CHAPTER 12: DURHAM PLACE
Durham Place was, in the mediæval period, the most easterly of the
mansions along the south side of the Strand in the parish of St. Margaret,
Westminster (which originally included the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields).
It extended from the boundary of York House on the west (approximately the
west side of James Street) to Ivy Lane (approximately on a line running
through the centre of Shell-Mex House (fn. a) on the east.
Richard le Poor, Bishop of Durham, who had, as Bishop of Salisbury,
carried out the removal of that see from Old to New Sarum in 1220, was the
first known occupant of the house. The beautiful "Cathedral of the Waters"
and the bishop's palace at Salisbury are sufficient evidence that he was a
great builder and it is more than probable that Durham Place owed its
existence to him. (fn. b) In 1238, Otho, the papal legate, was lodged at "the
Bishop of Durham's house near London" when the Oxford scholars came to
ask pardon for attacking his attendants during his stay near Oxford. The
scholars were required to take off their shoes and gowns on reaching the
Bishop of Carlisle's Inn, which lay immediately to the east of Durham House. (ref. 263)
Bishop of Durham
In 1258, Walter de Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, quarrelled with the
King and refused to come to court. It was probably as a result of this quarrel
that Simon de Montfort, the leader of the baronial opposition to the King,
was lodged at the Bishop's house during the summer of that year. Matthew
Paris relates (ref. 263) that one day, whilst Henry III was being rowed on the Thames,
he was forced by a violent storm to land near Durham House. Earl Simon
came out to offer him shelter, declaring that there was no cause for alarm.
The King replied: "Thunder and lightning I greatly fear, but, by the head
of God, I fear thee more."
De Montfort,
Earl of Leicester
Leland states (ref. 264) that Durham Inn was built by Anthony Bek, who was
bishop from 1285 to 1310, while William de Chambre, a fourteenth-century
Durham chronicler, says that Thomas Hatfield (bishop in 1345–81)
"manerium sive hospitium episcopale Londoniæ, cum capella et cameris
sumptuosissime construxi." It is probable that both bishops did a certain
amount of rebuilding there. Richard de Kellawe (bishop in 1311–16)
appointed Sir John Dautre to be keeper "of our houses in le Charryng" (ref. 265)
in 1312, but two years later the keepership was transferred to Ralph de Blida,
citizen of London, who was "to repair and make ready our houses with victuals
and necessaries for our stay during the next parliament to be held at
Westminster." It is interesting to note that in 1312 the Bishop sent his
"victuals" by sea from Durham when he came south to attend Parliament. (ref. 265)
In 1333 Edward III appointed his former tutor, Richard de Bury, to
the See of Durham in opposition to the wishes of the monks, who had elected
their sub-prior. Richard de Bury was chancellor in 1334–5 and treasurer in
1336, and he must therefore have been living in London during the greater
part of these years and almost certainly used Durham House, but no direct
evidence has been found of his residence there. Though in actual fact he was
more a statesman than a scholar he is chiefly known to fame as the reputed
author of the Philobiblon.
In February, 1380–1, Thomas, Bishop of Durham, granted (ref. 4) to William
de Beverley and others, who had been deputed to appoint twelve chaplains to
celebrate divine service within his manor in London "two chambers in the
said manor, viz a vaulted chamber under the chapel and a sollar by the
entrance of the chapel towards the north, and the vestibule of the chapel with
two chambers adjoining, and the whole inn with houses on the east side of the
north gate of the manor, inhabited by the said William de Beverly, and a
quarter of a garden within the walls thereof, extending from the garden
entrance northwards as far as the king's highway, 160 feet in length and
140 in breadth, (fn. c) and a waste without the manor opposite its north gate."
The Bishop of Durham's garden originally contained about two acres of ground
since it extended to the river and, prior to 1603, was wider than it is shown on
the 1626 plan (see p. 92). The profits of the garden were, in mediæval
times, one of the usual perquisites of the keeper of Durham Place. (ref. 4) A rough
elevation of the chapel is given on the plan, where it is shown as a battlemented
building with large windows at the south-east corner of the outer court
adjoining the garden.
