Londina Illustrata. Graphic and Historical Memorials of Monasteries, Churches, Chapels, Schools, Charitable Foundations, Palaces, Halls, Courts, Processions, Places of Early Amusement, and Modern Present Theatres, in the Cities and Suburbs of London and Westminster, Volume 2

Wilkinson, Robert
1819-1825

The Old Hungerford Market: Near York Buildings, Strand.

The Old Hungerford Market: Near York Buildings, Strand.

Hungerford Market, near York Buildings, Strand.

Down to even after the middle of the seventeenth century, the north bank of the Thames above the Temple, was lined with the mansions and gardens of the English nobility.The custom of erecting mansions by the river Thames appears to have commenced with the Bishops, and an established residence belonging to the See of Canterbury seems to have existed at Lambeth in the eleventh century: for "anciently," says Selden, "the noblemen lay within the city for safety and security; but the Bishop's houses were by the water-side, because they were held sacred persons whom nobody would hurt."—Table Talk, Article, "Bishops before the Parliament." 2.—After the Great Charters of 1215 had permanently fixed the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, that city also became the most usual place for holding the Parliament; and therefore many of the Bishops especially, and afterwards others of the nobility, for the convenience of residence whilst in attendance on it, were induced to erect mansions along the edge of the river; which at length formed a continuous line of buildings connecting Westminster and Charing with the City of London. James Howell in his Londinopolis, Lond. 1657, fol. p. 348, observes that, from Dorset House in Fleet Street to Whitehall, all the great houses built on the Thames were Episcopal Palaces, excepting the Savoy and Suffolk House. They included the mansions belonging to the Sees of Salisbury, Exeter, Bath, Coventry, Llandaff, Durham and Carlisle; some of which were erected about the time of Edward II.—Antiquities of Westminster, by J. T. Smith and J. S. Hawkins, Esq. Lond. 1807, 4to. p. 4. The latter differed in extent, but were in general spacious and stately. In many places they descended with a gentle slope, or in successive terraces, to the water's edge, where they were commonly enclosed by a low wall of brick or stone, occasionally embattled, accommodated with a private portal and stairs for landing or embarking, and sometimes surmounted by a handsome water-gate. Specimens of some of the most eminent of these mansions, and especially of York House, hereafter referred to, have been already given in the first Volume of this work, from Original Drawings by Hollar; whose interesting prospects of ancient London exhibit the continued series of gentilitial residences along this side of the river. Early in the seventeenth century some of these stately gardens and edifices, the beauty of which had at one period frequently excited the notice of foreigners, began to disappear,The stately appearance of the river-bank in the time of Henry VIII., is noticed by John Leland in his Cygnea Cantio, Lond. 1658, 12mo. p. 8. verse 213, or vol. ix of Thomas Hearne's edition of his Itinerary, p. 14. Mox et nobilium domos virorum, &c. More plainly now as o'er the tide With swift yet gentle force we glide,— The sight embraces in its ken Those dwellings of illustrious men, Where Thames upon his banks descries The brave, the courteous, and the wise. Camden in his Britannia, first printed in 1586, recites some laudatory Latin verses by a German on the same subject: Tot campos, sylvas, tot regia tecta, tot hortos, &c. We saw so many woods and princely bowers, Sweet fields, brave palaces, and stately towers, So many gardens, dress'd with curious care, That Thames with Royal Tiber may compare. "This suburb," says the same author, "is continued to Westminster by a row of buildings and magnificent houses of the nobility on the Thames side," and he adds a list of the principal of those which stood on the north bank of the river. They seem, however, at the very time he was writing to have been in decay, since he exclaims in conclusion, 'but wh y do I name these which have changed their owners, as Fortune has also disposed of them?"—Britannia, edit. by Richard Gough, Lond. 1789. fol. vol. ii. p. 6. (Trinobantes, Middlesex.)—Of the appearance of this part of London soon after the Restoration, there is the following account in the travels of Balthasar De Monconys, in May and June, 1663.—"Beyond the Bridge, in going up the Thames, there are numerous noblemens' mansions lining the water's edge; if indeed they can be called mansions which are very low houses, having nothing of Architecture, all the windows too small, devoid of cornices, and which are in truth nothing more than square openings made in the walls. Some of them have gardens or courts, the enclosures of which extend nearly to the river; the greater part of them are of brick covered with tiles, which, being of the same colour, are disagreeable objects enough.—Boukin Kham House, which has rather a handsome portico of hewn stone, seems to be somewhat better than the others, but is going to decay."—Journal des Voyages de Mons. De Monconys. Lyons. 1666. 4to. Seconde Partie. p. 8. or to give place to inferior buildings and streets: the first example of which seems to have been the formation of the New Exchange, on the site of the stables belonging to Durham House in the Strand; began June 10th, 1608, and finished in the following November.Stow's Survey of London, by the Rev. J. Strype, 1720, Vol. II. book vi. chap. i. p. 3.—The mansions above described stood backward from the street, looking towards the water, but the stables of Durham House formed a series of low ruinous buildings which projected from the main line of the Strand. The site of the New Exchange occupied about the western half of the pile of houses between Durham Street and George Court, now facing the southern end of Agar Street. In outward appearance the New Exchange somewhat resembled the exterior of the original Royal Exchange in London, upon the plan of which it was designed; consisting below of a paved walk over cellars, and a row of shops above: and M. De Monconys observes of it, p. 11, that at "the Little Exchange the milliners sell their goods as at the larger one, but it is not so fine a building; there being only one double gallery below, and the same above." Towards the Strand it presented a long edifice of two stories or galleries, with dormer windows in the tiled roof, and shops beneath. The lower story was formed of a continuous projection, with small upright windows separated by panels; and the upper floor of separate bays, each containing three broad transom-casements, divided by ornamental brackets, decorated with mouldings, between which were retiring intervals of the wall. After having stood for nearly 130 years, the following first notice of the removal of this edifice appeared in Common Sense or the Englishman's Journal, for Saturday, Aug. 6th, 1737: "the New Exchange in the Strand being forthwith to be pulled down, and houses built in its stead, the tenants have had warning to quit their shops and apartments there at Michaelmas next." A portion of the eastern part of the building, apparently of the age of James I., was, however, remaining until 1790; soon after which it was taken down; and an interesting engraving of it will be found on the first plate in the late J. T. Smith's Antiquities of Westminster, p. 5. Small representations of the entire edifice in its ancient state, may be seen in Ogilby and Morgan's great Plan of London published about May, 1682, in eight sheets; in that by Robert Morden and Philip Lea, first published in the reign of William III., and continued to 1732, by Thomas Jeffereys, in 18 sheets; and in the plan of the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields, in Strype's edition of Stow's Survey of London, 1720, Vol. II. book vi. chap. v. p. 67. This statement occurs in a manuscript of collections relating to London, written some time after the Great Fire, preserved in the Harleian Library;Harleian MSS. No. 5900: described in the Catalogue, as "a book in folio, being a catalogue of books relating to the City of London: with many other illustrations of its history and antiquities." The passage referred to will be found towards the end of the volume, in a part entitled "seuerall thinges omitted, relating to the Elustration of the famous Citey of London:—as of ther Marketts and fayres." From the singular inaccuracy of the spelling, this composition may be considered to have been the production of a foreigner, written from his own recollections about the commencement of the eighteenth century. and, as the passage may be also considered in some degree to illustrate the establishment of the original Hungerford Market, it is here inserted.—"And now wee are treating of Markets, it may be worth the taking notes yt ye ould shambles (were) for the furnishing of London before the time of King James ye first; who, at his coming to London, mighteley immersed in building, thorow the necessity of ye grate nomber of people which came and followed him to London, at his excese (accession to) of the crowne: which induced the Earle of Salusbury to build a Market in Westminster, althou against the Charter and priuileges of ye Cite of London;This is not to be considered as having been the original establishment of a market in Westminster, since the first was most probably the very ancient one held at the palace-gate; but in Strype's edition of Stow's Survey of London, Vol. II. book vi. chap. iii. p. 58. is a series of orders for the Butchers and Poulters of Westminster, published at a Court-leet holden there October 8th, in the 25th year of Elizabeth, 1583, by the Right Hon. William Cecil, K.G. Baron of Burghley, Lord High Treasurer, and High Steward of Westminster. The market-place is therein stated to be in King Street. The privilege of London referred to in the above extract, is contained in the first charter granted to the City by Edward III., March 6th, 1327, which provides that no market shall be held within seven miles of it. and not onely that market, but likewise made an Exchange out of that which was ye stables belongen formerley to ye Bishopes of Derham: and this was ye first inlet and begenning of those structures for noblemen and outher tenements for meaner people, in the adjasant parts of London, althou expressly against an Acte of Parliament made by King Henery VIII. in ye—;There does not appear to have been any act or proclamation against new buildings in the time of Henry VIII.; but Strype observes that in the days of Elizabeth, "when London began to be very populous, there was a confluence hither out of the countries, of such persons as were of the poorer sort of trades and occupations; who, because they could not exercise them within the jurisdiction of the City, followed them in the suburbs and within the compass of three or four miles of the city. By reason of these trades many bad commodities were made and vended, to the wronging of the people.—But whether it were the encouragement these petty traders and artificers met with, or the multiplication of the meaner sort of people that was the cause, great numbers of edifices were erected in the suburbs, where before were fields and void places; especially on the eastern parts of the city. This was at length much complained of: insomuch that in the year 1580 it was thought meet to take some course to stop this by the Queen's proclamation." This ordinance was dated at Nonesuch, 7th July, in the 22nd year of Elizabeth, 1580; and in 1583 a case of contempt of the same appears to have been tried before the court of Star-Chamber. Another Act passed in her 35th year, 1592-93, chap. 6, was "against the conversion of great houses into several tenements, and for restraint of inmates and inclosures in and about the Cities of London and Westminster:" Section I. of which orders that no new buildings should be erected within three miles of London and Westminster. In 1603, 1st year of James I., a proclamation was issued, occasioned by the plague then in London, "against inmates and multitudes of dwellers in strait rooms and places, in and about the City of London; and for razing and pulling down of newly erected-buildings."—Stow's Survey of London, by Strype, Vol. II. book iv. chap. ii. p. 32. In 1657 the Parliament passed an Act for preventing of the multiplicity of buildings in and about the suburbs of London, and within ten miles thereof; some notices of which will be found in the account of Oldbourne Hall contained in this work. and at that time it was thought that London, by the Court, was too rich and populous: and this was thought by the building of markets and the Exchange to be a means to mortify the citizens of London."In Anthony Munday's additions to Stow, in the account of erecting the New Exchange, there appears to be something like an allusion to a sudden and private reason for building it. "It was well known and observed," says he, "for how many years I know not, that the outward part belonging thereto, (namely, to Durham house,) and standing north from the house, was but a low row of stables; old, ruinous, ready to fall and very unsightly in so public a passage to the Court and to Westminster. Upon which consideration, or some more especial respect in the mind of the Right Honourable Robert, Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer of England, it pleased him to take such order in the matter, that, at his own costs and charges, that deformed stabling was quite altered by the erection of a very goodly and beautiful building instead thereof, and in the very same place."—Strype's Stow's Survey of London, Vol. II. book vi. chap. i. p. 3.

