and it is said that the Messrs Adam had laid out as much
more upon them; so that, in the course of five years, these gentlemen
expended £140,000 to raise palaces upon an offensive heap of mud, and
circulated an immense sum to make a palpable nuisance a principal
ornament to the metropolis." Another defender wrote in a similar
strain: "Within a space of time, incredibly short for so magnificent
an undertaking, they have raised a pile of elegant buildings, noble,
convenient, and splendid, on a spot which was, two or three years
since, a mere dunghill, a receptacle for filth, obscenity, and
wretchedness, a scandal to a well-governed city and a disgrace to one
of the noblest rivers in Europe."
Thanks, perhaps, to the publicity thus afforded them in the public
press, the brothers Adam obtained the necessary Act of Parliament
(13 Geo. III., cap. 75, 1773) for the disposal of the property by
lottery. It was as follows:--"An Act for enabling John, Robert, James
and William Adam to dispose of several houses and buildings in the
parishes of St Martin-in-the-Fields and St Mary-le-Bow, in the county
of Middlesex, and other their effects by way of chance in such manner
as may be most for the benefit of themselves and creditors."
There were 4370 tickets at £50, making £218,500. The prizes numbered
108, and were thus arranged:--
1 £50,080
1 39,950
1 29,980
1 19,980
1 9,960
1 4,960
100 of different values from
£100 to £760 33,500
The first drawn ticket was
entitled to 5,000
The last drawn to 25,090
--------
£218,500
The above facts are taken from a rare pamphlet, entitled _Particulars
composing the Prizes in the Adelphi Lottery_, published by the Adams
on January 18, 1774, in which it is stated that, "as the Messrs Adam
engaged in this undertaking, more from an enthusiasm of their own art
than from a view of profit; at the same time being eager to point out
a way to public utility, though even at an extraordinary expence;
they will be perfectly satisfied if they should only draw, from this
lottery, the money laid out by them on a work which, they readily
confess, they have found to be too great for their private fortunes....
The Messrs Adam have thought it unnecessary to give so particular a
description of the houses in the Adelphi as they have done of the
houses in Queen Anne Street and Mansfield Street, as these buildings
are so generally known by persons who reside in town; but for the
information of those who live in the country, it may be satisfactory to
say, that they are remarkably strong and substantial and finished in
the most elegant and complete manner, much beyond the common stile of
London houses: they have all a double tier of offices, which gives an
uncommon convenience for the servants of the family.... The inhabitants
of the Adelphi buildings express the greatest satisfaction, not only
with regard to their houses, but with their situation, which is
remarkably dry, healthy and well-aired.
"The principal houses in the Adelphi possess not only a superior degree
of convenience, in water laid in, from the top to the bottom of each
house, but the whole buildings have also an additional safety against
fire, much beyond any other houses in London. For, besides the use of
fire engines, which they have in common with other houses, there is a
water tower erected by the Messrs Adam, which communicates with the
river Thames; and the pipes are so constructed, that upon a minute's
notice, three engines, constantly supplied with water, can be played
upon any house in the buildings."
In addition to the house property enumerated, pictures and drawings by
Teniers, P. Veronese, and Guercino, together with several statues, were
enumerated in the lottery paper, so that it appears that the Adams had
been compelled to put nearly everything they possessed into the fund
for the building of the Adelphi. Fortunately they were in such favour
at Court that they were able to obtain the necessary permission for the
lottery, otherwise they would have been ruined financially over the
speculation.
