CHAPTER XXV
The University of London at No. 6 Burlington Gardens: Stone Conduit Close
This 'example of a refined or enriched style
of Palladian or Italian architecture' was
designed in 1866–7 by (Sir) James
Pennethorne, acting as architect to the Office of
Works, to house London University, and was
opened by Queen Victoria in pouring rain on 11
May 1870. The site had previously been part of
the garden of Burlington House. The building
served its original purpose until the removal of the
University to the Imperial Institute in 1900.
Throughout the period of occupation of its
Burlington Gardens premises the function of the
University was confined to the conduct of examinations and the bestowal of degrees: no courses
of instruction were given and thus a building of
comparatively modest dimensions sufficed to house
the University in its entirety.
It was the last of Pennethorne's works, being
completed in the year before his death, and an
early biographer regarded it as his 'most complete
and most successful design'. (ref. 1) When newly built
it was admired for the liberal use of sculpture in an
elevational design which expressed unaffectedly
the simple and convenient plan. In so far as the
façade possessed this last merit, it reflects the
resourcefulness of its architect, for the history of
the design is one of stylistic changes up to and
beyond the moment when building actually
commenced.
These changes were the acts not of the University but of the Government and Parliament,
and their discussion was involved with party
animosities in the House of Commons: the building was paid for out of public funds and erected
under the direction successively of Liberal and
Conservative First Commissioners of Works.
That this was so resulted from the University's
financial dependence on the Treasury, established
by its original charter of 1836. Previous to the
Government's erection of the building in Burlington Gardens the University had always been
dependent on the Government for the provision
of more or less temporary accommodation. Its
first headquarters had been at Somerset House,
supplemented by rooms hired as necessity arose—'sometimes Exeter Hall, sometimes Thatched
House Tavern, and sometimes Willis's Rooms'. (ref. 2)
In 1853 the Government resumed possession of
the apartments at Somerset House and provided
other accommodation at Marlborough House. (ref. 3)
Probably at the end of 1855 the University removed to the Burlington House site, (ref. 3) where it
was certainly located by February 1856. (ref. 4) It
seems to have been housed at first in the mansion
itself but after the installation there in 1857 of the
Royal Society and other learned societies the
University was accommodated in the east wing. It
shared the use of the west wing with the Royal
Society. (ref. 5)
The prospect of permanent accommodation of
its own had appeared in February 1859 when the
Conservative First Commissioner of Works,
Lord John Manners, asked the University to state
what premises it would need in the new buildings
then being planned to cover the whole Burlington
House site. This scheme fell through, and the
University remained in its temporary quarters.
These were increasingly inadequate: in 1858
there had been 466 candidates for examination; by
1863 there were 1018. (ref. 6) In November of the
latter year the University sent a request to the
First Commissioner of Works, by then a Liberal,
Mr. W. F. Cowper (later Lord Mount-Temple),
adverting to the scheme of 1859 and asking to be
provided with premises adequate to the purposes
of the University. (ref. 7) In June 1864 a deputation
waited on the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston,
to press its claims. It stressed the need for rooms
in which to hold practical examinations in medicine and science. It did not wish to move from its
existing central position and thought that the
northern part of the Burlington House grounds
fronting Burlington Gardens, the appropriation of
which for a new National Gallery had recently
been rejected by Parliament, would be very
suitable. (ref. 8) Palmerston was sympathetic; a letter
urging the University's needs was sent to the
Office of Works in November, and Pennethorne
was instructed by Mr. Cowper to prepare block
plans for a building on the proposed site, which he
did by December. (ref. 9) He estimated the cost at
£65,000. (ref. 10) The following year passed without
anything being done, despite a letter to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gladstone, in
April, (ref. 11) a statement in the Commons in June by a
spokesman who disclosed that the matriculation
examinations were held in the Volunteers' shed
behind Burlington House (ref. 2) and a strongly worded
letter to the new Prime Minister, Earl Russell, in
November. (ref. 12) Finally, at the end of January 1866,
the University was told that the Government
hoped to introduce legislation for a building on
the Burlington Gardens site, (ref. 13) and Pennethorne
was instructed by Mr. Cowper to prepare plans. (ref. 14)
In April he laid these, approved by the ViceChancellor and Senate of the University, before
Mr. Cowper (ref. 15) (Plate 72a, 72b). In the same month
a vote of £20,000 for the building was made in the
House of Commons. Mr. Cowper said that the
elevation had not yet been settled: questions were
asked about its relation to the new buildings being
planned by the Government and the Royal
Academy on the rest of the Burlington House site,
and Mr. Cowper promised to lay plans for the use
of the whole area before the House prior to the
commencement of building. This promise was
later construed by some Members as an undertaking to obtain direct Parliamentary approval for
the proposed elevation of the University's building. (ref. 16)
For some episodes in the history of the design
the evidence is a 'Memorandum respecting the
General Plans and Designs for the Front towards
Burlington Gardens' printed in the minutes of the
University Senate for 1870, and there appended to
a letter from Pennethorne of June in that year,
presenting to the Senate his various designs for the
building. The authority or derivation of the
memorandum is not stated but it was presumably
drawn up by Pennethorne. In some particulars it
differs from the histories of the designs given by
contemporary and subsequent commentators.
