West Side
North of Reeves Mews, there were once some small houses
built behind No. 34 Grosvenor Square. These were all
leased in 1728, mainly to Robert Scott, carpenter, and
William Barlow senior, bricklayer. (ref. 111) They were demolished in 1886; the subsequent history of their site will
be found on pages 148 and 168.
Nos. 49–54 (consec.)
Nos. 49–54 (consec.) consist of a conventional range of
shops and offices, built in 1935 by Gee, Walker and Slater
for Town Investments Limited to designs by C. S. and
E. M.Joseph. (ref. 112)
No. 55
No. 55 (Plate 77d) is the sole survivor of a group of three
substantial houses of 1859–60, originally numbered 50 to
52 and once also covering the site of the present Nos.
49–54.
The whole ground between Reeves Mews and Mount
Street was first leased to William Barlow senior, bricklayer,
in 1728. (ref. 113) In 1856 Reading and William Watts of
Motcomb Street, builders, applied to replace six houses
here with three residences of quality. Thomas Cundy II
became their architect, and in 1859–60 reconstruction duly
occurred. White Suffolk bricks with rich dressings of
Portland stone and cement were prescribed for the
elevations, and indeed No. 55 shows more elaboration than
most of Cundy's other fronts on the estate, having stone
balustrading, columns and pediments to the first-floor
windows and ornamental cornices at two levels. (ref. 114)
All three houses were well tenanted for many years;
occupants of No. 55 included the fourth Earl and Countess
of Donoughmore (1861–90), the seventh Viscount Falmouth (1891–9) and Admiral Sir Percy M. Scott
(1914–25). (ref. 110) After Scott's departure No. 55 was taken by
an interior decorator, G. Jetley, who made internal
alterations to designs by G. J. Morriss Viner and installed
an incongruous shop front from the pencil of Philip
Tilden. (ref. 115) The house suffered bomb damage in 1941.
No. 56
No. 56 is part of Audley Mansions, an account of which
will be found on page 324. Previously a large coach
manufactory, for some years part of the extensive premises
of John Robson and Company, had been situated here. (ref. 59)
Nos. 57–63 (consec.) South Audley Street and No. 84 Mount Street
Nos. 57–63 (consec.) South Audley Street and No.
84 Mount Street together form a humdrum range built in
stages between 1881 and 1892.
The first buildings on these sites between Mount Street
and Aldford (then Chapel) Street, all modest, were leased
in 1730 to the undertakers of the Grosvenor Chapel, (ref. 116) and
seem mostly to have survived until the 1880's. No. 63, the
corner house with Chapel Street, was commercially
occupied from the first, (ref. 117) and had a handsome eighteenthcentury double shop front with a pillared entrance topped
by an open pediment, (ref. 118) similar to that formerly at No. 62
Brewer Street, St. James's. (ref. 119) It survived a proposed
rebuilding in about 1832 for which attractive drawings are
extant. (ref. 120) In 1879, before a comprehensive scheme for
Mount Street had been arrived at, reconstruction of some
of these properties was mooted by the famous gunsmiths
James Purdey and Sons, then in Oxford Street. They had
acquired the lease of a large draper's establishment here
and now submitted a proposal for the corner house with
Mount Street and the two properties southwards. This
first building, of red brick with dressings of red Mansfield
stone, was designed in a vaguely Queen Anne style by
William Lambert, surveyor, and erected by the builder
B. E. Nightingale in 1881–2. (ref. 121) So successfully did
Purdeys pursue their trade here that 'in the Edwardian era
there was said to be no crowned head in Europe without a
Purdey'. (ref. 122) The shop remains and preserves, notably in the
hallowed 'Long Room', much of its Victorian atmosphere.
In 1884 the first Duke was surprised to find Purdey
proposing to complete the block up to Aldford Street as a
speculation, but agreed that 'he could carry out his present
design better than anyone else'. However, as the occupying
tenants of Nos. 61–63 wished themselves to rebuild, it was
in their interests that Lambert's designs were extended in
1889–90, Stephens and Bastow being the builders. (ref. 123) The
main elevations retain the same height and character
towards South Audley Street, but there is a small
extension of two storeys and a half facing Aldford Street. A
similar feature was repeated at the other end of the block
when in 1892 Purdeys took in No. 84 Mount Street to the
west, the architect again being Lambert and the builder
Stanley G. Bird. (ref. 124)
Nos. 64–70 (consec.) South Audley Street and No.
27 South Street.
The present vigorous brick-and-terracotta range here was built between 1891 and 1900, and
replaced eight houses facing South Audley Street. The
original developers, in about 1730, were the same four
entrepreneurs who undertook the Grosvenor Chapel and
so much else in the street. (ref. 125) The former No. 70 had
segmental-headed undressed window openings containing
flush frames in all three upper storeys of a plain brick front.
There was a public house at either end of the range, the
Merlin's Cave at the corner with Chapel Street and the
Albemarle Arms at the corner with South Street; both
were suppressed in the 1880's shortly before rebuilding. (ref. 110)
In the centre, a house was altered in 1829 by the surveyor
and builder James Gallier so as to provide a clear ground
floor leading through to John Robson's extensive carriage
works behind, which were rebuilt shortly afterwards. This
house became the headquarters of a coach-building
business that survived rebuilding and continued under
various names up to 1940. (ref. 126) In about 1826–7 the
Albemarle Arms seems also to have been rebuilt. (ref. 127)
In 1890 the Estate decided to reconstruct the range in
two sections, starting at the north end. T. Chatfeild Clarke
and Son, architects of so much new building in Oxford
Street, were given the job, and in 1891–3 Nos. 64–68 were
erected by a consortium of three tradesmen all employing
the builders Ashby Brothers. The new range had shops
below with Portland-stone fronts, and flats above of red
brick and pink terracotta in a very loose Queen Anne style;
a tourelle at the corner with Aldford Street was prominent. (ref. 128)
In 1898–1900 the range was extended to cover the
remaining frontage up to South Street and the return.
