Maurer of Charing Cross in 1740 is the earliest view of the Strand
front. The very beautiful drawing by Canaletto, an engraving from which
is reproduced on p. 176, shows the same view in 1753, apparently
after the front had been rebuilt by Daniell Garrett in 1748–50. The
famous lion of cast lead appears here over the centre of the building.
It was erected in 1752, and is now preserved at Syon House. On March
18th, 1780, the street front was badly damaged by fire, and was again
rebuilt. Its final appearance can be seen from the photograph, with
its towers lowered one storey and its whole appearance reduced in
picturesqueness, save perhaps where some lingering suggestion remains
of its past beauty, within its central group of bold pilasters.
Of the house and its courtyard Seymour, following Strype, wrote in
1735: “A noble and spacious building, having a large square court at
the entrance, with buildings round it, at the upper end of which court
is a Piazza with buildings over it sustained by stone pillars, and
behind the buildings there is a curious garden which runneth down to
the Thames.” There is a view of the south front by S. Wale (1761),
which if it shows anything of the work which Evelyn criticised will
explain the half-hearted praise which it met with from this competent
critic. In it we miss the southern towers, which had no doubt been
destroyed, but two ungainly wings extend themselves at either side
towards the river. A pavilion and wings were designed by Mylne, and a
drawing-room by Robert Adam. From Skinner’s _History and Description of
London and Westminster_ (1795) we learn that the two wings extending
towards the river were 100 ft. long or over; indeed, the left wing
was “a state gallery or ballroom, 106 ft. long, the breadth being a
fourth part of the length and the height equal to the diagonal of the
square of the breadth”! This room had nine windows towards the garden,
and over the cornice another row of lights. Altogether the house had
140 rooms, and the last disposition of its buildings may be seen
on Horwood’s large plan of London (1799). The pretty garden of the
Smithson plan, which afterwards Evelyn commended for its tastefully
arranged terraces and copses, had become but a “fine lawn surrounded
by a neat gravel walk and boarded next the walls by a border of curious
flowers, shrubs, and evergreens.” It was this garden which Evelyn
specially mentioned as the occasion of his quaint little work entitled
_Fumifugium_, where he speaks of its flowers as “wrapped in a horrid
cloud of smoke, issuing from a brewery or two, contiguous to that noble
palace.” We fear the smoke, in spite of his serious protest, is still
with us, but the more substantial palace has disappeared and is but a
memory.
Robert Adam’s contribution to the sumptuous design of the various
interiors of Northumberland House must have been of a very important
character. We owe to the painstaking and minutely particular drawings
of the Adam brothers, and to the care of Sir John Soane, the fact
that the substance of the chief designs executed there remains in
safe keeping. Adam was employed by the Duke of Northumberland on very
extensive schemes, both at Alnwick and at Syon, and it was evidently
intended that his London residence should not be overshadowed by either
of his country seats. At the Soane Museum are drawings of the ceilings
of both the drawing-room and the dining-room, from which we may see
that the former apartment measured 35 ft. 10 in. by 21 ft. 9 in., and
the latter 45 ft. 4 in. by the same width. The designs for the ceilings
are very elaborate—there being two drawings for the drawing-room, the
richest of which is marked as executed. In addition to the last-named
there are internal elevations of the drawing-room, showing on one side
four lofty windows with mirrors between, and on the other side an
elaborate fireplace. Three other drawings for this fireplace are also
included, showing quite a different design in considerable detail, even
to a complex pattern in marble for the hearth, and this is the one that
seems to have been carried out. The drawings show Adam’s fertility of
invention and deftness in arrangement at their best, and if any of the
features of these rooms have been preserved it would be interesting
to compare the charming character of the drawings with their actual
execution in marble.
One other relic of the house is said to exist in the East End. In the
gardens of Tudor House, Bromley-by-Bow, is a large stone gateway,
which, it is stated, was removed from Northumberland House at the time
of its demolition (_vide_ _The Parish of Bromley-by-Bow_, The Survey of
London, Vol. I.).
—W. H. G.
THE ABBEY OF BARKING,
ESSEX
[Illustration: FIG. 84.—REMAINS OF SOUTH TRANSEPT.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
XIII.
THE ABBEY OF BARKING, ESSEX.
