Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Commission for Somerset House in the “Eye of the Public”’, the Georgian Group Journal, Vol

Jocelyn Anderson, ‘The Commission for in the “Eye of the Public”’, The Georgian Group Journal, Vol. xxIV, 2016, pp. 81–94

text © the authors 2016 The Commission for Somerset House in the ‘Eye of the Public’

j o c e ly n a n d e r s o n

Although architectural historians have long identified been debated in Parliament and in the press. This Somerset House as the single most important public article examines these debates and explores the public building project to be built in late eighteenth-century interest which surrounded the Somerset House project Britain, relatively little work has been done on public when Chambers received the commission, and in reactions to it. When Sir William Chambers received doing so, it analyses the context in which he produced the commission in November 1775, the project had his designs. been underway for months, during which time it had

Fig. 1. North Front (Strand Facade) Somerset House. (Courthauld Institute of Art)

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

omerset House (Fig. 1) has long been recognized In the days that followed this announcement, a Sas the single most important public building series of proposals were debated by the House, project to have been executed in late eighteenth- and, although they were ultimately passed, they led century Britain. Intended to house offices for the to disputes. Newspapers criticised the project as a Navy, several tax departments, the Royal Academy, royal conspiracy, members of Parliament debated Royal Society and Royal Society of Antiquaries, what architectural style and expenditure would it was designed by Sir William Chambers. His be appropriate, and newspaper correspondents designs for the project have dominated architectural commented on the project’s potential to improve the historians’ studies of the building complex; city, and the architects who might be suitable for it. John Summerson, for example, argued that it From these notices, it is clear that while Chambers was ‘inevitable’ that he ‘should preside over its certainly brought his own architectural ideas and architecture’.1 While there is no question that convictions to the project, he worked within a rich Chambers dominated the project, he did not receive public discourse about it. the commission until November 1775, by which From the newspaper accounts of Somerset time it had been under way for several months.2 In House, it is evident that the public significance of the these early stages the project had been thoroughly project was established long before any final designs debated in parliament and in the press. Examining were made and that it had considerable significance these debates illuminates the public significance the for architectural discourse. In his analysis of James Somerset House project had acquired by the time Ralph’s A Critical Review of the Publick Buildings, Chambers took over, and by extension the terms Statues and Ornaments in and around and under which he prepared his designs. (1734), Matthew Craske determined April 1775 was a pivotal moment in the history that architecture was not solely ‘the province of of the commission. Plans to build a government great patrons and the architects they employed […] office complex had first been discussed in 1771, Architecture had become a matter of public concern and Somerset House had been identified as the and its history and standards a matter of public appropriate site in May 1774. That month, the Board debate’.4 Urban building projects were particularly of Works reported that Old Somerset House was in appropriate subjects: Richard Wittman has argued ruins and the King authorised its demolition; the first that, given that they required enormous resources architect asked to prepare plans for the new buildings and ‘they shaped and partitioned public spaces’ and, was William Robinson, then Secretary to the Board by extension, reinforced social hierarchies, writing of Works. It was not until April of the following about urban architecture ‘was thus in a sense to year, however, that an Act of Parliament was passed comment on a material representation of the public to authorise these plans, and the Act and speeches sphere itself’.5 As we will see, the Somerset House associated with it sparked a series of articles in the project led people to question what the building London newspapers. Public interest was considerable: would truly represent: it was the largest public on 25 April, the Middlesex Journal reported that building project in later eighteenth-century London, ‘The matter of pulling down Somerset-house, and and it raised questions about royal authority, charging to the House of Commons the rebuilding constitutional values and civic pride. In addition, and offices on where it now stands, will be Somerset House was one of the earliest public the great dispute of this session, and draw the eye of building projects to be begun in full view of an 3 the public, who look with attention on the event.’ increasingly free press; beginning in 1771, the House of Commons had largely stopped attempting to

