The English Home from Charles I. to George IV.: Its Architecture, Decoration and Garden Design

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The English Home from Charles I. to George IV.: Its Architecture, Decoration and Garden Design
Author: Gotch, J. Alfred (John Alfred)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The English Home from Charles I. to George IV.: Its Architecture, Decoration and Garden Design" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

I. TO GEORGE IV. ***

THE ENGLISH HOME
FROM CHARLES I. TO GEORGE IV.

[Illustration:

FRONTISPIECE

YORK BUILDINGS, ADELPHI STAIRS AND WATERWORKS.

(_from a water-colour drawing by Thomas Sandby, R.A._)]

THE
ENGLISH HOME

FROM CHARLES I. TO GEORGE IV.

ITS ARCHITECTURE,
DECORATION
AND GARDEN DESIGN

BY
J. ALFRED GOTCH, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.

AUTHOR OF “ARCHITECTURE OF THE RENAISSANCE IN ENGLAND,”
“EARLY RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND,” “THE GROWTH OF
THE ENGLISH HOUSE,” ETC.

WITH UPWARDS OF 300 ILLUSTRATIONS FROM
PHOTOGRAPHS, DRAWINGS, AND ENGRAVINGS

_SECOND IMPRESSION_
_With Corrections_

LONDON
B. T. BATSFORD LTD., 94 HIGH HOLBORN

_First Impression, August 1918_
_Second Impression, April 1919_

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT
THE DARIEN PRESS, EDINBURGH

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.

HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY THE QUEEN

The Most Hon. The Marquis of Ailsa

The Rt. Hon. The Countess of Ancaster

The Rt. Hon. The Countess of Antrim

Capt. The Rt. Hon. Viscount Althorp

The Architectural Association, London, per F. R. Yerbury, Esq.,
Secretary

The Society of Architects, London, per C. McArthur Butler, Esq.,
Secretary

J. R. de M. Abbott, Esq., Acton, W.

Peter Adam, Esq., J.P., Cairndhu, Kidderminster

Philip L. Agnew, Esq., J.P., Farthingstone, Northants

Messrs. Ahrend & Zoon, Booksellers, Amsterdam

Akademiska Bokhandeln, Helsingfors

Bryce Allan, Esq., Wemyss Bay, Renfrewshire

Messrs. E. G. Allen & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, London, W.C.

J. A. O. Allan, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Aberdeen

Arthur Acland Allen, Esq., M.P., L.C.C., London, S.W.

Walter C. Alston, Esq., Newmarket

Chas. Ambler, Esq., Bradford, Yorks

John Ambler, Esq., Baildon, Yorks

S. Ambler, Esq., Harrogate, Yorks

Victor Ames, Esq., Thornham, King’s Lynn

J. A. Amschell, Esq., London, S.W.

Cecil Bruyn Andrews, Esq., Hove, Sussex

Messrs. Angus & Robertson, Ltd. Booksellers, Sydney, N.S.W.

F. H. Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe, Esq., J.P., Winchfield, Hants

Lieut.-Col. W. Anstruther-Gray, M.P., Kilmany, Fife

Harold D. Arbuthnot, Esq., Worplesden

Messrs. James Archibald & Co., Ltd., Booksellers, Hull

Mrs. H. R. Armitage, Walton Lea, Warrington

Chas. Armstrong, Esq., Cambridge

T. M. E. Armstrong, Esq., Limpsfield, Surrey

Army & Navy Co-operative Society, Ltd., Book Dept., London, S.W.

Chas. A. Ashe, Esq.

The Rev. Dr. Dukinfield Astley, M.A. East Rudham, King’s Lynn

His Grace The Duke of Buccleuch

The Most Hon. The Marchioness of Bute

The Rt. Hon. Earl Bathurst

The Rt. Hon. Earl Beauchamp, K.G.

Major The Rt. Hon. Lord Blythswood

The Rt. Hon. Sir John Brunner, Bt. D.L., LL.D.

Belfast Public Library

Birmingham University Library, per W. H. Cope, Esq., Librarian

Bootle Public Library, per C. H. Hunt, Esq., Librarian

Bradford Public Library, per Butler Wood, Esq., Librarian

Brighton Public Library, per Henry D. Roberts, M.B.E., Director

Mrs. J. T. Babington, Great Durnford, Salisbury

W. St. Clair Baddeley, Esq., J.P., Painswick, Glos.

Mr. James Bain, Bookseller, London, W.C.

Mr. Edward Baker, Bookseller, Birmingham

Messrs. J. Baker & Son, Booksellers, Clifton, Bristol

Mrs. A. H. Shorland Ball, Burton, Westmorland

C. H. Barber, Esq., Chelford, Cheshire

S. Barker, Esq.

Messrs. Barnicott & Pearce, Booksellers, Taunton

Captain F. Jardine Barnish, Appleton Cross, nr. Warrington

Stanley G. R. Barratt, Esq., Totteridge, Herts

F. C. W. Barrett, Esq., London, S.W.

Thomas Barrett-Lennard, Esq., D.L. J.P., Horsfold Manor, Norwich

Ernest R. Barrow, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.C.

J. M. Barwick, Esq., Yeadon, nr. Leeds

C. F. Bates, Esq., Newport, Mon.

Messrs. Battiscombe & Harris, Ltd., London, W.

Señor M. Bayes, Bookseller, Barcelona

A. Chester Beatty, Esq., London, W.

W. Gedney Beatty, Esq., New York

J. W. Beaumont, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Manchester

A. Stuart Beazley, Esq., Reigate

George Lord Beeforth, Esq., F.S.A., D.L., J.P., Scarborough

Walter P. Belk, Esq., Sheffield

The Rev. Randolph Berens, M.A., London, S.W.

Mrs. Berkeley, Cotheridge Court, Worcester

Mrs. Berkeley, Spetchley Park, Worcester

H. F. M. Berthon, Esq., R.N., H.M.S. Warspite

The Rev. E. Best-Dalison, M.A., Boxley, Maidstone

R. A. P. Bevan, Esq., J.P., Cuckfield, Sussex

Messrs. Bickers & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, London

Mr. J. G. Bisset, Bookseller, Aberdeen

George Blackall-Simonds, Esq., Goring Heath, Oxon

Norman A. Blackburn, Esq., Dewsbury, Yorks.

Mr. B. H. Blackwell, Bookseller, Oxford

Thomas R. Blampied, Esq., Samares, Jersey

Frank Ed. B. Blanc, Esq., Edinburgh

Edw. T. Boardman, Esq., F.R.I.B.A. Norwich

Percy Bois, Esq., Godalming, Surrey

The Rev. Canon Bonney, Sc.D., LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., Cambridge

The Bon Marché, Book Dept., Liverpool

J. A. N. Booker, Esq., D.L., J.P., Woodfield, nr. Ross,
Herefordshire

John Borie, Esq., London, W.

F. K. Borrow, Esq., Haslemere, Surrey

Señor Agustin Bosch, Bookseller, Barcelona

Hubert S. M. Bourke, Esq., Harlow, Essex

Messrs. Bowes & Bowes, Booksellers, Cambridge

Frederick Bradbury, Esq., Sheffield

R. F. Brain, Esq., Chatham

Mr. T. A. Braithwaite, Bookseller, Wakefield

W. R. Branagan, Esq., Fairfield, Liverpool

Major Leonard Brassey, M.P., Peterborough

John C. E. Bridge, Esq., J.P., Aylesbury

Harry Bridson, Esq., M.A., Bolton

T. R. Bridson, Esq., London, S.W.

Walter H. Brierley, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., York

Messs. Bright’s Stores, Ltd., Booksellers, Bournemouth

Miss Mary Brindle, Polperro, Cornwall

Messrs. Brintons, Ltd., Kidderminster

Mrs. G. O. Broms, Dormans Park, Surrey

The Rev. C. C. Brookes, M.A., Lillington Vicarage, Leamington

Mrs. Brooks, Clifton, Bristol

C. W. Wilsone Broun, Esq., Rugeley, Staffs

W. Langdon Brown, Esq., M.D., London, W.

W. Talbot Brown, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Wellingborough

Mr. William Brown, Bookseller, Edinburgh

Messrs. Browne & Browne, Ltd., Booksellers, Newcastle-on-Tyne

Mr. Charles E. Brumwell, Bookseller, Hereford

John M. Bryce, Esq., Glasgow

Miss Bulley

Messrs. J. & E. Bumpus, Ltd., Booksellers, London, W.

Alfred W. N. Burder, Esq., J.P., F.S.A. Belcombe,
Bradford-on-Avon

Rowland Burdon-Muller, Esq., London, W.

Messrs. Burleigh’s Library, Booksellers, London, S.W.

J. W. Stanley Burmester, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Westminster, S.W.

Messrs. Burnside, Ltd., Booksellers, Blackheath, S.E.

Jas. E. Bush, Esq., Melksham, Wilts.

G. C. Bushy, Esq.

Mrs. A. J. Agard Butler, Church Langton Rectory, Market
Harborough

The Most Hon. The Marquis of Crewe, K.G.

The Rt. Hon. Earl Curzon of Kedleston, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E.

Lady George Campbell

The Rt. Hon. Sir Fairfax Cartwright, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.

The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Cardiff Public Libraries, per Harry Farr, Esq., Librarian

Charterhouse School Library, Godalming, per J. L. Stokes, Esq.,
Librarian

Chelsea Public Libraries, per J. Henry Quinn, Esq., Librarian

J. T. Cackett, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Newcastle-on-Tyne

Frank R. Calburn, Esq., Effingham Manor, Surrey

Arthur Card, Esq., St. Albans

Miss M. Smith-Carington, Ashby Folville Manor, Melton Mowbray

W. D. Caröe, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Westminster, S.W.

B. Carpenter, Esq., London, W.

Walter J. Carter, Esq., Oxford

Walter Cave, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.

A. Cay, Esq., Leigh Woods, Bristol

H. E. Chafy, Esq., Rous Lench Court, Evesham

E. Beresford Chancellor, Esq., M.A., Wargrave, Berks.

Wm. J. Checkley, Esq., London, N.W.

Frederick Clark, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Darlington

Messrs. Clarke & Satchell, Booksellers, Leicester

Mrs. C. E. Clayton, Henfield, Sussex

H. M. Cleminson, Esq., Writtle, Chelmsford

Messrs. Coates & Bairstow, Booksellers, Huddersfield

S. Pepys Cockerell, Esq., Kensington

J. W. Cockrill, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., M.I.C.E., Gt. Yarmouth

Mons. E. Coenen, Sous-Intendant Militaire Belge, Bourbourg,
France

Marcus E. Collins, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, E.C.

Messrs. Combridge, Ltd., Booksellers, Dublin

Mr. J. G. Commin, Bookseller, Exeter

R. C. de la Condamine, Esq., Chelsea

The Rev. A. H. Coombes, M.A., Hurstpierpoint College, Sussex

Edwin Cooper, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.C.

Mr. Ernest Cooper, Bookseller, Bournemouth

L. A. Cooper, Esq., Ealing, W.

G. Wilfred Copeland, Esq., Basford, Stoke-on-Trent

Ronald Copeland, Esq., Tittensor Chase, Stoke-on-Trent

Messrs. Cornish Bros., Ltd., Booksellers, Birmingham

Messrs. James Cornish & Sons, Booksellers, Liverpool

Messrs. J. E. Cornish, Ltd., Booksellers, Manchester

Reginald Cory, Esq., Duffryn, nr. Cardiff

Country Life, Ltd., London, W.C.

Alfred W. Cox, Esq., Glencarse, Perthshire

Frank Crawley, Esq., M.D., Dublin

G. A. Crawley, Esq., London, S.W.

Miss Natalie de M. Croft, Ware, Herts

W. J. Croome, Esq., Feltrim, Weston-super-Mare

Fred. H. Crossley, Esq., Chester

John K. Currie, Esq., Billingham, Stockton-on-Tees

Laurence Currie, Esq., M.A., J.P., Farnborough, Hants

Mrs. Cuthbert, Beaufront Castle, Hexham

His Highness Prince Frederick Duleep Singh, M.V.O.

The Most Hon. Flora, Marchioness of Dufferin and Ava

The Rt. Hon. Earl of Donoughmore

Lady Eva Dugdale

The Rt. Hon. Lady D’Abernon

The Rt. Hon. Lord Desborough, K.C.V.O.

Sir Thomas L. Devitt, Bt.

Deptford Public Libraries, per F. J. Peplow, Esq., Librarian

National Library of Ireland, Dublin

Dundee Public Library, per A. H. Millar, Esq., LL.D., Librarian

Hylton B. Dale, Esq., London, W.C.

T. W. Dannatt, Esq., Blackheath

T. J. Daniel, Esq., Moseley, Birmingham

William J. Dargan, Esq., M.D., Dublin

Francis Hastings Dauney, Esq., Ryde, I. of W.

Edward O. Davey, Esq., Dunmow, Essex

E. Guy Dawber, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.

The Rev. William Dawson, M.A., Loughton, Essex

Messrs. Wm. Dawson & Sons, Ltd., Booksellers, London, E.C.

W. M. Dean, Esq., Sunningdale, Berks

Messrs. Deighton, Bell & Co., Ltd., Booksellers, Cambridge

Messrs. A. & F. Denny, Booksellers, London, W.C.

H. Llewellyn Dent, Esq., Kew

Devonshire Library, Ltd., Booksellers, Buxton

T. F. G. Dexter, Esq., B.A., B.Sc., Perranporth, Cornwall

Edward Percival Dickin, Esq., Brightlingsea

Messrs. B. Diver & Son, Booksellers, Cambridge

Mrs. Dodsley, Mansfield, Notts

Mrs. Donaldson-Hudson, Market Drayton

Messrs. Aitken Dott & Son, Booksellers, Edinburgh

Messrs. Douglas & Foulis, Booksellers, Edinburgh

Mrs. Edward Douty, Clifford Manor, nr. Stratford-on-Avon

Ernest Dunkels, Esq., Maidenhead

James B. Dunn, Esq., A.R.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Edinburgh

Ralph S. Dutton, Esq., Alresford, Hants

Mr. W. Dymock, Bookseller, Sydney, N.S.W.

Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh

Major Cyril Earle, T.D., Hull

The Rev. H. V. S. Eck, M.A., Ardeley Vicarage, Hertfordshire

Colonel Robt. W. Edis, C.B., Great Ormesby, Norfolk

The Educational Depository, Booksellers, Dublin

Mr. Francis Edwards, Bookseller, London, W.

Major J. Edward Elin, London, W.

The Rev. Prof. Henry Ellershaw, M.A., Durham

Mr. Andrew Elliott, Bookseller, Edinburgh

Colonel W. Elliott, Sutton Valence, Maidstone

Geoffrey Ellis, Esq., St. Leonards-on-Sea

H. C. Ellis, Esq., Hemel Hempstead

Captain H. C. Ellis, Jarvis Brook, Sussex

John Every, Esq., Lewes, Sussex

Miss M. Fairholme, Mitchelstown Castle, Co. Cork

A. Douglas Farmer, Esq., Windham Club, St. James’, S.W.

Miss Margaret Farnley-Smith, Sherborne, Dorset

Lionel Faudel-Phillips, Esq., Braintree, Essex

J. E. Fawcett, Esq., J.P., Farnham, Knaresborough, Yorks

Major Guy Feilden, Witney, Oxon

Miss V. M. Feilden, Bebington, Cheshire

P. H. Feilding, Esq., Chiddingly, Sussex

F. Fenwick, Esq., Wolsingham, Durham

Ivor A. B. Ferguson, Esq., London

Lieut. F. E. Fetherstonhaugh, R.N.V.R., North Berwick, Scotland

E. Willoughby Firth, Esq., J.P., Hope, nr. Sheffield

Major Benton Fletcher, Cobham, Surrey

Miss M. Fletcher, Newnham College, Cambridge

Messrs. Flooks & Manning, Booksellers, Melksham

Mrs. Follett, Thetford, Norfolk

Chas. W. Forbes, Esq., D.L., J.P., of Callendar, Falkirk,
Scotland

Mrs. James Forman, Nottingham

Mr. Robert Forrester, Bookseller, Glasgow

George Fottrell, Esq., Dublin

Mr. E. S. Fowler, Bookseller, Eastbourne

T. Musgrave Francis, Esq., D.L., J.P. Quy Hall, Cambridge

Herbert Freyberg, Esq., F.S.I., M.S.A., London, S.W.

Mr. C. E. Fritze, Bookseller, Stockholm

T. W. Fry, Esq., J.P., F.S.A., Darlington

Major Robert F. Fuller, J.P., Great Chalfield, Wilts

Lady Henry Grosvenor

Sir Ernest Goodhart, Bt.

Sir William Garforth, LL.D.

Galignani Library, Booksellers, Paris

Messrs. Galloway & Porter, Booksellers, Cambridge

Arthur Galton, Esq., M.A., Bourne, Lincs.

Ewan Cameron Galton, Esq., J.P., Eynsham, Oxon

Miss Clare Galwey, Monkstown, co. Dublin

Mr. Alex. Gardner, Bookseller, Paisley

Mrs. Garnett, Leckhampton, Glos.

Major S. H. Garrard, Daventry, Northants

Francis N. A. Garry, Esq., London

MM. Georg & Co., Librairie, Geneva

Messrs. William George’s Sons, Booksellers, Bristol

Edward M. Gibbs, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Sheffield

Lt.-Colonel George A. Gibbs, M.P., Bristol

H. Martin Gibbs, Esq., J.P., Flax-Bourton, Somerset

John Gibson, Esq., London, E.C.

Messrs. H. M. Gilbert & Son, Booksellers, Southampton

Messrs. Godfrey Giles & Co., London, W.

Francis V. Gill, Esq., Bradford, Yorks

Henry Neville Gladstone, Esq., J.P., Burton Manor, Chester

Maurice Glyn, Esq., J.P., Much Hadham, Herts.

Walter H. Godfrey, Esq., F.S.A., London, S.W.

Messrs. W. E. & J. Goss, Booksellers, Kettering

Mr. H. J. Goulden, Bookseller, Canterbury

Prof. Chas. Gourlay, Esq., B.Sc., A.R.I.B.A., F.S.A. Scot.,
Glasgow

W. V. S. Gradwell-Goodwin, Esq., J.P., Silverdale, Staffordshire

Mrs. Robert Grant, Lingfield, Surrey

Trevor Grant, Esq., London, W.

H. St. George Gray, Esq., Taunton Castle, Somerset

T. Grazebrook, Esq., The Dene, nr. Stourbridge

Frank Green, Esq., F.S.A., Treasurer’s House, York

Benson Greenall, Esq., Lt. Cheshire Regt., London, E.C.

O. W. Greene, Esq., Beckenham, Kent

Messrs. Greene’s Library, Dublin

Hubert J. Greenwood, Esq., J.P., L.C.C., F.S.A., London, S.W.

Mr. George Gregory, Bookseller, Bath

John R. Gregory, Esq., London, W.

Major L. Gregson, London, S.W.

E. Hyla Greves, Esq., M.D., Bournemouth

Geo. J. Gribble, Esq., J.P., London

J. Henry Griffith, Esq., Llanbedr, Merioneth.

Percival D. Griffiths, Esq., Sandridge, Herts.

W. H. Grinstead, Esq., Eastbourne

Mrs. Gerald Guinness, Chippenham, Wilts.

Lieut. R. S. Guinness, R.N.V.R., H.M.S. “Monarch”

Mr. N. J. Gumperts, Bookseller, Gothenburg

Dr. Gunther, Hampton Wick, Kingston-on-Thames

Mrs. Reginald Gurney, Norwich

The Rt. Hon. Viscount Halifax, M.A., F.S.A.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Hastings

The Rt. Hon. F. Leverton Harris, M.P.

Sir William St. John Hope, Litt.D., D.C.L., M.A.

The Rev. Andrew Halden, Inverkeilor, Forfarshire

Charles A. H. Hall, Esq., J.P., Basingstoke

Ernest B. Hall, Esq., Market Drayton, Staffs.

John Hall, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Sunderland

Mr. Fred. Hanna, Bookseller, Dublin

George Hampton, Esq., Lingham, Wimborne, Dorset

Mrs. Hargreaves, Bury St. Edmunds

R. L. Harmsworth, Esq., M.P., London, W.

W. H. Harrison, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Westminster, S.W.

Mr. W. Harrison, Bookseller, Ipswich

Messrs. Harrison & Sons, Booksellers, London, W.

Ernest Hartland, Esq., M.A., F.S.A., J.P., Chepstow, Mon.

Messrs. Hatchards, Booksellers, London, W.

Lt.-Colonel Hawkshaw, Liphook, Hants.

E. S. Haynes, Esq., London, W.

A. R. Hayward, Esq., Misterton, Somerset

Messrs. Aldam Heaton & Co., Ltd., London, W.

Messrs. W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd., Booksellers, Cambridge

Andrew G. Henderson, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Glasgow

Mrs. A. Heneage, Prestbury, Glos.

Claud W. Heneage, Esq., London

Messrs. John Heywood, Ltd., Booksellers, Manchester

Mrs. Hicks-Beach, Witcombe Park, nr. Gloucester

G. Higgs, Esq., London, W.C.

E. D. Hildyard, Esq., Kirby Moorside, Yorkshire

Chas. H. Hill, Esq., J.P., Woodborough Hall, Notts.

Mr. F. R. Hockliffe, Bookseller, Bedford

Victor T. Hodgson, Esq., F.S.A., Harpenden, Herts.

Mrs. George Holdsworth, London, W.

Mrs. Jaqueline Hope-Nicholson, Chelsea, S.W.

Donald Hopewell, B.A., LL.B., Old Basford, Nottingham

Mr. Hugh Hopkins, Bookseller, Glasgow

Chas. H. Hopwood, Esq., F.S.A., Stamford Hill, N.

Mrs. Horan, Lamberhurst, Kent

P. Morley Horder, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, S.W.

Percy P. Hore, Esq., M.Inst.C.E., Streatham, S.W.

C. H. St. John Hornby, Esq., London

A. B. Horne, Esq., Balcombe

E. J. Horniman, Esq., J.P., London

J. P. Hornung, Esq., J.P., Horsham, Sussex

T. C. Horsfall, Esq., Swanscoe Park, nr. Macclesfield

Mr. Bertram Hosier, Bookseller, Sheffield

H. W. Paget Hoskyns, Esq., J.P., Crewkerne, Somerset

F. T. S. Houghton, Esq., Birmingham

Messrs. Edward Howell, Ltd., Booksellers, Liverpool

George Hubbard, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., London, E.C.

H. A. Hubbersty, Esq., J.P., Buxton, Derbyshire

Mr. E. F. Hudson, Bookseller, Birmingham

C. Lang Huggins, Esq., J.P., Hadlow Grange, nr. Uckfield

Maurice Hulbert, Esq., J.P., A.R.I.B.A., Ealing, W.

Sydney Humphries, Esq., Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire

Mrs. F. J. C. Hunter, Bystock, Exmouth

Jas. Kennedy Hunter, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Ayr

John Hunter, Esq., Belper

Messrs. Hunter & Longhurst, Booksellers, London, E.C.

W. Hutchinson, Esq., Liverpool

Mrs. Florence H. S. Iliffe, Foxcombe Hill, Oxford

Mrs. Alfred Illingworth, Daisy Bank, Bradford

Major Douglas Illingworth, Eastcote, Middlesex

Mrs. Harry Illingworth, Wydale, Brompton, Yorks.

W. L. Ingle, Esq., Morley Grange, Churwell

Ernest Innes, Esq., London

Captain A. Linton Iredale, Newhaven

Lady Jenner

Col. Sir Herbert Jekyll, K.C.M.G.

Mr. Richard Jackson, Bookseller, Leeds

W. Geoffrey Jackson, Esq., Witley, Surrey

Messrs. Jackson & Fox, Halifax

W. A. James, Esq., Maidenhead

George Jameson, Esq., Raheny, Co. Dublin

Messrs. Jarrold & Sons, Ltd., Booksellers, Norwich

Mrs. Jarvis, Doddington Hall, Lincoln

Mrs. Leo Jenner, Avebury, Wilts.

Walter Johnston, Esq.

Lieut. C. A. Johnstone, K.S.L.I., Oswestry, Shropshire

C. Sydney Jones, Esq., Princes Park, Liverpool

E. Peter Jones, Esq., J.P., Greenbank, Chester

Frederick Jones, Esq., East Hoathly, Sussex

H. E. Jones, Esq., Mayfield, Sussex

Ronald P. Jones, Esq., M.A., London, W.C.

W. Campbell Jones, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, E.C.

Messrs. Jones & Evans’ Bookshop Ltd., London, E.C.

W. Joynson-Hicks, Esq., M.P., London, S.W.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Kenyon

The Rt. Hon. Lady Kinloch

Sir Charles Knightley, Bt., D.L., J.P.

Kensington Public Libraries, per Herbert Jones, Esq.

Walter K. Kaye, Esq., M.I.Mech.E. Harrogate

James Kent, Esq., Edenbridge, Kent

John Keppie, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Glasgow

Kettering Book Club, per The Rev. A. K. Pavey, M.A.

Harold C. King, Esq., Westminster

Captain Sydney D. Kitson, F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Kirklington, Notts.

Frederick A. Konig, Tyringham, Bucks.

Messrs. H. A. Kramers & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, Rotterdam

M. Kundig, Libraire, Geneva

Major The Rt. Hon. Viscount Lascelles, D.S.O.

The Rt. Hon. Lady Leconfield

The Rt. Hon. Lord Leith of Fyvie

The Rt. Hon. Lord Leverhulme

The Hon. Claud Lambton

The Hon. Mrs. Archibald Langman

The Hon. Irwin B. Laughlin

Sir Edwin L. Lutyens, A.R.A., F.R.I.B.A.

The Leeds Library, Leeds

Leeds Public Libraries, per Thomas W. Hand, Esq., City Librarian

Leeds & West Yorkshire Architectural Society, per G. J. Coombs,
Esq., A.R.C.A.

Leicestershire Society of Architects, per F. B. Cooper, Esq.,
A.R.I.B.A.

Leicestershire Book Society, per Major W. J. Freer, V.D., D.L.,
F.S.A.

Liverpool Public Libraries, per G. T. Shaw Esq., Librarian

The London Library, per C. T. Hagberg Wright, Esq., LL.D.

Charles E. Lamb, Esq., Kettering

R. E. Lambert, Esq., Battle, Sussex

Messrs. Lamley & Co., Booksellers, Kensington, S.W.

Mrs. Laycock, Wiseton, Bawtry, Yorks.

Stanley H. le Fleming, Esq., D.L., J.P., Ambleside

Frank H. Lehany, Esq., London, N.E.

Mrs. Gerard Leigh, London, W.

Walter L. Levett, Esq., Monmouth

Walter Lewis, Esq., Redditch

Messrs. Liberty & Co., Ltd., London

Captain C. O. Liddell, Chepstow

Mrs. Linley-Howlden, Freshford, Somerset

F. H. Livens, M.Inst.C.E., Lincoln

Nathaniel Lloyd, Esq., O.B.E., Great Dixter, Northiam

James Lochhead, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Hamilton

Mr. Morton Loder, Bookseller, Woodridge

London Literary Lounge, London, W. per James Truslove, Esq.

The Rev. A. M. Luckock, M.A., Titchmarsh, Thrapston

G. D. Lumb, Esq., F.S.A., Leeds

The Rt. Hon. The Countess of Mount-Edgcumbe

The Rt. Hon. Lady Monk Bretton

The Hon. Lady Miller

The Rt. Hon. H. D. McLaren, M.P.

Sir Kenneth Matheson, Bt., D.L., J.P.

A. C. Macdonald, Esq., J.P., Ipley Manor, Marchwood, Hants.

J. W. Macfie, Esq.

James McLachlan, Esq., Edinburgh

Messrs. James Maclehose & Sons, Booksellers, Glasgow

S. A. Macleish, Esq., Liverpool

George A. Macmillan, Esq., D.Litt., J.P., London, S.W.

Messrs. Macniven & Wallace, Booksellers, Edinburgh

Donald D. Macpherson, Esq., Radbrook Hall, Salop

Major F. Maitland, R.G.A., Nodes Point Battery, St. Helen’s, I.
of W.

Lieut. S. Mallinson, Leeds

Colonel E. W. Margesson, Worthing

A. E. Marlow, Esq., Preston Deanery Hall, Northampton

Mrs. Henry W. Marsh, Warwick Castle

R. T. Marsh, Esq., J.P., Kenyon, Lancs.

Messrs. Marsh, Jones & Cribb, Leeds

Messrs. H. H. Martyn & Co., Ltd., Cheltenham

T. P. Marwick, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Edinburgh

H. R. Maunsell, Esq., Dublin

Messrs. Mawson, Swan, & Morgan, Booksellers, Newcastle-on-Tyne

Medens Bokhandels, A.B., Gothenburg

Melville & Mullen Propty, Ltd., Booksellers, Melbourne

Claude Miller, Esq., London, W.

James Miller, Esq., A.R.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Glasgow

Lt.-Col. David Milne-Home of Wedderburn, D.L., J.P.,
Berwick-on-Tweed

Messrs. Minchin & Gibbs, Booksellers, Gloucester

Messrs. Minshull & Meeson, Booksellers, Chester

Major Charles Mitchell, J.P., Cornhill-on-Tweed

F. C. Montague, Esq., Oxford

F. Frankfort Moore, Esq., Lewes, Sussex

William Mordey, Esq., King’s Acre, Newport, Mon.

Reginald Morphew, Esq., Polperro, Cornwall

J. H. Morrison, Esq.

William J. Moscrop, Esq., F.R.I.B.A. Darlington

Thomas Muddiman, Esq., London

Messrs. Wm. Mullan & Son, Booksellers, Belfast

D. L. Murdoch, Esq., Mauchline, Ayrshire

Mrs. Evelyn Murray, London, W.

John Murray, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, S.W.

H. E. C. Murton, Esq., Jesmond, Newcastle-on-Tyne

The Rev. The Most Hon. The Marquis of Normanby, D.L., J.P.

Lady Henry Nevill

The Rt. Hon. Lady Newborough

The Hon. Harold Nicholson

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Public Library per Basil Anderton, Esq.,
M.A.

Northampton Public Library, per Reginald W. Brown, Esq.

Nottingham School of Art, per Joseph Harrison, Esq., A.R.C.A.

Miss C. Clare Nauheim, London, N.W.

Mrs. Nelson, Sandford St. Martin, Oxon

The Rev. Hugh Nelson-Ward, M.A. Wicken, Stony-Stratford

Captain T. N. C. Nevill, Bramall Hall nr. Stockport

Arthur C. Newsum, Esq., Lincoln

Messrs. Nicholls & Jones, High Wycombe

Monsieur Edouard Isidore Niffle, U.P.A. Lg., London, E.C.

Mr. Martinus Nijhoff, Bookseller, The Hague

Nordiska Kompaniet, Booksellers, Stockholm

E. Norkett, Esq., Art Metal Works, Maidenhead

Simeon H. Norman, Esq., Burgess Hill, Sussex

Lady Beatrice Ormsby-Gore

Lady Christian Ogilvy

Sir John R. O’Connell, M.A., LL.D.

The Ven. Archdeacon of Oakham, Uppingham

George H. Oatley, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Bristol

Maurice A. Ockenden, Esq., M.I.Mech.E., F.G.S., London

John A. O’Connell, Esq., Cork

John H. Oglander, Esq., D.L., J.P. F.S.A., Brading, I. of W.

Basil Oliver, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Dunfermline

Mr. S. Opdenberg, Bookseller, The Hague

H. Ormerod, Esq., Brighouse, Yorks

Mr. John Orr, Bookseller, Edinburgh

Joseph Oswald, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Newcastle-on-Tyne

Mrs. E. Grace Outhwaite, Roxford, Marton, Yorks.

Mr. George E. Over, Bookseller, Rugby

Segar Owen, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Warrington

Captain Tudor Owen, London, W.

Her Grace The Duchess of Portland

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Powis

Paisley Public Library, per John Renfrew, Esq., Librarian

F. E. Pagniez, Esq., Leigh-on-Sea

Messrs. Parker & Son, Booksellers, Oxford

Edmund Parsons, Esq., Tyhurst, Andover

Messrs. E. Parsons & Sons, Booksellers, London, S.W.

Mrs. Paynter, Amlwch, N. Wales

James Bernard Paynter, Esq., Yeovil

Messrs. Percival Pearse, Ltd., Booksellers, Warrington

Herbert Pearson, Esq., Wokingham, Berks.

Mrs. Albert J. Pell, Bury St. Edmunds

Herbert S. Pepper, Esq., Birmingham

F. Thorpe Perry, Esq., Carcolston, Notts.

Mrs. J. M. Perry, Nottingham

J. T. Perry, Esq., Nottingham

Messrs. Perry & Co., London, W.

Charles H. Petter, Esq., Ilfracombe

Mrs. Petty, Crosshills, nr. Keighley

Messrs. Philipson & Golder, Booksellers, Chester

S. Perkins Pick, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., Leicester

Robert Young Pickering, Esq., Conheath, Dumfries

H. H. Pillans, Esq., Edinburgh

Ernest Pitman, Esq., London, W.C.

Francis W. Pixley, Esq., J.P., F.S.A. Wooburn House, Wooburn,
Buckinghamshire

Walter Plomer-Young, Esq., London, S.W.

John Poland, Esq., F.R.C.S., Seal, Kent

Lt.-Col. D’Arcy Power, R.A.M.C. (T.), F.S.A., London, W.

Mr. Fred. Power, Bookseller, Bradford

Mr. G. A. Poynder, Bookseller, Reading

E. R. Pratt, Esq., J.P., D.L., C.C., Downham, Norfolk

Messrs. Christopher Pratt & Sons, Ltd., Bradford

A. N. Prentice, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.C.

Mrs. Price, Coggeshall, Essex

L. L. Price, Esq., M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford

B. C. Prichard, Esq., Cambridge

J. Sutcliffe Pyman, Esq., London, W.

Messrs. Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., Booksellers, London, W.

C. H. B. Quennell, Esq., F.R.I.B.A. Westminster, S.W.

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Rocksavage

Sir Herbert Raphael, Bt., M.P., J.P.

Royal Institute of British Architects, per Rudolf Dircks, Esq.,
Librarian

Mrs. Ratcliffe, Prestbury, Glos.

Willingham Franklin Rawnsley, M.A., J.P., Shamley Green

Thomas Rayson, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Witney, Oxon

R. Charles Reed, Esq., Bourne End, Bucks.

Messrs. Hugh Rees, Ltd., Booksellers, London, W.

Herbert K. Reeves, Esq., Leatherhead

The Rev. Oswald J. Reichel, M.A., F.S.A., Lympston, Devon

Captain F. H. Reynard, Bedale, Yorks.

Mrs. Reynolds, Bloxham, nr. Banbury

E. F. Reynolds, Esq., Lic.R.I.B.A., Birmingham

Mrs. H. Davis-Richter, London, S.W.

Messrs. J. Rimell & Son, Booksellers, London, W.

Mr. Jacs. G. Robbers, Bookseller, Amsterdam

Vernon Roberts, Esq., Kincardine Castle, Auchterarder

Messrs. G. Robertson & Co. Propy. Ltd., Booksellers, London, E.C.

Robert Burns Robertson, Esq., F.S.A. (Scot.), Windsor Castle

Miss D. C. Robinson, Dalston, Cumberland

W. H. Romaine-Walker, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., London, W.

Miss Rooke, Mealsgate, Cumberland

W. Roscoe, Esq.

Messrs. Wilson Ross & Co., Ltd., Booksellers, Edinburgh

Miss Roughsedge, Hoylake, Cheshire

Mr. Walter Ruck, Bookseller, Maidstone

C. D. Ruding-Bryan, Esq., Clifton, Bristol

Captain C. E. A. L. Rumbold, Godminster Manor, Bruton

Barrie Russell, Esq., Gloucester Hotel, Weymouth

S. B. Russell, Esq., Broadway, Worcestershire

Charles T. Ruthen, Esq., O.B.E., Lic.R.I.B.A., Swansea

The Most Hon. The Marquis of Salisbury, G.C.V.O.

The Most Hon. The Marchioness of Sligo

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Stafford

Lady Octavia Shaw Stewart

The Rt. Hon. The Viscountess St. Davids

The Rt. Hon. Lady Sackville

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sheffield

The Rt. Hon. Lord Sherborne

Sir Henry Samuelson, Bt.

Sir Edward Stern

Sir Frank Swettenham, G.C.M.G.

Sheffield Public Libraries, per Samuel Smith, Esq., Librarian

Sheffield University Library, per W. S. Purchon, Esq., M.A.

Somersetshire Archæological Society per H. St. George Gray, Esq.

Atkinson Free Library, Southport per F. H. Mills, Esq., Librarian

Juán E. Sackman, Esq., London, S.E.

S. G. Stopford Sackville, Esq., M.A., D.L., J.P., Thrapston

Julian Sampson, Esq., London, W.C.

Mrs. Mahlon Sands, Campden, Glos.

Messrs. Sands & McDougall Propy., Ltd., London, E.C.

V. G. Santo, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Coddington Hall, Newark

A. Sassoon, Esq., for Clifton College Library

Octavius Satchell, Esq., London, W.

H. N. Savill, Esq., London, W.C.

Mr. Henry B. Saxton, Bookseller, Nottingham

John Scott, Esq., Ilkley, Yorks

Allen W. Seaby, Esq., University College, Reading

H. Gordon Selfridge, Esq., London, W.

Mrs. Arthur Shephard, Kensington

Messrs. Sherratt & Hughes, Booksellers, Manchester

R. D. Shirley, Esq., Burlesdon Rectory, Southampton

Coningsby C. Sibthorpe, Esq., D.L., J.P., Canwick, Lincoln

Mr. S. W. Simms, Bookseller, Bath

Messrs. Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd., London,
E.C.

Jonathan Simpson, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Bolton

J. J. Simpson, Esq., Cotham Park, Bristol

Messrs. Sinclair & Woolston, Ltd., Booksellers, Nottingham

Messrs. Walter Skull & Son, Ltd., High Wycombe

Major E. H. Sleigh, The Curragh, Kildare

H. Sutcliffe Smith, Esq., Baildon, Yorks.

J. P. Smith, Esq., Barrow-in-Furness

Messrs. John Smith & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, Glasgow

R. Freeman Smith, Esq., Hampstead

Messrs. W. H. Smith & Son, Booksellers, London, W.C.

Messrs. W. H. Smith & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, Harrogate

Messrs. W. H. Smith & Son, Ltd., Booksellers, York

Mrs. Aldwin Soames, Moor Park, Farnham

Messrs. H. Sotheran & Co., Booksellers, London, W.

Messrs. Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co., Ltd., Eton

Wm. Barclay Squire, Esq., Kensington, W.

H.M. Stationery Office, London, S.W.

Messrs. G. E. Stechert & Co., Booksellers, London, W.C.

H. Steel, Esq., Skellow Grange, nr. Doncaster

Albert J. Stephens, Esq., Gloucester

Prof. J. E. A. Steggall, M.A., J.P., University College, Dundee

Capt. William J. Stephens, R.A.M.C. Newquay

R. H. Stephenson, Esq., Leicester

Messrs. B. F. Stevens & Brown, Booksellers, London, W.C.

Henry Stewart, Esq., Lieut., R.G.A., Kelvinside, Glasgow

J. Hutton Stott, Esq., Southport

Philip Sidney Stott, Esq., Broadway, Worcestershire

Mrs. John C. Straker, Hexham

Arthur Stratton, Esq., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.C.

W. G. Strickland, Esq., Dublin

Charles W. Stringer, Esq., Kettering

Mr. F. Sturt, Bookseller, Farnham, Surrey

Canon A. F. Sutton, F.S.A., Newark-on-Trent, Surrey

Col. M. A. W. Swinfen-Broun, Swinfen Hall, Lichfield

Commander Harold Swithinbank, Denham, Bucks.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Triowen

The Hon. Mrs. Townshend

Sir A. Brumwell Thomas, F.R.I.B.A.

Travellers’ Club, London, S.W., per Sir Almeric Fitzroy, K.C.V.O.

The Rev. Prebendary Talbot, M.A., Newport, Salop

Mrs. J. M. Tankard, Baildon, Yorks

Henry Tanner, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.

W. G. Tarrant, Esq., Byfleet, Surrey

Sydney Tatchell, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Westminster, S.W.

Captain Hurford Tatlow, M.C., London, W.

Mrs. Tempest, Skipton-in-Craven, Yorks.

A. H. Ryan Tenison, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., London, W.

William C. Terry, Esq., Clapton

Mr. James Thin, Bookseller, Edinburgh

Mr. Charles E. Thomas, Bookseller, Worthing

P. A. Thomas, Esq., M.A., Malvern

Miss Amy H. Thompson, Bromley, Kent

C. W. W. Thompson, Esq., 2nd Lieut. R.E., A.R.I.B.A., Rochester

Edward P. Thompson, Esq., J.P., Whitchurch, Salop

H. D. Thompson, Esq., Lincoln

W. Stuart Thompson, Esq., Peterborough

T. Thornton-Berry, Esq., Bishop’s Hull, Taunton

E. Thornton-Smith, Esq., London

Messrs. Thornton-Smith, Ltd., London, W.

Messrs. Thurnam & Sons, Booksellers, Carlisle

Messrs. Frederick Tibbenham, Ltd., Ipswich

Times Book Club, London, W.

Cecil Torr, Esq., Yonder Wreyland

W. Charles Tozer, Esq., London, W.

Messrs. Truslove & Hanson, Ltd., Booksellers, Clifford Street, W.

Messrs. Truslove & Hanson, Ltd., Booksellers, Oxford Street, W.

Messrs. Truslove & Hanson, Ltd., Booksellers, Sloane Street, S.W.

Mrs. F. Cecilia Tubbs, St. Leonards-on-Sea

Grahame B. Tubbs, Esq., London

Mrs. Tuke, Chiswick, W.

W. Gladwin Turbutt, Esq., J.P., Ogston Hall, Alfreton

Mrs. Warner Turner, Mansfield

John Tweedy, Esq., Howth, Dublin

Mr. G. H. Tyndall, Bookseller, Ely

University College, London, Dept. of Architecture

The Hon. Mrs. Douglas Vickers

Sir Richard V. Vassar-Smith, Bt., D.L., J.P.

Sir Harry Vernon, Bt., D.L., J.P.

Sir Arthur Vicars, K.C.V.O., F.S.A.

J. J. Van Alen, Esq., New York

Messrs. H. A. Van Winsum & J. Ver Wymeren, London, W.

Lt.-Colonel T. T. Vernon, Chester

The Royal Library, Windsor Castle, per The Hon. John Fortescue,
F.S.A.

Her Grace The Duchess of Wellington

The Rt. Hon. The Countess of Winchilsea & Nottingham

The Rt. Hon. Lady Wenlock

The Hon. Mrs. Edward Wyndham

Sir Aston Webb, R.A., F.S.A., F.R.I.B.A.

Wallasey Library, per The Rev. A. E. Parry, Librarian

Warrington Municipal Museum

Westminster Public Libraries, per Frank Pacy, Esq., Librarian

Weston-super-Mare Public Library, per Miss Alston

Chas. Wade, Esq., Forest Gate, Essex

Philip K. Wake, Esq., J.P., Handsworth Grange, Sheffield

Mr. Henry Walker, Bookseller, Leeds

J. Reid Walker, Esq., J.P., Shifnal, Salop

Captain J. W. Walker, F.S.A., Chapelthorpe, Wakefield

Colonel W. Hall Walker, M.P., D.L. Gresford, Denbigh

Pickford Waller, Esq., Boscombe, Hants.

Colonel Horace Walpole, Winchfield

Miss E. M. Walters, Long Stanton, nr. Cambridge

Mrs. Warde-Aldam, Hooton Pagnell Hall, Doncaster

S. J. Waring, Esq., London, W.

Messrs. Waring & Gillow, Ltd., Lancaster

Messrs. Waring & Gillow, Ltd., London

Messrs. Waring & Gillow, Ltd., Manchester

Bertrand J. Waterhouse, Esq., Sydney, N.S.W.

Vernon Watney, Esq., M.A., J.P., F.S.A., Cornbury Park, Oxon

Humphry Watts, Esq., Clent, Stourbridge

Hugh Weguelin, Esq., London, S.W.

R. W. S. Weir, Esq., London, W.C.

R. Douglas Wells, Esq., F.R.I.B.A., Kensington, W.

Adolph H. C. Wenger, Esq., Trentham Priory, nr. Stoke-on-Trent

Arthur Whereat, Esq., Clifton, Bristol

Messrs. J. Whitehead & Sons, Ltd., London, S.E.

Lt.-Col. Henry Wickham, C.M.G., J.P., Cotterstock Hall, Oundle

Chas. Wicksteed, Esq., J.P., C.A., Kettering

Mrs. Wigan, Windsor

Mr. J. M. Wigley, Bookseller, Lancaster

The Rev. H. J. Wilkins, D.D., Redland Vicarage, Bristol

Chas. Williams, Esq., Cheltenham

Messrs. Clement Williams & Sons, Halifax

H. Williams, Esq., London, E.C.

Sidney Herbert Williams, Esq., St. Leonards-on-Sea

Henry Williamson, Esq., Maryport

J. Bertram Wills, Esq., A.R.I.B.A., Bristol

Mr. D. Wilson, Bookseller, Bradford

W. B. Winckworth, Esq., Taunton

E. Ernest Winterbotham, Esq., Hampstead, N.W.

F. Arthur Wodsworth, Esq., Nottingham

P. W. Wood, Esq., Emmanuel College, Cambridge

G. Grey Wornum, Esq., Nottingham

George Wragge, Esq., Kensington

Wm. Wright, Esq., One Ash, nr. Loughborough

The Rev. W. Wykes-Finch, M.A., J.P., Chaddesley Corbett

York Public Library, per A. H. Furnish, Esq., City Librarian

Edward Yates, Esq., London, E.C.

Thomas Charles Yates, Esq., Kensington, W.

H. S. Young, Esq., Crosby, Liverpool

Messrs. Henry Young & Sons, Ltd., Booksellers, Liverpool

J. M. Zarifi, Esq., London, W.

_Agents for the United States of America_
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

PREFACE

The following pages take up the story of the English House at the point
to which it was carried in my former work on _Early Renaissance
Architecture in England_, and carry it to the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Between them the two books present the history of
domestic architecture from the time when houses were becoming homes
instead of fortresses, until a period well within the recollection of
our grandfathers.

During the three centuries thus covered, houses were built and
decorated in successive styles, which were universally accepted at the
time. The prevailing character of these styles was derived from classic
sources, as distinguished from our native Gothic traditions, and it
owed its origin to the Renaissance style of Italy. The earlier efforts
towards the change are visible in the work of the sixteenth century and
of the first quarter of the seventeenth.

With the advent of Inigo Jones, however, a further impulse was given
to the desire for a classic treatment of architecture; and it is this
impulse and its consequences which form the basis of the present
inquiry.

There are two views as to English architecture of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. On the one hand, it is held that in the days
of Elizabeth architectural design shows a freshness, vivacity, and
originality which express the genius of the time, and result in a truly
national style, albeit one which never quite fulfilled its promise;
and that in later periods designers became more and more imitative,
and thereby lost from their work, however correct and refined, those
qualities which make for supreme achievement. On the other hand, it
is held that the designers of Elizabeth’s time were hampered in their
efforts at architectural expression by a lack of knowledge; that
they discarded many of the old ideas without appreciating the full
significance of the new ideas which they were anxious to adopt; and
that as they gained wider knowledge, so did their architecture improve.

Much can be said for either of these views, which indeed are not wholly
inconsistent with each other; but it is my desire in the following
pages to avoid controversy, and to present the domestic side of the
subject throughout the period under review in a sympathetic spirit.

During the nineteenth century an increase of acquaintance with the past
led to the adoption of so many different phases of style as almost to
eliminate the interest derived from historical continuity. But the
study of the past need not necessarily have this effect; if rightly
directed, the inventive genius of the present will find in the past a
great help for the future.

I have to express my thanks to many persons who have assisted by
supplying material for the illustrations, and especially to the
owners of the various houses who have kindly permitted them to be
photographed. Of the numerous drawings which have been reproduced,
some, connected with Inigo Jones, are from the collection at Chatsworth
House, by the kindness of the Duke of Devonshire; and others by Jones
and John Webb are from the Burlington-Devonshire Collection, in the
possession of the Royal Institute of British Architects, by permission
of the Council. For leave to include other contemporary drawings I have
to thank the Provost of Worcester College, Oxford; the Warden of All
Souls College, Oxford; and the authorities of the Bodleian Library;
while the illustrations selected from the Smithson Collection are
reproduced by the kind permission of the owner. The drawings by Thomas
Sandby and Edward Dayes are from the British Museum and the Victoria
and Albert Museum, South Kensington, respectively.

The proprietors of _Country Life_ have kindly furnished Figs.
162–63, and the Publishers have supplied illustrations from various
works issued by them, including reproductions of two of Mr. Triggs’
drawings from “Formal Gardens in England and Scotland,” and some of Mr
Tanner’s drawings from “Inigo Jones” and “Interior Woodwork.”

I am indebted to the following photographers for permission to include
photographs taken by them:--Messrs Bedford, Lemere & Co., Figs. 141,
143–44, 318; Messrs F. Frith & Co., Figs. 4, 5, 56, and 255; Messrs
Hills and Saunders, Fig. 155; and Mr. H. Evans, Fig. 52. A number of
photographs have been contributed by Mr. Montague Cooper, Mr. F. H.
Crossley, Mr. Horace Dan, and Dr. G. Granville Buckley. Other subjects
have been furnished by Mr. A. E. Walsham, Messrs Thos. Lewis Ltd.,
of Birmingham, and the late Mr. W. Galsworthy Davie, while those not
otherwise mentioned are from negatives taken by myself.

I must also acknowledge with thanks the kindness of Mr. E. R. M. Pratt,
of Ryston Hall, Norfolk, in placing at my disposal the contents of his
ancestor’s note-books mentioned in the Appendix.

J. A. GOTCH.

KETTERING,
_April 1918_.

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Evolution of the Modern House--Elizabethan Domestic
Arrangements--First Signs of Transition--Gradual
Disappearance of Jacobean Features--Predominance
of the Classic Style--The Gothic Revival 1

II. THE CHANGE IN STYLE

The Native _versus_ the Italian Method--Change in the
Status of the Architect--The Influence of Architectural
Books--The Smithson Drawings 25

III. INIGO JONES

Jacobean Design still Prevalent--Significance of the
Banqueting House, Whitehall--The Early Life of
Inigo Jones--His Drawings and his Authentic Executed
Work--His Pupil and Assistant--Work Attributed
to Jones--Characteristics of his Genius 41

IV. THE DRAWINGS OF INIGO JONES AND JOHN WEBB

The Whitehall Designs and their Authorship--John Webb:
his Relation to Jones and Subsequent Career--Contemporary
Evidence on the Drawings--Webb’s Executed
Work 63

V. THE TRANSITION IN MINOR BUILDINGS AND INTERIORS

Lingering Jacobean Detail--Some Country Houses of the
Transitional Period--Curious Blending of the Old
and New Styles--Charm of some of the Successful
Examples--Remodelling of Domestic Fittings 99

VI. SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN

His Life and Early Work--First Design for St Paul’s
Cathedral--The Work of Building--Other Work,
including Greenwich and Hampton Court--Contemporary
Esteem--His Influence on the Subsequent Course of
Architecture--Domestic Work Attributed to him 141

VII. SOME FURTHER WORK OF THE TIME OF CHARLES II.

Sir Balthazar Gerbier’s “Counsel to Builders”--“Captain
Wynne” and his Work--Hamstead Marshall and Old
Buckingham House--London after the Great Fire--City
Halls and Churches--Some Smaller Houses
Outside London 161

VIII. GREAT HOUSES AND GARDENS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Houses of the Nobility--Grandeur of the Designs and
Lay Outs--Boughton House, Dyrham Park, and
Chatsworth--Nicholas Hawksmoor and his Work at
Easton Neston--Lord Burlington and Sir John
Vanbrugh--Castle Howard and Blenheim--Formal
and Landscape Gardens 195

IX. GEORGIAN HOUSES

The Character of Eighteenth-Century Houses--Campbell,
Gibbs, and other Designers--Interior Design and
Decoration--Typical Georgian Mansions: Houghton
and Wentworth Woodhouse--The Woods of Bath and
Contemporary Town-Planning--William Kent and
Holkham--The Brothers Adam 237

X. SMALLER HOUSES, TOWN HOUSES, AND
EXTERIOR FEATURES

Charm of the Smaller Georgian House--Streets and
Market Places of Country Towns--Inns and Shops--London
Houses of the Period--Their Interior Planning--Growth
of the Suburbs in the Nineteenth Century--Exterior
Features of Smaller Georgian Houses: Chimneys, Gates,
Doors, and Porches--Cupolas, Lantern Lights, Date-Stones,
and Sundials--Garden Ornaments--Ornamental Iron and Lead
Work 287

XI. DECORATION AND INTERIOR FEATURES OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
HOUSES

Evolution of the Staircase--Its Treatment in Wood and
Stone--The Classic Over-Door--Decoration of Walls:
Wood Panelling and Carving, Moulded Plaster, Wall
Paper, and Tapestry--The Chimney-Piece, the Fire-Grate
and its Accessories--Modelled and Painted
Ceilings--Gradual Decline of the Personal Note in
Craftsmanship--Conclusion 351

APPENDIX I.--SIR ROGER PRATT 395

APPENDIX II.--THE ARCHITECTS OF COLESHILL, BERKSHIRE 399

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS AND TEXT 401

[Illustration: FIG. 1.--VIEW OF WHITEHALL PALACE AS IT WOULD
HAVE APPEARED IF COMPLETED.

(_from a water-colour drawing by Thomas Sandby, R.A._)]

=THE ENGLISH HOME FROM CHARLES I. TO GEORGE IV.=

INTRODUCTION

In England, more than in any other country, the affections of people in
all ranks of life have clung round their homes; and to learn something
of how those homes have changed in disposition and appearance with the
changing times is an occupation not only fascinating in itself, but one
which leads into regions of that personal interest which lends life and
colour to the pictures of the historian.

So far as our present conception of a home is concerned, the time of
Elizabeth may be held to have seen its birth; for, although the English
house has an ancestry which goes back to the Conquest, yet it was
in Elizabeth’s days that houses were first built almost exclusively
for pleasure and delight. Hers was a great age of house building.
Peace, wealth, and security from serious turmoil led men in all parts
of the country to reconstruct their old homes or to build new ones;
and records remain, either in actual buildings or in old plans, of
houses of every size, from the great palaces of Burghley or Hatton
wherein they entertained their sovereign, down to the little house,
not forty feet square, which was devised for Sir Walter Raleigh in
St James’s. Much pains and great skill were expended in contriving
these houses so that they should be convenient and well-looking. The
planning of them was in the nature of a new experiment, for there was
no precedent, either of extent or disposition, which was exactly to
the point. The treatment of the exterior--in other words, their style
of architecture--was also something fresh; for it became the fashion,
gradually increasing in extent, to seek inspiration in this direction
from Italy, a country which for more than a century had produced most
marvellous buildings, both as to conception and as to the lovely detail
with which they were embellished.

This new demand in regard to style was partly met by inviting foreign
workmen to this country, and partly by sending English designers to
study in Italy; but the knowledge thus acquired was utilised by our
native craftsmen in their own way. It influenced them, but did not
enslave them. At first it puzzled them, with the result that much
hybrid work was done which would have astonished both their Gothic
forefathers and their Italian contemporaries, but which nevertheless
has an attractive piquancy of its own.

This tentative stage lasted well into the seventeenth century, until
the knowledge and genius of Inigo Jones, most ably seconded by John
Webb, gradually wrought a revolution, and English architecture freed
itself from the pleasant inaccuracies of its earlier exponents.

It is at the time when the old order was beginning to give way to the
new that the story of the English House is taken up in the following
pages. It will be pursued through the next two centuries. We shall
see how the crude ideas of Elizabethan and Jacobean architects were
mellowed under the influence of Inigo Jones; how John Webb carried on
his master’s teaching through the disturbed years of the Civil War; how
wealthy men, following the lead of the Earl of Arundel, indulged their
growing taste for collecting antiques, pictures, and other works of
art. Houses will be described and pictured in which Evelyn and Pepys
must have watched many of the events which they record in their pages.

