CHAPTER 2: THE HOLBEIN GATE AND THE TILTYARD GALLERY
In order to connect the main buildings on the east side of the street
with those portions of the Palace, as well as the Park, on the west side, Henry
VIII constructed two gates. (fn. 1) Both are shown in the "Agas" view (see
p. 23). The more important, as well as the more ornate, of the two was
that called the King's Gate or the Cockpit Gate. It is more generally known
as the Holbein Gate, (fn. 2) from the tradition that it was designed by Hans
Holbein.
There seems very little to be said for this tradition. (fn. 3) Holbein's
first stay in England was in 1527–8, when the building of Whitehall Palace
was not even contemplated. His next visit was in 1532, when the Gate
was either finished, or nearing completion. (fn. 4) It is not until 1536 that any
trace is found of his being in the King's service, and the first reference to
him in the Household Accounts as in receipt of a salary is dated 1538. If
his name is rightly connected with the Gate, a more likely suggestion is
that the association may be due to his having occupied one of the rooms
over the Gate as a workshop, though no evidence to this effect has been
found.
Several views of the Gate are in existence, from which it is easy to
obtain a good general impression of its appearance, though in detail they are
not entirely consistent. Three have been reproduced in the plates at the end
of this volume. They are: (a) the well-known engraving made by Vertue
in 1725 and published in 1747 in Vol. I of Vetusta Monumenta (Plate 5);
(b) the original signed drawing made by Vertue in 1724 for the purpose of
the engraving, and now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries
(Plate 6); and (c) a geometrical elevation of the Gate, ascribed also to Vertue
by the late Walter L. Spiers, and now in the possession of Mr. Charles E.
Russell (Plate 7). The last-mentioned, besides being an excellent specimen
of draughtsmanship, obviously executed with great care for detail, is important as being the only view of the Gate extant which is furnished with
a scale.
There are several differences in detail between this drawing and the
one certainly made by Vertue, the most important being the shape of the
central arch. This is due
to a difference in the width
allowed to the arch at groundlevel, which the geometrical
elevation shows as 12 feet 9
inches, but which the groundplan of the Gate (here reproduced), engraved by Vertue
in 1725 and published with
the engraving of the Gate
in Vetusta Monumenta, gives
as 12 feet only. The resulting "squatness" of the arch
in the geometrical elevation
also appears in other views,
including that of Hollar (see
Plate 4 in Vol. XIII of the
Survey of London), and is even
intensified in the inset view
on Morden and Lea's Map
reproduced on p. 12. Which
of the two representations is correct is perhaps doubtful, but the difference
between the two renders Vertue's authorship of the geometrical elevation
very questionable.
Figure 1:
Ground plan of the Holbein Gate.
The Gate (fn. 5) was a rectangular building, in three stages, with octagonal
turrets at each corner. It contained a central archway for vehicles, and on
the east side a smaller archway for pedestrians. According to the plan of
1670 (Plate 1), the west side was occupied by a room and a staircase, and this
is to an extent confirmed by the plan of the Ormonde premises in 1696
(p. 58), which shows no through passage. Morden and Lea's view of 1682,
in common with some others, shows a door on the west side blocked up,
a fact which suggests that there may originally have been a footway on that
side of the Gate also. In any case, according to Vertue's ground-plan, whatever obstruction existed had been cleared away before 1725 and a western
footway made, or restored. Over the central arch was an oriel window of
six four-centred lights in two stages, crowned with a battlemented parapet.
Below the lights was a carved panel containing the Royal Arms. The
storey above had a window of fourcentred lights, also in two stages.
The octagonal turrets at the angles
continued above a square base (with
splayed angles) which embraced the
side archways, and on each face of
the turrets were small two-light windows similar to those in the centre.
Beneath the windows to the turrets
were carved panels with traceried
heads. In the upper panels were
gryphons holding shields, while the
panels to the lower stage contained
the Tudor rose, fleur-de-lis and portcullis, each surmounted by a royal
crown. Below the panels on the
north face of the Gate, were small
crosslet openings, while the south
face had in corresponding positions
rectangular windows divided into
two lights by a mullion. Moulded
string courses continued across the
front, including the turrets, and
in the centre a battlemented parapet
ramped up, probably following the
rake of the lead roof behind.
The turrets continued an extra
storey, with a single-light window
to each face, and a battlemented
parapet.
