History- What might have been

Past President Alan Willis recently acquired a handsomely bound volume of issues
18 to 29 of The City of London School Magazine, 384 pages covering the period
from February 1879 to December 1880 – they certainly went in for quantity in those
days. Much of the content consists of long-running literary efforts, a chapter at a
time (The North East Passage and its continuation Buenos Ayres [sic], or the strange
Of Charmes written in mock medieval English); articles of more immediate
schoolboy interest, such as the ones detailing how to make and operate a model
theatre; puzzles; endless lists of form promotions and prizes; and occasional items
of news. Those who know the Victoria Embankment building may be interested in
tracing its genesis as it appears in these magazines.
Prize Day 1879 was on 25 July, when ‘in his opening address Dr Abbott
concluded by saying that though he had often before congratulated the School
Committee [Governors] on the position of the school, he had never before had such
an opportunity of congratulating them upon what he might term the certain prospect
of its increasing prosperity, seeing that the Corporation had munificently given them
a valuable site on the Embankment, upon which he hoped would soon be built their
new and, he hoped, their prosperous abode.’
Perhaps the congratulations should have gone to Abbott himself: the
shortcomings of the Milk Street school building had long been apparent, and since
February 1875 he had been systematically campaigning for a move. The School
Committee set up the inevitable sub-committee and started on the usual round of
reports and referrals, with little to show until in February 1878 the City Architect
(Horace Jones, designer of Tower Bridge and Smithfield Market) produced a map
showing seven possible sites: Finsbury Circus, the old Leadenhall Market, Trinity
Square near the Tower, Furnival Inn north of Holborn, Farringdon Market,
Hamborough Wharf near Southwark Bridge, and the Victoria Embankment (which
had been completed in 1870). The Embankment was the clear favourite of the
Committee, and the City Architect was instructed to prepare plans for a school to
Abbott’s specification. These impressive designs, gothic style in brick, were rejected
as too expensive (though what was built turned out to cost even more), and an
architectural competition was announced. Meanwhile the choice of site was
confirmed by the Court of Common Council in November 1878, and Parliament
passed the necessary amending City of London School Act in July 1879.
As is often the case, the architectural competition caused problems. Though they
complained that the cost of producing the required drawings was more than the prize
money offered, 53 architects submitted designs. By June 1879 the Committee had
selected three prizewinners, but there was annoyance in the profession because they
had not sought expert advice, and at first refused to display the plans in public. At a
meeting on 8 July in the Cannon Street Hotel, 31 entrants drew up a petition to the
Court of Common Council to ‘refer the decision to some independent and eminent
architect before a final decision was given’. There were two stormy meetings of the
Common Council to discuss this. One common councilman was roundly censured
for in effect saying that an architect was lying: That this Court deeply regrets that a Member … when
putting a Question to a Gentleman at the bar of the Court
should have forgotten not only his dignity by a rude reply,
but the duty which he owes his Lordship, . . . and this Court
desires to disclaim any sympathy with the insinuation
intended by the remarks of that Member.
All this was going on around the date of the Prize Day,
which is presumably why Abbott does not refer to the building
design. The outcome was that the Committee stuck to its
choice, the design of Davis and Emanuel.
By November 1879 the School Magazine could write:
Our new school is at length
becoming an accomplished
fact. The Committee have
made their selection out of
fifty-three designs exhibited,
and Messrs. Davis and
Emanuel, the successful architects,
are preparing their
working drawings. By their
kindness we are enabled to
publish this month the block
plan of the buildings as well as
many particulars contained in
their report.
The principal entrance in
the centre of the embankment
front, arrived at by a flight of
steps, gives access to the
Entrance Hall; on the one side
of the Entrance Hall are the
Waiting Lobby, Secretary’s
Outer Office, Secretary’s Office, Waiting Lobby attached to
Committee Room, and the Committee Room, all
communicating; and on the other side are the Porter’s Room,
the Book Store and Library and Head Master’s Room.
Thus the whole of these apartments, constituting ‘the
Administration Block’, are all in immediate communication
with each other, as from the nature of their uses they
should be, and are placed on the ground floor of the
embankment front.
A corridor, 10 feet wide, runs
the whole length of the building
behind the Administration Block.
The east end of this corridor
gives access to the Dining Hall, adjoining which is the
Servery, and above which are the Kitchen, Scullery, Larder,
accessory room and lifts. This is, again, a self-contained
block.
The west end of the corridor leads to the Teaching Block,
containing on the ground floor eight Class Rooms, of which
one is the Head Master’s Class Room. A wide staircase leads
down to the Gymnasium and Playground, and up to the
remaining 12 Class Rooms, the Lecture Room, Laboratory,
Chemistry Class Room, and to the other apartments
particularised in the Statement of Accommodation.
Rising behind the front Administration Bock, and filling
up the whole space between the east and west wings is the
Hall, with its lofty front facing the Embankment, but well
recessed from it, and thus materially contributing to the
picturesque grouping of the composition.
The main front has been sufficiently set back from the
Embankment to avoid building over the Underground
Railway, and also to obtain a garden in front.
There follows a detailed schedule of all the
accommodation, with particular emphasis on the Great Hall
with capacity for 1000, and the conclusion ‘Messrs Davis and
Emanuel have acted with a true and liberal spirit in their
whole design, and if the execution is equal to the plan it will
be well worthy of our school.’
Note that ‘if’! At the end of the April 1880 issue is a note
that
has come to hand too late for insertion among the rest of the
School News:-
The proposed frontage for the New School has been
reduced, owing to an application made by the Grocers’
Company for a frontage of 140 feet for their new hall. In
consequence of this a report presenting plans of the elevation
re-arranged in accordance with the altered conditions of our
site has been laid before the Court of Common Council.
In the end it was Sion College and not the Grocers’
Company who built on this precious piece of river frontage. In
compensation the depth of the school site was increased.
Ultimately this was a good exchange since it gave space for a
larger playground, but it meant a delay while new plans were
prepared. Davis and Emanuel eliminated the east wing, putting the dining hall below the classroom block, with the
kitchens two floors above (this became the Tuck Shop, latterly
the Tuck Shop Theatre – originally the space below the Hall
block was covered playground, but this soon proved too
windy and inconvenient, and was enclosed to form the Dining
Room). The west wing was put behind the front block, and the
Hall put above the Administration Block, with the main
staircase moved to its impressive central position in the
entrance hall.
The June 1880 School Magazine reported that ‘all
negotiations have at length been concluded, and our new
home, so long promised, was at last begun at 6 o’clock a.m.
on Monday, the 7th of June.’ The revised elevation is
published with the comment:
. . . in our opinion, the modified plan is greatly superior to the
original. Although the frontage is much less, there is a great
gain in compactness; and a more lavish use of decoration has
entirely removed the appearance of bareness, almost of
meagreness, which seemed to be the fault of the former
plan.’
Terry Heard, with help from Thomas Hinde’s account in
Carpenter’s Children