Survey of London: Volume 6, Hammersmith. Originally published by London County Council, London, 1915.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by English Heritage. All rights reserved.
I.—BRADMORE [FORMERLY BUTTERWICK] HOUSE (Demolished). (fn. 1)
Ground landlord and occupier.
The London General Omnibus Company, Limited.
General description and date of structure.
Bradmore House was in its origin a portion or offshoot of a large mansion known as Butterwick House. The earliest reference we have to the former is in 1739, when Elizabeth Turnor and Frances Bradshaw sold to Elijah Impey (fn. 2) "all that capitall messuage tenement or farmhouse now or heretofore commonly called the Great House, being antiently the Mannor House of Butterix alias Butterwicke, with the appurtenances and all courts, grounds . . . orchards, gardens, walks, trees and appurtenances, and all new erections or buildings to the said messuage or tenement belonging." These additions had probably been made by Henry Ferne (the father of Elizabeth and Frances), who had purchased the house in 1700, and are referred to in the following note by Lysons: "Mr. Ferne was connected with Mrs. Oldfield, the actress, and built 3 hansome apartments in a spot of ground next the Old Hall and communicating with it, with a stone staircase leading from those apartments to the garden, and fronted them with curious brickwork. The connection between him and Mrs. O. being broke of, he went no further in the building. Mr. Impey, who made the purchases, added to it the rooms which now make the house next adjoining to the old house to the north." (fn. 3) There seems no reason to doubt, in the main, the above explanation of how Bradmore House ("the house next adjoining . . . to the north") came into being, although it is probable that the new buildings took the place of some portion of the older Butterwick House. It seems probable that Impey divided the house somewhat early in his period of residence, but no leases of the northern portion have been discovered to confirm this, and the history of both houses is a blank until the year 1822, when the executors of Sir Elijah Impey disposed of the two separately. (fn. 4)
To carry the history further in detail is outside the scope of this volume. It may here be said, however, that Butterwick House (i.e. the southern building) stood until 1836, when it was pulled down. (fn. 5) The deeds (fn. 6) relating to the sale of the various plots into which the grounds were divided give the depth of the property opposite Fulham Palace Road as 97 feet, and mention that the northern boundary was Dr. Chisholm's schoolgrounds. A reference to the map shows clearly that Dr. Chisholm's establishment must have been at Bradmore House, and this is confirmed by the deed of 1822, above-mentioned, which relates to the sale of the northern property to John Ash. The house, described in the deed as "theretofore part of the capital messuage . . . theretofore called the Great House, being anciently the manor house of Butterix alias Butterwicke," containing, with the grounds, etc., 1 acre, 1 rood, and 11 perches, is also said to be in the occupation of Dr. Geo. Chisholm for a term expiring at Midsummer, 1830.
The identity of Bradmore House with (i) Dr. Chisholm's house, and (ii) the northern portion of the enlarged Butterwick House, may therefore be accepted as certain.
In 1913 Bradmore House, which had previously been itself subdivided into two houses, was demolished by the London General Omnibus Company, who proposed to erect a garage on the site. At that time no noteworthy part of the ancient house existed beyond the fine wing referred to by Lysons and built about 1700, the eastern front of which presented a beautiful composition in brickwork. This front (Plates 9 and 11) was of two storeys, the centre portion being flanked by two stone pilasters, with composite capitals, the full height of the building and crowned by a fine entablature of brick with stone pedestals, balustrading, and vases over all. The window and door openings had semicircular heads, surrounded by a raised band of brick; while the central window on the first floor was enclosed by simple Doric pilasters which reached the main frieze, triglyphs appearing in this part of the frieze and one each over the composite capitals. On each side of the central building there was a wing slightly recessed, with windows similarly treated. In the wings the architrave and frieze were omitted, the main cornice being carried across at a lower level and ramped down from the centre. A stone angle pilaster of Doric detail with its own section of entablature finished each angle of the building, and the cornice was returned along the sides of the house. Over the angle was a stone pedestal and vase, and the wings were surmounted by a wrought-iron balustrade that followed the ramp of the cornice.
The first floor was the principal one, and on the north side the garden was approached by a stone staircase with good wrought-iron panels to the balustrade. Before the flight reached the ground it made a quarter-turn, and against the landing was a well-designed brick niche with seat (Plates 15 and 16), semicircular in plan, having a finely moulded shell with a head in the centre. The niche was flanked by fluted pilasters with Ionic capitals, the volutes of which had perished; they supported a pediment enriched with modillions, egg and tongue and other carved mouldings.
