Seagood’s house occupied the site of Nos. 36–37, Great Queen
Street,[159] and the houses of Humphrey Grey (which no doubt were the
two houses in existence in 1600) are identified later[160] as _The White
Horse_, in Drury Lane, opposite Long Acre, and another house (divided
between 1635 and 1658 into two houses) adjoining it on the north. The
“three acres of pasture” was the remaining portion of the triangular
piece of ground now bounded by Drury Lane, Wild Street and Kemble
Street.[161]
From the foregoing it will be evident that by the year 1607 there were
the merest beginnings of building on the Drury Lane frontage of the
close. The first two streets to be formed were those now known as Kemble
Street and Great Queen Street, the former being probably an old public
way leading across Aldwych Close and Purse Field to Holborn, the route
of which was afterwards marked by the archway on the west side of
Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and the latter being in its origin a royal private
way through the fields,[162] used as the route to Theobalds, in
Hertfordshire, James I.’s favourite residence. Kingsgate Street
(formerly existing nearly opposite the northern termination of
Kingsway), where there were two gates[163] into the fields on either
side of Holborn (see Plate 2), and Theobald’s Road mark the continuation
of the royal way. There was also at first probably a gate[164] at the
street’s western entrance,[165] which was very narrow, and the first
mention we have of the street seems to refer to this. In a petition to
the Earl of Salisbury, undated, but evidently belonging to the period
1605–1612,[166] the “inhabitantes of the dwellinges at the _newe gate_
neere Drewry Lane” state that they have petitioned the Queen (obviously
Anne of Denmark, the consort of James I.) “to gyve a name unto that
place,” and have been referred to him; they therefore request him to
give it a name on her behalf.
It seems reasonable to conclude that it was as the result of this
application that the name “Queen Street” (or “Queen’s Street”)[167] was
given to the thoroughfare. Blott, indeed, states this as a fact, but no
entry in confirmation has been found in the Domestic State Papers.
Assuming, therefore, that the petition above mentioned had reference to
this street, and having regard to the probability, amounting to
practical certainty, that the plan of Purse Field reproduced in Plate 2
dates from 1609,[168] it follows that the title “Queen Street” must have
been given during the period 1605–1609. The name “Great Queen Street”
used to distinguish it from “Little Queen Street” does not seem to have
been in common use until about 1670.[169]
The earliest buildings erected in Great Queen Street were, contrary to
the usual statements made in the matter,[170] on the north side of the
street. The dates at which this took place cannot, unfortunately, be
determined with certainty. Clanricarde House was in existence in
1604.[171] Henry Seagood’s house (occupying the site of Nos. 36–37) was
built before April, 1607.[172] The site of Nos. 38–45, which in 1597
contained only a forge, was built on by May, 1612.[173] The site of Nos.
7–13 was leased for building purposes to Thomas Burton on 7th May, 1611.
These facts, fragmentary though they are, seem to point to the north
side of the street, so far as it was situated in Aldwych Close, being
built during the period 1603–1612.[174] In this connection it is
interesting to note the statement made, on unknown authority, by
Dobie,[175] that the house on the south side of the street in which Lord
Herbert of Cherbury died[176] was “one of the fifteen built in the third
year of James I. (1603).” The third year of James I. was actually
1605–6, but it is quite certain that no houses were built on the south
side of Great Queen Street for over thirty years afterwards. The date
seems, however, to fit in well with the facts concerning the _north_
side of the street.
XXXIII.—NO. 2, GREAT QUEEN STREET (DEMOLISHED).
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.
The eastern portion of Great Queen Street, comprising the sites of Nos.
1 to 6 on the north side, and of all the houses above No. 69 on the
south side, was formed on Purse Field.
On 30th July, 1638, Newton leased to William Sandfield a portion of the
ground, on which at some time subsequently, but before January, 1640, a
house was built. On 29th March, 1642, the property is described[177] as
a plot of ground having a breadth of 26 feet at the north end, and 25
feet at the south, and a length of 76 feet on the east side, and 81 feet
on the west; “scituate at the east end of Queene Street, on the north
side of it, between the highway there leading to the Kinges Gate on the
east, a certen lane called Parker’s Lane on the north, and the King’s
highway leading into Queene Street on the south.” This is easily
identifiable with the site of No. 1, Great Queen Street, and other
property in the rear.
