Chapter II: Part 2

It is quite clear therefore that Gibbert was right in his contention, and that the premises extending from Little Queen Street up to and including _The Falcon_ had had their origin in the house of Green and the cottage of Roberts, which had first been officially noticed in 1592. There is also evidence (see below) that the land included in the grant reached as far east as Little Turnstile.

With the above information it is possible to date the interesting plan (Plate 2) appended by the surveyors to their report. It will be apparent that this has almost exclusive reference to the property granted to Angell and Walker in 1609. Thus, there are shown the four cottages by the White Hart, opposite the Pale Pingle, the Pale Pingle itself, and the land extending from Little Turnstile to Little Queen Street, including Green’s premises, the only building which in the royal grant is dignified with the name of “house.” It is therefore suggested with confidence that the plan in question is a copy of the one appended to the grant of 1609. With this assumption the title “Queene streete,” given to the still unformed thoroughfare entering Purse Field is in entire accord.[64]

Immediately after or shortly before Lee’s purchase, additional buildings were erected, for on 11th December, 1610, he and Nicholas Hawley sold _The Falcon_ to William Woodward,[65] “with all yards, wayes, waste groundes, stables and appurtenances,” excepting, however, from the sale “four little houses, cottages or tenements latelie builded on the west side of the Falcon yarde.” Moreover, in 1612–13, the same vendors sold to William Lane, junior, one messuage, two cottages, two gardens, and a rood of land with appurtenances in the parish of St. Giles.[66] As in 1661 the property immediately to the west of Little Turnstile is described as “now or late” in the possession of Mistress Lane,[67] it is practically certain that the land sold in 1612 was identical therewith, and Hollar’s plan of 1658 (Plate 3), which shows the area fully built on, indicates the development which had taken place in the course of the half century.

Building on the remaining portion of the land had also greatly increased.[68] The survey of 1650 contains a detailed description of the property, giving much interesting information as to the building materials, arrangement of the rooms, outhouses, etc. The following is a list of the premises. In most cases there were garrets in addition to the storeys mentioned.

_The Falcon_ (2 storeys), and a house (3 storeys) in the rear. Frontage 15 feet. (Present No. 233.)

A house of three storeys. Frontage 33 feet. (Present No. 232 and site of New Turnstile.)

_The King’s Head_ Inn (3 storeys), with an addition (2 storeys), a gateway, a smith’s shop with room, stables, sadler’s house, tenement of 2 storeys, shed and coachhouses, houses of office. Frontage 54 feet. (Present Nos. 229–231.)

Two small tenements lying in front of _The King’s Head_ (3 storeys), a house (3 storeys), with small back addition. Frontage 19 feet.

A house (3 storeys), a garden with coach house and stable. Frontage 26 feet. (The site of these last two houses is now occupied by the Holborn Station of the Piccadilly tube railway.)

_The Gate_ Tavern (3 storeys.) Special mention is made of the “very faire and spacious dyneinge room, 38 feet in length,” on the first floor. A bowling alley and gardens were in the rear. Frontage 38 feet. The site is occupied partly by the Holborn station and partly by Kingsway.

A house of 3 storeys, with a garden containing a small tenement of 2 storeys. Frontage 16 feet.

A similar house, with a garden containing a “small decayed tenement.” Frontage 16 feet.

A tenement of 2 storeys, with a shop on the ground floor, a back addition of 2 storeys. In the garden behind were two small tenements of 2 storeys. Frontage 17½ feet. The site of the three last mentioned houses is now covered by Kingsway.

It will be seen from the above that New Turnstile was not included in the original scheme for building. It is not shown in Morden and Lea’s Map of 1682, nor in the map accompanying Hatton’s _New Guide to London_ of 1708, but appears in the sewer rate book for 1723.

XXVI.—NO. 211, HIGH HOLBORN (DEMOLISHED).

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.

It is very difficult to say when the south side of High Holborn, between the sites of Kingsway and the Holborn Public Library, was first built upon. Perhaps, even in Elizabeth’s reign, there were some scattered buildings here, but certainly nothing like a continuous line of houses. There seem to have been no building operations on a large scale, until after the acquisition of the lease of Purse Field by Sir Charles Cornwallis, in 1613.[69] Cornwallis sub-leased certain portions of the Holborn frontage, extending south to the site of Parker Street, and on these portions houses had been erected before 1650. No records of the sub-leases have been found, but a part at least of the frontage to Holborn had been sub-leased before 1634. Two years previously Charles I. had confirmed a grant, made by his father to Trinity College, of six markets and twelve fairs for the building of their hall. The college sold to Henry Darell two markets and three fairs, and in August, 1634, the latter petitioned to be allowed to set these up in St. Giles on His Majesty’s inheritance.[70] This was granted on 15th December, 1634, a writ of _Ad Quod Damnum_ issued, and on 10th March, 1634–5, an inquisition by a jury was held, from which it appears that the proposal was to hold the markets and fairs “in locis vocatis le pightells et Pursfeild.”[71] The project aroused keen opposition on the part of the Corporation of the City of London,[72] and in spite of its revival in 1637,[73] was eventually abandoned.

It is possible to identify the site of the proposed market, inasmuch as in 1650 the frontage to Holborn between Little Queen Street and Newton Street consisted of two “ranges” of buildings known as Shenton’s tenements and Dayrell’s buildings, and it is clear that the latter represent Henry Darell’s proposed market. Darell no doubt had already obtained his lease before applying for a grant for a market, but no houses would have been erected until after the failure of his scheme. It is known[74] that one of his plots were let on a building lease on 23rd November, 1639. The erection of buildings on this part of the Holborn frontage may therefore be assigned provisionally to the year 1640.