One of the largest mansions and estates on the south side of the Strand, was that called York Place; which in the Plan of London executed by Radulphus Aggas about the year 1560, is represented as extending from Durham Place, about the present Adelphi, to the western extremity of the garden of the modern Northumberland House. It consisted at first of a large dwelling or inn, called Norwich Inn, as forming the town residence of the Bishops of that See; and after various changes of possessors, the estate was in 1649 bestowed by the Parliament upon Thomas Lord Fairfax, by the marriage of whose daughter and heiress Mary, with George, second Duke of Buckingham, it was restored to the sequestrated family of Villiers.This marriage took place at Nun-Appleton, the seat of Lord Fairfax, six miles from York, Sept. 7th, 1657. Though Cromwell was extremely angry at the match, the Duke had liberty to reside at York House with his lady; but on his going to Cobham to visit his sister, he was arrested and sent to the Tower, where he remained until after the Protector's death. Memoirs of the Life of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, by Brian Fairfax, Lond. 1758, 4to.—The dilapidated state of York House during the exile of the real owner is thus noticed by Evelyn in his Diary, 27th Nov. 1655; "I went to see York House and gardens belonging to the former great Buckingham, but now much ruined through neglect." That nobleman resided, or at least possessed a mansion here, for several years both previous and subsequent to the Restoration; but his volatile and improvident character, led him first to destroy the greater part of the stately house and gardens, and at length to alienate a large portion, if not the whole, of the property; though the streets which he had begun to erect still separately retained his names and titles, whilst in memory of the ancient appellation of the edifice, they were collectively called York Buildings.There is a reference to this circumstance in a poetical satire of a single folio sheet called The Litany of the Duke of Buckingham, published in 1679, which points out the particular period when the celebrated George Street, Villiers Street, Duke Street, Off Alley, and Buckingham Street, were erected; it should be observed that the Duke had at this time bought a residence at Dowgate:— From damning whatever we don't understand, From purchasing at Dowgate, and selling in the Strand, Calling streets by our name when we have sold the land Libera nos Domine! Notwithstanding the admitted extravagance of the Duke of Buckingham, Evelyn has preserved a contemporaneous report in his favour; since in noticing the wealth of Sir Robert Clayton, Nov. 18th, 1679, he observes "some believed him guilty of hard dealing, especially with the Duke of Buckingham, much of whose estate he had swallow'd." About the middle of the western side of those erections stood the Market which is the subject of these pages and the annexed plate; but the first notice in which any of the Hungerford Family is represented as residing in the vicinity of this spot, states the dwelling to have been as far from it as Durham Yard, or about the present Adelphi Terrace. "A great fire," says Samuel Pepys in his Diary, April 26th, 1669, "happened in Durham Yard last night, burning the house of one Lady Hungerford, who was to come to town to it this night: and so the house is burned down, new furnished, by the carelessness of the girl sent to take off a candle from a bunch of candles, which she did by burning it off, and left the rest, as it is supposed, on fire. The King and Court were here it seems, and stopped the fire by blowing up the next house."The recent fire of London had made the principal personages both of the Court and City extremely apprehensive and active in any similar alarms; and it will be remembered that at that conflagration both the King and the Duke of York had been particularly energetic. "It is not, indeede, imaginable," says Evelyn, "how extraordinary the vigilance and activity of the King and the Duke was, even labouring in person, and being present to command, order, reward, or encourage, the workmen: by which he shewed his affection to his people and gained their's." William, first Earl of Craven, was also celebrated for his promptness in suppressing fires, for he was so soon upon the spot where a fire had happened that it was popularly said his very horse smelled it out. From this destruction it has been supposed probable that Hungerford Market originated, as many other public improvements have done, in the accidental clearing of the ground;Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1832. vol. cii. part ii. p. 113. but not to notice the great distance between the spot to which that fire was limited, and the site of the old market,—the sale of the family mansion here was not authorised by Parliament until 1677, and the charter for holding the market was not granted until two years later.

Sir Richard Colt Hoare, the historian of the Hungerfords, relates nothing of the time or manner in which they became possessed of their property in the Strand, perhaps because it was so inconsiderable in comparison with that which they owned in Wiltshire and other places; nor does he record the particular period at which it was alienated: his information upon these points being only the following.—"Having traced the marriages and means by which they obtained such extensive possessions, it becomes me to state by what unlucky means they were finally deprived of them. We must therefore refer to Sir Edward Hungerford who died in 1711, and who by his excessive extravagance squandered a princely fortune, and thereby acquired the title of Spendthrift.—He is said to have carried it so far as to have given 500 guineas for a wig to figure in at some court ball.—To him is attributed the demolition of the family-house in London, on the site of which now stands Hungerford Market; where his bust still exists under a niche in the wall."Hungerfordiana, or Memoirs of the Family of Hungerford. Shaftsbury, Wilts. 1823. 8vo. p. 116. The author, however, observes in his address to the reader, that "the principal object of this publication is to give and to gain information respecting a family which once held so distinguished a situation in the County of Wilts."