On 14th January, 1639–40, Newton sold to Francis Thriscrosse[178] a plot
of ground having a breadth of 23 feet 4 inches at the north end, and 22½
feet at the south, and a length of 81 feet on the east side and 86 feet
on the west, “and abutteth east upon a peece of ground and the house
thereon built let to William Sandfeild,” Parker’s Lane on the north, and
the King’s highway on the south. On this plot a house had been erected,
representing No. 2, Great Queen Street. Similarly it may be proved that
the site of No. 3 had been built on by Richard Webb by August,
1639.[179] As regards Nos. 4 to 6, no sufficiently early deeds have come
to light to enable the date of building to be ascertained, but it is
probable that all were built about the same time.
It would seem that these six houses were superior to most of the others
erected on the north side of the street. Such is certainly the
impression derived from Hollar’s Plan of 1658 (Plate 3). Moreover,
Bagford, after alluding to the stateliness and magnificence of the
houses on the south side, goes on to say: “At y^e other side of y^e way,
near Little Queen Street, they began after y^e same manner with flower
de lices on y^e wall, but went no further.”[180]
The original buildings on the site of Nos. 1 and 2 were pulled down
about 1735, for a deed dated 7th February in that year, referring to the
site, describes it as “all that toft, peice or parcell of ground,
scituate in Great Queen Street on the north side of the same street, and
extending itself from Queen Street to Parker’s Lane, together with the
_old ruinous messuage or tenement_ and the coach house, stable, and
other erections and buildings thereupon standing.”[181] Moreover in the
sewer ratebook for 1734, there is a note against the house: “Pulled down
and rebuilt.”
The second building on the site of No. 2 was demolished in connection
with the formation of Kingsway. The front had little architectural
merit, judging from a water colour drawing by T. H. Shepherd, dated
1851, now in the Crace Collection.[182]
The interior had a notable mahogany staircase (Plates 12 and 13) of six
flights, the four lower ones having carved brackets, while the upper
part had straight strings more simply treated.
The beautiful balustrade and decorative details were preserved by the
London County Council when the house was pulled down, and have been lent
to and exhibited at the London Museum.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES.
The indications as to who exactly were the occupants of particular
houses on the north side of Great Queen Street during the 17th
century are not always very clear, and the following list of
persons occupying No. 2 is perhaps occasionally during the period
named open to suspicion:—
1646. Sir M. Lumley[183] (?)
Before 1664 to after 1675. Matthew Hewitt.
Before 1683 to 1700. Henry Moreland.
1700 to after 1720. Samuel Knapton.
1727. Susan Knapton.
1734–75. John Crofts.
1784– Poyser Roper.
Sir Martin Lumley, of Bardfield Magna, Essex, son of Sir Martin
Lumley or Lomley, Lord Mayor of London (1623–4), was born about
1596. He was sheriff of Essex, 1639–40; and was M.P. for that
county in the Long Parliament, from February 1641, until secluded
in December, 1648. He was created a Baronet on 8th January, 1641,
being knighted at Whitehall on the day following. He died about
1651.[184]
IN THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION ARE:—
[185]Mahogany staircase, ground to second floor, and second to
third floor (measured drawing).
[185]Mahogany staircase, do., do., details (measured drawing).
XXXIV.–XXXVI.—NOS. 26 TO 28, GREAT QUEEN STREET.
GROUND LANDLORD.
The names of the ground landlords of Nos. 27 and 28 have not been
obtained.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.
The date of erection of the original houses on the sites of Nos. 26 to
35 is uncertain. The Subsidy Roll for 1628–9, however, among its few
(12) entries relating to Queen Street, contains the names of three
persons[186] who are known to have lived in this row, and that for
1620–21 contains one;[187] it is therefore fairly certain that the
houses on the site of Nos. 26 to 35 were already in existence by the
latter date.
The ground on which they stood had, it is known, been let on building
lease for a term expiring at Christmas, 1657, and it seems more than
likely that the lease in question was that granted to Walter Burton on
28th April, 1607. It will be noticed[188] that a part of that grant
comprised a piece of ground taken out of the north side of the close,
and Henry Seagood’s messuage erected on a part of that piece. Now
Seagood’s house occupied the site of Nos. 36–37[189], and the piece of
ground alluded to above certainly did not extend to the west of
Seagood’s house, as that property (the site of Nos. 38 to 45) had
already been disposed of by Holford. It seems, therefore, probable that
it included the ground to the east of the house, thus taking in the site
of Nos. 26 to 35.
