CHAPTER I
The Acquisition of the Estate
For three hundred years the Grosvenor family has owned
large estates in what are now some of the most valuable
parts of Westminster. These estates were acquired in
1677 through the marriage of Sir Thomas Grosvenor
with Mary Davies, the infant daughter and heiress of a
scrivener in the City of London. In the process of time
Mary Davies's inheritance was developed for building,
and the Grosvenors became the richest urban landlords
in the country, the lustre of their name—for long synonymous with wealth and fashion—being gilded by successive
advancements in the peerage, culminating in the dukedom
of Westminster in 1874. Today the bulk of that inheritance
is still, despite the sale of some of the less select parts,
enjoyed by her descendants, and is now administered by
the Grosvenor Estate Trustees.
The marriage portion which the guardians of the
twelve-year-old Mary Davies were able to offer the young
Cheshire baronet Sir Thomas Grosvenor in 1677 consisted of some five hundred acres of land, mostly meadow
and pasture, a short distance from the western fringes of
built-up London. Not all of this was to be available in
immediate possession and the income from the land was
at that time relatively small, but its potential for future
wealth was realized even then. The area with which this
volume is particularly concerned was only a part of that
vast holding, approximately one hundred acres in extent
and sometimes called in early deeds The Hundred
Acres, (ref. 1) lying south of Oxford Street and east of Park
Lane. With only minor exceptions this part of Mary
Davies's heritage has remained virtually intact to the
present day and forms the Grosvenor estate in Mayfair.
The history of the ownership of this land before it came
into the possession of the Grosvenor family is, however,
best told as part of the history of the larger holding which
the third baronet acquired on his marriage. To a considerable extent this story, and that of the personalities
involved in it, have been recounted in the two volumes
by Charles Gatty entitled Mary Davies and the Manor of
Ebury and only a brief outline will be attempted here.
The Manor of Ebury
Most of the London estates which now belong or have
belonged to the Grosvenor family—and all of that with
which this volume is concerned- once formed part of the
manor called Eia in the Domesday survey but later known
as Eye, from which Eybury or Ebury derives. Although
the manor's original bounds have not been determined
with certainty it probably occupied the territory between
the Roman road along the present course of Bayswater
Road and Oxford Street on the north, the Thames on the
south, the Westbourne river on the west, and the Tyburn,
which was also known as Eye or Ay(e) Brook, on the east. (ref. 2)
Even these relatively straight forward bounds are difficult
to define because these tributaries tended both to change
course and to have more than one outlet to the Thames.
In the case of the Tyburn the westernmost of several
channels, perhaps originally little more than a drainage
ditch, seems to have formed the eastern boundary of the
manor in its southern part.
After the Norman Conquest Geoffrey de Mandeville
obtained possession of the manor, one of many which he
took in reward for his services in the Conqueror's cause.
Before the end of William's reign de Mandeville had given
the manor to the Abbey of Westminster and it remained
in the Abbey's ownership until 1536 when it was acquired
by Henry VIII. (ref. 3) During this long period two areas came
to be distinguished from the main manor, but although
sometimes termed manors it is doubtful whether they
had entirely separate jurisdictions. (ref. 4) The areas were Hyde
in the north-west corner, now incorporated into Hyde
Park, and Neyte or Neat(e) in the heart of the district
later known as Pimlico. The so-called manor or bailiwick
of Neat presents particular problems. In seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century title deeds the estate belonging to the
Grosvenors is described as the site of the manor of Ebury
and parcel of the bailiwick of Neat, (ref. 5) but the use of these
terms appears merely to have followed that in early leases
in which they were probably employed loosely to describe
farms. In fact the Neyte was formerly a manor house or
grange of the Abbots of Westminster situated between
the modern Warwick Way and Sutherland Row, (ref. 6) and its
site, together with some thirty-six acres to the south and
east, were not included in Mary Davies's inheritance,
having been granted away separately by the Crown after
1536, and thus did not pass into the ownership of the
Grosvenor family.
Surrounded by other lands belonging to Westminster
Abbey the manor had lost its identity as a unit of landholding before the end of the Middle Ages, and the
process of disintegration continued after its acquisition
by the Crown. The many documents and maps which
survive show that the subsequent history of its descent
is extremely complex, but as few of these complexities
affect the history of The Hundred Acres in Mayfair no
attempt will be made here to unravel all of them. The
'Manor of Hyde' was enclosed into Hyde Park by
Henry VIII, and he or his successors also added some
land on the east to his new park, for fifteen acres called
Tyburn Close and forty acres near Stonehill (apparently
the north-eastern and south-eastern extremities of the
park) were specifically excluded from subsequent leases
and grants of Ebury manor. Other stated exceptions in
such transactions were the lands around the 'Manor of
Neate'. (ref. 7)
Although not specified other lands which appear
originally to have been within the manor became detached
when it was in the hands of the Crown, including a substantial part of Mayfair south of The Hundred Acres.
