No. 4
<Architect Edward Shepherd>, 1726–8. First-floor windows
lengthened and balcony added later
The site of this house, which had a frontage of
fifty-two feet on to the 'piazza', and also three
adjacent plots in Babmays Mews, were granted,
under a reserved ground-rent of £28 12s. 8d., on
29–30 April 1675 by the Earl of St. Albans and
Baptist May to Nicholas Barbon, who 'was Building and had Built one great Messuage or Mansion
house and other Edifices and Buildings' on the
site. (ref. 87) The house appears, with Barbon as ratepayer, in the ratebook for 1677. (fn. a) In the spring of
that year Anthony, eleventh Earl of Kent, was
said to be thinking of buying the house. (ref. 88) By
November Barbon was negotiating with the Earl
for the sale. Some of the means by which he
sought to further this piece of business are revealed
in a Chancery petition which he submitted in
April 1679. According to Barbon's version of the
affair, 'one William Combes, gentleman, who was
then a servant to the said Earle' informed Barbon
that he 'had a very Considerable Interest with the
said Earle' and could render Barbon 'Considerable
Kindness and service in relacion to the dispatch
and compleating of the bargaine'. Barbon
represents himself as having been 'forced to make
some shew of Complying with him' for fear lest
Combes might do him a disservice with the Earl.
In Barbon's version the arrangement was sufficiently formal for the parties to agree to refer to
arbitrators the payment to be made by Barbon for
Combes's services. Barbon is not very clear about
the details of the arrangement but he admitted to
being obliged, subject to the arbitrators' judgment,
to pay Combes £200 and to have given Combes's sister 'a Note in writing' for £200 in trust for Combes.
The chronology of the purchase was disputed.
According to Combes, by November 1677 the
Earl had contracted to buy the house and paid a
deposit of £500. But Barbon claimed that when
in June 1678 he gave Combes's trustees bonds for
£75 he did so 'being unwilling to fall out with him
being come neere to a Conclusion with the said
Earle', and did not come to 'a perfect Agreement'
with the Earl until August 1678. He asserted
that this had taken six months longer than Combes
had promised, and claimed a consequent loss of
nearly £200, being half a year's interest on the
purchase price, evidently at 6 per cent. The conveyance of the house and site from Barbon and his
trustees to trustees for the Earl of Kent appears to
confirm Combes's version, for the deeds are dated
31 January–1 February 1677/8. (ref. 89) Combes
claimed the residue of the £200, Barbon apparently offered only partial payment, and Combes
brought a legal action. Barbon countered with
his Chancery petition, and in answer to this
Combes asserted that he had become entitled to
the £200 simply because he 'did procure the said
Earle to give the Complainant a meeting', and
denied that there had been any agreement to refer
the valuation of his services to arbitrators. (ref. 88) The
outcome of the dispute is not known.
This corner site had over much of its depth a
greater width than the frontage to the square
suggests, and the price paid was the comparatively
large sum of £6600. Two further plots fronting
Babmays Mews, making a compact block of
property, were bought by the Earl of Kent in 1682
from the Earl of Clarendon and by the Earl's
successor, later the first Duke, in 1702/3, from
William Stanton, a mason. (ref. 90)
The ratebook for 1678 is not available for use.
The Earl of Kent appears as occupier in 1679 and
his descendants continued to own and occupy the
house until 1908.
Kip's view of c. 1714–22 (Plate 4) shows the
house as first built. Sutton Nicholls's view of c.
