would seem to assign his plan of The Great House, Chelsea, to the
time of the Earl of Lincoln, or that of the Earl of Middlesex. The
plan, which bears no inscription, was identified by Mr. J. A. Gotch,
by a close comparison with Kip’s view. In its south elevation it
corresponds exactly with the engraving, and, most significant of all,
both drawings show the two square lodges set anglewise about the gate
that divides the two front courts. Assuming, as seems probable, that
Cecil did not alter the northern side of the original house very much,
that portion might well have become too antiquated for the Earl of
Middlesex, who, when pulling down the northern wing, may have modified
the south front and the other features of the house. It must be
conceded that the presence of the plans of the adjoining Danvers House
(built 1622–3) in the Soane collection renders it possible that Thorpe
was the architect, and in such case he may easily have been consulted
regarding The Great House itself. This theory would account for the
inclusion of both houses in the same collection of plans. Thorpe’s plan
of Chelsea House is disappointing in that the new arrangement appears
distinctly uninteresting when compared with the earlier plans in the
Hatfield MSS. But it has the corroborative evidence of Kip’s view,
and is therefore probably more accurate than some other of his plans
have been found to be. Mr. Gotch has pointed out the interesting fact
that in the plan we have one of the first examples of the corridor
or passage of modern times, attention to which is called by the
draughtsman in his quaint phrase “A long entry through all.”
The Earl of Middlesex added to the estate by the purchase of “Brickbarn
Close” and “The Sandhills,” two properties lying to the north of the
present King’s Road, and these he converted into the Park, shown in
Kip’s view. Till recently this district, though partly built upon,
retained much of its old character and a goodly number of its trees.
Its northern part, the Elm Park estate, was built over some years ago,
and more recently the remaining portion has been cut up into roads,
and, amid unavailing protests, is completely given over to the builders.
[Illustration: FIG. 35.—KEY PLAN OF ESTATE.
_Drawn by Walter H. Godfrey._]
As a result of the royal displeasure which Cranfield incurred, Chelsea
House was surrendered in 1625 to the Crown, and in 1627 Charles I.
bestowed it upon the Duke of Buckingham. After the assassination of the
latter his duchess continued to reside here, and Mr. Davies gives us
the interesting information that his daughter, the Duchess of Lennox,
decided to come in 1646 “to her house at Chelsea to be under Dr.
Mayerne’s hands for her health.” This brings under notice the other
house on More’s estate, now called Lindsey House, which was then in
the occupation of Sir Theodore Mayerne. Tradition says that it was he
who bought the original farmhouse which Sir Thomas More had purchased
and left standing, and that he rebuilt it for himself. On page 57 will
be found a quotation from the Parliamentary Survey of Eltham, to the
effect that Sir Theodore Mayerne, formerly physician to James I., and
ranger of Eltham Park, no longer resided there, but at his house in
“Chelsey,” which confirms the other evidence to be found in the parish
records. The house still stands as rebuilt by the Earl of Lindsey in
1674, and not much altered in appearance since its delineation in Kip’s
view.
After The Great House had been occupied during the Commonwealth by
the Parliamentary Commissioners (Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke and John
Lisle), the second Duke of Buckingham regained possession. Lost to him,
through his debts, the house ultimately passed (1674) into the hands
of the trustees for George Digby, Earl of Bristol, and his Countess
sold it in 1682 to Henry, Marquis of Worcester, afterwards Duke of
Beaufort, the house remaining in his family until 1720. It was during
this period, about the year 1699, that Kip’s beautiful view of the
mansion—then called Beaufort House—was published, a priceless record of
the property, so ruthlessly defaced and destroyed by Sir Hans Sloane
after he had purchased it in 1737.
[Illustration: FIG. 36.—BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF CHELSEA ESTATE.
