1 See Summerson, John, ‘The Buildings of Theobalds, 1564-1585’, Archaeologia, 97 (1959), pp. 107–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Summerson, John, Architecture in Britain 1530-1830, 9th edn (New Haven and London, 1993), pp. 33–36 Google Scholar; Husselby, Jill, ‘The Politics of Pleasure: William Cecil and Burghley House’, in Patronage, Culture and Power: The Early Cecils, ed. Croft, Pauline (New Haven and London, 2002), pp. 21–45 Google Scholar; Sutton, James, Materialising Space at an Early Modern Prodigy House. The Cecils at Theobalds, 1564-1607 (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar.

2 See Higham, Charles S. and Sanders, Stracham, Wimbledon Manor House Under the Cecils (London, 1962)Google Scholar; Milward, Richard John, Tudor Wimbledon (Wimbledon, 1972)Google Scholar; Knight, Caroline, ‘The Cecils at Wimbledon’, in Patronage, Culture and Power, pp. 47–66 Google Scholar.

3 See Gunton, Richard Thomas, ‘The Building of Hatfield House’, unpublished MS compilation of the accounts for Hatfield House (1895)Google Scholar, Hatfield House Archives (hereafter Hatfield) MSS; Stone, Lawrence, ‘The Building of Hatfield House’, Archaeological Journal, 112 (1955), pp. 100–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, Family and Fortune — Studies in Aristocratic Finance in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford, 1973), pp. 64–78 Google Scholar; Gapper, Claire, Newman, John and Ricketts, Annabel, ‘Hatfield: A House for a Lord Treasurer’, in Patronage, Culture and Power, pp. 67–95 Google Scholar.

4 See Davies, Randal, The Greatest House in Chelsea (London, 1914)Google Scholar. In 1621, Inigo Jones designed a fine rusticated gateway there for its new owner, Lionel Cranfield. It was re-erected at Chiswick House, Middlesex, by the 3rd Earl of Burlington in 1738. See Harris, John, Catalogue of the Drawings Collection of the Royal Institute of British Architects — Inigo Jones & John Webb (Farnborough, 1972), p. 13 Google Scholar; Harris, John and Higgott, Gordon, Inigo Jones — Complete Architectural Drawings (New York, 1989), pp. 128–31 Google Scholar.

5 See Brushfield, Thomas, ‘Britain Burse, or the New Exchange’, British Archaeological Association Journal, 9 (1903), pp. 33–34 Google Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, ‘Inigo Jones and the New Exchange’, Archaeological Journal, 114 (1957), pp. 106–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, , Family and Fortune, pp. 95–109 Google Scholar; Harris, and Higgott, , Inigo Jones, pp. 36–38 Google Scholar.

6 See notes 1-3 above.

7 Edwin Beresford Chancellor’s The Private Palaces of London Past and Present (London, 1908) is still the main reference for the Strand palaces, while the Survey of London (London, 1900-) includes no more than cursory analysis of the subject. Before my own studies, Salisbury House featured in an analysis by Jane B. Lingard of ‘The Houses of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury 1595-1612’ (unpublished MA thesis, The Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, 1981), pp. 21-31. John Adamson is the author of an unpublished ‘Rough Notes for a Study of the Building History of Salisbury House, London, under the First and Second Earls of Salisbury’, which relates to the years 1607-11, of which he kindly provided me a copy.

8 Bracken, Susan, ‘Robert Cecil as Art Collector’, in Patronage, Culture and Power, p. 123 Google Scholar.

9 Robert Cecil to George Carew, 24 October 1602. See Letters from Sir Robert Cecil to Sir George Carew, ed. John MacLean, Camden Society, 88 (1864), p. 144.

10 See Bracken, Susan, ‘Holbein’s “Chatsworth Cartoon”: Its Possible Location in the 17th Century’, British Art Journal, 1 (Autumn 1999), pp. 14–15 Google Scholar; Bracken, Susan, ‘Robert Cecil as Art Collector’, in Patronage, Culture and Power, pp. 121–37 Google Scholar; Bracken, Susan, ‘The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste’, in The Evolution of English Collecting: Receptions of Italian Art in Tudor and Stuart Periods, ed. Chaney, Edward (New Haven and London, 2003), pp. 201–19 Google Scholar. I am grateful to Susan Bracken for her suggestions.

11 Henry Peacham described Cecil as the ‘principall patrone’ of the visual arts. See Peacham, Henry, The Compleat Gentleman: Fashioning Him Absolut, In The Most Necessary And Commendable Qualities Concerning Minde Or Body, That May Be Required In A Noble Gentleman (London, 1612), pp. 7–8 Google Scholar. Quoted in Chaney, Edward, ‘The Italianate Evolution of English Collecting’, in The Evolution of English Collecting, pp. 1–124 (note 311, p. 107)Google Scholar.

12 R. Proby to R. Cecil, 3 January 1598-99 (Historical Manuscript Commission, hereafter HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 9, 8): ‘I beg to present you a book fitter for your eyes than mine, being a collection from ancient records of personal services due to the Crown, especially at the coronation. When I brought you the book of the state and condition of Island, you told me that you esteemed books more than gold’. For a discussion of Cecil’s books, see below.

13 This is evident from a dead lease of 1670 (Hatfield, Estate & Private MSS, hereafter ETPM, London 2/113, 118) which records ‘twos [sic] roomes called the twos greater library roomes’ at Salisbury House. Despite the late date of the document, the evidence suggests that both libraries were erected by Robert Cecil (see below).

14 T. Wilson to R. Cecil, 9 August 1605 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 17, pp. 358-59). Cecil’s direct involvement in his house enables these words to be considered something more than a courtly encomium.

15 See Hatfield, ‘A Cattalogge of all your Lordships printed Bookes as they are nowe disposed in your Lordships Librarie [at Salisbury House] taken this 26th of Januarie 1614 [1614 /15]’. Each category is given a location in what appears to be a single library. I am very grateful both to Robin Harcourt-Williams, for providing me with a copy of this catalogue and for discussing it with me, and to Mark Girouard, who gave me a copy of his transcript of the architectural books and discussed that with me.