Figure 2:
The Holbein Gate, from Morden and Lea's Map,
1682.
Both faces of the Gate were similar in detail, with the general wall
surface chequered in stone and flint. On each face were four roundels
containing busts (see further in Appendix A). Originally, both faces of
the Gate seem to have been surmounted by a form of ornament in common
use at Whitehall (fn. 6) —the figure of an animal on a high pedestal, holding a
flag in its paws. (fn. 7) In the latest views this ornament is omitted, but Vertue's
drawing (Plate 6) shows the remains on the north face.
At some time in the Gate's existence the height of its central opening
was reduced by the filling in of the arch down to the level of the springing,
and a 3-light window was inserted in each face. In the views of Whitehall
by Hollar and Sylvestre, and in subsequent views until 1724, the gate is shown
with the central opening treated in this way. It can hardly be supposed that
the Gate was built thus, and the view of "Agas," circa 1570 (p. 23), shows
the arch clear. On the other hand, the rough sketch of the face of the Gate
given in the margin of Wyngaerde's unfinished drawing of Whitehall (Plate
9) shows the opening already reduced, and if the sketch was made by the same
hand as the drawing, this is evidence that the Gate was altered within a few
years of its erection. (fn. 8)
On the west side of the Gate, Henry VIII built "a sumptuous
gallery," in which, in Stow's time, "the Princes with their Nobility" used
"to stand or sit, and at Windowes to behold all triumphant Iustings, and
other military exercises" in the adjoining Tiltyard. (fn. 9) . From this it obtained
the name of the Tiltyard Gallery, (fn. 10) and from the fact that the tiltyard was used
for bear-baiting, was occasionally known as the Bear Gallery. (fn. 11) It continued
westwards to a staircase (fn. 12) leading into the Park, and was connected with
another gallery leading to the Cockpit. (fn. 13) Von Wedel, in his Journey through
England, (fn. 14) has left us a description of the Tiltyard Gallery in 1584:
"A man, in whose keeping the rooms of the palace are, took
us out of the garden and led us to see the inner part of the palace, to
which there are only two keys. On mounting a staircase we got into
a passage right across the tiltyard; the ceiling is gilt, and the floor
ornamented with mats. There were fine paintings on the walls, among
them the portrait of Edward, the present queen's brother, who was cut
out of his mother's womb, (fn. 15) he remaining alive, whilst the mother
died. If you stand before the portrait, the head, face, and nose appear
so long and misformed that they do not seem to represent a human
being, but there is an iron bar with a plate at one end fixed to the
painting; if you lengthen this bar for about three spans and look at the
portrait through a little hole made in the plate in this manner O, you
find the ugly face changed into a well-formed one. (fn. 16) This must
indeed be considered a great piece of art. There is also a portrait of
Moses; they say that it is very like, (fn. 17) but it looks as if one were blowing
into burning coal in the dark. Also Christ's passion, apparently painted
in glass, all set with gilt roses." (fn. 18)
It was through the Tiltyard Gallery that Charles I proceeded from
the Park to Whitehall on the day of his execution, and the gallery was, in
fact, one of the regular means of approach to and exit from the Palace.
To prevent abuses it was found necessary to make regulations governing the
entrance to the Privy Gallery from the Tiltyard Gallery, and "the second
Door from the Parke att the Darke Passage over the streete" was fixed
as the point beyond which neither the Royal footmen and other liveried
servants, nor any "inferiour, meane, idle and unknowne persons" were
permitted to pass. (fn. 19)
The rooms over the Gate were in two storeys. The lower storey in
1756, just before the demolition of the Gate, contained one large room and
three closets. (fn. 20) The number of rooms in the upper storey is not known.
This storey was in 1756 utilised as the Paper Office, and had certainly been
used for that purpose as early as 1672. (fn. 21) If, as seems probable, it is the
same as the Chair Chamber, the use goes back to 1654, (fn. 22) or even to shortly
after the death of Henry VIII. (fn. 23)
On 9th August, 1706, Wren reported as to the want of room at the
Paper Office "in the Tower," and suggested that one method of obtaining
more accommodation would be "by addition of the rooms underneath and
contiguous to it now in the occupation of Monsieur Van Huls." (fn. 24) The suggestion, however, was not carried out, and the papers were still confined to
the upper rooms in 1756. In that year, the Commissioners of H.M. Treasury
had before them a report stating that the Gate had been examined, and it was
found that the upper storey was "a Repository for State Papers, so that the
Gateway … cannot properly be taken down until Provision is made for the
Papers of State." (fn. 25) It was thereupon decided to remove them to "a room
over the Passage that goes from the Treasury to the Secretary of States Office."
