ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE

Knightsbridge, the Site of Albert Gate

Frontispiece

The Westbourne, from the Park

Colours of the Knightsbridge Volunteers

Trinity Chapel

St. Paul’s Church

The Westbourne, looking north from Knightsbridge

101

The Cake House

122

Fort at Hyde Park Corner

128

Oak planted by Charles II.

130

Hyde Park Corner, 1824

131

Queen’s Buildings

172

Half-Way House

179

Lanesborough House

181

The Lock Hospital

238

Lock Chapel

241

Page235, line 19, for “Grosvenor Row” read “Grosvenor Place.”[0]

“Instructed by the Antiquary Times,We are, we must, we cannot but be wise.”Shakspeare.

“Instructed by the Antiquary Times,We are, we must, we cannot but be wise.”

Shakspeare.

Knightsbridgeand Pimlico form the only suburbs west of the metropolis, whose history remains unwritten. This neglect, perhaps, is owing to the fact that neither place, till of late, assumed sufficient importance to attract the topographical writer; nevertheless, I trust the following pages will show that Knightsbridge is far from destitute of associations deserving to be recovered and saved from the ravages of time.

The derivation of its name is somewhat obscure: the earliest mention of the place I am acquainted with occurs in a charter ofEdward the Confessor, in which it is calledKyngesbyrig; in one of Abbot Herbert of Westminster, nearly a century later, it is speltKnyghtsbrigg. It is similarly written in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Edward III. The difficulty lies in the transposition from “Kyngesbyrig” to “Knyghtsbrigg.” The former sufficiently indicates its origin; and to avoid perplexity tradition comes opportunely to our aid, to point out the latent allusion in the latter.

Knightsbridge, of course, must have its legend. No place in the kingdom exists but must have some story to tell; and if it cannot show a castle built by Cæsar, and battered down by Cromwell, recourse must be had elsewhere for such. Well, then, our legend tells, that in some ancient time certain knights had occasion to go from London to wage war for some holy purpose: light in heart, if heavy in arms, they passed through Knightsbridge on their way to receive the blessing awarded to the faithful by the Bishop at Fulham. From some cause, however, a quarrel ensued between two of the band, and a combat was determined on to decide the dispute. They fought on thebridge which spanned the stream, while from its banks the struggle was watched by their partisans. Both, the legend tells, fell; and ever after the place was calledKnightsbridge, in remembrance of their fatal feud.

If this old story, which I many times have heard related, has tempted us into the realms of fancy for awhile, another derivation of a totally opposite kind will speedily drive us therefrom; according to this, the name comes from the word “Neat,” signifying cattle, and refers to a time when beasts for the London citizens were ordered to be slain here.

And, again, a commentator of Norden, the topographer, gives the following anecdote, which it has been thought may account for the name:—“Kingesbridge, commonly called Stonebridge, near Hyde Park Corner, where I wish no true man to walk too late without good guard, as did Sir H. Knyvett, Knight, who valiantly defended himself, there being assaulted, and slew the master-thief with his own hands.”[3]

Against these two proposed derivations, however, it must be answered that the place wascalled “Knyghtsbrigg” in Herbert’s charter long before the time to which either of these circumstances apply. Edward the Confessor owned lands here, and probably built a bridge for the convenience of those monks to whom he devised a part of them; hence the nameKingsbridge. Having nothing recorded whereby we can account for the change toKnightsbridge, we can only surmise that it was caused by corruption of the name, or that there may be some foundation, other than the story of the brave Knyvett, for the legend I have related.

The land constituting this district appears to have belonged originally to King Edward the Confessor. There is, in the British Museum, a charter still preserved, a translation of which was printed by Mr. Faulkner, in which, giving to the church at Westminster the manor of Cealchyth (Chelsea), with various emoluments and privileges, the charter proceeds—“Besides, together with this manor, every third tree, and every horse load of fruits, grown in the neighbouringwood atKyngesbyrig, which, as in ancient times, was confirmed by law.” This is the earliest mention of Knightsbridge recorded; the land referred to is now occupied by Lowndes-square and its neighbourhood.

Knightsbridge is not mentioned in Doomsday Book, neither is Westbourn, Hyde, nor Paddington; and it is most likely that the returns for these places are given with the surrounding manors of Eia, Chelchith, Lilestone, &c. Eia was confirmed to the Abbey of Westminster by William the Conqueror, and included the land between the Tyburn on the east, the Westbourn on the west, the great military road (Oxford-street) on the north, and the Thames on the south. Yet, although given thus early to the Abbey, it was not included in the franchise of the city of Westminster, notwithstanding Knightsbridge, which chiefly lay beyond it, was so included; for, in 1222, a dispute having arisen between the Bishop of London and the Abbot of Westminster, respecting their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, it was referred to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, and the Priors of Merton and Dunstable; and theydecided that the Tyburn stream was the limit of St. Margaret’s parish westward; adding, however, that, “beyond these bounds the districts of Knightsbridge, Westbourn, Padyngton with its chapel, and their appurtenances, belong to the parish of St. Margaret aforesaid.” Part of Knightsbridge still belongs to St. Margaret’s, and it is most probable that some great proprietor living in that parish owned lands here, and hence, in old assessments, such became to be reckoned component parts of the parish.

In the Confessor’s charter the mention of “the wood at Kyngesbyrig” gives, I consider, an index to what the state of the place was then. It doubtless formed a portion of the great forest which Fitzstephen describes as belting the metropolis. It owned no lord, and the few inhabitants enjoyed free chase and other rights in it. In 1218 it was disafforested by order of Henry III., whom we afterwards find owned lands here; and in the reign of his son, Edward I., Knightsbridge, according to Lysons, is mentioned as a manor of the Abbey.

The monks of Westminster gradually acquired other lands here, additional to those granted by the Confessor. At Westbourn alsothey had lands, as the decree of 1222 proves; how possession of them was gained is not, however, known. These properties the monks erected into a manor, called “The Manor ofKnightsbridgeandWestbourn;” and by such name it is still known. The whole of the isolated part of St. Margaret’s, including a part of Kensington, its palace and gardens, are included in the manor of Knightsbridge.

That there was a suspicion of the integrity of the monks’ proceedings, however, we have proof in the fact that, in the twenty-second year of the reign of Edward I. (1294–5), a writ ofQuo Warrantowas issued to Abbot Walter of Wenlock, to inquire “by what authority he claimed to hold the Pleas of the Crown, to have free warren, a market, a fair, toll, a gallows, the chattels of persons condemned, and of runaways, the right of imprisonment,” and various other similar privileges, as well as “the appointment of coroner in Eye, Knythbrigg, Chelcheheth, Braynford, Padyngton, Hamstede, and Westburn,” &c.; to which he answered, that these places were “members” of the town of Westminster, and that King Henry III. had granted to God and the churchof St. Peter of Westminster, and the monks therein, all his tenements, and had commanded that they hold them with all their liberties and free customs, &c.; and he produced the charter proving the same.

