Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || New Light on William Kent at Hampton Court Palace

SAHGB Publications Limited

New Light on William Kent at Hampton Court PalaceAuthor(s): Juliet AllanSource: Architectural History, Vol. 27, Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies inArchitectural History Presented to Howard Colvin (1984), pp. 50-58Published by: SAHGB Publications LimitedStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568450 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 09:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

SAHGB Publications Limited is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchitectural History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:39:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sahgb

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1568450?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


New light on William Kent at

Hampton Court Palace by JULIET ALLAN

The Georgian gothick remodelling of the east range of Clock Court at Hampton Court is well known, and its attribution to William Kent, although based only on an oblique comment by Horace Walpole,' has never been questioned.2 What seems to have escaped the notice of modern architectural historians is that the building is no longer in its original form, a number of its most distinctive features having been destroyed in the nineteenth century, greatly to the detriment of the design (P1. I a).

The details of the eighteenth-century rebuilding are well established.3 With the completion of Wren's new apartments surrounding Fountain Court for William III, the Tudor state apartments contained in a great tower lodging to the east of Clock Court became redundant (P1. Ib). Although some of the large old rooms were partitioned to serve a variety of makeshift uses,4 the building was gradually allowed to deteriorate until the upper parts at least became dangerous. In 1716 an estimate for taking down the 'Great roome' (probably the original Queen's Presence Chamber on the second floor) was requested by the Board of Works,5 and two years later the building was classified as 'ruinous and of little use' on a specially prepared plan of the palace.6 The ceiling of the 'old Mask Room', which can with reasonable certainty be identified with the 'Great roome', was taken down in 1721 since it was said to be in danger of falling,7 but nothing further was done until 1728 when the Clerk of Works was asked to send a drawing of the elevation of the Inner Court 'that it supposed to be in danger'.8 Still the Board delayed and further ad hoc measures to secure the rapidly decaying structure had to be resorted to.9 Not until June 173210 was Treasury approval finally sought and given for 'taking down and New Building the defective parts of One side of the Middle Court at Hampton Court' at a cost of ?3,454 14s. 2d.11 Demolition had already begun.12 In October, the Board examined the drawings for the new building, by then well under way, and gave instructions to the mason Andrews Jelfe;13 less than two months later the roof was ready for covering. 14 Progress then seems to have slowed, and it was not until February 1734 that orders were given for laying the floors in the first-floor rooms. 15s Account books for the building were passed in April and July 1733,16 and after various tradesmen had made good defects in their work the final account was made up in August 1734.17

In place of the lofty Tudor chambers, the reconstructed building contained a series of smaller rooms intended 'for the more commodious Reception of his Mats Family'.'1 By the I730s, accommodating George II's growing number of children at Hampton Court was evidently becoming a problem. In 1731 his second son, the Duke of Cumberland, then Io years old, became entitled to a separate establishment,19 and it



NEW LIGHT ON. WILLIAM KENT AT HAMPTON COURT PALACE 51

seems clear that the immediate occasion for the long delayed rebuilding of the Clock Court range was the need to provide him with a suitable lodging of his own.

No original design for the rebuilding appears to have survived. The work was at once too recent and too quickly outmoded to excite much notice in eighteenth-century guidebooks to the palace. Later writers who saw fit to comment were almost unanimous in their contempt for a style from which the increased archaeological purity demanded by successive generations was so noticeably absent. 20 For similar reasons, it was ignored by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists and engravers. Only the recent identification of two drawings dated 1853 in the Public Record Office (Pls za and b),21 coupled with the accidental glimpses afforded by eighteenth and early nineteenth- century views of the palace (P1. Ic), have now enabled us to reconstruct the elevation as first completed, before the rigours of Victorian taste and the English climate con- demned its more interesting features to oblivion (P1. 3).

Of these, undoubtedly the most conspicuous was the large cupola in the form of an octagonal turret placed centrally on the roof over the gateway. Crowned by battlements with crocketted finials at the angles, it was surmounted by an ogival lead dome terminating in a large weather-vane. At least one face of the turret was pierced by a two-light gothick window with an ogee head. The ogee motif was repeated in the two giant 'types', probably of stone, which capped the turrets flanking the gateway, and again in the now lost second-floor window over the gate. Here Kent devised what can only be described as a gothick Venetian window with a label moulding and a whimsical arcaded apron. No string course separated it from the battlements above.

