CHAPTER II
The Early History of Piccadilly
This chapter describes the early history of
the area bounded on the south-west by
Glasshouse and Sherwood Streets, north
by the line of Smith's Court (to the south of
Brewer Street), east by the backs of the houses on
the west side of Rupert Street and south by
Coventry Street. All of this area, save 13/8 acres on
the east side of the present Great Windmill Street,
formed part of the land granted in fee by Queen
Elizabeth in January 1559/60 to William Dodington of London, gentleman (ref. 1) (see fig. 1), and in
June 1561 it came into the possession of Thomas
Wilson of St. Botolph without Aldgate, brewer (ref. 2)
(see page 24). The latter was probably the builder
of the windmill from which Great Windmill
Street takes its name.
The small but very important plot on the east
side of Great Windmill Street may never have
belonged to the Crown. In the reign of Henry
VIII it belonged to Anthony Cotton, (ref. 3) who surrendered other lands to the King for the formation
of the royal park or Bailiwick of St. James. In
the course of the negotiations for the surrender
Cotton stated that 'There is another acre of land in
the said park belonging to me', but this ground
does not appear to have been conveyed to the
Crown. (ref. 4) In 1547 John Cotton, gentleman,
granted the plot on the east side of Great Windmill
Street (together with a small piece of land elsewhere) to John Golightly, (ref. 5) whose heirs in c. 1612 (ref. 6)
sold the plot in question to Robert Baker, tailor,
the builder of Piccadilly Hall. (ref. 7) In January 1618/1619 Baker bought from Thomas Wilson's son,
Richard Wilson, some twenty-two more acres of
ground, including the whole of the area covered
by this chapter. (ref. 8)
The natural starting point for the history of
building development in this area is the conveyance, in c. 1612, of the small plot of land on the
east side of what is now Great Windmill Street to
Robert Baker. It is from his clandestine activities
there that the name Piccadilly, 'the most famous
street in the world', derives.
The origin of the word Piccadilly as a placename has been the subject of antiquarian discussion since 1656, when Thomas Blount first
propounded two theories which still command
widespread assent. A 'pickadil', said Blount, was
'the round hem, or the several divisions set together about the skirt of a Garment; or other
thing; also a Kinde of stiff collar, made in
fashion of a Band. Hence perhaps that famous
Ordinary (fn. a) near St. James called Pickadilly,
took denomination; because it was then the
outmost or skirt house of the Suburbs that way.
Others say it took name from this, that one
Higgins, a Tailor, who built it, got most of
his Estate by Pickadilles, which in the last age
were much worn in England.' (ref. 9) Most subsequent debate stems from this pronouncement.
Successive historians down to the present time
have discovered fresh crumbs of information
about the early history of Piccadilly, and a fairly
complete picture can now be drawn. Yet elements of uncertainty still remain, and will probably always remain, to challenge further research.
Until the end of the eighteenth century the discussion was carried on by the etymologists, but in
1791 Thomas Pennant, the topographer, opined
that 'Where Sackville-street was afterwards built,
stood Piccadilla-hall, where Piccadillas or Turnovers were sold, which gave name to that vast
street, called from that circumstance Piccadilly.' (ref. 10)
This idea was taken up by the Rev. Joseph
Nightingale, who in 1815 stated that Piccadilla
House 'was a sort of repository for ruffs'. (ref. 11) In
1841 Charles Knight quoted a number of seventeenth-century examples of the use of the word
piccadilly and ('Where all is conjecture, one more
can do no harm') suggested that Piccadilly Hall
had been 'the house to which the peccadilloes, the
gallants wearing peccadilloes, resorted'. (ref. 12)
The first great advance came in 1849, when
Peter Cunningham consulted the parish records of
St. Martin in the Fields and was able to show that
Piccadilly Hall had been built during the reign of
James I by one Robert Baker, whose will, dated
1623, revealed him as a man of some substance. (ref. 13)
This discovery greatly discredited Blount, hitherto
regarded as the foundation for all research or
speculation, for he had given 'one Higgins, a
Tailor' as the builder of the house. Blount could
now be disregarded, and in 1866 Archdeacon
Bickersteth's suggestion that Piccadilly was a corruption of 'Peaked Hill' gained some support. (ref. 14)
Edward Walford thought (quite wrongly) that
Pennant had attributed the derivation to 'a sort of
cakes or turnovers called "piccadillas", which were
sold in the fields adjacent', (ref. 15) and Sir Walter Besant
was thoroughly confused as well as confusing. (ref. 16)
An important effect of Cunningham's discovery
of Robert Baker was the eclipse of Blount's 'one
Higgins, a Tailor'. In a scholarly article published in 1901 and based largely upon a close
inspection of the parish records, Charlotte Carmichael Stopes dismissed Higgins in favour of
Baker, whom she proved to have been a tailor.
