The Rev. Dr. John King was a divine of considerable literary eminence. Amongst a variety of works he published a sermon, entitled, “The Divine Favour the best Alliance; or, Repentance the Safest Sanctuary in Times of Danger; preached at the Parish Church of Chelsey,” in 1701. There is in the British Museum a small quarto volume, in manuscript, by Dr. King, containing “Remarks on the Life of Sir Thomas More,” and a letter, designed for Mr. Hearne, respecting Sir T. More’s house at Chelsea. He died in this parish in 1732, aged 80, much respected, and was buried at Pertenhall. The family of Dr. King bear the same arms with Robert King, the first Bishop of Oxford.
The Rev. Dr. Sloane Elsmere died in 1776, and left behind him a volume of sermons to be published for the benefit of the “Girls’ Charity School,” of which he was the original founder. He was a relation of Sir Hans Sloane.
The Rev. Reginald Heber received his school education at the Free School, Manchester, from whence he removed to Brasenose College, Oxford. Mr. Heber, in 1766, succeeded to a considerable estate (his elder brother dying unmarried) at Hodnet, in Shropshire; and in the same year he was inducted to the rectory of Chelsea, the presentation to which had several years before been purchased for him by his brother. He found the rectoral house in bad condition, and partly rebuilt and greatly improved the whole of it. In 1770 he exchanged the rectory of Chelsea with Dr. Drake, rector of Amersham, Bucks, for Malpas, in Cheshire. Mr. Heber married, in 1773, the daughter of the Rev. Martin Bayly, which lady died the following year, leaving an infant son, Richard Heber, who became Member for the University of Oxford. Eight years after he married, secondly, the daughter of Dr. Cuthbert Allanson, by whom he had two sons, Reginald, the late lamented Bishop of Calcutta—a prelate whose memory is revered by Christians of all denominations—the other son was Thomas Cuthbert Heber, and he had also one daughter. Mr. Heber died at Malpas in 1804, in his 76th year.
The Hon. and Rev. William Bromley Cadogan, second son of Lord Cadogan, was born in 1751, and had his education at Westminster School, from whence he was removed to Christ Church College, Oxford. He obtained several prizes at the University for classical knowledge. On the death of Dr. Drake he was presented to the rectory of Chelsea. He also became vicar of St. Giles’s, Reading. Mr. Faulkner gives a singular anecdote relating to the unsolicited offer of this vicarage to Mr. Cadogan. Lord Bathurst, who was then Chancellor, called at Lord Cadogan’s house, and desired to see him. His lordship was not at home; and the servants, seeing Lord Bathurst very plainly dressed, admitted him into the hall only, having no suspicion of his high rank. The Chancellor therefore wrote a note at the hall table, requesting Lord Cadogan to accept the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Reading, for his son. The offer of so valuable a preferment, and so near to the family seat at Caversham, was peculiarly acceptable to Lord Cadogan. It appeared, however, that the parishioners were deeply affected by the death of the Rev. Mr. Talbot, their late vicar, and equally grieved at the appointment of his successor; but they flattered themselves that the new vicar, being a young gentleman of noble family, would feel no disposition to do the duties himself, and that the Rev. Mr. Halward, who had been recently appointed, and towards whom they already were much attached, might be continued in the curacy. A petition for this purpose was presented to Mr. Cadogan, but it was rejected with strong marks of disapprobation. The old congregation therefore became dispersed. Some of them, under the patronage of the Countess of Huntingdon, opened a place for Divine worship for themselves, while others, who were unwilling to leave the church altogether, thought that they perceived marks of sincerity in his conduct and preaching, attempted, by frequent admonitory letters, to convince Mr. Cadogan of what they considered to be his “errors,” and to set him “right.” On this occasion several letters passed between him and Mrs. Talbot, the widow of the previous vicar, whose house was opened for religious exercises, and where prayer was occasionally offered up for his conversion. Mr. Cadogan is said to have been highly offended, but at length, humbled and subdued, he fell at the feet of accumulated kindness, and confessed to the last moment of his life, that “Mrs. Talbot’s letters and example were the principal means of leading him to the saving knowledge of Christ.” It produced, it appears, a great change in his manner of preaching, and led the way to his intimacy with the Rev. Mr. Hill, Mr. Romaine, and others, who were distinguished by the title of popular preachers. He likewise offered the curacy to Mr. Halward, who previously he had but “lightly esteemed,” but that gentleman had then accepted some preferment which prevented him from acceding to the offer. Mr. Cadogan divided his time between Chelsea and Reading; but finding his labours in both places too arduous, he let the rectory-house, and left Chelsea in charge of the Rev. Mr. Middleton, his curate, except at the season of Lent, and of the Sacrament, on which occasions the church was crowded. Mr. Cadogan was seized at Reading on a Thursday evening, after his lecture, with an inflammation of the bowels, and departed this life on the following Tuesday, expressing with his lips that which was his “glorious theme, the unbounded love of Christ.” He died in 1797, aged 46.
