230 A Tie a for the Further Investigation of 



surveyor of the Queen's works, in 1597, with the usual fee of two 

 shillings a day, and is appai-ently mentioned, for the last time, in 

 1599, in connection with the fortifications of Carisbrook. Of course, 

 they may possibly be different men, but the Christian and surname 

 being identical, I think it is worth enquiring whether they are not 

 the same. 



The most important fact, published by Canon Jackson, in its 

 bearing on the prevalent opinions about Longleat, is probably the 

 documentary evidence of the employment of Robert Smithson, on 

 the building. It appears that he was recommended to Sir John 

 Thynne, in 1568, as having ''been employed by Mr. Vice Cham- 

 berlain as principal freemason/' Sir Thomas Heneage appears to 

 have been Vice Chamberlain to Queen Elizabeth, and, if he filled 

 the office at that date, Copt Hall, which is described as " at that 

 time the noblest house in Essex,'' would probably be where Smithson 

 was employed, before he went to Longleat. The date assigned to 

 Copt Hall, from 1564 to 1567, would agree, very well, with this 

 supposition. Unfortunately, Copt Hall, is, I believe, entirely 

 destroyed, so that we cannot compare it with Longleat, but, at a 

 later date, 1580, Smithson was employed, by Sir Francis Willoughby, 

 at Wollaton, in Nottinghamshire, and here we can institute a com- 

 parison. I have not seen Wollaton, but I have studied some 

 architectural drawings of that house which appeared in the Builder, 

 in 1889. The first thing that strikes one, in any view of Wollaton, 

 is that, whereas the house, in the main, is an elaborate Elizabethan 

 building, there is a great towering erection in the centre, so dis- 

 similar to the rest that it can hardly be the design of the same 

 architect. With that central part I am not, at first, concerned. 

 The outer building appears to be undoubtedly Robert Smithson's 

 work, with the exception, perhaps, of a few features that may have 

 been added later. The resemblance of the design to Longleat is 

 very striking, particularly in the proportions of the windows, but, 

 as it is rather later, so is it rather more ornate and, I think, rather 

 less satisfactory. Ornamental pilasters are introduced, throughout 

 the work, whereas, at Longleat, they are confined to the projecting 

 bays. The date of this part of Wollaton is given by an inscription. 



