III. THE HALL.
View of the Merchant Taylors Hall
1. The earliest date assigned to the Company's acquisition of
their estate in Threadneedle Street, upon which their hall
stands, is the year 1331. Accepting the authority of Stowe
(who, as loving brother of the fraternity, would have a special
interest in recording the facts), we may assume that the
Company purchased the site "from a worshipful gentleman, named Edmond Crepin (Dominus Creping, after some
records)," and that it was conveyed "by the name of his principal messuage in the wards of Cornhill and Broad Street
(which Sir Oliver Ingham, Knight, did then hold), to John
Yakley, the king's pavilion maker," for the use of the Company.
2. Fortunately a record of such a conveyance (still extant)
has recently been printed (as rendered from the Latin (fn. 1) ) by
Mr. Riley, and from this record it will be seen to be a feoffment
made by Edmund, the son of Walter Crepin, late citizen of
London, to John de Yakeslee, tentmaker to our Lord the King
of England. The parcels are thus given:—"All that principal
dwelling-house which he the said Edmund had in the parishes of
St. Peter, Cornhill, St. Benedict Fynke, and St. Martin de Oteswyche, in the wards of Cornhulle (fn. 2) and Bradestrete, in the City of
London, with the great gate of the same dwelling-house towards
Cornhulle, and with the sollar (fn. 3) above the same gate built, and
also with another great gate of the same dwelling-house towards
Bradestrete, together with ingress and egress to and from the
dwelling aforesaid, as well by the same great gate towards
Cornhulle as by the said gate towards Bradestrete, and together
with all appurtenances to the same dwelling-house within the
said two gates whatsoever pertaining."
3. The premises marked off as a portion only of what
Crepin owned, are thus further described:—"Which dwellinghouse aforesaid, Sir Oliver Ingham, Knight, has hitherto held of
the aforesaid Edmund, and inhabited the same, it being situate
in breadth between the tenement of William de Manhale, the
tenement of Agnes Rikeman, the tenement of Sir Henry de
Coventre, the late Rector of the Church St. Brigid, in Fletestrete,
and the tenement of which John de Totenham, carpenter, holds
of the aforesaid Edmund towards the east; the tenement of the
said Edmund, the tenement of the Friars of St. Austin, in
London, which Thomas Lyoun holds for the term of his life, and
the tenement of the late Henry de Shorne, towards the west;
and extending lengthwise from the king's highway up Cornhulle,
and from the tenements of the said Edmund, towards the south;
as far as the tenement of which the aforesaid John de Totenham,
carpenter, holds of the said Edmund, and the king's highstreet
of Bradestrete towards the north."
4. The deed purports to be sealed by the said Edmund, in
that civic year in which the Lord Mayor and others were thus
named:—"John De Pulteney, (fn. 4) then being Mayor of the City of
London, John de Mockinge, Andrew Aubrie, Sheriffs of the
same City, John Hauteyn, Alderman of the Ward of Bredestrete,
and Henry de Gisorz, Alderman of the Ward of Cornhulle."
The witnesses were, "Hugh de Waltham, John Payntel," and
others. The place in which the deed was executed was London,
and the date "the Sunday next after the Feast of St. John
Port Latin [6th May], that is to say, on the 10th day of the
month of May aforesaid."
Plan of the Hall and adjacent property
5. It is clear from this description that the houses now
forming the north side of Threadneedle Street did not then
exist, and hence that after the location of the Company in the
street, the name of Threeneedles, and afterwards Threadneedle
was adopted, from their employment.
6. Further it would appear that Crepin's grant extended
from Broad Street (as it then existed), with a gate or entrance
therefrom, up to Cornhill, (fn. 5) and that the gateway with the room
over it abutted upon Cornhill (even with the other tenements
of Crepin), which formed the southern boundary to the residue
of the land purchased from him. On the east of this area, that
is on the side of St. Martin's, four tenements then existed,
and on the west, that is, towards Finch Lane, two tenements
only.
