CHAPTER III - The Precinct of St. Mary Spital: The Old Artillery Ground
The Old Artillery Ground had formed the
southern part of the precinct of the Priory
of St. Mary Spital. On 3 January 1537/8
it was leased, as the ’Tesell grounde’, by the prior
to the ’Fraternyte or Guylde of Artyllary of
longebowes, Crossebowes and handegonnes’ for
297 years at a yearly rent of 20s. (ref. 1) The Ground
was described as adjoining the priory and lying
within its precinct, the east, south and west sides
enclosed by ’newe brycke walles’ and the northern
part unenclosed. The east side measured 720
feet, the south side 171 feet and the south-west
side 360 feet; the unenclosed northern part
measured 360 feet in length and breadth. This
corresponds approximately to the later dimensions
of the Ground and Agas probably errs in placing
the west wall considerably further east than its
position in the later seventeenth century.
Stow explains the name of the Ground as
deriving from the ’tasels’ (or teasels) planted there
for the use of clothworkers, (ref. 2) who employed them
to raise the nap on cloth. The continued validity
of the lease granted less than a year before the
priory's dissolution suggests that the ground had
customarily been leased. (ref. 3) In view of the immience
of the dissolution of the priory, the grant
may have been made at the instance of the King
(see William Thomas's suggestions in 1581–2,
page 25).
On 25 August of the previous year the Fraternity
had been incorporated by royal charter
granted to ’Sir Cristofer Morres, Knight, Maister
of our Ordenancs, Anthony Knevett and Peter
Mewtes Gentlemen of our Preve Chambre Overseers
of the Fraternitie or Guylde of Saint
George’. It constituted them ’Overseers of the
Science of Artillary that is to witt for Longe
Bowes Crosbowes and Handgonnes etc.’ and the
’Rulers of the said Felliship of Artillary’. They
were to ’founde … and establisshe a certeyne perpetuall
Fraternitie of Saint George’ which was
thereby incorporated as the ’Fraternitie or Guylde
of Artillary of Longbowes, Crosbowes and
Handegonnes’. The Fraternity was empowered
to exercise at butts and ’at the Game of the
Popinjaye and other Game or Games as at Fowle
and Fowles’ in the City of London, its suburbs and
elsewhere. (ref. 4) It is not clear whether the Society
thus incorporated had existed previously or not.
The charter does not designate the ’Tesell
Ground’ as the headquarters of the Society but it
is evident that it was to this corporation that the
Ground was leased in 1537/8.
It has sometimes been supposed either that the
lease of the Ground was made to the ’Gunners of
the Tower’ for the exercise of ’great and small
artillery’ and not to the Guild of St. George (from
whom the Honourable Artillery Company
claimed to derive (fn. a) ) or that separate charters were
granted in 1537 to the Guild of St. George and to
the ’Fraternity of Artillery or Gunners of the
Tower’. (ref. 5) Whether the corporation to which the
charter and lease were granted was an independent
society or an organization of royal servants, and
whether its rights were inherited by the (Honourable)
Artillery Company or the Tower Ordnance
or by neither is uncertain. In the early seventeenth
century the use and tenure of the Ground was
constantly disputed, but neither the Company nor
the Ordnance officers possessed the original lease
or charter, or could establish a title to the Ground
back to Henry VIII's reign. But apparently only
one society was concerned in the transactions of
1537–8, a society at that time commanded by a
Master of the Ordnance, at that time exercising
only small arms, and owing its tenure of the
Ground to its lease from the prior.
On the dissolution of the priory the ’Tesell
Ground’ passed into the possession of the Crown
and, unlike the rest of the precinct, remained the
property of the Crown, except for the years
1550–3, until 1682.
In 1540–1 the Ministers' Accounts for the
former priory mention ’le Tessell grounde’ as
being held by the ’M[against]ro gubernatoribus de
lez guners’ under the lease of 1537/8. (ref. 6)
In 1550 Edward VI granted ’le Tesell
Grownde’ with other property to John, Earl of
Warwick (later Duke of Northumberland). It
returned to the Crown's possession in 1553 on
Northumberland's attainder. (fn. b) The grant of 1550
describes the Ground as in the tenure of the
Company or Guild of the art of longbows, crossbows
and hand-guns. (ref. 8)
Agas's map of c. 1560–70 shows gunnery practice
in the Ground, which appears to be completely
surrounded by walls.
In 1581 suggestions were made to the Privy
Council, probably by William Thomas, the
Master Gunner of England, for the better training
of gunners for the service of the Crown. The
writer stated that the guneners assembled once a
year in the Artillery Garden (as the Ground was
often called) to demonstrate their skill in great and
small ordnance before the Master Gunner. He
suggested that they should do so at least four times
a year, in consideration that ’the said place
comonly called the Artillerie garden was of purpose
given by the prince of famouse memorie
Kinge Henry the eight to th' office of th' ordinance
for the trayning use and practize of
Gonners’. (ref. 9) Probably the following year the
Master Gunner claimed that a charter since lost
was granted by Henry VIII to ’the fraternitie of
Artillary in greate and small Ordenance’, and
that ’th’ artillary gardein' was ’by his graces
meanes appoineted, for the exercize of the same
fraternitie’. He suggested that the missing charter
should be replaced or confirmed by another to be
made to a ’Fraternitye Companye and Fellowship
of Artillerye of greate and smale ordenaunce’,
with specific provision for the use of the Ground. (ref. 10)
No new charter was, however, granted.
The writer seems to have erred in implying
that a right to the Artillery Ground in particular
had been conferred by Henry VIII on the
Fraternity of Artillery and that the Fraternity
was one exercising, as did the Ordnance Office,
both small and great artillery. It appears from the
writer's words that the gunners of the Ordnance
Office did not then use the Ground frequently.
By 1598 they used it weekly (see below).
In 1591 the Privy Council wrote to the Lord
Mayor and Corporation requiring ’that whereas
the artillery yarde belonginge to the cittie beinge
erected for the trayninge of yonge gentlemen in
London first broughte in by Mr. capten Allen
Lewis, servante to the Lord Chamberlen, hathe
bin of late discontynued, that [sic] the same maie
forthwith upon the receipte hereof be renewed’. (ref. 11)
This request probably refers to the use of the
Artillery Ground by the Trained Bands of the
City since 1585. The reference to the Ground as
belonging to the City, repeated in later Privy
Council orders, is difficult to explain.
Seven years later, in 1598, Stow speaks of the
Ground as a large close formerly planted with
’Tasels’ and ’since letten to the Crosse-bow-makers,
wherein they used to shoote for games at
the Popinejay, now the same being inclosed with
a brick wall, serveth to be an Artillerie yard,
whereunto the Gunners of the Tower doe
weekely repaire, namely everie Thursday, and
there levelling certaine Brasse peeces of great
Artillerie against a But of earth, made for that
purpose, they discharge them for their exercise’. (ref. 2)
The mention of the cross-bow makers shooting at
’the Popinjay’ by right of a lease seems to be an
inaccurate reference to the Fraternity receiving
the charter and lease of 1537–8. Stow appears to
distinguish that Society from the gunners of the
Tower exercising great artillery, and to suggest
that the earlier Society no longer occupied the
Ground.
