HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS.
—“Thus I entertain
The antiquarian humour, and am pleased
To skim along the surfaces of things,
Beguiling harmlessly the listless hours.”
WORDSWORTH.
SO small 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 butchers into 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 it there 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, on whose 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
promised deeds, 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 untoward
To appoint my Lord Howard
Of his own purse and credit, to raise men and money,
Who at Knightsbridge did hide
Those 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 crime were
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 by _water_, 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 its inhabitants. 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.
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 a bridge, emblematical of
the name of the hamlet. {39}
[Picture: 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 should occur, 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,” and terrible 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 the Lord 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 with my
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 the preservation 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 adopted to 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 soldiers had 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.