Transcribed from the 1856 J. Russell Smith edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org. Many thanks to Royal Kensington Libraries for allowing
their copy to be used for this transcription.
[Picture: Knightsbridge—The site of Albert Gate]
THE
MEMORIALS OF THE HAMLET
OF
KNIGHTSBRIDGE.
With Notices of its Immediate Neighbourhood.
* * * * *
BY THE LATE
HENRY GEORGE DAVIS.
* * * * *
* * * * *
EDITED BY
CHARLES DAVIS.
* * * * *
* * * * *
LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY J. RUSSELL SMITH, SOHO-SQUARE;
AND TO BE HAD OF MR. DAVIS, ST. PAUL’S SCHOOLS, KNIGHTSBRIDGE.
1859.
* * * * *
LONDON:
TAYLOR AND GREENING, PRINTERS, GRAYSTOKE-PLACE,
FETTER-LANE, HOLBORN.
PREFACE.
IN presenting the MEMORIALS OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE to the public, apology must
be made for the delay in its appearance since the announcement of its
intended publication. This was occasioned by the sudden and protracted
illness of its Editor: since his restoration, he has prosecuted the work
with all the diligence which his time permitted.
The book is published in the hope that its critics may treat its Author
kindly, since the brain that indited it is, alas! no more. It is the
result of great assiduity and perseverance amidst peculiar difficulties,
and was only completed just before the death of the compiler, who,
towards its close, had laboured at it with greater energy than his
weakened frame ought properly to have borne.
The immediate motive for publication was the Editor’s regard, it might
almost be termed veneration, for its writer, seconded by favourable
opinions expressed by several literary gentlemen who perused the
manuscript, and knowledge that many notices by the same hand had already
appeared in “Notes and Queries,” “The West Middlesex Advertiser,” and the
various local papers that have occasionally been published in the
neighbourhood.
The work was written from notes made at various times, some having been
taken when its author was yet a boy. It may therefore be described as
the labour of his short and painful life; and it was felt that so long as
the result of his application was laid aside, so long did the Editor’s
duty to his brother remain unperformed.
As some little notice of our historian may be desirable, the following
sketch is subjoined:—
Henry George Davis was born at 4, Mill’s Buildings, on August 14th, 1830.
While an infant he had severe inflammation of the lungs, which afterwards
became confirmed pleurisy. He was educated at the Philological School in
the New Road. Of this Institution he was to the last fond and proud.
Having carried off many of its prizes, he always felt an identity with
it. He was of a studious inclination—a disposition doubtless fostered by
his infirmities; for he was never able to join in the sports of his
fellows. As he arrived at manhood, his disease (increased in 1850 by
rheumatic fever) became much more severe, and finally released his soul
“to its Almighty source” on the 30th of December, 1857.
The Editor has to acknowledge obligations to O. B. Cole, Esq.; to the
author of “Paddington, Past and Present;” to the Rev. M. Walcot, of “The
Memorials of Westminster;” Mr. Cunningham, of “The Handbook of London;”
Mr. Faulkner’s works; and to those sundry publications the name of which
is given with each quotation. He hopes his readers may have that
enjoyment in the perusal of the following History which was had in the
providing of it for them.
* * * * *
_St. Paul’s Schools_, _Knightsbridge_, _June_, 1859.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
CHAP. I. Introduction 1
CHAP. II. Historical Associations 32
CHAP. III. Modern Parochial Divisions: The Streets, 48
Public Buildings, &c. Their Associations,
Eminent Inhabitants, &c.
CHAP. IV. Belgravia 216
CHAP. V. The Sub-District of St. Barnabas 244
CHAP. VI. Social and Political Summary 267
PERSONS.
