at St. Martin’s Priory, Dover. It forms a hall 101 ft. long by 27 ft.
wide, and is lit by a range of eight windows on each side. Though St.
Martin’s was never more than a cell of Christchurch, Canterbury, these
dimensions compare favourably with those of the secular buildings of
the same class. The hall of Christchurch Castle, Twynham, was 70 ft.
by 25 ft., and Scolland Hall, Richmond, 79 ft. by 26 ft. Wolvesley
Castle Hall was, however, larger, being 135 ft. by 29 ft. In the
internal economy of the monastic frater no less than in its plan we
may recognise the prototype of the domestic hall. At the east end was
the dais for the abbot’s table, at the west the screens masking the
entrance from the kitchen and cloister. It has been asserted that the
Norman builders placed the windows of their halls high in the walls for
fear of draughts, but in the monastic frater we find them in the same
position, for the adjoining pent-house roof of the cloister prevented
any other arrangement, and here again it seems likely that the secular
but copied the monastic fashion.
A characteristic feature of the later monastic frater-house is the
reader’s pulpit from which one of the brethren during meal time read
edifying extracts from the lives of the saints and similar works. In
the Norman fraters, however, this feature seldom appears in structural
form. There is no trace of it at Dover, and none likewise in the plans
of Lewes and Castle Acre. In the late twelfth century, however, it
became universal, and is generally enclosed in a square projection near
the dais end of the frater, approached by a flight of stairs in the
thickness of the wall.
In position and outward form it approximates closely to the domestic
oriel, and one is tempted to suggest it as the true original of this
much-discussed feature of the secular plan which, it may be noted
(like the pulpit itself), never appears in early work. In any case
the beautiful oriel formerly existing in the infirmary at Easby Abbey
is one of the earliest known examples of the feature, and implies its
monastic origin.
One other point may be noted in conclusion. According to monastic
rules, the frater was never supposed to be artificially heated,
and consequently it was left to the unaided secular mind to invent
something new, or to adhere to the ancient form of the central hearth.
The secular mind chose the easier course, and only in occasional
instances like that at Christchurch do we find a proper fireplace and
chimney in the great hall.
Even the final destruction of the monasteries, under Henry VIII.,
did not entirely terminate their influence on English domestic work.
Numerous abbeys and priories, of which Ford and Laycock are familiar
examples, were transformed into dwelling-houses by their first lay
proprietors. After the destruction of the conventual church, the
claustral block, with one or more of the cloister alleys retained, and
the chapter-house used as a private chapel, became the prototype of a
numerous class of houses which remained in general favour throughout
Elizabethan and Jacobean times; and even in the throes of dissolution
monasticism left a deep and lasting mark on the architecture of the
country.
—A. W. C.
SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE
AT CHELSEA
[Illustration: FIG. 27.—SIR THOMAS MORE’S FAMILY AT CHELSEA.
_Drawn by Holbein._]
VI.
SIR THOMAS MORE’S HOUSE AT CHELSEA.
Sir Thomas More’s house at Chelsea, where he received the intimate
but fatal companionship of King Henry VIII., and held more congenial
intercourse with Erasmus, Holbein, and other of his friends, enshrines
perhaps one of the most familiar domestic scenes in English history.
Yet we have hitherto known little about the house itself beyond the
mere fact of its position, and the names of its more or less famous
owners until its destruction by Sir Hans Sloane in 1739. Led, however,
by a hint of Mr. Randal Davies, I have lately been carefully through
the MS. drawings in the possession of the Marquis of Salisbury, and
have been rewarded by finding a set of six plans (_circa_ 1595) which
undoubtedly relate to this house. Two of them are evidently surveys of
its earlier condition, and probably represent its arrangement during
the life of Sir Thomas More. The remainder embody some of Sir Robert
Cecil’s intentions regarding the refashioning of the house when it came
into his possession, intentions which were only partially carried out,
and were relinquished by him in favour of his more ambitious project
at Hatfield. The plans are beautifully drawn in ink, and throw a most
interesting light on the methods of drafting a building scheme, the
skill of which seems no whit behind the work of the modern architect.