The personage here referred to was of the youngest branch of this family, namely, the Hungerfords of Black- Bourton, or Bourton-Inges, near Witney, in Oxfordshire; and was the eldest son, as well, of the twelve children of Anthony Hungerford, of Farleigh Castle, in the County of Somerset, Esq., and Rachel, daughter of Rice Jones, of Oxford.Hungerfordiana, p. 31.—Lansdowne MSS. No. 901. pp. 68, 71, entitled "Collections for the Family of Hungerford, in the hand writing of Sir Henry St. George, Knt. Garter Principal King of Arms, son of Sir Richard St. George, Knt. formerly Clarenceux King of Arms, who dyed at Oxford about 1644." Parily transcribed by Peter le Neve, Norroy King of Arms. Sir Anthony Hungerford, died Aug. 17th, 1657, and was buried at Black-Bourton. In the Athenæ Oxonienses of Anthony à Wood. Edit. Bliss, Lond. 1815. 4to. vol. ii. Col. 411, under the account of Anthony Hungerford, son of Anthony Hungerford, of Downe-Ampney, in Gloucestershire, who died in 1627, and Bridget Shelley, there is the following different statement of the descent of the above-mentioned Sir Edward. "He left behind him issue, by his wife Lucy, daughter of Sir Walter Hungerford, of Farley Castle, in Somersetshire, Sir Edward Hungerford, who had issue another Edward, made Knight of the Bath at the Coronation of King Charles II., who most unworthily squandered away the estate of his ancestors." This statement is accurate as to the grandfather of Sir Edward, but the person represented as his father died without issue.—Hungerfordiana, p. 30. He was originally a zealous partizan in the Parliament's army against Charles I.; and in May 1643, in conjunction with Edmund Ludlow and Colonel Strode, he besieged Wardour Castle, in Wiltshire, with a force of 1300 men. Lord Arundel was then at Oxford, and had committed his fortress to his lady, Blanche, fifth daughter of Edward Somerset, fourth Earl of Worcester, with only twenty-five soldiers; yet when summoned to surrender she refused at once, saying, she had a command from her lord to keep it, and that command she would obey. She held out the defence for nine days, and then capitulated upon the most honourable terms. These terms the besiegers broke as usual, but were soon dislodged from the fortress by the resolution of Lord Arundel; who, on his return, ordered a mine to be sprung beneath it, and thus sacrificed that noble structure to his loyalty. At the present Wardour Castle are still preserved several cannon-balls, of seven and nine pounds each, which were discharged against it when the besiegers attempted to carry it by storm.A very interesting account of this seige will be found in that part of the History of Modern Wiltshire including the Hundred of Dunworth, by James Everard, Baron Arundell of Wardour, and Sir R. C. Hoare, Lond. 1829. fol. pp. 157-168. There are two tracts extant which evidently relate to this Sir Edward Hungerford as a parliament soldier, and which at the least throw some suspicion on his sincerity in the cause, if not upon his personal courage. The first is entitled A Letter to the Earle of Pembroke from Sir Edward Baynton in Gloucester: shewing the true manner how himselfe and Captaine Edward Eyre were surprised at Malmesbury, by two Lieutenant-Colonels, under the Earl of Stamford's command, upon pretended grounds, and contrary to some scandalous relations in print: with the reasons inducing him formerly to seize upon Sir Edward Hungerford. London, January 22nd, 1642. (1643) 4to.—In this tract it is stated that Sir Edward Baynton had proof of a correspondence between Hungerford and Lord Seymour; and that the former had used various means of drawing away the troops of Baynton, pretending an order from the Parliament, which he could not satisfactorily prove. Baynton then determined to seize him, and send him safely to the Parliament, but Hungerford fled to Cisseter; "and there, I doe verily believe," says the writer of the letter, "did bribe two Scotch Lieutenant-Colonels to performe this exploit; for he fled out of Wilts about six weekes agone, and carried his family and goods into Somersetshire, where he doth now reside, and onely comes skulking now and then into Wiltshire, to put tricks upon me."—The other tract is entitled Sir Edward Hvngerford's Vindication for the Svrrendering of Malmsbury, in Wiltshire, to the King's forces, after it was taken by Sir William Waller: as it was sent in a letter from the said Sir Edward Hungerford to a worthy Member of the House of Commons; and now published for the satisfaction of all such as desire to be truly informed of the whole passages in the winning and loosing of Malmsbury, within lesse than a weehe's time in Aprill last. London: May 6th, 1643, 4to. The defence of Sir Edward is, that upon the capture of Malmsbury he was ordered to take charge of it; but when he expected to receive it in a complete state of defence, he found it without ammunition or money, and with more prisoners than soldiers. He informed Waller, of this deficiency, and received supplies and reinforcements under Serjeant-Major Clifton, whom Hungerford "perceiving to be an officer able and fit to secure the town," he ordered him to take command of it, and, leaving his own troops behind him, withdrew with his servants to Bath to raise farther supplies. It appears that Clifton never went to Malmsbury at all, that the troops there were weak and discontented, and that the town was consequently retaken without any opposition. It is probable after this that Sir Edward Hungerford joined the Royal party, which will account for his being one of the sixty-eight Knights of the Order of the Bath, created previously to the Coronation of Charles II.;Sir Edward Hungerford's name appears the twenty-sixth on the "list of the Knights in such order as his Majesty was pleased to confer that honour upon them."—A true Relation of the Ceremonies at the Creation of the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Bath, the 18th and 19th of April, 1661. Lond. 4to. p. 2. in which reign also he appears as one of the fashionable patrons of the revived sports of Archery. His name is signed to a ticket as one of the stewards for a meeting of the Finsbury Archers, July 24th, 1676;Gentleman's Magazine, Feb. 1832. Vol. cii. Part l. p. 113. of whose regiment he was Lieutenant-Colonel when they assembled in Hyde Park, March 21st, 1661, and Colonel when they shot in the Artillery-Ground, April 21st, 1682.The Bow-man's Glory, or Archery Revived. Published by William Wood, Marshal to the Regiment of Archers. Lond. 1682. 8vo. p. 74 and Postscript. The name of Sir Edward Hungerford is also one of those prefixed to the Epistle Dedicatory. He filled, however, a far more important station, as High Sheriff of Wiltshire, in 1631, 7th year of Charles I., and by sitting in the Restoration Parliament for the Borough of Chippenham, in that County, for which he was also returned in 1661, 1678, 1679, and 1681; in 1685, 1688, and 1690, he was elected for that of New Shoreham, in Sussex; and in 1695, 1698, 1700, and 1702, for that of Steyning, in the same County: though during the greater part of his life his seat in the House of Commons appears to have been chiefly for the purpose of securing him from arrest.Hungerfordiana, pp. 123, 125.—Gentleman's Magazine, Aug. 1832. Vol. cii. part ii. p. 115. Sir Edward Hungerford was thrice married. The first time was to Elizabeth, daughter of — Culme, or Collomb, of Cannonlee, in Devonshire: by whom he had issued Edward, who died in 1681, married to Alithea, daughter of the Earl of Northampton; whose issue were 1. Edward, who died young before them; and 2. Rachel, married to — Clotworthy, Viscount Mazarene. The second wife of Sir Edward was Jane, daughter and sole heiress of Sir John Hele, also of Devon, who died in 1664, and by whom he had 1. Anthony, a Captain in Ireland, who died young and unmarried; 2. Walter, who also died young and unmarried; and 3. Jane, who was married. The third wife of Sir Edward was Jane Digby, relict of Charles, Lord Gerard, by whom he had 1. Everard Digby Gerard, married to Elizabeth, daughter of — Blake, and widow of Capt. Midford; and John, styled of Black-Bourton.Hungerfordiana, pp. 31, 32, 132. Lansdowne MSS. No. 901. pp. 68, 71. Sir Edward Hungerford himself died at a very advanced age, 115 years have been reported, in 1711; at which time he is said to have been one of the Poor Knights of Windsor.Hungerfordiana, p. 32. Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. cii. p. 115. Sir R. Colt Hoare states that Sir E. Hungerford's name does not occur in the list of the Poor Knights of Windsor, p. 32. Notwithstanding his extensive issue, his ancient family appears to have expired with him, at least in its name; which, says Sir R. C. Hoare, "has become extinct in England, though I have reason to think that it survives in Ireland. The late Mrs. Crewe was the last female descendant; and the last male, now living (1823), is a Mr. Luttrell, descended from Anne, daughter of Sir George Hungerford, and Frances, daughter of Lord Seymour of Trowbridge, who espoused Edward Luttrell, of Dunster, Esq."Hungerfordiana, pp. 117, 23. Henrietta Maria Anna Hungerford, who married John, only son of Lord Crewe of Crewe Hall, in Cheshire, was descended from John Keate, Esq. and Frances, also a daughter of Sir George Hungerford. Hungerfordiana, p. 24.

Perhaps one of the earliest notices of the declining fortune of Sir Edward Hungerford, is to be found in the Journals of the House of Commons, Thursday, December 1st, 1664, when a Bill was introduced to enable him, then a Member of the House, to sell lands in the County of Devon; doubtless a part, or the whole, of the possessions of his first two wives. The property of the main line of the Hungerfords, when it became vested in him, was also gradually dismembered and alienated; and it is stated in the same Journals, Monday, March 26th, 1677, that one of four bills sent down from the Lords, was "to enable Sir Edward Hungerford, a Member of this House, to make leases for years of Hungerford House, in the Strand, in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields, in the County of Middlesex, and of certain other houses and tenements thereto adjoining." This bill received the Royal Assent on Tuesday, April 10th, and his other and more extensive estates were at length assigned to trustees, by whom the ancient family possession of Farleigh Castle and Manor were in 1686 sold to Henry Baynton, of Spye Park, Esq.; who also dying insolvent, the Castle was resold under a decree of Chancery to Joseph Houlston, Esq.History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, by the Rev. John Collinson. Bath 1791. 4to. Vol. iii. p. 356.

It might be supposed from the title of the above bill, that when Sir Edward Hungerford leased out the family house in the Strand he had no other design than that which is expressed; but in the Harleian Manuscript already cited, it is stated that from the success of Lord Clare in the market which he had established in his new buildings in Clement's Inn Fields, "they haue got seuirall charters for the erection of seuerall outhers, sence the yeare 1666: as those of St. James, by the Earle of St. Albon's; Blumesbury, by the Earle of Southamton; Broke Market, by the Lord Broke; Hungerford Market, and Nupport Market: beside the Hay Market, ney Charing-Cross, and that at Petty-France, at Westminster; with ther Majesties Fayre in ye feldes behind Peckadelle." Whatever were the original design of Sir Edward, he procured Letters Patent dated at Westminster, May 24th 1679, the 31st Charles II., giving to him and his heirs perpetually the privilege of holding and keeping an open Market every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday, throughout the year, excepting for corn and grain, upon the estate described in the instrument as Hungerford House, alias Hungerford Inn, situate in or near the Strand, in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields. This mansion appears to have been then taken down, and on the site of it, and the grounds belonging to it, the original Hungerford Market and Buildings were erected, bearing the name of the proprietor; including several adjoining courts and passages, and, for the period, a handsome street into the Strand.Stow's Survey of London, by Strype, Vol. II. book vi. chap. v. p. 76. Strype observes that the Hungerford mansion was a large but old house, with a garden. On the succeeding page he thus notices the residence to which Sir Edward removed when the former was destroyed:—Spring-Garden, a very large open place, with good built houses, well inhabited; some of which are large, with good gardens, as Sir Edward Hungerford's, where the Spanish Ambassador lately resided." Though the opening of such establishments be occasionally noticed in the very brief periodical papers of the time, there does not appear to be any record of the commencement of the present; but Hungerford Buildings are incidentally mentioned in the London Gazette, from Monday, November 8th to 11th 1680. A more particular notice occurs in the same paper from Thursday, June 2nd to 6th, 1681; in which it is stated that "his Majesty has been pleased by an Order in Council, to give free liberty and licence to Sir Edward Hungerford, and the builders and inhabitants in and about Hungerford Market, to proceed in the rebuilding and finishing the stairs and causey by them begun into the River of Thames; which will speedily be finished for the better accommodation of the Market." Janeway's Impartial Protestant Mercury, from Friday, October 14th to 18th, 1681, mentions that a committee has been selected in council to enquire into some affair of Hungerford Market, which is not stated; and the same paper, from Friday, February 10th to 14th, 1682-83, mentions an assault and murder at a butcher's shop there, shewing that the place was then opened and established. "This Market," says Strype, who must have been well acquainted with its original state and history, "was in all probability to have taken well, especially for fruit and herbs; lying so convenient for the gardeners to land their goods at the stairs, without the charge and trouble of porters to carry them farther by land, as now to Covent Garden Market; but being baulked at first, it turns to little account, and that of Covent Garden hath got the start; which is much restored to, and well served with all fruit and herbs, good in their kind." The disappointment alluded to was possibly some delay in the opening or completing of the accommodations of the Market, but whatever it might be, it was probably the reason that other Letters Patent were issued to Sir Stephen Fox and Sir Christopher Wren, Knights, their heirs, &c., dated Westminster, July 9th, 1685, the first year of James II.; reciting the former grant, and stating that they had become by purchase the proprietors in-fee of the Market established for the better accommodation of the inhabitants of Westminster. This instrument also gave the additional license and authority to all persons for ever thereafter to bring and expose to sale meal, flour, grain, and corn; and empowered the proprietors to take toll, &c. according to the usage of other markets. Sir Stephen Fox was the ancestor of the present Earl of Ilchester and Lord Holland; and from him the property of Hungerford Market passed into the possession of the family of Wise, that of the late proprietor, soon after the grant of the second charter.