PAGE
Allen, John 181
Bennett, Rev. W. J. E. 97
Bensley, Richard 207
Birkhead Family 88
Blessington, Lady 138
Bellamy, G. A. 215
Bernal, Ralph 230
Bowles, Carrington 143
Broughton, Dr. 228
Buckingham, Anecdote of Duke of 27
Burton, Judge 115 & 185
Carlisle, Frederick Earl of 233
Caulfield, General 229
Chardin, Sir John 215
Cheselden, Mr. 182
Chudleigh, Miss 164
Clarendon, Hyde, Earl of 223
Clarke, Mrs. 265
Corbaux, Miss 266
Cornellys, Mrs. 156
Cromwell, Family of 75
Danvers, Family of 82
Derwentwater, Countess of 82
De Dunstanville, Lord 110
D’Oliveyra, Francis Xavier 210
D’Orsay, Count 141
Duncan, Sir H. 229
Egremont, Lord 232
Every, John 81
Eyre, Major Robert 37
Foote, Anecdote of 168
Gamble, Rev. J. 107
Gardiner, Sir R. 229
Gascoigne, Mrs. 154
George IV., Anecdote of 236
Grant, General Sir W. K. 227
Guthrie, Mr. 266
Harness, Rev. W. 100
Harrison, Thomas 207
Hawke, Honourable Miss 228
Higgins, Mr. M. J. 153
Howard of Escrick, Lord 34
Howard, Major 234
Humphry, Ozias 115
Humphrey, Sir William 82
Hunter, John 182
Inchbald, Mrs., Anecdote of 135
Jones, Gentleman 227
Lanesborough, Lord 180
Laremar, William 186
Lenthall, Sir John 75
Lens, Bernard 210
Lewis, Sir G. C. 110
Lewis, Lady Theresa 110
Lewis, William Thomas 265
Liddell, Hon. and Rev. R. 97
Liston, John 188
Liston, Mrs. 196
Louis Napoleon 139
Madan, Rev. M. 238
Maitland, Sir P. 229
Marsh, Charles 110
Marshall, J. 215
Miller, Robert 210
Milner, Isaac 138
Molesworth, Sir W. 229
Morgan, Lady 205
Morgann, Maurice 147
Morland, Sir Samuel 77
Morison, Dr. 200
Munster, Earl of 242
Murphy, Arthur 172
Nell Gwynne 258
Orrery, Countess of 211
Ossory, Lady 234
Penn, William 214
Pennington, Rev. Thos. 263
Pettigrew, Dr. W. V. 228
Pickett, William 188
Read, John 161
Reynolds, Sir Joshua 112
Richmond, Rev. Legh 226 & 240
Rodwell, H. 191 & 264
Rutland, John, Duke of 177
Ryland, W. W. 171
Skelton, William 264
Soyer, Mons. 142
Stirling, E. 107
Telfair, Cortez and James 146
Thornton, Henry 137
Thornton, James 257
Trevor, Sir John 200
Trotter, Thomas 177
Troubridge, Sir T. 229
Tytler, P. F. 97
Underwood, Dr. M. 177
Vandervelde, Cornelius 80
Villiers, Hon. George 109
Wakefield, Edward 215
Walcot, Rev. M. 100
Walpole, Robert 81
Ward, Seth 211
Warner, Captain 253
Wellesley, Marquis of 170
Wellington, Anecdote of Duke of 187
Wilberforce, William 137 & 241
Wilkes, John 136
Wilkie, Note on 258
Wright, Dr. Richard 215
Yarmouth, Countess of 215
PLACES.