She also drew attention to a letter written by
George Garrard in 1636, and published in 1866 in
the Calendar of State Papers Domestic, which confirmed Blount's second theory that 'Piccadilly'
was a derisive nickname bestowed on a successful
tailor's new house. (ref. 17) Referring to the gaminghouse recently opened by Simon Osbaldeston, the
Lord Chamberlain's gentleman barber, at the
north-east end of the Haymarket, Garrard wrote
that 'Simme Austbistons house is newly christned,
It is calld, Shaver's Hall, as other neighbauring
Places thereabout are nicknam'd Tart hall,
Pickadell Hall'. (ref. 18)
In 1925 C. L. Kingsford, after studying the
important Chancery lawsuit of Garland v. Bridle,
pronounced categorically that Higgins had proved
to be a myth. For the origin of the name Piccadilly Kingsford reverted to Blount, now supported by Garrard, and substituted Robert Baker
for Higgins as the tailor whose house had been
nicknamed after the article of dress from which he
had made his fortune. (ref. 19) In an article published in
The Connoisseur in 1926 F. M. Kelly examined
the development of the piccadilly as an article of
dress and reached much the same conclusions as
Kingsford. (ref. 20) The whole subject seemed to be
closed at last.
But Higgins was not to be so easily disposed of,
even by so distinguished a scholar as Kingsford. In
1944 Mr. Noel Blakiston of the Public Record
Office found evidence in the records of the Court
of Wards, that Stephen Higgins, apothecary, had
been Baker's father-in-law, and that after Baker's
death in 1623 Higgins and his widowed daughter
Mary acquired Baker's property at Piccadilly. (ref. 21)
These discoveries led Mr. Blakiston to revive a
theory previously advanced by Miss Stopes, that
'Pickadilla' may have derived its name from the
daffodils which may have grown in the neighbourhood (there is no evidence that they did in fact do
so). But Higgins's unexpected reappearance, after
an absence of three centuries, his close kinship
with Baker, and the fact that he continued to live
(very probably at Piccadilly Hall) for nearly
twenty years after the death of his son-in-law, all
help to explain Blount's confusion of Baker the
tailor and Higgins the apothecary. The present
writer therefore concludes that Piccadilly Hall
was a derisive nickname bestowed upon the house
built by Robert Baker, a tailor who had made
much of his fortune by the sale of piccadillies; and
that the situation of the house 'then the outmost
or skirt house of the Suburbs that way', may well
have given added point to the name.
Figure 3:
Baker family pedigree.
But difficulties remain. Nicknames are often
ephemeral, and the circumstances of their origin
are soon forgotten. In this case, even the cardinal
fact that the builder of Piccadilly Hall 'got most
of his Estate by Pickadilles' depends solely on
Blount's account, which is in several other
respects incorrect. Then there are other examples
of Piccadilly as a place-name in widely scattered
parts of England. Many of these are of relatively
recent origin and are conscious plagiarisms derived from London. But at least one, at the outof-the-way village of West Walton in Norfolk,
where there was a Piccadilly Hall in 1636, presents a problem whose solution might transform
the whole subject. (fn. b)
Robert Baker was the son of William Baker of
Staplegrove, Somerset. (fn. c) He had at least three
older brothers, to one of whom, William Baker of
Taunton, mercer, he was apprenticed. But
Robert 'departed from him before his apprenticeshipp was ended and went to London, where hee
lived with a Taylor.' (ref. 24) The first certain reference
to him there occurs in 1603–4 when he appears in
the churchwardens' and overseers' accounts for St.
