above suggestion. The Hearth Tax Roll for 1666 gives 41 names which are
apparently to be referred to Coal Yard, while Hollar’s Plan of 1658
shows the area by no means covered. The Subsidy Roll for 1646 gives only
five names definitely in respect of “Cole Yard,” but there are 15 more
which probably must be assigned thereto.
At some time before 1666 the eight houses fronting Drury Lane had given
way to the present number of twelve. In the case of the four
northernmost, this happened shortly after 1636, when a building lease of
the sites of the houses was granted to Richard Brett.[98]
Built in the brick wall of an 18th-century tenement (No. 27, Goldsmith
Street) was a stone tablet, dated 1671. The premises have lately been
demolished, and at present the site is vacant.
[Illustration]
Smart’s Buildings is a comparatively modern name for that part of Coal
Yard which runs north into High Holborn. Hatton’s _New View of London_
(1708) does not mention Smart’s Buildings, but refers to “Cole Yard” as
“on the N.E. side of Drury Lane, near St. Giles’s, a passage into High
_Holbourn_ in 2 places”; Strype (1720) states that “the Coal Yard ...
hath a turning passage into _Holborn_”; and Rocque’s Map of 1746
definitely names it “Cole Yard.”
In a deed of 1756[99] it is referred to as “the passage leading into the
Coal Yard called Smart’s Buildings.” Which of the three Smarts,
grandfather, father and son (William, Lewis and John), mentioned in the
same deed, it was who gave his name to the street, there is nothing to
show. No record of the purchase of the property by any person of the
name has, so far, been discovered, but the deed of 1756 certainly
suggests that the ownership of the houses on the eastern side of the
passage originated with William, who is, moreover, described as
“carpenter,”[100] and in that case would date from the beginning of the
18th century.
THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—
[101]No. 27, Goldsmith Street. Stone tablet in front wall
(drawing).
Smart’s Buildings. General view of exterior (photograph).
XXVIII-XXIX. NOS. 181 AND 172, HIGH HOLBORN (DEMOLISHED).
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.
The land at the eastern corner of Drury Lane and High Holborn may
perhaps be, either wholly or in part, identified with certain land held
of the Hospital of St. Giles by William Christmas in the reign of Henry
III. “with the houses and appurtenances thereon, situate _at the Cross_
by Aldewych.”[102] Aldewych was Drury Lane,[103] and the Cross by
Aldewych would almost certainly be situated at the junction of the two
roads. The identification of the western corner as the site of
Christmas’s land seems to be excluded by the fact that this was occupied
by property of John de Cruce,[104] who was certainly a contemporary of
William Christmas.[105] It is possible that the land in question was
situated on the north side of Broad Street, but as it is known that
Christmas owned land on the south side of the way, some of which may
even possibly be the actual land referred to, the identification
suggested above seems reasonable. Whether in Christmas’s time there was
at this spot an inn, the forerunner of the later _White Hart_, is
unknown.[106] Blott’s suggestion that the sign of the _White Hart_ was
adopted in honour of Richard II., whose badge it was, even if correct,
does not necessitate the assumption that no inn was there before that
king’s reign (1377–1399). The sign might possibly have been changed in
Richard’s honour.
The first mention of _The White Hart_ does not, however, occur until a
century and a half later. In 1537 Henry VIII. effected an exchange of
property with the Master of Burton Lazars, as a result of which there
passed into the royal hands “one messuage called _The Whyte Harte_, and
eighteen acres of pasture [Purse Field] to the same messuage
belonging.”[107] In 1524 “Katherine Smyth _alias_ Katherine Clerke” was
living in _The White Hart_.[108] She was apparently succeeded as tenant
by William Hosyer,[109] but there is no evidence whether he actually
resided in the inn.[110] In 1567 the occupant of the inn is said to be
Matthew Buck, and in 1582 it was Richard Cockshott.[111] In 1623 Hugh
Jones is mentioned as barber and victualler, at Holborn end, next Drury
Lane.[112] The survey of Crown Lands taken in 1650 describes the
premises as follows:—
“All that inn, messuage or tenement commonly called ... _The White
Harte_ scituate ... in St. Gyles in the feildes ... consistinge of one
small hall, one parlour and one kitchen, one larder and a seller
underneath the same, and above stayres in the same range, and over the
gatehouse, 9 chambers. Alsoe over against the said halle and parlour is
now settinge upp one bricke buildinge consistinge of 6 roomes, alsoe one
stable strongly built with brick and fflemish walle, contayninge 44
feete in length and 37 feete in breadth, lofted over and covered with
Dutch tyle; and two other stables next adjoyninge, built as aforesaid,
and 2 tenements or dwelling houses over the same. Alsoe one large yard
contayninge 110 feete in length and in breadth 46 feete. Now in the
occupation of one Anthony Ives, and is worth per annum
£38.