The principal room on the first floor measured 30 by 20 feet and was 18 feet high. It was elaborately panelled throughout, and had fine pilasters supporting a bold cornice which was elaborately carved with foliage (Plates 18 and 19). A second room on the same floor was panelled in a somewhat simpler manner (Plate 20).
The London General Omnibus Company, at the suggestion and with the help of the London County Council, resolved to preserve the main architectural features, and were successful in reerecting the brick and stone front as the facade of their new offices. It now faces west instead of east, but the fine workmanship is visible to the public in Queen Street in place of being hidden in a private garden. The building has been set somewhat higher than originally, and the windows of the wings on the ground floor have been omitted to allow of the entrance doors. The fine decorative woodwork of the principal room has been refixed in the billiard-room, which was specially built to receive it. This woodwork is the property of the London County Council, and, in accordance with an agreement between the Council and the company, arrangements have been made for the public to have free access to the room on the first Monday of every month between the hours of 10 a.m. and noon. The brick niche has been carefully removed by the Council, and re-erected in Geffrye's Garden, Kingsland Road, and the panelling of the second room has been refixed in its entirety in the Geffrye Museum.
Of the original form of Butterwick House practically nothing is known, but if one may judge from the indications on Salter's map of 1830, which are somewhat confirmed by the later buildings which existed recently on the site, it would seem to have consisted, at least in part, of three sides of a courtyard, open towards Queen Street. The main block, which perhaps contained the hall, ran north and south, and in the latter direction projected some distance beyond the southern wing of the forecourt. This projection probably constituted the chief part of that section of the buildings which retained the old name of Butterwick House, and which was pulled down in 1836. In the extra-illustrated copy of Lysons' Environs preserved at the Guildhall are two drawings of Butterwick House. One of these (Plate 4) shows a building of the early 16th century, with staircase projections, and represents in all probability the eastern front of this part of the main block south of Bradmore House. Its character would suggest that it was probably a rebuilding by Sir William Essex, who held Butterwick from 1500 until 1548. The second drawing in the Guildhall (Plate 5) represents a Georgian elevation not unlike the western front of Bradmore House (compare Plate 8), but with a different arrangement of windows. The artist could scarcely, however, have meant it to depict the northern house, as it is carefully inscribed as Butterwick, and we must therefore conclude that the two portions, when converted into separate dwellings, were refronted by the same hand and in a similar manner.
A cast-iron fireback, which had been built into the walls of the house, was discovered on the demolition of the building in 1913 and is preserved by the London General Omnibus Company.
History of Butterwick's Manor and Biographical Notes.
In the latter part of the 14th century one of the chief landholders in Fulham (including Hammersmith) was a John Butterwick, usually spelt "Boterwyk." There are several records (fn. 7) which refer to a "John Doget called Boterwyk and Alice his wife," and the suggestion that Doget was identical with the Fulham landholder is confirmed by several considerations, of which that relating to his property at Tottenham may here be given.
On 20th February, 1387–8, Joan, the widow of William de Brightly, kinsman and heir of John de Stonford, remitted and quit-claimed to "John Doget dicto Boterwyk" and Alice his wife all her claim and right in a messuage, 300 acres of land, 15 acres of meadow, 14 acres of wood, and 40d. rent, with appurtenances in "Totenham" and "Haryngeye," formerly her husband's. (fn. 8) This property, called the Manor of "Duket," is known by statements made in the course of certain Chancery proceedings of the reign of Henry VI. (fn. 9) to have subsequently been held by Robert Scarburgh. As will be shown below, Robert Scarburgh was the greatgrandson of John Butterwick, the holder of the Fulham lands, and there can therefore be no doubt of the identity of the latter with "John Doget called Boterwyk." Occasionally he is called "de" Butterwick, (fn. 10) showing that he derived the name by which he was generally known in London from the country village, either in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, whence he or his family came.
Besides the property at Fulham and Tottenham, Butterwick held land at Knightsbridge, Kensington, Brompton, Chelsea, Westminster, and the City of London. He had for some time been under-sheriff of Middlesex, when in 1387 (fn. 11) he was by the King's order removed from his office in favour of the royal nominee, Thomas Usk, (fn. 12) on the ground that he was getting too old for the work. (fn. 13)
John Butterwick died some time between 1390 and 1394, (fn. 14) leaving a son Robert and a daughter Elizabeth, married to John Ixnyng. (fn. 15) To his wife Alice he bequeathed all his lands and tenements in the parishes of All Hallows, Bread Street, St. Sepulchre Without, and St. Nicholas Shambles. No other property is mentioned. We find that subsequently a chantry was maintained in the church of All Hallows for the souls of John "Boterwyk" and Alice his wife, and William Roote and Elizabeth his wife. (fn. 16) This suggests that his daughter Elizabeth married again, her second husband being William Roote. That this was actually the case will be seen below.
