CHELSEA UP TO 1680
Evidence for prehistoric settlement in Chelsea has in the
past largely consisted of finds taken from the Thames,
such as an elegant Neolithic flint sickle, indicating
harvesting in the area, and an early Neolithic wooden
club, resembling a cricket bat with a rounded handle and
a knob, which was found just west of Battersea Bridge
and dated to 3540-3360 BC; several flint axes have also
been retrieved. (fn. 1) More recent excavations have found
flint flakes and burnt flint near Chelsea common, and
worked flints and pottery fragments, probably from the
Late Bronze Age, and other prehistoric material in later features near Chelsea Old Church. Similarly, Roman
material has been found in later features on the east side
of the church, and a Roman ditch with Roman pottery of
the 3rd century AD on the north side. (fn. 2)
ANGLO-SAXON CHELSEA
Chelsea's Old English name may indicate some kind of
settlement in the early Anglo-Saxon period, (fn. 3) but more
concrete evidence of settlement emerges in the 8th
century. Chelsea, first mentioned in 785, is one of the
few places in Middlesex to have a recorded history before
1066. (fn. 4) Ten synods of the English Church were held there
between 785 and 816, some of them also meetings of the
Mercian royal council, (fn. 5) and other, unrecorded, church
councils may have met there, probably also in the half
century after 770. The synods were meetings of the province of Canterbury and as such promulgated canons for
the whole of England south of the Humber, that of 816
being of special importance. They coincided with the
ascendancy of the Mercian kings and are part of a wider
pattern of holding such meetings within the diocese of
London, and more particularly within the area of the
ancient kingdom of Middlesex. (fn. 6) Though the presence of
church councils does not necessarily mean the existence
of a minster church in Chelsea, the Mercian kings,
notably Offa, Egfrith, and Coenwulf, whose reigns
covered the period 757-821, were frequently at Chelsea
and are thought to have had a residence there. (fn. 7) A
possible link between Chelsea and these kings is
suggested by the name given to a detached portion of
Chelsea parish lying north of Kensington: Kensal derives
from the Old English cyning holt, 'king's wood'. (fn. 8) Given
the small area of Chelsea and the seemingly artificial
boundary separating it from Kensington along the line
of Fulham Road, it seems likely that the whole of the
territory had once formed a single unit. The hypothesis
is given some support by the presence of a small
detached portion of Kensington parish by the river, later
in the grounds of the Royal Hospital. (fn. 1) Charters granting
estates to church and laity were sometimes recorded as
having been issued at Chelsea, although the only
remotely local properties involved were Stanmore in
793, (fn. 2) and Harrow c. 800. (fn. 3)
In 898 Chelsea was the scene of a council attended by
King Alfred, Archbishop Plegmund of Canterbury,
Aethelred the leader of the Mercians and his sister
Aethelflaed, and Bishop Waerferth of Worcester,
concerning the refounding of London after the Danish
wars. At that council adjacent lots of land at 'Aethelred's
hyth' (Queenhythe) within the city were granted to
Plegmund and Waerferth. The presence of Aethelred
and Aethelflaed and the name of the wharf suggest that
the Mercian rulers played an important role, and also
suggests that the Mercian royal house had an important
estate at Chelsea, which served for meetings in their
dealings with the Church and London. (fn. 4)
Chelsea's attraction for Offa and his successors lay in
its convenient riverside site and its proximity to the
important trading centre of London, (fn. 5) which could be
reached easily by water; it also lay close to Roman roads
from London to the west and south-west. (fn. 6) Fertile riverside sites such as Chelsea were also attractive to more
ordinary residents, however, and some archaeological
evidence now exists for pre-Conquest settlement in
Chelsea, particularly near Chelsea Old Church. On the
east side of Old Church Street, at the rear of nos 6-16,
some mid Saxon features have been found with a possible
timber structure which may date from the same period,
and also a Saxo-Norman ditch, possibly indicating continuity of use of that site, which in the medieval period was
part of the manor house and its grounds and outbuildings. (fn. 7) Timbers found in 1996 in the Thames about 40 m.
from the shore just west of Battersea Bridge, dating from
the period 700-900 AD, were at first thought to be part of
a mid Saxon wharf, but on further examination were
reinterpreted as an Anglo-Saxon fish-trap. (fn. 8)
MEDIEVAL CHELSEA
The Anglo-Saxon settlement by the church and the river
remained the heart of the only known area of settlement
in the parish until the 17th century. Most of the parish
was covered by two large open arable fields, Eastfield and
Westfield, with Church Lane marking the division
between them. A single reference to the north field (fn. 9) may
refer to the westerly part of Eastfield, which lay north of
the village. Within Eastfield were areas called Gosepool,
found in the later furlong name of Gospelshot, adjoining
the Westbourne, and Thamesshot also in the south-east;
the location of Medshot and Crosshot in Eastfield are
not known. (fn. 10) In the north-eastern part of the parish lay
closes known by 1393 as Blacklands, (fn. 11) and closes called
Landmedes, which lay next to Gospelshot and so probably lay between that part of Eastfield and Blacklands.