Martin in the Fields. (ref. 25) It was probably at about
this time that he married his first wife, Elizabeth,
by whom he had two daughters, Frances (who was
herself married in 1622) and Judith. (ref. 26) In 1608
he was described as a tailor, and contributed
twenty shillings to the repair of St. Martin's
Church. (ref. 27) In the following year he was one of the
constables of the parish, and between 1609 and
1613 he was frequently a juryman at Quarter
Sessions. (ref. 28) In 1614 he was an overseer of the
poor, and in 1616 he was a sidesman. (ref. 29)
At some time between c. 1608 and c. 1615 he
married Mary Higgins, his first wife having evidently died. (fn. d) His erection of Piccadilly Hall in c.
1611–12 (see below) was, so far as is known, his
first venture in property speculation, and may well
have been connected with his second marriage, for
the activities of his new father-in-law, Stephen
Higgins, in this field seem also to have begun at
about the same time.
Stephen Higgins was an apothecary who lived
in the Savoy Liberty. In 1603 he served as a
constable there, and he was mentioned as a suitable
person to be made a justice of the peace. (ref. 31) Ten
years later he was admitted to the livery of the
Grocers' Company (to which apothecaries then
belonged), but he characteristically refused to play
his part in the company's social activities, (ref. 32) and in
1617, when the Society of Apothecaries was
founded, he was one of the first wardens of the
new body. In 1621 and again in 1638 he served
as master, but these moments of distinction were
varied by longer periods of quarrelling with, and
even partial expulsion from the society. He was
thought to be 'an obstinate, contentious and
troublesome person', (ref. 33) and his activities as a
builder amply confirm this view.
Speculative building in the environs of London
was a lucrative, if risky, business in the first half of
the seventeenth century. With the establishment
of relatively settled conditions of living under the
Tudors the expansion of the capital beyond the
confines of the City walls had become possible,
and by 1580 enough building had taken place to
excite the alarm of the Queen, who issued a proclamation forbidding any new building within
three miles of the gates of London; not more than
one family was to inhabit any one house, and
lodgers were to move elsewhere. (ref. 34) This was
merely the first of a long series of proclamations by
which Elizabeth and her successors, fearful of the
dangers of plague and disorder in the capital,
sought to limit the growth of London. But the
pressure for expansion was stronger than the
government's power to enforce a policy which in
any case only aggravated the conditions of overcrowding which it hoped to prevent. The regulations were therefore frequently modified in detail;
in 1607, for instance, James I introduced the
important proviso that there should be no new
building within two miles of the gates of London
except on old foundations or in the court-yard of
an existing house. (ref. 35) Moreover the government
repeatedly undermined its own authority by the
sale of licences to build, and by allowing offenders
to compound for the retention of illegal buildings. (ref. 36)
It is against this background that the activities
of Baker and Higgins must be viewed. The
former was described as 'a man of a covetous
dispocion', (ref. 37) while his father-in-law was 'of a
verie naughtie disposition', sometimes 'transported
with heate of rage and furie', (ref. 38) and for some ten
years after 1611 the records of the various
authorities responsible for the enforcement of the
proclamations against building abound with references to both of them. Unfortunately many of
these references are oblique and their full meaning
cannot now be grasped.
