In 1885, the Governors of the Charterhouse applied to parliament for the right to sell – for probable demolition – the grounds of the Charterhouse.
They clarified that they did not intend to sell the oldest parts of the Charterhouse, but that these powers would allow them to demolish some of the buildings and the proceeds would go to increasing the number of Brothers supported by the Charterhouse. At the time, there were fifty five Brothers, a number reduced from the original eighty due to financial difficulties in the early 1880s. The Governors believed that their plans would enable them to increase the number of Brothers to two hundred.
This would however result in the removal of the Brothers from the London site. In the words of Mr. Norris, Conservative MP for Limehouse, during the second reading of the Charterhouse bill, removing the Brothers from the site would “destroy the Charity of the Charterhouse”. Furthermore, as The Times argued, why petition for the rights to destroy the whole complex if you do not plan to do so? The power, the newspapers argued – and the House of Commons agreed – should not be given, whether or not the Governors planned to utilise it to destroy the ancient buildings.
London newspapers – The Times, but also The Illustrated London News, Graphic, and The Magazine of Art – took an interest in the Charterhouse at the threat of its demolition, bringing an outpouring of articles and illustrations in support of the historic site. They brought the bill to public attention and influenced their views.
“Blessings are proverbially not appreciated till they are withdrawn, and perhaps London will not awake to the wealth of old-world associations it possesses in the Charterhouse, until modern shops and warehouses have taken the place of chapel and halls and quads, of old walls and staircases and ceilings, of 14th-century gateways, 16th-century carvings, and Jacobean fireplaces.” (The Times, Dec. 24, 1885, Issue 31638)
An ‘old Carthusian’, Mr Herbert Carpenter, is even cited in Parliament’s second reading of the Charterhouse bill as having understood directly from The Times, that if the bill were to be passed, “any or every part of the buildings, ancient as well as modern, can be swept away by the present Governors or by their successors.”
The bill thus had a counteractive effect: a revival in public interest in the Charterhouse’s history and buildings. The papers were interested in both the monastic and Tudor buildings themselves, but also in the founding and culture of the Carthusian Monastery and the Charterhouse’s varied history since then, up to the founding of the ‘hospital’ and school by Thomas Sutton. The newspaper articles attempted to capture how the Charterhouse site acts as a time capsule for London’s varied history, at a moment of threat for this historical landmark.
The bill was rejected by the House of Commons, and so the Charterhouse remained as it was: with the original buildings, and with the Brothers still living on the original site.
This post is a summary of research undertaken by India Simpson
The Charterhouse hosts week-long student placements in partnership with the Oxford University Careers Service Micro-internship programme and the Crankstart Scholarship programme, helping students gain experience of heritage research.
Each term, we set a group of students a series of research questions relating to the Charterhouse and support them in identifying historical sources and interpreting their findings. In return, we get a set of research reports from the students, uncovering fascinating stories from history.