Howard Chatfeild Clarke, the junior partner, was this time
sole architect; he merely continued the design regularly
and symmetrically, placing another tourelle at the corner.
The builder was H. Lovatt and the sole undertaker was
Robert Turrill of Turrill and Sons, the coach-builders who
were successors to John Robson's business. (ref. 129)
Nos. 71–75 (consec.) South Audley Street
Nos. 71–75 (consec.) South Audley Street, between
South Street and Deanery Street, constitute five of the
most exceptional houses on the estate. Originally a range
aspiring to some degree of architectural ambition, three of
the houses (Nos. 71, 73 and 74) still possess outstanding
early-Georgian features, notably ceilings, while No. 71
also has an unusual exterior, probably little modified since
its first erection. Nevertheless, so tortuous is their history
and so much have most of the elevations been changed,
that some attempt at clarification is called for.
The whole of this range was taken by the architect and
plasterer Edward Shepherd in 1736, promptly leased to
him and various associates, and built over the next few
years. (ref. 130) By his agreement Shepherd took all the land
westwards as far as Park Lane, northwards up to South
Street, and southwards to the estate boundary; beyond this
point he had already acquired ground on the estate of the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster, where the Dorchester
Hotel now stands. (ref. 131) There were then no plans to extend
Park Street or any other thoroughfare southwards into this
quadrilateral, and Shepherd was not immediately concerned to develop most of the south side of South Street.
So a majority of the houses intended for the range in South
Audley Street were to enjoy large gardens and views over
Hyde Park, with stabling sited to one side or another in
South Street or Deanery Street.
In other of his grander leasehold undertakings
Shepherd had already shown a flair for devising schemes
of some architectural pretension and then compromising
them in the face of practical difficulties. This seems to have
happened again at Nos. 71–75, where there is vestigial
evidence that he at first intended a homogeneous range of
seven houses clothed by a uniform elevation. Six of these
seven were to have modest frontages hardly exceeding
twenty feet, but in the centre was to be a slightly projecting
'great messuage or tenement' fifty-six feet in breadth; (ref. 132)
much of the land behind was probably to be devoted to this
house. The surviving front of No. 71 offers clues to the
intended elevation of the range. Its pedimented top and
Venetian windows may tentatively be read as one of two
'wing' features, the responding 'wing' to which would have
come at the corner of Deanery Street (where indeed an
early plan shows that there was once an answering
Venetian window on at least the ground floor). Remnants
of a third set of Venetian windows devised for the 'centre
house' can still be seen on No. 74, despite refronting there
(Plates 6d, 44c in vol. XXXIX).
The integrity of this symmetrical design seems soon to
have been compromised, for the actual frontages of the
completed houses show that Shepherd was unable to
maintain absolute regularity. In the business of disposing
of them he combined the two houses at the south end and
reduced the frontage of the centre house. Still, the finished
scheme was probably recognisable as an attempt at a
symmetrical, Palladian composition, and the open ground
behind remained for some years a reality for at least the
southern houses of the group. This was reduced firstly by
the builder of what was later to be known as Dorchester
House, to the south-west, and then the expansion of its
grounds in 1770. Later, the ambitious rebuilding of much
of the south side of South Street encroached further on the
amenity of these houses, and in the 1830's, at the
instigation of John Feetham, most of them were disconnected from their old stabling in this street. The gradual
pre-eminence achieved by No. 75 over other houses in the
group, culminating in a reconstruction of its elevations in
about 1800, destroyed the outlines of Shepherd's composition, while almost all that was left of it was obscured by
Edwardian refrontings of Nos. 73, 74 and 75. But enough
fine interior features survive to make his original intentions
for these houses recognisable.
No. 71
No. 71, at the corner with South Street, was leased in
1736 to Thomas Skeat, bricklayer, just two months after
Edward Shepherd had concluded an agreement for this
area—an indication that the two probably worked together
here. (ref. 133) This supposition is strengthened by the style of the
house, which conforms to what is known of Shepherd's
mode of classicism, and by the ubiquity inside and outside
of plaster and stucco-work, this again being a mark of his
oeuvre (Plates 80, 81, fig. 71: see also Plates 6d, 10a in vol.
XXXIX).
Originally No. 71 was the most modest house in the
range, having no attached stables and only a small garden.
Its first occupant, from 1739, was Samuel Greathead, a
West India merchant and M.P., of Guy's Cliffe, Warwickshire. (ref. 1) In 1741 Greathead leased the house together with
stables on the north side of South Street from Skeat, with
an option to purchase the house for £1,050. In the event he
bought the house along with the stables on slightly
different terms in 1746, at the same time relieving Skeat of
various mortgages. Greathead remained here until 1756,
when he sold No. 71 to the Dowager Countess of Denbigh
for £2,400. (ref. 134)
As the house appears to have changed remarkably little
since it was first built, it merits some description. One of its
several distinctions is an elaborate elevational treatment
towards South Audley Street, perhaps the result of a
conception by which it was intended as a 'wing' to the
Palladian composition postulated above (Plate 6d in vol.
XXXIX). Though this front is narrow, with only a single
window on each floor, each of the main storeys displays a
different version of the tripartite Venetian window (Doric
with Gibbs surrounds at ground level, Ionic on the first
floor, and a curtailed, pedimented version above). There is
a full original attic storey and a pediment over that. Some
of these features are executed in stone but some appear to
be in stucco.
The rear of the house is now entirely stuccoed and also
has a pediment at roof level, while a similar motif occurs in
the middle of the return front towards South Street. But
the chief feature on this side is a broad overhanging first-floor projection, supported on an open row of piers and
columns. Some discrepancies of style hint that this may
have been an early afterthought, perhaps added by Skeat
for Greathead. Beneath the overhang is the entrance
(where it was doubtless situated from the first), with a
rusticated surround to the door and fine ironwork
including an overhead lampholder (Plate 80a).