On Thursday, March 3, 1774, the drawing up of the lottery began at the
great room, formerly Jonathan's Coffee House, in Exchange Alley, when
No. 3599 was drawn a blank, but being the first drawn ticket it was
entitled to £5000. Nine other prizes were drawn on Friday, and at this
rate the drawing continued for some time. The newspapers of the period
were full of information and advertisements respecting the lottery; and
the art of advertising appears to have been very thoroughly mastered
at that time. Tickets were sold in all parts of the town, as well as
at the Messrs Adams' office in Robert Street; intending purchasers
were told that there was a great demand and that early application was
necessary--in fact, that the demand began to be prodigious. Then
they were informed that "Messrs Adam propose to keep their office in
the Adelphi open till twelve o'clock on Wednesday night next (March
9) for the sale of tickets at £50 each, after which the price of the
small quantity remaining in the market must be considerably raised,
on account of the consumption of tickets by the wheel." Portions of
tickets were sold at the various lottery offices thus--a half cost
£25, 5s.; a thirty-second, £1, 13s.; and a sixty-fourth, 17s. Then
there are little bits of gossip in the papers, intended to whet the
appetite of the public. Thus we are told that No. 3599, the first drawn
ticket, entitled to an estate of the value of £5000, was sold by Messrs
Richardson and Goodenough not half an hour before the lottery began
drawing, and, what is very remarkable, was the only ticket they had
left unsold. Soon afterwards, the winner of this ticket disposed of it
by auction.
[Illustration:
_Samuel Scott._ 1750.
YORK STAIRS AND THE WATER TOWER.]
It is to be noted that the prizes were not instantly realizable, for
the buildings were to be divided among the prize-holders, and the
houses were not yet finished. Those who could not wait for their money
sold their prizes by auction, and it may be presumed that in course
of time the tickets got into a few hands.[24] The following is the
explanation by the Adams of their action:--
"The Messrs Adam having received a letter signed A.B.C., which the
writer says is sent to be inserted in the public papers, requiring
to know the state of the mortgages on the buildings which constitute
the Adelphi lottery, and also what security the public have for their
completing the unfinished buildings? In answer to these questions, the
Messrs Adam, desirous to satisfy the adventurers in the lottery, and
the public in all reasonable demands, think it necessary to inform them
that the mortgagees have already been paid one half of their money, but
as it is requisite that they should join in assigning the prizes to
the fortunate adventurers, they defer paying the other half till such
assignments are completed. The Messrs Adam, ever since the obtaining
of the Act for their lottery, have proceeded with an amazing rapidity
in finishing their houses, in the same substantial manner with those
formerly finished and sold in the Adelphi; they are happy to think the
whole will be completed, and ready to be assigned, by the time they
have ascertained in their scheme and allotment, as no attention and no
expense shall be spared for that purpose."
Before proceeding further with the history of the Adelphi, the
indomitable brothers themselves call for notice. Robert Adam
(1728-1792) was the most noted of the four brothers--John, Robert,
James, and William. Their father, William Adam, of Maryburgh, N.B.
(died June 24, 1748), was the architect of Hopetoun House, and the
Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, in which city he held the appointment
of King's Mason. Robert, the second son, was born at Kirkcaldy, and
educated at Edinburgh University. Here he became on friendly terms
with several fellow students who also attained fame, including David
Hume, Dr William Robertson (the historian), Adam Smith (the political
economist), and Adam Ferguson (the philosopher). In his twenty-sixth
year Robert Adam visited Italy in the company of Clérisseau, a French
architect, and made a minute study of the ruins of the Emperor
Diocletian's palace at Spalatro, in Venetian Dalmatia. The journal of
his tour was printed in the _Library of the Fine Arts_, and, in 1764,
he published a folio volume with numerous engravings by Bartolozzi and
others, from his drawings of the palace. In this important work he
states that his object in selecting this ruin for special examination
was its residential character, as the knowledge of classical
architecture in England was derived exclusively from the remains of
public buildings. During his absence on the Continent, he was elected
F.R.S. and F.S.A. Soon after his return, he was appointed architect to
George III. This office he was obliged to resign in 1768, when he was
elected to Parliament as member for Kinross-shire.