“All y^t tenement adjoyninge to y^e north side of the abovesaid house,
being a corner shopp, consisting of one seller and a faire shopp over
the same; alsoe one kitchin, and above stayres two chambers. Nowe in the
occupation of Richard Raynbowe, a grocer, and is worth per annum
£12.”
It would seem that at the time of the transfer of _The White Hart_ to
Henry VIII. there were no buildings to the east of the inn. The fact
that no such premises are mentioned in connection with the exchange is
not, indeed, conclusive, and it is more to the point to observe that no
mention of the buildings is contained in any of the grants of the
property, during the 16th century, which have been examined. Moreover,
on 13th November, 1592, a certificate was returned by the Commission for
Incroached Lands, etc.,[113] to the effect that four cottages, with
appurtenances, on the south side of the highway leading from St. Giles
towards Holborn, opposite certain small cottages built on the Pale
Pingle,[114] were possessed without any grant, state or demise from the
sovereign. Plate 2 shows the cottages in question, occupying the site of
the buildings to the east of _The White Hart_.
It may be taken therefore that these four cottages were the earliest
buildings on the site, and that they were erected probably not long
before 1592, when their existence was first officially noticed.
By 1650 they had grown to a long range of buildings. In that year they
were described as follows:—
“All that range of buildinge adjoyninge to thaforesaid inn called _The
White Hart_, abuttinge on the high way on the north, with two tenements
on the south side of _The White Hart_, lyenge uppon the way leadinge
into Drury Lane, all which said buildings are now divided into xxj
severall habitacions in the occupation of severall tenants, and are
worth per annum £24.”
The whole property, including _The White Hart_, the courtyards and
gardens, is said to “contayne in length from Drury Lane downe to the
first [tenement] 96 feete, and in breadth 76 feete; the other length
backward from the stables to the lower side of the garden 125 feete and
93 feete in breadth, bounded with the highway leadinge from St. Gyles
into Holburne on the north and Drury Lane on the west.” The entire site
therefore had a length of 221 feet, and a width of 76 feet along Drury
Lane, increasing to 93 feet behind the inn. Allowing for the subsequent
widening of High Holborn at this point, it is clear that the area is
represented at the present day by the sites of the houses from the
corner as far as and including No. 181, High Holborn, while the southern
boundary runs to the north of Nos. 190–191, Drury Lane, then turns to
the south a little beyond the eastern boundary of those premises, and
thence runs in a slightly curved line as far as the eastern boundary of
No. 181, High Holborn.[115]
A reference to the map in Strype’s edition of Stow (Plate 5) will show
that in the 18th century both High Holborn and Drury Lane were very
narrow at this spot. Moreover, in course of time, the large courtyard of
the inn became used as a public way, and grew crowded with small
tenements. In 1807 the leases of the property expired, and an
arrangement was come to between the Vestry of St. Giles and the Crown,
by which the latter and its lessees gave up sufficient land to enable
the frontage line both to High Holborn and Drury Lane to be amended,
with the result that the west end of the former and the north end of the
latter were widened by 15 feet and 7 feet respectively. On its part the
Vestry consented to the stopping up of White Hart yard and the building
thereon of the Crown lessees’ new premises.[116]
Two of the houses, Nos. 181 and 172, erected in accordance with the
arrangement, are illustrated in this volume.
Plate 9 shows the distinctive early 19th-century shop front, which was
attached to No. 181. The design embodied a large, slightly bowed window
with segmental head, flanked by two doorways. The window was fitted with
small panes of glass, having bars forming interlacing segmental panes
above the transom. The doors were of quiet and refined design, with
excellently treated side posts, having brackets, carved with acanthus
ornament, supporting the entablature. The whole exhibits a distinctly
Greek feeling.
Another interesting early 19th-century shop front existed at No. 172,
and is illustrated on Plate 10. The door to the house and that to the
shop adjoined one another in this case, and were slightly recessed. The
rounded angles to the window added interest to the design. The general
treatment, though simple, possessed much distinction.
