CHAPTER XVIII
The Pantheon: Millfield
The Pantheon, which was designed by
James Wyatt and opened in 1772, stood
on the south side of Oxford Street upon the
site now occupied by Messrs. Marks and Spencer
(Frontispiece, Plates 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). The masquerades
and concerts which took place there were at first
extremely successful, but in the 1780's the popularity of the Pantheon declined, and after the
destruction of the King's Theatre in the Haymarket by fire in 1789, it was converted into an
opera house. After only one complete season the
Pantheon was burnt to the ground in 1792, but
by 1795 it had been rebuilt as a place of assembly
by Crispus Claggett. In 1811–12 N. W. Cundy
converted the building into a theatre, but restrictions imposed by the Lord Chamberlain ruined
this venture and the career of the Pantheon as a
place of public entertainment came to an end in
1814. In 1833–4 the Pantheon was rebuilt as
a bazaar, Sydney Smirke being the architect. In
1867 the building was acquired by Messrs. W.
and A. Gilbey, the wine merchants, and was used
by them as offices and show rooms until 1937; it
was demolished shortly afterwards to make way
for the present building.
There are two questions to which an account
of the history of the Pantheon must attempt to
provide answers—how was such a costly and precarious project promoted, and how did James
Wyatt, a young and unknown architect, obtain
the commission to design the building? Little
attempt to answer the first question appears to
have yet been made and this vagueness has made
theories about the second sound unnecessarily unconvincing. In the Chancery proceedings at the
Public Record Office there are, however, several
petitions and counter-petitions which contain
much rather confused information about the
origin of the Pantheon; they do not answer the
problem of the selection of the architect, but they
present it against a more clearly defined background.
In 1732 Benjamin and John Pollen sold the
freehold of the future site of the Pantheon to
Elizabeth Turst, spinster. The plot had a frontage of some 54 feet to Oxford Street and contained
two houses, behind which there was a large piece
of ground enclosed by the gardens of houses in
Great Marlborough Street, Poland Street and
Oxford Street. (ref. 1) By 1769 this ground had passed
to Elizabeth Turst's nephew and heir, Philip Elias
Turst, described as of Percy Street, St. Pancras,
esquire. (ref. 2)
Apart from his connexion, as founder and
owner, with the Pantheon, hardly anything is
known of Turst. During the Seven Years' War
he had bought for £100 a share in the Blenheim, a
privateer commissioned to cruise against the
French, but had (in his own opinion) been cheated
of his share of the prize money by the promoter of
the venture. (ref. 3) Turst was the Crown lessee of two
houses on the south side of Pall Mall, and in 1768
he granted a lease of them to James Christie, the
auctioneer. (ref. 4) He died intestate on 15 July 1785. (ref. 5)
In 1771 and in 1773 one of the shareholders of
the Pantheon field a bill of complaint in the Court
of Chancery against Turst, complaining of dishonest treatment, and in 1773 and again in 1782
Turst in his turn filed complaints against several
other shareholders. The outcome of these suits is
not known, and the assertions made by the various
parties are frequently contradictory, but the main
course of events was as follows.
In the early 1760's 'several Noblemen and
persons of Fashion' had intimated 'that a place of
public entertainment was wanted for the Winter
Season similar to that of Ranelagh for the
Summer'. (ref. 6) This information came to Turst's
knowledge, perhaps through his wife's friend,
Margaretta Maria Ellice, of Great Russell Street,
spinster. (ref. 7) Miss Ellice was said to be 'a person of
fortune'; (ref. 6) she evidently had the entrée to fashionable society, and had 'had a principal share in the
Planning and Conducting the Entertainments of
the Nobility at Mrs. Corneley's in Soho Square,
in which she had met with the highest approbation'. (ref. 7)
It was perhaps at Miss Ellice's suggestion that
Turst opened negotiations with Mrs. Cornelys,
who in the late 1760's was at the height of her
prosperity. Mrs. Cornelys was thought 'to be the
most proper person to undertake a scheme' of this
kind, and she 'as eagerly treated with him for the
purpose'. Turst 'delivered a proposal and plan in
writing to Mrs. Cornellys for a place of entertainment', and 'various treaties and proposals were had
and made', but ultimately they all 'broke
off'. (ref. 6)
According to her version, Miss Ellice then 'took
divers Opportunities in conversations she had with
some of the Nobility and other Persons of Rank
and Fortune to learn from them whether the
Erection or Structure of a Dome, Building or
Pantheon for Winter's Evening Entertainments
would be agreeable and likely to meet with the
Approbation of the Nobility in General'. She
received a favourable response, which she passed
on to Turst and his wife, and 'hinted to him the
great Advantage that might probably accrue to
them from such a Place of Entertainment'. Turst
was 'much pleased', and repeatedly importuned
her 'to become a joint sharer or partner with him',
to which she agreed. (ref. 7)
Turst's first scheme, according to Miss Ellice,
estimated the cost of the proposed building at
£15,000, which was to be raised by the sale of
fifty shares for £300 each to original subscribers,
and for as much more as possible for later purchasers. Turst knew that Miss Ellice 'was possessed of and intitled to a considerable fortune', and
by promising that 'she should have the chief
conduct and management of the said intended
Pantheon' he persuaded her to agree to buy thirty
of the fifty shares. By articles of agreement dated
22 May 1769 she agreed to pay Turst £10,000 at
specified dates, and to receive thirty shares in
exchange. (ref. 7) Building work began on 5 June
1769, (ref. 8) and during the next few months Turst
received £6800 from Miss Ellice. (ref. 7)
At this point Miss Ellice's version becomes less
credible, since her two petitions of 1771 and 1773
do not tally. In her first account she says that by
November 1770 she had become so ill that she did
not expect to survive; but not wishing to prejudice
Turst's interest by allowing the articles of agreement to fall into other hands after her death, she
sent for Turst and gave him her copy of the
agreement on condition that he should return it if
she recovered; to which proposal he 'very readily
concurred … and accordingly received the said
Deed'. (fn. a) Subsequently he prevailed upon her to
yield up temporarily nineteen of her shares, there
being a number of forgeries in circulation, and
then he refused to return either the agreement or
the shares. (ref. 7)
Her later version is not much more persuasive;
there she says that in November 1770, when she
was 'much weakened and fatigued with an
Assiduous and constant Attendance upon a Sick
Friend', Turst 'by artful insinuations and Misrepresentations' persuaded her to part with both
the agreement and with nineteen shares.
Turst's answer was more convincing. The
building of 'a winter Ranelagh in London' had
first occurred to him 'shortly before or in the
beginning of' 1769, but certainly after the death
of his wife in July 1768. In May 1769 he invited
Miss Ellice 'to be concerned therein'. She had
agreed to advance £10,000 or £12,000 in exchange for thirty out of the fifty shares, and he was
to superintend the erection and management of the
Pantheon. But in the autumn of 1770, when a
heavy outlay on building work had been incurred
and many people thought the venture would fail,
Miss Ellice expressed 'a great uneasiness' and
entreated Turst ('sometimes with Tears') to release her from the agreement of 22 May 1769. To
this he agreed, 'principally out of friendship'; they
both destroyed their copies of the agreement, and
shortly afterwards she returned nineteen of her
shares to Turst. Miss Ellice had, he admitted,
been tired through nursing her friend Mrs.
