CHAPTER XXVI
Cork Street and Savile Row Area: Ten Acre Close
A Leasehold title to this ground, lying
north and north-east of Burlington House,
was acquired by the first Earl of Burlington
in 1670 and 1683 (fig. 2). Two extensions of the
Burlingtons' title were obtained, the second, in
1712, bringing it down to 1809. The maindevelopment of the estate in streets of houses was carried
out by the third Earl between 1718 and 1739 (fig.
78). On the expiry of the leases granted by him,
some in about 1780 and others in the 1790's,
repairing leases were granted by his heir, the fifth
Duke of Devonshire, until the termination of the
Burlington-Devonshire head leasehold interest.
The Burlington family thus never held the
freehold of the streets of which the nomenclature
and architectural character were so closely linked
with the third Earl. The separate freehold
title still survives fragmentarily, but did not
significantly affect the estate at the critical building period.
This freehold title was created by the sale on
29 June 1622 of three adjacent parcels of ground,
then all in St. Martin's in the Fields, to William
Maddox, citizen and merchant tailor of London,
by Richard Wilson of King's Lynn, gentleman.
The area covered by this chapter was described as
two closes, containing ten acres, which were
bounded on the east by the highway later known
as Swallow Street, on the north and west by closes
then or late in the occupation of John Eavins (or
Evans) and south by pastures called Lammas
Ground. The ten acres were then in the occupation of Robert Willson of High Holborn, innkeeper, on a ten-year lease from December 1621. (ref. 1)
Subsequent tenants at an uncertain period prior to
1670 were at a later date said to have been
Damaris Wilson, widow, and then Gilbert Steele. (ref. 2)
In the Parliamentary survey of 1650 the ground
is described as 'the land of Mr. Watts' (ref. 3) and a
map of 1664 shows this and the ground north of
Penniless Bank as 'my Lord Mainard's and Mr
Watts's Land'. (ref. 4) By April 1664, however, the Ten
Acres, which were then united into a single close,
were held by Isaac Smith on an eleven-year lease
from Michaelmas 1658. (ref. 5) In August of the same
year the land was described as in the occupation of
Marshall, an inn-holder of Piccadilly. (ref. 6)
From about this time the name Crab or Crabtree Field (or Park) was sometimes given to the
Ten Acres or to the eastern of the two parts into
which they were again divided in 1670.
By May 1665 a way had been laid out between
the Ten Acres and the garden walls of the
Piccadilly mansions, all or part being on the
northernmost twelve feet of Stone Conduit Close. (ref. 7)
It is called Glasshouse Street on Blome's map of c.
1689 and was later called Vigo Lane before receiving the present name of Burlington Gardens in
about 1810.
By 1670 the freehold of the Ten Acres had
descended to Benjamin Maddox (later a baronet)
of Wormley, Hertfordshire, who on 29 March
leased them to James Kendrick (or Kenrick) of
St. Martin's in the Fields, gentleman, for 62
years from the preceding Lady Day, at £40 per
annum: the abutments were described as in
1622. (ref. 8) Some building development of a not very
intensive character was evidently projected.
Kendrick covenanted to spend £100 on building
in the first four years of his term. He also undertook, however, not to 'plow or break up' any part
not built on, although he was allowed 'to lay 3
acres to every messuage he should build and convert the same to garden or nursery ground'. For
the remainder, he covenanted to preserve fruit
and other trees, and to 'bestow at least 3 loads of
muck or compost for every load of hay that should
be moved off the premises'. (ref. 8)
Such building as took place did not occur on the
part of the Ten Acres—about two-thirds of the
whole—immediately north of the newly built
Burlington House. This part, containing six
acres, one rood and sixteen perches, Kendrick
leased a month or so later, on 3 May 1670, to
Lord Burlington. The premium was £300, the
term fifty-six and a half years from Michaelmas
1673, and the rent £25 8s. per annum. (ref. 9) On
the eastern boundary of this part, which was
aligned with the eastern boundary of the site of
Burlington House, Lord Burlington built a brick
wall.
Early in the following year a deed recited, in
respect of the whole property in Kendrick's
tenure, that he had made several leases to various
persons who had begun to build on the land. (ref. 10)
Within the Ten Acres, building was at first
probably limited to the southern part of the area
east of Lord Burlington's wall. This part, containing one acre, three roods and five perches, had
been leased by Kendrick on 22 September 1670, a
few months after the lease to Lord Burlington, to
John Harrison, gentleman, for the same term of
fifty-six and a half years. The premium was £100
and the rent £7 2s. per annum. (ref. 11) From 1672 to
1674 Harrison was rated as a 'landowner' for this
ground which was evidently still largely unbuilt: it
was called 'part of Crabtree ground'. The rest of
'Crabtree ground' was rated to another 'landowner', John Shaw, who must be assumed to have
been a sub-tenant of Lord Burlington's land
immediately north of Burlington House. (ref. 12) Harrison was building more extensively in Mulghay
Close, adjoining Crabtree Field on the east, and in
May 1671 Lord Burlington, concerned at this
building northward and north-eastward of his new
mansion, had obtained a caveat that no licence
should be granted for building over an extensive
area including 'Crabtree Park.' (ref. 13) In September
1671 he and the Earl of Clarendon's son, Lord
Cornbury, complained to the Privy Council of
mean tenements lately erected in this area by
Harrison and others, who were ordered to demolish them by 1 November. (ref. 14) In December
1672, however, Harrison obtained retrospective
licence to continue operations both in Mulghay
Close and Crabtree Field which he had started
before the proclamation against unlicenced building of April 1671. (ref. 15) But the ratebooks suggest
that the building on Harrison's part of Crabtree
Field was confined mainly or entirely to the erection of a substantial house near the present
southern end of Savile Row, which was first
occupied, by Lady Cranburne (Cranborne ?), in
1674. (ref. 12)
A landowner rated for 'Crab-Tree ground'
in 1675 and 1678 was Windsor Sandys who
perhaps carried on some noxious trade here
(see pages 66–7).