Within, much original work survives on the main floors,
especially plasterwork. There are two rooms on each storey
apart from the first, and a single central staircase with old
stone treads but a later balustrade. The hall is panelled in
wood (Plate 80c). On the ground floor, the front room is
distinguished by a fine ensemble of an overmantel flanked
by two dummy bookcases. In 1933, however, only the case
on the left, which has a small closet behind, was false (Plate
81b). An article on the house of that date in Country Life
speaks of the bookcases as having been added, (ref. 135)
(fn. a) but a
conveyance of 1756 included 'glass cases in the fore
parlour' in a list of fixtures and fittings. It also mentions
'eagles' there, possibly holding looking-glasses (as at No.
73). (ref. 134) At the back, the dining-room is typical of
Shepherd's work, having sunk plaster panels to the walls
and a fine ornamental ceiling. There is also a chimneypiece
in marble with a naturalistically carved central relief
illustrating winter, and a splendid wooden overmantel
with Corinthian columns and a broken scrolled pediment
(Plate 10a in vol. XXXIX).
On the first floor, the front room again has a pedimented
overmantel but no other special features. The middle room
overhanging the entrance and the rear drawing-room both
have further elaborate ceilings. That in the rear room
displays a central sunburst and, in the borders, garlands
and baskets of fruit, while the marble chimneypiece
responsively bears a tablet carved with a relief of summer;
the panelling here is of wood. The middle room has no
other old work except the cornice and ceiling (Plate 81a),
the original marble fireplace (with a relief depicting boy
shepherds watching a chase) having recently been stolen.
Of later works to the house, little is known. A sub-lease
of 1815 mentions the marble chimneypieces but particularizes few other features. (ref. 136) At some point the curious
pedimented and stuccoed backdrop at the rear of the
garden, set against the side wall of No. 28 South Street and
very probably an original feature designed to carry flues
from a basement kitchen, was allotted three neo-classical
reliefs (Plate 80b). Changes of 1882 included 'alterations
to the front' but their nature is obscure. (ref. 137) In 1903 a bay
window was carried up through the main storeys at the rear
by Green and Abbott, decorators. (ref. 138) A discreet scheme by
G. J. Morriss Viner (on behalf of Violet, estranged
Duchess of Westminster, who took the house in 1925) to
add bathrooms over the projection towards South Street
came to nothing, but some changes were then made. (ref. 139) A
major conversion carried out in 1972 by the Rolfe Judd
Group Practice chiefly affected the upper floors and the
basement (where in 1933 'a curious little chamber … with
a four-part vault and Gothic window is said to have been
an oratory'). (ref. 140) Some windows were opened out towards
South Street where there were previously blanks and the
exterior brickwork was painted, but the Georgian
character of the main floors has been respected.
Occupants include: Samuel Greathead, M.P., 1739–56.
Isabella, Dowager Countess of Denbigh, wid. of 5th Earl,
1756–69: her son, 6th Earl of Denbigh, 1769–1800: his wid.,
1800–14. Gen. Isaac Gascoyne, 1815–41: his wid., 1841–56.
Rear-adm. George Pryse Campbell, 1858: his wid., 1858–74.
Montagu William Lowry Corry, latterly Baron Rowton,
politician and philanthropist, 1875–81. Lady Frances Baillie, da.
of 7th Earl of Elgin, 1884–94: her son, James Evan Bruce Baillie,
and his wife, Nellie Lisa née Bass, latterly suo jure Baroness
Burton, 1896–1921. Lady Henry Grosvenor, da.-in-law of 1st
Duke of Westminster, 1922–4. Violet, Duchess of Westminster,
2nd wife of 2nd Duke, and her 3rd husband, Frederick Heyworth
Cripps, 1925–51: Cripps only, 1951–3.
Figure 71:
No. 71 South Audley Street, plans
No. 72
No. 72 is now the least interesting of this group of
houses. It was leased in 1736 to John Eds, carpenter,
doubtless one of Edward Shepherd's associates in the
building of this range, and was valued a little more highly
than No. 71 because it enjoyed an attached plot for stabling
at the rear, on part of the site of the present No. 28 South
Street. (ref. 141) The narrow front retains what may well be an
original rusticated surround to the entrance and a cornice
similar to that of No. 71, but it has been stuccoed, raised
and otherwise altered. The rear elevation, though also
stuccoed, is more recognisably old. Inside the original floor
plan survives with a central toplit stair sandwiched
between the front and back rooms.
Surprising light on this modest house is cast by its
connexion with the French royal family during their
Napoleonic exile. Between 1805 and 1814 it was rated to
'Monsieur of France', otherwise the Comte d'Artois and
later Charles X. (ref. 1) A contemporary diarist describes a 'sad
mock drawing-room' held in 1814, shortly before the
exiles' return, at 'the dark rooms in South Audley
Street'. (ref. 142) According to another author, Louis XVIII also
used the house. (ref. 143)
The front of No. 72 probably assumed much of its
present appearance in the 1830's after the local speculator
John Feetham had acquired an interest in it along with
Nos. 73 and 74 in order to rebuild the back premises in
South Street, which were now separated from the main
house. (ref. 144) Feetham sub-let No. 72 in 1833, but was still
working there five years later. (ref. 145) The stucco-work, first-floor balconies at front and back and possibly also the extra
storey may then have appeared. A room was added in 1855
and an 'iron building' put on at the rear in 1875, both
during the tenancy of F. W. Cadogan, who later claimed to
have spent 'very little short of £2,000' on the house. (ref. 146) Yet
in 1887 a new ground-floor window was inserted on the
front by C. H. Thomas, architect, and in 1900 the house
was said to require 'a large outlay'. It was then taken on by
the builder John Garlick, to whose attention much of the
present interior is due. (ref. 147)
Occupants include: Col. Charles Ingram, M. P., son of 3rd
Viscount Irwin, 1738–43. Brig.-gen. Thomas Fowke, 1744–50.