Sadler (from whom she expected to receive 'a very
considerable fortune', but whose estate proved in
the event to be 'but small'); she had certainly not
been seriously ill, however, or in expectation of
death, and had vacated the agreement because she
feared the loss of her money through the failure of
the project. Some time later the price of shares
began to rise, and she then regretted her precipitate
cancellation of the agreement. (ref. 7)
Which of these two versions is true cannot be
determined, but other documents show broadly how
and when the money was raised for the building of
the Pantheon. Early in 1769 Turst 'caused Plans
of the intended Buildings to be made', and he then
estimated the cost of building at £25,000. He
decided to raise this sum by the sale of fifty £500
shares. Each share was to take the form of a sixtyone year lease commencing at Michaelmas 1770
(when the building would be ready for use),
subject to a ground rent of £8; in the event of the
failure of the scheme he thus provided himself with
a certain annual income of £400 (50 × 8) from
the rents. (ref. 8)
In June 1769, when building work began,
Turst 'caused to be printed fifty Receipts', and by
the end of the month he had sold thirty shares; he
subsequently stated that he eventually sold all the
remainder except one, which he kept for himself. (ref. 8)
The original purchasers of thirty of the fifty shares
have been traced, and are listed in the footnote
below. (fn. b) They included Sir Thomas Robinson,
baronet, who also held shares at Ranelagh, and had
directed the entertainments there; (ref. 29) John Donnellan, murderer (see page 274n.), who paid £600 for
his share; John Cleland, novelist and journalist; (ref. 30)
William James, conceivably the landscapepainter, (ref. 31) and Mrs. Jane Denis, who also owned
shares in one of the assembly rooms at Bath; (ref. 32)
she was a sister of Vice-Admiral Sir Peter
Denis. (ref. 33)
Turst was soon at loggerheads with several of
the shareholders, for the total cost of the building
exceeded £25,000. Turst claimed that the shareholders should each pay one-fiftieth of the extra
amount, but they maintained that they had no
such liability.
These disputes provide indirect information
about the design and erection of the building.
First and foremost they show that the choice of
architect was made by Turst alone. John Sampey
and his wife, who subsequently bought two shares,
stated that 'several plans of the said intended
Building were prepared, and Estimates made and
procured of the expence', and that in 1768 or very
early in 1769 both the estimates and the terms of
sale of shares had been settled. (ref. 34) Building work
began on 5 June 1769 and by the end of July or
beginning of August the old houses had been
demolished and the new building 'raised about the
Basement Story'. But Turst had not sold any
shares before June. (ref. 8) At the time when the designs
were in course of preparation he therefore had had
no shareholders to consult over the choice of
architect.
Even Miss Ellice, with whom he had contracted on 22 May to sell thirty shares, was not
consulted, one of her later complaints being that
she had been prevented from having 'any Communication or Personal Intercourse with the
Person employed as Principal Architect in the said
Work (who was Mr. James Wyatt of Newport
Street …)'. Turst confirmed this, and added that
he never so much as informed her of the plan or
materials to be used other than in a general way.
He was the builders' sole paymaster, (ref. 7) 'the Direction of the aforesaid Buildings being left' to
him. (ref. 8)
It was not until August 1771, when the building 'ought to have been finished', that the shareholders took any part in the management of the
works. They had been led to believe that the
building would be ready by Michaelmas 1770,
and they considered that 'for private reasons'
Turst had 'delayed to complete the same'. They
therefore proposed that 'possession should be delivered to them or to a Committee to be chosen
from among themselves to manage the place and
Entertainments'. To this Turst 'very unwillingly consented', and on 1 August 1771 a committee
of eleven shareholders, of whom Turst was one,
took over the superintendence of the nearly
finished building. (ref. 6) (fn. c)
Turst's petitions and answers to the Court of
Chancery were not concerned with the design of
the building, but in one of them he states that after
he had decided to erect a place of entertainment he
spent a little time in 'thinking and consulting
with his friends and a Surveyor on several plans for
such a Building'. (ref. 7) The 'surveyor' may conceivably have been James Stuart, who from 1764
to 1768 occupied one of the two houses in Oxford
Street which belonged to Turst and which were
demolished in 1769 to form the entrance to the
Pantheon. (ref. 35) The 'friends' are unfortunately unknown, but as one of them may well have introduced James Wyatt to Turst, their possible
identity is worth consideration.
There are three accounts of how James Wyatt
came to design the Pantheon; all of them were
written more than forty years after the event, all
of them contain inaccuracies and none of them
mentions Turst. The Monthly Magazine states that
Wyatt owed his success to his elder brother, John
Wyatt, a surgeon living in Great Newport Street
and 'a zealous promoter of the scheme of the
Pantheon'. (ref. 36) In his Architettura Campestre T. F.
Hunt says that while in Italy James Wyatt had
formed a lifelong friendship with Richard Dalton,
librarian and antiquarian to the King, and that
through Dalton's influence he 'was allowed to
compete with the most eminent architects of that
day'. (ref. 37) The extremely inaccurate account in The
Gentleman's Magazine may perhaps confirm this
theory, for it states that the choice of Wyatt was
due to an unnamed 'Gentleman of leading influence' at the Pantheon whom Wyatt had met in
Italy. (ref. 38)
In his biography of James Wyatt Mr. Antony
Dale has pointed out that these three accounts are
not necessarily contradictory, (ref. 39) and it is indeed
likely that, when Turst first envisaged the Pantheon project, he was already acquainted with the
Wyatt family and, perhaps, with Richard Dalton.
At this time three Wyatt brothers, John, the
surgeon, Samuel, the builder, and James, the
architect, were all living in [Great] Newport
Street; (ref. 40) all three were to play an important part in
the history of the Pantheon, John as shareholder (ref. 41)
and (from August 1771) member of the shareholders' managing committee, (ref. 6) Samuel as 'the
Builder who executed Mr. James Wyatt the
Architect's Plan', (ref. 7) and James as holder of two
shares (ref. 42) as well as architect. A fourth brother,
William, acted as treasurer in 1771 and 1772. (ref. 43) (fn. d)
The origin of the Turst-Wyatt connexion is not
known, but by June 1769, when Turst began to
sell shares, it was evidently a close one, for
Samuel Wyatt was the witness to the issue by
Turst of twenty-four out of the twenty-five
receipts which have been traced. (ref. 45)
The only known connexion between Turst
and Richard Dalton is indirect. In 1768 the
former granted a lease of his two houses in Pall
Mall to James Christie, the auctioneer, to whom
also Dalton in 1771 assigned a lease of other
premises in the same street; Christie may, however, have been in occupation of Dalton's premises
sometime earlier. (ref. 46)
The building of the Pantheon took over two
and a half years (June 1769 to January 1772).
The principal contractor was Samuel Wyatt, (ref. 7)
who, in the twenty-four receipts which he
witnessed for Turst, variously described himself as
builder, (ref. 23) architect, (ref. 17) or gentleman. (ref. 21) His address
was usually given as Newport Street, but occasionally as Berwick Street. 'Mr. Rose … did the
Stucco work in and about the said Building'; he
was a shareholder (ref. 7) and may probably be identified
as Joseph Rose of St. Marylebone, the plasterer. (ref. 47)
Joseph Nollekens was paid £160 for four statues
of Britannia, Liberty, the King and the Queen.
John Stretzle built the organ for £300, and James
Wyatt received £575 'for paintings and statues and
fixing the same', besides his commission of five per
cent as architect. (ref. 8) (fn. e)
The site of the Pantheon (Plate 14) fronted 56
feet 4 inches to Oxford Street, and extended south
for this width to a depth of some 83 feet. At this
point the width increased eastwards for another
44 feet 4 inches and the site continued south for
some 121 feet, with a total width of 96 feet 3
inches. The large south quadrangle was given
over to the great assembly room, or rotunda, and a
sequence of vestibules, card-rooms, etc., filled the
smaller quadrangle fronting Oxford Street. There,
the main doorway, sheltered by a portico, and the
two side doorways opened to a vestibule, beyond
which were three ranges of rooms, wide between
narrow, extending southwards. The vestibule, 50
feet wide and 15 feet deep, was divided by screencolonnades into three compartments, the middle
one having an apse with a door opening to the first
card-room. This was circular, some 25 feet in
diameter, with three doorways and a fireplace on
the cardinal axes, and four apses on the diagonals.