Shenton’s tenements consisted of six houses in High Holborn and five in Little Queen Street, extending 100 feet along the former and 115½ feet along the latter thoroughfare. Their site is therefore wholly covered by the Holborn Restaurant.

The largest house, then in occupation of Mrs. Shenton herself, was the next but one to the corner, and is described in the survey of 1650 as “all that tenement built as aforesaid[75] ... consistinge of one kitchen, one hall, and one small larder, and adjoyninge one backside and one garden, with severall necessary houses therein built and standinge. And above stayres in the first story, one dyneinge roome with a balcony there, and one chamber and a closett there. And above stayres in the second story, two chambers with a closett there and two handsome garret roomes over the same.”

Dayrell’s buildings consisted of twelve houses in High Holborn, and five in Newton Street, and covered an area of 186 feet by 122 feet. They were, on the whole, much superior to Shenton’s tenements. The westernmost and largest house is described as “All y^t spacious brick buildinge ... built with brick in a comely shape and very reguler, and consistinge of 5 stepps in ascent leadinge into an entry leadinge into a faire hall and parlour w^{th} sellers underneath the same, divided very comodiously into a kitchen, a buttery and a larder. And above staires in the first story a very faire dyneinge roome well floored, seeled and lighted w^{th} a belcony there on the streete side alsoe, w^{th} said roome is very well adorned and set fourth w^{th} a faire chimney peice and frames all of black marble, and on the same floore backwards one other faire chamber. And in the second story two faire chambers and a closett in one of them. And in the 3rd story two more faire chambers and a closett there, and over the same two faire garretes. Alsoe adjoyninge to the same one garden.”

The houses appear to have been of different sizes, for their rentals varied greatly, and this, combined with the fact that in subsequent rebuilding nine houses took the place of the original twelve in High Holborn, makes it impossible to identify the house which originally occupied the site of No. 211.

The house was perhaps rebuilt in the latter part of the 17th century.[76] A further rebuilding (perhaps the third) seems to have taken place in 1815, when the premises were re-leased by the Crown.[77]

Plate 8 shows an interesting shop front. The ornamental iron guards to the first floor windows are good specimens of wrought iron work.

The house was demolished in 1910.

IN THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION IS:—

[78]Shop front (photograph).

XXVII.—SMART’S BUILDINGS AND GOLDSMITH STREET.

At the time of the survey of 1650 Newton Street (_i.e._, the old Newton Street, north of the stream which crossed it where Macklin Street now joins, and separated it from Cross Lane), was fully built, and the remaining frontage of Purse Field to Holborn, between Newton Street and the site of the Holborn Public Library, was apparently occupied by nine houses, held by Thomas Farmer and Henry Alsopp, to whom Francis Cornwallis had assigned his lease so far as concerned that part of the field.

The yard, formerly Green Dragon Yard, at the side of the Holborn Public Library, marks the site of the ancient stream which formed the western boundary of Purse Field. The stream seems to have remained open in this part of its course until about 1650, as a deed dated 7th November in that year,[79] in view of the fact that Thomas Vaughan and his wife Elinor “are to be att greate cost and charges in the arching or otherwise covering over the sewer or wydraught under mencioned, by meanes whereof the inhabitants there adjacent shall not be annoyed as formerly they were thereby, as for divers other good considerations them hereunto moving,” provides that the said sewer “as the same is now severed, sett out and fenced, scituate ... on the backside of a messuage of the said Thomas Vaughan commonly called ... by the name or signe of _The Greene Dragon_” shall be demised to the Vaughans.

The land immediately to the west of the yard in question originally formed part of Rose Field, and was probably developed at the same time as the rest of that estate. In 1650, William Short, the owner of Rose Field, in conjunction with John De La Chambre, sold to Thomas Grover 4 messuages, 12 cottages, 12 gardens and one rood of land with appurtenances, in St. Giles.[80] The precise position of this property is not mentioned, but there does not seem to be much doubt that the premises are identical with, or a portion of, those which Grover sold to Edmond Medlicott in 1666,[81] and which consisted of 16 houses in Holborn, including the “messuage commonly known by the name or signe of _The Harrow_,” and also the “lane or alley called Wild boare Alley _alias_ Harrow Alley, with all the severall messuages, tenements, edifices and void peice or plot of ground in the said alley.” The property is said to front upon Holborn on the north, and to have for its eastern boundary a way or passage leading from Holborn to the house and garden of Mr. Braithwait. The dimensions are given as: “In depth from north to south at the west end, one hundred fourscore and ten foote, and throughout the whole range and pile of buildings besides from north to south fower score and seven foote, and in breadth from east to west sixty and three foote.” The last figure is certainly wrong, for even if half of the sixteen houses in Holborn were lying behind the rest (as indeed was probably the case) this would only admit of an average frontage of 8 feet to a house. A probable emendation is “six score and three” which gives a 15 feet frontage to each house.

The land behind these premises, reached by the path along, and afterwards over, the stream, was leased by William Short in 1632 to Jeremiah Turpin for the remainder (20 years) of a term of 36 years,[82] and then consisted of garden ground upon which Turpin had recently built a house. It seems most probable that this[83] is the place referred to in the petition,[84] dated 17th June, 1630, of the inhabitants of High Holborn, calling attention to the fact that there was a dangerous and noisome passage between High Holborn and St. Giles Fields, by reason of a dead mud wall and certain old “housing,” which lately stood close to the same, where divers people had been murdered and robbed, and praying for leave for building to be erected thereon. In their report[85] on this petition, the Earls of Dorset and Carlisle refer to it as “concerning the building of Jeremy Turpin,” and recommend the granting of leave to build.

