No. 32
Architects, S. P. and C. R. Cockerell, 1819–21. Blocking-course and dormer windows altered in 1897 by W. D.
Caroë. Porch added in 1931 by H. L. Anderson
Little is known of the history of the first house
built here. The site was granted by the Earl of St.
Albans and Baptist May to trustees for John, first
Lord Belasyse, together with the sites to the north
and south of it (see page 191), on the same day in
March 1669/70 on which Lord Halifax was
granted his site on the west side of the square. (ref. 594)
No. 32 first appears in the ratebooks in 1673, at
the same time as No. 33. The only respect in
which these houses seem to have differed externally from the other single-plot houses which
followed them in the square was in the chimneystack which ran up the facade between them. (ref. 595)
The first occupant of No. 32 was Robert Rich,
Earl of Holland and Warwick, whose widow
occupied the house after him. From 1689 to 1691
the widow of Lord Belasyse, who had lived in
No. 33 until his death, resided in the house while
her son lived next door. From 1692 onwards,
however, the house was occupied for short periods
by a succession of residents, presumably as tenants
of the Belasyse family.
From 1729 to 1737 the rates were paid by the
Earl of Ashburnham, who died in the house. For
part of this time, however, from November 1732
to September 1735, the house was tenanted by Sir
Robert Walpole. (ref. 596) During Walpole's occupation
of the house a high wind in January 1734/5
sufficed to cause the collapse of the kitchen buildings. (ref. 597)
In 1749–53, during the rebuilding of the
neighbouring site as part of the new Norfolk
House, No. 32 stood empty before Lord Montague entered into occupation of the house. (ref. 6) But
no reconstruction at this period is apparent in
Bowles's view published in c. 1752 (Plate 130)
which shows the original seventeenth-century
façade.
In 1766 the house was sold by Lord Montague
to Earl Brooke, Earl of Warwick, (fn. a) for
£5000. (ref. 598) In 1770 the sale of the house to
Richard Terrick, Bishop of London, as a town
residence for him and his successors in the see,
was negotiated. Robert Mylne surveyed the
house in February, judged that it was 'strong substantial and well built', prophesied accurately that
it 'would stand for Fifty Years', and valued it at
£5000. Lord Warwick is nevertheless said to have
spent £1000 or more repairing and refronting the
house, and the sale which was finally made in
January 1771 was for £6200. (ref. 599)
The construction of Waterloo Place obliged
the New Street Commissioners to reconstruct part
of the back premises of No. 32, and also of No.
33. (ref. 600) An arrangement was made in 1813 by
which the Commissioners were to give the Bishop
and the owner of No. 33, Lord Eliot, ground
bought from the Duke of Norfolk, and to build
stables on the reshaped back premises of the two
houses. (ref. 601) From 1814 to the autumn of 1816 the
Bishop's architect, Samuel Pepys Cockerell, was
negotiating with John Nash, representing the
Commissioners, and Soane, Lord Eliot's architect. A carriageway to the stables of No. 32
from Charles Street was provided across the back
premises of No. 33, a plan approved in trial
manœuvres carried out with a 'heavy coach' and
an 'unskilful man' by Cockerell at Fulham and the
Bishop in London. The delay in completing the
arrangements was attributed by Nash to the suspicious nature of Lord Eliot (ref. 602) (see pages 207–8).
At this time Cockerell was reconstructing Fulham Palace for the Bishop, John Howley. In
1818 the alteration or rebuilding of No. 32 was
taken in hand, probably facilitated by the fall in
building costs following the conclusion of the war.
In November of that year Cockerell informed
Soane, who was extending No. 33, and with whom
he had recently corresponded over the improved
drainage from the two houses, that alterations at
No. 32 were in contemplation but not yet settled.
He again wrote to Soane in January 1819, offering
to explain the proposed alterations and suggesting
a discussion of the arrangement of the back
premises of the Bishop's house to afford adequate
lighting to No. 33. (ref. 603) In the same month he had
informed the Bishop that the estimate for the
alterations from the builders, David Jonathan of
Beak Street, carpenter, and Joseph Drown of
Broad Street, bricklayer (who was working next
door at No. 33) was £200 less than he had
expected, and suggested that a parliamentary Bill
should be drafted seeking authority to rebuild the
house out of the funds of the see. (ref. 604) By May it
was found that legal opinion was adverse to the
Bill, and the Bishop had then to decide whether to
repair the house at his own expense or rebuild
completely with money borrowed from ecclesiastical funds and repayable over a term probably
longer than his own life. Cockerell thought that a
thorough repair, with 'some improvement' but
retaining the existing floor levels and the 'present
character' of the front, would cost £4500, and
recommended this rather than a complete rebuilding at about £8500. The Bishop decided, however, on the more ambitious alternative, and
in July 1819 a private Act (ref. 605) was obtained which
authorized the Bishop to borrow up to £10,000
for 'rebuilding wholly or in part and repairing' the
house, and to mortgage property of the see to
secure the loan. The Governors of Queen Anne's
Bounty were empowered to advance the money.