Such was the reply of Abbot Walter of Wenlock, who appears, however, to have been by no means over chary of the ways by which he could bring wealth to his abbey; for we find that, in the twelfth year of Edward II., his successor, Richard de Kedyngton, was fined ten pounds because he (Abbot Walter) had appropriated lay fees in Knythbrigg, Padyngton, Eye, and Westbourne, without licence of the king. We also find that in the same reign two inquisitions were held to ascertain what, if any, injury the king would sustain if certain properties were allowed the Abbey:—

Inquisitio ad quod damnum9:Edw. II., No. 105.Middlesex.

“Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King at the church of St. Mary Atte Stronde, on Thursday next, after the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, in the ninth year of the reign of King Edward, by the Oath of Robert de Aldenham, Alexanderde Rogate, Nicholas de Curtlyng, John de la Hyde, Walter Fraunceis, William de Padinton, Hugh le Arderne, William Est, Arnold le Frutier, Simon le Brewere, Roger de Malthous, and Roger le Marshall, junior—who say, upon their oath, that Walter de Wenlock, lately Abbot of Westminster, had acquired to himself and his House one messuage with appurtenances in Knygthebregge of William le Smyth of Knygthebregge, and four acres of land there of William Brisel and Asseline his wife, and nine acres of land there of William Hond, and twelve acres of land in Padinton of William de Padington, and three and a-half acres in Eye of Hugh le Bakere of Eye, and thirteen acres of land in Westbourn of John le Taillour, and eleven acres of land there of Matilda Arnold, and two acres of land there of Juliana Baysebolle, after the publication of the statute edited concerning the nonplacing of lands in Mortmain and not before. And they say that it is not to the damage nor prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of others, if the King grant to the Prior and Convent of Westminster, that the Abbots of that place, for the time being, may recover and hold the aforesaidmessuages and land to them and their successors for ever. And they say that the aforesaid messuage is held of the said Abbot and Convent by service of a yearly rent of sixpence, and of performing suit at the Court of the said Abbot and Convent, and of finding one man for ten half-days to mow the Lord’s meadow, price fifteen-pence; and one man for ten half-days to hoe the Lord’s corn, price tenpence; and of doing seven ploughings, price three shillings and sixpence; and of finding one man for ten half-days to reap the Lord’s corn, price fifteen-pence; and of making seven carriages to carry the Lord’s hay, price three shillings and sixpence; and performing suit at the Court of the said Abbot from three weeks to three weeks. And they say that the aforesaid fifty-four acres and a-half of land are worth by the year, in all issues over and above the aforesaid services, nineteen shillings and sixpence. In witness of which thing the aforesaid jurors have set their seals to this inquisition.”

Endorsed twenty shillings and sixpence.[10]

This sum due to the king and paid to him, shows that he still retained some right or otherover the lands mentioned. But this inquest does not seem to have given satisfaction to all, for three years after, another was held before the king’s escheator and a jury, concerning the same lands; the return was, however, in the main similar to that of the first inquiry, a fine of ten pounds being thereupon paid to the king.

But as early as the reign of Henry I. some lands at Knightsbridge belonging to the Abbey had been aliened from it—one Godwin, a hermit at Kilburn, having given his hermitage there to three nuns; Abbot Herbert not only confirmed the grant, but augmented it with lands at Cnightebriga,[11]and a rent of thirty shillings. The charter states the land to be granted with the consent of the whole “chapter and council,” to the holy virgins of St. John the Baptist, at Kilburn, for the repose of the soul of King Edward, founder of the Abbey, “and for the souls of all their brethren and benefactors.”

The next mention of this place occurs in a record dated 1270 (54 Henry III.), when aninquisition was held to ascertain whether two acres of land, &c., at “Kingesgorbetween Knytesbrigg and Kensington” were of the ancient demesne of the Crown or of escheat, its extent, value, &c. The jury returned that the land was of the ancient demesne of the Crown, and not of escheat, that it contained three acres, of which the Sheriffs of Middlesex had received the issues, and was worth by the acre twelve-pence per annum, and that such land belonged to the farm of the city of London.

Part of the Hamlet of Knightsbridge was within the manor of Eia, the boundaries of which I have described. It included, with others, all the lands now forming the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, and was given to the Abbey, in 1102, by Geoffry de Mandeville, in consideration of the privilege allowed him of the burial of his wife Athelais in the cloisters of the Abbey. In Doomsday Book it answers for ten hides, but was afterwards divided into the three manors of Neyte, Eybury, and Hyde. Neyte is mentioned as early as 1342 in a commission of sewers, and was near the Thames; Hyde, with lands taken from Knightsbridge, afterwards formed Hyde Park. All thesemanors were enjoyed by the Abbey till the Reformation, and at that tremendous crisis they reverted to the king.

In the account rendered to the king by the ministers appointed to receive the revenues of the religious houses on their dissolution, the value of the manor of Knightsbridge and Westbourn is thus given:—

Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne

Firm’ Terr’

Knyghtebrydge, Kensyngton, et Westbourne

Firm’

Pquis Cur

4½

In the “Monasticon Anglicanum,” vol. i., p. 326, it is thus entered:—

Maniu de Knyghtebridge et Westbourne Firm’ Terr’

Westborne, Knightsbridge, et Kensington, Man Redd et Firm

14c

Pquis Cur

8½

Kilburn Priory was returned as of the value of seventy-four pounds, seven shillings, and eleven-pence; and by the provisions of 27 Henry VIII., chap. 28, all its possessions went to the king. By an act passed in the next session (28 Henry VIII., c. 38) its lands were exchanged by the king with Sir William Weston, Prior of the Hospital of St. John ofJerusalem, for his manor of Paris Garden, Southwark. This act recites the indenture relating to this exchange, describing the property very fully.[14]After specifying the site of the priory, the Act proceeds—“and all other the demayne londes of the sayde late Pryory lyeing and beying in Kylborne aforesayde, Hamstede, Padyngton, andWestborn, in the sayde countie;” “the hedge rowes rounde aboute Gorefeld and Goremede” are stated as “conteyning, by estimacon, xj acres and a half acre, and xxtirodes,” &c.

The manors of Eybury, Neyte, and Hyde, were, with other Abbey lands, exchanged with the king for the dissolved Priory of Hurley, Berkshire, and the exchange was confirmed by Act of Parliament 28 Henry VIII., c. 49.

In theValor Ecclesiasticus, taken by command of King Henry VIII. in 1535, the following entries relating to these manors also appear:—

“Repris ex offic Sacrist dei MonasteriiReddit’ resolut’ videltManerio de Eybury p. iijlzacr’ terr in Eyfelde perannum iiij.”“Repris’ ex offic Novi opisMiddReddit’ resolut’ annuat’ de divs terr et tenements predict videlt.

“Repris ex offic Sacrist dei MonasteriiReddit’ resolut’ videltManerio de Eybury p. iijlzacr’ terr in Eyfelde perannum iiij.”

“Repris’ ex offic Novi opisMidd

Reddit’ resolut’ annuat’ de divs terr et tenements predict videlt.

Prioresse de Kilborne exeunt de

xvj

Manerio de Eybery exeunt de

Cust capelle b~te Marie monaster predict p divs terris apud Knightsbridge

Et manerio de Ebery pro manerio de Hide

vij

“Repris ex offic sellarar

Reddit’ resolut’ annuat’ &c.