In due course will come the great homes of the great nobles of William
and Mary, of Anne and the Georges; homes which express in a vivid way
the social distinctions of the times, and indicate the vast interval
which lay between the duke and the merchant--more particularly in the
opinion of the duke. It was at this period that domestic architecture
reached the zenith of its splendour, aided, as it was, not only by the
patronage of noblemen like Lord Burlington, but by their participation
in the work of design. That they were able so to participate was
largely owing to the publication of books on architecture, both
ancient and modern. The point of view from which architecture was
then regarded, largely determined by this literature, is of great
historical interest, although the march of events has been adverse to
its continued acceptance.

Contemporary with these great efforts in design were innumerable
smaller houses, essentially English in expression, and charmingly
simple. In them lived men and women who helped to make the eighteenth
century famous--Addison and Cowper, Reynolds and Garrick, Mrs
Thrale and Frances Burney. But all through the eighteenth century
the artificiality which marks much of its sentiment becomes every
now and then apparent in its houses and their lay outs, wherein are
sometimes to be found manufactured ruins and strange attempts at Gothic
temples. Yet always is perceptible an earnest attempt at design. If in
architecture itself the sense of design became somewhat dulled, it was
still acute in the smaller matters of decoration, of furniture, and of
articles for household use; the ornament which prevailed towards the
close of the long period under review is quite admirable of its kind.

Such, very briefly indicated, is the ground to be traversed in the
following inquiry. Some of it must be trodden with a light and hasty
step; but it is hoped that the journey may not be without interest,
and may perhaps induce the reader to explore at his leisure parts of
the country of which here he will possibly catch but a glimpse. In the
meantime let us return to our starting-point, where the old order began
to give way to the new.

The history of English houses, from the time of James I. onwards, is
a record of development on lines that were laid down in the time of
Elizabeth. It was in her days that the great change from mediævalism
took place, and houses were built for comfort and pleasure without
any serious thought of defence. Such houses are still habitable;
there are plenty of people living to-day in Elizabethan houses,
but the enthusiasts are comparatively few who live from choice in
the ill-lighted, vaulted rooms of the Middle Ages. Spaciousness,
cheerfulness, dignity, and often magnificence, were the qualities aimed
at in houses of the end of the sixteenth century; and these qualities
are appropriate in the present day. Convenience is another matter; it
is a relative term, and its significance varies with the varying wants
of mankind, changes with their changing habits and customs.

An Elizabethan house provided admirable rooms for the common use of the
family and guests--reception rooms as they would be called now. It also
provided an adequate number of bedrooms. Further, so long as the great
hall was the customary place for eating, the kitchen was conveniently
situated, and the food was cooked within a reasonable distance of
where it was consumed. In these respects, therefore, a house of that
period fulfilled some of the chief requirements of the present day. The
direction in which it failed when measured by modern standards was in
its sanitary arrangements, which, indeed, judged by our own ideas, did
not exist at all. But we must be careful not to argue backwards, and
conclude that because things were lacking which we consider essential,
therefore houses were found uncomfortable at the time. The better way
is to accept what existed as satisfying the wants of the period, and to
argue from that, if we please, how vastly we have improved in our own
habits upon those of our ancestors.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.--ASTON HALL, NEAR BIRMINGHAM
(FINISHED 1635).]

In tracing the changes which took place in the arrangement and
disposition of rooms during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
therefore, it will be found that not much was done which made houses
essentially more comfortable, according to modern notions, than they
had been in the late sixteenth century. Indeed, during much of the
time comfort was very little studied, and it is one of the reproaches
levelled at the architects of the early eighteenth century, more
especially those who were concerned with houses of vast size, that
their first thought was for display and their last for comfort. Pope’s
exclamation about Blenheim palace, “’Tis very fine, but when d’ye sleep
and where d’ye dine?” crystallises much of the criticism that might be
bestowed upon the large houses of that period, which, however, only
reflected the spirit of the age. In these houses the most striking
change that occurred was the abolition of homeliness. When the great
Elizabethan house was planned, the household was in the nature of a
large family. It is true that the members of the actual family grouped
themselves in one wing and the servants in another, but the great hall
was their common meeting ground, and the relations between the heads
of the household and their servants were more affectionate than they
became in later years. All the rooms, moreover, were intended for
daily use, however finely they were decorated. The whole effect was
one of stately homeliness. When the Queen Anne mansion was planned,
much of it was devoted to state functions as a first consideration,
and was intended for occasional use only; apartments suitable for this
purpose having been provided, the rest of the space was allotted to
the ordinary use of the family, and the servants were relegated to the
basement (which they sometimes shared with their employers) or to a
detached wing. Stateliness, not homeliness, was now the keynote. The
nobleman stood on a pedestal of grandeur, round which his dependants
grouped themselves as best they could, and among them struggled the
parson, the poet, and the man of letters. The glorification of the
individual found expression in his house and his gardens which were all
designed with theatric magnificence.

The changes here indicated will be dealt with at length in subsequent
chapters; the first step towards them was taken when the hall ceased to
be a living-room and became a vestibule, as the result of an alteration
in domestic habits, an alteration which rendered easy the adoption
of a house-plan more closely related than was formerly possible to
those Italian models to which architects had been approximating their
designs for half a century. So far, the models had been copied but
halfheartedly, partly because of the conservatism of English habits,
partly from incomplete knowledge of Italian methods of design.
But as knowledge increased, both from the study of books and from
the first-hand investigations of travelling students, so was the
Italianising of English buildings accelerated; and a great obstacle
to this progress was removed when the ancient use and position of the
hall--which had a tradition of three centuries behind them--were no
longer preserved. The movement indicated was by no means regular; it
was quicker in some places than in others, and in some hands than in
others: much depended upon the architects employed. Those who were
learned, those who had travelled, and again those who were influenced
by the cultured few, departed more completely from old-fashioned ways
than did those who had not enjoyed the same advantages. The main stream
of architectural development is fairly well marked and continuous; but
there are innumerable backwaters in which the impetus of the current
is hardly perceptible. As a consequence there are to be found as late
as the end of the seventeenth century buildings which look almost
contemporary with those of the beginning.

The man who did more than anyone else to bring learning to bear on
design, and to introduce into England a true and correct knowledge
of Italian detail, was that great artist, Inigo Jones. His first
architectural work of importance was the Banqueting House at Whitehall,
which was finished in 1622. It has no trace of traditional English
design about it (see Fig. 22). To us it appears a beautiful building,
but by no means abnormal, because we can see many others of the same
type. But to those who saw it when it was just built, it was something
entirely novel, something in which they sought in vain for any of the
customary devices for producing architectural effect. Doubtless it was
a stimulant, but it did not revolutionise English architecture. Indeed,
it was only Inigo Jones, and after him his pupil John Webb, who could
pretend to work on such learned lines. The ordinary surveyors--of
whom there must have been a large number, although their names have
not survived--still worked in the hybrid style in which they had
been trained, with the result that such a house as Aston Hall, near
Birmingham, which was completed in 1635, is thoroughly Jacobean in
character (Fig. 2), although of sufficient importance to have warranted
the adoption of the latest ideas in design, had they been at all
widespread.

There is one point, however, in which Aston Hall shows the impending
change in house-planning, and that is the disposition of the great
hall. It is entered in the middle of one side, instead of through
screens at the end, thus making a large vestibule of it instead of a
living-room. The same treatment is to be found in some of the plans of
John Smithson, an eminent architect of the time; and an examination of
his drawings will presently be undertaken, in order to illustrate the
steps which led from the Jacobean style to the more fully developed
classic.

Nothing illustrates this change more aptly than a comparison between
Smithson’s drawings and those of Inigo Jones and John Webb. The
first are Jacobean, the second are classic. In the Jacobean are seen
efforts to sever the ties which ancient traditions still imposed; a
striving after Italian detail, which was never thoroughly achieved; a
mixture of a little old-fashioned romance, with a little new-fashioned
learning. In the classic are seen an ignoring of tradition; a mastery
of Italian methods; a mixture of sound knowledge with a feeling for
good proportion. As an illustration of the first large building in
England conceived in the fully developed classic style, nothing could
be better than the drawing made by Thomas Sandby about the middle of
the eighteenth century, showing how the great palace designed for
Charles I. would have appeared (see Fig. 1). It is also interesting in
connection with the inquiry into the Jones and Webb drawings, which
will be fully dealt with in Chapter IV.

Incidentally a study of the drawings by Jones and Webb forces the
inquirer to reconsider the relations of those two men as hitherto
accepted, and compels him to readjust his ideas as to some of the work
he had been taught to attribute to Jones.

With the seventeenth century we get into much closer touch with the
designers of buildings than was possible in earlier times: in many
cases we can get behind the buildings to their architects. But the
chief purpose of the following pages is to trace the changes that took
place in the houses themselves and their accessories, and although it
would be neither possible nor desirable to omit all mention of the
architects, the latter will be subsidiary to the main theme, and will
be dealt with not so much biographically as by way of showing how their
training, their opportunities and their idiosyncrasies affected the
buildings with which they were concerned.

The present and immediate purpose is to give a brief and broad outlook
over the period dealt with in detail in subsequent chapters; and to
that end a series of houses has been selected, separated from each
other in point of date by intervals of some twenty or thirty years.

The first of the series is Aston Hall (Fig. 2), which may be
considered an example of how the old order lingered on. It has all the
characteristics of Jacobean design, with its two pronounced wings, its
curved gables, its fine chimney-stacks, and its mullioned windows:
not to mention an open arcade and a forecourt with garden houses at
the two outlying corners. These characteristics were gradually to
disappear from houses. The plan became more compact, and wings were
discarded, except that version of them which became fashionable later
on, and which consisted of a separate block on either side of the main
building, connected to it by a colonnade. Gables disappeared, the only
approach to such features being the flat pediments which were often
employed as central ornaments to the façades. Chimney-stacks became
plainer, and the flues were massed into solid blocks, instead of rising
in separate shafts from a common base. Mullioned windows lingered on
for some years, but the mullions were of wood, and were insignificant
compared with their stone predecessors. They were merely part of the
wood window frame, and they disappeared almost entirely after the
advent of the sash-window in the last quarter of the seventeenth
century.

In the meantime, greater attention was paid to the cornices which made
the circuit of the buildings; more especially was the topmost cornice
emphasised--that from which the roof sprang. The general proportions
of the building were more closely studied, and in particular the
proportion of the window openings to the plain wall space.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Broadfield Hall, Hertfordshire.

From a Drawing by Buckler, 1832.]

Broadfield Hall, in Hertfordshire (Fig. 3), illustrates the advance
along these lines. There are no wings and no gables. Stone mullions
are still retained; a bold cornice marks each story, the boldest being
that on which the hipped roof rests. The flues are massed in two large
stacks, and their existence is duly acknowledged, no attempt being
made, as was sometimes the case in later times, to conceal them among
irrelevant ornament. The dormer windows rise from the roof, and are
no longer placed in portions of the main wall carried up for their
reception. The unbroken cornice at the eaves necessitated this change.
The old love of light still shows itself in the size of the windows,
which are not yet subordinated to the claims of proportion.

The exact date of this house has not been ascertained, but the style
is characteristic of the middle of the seventeenth century, a period
when no great amount of building was undertaken, owing to the disturbed
state of the country consequent upon the Civil War. The time of
Shakespeare is marked by a distinct style represented in hundreds of
houses, but no such wealth of illustration enriches the time of Milton.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Moyles Court, Hampshire.]

With the return of Charles II. a more settled state of affairs came
about, and once more the stream of architecture flowed steadily
onwards. Such houses as Moyles Court, in Hampshire (Fig. 4), were built
in considerable numbers. There is nothing pretentious about them; they
depend for their effect upon the regular spacing of the windows, and
upon the strong shadow cast by the eaves cornice. The intermediate
cornices of Broadfield have given way to a plain string. The windows
are, many of them, sashes; but it would be rash to assert definitely
that originally they were all so, because sashes had only recently been
introduced. The chimney-stacks are large, and have a certain amount
of character about them. This particular example has two projecting
wings, which may indicate that the house followed the lines of an
earlier one, or they may merely be a survival of old ways; in either
case they are not of the essence of the period. The date of the house
is not recorded, but it was probably built between 1670 and 1680, by
that Dame Alice Lisle who suffered death in 1685 at the hands of Judge
Jeffreys for sheltering a Nonconformist minister and a fugitive from
Sedgemoor.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.--HANBURY HALL, NEAR DROITWICH,
1701.]

[Illustration: FIG. 6.--HAMPTON COURT.

PART OF THE RIVER FRONT, 1689.]

Of much the same character, but loftier and more dignified, is Hanbury
Hall, near Droitwich, built in 1701 for a certain Thomas Vernon (Fig.
5). The façade is here emphasised by a pediment, which professes to
be partly carried on two columns. Ornament goes but a little way
towards producing the pleasing effect, which, in fact, is obtained by
the windows (including the dormers), the quoins, and the bold eaves
cornice. The cupola adds a note of interest; it is a feature which had
been used by Inigo Jones, and before him, although designed on other
lines, by Jacobean architects.

But a greater figure than the men who designed Moyles Court or Hanbury
Hall occupied the stage at this time. This was Sir Christopher Wren,
the greatest architect that England has produced. His work, however,
lay for the most part outside the scope of the present inquiry which is
chiefly concerned with domestic architecture. It was largely the city
churches, and especially the noble cathedral of St Paul, that occupied
and developed Wren’s uncommon powers. Of ordinary domestic work, but
little can be put to his credit with certainty. However, at the palace
of Hampton Court (Fig. 6), he showed the same strong hand, the same
virility of design which appear in his churches. Wren had mastered the
medium in which he worked, and he used it with freedom, unfettered by
slavish obedience to the rules which kept his less gifted successors in
leading strings, and induced them to tread the paths of safety rather
than those of adventure.

There was, perhaps, one exception to this slavery in the person of
Sir John Vanbrugh, who had a singular gift for grandiose design.
Kings Weston, near Bristol (Fig. 7), is one of his simpler and more
restrained efforts, but even here the scale is large and the detail
verging on coarseness. But it is neither the personal note nor the
minutiæ of design which concerns us at present. Kings Weston is
advanced as illustrating, not so much Vanbrugh’s style, as the complete
departure from the old ways which architectural design had by this time
taken. The date of Kings Weston is about 1715. It is not only in the
external appearance that this departure is noticeable, but also in the
plan, and in the internal embellishments. These points will be dealt
with fully in due course, but even on looking at the outside of Kings
Weston, it is obvious that it is disposed on lines widely different
from those of a Jacobean house.

These differences are still more apparent in the next illustration
of the series, Wolterton Hall, in Norfolk (Fig. 8). This house is
attributed to Ripley, and its date is put at 1736. It is staid and
eminently respectable, but there is none of the picturesqueness of
the Jacobean methods about it, none of those unexpected human touches
which help us to condone the ignorance of classic detail exhibited by
Jacobean designers; no “accident,” as Sir Joshua Reynolds puts it,
which might lead to variety or intricacy. In making the circuit of its
walls, the visitor knows exactly what he is likely to find. The appeal
is to narrower sympathies than of old, to sympathies which spring
from an acquired feeling for proportion, and are not merely roused by
quaint personal incidents attractive to all alike, whether trained in
architecture or not. The dignified effect is produced by the stone
base, the proportion of the windows in relation to the wall space, and
the bold cornice at the eaves. The chimneys are symmetrically placed,
but they have had no design worthy of the name bestowed upon them.

At Fonthill House, in Wiltshire, built about 1760 (Fig. 9), there is a
reversion to a type of plan which had almost died out, a central block,
namely, with detached wings connected to it by curved colonnades. This
type had been frequently adopted in the earlier part of the eighteenth
century, and was still advocated in some of the text-books on house
design. But its obvious inconveniences in dissipating the forces of
domestic service instead of concentrating them, so far outweighed
the advantages of stateliness and grandeur which it bestowed, that
it fell into disuse. Fonthill House was built by Alderman Beckford
in succession to a house which was burnt in 1755, and it is doing
the alderman no injustice to suppose that he strove to make his new
house a very splendid affair, and accordingly adopted a striking,
if inconvenient, plan. He succeeded to such an extent that the result
of his labours has been referred to as “Fonthill splendens.” His son,
the author of “Vathek,” is said to have been born at Fonthill in
1759, possibly in the new house, but there is no record of the actual
date of its erection. The son eventually sold it for £9,000, a mere
bagatelle in comparison with its cost, which was nearly a quarter of
a million. He was then, about 1795, building on a vast scale, with
the help of Wyatt, one of those freaks in which the late eighteenth
century delighted, a mansion in the guise of a sham abbey, costing
another quarter of a million. This wonderful edifice had but a short
life, for in 1825, two years after he had sold the estate, the great
tower fell and started the decay of the whole structure. So famous were
Fonthill Abbey and its contents that half England had flocked to the
sale, filling every inn for miles around, and eating the countryside
bare. Beckford the younger, like many of his contemporaries, was a man
of great wealth and of considerable culture; a great collector of art
treasures, and one who spent large sums in building in an ancient style
of which neither he nor anyone living knew the rudiments. Reynolds,
however, may be held to have countenanced the practice, for he says
that the imagination being affected by the association of ideas, and we
having naturally a veneration for antiquity, whatever building brings
to our remembrance ancient customs and manners, such as the castles of
the barons of ancient chivalry, is sure to give delight.

[Illustration: FIG. 7.--KINGS WESTON, NEAR BRISTOL,
_cir._ 1715.]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.--WOLTERTON HALL, NORFOLK,
1736.]

It is often very difficult to determine the date of old country
houses; no records of the building of them survive, or if they do they
are stowed away in unexplored muniment rooms. Tradition is vague or
unreliable. Additions may have been made from time to time of which no
precise account remains. The lapse of years may have toned everything
down to the same antique appearance, rendering the disentanglement of
the various periods a laborious task, and the results uncertain. The
work of a later period may, perhaps, predominate to such an extent as
to overwhelm what remains from an earlier, and cause the whole house
to be dated half a century later than it ought to be. This is the case
at Normanton Park, in Rutland, where such considerable alterations
were made about 1780 that the house is held to be of the Adam period,
whereas its main disposition was almost certainly settled fifty years
before that time. Enough of the earlier work remains in various
parts to support this idea, and to show that the plan adopted--that
of a central block with detached wings connected by colonnades--was
the production of the beginning of the century rather than of the end.
At the later period, however, many of the external walls must have
been recased if not rebuilt, and the garden front (Fig. 10) is a good
example of the time. The circular bay is a characteristic feature,
and so are the attic stories of the wings, although the placing of a
plainly treated attic over a more majestic substructure was by no means
a novelty. The real touch of the Adam period is to be found in the
detail, which has all the delicacy and refinement connected with the
name of the accomplished brothers Adam. That it is useless to argue
about matters of taste is a dictum as old as the time when thoughts
were usually expressed in the Latin tongue. Whether the delicacy of
Adam or the vigour of Vanbrugh is to be preferred is a matter of
individual liking. Some people admire Ganymede, others regard Hercules
as a finer type; yet others admire both. With such predilections we
need not be concerned; all that is necessary at present is to point
out the change that had taken place in architectural treatment during
the course of the eighteenth century.

[Illustration: FIG. 9.--FONTHILL HOUSE, WILTSHIRE,
_cir._ 1760.]

[Illustration: FIG. 10.--Normanton Park, Rutland, _cir._
1780.]

As the century grew older the severance from the traditions of mediæval
times grew wider. Those traditions, indeed, were lost, and although a
few attempts were made--by Horace Walpole and others--to revive the
late Gothic style, they only served to show how superficial was the
current knowledge of Gothic architecture, and how futile it is to
apply imitations of a departed style, merely by way of ornament, to
buildings which have no affinity to those from which inspiration is
sought. These attempts at revival were not numerous, they lay outside
the normal course of design, which steadily followed the classic lead
which had been first given whole-heartedly by Inigo Jones. But the
virility of Jones, Wren, and Vanbrugh had gradually declined, and
domestic architecture had become correspondingly tame. It was highly
respectable, much of it was refined, all of it was safe and rather
uninteresting. To us it is so correct and well-meaning that it escapes
the fate of much that succeeded it--the exciting of violent dislike.
Indeed, after the lapse of more than a century, interest in it is
reviving, and it bids fair to acquire enthusiastic admirers. It was
otherwise when it was in full possession of the field, for in spite of
its excellent qualities it roused the fury of Pugin and his followers,
and was overwhelmed by the Gothic revival.

[Illustration: FIG. 11.--Gwydyr House, Whitehall, London, 1796.]

There was no essential change in the general treatment of houses
all through the last half of the eighteenth century, as may be seen
by comparing Gwydyr House, Whitehall (Fig. 11), which was built
in 1796, with Wolterton Hall (Fig. 8), built in 1736; that is,
the general effect is obtained by the same means. The windows are
carefully proportioned, and the eaves cornice is the only important
shadow-producing feature. At Gwydyr House the attic story is a
later addition. The windows in both cases are plain, unornamented
oblong openings. In the house No. 32 St James’s Square (Fig. 12),
which was built in 1815, and is the last of this particular series
of illustrations, while the main effect is the result of the window
proportion and the eaves cornice, some additional interest is given by
the form of the first floor windows, by the arches in which they are
placed, and by the balconies.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.--No. 32 ST. JAMES’S SQUARE, LONDON,
1815.]

Although there was no great originality in the manner in which
the bulk of the houses was handled at this time, there was much
ingenuity bestowed upon the detail and ornament. The brothers Adam,
who were busy during the last quarter of the eighteenth century,
have given their name to a particular style of decoration, marked
by much delicacy and refinement, but they did nothing of first-rate
importance in architecture itself, nothing that set men building in
a fresh way. After them came the Greek influence, which affected a
number of designers. The ambitions of Napoleon absorbed the attention
of nearly the whole of Europe, but Greece was at that time exciting a
considerable amount of interest, which was fostered to a certain extent
by the poetry of Byron. But although he hymned the Isles of Greece and
burning Sappho, but little of her fire found its way into the forms
which her country lent to England. Then there followed the Age of
Romance, inaugurated by the great Wizard of the North; all the world
fell in love with ancient castles and old houses. Scott’s magic wand
lifted the veil from the past, and disclosed scenes of bygone manners,
affecting, amusing, and exciting, thus making easy the advent of the
Gothic Revival.

This revival broke the thread of classic tradition in house building,
a thread already attenuated. It brought about the chaos of style which
marks the nineteenth century. But it set men thinking; it gave them a
fresh start; it led them to attack problems in a logical way, to adapt
their designs to circumstances instead of insisting that circumstances
must conform to established laws of design. In a word it produced the
wide outlook and the reasonable attitude of adapting means to the end,
which are the hope of architecture to-day.

Having thus given a bird’s-eye view of the course followed by house
builders during the whole period under consideration, we will now
proceed to an examination in detail of the various stages of its
development.

[Illustration: FIG. 13.--BOLSOVER CASTLE, DERBYSHIRE.

ENTRANCE DOORWAY TO THE GALLERY.]

THE CHANGE IN STYLE

During the seventeenth century a very significant change took place in
architectural design. All through the mediæval period design seems,
so far as our knowledge enables us to form an opinion, to have been
impersonal, the result of a number of men working together, each
concerned with the portion affecting his particular trade. It is
probably true that some one individual controlled the general scheme,
and gave an oversight to the work of the others; but not in such a
sense as to have been entitled to be called the “architect,” as we
understand the term. To us the architect is the individual who not only
provides the plan, not only puts into practicable form the ideas of the
employer, but also designs most of the details. He not only informs
the various artificers that particular work is required in particular
places, but he also provides them with drawings showing what the work
is to be, and how it is to be fashioned. His influence to-day is much
wider and much more intimate than it was in the Middle Ages, the ages
which produced our cathedrals, our ancient churches, castles, and
manor-houses.

The term “architect” occurs very seldom either in literature or in
documents previous to the seventeenth century. Shakespeare uses the
word once; in contracts of Elizabeth’s time it appears seldom, if
ever; although the documents refer to the provision of design as well
as workmanship. In the numerous books published for the guidance of
designers in building matters during the reigns of Elizabeth and James,
it appears now and then: but the appeals which these books made on
their title-pages and in their prefaces to those for whom they were
written, were addressed primarily to artificers and only incidentally
to architects, who seem to have been included in order to catch a
possible purchaser. The reason for the absence of the term is obvious:
there were hardly any people who called themselves architects.

The publication of these books is itself a sign of the change which was
coming over the methods of design. Hitherto design had been a matter
of tradition, preserved by guilds, handed down from father to son or
from master to man. The horizon of a mediæval workman was limited: he
neither knew nor cared much for what was being done in distant lands.
His style was influenced by local considerations, and although he
conformed to the general changes which affected the whole of Gothic
architecture, there was usually a local flavour about his work. The
difference in character between the work in Norfolk, Northamptonshire,
and Somerset is obvious at first sight: but a closer scrutiny will
often reveal local variations in those districts themselves.

Why were these books published, and what kind of architectural style
did they illustrate? Did they bring before the eye of the designer
masterpieces of Gothic architecture, or details of Gothic work? Not at
all: no book illustrating Gothic architecture was published till the
end of the eighteenth century.[1] There was, in truth, no need for such
a book: the mediæval workmen had their own traditional knowledge, and
it concerned them not at all to learn how the workmen in Germany or
southern France or Spain differed in method from themselves. They gave
no thought to such matters, nor did they think of themselves as being
concerned with architecture; they merely built in the manner of their
fathers.

But although the successors of the mediæval craftsmen in the
mid-sixteenth century shared their predecessors’ apathy in respect of
what was being done abroad, it was otherwise with those for whom they
worked--the great men who were building fine houses all over the land.
To these had come new ideas in relation to their buildings. They had
heard of the splendid work that for years had been executed in Italy:
some of them had seen it; monarchs and wealthy nobles had even brought
foreign craftsmen over to exercise their skill in the northern parts
of Europe. The Italian manner was a novelty in this land of Gothic
traditions, it was unlike anything to which England was accustomed. But
the new fashion became popular. Employers demanded the novel detail
in their houses; the foreign artists were not numerous, and so the
English workmen had to supply the best imitation they could contrive
on a scanty training. Here came the opportunity for the bookmakers.
They showed the way in which Italian buildings were designed; they
illustrated the “Orders” which gave those buildings their distinctive
character so far as appearance went; they showed how classic detail
might be applied or perverted to meet the exigencies of buildings which
had a Gothic parentage. The books, therefore, were published in order
to help designers who aimed at working in the new classic style.

The effect, of course, was to foster that style at the expense of the
native Gothic. It is true that books were not widely distributed; there
was not in those days the rapid dissemination of ideas that there
is in our own. But if anyone wanted a book about building, he could
only find such as dealt with classic architecture. Hence in a short
time the operations which had hitherto been thought of as building,
began to be thought of as Architecture, and the only architecture that
was formulated was classic architecture. The idea of that art became
inseparably connected in the minds of men with classic expressions of
it. Thus it came about that in the course of half a century people of
culture regarded all Gothic buildings--even the noblest--as barbarous,
and not worthy the name of Architecture.[2] The “Gothic order,” as it
was called, was merely a “fantastic and licentious manner of building.”

It was only a small proportion of the actual workmen who were able to
study books; the rest picked up the new manner from such foreigners
as they met, from work which they saw as they moved about, and
occasionally, perhaps, from verbal description. Some worked all their
lives on the old lines. One result of the difficulty of imbuing the
workmen with the requisite knowledge was that some of the men whose
duty it was to overlook buildings--the surveyors--made a point of
studying the new style either through books or by foreign travel or
both. They rendered themselves familiar with classic detail, and were
thus enabled to give the desired character to the buildings under
their charge. They gradually became more and more responsible for
design in the various branches of the building trades, and thus grew
to be architects as well as surveyors. The inevitable tendency was for
architectural design to become more personal, and for its results to
become less like a spontaneous growth of the land.

The number of architectural books published was not in reality very
great; they were mostly of foreign production, and probably few
copies found their way into England. The earliest were printed in
Italy during the closing years of the fifteenth century. By the
middle of the sixteenth century there were, perhaps, half a score in
existence, some in Italian, some in French. These were obviously of
no use to unlettered workmen, but they were appreciated by men of
learning, and were studied by some of the surveyors of the time. One
or two Englishmen had produced treatises on architecture by the end
of the century, but their direct effect on English design can hardly
be traced. It is, indeed, unwise to look to any of the books of the
time for direct and immediate influence; their effect seems to have
been gradual. As may be supposed, it would be the illustrations which
would have the greatest weight, for they would be intelligible to
men unacquainted with the language of the text. The more important
treatises confined themselves largely to drawings of the orders, but
a few smaller books, published by Germans and Dutchmen, gave many
illustrations of particular features such as doorways, windows, and so
forth, and these appear to have appealed more powerfully to English
workmen and to have influenced in some degree the appearance which they
imparted to their details.

In another and different direction some of the French books would seem
to have had an interesting effect. Philibert de l’Orme and Androuet
du Cerceau had published remarkably fine illustrations of the more
important buildings then recently erected in France. It is certain
that John Thorpe, who was the most accomplished and ingenious of the
English surveyors of his time, had studied du Cerceau’s books, and it
is quite conceivable that, fired by such an example, he may himself
have contemplated a similar production for England, and that to this
idea is owing the very interesting collection of drawings now preserved
at the Soane Museum. But however this may be, it is clear that some of
the men who were concerned with the design of large houses thought it
worth while to preserve their drawings, for, in addition to the Thorpe
collection, there is that other collection by Thorpe’s contemporary
and successor, Smithson; while in later years are those connected
with the work of Inigo Jones, John Webb, and Wren; and in still later
times Campbell, Gibbs, and other architects made a point of publishing
illustrations of the buildings which they and their contemporaries had
designed.

[Illustration:

Ground Floor. Upper Floor.

FIG. 14.--MY LORD SHEFFIELD’S HOUSE.

From the Smithson Collection.]

[Illustration: FIG. 15.--GROUND AND UPPER PLANS OF A HOUSE,
NOT NAMED.

From the Smithson Collection.]

But although we may perhaps see in the books of the sixteenth century
the genesis of our own English architectural publications, their
immediate interest lies in the fact that whatever was published
about the beginning of the seventeenth century dealt with classic
architecture, and that anyone who sought in books for information
about building, found nothing about the old Gothic detail, but only
instructions how to design in the classic style.

The Thorpe collection of drawings is well known, and belongs to the
order of things which was passing away. But the Smithson collection is
but little known, and as it forms a link between what was passing and
what was approaching, it will be of interest to say a few words about
it, and to give a few illustrations from it.

Of Smithson, as of his predecessors in his calling, very little is
actually known. He seems to have belonged to a family of architectural
designers, the members of which have been rather confused by Walpole
and other writers who have referred to them. The facts seem to be
that of his parentage there are no records, although chronology would
admit of Robert Smithson, of Wollaton, being his father; his own
name was John, he had a son named Huntingdon, a grandson named John
and a great-grandson named Huntingdon. He himself died in 1634, and
his son Huntingdon in 1648. They were both buried at Bolsover, in
Derbyshire, and an inscription over the grave of the son speaks of
his “skill in architecture.” The two have been confused with each
other, but their separate identity has recently been made clear.[3]
According to Walpole, in his “Anecdotes of Painting,” “John Smithson
was an architect in the service of the Earls of Newcastle. He built
part of Welbeck in 1604, the riding-house there in 1623,[4] and the
stables in 1625; and when William Cavendish, Earl and afterwards Duke
of Newcastle, proposed to repair and make great additions to Bolsover
Castle, Smithson, it is said, was sent to Italy to collect designs.
From them I suppose it was that the noble apartment erected by that
duke, and lately pulled down, was completed, Smithson dying in 1648.[5]
Many of Smithson’s drawings were purchased by the late Lord Byron from
his descendants who lived in Bolsover.” On Lord Byron’s death the
drawings were purchased by the Rev. D’Ewes Coke, and they are now in
the possession of his descendants at Brookhill Hall.

Many of the drawings have no title or other means of identifying them;
but such as have go to show that Smithson, who, it would seem, was not
only buried but also lived at Bolsover on the north-east border of
Derbyshire, had a considerable local practice, as well as a certain
amount of work in London. The riding-house and stables at Welbeck,
mentioned by Walpole, are both in the collection, and there are also
several drawings relating to Bolsover Castle.

The buildings which go to make the “castle” may be divided into three
groups: First, there is the castellated portion, built on the site of
the old keep and begun in 1613: this part is still in good repair.
Then there is a long range on the terrace--the “noble apartment”
mentioned by Walpole. This was built by Sir William Cavendish,
afterwards Duke of Newcastle, who presumably found the older building
too small. Its principal apartment was a magnificent gallery, but, so
far as its ruinous state permits the other rooms to be made out (and
among them was a kitchen), it would appear to have been a completely
equipped residence. On the view of the castle which adorns the Duke
of Newcastle’s book on Horsemanship, this building is called “La
Gallerie.” The third group comprises the riding-house and its adjuncts,
which adjoin the gallery at its western end.

The few drawings in the Smithson collection which refer to Bolsover
are all, except one, connected with the castellated portion, and they
go to prove that John Smithson must have been concerned with that
particular building. But there is one drawing of a large doorway (No.
40) which closely resembles the central doorway on the terrace front of
the gallery, and the general detail of this building, which is large in
scale, heavy and rather spoilt by laboured freaks, is akin to much else
that is to be found among the Smithson drawings. This gallery block
is evidently of two dates. The eastern portion has a certain amount
of detail in the simpler style of the Jacobean period, while that of
the western half is more laboured and contorted. At the eastern end
are five small projecting stones bearing initials and dates; one of
them has on it H. S. 1629, and may conceivably commemorate Huntingdon
Smithson. But as it has four neighbours with other initials and the
dates 1629, 1630, it would appear that in any case he was only one
out of five persons entitled to recognition. However, the evidence
of tradition, the date-stone and the drawings clearly point to the
Smithsons being responsible for the design of the buildings generally,
and it may well be that the influence of the father is visible in the
earlier and simpler work, and that of the son in the grandiose gallery,
with which he may have been busy at some time between his father’s
death in 1634 and the outbreak of hostilities in 1642. The riding-house
is much quieter in treatment than the gallery, and its detail is more
refined. In spite of the tradition that the designs were collected in
Italy, the work shows more affinity to Dutch models than to Italian, as
may be gathered from the illustrations (Figs. 13, 16).

The riding-house at Welbeck (Fig. 20) follows the established lines in
its treatment; it has steep gables with finials, mullioned windows, and
an open hammer-beam roof: the very heavy pediments over the doors are
in keeping with those at Bolsover, and with many other details in the
collection, and they show how crude Smithson was in his treatment of
classic features. It is important to bear this in mind, because he may
be considered (although he had an uncommonly heavy hand) as typical of
the majority of English designers before the influence of Inigo Jones
began to be felt.

Smithson’s house-plans are of great interest, inasmuch as they belong
to the order of things which was shortly to pass away. Some of them
follow the traditional lines which made the hall the principal
apartment of the house, placing it between the family rooms and the
servants’ quarters. The plan “for My Lord Sheffield’s house” is an
example of this arrangement (Fig. 14). It shows the rooms grouped in
the old way round a courtyard, which had to be traversed in approaching
the hall from the front door. The hall itself was entered through the
screens at its lower end, and was flanked at its upper end by the
parlour and other family rooms, and by the grand staircase. On the
opposite side of the court were the kitchen, pantry, and other rooms
for the service of the house. In the four corners of the court were
square turrets containing subsidiary staircases. On the upper floor
(Fig. 14) the chief rooms were the dining-chamber, placed as far from
the kitchen as the limits of the house would allow, and the long
gallery. The fact of a special room being set apart for dining itself
indicates a fairly late date in respect of this ancient type of plan.
As my Lord Sheffield was created Earl of Mulgrave in 1626, the plan
must be prior to that year, but the house was probably not more than
ten years old when the change of title took place.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.--Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire. The
Riding-House.]

The other specimen of Smithson’s planning is one of the H type,
with the hall in one of the wings (Fig. 15). This is a departure
from the old arrangement, which would have placed the hall in the
central block, and thus have brought the buttery (which opens from
the screens) into close touch with the kitchens. The hall becomes
here more of a passage-room and less of a living-room than under
the ancient disposition. There are no sitting-rooms for the family
on the ground floor, but the principal staircase leads to the great
chamber on the upper floor, thence to the long gallery and a distant
“withdrawing-chamber,” as well as to the chapel and several bedrooms.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.--Elevation of a House, not named.

From the Smithson Collection.]

Both these houses are rigidly symmetrical in their external treatment,
and it is interesting to note how, in addition to preserving such
old-established rooms as the great chamber and long gallery, they
depend for their external effect upon old features, such as mullioned
windows, arcaded entrances, turrets, and the breaking up of the various
fronts with substantial projections and large bay-windows. These
devices were customary among the designers of the time of Elizabeth and
James I., but they were gradually to be superseded by other methods.

There are no elevations preserved which fit these plans, but Smithson
has left a number of specimens of his way of dealing with the exterior
of his buildings. The most important in size is illustrated in Fig. 17.
It follows the usual lines of the period with its mullioned windows,
large horizontal cornices, arcaded entrance, balustraded parapets, and
curly central gable; but it is rather clumsy compared with most of John
Thorpe’s elevations. So, also, is the elevation of “My Ladye Cookes
house in Houlborn” (Fig. 18) to which additional interest is lent by
the fact that it is dated 1619. This front, with its large dominating
pediment and circular-headed window has a later touch about it, and has
lost most of the light-hearted piquancy which characterises the work of
the preceding fifty years.

[Illustration: FIG. 18.--Lady Cook’s House in Holborn, 1619.

From the Smithson Collection.]

[Illustration: FIG. 19.--PERSPECTIVE OF PALACE, WHITEHALL.]

[Illustration: FIG. 20.--THE RIDING-HOUSE AT WELBECK, 1622.

From the Smithson Collection.]

[Illustration:

FIG. 21.--The Italyan grate over the Watter. A newe
Italyan wyndowe, the gallerye at Arrundell house. The newe
Italyan gate at Arrundell house in the garden there, 1618.

From the Smithson Collection.]

The hankering after Italian detail which had affected English designers
in an increasing degree for many years finds expression in the Smithson
drawings, among which are several “Italyan” windows and doors, an
“Italyan” gate (Fig. 21), and one or two “pergulars.”

The Thorpe and Smithson drawings are closely allied both in
architectural style and in methods of draughtsmanship, although the
latter collection is obviously later in feeling. There is a vast
difference in both respects between them and the drawings prepared by
Inigo Jones and John Webb, which will presently be described. There
are comparatively few details in the Thorpe and Smithson collections,
especially in the former. The designers concerned themselves primarily
with the mass of the building rather than with its particular features.
The plans in all the collections, both early and late, are drawn with
much care and many of them with singular neatness. But the elevations
and perspective views are not of equal excellence. The latter are
generally drawn by Thorpe as bird’s-eye views. They are in the nature
of diagrams. There are, it is true, hardly any perspectives among
the architectural drawings of Jones and Webb, but in the one notable
instance--the view of a front for Whitehall Palace, at the British
Museum--the spectator is supposed to be standing on the ground and
not floating in the air (Fig. 19). In Jones’s designs for the scenery
of masques there are many interesting architectural compositions,
and these are perforce drawn to satisfy the eye of a spectator on the
floor of the theatre. They show great skill in perspective drawing. The
difference between the two methods is best indicated by describing the
earlier as archaic and the later as modern. Indeed with the advent of
Inigo Jones we enter upon a new phase in architectural design; we are
leaving the ancient ways and turning into the modern.

III

INIGO JONES

The accession of Charles I. to the throne in 1625 marks a convenient
date in the development of architectural design to consider briefly
its condition and tendencies. The king and his court still exercised
an enormous influence over the life and habits of the people in
directions other than political. In mediæval times the king was the
centre of public affairs, the pivot upon which the State turned. His
own will, even his whims and fancies, counted for much. But for the
last three-quarters of a century this influence had been gradually
lessening, and the king’s personal power had been curtailed. It was
in opposing this tendency, in endeavouring to reassert his personal
ascendancy, in re-establishing his prerogatives, that Charles came
into conflict with his subjects and ultimately succumbed. But bearing
this state of things in mind, it will be more readily understood that
the influence of the king in relation to architecture, for instance,
would be very considerable; vastly more so than the influence of any
individual in the present day. Charles was a man of culture, and
without crediting him with an intimate knowledge of architectural
design, we may well believe that he would foster the growth of a
refined and scholarly version of the style at which English designers
had been aiming for many years. That is to say, since the tendency was
to adopt Italian ideas he would like to see them adopted thoroughly
and with full knowledge. The man to do this for him was there in the
person of Inigo Jones, who had already been employed by his father, and
who was the only man in England possessing really competent knowledge
of Italian detail. Here then was another powerful influence at work
tending to divert English design from the old traditional channels.

No doubt had Charles been blessed with leisure to gratify his refined
tastes, and to devote himself to the encouragement of the arts, had he
been in possession of funds commensurate with his artistic ambitions,
the Italianising of English architecture would have been more rapid
than it actually was. But his time was occupied with sterner matters,
and the huge palace at Whitehall which he is said to have contemplated
(and his father before him, according to many writers), but of which
the true history will be presently outlined, never went further than to
be committed to paper. What he did do, however, was to foster the seed
which had been sown by his father, and which bore fruit later in the
century.

The love of Charles for the fine arts was shared by many of his court.
Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, caused not only the marbles which
still bear his name, but many other fine relics of antiquity, to be
brought to England. Inigo Jones was frequently employed by the nobility
to purchase pictures and other treasures, and to see them suitably
displayed in the houses they were to adorn. John Webb made it one of
his claims to consideration that he had been commissioned by the “great
nobility and eminent gentry” to acquire for them medals, statues, and
other works of art.

Meanwhile, in the country generally, and outside the circle influenced
by Inigo Jones, the old habits still prevailed, and many houses
were built, including such important buildings as Aston Hall, in
Warwickshire, already mentioned, in which the old arrangements of plan
were retained, and all the old devices for obtaining architectural
effect were used--mullioned windows, steep or curved gables, large
and lofty chimney-stacks, turrets and bay-windows, with a strong
infusion of Italian detail in the form of cornices and pilasters; just
such devices indeed as had been employed by John Smithson and his
contemporaries.

When this is borne in mind, when it is remembered what Smithson stands
for, and that he lived until 1634; that Aston Hall, where Jacobean
methods were still paramount, was not completed until 1635; it will
be easier to grasp the significance of Inigo Jones’s Banqueting
House at Whitehall (Fig. 22), designed in 1619 and finished in 1622,
in which there is no trace of traditional English design, which
in fact approaches nearer to Italian models than any building of
the seventeenth century. No wonder, considering the goal at which
all designers were more or less aiming, that it was quoted as a
masterpiece, as the finest flower of modern architecture in England.
This position it held all through the century, and indeed still
holds in the opinion of many competent judges. At the time it was
built it was unique, and for thirty years afterwards travellers might
have searched England in vain for anything so thoroughly Italian in
treatment, unless they happened to see the Queen’s House at Greenwich,
or one or two other buildings by the same architect, such as Sherborne,
in Gloucestershire, between Northleach and Burford, which was described
in 1634 as a “stately, rich, compacted Building all of Free-stone,
flat, and couer’d with Lead, with Strong Battlements about, not much
unlike to that goodly, and magnificent Building the Banquetting House
at Whitehall.”[6]

[Illustration: FIG. 22.--The Banqueting House, Whitehall,
1619–22.]

The Banqueting House must not be regarded as a step in the normal
development of English design; it was something outside, the work of a
specially trained and exceptionally gifted man, who achieved in 1619
what less learned and less skilful men were striving after, consciously
or unconsciously, for nearly half a century afterwards.

The ultimate influence of Inigo Jones on English architecture was so
important that it is desirable to know something of his training and
of his history. He was born in 1573, the parish of St Bartholomew,
Smithfield.[7] The church register records his baptism: “Enego Jones
the sonne of Enego Jones was christened the xixth day of July 1573.”
His father was a cloth-worker in good circumstances at that time, but
when the lad was sixteen years old, the father was obliged to compound
with his creditors. There were other children, but it would seem that
only Inigo and three sisters survived their father, who died in the
early months of 1597; as he left his property to be divided among his
four children, he must, to a certain extent, have recovered from his
financial embarrassments. In any event it would appear that Inigo the
younger was left to make his own career. It is not known where he
received his education, nor how thorough, or otherwise, it was: but it
was apparently up to the average bestowed upon youths of his condition,
and probably of much the same character, _mutatis mutandis_, as
would be acquired by boys of the upper middle class to-day.[8] That he
was a man of culture is indicated by a copy of rhymes in Latin written
by Thomas Cariat (Coryat) of Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1611, and
preserved among the State Papers.[9] They describe a philosophical
feast, among the guests at which was Inigo Jones. There is a tradition,
but without evidence to support it, that he was apprenticed to a joiner
in St Paul’s Churchyard. If this were so, it would at least give him
an amount of practical knowledge which would be of material assistance
in his later career. But his early training is really a matter for
conjecture. He says in the preface to “Stone-Heng Restored”: “Being
naturally inclined in my younger years to study the arts of design, I
passed into foreign parts to converse with the great masters thereof
in Italy; where I applied myself to search out the Ruins of those
ancient Buildings, which, in despite of Time itself, and violence of
Barbarians, are yet remaining. Having satisfied myself in these, and
returning to my native country, I applied my mind more particularly to
the study of Architecture.”

At whose expense he passed into foreign parts, or in what year he first
did so, there is no record. But it is agreed that he paid two visits to
Italy, the first somewhere about the year 1600; the second in 1613–14.
Of the first visit little or nothing is known;[10] but of the second
there are definite records in the shape of his sketch-book preserved
at Chatsworth, and of his marginal notes on a copy of Palladio which
he carried with him from place to place, and which is now in Worcester
College, Oxford.

During his first visit he seems to have achieved such a reputation that
Christian IV., King of Denmark and brother of the queen of James I.,
invited him to enter his service. Here, again, there is no reliable
information as to his achievements; the only evidence indeed is of a
negative character and consists of the remark of a Danish gentleman to
the effect that “your great architect left nothing to my country but
the fame of his presence.”

On his return to England he seems to have been occupied chiefly in the
devising of masques and plays, among the earliest of which were some
given at Christ Church, Oxford, to entertain James I. Oddly enough the
comment of the chronicler in this case is that he “undertook to further
them much and furnish them with rare devices, but performed very little
of that which was expected.”[11] That this failure must have been an
exceptional case is sufficiently proved by the numerous drawings of
scenery by him preserved at Chatsworth.

Soon after his return to England he was appointed surveyor to the
queen (Anne of Denmark), and in the year 1610 surveyor of the works to
Henry, Prince of Wales, but there is no record of these appointments
having resulted in any architectural work. Prince Henry died in 1612,
and in 1613 Jones secured the reversion, after Simon Basil, of the
office of surveyor of works to the king.[12] In the same year he went
to Italy for the second time, where he studied the work of celebrated
painters and architects, as well as the splendid remains of ancient
architecture which were even more abundant in those days than in these.
His intercourse with living architects and painters shaped his own
methods of study and design, and there can be no doubt that he returned
not only fully equipped to undertake any work that might fall to his
lot, but deeply imbued with the spirit of Italian art and the prevalent
Italian methods of design.

He walked on a high plane, his outlook was wider than that of any of
his contemporaries at home. He had acquired conceptions of architecture
nobler than those engendered by its application to the ordinary needs
of daily life. He has left us very little record of his own opinions
on any subject; it is all the more interesting, therefore, to find in
his sketch-book, under the date, “Friday y^e 20 January 1614” (1615 new
style), a page of reflections of which the following is the gist. “In
all designing of ornament one must first design the ground plain as it
is for use, and then adorn and compose it with decorum according to its
use. To say true, all this composed ornament resulting from abundance
of design, such as was brought in by Michael Angelo and his followers,
does not in my opinion suit solid architecture but is more appropriate
to gardens, the ornaments of chimneys, friezes and the inside of
houses, where such things must of necessity be used. For as outwardly
every wise man carries himself gravely in public places, yet inwardly
has imagination and fire which sometimes flies out unrestrained, just
as Nature sometimes flies out to delight or amuse us, to move us to
laughter, contemplation, or even horror; so in architecture the outward
ornament is to be solid, proportionable according to rule, masculine
and unaffected.”

No epithets more suitable than the two last--masculine and
unaffected--could be applied to Jones’s own work.

[Illustration: FIG. 23.--St Paul’s Church, Covent Garden. West
Front.

From an Engraving by Thomas Sandby.]

[Illustration: FIG. 24.--The Piazza, Covent Garden.

From an Engraving by Thomas Sandby.]

[Illustration: FIG. 25.--Ground Plan, Queen’s House,
Greenwich, 1635.]

The amount of Jones’s own work in architecture is scarcely so large as
has hitherto been supposed. In regard to the various buildings with
which he has been credited, some of the attributions are supported
by contemporary evidence in the shape of drawings or of references in
letters and documents; others by the direct enumeration of his staunch
admirer, John Webb, who was his pupil and assistant, who married a
kinswoman of his, and was the executor of his will. Others rest upon
tradition or upon the opinions of critics. Tradition is not altogether
reliable, owing partly to a natural tendency to attribute any
outstanding piece of work to the most celebrated artist of the time,
and partly to the natural desire of owners to attach a well-known name
to their possessions. The value of a critic’s opinion obviously depends
upon that uncertain factor--the ability and equipment of the critic for
his task, and although the opinion of a competent critic will always
count for much, it cannot count for so much as direct evidence. The
evidence in this case consists of allusions in contemporary letters,
not very numerous or helpful; of architectural drawings by Jones, which
are helpful but not numerous; and of the testimony of Webb, who was
in the best position to know what his master actually designed. Webb
has occasion in his “Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored,” to mention
Jones’s principal works, which he thus enumerates: The west portico
of St Paul’s Cathedral, and the reducing-of the body of it “from
the steeple to the west end, into that order and uniformity we now
behold”;[13] St Paul’s, Covent Garden (Fig. 23), “built likewise with
the porticoes about the Piazza there by Mr. Jones” (Fig. 24)[14]; the
royal chapels at Denmark House and St James’s;[15] the Banqueting House
at Whitehall; the royal house at Newmarket;[15] and the queen mother’s
new building at Greenwich.[16] The inscription on Jones’s monument
which was put up by Webb, designated him as “architectus celeberrimus,”
and recorded merely that he built the Royal White Hall (Aul. Alb. Reg.)
and restored the Cathedral of St Paul.[17]

[Illustration: FIG. 26.--The Queen’s House, Greenwich,
1619–35.]

[Illustration: FIG. 27.--Elevation.]

[Illustration: FIG. 28.--Coleshill, Berkshire, 1650. Ground
Plan.]

This list need not necessarily be considered as complete, but Webb
evidently regarded the buildings he mentions as the most noteworthy
of Jones’s productions, inasmuch as he advances them as proofs of
his skill in architecture, upon which his fame would rest much more
securely than upon his literary and antiquarian effort in “Stone-Heng
Restored.”[18]

The authority for the attribution to Jones of other buildings, such
as the enlargement of Somerset House, the chirurgeon’s theatre, and
King Charles’s block at Greenwich, rests upon the Worcester College
and Burlington-Devonshire drawings, but these buildings should more
properly be credited to Webb, by whose hand they were drawn.

[Illustration: COLESHILL HOVSE:

FIG. 29.--ELEVATION OF COLESHILL.]

The largest design by far which has hitherto been ascribed to Jones is
that for the great palace at Whitehall, but it will be presently shown
that the ascription is wrong, and that here also the chief credit ought
to be given to John Webb.

But although in the interests of historical accuracy it is necessary
to throw doubt upon much of the work with which Inigo Jones has been
credited, what remains is sufficient to establish his fame, and it
is beyond controversy that he was regarded as the “Vitruvius of his
age.” What he undoubtedly did was to introduce into England a refined
and scholarly rendering of that Italian manner at which all designers
had been aiming for half a century. As Webb says in addressing Dr
Charleton, “I must tell you that what was truly meant by the Art
of Design was scarcely known in this kingdom, until he, under the
protection of his late Sacred Majesty, and that famous Mœcenas of Arts,
the Right Honourable Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, brought it in
use and esteem among us here.” We can also agree with him when he says
that “Mr. Jones was generally learned, eminent for Architecture, a great
geometrician, and in designing with his pen (as Sir Anthony Vandike
used to say) not to be equalled by whatever great masters in his time,
for boldness, softness, sweetness, and sureness of his touches.”[19]
Of the buildings ascribed by Webb to Inigo Jones there remain but
three--the Banqueting House, St Paul’s, Covent Garden, which has been
much altered, and the Queen’s House at Greenwich, which was begun in
1619 and finished in 1635. It is quite as far removed as the Banqueting
House from the traditional type of English design. It is essentially
Italian both in plan and elevation (Figs. 25–27), and it indicates how
completely Inigo Jones had departed from the old ways. The original
drawings for the house itself have not been preserved, but there exist
several sketches by Jones’s hand of chimney-pieces and other details
connected with it.[20]

[Illustration: FIG. 30.--COLESHILL. THE STAIRCASE.]

Another house attributed to Jones on fairly good evidence is Coleshill,
in Berkshire, which stands on a steep hillside facing westwards across
the valley to Highworth. It is a striking embodiment of that cultivated
manner in architecture which was begun by Jones, continued by Webb,
and was destined gradually to supersede the traditional methods of the
countryside. Although thoroughly English in feeling it could never
have been devised without an intimate knowledge of Italian detail. It
is simple, dignified, and regular, depending for its effect upon nice
proportion and skilful detail, not at all upon picturesque variety
or broken grouping. It is a plain oblong in plan, without wings or
projections (Fig. 28); it is lofty in elevation, without gables or even
a pediment (Fig. 29); the corners are emphasised with bold quoins,
the roof springs from a widely projecting cornice, and is crowned
with a stout balustrade surrounding a spacious lead-covered flat, out
of which rises a large central cupola. The slopes of the roof are
diversified with dormers; the massive chimney-stacks are accurately and
symmetrically placed, each answering to each. There is nothing about
it haphazard or unexpected, nothing quaint or piquant; everything is
correct, regular, and stately. It cannot, however, be deemed, like
Tennyson’s Maud,

“Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null,”

for its effect is both striking and attractive; it is noble without
being oppressively grand.

The simplicity of the exterior arises from the simplicity of the plan.
The ground floor, which is mainly occupied by the reception rooms and
the great staircase, is raised high above the ground, thus leaving
space for the windows of the basement, which is devoted to the kitchens
and servants’ quarters. The upper floor contains the grand saloon
and bedrooms; in the roof are commodious attics; a staircase in the
cupola leads on to the flat roof, whence fine views are obtained of the
distant Marlborough Downs.

Although the house is of considerable size, the accommodation is
not ample in proportion; the bedrooms are large and lofty, but few
in number. Homeliness is somewhat sacrificed to stateliness. It is
inevitable that these fine, regular houses should have the defects of
their qualities.

[Illustration: FIG. 31.--COLESHILL. CEILING OF THE
HALL.]

The plan is as different from the traditional plan of English houses
as are those in Kent’s “Designs of Inigo Jones,” a collection which
will be dealt with more particularly later on. There is no great hall
connecting the parlours with the kitchens, and serving itself as one
of the chief living-rooms. The servants are relegated to the basement,
the whole of the ground floor is given up to the family, the hall is
more of a vestibule than a living-room. In former times the staircase,
although often handsomely treated, consisted of a single series of
flights occupying a compact space. At Coleshill a vast hall is devoted
to the staircase, or rather to two staircases, each equally eligible,
starting from the same place and terminating at either end of the same
landing (Fig. 30).

Although the servants were sent half underground, some of the
stateliness followed them, and the approach to the back door is flanked
by two massive pillars, each of which contains a coved niche.

[Illustration: FIG. 32.--Raynham Park, Norfolk. Ground Plan.]