The references to Higgins are rather more
copious than those to Baker. At about the time
that the latter was erecting 'Piccadilly Hall' Higgins was busying himself elsewhere, for in March
1610/11 the minutes of the Westminster Court of
Burgesses refer to 'the Annoyance about the building of an House in Drewry Lane which was
sometime a Stable in the occupation of Stephen
Hidgings'. (ref. 39) This and another stable were in
White Hart Yard, near the junction of Drury
Lane and High Holborn, and had been built by
Higgins on new foundations, probably with the
intention of subsequently converting them into
tenements — a practice commonly used for the
circumvention of the proclamations against building. (ref. 40) In November 1611 Higgins was ordered to
appear at the next Court 'for the appointment of a
day for the converting of his Tenement into a
Stable again'. This order was repeated three times,
but Higgins never appeared. (ref. 41) Soon there were
complications, for Higgins's tenant, John Baker,
tailor, 'a poore man', (fn. e) who had covenanted with
Higgins for the conversion of the stables into
tenements, (ref. 43) introduced lodgers contrary to the
proclamations, and then he appears to have
fathered an illegitimate child. (ref. 44)
John Baker was fined, (ref. 45) but Higgins appears
not only to have gone unpunished, but in connexion with his activities in the Savoy Liberty, to
have taken the offensive. In c. 1614 he was the
plaintiff in a case before the Court of Star
Chamber where he asserted that a group of the inhabitants of the Liberty had forcibly interrupted
his building work there. (ref. 38) This quarrel rumbled
on until 1620, when Higgins stated to the Manor
Court of the Duchy of Lancaster that he 'findes
himself much agreeved' by the behaviour of his
neighbours. (ref. 46) He evidently had some legal
authority for his building work, either in White
Hart Yard or the Savoy, or both, for in 1615 he
was able to produce at Middlesex Sessions a building warrant from the Privy Council, (ref. 47) but it is not
known what the warrant permitted.
In 1619 he was in trouble again; the Commissioners for Building (who had been established
in 1615) (ref. 48) required him to compound for his
offences in both White Hart Yard and the Strand,
'which to accept hee hath obstinatly refused'.
The Privy Council, to whom the matter was
reported, then ordered the Sheriffs of London and
Middlesex to demolish all his buildings. (ref. 43) There
are few subsequent references to the matter, and it
may be that he finally averted disaster by compounding.
The records of Robert Baker's activities
present a rather more blurred picture. In or
shortly before 1612 Baker acquired from the heirs
of John Golightly 13/8 acres of ground in Windmill
Field, bounded on the south by the road from
Colnbrook at a point almost opposite to the north
end of the Haymarket. (fn. f) The plan of 1585 (Plate
1) gives it as then the property of Widow
Golightly and suggests that it was a narrow strip
bounded on the west by the foot-path (now Great
Windmill Street) leading to the windmill. This
ground was Lammas common land over which
the parishioners had grazing rights from Lammas
Day (1 August) until the spring. On 9 July 1612
the vestry of St. Martin in the Fields imposed
upon Baker an annual payment of thirty shillings
in recompense for the parishioners' loss of their
rights over the ground, which he had already enclosed, and upon which he and John Baker 'have
builded certaine houses'. The first payment was
to be made on 1 August 1612, in respect of the
year August 1611–12, and it is therefore likely
that the houses were built during this period. (ref. 50)
On 20 September 1614 the Westminster Court of
Burgesses ordered one Hugh Parsons to cease
selling beer and tobacco at a house 'near a place
there called Pickadilly Hall', (ref. 51) and this (so far as is
known) is the first recorded use of this name for
Robert Baker's new buildings.
