CHAPTER XIII
Old Grosvenor House
For most of the nineteenth century and the first one and a
half decades of the twentieth the principal London home
of the Grosvenor family was a large detached house
situated on the south side of Upper Grosvenor Street
(where it was latterly numbered 33) but also enjoying a
long frontage to Park Lane and wide views to the south and
west over Hyde Park (Plates 64, 65, 66, 67b, 67c, fig. 55: see also
Plates 18, 20c, 28 in vol. XXXIX). Compared with other of
London's dynastic mansions Grosvenor House came
rather late into the hands of its eponymous owners, and
was already more than seventy years old when the
Grosvenors acquired it in 1806. For much of that time it
had been occupied as a royal residence. But in outward
aspect the house vacated by the family in 1916 and
demolished in 1927 was essentially of the nineteenth
century. Undeniably grand, it was yet never harmonized
by thorough rebuilding, and in its juxtaposition of
uncompleted building campaigns it stood a little obliquely
to the main channels through which the prestige of
the nobility usually expressed itself in London.
It is not clear how a detached house came to be built in
Upper Grosvenor Street in the first place. As early as 1721
an agreement had been concluded with Major Joseph
Watts of the Chelsea Water Works Company to develop
the whole block now occupied by the modern Grosvenor
House but this was later surrendered without any building
having taken place. (ref. 1) Agreements were subsequently made
for developing the western part of the Upper Grosvenor
Street frontage and the Park Street frontage. (ref. 2) The greater
part of the site was not, however, made the subject of any
known agreement, and in June 1731 it was leased to
Walter, first Viscount Chetwynd, who was already in
process of erecting a house there for his own occupation. (ref. 3)
Completed in 1732, (ref. 4) this was a squarish detached building
set back some ninety feet from Upper Grosvenor Street.
Who the builders were and what the house looked like are
both unknown, and though the plan may not have been
very different from that surveyed in 1805 (fig. 55) there
were certainly more rooms on the ground floor in the mid
eighteenth century. (ref. 5) In front of the house Chetwynd laid
out a funnel-shaped courtyard with a narrow entrance into
Upper Grosvenor Street flanked by a pair of porters'
lodges. The unwanted land on both sides of this entrance
provided sites for Nos. 31, 32 and 34 Upper Grosvenor
Street, which also acted as a screen for the house and its
adjoining service wing. A stable block was erected along
the Park Lane frontage. (ref. 6)
Lord Chetwynd lived there from 1732 until his death in
1736. (ref. 4) Two years later his brother, the second Viscount,
sold the house to the third Duke of Beaufort for £8,000. (ref. 7)
In order to protect his views southwards the Duke also took
leases of all the land between Mount Street and South
Street bounded on the west by Park Lane and on the east
by the gardens of the newly rising houses on the west side
of Park Street. (ref. 8) Rocque's map published in 1746 shows a
formal garden falling away to Mount Street from a terrace
on the south side of the house. The Beauforts retained the
house until 1761 when they agreed to sell it with much of
the contents to H.R.H. the Duke of Cumberland (the
commander at Culloden) for £15,865. (ref. 5) The sale was not
concluded until 1763 but the Duke took up residence
immediately. (ref. 9)
An inventory of 1761 (ref. 5) shows the house then had six
rooms on the ground floor, apart from the entrance hall
and two staircase compartments, a closet and a water
closet. This allowed a drawing-room and a large saloon to
be accommodated on that floor, as well as a great and a little
eating-parlour, a gilt dressing-room and another 'Dressing
or Alcove Room'. (Perhaps the greater number of rooms
beyond what are shown on the plan of 1805 (fig. 55) is
explained by the existence of more than one room where
the later plan shows only a great drawing-room.) The
principal staircase compartment probably already had the
round-ended shape shown in 1805, and was lit by 'four
Globe Lamps on the stairs supported by Twisting
Dolphins of Mahogany very Grand and neatly carved'.
Above, the 'library' of 1805 was evidently used in 1761 as a
drawing-room, but the other apartments were bedrooms
(two of them for upper servants) and a dressing-room. The
basement included a candle room and a room for
powdering wigs, and the domestic offices extended into an
adjacent service block.
As was often the case, large pier-glasses and chimneyglasses were important in the decorative effect of rooms, as
also were the conventional marble slabs on carved frames,
those in the drawing-room and saloon having removable
green cloth covers reaching to the ground. In three
ground-floor rooms ornamented or tabernacled pictureframes are mentioned, the eight in the saloon, at least,
being 'all adapted to the room and hangings'. Of the
thirteen main rooms (where, however, the furnishings may
be incompletely listed), five have carpets mentioned, four
being Wilton (two fitted to the rooms) and one Kidderminster. On the ground floor no unified colour schemes
are apparent, but on the first floor the former bedchamber
of the Duchess of Beaufort was all in crimson—bedfurnishings, chair-upholstery, wall-hangings and curtains;
Lady Harriet's room was green; and another room had
'embossed serge' for both bed-furnishings and curtains.
On the ground floor silk damask wall-hangings are
mentioned in the gilt dressing-room (where they were
blue) and in the saloon, but the drawing-room had tapestry
hangings. Blue damask was also hung upstairs, in a
dressing-room. There was flock paper in the Duchess's
crimson bedchamber (where the chimney board was
covered with 'India paper'), and paper hangings in another
room. Especially on the first floor, most of the curtains
were of the kind called 'festoon'. The movable furniture
was often of mahogany, but walnut, oak, deal and beech
also occurred in important rooms.
The Duke of Cumberland died here of a haemorrhage in
October 1765 when about to take the chair at a meeting of
the Cabinet, which under the Rockingham administration
used regularly to assemble at the Duke's house. (ref. 10) In 1766
his executors assigned the lease to his nephew William
Henry, Duke of Gloucester, a brother of George III, who
lived in the house until his own death in 1805, (ref. 11) during
which time it was known as Gloucester House.