On the east and west sides of this card-room were
corridors or galleries, each 42 feet by 10 feet, the
east one leading to an apse-sided ante-room,
forming the axially placed main entrance to the
great assembly room. The west corridor led
south to the grand staircase, rising in a D-shaped
compartment, and thence into the north-west
angle of the great room. Between the two
corridors was a smaller card-room, a square with
east and west apses, lit by a Venetian window from
an oblong area, 10 feet wide, between the two
card-rooms.
There is general agreement that the scheme of
the great room, or rotunda, was derived from
Santa Sophia at Constantinople. This is particularly true of the plan, which was, nevertheless,
most skilfully contrived for its purpose and for
architectural effect. The great central space was
contained in a square of 60 feet, with triangular
piers splaying off the corners. On the east and
west sides were superimposed colonnades of seven
bays, screening the aisles and galleries. The north
and south sides opened to short arms, 40 feet wide,
terminating in shallow segmental apses. The
triangular piers were linked by segmental arches,
framing the spreading pendentives of the central
dome. The north and south arms had segmentalarched ceilings and saucer semi-domes to the
apses, and the ceilings of the aisles and galleries
were flat.
However Byzantine the plan, the forms and
decorations of the Pantheon were as truly Roman
as eighteenth-century taste could achieve (Frontispiece, Plates 16, 17, 18). Two superimposed orders
were employed throughout the great room, Ionic
below Corinthian, the latter being raised on a
pedestal with balustrades between the columns.
The entablatures of both orders were continued
all round the room. The columns forming the
screens to the aisles and galleries, and the pilasters
flanking the piers, had plain shafts of scagliola
imitating 'giallo antico' marble. The walls behind
the colonnades were simply treated, with statues
placed in niches, alternately semi-circular and
straight-headed, and this treatment was repeated
in the upper stage of the large north and south
apses. The piers supporting the dome had apses
containing stoves in the lower stage, and statues
framed in tabernacles above. The soffits of the
great segmental arches were coffered in squares
alternating with oblongs, the tympana over the
east and west screens were decorated with figure
subjects in large panels, and each of the
pendentives to the dome was adorned with a large
oval medallion amid scrolling arabesques. The
dome was copied, almost exactly, from that of the
Roman Pantheon, albeit in plaster on a flimsy
wooden framing, with five graduated rings of
twenty-eight quadrangular coffers, each with four
sinkings and a central flower, and a wide band of
fan or velarium ornament surrounding the glazed
oculus.
Below the great room was the tea and supper
room, of the same form but divided into five aisles
by the piers supporting the floor of the great
room. (ref. 49) No records appear to exist of the decorations in this room, or in the entrance and cardrooms, other than Horace Walpole's observation
that 'the ceilings, even of the passages, are of
the most beautiful stuccos in the best taste of
grotesque'. (ref. 50)
The front to Oxford Street is described on page
282.
In August 1769 Turst took an opportunity to
purchase a leasehold house on the west side of
Poland Street and backing on to the site of the
Pantheon, thereby obtaining greatly improved
access. According to Turst, James Wyatt's plans
had been 'drawn without reference to such
Opening', and the extra cost of providing this
secondary entrance was £2995 (Plate 15b). By
agreement with the shareholders Turst later
reduced this sum to £2500. (ref. 8) In July 1772,
when the Pantheon had been in use for a few
months, he bought the adjoining house to the
north. (ref. 51)
Squabbling between Turst and the shareholders
began in 1771, or perhaps earlier. The latter
maintained that progress in building was unnecessarily slow, while Turst found that the cost of
the works was exceeding his expectations and
claimed that the extra expense ought to be met by
a further subscription from the shareholders. The
original estimate of cost appears to have been
£12,000, plus £3000 for furnishing, (ref. 6) but before
building began this was revised to the round figure
of £25,000. Turst stated that the cost of the
building was £27,407 2s. 11½d., plus £2500 for
the purchase and rebuilding of the house in Poland
Street, and £7907 1s. 2¾d. for furnishings. He
claimed that the shareholders ought to pay proportionately at the rate of £208 per share for the
extra cost of the house and the furnishing, (ref. 8) but
they replied that Turst had promised that they
would have no further liability beyond the original
£500 cost of their shares. (ref. 6) Turst brought a test
case in Chancery against one of the shareholders,
who was ultimately compelled to pay £141 3s. 6d.
for the extra expenditure incurred. Twelve other
shareholders then voluntarily made similar payments, but a number of their less sporting associates refused to do so, and Turst was still busy
litigating in Chancery when he died in 1785; (ref. 8) his
sister (ref. 52) gallantly continued the action, but with
what result is not known. (ref. 5)
Contemporary reports of the cost of the building
were greatly exaggerated, and have frequently
been repeated. Writing to Sir Horace Mann in
May 1770 Horace Walpole asked 'What do you
think of a winter Ranelagh erecting in Oxford
Road, at the expense of sixty thousand pounds?' (ref. 53)
This figure was later quoted in The Dictionary of
Architecture, (ref. 54) although Walpole had within a
year reduced his estimate by £10,000. (ref. 50) But in
1797 James Wyatt told Joseph Farington that the
cost was £25,500. (ref. 55) The sums mentioned in the
proceedings in the Court of Chancery show that
the true cost was probably mid-way between
Wyatt's recollection and Walpole's second guess.
Turst produced to the Court 'a Book containing
the Account of the Bills of the expence of erecting
and furnishing the Pantheon' (ref. 48) and none of his
opponents appears to have contested his statement
that, as already mentioned, the cost of the building
was £27,407 2s. 11½d., plus £2500 for expenses
incurred in connexion with the entrance from
Poland Street. The Court finally determined that
the cost of furniture, including such items as
paintings, statues, the organ, and Wyatt's five per
cent commission for designing the furnishings,
was £7058 16s. 6d. This gives a grand total
expenditure of £36,965 19s. 5½d. (ref. 8) —a figure
which corresponds closely with Turst's own statement that the cost was £37,000. (ref. 7)
But this large increase in costs did not prevent
the shareholders from making 'a considerable
profit' when the building was opened. (ref. 6) Up to
fifty pounds was paid for tickets for the first
night, (ref. 56) and during the first year after its completion £3000 was taken in admission charges to
inspect the building. (ref. 42) For a while the shares
commanded high prices, £700 being commonly
paid, (ref. 7) as, for instance, by Dr. Charles Burney,
who in 1777 unwisely bought a share for this
figure from John Wyatt. (ref. 57) James Wyatt relates
that 'a year or two' after the opening he sold his
two shares for £900 each, 'so successful was the
scheme at first'. (ref. 42) (fn. f) Nevertheless the shareholders
complained that 'they might have made a greater
profit' if the building had been completed more
quickly, and probably with some justification they
felt 'inclined to believe … that his [Turst's] intentions were not very fair towards the real and
bona fide purchasers of shares'. (ref. 6)
The Pantheon 'which for some time past had
raised the expectations, and engrossed the conversation of the polite world', was finally opened
on Monday, 27 January 1772. 'There were
present upwards of seventeen hundred of the first
people of this Kingdom; among whom were all
the Foreign Ambassadors, the Lord Chancellor,
Lord North, Lord Mansfield', Lord and Lady
Clive and eight dukes and duchesses. 'A foreign
Nobleman observed, that it brought to his mind
the enchanted Palaces described in the French
Romances, which are said to have been raised by
the potent wand of some Fairy; and, that, indeed,
so much were his senses captivated, he could
scarcely persuade himself but that he trod on fairy
ground.' (ref. 56) Nor was this merely foreign flattery,
for blasé middle-aged Horace Walpole was equally
enthusiastic and more precise. In April 1771 he
and the French ambassador had visited the uncompleted building, and Walpole had reluctantly
admitted that 'It amazed me myself. Imagine
Balbec in all its glory! The pillars are of artificial
giallo antico. The ceilings, even of the passages,
are of the most beautiful stuccos in the best taste of
grotesque. The ceilings of the ball-rooms and the
panels [are] painted like Raphael's loggias in the
Vatican. A dome like the Pantheon, glazed… .