7. The various additions which have been made by the
Company to the original grant are shown in outline (according
to the information available to me) upon the plan prepared by
Mr. I'Anson. On the east side of the Hall the first acquisition was
that made from John Churchman (fn. 6) in 1406, of houses in Bishopsgate Street (4 of which were sold in 1688) and in Threadneedle
Street, with land adjacent to St. Martin's Church, upon part of
which 7 almshouses were built by the Company in 1414. I
may notice that between the Hall and St. Martin's (or, as
another record states, between the almshouses and a messuage
belonging to the Company in the tenure of the Master) a
certain tenement and an alley existed. This tenement of the
value of 4l. per annum, falling into the hands of the Crown at
the Reformation, was offered to the Company, at 30 years' purchase, by the Queen's Commissioners, and the transaction was
completed on the 24th of March 1589, by a bargain and sale
(enrolled in Chancery) between Roger Ranute and Peter
Whitcombe, Gents., Her Majesty's Patentees, of the one part,
and the Master of the other. Adjacent to Churchman's land
in Threadneedle Street other tenements were purchased for the
Company by Robert Dowe, which the deed of 28th August 1605
describes as "two tenements and one alley situate between the
Company's almshouses on the east side and their tenement
next adjoining new Common Hall, late in the tenure of George
Sotherton, Merchant Taylor, on the west side." (fn. 7)
8. On the west side of the Hall, a house then known as the
"Grasshopper (fn. 8) in Threadneedle Street," was purchased with
Peter Blundell's money for 150l., and conveyed to the Company
in 43 Elizabeth (1601), the houses adjacent (known originally
as the "Cock") (fn. 9) in Finch Lane, having been purchased and
conveyed to the Company as "5 or more dwelling houses" in
1595.
9. On 3rd July 1633 the following entry is found in the Court
Minutes (1633; p. 178):—"An Agreement made to purchase of
Mr. Norton a garden plot of ground adjoyning to the King's
Chamber on the south, upon parte whereof a small parte of
the King's Chamber doth stand—and afterwards a Comee was
appointed to treat with Mr. Norton for the purchase of the
ground adjoyning wherein the old Hall, or building, or Hall
and other buildings late in the occupation of Slaney, decd,
rainging with the wall of the Companie's garden on the south
side, without wch said last-mentioned ground this Court did not
think fit to proceed with the purchase of thother ground. Mr.
Norton desired the Company to conclude with him for the
first recited contract without thother part of the ground, intimating to the Court that the purchase of thother ground might
as yett for some reasons prove very inconvenient to him, but
promised that as soone as he had agreed with Sir Petere
Hayman's (fn. 10) sonne for the whole purchase, then he will assure
the said other ground unto this Company. . . . Whereupon
this Court doe think fitt to confirm their first order." Mr. Robert
Gray was subsequently appointed to take a conveyance of this
property for the Company. (fn. 11)
10. On the south-east corner towards Cornhill, a purchase
was made in 1646, to which the following Minutes relate:—
"This day Mrs. Browne offered to this Company two messuages
—situate on the east side of Redcrosse Yard, adjoyning the
Back Gate and a tenemt and a shop in Bishopsgate Street, in
the Parish of St. Peter's: agreed with Mrs. Browne that she
shall have 14 years' purchase for the said tenemts at the rent as
they are now lett."—[3rd June 1646.]
" Ordered that Hugh Best, vintner, tenant of the Star (fn. 12)
Tavern, lately purchased of Mrs. Browne, shall have a doore
and passage out of the back part of his house into Red Cross
Yard at the Back Gate, he paying 6s. 8d. per ann. for the same,
and to give our Master a fat bucke against his election."—
[8th July 1646.]
"Hugh Best, tenant of the Star Tavern in Bishopsgate
Street, belonging to the Company, having been allowed, in
consideration of his great rent (57l. a-year), to open a back
door into Redcrosse Yard, further prays that he may have a
'Signe and Bush (fn. 13) upon Mr. Mould's tenemt in Cornhill, without
which the doore wilbe of little use to him.' Referred to the
Wardens."—[20th June 1647.]
11. The garden or open spaces around the Hall were originally
equal to those surrounding a country mansion, but they soon
became covered with buildings, and the houses adjacent were
near enough to destroy privacy. This is noticeable in the record
of the visit of King James I. to the Company in 1607, when the
Court agreed to "build up the garden wall adjoining to the
Tavern (probably the 'Grasshopper'), to take away the prospect
of those walking on the leads of the tavern," and thereby overlooking the garden. However, there was a bowling alley and a
grass plot in the garden, so that in 1625 the East India Company applied that liberty might be given to the Persian
Ambassador to walk therein for his recreation. (fn. 14)
12. Such spaces were absolutely needed for the stowage of the
various articles which the necessities of those times obliged the
Company to keep for their own security or the benefit of the
civic community; thus, the Ordinances of Henry VII. directed
the Master and Wardens to purchase at the fair of Kingstonon-Thames, timber and materials for the repair of their houses
and having purchased them, to keep them in store "within (fn. 15) the
Hall." The gunpowder and arms, (fn. 16) which the Company purchased by command of the Lord Mayor or Privy Council, were
also stored upon the Hall premises; the arms being placed in
the gallery over the King's Chamber (fn. 17) (under the care of an
armourer at a wage of 40s. per annum). (fn. 18) In 1621, it was thought
expedient to transfer the gunpowder to a more convenient
place, "over the banquetting house in the garden," and there
it remained (as in the "gunpowder house"), probably until the
store was exhausted by demands made for ammunition during
the rebellion. The corn, up to 1590, was kept in one of twelve
granaries, provided by the city for the twelve Companies, but
after that date each Company had to provide storage at their
halls, and for many years a granary keeper was an established
official of the Company.