The Benedictine nunnery of Barking stood upon the eastern bank of the
river Roding, about a mile above its confluence with the Thames. The
precise date of its original foundation is a little uncertain, but
probably the correct date is that given in the Chertsey register,
namely 666.[26] In any case, it was before the founder, St. Erkenwald,
became Bishop of London in 675. The Venerable Bede gives the following
account of the circumstances:—
This man (St. Erkenwald), before he was made bishop, had built
two famous monasteries, the one for himself and the other for
his sister Ethelburga, and had established them both in regular
discipline of the best kind. That for himself was in the County
of Surrey, by the River Thames, at a placed called Chertsey: that
for his sister, in the province of the East Saxons, at the place
called Barking, wherein she might be a mother and a nurse of
devout women.
[26] Brit. Mus., Cott. MS., Vit. A. 13.
Bede makes but slight reference to the buildings of the convent, but
mentions “the narrowness of the place where the monastery is built,”
which hardly seems applicable to the present site. It is possible,
therefore, that the first position was subsequently abandoned. It may
be gathered, further, that the chapel of the convent was dedicated to
St. Mary the Virgin and that the nuns’ cemetery lay to the west of it.
The next event in the architectural history of the house is its
destruction by the Danes in 870. The pagan army had destroyed the
convents of Northumbria and, passing southwards, had devastated
the great Fen monasteries, Barking sharing the same fate shortly
afterwards. It lay waste for about a century, until the reign of Edgar
the Peaceable, when one of that monarch’s recurring fits of repentance
moved him to rebuild the abbey. He had taken, it appears, a certain
nun, Wulfhilda, by force from the abbey of Wilton; and, in reparation,
he refounded and endowed the convent at Barking, placing Wulfhilda at
its head. Probably, at this period, the name of the first abbess, St.
Ethelburga, was included in the dedication.
The house was almost certainly rebuilt early in the twelfth century,
when, under a succession of royal and distinguished abbesses, it
enjoyed the zenith of its prosperity. The final dedication of the abbey
church took place in the time of abbess Mabel de Bosham (1215–1247).[27]
[27] Dugdale’s _Monasticon_, i., p. 441: 1817.
From this time to the Dissolution, the architectural history of the
house is almost a blank, the only record of importance being a licence,
dated 24th April, 1319, to the abbess “to fell 300 oaks in her wood
of Hainault, for repair of the Church of her Abbey and divers others
houses of the Abbey, which are in ruins.”[28]
[28] Cal. Pat. Rolls (1317–1321), p. 327.
The abbey was surrendered into the hands of the King’s Commissioners
on 14th November, 1539, by Dorothy Barley, the abbess, and thirty
nuns. The house was then valued at £1,084 6s. 2¼d. gross and £862 12s.
5½d. net, making it the third richest in annual revenue of the English
nunneries.
In 1541, the destruction of the buildings was begun. Among the accounts
of James Needham (Surveyor General to Henry VIII.), preserved at the
Bodleian Library,[29] is a lengthy document relating to the undermining
and casting down of the abbey church and cloister, of which the
following is an extract:—
From Sunday xix. day of June to Sunday xvii. of July, 33rd Henry
VIII. Payments made & payd for o^r Souvraigne lorde the King for
work done by his graces comandement in undermynding & casting
downe the late Abbey Chyrche of Barking.
_Carpenters._—Working not onely in taking downe and breking uppe
the bordes of the cloyster w^t other tymber & not thus only
working but also making the handebarowes & whele barowes & in
like manr. helmyng of pyckaxes & other necessares for the myners
& laborers to occupie.
_Myners._—Working not onleye in undermynding and casting downe
ij. Rounde Towres but also taking uppe the benches in the
cloyster & in lyke man^r providing of the ffayrest coyne stones &
other coyne stone for the loding of lighters, to be ymployed at
the Kinges man. of Darteforde.
_Comyn Laborers._—Working not onelye in ridding & clering oute
the ffayrest & best coyne stone, casting the rubbyshe a syde &
not thus working onely but also making & mynding of the hey ways
& in lyke manr. leveling the grownde for the lande carr. of the
said stone from the late abbey to the water syde.
[29] Bodl. Lib., Cod. Rawl. D. 782.
The account is continued month by month, with little variation in
terms, and concludes on 10th December, 1542. In August, 1541, the
carpenters were engaged in “taking downe the tymber in the steple,”
and the miners “in undermynding the steple and other places of the
late Abbey Chyrch.” The lead of the roof was employed in repairs to
Greenwich Palace in 1541.