The earliest description of the property which has been found is dated
30th May 1661,[190] where, evidently repeating the account given in the
lease of 1636 (when it was let for 51 years as from 27th December, 1657)
it is referred to as “all those severall messuages or tenements ... with
their appurtenances, scituate, lying and being on the north side of ...
Queene Street ... now or late in the several tenures of [here 13 names
are given]; abutting upon a messuage or tenement now or late in the
tenure ... of John Sparkes, his assigne or assignes, on the east, and on
a messuage or tenement, now or late in the tenure of one Henry Seagood,
his assigne or assignes, on the west part, and the said Queene Street on
the south ...; all which said messuages ... conteyne in length from east
to west 180 feet ... and in breadth from north to south 60 feet.” It is
clear from the entries in the ratebooks that the original houses on the
sites of Nos. 27 and 28 were pulled down between 1723 and 1734, a period
which agrees perfectly with the evidence of the dates on the cisterns
mentioned below.
The present houses have three floors in addition to a basement and an
attic storey. The fronts are treated in brickwork. No. 27 contains an
ornamental cast lead cistern (Plate 15) dated 1733, and in No. 26 is a
cistern of somewhat similar design, bearing the initials B.B. and the
date 1725. On the latter house is a cast lead rain-water head
illustrated on Plate 15.
The only external features of interest are the two doorcases, side by
side, which are of deal with Roman Doric pilasters, block entablatures
and pediments. The doorways are recessed, and have elliptical arches,
enclosing fanlights, as shown by the measured drawing (Plate 14).
The staircase of No. 27 has the original carved brackets. That of No. 28
is modern.
[Illustration:
DEAL STAIR BRACKET TO OUTER STRING TO N^o. 27 G^T. QUEEN ST.
]
CONDITION OF REPAIR.
No. 26 has been demolished. Nos. 27 and 28 are in good repair.
THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—
[191]Entrance doorcases to Nos. 27 and 28 (measured drawing).
Entrance doorcases to Nos. 27 and 28 (photograph).
[191]Ornamental cast lead cistern, No. 27 (measured drawing).
[191]Ornamental cast lead cistern, No. 26 (measured drawing).
[191]Carved deal stair bracket (measured drawing).
[191]Cast lead rain-water head, No. 26 (with others) (measured
drawing).
XXXVII.—NOS. 55 AND 56, GREAT QUEEN STREET.
GROUND LANDLORDS.
The United Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of England.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.
The largest of the three sections into which Aldwych Close was divided,
when roads were formed thereon, was that lying to the south of Great
Queen Street, and east of Wild Street. In 1618[192] Henry Holford leased
to John Ittery the southern portion of this section, and on 13th August,
1629, Richard Holford sold the remainder to Sir William Cawley and
George Strode in trust for Sir Edward Stradling and Sir Kenelm
Digby.[193] A wall was erected parallel to Great Queen Street, and
distant from it 197 feet, dividing Stradling’s part from Digby’s. The
later history of Stradling’s portion, lying to the south of the dividing
wall, is dealt with later.[194] Here we are concerned with that in the
ownership of Sir Kenelm Digby, forming the site of the houses and
gardens on the south side of Great Queen Street as far as Aldwych Close
extended. The ground in question (including that purchased by Sir Edward
Stradling) is described on 13th August, 1629, as “late in the tenure of
Richard Brett and John Parker,”[195] and a petition of the inhabitants
of the district, dated[196] 1st September, 1629, states that Parker and
Brett had “divers times attempted to build on a little close called Old
Witch, which has always lain open, free to all persons to walk therein,
and sweet and wholesome for the King and his servants to pass towards
Theobalds.” It is further alleged that Parker and Brett had been
imprisoned for these attempts, “but now they have pulled down the
bridges and stiles, and carried great store of bricks thither, and give
forth threatening speeches that they will go forward.” The petitioners
asked that the proposed buildings might be stopped, and expressed their
willingness to take a lease of the close and plant trees.