Henry Reginald Courtenay, M.P., 1751–63. 'Monsieur of
France', i.e. the Comte d'Artois, later Charles X, 1805–14. Col.
James Hamilton Stanhope, son of 3rd Earl Stanhope, 1821–5.
Thomson Hankey, West India merchant and political economist,
1833–54. Frederick William Cadogan, son of 3rd Earl Cadogan,
1855–70, 1876–86.
No. 73
No. 73, the northernmost of three houses here with
deceptive Edwardian fronts of stone, was first leased in
1736 to John Shepherd, the plasterer brother of Edward
Shepherd. (ref. 148) Like most of the houses in this range, it had a
connected plot reserved for stabling, covering parts of the
present Nos. 26 and 28 South Street. The house was
assigned in 1738 to its first occupant George Ogle,
translator of Anacreon and Horace and author of a
modernized Chaucer. (ref. 149)
Despite its front, No. 73 is a well-preserved Georgian
house of distinction, boasting four of the vigorous
decorative plaster ceilings still so plentiful in this district
(fig. 73). There are front and back rooms on each floor with
a spacious toplit staircase interposed, to the side of which
are an area and remnants of a connecting corridor between
the rooms. The back elevation retains its old brick
appearance, having a bay window through all the main
storeys. Though other Georgian details survive, the
plasterwork (which in this house assumes a particularly
un-classical aspect akin to Jacobean 'strapwork') is the
outstanding feature. On the ground floor, besides the usual
ceiling compartments there is in the front room a
remarkable wall cartouche probably designed to hold a
looking-glass, surmounted by a stooping eagle with a
garland in its beak; in the back room, three small
decorative reliefs also survive on the walls. Both front and
back rooms on the first floor have equally elaborate
ceilings. (fn. b)
Many changes have been made to the house since Ogle's
occupation. In 1807 a small circular back stair had already
been inserted in the space next to the main staircase. (ref. 151) This
has since disappeared, as have any traces of the bedroom
stair inserted in 1853 by Thomas Cundy III, with Higgs
and Company as builders. (ref. 152) In 1831 John Feetham
acquired No. 73 and separated it from the stabling in
South Street which he rebuilt, but no trace of works by
him in the house itself is now discernible. (ref. 153) In 1864 a
porch (probably of iron) was erected on the front. (ref. 154)
In 1894, after brief occupation by the Duke of
Westminster's son Lord Henry Grosvenor, the house was
taken as a speculation by Turner Lord and Company, who
carefully rebuilt the back bay. (ref. 155) Ten years later a new
resident, Robert Younger, employed Paul Waterhouse to
make alterations to the value of £4,000; these included a
chic new porch with a sweeping glass roof, alterations to the
internal area, the present balustrade to the stair, and
probably also considerable decorative works on the upper
floors. (ref. 156) In 1908 Younger applied for a new lease but was
told he would have to refront the house in Portland stone,
as the tenants of Nos. 74 and 75 had agreed to do. After
long negotiations Younger submitted, and on his behalf
Paul Waterhouse designed a complex and deliberately
asymmetrical elevation, with hints of the Adam style so as
to harmonize with the porch of 1904; as the storey-heights
of No. 73 differ from those of No. 74, the intensely
mannered design here was treated quite separately (Plate
44c in vol. XXXIX). The prescribed Portland-stone cladding
was applied by the builder James Carmichael of Wandsworth in 1909. (ref. 157)
Figure 72:
No. 73 South Audley Street, plans in 1807 and 1975
Since 1945 the front porch has disappeared, perhaps in a
campaign of modernization undertaken by the Rolfe Judd
Group Practice in 1970. (ref. 158)
Occupants include: George Ogle, classicist and Chaucerian
scholar, 1738–46. John Hill, M.P., 1751–4. John Feetham, ?coal
merchant, 1842–3. Sir Frederick Bathurst, 3rd bt., 1844–6.
Lieut.-col. Peregrine Francis Cust, son of 1st Baron Brownlow,
1848–73. Lord Henry Grosvenor, son of 1st Duke of Westminster, 1888–92, 1894. Virginia, Dow. Countess Somers, wid. of 3rd
Earl, 1896–9: her grandson, Henry Somers Somerset, also
grandson of 8th Duke of Beaufort, 1900–4. Robert Younger,
latterly Baron Blanesburgh, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary,
1904–46.
Figure 73:
South Audley Street, ceiling and details of cornice in ground-floor rear room
No. 74
No. 74 is one of two grand houses at the southern end of
this range interlocking in plan and complex in history.
Behind its Edwardian front lies one of the most distinguished Georgian interiors on the estate (Plates 15d, 82,
fig. 74: see also Plate 44c, fig. 5c in vol. XXXIX).
Unlike Nos. 71–73 to its north, No. 74 was directly
leased in 1736 to Edward Shepherd, undertaker of the
whole of the range. (ref. 159) Commanding the longest frontage
(fifty-six feet) and highest ground rent (£20) of any house
hereabouts, it was intended as the imposing centrepiece of
the range and in 1740 was dubbed the 'Great Messuage or
Tenement called the Centre House'. (ref. 160) Connected with the
back of the plot was a piece of land with a forty-six-foot
frontage towards South Street, presumably at first
destined for stabling; this site is now covered by parts of
the modern Nos. 24 and 26 South Street.