A monument, designed by Bacon, is erected in the church at Reading. Beneath the inscription are the crosier or pastoral staff; the rod of Aaron, which budded and yielded almonds; and the book mentioned in the Revelations, as sealed with seven seals.
The Rev. Charles Sturges was presented to this rectory in 1797. Respectful mention is made of him in Mrs. Trimmer’s publication on the Sunday Schools of Old Brentford. He has a copy of Latin verses in the Musæ Etonenses, and another in the Academiæ Cantabrigiensis Luctus, on the death of George II. The sudden death of Mr. Sturges was another verification of that passage in our Burial Service, “In the midst of life we are in death,” &c., which he had read many times at the graves of the parishioners. He expired on the 22nd of April, 1805, after only half an hour’s illness, from an apoplectic seizure, immediately before the hour of dinner, at the rectory of Loddington, Northamptonshire, and his remains were interred in the chancel of that church.
The Hon. and Rev. Gerald Valerian Wellesley, D.D., succeeded Mr. Sturgess. A notice of him will be found in the account of the New Parish Church.
The Rev. R. H. Davies, M.A., who had been previously senior curate of the new Parish Church, succeeded the Rev. John Rush when he died in 1855, as Incumbent of the Old Church. Through his exertions and instrumentality, a small vestry, or robing room, has been attached to the church. The great inconvenience and injury to the Minister’s health, arising from his having to walk across the churchyard in his robes, and also to change them, especially in the winter months, had been sadly experienced and justly complained of by almost every officiating clergyman in my recollection. Very considerable alterations and great improvements have likewise been made in the interior of the church, during the fourteen years that Mr. Davies has been the Incumbent, without interfering greatly with its ancient architecture. Perhaps the best way to convey an adequate idea of what has been accomplished will be to give an account of the expenses, taken from a Report recently published.
The New Gallery |
£395 |
11 |
0 |
Re-pewing |
420 |
13 |
6 |
New Stoves, &c. |
44 |
15 |
0 |
Iron Railing |
65 |
0 |
0 |
Ventilators |
32 |
18 |
9 |
East Window |
83 |
18 |
7 |
Reading Desk |
5 |
3 |
6 |
New Vestry, &c |
94 |
14 |
3 |
Corona in Chancel |
12 |
0 |
0 |
Alterations to Organ |
60 |
0 |
0 |
A great part of the cost of these extensive and essential alterations was contributed by the Trustees for building the new St. Luke’s Church; a very large portion by the liberal contributions of the congregation, and a part also by the Rev. Mr. Davies’s own friends not connected with the church, and others to whom he applied. The schools, as will be seen, have been greatly benefitted, and various charitable societies established, by which means vast blessings have been conferred on the poor in the neighbourhood.
In the year 1706, a Vestry Room and School Room, with apartments for a master, were erected at the expense of W. Petyt, Esq. [23] There is a descriptive inscription upon the west front of the school room, which records the donation, at the conclusion of which it is added, “To all which may God give a blessing. Soli Deo Gloria.” The original deed of gift is entered in the Vestry minutes. Mr. Petyt resided in Church (lane) Street, and died there in 1707, aged 71, but was buried in the Temple Church. He was a member of the Inner Temple, and Keeper of the Records in the Tower of London.
In 1819 there were 100 boys and girls educated and clothed free of any expense to their parents. The girls at that period were instructed in a house rented in Lordship’s Place, near Cheyne Row. These schools, with the master and mistress, were transferred to the new School Rooms, at the back of the present Parish Church.
The Rev. Mr. Davies recently appealed to the Vestry for a grant of £100 to make considerable repairs in this old building, it being in a most dilapidated condition (the ground floor, which was the Vestry Room, was for some time previously used as a fire-engine station), and the one school room altogether inadequate for the proper accommodation of the children of the district, promising himself to be answerable for the deficiency in the amount of the expenditure. The Vestry, in consideration of its having been bequeathed to the parish, complied with the request. Mr. Davies likewise obtained for the same laudable object a grant of £20 from the Ragged School Union, the congregation generously contributing the remaining sum required to put the building in thorough repair. The entire cost was rather more than £279. There are now three good school-rooms instead of one, as was formerly the case, and consequently the number of children attending the schools has been greatly augmented.