Parker and Brett seem in this latest instance to have been merely acting
for Sir Kenelm Digby, for the report[197] of the Commissioners for
Buildings, made only nine days later, definitely mentions the latter as
the person desirous of building. The Commissioners expressed themselves
as adverse to Digby’s proposal, which for a time dropped.
On 27th March, 1630, both Digby and Stradling petitioned for a licence
for each “to build a house with stables and coach houses in Old Witch
Close.” The Attorney-General was instructed to draw the licence, but
although Stradling in due course built his mansion[198], there is no
evidence that Digby ever availed himself of the permission.
The ground seems to have been used as a garden[199] until 1635. On 13th
April in that year Digby sold it to William Newton for building
purposes. No licence to Newton to build can be traced, but on 7th May,
1636, one was granted to Sir Robert Dalyell,[200] who probably assigned
it to Newton. From that document[201] it appears that the intention was
to build “14 faire dwelling houses or tenementes to conteyne in front
one with another neere 40 (fortie) feete a peice fitt for the habitacon
of able men.” Permission to build that number of houses “to front only
towardes Queene’s Streete” was granted, as well as “twelve coach howses
and stables in some remote part of the said ground,” all to be built of
brick or stone, “according to the true intent and meaning of our
Proclamations in that behalfe published.”
[Illustration:
_Signature of William Newton._
]
Newton seems to have taken care that the houses erected on that part of
Great Queen Street which was on the site of Purse Field should conform
generally to the style of those built in accordance with the
above-mentioned licence on the site of Aldwych Close[202]. The houses as
a whole occupied 13 ground plots, having a total frontage of about 628
feet, and a depth of 200 feet. Their general character was the same
throughout; the main cornices and front roofs were continuous, but the
pilasters were so arranged as to indicate the separate buildings without
the usual expedient of placing a pilaster partly on one plot and partly
on another.[203] On the middle house was placed a statue of Charles I.’s
Queen, Henrietta Maria. It has already been noticed[204] that Newton a
few years later adorned the central house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields with a
crowned female bust, and there can be no doubt that this was also in
honour of the Queen.
Various statements have been made as to the designer of the houses on
the south side of Great Queen Street. Horace Walpole, in his _Anecdotes
of Painting_[205] writes as follows: “Vertue says that Mr. Mills, one of
the four surveyors appointed after the fire of London, built the large
houses in Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, but this must be a
mistake, as we have seen in the preceding volume that Gerbier, a
contemporary, and rival, ascribed them to Webb.” It is known[206] that
Peter Mills built the original houses on the site of Nos. 66 to 68,
Great Queen Street, but there is no evidence that he had any hand in the
erection of other houses on the south side of the street.
The reference concerning Gerbier [1591?–1667], to which Walpole alludes
as occurring in his previous volume, seems to be the following: “He
[Gerbier] ridicules the heads of lions, which are creeping through the
pilasters on the houses in Great Queen Street built by Webb, the scholar
of Inigo Jones.” If this ascription could be found in any of Gerbier’s
works it would be very valuable evidence, but it has not been
discovered, and the passage relating to the pilasters contains no
mention of Webb.[207]
Bagford [1650–1716], writing somewhat later, says:[208] “He [Inigo
Jones] built Queen Street, also designed at first for a square, and as
reported at y^e charge of y^e Jesuits; in y^e middle whereof was left a
niche for y^e statue of Henrietta Maria, and this was y^e first uniform
street and y^e houses are stately and magnificent.... These buildings
were y^e designes of y^e Ld. Arundell, who was y^e first that introduced
brick building into England (I mean for private houses).”
That some architect was commissioned by Newton to design the façade, and
possibly the principal internal features, is most probable; but the
above evidence is unfortunately not sufficient to enable him to be
identified.
Hollar’s careful engraving (Plate 3) shows the long straight roof of the
road frontage, but the rear elevations show that the roofs were varied
for individual houses and were treated with gables. Whoever was the
designer of the façade to Great Queen Street, he was probably employed
by Newton as architect for the houses built on the west side of
Lincoln’s Inn Fields three years afterwards. These show a distinct
advance in design, being treated as a single symmetrical composition,
with a central feature composed of three houses of increased height, the
side wings being of equal lengths.[209]
The beautiful drawings by J. W. Archer[210] reproduced on Plate 16
exemplify the similarity of the two designs to a very marked degree, the
only important difference in detail being that in Great Queen Street the
Corinthian order was employed, in Lincoln’s Inn Fields the Ionic.