The site and the demesne lands of the abbey were granted by Henry VIII.
to Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, for life.[30] On his death
in 1550, they were given by Edward VI. to Edward, Lord Clinton, the
patent bearing date 27th May 6th Edward VI. (1552).[31]
[30] Pub. Rec. Office, Particulars for Grants, 1515.
[31] _Ibid._
The earliest view of the site of the abbey is a drawing by Mr. Smart
Lethieullier,[32] dating from about 1720–30, preserved in the British
Museum.[33] It shows that, at that time, little more of the abbey
remained above ground than is at present in existence, the only notable
difference being the presence of the north-east gate of the precinct.
In 1724 he carried out some excavations on the site of the abbey
church, and produced a plan purporting to show the results, which
was subsequently published by Lysons.[34] Another original drawing,
somewhat different in detail, is in the British Museum.[35] Both
plans are, however, so hopelessly inaccurate as to be almost valueless.
[32] Smart Lethieullier (1701–1760), F.R.S., F.S.A., of Aldersbrook,
in Little Ilford (where he lies buried), was in his day a well-known
antiquary and collector.
[33] Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 123.
[34] _Environs of London_, iv., facing p. 71 (1796).
[35] Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 124.
[Illustration: FIG. 85.—PLAN OF THE PRECINCT.]
[Illustration: FIG. 86.—THE CURFEW GATEHOUSE.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
[Illustration: FIG. 87.—THE SAXON CROSS.
_Photograph by A. P. Wire._]
The limits of the precinct at Barking cannot now be fixed with any
precision, but the general lines are not difficult to ascertain. The
great gatehouse probably stood in the neighbourhood of the present
Heath Street or the Wharf; but no trace or record of its position is
known to exist. The Cemetery Gate, which still exists, and is now
commonly known as the “Fire Bell Gate” or “Curfew Gate,” was probably
first erected in the time of abbess Sybilla Felton (1349–1419) and
subsequently reconstructed (_c._ 1460). The first mention of it appears
in a Papal Indult of 1400, when the abbess and her nuns were granted
permission “to have mass or other divine offices celebrated by their
own or other fit persons in the Oratory called Rodlofte, situate upon
the walls of the cemetery of their church; in which Oratory is a
certain cross and to which a great multitude of people resorts.”[36] A
little later, in the time of abbess Catherine de la Pole (1433–1473),
it served as the belfry of the parish church, before the erection of
the present western tower. The parishioners petitioned the abbess to
be allowed to hang a new bell above the chapel of the “Holy Rood lofte
atte gate” and to repair the roof. They were allowed eventually to hang
the bell, but were not permitted to do the other repairs, evidently for
fear of weakening the rights of the convent over the structure.[37]
[36] _Cal. of Papal Letters_, v., p. 333.
[37] Lyson’s _Environs_, iv., pp. 71–72 (1796).
The gate, as it now stands, is a square embattled building, two stages
high, with diagonal buttresses at the corners and an octagonal turret.
With the exception of the parapet, it is unrestored, and is pierced
on the east and west by a large four-centered arch, above which is
a small canopied niche with an ogee-shaped head, much decayed. The
second stage of the gate is occupied by the chapel of the Holy Rood,
originally lit by four three-light windows, one on each side. The
eastern is now the only one left open, the rest being blocked with
brickwork.
Set in the east wall, below the window, is a remarkably fine carved
rood of stone, with the Virgin and St. John, of twelfth century date.
The carving of the drapery is unusually free and the figures well
designed. The cross itself is of the “raguly” form, to be seen in some
of the St. Albans paintings, and the ground-work is diapered fretty in
broad interlaced bands.
At a distance of about 350 feet further north there stood another gate,
destroyed about 1885.
The Roding undoubtedly formed the boundary on the western side.
The modern mill now standing close to Barking Wharf marks, in all
probability, the site of the monastic building; while a narrow
watercourse, branching off from the river above the abbey precinct,
preserves the line of the cutting which fed the great culvert or sewer
of the convent with water.
Owing to the treatment of the building at the Dissolution, when the
walls and towers were undermined and cast down, the remains of the
church itself are not extensive. Practically the whole length of the
south wall was, however, retained, up to a certain level, owing to its
forming the boundary of the parish churchyard. In addition to this,
a portion of the west front, with the walls and foundations of the
whole of the east end, have, fortunately, been preserved, so that the
complete plan has been recovered.