The great hall of Durham House abutted on the river from which
direct access was obtained by means of a flight of steps. The hall was described
by Norden circa 1592 as "stately and high, supported with loftie marble
pillers. It standeth upon the Thamise very pleasantly." (ref. 266) There seems little
doubt that it is a part of this building that is shown on the left of the view
reproduced in Plate 2d. (fn. d) In 1474 the hall was the scene of a rough-and-tumble
fight typical of the disorders of the times. The then bishop, Lawrence Booth,
was Lord Chancellor, and a certain Thomas Buyshop, grocer, who had been
committed to the Counter for debt, was haled before him in his great hall for
trial. The proceedings were interrupted by the arrival of "oon Thomas
Gibbes, oon of the pety capitaynes in the Viage [voyage] late purposed into the
parties of Burgoyne … accompanyed with other mysdoers of his affinite
… defensibly arraied for the werre (who) then and there with force toke and
rescued the seid Thomas Buysshop." A fight ensued which resulted in one
of the sheriff's men being carried off a prisoner. (ref. 267)
There were, necessarily, long periods during which the bishop was not
in residence at Durham Place, but during the fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries, when several of the bishops of Durham held the chancellorship, the
great hall must frequently have been used, as in the case cited above, for trials
in equity. The buildings were also increasingly used for the accommodation
of royal and other guests. In 1412 when "prynce Herry, the sone of King
Herry the forthe" came to London, he "lay at the bysshoppes inne of
Durham," (ref. 268) Thomas Langley, the then bishop, being one of his political
supporters. Catherine of Aragon seems to have stayed there in 1502 for there
is an entry in the Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York of a payment
"for conveyeng the Princesse in the Quenes barge with xvi rowers from the
Bisshop of Duresme Place to Westminster and from Westminster again the
vith day of November." (ref. 269)
Letters to and from Wolsey show (ref. 7) that he was living at Durham
House in 1516–18, probably during the completion of his building operations
at York Place, (fn. e) (ref. 9) He was on very friendly terms with the then Bishop of
Durham, Thomas Ruthall, Keeper of the Privy Seal, who has been described
as "singing treble to the cardinal's bass." Ruthall died at Durham House on
4th February, 1522–3, and was succeeded in his occupancy of the see by
Wolsey. The latter purchased from Ruthall's executors a lot of the
furnishings of Durham House, but he does not seem to have used it as a
residence (fn. f) until 1528, when he removed thither from York Place where he
was rebuilding the great hall. (fn. g)
In September, 1528, an inventory was taken of the furniture of
Durham House and extra furnishings were provided from York Place and
Hampton Court. (ref. 270) Late in 1529 Wolsey resigned the See of Durham, and
Cuthbert Tunstall was appointed as his successor early in the following year.