13. When the present Hall and the accessories were built
(assuming, as I do, that they were not entirely destroyed in
1666) is only a matter of conjecture. (fn. 19) From Goodman's plan
of St. Martin, some year after 1405 (fn. 20) has been assigned as the
date of the Hall, and the entertainments that were given prove
the size, before the fire, to have been large enough for the
assembly of a great number of guests; (fn. 21) King James I. being
entertained in 1607, the Princess Elizabeth and the Elector
Palatine in January 1614, (fn. 22) and the Corporation in alternate
years, until the Guildhall was completed in 1501 for the Lord
Mayor's annual banquet. (fn. 23)
14. The early account books make mention of the following
particulars relating to the Hall premises (fn. 24) :—In 1399, the chapel;
in 1406–7, the kitchen, the fountain, and the slates for roofing,
the oven, the sewing place, the Hall and the aumerie; in
1408–9, the larder house, the sotel house, the parlor, the
image of St. John, and the vines in the garden; in 1413–14, the
pantry, the maison crowle, and the chapel chamber; in 1419–20,
the great parlor; in 1421–2, the well, the windlass, the privy,
the counting house, the schoolmaster's alley and the cloth
chamber; in 1422–3, the grand chamber, the coal house in the
yard, the treasury, and the stable; in 1426–7, the clerk's house,
the store (fn. 25) house, and the shed; in 1430–1, the priest's chamber
near the gate; in 1432–3, the schoolmaster's house; in 1433–4,
the lodge, the buttery, the scalding yard, troughs for chickens
and capons, the long parlor and the wafer house; and in 1440
the school house.
15. From the inventory (fn. 26) of the Company's effects, taken in
John Tresawell's Mastership (in 1512) by "Henry Mayour,
Common Clerk of the Fraternity," it is clear that these buildings were then grouped near the Hall—the position of the
chapel, with the chapel chamber, being described elsewhere, in
the same year, as "to the eastward of the Hall," (fn. 27) probably the
present crypt or kitchens forming part of it.
16. The Hall itself, up to the year 1573 used for acting of
plays or masks, (fn. 28) must have been a comfortless place, according
to our modern notions of comfort. In 1584, a new roof (fn. 29) —
whatever the original may have been—was put on, consisting
of slate, and in 1587 the windows appear to have been glazed,
with the names of benefactors inserted therein. The walls
were bare, or rather whitewashed (except where the hanging
tapestry intervened) until 1619, and the floor was earth, covered
with rushes, until July 1646, when being found "inconvenient
and oftentimes noisome" the Court ordered it to be "paved
with red tile, to be done by the bricklayer."
17. At the west end of the Hall, in or about the year 1602,
the room now known as the "King's Chamber" was added.
It is apparent from what has been already written that the room
stood on the verge of the Company's estate, and overlapped the
land of adjacent owners. The first entry having reference to it
is dated August 1593, when counsel was taken with a carpenter
dwelling in Houndsditch that a convenient site might be
selected, so that the light at the west end of the Hall might
be preserved undiminished. In the account of Mr. Gore's
expenditure in 1602, the particulars of the wainscotting of this
chamber are set out.
18. The furniture of the Hall and of other rooms is described
in the inventories of effects which are printed elsewhere. The
luxury of a Turkey carpet was obtained for the table in the
King's Chamber in 1604, and it appears to have been so much
in request that the Court deemed it prudent to interdict the
loan or removal thereof. In 1618, a fair needle work carpet
was substituted. (fn. 30)
19. The great characteristic of the Hall was the tapestry (fn. 31)
illustrating the life and death of the Patron Saint, St. John
Baptist, which, but for its disfigurement by order of the fanatics
of the Great Rebellion, remained without injury till it was
finally sold by the Company in 1732. (fn. 32)
20. During the Rebellion (1648) the Hall was freed from
the quartering of soldiers by Lord Fairfax's Warrant of Protection, (fn. 33) though the exemption was purchased by a gift made to
one Mr. Gravenor, the Quarter Master, who was a member of
the Company. In 1650, after the King had been beheaded, and
a Commonwealth established, "new arms" were provided, and
"the King's Arms and Picture, standing in the Common Hall,"
were destroyed.