From the time when it was first opened, there have been numerous attempts made to establish the trade of this place, especially as a fish-market for the western part of London;The most celebrated scheme for supplying Westminster with fish at a reduced rate, was that introduced in 1761, patronized by the Society of Arts, wherein the fish were to be brought from the coast in light land-carriages. On Friday, October 16th, a warehouse for the sale of such fish was opened in Covent Garden Market, and another had been previously set up in Oxford Market. In 1762 an Act of Parliament was procured for the plan, but after about two years trial it entirely failed, as it was stated for want of farther and proper encouragement; and on Monday, May 13th, 1765, Mr. John Blake, the superintendant, resigned all future conduct of the concern. The original design was attributed to a Mr. John Tull.—See Gentleman's Magazine, vols. xxx to xxxv.—On Monday, Jan. 15th, 1750, a new fish-market was opened near Cannon-row, Westminster, but this attempt failed from the obstruction which the old London Bridge offered to the passage of boats which were to supply it. So lately as Aug. 17th, 1818, a notice appeared in the papers for erecting two additional market-houses for fish for the West end of London, which were to be regularly supplied by steam vessels employed for the purpose. which, however, appear to have been chiefly and most effectually prevented by a statute of the tenth and eleventh years of William III. 1699, chapter xxiv. This enacted, that Billingsgate Market be every day, excepting Sunday, a free and open market for all sorts of fish, and that any person may buy or sell there: that all buying any fish there, may sell them again in any other market or place in London, or elsewhere, by retail; but that no person shall employ himself, or be employed, in buying at Billinsgate any quantity of fish, to be divided by lots or in shares between any fishmongers or others, to be afterwards sold by retail or otherwise: nor is any fishmonger to engross or buy any quantity of fish, but what shall be for his own sale or use, under the penalty of 20l. for each offence; one half being given to the poor of the parish, and the other to the prosecutor.

It is probable that of the original appearance of Hungerford Market scarcely any idea can now be conceived, but its aspect in the latter days of its existence is represented in the annexed Engraving, the view in which was taken from the most favourable point in the whole place, namely, the north-west corner, looking towards the river.Another print of the Old Hungerford Market, also taken from the western side, but without the colonnade and nearer to the river, was originally published by the artist, Mr. Frederick Nash, in a series of Twelve Views of the Antiquities of London, 1805-1810, 4to. of which excellent etching an impression is given in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. cii. part ii. p. 113, with an historical and descriptive paper. A third representation, taken from the same point by T. H. Shepherd, was published in Jones and Co's London in the Nineteenth Century. Series First, 1829-30, 4to. p. 52. In the centre of a long quadrangular area sood a capacious and convenient market-house, which might possibly have been the production of Sir Christopher Wren; and which consisted within of a lofty spacious hall, with a large room above. At the upper part of the north end of the building on the exterior, was a black marble tablet with an inscription, surmounted by an arched recess of stone, containing a bust of Sir Edward Hungerford, in Roman armour,A wood engraving of this bust, &c. will be found on page 114 of the Magazine last cited. In the drawing of the effigy, the artist appears not to have understood the ornamental termination of the left of the humerales, or shoulder-pieces, of the Roman cuirass, wherein it is habited; in consequence of which he has delineated it like a large cross, and has partly led the author of the descriptive account into an error concerning it, since he states in a note, that "the cross, or rather saltire, on his breast, which should have been represented within a shield, is the ancient badge of the Order of the Bath." The writer was most probably thinking of the badges of the Order of the Thistle and St. Patrick; for until the alteration of this Order by George IV., when Prince Regent, in 1815, there never was any kind of cross connected with the insignia of the Knights. In the Relation of the Ceremonies, &c. already cited, p. 7, the badge then used is thus described: "Then his Majesty put the red ribband, with the Order hanging to it, over the Knight's head: which Order has three crowns of gold enamelled with green (or rather blue) and encompassed with this motto: In uno tria juncta." This device is said to have been the arms of King Arthur, from whom the Order of the Bath was adopted. with flowing hair; the latter, perhaps, being a representation of that costly dress wig mentioned by Sir R. Colt Hoare. This bust is considered to be the only known portrait of Sir Edward Hungerford which has been published,Mrs. Crewe was in possession of a portrait of this Sir Edward, as well as of several other family pictures. Hungerfordiana, p. 119. and was perhaps the work of Gibbons: it is represented with the inscription at length beneath the annexed View, with the Armorial Ensigns of the Hungerford family.These Arms are Sable, two bars Argent, in chief three plates: Crest, out of a ducal coronet Argent, a garb Or between two serrated sickles, Vert, the handles Gules. It is supposed by Sir R. C. Hoare that this coat was probably adopted on the marriage of Walter de Hungerford, who succeeded his brother in 1354, with Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Adam Fitz John, of Cherill, in Wiltshire, to whom it belonged; the ancient coat of Hungerford of Heytesbury being Parted per pale indented Gules and Vert, a chevron Or.—As the shield was anciently placed between two sickles, and as that badge appears frequently repeated on the Hungerford brasses and shields in Salisbury Cathedral, single, double, and treble, as well as in the numerous chapels and mansions which have been the property of the family,—it may be received as the original crest, to which the garb was perhaps added on the marriage of Walter, Lord Hungerford, who died it 1449, with his first wife Catherine Peverill, to commemorate her paternal arms, Azure, three garbs Argent, a chief Or. Le Neve, however, gives the Hungerford crest in 1641, as a garb between two lions rampart. Hungerfordiana, pp. 6, 7, 109, 110. The History of Modern Wiltshire (Hundred of Heytesbury) by Sir R. C. Hoare. Lond. 1824. fol. p. 116. On each side of the Markethouse was an open passage between it and the houses, the upper stories of which projected to the extremity of the pavement, and were supported by heavy black wooden pillars, forming a dark colonnade beneath: which parts, in the latter state of this place, with several vegetable-stalls, a few butchers residing in Hungerford Street, and some shops for the sale of provisions,—constituted the only features it retained of a market. Even this appearance was limited to the western side, as upon the eastern the original colonnade had been entirely taken down. At the time the present view was taken, the great centre building had been long deserted and falling into decay, and was then entirely closed; whilst the covered appartments adjoining to it on each side of the exterior, which were originally designed for butchers, poulterers, fishmongers, &c. were converted into close sheds for stables, the reception of carts and carriages, lumber, or the large working utensils of various persons resident on the spot; excepting the north end which was occupied by an engine-house and a cow-keeper. After the decline of the market, the very long upper floor of this building was used as a school-room for the charity-children of St. Martin's Parish,Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, by Robert Seymour (John Motley) Lond. 1735, fol. vol. ii. p. 654. and subsequently it was for many years engaged by a congregation of French Protestants;London and its Environs described. R. and J. Dodsley Lond 1761 8vo vol. iii. p. 207. but at the time of the annexed representation it was divided into two chambers, both carpenters' work-shops, in the north one of which the Rev. Henry Wise, of Warwick Priory, Warwickshire, the late proprietor of the estate, kept a foreman continually employed in keeping the different houses around in proper repair.—Beyond the buildings of the market was an open space towards the river, succeeded by a few more houses forming a short continuation of Hungerford Street, from which descended Hungerford Stairs, one of the most frequented landings on the banks of the Thames, which formerly supported numerous watermen. Previously to the erection of Waterloo Bridge, it was the ordinary and well-frequented ferry to the King's Arms, opposite, the fare to which was one penny; or to the watergate of Cuper's Gardens, a short distance below, to which the fare was three pence. Subsequently to the erection of the Bridge, a Sunday-ferry only was established from these stairs to those at the King's Arms, the fare being a penny each person, from 8 o'clock in the morning until dusk in the evening, the boats passing and repassing alternately: the profits of this ferry were applied in aid of the fund for watermen's widows and children.—Beside the water-entrance of the Old Hungerford Market, there were four passages into it above: namely, from Villiers Street, York Buildings, through Hungerford Passage, crossing Charles Court; from Hungerford Street in the Strand; from Craven Passage in Craven Street; and, says Strype, "by the One Tun public-house, in a court of that name leading from the Strand, there is a passage into Heley Alley, which falleth into Hungerford Market." All the immediate vicinity of this place, as well as the avenues to it, before the improvement of the footpaths and flag-stones, were both dirty and dangerous; and Brewers Yard, once a narrow space between the Market and Craven Street, not many years before the present alterations, was, as Strype describes it, "a very ordinary place, both for houses and inhabitants, and chiefly resorted to by carmen for the bringing up goods and coals from the wharfs, by the Thames side; and the frequent passing of the carts with heavy loading breaks up the passage, and causeth it to be bad and dirty."