For over forty years, therefore, this house was occupied
by members of the royal family, yet no record of any
alteration or decorative work has survived except for a
rumour in 1779 that 'the additional building at Gloucester
House was to cost four thousand pounds'. (ref. 12) But by 1794
the front courtyard had certainly been altered, Chetwynd's
straight sides being replaced by curving walls (dressed in
1805 if not earlier with shallow recesses and columns), the
entrance widened, the porters' lodges removed and,
probably, a tetrastyle portico erected in front of the house
(as shown in 1805). Inside on the ground floor some of the
rooms were evidently thrown together. (ref. 13) Internal decoration by Sir William Chambers has been postulated, on
account of the style of the dining-room ceiling in 1889
(Plate 65b), and although this was certainly not by
Chambers (partly because that room only acquired its
shape in 1871), there is a hint of work by him here in the
Duke of Gloucester's riding house in Hyde Park close to
Grosvenor Gate, erected in 1768 (Plate 13a in vol. XXXIX),
which was virtually identical with Chambers's riding
house for George III at Buckingham Palace of 1763–8. (ref. 14) (fn. a)
When Robert, second Earl Grosvenor, succeeded his
father in 1802 he and his wife were living in the Thamesside mansion at Millbank sometime called Peterborough
House. (ref. 16) This basically seventeenth-century building had
come to the Grosvenors through Mary Davies but had
been first occupied by them only in 1719 and vacated in
1755 for No. 45 Grosvenor Square. (ref. 17) In 1789 the first Earl
Grosvenor had bought back the lease of the house at
Millbank (recently remodelled on neo-classical lines by a
tenant) as a home for his son and heir Lord Belgrave, the
future second Earl. (ref. 18)
A proposal to build a large penitentiary on the open
ground to the south of the house at Millbank, not carried
into effect until 1813–16 but under discussion in the late
1790's, (ref. 19) was probably the reason for the Belgraves'
decision, in c. 1800, to look for a house in Mayfair. Both
the Duke of Gloucester's and Lord Fitzwilliam's (No. 4
Grosvenor Square) were considered, and in August 1801
the Belgraves declared themselves 'decidedly in favour of
Gloucester House'. (ref. 20) There was no immediate prospect of
its becoming vacant (the lease did not expire until 1830)
but by registering their interest they forestalled the grant
of a reversionary lease. Henceforward the presumed future
status of the house as a Grosvenor family residence would
have to be taken into account by the Grosvenor Board
when dealing with applications to renew the leases of
adjoining properties. (ref. 21)
On his father's death in August 1802 the second Earl
Grosvenor chose to remain at Millbank (ref. 16) (rather than
occupy No. 45 Grosvenor Square), but the death of the
Duke of Gloucester only three years later provided an
unexpectedly early opportunity to acquire his house. By
the autumn of 1805 negotiations were under way. Lord
Grosvenor's surveyor, William Porden, spent four days in
November surveying the house. He thought it oldfashioned and valued it at only £16,231 'or nearly Ten
Thousand Pounds less than the price required'. Evidently
aware of his slightly invidious position when acting for his
employer in the unusual role of 'buyer' rather than 'seller'
he was at pains to assure Lord Grosvenor that his
valuation, which prospective tenants often thought
pitched too high on the ground landlord's behalf, was not
here too low: 'I have not been inclined to make it less than I
fairly ought. On the contrary, I have believed that I should
meet your Lordship's wishes more compleatly, if I
stretched the line as tightly as possible, as a few Hundred
Pounds were not to be placed in competition of such a
desirable object.' (ref. 22)
By February 1806 the purchase had been agreed at a
compromise price of £20,000. The assignment of the lease
to Lord Grosvenor took place in May 1807. (ref. 23)
Porden's survey of Gloucester House in 1805 revealed a
compact building of three storeys over a basement, simply
planned around a central staircase compartment. The
disposition of the rooms on the ground and first floors is
shown in fig. 55. Most of the second floor was given over to
ten bedrooms. The offices were in the basement and the
service wing. (ref. 24)
As it stood the house was not suitable for immediate
occupation by Lord Grosvenor. According to Porden the
interior was 'very dirty', and 'not so chearful as the
situation would lead one to expect'. (ref. 22) The Times later
remembered the house as being 'so gloomy, that it
appeared to defy all endeavours to render it light'. (ref. 25) Porden
advised that the interior should be painted, whitewashed
and repapered, and that in addition to other repairs all the
'ornaments' should be regilded, as they were 'too much
tarnished to be used with new Furniture'. He also
criticized the doors and windows ('low and narrow when
compared with the taste of the present Day'), and
commented on the small principal staircase, and the
'heavy, antiquated, but respectable stile' of the finishings
in the principal rooms. (ref. 22)
There was evidently no question of a complete
rebuilding, such as was already taking place at Eaton Hall,
but under Porden's direction a costly programme of
alterations and redecoration was put in train. Work began
in March 1806 and continued for about two years. (ref. 26) When
Lord Grosvenor was out of London Porden kept him
informed by letter, often sending ideas and suggestions, as
well as details of the work in progress. Rather less sanguine
in tone were the letters and reports Lord Grosvenor
received from his friend and mentor, Professor John
Hailstone, the geologist, who visited the house whenever
he was in London (where he had rooms in Albany), and, at
Lord Grosvenor's prompting, urged Porden to speed up
the work. 'I assure your L.', wrote Hailstone in February
1807, 'I seldom miss a day but I walk to the House and
sometimes spur the bold P. till he is ready to lash out at
me'. (ref. 27) These letters compensate in some measure for the
total absence of any drawing or other illustration of
Porden's interior work, but many questions remain
unresolved as the replies containing Lord Grosvenor's
decisions do not usually survive.