Monsieur de Guisnes said to me, "Ce n'est qu'à
Londres qu'on peut faire tout cela".' (ref. 50) In May
1772 Walpole was still sufficiently enraptured to
exclaim, absurdly, 'Mr. Wyat, the architect, has
so much taste, that I think he must be descended
from Sir Thomas [Wyatt, whose works Walpole
was then editing]. Even Henry VIII had so
much taste, that were he alive he would visit the
Pantheon'. (ref. 58) Fifteen months later he was comparing Wyatt's work favourably with that of
Robert Adam, 'and the Pantheon is still the most
beautiful edifice in England'. His friend William
Mason concurred—it was 'the most astonishing
and perfect piece of architecture that can possibly
be conceived' (ref. 59) —and even Gibbon, who can
never be suspected of enthusiasm, observed that
'the Pantheon in point of Ennui and Magnificence
is the wonder of the XVIII Century and the
British Empire'. (ref. 60) Dr. Burney, writing long after
the destruction of the original building by fire (ref. 61)
(an event which inflicted on him a heavy financial
loss), when the first wave of enthusiasm had long
been dissipated, stated simply and unreservedly
that the Pantheon 'was built by Mr. James
Wyatt, and regarded both by natives and foreigners, as the most elegant structure in Europe,
if not on the globe… . No person of taste in
architecture or music, who remembers the
Pantheon, its exhibitions, its numerous, splendid,
and elegant assemblies, can hear it mentioned
without a sigh!' (ref. 62)
Fanny Burney was not quite so enthusiastic, and
she was not alone in comparing the Pantheon unfavourably with Ranelagh. She makes her heroine
Evelina relate how 'About eight o'clock we went
to the Pantheon. I was extremely struck with
the beauty of the building, which greatly surpassed
whatever I could have expected or imagined. Yet,
it has more the appearance of a chapel, than of a
place of diversion; and, though I was quite
charmed with the magnificence of the room, I
felt that I could not be as gay and thoughtless there
as at Ranelagh, for there is something in it which
rather inspires awe and solemnity, than mirth and
pleasure.' (ref. 63) Mrs. Harris recorded that 'As a fine
room I think it grand beyond conception, yet I'm
not certain Ranelagh struck me not equally on the
first sight, and as a diversion 'tis a place I think
infinitely inferior, as there being so many rooms,
no communication with the galleries, the staircase
inconvenient, all rather contribute to lose the
company than show them to advantage.' (ref. 64)
The visit which Boswell and Dr. Johnson made
to the Pantheon on 31 March 1772, when the
subscribers were holding their fifth 'Meeting' or
assembly, was later described by Boswell:
The first view of it did not strike us so much as
Ranelagh, of which he said, the 'coup d'oeil was the
finest thing he had ever seen'. The truth is, Ranelagh
is of a more beautiful form; more of it, or rather indeed
the whole rotunda, appears at once, and it is better
lighted. However, as Johnson observed, we saw the
Pantheon in time of mourning, when there was a dull
uniformity; whereas we had seen Ranelagh when the
view was enlivened with a gay profusion of colours… .
I said there was not half a guinea's worth of pleasure
in seeing this place. JOHNSON. 'But, Sir, there is half a
guinea's worth of inferiority to other people in not
having seen it.' BOSWELL. 'I doubt, Sir, whether
there are many happy people here.' JOHNSON. 'Yes,
Sir, there are many happy people here. There are many
people here who are watching hundreds, and who think
hundreds are watching them.' (ref. 65)
For a few years the Pantheon prospered. Dr.
Burney records that 'During the first winter there
were assemblies only, without dancing or music,
three times a-week'. (ref. 62) At first the shareholders
(who since August 1771 had taken over the
management from Turst) (ref. 6) stipulated that admission could only be on 'the Recommendation of
a Peeress', (ref. 66) but this policy soon proved impractical, perhaps because Captain John Donnellan had
unwisely been chosen as master of the ceremonies.
He 'found himself greatly embarrassed to execute
his office on account of the rigour with which
ladies of easy virtue were exempted from admission', (ref. 67) and, within a month of the opening, a
'Plan for a New Subscription' was being advertised. (fn. 68) (fn. g) Later in this first season there was a
ridotto and a masquerade, (ref. 70) and in July the
proprietors announced that they would shortly
'take into Consideration a Plan for enlarging the
Building'. (ref. 71)
The fashionable season at the Pantheon began
in December or January and ended in April or
May. Subscribers paid six guineas for admission
to the twelve assemblies, which began at about
seven o'clock. (ref. 72) There were usually two masquerades in each season, and the building was
elaborately decorated for these occasions. (ref. 73) At the
end of the American War of Independence in
1783, for instance, a newspaper announced that
'Mr. Wyatt is executing an elegant structure, to
be placed in the center of the Great Room … to
be dedicated to Peace, and will be chiefly composed of warlike implements, now rendered useless by the happy return of peace'. (ref. 74) The doors
were usually opened for masquerades at nine or
ten o'clock, and supper was served at midnight or
later, usually in the basement under the great
room. (ref. 73) This lower room was described as 'large,
low, and under ground, and serves merely as a foil
to the apartments above'. (ref. 75) Sometimes these
masked balls were sponsored by one of the
fashionable clubs—Boodle's in 1774, Goostree's
in 1775, and White's in 1789. (ref. 76)
Twelve subscription concerts also formed part
of the seasonal round, and at the conclusion of
each concert there was dancing. (ref. 77) Fanny Burney's
Evelina relates that 'There was an exceeding good
concert, but too much talking to hear it well.
Indeed I am quite astonished to find how little
music is attended to in silence; for though
everybody seems to admire, hardly anybody
listens'. (ref. 63)
Nevertheless these concerts were at first very
successful, and Dr. Burney, writing in 1789,
relates how, some four years after the opening of
the Pantheon, the proprietors 'ventured to engage'
the singer Lucrezia Agujari 'at the enormous
salary of £100 a night, for singing two songs only!
And yet, however exorbitant the demand, or
imprudent the compliance with it may seem, the
managers … have since involved the proprietors
in disgrace and ruin, by going a more œconomical
way to work. Indeed, in subsequent undertakings,
they have more frequently had money to pay than
receive; for, notwithstanding so much was
disbursed to the Agujari, much was likewise
cleared, and the dividend was more considerable
than it has ever been since that memorable
aera'. (ref. 78) (fn. h)
The turning point in the fortunes of the
Pantheon seems to have been about 1780. In that
year the price of admission to the assemblies was
reduced, (ref. 80) and in 1781 support for the masquerades was also declining. (ref. 81) As early as 1777
the great room had been used out of season for the
demonstration of 'Experiments on the Use of
Conductors in preventing Buildings from being
struck by Lightning', (ref. 82) and in 1781 there was an
exhibition of the stained glass which Mr. Pearson
had made for a window at Salisbury Cathedral. (ref. 83)
In 1784 the centenary of the birth of Handel was
celebrated by five concerts, four in Westminster
Abbey, and one (on 27 May) at the Pantheon.