Dict manerij de Eybury pro terr voc Marketmede

xiii

iiij

Notwithstanding the Reformation, Knightsbridge was still reserved to the Abbey, and in the hands of its deans and chapters it has ever since remained, excepting during the alienation of church lands in the seventeenth century, when it became the property of Sir George Stonehouse. The lands at the Gore, and near to it, passed into various lay hands, and will be hereafter more fully noticed.

The manor of Eybury also passed into lay hands. In the Act 28, Henry VIII. c. 49, it is stated as lately in the occupation of Richard Whashe; and a person of that name rented the more considerable part of it known as EburyFarm in 1592, direct from Queen Elizabeth. Other portions of the manor were similarly rented by persons who underlet the land again, thereby occasioning great wrong to the inhabitants at large—for notwithstanding the great length of time these lands had been in priestly possession, the people, in some measure, appear to have maintained a claim over them, and considerable portions were always laid open for use in common at Lammas-tide (Aug. 1). This ancient right these lessees under the Queen appear to have been determined to resist, and enclosed the fields with gates and hedges, on which the inhabitants appealed, in 1592, to Lord Burleigh, High Steward of Westminster, for his interference in their behalf. He ordered Mr. Tenche, his under-steward, to empanel an inquest; and the decision of the jury being favourable to the petitioners, they, thinking they should have Lord Burleigh’s countenance, proceeded on Lammas-day to assert their rights. The gates were pulled down, and the fences cut away, on which the tenants appealed on their part to Burleigh, who, again referring the matter to Mr. Tenche, that functionary, after inquiry, replied, that “certain of the parishioners ofSt. Martin’s and St. Margaret’s assembled together,” and made an entry into their “ancient commons” by making “a small breach in every enclosure;” that some of those assembled “were of the best and ancientest of the parishes; that they carried no weapon, and had only four or five shovels and pickaxes, and had divers constables with them to keep her Majesty’s peace;” and that “having thus laid open such grounds as they challenged to be their commons, they quietly retired to their houses, without any further hurt-doing.” One Peter Dod, in his evidence before the inquest, said “they told him they would break open to Knight’s Bridge and Chelsey;” and R. Wood, a constable, testified to the breaking of the enclosure at “Aubery Farm towards Chelsey,” whence they crossed to “Crowfield,” at the upper end of Hyde-park.

Her Majesty’s “poor tenants and farmours” petitioned Lord Burleigh to commit some of the parishioners to the Star Chamber, and to stop further proceedings until the case could be heard in the Court of Exchequer. The inhabitants rejoined, stating “that Ebury Farm, containing 430 acres, meadow and pasture, which washolden of her Majesty by lease, was granted to one Whashe, who paid £21 per annum. And the same was let to divers persons, who for their private commodity did inclose the same, and had made pastures of arable land; thereby not only annoying her Majesty in her walks and passages, but to thehindrance of her game, and great injury to the common, which at Lammas was wont to be laid open, for the most part, as by ancient precedents thereof made, do more particularly appear.” They then state this system of inclosure had prevailed for about twenty years; that in the Neate, there were 108 acres belonging to her Majesty similarly enclosed, although they should also be common at Lammas. Strype, from whom this account is derived, does not state how the contest terminated; but certain it is that for very many years the owners of some of these lands paid money to the parish officers of St. Martin’s, in lieu of this claim; but I cannot find that this right of the poor has at all for many years been inquired into. Parochial officers have, in many instances, sadly neglected their duty; and this is not one of the lightest accusations against them.

The manor of Ebury afterwards became theproperty of a family named Davis, who owned it for a lengthened period. The last male of this family, Alexander Davis, died July 2nd, 1665; by his wife, Mary, daughter of Richard Dukeson, D.D., and who survived till July 11th, 1717,[19]he had one daughter, Mary, who was married at St. Clement’s Danes, October 10th, 1676, to Sir Thomas Grosvenor. This manor devolved upon her; and on her death, January 12th, 1730, came to be the freehold property of her husband, whose descendant has been ennobled by the title of Marquis of Westminster, and is the present Lord of the Manor of Ebury.

We will now revert to Knightsbridge proper again. It anciently occupied a great deal more land than its present appearance indicates. In the reign of Elizabeth certain lands appertaining to the park were within it. An indenture to that effect, dated July 6th, in the eleventh year of the Queen’s reign, between the Marquis of Winchester, Lord High Treasurer, and Sir Walter Mildmay, Chancellor of the Exchequer,on behalf of the Queen, and Francis Nevyll, one of the keepers of Hyde-park, on his own behalf, was agreed to for the better preservation of the game; and it was ordered that “our” land, called Knightsbridge land, containing, by estimation, about forty acres, should, at the costs of her Majesty, be “rayled” in, to hinder all manner of horses and cattle (except her Majesty’s “dere”) entering the said enclosed land. The said Francis Nevyll then covenants that while he is keeper he will keep the gates thereof locked, and will not suffer any horses or cattle to be put therein. He also agrees to make and sell in stacks, or carry into her Majesty’s hay-barn, all the hay which may be made within the said “rayled” lands, and deliver the same to “her Grace’s dere” in winter, and shall not in the wintry half-year put to pasture within the said “rayled” land above the number of ten kine or bullocks, or in lieu of every two kine or bullocks, one horse or gelding. Another plot of ground, belonging to the Lazar-house, was also enclosed within Hyde-park; but of its extent, or why the institution should have been deprived of it, I have not been able to ascertain.

The Bridge.—The bridge, whence the placederives its name, we are informed by Strype, was a stone bridge, and most probably the one he described was the same as remained to our own time. When, or by whom, first erected, is not recorded; but it is not improbable that the saintly king who first gave the monks possessions here, to render such more available, would throw a bridge across the stream. For by this road even then was the only way to the metropolis from the west, and the stream was both broad and rapid. It was situated between the last house of Knightsbridge-terrace (Mr. Jeffrey’s), and the French Embassy, and a part of it yet exists under the road; a portion of it was removed for the Albert-gate improvements. In the churchwardens’ accounts of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, are the following entries regarding it:—

1630.

Item, received of John Fennell and Ralph Atkinson, collectors of the escheat, for repair of Brentford Bridge and Knightsbridge

£23

6s.

4d.

1631.

Item, paid towards the repaire of Brentford Bridge, and of Knights-bridge, and for charge of the sute to defend ourselves from the same, and other expences touching the same, as by the particulars appeareth

£24

7s.

10d.

The Westbourn.—The Westbourn, for such was the ancient name of the rivulet which ranthrough Knightsbridge, was one of the numerous streams which flowed from the range of Hampstead and Highgate to the Thames. Its name is derived from its being most westerly of those streams in or by the metropolis. Rising at West End, Hampstead, and running towards Bayswater, it passed through it, behind St. James’s Church; here it crossed the Uxbridge-road, and entering Kensington-gardens, passed through them and Hyde-park, where its silver thread ran along the centre of the Serpentine, into which it entered, and by the addition of several ponds, it was widened in 1731. Leaving the park, it crossed the Great Western-road at Albert-gate, thence it passed in an oblique line behind the east side of William-street and Lowndes-square, behind Lowndes-street and Chesham-street, and bending to the right, passed under Grosvenor-bridge, where it divided and emptied itself into old Father Thames by two mouths. The eastern course was stopped up when the Grosvenor Canal was formed, but the mouth may still be distinctly traced at the back of Westmoreland-street. The western mouth is the entrance to the Ranelagh sewer, to which the stream hasfor many years degenerated. By an under current, formed in 1834, its course was diverted at Bayswater, to prevent drainage passing into the Serpentine; and when the Five Fields were intended to be built on, a new sewer, for which Smeaton had previously made surveys, was constructed. The whole of its course is now covered in, although part of it was open so late as 1854.