Albert Gate 100
All Saints’ Church 98
Avery Farm Row 252
Baber’s Floor-cloth Factory 106
Belgravia 216
Belgrave Chapel 237
Belgrave Square 224
Belgrave Street, Upper 242
Blomfield Terrace 253
Bridge, The 20
Brompton Park Nursery 132
Brompton Road 103
Cake House, The 121
Cannon Brewhouse, The 113
Cavalry Barracks 118
Chapel Street 226
Chatham House 103
Chelsea Bun House 259
Chesham Place and Street 228
Chester Street 228
College of St. Barnabas 250
Commercial Road, The 253
Compasses, The 263
Downing’s Floor-cloth Factory 158
Dwarf, The 264
Eaton Place 228
Eaton Place West 229
Eaton Square 230
Eden Lodge 135
Ennismore Place and Terrace 103
Feathers, The 235
Five Fields, The 219
Fort at Hyde Park Corner 127
Fox and Bull, The 111
Gore House 136
Graham Street 257
Grosvenor Canal 249
Grosvenor Crescent 231
Grosvenor House 146
Grosvenor Place 218, 232
Grosvenor Row 257
Grove House 143
Half-Way House 179
Halkin Street 237
Halkin Street West 237
Hamilton Lodge 136
High Road 103
High Row 111
Hospital for Soldiers 235
Hospital, the Lock 238
Hyde Park 118
Hyde Park Corner 125
Infantry Barracks 187
Jenny’s Whim 253
Jenny’s Whim Bridge 253
Kensington Gore 131
Kent House 109
Kingston House 164
Kinnerton Street 144
Knightsbridge Green 144
Knightsbridge Grove 156
Knightsbridge Schools 91
Knightsbridge Terrace 146
Lanesborough House 180
Lazar House 52
Lock Chapel 241
Lock Hospital 238
Lowndes Square 149
Lowndes Street 242
Lowndes Terrace 155
Marble Arch, The 123
Mercer Lodge 135
Mills’ Buildings 117
Montpelier Square 159
New Street 159
Osnaburg Row 242
Park House 134
Park Side 160
Prince’s Gate 163
Queen’s Buildings 170
Queen’s Head, The 163
Queen’s Row 171
Ranelagh Grove 263
Ranelagh Terrace 263
Receiving House, Royal Humane Society 121
Ring in Hyde Park, The 122
Rising Sun, The 106
Rose and Crown, The 104
Rotten Row 125
Rutland Gate 178
Rutland House 177
St. Barnabas College 250
St. George’s Hospital 180
St. George’s Place 185
St. Paul’s Church 92
„ „ Appendix 280
St. Paul’s Schools, Append. 281
St. Peter’s Church 231
Serpentine, The 120
South Place 106
Spring Gardens 149
Star and Garter, The 264
Statue of Achilles, The 124
Stratheden House 110
Stromboli House 263
Swan, The 176
Tattersall’s 197
Trevor Chapel 200
Trevor Square 199
Trevor Terrace 106
Trinity Chapel 51
Trinity Chapel (Appendix) 279
Upper Belgrave Street 242
Upper Ebury Street 264
Westbourne, The 21
Westbourne Place 265
Westbourne Street 266
White Hart, The 163
White House, The 250
William Street 205
Wilton Crescent 206
Wilton Place 206
Wilton Street 243
York Hospital, The 266
MISCELLANEOUS.
PAGE
Act for Building Albert Gate (Appendix) 277
Address to Liston by Rodwell 191
Anecdote connected with the Duke of Wellington 187
Assassination, Intended, of William III. 36
Bad State of the Roads 24
Boscobel Oak, Trees from 130
Cattle ordered to be Slaughtered at Knightsbridge 33
Churchwardens of St. Paul’s 97
Club at the Fox and Bull 112
Cromwell Tradition, The (Appendix) 275
Cross-road Burial, The last 237
Dangers of the Five Fields 220
Derivation of Name 2
Description of Communion-plate at Chapel 62
Discovery of Curious Relics 34 and 153
Discovery of Human Remains at Fox and Bull 113
Duel between Hamilton and Mohun 122
Enlargement of the Chapel 61
Establishments similar to Lazar House 58
Extracts from the Chapel Accounts 85
Extracts, Curious, from Chapel Baptismal Registrars 70
Extracts, Curious, from Chapel Marriage Registrars 69 and 73
Geology of Knightsbridge 269
Government of Knightsbridge 271
Grant to Lazar House by James I. 52
Historical Anecdotes of Hyde Park Corner 126
Impromptu on Gore House 138
Innkeepers of Knightsbridge 27
Knightsbridge Volunteers 37
Knightsbridge a Family Name (Appendix) 275
Letter to Liston by Mathews, and reply 193 and 194
Letter to Earl Bathurst by Sheriff Waithman 41
Local Family Names 90
Manor and Parochial Divisions 4 and 48
Marriage Statistics of Knightsbridge Chapel 90
Ministers of Knightsbridge Chapel 63
Olden Time, The 23
Parochial Divisions 49
Patients discharged from Lazar House 56
Perambulation Festivities 50
Pimlico, Origin of Name of 245
Population of Knightsbridge 268
Reminiscence of the Compiler (Note) 104
Ditto of Shelley’s first Wife 112
Reputation of the Chapel for Suspicious Marriages 68
Restoration of Knightsbridge Chapel 58 and 61
Reviews in Hyde Park 119
Riots at Knightsbridge 40
Salubrity of Knightsbridge 269
State Visits to French Embassy 102
Tradition of Cæsar Crossing the Thames 250
Trees from the Boscobel Oak 130
Water Supply 30
Wyatt’s Insurrection Quelled 33
William III., Intended Assassination of 36
ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
Knightsbridge, the Site of Albert Gate _Frontispiece_
The Westbourne, from the Park 22
Colours of the Knightsbridge Volunteers 39
Trinity Chapel 62
St. Paul’s Church 94
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
ERRATUM
Page 235, line 19, for “Grosvenor Row” read “Grosvenor Place.” {0}
CHAPTER I.