In November 1740 Shepherd and his mortgagees
conveyed the house and back buildings to Francis
Salvador, merchant. (ref. 160) Salvador was acting for the
Kingdom of Portugal and the house was destined 'as a
residence for the ministers and officers of that Court'. (ref. 161)
Yet for the next few years its history is obscure. The
Portuguese Embassy seems to have remained at its
previous address in Golden Square until 1747, when the
ambassador is first found paying rates in South Audley
Street. (ref. 162) Some of the intermediate period was doubtless
taken up in fitting out the house and converting the major
part of the back buildings facing South Street into a chapel
to replace the embassy's previous one in Warwick Street,
behind Golden Square. This chapel was an unpretentious,
precisely square building over a basement fronting on to
South Street but probably entered from a passage along its
west side, and connected to No. 74 by a narrow corridor
from its south-east corner. (ref. 163) An inventory of the chapel's
contents in 1757 suggests a full set of fittings but tells
virtually nothing of the appearance of the interior, except
that there were twenty windows and a number of
galleries. (ref. 164)
Of the house itself, enough remains to show that
Shepherd finished it with an opulence befitting one of the
most important contemporary powers of Europe. In one
respect it was curtailed, for the southern third of the
frontage originally envisaged was transferred to the
northernmost house on the site of the present No. 75,
leaving No. 74 with an asymmetrical front only thirty-nine
feet wide as against the fifty-six feet at first proposed. The
whole breadth was however retained at the back, so that
the plan of No. 74 interlocks with that of No. 75. From the
present front and from old plans it may be deduced that the
original elevation was roughly like that of No. 71, with
'Venetian' features to the entrance and immediately above.
Inside, there is a front-compartment staircase in the
original position, but now entirely of wood and late
Victorian or Edwardian in date. Beyond this, the back stair
has recently been replaced by a lift but the main groundfloor rooms are very well preserved. Old doorways and
cornices and one or two fireplaces remain (Plate 15d), but
the chief objects of interest are the decorated ceilings, of
which four at ground level and two on the first floor
survive. Two specially notable examples are that over the
staircase, where before recent alterations the accompanying plaster surrounds and panels over the first-floor doors
were also virtually complete (Plate 82d); and that in the
back room on the ground floor, where Shepherd's
craftsmen executed a design of truly Roman grandeur,
with emperors' heads and cornucopias in strongly
separated compartments (Plate 82e: see also fig. 5c in vol.
XXXIX). The rare richness of the ceilings at No. 74 reflects
the house's ample storey heights, and several of them are
deeply coved (Plate 82a, 82b, 82c).
Both house and chapel continued in use by the
Portuguese for eighty-two years from 1747. Little is known
of their history during this time, but evidently they were
kept up in style, for in 1771 Lord Fitzwilliam was referred
hither (to 'Mello's house') to see examples of fine foreign
furniture. (ref. 165) In 1807–8 a new lease was applied for, with
the promise that 'great sums will be expended in building
on the premises', but nothing seems to have come of this. (ref. 166)
Though negotiations were renewed in 1823, no decision
could be obtained from Lisbon as to whether the embassy
should remain here. (ref. 167) Eventually the Estate began
treating instead with Thomas Oliver, then speculating in a
small way in the Portugal Street district. In 1827 Oliver
agreed terms for a long lease, but the deeds were made out
to an associate, John Feetham of Putney, probably a
partner in the firm of John and Thomas Feetham, coal
merchants, of Abingdon Street, Westminster. (ref. 168) This was
Feetham's first connexion with houses in this range, which
he was to do much to transform.
The Portuguese finally left No. 74 in 1829. (ref. 1) Feetham
seems to have delayed any works until 1831, when he
acquired interests in Nos. 72 and 73, with back premises
also facing South Street. (ref. 169) He then pulled down the chapel
and in 1833–4 used this part of the ground to build two sets
of stables, with sites equivalent to the modern Nos. 26 and
28 South Street. (ref. 170) The main house itself he sub-let in 1832
to the first Earl Cawdor, together with a third new and
quite separate set of stables built by him not on the chapel
site but further east; these survive at the present No. 32
South Street. (ref. 171) In No. 74 a number of features probably
date from the beginning of Cawdor's tenancy. These
include a pair of Ionic columns now set into the wall
opposite the staircase; they were once free-standing and
testify to a change in the position of the entrance, which
between this time and 1936 was at the north end of the
front, thus allowing a spacious hall to extend the full
width of the house. At this time also the ground-floor back
room (or dining-room) seems to have been extended
forward and a servery formed behind two further columns.
These have now disappeared, but a fine marble fireplace of
the period still exists in this room. The most likely author
for these alterations is Sir Jeffry Wyatville, who in 1829
was building a country house for Earl Cawdor in
Carmarthenshire. (ref. 172)
Figure 74:
No. 74 South Audley Street, plans in 1808 and 1976
In 1835, by an agreement involving several houses in
this range, Feetham gave up his interest in much of the
back property behind No. 74. (ref. 173) Next year he received an
additional term of ten years 'by recommendation of Mr.
Cundy owing to the defective state of the main walls'. (ref. 174)
No further changes are recorded until 1882, when (Sir)
William Cuthbert Quilter, stockbroker and company
director, acquired the house. With Ernest George and Peto
as his architects, Quilter made alterations in 1882–3. Apart
from some works upstairs, he built on a bay at the back of
the ground-floor dining-room and in the garden added on
a large billiard-room connected to the main floor of the
house by a flight of steps. This may also have been the time
when the wall between the two main ground-floor rooms
was once again shifted, and the present woodwork of the
main stair installed. (ref. 175)
The house was expanded once again in 1902–3 when
Quilter, having acquired the stables to the north of his
garden room, proceeded to build a new house there, the
present No. 28 South Street, to designs by Detmar Blow.