Harrison's ground within the Ten Acres
would have stretched about as far north as the
present boundary between Nos. 15 and 16 Savile
Row. The part of the Ten Acres which lay north
of this and east of Lord Burlington's wall was not
leased by Kendrick until 30 March 1676, when
he leased it for 55 years from the preceding Lady
Day to Thomas Wood, cooper, at £27 10s. per
annum. (ref. 16)
A few weeks later Kendrick mortgaged his
leasehold interest in the whole Ten Acres to
Dorothy Balston, spinster, to secure £250. He
died in December of the same year or in January
1676/7. (ref. 17) In February 1677/8 Dorothy and her
husband Leonard Sower(s)by (perhaps a surveyor) (ref. 18) assigned their mortgage to Richard
Borneford of Lincoln's Inn, gentleman, a
creditor of Kendrick's, for £270. (ref. 19) In April 1681
Borneford brought a petition in Chancery
against Kendrick's widow, Alice. This said that
'many houses or small Tenements' had been built
on the Ten Acres 'of late yeares': (ref. 20) these were
probably mainly on the Swallow Street frontage of
the part leased to Wood. (ref. 12) Borneford now
claimed, perhaps with some conventional exaggeration, that 'divers of the said houses or
Tenements are growne soe ruinous and out of
Repaire that those persons who formerly Inhabited them have runne away', and that the
necessary repairs would cost upward of £500. (ref. 20)
In May of the following year, 1682, Alice
Kendrick surrendered her right in the property to
him. (ref. 21) He in turn assigned this leasehold interest
in the Ten Acres, for £393, on 3 March 1682/3
to Lord Burlington. (ref. 22)
Lord Burlington thus acquired leasehold possession of the whole Ten Acres to Lady Day
1732. Eastward of the ground he had held since
1670, however, his interest would seem to have
been subject to the existing leasehold interests of
Harrison and Wood, expiring on Lady Day 1730
and 1731 respectively. The fact that this eastern
part was not begun to be regularly laid into streets
by the third Earl until 1732 indicates that these
interests had not been bought out, but the first
Earl seems nevertheless to have been able to
sponsor some building developments on the more
northerly part leased to Wood, from the late
1680's onwards. To facilitate this, Lord Burlington obtained from Sir Benjamin Maddox in
January 1687/8 release from the restrictions on
ploughing or breaking up the ground of the Ten
Acres, and permission to build on any part. (ref. 23) In the
course of that year a street of houses was built on
the southernmost part of Wood's plot, running
west from Swallow Street, about where New
Burlington Mews is now, and bearing the name
'Burlington Street': when completed, about
1690, it had some eight small houses on each
side. (ref. 24) In 1698 the Government searched for
'dangerous and disaffected persons lying concealed
there.' (ref. 25) At about the same time that Burlington
Street was built another street leading out of
Swallow Street was begun, but not developed, on
the same plot, a little north of the present line of
New Burlington Street: (ref. 24) it was later known as
Benjamin Street.
In 1693–4 complaints were made to the
parish on behalf of Lord Burlington about
saltpetre works and repositories for 'Night
Stuffe' behind his house and garden (see page
67); this was presumably not immediately
north of the house, where Lord Burlington was
himself the lessee.
On 23 March 1695/6 Lord Burlington obtained from Sir Benjamin Maddox a further lease
of the whole Ten Acres, from the expiry of his
existing term in 1732 for twenty-six years until
Lady Day 1758, at the same rent of £40 per
annum. The Earl was required to spend £200 in
building within four years. (ref. 26) Some development
of the more northerly of the two streets begun
about 1688 seems to have followed. (ref. 24)
The first Earl of Burlington died in January
1697/8. He was said to have left his grandson and
successor, Charles, the second Earl, an income of
£22,000 per annum. (ref. 27) The second Earl determined to convert the part of the Ten Acres
immediately north of Burlington House into an
extension of his garden. By March 1698/9 he
had petitioned for letters patent licencing him to
shut up the way lying between this ground and his
existing garden, 'which is a great inconvenience
to him and does obstruct him in his said design.'
He offered to make another way at the northern
end of the intended garden extension. (ref. 28) No letters
patent appear to have been granted and the existence of the roadway, which was perpetuated in
the third Earl's estate layout of c. 1718, had
presumably been uninterrupted: the plan of c.
1710 reproduced on Plate 3b shows Burlington
House garden and the ground beyond joined by
what may have been a footbridge across the roadway. The Knyff-Kip view of c. 1698–9 (Plate
42a) shows no sign of a roadway between the main
garden and its extension but may in this respect
have anticipated an unrealized project. The
creation of the additional garden is, however,
known to have been accomplished. (ref. 29)
The second Earl died in February 1703/4,
leaving as his heir a son aged nine. During the
third Earl's minority the management of his
estate was in the hands of his still youthful
mother, the Countess Juliana. One of the servants of the family appointed to assist her in the
second Earl's will (ref. 30) was Richard Graham, a son
of the first Earl's agent or steward, who was later
to be actively concerned, as the third Earl's
secretary, in the development of the estate.
Graham was to be associated in this with the perhaps more important figure of a lawyer of
Symond's Inn, Jabez Collier, who himself
entered the service of the family through his
employment by the Countess. (ref. 31) On 8 April 1712,
when the third Earl was nearly eighteen and when
the renovation of Burlington House was perhaps
being taken in hand, the Countess obtained for
£268 15s. a further lease of the Ten Acres from
Sir Benjamin Maddox at the same rent. This ran
from the expiry of the existing terms in 1758 for
51 years to Lady Day 1809, and represented the
final term in the estate which the Burlington
family was to obtain. (ref. 32)
Some building or rebuilding was carried on
about this time (but presumably not directly by the
Burlington family) to complete the more northerly
of the two streets begun in 1688. It bore by 1710
the name 'Benjamin Street', doubtless in reference
to the freeholder, (ref. 33) and appears to have been completed between that year and about 1716, when
a Jane Williams who lived in the street petitioned
the Westminster Commissioners for leave to make
a sewer. (ref. 34) The street contained some twenty
small houses, but nothing is known of its character
and, like Burlington Street, it was swept away in
1731–2 to make room for the second phase of the
third Earl's estate development.
The first phase of this had been initiated in
about 1717. Burlington was then twenty-three,
already with some experience of public affairs,
both in parliamentary politics and in more active
duties in the north of England during the troubles
of 1715. (ref. 35) His first Grand Tour was two years
past, and the recent publications by Colin Campbell and Giacomo Leoni had aroused the ardent
neo-Palladianism which was at that moment
finding expression in the re-shaping of Burlington
House. The estate now to be developed
northward of his town mansion was to include significant essays in the application of neo-Palladian
ideals to the London street house. But it is evident that a factor both in the undertaking of the
enterprise and in the manner of its execution was
Burlington's financial embarrassment. He had inherited great estates from his father and greatgrandfather, and when he came to be married to a
co-heiress of the second Marquess of Halifax in
1721, his fortune was reliably said to be £24,000
per annum, exclusive of 'expectations' from his
uncle Lord Carleton. (ref. 36) But much of the family's
property was in Ireland and was perhaps unusually
liable to the vicissitudes of land ownership. (ref. 37)
Burlington's own expensive tastes doubtless added
to his difficulties. It does not seem probable that
his economic resources were ever near exhaustion
but he unquestionably had difficulty from an early
period in discharging his debts out of the funds
readily available to him. His troubles were
probably intensified by the dishonesty of some of
his agents. This led to law suits in Chancery, in
particular against his secretary, Richard Graham,
and his lawyer, Jabez Collier.