If Foxe's statement (ref. 271) can be trusted, Sir Thomas Boleyn (afterwards Earl of
Wiltshire), the father of Anne Boleyn, was already in residence at Durham
House in the summer of 1529 when Cranmer was entertained there in order
that he might have quietude to write "his minde concerninge the Kinges
question," i.e. the divorce. Anne Boleyn seems to have been living there in
May, 1532. (ref. 7)
In July, 1536, Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham, granted to the King
"all that his capytall messuage … comenly called Durham Place, wyth all
Houses, Buyldyngs, Gardeyns, Orcheards, Pooles, fysshyngs, stables and all
other commodytes … late in the occupacyon of the Right Honourable
Thomas, Erle of Wyltshyre; and also all … other his messuages …
wythin the Towne of Westminster," in exchange for the "capytall mesuage
… called Cold Herbrow, sett … in Teames Strete " and messuages in
the parishes of "All halowez" and "Graschurche." (ref. 272) This was probably a
poor exchange for the Bishop. Henry VIII at once made use of Durham
House for the entertainment of ambassadors and others. In May, 1540,
"their was a great triumphe of justing at the Kinges place at Westminster,"
and afterwards the "chalengers rode to Durham Place, where they kept open
howsehold … [and] feasted the Kings Majestie, the Queenes Grace
and her ladies with all the court … [with] delicious meates and
drinckes." (ref. 273)
In 1544 the King made a grant to Nicholas Fortescue, groom porter
of his household, of 22 messuages and gardens lying between Durham House
and Ivy Lane. (fn. h) (ref. 274) These were the tenements known as Durham Rents, and
they occupied approximately the Strand frontage between the present Ivy
Bridge Lane (entered by an archway between Nos. 75 and 76, Strand) and
the east side of the entrance to the old Hotel Cecil (see pp. 120–1). Humphrey
Cooke, the owner of the Christopher on the site of Northumberland Street
(see p. 21), and master of the King's works in Berwick-on-Tweed, was
keeper of Durham Place and bailiff of "le Duresme rentes" in the early
years of Henry VIII's reign. (ref. 7) Richard Fawkes was "dwellyng in duram
rent" when he printed Skelton's Garlande in 1523 and The Myrroure of Oure
Lady in 1530. Robert Wyer, who had his own press in York Rents soon after
(see p. 58), is said to have been his apprentice.
Edward VI resided at Durham Place for a time before he became
king, (fn. i) but in March, 1549–50, he granted it to Princess Elizabeth in fulfilment
of his father's will. In the meantime a commission was granted (January,
1549), (ref. 4) to "John Bowes, esquire, treasurer of the mint within the king's
manor called Dureham Place," (fn. j) and others "to coin certain new moneys"
there, viz., the "soveraygne of gold," the "half soveraygn or Edward
Royall," the "croune" and the "half croune."
In July, 1550, the French Ambassador was lodged at Durham Place
"which was richly hanged … and had at his cominge ready sett in the
court of the same, for a present from the Kinges Maiestie, certeine fatt oxen,
calves, sheepe, lambes and all manner of wyld foule of every sorte, a certain
[number] all alive, and also of all manner of freshe fyshe of the best that
might be gotten, with wyne allso in his cellar." (ref. 273) The Privy Council met at
Durham Place in April, 1551, and about this time the house was made ready
for the entertainment of the French Ambassadors, who came to ratify the
peace. (ref. 275)
Early in 1553 John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, took possession
of Durham Place and contrived to get Elizabeth's consent thereto, though
not without her "conceyvinge some displeser" against him. (ref. 276) In this year
three weddings "were celebrated with great magnificence there." (ref. 277) They
were those of Lady Jane Grey with Guildford Dudley, Catherine, Jane's
sister, with Lord Herbert, son of the Earl of Pembroke, and Catherine,
youngest daughter of the Duke of Northumberland, with Lord Hastings,
son of the Earl of Huntingdon.
Lady Jane lived at Durham Place until the death of King Edward,
when, after her proclamation, she "was brought by water to the Tower;
attended by a Noble Train of both Sexes." (ref. 278) Her brief tragedy was soon at an
end, and her successor, Queen Mary, restored Durham Place to its original
owner, the Bishop of Durham, Cuthbert Tunstall. (ref. 279) Tunstall was no "Vicar
of Bray," and suffered in consequence. In 1551 he had been confined to his
house near Coldharbour, and during his imprisonment had written his De
Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Eucharistia, perhaps
the best contemporary statement of the Catholic doctrine of the eucharist.
He refused to take the oath of supremacy at the accession of Elizabeth, and
"for his contumacy and disobedience" (ref. 280) was deprived of his bishopric. He
died at Lambeth Palace in November, 1559.