According to Walpole, it was his father Sir Robert, then in control at the Treasury, who 'overruled' Kent's initial classical proposals for Hampton Court. 22 As an explana- tion for the architect's first experiment with Gothic this sounds plausible enough, although no corroboration for Walpole's claim has so far been found. Faced with Treasury insistence on a design which would harmonize with the existing Tudor work, where might Kent have turned for inspiration?

The problem of making alterations and additions to existing buildings was not new to the Office of Works. Experience of designing in a style suitable to earlier work had however been confined largely to individual officers acting outside their official capacity: Wren, Dickinson, and Hawksmoor at Westminster Abbey and certain of the City churches, for example; Wren and Hawksmoor at Christ Church and All Souls, Oxford respectively; and possibly all three at St Mary's Warwick. Of more immediate relevance to Kent's task at Hampton Court was the scheme of c. 1718 attributed to Vanbrugh23 for a grand cour d'honneur on the north side of the Palace, as part of which he proposed to add ogee hoods to the windows of the Tudor great hall.24 It is possible that a minor precedent may also have been set when in 1715 the Board of Works approved a design for finishing off the turrets of the hall;25 a drawing of the hall made shortly after shows what appears to be a variant on the Tudor 'type' where the more usual pineapples might have been expected. 26

Apart from this background of experience on which he could draw, Kent had not far to look for inspiration at Hampton Court. All around him were the surviving lead cupolas and turrets of Henry VIII's palace, and there seems no doubt that the existing building provided the immediate source for both the turretted gatehouse, an obvious



52 ROYAL WORKS AND THE OFFICE OF WORKS

means of giving suitable architectural expression to the previously unsatisfactory entry to the Queen's Staircase and Fountain Court, and for the ogival domes that surmounted it. In its overall composition however the design contained more than an echo of Wren's Tom Tower at Christ Church, Oxford, completed in 1682, and an obvious prototype for anyone attempting a sympathetic addition to a Tudor building. Although Kent's characteristically disjointed handling of the individual elements at Hampton Court fell far short of Wren's masterly integration of old and new, there are clear links between the two buildings. The central ogee dome, with its coronet of pilaster-like gothick finials, and its relationship with the ogee-capped turrets are specially close, while Kent followed Wren in extending the ogee motif to the central window. The height of the crowning feature, more of a lantern turret than a standard cupola, may also owe something to Wren. Given the influence which Tom Tower appears to have exercised on Kent, it is worth considering the part which associatio- nal27 ideas may have played in making it a particularly appropriate model for Hampton Court.

The attraction which the trappings of medievalism held for Kent is well attested. As a painter he produced a number of romanticized representations of events from English medieval history, including The Battle of Crecy and the two scenes from the life of Henry V which now hang in one of the Kentian rooms at Hampton Court. His illustrations for the 1751 edition of Spenser's Fairie Queen, the waxwork figures with which he filled Merlin's Cave at Kew, and his masque designs of 1731 for Frederick, Prince of Wales,28 all display a genuine if unscholarly interest in the medieval past.

Almost exactly contemporary with his work at Hampton Court was Kent's gothick remodelling of Esher Place, only a few miles away, for the Hon. Henry Pelham.29 The two commissions had much in common. Both involved brick buildings of a similar character and date (Waynflete's tower at Esher was in fact rather earlier than Hampton Court, having been erected c. 1480) and, perhaps more significantly, associated with Cardinal Wolsey. That Kent was aware of Wolsey's connection with Esher is suggested by one of his drawings which shows what appears to be a statue of the cardinal in one of the niches flanking the entrance. 30 Proof that the two buildings, on which he must have been working simultaneously, were linked in his mind is provided by a sketch that he made to accompany a poem on the theme of the River Mole which flowed through Pelham's estate. In it he depicted both Esher, albeit with classical wings, and, somewhat fancifully in rococo gothick guise, Hampton Court.31 Is it reasonable to suppose that Kent also knew of Wolsey's connection with Christ Church, and that this was the link that made Tom Tower so peculiarly apt a source for the new gateway at Hampton Court?