It may here be mentioned that the “watchhouse,” and the “stocks” for vagrants, formerly stood close to the river, opposite the church.
Blackstone, in his “Commentaries,” says that manors are, in substance, as ancient as the Saxon Constitution. The manor of Chilchell, or Chelcheya (Chelsea), was given it appears, in the reign of Edward the Confessor to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster, by Thurstan, the governor of the king’s palace, who held it of him. This gift was confirmed by a charter, which transfers the manor, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully as it was held by Thurstan: “besides, together with this manor, as a free gift, every third tree, and every third horse load of fruits grown in the neighbouring wood at Kyngesbyrig” (now called Knightsbridge). This charter, which is in the Saxon language, is still preserved in the British Museum. It is sealed with a waxen seal, suspended by a silken string, after the Norman fashion, in the front of which are the effigies of the king, holding in his right hand a cross, and in his left a globe; on the reverse is the same image, holding in his right hand a spear surmounted by a dove, and bearing in his left a sword, with this inscription on both sides, “The seal of Edward King of England.”
King William, by a charter dated at Westminster, confirmed the land to the Monastery of Westminster.
The Record of Domesday Book, to which we are so greatly indebted, was begun in 1080, and completed in 1086. In it is mentioned the lands in Chelsea, then in possession of the Church of Westminster.
The general description given of menial persons, including those in the manor of Chelsea, at the period when the survey of the land belonging to the lords, or great landowners, was taken, shows the lamentable state of thousands of our fellow-creatures. Slaves were allowed nothing but subsistence and clothes, and were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress. Long hair was a mark of dignity and freedom; for that reason, slaves, (menial persons,) were obliged to shave their heads, by which they were reminded of their inferiority of condition. At length Henry VIII. granted manumission to two of his slaves and their families, for which he assigned this just reason: “God at first created all men equally free by nature, but many had been reduced to slavery by the laws of men. We believe it, therefore, to be a pious act, and meritorious in the sight of God, to set certain of our slaves at liberty from their bondage.” The granting of leases, which afterwards followed, almost completely emancipated the “villain-slave,” so that at the time of Elizabeth, scarcely any person existed to whom the former laws applied.
Gervace, abbot of Westminster, aliened the manor of Chelchithe, to his mother Dameta and her heirs. Afterwards it was held by the heirs of Bartholomew de Fontibus.
Several court rolls of this manor, during the reigns of King Edward III. and Richard II. are among the records of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.
A brewer, of the name of North, was presented at one of these courts for not putting up a sign as was customary; and at another the wife of Philip Rose was fined 6d. for being a common babbler.
Simon Bayle appears to have been lessee of the manor house, 33 Hen. VI., and from that period there is a total deficiency of records till the reign of Henry VII.
Sir Reginald Bray was now in possession of the manor. He was Receiver General to Sir Henry Stafford, a younger son of the Duke of Buckingham, who married the widow of the Earl of Richmond, and mother of Henry VII. There are many interesting historical particulars respecting Sir Reginald Bray. He was buried in the chapel of St. George, Windsor.
From Sir Reginald Bray the manor descended to Margaret, only child of his next brother, John, who married Sir William Sandys, created afterwards Lord Sands. He was one of those peers who subscribed the articles exhibited to Henry VIII. against Cardinal Wolsey; and the next year was also one who signed the declaration to the Pope, intimating the danger of losing his supremacy, in case he did not comply with the king’s wishes in regard to his divorce from Queen Catherine. He died in 1542.
There have been various surmises as to the correct definition of “Sands End,” in Fulham parish, which immediately adjoins Chelsea, and is called such for a short distance. I venture to suggest the following explanation. Lord Sands, being Lord of the Manor of Chelsea, his rights terminated at the spot just mentioned, and to record this fact the people of Fulham called it Sands End, signifying thereby that Lord Sands’s jurisdiction and property ended there. Perhaps this idea is not original, but I have never heard it thus explained, and therefore I have given it.