The building is attributed to Inigo Jones on the testimony of a tablet
in the house, and its date, according to the same authority, is 1650.
In the absence of any other evidence this assertion, although not
contemporaneous with the building, may be accepted;[21] but it should
be remembered that Jones died in 1652, and that the last years of his
life, or almost the last, were spent in the turmoil of the Civil War.
So much did the unrest disturb his life that he appointed John Webb
to be his deputy in the office of surveyor of the works.[22] In any
case it must have been either Jones or Webb who designed Coleshill,
for there was nobody else who had at that time received the training
necessary to produce it.

There are several fine ceilings (Fig. 31) wrought in Jones’s bold
fashion, which was as different from that which produced the busy and
slender patterns of Elizabethan work, as was the general treatment
of plan and elevation from that of an Elizabethan mansion. It is
interesting to find one of the smaller rooms panelled in an earlier
style, Jacobean in character, with panelling designed for its position,
not imported from elsewhere; and as it is difficult to suppose that
Jones would have departed from his usual manner in this particular
case, it is probable that the room was left to the unaided skill of
some local craftsman, who relied on his own traditions.

[Illustration: FIG. 33.--RAYNHAM PARK, NORFOLK,
_cir._ 1636. GARDEN FRONT.]

Of Jones’s connection with Raynham Park, in Norfolk (Figs. 32, 33),
there is no evidence beyond tradition and the style of the work itself;
but much of this has touches about it which are quite in his manner.
There are indications that the house was built at two periods, and
these make it difficult to attribute the whole work to one designer.
But the treatment of the front, with its two wings of decided though
slight projection, and its rather heavily-curved gables, serves to make
it a connecting link between the old and the new styles. The date of
this house is generally stated to be 1636, but further investigation is
required in order to arrive at its true history, and to account for the
two periods of building.

At Wilton, in Wiltshire, is some of the finest of Jones’s internal
work, and his connection with this house is established by a series
of designs for the ceilings preserved among the Worcester College
drawings. The south front, of which there is a sketch in the R.I.B.A.
collection, would hardly have served to make his reputation, but the
splendid suite of state rooms is unrivalled in any English house. One
of these is a double cube, being 60 ft. by 30 ft. by 30 ft. high, and
another is a single cube of 30 ft. The double cube, with its stately
panelling filled with Vandyke’s portraits of the family, deserves
its reputation as the finest room in the country (Fig. 34). A plain,
double cube of these dimensions would be unpleasantly lofty (as may be
realised by visiting one at St James’s Palace), but here at Wilton the
great height is lessened to the eye by the introduction of a large cove
which springs from a bold cornice some 9 ft. below the ceiling, thus
reducing the height of the walls to 21 ft.

The double cube and such precise proportions were quite new in English
architecture; so also were the careful proportions of the windows and
their relation to the wall space, the pervading refinement of the
mouldings, and the simplicity (almost amounting to baldness in some
cases) of the general treatment. These factors inevitably influenced
the plan of the house, which became much less elastic than of old, and
less adaptable to the wants of English life. They tended towards the
glorification of the house at the expense of its inhabitants and to
subordinate household comfort to architecture.

[Illustration: FIG. 34.--WILTON HOUSE, WILTSHIRE. THE
DOUBLE CUBE ROOM. About 1649.]

A small but admirable piece of work which may safely be assigned to
Jones is the water-gate of York House (Fig. 35). Its present rather
forlorn situation at the bottom of Buckingham Street, Strand, gives no
indication that it was an adjunct of the town house of the princely
Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, the “Steenie” of Charles I. York House,
for so the place was called, had belonged to the Archbishops of York,
but when it came into the hands of Buckingham, he pulled it down and
built a large and temporary structure, apparently for the purpose of
using it for state occasions. Within its walls he housed a magnificent
collection of pictures and other works of art, purchased from
Rubens.[23] Gerbier (who will be mentioned again later) was employed by
the duke to design some of the new work at York House, and hence the
water-gate has been attributed to him. But the fact that a drawing of
it by Webb is included among the “Inigo Jones” drawings precludes this
idea, for it is hard to imagine either Jones or Webb condescending to
delineate any work of Gerbier’s. Apart from this it is improbable that
Gerbier could have designed anything so good. That excellent mason and
sculptor, Nicholas Stone, was employed upon its execution, and he put
in a claim to the design, but Webb’s drawing is a sufficient answer to
this pretension also.

York House was sold in 1672 by the second duke, the “chymist, fiddler,
statesman, and buffoon” of Dryden, to a syndicate who pulled down the
house, and covered the site with new buildings, leaving the water-gate
as practically the sole relic of the old palace. Its appearance, backed
by its newer neighbours, is well indicated in a drawing by Thomas
Sandby, made about 1760 (reproduced as the frontispiece).

Inigo Jones died in June 1652.[24] His will is dated the 22nd July
1650, when he was “aged seaventy-seaven yeares.” He left in specified
sums the amount of £4,150, and he bequeathed the debt owing to him
from the late king and queen, of which the amount is not stated, in
equal shares to his executor, John Webb, and one Richard Gammon, a
carpenter, after deducting £50 for the paymaster of the works payable
within a month after the discharge of the debt. He disposes of one half
of his wearing apparel, but does not mention the other half, nor does
he dispose of the residue of his estate. He mentions no collection of
drawings (as did John Webb) nor any books. On the face of it he can
hardly be considered a wealthy man at his death. A really exhaustive
account of his life has yet to be written; one which shall be free
from the undemonstrable attribution of work to him; free from baseless
eulogy on the one hand and detraction on the other; one which shall
fairly balance tradition and evidence; which shall take account of him
as an artist and scene-painter, as a surveyor dealing from day to day
with prosaic details, and as an architectural designer. It has been no
part of the present purpose to enter minutely into these particulars;
it was outside the scope of this work to marshal all the evidence for
or against his authorship of every building with which he has been
credited. The aim has been to indicate the general influence he had
upon English architecture, particularly in respect of house design.

[Illustration: FIG. 35.--The Water-Gate of York House, London.]

He was the most notable figure that had hitherto appeared upon the
stage of English architecture, the most refined and scholarly, with an
exquisite sense of proportion. He was at heart an artist, just as Wren
was at heart a man of science.

[Illustration: FIG. 36.--Drawing by Inigo Jones for the
Banqueting House, Whitehall. This drawing was carried out, but with
slight modifications; the pediment was omitted, the roof being flat,
with a balustrade.

From the Chatsworth Collection, by kind permission of the Duke of
Devonshire.]

THE DRAWINGS OF INIGO JONES AND JOHN WEBB

WEBB’S OWN WORK

Reference has been made more than once to the design for an immense
palace at Whitehall. The drawings for this, which are, most of them,
preserved at Worcester College, Oxford, were first introduced to the
public by William Kent, the architect, in the year 1727, under the
title of “Designs of Inigo Jones.” There are two volumes of this book,
the first occupied chiefly with the great palace; the second with
miscellaneous designs, principally houses. The drawings used by Kent
were in the possession of Lord Burlington, the well-known dilettante;
at any rate, some of them were, while others seem to have belonged to
Dr. Clarke of All Souls College, Oxford, who subsequently left them to
Worcester College.

The history of the drawings is not altogether free from obscurity,
but it appears to be as follows. John Webb had in his possession a
large number of drawings, mostly done by himself, but including some
by his old master, Inigo Jones. At his death in 1672 Webb left all
his “library and books, and all his prints and cuts and drawings of
architecture” to his son William, with strict injunctions that they
were to be kept together.[25] This injunction was not respected, and
it is said that the widow of William Webb disposed of the collection.
John Aubrey, writing between 1669 and 1696, says that “Mr. Oliver, the
City Surveyor, hath all his [Jones’s] papers and designs, not only of
St Paul’s Cathedral, etc., and the Banqueting House, but his designs
of all Whitehall suitable to the Banqueting House; a rare thing, which
see.”[26] It is almost certain that the drawings mentioned by Aubrey
were those left to William Webb by his father, for it is extremely
unlikely that there would have been two collections of the kind. There
is no record of how Mr. Oliver obtained them, nor of how he disposed of
them; the next thing that is known is that Lord Burlington had acquired
the larger half and Dr. Clarke the smaller, but in some respects the
more important. Lord Burlington’s portion descended to the Dukes of
Devonshire, and the seventh duke made a gift of a great part to the
Royal Institute of British Architects, in whose library they are
preserved. Some, however, he retained at Chatsworth, including a series
entitled “Designs for Whitehall,” which are, as a matter of fact,
mostly preliminary sketches by Webb for the various versions of the
great palace; and a large number of designs by Jones for the scenery,
setting, and costumes of masques, as well as some by Webb. Dr. Clarke
bequeathed his portion to Worcester College, Oxford, on his death in
1736. It is practically certain that the Burlington collection and
that at Worcester College were originally one collection, inasmuch as
each contains drawings which supplement some of those in the other.
At Worcester College are the “designs for all Whitehall suitable to
the Banqueting House,” together with a large number of miscellaneous
drawings. At Chatsworth are designs of the Banqueting House itself,
together with many preliminary drawings for the palace at Whitehall.
At the Royal Institute of British Architects is a drawing of the west
front of St Paul’s, together with many others, notably those of the
King Charles block at Greenwich, and almost the whole series which Kent
used for his second volume of “Designs of Inigo Jones.”

Besides these drawings there are yet others attributed to Jones at
the British Museum. Some of these are the originals of the design for
Whitehall Palace published by Campbell in his “Vitruvius Britannicus,”
which is quite different from that published by Kent. Others are
sketches of figures and drapery undoubtedly drawn by Jones. The
drawings used by Campbell were in 1717 in the possession of William
Emmett, of Bromley, an architect, but it is not known how he became
possessed of them, nor whether they once formed part of Webb’s
collection, but their style links them up with the rest of the drawings
of the palace.[27]

The whole of these drawings have until quite recently been regarded
as the work of Jones himself. Aubrey mentions them as his; Kent
published many of them as his; Campbell attributed to him those which
he used, presumably on the authority of Emmett. All subsequent writers
have taken the authorship for granted, although some have agreed that
Jones’s hand is not visible in the finished designs of the palace,
preserved at Worcester College. This acquiescence in established
opinion is not surprising. The drawings had not been thoroughly
examined and catalogued, and in particular those at one library had not
been collated with those at the others. But when recently the various
collections came to be catalogued and definitely arranged, when, by the
aid of photographs, they were brought together and compared one with
another, very interesting results were obtained. It soon became easy to
differentiate between Jones’s draughtsmanship and Webb’s. The result
was that it became apparent that nearly the whole of the drawings
should be assigned to Webb and very few to Jones. Nor would logic allow
a halt to be called there, and suffer us to say that Webb may have been
the draughtsman, but Jones was still the designer. For many of the
drawings are sketches with notes in Webb’s writing, which go to show
how he developed his ideas as he went along. It would be impossible in
the space at command to indicate fully which drawings are by Jones,
which are by Webb inspired by Jones, and which are of Webb’s own
design. But in the latter category the evidence constrains us to place
the designs for the palace at Whitehall, the designs in the second
volume of Kent, and those for King Charles’s block at Greenwich.[28]

Although the pursuit of truth compels us to credit Webb rather than
Jones with the bulk of the designs in both of Kent’s volumes, admirers
of the great master will probably not only survive the shock, but will
eventually be grateful to find that the indifferent pieces of design
which mar many of those excellent conceptions need not be attributed to
him.

It would be impossible to pursue the subject fully here, but the branch
of it which refers to the palace of Whitehall is sufficiently curious
to justify a brief account.

The generally received opinion was that two designs were prepared for
the palace, one of which was published by Campbell in 1722, and the
other by Kent in 1727. Authorities have differed as to which was the
earlier to be devised, but both are attributed to Jones. Both designs
include the well-known Banqueting House, and it has been taken for
granted that they must have been designed before that building was
erected. The date of its erection is on record. It was begun on 1st
June 1619, and completed in March 1622. The assumption, therefore, was
that James I. contemplated either the vast palace illustrated by Kent,
or the smaller version of Campbell, but that the only portion actually
built was the Banqueting House.

As a matter of fact, James can have had nothing to do with either of
these designs. Campbell states that the design which he published
was submitted to Charles I. by Inigo Jones in 1639. The accuracy of
this statement has been questioned, but it was evidently made on the
authority of a formal inscription written by Emmett on one of the
drawings. If true, it disposes of the idea that this design was made
prior to the building of the Banqueting House. But that idea is in
any case not tenable, for the Banqueting House was built to replace
an older building which was burnt down in January 1619; it was built
immediately after that catastrophe, and built on the same site. As only
some three months elapsed between the destruction of the old building
and the completion of the design for the new one, any idea of the
conception of so vast a scheme as the new palace in that space of time
must be abandoned. Moreover, there are preserved at Chatsworth Jones’s
own drawings for the new Banqueting House, which is there shown as
an isolated structure (Figs. 36, 37). Further, although the accounts
for the new Banqueting House are preserved, together with a detailed
description of it, and a record of a payment to Inigo Jones for the
“model” of it, there is no mention of any other buildings in connection
with it, contemplated or otherwise. Nor is there any contemporary
reference to the projected palace of any kind until the one presently
to be mentioned.

In the Smithson collection there is an interesting drawing which shows
a plan of the old Banqueting House previous to its destruction, and an
elevation of the ground story of the new Banqueting House (Fig. 38).
They are obviously not drawn to the same scale, inasmuch as the new
building was 100 ft. long as against 120 ft. for the old. The fact
that Smithson thought it worth while to draw the ground story, so far
as then built, suggests that he was struck by its novel treatment.
The rusticated stonework, the flat arched openings, and the unmoulded
plinth and stringcourse were unfamiliar features.

[Illustration: FIG. 37.--Drawing by Inigo Jones for the
Banqueting House, Whitehall. A preliminary sketch, subsequently
modified. The annexes were omitted.

From the Chatsworth Collection.]

[Illustration:

FIG. 38.--Plan of the Old Banqueting House which was
burnt down. Below is an Elevation of “The First Storye of the
Newe Banketinge house.”

From the Smithson Collection.]

There is so far nothing to connect Jones with the designs for the
palace, as distinguished from the Banqueting House, except the
assumption of Kent and Campbell. An examination of the various
drawings serves further to dissociate him from them. At Worcester
College are the finished drawings for the scheme published by Kent: but
in addition to those which he used are others which have not hitherto
been elucidated; some of them are, in fact, the elevations and sections
of a different scheme, while one is the isolated plan of a third. The
key to this part of the puzzle lies at Chatsworth in the shape of
the collection of drawings and sketches, bound together and entitled
“Designs for Whitehall.” These turn out to be almost entirely the work
of Webb, among them being, however, the drawings of the Banqueting
House by Jones himself. The drawings by Webb are the preliminary
sketches for the finished set at Worcester College, as well as some
for yet other schemes, and among them are the elevations, as well as
a plan, corresponding to the isolated plan at Worcester College. The
writing and the drawing, the thumb-nail sketches, the alterations,
variations, and corrections all go to show that here we have the
inception of several schemes, all by Webb, the ultimate outcome of
which was the well-known design published some eighty years afterwards
by Kent.

There are, in fact, not two, but at least seven different schemes for
the palace, more or less worked out. Of these two are by Webb, and are
preliminary to the third, which was published by Kent; a fourth is a
variant of the third; the fifth and sixth are undoubtedly by Webb; the
seventh is the British Museum design published by Campbell.

The conclusion forced upon the inquirer by a prolonged examination
of the drawings--that Webb was the real author of the designs for
the palace--is curiously confirmed by a document preserved in the
“State Papers,” an important passage in which has hitherto escaped the
attention it deserves. This is a petition, signed by Webb, presented
soon after the restoration of Charles II., wherein he seeks the office
of surveyor of the king’s works, which was about to be bestowed upon
Mr. Denham, afterwards Sir John.[29] The whole document is interesting,
but is too long to quote in its entirety. In the petition itself, Webb
says that he was by the especial command of “your Majesty’s Royal
Father of ever blessed memory brought up by Inigo Jones, Esq., your
Majesty’s late surveyor of the works, in the study of architecture, for
enabling him to do your Royal Father and your Majesty service in the
said office. In order whereunto he was by Mr. Jones, upon leaving his
house at the beginning of the late unhappy war, appointed his Deputy
to execute the said place in his absence, which your petitioner did,
until by a Committee of Parliament in the year 1643 he was thrust
out.” He then goes on to say that in preparing the royal houses for
His Majesty’s reception he has engaged his own credit to the amount
of £8,140. 5s. 4d., of which he has only received £500, and prays the
king to “settle upon him the surveyor’s office of your majesty’s work,
whereunto your Royal Father assigned him, and to that end only ordered
his education.” In the “Brief of Mr. Webb’s Case,” attached to the
petition, occurs the remarkable piece of testimony alluded to: “That he
was Mr. Jones’s Deputy and in actual possession of the office upon his
leaving London, and attended his Majesty in that capacity at Hampton
Court and at the Isle of Wight, where he received his majesty’s command
to design a palace for Whitehall, which he did until his majesty’s
unfortunate calamity caused him to desist.”

This striking statement supplies an explanation of the whole intricate
series of drawings, including those at the British Museum. It is the
culminating proof that they were the work of Webb and not of Jones.
It accounts for the absence of any reference in earlier documents to
a project which would have been vast enough to attract much attention
in court circles had it been in contemplation; and indeed it goes to
show that the project never had any real vitality, but was merely
an exercise on paper. Incidentally, it illustrates the inability
of Charles I. to perceive the real trend of events, for he gave
instructions for this huge palace when already the shadow of death had
almost enveloped him.

Webb’s petition did not serve to divert the gift of the coveted office
from Denham to himself, but it may have suggested to Charles II. the
idea of resuscitating the project of a palace at Whitehall; for there
is a block plan by Webb of a scheme differing from all the others,
dated 17th October 1661, and there are notes in Webb’s hand on some of
the drawings which show that he submitted to the second Charles some
of the designs which he had prepared for the first, and that they were
“taken,” or accepted. It is certain that Charles II. did entertain for
a time the idea of rebuilding the palace, for Evelyn relates, under
the date 27th October 1664, that being at Whitehall, the king took him
aside into a window recess, and having borrowed from him a pencil and
paper, proceeded to draw, using the window-sill as a table, a plan for
the projected palace, with the rooms of state and other particulars.
But in Webb’s case, as in so many others, the bright hopes inspired by
the Restoration were overclouded; the projected palace went no further
than to be a design on paper; the surveyorship was given to Denham, and
on his death, in spite of a promise of its reversion, Webb suffered the
mortification of seeing the young and wholly inexperienced Wren, who
was at that time not even an architect, passed over his head.

With regard to the design of the palace much has been written in
praise, something in dispraise. Nearly all that has been said has been
founded upon Kent’s version. The vastness of the scheme and the
belief that Jones devised it have acted and reacted upon each other in
stimulating admiration. Had the project been of ordinary dimensions,
or had not Jones been credited with it, it is conceivable that less
eulogistic language might have been employed.

[Illustration: FIG. 39.--PLAN FOR THE PALACE AT WHITEHALL.

From the Worcester College Collection.

This is the plan utilised by Kent, but reversed by him in the
printing of it. The Charing Cross front is at the top, the
Westminster front at the bottom, the River front on the right,
the Park front on the left. The Banqueting House, then already
built, was to have been incorporated in the scheme. It lies
between the large court and the small court in the right-hand
bottom corner.]

[Illustration: FIG. 40.--SKETCHES FOR PARTS OF THE PALACE AT
WHITEHALL, INCLUDING TWO FOR THE “PERSIANS.” The sketches and
writing are by Webb’s hand.

From the Chatsworth Collection, by kind permission of the Duke of
Devonshire.]

The scheme, however, is truly remarkable.[30] It is of vast size;
the buildings and courts would have covered an area of some 23 acres
(Fig. 39). They would have extended from the Charity Commission’s
offices, south of the Banqueting House, to within a hundred feet of
Craig’s Court on the north; and from Whitehall Court on the east, right
across the Horse Guards parade and up to the enclosure of the park
on the west. They are skilfully disposed, with great architectural
magnificence. The noble Banqueting House was to be incorporated, but
it was to be one of the minor features. There were to be seven courts;
the largest, in the middle of the building, was 732 ft. long by 370
ft. wide; the four corner courts, each 280 ft. by 180 ft.; one of the
courts was to be circular, 220 ft. in diameter, and its columns were
to be fashioned in the likeness of venerable men in flowing draperies,
called Persians, as distinguished from the female figures which,
fulfilling a similar purpose, were called Caryatides.

All these particulars can be gathered from Kent’s published version.
He gives plans, elevations, and sections, but he gives no internal
features save the insignificant matters inherent in the sections.
Webb’s drawings, on the other hand, include not only sketches for
the general plan and for detailed portions of it, not only sketches
for external features, and among them several alternatives for the
Persians, but also the working out of lobbies, staircases, chapels and
the like (Figs. 40, 41). It is true that these details are part of
one of the preliminary schemes, but they show how seriously he took
his work, and how thoroughly he had mastered the details of classic
design. These sketches are unmistakably Webb’s; there are none by Jones
relating to the designing of the palace. It is interesting to compare
Webb’s large plan for Whitehall with Philibert de l’Orme’s plan for
the Tuileries, which has two oval courts set within larger ones. Webb
may have got his idea of the circular Persian court from this source,
and indeed the whole plan may have been a help to him, possibly; but
his scheme is far larger and more elaborate than De l’Orme’s and is
treated in a different style.

The appearance which the building would have presented from the river
is well shown in Thomas Sandby’s drawing (Fig. 1), hitherto unknown.
The view is supposed to have been taken from the gardens of old
Somerset House previous, of course, to the erection of Waterloo Bridge.
It is the most poetic rendering of the great scheme which has been
attempted. It is founded on the version published by Kent, so far as
the river front is concerned, and on one of the other seven designs
in respect of the front facing to the right of the spectator. On the
original drawings this front is considerably longer than Sandby makes
it, the lower portion being more than half as long again; a good idea
may thus be obtained of the magnitude of the conception.

Admitting to the full the great skill and knowledge which the designs
display and which prove that Webb was not unworthy of the august
influence which placed him under the tuition of Inigo Jones, it is
nevertheless no great matter for regret that the palace was never
built. It can hardly be held that the complete design maintains the
high standard of the Banqueting House. Much of it indeed verges on
the commonplace. So vast a building would have been a burden on any
monarch; it would inevitably have fallen from its high estate, and
would probably have drifted to being put to such ignoble uses as was
the much smaller palace of the Louvre in Paris. If fate had been less
relentless it might eventually have been devoted to some public use for
which it was ill-contrived--public offices or a museum. Architecture,
although apparently the most permanent of all the arts, suffers most
from change. Buildings may remain, but the uses for which they were
designed either cease or are so modified that the buildings become
unsuitable. Then follows degradation, decay, or even destruction: at
the luckiest, a diversion from the original purpose. The Banqueting
House itself is a case in point; for who among those who inspect the
interesting collection it now contains have any notion of why it was
built, or can picture, even faintly, the scenes enacted within its
walls?

[Illustration: FIG. 41.--SKETCHES FOR PARTS OF THE PALACE AT
WHITEHALL, BY WEBB.

From the Chatsworth Collection.]

[Illustration: FIG. 42.--ELEVATIONS OF A HOUSE, BY INIGO
JONES.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the Royal Institute
of British Architects.]

In addition to the direct evidence which goes to show that Jones was
not the designer of the palace at Whitehall, there is the evidence of
such architectural drawings as are either actually signed by him, or
such as can almost certainly be attributed to him. All told, these
amount to comparatively few, and they exhibit curious inconsistencies.
Some are almost puerile, although drawn when he was mature in years.
Others (and these are more numerous) are strong, simple, and noble,
full of restraint, and depending chiefly upon proportion for their
effect (Fig. 42). They are large in scale, and are mainly drawn with
a free hand. Indeed it is characteristic of Jones to draw to a large
scale and with little aid from instruments. He appears to have been
impatient of petty details, and it is extremely doubtful whether he
could have brought his wide-sweeping hand down to the working out of a
complicated plan on the small scale actually employed in the Whitehall
drawings.[31]

In the collections of earlier date, John Thorpe’s and Smithson’s, the
bulk of the drawings may safely be attributed to Thorpe and Smithson
respectively; which makes the absence of drawings by Jones all the
more remarkable. And it must be remembered that although there are few
architectural drawings by him there are many of other kinds, notably of
the scenery for masques and of the human figure.[32] Indeed, to judge
only by his drawings one would regard him as a painter rather than an
architect. His surviving architectural drawings may be reckoned by
dozens; those for masques, figure studies, and drapery by hundreds.
His figure studies and drapery are executed with great vigour and a
masterly touch. His sketches for the numerous masques, of which he
designed the setting, are spontaneous and bold (Fig. 43). Many of them
have an architectural character, and, needless to say, the architecture
is always classic in style. There is one, however, which represents a
scene near London; the wings are composed of old houses, the backcloth
is a distant view of London itself with old St Paul’s as the principal
feature.[33] It is interesting to see that the houses in the foreground
are Jacobean in treatment, yet Jacobean with a larger infusion of
classic detail than houses of the period actually exhibited. The
artist’s hand instinctively sought a classic expression.

[Illustration: FIG. 43.--Masque by Inigo Jones.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]

Jones, indeed, designed most of the masques presented at court during
the reigns of James I. and his son, and collaborated with several
of the different poets who wrote the words of these fanciful plays;
with Ben Jonson, Samuel Daniell, Thomas Campion, George Chapman, and
Aurelian Townshend. One of his efforts was less successful than could
have been wished, although it was for an occasion when expectation was
particularly high--the masque on Twelfth Night 1618, when the prince
was to take a part for the first time. Gossiping letters dubbed it
poor, said that Inigo Jones had lost reputation, and that it was indeed
so dull that the poet, Ben Jonson, ought to return to his old trade of
brick making.[34]

But in spite of the gossips Jones was a skilful scene-painter, and owed
much of his facility in the art to the months he had spent in Italy
conversing, as he says, with the great masters in design. To him we
owe the first introduction of movable scenery into English theatres.
He was also a practical surveyor of some ability; already in 1613 he
had been appointed surveyor of his majesty’s works, and although in
those days it was not necessarily a practical man who was appointed to
such a post, yet a clever man, even if ill-equipped at first, would
soon acquire experience. The State Papers show that he was kept busy
with the duties of his office, duties which included many matters of
dull routine. It is perhaps worthy of note that in matters requiring
detailed reports and estimates he was generally commissioned along
with one or two others who may (or may not) have had more practical
knowledge than himself. It is also interesting to find that in several
cases where repairs or alterations were under consideration, special
stress was laid in the reports upon the probable result on the beauty
of the buildings they affected. This particular and uncommon touch may
certainly be credited to Jones.

In order fully to understand the subject of the so-called Inigo Jones
drawings and their influence on English architecture, it will be
advisable to set out again what and where they are.

Firstly, there are those for the palace at Whitehall. Of these the
finished designs, utilised by Kent, are at Worcester College, Oxford,
and the preliminary drawings are at Chatsworth. These, as already
shown, must be credited to Webb. There is also at the British Museum
another and much scantier set, utilised by Campbell.

Secondly, there are at Worcester College a number of miscellaneous
drawings, mostly by Webb, but including a few by Jones.

Thirdly, there are in the library of the Royal Institute of British
Architects a large number of miscellaneous drawings, also mostly by
Webb, but also including a few by Jones. The most important of these
are the series of designs utilised by Kent in his “Designs of Inigo
Jones,” and the drawings for the Charles II. block at Greenwich
Hospital. Practically all these are by Webb.

These drawings were unknown to the public until Kent published the
“Designs” in 1727. His two volumes comprise, as already mentioned, the
designs of Whitehall Palace, and a series of houses, large and small.
It was not until they were published that the public generally knew
anything about them, and it was accordingly not till then that they
affected architectural design. Walpole makes this quite clear: “It
was in this reign,” he says--that of George II.--“that architecture
resumed all her rights. Noble publications of Palladio, Jones, and the
antique recalled her to true principles and correct taste; she found
men of genius to execute her rules, and patrons to countenance their
labours.”[35]

But apart from their effect upon the public, the insight which these
drawings give into the inner working of the designers’ minds is of
great interest. Besides the finished drawings there are innumerable
sketches for plans, elevations, and details, as well as many scraps
copied from Italian books on architecture, notably from Serlio.
Comparing these and Jones’s own sketches with similar memoranda and
sketches by Italian architects of the period, it is curious to find
how thoroughly he adopted their particular methods of work, and after
him Webb likewise. Everything is classic in style, all the proportions
are carefully worked out. The lengths and heights of buildings are not
the result of caprice, or chance, or even primarily of convenience,
but of systems of proportion. So also in the plans: these are largely
adaptations of Italian models, not only in their formality and
symmetry, but also in the disposition of the rooms. There is nothing
haphazard, fortuitous, or rambling about them: they are the result of
carefully considered proportion. Every house was complete in itself,
and to be altered or enlarged afterwards was to be spoilt.

This sort of precision had a natural tendency to become mechanical, and
in later years, notably in the early part of the eighteenth century,
the tendency asserted itself strongly. But it is interesting to find
that the foibles of Campbell, Gibbs, and their contemporaries had their
justification in the work of Jones and Webb.

It was more particularly Webb who founded himself so carefully on
definite proportions. Jones had a natural instinct for good proportion.
His studies of the human figure and of drapery, his construction
of scenery for masques, gave him freedom of touch and sureness in
achieving the result at which he aimed not to be found in Webb.
Jones’s youth had been passed in that atmosphere of freedom and
joyous fancy in house design which was characteristic of Elizabethan
days. The intelligent ignorance with which Italian detail was treated
he set himself to correct; but he did not altogether crush out its
light-heartedness. His own work, although purer and more severe than
that of his predecessors, retained something of their freedom.

[Illustration: FIG. 44.--DESIGN FOR A HOUSE, BY JOHN
WEBB.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]

The same, but in a less degree, may be said of Webb. Immersed though
he seems to have been in his endeavours to saturate himself with the
true rules of proportion, when he came to put his ideas into execution,
he showed a pretty play of natural fancy, and much of his detail has a
freshness and individuality sadly lacking in the work of fifty years
later.

Apart entirely from the question as to the authorship of the Inigo
Jones drawings, the ideas embodied in them are of the first importance.
For the purpose of grasping these, the second volume of Kent’s “Designs
of Inigo Jones” will answer almost as well as the originals. Comparing
them with Elizabethan or Jacobean houses, a complete change will be
seen to have taken place, both in the plans and the elevations (Fig.
44). There is no resemblance to the older manner. The time-honoured
arrangement which placed the great hall centrally between the
family wing and the servants’ wing has been superseded by one which
places the kitchens in a basement, devotes the ground floor to the
principal living-rooms, abolishes the great hall as a living-room,
and substitutes for it a central saloon of great height, which not
infrequently reaches from the ground floor to the roof. The orderly
straggling of the ancient plan has given way to a trim compactness in
the new. The plan, of course, controls the elevation, which is more
precise and far less picturesque than of old. There are few, if any,
gables; the chimneys are solid and staid; the windows consist each of
one large opening, instead of being a group of small lights formed by
mullions and transoms. It does not need an examination of the elaborate
proportions tabulated by Webb on many of the original drawings to
realise that here the old instinctive and even haphazard methods have
been superseded by a system of carefully calculated design. The change
is apparent at a glance, and one feels at once that the source of
inspiration is not English but Italian. Very few of these designs
appear to have been actually carried out, but they had a considerable
influence on domestic architecture after their publication. They
include practically none of the houses attributed to Jones or Webb
which still exist.

John Webb has hardly received his due as an architect, either from his
contemporaries or from posterity. Evelyn spoke of him as “Inigo Jones’s
man.” Most modern writers have regarded him as merely a pale shadow
of his master. But from what has just been said about his share in
the “Inigo Jones” drawings, this estimate of his position ought to be
revised, for there can be no doubt that he was the actual draughtsman
of the designs for the palace at Whitehall; of nearly all those in the
second volume of Kent inscribed “Inigo Jones, architectus”; and of
King Charles’s block at Greenwich (Fig. 45). It may be said, indeed
it has been said, that even if that be so, he was only carrying out
ideas which had been already devised in the rough by the older man.
To which the reply is that there is no evidence of this among the
drawings themselves, and that the evidence of contemporary documents,
preserved among the State Papers, confirms the presumption that Webb
was the designer of the Whitehall Palace and of the Greenwich block.
With regard to the series of house designs in Kent’s second volume,
no extraneous evidence is likely to be found, for they can only be
regarded as exercises in design; to transfer these works from Jones’s
account to Webb’s is to do no injustice to the former’s reputation,
it is rather to enhance it. It relieves a first-rate artist from the
weight of work which is not quite first-rate: and the same may be said,
as already pointed out, of the Whitehall drawings. With regard to the
Greenwich design, it has, with justice, been highly extolled; but
this is the less surprising when it is remembered that it is a clever
adaptation of an excellent Italian design to be found in the pages of
Palladio.[36]

Webb’s drawings of the Greenwich designs are fairly numerous, and they
include a plan for a complete scheme, as well as plans, elevations and
many details of King Charles’s block. They are dated 1663, 1665, 1666,
and one 1669–70. It is interesting, therefore, to find in the Audit
Office Enrolments[37] a warrant dated “the 21st day of November 1666,”
and directed “To Our Trusty and Wellbeloved John Webb, of Butleigh,
in Our County of Somerset, Esq^{re},” which begins thus: “Charles
R. Trusty and wellbeloved, wee greet you well. Whereas wee have
thought fit to employ you for the erecting and building of Our palace
at Greenwich, Wee doe hereby require and authorize you to execute,
act, and proceed there, according to your best skill and judgment
in Architecture, as our Surveyor Assistant unto S^{r.} John Denham,
K^{nt.} of the Bath, Surveyor General of Our Works, with the same power
of executing, acting, proceeding therein, and graunting of Warrants
for stones to be had from Portland, to all intents and purposes, as
the said Sir John Denham have or might have....” The salary is to be
£200 per annum with travelling charges. This appointment, together with
Webb’s drawings and the absence of any preliminary drawings or sketches
by Jones, seems to establish Webb as the actual designer.

It is not at all probable that Webb destroyed any sketches that might
have been in existence, with a view to his own reputation. For he
preserved several slight sketches by Jones, and whereas he nowhere
publicly pushes himself, he was extremely jealous of Jones’s fame, as
appears on page after page of his “Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored.”
Indeed, he subordinates himself completely to his old master, and
posterity appears to have taken him at his own valuation.

He must have been, nevertheless, a very clever man, an apt pupil, and
a most painstaking student, judging by the voluminous notes as to
proportions, and so forth, which he wrote on his drawings. He went
to Jones in 1628 at the age of seventeen; and according to the brief
attached to his petition, already mentioned, “he was brought up by his
Unckle Mr. Inigo Jones upon his late Maiestyes command in the study of
Architecture, as well that w^{ch} relates to building as for masques
Tryumphs and the like.” It will be remembered that Mr. John Denham, as
he then was in the year 1660, had been granted the post of surveyor of
the king’s works, although he had received no suitable training; the
brief concludes with the following apt remarks: “That Mr. Denham may
possibly, as most gentry in England at this day have some knowledge in
the Theory of Architecture; but nothing of ye practique soe that
he must of necessity have another at his Mai^{ties} charge to doe
his business; whereas Mr. Webb himself designes, orders, and directs,
whatever given in command w^{th} out any other man’s assistance.
His Mai^{tie} may please to grant some other place more proper for
Mr. Denham’s abilityes and confirme unto Mr. Webb the Surveyors place
wherein he hath consumed 30 years study, there being scarce any of the
greate Nobility or eminent gentry of England but he hath done service
for in matter of building, ordering of meddalls, statues and the like.”

[Illustration: FIG. 45.--ELEVATION OF THE RIVER FRONT,
GREENWICH PALACE, BY JOHN WEBB.

From the original Drawing in the Library of the R.I.B.A.]

[Illustration:

North-East View. North Front.

FIG. 46.--THORPE HALL, NEAR PETERBOROUGH, 1656.

From Engraving by Hakewill, 1852.]

The common sense of this contention, although not flattering to Mr
Denham, was vindicated by the appointment of Webb as assistant surveyor
at Greenwich. But the petition and brief are interesting in other
ways. They assert that Charles I. expressly caused Webb to be trained
in architecture and the preparation of masques, in order to succeed
Inigo Jones and carry on his work. They confirm roughly the date of his
apprenticeship: and the brief states that he had worked for most of the
great nobility and eminent gentry, thereby showing that he was a man
of large independent practice, and not merely “Inigo Jones’s man”--a
conclusion to which his drawings had already led.

The fact that Webb was actually trained in the preparation of masques
as well as in architecture has hitherto escaped notice, but recent
researches show that he made drawings for the scenery of some of those
devised by Inigo Jones, particularly in the case of the pastoral of
“Florimene” in 1635, and D’Avenant’s “Salmacida Spolia” in 1640. A
year or two after the death of Jones, namely in 1656, D’Avenant again
sought Webb’s help, and got him to design the scenery for his “Siege of
Rhodes,” the first opera produced in England. Webb’s drawings for this
work are preserved at Chatsworth.[38]

The illustrations in the second volume of Kent’s “Designs of Inigo
Jones,” give a good idea not only of Webb’s powers as a designer, but
also of the kind of house which was becoming fashionable. But it is
worth while to supplement them by others which were actually carried
out.

[Illustration: FIG. 47.--Thorpe Hall, near Peterborough.
Ground Plan.]

The best known of the houses attributed to Webb is Thorpe Hall, near
Peterborough (Fig. 46). It was built for Oliver St John, Lord Chief
Justice of Common Pleas, and a kinsman of Oliver Cromwell,[39] about
the year 1656, which date is on the stables. It is a fine massive house
of oblong shape, and, like Coleshill, it is without wings, gables, or
dominating pediments; the detail is large and simple, the principal
effect being gained by a widely projecting cornice at the eaves. The
roof is hipped at the four corners, and its slopes are broken by
dormers. The windows are carefully spaced, the angles of the building
are emphasised with bold quoins, there is an open columned porch in the
middle of each of the two principal fronts, and on one of the short
fronts there are two square bay-windows. These are the means adopted to
give interest to the design, and slight as they are, they achieve their
purpose. A plinth, and a bold string over the ground floor windows help
the general proportions, and a little liveliness is imparted by the
introduction of pediments over some of the windows. The whole effect
is refined and severe, widely different from the picturesque variety
of Elizabethan work. The open porches are probably the first examples
of their kind to be found in England. The bay-windows, it must be
confessed, are poor and meagre; they would not be out of place in a
suburban villa; they are a disappointing substitute for the noble bays
of earlier times. They appear to be original, but they may derive some
of their character from the restoration which the house underwent in
the middle of last century. The chimneys are well designed, massive
features, of the somewhat plain type which was supplanting the more
varied and ingenious designs of fifty years before.

[Illustration: FIG. 48.--Thorpe Hall. Panelling in
Dining-Room.]

[Illustration: FIG. 49.--THORPE HALL. THE STAIRCASE.

Henry Tanner _del._]

The plan of the house, as given by Hakewill (Fig. 47), is of the
modern order, although faintly reminiscent of the ancient arrangement
in respect of the hall, which is approached from the entrance passage
through a screen. The ground floor, containing the hall, library,
and dining-room, is raised well above the ground, and the servants’
quarters are in the basement. Subsequent to the making of Hakewill’s
plan, certain alterations were made which did away with the necessity
of passing through one room to get to the next, but they did not affect
the main dispositions.

Much of the detail inside is quite charming, especially the ceilings,
the panelling of the dining-room and the staircase. The sober yet
fanciful treatment of the dining-room is delightful (Fig. 48) and
strongly resembles that of some of Webb’s designs at Worcester College.
Indeed the detail throughout abounds in touches such as are to be found
in his drawings, and it has a freedom from pedantry which is quite
refreshing, and may be regarded as a legacy from his less learned
predecessors. The staircase has a carved and pierced floral balustrade
of a type which had a considerable vogue in England during the second
half of the seventeenth century (Fig. 49). The carving is particularly
vigorous, especially in the newels and the great scroll at the foot of
the stairs. The carved work is in lime, while the framework is in oak,
but time has coloured the whole to one tone. The newels are crowned
with fanciful vases full of flowers, another feature characteristic
of the period. Some of the doors have panels over them, filled with
painted landscapes, one of the earliest instances of a method of
treatment that became very general in later years. The fireplaces, with
one or two exceptions, are not fine examples of their kind.

The lay out is quite formal. The house stands in the midst of a large
oblong enclosure, some 700 ft. long by 350 ft. wide, containing between
five and six acres. The stables and garden houses occupy part of this
space, the remainder being devoted to a forecourt and gardens. The
enclosing wall is pierced with gateways of which the piers are of
varied and interesting design (Fig. 50). The stables themselves are
less formal and more picturesque than the house, but the same strong
and masterful treatment prevails throughout (Fig. 51). As within the
house so without, the detail has more individuality than was possible
in later times when the continued study of Italian models appears to
have made designers too fearful of committing solecisms to allow them
to give free play to their fancy.

[Illustration: FIG. 50.--Thorpe Hall. Gate-Piers.]

[Illustration: FIG. 51.--Thorpe Hall. The Stables.]

[Illustration: FIG. 52.--Lamport Hall.]

The attribution of Thorpe Hall to Webb rests on tradition and the
character of the work. His connection with another Northamptonshire
house, Lamport Hall, is vouched for by Bridges, the county historian,
who says (writing in the early years of the eighteenth century): “Sir
Justinian Isham ... hath here a very elegant seat; part of which is
old, and part new built in his father’s time, by John Webb, son-in-law
to Inigo Jones. He hath several drawings of mouldings, architraves,
and freezes, made in the years 1654 and 1655, with some letters from
Mr. Webb dated in 1657, relating to the gate, and pilasters, and the
execution of an intended depository.” Owing to alterations which have
been made from time to time, there is little of the original work
left except the front (Fig. 52), which exhibits the simple, dignified
yet interesting treatment characteristic of Webb’s manner. Here the
whole of the architectural detail is in stone, there are two principal
stories which stand on a windowed basement; there are no strings nor
cornices between the basement and the main cornice which crowns the
walls; above this is a parapet which seems to have been altered from
its original design. The wall space is occupied by windows carefully
proportioned, and in the centre of the façade is a slight projection
according to Webb’s custom. The angles of the building are emphasised
with quoins. The whole design is simple in the extreme, but its
excellent proportions give it dignity and charm.

Illustration: FIG. 53.--RAMSBURY MANOR, WILTSHIRE.]

It must surely have been the old house to which the epithet “vile”
was applied by the charming Dorothy Osborne in one of her letters
to her future husband, Sir William Temple. The elder Sir Justinian,
forty-two years old and a widower, was a persistent but unwelcome
suitor of Dorothy’s, just about the time when he altered his house. He
was esteemed, according to a biographer, one of the most accomplished
persons of the time, and, doubtless, it was in that capacity that he
employed the hardly less accomplished Webb. But Dorothy put a different
reading on his character, and considered him a self-conceited, learned
coxcomb. Her letter, wherein she speaks of “a vile house he has in
Northamptonshire,” is assigned to January 1653, so it is just possible
that during the course of his wooing she may have indicated her
opinion of his home, and thus have been an unintentional agent in its
improvement.

Ramsbury, in Wiltshire, is another house attributed to Webb,[40] but
no date is given in connection with it. Its admirable proportion and
simplicity of detail ally it with other work of his (Fig. 53). Like
Thorpe Hall it is a simple oblong in plan, but the front and side are
broken by slight projections which give the opportunity of breaking
the roof with pediments as well as with the customary dormers. The
effect depends primarily upon the spacing of the windows, the extent of
roof in relation to the walls, and the bold cornice at the eaves. The
detail is refined, and a welcome change from uniformity of treatment
is afforded by the introduction of twin doorways in the middle of the
shorter front. The ground floor is kept up above the ground, as was
customary with Webb, and the servants are placed in the basement. The
drawbacks of this disposition are less than would appear from the front
view, as the ground at the other end is so much lower that the basement
floor is on the same level with it, and there is easy access from the
kitchen department to the outbuildings which are grouped some distance
away on the lower level.

The detail inside is not of striking interest; much of it looks rather
later than Webb’s time, especially the ceiling (Fig. 54); but the way
in which the cupola, which is almost buried between the roofs, is
made to light the attic landing, and, by means of a ceiling light, the
landing also of the floor below, is quite ingenious, and incidentally
produces a charming feature in the ceiling of the principal landing.

[Illustration: FIG. 54.--RAMSBURY MANOR. THE SALOON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 55.--Ashdown House, Berkshire.]

These are some among the houses that are attributed to Webb. Ashdown
House (Fig. 55) is another, a rather gaunt place, built high on the
downs in the extreme west of Berkshire, far away from everywhere, so
that the builder, it is said, might run no risk of infection from the
plague. Taken in conjunction with his dated drawings--such as ceilings
at Wilton in 1649; designs for Durham House, London, in the same
year; the Physicians’ College in 1651; a chimney-piece for Drayton
in Northamptonshire in 1653; and another for Northumberland House in
1660--they show that Webb was tolerably busy all through the time of
the Commonwealth. But it is probably the fact, confirmed by the absence
of dated drawings between 1638 and 1649, that he was not doing much
work, beyond the Whitehall designs, during the course of the actual
hostilities. This is only what might be expected, and indeed it is
likely that beyond what Webb did, there was very little important work
carried out during the period of twenty years from 1640 to 1660.

The consideration of Inigo Jones’s work and that of Webb has taken the
story down to about 1670; it is necessary now to go back a little in
order to look at work by less distinguished designers.

[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Pepysian Library, Magdalene College,
Cambridge.]

[Illustration: FIG. 57.--The Latin School, Warminster,
Wiltshire, 1707.]

THE TRANSITION IN MINOR BUILDINGS AND INTERIORS

There are numberless buildings in all parts of the country which
show in their external treatment how gradual was the supersession of
the old style by the new and more correct treatment, and how limited
in range was the influence of even so eminent an architect as Inigo
Jones. Indeed, throughout the seventeenth century it would appear
that architectural design followed two paths; one was that trodden
by trained architects who aimed at correctitude; the other was that
taken by less learned designers, whether architects or (as of old)
masons and artificers, who had not mastered the niceties of classic
design, and therefore mixed ancient methods with such of the new as
they could compass. The mullioned window was one of the old features
to which they long held fast. The new idea of large window openings
such as prevailed in the Banqueting House they seem to have disliked.
Their reluctance had, no doubt, a constructional basis, for the narrow
lights of a mullioned window are easily bridged, whereas a wide opening
requires either a deeper head to carry the weight above it, or else
an arch. The introduction of an arch or a deep head involved a more
serious departure from ancient ways, and a more complete committal to
new design than the ordinary man could face. He did not mind pilasters,
and he did not mind a heavy cornice, and consequently there are plenty
of instances in which the old mullioned windows are accompanied by the
more stiff and straight arrangement which a heavy cornice involves.
Such an instance is to be seen in the free school at Warminster,
founded as late as 1707 (Fig. 57).

Another feature to which designers clung was the gable. This, of
course, had been from time immemorial a dominant feature of English
houses; it was the simplest and most natural way of closing the end
of a roof, and as roofs were nearly always of a steep pitch, so, too,
were the gables. But there was no place in classic architecture for
steep gables, nor indeed for gables of any kind; the nearest approach
to them was the pediment. It was only by a determined effort that the
English architect could get rid of gables, and this effort was too much
for any but the most resolute to make. Gables survived even longer
than mullioned windows, and as our climate, with its rain and snow, is
better encountered by steep roofs than by flat, the roofs continued to
be steep.

An interesting example of the mixture of mullioned windows, gables, and
classic details is to be found in the Pepysian Library at Magdalene
College, Cambridge (Fig. 56). The precise date of this building is not
known. In many of the colleges accounts have survived from which may
be gathered the date, the cost, and even the names of the designers of
the various buildings which make both Cambridge and Oxford so extremely
interesting to architects. But unluckily in this instance there are no
accounts left, and it is only inferentially and vaguely that a date
can be suggested. Subscriptions for a new building were being asked
for in 1640,[41] and again in 1679, and the building was apparently
finished, or nearly so, in 1703 when Pepys made his will, by which he
left his library (after his nephew’s death) either to Trinity College
or Magdalene, but preferably to the latter, in which case it was to be
in the “New Building,” where, in fact, it was eventually placed.

It would appear from the plan, and also from the external treatment,
that the design was made when the project first started in 1640;
but if Professor Willis’s suggestion be accepted that the Civil War
interrupted the scheme and that, in view of the change in taste, a
fresh design was adopted on the resumption of effort in Charles II.’s
time, the survival of the old method’s becomes still more striking. But
a close examination of the work strengthens the supposition that the
front was designed as a whole when the project was started in 1640; and
that the pediments and cornices over the windows, together with the
carving, were inserted at the close of the century. The later mouldings
are larger and bolder in scale than the earlier.

When it is remembered that in 1640 John Webb was drawing none but
classic buildings, and that by 1679 St Paul’s Cathedral was already
rising above the ground, and that it was designed on fully developed
classic lines, the significance of the mixed taste in this building at
Magdalene College will be the more readily appreciated. But it must
be borne in mind that Webb and Sir Christopher Wren were members of
a learned confraternity, while the unknown designer at Magdalene had
evidently not had the same opportunities as they enjoyed for acquiring
familiarity with classic detail.

[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Doorway at Stanway, Gloucestershire.]

Stanway House, in Gloucestershire, belongs in its general treatment
to the Jacobean period, but there are numerous late touches about it;
among them are the front door and the window above it (Fig. 58). The
latter appears to be a later insertion, but the doorway is probably
original, as it agrees in its general character with the arch of the
fine gate-house, which is contemporary with the mullioned windows by
which it is encompassed. It was quite a usual custom to adhere to the
old ways in the general design of a house, but to treat some special
feature, such as a doorway, in the more modern and correct fashion.
This is easily intelligible when it is remembered that the books on
classic architecture confined themselves largely to details, and dealt
but sparingly with the designs of entire buildings. At this time, that
is about 1637, there was probably no one who gave himself up entirely
to the pursuit of consistent purity of detail, except Jones and his
pupil Webb.

[Illustration: FIG. 59.--Gateway at Astwell, Northamptonshire,
1638.]

At Astwell, in Northamptonshire, there are the remains of some gates
dated 1638 which were fitted into an old Gothic opening (Fig. 59). They
have traceried heads of a sort, in imitation of mediæval work, but the
mouldings are allied more nearly to the ordinary work of the time, and
the whole is an interesting example of the mixture of old and new ideas.

Swakeleys, near Uxbridge, which carries its date, 1638, on some of its
rain-water heads, is a good example of late Jacobean work, in which the
old treatment is more apparent than the new (Fig. 60). It has mullioned
windows and many gables, but the flat pediments which crown the latter
are evidence of its having been built towards the close of the Jacobean
period. The actual roofs behind the gables are quite steep and are
so complicated that some difficulty was found in getting rid of the
rain water. Part of it is taken in a trough in the thickness of the
attic floor; and in order to lessen the number of down-pipes, much of
it is collected into lead troughs which are carried along the inside
of the attic walls to the few pipes which are provided. The result of
these arrangements is that every heavy storm or fall of snow entails
an inspection by the plumber in order to prevent the accumulation of
debris and the risk of spoiled ceilings and walls. The whole of the
cornices and pediments are worked in cement, and not, as might be
supposed, in stone.

[Illustration: FIG. 60.--SWAKELEYS, NEAR UXBRIDGE,
1638.]

[Illustration: FIG. 61.--NEW WING AT SOMERSET HOUSE, 1638,
BY WEBB.

From the Worcester College Collection.]

[Illustration: FIG. 62.--The Chapel, Burford Priory,
Oxfordshire.]

If this house is compared with Webb’s drawing of a proposed new wing at
Somerset House (Fig. 61), made in the same year, 1638, the difference
becomes strikingly apparent between the style of the ordinary designer
and that of the learned student; and yet Swakeleys was less than
twenty miles from London, where the new methods were being sedulously
cultivated.

Perhaps the most remarkable attempt to weld Jacobean and classic
design into one consistent whole is to be found in the charming chapel
attached to Burford Priory, in Oxfordshire (Fig. 62). There is much
more here than a mixture of separate features, some in one style, and
some in the other. The general treatment is reminiscent of Jacobean.
There is a lofty story crowned with a cornice and an attic above it.
There are shafts at the angles round which the cornice breaks, and they
are terminated at the top with obelisks as pinnacles; there are also
curved gables. But the shafts are fashioned into classic pilasters;
the cornice not only breaks round them, but jumps up to make way for
a door. The traceried windows have a novel disposition of curves, and
the rose window is not a mere travesty of ancient methods, but has a
vigorous individuality of its own, and is set in a classic framework.
The whole work is consistent throughout, and the detail is refined and
carefully handled. It is the successful attempt of a clever designer
to solve old problems in new ways, and it is a pity that neither his
name nor any other work from his hand is known. The chapel, as well
as the house to which it is attached, was built by Speaker Lenthall,
subsequent to his acquiring the property in 1634.

[Illustration:

Side of Chapel. End of Chapel.

FIG. 63.--BRASENOSE COLLEGE, OXFORD, 1656–66.]

[Illustration: FIG. 64.--Oriel at Brasenose College, Oxford.]

The chapel and library of Brasenose College, Oxford, have escaped the
full amount of attention which they deserve, probably because they
lie outside the range of books dealing with the accepted division of
architecture into Gothic and classic. But for that very reason they
are of interest to the present inquiry. The detail on the whole is
more classic than Gothic, but it is dealt with in a manner reminiscent
of Gothic; the cornices break forward over the pilasters, and round
the slight projections caused by the advancing of alternate windows;
the windows have Gothic tracery; pilasters are used in the place of
buttresses (Fig. 63). Indeed the general design is Gothic in its
arrangement, but classic detail has been applied to it, which in its
turn has modified the Gothic handling. The whole effect is interesting.
The designer has not merely made a Gothic design carrying it out with
classic detail, nor has he made a classic design, giving his windows
Gothic tracery. But each style has influenced the other. The Gothic
treatment has modified the classic detail, the classic detail has
modified the Gothic treatment The detail itself is quite refined,
it is not the work of an ignorant man; the ornament is judiciously
introduced, and applied with knowledge and skill. The oriel window on
the external front (Fig. 64) adjoining the east end of the chapel is
a charming piece of design, and the work generally is so well done
that it has been attributed to Sir Christopher Wren; but although
the attribution is erroneous it shows that popular opinion held the
building worthy of being coupled with a great name. It would appear
that a Mr. John Jackson superintended the building operations, and as he
made a model for the chapel roof,[42] he may fairly be credited with
the whole design. The first stone of the chapel was laid on the 18th
June 1656, and the work was practically finished by 1666, in which
year, on the 17th November, the dedication took place.

[Illustration: FIG. 65.--House in Southgate, Gloucester, 1650.]

The old house in Southgate, Gloucester (Fig. 65), until recently the
City Tea Warehouse, is a curious mixture of the old and new styles.
According to the date on a chimney-piece it was built in 1650. The
projecting stories, the panels and brackets below the windows of the
top floor, and, indeed, the general treatment of the whole front,
belong to the order of things that was passing away. The wide windows
with their pediments, some straight and some curved, and the stiff
floral pendents are indicative of the new style then coming into vogue.
If the sash-windows were adopted from the outset, they would be a still
more decidedly modern note. But if, as in all probability was the case,
they merely replace the original mullions the native aspect of the
front would have been less classic.

[Illustration: FIG. 66.--Houses at Ipswich.]

[Illustration: FIG. 67.--Nixon’s Grammar School, Oxford, 1658
(now destroyed).]

Another type of the quaint mixture of the old and the new is to be seen
at Ipswich in the well-known Sparrow’s house, and in the less ornate
example shown in Fig. 66. Here the ancient practice of overhanging
the upper stories is utilised to obtain the strong horizontal lines
which are characteristic of the classic style; but instead of the
walls being full of windows, their blank spaces are larger in extent
than the windows, and they are panelled in a simple fashion. Above
the bold cornice spring three sharply pointed gables, which give
an old-fashioned appearance to the house. The original windows are
mullioned, but some of them (and probably all at first were alike) have
an arched central light of double the width of the others. No doubt
this treatment was introduced in order to vary the monotony of a series
of windows composed entirely of small rectangular openings. It was
very generally adopted, but the curved side lights are a variation not
often found; the more frequent form is that employed in the picturesque
Grammar School at Oxford (Fig. 67) which was built in the year 1658 for
the education of freemen’s sons, on the foundation of Alderman John
Nixon. The steep gables appear to be later additions, the original
arrangement was the flatter and more carefully devised gable over the
middle window. The arcade on the ground floor is quite Jacobean in
feeling.