In January, 1553–4, Durham House had been used as a lodging for
the Spanish Ambassador, (ref. 281) and in the following year King Philip himself
resided there. (ref. 282) After the death of Tunstall it is probable that Elizabeth
again took possession. In any case the Spanish Ambassador was lodged there
from 1559 until 1565. (ref. 277) Machyn tells us that on Candlemas Day, 1562–3,
"ther was sertyn men whent to Duram plase … to here masse, and there
was sertyn of them carved [carried] by the gard and othur men to the contur
[compter, prison] and odur places." (ref. 281) A great deal of stir was made by De
Quadra, the Spanish Ambassador, regarding this incident, since it concerned
not only the right of an ambassador to use the ceremonies of his faith, but also
his control over his ambassadorial residence. A similar incident occurred in
the time of Charles I (see p. 93).
In July, 1565, Elizabeth supped at Durham Place on the occasion
of the wedding there of Henry Knollys, son of Sir Francis Knollys, with
Margaret, the daughter of Sir Ambrose Cave, Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster. (ref. 277) (fn. k) At some time in this year, Sir Henry Sidney Seems to have
obtained possession of the house, (fn. l) and he remained there until February,
1579, when he moved to Baynard's Castle. (ref. 202) In May, 1566, the Queen supped
at Durham House with the Earl of Leicester (Sidney's brother-in-law), (ref. 93) and
in 1572 the Earl of Essex seems to have been staying there, since he dated a
letter thence. (ref. 93) In March, 1567–8, Sir Henry Sidney wrote from Durham
House asking Archbishop Parker "for a licence to be granted to my boy,
Philip Sidney, who is somewhat subject to sickness, for eating of flesh this
Lent." (ref. 283) Philip Sidney was then at school at Shrewsbury, but probably spent
some part of his holidays at his father's London house.
Sir Walter Ralegh was in residence at Durham House in 1591 and
probably earlier. (fn. m) Norden says (ref. 266) that the Queen "committed the use" of the
house to Ralegh, but it is certain, both from his and his wife's letters on the
subject, that he never obtained any formal grant of the property, and it seems
very doubtful that it was the Queen's to give. Aubrey says that Ralegh
"after he came to his greatness" lived in Durham House, "or in some
apartment of it," and adds, "I well remember his study, which was a little
turret which looked into and over the Thames, and had the prospect which is
pleasant perhaps as any in the world, and which not only refreshes the
eiesight but cheeres the spirits and (to speake my mind) I believe enlarges an
ingeniose man's thoughts." (fn. n) (ref. 285)
Ralegh certainly merits the description "ingeniose," for his interests
were exceptionally wide even in that versatile age. He was on friendly terms
with most of the literary men of the day, and was as keen to investigate the
metaphysical world as he was to explore the physical. His visitors at Durham
House must have been many and varied, but only a few of their names have
come down to us. In 1592–3 he was on intimate terms with the deist, Thomas
Harriot, and the dramatist, Christopher Marlowe, whose religious views were
equally unorthodox, an association which nearly got Ralegh into serious trouble
with the authorities. In October, 1595, there is a note in the diary of Dr. John
Dee, the mathematician and astrologer, that he "dyned with Syr Walter
Rawlegh at Durham House." Dee had acquired a lifelong reputation as a
magician owing to the clever stage effects he introduced into a performance
of the Peace of Aristophanes at Cambridge in 1546, and he had recently been
the leading spirit in a small society whose object was the discovery of the
philosopher's stone. (ref. 119) He was probably an unwise associate for Ralegh, whose
interest in metaphysics was already suspect.
Sir Arthur Gorges, poet, and his cousin, Sir Ferdinando Gorges, both
of whom sailed with Ralegh on the Islands Voyage in 1597, dated letters
from Durham House in 1595 and 1596 respectively. (ref. 201) Sir Ferdinando
afterwards became a partisan of Essex, who was at enmity with Ralegh, and
in February, 1599–1600, after the failure of Essex's revolt, Sir Ferdinando
confessed that "Sir Christopher Blount had persuaded him to murder or
seize Sir Walter," (ref. 286) though nothing came of the attempt.