_Drawn by Kip (1699)._]
[Illustration: FIG. 37.—GARDEN OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Aubrey._]
Mr. Randal Davies, whom I have followed in the account of the occupants
of the house, has printed[19] the interesting conveyance of the
property to Sloane, and if its description is carefully collated with
the information in Kip’s view one is struck by the wonderful accuracy
of the latter. Here is The Great House, as shown by Thorpe, its lodges
and its forecourts, the wharf with its brick towers east and west,
the orchard, and “one garden environed with brick walls ... and a
terrace on the north end, with a banqueting house on the east end of
the terrace,” as well as the “one great garden ... extending from the
terrace and banqueting house unto the highway on the north.”[20] The
“banqueting house,” as already stated, is alike in detail with the
sketch of “A Summer House, Chelsea,” in the Smithson collection of
seventeenth-century drawings now in the possession of Colonel Coke.
But, valuable as is the representation of The Great House, the print
has much more information to give us. The great park is there shown
in all its original beauty; the Duke of Beaufort’s stables and yard,
since converted into the historic chapel and burying-ground of the
Moravians, is to the west; and nearer the river are the beautiful
Jacobean House of Sir Arthur Gorges (our sole evidence of its character
and design) and the house and garden of the Earls of Lindsey. And to
the east, below the wide area of Dovecote Close, laid out as a large
kitchen-garden, are the beautiful pleasure grounds of Danvers House,
which had been destroyed but three years before the drawing was made.
[19] _Chelsea Old Church_, by Randal Davies, F.S.A.
[20] The gate into the King’s Road, shown in the engraving, is probably
that stone gateway now at Chiswick which was designed by Inigo Jones
and taken to Chiswick on the destruction of Beaufort House.
[Illustration: FIG. 38.—PLANS OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]
As already described, Sir John Danvers bought the land shown to the
right of Kip’s view in 1622–3. That he built the house shown in the
Thorpe drawings is corroborated by John Aubrey’s minute description of
house and garden in his MS. “Natural History of Wiltshire,” preserved
at the Bodleian. His rough sketch of the garden is here reproduced
for the first time, to show how it confirms the general lines of the
drawing published by Kip. It would be interesting to quote Aubrey
in full, but a few sentences must suffice. He says: “’Twas Sir John
Danvers, of Chelsey, who first taught us the way of Italian gardens. He
had well travelled France and Italy and made good observations.... He
had a very fine fancy, which lay chiefly for gardens and architecture.”
There is no doubt that the plan of the house was greatly in advance
of its time. Pepys “found it to be the prettiest contrived house that
I ever saw in my life,” and Aubrey describes it as “very elegant and
ingeniose.” He adds that “as you sit at dinner in the Hall you are
entertained with two delightful Vistos: one southward over the Thames
and to Surrey, the other northward into that curious garden. Above the
Hall is a stately Roome of the same dimension, wherein is an excellent
organ of stoppes of cedar. Sir John was a great lover of musick, and
especially of J. Coparario’s Fansies.” Again of the garden he tells
of its “boscage of lilacs,” its “syringas,” its “long gravelled walks
margented with hyssop” and “several sorts of thyme.” “Sir John was
wont on fine mornings in the summer to brush his beaver hat on the
hyssop and thyme, which did perfume it with its natural essence and
would last a morning or longer.” He also tells of the “figure of the
gardener’s wife in freestone coloured,” and “the like of the gardener,
both accoutred according to their callings,” of which the King’s mason,
Nicholas Stone, notes thus in his diary: (1622) “Unto Sir John Daves
at Chelsey, I made two statues of an old man and a woman and a diall,
for which I had £7 a piece.” And finally Aubrey thus continues: “At
the four comers of the garden, about the ovall, are four low pavilions
of brick leaded flatt and some firre and pine trees, shumacks, and the
quarters all filled with some rare plant or other. On the east side of
the Hall is a neat little Chappele or oratorie finely painted; next to
it a Drawing room whose floor is chequered like a chesse board of Box
and Ewgh panels of about six inches square. At the east and west end of
the House (without) are two high fastigiated turrets the Fans whereof
are the Crest of Danvers _sc._ a golden Wyvern volant.” Aubrey says the
garden was 8 chains 9 yards by 4 chains 9 yards wide.
[Illustration: FIG. 39.—ELEVATION OF DANVERS HOUSE.