At Saffron Walden, in Essex, there is a row of houses of ancient
aspect, with projecting corbelled gables. One of them is dated 1676,
which probably gives the period when the modelled plasterwork was
applied to an existing front, for some of the woodwork is Gothic in
character. They are interesting examples of the ornamental plasterwork
which at one time abounded in the eastern counties (Figs. 68 and 69).

The red brick inn at Scole, in Norfolk (Fig. 72), is another example of
the mixture of classic cornices and quasi-pilasters with curved gables,
and it gives a good idea of how local designers strove to modernise
their buildings and were yet unable to shake off the old fetters
which bound them to the traditions of their youth. There used to be,
stretching across the road, a very substantial and picturesque sign
attached to this inn, a wonderful piece of allegorical design.[43] It
was dated 1655, which may be taken as the date of the building itself.

[Illustration: FIG. 68.--House at Saffron Walden, Essex,
showing Ornamental Plasterwork.]

[Illustration: FIG. 69.--Saffron Walden. Detail of
Plasterwork.]

[Illustration: FIG. 70.--School at Witney, Oxfordshire, 1660.]

Another good example of the transitional stage between Jacobean work
and classic is the school at Witney, in Oxfordshire (Fig. 70). The
wings are still part of the main structure; the windows are mullioned,
but the larger ones have an oval light in the uppermost compartment;
the chimneys have square detached shafts set angle ways on their
base. All these are features of the earlier type. On the other hand,
the absence of gables, the widely projecting coved eaves, and small
detached dormers are characteristic of the new methods of design. The
date of the building, as stated on the panel over the principal door,
is 1660.

Of such houses as the farmhouse at Stanton Harcourt, in Oxfordshire
(Fig. 71), there are plenty of examples to be found. Here the mullioned
windows are still retained; but the absence of gables, the straight
front, the marked cornice at the eaves, the hood over the door, and
the plain, severe outline are all in keeping with the more pronounced
classic treatment which was being gradually adopted, even in remote
places, by the end of the seventeenth century.

Such are some of the smaller houses built during the years in which
Inigo Jones and Webb were working; links between the Jacobean style
and that purer version of Italian to which those eminent men devoted
themselves.

It has been shown how the general character of houses had changed
during the period between the accession of Charles I. and the
Restoration in regard to their arrangement and appearance; it will
be well now to show briefly how their decoration had also altered.
But before doing so, it will be useful shortly to recapitulate the
principal changes that had taken place.

[Illustration: FIG. 71.--House at Stanton Harcourt,
Oxfordshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 72.--Inn at Scole, Norfolk, 1655.]

The old idea of the house-plan, derived from mediæval times, was to
provide a great hall for the daily use of the whole household, and
to supplement it by a group of rooms at each end, one for the use of
the family, the other for the servants. The relations between the
family and their retainers were then closer than they became in later
times. Gradually the custom of dining all together died out; the
family secluded themselves in their own apartments, the servants in
theirs. The great hall was deserted as a living-room and degenerated
into a vestibule leading to the rooms where the daily life was led.
The distinction between the family and the servants was emphasised
somewhat to the disadvantage of the latter; for when sacrifices of
comfort had to be made for the sake of architectural effect, it was the
servants upon whom discomfort was laid with the least scruple. They
were frequently relegated to a basement during the day, and to attics
during the night. The ground floor and the floor above it were reserved
for the use of the family and for state occasions. The increase in the
subdivisions of household work may be realised from Swift’s satirical
“Advice to Servants,” addressed to persons whose duties (many of them)
had not been specialised, even if they had come into vogue, in the old
days.

It is interesting to compare the names of the rooms on the plans in the
Thorpe collection, which dates from 1570 to 1620, with those on Webb’s
plans for Durham House, dated 1649. Many of them are identical, such
as the hall, the dining-room, the great chamber, the withdrawing-room,
the gallery, and the servants’ rooms--kitchen, pastry, larder, buttery,
and so forth. But Webb has a few new designations, such as the
secretary’s room, the apothecary’s lodging, the housekeeper’s room,
and the under-housekeeper’s, the baker’s and cook’s rooms, the page’s
room, the master of the horse, the receiver-general, and the surveyor’s
chamber. Then there are rooms of state, a presence chamber, a private
dining-room to serve both his lordship’s and lady’s apartments, his
lordship’s cabinet and his wardrobe, a dressing-room, and various
back stairs serving both his lordship’s rooms and those of his lady.

[Illustration: FIG. 73.--STAIRCASE AT ASHBURNHAM HOUSE,
WESTMINSTER.]

From this it will be seen that the tendency was to increase the
subdivision of duties and the general convenience of arrangement (by
means of back stairs, among other things), and to allot more rooms
to the principal servants. At the same time special provision was
made for state occasions in the state rooms and presence chamber.
It must be remembered that these plans of Durham House were made in
1649, although they were never carried out. They indicate a desire to
increase at once the convenience and the stateliness of the house, and
although it was designed on strictly classic lines, everything was not
yet subordinated, as in later years, to the supposed necessities of
architectural grandeur. In some of his other plans, many of which were
studies in design rather than practical work, Webb was almost as great
a sinner as his successors of the early eighteenth century.

The external appearance of houses had changed even more than their
plans. Gables had almost disappeared; dormer windows no longer
rose from the walls, wrought in stone or brick, but from the roofs
and made of wood; the roofs themselves assumed a flatter pitch and
generally started from widely projecting eaves. Windows were no longer
mullioned and transomed into many small lights, but consisted of one
large opening enclosing a wooden frame, which at first was divided
by wood mullions, but later was filled with sliding sashes. The
general appearance of the house was more compact than of old but less
picturesque; it was more regular, and depended largely upon the nice
spacing of the windows, upon its proportions, and its more scholarly
detail.

This scholarly detail gradually ousted the naive design of the
Jacobean craftsmen. To be scholarly you had to be correctly Italian,
and therefore the quaint mixtures and the quaint native growths that
sprang from an imperfect acquaintance with the true gospel of Italian
design were discountenanced. Fancy was to be smothered by knowledge.
Nevertheless it is odd to find how long the strapwork _motif_
survived, which we are apt to think of as Dutch; it is found in work of
Charles II.’s time and even later; Webb made use of it, and even Jones
himself did not disdain it, as may be seen from some of his designs for
chimney-pieces (Figs. 91–94).

Staircases had also changed in the character of their detail; they
were still arranged in straight flights, but we have already seen at
Coleshill that they sometimes formed a more imposing feature than in
Jacobean days; in that instance the staircase is doubled, each portion
being of equal importance, and they occupy a considerable part of the
entrance hall. This double arrangement was by no means of universal
adoption, it depended upon the space at command, and at Ashburnham
House, Westminster, for instance, where space was restricted, a single
staircase was ingeniously planned, but was treated in a monumental
manner. The design is attributed by some to Inigo Jones, and it is
almost certain that it must be either by him or by Webb. The house was
originally fashioned out of some of the old monastic buildings, and had
been used as a dwelling for many years before the time of Elizabeth.
It was known as the Dean’s House, and was occupied by a succession of
tenants. In 1621 a lady became the tenant; she was succeeded in 1628 by
Sir Edward Powell, who obtained a lease in 1629. The question of the
tenancy is important as it sets limits to the number of those who would
be likely to embark on considerable alterations. In 1640 the house was
transferred to trustees for the benefit of Sir Edward’s wife. Then came
the Civil War, and the next tenant who appears is William Ashburnham,
who, already in occupation, obtained a forty years’ lease in 1662. As
he was an ardent royalist, it is supposed that he could not have taken
the house previous to the Restoration.[44]

The choice of the individual who caused the new work to be done appears
to lie between Sir Edward Powell and William Ashburnham, for Lady
Powell’s trustees of 1640 would not be likely to undertake anything of
such magnitude, and it is improbable, although not impossible, that it
was done during the Civil War or the Commonwealth. The reasonable dates
lie, therefore, between 1629–1640, and 1662–1672, in which latter year
Webb died. On the whole, the character of the work points to the later
period; it looks as though it were the outcome of longer experience
than the earlier period could have supplied. It should be borne in
mind that the treatment of the ceiling, with the open cupola above it,
resembles that of one or two drawings made by Jones and Webb for Wilton
and elsewhere.

[Illustration: FIG. 74.--ASHBURNHAM HOUSE. CEILING OVER
STAIRCASE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 75.--“Cieling of y^e passage Roome in to
y^e Garden,” at Wilton, by Inigo Jones.

Worcester College Collection, i. 14.]

[Illustration: FIG. 76.--“Ffor y^e Seeling of y^e Cabinett
Roome, 1649, Wilton,” by Webb.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]

[Illustration: FIG. 77.--CEILING AT GREENWICH PALACE, BY
WEBB.

From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]

In any case, and whoever designed it, the detail of the work is of
interest as showing the departure from Jacobean ideals. The staircase,
it is true, retains the solid newels, the massive handrail, and the
stout balusters hitherto in vogue (Fig. 73); but the ornament has
changed, and the balusters are almost as stout as if intended to be
of stone. The panels on the wall are larger in size and in scale than
those of Jacobean design, and they are marshalled with more pomp. The
ceiling has no affinity with the busy and intricate ceilings of the
departing style. The framework is large, and its members are adorned
with foliage in high relief; the open cupola, with its balustrade and
detached columns, is a new idea in English work (Fig. 74). If it was
executed between 1629 and 1640, it would be the first example of its
kind; if between 1662 and 1672, it would have had predecessors among
the drawings of Jones and Webb. It is perhaps worthy of note that in
Jones’s designs of ceilings the ornament is usually confined to the
ribs, the intermediate spaces (that is, the ground of the ceiling
itself) being plain. Here the ground is covered with foliage as well
as the ribs, and curiously enough, those of Jones’s designs which
include cupolas are similarly treated. His drawing for the “cieling of
y^e passage Roome in to ye Garden” (at Wilton) is illustrated in Fig.
75. and Webb’s drawing “ffor y^e Seeling of y^e Cabinett Roome, 1649,
Wilton,” in Fig. 76. Although the perspective treatment of the cupolas
is a somewhat special feature, the general design of these and of that
at Ashburnham House gives a good idea of the manner in which ceilings
of the period were managed.

Another and more ambitious design for a ceiling by Webb is that for
“his Majesty’s Presence at Greenwich, 1666” (Fig. 77), preserved at
the Royal Institute of British Architects. The outer border represents
a bold cove filled with modelled plasterwork in high relief; the four
angles are occupied by lions and unicorns, emblematic of England and
Scotland. If this design was ever carried out, it has disappeared, and
there is no example to be found of modelling treated on so large a
scale; the cove would have been some eight feet on the curve, and the
effect of its plaster ornament would have been rather overwhelming.

Returning to the consideration of staircases, there is one at Can
Court, in Wiltshire (Fig. 78), which is earlier in feeling, if not
in date, than the Ashburnham House staircase. It retains many of the
characteristics of Jacobean work, particularly in the stoutness of
the newels, the handrail and the string. In the balusters, however, a
later touch is apparent, as well as in the upper part of the newels. It
is obvious, nevertheless, that the two staircases belong to the same
type.

[Illustration: FIG. 78.--CAN COURT, WILTSHIRE.
THE STAIRCASE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 79.--Staircase at Dawtrey Mansion,
Petworth, 1652.]

An interesting staircase both as to date and detail is one at Dawtrey
Mansion, Petworth (Fig. 79). It is dated 1652, and while it retains
the Jacobean form of finial, not gracefully designed, it has twisted
balusters of the kind usually associated with work of fifty years
later. It is one of the numerous links which connect the old and the
new forms.

Of the same type as these in essence, although differently treated,
is that kind of balustrade already mentioned in connection with Thorpe
Hall (Fig. 49), where the balusters are replaced by scrolls of foliage.
There was a very interesting example of this fashion at the Castle Inn,
Kingston, now destroyed (Fig. 81), and there is another at Ham House
(Fig. 80), where, however, the panels display flags, armour, guns, and
other martial emblems, which may perhaps have some reference to Thomas
Talmash, a brother of Lord Dysart (the owner) and a general in the time
of William III.

[Illustration: FIG. 80.--Ham House, Surrey. The Staircase.]

[Illustration: FIG. 81.--The Staircase, Castle Inn,
Kingston-on-Thames.]

There was an ancient house at Greenwich called the “Old Palace,” but
distinct from the building which was at one time the royal residence,
sometimes known as Crowley House. It has been destroyed, but some
sketches by C. J. Richardson of the interesting work it contained have
survived, and among them is one of a staircase with foliated balustrade
(Fig. 82). The character of the detail suggests a date in the middle
of the seventeenth century, and the general treatment recalls the work
which was being done by Webb at that period. There is a slight survival
of the earlier style, but the design is handled in a more refined
spirit than was usually the case with sumptuous examples of Jacobean
work. This is particularly observed in the door (Fig. 83).

[Illustration: FIG. 82.--The Staircase at the “Old Palace,”
Greenwich (now destroyed).

From a Sketch by C. J. Richardson.]

[Illustration: FIG. 83.--“OLD PALACE,” GREENWICH.
STAIRCASE DETAILS AND DOOR.]

In the hands of Inigo Jones and Webb both doorways and windows assumed
a correct Italian appearance, but in less learned hands there were
intermediate stages of development between the Jacobean type and the
full classic. Such a one may be seen in the library door at St John’s
College, Oxford (Fig. 85), and in an external door at Brasenose College
(Fig. 84), part of the work already referred to. The library at St
John’s was built in 1631 by Archbishop Laud, who was at that time
Bishop of London and Chancellor of the University of Oxford. It is said
that he obtained the help of Inigo Jones, but the detail of the work
is so unlike anything which remains of Jones’s own draughtsmanship,
that the correctness of the attribution is very doubtful. The stonework
of this particular door, however, is not unlike some of the doorways
with which the name of Jones is connected, now preserved at the Royal
Institute of British Architects. The woodwork has no counterpart among
his designs.

If we want to see the scholars idea of what a doorway should be, we
must turn to Jones’s drawing of one for the Banqueting House (Fig.
86), or to Webb’s design for one in the palace at Greenwich, the block
which he designed for Charles II. (Fig. 87). The former is entitled in
Jones’s writing, “Scitzo for the Great Doore Ban. Ho. 1619.” It has the
logically indefensible broken pediment, making room for an unfinished
cartouche which was doubtless to receive the royal arms. On the panel
in the frieze is indicated an inscription commencing with the first
letters of Jacobus Rex Magnæ Britanniæ; below it is an ornament in
which the strapwork _motif_ lingers. The whole effect is strong,
handsome, and well proportioned. If it was ever actually carried out,
it has now disappeared. Webb’s drawing is entitled in his own writing,
“Greenwich, ffor the dore going out of the Cabinet into the gallery
1663.” The whole composition is not unlike Jones’s, but it is larger,
although the door itself is smaller. The draughtsmanship in both is
somewhat alike, but the difference is just that which distinguishes
the work of the one man from that of the other. Jones’s is the more
virile and direct. The figures on the pediment at Greenwich are named
as “Liberality and Magnanimity,” at the other end were to be “Religion
and Justice.” It must be admitted that their different attributes are
not clearly indicated. A note at the side shows that this doorway was
Webb’s own design; it reads “M^e I must alter these measures and make
them thus,” then follow the altered dimensions.

[Illustration: FIG. 84.--Doorway at Brasenose College, Oxford,
1656.]

[Illustration: FIG. 85.--Doorway at St John’s College, Oxford,
1631.]

[Illustration: FIG. 86.--Banqueting House, Whitehall. “Scitzo
of the Great Doore, Ban. Ho., 1619,” by Inigo Jones.]

[Illustration: FIG. 87.--Doorway at Greenwich Palace, 1663, by
Webb.]

[Illustration: FIG. 88.--Banqueting House, Whitehall, “The
upper windowe of y^e Modell,” by Inigo Jones.]

It has already been pointed out how the mullioned window was gradually
altered by the introduction of a wider light surmounted by an arch
(Fig. 66), or by the introduction of an elliptical light (Fig. 70). But
the mullioned window in any form was out of place in a truly classic
design. Jones has an early drawing of 1616 in which he makes use of it,
as well as of other Jacobean features, but it is doubtful whether any
executed work of his can show a stone mullioned window. The type
employed in the Banqueting House is that which he favoured, and it is
probable that a drawing entitled “The upper windowe of y^e modell”
(Fig. 88) is a sketch by him for the windows in the upper story of this
building. By comparing this sketch with that of the Banqueting House
(Fig. 36) the similarity will be apparent. Jones, like Webb after him,
was a student of Serlio, and he has a sheet of sketches of windows
taken from Serlio with notes of his own appended. He and Webb do not
seem to have concerned themselves with the filling of the window space,
all they troubled about was the proportion and embellishment of the
main opening. Yet the filling is of considerable interest. Mullioned
windows were filled with lead lights, which only required glass of
small size. Their successors, where the main opening was large, appear
to have been filled with wooden frames having mullions and transoms
of the same material, which reduced the actual openings to a size
suitable for glazing in the old way. Later on the lead which held the
glass was replaced by thick wooden bars holding glass of a larger size.
But the opening part of all these windows was a casement, that is a
framework (generally of iron) which was hung at the side and opened
like a door. Then, from somewhere--but nobody knows exactly whence
or when--came the ingenious sliding sash, which was hung with cords
and counterbalanced by concealed weights, so that it could be moved
up and down. This was really a remarkable change, although we are so
accustomed to sash-windows as to take them for granted as part of the
universal scheme of things. Their effect on the architectural treatment
of windows was of the first importance. They made mullions impossible,
they compelled window spaces to be of large size, and these large
spaces necessarily influenced the design. They also rendered small
bay-windows impossible, as well as large bay-windows with a narrow
canted side. They practically put an end to any attempt at modified
versions of the Jacobean style, but they were excellently adapted to
the larger, plainer, and more regular classic. Considering the effect
they had on design it is to be regretted that we know nothing of
their origin, or the date of their introduction. At present only one
authenticated instance of their use can be cited before the time of
William III. If they appear in earlier buildings caution would have
to be exercised to ascertain whether they were not later insertions.
Anyone who can settle this point would render a singular service in the
byways of architectural history. The instance mentioned above occurs
in the accounts for work done at Windsor Castle in 1686–88:--[45]

Sarah Wyatt for a Sash Window and Frame with Weights Lynes and
Pullyes and a Wainscott Window-board done in the Governor of the
Castles Secretaryes office 70^s

[Illustration: FIG. 89.--ST JOHN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD.

THE PRESIDENT’S DRAWING-ROOM.

Henry Tanner, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 90.--Chimney-Piece in the Jerusalem
Chamber, Westminster.]

[Illustration: FIG. 91.--A Chimney-Piece for the Queen’s
House, Greenwich, 1619, by Inigo Jones.

From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]

[Illustration: FIG. 92.--A Chimney-Piece for the Queen’s
House, Greenwich, by Inigo Jones.

From a Drawing in the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the
R.I.B.A.]

The kind of panelling which covered the walls of Jacobean houses was
retained in the houses of less importance till about the middle of the
century, but there was a tendency for the panels to grow larger. Inigo
Jones and Webb generally used large panels, and discarded the small
oblongs still favoured by local joiners. In the detail of woodwork
generally greater refinement and simplicity became apparent, and more
successful endeavours were made to adapt classic profiles. At St John’s
College, Oxford, the work of 1631 illustrates this tendency (Fig. 89).
The wood chimney-pieces in the same building are also handled with more
restraint than in earlier examples, and a similar kind of treatment
marks the fine chimney-piece in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster
(Fig. 90), which must have been the work of John Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln, who was Dean of Westminster during a large part of the
reign of Charles I. The excellent panelling by Webb at Thorpe Hall has
already been illustrated (see Fig. 48). It embodies a still greater
departure from the old manner.

[Illustration: FIG. 93.--A Chimney-Piece for “D^{rs} Price his
Great Chamber,” by Webb.]

[Illustration: FIG. 94.--Chimney-Piece at Drayton, by Webb.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection.]

This departure is also very noticeable in the designs of chimney-pieces
which Jones and Webb have left behind them. Fig. 91 shows one of those
designed for the Queen’s House at Greenwich in 1637: in the panel below
the pediment is inscribed “Henrietta Maria Regina.” Fig. 92 is “for
Greenwich,” and bears the cipher H.M.R. It is very characteristic of
Jones’s way of sketching his details; he has bestowed more care (and
more affection) upon the little children at the side than upon the
principal object itself. It is evident that the large panel over the
chimney-piece was to be occupied by a picture, as also perhaps was that
in the preceding example. In Jacobean times such a space would have
contained the owner’s arms. Webb’s chimney-pieces follow those of his
master in general conception, and they are the precursors of the type
prevalent in the eighteenth century, largely used by Kent, who had
access to these very drawings. Of the examples selected, one was for
Drayton House, in Northamptonshire, and it is signed by Webb and dated
1653 (Fig. 94); the other was for “D^r George Price his great chamber”
(Fig. 93). The whole series affords a good idea of the style of the
period as compared with that of earlier times.

It is interesting to compare with these drawings of Jones and Webb a
contemporary chimney-piece at Ford Abbey, in Dorset, attributed to
Jones (Fig. 95). It must be confessed, however, that the treatment is
widely different in the two cases. This is not to say that the Ford
Abbey example has no merit; on the contrary, there is a refreshing
playfulness about the way in which the staid classic detail is bent
from its usual austere lines.

[Illustration: FIG. 95.--CHIMNEY-PIECE IN THE DINING-ROOM,
FORD ABBEY, DORSET.]

[Illustration: FIG. 96.--BELTON HOUSE. THE CHAPEL.]

SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN

When Charles II. was restored to his inheritance in 1660, he evidently
contemplated indulging in the royal pastime of fine building. At this
time John Webb was not only the veteran of architecture, but the
most notable exponent of the art then living in England. His claims
on the favour of the king were founded on his long and intimate
connection with Inigo Jones, a name to conjure with both in relation
to architecture and to the less stable factor of court influence.
They were supported on the practical side by the work he had done,
although fruitlessly, for Charles’s father in the preparation of the
great schemes for the palace at Whitehall, and by the assistance he
had given both in architecture and the artistic hobbies of the time
to many of the nobility and gentry. They were supported on the human
side by personal services rendered to the late king, especially in
furnishing to him, while at Oxford, full designs and particulars of
all the fortifications round London, with instructions how they might
be carried; and in conveying to the king, whilst at Beverley, his
majesty’s jewellery, which he took, concealed in his waistcoat, through
the enemy’s quarters, suffering, in consequence of the fact being
discovered, close imprisonment for a month.

These claims, as we have seen, failed to gain for him the coveted
post of surveyor to the king’s works, but Charles employed him in
resuscitating the idea of a new palace at Whitehall, which never came
to fruition, and in actually erecting a considerable part of the
projected palace at Greenwich.

Webb never succeeded in obtaining the official appointment for which
he longed, for which he appears to have had the best qualifications,
and of which he was actually promised the reversion on the death of
Sir John Denham, who was preferred before him at the Restoration. The
reasons for his failure are obscure, but it may be that his active
employment during the Commonwealth told against him, for his clients
of that period were obviously not such devoted adherents of the royal
cause as to be in exile, or suffering other great hardships. It may
be that he lacked the support and patronage of John Evelyn, whose
influence with Charles II. in all matters of culture was enormous.
It may be that his age was against him, for when Wren was appointed
on the death of Denham, Webb was fifty-seven years old. But whatever
the cause, his failure was complete, and he eventually retired to his
home at Butleigh where he died in 1672. Although he missed the goal
of his ambition, although the men who have had the ear of the world
have not sounded his name in high notes, he was a remarkable man. The
work conceded to him by general consent is noteworthy, and he probably
did more to influence domestic architecture in England than any other
man of his time, Inigo Jones not excepted. For any student, divesting
himself of established prejudices, who will examine his original
drawings, can hardly fail to come to the conclusion that it was his
imagination and his hand which developed and prepared most of the
designs which, published as the work of Inigo Jones, had so wide an
effect upon English houses in the eighteenth century.

Charles II.’s interest in the pastime of building was but fitful. The
Whitehall Palace got little further than Webb’s old designs, nor did
that at Greenwich go beyond the one block called after the king. He
was preoccupied with matters of more personal interest, and what money
he had for his own purposes was spent in directions other than that
of architecture. Nevertheless incidental to the kingly rôle was the
patronage of the arts, and when the necessity arose he bestowed his
attention upon them and upon those, who were engaged in their pursuit.
It was in this way that Wren was brought to his notice, and thereby
obtained that official position which led to the development of his
extraordinary powers. That Charles had no special acquaintance with
architecture nor any consuming love for it, is sufficiently proved by
his sanction of that design of Wren’s for St Paul’s Cathedral known
as the “warrant” design, and by the spasmodic way in which he sought
to house himself in regal fashion; for another abortive attempt at a
palace was made in 1683, this time at Winchester and with the help of
Wren.

Wren is even better known to the public as an architect than Inigo
Jones, largely owing to the fact that he left behind him many more
buildings which can be seen to-day than did his predecessor. But the
admiration he has received, whether founded on knowledge or not, is no
more than his due, for he was a truly remarkable man. He had achieved
a European reputation as a man of science before he was thirty, and
although, when he became officially connected with building for the
first time, he had apparently received no practical training in
architecture, he soon made up his deficiencies on the scaffold itself,
amid the ring of the trowel and the thud of the hammer.

He came of good and cultured stock. His father, Dr. Christopher Wren,
was Dean of Windsor; his uncle, Matthew, was Bishop of Ely. His father
was a man of considerable attainments in literature and science, and
had a superficial knowledge of architecture. Christopher, who was born
in 1632, was his only son, and received a good education. His natural
abilities enabled him to profit by his opportunities to such a degree
that at the age of thirteen he invented a new astronomical instrument
and a pneumatic engine, both of which he introduced to his father in
elegant Latin, the one in verse, the other in prose. A year later he
was entered as a gentleman-commoner at Wadham College, Oxford, where he
continued to distinguish himself. It would be tedious to recount his
juvenile essays in astronomy, mathematics, gnomonics, and Latin, but so
great a reputation did he achieve that when Evelyn (who took a genuine
interest in anything remarkable) went to Oxford in 1654, he made a
point of going to see “that miracle of a youth, Mr. Christopher Wren,
nephew of the Bishop of Ely.”

The youth was then twenty-two, and was already a Master of Arts and
a Fellow of All Souls; three years later he was chosen Professor of
Astronomy at Gresham College in London, and subsequently, in 1661,
Savilian professor of the same subject in the University of Oxford.
In the same year he was made D.C.L. by both Oxford and Cambridge.
During these years he was one of the most active of those “virtuous and
learned men of philosophical minds” who, along with Dr. Wilkins, Warden
of Wadham, laid the foundations of the Royal Society. A whole page of
the “Parentalia”--memoirs written by his son, and the chief source
of information concerning his life--is occupied with a catalogue of
the New Theories, Inventions, Experiments, and Mechanic Improvements
exhibited by Mr. Wren at the meetings in connection with the great
movement. One or two examples will serve to show the wide range of his
investigations: a weather clock; an artificial eye, with the humours
truly and dioptically made; several ways of graving and etching; divers
improvements in the art of husbandry; divers new musical instruments;
easier ways of whale-fishing; ways to perfect coaches for ease. Indeed
there seems to have been nothing in the heavens above, or the earth
beneath, or the waters under the earth, about which he did not know
something.

These things may be regarded as the by-products of a great imagination,
an imagination which made him a skilled astronomer and a profound
mathematician. He had an extraordinary aptitude for scientific
research, and he was the first who experimented in the infusion of
foreign liquid into the blood of animals, a process which, modified to
the transfusion of blood from one person to another, has had remarkable
results in medicine. He also established, by experiment, before the
Royal Society in 1668, the Third Law of Motion; and no doubt his study
of the laws of motion subsequently stood him in good stead in his
daring feats of architectural construction.

The remarkable thing about these studies and experiments is that, amid
all their variety, not a word is said about architecture. He was a fair
draughtsman, but he was primarily a man of science and a virtuoso,
in other words, a man accomplished in the arts and sciences, but who
had no need to bring his knowledge to any practical test involving
responsibility. He was, however, soon to become more than a virtuoso,
for in the year 1661 he was appointed deputy surveyor of his majesty’s
works and buildings under Sir John Denham, and, after the latter’s
death in 1668, he succeeded him in the office to the exclusion of the
more experienced Webb.

Wren’s early efforts in architecture show, as might be expected,
considerable immaturity. One of his first was the Sheldonian Theatre
at Oxford, on which he was engaged between 1663 and 1668. It is
interesting as the work of a man young in design, but it cannot be
regarded as a masterpiece; its shape is ungraceful, and its detail
crude. One of its principal claims to attention was its roof, which
covered (with a flat ceiling) what was then considered a very wide
span, namely, 70 ft. Here Wren’s scientific training must have helped
him; he was also probably helped by his carpenter, one R. Frogley. The
roof itself has been renewed, but drawings of it were published by Dr
Plot in his “Natural History of Oxfordshire,” and were reproduced in
“Parentalia.” Its most remarkable feature was the long tie-beam of the
principals, which being too long for one piece of timber, was made up
of three pieces ingeniously jointed, or “scarfed,” together. There are
still tie-beams to the roof, but they are hidden in the thickness of
the attic floor, and it is impossible to say whether they are Wren’s
or not. But as the disposition of all the visible timbers is quite
different from those shown by Plot, the inference is that there is
nothing left of Wren’s ingenious roof. With the old roof went Wren’s
ugly dormers as well as his turret, which was replaced by that which
exists to-day.

The other work at Oxford, attributed to Wren, rests its claims,
except in the case of the Tom Tower of Christ Church, on little or
no evidence. Even in the case of Trinity College, where letters show
him to have been consulted, he appears to have done nothing beyond
sending, in 1664, to his friend, Dr. Bathurst, the president, a letter
with alternative plans and an elevation; and in criticising, in 1692,
a design for the chapel. There is no evidence that he actually carried
out any work here in the formal capacity of architect. About so notable
a feature of Oxford as the Tom Tower it would be rash to say anything
in disparagement. But this much may perhaps be said without offence.
It is at least doubtful whether the designer of the lower part, which
is the original Gothic work, would have been satisfied with Wren’s
completion. The scale is different, the detail is different; the whole
conception is out of harmony with Gothic ideas. Yet it is still less
allied to anything classic; the fact is that Wren was working in a
style which he did not understand, and which he frankly disliked. We
get much nearer to the heart of the man by studying another aspect
of his work at Oxford, his drawings preserved in the library at All
Souls. There are four large volumes of them, comprising designs for
various works, including alterations to one or two large houses; but
the most interesting are those connected with St Paul’s Cathedral. In
these volumes can be seen his weakness and his strength, and, taken in
conjunction with other of his drawings preserved at St Paul’s, they
show how he felt his way in architectural design. They also indicate
that the old system still survived under which the architect relied in
great measure upon his subordinates for the detail of his work; at the
same time they prove that Wren worked out his general conceptions much
more thoroughly than such men as John Thorpe and Smithson had done a
century earlier.

[Illustration: FIG. 97.--Model of Wren’s first Design for St
Paul’s Cathedral.]

The history of the reparation and rebuilding of St Paul’s is too long
and intricate to be set out in detail in this place, apart from the
fact that it is outside the category of domestic architecture; but
it stands for so much in Wren’s life that a few words about it may,
perhaps, be allowed.

During the years following the restoration of Charles II. much
consideration had been given to the old cathedral, which was in a
neglected and ruinous condition. The commissioners, of whom Wren was
one, were divided in opinion as to the course to be pursued; some were
for preserving it, others for rebuilding. Inigo Jones had already put
a new classic west front to the Gothic building; it was held to be
one of the finest pieces of architecture of modern times. Wren’s idea
was to continue the classic casing and to replace the lofty spire by
a classic dome. Some of the drawings at All Souls embody this idea,
which fortunately was never carried out. Then came the great fire in
1666, and the problem was simplified, for the fire had left but little
to deal with, and it was decided to rebuild.

The fire wrought a great change in Wren: he was no longer the
professor, the virtuoso, but the architect; for to him fell the duty
of rebuilding not only the cathedral, but the numerous city churches
which had been destroyed. It is fortunate that old St Paul’s was so
completely shattered as to compel its demolition, for although the
force necessary to remove the ruins was such as would have elicited
vigorous protests in the present day (gunpowder had to be employed,
to the terror of adjacent occupants), yet it resulted in providing
Wren with a vacant site whereon he could place a new building, instead
of attempting either a mixture of Gothic and classic such as he had
formerly contemplated, or his own version of Gothic which would have
been even more unpalatable.

The new St Paul’s is one of the finest and most impressive buildings
of its kind in Europe; its dome is unrivalled for purity of outline
and aptness of composition. How did a man, who had no practical
acquaintance with architecture until he was thirty years old, conceive
such a masterpiece within a few years from that time? Probably nobody
but Wren could have done it: he had an extraordinary aptitude for
mastering any subject to which he turned his attention. But even he did
not produce this great result at one stroke; he felt his way through
many attempts. There were two complete preliminary designs, neither
of which had much in common with the other or with the building as
erected, beyond the fact that the dominating feature was to be a dome.
The first of these is known as Wren’s favourite design, the other as
the “warrant” design.

The first was worked out with much care and completeness, and a large
model of it was made, which is now preserved in one of the towers of
the cathedral (Fig. 97). The plan, however, was so great a departure
from the type sanctioned by tradition, that it was rejected by the king
and his advisers. Wren thereupon produced the “warrant” design, one
of the most extraordinary ever made by a serious man, and one of the
worst to which a great architect ever set his name. This is a mystery
to which no satisfactory solution has yet been found. That a man with
the capacity of producing St Paul’s as we see it, should have produced
the “warrant” design, and seriously submitted it for acceptance, is
astonishing; but apparently Wren knew his clients, for it was approved
and ordered to be carried out under the warrant of the king, dated the
14th May 1675, wherein it is described as “very artificial, proper, and
useful.” The slight change which time has introduced into the meaning
of the first of these adjectives lends, for modern ears, a spice of
humour to the description.

[Illustration: FIG. 98.--GREENWICH PALACE, FROM THE RIVER.]

Fortunately, nothing more was heard of this design; it reposes among
the drawings in the All Souls library, and there is nothing to show
that any attempt was made to develop it. How Wren managed to drop it
completely has not been explained. He had the king’s leave to vary it
in minor points; he varied it altogether. It is probable that, the
matter being left in his hands, he quietly proceeded, as the years went
by, to improve upon his early ideas. The dome of the “warrant” design
is its ugliest feature; among Wren’s drawings are many sketches of
domes, none of them so bad as this, nor any so good as the final one,
nor is there any special sequence of steps to show how the ultimate
result was obtained. But it is easy to see that the result was his
own work, and that it was only after numerous trials that he at last
achieved it.

The building of St Paul’s took many years. The first stone was laid on
21st June 1675; the last stone of the cupola was laid by his son in the
old man’s presence in 1710. During this period of thirty-five years
Wren practically rebuilt the city churches, and was thus continually
gaining experience. The great cathedral will always be his chief
monument, but the fifty-three churches which he carried out would
themselves have made his reputation. The sites were mostly irregular,
but of so much value that it was essential to utilise them completely.
Wren covered them to the last inch, and yet contrived to get that
classic treatment in which symmetry plays so important a part. In many
hands symmetry would have meant extravagance in space and materials.
The problem in planning was new in another respect, for the churches
were all designed for the Protestant form of worship, requiring an
arrangement different from that of mediæval churches, and, among other
things, a suitable auditorium.

To his skill in planning he added a constant variety of treatment,
both inside and out; and, given a departure from the simple straight
lines of a Gothic spire, nothing could exceed the happy ingenuity and
fertility of design exhibited in Wren’s steeples.

Wren did not pass his whole time in designing ecclesiastical buildings.
He had the chief share in the shaping of Greenwich Hospital which,
originally intended for a palace, was begun and continued in a palatial
manner, although diverted from its first purpose and made into a home
for worn-out sailors (Fig. 98). He also began the rebuilding of Hampton
Court, but happily did not proceed, as was at one time contemplated,
to sweep away the whole of the older portions of that fascinating
place. These are both in a sense domestic work, but they are not
domestic in the way that appeals to the ordinary person. People who
live in palaces may well afford some sacrifice to grandeur. Wren’s
was the grand manner. His churches involved fairly simple planning.
Their requirements lent themselves to this treatment much more readily
than those of an ordinary house with its complicated demands, where
an uncomfortable plan is not atoned for by splendour of appearance.
If it be asked how Wren would have faced the difficulties of ordinary
domestic planning, there is but little material for an answer. The work
he did in the Temple does not help us much. Several houses in different
parts of the country are attributed to him, but without much reliable
evidence. At All Souls, however, there are a few drawings, either of
new houses or of alterations to old ones, and these do not go to prove
that he had his usual masterful grip of the subject. Doubtless, had
the necessity arisen, he would have acquired it, but his energies took
another direction, and he has left no solution of how to build a house
at once convenient, comfortable, and grand.

He lived to be an old man--he was ninety-one when he died in 1723--yet
he lived a strenuous life till within a few years of his death. He not
only devised his own buildings, but superintended their erection, and
it was largely on the scaffold that he gained his experience. This did
much to sober his judgment and make his work reasonable and sensible,
more so than that of his immediate successors. Although at first an
amateur, he became practical through being in constant touch with his
work: they remained amateurs all the way through.

[Illustration: FIG. 99.--Elevation of a House.

From the Wren Collection, All Souls College, Oxford.]

[Illustration: FIG. 100.--Elevation and Section of a House.

From the Wren Collection, All Souls College, Oxford.]

[Illustration: FIG. 101.--Elevation of a House.

From the Wren Collection, All Souls College, Oxford.]

A slight but vivid picture of him at work was drawn by the lively
Duchess of Marlborough, who, when expostulating with Vanbrugh for
demanding £300 a year for looking after Blenheim, declared that Wren
had been “content to be dragged up in a basket, three or four times a
week to the top of St Paul’s, and at great hazard, for £200 a year.”

All through his busy years as an architect he maintained his interest
in science, and was not only President of the Royal Society in 1680,
but continued to submit all sorts of inventions and suggestions for
the consideration of its members. Curiously enough, these things had
but little practical value, not even that one which showed how smoky
chimneys might be cured: indeed none but futile specifics have yet been
offered to the public with this end in view.

His later years were clouded by the intrigues of his opponents at
court, who not only contrived to oust him from his office of surveyor
to the royal works, but endeavoured to attack his character for
probity. The latter attempt failed of course; but when he was already
eighty-six and had held his office for nearly fifty years, he was
superseded by an unknown and incompetent person.

[Illustration: FIG. 102.--Sketches for the Front of Two
Houses, by Wren.]

Wren’s influence on architecture was powerful while he lived, but
he can hardly be said to have founded a distinctive school of
domestic architecture which long survived him. Soon after his death
new publications, amongst which the most influential was Kent’s
“Designs of Inigo Jones,” changed the trend of design. His influence,
however, continued to be felt in the treatment of interior decoration,
particularly in regard to panelling and ornamental woodwork, down to
the middle of the century. The exteriors of many small Georgian houses
may owe something to him, but such houses as are obviously reminiscent
of his manner were built during his lifetime.

Most of his successors, while carrying on the style in which he worked,
failed to impart to their work that vigour and reasonableness which
distinguished his. The rules and regulations which served as guides
to him became masters to them, and we look in vain among them either
for his scientific equipment or his intuitive perception of what was
fitting. The grandeur of manner which suited admirably the buildings
with which he had to deal, was out of place when applied to ordinary
houses; and the artificiality which sprang from the way in which
architecture was then regarded, but which his genius enabled him to
avoid, settled down heavily after his death.

Among the drawings at All Souls are the examples of house design
illustrated here (Figs. 99–102). They are not named, and have not been
identified; it is not even certain that they were ever carried out. But
they give some idea of Wren’s notions as to the appearance he would
have given to houses. In general disposition they conform to the type
adopted by Jones and Webb, but they have touches about them reminiscent
of French architecture,[46] more particularly those in Figs. 99, 101.
The others are two rough sketches for the front of a building (probably
a house), drawn on a piece of waste paper, and apparently they show two
methods of treating the same façade (Fig. 102). They are characteristic
of Wren’s manner as displayed at Hampton Court (see Fig. 6), more
so than the other examples illustrated, and they are certainly more
pleasing in their proportions and in the simplicity of their handling.
The design for part of a front for the new palace at Whitehall (Fig.
103) is interesting in two respects; it is a specimen of Wren’s
treatment of domestic architecture on a grand scale; and it proves
that Charles II. still harboured the idea of a great new palace at
Whitehall, an idea which fructified as little under Wren’s direction as
it had done under Webb’s. As a piece of design this is no advance upon
what had already been tried before. There is a weediness and crudity of
ornament about it which is out of keeping with Wren’s actual work; but
of him it may be said, as of Inigo Jones and other great architects,
that his designs are less happy on paper than in execution. Indeed
a study of all the important collections of architectural drawings
inclines one to take the negative side in the interesting controversy,
“Is fine drawing necessary to fine architecture?”

[Illustration: FIG. 103.--ELEVATION OF PART OF THE FRONT OF A
PROPOSED PALACE AT WHITEHALL.

From the Wren Collection, All Souls College, Oxford.]

[Illustration: FIG. 104.--BELTON HOUSE,
LINCOLNSHIRE.]

The indications of French feeling alluded to above may be accounted
for by the fact that in the early days of Wren’s connection with
architecture, in 1665, he went to France for a few months. He was
already enthusiastic in his new vocation, and like many an enthusiast
in the same cause before him and after him, he wanted to see what
was being done in foreign lands. He spent his whole time there in
interviewing eminent architects and in visiting the most noteworthy
buildings of Paris and its neighbourhood. He made so many sketches that
he said in one of his letters that he bid fair to bring back “almost
all France on paper.” He had indeed caught the architectural fever; and
every architect knows that thenceforward it would never leave his veins.

[Illustration: FIG. 105.--Belton House. Ground Floor.]

Among the houses attributed, on insufficient grounds, to Wren is Belton
House, near Grantham, one of the seats of Earl Brownlow (Fig. 104);
it was built in the year 1689 for Sir John Brownlow. There is nothing
particularly novel about it; it follows the type of what may be called
the Webb house, both as to plan (Fig. 105) and external treatment. It
has the bold cornice, the hipped roof, and the balustraded flat out of
which rises a cupola, which Webb had rendered familiar. In spite of its
good proportions, however, it hardly hits the mark so fully and truly
as Webb’s work, and it lacks in many respects the masculine vigour of
Wren’s. Nevertheless it is a notable building, and an admirable example
of a dignified yet unpretentious country house, quite comfortable to
live in.

[Illustration: FIG. 106.--IRON SCREEN AND GATES, BELTON HOUSE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 107.--BELTON HOUSE. CARVING IN THE
GREAT HALL.]

The screen of ironwork which runs from the house to a subsidiary range
of buildings contains a fine gateway (Fig. 106) and encloses a court of
some architectural interest and one which strikes a pleasing note,
as it brings some of the minor accommodation into close relationship
to the house. It is approached through an archway in the side opposite
to what is now the front door. Being enclosed on one side by the open
screen already mentioned, it has a cheerful outlook over the park. The
present front door, with its porch, has been squeezed in among the
windows; it probably replaces an original exit of small importance
which led into the court for the sake of convenience. The principal
entrance was formerly up the broad flight of steps in the middle of
the façade; but the present access, although not so stately, is better
adapted to modern requirements.

The interior has excellent decorative work of the period. In addition
to the panelling there is a considerable amount of carving attributed
to Grinling Gibbons (Fig. 107); and there are a few ceilings executed
in high relief, with admirably modelled detail, of which the treatment
corresponds with that associated with Gibbons’ name. So charming are
the figures and foliage that they prompt a desire to see them at close
quarters, instead of on the inaccessible heights of a ceiling.

The chapel (Fig. 96) is interesting as an example of classic treatment
applied to sacred purposes, and as one among the last survivals of the
mediæval idea that it was necessary for a large house to have a chapel
within it. In the days when a household might be cut off for weeks from
the parish church and when a daily exercise of religious observances
was of the first importance, a chapel always accessible and close at
hand was necessary. But the time was approaching, if it had not already
arrived, when the religious fervour of distinguished people could
easily be satisfied by attendance at places of public worship.

VII

SOME FURTHER WORK OF THE TIME OF CHARLES II

It is needless to insist upon the fact that there was a large amount
of work executed during the seventeenth century by men other than
Jones, Webb, and Wren. Some of this has already been considered, in so
far as it illustrates the gradual change of style in small buildings.
But during the reign of Charles II. important work was done by men
little known to fame, and much else by others whose names have either
not survived or have not yet been disinterred from the ruins of the
past. So few architects contemporary with Jones are known that it will
be of interest to mention one who, if not intimately connected with
architecture himself, wrote a book about it, and trained a pupil who
merits more attention than his master.

This individual was Sir Balthazar Gerbier, to whom Horace Walpole
devotes several pages in his “Anecdotes of Painting,” where he treats
of him as a painter. But Gerbier does not appear to have pursued any
art with much application. He hung on the fringe of state affairs, and
was a versatile adventurer of indifferent character, if Walpole does
him no injustice. Among other things he dabbled in architecture. He
was surveyor to the Duke of Buckingham, for whom he is said to have
designed a temporary house on the site of old York House in the Strand.
According to Gerbier’s own account, in a letter to the duke dated 2nd
December 1624, Inigo Jones came to see this house, and “was like one
surprised and abashed ... he is very jealous of it.”[47] It may have
been so, but it is certain that Gerbier was jealous of Jones, for he
makes several slighting references to him in the little book which he
published, “Of Counsel and Advice to all Builders.” It is, indeed,
this book which gives him a claim to be mentioned in connection with
architecture, and that because of incidental allusions to matters of
interest. In his dedication to Charles II. (the book was published in
1664) he advises the king to set the main body of his contemplated
palace on the side of St James’s Park, and the gardens along the river.
This, no doubt, refers to the schemes upon which Webb, as already
mentioned, was then engaged. Gerbier has several oblique as well as
one direct thrust at Inigo Jones. He carps at those “who have marshald
colombs,” and have made them “like things patcht or glewed against a
wall, and for the most part against the second Story of a Building ...
as if their intent were, that the weight of the colombs should draw
down the Wall on the heads of those that passe by.” Doubtless this was
an allusion to the Banqueting House, about which he makes further and
more definite criticisms. After cavilling at the elaboration of stage
effects in masques, he roundly states that “Inigo Jones (the late
surveyor)” found the Banqueting House unsuitable for such purposes, and
that he “was constrained to Build a Wooden House overthwart the Court
of _Whitehall_.” He then takes exception to the height of the
room, alleging that the king and his retinue were lost in it because of
its vastness; and goes on to say that he does not undervalue any modern
works, “every good Talent being commendable,” including, presumably,
even the late surveyor’s. At the same time there were some alive who
knew that the king of blessed memory had graciously avouched, in the
year 1648, that a room near York Gate not above 35 ft. square (which
was the one Gerbier had designed himself) was as apt for masques as the
Banqueting House itself. Moreover judicious persons would not deny that
the excellence of the Triumphal Arches erected in London (which Gerbier
is said to have designed for the entry of Charles II.) consisted not in
their bulk.

The book abounds in malicious and egotistical touches of this kind,
both in the two treatises into which it is divided, and in the forty
dedicatory epistles which he deemed necessary to the launching of
his venture. But amid a deal of skimble-skamble stuff, he says a few
things worth noting. Chimneys need only be carried about 2 ft. above
the ridge; large and lofty stacks he deems unsightly and dangerous.
Staircases should be easy of ascent and wide. Anyone who has sound
limbs and a “gallant gate” naturally lifts his toes at least 4 inches
in walking; if, therefore, stairs be only 4 inches high and 18 from
front to back, the ordinary person can walk up them as easily as he
can walk on the level. His reasons for these proportions are hardly
convincing, but in regard to the width of staircases he is probably
nearer the mark, when he says they ought to be so wide that the
attendants on each side the noble person who is ascending may not be
straitened for room.

His advice to persons contemplating building, that they should employ
an architect and should not be constantly interfering with him, is
undoubtedly sound: and one reason advanced for employing an architect,
namely, that “the several Master-workmen may receive instructions by
way of Draughts, Models, Frames, etc.,” is interesting as showing
that architects were now accustomed to provide more minute details
than in the time of Elizabeth and James. One more reference and
this curious book, with its few noteworthy observations buried in
pages of involved verbiage, may be left. In speaking of such as were
concerned with building he says, “they may perchance have heard of
rare buildings, nay, seen the Books of the _Italian_ Architects,
have the Traditions of _Vignola_ in their Pockets, and have heard
Lectures on the Art of Architecture.” It is interesting to learn that
in addition to books on architecture there were opportunities, so long
ago, to hear lectures on the subject; but it is probable that, in his
usual egotistical way, Gerbier is here referring to lectures which he
himself had given at an academy which he founded in Bethnal Green,
in imitation, Walpole suggests, of another established by Charles I.
for instruction in arts and sciences, foreign languages, mathematics,
painting, architecture, riding, fortification, antiquities, and the
science of medals.[48]

The “Counsel” concludes with a lengthy schedule of prices at which all
kinds of building work could be executed.

Little, if any, architectural work can with safety be attributed to
Gerbier. Hamstead Marshall, which is said to be his, is more probably
due to his pupil, Wynne, to whom, as Master William Wine, he addresses
one of his numerous dedications.

Walpole says that Wynne, or Winde as he calls him, finished the house
which had been begun by his master, making several alterations in
the plan; but the history of the owner and of the house, as well as
the character of the work, renders it doubtful whether Gerbier could
have had anything to do with it. The house was one of the seats of
William, Lord Craven; it has been destroyed with the exception of some
fine gate-piers and part of the lay out, but Kip has an engraving of
it in “Britannia Illustrata” (Fig. 108). There are also a few drawings
of details in the Bodleian Library, including windows, gate-piers,
doors, and a ceiling. The windows and piers can be identified on
Kip’s engraving, as also can the general lay out, thus confirming the
accuracy of Kip’s view. His illustration shows the house with a front
of Jacobean design as to its two lower stories, but of later character
as to the third story and the return front. The windows of this later
work agree in general appearance with the drawing at the Bodleian,
which shows festoons above the windows and panels between them,
decorated with Lord Craven’s cipher, W. C., and a baron’s coronet (Fig.
109).

By examining Kip’s view in the light of the principal facts of Lord
Craven’s life, and of the dates on the Bodleian drawings, a shrewd
guess can be made as to the history of the house. In his youth William
Craven achieved such honour through “valiant adventures” in Germany
and the Netherlands under Henry, Prince of Orange, that in the year
1626, when he was eighteen years old, he was knighted by Charles I.
at Newmarket and was immediately afterwards created a baron, with the
title of Lord Craven of Hamstead Marshall. In 1631 he returned to the
scenes of his early glories, and continued to reside abroad until the
Restoration. Although absence prevented him from fighting for Charles
I. he was a staunch loyalist, and helped the king with considerable
supplies. This brought him under the notice of the Parliament, and his
estates were confiscated in 1651, and sold to different persons.[49]
After the Restoration, however, Charles II. created him an earl in
recompense for his services, and he must previously have regained
possession of Hamstead Marshall, since the drawings for the new work
bear a baron’s coronet and various dates, of which the earliest is 1662.

[Illustration: FIG. 108.--HAMSTEAD MARSHALL,
BERKSHIRE.

From Kip’s “Britannia Illustrata.”]

[Illustration: FIG. 109.--Hamstead Marshall. “The Ornament of
the Windows,” by Wynne.

From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 110.--“The North Piers at Hamstead
Marshall, 1663,” by Wynne.

From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]

It would appear, then, that the original house was a Jacobean building,
and from the fact that Lord Craven was a bachelor and was resident
abroad for the greater part of his life previous to the Restoration,
it is highly improbable that he did any building during that period;
he had neither family nor leisure to induce him. On the sale of the
property in 1651, it is quite possible that the house was partly
dismantled,[50] as were many others in similar circumstances, notably
Holdenby House. On his return in 1660, or as soon afterwards as he
could, he set about restoring his home. He preserved the Jacobean
front, but added a new top story and new sides. The drawing of the
portico, which would be at the back of the house shown by Kip, is
dated 1662; that of the gate-piers in the front wall is dated 1663
(Fig. 110), and those in the circular wall at the rear 1673; a ceiling
is dated 1686. The baron’s coronet indicates that the work was done
before the earldom was bestowed, which was in 1663. The dates on the
drawings suggest what one might expect, that the house itself was first
taken in hand, then the garden walls and lay out, and subsequently the
embellishment of some of the chief rooms.

[Illustration: FIG. 111.--Gate Piers at Hamstead Marshall.]

If the history of the house is rightly conjectured, there would be
no room for Gerbier in its design, for he is said to have died in
1662 when he was at least seventy years old, and there is no trace
of senility in the Bodleian drawings. They are vigorous in design as
well as drawing; the gate-piers (Fig. 111) are still in existence,
some scattered, as it were, in a field, others still leading into a
walled garden. It is only when the imagination restores the walls
that once connected them that an idea is formed of the size of the
original enclosures to which those piers were the noble entrances. The
ceiling (Fig. 112), dated 1686 on the drawing, is of the type prevalent
throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century, and usually
employed by Jones, Webb, and Wren.

As Wynne--“the learned and ingenious Captain Wynne” Campbell calls
him[51]--is the only other person whose name is connected with the
designing of Hamstead Marshall, the credit may fairly be placed to his
account. The character of the new work, as shown by Kip, accords with
the treatment usually adopted by Webb; that is to say, the walls are
fairly plain, there is a wide cornice at the eaves. The height of the
roof is proportioned to the walls (not merely determined by the span of
the building), it is crowned by cupolas and broken by dormers, and the
chimneys are short and solid--perhaps, in this case, in consequence of
the teaching of Gerbier, Wynne’s master.

It is evident that the restoration of Charles II. gave a great impetus
to building. Charles himself revived the project for a new palace at
Whitehall; he built a large wing of another at Greenwich; Lord Craven
was among those who endeavoured to redeem the time; and Gerbier thought
the occasion opportune to publish his “Counsel” to those who were
contemplating new houses.

[Illustration: FIG. 112.--A CEILING AT HAMSTEAD MARSHALL,
22ND JUNE 1686. “THIS DRAAFT FOR THE DINEING ROOME ATT
HAMSTEAD MARSHALL, MARKED A, ALLOWED OF BY ME W. WYNDE.”

From a Drawing in the Bodleian Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 113.--BUCKINGHAM HOUSE IN ST JAMES’S PARK,
1705.]

Too little is known of this learned and ingenious Captain Wynne.
Campbell credits him with old Buckingham House in St James’s Park, for
the Duke of Buckingham, in 1705. This duke must not be confused with
either of the Villiers, Dukes of Buckingham. He was the first duke
of a new creation, his family name being Sheffield. He was, in fact,
the grandson of that “my lord Sheffield” whose house has already been
illustrated in Chapter II. as one of the designs of John Smithson.
To Wynne is also assigned Cliefden House for the same nobleman,
and Newcastle House in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as well as certain
additions to Combe Abbey for Lord Craven.[52] Hardly anything remains
of all this work, but if it was of a standard equal to the remnants
of Hamstead Marshall, Wynne would take a high place among English
architects. Newcastle House, originally called Powis House after
William Herbert, Viscount Montgomery and Marquis of Powis, for whom
it was built in 1686,[53] still stands at the north-west corner of
Lincoln’s Inn Fields, but it has been considerably altered; the loss
through fire of the original fine wooden cornice has much diminished
its effect.

