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.