The lands or tenants of John "Boterwyk," or late of John "Bot'wyk," are frequently referred to in the Fulham Court Rolls, (fn. 17) but gradually the references come to bear the name of Alice Butterwick.
Alice died, it would seem, in 7 Henry V. (1419–20), for at a court held at Michaelmas, 1421, a precept was made to "retain in the lord's hands all the customary lands and meadows which were lately Alice Butterwick's, the parcels of which appear more fully in the roll of the general court held on the Sunday next after the Octave of St. Michael in the 7th year of the reign of King Henry V., and thereof to remit the issues to the lord until . . . the wife of John (fn. 18) Rote shall come to pay the 'gersuma.'"
Elizabeth Roote held the property until 1436. At a court held in November in that year a return was made of the customary lands held by Elizabeth Roote "que fuit uxor Willi. Rote," comprising:
6 acres of "Bordelond," parcel of William Osebarne's holding.
3 acres of "Bordelond," parcel of Hugh Osebarne's holding. (fn. 19)
½ acre in "Westmede" of ["White's" (fn. 20) ] holding.
1 acre parcel of "Balsex" holding.
½ acre parcel of "Strangate's" holding.
½ acre in "Cherlomede."
1 rood land in "Laymedepightell," parcel of Broun's holding.
1 acre meadow in "Westmede," parcel of John Coxston's holding.
½ acre in "Laymedecroft."
1 rood meadow in "Estmede," parcel of the holding of William atte Brooke.
Robert, the son of Elizabeth, daughter of Elizabeth Roote, was declared to be the nearest heir and was admitted to the property.
This was Robert Scarburgh, for at a court held on the Monday after Hock-day, 1454, the lands that had belonged to Robert Scarburgh, then recently dead, were said to have formerly belonged to Elizabeth "que fuit uxor Willelmi Rote," and to have come to him "jure hereditario" after her death as the son and heir of Elizabeth, daughter of Elizabeth Roote. As has been shown above, Elizabeth Roote was the daughter of John Butterwick, and the descent of the property down to the death of Robert Scarburgh in 1454 is therefore clear.
A list is given of property held by Scarburgh of the Lord of the Manor of Fulham. As regards the customary lands, these are, with one or two unimportant differences in spelling, identical with the list made at the death of Elizabeth Roote. In addition Scarburgh was said to be seised of the under-mentioned free lands:
1 free holding in "Hamersmyth," lately William Yongeman's; (fn. 21)
1 field of free land called "Wodericchesfeld"; (fn. 22)
1 parcel of free land called "Brookredyng";
1 pasture of free land at "le Pirre";
3 crofts of land called "Alegoodstrode, Smythstrode and Moristrode," and half a holding and 20 "acreware" of land of "Smythlond" in Hammersmith;
Another half in the hands of William Colman; (fn. 23)
as well as other customary lands and holdings, together with meadows and pastures within the demesne of Fulham to the same adjoining. All the above-mentioned, as well as those unspecified, the lord of the manor granted to Hugh Pakenham, "temporalium episcopatus sui supervisori."
Pakenham did not retain them long, for in November of the same year (fn. 24) (1454) Sir Thomas Charlton was distrained to pay fealty to the lord for his free lands and holdings which were lately Robert Scarburgh's.
Sir Thomas Charlton the younger was the grandson of Thomas and Alice Charlton, who seem to have held the manor of Palingswick at the beginning of the 15th century (see p. 106). He was the son of Sir Thomas who died in 1448, (fn. 25) and of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Adam Francis. In addition to the extensive property belonging to his own family, he inherited the manor of Edmonton through his mother and his mother's sister, Agnes, wife of Sir William Porter. He died on 26th February, 1464–5. (fn. 26)
He had, however, already parted with the Butterwick's property, for in November, 1461, William Essex was fined for default in suit at court "pro tenemento Butterwykkes." No document has been discovered recording the transfer of the property to Essex, but reference to the transaction is probably to be found in the following extract from the inquisition held on the death of Essex: (fn. 27) "And they say Sir Thos. Charleton and Ric. Chauncy were seised of a messuage, 84 acres of land, 4 acres of meadow, 1½ acres of pasture, and 37s. 7d. annual rent in Fulham; and by deed dated Tuesday in the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, 35 Henry VI. (1457), they gave this property to William [Essex] and Edith [his wife], with remainders to the heirs of William." (fn. 28)
According to the inscription on his son's tomb, (fn. 29) William Essex was remembrancer in Edward IV.'s Exchequer, and vice-treasurer of England. He died on 26th May, 1480, seised, in addition to the property mentioned above, of the manor of "Wendons" in Fulham, land in Knightsbridge, and the manor of Westowne in Kensington, Brompton, Chelsea, Tyburn, and Westbourne.