The information available regarding the riverside estate of Sir Thomas
More is by no means slight, although it is lacking in many of the
details necessary for the completion of its history, and we have,
moreover, no remains of the house with which to compare the early
plans, beyond the long garden walls of Tudor brickwork which still
divide the rows of modern houses erected upon the site. The whole
property has a singularly interesting architectural history, for three
other houses were subsequently built upon parts of the estate, and all
have a different claim upon our attention. To the west of The Great
House, nearer the river, was the original “Farm House” which More had
bought and which was rebuilt by Sir Theodore Mayerne, physician to
James I., and afterwards altered by the Earl of Lindsey (_circa_ 1674).
This house remains, much mutilated and changed, divided into several
dwellings, but still retaining the name of Lindsey House and preserving
much of the appearance it had in the days of its occupation by Count
Zinzendorf and his Moravian followers (1751–1770). To the north of
Lindsey House was Gorges House, built probably in the last years of the
sixteenth century by the Earl of Lincoln for his son-in-law Sir Arthur
Gorges. Surrounding three sides of a courtyard open to the west, and
surmounted by a succession of Dutch gables, it eventually came into
the possession of the Milman family, and was pulled down about 1726 to
make way for Milman’s Row. The third house was to the east of The Great
House and its gardens, and was built in 1622–3 by Sir John Danvers,
who bought the land from the third Earl of Lincoln. Danvers House was
remarkable as being one of the earliest houses to take on the Later
Renaissance manner, and its planning and that of its gardens delighted
the heart of Aubrey and of Pepys, a detailed description by the former
being preserved at the Bodleian. John Thorpe has left us plans of the
house, and Aubrey a sketch of the garden. It was pulled down about
1720, and Danvers Street now passes over its site, the present position
of the rebuilt Crosby Hall marking roughly its distance from the river.
Before examining in detail the various features of these houses, it
may be useful to set out a table of the drawings which are so far
available:—
IN THE HATFIELD PAPERS (1595–6).
(1) and (2) Survey of The Great House: ground plan and first
floor, by J. Symonds.
(3) and (4) Proposed rebuilding: ground plan and first floor by
Spicer.
(5) First-floor plan of alternative scheme, also by Spicer.
(6) Estate plan showing house and gardens.
IN THE THORPE COLLECTION, Soane Museum.
(Early 17th century).
(7) Plan of The Great House and lodges.
(8) (9) and (10) Sir John Danvers’ house: ground plan, first
floor, and sketch elevation.
IN THE SMITHSON COLLECTION (Colonel Coke).
(11) Summer-house, Chelsea (shown also in Kip’s view).
There are also—
(12) Kip’s bird’s-eye view of The Great House, showing also
Lindsey House, Gorges House, and the garden of Danvers House,
dated 1699, drawn by Knyff.
(13) Danvers House: plan of garden, drawn by Aubrey (Bodleian).
(14) and (15) Lindsey House: drawings in the Moravian Archives at
Hernhutt; and engraving in Malcolm’s “Londinium Redivivum.”
From this list it will be seen that if there is not enough material to
satisfy the topographer and to enable him to plot the exact position of
these houses on the banks of the broad highway of the Thames, yet there
is more than enough to interest the student of architecture. Let us
first consider the earlier plans of The Great House, which I have the
kind permission of Lord Salisbury to reproduce.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.—PLAN OF THE HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR
_Drawn by I. Symonds (c. 1595)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 29.—PLAN OF THE HOUSE, FIRST FLOOR.