_Drawn by J. Thorpe (c. 1620)._]
From these descriptions we obtain a charming idea of the beautiful
little house which has gone the way of nearly all the buildings that
peopled this “Village of Palaces.” The Earl of Radnor was a tenant here
from 1660 till 1685, and after him Thomas Lord Wharton, who inherited
the property, lived there. The house was not demolished until 1720,
but in 1696 on the site of the garden were built the first houses of
Danvers Street by Benjamin Stallwood, as may still be seen recorded
on a little tablet at the corner of the street. The foundations
discovered when Crosby Hall was built on the site were sufficient to
determine the general position of the building, but were not sufficient
to plot it exactly.
I am indebted to Mr. Walter L. Spiers for his kind permission to make
the copies of the Thorpe plans that are here published.
—W. H. G.
COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS
CHAPTER-HOUSE
[Illustration: FIG. 40.—INTERIOR OF CHAPTER-HOUSE.]
VII.
COCKERSAND ABBEY AND ITS CHAPTER-HOUSE.
With but little variation the great majority of monastic establishments
follow the well-defined lines which custom and the exigencies of the
conventual life had laid down in the early years of the Church. It is
consequently only occasionally that an abbey or priory ruin in this
country presents any important deviation from the general plan of them
all, and it is in the endless variety of their detail that most of
their interest is centred. The Abbey of Cockersand is thus fortunate in
having possessed and retained a chapter-house of that polygonal form
which flourished in this island alone, and even here never became a
common feature. In addition to this, the abbey choir stalls, a unique
example of early wood-carving, have also been preserved, though removed
from their original position. The chapter-house at Cockersand, while it
does not challenge comparison with the great structures at Lincoln and
York, being indeed of comparatively small size, is yet a refined and
beautiful expression of “Early English” art which has hitherto almost
escaped notice. The stalls also, though a cast of part of them rests
in the Architectural Museum in Tufton Street, have hardly received the
recognition they deserve.
[Illustration: FIG. 41.—PLAN OF ABBEY.
_Drawn by Alfred W. Clapham._]
Situated on a flat tract of land lying between the estuaries of the
rivers Lune and Wyre, half-way up the coast-line of Lancashire,
the Abbey of Cockersand is remarkable for the dreariness of its
surroundings. The level meadows, intersected in every direction by
dykes that stretch for two miles inland from the ruins, were at one
time little better than a great salt-marsh, inundated by the spring
tides and fit for little else but pasture. The outer walls of the abbey
itself, built upon a slight eminence looking over the desolate sands
of Morecambe Bay, were again and again undermined by the attacks of
the sea. “St. Mary in the Marsh upon the Cockersand” was indeed, in
position and surroundings, no desirable retreat, and it is singular
that a convent of considerable wealth and importance should have risen
in so remote a spot. Founded first as a hospital towards the close of
the twelfth century, it soon rose to the dignity of an abbey, being
colonised by Premonstratensian canons from Croxton in Leicestershire.
Its history is chiefly a record of disputes with the neighbouring
priories of Lancaster and Cockerham, and presents few features of
interest to the general reader. At the close of the fifteenth century
the records of the successive visitations of Bishop Redman provide a
more intimate picture of the life of the inmates. Excessive drinking,
it appears, was indulged in, and two of the canons had to be exiled to
other houses for a more serious offence. When the abbey fell amongst
the greater monasteries in 1539, it was tenanted by twenty-three
canons. Their home soon after came into the hands of the lords of
Thurnham Hall, whose successors hold it at the present time. With the
exception of the chapter-house there is little of interest to be found
amongst the ruins. The accompanying ground plan (which is sufficiently
indicated by the remaining fragments of walls and the mounds of
fallen masonry) will show the general arrangement of the building.
The aisleless nave of the church, a feature of common occurrence in
convents of the Premonstratensian order, was no doubt similar to those
still partially standing at Bayham, Titchfield, and Egglestone. The
chapter-house was approached from the cloister by a vestibule, probably
divided into three aisles and vaulted in stone. Externally the building
has been refaced with a red sandstone, and consequently all the
features of interest it may once have possessed have now disappeared.
It is finished on the three eastern sides with an embattled parapet,
and has a low-pitched pyramidal slate roof. The original entrance on
the west face still remains, though the mouldings are much weathered.