On his death an order was made to seize into the lord's hands all the customary lands (fn. 30) which "Boterwyk surrendered into the lord's hands for the use of William Essex and his heirs," a curiously inexact expression.
The property passed into the hands of William's son, Thomas, who died on 10th November, 1500, and was buried in Kensington Church. (fn. 31)
His son, Sir William Essex, died in 1548, leaving, inter alia, the manor of "Butterwyckes" to his son, Thomas Essex. (fn. 32) At the Fulham Manor Court held on 22nd November of the same year, the homage presented that Sir William Essex had held the "manerium de Butteryx," but for what service they knew not. Time was therefore given to enquire, and in 1550 a return was made of Essex's estate in Fulham Manor, to all intents and purposes identical with that presented on the death of Robert Scarburgh. (fn. 33)
Sir William had evidently amassed much property, his will referring to lands in Wiltshire, Berkshire, Surrey, Gloucester, Oxford, Somerset, Leicester, Shropshire, Derby, Warwick, and Essex, as well as London. He seems to have resided principally in London, Walham Green, and Lambourne, for he refers to plate which was either "here at London or at Wandons," and to his "harneys and other artillary mete and necessary for the warres being in my armory at Lamborn."
Thomas Essex died some time before 1567. (fn. 34) His eldest son William had predeceased him, (fn. 35) but Thomas, who had received the honour of knighthood before his death, left behind at least five sons and three daughters. (fn. 36)
His eldest surviving son, Thomas, succeeded him. He died on 28th December, 1575. (fn. 37) He had, however, parted with Butterwick's Manor, a fine of Easter, 1573, recording the grant in perpetuity "de manerio de Butterwycke" and other property by Thomas Essex to William Muschamp.
William Muschamp died on 1st June, 5 James I. (1607), seised "of and in the manor of Butterwickes with all its members and appurtenances in Fulham," and Mary his widow held it until her death on 6th January, 16 Jas. I. (1618–9). It appears, however, that by indenture dated 29th April, 34 Eliz. (1592), William Muschamp, then of Unsted, Surrey, and Elizabeth Bellingham had agreed to settle Butterwick's Manor and all the lands appertaining thereto on Agmondesham, Muschamp's son, and Mary Bellingham, Elizabeth's daughter, on their marriage, William and the elder Mary only retaining a life interest therein. The manor is said to be held of the Bishop of London, of his manor of Fulham, in free socage by fealty and an annual rent. (fn. 38)
On 6th November, 1600, Agmondesham had sold to Christopher Smith a portion of the Butterwick's property, amounting to about 11 acres. On 2nd February, 1602–3, Agmondesham, then described as "of Farleigh, Sussex," had sold or mortgaged to Thomas Iles "of London" for £600 the remainder of the property under the description of "all that the mannor or farme comonlie called Butterix alias Butterwickes, . . . with all rights . . . situate in Hammersmith." Excepted from the transaction was "a lease of the manor house or farme aforesaid called Butterwickes alias Butterix, and of the houses, stables, barns, gardens, orchards, lands . . . appertayning . . . or reputed or taken as parcell of the said manor or farm ever since the purchase of William Muschamp Esquier." The lease is stated to have been to Christopher Smith, for 21 years after the death of Robert Kember, at an annual rent of £30. (fn. 39)
Thomas Iles, whose name still survives in Hammersmith in the title of the almshouses on Brook Green which occupy the site of the earlier ones built by him some time before 1635, held the manor for three years, selling it on 22nd March, 1605–6, (fn. 40) to John Langley "of Lambeth," who in turn disposed of it on 11th February, 1607–8, (fn. 41) to Thomas Hunt, also "of Lambeth," and Joyce, his wife. Christopher Smith's lease had apparently expired some time during the previous two years, for no reservation of it was made. It is mentioned that the "said manor . . . with the demesne landes thereunto belonging (the rentes and services excepted) late or sometimes were in the severall tenures of Robert Kember, John Shurbb and Christopher Smyth" or their assigns, and it is therefore possible that these three individuals had been in actual residence at Butterwick House.