Figure 78:
Burlington estate, layout plan. The broken line separates the parts developed under Acts of 1718 (west) and 1734 (east). Based on Horwood's map of 1792 and the Ordnance Survey, 1870–5
Part of the evidence then produced was,
naturally, disputed, but it was agreed that in 1717
the chief management of the 'business' aspect of
Burlington's affairs was in the hands of Graham
and Collier, 'sometimes Joyntly and sometimes
separately'. In that year they represented to him
that his debts amounted to upwards of £23,000. (ref. 38)
The sale of some of Burlington's Irish property
was considered, but Collier suggested that estates
in Ireland and Yorkshire should be leased to him
and Graham in trust to pay the creditors by instalments out of the proceeds, and this was done
in August of that year. (ref. 39) Collier later claimed
Burlington's gratitude for thus preventing the
sale of land in Ireland: Burlington was said to
have declared 'yt next to his father who left him
ye Estate he was obliged to Mr. Collier for saving
it.' (ref. 40)
Probably as a further measure to discharge
Burlington's debts, Collier, as he claimed, proposed
that the part of the Ten Acres which the Burlingtons had kept as a garden should be let on building
leases. (ref. 41) In September 1717 Burlington was in
France (ref. 42) but in the following month the development of the estate was foreshadowed in the
assignment to him by his mother of the final lease
of the Ten Acres from 1758. (ref. 43) In January
1717/18 Burlington submitted a Bill in the
House of Lords to free him from restrictions in his
father's will and to permit him to grant building
leases of the part of the Ten Acres '(containing
between Five and Six Acres) lying behind
Burlington-House Garden, now inclos'd with a
Brick Wall, and used as a Garden'. The Bill
passed through both Houses without amendment
and received the royal assent on 21 March
1717/18. (ref. 44) On this piece of ground were built
Old Burlington Street, Cork Street, Clifford Street,
part of Boyle Street and some houses in New
Bond Street (fn. a) (fig. 78 and tables on pages 546–67).
By the summer the construction of houses had
begun, probably with the southernmost house on
the west side of Old Burlington Street (No. 34).
The first leases to be granted bore dates in March
1718/19, and few granted in this part of the
estate bore dates later than September of that
year, although some were back-dated and the
negotiation of leases was in fact still being undertaken by Graham and Collier in October, when
Burlington was making his second visit to Italy. (ref. 45)
At this time Burlington was evidently satisfied
with his agents. In December 1718 he had
granted an annuity of £200 out of the estate to
Collier for his and his son's life. (ref. 46) Late in 1719
or early in 1720 he gave Graham and Collier
copies by Kneller of his own portrait (ref. 47) and in
1720 he gave Collier £2000 (although it was
disputed whether this was as gift or remuneration). (ref. 48)
It was now represented to Burlington that his
debts continued to accumulate, and Collier suggested that a second trust deed should be executed,
empowering him and Graham to pay certain
creditors instalments of their debts (amounting to
about £12,000) and four per cent interest, out of
the proceeds of the Irish estate and also of the five
or six newly built acres behind Burlington
House. (ref. 38) This was decided on by May 1720, (ref. 49)
and the deed leasing the five or six acres, under
trust, to Graham and Collier for the rest of the
Burlingtons' term was executed on 14 March
1720/21. (ref. 50) (fn. b)
At about this time, on Lady Day 1721, and
again at Michaelmas of the same year, the
ground-rents from most of the sites of the five or
six acres began to be payable, with the expiry of
the two-years' peppercorn terms. The last substantial leases of this part of the estate, for a few
sites in Clifford Street, were dated in March
1723. These were the last leases to be witnessed,
as almost all the previous leases had been, by
Graham and Collier.
For in the course of the next two years Burlington came to believe that his affairs had been
fraudulently mismanaged, and in July 1725 both
Graham and Collier were dismissed. (ref. 41) In Hilary
term 1725/6 he brought a suit in Chancery
against them, the substance of which is given in
the records of a later suit. (ref. 53) His complaints did
not refer directly to their work in letting sites on
the estate, but accused them of 'great Abuses and
Frauds' in their management of his debts and the
obtaining of trustees' interests in his estate behind
Burlington House. He claimed that they had
exaggerated his debts and failed to discharge them
to the extent that the available funds permitted, in
order to keep these trust interests in being. They
had also failed to scrutinize conscientiously bills
submitted by workmen and tradespeople. Collier
in particular was accused of surreptitiously inducing creditors to make over their debts to him,
acquiring some £1420 worth of debts for £1190.
He was also said to have submitted unjustifiable
bills for his legal services. The accuracy and
honesty of an account book of Graham's and
Collier's disbursements down to July 1722, now
preserved at Chatsworth, was challenged by
Burlington, although he had signed and accepted
it without, as he said, reading the entries. His
complaint mentioned the 'great Sums of Money,
Presents and Advantages' which Collier had
received in the course of drawing up leases: a later
suit against Collier's widow specified the sums of
five or six guineas said to have been received by
him for each lease on the estate behind Burlington
House. Collier admitted that he had bought out
some of the creditors without allowing his own
name to appear but claimed that this was because
they were 'very Clamorous' and threatened to
bring suits against Burlington: the secrecy was
necessary to prevent other creditors learning that
some debts had been compounded. He denied
receiving gratuities for making out the leases, although it is known from other sources that for one
site, that of the girls' charity school, he was paid a
fee of £10 18s. 6d. by the lessees, who also paid
him and Graham twenty guineas as 'Gratification'
for their services. (ref. 54) Graham denied that he or
Collier was responsible for scrutinizing workmen's
or tradesmen's bills. Whether rightly or wrongly,
however, they had in fact been doing so in
1719, in respect of a bill for Burlington House,
and had criticized Colin Campbell's laxity as
supervising architect in this matter. (ref. 55) In general,
Graham and Collier denied the charge of exaggerating Burlington's debts, and argued that their
accounts already accepted by him should not be
'ravelled into'.
For the time being Burlington did not bring
the dispute to an issue. This period, between the
completion of the estate on the five or six acres
and the commencement of the more easterly
streets, does, however, seem to have been one of
some reorganization or settlement in his affairs.
