The Holbein Gate and the Tiltyard Gallery

CHAPTER 2: THE HOLBEIN GATE AND THE TILTYARD GALLERY

In order to connect the main buildings on the east side of the street with those portions of the Palace, as well as the Park, on the west side, Henry VIII constructed two gates. (fn. n1) Both are shown in the "Agas" view (see p. 23). The more important, as well as the more ornate, of the two was that called the King's Gate or the Cockpit Gate. It is more generally known as the Holbein Gate, (fn. n2) from the tradition that it was designed by Hans Holbein.

There seems very little to be said for this tradition. (fn. n3) Holbein's first stay in England was in 1527–8, when the building of Whitehall Palace was not even contemplated. His next visit was in 1532, when the Gate was either finished, or nearing completion. (fn. n4) It is not until 1536 that any trace is found of his being in the King's service, and the first reference to him in the Household Accounts as in receipt of a salary is dated 1538. If his name is rightly connected with the Gate, a more likely suggestion is that the association may be due to his having occupied one of the rooms over the Gate as a workshop, though no evidence to this effect has been found.

Several views of the Gate are in existence, from which it is easy to obtain a good general impression of its appearance, though in detail they are not entirely consistent. Three have been reproduced in the plates at the end of this volume. They are: (a) the well-known engraving made by Vertue in 1725 and published in 1747 in Vol. I of Vetusta Monumenta (Plate 5); (b) the original signed drawing made by Vertue in 1724 for the purpose of the engraving, and now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries (Plate 6); and (c) a geometrical elevation of the Gate, ascribed also to Vertue by the late Walter L. Spiers, and now in the possession of Mr. Charles E. Russell (Plate 7). The last-mentioned, besides being an excellent specimen of draughtsmanship, obviously executed with great care for detail, is important as being the only view of the Gate extant which is furnished with a scale.

There are several differences in detail between this drawing and the one certainly made by Vertue, the most important being the shape of the central arch. This is due to a difference in the width allowed to the arch at groundlevel, which the geometrical elevation shows as 12 feet 9 inches, but which the groundplan of the Gate (here reproduced), engraved by Vertue in 1725 and published with the engraving of the Gate in Vetusta Monumenta, gives as 12 feet only. The resulting "squatness" of the arch in the geometrical elevation also appears in other views, including that of Hollar (see Plate 4 in Vol. XIII of the Survey of London), and is even intensified in the inset view on Morden and Lea's Map reproduced on p. 12. Which of the two representations is correct is perhaps doubtful, but the difference between the two renders Vertue's authorship of the geometrical elevation very questionable.

The Gate (fn. n5) was a rectangular building, in three stages, with octagonal turrets at each corner. It contained a central archway for vehicles, and on the east side a smaller archway for pedestrians. According to the plan of 1670 (Plate 1), the west side was occupied by a room and a staircase, and this is to an extent confirmed by the plan of the Ormonde premises in 1696 (p. 58), which shows no through passage. Morden and Lea's view of 1682, in common with some others, shows a door on the west side blocked up, a fact which suggests that there may originally have been a footway on that side of the Gate also. In any case, according to Vertue's ground-plan, whatever obstruction existed had been cleared away before 1725 and a western footway made, or restored. Over the central arch was an oriel window of six four-centred lights in two stages, crowned with a battlemented parapet. Below the lights was a carved panel containing the Royal Arms. The storey above had a window of fourcentred lights, also in two stages. The octagonal turrets at the angles continued above a square base (with splayed angles) which embraced the side archways, and on each face of the turrets were small two-light windows similar to those in the centre. Beneath the windows to the turrets were carved panels with traceried heads. In the upper panels were gryphons holding shields, while the panels to the lower stage contained the Tudor rose, fleur-de-lis and portcullis, each surmounted by a royal crown. Below the panels on the north face of the Gate, were small crosslet openings, while the south face had in corresponding positions rectangular windows divided into two lights by a mullion. Moulded string courses continued across the front, including the turrets, and in the centre a battlemented parapet ramped up, probably following the rake of the lead roof behind. The turrets continued an extra storey, with a single-light window to each face, and a battlemented parapet.