This Lord Sands, a few years previous to his death, conveyed to Henry VIII. the manor of Chelsea, with certain closes or land situated at Kensal Green, near Wilsden, containing about 137¾ acres. [26] In 1861 there were in that part of Kensal which belongs to this parish 591 houses and 3223 inhabitants. The number of houses has since increased, and the present population may be estimated at 3500 persons. There are a great many highly respectable residents, and a large number of superior new houses are continually being erected in the adjoining wealthy parishes, which will ultimately increase the trade and value of property in the entire district. There are also several new Churches and Chapels built within the last few years in the neighbourhood. The Paddington Canal, which passes through the detached parts of Chelsea and Kensington, was opened with an aquatic procession on the 10th of July, 1801, in the presence of a vast concourse of spectators.
“Henry VIII. was probably induced to possess this manor,” says Mr. Faulkner, “from having observed, in his frequent visits to Sir Thomas More, the pleasantness of the situation on the banks of the Thames; and from the salubrity of the air, deeming it a fit residence for his infant daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, then between three and four years of age. But, on his obtaining it, finding that the manor house was ancient, and at that time in possession of the Lawrence family, [27] he erected a new manor house on the eastern side of Winchester House,” which stood on the site of the river-side entrance to Oakley Street, Cheyne Walk. It was “here the young Princess was nurtured, and it most probably was her chief residence during her father’s reign. In 1540, Sir Francis Bryan was made ‘Keeper of Chelsey’ for life, by patent, 31 Hen. VIII.”
On the marriage of Henry with Catharine Parr, this manor was assigned to that Queen as part of her jointure. Most unfortunately for her future welfare, Catharine, after the decease of the king, placed her affections upon the brother of Jane Seymour, Thomas Lord Seymour, to whom she was subsequently married. Whatever she might have dreaded from the temper of her previous royal husband, was realized in the accumulated injuries she received from Seymour, whose turbulent passions and uncontrolled ambition led him to aspire to the hand of the Princess Elizabeth, who then resided at Chelsea under the Queen’s care. She died at Sudeley Castle in 1548, not without suspicion of poison.
After the death of Catharine Parr, the manor was bestowed on the Duke of Northumberland by Edward VI. On the accession of Mary, the duke was impeached, attainted of high treason, and beheaded in 1553.
Jane, Duchess of Northumberland, was a most singular instance of the vicissitudes of fortune, having been the wife of one of the greatest men of that age, she lived to see her husband lose his head on a scaffold; to see one son share his father’s fate, another die in a prison, and the rest of her children live only by permission. Amidst this accumulated distress, which was heightened by the confiscation of her property, she displayed great firmness of mind, though left destitute of fortune and friends, till the arrival of some of the Spanish nobility, who interested themselves so warmly in her favour, that they prevailed on the Queen to reinstate her in some of her former possessions. She made a will, written with her own hand, unassisted by the advice of any learned in the laws. Amongst a variety of other bequests, she left to Sir Henry Sidney the gold and green hangings in the manor house, “water side, at Chelsey.” “My will,” she says, “is earnestly and effectually, that little solemnities be made for me, for I had even have a thousand foldes my debts to be paide, and the poore to be given unto, than anye pompe to be shewed upon my wretched carkes; therefore to the wormes will I goe, as I have afore wrytten in all poyntes, as you will answer yt afore God; and you breke any one jot of it, your wills hereafter may chaunce be as well broken.” Notwithstanding the strict injunctions contained in her will, she was buried with great funeral pomp, in February, 1535; two heralds attending, with many mourners, six dozen of torches, and two white branches, and “a canopy borne over her effigies in wax, in a goodly hearse to the church of Chelsey.”
Ann of Cleves, after her divorce from Henry VIII., appears to have resided in this manor house, where, it is said, she died in 1557, and was buried in Westminster.
Queen Elizabeth, in 1559, leased this manor to Ann, Duchess of Somerset, widow of the late Protector, for life. Her Majesty afterwards granted the manor to John Stanhope, Esq., vice-chamberlain of her household. On the accession of James I. he was created Lord Stanhope, of Harrington.
After several families had held the manor, we find it in possession of the Cheyne family.