Among these was a large close or series of fields called
Brick Close which was later to form part of the Berkeley
estate, (ref. 8) and other fields which were incorporated into
the manor or bailiwick of St. James. Some six or seven
acres to the north of the modern Brick Street were, however, retained; they were included in a schedule of property to be sold to pay the debts of Alexander Davies,
Mary Davies's father, by Act of Parliament in 1675, (ref. 9) and
therefore did not pass to the Grosvenors.
Of the areas in Mayfair which apparently became
separated from the manor, that which presents the most
puzzling aspects is a plot with a frontage to Park Lane,
about three acres in extent, immediately to the south of
the Grosvenor estate, now occupied by the Dorchester
Hotel and parts of Deanery and Tilney Streets. When first
leased for building in the 1730's this was described as
waste ground belonging to the manor of Knightsbridge
in the ownership of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. (ref. 10) The Dean and Chapter had acquired the manor
(the full title of which was the manor of Knightsbridge
with Westbourne Green) from Henry VIII in 1542 (ref. 11)
although it had belonged to Westminster Abbey in the
Middle Ages. How that manor came to include a parcel
of waste ground in the middle of the manor of Ebury is
unclear. In Grosvenor estate documents of the eighteenth
century the area is defined as 'a common or waste …
called Ossulton Common'. (ref. 12) The name Osolstone is also
used to describe this spot in a deed of 1614 and in the
same document Park Lane is described as 'the highwaye
from Osolstone to Tiburne'. (ref. 13) The name is also marked
on an early manuscript map among the Grosvenor
archives which relates to this deed. In the records of
Westminster Abbey there are references to a farm 'at
Osolueston' which belonged to the manor of Eye, and
other references to Ossulston, always as part of this same
manor. (ref. 14) The evaluation of this evidence in determining
the location of the assemblies or courts of the Hundred of
Ossulston, the ancient area of jurisdiction which included
London, is not within the scope of this volume, and the
apparent conflict of evidence about the manorial history
of this small area remains unresolved.
Most of the remainder of Ebury manor was let by the
Crown in two leasehold entities, the fields of one intermingling with those of the other. Reversionary leases were
also granted, apparently as a way of rewarding faithful
service, well before the current leases expired, and to
complicate matters further each reversionary lease came
to be held by more than one person so that partitions of
the land had to take place when the previous leases fell
in early in the seventeenth century. (ref. 15)
In 1618 a moiety of one lease was bought for £4,760
by trustees acting for Sir Lionel Cranfield, the ambitious
merchant who held several offices of state under James I
and was later impeached for corruption. (ref. 16) By this purchase Cranfield became the direct leaseholder of a large
part of the manor including The Hundred Acres. He also
contemplated purchasing the other moiety, which he
estimated would cost about £5,000 or £6,000, but was
evidently unable to complete the transaction before his
fall, for this leasehold interest remained outstanding
until its expiry in 1675. (ref. 17) In 1623, however, James I sold
the freehold reversion (fn. a) of the manor to two 'gentlemen'
of London, John Traylman and Thomas Pearson, for
£1,151 15s. By a conveyance dated the day following they
in turn disposed of it for the same amount to two representatives of Cranfield, by then Earl of Middlesex and
Lord High Treasurer of England. (ref. 19) The price was
equivalent to thirty years' purchase of the nominal Crown
rents obtained under leases granted by the Tudors, and
by buying the manor in fee farm Cranfield could no doubt
claim that he was preserving the King's rent, low as it
was. Not only did the grant convey all of the manor with
the exception of those parts already detached from it and
a royal mulberry garden (now part of the site of Buckingham Palace and its grounds), but additionally some land
elsewhere was included. Particularly important for the
later history of the Grosvenor estate were some twenty
acres at Millbank on the south side of Horseferry Road,
for it was here that the first speculative building on the
estate took place.
In 1626, when his personal and financial fortunes were
at a low point, Cranfield sold his interests in the manor
and the additional lands for £9,400 to Hugh Audley (also
spelt Awdley or Awdeley), a clerk of the Court of Wards
and Liveries who amassed a considerable fortune by
lending money. (ref. 20) Although Cranfield had thus made a
handsome profit on the two sums he had laid out, he felt
that Audley had driven a hard bargain. (ref. 21) Audley held the
property until his death at an advanced age in 1662.
During this long period he sold some small parcels of
land and bought others which had probably once belonged
to the manor, (ref. 22) but when he died the estate he had purchased in 1626 was still virtually intact. By a settlement
made shortly before his death he left the bulk of the land
to his great-nephew Alexander Davies and the detached
part at Millbank (known as Market Meadows) to the
latter's brother Thomas Davies, later Sir Thomas Davies,
who was Lord Mayor of London in 1676–7. (ref. 23) After
Audley's death Thomas Davies sold his holding for £2,000
to his brother (ref. 24) so that Alexander Davies possessed all of
Audley's former estate in the area.