Both houses have recently been demolished.
IN THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION ARE:—
No. 181. General view of premises (photograph).
[117]No. 181. Shop front (photograph).
[117]No. 172. Shop front (photograph).
XXX.—SITE OF ROSE FIELD (MACKLIN STREET, SHELTON STREET, NEWTON STREET
(PART), AND PARKER STREET (PART)).
Macklin Street (formerly Lewknor’s Lane), Shelton Street (formerly St.
Thomas’s Street, afterwards King Street), the lower end of Newton Street
(formerly much narrower and known as Cross Street) and the greater
portion of Parker Street, have all been formed on the site of Rose
Field, a pasture of a reputed area of six acres, attached to _The Rose_
inn.
From particulars given in various deeds it is clear that the field’s
western and eastern boundaries respectively were Drury Lane and the
stream[118] dividing it from Purse Field, and that its southern boundary
ran 50 feet to the south of Parker Street. As regards its northern
boundary, however, there is some uncertainty. The facts, so far as they
have been ascertained, are as follows.
The houses on the north side of Macklin Street were entirely in Rose
Field, as also were three houses in Drury Lane, north of Macklin
Street,[119] and the line bounding the rear of the Macklin Street
property certainly coincides, at least for a portion of its length, with
the boundary of that part of Rose Field leased to Thomas Burton.[120] It
may therefore be regarded as certain that at least for a portion of its
length this line represents the northern boundary of Rose Field.
Probably this is true as regards its whole length as far as Goldsmith
Street, which seems to be the point at which it turned northwards.[121]
The first reference to Rose Field (though not under that name) which has
been found, occurs in the deed concerning the exchange which Henry
VIII., in 1537, effected with the Hospital of Burton Lazars. According
to this, part of the property transferred to the Crown consisted of “one
messuage, called _The Rose_, and one pasture to the same messuage
belonging.”
In the following year the king leased the inn and pasture to George
Sutton and Ralph Martin.[122] In 1566 the property was leased to John
Walgrave for 21 years as from Michaelmas, 1574; in 1580 to George Buck
for 21 years, as from Michaelmas, 1595; and on 27th October, 1597, was,
together with other property, granted by Elizabeth in perpetuity to
Robert Bowes and Robert Milner, at a rent of £3 6s. 8d. Two days
afterwards Milner sold it to James White, of London, silk weaver, and on
19th January, 1599–1600, the latter in turn parted with it to William
Short.[123] Half a century later, William Short the younger took
advantage of the sale of the Fee Farm Rents during the Commonwealth to
redeem his rent for £29 12s. 6d.[124]
Before continuing the history of Rose Field, it may not be out of place
to consider where _The Rose_ inn, from which the field derived its name,
was situated.
Parton[125] quotes a deed, dated 1667, referring to the sale by Edward
Tooke to Luke Miller, of two tenements, situated in Lewknor’s Lane,
“which said two tenements doe abutt on the tenement formerly known by
the sign of _The Rose_, late in the tenure of Walter Gibbons,” and draws
the inference that the inn was “on the south side of Holborn, not far
eastward from _The White Hart_.” It is, however, doubtful if “the
tenement formerly known by the sign of _The Rose_” was _The Rose_ of
Rose Field; for when, ten years previously, William Short had sold to
Edward Tooke the first 21 houses on the north side of Lewknor’s Lane,
which must have included the two tenements subsequently sold by Tooke to
Miller, Walter Gibbons was in occupation of the twelfth house. It is
therefore most probable that _The Rose_ in question was a house in
Lewknor’s Lane, and not _The Rose_ of Rose Field at all.