The Westbourne from the park

The Westbourn was occasionally a source of annoyance to the inhabitants of Knightsbridge. After heavy rains it overflowed; on September 1st, 1768, it did so, and caused great damage, almost undermining some of the neighbouring houses; and in January, 1809, it overflowed again, and covered the neighbouring fields so deeply, that they bore the appearance of a lake, and passengers were for several days rowed from Chelsea to Westminster by Thames boatmen.

The Olden Time.—It would appear from the warning of the chronicler, “not to walk too late without good guard,” that our locality bore formerly rather a bad name. And I fear I must admit that it did so, though, perhaps, not more dangerous than any other of the chiefhighways to the metropolis. The Great Western Road ran through the hamlet, which bore a good proportion of inns, the proprietors of which would appear to have rather connived at the iniquities practised, and thus rendered the action of the law more difficult.

In 1380, Richard II., by his letters patent, dated March 2nd, granted to John Croucher, of Knightsbridge, towards the repairing of the king’s highway from London to Brentford, customs of the several vendible commodities therein mentioned (those of ecclesiastical men, and their proper goods bought for their use, excepted), to be taken at Knightsbridge and elsewhere, as he shall think expedient, for three years next ensuing. In 1382 this was renewed, and in 1386 was granted to John Croucher and Lawrence Newport.[24]But, notwithstanding this early care of the road, it does not appear to have been always followed up, for Wyatt’s men entered London, in 1554, by this road; its state materially aided in their discomfiture, and so great was the delay occasioned that the Queen’s party were able to make every preparation; and when ultimately they reached Londontheir jaded appearance gained them the name of “draggletails.” It would appear from the extracts quoted from the St. Margaret’s accounts that the law was applied to the parish for its neglect in this respect, and in 1724 a petition was presented to the House of Commons, praying for an Act to remedy the evil. Twelve years later, when the Court had resided at Kensington for nearly fifty years, we find Lord Hervey writing to his mother that, “the road between this place (Kensington) and London is grown so infamously bad, that we live here in the same solitude as we should do if cast on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and all the Londoners tell us there is between them and us a great impassable gulf of mud. There are two roads through the park, but the new one is so convex, and the old one so concave, that by this extreme of faults they agree in the common one of being,like the high road,impassable.”[25]

Mud and dust did not, however, form the greatest unpleasantnesses of the road. Inthe Kensington register of burials there is an entry telling of its terrible condition:—

25th November, 1687. Thomas Ridge, of Portsmouth, who was killed by thieves, almost at Knightsbridge.

And Lady Cowper, in her diary quoted by Lord Campbell,[26]writes, in October, 1715, “I was at Kensington, where I intended to stay as long as the camp was in Hyde-park,the roads being so secure by it, that we might come from London atany time of the night without danger, which I did very often.”

It is difficult to understand the cool audacity of some of the attacks on this road. TheGentleman’s Magazine, April, 1740, records that “the Bristol mail from London was robbed a little beyond Knightsbridge by aman on foot, who took the Bath and Bristol bags, and,mounting the post-boy’s horse, rode off toward London.” On the 1st of July, 1774, William Hawke was executed for a highway robbery here, and two men were executed on the 30th of the ensuing November for a similaroffence.[27a]Even so late as 1799, it was necessary to order a party of light horse to patrol every night from Hyde Park Corner to Kensington;[27b]and it is within the memory of many when pedestrians walked to and from Kensington in bands sufficient to ensure mutual protection, starting at known intervals, of which a bell gave due warning.

Respecting the innkeepers, the well-known Sheffield, Duke of Buckingham, in his Memoirs, tells the following curious story:—“I was informed that the Earl of Rochester, the wit, had said something of me which, according to his custom, was very malicious; I therefore sent Colonel Aston, a very mettled friend of mine, to call him to account for it. He denied the words, and, indeed, I was soon convinced he had never said them; but the mere report, though I found it to be false, obliged me (as I then foolishly thought) to go on with the quarrel; and the next day was appointed forus to fight on horseback, a way in England a little unusual, but it was his part to choose. Accordingly I and my second lay the night before at Knightsbridge privately, to avoid the being secured at London upon any suspicion; which yet we found ourselves more in danger of there, because we had all the appearance of highwaymen, that had a mind to be skulking in an old inn for one night; but this, I suppose, the people of the housewere used to, and sotook no notice of us,but liked us the better.” And in the “Rehearsal,” written in ridicule of Dryden, we also have an allusion to the innkeepers’ habits and characters:—“Smith: But pray, Mr. Bayes, is not this a little difficult, that you were saying e’en now, to keep an army thus conceal’d inKnights-Bridge?—Bayes: InKnights-Bridge? Stay.—Johnson: No, not if theinn-keepers be his friends.”

Until the age of railways set in, these inns did a brisk trade with the numerous travellers from the western parts. One of the occurrences of the day was to watch the mails set off for their destinations; there were above twenty at one time, besides stage-coaches. Now there is but one of the latter kind, which still, everyother day, goes to Brighton. Moore mentions in his Diary waiting at Knightsbridge for his Bessie, coming to town by the Bath coach. All now is altered—highwaymen, patrols, and mails are all gone—and the road is the best entrance into the capital. An Act, passed June 19th, 1829, placed the Great Western Road, from Knightsbridge to Brentford Bridge, under the charge of the Commissioners of Metropolitan Roads.

It was a long time before our hamlet became part and parcel of the metropolis. A letter in my possession, written by an intelligent mechanic, fresh from Gloucester, and dated August, 1783, describes it as “quite out of London, for which,” says he, “I like it the better.” And so it was; the stream then ran open, the streets were unpaved and unlighted, and a maypole was still on the village green. It is not ten years since the hawthorn hedge has entirely disappeared at the Gore, and the blackbird and starling might still be heard. We have seen the references to game in Elizabeth’s time, but few persons imagine, perhaps, that within the recollection of some who have not passed long from us, snipe andwoodcocks might occasionally be lowered; now, however, we are limited to our saucy friend the sparrow, for even the very swallows have quitted us.

Forty years since, there was neither draper’s nor butcher’s shop between Hyde Park Corner and Sloane Street, and only one in the whole locality where a newspaper could be had, or writing paper purchased. There was no conveyance to London but by a kind of stagecoach; the roads were dimly lighted by oil,[30]and the modern paving only to be seen along Knightsbridge Terrace.

Till about 1835, a watch-house and pound remained at the east end of Middle Row; and the stocks were to be seen at the end of Park-side, almost opposite the Conduit, as late as 1805. A magistrate sat once a week at the Fox and Bull, and a market was held every Thursday.