Charles Cheyne, afterwards Viscount Newhaven, married Lady Jane, eldest daughter and co-heir of William Duke of Newcastle, with whom he obtained an immense fortune. This lady is celebrated for her excellent endowments, which she exhibited in a distinguished manner during the civil wars in the reign of Charles I., in her keeping the garrisoned house of her father, where she was left with one of her sisters, against the enemy, till, overpowered by their force, she was made prisoner, but, by the success of the royal arms, it was retaken. Her duty and piety to her exiled father, in making repeated remittances, which she effected by the sale of some rich jewels left her by her grandmother, the Lady Ogle, after the vain efforts she had made for his pardon, deserve to be remembered. Lord Cheyne, as we learn from the inscription on Lady Jane’s monument, purchased the manor of Chelsea with a part of the large dower she brought him on his marriage. His lordship very highly embellished the house and gardens, and they excited some curiosity at the time. Mr. Evelyn, in his Diary, thus notices them: “I made my Lord Cheyney a visit at Chelsea, and saw those ingenious water-works invented by Mr. Winstanley, in which were some things very surprising and extraordinary.” This Mr. Winstanley was the ingenious architect who built the Eddystone Lighthouse, and perished in it when blown down by the great storm in 1703. When Lord Cheyne died in 1698, he was succeeded by William, his son and successor.
Sir Hans Sloane, Bart., purchased the manor of William Lord Cheyne, the second and last Viscount Newhaven, in the year 1712. Sir Hans was descended from a family originally of Scotland, but settled in the north of Ireland, where he received his first education. At that early age he evinced a very strong inclination to study the works of Nature, which he pursued with uncommon application through the rest of his life. Being desirous of improving himself in the several branches of physic, to the profession of which he was ardently devoted, he came to London, and resided in a house adjoining to the laboratory of Apothecaries’ Hall. Here Mr. Sloane acquired a perfect knowledge of the preparations and uses of most chemical medicines; and at the same time prosecuted his favourite science of botany in the Apothecaries’ Gardens at Chelsea. He ultimately became President of the Royal College of Physicians, London, and associated and corresponded with most of the eminent men of his day. He had been previously Secretary to the Royal Society, which he held for 20 years without any salary, and was the intimate friend of Sir Isaac Newton. In the last sickness of Queen Anne he was called in to her assistance, as one of her physicians, as he had been on some former occasions. He was created a baronet by George I., an honour which had never before been conferred upon any physician in England. Upon purchasing the manor of Chelsea, he gave a portion of the ground of his garden to the Apothecaries’ Company, in order to perpetuate it for the improvement of botanical knowledge, and to communicate to others that instruction which he had himself received there. Besides the donation of so large and valuable a piece of ground, in a delightful situation on the banks of the Thames, and near the metropolis, he contributed largely towards building the stairs at the water-side gate, and an additional sum towards the expenses of the garden. When Sir Isaac Newton died, Sir Hans Sloane was chosen as President of the Royal Society, and continued in that high office for fourteen successive years. His decay was very gradual, and foretold that he would one day “drop like a fruit fully ripe.” He died in 1753, and was interred in the churchyard of Chelsea, in the same vault with his lady. His funeral was attended by many persons of distinction, and several Fellows of the Royal Society. He has been styled “the father of natural history in these realms.”
Sir Hans Sloane’s invaluable Museum, sold to the nation at his decease for £20,000, being about a fourth of its value, was the nucleus, and so far the first foundation, of the British Museum. He bequeathed one moiety of the manor of Chelsea to his daughter Sarah, the wife of George Stanley, Esq., of Paultons, in Hampshire, and the remainder to his second daughter, the lady of Charles Lord Cadogan, in which family the property still remains. Hence the names of Cheyne Walk, Hans Place, Sloane Street, Cadogan Place, Oakley Street, and Paultons Square. The eldest son of Earl Cadogan takes his father’s second title, Viscount Chelsea.
Mrs. Stanley, daughter of Sir Hans Sloane, left one son and two daughters; Hans Stanley, Esq., the son, who died in 1780, and bequeathed to his sisters, Anne, the wife of W. Ellis, Esq., afterwards Lord Mendip, and Sarah, the wife of Christopher D’Oyley, Esq., his moiety of this manor, with the reversion to Lord Cadogan and his heirs.