Anne, Lady Cobham, was staying at Durham House in May, 1599, (ref. 201)
and her husband, Sir Henry Cobham, who was associated with Ralegh in an
embassy to Lord Grey in the Low Countries in July, 1600, (fn. o) was to have been
a visitor there after his return, but was prevented by the fire which consumed
some of the buildings in October of that year. Lady Ralegh, in a letter (ref. 288) to
Sir Robert Cecil, said that "this mischans of feeiar cam … by me cossin
Darci's sarvant—a woman that delleth just under our loggong, and anoyeth
us infenitly," and she suggested that "Hit will now be a fit time for you to
get sum intres in that rotten howes for your selfe and your frind: other wies,
I knoo none so unwies that will besto so many hundred pounes as Sur Wattar
hath dun, without fardar intrest or assurans of hit. I besuch remembar hit
now, soo shall not the Quine be trobled to bild the Bushope's ould stabels."
Cecil wanted a strip of Durham House garden for use in connection with his
own house in the Strand which was then in building (see p. 120), but he made
no effort to obtain it until after Elizabeth's death. Then, thanks to the
machinations of Henry Howard, afterwards Earl of Northampton, Ralegh
found himself completely out of favour at Court, and Cecil wasted no time in
getting him expelled from Durham House and a grant of part of the ground
for himself. It is difficult to acquit Cecil of duplicity in the matter, for until
the death of his mistress he to all appearances treated Ralegh as a friend and
neighbour, yet a fortnight afterwards he was in treaty with the Bishop of
Durham for Ralegh's eviction. (fn. p) As he himself wrote to Sir James Harington
at this time: " 'Tis a great task to prove one's honesty and yet not mar one's
fortune." (ref. 290) One of James's first acts as King of England was to address a
warrant to the Lord Keeper and others (ref. 200) in which, after stating that "upon
examination … of the matter between the Bishop of Duresme and those
that now dwell in his house … it appeareth that neither the said dwellers
have any right therein nor we," he ordered that warning should be given "to
Sir Walter Raliegh, Knight, and Sir Edward d' Arcy to delyver quyet possession
of the said house to the said Bishop. …" Ralegh was told to give up the
use of the stables and garden at once and to vacate the rest of the buildings by
midsummer. He made a vigorous protest against this summary treatment, but
it was of no avail, and, in fact, a month later he was a prisoner in the Tower
under charge of treason. One of the chief sources of suspicion against him
was his "reasonable causes for discontent"!
During the early part of James I's resign, Durham House was shorn
of its Strand and Ivy Lane frontages, both of which were granted to Cecil
(then Earl of Salisbury). The stables along the Strand front were taken down
and the New Exchange erected in their stead (see pp. 94–5) and the Ivy Lane
frontage was used for Great and Little Salisbury Houses (see pp. 120–1).
The main buildings of Durham House were nominally restored to the See of
Durham, but in practice the King seems to have made use of them for state
purposes whenever he wished. In 1610 Durham House was used for the
ceremony of the creation of Knights of the Bath. (ref. 291) In 1619 Sir Thomas Wilson
wrote that the ambassadors of France, Savoy and the States were staying
there. (ref. 196) In 1623, when Prince Charles was expected to bring back the
Infanta from Spain as his betrothed, Durham House was requisitioned to
accommodate the "grandees" who would attend her. (ref. 93) In the following
year the French Ambassador was again in occupation, and 240 feet of hangings
were put up in the "Dyning roome and presence" and his bedchamber was
"new matted with Bullrush matts." (ref. 292) (fn. q) Foreign ambassadors were a constant
source of disturbance about the English Court at this time, being continually
involved in quarrels over questions of precedence or over their religious
privileges. A serious dispute on the latter subject occurred at Durham
House in 1626. (ref. 93) The King had asked the Bishop of Durham to allow the
French Ambassador "some Lodgings in his house, which had stood free from
infection all ye Sickness time; which the said Bishop performed, crouding
vp himself and his whole family being great, into the worst and basest roomes
of his house, leaving all the good and large roomes thereof, with others, to
the number of 30 one with another, to the Ambassrs vse; yet reserving to
himself and his family passage through the Hall and through all ye Gates and
dores, leading either to the Water, or High Street." The Ambassador was, of