Structural alterations were not very extensive, the most
significant being the erection of a two-storey bow topped
by a balcony in the centre of the south front. (ref. 28) In early
views this bow is shown with a verandah at first-floor level,
the roof of which was painted like a striped awning (Plate
67c: see also Plate 18a in vol. XXXIX). The shallow
segmental arches over the ground-floor windows on the
south front were doubtless of Porden's devising, and the
whole of the exterior appears to have been stuccoed. (ref. 29)
Inside, the plan was hardly disturbed, though the uses
of the principal rooms were changed. On the ground floor
the old drawing-room and breakfast parlour became the
dining-room and the ante-dining-room; the former ante-room, newly extended into the bow, became a saloon, the
old dining-room was turned into a drawing-room, and the
bedroom into an ante-room (later a breakfast room). The
two old staircases at the centre of the house were replaced
by one grand 'geometrical' staircase, where Porden used
the vertical panels of Greek-key pattern which he had
recently employed in the staircase of Mrs. Fitzherbert's
house in Brighton (Plate 64c). New back stairs were built
in an extension on the east side. (ref. 30) For all the size of the
house Porden encountered a difficulty in finding a place for
a water closet on the ground floor, the lack of which he
admitted would be inconvenient. His best suggestion,
which may or may not have been adopted, was to put one in
the back staircase compartment, accessible from the
dining-room via the ante-dining-room. As he pointed out
to Lord Grosvenor, after dinner the ladies would retire to
the saloon or drawing-room, and 'the Anti-room will be
left to the Gentlemen'. (ref. 31)
In the principal apartments the work included the
renewal or remodelling and heavy gilding of ceilings and
cornices, (ref. 32) and the fitting of new mahogany doors to
enlarged doorways. Porden offered Lord Grosvenor a
choice between sets of 'single' doors, and folding doors
which could be turned back into their jambs 'so that when
the whole suite of Rooms are thrown open on a gala night,
there would be no projections into the Rooms, but
company might walk everywhere without obstruction'. (ref. 34)
In the hall the old chimneypiece was replaced by a niche
with a corresponding niche on the opposite wall, and in
order to complete the symmetry there Porden wanted to
add two blank doors of red baize. He thought it prudent,
however, to get Lord Grosvenor's agreement as he and
Lady Grosvenor were known to 'dislike the appearance of
many doors in a Room'. (ref. 33) The glazing in the hall was to
include 'figured devices such as Arms, crests etc.' (ref. 34) The
scagliola columns mentioned in the accounts (ref. 26) were
probably intended to flank the doorway leading from the
hall to the staircase.
Much time and effort was put into devising a decorative
scheme which would provide a suitable setting for Lord
Grosvenor's rapidly expanding collection of pictures
(substantially augmented in 1806 by the purchase of
Welbore Ellis Agar's entire collection (ref. 35) ). The paintings
were to be displayed in the main rooms, where it was
proposed that the walls should be lined with crimson
damask salvaged from old Eaton Hall. (ref. 36) 'This will be more
expensive than Plaister', Porden told Lord Grosvenor,
'but it will be ready for use immediately, and will afford
proper means for fixing the Pictures, and for changing
their situations, as often as your Lordship thinks it proper.
On Plaister walls that is not quite so easy.' The merit of
hangings in this respect was that the pictures could readily
be fixed to the framework of wooden battens on which the
damask was fastened, thus dispensing with the brass
picture-rails, which were 'expensive', and the dependent
cords, which Porden thought unsightly. (ref. 31)
When the damask finally arrived from Cheshire late in
1807 it was found to be sufficient for three rooms, the best
of it being hung in the drawing-room and ante-diningroom, and the second best in the north-west ante-room
(later breakfast room) where there was 'less light … to
expose defects'. (ref. 37) At Porden's suggestion the saloon was
hung with a crimson velvet (Lord Grosvenor having
evidently vetoed blue), and the dining-room, little used by
daylight, with a scarlet wallpaper. Porden thought scarlet
had the important recommendation that 'it lights up by
night to more advantage than Crimson'. (ref. 38) He had painted
his own dining-room in Berners Street scarlet, and told
Lord Grosvenor 'my dingy drawings look quite brilliant in
consequence'. (ref. 33) The carpets were either crimson or
scarlet. (ref. 34)
The woodwork of the dadoes, the plinths and the
mouldings were painted with 'a tint of satinwood' as
harmonising best with the mahogany doors, the hangings
and the pictures. (ref. 39) Porden reported to Lord Grosvenor
that when the colour was tried out the Claude which he had
hung against the crimson damask appeared superior to any
he had ever seen. This opinion, he said, was shared by
others including William Seguier, the future first curator
of the National Gallery, whom Lord Grosvenor had
recently engaged to look after his own collection. Porden
was so confident of 'the propriety and excellence of the
effect' of the 'satinwood' paint that, 'were it not
unbecoming in me to say so', he would have offered to
repaint the whole suite at his own expense if the colour was
not approved. An alternative colour scheme for the painted
woodwork in pink and white was evidently proposed by
the furniture-maker Richard Gillow, who was refurnishing the house, and appears to have had some temporary
support from Seguier, but was condemned by Porden. He
thought it gave 'a feeble unfinished effect, and is extremely
injurious to the pictures'. (ref. 40)
That Lord Grosvenor should have consulted Gillow on
such a matter Porden felt as a slight on his professional
judgment. He was touchy about anything which might be
construed as interference in his own, widely conceived,
sphere of work, (ref. 41) but was free with unsolicited opinions on
the work of others (here and at Eaton), excusing himself to
Lord Grosvenor on the grounds that he did it 'Con amore',
and 'from no other motive whatever, but a desire to see
everything in either House as perfect as your Lordship's
rank and fortune can command'. (ref. 42) Gillow's furniture was
particularly liable to this criticism. In Porden's opinion
Gillow was 'an excellent workman' but not being 'a man of
superior taste' was 'only governed by fashion', whereas an
architect like himself, while not entirely disregarding
fashion, was guided by 'the principles of general harmony'.
In designing a room the architect had 'in contemplation
the effect of the whole, the carpet, the hangings, and the
furniture as well as the painting, taking the tone from the
principal features that are unalterable, or have been
determined on'. (ref. 43) At Grosvenor House these were the
pictures and the hangings. Writing 'with that frankness
which becomes an architect in the confidence of your
Lordship' Porden expressed his disapproval of Lord
Grosvenor's choice of Gillow's furniture designs, and
offered to undertake the designing himself with the
assistance of his son-in-law Joseph Kay. (ref. 44) Lord Grosvenor
appears to have ignored most of these criticisms, but
Porden did succeed in having the draperies put under the
'active direction' of Kay, 'who understands them both as a
Painter and an Upholsterer'. (ref. 45)
In all this Porden did not forget that the rooms were to
form a setting not only for pictures on the walls but for 'the
living pictures which will frequently adorn them', and
reminded Lord Grosvenor of 'the difference that will be
made in the appearance of the finest forms and faces when
moving on a back Ground of feeble and unharmonious
colours; and one that by its contrast and harmony will
define the form, and give brilliancy to the face'. (ref. 40)
The internal embellishments were accompanied by a
remodelling of the garden under the direction of a Mr.