_Drawn by I. Symonds (c. 1595)._]
It was on the death, in 1595, of Anne, Lady Dacre—well known as the
foundress of the beautiful Emmanuel Hospital which used to stand in
Westminster—that The Great House at Chelsea came to the Cecil family,
Lord Burleigh, who is thought to have stayed here, giving it up to his
son Sir Robert in 1597. The house, as we have seen, had already had
historic associations, from its first builder, Sir Thomas More, who
lived here for about fourteen years until his attainder in 1535. It
had then passed successively to Sir William Paulet (first Marquis of
Winchester), his son the second Marquis, and in 1575 to Lady Dacre,
who was a daughter of the Marchioness of Winchester by her former
husband, Sir Robert Sackville. The possession of what must have been
a fine old house of the early sixteenth century, amidst the charming
Thames scenery just west of the picturesque village of Chelsea, fired
the future builder of Hatfield with a desire to remodel the building
and bring it up to date as his country seat. With this in view,
immediately upon possession Cecil had the house measured up, and
commissioned one or more of his “surveyors” to plan the additions and
alterations. In a letter dated September 3rd, 1595, from H. Maynard to
Sir Robert Cecil, mention is made of “the plattes of Chelsey house
made by Torrington, with the Controller of the Works’ additions.” This
seems to imply that Torrington had plotted the place as it stood, and
that the additions had been made by the Controller of the Works whose
identity is not disclosed. The drawings here reproduced do not seem,
however, to be the ones referred to in the letter, and it is difficult
to say how far any of them represent the form of the original house
as acquired by Cecil. To the historian this is unfortunate, but to the
student of architecture it will be a matter of congratulation that the
“sketch-plans” survived instead.
The two plans which seem most likely to represent the already existing
buildings have not the name of Chelsea attached to them, but they are
clearly of this house. They are each inscribed: “This Plat is after 10
foot in An ynch. p. J. Symands.” More roughly drawn than the others,
they represent less coherent planning, and show an earlier type of
house. Most significant of all, the figured dimensions are given in
fractions of feet or with inches, and the heights of the stories
are shown on the ground and first floors. This John Symonds was the
author of the remarkable plans of Aldgate Priory (also in the Hatfield
Collection), which Professor Lethaby published in the _Home Counties
Magazine_ (vol. ii, pp. 45–53). Professor Lethaby has established that
Symonds was employed by Lord Burghley on the harbour works at Dover,
and that he died probably in 1597. It is interesting to find another
set of plans which associates him again with the neighbourhood of
London. The early features of his plan will be seen to consist in the
numerous staircase and other projections upon both the north and south
fronts, the square porch with shafted angles (as in the western room),
and the oriel over the front door. The house had doubtless been altered
since Sir Thomas More’s time. Its front elevation is symmetrical
between the two slightly projecting wings, the porch being in the
centre; but towards the west a further wing had been built with a
width and projection similar to the others. This western wing is shown
on all the plans of the house, and it was evidently the intention of
Sir Robert Cecil to remove the projections between it and the eastern
wing, making a symmetrical elevation between them, broken only by the
porch. We see, therefore, in all the other plans that the porch has
been shifted westwards, and with it the Great Hall, and the planning
of the north side has been altered to correspond. This part of the
scheme was actually carried out by Cecil, as we can see by referring
to John Thorpe’s plan, and to Kip’s view of the house a century later.
The Great Hall in Symonds’s plan is of one story, and, beside the
usual screen, has posts to support the passage above, a feature which
suggests that this was once an open gallery. The hall is shown with
a dais, which communicated with a long wing leading northwards, in
which were the grand staircase, the chapel, and a cloister. This wing,
with its Long Gallery on the first floor, looks at first sight to be
of quite Elizabethan character, and may well have been an addition
by Lady Dacre. But the chapel, cramped though it is, with its window
to the east, is not unlikely to have been the private chapel of Sir
Thomas More, and the “Parte of ye Tarras” shows the commencement of his
favourite terrace, which appears in Cecil’s estate plan and in Kip’s
view, and is described with its “banqueting house” in the conveyance
to Sir Hans Sloane (1737). On the first floor may be seen the little
balustrade which surrounds the opening into the chapel below, and on
the two floors there are no fewer than four rooms having those internal
porches which are so characteristic of Elizabethan houses, and which
came in those days under the comprehensive term of “oriel.”
The closer one examines these two plans of Symonds the more evident
it becomes that they represent an early Tudor house which had been
enlarged in the latter part of the sixteenth century—if the north-east
wing were really in existence when the house was measured up, and was
not the draughtsman’s suggestions for an extension. If our deduction is
correct, we have here the substantial arrangement of Sir Thomas More’s
house, and one of the rooms, possibly the chapel, formed the background
for Holbein’s famous sketch of the family group.