16 Apart from those mentioned in the text, relevant titles under ‘Historie’ include: ‘Perspective R:[obert] Cotton in fol. given to my Lo[rd] of Arondell [probably as a Christmas gift]. Under ‘naturall Philosophie & Phisice, &c.’: ‘Des fortificat. de Jaques [du Cerceau?] in fol.; Discoursi della fortificat. de Carolo Thetti [i.e. Carlo Theti, Venice 1589] fol.; Quinque; Colum. Per Johannem Bluom fol. [1550] [i.e. Hans Blum’s A Description of the Five Orders of Coloumns, printed in English in 1608]; La magnifique entre de Mounsr Francoyse fol.; Fortification [Venice, 1570] di Mr. Galasso [Alghisi] in fol.; Durerus de Architectura in fol. [Albert Durer, De Urbibus Archibus Castellisque Condendis Ac Miuniendis Rationes Aliquot, Paris 1535] inscribed Gulielm. Cecilius; [ Norden, John], The survayers Dialogue in 4.; Ivie, Paul [Ivy] his fortificacion in 4.; La manier de fortifier villes in 4.’Google Scholar

17 Of the architectural books, only two, those by Du Cerceau and De Caus, were added by Robert Cecil. I owe this information to Robin Harcourt-Williams.

18 See: Guerci, Manolo, ‘John Osborne, the Salisbury House “Porticus”, and the “Haynes Grange Room”’, The Burlington Magazine, 148 (January 2006), pp. 15–25 (and March 2006, pp. 205, 232)Google Scholar; Guerci, Manolo, ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century: Salisbury House and Northumberland House’, 2 vols (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2007), 1.1, pp. 63–78 Google Scholar; Harris, John and Hradsky, Robert, A Passion for Building. The Amateur Architect in England 1650-1850 (London, 2007), pp. 26–28 Google Scholar; Colvin, Howard, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, 4th edn (New Haven and London, 2008), pp. 760–61 Google Scholar.

19 See Parry, Graham, The Golden Age restar’d: the culture of the Stuart Court, 1603–42 (Manchester, 1981), pp. 1–39 Google Scholar; Lubbock, Jules, The Tyranny of Taste. The Politics of Architecture and Design in Britain 1550-1960 (New Haven and London, 1995), pp. 147–66 Google Scholar; Stevenson, Christine, ‘Occasional Architecture in Seventeenth-Century London’, Architectural History, 49 (2006), pp. 35–74 Google Scholar.

20 See Croft, Pauline, ‘Cecil, Robert, First Earl of Salisbury (1563-1612)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter ODNB), 10 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 746–58 Google Scholar. On Robert Cecil’s biography, see also Cecil, David, The Cecils of Hatfield House (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Croft, Pauline, ‘Robert Cecil and the Early Jacobean Court’, in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Peck, Linda Levy (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 134–47 Google Scholar; Croft, , Patronage, Culture and Power. I am most grateful to Pauline Croft, who read the chapters of my PhD dissertation, from which this article derives, and for many exchanges on Robert Cecil’s activities.Google Scholar

21 Molin, Nicolo, State Papers, Venetian 10 (1603-07), p. 515 Google Scholar. See Bracken, ‘Robert Cecil as Art Collector’, p. 123.

22 Mildred Cecil was educated at home by her father, tutor to Edward VI as well as a scholar, who gave her a classical education equal to that offered to boys. As Burghley’s wife, Mildred would have been in a prime position to exercise political influence at court. At her death in 1598, she made a number of charitable bequests, as well as gifts of books and money during her lifetime, including two scholarships granted to St John’s College, Cambridge, which continue to the present day. See Bowden, C. M. K., ‘Cecil [née Cooke], Mildred, Lady Burghley (1526-1589)’, ODNB, 10 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 733–34 Google Scholar.

23 On 1 August 1587 Richard Howland presided over the funeral of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, who was buried in Peterborough Cathedral. See Sheils, W. J., ‘Howland Richard (bap. 1540, d. 1600)’, ODNB, 28 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 532–33 Google Scholar.

24 Phyllis Margaret Handover, in The Second Cecil (London, 1959), p. 14, writes: ‘Cecil made an early start on Latin, the universal language of law and diplomacy … Burghley took a constant interest in the education of his children… and received from them Latin essays.’ See also Husselby, Jill and Henderson, Paula, ‘Location, Location, Location! Cecil House in the Strand’, Architectural History, 45 (2002), pp. 159–93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 See Foster, Joseph, The Register of Admissions to Gray’s Inn, 1521-1889, together with the Register of Marriages in Gray’s Inn chapel, 1695-1754 (London, 1889),Google Scholar British Library (hereafter BL), Sir Theodore Mayerne’s MSS, Sloane MSS, vols 2063 and 2066; also mentioned in Croft, ‘Cecil, Robert, First Earl of Salisbury (1563-1612)’, p. 758.

26 Venn, John and Archibald, John Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses. a Biographical List of All Known Students, Graduates, and Holders of Office at the University of Cambridge … to 1900, 6 vols (Cambridge, 1922-54)Google Scholar. The 1580 statutes of St John’s College, Cambridge, state that fellows and students should converse in Latin, Greek or Hebrew in the Hall, Chapel and other places in College. I am grateful to Jonathan Harrison of the Old Library, St John’s College, Cambridge, for this information, and for his kind availability to discuss several aspects of Robert Cecil’s education.

27 In January 1597 Elizabeth Cecil, pregnant with her third child, miscarried and died. Like her mother-in-law, Mildred Cecil, Elizabeth had significantly supported her husband’s position in the innermost circle of the regime, while their personal relationship is reputed to have been one of love. Cecil, debilitated with grief, was in fact to resist all future blandishments to remarry. See Croft, ‘Cecil, Robert, First Earl of Salisbury (1563-1612)’, pp. 746-58.

28 Owen, G. D., ‘Cecil, William, Second Earl of Salisbury (1591-1668)’, ODNB, 10 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 796–97 Google Scholar.

29 See Read, Conyers, Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1955)Google Scholar.

30 Croft, Pauline, ‘The Reputation of Robert Cecil: Libels, Political Opinion and Popular Awareness in the Early Seventeenth Century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., 1 (1991), pp. 43–69 (p. 46)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Cecil’s political career, see also Croft, , ‘The Religion of Robert Cecil’, Historical Journal, 34 (1991), pp. 773–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Croft, Pauline, ‘Robert Cecil and the Early Jacobean Court’, pp. 134–47; Croft, , Patronage, Culture and Power Google Scholar.

31 In the great group portrait known as ‘The Somerset House Conference’ of 1604 (National Portrait Gallery, London), Cecil turns to the viewer from his position at the head of the English delegation, with an inkpot, a quill pen, and a file of papers on the carpeted table in front of him, signifying his position as Secretary of State.