In May 1866 Mr. Cowper asked Pennethorne
to prepare working drawings and specifications for
the foundations. (ref. 15) According to the memorandum
he was 'not to include therein any part of the
building that might be affected by the decision that
must be made shortly as to the Elevation', but in
June Pennethorne, when submitting the drawings,
reported that he had been obliged to make a
detailed elevation, 'of a plain Classic character'
without which he could not have prepared the
plan of the front wall: he did not, however, submit
the elevation. (ref. 15) Pennethorne's obituarist, Arthur
Cates, later described it as 'Greek in character,
dignified but somewhat plain'. (ref. 17) In the following
month Mr. Cowper was succeeded as First Commissioner of Works by the Conservative, Lord
John Manners. An attempt led by Henry (later
Sir Henry) Layard and A. J. Beresford-Hope in
the Commons to revive the plan to use the site for
a National Gallery was defeated (ref. 18) and in August
Pennethorne was authorized to invite tenders for
the foundations of the building. He was also
instructed to submit an elevation, and promptly
produced the 'plain Classic' design. (ref. 19) Lord John
Manners then asked for a different design, 'suggesting also in very general terms' (according to
the memorandum) 'the adoption of a character
more Mediaeval or Renaissance; but without
fettering the Architect as regards style'. Within
a week or two Pennethorne had complied, with a
design generally designated as 'Italian Gothic',
which met with Lord John Manners's approval
and which (again according to the memorandum)
was preferred to the first design by both Pennethorne himself and the registrar of the University,
Dr. W. B. Carpenter, who seems to have been
active in these preparations. (ref. 15) The account of this
change of style given in The Times when the
building was opened in 1870 (ref. 20) thus appears to err
in suggesting that the alteration was imposed on
the architect by Lord John Manners.
The official approval of Pennethorne's second
design was communicated to him on 29 August
1866 and two days afterwards the tender of
Messrs. Jackson and Shaw of Earl Street,
Westminster, for the foundations of the building
was accepted. (ref. 21) The Builder described the design
a week later: the style was to be 'that of North
Italy, transitional—i.e. between Classic and
Gothic, but with the Gothic forms and feeling
decidedly predominating'. It announced that
work was about to begin, 'unless, indeed, any
change in the Ministry should be brought about
before it be commenced, when who shall say what
might occur, since style is made to depend on
political ascendency'. (ref. 22) A further change of style
was in fact to be made although it did not require
a change of Ministry to bring it about.