Both faces of the Gate were similar in detail, with the general wall surface chequered in stone and flint. On each face were four roundels containing busts (see further in Appendix A). Originally, both faces of the Gate seem to have been surmounted by a form of ornament in common use at Whitehall (fn. n6) —the figure of an animal on a high pedestal, holding a flag in its paws. (fn. n7) In the latest views this ornament is omitted, but Vertue's drawing (Plate 6) shows the remains on the north face.

At some time in the Gate's existence the height of its central opening was reduced by the filling in of the arch down to the level of the springing, and a 3-light window was inserted in each face. In the views of Whitehall by Hollar and Sylvestre, and in subsequent views until 1724, the gate is shown with the central opening treated in this way. It can hardly be supposed that the Gate was built thus, and the view of "Agas," circa 1570 (p. 23), shows the arch clear. On the other hand, the rough sketch of the face of the Gate given in the margin of Wyngaerde's unfinished drawing of Whitehall (Plate 9) shows the opening already reduced, and if the sketch was made by the same hand as the drawing, this is evidence that the Gate was altered within a few years of its erection. (fn. n8)

On the west side of the Gate, Henry VIII built "a sumptuous gallery," in which, in Stow's time, "the Princes with their Nobility" used "to stand or sit, and at Windowes to behold all triumphant Iustings, and other military exercises" in the adjoining Tiltyard. (fn. n9). From this it obtained the name of the Tiltyard Gallery, (fn. n10) and from the fact that the tiltyard was used for bear-baiting, was occasionally known as the Bear Gallery. (fn. n11) It continued westwards to a staircase (fn. n12) leading into the Park, and was connected with another gallery leading to the Cockpit. (fn. n13) Von Wedel, in his Journey through England, (fn. n14) has left us a description of the Tiltyard Gallery in 1584:

"A man, in whose keeping the rooms of the palace are, took us out of the garden and led us to see the inner part of the palace, to which there are only two keys. On mounting a staircase we got into a passage right across the tiltyard; the ceiling is gilt, and the floor ornamented with mats. There were fine paintings on the walls, among them the portrait of Edward, the present queen's brother, who was cut out of his mother's womb, (fn. n15) he remaining alive, whilst the mother died. If you stand before the portrait, the head, face, and nose appear so long and misformed that they do not seem to represent a human being, but there is an iron bar with a plate at one end fixed to the painting; if you lengthen this bar for about three spans and look at the portrait through a little hole made in the plate in this manner O, you find the ugly face changed into a well-formed one. (fn. n16) This must indeed be considered a great piece of art. There is also a portrait of Moses; they say that it is very like, (fn. n17) but it looks as if one were blowing into burning coal in the dark. Also Christ's passion, apparently painted in glass, all set with gilt roses." (fn. n18)

It was through the Tiltyard Gallery that Charles I proceeded from the Park to Whitehall on the day of his execution, and the gallery was, in fact, one of the regular means of approach to and exit from the Palace. To prevent abuses it was found necessary to make regulations governing the entrance to the Privy Gallery from the Tiltyard Gallery, and "the second Door from the Parke att the Darke Passage over the streete" was fixed as the point beyond which neither the Royal footmen and other liveried servants, nor any "inferiour, meane, idle and unknowne persons" were permitted to pass. (fn. n19)

The rooms over the Gate were in two storeys. The lower storey in 1756, just before the demolition of the Gate, contained one large room and three closets. (fn. n20) The number of rooms in the upper storey is not known. This storey was in 1756 utilised as the Paper Office, and had certainly been used for that purpose as early as 1672. (fn. n21) If, as seems probable, it is the same as the Chair Chamber, the use goes back to 1654, (fn. n22) or even to shortly after the death of Henry VIII. (fn. n23)

On 9th August, 1706, Wren reported as to the want of room at the Paper Office "in the Tower," and suggested that one method of obtaining more accommodation would be "by addition of the rooms underneath and contiguous to it now in the occupation of Monsieur Van Huls." (fn. n24) The suggestion, however, was not carried out, and the papers were still confined to the upper rooms in 1756. In that year, the Commissioners of H.M. Treasury had before them a report stating that the Gate had been examined, and it was found that the upper storey was "a Repository for State Papers, so that the Gateway … cannot properly be taken down until Provision is made for the Papers of State." (fn. n25) It was thereupon decided to remove them to "a room over the Passage that goes from the Treasury to the Secretary of States Office."