32 John Norden had mentioned it specifically in 1593 as ‘annexed on the east a proper howse of the honourable Sir Robert Cecill, Knight, and of Her Mats most honourable Prevye Counsayle’ (see BL, Harleian MS 570 I, fol. 39r). Quoted in Husselby and Henderson, ‘Location, Location, Location!’, p. 186.

33 See Milward, R., ‘Cecil, Thomas, First Earl of Exeter (1542-1623)’, ODNB, 10 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 776–78 Google Scholar.

34 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 14 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, Cecil Papers, hereafter CP, 87/12).

35 R. Percival to R. Cecil, 19 April 1603 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 15, p. 54).

36 For a recent evaluation of Burghley’s architectural patronage, see Sutton, Materialising Space at an Early Modern Prodigy House.

37 HMC, Egremont, I, p. 488, quoted in Anthony P. Baggs, ‘Two Designs by Basil’, Simon, Architectural History, 27 (1984), p. 104 Google Scholar.

38 In a letter of 25 October 1599 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 9, p. 378) Richard Percival is addressed to as ‘servant of Mr Secretary’; in other letters he is defined as ‘attendant’. His name appears in the second series of plans for Salisbury House of 1600-02 (see below).

39 See W. Cope to R. Cecil, 28 September 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, pp. 396-97). Cope’s intense correspondence with the most influential élite of the period reflects an ambitious character, similar to his master Cecil: ‘Sir Walter Cope grows more and more into the great Lord’, wrote John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 7 July 1608 (Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, hereafter SP DOM, 1603-10, 446). Amongst Cope’s personal errands for Cecil was the supervision of the improvements to the Theobalds water supply. See Allen, E., ‘Cope, Sir Walter (15537-1614)’, ODNB, 13 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 316–17 Google Scholar.

40 See Pollard, A. F., ‘Wilson, Sir Thomas (d. 1629)’, rev. Kelsey, S., ODNB, 59 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 645–47 Google Scholar.

41 Hatfield, Family Papers 2nd Supplement, hereafter FP2S, 1/85-89 (Bills 28, 1608).

42 Colvin, Howard, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, 4th edn (New Haven and London, 2008), pp. 105–06 Google Scholar. See also Colvin, Howard ed., The History of the King’s Works, 6 vols (London, 1975–82), 3, pp. 105–07, 108–20 Google Scholar.

43 A letter dated 15 September 1595 from Thomas Adams (Robert Adams’s brother) to Robert Cecil (HMC, Salisbury MSS, 5, pp. 378-79) recommended Basil as someone ‘studious in fortification’ and ‘able in platt or model to set down what kind of forts Cecil shall see fit to employ him about’.

44 See Hatfield, Family Papers, hereafter FP, 2/170; Hatfield MSS, CP 183 / 7; HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, p. 343 (Basil to Cecil, 14 Aug. 1601); Hatfield MSS, CP 87, p. 112; HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, p. 349 (Basil to Cecil, 18 Aug. 1601); Hatfield, FP, 2/173-4; Hatfield MSS, CP, 88/27; HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, p. 385 (Basil to Cecil, 7 Sept. 1601); Hatfield, FP2S, 1 / 9 (Bills 1602); Hatfield, ETPM, London 1 / 75 (Deeds 231/2 1602).

45 Amongst the Hatfield papers there is scarcely a bill related to the house that was not vetted by Basil before payment.

46 See Hatfield, FP2S, 1/56 (Bills 16, 1607).

47 Colvin, , Biographical Dictionary, p. 642 Google Scholar.

48 Hatfield, ETPM, General 1/267-8 (Bills 8, 9 1605): ‘agreement between Symon Basyll, comptroller of his Majesty’s works, with Samuel Jeniver, joiner, for making finishing & setting up of the wainscot in the gallery of the Earl of Salisbury’s house in the Strand’. Samuel Jeniver was probably of the same family as John Jenyver, who on 11 May 1599 was granted the office of joiner to the Queen’s Privy Chamber. See SP DOM, 1599-1601, p. 193.

49 See Hatfield, FP2S, 1/37-8, 1606: ‘Account of all such works as hath been done by John Decretts for the Earl of Salisbury’. If de Critz is generally recognized as a painter, Roland Buckett was primarily a decorative artist. See Bracken, ‘Robert Cecil as Art Collector’, p. 130. Stone, Family and Fortune, p. 103, describes him as ‘a fashionable interior decorator’.

50 See Edmond, M., ‘Critz, John de, the elder (d. 1642)’, ODNB, 14 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 225–27 Google Scholar.

51 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/37-8, 1/42 1606; 1/56-9 1607; 1/85-9 1608.

52 See Hatfield, FP, 3/246 (Bills 22), ‘Entertainment to the King and Queen in the Library of Salisbury House, may 6th, 1608’: ‘My Lord’s Reward given to the players for the shewe in the librarie. The Bill of what my lo. Appointed to be geven for rewards to the actors and devisors of the showe in the library besides the bills of severall workes and workmen. 6 may, 1608. [in the Earl’s hand] [Ben] Johnson, £20. [? Edward] Alyn £20. [Inigo] Jones £20.1 pray you pay this money to these three men. Juggler, £10. Salisbury.’ This is followed by Jones’s breakdown of expenses: Tnigo Jones his Accounte for the workes donn for the Right Honourable the Lo. Treasurer 1608. For Coollors, £3.15.0. Size 4/6. Goulde £4.12.0 Sillver 13/4. Wier 18/6. for Callico 3/-. For Whipcorde pacthred and threede 4/ for tooe Boxes 2/6. for Cotton 1/. For Pastbourds 8/ for Glue 1/6. for paper 7/6 for poots, Brishes and Pensiles 14/4. for Glasses for the Rokks 3/8. For Porters that carried the stufe 4/. For going by Water 5/. For Wagies for the Painters £9.2.6. Somm in all, £22.0.4. F°r my invention and Care of the Workes for which I have Reaseaved twenty Poundes of Mr Willsonne. Remainith unpayde £22.0.4. Inigo Jones.’