Quilter connected the back of that house with No. 74 by
means of a passage leading into the side of the picture
gallery (as the garden room was now called), and this was
duly much altered by Blow at the same time. (ref. 176) For some
years Quilter seems to have lived at No. 28 South Street
and sub-let No. 74, which he was thinking of selling along
with his furniture and pictures for 'not … less than
£250,000'. (ref. 177) Yet in 1906 he applied for a further term,
which was agreed only on condition that Quilter would
refront the house in Portland stone, as H. L.
Bischoffsheim had just agreed to do at No. 75. At this stage
the front was said to be of 'painted cement' (perhaps
another result of the changes of 1832), but Quilter argued
for its beauty, claiming that 'it would be simply
desecration to interfere with it as it is in keeping with the
interior which is "Adam"'. After the terms had been
reduced and Eustace Balfour agreed to design the front
himself in a Georgian manner, Quilter submitted. The
present elevation, retaining the existing pattern of
fenestration, was therefore provided by the builders Foster
and Dicksee in 1908. A surprisingly plain front with a
portico at the north end and pilasters, it contrives to retain
much of the Arts and Crafts eccentricity for which the firm
of Balfour and Turner is noted (Plate 44c in vol. XXXIX).
Quilter quickly sold his interest in the house once the work
was completed. (ref. 178)
The next known alterations to No. 74 occurred in 1919
at the hands of the decorators Turner Lord and
Company. (ref. 179) In 1925 the house was subdivided and part of
the premises came into commercial use, but no major
changes are known. (ref. 180) In 1936–7 a more thoroughgoing
conversion was undertaken. On behalf of A. E. Mallinson,
the architect W. J. Pierre-Hunt turned the upper floors
into flats, while Pilditch, Chadwick and Company,
surveyors, made the ground-floor premises suitable for
the Alpine Club. This involved opening out the two main
rooms into one long gallery, reinstating the wall between
front room and stairs, and returning the main entrance to
its original position, with new glass doors both here and at
the entrance to the gallery. At the back, Quilter's picture
gallery became the club's library. (ref. 181) Since then some few
alterations have been made, such as the installation of a lift
and the removal of some portion of the decorations on the
upper part of the main stair.
Occupants include: Portuguese ambassador or envoy,
1747–1829. 1st Earl Cawdor, 1832–60: his son, 2nd Earl,
1860–82. (Sir) William Cuthbert Quilter, M.P., director of
National Telephone Co., latterly 1st bt., and father of Roger
Quilter the composer, 1882–1908. Alpine Club, 1939–present.
No. 75
No. 75, still sometimes referred to as Bute House, is now
the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt. Though its
interior dates largely from a substantial reconstruction
undertaken in 1926, it still contains clues to a history as
noble and as intricate as that of any surviving house on the
estate (Plates 83b, 83c, 83d, 84, 85, figs. 75–6: see also Plate 43a
in vol. XXXIX).
When Edward Shepherd first laid out this range, he
planned no less than three houses here, with a total
frontage of some sixty-eight feet. Of the plots leased to him
in 1736, the house at the corner with Deanery Street was to
have twenty-two feet in front and the next one north
nineteen and a half feet, but the house next to No. 74 was
not only wider (twenty-six feet) but was allotted nearly the
whole of the back land behind, stretching through to Park
Lane on the west, South Street on the north, and the
Grosvenor estate's boundary with the Dean and Chapter
of Westminster's to the south. (ref. 182)
In order to dispose of the houses Shepherd was obliged
to change these arrangements. In 1738 the two southern
houses, which had restricted gardens, were sold to John St.
John (later Viscount St. John) who occupied them as one.
St. John paid no less than £4,000 for these premises,
suggesting a high degree of finish and decoration, but the
earliest available plan (fig. 75) shows that the two parts had
been completed virtually as separate entities. The plan also
indicates openings, probably similar in form to the
Venetian windows extant at No. 71 and perhaps indicating
that this end of the range complemented the other end in
design, on the frontage towards South Audley Street, one
of them being used for a door. (ref. 183)
On the northern part of the site, it was noted in 1738
'that the Treaty which was lately on Foot between his
Grace, the Duke of Argyll and Mr. Shepherd, a noted
Architect, for the Purchase of the fine House in Audleystreet … is broke off; and that the said House, which, for
the Elegancy of the Building, Extent of the Garden,
Fineness of the Situation and Beauty of its Prospect,
exceeds any other Building near London is now to be
sold'. (ref. 184) In the event Shepherd seems to have granted only
a short tenancy and a restricted amount of ground to the
first occupant here, the second Earl of Halifax, reserving a
large proportion of the back land along South Street.
Halifax does however seem to have secured a larger house
than was first intended, with a front of forty-two feet, of
which seventeen were taken from the as-yet unoccupied
No. 74. Though this breadth did not extend the full depth
of plot, the house enjoyed storey heights comparable with
those of No. 74 and higher than those of St. John's
house. (ref. 185)
After St. John died in 1748 the southern house was let
furnished for five years to the Dowager Lady Monson, at a
rent of £220. At this point the ground-floor rooms
consisted of a 'fore parlour', dining-room, drawing-room,
small octagon room facing Deanery Street, hall and great
staircase, with a further drawing-room and a 'gallery' of
some grandeur above. (ref. 186) Then in 1754 a more notable
inhabitant arrived in the shape of John, third Earl of Bute,
then forty-one and soon to be political mentor to the Prince
of Wales, later George III. Besides the house Bute also
bought the stables, which faced east on to Deanery Street
just south of the estate boundary. (ref. 187)
With the accession of George III in 1760, Bute as the
theoretician of absolutism became the central, controversial figure in affairs of state and was Prime Minister
in 1762–3. Apart from his political career he also
harboured large architectural ambitions. After consideration of various sites, work began in 1763 on a
splendid house to be built by Robert Adam for him off
Berkeley Square, the future Lansdowne House. But
financial extravagance and violent opposition to his politics
forced Bute to withdraw from public life in 1765 and to sell
this house, half-finished, to Lord Shelburne. Though he
entertained the idea of buying another Adam house off
Piccadilly, he in the event retained the house in South
Audley Street, whose windows received the attentions of
the Wilkite mob in 1768. (ref. 188) Henceforward Bute's life was
quiet and scholarly, but his architectural interests were
undiminished. Luton Hoo, the country house which he
had bought in 1762, was being grandly enlarged by the
Adams from 1766, and there is evidence of some works by
them at South Audley Street. In 1766 Bute was told by a
friend that the house would not be 'in a condition to receive
you and your Family for some time', while a bill of 1773
from the carver Sefferin Nelson certified by Robert and
James Adam refers to an elaborate chimneypiece 'for the
Town House'. (ref. 189) Nevertheless the few traces of mid-Georgian work visible in No. 75 today are less likely to be
due to the Adams than to Bute's next campaign of works,
the background to which must now be explained.