The subsequent leasing of the house was forbidden.
In August 1819 the Bishop, together with the
Archbishop of Canterbury and J. H. Palmer,
esquire, of Marylebone, who had been appointed
under the Act to enter into contracts and make
payments for the rebuilding, came to an agreement with Jonathan and Drown for the execution
of the work according to detailed specifications
and under the direction of S. P. and C. R.
Cockerell. Jonathan and Drown agreed to do the
work for £7823. This sum was later reduced to
£7500, but payments for additional work by them
and other workmen amounted to £3011 7s. 1d.
A payment of £458 17s. was made to 'Messrs.
Cockerell and Son, their Commission as Architects', and this, together with legal costs and payments to the clerk of the works, brought the sum
total to £11,124 11s. 8d. The excess over the
£10,000 authorized to be spent by the Act was
paid by the Bishop 'out of his Lordship's private
Estate'. (ref. 606) By September work had begun. The
agreement had required it to be completed by
December 1820 but in fact it was not finished
until a year later and the final payments were
made in April 1822. (ref. 606)
(fn. b)
The only known letter to Bishop Howley
dealing directly with the design of the house was
written in October 1819 by S. P. Cockerell's son,
C. R. Cockerell, on behalf of his father. (ref. 602) The
fact that he was charged with the task of explaining and commending the design to the Bishop
and that plans for the rebuilding exist signed by
him (ref. 607) suggest that it may have been largely his
work and that The Builder of 1854 was correct in
attributing the house to him and not to his
father. (ref. 608) Four of the five certificates made to
J. H. Palmer notifying the progress of the work
were signed by C. R. Cockerell, who also seems
to have been chiefly responsible for ordering the
work additional to the contract. (ref. 609)
C. R. Cockerell's letter shows that the Bishop
had questioned the propriety of the round-headed
first-floor windows and had quoted 'authorities'
critical of their juxtaposition to the more modest
fenestration of Norfolk House. Cockerell, avowing his wish to satisfy the Bishop's expressed desire
'that the character of London House tho' little
adorned should be distinguished from the usual
order of Builders' Houses', pointed to the 'extremely awkward' width of the house, which was
too great for three windows of ordinary form and
too narrow for five, while four were objectionable
as 'having no symmetry' and conflicting with the
plan of the interior. Cockerell was particularly
reluctant to reduce the intended size of the principal rooms which were 'already small', and was
satisfied that the existing plan gave the best disposition of light 'which in the Drawing Room
should be very chearful'. (ref. 602)
The rebuilt house was in occupation by 1821. (ref. 6)
Repairs were carried out by Ewan Christian in
1876. (ref. 610) By 1897 the use of the house as an
episcopal residence had been discontinued 'for
many years', (ref. 610) being utilized only 'on those rare
occasions when it is galvanised into temporary
usefulness for the purposes of a charity bazaar or a
missionary meeting'. (ref. 611) In that year Bishop Mandell Creighton proposed to resume its occupation,
and substantial alterations were carried out by
W. D. Caroë, including improvements to the
drainage, plumbing and ventilation, replanning of
the bedrooms, and 'new windows and dormers to
the attics'. The blocking-course, previously quite
plain, was probably given its present form at that
time. (ref. 612)
In 1919 the Caledonian Club took the house
on a yearly tenancy. (ref. 613) In July 1930 Bishop
Winnington-Ingram was authorized to vest the
house in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who
were empowered to sell it. (ref. 614) In December the
Commissioners came to an agreement with the
club by which a twenty-one-year lease was granted
to the club, which was to be sold the freehold for
£47,000 at the next vacancy of the see. The club
was given the right to pull down the house and
erect a new building at a cost of not less than
£30,000, as a form of security for their observance
of the contract to purchase the house, alternative
to a monetary deposit. (ref. 615) In February 1931 the
club was granted permission to unite No. 32 to
No. 33, which it also occupied, and to add a porch
to No. 32. (fn. c) The porch, designed by H. L. Anderson of Stratton Street to harmonize with the firstfloor window balconies, was added by the spring
of 1932. (ref. 617)
At this time the club was able to ask the Commissioners for the release of securities worth
£29,500 in consideration of the amount spent by
it on the house. Further securities were released
later in the summer. (ref. 615) The interior was partially
rebuilt and united with No. 33 by H. L. Anderson
(fig. 40). Within the limits of his commission he
showed considerable sympathy for the character of
Cockerell's work. Although the front rooms were
altered their decoration was to a large extent preserved, but the principal and service staircases
were demolished to increase the size of the back
rooms and make way for a large lobby on each
floor, leading to a new staircase of ovoid plan
(taking the place of the Bishop's study and bedroom) designed to serve both No. 32 and No. 33.