53 See Harris, and Higgott, , Inigo Jones, p. 30; Stone, , Family and Fortune, pp. 95–113 Google Scholar.

54 See Colvin, Biographical Dictionary, p. 592. Pointing out the popularity of loggias in Tudor and Stuart England, Paula Henderson suggests that ‘it is no longer necessary to automatically assume that the architectural talent of Jones would be required to build a façade with a fine loggia’. See Henderson, Paula, ‘The Loggia in Tudor and Stuart England: The Adaptation and Function of Classical Form’, in Albion’s Classicism The Visual Arts in Britain, 1550-1660, ed. Gent, Lucy (New Haven and London, 1995), pp. 109–45 (p.125).Google Scholar

55 Hatfield, FP, 3/287; 1609, Accounts 160/1. See Harris, and Higgott, , Inigo Jones, pp. 48–49 Google Scholar. Ten pounds was a large sum and could refer to several drawings rather than a single one. I owe this information to Gordon Higgott.

56 See Guerci, Manolo, ‘John Osborne, the Salisbury House “Porticus”, and the “Haynes Grange Room”‘, The Burlington Magazine, 148 (January 2006), pp. 15–25 Google Scholar (see also March 2006, pp. 205, 232); Guerci, ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century’, 1.1, pp. 63-78.

57 This differentiation is only to be found in sources that date from after 1611, when the construction of the smaller house began. For convenience, it is applied here from the start of the building history.

58 The claim in the Survey of London: The Strand, 18 (London, 1937), p. 121, that the overall building operations were ‘probably mostly in connection with Little Salisbury House’ is not supported by documentary evidence.

59 Hatfield MSS, Deeds 124/4.

60 Hatfield MSS, Drawer II /18.

61 Stow, John, The Survay of London: Containing, The Originall, Atiquitie, Encrease, and more Moderne Estate of the said Famous Citie (London, 1603; repr. 1956), p. 397 Google Scholar.

62 Book V, XIV, p. XX. Translated as On the Art of Building in Ten Books, by J. Rykwert et al. (Cambridge, Mass., 1988): ‘a House is a little City. We are therefore in the building of it, to have an Eye almost to every Thing that relates to the Building of a City; that it be healthy, furnished with all Manner of Necessaries, not deficient in any of the Conveniencies that conduce to the Repose, Tranquillity or Delicacy of Life.’

63 Public Record Office, The National Archives, London, hereafter PRO, C, 54/17/13. See Survey of London: The Strand, p. 120. On Russell, later Worcester, House in the Strand, see Madge, Sidney J., ‘Worcester House in the Strand’, Archaeologia, 91 (1945), pp. 157–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Lady Russell to R. Cecil, September 1599 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 9, pp. 358-61). The letter makes reference to two houses, the ‘mansion old house’ and ‘Dacre’s house’. The description provided above refers to the latter, which was possibly the ‘messuage called Russell House’ acquired by Cecil in 1599. Dacre House had become known as Russell House in 1539, by which time it had passed into the possession of John Russell, later 1st Earl of Bedford.

65 W. Fortescue to R. Cecil, 27 December 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, pp. 531-32).

66 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 18 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, CP, 87/112).

67 Ibid.

68 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 14 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, CP, 183/7).

69 See B. Sidney to R. Cecil, 24 August 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, p. 358); Bishop of London to R. Cecil, 26 August 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, p. 362; Hatfield, FP, 2/172; Hatfield MSS, CP, 183/24): T bought some Caen stone to help to repair the Church of St. Paul’s, some I have already empl[o]yed that way, and the rest is at your commandment without measure or price, for you might have left out the clause. I am desirous to hear your opinion of the treatise I left with you, as likewise to have it again. At Fulham, this 26 of Aug. 1601.’

70 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 7 September 1601 (Hatfield, FP, 2/173-4).

71 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 18 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, CP, 87/112).

72 Ibid.

73 Lord Herbert, from whom Cecil had acquired a house in 1599, maintained some rights on Ivy Lane. See ‘A book conteyning the evidences of a capitall messuage now called Salisbury House lying in the Strond, … whereof diverse deeds are entered at larg, and some abstracted …, being collected out of thevidences of the said Earle of Salisbury by Richard Langley of Lincolnes Inne Anno Domini 1606’, Anthony Taussig private archives, London, MS 2003.7.22 (hereafter Evidence Book of Salisbury House), 6 April 44 Eliz. [1602], p. 26: ‘A Conveyance from my Lord Herbert and my Lady of the moiety of Ivy Lane to Sr Robert Cecill and his heirs.’ I am grateful to John Baker for pointing to me this MS book of evidence of Salisbury House, containing a copy of deeds and conveyances up to 1605, and to Anthony Taussig for kindly showing it to me. The document was compiled by Richard Langley of Salop, clerk of Thomas Howen, JCP (d. 1600), at whose request Langley was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in 1594; he was called to the Bar in 1603.

74 Hatfield MSS, Deeds 131/4. See also Evidence Book of Salisbury House, 9 November 44 Eliz. [1602], p. 54: ‘The Copy of lres [i.e. letters] patente under the greate Seale of England and Seale of the Dutchy of Lane: whereby allowance is given to the turning of the way and water course And a grant from her ma.ty of the Soile and ground of the ould way and of the land incroched to the Said Sr Robert Cecill and his heires.’ As is evident from other documents, the water course referred to was running underground the lane down to the Thames.

75 S. Basil to R. Cecil, 14 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, CP 183/7).

76 See S. Basil to R. Cecil, 18 August 1601 (Hatfield MSS, CP 87/112).

77 W. Cope to R. Cecil, 28 September 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, pp. 396-97).

78 R. Johnson to W. Cope, 10 January 1602 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 12, pp. 597-98).

79 R. Percival to R. Cecil, 17 September 1602 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 12, p. 375).

80 Sir John Haryngton to Sir Robert Cecil, 22 June 1602 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 12, p. 199).

81 J. Chamberlain to D. Carleton, 4 December 1602: ‘The Quene should have come to the warming of Master Secretaries new house on Monday, but then the cold hindred yt, and on Wednesday the fowle weather, and wether yt hold appointment this day is a question.’ J. Chamberlain to D. Carleton, 6 December: ‘The Quene dined this day at Master Secretaries, where they say there is great varietie of entertainement prepared for her, and many rich Jewells and presents.’ See McClure, Egbert Norman (ed.), The Letters ofjohn Chamberlain, 2 vols (Philadelphia, 1939), 1, pp. 174–76 Google Scholar. See also Hatfield, FP, 2/207; Nichols, John, The Progress of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols (London, 1823), iv.i, pp. 31–32 Google Scholar.

82 Ed. by Bruce, John, Diary ofjohn Manningham of the Middle Temple and of Bradbourne, Kent, barrister-at-law, 1602-1603, Camden Society, 99 (1868), p. 100 Google Scholar.