The creditors whose debts had been provided for
in the first trust deed of 1717 had probably been
paid off, (ref. 41) an 'overdraft' at Hoare's bank seems to
have been settled in March 1725/6 (ref. 56) and about
this time some £23,600 which Burlington had
borrowed from the bank between 1722 and 1724
was repaid. (ref. 57) A single payment of £250 was
made to Colin Campbell on 31 March 1726. (ref. 58)
By the summer of 1726 Collier's brother John,
who had been Burlington's agent in Yorkshire,
had also been dismissed and Burlington brought
a Chancery suit against him for depredations on
the estate. (ref. 59) In October Burlington was in
France. (ref. 60)
On 25 March 1727 Burlington mortgaged the
Ten Acres, with other property at Chiswick, to
Peter Walter of St. Margaret's, Westminster,
esquire, to secure £15,000 (ref. 61) and in May mortgaged lands in Ireland to him to secure a further
£9000. (ref. 62) In June 1730 these mortgages were
assigned to three merchants, Delillers Carbonell,
William Snelling and H. S. Eyre. (ref. 63)
On Lady Day 1730 and Lady Day 1731
Kendrick's leases of the southern and northern
sections of the eastern part of the Ten Acres expired, and it was probably this which now permitted new building. As has been seen, the
ground had to be cleared of some previous development, including the substantial house with its
garden at the southern end, other plots probably
occupied as market gardens, (ref. 64) and perhaps some
fifty small houses and stable yards in Burlington
and Benjamin Streets and the intervening stretch
of Swallow Street. (ref. 24) On this area were built
Savile Row and New Burlington Street and some
houses in Swallow Street. The first two leases, of
sites at the southern end of Savile Row, were dated
in March 1731/2. In July 1732 Burlington
obtained leave from the Westminster Commissioners to make sewers for his new buildings. (ref. 65)
The leases of the rest of the sites in Savile Row
were dated between the summer of 1733 and the
early months of 1734 and at the same time leases
were made of sites in Swallow Street, for rebuilding. It was not, however, until 22 February
1733/4, when Savile Row was partly built, that
Burlington brought a Bill into the House of Lords
to authorize his building leases of this part of the
Ten Acres: it was described as 'supplying an
Omission' in the Act of 1718. Like the earlier
Bill it passed quickly through both Houses without amendment and received the royal assent on
16 April 1734. (ref. 66) At this time the rents from the
small houses in Swallow Street began to be payable.
In the autumn the leases of the rather expensive
sites in New Burlington Street began to be made.
In 1735 the building of Savile Row was completed
and the rents began to come in, followed in 1736
and 1737 by the somewhat higher rents from New
Burlington Street. In the meantime Burlington's
dispute with his agents had been revived in Chancery. (ref. 67) In August 1731 some steps had been
taken towards arbitration (ref. 68) but this had not come
to an issue before Collier's death in March 1731/2.
His widow brought a suit against Burlington in
July 1732 alleging the non-payment of debts and
professional remuneration (ref. 41) and in October
Burlington revived his suit with renewed complaints of fraud. (ref. 68) In October 1734 an Order of
the Court was obtained. (ref. 69) This upheld the right
of Collier and his son to the annuity of £200 out
of the trust estate, and ordered that no steps should
be taken to 'unravel' the accounts already signed
and accepted by Burlington. The £2000 paid by
him to Collier in 1720 was to be taken as full
recompense for the latter's services up to March
1720/21. A Master in Chancery was appointed
to investigate the authenticity of the alleged debts
which the trust estates vested in Graham and
Collier had been intended to discharge. The
result of the investigation is not known, but in
August 1737 an accommodation was being proposed between the parties. (ref. 70)
Burlington had in the meantime, early in 1736,
dismissed another agent who had latterly been
concerned in the management of the estate,
Andrew Crotty, (ref. 71) and in April 1736 a relation of
the Countess mentioned Burlington's 'debts and
difficulties' when speaking of the financial embarrassments of the nobility. (ref. 72) Dislike of the
Countess for her supposed mischief-making may
have sharpened this comment, but other references
in December 1737 and March 1737, 8 speak of
Burlington's financial difficulties and the dishonesty of agents in Ireland. He was then selling
estates there to pay debts which were said variously to amount to £169,000 (ref. 73) or more than
£200,000. (ref. 74)
By this time the Ten Acres estate was almost
fully developed, and it is not necessary to follow
the course of Burlington's estate dealing through
the less active years that followed, overshadowed
as they may have been by the disastrous marriage
of his daughter Dorothy to Lord Euston in 1741
and the illness which by 1745 shows in his palsied
handwriting. In 1740 Richard Graham, as survivor of the two trustees of the five or six acres
appointed in 1721, had made over his interest in
the property to Sir William Abdy, representing
the Burlington family, (ref. 75) and in March 1747/8
Burlington assigned all his leasehold interest in the
Ten Acres to the Marquess of Hartington, later
fourth Duke of Devonshire, on the occasion of the
latter's marriage to Burlington's daughter, Charlotte. (ref. 76) On Burlington's death in December
1753, aged 59, and that of the Countess in 1758,
the Burlington estate passed to their grandson,
later fifth Duke of Devonshire. (ref. 77)
Before touching briefly on the later history of
the estate some aspects of Burlington's development of the Ten Acres estate may be mentioned.
It seems clear that the estate was developed (as
might have been expected) with a purposeful
regard to the revenue to be derived from it, and
this no doubt affected its visual character in some
parts. But within the limits imposed by this
general consideration and by the comparatively
small area available, a regard for amenity is
apparent (again as might be expected).
In 1718 the southern boundary of the Ten
Acres abutted on the already existing narrow
roadway of Vigo Lane (now Burlington Gardens
and Vigo Street). The southern building line was
set back some fifteen feet from this boundary, although the favoured first lessees on each side of the
southern end of Old Burlington Street were given
plots extending southward of their houses. One
of these, the Duke of Queensberry, subsequently
made a walled enclosure projecting southward, to
the east of his house, to keep carriages turning
into Savile Row at a distance from his front door.