Sir Thomas More purchased an estate at Chelsea, about the year 1520, and built himself a house, as Erasmus describes it, “neither mean nor subject to envy, yet magnificent and commodious enough.” The site of this house has been long disputed. The Rev. Dr. King, (who is noticed amongst the rectors of the Old Church), in his “Letter designed for Mr. Hearne,” relative to Sir Thomas More’s house, and which is in the British Museum, says, “As seven cities in Greece contended for the birthplace of Homer, so there are no fewer than four houses in this parish which lay claim to Sir Thomas More’s residence, viz.: that which is now the Duke of Beaufort’s; that which was lately Sir Joseph Alstone’s; that which was once Sir Reginald Bray’s, and afterwards William Powell’s, which is now built into several tenements; and that which was lately Sir John Danvers’s, which is also now pulled down; and on part of the ground a small street is built, called Danvers Street, and some other houses. Now of all these, in my opinion, Beaufort House bids fairest to be the place where Sir Thomas More’s stood.” He then proceeds to give his reasons for arriving at this conclusion, which, when considered in connection with the statements of other writers on the subject, clearly establishes the correctness of Dr. King’s opinion. Sir Thomas More’s house, therefore, we will conclude stood almost on the site of what is now called Beaufort Street, facing Battersea Bridge. After his death, however, very considerable alterations and additions were made by succeeding occupants, both in regard to the house and grounds attached to it. The house, in its altered state, was pulled down about 140 years ago.
Erasmus gives a pleasing description of the manner of More’s living with his wife and family at Chelsea. “There he conversed with his wife,” says he, “his son, his daughter-in-law, his three daughters and their husbands, with eleven grand-children. There is not a man living so affectionate to his children as he; he loveth his old wife as well as if she was a young maid.” Fox, in his Martyrology, however, throws a sad blast over the character of More. He states that More used to bind heretics to a tree in his garden, called “The Tree of Troth,” but this was denied by More himself. Henry VIII., to whom he owed his rise and fall, frequently came to Chelsea to visit him. Sometimes the king would ascend to the house-top with him to observe the stars and converse on astronomy. Amongst the illustrious foreigners entertained and patronised by Sir Thomas More, may be mentioned Hans Holbein, a celebrated painter, who lived with him for nearly three years painting portraits of him, his relations, and friends. It is generally admitted that he had a house in Chelsea for aged people, whom he daily relieved.
More delighted in telling the following “merrie story,” as he termed it:—A friar while preaching “spyed a poore wyfe of the paryshe whysperyng to her pew-fellow, and he fallyng angry thereto, cryde out unto her aloude, ‘Hold thy babble, I byd thee, thou wyfe in the red hood!’” He regularly attended Chelsea Church, and very often assisted at the celebration of Mass, and at times he would put on a surplice and join the quire.
The pathetic story of More’s wit was never so touchingly illustrated as on the day after he resigned the Great Seal. He went to Chelsea Church as usual with his wife and family, none of whom he had yet informed of his resignation. During the service, as was his custom, he sat in the choir, in a surplice. After service it was the custom for one of his attendants to go to her ladyship’s pew, and say, “My Lord is gone before.” But this day the Ex-Chancellor came himself, and making a low bow, said, “Madam, my Lord is gone.” Then, on their way home, to her great mortification, he unriddled his mournful pleasantry by telling her his lordship was gone, in the loss of his official dignities.
Sir Thomas had four children, three daughters and one son; the latter was the youngest. His first wife wished very much for a boy; at last she brought this son, who proved to be of slender capacity; upon which he said to her, “You have prayed so long for a boy, that now you have got one that will be a boy as long as he lives.” The good lady walked away from him.
By indefatigable application, More cleared the Court of Chancery of all its causes. One day, having ended a cause, he called for the next, and was told there was “no other depending in the Court.” He was delighted to hear it, and ordered it to be inserted on the records of the Court. It gave rise to the following epigram, not the worst in the English language:—
“When More some time had Chancellor been
No More suits did remain;
The same shall never More be seen
Till More be there again.”
The pitiful story of More’s daughter, Margaret, parting with her beloved father, on the morning of his cruel execution, is truly affecting. She followed him to the scaffold—embraced him, implored his blessing, wept upon his cheek, bidding him in anguish adieu. A second time she went forward to him, clung round his neck and kissed him, when at last, notwithstanding his apparent gravity, tears fell from his eyes * * * and soon afterwards she was severed from him for ever! It appears that his original intention to be interred in the Old Church, was unhappily not fulfilled. Dr. King states that “his body was buried in the chapel of St. Peter, in the Tower, and his head, after some months, was bought by his daughter, Margaret, and taken down from London Bridge, where it was fixed upon a pole, and was buried,” probably as stated, in St. Dunstan’s, near Canterbury. Aubery, however, asserts that “after he was beheaded, his trunke was interred in Chelsey Church, near the middle of the south wall, where was some slight monument erected, which being worne by time, Sir John Lawrence, of Chelsey, at his own proper costs and chardges, built to his memorie a handsome one, with inscription, of marble.” This statement, as regards the interment of Sir Thomas More’s body, does not accord with the opinion of most other writers on the subject.