Let us now consider the four other Hatfield plans, two of which are
marked “Chelsey,” while the remaining two—undoubtedly of the same
place—bear the name of the draughtsman, “Mr. Spicer,”[18] in Cecil’s
own handwriting. I do not think that any of these plans represent
accurately the actual changes which were made, although to the title of
one, “Mr. Spicer’s platt without a gallery,” Cecil has added the word
“allowed.”
[18] Of Spicer I have not been able to find any other mention than the
following reference in the Hatfield MSS. In a letter dated 9 December,
1598, written in Italian by Federigo Genibelli to Sir Robert Cecil, the
writer, in speaking of the wages due to himself and other workmen in
building fortifications in the Isle of Wight, refers to “Mr. Speicer”
as also employed. It is quite possible that he was the Surveyor of
Works at Chelsea.
[Illustration: FIG. 30.—PLAN FOR REBUILDING, GROUND FLOOR.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
The plans are drawn with scrupulous care, and, like a fair proof that
they were not carried out. The dimensions are marked in whole figures
without fractions, and no heights of rooms are given. They exhibit
most complete and ideal plans of the period. The scheme for which the
ground and first-floor plans are drawn shows the south front reduced to
perfect symmetry, the western room already referred to being brought
out in a bold wing, and a corresponding projection being placed to
the east. This latter contains an imposing chapel with screen, and
two shaped balconies to the gallery over. Each wing is flanked by an
octagonal stair-turret. The hall (50 ft. by 21 ft.) which replaces the
larger Gothic hall (59 ft. by 31 ft. 6 in.) has been moved westward,
to allow of a central porch and the addition of an extra retiring-room
of important dimensions to the private apartments eastward. The hall
retains a screen, but loses its dais and oriel window. The porch is
treated with columns in the approved Renaissance manner, which are
repeated in the upper storey and take the place of the little oriel
that is shown over the earlier doorway. The old north-western wing
is modified a little, but to the east a repeat is shown, and in the
former, false windows are indicated against the oven walls to balance
the bay on the other side! Over the east wing is a long gallery (99
ft. by 19 ft.) overlooking the garden, with three bay windows. The old
octagonal projections on the north side are retained, and the plan is
noteworthy in having seven newel stairs, beside the principal staircase
and one other straight flight.
[Illustration: FIG. 31.—PLAN FOR REBUILDING, FIRST FLOOR.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 32.—ANOTHER, FIRST FLOOR PLAN.
_Drawn by Spicer (c. 1595)._]
An even more elaborate scheme is shown on the third plan, of which
we have the first floor, or “seconde storie,” only. Here the hall,
which is the same length as the old hall, _i.e._, 59 ft., goes up
two storeys, and a gallery is shown over the screen. The apartment
to the east of the hall is occupied by the grand staircase, and a
fine well-stair flanks each of the front wings, being brought out
as square towers behind the octagonal turrets. The chapel shows
further elaboration with three balconies, evidently forming private
pews, not unlike Queen Elizabeth’s pew in the chapel of the Croydon
Archiepiscopal Palace. The kitchen shares with the hall the dignity of
embracing two storeys, but the main feature of the plan is the range of
building which unites the two northern wings, and forms a magnificent
gallery 123 ft. long by 19 ft. wide.
The fourth plan is by far the most interesting from the topographical
point of view, for it gives the divisions of all the gardens and
forecourts and the outline of the riverbank. The northern boundary is
now the south side of King’s Road, and the stable-yard is the Moravian
Burial Ground. The open square to the north-east is Dovecote Close,
now largely occupied by Paulton’s Square. And down by the river may be
seen the quay, and the little street of houses (called Duke Street and
Lombard Street) whose picturesque buildings gave way to the making of
the Embankment. The lines of garden-wall running north and south are
still largely intact, and bear out the general accuracy of the plan,
although the measurements are wrong in many places. The terrace, with
its archway and steps, is to be seen; but the house is drawn more as
a feat of draughtsmanship than as a serious attempt to make it to
scale. It represents perhaps another of Sir Robert Cecil’s schemes, but
neither a comparison with Symonds’ earlier or Thorpe’s later plans will
be found to support its exact arrangement.