The southern part of the roadway belonged to
the Pulteney estate. In 1725 the Duke of
Queensberry took on lease from William Pulteney
a strip of ground 400 feet long, on the south side
of the roadway, bordering the whole of the
Burlington House and Sunderland House sites,
perhaps to ensure the preservation of the full
width of roadway before his house. (ref. 78)
In the setting-out of the streets no particular
symmetry or large effect was attempted in respect
of the garden front of Burlington House. One
partly deliberate characteristic of the layout may,
however, be noted. The limitation of space
tended to the conspicuous closing of each street by
a cross street. No effort was made to avoid this,
perhaps because it permitted each vista to be closed
with neatness and effect. Pains were in fact
evidently taken, by the adjustment of sites or the
direct control of design, that each of the streets
should be closed decently by the symmetrical
positioning of some architectural feature. The
views up Cork Street, Old Burlington Street
and Savile Row were closed respectively by the
articulated front of No. 8 Clifford Street, the
centrally placed Burlingtonian doorcase of the
girls' school, and the pedimented Burlingtonian
façade of the former No. 22–23 Savile Row. The
view westward along New Burlington Street was
filled by the one large house on the west side of
Savile Row, and that eastward along Clifford
Street centred on a grouping of doorways and
obelisks on the east side of Savile Row. Looking
eastward along Vigo Lane (now Burlington
Gardens) from Bond Street the eye was taken by
the pedimented front, of Burlingtonian design, at
No. 1 Savile Row. (fn. c)
The closing of each street by a cross street was
perhaps the more welcome as it preserved some
immunity from through traffic. Lord Burlington's streets are still a little secluded, and were
more so before three changes in the layout: the
creation of the Burlington Arcade in 1817–19,
the opening and widening of the eastern end of
Burlington Gardens (previously constricted by
bollards) in 1893–4, (ref. 81) and the extension of Savile
Row to Mill Street and Conduit Street, in
1937–8. Despite a generally economical layout
an element of spaciousness was introduced in 1718,
and maintained in 1733, by carrying the sites
fronting both sides of Old Burlington Street back
to more-or-less unbuilt frontages on Cork Street
and Savile Row. The surprisingly low buildings
only now being replaced by larger structures on
the west side of the latter street still partially
preserve this pleasing openness. The proximity of
New Bond Street has caused Cork Street to lose
this character, but Horwood's maps of 1792 and
1819 (Plate 7) show a line of trees down its
partly unbuilt eastern side. (fn. d)
On so small an estate it was unnecessary to
provide the market often found on London
estates at this time. The more northerly parts
seem, however, to have been from the first
designed for mainly humbler occupation than the
rest of the estate, particularly in Swallow Street,
where a brewhouse was built. One or two builders
occupied sites here, and other sites (like one or two
adjacent to New Bond Street) may have been held
by shop-keepers.
In the first phase of building, variations in the
visual character of the estate seem to have been as
much influenced by relative proximity to Burlington House, and by the need to dispose of sites and
houses without too much delay, as by any continuous development in Burlington's conception
of the ideal street house. The construction of
houses began at the south-west end of Old Burlington Street, on the west side of Cork Street and
southern end of New Bond Street, and at the
western end of Clifford Street. Of these, the
regular terrace of houses in Old Burlington
Street built under the supervision of Colin
Campbell represented perhaps the most influential
application of neo-Palladian principles to the
terrace house on the estate, whereas the houses on
the west side of Cork Street received no uniform
treatment. The completion of the streets built in
this first stage took some six years. Where
Burlington could insist on the lessees' compliance
with his wishes, as in the building of the girls'
charity school, the exterior was of a Burlingtonian character. But a number of houses of
unremarkable appearance went up in Old
Burlington Street. Rather more idiosyncratic
houses, of a somewhat Baroque character, were
built at the northern end of the estate in Clifford
Street: Thornhill was probably employed by
lessees here to paint interiors in 1722, at a time
when Burlington was actively hostile to him.
Two important houses of Burlington's own designing occupied broad frontages immediately north of
the completed Campbell group in Old Burlington
Street. The last houses to be built in this period
were on the south side of Clifford Street. (fn. e) They
were of a good, plain, builder's character, without
architectural sophistication. That at the time of
the leasing of these last sites to building tradesmen
in 1723 Burlington was willing to make concessions to get the streets finished is perhaps reflected
in his allowance of the unusually long term of
four years' peppercorn rent to some of the lessees.
When the eastern part of the estate came to be
developed in the 1730's a much greater uniformity
was achieved in the façades. It was reported at the
time Savile Row was commenced that it was 'to
be carry'd on ... by a Plan drawn by the Right
Hon. the Earl of Burlington'. (ref. 82) The overall control here implied was presumably secured by means
of a greater strictness and regularity in the articles
of agreement concluded between Burlington and
the intending builder, though none of these is
known to survive for any of the dwelling houses on
the estate. The actual building leases granted in the
two later residential streets did not, except for one
or two sites, include direct provision regarding the
design of the façade, but they did normally contain a provision, not present in the earlier leases,
that the façade should not be altered without
permission. There was provision that no 'window
stool' should project nor any 'Bulk, Shew board,
Stall or other Erection' be erected in front of the
houses, while the requirements regarding paving
and railings before the houses were more specific
than previously. The footway, five feet wide, was
to be paved with 'broad Purbeck stones bound by a
Purbeck step six inches thick next the street' which
was to be laid with 'rag stones or good pebbles.'
At the outer edge of the footway 'good and substantial posts of oak' were to be set up. (ref. 83) Macky
had already observed of the earlier streets, in
1723, that they were 'finely pav'd.' (ref. 84) In Savile
Row there was careful provision that the unbuilt
west side should not become a disorderly line of
back buildings belonging to the houses in Old
Burlington Street. Neither the street wall nor the
buildings erected on the street frontage were to be
more than fourteen feet high and it was specifically
required that any gateways should be of a design
provided by Burlington. (ref. 85) In this second phase of
development subsidiary structures on street
frontages, like the carpenter's one-storeyed
buildings erected at No. 29 Savile Row and No. 1
Clifford Street behind his own dwelling house, or
the office-wing at No. 10 New Burlington Street,
were perhaps felt to need more specific control by
Burlington than the dwelling houses themselves.
It is not possible to say much with certainty
of the identity of architects associated with
Burlington in the exercise of this control. At the
commencement of building, Colin Campbell was
responsible for the important group of houses,
Nos. 31–34 Old Burlington Street, built between
1718 and 1723, and provided a 'draft', probably of
Burlington's designing, for the front of the girls'
charity school, the building of which he supervised in 1719–21. After this period he is not
known to have been connected with the estate,
although, as noted above, he received a payment of
£250 from Burlington in 1726. He had a lease of
one of the Old Burlington Street houses (No. 32)
but did not live there: unlike Kent, he was not
granted any remission of rent. At his death he
lived (as did Burlington's protégé, Handel) in
Brook Street, on the Grosvenor estate. At this
first period of building Giacomo Leoni figures as
architect of one very notable building, Queensberry House. He claimed Burlington's approba
tion of the design in 1721 but was probably
independently engaged by the first intending
occupant, John Bligh (later the Earl of Darnley).