After the death of More, his mansion was granted in the 28th of Henry VIII. to Sir William Paulet, afterwards Marquis of Winchester, to whom Edward VI. granted in fee both that and all other premises in Chelsea and Kensington, forfeited by his attainder.
The Marquis of Winchester, who was so much of a courtier as to accommodate himself to princes as well as to subjects of very different characters, was, from his natural and acquired abilities, perfectly qualified to act with propriety in the highest offices of the state. In the reign of Edward VI. he was made Lord High Treasurer of England. It is said that by his councils, in a great measure, the Duke of Northumberland’s design of setting the Lady Jane Grey on the throne was prevented; for which good office of loyalty to them, the Queens, Mary and Elizabeth, continued him in the Treasurer’s Office, which he enjoyed for thirty years; and on being asked how he preserved himself in that place through so many changes of government, he answered, “By being a willow, and not an oak.” He died in 1572, aged 97 years. The marquis greatly enlarged and improved the house, and, according to Norden, “adorned Chelsea with stately buildings.” His eldest son, John, second Marquis of Winchester, died at Chelsea in 1576. The widow of the first marquis died in 1586.
Gregory, Lord Dacre, soon afterwards had possession of Sir Thomas More’s house. He was the son of Thomas Fynes Lord Dacre, who succeeded his grandfather in the 26th of Henry VIII.; and who, in 1541, was engaged with some other persons in chasing the deer in Sir Nicholas Pelham’s park, when a fray arising between them and the keepers, in which one of the latter was killed, he was found guilty of being accessary to the murder, and suffered death accordingly; but his children were restored to their honours in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Gregory, Lord Dacre, died at Chelsea in 1594, without issue; and his sister Margaret, the wife of Samuel Lennard, Esq., claimed the barony, and was allowed it in the second of James I.
Lady Dacre survived her husband but a few months, and bequeathed her house at Chelsea, with all its appurtenances, to the great Lord Burleigh, with remainder to his son Robert, afterwards Earl of Salisbury, and Lord High Treasurer. “I have seen,” says Lysons, “among the records at the Rolls Chapel, a pardon of alienation to Sir Robert Cecil, dated June 21, 39th Elizabeth, for acquiring these premises of Thomas Lord Buckhurst.” This distinguished nobleman, afterwards Earl of Dorset, was brother to Lady Dacre, and resided frequently with his sister at Chelsea, but it is not known whether he had any interest in the estate.
The Earl of Salisbury is supposed to have rebuilt Sir Thomas More’s house, as the initials of his name were to be seen on the pipes and in several of the rooms.
Henry Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, bought the house of the Earl of Salisbury, and probably came immediately to reside in it, as there are some entries respecting his family in the Parish Register in the beginning of the year 1609. By his first wife, Lady C. Hastings, daughter of Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, he had two sons, Thomas, his successor in the title, and Edward; and by his second wife, widow of W. Norris, Esq., he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married Sir Arthur Gorges, and also two sons, Henry and Robert. The latter died in 1609, and was buried at Chelsea.
Sir Arthur Gorges, on the death of Henry, Earl of Lincoln, became the possessor of the house, and he and Lady Elizabeth, his wife, in consideration of £4300, sold it to Sir Lionel Cranfield, afterwards created Earl of Middlesex. It was described as the “greatest house at Chelsea, with two fore great courts adjoining, environed with brick walls, also a wharf (landing-place for a pleasure boat, &c.) lying in front, having a high brick tower on the east and west ends, and a high water tower, standing upon the west corner of the wharf, and the watercourse belonging thereto. An orchard, a garden, having a peryment standing up in the middle, and a terrace on the north end thereof, with a banquetting house at the east end of the terrace, having a marble table in it. A great garden, dovecote close, containing five acres, the kitchen garden, brick-barne close, containing ten acres.” Lord Middlesex held the mansion till 1625, when he sold it to Charles I., who, in 1627, granted the said house, &c., to the Duke of Buckingham.