The date of Robert Adam's return to England is generally understood to
be 1762, but the architect himself makes mention of some work "done
since my return to England in 1758." The mistake has probably arisen
from the fact that James Adam did not leave his architectural studies
in Italy until the former year. Robert, it is certain, is solely
responsible for the screen of the Admiralty buildings in Whitehall,
built in 1760. "The Admiralty," says Horace Walpole, "is a most ugly
device, and deservedly veiled by Mr Adam's handsome screen." About this
time there was a pacific invasion of England by the Scots, art being
represented by William Chambers, Allan Ramsay--son of the poet--who,
in Walpole's opinion, excelled Reynolds as a painter of women, Robert
Strange, and the Adam brothers, Robert and James. Mr Clouston doubts
the statement that Clérisseau accompanied Robert Adam to Italy. The
young French architect was famous at the time of Adam's visit to the
Continent, "and one of his pupils, Sir W. Chambers, was making a name
in England. It is not altogether evident, therefore, how, a year later,
he should have accompanied Adam to Spalatro in the subordinate position
of assistant. Still, if any man had the capability of turning a master
into a pupil through sheer force of character and magnetic presence, it
must be admitted that that man was Robert Adam. His belief in himself
was so colossal as probably to approach conceit. The very fact that,
as a young man of twenty-nine, who had already had a most expensive
education, he spent a considerable amount of his patrimony in a costly
expedition, with the view of publishing a book which could not be
expected to pay, is enough to show us something of the character of the
man.
"He had made up his mind that he was to take the world by storm, and
he proceeded to do so with the most absolute confidence, in spite of
disadvantages of which he must have been, at least partially, aware.
"In his day in Scotland, and, indeed, for long after, the speech of
even the most educated was as a foreign language to English ears.
Anything 'Englishy' in accent was ridiculed. So much was this the case
that when, towards the end of the century, certain Scottish advocates,
who found their accent a serious drawback when arguing before the House
of Lords, employed an 'English master,' the movement was laughed out of
existence.
"Adam may have been able to speak fairly fluently in both French and
Italian: but if his ordinary mode of speech was, as it must have
been, broad Fifeshire with a top-dressing of Midlothian, it could not
have constituted the best introduction to London society. Yet from
the first he was both a social and a professional success, and his
immediate reception, despite his Scotch speech and his new gospel, says
more for the immense power and personality of the man than any number
of words. Other men, even greater than he, have had both reverses and
doubts about themselves. Adam had neither. He was born to succeed,
and he knew it. Even his book on the Palace at Spalatro, instead of
being an expensive way of bringing him before the public, was a great
commercial success."[25]
Thanks to their building of Lansdowne House for the Earl of Bute,
and Caen Wood House, Hampstead, for Lord Mansfield, as well as to
the fame which they obtained by the Adelphi, Robert and James Adam
acquired a great reputation as classical architects, and they enjoyed
the patronage of the aristocracy. Amongst the most important of their
other works were Luton House in Bedfordshire; Osterley House, near
Brentford; Keddlestone, Derbyshire; Compton Verney, Warwickshire; the
screen fronting the high road, and extensive internal alterations of
Sion or Syon House, Middlesex, the seat of the Duke of Northumberland;
the infirmary of Glasgow; the parish church at Mistley, Essex; the
Register House, Edinburgh; and the Admiralty screen. The number and
importance of their buildings in the metropolis materially influenced
and much improved the street architecture of London. They originated
the idea of giving to a number of unimportant private edifices the
appearance of one imposing structure. Portland, Stratford, and Hamilton
Places, and the south and east sides of Fitzroy Square, are instances
of the manner in which they carried this principle into effect. "An
innovation of more doubtful service," according to the _Dictionary of
National Biography_, "was their use of stucco in facing brick houses.
Their right to the exclusive use of a composition patented by Liardet,
a Frenchman, was the subject of two law-suits, which they gained."
James Fergusson, in his _History of Architecture_, places their
knowledge of classical art below that of Sir William Chambers. He adds:
"Their great merit--if merit it be--is that they stamped their works
with a certain amount of originality, which, had it been of a better
quality, might have done something to emancipate art from its trammels.
The principal characteristic of their style was the introduction of
very large windows, generally without dressings. These they frequently
attempted to group, three or more together, by a great glazed arch
over them, so as to try and make the whole side of a house look like
one room." Mr Fergusson thinks the college at Edinburgh the best of
their works, and says: "We possess few public buildings presenting so
truthful and well-balanced a design as this."