Leoni's associate in the edition of Palladio published in 1716–20, the architect and surveyor
Nicholas Dubois, was probably concerned with
Nos. 4 and 7 Cork Street and Nos. 26–28 Old
Burlington Street in 1720–22 and himself lived at
No. 15 in the latter street in c. 1726–9. In the
streets built in the second phase of development,
in the 1730's, there is no evidence of architectural control of exteriors other than by Burlington himself or his immediate dependants. His
protégé, Henry Flitcroft, who had made finished
drawings of his designs for Nos. 29 and 30 Old
Burlington Street, may have been involved in the
design of the terrace houses in Savile Row and
New Burlington Street, where he had a mortgage
interest in four sites. But the only name definitely
known in the supervision of design here is that of
Burlington's 'personal clerk of the works', (ref. 86)
Daniel Garrett, who was required to approve the
street elevation of a subsidiary building at No. 10
New Burlington Street. Thomas Ripley occurs
as mortgagee of some sites in Swallow Street in
1744 and 1746, (ref. 87) but nothing is otherwise known
of any connexion with the estate. The part played
by William Kent is difficult to determine. The
two pedimented houses in Savile Row, Nos. 1 and
22–3, might stylistically be associated with him
or with Burlington himself. The former house
was adjacent to and probably designed in conjunction with the house Kent held rent-free from
Burlington. He seems normally to have let this
latter house (No. 2) at £100 per annum, (ref. 88) and
does not appear as occupant in the ratebooks. But
his will of 1743 (ref. 89) mentions possessions distributed
in specified rooms which seem more likely to be
in a private house, perhaps that in Savile Row,
than in his apartments at Burlington House.
Kent is known to have been responsible for
interiors at Nos. 32 and 34 Old Burlington
Street. The Earl of Pembroke and Roger
Morris may have had some hand in the design of
the interior of No. 15 Savile Row for the Countess
of Suffolk in 1735–6. Thornhill's probable
earlier employment as decorative painter in
Clifford Street has been noted. Another artist
outside the Burlingtonian circle, the architect
Nicholas Hawksmoor, designed the interior of
No. 5 New Burlington Street in 1735.
The building tradesmen who took leases of
sites for building on the estate numbered thirtyeight. One had an address in Holborn; the rest
were all of Westminster, and about half of these
were from St. James's. The occasional lack of
correspondence between the physical units of
building and the grouping of lessees' sites suggests
that the work was, as was usual, shared between
teams of builders. On the south side of Clifford
Street and the northern end of Cork Street and Old
Burlington Street, for example, four builders—
Benjamin Timbrell, Joseph Stallwood, Williams
Ludbey and William Pickering (carpenter, bricklayer, mason and painter respectively)—handled
a block of ten houses in 1719–23. The first two
of these occur prominently in the streets of the
first development and Timbrell also in the later
streets. The builder of Queensberry House,
John Witt, also seems to have been a man of
some prominence. The joiner or carpenter,
Thomas Knight, who lived in Old Burlington
Street (moving thither from Vine Street), (ref. 90) was
active in both phases and in 1723 was dignified
with the title of 'master builder'. (ref. 91) The trade of
speculative lessee had its financial hazards, however, and by February 1736/7 he was bankrupt
(see page 491). In the last street to be developed,
New Burlington Street, most of the leases were
made to William Gray and Richard Fortnam,
both bricklayers of St. George's, Hanover Square,
and presumably partners. These were evidently
substantial men, and in 1742 a Benjamin Pujolas
described himself as 'clerk to Mr. Fortnam'. (ref. 92) In
Savile Row almost every site in the uniform row
north of Nos. 1 and 2 was leased to or associated
with a different builder, representing a variety of
trades and perhaps constituting a team of workmen for the terrace as a whole (see pages 546–67).
Of the thirty-eight tradesmen-lessees, some
fourteen appear as subscribers to the architectural
publications of Leoni, Gibbs, Kent or Ware (including nine of the nineteen in Savile Row) although none had subscribed to the expensive
volumes of Campbell's Vitruvius Britannicus.
Timbrell subscribed between 1718 and 1728 to
Leoni's Palladio (Book III) and Alberti, Kent's
Inigo Jones and Gibbs's Book of Architecture.
A number of builders' merchants occur as mortgagees of leases from builders or in other contexts
that suggest they provided the materials of which
the estate was built. They are: Arthur Bilbey
of St. Marylebone, brickmaker, (ref. 93) Nicholas Blick
of Lambeth, timber merchant, (ref. 94) Bartholomew
Hammond of St. Clement Danes, timber merchant, (ref. 95) John Mackreth of St. John's, Westminster, lime merchant, (ref. 96) Caleb and Thomas
Miller of Hammersmith, brickmakers, (ref. 97) Leonard
Phillips of Scotland Yard, timber merchant, (ref. 98) and
Peter Theobald of Lambeth, timber merchant. (ref. 99)
The method of disposing of sites on the estate
does not seem to present any unusual features.
There is evidence that the first step towards
building, after the intended street layout had been
decided, was an agreement between Burlington
and a building tradesman, by which the former
would have undertaken to grant a building lease
and the latter to build according to specifications.
The stringency of these is not known as none of
the agreements are recorded in any detail. The
period that elapsed between the date of the agreement and of the building lease varied from a few
weeks in the early-built Cork Street to about six
months in Savile Row and from six months to
three years in New Burlington Street. The dates
of signing and the commencement date of the
term of leases were to a large extent rationalized in
the various streets: there is evidence that the day of
signing was often back-dated. Some few records
survive of the agreement subsequently concluded
for the finishing of the house between the builder
and the intending occupant. Whether the building
lease was in the end made to the former or the
latter (on payment of a sum to the builder for
'procuring' the lease to be made by Burlington and
for the transference of his interest in the site)
perhaps depended simply on the builder's success in
finding a prospective tenant. On the streets built
in the first phase of development a little more than
half of the sites were leased to the builder. Of the
sites in the later development about three-quarters
were leased to the builder: in New Burlington
Street the builders who had been parties to the
initial agreement with Burlington were made
parties with him in the building leases to the
intending occupants. The leases were for 61
years in the earlier streets and for 62 in the later.
The initial rent-free period of the lease, to cover
the building period, was almost universally two
years, except for some sites on the south side of
Clifford Street, at the end of the first phase of
development, where it was four years.
Before the assignment of the building leases to
the intending occupants they were often mortgaged by the building tradesmen. The sum so
secured was often £1000 or £1500.