course, allowed to have Mass celebrated within his lodging, but considerable
scandal arose from the fact that many English Catholics attended. On
Sunday, the 26th February, constables were sent to arrest these recusants as
they came out from Mass. A fight with the Ambassador's men ensued, and
afterwards a long investigation was found necessary to mollify the Ambassador's
offended dignity. The rough plan of Durham House reproduced on the
opposite page was drawn to show what had taken place, since the main point
at issue was whether or no the English officers had trespassed on the
Ambassador's domain in order to make their arrests. This, the only known plan
of the area of Durham House, gives a rough idea of the disposition of the courts
and buildings, but no accuracy of scale or detail can be expected from it. (fn. r)
Figure 26:
Plan of Durham House in 1626
Considering the large cost of repairs necessary for so old a fabric and
the small enjoyment he had from it, the Bishop of Durham was probably
only too glad to agree to Charles I's proposal in 1641 that Durham House
should be granted to Philip, 4th Earl of Pembroke, in return for the annual
payment of £200. (fn. s) An Act of Parliament to this effect was, therefore, passed. (ref. 294)
Webb, the pupil of Inigo Jones, designed a large house to occupy this site,
but, probably owing to the outbreak of the Civil War, the design was never
carried out. (fn. t) Parliamentary soldiers were quartered in the old buildings in
1650, (fn. u) and the chapel became for a time a church for French Protestants. (fn. v)
Herbert, Earl of
Pembroke
Soon after the Restoration Pembroke's son, the 5th Earl, decided to
take down the dilapidated old house and lease the site in building plots. (ref. 295)
The new lay-out of the ground is shown on the extract from Morden and
Lea's map of 1682 (p. 27). A few moderate-sized houses were erected on the
south side of Durham Yard with gardens to the river, (fn. w) but from the first there
were wharves on the river front used for commercial purposes, and soon the
greater part of the site was covered with courts of little houses occupied by
small traders and artisans. (fn. x) By the middle of the eighteenth century Durham
Yard had become a slum, and by the time the Adam brothers took it over,
practically all the buildings were in ruins. (fn. y)
The New Exchange (The site of Nos. 54–64, Strand).
By a complicated series of transactions extending over the years
1603–10, the Earl of Salisbury obtained possession of a piece of ground about
208 feet in length by 60 feet in depth on the south side of the Strand between
York House and the gatehouse of Durham Place. (fn. z) There, on the site of the
old stables which, according to Stow, (ref. 301) had become "but a low ruin …
ready to fall, and very unsightly," Salisbury erected "a very goodly and
beautiful building … after the fashion of the Royall Exchange in London,
with Sellers underneath, a walke fairely paved above it, and Rowes of Shops
above, as also one beneath answerable in manner to the other, and intended
for the like trades and mysteries."
According to the illustrations on Plate 58 the building consisted of
two storeys, the lower having an open arcade which, on the plan from the
Smithson collection reproduced here, is described as a "Closter," and figured
201 feet in length and 21 feet in width. Behind the arcade was ranged a
long double row of shops with a central gangway 10 feet wide. There were
three entrances from the Strand, and at each end staircases led to the upper
floor. In the rear was a yard extending on the western side to a greater depth
and including further buildings southwards.
Figure 27:
Plan of the New Exchange.
From the Smithson Collection preserved at the
Royal Institute of British Architects
The front of the market was apparently erected in brick with stone
dressings and divided into bays by pilasters, which treatment, according to
the Smithson drawing (Plate 58a), was repeated to the upper storey,
finishing above the parapet with ball terminals. The central bay and the two
wings were carried up to form gables. The Smithson drawing, which shows
the design of only half of the front of the building, represents a rather
ornamental exterior with scrolls and details of the Jacobean period of
architecture, and the general effect is light and spirited. It is, however,
doubtful whether the design according to the Smithson drawing was ever
carried out, as in the later engraving by Harris (Plate 58b), the pilasters to the
upper storey are omitted and a high parapet is shown, linking up pedimented
dormers in a steep pitched roof. Yet though the whole front bears a more
severe appearance, the basis of the Smithson design can be seen.
