Inevitable but on Accountofit Being
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A So.uitoquy on a MiIppLESEX Map inevitable but on accountofit being ‘so much Cottage was carefully restored, the later accre- in the public eye’ it was agreed that the Royal tions removedandits full complement of dec- Fine Art Commission should be consulted orative features reinstated — including the dis- before its destruction.” Meanwhile designs tinctive lozenge-latticed glazing bars. The were being sought for a replacement cottage; channel of water beneath the rustic loggia, W Kendall’s design costing £4,000 wasreject- absent since its suppression in 1882, was also ed — probably on grounds of cost — as were reinstated. After briefly serving as an office for plans prepared by the Chief Architect, E the Bird Keeper andasa store for confiscated Bedford; a ‘contemporary parklike structure’ bicycles, Duck Island Cottage was allocated as madeout of logs.° Bedford submitted a fur- the temporary headquarters of the London ther design in April 1955 but this too was Historic Parks and Gardens Trust in 1994.” rejected as ‘lacking distinction’. It is most appropriate that Duck Island Eventually, in July 1955, Marshall Sisson was Cottage has been bestowed upon the London asked to submit two alternative designs for the Fiistoric Parks and Gardens Trust — a society cottage — a compact two storied house and a concerned with the protection and enhance- semi-bungalow.* Both were symmetrical com- ment of St James’s Park. However, the philan- positions with green-painted treetrunk loggias thropic and didactic objectives of the Trust and roofed with Norfolk thatch. Mr Bedford — extend beyond the boundaries of the Mall and doubtless still smarting from the rejection of Birdcage Walk. They encompass parks and his own designs — protested that the thatched gardens throughout London — all historic roof would soon be covered in bird droppings pleasure grounds which, like St James’s Park, and that gulls ‘would store bits of fish etc in continue to provide enjoymentand benefit for and beneath the straw’.* Howeveratthis junc- the residents andvisitors to the Metropolis. ture the Royal Fine Art Commission inter- vened and urged the preservation of Duck Acknowledgements Island Cottage.* In a surprising volte face the The author would like to thank Todd retention of the building was orderedfor use as Longstaffe-Gowan, Jennifer Adams of the a park store.* Sisson, understandably annoyed, Royal Parks Agency and Chris Sumner of promptly exhibited one of the sketches in the English Heritage, for their help while research- Royal Academy Summer Exhibition in that ing this article. year as An cAbandoned ‘Project for the Bird Keeper's “House in St Fames’s Park — to the A So.iLoauy on a MippLEsex Map intense embarrassment of all concerned.® By John Harris Nevertheless, Duck Island Cottage had been saved. hen John Rocque published his After emergency repairs, the cottage was great cartographicsurvey of Twenty used as a storeroom for equipment belonging Miles Round London in 1746, in to the Bird Keeper.” However, in 1959 it was preparation between 1741 and 1745, he could vigorously remodelled and extended and once hardly have chosen a better moment in the more given overto habitation. Coated in peb- history ofgarden design,for the landscape rev- ble-dash and shorn of most of its ornaments, olution had hardly gained momentum.As a the cottage provided a utilitarian home to two consequence, Rocque’s record is astonishingly spinster park keepers who lived there until precious. No other survey provides such a con- 1980.* It was only in 1982 that Duck Island spectus of formal gardens, from Early Tudor 49. WORK 16/2035, 31 March 1953; 5 November1953 (demolition moated to the dissolution of formality due to actually ordered) & 23 November1953 (postponed) William Kent. Indeed, Rocque’s is now a 50. WoRK 16/2035, 10 February 1954. Kendall’s design featured a carving of a groupofpelicans — a ‘very appropriate and agreeable memorial to the historic gardens of Greater feature’ — 17 November 1954 51. WORK 16/2035, 18 April 1955 London. 52. WORK 16/2035, 13 July 1955 & 12 November1955 Garden historians are now familiar with 53. WORK 16/2035, 30 January 1956 54. WORK 16/2035, 16 December1955 Rocque. If the blocked-in plans of his houses 55. WORK 16/2035, 3 January 1955 must be treated with caution, the delineation 56. WORK 16/2035, 20 March 1956, Exh. ‘Royal Academy 1956, no.1173 57. WORK 16/2035, 7 May 1956 59. HBMCfile no. cB66/3 PT2, with additional information from Mrs 58. The extension comprised a new kitchen, two bedroomsand a Jennifer Adams of the Royal Parks Agency. bathroom. Theinterior of the cottage was extensively remodelled. 