Important alterations and embellishments were
made by James Wyatt for the occasion, which was
attended by over 1600 people (ref. 84) (Plate 19a).
In 1784 and 1785 Lunardi exhibited his balloon
at the Pantheon, but in the latter season the envelope was punctured 'by a part of the sky-light of
the dome breaking', and 'Mr Lunardi had the
mortification to disappoint a very numerous
assembly of fashionable people'. (ref. 85) In 1786 another aeronaut, Mr. Uncles, exhibited his balloon,
which was 'in the shape of a Fish, with a car
suspended from it, triumphal in form and magnificent beyond description in appearance, in the front
of which are convenient accommodations for four
live Eagles, which Mr. Uncles has so trained, as
in their flight for the purpose of guiding the
machine, or return to the car, to be perfectly
subservient to his pleasure'. (ref. 86) This remarkable
equipage was exhibited at the Pantheon for some
time, 'the birds harnessed as at the ascension', but
the promised 'grand experiment' in dirigible flight
had repeatedly to be postponed owing to unsuitable
weather. (ref. 87) At last, on 18 July 1786, it took place
at Ranelagh in the presence of ten thousand
people. 'Mr. Uncles mounted his seat with eagles
harnessed, and made an effort to ascend—he rose
about eight feet and then dropped'. (ref. 88)
In 1788 the shareholders seem to have decided
to revert to a more discriminating policy at the
Pantheon, and the price of admission to the
assemblies was restored to half a guinea, 'which
will exclude the Bourgeois'. (ref. 89) In April James
Wyatt was making alterations and embellishing
the interior for the approaching festival of music
in 'support of decayed musicians and their families'. (ref. 90) During the second half of 1789 extensive
alterations were carried out, and when the season
of 1790 opened in January with a concert, one
newspaper commented that the new plan 'provided
equally for select and miscellaneous company'.
Another described 'the judicious alterations made
in the great Concert Room. The construction of
the new orchestra and the organ, the disposition of
boxes, with the contrivance of a temporary ceiling,
to prevent any echo from the dome, and at the
same time to keep the company warm, render it
the most magnificent, as well as the most commodious room for music in the world.' (ref. 91) (fn. i) The
season proved busy and successful.
The King's Theatre, Pantheon
After the destruction of the King's Theatre,
Haymarket, by fire on 17 June 1789, two rival
schemes for a new opera house were put forward.
The rebuilding of the theatre on its old site in the
Haymarket was supported by the Prince of Wales,
the Lord Chancellor, Sheridan, and the proprietor, William Taylor; while the building of a
grand new opera house on the north side of
Leicester Square was the aim of R. B. O'Reilly,
supported by the King, the Lord Chamberlain and
the Duke of Bedford. O'Reilly was a law student
who had become the legal adviser of Giovanni
Gallini, the mortgagee of the King's Theatre,
Haymarket; through his 'constant passion' for the
study of architecture he had become deeply involved financially in the scheme for the new opera
house in Leicester Square, and at the critical
moment Gallini had abandoned him. He was
saved from ruin by his ally the Lord Chamberlain,
who promised the patent for the proposed new
theatre in Leicester Square to him and not to
Gallini. But this promise was thwarted by the
Lord Chancellor, and O'Reilly therefore had to
look elsewhere for a theatre. The Pantheon was
the natural choice. (ref. 93)
The shareholders of the Pantheon are said to
have been 'all put into high spirits' when O'Reilly
and his trustees proposed to lease the building and
convert it into an opera house. (ref. 94) A newspaper
commented that 'Of late years, merely for the
sake of rent, it has been lett to any person who had
a shew of any kind'. The shareholders were
therefore glad to grant a twelve-year lease at a
rental of 3000 guineas per annum (ref. 95) and on 30
June 1790 the Lord Chamberlain granted
O'Reilly a four-year licence for the performance
of Italian opera at the Pantheon. (ref. 96)
The rent of 3000 guineas represented a dividend of only 12½ per cent on each of the fifty
£500 shares, but it was a crippling liability for the
new opera house. Nevertheless O'Reilly and his
principal trustee, William Sheldon, a barrister, (ref. 97)
are said to have spent £34,000 on the conversion
of the building, (ref. 98) encouraged, no doubt, by a loan
of £12,000 from their supporters, the Duke of
Bedford and the Lord Chamberlain. (ref. 99) The
gardens of the houses behind the Pantheon were
acquired for an enlargement of the stage, and a
royal entrance from Great Marlborough Street
was planned. (ref. 100) (fn. j) James Wyatt was the architect, (ref. 102) but as his final account was for £5700 he
evidently performed more than the normal duties
of an architect. (ref. 103) Wall was the bricklayer and
Edward Wyatt, 'a very eminent artist', was paid
£685 'for carving, gilding and ornamenting the
inside of the Pantheon'. (ref. 44) Henry Tresham
painted the ceiling (ref. 104) and the curtain, (ref. 105) the
latter representing 'The Apotheosis of Metastasio'. (ref. 106) The frontispiece over the proscenium arch
was designed by William Hodges, R.A., (ref. 107) who
was described in a prospectus as 'Inventor and
Painter of the Decorations'. (ref. 108) (fn. k)
Meanwhile the rebuilding of the King's
Theatre in the Haymarket had been rapidly advancing, and by the end of 1790 both theatres
were nearing completion. In January 1791
several unsuccessful attempts were made to reconcile the two rival establishments, (ref. 110) but the advantage was with the Pantheon, which now held
the Lord Chamberlain's licence for opera and to
which George III had granted the title of King's
Theatre. (ref. 111) On 17 February 1791 the new opera
house was opened with a performance of Sacchini's
Armida. (ref. 112)
The comment passed on the theatre during its
brief career of little more than one season seems to
have generally been favourable. The Times said
that though small in scale 'we may reckon it
among one of the prettiest [theatres] in Europe', (ref. 113)
while Dr. Burney considered that 'though many
of its internal beauties were hidden and annihilated, it still was a perfect model of a complete
theatre in its new form'. (ref. 62) After a life-time of
theatre-going the Earl of Mount Edgecumbe
wrote that 'Mr. Wyatt by this conversion produced
one of the prettiest, and by far the most genteel
and comfortable theatres I ever saw, of a moderate
size and excellent shape, and admirably adapted
both for seeing and hearing… . On the whole
I never enjoyed the opera so well as at this
theatre'. (ref. 114)
The only representation of this theatre is a
crude drawing in the British Museum (ref. 115) (Plate
19b). This view is taken from the stage and shows
a lyre-shaped auditorium with five tiers of boxes
and a gallery, ceiled with a dome resting on
pendentives. The box-fronts are panelled and
there is an elaborately dressed royal box in the
middle of the second tier. The decorations of the
dome begin with a band of interlacing garlands,
the main surface being divided into sectors each
ornamented with a chain of lozenge-shaped
panels, and a smaller band of interlacing garlands
surrounds the painted panel in the crown. Presumably, the main structural features of the great
room were little changed, for the dome-supporting
piers of the original fabric seem to have survived
the fire of 1792 and are traceable in the plan made
in 1831 of Cundy's later theatre. (ref. 116)
The season ended on 19 July 1791, and The
Times recorded that 'this beautiful Theatre is now
left without a rival'. (ref. 117) But the career of the
King's Theatre, Pantheon, was already nearly
over, for the second season was only a few weeks
old when the building was almost completely
destroyed by fire on 14 January 1792. 'About
half past one o'clock on Saturday morning, the inside of this beautiful building was discovered to be
on fire by the patroles, who were employed to
watch the inner part of it. It broke out in a new
building, adjoining the Pantheon, which had been
erected for a Scene-Painter's room. To this part
of the building, the patroles had no access, so that it
is supposed the fire had been kindling some time before it was discovered.' (ref. 118) An inhabitant of one of
the houses in Great Marlborough Street which
backed on to the Pantheon relates how he was
'awoke by the shrieks of females, and the appalling
accompaniments of watchmen's rattles. I threw
open the window, and heard the cry of fire. The
watchmen and patrol were thundering at all the
neighbours' doors, and people were rushing to their
windows, not knowing where the calamity was
seated. Mr. and Mrs Siddons, who resided opposite,
had, en chemise, thrown up the sashes of their bedroom, on the second floor, and called to us, that the
Pantheon was in flames.' The fire appears to have
started at the north end of the building, and he and
the firemen therefore entered from the south and
gained access to the stage, where they 'beheld a
sight such as few ever witnessed… . In consequence of the cold temperature, the rush of air into
the theatre was furious. The very large and magnificent glass chandeliers, that were suspended
from the roof of the building, were whirled round;
and the vast damask curtains, with which the
upper parts of the house were enriched, majestically waved, like the spacious flags of a first-rate
ship of war. Now the leathern hose from several
engines in Marlborough-street, were brought
through the passages of the houses, and the firemen directed the stream from the branch pipes
to the boxes nearest the spreading flames… .