On 3 July 1612 the Privy Council made an
order allowing a ’Companie of Cittizens’ to be
trained in arms in the Artillery Garden or elsewhere,
the Council recalling ’a pressident
[precedent] of certaine worthie Cittizens of London
heretofor exercisinge Armes’. The number
of members was limited to 250, increased to 500
in 1614. (ref. 12) In May 1613 the election by the
Aldermen of officers of the Society practising arms
in the Artillery Garden was approved by the
City, (ref. 13) but subsequently there were disputes
over the right of the City to elect officers without
the approval of the Privy Council. In 1615 the
Council approved the use of the Artillery Garden
by the Middlesex Trained Bands. (ref. 14)
In 1616 the grant of the Lieutenancy of the
Ordnance made to Sir Richard Morrison included
the custody of the Artillery Garden. (ref. 15)
In the meantime, on 30 September 1612
James I had granted ’the Tessill ground’ to
William Hammond (or Hamon), the Master
Gunner. (ref. 16) But on an appeal in 1616 from the
Society exercising arms in the Artillery Ground,
the Council ordered Hammond to allow them free
use of the Ground. (ref. 17) In 1620 an order of the
Privy Council mentioned that the lease obtained
by Hammond in 1612 had been acknowledged by
him to be void ’for manifest imperfeccions found
out by … Sir Edwarde Coke’, and had been
surrendered. It was ordered that ’the said Artillery Yard’ should in future be ’restored to the
publicke use for which it had formerly been imployed’, and ’not be from henceforth alienated’. (ref. 18)
In 1622 the Society again complained of encroachments by Hammond, who had enclosed
’certain cabbage gardens’ and excluded the
Society from the use of a butt. The Council
ordered the gardens to be laid open again and
made available for a ’butt and marke’. (ref. 19)
The Society joined to their complaint a request
for permission to build on the ground a new
armoury, the old being ruinous. The Council
permitted this, ’so as the same be made of bricke
and stone and in suche manner as may bee least
subject to surprize’. (ref. 19) The armoury is said to have
been completed in November 1622. (ref. 20) In 1631
the Company (as the Society is now described)
claimed that building the ’Armoury and Forte’
had cost them £1,000. (ref. 21) Some verses were composed on the new armoury by the Marshal of the
Artillery Company, Henry Petowe, indicating
the Company's double dependence on royal and
civic support. After celebrating the gallantry of
the Company and the beauty of the building, they
acknowledge a grant received from the City
towards its cost.
Our City London is a Royal Thing,
For it is call'd The Chamber of our King:
Whose worthy Senate we must not forget;
Their Grant and our Request together met:
They cherish us, and we do honour them:
Where Soliders find true Love, they'll love again.
The lease of the teasel ground by the prior in
1537/8 is then mentioned, as if it were regarded
as the Company's title to the Ground. The royal
and conciliar favour is acknowledged.
Now have the noble Council of the King
Confirm'd the same, and, under Charles his Wing,
We now do exercise, and of that little
Teasel of Ground, we enlarge St. Mary Spittle.
Trees we cut down, and Gardens added to it.
Thanks be the Lords, that gave us Leave to do it. (ref. 22)
It is unlikely that the external dimensions of the
Artillery Ground were enlarged at this time.
Trees are shown on the Ground in the sixteenth-century maps of Agas and of Braun and Hogenberg, and the ’Gardens’ may have been those
rescued from William Hammond and now taken
into the armoury site or exercise ground. The site
of the armoury, which appears on a plan of 1680/1
as the ’Great Storehouse’ (Plate 54c), is now the
northern corner of Sandys Row and Artillery
Passage. Pictorial representations of the armoury,
not very accurately sited, appear on Ryther's map
of c. 1640, Faithorne and Newcourt's map published in 1658, and Hollar's plan of 1667, but they
agree only in suggesting a building of some size
and consequence. In 1658 the buildings erected
by the Company were described as an armoury,
court house and workhouse, all of brick. (ref. 23) In
1660 the armoury was described as a room sixty-three feet long and twenty-four feet wide, with
some other rooms adjoining. (ref. 24)
In 1623 a report was made to the Privy Council
by officers of the Tower on certain abuses in its
administration. With reference to the order made
in 1620 that the Ground should be restored to
public use, the invalidity of the grant of 1612
’unadvisedly and indirectly procured by the said
Hammond’ was acknowledged; nevertheless, it
was argued that ’during all this time, and long
before, and since, the Lieutenants of the Ordnance, and the Master Gunners of England under
them, had and still held and enjoyed the said
Garden for His Majesty's service, and so for the
public, as anciently, beyond the memory of man,
had been always customary’. But ’the citizens of
London’ in building ’a fair house’ for their
armoury had pulled down some of His Majesty's
buildings. The Ordnance officers now suggested
that ’there might be an acknowledgement from the
City made and entered in the office of the Ordnance, that they hold it only by favour’, and that
they should erect other houses to replace those
demolished. (ref. 25)
The following year, 1624, the Lieutenant of the
Ordnance claimed that the Lieutenant and Master Gunner held the Ground partly by the lease of
1537/8 and partly by the King's grant of the custody of the Ground to the Lieutenants of the
Ordnance when appointing them; the Master
Gunner had always trained scholars in gunnery
there. The citizens of London, exercising there
by virtue of leave granted to them twelve or thirteen years previously, had made a gate into ’the
Ordinance way’, where the scholars were taught
by the Master Gunner (presumably the ’Artillery
Parke’ shown on the plan of 1680/1, Plate 54c),
and had attempted to eject the scholars. They had
also lately petitioned Parliament to ’gain the inheritance of the said garden to themselves’, and so
deprive the Ordnance officers of their ancient
right, ’never controverted, but only by theise
unthanckfull guestes, lately and unadvisedly
admitted only out of favour’. (ref. 26)
It is not known what effect, if any, these
representations had. The dispute was, however,
still in progress in April 1631, when the Council
recommended that times be fixed for the use of the
Ground by the two parties, and that a servant of
the Company should keep the door of the Ground
on the days of their exercise. (ref. 27) The following
month the Master Gunner asked for the Company
to be excluded from the ’Ordnance way’. The
Council, however, specifically allowed the Company the key to the door of the platform where the
butt was, on Mondays and Tuesdays, their days of
exercise. (ref. 28) The Master Gunner had pleaded a
verbal command from the King not to allow the
Company access to the ’Ordnance way’. But the
following year, the Company having experienced
internal dissensions, the King wrote to the President commending the Company, asking them not
to dissolve, and inviting them to have direct access
to him in case of difficulty. (ref. 29) At the same time he
declared his intention of taking the election of the
Captain of the Company into his own hands. (ref. 30) In
1634 the election of officers was divided between
the King, the City Corporation and the Company
itself. (ref. 31)
The disputes over the use of the Ground induced the Company to look for headquarters elsewhere. In 1635 the Court of Aldermen ordered
a view of a site in Bunhill Fields, the Company
having applied for a piece of ground for their
exclusive use. (ref. 32) In 1638 and 1640 similar
orders were made. On 24 March 1640/1 a lease
of part of Bunhill Fields was approved by the
Court of Common Council. (ref. 33)
After the acquisition of the site in Finsbury the
Company appear to have transferred most of their
activities there. In 1649 it is called the New
Artillery Ground, and the site east of Bishopsgate
the Old Artillery Ground. (ref. 34) The Company did
not, however, wholly sever its connexion with the
Old Ground until 1658. On 11 September 1657
the Company ordered a march from the Old
Artillery Ground to the New Ground. (ref. 35) On
29 December it was agreed that Mr. Wollaston,
the Master Gunner, should purchase the Company's armoury in the Old Artillery Ground for
£300. The removal of the arms had already been
ordered. (ref. 36) On 29 September the clerk of the
Artillery Company signed a receipt for £300
received from Richard Wollaston ’for the
Armoury with the Courthouse, and all other the
structures and buildings belonginge to the said
Company, scituate and beinge in the Old Artillery
Garden …’ (ref. 37) The receipt refers only to the
grant of the building, (fn. c) but henceforward the
Artillery Company appear to have relinquished
the Ground and its use for gunnery purposes was
confined to the Ordnance Office of the Tower.