Unfortunately the records do not appear to
provide any clue to the legal status of Piccadilly
Hall. The use of Lammas land for building was,
in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, of very
recent origin, (ref. 52) and Baker's successful speculation,
despite the high price of £50 (ref. 7) which he paid for
only 13/8 acres, may well have attracted considerable attention. Moreover, his buildings, standing
isolated in open country, were so conspicuous that
he must have had some authority for their erection. Their existence was not in fact challenged
until the 1630's, although they were certainly
known to the Attorney General in 1622, when
he referred to them in the Court of Star Chamber
in a case concerned with houses in the Strand. (ref. 37)
It is therefore reasonable to assume either that
Baker obtained a licence to build from the Privy
Council, or that he compounded for breach of the
proclamations. Unfortunately, however, the
Council registers for the years 1601/2 to 1613 are
no longer extant. Alternatively he may have been
able to claim that he was building on old foundations, for the plan of 1585 marks a small house on
the eastern side of the ground, probably not far
from the site later occupied by Piccadilly Hall. (fn. g)
Robert Baker built several houses on his plot in
Windmill Field. In the summer of 1612 he was
probably involved in building operations with
John Molton and Thomas Burgesse, bricklayers,
who entered into recognisances after having given
unjust information against him. (ref. 53) The vestry
minutes (already cited) state that he and John
Baker 'have builded certaine houses' (ref. 6) and the
churchwardens' and overseers' accounts indicate
the same. There appear to have been two substantial houses, Robert Baker's own, which was
assessed at thirteen shillings, and another, occupied
in 1616–17 by a Mr. Drummond, and assessed
at seventeen shillings and fourpence. Two others,
one occupied by Anthony Phan, wheelwright, paid
much less. (ref. 54) By 1626 there were 'seaven messuages
with the stables and other buildinges and curtelages
thereupon built'. (ref. 49)
Baker's own house, Piccadilly Hall, appears
to have been a shop where he received lodgers,
for in 1614 he confessed to the Westminster
Court of Burgesses that 'he had received into
his Shop one James Bale' contrary to the
building proclamations. (ref. 55)
(fn. h) This impression of
divided use or occupancy is also to be found in the
unsuccessful appeal addressed in June 1618 to the
vestry of St. Martin 'on the behalfe of the parties
that have losse by the fire happening at Pickydilly
Hall ye XIIIth. of June abovesaid, exhibited by
three [? tenants shewing] 200 l: losse'. (ref. 56) The
entries to be found in the overseers' accounts
shortly after Robert Baker's death in 1623 suggest
that sub-division was taking place, (ref. 57) and in 1624
'Pickadilly Hall' is given in the overseers' accounts
as the name of 'divers houses and messuages'. (ref. 19)
In 1622 the Attorney General referred to
Baker as 'dwellinge att Peckadilla', (ref. 37) and the
record of Lammas payments for 1623–4 gives 'for
ground neare the Windmill builded uppon . . . and
lately called Pickadilly'; (ref. 58) the ratebook for 1627–8 contains 'Pecadilly' as a street heading. (ref. 59) Thus
the name was already being applied to a locality,
not to an individual house, as John Gerarde
showed in the second edition of his Herball, published in 1633, when he wrote that 'The little
wilde Buglosse growes upon the drie ditch bankes
about Pickadilla.' (ref. 60)
This extension of the name led to its application to the famous gaming house erected on the
opposite or south side of the road in c. 1634 by
Simon Osbaldeston, the Lord Chamberlain's
gentleman barber. This establishment also had its
nickname, as George Garrard related in 1636:
'Simme Austbistons house is newly christned, It is
calld, Shaver's Hall, as other neighbauring Places
thereabout are nicknam'd Tart hall, (fn. i) Pickadell
Hall; At first noe conceyte [i.e. pun] then was of
the builders beeing a Barber; but it came upon
my Lord of Dunbarres loosing 3000 l. at one
sitting; whereon they said a Northerne Lord was
shaved there; But now Putting both togeather, I
fearr it will be a Nickname of the Place, as Nicke
and Frothe is at Petworth, as long the house
stands.' (ref. 61)
(fn. j)
In January 1618/19 Baker greatly enlarged his
estate by the acquisition from Richard Wilson of
some twenty-two acres of land in Windmill
Fields and Scavenger's Close which had previously
been held by Thomas Wilson, brewer. (ref. 65) More
building may have taken place, for in August 1621
the vestry ordered that 'Mr Robert Baker be
warned in about his inclosing of certen of the
Lamas comon contrary to Law and order.' (ref. 66) In
the following year he was accused by the Attorney
General before the Court of Star Chamber of
having carried out illicit building in connexion
with four houses at 'Brittaines Bursse' in the
Strand, of which he had taken a lease from the
Archbishop of York some years earlier. (ref. 37)
At the time of his death (which apparently
occurred while he was still in the prime of life) on
14 April 1623, (ref. 49) Robert Baker owned lands and
tenements of the yearly value of £240, as well as
leases, goods and chattels worth £1000. (ref. 30) He
styled himself gentleman, (ref. 67) and had married his
eldest daughter, Frances, to Edward Hobart,
esquire, a member of an important land-owning
family in East Anglia. (ref. 68) The family quarrels
between rival claimants to the inheritance of
Baker's substantial estate lasted for nearly a
century after his death.