The large room over the Gate was in 1605 used in connection with
the preliminaries for the creation of Knights of the Bath. The candidates
(including Charles, Duke of Albany, afterwards Charles I, then about four
years old) "tooke their lodgings at Whitehall in the first gate-house going
to Kings-streete, where they were all after supper, at which they sat by
degrees a row on the one side, wt the armes of every of them, over ye seate
where he was placed, and lodged upon severall pallats in one chamber, with
their armes likewise over them, having their bathes provided for them in the
chamber underneath. The next morning being Saterday, they went about
through the gallory downe into the Parke in their Hermits weedes," (fn. 26) and
thence to the Chapel.
The lower storey some years later was in use (no doubt in addition
to other rooms in the vicinity) as lodgings. A complete record of the occupants is not possible, but it is known that the Duke of Lennox was there in
1620. (fn. 27) In 1663 or the beginning of 1664 Lady Castlemaine removed to
apartments which included the rooms over the Holbein Gate, and we have
Pepys' authority for the statement that these rooms had previously been
occupied by General Lambert. (fn. 28) Presumably these were the lodgings which
he was forced to give up in 1657, and which were then assigned to Viscount
Fauconberg, who afterwards became Cromwell's son-in-law. (fn. 29) For the first
few years after the Restoration Lady Castlemaine had resided at "Hance's
House," next to the Bowling Green, (fn. 30) a building entirely disconnected from
the royal lodgings. This was not unattended with inconvenience, and on
25th April, 1663, Pepys records a rumour ("they say") to the effect that
she was "removed as to her bed from her own home to a chamber in White
Hall, next to the King's Own." A few days later (11th May, 1663) Mr.
Pierce informed Pepys that "Lady Castlemaine hath now got lodgings near
the King's chamber at Court." Whether this is to be taken as evidence of
her removal to the rooms over the Gate is doubtful. An account of works
carried out in April and May, 1663, at her lodgings, mentions inter alia
the "Bellconey" in the Dining Room, and this agrees with the statement in
the parliamentary survey that that room in "Hance's House" was "very well
accomodated and fitted with a Handsome Belcony." Moreover, a reference in
November, 1663, to "the Countess of Castlemaines lodgings by the bowling
green" suggests that she was still in that house. It seems probable, therefore, that Mr. Pierce's statement is to be regarded rather as a confirmation
of the rumour, mentioned above, as to the provision of a special bedchamber.
Such a provision was merely a temporary expedient, and the countess
was installed in her new lodgings certainly not later than January, 1663–4.
She had not been there long when a fire occurred. Under date of January,
1663–4, is a record (fn. 31) of an allowance of £1 made to four men "for theire
Attendance & paines in playing the water Engins when the fier was at
ye Countess of Castlemaines lodgings." According to Pepys the fire took
place on the night of 25th January. (fn. 32) The account (fn. 33) of the renovation works
rendered necessary, contains references to "ye passage goeing downe the
staires next ye parke," and "the staires that comes up out of the privie garden
into the said lodgings," thus making it quite certain that the lodgings over
the Gate are intended. The same account also refers to "the Countess of
Castlemains bedchamber & the Ceiling of her Closset," "the withdrawing
roome there," "ye dineing roome," "the nursery & the Closset belonging
to it," and "the staires Coming down from the nursery & the Closset on
the top of the staires." Later references mention the countess's aviary (fn. 34)
and the "back staire case goeing downe out of the said lodgings into the
tilt yard gallery." (fn. 35) It is evident that her apartments comprised far more
than the small accommodation available over the Gate. The additional
rooms must have been to the east. (fn. 36)
In April, 1668, the burlesque reply to The Poor Whores Petition to
… the Countess of Castlemaine was issued as from "our closset in King
Street." At the end of the month the countess was presented with Berkshire
House, St. James's, but seems to have retained her Whitehall lodgings. In
1670 she was created Duchess of Cleveland, and her influence thenceforth
steadily diminished. Her rooms seem to have been transferred to the use
of her daughter, the Countess of Sussex, (fn. 37) though they were still known
as "the Dutches of Clevelands lodgings" in 1683. (fn. 38)
According to the petition of William Van Huls, Clerk of the Queen's
Robes and Wardrobes, in 1712, (fn. 39) William III "at his first Arrival at Whitehall in the year 1689 was graciously pleased to appoint" to Van Huls'
