BOOK I.

The Etymology and Boundaries of the Parish—The Old Church: its Monumental Inscriptions; Remarkable Spring Tides, taken to Church in a Boat, Penance, &c.—Ancient Manor Houses, and Distinguished Residents—Moravian Chapel and Burial Ground—Park Chapel—St. Mark’s College—The New West Brompton Congregational Church—Loss of Sir John Balchen and 1100 Seamen in the “Victory”—Ascent in a Balloon in 1784—Fatal Duel—The Knight and the Poor Carpenter—Jews’ Burial Ground, to which is added an Amusing Anecdote—The Queen’s Elm—Singular Tavern Signs, &c.—The old Embankment of the Thames. Interspersed with Notices of many of the most Eminent Residents in the Parish in the “Olden Times,” and other Interesting Particulars.

Lord Brougham, in the course of some remarks on modern English literature, incidentally observed that “local histories were not only interesting to the residents in the districts to which they referred, but such minor works would be found of immense value to future national historians.” This was also the avowed opinion of Mr. Faulkner, when he published his invaluable “History of Chelsea,” upwards of 40 years since, and my motive in undertaking the present work is to carry forward the great object which that laborious local historian contemplated. The defects, and no doubt there will be many discovered in it, are submitted to the kind and impartial consideration of the reader. My humble position in life will not in the slightest degree, I feel confident, tend to depreciate my long-cherished desire—especially as the shades of evening are fast closing the day-light of my earthly life—to add to the information which has already been given respecting a parish to which I am much attached, both by birth and early associations.

The earliest mention of Chelsea is to be found in the Saxon Chronicle, in the year 785; from which record it appears that a Synod was then held in it, and at which period it was the residence of Offa, king of the Mercians. As regards the etymology of its name both ancient and modern writers have expressed different opinions. Mr. Lysons says, he has seen it written Cealc-hylle, in an old charter of Edward the Confessor, and hence objected to the obvious etymology, as there is neither chalk nor hill in the parish. Mr. Faulkner considers, however, that “hylle” is an evident mistake for “hythe;” and Cealc-hythe signifies not a place abounding in chalk, but a wharf or landing-place for chalk brought from other quarters. This amended definition seems at once to remove the previous objection, particularly as large quantities of chalk and lime were formerly, and even now at times, landed at a wharf by the river-side at Chelsea. In the ancient record of Domesday, it is written Cherchede and Chelched. The parish was called Chelchethe in the taxation of Pope Nicholas, in 1291; and this was the common way of spelling it for several centuries. Among the manorial records of the time of Edward II. it is spelled Chelcheya and Chelchuthe. Mr. Norden says, “It is so called from the nature of the place, whose strand is like the Chesel, (ceosel, or cesel,) which the sea casteth up of sand and pebble stones, thereof called Cheselsey, briefly Chelsey.” How altered is the state of the strand or shore at the present time! Would that there were now only the sand and pebble stones! But there is a probability that this complaint will be remedied. The long expected embankment from Battersea Bridge to Chelsea College, it is said, really is to be commenced and completed, and those old and dilapidated houses in that narrow and dangerous thoroughfare, known as Duke Street and Lombard Street, are to be pulled down. If this should be the case, the parishioners will then possess one of the finest promenades, with Battersea Park opposite to it, which may be found along the entire banks of the river Thames.

Having made this slight digression, to infuse a little of what is popularly called “new life” into our subject, we will here mention that the county of Middlesex received its name from having been inhabited by a party of Saxons, who, being located in the midst of the three kingdoms of the East, West, and South Saxons, were called by their neighbours Middlesaxons, which, in common conversation, was soon abbreviated to Middlesex.

The parish of Chelsea is bounded on the north by the Fulham Road, which separates it from Kensington. On the east at the entrance into Sloane Square, at which place there was an open rivulet, which divided it from St. George’s, Hanover Square, and was said to rise at or near to Hampstead; and, after crossing Hyde Park, where it formed the Serpentine River, and Knightsbridge, flowed behind Cadogan Place (along a portion of Lowndes’ Square) into the Thames, at Ranelagh, which adjoined Chelsea College. In January, 1809, this rivulet overflowed its banks, and caused great devastation for several days. The waters formed a complete lake, and were of considerable depth. Boats were employed in carrying passengers from Chelsea Hospital to the old Bunhouse, on their way to London. On the west, the parish is divided from Fulham a little beyond St. Mark’s College; and on the south it is bounded by the Thames.

