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.

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.

PERSONS.

PLACES.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

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:—

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

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 xx^ti 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. iij^lz acr’ terr in Eyfelde per
annum iiij.”

“Repris’ ex offic Novi opis
Midd

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

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:—

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.

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.

CHAPTER II.
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]

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.

CHAPTER III.
MODERN PAROCHIAL DIVISIONS: THE STREETS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ETC. THEIR ASSOCIATIONS, EMINENT INHABITANTS, ETC.

“I pray you let us satisfy our eyes
With the memorials, and the things of fame
That do renown this city.”

Shakspeare.

The parish 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 on the 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:—

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

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.

TRINITY CHAPEL

Was anciently attached to a Lazar-house or Hospital, with the history of which it is most intimately 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, James R. 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, w^of by pipe of lead of the charge of five and thirty pounds, may safely be 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 o^r Castle of Windsor, the sixth day of September, in ye thyrd yere of our raigne of England, France, and Ireland, and of Scotland the thirty-eighth.

To our trusty and welbeloued servant S^r Thomas 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-seven persons 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:

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.

These unfortunate creatures most probably begged their way up from the country, and, while inmates here, owed their subsistence to charitable contributions, and, when cured, had to beg their way home again. There was also the following entry in another book, date about 1695:—

“Thomas Pirkin, a soldier under Captain John Callipfield, in Brigadier Solwin’s regiment, died in Hospital in August last past.”

Like its origin, its end is obscure: I cannot trace when, or from what causes, its useful and Christian career was terminated. It was certainly existing when Newcourt was collecting materials for his “Repertorium,” published in 1720, and that is the last allusion to it I can find.

It has always been traditionally related in Knightsbridge, that during the fatal year of the plague, 1666, the institution was for a while given up to those who had been attacked by that scourge; and it is also said that the enclosed plot on the Green was the spot where its victims, here and elsewhere in the locality, were buried.

In Butler’s “Hudibras” (III. c. ii. v. 1110), among other charges Cooper urges against the Presbyterians is, that they

“Fill’d Bedlam with predestination,
And Knightsbridge with illumination.”

And the last editor of Gray’s “Hudibras” supposes that by the Presbyterian Illuminati here, Butler alluded to the unfortunate inmates of this Lazar-house! [58a]

There were three other similar establishments in the suburbs of London—namely, at Southwark, Kingsland, and Mile-end. Great care was taken that those afflicted with leprosy, or other such disorder, should be immediately conveyed to one of these places. The law was strictly carried out, and where resistance was made, the sufferers were tied to horses, and dragged thither. [58b]

That the chapel attached to this hospital was of ancient foundation, we may justly infer from its being described as “very old and ruinous, and ready to fall,” as far back as 1629. In that year, for that cause, the inhabitants petitioned Laud, who then filled the see of London, for leave to rebuild it at their own cost, it being the place to which they usually resorted “to perform their religious duties and devotions.” The Bishop, by his licence, dated July 7th, 1629, gave them permission so to do (the consent of the vicar and churchwardens of St. Martin’s being first obtained), “therein to frequent Divine Service and sermons, which Divine offices were to be performed by a sufficient minister, lawfully licensed from time to time,” by the Bishops of London, or their Chancellors for the time being; “provided that the said inhabitants, or their families, did once every quarter of a year repair to their respective parish churches to perform their devotions, and every Easter receive the Holy Communion there, and pay all rights, duties, and profits to their respective ministers to which they did belong,” and this licence was to continue in force during the pleasure of the Bishops of London.

The Chapel was accordingly rebuilt, and “consecrated to the use of the poor of the Hospital,” who “having no maintenance but what they received of alms,” and not being “able to maintain a curate, repair the Chapel, or relieve themselves,” it was, on October 3rd, 1634, according to an arrangement made by the Master of the Hospital, the curate, and some of the principal inhabitants of Knightsbridge, ordered by Dr. Duck, then Chancellor of London, that they, or the major part of them, should let certain pews and seats in such manner as should best effect these objects; that they should keep a register of their accounts, which were to be adjusted every six months, reserving to the incumbents of St. Margaret’s and St. Martin’s their respective rights and emoluments. Dr. Duck presented one piece of the plate used in the celebration of the Communion.