The great westward expanse of ground that originally
accompanied the northernmost house on the site of No.
75 had already been curtailed in the 1750's by development
on the south side of South Street. It was further reduced in
1770 when Lord Milton, who had built what was later to be
known as Dorchester House immediately south of this
ground, bought the northern house in order to extend his
garden. Having no use for the house itself, he in 1774 sold
it to Lord Bute with only a third of its original garden and a
set of stabling facing South Street. (ref. 190) Bute now added this
house to his own, thus creating a larger house equivalent in
size to the modern No. 75, and in 1775–6 undertook
substantial alterations under the direction of the up-and
coming firm of Lancelot (Capability) Brown and Henry
Holland, architects and builders.
Figure 75:
South Audley Street, plans in c. 1797 and c. 1816
Figure 76:
No. 75 South Audley Street, plans in 1927
Brown and Holland's works at No. 75 cost at least
£3,700 but are in many respects obscure. (ref. 191) The structural
works may chiefly have involved the northern part, where a
semi-circular bay was added at the back; as yet, however,
no attempt was made to equalize the storey-heights or to
make the front uniform. Much of the expenditure
probably concerned internal decorations. In November
1775 Lady Mary Coke reported that Lady Bute's new
apartment was 'very fine but not yet furnish'd'. (ref. 192) Sixty
years later came allusions to 'the magnificent productions
of the pencil of Cipriani and other Italian artists' which
decorated the walls and overdoors of 'five spacious saloons'
and were in a 'style wholly Etruscan', as well as to valuable
furniture and massive 'mirrors from the ceiling to the floor
occupying every vacant space'. (ref. 193) Allowing for inaccuracies and the possibility that some of this may have
been earlier or later work, the most probable date for these
decorations is 1775–6. A number of surviving chimneypieces on the ground floor and cornices and a dado-rail
in the drawing-rooms also accord well with Holland's
customary style.
Bute died in 1792 and was succeeded by his son, who
soon asked for a new lease. (ref. 194) Though no renewal was
granted, a comparison of plans taken of the property in
about 1797 and in 1811–12 indicates that between these
dates the new owner undertook further major works. A
possible candidate for this job is Robert Mylne, who was
much concerned with Bute's properties at the time and
'viewed the house all over' in 1802. (ref. 195) The front was
regularized, given plain sash windows and probably
stuccoed throughout, while two further bays in brick were
put on the southern portion of the back to make the rear
elevation uniform. Much internal rearrangement must also
have occurred to even out the levels, chiefly in the central
portion of the house, and the back staircase was moved. (ref. 196)
In 1811 Lord Bute put the house up for sale. Describing
it to the Duke of Newcastle, the Bond Street house agent
and upholsterer John Johnstone listed among its attractions fine views over the park, a deep terrace behind the
house, and heights of sixteen feet to the principal
storeys. (ref. 197) Both house and furniture were purchased by the
fourth Duke of Buccleuch, who in 1812 set about repairs
and furnishings that cost him £4,591. (fn. c) Inventories of 1812
and 1816 show that at this time there were two dining-rooms on the ground floor, a 'blue room' in the middle at
the back, and directly above this a 'painted drawing-room'
with mirrors, as the central of the three first-floor bow
rooms. (ref. 198)
These last rooms were to be severely damaged in March
1835 during the tenancy of the next occupant, William
Lewis Hughes, Lord Dinorben, by a fire that destroyed
most of the decorative work on the first floor and made
some of the ceilings collapse. (ref. 199) Nothing is known of what
must have been major works of reinstatement, but the
three bows at the back, hitherto 'of a beautiful red brick
and inimitable workmanship' were probably now stuccoed
and a conservatory was perhaps added. Dinorben had
already acquired a new lease in 1819 and, by an
arrangement of 1833 with John Feetham, accepted stables
built by the latter at the present No. 26 South Street in
exchange for his previous ones a little further west. In the
year of the fire the plots were slightly rearranged and No.