The property at the southern end of the Ground
did not pass immediately into the actual possession
of the Ordnance Office. Its purchase by the
Master Gunner was apparently on behalf of a
congregation of Baptists. In October 1658
William Kiffin, the Baptist divine, and others
petitioned the Council (evidently without success)
on behalf of themselves and their congregation for
a ninety-nine-year lease of the Ground, except the
proof-house and the use of the gun range. (ref. 38) The
report made on this petition by the Ordnance
Office stated that the armoury and other buildings
erected by the Artillery Company had already been
sold by the Ordnance Office to the petitioners. (ref. 39)
Apparently the actual purchasers of these buildings
included Hanserd Knollys, with whom Kiffin had
previously associated in the propagation of Baptist
tenets. (ref. 40) In July 1660 Knollys petitioned the
Crown for a ninety-nine-year lease of the Ground,
claiming that the conveyance from the Company
to the Master Gunner had been in trust for
Knollys, who had provided the £300, and that
Wollaston had subsequently assigned the premises
to him: Kiffin is not mentioned. Knollys had
repaired the premises ’and builded a dwelling
house where ye Court house was … And by
compesition with the said rich: Wollaston hath
paled and fenced in a little screed or parcell of
ground for a Garden at his owne cost.’ (fn. d) Knollys
used the buildings ’for his conveniency of teaching
schoole and boarding scholars’. According to the
Surveyor General's report Knollys also preached
’to a Congregation of persons of his owne opinion
in the said Roome or Armory House’. (ref. 41)
In January 1660/1 Lord Treasurer Southampton ordered a thirty-one-year lease to be made to
Knollys, agreeing with the Master of the Ordnance in doubting ’that there is any great use of
the said Armory Roome for his Majesties Service,
and [he] wisheth as I doe that the said Artillary
ground were exchanged for some other peece of
ground lying more near to the Tower’. (ref. 42) But the
Master Gunner thought the armoury useful for
storing ’the Carriages of his Cannon’, and Knollys
was evicted from the armoury. (ref. 24)
In 1670/1 Knollys petitioned the King for a
confirmation of his purchase in 1658. (ref. 43) A report
dated June 1674, on a further petition from
Knollys, stated that the Ground could not be
leased to him, being of use to the Ordnance Office
and being granted to the Lieutenant of the Tower
in his patent, ’and soe in the manner annexed to the
office of the ordinance’. (ref. 44) Knollys should be
compensated for his loss. In 1679 a further
petition from Knollys, ’a very poor and aged
minister’, was referred to the Surveyor General,
who recommended him to the King's benevolent
charity. (ref. 45)
With the Restoration the Old Artillery
Ground had thus become limited to the use of the
Ordnance Office. Some rebuilding or re-arrangement of the buildings at the south end of the
Ground may have taken place at that time, as there
is a reference in 1668 to the ’new storehouse’ and
to the train of artillery it contained. (ref. 46) On
20 April 1669 Pepys visited the Ground, ’where
I never was before, but now, by Captain Deane's
invitation did go to see his new gun tryed, this
being the place where the Officers of the Ordnance do try all their great guns’. (ref. 47) The will of
Captain Valentine Pyne, (ref. 48) Master Gunner of
England, living in the Old Artillery Ground,
made in 1670, shows that the Master Gunner's
dwelling-house was then in fact occupied by him. (fn. e)
The position is shown on the plan of 1680/1 (and
is further confirmed by a later deed) to have been
on the north side of the future Fort Street where
it turned towards the north-east. (ref. 50)
In 1673 Lord Grandison (fn. f) : asked for a long lease
of the Ground, to build on the same. The Ordnance officers claimed that the buildings were
necessary for His Majesty's service and that the
gun range ’called a Parke’ was used for exercising
a hundred feed gunners (fn. g) and by the Master
Gunner for training scholars in gunnery. The
proof-house, used for proving small guns, was then
lately repaired. (ref. 52) Earlier, in 1661, Charles, Lord
Gerard of Brandon (fn. h) had petitioned for a lease of
two acres in the Ground. (ref. 53) In 1681 the Ordnance officers commented that the Ground had
formerly ’runn some hazard of being beggd of his
Majestie’, but had hitherto been preserved by
arguments as to its usefulness in the King's
service. (ref. 54)
Nevertheless the neighbourhood was being built
up and the inducement to sell the Ground for
building was growing. On 5 March 1668/9 the
inhabitants of Spitalfields had petitioned against a
brick-kiln being built in their midst by one John
Pike, which among other disadvantages would
’endanger the lives and fortunes of the said inhabitants if any sparke of fyre should happen on
the powder which is frequently laid a drying in
the sun in ye old artillery ground neare adjoyning
to the said fields, there being usually kept great
quantitys of Powder in the storehouses there’.
Sir John Robinson, Lieutenant of the Tower,
reported that Pike's digging for brick-earth
endangered the foundations of the Artillery
Ground wall, and that ’there is a rowe of new
buildings erected and erecting upon new foundations so neare his Majesty's stoares, that if fyre
should happen, it will endanger the said Stoares,
besides making the said artillery ground unusefull
as to ye practise of shooting there’. (ref. 55) This refers
to the building of Crispin Street.
Early in 1681 the sale of the Ground for building land was in contemplation. In March 1680/1
a plan of the Ground is said to have been prepared (ref. 52)
and is probably that now in the Public Record
Office (ref. 56) (Plate 54c). On 2 April 1681 the Ordnance officers reported that the usefulness of the
Ground to the Crown was for the exercise of
the ’fee'd gunner's and the proof of small guns;
the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance held the
Ground ’and consequently the benefit of the
herbage and the rent of the other houses thereon
standing’. But the Ground might be disposed of
if other convenient places could be found in its
stead. (ref. 54)
On 11 May 1681 William Harbord, the
Surveyor General of Crown Lands, reported on
the value of the Old Artillery Ground, built and
unbuilt, and on what improvements might be
made. The building in the south-west corner and
the garden north of it were valued at £30 per
annum. Adjoining this eastward was a great brick
storehouse used for ’laying up Match & return'd
bedding, Tents & other utensills’, valued, with a
garden, at £20 per annum. Two other tenements
with gardens eastward of the storehouse were
valued at £30 per annum. At the north end of the
Ground was the Master Gunner's dwelling-house
with stables, coach-house, porter's lodge, two
powder houses, a long house used for ’proving of
small Gunns, and keeping of Stores’, and a charging house; all these were valued at £70 per annum.