On 1st June, 1622, a further transfer of the manor was made, (fn. 42) Thomas and Joyce Hunt conveying it to Edward Latymer, Richard Chamberlain and Thomas Alured. Latymer was the eldest son of William Latymer, Dean of Peterborough, and was a clerk in the Court of Wards. His object in associating Chamberlain, a fellow clerk, and Alured, a kinsman, in the transaction was that they should hold and dispose of the property to the purposes and uses directed by him in his will or other writing, (fn. 43) and by deeds of 19th and 20th November in the same year they severally declared that they would renounce any title or claim that they might possess to any nominee of Latymer. (fn. 44) In accordance with their undertaking they released all interest and title in several portions of the manor which Latymer disposed of in his lifetime, and on his death, in November, 1628, they proceeded to carry out the terms of his will, which provided inter alia for the endowment of the Latymer School Foundation in Hammersmith. Part of the manor property, however, still remained untouched, and of this Chamberlain and Alured proceeded to dispose in sections, one of which comprised the manor house and 25 acres of land (see below).
It must have been within the period of ownership of Latymer and his friends that the Earl of Mulgrave occupied Butterwick House—if indeed he ever resided there. The question is one of considerable difficulty. The facts are as follows:
(i) Lysons' Extracts from the Parish Books contain an entry "1626. E. of Mulgrave at Hammersmith"; (fn. 45) and the assessment for the Poor of Hammersmith for the same year, quoted by Faulkner, (fn. 46) contains the name of "the Right Honrbl. the Earle of Mulgrave."
(ii) In 1630 an order was made to all the landowners in Shortlands "leading from Parbridge unto the Earle of Moulgrave's pale." (fn. 47)
(iii) The Earl took an active part in the building of Hammersmith Chapel, which was consecrated in 1631, and headed the list of signatures to the agreement concerning it. (fn. 48) At the same time he promised to provide the curate with lodging and diet as long as he (the Earl) resided in the parish (of Fulham). (fn. 49)
From the above considerations it seems fairly certain that the Earl was resident in the locality during the years 1626–31.
It is not so certain that his residence was Butterwick House.
(iv) It is mentioned in G. E. C[okayne's] Peerage, 1893 edn., that the Earl died at Butterwick House.
(v) Lysons says (fn. 50) that "it is probable" that this was his residence.
(vi) Faulkner says (fn. 51) that he resided at the house, which was built by him, and took its name from the seat of his family in Lincolnshire.
(vii) Faulkner also states (fn. 52) that on the occasion of the removal of Lord Fairfax's army to Hammersmith in 1647 "the general officers were quartered, it appears, at Butterwick House, at that time the property and residence of the Earl of Mulgrave."
With regard to these statements it may be said:
(iv) would be conclusive if the authority on which the statement is made were known. Unfortunately no authority is given, and the present editor of G. E. C. has expressed the opinion that the place of death is "guesswork by early historians." In this connection it may be pointed out that there is reason to believe that Mulgrave removed from Hammersmith to Kensington some time between 1631 and his death in 1646. He was certainly possessed of a house at the latter place in 1639, (fn. 53) his will specifically mentions his "dwelling howse" in Kensington, and the Parliamentary Assessments (fn. 54) for the support of the army from 1643 to 1646 consistently show him at Kensington. (fn. 55) Moreover, it is tolerably certain (fn. 56) that Christopher Clapham was at Butterwick House for some years prior to 1646.
(v) is evidently due to the idea that there is a connection between Butterwick House and the barony of Butterwick, and may, therefore, be dismissed.
(vi) The statements that the house was built by Mulgrave and took its name from the barony of Butterwick are entirely refuted by the early history of the manor given above.
(vii) Faulkner quotes no authority for this statement, which is certainly incorrect so far as it refers to the house being the property of Mulgrave, and also labours under the same difficulties which have been advanced against (iv). The ordinary sources of information, and particularly the files of the Perfect Diurnall, the Perfect Summary, the Perfect Occurrences, etc., have been searched, and the only statement bearing on the point which can be found is the following, dated 5th August, 1647:—"This night the generall quartered at Hammersmith against the church." (fn. 57) This, in all probability, is Faulkner's authority, and it will be seen that while, no doubt, Butterwick House is referred to, it does not assist us in the identification of the house with Mulgrave's residence.
The most reliable evidence pointing to Butterwick House as the Earl's residence seems to be that contained in (ii). Parr Bridge, situated a short distance south of Butterwick House in what is now Fulham Palace Road, was at the south-western corner of Shortlands. (fn. 58) One would rather have expected, however, some such expression as "leading from Parr Bridge to the Worple Way," now Great Church Lane, which must have divided the grounds of Butterwick House from the south-western portion of Shortlands.