Whatever were the architectural defects of their works, the brothers
formed a style, which was marked especially in their interiors by a
fine sense of proportion, and a very elegant taste in the selection and
disposition of niches, lunettes, reliefs, festoons, and other classical
ornaments. It was their custom to design furniture in character with
their apartments, and their works of this kind are still greatly
prized. Amongst them may be specially mentioned their side-boards with
elegant urn-shaped knife-boxes, but they also designed bookcases and
brackets, pedestals and cabinets, clock-cases and candelabra, mirror
frames and console tables, of singular and original merit, adapting
classical forms to modern uses with a success unrivalled by any other
designers of furniture in England. They designed, also, carriages and
plate, and a sedan chair for Queen Charlotte. Of their decorative
work generally it may be said that it was rich but neat, refined but
not effeminate, chaste but not severe, and that it will probably have
quite as lasting and beneficial effect upon English taste as their
architectural structures.
[Illustration: THE SOCIETY OF ARTS DISTRIBUTING ITS AWARDS.]
In 1773, the brothers Robert and James commenced the publication of
their _Works on Architecture_, in folio parts, which was continued
at intervals till 1778, and reached the end of the second volume. In
1822, the work was completed by the posthumous publication of a third
volume, but the three bound up together do not make a thick book.[26]
Robert Adam also obtained some reputation as a landscape painter. As
an architect, he was extensively employed to the last. In the year
preceding his death he designed no less than eight public works and
twenty-five private buildings. He died at his house in Albemarle
Street, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his stomach, on March
3, 1792. Of the social position he attained, and the estimation in
which he was held, no greater proof can be afforded than the record
of his funeral in Westminster Abbey. His pall-bearers were the Duke
of Buccleuch, the Earl of Coventry, the Earl of Lauderdale, Viscount
Stormont, Lord Frederick Campbell, and Richard Pulteney (the botanist).
His younger brother, James, died in the same street, on October 20, two
years later, from apoplexy. His work was so closely connected with that
of Robert as to be practically undistinguishable. It is thought, by
many, that he was solely responsible for the design of Portland Place.
At one time he was architect to George III., and was master mason to
the Board of Ordnance in North Britain. He published _Practical Essays
on Architecture_, and, at the time of his death, he was engaged on
a history of architecture. The eldest brother, John, inherited the
business of the father, and remained in Scotland. William Adam is said
to have died in 1748, in which case he could hardly have "assisted his
brother Robert in building the Adelphi" (_Dict. of Nat. Biography_).
And Walpole, writing to Mason on July 29, 1773, says: "What are the
Adelphi Buildings? Warehouses, laced down the seams, like a soldier's
frill in a regimental old coat." Yet the author of _The Castle of
Otranto_ did not disdain from asking Robert Adam to design a room for
him.
Apart from their financial troubles in building the Adelphi, the Adams
brothers had to stand much banter. It was said, with what truth I know
not, that they obtained their workmen, "with true patriotism," from
Scotland, and that the labours of the artisans were stimulated by
countless bagpipes; "but the canny men, finding the bagpipes played
their tunes rather too quick, threw up the work, and Irishmen were then
employed." In the _Foundling Hospital for Wit_,[27] the nationality of
the architects is rudely assailed:--
"Four Scotchmen, by the name of Adams,
Who keep their coaches and their madams,
Quoth John, in sulky mood, to Thomas,
Have stole the very river from us!
O Scotland, long has it been said,
Thy teeth are sharp for English bread;
What! seize our bread and water too,
And use us worse than jailors do:
'Tis true, 'tis hard; 'tis hard, 'tis true.
Ye friends of George, and friends of James,
Envy us not our River Thames;
Thy Princess, fond of raw-boned faces,
May give you all our posts and places;
Take all to gratify your pride,
But dip your oatmeal in the Clyde."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 24: _The Adelphi and Its Site_, 1885.]
[Footnote 25: _English Furniture and Furniture Matters of the 18th
Century._ R.S. Clouston, 1906, pp. 84-86.]
[Footnote 26: _Dictionary of National Biography_, vol. i., p. 88.]
[Footnote 27: Ed. 1784, vol. iv., p. 189.]