The remainder of the unbuilt ground contained
nearly five acres, all walled with a high brick wall
and valued at £10 per annum. The whole ground
was thus valued at £160 per annum. (ref. 52)
Most of these features can be discerned on the
map in the Public Record Office (Plate 54c), on
which the total area of the Old Artillery Ground
is given as 5 acres, 0 roods, 22 perches. This plan
also shows the ’Artillery Parke’ along the east
wall, apparently lined with trees or bushes on its
west side, with a platform for guns at the southern
end and a ’high earthen butt’ and wooden butts at
the north end; the earthern butt is mentioned in a
building lease of ground in Gun Street in 1682,
and described as ’a piece of ground there now or
heretofore called the Mount’. (ref. 57) The powder
houses are shown halfway along the west side of
the ’Artillery Parke’ (perhaps so placed to be as far
as possible from danger of fire from other buildings), and adjoining an apparently artificial pond,
also probably a precaution against fire. ’Raystd
ground’ is shown south of the Master Gunner's
house and the proving house. The plan was carefully made, but erroneously shows Goodman's
Fields to the east instead of Spitalfields (perhaps by
confusion with the Minories, another liberty used
by the Ordnance). The denomination of the lane
on the south-west of the Ground (later Sandys
Row) as ’Gravell Lane’ is also probably an error.
On 6 December 1681 Sir Christopher Wren
was asked to certify the Ground's value improved
by building, and to attempt to find a purchaser. (ref. 58)
A week later the Treasury asked the Ordnance
Commissioners whether the Master Gunner could
be found a house elsewhere. (ref. 54) On 23 December
the Treasury inquired whether a market could be
granted to a purchaser of the Ground, ’being the
King's antient Inheritance and having been
alwayes a Priviledged Place … if the same should
prove to be within the liberties of the City’. (ref. 59) On
the same day a letter was sent to Sir William
Warren, Mr. Neale (probably Thomas Neale, the
building speculator), Mr. Barebon (Dr. Nicholas
Barbon), Sir Christopher Wren and Mr. Kille-grew, specifying that no proposal under £4,000
would be accepted for the Old Artillery Ground
or under £5,200 if a market right were annexed
to the grant. A regulation regarding the sale of
the other Tower Liberty of Well close was made
similarly. (ref. 59) The proximity to the City and the
expansion of this part of London made it possible
for the Crown to hope for considerable remuneration from the grant of a market, but in the end no
such right was appended to the grant of the
Ground, perhaps because the Ground's connexion
with the parish of St. Botolph Bishopsgate was
thought to bring it ’within the liberties of the
City’, or because the City objected to it as an infringement of their market monopoly. The
market right granted in 1682 was to the owner of
the adjoining Spital Field in the hamlet of
Spitalfields <to which the City Corporation did object, albeit unsuccessfully.>
On 10 January 1681/2 the Treasury Lords
required to have reserved for their use the money
to be paid by Dr. Barbon for the purchase of Well Close and the Old Artillery Ground. (ref. 60) Barbon
was characteristically slow in paying the purchase
money and was sent two peremptory letters on
23 and 16 January from the Lords of the Treasury
on the subject. (ref. 61) <Like Barbons property elsewhere, the Old Artillery Ground estate was used to finance his insurance company (see The National Archives, C8/357/139; also C6/326/51).>
On 13 February 1681/2 the Old Artillery
Ground was granted in perpetuity to George
Bradbury and Edward Noell for £5,700, with
licence to build new houses on the same. It was
described as the Old Artillery Ground or Old
Artillery Garden in or near the parish of St.
Botolph's, Bishopsgate, and on the west side of
fields or places commonly called Spitalfields, containing five acres and one rood, now encompassed
with a brick wall; the buildings are described much
as in l681. A rent of 6s. 8d. was reserved. (ref. 62) In
subsequent deeds George Bradbury is described as
of the Middle Temple, esquire, and Edward
Noell as of the Inner Temple, gentleman. They
were probably associated with Barbon in this
grant, as the subsequent building leases were
usually made by Bradbury and Noell together with
Barbon and John Parsons. (fn. i)
Figure 3:
Boundary mark of Old Artillery
Ground at No. 9 Brushfield Street
At the time of the grant the Crown set up
metal broad-arrow marks at various points along
the boundary; several of these marks can still be
seen_at No. 43 Artillery Lane, No. 9 Artillery
Passage, Nos. 9 and 14 Brushfield Street, as well
as an incised mark, probably of later date, in
George and Catherine Wheel Alley. The arrow
at No. 9 Brushfield Street is marked 1682 (fig. 3);
the arrow opposite at No. 14 may also be original,
but both these must have been placed in their
present positions when Union (now Brushfield)
Street was cut through in the late eighteenth century. In 1943 a mark still existed at No. 42 Brushfield Street, (ref. 64) and in 1893 there was another
dated 1682 at the corner of Artillery Lane and
Sandys Row; (ref. 65) both these have now disappeared.
Building Development from 1682
The arrangement of the streets laid out when
the Ground was built up was evidently determined
by the relative lack of carriage-roads approaching
the Ground (fig. 4). From Bishopsgate Street the
only access street of any consequence was Artillery
Lane (formerly Street) approaching the gateway
near the south-west end of the Ground. On the
east side streets led westward from the north and
south ends of the Ground. A street was constructed continuing Artillery Lane in a southeasterly direction to the southern of these streets,
Smock Alley (now the eastern end of Artillery
Lane). The three main streets_the north-south
part of Fort (formerly Duke) Street, Steward
(formerly Stuart) Street, and Gun Street, which
until the enlargement of Spitalfields Market
stretched further north than it does now_were
constructed running north and south and linked at
the north end by the original Fort Street, a cross-street which led out or the Ground in a north-easterly direction to Lamb Street and the north
side of Spitalfields. No access from the north-west corner of the Ground to Spital Yard was
provided. Access by foot to the west side of the
Ground from Bishopsgate Street seems to have
been possible through George and Catherine
Wheel Alley (called Rose Alley on Rocque's map).
The limits of the ground available did not,
however, allow the creation of east-west streets
providing access from Bishopsgate Street to the
market established in the same year as Bradbury and
Noell's grant. Such direct access came only with
the cutting of Union (now Brushfield) Street in
the 1780's (see page 141). (fn. j) A southward foot
passage from Spital Square to Fort Street on the
line of the northern arm of the Square, was
Figure 4:
The Old Artillery Ground, lay-out plan. Based on the Ordnance Survey 1873–5
adumbrated in c. 1740, but not carried through (see page 69).
The names of Stuart and Duke Streets were
evidently complimentary to the royal grantor and
his brother: Gun Street runs approximately along
the line of the gunnery range or ’Artillery Park’:
Fort Street presumably refers either to the
Ground's previous history as an enclosed place in
military use (no fort seems to have stood near this
site during the Civil War), or to the armoury.