The third view of the building, reproduced on Plate 58c, is from an
ink and wash drawing in the Council's collection. It shows all the windows as
square headed, and differs in several other details from the Harris engraving
and is probably of a later date. The drawing was originally in the Gardner
collection, and it seems likely that the drawing of the New Exchange by T.H.
Shepherd, which is now in the Westminster Public Library, (fn. a) was made
from it.
The illustration (Plate 60) showing the interior of the New Exchange
probably represents the treatment of the principal room on the upper floor.
The building was completed in November, 1608, (fn. b) and in the April
following it was officially opened by the King. (ref. 93) James I suggested that it
should be called Britain's Burse, but the name did not catch on, and the
building was usually referred to as the New Exchange. A list of orders was
issued for its government, which provided that the only persons allowed to
keep shops there were haberdashers, stocking-sellers, linen-drapers, seamsters,
goldsmiths, jewellers, milliners, perfumers, silk mercers, tiremakers,
hoodmakers, stationers, booksellers, (fn. c) confectioners, girdlers and those who
sold china ware, pictures, maps or prints. The shops were to be open from
6 a.m. to 8 p.m. in summer, and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. in winter. (ref. 93) The citizens
of London at first opposed the enterprise as a possible rival to the Royal
Exchange, (ref. 62) but their objections were overruled and were, indeed, ill-founded.
The New Exchange did not meet with the success which was expected,
though it enjoyed a considerable vogue in the reign of Charles II, when it
became a favourite resort of ladies and their beaux. On 27th October, 1666,
Pepys recorded that he and his wife took Mrs. Pierce and her boy and Knipp
there, and "my wife bought things, and I did give each of them a pair of
Jesimy plain gloves and another of white. Here Knipp and I walked up
and down to see handsome faces, and did see several." Many such visits are
mentioned in the Diary. (fn. d)
The New Exchange survived until 1737, (fn. e) though little is heard of it
during the last few years of its existence. Eleven houses were built on the site,
the centre and largest of which (afterwards numbered 59, Strand) was leased
to George Middleton, goldsmith, the flourishing banking business of the
firm of Middleton and Campbell being moved thither from the Three Crowns
near Hungerford Market. Middleton died in 1747, and his brother-in-law,
George Campbell, in 1761. Neither of them left a male heir, and the firm
passed into the hands of the brothers, James and Thomas Coutts, (fn. f) the elder
of whom had married George Campbell's niece. No. 59 remained the "shop"
of Coutts' Bank until 1904. The premises were extended to include Nos.
58, 57 and 56 early in the nineteenth century. Plans of the three houses are
given on Plate 62a.
The 11 houses were designed as a comprehensive composition and
comprised three storeys over shops and basement. They had a plain brick
front relieved with a stone modillion cornice above the second-floor windows.
No. 59 had a break forward with a pedimented front and formed the central
feature of the block; the end houses forming the wings, though of less frontage,
were treated in a complementary manner. A good illustration of the whole
front as it was in 1852 is shown on Plate 59.
No. 55 had a wood staircase continuing in short flights around a
top-lighted well. It had turned balusters and newels with a straight string and
panelled dado. These details were typical of the staircases in the other houses.
No. 59 (Coutts' Bank) formerly had a pedimented doorcase to the
private house. A doorway inserted in one of the windows formed the bank
entrance (Plate 57b), but when No. 58 was added to it a stone front to the
ground storey was introduced, which was divided into bays by Greek Doric
pilasters supporting an entablature (Plate 59). Internal alterations were also
carried out consequent upon the linking-up of the houses. The rooms
generally were panelled and the mantelpieces carved. When the houses were
demolished some of the panelling and mantelpieces were retained by the
Council and are now preserved at the Geffrye Museum in Shoreditch.