By his will (ref. 61) Robert Baker bequeathed to his
widow, Mary, in lieu of dower, his dwellinghouse (at Piccadilly) and two of his houses in the
Strand, for the term of her life. The rest of his
estate was distributed amongst his children Judith
(a daughter of his first marriage), Mary, Robert
and Samuel. In order to pay his debts and to provide marriage portions for his daughters he
directed his sole executor, his cousin Samuel
Baker, to sell his leasehold property. But the
deeds and leases had come into the possession of
the widow Mary Baker, and of her father,
Stephen Higgins, who appears to have lived at
Piccadilly for some time. Mary Baker was dissatisfied with the provision which her husband
had made for her, particularly since she had provided most of the money with which he, only
four years earlier, had purchased the twenty-two
acres in Windmill Field and Scavenger's (or Conduit) Close. She and her father therefore refused
to hand over the leases, and Samuel Baker (the
executor) commenced a Chancery suit against
them. (ref. 69)
Unfortunately Samuel Baker died within ten
months of Robert, (ref. 70) and as all the surviving unmarried children were minors, it was probably not
difficult for Mary Baker, assisted by her redoubtable father, to gain effective control of the
estate. Concealing the jointure which Robert
Baker is said to have settled on her during his
lifetime, she obtained judgement by writ of dower
for the recovery of one third of her husband's
property. (ref. 71) The administration of the estate was,
of course, in the hands of the Court of Wards, (fn. k)
and by 1626 she and her father, Higgins, had
bought it, on payment of a fine of £66 13s. 4d.,
for the use of the ward, Robert Baker, junior. (ref. 49)
By this time Mary Baker's younger son,
Samuel, was dead, and by 1630 her elder son,
Robert, had died too. (fn. l) The inheritance then
passed to her only surviving child, Mary, the
wardship of whose estate was bought by her
mother. (ref. 49) In c. 1634 the latter granted a thirtyfive-year lease of Scavenger's Close (at the northeast end of the Haymarket) to Simon Osbaldeston,
who built the gaming house later nicknamed
Shaver's Hall. She also granted other leases in the
locality of Piccadilly, (ref. 73) and in 1637 the Commissioners for Building reported to the Privy
Council that several houses had been built there
on new foundations, including one 'which hath
formerly bene pulled downe by your Lordships'
order'. (ref. 74) In the same year her illicit building
activities attracted the attention of the Court of
Star Chamber. (ref. 75)
Her property was giving her much trouble, for
during the epidemic of plague in 1636 she and the
occupants of several other of her houses had been
infected and had been shut up for four weeks with
a guard set before their doors to prevent their
coming out. (ref. 76) Early in 1638 the Court of Star
Chamber imposed upon her a fine of one thousand
pounds 'for continuing buildings unlawfully
erected to the annoyance and putrefaction' of the
springs of water which flowed through her
ground and supplied the Palace of Whitehall. (ref. 77)
The Court also ordered her 'to pull downe her
house, and Stables in Pickadilla for that the same
was conceaved to bee a Nuisance to the water'. (ref. 78)
George Garrard mentioned this order in a letter
of 7 February 1637/8 to the Earl of Strafford: 'A
sentence in the Star-Chamber this Term hath demolished all the Houses about Piccadilly, by Midsummer they must be pulled down, which have
stood since the 13th of King James' (i.e. 1615–16). (ref. 79)
In order to avert this catastrophe Mary Baker
petitioned the Privy Council to be allowed to
convey the waters 'freshe and servicable' to
Whitehall by a brick culvert from the source
to Piccadilly, and thence by lead pipes. She was
to pay for the work, which was to be done under
the supervision of the Surveyor General. (ref. 80)