The derivation of Parliament Court is not
known. (fn. k) It is called Parliament Alley in Rocque's
map of 1746. It does not figure in the surviving
deeds relating to the original building up of the
Ground, but the French-congregation which had a
chapel in Parliament Court existed there in about
1691 (see page 36), so the Court was presumably
built with the other streets. It is mentioned in a
deed of 1709 as ’the passage there left designed to
lead to an intended Flesh-house’ this description
may conceivably have been transferred from an
earlier deed. (ref. 67)
The granting of building leases of the whole
Ground, with the possible exception of Parliament
Court, began soon after the transfer from the
Crown. On 16 May 1682 a sixty-one-year lease
was granted of ground on the west side of Fort
(formerly Duke) Street by Bradbury, Noell, Bar
bon and John Parsons of London, esquire, to
Anglebreat Volezing; (ref. 68) on the same day a build
ing lease for the same term of years was granted by
Bradbury and Noell at the direction of Barbon and
Parsons to John Nason of an angle plot on the east
side of Gun Street at its south end, on which later
stood two messuages and a meal shop. (ref. 57) On the
third of the same month a plot on the south side of
Artillery Lane in the Old Artillery Ground with
a frontage of twenty-four feet had been leased,
presumably in similar circumstances. (ref. 69)
There are records of building leases in June and
July for sixty-one years from Bradbury, Noell, Bar
bon and Parsons of two adjoining sites on the east
side of Gun Street to Thomas Butler, citizen and
plasterer, and to Thomas Burrowes, carpenter, of
London, with frontages of some 16 feet and run
ning back 40 feet to the Artillery wall; and also of
two adjoining sites 108 feet in depth and possessing
total frontages of 54 feet on the west side of Gun
Street and the east side of Steward Street, to John
Folltrop. (ref. 57) In August the same parties granted
two sixty-one-year leases of adjoining sites on the
north side of Artillery Passage (formerly Smock
Alley), probably near the present site of Parlia
ment Court, to William Parker, bricklayer, and
John Goodman of St. Bartholomew's, carpenter. (ref. 70)
On 3 January 1682/3 a sixty-one-year building
lease was granted by the same to Thomas Denning
of London, carpenter, of land described as fronting
Fort Street on the south and Steward Street on the
east; (ref. 71) the position of this plot is not very clear.
But it is evident that by this time all the streets in
the Ground were being constructed. In May
1683 ground facing Steward Street and Fort
Street was described as abutting south on ground
the foundations of which were ’bringing up by
Nicholas Barbon of London, Doctor in Physick’. (ref. 72)
Other interests additional to those of Bradbury,
Noell, Barbon and Parsons soon appear in the
granting of building leases. Already in June and
July 1682 four plots of land on the east side of
Gun Street were leased by William Savill (fn. l) to
various persons of unspecified trades for terms
slightly less than sixty-one years. (ref. 57) On 27 January
1682/3 he granted a lease of another plot on the
east side of Gun Street to Edward Yates, citizen,
tyler and bricklayer, for fifty-nine and three
quarter years. (ref. 73) On 20 December 1684 other
ground on the east side of Gun Street was leased
by assignees of Savill, of whom one was Thomas
Savage, citizen and glazier, to Rice Edwards of
the Old Artillery Ground, sawyer, at a rent of a
peppercorn and then £10 per annum. (ref. 74) Savage
had on 9 January 1683/4 received the assignment
of a lease of a frontage on the west side of Fort
Street. These leases were presumably subsidiary
to a lease held by Savill. (ref. 75)
After the first year Bradbury, Noell, Barbon
and Parsons appear to have associated with others
in the granting of building leases, and quite soon
to have made some outright conveyances of un
built land. On 1 May and 1 October 1683 these
four, together with Sir James Ward of London,
knight, William Morris of London, gentleman,
and Samual Rawston of London, gentleman,
granted building leases of a site facing Steward
Street and Gun Street to Tobias Hardmeat of St.
Ives, Hunts., grocer, (ref. 72) and of a site on the west
side of Fort Street to William Prideaux of Lon
don, gentleman. (ref. 75)
In the following year leases were granted by
Barbon and Parsons in conjunction (perhaps by
reason of a mortgage) with the Hon. Robert
Sheffield (fn. m) of Kensington, son of Dame Jane
Sheffield, also of Kensington, who subsequently
appears to have acquired the fee simple of part of
the Ground, later owned by his descendants. On
19 July 1684 Robert Sheffield, by the direction
and appointment of Barbon and Parsons, granted
a building lease of a sixteen foot frontage on the
west side of Gun Street to William Chapman of
Whitechapel, carpenter. (ref. 79) On 6 June the same
three had granted a building lease of ground with
frontages of twenty feet on Gun Street and Steward
Street to John Bloe, (ref. 57) elsewhere described as a
carpenter. (ref. 80) On 10 February 1684/5 they
granted two more leases of land between Gun
Street and Steward Street. (ref. 57)
It appears that Robert Sheffield acquired the
fee simple of part of the Ground at this time, for
subsequent leases and conveyances of property in
Gun Street and Steward Street were made by him
alone. A Chancery suit brought by Sheffield
throws light on the transference of interest and
also on the interruptions to which the progress of
such piecemeal estate developments were liable
by reason of the limited resources of their
executants. In a petition which he filed in Chan
cery on 27 June 1692 Robert Sheffield stated that
in 1684 he, together with Barbon and Parsons,
had been and still was seized 'in his or their
demesne as of fee’ of a piece of ground between
Steward and Gun Streets with frontages of
sixteen feet on each. On 19 July 1684 they had
granted a building lease of this plot to William
Sabine of St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, joiner, for
sixty-one years, Sabine covenanting to ’tyle and
finish’ an intended brick messuage and make it fit
for a tenant before 20 December next. Not
doubting Sabine's performance of the covenant,
Sheffield bought the ’interest and estate’ in the
plot from Barbon and Parsons. Subsequently
Sabine had conspired to claim some interest in the
property and had neglected to complete the house. (ref. 80)
One of the defendants, William Bower, a
scrivener, made answer on 17 August 1693.
Sabine, wanting money to build and finish the
house, had applied to Bower for a loan of £100.
Through Bower he borrowed this sum from
Anne Miller, a widow, to whom he leased the
house on 18 September 1684 for sixty and a
quarter years. Bower considered that the house, if
completed, would have been a good security for
the loan. Sabine, however, had neglected to com
plete the house and Anne Miller, not wishing to
do so herself, assigned the lease on 21 June 1686
to Edward Cooke of London, gentleman, for £50,
which was the best price she could obtain. But
she subsequently became dissatisfied at this loss of
half her capital and Cooke also became unwilling
for an unspecified reason to accept the assignment
or to seal the counterpart, ’by which disagreement
and otherwise the matter hath hung in suspence
ever since’. The premises not being completed
’became more ruinous’, so that ’neither Anne
Miller or her assignes do think it worth their while
to meddle therewith’. Bower, disclaiming any
active part in the affair, described Sabine as ’a very
negligent person’. How the suit ended is not
known. (ref. 81)
There are records of later leases granted by
Sheffield alone, in 1687 and 1688, of sites on the
east side of Steward Street and west side of Gun
Street. (ref. 57) It is not known whether these were
building leases, but on 10 May 1689 he granted a
lease of a plot with a sixteen-foot frontage on the
east side of Steward Street to Nicholas Lance of
St. Martin in the Fields, plasterer, abutting south
on a building (presumably that uncompleted) of
William Sabine, in consideration of his costs and
charges in building a new brick messuage there. (ref. 82)
In December 1709 Robert Sheffield was party
to outright conveyances made to Peter Harley of
the Old Artillery Ground, weaver, Adam Felsted
of the same, weaver, and John Knowles, citizen
and carpenter, and unspecified grants to Elizabeth
Gibbon of London, widow. These included some
536 feet on the east side of Gun Street and the
south-east side of Fort Street. (ref. 83)
On 21 February 1711/12 Sheffield made an
outright grant of a further eighteen-foot frontage
on the east side of Gun Street to Henry Allen,
citizen and merchant tailor. (ref. 84) On 21 September
1714 he granted a bargain and sale for a year to
Alexander Weller of Romford, Essex, gentleman. (fn. n)
This included frontages on the east side of Steward
Street, both sides of Gun Street, the south-east
side of Fort Street and the north-east side of
Artillery Lane. (ref. 57) The conveyances of 1709,
1711 and 1714 together show that Sheffield was
at this time seized of the entire east side of Gun
Street as well as properties on the west side and in
Steward Street.