83 W. Cope to R. Cecil, 28 September 1601 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 11, pp. 396-97): ‘I have spoken for the hastening of your house and street. I cannot imagine, except you will use gilt hangings for your gallery, how you can possibly furnish it. To have one suit or two that will supply that compass will be hard to find, and to have them of one work will be impossible. Good you resolve before the term, for there are not many suits in London, and against the Parliament they will soon be bought up.’

84 HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 12, p. 582. Quoted in Bracken, ‘The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste’, n. 125.

85 Baggs, ‘Two Designs by Simon Basil’, p. 104.

86 Comparison of the drawing style and handwriting of these plans with a signed map of Ostend of 1590, and a signed plan of Sherborne Castle made some time between 1600 and 1609, both preserved in the Hatfield archives (Hatfield, CPM I.51, Ostend; CPM II.4, Sherborne), left no doubt on Basil’s authorship. The similarity of the page size also suggested that the Sherborne plan is from the same notebook as the drawings in the Bodleian. See Baggs, , ‘Two Designs by Simon Basil’, pp. 104–06. Summerson’s Architecture in Britain, 5th rev. edn (Harmondsworth, 1970), p. 100 Google Scholar, comments on the first set of plans. I am grateful to the late Anthony Baggs for a discussion about these plans.

87 The presence of such a staircase is innovative amongst the Strand palaces and, more generally, in an urban environment, where the descent from the public rooms, traditionally located on an upper floor, to the garden would invariably be via small stairways often cramped within the turrets. Here they led to a loggia preceding a terrace, which balanced the relation between inside and outside, and from where access to the garden was provided on axis.

88 See Summerson, , Architecture in Britain, 5th rev. edn (Harmondsworth, 1970), pp. 97–102 Google Scholar.

89 See Henderson, , ‘The Loggia in Tudor and Stuart England’, pp. 109–45 Google Scholar.

90 See The Diary ofjohn Evelyn, ed. Esmond Samuel De Beer, 6 vols (Oxford, 1951). This new way of building would be dealt with by the various treatises written in English, from Henry Wotton’s The Elements of Architecture (London, 1624), to Roger North’s essay Of Building in the 1690s: North, Roger, Of Building: Roger North’s architectural writings, ed. Colvin, Howard and Newman, John (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar. See The Seventeenth Century Great House: The Proceedings of a Conference under the Joint Directorship of Edward Chaney and Malcolm Airs … University of Oxford, ed. Malcolm Airs (Oxford, 1995).

91 See Harris and Higgott, Inigo Jones, p. 88, fig. 24.

92 The additional site of 4 ft × 70 ft covers a limited part of the difference between the two plans of the basements. Assuming that the western boundary of the plan of the first series was indeed Ivy Lane, as previously argued, we must conclude that the alteration of the lane not only implied a change of the last part of its course (in proximity to the house), but also a total westward displacement of four feet. Unfortunately, some relevant parts of the deed lease of 1602 (Hatfield, ETPM, London 1/71, Deeds 131/4) are almost undecipherable, though entries like Tvey Lane usque Thamisis obstruere et includere posit’, that is permission for ‘obstructing and including Ivy Lane up to the Thames’, support this argument.

93 Hatfield MSS, Deeds 124/4. See above.

94 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/9 (Bills 4/6 1602).

95 If we disregard both the 16 feet added to the front of the great house by the eastward extension of 1605, and the same amount appertaining to the body of the ‘Middle Exchange’, a later construction mentioned by the deed lease of 1670 which occupied the Gallery of Little Salisbury House, the original length of the Strand front of Great Salisbury House goes back to the 106 ft indicated by the second series of the Salisbury House plans.

96 Baggs, ‘Two Designs by Simon Basil’, p. 104.

97 The detail and sheer quality of these plans suggest that they were not working plans for the craftsmen, but perhaps design schemes to be shown to Robert Cecil. The fact that some rooms are indicated with the names of their occupants could also qualify them as survey drawings, which would have proved an essential document in legal disputes over title (see Husselby and Henderson, ‘Location, Location, Location!’, p. 175). However, this would imply an executive nature for these plans, of which, as discussed below, we cannot be sure.

98 I refer to the 1600 version of Norden’s map (first executed in 1593) and to the third version of C. J. Visscher’s view of London of 1616, which essentially reproduces the first plan. See Darlington, Ida and Howgego, James, Printed Maps of London circa 1553-1850 (London, 1964)Google Scholar; London before the Fire: a Grand Panorama, From Original Seventeenth-Century Engravings, by Visscher, Hollar and de Witt, ed. John Wellsman (London, 1973).

99 Hollar first came to England in 1637 as a protege of the Earl of Arundel. The date for this view is suggested by the title of an eighteenth-century reprinting, published on 30 November 1808 by William Herbert Lambeth and Robert Wilkinson, though there is no evidence, as far as I know, to support it. The catalogue of the collection of the Pepys Library, Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, where the original is preserved, does not indicate a date. See Catalogue of the Pepys Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge, ed. Robert Latham, 7 vols (Cambridge, 1970-94), vol. 3, Prints and Drawings, pl. 237c.

100 Godfrey, Richard T., Wenceslaus Hollar — A Bohemian Artist in England (New Haven and London, 1995)Google Scholar, cat. 102.

101 The only possible source would be the riverfront view of Salisbury House by Hollar, which is controversially dated to the 1630s. See Hind, A. M., Wenceslaus Hollar and his Views of London and Windsor in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1922); Hollar’s London: 37 Etchings of London Views (1636-1667) (Edgeworth, 1980)Google Scholar; Parry, Graham, Hollar’s England: A Mid-Seventeenth-Century View (Salisbury, 1980)Google Scholar; Pennington, Richard, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677 (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar. The execution of Newcourt’s design, published in 1658, can reasonably be dated to the early 1650s, which anticipates by some years the period 1658-66, when Hollar’s plan of the ‘West Central District’ is supposed to have been produced. See Godfrey, Wenceslaus Hollar.

102 Interestingly, Anthony Baggs did not state whether these plans may have shown the house as built, rather than being unexecuted designs for it, remarking only that ‘Neither house [smaller and bigger plans thereof] is recognisable on Hollar’s mid-seventeenth century view of the area from the river where Salisbury House appears to be larger and to have corner turrets’. See Baggs, ‘Two Designs by Simon Basil’, p. 104.