On the whole one cannot say more than that it is possible that the Earl lived there, but probably not later than some time between 1631 and 1639. If this should prove to be so, the residence of Baron Sheffield of Butterwick at Butterwick House must be regarded as a strange coincidence.
Edmund Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, the only son of John, second Baron Sheffield of Butterwick, Lincolnshire, was born about 1564 and succeeded to the barony in 1568. He served as a volunteer in the Netherlands in 1585, and in 1588 took part in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, being in command of the White Bear. For his services he was knighted by Howard. In 1591 he was granted the manor of Mulgrave in Yorkshire, and two years later was made a Knight of the Garter. On the accession of James I.' in 1603 he became lordlieutenant of Yorkshire and president of the Council of the North. The latter position he resigned, perhaps not altogether voluntarily, in 1619. At the coronation of Charles I. in 1626 he was raised to the dignity of Earl of Mulgrave. Nevertheless he joined the opposition to Charles, and on the outbreak of the Civil War he definitely supported the Parliament. He died in 1646, and, in accordance with the terms of his will, he was buried "in the chapell of Hammersmith without pompe or charge beyond decency." (fn. 59)
On 9th February, 1632–3, Chamberlain and Alured sold (fn. 60) to William Chalkhill the elder, of Starch Green, "all that the manor or farme commonly called Butterix alias Butterwick alias Butterwickes, with the appurtenances, now or late in the tenure of the said William Chalkhill or his assigns. and all those closes of land, meadow, and pasture, containing . . . 25 acres . . . called Butterix alias Butterwickes . . in occupation of William Chalkhill and of John Francklyn or one of them . . . or their assigns . . . lying . . . in Fulham and Hamersmyth." On 25th October, (fn. 61) in the same year, Chalkhill disposed of the property to Robert Moyle, "of the Inner Temple, (fn. 62) one of the Prothonotaries of the Common Pleas."
That Moyle's relations with his more humble neighbours were not always of an amicable nature may be gathered from the fact that in January 1638–9, Stephen Hall, of Fulham, wheelwright, was convicted of "abusing Mr. Moyle, late one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace, and speaking scandalous words." (fn. 63) Moyle's chief residence was at the manor house (fn. 64) of West Twyford, Middlesex, and his widow was living there a few months after his death, which occurred on 30th August, 1638. (fn. 65) He left (fn. 66) his freehold lands in Middlesex and Kent to his wife, Margaret, for life, with reversion to his eldest son, Walter, then nearly 10 years old. His monument, of alabaster, with medallion head, is still to be seen in West Twyford Church.
Shortly afterwards his widow (fn. 67) married Christopher Clapham, whose name appears among the householders of Hammersmith in all the Parliamentary Assessments for the support of the Army (fn. 68) from 1643 to 1646, presumably in respect of Butterwick House.
Christopher Clapham was specially connected with Stamford. He was sworn a freeman of the borough on 16th November, 1658, on which occasion he presented the town with a silver cup bearing the arms of his own and his wife's families, and a few months later he was elected to represent the borough in Parliament. Stamford's historian (fn. 69) praises him as "a forward and firm supporter of the town liberties and immunities, and a great adversary to the disturbers of the same." He was knighted a short time before May, 1661. Margaret, who was his second wife, died in January, 1673–4, and Sir Christopher himself in August, 1686. (fn. 70)
Amongst the Feet of Fines for Easter, 1655, is an item relating to a lease by Christopher Clapham and Margaret his wife to John Upton of one messuage, one garden and one orchard with appurtenances in Hammersmith from 25th December, 1654, for 21 years "if the aforesaid Margaret shall so long live," at £40 rent a year. It seems very probable that the messuage in question was Butterwick House, but unfortunately it has not proved possible to obtain confirmatory evidence of the suggestion that Upton resided there. (fn. 71)
Walter, the son of Robert Moyle, never held the manor of Butterwicks, as his mother outlived him. He was born on 16th September, 1628, (fn. 72) and died on 24th May, 1660, "cum annos 31 numerasset," leaving two sons, Walter and Arthur, and a daughter, Margaret. (fn. 73) His bust also may be seen in West Twyford Church.