It is a plain semi-circular arch, formerly springing from side shafts,
which are now missing, and probably dates from the foundation of
the abbey. Internally the chapter-house is an octagonal apartment,
27 ft. 9 in. in diameter, having a fine vaulted roof springing from
a central column and forming, on plan, four quadripartite bays. This
arrangement is very unusual, as it throws the window openings out of
the true centre of the vaulting cells above them. There is, however,
no apparent awkwardness in the result. The central pier is formed of
eight clustered and engaged shafts, keeled on the outward face and
having each a moulded capital, the bell of which is ornamented with
the stiff leaf foliage of the Early English period. The vaulting ribs,
consisting of three main members divided by deep hollows, are all of
similar section, except the wall ribs, which are formed with a simple
hollow only. At the intersections are foliage bosses, four in number,
of excellent workmanship. It is unfortunate that the building was
for long used as a burial-place for the owners of the neighbouring
Thurnham Hall, as this has necessitated the raising of the floor level,
which is now some distance up the central column and above the sills
of the windows, and has quite destroyed the original proportions of
the building. The window tracery, if any existed, has now entirely
gone, some portions of geometric work on the north side being of very
doubtful date. Each opening had two shafts on either side, one free and
one engaged, and the internal hood mouldings terminate in sculptured
heads, all much defaced.
The polygonal or circular chapter-house became a favourite feature
of English work in the thirteenth century. There is evidence of
the existence of some twenty-four of these buildings, and of these
ten still remain complete. The form was most popular amongst the
secular canons, amongst whom it received its highest development.
The Benedictines came second with five examples,[21] followed by the
Augustinians with five and the Cistercians and Premonstratensians
with two each. The example at Alnwick Abbey, which with Cockersand is
representative of the last-mentioned order, was a circular structure
some 25 ft. in diameter, of which only the foundations remain. In
regard to geographical distribution, these buildings were spread over
the whole of England from Tavistock in Devon to Carlisle, while
three instances occur in Scotland, at Elgin, Inchcolm, and Restalrig.
Elsewhere they are almost unknown. The earliest example and the
prototype of all the rest is the chapter-house of the Benedictine
cathedral of Worcester, which dates from _circa_ 1130. It was
originally circular, and still retains this form internally, and is
surrounded by a Norman wall arcade. It is possible that the form was
suggested by the earlier round churches, some of which, as at Ludlow
Castle, were aisleless and roofed with a timber pyramid “spire form.”
The close proximity of other monastic buildings, and the consequent
fear of fire, led to the insertion of the central column and the stone
vault. The column was, however, always looked upon as an incumbrance,
and was finally dispensed with and the building vaulted in one span.
Of the later examples of this class of building the best instance is
the beautiful little fifteenth-century chapter-house at Howden (Yorks),
which apart from the fall of its vault, is still practically complete.
[21] There were also doubtful examples at Belvoir Priory and St.
Margaret’s, Lynn.
[Illustration: FIG. 42.—PIER-CAPITALS IN CHAPTER-HOUSE.]
[Illustration: FIG. 43.—EXTERIOR FROM WEST.]
[Illustration: FIG. 44.—EXTERIOR FROM EAST.]
The traditional removal of fittings and furniture from the dissolved
monastic houses to neighbouring parish churches is generally found on
examination to be devoid of any foundation, the unusual richness or
lavish decoration of a screen, a roof, or a piece of tabernacle work
having alone given rise to the popular belief. There are, however, a
few instances of the genuine transfer of monastic “loot” to parish
churches, which are all the more surprising when one considers the
low repute into which the Gothic craftsmanship was rapidly falling at
that period. The choir stalls at Richmond, Yorks (brought from Easby
Abbey), and the still finer series at Whalley, Lancashire, are well
authenticated instances of this practice, while at Lancaster there is
every probability that the magnificent fourteenth-century stalls in the
parish church originally adorned the choir of Cockersand Abbey. It is
true that an alien priory was long attached to the church at Lancaster,
but the fact that the existing fabric is almost entirely of later
date than the confiscation of the alien houses makes it more than
improbable that the stalls were transferred from the earlier church. On
the other hand there is the persistent tradition of their Cockersand
origin and the neighbouring instance of a similar transfer at Whalley.