It is not known whether the bargain and sale
for a year to Alexander Weller was followed by a
release to complete the conveyance. In 1744 Sir
John Robinson, widower of Robert Sheffield's
granddaughter and heiress, was in possession of
seven adjoining messuages on the east side of Gun
Street, which he leased for 4,998 years to Samuel
Ireland, bricklayer, and William Curryer, car
penter, both of Spitalfields. (ref. 85)
As will have appeared, a considerable number of
builders were concerned with the development
of this small area. The names of seventeen
builders receiving building leases of ground within
the Old Artillery Ground in the early years of
development are known. (fn. o) The houses usually had
narrow fronts and the general quality of the build
ing was probably not high. The Search Books of
the Tylers' and Bricklayers' Company record that
in June 1682 the Company ’Broke of Mr. Har
wood's brickes in the Old Artillery Ground 250
fined at 6s. (ref. 86) The land of Ralph Harwood of
Hackney was on the north side of Artillery Lane
east of Duke (Fort) Street. Nothing of substance
of the original buildings survives, although Nos. 3
and 9a Artillery Passage (Plate 54a), outside the
Ground, probably represent the style of building
within the Ground. Typical houses surviving in
1914 are shown in Plate 54b.
The greater part of the wall of the Old Artil
lery Ground was preserved during the period of
building development, although the leases included
the parts of the wall upon which the various plots
abutted. Some of the leases are known to have
permitted buildings to be erected on or against the
wall, but one building lease of 1684 of property
on the east side of Gun Street specified that no
breach should be made in the wall itself. (ref. 88) In
1725, however, a passage led from Gun Street
into a wood-yard at the back of Crispin Street,
necessarily passing through the wall. (ref. 89) The
north-west corner of the wall existed in 1709 (ref. 50)
and in 1755 premises in Crispin Street were described as abutting
west on the Old Artillery wall. (ref. 90)
In 1772 a considerable part of the wall was
evidently still standing, as on 3 December the
trustees of the liberty decided not to bear the cost
of repairing damage to the part of the wall
’destroyed by Mr. Pitts’, as ’it would [form] a
precedent for us to repair any other parts of our
Town Wall if applied to by any of the Inhabi
tants’. (ref. 91) It is not known how much longer the
wall survived.
Later History of the Liberty
The grant of the Ground to private individuals
did not mean the end of its existence as a ’privileged
place’ and one of the Liberties of the Tower. On
10 June 1687 James II issued letters patent on
account of differences that had arisen between the
officers of the Tower and the authorities of the
City of London and County of Middlesex. In
this the Liberties of the Tower, including the cir
cumference of the Tower, the Minories, Well
Close and the Old Artillery Ground, were de
clared to be immune from any jurisdiction of City
or County. In a schedule the boundaries of the
liberties were set out, including those of the Old
Artillery Ground, (ref. 92) which continued to be
included amongst the areas within the custody of the
Lieutenant-General of the Ordnance into the
eighteenth century. (ref. 93)
In the Act of 1774 establishing Trustees to
regulate the poor and Commissioners to pave,
cleanse, light and watch the ’Old Artillery
Ground, within the Liberty of His Majesty's
Tower of London’, the Constable and other
officers of the Tower were included among the
Commissioners, (ref. 94) and two wardens of the Tower
joined in beating the bounds. (ref. 95) In 1834 the
Gorund was, like the other Liberties of the
Twoer, among the ’small parcels of land which
enjoyed exemption from county rate without pro
viding their own services’. (ref. 96) In 1852 its immunity
from jurisdiction of City and County was suffi
ciently appreciated forParticulars of the Privileges
belonging to the Inhabitants of the Old Artillery
Ground in the Liberty of His Majesty's Tower of
London, containing copies of the grant of 1682 and
George II's confirmation of the patent of 1687,
to be published by a Bishopsgate printer. It was
perhaps circulated among the ’Vestry’ or others,
and contained the injunction: ’It is the Request
of the Board, that any Gentleman leaving the
Liberty, will return this Book, as it cannot benefit
any but the Inhabitants.’ (ref. 97) In 1855 the liberty
became part of the District of the Whitechapel
Board of Works. The Vestry of the liberty in
1897 considered agitating for inclusion in the City
of London, (ref. 98) but in 1900 it was constituted a part
of the Borough of Stepney.
The nature and authority of the self-governing
institutions of the liberty in the early and mid
eighteenth century are not clear. There is no
Local Act earlier than that of 1774. A minute
book survives from 1729, by which it appears that
the overseers of the poor laid business before
annual meetings of the inhabitants. (ref. 99) These were
perhaps held in the ’Parish House’ in Fort Street,
listed in the earliest surviving sewer rate book of
1766, which was probably identical with the
Vestry Hall existing in that street in 1873. (ref. 100)
The authority for raising money to finance the
public services of the liberty before the Act of
1774 is not known. In 1735 a ’Town Meeting'
decided that the streets should be better lit, ’so far
as four shillings per house for ye Winter season
will afford’. (ref. 101) By 1741 twenty-nine street-lamps
were lit in the winter. (ref. 102) The Act of 1774 (ref. 94)
authorized commissioners to levy a rate for paving,
cleansing, lighting and watching the streets.
In the management of its poor the liberty's self
sufficiency was limited by its small size. In 1731
a ’general meeting’ authorized the overseers to
hire a house in Gun Street to accommodate the
poor. (ref. 103) This was unsatisfactory or insufficient
and in the same year a committee arranged with
the Spitalfields overseers for the poor of the liberty
to be received into the workhouse of that parish
’our said Precing being too small to Erect a
Work-house’. (ref. 104) This arrangement probably con
tinued until 1771 when another general meeting
of inhabitants decided to hire a workhouse ’by way
of Trial’, and to raise a subscription towards the expense of repairs and furnishings. (ref. 105) This work
house was in Rose Lane, Spitalfields. (ref. 106) The Act
of 1774 was thus giving statutory basis to an existing
institution when it authorized trustees to acquire a
workhouse. The poor were said to have ’lately
much increased’ in the liberty while ’the same
being situate in the Midst of the Silk and Woollen
Manufactures’, the profit of the labours of the
poor in the workhouse would lessen ’the heavy
Taxes’ paid for their relief. (ref. 94) Some of the poor
were nevertheless boarded-out at Lewisham. (ref. 106)
In 1792 the workhouse was transferred to a
house hired at No. 29 Fort Street, where it re
mained until 1813. (ref. 107) In the year 1802–3 some
£455 was spent on maintenance in the workhouse
and some £104 on outdoor relief. (ref. 108) In 1813 a
resolution ’to farm out the Poor’ resulted in their
being sent to ’Mr. Tipple’ at Hoxton, where they
wound silk, but still had each ’a Pint of Porter on
Holy Thursday according to Ancient Custom;
when the bounds are beat’. (ref. 109) In 1815 a ’minute
inspection of the House at Hoxton’ resulted in the
poor being moved to Stepney, where the liberty
authorities ’were well satisfied with the treatment
etc.’ (ref. 110)
In 1837 the Old Artillery Ground was joined
to the Whitechapel Union by an order of the Poor
Law Commissioners.