According to the memorandum it was not until
more than three months after the official approval
had been given that Pennethorne was authorized
to show this second design to the Senate, on 14
December. Some two months later, on 22
February 1867, a committee of the Senate voted
for the rejection of the design. (ref. 15) It criticized the
façade in some detail, rejecting it partly because
'ornament should be subservient to structural
expression'. (ref. 23) Three days later the Office of
Works accepted a second tender from the contractors for the carcase of the ground storey. (ref. 24) On
22 March Lord John Manners wrote to Earl
Granville, Chancellor of the University. He
stated that he had asked Pennethorne to send the
two elevations, presumably for inspection by the
Senate, but added that although he was 'anxious to
consult the convenience and wishes of the Senate
on all practical points' he was 'not prepared to discuss other questions with them'. He thought it his
duty to let nothing interfere with the early and
economical completion of the building which was
'now making substantial and satisfactory progress'. (ref. 25) A few days afterwards the new buildings
committee of the Senate resolved that 'the Modern
style of architecture would be preferable either to
the Mediaeval or to the Italian-Gothic': (ref. 26) the
Senate then voted in favour of a design harmonious
with Burlington House in preference to either of
those shown to them. (ref. 27)
Lord John Manners's resolve to pursue what he
conceived to be his duty was destined to be
frustrated. Dissatisfaction with the design he had
sponsored found expression in the House of
Commons on 5 April when the attack was led by
the Liberal, Henry Layard. The First Commissioner was charged with failing to fulfil his
predecessor's supposed promise to submit the elevation to the House for approval and with failing
in courtesy towards the University by neglect of
consultation, although the building was said already to have reached a height of 14 feet. The
debate became entangled with recrimination over
the alterations to Burlington House and Members
took up the University's proposition that its
building should be architecturally harmonious
with that mansion. On this point at least the
criticisms were specious and Beresford-Hope, no
unwavering supporter of the Government in such
matters, pointed out that Burlington House and
the University building could be seen in one coup
d'oeil only 'from a balloon'. Lord John Manners
strongly denied forcing his taste on the University,
but felt obliged to promise that building would be
halted for a fortnight 'so that the question of style
should be further prejudged'. (ref. 28) The two designs
were exhibited in the library of the House of
Commons (ref. 15) and on 31 May the question came to
a head with the vote for £20,000 to continue the
building. Layard resumed his attack; Lord John
Manners cited the opinion of the Royal Academy
building committee that their building and the
University's 'would be perfectly isolated and
distinct from each other', and said that the University building had now reached a height of
19 feet. But the amendment that neither of the
existing designs should be executed was carried. (ref. 29)
A week later Lord John Manners stated that
the House of Commons in its capacity of building
committee would have an opportunity to inspect a
new design. He did not think it any part of his
duty to seek the opinion of the University. (ref. 30) A
few days later Dr. John Storrar, chairman of the
Convocation of the University, wrote to the
registrar, Dr. Carpenter. The building subcommittee of the University felt strongly 'that the
University should assert its right to be heard in the
matter of the elevation'. It was, however,
desirable to impress on Lord John Manners that
the University was not influenced by any such
hostility to him as may have influenced Layard:
on the contrary it would be glad to help him 'in
getting over his difficulties in the House of
Commons'. Regarding the architectural relation
to Burlington House there seems to have been
some change of opinion as the sub-committee was
also said to feel strongly that the building should
be so designed 'as to present the features of a
separate and individual edifice—that it should be
an University building and not an University in
apartments, situate in the rear of a structure called
Burlington House'. (ref. 25)
In the course of June Pennethorne produced
his third design, taking (according to the memorandum) 'the front of Burlington House as a
foundation'. (ref. 15) It was exhibited in the library of
the House of Commons and on 9 July Lord
John Manners announced that in the absence of
any hostile criticism of the design he would
instruct Pennethorne to execute it, with some
alterations in the details suggested by (Sir) William
Tite, the Member for Bath. (ref. 31) Two days later
Pennethorne was instructed to prepare working
drawings. (ref. 32)
Building at last went ahead without interruption. In April Lord John Manners had estimated