In 1650 the Parliamentary Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of ecclesiastical benefices, reported that Knightsbridge Chapel, in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, belonged to a Lazar-house there; that twenty years before the date of inquiry it was re-edified and enlarged by public contributions; and that Henry Walker, the minister, placed there on probation by order of Parliament, received £10 per annum from the inhabitants. The Commissioners afterwards allowed him £40 per annum. [60]

Among the records of the Dean and Chapter is a petition from John Glassington, surgeon, dated 1654, praying to be admitted Governor of the Hospital, which his ancestors had always rented of the church at Westminster; which petition is accompanied by a certificate of Sir John Thorowgood, one of the Commissioners for Middlesex, and an active public officer in this locality at the time of the Commonwealth; but I infer the application was unsuccessful for a time, for in the next year Henry Walker was presented to the curacy by Cornelius Holland and George Reeve, joint-governors of the Chapel. John Glassington was, however, Governor in 1659.

In 1699, Nicholas Birkhead, who was then lessee of the Chapel, rebuilt it, and the present building is mainly his work. In 1789, it was enlarged by its front being brought in a line with the adjoining houses, a grass-plot eight feet deep having previously occupied this space. The present front, galleries, &c., were then erected. At the end of the last century Dixon Gamble, Esq., became lessee, but now it is held direct from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, who nominate the incumbent. There is an endowment of £30 per annum payable by them, but the income is derived chiefly from the pew rents.

The Chapel is as plain an edifice as possibly can be; there is no ornament of any kind about it. It is built of brick, and is 53 feet long, by 30 feet broad. The gallery is round three sides of the building; the organ, built by Hancock, 1770, being on the south side. The communion-table is at the north end. The front terminates in a pediment, over which is a small cupola containing one bell, thus inscribed—

“Mrs. Mary Birkhed gaue me, 1733.”

In the brickwork are let in three stone slabs, the centre of which is inscribed “Knightsbridge Chapel, 1789;” that on the right is inscribed, “Rebuilte by Nicho Birkhead, Gouldsmith of London, Anno Dom. 1699;” the left or western one has the following emphatic dedication cut in it, [62] “Capella sanctæ Indiuidux Trinitatis.”

The Communion Plate consists of five pieces, all of silver; they are inscribed as follows:—

The Large Chalice.—Sanctæ et Indiuidæ Trinitati—Rest to the Lord:—Mary Birkhead (about 1708.)

The Paten.—Sanctæ et Indiuidæ Trinitati.—The Guift of Arthure Duck, Docter of the Ciuell Lawe and Chancelor of London (1628 or 1629).

The Small Chalice.—Sanctæ et Indiuidæ Trinitati.—The Gift of the Right Hon^bl. and Right Reverent Willm. Lord Bishop of London. [63a]

The Plate.—The Gift of Elizebeth Knightly to Knights-Bridg Church, Oct. 18th, 1705. [63b] There is a coat of arms engraved on the edge of this piece, doubtless that of the donor.

The Flagon is modern, being the gift of the Rev. J. Foyster (about 1825).

The list of its ministers is, as far as I have been able to trace them, as follows:—

1630. Nathaniel White, licensed May 24th.

1637. William Pope—as curate.

1640. Nehemia Dod—as curate.

— Henry Walker on probation till 1655, when he was nominated curate.

1658. Christopher Lee appears to have been minister, but various other names also appear in the registers till May 23rd.

1660. Thomas Wheatley then signs himself “Minister of Knightsbridge.”

1661 (Feb.). Henry Tilley.

1662 (April). Nathaniel Barker.

1663 (April). — Herring (whose name occasionally appears between 1658–60.)

1666. Robert Hodson, till October 20th.

1667. Francis Hall, licensed October 25th.

1669. Henry Herbert or Hubert, S.T.P., licensed April 26th. His signature, however, occasionally appears before this date.