Gray, doubtless of Messrs. Gray and Wear, nurserymen,
of Brompton Park, who received £100. (ref. 46) A number of trees
were transplanted from Millbank, where the Grosvenors
had been enthusiastic gardeners. (ref. 47) In front of the house the
courtyard was lowered and newly gravelled, and the gates
there repaired. (ref. 48)
By January 1808 the work in the house was sufficiently
advanced for a start to be made on hanging the pictures.
This, of course, was Seguier's province, and Porden, as he
explained, did not interfere, 'farther than to lend assistance
if necessary, and to advise if anything occurs that will
improve the Arrangement'. (ref. 49) Out of London, Lord
Grosvenor fretted over Seguier's disposition of the
paintings, fearful that 'many good pictures' would have to
be omitted, but perhaps comforted by Porden's assurance
that one of the Claudes 'looks divine'. (ref. 50)
The house appears to have been occupied by Lord
Grosvenor from April 1808 (ref. 51) and two months later it was
thrown open to the 'Fashionable world' amid much
'critical acclaim'. The Times reported that it was 'now
transformed into a residence, which combines, in a
superior degree, the several qualities of magnificence,
elegance, and convenience… . Indeed, it has undergone a
metamorphosis, which, under the influence of a pure and
solid taste, has produced a splendour, that possesses the
happy medium between the cumbersome finery of a
former period, and the fillagreen frippery, or motley
vagaries of the present day.' (ref. 25) The Morning Post admired
the hangings, the 'truly magnificent' chandeliers and
Grecian lamps, the vast and beautiful mirrors, the grand
staircase, 'superbly illuminated' and 'adorned with the
most rare specimens in the art of sculpture', and the richly
gilded ornamental ceilings and cornices. (ref. 52) Porden received, by name, his fill of praise. Not everybody was
enthusiastic however: Lord Lonsdale, who visited the
house in the company of the architect Robert Smirke,
found it 'most expensively furnished, but in a bad taste'. (ref. 53)
It was rumoured that the house, together with the
alterations, the furniture and pictures, had cost Lord
Grosvenor £120,000; (ref. 54) but the true figure seems to have
been nearer £80,000. Of this about £35,000 had been
spent on pictures, the greater part (£31,000) on the Agar
collection. The house itself cost £20,000; the alterations
and decorations a further £16,670; and Gillow's furniture
over £7,000. (ref. 55) Apart from £7,992 spent on carpenter's,
bricklayer's and mason's work, the alterations required
large payments for decorative plasterwork to Francis
Bernasconi (£2,097), and for painting, glazing and gilding
(£2,371). (fn. b) (ref. 26) Porden's commission added another
£833 9s. 8d. to the total cost. (ref. 56) For some reason Lord
Grosvenor seems to have queried Porden's charges,
provoking a pained response from the architect: 'I beg
leave … to assure your Lordship most solemnly that I have
not intentionally made any charge … but what I think
myself strictly warranted in doing by the practice of my
profession'. (ref. 57) Whatever the problem was it did not deter
Lord Grosvenor from having Porden design and supervise
the erection of a picture gallery here in c. 1817–19.
The earliest surviving reference to the gallery is in a
letter from Porden in January 1818, and by then work on
what he termed the 'New Room' was well advanced. (ref. 58)
Completed in 1819 it consisted of a single toplit
compartment just over fifty feet long and of double-storey
height attached to the west side of the house. The
circumstances in which this unbalanced arrangement was
accepted are unknown, but it tended to complicate the task
of giving symmetry to any extended south front when a few
years later adjacent leases were to fall in.
No illustration is known but the external walls appear
from plans to have had a pilastered treatment. Skylights let
into the 'Waggon headed ceiling' provided the main source
of natural illumination. There was also a small circular
window in the west wall, while from a similar window in
the east wall Lord Grosvenor could look into the gallery
from his first-floor library. (ref. 59)
The natural lighting, about which Seguier had been
consulted, was evidently a success and in 1820 Porden was
reminded of its merits by the 'mean and I think
insufficient' lighting of Soane's picture gallery at Dulwich
College. (ref. 60) Artificial lighting for evening receptions was
provided by a cut-glass gas chandelier 'of the most chaste
and beautiful description', the gas for which was supplied
by the Gas Light and Coke Company from their main in
Park Street. (ref. 61) (Porden had evidently been unaware of this
source when in 1818 he counselled against gas lighting: 'As
the Gass-light Company have no Station near Grosvenor
Square I fear it cannot be done, without your Lordship
making a Gassometer for yourself, which would be a
considerable expense in making, and managing'. (ref. 58) ) At
Lady Grosvenor's grand rout on 17 May 1819 the
chandelier was much admired for its 'mild yet brilliant
light' and 'sun-like brightness'. (ref. 62)
Of the pictures in the new gallery the most impressive
were four huge religious paintings by Rubens, the smallest
measuring 14 feet by 14½ feet, which Lord Grosvenor had
bought from the Danish Envoy, Edmund Bourke, in
March 1818 for £9,205. (ref. 63) Indeed, it was thought by some
that the gallery had been erected expressly to receive
them. (ref. 64) This seems unlikely, however, as building was well
advanced by March 1818, and in announcing his 'grand
purchase' to Hailstone in April, Lord Grosvenor merely
says the pictures 'will be in the new Gallery'. (ref. 65) A catalogue
of the 143 paintings in the collection published in 1821
shows that the other principal apartments remained
plentifully hung with old masters, of which only twentyone, doubtless on account of their size, were to be found in
the gallery. (ref. 66)
Porden resigned in 1821, and by 1824 Lord Grosvenor
was having his successor as surveyor, Thomas Cundy,
sketch plans for improvements to the house. (ref. 67) Lord
Grosvenor was a man of great and growing wealth who
seems to have been at once free-spending and parsimonious. Thus although the additions to the house made
by him were important they fell far short of many of the
schemes prepared by Cundy and (more numerously) his
son Thomas Cundy II. An element in the rather obscure
picture of Lord Grosvenor's and his surveyors' intentions
was, of course, the physical presence of the old house with
its sunlit, bow-fronted rooms on the south, and the fact
that it was nearly but not exactly central between Park
Street and Breadalbane House. This was significant
because the schemes proposed a Grosvenor House
extended eastward and westward (Plate 66a: see also Plate
18b, 18c in vol. XXXIX). Whether or not with this in view, the
demolition of adjacent properties had been envisaged since
at least 1801 in respect of Breadalbane House stables and
since 1813 in respect of houses in Park Street. (ref. 68) Any really
fine, symmetrical deployment of a new south front
between those limits and properly related to a corresponding interior would thus have required (as many plans
proposed) the total rebuilding of the old house, while, for
those fond of the old house, a less comprehensive
rearrangement was not quite ruled out. The biographer of
Lord Grosvenor's daughter-in-law, Lady Elizabeth
Belgrave, has quoted a letter written by her when
incomplete (and never-to-be-completed) changes had
been made, in which she spoke of Lady Grosvenor's
reluctance to have the old house rebuilt. (ref. 69) Lady Elizabeth
thought 'there is no fear of her dissuading Lord
Grosvenor', but the old house survived, and possibly Lady
Elizabeth under-estimated her mother-in-law.