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’ suppress reports on parliamentary debates, and from The first newspaper reports on the subject then on these reports were extremely prominent.6 appeared before the House met. On 25 April, Papers rarely indicated who had written the reports, the London Chronicle announced that the House and the same articles frequently appeared in multiple intended to consider the King’s message on the papers, making it impossible to determine whose following day.10 The issue was already fraught with pen was at work; the same is true of commentaries potential controversy: the St James’s Chronicle published in brief notices and letters to the editor. published a notice that claimed the proposal Newspapers were read by thousands of Londoners: was ‘intended to give a Stab to a much beloved for most, the reports on the building project would Lady in Buckingham-House’ and, from another have been their main source of information.7 correspondent, a claim that it was ‘plainly a Cocoa- This article explores what information was being Tree Invention’; in other words, it was meant to presented to them, and how it embedded the undermine Queen Charlotte and it was a conspiracy Somerset House project into broader contemporary created by the Tory government.11 The Morning Post debates on government and architecture. edition of 26 April claimed: When the Somerset House project first came ‘The dispute about Somerset House is not a measure to the House of Commons, the initial issue under agreed to, but suddenly brought in, whilst all expected discussion was not the new building complex itself, a recess: by the surprize, a nemins contradicente was but the site: building on the site of Old Somerset obtained. The giving the Queen Buckingham-house House (Figs. 2 and 3) required the government for herself, and not adding it to the royal , and refusing the giving away lands and palaces to obtain it from George III. Lord North and the will be a point in which the king’s best friends may King had discussed this in 1774, but it was not until oppose the ministry […] it is universally thought the 12 April 1775 that the matter reached Parliament. proposition will be thrown out.’12 North presented the House of Commons with a message in which the King stated his desire ‘that a Despite these claims, when the House met, the better and more suitable accommodation should be matter was referred to a committee, which came made for the residence of the Queen’; that he was to a series of resolutions: that Buckingham House willing to settle Buckingham House on her in lieu of should indeed be settled on the Queen, that it Somerset House; and that Somerset House would should ultimately be annexed to the Crown, and that be made available for ‘such uses as shall be found Somerset House should be returned to the Crown most beneficial to the public’.8 For George III, this (it had been granted to the Queen) for the purpose was undoubtedly a practical plan: he had bought of ‘erecting and establishing certain public offices’.13 Buckingham House for Queen Charlotte in 1762, The House agreed to these resolutions, but the idea soon after their marriage, and it was the couple’s that the project was of greater advantage to the King main London residence; Somerset House was than the public persisted in the press. Charlotte’s official dower house, but it was extremely On 27 April many London papers published dilapidated (parts had already collapsed) and she accounts of the proposals which emphasised that did not live there. The House resolved to consider when he spoke about the plans, Lord North discussed the issue on 26 April; in the meantime, notices of the them in relation to the Civil List, effectively tieing King’s message were published in Lloyd’s Evening the project to the broader issue of royal expenditure. Post and the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser.9 According to the General Evening Post, he began When the debate finally began, the focus was on the by outlining the condition of Somerset House proposal’s implications for the King’s property. and declaring that the new building would be ‘a

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’ great ornament to the town’ – a concept which is clearly attempting to distance the Civil List from often associated with , whose Somerset House project, the two were very closely argument, presented the next day, 28 April, will be associated at this stage. discussed below – before turning to the matter of While the different accounts of the same speech the expense.14 He listed the different offices to be represent the potential controversy, newspapers accommodated, promised to produce cost estimates also published explicit commentary. The London for them and recommended money be granted to the Evening Post published a viciously critical article King towards the costs associated with his purchase which argued: of, and improvements to, Buckingham House. In ‘There is much art in this arrangement. The King gets concluding, he stated that although the proposal had 80,000l. to lay out in nick-nacks. The Queen gets been reported as ‘a scheme to raise money to pay the Buckingham-House, with the improvements settled debts of the Civil-list […] this business was totally upon her. The King gives up Somerset-House, which independent and separate from an application which is an expence to him; and it being no longer a royal , the expence of the new buildings is not to be would be made this session of Parliament for a supply defrayed out of the civil list, but by the public; and the to pay the Civil-list debts’. Nearly identical summaries Board of Works nominate the architects, &c. which is of the speech appeared in the London Chronicle, an additional strength to the Minister to favour where the Public Advertiser and Lloyd’s Evening Post.15 In and whom he pleases. Thus are the people fleeced, contrast, in its account of the speech the Gazetteer and and plucked, and plundered, to gratify a voracious, all 18 New Daily Advertiser gave hardly any details of the grasping Court.’ building project. Instead, it focused on the Civil List issue, noting that although North claimed he would Similarly, the Middlesex Journal reported that ‘The be addressing the debt separately, he ‘hinted pretty people are willing to give the Queen Buckingham- fully’ that he not only intended to address the debt, he House to herself for ever, but the people will not like would do so not by proposing a special grant, but by to be milch cows to the Board of Works’; this article proposing the income itself be increased.16 concluded with a declaration that ‘no barracks are The Morning Post presented a lengthier and more to be built [on the site], for that would be contrary critical account of North’s presentation. In its account, to the constitution, as well as a nuisance to the as soon as North raised the proposals, Mr. Hartley town’.19 These reports are more extreme than many replied that, although he was convinced of the others, but they are from prominent papers, and they Queen’s merit, ‘vesting Somerset house in the public demonstrate how the project could be presented as a looked too much like a bargain’.17 North rejected conspiracy developed by the King and the Tory party. this immediately, and then presented what this The King’s income and property were already paper described as ‘a long, guarded, and uncommon controversial. Since the beginning of his reign, speech’: after making his proposals for Somerset George III had been granted an annuity of £800,000, House, he ‘deviated pretty much into the state of the but he had accumulated debts very quickly and in civil list’; he proposed dealing with the Civil List debts 1769, and again in 1777, Parliament granted him separately, and he ‘artfully kept clear of giving any additional funds to discharge his debts. Appeals positive assurances that this second supply [of debt for funds undoubtedly reflected negatively on the relief] should be the last asked for’. In concluding, the Civil List and the King, particularly because the paper noted that although the resolutions had passed, expenditure was deemed to be ‘solely the concern ‘the other matter he opened, will, by and by, bring on of the Crown, upon which Parliament ought not the hottest debates this session’. Though North was encroach’.20 In terms of public opinion generally,