Abridged pedigree of Audley, Davies and Grosvenor families
Alexander Davies was a scrivener by profession and
had worked for Audley. (ref. 25) Although scriveners were
technically the draftsmen of deeds they also undertook
many of the functions later associated with lawyers,
particularly the management of investments for clients,
and Davies probably had access to ready supplies of
capital. He decided to embark on speculative building
on his new property and as the site chose Market Meadows
at Millbank, which he had purchased from his brother.
He let the land along the river front for building, reserving
a large plot at the southern end as the site of a mansion
for his own occupation. This was later called Peterborough
House and then Grosvenor House when it became the
principal London residence of the Grosvenor family in
the first half of the eighteenth century. In 1665, however,
'in the time of the … greate Sicknesse' Alexander Davies
died at the age of twenty-nine, leaving the speculation
unfinished, his mansion half built, and an infant daughter
less than six months old as his heir. (ref. 26) This was the Mary
Davies who was to marry Sir Thomas Grosvenor in 1677.
Alexander Davies had settled the estate on trustees for
the benefit of his heirs with provision for an annuity of
£100 to be paid to his widow. (ref. 27) The settlement did not
extinguish her right of dower, however, and so his widow,
also named Mary, could claim a life interest in a third of
the property. She quickly remarried, her second husband
being John Tregonwell, a Dorset squire, and was hereafter, of course, known as Mrs. Tregonwell. Despite the
potential wealth of the estate the immediate problem
facing the Tregonwells was the settlement of Alexander
Davies's debts. He had not paid the £2,000 purchase
money for the land at Millbank and had borrowed heavily
to finance his building programme. Nearly £2,000 more
had to be spent on the unfinished mansion to make it
habitable and there were annuities and interest charges
on the estate. A substantial part of the land yielded no
income as it was still subject to the leasehold interest
granted by the Crown (previously referred to) which was
not due to fall in until 1675. John Tregonwell later claimed
to have advanced a considerable amount of his own money
in settling Alexander Davies's affairs, (ref. 28) and in 1675 an
Act of Parliament was passed enabling some property
to be sold to pay the debts. (ref. 9) Specified in the Act were
Goring House (on the site of Buckingham Palace) and
some twenty acres adjoining, five acres which now lie in
the north-western corner of Green Park, the seven acres
in Mayfair to the north of the line of Brick Street referred
to above, and twenty-two acres in Knightsbridge. The
land in Knightsbridge was repurchased by the Grosvenor
family in 1763. (ref. 29) The Act also provided that several fields
in the Mayfair portion of the estate should be held in
dower by Mrs. Tregonwell. About fifty-six acres were
involved, constituting the western part of The Hundred
Acres. This had some effect on the building history of
the area as the dower lands were exempted from subsequent settlements and were held under a different tenure
when building leases came to be granted.
Despite these temporary difficulties, however, there
was no doubt about the eligibility of the infant Mary
Davies as a future wife for some aspiring young nobleman.
In 1672 an agreement was drawn up whereby she was to
be married to the Hon. Charles Berkeley, the eldest son
of John, first Baron Berkeley of Stratton, as soon as she
reached her twelfth birthday, when she would be of age
to consent to the match. As part of the contract Lord
Berkeley paid £5,000 immediately to John Tregonwell,
partly in recompense for money spent in finishing
Alexander Davies's mansion and in the upbringing of
Mary; he also agreed to settle land of a considerable annual
value either on, or in trust for, the couple by the time
of the ceremony. (ref. 30) The marriage, however, never took
place. According to an account preserved in the Grosvenor
archives and probably drawn up by Mrs. Tregonwell (ref. 31)
the reason was that Lord Berkeley was unable to provide
the land. Although he was a rich man he had recently
built an expensive mansion, Berkeley House in Piccadilly,
and at about this time he purchased Brick Close in Mayfair, immediately to the south of the fields belonging to
Mary Davies. (ref. 32) The breakdown of these plans mattered
little for within a few months of her twelfth birthday a
husband had been found for her in the twenty-oneyear-old baronet, Sir Thomas Grosvenor.
The Grosvenor Marriage
The marriage between Mary Davies and Sir Thomas
Grosvenor took place on 10 October 1677 in the church
of St. Clement Danes, where the bride's grandfather,
Dr. Richard Dukeson, was rector. (ref. 33) The Grosvenors were
an ancient Cheshire family claiming a somewhat tenuous
descent from Hugh Lupus, first Earl of Chester, one of
William the Conqueror's foremost knights and possibly
his nephew. By the seventeenth century they owned land
in Chester, Cheshire, Denbighshire and Flintshire and
also valuable lead mines in the last two counties. In 1622
Sir Richard Grosvenor was created a baronet by James I,
and Sir Thomas, his great-grandson, was the third
baronet. The family seat was at Eaton Hall, near Chester.