Although never followed through in a general reconstruction, the chief work done for Lord Grosvenor was not
long delayed, and was impressive so far as it went. This was
principally the remodelling and extension of Porden's
picture gallery to create a longer and (presumably) grander
west wing, for early duplication on the east. The
demolition in 1825–6 of Nos. 108–111 Park Street and of
the stables at No. 107 Park Street, at Nos. 29–30 Upper
Grosvenor Street, and at Breadalbane House made this
feasible, (ref. 70) and at the same time permitted the construction
of a carriage drive between Park Lane and Park Street
below the south front of the house, which was thereby
given an importance comparable to that of the north front.
(The carriages were brought from new and expensive
stables on the south side of Reeves Mews built, with gas
laid on, in 1826–7 and 1829–30 at a cost of over £6,000. (fn. c) (ref. 71) )
Figure 55:
Old Grosvenor House (demolished), plans in 1805, c. 1845 (showing Porden's gallery as altered and extended by Thomas Cundy II and the screen to Upper Grosvenor Street), and post-1881 (showing further alterations mainly by Henry Clutton). Secondary staircases and domestic offices are largely conjectural
The main work included general decoration and repairs
to the old house (ref. 72) (in the course of which the plasterer put
some Wedgwood tiles in Lord Grosvenor's bath (ref. 73) ), but
chiefly related to the picture-gallery wing. (ref. 74) It was carried
out in 1826–7, that is, under the supervision of Thomas
Cundy II as his father's successor in the position of estate
surveyor since the latter's death in December 1825.
Internally, Porden's gallery was remodelled with a new
ceiling rising in a cove to a large rectangular lighting-compartment with glazed sides. It was very closely similar
to the ceiling Thomas Cundy senior had recently designed
for the ceremonial staircase at Northumberland House, (ref. 75)
but its ornateness seems, at least in illustrations, to
anticipate Victorian classicism (Plate 64b). What its
construction was is uncertain but it was provided, like the
similar ceiling of the other, new, apartment beyond it, not
by a plasterer but by William Croggon, the Coade stone
maker and scagliolist, who did the work, by the use of
moulds, for £493. (ref. 76) The new apartment beyond was the
square Rubens gallery to which Porden's gallery was
united by a wide opening dressed with fluted scagliola
columns and responding pilasters, called 'Yellow Antique'
in the bills (ref. 76) but appearing brown in Leslie's well-known
painting of 1831. Scagliola (made on the site) was used also
for the dado and a 'doorway' in these rooms. (ref. 77) The Rubens
gallery carried this wing nearly up to Breadalbane House
but by its slightly greater width than Porden's gallery gave
the south front a forward break sufficient to make the
proximity of that house less apparent.
This south front of the picture galleries was cased in
Bath stone and given a palatial aspect (Plate 67b, 67c: see
also Plate 18a in vol. XXXIX). Above a horizontally
channelled podium the unwindowed walls were dressed
with blind aedicular and pedimented window-frames, each
having over it a decorative panel containing a festoon
(similar to that in the attic pavilions at No. 53 Davies
Street). The bays were defined by a sequence of
Corinthian columns, free-standing before the wall of
Porden's gallery and engaged against that of the Rubens
gallery, which rose from the podium and supported a deep
continuous entablature. This followed the break in the two
parts of the front, and over Porden's gallery was
surmounted by an urn-topped balustrade. The Rubens
gallery, however, had an attic storey above the entablature,
where the bays were defined by pilasters, against which
were set figures emblematic of the arts and sciences. These
south-facing evocations of antiquity were carved, at a cost
of £50 for each of six, by Joseph Theakston. (ref. 78)
When this work was in hand the intention to continue
the rebuilding eastward was sufficiently firm for the
eastern end of the new front to be left as an irregular edge
of masonry where it stood slightly forward of the old
house. (ref. 79) Even more significantly, a considerable volume of
work was done on a new eastern wing to contain a new
dining-room, including the making of the foundations
across part of the former curtilage of No. 107 Park Street. (ref. 80)
This was not very expensive, but a further £1,428-worth
of mason's work was executed in such a form that it could
be held against future use. (ref. 81)
The whole work cost nearly £23,000. (fn. d) (ref. 82)
The renovated and extended picture galleries were
opened (although not quite finished) in June 1827, (ref. 83) but
the further intended progress had already been brought to
a halt. Early that year Lord Grosvenor had written to his
agent in London putting a brake on expenditure—'I
conclude Cundy has stopped the left [east] wing at its level,
and let him understand directly I have no wish to hurry the
finishing of the Galleries … tell Cundy I am particularly
anxious nothing should be done or undone and no
unnecessary expense, no undue haste particularly'. (ref. 84) How
far this check, which was perhaps related to Lord
Grosvenor's great outlay about that period on land
purchases in other parts of Great Britain, was intended to
be final is unknown, but so it turned out, as far as the east
wing was concerned. Possibly a factor in this was a
damaging criticism of Cundy's proposed eastward extension sent to Lord Grosvenor later in the same year by Lord
Farnborough, a politician with a reputation as a connoisseur. (ref. 85) He professed to admire the new west wing but
thought the proposed east wing, of which he had been
shown plans, would not 'accord' with it. This probably
means that the plans were among those which retained the
nucleus of the old house and either (like one surviving
scheme, Plate 66a) did not repeat the elevation of the
Rubens room (ref. 86) or (like others) achieved a false semblance
of symmetry by compressing the intermediate elevation,
corresponding to that of Porden's gallery, into a lesser
frontage. (ref. 87) Lord Farnborough had taken Robert Smirke to
look at the possibilities, (ref. 85) and so nineteen years after
Smirke had assisted one patron to an adverse view of
Porden's work he was given the opportunity by another to
put Cundy right. Quite unsolicited by Lord Grosvenor,
Smirke sent him two schemes, one armoured in rich
unfaltering Corinthian and the other showing a more
expressively articulated use of the same order. (ref. 88) (fn. e) The
former gave a ground-floor plan of unembarrassed
magnificence, with a domed and circular centrally placed
salon, a great D-shaped staircase compartment, and a
stupendous 160-foot drawing-room along the south front.