1722 (Plate 128), however, seems to show a different façade with an attic storey. If this represents a
rebuilding it was short-lived, as on the night of
Sunday, 12 December 1725, the house, then
owned by the eleventh Earl's son, the Duke of
Kent, was burnt down. (ref. 91) The fire attracted the
Prince of Wales who hurried from Leicester
House, with a detachment of Foot Guards to
restrain looters, and was active in encouraging
efforts to fight the fire. The house was said in
contemporary newspapers to have been burnt to
the ground and most of the 'rich Furniture' to
have been destroyed. It was, however, reported
that 'the Duke's Gallery of fine Pictures' was
saved: this was probably the building as well as its
contents, since the preservation of 'the fine Gallery
that lay backward' was reported in another newspaper. In a letter of the following January (see
below) the Duke's daughter referred to the
'Galery' but the significance of the reference is
obscure. The survival of some of the back
premises is suggested by the continued existence in
the early nineteenth century of a building at the
rear 'very much older and much lower and meaner
in its proportions than that part which fronts the
Square', described by Earl de Grey in 1846 as
having been 'only pulled down and re-built of late
years', (ref. 92) probably to form the present eastward
extension of the return wing.
In March 1725/6 the Duke took from Samuel
Trotman a lease of No. 14 to run until Michaelmas 1728, at £200 per annum. (ref. 93) He was rated
for No. 14 during the four years 1726–9, but the
rebuilding of No. 4 was probably being completed
in 1728. (ref. 94)
Only a few entries in the surviving account
books of the Duke seem possibly to refer to the
house, and almost all might alternatively refer to
work at his country residence, Wrest House in
Bedfordshire. Workmen paid small sums at this
time, perhaps for work in the square, were Woodall, mason; Churchill, bricklayer; (fn. b) Daval, plumber; (fn. c) Webb, joiner; and Minns, glazier. The
brazier, Sparks, was paid for grates in the new
house in September 1727. (ref. 95)
It is not known who designed the house rebuilt
after the fire, which is substantially that standing
today (Plates 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, figs. 8–12). Dasent (ref. 96)
suggests that Lord Burlington had some share in
the design but there appears to be no evidence of
this. (fn. d) The catalogue of the sale of Nicholas
Hawksmoor's library in April 1740 included
twelve designs 'for the Duke of Kents House in
St. James's-Square' by Hawksmoor. (ref. 97) There is
no other evidence connecting Hawskmoor with
the house although if Hawksmoor designed No. 3
(see pages 84–5) his employment in 1726 at No. 4
would not be surprising, as the manner in which
the structure of No. 3 had resisted the fire
attracted admiration, and Lord Ashburnham, the
client for whom No. 3 had been built in about
1712, had recently become a member of the Duke
of Kent's family by his marriage to the Duke's
daughter in March 1723/4. (fn. e) The appearance of
No. 4 does not, however, indicate that Hawksmoor designed it. The suggestion has been put
forward tentatively in Some Notes on the History of
No. 4 St. James's Square
(ref. 98) that Giacomo Leoni
may have been associated with the design of the
house. He dedicated to the Duke of Kent a
manuscript essay on the theory and practice of
building which the Duke had in his library in
1713, and speaks of being in the service of the
Duke, for whose intended rebuilding at Wrest in
1715 he made 'draughts'. No positive evidence of
Leoni's having worked at No. 4 has been found,
although his residence in Charles Street in May
1726 (ref. 99) when the rebuilding would have been
beginning is consistent with his having had a part
in the work. That the Duke himself may have
taken a positive interest in the design, another
possibility touched on in Some Notes on . . . No. 4,
is hinted at not only by Leoni's flattering reference
to his encouragement of the arts but perhaps also
by the statement in his memorial inscription at
Flitton that 'His Taste and Magnificence are still
conspicuous in the Elegant House, which he
erected for the Town-residence of his Family.' (ref. 100)
Letters written to the Duke by his son-in-law and
daughter, Lord and Lady Glenorchy, after the
fire carry the same suggestion of a lively interest on
the Duke's part in the rebuilding. (fn. f)
<
The foregoing discussion of the possible architectural authorship of No. 4
has been superseded by the discovery of other archives pointing to Edward Shepherd
as the architect. The Duke of Kent's account at Hoare's Bank, opened ten days after
the fire in December 1725, evidently comprised a 'House account' and the payments include
£367 to the builder and architect Edward Shepherd, though in what capacity is not stated.