The name does not appear in records after the 15th
century and the closes, at least five in 1454 of which two
contained 20 acres, were probably later also known as
Blacklands, and may have been the area called Bloody
Meadow c. 1700. Other meadows lay at Eastmead, probably in the south-east corner of the parish by the Thames
and the Westbourne, where Thamesmead lay in the early
17th century, and in Westfield, where West meadow lay,
in the south-west corner of the parish by Counter's
Creek. Next to it by the creek and the Thames was the
common meadow called the Lots, divided into portions
of about a quarter of an acre each.
The existence of the celebrated 'great houses' of
Chelsea and their occupants in the 16th century and later
has overshadowed the community that existed there
earlier. Alongside the famous and the outsiders Chelsea
had several long-established families owning and
working land, many of them also involved in trades and
crafts. (fn. 12) By 1300 locals were seeking opportunities elsewhere: a spurrier and two tanners in London had
Chelsea as a surname. (fn. 13) The population was probably
small, however, for in 1334 Chelsea had the lowest total
assessment, at £1 15s. 4d., in the hundred of Ossulstone. (fn. 14)
Though less is known about the residents of Chelsea
in the Middle Ages compared with later periods, there are
several indications of the presence of important figures in
the parish well before the arrival of Thomas More and
Henry VIII in the 16th century, and it is probable that
from an early period Chelsea attracted the nobility,
gentry, and court officials who wanted country houses
near Westminster, especially those accessible by river.
Letters and orders of Edward I dated at Chelsea in 1294
and 1305 suggest either the presence of the king or at
least of his chancellor, and the king's brother, Edmund,
also dated a letter at Chelsea in that period. (fn. 1) Thomas
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, wrote his will at Chelsea in
September 1369 before going to France, and also wrote a
letter there dated in January of an unknown year, (fn. 2)
suggesting either periodic visits or a period of residency.
The 'lord of Latymer', whose servant was presented at
the manor court in 1374 for drawing blood, (fn. 3) may also
have been resident rather than passing through. By the
end of the 14th century a number of London citizens and
professional men not only owned land in the parish but
also had houses there. John Haverbarght, holder of a
rectory in Lichfield diocese, was buried in the parish
church and left 2 quarters of barley to the priest; Master
Nicholas Stoket, a free tenant of the manor, was buried
in the parish church, (fn. 4) and at least one lord of the manor
was often resident and was buried in the parish: John
Shoreditch junior and his wife Helen were both buried
in the church in Shoreditch's chapel on the north side of
the chancel. (fn. 5) During the 15th century the number of residents with occupations in the City of London or in the
law courts and royal administration increased, though
for most the location of their houses is unknown.
Thomas Garthorp, citizen and fishmonger of London,
died in 1412 holding lands in Chelsea; (fn. 6) John Aleyn,
citizen and vintner, died c. 1449 leaving sums to both
Chelsea and Kensington for tithes, for the church buildings, and for the poor; (fn. 7) and Reginald Boulers, bishop of
Coventry and Lichfield, left a house in Chelsea to be sold
in 1459. (fn. 8) John Palyng, citizen and goldsmith, died
c. 1428 with property in Chelsea, (fn. 9) and one of his executors, John Frenshe, also a goldsmith, had a holding in
Chelsea by 1447. Frenshe paid 12s. 10d. assized rent in
1453, (fn. 10) so it is almost certain that his house was one of
those with commoning rights in the 17th century, (fn. 11) and it
was evidently a house of some importance, since by 1464
the holder was Richard Beauchamp, bishop of Salisbury, (fn. 12) who died in possession of it in 1481: the duchess
of Somerset, a distant cousin of the bishop's, was living
there in 1477. (fn. 13) John Beauchamp, Lord Beauchamp of
Powick (d. 1475), bequeathed a pair of organs he had left
in Chelsea church towards his funeral in Worcester: he
was a first cousin of the bishop of Salisbury and may also
have lived in his house. (fn. 14) In 1484 Elizabeth Mowbray,
the widowed duchess of Norfolk, was granted that property for life. (fn. 15) Sir Thomas Haseley (d. c. 1450), chancery
clerk of the Crown, had an estate in Chelsea with a house
which included a chapel and may have been sited not far
from the rectory at the west end of the village. (fn. 16) In 1453
his widow Agnes paid the highest of the assized rents. (fn. 17)
In 1465 Master Robert Kirkham, chancery clerk and
Master of the Rolls, acquired a newly-built house in
Chelsea from Haseley's successor, and leased some land
there. (fn. 18) William Berkeley, Earl Marshal and marquess of
Berkeley (d. 1491), had freehold property in Chelsea
which he left to his wife for life and then to John
Whiting, one of his supervisors. (fn. 19) Many of the freeholders in the parish were similar outsiders building up
estates in Chelsea and Kensington.
MEDIEVAL HOUSES
The core of the medieval village lay around the church.
On the north and east sides of the church lay the manor
house with gardens, courtyard and outbuildings, which
with an adjoining close covered a compact area of 4
acres. The close lay on the east side of the site, north of
Lordship Yard, probably with stables and outbuildings
in the Yard to the south: yet further south stood a wharf
by the Thames which belonged to the house in the
1630s, (fn. 20) and doubtless earlier. This all suggests that the
manor house itself lay on the western side of the site,
perhaps with a main entrance into Church Lane rather
than by the riverside; there was a passage through from
Church Lane into Lawrence Street just north of the
church in 1706. (fn. 21) The belief that the manor house lay on
the site of houses known in the 18th century as
Monmouth House, at the north end of the later
Lawrence Street, is unfounded: that narrow site adjoined
the boundary pale of the manor house property and
would be an unlikely location for the main house.