If Kent was influenced by the associational as well as the physical attributes of Tudor architecture, he did not allow considerations of stylistic consistency to contrain him. While respectable Tudor precedents can be found for the turrets, the ogival caps and the general form, at least, of the subsidiary windows, for the archway and the windows above it he looked to an earlier gothic style. The first-floor window has some affinities with the crypt windows of St Stephen's Chapel, Westminster, but the quotation is by no means exact; the heavy cusping and spandrel ornaments belong to a later period, and if Kent had a particular source in mind it is clear that he adapted it freely. His eclectic



NEW LIGHT ON WILLIAM KENT AT HAMPTON COURT PALACE 53

and unarchaeological approach is further apparent in the curious plaster fan vault over the gate passage, and the first-floor chamber above the arch, which has a standard Palladian trabeated ceiling ornamented with quatrefoils and gothick pendants. The rest of the interior decoration is straightforwardly classical.

As Kent's earliest attempt at gothick, the Clock Court range is of special interest. Some of its features, such as the ogival lead cupola, reappear in almost all his subsequent gothick designs, but in other respects it seems to stand apart from his later work. The familiar vocabulary of quatrefoils, two-light plate- or Y-traceried windows, detached labels, mock machicolation and crocketted ogees made its first appearance not at Hampton Court but at Esher, of which Laughton in Sussex (also for Henry Pelham),32 the Honingham Hall designs of 1737 and, to a lesser degree, Rousham are direct descendents. The repetition of a limited number of standard elements in different combinations gives these buildings a sameness that contrasts with the vitality of the work at Hampton Court. The fenestration of the Clock Court range is unique in Kent's gothick oeuvre, and its happy combination of lightness and sobriety is never again repeated with such success. Nor is there much hint at Hampton Court of that particular brand of rococo gothick which was to become Kent's speciality over the next decade and was to influence gothick design for the remainder of the century. Seen at its most fanciful and bizarre in the imaginary architecture of the Fairie Queen illustrations,33 the rococo gothick of the Westminster Hall courts (1739) and the Gloucester Cathedral screen (1741) has the two-dimensional quality of stage design and almost nothing in common with the firmly architectonic gatehouse at Hampton Court.

That Hampton Court emerges as a transitional design looking back to the work of Wren, Dickinson, and Hawksmoor, as well as hinting at rococo whimsy to come, should not surprise us. Only at Hampton Court was Kent required to use gothic in his official capacity. While the Georgian Office of Works was content to leave the preparation of drawings and minor alterations and additions to the relevant Clerk of Works, initial designs for a project of this importance would normally be made by the best qualified member of the Board. And it was the Board who eventually submitted the agreed drawings and estimate to the Treasury for approval. Although this system, then as now, makes it difficult to determine individual architectural responsibility, it does reflect the real sense in which a submitted design was a collective product. Kent's proposals would no doubt have been discussed by his colleagues, and modifications perhaps suggested, before the final design was agreed. Given the relative lack of architectural expertise among his fellow Board members, it seems reasonable to see the elderly Hawksmoor, restored to his former post of Secretary to the Board, as the most likely to offer experienced criticism and advice. Hawksmoor's influence cannot of course be proved but it may be worth noting that Howard Colvin has identified a set of drawings (P1. Ib),34 apparently related to the proposed demolition of the upper parts of the old Clock Court range as being in his hand.35

Charles Eastlake, whose History of the Gothic Revival was published in 1872, was the first to give serious attention to Kent's work at Hampton Court. By then, the central cupola had already disappeared. Described as unsafe in the drawings made in I853 (Pls 2a

and b),36 it was evidently dismantled shortly afterwards. The two types and the



54 ROYAL WORKS AND THE OFFICE OF WORKS

ogival Venetian window survived to be described by Eastlake,37 but eventually they too succumbed to nineteenth-century archaeological propriety. As a result of these 'improvements', the Clock Court elevation now hardly hints at the delightful ogees which were once its most conspicuous feature. But for the two recently identified drawings, our appreciation of Kent's first gothic design would have remained sadly incomplete.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Mr G. D. Heath for kindly letting me see a copy of his typescript calendar of entries relating to Hampton Court in the Office of Works Minute Books. I should also like to thank Miss Daphne Hart for preparing the reconstruction of Kent's elevation (Pl. 3) and MrJ. J. West for his help and advice.