1671. John Cull.

1683. — Sanby, who was minister from January 1st, 1683, to December 31st, 1685.

1686. Henry Watts, who quitted in May, 1695; strangers appear to have officiated till

1696. Thomas Bobar entered on his duties December 4th. He made way for in

1699. Philip Horneck, who officiated from March 9th to October 16th.

1699. Thomas Knaggs appointed curate October 16th; he stayed till January 10th, 1707, when Francis Jeffrey succeeded. But in February, 1708, Mr. Knaggs returned, and was minister till May 17th, 1713.

1713. Robert Hicks, to June 10th, 1719.

1719. Humphry Persehouse, who was minister forty-one years. He resigned in December, 1759, when

1760. — Bailey, chaunter of Westminster Abbey, was appointed on January 1st by the Dean and Chapter. I believe he was succeeded by the Rev. John Gamble, nominated by his father, as lessee. He died in 1811.

1811. — Harris. [65]

1822. J. G. Foyster, M.A. of Queen’s College, Cambridge. He published a volume of sermons preached here. In 1832, Lord Brougham gave him the rectory of St. Clement’s, Hastings, on which he quitted Knightsbridge. He died there May 17th, 1855.

1832. John Martin, who shortly resigned, and was succeeded by the Rev. Hibbert Binney, D.C.L., the late minister, who, since June, 1838 (when he was appointed rector of Newbury), left the chapel to the ministry of the Rev. John Wilson, now D.D., and the present incumbent. Dr. Binney died June 6th, 1857. Among assistant ministers here have been the Rev. Alexander Cleeve, author of several devotional works, who died September 23rd, 1805; the Rev. H. J. Symons, LL.D., who read the burial service over Sir John Moore at Corunna. He gained the notice of the Duke of York in this pulpit, and quitted it for the Peninsula with a regiment, to which he was chaplain.

Baptisms and marriages were formerly solemnised here, and twenty register-books, some very small, and others quarto and folio size, are still preserved. Many of them, however, are but duplicates of the others, and three are memorandum-books of the clerks, with registrations, expenses, notices, and other entries therein. The regular register of baptisms has been missing a very long while, but duplicates of several years have been preserved; with the exception of a few leaves, all the books of expenses are lost also. [67] I have stated before that the books of the Lazar-house are also missing, and so is the burial book, if such ever existed. I shall be glad to quit this statement, so disgraceful to some of the former officials of the Chapel, and give a few extracts from those still fortunately preserved.

Previous to the passing of Lord Hardwick’s celebrated Marriage Act, in 1753, it was not necessary to the validity of a marriage that such should be performed in a church, or solemnised by any religious ceremony. And although the law of the Church visited with censure those who neglected its canon in this respect, yet the Common Law recognised other and more private modes. Consequently around and in London, at almost all the chapels, marriages were performed, and at some in a very discreditable manner. Lord Hardwick’s bill made it necessary to the validity of a marriage that it should be solemnised in a parish church or public chapel where banns had been regularly published. The result was, that as at these chapels banns were not published, marriages therein solemnised were no longer legal; and among others obliged to succumb to this law, Knightsbridge Chapel was one.

It would almost appear that our Chapel had some reputation for its irregularities in this solemnity, if we are to trust some of the pointed allusions in the literature of a bygone currency. Shadwell, in his play of “The Sullen Lovers,” published in 1668, makes Lovell say:—

“Let’s rally no longer: there is a person at Knightsbridge, that yokes all stray people together; we’ll to him, he’ll despatch us presently, and send us away as lovingly as any two fools that ever yet were condemned to marriage.”