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

Fig. 2. A view of Somerset House with St Mary’s Church in the Strand, London, 1753, engraving. (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection) while there is evidence that some approved of Lloyd’s Evening Post and the Middlesex Journal.24 George III in the 1770s, ‘there is also ample evidence Given the interest in scrutinising royal expenditure, that the king was widely and actively disliked’.21 it is not surprising that at this stage, the Somerset Parliament had resisted supporting his personal House project was seen as a royal one. It clearly was building projects: after he purchased Buckingham advantageous to the King, who remained involved House, Parliament refused to grant him an additional in the commission. The greater political charge, £20,000 to purchase the land which would protect however, came from the second parliamentary debate the royal family’s privacy; the King was never on the proposals. able to construct the palace he long contemplated On 28 April, two days after the Committee building at Richmond.22 Buckingham House had proposed resolutions concerning the ownership of already attracted considerable attention: when it Buckingham House and Somerset House, a further was purchased in 1762, a full description of it was resolution was proposed, one which would grant published in The Gentleman’s Magazine.23 By the King £100,000 towards the costs associated with 1774, £73,000 had been spent on alterations to the purchasing and renovating Buckingham House.25 property, and as the debate over the Act unfolded, This second resolution led to an exchange between North presented the House with the costs of the Edmund Burke and Thomas Townshend in which works the king had undertaken; these accounts they debated what was appropriate for the Somerset were subsequently published in papers including House project.26 In his report to the King, Lord

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

North simply noted that ‘there was a little dispute Although several papers, such as Lloyd’s Evening […] about the expence of building the design’d Post, published summaries of the debate, on 29 Offices. Mr Burke pressing for Splendor, & Mr April, the Morning Post published a lengthy article Townshend recommending economy’.27 While which reads as if it were a transcript.33 It reported North gave no other details of the exchange, many that in response to North’s proposals, Burke called have seen Burke’s speech as a critical moment in on those responsible for the project: defining the terms of the project. ‘not to let the new building be such a disgrace to Accounts of Somerset House have stressed the the public, as so many of the public buildings of importance of Burke’s conviction that the building the present are. When we go to a great expence of should be a magnificent one. Chambers himself 100,000l. or more, do not let us sordidly save a few referred to Somerset House as ‘a Child of your own’ thousands and disgrace ourselves by such ill-timed 28 parsimony. There are few opportunities of doing any in a letter to Burke. More importantly, in 1781, with thing of this sort; this is one of them, and I would wish advice from Chambers, Joseph Baretti published the new edifice may be rendered an ornament to this A Guide to the Royal Academy.29 Chambers’s great, wealthy, and luxurious metropolis. When the involvement in the Guide is not surprising: not public money is spent on public works, the public only had he designed the new apartments, as the spend it on themselves; they enjoy those works when elegant and magnificent; they pride themselves on the Royal Academy’s Treasurer and one of the founding glory of their country possessing such. I never walk members who had originally approached George III thro’ but I think it mine; it is every for support, he was extremely proud of his work in man’s; and when such works are erected, they do creating the Royal Academy and likely saw the Guide honour to the age.’ as a vehicle to celebrate the institution as well as the building.30 In the Guide, Baretti reported that while Burke noted that there would be two fronts to Robinson had been appointed to design buildings ‘decorate’, the Strand and the river front, and called ‘in a plain manner’, Burke and ‘other Men of taste’ in for the purchase of the houses along the Strand which Parliament: ‘contracted’ the Strand front of Somerset House, an ‘having suggested the propriety of making so vast expense which he believed would be made up for and expensive a Design at once an object of national by the advantages of the expanded site. In response, splendour as well as convenience, it was resolved, not North replied that this proposal was not ‘the present only to execute the Work with the strictest attention to the design’, that ‘It is meant to make the principal front business of the Public Offices; but likewise with an eye to to the River’, and that to purchase the private houses the Ornament of the Metropolis; and as a monument of on the Strand would be very costly. A longer and the taste and elegance of His Majesty’s reign.’31 more thorough opposing speech was then given by In discussions of Somerset House, Baretti’s Townshend, who attacked the entire proposal, in explanation has been cited by numerous this account largely on the basis of costs; he declared architectural historians, including , he could not see any advantage in bringing together , John Newman, and John the various offices, which would undoubtedly be Murdoch.32 Yet while this text is invaluable, it was expensive and that he was against the idea ‘of making written years after the project was begun, and it is it an object of ornament and expence, while the only a summary of a debate, one which Chambers public purse is so poor […] I do not see the use of undoubtedly followed carefully. As reported in the making our hospitals palaces, nor yet this college of press, this debate touched on several critical issues, offices a palace’. Burke’s reply invoked national values splendour being only one of them. and the potential for the project to reflect them:

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

‘Our freedom, Sir, ought to dictate the magnificence public pride in public buildings, is summarised, of our public works – common wealths have ever its key recommendations are the same; however, shewn their glory and their liberality by these splendid Townshend opposed Burke with different reasons.34 expences. Reflect on the edifices of the common wealth of antiquity more magnificent than those of emperors, According to this paper, Townshend: as the buildings of the Republic of Holland exceed ‘delivered a lecture on taste, the different prevailing the efforts of Kings. The Stadthouse of Amsterdam is modes of architecture, and the opinions of the several a greater and better work than Versailles; but, Sir, this great professors of that art, particularly Sir William country has been niggardly throughout the present Chambers, and Messrs. Adam and Wien;35 and after a age – we have done nothing. Let this age come in for a general condemnation of modern architectonical taste, share of that fame which attends the exertion of these and the absurdity of its votaries […] expressed a total laudable and useful expences. […] as you must build disapprobation of all schemes of magnificence in the – as there must be fronts, and ornaments of some sort, present state of our public finances.’ let them be beautiful – let them really decorate this great capital – let them in some degree partake of the splendor The paper reports that Burke defended his of the people to whom they belong, and by whom they argument, but it does not give any details as to how are raised.’ he did so, effectively allowing Townshend to have the Burke’s speeches represent the project as a rare final say; similarly, thePublic Advertiser noted that opportunity for a public building project, and this in replying Burke had shown ‘his masterly Talents is how Chambers himself viewed it. For Burke, it for Wit’, but that this ‘did not lessen the Force of was not a project which was necessarily associated Mr. Townshend’s Argument’.36 Like the Gazetteer, with the Court, but rather one which might the London Chronicle emphasized that Townshend illustrate English constitutional liberties; his second had identified aesthetic concerns as well as financial speech in particular emphasized the idea of the ones, noting he ‘expressed his disapprobation of commonwealth, and it is clear that he saw the project introducing taste and polite arts into a committee as one which could celebrate the constitution rather of supply, and was for strict œconomy in public than risk violating it. Like North, he referred to the buildings; justly remarking, that after all our building as an ornament, but he stressed that it could expences for ornament and magnificence, what one inspire patriotic feeling, a more powerful experience man approved another would dislike’.37 Evidently, than simply the appreciation of current taste. In this while Burke’s speech was about the architectural account, the call for splendour was not a matter of ambitions for the project, it was Townshend’s speech expenditure, but of patriotism: the decorations for which explored the real implications. the fronts of the complex would be much greater When Baretti wrote his account of Burke’s than themselves. involvement in the commission, he summarised it The Morning Post’s article, however, was not in such a way that Burke appeared to have won the the only account of the debate: other papers printed debate. The newspaper accounts from 1775 make different versions, and their reports, particularly clear that the reality was much more complex: their reports of Townshend’s speech, illustrate Burke’s initial speech framed a recommendation the challenges implicit in elevating the project to for the widening of the Strand front which North the patriotic role Burke wished it to have. One of immediately dismissed, and it was Townshend who the most significant of these is the article in the introduced the idea of what ‘splendour’ might mean Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, which was in terms of architectural style. Most importantly, published the same day. In its account, while Burke’s however, the debate between these three led to a initial speech, on the rarity of the opportunity and series of letters which developed the ideas they had

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’ introduced, as a result of which the issue went from a parliamentary debate to a public discussion. Like the Morning Post, the Middlesex Journal published a lengthy report and apparent transcript of the debate between Burke and Townshend.38 Its account is almost identical to that presented by the Post, but whereas the Post concludes with Burke’s final statement, theJournal goes on to report the reaction at court: ‘The King and Mr. Burke agree entirely in their ideas of ornamenting the capital. Mr. Adams [sic] has given in two plans for Somerset-House, one of great magnificence, the front towards the Strand, of length equal to that against the River, and both very splendid. In the other he conforms with Lord North’s parliamentary œconomy, keeps to the old line of front, and is upon the whole but a mean design. His Majesty is strong for the first, but his Minister tells him that it will not do in the House: it is however clear that the House of Commons are ready to be liberal upon this occasion, and if the opportunity is lost of decorating the town, Lord North only is accountable for it.’