The water supply was anciently by means of springs and wells, which were very pure, numerous, and valuable. In the beginning of the eighteenth century, Park-side was leased from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster bythe Birkheads, and the few houses then there were supplied by a conduit they were permitted by the Crown to use, within Hyde Park. There was a row of conduits in the fields each side of Rotten Row, whose waters were received by the one at the end of Park-side, known as St. James’s, or the Receiving Conduit; and which supplied the royal residences and the Abbey with water.[31]There were several excellent springs also in the hamlet, one of which appears to have been public property, from a story told by Malcolm, to the effect that in 1727, there being an excessive drought, the supply of water was rendered very precarious, and disputes arose between the inhabitants of Knightsbridge as to whom it belonged. The women appear to have taken an unusual share in this quarrel, which was so fiercely carried on, that requisition was had to a magistrate to hinder the tongue giving way to the hands and nails. The magistrate decided that the water belonged to the St. Margaret’s part of the hamlet.

—“Thus I entertainThe antiquarian humour, and am pleasedTo skim along the surfaces of things,Beguiling harmlessly the listless hours.”Wordsworth.

—“Thus I entertainThe antiquarian humour, and am pleasedTo skim along the surfaces of things,Beguiling harmlessly the listless hours.”

Wordsworth.

Sosmall a place as our hamlet formerly was, it could not have many historical associations of which to boast, and this chapter must, therefore, be brief. Too small and unimportant to be the scene of great contests, or of political intrigues, few notices of it in connection with history occur, but those few are far from being uninteresting.

In the year 1361, a dreadful plague broke out in France, and fears were entertained that it might ravage London. To prevent this, great precautions were taken, and the King promptly issued an order, in which, reciting the evils which were occasioned by the offal and refuse being thrown by the city butchersinto the Thames, he ordered, on February 25, with the consent of Parliament then assembled, that to provide “for the honesty of the said city, and the safety of the people,” all “bulls, oxen, hogs, and other gross creatures,” to be slain for the citizens, should be led either to Stratford on the one side, or Knightsbridge on the other, and be there slain and dressed ready for sale. And any butcher offending by killing within these places should be imprisoned one year: a piece of legislative wisdom our own times should imitate.

When the Kentish insurrection under Wyatt broke out against the marriage of Mary and Philip of Spain, Wyatt having vainly endeavoured to enter London by the bridge, was compelled to march to Kingston, in order to cross the Thames; arriving at Knightsbridge, he there rested his men “untyll daye,” they “being very weary with travel of that night and the daye before.” In London, the quaint old chronicler tells us, “there was no small adowe,” and by nine o’clock on the morning of February 7, 1556, Wyatt set his men in motion, and “planting his ordenance upon the hill, almost over agaynst the park corner,” left itthere under a guard, and marched towards Charing Cross. The Earl of Pembroke, who commanded Mary’s troops, hovered about “untyll all was passed by, saving the tayle,” which he cut off from the main body. This misfortune ruined Wyatt, who soon after was captured, and ultimately executed; his head being set up on Hay Hill, not far from the spot where he had left his cannon.

During the contest between Charles I. and his people, many skirmishes are traditionally said to have occurred here. Although in the numerous works of all kinds I have referred to, no mention could be found of such; yet that they did take place, many remains of that period, since brought to light, testify. Mr. Faulkner records the discovery of a helmet, breastplate, and some swords, on the site of Lowndes Square. In 1840, many human remains, coins of Charles’ time, some curious horse-shoes, and trappings, were dug up when the Albert Gate improvements were made. In Grosvenor Place, and various spots in the Five Fields, similar remains have also been discovered.

The infamous Lord Howard of Escrick, onwhose perjured evidence Algernon Sidney was beheaded, had a house at Knightsbridge, and it was the resort of all the desperate and unprincipled adventurers[35]who are sure to be found attached to the ranks even of the noble and high-minded in such contests as were then going on between Charles II. and the Whigs. He wrought himself into their consultations, and pretended entire devotion to their cause; but it was only to ruin their plans and consign the leaders to the scaffold.

Roger North, in his “Examen,” states that when the Rye House Plot became known, the King commanded Howard’s apprehension, and accordingly the Serjeant-at-Arms proceeded to Knightsbridge, beset his house, and going in to search for him, “though he found the bed warm where he lay,” yet could not find him, till at last they discovered him hidden behind a chimney, on which “he came out in his shirt and yielded himself.” He saved himself, as is well known, by despicably witnessing against others: the ballads and satires of the day contain many allusions to him, and his promiseddeeds, of which the following may serve as a specimen:—

“Was it not a damn’d thing,That Russell and Hampden,Should serve all the projects of hot-headed Tory?But much more untowardTo appoint my Lord HowardOf his own purse and credit, to raise men and money,Who at Knightsbridge did hideThose brisk boys unspy’d,That at Shaftsbury’s whistle were ready to follow,But when aid he should bring,Like a true Brentford king,He was here with a whoop, and there with a hollo.”

Lord Howard died in 1683, and was succeeded by his son Charles, at whose death, in 1715, the sullied title became extinct.

Our hamlet has one more association with Stuart plots; but this time the Stuarts’ partisans were the plotters. In 1694 Sir William Barclay and Sir William Perkins, two staunch Jacobites, formed a plot for the assassination of William III.; the plan being to waylay the King on his return to Kensington from some hunting excursion, and shoot him. The plan required a number of conspirators to render it successful, and herein lay the monarch’s safety. Captain Porter, one of the first to join, gave notice to the ministers, and several engaged in the crimewere apprehended. Porter, on the trial, stated that he had been with two others to survey the ground, lying at the Swan at Knightsbridge one night, and there talking over their plans. Finally, it was agreed to commit the foul deed in a lane near to Turnham Green. Perkins and others were found guilty on most clear evidence, and suffered death at Tyburn accordingly.

The Knightsbridge Volunteers.—Notwithstanding the declaration of our brave tars on the threatened invasion of our shores, by Napoleon in 1803, that he should not come bywater, great excitement prevailed, and volunteers were enrolled from one end of the country to the other, and a deadlier contest never cursed the earth than such would have been, had the Emperor dared to put his project into execution. Among those earnest men who at this crisis rendered genuine service to the country by their energies in this particular, was Major Robert Eyre, an officer who had seen much and real service in the American War of Independence, and elsewhere, but who had now settled down at Knightsbridge, where for years he resided, one of the most respected of itsinhabitants. He offered to raise a corps in the hamlet, although it had already furnished a number of men to the regiments of the surrounding locality. His offer was accepted in the following terms:—

London, August 14th, 1803.Sir,—Lord Hobart has acquainted me, that the King has derived great satisfaction from the zeal and public spirit which have been manifested by the offer lately communicated to me by you, which his Majesty has most graciously been pleased to approve and accept. You will be pleased to name your officers.

London, August 14th, 1803.

Sir,—Lord Hobart has acquainted me, that the King has derived great satisfaction from the zeal and public spirit which have been manifested by the offer lately communicated to me by you, which his Majesty has most graciously been pleased to approve and accept. You will be pleased to name your officers.

I have the honour to be, Sir,Your most obedient servant,Scott Titchfield.

To Major Robert Eyre.