Buckingham House (Fig. 113) stood where Buckingham Palace now is, and,
judging by Campbell’s elevation,[54] was of much greater architectural
interest than the present building before it was refronted. It was
considered “one of the great beauties of London, both by reason
of its situation and its building.”[55] It fronted the Mall--the
noblest avenue in Europe, according to Campbell--and at the back
was a fine garden and a noble terrace, whence the eye roamed over a
wide rural prospect, so free from obtrusive buildings as to justify
the inscription placed by the duke on this front, “Rus in Urbe.” The
description of the entrance court is interesting as giving a good idea
of the kind of lay out that went with all large houses of that time.
“The courtyard which fronts the Park is spacious; the offices are on
each side divided from the Palace by two arching galleries, and in the
middle of the court is a round basin of water, lined with freestone,
with the figures of Neptune and the Tritons in a water-work.”
Campbell’s plan agrees with this description save that he makes the
basin octagonal. The “arching galleries” were by this time a very
usual feature which will be further described presently. His plan also
conveniently illustrates the duke’s own description of the entrance
into the house itself. “After crossing the courtyard,” he says, “we
mount to a terrace in the front of a large Hall, paved with square
white stones mixed with a dark-coloured marble; the walls of it covered
with a set of pictures done in the school of Raphael. Out of this on
the right-hand we go into a parlour 33 feet by 39 feet, with a niche 15
feet broad for a Bufette, paved with white marble, and placed within
an arch, with Pilasters of divers colours, the upper part of which as
high as the ceiling is painted by Ricci.” The roof of the house was
flat and gave opportunity for obtaining a fine prospect: on the parapet
fronting the park were four statues of Mercury Secrecy, Equity, and
Liberty, and fronting the garden were the four Seasons. This particular
enumeration gives a touch of life and reality to the endless figures
which break the skyline of Campbell’s elevations, and of John Webb’s
before him. The view reproduced in Fig. 113A shows the house
as it appeared in 1790, when it was about a hundred years old. It not
only suggests the rural surroundings, but gives a lively idea of the
groups which frequented the Mall, down the length of which this front
faced. The Mall, it will be remembered, was the principal walk in the
royal park of St James, and apparently enjoyed the formality of being
guarded by sentries.

Cliefden House, in Buckinghamshire, was another of these noblemen’s
“palaces,” with “arching galleries” joining the offices to the house.
It stood upon an enormous terrace described by Campbell as 433 ft. long
and 24 ft. high, the front of which consisted of a series of alcoves
or niches, flanked at either end by a flight of steps (Fig. 114). The
original house has entirely disappeared, and has been replaced by one
of excellent design by Charles Barry. Merely the terrace, somewhat
altered, and the dwarf walls of the lay out remain, and Wynne’s work
can only be judged from Campbell’s elevations and from old prints.

The consideration of these two houses brings vividly before the mind
the completeness of the change that had come over domestic architecture
during the course of the seventeenth century. The description of
Buckingham House from contemporary pens (one of them that of the owner
himself) gives an air of _vraisemblance_ to Campbell’s cold
illustrations. The “arching galleries” indicate a disposition of plan
which was being adopted in many large houses, and was for another half
century employed in order to impart stateliness to what otherwise might
have been a rather bald design.

[Illustration: FIG. 113a.--BUCKINGHAM HOUSE, _St. James’s
Park_.

(_from a water-colour by Edward Dayes._)]

[Illustration: FIG. 114.--CLIEFDEN, IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.

From an Engraving by Luke Sullivan.]

The idea of this arrangement was to have a central block containing
the principal rooms, and to flank it at some distance on each side
by a subsidiary block connected to the main structure by curved
colonnades--the “arching galleries” of Buckingham House. These
outlying blocks contained the offices, which were sometimes the
kitchens, sometimes the stables, and occasionally the library or
chapel. The inconvenience of the arrangement is obvious; under it
compactness was sacrificed to appearance. If these outliers looked out
on to the approach, their windows embarrassed the access to the front
door. If they looked the other way, they turned their dull backs upon
the main approach. Windows suitable for a kitchen had to be balanced
by similar windows in the stables which were not suitable; or, as an
alternative, sham windows were employed. Designers found themselves
obliged to resort to devices of one kind or another, which sacrificed
the convenience of one block in order to assimilate it in appearance
to the other. Nor did the sacrifice stop here; it affected more or
less the whole house. The mistaken claims of “architecture” led to the
external appearance being considered as of the first importance; the
internal convenience was modified to suit it. Not infrequently rooms
were wrongly placed, wrongly lighted, awkwardly shaped, given a bad
aspect, or otherwise ill-handled, in order to preserve the symmetry and
proportion of the exterior. The placing of the kitchen in a distant
block, connected perhaps by an open colonnade, must have been a great
inconvenience both to the family and the servants. But inconvenience
counted for little so long as an imposing edifice was secured.

[Illustration: FIG. 115.--Plan of Stoke Bruerne,
Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 116.--VIEW OF BETHLEHEM HOSPITAL.]

The introduction of this particular form of plan, with a central
block, two outlying wings, and connecting colonnades, is associated
with the name of Inigo Jones and the house of Stoke Bruerne, in
Northamptonshire. According to Bridges, the county historian, “the
house was built by Sir _Francis Crane_, who brought the design
from _Italy_, and in the execution of it received the assistance
of _Inigo Jones_. It consists of a body and two wings, joined
by corridores or galleries (see plan, Fig. 115). The pillars which
support the galleries leading to the wings, are red and of a different
colour from the house.... The house was begun about the year 1630 and
finished before 1636, during which interval he gave an entertainment
here to the King and Queen.”[56] Colin Campbell, however, says that
the building was begun by Inigo, who made the wings, colonnades, and
all the foundations, and that owing to the interruption caused by
the Civil War the front was designed by “another architect.” He puts
the date at 1640. Bridges’ account is circumstantial, and he was a
careful historian; but Campbell’s elevation shows the body of the house
treated in a different manner from the wings, and so far supports his
statement. Unfortunately this part of the building was burnt down in
1886, and the opportunity of comparing the differences in the work
itself is lost.

Both authorities concur in placing the date as early as somewhere
between 1630 and 1640, which was quite half a century before this type
of plan became at all popular. Nevertheless among Webb’s drawings,
which cover at least thirty years of the half-century, there are
several instances in which it is employed; and even the practical
and level-headed Wren has a plan of this type among his drawings
at All Souls College, Oxford (see Fig. 100). The genesis of this
particular form is of interest inasmuch as it was widely adopted in the
eighteenth century; so much so that Isaac Ware in his “Complete Body
of Architecture,” published in 1756, lays down various rules for its
disposition and proportions, and recommends its adoption as raising
a house out of the commonplace and making it handsome without being
necessarily pompous.

[Illustration: FIG. 117.--CATHERINE COURT, TOWER HILL, LONDON.

Drawn by F. L. Emanuel.]

Among the more notable examples of this type of plan may be mentioned
Burley on the Hill, in Rutland, where a low curved colonnade is thrust
out on each side to a great distance without serving any particular
object beyond that of obtaining an appearance of grandeur; this was
one of the earlier applications of the idea, dating from late in the
seventeenth century: Easton Neston, in Northamptonshire, dated 1702,
which will be described presently; Cottesbrooke, in the same county,
built in the early part of the eighteenth century; Kelmarsh, a not very
distant neighbour of Cottesbrooke, designed by Gibbs and replacing a
picturesque Jacobean house;[57] Seaton Delaval, in Northumberland,
designed by Vanbrugh about 1720, of which the two wings alone remain
in use; Houghton, in Norfolk, begun in 1722; Holkham, in the same
county, begun in 1734; and Kedlestone, in Derbyshire, dating from 1761;
the last three of which will be referred to at greater length in a
subsequent chapter.

Wren was not the only man of science of his time who became an
architect; there was his acquaintance, Robert Hooke, three years his
junior, and, like himself, the son of a parson. Hooke was almost as
versatile a genius as Wren, but it was as a mathematician that he
achieved most reputation. He was connected with the Royal Society at
its inception, and was appointed curator of experiments. The great
fire of London appears to have turned his attention to architecture;
indeed that event, owing to the necessity it imposed of a vast amount
of urgent rebuilding, seems to have led into the paths of architecture
men whose previous training, although not architectural, qualified them
even slightly for the work. Doubtless Hooke’s mathematics pointed him
out as being not unsuitable to become a city surveyor, besides which he
had submitted a plan to the Royal Society for the rebuilding of London,
which received much commendation from the lord mayor and corporation,
who asked that it might be submitted to the king. In this direction,
however, he had been forestalled by Wren with his fine scheme. In the
end nothing came of either of the suggestions.

Hooke appears to have made a considerable fortune as a surveyor, and
he is credited with the design of three important buildings, all of
which have disappeared. One of these was Montagu House, in Bloomsbury,
for Ralph, Lord Montagu, whose country house at Boughton is presently
to be described. Hooke’s house did not last long; it was begun in 1675
and burnt down in 1686, its successor being designed by the French
architect, Puget, whom Lord Montagu may have known during his long
residence in France. The second building ascribed to Hooke is the old
Bethlem Hospital, likewise begun in 1675 and pulled down in 1814 (Fig.
116); and the third is Aske’s Hospital at Hoxton, begun about 1688.
Engravings of the last two buildings (there is no record of the first
Montagu House) do not lead to the opinion that Hooke was a great master
of architecture, although it is true that the long front of Bethlem
Hospital is handled in a simple, straightforward manner. He was far
behind Wren, but he is interesting as being another whose training led
him, under the special conditions of the time, into active practice.

[Illustration: FIG. 118.--SOUTH OR PRINCIPAL FRONT OF
ALBEMARLE HOUSE, LONDON, 1664.

From an Engraving by R. Sawyer, Jun.]

Lord Chancellor Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, built a fine house during
the heyday of his prosperity, on a site in Piccadilly, opposite the
top of St James’s Street (Fig. 118). It was highly extolled by Evelyn
(especially when writing to Lord Cornbury, the chancellor’s eldest
son), and after him by Pepys, who went to see it, “hearing so much from
Mr. Evelyn of it.” He declared it to be the finest pile he ever did see,
and on a subsequent visit he climbed with some trouble to the top, and
there found the noblest prospect that ever he saw, Greenwich being
nothing to it. The engraving hardly bears out this extravagant praise,
but it must have been a stately house. The architect was Roger Pratt,
afterwards knighted, another of the men whom the great fire appears to
have brought into the service of architecture.[58] Evelyn mentions him
more than once; he was a fellow commissioner of his in the inquiry as
to the rebuilding of St Paul’s, and Evelyn had met him years before in
Italy. The house was begun in 1664, and was approaching completion in
November 1666. But misfortune dogged it from the outset. The populace,
with whom Clarendon was no favourite, dubbed it Dunkirk House, in
allusion to his supposed connection with the sale of that town to the
French. The chancellor occupied it but a single year before he fled the
country; his son occupied it for another year or two, and it was then
let on lease to the Duke of Ormond. After Clarendon’s death at the end
of 1674, it was sold to the second Duke of Albemarle, and became known
as Albemarle House; he again sold it some three years later to a kind
of building syndicate, who in a few years pulled it down and laid out
its site and the surrounding land in streets, one of which was called
Albemarle Street, and another Bond Street, after Sir Thomas Bond who
was one of the principals concerned in the transaction. The house was
regarded as an unwarrantable extravagance, and Clarendon himself is
reported to have eventually looked upon the building of it as a “vanity
and folly.” But after all it only cost £50,000, which was a small sum
compared with the cost of many houses both before and since. It is
interesting because of its short life--less than twenty years from
foundation to demolition--and from the character of the design, which
follows the lines laid down by Jones and Webb.

[Illustration: FIG. 119.--Staircase of a House between Love
Lane and Botolph Lane, London (demolished in 1906).]

Apart from the large houses which were built for wealthy persons,
the new London which sprang up after the fire must have been widely
different from the old. The houses which were burnt down were, many
of them, built of wood and plaster--relics of mediæval times. Their
fronts leaned across narrow lanes, each story projecting over the one
beneath it, after such a fashion as may still be seen, though ever less
frequently, in some of our ancient country towns. The houses which
replaced them followed in most cases the old frontage lines, but their
fronts were vertical and admitted as much light and air as the width
of the street allowed. Nevertheless, the width was frequently but
little, and houses of great size and finely treated within, were built
in streets and lanes which in the present day we should regard as mere
alleys, and which, indeed, would not be permitted under any modern
by-laws. London still preserves many of these old houses (Fig. 117),
although they are gradually being improved away. They are generally
built of brick, with very little relief to their fronts save a good
doorway and a good cornice, and perhaps a few touches in some ironwork.
The same general treatment prevailed for half a century or more, with
a tendency, however, to even greater simplicity; the result was that,
although in the city where the narrow lanes were crooked and had here
and there unexpected projections, the effect was interesting, yet
where the same plain treatment was applied to long straight streets,
the effect became dull and monotonous. Most of these houses had
interesting detail within them, many of them were actually sumptuous,
and of a richness suitable to the merchant princes who dwelt there.
They had fine staircases and ceilings like those in a house in Botolph
Lane (Figs. 119, 120), and good doorways and panelling like that in a
house in College Hill (Fig. 121).

[Illustration: FIG. 120.--Ceiling in a House between Love and
Botolph Lanes.]

[Illustration: FIG. 121.--HOUSE IN COLLEGE HILL.
DETAILS.

Lawrence Furniss, _del._

Illustration reproduced by permission of Messrs Technical Journals,
Ltd.]

[Illustration: FIG. 122.--THE GREAT HOUSE, LEYTON.

Edwin Gunn, _del._]

A fine example of the treatment, prevalent at this period, of a
staircase and hall was to be seen, before its destruction, at the
Great House at Leyton, in Essex, not far from London (Fig. 122). It is
designed in a broad, simple, yet monumental manner, which, however,
has led to the dividing of the lower part of the staircase into two
separate flights, which merge into a single flight of the same width at
the half-landing. The treatment is not quite logical, but--which was
held to be more important--it is symmetrical. The Great House was built
by Sir Fisher Tenche, Bart., whose father was an Alderman of London,
and it is a good example of the houses built by wealthy citizens out in
the country, but within reach of the city.[59]

[Illustration: FIG. 123.--ST LAWRENCE, JEWRY. DETAIL OF
CARVING IN VESTRY ROOM.

Silver Medal Drawing by David Wickham Ayre.]

[Illustration: FIG. 124.--ST LAWRENCE, JEWRY. DETAIL OF
SIDE OF VESTRY ROOM.

Silver Medal Drawing by David Wickham Ayre.]

[Illustration: FIG. 125.--BREWERS’ HALL.]

Although, strictly speaking, rather outside the subject of domestic
architecture, the city halls and churches should not be overlooked,
as they contain splendid specimens of decoration in wood and plaster
of the same kind as those to be found in houses. At the period under
consideration, as in former times, the same sort of embellishment
was applied to churches as to houses; it is quite a modern idea,
born of revivals and restorations, to consider it necessary that a
church should be Gothic in style; to think of Gothic as essentially
ecclesiastic and of Classic as secular. Accordingly in Wren’s churches
there are admirable bits of woodwork, which illustrate the methods of
design then in vogue in houses. So, too, in the halls of the great city
companies. All this work was the consequence of the destruction of
the older buildings by the great fire. The new church of St Lawrence,
Jewry, was begun in 1671, Wren being the architect, and it was opened
in 1677. The woodwork of the interior is as fine as anything that this
age of fine woodwork produced, and that of the vestry is designed
after the same fashion as the panelling and doorways of a large house
(Fig. 124); it is, if anything, more superb. The carving (Fig.
123) is almost certainly the work of Grinling Gibbons. St Lawrence is
one of the best furnished of Wren’s churches, but many others possess
admirable fittings such as pulpits, pews, organ-cases, galleries, and
doorways, boldly designed and richly decorated, which show what a high
excellence the joiner’s art had achieved under Wren, Gibbons, and their
chief craftsmen.

[Illustration: FIG. 126.--Brewers’ Hall.]

[Illustration: FIG. 127.--Girdlers’ Hall, London.]

One of the most interesting of the city halls is that of the Brewers’
Company, in Addle Street. It has undergone restoration and some amount
of alteration, but the principal floor, which contains the hall and
council chamber, still retains much of its original flavour. The walls
are panelled in large panels (Fig. 125), the hall is entered through
a screen with a splendid doorway (Fig. 126), and the council chamber
has a fine fireplace. This is as good an example as could be found of
the manner of panelling and decorating large rooms which prevailed at
the time it was built, namely, 1673. The Stationers’ Hall has as fine
a screen and doorway as those of the Brewers, and indeed most of the
city halls, in spite of modern renovations, retain good work of this
period, among the less known examples of which is the rich panelling at
Girdlers’ Hall, in Basinghall Street (Fig. 127).

[Illustration: FIG. 128.--The Deanery, Wells.]

Outside London there was a large amount of work done during this
period, much of it fresh and interesting. Stapleford Park, in
Leicestershire, a house with a long history and possessing some unusual
detail of the date of 1633, was considerably altered and enlarged about
the time of Charles II. by Bennet, Lord Sherard, who was in possession
from 1640 to 1700. The exterior is plain, but in the interior are
two rooms, with charming woodwork; the door of the dining-room is
illustrated in Fig. 130, and that of the library in Fig. 129. The two
doors differ, but they are alike in that each is placed on a slight
projection which causes a break in the main cornice of the room. The
dining-room has large panels with a boldly carved bolection moulding.
The door has a broken pediment in the gap of which is placed a shield
connected by heavy swags to the surrounding work. This was a common
feature of the period. The library door is of much the same type, but
instead of a shield there is a bust. The panels on the walls are formed
by a bold moulding, which is broken backwards and forwards into a
pattern that recalls the busy treatment of Jacobean work.

[Illustration: FIG. 129.--Stapleford Park, Leicestershire.
Doorway in the Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 130.--Stapleford Park, Leicestershire.
Doorway in the Dining-Room.]

In the Deanery at Wells is a fine panelled room attributed to Sir
Christopher Wren, and certainly wrought after his style if not actually
designed by him. The walls are divided into bays by heavy Ionic
pilasters, the spaces between which are filled with large panels.
Here, too, the bolection moulding is carved, as well as several other
members, the whole effect being rich and handsome (Fig. 128).

Melton Constable stands in a park amid the undulations of the western
part of Norfolk. It is a fine simple house of about the year 1680
(Fig. 131). The eaves cornice gives it its chief character; the rest
of the detail is correct, but strikes the modern eye as being a little
hackneyed; but this is the fault, not of the original architect but of
his successors, who, if they did not copy this actual work, drew, one
after the other, upon the same well of inspiration.

These examples serve to illustrate the progress of house design
during the later years of the seventeenth century; they show how the
fully developed classic manner had superseded the homely treatment of
Jacobean times. Its further career of grandeur and stateliness demands
a fresh chapter for its consideration.

[Illustration: FIG. 131.--MELTON CONSTABLE, NORFOLK.]

VIII

GREAT HOUSES AND GARDENS OF THE EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Twenty-five years after his restoration Charles II. died; James II.
passed uneasily across the scene to his inglorious exit, and William
and Mary succeeded him on the throne. But it is not to the sovereigns
that we must look as pioneers in house building, although at Greenwich
and Hampton Court fine work was accomplished. It is rather to the
great nobles, or at least to aristocratic and wealthy families, that
we owe the most notable specimens of domestic architecture of the
time. At this period the gulf between the upper and lower classes was
wide and deep: its widening was perhaps one of the reactions from the
conditions of the Commonwealth when many persons of humble origin
fought their way to eminence. The distance between the heads of a
great household and their retainers had been increasing all through
the century; the increase has already been indicated in the type of
plan adopted by Jones and Webb. The great hall, where the whole family
used to meet on common ground and with common objects, had disappeared.
The great noble of Elizabeth’s time lived among his retainers; the
grandee under William and Mary relegated his servants to a distant
part of the building or to the basement. The great ones of the land
now housed themselves in splendid buildings, and surrounded themselves
with splendid gardens. Nobody grumbled; the whole community concurred
in this exaltation of birth combined with wealth. Men whose names to
us are household words sought the patronage of others whose names and
doings are hardly recorded outside the pages of the “Complete Peerage.”
Manners, customs, dress emphasised this condition at the time;
architecture reflects it to-day.

[Illustration: FIG. 132.--Boughton House, Northamptonshire.
Plan of the Upper Story, 1736.

From a Plan preserved in the house.

The front at the bottom of the plan faces north. The house lies
to the right of the plan, the stables to the left. The entrance
to the house is between the two wings on the north front.
Remains of the original house are to be found in the great hall
situated at the north end of the oblong court, and in the two
sides of the same court.]

Boughton House, near Kettering in Northamptonshire, is a good example
of a home of one of the great nobles of the time of William and Mary.
Ralph Montagu (afterwards Duke of Montagu) succeeded his father as Lord
Montagu of Boughton in 1681. In 1669 he had been appointed ambassador
extraordinary to France, and during his stay in that country he lived
for a considerable period at Versailles. One of his biographers[60]
says that “here it was his Grace formed his idea of building and
gardening, erecting his seat at Boughton, in Northamptonshire, after
the pattern, and as his Dimensions would allow, after the very model
of Versailles.” In 1695 he entertained King William and Queen Mary
at Boughton for fifteen days. He had been created Earl of Montagu by
William in 1689, and in 1705 he was created Duke of Montagu by Queen
Anne. He was, therefore, a great personage, and he made his house and
its surroundings of a magnificence suitable to his dignity.

[Illustration: FIG. 133.--Boughton House. North Front of
House, with Stables beyond.]

[Illustration: FIG. 134.--Boughton House. A Corner of the
Entrance Front.]

[Illustration: FIG. 135.--Boughton House. One of the State
Rooms.]

An ancestor had already, in the middle of the sixteenth century,
built a fine house at Boughton, with a great hall covered by a roof
of unusual beauty and excellence, and with wings and adjuncts of
considerable extent. Ralph, Lord Montagu, proceeded to overlay this old
house with his new work so completely (see plan, Fig. 132) that it is
only here and there, on the removal of panelling, or in the course of
some minor alteration such as must from time to time occur in these old
houses, that traces of the original building can be found. Fortunately
the roof of the hall was preserved, but it was hidden, and remains
hidden, by a new plaster ceiling on which Cheron painted a large and
elaborate composition. The old house was taken as the nucleus of the
new, but it was extended in various directions, especially on the
north side, where a range of state rooms was erected with two boldly
projecting wings (Fig. 133). It is this part of the house which is
reminiscent of Versailles, if the lofty windows and Mansard roofs can
really be said to remind one of that vast and much more ornate palace.
But the style of this particular work bears a certain resemblance to
the grand stable buildings at Versailles; it is large in scale, sober
and dignified in treatment (Fig. 134). Indeed, it is so severe as to be
thought dull by the casual visitor.

This reproach is not brought against the interior. The rooms are large
and stately; their walls are panelled with the great, boldly moulded
panels of the period (Fig. 135); their ceilings are painted with the
gay mythological subjects of Verrio and his school (see Figs. 310,
311); the floors are filled with the tables, chairs, settees, cabinets,
and bedsteads of the time. Portraits of the family[61] hang on the
panelling, there are mirrors in which their glories were reflected,
and knick-knacks which they handled. In other wings are rooms of less
stateliness, intended for daily use; in the attics are long rows of
still plainer rooms intended for the servants.

At the time it was built the house, no doubt, answered its purpose
admirably; but times change and we change with them; and eventually the
rooms were found to be cold, draughty, and inconveniently arranged--one
leading, as a rule, out of another. There was space enough, but there
were none of the comforts of modern life; no baths nor even any supply
of water laid on; it all had to be carried long distances. The house
became less constantly in use, and to this fact is largely owing the
preservation of its ancient character. Nothing brings home to the
mind the changes that have taken place in manners and customs during
the last two centuries so forcibly as an attempt to live in an old
unaltered house, where even the cooking appliances, although on a grand
scale, are ill-adapted to modern needs; and it is only by drastic
alterations in some of the less notable rooms that Boughton has been
fitted for modern occupation.

Ralph was succeeded in 1708 by his son John, the second duke, who
carried on such work as his father had left unfinished. He is
responsible for several fireplaces, among other things, on which he
made a considerable display of heraldry. The difference between the
_motif_ of Duke John’s heraldry and that of a hundred years
earlier is that in the earlier work the aim was as much decorative as
historic, while in the latter it was mainly historic. In James I.’s
time the family arms were found to be excellent objects for ornamenting
important panels, and if at the same time they ministered to family
pride, so much the better. In Duke John’s case the aim of the heraldry
is not so much to provide decoration as to set forth the descent of
the ducal family and its alliances, especially the last alliance of
all, the marriage of the Duke of Montagu with a daughter of the great
Duke of Marlborough. It not inaptly illustrates the attitude of mind
of the nobles of the time, their assumption of qualities which placed
them on a plane above the rest of mankind, where “grandeur hears with
a disdainful smile the short and simple annals of the poor.” The rest
of mankind, however, concurred in the assumption, especially those
who stood in need of patrons, and the literature of the eighteenth
century makes it clear that noblemen and persons of quality wielded an
influence which made their goodwill worth cultivating.

It was only fitting that such notable personages should be worthily
housed, and at Boughton the first two dukes surrounded themselves with
suitable magnificence. The splendour was not confined to the house,
it pervaded the surroundings as well. The first duke planted a grand
double avenue as wide as the whole façade of the house. He laid out the
gardens on a large scale with parterres and wildernesses, long canals
and _jets d’eau_ (Fig. 136). The water of the canals fell over a
cascade of five stages into an ornamental pond. Intricate walks, some
curved and some straight, were left among the young trees. Statues gave
point to the vistas. The second duke carried on the work both inside
and outside the gardens. He planted a network of avenues extending for
many miles in all directions; some of them centred on the house, others
pointed to neighbouring churches, yet others converged upon an ancient
oak marking the spot where, according to tradition, the last wolf in
England was killed. They all linked up the ancient woods, remnants of
the old forest of Rockingham. Many old plans are preserved at the house
showing the growth of the scheme. There is also an ancient plan of
St Cloud in France showing the forests and avenues with which it was
enclosed, and from the strong likeness between the English maps and the
French, it is not difficult to guess whence the duke’s inspiration was
derived.

[Illustration: FIG. 136.--BOUGHTON HOUSE. _Bird’s-Eye View
of the Gardens and Lay Out, about_ 1735.

From a Drawing preserved at Boughton.]

[Illustration: FIG. 137.--DYRHAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
1698.]

The grandeur of the gardens has long been dismantled; the statues
have disappeared, and some may be seen adorning other people’s fields.
The parterres are obliterated, and the intricate walks can no longer be
traced; indeed time alone would have rendered them an overgrown tangle.
But the great avenues still remain, still centre on the house, still
point to the churches, still converge on the ancient oak, still link up
the ancient woods. The canals are there, and would yet fall over the
cascade were the floodgates lowered. Many of the little trees which
formed curious patterns on the plans have grown into giants. Here and
there a path survives, following part of its allotted route, enough to
show that the original design was not merely a visionary scheme but was
actually carried out.

[Illustration: FIG. 138.--Plan of the Ground Floor of Dyrham.]

Dyrham, in Gloucestershire, is another but somewhat smaller house of
this period; it was built in 1698 from the designs of “the ingenious
Mr. Talman,” as Campbell calls him, for William Blaythwayt, who was
Secretary of State to William III. The property had come to him some
thirty years before by a marriage with the heiress of the Wynters,
whose ancient house was removed to make way for the new one. The site
lies towards the base of a steep hill down which the road winds through
a park, presenting a bird’s-eye view of the house for some time before
it is reached. The buildings stand on a level platform contrived among
the declivities of the park, and from a terrace at the back a fine
flight of steps leads down to the gardens. The entrance front (Fig.
137) is lengthened by the adjoining orangery, forming a façade of some
220 ft., of which the house itself occupies 130 ft. In the middle of
this part is the front door, which opens into a hall (see plan, Fig.
138). Immediately opposite is the door into the saloon, beyond which is
a second hall, which leads out to the terrace. A vista is thus formed
through the house and on to the gardens. The terrace is flanked on one
side by the stable buildings and on the other by a corridor leading
to the ancient church. The whole arrangement is symmetrical, stately,
and interesting. Being on a reasonable scale the effect is dignified
without being overpowering. Time has dealt kindly with the place, and
there are no modern restorations to interfere either with the tone or
the sentiment of the surroundings.

There is nothing particularly striking about the architecture of the
interior, charming though this is; most of the rooms are panelled with
the large and boldly moulded panelling of the period (Fig. 139), and
there is one in which the effect is very happily enhanced by rich,
though subdued gilding. The unusual charm of the house springs from the
fact that very few alterations have been made, and that it retains its
old furniture, books, and pictures, which combine to produce a fine
feeling of old-fashioned comfort and culture.

From the plan (Fig. 138) it will be gathered that many of the rooms
communicate with each other and are, in fact, thoroughfare rooms; and
in this respect it must be granted that the comfort of those days
differed from that of our own. It will also be seen that the saloon is
lighted from one end only, an arrangement which, although rendering the
room by no means dark, yet detracts somewhat from its cheerfulness and
deprives it of all prospect.

An important point in the external treatment, differentiating this
house from most of those hitherto mentioned, is that the roof is not
visible. Webb made his roofs an important feature, bestowing much care
upon their proportion and pitch; here the cornice is surmounted by an
open balustrade, and the chimneys, instead of being made to attract the
eye, are as inconspicuous as possible.

[Illustration: FIG. 139.--DYRHAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
THE SMALL DINING-ROOM.]

[Illustration: FIG. 140.--CHATSWORTH HOUSE,
DERBYSHIRE, 1687–1706.]

Talman had adopted the same treatment at Chatsworth, which was being
built at this time[62] for the first Duke of Devonshire (Fig. 140).
Chatsworth is on a much larger scale than Dyrham, and is far better
known to the public. Indeed to many persons it presents itself as the
model of what a great nobleman’s seat should be. This is owing to its
simple and dignified treatment, and to its admirable situation and the
lordly nature of its lay out. When examined closely, it lacks interest
and variety in its detail. Some of the rooms, however, are finely
proportioned and are decorated with beautiful woodwork and plasterwork;
and there are two or three doorways with alabaster mouldings and
pediments of remarkable interest. Much of the wood carving, from its
style and workmanship, was ascribed for many years to Grinling Gibbons,
but the building accounts show that it was in fact executed by a
Derbyshire man of the name of Samuel Watson, of Heanor. This is another
illustration of the tendency to attribute, in the absence of definite
knowledge, any remarkable work to the best known master of the time.

It might have been expected that Wren’s manner would have been
continued in the work of his assistant, Nicholas Hawksmoor, and to
a certain extent it was; but Hawksmoor was influenced largely by
Vanbrugh, who infected him with some of his own passion for the
grandiose. The most notable work of Hawksmoor in domestic architecture
is Easton Neston, in Northamptonshire, built for William, Lord
Lempster, of which a plan (Fig. 142) and elevation are given in
“Vitruvius Britannicus.” The principal block, containing the state
rooms, is flanked on the plan by outlying wings occupied by the stables
and offices, and beyond them the court is widened out, and eventually
completed by a monumental arcade or corridor, which obviously could
never have been of any practical use. There are no less than five
important approaches to the courtyard, through the wings and the
arcaded portion; the whole arrangement is designed for stateliness.
It is said that the wings were designed by Wren, and that Hawksmoor
added the house itself in 1702, some twenty years later.[63] Campbell’s
elevation certainly does not confirm the idea that Wren’s hand was
employed; there is nothing of his gracious dignity about the portion of
the wings there shown. Campbell says that the building was finished in
1713, and that he was indebted to Hawksmoor himself for the original
drawings of the house; he does not mention Wren. The central building
itself bears the date “A^o Sal. MDCCII” on the frieze, so there is
evidently some confusion as to the wings. These might have been built
after the house and finished in 1713, but in that case they could
hardly have been the work of Wren.

[Illustration: FIG. 141.--EASTON NESTON,
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, 1702.]

[Illustration: FIG. 142.--Plan of Easton Neston.]

It is noteworthy that the whole of the wings and courtyard were
subsequently pulled down,[64] and nothing remains of the original house
but the central block. The reason of this destruction was presumably
that they were found to be useless and extravagant, as indeed might
be expected. The effect has been somewhat spoiled, for the house,
unsupported by anything but some buildings wholly unworthy of it,
looks gaunt and abrupt; it seems too grand for its size (Fig. 141).
It suffers in fact from its grandeur; the large windows are suitable
enough for the large rooms, but where the exigencies of the plan
bring them into small rooms or passages, they are overwhelming. It
is interesting to find that Hawksmoor felt this himself, and that in
the two ends of the house he departs from the large scale of the main
façades. He has collected as far as possible his small rooms at the two
ends, and has given them smaller windows, contriving two floors here
in the height of one along the front. The plan of the house follows
the stately ideas of the time, which took little count of domestic
comfort. The hall was treated in an unusual way; it was formed of three
portions, but whereas the middle bay was carried up to the height of
two stories, the two end bays were of but one story. The effect was
rather fine, as may be seen from the view in Fig. 143. A large floor
space was obtained, and also the effect of noble height without the
overpowering result which would have followed from carrying the whole
of the hall to the height of two stories. But even this restraint left
a greater void than suits modern comfort, and the more lofty portion
has now been divided by a floor at the level of the cornice. Other
alterations, both of disposition and of decoration, have been made.
The original hall has become the dining-room, and a new hall has been
fashioned to the left of the entrance. The drawing-room, however,
retains much of its original treatment, including the elaborate ceiling
with figures in high relief in the middle panel, and the walls, which
are occupied by panels with rather extravagant frames (Fig 144).

[Illustration: FIG. 143.--Easton Neston. The Dining-Room (now
altered).]

[Illustration: FIG. 144.--EASTON NESTON. THE
DRAWING-ROOM.]

The bulk of Hawksmoors work was concerned with churches, and therefore
lies outside the scope of the present inquiry. He was a trained and
skilful architect, but contemporary with him figure others who had
not received the practical teaching which he enjoyed.

Almost ever since the publication of books on architecture had begun,
a certain number of wealthy Englishmen had taken an interest in the
subject. Lord Burghley had procured books from abroad in the time
of Elizabeth; and as the years went by more and more people studied
such publications as were procurable. Webb, it will be remembered,
referred to the fact that “most gentry in England at this day have
some knowledge in the theory of architecture,” and by the end of the
seventeenth century, it had become the fashion among the great and
wealthy to take an interest in the subject--that is, in the classic
architecture of the books. It is hardly necessary to say that the
interest was somewhat superficial, and concerned itself with appearance
more than with convenience; it was still the theory rather than “ye
practique,” as Webb phrases it, that was studied. The pursuit of
the most technical and utilitarian of the arts was thus taken up by
amateurs. Wren himself was an amateur when he first began to design.
His chief, Sir John Denham, was reckoned by Evelyn “a better poet than
architect,” but to do Sir John justice, he does not appear to have
advanced a claim to be an architect of any kind. Evelyn was a patron
of the arts, and especially of architecture, about which he wrote a
book. After him, in the eighteenth century, came Lord Burlington,
the most distinguished patron of architecture of that age. He was a
patron of architects, too; many of the best known men of the century
owed their start in life to the earl. He dabbled in design himself.
We are probably justified in calling it dabbling, but it was not so
considered at the time, and Horace Walpole, himself a dabbler, speaks
of him as a distinguished architect. It was through the munificence of
Lord Burlington that many designs of Palladio were published, as well
as those drawings left behind him by Webb, which, under the title of
“Designs by Inigo Jones,” had so great a vogue at this period.

[Illustration: FIG. 145.--A HALL OR PUBLIC ROOM, BY
WEBB.

From the Worcester College Collection, i. 37.]

Of the work usually attributed to Lord Burlington, it may fairly be
surmised that the practical part was done by one or other of the men
who were profiting by his generosity in their endeavours to become
architects. The theoretical part was really not very difficult,
for designers had a short way with architectural problems in those
days. The general purpose of a building having been considered,
its external appearance was then more or less suitably designed.
When the elevation was perfected according to the rules of art,
the plan was made to fit it, and if the plan did not answer all
the purposes for which it was intended, those concerned had to put
up with the deficiency. The oft-quoted saying of Lord Chesterfield
illustrates this, for when Lord Burlington had designed a beautiful
but inconvenient house for General Wade, Lord Chesterfield advised
the latter if he could not live in it to his comfort, to take a house
opposite and look at it. It should not have been difficult for Lord
Burlington to design this particular house, for he had all Webb’s
drawings to help him, and among them many examples of this type.
So with the Assembly Rooms at York; the large hall is a crib from
Palladio’s illustration of a hall after the Egyptian manner, but
influenced by a rendering of the same subject by Webb. Webb’s version
consists of an oblong room, having a row of columns set some eight feet
from the walls, thus forming an aisle all round the room (Fig. 145).
The columns carry a wall which is pierced with windows, and which in
its turn carries the roof. The outside walls of the ground floor stop
short below the windows, and are crowned with a balustraded parapet
masking the flat roof over the aisle. Lord Burlington adopted this
idea wholesale (Fig. 147), but he made his room much narrower than
Webb’s, although of about the same length, and he kept to the general
proportions of Palladio. When, however, the treatment of the end of
the hall (which was the source of inspiration) was lengthened nearly
fourfold to do duty for the sides, the effect became monotonous and
poverty-stricken; this is apparent on Burlington’s section (Fig. 146).
To the main room he added others of less account, but they are nearly
all too long and too narrow, whether for appearance or for use.

Another well-known work of his is his villa at Chiswick (Fig. 148),
which was copied from a design of Palladio’s for a villa near Vicenza,
but spoilt in the process. Here again there is no originality, and the
practical drawbacks are so great as to arouse even Walpole’s criticism,
to which, however, he adds the illuminating observation that its
faults were condoned by the fact that here, without any trouble, might
be obtained picturesque views better worth seeing than many of those
fragments of ancient grandeur which travellers sought with infinite
labour--an interesting testimonial to scenic architecture.

[Illustration: FIG. 146.--Section of the Assembly Room, York.]

[Illustration: FIG. 147.--Plan of the Assembly Room, York.]

The other works attributed to Lord Burlington are the dormitory at
Westminster, a school and almshouses at Seven-oaks, both illustrated by
Kent in his “Designs of Inigo Jones,” and Burlington House, Piccadilly.
Of these the dormitory at Westminster was a bald and mutilated version
of a design by Wren, and Burlington House was probably designed by
Campbell.[65]

But although Burlington cannot be regarded as an architect who did
anything great in design, he was a munificent patron of the art and of
those who pursued it more practically.

Contemporary with him, and indeed starting a little before him, was
another well-known but more skilful amateur, the witty dramatist, Sir
John Vanbrugh, who has left behind him some of the largest and most
ponderous houses ever built in England. His patrons and friends among
the nobility were all esteemed good judges of architecture, and to
their judgment he submitted at least one of his largest designs.

Among the noblemen who employed him was the third Earl of Carlisle,
who conceived the idea of making himself a magnificent home at Castle
Howard, in Yorkshire, to replace the ancient castle of Hinderskelf,
which had been brought into the family by marriage with one of the
co-heiresses of Lord Dacres. The scheme embraced not only a new palace,
but a large lay out of plantations, vistas, lakes, temples, obelisks,
lodges, and other objects of interest, such as had been employed by
Le Nôtre at Versailles and elsewhere. The completion of his scheme
is recorded in verses too bald (one would imagine) to be any but his
lordship’s, engraved on an important obelisk. They give the date of
commencement as 1702, the inscription is dated 1731, so that year may
be held to have witnessed the fulfilment of the main project.

But the house had been occupied long before this; for in 1714 Lady Mary
Wortley Montague wrote from Yorkshire to her husband, professing to
be “in a great fright” about attempts from Scotland in favour of the
Pretender. “The four young ladies at Castle Howard,” she says, were
as much alarmed as she was, for their father had gone away and was
not likely to return for months. They had asked her to join them, a
suggestion which she was inclined to comply with, since Castle Howard
would be a safe retreat, although rather like a nunnery, as no mortal
man ever entered its doors in the absence of the father.

[Illustration: FIG. 148.--Lord Burlington’s Villa at Chiswick.

Drawn by A. C. Bossom.]

It must have been early in the year 1699 that the earl called Vanbrugh
to his assistance, for the latter writes on the 25th December that he
had been that summer at Lord Carlisle’s, and had visited most of the
great houses of the North. Amongst others he had been to Chatsworth,
where he stayed four or five days, and had shown to the duke all the
designs for Castle Howard, which he “absolutely approved.” Since then
they had been submitted to a great many other critics, and as no
objection had been raised to them, the stone was already being quarried
and the foundations were to be laid in the spring. A model of the house
was being prepared in wood, which was to be sent to Kensington for the
criticism of the king.[66] Thus fortified with general approval the
design was carried out, the works extending over some thirty years. The
cost must have been very great, and in a later letter Vanbrugh tells
how it was met in part, for in July 1707 he says that Lord Carlisle
had “£2,000 from the Sharpers, and is gone down to lay it out in his
buildings.”[67]

Although the whole of Vanbrugh’s design was not carried out the house
is of great size and of palatial magnificence (Fig. 150). Indeed no
modern person can be incessantly as grand as the grandeur of the
building demands. It requires innumerable servants to keep it in order,
innumerable guests to make it cheerful. It involves a great drain upon
the owner’s resources, both of temperament and of purse, to fill it
with enough people to prevent its being dull, and to maintain it in
suitable repair and tidiness. From a practical standpoint the corridors
are too many and are out of all proportion to the rooms they serve.
There are indeed no rooms of a size commensurate with the outside
grandeur; most of them appear small and narrow, their height is as
great as their width (Fig. 152), and this must have tended, before the
introduction of modern heating, to make them cold. The finest apartment
is the hall (Fig. 151), so large and lofty as to occupy an undue
proportion of space compared with what is devoted to domestic use. Its
effect is more nearly allied to what we are accustomed to associate
with a large museum or other public building than with a house.

The view in “Vitruvius Britannicus” does more justice to Vanbrugh’s
conception than does the building itself. The house is there shown with
a subsidiary court on each side, one being devoted to laundries and
so forth, and the other to stables. In front there was to have been a
forecourt enclosed by a monumental fence with the main entrance gates
on the axial line. Actually but one of the side courts was built, and
the forecourt was not carried out. The road, instead of approaching the
house directly opposite to the centre of the façade, thus giving the
visitor a _coup d’œil_ of the whole vast composition, approaches
it laterally, close to the end of one of the wings, and it is only on
passing the corner of the wing that the visitor is suddenly aware at
close quarters of the recessed entrance front.

[Illustration: FIG. 149.--Castle Howard. View from the
Mausoleum.]

[Illustration: FIG. 150.--Castle Howard, Yorkshire. The Garden
Front, 1702.]

The one subsidiary court which was built contains the laundries, and
it is in the nature of a shock to see laundry-maids at work amid
surroundings almost massive enough for Diocletian himself.

The lay out is of corresponding scenic magnificence. From one direction
the house is approached along a far-stretching avenue, which leads up
hill and down dale, then beneath a gateway in a long, symmetrically
designed range of building crowned with a sturdy pyramid, and so
onwards towards a lofty obelisk, the meeting-point of several roads,
one of which leads to the house. The formal gardens close to the house
surround a large basin, in the midst of which is Atlas bearing up the
world, amid the encouragements of four huge tritons who raise great
horns towards him across the water. The broad gravel walk along the
garden front leads in one direction to the walled fruit gardens; in
the other to a smooth grass track which slopes upwards to a copse of
beeches. Curving away from this is another grass track which, passing
an ordered row of lead figures, comes eventually to a classic temple.
Beyond are undulating fields skirting an artificial lake, across
which is flung a massive bridge which deserves, even more than that
at Wilton, Walpole’s epithet of “theatric,” for it serves no purpose
but to adorn the landscape. It spans a sheet of water contrived for
little else than to provide the opportunity to build it. Its roadway,
deep-grown in grass, leads from nowhere to nowhere. The Palladian
bridge at Prior Park, near Bath, illustrated in Fig. 154, is almost an
exact replica of that at Wilton.

Still further on, crowning an eminence, stands a huge mausoleum, a
noble building designed by Hawksmoor (Fig. 153). It rests on a lofty
and spacious platform of irregular symmetry, whereon the friends and
tenants of deceased earls may have gathered to await the arrival of
the funeral procession as it made its slow way along the grass walks,
and after halting at the temple, wound across the rolling fields. Long
stone benches suggest the scores of horsemen who dismounted and left
their horses to be tended on the ample spaces of the platform. The
mausoleum itself is a circular domed building, surrounded by disengaged
columns; within it are two chambers; the lower level with the platform,
contains the vaults; the upper is the chapel. The latter is approached
by long flights of steps, and is itself circular and covered at a great
height with a coffered dome. The sweep of the walls within is relieved
by eight recesses for an altar, the clergy, and the chief mourners.
The vaulted apartment below is massively constructed, and in the
thickness of the masonry are contrived many recesses for the reception
of coffins. But few have been utilised, and, as the visitor discovers
by the light of his taper cavern after cavern still unoccupied and
unlikely ever to be filled, as he stands in the chilly spaces of the
chapel with its dome soaring far overhead, as he gazes from an angle
of the platform across the fields and the grass-grown bridge on to the
distant house (Fig. 149), he realises how vastly things have changed,
how entirely this fine conception has lost its point, how empty is the
pomp of architecture when the habits to which it ministered have ceased.

[Illustration: FIG. 151.--CASTLE HOWARD. THE HALL.]

[Illustration: FIG. 152.--CASTLE HOWARD. THE TAPESTRY
ROOM.]

[Illustration: FIG. 153.--The Mausoleum at Castle Howard, as
seen from the Platform on which it stands.]

Castle Howard was a private undertaking. Immense though it was--its
total length was to have been 660 ft. had both its courts been
built--it was exceeded in size by the palace of Blenheim, which was a
national monument to the glory of the British arms, although actually
a gift to the Duke of Marlborough. Here Vanbrugh must have been in
his element. There was presumably to be no unreasonable limit to the
cost; the result was to be monumental. Convenience of arrangement,
internal effect, the amenities of daily life were minor considerations.
The nation wanted a monument; it should have something which should
impress the thousands who would see the exterior, rather than the
scores who might possibly see the interior. The house itself was
flanked, as at Castle Howard, by two huge courts, one for the stables,
the other for the kitchens; the total façade was 850 ft. in length.
The approach was along the axial line over a splendid bridge, finer
in every way than that at Castle Howard; indeed, it is the most
satisfactory piece of design at Blenheim. The house is overwhelmed
by its own size (Fig. 155). The eye cannot grasp it in its entirety,
and when it studies isolated portions they do not suggest thoughts of
domestic pleasures; the colonnades and the turrets are not consecrated
by daily use, they are there for scenic effect; the statues are cold
abstractions, they are no more germane to Blenheim than to any other
grand house. How different is this effect from that of even the largest
of the Elizabethan palaces. There grandeur itself was homely. The
difference cannot be attributed to increase in size; the absence of
homeliness springs not even from the inevitable difference between
a palace and a manor house. It is inherent in the changed views
prevalent both as to life and as to architecture. The aloofness of the
great noble accounts for something, but the desire to produce scenic
architecture in preference to creating a home, accounts for more. It
underlay nearly all Vanbrugh’s efforts, as indeed it did those of his
contemporaries and successors. At Stowe House, near to Buckingham, it
is apparent in the sacrifice of the bedroom windows on the south front
to the desire for an appearance of solidness and simplicity; it is
still more obvious in the treatment of the gardens, presently to be
described. Seaton Delaval, in Northumberland, is perhaps Vanbrugh’s
most pleasing production, but even here convenience and common sense
gave way to display, and the house itself, having been burnt down some
few years after it was built, no one has thought it worth while to
reinstate it. No one could be comfortable in it if he did.

In one of his houses, at any rate, Vanbrugh did not resort to his
usual devices for producing his effects. This was Kimbolton Castle,
in Huntingdonshire, which, except on one front which has a great
columnar portico, is as gaunt and plain as anyone could desire; and
it was made so of set purpose, for Vanbrugh writes to his client, the
Earl of Manchester, in July 1707, “I thought it was absolutely best to
give it something of the castle air, though at the same time to make
it regular, ... so I hope your Lordship will not be discouraged
if any Italian you may shew it to, should find fault that it is not
Roman; for to have built a front with pilasters and what the orders
require, could never have been done with the rest of the castle. I am
sure this will make a very noble and masculine show.” And again in
the following September, “I shall be much deceived if people do not
see a manly beauty in it, when it is up, that they did not conceive
could be produced out of such rough materials; but it is certainly the
figure and proportions that make the most pleasing fabric, and not the
delicacy of the ornaments, a proof of which I am in great hopes to shew
your Lordship at Kimbolton.”

[Illustration: FIG. 154.--THE PALLADIAN BRIDGE, PRIOR PARK,
NEAR BATH.]

[Illustration: FIG. 155.--BLENHEIM VIEW.]

There is much sound sense in all this, and every architect will agree
that no amount of ornament can redeem a badly proportioned building;
but Vanbrugh’s reason for the omission of pilasters, and what the
orders require, would have had more point if there had been anything
preserved of the ancient castle beyond its name. So far as can be seen
there is nothing older than the house itself, and although it was built
of the old stones, as Vanbrugh says (and this may be the real reason
for so plain a treatment), there is no evidence of earlier working
visible upon them.

A casual remark in another letter is of interest, as showing what
people thought of some of these large houses. He is speaking of
Blenheim in a letter of July 1708. “He (Sir John Coniers) made mighty
fine speeches upon the building, and took it for granted no subject’s
house in Europe would approach it, which will be true if the Duke of
Shrewsbury judges right in saying, ‘There is not in Italy so fine a
house as Chatsworth,’ for this of Blenheim is, beyond all comparison,
more magnificent than that.” He is certainly right as to magnificence,
if not also as to the general pleasurable effect.

Vanbrugh’s houses may be taken as the highest manifestation of the
spirit of the age in house building; the exaltation of social grandeur,
the scenic magnificence of architecture. That they rather missed the
mark in respect of comfort and convenience, as we understand those
qualities, was not held to be a great drawback. Yet even contemporary
voices were raised in protest, as may be gathered from Pope’s verses
on “The Duke of Marlborough’s House at Woodstock,” wherein, after
listening to an admirer’s description of its splendour, he suddenly
interrupts him:--

“Thanks, Sir, I cried, ’tis very fine,
But where d’ye sleep, or where d’ye dine?
I find by all you have been telling,
That ’tis a house, but not a dwelling.”

[Illustration: FIG. 156.--STOWE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
VIEW OF QUEEN’S THEATRE, FROM THE ROTUNDA.

From an Engraving by Jean Rigaud.]

Sir Joshua Reynolds, in the thirteenth of his admirable Discourses,
remarks that Vanbrugh “was defrauded of the due reward of his merit by
the wits of the time”; and we can heartily concur in his opinion as a
painter, that Vanbrugh, “had originality of invention, he understood
light and shade, and had great skill in composition.”

In all these great houses the lay out helped the general effect; the
gardens and the groves were designed in the same spirit as the houses
which they surrounded. Those at Stowe were the most famous of their
time. There was but little formality about them, although they were
traversed by a few straight walks and vistas (Fig. 156). They embodied,
indeed, the new idea which eschewed formality, and sought to gain
the help of nature without apparent effort (Fig. 157). They covered
a considerable amount of space, and were diversified by undulations
of varied steepness, and by great masses of trees. The landscape thus
provided by nature was improved by art. A stream was made to fall
here, to wind there, to broaden out into a lake elsewhere. Paths were
contrived to pass through thickets, to descend a dell, to curve beneath
a lofty mound crowned with a “temple,” to undulate along the edge of
a copse and overlook meadows sloping down to the lake. The whole was
studded at intervals with buildings, each of which had a character of
its own. There were grottoes, temples, arches, rotundas, and columns,
designed by Vanbrugh, Leoni, Kent, and others. They were so placed amid
the trees, the meadows, and the water as to remind the spectator of
pictures of Italian scenery. Half Italy was squeezed into two hundred
acres of English countryside. A Corinthian arch admitted the principal
approach from Buckingham. There were many temples; among them one to
Venus, one to Bacchus, others to the Ancient Virtues, to the Modern
Virtues (in ruins--a costly piece of satire which must speedily have
palled), to British worthies, to Concord and Victory, to Friendship and
to other deities and abstractions. There was Dido’s cave in one place,
and St Augustine’s in another, a Fane of Pastoral Poetry elsewhere;
there were monuments to people of more or less eminence, archways
commemorative of royal visitors, artificial ruins, bridges over
artificial waters, a Gothic temple, and a large tablet to a dead dog.

[Illustration: FIG. 157.--STOWE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
A VIEW FROM CAPTAIN GRENVILLE’S MONUMENT TO THE GRECIAN TEMPLE.

From an Engraving by G. Bickham.]

Most of these buildings were furnished with inscriptions on which were
bestowed much ingenuity, scholarship, and neatness of versification.
For thirty or forty years monuments were added as occasion arose,
either to commemorate the death of a distinguished acquaintance, or the
visit of some royal personages. Horace Walpole was half repelled, yet
wholly attracted by this curious panorama. The modern visitor is filled
with much the same emotions. The mere catalogue sounds inane, yet the
whole idea is carried out with so much skill, the buildings themselves
are so charming that, once we accept the artificial atmosphere of
the place, we wander from point to point with unabated interest and
admiration. Nowhere else can we gain so vivid an insight into the
laborious elegance of the age.

Walpole’s lively account of his visit to meet the Princess Amelia, in
July 1770, gives an excellent idea of the impressions the place made
upon him. The view through the archway, erected in honour of her royal
highness, he describes as “a tall landscape framed by the arch and the
embowering trees, and comprehending more beauties of light, shade, and
buildings, than any picture of Albano I ever saw.”[68] “Twice a day we
made a pilgrimage to almost every heathen temple in that province that
they call a garden; and there is no sallying out of the house without
descending a flight of steps as high as St Paul’s.” He describes an
_al fresco_ supper, which they attended in state, in one of the
grottoes on a cold evening. It reduces to very human dimensions the
lordliness of the great scheme. A large concourse of people from
Buckingham and the district came to behold the distinguished company
at their revels. Before this crowd the house party descended the vast
flight of steps leading from the house. “I could not help laughing as
I surveyed our troop, which, instead of tripping lightly to such an
Arcadian entertainment, were hobbling down by the balustrades, wrapped
up in cloaks and great-coats for fear of catching cold. The earl, you
know, is bent double, the countess very lame; I am a miserable walker,
and the princess, though as strong as a Brunswick lion, makes no figure
in going down fifty stone stairs.”

Stowe, and Hagley in Worcestershire, which both owe much of their
character to the taste and judgment of Lord Chatham, are perhaps
the best examples of lay outs which are not so much gardens, as a
collection of landscape pictures to which interest was imparted by
the introduction of classic buildings, and from which symmetry and
formality were excluded.

[Illustration: FIG. 158.--In the Gardens of Wrest,
Bedfordshire.]

In contrast to the free treatment at Stowe, which brought a tract
of countryside into the curtilage of the house, is the formality at
Bramham Park, some ten miles from Leeds, which carried the ordered
symmetry of the house into the gardens. Of the two methods, the formal
was the earlier, but during the eighteenth century it gradually gave
way to the other.

The gardens at Bramham are among the most satisfactory of the large
lay outs of the period (Figs. 162, 163). They were devised for Robert
Benson, afterwards Lord Bingley, about the year 1710.[69] There are the
usual vistas converging upon the house; there are various buildings
in imitation of the antique, both classic and Gothic; there are
memorials to pet animals; but the number is reasonable, and the scheme
is more easily grasped than that of Stowe. The principal walk runs
parallel to the garden front of the house, near which it ends against
a “temple,” which is the chapel of the mansion. In the opposite
direction it merges into an avenue which leads the eye across the
park to a distant monument. Just before quitting the garden the vista
crosses an elaborate arrangement of ornamental water, comprising a
large basin flanked by subsidiary pools and cascades, all symmetrically
planned. The walk is led from one level to another by monumental steps,
producing picturesque groups of garden architecture, and the large
water basin is the starting-point of fresh vistas.