Despite the evident co-operation of building
lessees in the work of construction it is clear that
neither in the earlier nor in the later and more
uniform phase of building was the least attempt
made to standardize the width of sites leased to
them. The admired façade-composition of
Campbell's terrace in Old Burlington Street, for
example, accommodated differences of site-width
by varying the spaces between, as well as the
numbers of, the windows, and the same was true
of Savile Row and New Burlington Street.
So far as can be deduced from the ratebooks, the
houses were not very quickly occupied on completion. In the streets developed in the first phase
perhaps half the houses were taken soon after
completion, but some evidently waited three or
four years for an occupant: this does not seem to
have been unusual on comparable estates in the
West End. Savile Row appears to have been more
successful, but some of the houses in New Burlington Street, particularly at the Swallow Street end
near a brewhouse, may have stood five or six years
without a tenant: this again is not very different
from the history of the Argyll estate at the same
period of the late 1730's. Fashion was moving
further west.
The rents which Burlington asked for sites
built upon in the first phase of development seem
to have been calculated predominantly at a rate of
one shilling per foot frontage for every ten feet of
depth. The average rate per foot frontage was
about 8s. 3d. and 9s. 6d. in Cork and Clifford
Streets respectively, and about 7s. 1d. and 12s. 9d.
on the east and west sides of Old Burlington
Street. In the second phase the rents were at a
rate of about 12s. per foot frontage in Savile Row
(as at No. 15) (ref. 100) and of about 15s. and 16s. on the
south (ref. 101) and north (ref. 102) sides of New Burlington
Street respectively: in these two streets the rates
were observed without regard to the site-depths
although the considerable extent of these,
particularly in New Burlington Street, may have
contributed to the rather high level of the rents.
Nothing is known of premiums exacted by
Burlington of his first lessees. When he granted a
new lease of No. 6 Clifford Street in 1734 on the
same terms as the original lease fifteen years
earlier he required a 200 guineas fine. Nor is
there more than fragmentary evidence about the
likely total cost of a house to the occupant. For
only four sites is the sum the intending occupant
paid for the assignment of the lease and the 'finishing' of the house known. At Queensberry House,
with its 70-foot frontage, the cost in 1722 was
£6300; at No. 30 Old Burlington Street (57-foot
frontage) the cost in 1725 was £3351 (of which
£1151 was for 'finishing'); at No. 6 Clifford
Street (36-foot frontage) the cost in 1720 was
£3000 (of which £800 was for 'finishing'); and
at No. 15 Savile Row (26-foot frontage) the cost
in 1735 was £2500. At No. 1 Savile Row the
lessee undertook in 1732 to spend at least
£1800 on constructing the house. At No. 5 New
Burlington Street in 1735 the contract for
'finishing' alone amounted to £1578. For eight
other houses the cost of the assignment of the lease
alone is recorded in the registered deed of assignment. The apparent purchase price may in some
cases be distorted by intervening mortgages, but
seems to range from £750–£800 for 21-foot
frontages to about £1900 for 35-foot frontages
and upward. (ref. 103)
When the first phase of the development was
nearing completion in 1723 Macky had noticed
the 'three noble Streets finely pav'd; the Houses
balustraded with Iron, and few of them under a
hundred Pounds a Year Rent, most of them
more …'. (ref. 84)
These figures indicate the level of wealth and
consequence of the first occupants. In the main
residential streets they were predominantly people
of substance, although not uniformly of the highest
rank. A notable number were 'gentlewomen',
many of them widows. Some were the relicts of
military men, and another feature of the estate,
particularly in the early streets, is the occurrence
among the first residents of army officers whom
success and survival had enabled to take houses in
this fashionable quarter. A few were of great
distinction, notably Wade, Ligonier and Gorges.
Each of the main residential streets had its quota
of noblemen, but the 'typical' first occupant was
perhaps more likely to be a Whiggish M.P. or
successful placeman, in either case professing some
interest in the arts. Burlington's own circle was
represented among the first or early residents,
although few of his proteges seem to have taken
houses here: the painter Goupy was perhaps the
only one to do so, at the northern end of Savile
Row. Pope considered but decided against taking
a house, although his friends Erasmus Lewis,
Doctor Arbuthnot and Charles Dartiquenave had
houses here. Two wine merchants had houses on
the estate. The only architect who is certainly
known to have been among early residents is
Nicholas Dubois. About a third of the first
occupants can be recognized among subscribers to
the main architectural publications of the years
1715–38 (see tables on pages 546–67).
The prosperity of the residents is demonstrated
by their attempt in 1736 to obtain independence
from the parish in the appointment and payment
of watchmen. The residents in St. James's
Square had obtained this power a few years earlier
but the less aristocratic 'Burlington Garden
Gentlemen' were unsuccessful in their attempt to
gain this privilege for their 'precinct'. (ref. 104)
Once occupied, comparatively few of the houses
seem to have changed hands very soon and a
considerable proportion of the first occupants lived
out their lives in the houses they had taken here.
Whether the estate in its final form was satisfactory to its owner cannot be said: such few letters
as survive contain no general references to the
estate. The immediate monetary remuneration
from any 'premiums' on leases is also unknown. (fn. f)
The yearly income from the 145 sites or so can,
however, be estimated approximately. That from
the streets built in the first phase amounted (as
was suggested during Burlington's Chancery
suits) (ref. 105) to something like £885, and that from
the later streets to some £915. The total revenue
from the estate was thus about £1800 per annum
plus small sums for unbuilt back plots, amounting
in all to about £1810 per annum. (ref. 106) When the
leases in the first streets expired in 1780 the
'improved' rents at which they were renewed by
the fifth Duke of Devonshire brought the total
annual revenue to some £6490, and when the
later leases were renewed in the 1790's the annual
value of the estate was increased to something like
£10,400. (ref. 107)
The Duke of Devonshire's leases had been
made by authority of a private Act of Parliament
obtained by the fifth Duke, which received the
royal assent on 3 June 1772. (ref. 108) Two years
before, the Duke's architect, James Paine, had
been asked to advise whether the family's leasehold
interest in the estate should be retained or sold,
'many of his Grace's tenants being desirous as to
their own houses to purchase the same'. (ref. 109)
Careful plans and rentals were prepared at about
this time. (ref. 110) Paine's advice is not known, but
was presumably in favour of retention. The
Act stated that on the expiry of Burlington's
leases the Duke would be obliged to spend
more on the repair of the property than his
remaining term to 1809 would justify, but
that many of the then lessees would be willing
to carry out the necessary repairs if they could be
granted reversionary leases which the existing
trusts under which the Duke held the estate did
not then permit.