The twelfth century church (representing the first rebuilding after the
Conquest) consisted of a long nave with aisles and two western towers;
shallow transepts, with one apsidal eastern chapel in each arm; and an
aisled presbytery of five bays, terminating, in all probability, in
three graduated apses, as at Shaftesbury and Chertsey abbeys.
[Illustration: FIG. 88.—PLAN OF ABBEY.
_Drawn by A. W. Clapham._]
Traces were discovered of the southern of these apses terminating the
south aisle.
The bays of the presbytery were unusually narrow, measuring only
12 feet from centre to centre. According to some original pencil
notes by Mr. Smart Lethieullier,[38] the columns of the arcades were
cylindrical; and, judging from the existing remains of the south wall,
the aisles were vaulted in stone. One complete bay of this wall and
portions of those adjoining remain standing to about 5 feet above
the floor level. The responds supporting the vault are rectangular
projections and were apparently once finished with a half-column
against the face and two sideshafts. The wall between was recessed for
a wall arcade of three arches, resting on small shafts, 5 inches in
diameter. The moulded base of one of these remains _in situ_. It is of
Binstead stone, and appears to date from about 1150. The axis of the
Norman presbytery deviates south of that of the nave, a feature which
is still further accentuated in the later eastern additions.
[38] Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 27,350, fo. 124.
About the beginning of the thirteenth century, the east end of the
twelfth century church with its three apses was pulled down and an
important extension planned in its place. The object of this rebuilding
was, apparently, to provide a more honourable position for the
shrine of St. Ethelburga, together with those of her successors, St.
Hildelitha and St. Wulfhilda. The new portions may be compared to those
eastern extensions, erected at the same time, for a similar purpose,
at St. Albans and Winchester. The planning of the saint’s chapel at
Barking presents certain features in common with both these buildings,
together with one marked divergence. At both St. Albans and Winchester,
the chapel is of the same width as the presbytery and aisles; but, at
Barking, the width is reduced by 22 feet, the eastern arm being 64 feet
6 inches and the saint’s chapel 42 feet. Access to it was obtained
by carrying the Norman aisles one bay further east. Mr. Lethieullier
uncovered the foundations of a massive wall terminating the presbytery
on the east, which must have belonged to this rebuilding and was
probably carried up in the form of an open arcade supporting the east
gable of the high roofs.
The saint’s chapel was divided by columns into three equal aisles,
three bays long from east to west; and, from the centre aisle, a lady
chapel projected two bays still further east. The south wall of the
saint’s chapel remains standing for some three feet above the floor
level; and in the south-east angle is the circular base, in Reigate
stone, of a vaulting-shaft, with “holdwater” moulding and chamfered
plinth, all in fairly good preservation. The centre aisle of this
chapel was probably appropriated to the feretory of St. Ethelburga,
while the sides may have been occupied by those of St. Hildelitha and
St. Wulfhilda.
The lady chapel was excavated, some thirty-seven years ago. The walls,
some 3 or 4 feet high, remain on the east and south sides. The bases
of vaulting-shafts still exist, in the angles at the east end. Three
interments were found at the west end, one being in a chalk vault.
A list of interments of abbesses and others, dating from about 1420,
is preserved at the Bodleian Library; the names of the abbesses are as
follows:—
1. Dame Yolente de Sutton qe gist devant l’auter nostre dame de
Salue.
2. Dame Maude de Levelaunde qe gist apres lavaunt dce Yolente.
3. Dame Maud la file le Roy Henry qe gist en la chapele de Salue.
4. Dame Maud la file le Roy John qe gist en la chapele de Salue.
5. Dame Alianore de Westone gist devant la fertre de seint
Alburgh.
6. Dame Anne de Veer gist devant le fertre seint Hildelithe.
7. Dame Maud de Grey gist devant l’auter de la Resurexion.
8. Dame Alis de Merton gist en une arche devers la cimterre.
9. Dame Isabelle de Basing gist en une arche a la fenestre.
10. Dame Alimie gist en l’arche devant le haut auter qe ad vii.
psaumes en genulaut e messe capitale one kyrie par vers et
hominum plasmator et offiz.
11. Dame Marie soer seint Thomas le Martye gist en l’arch devant
l’auter et Seint Paul en la yle.
12. Dame Mabile qe fist dedier l’eglise gist en l’arche apres.
13. Dame Maud Mountague gist en quer.
14. Dame Isabella Mountague soer l’avant dite dame Maud gist de
la parte la prioresse en quer.
15. Dame Christine de Valoyns gist en mylieu del chapitre en la
pere du marbre.