Perhaps indicative, however, that Lady Grosvenor was
indeed a factor in the situation is the contrivance to which
Smirke was driven to fit his first-floor plan to his other
elevation (for which alone it exists). Cundy, in a complete
scheme made in the previous year, (ref. 89) and doubtless
influenced by the style of his lately deceased father, had
similarly produced a calm north front (Plate 66c) which on
the first floor concealed an awkward expedient behind its
widely spaced windows. The areas of difficulty in Cundy's
and Smirke's plans were differently located, but each was
where Lady Grosvenor was to have her dressing-room.
Whether or not he sensed the imminence of criticism,
Cundy was in fact already producing a variety of plans
adapted to widely differing intentions on his employer's
part and ranging from rather ignoble devices to retain the
old house, with its apparent centre pushed westward, to
extensive grandiose rebuildings. (ref. 90) Of the latter, most
envisaged, like Smirke's plans, a circular domed hall,
sometimes designated for sculpture. Without exception,
all the plans retained Porden's gallery and the Rubens
gallery. In a number of schemes, however, these were to be
masked by a whole new range of apartments along the
south side (Plate 18b in vol. XXXIX). Other plans gave a
large new wing extending southwards: in one version this
is developed into a Fonthill-type cruciform arrangement, (ref. 91)
and in others it becomes part of a great splay-sided
courtyard facing towards Park Lane. (ref. 92) Some schemes, in
1829, included slightly Cheltonian elevations towards Park
Lane of the Corinthian order, pleasantly enlivened with
carved panels and balconies or verandahs (Plate 66b), but
perhaps over-high and cramped in their proportions. (ref. 93)
Nothing happened until 1833–4, and then possibly not
very much. Cundy prepared plans and specifications at the
request of the Marquess of Westminster (as Lord
Grosvenor had become in 1831) for the completion of the
house to a limited programme. (ref. 94) The staircase of the old
house was in bad structural condition; nevertheless the
existing nucleus of the house was to be retained with a
rebuilt, flat-fronted centre and a new east wing mirroring,
except for slightly squeezed lateral dimensions, that on the
west. By 1834 this scheme had dwindled to one by which
the old house would have been given a new bowed front set
forward in modified replica of the old, and perhaps dressed
with columns already prepared for the east wing and lying
at Belgrave Wharf. In May 1834 the house was evidently
unoccupied and 'out of repair', (ref. 95) but although some work
was done which included the provision of new gas supplies
its extent is unknown. (ref. 96) The existing south front survived,
however, without significant alteration.
It is said that in 1835 Anthony Salvin did work on the
house to the value of £5,900, (ref. 97) but it is not known where.
In any case this seems not to have signified any
supersession of Cundy, who in 1842–3 was responsible for
a major work on the north side of the house. One of the
earliest 'Cundy' plans, not later than January 1826 and
perhaps expressing Thomas Cundy I's manner, had
provided for a new square courtyard opening in its full
width to Upper Grosvenor Street, from which it was to be
screened by a colonnade with two main entrances, in the
manner of the then still-existing Carlton House screen. (ref. 98)
Now a modified version of this earlier 'Cundy' screen was
erected by Thomas Cundy II, substituting a Roman Doric
for an Ionic order (Plate 20c in vol. XXXIX). The entrances
for vehicles, under open pediments bearing the Grosvenor
arms, were closed by splendidly modelled cast-iron gates
(Plate 64a), each pair weighing six tons and painted like
bronze. Similarly painted were the seven cast-iron gas
candelabra between the columns. Sculptured panels of the
Four Seasons were set over the two smaller entrances, two
panels facing the street and two the courtyard. (ref. 99) The
builder was evidently John Elger of South Street, who
was paid nearly £10,000 in 1843 for unspecified work at
Grosvenor House. (ref. 100)
In that year The Athenaeum found fault with the
supposed motive of economy that had dictated the use of
painted cast iron for the gates and lamps. 'Why were they
not of bronze? Surely a hundred pounds more or less could
be no consideration.' (ref. 101) With this reservation the screen
was enthusiastically received by periodicals for its dignity
without pretension. (fn. f) The Art-Union did, however, draw
attention to the contrast between the screen's monumentality and the 'paltry' treatment of the entrance courtyard, (ref. 103) where the walls were stuccoed and decorated in a
simple Belgravian manner with a blind arcade which
continued across the front of the house.
Cundy had in fact prepared yet more plans in 1842 for a
rebuilding of the house 'at a future period' which would
have extended to an elaborate reshaping of the courtyard
with fountains, statues in quadrant arcades, and a recessed
entrance from Park Street. The plan of the house itself
would have been predominantly in a square of 140 feet
composed around a great central staircase in an arrange
ment similar to that at the then recently completed
Stafford House. The three-storeyed elevations in an early-Victorian Palladian style looked wealthy but lacked the
old-fashioned gravity of the screen. (ref. 104) The garden, enlarged by the demolition of the old stables along Park
Lane in 1827, (ref. 105) was proposed to be in the formal manner
of Barry and Nesfield, and contrasted with the irregular,
romantic plantation of conifers and ornamental trees
sketched on the plan perhaps of January 1826. (ref. 106)
Again, except for the entrance screen, none of these
suggestions was taken up, either by the first Marquess or,
after his death in February 1845, by his son the second
Marquess. Cundy prepared an 'amended' design in May
1845 for a new house (Plate 66d), giving a great continuous
sequence of ceremonial rooms all round the first floor, (ref. 107)
and alterations by him to the old house were undertaken in
1847–8 by the builder Reading Watts of Motcomb Street.