But, vain were the efforts of these powerful
machines. The fire proceeded from north to
south, and, bursting through the boxes and
gallery, I distinctly saw this finest of modern
temples, with its scaglioli columns and gorgeous
embellishments, enveloped in flame, which,
whirling to the centre of the roof, bursting
a passage, exposed the interior of the lofty dome.
This vast column of fire now finding vent,
raged with such irresistible violence, that the
firemen, finding their efforts to save the
building vain, thought it prudent to retire. No
language can describe the awful sublimity of this
scene.
'It is a remarkable fact, that Mr. [James]
Wyatt, who was travelling to town from the
west, in a post-chaise with the ingenious Dixon,
his clerk, saw the glare of this memorable fire
illuminating the sky, whilst crossing Salisbury
Plain, and observed, "That vast light is in the
direction of London; surely, Dixon, the whole
city is on fire", little dreaming that this awful spectacle was blazing away so fatally for himself.' (ref. 119) (fn. l)
The fire happened on the night of one of the
severest frosts within memory, and 'thousands of
people went the whole of the next day to observe
the phenomenon of vast clusters of icicles, twelve
and fifteen feet in length, and as big as branches of
trees, hanging from the north front parapet, and
the very windows, through which the flames had
raged for hours; these icicles being the frozen
stream, projected from the pipes of the fire
engines, which were well supplied during the
conflagration.' (ref. 119) One of the spectators was
J. M. W. Turner, who recorded the scene in the
drawing reproduced on Plate 20a.
Within a few days, rumours that the building
had been deliberately fired were so strong that they
attracted the attention of Henry Dundas, the
Secretary of State. The protagonists of the resurgent King's Theatre, Haymarket—particularly
the creditors and the proprietor, William Taylor
—had every reason to wish for the destruction of
the King's Theatre, Pantheon, whose successful
existence virtually precluded the renewal of the
opera licence to Taylor. 'Idea crowds upon idea',
commented The Times, 'that the fire was not
accidental—that a scheme was in agitation by the
demolition of one House to erect the standard of
Italy [i.e. Italian opera] at the other', but the truth
of the matter has never been elucidated. (ref. 120)
The Pantheon never fully recovered from the
effects of this disaster. James Wyatt and several
of the artists and craftsmen who had adapted the
building to its new use in 1790 had not been
paid, (ref. 121) and O'Reilly had fled to Paris, probably
even before the fire, to avoid his creditors. (ref. 122)
The twelve-year lease which had been gladly
granted in 1790 was evidently vacated, for there
is no further mention of it after the fire, and
in July 1792 the shareholders advertised the site
to be let on building lease. (ref. 123)
The Rebuilding by Crispus Claggett
In the latter part of 1792 Crispus Claggett,
described as of Berners Street, esquire, (ref. 52) agreed
with the shareholders to take a lease and by
February 1793 the ruins of the old building were
being cleared away. (ref. 124)
In March 1794 the shareholders, whose own
sixty-one year interests granted by Turst were
due to expire at Michaelmas 1831, leased the site
to Claggett for the whole of the remainder of their
term. (ref. 52)
Crispus Claggett was the proprietor of the
Apollo Gardens in Westminster Bridge Road,
Lambeth. (ref. 125) At the Pantheon he appears to have
acted as his own architect. The walls of the new
building (which incorporated part of the old) were
four feet thick, and supported 'a prodigious roof
of timber' which was prepared 'in a field, on the
east side of Walcot-place, Lambeth', (ref. 126) not far
from the Apollo Gardens. Claggett intended to
provide masquerades and concerts, and the
principal room therefore consisted of 'an Area or
Pit, … and a double tier of elegant and spacious
Boxes, in the centre of which is a most splendid
one for the Royal Family'. The Pantheon reopened with a masquerade on 9 April 1795. (ref. 127)
An aquatint in The Microcosm of London (Plate
20b) shows a riotous masquerade in Claggett's
great room. The body of this room appears to
have been an oblong with an apse at one end,
decorated with giant Corinthian pilasters in the
corners, supporting a bracketed entablature below
a deep cove, this and the flat ceiling being painted
with figures among clouds. On each side, however, was a Gothic arcade of three wide bays,
opening to a gallery below a groin-vaulted ceiling.
The orchestra recess at one end of the room was
flanked with boxes, and it appears that there were
two tiers of boxes round the apsed end.
Claggett met with little success, and in 1796
The Times commented that 'The Genius of
Dulness seemed to have spread her mantle over
the occasional Visitants at this Temple …; and
the more lamentable is this circumstance, as the
beauty of the building and decorations, together
with the excellent accommodation, ought to have
exhilerated the Company… . The Pantheon is so
well adapted for Concerts and other public Entertainments, it is a sort of reflection on the national
taste that it is not more frequently resorted to.' (ref. 128)
In 1796 or 1797 Claggett disappeared and was
never heard of again. (ref. 129) In April 1798, when his
payment of rent was over a year in arrears, the
shareholders complained to the Bow Street
justices that Claggett had 'deserted the said
premises and left the same uncultivated and unoccupied' and that therefore no sufficient distress
could be had. The justices found this complaint
to be true and they accordingly restored possession
of the Pantheon to the shareholders. (ref. 130) (fn. m)
From 1798 to 1810 the shareholders seem to
have reverted to the original custom of managing
the Pantheon themselves, (ref. 131) and concerts, lectures,
exhibitions and masquerades provided the main
fare. (ref. 132) But the popularity of masquerades was
waning, (ref. 133) and in 1810 the shareholders decided
to lease the building again, at the much reduced
rent of £1000 per annum, which represented a
dividend of only four per cent on each £500 share.