This passage suggests that in the wake of the debate on 28 April, there were two issues which would define ensuing discussions of the project: whether or not the project would be a magnificent, and therefore more expensive, one, and who was at work creating designs for it. While this account is the only one to mention the King’s views on these issues, the same topics dominated a series of letters to the editor. These letters illustrate how architectural critics initially responded to the government’s proposal. Two of the earliest commentaries focused primarily on the issue of splendour. On 2 May the Middlesex Chronicle published a letter from own recommendation would be for ‘a quadrangle, ‘A Friend to Public Improvements’.39 This writer which will afford the whole extended back-front to began by agreeing with Burke that both the the river, and thereby might be made to look in a Strand front and the river front would be critical palatial stile like one uniform and regular façade’, a to the impact of the building complex, and then plan which he deemed not only more powerful in outlined two potential plans which would serve effect, but more convenient for the people within. to accomplish this: he noted that two detached He described himself as ‘tenacious’ in his attachment buildings with an open central space, similar to the to the river front, and at the end of his letter he plan of Greenwich hospital, was an option, but his suggested that three designs in the second volume

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

Fig. 3. J. Maurer, ‘A Perspective View of the Royal Garden of Somerset. next the River’, London, 1753, engraving. () of Vitruvius Britannicus – specifically the elevation Another writer praising Burke’s goals stuck to of Dyrham House, the elevation of Newbold Hall, generalities: in a letter published in the Morning and the elevation of a ‘New Design […] in the Chronicle on 3 May, he declared that ‘we are in Palatial Stile’ which had dedicated general much too negligent of appearance in our to Earl Cadogan – might be appropriate models publick buildings, and the consequence is, that for it.40 In effect, this writer was so invested in the foreigners who always admire the commodiousness idea of splendour that he attempted to work out of this city, remark there is little elegance, with less the aesthetic concerns Townshend had raised as magnificence’. 41 He went on to argue that this problems. building project was an opportunity ‘to shew to

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

Europe the wealth and inexhaustible resources clean Italian city, but does not agree with dirty, smoaky which must ever attend our happy situation for London. Handsome stone edifices are infinitely more preferable than brick buildings, even after the stone commerce […] the manufactories of this country is grown black. It is much to be lamented that we were never at the pitch they are at present’. Finally, have nothing in this great and famous metropolis of he called on men from both sides of the House England worth seeing, notwithstanding the rout we of Commons to demonstrate ‘the advantage they make about the improvement of arts and sciences.’44 receive from their polite educations and extensive travelling’. What these letters have in common is This letter, written by ‘Vitruvianillikini’, also their conviction that London needed a palatial appeared in the Morning Post on 9 May. 45 Given building to reflect Britain’s place in the world. its attitude towards the Adams and that it also After these letters were published, more letters contained a more subtle criticism of Wyatt, it might appeared which considered not only the potential be read as a recommendation of Chambers. It is for a magnificent building, but who would be called the only letter which comes close to a specific on to design it. That they explored this suggests recommendation: other letters discussed the choice that either it was not widely known that Robinson of architect in more general terms. Responding to had been given the commission, or it was felt that it the letters of 4 and 9 May, one writer praised the Post was still so early in the project that it might easily be for publishing letters about Somerset House, and transferred to another architect. Townshend himself then called on ‘the artists of Great Britain’ to prepare had introduced three potential candidates, and on 4 plans, declaring: May, the Morning Post published a letter from ‘Crito’ ‘The chief considerations are to procure the best which commented on them. ‘Crito’ began by praising view to the river, as likewise to the Strand; and I am Burke’s argument, claiming that while the complex confident that his Majesty would be happy to see may not be necessary at all, if the buildings were to the skill and ingenuity of persons exerted for the be built, building ‘an ornament to the metropolis’ ornament and convenience of the metropolis. The greater task which is displayed in public works, would be the wiser choice. He then stated that he though copied from the ancients, would be a national feared ‘the employment of a fool of an architect’, benefit and advantage, by exciting foreigners to visit a but that he did not ‘think that either Mr. Adam, Sir country where they might see elegance of architecture Wm. Chambers, or Mr. Wyat [sic] will make this displayed in the public and private buildings.’46 college of offices another , which is in as expensive a stile as the Banqueting-House, but For this writer, the potential for magnificence and the deserving nothing but contempt’.42 The same letter choice of architect were effectively the same issue: it appeared in the Middlesex Journal, though this time would be an artist who could best serve the needs of the writer identified himself as ‘Titus’.43 Another the city. Writing in the Public Advertiser on 5 June, letter on the issue, published in the Middlesex an author who identified himself as ‘Pericles’ came to Journal on 6 May, was harsh in its criticism of the a similar conclusion: Adam brothers: ‘in the Election of an Architect […] I hope such a ‘The Adelphi Terrace looks abominable, like a great Choice will be made that we may not have Reason to custom house […] I shall hope too, that Mess. Adam regret the Loss of that ancient Edifice The Situation will give us none of their gingerbread ornaments, is superior to all our public Buildings. Its happy which when smoak-dried and dirty, look very ugly. – Elevation, and the fine View of the River from that Plain Grecian architecture surely is much genteeler. Point, are singular Advantages […] Each Front, in The taste they have introduced may do very well for a a Stile adapted to the View, may display different Beauties; and, being placed so conspicuously, each will