[Illustration: FIG. 159.--The Gardens at Drayton House,
Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 160.--Plan of the Gardens at Drayton
House, Northamptonshire.

H. Inigo Triggs, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 161.--Garden House at Croom’s Hill,
Greenwich.]

The garden buildings form an interesting commentary on the
architectural literature of the time, for whereas those in the classic
style are quite good, owing to the numerous examples in books, those in
the Gothic style are lamentable, since there was nothing to guide the
designer but his own study and observation; and nobody at that period
had any but the merest nodding acquaintance with Gothic work.

[Illustration: FIG. 162.--BRAMHAM PARK GARDENS,
YORKSHIRE.]

The adoption of a dignified lay out, large or small, to every house of
any pretensions at this period, is exemplified in many contemporary
prints and books, notably in Kip’s “Britannia Illustrata” and
Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” Many of these formal gardens have
been destroyed, submerged by the wave of landscape gardening, on which
“Capability” Brown floated to fame; but there still remain admirable
examples besides those already mentioned. There are the placid canals
of Wrest, in Bedfordshire (Fig. 158); the sloping vistas of Melbourne,
in Derbyshire; the terraces of St Catherine’s Court, in Somerset; and
the pleached walks and broad parterres of Drayton, in Northamptonshire
(Fig. 159), where the forecourt with its beautiful gates and screen
of ironwork, the steps from one level to another, and the lead vases,
placed on the terrace walls, or raised on pedestals as a dominating
part of the scheme, all combine to render the lay out one of the most
fascinating of its kind (see plan, Fig. 160). Indeed, examples may
be found in every county, although not a tithe of what once existed;
and on their terraces, amid their canals and straight walks may be
found groups of figures, delightful temples, monuments, urns, and
garden houses, like that at Croom’s Hill, Greenwich (Fig. 161), which
are not only charming in themselves, but give point to the whole
conception. And those conceptions are the most satisfactory which are
on a scale moderate enough to enable the mind to grasp them on the
spot, without the aid of a plan.

[Illustration: FIG. 163.--Bramham Yew Hedge.]

GEORGIAN HOUSES

Reference was made in the last chapter to the influence of
architectural books in stimulating the interest of wealthy amateurs
in the matter of building. The eighteenth century saw a considerable
increase in the number published, and of these two of the earliest
and most important were Lord Burlington’s, or rather Kent’s, “Designs
of Inigo Jones,” and Colin Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” Kent
put his name to the former, and no doubt rightly, as being the
collector and editor of the materials comprised in the two volumes;
but Lord Burlington was the “only begetter” as well as the paymaster
of the venture. The first volume is devoted almost entirely to one
of the designs for the palace at Whitehall, which have already been
dealt with in Chapter IV. The second volume consists of designs for
houses of all sizes, nominally by Inigo Jones, but actually by Webb.
Plans, elevations, and some sections are given, but there is an air
of unreality about them, and, as a matter of fact, very few of them
were actually built. They are mostly exercises in design in which
the convenience of the plan is a secondary consideration. The Thorpe
collection is very different in this respect. There most of the plans
have the rooms named, a genuine effort being made to get a workable
design, with all its parts suitably related one to the other. In Kent’s
book none of the rooms are named; there appears to be no effort to
achieve a workable result. The space enclosed within the outside walls
is divided into rooms, and the rooms are carefully proportioned; but so
far as the designer is concerned any room might be put to any purpose
at the fancy of the occupant. The relation of the dining-room to the
kitchen, for instance, is held of no account: aspect and prospect
are alike neglected. Sanitary provision there is none. Bath-rooms,
of course, were unknown: indeed, from the few allusions to such
matters as occur in the literature of the time, it is evident that
our ancestors of the eighteenth century had deplorable ideas as to
cleanliness and sanitation; and the provisions now made in these
respects, which are one of the pivots upon which a modern plan turns,
were then undreamed of. When all practical considerations were left to
take care of themselves, planning a house was a very simple matter, and
one which an amateur could undertake with a light heart. The principal
aim of designers was to achieve a scenic success. The rooms were to be
well proportioned, and so arranged as to produce a stately effect, both
in themselves and in the passing from one to the other. They were also
so disposed as to result in a fine exterior, where the length should be
duly proportioned to the height, the windows should be regularly placed
and of a size agreeable to the eye. Every part was to be symmetrical,
and the whole was to be a neat piece of architecture. There seems, in
looking through these designs, to be no essential reason why one should
have differed from another, except for the sake of variety. Yet every
modern architect knows that a house properly planned to meet one set
of circumstances can never be utilised for another without drastic
alterations; that every fresh house presents a fresh problem. But this
springs from the modern way of looking at house designing, namely, that
a house ought to satisfy the wants and even the idiosyncrasies of the
owner, and that its disposition must be modified by considerations of
aspect, prospect, soil, surroundings, and a score of other things.

[Illustration: FIG. 164.--DESIGN FOR A HOUSE.

From Gibbs’s “Book of Architecture,” pl. 57.]

[Illustration: FIG. 165.--DESIGN FOR A HOUSE, BY
GIBBS.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library, Oxford.]

But the outlook of the eighteenth century being what it was, the
designers were successful in compassing their object, and they produced
many charming houses, often stately and always dignified. This result
was owing in a large degree to a study of Kent’s “Designs of Inigo
Jones.”

Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus” is an epitome of the more important
houses of the last twenty years of the seventeenth century and first
twenty of the eighteenth.[70] The ideas underlying it are those which
have already been mentioned. There is a short descriptive account of
each subject. In these, Campbell dwells on the proportions of his
rooms, on the truly classic treatment of the elevations; he explains
how one subject is treated in the “palatial” style, another in the
“temple” style; another in the “theatrical.” The principal rooms are
all stately, the family rooms in some cases are in the attics,
lighted from the leads. In one design he plumes himself on not having
his windows “crowded”; and indeed the amount of wall space between
the lower and upper windows is so ample that either the lower must be
far below the ceiling, or the upper far above the floor. It would be
tedious to multiply instances; anyone can find them for himself by
looking through his volumes. The point is that many important houses of
that time were built for state and show, rather than for comfort and
convenience; and they afford a striking commentary on the difference in
outlook on daily life between that period and our own among the wealthy
classes.

[Illustration: FIG. 166.--DESIGN FOR THE FOUR SIDES OF A ROOM.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 167.--DESIGN FOR THE FOUR SIDES OF A ROOM.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library.]

These particular manifestations were not merely a passing fashion;
they were too widespread and too lasting for that; yet that they were
in fact the outcome of fashion is proved by Pope’s Epistle to Lord
Burlington (the fourth of the “Moral Essays”) which is in effect a
vindication of common sense as opposed to extravagance in buildings,
gardens, and entertainments. Pope credits Lord Burlington with the
qualities he commends, yet in none of the buildings attributed to that
nobleman is common sense very conspicuous.

Another book on architecture was published by James Gibbs, a
contemporary of Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh, but somewhat younger, and who
was one of the numerous architects encouraged by Lord Burlington. He
deservedly enjoyed a large practice, and designed many churches and
houses. He was skilful and ingenious, and showed more originality than
most of his contemporaries, particularly in his churches; his houses go
very little outside the lines which were universally accepted as being
appropriate for gentlemen’s residences. Like several of his fellows he
commended himself to the public by publishing (in 1728) a large folio
volume of his designs. These are well worth study, for they were all
either actually built or were intended to be built, the erection of
some being prevented by the death of the client or by some other cause.
They have therefore a more vital interest than most of those in Kent’s
“Designs of Inigo Jones.”

His Introduction is interesting. The work was undertaken, he says,
at the instance of several Persons of Quality, who were of opinion
that it “would be of use to such Gentlemen as might be concerned in
Building, especially in remote parts of the Country, where little
or no assistance for Designs can be procured.” He suggests that,
furnished with his book, these remote gentlemen can employ any workman
who understands lines to build them a house, and even make alterations
in his designs if guided by a person of judgment. But he (very
rightly) warns his readers against employing only ignorant workmen in
the management of buildings of great expense, lest they undergo the
mortification of finding the result condemned by persons of taste,
entailing even the drastic remedy of pulling the building down. He also
warns them against extravagant and misapplied ornament, “for it is not
the Bulk of a Fabrick, the Richness and Quantity of the Materials, the
Multiplicity of Lines, nor the Gaudiness of the Finishing, that give
the Grace or Beauty and Grandeur to a Building; but the Proportion of
the Parts to one another and to the Whole, whether entirely plain, or
enriched with a few Ornaments properly disposed.” It is to be feared
that his readers must have felt that what he gave with one hand in
offering them his book, he took away with the other by showing how
hazardous it was to use it without training and experience.

He concludes by saying that his designs had been done in the best taste
he could form upon the instructions of the greatest masters in Italy,
supplemented by his own observations upon the ancient buildings there
during many years’ study; adding, as a sly dig at the amateurs, “for a
cursory View of those August Remains can no more qualify the Spectator,
or Admirer, than the Air of the Country can inspire him with the
knowledge of Architecture.”

It is a characteristic pronouncement, with its reliance on the
authority of the Italian masters, its insistence on proportion, its
omission of any reference to domestic comfort, its intention that
the book should help the unlearned, coupled with the warning that
unless the user had taste and judgment of his own, he must seek those
qualities in an expert.

[Illustration: FIG. 168.--DESIGN FOR A STAIRCASE.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 169.--DESIGN FOR A STAIRCASE, WITH
PAINTED ARCHITECTURE.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library.]

The illustrations give a good idea of what was expected in a country
house in those days. The plans are all symmetrical, and each front is
regular and intended to be seen; there was no thought of giving the
house a back for the use of servants and tradesmen. Indeed there were
hardly any tradesmen to be considered. Every house was self-sustaining
and provided its own bread, meat, and vegetables. This is an important
point to bear in mind; it accounts for the numerous outbuildings
which form part of old houses, inasmuch as places had to be provided
for storing most of the things which are now retained by the shopkeeper
until his carts take them to his customers. It also partly explains how
it was possible to have each side of the house a show-front, for there
was less outside traffic when there were no tradesmen’s carts, although
there was always a staff of servants going in and out. The servants are
placed either in a basement or in an outlying wing, never in proximity
to the principal rooms; at the same time, in order to gain their rooms
in the attics, they generally had to cross either the hall or one of
the rooms intended for the family. The effect of this was that they
were less conveniently placed for service than they are in the present
day, and yet they could not gain their bedrooms without the risk of
intruding on the family.

In many instances the kitchen with its dependencies occupied an
outlying wing, and the food had to be brought a long distance, and
frequently through an open corridor. The inconvenience of this
arrangement must have outweighed the advantage of getting the smells
and noise of the kitchen away from the house. The family rooms were the
chief concern of the designer, and his aim was to make them stately.
The arrangement most often adopted was to have a large entrance hall,
and beyond it a dining-room; on either side were two or more rooms with
a staircase between them. The hall occupied two stories in height,
being as much as 30 ft. or 36 ft. high, and it must have been cold and
cheerless, if grand. The principal rooms were lofty, and over each
was another of the same size; in some instances small rooms of less
height were placed next to the staircases, thus enabling others over
them to be reached from a landing half-way up--“intersoles,” as Gibbs
calls them. The same device had already been adopted by Hawksmoor at
Easton Neston. The symmetrical disposition of the rooms favoured the
placing of their doors in a straight line so that long vistas could
be obtained, and although Gibbs prides himself on providing passages
which rendered every room private, there were usually doors of
intercommunication, and many of the rooms suffered from a multiplicity
of entrances. The passages were evidently a concession to modern ideas,
and were often ill-lighted from openings into the hall. The observance
of strict symmetry sometimes led to the provision of two equally
important staircases where one would have been enough for practical
purposes. It also resulted in the stairs crossing windows, the outside
harmony of which was held to be sacred; and a further consequence was
the introduction of many sham windows for the sake of uniformity.

In spite of such drawbacks, which sprang from the formality of the
treatment, Gibbs’s plans are ingenious and well devised. He attaches
great importance to privacy, and frequently introduces a number of
“apartments,” as he calls them, each apartment comprising a bedroom and
dressing-room, with occasionally a third or ante-room. The demands of
those times were, of course, far simpler than our own, and Gibbs was as
skilful as any of his contemporaries in satisfying them. He was able to
do this within walls which were treated in a strictly classic manner,
founded on instructions of the Italian masters. Whether he could have
met the complex wants of the present day in so simple a fashion is open
to question.

Many of Gibbs’s original drawings are preserved in the Radcliffe
Library at Oxford, some of these being included in his “Book of
Architecture.” Two of them are reproduced here, one (Fig. 164) is plate
57 of his book, the other (Fig. 165) has not been published. The first
is an example of a house with a forecourt and wings connected by open
corridors to the central block; in the left-hand wing are the kitchens,
in the right the stables. The house is entered through a large hall
beyond which is a gallery, with small rooms at each end. To the left
of the hall is presumably the dining-room, as it lies nearest to the
kitchens, to the right is a room of the same size. There are two large
staircases resembling each other in all respects, that on the left
being probably the back stairs. Grouped on each side of the staircases
are small rooms over which might have been the “intersoles,” although
Gibbs does not expressly mention them. In this instance the hall was
but one story in height with a room over it, and there were three rooms
over the gallery. The same disposition obtained on the top floor, which
may have been devoted to guest chambers, as it would appear that the
servants were lodged in the kitchen wing, judging by the size of the
staircase.

[Illustration: FIG. 170.--A CHIMNEY-PIECE, BY GIBBS.

From the Gibbs Collection in the Radcliffe Library.]

[Illustration: FIG. 171.--No. 75 DEAN STREET, SOHO. PART
OF THE PAINTED DECORATION OF THE WALL OF THE STAIRCASE.]

The other and unpublished design (Fig. 165) is of a somewhat different
type. The centre of the house is occupied by a vast and lofty staircase
mainly lighted from a cupola. Round this is a broad corridor
giving access to the various rooms, which are of fine dimensions.
The same disposition appears to apply to all three floors, save that
on the topmost the corridor is omitted, and thus an open space is
provided which gives light to the hall on one side and to a passage
on the other, which is taken off the width of the rooms. There is no
indication where the kitchens lie; the section shows no basement, and
there are no indications of separate wings.

The section gives an adequate idea of the internal treatment; it
shows the great hall and its lighting, as well as the very simple
decoration of the rooms, far plainer in this case than in most of
those published in his book. The rooms are usually panelled somewhat
after the manner shown in Figs. 166 and 167. This gives an air of
distinction to them, but it severely limits (and perhaps not unhappily)
the number of pictures and prints which can be hung on the walls. A
very similar treatment is applied to the staircases (Fig. 168). In one
instance the walls were apparently to be painted with an architectural
composition, which introduces a touch of poetry into the practical
prose of Gibbs’s ordinary handling (Fig. 169). There is a house in
Dean Street, Soho (Fig. 171), where the staircase walls are decorated
with figure subjects by Hogarth, somewhat after the fashion of Gibbs’s
drawing, but more elaborate in design. The decoration of the rooms
already illustrated includes in each case the chimney-piece, but a
further example, to a larger scale (Fig. 170), will serve to show the
kind of design which was widely adopted, not only by Gibbs but by most
architects during the first half of the eighteenth century.

Campbell was also a practising architect as well as an illustrator of
the art, and he was consulted in the erection of Houghton Hall, in
Norfolk, which is one of the finest examples of the great houses of its
period, a period when nobles and wealthy gentlemen were vying with one
another in building fine homes in the fashionable Italian manner, and
surrounding them with equally fine gardens. It was the celebrated Prime
Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, who built Houghton; and Colin Campbell
supplied him with the design in the year 1722.[71] It would appear,
however, that Campbell did not carry out the work himself, but that his
designs were handed over to Ripley, who altered them in many respects
while following the general idea pretty faithfully. The sizes and
disposition of the rooms were varied, both in the central block and in
the wings. The proportions of the windows were altered, and Campbell’s
projecting portico was omitted, the columns being attached to the wall
instead of standing some fifteen feet in front of it. The attic stories
of his corner pavilions were also changed into domes. On the whole
these slight alterations tended to improve the appearance, but in spite
of these variations, Campbell must have the credit for the design (Fig.
173).

[Illustration: FIG. 172.--Houghton, Norfolk. Plan of Principal
Floor, 1722.]

The whole arrangement is of the prevalent type. There is a noble main
building flanked on each side at some distance by a subsidiary block,
connected to the house by colonnades which are curved on one face and
rectangular on the other. The south wing contains the kitchen and
servants’ quarters; the north wing is occupied by a picture gallery and
chapel, but much of this particular building has been destroyed by fire.

The house itself is of three stories, including the basement, which is
used in part for domestic purposes, but serves in the main to raise
the principal floor well above the ground. This floor (see plan, Fig.
172) contains the fine stone hall, a cube of 40 ft., a saloon somewhat
smaller and less lofty, a dozen fine rooms and some staircases, of
which the chief one is magnificent. All these rooms are symmetrically
arranged, and the doorways are so disposed as to produce long vistas
when the whole series is opened. The four rooms in the corners can
only be gained by passing through other rooms. The whole effect is
stately both inside and out, and although in the present day there may
be a certain lack of comfort, yet the house fully met the needs of the
time when it was built, and it provided the atmosphere of splendour
which was demanded by all great persons of the period. The whole
façade is over 500 ft. long, the central block has a frontage of 165
ft., and the wings 110 ft. These are handsome dimensions; they are
indeed so large that it is not easy for the eye to include the whole
group at once from any ordinary viewpoint. The illustration (Fig. 173)
only shows the house and its colonnades, beyond which the reader’s
imagination must add the wings, which are strictly subordinated in
height to the main building.

[Illustration: FIG. 173.--HOUGHTON, NORFOLK.]

[Illustration: FIG. 174.--HOUGHTON. THE STONE HALL.]

The interior decorations are attributed to Kent, who was assisted in
the plasterwork by the Italian, Artari. But the stone hall (Fig. 174)
follows Campbell’s drawing in the main, as may be seen by comparing
it with his sections in “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The ceiling is a
remarkable _tour de force_, and the cove, with its children disporting
themselves among the wreaths, is much admired. There is plenty of
movement and variety in it, but the figures are a little inclined to
obesity. The whole work perhaps suffers from being in too high relief,
but its vigour and freedom of design are incontestably admirable.
One of the principal rooms is called the marble dining-room, and
it was intended to be lined with marble throughout, but one side
only was carried out in this manner (Fig. 175). It includes a fine
chimney-piece, characteristic of the grander type then in vogue; on
either side of it are marble-lined recesses in which are placed marble
sideboards to correspond with their surroundings. The panel of the
chimney-piece contains a figure subject, a sacrifice to Bacchus, carved
by Rysbrach, and the decoration, both here and in the ceiling, consists
largely of grapes, a form of ornament highly appropriate to a room
devoted to entertainments in which deep drinking played an important
part. The woodwork throughout is exceedingly handsome; it is executed
for the most part in mahogany, a precious wood which had not previously
been used in great abundance. The doorway of the green state room is an
example of a rich treatment (Fig. 176), and Sir Robert’s dressing-room
one of a plainer handling (Fig. 177). The principal staircase has an
exceedingly massive mahogany balustrade (Fig. 178), and the walls are
decorated with figures and subjects in monochrome, by the hand of Kent
himself. Sir Robert is said by Walpole, in his “Anecdotes of Painting,”
to have purposely restricted the artist to this vehicle, having lively
misgivings as to Kent’s exploits in brighter and more varied pigments.

Another of the imposing houses of the eighteenth century is Wentworth
Woodhouse, in Yorkshire, a seat of the Earl Fitzwilliam, which must
not be confused with Wentworth Castle, near Barnsley, a smaller house,
but still a fine one, built by Thomas, Earl of Strafford, in 1730.
Wentworth Woodhouse was designed in the year 1740 by Henry Flitcroft
for Thomas, Earl of Malton, who succeeded some six years later to the
barony of Rockingham, and was thereupon created Marquis of Rockingham.
His biographer[72] says that he “rebuilt the ancient family seat, now
called Wentworth House, in a very elegant manner, where he died on 14th
December 1750.” His eldest daughter, Anne, married Earl Fitzwilliam,
and carried Wentworth House into her husband’s family in 1769.
Flitcroft published a drawing of the principal front of the house at
the end of the 1770 edition of Kent’s “Designs of Inigo Jones,” and in
the main this design was carried out. The central and chief part of the
façade was executed as drawn, but the two wings, while preserving their
original disposition, were considerably improved.

[Illustration: FIG. 175.--Houghton. The Marble Dining-Room.]

[Illustration: FIG. 176.--HOUGHTON. THE GREEN STATE
ROOM.]

[Illustration: FIG. 177.--Houghton. Sir Robert Walpole’s
Dressing-Room.]

[Illustration: FIG. 178.--HOUGHTON. THE UPPER PART OF
STAIRCASE.]

The stately front (Fig. 179) is some 600 ft. in extent, and is the more
striking in that it is a continuous façade, and not broken up into the
usual three parts, consisting of the house and two outlying wings.
The memory of the old curved colonnades is preserved in the convex
portions which connect the end towers with the front. The central block
is not so much an adaptation as a copy of Campbell’s second design for
Wanstead (“Vit. Brit.,” i. 24, 25), with the omission of the cupola and
of one window in the length of the wings. It is rendered personal to
the builder by the introduction of his arms in the pediment, and the
Wentworth motto, “Mea gloria fides,” in the frieze. To whatever extent
Flitcroft may have borrowed his materials, it cannot be denied that he
has blended them together with noble results.

In the interior there is a fine saloon (Fig. 180), which recalls
Campbell’s stone hall at Houghton. Its variety of treatment is in
strong contrast to the cold-looking hall which contains the staircase
(Fig. 181). Both these apartments have the defect of their qualities.
There is so much architecture that there is scarcely room for those
homely touches which endear a house to its occupants. The architect is
more in evidence than the family. The splendour which stimulates the
admiration of the stranger palls upon the eye that sees it daily; the
feelings cease to answer to the stimulus. Grand rooms like these seem
to demand an impossible series of grand functions, or at the least that
old-fashioned custom of keeping open house which once prevailed at
Wentworth Woodhouse.

[Illustration: FIG. 179.--WENTWORTH WOODHOUSE,
YORKSHIRE, 1740.]

[Illustration: FIG. 180.--WENTWORTH WOODHOUSE. THE
SALOON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 181.--Wentworth Woodhouse. The Staircase
Hall.]

[Illustration: FIG. 182.--PRIOR PARK. THE HALL.

The ceiling of the hall was opened up by Goodridge, who added the
balustrade in 1829.]

Another of the great mansions built about the same time as Wentworth
Woodhouse was Prior Park, near Bath, and here again the result would
appear to owe something to Campbell’s second design for Wanstead in so
far as the great hexastyle portico is concerned. The architect was John
Wood, of Bath, who designed it in 1736 for Ralph Allen, an extremely
capable man, who, from being a clerk in a Bath post office, became
one of the wealthiest men of his time. He established a lucrative
system of posts, and he exploited the quarries of the district. It
is said, indeed, that Prior Park was built in order to advertise
the excellence of Bath stone; if true, it was a noble form of
advertisement. The house stands high up on a hillside, and is flanked
at a distance by stables and other buildings to which it is joined by
low rusticated arcades of the same height as the basement story (Fig.
183). The whole façade is slightly curved concavely in order to follow
the conformation of the ground. From the terrace on which the house
stands a fine flight of steps, partly straight and partly curved, leads
down to a lower level, but this is a later addition, carried out by H.
E. Goodridge, of Bath, in the year 1825.

[Illustration: FIG. 183.--Prior Park, near Bath, 1736.]

It is interesting to find so splendid a house built for a self-made
man, but as Allen left no family, it has not acquired the intimate
charm of most great houses; it was for many years a Roman Catholic
college, but has now been taken over for purposes connected with the
war. The interior has suffered from fire, but the great hall retains
its imposing appearance (Fig. 182). Like most halls of the period, it
is, perhaps, too grand to be home-like, but it is admirably suited for
the present uses of the house. If, as is said, Allen was the prototype
of Fielding’s Mr. Allworthy, he must have been an amiable as well as
a capable man. The man himself may have stood for the portrait, but
Fielding placed Allworthy in circumstances of his own invention. He
was made of ancient descent, and although his seat was in Somerset,
and occupied a site comparable to that of Prior Park, the house itself
was a noble product of the Gothic style; “there was an air of grandeur
in it that struck you with awe, and rivalled the beauties of the best
Grecian architecture; and it was as commodious within as venerable
without.”

Do we not see in this description signs of a revolt from the prevailing
worship of the classic type? Fielding published “Tom Jones” about 1744,
but there were still many years to run before the classic idea ceased
to dominate domestic architecture.

Wood himself certainly did nothing to divert architectural design from
its accustomed channel. He, and his son after him, stamped Bath with
its particular character, and made it the finest city in England.
It had become a fashionable resort early in the eighteenth century,
largely owing to the exertions of Beau Nash, and it is a fortunate
circumstance that when it had to expand there was so accomplished a
man as John Wood on the spot to control the expansion. He it was who
first designed streets and squares and rows of houses as definite
architectural conceptions. There is much to be said for this idea,
especially when the work is new and the design still retains the colour
and disposition intended by the architect, and while the buildings are
occupied for the purposes for which they were built. But with the lapse
of time inevitable changes occur. The property falls into different
hands; each owner treats his portion after his own will. It may be that
one paints his part of the façade one colour, while another paints his
of a different tint, the lines of demarcation having no relation to
the architectural treatment. Some of the tenements may become business
premises, with large indications of their purpose exposed to catch
the public eye. Others may even be rebuilt in a fashion wholly out of
keeping with the original design. In short, although a square may be
built as one architectural conception, it is impossible to preserve it
as such in perpetuity, and when once the original idea is destroyed
by the march of events, the effect is worse than if it had never been
conceived.

[Illustration: FIG. 184.--Pulteney Bridge, Bath.

From an Aquatint by Thomas Malton.]

Town-planning on architectural lines can be studied at Bath better,
perhaps, than anywhere, but all towns are not equally fortunate in
preserving the original character of their buildings. Pulteney Street,
attributed to Thomas Baldwin, was laid out about 1780 with good
residences, and to close its vista there was a carefully designed
house, pleasant to look upon. Eventually, however, this house fell into
decay, the character of the street changed, and its general aspect,
instead of being fine, became depressing. Its very virtues emphasised
its decline. The house has now been restored, and the whole street has
once more become cheerful. But local enterprise is not everywhere so
vigorous as at Bath, and decay in a scheme of this kind cannot always
be arrested. Pulteney Bridge, which leads to the street of the same
name, carries a row of narrow shops on each side, and presents much the
same appearance as shown in Fig. 184. But the shops are necessarily
small, low, and shallow, and they can have no chance of expanding
or of keeping pace with other premises not thus restricted. Their
relative importance is therefore much smaller than it was at the time
when they were built. An example of a row of houses dealt with as a
piece of architecture, and one which has suffered little, if at all,
from change, is the Royal Crescent (Fig. 185). It was designed by the
younger Wood in 1769.

[Illustration: FIG. 185.--The Royal Crescent, Bath, 1769.]

[Illustration: FIG. 186.--REDDISH MANOR, BROAD CHALK,
WILTS.]

[Illustration: FIG. 187.--WIDCOMBE MANOR HOUSE, BATH.]

The abundance and excellent quality of the stone in the Bath district
greatly facilitated the erection of new houses both in the city and
the neighbourhood. It was susceptible of delicate detail, and lent
itself admirably to the classic work then in vogue, which indeed
could never have obtained a footing save through the medium of stone.
Throughout the district there are to be found good houses of the time
of the Woods, houses which are not large, which have no pretensions
to vie with Prior Park, yet which are handsomely treated, and have
had considerable skill and some learning bestowed upon their design.
Such a one is Widcombe Manor House (Fig. 187), of which, however, it
must be observed that it would be useless to undertake such a house
unless one were prepared to spend a considerable amount for the sake
of architectural effect. It is interesting to contrast with this
product of the stone district a house in the adjoining county of
Wilts.--Reddish Manor, Broad Chalk (Fig. 186). The walls here are of
brick and the ornament is of stone, but apparently either the stone or
the money gave out by the time the roof was reached, for the cornice
and the pediment are of brick, and it is seen at once how impossible it
was to carry out classic detail in the ordinary brick of the district,
and with the limited skill of the ordinary workman. Nevertheless
the result is attractive, and it prompts the somewhat disconcerting
question, whether the fancy is not as much tickled by the efforts of
the obscure and half-educated designer, as by the correct and skilful
handling of the trained architect? Accidents of colour and situation,
the effects of time and weather, and above all, individuality of
treatment, are as potent factors in impressing the imagination as
book-learning and careful adherence to rules of proportion; and in
admiring the great houses of the eighteenth century, and Campbell,
Gibbs, and the hierarchy of architects who produced them, one longs to
meet some unexpected difficulty successfully surmounted, some state of
things not contemplated in the books, which should prove that the man
had an invention, an imagination, one might almost say a soul, of his
own.

The custom of building large houses with detached wings survived well
into the middle of the eighteenth century. It will be remembered that
Isaac Ware, in his “Complete Body of Architecture” (1756), gives
elaborate rules for the proportions and disposition of such edifices;
Holkham Hall, in Norfolk, designed by Kent about 1734, and Kedleston
Hall, in Derbyshire, designed by James Paine in 1761, are two notable
examples still in existence.

Holkham is the most important piece of domestic work of the fashionable
architect, William Kent, who was the favourite protégé of Lord
Burlington. Like most of his contemporaries, Kent passed several years
in Italy before doing any work in England. He was of lowly origin, as
were many architects of the time. As a start in life he was apprenticed
to a coach-painter; Ripley walked to London at the onset of his career,
and obtained work with a journeyman carpenter; Carr, of York, began as
a working mason; all three were Yorkshire men. Kent early impressed
men of position with his unusual capacity, and it was through their
kindness that he was enabled to study in Italy, where he appears to
have lived from 1710 to 1719. At this time he was studying painting, a
pursuit in which, by general consent, he achieved no distinction--at
any rate no enviable distinction. Sir Robert Walpole’s opinion of his
powers in this direction has already been indicated (p. 256). During
his stay in Rome he became acquainted with Lord Burlington, who,
according to Horace Walpole, “discovered the rich vein of genius that
had been hid from the artist himself.” He came back to England with his
new patron, and thenceforward his success was assured. An apartment was
assigned to him in Burlington House as long as he lived, and on his
death “he was buried in a very handsome manner in Lord Burlington’s
vault at Chiswick.”[73]

[Illustration: FIG. 188.--Holkham Hall, Norfolk, 1734. Plan of
the Principal Floor.]

[Illustration: FIG. 189.--HOLKHAM HALL. THE SOUTH
FRONT.]

Endowed with natural abilities above the average, which had been
cultivated during nine years in Italy, and fortified by the most
powerful patronage of the age, it is no wonder that Kent was able
to cut a good figure in the world of art. He became the fashionable
decorator of the time in many directions, especially in relation to
great houses and their surroundings. Walpole had a poor opinion of
him as a painter, admired him as an architect, and praised him highly
as a garden designer. To us in the present day he appears as a man of
considerable ability and culture, who seldom rose above mediocrity,
especially in his architecture, which, however sound and correct, is
wanting in vivacity. Holkham is a case in point. There is nothing
novel about the plan (Fig. 188), save that the wings are closer to the
main building than usual; but in spite of this the kitchen is a long
way from the dining-room. The rooms are not particularly striking: the
finest are the entrance hall, and the sculpture gallery or “statue
gallery,” as it is called on the plan in “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The
house was designed for the reception of the numerous works of art
which the owner and builder, Thomas Coke (afterwards created Earl of
Leicester), collected in Italy. The collection of pictures, statues,
antiques, books, and manuscripts ranks among the finest in England.
The opinions of critics on the house are by no means unanimous. Sir
William Chambers, for instance, remarks how difficult it is to give
pleasing proportions to rooms of differing sizes, but which are all of
the same height, and so to arrange the smaller as to contrive suitable
mezzanines above them. “Holkham,” he says, “is a masterpiece in this
respect, as well as in many others. It deserves much commendation,
and does credit to the memory of Mr. Kent, it being exceedingly well
contrived both for state and convenience.”[74] Ferguson, on the other
hand, says: “We are left to conjecture whether the noble host and
hostess sleep in a bedroom 40 ft. high, or are relegated like their
guests to a garret or an outhouse, or perhaps may have their bedroom
windows turned inwards on a lead flat.” He goes on to say that although
the house may be “a monumental whole, yet the occupants would probably
prefer rooms of appropriate dimensions, where they could get fresh air
and a view of the park.”[75]

Both opinions are, or were, probably right. At the time it was built,
and for the wants of that period, Holkham was no doubt both convenient
and stately. But Ferguson’s criticisms find a ready echo in our own
bosoms, and they are a measure of the difference between the ideas of
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as to domestic comfort.

The exterior of Holkham (Fig. 189), although a departure from the
customary treatment, is hardly an improvement upon it. It is a little
monotonous, and the large extent of plain wall above the windows of
the principal floor has a dull effect. The plain turrets and the thin
cornice of the wings impart a meagre appearance, which is heightened by
the fact that the walls are of white brick, a material which remains
_triste_ to the end, although centuries may have endeavoured to
mellow it, as they have in vain at Hengrave Hall, in Suffolk.

[Illustration: FIG. 190.--The Horse Guards, Whitehall.]

Kent’s versatility is evidenced at Holkham in the furniture, most
of which was designed by him. It is characterised by a solidity and
massiveness, both of construction and decoration, in striking contrast
to the attenuated elegance of his successors.

Kent died in 1748, long before the house was finished; the Earl of
Leicester died in 1759, still leaving much to be completed. The manner
of his death brings home to us the changes which have taken place
in habits and customs even more vividly than does his house. Lord
Leicester had spoken slightingly of the militia at his own table, a
topic of general comment at the time; his remarks were taken ill by
George Townshend, his neighbour at Rainham, who challenged him to a
duel. Townshend was young and a practised duellist; Lord Leicester was
a staid gentleman of sixty-five. The result was a foregone conclusion,
and the older man died of his wound.[76]

Lady Leicester carried on the works at Holkham with the help of Matthew
Brettingham, of Norwich, who had been a pupil of Kent’s and had acted
as his assistant and clerk of the works. After the work was ended he
published the plans and elevations of the house in a book dedicated
to Lady Leicester, and claimed the whole credit of the design. But it
belongs in reality to Kent, and Holkham is an interesting example of
the work of one man, alike as to the house, its decoration and its
furniture.[77]

[Illustration: FIG. 191.--Kedleston, Derbyshire, 1761. Plan of
the Principal Floor.]

Although Holkham is his most notable achievement--unless we except the
Horse Guards, which has some resemblance to it in general treatment
(Fig. 190)--Kent was fully employed during his thirty years of active
work. He designed many houses and many gardens. One of the most
pleasing of the buildings at Stowe, the Temple of Ancient Virtues, was
his. His help was obtained in directions other than architecture, and
Walpole tells us that he designed birthday gowns for two ladies,
to which he gave a decidedly architectural turn. He must have spent
much time in producing “The Designs of Inigo Jones,” and it is not
improbable that he was the power behind the throne in respect of the
architectural efforts of Lord Burlington.

[Illustration: FIG. 192.--KEDLESTON HALL, DERBYSHIRE.
THE HALL.]

Brettingham had a certain connection with Kedleston, as he seems to
have designed and built one of the wings. He was succeeded by James
Paine, to whom the general design is attributed, which followed the
lines started by Brettingham. The house was to have had four outlying
wings, much after the fashion of Holkham, but only two were carried
out. The original plan looks very striking on paper (Fig. 191), but
it is one further proof of the way in which comfort was sacrificed to
grandeur by the architects of that time. All the principal rooms are
noble, those, that is, which were to be used on grand occasions; the
others are quite subordinate. The basement, which contains rooms in
daily use, seems overweighted by the superstructure, and is in fact too
low to allow the light to penetrate freely to the remoter parts of the
entrance. The bedrooms were, in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, who visited
the house with Boswell in September 1777, “but indifferent rooms.” The
hall is a lordly apartment with a row of lofty columns down each side
(Fig. 192). Some of the columns are monoliths, and one is of alabaster
from the locality. Dr. Johnson thought the house “would do excellently
for a town-hall; the large room with the pillars would do for the
judges to sit in at the assizes; the circular room for a jury-chamber;
and the room above for prisoners.” It is quite true that many of these
large houses produce an impression similar to that created by public
buildings.

The situation of the house is in keeping with the ideas prevalent at
the time. It is not, as of old, the centre of a formally disposed lay
out, with vistas stretching away from its principal windows. It stands,
indeed, askew with all points of view, on a slope of the park, backed
by a long range of trees which crowns the summit of the hill; behind
another group of trees lie the stables, connected to the house by a
sunk way. A contemporary bridge in the park, over which the approach
is carried, lies in haphazard relation to the house. But this was
all part of the design, which aimed not at any formal lay out, but
at a result which should convey the impression that everything was
unstudied, and that skill was bestowed not in making an effect, but
merely in seizing on the effects supplied by nature and using them to
the best advantage.

[Illustration: FIG. 193.--ELEVATION OF SIR WATKIN WYNN’S HOUSE
IN ST JAMES’S SQUARE, LONDON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 194.--Houses in Portland Place, London.]

Illustration: FIG. 195.--ADELPHI TERRACE, LONDON.]

Paine did not finish the house. Before it was completed he was replaced
by the brothers Adam, who carried out all the decoration of the
interior and also designed much of the furniture.

Of the brothers Adam (there were four of them), Robert was the most
gifted, and it is his work which gave rise to the well-known “Adam”
style. He, too, had a training of several years in Italy (from 1754
to 1758), but, more adventurous than other students, he paid a visit
of some weeks’ duration to Spalato in Dalmatia, where he occupied
himself, with the help of companions, in taking measurements and
making drawings of Diocletian’s palace. According to one authority[78]
these studies were the foundation of his future style. Much of the
furniture at Kedleston, however, is more nearly allied to the type
established by Kent than to that which we are accustomed to associate
with Adam; presumably he had not yet established his own individuality.
In his architectural work he had a great idea of obtaining “movement”
by giving rhythmical projections to a façade, and a picturesque but
ordered variety to the skyline. This was his intention, and the
adoption of the word is his own; it is doubtful whether observers and
critics would have discovered enough of the one to have adopted the
other of their own accord. Indeed the exteriors of his buildings are
often tame. He broke away, it is true, from the conventions of the
preceding half-century, but although the result was to a certain extent
novel, it can hardly be deemed more attractive. The fact is that he
laboured under the same drawback which beset all the architects of the
eighteenth century, the glorification of architecture at the expense
of practical building. Instead of making his architecture reflect
the requirements of the persons who were to use the edifice, he made
the interior arrangements to fit the preconceived exterior. This is
exemplified in a small instance in the fact that, having designed two
houses to form one architectural composition, he was obliged to make
the party wall cut a window in two, a mutilated half of which lighted
a room in each of two separate houses. We have already seen how the
same sort of difficulty beset Wood’s houses in Bath; and exactly the
same fault in regard to windows is to be found in Grainger’s work at
Newcastle. The absurdity is only fully realised when one of the houses
has to be remodelled or rebuilt, when, among other odd results, it is
found that a window has to be shorn in two, one half removed and the
other left.

Adam’s excellence lies in his eye for proportion, in the refinement
of his detail, and in the fastidious handling of his ornament. A
house in St James’s Square (Fig. 193) and another in Portland Place
(Fig. 194) are characteristic examples of his work. At first sight
they appear insipid, and might easily escape the eye; but when the
attention is once caught it is arrested by the detail which appeals to
the cultivated taste; the intellect is charmed with the extreme care
bestowed upon every part of the ornament, or rather, considering the
enormous amount of work which occupied Adam’s time, by the wonderful
intuition which produced such harmonious results.

[Illustration: FIG. 196.--Doorway in Mansfield Street, London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 197.--Entrance and Porch at 20 Portman
Square, London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 198.--WINDOW AT SUTTON COURT.]

He can hardly be said to have made a permanent mark in his
large architectural conceptions. With the help of his brothers he
rebuilt a whole district of London which was called after them,
“the Adelphi.”[79] The long terrace on an arcaded basement was much
admired, and it has been claimed for him that he planted by the side
of the Thames a worthy version of the splendours of Spalato, but the
building (Fig. 195) hardly bears out this contention. It is Spalato
much diluted. The lesson to be learnt from this as from most of the
architecture of that period is that no reproduction of ancient glories,
whether direct or modified, can be of abiding interest. Architecture
to be interesting must meet certain definite wants, must reflect the
needs of the hour and of the individual, and as these must of necessity
be ever changing, so must architectural expression. Each work of every
architect presents a fresh problem which ought to be solved in its own
way.

It is in particular features, such as doorways, windows, balustrades,
and panels, that Adam’s gift of design shows to the best advantage. A
doorway in Mansfield Street (Fig. 196), with its large fanlight, is
characteristic of one treatment; the projecting porch from Portman
Square (Fig. 197) is equally so of another. The window from Sutton
Court (Fig. 198) would be a prosaic affair, but for the fanlight and
the detail imparted to the surrounding woodwork. It should be noticed
that, in keeping with his delicate mouldings, the sash-bars are thin,
in complete contrast to the more vigorous handling of his predecessors.

The delicacy of his detail was more appropriate to the inside of a
house than to the outside, and nothing pleased him better than to
design the whole decoration of a room--doors, chimney-piece, ceiling,
plaster wall panels, lockplates and door handles, grate, and the whole
of the furniture. Pretty, graceful, and refined, but rarely virile, his
work appeals to the less tumultuous emotions; indeed he made his mark
not so much by his architecture as by his decoration, which exhibits
extraordinary fecundity and fertility of design.

[Illustration: FIG. 199.--Vicarage at Puddletown, Dorset.]

[Illustration: FIG. 200.--House in St Giles, Oxford.]

SMALLER HOUSES, TOWN HOUSES, EXTERIOR FEATURES

In the large houses which have been described in the preceding
chapters, it has been impossible to avoid passing a certain amount of
adverse criticism upon the manner in which comfort and convenience were
often sacrificed to the claims of fine architecture, as the term was
understood during the eighteenth century. When we turn to the smaller
houses this drawback is much less in evidence; not because better
architects were employed, for doubtless the unknown designers of these
smaller buildings would have sinned equally with their more famous
brethren, had the opportunity to do so come their way, but because the
occasion demanded no great display, and there was no money wherewith
to make it. Nothing more was wanted than a handsome-looking house
with rooms of suitable size and number. It was very seldom that any
great ingenuity was required of the designers. Two, three, or in the
larger houses, four sitting-rooms, a hall and staircase, a kitchen,
back kitchen, and pantries usually completed the accommodation of the
ground floor; the floor above was occupied by bedrooms, which, if
insufficient, were supplemented by others in the attic. There were no
bathrooms, cloak-rooms, or other sanitary conveniences; it was not
necessary to provide a fireplace to each room. The problems of design
were therefore much simpler than those of the present day. There was
no group of small rooms requiring a convenient yet inconspicuous
situation: there was no need to struggle with single flues from
isolated bedrooms, which could not be led to the main stacks;
this difficulty was met by leaving the rooms without a fireplace.
Nothing is commoner in old houses than to find two or perhaps three
chimney-stacks, the position of which is determined by that of the
sitting-rooms and kitchen, and to find that the bedrooms adjoining
these stacks have fireplaces, while those away from them have none. As
to sanitary conveniences, with the crude means of sewage disposal then
in use, it was impossible to have them in the house; it was only after
the introduction of water carriage that this could be done. In the
ancient days of fortified houses it was of course necessary for them
to be within the walls, and considerable skill was often displayed in
placing them so as to be as innocuous as possible. On Elizabethan plans
they were sometimes retained indoors, but they were obviously a source
of annoyance and danger; in later times, they were removed outside,
and in old houses, here and there, may still be found evidence of the
handsome treatment provided for the family as distinguished from the
servants. The bedrooms, as many old houses still testify, were provided
with some variation of the _chaise percée_.

[Illustration: FIG. 201.--The Court, Holt, near
Bradford-on-Avon.]

[Illustration: FIG. 202.--The Church House, Beckley, Sussex.]

[Illustration: FIG. 203.--House in the High, Oxford.]

[Illustration: FIG. 204.--House at Shrivenham, Berkshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 205.--House (now the “Seahorse” Inn) at
Deene, Northamptonshire.]

The rooms, therefore, which had to be provided, could all be of a
fair size, and they could be so disposed as to allow their windows to
fall into the symmetrical arrangement, which the exterior treatment
required. The results can be seen in most of our old-fashioned villages
and towns: small manor-houses and parsonages in the former; houses for
the doctor, the lawyer, the well-to-do tradesmen in the latter. The
vicarage at Puddletown, in Dorset (Fig. 199), is an example of the
early years of the century. It has one large chimney-stack in the main
part of the house, and two smaller, and probably later stacks in the
adjoining wing; its wide eaves give it its distinctive character, and
further touches are added by the cut brickwork under the window-sills
and the circular panels in the end. Beyond these there is nothing to
raise emotions either of praise or blame. There is considerably more
attempt at design in the Court at Holt, near Bradford-on-Avon (Fig.
201). This place is in the midst of a district abounding in stone, and
the builders availed themselves of the opportunity to impart a more
pretentious character to their work. The older methods make themselves
felt in the manner in which the eaves cornice is bent up to form a
gable, steeper than classic handling usually permits. Here, again,
there are but two chimney-stacks, one at each end of the house.

The house in St Giles, Oxford (Fig. 200), is rather more imposing.
It is of the period of Wren, and is, indeed, attributed locally to
him. The treatment is large, simple, and dignified, and the effect is
enhanced by the handsome gate-piers which give access, up a few steps,
to the front door. It is evident that here, at any rate, more rooms
have fireplaces than those at the ends of the house. There is another
house at Oxford, in the High Street (Fig. 203), of a later date, which
is quite admirable in its simplicity and careful proportions, and the
front is relieved from baldness by the slight projections at each
end. Compared with the more famous pieces of architecture by which it
is surrounded, this house is insignificant, and may well escape the
attention it deserves. Dating from early in the century is the dower
house at Deene, in Northamptonshire (Fig. 205), now occupied as a
public-house under the sign of the sea-horse, which is the crest of the
family owning the village. It presents a quaint combination of the
steep coped gables of the district prevalent in earlier times, with the
wide eaves, sash-windows, and dormers fashionable when it was built. It
has quite a large number of chimneys, but the dowagers who came from
the great house no doubt looked for the comforts to which they had
always been accustomed. Several of the rooms are decorated with good
panelling and plasterwork, and have had skill and knowledge bestowed
upon their proportions and design.

[Illustration: FIG. 206.--House at Ely, Cambridgeshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 207.--Rectory at Church Langton,
Leicestershire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 208.--House at Petersham, Surrey.]

The Church House at Beckley, in Sussex (Fig. 202), has no projecting
eaves, but above the cut-brick cornice rises a parapet which
effectually blocks the outlook from the dormer windows. The usual plain
treatment of the walls is here varied by the introduction of a pilaster
at each end of the front, and by carrying up a slight projection from
the keystone of the middle window. The pilasters are surmounted by a
piece of architrave and frieze of the same width as the pilaster, a
device which displays a misconception of classic features. The two main
chimney-stacks are placed at the back of the principal block instead
of at the ends, thus giving them an opportunity to serve rooms behind
as well as those in the front.

The house at Shrivenham, in Berkshire (Fig. 204), is of the more
ordinary type. It has a good eaves cornice, and the usual two
chimney-stacks; the projecting porch forms a pleasing variation, and
the whole house gives the impression of comfort and respectability. So,
too, does the house at Ely (Fig. 206) which faces the green opposite
the west end of the cathedral. It has a chimney-stack at each end,
and a pediment of unusually steep pitch. Like several of the other
examples, it has five windows along the front; the middle one lights
the landing, and the two on each side light the rooms with fireplaces.
Additional importance is given by the large gate-piers, and the
whole effect is dignified and restful, eminently in keeping with the
atmosphere of an old cathedral town. The house at Petersham (Fig. 208)
is of larger size, having seven windows along the front; the three in
the middle are placed in a slight projection round which the cornice
breaks. This projection, together with the bold cornice, the rather
large front door, and the wide window margins, is all there is in the
way of design to give interest to the house. The rectory at Church
Langton, in Leicestershire (Fig. 207), is of somewhat later date,
probably about the beginning of the nineteenth century. Here there is a
decided attempt at architectural effect in the ornamented pediment, the
central arched recess, and the low buildings at the side; but the house
itself is not more commodious inside, nor has it larger rooms than
other houses of the same type. The adjuncts, too, are added for effect
rather than for use.

Houses such as these abound in country districts. There is nothing
particularly notable about them, and very little effort at design. But
as a rule their proportions are pleasing, and the very absence of any
attempt to achieve striking effects is itself one of their charms. They
seem the natural expression of the quiet, uneventful lives led by the
inhabitants, who, like the Vicar of Wakefield, had no adventures save
by the fireside, and no migrations save from the blue bed to the brown.
Their interest varies not so much through difference in design as by
reason of their surroundings, and the variety of creepers which climb
up their walls, and are the less objectionable in that they hide no
architectural detail.

[Illustration: FIG. 209.--THE TUESDAY MARKET-PLACE, KING’S
LYNN.]

In the towns, of course, the surroundings did little to help the
appearance of houses; there they had to rely on their own merits.
Nevertheless the disposition of the streets often lent picturesqueness
to the houses that formed them. It is one of the charms of most English
towns that their appearance is the result of fortuitous causes, or
of some necessity which is no longer obvious. In some towns, like
Marlborough or Dunstable, it is the width of the main street which
gives character to the place; in others, like York, Canterbury, and
(in a less degree) Warwick, it is the narrowness which strikes the
visitor. In the one case the open spaces of the country are embodied in
the town; there is room enough and to spare. In the other it is clear
that every foot of room was utilised. Yarmouth has a very interesting
lay out, evidently the result of premeditated design and not of chance.
The river upon which it is built turns suddenly to the right as it
approaches the sea, and runs for some distance parallel to the sea
front, leaving a certain space between itself and the shore. Upon
this restricted space the town was built; streets of no great width
were formed parallel with the river, next to which was a broad quay;
then at right angles to the streets a series of narrow passages were
formed, called “rows.” Although these “rows” are not more than 4 or 5
ft. wide, they were formed of good houses, and it is surprising, in
traversing them to-day, when they have become degraded into slums, to
find remains of houses which must have been the residences of wealthy
people. But the circumstances of Yarmouth were peculiar. At King’s
Lynn, another ancient port in the same county, although most of the
old streets are narrow, judged by modern standards, there is a very
fine open space known as the Tuesday market-place, which still retains
much of its old-world flavour. The old print of it which is reproduced
in Fig. 209 rather exaggerates its size, owing to the perspective
of the draughtsman; the market hall and its circular adjuncts have
disappeared, but the Georgian buildings in the front and on either side
still remain, and that on the left retains its steps and obelisks.
Another old print--one of Chelmsford (Fig. 210)--gives a good idea of
that town in Georgian times. Most of the houses are of the eighteenth
century, and must have been quite modern at the time when the print
was published; others are of an earlier date. Their disposition is the
result of a long period of growth, and could never be achieved under a
scheme of town-planning. One of the most prominent objects in the
view is the inn sign, a good solid structure, thrust well out into the
public way; it is characteristic of the times, both in its size and in
the wrought-iron scroll-work which surrounds the swinging lion; indeed
bits of fanciful ironwork such as this were prodigally used during the
eighteenth century, and give interest to a house or a street which
otherwise would attract no attention. In the middle distance is another
sign typical of many which used to exist, but which are seldom found in
the present day. Here it stretches across a large part of the public
road, but in many cases these signs were made to span the whole width
of the street. An example of an elaborate sign may be seen at the Swan
Inn, Market Harborough (Fig. 212), and an unpretentious but effective
specimen is shown in Fig. 213.

[Illustration: FIG. 210.--Chelmsford, Essex.

From an Old Print. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 211.--Somerset Buildings, Milsom Street,
Bath.

From an Engraving by Thomas Malton. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 212.--SIGN OF THE SWAN HOTEL, MARKET
HARBOROUGH.]

[Illustration: FIG. 213.--The Sign of an Inn at Salisbury.]

In most of the county towns the gentry of the district used to have
their winter residences, to which they repaired when the state of
the roads rendered locomotion difficult. It must be remembered that
the roads in those days, except the most important, were little more
than tracks across the country; nothing was done to make them hard or
permanent--they merely traversed the natural soil. “Where there is good
land there is foul way,” was a saying of the time; and conversely,
where the ground was stony the roads were fairly hard. Horace Walpole,
among other writers, recounts the difficulties he experienced on
country roads in bad weather, and this condition of things accounts for
the number of horses which, according to old prints, were harnessed to
family coaches. These in their turn were built in a strong and heavy
fashion, in order to withstand the shocks to which they were inevitably
subjected. When the wet weather came on, families who lived in country
houses betook themselves to the town for society and amusement. In
places like Nottingham and Derby there still remain a fair number of
houses which were built for county magnates, but in every instance they
have been diverted from their original purpose and have become business
premises. This affords another proof, if such were needed, that no lay
out can be expected to retain in perpetuity its original character.
Half the squares of London point the same moral.

[Illustration: FIG. 214.--RALPH ALLEN’S HOUSE AT BATH.]

[Illustration: FIG. 215.--The Aylesford Hotel, Warwick.]

No doubt the house at Warwick, which, for the time being, is the
Aylesford Hotel (Fig. 215), was built for some such purpose as has
just been indicated; it is a handsome and interesting example of the
early part of the eighteenth century. Just outside the east gate is
the house where Walter Savage Landor was born in 1775. Another house
of the same kind is that of Ralph Allen at Bath (Fig. 214), which is
an architectural composition of much greater pretensions, now almost
hidden from public view. It will be remembered that his country house
was Prior Park.

[Illustration: FIG. 216.--Shops at Cirencester.]

[Illustration: FIG. 217.--Shops, Montpellier, Cheltenham.]

[Illustration: FIG. 218.--Shop in East Street, Wareham,
Dorset.]

Bath, of course, is full of good examples of town houses; but Bath was
much more than a town to which the neighbouring gentry resorted for
the winter. It was a fashionable watering place, and provision had to
be made for visitors throughout the year. Some of its buildings have
already been mentioned, but the accompanying engraving of Milsom
Street (Fig. 211) gives a good idea of its street architecture, devoted
partly to residential purposes and partly to business premises. This
mixture of dwellings and shops is still met with in old-fashioned
towns, where the principal streets are made up of houses--some large
and some small--interspersed with shops and inns. But in places where
factories are introduced and the population increases, the universal
tendency is towards the multiplication of shops and the diminution
of houses. Every growing town experiences this change. As the houses
part with their tenants, whether through death or otherwise, they
are either converted into shops and offices, or they are pulled down
to make room for tradesmen seeking the best situations for their
business; the tradesmen themselves seek the cheaper and larger spaces
of the suburbs for their own dwellings. The intentional combination
of shop and dwelling, such as those at Cirencester (Fig. 216) or
Cheltenham (Fig. 217), seldom occurs in the present day, when by-laws
require for a house a certain amount of open space which can be more
profitably used for business pure and simple. In the example from
Cirencester the ground story, if not actually of the same date as the
superstructure, has been skilfully designed to harmonise with it, and
appears sufficiently sturdy to support it. But most tradesmen of the
present day require so much room for the display of their goods, that
they grudge every inch given to the purposes of support, and they would
regard with equal disfavour the columns employed at Cirencester and
the caryatides at Cheltenham.

[Illustration: FIG. 219.--Shop Front at Dorking, Surrey.]

Needless to say, the little old-fashioned shop fronts with small panes
are quite out of the question in the present day, except for a very few
trades. They would fill a modern shop fitter with contempt, yet there
is something quite refreshing about such a front as that at Wareham
(Fig. 218) or that at Dorking (Fig. 219). The outward curve, according
to the simple ideas of the time, brought the goods into prominence, and
when as yet it was unnecessary for rivals to shout each other down,
the modest depth of the frieze was sufficient to display the name and
calling of the occupier. The delicate ornament in the cornice is
in scale with its surroundings, but it would be out of place on the
top of a sheet of plate glass two or three hundred feet in area, or
surmounting a name board with letters two feet high.