N. W. Cundy's theatre at the Pantheon
The new tenants were the directors and secretary of the 'National Institution for improving
the Manufactures of the United Kingdom, and
the Arts connected therewith'. In September
1810 a prospectus announcing this grandiose project was issued from the Pantheon, (ref. 134) but within a
year the institution was in debt, (ref. 135) and in July
1811 Charles Bonnor (Bonner), one of the
directors, disposed very advantageously of the lease
to Colonel Henry Francis Greville. (ref. 136)
Colonel Greville (see page 302) was the proprietor of the Argyll Rooms in Argyll Street,
where he held an annual licence from the Lord
Chamberlain for music and dancing, burlettas, (fn. n)
and occasionally for dramatic entertainments by
children under seventeen years of age. By 1811
the Argyll Rooms were too small for his needs, and
early in that year he obtained the Lord Chamberlain's permission to transfer his licence to the
Pantheon. (ref. 136) In July he held a public meeting at
the Argyll Rooms 'to take into consideration the
best plan to establish a theatre at the Pantheon';
'a great number of Noblemen and Gentlemen
attended,' eight of whom formed a committee of
management to provide Greville with the necessary backing. (ref. 138) The latter then acquired from
Bonnor the National Institution's lease, (ref. 136) and at
about the same time (July or August 1811) the
committee of management approved Nicholas
Wilcox Cundy's plans and estimates for adapting
the Pantheon to theatrical uses. (ref. 138)
Nicholas Wilcox Cundy described himself as of
New Norfolk Street, gentleman, (ref. 139) and 'educated
as an architect'. (ref. 138) He was the projector of a
proposed ship canal from Portsmouth to London,
and was later the author of one of the four competing schemes for the London and Brighton
railway. (ref. 29)
Figure 54:
Pantheon Theatre, Oxford Street, plan in 1831. Redrawn from a plan in the Raymond Mander and Joe Mitchenson Theatre Collection
When the cost of executing Cundy's designs
was ascertained, Greville 'found that he could not
furnish the necessary means to complete the
aforesaid theatre' and in August 1811 he therefore
contracted with Cundy and Joas Pereira de Souza
Caldas, a Portuguese wine merchant who had been
director of the Lisbon opera, to sell his interest in
both the lease and in the Lord Chamberlain's
licence. Cundy was to be responsible for the
construction of the theatre and Caldas for its
management, while Greville was 'to furnish the
Licence from year to year'. (ref. 140)
On the strength of this agreement, and in expectation of the regular renewal of the annual
licence from the Lord Chamberlain, Cundy and
his supporters then expended about £50,000 on
building and fitting up the new theatre. (ref. 138) By
the acquisition of garden ground on the south,
the stage was to be made as large as that at Drury
Lane. (ref. 141) The design of the theatre was, according
to Cundy, modelled on that of 'the great theatre
at Milan'; there were 175 boxes, the pit was 60
feet square, and the building was 'most admirably
constructed for sight and sound'. (ref. 138) Years later
this 'colossal theatre' was described as 'too large
for any rational purpose of dramatic representation' and 'a huge sepulchre in the midst of life
and gaiety'. (ref. 142) It was opened for the performance
of burlettas on 27 February 1812. (ref. 143)
The plan made in 1831 (ref. 116) of Cundy's ill-fated
theatre shows that it incorporated the remains of
Wyatt's structure (fig. 54). The entrance vestibule had much the same plan, and the rooms
behind it were formed within the old walls. Even
the four triangular piers of Wyatt's dome can be
traced in this plan, which shows an opera-house
auditorium with segmental-ended and straightsided tiers of boxes, and a splayed proscenium with
boxes flanking the stage apron. As the working
stage was only some 27 feet deep, it seems clear
that the extension proposed at various times was
never carried out. There are two views of the
interior in Wilkinson's Theatrum Illustrata
(sic). (ref. 144) One view is of the auditorium with its
five tiers of boxes, the topmost broken in the
middle by the deep gallery (Plate 21a). On
the panelled box-fronts were fixed brackets for the
hanging lustres. The main ceiling was probably
flat, but painted with a sky dome within a ring of
coffers. The other view shows the stage, with
giant Corinthian pilasters flanking the ellipticalarched proscenium, which had four boxes in each
splayed reveal. A melancholy picture of the
auditorium and stage, in an advanced state of
dilapidation, seems to offer a more convincing impression of the proscenium than that given by
Wilkinson, and shows that the back wall of the
stage was constructed with a great arched opening,
intended to lead to the proposed back stage extension (Plate 21b).
The difficulties which within two years were
to kill the Pantheon as a place of entertainment
began to appear even before the new theatre had
opened. In December 1811 and the two following months there was a squabble between the Vice
Chamberlain, Lord John Thynne, on the one
hand, and Greville, Cundy and Caldas on the other
over an irregularity in the issue of the licence. (ref. 145)
This had hardly been settled and the theatre
opened when the building was found to be unsafe,
and on 19 March the Lord Chamberlain ordered
it to be closed. (ref. 146) In the same month Caldas was
declared bankrupt. (ref. 147) John Nash was employed
to supervise the repair of the roof, (ref. 148) where there
were three broken beams, (ref. 149) but in April James
Wyatt, who had been employed by the Lord
Chamberlain to survey the building, still did not
consider it secure. Nevertheless the season appears
to have been resumed for a few nights, for early in
May William Taylor, the manager of the King's
Theatre, Haymarket, indicted the performers for
infringement of the Lord Chamberlain's licence;
the case was dismissed by the Bow Street magistrates. (ref. 150) In June Cundy was declared bankrupt. (ref. 151)
All these troubles might have been surmounted
if the Lord Chamberlain had been willing to
renew the annual licence, which expired on 30
July 1812, (ref. 152) on less restrictive terms. But he
refused to modify the existing licence, which permitted only music and dancing, burlettas, and
dramatic entertainments by children under seventeen years of age. He insisted that comic opera and
ballet would not be permitted, that music and
dancing only covered balls and assemblies, and that
the entertainments were to be supported by
subscription and not by money taken at the door;
he would not renew the licence to anyone except
Greville, who refused to accept it on these terms. (ref. 153)
For over a year the Pantheon remained shut.
On 17 November 1812 there was another fire,
which began at the north end of the building,
on the first floor. Within an hour or two 'the
flames were happily got under', the only damage being to the passages and lobbies which led
from the Oxford Street entrance to the body of
the theatre. (ref. 154)
Between June 1812 and July 1813 numerous
requests for a licence were addressed to the Lord
Chamberlain. In one of his petitions Cundy
stated that he was 'involved in a multiplicity of
difficulties in consequence of the Theatre being
shut up and utter ruin must follow him and his
Family'; he was already on bail for debt (ref. 155) and he
did in fact spend most of the next four years in
gaol. (ref. 156) In the spring of 1813 the aristocratic
supporters of the Pantheon venture, headed by the
Marquess of Blandford, tried unsuccessfully to
obtain a licence. They still supported Cundy,
with whom they had come to an arrangement; (ref. 157)
many of them had subscribed money in expectation
of the renewal of the annual licence, and were
aggrieved at the Lord Chamberlain's refusal to
comply with established custom. Their requests
were, however, unsuccessful, as were those of
Colonel Greville in February 1813 for a renewal
on the terms which he had rejected in the previous
summer. (ref. 158)
At last, in desperation, Cundy opened the
Pantheon as an 'English Opera-house' on 22 July
1813 without a licence from the Lord Chamberlain. (ref. 159) He claimed that he was entitled to do so
under the licence for music and dancing which he
held from the Justices of the Peace. On 24 July
the Lord Chamberlain ordered the theatre to be
closed, (ref. 158) but Cundy ignored this and continued
to perform 'regular drama'. He maintained that
this type of entertainment could 'by certain
magical operation, occasioned by the touch of a
single chord in a piano-forte, cease to be Dramatic,
and might all at once come under the description
of "Music and Dancing"', for which he had a
licence from the justices. This ingenious idea
was not supported by the Marlborough Street
magistrates when on 4 August they heard an
information which had been laid against Cundy,
who was fined £50. Undeterred, he appealed to
Quarter Sessions, and meanwhile continued the
performances. Informations were then laid
against the performers under the Vagrancy Acts,
and a few weeks later Cundy's appeal was dismissed. (ref. 160) This disastrous season came to an end,
but on 27 December 1813 Cundy tried again with
'ballets, pantomimes, etc. upon a very inferior
scale', which continued for three weeks. (ref. 161)
The Pantheon was never again used as a place
of entertainment, either social or theatrical. In
April 1814 the Duke of Norfolk presented a Bill
in the House of Lords 'for the better establishing a
Theatre at the Pantheon, and to authorize the
Proprietor to perform the regular Drama', but it
was rejected at the second reading. (ref. 162) In October
of the same year the fittings of the building were
sold by auction under a distress for arrears of rent.