16. Dame Katherine Suttone gist en la chapele de nostre dame de
Salue en l’arche.
17. Dame Christine de Bosham gist a l’entree del chapitre.
18. Dame Maud Mountague gist en l’arche devant le haut auter
encontre la hous del sextrie.
The chapel of “Notre Dame de Salut” is probably the eastern chapel,
which would identify the interments discovered as those of Abbesses
Maud (_c._ 1200), daughter of Henry II., Maud de Loveland (_c._ 1276),
and Yolande de Sutton (1341). The remains found in the chalk vault
probably belonged to the first of these. The note concerning Mabel de
Bosham (1217–1247) approximately dates the completion of the eastern
portion of the church.
The transept was internally 100 feet long by 31 feet wide. The core of
the walls of the southern arm is still standing for some few feet above
the floor level, but most of the facing is gone. At the south-east
corner is the chamfered base of an angle-pier, with traces of benches
against the south and west walls. From the eastern side projected a
small apsidal chapel, slightly horse-shoe in form and the inner face of
the walls retaining much of the original plastering.
The central tower was destroyed in 1541, but Mr. Lethieullier found
some portions of the piers remaining in 1724. His rough sketch
preserves the plan of one of them—the north-east. It was rectangular,
with a semi-circular respond to the choir arcade, and rectangular
projections with side shafts to the tower and aisle arches.
The nave with its aisles was 165 feet 6 inches long by 64 feet 6 inches
wide. There were, apparently, ten bays to the arcades, with two western
towers, making eleven bays in all. The south wall towards the parish
churchyard remains standing about 5 feet high for the six eastern bays
and is of somewhat unusual construction. The face of the wall remains
in places, and there are sufficient traces of three responds of the
aisle vault to show that the nave bays were 14 feet from centre to
centre.
The seventh bay from the east was occupied by an elaborate doorway
communicating with the parish churchyard. Only the base remains,
projecting some 6 feet from the external face of the aisle wall. It
was evidently of twelfth century work, with a large arch of three or
four recessed orders, and was probably surmounted by a lofty stone
gable of the type to be seen at Kirkstall, Brinkburn, Nun Monkton, and
elsewhere. Portions of the bases of the side shafts remain on the east
jamb; but, below this level, a plain raking plinth has been added at a
later date, following the line of the recessed orders. A step crossing
the porch proves that, in later mediæval times, there was a descent
from the churchyard to the floor level of the nave.
The three bays separating this porch from the south-west tower have
quite disappeared, and the foundations of the south-west tower are
somewhat fragmentary. The south-west angle of a great clasping
buttress, however, remains, projecting some 8 feet in advance of the
south aisle wall. The core of the wall has been removed, only the outer
face remaining. The two “round towers” mentioned in Needham’s accounts
probably refer to these western towers; but, as the foundations are
rectangular, a circular or octagonal upper stage is the most reasonable
interpretation of the expression he uses.
The total internal length of the church was 337 feet 6 inches, making
it the longest in the County of Essex of which there is any record.
It was some 24 feet longer than Rochester, and 13 feet shorter than
Chester Cathedral. The area within the walls was about 21,700 square
feet.
The cloister, about 99 feet square, lay upon the north side of the
nave, as at St. Radegund’s (Cambridge), St. Helen’s (London), and
other houses of Benedictine nuns. Indeed, in monastic houses in the
neighbourhood of London, this position is almost more the rule than the
exception. The chapter-house, a rectangular structure, 60 feet 6 inches
long by 23 feet 6 inches wide, projected from about the centre of the
east walk. In the chapter-house were probably buried most of the early
abbesses, the last being Christina de Valoyns (_c._ 1214) and Christina
de Bosham (_c._ 1258), both mentioned in the list of interments already
quoted.
Adjoining the chapter-house on the north, and continuing the eastern
cloister range, was a building 53 feet long by 24 feet wide, divided
into two unequal portions by the passage leading to the infirmary. In
the smaller and southern of these, a small fireplace of early sixteenth
century date had been inserted in the east wall. The jambs were of
brick and the hearth was laid with plain tiles 9 inches square, with a
Reigate stone curb.
The warming house forms the north end of the building. The fireplace,
which is in the east wall and is some 4 feet wide, has a hearth set
with tiles on edge and traces of a stone curb. In front is an outer
hearth, projecting 2 feet 6 inches from the face of the wall and also
paved with tiles set on edge.