The Old Artillery Ground was doubtless
throughout its history a more uniformly poor area
than the adjoining Liberty of Norton Folgate. It
had few large houses, and was thickly inhabited.
In 1801 its 185 inhabited houses accommodated
I,428 people. (ref. 111) By 1881 its population had
risen and with its 176 inhabited houses accommo
dating 2,516 people (ref. 112) it was one of the most
crowded areas dealt with in this volume.
The expansion of Spitalfields Market and war
damage have almost completely destroyed its
residential character.
No. 15 Gun Street
Demolished
Mark Gertler, the Jewish artist, was born here
in 1891.
No. 3 Steward Street
Demolished
In 1763 and 1783 No. 3 Steward Street was
occupied by Mason Chamberlin, a portrait painter
and an original member of the Royal Academy. (ref. 113)
Nos. 24 and 25 Steward Street
Demolished
These were paired houses of early eighteenth
century date, refronted around 1760 and other
wise much altered. Each house was two rooms
deep and contained a cellar-basement and four
storeys. The tall plain fronts of yellow brick had
three windows in each upper storey, all with
gauged flat arches, stone sills, and recessed sashes
with slender glazing bars. Between the fronts was
a lead rainwater-pipe with a moulded box-head.
The houses were uniformly finished inside, the
rooms generally being lined with plain panelling,
that in the best rooms being set in ovolo-moulded
framing. Fluted Doric pilasters marked the
junction of the narrow hall with the staircase com
partment, and the staircase had cut strings, slender
turned balusters, and a moulded handrail. Both
houses were demolished towards the end of 1956.
Nos. 26 and 27 Steward Street
No. 26 demolished
These were paired houses of the late seventeenth
century, both considerably altered. The front of
No. 27 was rebuilt about 1870 and a coating of
stucco hid the original brick front of No. 26,
which was three storeys high with an added attic
replacing the original roof garret. The ground
storey had been altered, but each upper storey had
three windows, that on the left a narrow one, with
jambs and flat arches of red brick, which was also
used for the band-courses between the storeys.
The exposed flush frames of the original windows
were furnished with modern sashes or casements.
The back elevations were gabled and the original
windows there had rough brick segmental arches.
No. 26 was demolished towards the end of 1956.
No. 28 Steward Street
This house was built under a seventy-one-year
building lease granted in May 1755 by T. B. Par
son of Alldridge, Staffs., esquire, and Charles
Lanoe of Twickenham, esquire, to Jacob and
John Delamare, silk merchants. (ref. 114) The lessees
undertook to build ’one good new substantial
brick messuage’, with well-made bricks and mor
tar, on the site of two existing houses which had
been occupied by them and by Abraham Dela
mare. The use of the house for the trade of
brewer, dyer, hot presser, distiller, or tallow chand
ler, was forbidden by covenant. The site abutted west on ground in Fort Street leased by Parson and
Lanoe to Samuel Ireland, bricklayer, who was to
share the cost of the erection of the party wall
dividing the properties. (ref. 115)
In 1836 the house was occupied by Peter Bed
ford, silk merchant and Quaker philanthropist,
who was one of the early supporters of the soup
kitchen in Brick Lane. (ref. 116)
Until 1880, when it was leased to a yeast mer
chant, the house was occupied by silk merchants
or manufacturers.
It is a large double-fronted house, with a cellar
basement and four storeys, each with at least four
rooms. The back elevation and interior features
suggest an earlier date than 1755; the front, how
ever, is typical of this date. It is built of fine
grained bricks, yellow and pink in colour. The
design is very austere, and has been made more so
by the removal of a moulded cornice that must
have underlined the attic storey, where there is
now a plain cement band. The ground storey has
a central doorway with two windows on either
side, the extreme left one now converted into a
doorway, and there are five windows evenly
spaced in each upper storey. The plain rectangular
openings have flat arches of gauged bricks, stone
sills, and shallow reveals to the exposed frames.
Except for the right-hand pair of ground-storey
windows, all the sashes are modern. There is an
excellent doorcase of wood, rather tall in propor
tion, with a six-panelled door and fanlight framed
by a straight-headed Classical architrave, flanked by
plain narrow jambs and surmounted by a triangular
ped ment resting on enriched vertical consoles.
The back elevation is of yellow brick and the win
dows have rough segmental arches and flush
frames. The ground-floor room south of the
staircase has a projecting semi-circular bow, con
taining a three-light window with fluted mullions
of wood under an unusually wide flat arch finely
worked in gauged bricks.
The entrance-hall is lined with plain panelling
set in ovolo-moulded framing. Six-panelled doors
open to the rooms on each side, and Doric pilasters
with triglyphed entablature-blocks mark the junc
tion with the staircase compartment. The very
spacious staircase is of early eighteenth-century
character, and rises round a narrow oblong well.
The moulded cut strings are embellished with
boldly carved brackets, and the moulded handrail
rests on turned balusters of stout section, one to
each tread. Such panelling as remains in the
dilapidated rooms is plain and generally set in
ovolo-moulded framing on the ground and first
floors, and in plain framing elsewhere.
Sandys Row Synagogue
Formerly Parliament Court Chapel
In about 1691 Jacques Laborie, a proselyte and
possibly a former Roman Catholic priest, opened
a French church in Parliament Court, near
Artillery Lane, under the name of l'Eglise de
l'Artillerie Lane, apparently with the permission
of the Archbishop of Canterbury. (ref. 117) The church
broke up three or four years later because of
Laborie's conduct. The greater part of the con
gregation moved to Crispin Street, and Laborie
started a new church in Pearl Street. (ref. 117) Their
building in Parliament Court was taken over in
1695 by a congregation which had been formed in
about 1691 in or near Petticoat Lane. They now
took the name of l'Eglise de l'Artillerie, and re
mained in Parliament Court until 1786. (ref. 118) The
freehold of the site was purchased in 1763 (ref. 119) and
a new church was built. This building, which
survives in a much altered form, was opened on
23 November 1766. One of the ministers of
the church was Jacob Bourdillon, who took
office on Christmas Day, 1731, and served for
over fifty years. (ref. 120) In 1770 the congregation
entered a union with La Patente, Brown's Lane
(see page 191), and in 1786 both churches joined
the Walloon church in Threadneedle Street. (ref. 118)
The building in Parliament Court was leased
in 1792 to a Universalist Baptist church under
Elhanan Winchester of Philadelphia. (ref. 121) When
Winchester returned to the United States a few
years later, the church was taken over by William
Vidler, who had been associated with Winchester
since 1794. When Vidler declared himself to be a
Unitarian in 1801, a large part of his congregation
seceded. (ref. 121) Vidler continued to lead a congrega
tion in Parliament Court until his death in 1816.