103 Godfrey, , Wenceslaus Hollar, p. 12 Google Scholar.

104 It is worth noting, however, that in the case of Burghley House, Hollar incorrectly represented it as oriented east-west, while its plan clearly indicates the contrary. See Husselby and Henderson, ‘Location, Location, Location!’, p. 172. John Fisher of the Guildhall Library also pointed out to me what he calls ‘the minor inaccuracies’ of Hollar’s views, allowing for some space for interpretation. After all, Great Salisbury House as depicted by Hollar reveals an open court to the Strand, while the dead lease of 1670 (ETPM, London 2/113, 118) attests the presence of a smaller enclosed yard in the centre of the house, shown in the plan of 1600-02.1 am grateful to Paula Henderson and John Fisher for a discussion on this matter.

105 See Blunt, Anthony, Philibert De L’Orme (London, 1958)Google Scholar. On the evolution of the H-plan, see also ‘The Book of Architecture of John Thorpe in Sir John Soane’s Museum’, ed. John Summerson, The Walpole Society, xl (1964-66).

106 Hatfield, Library Catalogue, 1615. See above.

107 Henderson, ‘The Loggia in Tudor and Stuart England’, p. 138.

108 For views of Hatfield House, see Summerson, Architecture in Britain, pl. 28.

109 See Richard T. Gunton, ‘Summary of Documents concerning Salisbury House, Strand, afterward divided into Great Salisbury House & Little Salisbury House, 27 May 1605’: ‘Charges of the King’s dinner at S. House’ (Hatfield, FP 3/27).

110 T. Wilson to R. Cecil, 9 August 1605 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 17, pp. 358-59).

111 Hatfield, FP, 3/246 (Bills 22-34,1608).

112 See Hatfield, FP, 3 / 246 (Bills 22), ‘Entertainment to the King and Queen in the Library of Salisbury House, may 6th, 1608’: ‘Inigo Jones his Accounte for the workes donn for the Right Honourable the Lo. Treasurer 1608. … for Glasses for the Rokks 3/8’.

113 See Orgel, Stephen and Strong, Roy, Inigo Jones. The Theatre of the Stuart Court, 2 vols (London and Berkeley, 1973); Harris, and Higgott, , Inigo]ones, pp. 30–31 Google Scholar.

114 The accounts of 1605 include joiner’s bills ‘for wainscot in the gallery of the Earle’s house in the Strand’. See Hatfield, FP (Bills 8, 9, 1605). Presumably, this must have been for the new gallery, as the other was finished and decorated in 1602.

115 It would have been comparable with the 160 feet Long Gallery at Northumberland House, under construction in 1605. See Guerci, , ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century’, 1.2, pp. 100–29 Google Scholar; Guerci, Manolo, ‘The construction of Northumberland House and the patronage of its original builder, Lord Henry Howard: 1603-1614’, The Journal of the Society of Antiquaries,Google Scholar forthcoming.

116 The plan of the garret floor does not include this part of the house. See Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Gough Drawings, A3 fol. 76r.

117 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/56-59 (Bills 16,1607).

118 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/37-38 (General 17/20, 1606).

119 The erection of a portico implied the presence of an open space, which would only have been available in the courtyard, unless we assume that the ‘open gallery’ was a loggia located on the upper levels. However, the later construction of a portico in the court of Little Salisbury House suggests that the same feature may have ornamented the courtyard of the great house.

120 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/56-59 (Bills 16, 1607). In this case, the term ‘tafferel’ indicates a kind of cornice crowning the upper part of the window, while its old meanings include ‘panel’ and ‘carved panel’, suggesting that the tafferel might be quite elaborate. The term, of Dutch origin, was commonly in use in seventeenth-century accounts due to the established presence in England of Dutch carvers.

121 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/85-89 (Bills 28,1608).

122 Ibid.

123 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/56-59 (Bills 16,1607): ‘Glazing the upper part of 2 turrets’. A bill of 1606 (Hatfield, FP2S, 1/37-38, 1606, General 17/20) mentions ‘the Cornish under the Torris’.

124 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/85-89 (Bills 28,1608).

125 Hatfield, FP, 3/263 (Accounts 160/1,1609).

126 Hatfield, FP, 3/287 (Accounts 160/1,1609).

127 R. Percival to R. Cecil, 19 April 1603 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 15, p. 54).

128 James I, Private Acts, chapter I. See Survey of London: The Strand, p. 121.

129 R. Percival to R. Cecil, 20, 26 September 1605 (HMC, Salisbury MSS, vol. 17, pp. 426, 433-34). In regard to Vincent’s House, Percival wrote: ‘you must of necessity have Vincent’s House which is next the Cutlers, else the way will not range directly with Durham wall, but will come upon the wall which now cants out, where the outhouses and houses of office are.’

130 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/135-37 (Bills 51, 1610).

131 Hatfield, FP, 4/67 (Accounts 160/1,1611).

132 Hatfield, FP, 1/171-76 (Bills 59,1611).

133 In 1629 Anne Cecil, daughter of the 2nd Earl of Salisbury, married Algernon Percy, future 10th Earl of Northumberland, and lived at Little Salisbury House. This is evident from the inventory of 1629 (Hatfield MSS, Estate Papers, Box C, 8), which lists ‘my Lord Peircies Chamber’, ‘lodginge Chamber’, and ‘mens Chamber’. The inventory is discussed below.

134 Hatfield, FP, 4/241 (Box G 13,1612).

135 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/171-76 (Bills 59, 1611).

136 Hatfield, FP2S, 1 /171-76 (Bills 59, 4 July 1611): ‘Agreement between Symon Basili…, + John Lovelidge, carpenter, for the carpenter’s work of the new building at Salisbury House.’

137 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/171-76 (Bills 59,1611).

138 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/171-76 (Bills 59,1611).

139 Hatfield, FP, 4/135-36 (Box G 13, 1612).

140 Guerci, ‘John Osborne, the Salisbury House “Porticus”, and the “Haynes Grange Room”’, pp. 15-25.

141 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/171-76 (Bills 59, 1611); Hatfield, F.P., 4/135-36 (Box G 13, 1612); Hatfield, FP2S, 1/223-27 (Bills 70, 1612).

142 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/223-27 (Bills 70, 1612).

143 Hatfield, FP, 1/171-76 (Bills 59,1611).

144 Adamson, ‘Rough Notes for a Study of the Building History of Salisbury House’, p. 6.

145 References to a water gate can be found in the accounts from 1606 onwards, while the ‘mending of the water stairs’ is a frequent entry throughout the history of Salisbury House. See, for instance, Hatfield, FP2S, 1/85-89 (1608): payment for ‘cramp staple for the water gate’; or Hatfield, FP2S 214 (Accounts 148/15, 1650): ‘mending the stairs at the water side + repairing the rails + balusters, new setting up the same stairs which fell down by a great wind in Dec 1649.’