The regiment was raised at the Major’s expense, numbering 146 men, and he brought them to a high state of efficiency. Major Eyre presented them with a pair of colours, one of which, a blue flag, has on it a painted rebus device, of a knight in armour riding over abridge, emblematical of the name of the hamlet.[39]

The colours of the Knightsbridge volunteers

On the 26th and 28th October, 1803, King George III. in great state and formality reviewed the volunteers of the metropolis in Hyde Park. The Knightsbridge regiment appeared on the latter day, and the vast body acquitted themselves with great satisfaction to the authorities. In the United Service Institution Library is preserved a paper confidentially communicated to the commander of every regiment, describing the position each corps was to take up in case alarm shouldoccur, and from it I find that the 1st Battalion of the Queen’s Royal Volunteer Infantry, Col. Hobart, were to patrol along Grosvenor Place and Pimlico, to the Palace, and along Piccadilly, to communicate with the 2nd Battalion of the same regiment, and the St. Margaret’s and St. George’s Regiments. This 2nd Battalion were to patrol Sloane Street, leaving one company in Chelsea Waterworks, and to communicate with the Knightsbridge corps, who were to remain in reserve at the north end of Sloane Street.

Riots at Knightsbridge.—In those good old electioneering times, “the days when George III. was king,” our hamlet was many a time the scene of riot. Such scenes, of course, will not be here detailed; but two of them were too serious to be passed over entirely, viz., on March 28th, 1768, and October 4th, 1803. On the former occasion, Wilkes and Cooke were elected for Middlesex; it was customary for a London mob to meet the Brentford one in and about Knightsbridge; and as Wilkes’ opponent was riding through with a body of his supporters, one of them hoisted a flag, on which was inscribed, “No Blasphemer,” andterrible violence instantly ensued. At the latter election, Burdett was the popular candidate, and the excitement, which had been very great throughout, culminated with the junction of the mobs at Knightsbridge, causing much confusion and damage.

The last riot in Knightsbridge was on the occasion of the funeral of Honey and Francis (who were shot in the rioting on the occasion of the funeral of Caroline of Brunswick) on August 26th, 1821. It occasioned a correspondence between the Sheriff and the Government; and being fully described therein, I insert it here.

Mr. Sheriff Waithman to Earl Bathurst.My Lord,—I consider it my duty to apprise his Majesty’s Government, through your Lordship, of a violent outrage on the public peace, committed by some individuals of the Life Guards, at Knightsbridge, yesterday, and of an attempt at assassination upon me personally, while in the execution of my duty as Sheriff of Middlesex, as the head of the civil power of the county.Your Lordship thought proper to direct theLord Mayor on Saturday to take the necessary measures to preserve the peace of the city, during the intended funeral of Honey and Francis; and, although no such caution was addressed to the Sheriff, as conservator of the public peace of the county, I felt it my duty to direct the deputy-sheriffs of the city and county to order out the constables of the divisions nearest to, and through which the funeral was expected to pass; and also to attend in person, with proper officers, to prevent or quell any tumult or disorder.Conceiving that under the existing irritation of the people, and the circumstances for which they had assembled, some insult might be offered to the Life Guards in their barracks, I disposed of the constables chiefly in that vicinity, and actually ranged a body of them in front of the barracks, with instructions to apprehend every person who should attempt to commit any outrage or disorder.The funeral, in consequence of these precautions, passed the barracks in an orderly and quiet manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that of a brick being thrown from the barracks, which fell near my horse,and wounded, as I am informed, a young girl. My admonitions, and the presence of the constables, succeeded, however, in repressing the irritation this wanton act was calculated to excite.When the procession had passed, and while the road continued to be crowded with people, the gates of the barracks were thrown open, and the avenue filled with soldiers. The people, as might have been foreseen, gathered round the spot, and expressed their displeasure.A tumult seemed inevitable. I requested to speak to the officer on duty, but without effect; and, at length, by repeated expostulations with the soldiers, I succeeded in prevailing on them to retire and close the gates.Some time after, upon returning to the same spot, I saw a number of soldiers running from the wicker gate, and pursuing the people on the causeway. Finding an affray actually commenced, I sprung my horse upon the causeway, interposed between the parties, and succeeded in separating them. While thus engaged, a soldier, with whom I had before been expostulating, and who was, therefore, acquainted withmy official situation, started forward at a man, and knocked him down. At the same time, while using my utmost endeavours to prevail on the soldiers to retire into the barracks, and the people to desist and keep the peace, the bridle of my horse was violently seized, on the one side by a young officer in undress, and on the other by the soldier whose violence I had just noticed, and who, together, endeavoured to throw my horse over the causeway; and I only succeeded in extricating myself by striking the soldier with my stick, and making my horse plunge. Immediately several of the soldiers rushed at me with their swords drawn, and one actually loaded his carbine, and directed it towards me, but was, I am informed, knocked down by one of the constables. Further mischief was prevented by the interposition of some military officers of higher authority, and the soldiers at length retired into their barracks.My Lord, these circumstances require no comment. At a critical juncture the soldiers were left to their own exasperated feeling, and manifested a lawless spirit. The civil power under my direction was fully adequate for thepreservation of the peace among the people, but not to encounter an armed soldiery. I had no communication from his Majesty’s Government, nor could I obtain an interview with any of the officers of the regiment. . . . I feel assured that had I not interposed with the civil power and even risked my own life, a frightful slaughter must have ensued. Of subordination to civil authority the soldiers appeared to be wholly unconscious, and that authority, in my person, was repeatedly insulted, and grossly outraged.It would, my Lord, be as needless as presumptuous in me to attempt to instruct your Lordship and his Majesty’s Government in the nature of the constitutional authority under which I attended yesterday, or the right I possessed in my official character to have claimed the aid and assistance of these very military to suppress tumult, who have, upon this occasion, in open defiance of the civil authority, been the promoters of it; nor need I add one word in aggravation of the enormity of the offences committed: the offenders can some of them be identified, and I trust your Lordship will cause immediate and effectual means to be adoptedto bring them to justice, as a salutary example to others.

Mr. Sheriff Waithman to Earl Bathurst.

My Lord,—I consider it my duty to apprise his Majesty’s Government, through your Lordship, of a violent outrage on the public peace, committed by some individuals of the Life Guards, at Knightsbridge, yesterday, and of an attempt at assassination upon me personally, while in the execution of my duty as Sheriff of Middlesex, as the head of the civil power of the county.

Your Lordship thought proper to direct theLord Mayor on Saturday to take the necessary measures to preserve the peace of the city, during the intended funeral of Honey and Francis; and, although no such caution was addressed to the Sheriff, as conservator of the public peace of the county, I felt it my duty to direct the deputy-sheriffs of the city and county to order out the constables of the divisions nearest to, and through which the funeral was expected to pass; and also to attend in person, with proper officers, to prevent or quell any tumult or disorder.

Conceiving that under the existing irritation of the people, and the circumstances for which they had assembled, some insult might be offered to the Life Guards in their barracks, I disposed of the constables chiefly in that vicinity, and actually ranged a body of them in front of the barracks, with instructions to apprehend every person who should attempt to commit any outrage or disorder.