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

be an Object of equal Attention. In all Probability it is (1761), a fully illustrated guidebook in which the an Undertaking destined to determine the Taste of this images were ‘overwhelmingly architectural’.51 Age in that Way, and will either exalt or reprobate our Thomas Sandby was also a founding member, and Pretensions to Fame.’47 as Professor of Architecture, he delivered lectures In concluding his letter, ‘Pericles’ did not name in which he lamented the lack of grand building an architect, but he did call on those responsible projects.52 While these writers had different visions for selecting one to do so with the ‘Approbation for how London might be transformed, they were of the President and Members of the Royal consistent in arguing that as the capital of a wealthy Academy’; significantly, this too might be seen as a and powerful country, London was not nearly as recommendation for Chambers. magnificent as it should be. By the time Chambers From all these letters, it is clear that, whereas came to the Somerset House project, then, it the immediate reaction to the Somerset House had been grounded in a rich discourse of civic proposals had been to treat the project as a royal improvement. and government initiative, the public responses to Improving the city through building was not Burke’s speech defined the project as a potential merely an idea. Since the early 1760s, the number contribution to the improvement of the city. Calls of buildings under construction in London had for magnificence in public buildings were not been enormous: between 1761 and 1766, for uncommon in the mid-eighteenth century. The example, the number of houses begun doubled.53 construction of in 1738 led Many public building projects were under way, to the publication of a pamphlet entitled A Short although no commission for a royal palace or new Narrative of the Proceedings of the Gentlemen, Parliament buildings – opportunities for which Concerned in Obtaining the Act for Building a Bridge many architects longed – ever appeared.54 The lack at Westminster which declared that public buildings of these commissions has sometimes overshadowed ought to be built with magnificence, and they the period’s successful public building projects, performed ‘the greatest service to a State’.48 In 1766, which included offices for the John Gwynn published London and Westminster (begun by Sir Robert Taylor in 1765), the Pantheon Improved, in which he argued that: in (designed by and ‘publick works of real magnificence, taste, elegance begun in 1769), Newgate Prison (designed by George and utility, in a commercial city, are of the utmost Dance the Younger and begun in 1768), the Society consequence; they are not only of real use in point for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and of splendor and convenience, but as necessary to the Commerce building in the Adelphi (designed by community as health and cloathing to the human the Adam brothers in 1771) and the expansion of 49 body.’ Lincoln’s Inn (designs commissioned from , James Paine, Matthew Brettingham and Chambers knew Gwynn well: both men had been Taylor in 1771, begun according to Taylor’s designs founding members of the Royal Academy, and in 1774). There were also major public building both were deeply interested in the possibilities projects under way outside London, including the for architecture supported by the state.50 Gwynn Royal Exchange at Dublin (following a competition shared a house with Samuel Wale, another founding in 1769, the commission was awarded to Thomas member, who was extremely knowledgeable about Cooley) and the Register House in Edinburgh London’s architecture: Wale illustrated Robert (designed by Robert Adam and begun in 1774). Dodsley’s London and its Environs Described Like the writings of Gwynn and Sandby, these