 

Down to even after the middle of the century, the north bank of the Thames above the Temple, was lined with the mansions and gardens of the English nobility.[a]  The latter differed in extent, but were in general spacious and stately. In many places they descended with a gentle slope, or in successive terraces, to the water's edge, where they were commonly enclosed by a low wall of brick or stone, occasionally embattled, accommodated with a private portal and stairs for landing or embarking, and sometimes surmounted by a handsome water-gate. Specimens of some of the most eminent of these mansions, and especially of York House, hereafter referred to, have been already given in the Volume of this work, from Original Drawings by Hollar; whose interesting prospects of ancient London exhibit the continued series of gentilitial residences along this side of the river. Early in the century some of these stately gardens and edifices, the beauty of which had at period frequently excited the notice of foreigners, began to disappear,[b]  or to give place to inferior buildings and streets: the example of which seems to have been the formation of the New Exchange, on the site of the stables belonging to in ; began , and finished in the following November.[c]  This statement occurs in a manuscript of collections relating to London, written some time after the Great Fire, preserved in the Harleian Library;[d]  and, as the passage may be also considered in some degree to illustrate the establishment of the original Hungerford Market, it is here inserted.—"And now wee are treating of Markets, it may be worth the taking notes y y ould shambles (were) for the furnishing of London before the time of King James y; who, at his coming to London, mighteley immersed in building, thorow the necessity of y grate nomber of people which came and followed him to London, at his excese (accession to) of the crowne: which induced the Earle of Salusbury to build a Market in , althou against the Charter and priuileges of y Cite of London;[e]  and not onely that market, but likewise made an Exchange out of that which was y stables belongen formerley to y Bishopes of Derham: and this was y inlet and begenning of those structures for noblemen

60

and outher tenements for meaner people, in the adjasant parts of London, althou expressly against an Acte of Parliament made by King Henery VIII. in y—;[a]  and at that time it was thought that London, by the Court, was too rich and populous: and this was thought by the building of markets and the Exchange to be a means to mortify the citizens of London."[b] 

of the largest mansions and estates on the south side of , was that called ; which in the Plan of London executed by Radulphus Aggas about the year , is represented as extending from , about the present , to the western extremity of the garden of the modern . It consisted at of a large dwelling or inn, called Norwich Inn, as forming the town residence of the Bishops of that See; and after various changes of possessors, the estate was in bestowed by the Parliament upon Thomas Lord Fairfax, by the marriage of whose daughter and heiress Mary, with George, Duke of Buckingham, it was restored to the sequestrated family of Villiers.[c]  That nobleman resided, or at least possessed a mansion here, for several years both previous and subsequent to the Restoration; but his volatile and improvident character, led him to destroy the greater part of the stately house and gardens, and at length to alienate a large portion, if not the whole, of the property; though the streets which he had begun to erect still separately retained his names and titles, whilst in memory of the ancient appellation of the edifice, they were collectively called .[d]  About the middle of the western side of those erections stood the Market which is the subject of these pages and the annexed plate; but the notice in which any of the Hungerford Family is represented as residing in the vicinity of this spot, states the dwelling to have been as far from it as Durham Yard, or about the present . "A great fire," says Samuel Pepys in his , , "happened in Durham Yard last night, burning the house of Lady Hungerford, who was to come to town to it this night: and so the house is burned down, new furnished, by the carelessness of the girl sent to take off a candle from a bunch of candles, which she did by burning it off, and left the rest, as it is supposed, on fire. The King and Court were here it seems, and stopped the fire by blowing up the next house."[e]  From this destruction it has been supposed probable that Hungerford Market originated, as many other public improvements have done, in the accidental clearing of the ground;[f]  but not to notice the great distance between the spot to which that fire was limited, and the site of the old market,—the sale of the family mansion here was not authorised by Parliament until , and the charter for holding the market was not granted until years later.

Sir Richard Colt Hoare, the historian of the Hungerfords, relates nothing of the time or manner in which they became possessed of their property in , perhaps because it was so inconsiderable in comparison with that which they owned in Wiltshire and other places; nor does he record the particular period at which it was alienated: his information upon these points being only the following.—"Having traced the marriages and means by which they such extensive possessions, it becomes me to state by what unlucky means they were finally of them. We must therefore refer to Sir Edward Hungerford who died in , and who by his excessive extravagance squandered a princely fortune, and thereby acquired the title of Spendthrift.—He is said to have

61

carried it so far as to have given guineas for a wig to figure in at some court ball.—To him is attributed the demolition of the family-house in London, on the site of which now stands Hungerford Market; where his bust still exists under a niche in the wall."[a] 

The personage here referred to was of the youngest branch of this family, namely, the Hungerfords of Black- Bourton, or Bourton-Inges, near Witney, in Oxfordshire; and was the eldest son, as well, of the children of Anthony Hungerford, of Farleigh Castle, in the County of Somerset, Esq., and Rachel, daughter of Rice Jones, of Oxford.[b]  He was originally a zealous partizan in the Parliament's army against Charles I.; and in , in conjunction with Edmund Ludlow and Colonel Strode, he besieged Wardour Castle, in Wiltshire, with a force of men. Lord Arundel was then at Oxford, and had committed his fortress to his lady, Blanche, daughter of Edward Somerset, Earl of Worcester, with only soldiers; yet when summoned to surrender she refused at once, saying, she had a command from her lord to keep it, and that command she would obey. She held out the defence for days, and then capitulated upon the most honourable terms. These terms the besiegers broke as usual, but were soon dislodged from the fortress by the resolution of Lord Arundel; who, on his return, ordered a mine to be sprung beneath it, and thus sacrificed that noble structure to his loyalty. At the present Wardour Castle are still preserved several cannon-balls, of and each, which were discharged against it when the besiegers attempted to carry it by storm.[c]  There are tracts extant which evidently relate to this Sir Edward Hungerford as a parliament soldier, and which at the least throw some suspicion on his sincerity in the cause, if not upon his personal courage. The is entitled London, . () to.—In this tract it is stated that Sir Edward Baynton had proof of a correspondence between Hungerford and Lord Seymour; and that the former had used various means of drawing away the troops of Baynton, pretending an order from the Parliament, which he could not satisfactorily prove. Baynton then determined to seize him, and send him safely to the Parliament, but Hungerford fled to Cisseter; "and there, I doe verily believe," says the writer of the letter, "did bribe Scotch Lieutenant-Colonels to performe this exploit; for he fled out of Wilts about weekes agone, and carried his family and goods into Somersetshire, where he doth now reside, and onely comes skulking now and then into Wiltshire, to put tricks upon me."—The other tract is entitled London: , to. The defence of Sir Edward is, that upon the capture of Malmsbury he was ordered to take charge of it; but when he expected to receive it in a complete state of defence, he found it without ammunition or money, and with more prisoners than soldiers. He informed Waller, of this deficiency, and received supplies and reinforcements under Serjeant-Major Clifton, whom Hungerford "perceiving to be an officer able and fit to secure the town," he ordered him to take command of it, and, leaving his own troops behind him, withdrew with his servants to Bath to raise farther supplies. It appears that Clifton never went to Malmsbury at all, that the troops there were weak and discontented, and that the town was consequently retaken without any opposition. It is probable after this that Sir Edward Hungerford joined the Royal party, which will account for his being of the Knights of the Order of the Bath, created previously to the Coronation of Charles II.;[d]  in which reign also he appears as of the fashionable patrons of the revived sports of Archery. His name is signed to a ticket as of the stewards for a meeting of the Finsbury Archers, ;[e]  of whose regiment he was Lieutenant-Colonel when they assembled in , , and Colonel when they shot in the Artillery-Ground, .[f]  He filled, however, a far more important station, as High Sheriff of Wiltshire, in , year of Charles I., and by sitting in the Restoration Parliament for the Borough of Chippenham, in that County, for which he was also returned in , , , and ; in , , and , he was elected for that of New Shoreham, in Sussex; and in , , , and , for that of Steyning, in the same County: though during the greater part of his life his seat in the appears to have been chiefly for the purpose of securing him from arrest.[g]  Sir Edward

62

Hungerford was thrice married. The time was to Elizabeth, daughter of — Culme, or Collomb, of Cannonlee, in Devonshire: by whom he had issued Edward, who died in , married to Alithea, daughter of the Earl of Northampton; whose issue were . Edward, who died young before them; and . Rachel, married to — Clotworthy, Viscount Mazarene. The wife of Sir Edward was Jane, daughter and sole heiress of Sir John Hele, also of Devon, who died in , and by whom he had . Anthony, a Captain in Ireland, who died young and unmarried; . Walter, who also died young and unmarried; and . Jane, who was married. The wife of Sir Edward was Jane Digby, relict of Charles, Lord Gerard, by whom he had . Everard Digby Gerard, married to Elizabeth, daughter of — Blake, and widow of Capt. Midford; and John, styled of Black-Bourton.[a]  Sir Edward Hungerford himself died at a very advanced age, years have been reported, in ; at which time he is said to have been of the Poor Knights of Windsor.[b]  Notwithstanding his extensive issue, his ancient family appears to have expired with him, at least in its name; which, says Sir R. C. Hoare, "has become extinct in England, though I have reason to think that it survives in Ireland. The late Mrs. Crewe was the last female descendant; and the last male, now living (), is a Mr. Luttrell, descended from Anne, daughter of Sir George Hungerford, and Frances, daughter of Lord Seymour of Trowbridge, who espoused Edward Luttrell, of Dunster, Esq."[c] 

Perhaps of the earliest notices of the declining fortune of Sir Edward Hungerford, is to be found in the , Thursday, , when a Bill was introduced to enable him, then a Member of the House, to sell lands in the County of Devon; doubtless a part, or the whole, of the possessions of his wives. The property of the main line of the Hungerfords, when it became vested in him, was also gradually dismembered and alienated; and it is stated in the same Journals, Monday, , that of bills sent down from the Lords, was "to enable Sir Edward Hungerford, a Member of this House, to make leases for years of Hungerford House, in , in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields, in the County of Middlesex, and of certain other houses and tenements thereto adjoining." This bill received the Royal Assent on Tuesday, , and his other and more extensive estates were at length assigned to trustees, by whom the ancient family possession of Farleigh Castle and Manor were in sold to Henry Baynton, of Spye Park, Esq.; who also dying insolvent, the Castle was resold under a decree of Chancery to Joseph Houlston, Esq.[d] 