146 Ibid.

147 The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following meanings for the word ‘Sesturne’: 1. ‘An artificial reservoir for the storage of water; esp. a water-tight tank in a high part of a building, whence the taps in various parts of it are supplied’; 2. ‘Applied to various large vessels for water or liquor.’; 3. ‘A large vessel or basin, often richly ornamented, used at the dinner-table’. It is likely to have been a cistern or a water pipe, gilded and with Salisbury’s dates.

148 Hatfield, FP2S, 1/265-66 (Bills yy, 1613).

149 See Hatfield MSS, Box C/40.

150 For an analysis of this inventory, see Bracken, ‘Holbein’s “Chatsworth Cartoon”: Its Possible Location in the 17th Century’, pp. 14-15.

151 See Hatfield MSS, Box C/40: ‘A note of divers things w[hi]ch were in the Cabenetts.’

152 Bracken, ‘The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste’, p. 212.

153 This last object, and perhaps a good number of the Italian items at Salisbury House, may have been brought by William Cecil, Salisbury’s first son, who travelled in Italy in 1610. William’s step-cousins from the Exeter line had also paid several visits there, so they may have acted as a further channel for imports. Robert Cecil himself never travelled to Italy. See Bracken, ‘The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste’, pp. 201-19.

154 This is also the case of Northampton House, which, like Salisbury House, had two libraries; see Guerci, ‘The Construction of Northumberland House’. In effect, inventories of great households would not normally list books since their financial value was comparatively negligible. Consequently, as is evident from the 1629 inventory of Salisbury House discussed below, rooms clearly labelled as libraries do not always appear in these kinds of documents, considering that their function varied according to necessity. Books would, however, normally be valued as part of the process of probate of the lesser gentry and clergy. For further discussion, see Guerci, , ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century’, 1.2, pp. 100–29 Google Scholar; Howard, Maurice, ‘Inventories, Surveys and Histories of Great Houses’, Architectural History, 41 (1998), pp. 14–29 Google Scholar; Dils, Joan, ‘The Books of the Clergy in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Berkshire’, The Local Historian, 36, no. 2 (May 2006), pp. 92–105 Google Scholar. I am grateful to Robin Harcourt-Williams and Mark Nichols for their advice.

155 Bracken, ‘Holbein’s “Chatsworth Cartoon”: Its Possible Location in the 17th Century’, p. 14.

156 A portrait of the Duke of Parma is recorded since 1868 in the Hatfield collection. See Auerbach, Erna and Adams, C. Kingley, Paintings and Sculpture at Hatfield House (London 1971), pp. 64, 134 Google Scholar.

157 See Bracken, , ‘Robert Cecil as an Art Collector’, pp. 121–37 Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Early Cecils and Italianate Taste’, pp. 201-19.

158 See Hatfield, Estate Paper, Box C/8.

159 See above note 130.

160 The main house, that is Great Salisbury House, would generally be referred to in the documents as ‘Salisbury House’, while Little Salisbury House assumed a sequence of different names. See Hatfield, FP, 3/36, 36a (Estate Papers, Accounts 28 /16): ‘Work at Lord Newport House’; G. Garrard to the Earl of Strafford, 27 February 1634: ‘He (Lord Cottington) longs to be gone from the house, which I hope shortly he shall; for I have gotten for him that part of Salisbury House [i.e. Little Salisbury House] where my Lord Newport lived, who is removed’, Hatfield, FP, 6/98 (Strafford Letters, vol. 1, p. 207).

161 G. Garrard to the Earl of Strafford, 1 April 1634: ‘Lord Cottington your friend is now come to be my neighbour in the other part of Salisbury House, which I am most glad of.’ Hatfield, FP, 6/98 (Strafford Letters, vol. 1, p. 227). Garrard evidently lived in a house adjoining Little Salisbury House.

162 See Hatfield, Family Papers Supplement, hereafter SFP, 2/36 (Estate Paper, Bills 196, 1640): ‘Work at the house where the earl of Devonshire dwells’, endorsed ‘Work done at the West end of Salisbury House [i.e. Little Salisbury House]’; Hatfield, SFP, 2/68-71 (Estate Paper, Bills 211, 1645): ‘Glazing the new window in Devonshire House;… Laying old stone in the cloister under Devonshire House.’

163 See Guerci, ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century’, 1.2, pp. 137-61.

164 See Hatfield, FP, 7/119 (Estate Paper, Box L, 2, 1647): ‘work at Devonshire House [i.e. Little Salisbury House] when my Lord Howard entered’; Hatfield, SFP, 2/90 (Bills 242,1649): ‘bolt for the side of the house in Worcester yard + in my Lord’s Howard’s yard [at Little Salisbury House].’ A ‘Lord Howard’s footman’s chamber’ is also recorded in 1636 amongst bills for works in the main house. See Hatfield, SFP, 1/354 (Estate Papers, Bills 181,1636).

165 See Hatfield, FP, 6/148-53,157 (Box 1,4,1637): ‘Works at [Little] Salisbury House £154:10:8. include, new building [i.e. Middle Exchange] the south end of the gallery, setting up the clock and 4 dials new flooring the gallery’; Hatfield, FP, 6/187, 157 (1637, Box 1, 4, 1638): ‘Charges of reparations, surveys &c £92:14:10½; include surveying the new building at the end of the gallery at [Little] Salisbury House.’ The date of c. 1670 for the erection of the Middle Exchange, suggested by the Survey of London: The Strand, p. 122, is definitely incorrect.

166 Strype, John, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster: Containing the Origin, Antiquity, Increase, Modern Estate and Government of those Cities written at first in the year MDXCVHI by John Stowe, Citizen and Native of London …, 2 vols (London, 1720), 2, p. 120 Google Scholar.

167 Ibid.

168 After the first inventory of 1612 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/40), Salisbury House was inventoried in 1618 (no extant documentary evidence); 1629 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/8); 1639/40 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/9); 1646 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/4); twice in 1647 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/5-6); 1657 (Hatfield, Estate Papers, Box C/6); 1685 (Hatfield, FP 10/1133); 1686/7 (Hatfield, FP, 9/169); 1688/9 (Hatfield, FP, 2/264); 1692 (Hatfield, FP, 2/268). Most of these documents are in the form of ‘inventory of goods’, which are not ordered topographically.

