The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1

"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 C?sar, and battered down by Cromwell, recourse must be had elsewhere for such. Well, then, our legend tells, that in some ancient time certain knights had occasion to go from London to wage war for some holy purpose: light in heart, if heavy in arms, they passed through Knightsbridge on their way to receive the blessing awarded to the faithful by the Bishop at Fulham. From some cause, however, a quarrel ensued between two of the band, and a combat was determined on to decide the dispute. They fought on the bridge which spanned the stream, while from its banks the struggle was watched by their partisans. Both, the legend tells, fell; and ever after the place was called Knightsbridge, in remembrance of their fatal feud.

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

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

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

THE MANOR AND PAROCHIAL DIVISIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquisitio ad quod damnum 9: Edw. II., No. 105.

Middlesex.

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

Endorsed twenty shillings and sixpence. [10]

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

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

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

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

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

￡

s.

d.

Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne

Firm' Terr'