And in the Guardian (No. 14, March 27, 1713), a run-away marriage is spoken of as being celebrated “last night at Knightsbridge.” Although such references seem to illustrate what could be only known as a fact, I yet think they were but a jocular remark as regards Knightsbridge, and not indications of a reality. It is scarcely possible to think such would have been allowed in a place of worship, so much under the control of the Dean and Chapter as this was; and many memoranda in the books vindicate its ministers from the charge of winking at wrong, as these allusions insinuate. Of these curious entries I give the following as specimens:—

“Mem.—Thomas Palmer and Ann Clarke: if they come to be maryed, stop them, and send for Mr. Clarke, next doore to the Mitre Tavern in Duppin’s Ally, King Street, Westminster.”

“William Squire, silver-smith, living in Long Acre, who stood father to Elizabeth Goldingham, who was married to Edward Keyn ye 20th of ffebruary, 1690/1, does give this account of the said Elizabeth Goldingham, that she has lodged at his house for 2 years, that she is no heyress, but ffollows the trade of a manta-maker for her living, and further he adds that she has neither ffather or mother liveing, nor no relation who does any way look affter her, but that she is really at her own disposal.”

But although such entries show the rule, I must admit that at a certain period before the time to which the foregoing entries refer, are others which appear suspicious; and if any irregularities occurred I should place them between the two extreme dates, shown in the following extracts:—

1678, April 28. Jacob Stent and Mary Crouch, secrecy for life.

1678, April 28. James Gibson and Anne Tarrant, secrecy.

1678/9, April 28. William Taylor and Elizabeth Steward, great secrecy.

1680, April 25. Edward Charlton and Alice Robinson, secret for 14 years.

1682, May 7. Andrew Barry and Mary Elton, secrecy.

With these curious notices of old systems, habits, and ideas, I proceed to give some extracts from the registers, selecting those referring to eminent persons, and which contain allusions of interest and peculiarity. The earliest entry of baptisms is the following.

1663, Aug. 28. Will, ye sone of will birke of this hamlett, by Mr. Herring.

1667, Jan. 23. Sofiah London, the daughter of Richard London and Mary his wife.

A family named London lived in this locality many years, and there are several entries of the name. Probably the celebrated gardener so named, who will be afterwards noticed, belonged to it.

1668. Nathaniel, son of William Ipsley, baptised, September 8th.

Most probably this name should be Hipsley. Persons of this name were clerks here many years.

1670, Nov. 3. James, son of James and Mary Rouse.

1675, Feb. 19. Dorothy, daughter of James Took, Esq., and Magdalen his wife. Westminster parish.

1675, April 11. William Lord, son of Robert and Anne Thurlow.

A family of this name lived in the St. Margaret’s part of the hamlet in the 17th century.

1675, Nov. 5. Joan, daughter of Robert and Hester Gunter, baptised.

Persons of this name may be traced from this period to the present time in our locality. It is the earliest entry of the name I have found.

1676, Jan. 8. Margerite, the daughter of Elizabeth Bedford by Mr. Philip Thomas.

1677, June 17. Tristram, the son of Tristram and Anne Huddlestone.

1677, July 20. George, son of Berkley Trye, Esq., by Mary his wife, baptised by Jo. Andrews, entered at St. Martin’s.

The Tryes are a very ancient Gloucestershire family.

1678, Jan. 3. Robert, son of Robert and Hester Gunter.

1681, April 11. Anne, the daughter of George Sams by Martha Wheatley, his servant, as ’tis told me.

1682, May 27. Thomas Dennis, 30 years of age, was baptised.

1683, March 4. Jane Rutter was baptised. A black woman.

1689, June 27. ffrances Wharton, the daughter of Jane Wharton, a child of base (birth).

1691, Dec. 21. Hannah Hipsley, daughter of Thomas and Mary Hipsley, by Mr. Watts. Born Dec. 6th.

1692, Feb. 14. Margaret Tarbet, the daughter of Margaret Perryvil; being a woman-child that fell in travail in ye street.

1702. Mary, daughter of Thomas Werd by Mary his wife, was baptised the 3rd of May by Mr. Killberk.

This is the last baptism recorded, and only one is entered between October 16th, 1694, and this date: the others are missing; and though I know baptisms were occasionally solemnised here even to the end of the last century, no later record has been preserved.