All Sir Thomas Grosvenor's prospects from the
marriage were in the future. In deference to her tender
years his bride remained for at least two years in the care
of a guardian aunt, and as part of the marriage bargain
he had to expend a considerable sum of money. Lord
Berkeley's £5,000 had to be repaid with interest, and
among other sums required to be disbursed John Tregonwell received £1,000 for a reversionary interest in the
estate which would arise in the event of the death of Mary
Davies before reaching the age of twenty-one, and which
he had prudently acquired by assignment. (ref. 34) While a
settlement of the estates in Cheshire and North Wales
for the benefit of any male heirs of the marriage in order
of primogeniture was made shortly after the ceremony, (ref. 35)
a similar settlement of that part of Mary Davies's lands
which was free from dower had to await her twenty-first
birthday and was finally made in 1694. (ref. 36) The total annual
rental value of the London estates in 1677 was £2,170,
but one third of this was payable to Mrs. Tregonwell in
dower, and after annuities and other payments the clear
income from the rest amounted to £824. (ref. 37) Besides this
income, some £3,400 were obtained in 1681 when thirtyfive acres were sold, apparently by royal wish, to the Earl
of Arlington. (ref. 38) The land involved now constitutes parts
of the grounds of Buckingham Palace, Green Park and
Hyde Park Corner. A further two and a half acres in
Chelsea, now or formerly part of the grounds of the Royal
Hospital, were also sold. (ref. 39)
Sir Thomas Grosvenor died in 1700 leaving three sons
under the age of twelve; a daughter also was born a month
after his death. All three sons eventually succeeded to the
baronetey. Sir Richard, the eldest, died in 1732. His
brother, Thomas, succeeded him for only seven months
before his death in Naples early in 1733. The youngest
son, Robert, then became the sixth baronet until his death
in 1755; he was the only one of the three brothers to
leave any issue.
The effect of the settlement of 1694 was that on her
husband's death Dame Mary Grosvenor, as Mary Davies
was now styled, was left a life interest in the London
estate, with the exception of those parts held in dower by
her mother. She had already shown signs of mental
instability during her husband's lifetime and her illness
was no doubt accelerated by his death. In 1701 while in
Paris she married, or was inveigled into a bogus marriage
by, Edward Fenwick, the brother of a Roman Catholic
chaplain she had taken into her household. Four years
of legal disputes ensued until the supposed marriage was
annulled by the Court of Delegates in 1705. (ref. 40) In the same
year a commission of lunacy was appointed to enquire
into her mental state. She was adjudged insane and committed to the care of Francis Cholmondeley of Vale
Royal in Cheshire, who had been appointed one of the
guardians of her children by Sir Thomas Grosvenor's
will. (ref. 41) As a result the revenues from her estate were paid
into the Court of Chancery to be invested for her benefit,
and any change in the use or disposition of the land could
only be made by leave of the Court. Dame Mary lived on
without regaining her faculties until 1730.
In 1708 Sir Richard Grosvenor married Jane Wyndham, daughter of Sir Edward Wyndham of Orchard
Wyndham in Somerset. In return for a marriage portion
of £12,000 he agreed to make a new settlement of the
estates in his possession and of those in which his mother
had a life interest, in part to secure a jointure for his wife. (ref. 42)
In view of his mother's lunacy, however, it was only
possible to do this with the authority of an Act of Parliament which was duly obtained in 1711 when he had
reached the age of twenty-one. (ref. 43) The effect of the settlement was to preserve the descent of the estates in the
male line, firstly to his male heirs if any and then to his
brothers and their male heirs. Jane Grosvenor died in
1719 without issue and Sir Richard married again. His
second wife was Diana Warburton, daughter of Sir
George Warburton of Arley in Cheshire. This time a
dowry of £8,000 was provided and a new settlement was
drawn up, but its effect was to preserve the same contingent remainders as earlier ones. (ref. 44) Diana Grosvenor
died in 1730, also without issue.
A clause was inserted in the Act of 1711 to enable Sir
Richard Grosvenor to grant building leases for any term
up to sixty years of the land in London in which his
mother held a life interest (but excluding the land held
in dower by Mrs. Tregonwell). The Act referred to some
old and ruinous buildings which might be rebuilt, but
otherwise there is no indication that any specific development was then planned.
In 1717 Mrs. Tregonwell died (ref. 45) and the third of the
estate which she had held in dower passed in fee simple
to Dame Mary Grosvenor. The income from this land
was also henceforth administered on her behalf by the
officials of the Court of Chancery.