The medieval parsonage, mentioned in 1388 but
implied in 1230 from the existence of a rector, (fn. 22) is
presumably the one replaced in 1566 by a new house and
land north of the medieval manor house. It lay strangely
distant from the church, at the western extremity of the
riverside road through Chelsea, and almost certainly
fronted that road and the Thames, so it probably lay at the
southern end of the present Milman's Street with
Parsonage Close lying north and west of it. (fn. 1) The rector had
a wharf on the Thames, presumably near to the house.
Figure 6:
Plan of the medieval village, showing probable house sites
Houses which had rights of common of pasture in the
late 16th and 17th centuries were almost certainly medieval in origin. The old parsonage had such rights which
were transferred to the new one in the 16th century, but
there is no evidence that other rights were transferred,
though some may have been divided between parts of a
property. Although obscure, the link between the assized
rents and commoning does at least give some indication
of the whereabouts of the main medieval houses. The
other properties with such rights were the farmhouse on
More's estate, later Lindsey House; a tenement
belonging to Hungerford, later the Chare family's property, on the north side of the medieval manor house in
Church Lane; the farmhouse on Hungerford's estate,
later known as Wrennall's farm, opposite the new
parsonage; the Pye or Magpie, next to Winchester
House; Shrewsbury House; the Feathers next to Lordship Yard; the Goat in Duke Street by Danvers House;
the Dog in Lombard Street with Waterman's Court;
cottages next to the Dog owned by Thomas Creake in
1616; and the freeholding later known as Evans's farm,
which may also have been near Lordship Yard. (fn. 2)
Figure 7:
Shrewsbury House, from the south
The river also played an important part in Chelsea's life
in the Middle Ages. Chance references, such as four people
falling from a boat at Chelsea in 1235, (fn. 3) or the flooding
which bought a drifting boat into the manor in 1379, (fn. 4)
reveal little of how important river transport may have
been at that time, nor how the river was used by Chelsea's
inhabitants, but the wharves belonging to several individuals, mentioned from the 14th century, show a strong
permanent link with the river. In the 15th century, and
probably earlier, the availability of the river to reach
London was probably a factor in attracting royal officials,
lawyers, and London merchants to seek a residence in
Chelsea: this was certainly the case in the 16th century.
16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES
Chelsea was one of a number of villages around Westminster which were popular in the 16th and 17th centuries with courtiers and royal officials who needed
suitable residences near Whitehall but who could not
find space in the limited and increasingly overcrowded
settlement of Tudor Westminster. Alongside the
famous, however, Chelsea also had an increasing population of farmers, craftsmen, and those providing food
and services to the population, such as brewers and victuallers. In 1528 the population of Chelsea was reported
to be 190 adults and children, including 16 households
which grew no corn, and Sir Thomas More reported that
100 were fed daily in his household, (fn. 5) though not all those
would have been living in the parish. In 1548 there were
75 communicants (16 years and over). (fn. 6)
The evidence for new building to accommodate
increased demand is limited, but some older houses
were undoubtedly enlarged or improved: illustrations of
Shrewsbury House, for example, indicate an earlier
timber-framed building refronted in brick in the Tudor
period. Since few old buildings survive in Chelsea, and
none of those are from the 16th century, the evidence for
Chelsea's medieval and early modern houses is slight.
Until the end of the 17th century, new building which
took place in Chelsea was almost all on existing house
sites or gardens or small plots of land associated with
existing houses, and this limited both the number and
the quality and size of individual houses. Even when
building took place on new sites c. 1700 the new building
tended to be ribbon development along existing roads,
with only a few, very short, new streets. (fn. 7)
While a handful of farmhouses and mansions were
built by the early 17th century along Fulham Road at
Little Chelsea, inclosing open field as gardens, (fn. 8) the main
settlement at Chelsea remained concentrated in the
limited area of Chelsea village, in Church Lane and along
the riverside. Two houses in particular played an important part in Chelsea's fame, but both are surrounded by
some doubt.
HENRY VIII AND CHELSEA
Henry VIII's desire to live at Chelsea has always been
emphasized by local historians. A visit he made to Sir
Thomas More's house there is held to have inspired him
with a love of the place, so that he obtained the manor
from William Lord Sandys in an exchange to provide, it
is said, a suitable nursery for his children. When he
discovered that the manor house had been leased out he
built, so the tradition goes, a new manor house, usually
called Chelsea Place, a little to the east. (fn. 1) This tradition,
however, exaggerates Henry's connection with Chelsea
and in particular with the building of the manor house.