Shepherd's role as architect is made more explicit in an agreement, dated 21 April 1727,
between the Duke and the joiner David Anderson to lay the floors etc at the Duke's house
in St James's Square (copy in the Nottingham County Record Office, DDR 215/60), which states
that Anderson is to 'be derected by Edward Shepard surveyor in all the aforesaid work'.
Other payments in the Duke's account at Hoare's Bank (perhaps partly for work at Wrest) include:
some £1,000 to builders' merchants; £1,146 to Alexander Rouchead, probably a mason; sums of £305,
£130, £118 and £100 to Thomas Knight, James Jenner, James Slater and 'Sparke and Co.', perhaps
joiner, bricklayer, plumber and brazier respectively; and some £644 to the sculptors Cheere, Delveaux,
Nost, Rysbrack and H. Scheemakers and the carver John Boson.
>
From 1744 to 1790 the house was occupied by
the Duke of Kent's granddaughter, suo jure
Marchioness Grey and Baroness Lucas, and her
husband, Philip Yorke, Lord Royston, who in
1764 succeeded as second Earl of Hardwicke. In
1761 Horace Walpole visited the house and
described the pictures. On the 'noble staircase' he
observed the 'whole length statue of Inigo Jones,
modern, in a niche', which still survives (Plate
137b, fig. 12). He mentions 'The Great Room',
also still in existence (Plate 138b), and 'good
bas reliefs in marble' over the chimneys in the
first-floor rooms, which have disappeared. (ref. 103) In
May 1767 Lord Hardwicke asked Sir William
Chambers to call at the house in order to 'settle
with Him' before going into the country, but this
may have related to work at Wrest. (ref. 104)
In the summer of 1790, after the Earl's death,
his widow had some alterations made to the interior by George Byfield. He apparently constructed a long narrow 'area' on the north side and
new 'back stairs', which still survive, flanking the
main staircase. An undated 'particular' of the
work, to an estimated total of some £532, mentions the painting white of woodwork in various
rooms where the doors and skirtings were previously chocolate-colour. The stucco on the
upper part of the east and west sides of a staircase (presumably the main staircase) was to be
taken down 'and new stuccoed plain'. The 'hall
and staircase' were to be painted 'a fancy colour'
and the ornaments and mouldings a 'dead white',
and the handrail was to be grained to simulate
mahogany. The balusters were to be painted
white and gilded. (ref. 105) Letters from Byfield to the
Marchioness in August 1790 indicate, however,
that she had decided against this alteration of the
balusters. They speak also not of a 'fancy colour'
but of 'some very faint colour' for the hall and
staircase, and show By field's preference for ornament to be whitened, not coloured or gilded. He
suggested new mahogany sideboards to replace the
unfashionable marble-topped side-tables in the
'eating room', and introduced a 'new statuary
marble chimney-piece and slab for the Drawing
room'. (ref. 106)
Little is known of the later architectural history of the house from documentary sources,
although alterations were carried out, some
damaging to the house's appearance. From 1834
to 1859 the house was occupied by Earl de Grey,
who as the first President of the (Royal) Institute
of British Architects gave here 'his large and
charming soirées which no one who assisted at
them will forget'. (ref. 107) The Earl is said to have been
responsible for the design of his country house at
Wrest. (ref. 108) Whether so or not, it may be that he
had some hand in the nineteenth-century alterations at No. 4.<Plans for alterations carried out in 1833-4 by the architect W. J. Browne for Earl de Grey are in the Bedfordshire County Record Office (Lucas Collection), as is an undated 'Original design for the Stair-case, St. James's Square', perhaps by de Grey himself.>
From 1912 to 1942 the house was owned and
occupied by the second Viscount Astor. In 1942
it was requisitioned, and from 1943 to 1945 it was
used as the London headquarters of the Free
French forces. From September 1947 it has been
occupied by the Arts Council of Great Britain: in
1948 Lord Astor sold the house to the Ministry
of Works at a low price on condition that it should
be restored and preserved as the headquarters of
the Arts Council. (ref. 109)
Architectural description
The front of the house (Plate 134, fig. 10) is
five windows in width and three storeys in height,
the second storey being exceptionally tall and the
third storey being treated as an attic. The facing
material is a fine, pale yellow brick with stone
dressings which are now painted. The groundand first-floor levels are marked by broad bands
with narrower sill-bands above them and the
ground-floor windows have eared architraves, pulvinated friezes and cornices, the entrance doorway,
in the second bay from the left, having a porch
with an exactly similar entablature, at the same
level, supported on free-standing Ionic columns
with answering engaged columns flanked by half
pilasters. The oak door, with eight raised-andfielded panels and a rectangular light above it, is
enclosed by a narrow, plainly moulded architrave.