The manor remained with the family until 19th February, 1677, (fn. 74) when Walter Moyle, the younger, conveyed the property to William Ambrose, for the use of Ann Cleeve and her heirs, under the description of "a capital messuage, tenement, or farmhouse in Hammersmith, then or theretofore called the Great House, being anciently the Manor House of Botterwicke otherwise Butterwickes otherwise Butterix otherwise Butterwicke and the courts, grounds, etc." (fn. 75)
On 7th May, 1700, Ann Cleeve disposed of the premises to Henry Ferne, who died probably in 1723. (fn. 76) From the account given by Lysons it seems pretty certain that the Fernes resided at the house, and this is confirmed by the evidence of Bowack (fn. 77) and by the fact that the will of Elizabeth Ferne (Henry's widow), dated 23rd June, 1729, gives her place of residence as "Hammersmith." She died, it would seem, in the early part of 1733. (fn. 78)
Henry Ferne's son, Robert, left two sisters and co-heiresses, Elizabeth Turnor and Frances Bradshaw, and these, on 26th June, 1739, sold to Elijah Impey (fn. 79) the house with "all new erections or buildings to the said messuage belonging."
Apparently Impey had already occupied the house for some years, for we are told that his third and youngest son, afterwards Sir Elijah Impey, was born on 13th June, 1732, at "Butterwick House." (fn. 80) The younger Elijah's residence at the house, however, could only have extended to the first seven years of his life, and occasional holidays, for in 1739 he was sent to Westminster School. He afterwards went to Trinity College, Cambridge, was called to the Bar in 1756, and in 1766 was made Recorder of Basingstoke. In 1772 he was counsel for the East India Company before the House of Commons, and when in the following year a supreme court of justice was established at Calcutta, Impey was appointed the first chief justice. Before leaving England he received the order of knighthood. Almost immediately on arrival in India he was called upon to try Nand Kumar for forgery, as a result of which the latter was found guilty and condemned to death. Leave to appeal was refused, and Impey was afterwards charged (apparently without foundation in fact) with exacting the death penalty by collusion with Warren Hastings, against whom Nand Kumar had preferred accusations of corruption. Impey was desirous of extending the jurisdiction of his court, and Hastings assisted him in his attempt. For a time, however, the opposition of Sir Philip Francis effected a serious curtailment of even his existing powers. In 1780 the scheme was revived and acted upon, although no authorisation had been received from England. On these and other grounds he was recalled in 1783 to explain his conduct, and after an adventurous voyage he arrived in London in June, 1784. In 1788 a committee of the whole House discussed whether the accusations justified his impeachment. He made a brilliant defence and the impeachment dropped. He resigned in 1789. He entered the House of Commons in 1790 as member for New Romney, but although he retained his seat until 1796 he practically retired from public life in 1792. He died in 1809.
There is no evidence that he ever resided in Butterwick House except as stated above. On his father's death in 1756, it seems probable that the eldest son, Michael, took over the house. (fn. 81) He died in 1794.
In 1795–6 a Mr. Dunlop is shown by the rate books to be in occupation of Butterwick House.
As regards the residents of Bradmore House in the 18th century, Faulkner says (fn. 82) that when he wrote (1839) it had been occupied as a school for more than a century, "and for nearly half that period by the late, and present, Dr. Chisholm." The only information given by the rate books is that in 1795 and 1796 it was occupied by — Walker. It would seem from Faulkner's account that Dr. Chisholm's occupation must have begun almost immediately after that date, and probably before 1800.
Property of Butterwick's Manor.
The situation and extent of the lands in Fulham and Hammersmith acquired by John Butterwick are matters of considerable doubt. The description of the customary and free lands in the hands of his great-grandson, Robert Scarburgh, affords few points of agreement with such records as we possess of the property after it had come into the hands of William Muschamp towards the close of the 16th century. It is possible to recognise in "Wodrichesfeld" the Worrels Field (see p. 15) of later days, and the pasture at "le Pirre" is no doubt to be connected with Pearcroft or the land in Fulham Fields, but otherwise the lands seem to have but little connection with the property afterwards comprised in Butterwick's Manor. This may be due simply to difference in description, (fn. 83) or it is perhaps just possible that there was a re-shuffling of the lands, for it will be noticed that they are described in 1603 as "the houses . . . lands . . appertayning or reputed or taken as parcell of the said manor . . . ever since the purchase of William Muschamp Esquier." (fn. 84) Be this as it may, the extent and position of the lands from the time of Muschamp are fairly clear.