As a matter of fact, the latter is almost certainly to be identified
with the inn of that name situated on the north side of Broad Street. In
1670 this inn was in possession of Sarah Hooper, widow of William
Hooper, and the latter’s son Benjamin, and is described in a deed[126],
dated 2nd November in that year, as “all that messuage or tenement and
brewhouse, with appurtenances, called _The Rose_, and all stables,
maulting roomes, yardes, backsides, etc.” On 26th March, 1723–4,
Benjamin Hooper granted[127] “all that messuage or tenement and
brewhouse, with the appurtenances, called _The Rose_ Brewhouse, scituate
in St. Giles-in-the-Fields, now or late in the tenure of Samuel Hellier,
Anthony Elmes, and Charles Hall, some or one of them, and all stables,
malting houses, yards, backsides, ways, passages, etc.,” to his two
daughters, Jane Edmonds and Sarah Mee. The sewer ratebook for 1718 shows
“Mr. Anthony Elmes” at a house in Broad Street close to Bow Street (now
Museum Street) corner,[128] and thus the site of _The Rose_ can be
roughly identified.[129]
The necessary connection between the Hoopers and William Short, who
owned _The Rose_ of Rose Field, seems to be supplied by an entry in the
_Feet of Fines_, dated 1640, concerning a purchase from the latter by
William Hooper of a messuage and one stable with appurtenances in St.
Giles-in-the-Fields.[130]
To return now to the history of Rose Field. William Short does not
appear to have taken any steps to develop the property for 15 years. On
28th July, 1615, however, he leased to Walter Burton the southern
portion of the field.[131] From particulars obtained from a number of
deeds it is known that the ground in question extended 50 feet on either
side of Parker Street, _i.e._, from the southern boundary of the field
as far north as the site of the garden afterwards in the occupation of
John Fotherly.[132] Whether the lease actually included the site of the
garden, it is not possible to say with certainty.
On 5th December, 1615, Short leased to Thomas Burton the portion to the
north of the garden, “the said parcell ... being mencioned in the said
indenture to abutt east on the lands of Sir Charles Cornwallis, Knt.
[_i.e._, Purse Field], west upon Drury Lane aforesaid, north upon the
common sewer[133] which then divided the same from other lands of the
said William Short then also in the occupation of the said Thomas
Burton,[134] and south upon the lands of the said William Short lately
demised to the said Walter Burton; and therein mencioned to conteyne in
breadth from north to south on the west end that did abutt on Drury Lane
233 feete, and at the east end thereof in breadth from north to south 80
feete, and in length from east to west, viz., from the Cornwallis lands
on the east to Drury Lane on the west 719 feete.”[135]
The earliest mention of Lewknor’s Lane which has been discovered is in
an entry in the Privy Council Register[136] for 27th January, 1633–4,
dealing with the case of Richard Harris, the owner of four houses “in
Lewkner’s Lane, backside of Drury Lane.” Harris explained that he
obtained the houses by purchase, and that they had been built six years.
This takes the date of at least some of the houses in the street back to
1627 or 1628, and the fact that the street is not mentioned in the
Subsidy Roll for the latter year makes it probable that these four
houses were among the first built.
The usual reason given for the name of the street (afterwards corrupted
to Lutenor, Newtenor) is that it was formed on the site of the house and
grounds of Sir Lewis Lewknor. It is known that Lewknor was living in
Drury Lane in 1620 and 1623[137] and the position of his name in the
Subsidy Roll for the latter year points to his house having been in
about the position suggested.[138] There is no evidence, however, that
the house was built before 1615, when the land was leased to Burton, and
it does not seem likely, therefore, that it would be pulled down by
1628.
The name of the street was subsequently changed to Charles Street, and
again altered to Macklin Street in 1878.
Shelton Street does not date back so far as the remaining streets formed
on Rose Field. As late as 1665,[139] when Lewknor’s Lane and Parker’s
Lane had long been laid out, the houses on the north side of the latter
were described as reaching to the garden “now or late” in the occupation
of John Fotherly. In a deed of 1650[140] the garden is said to be “now
in the occupation of the Lady Vere,” and a short time before it had been
in the tenure of Sir John Cotton.[141] The street was formed before
1682, it being shown in Morden and Lea’s Map of that date, and was at
first known as St. Thomas’s Street. In 1765 the name was changed to King
Street, probably out of compliment to Joseph King, who took a lease of a
large portion of the property in the street about that date.[142]
Formerly in the flank wall of No. 166, Drury Lane, was a stone tablet
bearing the inscription “King Street. 1765.” In 1877 the street received
the name of Shelton Street, and, with the carrying out of the Shelton
Street housing scheme by the London County Council was almost entirely
swept out of existence between 1889 and 1892.