“Instructed by the Antiquary Times,
We are, we must, we cannot but be wise.”
SHAKSPEARE.
KNIGHTSBRIDGE and 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 of Edward the
Confessor, in which it is called KYNGESBYRIG; in one of Abbot Herbert of
Westminster, nearly a century later, it is spelt KNYGHTSBRIGG. 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 the bridge 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 called KNIGHTSBRIDGE, 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 was called “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 name
KINGSBRIDGE. Having nothing recorded whereby we can account for the
change to KNIGHTSBRIDGE, 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 MANOR AND PAROCHIAL DIVISIONS.
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 neighbouring wood at KYNGESBYRIG,
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 they decided 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 also they 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 of KNIGHTSBRIDGE and WESTBOURN;” 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 of _Quo Warranto_ was 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 church of 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 DAMNUM 9: 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, Alexander de 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 aforesaid messuages 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 other over 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 an inquisition was held to ascertain whether two acres of
land, &c., at “KINGESGOR between 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 these manors 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:—
£ s. d.
Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne Firm’ Terr’ 2 6 8
Knyghtebrydge, Kensyngton, et Firm’ 5 14 11
Westbourne
Pquis Cur 0 6 4½
In the “Monasticon Anglicanum,” vol. i., p. 326, it is thus entered:—
£ s. d.
Maniu de Knyghtebridge et Westbourne Firm’ Terr’ 2 6 8
Westborne, Knightsbridge, et Kensington, Man 5 14c 11
Redd et Firm
Pquis Cur 6 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 of Jerusalem,
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, and _Westborn_, 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 xxti rodes,” &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 the _Valor Ecclesiasticus_, taken by command of King Henry VIII. in
1535, the following entries relating to these manors also appear:—
“Repris ex offic Sacrist dei Monasterii
Reddit’ resolut’ videlt
Manerio de Eybury p. iijlz acr’ terr in Eyfelde per
annum iiij.”
“Repris’ ex offic Novi opis
Midd
Reddit’ resolut’ annuat’ de divs terr et tenements predict videlt.
£ s. d.
Prioresse de Kilborne exeunt de xvj
Manerio de Eybery exeunt de xv
Cust capelle b~te Marie monaster predict p x xj
divs terris apud Knightsbridge
Et manerio de Ebery pro manerio de Hide vij
“Repris ex offic sellarar xiii iiij
Reddit’ resolut’ annuat’ &c.
Dict manerij de Eybury pro terr voc
Marketmede
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 Ebury Farm 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 of
St. 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 was holden 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 the _hindrance 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 the property 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 place derives 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 £23 6s. 4d.
and Ralph Atkinson, collectors
of the escheat, for repair of
Brentford Bridge and
Knightsbridge
1631. Item, paid towards the repaire £24 7s. 10d.
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
THE WESTBOURN.—The Westbourn, for such was the ancient name of the
rivulet which ran through 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 has for 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.
[Picture: 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 chief highways 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 London their 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. In the 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 at _any 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. The _Gentleman’s Magazine_, April, 1740, records that “the
Bristol mail from London was robbed a little beyond Knightsbridge by a
_man 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 similar offence. {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 for us 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 house _were used to_, and so _took 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
in _Knights-Bridge_?—_Bayes_: In _Knights-Bridge_? Stay.—_Johnson_: No,
not if the _inn-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, every other 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 and woodcocks 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 by
the 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.