that the extra cost caused by a change of style
would be between £7000 and £8000. (ref. 33) It is not
known whether the existing building, upward of
19 feet high, had to be demolished before work
could go on again. The sides and rear of the
building are still very largely in the 'ItalianGothic' style, and abundantly justify the substantial objections, if not all the incidental arguments, brought forward by the critics of Lord
John Manners. It may be that the structure had
been carried up to a significant height in this style
only at the back and sides, where it was continued,
perhaps in simplified form, while the entirely
distinct façade was applied at the front. In any
event, by November The Builder could report that
the execution of the third design was being proceeded with by Jackson and Shaw; the original
estimate of £60,000 submitted to Parliament
would be 'considerably increased'. (ref. 34) In his
obituary of Pennethorne Arthur Cates paid a
tribute to the contractors: 'notwithstanding the
changes of design varying their contracts, they
carried out the whole without difference or
dispute'. (ref. 17)
In the same month Pennethorne was writing
to the University authorities about the identity of
the numerous statues intended to form part of the
façade, as Lord John Manners thought the University should be consulted on this point. (ref. 35) In the
following March the Senate named the twentytwo figures of its choice. A diffidently worded
query from Lord John Manners, whether
Bentham was the most proper representative of
English law, met the conclusive rejoinder that 'no
name can be selected so suitable as that of
Bentham'. A further doubt in the First Commissioner's mind whether Shakespeare would be
better placed as representative of the arts than of
modern knowledge found little more response,
although the Senate was willing to replace him on
the balustrade by David Hume and accommodate
Shakespeare within the building itself. (ref. 36)
In May 1868 Parliament voted £22,000 for the
completion of the building which Layard described
as 'in a fair way of being finished'. (ref. 37) By July
some of the new rooms were in use. (ref. 38) The date of
erection is given in an inscribed tablet on the
front as 1869. The official opening took place on
11 May 1870 when the Queen performed the
ceremony before a crowded gathering of academical and political notabilities, whose 'inclination to cheer' was 'promptly checked by the
authorities'. (ref. 39) Among the assembly the 'Indian
religious reformer' Baboo Keshub Chunder Sen
was prominent and supporting figures on the
platform included the two public men who as
First Commissioner of Works had concerned
themselves with the design: it does not seem to
have been recorded that Pennethorne was present.
Comment on the 'hastily prepared design' in
journals of the day and among Pennethorne's
professional colleagues was favourable, although it
was regretted that the building's position gave no
point of view from which the elevation could be
appreciated as a formal and symmetrical composition. The Builder thought the details lacked
'truthfulness in construction, and in the use of
material' but praised the building's expression of
'the nature of the purpose for which it has been
erected'. (ref. 40) The Times, observing the 'union of
simplicity and richness', noted that the decoration,
though elaborate and abundant, was 'remarkable
for a general character of flatness that is almost
without parallel in any other important structure
of the Victorian age' and that this threw into
prominence the 'main outlines of form'. The bare
appearance of the interiors was remarked upon,
and the intention that 'they shall hereafter be
enriched with all the glories of gold and colour',
so that 'the art of the painter shall come to complete the work which architecture and sculpture
have so well begun'. (ref. 20) The display of sculpture,
the total cost of which is said to have been
'certainly under £4500' (ref. 41) was a notable feature of
the façade. The Times of 9 May 1870 recorded
the authorship of the statues. Above the portico,
Newton, Bentham, Milton and Harvey, representing Science, Law, Arts and Medicine, are
carved by Joseph Durham. On the central
balustrade are the representatives of 'ancient
culture'—Galen, Cicero and Aristotle by J. S.
Westmacott, and Plato, Archimedes and Justinian
(replacing the Senate's first choice of Tribonian) (ref. 42)
by W. F. Woodington. On the east wing are six
'illustrious foreigners'—Leibnitz, Cuvier and
Linnaeus in the ground-storey niches by P.
Macdowell, and Galileo, Goethe and Laplace on
the balustrade by E. W. Wyon. These are
balanced on the west wing by 'English worthies'—Adam Smith, Locke and Bacon in the niches by
W. Theed, junior, and Hunter, Hume (replacing
the original choice of Shakespeare), and Davy
(replacing Dalton) (ref. 42) on the balustrade by M.
Noble. In consideration that 'the genius of
Shakespeare was independent of academic influence' (ref. 20) he was to be distinguished by a place
inside, on the staircase.