MARRIAGES.

There are no registers of marriages here now, anterior to April 1st, 1658, but in the Bishop’s register are some earlier ones, the first of which is the following:—

16th April, 1632. Thomas Herbert, of Hammond Head, com. York, Esq., bachelor, 24; and Lucy Alexander, spinster, 20, daughter of Sir William Alexander.

The earliest in the Chapel register book is as follows:—

1658, April 1. William Eaton and Jane Hurley were married.

1661, ffeb. 10. Richard Steele and Eliza Cotterill per me Ant. Dode.

1666, July 17. William Adkins and Katherine Edwards at ye Bowling Green.

The Bowling Green was perhaps at the Spring Garden, afterwards to be noticed.

1666, Oct. 14. Thomas Clark and Elizabeth Milton.

1667, April 16. Philip Wharton and Hester Bewley.

1672, June 11. Sir Philip Harcourte and Eliz Lee married by Mr. Cull.

1672, July 13. Robert Chaloner, esq., and Dorothy Britten.

The Chaloners were one of the few old Middlesex families. They were seated at Chiswick.

1675, Feb. 16. Christopher Benson and Eliz. Hilliard, belonging to ye vice chancellor.

1675, Nov. 24. Gabriel Hipsley and Penelope ffry.

1676, May 7. Nicholas Brady and Bethia Chapman.

1676, Oct. 27. Arthur Deavereux and Anne Ireland in pompe Courte in ye midle temple, 3 payre of stayres.

1677, July 17. Hugh Middleton, esq., and Mrs. Dorothy Oglander, married by Mr. Nath. Cole, dd, his majesty’s Chaplain in ordinary.

1678, Feb. 21. William Harbord, esq., and Mrs. Katherine Russell by Mr. James Symonds.

1678, July 23. Sir James Hayes and Grace Clavering.

1678, August 3. Sir John Lenthall and ye Lady Catherine Lant, secrecy, by Mr. Joseph Stretch, minister.

Sir John Lenthall, only son of the Speaker, was Governor of Windsor, under Cromwell, and knighted by him in 1657. On May 21, 1660, he moved in the House of Commons that all who had borne arms against the king should be exempted from pardon; and for such was called to the bar, reprimanded, and degraded his knighthood. He afterwards lost his seat upon petition against his return. He died in 1681.

1678, August 15. Robert Grime and Barbara January, the king’s taylor, nexte doore to 3 tuns taverne lane.

1679, April 10. Thomas Lant, esq., and Mrs. Jane Bromfield.

1681, Feb. 20. John Stibbs and Sarah Cromwell.

For the last 250 years a family named Cromwell—and which, in the last century, branched out considerably—has been resident in this part of Middlesex. Cromwell, the minister of Henry VIII., was born at Putney, not far out of the county; and Sir Richard Cromwell (grandfather to Oliver the Protector), signed himself in letters to the “Mauler of Monasteries” his most bounden nephew. In 1691 a Robert Cromwell lived at Kensal Green, and is probably the person of the same name who sat on the jury at the trial of Daniel Axtell. For many years a brewery at Hammersmith has been conducted by persons of this name, not improbably descendants from the Putney blacksmith.

1682, January 31st. John Cull, curate of Knightsbridge, and Martha Turner, by Mr. Yearwood.

Mr. Cull was minister here twelve years. He died in 1683, and was buried at Kensington on the 21st September.

1682, Dec. 24. Sir John Hatton and Mary Hinton.

1683, July 3rd. Heale Hooke, Baronet, and Hester Underhill by Seyward of Kensington.

Sir Hele Hooke, for many years a resident in Kensington Square, died there in July, 1712, by which the title became extinct. Mr. Seward was curate there. (See Faulkner’s “History of Kensington.”)

1685, Sept. 12. David Gunter and Eliz. West.

1686, Sept. 4. Sir Francis de Geilhausen and Flora Bishop for Feb. 6, 1685.

1687, Feb. 1. Sir Samuel Morland, Knight, and Mrs. Mary Aylif, secrecy.