This proposal was accepted on condition that
the work should be completed by Michaelmas
1638. In June 1639 much still remained to be
done and Inigo Jones, the Surveyor General, reported Mary Baker's dilatoriness to the Privy
Council. (ref. 81) By November the water was at last
being conveyed 'sweet and serviceable for his
Majesty's use'. The Privy Council respited the
demolition of the buildings and agreed to consider a petition from Mrs. Baker for the mitigation of the fine of £1000, with what result is not
known. Her expenses in piping the water were
£600. (ref. 78)
The first detailed description of the houses at
Piccadilly is contained in a parliamentary survey
made in 1651. (ref. 82) They are illustrated in
Faithorne's map, published in 1658 (Plate 2).
The 'Range wherein Mrs. Bakers house standeth'
abutted south on the road from St. Giles to
Knightsbridge, north and east on Mr. Poultney's
land, and west on the foot-path leading from
Piccadilly to the windmill. There were eleven
houses in all, five of them facing west to the
foot-path (Great Windmill Street) and the rest
south to the highway. The most northerly,
which was occupied by Mrs. Baker, had one
room to each of three storeys, a stable and
a small plot of ground before the door, and
was valued at three pounds. Mrs. Baker also
occupied the adjoining three-storey house to the
south, valued at fifteen pounds per annum. This
was probably the original Piccadilly Hall built by
Robert Baker in 1611–12. In the survey of 1651
it was described as a 'Tenement strongly built
with Bricke and covered with Tile, consisting
one Seller, one Hall, a Kitchen and a Larder
below staires, and in the first story above staires
2 Chambers and a Closet there, and over the same
2 Garret roomes, which together with one Court
yard, a Garden and a backside, conteyninge by
estimacion 3 Roods.' The house is plainly shown
on Faithorne's map. Its site was probably at or a
few feet north of the intersection of Shaftesbury
Avenue and Great Windmill Street. (fn. m)
The next house to the south was still larger,
being valued at twenty-two pounds per annum.
It had six rooms on each of two floors, with
garrets above, and there was a coach-house, courtyard, and gardens, with an area of half an acre.
South again was a smaller house whose high
value of twenty pounds was evidently due to the
stables and coach-houses attached to it. Next
came another small house, built of brick and
timber and with a thatched roof, valued at six
pounds, and then 'a tenement called by the name
of the Signe of the Crowne'. This inn, 'stronglie
built with bricke and tile' and valued at £13 6s. 8d.,
stood at the corner of the main road and the footpath leading to the windmill. On its east side
there were two other inns, the Feathers and the
Horns, valued respectively at £13 6s. 8d. and £8,
and the L-shaped range of eleven tenements was
completed by three small buildings further east. (ref. 82)
The later descent of the Baker property may
now be described. In 1637, when her buildings
had first attracted the attention of the Court of
Star Chamber, Mrs. Baker's only surviving child,
Mary Baker junior, had married (Sir) Henry
Oxenden, of Dene, Wingham, Kent, and in
December an agreement had been concluded
whereby Mrs. Baker retained a life interest in all
the Piccadilly lands and houses. (ref. 83) In December
1638 Mary Oxenden died after giving birth to a
daughter, Mary, and in February 1641/2 the
wardship of the estate was once more purchased
by Mrs. Mary Baker, on this occasion in association with her father, Stephen Higgins, and Arnold
Higgins. (ref. 84)
(fn. n) But the younger Mary Oxenden died
in 1646 or 1647 while still a child. (ref. 87)
Thus all of Mrs. Mary Baker's children and
their issue were now dead, and the reversion of
the estate, subject to her life interest and that of
Sir Henry Oxenden, passed to the right heirs of
Robert Baker, the founder of the family fortune.