The front area is guarded by spear-headed railings
of an early nineteenth-century character, the urn
finials being of a standard late eighteenth-century
pattern. The architraved first-floor windows have
pulvinated friezes and pediments supported on
carved brackets: their sills have been lowered to a
stone balcony apparently of early nineteenthcentury date with a simple iron railing and iron
supports beneath it. The main entablature has
carved mouldings and the windows above have
lugged architraves, the attic being capped with a
small plainly moulded cornice and a blockingcourse. The hipped, slated roof is hardly noticeable from the square. The front is remarkable in
that the 'order' embraces a single storey only.
There are several features of the design, notably
the porch, which are not in accord with strict
Palladian principles. (fn. g)
The rear of the main part of the house and the
return wing (Plate 135b) are built of pink stock
brick without dressings. Each part is four windows wide and there is a broad band marking the
level of the first floor with a sill-band above it.
The main block now has a balcony at first-floor
level and the sills of three out of the four windows
have been cut down, two of the openings having
been increased in width. Above the second-floor
windows is a projecting frieze with a flat, moulded
cornice and a low parapet. The north side of the
house, facing the former mews-yard, is even
plainer and has suffered many alterations and
additions, but a projection housing the rear staircase has circular windows which appear to be
original. A nineteenth-century extension projects
about five feet into the garden but continues, in yellow stock brick, the main lines of the earlier work.
Figure 8:
No. 4 St. James's Square, ground-floor plan
Figure 9:
No. 4 St. James's Square, first-floor plan
Across the end of the garden, recently repaved
at a slightly higher level than previously, is a low,
three-storeyed building apparently dating from
the second quarter of the eighteenth century, constructed of pink stock brick with painted stone
dressings (Plate 135a). It is crowned with a plain
modillion cornice, the projecting centre being
pedimented, and the upper storeys have three
main windows with narrow ones in the sides of the
central projection. There is a broad sill-band at
first-floor level and a narrower band above the
ground floor on the middle part only. The somewhat over-large central doorway is architraved,
with a keystone rising into the pulvinated frieze,
and is flanked by plain, narrow margins with
carved consoles supporting a broken, segmental
pediment. The style of the doorway suggests a
late seventeenth-century date and it may have
come from the original house on the site or have
been imported from elsewhere. Various alterations have been made to the front of this building,
including the insertion of large lunette windows to
the basement, but without destroying its character. The interior, however, has been changed beyond recognition. In the 1830's it was used as
stables. (ref. 110)
The plan of the house (figs. 8, 9, 11) is unusual
owing to the shape of the site, which extends
northwards for thirty feet behind the flank wall of
No. 5: it is possible, also, that some parts of the
original Barbon house were incorporated into the
new building. The entrance hall is flanked by a
front room with three windows overlooking the
square: an inner hall and another room of equal
size look into the garden, and the main staircase,
with a service stair beside it, is situated behind
No. 5. A wing beyond the stair contains a large
room with a passage on its north side giving access
to the secondary stair and the nineteenth-century
block at the rear. On the first floor one very
large room occupies the whole of the front but
otherwise the ground-floor plan is repeated with
little alteration. The second storey is occupied by
the upper part of the front room and by bedrooms
at the rear, and the top storey extends across the
front of the house only.