A description of the exterior of the only remaining fragment of the
Great Queen Street houses, Nos. 55 and 56, will suffice for the whole.
The front is constructed mostly of brick, the ground storey having
originally formed a simple base for the Corinthian order of pilasters.
These embrace the height of the first and second stories, the bases and
capitals being of stone, the ornament of the latter boldly carved, and
the volutes and abacus spreading to an unusual extent. (Plates 18 and
19.)
The pilasters were ornamented, if, as seems probable, it is to these
houses that Gerbier referred when, writing about 25 years after their
erection, he criticised certain “incongruities” perpetrated by those
pretending knowledge in ornaments “by placing between windows pilasters
through whose bodies lions are represented to creep; as those in Queen
Street without any necessity, or ground for the placing lions so
ill.”[211] These lions were probably of stucco, and affixed to the
pilasters in a position similar to that of the ornaments of the Tudor
rose and fleur de lis on the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and those
at the eastern end of the north side of Great Queen Street.[212]
Walpole,[213] writing in 1763, continued the ridicule of these offending
ornaments, but by 1783 they must have been removed, for the engraving by
Bottomley of the Freemasons’ Tavern (Plate 22) does not show them, nor
can they now be traced on the brickwork of the pilasters.
Between the first and second floor windows is introduced a slightly
projecting ornamental device in brickwork, of somewhat Jacobean
character, which on the façade of the houses in Lincoln’s Inn Fields was
represented by a band, formerly seen at No. 2, Portsmouth Street. The
same feature is also shown in the Wilton House picture of Lincoln’s Inn
Fields.[214]
Above the capitals the entablature has been much restored, and its
former beauty correspondingly diminished. The architrave appears to have
been of wood, with three fascias (Plate 19), and crowning this is the
bed mould of the cornice, which has large wooden modillions, shaped and
enriched with acanthus leaves.
The modillions support a cyma and fascia with panelled soffit, the cyma
forming the front of a leaden gutter.
Surmounting the cornice was the high pitched roof, shown by Hollar, with
hipped dormer windows, of one and two lights alternating. Though none of
them retain the whole of their original construction, the two on the
right of the illustration may possibly be in their original form.
The present Nos. 55 and 56 represent one half of what must have been the
largest of the houses.[215] This was the mansion of which one of the
earliest occupiers was the Earl of St. Albans (Marquess of Clanricarde).
The house may be identified in two ways. (1) The frontages of the house
of the Earl of St. Albans, and of the three houses to the east, are
stated to be 88[216], 44, 44 and 88 feet respectively, and the last
mentioned house is said to be bounded on the east by a gateway, which,
from the description, was obviously Middle Yard. The western boundary of
the four houses in question may thus be shown to correspond with the
western side of New Yard, _i.e._, the western boundary of No. 55. (2) On
23rd January and 8th February, 1639–40, Newton sold certain plots of
ground, containing frontages of 41 and 45½ feet, having a depth of 190
feet, and after 120 feet diminishing in width from 83 to 60 feet. These
plots are stated to be bounded on the east by the dwelling house and
garden of the Earl of St. Albans. From the shape of the property
disclosed by the above figures, and the actual frontages given, there
can be no doubt that the houses afterwards erected thereon occupied the
sites of the present Nos. 51 to 54.[217] The house of the Earl of St.
Albans was therefore No. 55 and upwards.
The house was already in existence in January, 1637–8,[218] and as the
licence for building had only been obtained in May, 1636, the erection
of the house may, with practical certainty, be assigned to the year
1637.
In the 1638 deed it is described as “all that one new erected double
messuage or tenement with appurtenances, scituate in Queenes Streete ...
contayninge in front towardes Queenes Streete aforesaid 88 feet ... and
sydinge eastwards upon the house in the tenure of the Lord Leiger
Embassador of Spayne, together with a gardyn plott lyinge on the back
side of the said messuage and adjoyninge thereunto.”
The original mansion therefore occupied the site of the present Nos. 55
and 56, and adjoining property in New Yard, together with that of the
western block of the present Freemasons’ Buildings.
The first division of the house took place in, or shortly after, 1684.
In that year Lord Belasyse purchased the property, and at the date of
his will, five years later, the house had for some time been in double
occupation.