brother, the Dutch Secretary, and "soon afterwards" to Van Huls himself,
"the Lodgings over the Gate near ye Park." These lodgings obviously
included, as in the case of those of the Duchess of Cleveland, certain rooms
to the east of the Gate, for the petition goes on to mention "that Great part
thereof was buryed [sic] down at the Grand Fire of that Palace." (In addition,
Van Huls had obtained possession of certain rooms over the Tiltyard Gallery,
see below.) He asked for a lease of a portion of the ground between the
Gate and the Banqueting House for the purpose of building offices, and for
permission to utilise any old materials buried in the great quantity of rubbish
then lying on the premises. (fn. 40) As a result, he obtained a lease, to expire in
1743, of a piece of ground, about 40 feet long and 38 feet deep, "the dimensions of the said Gateway from N° to South." Here he built a house. In
1737 Mrs. Edith College (whose rooms near the Cockpit had been acquired
for the purpose of Kent's Treasury, see p.30) obtained (fn. 41) a reversionary lease
of the premises for 41½ years, the interest in which subsequently came into the
hands of Thomas Ramsden. (fn. 42) Long before the expiry of the term, however,
the Gate was down, and the premises demolished.
The inconvenience to traffic caused by the presence of the Holbein
Gate and the King Street Gate is obvious, and in the early part of the 18th
century proposals for their demolition were put forward. In 1719 the
Holbein Gate was within an ace of destruction. On 23rd July of that year
Lord Stanhope wrote from Hanover: (fn. 43) "The House of Commons having
the last session of Parliamt address'd the King to Cause a more Convenient
Passage to be made thro' the Gatehouse next to the Privy Garden tending
from Whitehall to Westminster, His Majesty is pleased to Direct Your
Grace to Referr this matter to the Board of Works, with Directions that they
should Consider what will be the Expence of pulling down the said Gatehouse, and in what time it may be done, and if upon their Report your Grace
finds that the Expence will not be Considerable and that it Can be perfected
before the next session of Parliament, it is His Majts Pleasure that Your
Grace should sett Workmen about it, without any further Orders, taking
Care that the Records and Papers of State remaining in the Paper Office
be removed to some Convenient place in Whitehall."
The idea, however, did not meet with unanimous approval. In a
letter written a fortnight later (fn. 44) Vanbrugh says: "I find many people surpris'd there shou'd be no other expedient found to make way for coaches,
&c., that destroying one of the greatest curiositys there is in London as that
gate has ever been esteem'd, and cost a great sum of money the building;
and so well perform'd that altho' now above 200 yrs old [sic], is as entire as
the first day. The Chancellr of the Excheqr said much of this to me last night
being entirely of opinion it ought not to be destroy'd, if an other expedient
can be found, and there is a very easy one, with small expence, which is.
To open the wall of the Privy garden near Lord Rochesters and turn the
passage thorough a slip of that wast ground, coming out into the street again
between Mr. Vanhulsse's and the Banquetting House. I know of no objection to this, and by this means both Lord Stanhope & the Comptroller (fn. 45)
will be ten times more reliev'd … than by pulling the gate downe."
This, or similar protests, bore fruit, and when, in 1723, the King Street
Gate was demolished, the Holbein Gate was left standing. Directions were,
however, given (fn. 46) for the arch "to be cleared of the Floor or Segment that
now cuts the same, so as the Passage through that Arch may be open and
clear as at first when it was built." At the same time the decision was made
to carry out a further portion of Vanbrugh's suggestion. It was agreed (fn. 47)
that the wall of the Privy Garden between the two gates should be removed,
and a new wall built "from the corner of the Building adjoyning to the
Banquetting-House to the narrow passage leading to Channell-Row," and
further, in order that there might be a clear way from "the Street before
Whitehall" it was also agreed that "the Platform where the Guns now stand, (fn. 48)
as also the House now Inhabited by Mr. Vanhuls, and all the Walls and Buildings between the Banquetting House or the Building adjoyning thereto"
should be taken down. For some reason that part of the proposal
which related to the Van Huls house was not carried out, but the
Gun platform was removed at once, and the arch cleared shortly after. (fn. 49)
Contemporary views (see Plate 8, or Canaletto's painting reproduced in
Plate 7 of Vol. XIII) show the opening near the Banqueting House, with
Van Huls' house still standing.