The large room over the Gate was in 1605 used in connection with the preliminaries for the creation of Knights of the Bath. The candidates (including Charles, Duke of Albany, afterwards Charles I, then about four years old) "tooke their lodgings at Whitehall in the first gate-house going to Kings-streete, where they were all after supper, at which they sat by degrees a row on the one side, w^t the armes of every of them, over ye seate where he was placed, and lodged upon severall pallats in one chamber, with their armes likewise over them, having their bathes provided for them in the chamber underneath. The next morning being Saterday, they went about through the gallory downe into the Parke in their Hermits weedes," (fn. n26) and thence to the Chapel.

The lower storey some years later was in use (no doubt in addition to other rooms in the vicinity) as lodgings. A complete record of the occupants is not possible, but it is known that the Duke of Lennox was there in 1620. (fn. n27) In 1663 or the beginning of 1664 Lady Castlemaine removed to apartments which included the rooms over the Holbein Gate, and we have Pepys' authority for the statement that these rooms had previously been occupied by General Lambert. (fn. n28) Presumably these were the lodgings which he was forced to give up in 1657, and which were then assigned to Viscount Fauconberg, who afterwards became Cromwell's son-in-law. (fn. n29) For the first few years after the Restoration Lady Castlemaine had resided at "Hance's House," next to the Bowling Green, (fn. n30) a building entirely disconnected from the royal lodgings. This was not unattended with inconvenience, and on 25th April, 1663, Pepys records a rumour ("they say") to the effect that she was "removed as to her bed from her own home to a chamber in White Hall, next to the King's Own." A few days later (11th May, 1663) Mr. Pierce informed Pepys that "Lady Castlemaine hath now got lodgings near the King's chamber at Court." Whether this is to be taken as evidence of her removal to the rooms over the Gate is doubtful. An account of works carried out in April and May, 1663, at her lodgings, mentions inter alia the "Bellconey" in the Dining Room, and this agrees with the statement in the parliamentary survey that that room in "Hance's House" was "very well accomodated and fitted with a Handsome Belcony." Moreover, a reference in November, 1663, to "the Countess of Castlemaines lodgings by the bowling green" suggests that she was still in that house. It seems probable, therefore, that Mr. Pierce's statement is to be regarded rather as a confirmation of the rumour, mentioned above, as to the provision of a special bedchamber.

Such a provision was merely a temporary expedient, and the countess was installed in her new lodgings certainly not later than January, 1663–4. She had not been there long when a fire occurred. Under date of January, 1663–4, is a record (fn. n31) of an allowance of £1 made to four men "for theire Attendance & paines in playing the water Engins when the fier was at ye Countess of Castlemaines lodgings." According to Pepys the fire took place on the night of 25th January. (fn. n32) The account (fn. n33) of the renovation works rendered necessary, contains references to "ye passage goeing downe the staires next ye parke," and "the staires that comes up out of the privie garden into the said lodgings," thus making it quite certain that the lodgings over the Gate are intended. The same account also refers to "the Countess of Castlemains bedchamber & the Ceiling of her Closset," "the withdrawing roome there," "ye dineing roome," "the nursery & the Closset belonging to it," and "the staires Coming down from the nursery & the Closset on the top of the staires." Later references mention the countess's aviary (fn. n34) and the "back staire case goeing downe out of the said lodgings into the tilt yard gallery." (fn. n35) It is evident that her apartments comprised far more than the small accommodation available over the Gate. The additional rooms must have been to the east. (fn. n36)

In April, 1668, the burlesque reply to The Poor Whores Petition to … the Countess of Castlemaine was issued as from "our closset in King Street." At the end of the month the countess was presented with Berkshire House, St. James's, but seems to have retained her Whitehall lodgings. In 1670 she was created Duchess of Cleveland, and her influence thenceforth steadily diminished. Her rooms seem to have been transferred to the use of her daughter, the Countess of Sussex, (fn. n37) though they were still known as "the Dutches of Clevelands lodgings" in 1683. (fn. n38)