It might be supposed from the title of the above bill, that when Sir Edward Hungerford leased out the family house in he had no other design than that which is expressed; but in the Harleian Manuscript already cited, it is stated that from the success of Lord Clare in the market which he had established in his new buildings in Fields, "they haue got seuirall charters for the erection of seuerall outhers, sence the yeare : as those of St. James, by the Earle of St. Albon's; Blumesbury, by the Earle of Southamton; Broke Market, by the Lord Broke; Hungerford Market, and Nupport Market: beside the Hay Market, ney Charing-Cross, and that at Petty-France, at ; with ther Majesties Fayre in y feldes behind Peckadelle." Whatever were the original design of Sir Edward, he procured Letters Patent dated at , , the Charles II., giving to him and his heirs perpetually the privilege of holding and keeping an open Market every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday, throughout the year, excepting for corn and grain, upon the estate described in the instrument as Hungerford House, alias Hungerford Inn, situate in or near , in the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields. This mansion appears to have been then taken down, and on the site of it, and the grounds belonging to it, the original Hungerford Market and Buildings were erected, bearing the name of the proprietor; including several adjoining courts and passages, and, for the period, a handsome street into .[e]  Though the opening of such establishments be occasionally noticed in the very brief periodical papers of the time, there does not appear to be any record of the commencement of the present; but Hungerford Buildings are incidentally mentioned in the , from Monday, to . A more particular notice occurs in the same paper from Thursday, to , ; in which it is stated that "his Majesty has been pleased by an Order in Council, to give free liberty and licence to Sir Edward Hungerford, and the builders and inhabitants in and about Hungerford Market, to proceed in the rebuilding and finishing the stairs and causey by them begun into the River of Thames; which will speedily be finished for the better accommodation of the Market." , from Friday, to , , mentions that a committee has been selected in council to enquire into some affair of Hungerford Market, which is not stated; and the same paper, from Friday, to , -, mentions an assault and murder at a butcher's shop there, shewing that the place was then opened and established. "This Market," says Strype, who must have been well acquainted with its original state and history, "was in all probability to have taken well, especially for fruit and herbs; lying so convenient for the gardeners to land their goods at the stairs, without the charge and trouble of porters to carry them farther by land, as now to ; but being baulked at , it turns to little account, and that of Covent Garden hath got the start; which is much restored to, and well served with all

63

fruit and herbs, good in their kind." The disappointment alluded to was possibly some delay in the opening or completing of the accommodations of the Market, but whatever it might be, it was probably the reason that other Letters Patent were issued to Sir Stephen Fox and Sir Christopher Wren, Knights, their heirs, &c., dated , , the year of James II.; reciting the former grant, and stating that they had become by purchase the proprietors in-fee of the Market established for the better accommodation of the inhabitants of . This instrument also gave the additional license and authority to all persons for ever thereafter to bring and expose to sale meal, flour, grain, and corn; and empowered the proprietors to take toll, &c. according to the usage of other markets. Sir Stephen Fox was the ancestor of the present Earl of Ilchester and Lord Holland; and from him the property of Hungerford Market passed into the possession of the family of Wise, that of the late proprietor, soon after the grant of the charter.

From the time when it was opened, there have been numerous attempts made to establish the trade of this place, especially as a fish-market for the western part of London;[a]  which, however, appear to have been chiefly and most effectually prevented by a statute of the and years of William III. , chapter xxiv. This enacted, that Market be every day, excepting Sunday, a free and open market for all sorts of fish, and that any person may buy or sell there: that all buying any fish there, may sell them again in any other market or place in London, or elsewhere, by retail; but that no person shall employ himself, or be employed, in buying at Billinsgate any quantity of fish, to be divided by lots or in shares between any fishmongers or others, to be afterwards sold by retail or otherwise: nor is any fishmonger to engross or buy any quantity of fish, but what shall be for his own sale or use, under the penalty of for each offence; half being given to the poor of the parish, and the other to the prosecutor.

It is probable that of the original appearance of Hungerford Market scarcely any idea can now be conceived, but its aspect in the latter days of its existence is represented in the annexed Engraving, the view in which was taken from the most favourable point in the whole place, namely, the north-west corner, looking towards the river.[b]  In the centre of a long quadrangular area sood a capacious and convenient market-house, which might possibly have been the production of Sir Christopher Wren; and which consisted within of a lofty spacious hall, with a large room above. At the upper part of the north end of the building on the exterior, was a black marble tablet with an inscription, surmounted by an arched recess of stone, containing a bust of Sir Edward Hungerford, in Roman armour,[c]  with flowing hair; the latter, perhaps, being a representation of that costly dress wig mentioned by Sir R. Colt Hoare. This bust is considered to be the only known portrait of Sir Edward Hungerford which has been published,[d]  and was perhaps the work of Gibbons: it is represented with the inscription at length beneath the annexed View, with the Armorial Ensigns of the Hungerford family.[e]  On each side of the Markethouse was an open passage between it and the houses, the upper stories of which projected to the extremity of the pavement, and were supported by heavy black wooden pillars, forming a dark colonnade beneath: which parts, in the latter state of this place, with several vegetable-stalls, a few butchers residing in , and some shops for the sale of provisions,—constituted the only features it retained of a market. Even this appearance was limited to the western side, as upon the eastern the original colonnade had been entirely taken down. At the time the present view was taken, the great centre building had been long deserted and falling into decay, and was then entirely closed; whilst the covered appartments adjoining to it on each side of the exterior, which were originally designed for butchers, poulterers, fishmongers, &c. were converted into close sheds for stables, the reception of carts and carriages, lumber, or the large working utensils of various persons resident on the spot; excepting the north end which was occupied by an engine-house and a cow-keeper. After the decline of the market, the very long upper floor of this building was used as a school-room for the charity-children of Parish,[f]  and subsequently it was for many years engaged by a congregation of French Protestants;[g]  but at the time of the

64

annexed representation it was divided into chambers, both carpenters' work-shops, in the north of which the Rev. Henry Wise, of Warwick Priory, Warwickshire, the late proprietor of the estate, kept a foreman continually employed in keeping the different houses around in proper repair.—Beyond the buildings of the market was an open space towards the river, succeeded by a few more houses forming a short continuation of , from which descended , of the most frequented landings on the banks of the Thames, which formerly supported numerous watermen. Previously to the erection of , it was the ordinary and well-frequented ferry to the King's Arms, opposite, the fare to which was penny; or to the watergate of Cuper's Gardens, a short distance below, to which the fare was . Subsequently to the erection of the Bridge, a Sunday-ferry only was established from these stairs to those at the King's Arms, the fare being a penny each person, from o'clock in the morning until dusk in the evening, the boats passing and repassing alternately: the profits of this ferry were applied in aid of the fund for watermen's widows and children.—Beside the water-entrance of the Old Hungerford Market, there were passages into it above: namely, from , , through Hungerford Passage, crossing Charles Court; from in ; from in ; and, says Strype, "by the Tun public-house, in a court of that name leading from , there is a passage into Heley Alley, which falleth into Hungerford Market." All the immediate vicinity of this place, as well as the avenues to it, before the improvement of the footpaths and flag-stones, were both dirty and dangerous; and Brewers Yard, once a narrow space between the Market and , not many years before the present alterations, was, as Strype describes it, "a very ordinary place, both for houses and inhabitants, and chiefly resorted to by carmen for the bringing up goods and coals from the wharfs, by the Thames side; and the frequent passing of the carts with heavy loading breaks up the passage, and causeth it to be bad and dirty."

65

 
 
 
Footnotes:

[a] The custom of erecting mansions by the river Thames appears to have commenced with the Bishops, and an established residence belonging to the See of Canterbury seems to have existed at Lambeth in the eleventh century: for "anciently," says Selden, "the noblemen lay within the city for safety and security; but the Bishop's houses were by the water-side, because they were held sacred persons whom nobody would hurt."—Table Talk, Article, "Bishops before the Parliament." 2.—After the Great Charters of 1215 had permanently fixed the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, that city also became the most usual place for holding the Parliament; and therefore many of the Bishops especially, and afterwards others of the nobility, for the convenience of residence whilst in attendance on it, were induced to erect mansions along the edge of the river; which at length formed a continuous line of buildings connecting Westminster and Charing with the City of London. James Howell in his Londinopolis, Lond. 1657, fol. p. 348, observes that, from Dorset House in Fleet Street to Whitehall, all the great houses built on the Thames were Episcopal Palaces, excepting the Savoy and Suffolk House. They included the mansions belonging to the Sees of Salisbury, Exeter, Bath, Coventry, Llandaff, Durham and Carlisle; some of which were erected about the time of Edward II.—Antiquities of Westminster, by J. T. Smith and J. S. Hawkins, Esq. Lond. 1807, 4to. p. 4.