The entrance hall is stone paved and is panelled
for half its height with tall, narrow, ovolomoulded panels with a plain skirting and moulded
capping. There is a full Doric entablature with a
triglyphed frieze and mutule cornice: the ceiling is
plain. The window has panelled shutters and is
architraved and at the rear of the hall are three
round-headed openings with carved mouldings to
the archivolts which spring from above the panelling. All three have plainly panelled double doors
and simple, glazed fanlights. The left-hand
opening probably led to the staircase hall but is
now blocked: it has enriched diagonal coffering,
and the other two openings with plainer panelling
of a more recent date, give access to the inner hall.
The chimneypiece (Plate 139b) is of heavily
veined white marble and consists of a broad,
lugged architrave, a curiously fluted frieze, swept
in at either end, and a plainly moulded corniceshelf which sets back and returns at the sides of the
shallow chimney-breast. The appearance of the
hall is at present marred by a large draught lobby
designed as a continuation of the existing panelling.
A jib door leads to the plain service stair which is
of stone with an iron balustrade.
The inner hall (Plate 135c), which is not on
the same axis, has an identical entablature but
panelling only to the level of a moulded chair-rail.
The other fittings are similar but the skirting is
more substantial and the window shutters are
carved. The two arched openings from the
entrance hall are matched by a third without a
fanlight, containing a door to the front room.
There is a heavy bolection-moulded chimneypiece
of grey marble (Plate 139c), the upper part containing a large white marble panel, carved in relief
with a scene of Mercury before Jupiter and Juno,
flanked by carved consoles, also of white marble,
terminating in satyr masks. The chimneypiece is
finished with a broken pediment and a small section of cornice above each console. There can be
little doubt that this room was formerly separated
from the staircase hall by a wall containing a door
or an opening, opposite the fireplace and central in
the staircase hall. This wall has been replaced by
a pair of fluted Corinthian columns on pedestals,
with answering pilasters, supporting the Doric
entablature.
The front room retains its original timber
fittings with carved mouldings. The walls are
lined with alternately wide and narrow panels
with a moulded chair-rail and skirting. The window openings are architraved and have panelled
shutters; the six-panelled doors, with a central staff
bead, are also architraved and have cyma friezes
carved with acanthus leaf, and enriched dentil cornices. The main entablature to the room has
enrichment to the architrave and to the modillion
cornice: the ceiling is plain. The chimneypiece
dates from the early nineteenth century and is a
chaste design in black marble veined with gold and
white. Broad pilasters, with the simplest of
moulded bases and caps, support a plain frieze with
blocks above the pilasters bearing rosettes. The
thin shelf has rounded corners and rests on a small
bed-moulding.
Figure 10:
No. 4 St. James's Square, elevation
The rear room (Plate 139a) is similarly fitted
but the walls above the chair-rail are now plain and
the panel mouldings below are uncarved: the doorcases are merely architraved and the main cornice
to the room is enriched with dentils. The white
marble chimneypiece is of the same period as that
in the last room: the simple architrave has beadmouldings and is flanked by panelled margins.
The frieze has two tight festoons of laurel tied by
ribbons to the stems of pineapples, with a pair of
amphorae above them and acanthus decoration
over the pilasters: the cornice-shelf is plainly
moulded. The large room in the rear wing which
may formerly have included the area of the passage
to the north of it, as on the floor above, was redecorated by Messrs. O. P. Milne and P. Phipps
at some time before 1924, (fn. h) when it was used as
a dining-room. The passage contains imitation
eighteenth-century decoration but the stone
secondary staircase has a simple iron balustrade and
mahogany handrail of nineteenth-century dale.
Figure 11:
No. 4 St. James's Square, section A-A
Figure 12:
No. 4 St. James's Square, staircase section B-B
Although the approach to the main staircase has
been very much altered and the staircase compartment considerably embellished, probably in this
century, the main lines of the original work remain (Plates 135c, 136, 137). It has already been
stated that the doorway from the entrance hall
to the stair compartment has been blocked and that
a Corinthian colonnade has taken the place of the
wall which must formerly have existed between
the stair and the inner hall. An exactly similar
colonnade was inserted beneath the first-floor
landing, whether for structural or aesthetic reasons
is uncertain, and the Doric entablature has enriched metopes on the side towards the staircase.