According to the petition of William Van Huls, Clerk of the Queen's Robes and Wardrobes, in 1712, (fn. n39) William III "at his first Arrival at Whitehall in the year 1689 was graciously pleased to appoint" to Van Huls' brother, the Dutch Secretary, and "soon afterwards" to Van Huls himself, "the Lodgings over the Gate near ye Park." These lodgings obviously included, as in the case of those of the Duchess of Cleveland, certain rooms to the east of the Gate, for the petition goes on to mention "that Great part thereof was buryed [sic] down at the Grand Fire of that Palace." (In addition, Van Huls had obtained possession of certain rooms over the Tiltyard Gallery, see below.) He asked for a lease of a portion of the ground between the Gate and the Banqueting House for the purpose of building offices, and for permission to utilise any old materials buried in the great quantity of rubbish then lying on the premises. (fn. n40) As a result, he obtained a lease, to expire in 1743, of a piece of ground, about 40 feet long and 38 feet deep, "the dimensions of the said Gateway from N° to South." Here he built a house. In 1737 Mrs. Edith College (whose rooms near the Cockpit had been acquired for the purpose of Kent's Treasury, see p.30) obtained (fn. n41) a reversionary lease of the premises for 41½ years, the interest in which subsequently came into the hands of Thomas Ramsden. (fn. n42) Long before the expiry of the term, however, the Gate was down, and the premises demolished.

The inconvenience to traffic caused by the presence of the Holbein Gate and the King Street Gate is obvious, and in the early part of the 18th century proposals for their demolition were put forward. In 1719 the Holbein Gate was within an ace of destruction. On 23rd July of that year Lord Stanhope wrote from Hanover: (fn. n43) "The House of Commons having the last session of Parliam^t address'd the King to Cause a more Convenient Passage to be made thro' the Gatehouse next to the Privy Garden tending from Whitehall to Westminster, His Majesty is pleased to Direct Your Grace to Referr this matter to the Board of Works, with Directions that they should Consider what will be the Expence of pulling down the said Gatehouse, and in what time it may be done, and if upon their Report your Grace finds that the Expence will not be Considerable and that it Can be perfected before the next session of Parliament, it is His Maj^ts Pleasure that Your Grace should sett Workmen about it, without any further Orders, taking Care that the Records and Papers of State remaining in the Paper Office be removed to some Convenient place in Whitehall."

The idea, however, did not meet with unanimous approval. In a letter written a fortnight later (fn. n44) Vanbrugh says: "I find many people surpris'd there shou'd be no other expedient found to make way for coaches, &c., that destroying one of the greatest curiositys there is in London as that gate has ever been esteem'd, and cost a great sum of money the building; and so well perform'd that altho' now above 200 y^rs old [sic], is as entire as the first day. The Chancell^r of the Excheq^r said much of this to me last night being entirely of opinion it ought not to be destroy'd, if an other expedient can be found, and there is a very easy one, with small expence, which is. To open the wall of the Privy garden near Lord Rochesters and turn the passage thorough a slip of that wast ground, coming out into the street again between M^r. Vanhulsse's and the Banquetting House. I know of no objection to this, and by this means both Lord Stanhope & the Comptroller (fn. n45) will be ten times more reliev'd … than by pulling the gate downe." This, or similar protests, bore fruit, and when, in 1723, the King Street Gate was demolished, the Holbein Gate was left standing. Directions were, however, given (fn. n46) for the arch "to be cleared of the Floor or Segment that now cuts the same, so as the Passage through that Arch may be open and clear as at first when it was built." At the same time the decision was made to carry out a further portion of Vanbrugh's suggestion. It was agreed (fn. n47) that the wall of the Privy Garden between the two gates should be removed, and a new wall built "from the corner of the Building adjoyning to the Banquetting-House to the narrow passage leading to Channell-Row," and further, in order that there might be a clear way from "the Street before Whitehall" it was also agreed that "the Platform where the Guns now stand, (fn. n48) as also the House now Inhabited by M^r. Vanhuls, and all the Walls and Buildings between the Banquetting House or the Building adjoyning thereto" should be taken down. For some reason that part of the proposal which related to the Van Huls house was not carried out, but the Gun platform was removed at once, and the arch cleared shortly after. (fn. n49) Contemporary views (see Plate 8, or Canaletto's painting reproduced in Plate 7 of Vol. XIII) show the opening near the Banqueting House, with Van Huls' house still standing.