NOTES

I H. Walpole, Anecdotes ofPainting, ed. Dallaway, 11 (1862), 564. 2 For example H. M. Colvin ed. The History of the King's Works, v (London, 1976), 181; H. M. Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary ofBritish Architects 16oo-184o (London, 1978), p. 493;John Harris, 'William Kent's Gothick' in A Gothic Symposium at the Victoria and Albert Museum, The Georgian Group (London, 1983). 3 Colvin, King's Works, v, 18o-8I. 4 PRO T56/I8 f.63, I April 1718. 5 PRO Works, 4/I, 18 April 1716. 6 PRO Works, 4/1, 14 October 1718; PRO Works, 34/43, is probably the plan in question (Colvin, King's Works, v, I8o n. 7.). 7 PRO Works, 4/2, IIJuly 1721; reference kindly supplied by Mr G. D. Heath. 8 PRO Works, 4/3, 7 March 1728. 9 PRO Works, 4/4, 11 March 1729; reference kindly supplied by Mr G. D. Heath. Io Not 173 I as stated in King's Works, v, I8o. II PRO Works, 4/5, 6June 1732; I3June 1732; PRO T29/27 7June 1732; T 56/8 f. 396. 12 PRO Works, 4/5, IJune, 6June 1732. 13 PRO Works, 4/5, 3 October 1732. 14 PRO Works, 4/5, 21 November 1732. 15 PRO Works, 4/6, 5 February 1734. 16 PRO Works, 4/5, 16 April, 24July 1733. 17 PRO Works, 4/6, 3 September, Io September 1734. 18 PRO T 56/I8 f.396. 19 PRO T29/27 f. 68, 5 October 1731. 20 For example, E. Jesse, A Summer's Day at Hampton Court, 5th edn (London, 1842), p. I7; 'Felix Summerly' (Henry Cole), A Handbook for the architecture, tapestries, paintings, gardens and grounds of Hampton Court Palace (London, 1841), p. 36; ibid., 2nd edn (London, 1862), p. 36; E. Law, A History ofHampton Court Palace, im (London, 189I), 245. 21 PRO Works 34/588, 589. 22 Walpole, Anecdotes, 11, 564. 23 Colvin, King's Works, v, 178. 24 fol. 33 in a volume of drawings attributed to Thomas Fort in the Department of the Environment Library at Croydon; reproduced in Colvin, King's Works, v, pl. 14b. 25 PRO Works, 4/I, 28 October 1715. 26 fol. 32 in the 'Fort' album (see n. 24). 27 I have followed J. Mordaunt Crook (Introduction to C. L. Eastlake, A History of the Gothic Revival (1872, reprinted Leicester, 1970), p. 37) and N. Pevsner (Introduction to Gothick 172o-1840: Catalogue of an Exhibition at the Royal Pavilion, Art Gallery and Museums (Brighton, 1975), P. 5) in the use of 'associational'; John Harris (op. cit.) uses it to describe gothick used for environmental reasons. 28 Colvin, Dictionary, p. 491 n. I. 29 J. Harris, 'A William Kent Discovery: Designs for Esher Place, Surrey', in Country Life, 14 May 1959, pp. 1076-78.



NEW LIGHT ON WILLIAM KENT AT HAMPTON COURT PALACE 55

30 Drawings in Wimbledon Public Library, discussed and illustrated in Harris, loc. cit. 31 Drawing in British Museum, Department of Prints and Drawings (Harris, loc. cit.). 32 R. White, 'Saved by the Landmark Trust: Laughton Place, East Sussex', Country Life, 5 May 1983, pp. 1184- 90. 33 E. Spenser, The Fairie Queen (London, 1751), 3 vols. 34 All Souls, I, 34, 35, 36, 57, reproduced in the Wren Society, vii (Oxford, 1930), plsxxIv-xxv. 35 Colvin, King's Works, v, 160; the date and occasion of these drawings is uncertain; Hawksmoor was not a member of the Office of Works in October 1718 and so it seems unlikely that they were made in connection with the Board's request on the I4th of that month (n. 6 above) for plans marked up to show parts of the Palace that were in poor repair; it is more probable that they were associated either with the estimate for taking down the 'Great roome' which the Clerk of Works at Hampton Court was asked to prepare in 1716 (n. 5 above) or with the 1728 request to him to send 'an Elevation of the Inner Court at Hampton Court that is supposed to be in danger' (n. 8 above). 36 PRO Works, 34/588-89. 37 Eastlake, op. cit., 55-56.