75 lost any direct connexion with the premises in South
Street. (ref. 200)
In 1872 the Hughes family gave up the house in favour
of Henri Louis Bischoffsheim, founder of the bank of
Bischoffsheim and Goldschmidt and a notable connoisseur
of French furniture and art. Bischoffsheim quickly added a
'new portico', perhaps no more than the modest canopy
present in 1891 over the front door, then close to the corner
with Deanery Street (ref. 201) (Plate 83b). Of more extensive
alterations probably made by him precise details are
wanting. By 1876 the famous ceiling painting by Giambattista Tiepolo (Allegory of Venus and Time, now in the
National Gallery) had been installed in the house along
with its four accompanying roundels in grisaille. (ref. 202) In 1880
a new lease included clauses relating to 'the hand painting
and tapestry etc.'. Two years later a small coach-house was
built in the garden to designs by W. H. Syme, and several
subsequent minor changes are recorded. (ref. 203) In 1897–8
Balfour and Turner altered the bay towards Deanery
Street and the conservatory was remodelled, while in
1902–3 a lift was installed, some of the fireplaces were
changed, and a marble dado and some architraves were put
in by Turner Lord and Company in the region of the main
staircase. (ref. 204)
The appearance of No. 75 during Bischoffsheim's
tenancy is known from two illustrated articles that
appeared in The King during 1902 (Plates 84, 85). 'From the
architectural point of view', their author says, 'the inside of
the house has no more to recommend it than the outside;
the rooms are well-proportioned, and have a certain
stateliness, but that is all. The house is made what it is by
its fittings, its furniture, its decoration… .' The planning
in fact remained as it had been since 1812, but the
decorations had assumed an elaborate French manner to
suit Bischoffsheim's sumptuous collections. The main
staircase had an ornamental iron balustrade; one of two
large figurative bronzes now in the garden stood at its foot,
then carrying a candelabrum. At the back of the house on
the ground floor were ranged from north to south the
ballroom, the blue drawing-room and the boudoir, behind
which was a conservatory (Plate 85b). The Tiepolos were
then in the blue drawing-room (so called since at least
1812), the walls of which were covered in a delicate handpainted satin. The walls of the boudoir were also hung with
blue painted satin, below an ornamental cornice, while the
ceiling was covered with pieces of tapestry set in gilded
mouldings. On the first floor the central back room was a
large dining-room, and the adjoining room to the north the
black drawing-room (with furniture upholstered in black
satin) which communicated with the music room overlooking South Audley Street. It is quite possible that a number
of decorative features shown in the photographs of 1902 go
back to alterations made in the Butes' time. (ref. 205)
One further major change during Bischoffsheim's
residence occurred in 1907. He had asked for a longer
lease, which was agreed in exchange for the refronting of
No. 75 in Portland stone—an idea emanating from the
Estate solicitor G. F. Hatfield and extended shortly
afterwards to Nos. 73 and 74. Bischoffsheim's elevation,
'taken from a book of Inigo Jones' Georgian designs', was
submitted to the Grosvenor Board and subsequently
revised by one Richard Philip or Phillip(s), but on
publication was described as the work of Cyrille Joseph
Corblet, architect, with Philip acting only as executant; the
contractors were Foster and Dicksee. In 1908 an iron-andglass porch was added. (ref. 206) In appearance the new front
indeed reflected the Edwardian conception of Palladianism
(Plate 83c). It is derived in part from the Banqueting
House, having Ionic pilasters intervening regularly
between the windows. There are pediments to the groundfloor windows, a strong frieze and cornice over the main
upper storey, and a full balustraded attic. But the presence
of an off-centre doorway, still then close to Deanery Street,
detracted from the composition's formality.
Bischoffsheim died in 1908 but his family kept No. 75
until 1926, when its final transformation occurred. Perhaps
in anticipation of a state visit from King Fuad, the
Egyptian Government offered in 1925 to buy the freehold
for £50,000, terms which the Estate thought 'extraordinarily favourable' and promptly accepted. (ref. 207) Fernand
Billerey was then commissioned to reconstruct the interior
for the Legation, with Holland, Hannen and Cubitt as
contractors. Billerey achieved this behind the front of 1907
with one major external alteration, the removal of the
entrance to a position nearer the north end of the house
(Plate 83d). Behind this he constructed a spacious new hall
and ceremonial staircase in a refined French-classical
manner, with steps in Tavernel stone (cut in Brussels) and
a wrought-iron balustrade made in Paris (Plate 43a in vol.
XXXIX). The old stair disappeared and most of the reception
rooms were redecorated, the ground floor in an English
taste, the first floor in a Louis XVI style, though aspects of
the previous schemes remained. The Tiepolo ceiling
painting and roundels were rearranged in the new
ballroom at the north end of the first-floor suite. Next to it
is the 'salon', Bischoffsheim's large dining-room, where
the naturalistically painted flowerpieces and arabesques
are said to have been carefully repaired; this is the
descendant of the 'painted room' allegedly burnt in 1835,
so some parts of these paintings and of other decorative
elements in the room go back to Bute's time. Beyond this is
a dining-room, in 1927 the 'state bedroom', containing the
cornice and tapestry ceiling which Billerey moved here
from Bischoffheim's boudoir immediately below. The
ground-floor rooms, less elaborate, still retain some fine
old chimneypieces. Behind the house, Billerey removed
the conservatory and built stepped loggias running down
into the garden; that on the north communicates with
offices at No. 24 South Street. (ref. 208)
Apart from the restoration of the southern end of the
front after war damage, the Embassy has been little altered
since 1927 and continues to be kept up in style. In 1969 the
main Tiepolo was bought for the National Gallery and a
replica painted by John Lewis for the ballroom, where the
original roundels remain. (ref. 209)
Occupants include: No. 75 (north), 2nd Earl of Halifax,
1739–46. Simon Luttrell, M.P., latterly Baron Irnham, later
successively Viscount and 1st Earl of Carhampton, 1748–69.
United with No. 75 (south), 1774. No. 75 (south), John St. John,
latterly 2nd Viscount Saint John of Battersea, 1738–48. Dow.
Lady Monson, wid. of 1st Baron, 1750–2. 1st Earl of Powis,
1752–4. 3rd Earl of Bute, sometime Prime Minister, 1754–92:
house united with No. 75 (north), 1774: his wid., 1792–4: their
son, 1st Marquess of Bute, 1800–12. 4th Duke of Buccleuch,
1812–19. William Lewis Hughes, M.P., latterly 1st Baron
Dinorben, 1819–52: his wid., 1852–71. Henry Louis
Bischoffsheim, banker, 1873–1908: his wid., 1908–22: their da.,
Amelia, Lady Fitzgerald, wid. of Sir Maurice Fitzgerald, 2nd bt.
and 20th Knight of Kerry, 1924–6. Egyptian Legation or
Embassy, 1927 present.