Evidently, however, they were not very far-reaching,
although a staircase was rebuilt. (ref. 108) In 1859 the Marquess
had Frederick Ransome of Whitehall Wharf, Cannon
Row, apply his patented preservative to the stonework of
the portico and screen, (ref. 109) and this is the sum of known
work for the second Marquess, elsewhere so implacable an
improver of his Mayfair estate.
On his death in October 1869 the house passed to his
eldest son, the third Marquess and, from 1874, the first
Duke of Westminster. Perforce abandoning an intention to
take a house just built for him in Grosvenor Place in the
Second Empire style of Thomas Cundy III, he removed
into the family mansion from his home in Princes Gate.
The Marquess brought with him from South Kensington a
willingness to use his great wealth in the patronage of the
arts and sciences, particularly the arts of building. His
thirty-year reign had a great effect on the architectural
character of his estate, both in Mayfair and the country,
but although one of his first works was the alteration of
Grosvenor House itself, this again left the original house
still standing, and the exterior not essentially very different
from what it had been like in 1843.
It was significant of the new Marquess's attitude, and
perhaps of the age, that he did not entrust these alterations
to the estate surveyor, now Thomas Cundy III, who was
relegated to building a staircase against the east wall of the
house (ref. 110) —a foretaste of the circumscribed view of his role
taken by his new master. For the major changes an
independent architect was called in. The choice of Henry
Clutton (ref. 110) was not perhaps a very obvious one, but he had
recently worked for the Marquess's father-in-law, the
Duke of Sutherland, at Cliveden, and was, moreover, a
discerning designer for the less straightforward type of
commission, with a capability extending well outside the
ecclesiastical French Gothic for which he is best known.
The interior work began in 1870, with Messrs. I'Anson
as the principal contractors, and continued until 1873,
although the main apartments were in use by the summer
of 1872. (ref. 111) The best evidence of what was done by Clutton
is photographs taken in 1889, (ref. 112) and a few comments in
periodicals and elsewhere. Direct documentary testimony
to the extent and nature of the work (or its cost) is lacking,
and it is chiefly negative evidence which indicates that
Clutton did not rebuild the old house, and made few
changes to its upper floors, where a glimpse of the library
in 1875 seems to have reminded one architectural
commentator how Clutton's manner below differed from
his predecessors'. (ref. 113) Clutton's work did strengthen one
existing characteristic of the house, particularly as
extended by Porden and Cundy, that its sequence of state
rooms, and its chief grandeur, was on the ground floor.
Apart from the library, the rooms on the first floor and
above were bedrooms or suchlike.
On the ground floor at least Clutton made some
alterations to the existing plan (fig. 55). He enlarged the
entrance hall by extending it forward, and at the same time
added a tetrastyle Roman Doric porte cochère on the
courtyard front. On the east of the hall a complete
rearrangement provided the previously lacking servery
and a longer dining-room differently lit (Plate 65b). This
was one of the few rooms given more space for pictures on
its walls, for although the collection of old masters
remained a great glory of the house the changes brought
about some modification of Grosvenor House's physical
shaping as a mansion with a picture gallery attached to it.
Change was in fact greatest in the two parts of the picture
gallery, which were separated more distinctly as two large
apartments of the normal reception-room type (Plate 65a,
fig. 55: see also Plate 28b in vol. XXXIX). The south wall of
the gallery and the south and west walls of the Rubens
room were opened up by long windows, those on the south
being shaded by special blinds 'braided to patterns as Mr
Holford's [at Dorchester House] with orange webbing'. (ref. 114)
Cundy's toplighting was abolished, and ceilings powerfully designed by a hand probably Clutton's were inserted.
To give access to these rooms additional to that through
the old house Clutton made a corridor on the north side
communicating with the entrance hall via an ante-room.
This was evidently in recognition of the semi-public access
to these rooms encouraged by the Marquess. The Rubens
room was much used for meetings and charity concerts (ref. 115)
and it was perhaps on account of the latter that a 'Green
room' was built nearby a few years afterwards. (ref. 116) In
August and September 1876 'designers, artisans and the
like employed in any branch of art applied to productive
industry' were being allowed to inspect the collection every
afternoon. (ref. 117)
This South Kensingtonian viewpoint found some
expression in the decorative style of the interiors. Chiefly,
however, the rooms emerged from Clutton's hands
showing no one manner of designing more closely defined
than by an opulent classicism, although the lack of earlier
illustrations of most of the rooms makes it difficult to be
sure how far this was the result of Clutton's discrimination
or of the part survival of previous schemes.
The walls, hung with silk and damask, or, in the diningroom and saloon, with stamped leather, were not
architecturally treated, the pictures in their gilded frames
forming the chief decoration. The ceilings, however, were
elaborately worked. That in the dining-room was reminiscent of Sir William Chambers, whereas those of the
saloon (Plate 65c) and drawing-room were of a Raphaelesque type that might have emanated from the followers of
the late Prince Albert, and that in the ante-room a more
conventional Victorian classic design, retaining, however,
the painted panels and arabesques that betokened the
artistic use of the room. This ceiling was very carefully
coloured, and probably designed, by J. G. Crace to respect
the paintings hung against walls of dark red silk below it.
As Crace's son wrote later, 'The general colouring of the
ceiling is in low tones of cream-colour, verging on drab,
with gold' so that 'the quiet general tone gives full value to
the skies and lights in the pictures'. (ref. 118) The more vivacious
drawing-room ceiling (and, no doubt, that of the saloon)
was also by Crace. (ref. 119) The ceiling in the entrance hall, of
sober early-Georgian type, rose above a Doric entablature
in a cove painted, presumably by Crace, in staid Victorian
panels (Plate 64c). In the gallery and Rubens room it seems
probable that the forceful and virile modelling of the
ceiling was Clutton's. The Albertine ideal was represented
in the gallery by a deep frieze painted on canvas and
illustrating the arts and sciences. It was executed (and
signed) in 1872 by Félix Joseph Barrias. Among his works
is said to have been some painting in 'the chapel of the
Jesuits in London', (ref. 120) which conceivably gave him a link
with Clutton, while his painting of a ceiling in the Drapers'
Hall in 1869 must have brought him into contact with
Crace who was also involved in the redecoration there.