The Gate thus obtained a respite of more than 30 years. On 11th June, 1755, the Commissioners of H.M. Treasury referred (fn. n50) it to the Board of Works to consider whether the pulling down and rebuilding of the Gate was practicable, and whether it might be "commodiously erected at the end of the New Street leading from the New Bridge [Westminster Bridge]," and at the same time instructions were given for negotiations to be entered into with Mr. Ramsden for the purchase of the Van Huls house. The premises were acquired in March, 1759, (fn. n51) and in August of the same year the Gate was demolished. According to J. T. Smith, (fn. n52) the Duke of Cumberland begged the materials with the intention of re-erecting the gate at the end of the long walk in Windsor Great Park, and for this purpose Thomas Sandby made a design, which included the provision of side wings. Nothing, however, was done, and the materials are said to have been worked into several buildings in Windsor Park.

There were also rooms over the tiltyard gallery. The origin of these is determined by an order, (fn. n53) dated 15th May, 1666, "to permitt ye Lord Mandevell [Robert, Viscount Mandeville, who on his father's death in 1671 became Earl of Manchester] with his Owne Workemen to build Lodgings over the Gallery at Whitehall towards St. James Parke." (fn. n54) On his death in 1683 the lodgings were purchased for the Duke of Grafton. (fn. n55) He does not seem to have stayed there long, for in 1686 Lord Feversham was in occupation. (fn. n56) A later occupant is indicated by a further order (fn. n57) of 5th August, 1689, to deliver to Sir Rowland Gwynn, Treasurer of the Chamber, "the Lodgeings in Whithall whereing the Earle of Manchester formerly was, and the Count Meremont now is, over the Gallery leading to the Parke." The list (fn. n58) of Whitehall lodgings, drawn up in 1691, and afterwards corrected, shows the rooms ("in the Park over the staires: 6 roomes, 2 Garretts") occupied by "Mons^r. Zuleston," subsequently corrected to "Mon^r Van hulst" with the note; "Hee is the Dutch Secretary." In this case also William Van Huls succeeded to his brother's rooms. (fn. n59) In the report on William's petition in 1712, we are told that the "gallery is so decayed, and the timbers pressed out from under the said roomes, that they will fall in if not speedily supported." Four years later Hugh Boscawen, Comptroller of the Household, the occupier of the premises standing on the site of Dover House, obtained possession of the gallery, and the staircase leading to the Park was pulled down (see p. 59). Finding Van Huls' continued occupation of the rooms above the gallery inconvenient, Boscawen applied for them himself. It was then (1719) discovered (fn. n60) that "M^r. Van Huls has no right to the Lodging Rooms which he now possesses over M^r. Comptroller's Appartments in the Cockpitt near the Gatehouse," and he was accordingly compelled to leave them. Their later history is bound up with that of the site of Dover House (see Chapter 6).

In the Council's Collection are:

(fn. n61) "Whitehall Gate" (north elevation) (photograph of drawing by G. Vertue, 1724, in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries).
"The Gate of Whitehall" (north elevation) (photograph of coloured drawing in the Guildhall Library).
The Holbein Gate (north elevation) (photograph of drawing in the Sutherland Collection, Bodleian Library).
(fn. n61) Geometrical elevation (north) of the Holbein Gate (photograph of scale drawing in the possession of Mr. Charles E. Russell).
"Antient Gate which Stood at Whitehall, Built in the Reign of King Henry the VII and taken down 1759" (north elevation) (photograph of coloured drawing by Charles White, 1759, in the possession of Mr. Charles E. Russell).
"The King's Gate at Whitehall leading to Westminster" (south elevation) (photograph of engraving in the Crace Collection, British Museum).
(fn. n61) "Whitehall Gate" (the Gate and the house of Mr. Van Huls) (photograph of engraving in the Crace Collection, British Museum).
(fn. n61) Whitehall from the south circa 1750 (photograph of water-colour drawing ascribed to T. Sandby in the Guildhall Library).