It may therefore be concluded that the house was built between 1630 and 1632. A full description[86] of the property as it was in 1640 is extant, and is interesting as giving an idea of the private gardens of that time. Reference is made, among other things, to the arbour formed of eight pine trees, the “sessamore” tree under the parlour window, 13 cherry trees against the brick wall on the east of the garden, 14 more round the grass plot, rows of gooseberry bushes, rose trees and “curran trees,” another arbour “set round about with sweete brier,” more cherry trees, pear, quince, plum and apple trees, a box plot planted with French and English flowers, six rosemary trees, one “apricock” tree and a mulberry tree.

The ground on which Smart’s Buildings and Goldsmith Street were erected at one time formed part of Bear Croft or Bear Close, so called, no doubt, because it was used as pasture land in connection with _The Bear_ inn, on the south side of Broad Street, St. Giles.[87]

At about 1570 there were, immediately to the south of the _White Hart_ property at the corner of Drury Lane, eight houses. The three most northerly abutted on the east upon “a close of grounde called the Bere Close, late belonging to Robert Wise, gentilman”[88]; while the five others, with the close itself (of 2½ acres) are described as “adjoynynge to the Quenes highe waye ... leadinge from Strande ... to thest end of the said towne of Saint Giles on the west parte, and abuttinge upon the close nowe our said soveraigne ladye the Quenes Majesties, called the Rose feilde, on thest and south partes, and abuttinge upon the messuage or tenemente nowe or late in the tenure of one William Braynsgrave,[89] and the tenement called _The White Harte_, late in the tenure ... of one Matthewe Bucke, and nowe in that of one Richarde Cockshoote, and the Quenes highe waye leadinge from Holborne towardes the est end of the said towne of Saint Gyles on the north part.”[90]

The boundary line between Bear Close and Rose Field is nowhere described. It is known, however,[91] that Rose Field reached as far north as the line bounding the rear of the buildings in Macklin Street, and there is reason to believe that this line marks the actual division between the two fields. As regards the eastern boundary a line starting from High Holborn between No. 191 and No. 192[92] and running along the western side of the southerly spur of Goldsmith Street, seems to fulfil all the conditions. It is not known what was the depth of the eight houses and gardens fringing Bear Close on the west, but allowing 60 feet, the area of Bear Close, defined as above, amounts to two acres. It is hardly possible, therefore, to limit its boundaries any further. It seems probable that the quadrangle shown in Agas’s map (Plate 1) at the north-east corner of Drury Lane was Bear Close, and it will be observed that, according to the map, the houses south of _The White Hart_ stretched along the whole of the Drury Lane frontage of the close.

Bear Close formed a part of that portion of the property of the Hospital of St. Giles which, after the dissolution, came into the hands of Katherine Legh, afterwards Lady Mountjoy. With the five southernmost of the houses separating Bear Close from Drury Lane, and other property, it was purchased of the Mountjoys by George Harrison, from whom by various stages it came into the possession of James Mascall.[90] The latter died on 11th May, 1585,[93] leaving the whole of his property to his wife, Anne, who subsequently married John Vavasour. From her the whole of the property above mentioned[94] seems to have come into the hands of Olive Godman, younger daughter of James and Anne. A portion of this, including “all the ground or land lying on the backside of [certain] messuages towards the east, contayning two acres, now or late in the occupation of ... Thomas Burrage” was settled on her daughter, Frances, on the marriage of the latter with Francis Gerard in 1634.[95] There seems little doubt that the land in question was Bear Close.

It was apparently soon after this that the close was laid out for building, the planning taking the form of a cross, the long and cross beams being represented respectively by the present Goldsmith Street and Smart’s Buildings. The former street was, up to 1883, known as The Coal Yard, in consequence it is said, “of the place being used for the storage of fuel.”[96] The tale has a somewhat suspicious look. The fact, too, that “Mr. Francis Gerard,” the owner of Bear Close, and “Bassitt Cole, Esq.,” are found living in two adjoining houses in Drury Lane close by in 1646 rather suggests that “Cole Yard” is so called because of the name of its builder.[97]

The date at which Bear Close seems to have been built upon favours the above suggestion. The Hearth Tax Roll for 1666 gives 41 names which are apparently to be referred to Coal Yard, while Hollar’s Plan of 1658 shows the area by no means covered. The Subsidy Roll for 1646 gives only five names definitely in respect of “Cole Yard,” but there are 15 more which probably must be assigned thereto.

At some time before 1666 the eight houses fronting Drury Lane had given way to the present number of twelve. In the case of the four northernmost, this happened shortly after 1636, when a building lease of the sites of the houses was granted to Richard Brett.[98]

Built in the brick wall of an 18th-century tenement (No. 27, Goldsmith Street) was a stone tablet, dated 1671. The premises have lately been demolished, and at present the site is vacant.

Smart’s Buildings is a comparatively modern name for that part of Coal Yard which runs north into High Holborn. Hatton’s _New View of London_ (1708) does not mention Smart’s Buildings, but refers to “Cole Yard” as “on the N.E. side of Drury Lane, near St. Giles’s, a passage into High _Holbourn_ in 2 places”; Strype (1720) states that “the Coal Yard ... hath a turning passage into _Holborn_”; and Rocque’s Map of 1746 definitely names it “Cole Yard.”

In a deed of 1756[99] it is referred to as “the passage leading into the Coal Yard called Smart’s Buildings.” Which of the three Smarts, grandfather, father and son (William, Lewis and John), mentioned in the same deed, it was who gave his name to the street, there is nothing to show. No record of the purchase of the property by any person of the name has, so far, been discovered, but the deed of 1756 certainly suggests that the ownership of the houses on the eastern side of the passage originated with William, who is, moreover, described as “carpenter,”[100] and in that case would date from the beginning of the 18th century.

THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—

[101]No. 27, Goldsmith Street. Stone tablet in front wall
(drawing).

Smart’s Buildings. General view of exterior (photograph).

XXVIII-XXIX. NOS. 181 AND 172, HIGH HOLBORN (DEMOLISHED).

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.

The land at the eastern corner of Drury Lane and High Holborn may perhaps be, either wholly or in part, identified with certain land held of the Hospital of St. Giles by William Christmas in the reign of Henry III. “with the houses and appurtenances thereon, situate _at the Cross_ by Aldewych.”[102] Aldewych was Drury Lane,[103] and the Cross by Aldewych would almost certainly be situated at the junction of the two roads. The identification of the western corner as the site of Christmas’s land seems to be excluded by the fact that this was occupied by property of John de Cruce,[104] who was certainly a contemporary of William Christmas.[105] It is possible that the land in question was situated on the north side of Broad Street, but as it is known that Christmas owned land on the south side of the way, some of which may even possibly be the actual land referred to, the identification suggested above seems reasonable. Whether in Christmas’s time there was at this spot an inn, the forerunner of the later _White Hart_, is unknown.[106] Blott’s suggestion that the sign of the _White Hart_ was adopted in honour of Richard II., whose badge it was, even if correct, does not necessitate the assumption that no inn was there before that king’s reign (1377–1399). The sign might possibly have been changed in Richard’s honour.

The first mention of _The White Hart_ does not, however, occur until a century and a half later. In 1537 Henry VIII. effected an exchange of property with the Master of Burton Lazars, as a result of which there passed into the royal hands “one messuage called _The Whyte Harte_, and eighteen acres of pasture [Purse Field] to the same messuage belonging.”[107] In 1524 “Katherine Smyth _alias_ Katherine Clerke” was living in _The White Hart_.[108] She was apparently succeeded as tenant by William Hosyer,[109] but there is no evidence whether he actually resided in the inn.[110] In 1567 the occupant of the inn is said to be Matthew Buck, and in 1582 it was Richard Cockshott.[111] In 1623 Hugh Jones is mentioned as barber and victualler, at Holborn end, next Drury Lane.[112] The survey of Crown Lands taken in 1650 describes the premises as follows:—

“All that inn, messuage or tenement commonly called ... _The White Harte_ scituate ... in St. Gyles in the feildes ... consistinge of one small hall, one parlour and one kitchen, one larder and a seller underneath the same, and above stayres in the same range, and over the gatehouse, 9 chambers. Alsoe over against the said halle and parlour is now settinge upp one bricke buildinge consistinge of 6 roomes, alsoe one stable strongly built with brick and fflemish walle, contayninge 44 feete in length and 37 feete in breadth, lofted over and covered with Dutch tyle; and two other stables next adjoyninge, built as aforesaid, and 2 tenements or dwelling houses over the same. Alsoe one large yard contayninge 110 feete in length and in breadth 46 feete. Now in the occupation of one Anthony Ives, and is worth per annum

£38.

“All y^t tenement adjoyninge to y^e north side of the abovesaid house, being a corner shopp, consisting of one seller and a faire shopp over the same; alsoe one kitchin, and above stayres two chambers. Nowe in the occupation of Richard Raynbowe, a grocer, and is worth per annum

£12.”

It would seem that at the time of the transfer of _The White Hart_ to Henry VIII. there were no buildings to the east of the inn. The fact that no such premises are mentioned in connection with the exchange is not, indeed, conclusive, and it is more to the point to observe that no mention of the buildings is contained in any of the grants of the property, during the 16th century, which have been examined. Moreover, on 13th November, 1592, a certificate was returned by the Commission for Incroached Lands, etc.,[113] to the effect that four cottages, with appurtenances, on the south side of the highway leading from St. Giles towards Holborn, opposite certain small cottages built on the Pale Pingle,[114] were possessed without any grant, state or demise from the sovereign. Plate 2 shows the cottages in question, occupying the site of the buildings to the east of _The White Hart_.

It may be taken therefore that these four cottages were the earliest buildings on the site, and that they were erected probably not long before 1592, when their existence was first officially noticed.

By 1650 they had grown to a long range of buildings. In that year they were described as follows:—

“All that range of buildinge adjoyninge to thaforesaid inn called _The White Hart_, abuttinge on the high way on the north, with two tenements on the south side of _The White Hart_, lyenge uppon the way leadinge into Drury Lane, all which said buildings are now divided into xxj severall habitacions in the occupation of severall tenants, and are worth per annum £24.”

The whole property, including _The White Hart_, the courtyards and gardens, is said to “contayne in length from Drury Lane downe to the first [tenement] 96 feete, and in breadth 76 feete; the other length backward from the stables to the lower side of the garden 125 feete and 93 feete in breadth, bounded with the highway leadinge from St. Gyles into Holburne on the north and Drury Lane on the west.” The entire site therefore had a length of 221 feet, and a width of 76 feet along Drury Lane, increasing to 93 feet behind the inn. Allowing for the subsequent widening of High Holborn at this point, it is clear that the area is represented at the present day by the sites of the houses from the corner as far as and including No. 181, High Holborn, while the southern boundary runs to the north of Nos. 190–191, Drury Lane, then turns to the south a little beyond the eastern boundary of those premises, and thence runs in a slightly curved line as far as the eastern boundary of No. 181, High Holborn.[115]

A reference to the map in Strype’s edition of Stow (Plate 5) will show that in the 18th century both High Holborn and Drury Lane were very narrow at this spot. Moreover, in course of time, the large courtyard of the inn became used as a public way, and grew crowded with small tenements. In 1807 the leases of the property expired, and an arrangement was come to between the Vestry of St. Giles and the Crown, by which the latter and its lessees gave up sufficient land to enable the frontage line both to High Holborn and Drury Lane to be amended, with the result that the west end of the former and the north end of the latter were widened by 15 feet and 7 feet respectively. On its part the Vestry consented to the stopping up of White Hart yard and the building thereon of the Crown lessees’ new premises.[116]

Two of the houses, Nos. 181 and 172, erected in accordance with the arrangement, are illustrated in this volume.