169 Hatfield, SFP, 2/23(1639, Bills 193).

170 Hatfield, FP2S, 2/148 (1640, Accounts 148/11).

171 Hatfield, SFP, 2/68-71 (1645, Bills 211): ‘Salisbury House, repairs to the lower rail on the “pergulary” next the garden.’

172 Harris and Higgott, Inigo Jones, pp. 90-91.

173 Ibid.

174 Hatfield, SFP, 2/68-71 (Bills 211, 1645).

175 Hatfield, FP, 7/227-8 (Box M 2, 1652).

176 Hatfield, FP2S, 2/29, 221 (Bills 255, 1652).

177 When the New Exchange opened in 1609 shops were offered on eleven-year leases. The expiry of the leases coincided with the most serious trade depression of the century, so that a large portion of the exchange remained untenanted during the 1620s. In 1623 it was reported that the 2nd Earl of Salisbury had sold the entire first floor to Lady Hatton, wife of Sir Edward Coke, for £6,000, to be converted into her own town house (see Stone, Family and Fortune, p. 106). However, the project fell through and in 1627 the first floor of the New Exchange was instead converted into sixteen small tenements, to be let on twenty-one-year leases at rents of £12-£15 per year. Again the outcome was unsuccessful, as eight years later these tenements were demolished and replaced by shops again. For this latter design, due to the carpenter-architect Thomas Avys, and executed under the direction of Francis Carter, senior officer in the Royal Works during the surveyorship of Inigo Jones, see Hatfield Mss, General 57/19, 22, and Guerci, ‘The Strand Palaces of the Early Seventeenth Century’, vol. 2, cat. nos. ix, x, pp. 263-66.

178 See Hatfield, Deeds 125/3,1670: ‘Lease by L Doyley to R Cordwell of shop as the same is now lately built & made in the Hall & cloister & part of the passage belonging to Great Salisbury House. (Salisbury Hall, or Middle Exchange)’; Hatfield, Deeds 125/5, 1670: ‘Lease by the same to H Allen, of shop, adjoining a messuage & shop near Worcester House Gate, being part of the east end of Great Salisbury House’; Hatfield, ETPM, London 2/121 (Legal 110/2, 1670): ‘Agreement for lease to J Staples, of part of a courtyard, certain rooms &c (part of Salisbury House).’

179 Hatfield, ETPM, Herts., 1 /145 (Legal 2,1670). It is worth noting that, if we did not assume that the gate of Great Salisbury House was at the west end of the building, as shown in the plans of 1600-02, and not in the centre, as depicted by Hollar, the description in the lease would be incomprehensible.

180 Hatfield, ETPM, London 2/113,118 (Deeds 125/4, 1670): ‘Lease by the Earl of Salisbury to L Doyley of Great Salisbury House, with court next the Strand, yard called the Paved Pump Yard, part of the garden abutting on the said messuage on the north, & on the Thames on the south, the mansion of the Marquis of Worcester on the east: the Earl reserving the west part. Schedule of the wainscot in Great Salisbury House annexed.’ For the established prize, see the Countess of Salisbury to the Countess of Rutland, 4 June 1670 (Hatfield, FP, 8/211, Rutland Letters 66): ‘to answer your Ladyships commands concerning Sals: house my lord would willingly have had more but since that is not to be hop’d for he is content to take £300, reserving the galery and wardrope making up that door that comes to the great staire case, and allsoe that little cloister which is in the court, which also we will make up, soe that they may have the intire house without any trouble.’

181 Hatfield, ETPM, London 2/113, 118 (Deeds 125/4, 1670). The relevant paragraph of this deed reads thus: ‘reserved unto the Said Earle his heirs and assignes All that roome comonly called the Gallary and all that roome called or known by the name of the gallery chamber togeather with all roomes underneath the said Gallary chamber and all that roome over the gallery comonly called the wardrobe and also a little square room adjoining to the said wardrobe on the east side thereof and all other roomes whatsoever over the said gallery chamber and wardrobe and all that way and passage leading down towards the River of Thames beginning from the litle doore leading into the said Garden or orchard at the end of the roome called the Kitchin belonging to the premisses above dimised togeather with the said little doore and all the cloyster on the south of the said passage.’

182 The Countess of Salisbury to the Countess of Rutland, 4 June 1670 (Hatfield, FP, 8/211 Rutland Letters 66).

183 Ibid. (Hatfield, FP, 8/208, Rutland Letters 63J.

184 Ibid. (Hatfield, FP, 8/201, Rutland Letters 57).

185 See ibid. (Hatfield, FP, 8/204, Rutland Letters 59): ‘we are making some alterations in the house, such as our small purse can yet afford, els here is a great deal might be done, I am making a handsom roome to sett my bed in when tis made which your Ladyship has soo largly contributed towards’; ibid. (Hatfield, FP, 8/208, Rutland Letters 63): ‘my lord went this week to london to see whats to be done with his house thar, I heare the duke of albemarle is about it, which if soe and well lett I had rather than that it be built into tenements for thought that would be the greater profit yet because of the monys to be disburst and considering our very low condition and the great debt allready owing I think for the present a good rent and lay out nothing will doe better, I thank god my lord is very prudent and carefull in managing thinges as well as he can …’; ibid. (Hatfield, FP, 8/209, Rutland Letters 64): ‘my lord I believe will make an end one way or other with lord Ashley about the house, unless he does build which he must tarry a good while for, I am sure he cannot soe fitt himself againe, nor at soo cheape a rate, the little house was never lett under £200 without garden or galery and I am sure the other is 3 times as bigg.’

186 Hatfield, ETPM, London, 2/144 (Act 57/5, 1672/3): ‘Provise to an act enabling Earl of Salisbury to build on the grounds of Great + Little Salisbury House in the Strand, by licence under the great seal to be obtained before the 24th of June next. Offered by the Earl of Salisbury this day.’

187 The Earl of Salisbury to ‘Mr Churchill’, 21 February 1673 (Hatfield, SFP, 2/229, Bills 298, 298a): ‘Mr Churchill, I desire you to let Batison have £26.3.6 towards the passing of my bill, + this shall be your sufficient discharge. Salisbury.’ Endorsed: ‘passing the Act of Parliament’; Various payments to Mr Corke in March 1672/3 ‘towards your patent to build’, also described as ‘to pay the fees at the house of Commons for my bill for liberty to let leases for [blank] years; also to pay for the order upon my petition for building’.

188 Strype, A Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, 1, p. 122.