According to The Architect in May 1871 the ceilings in
the gallery and Rubens room were 'entirely made of
Desachey's fibrous plaster upon a strongly constructed
frame'; but only a few months earlier the same magazine
had described the gallery ceiling, under manufacture at
Messrs. Jacksons, as of papier mâché. Both ceilings were
'quite independent of the general construction of the
building', being suspended from iron girders, and had the
remarkable property that 'a series of wheels and pulleys are
arranged by which the ceilings can be lifted bodily when
required without trouble or expense'. Supposedly (although not very intelligibly) the purpose was to permit the
rooms to be heightened by some four feet in a future and
larger rebuilding. To the same end 'every portion of the
joiners' work and fittings has also been prepared so as to be
moveable' (ref. 121) —that is, as the house-carpenter said much
later, they were all 'screwed up'. (ref. 122) On the same good
testimony, 'there couldn't be better work and materials
anywhere than in these rooms—they are A 1'. (ref. 122)
Indeed, much of the effect, particularly in the sequence
of drawing-room, gallery and Rubens room, came from the
quality and finish of the materials and furnishings —the
heavy and profuse gilding, the high French-polish of the
Spanish mahogany doors and the sheen of the brass
candlestands and chandeliers. This brassware was partly of
English and partly of French make: the enormous
candelabrum in the Rubens room is said to have held 190
candles and to have weighed two and a half tons. (ref. 122) (fn. g)
At first the illumination was by candles and oil lamps (ref. 122)
but the Marquess (or rather the first Duke, as he had
become) was an early convert to electricity. He described
its merits with engaging enthusiasm to his daughter-in-law
after seeing a demonstration at the Edison company's office
in January 1882. 'Edison's Electric lighting', he wrote, 'is
the best thing out, and apparently perfect for house
lighting everywhere, I mean for rooms, passages, everywhere, no more lamps nor candles nor steam nor nothing!
and all perfectly safe you may lay hold of the wires with
perfect impunity—delightful. (ref. 124) Electricity had been
installed by 1889 (and the great candelabrum in the
Rubens room sold (ref. 122) ). In these first days of electric lighting
the bulbs were left unshielded and photographs show them
dotted along the lines of the cornices or ceiling compartments as well as clustered in the candelabra.
New (and a little second-hand) furniture and furnishings were supplied by Holland and Sons to the value of
some £6,481. (ref. 125)
In 1876–7 Breadalbane House, which had hitherto
masked part of the western end of Grosvenor House, was
demolished. Clutton thereupon designed a 'loggia' here,
built by Cubitts in 1880–2, in the form of an open
hemicycle dressed with Roman Ionic columns two deep
and enriched with swags dependent from the volutes (ref. 126)
(Plate 28a in vol. XXXIX): possibly there was some echo of
schemes by Thomas Cundy II for an apsidal treatment of
the proposed eastern wing dressed with columns. (ref. 127)
Conspicuous from Park Lane, this piece of pomp enhanced
the palatial effect of the exterior, even if it came rather close
to the kind of thing built under the influence of palatial
aspirations in the City. (fn. h) The cost of what was then done
seems to have been about £7,811 paid to Cubitts and
£2,570 to Bailey and Sons for the Park Lane railings.
Possibly this addition was meant to compensate for some
simplification of architectural effect on the south front.
Clutton had brought forward the wall-face of the Rubens
room and gallery to engage such of Cundy's columns as
were previously free-standing, and channelled the stone
work horizontally, with a rather French effect, but
dispensed with Cundy's statues, urns and decorative
panels (Plate 66e: compare Plate 18a in vol. XXXIX).
Southward lay the garden, 'green and pleasant and full of
pigeons'. (ref. 129)
Little change seems to have been made by 1914. The
house then still preserved the traditional arrangement of
maidservants' bedrooms on the top floor, and menservants' bedrooms in the basement, which was an extensive
region on the old pattern but with specialities like a 'fruit
room' and a 'visitors' valets' brushing room'. (ref. 130) On the
outbreak of war the second Duke of Westminster offered to
put Grosvenor House and Eaton Hall at the disposal of the
Government. Two years later, in December 1916,
Grosvenor House was occupied by Government departments. (ref. 131) The Duke meanwhile took up residence at
Bourdon House in Davies Street, and even before
Grosvenor House was released from Government occupation, in 1920, he had decided not to live there again, but
to stay in Davies Street. (ref. 132)
Although it did not seem quite certain at the time, this
sealed the fate of the old mansion. The steps by which its
intended replacement took shape as a great commercial
development over the whole site are traced on pages 270–1.
In 1921 The Times was prophesying that this is what would
happen (ref. 133) (and some of the great pictures were in that year
sold to Duveen (ref. 134) ). It was autumn 1924 when a rebuilding
lease for the site was agreed, the keys of the empty house
were handed over in April 1925, and after standing for a
year or two in the advancing shadow of the new building
old Grosvenor House was pulled down in the autumn of
1927. (ref. 135) (fn. i)
Occupants include: 1st Viscount Chetwynd, 1732–6: his
brother, 2nd Viscount, 1737–8. 3rd Duke of Beaufort, 1738–45:
his brother, 4th Duke, 1745–56: the latter's wid. and their son,
5th Duke (a minor), 1756–60. William Augustus, Duke of
Cumberland, son of George II and commander at Culloden,
1761 5. William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, son of Frederick,
Prince of Wales, 1766–1805: his wid., Maria, Dow. Duchess,
1805–6. 2nd Earl Grosvenor, latterly 1st Marquess of Westminster, 1808–45 : his son, 2nd Marquess, 1845–69: the latter's son,
3rd Marquess, latterly 1st Duke of Westminster, 1869–99: the
latter's grandson, 2nd Duke, 1899–1916.