[Illustration: FIG. 33.—ESTATE PLAN (c. 1595).]
Dr. King, the antiquary, and rector of Chelsea, writing in the early
part of the eighteenth century, relates from his own observation how
“in divers places [in this house] are these letters, R.C., and also
R.C.E., with the date of the year, viz., 1597, which letters were the
initials of his [Cecil’s] name and his lady’s, and the year 1597 when
he new-built, or at least new-fronted it.” A letter in the Hatfield
MSS. from Roger Houghton to Sir Robert Cecil, endorsed “Mr. Steward
to my master,” and written “From your Honour’s House in the Strand”
(June 22nd, 1597), says: “The bed chamber and withdrawing chamber at
‘Cheallseay’ are matted, and this day they are about to hang them.
There wanteth your direction what stone you will that the ‘ffootpasses’
be made of to the chimneys in these two rooms, as also to the gallery,
also whether you will have the hangings in the great chamber to be hung
at their full length or tucked up.”
Sir Robert Cecil seems soon to have become tired of his new possession.
We find him desirous of selling the property in 1599, and on the last
day of February of that year it was bought by Henry, second Earl of
Lincoln. The new owner was father-in-law to Sir Arthur Gorges, upon
whom and his wife the estate was settled. Apparently at this time,
too, a site was found for a new house, behind Lindsey House, which was
occupied by Sir Arthur Gorges during the Earl of Lincoln’s lifetime.
There seem to have been very serious quarrels between the two families,
and much interesting and vigorous correspondence is extant concerning
their differences. Mr. Randal Davies, in his _Chelsea Old Church_, has
told the subsequent history of the house and of its notable tenants.
The Earl of Lincoln died in 1615, and the house and land which he
had purchased from Sir Robert Cecil passed to Sir Arthur Gorges.
This, however, was not the complete estate of Sir Thomas More, for it
appears that the property lying south of Dovecote Close and east of
the terrace and garden of The Great House, was in the hands of the
descendant of William Roper, who married More’s daughter and received
it in dowry, for which reason it is not shown on Cecil’s estate plan.
The Tudor home of the Ropers, Well Hall, is still to be seen, in part,
at Eltham, where its fine brick walls and chimney-stacks overhang the
ancient moat. Before his death the Earl of Lincoln reunited More’s
former property by purchase, but in 1615 the two portions were again
in separate hands, since he bequeathed his house and grounds to Gorges,
but left Roper’s land to his son, the third earl. This latter parcel
of the estate, which for a few years was thus a second time in the
same ownership as The Great House, has quite an interesting history.
It is specified in the grant of Chelsea to William Pawlet after More’s
attainder as “the house and one pightell or close of land.” Evidently,
therefore, there was already a building upon it, and Mr. Randal Davies
confirms a suggestion of Mr. Horne that this was the “place called
the new buylding wherein was a chappell, a library, and a gallerie,
which Roper tells us More built a good distance from his mansion
house.” To this I would add that it seems extremely probable, since
the high terrace from The Great House to this site was not a natural
one, but apparently built of brick and stone, that it formed a covered
way communicating with the “new building.” However this may be, the
association of the place with the name of More was so strong that it
is mentioned by Aubrey as “the very place where was the house of Sir
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England,” and Aubrey adds that “he had
but one marble chimneypiece, and that plain, but indeed very good if
it be not touch, which remains there still in the chamber that was his
lordship’s.” These remarks are not inconsistent with the conclusions
arrived at above, but so fixed was the tradition as to this being the
site of More’s home, that even the clear evidence in favour of The
Great House was assailed. The misapprehension was probably strengthened
by the name of “Moorhouse,” perhaps bestowed upon it by Roper and
his wife, and mentioned by the third Earl of Lincoln in a letter of
1618. The property was sold by the last-named to Sir John Danvers
in 1622–3—three years after The Great House had again changed hands
through its purchase by Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex.
[Illustration: FIG. 34.—PLAN OF HOUSE.
_Drawn by I. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]