[Illustration: FIG. 220.--Houses at Bristol.]

Bristol still retains many interesting old houses, some dating from
the early seventeenth century, and bearing witness to the wealth of
its inhabitants at that period. These are to be found within a short
distance of the quays, where the trade of the town centred. As the
town spread further out more good houses were built, and there are
still to be found in the outlying parts of the old town such houses as
that shown in Fig. 220. It has a handsome, substantial front treated
with more than usual richness; but if the pediments over the windows
and the pilasters were removed, the residue would resemble one of the
ordinary plain brick houses of the time. That is to say, the ornamental
features are merely applied, and have no vital connection with the
structure. The house is set a little way back from the street, thus
leaving a narrow forecourt, which is enclosed by a railing abutting
at each end on a handsome stone pier; two similar piers carry a pair
of elaborate iron gates in the middle of the front. The piers lend an
air of dignity to the whole. In some instances, where a good house was
built in a crowded street, it was set back some sixteen or twenty feet,
thus forming a forecourt; and high walls were built at the sides of the
court from the house up to the street, thus providing screens to mask
the ends of the adjoining houses, which were built on the actual street
front. There is such a case in Eastgate, Gloucester, but the forecourt
is now filled with a shop, above which can be seen the front of the
house and the screen walls. Nearly all our old towns retain relics of
ancient grandeur such as this, but they are gradually disappearing
before the march of modern improvements.

[Illustration: FIG. 221.--Houses in Bedford Square, London,
1780.]

[Illustration: FIG. 222.--Houses in Finsbury Square, London,
_cir._ 1780.]

[Illustration: FIG. 223.--Plan of a London House.]

London, as may well be supposed, has innumerable examples of late
eighteenth-century houses in such districts as Bloomsbury and
Piccadilly. Bedford Square was built about 1780, and presents to
the world some inoffensive, although not very exciting fronts. The
central feature of one side is shown in Fig. 221; there is nothing of
striking originality in its design, but enough to break the monotony
of the general treatment, and give a little interest to this rather
dull though highly respectable square. Contemporary with this is
Finsbury Square, which was laid out by George Dance, the younger,
between 1777 and 1791.[80] A part of it is illustrated in Fig. 222. By
simple expedients the designer has imparted variety to his front, and
has emphasised the principal floor, where, according to custom, the
drawing-room is placed. The difficulty attending on the ornamenting
of a row of houses with architectural features is illustrated here by
the fact that one of the pilasters, which belongs in common to two
houses, has been painted of two colours, which meet in a vertical
line down the whole length of the pilaster--an effect certainly not
contemplated by the architect. All these London houses have their
kitchens in the basement, which is lighted from a sunk area between
the house and the pavement. The plan generally adopted consisted
of two rooms on each floor, one lighted from the front, the other
from the back. Alongside the front room on the ground floor was the
entrance passage, and next to the back room was the staircase, with
its gangway of communication from flight to flight (Fig. 223). On the
first floor the drawing-room occupied the whole of the front, behind
it was a bedroom; the other floors repeated the arrangement. Sometimes
the drawing-room included the space elsewhere devoted to the bedroom,
thus making a large L-shaped room. This plan was used for houses of
fair size and also for artisans’ dwellings; it is still the staple
plan for houses in the long streets which make up the modern extension
of growing towns, with the important exception that the kitchen and
scullery are not in a basement, but on the ground floor, occupying the
back room and the annexe. Of the London examples here illustrated this
arrangement applies only to the houses in Finsbury Square; the others
are double-fronted. It is said to have been brought from Holland with
William III., and this at least is tolerably certain, that no plan of
this type is to be found in any collection of English drawings before
this period, although there are plenty of plans with underground
kitchens and offices. Thorpe has some plans for small houses in the
city, with four rooms on the ground floor, one of which is a kitchen;
he also has a house occupying the space of “three ordinary tenements,”
from which we gather that an ordinary tenement had a frontage of 17 ft.

[Illustration: FIG. 224.--House at the Corner of Stratton
Street, Piccadilly, London.]

The house at the corner of Stratton Street, Piccadilly (Fig. 224),
is typical of many of its contemporaries in London. It is plain
to baldness, the most interesting things about it being the iron
balustrades. This appears to be an early example of that method of
designing which works on the supposition that the various faces of a
building are as distinct in execution as they are on the drawings,
and that a rich treatment of the front need not be continued along
the side, nor even find an echo there, although the side is equally
visible.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century a much plainer and duller
type of house was in vogue than had been the case at the beginning of
the eighteenth. The trend of design had been always in this direction,
always towards a more severe treatment. This severity was endurable in
large buildings where variety could be obtained by a skilful grouping
of the masses, but in rows of small houses, or even in small detached
houses, it resulted in a baldness that can only rouse admiration when
other means of enjoyment are exhausted. Tennyson’s “long unlovely”
street consisted of buildings thus plainly treated. Another cause
of this lack of interest was the erection of houses by speculative
builders and owners. Such houses had of necessity to be cheap, and
where cheapness is the first consideration the amenities of design are
generally the last. Design indeed had lost itself; the traditions which
had been its guides were worn out; in looking for help it appealed for
a time to Greece, and with its assistance planted a copy of the Temple
of Erectheus in St Pancras and of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates
in Regent Street. Upon many a country garden it bestowed a Grecian
temple, set amid winding shrubberies, towards which some heroine of
Jane Austen would steal to indulge her love-sick fancies.

Such pagan architecture eventually roused protests in this Christian
country, and Pugin initiated the Gothic revival. But the consideration
of this development is beyond our present scope, and it is only
mentioned in order to show how completely design had lost its way.
Its last effort in the old paths was to cover in part the plain front
of a small house with a verandah enclosed by trellis-work, in which
originality is still to be found. There is a good example in Finsbury
Circus (Fig. 225), which was built about 1814. Others may be found
in Kennington Park Road (Figs. 226, 227), somewhat more elaborate in
treatment. Kennington Park was at that time a common, and was the place
where malefactors from this part of Surrey expiated their crimes on
the gallows. The progress of civilisation has not only reduced the
number of crimes for which the penalty was paid on Kennington Common,
but has withdrawn the last scene from public gaze. Doubtless, however,
balconies such as these were often crowded by persons eager to watch
the irrevocable punishment of offences now adequately purged by a few
months’ imprisonment.

[Illustration: FIG. 225.--No. 18 Finsbury Circus, London,
1814.]

[Illustration: FIG. 226.--From a House, No. 272 Kennington
Park Road, London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 227.--From a House, No. 282 Kennington
Park Road, London.]

With the improved methods of road making which were adopted at the end
of the eighteenth century, there came greater inducements for citizens
to retire to the suburbs of London after finishing their labours in
town. Probably no great city had such beautiful suburbs as those which
surrounded London a hundred years ago. They were full of fine trees
embowering large houses which stood in their own spacious grounds. But
year by year these remains of the past are disappearing, and their
sites are being covered with dwellings of a humbler kind, towards which
an immense population gravitates every evening. Yet in spite of these
changes there still remain, along most of the great roads which lead
out of London, houses of moderate size dating back to some period of
the eighteenth century or the early years of the nineteenth.

[Illustration: FIG. 228.--House in the High Street, Lewes,
Sussex.]

During the eighteenth century, especially as it grew older, the play
of fancy which marks the work of earlier times diminished more and
more. Consequently less interest attaches to particular features than
was the case in the days of Elizabeth, James, and the Charleses.
Chimneys and parapets had but slight variety, and so also the windows,
for the sash-window has very little elasticity compared with the
mullioned. Baywindows went almost out of fashion, so unyielding were
the sashes with which they would have had to be fitted. In small
houses a bay-window is sometimes to be found, such as those in a house
in the High Street at Lewes, in Sussex (Fig. 228). Chimneys grew
plainer and plainer, and came to be regarded rather as a necessary
evil than as a means of adorning the house. Nearly all those on the
houses illustrated in this chapter are of the simplest character, far
removed, for instance, from that on the north front of Kirby Hall, in
Northamptonshire (Fig. 230), which is part of the work attributed to
Inigo Jones. The dormer window included in the same group is allied
to the Jacobean type, inasmuch as it is in effect part of the wall,
whereas from Webb’s time onwards dormers were part of the roof, and
were susceptible of very little variety of treatment. The stone chimney
from a house at Wansford (Fig. 229, 2) dates from the end of the
seventeenth century, and although much plainer, it is clear that pains
have been taken with its design. So, too, with the four brick examples
in Fig. 229; they are all interesting, though not elaborate. In later
years even the touches which gave these their character were withheld,
and chimney-stacks became mere oblong masses with the scantiest of
caps.

[Illustration: FIG. 229.--EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CHIMNEYS.

1. Meopham, Kent.
2. Wansford, Northamptonshire.
3. Sturmer, Essex.
4. Silchester, Hampshire.
5. Bignor, Sussex. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 230.--Chimney and Dormer Window at Kirby
Hall, Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 231.--The Stables, Neville Holt,
Leicestershire.]

Some compensation was afforded, however, by the introduction of the
cupolas or lantern lights which were prevalent during the last half
of the seventeenth century and the first few years of the eighteenth.
There is an interesting drawing of such a feature for Whitehall by
Inigo Jones in the Worcester College collection (Fig. 232). It is
entitled in Jones’s writing--“June 1, 1627, for the Cloke house Whight
hall.” Webb made use of the same kind of feature, and so did Wren and
his contemporaries. There is a fine example on the stables at Neville
Holt, in Leicestershire (Fig. 231), a building of great interest,
possessing doorways of curious seventeenth-century detail; and another
good specimen is at Trinity Hall, Cambridge (Fig. 233). The old hall
was altered about the year 1742, when it was described as “very gloomy
and dark,” and as being “roofed with old Oak Beams, very black & dismal
from y^e Charcoal w^{ch} is burnt in y^e middle of y^e Hall; and over
it in y^e middle of y^e Roof was an old awkward kind of Cupulo to let
out y^e Smoak.”[81] The new cupola was considered, presumably, more
elegant and less awkward than the old one. The reference to the ancient
method of warming the hall by a fire in the middle of the floor is
interesting, as showing how long the old practice lingered in places
where those in authority were averse to change. A further example is
shown in Fig. 234.

[Illustration: FIG. 232.--Clock Turret, Whitehall.

From a Drawing by Inigo Jones, dated 1st June 1627. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 233.--Cupola at Trinity Hall, Cambridge.]

[Illustration: FIG. 234.--Cupola at Caius College, Cambridge.]

While fancy still played a part in the work of local masons, the little
date-stones shown in Fig. 235 were built into some unpretentious houses
in the Midlands; but a hundred years later the diligent pursuit of
correctitude had banished such touches from the work of architects, and
masons had lost the feeling which gave rise to them. They are, however,
quite suggestive, and provide ideas for the perpetuation of the owner’s
name and the date of his work--facts which are of interest in respect
of all buildings. The example from Amersham is rather more ambitious,
but hardly more successful (Fig. 236).

Another feature of interest to be found on many an eighteenth-century
house is the sundial. A specimen from High Wycombe is shown in Fig.
237, but almost every market town, and not a few villages, can produce
examples as good. Sometimes an appropriate sentiment or an apt
quotation was inscribed on the dial, but the number of cases where this
occurs is not quite so great as the literature on the subject would
lead one to suppose. In those days, when no cheap watches were to be
had, when indeed a watch was handed down from one generation to another
as a valuable possession, sundials were of real use, even though they
told none but sunny hours. “The Art of Dialling” was a recognised
branch of polite learning, and an intricate subject it was; dealing not
only with horizontal and vertical dials, but with those which faced
in some other direction than due south. Dial stones may sometimes be
seen with one side brought slightly forward, so that the face is not
quite parallel with the wall in which it is set. This is an expedient
to make the face look due south, in order to simplify the setting out
of the lines. Needless to say that when the sun was relied on to tell
the hour of the day, the introduction of “Summer time” would have been
impossible; for the power to set back the shadow on the dial, as it was
set back on that of Ahaz, has never been given to man.

[Illustration: FIG. 235.--Seventeenth-Century Date-Stones.

1. Bulwick, Northamptonshire.
2. Drayton, Leicestershire.
3. Moulton, Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 236.--Date-Stone from Amersham,
Buckinghamshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 237.--Sundial from High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 238.--GATE-PIERS AT CANONS ASHBY,
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

Drawn by H. Inigo Triggs.]

[Illustration: FIG. 239.--Wooden Gates, Canons Ashby.]

[Illustration: FIG. 240.--Design for Temple Bar, London, by
Inigo Jones, 1636.

From the Burlington-Devonshire Collection at the R.I.B.A.]

[Illustration: FIG. 241.--Drawing of Gateway by Inigo Jones.]

[Illustration: FIG. 242.--Gate-Piers at Coleshill, Berkshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 243.--Gate-Piers at St John’s College,
Cambridge.]

[Illustration: FIG. 244.--Gate-Pier at Hampton Court.]

[Illustration: FIG. 245.--GATEWAY AT BURLEY-ON-THE HILL,
RUTLAND.]

[Illustration: FIG. 246.--Lion Lodge, Ince Blundell,
Lancashire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 247.--Gateway at Castor, Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 248.--Gate-Piers at Rundhurst, Sussex.

J. A. Gotch, _del._]

From the earliest days it had been customary to give importance to the
entrance of a house. When means of defence were a necessity, the access
was through a portion of the main building, and so into a courtyard.
The portal was flanked with turrets which at first were devised for its
protection, but in later times were retained as handsome architectural
features. Then came the period when defence was no longer necessary,
and the forecourt was merely surrounded by a wall. Access to this
court was generally obtained through a gate-house, and Elizabethan and
Jacobean houses have innumerable examples of these charming buildings.
In the smaller houses an archway replaced the gate-house, and in
course of time the archway gave place to gate-piers. But through all
the changes, the desire to give emphasis to the entrance remained,
and every house with architectural pretensions had gate-piers more
or less handsome. At Canons Ashby, in Northamptonshire, there are
several good types (Fig. 238); those between the green court and the
park have a Jacobean flavour about them, while those at the bottom
of the garden are surmounted by the family crest in the shape of a
demi-lion holding a sphere. The gates which formerly hung between these
piers (Fig. 239) are probably the earliest example of garden gates in
wood which survive, but they are so unconstructional in design that
they threatened to fall to pieces, and were replaced by something
plainer, but more convenient. Among the drawings by Jones and Webb
are many of gateways, some rich in appearance, and some quite plain.
The finest which remains is the well-known York water-gate at the
foot of Buckingham Street (Fig. 35). There are some careful drawings
of this by Webb in the Burlington-Devonshire collection at the Royal
Institute of British Architects. In the same collection is a design
for Temple Bar by Jones (Fig. 240), never carried out; a drawing of
the constructional brickwork for the same, signed by him and dated
1638; and a drawing by Webb dated 1636. The two large circular panels
represent “Lætitia Publica” and “Hylaritas Publica.” If this design
had been carried out, there would have been a grim irony in the custom
of exhibiting rebels’ heads just above roundels of such cheerful
intention. Among the numerous designs for gateways is the original by
Jones of the little doorway which was once at Beaufort House, Chelsea,
but is now at Chiswick, and an unnamed example illustrated in Fig.
241. By the same master, in all probability, are the splendid piers
at Coleshill, in Berkshire (Fig. 242). Next in order of date are the
gate-piers at Thorpe Hall, in Northamptonshire, by John Webb, shown
in Fig. 50, and shortly after them is the fine series at Hamstead
Marshall, of which some have already been illustrated in Figs. 110,
111. These bring us down to the time of Wren, and at Hampton Court is
the lordly pier shown in Fig. 244. At St John’s College, Cambridge, the
piers shown in Fig. 243 form part of the bridge built between 1696 and
1712. They perpetuate to some extent the feeling of Tudor work in the
rose, the portcullis, and the heraldic animals on their summits. All
the large houses of the early eighteenth century, and many of the
small ones, had noteworthy gates and gate-piers. There are hundreds of
examples up and down the country, and that at Burley-on-the-Hill, near
Oakham (Fig. 245), is typical of the larger kind. This treatment, with
lofty stone piers and iron gates of more or less elaborate design, is
more frequent than that adopted at Ince Blundell Hall, in Lancashire,
where an archway forms the main entrance, and is flanked on each side
by a length of wall containing gates for foot traffic (Fig. 246).
Many smaller examples might be cited, but their general effect can
be gathered from the three illustrations in Figs. 247, 249, and 250,
one of which is at a house at Castor, in Northamptonshire, another
at a little house in Barrow Gurney, Somersetshire, and the third at
one of the delightful houses in the Close at Salisbury. They are all
quite unpretentious, but they impart a pleasant amount of interest and
a certain degree of dignity to the houses which they serve. Another
simple example is taken from a derelict house at Rundhurst, in Sussex
(Fig. 248), and at Uffington, in Lincolnshire, is the more important
example in Fig. 251, one of a pair of stone piers which support some
good iron gates, through which, standing on the village road, a glimpse
of the hall gardens can be obtained.

[Illustration: FIG. 249.--Gateway at Barrow Gurney, Somerset.]

[Illustration: FIG. 250.--Gateway in the Close, Salisbury.]

[Illustration: FIG. 251.--Gate-Pier at Uffington, near
Stamford.

J. A. Gotch, _del._]

The tendency being, as already pointed out, towards a plain treatment
of the exterior, largely owing to the substitution of sash-windows
for mullioned, some amount of relief was imparted by a rich treatment
of the principal door, but there came a time when even this modicum
of decoration was abandoned, and the exterior of a house was dealt
with on purely utilitarian principles, the necessary openings being
provided, but devoid of any attempt at ornament. But before this last
stage of imaginative poverty, or inertia maybe, was reached, doorways
were provided which gave a touch of fancy to an otherwise bald front.
The form of circular hood, supported by carved brackets and filled with
a fluted cove, usually described as a shell, is a common feature of
the work of the end of the seventeenth century and twenty years later.
An example from Castle Combe, in Wiltshire, is shown in Fig. 252. The
centre from which the flutings radiate is here occupied by a small
shield of arms. There is a rather plainer rendering of the same idea
at Oundle, in Northamptonshire (Fig. 253). Another rich form of hood,
with straight outlines, may still be found in out-of-the-way streets
and lanes in London, where the necessity for radical changes has not
yet arisen. A simple form of this idea is shown in Fig. 257, where
one hood covers two contiguous doorways. A treatment very commonly
adopted was that shown in the example from York (Fig. 255), where
the circular-headed doorway is covered with a pediment supported by
pilasters; the semicircular space over the door is filled with a
fanlight divided by thick bars. In this case the bars are simple in
form, but they were often curved into curious patterns, surprising
in their variety, and suggesting that the designers of the time had
no lack of ingenuity had circumstances allowed them to display it.
The extinguisher to the left of the doorway should be noted. It is a
reminder of the times when there was no public lighting of the streets,
when indeed the casual illumination from shops and from houses, private
and public, was of the feeblest, and citizens had to find their way
home through thoroughfares where no scavenger was employed, by the
light of torches, which they extinguished as they entered their
houses.[82]

[Illustration: FIG. 252.--DOORWAY AT CASTLE COMBE,
WILTSHIRE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 253.--Doorway at Oundle, Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 254.--Doorway in Mark Lane, London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 255.--A Doorway in York.]

[Illustration: FIG. 256.--Doorways at Norwich.]

[Illustration: FIG. 257.--Nos. 16 and 18 Fournier Street,
London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 258.--Door, 22 Buckingham Street, Strand.]

Of the same type as the last is the doorway at No. 33 Mark Lane,
London (Fig. 254), but it is far more elaborate, and served as the
entrance to one of the fine private houses which lined Mark Lane, but
which now are utilised as offices, if by chance they have escaped the
wholesale demolition and rebuilding which expanding commerce entails.
Another good example is to be seen in Buckingham Street, Strand (Fig.
258). Of later date is the double porch at Norwich (Fig. 256), which is
simple and dignified, and will so remain as long as the two occupants
are of the same mind as to the colour it should be painted. It will
be noticed that in all these examples the doorway is the only feature
of interest; the surrounding work is quite plain. At the Stationers’
Hall, in London (Fig. 259), we get a still later treatment, dating from
the year 1800, when Robert Mylne cased the building with stone. The
iron standards were probably devised to carry lamps, which shed enough
light to help incomers up the steps; but all things are relative, and
doubtless, at the time, two oil lamps were considered a brilliant
illumination.

[Illustration: FIG. 259.--Doorway at Stationers’ Hall, London.]

[Illustration: FIG. 260.--House at Yarmouth.]

Here and there in old towns are to be found two-storied porches
projecting from the face of a house like that at Yarmouth (Fig. 260),
which is the central feature of a front rather more elaborately
treated than usual. In this case the porch stands on its own ground,
but occasionally porches were built over part of the pavement, and
the public traffic passed through them. It would be impossible for a
private owner to take such liberty in the present day, when plans have
to be submitted to the local council; but in those far-off times men
of influence did many things which nobody was bold enough to stop; and
while heartily agreeing that private interests must be subordinated to
public, we may, perhaps, indulge in feelings of secret gratification
that among our ancestors individuality had more play than is possible
in these well ordered times. Another picturesque but, strictly
speaking, intolerable effort at design is to be seen at The Martins,
Chipping Campden (Fig. 261). The great truncated corner pilaster, the
porch with its cornice running into the window, can be defended on no
grounds save that there they are. But so imperfect is our nature that
this bit of haphazard composition gives more pleasure than many a more
correct attempt at design; a pleasure allied, perhaps, to that cynical
satisfaction we experience in watching shortcomings in our friends from
which we ourselves are free.

The ironwork of the early eighteenth century is one of its most
remarkable productions. In England ironwork design seems to have burst
suddenly into full splendour, without any gradual preparation. There
are no elaborate specimens to be found throughout the seventeenth
century until its close, nor are there any drawings by Thorpe,
Smithson, Jones, or Webb, which lead one to suppose that they treated
ironwork in any but the simplest way. But with the advent in 1689 of
Jean Tijou, a native of France, who was probably brought over from
the Netherlands by Queen Mary, consort of William III., the whole
aspect was changed, and a school of clever blacksmiths grew up who
filled the country, and more especially London and its suburbs, with
beautiful bits of design in gates, fences, sign-boards, mace-holders
in churches, balustrades of staircases, screens, and other objects
where iron could be employed. Their work is marked by great judgment
in varying the sizes of the iron bars and scrolls, by the variety and
elaboration of the design, and by the judicious introduction of thin
sheet iron, hammered and modelled into foliage or some heraldic device.
The craftsmen seem to have known exactly how to handle their material
so as to combine strength with lightness, vigour with delicacy, the
open effect of scroll-work with the solid effect of foliage. The due
mixture of the curved line with the straight, the growth of one from
the other, the repetition of straight lines in suitable positions,
all seem to have come to them by intuition which seldom erred. Of the
immense amount of work which still survives, the proportion of weak,
unmeaning, or ill-adapted design is infinitesimal. Something, no doubt,
they owed to France, but they worked largely on their own lines, and
established a school of design which is essentially English.

[Illustration: FIG. 261.--The Martins, Chipping Campden, 1714.]

[Illustration: FIG. 262.--Part of Iron Screen, Hampton Court
Palace.]

[Illustration: FIG. 263.--Iron Gateway, Stoneleigh Abbey,
Warwickshire.]

Tijou worked for Queen Mary at Hampton Court, where he placed some of
the richest screens and gates which the country can boast. A portion
of his work is illustrated in Fig. 262. He also executed some splendid
ironwork at Chatsworth, Burghley, and St Paul’s, London. The balustrade
to the king’s staircase at Hampton Court (Fig. 264) may also in all
probability be assigned to him. He must have had assistants, among whom
Huntingdon Shaw, of Nottingham, has been reckoned the chief, and indeed
the actual work on the screens at Hampton Court has been claimed as
his; but recent investigations show conclusively that the claim cannot
be sustained.[83] Another of Tijou’s assistants was Robert Bakewell,
who settled in Derby and was widely employed in the Midlands. To him,
perhaps, we owe the gates at Stoneleigh Abbey, illustrated in Fig. 263,
although tradition says that these were brought here from Watergate, a
dismantled mansion beyond Southam.[84] The ironwork in and round London
may be largely attributed to Thomas Robinson and his successors, and
it would appear that skilful smiths settled in different centres in
England, round which they influenced the work over a wide area. Bristol
was the home of such a man, William Edney by name, and that he was an
accomplished craftsman is proved by the magnificent gates at St Mary
Redcliffe (Fig. 265), which date from 1710.

[Illustration: FIG. 264.--Balustrade to the King’s Staircase,
Hampton Court.]

[Illustration: FIG. 265.--IRON GATES AT ST MARY REDCLIFFE,
BRISTOL.]

[Illustration: FIG. 266.--Gateway formerly at Quenby Hall,
Leicestershire.

Museum, Leicester.]

Examples without number could be produced of English ironwork of this
period, but space forbids any but a few specimens being cited. There
was a splendid gateway at Quenby Hall, Leicestershire, with elaborate
iron piers, now in front of the museum at Leicester (Fig. 266).[85]
The four examples shown in Figs. 268–271 are of far simpler design,
but they are worth careful study, and are typical of the ordinary work
of the time. In the gate from Acton the solid work is aptly introduced
and gives it richness and importance; the others exhibit a judicious
combination of simplicity and richness which is quite admirable. Indeed
the ironwork of the early part of the eighteenth century has never been
bettered either in design or execution.

[Illustration: FIG. 267.--Lead Cistern in the possession of Mr
L. A. Shuffrey.]

[Illustration: FIG. 268.--Gate at Elm Hall, Snaresbrook.

A. H. Ough, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 269.--Gate at Acton, now demolished.

Launcelot Fedder, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 270.--Gate at Lawn House, Woodford Road, London.

A. H. Ough, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 271.--Gate at Romford Road, Stratford,
near London.

G. G. Poston, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 272.--Lead Rain-Water Head, High Street,
Birmingham.]

[Illustration: FIG. 273.--Lead Rain-Water Head at the
Aylesford Hotel, Warwick.]

Ornamental leadwork was a characteristic feature of English houses as
early as the time of Elizabeth, and many beautiful rain-water heads
of that period still survive. They had worthy successors all through
the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth. Some of the
rain-water heads at St John’s College, Oxford, of the time of Charles
I., are splendid things of their kind. Many houses built during the
next hundred years retain fine examples of similar features (Fig.
272), and indeed, as long as it was necessary to fashion such things
by hand, the craftsman imparted character to his work even if it
was of a simple and unobtrusive kind (Fig. 273); but with the advent of
the speculative builder, the number of such things required, and the
necessity of a rapid and cheap supply, led to more expeditious methods,
and with the advent of cast-iron heads a general level of dullness
and monotony was reached. The scope of lead ornament was necessarily
restricted, it was only here and there that it was applicable; the
other direction in which it was largely used was in cisterns or
troughs of which examples occasionally occur, but lead being always a
marketable commodity, most of these objects, when once out of use, were
sold for melting and re-use. Some good examples dated 1728, 1714 and
1755 are shown in Figs. 267, 274.

[Illustration: FIG. 274.--Two Examples of Lead Cisterns.]

[Illustration: FIG. 275.--THE STAIRCASE, KING’S WESTON,
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.]

The English craftsman has always been able to do good work when he has
had the opportunity. Even during the period when house design may be
held to be void of interest, there are numberless examples of fittings,
or furniture, or household articles which show his skill, and if a free
and reasonable view of design is maintained, there is every prospect of
his doing as good work in the future as he has done in the past.

INTERNAL FEATURES (EIGHTEENTH CENTURY)

The internal decoration of houses of the seventeenth century has
already been described, and incidentally a considerable number of
examples have been given of the treatment of later houses; but it
is desirable to treat the subject a little more fully than has been
possible in former chapters.

In entering an eighteenth-century house the visitor found himself
in a large vestibule or hall--not the old-fashioned hall of the
early seventeenth century, which was itself one of the principal
living-rooms, but a hall which was merely a vestibule or ante-room
leading to the living-rooms. Sometimes it had a fireplace, but
sometimes not; in either case it was not regarded as a room for
constant use. In houses of the middle size it contained the staircase,
and the same held good in many of larger size; but in the largest the
hall was frequently the most striking apartment in the house, as for
instance at Houghton (Fig. 174) and Prior Park (Fig. 182).

The staircases were always handsomely treated. As a rule they were of
wood, but a few instances occur of marble steps and balustrades, and
of stone steps with iron balustrades. The typical English staircase
is of wood, with turned wood balusters. For a short time during the
seventeenth century foliated balustrades had been the fashion (see
Figs. 80–82), but towards its close the turned baluster reasserted
itself. Massive handrails and solid strings were still retained, as
in the example from the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Fig. 277); and many
examples of simple staircases of this type are to be found in the
Temple, London, and the surrounding neighbourhood.

An important development in design occurred when the old-fashioned
solid string was abandoned, and the balusters rested upon the steps
themselves. This change took place about the beginning of the
eighteenth century, and there is an early example at King’s Weston,
in Gloucestershire (Fig. 275). The steps are very deep from back to
front, so much so that each step overlaps the second one above it.
The nosings are carried along the end of every step and returned
back to the wall under the step above; the bottom edge of this is
finished with a moulding which returns and rests on the nosing of the
step below. A very similar treatment is adopted at Boughton House,
in Northamptonshire (Fig. 276), but here the edge of the soffit has
a moulding like the nosing, but reversed: the junction of the two is
masked by a wood block. These blocks are all painted with arms of the
Montagus and their alliances, which prompted Horace Walpole to inquire
whether the chief staircase at Boughton was intended for the “descent
of the Montagus.” Another point to be noticed in the King’s Weston
example is that the two bottom steps are carried out sideways beyond
the others and rounded off with a bold sweep, and that the handrail
is wreathed round instead of finishing against a large newel. This
is a treatment which only became possible on the abandonment of the
old-fashioned newels and strings.

[Illustration: FIG. 276.--Staircase at Boughton House,
Northamptonshire.

J. A. Gotch, _del._]

[Illustration: FIG. 277.--Staircase, Ashmolean, Oxford.]

[Illustration: FIG. 278.--Staircase in a House in Queen
Street, Salisbury.]

[Illustration: FIG. 279.--Staircase at Melton Constable,
Norfolk.]

A variation of the treatment adopted at Boughton may be seen in an old
house in Salisbury (Fig. 278), where the nosings are still carried back
some distance, but are supported by carved brackets. It will be seen
that the old stout newels have been replaced by small columns slightly
larger than the balusters, and that the handrail is continuous, being
bent upwards in a ramp where it has suddenly to attain a higher level.
It is curved at the bottom in a large sweep similar to those at Kings
Weston. At Melton Constable (Fig. 279) the same ideas are adopted, but
here the risers of the stairs are panelled. It is clear from this
that no stair carpets were contemplated, a point which is emphasised
elsewhere by the fact that the landings and treads were often inlaid
with different woods cut into patterns. Most of the staircases of the
time were broad and of easy gradient, the balusters were short, and
were either turned in graceful outlines or were twisted as at Melton
Constable. At Denham Place, in Buckinghamshire (Fig. 280), the effect
is quite satisfactory, although the stairs are narrower and steeper
than usual, and the balusters are longer. This effect is obtained by
the care bestowed upon the proportion and outline of the balusters.

[Illustration: FIG. 280.--Staircase at Denham Place,
Buckinghamshire.]

Towards the close of the eighteenth century another form of staircase
came into vogue. This consisted of a continuous flight of stone
steps, often oval in plan, leading from floor to floor in one sweep.
Each step rested on that below, and one of its ends was built into the
wall, thereby obviating the necessity of any expedient for supporting
the other end. By this means a free space was obtained beneath the
staircase. The general effect, although light and sometimes graceful,
was a little cold and meagre; but it was quite in character with the
rather severe schemes of decoration prevalent at the time (Fig. 281).

[Illustration: FIG. 281.--Staircase at No. 35 Lincoln’s Inn
Fields.]

In the larger houses much attention was bestowed upon the doorways:
there is a good example at Godmersham Park, in Kent (Fig. 282), where
the broken pediment affords space for the central feature of a design
modelled in high relief. As here, so in many other instances, the door
is of mahogany and the surrounding woodwork is painted white. The
example from Honington Hall, in Warwickshire (Fig. 283), not only shows
an important doorway, but also the domed and coffered ceiling of a
lofty room, as well as walls with panels of plaster, and large pendants
of fruit and birds in the manner of Grinling Gibbons. In houses of the
early part of the eighteenth century there was often one room occupying
two stories in height; sometimes it was the hall, sometimes, as in this
case, a saloon or drawing-room.

[Illustration: FIG. 282.--Doorway at Godmersham Park, Kent.]

[Illustration: FIG. 283.--HONINGTON HALL,
WARWICKSHIRE.]

In smaller houses were such doorways as that at Bourdon House, London
(Fig. 284), where there is carving enough to impart interest to the
design without over-weighting it; and at Seckford Hall, in Suffolk,
is a simple but effective treatment (Fig. 285) which is well within
the compass of an ordinary joiner. A great variety of effect can be
obtained at small cost by dint of a little thought and a determination
not to be too much bound by correct precedents. It is one of the
failings of the ordinary eighteenth-century designer that he feared to
depart from the patterns published in books.

[Illustration: FIG. 284.--Doorway at Bourdon House, Mayfair,
London.]

Very great changes in the manner of treating the walls of a room
occurred during the course of the century. At first they were panelled
with wood--not with the small panels of Jacobean times, but with large
panels surrounded by bold mouldings, such as those at Denham Place
(Fig. 287). Here the mouldings are enriched with carving, which adds
considerable richness, but as a rule the mouldings were plain; various
examples have already been given in Figs. 122, 126, 135, 139. There
was usually a low dado with long horizontal panels, and above the dado
rail were lofty vertical panels reaching up to a massive cornice. The
effect is always simple and dignified, whether the material is oak
or painted deal. Of course the panels very much restrict the freedom
of arrangement of pictures, but in those days pictures were not so
plentiful as they became later, prints were few, and so were the
amateur artists who bestow the fruit of their elegant leisure upon
their friends. The panels therefore hampered nobody, and they were
in themselves a sufficient decoration. Family portraits or notable
pictures were sometimes framed into them as part of the scheme.

[Illustration: FIG. 285.--Head of a Doorway, Seckford Hall,
Suffolk.]

[Illustration: FIG. 286.--Panelling in the Audit Room, Boughton House,
Northamptonshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 287.--THE LIBRARY, DENHAM PLACE,
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 288.--STONELEIGH ABBEY,
WARWICKSHIRE. THE SALOON, BY SMITH OF WARWICK.]

[Illustration: FIG. 289.--House in Queen Square, Bath.]

The backgrounds of engravings published during the first half of
the eighteenth century often show these large panels, as well as
sash-windows with stout bars. They seem to harmonise with the flowing
wigs, the wide coat skirts and knee-breeches of the actors in the
incidents which the prints are intended to record.

An unusual form of panelling, but one which is both cheap and
effective, is to be seen in the audit room at Boughton House (Fig.
286). It consists of boards nailed vertically to the wall, having the
joints covered with a moulding; below is a skirting, and above is a
frieze and cornice.

Wood panelling was gradually superseded by panels formed in plaster on
the plastered walls. Gibb’s drawings have already afforded examples of
this treatment (Figs. 166–169), and any book of the eighteenth century
on house design will supply others. Stoneleigh Abbey, Kenilworth, has
panels of unusual richness (Fig. 288), and a house in Queen Square,
Bath, by one of the Woods, has some delicately modelled panels on the
staircase (Fig. 289). The drawback to this method of decoration is
that, being rather ambitious in aim, it challenges criticism much more
definitely than does simple panelling. It is conceivable that one
eventually might tire of seeing the same youth piping to the same old
man, and the same lady for ever playing the same organ without looking
at her notes.

But a more radical change in wall decoration was to come in the shape
of wall-papers. The early history of this method of adorning rooms
has not been fully explored, but it seems clear that already in the
seventeenth century sheets of paper covered with stencilled patterns
had been pasted on to walls, or perhaps on to the panels into which
they were divided. This was a laborious and by no means cheap process,
but it contained the germ of the procedure which is so widely adopted
to-day. Another and even more effective step was taken when Chinese
papers were introduced (Fig. 290). These papers consisted of rolls,
each printed with a portion of a large design, which required some
five or six pieces to complete it. It was probably of such sets that
the vivacious Lady Mary Wortley Montague, most celebrated of blue
stockings, wrote to her daughter from Louvere, in 1749, to say, “I have
heard the fame of paper hangings, and had some thoughts of sending for
a suite, but was informed that they were as dear as damask is here,
which put an end to my curiosity.” In some cases curiosity outweighed
thriftiness, and the suites still remain in a few old houses; here
and there some of the original rolls still exist, rolls which for
some reason or other were not used, and which have luckily escaped
destruction. Chinese papers became fashionable, and it is not difficult
to imagine the process of evolution from rolls--each bearing part of a
large design either of trees and flowers, or of a landscape or a figure
subject, after the manner of tapestry--to other rolls all printed alike
and forming a continuous pattern, with the parts duly repeated, which
should cover the whole walls with decoration of a sort. The advantages
of the new method were obvious: it was cheap; and although at first
the paper was applied to canvas nailed to battens on the wall, yet
eventually it was placed on the wall itself, and thus did away with
the spaces between the walls and the panelling or tapestry, where dirt
or spiders or more noxious insects could harbour; rough surfaces were
rendered smooth, joints between wood frames and stone or brick walls
were filled with plaster, and draughts were lessened. Most of these
advantages were obtained by plastered walls ornamented with panels,
but plain surfaces covered with paper were cheaper, and gave greater
scope for the unrestricted hanging of pictures and prints as the taste
for such things developed. Then, again, more and more people lived in
hired houses, and with every fresh tenant new papers could readily be
pasted over the old. There was no idea in those days of stripping off
the previous papers; and in dealing with ancient houses as many as
twenty layers of paper have sometimes been found. But our notions of
sanitation have improved, and in the present day everything is removed
down to the plaster before the new paper is hung.

[Illustration: FIG. 290.--A Chinese Paper, Ramsbury,
Wiltshire.]

[Illustration: FIG. 291.--TAPESTRY: SUBJECT, VULCAN AND VENUS.
WOVEN AT MORTLAKE, _circa_ 1620.

In the Victoria and Albert Museum.]

[Illustration: FIG. 292.--Chimney-Piece in the Mayor’s
Parlour, The Town Hall, South Molton, Devonshire.]

The Chinese papers, as already observed, had some affinity in
their subjects to tapestry, and tapestry had been a favourite means
of covering walls from very early times (Figs. 291, 293). In the
seventeenth century it was much in vogue among the rich, both on the
Continent and in England, and a noble form of decoration it is. It
would be beside the mark to recount the history of tapestry weaving at
any length, but it is of interest to know that during the seventeenth
century the English factory at Mortlake was the most renowned in the
world, and produced some of the finest tapestries that have come down
to us. The factory was founded in 1619 by James I., and with it are
connected the names of two families who have already been mentioned
in these pages. The first was that of the Cranes, the other the
Montagus.[86] Sir Francis Crane, who built a house at Stoke Bruerne,
in Northamptonshire (see pp. 174, 176), managed the factory for many
years on behalf of the king, and made a considerable fortune. The
factory flourished under James I. and Charles I., but declined under
the Commonwealth. After the Restoration new vigour was imparted to
it; it passed from the direct patronage of the king and was acquired
in 1674 by the Montagus, whose house at Boughton (see pp. 196–199)
retains many splendid examples from its looms. But by this time the
factory at Gobelins was producing work as fine as that at Mortlake, if
not finer, and this circumstance, together with the declining taste
for tapestries, brought the Mortlake venture to an end in 1703.[87]
Tapestries were at all times chiefly for the wealthy, but early in the
eighteenth century they began to go out of fashion, and were superseded
by the other modes of decoration already described.

[Illustration: FIG. 293.--THE TAPESTRY DRAWING-ROOM, POWIS
CASTLE, MONTGOMERY.]

At the beginning of the eighteenth century fireplaces were, as a rule,
still contrived for the burning of wood logs. They were wide and deep,
and were generally surrounded by a very bold moulding of stone or
marble, like that in the Town Hall at South Molton (Fig. 292). The
panelling of the room was often brought up to the marble, and continued
above it with an additional richness over the fireplace; but sometimes
there was a special margin provided round the large moulding, as in the
case of South Molton. Occasionally it was found convenient to place the
fireplace in a corner of the room, which led to some such ingenious
treatment as that in Fig. 294, which is from a room at Boughton House.

[Illustration: FIG. 294.--Corner Fireplace at Boughton House.]

Open fireplaces like these required fire-dogs on which to place the
logs for the increase of the draught, and a great variety of such
dogs or andirons were produced, varying in character from rich and
admirably modelled specimens like that in the queen’s guard chamber
at Hampton Court (Fig. 295), down to the simplest forms. It was also
necessary to have fire-backs of cast iron to prevent the fire from
eating away the brickwork against which it was piled. The various
iron works in Sussex and elsewhere produced a great quantity of these
backs of all degrees of elaboration. The ornament most frequently
adopted was a shield of arms, either those of the sovereign, or those
of the family who usually warmed themselves at the fire; but the range
of design was considerable, and included floral and figure subjects
(Figs. 296–298), as well as patterns of extreme simplicity. Other
accessories were tongs, bellows, and sometimes a fire shovel. The tongs
were sufficiently stout to enable the logs to be handled; the bellows
produced life in an almost dead fire with wonderful celerity; the
shovel was used to bank up the ashes, which were allowed to accumulate
in a great heap, and thereby preserved warmth during the night.

[Illustration: FIG. 295.--Fire-Dog at Hampton Court, in the
Queen’s Guard Chamber.]

[Illustration: FIG. 296.--Fire-Back and Dogs, Sutton Place.]

[Illustration: FIG. 297.--Fire-Basket at Penshurst, Kent.]

[Illustration: FIG. 298.--Jamb of Fireplace, Abbot’s Hall,
Battle Abbey, Sussex.]

But early in the eighteenth century a rapid change took place in the
kind of fuel consumed, and coal superseded wood. Sea-coal, that is
sea-borne coal, had been in occasional use for many years; now it
was to become universal. The change is curiously indicated in some
inventories of 1720, made for one “Francis Hawes, of London, Esq.,
one of the late directors of the South Sea Company.” When that great
bubble burst Francis Hawes had to be sold up, and in consequence a
complete statement of his affairs had to be prepared. It includes three
inventories, two of manor-houses in the country, and one of a house in
Winchester Street, London. In regard to the point under consideration,
some of the rooms, especially the bedrooms, had iron hearths, dogs,
tongs, bellows, and fire shovels, which were requisite for the
old-fashioned wood fires; others, including the parlours and hall, had
the grates, shovels, tongs, pokers, and fenders requisite for coal
fires.

So, too, had the servants’ hall, whereas the drawing-room had an open
fire. We may, therefore, conclude that the rooms in most frequent use
had the newer contrivances, the most noteworthy of which were the
grates, the pokers (for breaking the coal, and quite unnecessary with
a wood fire), and the fenders. It is clear that in 1720 Francis Hawes
had only partially adopted coal as his fuel, but the use of it quickly
spread, and henceforward we find grates of various kinds in common use.
Some of these were in effect baskets to hold the coal (Fig. 297), and
they were placed in the old openings. Others were so large as to hold
either wood or coal, an intermediate step of which there is an example
at Dyrham, in Gloucestershire. In later years the basket grates gave
way to cast-iron grates which filled the whole width of the recess,
and were built in as fixtures (Figs. 299, 300). Some of the patterns
were delicately modelled and charmingly designed, but as heat-producers
these grates were crude to a degree. They merely held the coal. No
attempt was made to regulate its consumption, or to direct its heat
into the room; a large proportion went up the chimney, and chimneys
were still built of the generous dimensions which had been customary
in the days of wood fires. These generous dimensions were a length of
four or five feet by a width of two or three at the base, gradually
diminishing towards the outlet above the roof. Where the flues passed
through the bedrooms they occupied a large amount of space, but
generally left room at the sides for those deep cupboards which are
often to be found in old houses. The only way to sweep such enormous
shafts was for somebody to clamber up them with a brush. This dirty and
dangerous task was usually imposed upon the chimney sweep’s boy, until
it was prohibited by legislation, but modern fires have flues of such
small size as not to admit the most diminutive boy.

[Illustration: FIG. 299.--Fire-Grate at Kew Palace.]

[Illustration: FIG. 300.--Fire-Grate at Kew Palace.]

When huge fires were customary, they warmed the huge flues above them,
and down-draughts were prevented; but when the same huge flues were
warmed only by a basketful of coal, there was no longer the same upward
draught, and the fires began to smoke. To remedy this, new fireplaces
were made rather smaller, and the flues were slightly contracted;
but the remedy was not effectual, and the next step, taken towards
the end of the eighteenth century, was to fill up the large opening,
and thereby restrict the access of air to the space occupied by the
fire, and thus came into being the first of our modern fire-grates,
which carry no suggestion with them of the ancient open fire on the
hearth. This form of grate was an improvement, but it was wasteful
and inefficient, and was at length superseded by the numerous modern
contrivances which minimise the consumption of fuel, and direct more of
the heat into the room and less up the flue. It would be rash to say
that they have done away with smoky chimneys, but at any rate they have
made them the exception rather than the rule.

The inventories of Francis Hawes are interesting in other ways than
in marking the change from the ancient wood fires to the modern coal
fires: they tell us of the manner in which his rooms were adorned and
furnished. It would be outside the scope of the present inquiry to
enter into these details at any length, but a few of the words thus
spoken direct from the past may be worth listening to. The parlours
of the London house were apparently panelled or otherwise decorated
with some fixed material, since no mention is made of hangings. They
had chimney-glasses, sconces of brass or glass, and curtains to the
windows: of furniture one had two card-tables, ten red Turkey-leather
chairs, a leather screen, sixteen pictures, and a painted cloth for
the floor--not a very elaborate furnishing. The other parlour had a
pier glass and marble slab, a scrutoire, six cane chairs, two Dutch
chairs, a leather dressing-chair, two tables, a small nest of drawers,
eight pictures, and a small carpet. The effect must have been rather
bare according to modern standards, but these have gone to the other
extreme, with the result that many rooms are now overcrowded with
furniture. Upstairs one of the rooms must have been a gallery, for
it had no chairs, but was full of curios and _objets d’art_. The
bedrooms of all the houses were also sparsely furnished. They nearly
all had large bedsteads, evidently four-posters, with furniture of
different kinds, camlet lined with silk, yellow mohair, green or
crimson harratine, green serge, and other materials. The walls were
hung in most cases with materials of the same kind, blue china, crimson
harratine, tapestry, mohair, or Irish stitch and Dutch matting. There
were curtains to the windows. One of the smaller bedrooms had but a
table and dressing-glass, a couple of chairs and a box; another had
a “bewreau” and a card-table in addition. The larger ones had two
tables, half a dozen chairs, stools, a nest of drawers, a bookcase, and
a number of pictures. It is noteworthy how seldom mention is made of
a basin or even of a dressing-table with a glass. This confirms what
has already been indicated--that our ancestors of those days spent but
little time upon their toilet. Very few rooms had a carpet but nearly
every one had a hand-bell, some had as many as four.

[Illustration: FIG. 301.--Chimney-Piece in the George Inn,
Winchester.]

[Illustration: FIG. 302.--Chimney-Piece in the Deanery, Wells.]

[Illustration: FIG. 303.--Design for a Chimney-Piece, by
Flaxman.

From the Ionides Collection in the V. and A. M.]

[Illustration: FIG. 304.--Marble Chimney-Piece, 60 Carey
Street, London.]

But to return to the question of fireplaces, and more particularly
to the chimney-pieces which surrounded them. The method adopted in
William III.’s time of having merely a bold moulding round the opening,
tended to establish the practice of having chimney-pieces of one
stage in height instead of two. In Jacobean time most of the large
chimney-pieces reached from the floor to the ceiling; so they did in
the mid-seventeenth century under Inigo Jones and John Webb, although
a few of their designs show one stage only. When the “Designs of Inigo
Jones” were published by Kent in 1727, they gave an impetus again to
the two-stage type, such as that shown in Fig. 170; but smaller and
less pretentious patterns were frequently adopted, of which a typical
example is shown in Fig. 301; here a marble slab surrounds the opening,
and is in its turn surrounded by a small wood moulding and surmounted
by a flat frieze and a cornice which forms the mantel shelf. This type
held the field all through the eighteenth century, sometimes plain,
sometimes enriched, as in the example from the Deanery at Wells (Fig.
302). A variation, all in marble, is shown in Fig. 304, from a house in
Carey Street.

[Illustration: FIG. 305.--Design for a Chimney-Piece at
Shardiloes House, 1761, by Robert Adam.

In the Soane Museum.]

[Illustration: FIG. 306.--CEILING AT THE LAW COURTS,
NORTHAMPTON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 307.--Ceiling at No. 16 Bishopsgate Street
Without, London.

Now in the Victoria and Albert Museum.]

Under the influence of the brothers Adam, detail of exquisite
delicacy was introduced, including panels of well-modelled figures.
This ornament was sometimes carved in marble or wood, but still more
frequently worked in composition and applied to the woodwork. An
example by Robert Adam is shown in Fig. 305, and a design by Flaxman in
Fig. 303.

We have already seen in Chapter V. how the busy ceilings of the
Jacobean type changed into the coffered ceilings of Inigo Jones and
Webb, who established a type which held the field, under Wren and his
successors, well into the eighteenth century. The general tendency was
to increase the relief of the plasterwork, to imitate nature instead
of conventionalising it; to work on the same lines which Grinling
Gibbons was following with his carving in wood. The result was that
the plasterwork had frequently to be modelled on wire which formed the
stems of the leaves, and much of it was completely detached from the
surface of the ceiling which it adorned. A very fine example of this
treatment is to be seen in the Courts of Justice at Northampton (Fig.
306).

[Illustration: FIG. 308.--OLD BUCKINGHAM HOUSE. THE STAIRCASE,
WITH PAINTED CEILING AND WALLS.]

[Illustration: FIG. 309.--HAMPTON COURT PALACE. THE GRAND
STAIRCASE, WITH PAINTED CEILING AND WALLS.]

[Illustration: FIG. 310.--Part of a Painted Ceiling, Boughton
House.]

Contemporary with this kind of ceiling was a treatment entirely
different, which was in vogue in great houses during the reigns of
Charles II., James II., and William and Mary; this was the painting of
immense plain surfaces with allegorical, mythological, and scriptural
subjects. Old Buckingham House had a large ceiling of the kind over
the principal staircase (Fig. 308); and the walls were painted so as
to produce the effect of architectural perspective. This fashion is
intimately associated with the name of Verrio, an Italian painter,
who was brought to England by Charles II. He and his assistant and
successor Laguerre are the best known of those who worked in this line
of decoration, for they are immortalised by Pope, who describes how
in a great house, being summoned “to all the pride of prayer” in the
chapel--

“On painted ceilings you devoutly stare
Where sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.”

But there were several other artists engaged by wealthy noblemen to do
similar work; among them was Cheron at Boughton House, and Lanscroon at
Drayton, both in Northamptonshire. But Verrio was by far the busiest
of all, and did a vast amount of work at Windsor, Hampton Court,
and Burghley House, among other places. Over the grand staircase at
Hampton Court (Fig. 309) the composition which occupies the ceiling is
brought down on to the walls. This device was sometimes adopted with
the view, apparently, of bringing ceiling and walls into one scheme;
but although the technique is clever, the effect is rather confusing.
The examples from Boughton House (Figs. 310, 311) show a simpler and
more intelligible treatment. Evelyn frequently mentions Verrio with
high commendation, and his work and that of his school is extremely
clever, and were it more easily seen and with less physical discomfort,
doubtless it would beget more admiration than it actually does. Verrio
died in 1707 and Laguerre twenty years later. Their tradition was
carried on for another ten or twelve years by Sir James Thornhill, but
it then died out, and painting on ceilings was confined to small panels.

[Illustration: FIG. 311.--Part of Ceiling over the Staircase,
Boughton House.]

It was chiefly in the larger houses that ornamental ceilings were now
introduced. In those of ordinary size, and those built on speculation
to let to tenants, the ceilings were for the most part plain. Where
design was employed it became less ambitious, and during the second
quarter of the eighteenth century it produced such comparatively simple
work as that in a house in Bishopsgate Street Without (Fig. 307), or
that in the Spenser room at Canons Ashby, in Northamptonshire (Fig.
312). Cottesbrooke House, in the same county, has some delicate work of
much the same type (Fig. 313).

[Illustration: FIG. 312.--Part of Ceiling in the Spenser Room,
Canons Ashby, Northamptonshire.]

During the last half of the century, where ornament was applied to
ceilings at all, it partook of the extreme delicacy and refinement
associated with the name of the brothers Adam. The modelling was in
low relief, but was done with great care and minuteness, and the flow
of the thin lines of ornament was studied with close attention. This
type is exemplified in the ceiling from a house in Wimpole Street (Fig.
314), and there are many such ceilings left in that neighbourhood,
especially in Harley Street, which in its early days was inhabited by
many distinguished people; William Pitt, Viscount Bridport, and Admiral
Lord Keith did much to shape the history of their time; Allan Ramsay,
portrait painter to George III., may stand for Art, and James Stuart,
author of the “Antiquities of Athens,” may represent architecture and
archæology. At present these streets are more particularly associated
with the pursuit of medicine; their inhabitants are no less celebrated
than those of old, but their fame is of a special kind, and those who
go to consult them on matters of life and death may well be excused
if they spare no thought for the decoration which covers the ceilings
above their heads.

[Illustration: FIG. 313.--Part of Ceiling, Cottesbrooke Hall,
Northants.]

[Illustration: FIG. 314.--CEILING FROM WIMPOLE STREET, LONDON.]

The work of the latter part of the eighteenth century was so dominated
by the influence of the Adams that a few further examples of their
designs may be of interest. In the staircase from a house in Mansfield
Street (Fig. 315) all superfluous ornament has been eliminated, so much
so that one almost longs for something less chaste and cold. In some
moods and to some temperaments Venus is more attractive than Diana.
But restraint is ever commendable, and restraint marks most of Adam’s
work. It is present in the doorway at Harewood House (Fig. 316) and in
the two chimney-pieces, one from Belcombe and one from Bedford Square,
figured in the illustrations 317, 318. In these it will be noticed that
overmantels are replaced by designs worked on the wall itself. Their
interest depends almost entirely upon grace of composition and skill
in execution, and derives nothing from aptness of association with the
houses or their occupants. In this respect the ornament differs from
that of earlier days, when it was usually adapted from the family coat
of arms; but the time had now come when houses were more often built to
let to unknown tenants than as homes for particular families. In the
drawing-room at Kedleston (Fig. 319) the treatment again strikes a note
of simplicity and severity--a note which is seldom so well maintained
in the disposition of the pictures and the choice of furniture as it is
in this case. The ceiling and the great cove beneath it are filled with
that flowing and delicate ornament which demands great accuracy of line
and equal care in modelling its low relief.

As time went on this delicate ornament faded away and, except here
and there, ceilings became merely large unbroken surfaces, save that
with the introduction of gas-pendants there came the tradesman’s
centre-flower from which they might depend. This and an equally
interesting cornice served for years as the principal decoration of
most houses; the plasterer’s art seemed to have died out. But for some
time past matters have been improving, and, given the requisite money,
ceilings can now be devised equal to anything that has been done in the
past.

Indeed English craftsmen have always been able to produce good work
when adequately guided. But modern conditions, among which one of the
most pressing is the supply of an enormous number of cheap houses, are
adverse to the display of that capacity for design and execution which
requires some amount of leisure and a great amount of wealth to bring
it forth.

[Illustration: FIG. 315.--Staircase from a House in Mansfield
Street.]

[Illustration: FIG. 316.--Doorway, Harewood House.]