He was succeeded by William Johnson Fox, who
in 1824 took the church to Finsbury where it
eventually became an Ethical Society. (ref. 122)
In 1824 a congregation of Scottish Baptists
under S. Stennett and J. Winning came from
Cateaton Street. (ref. 123) In 1833 the building was
called 'Salem Chapel', (ref. 124) and in 1836 listed as of
unspecified denomination. (ref. 125)
In 1867 the French Church in Soho Square
(originally the Threadneedle Street Church) leased the chapel in Artillery Lane to a congrega
tion of Dutch Ashkenazi Jews who had been
meeting since 1854 in a house in White's Row,
and in Zetland Hall, Mansell Street. Changes
were made to the interior, and a new entrance and
vestry provided in Sandys Row, from the designs
of N. S. Joseph. The building was consecrated as
a synagogue on 6 November 1870. (ref. 126) In 1904
further alterations were made by Lewis Solomon,
F.R.I.B.A. (ref. 127) The freehold was purchased by
the congregation in 1923. (ref. 126)
The plan of the building is a simple rectangle,
forty-eight feet in length east to west and thirty
six feet wide, with a gallery extending round the
north, south and west sides, reached by open stair
cases in the north-west and south-west angles.
The stock brick exterior is completely utilitarian
and of no interest, but the interior is well designed
in a style reminiscent of the Great Synagogue in
Fournier Street, also built as a French Protestant
church. Again, the plain plastered walls and the
flat ceiling are joined by a quadrant cove springing
from a cornice, here with brackets, and there are
groined intersections over the arched heads of the
windows, four on each side, two at the west end,
and three at the east end. The gallery front, too,
is underlined by a triglyphed frieze, supported by
widely-spaced Doric plain-shafted columns. The
Ark recess, which is modern, forms an eastern
apse with a Baroque frontispiece of Corinthian
plain-shafted pilasters supporting an entablature,
surmounted by an elaborated pediment.
Artillery Lane Synagogue
Formerly Artillery Lane Chapel
Between Nos. 48 and 50 Artillery Lane is a
much altered building, formerly a chapel; its
exact date of erection and full history are uncer
tain. Many congregations of Nonconformists
have met in Artillery Lane, and it is often uncer
tain which of them used this building; the evidence
suggests that there may have been another place of
worship in the same street.
Although a French Charity House, under the
sign of the Pelican, was situated in Artillery Lane
in 1695, (ref. 128) it seems probable that the Artillery
Lane Chapel did not originate as a French church.
In a deed of 1729 (ref. 129) two chapels are mentioned in
or near the Artillery Ground, one a French
chapel, the other a dissenting meeting-house. The
former would be l'Eglise de l'Artillerie in Par
liament Court, and the latter presumably stood on
or near the site of the existing building. Rocque
shows a chapel in this position on his map of 1746.
If a second meeting-house existed in Artillery
Lane at this time, as the evidence suggests, (ref. 130) it
must have occupied a house or some other smaller
premises which escaped Rocque's notice.
In 1707 a Baptist congregation under Nathaniel
Hodges had come to Artillery Lane, perhaps from
Loriner's Hall, Basinghall Street. They re
mained until at least 1739, when their afternoon
service was moved to Pinners' Hall, Broad
Street, (ref. 131) but as a Baptist meeting in Artillery
Lane is recorded until 1757, (ref. 132) it is possible that
they may not have entirely severed their con
nexion with Artillery Lane until some years later.
In the late 1740's an Independent congregation
under the Rev. Mordecai Andrews came to
Artillery Lane from Boar's Head Yard, Petticoat
Lane. (ref. 133) It is probable that they occupied the
chapel shown by Rocque. In about 1755 An
drews's successor, Edward Hitchin, built a new
chapel in White's Row (see page 147), which was
in use by 1759. (ref. 134) The stylistic evidence suggests
that the building in Artillery Lane, the facade
of which survived until recently, was of mid
eighteenth-century date. It is possible that
Hitchin's congregation moved to White's Row
partly because of the dilapidation of their chapel in
Artillery Lane, and that this was rebuilt by a
congregation of Independents under the Rev.
John Richardson, who by 1760 were worshipping
in Artillery Lane. (ref. 135) They remained there under
his leadership until at least 1773. (ref. 136) <Richardson had been pastor of an Independent church in Lime Street from 1736. In 1755 the East India Company required that site, and the congregation split up, part going to Artillery Street with Richardson, the rest to Camomile Street, and eventually becoming the City Temple (see The Builder, 21 Sept 1878, p.986).>In 1810
there was a Calvinist (possibly Independent) meet
ing in Artillery Lane, (ref. 137) and between 1811 and
1813 a short-lived Baptist church was situated in
the same street. (ref. 138)
In 1833 another Baptist congregation settled in
Artillery Lane. (ref. 139) In 1836 they were under the
leadership of ’G. Moyll’. (ref. 140) More Baptists came
between 1838 and 1841, and probably joined with
them. (ref. 141) This congregation, said in 1848 to be
under the ’Rev. George Moyl’, was situated on the
east side of Artillery Lane, at No. 10 (now No.
41), which was previously occupied by the Lon
don Dispensary and the Infirmary for Asthma. (ref. 142)
’G. Moyle’ left Artillery Lane in 1847, but the
congregation appears to have continued to meet
there for a number of years. (ref. 143)
In 1854 the freehold of the existing chapel was
purchased by the Rev. James W. Massie, (ref. 144) possibly the ’J. Messer’ who opened a Baptist
chapel called ’Ebenezer’ in Artillery Lane in
1856. (ref. 145) Massie sold the property in 1861. (ref. 144) If
he used the building as a Baptist chapel, it is
difficult to account for its being listed between
1856 and 1860 as an Independent chapel under
the Rev. Julius J. Steinitz, (ref. 142) and on Stanford's
map of c.1860 as a Congregational chapel.
Between 1861 and 1864 the existing chapel
building was taken over by a Baptist congregation
from Zetland Hall, Mansell Street. They left in
1895 to join Commercial Street Baptist Church. (ref. 146)
In 1868 the Baptist church which had originally
been led by Hanserd Knollys before 1660 in the
Old Artillery Ground, returned to Artillery Lane,
and remained there until 1876. (ref. 147) There is no
evidence that this group met in the existing chapel
with the Baptists who had come between 1861
and 1864.
In 1896 the Artillery Lane building was leased
to a Jewish congregation, (ref. 144) and opened shortly
afterwards as a synagogue. (ref. 142) It remained a
synagogue until 1948, when the freehold was
sold, (ref. 144) and the structure converted into a ware
house.
The site of the building is irregular, roughly a
truncated triangle, so that the front wall (north
east) lies obliquely to the back wall (west) which is,
more or less, at right angles to the side walls, the
north being only half as long as the south (Plate
42d, fig. 5). Constructional evidence suggests that
the two storeys of rooms on the south side were
formed within the original meeting-room, reduc
ing its width and probably eliminating one side of
the gallery, of which the north-east and north sides
survived until 1950. This gallery of four steppings
was supported by widely spaced Doric columns of
wood, and approached by staircases in the north
east and south-east angles. The preacher's desk
was placed against the windowless west wall. The
ceiling is the only surviving feature of interest, its
flat expanse broken in the centre by a large saucer
dome rising to an octagonal lantern.
The front, of brick with a later face of stucco,
was a single composition of seven bays, two storeys
high, its architectural character suggesting a mid
eighteenth-century date. From the left, the first,
fourth and sixth bays contained doorways, each
having a triangular-pedimented doorcase of wood.
Figure 5:
Artillery Lane Synagogue, formerly Chapel,
plan and section
In each of the other bays was a segmental-headed
window of squat proportion. Above was a range
of seven arch-headed windows, those in the fourth
and sixth bays being blind recesses. In 1950 this
front was demolished and replaced by one of
nondescript character.