Plate 9 shows the distinctive early 19th-century shop front, which was attached to No. 181. The design embodied a large, slightly bowed window with segmental head, flanked by two doorways. The window was fitted with small panes of glass, having bars forming interlacing segmental panes above the transom. The doors were of quiet and refined design, with excellently treated side posts, having brackets, carved with acanthus ornament, supporting the entablature. The whole exhibits a distinctly Greek feeling.

Another interesting early 19th-century shop front existed at No. 172, and is illustrated on Plate 10. The door to the house and that to the shop adjoined one another in this case, and were slightly recessed. The rounded angles to the window added interest to the design. The general treatment, though simple, possessed much distinction.

Both houses have recently been demolished.

IN THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION ARE:—

No. 181. General view of premises (photograph).

[117]No. 181. Shop front (photograph).

[117]No. 172. Shop front (photograph).

XXX.—SITE OF ROSE FIELD (MACKLIN STREET, SHELTON STREET, NEWTON STREET
(PART), AND PARKER STREET (PART)).

Macklin Street (formerly Lewknor’s Lane), Shelton Street (formerly St. Thomas’s Street, afterwards King Street), the lower end of Newton Street (formerly much narrower and known as Cross Street) and the greater portion of Parker Street, have all been formed on the site of Rose Field, a pasture of a reputed area of six acres, attached to _The Rose_ inn.

From particulars given in various deeds it is clear that the field’s western and eastern boundaries respectively were Drury Lane and the stream[118] dividing it from Purse Field, and that its southern boundary ran 50 feet to the south of Parker Street. As regards its northern boundary, however, there is some uncertainty. The facts, so far as they have been ascertained, are as follows.

The houses on the north side of Macklin Street were entirely in Rose Field, as also were three houses in Drury Lane, north of Macklin Street,[119] and the line bounding the rear of the Macklin Street property certainly coincides, at least for a portion of its length, with the boundary of that part of Rose Field leased to Thomas Burton.[120] It may therefore be regarded as certain that at least for a portion of its length this line represents the northern boundary of Rose Field. Probably this is true as regards its whole length as far as Goldsmith Street, which seems to be the point at which it turned northwards.[121]

The first reference to Rose Field (though not under that name) which has been found, occurs in the deed concerning the exchange which Henry VIII., in 1537, effected with the Hospital of Burton Lazars. According to this, part of the property transferred to the Crown consisted of “one messuage, called _The Rose_, and one pasture to the same messuage belonging.”

In the following year the king leased the inn and pasture to George Sutton and Ralph Martin.[122] In 1566 the property was leased to John Walgrave for 21 years as from Michaelmas, 1574; in 1580 to George Buck for 21 years, as from Michaelmas, 1595; and on 27th October, 1597, was, together with other property, granted by Elizabeth in perpetuity to Robert Bowes and Robert Milner, at a rent of £3 6s. 8d. Two days afterwards Milner sold it to James White, of London, silk weaver, and on 19th January, 1599–1600, the latter in turn parted with it to William Short.[123] Half a century later, William Short the younger took advantage of the sale of the Fee Farm Rents during the Commonwealth to redeem his rent for £29 12s. 6d.[124]

Before continuing the history of Rose Field, it may not be out of place to consider where _The Rose_ inn, from which the field derived its name, was situated.

Parton[125] quotes a deed, dated 1667, referring to the sale by Edward Tooke to Luke Miller, of two tenements, situated in Lewknor’s Lane, “which said two tenements doe abutt on the tenement formerly known by the sign of _The Rose_, late in the tenure of Walter Gibbons,” and draws the inference that the inn was “on the south side of Holborn, not far eastward from _The White Hart_.” It is, however, doubtful if “the tenement formerly known by the sign of _The Rose_” was _The Rose_ of Rose Field; for when, ten years previously, William Short had sold to Edward Tooke the first 21 houses on the north side of Lewknor’s Lane, which must have included the two tenements subsequently sold by Tooke to Miller, Walter Gibbons was in occupation of the twelfth house. It is therefore most probable that _The Rose_ in question was a house in Lewknor’s Lane, and not _The Rose_ of Rose Field at all.