... .... ... Hli :i:Il ,:: ,:-, .. ....... :.:ll

:iiilii:iiiiiiliir ?i ,,::.

..:':i;iiliiliiiij ii!i•r . . .

.:....'.'- ....

' ...i.-.iii.iiiii .ii .i.iiiiiiiii

"? ';c - ? ?i:?iii iiiii'riI((iriiciiiiif

? :............

.

.......... .. ......

..... . ..

,,,,•,,..........

....

7•ii• ..

.:.... :.... ...... ..•ii..ii..

2? iiiiii ili~iiiii ?iii i. ?i?

I~i:.:::i:i:i•ibiliBL•BI:iiiii:iiliii :?'.:'.

i .

...,~ ~ ~ ~

~~~..

., ,,......

... .

,

. ... ..

:

.. .. ...

. ,. .. . . . . . .: .

:::.. ...... ,.,..... - •

:. ..:... ......:.. s

..• ! .... . ...

....

...... ....... .....

s

F.. - .....I us,4. .l:

f: 7.. ....

• . • , ...... . • •,_,• : ̀ •```•Y•`•!•`•ii!! ~ii iiiiiiiii iilj~i•% i•%

!:'i!•ìiiil iiì: ``;:!!`::••`:``••ì:i

U 'NE: u:::::.:::t j:ii

. . . . . . . . . .

P:... .......

.... .- ... .. - ...... ...-:.....

. ..".,. .,

. .:.:,..

. . ... .... ..... ...

. . . .... ...iliilii ?::: ?: ?:::"::i::;" ':il:: ..

Omar---.. ::':'i:: :i?: ' ::.P -

. .... ...... ... .. .... .. .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .... . . . .

Ukl

iii~i

.~i~ ..• ': . .:.-..- ..-..

~~

" 1

•. .:. . . •

; .r ? . ... ...

? . . . , . . • . . ..•,

. . . .

P1. Ia Hampton Court Palace, east elevation of Clock Court

P1. Ib Hampton Court Palace, early eighteenth-century drawing attributed to Hawksmoor, showing the Tudorstate apartments to the east of Clock Court

P1. Ic Hampton Court Palace, Clock Court showing, on the left, Kent's elevation before alteration, aquatint published by Spyers andJukes, 1786



P1. 2a Hampton Court Palace, drawing of Kent's gatehouse, 1853 (PRO Works 34/588). The weathervane at the top indicates that the turret was shown on aflap, now lost

MT. :ii'::: ?:?Mmli ZEI :i

...... ... :: :t : - 44 M U .. . .........?? :' ..1 A :.::ic : .. . .. . . . nfw ?i ? ::?::. :?:?~i~i:'iili,:illiiili~iiil :%

.. .. ...... . ..... ~l~ir:?...........;mm: 1: N .... . .... . .. .. ' .. . .... ...... . ..

:..?:: ? ' 1.::. ??:... . .. .. . . ... .... i. R '.u ii::.:''. ... . ... ... .....ji ?: .:?i ?????I:?:i:. ?i. . . . . .... .. .. . ??? 41iii:i.,i:i.l I:i:.: ?

;::f!, l it :.il::fs i ic i ::tlf i i ii. it .

... . ... . ... ...... .

....?: ~ ?? ~? .......

.

......1?.. .. ... ... ...~ A?::i ::' if, 7.;. ::: f:?

:..:?I !..9:: ii.............:; ??:: ::::: ??~::~ ~ ?? :.:.? ???~? ..:ii:-ji~-i-ff iz: W -11::,. Mi;:: .: . : i ??:::iil ?: ?: :-- ..: ? ?:?. tt