The character of the original cornice or entablature beneath the first-floor landing is not known.
The stair is of stone with a moulded soffit to the
lower flights, but the upper flight has been greatly
increased in thickness, perhaps to hide reinforcing
beams, and the underside is divided into large
panels with enriched mouldings which cannot date
from before the nineteenth century. The partitions enclosing the space beneath the lower flights
are unlikely to be original and the decoration on
them is certainly modern. The balustrade to the
stair is formed by fluted Corinthian columns of
carved pine supporting a heavy mahogany handrail probably copied from the pine original. The
columns have blocks beneath their bases but none
above their caps, which are formed on the skew,
the angle of the neckings being more acute than
that of the abaci which appear to have been
adjusted. Presumably there was some intention of
making the stair steeper than it now is. Where the
handrail is swept up at each landing the caps are
inevitably grossly distorted.
All the wall decoration below a band marking
the level of the first floor is modern, including the
plaster enrichment to the skirting which was formerly plainly moulded. The band itself is original
and is ornamented with groups of three acanthus
buds and festoons with drops: it forms the sill to
the two round-arched windows in the north wall
which have an impost-band decorated with a wave
moulding and archivolts with enriched mouldings
(Plate 137b, fig. 12). Between them is a niche,
framed by an egg-and-dart moulding, with an
arched head containing a shell above an ornamented impost. In the niche stands a version of
the statue of Inigo Jones by Rysbrack, at Chiswick Villa: it is not an exact replica but is said to
be of plaster and to be from the sculptor's workshop. (ref. 111) Above the main impost-band is a large
rectangular panel, framed also by an egg-and-dart
moulding and containing a shell with two festoons
and drops tied by ribbons.
Further modern decoration was added to the
upper part of the stair compartment, presumably
at the same time as that already described. The
two windows and the round-arched openings at
either end of the landing were flanked by fluted
Ionic pilasters and the impost-band was continued
round the compartment by a crudely decorated
cornice. Enriched panels were formed on the walls
and beneath the entablature festoons were introduced with drops and cartouches decorated with
female masks. The new work was obviously intended to be in keeping with the old and to some
extent replaced what may be presumed to have
been removed in 1790 (see above), but it has considerably reduced the scale of the compartment.
The ceiling decoration (Plate 137a) is original
and is in the Inigo Jones manner with a large oval
compartment enclosed by a heavy guillocheornamented beam with the rich modillion cornice
continued on either side of it. Short lengths of
similar beam connect the oval to the walls leaving
four spandrels decorated with shells and scroll
ornament, the central compartment being plain
but for a rosette. Beneath the modillion cornice
there is a plain frieze and an enriched architrave.
The approach to the front drawing-room is
through a small rectangular lobby which has been
enlarged at one side. The drawing-room (Plate
138b), with its high coved ceiling, is nearly a
double cube and despite mid nineteenth-century
alterations which have considerably changed its
character, is still essentially an early eighteenthcentury room. The alterations cannot have been
made before 1846 when Earl de Grey was commenting on the plainness of the room: (ref. 92) it is not
known who was responsible for the alterations.
The remaining original work includes the panelled
dado, with its carved mouldings, and also in part
the lugged architraves to the doorways, carved
with wave ornament and other enrichment. The
openings have been increased in height and width,
however, and the wooden overdoors are of nineteenth-century date, consisting of an acanthusornamented frieze and pairs of putti flanking
carved oval frames, containing oil paintings on
canvas. These are of figure subjects and are
thought to be derivative works of the early
eighteenth century. The double doors must date
from the time of the alterations as do the architraves to the window openings, although the
carved shutters, now set at an angle, are probably
original.