17 THE LONDON GARDENERor The Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.1 For the year 1995 of the gardensis reasonably accurate. Even if rare parallel canals. Clearly little had been the environs of London were a huge canvasto done by its early 18¢4 century owner and survey, the record was made bya caring car- Palladian enthusiast, Sir Robert Furnese. tographer, whosespeciality was gardens. When Greenwood came this way the whole Middlesex has been doubly fortunate, for it garden and park had been transformed into a was surveyed by C.Greenwood, whose “Map landscape garden resembling Kew Gardens. ofthe County ofMiddlesexfrom an Actual Survey The resemblance is not coincidental. It had made in The Years 1818 &F 1819 was published on been purchased in 1761 for Princess Amelia, 25 October 1819. Just as Rocque acted for for- who must have employed Chambers for the mal gardens, so did Greenwoodfor the land- park with peripheral walks and ornamental scape school of Brown, Repton and their imi- temples. Greenwood viewed a new housebuilt tators. Garden historians have neglected for Alexander Coplandin 1801, and Copland’s Greenwood, whosepotential as a comparative are perhaps the ‘gardenesque’ arrangements study to Rocquesixty years earlier is great. nearby. Nevertheless, it is tempting to associ- There is satisfaction to be found in both ate this with Chambers’ Frame Ground enclo- comparisons of single gardens and groups of sure at Kew. gardensin cartographicspreads. If we point to Thevicissitudes of change can be followed in Hounslow, a cluster of gardens extends in an manysingle gardens that compel the attention arc from east to south, from Spring Grove, of the historian for personalreasons. The envi- south to Worton House and Lodge, and then rons of Heathrow, in 1797 noted only for the south west to embracea groupoffour gardens: lampern fishery, are shown by Greenwood to Whitton House, Dean House, Whitton Park possess three major gardens: Hanworth, and Whitton Place. The twolast are contigu- Cranford, and Stanwell. Hanworth is still ous, and were once one whenlaid out by the recognisable as the remainsof the great Tudor Earl of Ilay from 1732, as shown by Rocque. hunting park. Here is the value of using the They were later divided, with Sir William Geographia atlas of Greater London, to Chambers taking the main house and grounds, observe how Hanworth Little Park has been and George Gostling the park with Gibbs’ developed between the Uxbridge Road and the orangery. Dean House, when Rocque came Craneriver, to locate the remains of the Tudor here, could boast an accomplished formal gar- palace, or the neo-classic Hanworth Park den in the late 17¢/ century manner, but House. whether this later belonged to Annesley or Stanwell (fig. 6) is likewise an amazing sur- Hill is unclear. However, Whitton House vival, even if the house and many temples must be Kneller Hall, Sir Godfrey Kneller’s have gone, and the garden decayed. It is an house, but now landscaped by Repton for unsung layout by James Gibbs and Charles Samuel Prime, 1795. Of course, Whitton was Bridgeman for Richard Phillips (1730s?), but celebrated for its nursery of trees, and its rela- Greenwood showsit loosened up by genera- tion to Kew is established. Butit is often for- tions of the family of John Gibbons, who gotten that Spring Groveis of similar celebri- bought the estate in 1754. Thomas Robins ty. Edward Biscoe built a new house in 1754, made drawings by the lake on an enigmatic but from 1790 it was Sir Joseph Banks’ visit here in Gibbons’ time. favourite garden, where he kept his rarest The third fascinating garden is Cranford, plants in famous conservatories. The the ancient seat of the Earls of Berkeley. The Reptonian enthusiast would do well to consult house was demolished in 1944, and today the Greenwood. There may be many new M4 slices its way right by the church. Again Reptonian gardensto locate. For example, he Geographia is our guide to its survival. The provides a fine plan of Wembley Park, where house had been rebuilt in 1722 for the 37d Earl Repton was consulted both for the house and of Berkeley to designs by his friend Thomas groundsbefore 1793 (fig. 5). Coke of Melbourne Hall, Derbyshire. Of this A fascinating single comparison can be made period are the general outlines of the surviv- with Gunnersbury. Rocque shows John ing garden, and the stables. In the 1740s and Webb’s Palladian villa built for Sir John 1750s Thomas Wright was a constantvisitor. Maynard from 1658 in its formal garden with He mayhavelaid out the grove that projects 18 A Sa.itoguy en a MippLEsEX Map 5. Plan of Wembley Park from C.Greenwood’s Map ofthe County ofMiddlesex from an Actual Survey made in The Years 1818 & 1819. (PrivATE COLLECTION) 6. Plan of Stanwell Park from C.Greenwood’s Map ofthe County ofMiddlesex... 1818 & 1819. (PRrivATE COLLECTION) 7. The ‘compelling spread’ of Osterley Park, Ealing Park, Boston House, Sion Hill, Sion House and Spring Grove House, from C.Greenwood’s Map ofthe County ofMiddlesex... 1818 €F 1819.