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’ buildings are crucial for understanding for the The newspaper coverage of the early debates debate on the Somerset House project: all were surrounding the Somerset House project was just either recently completed or under construction in the beginning of the public discourse about it. 1775. For the public, the combination of the texts Newspapers continued to report on the project’s and images about improvement and the construction progress: on 22 September 1775, the Morning Post of these buildings created a discourse of urban reported that workmen had begun to take down Old transformation to which the Somerset House project Somerset House but were soon ordered to stop as would clearly contribute. there were concerns that the money for the project These building projects might also be would be needed by the army in America; that same associated with the various letter writers’ comments day the Public Advertiser declared that plans for the on the choice of architect. While Chambers’s complex had been presented to the King.56 In May disappointment in not receiving the commission 1776, the London Evening Post and the St James’s from the beginning is well-known, the letters Chronicle announced that Chambers had laid the first indicate that, in public, the choice of architect stone of the new buildings.57 That August, the Public was not a settled thing, and that Chambers was Advertiser printed a letter from ‘Albertus’, in which not in competition with Robinson, but rather he celebrated Chambers’s appointment as architect, with the Adam brothers and James Wyatt. The predicting that he would ‘adorn this City […] with Adams and Wyatt were highly fashionable, and a Structure in all the Chastity of the most classical they were experienced with public buildings and Roman Architecture’.58 For the London public, the grand schemes; of the projects named above, building continued to be worthy of attention. none had been designed by Chambers, whose Chambers had been aware of the Somerset practice specialised in domestic projects (including House project since it was discussed in 1774, so when commissions for the royal family). Chambers does he received the commission in November 1775, he not appear to have been considered the ‘inevitable’ had had over a year in which to work out his ideas. choice for the project, and Robert Adam’s Yet while he undoubtedly brought these ideas to involvement in these early stages must have been the commission when he took over after Robinson’s particularly significant. Although his designs for death and set Robinson’s plans aside, the debates of Somerset House do not survive, the knowledge that 1775 influenced the terms of his work. Burke’s vision his most powerful rival was working on proposals of a patriotic building, Townshend’s reservations of his own may have inspired Chambers to create about the appropriate style for such a complex; the designs which embodied his own architectural widespread interest in improvements in the capital; principles. The impression of architectural the sense that the project itself was a competition competition emerged again after Robinson’s death between the leading architects of the day; and the in 1775; on 27 October, the Morning Post reported risk that the building might be too closely associated that ‘The three great architects Adams, Chambers with royal power – Chambers must have been aware and Wyat, are busy on plans for the new buildings, of all of these issues as he prepared his designs. The at Somerset-house, which-ever is taken, the others discussions about the project had unfolded through will appeal to the public’.55 That many seem to have several different newspapers, a forum to which he been prepared to accept any of London’s leading was very attentive. When the scaffolding came off the architects would have substantially increased the Strand block of Somerset House, the first element of pressure on Chambers to articulate openly the the new complex to be completed, Chambers wrote superiority of his designs. his own account of the new building and arranged

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’ for his article to appear in several London papers.59 15 London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post, He knew very well that his legacy in newsprint had 25–27 April, 1775, Issue 2868; Public Advertiser, 27 April 1775; Issue 14218; Lloyd’s Evening Post, the potential to shape his legacy in stone. 26–28 April, 1775, Issue 2782. 16 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 27 April 1775, Issue 14 406. 17 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 27 April 1775, Issue 780. 18 London Evening Post, 25–27 April 1775, Issue 8282. endnotes 19 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, 25–27 1 J. Summerson, Georgian London. (London, 1988), April 1775; Issue 949. The issue of army barracks p. 119. in London, which enabled the army to intervene 2 for a full discussion of Chambers’s work on in a situation or suppress civil unrest quickly, Somerset House, see J. Harris, Sir William remained controversial well into the nineteenth Chambers: Knight of the Polar Star. (London, century: D. Arnold, ‘Rationality, Safety and Power: 1970), pp. 96–106. The street planning of later Georgian London’, 3 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, 22–25 The Georgian Group Journal (1995), p. 47. April 1775, Issue 948. 20 J. E. D. Binney, British Public Finance and 4 m. Craske, ‘From Burlington Gate to : Administration, 1777–92 (Oxford, 1958), p. 118. James Ralph’s attempt to impose Burlingtonian 21 l. Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837 classicism as a canon of public taste’, in B. (New Haven and London, 2005), p. 208. Arciszewska and E. McKellar (eds), Articulating 22 Colley, Britons, p. 197. For a discussion of the designs British Classicism: New Approaches to Eighteenth- prepared for a palace at Richmond, see D. Watkin, century Architecture. (Aldershot, 2004), p. 115. The Architect King: George III and the Culture of the 5 r. Wittman, Architecture, Print Culture, and the Enlightenment (London, 2004), p. 103. Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century France (New 23 ‘A Description of Buckingham-House, just York and London, 2007), p. 51. purchased by the King for a Palace for the 6 J. Black, George III: America’s Last King (New Queen’s Majesty’, The Gentleman’s Magazine 32 Haven and London, 2006), p. 102. (1762). 7 for a discussion of newspaper circulation and 24 J. Roberts (ed.), George III & Queen Charlotte: readership, see J. Brewer, Party Ideology and Patronage, Collecting and Court Taste (London, Popular Politics at the Accession of George III 2004), p. 116. For a full account of the works (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 142–7. carried out after the purchase of Buckingham 8 The Parliamentary Register, or, History of the House, see H. M. Colvin (ed.), The History of Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons the King’s Works , V (London, 1976), pp. 134–38; […] Volume I. (London, 1775), p. 437. Lord Lloyd’s Evening Post, 28 April-1 May 1775, Issue Rochford presented this message to the House of 2783; Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, Lords. 27–29 April 1775, Issue 950. 9 Lloyd’s Evening Post, 12–14 April 1775, Issue 2776; 25 Parliamentary Register, p. 444. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 14 April 1775, 26 There were two MPs named Townshend in 1775, Issue 14 395. and North was not specific; however, Charles 10 London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post, Townshend was a friend of North, and Thomas 22–25 April 1775, Issue 2867. Townshend was a member of the opposition. 11 St James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, 27 J. Fortescue (ed.), The Correspondence of King 22–25 April 1775, Issue 2214. George the Third: From 1760 to December 1783, 12 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 26 April 1775, 6 vols. (London, 1928), III, p. 208. Issue 779. 28 ‘Burke Correspondence, Sheffield Public 13 Parliamentary Register, p. 439. Library Bk 2/543’, quoted in Harris, Sir William 14 General Evening Post, 25–27 April 1775, Issue 6431. Chambers, p. 98.