'Every thing that could be moved, and that was
left from other distresses previously put in' was
sold; even the nails were drawn, and the floor of
the pit taken up. Shortly afterwards the justices
refused to renew their licence for music and
dancing, on the grounds that Cundy had failed to
satisfy them that he was still in possession of the
building. (ref. 163)
But he continued to agitate, and in 1816 the
law officers of the Crown, who had been consulted, expressed their opinion that there was no
vested property in an annual licence, and that the
Lord Chamberlain had the right not to renew. (ref. 164)
In 1818 Sir Francis Burdett, in moving unsuccessfully in the House of Commons for the
appointment of a committee to enquire into a
petition presented by Cundy, stated that there had
been 'a most cruel, harsh, unjust and improper
exercise of the power of the Lord Chamberlain'. (ref. 156)
In 1824 the lease which Colonel Greville had
acquired from the National Institution appears to
have expired, and thereafter Cundy had no legal
interest in the building. (ref. 132) But there still remained the leasehold interest created by Turst's
sale of the fifty Pantheon shares. This did not
expire until Michaelmas 1831 (sixty-one years
from Michaelmas 1770), and so for another seven
years the dismal shell stood useless and empty. (fn. o)
In July 1831 the Lord Chamberlain refused
to grant a licence to J. M. Hanchett, who had
'served in His Majesty's Royal Navy for thirty
Years'. (ref. 166)
Later history of the Pantheon
The freeholders of the Pantheon were now the
devisees of Philip Elias Turst's sister Salome
Turst. (ref. 167) In 1831 and the two following years
the Pantheon was on several occasions put up for
sale by auction, the last attempt being in April
1833, when the auctioneer admitted that the
building was 'in a state of great decay; that it would
be necessary to rebuild the roof, and he would
advise that several feet of the walls be taken
down, so as to limit the great extent of the
premises'. (ref. 168) After the failure of these attempts
the freeholders seem to have decided to lease the
building, and shortly afterwards 'a few gentlemen'
decided to erect a bazaar there at their joint
expense. (ref. 165) The area of the site was enlarged by
the acquisition of extra land on the east and south
sides, and a new entrance passage from Great
Marlborough Street was formed. Ultimately the
freeholders granted a sixty-year lease of the
original site, while the additional pieces were
leased for varying terms, mostly shorter. The
lessees were Samuel and George Baker, builders,
of Montague Place, Russell Square, and Edward
and James Day, both of Rochester, gentlemen;
Samuel Baker is also described as of Rochester,
esquire. (ref. 169)
The architect of the Pantheon Bazaar was
Sydney Smirke, (ref. 170) who erected a great hall of
basilican plan, with a barrel-vaulted nave of five
wide bays, flanked by flat-ceilinged aisles and
galleries, the latter linked across each end bay of
the nave (Plate 22b). Views of this interior,
elaborately decorated with papier mâché ornaments, suggest a gross Victorian version of Wren's
St. Bride's Church. Building work began in the
winter of 1833–4, but in February, when over
two hundred men were employed, progress came
to 'a complete standstill, owing to the spirit of
combination among the workmen, most of whom
are members of some of the unions which are
almost everywhere forming among the working
classes'; the cause of this contumaciousness was
the men's refusal to accept a reduction of their
daily wage from three shillings to two shillings and
ten pence. The bazaar was opened on 27 May
1834. (ref. 171)
The fabric of the building was not entirely new.
The whole of the roof and part of the walls of the
old theatre were taken down, (ref. 172) but the entrance
fronts to both Oxford Street and Poland Street
were retained, as were also the rooms immediately
behind the former. The porch in Oxford Street
was 'materially improved by the insertion of other
and additional columns, and by the recomposition,
in better style, of the entablature'. In the new
entrance from Great Marlborough Street there
was a conservatory and aviary (ref. 173) (Plate 22a). The
papier mâché ornaments and sculpture were by
Charles Bilefield. Admission to the bazaar was
free, but the proprietors took a commission charge
of ten per cent on all sales. (ref. 174)
In 1867 the Pantheon Bazaar was acquired by
W. and A. Gilbey, the wine and spirit merchants, (ref. 175) who remained in occupation until 1937,
when they sold the property to Marks and Spencer
Ltd. The old building was demolished shortly
afterwards and the present shop, which was
designed by W. A. Lewis and Partners, is still
occupied by Marks and Spencer Ltd; (ref. 176) Robert
Lutyens was the architect for the elevations to
Oxford Street and Poland Street. (ref. 177) In 1937 the
Georgian Group attempted unsuccessfully to preserve the Oxford Street façade for re-erection elsewhere, and Marks and Spencer offered to
contribute to the cost. This offer was taken up
by Mr. Edward James, who commissioned
Christopher Nicholson to design a country house
behind the Pantheon façade for erection on his
estate at Chilgrove in Sussex. Plans were drawn
up, but the project did not materialise, and the
stones have since been lost. (ref. 178)
The one feature of the Pantheon that survived
all vicissitudes until the final demolition of the
building was the front to Oxford Street, although
even this was altered by both Claggett and Smirke
(Plates 15a, 23a, 23b). As originally designed by
James Wyatt, it was a charming composition of
two storeys, with a central feature of three bays,
wide between narrow, slightly recessed between
attic-crowned pavilions. A Doric portico of three
bays, with plain-shafted columns and a simple
entablature with a low-pitched pediment, projected from the ground storey. This last had a
rusticated face, with a round-arched doorway
between two rectangular windows behind the
portico, and a round-arched doorway in each
pavilion. The upper storey was underlined by a
pedestal, with a blind balustrade below the window
in each pavilion. These windows were each
dressed with an architrave and a triangular pediment resting on scroll-consoles, and set against a
face of smooth ashlar. The three bays of the
central feature were divided by plain-shafted
columns and antae of an engaged Ionic order. In
the wide middle bay was a Venetian window, also
Ionic, the frieze and cornice of its entablatureimpost being continued across each narrow side
bay, above a niche with a statue and below an
oblong panel modelled with an urn between
griffins. There was a full entablature across the
central feature, surmounted by an open balustrade,
but the pavilions had only the frieze and cornice,
and, above the blocking-course, a low attic stage
with an oblong window and a pyramid roof. (ref. 179)
For the Pantheon Bazaar, Sydney Smirke
altered the ground storey by replacing Wyatt's
portico by one of his own, with fluted Doric
columns of cast iron supporting a triglyphed entablature of stone, and a balcony of cast iron.
Claggett had extended the attic across the central
feature (Plate 23a), and Smirke made further
alterations, dividing the attic by panelled pilasters
into three bays, with an oblong window in the
middle and a round window on either side.