The funeral, in consequence of these precautions, passed the barracks in an orderly and quiet manner, marked by no other peculiar circumstance than that of a brick being thrown from the barracks, which fell near my horse,and wounded, as I am informed, a young girl. My admonitions, and the presence of the constables, succeeded, however, in repressing the irritation this wanton act was calculated to excite.

When the procession had passed, and while the road continued to be crowded with people, the gates of the barracks were thrown open, and the avenue filled with soldiers. The people, as might have been foreseen, gathered round the spot, and expressed their displeasure.

A tumult seemed inevitable. I requested to speak to the officer on duty, but without effect; and, at length, by repeated expostulations with the soldiers, I succeeded in prevailing on them to retire and close the gates.

Some time after, upon returning to the same spot, I saw a number of soldiers running from the wicker gate, and pursuing the people on the causeway. Finding an affray actually commenced, I sprung my horse upon the causeway, interposed between the parties, and succeeded in separating them. While thus engaged, a soldier, with whom I had before been expostulating, and who was, therefore, acquainted withmy official situation, started forward at a man, and knocked him down. At the same time, while using my utmost endeavours to prevail on the soldiers to retire into the barracks, and the people to desist and keep the peace, the bridle of my horse was violently seized, on the one side by a young officer in undress, and on the other by the soldier whose violence I had just noticed, and who, together, endeavoured to throw my horse over the causeway; and I only succeeded in extricating myself by striking the soldier with my stick, and making my horse plunge. Immediately several of the soldiers rushed at me with their swords drawn, and one actually loaded his carbine, and directed it towards me, but was, I am informed, knocked down by one of the constables. Further mischief was prevented by the interposition of some military officers of higher authority, and the soldiers at length retired into their barracks.

My Lord, these circumstances require no comment. At a critical juncture the soldiers were left to their own exasperated feeling, and manifested a lawless spirit. The civil power under my direction was fully adequate for thepreservation of the peace among the people, but not to encounter an armed soldiery. I had no communication from his Majesty’s Government, nor could I obtain an interview with any of the officers of the regiment. . . . I feel assured that had I not interposed with the civil power and even risked my own life, a frightful slaughter must have ensued. Of subordination to civil authority the soldiers appeared to be wholly unconscious, and that authority, in my person, was repeatedly insulted, and grossly outraged.

It would, my Lord, be as needless as presumptuous in me to attempt to instruct your Lordship and his Majesty’s Government in the nature of the constitutional authority under which I attended yesterday, or the right I possessed in my official character to have claimed the aid and assistance of these very military to suppress tumult, who have, upon this occasion, in open defiance of the civil authority, been the promoters of it; nor need I add one word in aggravation of the enormity of the offences committed: the offenders can some of them be identified, and I trust your Lordship will cause immediate and effectual means to be adoptedto bring them to justice, as a salutary example to others.

I have the honour to be, my Lord, &c.,R.Waithman.

Bridge Street, August, 27th, 1821.

To this letter Earl Bathurst replied as follows:—

Whitehall, August 28th, 1821.Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th inst., relative to a riot which took place at Knightsbridge on Sunday last. I had, before the receipt of your letter, given directions for an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this transaction, in consequence of representations made to me, which, I am bound to say, differ in many essential particulars from the statement I have received from you.I cannot refrain from expressing my regret and surprise, that when the civil power under your direction was fully adequate (as you state) for the preservation of the peace among the people, a mob should have been permitted to remain in a continued state of riot, after the soldiershad been withdrawn within their barracks, until the Riot Act was read by Mr. Conant, and the rioters dispersed by the peace officers under his immediate orders; and I do not understand that in the execution of this duty he received any assistance from you.I am, Sir, &c.Bathurst.Mr. Sheriff Waithman.

Whitehall, August 28th, 1821.

Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th inst., relative to a riot which took place at Knightsbridge on Sunday last. I had, before the receipt of your letter, given directions for an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this transaction, in consequence of representations made to me, which, I am bound to say, differ in many essential particulars from the statement I have received from you.

I cannot refrain from expressing my regret and surprise, that when the civil power under your direction was fully adequate (as you state) for the preservation of the peace among the people, a mob should have been permitted to remain in a continued state of riot, after the soldiershad been withdrawn within their barracks, until the Riot Act was read by Mr. Conant, and the rioters dispersed by the peace officers under his immediate orders; and I do not understand that in the execution of this duty he received any assistance from you.

I am, Sir, &c.Bathurst.

Mr. Sheriff Waithman.

“I pray you let us satisfy our eyesWith the memorials, and the things of fameThat do renown this city.”Shakspeare.

“I pray you let us satisfy our eyesWith the memorials, and the things of fameThat do renown this city.”

Shakspeare.

Theparish church of St. Margaret, Westminster, is the mother church of this locality. Although the Decree of 1222, before referred to, limited the western boundary of that parish to the Tyburn stream, it declared that beyond that stream lay the town of Knightsbridge, which belonged to it. In what parish the manor of Eia was situated is not stated, but it is most likely that the higher portion of it was a forest, and the lower, it is certain, was partly a marsh, and consequently altogether unnoticed by the assessors; for the growth of parishes was very gradual, and their proper boundaries for ages undefined.St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields is mentioned as early as 1225, but did not become a regular parish till after 1337, and not independent of St. Margaret’s till 1535. In St. Martin’s the whole of the manor of Eia was then included; it consequently reached as far as the Westbourne, and included a part of Knightsbridge; this arrangement continued till the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, in 1724, was formed out of St. Martin’s, and then this distant part was included, absurdly enough, within the new parish.

On the west of the rivulet, which here divides St. George’s parish from St. Margaret’s and Chelsea, the hamlet stands partly in those and partly in Kensington parish. St. Margaret’s stretches from William Street, behind Lowndes Terrace, across the top of Sloane Street, behind Brompton Road, continuing the line behind Arthur Street to the bottom of Ennismore Mews, where, abutting on the north wall of Brompton Churchyard, it strikes off in a north-west direction and crosses the Kensington Road just below Hyde Park Terrace, whence it runs along the road into the town, and, including a few houses onthe north side of High Street, it enters the Royal Gardens, including a considerable portion thereof, and the whole of the palace, within its boundary; it joins Paddington at a point on the Uxbridge Road, and thence returns through the Serpentine to Knightsbridge.

The parish officers of St. Margaret alone beat the bounds now, and they appear always to have been strict in this duty, which, from some entries in their books, one would consider to have been a little festive occasionally:—

1595.

Item, paid for bread, drink, cheese, fish, cream, and other victuals, when the worshipfull of the parish, and very many others of the poorer sort, went the perambulation to Kensington, in this hard and dere time of all things, as may appear by a bill of particulars

£7

10s.

0d.

1597.

Item, for the charges of diet at Kensington for the perambulacion of the parish, being a yere of great scarcity and deerness

£6

8s.

8d.

1642.

Item, spent at Knightsbridge, when divers of the burgesses and vestriemen of this parish went the perambulation

£2

19s.

9d.

1668.

Item, expended at a perambulation this yeare at Knightsbridge

£26

13s.

4d.

Henry VIII.’s corpse passed through Knightsbridge for interment at Windsor.In the St. Margaret’s books is the following entry:—

1547.

