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’s House.
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.”
* * * * *
Henry, second Duke of Beaufort, by his will, dated in 1712, left all his
estates, in trust, to be sold, and the produce appropriated according to
a settlement made at his marriage. The house, however, continued to be
the residence of that noble family till about the year 1720. Mary,
relict of the first duke, died here in 1714, at the good old age of 85
years.
* * * * *
It may here be observed that Chelsea, not only in former times, but at
the present period, 1869, is admitted to be generally a very healthy
parish. This assertion is proved by the weekly reports given to the
Vestry by Dr. Barclay, the medical officer of health, and which is
confirmed by other gentlemen of the medical profession. The reports read
at the meetings of the Chelsea Board of Guardians, also, shew that a
great many of the inmates of the workhouse live to a very advanced age;
and from peculiar facilities I possessed, many years ago, I can
positively assert that the number of aged persons, who had for a long
period been residents, was greater than in most of the other suburban
parishes.
* * * * *
Sir Hans Sloane, after the mansion had stood empty for several years,
purchased it in 1736, for the sum of £2,500 at a public sale, and had it
pulled down in 1740. The gate, which was built by Inigo Jones for the
Lord Treasurer Middlesex, he gave to the Earl of Burlington, who removed
it to his gardens at Chiswick, which occasioned the following lines by
POPE:—
PASSENGER.
O Gate, how com’st thou here?
GATE.
I was brought from Chelsea last year,
Batter’d with wind and weather;
Inigo Jones put me together;
Sir Hans Sloane,
Let me alone,
Burlington brought me hither.
This gate was placed in an avenue near the house at Chiswick, and
consisted of a portico, supported by two columns of the Doric order on
one side, and pilasters on the other. On two stone tablets were
inscribed: “Builded by Inigo Jones, at Chelsea, MDCXXI.” “Given by Sir
Hans Sloane, baronet, to the Earl of Burlington, MDCCXXXVII.”
* * * * *
Bowack thus describes Beaufort House in 1705: “This house is between two
and three hundred feet in length, has a stately ancient front towards the
Thames, also two spacious court yards, and behind it are very fine
gardens. It is so pleasantly situated, that the late Queen Mary had a
great desire to purchase it before King William built Kensington, but was
prevented by some secret obstacles.”
* * * * *
Attached to the house was a chapel, which appears to have been attended
by a few of the inhabitants. In various marriage licenses, granted in
1722, and in other years, persons were to be married in the Parish
Church, in the chapel of Chelsea College, or the chapel of Beaufort
House.
* * * * *
The above account of this celebrated mansion cannot fail to be highly
interesting to the generality of readers. Mr. Faulkner has truly
observed, “that few houses can boast of having been the residence of such
a succession of noble and distinguished characters.”
* * * * *
Beaufort (row) Street, which was begun to be built about 1766, takes its
name from the Duke of Beaufort. A portion of his vast estate was the
property of Mr. Long, a very old and respected parishioner, partly
leasehold, under Earl Cadogan, and some of it, if not all, is still held
by that family.
Battersea Bridge, Sailing Matches, &c.
To meet the tastes of all classes of readers, I shall occasionally
deviate from the prescribed order which it was my original intention to
have pursued; by doing so it will remove the weariness that frequently
arises, especially in works of this description, from dwelling too long
on one particular subject. This motive, I trust, will be accepted as an
apology for apparent digressions.
* * * * *
There was formerly a Ferry a little eastward of the spot where now stands
Battersea Bridge, and consequently not far distant from the distinguished
mansion just described. It belonged to Thomas, Earl of Lincoln, who sold
it in 1618 to William Blake. After some time it became the property of
Sir Walter St. John, and passed with the Bolingbroke estate to Earl
Spencer, under whom it was held in 1766, when an Act of Parliament was
obtained for building a bridge over the Thames, from Chelsea to
Battersea, and empowering Lord Spencer to build the same. Fifteen
proprietors having subscribed a sum of money each, it was accordingly
begun in 1771, was opened for foot-passengers in the same year, and in
the following year was ready for carriages. From 1772, when the bridge
was finally erected, to the present time, 1869, is exactly 97 years, and
this is the precise age of it. It is a most unsightly structure of wood,
about one furlong in length, 28 ft. wide, and its cost rather more than
£20,000. The proprietors have a vote for the counties of Middlesex and
Surrey.
* * * * *
Lamps were first placed on the bridge in 1799, and in 1821 and 1822 an
iron railing 4-ft. high, on the western side, was substituted for the
original wooden railing, and in 1824, the eastern side was completed. So
far apart were the original wooden railings, which were placed crossways,
that the body of a child might have passed through them, and, if not
observed, no person cognizant of the fatal accident. There were also, at
the above period, eight projecting recesses, four on each side,
constructed for the safety of foot-passengers, and a slightly raised
pathway made.
* * * * *
The number of lives that have been sacrificed at this bridge, together
with the barges sunken at it, even within the last few years, is really
painful to contemplate. It is a sad contrast, in every respect, to the
elegant structures that now span the river, and it is to be hoped there
will soon be erected another one in its place—one that will be an
ornament to Chelsea, Battersea, and the metropolis.
HYDE PARK ON THE THAMES.