It is clear that a manor house, which had been built a
little to the east of the original one and possibly on a
virgin site, was standing before Lord Sandys granted the
manor to Henry VIII in 1536, because the Pye, a house
which lay on the west side of it, was described as lying
next to Lord Sandys' place, as late as 1538. (fn. 2) The Tudor
house had probably been built by 1519, when the original manor house was leased out, and it is most likely to
have been built by Sandys or his predecessor as owner of
the manor, Sir Reginald Bray. (fn. 3)
There are also several anomalies in the traditional
account of Henry and Chelsea. In fact, he showed little
interest in getting a house there, disregarding More's own
house, which had been forfeited to the king in 1535. The
impetus for the exchange of property with Sandys may
even have come from Sandys himself, who thereby
acquired Mottisfont priory, which lay near his main seat
and on which he lavished time and money and made his
main residence to the end of his life. (fn. 4) Chelsea manor was
one of several manors and houses acquired by the king by
exchange or forfeit: during the period 1535-40 alone he
acquired 15 such properties. The considerable work
carried out on some former monastic properties, which
provided staging posts on his journeys around the
country, was dwarfed by the enormous alterations and
additions at the King's principal houses, Greenwich,
Whitehall, and Hampton Court. (fn. 5) No major building
work was recorded at Chelsea, casting doubt on the tradition that Henry built the Tudor manor house. (fn. 6) It is most
unlikely that Henry had anything in mind for the house
when he first acquired it. The idea that he wanted to use
the house as a nursery for his children apparently stems
from the heading 'Chelsea Nursery' in one account for
repairs in 1601, possibly a reference to the garden, and a
statement in a letter by Sir John Lawrence in 1621 that
Henry VIII built a nursery in Chelsea. (fn. 7) The places of residence of the royal children are very well documented, and
there is no contemporary indication that Henry ever
intended to use Chelsea as a nursery, nor that the royal
children were ever resident there during his lifetime. (fn. 8)
Only in 1538 is there any evidence of interest by Henry
in the house, when he made his only recorded visit to the
parish since acquiring the manor, travelling from
Hampton Court to Chelsea by river in May 1538, but only
remaining a couple of days. (fn. 9) In July of that year the French
ambassador wrote from Chelsea that Henry VIII had
given him a house which had belonged to the late Master
More for the summer, to avoid the plague in London, and
that in the same village was lodged 'my lord privy seal'
(Thomas Cromwell). Cromwell, who also dated letters
there in June and July, (fn. 10) was probably occupying the
king's house in order to avoid the plague also. It may be no
coincidence that in that year the king bought the
adjoining Pye from a freeholder, almost certainly to add
more land on the west side of the house, as the Pye had a
close attached. (fn. 11) The accounts for the garden that year (fn. 12)
suggest that Henry may have had improvements in mind,
but he does not seem to have spent any time in residence.
In May 1541 Queen Katharine Howard and Princess Elizabeth are recorded as travelling by barge to and from
Chelsea on various occasions, (fn. 13) and the king may have
used Chelsea as a convenient stopping place on the river
for journeys to Hampton Court, or as a pleasant garden to
visit during the summer. Nevertheless, Henry's connection with Chelsea, however slight, was an important one
for Chelsea's history. As a Crown possession for a
hundred years the house was used as a residence for
members of the royal family or highly-placed courtiers
and royal ministers, which gave Chelsea a pre-eminent
place in the locality.
In 1544 the king granted the manor of Chelsea to his
wife Queen Catherine Parr for life as part of her dowry. (fn. 14)
Catherine is said to have been interested in gardens and
concerned herself with those of her dower manors,
particularly at Chelsea. (fn. 15) After Henry's death she moved
there from the court, and spent much of her time there,
as a widow and as the wife of Sir Thomas Seymour, until
her death in 1548. Princess Elizabeth lived with her there
for several months until Catherine sent her away to
protect her from the political consequences of
Seymour's indiscretions with the princess. (fn. 16)
After Queen Catherine's death in 1548, the manor
was occupied until 1638 by Crown lessees or those to
whom the sovereign gave occupancy of the house. These
included John Dudley, duke of Northumberland,
1551-3, who held meetings of the king's council at
Chelsea; his widow Jane from 1554 until her death in
1555; Anne of Cleves who died there in 1557; Anne
Seymour, duchess of Somerset, until her death in 1587;
and from 1591 the Lord High Admiral Charles Howard,
Lord Howard of Effingham and later earl of
Nottingham, whose wife Catherine was a close friend of
the queen. During the Nottinghams' residence at
Chelsea Queen Elizabeth made frequent visits to dine
with them. (fn. 1)
SIR THOMAS MORE'S HOUSE
Sir Thomas More moved to Chelsea in 1524, having
previously lived in Bucklersbury in the City of London.
As king's secretary he needed larger accommodation
more in keeping with his position, doubly so when he
became chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1525;
Chelsea provided courtiers with space while being only
2½ miles by river from the palace of Westminster. (fn. 2) More
bought at least three properties to create his estate in
Chelsea and Kensington, but the known purchases do
not account for all he held nor make clear where his
principal house was located. (fn. 3) There is no contemporary
evidence that More built the house he occupied, and
since he had lost most of his income when he gave up his
law practice to serve the king, and was therefore
dependent on fees and royal gifts, he was unlikely to have
had the resources to build a large new mansion. More's
son-in-law, William Roper, mentioned only that More
had constructed a new building containing a chapel,
library, and gallery at a good distance from his mansion,
where he could find solitude for prayer and study. (fn. 4)
The activities of later owners have complicated the
problem of where More's house and new building were
located. More's successor in the property, William
Paulet, marquess of Winchester (d. 1572), carried out
substantial building at his Chelsea house, as at his other
properties: when he died Chelsea was described as his
'new buildings, chief mansion, capital messuage and
manor house', (fn. 5) and his grandson maintained that by
1575 the house had cost £14,000 in building work. (fn. 6) In
1566 Winchester also acquired the parsonage and close
which adjoined the western boundary of More's
grounds, presumably to give more room for his
mansion; his stable yard, which juts west from its
grounds, was probably built on part of that close. The
earliest depiction of Winchester's mansion, the core of
the building later known as Beaufort House, is in what
appears to be a survey plan of the house and grounds
before alterations were made by Sir Robert Cecil c. 1597.