A large annexe, with a squash court and bedroom
accommodation, was built on the site of the back
offices.
On the resignation of the Bishop of London in
1939 the provisions for the conveyance of the
house to the club became effective, the sale being
completed in the following year. (ref. 615) In 1949 Nos.
32 and 33 were both bought by the Prudential
Assurance Company. (ref. 618)
Despite the authority given to the Caledonian
Club in 1930 to demolish the house, and the subsequent drastic interior reconstruction, the exterior
is still largely that of 1819.
The front elevation (Plate 198) is one of the
best surviving in the square, a simple and refined
design, three storeys high and three bays wide,
faced with yellow malm stock brick, dressed with
stone originally Bath but with later work in Portland. The entrance, in the left-hand bay,
originally had an unobtrusive doorcase, with plain-
shafted Doric pilasters supporting a plain lintel.
The Ionic porch, with fluted columns in antis,
added by H. L. Anderson, although well designed,
has impaired the balance of the front. The
two ground-storey windows have stone sills and
flat arches of gauged brickwork. The principal
storey is underlined by a pedestal-course, broken
by stone balconies with Doric-column balusters
(substituted in the course of building for the
balcony design shown in Plate 199) below the
three evenly spaced Venetian windows. These
are slightly recessed in large round-arched
openings in the plain brick face, and each window
is divided into three lights by slender pilasters of a
Doric character, carrying moulded imposts over
the narrow side lights, and a moulded archivolt
over the middle light. The plain fan-shaped
lunettes appear to be of cement. A moulded sillband underlines the three third-storey windows,
which are small and have flat arches of gauged
brickwork. The front is bounded by plain brick
pilasters, and finished with a plain stone frieze and
boldly profiled cornice. This was originally surmounted by a plain blocking-course, of which two
sections have been removed, probably by W. D.
Caroë in 1897, when the garret windows were
enlarged, the breaks being elegantly finished with
stelae and voluted stops. The unfortunately
placed rain-water pipes and box-heads, flanking
the front, are dated 1898.
Figure 40:
Nos, 32 and 33 St. James's Square, first-floor plans, original (left) and present (right) states.
Original state re-drawn from plans in Sir John Soane's Museum and London Diocesan Registry
The interior was planned to suit the Bishop's
special requirements, and was two rooms deep in
front, with a wing on the north of the inside
court, behind which were offices and stables
(Plate 199). The front room on the ground floor
was the eating-room, with two windows overlooking the square. To the north was a spacious
entrance hall with doors opening to a service stair
(against the north party-wall) and to the principal
stair hall containing a stone staircase with brass
balusters and a moulded mahogany handrail.
South of the stair hall, behind the eating-room, was
the secretary's room, linked by a private lobby
with the Bishop's study, a large room in the back
wing, having a three-light bow window overlooking the court. A private stair at the back led to the
Bishop's bedroom over his study. The drawingroom and its ante-room were over the entrance
hall and eating-room, and above the secretary's
room was Mrs. Howley's bedroom (fig. 40). The
principal rooms appear to have been decorated in a
rather austere manner, although the plain walls
above the pedestal-dado were hung with coloured
papers in place of the present panels and some colour
was introduced into the friezes and cornices of the
dining- and drawing-rooms. The ground-floor
rooms have simple egg-and-dart cornices and
moulded borders to the ceilings, which are plain
but for the small chandelier roses within narrow
moulded circles. The plasterwork in the first-floor
rooms is more elaborate, with enriched dentilled
cornices and ceiling borders composed of intricate
fret panels between paterae stops. The front
room has a refixed original chimneypiece of white
marble, with a bishop's mitre carved on its lintel.
The veined white marble chimneypieces in the
other reception rooms are original, but not remarkable.