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v   t h e c o m m i s s i o n f o r s o m e r s e t h o u s e i n t h e ‘ e y e o f t h e p u b l i c ’

29 Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, 28 46 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 10 May April 1781, Issue 3727. 1775, Issue 791.The same letter appeared in the 30 C. Saumarez Smith, The Company of Artists: The Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser later in Origins of the in London. the month (20–23 May 1775, Issue 960). (London, 2012), pp. 52–53, 74. 47 Public Advertiser, 5 June 1775, Issue 14252. 31 J. Baretti, A Guide through the Royal Academy. 48 A Short Narrative of the Proceedings of the (London, 1781), pp. 3–4. Gentlemen, Concerned in Obtaining the Act for 32 Harris, Sir William Chambers, p. 97; Colvin, Building a Bridge at Westminster (London, 1738), The History of the King’s Works, V, p. 367; J. pp. 23–24, p. 45. I was directed to this pamphlet Newman, Somerset House: Splendour and Order. by A. F. O’Byrne, ‘Composing Westminster (London, 1990), p. 5; J. Murdoch, ‘Architecture Bridge: Public Improvement and National Identity and Experience: The Visitor and the Spaces of in Eighteenth-Century London’, in M. E. Novak Somerset House, 1780–1796’, in D. Solkin (ed.), (ed.), The Age of Projects. (Toronto, 2008), p. 243. Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions 49 J. Gwynn, London and Westminster Improved. at Somerset House, 1780 – 1836 (New Haven and (London, 1766), p. 20. London, 2001), p. 9. 50 m. Ogborn, ‘Designs on the City: John Gwynn’s 33 Lloyd’s Evening Post, 28 April-1 May 1775, Issue Plans for Georgian London’, Journal of British 2783; Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 29 April Studies, 43 (January 2004), pp. 35–36. 1775, Issue 782. 51 e. McKellar, Landscapes of London: The City, the 34 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, 29 April 1775, Country and the Suburbs 1660–1840. (New Haven Issue 14 408. and London, 2013), p. 97. 35 ‘Wien’ is most likely a printing error. Given that he 52 J. Bonehill, ‘“The centre of pleasure and is mentioned in other reports commenting on the magnificence”: Paul and Thomas Sandby’s same issue, this is likely to be a reference to James London’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 75 Wyatt. (Autumn 2012), p. 368. 36 Public Advertiser, 29 April 1775, Issue 14220. 53 G. Worsley, Classical Architecture in Britain: The 37 London Chronicle or Universal Evening Post, Heroic Age. (New Haven and London, 1995), p. 289. 27–29 April 1775, Issue 2869. 54 D. Stillman, English Neo-classical Architecture, 38 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, 27–29 2 vols (London, 1988), II, p. 347. April 1775, Issue 950. 55 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 27 October 39 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, 1775, Issue 937. 29 April-2 May 1775, Issue 951. 56 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 22 September 40 C. Campbell, Vitruvius Britannicus II (London, 1775, Issue 907; Public Advertiser, 22 September 1717), p. 99. 1775, Issue 14344. 41 Morning Chronicle and London Advertiser, 3 May 57 London Evening Post, 28–30 May 1776, Issue 8455; 1775, Issue 1855. St James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post, 42 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 4 May 1775, 28–30 May, 1776, Issue 2374. Issue 786. 58 Public Advertiser, 9 August 1776, Issue 14618. 43 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, 59 J. Newman, ‘Somerset House and Other Public 29 April-2 May 1775, Issue 951. Buildings’, in J. Harris and M. Snodin (eds.), 44 Middlesex Journal and Evening Advertiser, Sir William Chambers: Architect to George III 6–9 May 1775, Issue 954. (New Haven and London, 1996), p. 118. 45 Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 9 May 1775, Issue 790.

t h e g e o r g i a n g r o u p j o u r n a l v o l u m e x x i v  

Top View