The wooden chimneypiece, which is painted
and gilded, is entirely of mid nineteenth-century
date. The opening is flanked by huge, richly
carved trusses hung with garlands of fruit. There
is no cornice-shelf but merely a carved moulding
and a concave surface above, carved with a rich
wave pattern, sweeping up to the gadrooned base
of a tall mirror. This has a shaped top and is
enclosed in a rich frame carved with oak leaves and
other ornament. Some of its embellishments have
gone, however, and also a pair of putti which formerly sat at either corner of the chimneypiece holding candelabra. The main entablature to the room
is original and has enriched mouldings and pairs of
modillions in the cornice which are continued by
acanthus-ornamented brackets through the frieze
and architrave. The frieze is decorated with lion
masks between the brackets and also with festoons
and drops. Above the entablature there was formerly in each corner of the coved ceiling a plaster
putto supporting a shield of arms. They were of
nineteenth-century date and were removed
shortly after the Arts Council took over the
building. The cove is now plain and the flat portion of the ceiling is enclosed by a richly decorated
beam with elaborate fret ornament beneath it, the
central panel being decorated at either end by further beams forming intersecting curves and by two
rosettes which are probably additions.
Other fittings in the room which date from the
nineteenth century are the very large festooned
panels on the walls, though these have been slightly
altered, the tall pier glasses between the windows
with the marble-topped tables beneath them and
the huge gilt wood chandeliers which formerly
had many branches for candles. The large amount
of gilding was probably originally executed at this
time. A photograph of the room, as it was in
the late nineteenth century, is reproduced by
Dasent. (ref. 112)
The second doorway, exactly balancing the
first, leads to a back drawing-room which is now
the conference room of the Arts Council. This
retains its original enriched dentil cornice, and
dado panelling and window shutters similar to
those in the front room, one window having been
cut down to give access to the rear balcony. The
room has been redecorated in the French Rococo
style involving the addition of a band of plaster
decoration and a central rosette to the ceiling and
the division of the upper part of the walls into
panels enclosed by gilt mouldings, of composition,
applied on top of a wooden lining probably made
up from the old panelling. There is a mirror set in
the centre of each wall and the carved chimneypiece is of a dark red marble with white veining.
The other rear room, to the north of this, has
been little altered and the walls are lined with wide
and narrow panels in the same manner as in the
front room on the ground floor, with a similar
modillion cornice (Plate 138a). At the rear of the
room is a bed-recess flanked by fluted Corinthian
antae, the recess being ceiled above the architrave.
The doorways have been increased in width but
the architraves and the doors themselves are
probably in part original or follow the original design. The window openings have also been
widened and their sills lowered to the level of the
balcony. The chimneypiece, of white marble, is
modern.
The large room in the rear wing, approached
from the landing through a second lobby, was redecorated in the nineteenth century in an unusually tasteless version of the Louis XVI style,
the walls being panelled in carved wood. The
ceiling is a meagre version of an early eighteenthcentury design with a large rectangular compartment, framed by a shallow enriched beam,
enclosing an octagon with three small panels at
either end. The white marble chimneypiece does
not belong to the main scheme of decoration and
although in its present form it cannot date from
before the nineteenth century, there are some
characteristically eighteenth-century elements in
its design. The opening, which has a plainly
moulded architrave, is flanked by draped and
bearded male terms, set at an angle: they are
excellently carved in a somewhat Baroque style
recalling the work of John Bacon the elder. There
is a plain frieze, with a coat of arms surrounded by
acanthus leaves, and a plainly moulded corniceshelf. The room is flanked by passages on its
north and west sides, the area of the latter having
very likely been taken from that of the room
itself.
On the second floor the woodwork is simply
moulded and the walls are now plain, the small
cyma cornices having slightly enriched bedmouldings. In the room above the main staircase
is a bolection-moulded chimneypiece of white
marble with a keystone following the same, rather
flattened, outline. It is probably contemporary
with the house but the shelf above is later. The
southern rear room contains another bolectionmoulded chimneypiece, probably of marble but
now painted, with a wooden cornice-shelf of later
eighteenth-century date.
The rooms on the third storey are fitted in a
very plain manner.