[b] The stately appearance of the river-bank in the time of Henry VIII., is noticed by John Leland in his Cygnea Cantio, Lond. 1658, 12mo. p. 8. verse 213, or vol. ix of Thomas Hearne's edition of his Itinerary, p. 14. Mox et nobilium domos virorum, &c. More plainly now as o'er the tide With swift yet gentle force we glide,— The sight embraces in its ken Those dwellings of illustrious men, Where Thames upon his banks descries The brave, the courteous, and the wise. Camden in his Britannia, first printed in 1586, recites some laudatory Latin verses by a German on the same subject: Tot campos, sylvas, tot regia tecta, tot hortos, &c. We saw so many woods and princely bowers, Sweet fields, brave palaces, and stately towers, So many gardens, dress'd with curious care, That Thames with Royal Tiber may compare. "This suburb," says the same author, "is continued to Westminster by a row of buildings and magnificent houses of the nobility on the Thames side," and he adds a list of the principal of those which stood on the north bank of the river. They seem, however, at the very time he was writing to have been in decay, since he exclaims in conclusion, 'but wh y do I name these which have changed their owners, as Fortune has also disposed of them?"—Britannia, edit. by Richard Gough, Lond. 1789. fol. vol. ii. p. 6. (Trinobantes, Middlesex.)—Of the appearance of this part of London soon after the Restoration, there is the following account in the travels of Balthasar De Monconys, in May and June, 1663.—"Beyond the Bridge, in going up the Thames, there are numerous noblemens' mansions lining the water's edge; if indeed they can be called mansions which are very low houses, having nothing of Architecture, all the windows too small, devoid of cornices, and which are in truth nothing more than square openings made in the walls. Some of them have gardens or courts, the enclosures of which extend nearly to the river; the greater part of them are of brick covered with tiles, which, being of the same colour, are disagreeable objects enough.—Boukin Kham House, which has rather a handsome portico of hewn stone, seems to be somewhat better than the others, but is going to decay."—Journal des Voyages de Mons. De Monconys. Lyons. 1666. 4to. Seconde Partie. p. 8.

[c] Stow's Survey of London, by the Rev. J. Strype, 1720, Vol. II. book vi. chap. i. p. 3.—The mansions above described stood backward from the street, looking towards the water, but the stables of Durham House formed a series of low ruinous buildings which projected from the main line of the Strand. The site of the New Exchange occupied about the western half of the pile of houses between Durham Street and George Court, now facing the southern end of Agar Street. In outward appearance the New Exchange somewhat resembled the exterior of the original Royal Exchange in London, upon the plan of which it was designed; consisting below of a paved walk over cellars, and a row of shops above: and M. De Monconys observes of it, p. 11, that at "the Little Exchange the milliners sell their goods as at the larger one, but it is not so fine a building; there being only one double gallery below, and the same above." Towards the Strand it presented a long edifice of two stories or galleries, with dormer windows in the tiled roof, and shops beneath. The lower story was formed of a continuous projection, with small upright windows separated by panels; and the upper floor of separate bays, each containing three broad transom-casements, divided by ornamental brackets, decorated with mouldings, between which were retiring intervals of the wall. After having stood for nearly 130 years, the following first notice of the removal of this edifice appeared in Common Sense or the Englishman's Journal, for Saturday, Aug. 6th, 1737: "the New Exchange in the Strand being forthwith to be pulled down, and houses built in its stead, the tenants have had warning to quit their shops and apartments there at Michaelmas next." A portion of the eastern part of the building, apparently of the age of James I., was, however, remaining until 1790; soon after which it was taken down; and an interesting engraving of it will be found on the first plate in the late J. T. Smith's Antiquities of Westminster, p. 5. Small representations of the entire edifice in its ancient state, may be seen in Ogilby and Morgan's great Plan of London published about May, 1682, in eight sheets; in that by Robert Morden and Philip Lea, first published in the reign of William III., and continued to 1732, by Thomas Jeffereys, in 18 sheets; and in the plan of the Parish of St. Martin in the Fields, in Strype's edition of Stow's Survey of London, 1720, Vol. II. book vi. chap. v. p. 67.

[d] Harleian MSS. No. 5900: described in the Catalogue, as "a book in folio, being a catalogue of books relating to the City of London: with many other illustrations of its history and antiquities." The passage referred to will be found towards the end of the volume, in a part entitled "seuerall thinges omitted, relating to the Elustration of the famous Citey of London:—as of ther Marketts and fayres." From the singular inaccuracy of the spelling, this composition may be considered to have been the production of a foreigner, written from his own recollections about the commencement of the eighteenth century.

[e] This is not to be considered as having been the original establishment of a market in Westminster, since the first was most probably the very ancient one held at the palace-gate; but in Strype's edition of Stow's Survey of London, Vol. II. book vi. chap. iii. p. 58. is a series of orders for the Butchers and Poulters of Westminster, published at a Court-leet holden there October 8th, in the 25th year of Elizabeth, 1583, by the Right Hon. William Cecil, K.G. Baron of Burghley, Lord High Treasurer, and High Steward of Westminster. The market-place is therein stated to be in King Street. The privilege of London referred to in the above extract, is contained in the first charter granted to the City by Edward III., March 6th, 1327, which provides that no market shall be held within seven miles of it.

[a] There does not appear to have been any act or proclamation against new buildings in the time of Henry VIII.; but Strype observes that in the days of Elizabeth, "when London began to be very populous, there was a confluence hither out of the countries, of such persons as were of the poorer sort of trades and occupations; who, because they could not exercise them within the jurisdiction of the City, followed them in the suburbs and within the compass of three or four miles of the city. By reason of these trades many bad commodities were made and vended, to the wronging of the people.—But whether it were the encouragement these petty traders and artificers met with, or the multiplication of the meaner sort of people that was the cause, great numbers of edifices were erected in the suburbs, where before were fields and void places; especially on the eastern parts of the city. This was at length much complained of: insomuch that in the year 1580 it was thought meet to take some course to stop this by the Queen's proclamation." This ordinance was dated at Nonesuch, 7th July, in the 22nd year of Elizabeth, 1580; and in 1583 a case of contempt of the same appears to have been tried before the court of Star-Chamber. Another Act passed in her 35th year, 1592-93, chap. 6, was "against the conversion of great houses into several tenements, and for restraint of inmates and inclosures in and about the Cities of London and Westminster:" Section I. of which orders that no new buildings should be erected within three miles of London and Westminster. In 1603, 1st year of James I., a proclamation was issued, occasioned by the plague then in London, "against inmates and multitudes of dwellers in strait rooms and places, in and about the City of London; and for razing and pulling down of newly erected-buildings."—Stow's Survey of London, by Strype, Vol. II. book iv. chap. ii. p. 32. In 1657 the Parliament passed an Act for preventing of the multiplicity of buildings in and about the suburbs of London, and within ten miles thereof; some notices of which will be found in the account of Oldbourne Hall contained in this work.

[b] In Anthony Munday's additions to Stow, in the account of erecting the New Exchange, there appears to be something like an allusion to a sudden and private reason for building it. "It was well known and observed," says he, "for how many years I know not, that the outward part belonging thereto, (namely, to Durham house,) and standing north from the house, was but a low row of stables; old, ruinous, ready to fall and very unsightly in so public a passage to the Court and to Westminster. Upon which consideration, or some more especial respect in the mind of the Right Honourable Robert, Earl of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer of England, it pleased him to take such order in the matter, that, at his own costs and charges, that deformed stabling was quite altered by the erection of a very goodly and beautiful building instead thereof, and in the very same place."—Strype's Stow's Survey of London, Vol. II. book vi. chap. i. p. 3.

[c] This marriage took place at Nun-Appleton, the seat of Lord Fairfax, six miles from York, Sept. 7th, 1657. Though Cromwell was extremely angry at the match, the Duke had liberty to reside at York House with his lady; but on his going to Cobham to visit his sister, he was arrested and sent to the Tower, where he remained until after the Protector's death. Memoirs of the Life of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, by Brian Fairfax, Lond. 1758, 4to.—The dilapidated state of York House during the exile of the real owner is thus noticed by Evelyn in his Diary, 27th Nov. 1655; "I went to see York House and gardens belonging to the former great Buckingham, but now much ruined through neglect."

[d] There is a reference to this circumstance in a poetical satire of a single folio sheet called The Litany of the Duke of Buckingham, published in 1679, which points out the particular period when the celebrated George Street, Villiers Street, Duke Street, Off Alley, and Buckingham Street, were erected; it should be observed that the Duke had at this time bought a residence at Dowgate:— From damning whatever we don't understand, From purchasing at Dowgate, and selling in the Strand, Calling streets by our name when we have sold the land Libera nos Domine! Notwithstanding the admitted extravagance of the Duke of Buckingham, Evelyn has preserved a contemporaneous report in his favour; since in noticing the wealth of Sir Robert Clayton, Nov. 18th, 1679, he observes "some believed him guilty of hard dealing, especially with the Duke of Buckingham, much of whose estate he had swallow'd."

[e] The recent fire of London had made the principal personages both of the Court and City extremely apprehensive and active in any similar alarms; and it will be remembered that at that conflagration both the King and the Duke of York had been particularly energetic. "It is not, indeede, imaginable," says Evelyn, "how extraordinary the vigilance and activity of the King and the Duke was, even labouring in person, and being present to command, order, reward, or encourage, the workmen: by which he shewed his affection to his people and gained their's." William, first Earl of Craven, was also celebrated for his promptness in suppressing fires, for he was so soon upon the spot where a fire had happened that it was popularly said his very horse smelled it out.

[f] Gentleman's Magazine, August, 1832. vol. cii. part ii. p. 113.

[a] Hungerfordiana, or Memoirs of the Family of Hungerford. Shaftsbury, Wilts. 1823. 8vo. p. 116. The author, however, observes in his address to the reader, that "the principal object of this publication is to give and to gain information respecting a family which once held so distinguished a situation in the County of Wilts."