The plan, reproduced in figure 8, shows a house set away
from the road and on display to the river, progressive for
the 1560s and certainly not characteristic of the 1520s.
More's mansion is much more likely to have been a
building of medieval origin, close to the road running
along the riverbank, and formerly one of those
belonging to one of the 15th-century residents noted
above. Since it is also unlikely that it was the house and
Butts close and wharf that More gave outright to
William and Margaret Roper in 1534, where Danvers
House was later built, (fn. 7) it probably lay west of that site.
The survey plan includes buildings at the south-east
corner, which were entered through courtyards from the
walled grounds and appear to have been service buildings, mainly timber-framed. Their complex arrangement and the fact that they are shown in plan form, like
the main house, rather than in elevation like the stables
and wharf buildings, suggest that these buildings
provided significant accommodation. They may have
been the remains of More's property, the rest perhaps
having been demolished by Winchester to open up the
view to and from the river. The site chosen by
Winchester for his large mansion may have been that
previously occupied by More's chapel, library, and
gallery: this retired location, away from the busy riverbank and roads, would have been appropriate for a
scholarly retreat, and its raised position accords with
Roper's description of More 'going up into his aforesaid
new building'. (fn. 8)
There has always, in fact, been some doubt about the
location of More's house. The first resident of Chelsea
known to have commented on the location was Sir John
Danvers (born in the 1580s), who told the young John
Aubrey that the marble chimney-piece in his chamber
was the chimney-piece of More's chamber, and that
where the gate to Danvers House stood, adorned with
two pyramids, there had been a gatehouse with a
pleasant prospect of the Thames and beyond from the
leaded roof, where More had walked and contemplated. (fn. 9)
This anecdote has led to the supposition that this or
Danvers House itself was the site of More's new
building, (fn. 10) but such a location, in the centre of the village
a stone's throw from the church and the ferry, would
hardly have given him quiet and solitude. Moreover,
Danvers House and presumably its gate were on the land
given by More to the Ropers and so unlikely to have
included either More's house or study. By the late 17th
century no-one had any certain idea where More had
lived, and Arch House and Shrewsbury House were
being mooted in addition to Beaufort and Danvers
houses. (fn. 11)
The buildings and grounds formerly belonging to Sir
Thomas More had by 1595 acquired the general layout
shown on later plans and illustrations, (fn. 12) and the first
detailed description in 1620 lists some additional embellishments. The two forecourts between the mansion and
the riverside were walled in brick; a wharf by the
riverside had brick towers at east and west ends and a
high water tower on the west corner supplying a watercourse; on the east side of the forecourts, and also walled
with brick, were an orchard, and a garden which had a
pyramid in the centre and a terrace on the north side
leading to a banqueting house. North and east of the
house lay another garden called the great garden, also
enclosed with a brick wall; east of that was Dovecote
Close, and west of it was the great kitchen yard with
stables and ground with a brick barn on it. Some of the
16th-century brick walling has survived. (fn. 1) North of the
kitchen yard and garden was Brickbarn close, stretching
northwards to Fulham Road. South of the orchard, on
the site of the service buildings shown on the survey
plan, was another house with a yard in front and a
garden beside it, occupied by a tenant. (fn. 2)
Figure 8:
Plan of Sir Robert Cecil's Chelsea Great House and its grounds, c. 1595, stretching north from the Thames
CHELSEA VILLAGE
Chelsea had no more large mansions and famous or aristocratic residents than any other village around London,
but their concentration in the village along the riverside
emphasized their presence, which was commented on by
visitors and topographers. The quiet backwater nature of
the village, at a distance from the main highway and
effectively at the end of a cul-de-sac for those without a
boat, gave Chelsea peaceful qualities which a house by
the river in Westminster or by a main highway into
London lacked, yet for those who could afford a
well-manned barge it was only a short journey by river to
Westminster and Whitehall. Although Chelsea's emergence as a popular residence for courtiers did not start
with Sir Thomas More and Henry VIII, the Crown's
acquisition of More's estate and the manor did put
Chelsea among the locations where the Crown could
reward courtiers with property and house ministers, and
thereby brought Chelsea's name into national history.