.1, -5?? g?ii?:-:?-: ? ? 0 MM, ";it. miffi. 't i'?? l iiii: ..?? .:i?Y'ii I . vuntlN. l:-::M: i- 'M - 1g ......':: L" ?/1)?? i i~::~~. ...............:A:: -t-n .. .. .... ..?::: .?:

P1. zb Hampton Court Palace, drawing ofthe domed turret over Kent's gatehouse, 1853 (PRO Works 34/589)

11.111 :W tr ~ l. ij??,,;.jKjt-,i iij?jii,..,?,i~i? j-.???',??i?i,?,i jii'iiiii.?-.?ii,*i ... . .::. 1141410vi~ l~~;:.;::i::i ;iiriiiiietawlijtii iil ?! Q"? ii!iSm-iiil iii4ir. ":...1", E fNf-?J:

N I'll". .. ,in'.is",in v t. ."l, i?Mani~ u- -MR,?'Ut'- ii! -y. ,!,?? .i.,%- 17- ;:- --~ qu -gw -'. C stzz:;?;- mmz t- _ ,-1-11 -i~s?,;? ? I :-- , - - .1 151 _?!;,?, --'?;;'??T??_i~:~ii~ ~liiijii ~ ji~ i~i;P ; ? , , ", - JI ,;? , ?iL".1,W~gpzM z_ > ;:1.T-N1R , - -4 $ . .. -_ -1 , 11.E? :- - - . N ...:-;? ?R UEii wi` i~il?-Tl ii;f ", 1 " ii ?.-I i - I- -?1_;wi?? -- ".. -:?..,..Z.;z~z;?;??."!,; I g 1 'f!!1;O M ,i ?-O i m R , , ?? , ,;, i, ' 'M ,;??"!? ?:?:l?'fi~l;:?Q?liii -?E ..-;, ?, " - -I" K Ni;:;-;,-- ... . .-- tW .1

_ .?-siT,?' i?? ??,,Jlikx MEN ,RT'Mz k-",1w;% 1 il "MMA q ff, -?11 " .. ?. m::Oa m,;., = - A ii! a ? -- : ". ~l.,0 4-m,_ , .1,-M.M.-i, __ _ ...... ',1Mf s_.E _1I 11 - ::14 , Wl, -?' , ?.Kf,;;vi i j'i. . f me '? p i ' ., - ".' 1-1- - 1 1.1 0 :: !??,?;? ;, ',$, '- ',I ' ? t. R 'i? , ,? : :t i .i l ;?it.??z i i? ? T,-;i ;;ml:.?: -,.;--?l?f?_,f] q-';--_,;?_?_-.? !" ,.-? j!t. ...... .. 1 i:? ,?-?ns....." --Il s : T '?, IsM ' s:7'Tss_- , , ,-; --,. .. ,?''; -lp",W, , 'M ? f? ? -, is 4 ,.,r.4,,.--,;,-.-:e, "'.P '??1 '1 ? 1:21 . iR - - . .,?,;L, ",??j? ' ?!" .W -, ?; Sr - ?D?;. , Sejs!e? ,4.7lmsuz

1. .- , ?:.?: .?i..?- ?-, N 20? . 1?v -"?-. m " 00? ?. .... .1.

.... ? W mni -'.-;?iili iii !i l , ::" : ;, 2 ,..... ? n?i

:?li fs;,,iii:ii-jii??i ? :i.Ifll.,,iiii?i. ?i ?.igiii ?:: .. - ,. .. ? , " . -??-?!:?.xi. .1 m i:?:: ",, . ,. -'j. m Uz xw :" j:.. .- , ?'Ui ? ...... .. I... ': .... 1. - ?- ?;ml :. . ...... --- '- si _., .,:m F -R,- -??z, ,.!4 . f:- . I ,i; 'i??,. ,, ,.. ;? i i ;i?-:-, tY WA - , .. %i .,.1-f :?r.F-s_. _- ariM --%s:-;:.-i L? ?,; .:".:.. k r1W . aii'i~!i ~ i

N5?ig "..?,,??.'?.-?.?.??i???;. .?,:?.i? f - .-I:, -Z,?N, ' .,.. . '?Oll-,P K ?;?s;_ -z?: . 'T?:7?-?-:?ri;iimii.'. -, MO R e"Mo, if?i?-V : "



P1. 3 Hampton Court Palace, reconstruction drawing ofKent'sgatehouse before alteration, based on PRO Works 34/588 and 589



Documents

Design and Practice in British Architecture: Studies in Architectural History Presented to Howard Colvin || New Light on William Kent at Hampton Court Palace