The University remained in Burlington
Gardens for some thirty years. Its convenient
day-to-day use of the building was hindered by
lack of complete control over the premises, which
it occupied rather in the status of a department of
government. As early as January 1871 trouble was
occasioned by the tendency of furnishings to
wander from the rooms for which they were
intended by the Office of Works. The First
Commissioner expressed regret at the difficulties
'in dealing with the Furniture of the University'
but observed that this arose 'from the unfortunate
circumstance that its business has to be transacted
by the Officers of the Crown instead of its own
Officers', and letters explanatory of the precise use
of desks and carpets were exchanged between the
registrar and the secretary of the Office of
Works. (ref. 43)
Whatever the merits of Pennethorne's plan, the
need for more accommodation came increasingly
to be felt, and by 1888 proposals were being made
for 'a lateral extension of the South-West Halls
and the addition of a story to the South wing': (ref. 44)
two years later the Office of Works contemplated
raising the southern side of the building by 16 or
17 feet, but apparently nothing was done. (ref. 45)
About this time the Government 'cast covetous
eyes on the building' and negotiations began for
the University's removal. (ref. 3) In 1900 the University
surrendered this site in the heart of London and
moved to the Imperial Institute building in South
Kensington. (ref. 46) The Royal Academy had asked
the Government for first refusal of the vacated
premises, (ref. 47) but after brief occupation as offices for
the National Antarctic Expedition (ref. 48) the building
was made over, early in 1902, to the Civil
Service Commission, (ref. 49) which still occupies it,
although intending to move in 1963. Since
1928 the British Academy has occupied rooms
in the building which were reconstructed and
adapted for their use to the plans of Arnold
Mitchell. (ref. 50)
Architectural Description
The main entrance of the somewhat pretentious
building that resulted from the changes described above leads, by way of a vestibule and
across a wide central corridor, or entrance hall, to
the principal staircase. There are offices and
waiting rooms, connected by a lobby, on each side
of the vestibule, and cloakrooms, lavatories and
service stairs flanking the main staircase compartment. Beyond these, on either hand, are corridors
leading right and left from the ends of the entrance
hall and, originally, giving access to a large lecture
theatre occupying the east and a balancing
examination room at the west end of the building,
as well as to a suite of examination rooms in a
subsidiary range lying alongside the main block
immediately behind the principal staircase. The
lecture room and its corresponding examination
room, which were originally equal in height to
two normal storeys, have subsequently each been
divided into two floors (Plate 72c).
Wall and ceiling decoration in the main lobby
and staircase compartment is sparse and flat,
setting off the opulent gravity of the heavy
polished grey marble handrail and ornamental
balusters of the staircase, which rises from behind
a triple-arched screen in a wide central flight,
branches right and left, and then returns in parallel
flights against the wall to finish with quadrant
turns of the balustrade before the triple-arched
screen of the first-floor landing. Straight ahead is
the only room of consequence now remaining, the
former Senate room, later used as the Civil Service
Commission's board-room. Over the central door,
inside the room, are the arms of the University in
painted stucco supported by putti; the cipher with
entwined U and L still appears on the wall of the
first-floor lobby outside. Around the Senate
room wall, spaced to form wide and narrow bays,
are plain-shafted Corinthian pilasters, on high
bases, four to the short sides and six to the long
sides of the room, and these are matched above the
cornice by panelled shafts. Each of the three tall
windows in the north wall has a glazed lunette
above it. Corresponding blank lunettes above the
cornice occupy each of the three wider bays on
the south wall, and each central bay on the end
walls. Rosettes, brackets and capitals are picked
out in gold. The ceiling is divided into heavy
rectangular compartments, and the general effect
of the room, with its two white marble fireplaces
and its doorcases of the Palladian type, was obviously intended to be ceremoniously sumptuous.
Pennethorne's lecture theatre in the east wing,
of which little but the ceiling can now be
detected, was originally the show-piece of the
place. (ref. 51) The seats were arranged in semicircular rising tiers. The walls appear to have had
alternating bands of coloured stone. Behind the
speaker's platform were three great arched niches
containing reliefs or paintings, and above these an
ornamented frieze running round the room below
the level of the high windows. Statues of four
Muses stood on heavy brackets between the
windows over the podium. The ceiling is divided by heavily moulded beams into nine square
compartments, three by three, the central compartment having an octagonal skylight, and each
of the others an octagonal sunk coved panel
from which there formerly flowered an elaborately moulded pendent boss. The ceiling is
now unequally shared by two first-floor rooms.