The peak for noble residents in Chelsea was the late
16th and early 17th centuries. The occupants of the
Tudor manor house, discussed above, were all close to
the Crown, and a succession of prominent residents
followed the marquesses of Winchester at the mansion
on More's estate: Lord and Lady Dacre, the earl of
Lincoln, Sir Arthur Gorges, Lionel Cranfield, earl of
Middlesex, George duke of Buckingham. Shrewsbury
House saw the earl and countess of Devonshire after the
earls of Shrewsbury. The use of Chelsea by courtiers as a
pleasant and convenient residence near Westminster
continued up to the Civil War, but the presence of such
influential residents was not without problems. Sir John
Lawrence not only had to complain about his pew being
taken by Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, in 1621,
but also that several persons of quality holding lands
valued at £260 a year had been taken off the Ship Money
assessment in 1638 with the result that he, the countess
of Devonshire, and Sir John Fearne had had to make up
the difference. (fn. 3) Chelsea was also vulnerable to the plague
carried by refugees from the City and Westminster, and
a draft proclamation of 1630 threatened to punish
inhabitants encouraging disease by entertaining
strangers. A pest house suggested by the king's physicians in 1631 was not built, though one existed by 1666.
Otherwise, the village had a healthy reputation which
contributed to its status as a fashionable suburb in the
17th and 18th centuries and it was favoured for convalescence. (fn. 4) More visitors of all ranks came to Chelsea, and
from the 17th century there are frequent references to
watermen, who carried passengers on the river, and
whose poorer members received many bequests. (fn. 5) Most
of the principal houses and some brewhouses and other
commercial premises on the riverside included private
wharves as part of their property. (fn. 6)
Demand for accommodation led to the building of a
handful of new mansions or country houses in Chelsea, (fn. 7)
though most building effort before the 1680s went into
rebuilding and improving existing houses or adding
gardens to them. Information on more humble residences is erratic but suggests steady infilling and increase
in smaller houses in the village.
Riverside
Chelsea had two principal streets in its main settlement,
the highway by the river and Church Lane. Buildings
known in the early to mid 16th century included a house
called the Rose or Great Rose which stood 'next to the
church', probably meaning facing the river on the opposite corner of Church Lane from the church, which was
surrounded by property belonging to the manor house.
It belonged in 1549 to Thomas Beane, who also owned
three other houses, that occupied by Thomas Sander, a
butcher's house next door, and a house occupied by
John Colman, gardener to Queen Catherine at the
Tudor manor house in 1547. (fn. 8) The Great Rose probably
stood on the site of the later nos 64-7 Cheyne Walk, and
the house or a later building on this site, which included
two gardens and a wharf by the river opposite, formed all
or part of the building where Richard Fletcher (d. 1596),
bishop of London, lived from at least 1592 until his
death. It was later occupied by Sir Thomas Baker, and
sold by his widow Constance in 1625, possibly to Sir
Edward Powell, Bt, whose wife lived there from 1636 to
1651. Powell also bought the house with gardens and
stables in Church Lane which adjoined the north side of
his mansion in 1646 and incorporated them into his
property. Further alterations were made by Sir Edward's
nephew, Sir William Powell alias Hinson, Bt, in 1679,
and it was possibly then that the mansion was turned
into four houses. At some point the westernmost of the
four houses was extended across Lombard Street onto
the wharf by the riverside, and was known thereafter as
Arch House. (fn. 1)
West of Arch House some houses on the north side of
the riverside road were probably medieval in origin: the
Dog tavern, later renamed the Sun, at no. 68 Cheyne
Walk, was with Waterman's Court a freeholding of the
manor with rights of common. (fn. 2) To the west the later no.
72 Cheyne Walk was possibly 16th-century, and may
have been part of the gatehouse or outbuildings of
Danvers House or part of earlier buildings on Butts
close, with another house adjoining to east; it apparently
had a pre-existing passage on the west side, which had
been built over. Before 1892 it had a narrow plastered
street front with two storeys and another window in the
single gable, which retained the remains of terracotta
classical ornament. It is said to have had rights of
common, and may have been the property belonging to
Thomas Creake in the early 17th century. (fn. 3) By 1595 the
westernmost end of the street was also built up on the
northern side. (fn. 4)
The riverside road also had private property on the
south side, which seems to have consisted in the late 16th
century of wharves, surrounded by pales or brick walls,
with a few buildings standing on them. In 1624 Sir John
Danvers bought 'waste ground' with new buildings on it
next to the river, formerly part of the Hungerford estate,
which adjoined ground built with houses by the late 16th
century. (fn. 5) Some wharves, such as the horseferry place,
remained open, but gradually other sites became built
up with houses, and eventually the river lay hidden from
the street behind the houses and shops on the south side
of the road. The western end of the street was called
Beaufort Street by 1735; (fn. 6) after the modern Beaufort
Street was so-named in the later 18th century, the riverside road was known as Duke Street, and the part
between Danvers Street and Church Lane was known as
Lombard Street by 1795. (fn. 7)
Church Lane
As part of the main settlement of the village, piecemeal
rebuilding took place constantly in Church Lane, leaving
little trace of earlier dwellings. On the east side the
southern half was part of the grounds of the medieval
manor house, belonging to the Lawrence family from
1584. (fn. 8) By 1665 their property consisted of the old manor
house with its outbuildings and gardens, three adjoining
cottages on the north side of Lordship Yard, and probably eight cottages on the east side of Church Lane. (fn. 9) A
partially legible tablet naming Church Lane and the year,
later placed on the south wall of a rebuilt no. 9 on the
east side, suggests some rebuilding in the street in the
1660s, and nos 11-15 were also built or rebuilt in the
17th century. (fn. 10) The medieval manor house was occupied
by the family until at least 1675, and possibly 1685, and
it may have been divided and occupied by others as
well. (fn. 11) Between the north side of the Lawrence property
and the south side of the rectory estate in Church Lane
was a house which had been part of Thomas Hungerford's estate in 1566 and had rights of common. (fn. 12) Robert
Chare, citizen and fletcher of London, who bought it
from Elizabeth Young in 1611, was presented in 1617
for converting the house into four dwellings, (fn. 13) and by
1642 his son John Chare, a London tradesman, had 6 or
7 houses on the site, one of which he occasionally occupied, especially in summer. He leased an acre of glebe
behind his houses to give access to the rear and better
gardens. By c.1660 his heirs had leased the acre to
Thomas Collett, who enclosed three-quarters of it, dug
sand, built a wall, and laid gravelled walks in the
garden. (fn. 14) Coins of 1610 and an iron plate dated 1652
were recorded at houses on the west side at nos 16 and 18
Church Street. (fn. 15) At the junction of the lane with King's
Road, opposite the rectory, William Arnold built four
new brick houses beside the former Wrennall's farmhouse, garden and barn before 1676. (fn. 16)
ADDITIONS TO THE VILLAGE AREA
East and west of the village centre, some major houses
were built in the 17th century as well as lesser buildings.