The great majority of the leases granted in the
next two decades contained a provision for the
lessee's expenditure of a stated sum, usually in
the first year of the new term. In this way a total
sum of about £24,100 was undertaken to be spent
on the estate. The highest single expenditure required seems to have been £550, by the lessee of
Kent's old property at No. 2 Savile Row: excluding the dozen houses for which no specific
expenditure was required the average sum was
just under £200.
By 1796 the freeholds of a third or so of the
sites in the main residential streets had been bought
from the ground landlords, the Pollen family
(the heirs of Sir Benjamin Maddox), mostly by
occupants. (ref. 111)
The ending of the Burlington-Devonshire
leasehold interest at Lady Day 1809 does not
seem to have had any perceptible effect on the
estate. About 1820 the east side of Cork Street
began to be redeveloped (perhaps in consequence
of the making of Burlington Arcade), with the
replacement of the back buildings of the Old
Burlington Street houses. Mayhew's parish map
of 1831–6 (ref. 112) shows nine of the eleven frontages
occupied, mostly by buildings of more than two
storeys. The west side of Savile Row seems to
have been redeveloped a little later and less
extensively: Mayhew shows eight of twelve
frontages built upon, but none with erections more
than two storeys high.
The building of Regent Street involved alterations in about 1821–2 to the Burlington houses in
Swallow Street. It seems that some at least may
not have been completely rebuilt, but only extended forward to the new frontage. (ref. 113)
In the meantime the social character of the
estate had begun to develop some of its nineteenthcentury characteristics. For many years it was
the chief centre of residence for the medical
profession. When newly built it had housed some
notable physicians, John Arbuthnot, Paul Buissière
(both in Cork Street) and Simon Burton (in Savile
Row). In the 1760's and 1770's more doctors of
eminence began to take up residence here, (Sir)
Noah Thomas, George III's physician, being
perhaps the first, at No. 9 Old Burlington Street
in 1761, followed by Mark Akenside (1762) and
John Gunning (1768) in the same street and
Doctor Addington, Lord Sidmouth's father, in
Clifford Street (1762). Dentists occupied No. 2
Old Burlington Street from 1777, and about
1784–5 there were two or three apothecaries in
the same street.
The class of occupant with which the streets of
the estate are now associated appeared rather later,
at the end of the eighteenth or beginning of the
nineteenth centuries, when tailors began to take
premises here, principally in Cork Street. One of
the first was probably John Levick, at No. 9 in
that street from about 1790. The successful and
fashionable tailor George Stulz was at No. 10
Clifford Street from 1809. A trade directory of
1828 (ref. 114) mentions nine tailors in Cork Street, four
in Clifford Street, three or four in Old Burlington
Street and three or four in Savile Row. There had
been a tailor in this last street, towards the
northern end, since 1806, but its fame in this
connexion dates from the mid nineteenth century.
By the end of the eighteenth century the preponderantly private occupation of the estate was
also being modified by the conversion of some
houses into lodgings. In 1793 the rates were
specifically paid on eight sites 'for tenants'. John
Riley, an upholsterer by trade, was rated for four
of these, and for four others no doubt used by him
in the same way at about this time. The beginning
of the nineteenth century saw the establishment of
some well known private hotels, particularly in
the parts adjacent to New Bond Street. Stevens',
Nerot's and Long's hotels appear at the western
end of Clifford Street between 1801 and 1813.
Atkinson Morley's Burlington Hotel, between
Old Burlington and Cork Streets, established in
1825, and Almond's Hotel in Clifford Street,
established in 1845, both survived until the
1930's.
In about 1850 only a little over a quarter of the
residents on the estate seem to have been private
individuals. About the same proportion were
doctors or dentists, and about a fifth were tailors. (ref. 115)
In 1862 there was a proposal to convert the
ground along the northern boundary of the estate
into a Royal Arcade, running between Regent
Street and New Bond Street. (ref. 116) It was to be thirty
feet wide, of three storeys (ref. 117) with art galleries
in the top storeys. (ref. 118) The cost was estimated
at £290,000. (ref. 119) The design, by C. B. (or E. B.)
Richards, was shown at the Architectural Exhibition in Conduit Street in April 1864, when
The Builder commented that there was 'not much
art' in it. (ref. 117) By then, however, opposition in the
parish had caused the Parliamentary Bill authorizing its construction to be rejected in the House of
Lords, in February of that year, 'at the instance of
Lord Derby.' (ref. 120)
In the later nineteenth century the streets on
the estate were generally thought of as dull and
gloomy, and when the London University building came to be opened on the south side of Burlington Gardens in 1870 the existence of Lord
Burlington's streets northward was regretted as an
obstruction to the view of Pennethorne's façade. (ref. 121)
Occupation of the houses by doctors perhaps helped
to preserve from alteration at this time streets
which outsiders found funereal of aspect. A
tailor taking a lease of a house in Cork Street in
1867 was required not to put in a shop window
but keep the front like that of a private house. But
when a doctor's occupation of No. 7 Old Burlington Street came to an end and it was converted
into separate tenures in 1883 the front was rebuilt by J. T. Wimperis in a style that set the
neighbouring terrace houses at defiance.
At this time houses were increasingly being
converted into separate occupation for business
purposes. By 1881–2 medical men (among
whom dentists figured more prominently than
before) were about a sixth of the whole, and
tailors a little less. Solicitors' offices and hotels or
lodging-houses were increased in number. Clubs
and societies had also taken premises here, including the Royal Geographical Society and the
Savile Club, which had been at Nos. 1 and 15
Savile Row respectively since 1871. The area
never, however, became established as a home for
clubs, and only one of note now occupies premises
here, Buck's Club at No. 18 Clifford Street,
founded after the 1914–18 war.
The wider opening of Vigo Street in 1893–4
and the extension of Savile Row in 1937–8 have
already been noticed. The latter was accompanied by extensive reconstruction of the northern
part of the estate, in Savile Row, Boyle Street and
New Burlington Street, by which much of interest was destroyed, often without record. The
years immediately before the 1939–45 war saw
the demolition of Burlington's girls' school in
Boyle Street and of houses, some designed by
Burlington, in Old Burlington Street and Cork
Street: in the latter street no buildings of Burlington's period survive.
Of Burlington's own designing only the narrow
street face of a party wall between Nos. 30 and 31
Old Burlington Street remains.
A Building Preservation Order made by the
London County Council has been confirmed by
the Minister of Housing and Local Government
on No. 9 Clifford Street in 1956.
The buildings on the estate, whether the few
original houses or office blocks, are now largely in
divided occupation. Many tailors remain but they
are now outnumbered by textile wholesalers. No
doctors or dentists occupy premises in the area.
The present types of occupation are very miscellaneous, and the western parts particularly
reflect their proximity to New Bond Street.