This entry records the unfortunate marriage of the celebrated inventor, described by himself in such terms of misery, to the diarist Pepys. In all the biographies of Morland I have referred to, and even in Burke, his wife’s name is not given, and therefore I presume it has hitherto been unknown. The wedding was, as the register tells, private; and eighteen days after it took place, he wrote to Pepys, that, “being in very great perplexities, and almost distracted for want of moneys,” a person whom he had befriended in time of need proposed to recommend him an heiress, “who had 500l. per ann. in land, and 4,000l. in ready money,” and property of other kinds. “Believing it,” he writes, “utterly impossible,” that one whom he had assisted, “should ever be guilty of so black a deed” as to betray him in his distress, “I was, about a fortnight since, led as a fool to the stocks, and married a coachman’s daughter, not worth a shilling,” and whose moral character proved to be none of the purest. He, procuring evidence (shortly after) of adultery, took the case into the Ecclesiastical Court, which granted a divorce on that ground on May 17. [78] It was the fourth time Sir Samuel tied the matrimonial knot, and the last.

1687, May 3. Sir William Moet, and Antonetta Willobe.

1687, Sept. 1. John Atley and Mary Crumwell.

1689, Jan. 7. Richard Bailey and Eliz. Shakespeare.

1690, July 20. Sir Thomas Fautherly and Mrs. Frances Brown.

1690, July 31. John Lenthall and Eliz. Wildman.

1693, Jan. 8. Thomas Cromwel and Ann Smith.

1694, Aug. 12. Edward Shaxspear and Eliz. Ward.

1695, May 26. Tristram Huddleston, Gentleman of St. James’, W^mr., and Mrs. Mary Darker of the same.

1695, Nov. 16. John Baptist Renoult, Minister of the parish of St. Ann’s, Westminster, and Amery Henri, Widd.

1696, July 23. John Line of St. Martin’s Neat Houses, and Dorothy ffall, spinster of St. Margaret’s, Westminster.

1697, Jan. 30. Jasper Arnold, Gent., of St. James, Westminster, and Antonett Culmer of Kensington, spinster.

The Arnolds were a numerous and opulent family long resident in Westminster. Families of the same name, and probably connected, also resided in Knightsbridge and Kensington for above a century. One of the Westminster Arnolds was a brewer, and a juryman on the trial of the Seven Bishops. (See “Macaulay’s History.”)

1698, August 21. George Cumming, Taylor, at ye Woolstaple, near great Tom, St. Margaret’s, Westminster, and Mary Watson of the same place.

1698, Dec. 18. William ffinton, Life Guardsman in college-street, near ye Black dog: Catherine Llewyllen in Dean’s Yard, Westm^r.

(Black Dog Alley still exists in College Street.)

1699, Jan. 1. Thomas Lewsie, peruke maker in ye pel-mel at ye sign of ye two pidgeons, in St. James’ Westm^r, and Mary pigot, of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, in maiden lane.

1699, Jan. 23. Richard Green, Barber, in St. Brides, at ye Barber’s pole near ffleet-bridge, ye corner house but one, and Mary Truby of ye same place.

1699, May 23. Thomas Fenwick of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, serv^t to Storey at ye Park Gate, and Mary Gregory of ye same.

This notice is curious: Story’s Gate, named from the person here noticed, is the entrance into St. James’s Park from Bridge Street. Story was keeper of the Aviary to Charles II., hence Birdcage Walk.

1699, August 18. Cornelius Vander Velde, Limner, of St. Giles’, living in Dyot street, over agt ye Sparrow’s Nest, and Bernada Vander Hagen, of ye same.

Cornelius Vander Velde was brother to William Vander Velde the elder, the great painter of sea pieces. He was himself a painter of nautical subjects, and in the employ of Charles II. This is an addition to Walpole’s notices.

1699, Nov. 16. Charles Goring, Gentleman of Heysdown, in the parish of Washington, and Frances Bridger of Hams in ye same county. (Sussex) by Mr. Knaggs.