In the west wing a similar ceiling design can be
made out over the present warren of offices. On
the ground floor of the former lecture theatre, the
present quarters of the British Academy reveal
little of the original layout. The ground floor of
the west wing is chiefly distinguished now by the
eight cast-iron pillars inserted to support the new
floor in 1899. (ref. 52)
The north front is of Portland stone, with
bands and details of red Mansfield stone (Plate
73). It is generally of two storeys and consists of
a centre block of five bays, between slightly
projecting pavilions carried up as square turrets
above the main cornice, the whole being flanked
by somewhat lower side wings, each of three bays,
and set back behind the face of the centre block.
A single-storey porch, having a Doric entablature
supported on rusticated piers flanked by unfluted
Doric columns on deep plinths, projects in front
of the five middle bays. It is crowned by an open
balustrade with seated statues over the four
central piers, and large pedestals, or altars, as they
were disparagingly called by The Builder, (ref. 40) over
the angles. The Doric entablature is continued
over the whole front of the building, except where
it is interrupted by niches set in rectangular frames
in each bay of the wings. A square-headed window with a simple architrave lights the ground
storey of the tower pavilions.
The upper storey of the centre block has an
applied Corinthian order, of pilasters at the angles
of the tower pavilions and three-quarter columns
between them, the columns next the pavilions
standing in the angles between them and the
main face of the block. The entablature, with
foliated frieze in low relief, breaks forward to the
appropriate distance over both pilasters and threequarter columns, and the five middle bays are
crowned by an open balustrade, extending
between the square turrets, and having a sculptured
figure standing above each column. Between each
pair of columns is an arch, of Venetian form, with
stepped imposts carried across the opening and
supported by small Corinthian columns in the
angles. A frieze of guilloche ornament stretches
between the capitals of this lesser order and, with
the stepped impost above it, is carried across the
pavilions as a bandcourse—an example of Pennethorne's disregard for the finer shades of architectural meaning in the forms he employed to obtain
an effect. The five arches have scrolled keystones
and the spandrels are decorated with panels in
low relief. The three central ones, with glazed
lunettes above the springing, are those of the
former Senate room, later the Civil Service
Commission's board-room; the remaining two
have solid tympani bearing the Royal Arms
against a somewhat inconsequent floral background in low relief.
In the tower pavilions the first-floor windows
are framed between diminutive attached Corinthian columns carrying pedimented entablatures,
whilst, above the stringcourse already referred to,
each has a rectangular panel containing a royal
badge with female supporters emerging from
foliated scrolls. The top storeys, rising above the
rest of the building as square turrets, have, at the
angles, panelled pilasters of a Corinthian type over
which the entablatures break forward. They are
surmounted by open balustrades. A clock occupies
the front face of the eastern turret and a wind
vane that of the western one.
Although each of the wings originally consisted of a single room of lofty proportions
they are, architecturally speaking, of two
storeys, divided horizontally by the Doric entablature already mentioned, and vertically by
square buttresses. The angle buttresses are rusticated through both storeys; the intermediate ones
only at the ground storey, their upper parts
taking the form of boldly projecting Corinthian
piers or pilasters. The upper entablature, disregarding logic, breaks forward over rusticated
angle piers and intermediate pilasters alike,
and is crowned by an open balustrade. Sculptured figures stand, like finials, above each
buttress. The semi-circular niches in rectangular
frames which take the place of windows in the
ground storey have already been mentioned. They
are filled with sculptured figures. In the upper
storey, each bay is divided into three by a pair
of attached Corinthian columns standing between the buttresses. Unaccountably the tall
narrow windows between them have segmental
heads.
Round the sides of the east and west wings the
Portland stone stops abruptly after the returns of
the rusticated angle buttresses and terminal
statuary of the front, except for the first-floor
windows which can be seen from the street and
are therefore modest echoes of those on the
front. Otherwise all is of red brick with dark
bands. When the west wing was divided into
two storeys in 1899, windows were cut in
the ground floor with segmental arches of
gauged bricks, the extrados tracing the line
of a two-centred arch, and the segmental intrados splay-cut to produce a central pendent. (ref. 53)
The centre of the south front, with its windows
divided by large cast-iron colonnettes under
gauged brick heads, is the surviving clue to
Pennethorne's second design. A vertical dimension of just under nineteen feet from the
foundations to the entrance floor and including
the basement windows, on one of the contract
drawings, may indicate the height the building
had reached before the question of style was finally
settled. (ref. 54)