[b] Hungerfordiana, p. 31.—Lansdowne MSS. No. 901. pp. 68, 71, entitled "Collections for the Family of Hungerford, in the hand writing of Sir Henry St. George, Knt. Garter Principal King of Arms, son of Sir Richard St. George, Knt. formerly Clarenceux King of Arms, who dyed at Oxford about 1644." Parily transcribed by Peter le Neve, Norroy King of Arms. Sir Anthony Hungerford, died Aug. 17th, 1657, and was buried at Black-Bourton. In the Athenæ Oxonienses of Anthony à Wood. Edit. Bliss, Lond. 1815. 4to. vol. ii. Col. 411, under the account of Anthony Hungerford, son of Anthony Hungerford, of Downe-Ampney, in Gloucestershire, who died in 1627, and Bridget Shelley, there is the following different statement of the descent of the above-mentioned Sir Edward. "He left behind him issue, by his wife Lucy, daughter of Sir Walter Hungerford, of Farley Castle, in Somersetshire, Sir Edward Hungerford, who had issue another Edward, made Knight of the Bath at the Coronation of King Charles II., who most unworthily squandered away the estate of his ancestors." This statement is accurate as to the grandfather of Sir Edward, but the person represented as his father died without issue.—Hungerfordiana, p. 30.

[c] A very interesting account of this seige will be found in that part of the History of Modern Wiltshire including the Hundred of Dunworth, by James Everard, Baron Arundell of Wardour, and Sir R. C. Hoare, Lond. 1829. fol. pp. 157-168.

[d] Sir Edward Hungerford's name appears the twenty-sixth on the "list of the Knights in such order as his Majesty was pleased to confer that honour upon them."—A true Relation of the Ceremonies at the Creation of the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Bath, the 18th and 19th of April, 1661. Lond. 4to. p. 2.

[e] Gentleman's Magazine, Feb. 1832. Vol. cii. Part l. p. 113.

[f] The Bow-man's Glory, or Archery Revived. Published by William Wood, Marshal to the Regiment of Archers. Lond. 1682. 8vo. p. 74 and Postscript. The name of Sir Edward Hungerford is also one of those prefixed to the Epistle Dedicatory.

[g] Hungerfordiana, pp. 123, 125.—Gentleman's Magazine, Aug. 1832. Vol. cii. part ii. p. 115.

[a] Hungerfordiana, pp. 31, 32, 132. Lansdowne MSS. No. 901. pp. 68, 71.

[b] Hungerfordiana, p. 32. Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. cii. p. 115. Sir R. Colt Hoare states that Sir E. Hungerford's name does not occur in the list of the Poor Knights of Windsor, p. 32.

[c] Hungerfordiana, pp. 117, 23. Henrietta Maria Anna Hungerford, who married John, only son of Lord Crewe of Crewe Hall, in Cheshire, was descended from John Keate, Esq. and Frances, also a daughter of Sir George Hungerford. Hungerfordiana, p. 24.

[d] History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, by the Rev. John Collinson. Bath 1791. 4to. Vol. iii. p. 356.

[e] Stow's Survey of London, by Strype, Vol. II. book vi. chap. v. p. 76. Strype observes that the Hungerford mansion was a large but old house, with a garden. On the succeeding page he thus notices the residence to which Sir Edward removed when the former was destroyed:—Spring-Garden, a very large open place, with good built houses, well inhabited; some of which are large, with good gardens, as Sir Edward Hungerford's, where the Spanish Ambassador lately resided."

[a] The most celebrated scheme for supplying Westminster with fish at a reduced rate, was that introduced in 1761, patronized by the Society of Arts, wherein the fish were to be brought from the coast in light land-carriages. On Friday, October 16th, a warehouse for the sale of such fish was opened in Covent Garden Market, and another had been previously set up in Oxford Market. In 1762 an Act of Parliament was procured for the plan, but after about two years trial it entirely failed, as it was stated for want of farther and proper encouragement; and on Monday, May 13th, 1765, Mr. John Blake, the superintendant, resigned all future conduct of the concern. The original design was attributed to a Mr. John Tull.—See Gentleman's Magazine, vols. xxx to xxxv.—On Monday, Jan. 15th, 1750, a new fish-market was opened near Cannon-row, Westminster, but this attempt failed from the obstruction which the old London Bridge offered to the passage of boats which were to supply it. So lately as Aug. 17th, 1818, a notice appeared in the papers for erecting two additional market-houses for fish for the West end of London, which were to be regularly supplied by steam vessels employed for the purpose.

[b] Another print of the Old Hungerford Market, also taken from the western side, but without the colonnade and nearer to the river, was originally published by the artist, Mr. Frederick Nash, in a series of Twelve Views of the Antiquities of London, 1805-1810, 4to. of which excellent etching an impression is given in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. cii. part ii. p. 113, with an historical and descriptive paper. A third representation, taken from the same point by T. H. Shepherd, was published in Jones and Co's London in the Nineteenth Century. Series First, 1829-30, 4to. p. 52.

[c] A wood engraving of this bust, &c. will be found on page 114 of the Magazine last cited. In the drawing of the effigy, the artist appears not to have understood the ornamental termination of the left of the humerales, or shoulder-pieces, of the Roman cuirass, wherein it is habited; in consequence of which he has delineated it like a large cross, and has partly led the author of the descriptive account into an error concerning it, since he states in a note, that "the cross, or rather saltire, on his breast, which should have been represented within a shield, is the ancient badge of the Order of the Bath." The writer was most probably thinking of the badges of the Order of the Thistle and St. Patrick; for until the alteration of this Order by George IV., when Prince Regent, in 1815, there never was any kind of cross connected with the insignia of the Knights. In the Relation of the Ceremonies, &c. already cited, p. 7, the badge then used is thus described: "Then his Majesty put the red ribband, with the Order hanging to it, over the Knight's head: which Order has three crowns of gold enamelled with green (or rather blue) and encompassed with this motto: In uno tria juncta." This device is said to have been the arms of King Arthur, from whom the Order of the Bath was adopted.

[d] Mrs. Crewe was in possession of a portrait of this Sir Edward, as well as of several other family pictures. Hungerfordiana, p. 119.

[e] These Arms are Sable, two bars Argent, in chief three plates: Crest, out of a ducal coronet Argent, a garb Or between two serrated sickles, Vert, the handles Gules. It is supposed by Sir R. C. Hoare that this coat was probably adopted on the marriage of Walter de Hungerford, who succeeded his brother in 1354, with Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Adam Fitz John, of Cherill, in Wiltshire, to whom it belonged; the ancient coat of Hungerford of Heytesbury being Parted per pale indented Gules and Vert, a chevron Or.—As the shield was anciently placed between two sickles, and as that badge appears frequently repeated on the Hungerford brasses and shields in Salisbury Cathedral, single, double, and treble, as well as in the numerous chapels and mansions which have been the property of the family,—it may be received as the original crest, to which the garb was perhaps added on the marriage of Walter, Lord Hungerford, who died it 1449, with his first wife Catherine Peverill, to commemorate her paternal arms, Azure, three garbs Argent, a chief Or. Le Neve, however, gives the Hungerford crest in 1641, as a garb between two lions rampart. Hungerfordiana, pp. 6, 7, 109, 110. The History of Modern Wiltshire (Hundred of Heytesbury) by Sir R. C. Hoare. Lond. 1824. fol. p. 116.

[f] Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, by Robert Seymour (John Motley) Lond. 1735, fol. vol. ii. p. 654.

[g] London and its Environs described. R. and J. Dodsley Lond 1761 8vo vol. iii. p. 207.

View all images in this book
 Title Page
collapseCourts, Halls, and Public Buildings
collapseSchools
collapseAlms-Houses, Hospitals, &c.
collapsePlaces of Amusement
collapseMiscellaneous Objects of Antiquity
collapseAncient and Modern Theatres
collapseTheatres
The Bull and the Bear Baiting,
The Red Bull Playhouse, Clerkenwell.
Fortune Theatre
Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre
D'Avenant's Theatre Otherwise the Duke's Theatre, Little Lincoln's Inn Fields
Theatre Royal, Drury Lane
Destruction of Drury Lane Theatre by Fire
Opening of Drury Lane New Theatre
Theatre Royal, Covent Garden
The New Theatre Royal, Covent Garden.
Theatre Royal, Haymarket
New Theatre Royal, Haymarket
The King's Theatre, or the Italian Opera, Haymarket
Theatre in Goodman's Fields. The whole of Goodman's Fields was formerly a farm belonging to the Abbey of Nuns, of the Order of St. Clare, called the Minories or Minoresses, from certain poor ladies of that order; and so late as the time of Stow, when he wrote his Survey in 1598, was let out in gardens, and for grazing horses. One Trolop, and afterwards Goodman, were the farmers there. But Goodman's son being heir by his father's purchase, let the grounds in parcels, and lived like a gentleman on its produce. He lies buried in St. Botolph's church, Aldgate.
The Royalty Theatre, Wellclose Square
The Tennis Court Theatre, Bear Yard, Little Lincoln's Inn Fields
Olympic Theatre, Newcastle Street, Strand
Sadler's Wells.
The Pantheon Theatre, Oxford Street
Strand Theatre, the Sans Pareil
Astley's Amphitheatre, Westminster Road
The Regency Theatre. Tottenham Street Tottenham Court Road
The Cobourg Theatre
Royal Circus or Surrey Theatre
Lyceum Theatre, or English Opera, Strand.
Theatre in Tankard Street, Ipswich
Checks and Tickets of Admission to the public Theatres and other Places of Amusement.

Title page of Vol. 2 reads: Theatrum illustrata. Graphic and historic memorials of ancient playhouses, modern theatres and other places of public amusement in the cities and suburbs of London & Westminster with scenic and incidental illustrations from the time of Shakspear to the present period.

This object is in collection:
Edwin C. Bolles papers
Subjects
London (England)--Antiquities
London (England)--Description and Travel
Wilkinson, Robert, d. ca. 1825
Bolles, Edwin Courtlandt
Permanent URL
http://hdl.handle.net/10427/53839
ID: tufts:MS004.002.057.001.00001
To Cite: DCA Citation Guide
Usage: Detailed Rights