George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham, the son of Sir George Villiers, was born in 1592. By the elegance of his person, and the courtliness of his address, he gained as great an ascendance over King James as the favourite of any other prince is known to have done by a long course of assiduity and insinuation. The Earl of Clarendon says, that the duke “was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them, that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted.” He married Lady Catherine Manners, the daughter of Francis, Earl of Rutland, by whom he had three sons and a daughter; he was assassinated at Portsmouth in 1628, by one Felton. The eldest son, George, who succeeded him in his title and estates, being very young at the time of his father’s murder, was sent to travel during the civil wars; and returning to England whilst Charles I. was under restraint, he and his brother, Lord Francis Villiers, thought themselves obliged to venture their lives and fortunes for the king at the first opportunity. Soon after, the Parliament voted that he should be proceeded against as a traitor, and that his estates should be sequestered.
Sir Thomas More’s house, for such it ought still to be considered, notwithstanding the great alterations made in it, was now known as Buckingham House, in consequence of its having been granted to the first Duke of Buckingham. It appears by the following extract from a periodical paper after that duke’s death, to have been in possession of his daughter Mary, who married James, Duke of Richmond and Lenox: “The Duchess of Lenox, daughter of the Duke of Buckingham, being then at Oxford, petitioned the Lords for leave to come to London, or to her house at Chelsey, to be under Dr. Mayerne’s hands for her health; a pass was ordered for her, and the concurrence of the Commons desired.”
Buckingham House, in 1649, having been seized by the Parliament, was committed to the custody of John Lisle, one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal. This gentleman’s own estates were afterwards confiscated, and he then retired to the continent. He was shot by some unknown person as he was going to church at Lausanne. A short time after the house was granted to Sir Bulstrode Whitlock, who resided with his family at Chelsea for some years.
Sir Bulstrode Whitlock was the son of a Judge of the Court of King’s Bench; he wrote a memorial of English affairs from the latter part of the reign of Charles I. to the Restoration.
George, the second Duke of Buckingham, soon after the Restoration, recovered his father’s estates, and was the possessor of this house for a few years, but was soon obliged to dispose of it for the benefit of his creditors.
Dryden, in his poem of Absalom and Achitophel, has drawn the following portrait of this nobleman in the character of Zimri:—
“A man so various, that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind’s epitome:
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong,
He’s every thing by starts, and nothing long;
But in the course of one revolving moon,
Was Chymist, Fidler, Statesman, and Buffoon.
In squandering wealth, was his peculiar art,
Nothing went unrewarded but desert.
Beggar’d by fools, when still he found, too late
He had his jest, and they had his estate.”
James Plummer, one of the Duke of Buckingham’s principal creditors, was the person in whose name this house was aliened in 1674, in trust, for George, Earl of Bristol, who is said to have died at Chelsea, and to have been buried in the church, but there is no memorial of him, or entry of his interment in the Parish Register.
George Digby, Earl of Bristol, was born in 1612, and was educated at Oxford; he soon became distinguished by his remarkable advancement in all kinds of elegant literature. In the beginning of the Long Parliament he was disaffected to the Court; shortly afterwards he appeared a declared enemy to the Parliament; and having testified his dislike of their proceedings against Lord Strafford, he was expelled the House of Commons in 1641. Upon the death of the king his lordship was exempted from pardon by the Parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II., when he recovered all he had lost; he grew very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in Parliament, and made himself conspicuous for his enmity to Lord Clarendon. Lord Bristol died in 1677, “neither loved nor regretted by any party.” The house at Chelsea he bequeathed to his Countess, Lady Ann Russell, daughter of Francis, Earl of Bedford, who sold it in 1682, to the Marquis of Worcester, created Duke of Beaufort, and who died in 1699.
The name of the house was now changed to Beaufort House. Mr. Evelyn, in his Diary, makes frequent mention of it:—“I went with my Lady Sunderland to Chelsey (1679), and dined with the Countess of Bristol (her mother) in the great house, formerly the Duke of Buckingham’s, a spacious and excellent place for the extent of ground and situation, in a good air. The house is large, but ill-contrived, though my Lord of Bristol expended much money upon it. There were divers pictures of Titian and Vandyke, and some of Bassans, very excellent, especially an Adonis and Venus, a Duke of Venice, a Butcher in his shambles selling meat to a Swiss, and of Van Dyck, my Lord of Bristol’s picture, with the Earl of Bedford’s at length. There was in the garden a rare collection of orange trees, of which she was pleased to bestow some upon me.” Again, in 1683, Mr. Evelyn says, “I went to see what had been done by the Duke of Beaufort on his house at Chelsey; he had made great alterations, but might have made a better house with the materials and the cost he had been at.”