No. 59 had a stone staircase with iron bar balustrading. The doors
leading from the landing on the first floor had good semicircular fanlights with
radiating bars in lead and iron (Plate 65a), and there were also some elliptical
borrowed lights in the walls to the staircase of a similar nature. In the basement
was a cast-lead cistern with interlaced ribs on the front forming three
decorative panels—the centre contained initials M/GM and the date 17–9
along the top (Plate 63a).
Thomas Coutts employed the brothers Adam, who were recommended
to him by Lord Bute, an important customer at the bank, to reconstruct and
redecorate his apartments. At various times between 1775 and 1817 Coutts
bought most of the houses between John Street and William Street, and in
1799 he obtained authority by Act of Parliament to throw a bridge across
William Street, thus connecting the two parts of the bank. The bridge
(Plate 68b), which is of brick and stone, was designed by William Adam.
The fee simple is now the property of the Council, and during the erection of
the new premises on the site of Coutts' old bank, arrangements were made for
this charming bridge to be preserved.
Coutts
The famous Chinese wallpaper, which Lord Macartney brought back
from China and presented to Thomas Coutts, was removed from the old
drawing-room and fixed in the board room of the new bank premises across
the Strand, as was also one of the eighteenth-century marble mantelpieces.
It should be recorded that when the Adelphi scheme was being
prepared, Mr. Coutts made special arrangements with the Adams to preserve
the view from his back windows which overlooked the river.
All the 11 houses were demolished in 1923, and the front portion of
the site was used to increase the width of the Strand.
Durham House Gate and the Strand Frontage between it and Ivy
Bridge Lane (the site of Nos. 65–75, Strand, The Tivoli, etc.).
When Salisbury acquired the stables of Durham House he also bought
the gatehouse and lodgings adjoining. (ref. 288) These he demolished and rebuilt,
making a way under the gatehouse and behind the New Exchange down to
the river, which afterwards became Durham House Street. The gatehouse
survived until circa 1790. (ref. 302) On Plate 56b is a view of it just before its
demolition, which shows the steep incline of the street.
The remainder of the Strand frontage eastward to Ivy Bridge Lane
was sold with the rest of Durham House in 1641, but was in separate
ownerships before the end of the century. It was built up in small tenements,
and at the beginning of the eighteenth century when it is possible to list the
shops and their owners such varied signs are found among them as: The
Golden Lion (John Holden), The White Lion (John Bignall), The King's
Head (Daniel Duke), The Katherine Wheel and Shovell (Nicholas Sweeting),
and the Golden Tun (Charles Wheeler, goldsmith). Charles Wheeler was a
descendant of William Wheeler, goldsmith, whose daughter, Elizabeth,
married Francis Child, the founder of Child's Bank. (ref. 39) It is probable that
Child's Court, formed between 1720 and 1740 approximately on the site of
Wheeler's shop near Ivy Bridge Lane, was so named because of this family
connection. At about the same time a second court was formed further west
nearer Durham Gate. This was called Theobald's Court after the Theobald
family who owned part of the frontage there. (ref. 99)
Robert Adam leased the ground between Durham Gate and Ivy
Bridge Lane in order to complete the Adelphi scheme. Adam Street was cut
through to the Strand between Theobald's Court and Child's Court (the
latter disappearing), and the house at the east corner (afterwards No. 73,
Strand), was let to Thomas Becket, the bookseller and friend of Garrick. This
house, which was then in the occupation of Mr. Fearn, jeweller and silversmith,
was burnt down in June, 1822, (ref. 129) and afterwards rebuilt to the same design.
A photograph of it is reproduced on Plate 61. The New Exchange Coffee
House was the fourth house west of Adam Street, afterwards No. 69, Strand.
The houses west of Adam Street were pulled down in 1924, and those east of
Adam Street in 1927, the new premises on the site being set back to widen
the Strand.