As a matter of fact, the latter is almost certainly to be identified with the inn of that name situated on the north side of Broad Street. In 1670 this inn was in possession of Sarah Hooper, widow of William Hooper, and the latter’s son Benjamin, and is described in a deed[126], dated 2nd November in that year, as “all that messuage or tenement and brewhouse, with appurtenances, called _The Rose_, and all stables, maulting roomes, yardes, backsides, etc.” On 26th March, 1723–4, Benjamin Hooper granted[127] “all that messuage or tenement and brewhouse, with the appurtenances, called _The Rose_ Brewhouse, scituate in St. Giles-in-the-Fields, now or late in the tenure of Samuel Hellier, Anthony Elmes, and Charles Hall, some or one of them, and all stables, malting houses, yards, backsides, ways, passages, etc.,” to his two daughters, Jane Edmonds and Sarah Mee. The sewer ratebook for 1718 shows “Mr. Anthony Elmes” at a house in Broad Street close to Bow Street (now Museum Street) corner,[128] and thus the site of _The Rose_ can be roughly identified.[129]

The necessary connection between the Hoopers and William Short, who owned _The Rose_ of Rose Field, seems to be supplied by an entry in the _Feet of Fines_, dated 1640, concerning a purchase from the latter by William Hooper of a messuage and one stable with appurtenances in St. Giles-in-the-Fields.[130]

To return now to the history of Rose Field. William Short does not appear to have taken any steps to develop the property for 15 years. On 28th July, 1615, however, he leased to Walter Burton the southern portion of the field.[131] From particulars obtained from a number of deeds it is known that the ground in question extended 50 feet on either side of Parker Street, _i.e._, from the southern boundary of the field as far north as the site of the garden afterwards in the occupation of John Fotherly.[132] Whether the lease actually included the site of the garden, it is not possible to say with certainty.

On 5th December, 1615, Short leased to Thomas Burton the portion to the north of the garden, “the said parcell ... being mencioned in the said indenture to abutt east on the lands of Sir Charles Cornwallis, Knt. [_i.e._, Purse Field], west upon Drury Lane aforesaid, north upon the common sewer[133] which then divided the same from other lands of the said William Short then also in the occupation of the said Thomas Burton,[134] and south upon the lands of the said William Short lately demised to the said Walter Burton; and therein mencioned to conteyne in breadth from north to south on the west end that did abutt on Drury Lane 233 feete, and at the east end thereof in breadth from north to south 80 feete, and in length from east to west, viz., from the Cornwallis lands on the east to Drury Lane on the west 719 feete.”[135]

The earliest mention of Lewknor’s Lane which has been discovered is in an entry in the Privy Council Register[136] for 27th January, 1633–4, dealing with the case of Richard Harris, the owner of four houses “in Lewkner’s Lane, backside of Drury Lane.” Harris explained that he obtained the houses by purchase, and that they had been built six years. This takes the date of at least some of the houses in the street back to 1627 or 1628, and the fact that the street is not mentioned in the Subsidy Roll for the latter year makes it probable that these four houses were among the first built.

The usual reason given for the name of the street (afterwards corrupted to Lutenor, Newtenor) is that it was formed on the site of the house and grounds of Sir Lewis Lewknor. It is known that Lewknor was living in Drury Lane in 1620 and 1623[137] and the position of his name in the Subsidy Roll for the latter year points to his house having been in about the position suggested.[138] There is no evidence, however, that the house was built before 1615, when the land was leased to Burton, and it does not seem likely, therefore, that it would be pulled down by 1628.

The name of the street was subsequently changed to Charles Street, and again altered to Macklin Street in 1878.

Shelton Street does not date back so far as the remaining streets formed on Rose Field. As late as 1665,[139] when Lewknor’s Lane and Parker’s Lane had long been laid out, the houses on the north side of the latter were described as reaching to the garden “now or late” in the occupation of John Fotherly. In a deed of 1650[140] the garden is said to be “now in the occupation of the Lady Vere,” and a short time before it had been in the tenure of Sir John Cotton.[141] The street was formed before 1682, it being shown in Morden and Lea’s Map of that date, and was at first known as St. Thomas’s Street. In 1765 the name was changed to King Street, probably out of compliment to Joseph King, who took a lease of a large portion of the property in the street about that date.[142] Formerly in the flank wall of No. 166, Drury Lane, was a stone tablet bearing the inscription “King Street. 1765.” In 1877 the street received the name of Shelton Street, and, with the carrying out of the Shelton Street housing scheme by the London County Council was almost entirely swept out of existence between 1889 and 1892.

The earliest reference to Parker Street (formerly Parker’s Lane) so far discovered, belongs to February,[143] 1620, when mention was made of “a way or passage of twenty feet broad, lately marked out by the said Walter Burton, leading from Drury Lane to and through the ground of the said Sir Charles Cornwallis, knight, towards Holborn.”[144] The “marking out” of Parker Street took place therefore between July, 1615, and February, 1620. There seems great probability that the street owed its name, as suggested by Parton,[145] to Philip Parker, who certainly had a share in building the houses there.[146] That he actually held ground in the neighbourhood of Parker Street is evident from the terms of Burton’s lease to Edlyn of 1620, when, in granting his own interest in the land on the south side of Parker Street for a space of 520 feet westwards from the Rose Field boundary, he adds: “and the said Thomas Burton grants to Edmund Edlyn all the interest, right, claim or demand which he hath or ought to have in and to that piece of ground holden by Philip Parker.” In the Subsidy Rolls for 1620–21 and 1618–9, Philip Parker is shown as residing in Drury Lane, perhaps the house (the third on the east side, north of Parker Street) where William Parker was living in 1646.[147]

THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—

[148] No. 166, Drury Lane. Stone tablet (drawing).

XXXI.—NO. 18, PARKER STREET.

GROUND LANDLORD.

Name unobtained.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.

No. 18, Parker Street seems to have been rebuilt in 1774.[149]

Plate 11 shows a typical ground floor front of an 18th-century tenement in this parish. The window was probably provided with stout shuttering for protection.

CONDITION OF REPAIR.

The house is in fair repair.

THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION CONTAINS:—

[150]No. 18, Parker Street. Exterior of ground floor (photograph).

No. 46, Parker Street. Exterior view, brick and weather boarded
structure (photograph).

No. 58, Parker Street. Exterior showing timber bay window
(photograph).