Mr. Goring afterwards succeeded to the baronetcy.

1700, July 30. Rob^t Walpole, Esquire, of Houghton in ye County of Norfolk, and Katharine Shorter, of ye Parish of St. James, Westm. by Mr. Prevoste.

This record is that of the celebrated minister of the first two Georges. His wife was daughter of a Lord Mayor of London, and mother of the celebrated Horace.

1700, Nov. 22. Miles Pennington, Gent., living in Tuttle Street, at ye sign of ye Green Dragon, and Eliz. D’oyley of the same.

1703, March 4. John Oldmixon and Elizabeth Parrey.

1703, Dec. 25. Benjamin Houghton and Eliz. Mandeville.

1704, April 28. John Every, Esq., and ye Hon^ble Martha Thompson.

Mr. Every afterwards succeeded his brother in the baronetcy; his wife was daughter of John, Lord Haversham.

1705, Jan. 6. Sir William Humphrey and Eleanor Lancashire.

Sir William was Lord Mayor in the first year of George I., and entertaining the new king at Guildhall, was made a baronet. His wife was widow of a London merchant.

1705, Jan. 8. Charles Danvers and Margaret Evans.

Danvers has been a name in Chelsea these 250 years past, and is still to be found there. Sir John Danvers, of Chelsea, was one who signed the death-warrant of Charles I.

1705, May 23. Henry Graham, Esq., and Mary, Countess of Darentwater.

This lady was the youngest natural daughter of Charles II., by Mrs. Davis the actress, and known before marriage as Lady Mary Tudor. On August 18, 1687, being then only in her fourteenth year, she was married to Edward Radcliffe, afterwards second earl of Derwentwater, by whom she became mother of that ill-fated earl executed on Tower Hill for his share in the Rebellion of 1715; of Charles Radcliffe, who also perished on the scaffold thirty years after, and of two other children. Her husband, from whom she separated in 1700, died April 29, 1705; and within a month, as this record shows, she married Henry Graham of Levens, Esq., who died the following year. She married thirdly James Rooke, whom she likewise survived. She died at Paris, November 5, 1726, in her fifty-fourth year.

1710, May 30. Sir Tho. Robinson, Baronet, and Mrs. Elizabeth Hare by license. Tho. Yalden, S.T.P.

Sir Thomas Robinson, grandson of Sir Thomas Robinson, killed in jumping from a window to escape from a fire in his chambers in the Temple. His wife was daughter of Sir Thomas Hare of Stow Bardolph. The officiating clergyman was doubtless the poet of that name.

1710, Dec. 13. Charles May, esq., and Mrs. Jane Middleton.

1712, Jan. 19. Mr. Martin Purcell and Mrs. Mary Glagg.

1721, June 19. Charles Vanbrugh, esq., of the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, and Anne Burt of ye same, married by Dr. Hough, rector of St. George’s.

Most probably this gentleman was brother of the celebrated architect and dramatist, Sir John Vanbrugh. His brother Charles was baptised Feb. 27, 1680.

1721, July 22. The Hon. Josias Burchett of St. Martin in ye Feilds, esq., widower, and Margaret Aris, of St. Anne’s, Westminster, widow.

1726, June 8. Francis Bytheway of St. Clement’s Danes, Batchelor, and Ann Persehouse of St. Martin’s in ye feilds, spinster.

1730, May 7. Noel Broxholme, M.D., St. James, Bachelor, 40, and Mrs. Amy Dowdeswell, St. Ann’s Westminster, widow.

1741, May 26. The Rev. Mr. John Pettingall of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Batch: and Susanna Long of ye same, spinster.

Mr. Pettingall was minister of Duke Street Chapel, Westminster.

1752, Dec. 2. John Fry ye younger, of Bromley in ye County of Middx, and Elizabeth Eveleigh, of ye same, spins.

This is the last entry; and the blank pages after show it to have been the last marriage solemnised here.

In Wilkinson’s “Londina” the following curious extracts from the Accounts are given:—