At the west end of the village, Gorges House was
constructed south of the stableyard of Lord Winchester's
mansion, probably between 1617 and 1619. On the east
side of the mansion's grounds Danvers House was built
c. 1624. (fn. 17) Some indication of the development of this
area is given by a settlement made by Sir Arthur Gorges
in 1622. The properties included 4 houses and gardens,
an orchard, a wharf, a lane and commoning rights.
Significantly, they also including part of a ruined
building, possibly part of the former parsonage, already
in the course of redevelopment. This structure was fifty
feet long, of five bays with a walled courtyard in front,
and bounded by the Thames to the south, a common
way to the north, and Gorges's coachhouse to the east. It
continued westwards, where a house had recently been
built on this part of the structure by William
Whitehand. (fn. 18)
Figure 9:
Nos 55-9 (odd) Milman's Street, at the southern end of the east side, probably built in the mid 17th century
In 1646 Sir Arthur Gorges junior with his wife and
son leased a brick barn and adjoining ground where a
dovehouse formerly stood, enclosed with a brick wall, to
William Cox, bricklayer of Chelsea, for 41 years, on
condition that Cox spent £50 in converting the barn into
dwelling houses. Cox converted the barn into, or built,
five houses on the site, claiming he had spent more than
£100. Three of the houses were later assigned to Thomas
Rosse. (fn. 1) The site seems to have been near Lindsey House
and Gorges House, and may account for some of the
smaller houses recorded in the Hearth Tax assessments
as lying near Lindsey and Gorges houses, some of which
belonged to Rosse. These probably included the three
brick cottages, of two storeys with dormers in the tiled
roofs, which appeared to date from the middle of 17th
century, and were later incorporated into the east side of
Milman's Street as nos 55-9. (fn. 2) The farmhouse on More
estate was apparently rebuilt during the 17th century and
later known as Lindsey House: it was occupied by Sir
Theodore Mayerne 1639-55, who may have rebuilt it,
before alterations or rebuilding by the 3rd Earl of
Lindsey. (fn. 1)
At the east end of the village at Chelsea Place, the
Tudor manor house, the new owner James, duke of
Hamilton, began extensive building soon after acquiring
the manor in 1638. He repaired it and extended it by
almost doubling the width of the Tudor west range and
adding three ranges to form a second courtyard. With
the outbreak of the Civil War in 1642 the Hamiltons left
Chelsea and the house was later let, probably as two
separate dwellings; it was certainly two houses in 1655,
divided between Charles Cheyne and Sir Henry Herbert.