XXXII.—GREAT QUEEN STREET (GENERAL.)

The eastern part of Great Queen Street was formed upon Purse Field, but the western and larger portion, together with Wild Street and Kemble Street, occupies the site of the field known in Elizabethan times as Aldwych Close. The boundaries of this close, which had a reputed area of eight acres, were in the year 1567 described[151] as “the close nowe the quenes majesties called Dalcona Close[152] on the easte parte, ... the lane leading frome the Strond towardes the towne of Saynt Gyles aforesaid of the west parte, ... the close of Sir Willm. Hollys and the gardyn belonginge to Drurye House of the southe parte, and the close nowe the Quenes Majesties called the Rosefelde on the north parte.” Of these boundaries the northern is represented by the line dividing the houses on the south side of Parker Street from those on the north side of Great Queen Street,[153] and the eastern by the line of the court between Nos. 6 and 7, Great Queen Street, continued to meet Sardinia Place,[154] while the southern corresponds with the old parish boundary.

Aldwych Close was included in that part of the property of the Hospital of St. Giles which eventually came into the hands of Lord Mountjoy, through his wife, Katherine, daughter of Sir Thomas Legh.[155] On 20th January, 1566–7, it was purchased of the Mountjoys by Richard Holford, who was at the time actually in occupation of the field.[151] Holford died on 12th January, 1569–70, leaving the property to his son Henry, then aged 20,[156] during whose ownership the field began to be cut up for building. In 1600 only two houses were in existence on the close.[157] At about this time Holford began to mark out the close and let portions on lease for building. There is no complete record of these leases, but the largest transaction of the kind was effected on 28th April, 1607, when Holford granted to Walter Burton, who has already been mentioned in connection with the development of Rose Field, a lease, for 51 years from the previous Christmas, of “that peece or parcell of grounde latlie taken out of the north side of the close of the said Henry Holford called Oldwych Close ... as the same ys severed and divided ffrom the residue of the same close with a pale latelie erected, and all that mesuage or tenemente latelie erected uppon a parte of the said peece or parcell off ground by one Henry Seagood, and nowe in the occupacion of the said Henry Seagood, and alsoe twoe other mesuages or teñts with the gardens, backsides, and garden plottes to the same adioyninge or belongeinge in the tenure or occupacion of Humfrey Grey or his assignees scituate on the west parte of Oldwych Close aforesaid, and lately alsoe enclosed out of the said close.... And alsoe all that other peece or parcell of ground which was then agreed and staked out to be enclosed of and from the west side of the said close ... next adioyninge unto Drewrie Lane.... By the name of three mesuages and three acres of pasture with the appurtenances.”[158]

The three messuages in question can easily be identified. Henry Seagood’s house occupied the site of Nos. 36–37, Great Queen Street,[159] and the houses of Humphrey Grey (which no doubt were the two houses in existence in 1600) are identified later[160] as _The White Horse_, in Drury Lane, opposite Long Acre, and another house (divided between 1635 and 1658 into two houses) adjoining it on the north. The “three acres of pasture” was the remaining portion of the triangular piece of ground now bounded by Drury Lane, Wild Street and Kemble Street.[161]

From the foregoing it will be evident that by the year 1607 there were the merest beginnings of building on the Drury Lane frontage of the close. The first two streets to be formed were those now known as Kemble Street and Great Queen Street, the former being probably an old public way leading across Aldwych Close and Purse Field to Holborn, the route of which was afterwards marked by the archway on the west side of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, and the latter being in its origin a royal private way through the fields,[162] used as the route to Theobalds, in Hertfordshire, James I.’s favourite residence. Kingsgate Street (formerly existing nearly opposite the northern termination of Kingsway), where there were two gates[163] into the fields on either side of Holborn (see Plate 2), and Theobald’s Road mark the continuation of the royal way. There was also at first probably a gate[164] at the street’s western entrance,[165] which was very narrow, and the first mention we have of the street seems to refer to this. In a petition to the Earl of Salisbury, undated, but evidently belonging to the period 1605–1612,[166] the “inhabitantes of the dwellinges at the _newe gate_ neere Drewry Lane” state that they have petitioned the Queen (obviously Anne of Denmark, the consort of James I.) “to gyve a name unto that place,” and have been referred to him; they therefore request him to give it a name on her behalf.

It seems reasonable to conclude that it was as the result of this application that the name “Queen Street” (or “Queen’s Street”)[167] was given to the thoroughfare. Blott, indeed, states this as a fact, but no entry in confirmation has been found in the Domestic State Papers. Assuming, therefore, that the petition above mentioned had reference to this street, and having regard to the probability, amounting to practical certainty, that the plan of Purse Field reproduced in Plate 2 dates from 1609,[168] it follows that the title “Queen Street” must have been given during the period 1605–1609. The name “Great Queen Street” used to distinguish it from “Little Queen Street” does not seem to have been in common use until about 1670.[169]

The earliest buildings erected in Great Queen Street were, contrary to the usual statements made in the matter,[170] on the north side of the street. The dates at which this took place cannot, unfortunately, be determined with certainty. Clanricarde House was in existence in 1604.[171] Henry Seagood’s house (occupying the site of Nos. 36–37) was built before April, 1607.[172] The site of Nos. 38–45, which in 1597 contained only a forge, was built on by May, 1612.[173] The site of Nos. 7–13 was leased for building purposes to Thomas Burton on 7th May, 1611. These facts, fragmentary though they are, seem to point to the north side of the street, so far as it was situated in Aldwych Close, being built during the period 1603–1612.[174] In this connection it is interesting to note the statement made, on unknown authority, by Dobie,[175] that the house on the south side of the street in which Lord Herbert of Cherbury died[176] was “one of the fifteen built in the third year of James I. (1603).” The third year of James I. was actually 1605–6, but it is quite certain that no houses were built on the south side of Great Queen Street for over thirty years afterwards. The date seems, however, to fit in well with the facts concerning the _north_ side of the street.