21. The Great Fire of 1666 injured the Hall premises, but the
comparison of the buildings described in the record of the visit
of James I., (fn. 34) with others described in the Court Minutes relating
to the restoration of the premises, after the "dreadful fire," leads
me to the conclusion that the destruction was only partial. (fn. 35)
The present existence and consequent preservation of many
things within the Hall buildings at the date of the fire, is another
evidence that these at any rate did not fall under itspower.
22. The fire happened in September 1666, and from an inspection, in the Guildhall library, of Leake's plan, made in 1667–8
(by order of the Corporation, for the use of the Commissioners
appointed to determine all questions arising as to ownership
and rebuilding), and of Ogilvy's map of 1677, I understand the
fire to have been stayed in the street before it reached the
Church of St. Martin, and consequently before it had consumed
all the Company's buildings, though the plans are not so minute
as to show the extent to which the Hall and parts adjacent to
it were destroyed.
23. The first meeting of the Court after the fire was held on
the 21st September, when orders were given (as before noticed)
for securing the plate melted " in the Treasury by the Hall."
No other reference is made to the destruction of the Hall,
though that of other premises held by the Company's tenants
is referred to, and orders were issued for the assembly of an
Estate Committee to agree with those tenants for rebuilding
their houses.
24. The next meeting was on the 12th October, when
directions were given—1st, to cover in the adjacent almshouses and make them "wind tide and water-tide"—evidence
that these buildings were not wholly destroyed—and then
"that a parlor where the old one stood, and a room over that
with a garret be forthwith built that the Company may have a
roome to keep their Courts in."
25. At the same Court "the ground where the Company's
kitchen lately stood" was let at a peppercorn rent for five years
"for a warehouse," in consideration that the tenant (Colonel
Mew) "make a substantial roof thereunto," an evidence, I
think, that the walls of that building were then standing.
26. The parlor was not completed in the February succeeding, for at a Court of the 8th it was ordered "that the same
should be finished with all convenient speed." This "parlor"
being, as I apprehend, the present Court Room, which, under
that name, was rebuilt in 1770 at a cost of 880l.
27. In June 1667 the Hall must have continued in ruins,
for at a Court of the 26th the Master and Wardens were
directed "to save all the pewter, iron, and lead that can be
found at or about the Hall, till the Company shall dispose
thereof," and in November (at a Court of the 6th) the
Court resolved that the revenue of the Company should not be
made use of or towards the re-building the Hall until the principal money due by the Company be paid.
28. That the Hall, though possibly gutted, with the roof
lost, was not entirely destroyed, is evidenced by the assembly
of the whole Livery therein to keep Lord Mayor's day in 1668,
for I find that a Committee of the Court, held on the 12th
October for raising funds to defray the charges of that Festival,
appear to have thought it time for the Company to meet again
in the Hall in celebration thereof. Accordingly, they ordered
"that tables be forthwith set up in the Company's Hall, and
sheds made over whereby the Company may entertain the whole
Livery on the Mayor's day," and in the Master's accounts for
that year a sum of 48l. 10s. is charged for "500 large deals to
make sheds in the Hall," and 20l. 10s. for the "carpenters."
29. At the close of the year 1669 (fn. 36) a Committee was formed to
raise subscriptions for "re-building the Hall after the fire, with
such other rooms and conveniences" as they should see fit.
During the period ending in 1673–4, sums amounting to a total
of 741l. 0s. 6d. are traced as received, and the payments made
during a period ending in 1674–5 amount to 2,018l. 19s. (fn. 37)
30. In 1675–6 the School and Hall stand debited together
with 1,190l., no means being now available for distinguishing in
what proportions this money was spent on each building.
31. No plans or estimates remain to show the nature of the
work done, and the habit of the times was evidently to contract separately with each artificer for his work in stone or
wood, as the case might be. An entry under date of 30th April
1675, requesting the Master "to pay the Mason for raising the
hall and other petty works done for the Company," may be
explained by the fact that in 1843 the Hall ceiling was found to
rest on wooden planks placed upon the stone and covered with
cement and stucco to resemble stone.