Cheyne bought the whole manor and sold the freehold
of the new part of the house in 1664 to the bishop of
Winchester to become Winchester House. (fn. 2)
East of the Tudor manor house and garden the
highway left the riverside and led through the fields to
Westminster. At the beginning of the 17th century the
road ran through the open Eastfield, with meadows by
the river, and possibly some closes. In 1606 James I
granted part of Eastfield called Thamesshot, lying
between the road and the river, as the site for King
James's Theological College, laying the foundation stone
of the college building himself in 1609. The college was
discontinued during the Commonwealth and was empty
in 1652, when it was described as a brick and tile
building 130 ft from east to west and 33 ft deep: on the
ground floor was an entry, kitchen, two butteries, two
larders, a hall, and 2 large wainscotted parlours with a
closet in each; above were six rooms and 4 closets, and
over the whole a very large gallery with a little room at
each end and turrets above. It had a yard enclosed by a
brick wall at the east end and on part of south side,
within which was a kitchen, stable and lofts, again in
brick and tile. A walled garden lay on the other part of
the south side and the west side. On the north was a yard
with walls at the east and west ends, fenced with pales on
the north side. The whole site was estimated at one acre. (fn. 3)
The building was used for various purposes, including as
a prison for Dutch prisoners, until in 1667 the lease was
granted to the Royal Society. In 1682 they conveyed it
back to the Crown for the Royal Hospital. (fn. 4)
Possibly encouraged by the building of the college, the
part of Eastfield west of the college lying between the
highway and the Thames also saw some building by the
mid 17th century. The Swan Inn and wharf with other
buildings had been built on an acre of arable between the
highway and the Thames by 1664, and belonged to
Francis Smith, maltster, and his son Samuel Smith,
citizen and weaver of London. (fn. 5) Samuel Smith was
assessed for a property of 7 hearths between the college
and Chelsea Place in 1674. (fn. 6) In 1672 John Baker took a
lease from Charles Cheyne of two brick messuages lying
towards the college, one of them called Sweed Court,
and two plots of land, one enclosed with a wall, on which
he built premises for glass-making, which continued
until c. 1681. (fn. 7) A plot of c.4 a. towards the west end of the
highway was leased to the Society of Apothecaries, who
built a wall around it in 1674 and three barge-houses by
the river, and created their physic garden there. (fn. 8) Daniel
Wayte of St Martin-in-the-Fields had a half acre of freehold east of the Apothecaries' garden with a house built
on it by the highway before 1684, and was granted a long
term of years in another half acre by Charles Cheyne
with houses built there. He spent £300 on building a new
house on part of the freehold adjoining the Thames. (fn. 9)
Charles Cheyne granted a 31-year lease from 1675 to
Richard Robinson of London, clothworker, of ground in
Chelsea and all the buildings on it or to be built during the
lease, at a peppercorn rent. Robinson built five houses
there and obtained an 11-year extension to the lease; at
his death in 1687 he was in possession of eight houses and
gardens in Chelsea and property elsewhere. (fn. 10) He probably gave his name to Robinson's Lane (now Flood
Street) and may have been the builder of the countess of
Radnor's house at the corner of the later Paradise Row
and Robinson's Lane. (fn. 11) William Cox leased a close
nearby, also on the north side of the highway, and built
houses there; it was still known as Cox's close in 1862
when it was the site of George Place. (fn. 12)
LITTLE CHELSEA
By the early 17th century a small settlement, called New
Chelsea in 1631 but more usually Little Chelsea, had
grown up along Fulham Road, with buildings on both
the Chelsea and Kensington sides separated by fields
from other settlements in the two parishes. The reason
for the growth of a settlement here is not known, though
two major farms with lands in both parishes had farmhouses here on the Kensington side. (fn. 13) By 1631 some 14
acres in Chelsea's Westfield at the rear of houses in Little
Chelsea had been enclosed for gardens. (fn. 14) A house had
been built on 5 acres adjoining Fulham Road which were
let to Richard Stocke by 1618, (fn. 15) and between 1634 and
1644 Johanna Abell built or rebuilt a mansion and three
other houses on the site of two houses and gardens
fronting Fulham Road, probably on 5 acres on the west
side of Stocke's house. (fn. 16) In 1666 there were 7 houses at
Little Chelsea rated for hearth tax under Chelsea, the
main one belonging to Sir James Smith with 18 hearths,
followed by Dr Baldwin Hamey with 13, two houses with
8, and three others with 6, 4, and 3 hearths respectively.
There were two or three more houses by 1674, all of 4
hearths. (fn. 1)
Also enclosed out of Westfield were the gardens
attached to the house later known as Stanley House,
which stood isolated on the north side of King's Road
close to Counter's Creek; its 7 acres of grounds stretched
from King's Road to Fulham Road. The house seems to
have been that sold to Dudley, Lady Lane, by her mother
Lady Elizabeth Gorges by 1630, and extended by Lady
Lane, who had taken part of an 11-acre inclosure in
Westfield for a garden. (fn. 2) In 1643 Lady Elizabeth Gorges
sold the house and grounds to another daughter, Elizabeth Stanley, later the wife of the 4th earl of Lincoln. The
house had 11 hearths in 1666. (fn. 3)
CHELSEA BY 1680
In 1674 there were 172 houses in Chelsea chargeable for
hearth tax, 8 of which were listed as lying at Little
Chelsea; the exempt were not apparently listed. 50 of the
houses were marked as empty, including some of the
largest: Buckingham's house (formerly Lord Winchester's), with the most hearths at 61, the house thought to
be Danvers House with 48, and Chelsea college with 12. (fn. 4)
It is clear that though a few substantial country
mansions were built or created in Chelsea in the early
17th century, by the middle of the century the demand
for housing in Chelsea was more for substantial or
middling town houses rather than for great mansions. In
the 1650s the enlarged Tudor manor house was divided
into two separate dwellings, occupied as though they
were semi-detached mansions, one of which became
Winchester House. Shrewsbury House had also become
two dwellings by 1674, and by 1695 one part was a
school. This was also the use that Gorges House had been
put to by 1676, while Danvers House was demolished by
1700. (fn. 5) The owners of the duke of Buckingham's
mansion had difficulty in selling it at the Restoration,
and when it was up for sale again the 1st duke of Beaufort, who bought it in 1681, had difficulty persuading his
wife that such an old house could be given modern
comforts. (fn. 6) After the duke and duchess died, it remained
largely empty until it was demolished. (fn. 7)