[Illustration]
The earliest reference to Parker Street (formerly Parker’s Lane) so far
discovered, belongs to February,[143] 1620, when mention was made of “a
way or passage of twenty feet broad, lately marked out by the said
Walter Burton, leading from Drury Lane to and through the ground of the
said Sir Charles Cornwallis, knight, towards Holborn.”[144] The “marking
out” of Parker Street took place therefore between July, 1615, and
February, 1620. There seems great probability that the street owed its
name, as suggested by Parton,[145] to Philip Parker, who certainly had a
share in building the houses there.[146] That he actually held ground in
the neighbourhood of Parker Street is evident from the terms of Burton’s
lease to Edlyn of 1620, when, in granting his own interest in the land
on the south side of Parker Street for a space of 520 feet westwards
from the Rose Field boundary, he adds: “and the said Thomas Burton
grants to Edmund Edlyn all the interest, right, claim or demand which he
hath or ought to have in and to that piece of ground holden by Philip
Parker.” In the Subsidy Rolls for 1620–21 and 1618–9, Philip Parker is
shown as residing in Drury Lane, perhaps the house (the third on the
east side, north of Parker Street) where William Parker was living in
1646.[147]
THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—
[148] No. 166, Drury Lane. Stone tablet (drawing).
XXXI.—NO. 18, PARKER STREET.
GROUND LANDLORD.
Name unobtained.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.
No. 18, Parker Street seems to have been rebuilt in 1774.[149]
Plate 11 shows a typical ground floor front of an 18th-century tenement
in this parish. The window was probably provided with stout shuttering
for protection.
CONDITION OF REPAIR.
The house is in fair repair.
THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—
[150]No. 18, Parker Street. Exterior of ground floor (photograph).
No. 46, Parker Street. Exterior view, brick and weather boarded
structure (photograph).
No. 58, Parker Street. Exterior showing timber bay window
(photograph).
XXXII.—GREAT QUEEN STREET (GENERAL.)
The eastern part of Great Queen Street was formed upon Purse Field, but
the western and larger portion, together with Wild Street and Kemble
Street, occupies the site of the field known in Elizabethan times as
Aldwych Close. The boundaries of this close, which had a reputed area of
eight acres, were in the year 1567 described[151] as “the close nowe the
quenes majesties called Dalcona Close[152] on the easte parte, ... the
lane leading frome the Strond towardes the towne of Saynt Gyles
aforesaid of the west parte, ... the close of Sir Willm. Hollys and the
gardyn belonginge to Drurye House of the southe parte, and the close
nowe the Quenes Majesties called the Rosefelde on the north parte.” Of
these boundaries the northern is represented by the line dividing the
houses on the south side of Parker Street from those on the north side
of Great Queen Street,[153] and the eastern by the line of the court
between Nos. 6 and 7, Great Queen Street, continued to meet Sardinia
Place,[154] while the southern corresponds with the old parish boundary.
Aldwych Close was included in that part of the property of the Hospital
of St. Giles which eventually came into the hands of Lord Mountjoy,
through his wife, Katherine, daughter of Sir Thomas Legh.[155] On 20th
January, 1566–7, it was purchased of the Mountjoys by Richard Holford,
who was at the time actually in occupation of the field.[151] Holford
died on 12th January, 1569–70, leaving the property to his son Henry,
then aged 20,[156] during whose ownership the field began to be cut up
for building. In 1600 only two houses were in existence on the
close.[157] At about this time Holford began to mark out the close and
let portions on lease for building. There is no complete record of these
leases, but the largest transaction of the kind was effected on 28th
April, 1607, when Holford granted to Walter Burton, who has already been
mentioned in connection with the development of Rose Field, a lease, for
51 years from the previous Christmas, of “that peece or parcell of
grounde latlie taken out of the north side of the close of the said
Henry Holford called Oldwych Close ... as the same ys severed and
divided ffrom the residue of the same close with a pale latelie erected,
and all that mesuage or tenemente latelie erected uppon a parte of the
said peece or parcell off ground by one Henry Seagood, and nowe in the
occupacion of the said Henry Seagood, and alsoe twoe other mesuages or
teñts with the gardens, backsides, and garden plottes to the same
adioyninge or belongeinge in the tenure or occupacion of Humfrey Grey or
his assignees scituate on the west parte of Oldwych Close aforesaid, and
lately alsoe enclosed out of the said close.... And alsoe all that other
peece or parcell of ground which was then agreed and staked out to be
enclosed of and from the west side of the said close ... next adioyninge
unto Drewrie Lane.... By the name of three mesuages and three acres of
pasture with the appurtenances.”[158]