Paid to the poor men that did bere the copis and other necessaries to Knightsbridge, when that King Henry the Eighth was brought to his burial to Wynsor, and to the man that did ring the bells

£0

3s.

0d.

Chelsea parish includes Lowndes Square and the adjoining streets, while Kensington includes Queen’s Buildings, and a few houses in Sloane Street. Thus is Knightsbridge absurdly divided, when for generations there has existed within it a place of worship which could have been easily rendered the focus of a new and independent parish, had its patrons been so minded. The opportunity was lost when St. George’s was formed, and Trinity Chapel, from having been, as it were, the nursing-mother around which the village gathered, was permitted to dwindle, without a thought for it, into comparative insignificance. This ancient religious edifice I will now give an account of.

Was anciently attached to a Lazar-house or Hospital, with the history of which it is mostintimately connected. When or by whom founded is not known—at least, if such is recorded, it is not mentioned by any writer on ecclesiastical affairs; but as it appears always to have been attached to the Abbey of Westminster, we may conclude its foundation was connected with that establishment.

The earliest mention I have met with of the Lazar-house is in a grant of James I., preserved in the British Museum,[52]as follows:—

1605,JamesR. By ye king,Trustie and welbeloued wee grete you well. Whereas we are given to understand that the sick, lame, and impotent people in our hospitall of Knighte-bridge, in our county of Middlesex, are greatly distressed for want of wholesome water, both for the dressing of their meat, and for making condiment potions for their sores, and that in our park called Hyde Park, in our sayd county, adjoyning to the sayd hospitall, there is within of 140 paces of the sayd hospitall a meete spring of good water, wofby pipe of lead of the charge of five and thirty pounds, may safelybe brought to serve the sayde house, for their relief in yt behalf, without any inconvenience growing thereby to our said parke; in consideration of ye poverty, and for the contynuall use and ease of ye sayd impotent and distressed people, wee are graciously pleased to bestow uppon them ye sayd sum of xxxvl., lawful money of England, for and towards the charge of bringinge the sayde springe water to the sayde house by pipe of lead. Wherefore our pleasure is, that you, our warden of our Mint, shall appoint workmen, and give order for the doing thereof, and defray the charge, not exceeding the sayd sum of xxxvl.; ffor the which wee do hereby give you full allowance out of those our moneys as remayne in your hande, lately coyned in our Tower. And this shall be our sufficient warrant unto you, and the duplicate of this published by you a sufficient warrant and discharge to ye keeper and keepers of ye sayde parke, and to all other persons that may consent for the doing hereof. Given under our sign, &c., at orCastle of Windsor, the sixth day of September, in ye thyrd yere of our raigne ofEngland, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-eighth.To our trusty and welbeloued servant SrThomas Knyvett, Knight, warden of our mynt. C. C.Inwood.

1605,JamesR. By ye king,

Trustie and welbeloued wee grete you well. Whereas we are given to understand that the sick, lame, and impotent people in our hospitall of Knighte-bridge, in our county of Middlesex, are greatly distressed for want of wholesome water, both for the dressing of their meat, and for making condiment potions for their sores, and that in our park called Hyde Park, in our sayd county, adjoyning to the sayd hospitall, there is within of 140 paces of the sayd hospitall a meete spring of good water, wofby pipe of lead of the charge of five and thirty pounds, may safelybe brought to serve the sayde house, for their relief in yt behalf, without any inconvenience growing thereby to our said parke; in consideration of ye poverty, and for the contynuall use and ease of ye sayd impotent and distressed people, wee are graciously pleased to bestow uppon them ye sayd sum of xxxvl., lawful money of England, for and towards the charge of bringinge the sayde springe water to the sayde house by pipe of lead. Wherefore our pleasure is, that you, our warden of our Mint, shall appoint workmen, and give order for the doing thereof, and defray the charge, not exceeding the sayd sum of xxxvl.; ffor the which wee do hereby give you full allowance out of those our moneys as remayne in your hande, lately coyned in our Tower. And this shall be our sufficient warrant unto you, and the duplicate of this published by you a sufficient warrant and discharge to ye keeper and keepers of ye sayde parke, and to all other persons that may consent for the doing hereof. Given under our sign, &c., at orCastle of Windsor, the sixth day of September, in ye thyrd yere of our raigne ofEngland, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-eighth.

To our trusty and welbeloued servant SrThomas Knyvett, Knight, warden of our mynt. C. C.Inwood.

But, although this is the earliest document concerning the Lazar-house I have seen, there exist earlier, to which the public have not access. Lysons says there is, among the records of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, a statement of its condition in 1595, drawn up by John Glassington, Governor of the House, by profession a surgeon, and whose family rented the hospital, &c., from the Church of Westminster (at the rent of 4s. per annum) for many years. In this document he states that there were no lands belonging to this hospital, nor a groat of endowment; that there had been a certain piece, which was then enclosed within Hyde Park, to the great detriment of the charity. He also states that when he became governor, the building was ready to fall; that he had expended above £100 on it; that there were commonly thirty-six or thirty-sevenpersons in the house, who were supported by voluntary contributions; that the charge of the previous year, in provisions only, and exclusive of candles, linen, woollen, salves, medicines, burials, &c., had been £161 19s. 4d. He adds a list of fifty-five persons whom he had cured, some of whom had been dismissed as incurable from other hospitals. An account of the regulations of the house is subjoined by him, by which it appears that the patients attended prayers every morning and evening, and that on Sundays there was morning and evening service for the neighbours; that those who were able were obliged to work; that they dined every day on “warm meat and porrege,” and that every man had his own “dish, platter, and tankard, to kepe the broken from the whole.”[55]

In the parish accounts of St. Margaret’s are several entries relating to this hospital:

1634.

Item, for a pair of sheetes for Jane Clare, when wee sent her to the Spittle at Knightsbridge

3s.

6d.

1638.

Item, to Mr. Winter, keeper of the hospitall at Knightsbridge, for the keeping of the Three Innocents for one month

16s.

1639.

Item, to Mr. Thomas Neale, for three paire of shoes,two paire for the poore Innocents at the Spittle at Knightsbridge, &c.

6s.

6d.

1646.

Disbursements for the poore Innocents in the Spittle, or Lazar-house, at Knightsbridge; sum total,

£4

2s.

11d.[56]

There are no books or accounts of the Lazar-house existing at the Chapel now, neither have I been able to ascertain whether they exist elsewhere, or even at all. But in one of the register books still preserved is a list of persons discharged from it; the date of the year is not given, but I have reason to think it about 1676. There are twenty-seven entries, of which the following may serve as samples:—

March 5—Priscilla Knight to London, criple.,, 6—Mary ffranklin to Berkshire.,, 9—John Wordner, his wife, to children, to Bristow, criple.,, 10—Nicholas fflood, his wife, 4 children, to Wales, criple.,, 18—Robert Dicerson, his wife, 2 children, to Gloster.

March 5—Priscilla Knight to London, criple.

,, 6—Mary ffranklin to Berkshire.

,, 9—John Wordner, his wife, to children, to Bristow, criple.

,, 10—Nicholas fflood, his wife, 4 children, to Wales, criple.

,, 18—Robert Dicerson, his wife, 2 children, to Gloster.

Back to Index Next