In 1600 Agmondesham Muschamp sold to Christopher Smith about 11 acres, comprising:
4½ acres of land lying in Southcroft and Newcroft, otherwise called Chiswick Field;
2½ acres of meadow in Charlemead;
2 acres in Pearecroft;
½ acre in Westcroft;
2½ acres in Pingworth; and
1 Pingwell, or small parcel of land, called Walnut Tree Pingwell.
On the death of William Muschamp in 1607 the property was found to consist of two messuages and 120 acres of land, meadow, and pasture in Fulham.
The sale to Edmund Latymer in 1622 (fn. 85) specified the property as consisting of 2 messuages, 3 cottages, 2 gardens, 2 orchards, 80 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow, 30 acres of pasture, 16 acres of wood, and 40s. rent. The wood acreage had apparently not been reckoned in the earlier computation.
Fortunately Latymer held no lands in Fulham and Hammersmith other than those belonging to Butterwick's Manor, (fn. 86) and by tracing the disposal of his property it is possible to locate the greater portion of the 120 acres. The details which have so far been discovered are as follows:
|Sale to Henry Marsh in 1622 (fn. 87) —Arable land in Westcroft||3 acres.|
|Sale to Francis Leasy in 1624 (fn. 87) —Land in or near Northcroft||¾ acre.|
|Sale to Francis Leasy in 1626 (fn. 87) —Land in the common field called Hills 1 acre. Land with a cottage||1 acre.||2 acres.|
|Bequest (fn. 88) to the Latymer School at Edmonton—Bell and Anchor public-house with garden ground||¾ acre.|
|Dwelling-house and nursery-ground||4¼ acres.|
|2 houses and ground on north side of Brook Green||½ acre.|
|4 cottages on north side of road leading from Brentford to London, with land||1½ acres.|
|Other land||1½ "|
|—||8½ acres. (fn. 89)|
|Bequest to Parish of St. Dunstan-in-the-West—|
|2 parcels of arable land in Fulham Fields||3 acres.|
|1 parcel in Wolde's Field||3 "|
|—||6 acres. (fn. 90)|
|Bequest to Latymer School at Hammersmith—|
|In Fulham Fields||1 acre.|
|In Shortlands, in the Short Shott||1 acre.|
|In Shortlands, in the Brook Shott||½ "|
|In Shortlands, in the Highway Shott||½ "|
|In Shortlands, in the Highway Shott||½ "|
|In Shortlands, in the Highway Shott||½ "|
|In Shortlands, in the Highway Shott||¾ "|
|In Shortlands, in the Brook Shott||1 "|
|In Northcroft||1 "|
|In Bradmore||½ "|
|In the north highway, east of Wormshott Lane||10½ acres.|
|In the Marsh Field||½ acres.|
|On the north of Shepherd's Bush Common||2½ acres.|
|A close on the north of the highway (Uxbridge Road)||4 "|
|In the marsh||1 acre.|
|In the marsh||1 "|
|In Fulham Fields, south of Parr Bridge||1 "|
|In Shortlands||¼ "|
|28½ acres. (fn. 91)|
|Sale by Latymer's executors (Chamberlain and Alured) to Wm. Chalkhill of closes called Butterix (fn. 92)||25 acres.|
|Sale by executors to Henry Marsh (fn. 92) —|
|Cottage with orchard and garden||¼ acre.|
|Parcel of Worrels Field||6 acres.|
|Sale by executors to Wm. Earsbie (fn. 92) —|
|2 parcels of Worrels Field||7¼ acres.|
|Land in Shortlands||¾ acre.|
|To the above must probably be added seven closes of land called Buttericks, near North End, which in 1670 were in the possession of Sir Joseph Sheldon (fn. 93)||18 "|
|A total of 106 acres.|
Old Prints, Drawings, etc.
(fn. 94) Two water-colour drawings of Butterwick House in the extra-illustrated edition of Lysons' Environs at the Guildhall Library.
In the Council's Ms. collection are:
(fn. 94) Plan of ground floor (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Plan of first floor (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Elevation of garden front (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Section through house (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Details of niche to stair (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Wrought-iron panel of balustrade (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Main cornice to brick front (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Another brick cornice (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Details of internal wood cornices (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) Cast-iron fireback (measured drawing).
(fn. 94) View of old front to Queen Street (photograph).
(fn. 94) View of garden front (photograph).
Another view of the same (photograph).
(fn. 94) View of garden front as re-erected (photograph).
Wrought-iron balustrade (photograph).
Three views of niche and details of same (photograph).
(fn. 94) Interior of first-floor room (photograph).
(fn. 94) Another view of same (photograph).
(fn. 94) View of another room (photograph).
(fn. 94) Brick niche (photograph).
(fn. 94) Brick cornice to niche (photograph).