As at present arranged they stand on either side of the sacrarium,
the returned stalls (two on each side) being placed against the east
wall. The seats, fourteen in all and 2 ft. 5 in. from centre to centre,
are provided with misericordes more or less mutilated and carved with
grotesque figures. The canopies are supported on buttressed shafts
at the back and front, carried up in the form of crocketed pinnacles
and finished with carved finials of unusual form. Above each seat is
an ogee arch richly crocketed and filled in beneath with a pierced
panel of flamboyant tracery, each bay being of different design.
Rising slightly behind these arches are lofty gables filled with
similar panels, the crockets forming a nearly continuous edging of
carving and presenting an almost infinite richness and variety. The
comparative scarcity of “Decorated” woodwork adds largely to the value
of the present example, which is undoubtedly the richest specimen of
fourteenth-century wood-carving now remaining in this country.
The church of Cockerham is said to possess the Cockersand bells, and
at Mytton near Clitheroe is a rood-screen said to have been derived
from the same source. In the latter instance, however, the screen was
undoubtedly intended for its present position, and was erected at the
cost of the abbey, which then held the advowson of the church. Be this
as it may, the forgotten and inconspicuous Lancashire convent has
transmitted to the present day, in its octagonal chapter-house and
its splendid stalls, some indication of the beauty and originality of
monastic work even in the remoter parts of England, and has preserved
for itself two monuments of its days of prosperity, while the very
existence of so many of its greater fellows is rescued from oblivion
only by lingering tradition and their written records.
[Illustration: FIG. 45.—STALLS FROM THE ABBEY (NOW IN LANCASTER).]
[Illustration: FIG. 46.—MISERICORDE FROM STALLS.]
[Illustration: FIG. 47.—ANOTHER MISERICORDE.]
The foregoing notes, with the accompanying photographs, should
therefore be of value to all who take an interest in mediæval
architecture, more especially in those examples which are not rendered
familiar by constant illustration.
—A. W. C.
THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL
AT CHELSEA
[Illustration: FIG. 48.—THE ROOF.
_Photograph by London News Agency._]
VIII.
THE REBUILDING OF CROSBY HALL AT CHELSEA.
The removal of Crosby Hall from Bishopsgate to Chelsea, regretful as
was the necessity, provides us with an excuse for investigating its
claim to our admiration. The vicissitudes of this noble fragment of
fifteenth-century domestic architecture have been told many times since
it was threatened with demolition, and since the day on which, after
escaping the Great Fire of 1666, and also a second outbreak a few years
later (when most of the mansion of Crosby Place was destroyed), it fell
finally, in 1908, to the business demands of our modern city.
[Illustration: FIG. 49.—PLAN OF HALL IN BISHOPSGATE.
_Drawn by W. H. Godfrey._]
Although known for many years, and still known, as Crosby Hall, it
must be remembered that the building was merely a fragment of the
City-merchant’s palace which was called Crosby Place from the name of
Sir John Crosby who built it. Shakespeare calls it Crosbies’ Place in
_King Richard III._, and we know that it was a house of great size
and magnificence—so much so, that it shared with other important
palaces of London the distinction of providing lodging for the noblest
ambassadors. This was the great Hall or principal apartment of Crosby
Place—the sole survivor of all the spacious rooms and galleries that
surrounded its many courtyards and overlooked its gardens.
Sir John Crosby rebuilt a large portion of an existing house in
Bishopsgate, which was formerly in the occupation of a wealthy Genoese
merchant named Cataneo Pinelli. This rebuilding was begun in the
year 1466, the sixth year of the reign of Edward IV., some twelve or
thirteen years before the king constructed his great Hall at Eltham
Palace, which offers many interesting points of comparison with Crosby
Hall. (_Vide ante_ pp. 58, 59.)
Now, the fifteenth century saw the third and last period of that unique
style of architecture which we call Gothic—a period which lasted from
the latter end of the fourteenth century to the dissolution of the
monasteries by Henry VIII., and which is generally known by the useful
and significant title of Perpendicular.