XXXIII.—NO. 2, GREAT QUEEN STREET (DEMOLISHED).

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.

The eastern portion of Great Queen Street, comprising the sites of Nos. 1 to 6 on the north side, and of all the houses above No. 69 on the south side, was formed on Purse Field.

On 30th July, 1638, Newton leased to William Sandfield a portion of the ground, on which at some time subsequently, but before January, 1640, a house was built. On 29th March, 1642, the property is described[177] as a plot of ground having a breadth of 26 feet at the north end, and 25 feet at the south, and a length of 76 feet on the east side, and 81 feet on the west; “scituate at the east end of Queene Street, on the north side of it, between the highway there leading to the Kinges Gate on the east, a certen lane called Parker’s Lane on the north, and the King’s highway leading into Queene Street on the south.” This is easily identifiable with the site of No. 1, Great Queen Street, and other property in the rear.

On 14th January, 1639–40, Newton sold to Francis Thriscrosse[178] a plot of ground having a breadth of 23 feet 4 inches at the north end, and 22½ feet at the south, and a length of 81 feet on the east side and 86 feet on the west, “and abutteth east upon a peece of ground and the house thereon built let to William Sandfeild,” Parker’s Lane on the north, and the King’s highway on the south. On this plot a house had been erected, representing No. 2, Great Queen Street. Similarly it may be proved that the site of No. 3 had been built on by Richard Webb by August, 1639.[179] As regards Nos. 4 to 6, no sufficiently early deeds have come to light to enable the date of building to be ascertained, but it is probable that all were built about the same time.

It would seem that these six houses were superior to most of the others erected on the north side of the street. Such is certainly the impression derived from Hollar’s Plan of 1658 (Plate 3). Moreover, Bagford, after alluding to the stateliness and magnificence of the houses on the south side, goes on to say: “At y^e other side of y^e way, near Little Queen Street, they began after y^e same manner with flower de lices on y^e wall, but went no further.”[180]

The original buildings on the site of Nos. 1 and 2 were pulled down about 1735, for a deed dated 7th February in that year, referring to the site, describes it as “all that toft, peice or parcell of ground, scituate in Great Queen Street on the north side of the same street, and extending itself from Queen Street to Parker’s Lane, together with the _old ruinous messuage or tenement_ and the coach house, stable, and other erections and buildings thereupon standing.”[181] Moreover in the sewer ratebook for 1734, there is a note against the house: “Pulled down and rebuilt.”

The second building on the site of No. 2 was demolished in connection with the formation of Kingsway. The front had little architectural merit, judging from a water colour drawing by T. H. Shepherd, dated 1851, now in the Crace Collection.[182]

The interior had a notable mahogany staircase (Plates 12 and 13) of six flights, the four lower ones having carved brackets, while the upper part had straight strings more simply treated.

The beautiful balustrade and decorative details were preserved by the London County Council when the house was pulled down, and have been lent to and exhibited at the London Museum.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES.

The indications as to who exactly were the occupants of particular
houses on the north side of Great Queen Street during the 17th
century are not always very clear, and the following list of
persons occupying No. 2 is perhaps occasionally during the period
named open to suspicion:—

1646. Sir M. Lumley[183] (?)
Before 1664 to after 1675. Matthew Hewitt.
Before 1683 to 1700. Henry Moreland.
1700 to after 1720. Samuel Knapton.
1727. Susan Knapton.
1734–75. John Crofts.
1784– Poyser Roper.

Sir Martin Lumley, of Bardfield Magna, Essex, son of Sir Martin
Lumley or Lomley, Lord Mayor of London (1623–4), was born about
1596. He was sheriff of Essex, 1639–40; and was M.P. for that
county in the Long Parliament, from February 1641, until secluded
in December, 1648. He was created a Baronet on 8th January, 1641,
being knighted at Whitehall on the day following. He died about
1651.[184]

IN THE COUNCIL’S COLLECTION ARE:—

[185]Mahogany staircase, ground to second floor, and second to
third floor (measured drawing).

[185]Mahogany staircase, do., do., details (measured drawing).

XXXIV.–XXXVI.—NOS. 26 TO 28, GREAT QUEEN STREET.

GROUND LANDLORD.

The names of the ground landlords of Nos. 27 and 28 have not been obtained.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DATE OF STRUCTURE.

The date of erection of the original houses on the sites of Nos. 26 to 35 is uncertain. The Subsidy Roll for 1628–9, however, among its few (12) entries relating to Queen Street, contains the names of three persons[186] who are known to have lived in this row, and that for 1620–21 contains one;[187] it is therefore fairly certain that the houses on the site of Nos. 26 to 35 were already in existence by the latter date.

The ground on which they stood had, it is known, been let on building lease for a term expiring at Christmas, 1657, and it seems more than likely that the lease in question was that granted to Walter Burton on 28th April, 1607. It will be noticed[188] that a part of that grant comprised a piece of ground taken out of the north side of the close, and Henry Seagood’s messuage erected on a part of that piece. Now Seagood’s house occupied the site of Nos. 36–37[189], and the piece of ground alluded to above certainly did not extend to the west of Seagood’s house, as that property (the site of Nos. 38 to 45) had already been disposed of by Holford. It seems, therefore, probable that it included the ground to the east of the house, thus taking in the site of Nos. 26 to 35.