The first claimant was Edward Hobart, 'thirsting
after the possession of the said lands and Tenements', who started proceedings in the Court of
King's Bench as well as in Chancery. (ref. 88) He was
the husband of Robert Baker's eldest daughter,
Frances, by his first wife, and she was the sole
survivor of Robert Baker's children by either of
his marriages, for her sister Judith was now dead
without issue. (ref. 89) Frances Hobart died in c. 1652 (ref. 71)
and her husband probably soon afterwards, but his
efforts were vigorously maintained in Chancery
by his son, Edward Hobart (Hubert), of Much
Baddow, Essex, esquire, until his death in 1670. (ref. 90)
Mary Baker scornfully described his claim as
without 'any juste ground, reason or title', (ref. 91) but
after her death his claim to the original 13/8 acres
on the east side of Windmill Street appears to have
been sufficiently accepted for Sir William Pulteney
and Richard Bull to pay him in 1667 £250 for the
acquisition of two plots there. (ref. 92) His title was
evidently still in doubt, however, for Pulteney
thought it necessary to pay'a competent sum of lawful money' to the occupant for the same ground. (ref. 93)
The strongest claimant was John Baker,
variously described as of Wellington, Somerset,
cordwainer (ref. 26) or gentleman, (ref. 24) or (in 1673) as of
Payhembury, Devon, gentleman. (ref. 89) His claim to
be the great-nephew of Robert Baker and therefore entitled to the estate subject to the existing
life interests was for some years accepted by both
Mrs. Mary Baker and Sir Henry Oxenden. (ref. 89)
But in c. 1658 another great-nephew, James Baker
of Evercreech, Somerset, yeoman, (ref. 24) 'an illiterate
and ignorant man' (ref. 89) advanced a rival claim, (ref. 87) and
innumerable suits and counter suits in the Courts
of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer and
Chancery followed. (ref. 89)
After the death of Mary Baker in c. 1665 without male issue her lands escheated to the Crown.
They were granted to Thomas Eliot, groom of
the bedchamber, and Thomas Ross, groom of the
privy chamber, but it is very doubtful if they ever
gained possession. (ref. 94) John Baker appears to have
obtained possession of part of the estate, but his
legal expenses in defending his title against his
cousin James Baker were so heavy that he had to
grant part of his property to the Oxendens, who
had provided him with money to advance his
claims. His cousin had felt the same necessity,
and had made conveyances of his real or pretended
rights to Colonel Thomas Panton, the speculator,
'who manages the said James Baker's pretencies'. (ref. 89)
Of Panton's prowess as a cardplayer it was said
that 'There was no game but what he was an
absolute artist at, either upon the square or Foul
play.' (ref. 95) He proved too sharp for the Bakers, for
ultimately he and Sir Henry Oxenden came to an
agreement between themselves, and by 1673
Panton was granting building leases in the locality
of Piccadilly north of Coventry Street, in defiance
of the complaints of John Baker. (ref. 89)
(fn. o)
What success the Bakers had in the prosecution
of their claims to other parts of the estate is not
known. James continued to raise money by the
sale or mortgage of his slender expectations; (ref. 99)
John appears to have received rent from the tenants of houses in Wardour Street and Peter
Street, but in 1710 his right to do so was in
dispute. (ref. 8) In 1720 three rustic Bakers, all living
in Somerset, were still claiming the twenty-two
acres purchased by 'Piccadilly Baker' in 1618/19
and stretching from the Haymarket to Oxford
Street. By then the area had been largely
built upon regardless of these supposed owners'
rights. (ref. 100)