210 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2>»«» S. YIII. Sept. 10. '69. 



large and most sumptuous house, built by Charles 

 Brandon, late Duke of Suffolk, in the reign of 

 Henry VIII., which was called Suffolk House " 

 or Place. Stow describes this mansion as situate 

 " almost directly over against St. George's Church" 

 in Southwark. The locality was probably found 

 inconvenient even in those days ; and Archbishop 

 Heath, who was also Lord Chancellor, was soon 

 able to transfer himself to a more suitable neigh- 

 bourhood. In August, 1557, he " obtained a 

 licence for the alienation of this capital messuage 

 of Suffolk Place, and to apply the price thereof 

 for buying of other houses, also called Suffolk 

 Place, lying near Charing Cross." This second 

 Suffolk Place (which had Ijeen previously a resi- 

 dence of the Bishops of Norwich, and in conse- 

 quence was sometimes termed Norwich House), 

 became, after Heath's purchase of it, the second 

 York House in Westminster, — that one, namely, 

 which came into the possession of the Duke of 

 Buckingham, and, to speak accurately, (which I 

 am sure Mr. Foss will agree with me that those 

 who correct others ought to be careful to do,) was 

 purchased not " in substitution for Whitehall," 

 but for Suffolk Place. Mr. Peter Cunningham 

 has given an enumeration of its distinguished legal 

 inhabitants somewhat fuller than that printed by 

 you. He tells us, that Heath was the only Arch- 

 bishop of York who inhabited this second York 

 House, and he only for a very short time ; his suc- 

 cessors from 1561 to 1606 " appear to have let it 

 to the Lord Keepers of the (jreat Seal. Lord 

 Chancellor Bacon, the son of Sir Nicholas Bacon, 

 Lord Keeper, was born at York House in 1560-1, 

 and here his father, the Lord Keeper, died in 

 1579. Lord Keeper Puckering died here in 1596; 

 Lord Chancellor Egerton in 1616-17; and here, 

 in 1621, the Great Seal was taken from Lord 

 Bacon." 



In his Life of Archbishop Heath, in the TAves 

 of the Judges (v. 382.) Mr. Foss ' describes the 

 way in which Buckingham procured possession of 

 York House thus : — " After Lord Chancellor 

 Bacon's disgrace, the Duke of Buckingham ob- 

 tained it, giving other lands in exchange." 



This is hardly sufficiently precise or accurate, 

 as Mr. Foss will perceive from the following 

 circumstances. The history of the transaction 

 has never been fully developed ; but the facts 

 stated by Mr. Peter Cunningham, with the addi- 

 tion of those brought to light in the recently pub- 

 lished Calendars of State Papers, enable us pretty 

 well to understand its nature. Soon after Bacon 

 ceased to reside there, applications were made to 

 him to part with his interest — whatever it may 

 have been. The Duke of Lenox solicited per- 

 mission either to buy the place or to make an 

 exchange for it. Bacon replied : " For this you 

 will pardon me : York House is the house where 

 my father died, and where I first breathed, and 



there will I yield my last breath, if it so please 

 God and the King." Buckingham was more suc- 

 cessful than Lenox. He got possession upon some 

 terms, — what they were does not appear, but he 

 is said not to have been careful in the fulfilment 

 of them. On 1 July, 1622, Chamberlain writes to 

 Carleton, "Visct. St. Albans has filed a bill in 

 Chancery against Buckingham, on account of the 

 nonperformance of his contract for taking York 

 House" (Mrs. Green's Calendar of State Papers). 

 How this was settled has not yet, I believe, been 

 explained. 



Once in possession under Bacon's title, Buck- 

 ingham set himself, or rather the King did on his 

 behalf, to persuade Archbishop Matthew to part 

 with the freehold of the house. On 30 March, 

 1624, we find that the King wrote to Archbishop 

 Matthew, soliciting that the inheritance of York 

 House might be passed to the Duke of Bucking- 

 ham, at the then present assembly of parliament. 

 Mrs. Green's Calendar informs us that the King 

 urged that his compliance could not injure his 

 own see, as lands of greater profit should be given 

 in exchange, and the house had not for a long time 

 past been used as a bishop's residence. The King 

 added that he had moved Buckingham to take the 

 house, and wished to have the honour of "settling 

 such a servant in it." The Archbishop had still 

 some scruples: perhaps he objected to deal with 

 the favourite ; but on the 15 May, 1624, we learn* 

 from Archbishop Laud, as quoted by Mr. Cun- 

 ningham, that " the Bill passed in Parliament for 

 the King to have York House, in exchange for 

 other lands. This was for the Lord Duke of 

 Buckingham." We have here a glimpse of how 

 Buckingham "obtained it," and whose lands, not 

 Buckingham's, were given in exchange. 



One other fact in connexion with Buckingham's 

 buildings on this site, which also appears in one 

 of the new State Paper Calendars, may be worthy 

 of note. It is, that Portland stone was extensively 

 used in the construction of Buckingham's magni- 

 ficent mansion, and that James I. paid 1800Z. for 

 2000 tons of that material to be used in Bucking- 

 ham's building. (Mr. Bruce's Calendar of Chas. I., 

 vol. i. p. 541.) W. NoEi, Sainsburt. 



HANDEL IN BRISTOL. 



(2-«» S. vii. 494.) 



The story of Handel's visit to the city of Bristol 

 is not worthy of the slightest credit. The suppo- 

 sition " that he was for a little while organist of 

 St. Mary Redcliff"," is the invention of some needy 

 penny-a-liner. The article in The Bristol Times 

 and Felix Farley's Journal goes on to say : — 



" We suspect he visited Bristol on his way to Ireland, 

 or perhaps returning from it, as we know he first pro- 

 duced the Jlessiah in Dublin, having determined to give 