32. The last items of expenditure for the Hall that have
come under my notice are sums of 10l. " for a sun dial," and
18s. "for a lanthorne" paid in 1678.
33. Among the "conveniences" were houses for the clerk and
beadle, which the Court, on the 16th October 1674, ordered to
be built "upon columns," leaving (though the Minute is silent
upon it) a passage under the houses from the street to the Hall
at the east end thereof. That these houses were so built is
evidenced by their remaining in situ until 1843, when, on their
removal, the columns were replaced at the present western
entrance of the Hall, where they now stand, though increased
in size and with capitals added.
34. The other rooms with which we are familiar as the
"Court," "Drawing," and "Dining" rooms, appear to have
been built in 1681. The position of the "large staircase" was
always accepted, but the original intention of the Court (determined upon the 4th November 1680) seems to have been to
rebuild the two latter rooms (then called the "King's Chamber,"
and "Council Chamber") in their old position "at the west end
of the Hall," at an estimated cost of 617l.
35. In May 1681 (fn. 38) it was, however, suggested (upon a Report
then submitted to the Court) that it would "be much better,
more commodious and pleasant to build the same on the left
hand of the staircase, across the garden and fronting the parlor,"
and further, as the Report suggests " that there shall be a gallery
(where the King's Chamber was intended to be built) looking
into the Hall, level with the building on the left hand of the
staircase, and under the said gallery to be made into several
rooms for larders and other conveniences." Accordingly, this
plan was adopted, and the settlement of the builder's account
in January 1683 shows the cost of these works to have been as
follows:—The Committee allowed for 10½ squares of building
"where the late King's Chamber stood" (i.e. for "the gallery
looking into the Hall") at 32l. per square=336l. and for 25¾
squares of building of "the new Council Chamber or Parlor
and King's Chamber over the same," at 40l. per square, measured by Mr. Browne=1,030l.
36. The fire so reduced the Company's resources that the
Hall and the rooms adjacent had to be let out at the best
rent that could be obtained from competent and respectable
tenants. The East India Company rented the Hall at 200l. in
1728–30, and held their meetings there so late as 1767.
The business of the South Sea Company, before their own
premises were built, was there carried on, and meetings in
relation to the bubble before it absolutely burst were also held
in the Hall. It may interest other readers to know that before
the present Freemason's Hall was built, the meetings of their
Grand Lodge were frequently held in the Company's Hall, and
that from 1723 to 1767 four of the Grand Masters were there
installed into office. (fn. 39)
37. The miscellaneous purposes for which the Hall was
used, possibly suggested the propriety of removing from the
walls the distinctive garniture (already alluded to) with which
they had been originally clothed. During the years 1728–31
the Hall premises were redecorated, and though Maitland,
writing in 1756, and others at a later date, refer to the old,
very curious and valuable tapestry as ornamenting the Hall, it
is certain that it did not then exist on the walls.
38. Little remains to be written of the subsequent history
of the Hall premises. In the year 1765 they were again
threatened with destruction "by a Great Fire which happened
at the east side of the Hall," and destroyed part of the kitchen.
Breaking out on the 7th, the meeting of the Livery on the 9th
of November had to be postponed, though the Hall itself was
not in any degree injured by the fire. (fn. 40)
39. In 1843 substantial improvements were made. The
houses in front of the Hall facing Treadneedle Street were
rebuilt, and the entrances to the Hall were improved. At the
east end the old houses of the Clerk and Beadle (standing on
pillars) were cleared away, and the entrance court there was
covered by the houses and clerk's offices. At the west end, the
space under the Gallery to the King's Chamber, which had been
left "for larder and other conveniences" (as the members of
1681 had suggested), was converted into a new entrance, and
the old pillars taken from the east were placed in situ as they
now stand at the west end.
40. The last improvement is of very recent date. At the
close of the Mastership for 1869–70, the retiring Master (Edward
Masterman, Esq.) invited the Court to place on the south side
of the Hall the corridor which now adorns it. The windows of
the corridor are filled with stained glass (fn. 41) by Messrs. Heaton and
Co., the subject being the contest, (fn. 42) the award, (fn. 43) and the feast (fn. 44)
(following upon the award), between the two Companies of
Skinners and Merchant Taylors in 1484–5. There is, however,
one window of stained glass outside the corridor and adjacent
to the present Court Room, which must not pass unnoticed,
for it contains the picture of Sir Thomas White, painted from
his portrait, taken, as tradition says, after his decease, from his
sister, distinguished for her close resemblance to him.