The Gate thus obtained a respite of more than 30 years. On 11th
June, 1755, the Commissioners of H.M. Treasury referred (fn. 50) it to the Board
of Works to consider whether the pulling down and rebuilding of the Gate
was practicable, and whether it might be "commodiously erected at the end
of the New Street leading from the New Bridge [Westminster Bridge]," and
at the same time instructions were given for negotiations to be entered into
with Mr. Ramsden for the purchase of the Van Huls house. The premises
were acquired in March, 1759, (fn. 51) and in August of the same year the Gate
was demolished. According to J. T. Smith, (fn. 52) the Duke of Cumberland begged
the materials with the intention of re-erecting the gate at the end of the long
walk in Windsor Great Park, and for this purpose Thomas Sandby made
a design, which included the provision of side wings. Nothing, however,
was done, and the materials are said to have been worked into several buildings
in Windsor Park.
Figure 3:
Holbein Gate and the House of Van Huls.
There were also rooms over the tiltyard gallery. The origin of these
is determined by an order, (fn. 53) dated 15th May, 1666, "to permitt ye Lord
Mandevell [Robert, Viscount Mandeville, who on his father's death in
1671 became Earl of Manchester] with his Owne Workemen to build Lodgings over the Gallery at Whitehall towards St. James Parke." (fn. 54) On his death
in 1683 the lodgings were purchased for the Duke of Grafton. (fn. 55) He does not
seem to have stayed there long, for in 1686 Lord Feversham was in occupation. (fn. 56)
A later occupant is indicated by a further order (fn. 57) of 5th August, 1689,
to deliver to Sir Rowland Gwynn, Treasurer of the Chamber, "the Lodgeings in Whithall whereing the Earle of Manchester formerly was, and the
Count Meremont now is, over the Gallery leading to the Parke." The
list (fn. 58) of Whitehall lodgings, drawn up in 1691, and afterwards corrected,
shows the rooms ("in the Park over the staires: 6 roomes, 2 Garretts")
occupied by "Monsr. Zuleston," subsequently corrected to "Monr Van
hulst" with the note; "Hee is the Dutch Secretary." In this case also
William Van Huls succeeded to his brother's rooms. (fn. 59) In the report on
William's petition in 1712, we are told that the "gallery is so decayed, and
the timbers pressed out from under the said roomes, that they will fall in
if not speedily supported." Four years later Hugh Boscawen, Comptroller
of the Household, the occupier of the premises standing on the site of Dover
House, obtained possession of the gallery, and the staircase leading to the
Park was pulled down (see p. 59). Finding Van Huls' continued occupation
of the rooms above the gallery inconvenient, Boscawen applied for them
himself. It was then (1719) discovered (fn. 60) that "Mr. Van Huls has no right
to the Lodging Rooms which he now possesses over Mr. Comptroller's
Appartments in the Cockpitt near the Gatehouse," and he was accordingly
compelled to leave them. Their later history is bound up with that of the
site of Dover House (see Chapter 6).
In the Council's Collection are:
(fn. 61) "Whitehall Gate" (north elevation) (photograph of drawing by G. Vertue, 1724, in
the possession of the Society of Antiquaries).
"The Gate of Whitehall" (north elevation) (photograph of coloured drawing in the
Guildhall Library).
The Holbein Gate (north elevation) (photograph of drawing in the Sutherland Collection,
Bodleian Library).
(fn. 61) Geometrical elevation (north) of the Holbein Gate (photograph of scale drawing in the
possession of Mr. Charles E. Russell).
"Antient Gate which Stood at Whitehall, Built in the Reign of King Henry the VII and
taken down 1759" (north elevation) (photograph of coloured drawing by Charles
White, 1759, in the possession of Mr. Charles E. Russell).
"The King's Gate at Whitehall leading to Westminster" (south elevation) (photograph
of engraving in the Crace Collection, British Museum).
(fn. 61) "Whitehall Gate" (the Gate and the house of Mr. Van Huls) (photograph of engraving
in the Crace Collection, British Museum).
(fn. 61) Whitehall from the south circa 1750 (photograph of water-colour drawing ascribed to T.
Sandby in the Guildhall Library).