There are indications that after the war a vast number of workmen’s
dwellings will have to be built, and, moreover, will have to be
built cheaply. A survey of the domestic architecture of the last
three hundred years is fruitful of suggestions for this undertaking,
although it will be one demanding little or no ornament. Such a survey
points towards a suitable placing of the houses on the site; avoiding
dreariness and monotony on the one hand, and on the other avoiding
attempts at the grandiose, and the imposing on posterity a scheme
too complete in itself to allow of those variations which time will
inevitably require. It points equally to treating the houses themselves
with a simplicity corresponding to the simplicity of the requirements.
It points further to the value of good, sound building. The smaller
Georgian houses, which we find so charming, furnish admirable
suggestions. No attempt at actual reproduction need be made; but the
means which produce the effect in the old houses can be applied to the
new. These means are simple enough. The general proportion, the size
and shape of the windows, and the shadow of the eaves will be found on
examination to be the chief causes of the pleasure which many of the
old houses arouse.

The past has not only its suggestions, but also its warnings, and
of these the most obvious is against the impairing of comfort and
convenience for the sake of appearance. The first canon of utilitarian
art is that an object should answer its purpose well. It is in availing
himself of these suggestions, and in profiting by these warnings, that
the architect is enabled to help his own generation and give pleasure
to those that come after.

The vast increase in population during the last two hundred years has
accentuated the division of the course of design into two streams;
one directed by the highly trained architect, the other by the
workman trained only in the use of his tools and the knowledge of his
materials. Could the two streams be brought into one channel they might
flow on into ideal conditions. But the very complexity of modern life
has a tendency to resolve itself into the simplicity of specialisation.

[Illustration: FIG. 317.--Chimney-Piece at Belcombe.]

[Illustration: FIG. 318.--Chimney-Piece in the Dining-Room, 25
Bedford Square.]

[Illustration: FIG. 319.--THE DRAWING-ROOM, KEDLESTON HALL,
DERBYSHIRE.]

Since the beginning of the eighteenth century the course of domestic
architecture has been conditioned partly by the nation becoming
too large and complex to admit of a single expression in national
architecture; partly by the tendency, common to all the arts, for ideas
to pass into excess in one direction and into tenuity in the other.
A wider outlook over the civilised world, a greater knowledge of the
achievements of foreign countries, led inevitably to the disappearance
of a truly national style, such as that which we call Gothic. On the
one hand the homes of the wealthy grew in splendour and in fidelity
to theories of architecture expounded in books, with the result that
use and convenience were largely subordinated to grandiose effects. On
the other hand, richness of architectural thought declined in smaller
houses through the stages of dignity and comfort down either to a
consistent plainness of character or one only marked by individual
caprice. Such caprice, schooled by a study of bygone styles, led to
the eclectic imitativeness of the nineteenth century. But the last
twenty years have seen many signs of a new beginning. Based upon actual
needs, and striving after beautiful expression, domestic architecture
is slowly progressing on lines characteristically English. Sooner or
later this movement will accelerate, and will eventually reach heights
as great as those upon which we now look back with admiration and
delight. Architecture, like other arts, is immortal; the qualities of
proportion, ornament, and fitness can never long be disregarded, for no
building is quite complete which is not beautiful to look upon.

APPENDIX I

SIR ROGER PRATT

The foregoing pages had already passed through the press when the
contents of the note-books of Sir Roger Pratt were placed at my
disposal by the courtesy of his descendant, Edward Roger M. Pratt,
Esq., of Ryston Hall, Norfolk.

Roger Pratt is mentioned in the text (p. 180) as the architect of
Clarendon House, built by the Lord Chancellor Hyde, and as one of the
men whom the great fire of London led into the pursuit of architecture.
But his note-books show him to have been a student and practitioner
of the art before that event. He was under no necessity to earn his
own living, as he appears to have been a man of means, succeeding
to his father’s property before he was of age, and in later years
inheriting from his cousin the estate of Ryston. Still his interest in
architecture was more than that of an amateur, for he clearly had a
good knowledge of building, and a practical acquaintance with the many
matters involved in the erection of large houses.

He was born in 1620, and entered Magdalen College, Oxford, when he was
nineteen; in the following year he became possessed of his father’s
property, and three years later, in 1643, he went to travel abroad. He
visited France, Italy, Holland, and Flanders, for the purpose, as he
states, to “give himself some convenient education”; his tour lasted
six years, thus keeping him away from England during the troubled
times of the Civil War. This education was evidently in architecture,
for although he became a member of the Inner Temple in 1657, there
is no record of his having followed the law as a profession. He had
rooms in the Temple from the time of his entrance until 1676, and
doubtless they enabled him to enjoy congenial society and provided
him with a convenient residence during his frequent visits to London.
For more than half his tenancy he was a bachelor, for he did not
marry until he was forty-eight, when he took to wife, in the year
1668, the eldest daughter of Sir Edward Monins of Kent, a lady of
good family--“descended,” as he said, “from ye second best famely in
hir county”--who brought him a fortune of £4,000. The same year saw
another notable event in his life, the conferring of a knighthood upon
him by Charles II.

A year before his marriage he had succeeded to the Ryston estate,
and thenceforward he appears to have followed the life of a country
gentleman, for we hear no more of him in connection with architecture,
save that he designed and built himself a new house at Ryston, which
remains to this day, and is the only example of his work left, unless
the attribution of Coleshill to Inigo Jones is a mistake. There is
no doubt that Roger Pratt had something to do with Coleshill, which
was built by a relative of his, Sir Henry Pratt; for he says, in
considering the proportions of cornices for ceilings, “all wh. 4 last
recited proportions have bin made use of by mee at Sr George Pratt’s at
Colsell.” Sir George was the son and successor of Sir Henry.

Most of the gentry at this time, as John Webb tells us, had some
knowledge of the theory of architecture, “but nothing of ye
practicque.” Roger Pratt bettered his fellows in this respect, for
not only had he a wide knowledge of the art, as understood in the
seventeenth century--of the architecture, that is, of modern Italy and
of Palladio in particular--but he was familiar with the qualities of
materials and the routine of building, not to mention tactful methods
of accounting for “extras.”

During his stay in Rome he met John Evelyn, who appears to have
acquired and preserved a high regard for him. Twenty years later, in
writing to Lord Cornbery on 20th January 1665, about his father’s
mansion of Clarendon House, Evelyn said that Roger Pratt, his old
friend and fellow traveller (co-habitant and contemporary at Rome),
had “perfectly acquitted himself.” The turn of events had brought them
together about this time, when both of them became commissioners for
the repair of St Paul’s Cathedral and for the rebuilding of London
after the great fire.

Pratt’s chief works were Horseheath in Cambridgeshire for Lord
Allington, and Clarendon House. The former was begun in 1663, and was a
magnificent mansion. There are many technical notes relating to it in
the note-books, but not much of general interest beyond its dimensions.
It was dismantled in 1760, and sold for the value of the materials.

The notes concerning Clarendon House, which was begun in 1664, are more
voluminous. They serve to show that Pratt was a practical architect,
that he was fully acquainted with the details of the various trades,
and was alive to the chances of crooked dealing by the workmen. He
deals with the levels of the site and the setting out of the house,
which was to be placed central with St James’s Street, truly parallel
with the frontage line, and set back 160 ft., whereby a court of that
depth and of a width of 214 ft. would be obtained. Another lively touch
is given by his instructions to the mason regarding the coat of arms in
the tympanum of the “frontispiece,” the central feature of the front.
The description which he incidentally gives agrees with what is shown
on the engraving. But more interesting and more entertaining are the
reasons he adduces in a draft letter of the 13th February 1665 (1666
new style) to the Lord Chancellor for the cost having exceeded his
estimate. The foundations were much deeper than was expected, an old
pond having been found on one part of the site, and a vast hole the
whole length of my lady’s pavilion on another. Severe frost rendered it
necessary to take down and rebuild some of the work. My Lord Cornbery
caused a foot to be added to the height of the first floor, much
increasing, it is true, the nobleness of the effect. The bricks cost
more; the Dutch war increased the price of timber, and the carpenter
threw up his contract, leaving himself to the mercy of his employer;
but the plague had infected the whole town, and workmen everywhere
died. It was agreed, therefore, that by fair words and promises the
carpenter should be encouraged to persist in his undertaking, which he
only consented to do on a fresh basis of pay, whereby his account was
increased by at least one-third more than his original price.

In addition to the notes relating to these two houses in particular,
there are Notes as to the building of Country Houses, dated 1660, and
Rules for the Guidance of Architects, dated 1662. These fill many
pages, and would have made a much more useful book, had they been
published, than Gerbier’s “Counsel.” Space forbids long extracts,
which indeed might prove tedious to all but enthusiastic students of
this period; but three matters are worth mentioning. First, it is
recommended that a house should be placed so as to take advantage
of existing trees in the approach and lay out, and to obtain a fine
prospect. This must be one of the earliest expressions of a deliberate
liking for natural scenery. Secondly, Pratt advises those about to
build a house “to get some ingenious gentleman who hath seen much
of that kind abroad and been somewhat versed in the best authors of
architecture, viz., Palladio, Scamozzi, Serlio, etc., to doe it for
you and give you a design on paper.” This will be far better than
trusting to a home-bred architect, who would be inexperienced in such
matters, as is daily seen. The paper design having been agreed upon, a
model of wood should be made, and as a final precaution, other houses
of a suitable kind should be visited and studied.

The third point of interest lies in his references to Inigo Jones’s
work. In dealing with fine examples of architecture he says that with
us in England there is nothing remarkable but the Banqueting House at
Whitehall and the Portico at Paul’s. Elsewhere he cites the Queen’s
House at Greenwich. As far as it goes, his testimony appears to confirm
the view taken in the text as to Jones’s work.

In addition to these notes on houses, there are others relating
to St Paul’s, and to the steps taken for the rebuilding of London
after the fire. In relation to the latter, he was asked by the other
commissioners to undertake duties which would now devolve upon the
Secretary. In regard to St Paul’s, he has a page or two of criticism on
the model designed by “Dr. Renne,” 12th July 1673, as it offered itself
upon a short and confused view of a quarter of an hour only. In 1673
Wren’s favourite design was approved by the king, who issued a warrant
for building in accordance with it on 12th November, and caused a model
to be made (illustrated on p. 146). The details of Pratt’s criticism do
not apply very aptly to this model, and we seem to be faced with two
alternatives: either that his criticisms, written from memory after a
hasty examination, were rather wide of the mark; or that they refer to
a design different from those which have so far come into prominence
from among the numerous drawings prepared by Wren in connection with St
Paul’s.

The later note-books are chiefly concerned with estate management, and
we gather that after the building of the house at Ryston, Sir Roger
Pratt settled down in the country. He died on the 20th February 1684–5,
and was buried at Ryston, leaving a widow and three sons. His widow
subsequently married again, and survived until 1706.

* * * * *

The note-books, of which there are eight, are mostly bound in
parchment, and by way of fastening, are tied with two sets of parchment
strips. They bear a strong family resemblance to the sketch-book of
Inigo Jones, preserved at Chatsworth.

APPENDIX II

THE ARCHITECTS OF COLESHILL, BERKSHIRE

Further interesting information regarding Sir Roger Pratt’s connection
with Coleshill has been supplied by the kindness of Mr. Pratt of Ryston,
and the Hon. Mrs. Pleydell Bouverie of Coleshill. It is derived in part
from Sir Roger Pratt’s note-books, and in part from a diary of Sir Mark
Pleydell (1692–1768), preserved in the muniment room at Coleshill.

The estate of Coleshill was bought from the Pleydells by Sir Henry
Pratt, a grandson through a junior branch of William Pratt, who was
Lord of the Manor of Ryston in 1628. Sir Roger Pratt was great-grandson
of the same William through the senior branch. The estate returned to
the family of Pleydell in 1699, by the marriage of a Pleydell with the
heiress of the Pratts of Coleshill.

Sir Henry Pratt died on 6th April 1647, and the old house at Coleshill
which he had bought was burnt down later in the same year, shortly
after the marriage of his son, Sir George. The present house was begun
in 1650, according to the tablet still preserved therein. Of this Sir
Mark Pleydell says in his diary that Sir Roger Pratt of Ryston in
Norfolk, knight, cousin to Sir George, was the architect in friendship
to him. He also observes that “Mr. Mildmay apprehended it was built
by Inigo Jones, and Lord Barrington says it was built by one Webb, a
disciple of the said Inigo.”

In the same diary it is stated that before the existing house was
commenced Sir George Pratt began to build a new seat in “the present
cucumber garden,” which he raised to one story, when Pratt and Jones
arriving, caused it to be pulled down and rebuilt where it now stands.
Sir Mark adds that Pratt and Jones were frequently here, and Jones was
also consulted about the ceilings. “John Buffin, who often saw them
both, frequently declared this to Wm. Pepal, who came to Coleshill in
1700, and carried him to the spot in ye cucumber garden. We found ye
remains of ye walls in ye cucumber garden ye 10th February 1746.”

It is interesting to find that Jones, Webb, and Pratt were all
concerned in the design, and it is tolerably clear that Pratt had a
large hand in the matter, not only from Sir Mark Pleydell’s express
intimation, but also from Sir Roger Pratt’s own note-books. It will
be remembered that Jones died in 1652, but the house was not finished
until some years afterwards, probably in 1664. Roger Pratt has entries
in his note-books that in December 1656 he gave Sir George Pratt’s man
a tip of two shillings, in April 1659 he gave to six maids and two
boys of Sir George two guineas, and in January 1662 he gave a dinner
to Sir George and his lady at a cost of £5. 9s. Such hospitality may
presumably be attributed partly to the ties of consanguinity, and
partly to those of architect and client.

Sir Roger Pratt has notes relating to Coleshill under the year 1664,
which, in addition to those concerning the ceilings mentioned in
Appendix I. deal with the proportion of the windows. These, he says,
seemed somewhat narrow, either because not sufficiently splayed on the
sides, or because the wooden frame and the iron one took so much from
the glass. The windows were at that time iron casements, not sashes as
they are now; and they were all alike in this respect, including the
dormers in the garrets and the turret. One remark is rather puzzling in
which he speaks of the heads of the windows of the dining-room being 5
ft. below the ceilings, for the vertical distance between the windows
of the ground and upper floors is only about 7 ft. from glass to glass.

The testimony that the windows were casements and not sashes is
interesting, so too is the detailed description of the casements and of
the devices to exclude the weather. The window-bars were ¼ in. thick
and ½ in. broad; the casements ¼ in. thick and 2 in. broad. They were
hanged upon three strong hooks, the opening-rod being ½ in. thick with
five rings to hold it; there was an iron plate with a pin let into the
wood to hold the hook of the rod. A little piece of iron was put over
the rebate of the casements to keep out the wind, and a little border
of lead was nailed close to the casements on the bottom and sides,
as well as a strip over the heads outside. Further there was another
border inside to prevent the rain, which beat up under the casements,
from flowing down upon the baseboard.

Let us hope these precautions were adequate, and that it was not
necessary to lay out another £5 on a dinner to placate Sir George and
his lady, and to drown the memory of reproaches urged with cousinly
freedom.

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS AND TEXT

_Note._--The ordinary figures denote references to pages of
text; the illustrations, _which are referred to by their
figure numbers_, are denoted by the heavier type.

Acton, iron gate at, =269=

Adam, the brothers, 19, 21, 280, 381, 387

Adam, Robert, 280–85, 387–389

„ design for chimney-piece, =305=

„ illustrations of his work, =193=, =194=, =195=, =196=,
=197=, =198=, =315=, =316=, =317=, =318=, =319=

Addison, 3

Adelphi, The, 285

“Advice to Servants,” by Dean Swift, 115

Age of Romance, 23

Albemarle, Duke of, 180

„ House, 180, =118=

Allen, Ralph, 263–66

All Souls, Oxford, 143, 154, 176

„ drawings by Wren at, =99=, =100=, =101=, =102=,
=103=

Amelia, Princess, 231

Anne, Queen, 2

„ the mansion of her time, 5

“Arching galleries”, 171

Architect; the term seldom occurs prior to the seventeenth
century, 25

Architectural design, change in, 25

Artari, 255

“Art of Dialling”, 319

Art, utilitarian, 391

Artificiality in architecture, 3

Arundel, Earl of, 2, 42, 52

„ House, =21=

Ashburnham House, Westminster, the staircase, 118, =73=, =74=

Ashburnham, William, 118

Ashdown House, Berkshire, 97, =55=

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, staircase, 351, =277=

Aske’s Hospital, Hoxton, 180

Aston Hall, Warwickshire, 7, 8, 42, =2=

Astwell, Northamptonshire, gateway, 102, =59=

Aubrey, John, 63, 64, 65

Austen, Jane, 311

Avenues at Boughton, 200

Banqueting House, Whitehall, 6, 42, 43, 50, 52, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68,
73, 99, 162, =22=

„ „ Inigo Jones’s drawings for, 66, =36=, =37=

„ „ Smithson’s drawing, 66, =38=

„ „ Doorway, drawing by Jones, =86=

„ „ Window, drawing by Jones, =88=

Bakewell, Robert (Smith), 342

Barrow Gurney, Somerset, gateway, 329, =249=

Barry, Charles, 172

Basil, Simon, 46

Bath, Somerset, Milsom Street, 303, =211=

„ Pulteney Bridge, 267, =184=

„ Queen’s Square, Panels in house, 363, =289=

„ Ralph Allen’s house, 302, =214=

„ Royal Crescent, 268, =185=

Battle Abbey, Sussex, jamb of fireplace, =298=

Beaufort House, Chelsea, 324

Beckford, Alderman, 14

„ the younger, 17

Beckley, Sussex, Church House, 292, =202=

Bedford Square, London--
houses in, 307, =221=
chimney-piece, =318=

Belcombe, chimney-piece, =317=

Belton House, near Grantham, 157–160

„ plan, =105=

„ chapel, =96=

„ house, =104=

„ iron screen, =106=

„ carving, =107=

Bethlem Hospital, London, 180, =116=

Bignor, Sussex, chimney, =229=

Birmingham, lead rain-water head, =272=

Bishopsgate Street Without, London, ceiling, 386, =307=

Blaythwayt, William, 203

Blenheim Palace, 5, 152, 223, 224, 227, =155=

Blomfield, R., 216 (_footnote_)

Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire, 32, 33, =13=, =16=

Bond, Sir Thomas, 180

Books on Architecture, 2, 25–28, 212, 372

„ German, Dutch, and French, 28

Botolph Lane, London, house in, 185, =119=, =120=

Boughton House, Northamptonshire, 178, 196–203

„ plan, =132=

„ house, =133=, =134=

„ state room, =135=

„ bird’s-eye view, =136=

„ staircase, 352, =276=

„ panelling, 363, =286=

„ fireplace, 369, =294=

„ painted ceilings, 385, =310=, =311=

Bourdon House, London, doorway, 357, =284=

Bramham Park, Yorkshire, gardens, 232–236, =162=, =163=

Brasenose College, Oxford, 106, =63=, =64=

„ doorway, 127, =84=

Brettingham, Matthew, 276–278

Brewers’ Hall, London, 190, =125=, =126=

Bridge at Prior Park, =154=

„ at Bath, =184=

Bridport, Viscount, 387

Bristol, houses at, 307, =220=

British Museum, drawings at, 64, =19=

Broadfield Hall, Hertfordshire, 9, =3=

Brownlow, Sir John, 157

Buckingham (Villiers), Duke of, 60, 161

„ (Sheffield), Duke of, 168

„ House, London, 168, 171, 172, =113=, =113A=

„ „ staircase and ceiling, =308=

„ Street, Strand, doorway, =258=

Bulwick, Northamptonshire, date-stone, =235=

Burford, 43

„ Priory, 106, =62=

Burghley House, 385

„ Lord, 1, 212

Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, 176, 329, =245=

Burlington-Devonshire, drawings, 52, 64, 65 (_footnote_), 83
(_footnote_), =42=, =43=, =44=, =45=, =76=, =77=, =86–88=,
=91=, =92=, =93=, =94=, =240=, =241=

Burlington House, 216

„ Lord, 2, 63, 64, 214–216, 271

Burney, Frances, 3

Butleigh, Somerset, 84, 142

Byron, Lord, 21, 32

Cambridge, Magdalene College, Pepysian Library, 100, =56=

„ St John’s College, gate-piers, 325, =243=

„ Trinity Hall, cupola, 318, =233=

Campbell, Colin, 31, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 79, 80, 168, 171, 172,
176, 207, 240, 251–255

Campion, Thomas, 78

Can Court, Wiltshire, staircase, 122, =78=

Canons Ashby, Northamptonshire--
Gate-piers, 322, =238=
Gates, =239=
Ceiling, =312=

Canterbury, streets, 296

“Capability” Brown, 236

Carey Street, London, chimney-piece, =303=

Cariat (Coryat), Thomas, 44

Carlisle, Earl of, 216

Carr, of York, 271

Caryatides, 73

Castle Combe, Wiltshire, doorway, 333, =252=

Castle Howard, Yorkshire, 216–223, =149=, =150=, =151=, =152=

„ Mausoleum, 220, =153=

Castor, Northamptonshire, gate-piers, 329, =247=

Catherine Court, Tower Hill, London, =117=

Ceilings--
Seventeenth-century, 122, =31=, =34=, =54=, =74–77=, =112=, =120=
Eighteenth-century, 381, =144=, =174=, =180=, =283=, =288=, =306=,
=307=, =312–314=
Painted, 384, =293=, =308–311=

Chambers, Sir William, 274

Changes in house design, 99, 115, 117

Chapman, George, 78

Charles I., 7, 41, 66, 70, 87, 163

„ his influence on architecture, 41

Charles II., 10, 84, 141

„ his idea of rebuilding Whitehall Palace, 70

„ his interest in building, 142

Charleton, Dr., 50 (_footnote_), 52

Chatham, Lord, 231

Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, 204, 217, =140=

„ „ drawings at, 64, 66, =36=, =37=, =40=, =41=

Chelmsford, street, 296, =210=

Cheltenham, shop at, 304, =217=

Cheron, 198, 384

Chesterfield, Lord, 214

Chimneys, 314, =229=, =230=

Chimney-pieces--
Seventeenth-century, 138
By Inigo Jones, 138, =91=, =92=
By John Webb, =93=, =94=
In the Jerusalem Chamber, =90=
At Forde Abbey, =95=
Eighteenth-century, 377, =170=, =292=, =294=, =301=, =302=,
=303=, =304=, =305=

Chinese wall-papers, 364, =290=

Chipping Campden, The Martins, 339, =261=

Chirurgeons’ Theatre, London, 50, 52

Chiswick, Lord Burlington’s Villa, 214, =148=

“Chorea Gigantum”, 50 (_footnote_)

Christ Church, Oxford, 45

„ Tom Tower, 145

Christian IV. of Denmark, 45

Church Langton, Leicestershire, rectory, 294, =207=

Cirencester, shop at, 304, =216=

City churches, 13

Civil War, The, 2, 10

Clarendon, Earl of, 180

Clarke, Dr., of All Souls, Oxford, 63, 64

Cliefden House, Buckinghamshire, 168, 172, =114=

Coke, Rev. D’Ewes, 32

Coke, Thomas, Earl of Leicester, 274

Coke, Thomas, Earl of Leicester, killed in a duel, 276

Coleshill, Berkshire, 54–58, 88

„ plan, =28=

„ elevation, =29=

„ staircase, =30=

„ ceiling, =31=

„ gate-piers, 324, =242=

College Hill, London, house in, 185, =121=

Combe Abbey, 171

Comfort in houses, 5

Coniers, Sir John, 227

Cooke, “My ladye Cooke’s House”, 36, =18=

Coryat, Thomas, 44

Cottesbrooke, Northamptonshire, 178

„ ceiling, 386, =313=

“Counsel and Advice to all Builders,” by Gerbier, 161

Covent Garden Piazza, 50, =24=

„ St Paul’s Church, 48, 52, =23=

Cowper, 3

Craftsmen, English, are skilful, 389

Crane, Sir Francis, 176, 367

Craven, William Lord, 164

Croom’s Hill, Greenwich, garden house, 236, =161=

Cunningham, Peter, his “Life of Inigo Jones”, 45 (_footnote_),
50 (_footnote_), 60 (_footnote_)

Cupolas, 316, =5=, =29=, =51=, =55=, =104=, =106=, =118=, =231–234=

Dacres, Lord, 216

Dance, George, 307

Daniell, Samuel, 78

Date-stones, 318, =235=, =236=

D’Avenant, 87

Davies, Robert (Smith), 345 (_footnote_)

Dawtrey Mansion, Petworth, Sussex, staircase, 124, =79=

Deanery at Wells, panelling, 193, =128=

„ „ chimney-piece, 379, =302=

Dean Street, Soho, London, house in, 251, =171=

Decline of fancy in design, 313

Deene, Northamptonshire, the “Seahorse”, 291, =205=

De L’Orme, 28, 73

Denham Place, Buckinghamshire, staircase, 355, =280=

„ panelling, 359, =287=

Denham, Sir John, 69, 70, 84, 87, 141, 144, 212

Denmark House, chapel at, 50

Design follows two paths, 99, 391

Designs of Inigo Jones. _See under_ Jones, Inigo.

Devonshire, Dukes of, 64, 204

Doorways, seventeenth-century, 126

„ exterior, =13=, =21=, =35=, =58=, =59=, =84=

„ interior, =48=, =83=, =85=, =86=, =87=, =89=, =124=,
=126=, =129=, =130=

„ eighteenth-century--exterior, 333–339, =196=, =197=,
=252–259=

„ interior, =282–285=

Dorking, shop at, 305, =219=

Double cube rooms, 58

Drayton, Leicestershire, date-stone, =235=

Drayton House, Northamptonshire, chimney-piece, 97, 138, =94=

„ gardens, 236, =159=, =160=

Dryden, 60

Du Cerceau, 28

Dunkirk House, 180

Dunstable, street, 296

Durham House, 97, 115

Dyrham, Gloucestershire, 203, 204, 373

„ plan, =138=

„ house, =137=

„ dining-room, =139=

Easton Neston, Northamptonshire, 178, 207–210

„ plan, =142=

„ house, =141=

„ interiors, =143=, =144=

Edney, William (smith), 342

Elizabethan houses, 1, 5, 56

„ „ still habitable, 3

Ely, Cambridgeshire, house at, 294, =206=

Emmett, William, of Bromley, 64, 65, 66

Entrances to houses, 319

Erectheus, Temple of, 311

Evelyn, John, 2, 70, 142, 180

„ quoted, 27, 167 (_footnote_)

Extinguishers near doors, 333

Ferguson, 274

Fielding’s “Tom Jones”, 266

Finsbury Circus, London, house in, 311, =225=

Finsbury Square, London, houses in, 307, =222=

Fire-backs, 370, =296=

„ basket, 370, =297=

„ dogs, 370, =295=, =296=

„ grates, =299=, =300=

„ places, 369, 375

„ jamb of, =298=

Fitzwilliam, Earl of, 258, 260

Flaxman, design for a chimney-piece, =304=

Flitcroft, Henry, 258–260

“Florimene,” a pastoral, 87

Fonthill Abbey, sale at, 17

„ House, Wiltshire, 14, 17, =9=

Ford Abbey, Dorset, chimney-piece, 138, =95=

Fournier Street, London, doorways, =257=

Frogley, R. (carpenter), 145

Furniture of houses in 1720, 375

Gables, 99

Gammon, Richard, 60

Ganymede, 19

Gardens, 229–236, =108=, =136=, =156–162=

„ at Boughton, 200

Garrick, 3

Gates and gateways, 322–331, =21=, =35=, =46=, =50=, =59=, =110=,
=111=, =238=, =239=, =241–251=

Georgian Houses, 237

„ accommodation in the smaller, 287

Gerbier, Sir Balthazar, 60, 161–163, 168

Gibbs, James, 31, 178, 243–251

„ drawings by, =164–170=

Girdlers’ Hall, London, 191, =127=

Gloucester, house in Eastgate, 307

„ „ Southgate, 109, =65=

Godmersham Park, Kent, doorway, 356, =282=

Goodridge, H. E., of Bath, 265

Gothic revival, 20, 23

Grainger, of Newcastle, 282

Grecian temples in English gardens, 311

Greek influence, 21

Greenwich Hospital (formerly Palace), 150, =98=

Greenwich Palace--
King Charles’s Block, 52, 64, 65, 83, 168, =45=
Ceiling, =77=
Door, =87=
Queen’s house at Greenwich, 43, 50, 52
Plan, =25=
View, =26=
Elevation, =27=
Chimney-pieces by Inigo Jones, =91=, =92=

Greenwich Old Palace, staircase, 126, =82=, =83=

Gresham College, London, 143

Grinling Gibbons, 160, 189, 207, 357, 381

Gwydyr House, Whitehall, 20, =11=

Hagley, Worcestershire, 231

Hakewill, 91

Hall, the great, 6, 7

„ of eighteenth-century houses, 351

Ham House, Surrey, staircase, 126, =80=

Hampton Court, 13, 70, 150, 154, =6=

„ gate-pier, =244=

„ iron screen, =262=

„ iron balustrade, =264=

„ fire-dogs, 295

„ staircase and ceiling, =309=

Hamstead Marshall, Berkshire, 163–168, 324, =108=, =112=

Hanbury Hall, near Droitwich, 13, =5=

Harewood House, doorway, =316=

Harley Street, London, 386

Hatton, 1

Hawes, Francis, his inventory, 372, 375

Hawksmoor, Nicholas, 207–212, 220

Hengrave Hall, 275

Henry, Prince of Orange, 164

„ „ Wales, 45, 46

Hercules, 19

High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, sundial, 318, =234=

Hinderskelf, Castle of, 216

Hogarth, 251

Holdenby House, 167

Holkham, Norfolk, 178, 271–275

„ „ plan, =188=

„ „ view, =189=

Holt, near Bradford-on-Avon, 291, =201=

Homes, English, 1

Homes of great nobles, 2

Honington Hall, Warwickshire, doorway and ceiling, 357, =283=

Hooke, Robert, 178

Horse Guards, The, Whitehall, 276, =190=

Houghton, Norfolk, 178, 251–256, 351

„ „ plan, =172=

„ „ views, =173–178=

Houses in towns, 299–313

Hyde, Lord Chancellor, 180

Ince Blundell, Lancashire, The Lion Lodge, 329, =246=

Inigo Jones. _See_ Jones, Inigo.

Inventory of house furniture in 1720, 372

Ipswich, houses at, 111, =66=

Ironwork, 299, 339–345, =212=, =213=, =262–266=, =268–271=

Isham, Sir Justinian, 93, 95

Italian influence and inspiration, 1, 2, 6, 27, 36

Jackson, John, 109

James I., 3, 45, 66

Jeffreys, Judge, 13

Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster, chimney-piece, 136, =90=

Johnson, Dr., on Kedleston Hall, 278

Jones, Inigo, 2, 6, 7, 13, 20, 31, 33, 40, 41–61, 64, 82, 83, 84,
99, 117, 118, 122, 126, 129, 132, 136, 138, 142, 143, 146, 161,
162, 176

Jones, Inigo--
his designs for masques, 39, 45
employed to purchase pictures, 42
his birth, 44
visits to Italy, 45, 46
his sketch-book at Chatsworth, 45, 46
his annotated copy of Palladio, 45
work attributed to him, 46–50
“the Vitruvius of his age”, 52
his death and will, 60
Kent’s “Designs of Inigo Jones”, 56, 63, 64, 68, 80, 82, 87, 153,
212, 216, 237–240, 243, 260, 278, 377
“Designs of Inigo Jones,” compared with earlier designs, 82
designs for scenery, 64
drawings attributed to him, 65
Jones and the designs for the Palace at Whitehall, 63–80
“Designs for Whitehall”, 68
drawings by him, 77 (_footnote_), 79
Jones as scene-painter, 79
as surveyor, 79
drawings by Jones--
Banqueting House, =36=, =37=
elevations of a house, =42=
drawing for a masque, =43=
ceiling at Wilton, =75=
door at the Banqueting House, =86=
window at the same, =88=
chimney-pieces, =91=, =92=
clock turret at Whitehall, =232=
Temple Bar, =240=
gateway, =241=
plan of Stoke Bruerne, =115=

Jonson, Ben, 78, 79

Kedleston, Derbyshire, 178, 271, 278–280

„ „ plan, =191=

„ „ Hall, =192=

„ „ furniture at, 280

„ „ drawing-room, 389, =319=

Keith, Admiral Lord, 387

Keith, W. Grant, 77 (_footnote_), 87 (_footnote_)

Kelmarsh Hall, 178

Kennington Common, 311

Kennington Park Road, London, houses in, 311, =226=, =227=

Kent, William, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 138, 229, 255, 256, 271–278

Kew Palace, fire-grates, =299=, =300=

Kimbolton Castle, 224, 227

King’s Lynn, 296, =209=

Kingston, Castle Inn, staircase, 125, =81=

King’s Weston, Somerset, 13, 14, =7=

„ „ staircase, 352, =275=

Kip or Kyp, “Britannia Illustrata”, 164, 236

Kirby Hall, Northamptonshire, chimney and dormer window, =230=

Laguerre, 384, 385

Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire, 93, =52=

Landor, Walter Savage, 301

Langley, B. and T., 26 (_footnote_)

Lanscroon, 384

Laud, Archbishop, 127

Lead cisterns, =267=, =274=

Lead work, 345, 349, =267=, =274=

Lectures on Architecture in the Seventeenth Century, 163

Leicester, Earl of, 274, 275

Leicester, Lady, 275

Lempster, William, Lord, 207

Le Nôtre, 216

Lenthall, Speaker, 106

Leoni, 229

Leyton Great House, Essex, 185, =122=

Lewes, Sussex, house in the High Street, 314, =228=

Lincoln’s Inn Fields, staircase at No. 35, 356, =281=

Lisle, Dame Alice, 13

London Houses, 181, 307–311

„ plan, =223=

London suburbs, 313

Louvre, The, 74

Lysicrates, Choragic Monument of, 311

Magdalene College, Cambridge, 100, =56=

Malton, Earl of, 258

Mansfield Street, London, staircase, =315=

Market Harborough, Sign of Inn at, =212=

Mark Lane, London, doorway, 333, =254=

Marlborough, Duchess of, 150

„ town, 296

Masques, 45 (_footnote_), 78

„ drawing by Inigo Jones, 77, =43=

Mediæval houses, plan of, 115

„ traditions, decline of, 20

Melbourne, Derbyshire, gardens, 236

Melton Constable, Norfolk, 193, =131=

„ staircase, 354, =279=

Meopham, Kent, chimney, =229=

Middle Ages, vaulted rooms of the, 3

Milton, 10

Montagu, Duke of, 178, 196, 369

„ House, 178

Montague, Lady Mary Wortley, 216, 364

Mortlake, factory of tapestry, 367

Moulton, Northamptonshire, date-stone, =235=

Movable scenery, design of the, first, 87 (_footnote_)

Moyles Court, Hampshire, 10, =4=

Names of rooms on plans by, Thorpe and Webb, 115

Napoleon, 21

Nash, Beau, 266

Neville Holt, Leicestershire, The Stables, 316, =231=

Newcastle House, 168, 171

Newcastle, Earls and Dukes of, 32

Newmarket, royal house at, 50

Nixon, Alderman John, 111

„ his grammar school, at Oxford, 111, =67=

Normanton Park, Rutland, 17, =10=

Northampton, ceiling in Courts, of Justice, 381, =306=

Northleach, 43

Northumberland House, chimney-piece, 97

Norwich, doorways, =256=

Oliver, Mr., City Surveyor, 63, 64

Oundle, doorway, 333, =253=

Ormond, Duke of, 180

Osborne, Dorothy, 95

Oxford, house in the High St., 291, =203=

„ house in St. Giles, 291, =200=
(See also All Souls College, Ashmolean Museum, Brasenose College
Chapel, Christ Church, Nixon’s Grammar School, Sheldonian
Theatre, St. John’s College, Trinity College, Worcester
College.)

Paine, James, 271, 278, 280

Palladio, 83

Panelling, 136, 360

Paul’s Cathedral, St., London, 13, 48, 63, 101, 142, 145–149

„ „ model by Wren, =97=

Paul’s, St., Covent Garden, 48, 52, =23=

Penshurst, Kent, fire-basket, =297=

Pepys, 2, 100, 180

Pepysian Library, Cambridge, 100, =56=

“Persians”, 73

Petersham, Surrey, house at, 294, =208=

Philibert de l’Orme, 28

Physicians’ College, 97

Piddletown, Dorset, vicarage, 291, =199=

Pitt, William, 387

Pope, 5, 227, 243

Porches, open, 89

Powell, Sir Edward, 118

Powis Castle, Monmouth, tapestry room, =293=

Powis House. _See_ Newcastle House.

Powis, Marquis of, 171

Pratt, Roger, 180, and Appendix, 395–398

Price, Dr. George, chimney-piece for, 138, =93=

Prior Park, Bath, bridge, 220, =154=

„ „ house, 260–266, =182=, =183=, 351

Proportion in architecture, 80

Puget, architect, 178

Pugin, 20, 311

Pulteney Bridge, Bath, 267, =184=

Queen Anne, wife of James I., 45

Queen’s House at Greenwich. _See_ Greenwich.

Quenby Hall, Leicestershire, iron gateway, 344, =266=

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 1

Ramsay, Allan, 387

Ramsbury Manor, Wiltshire, 95, =53=, =54=

„ Chinese wall-paper, =290=

Raynham Park, Norfolk, 58

„ „ plan, =32=

„ „ view, =33=

Reddish Manor, Wiltshire, 268, =186=

Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 3, 14, 229

R.I.B.A. Collection of Drawings, 58–64, =42=, =44=, =45=

Rice, R. Garraway, 342 (_footnote_)

Ricci, 172

Ripley, 14, 271

Roads in Georgian times, 299

Robinson, Thomas (Smith), 342

Rockingham, Marquis of, 258

Rooms named on old plans, 115

Rubens, 60

Rundhurst, Sussex, gate-piers, 329, =248=

Rysbrach, 255

Saffron Walden, Essex, houses, 111, =68=, =69=

Salisbury, sign of an inn, =213=

„ gateway in the Close, =250=

„ staircase, 352, =278=

“Salmacida spolia”, 87

Sandby, Thomas, 7, 60, 74, FRONTISPIECE, FIG. =1=

Sanitary conveniences in Georgian houses, 288

Sappho, 21

Sash-windows introduced, 134

„ earliest example, 136

Scole, Norfolk, inn, 111, =72=

Scott (Sir Walter), 23

Seaton Delaval, Northumberland, 178, 224

Seckford Hall, Suffolk, doorway, =285=

Sedgemoor, 13

Serlio, 80

Shakespeare, 10, 25

Shardiloes House, design for chimney-piece, =305=

Shaw, Huntingdon (Smith), 342

Sheffield, “my lord’s house”, 34

„ Duke of Buckingham, 168

Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, 144

Sherborne, Gloucestershire, 43

Sherrard, Bennet, Lord, 191

Shops, 304, 305, =216=, =219=

Short survey of twenty-six counties in 1634, 43 (_footnote_)

Shrivenham, Berkshire, House, 294, =204=

“Siege of Rhodes”, 87

Silchester, Hampshire, chimney, =229=

Smithson, John, 7, 42, 168

„ „ his family, 31

„ „ his drawings, 32–40, 66, 77, =14=, =15=, =17=, =18=,
=20=, =21=, =38=

„ Robert, 31

„ Huntingdon, 31

Snaresbrook, Elm Hall, iron gates, =268=

Soane Museum, 31

Somerset House, 50

„ new wing, 105, =61=

South Molton, fireplace in Town Hall, 369, =292=

South Sea Company, 372

Spalato in Dalmatia, 280

Speculative builders, their influence on house design, 311

Spiers, Walter L., 31 (_footnote_)

St Catherine’s Court, Somerset, 236

St Cloud, 200

St James’s Palace, 58

„ „ chapel at, 50

„ Square, No. 32, 20, =12=

St. John’s College, Oxford--
doorway, 127, =85=
panelling, 136, =89=
rain-water heads, 345

St Lawrence Jewry, London, carving, 185, =123=, =124=

St Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, iron gates, 342, =265=

St John, Oliver, 88

Staircases of seventeenth century, 118, =73=, =78–83=

„ eighteenth century, 351, =275–281=, =308=, =309=

Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire, farmhouse, 113, =71=

Stanway House, Gloucestershire, doorway, 101, =58=

Stapleford Park, Leicestershire, 191, =129=, =130=

Starkie Gardner, 345 (_footnote_)

Stationers’ Hall, London, 191

„ „ doorway, 337, =259=

Stoke Bruerne, Northamptonshire, 176

Stoke Bruerne, Northamptonshire, plan, =115=

“Stone-Heng Restored”, 44, 50 (_footnote_)

Stoneleigh Abbey, Warwickshire--
iron gateway, 342, =263=
panelling, 363, =288=

Stone, Nicholas, 60

Stowe House, Buckinghamshire, 224

Stowe House, Buckinghamshire, gardens, 229–232, 276, =157=, =156=

Strafford, Earl of, 258

Stratford, near London, iron gate, =271=

Stratton Street, London, house, 310, =224=

Streets in towns, 296

Stuart, James, 387

Sturmer, Essex, chimney, =229=

Sundials, 318, =237=

Sutton Place, fire-back and dogs, =296=

Swakeleys, Middlesex, 102, =60=

Talman, architect, 203, 204

Talmash, Thomas, 126

Tapestry, 367, =291=, =293=

Temple Bar, design for, by Inigo Jones, 323, =240=

Temple, The, London, staircases, 351

Temple, Sir William, 95

Tenche, Sir Fisher, 185

Thornhill, Sir James, 385

Thorpe Hall, Northamptonshire, 88–91, 324

Thorpe Hall, Northamptonshire--
plan, =47=
views and details, =46=, =48–51=

Thorpe, John, 28, 31, 77, 115

„ plan of London houses, 310

Thrale, Mrs., 3

Tijou, Jean, 339, 340

Town houses of the gentry, 299

Town-planning on architectural lines, 267, 299, 301

Towns, growth of, 304

Townshend, Aurelian, 78

„ George, 275

Trellis-work to fronts of houses, 311, =225–227=

Trinity College, Oxford, 145

Triumphal arches by Gerbier, 162

Tuileries, plan for the palace, 73

Uffington, near Stamford, gate-pier, =251=

Vandike, Sir Anthony, 52

Vanbrugh, Sir John, 13, 19, 20, 150, 216–229

Vathek, 17

Vernon, Thomas, 13

Verrio, 199, 384, 385

Versailles, 196

Vignola, 163

Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, 60

“Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored,” by Webb, 45 (_footnote_),
48, 50 (_footnote_), 52 (_footnote_), 84

“Vitruvius Britannicus,” by Campbell, 64, 240–243

Wade, General, 214

Wall-papers, 364

„ Chinese, =290=

Walpole, Horace, 20, 31, 32, 161

„ his visit to Stowe, 231

„ Sir Robert, 251, 256

Wansford, Northamptonshire, chimney, =229=

Wanstead, 260

Ware, Isaac, 176, 271

Wareham, Dorset, shop at, 305, =218=

Warminster, Free School, 99, =57=

Warwick, streets, 296

„ Aylesford Hotel, 301, =215=

„ lead rain-water head, =273=

Watson, Samuel, of Heanor, 207

Webb, John, 2, 7, 31, 45 (_footnote_), 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 60, 63,
64, 65, 68, 101, 141, 176

„ commissioned to acquire works of art, 42

„ his petition to Charles II., 69, 70

„ brief attached to same, 84

„ designed the Palace at Whitehall by command of
Charles I., 70

„ design for a house by him, =44=

„ his own work, 83–97

„ “Inigo Jones’s man”, 83, 87

„ designs for masques, 87

„ drawings by him, for new wing, Somerset House, =61=

„ ceiling at Wilton, =76=

„ ceiling at Greenwich, =77=

„ door at Greenwich, =87=

„ chimney-pieces, =93=, =94=

„ hall or public room, =145=

Webb, William, 63, 64

Welbeck, 32

„ riding-house, 33, =20=

Wells, Deanery, 193, =128=

„ chimney-piece, 379, =302=

Wentworth Castle, Yorkshire, 258

„ Woodhouse, Yorkshire, 256–260, =179=, =181=

Westminster, dormitory at, 216

Whitehall Palace, 7, 39, 42, 52, 154, 162, 168

„ “Designs for Whitehall”, 64, 68

„ drawings for, 65 (_footnote_)

„ designs for the Palace, 63–80, =1=, =19=, =39–41=

„ by Wren, =103=

„ clockhouse by Inigo Jones, =232=

Widcombe Manor House, near Bath, 268, =187=

Wilkins, Dr., 143

William and Mary, 2

Williams, John, Bishop of Lincoln, 136

Willis, Professor, 100

Wilton, Wiltshire, 58, 97, 220, =34=

„ „ ceilings, 118, 122, =75=, =76=

Wimpole Street, London, ceiling, =314=

Winchester, chimney-piece, =301=

„ palace at, 142

Winde, Wine, or Wynne, Capt. _See_ Wynne.

Windows of seventeenth century, 129

Windsor Castle, 385

„ sash-window, 136

Witney, Oxfordshire, school at, 113, =70=

Wollaton, 31

Wolterton Hall, Norfolk, 14, =8=

Woodford Road, London, iron gate, =270=

Wood, John, of Bath, 260–268

Worcester College, Oxford, drawings at, 52, 58, 63, 64, 65, 68

Workmen and books, 27

Working men’s dwellings, 389

Wren, Sir Christopher, 13, 20, 31, 61, 101, 108, 141–160, 176, 178,
189

„ „ drawings at All Souls College, 145, 154, 176

„ „ designs for houses, =99=, =102=

„ „ for palace at Whitehall, =103=

Wren, Dr. Christopher, 143

„ Matthew, Bishop of Ely, 143

Wrest, Bedfordshire, gardens, 236, =158=

Wynne, Captain, 163, 168

„ „ drawings by, 171 (_footnote_), =109=, =110=, =112=

Yarmouth, lay out of streets, 296

„ porch at, 337, =260=

York, streets in, 296

„ Assembly Rooms, 214, =146=, =147=

„ doorway, 333, =255=

York House, London, 60, 161

„ „ water-gate, 60, 322

„ „ FRONTISPIECE, =35=

_Printed in Great Britain at_ THE DARIEN PRESS,
_Edinburgh_

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The publication of “Gothic Architecture, Improved by Rules and
Proportions,” by B. and T. Langley, in 1742, does not invalidate
this statement, for the illustrations are intended to show how a
kind of Gothic detail might be applied to a kind of classic “order.”
The “Historical Dissertation on Gothic Architecture,” attached by
way of introduction, is absolutely negligible in the light of modern
knowledge, and could have helped nobody to a comprehension of the
subject.

[2] Evelyn’s “Account of Architects and Architecture.”

[3] See a communication from Mr. Walter L. Spiers to the _Journal of the
Royal Institute of British Architects_, 10th Dec. 1908, where a short
pedigree is given.

[4] “As appears by his name over the gate.”

[5] It was, however, John Smithson’s son, Huntingdon, who died in 1648.
John Smithson died in 1634.

[6] “A Relation of a Short Survey of 26 Counties observed in a
seven weekes Journey begun on August 11, 1634, by a _Captain_, a
_Lieutenant_, and an _Ancient_.”

[7] “Lives of the British Architects,” by E. Beresford Chancellor.

[8] It is true that his spelling, especially that of the notes in his
sketch-book, is eccentric, even for those days.

[9] “Cal. State Papers, Domestic,” Sept. 2, 1611.

[10] John Webb, in his “Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored” (1725), p.
119, says he resided “many years” in Italy, especially at Venice. This
refers to his first visit. He was back in England before Twelfth Night,
1605, as he designed the “Masque of Blackness,” which was produced on
that day. (See Peter Cunningham’s “Life of Inigo Jones.”)

[11] Peter Cunningham’s “Life of Inigo Jones,” p. 6.

[12] “Cal. State Papers, Domestic,” April 27, 1613.

[13] “A Vindication of Stone-Heng Restored,” p. 27. All this work was
destroyed in the great fire. The loss of the portico was considered a
national misfortune.

[14] “A Vindication,” p. 36. This work has been much altered.

[15] Destroyed.

[16] “A Vindication,” p. 119.

[17] Kennet, in Wood’s “Ath. Ox.,” by Bliss, iii. 806; quoted in Peter
Cunningham’s “Inigo Jones.”

[18] In the year 1620, King James I., being at Wilton on one of his
progresses, sent for Inigo Jones, and instructed him to produce out of
his own practice in architecture and experience in antiquities abroad,
what he could discover about Stonehenge. The “few undigested notes”
which Jones made were amplified by John Webb and published by him as
“Stone-Heng Restored” in 1655. They went to show that Stonehenge was
a Roman temple. A Dr. Charleton attacked this conclusion in a pamphlet
called “Chorea Gigantum,” whereupon Webb retaliated in his “Vindication
of Stone-Heng Restored.” From the antiquarian point of view the
controversy is of no value, but it is interesting because of the
references to Inigo Jones.

[19] Webb’s “Vindication,” p. 11. It would seem that Vandyke is here
quoted as using the phrase “designing with his pen,” and not (as
biographers have freely supposed) as having given Jones a certificate
of ability.

[20] In the collection at the Royal Institute of British Architects.

[21] See Appendix II.

[22] See p. 69.

[23] “London Past and Present,” by Wheatley and Cunningham.

[24] Peter Cunningham’s “Life,” where it is stated that the register of
St Bennet’s records his burial on the 26th June.

[25] Peter Cunningham’s “Inigo Jones,” p. 39.

[26] John Aubrey’s “Brief Lives,” ed. by Andrew Clark. Oxford, 1898,
vol. ii. 10.

[27] One of this series is illustrated in Fig. 39.

[28] Those who desire to pursue the subject more fully are referred
to two papers by the author--“The Burlington-Devonshire Drawings,”
in the _Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects_, Third
Series, vol. xviii., No. 10, and “The Original Drawings for the Palace
at Whitehall, attributed to Inigo Jones,” _Architectural Review_, June
1912.

[29] “State Papers, Domestic: Charles II.,” vol. v., Nos. 74, 74, I.

[30] It is the version published by Kent which is here dealt with, as
being the best known.

[31] In an article by Mr. W. Grant Keith, published in the _Burlington
Magazine_ of January 1913, are given some reproductions of half a dozen
drawings by Inigo Jones, which are among the most carefully finished
specimens of his handiwork that survive. They include a ceiling for
Wilton, 1649, and some decorative work at Oatlands Palace in Surrey.

[32] Mostly preserved at Chatsworth; there are also a few at the
British Museum.

[33] It has not been found possible to illustrate this scene, as was
intended, owing to the war having rendered the drawings at Chatsworth
inaccessible for the time being.

[34] “Cal. State Papers, Domestic,” xcv. 12.

[35] Horace Walpole’s “Anecdotes of Painting.”

[36] See the article on the Burlington-Devonshire Drawings in the
_Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects_, Third Series,
vol. xviii., No. 10.

[37] Vol. vi. p. 129, printed in full in Peter Cunningham’s “Life of
Inigo Jones,” p. 48.

[38] “The Designs for the First Movable Scenery on the English Public
Stage,” by William Grant Keith, in _The Burlington Magazine_, Nos.
cxxxiii. and cxxxiv., April and May 1914, where reproductions of Webb’s
drawings are given.

[39] “Thorpe Hall,” by A. W. Hakewill, 1852.

[40] Neal, in his “Seats,” says it was designed by Webb; and although
he quotes no authority he must have had some reason for the statement.

[41] Willis and Clarke’s “Architectural History of the University of
Cambridge,” ii. 366.

[42] “The Old Colleges of Oxford,” by Aymer Vallance, p. 62.

[43] Illustrated in “Early Renaissance Architecture in England,” by the
present author (Batsford).

[44] “Ashburnham House and the Precincts of Westminster Abbey,” by
Harry Sirr, _Journal of the R.I.B.A._, 8th January 1910.

[45] “Windsor Castle,” by Sir W. H. St John Hope, p. 329.

[46] It was perhaps Pierre le Muet whose work most influenced Wren.

[47] “Lives of the British Architects,” by E. Beresford Chancellor, p.
79.

[48] Walpole’s “Anecdotes of Painting.”

[49] Collins’s “Peerage.”

[50] This conjecture is strengthened by a reference of Evelyn’s, who
notes that in going from Reading to Marlborough in June 1654 he saw “my
Lord Craven’s house at Causam now in ruines, his goodly woods felling
by the rebels.”

[51] “Vit. Brit.,” i. 43, 44.

[52] The curious volume of original drawings by Wynne, which is
preserved at the Bodleian Library, and from which the illustrations
109, 110, and 112 are reproduced, also contains drawings for work at
Combe Abbey; it would appear, therefore, that Wynne was the architect
employed both there and at Hamstead Marshall.

[53] Wheatley and Cunningham’s “London, Past and Present.”

[54] “Vit. Brit,” i. 44.

[55] “Journey through England” (1722), by J. Mackay, quoted in “London,
Past and Present.”

[56] Bridges’ “History of Northamptonshire,” vol. i. p. 328.

[57] The curious can compare the appearance of the old house with what
Gibbs put in its place by referring to the plates in Bridges’ “History
of Northamptonshire”; whether the newer design was an improvement,
either in appearance or convenience, is open to question.

[58] But see Appendix I., p. 395.

[59] See “The Great House, Leyton,” by Edwin Gunn, published by the
Committee for the Survey of the Memorials of Greater London, 1903.

[60] Collins’s “Peerage,” 1741 ed., i. 334.

[61] An excellent annotated catalogue of the pictures has been prepared
by Mr. C. H. Scott and privately printed. The Boughton estates passed
to the Dukes of Buccleuch (Montagu-Douglas-Scott) by marriage with an
heiress of the Montagus.

[62] It was begun in 1687 and finished in 1706.

[63] Bridges’ “History of Northamptonshire,” i. 289, repeated by Baker
in his history of the same county, ii. 144.

[64] Baker, _ut supra_.

[65] Mr. R. Blomfield’s “History of Renaissance Architecture in
England,” p. 224.

[66] “Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne,” edited from the papers
at Kimbolton, by the Duke of Manchester, London, 1864, p. 56.

[67] “Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne,” 1864, p. 227.

[68] Letter to George Montagu, 7th July 1770; also to H. S. Conway,
12th July 1770.

[69] “Vitruvius Britannicus,” ii., pl. 81, 82.

[70] The first series, in three volumes, is here referred to.

[71] “Vitruvius Britannicus,” iii, pl. 27–34.

[72] Collins’s “Peerage.”

[73] Walpole, “Anecdotes.”

[74] “Treatise on Architecture.”

[75] Ferguson’s “History of Architecture,” Book IV., 1873 ed., p. 328.

[76] “Memoirs of a Royal Chaplain,” by Albert Hartsborne, pp. 318–320.

[77] See an article on Holkham by M. Jourdain, “Interiors of English
Mansions,” in the _Art Journal_ of July 1911, and Lenygon’s “Decoration
in England” and “Furniture in England” (1660–1790), 2 vols. (Batsford).

[78] Mr. Percy Fitzgerald, M.A., F.S.A., in his “Robert Adam.”

[79] A Latinised version of the Greek word for “Brothers.”

[80] “London Past and Present.”

[81] From a description by Cole, quoted in Willis and Clark’s
“Architectural History of the University of Cambridge.”

[82] London in the eighteenth century was even darker than it has been
since the lighting has been minimised as a protection against air-raids.

[83] See two articles on Huntingdon Shaw by R. Garraway Rice, F.S.A.,
in the _Archæological Journal_, June 1895, and the _Home Counties
Magazine_, January 1902, vol. iv., No. 13.

[84] See “English Ironwork of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries,” by J.
Starkie Gardner. (Batsford.)

[85] This work is attributed by Mr. Starkie Gardner to a skilful smith
named Robert Davies.

[86] See “Tapestry Weaving in England,” by W. G. Thomson. (Batsford.)

[87] “Guide to an Exhibition of Tapestries, Carpets, and Furniture,
lent by the Earl of Dalkeith to the Victoria and Albert Museum,” by A.
F. K., 1914.

Transcriber’s Note:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.

2. Where appropriate, original spelling has been retained.

3. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. D^r.
or X^{xx}.

4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.

5. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.

6. In the Note at the beginning of the Index, some words are
underlined. For the purpose of this work, these words have been
shown as written in italics, to emphasize them.

7. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The English Home from Charles I. to George IV.: Its Architecture, Decoration and Garden Design" ***

Home