That portion of the parish at Kensal New Town, which is near to Wilsden, will be briefly noticed again in reference to the “Ancient Manor Houses.” This land, as held by the parish, is about 173¾ acres.

The Old Parish Church.

It will soon be seventy years since I was first taken to this venerable Church. The most trifling incidents in childhood often bring to remembrance, when arrived at mature age, events of an important and interesting character. Such was the case with regard to my earliest conscious attendance at Chelsea Old Church. At the period to which I allude, residing at the other part of the parish, we had to go across what was then called the “Common,” situated to the east of the present new St. Luke’s Church, a portion of which was at that particular time covered with new-mown grass to dry previously to being carried away. Most young persons love to toss and tumble about the hay when such an opportunity is afforded them, and certainly I felt as delighted with the sport as others of my own age. Often afterwards, when there was a disposition not to take me, I earnestly pleaded to go with the rest to the Church, but my youthful thoughts were more fixed on some anticipated enjoyment on the road to it. As I advanced in years, however, my native Old Parish Church became gradually endeared to me, and nothing connected with it scarcely ever escaped my notice.

The exact period when the Church was erected is a question of great uncertainty. In the Domesday Survey of the Parish no mention is made of any endowment for a priest, which is considered by some writers a proof that there was no Church existing. This conclusion is doubtful. There is no record relative to the Rectory previous to the reign of Edward II., therefore it is conjectured that the Church was first founded about that period.

Mr. Bowack says, “In the year 1667, the old Church, which was much decayed, being too small to contain the congregation, grown large by the vast increase of buildings about that time in the town,” (what would he now think, in 1869, of the immense number of houses, and 70,000 inhabitants!) “it was agreed by the parishioners that part of it should be demolished, and that such alterations and additions should be made as were necessary for decent accommodation. Accordingly the shattered tower and west end of the Church were pulled down, and the north and south aisles carried several yards towards the west, by two brick walls, being in all about 80 ft. from the ground. The walls of the Church were raised, the windows enlarged, the old parts beautified, the inside new paved, the churchyard considerably raised, and enclosed with a high wall of brick; and most of this done at the voluntary charge of the inhabitants, and the whole roof, lead, timber, &c., at the sole cost of the Lady Jane Cheyne. The Church was furnished with all the necessary ornaments, and the steeple with a good ring of six bells, by the bounty of the inhabitants.”

From this statement it would appear that the Church was originally of small dimensions.

MONUMENTS, &c.

It will not be asserting too much if we say that the Old Parish Church contains more magnificent monuments, to the memories of distinguished individuals, than are to be found in any other church in the metropolis.

Lord Bray.—In the chancel, the most ancient monument is that of Lord Bray, and of his son Lord John Bray. It is an altar-tomb, now much defaced, but was originally ornamented with the effigies in brass of these two noble lords, and with escutcheons of their arms. According to Weever, there was the following inscription in his time:—“Of your charitie pray for the soul of Edmund Bray, knight, Lord Bray, cosin and heire to Sir Reginald Bray, Knight of the Garter.” There is a very long and curious account of the funeral of Lord John Bray in the Herald’s College, 1557.

Sir Thomas More.—Against the south wall of the chancel is the monument of Sir Thomas More, erected according to his own desire, in the year 1532. The tablet on which the inscription is engraved is under a Tudor arch, the cornice of which is ornamented with foliage, and in the centre of it is his crest, viz., a Moor’s head. The spandrils of the arch are ornamented with branches of the vine, and in the midst are his arms and those of his first wife, and on each side are the arms of himself and his two wives. The eventful history of More, and the termination of his earthly career, must be familiar to the reader. After he was beheaded, his body is said by some to have been interred in the church, but others have contended that it was buried in St. Peter’s, in the Tower. There are many legends respecting the head, but Mr. Brayley asserts positively that it was finally deposited in St. Dunstan’s, near Canterbury, and that he saw the head there many years ago. The inscription on the tablet is of considerable length.

The Marquise de Cugnac.—Near the Communion Table, against the south wall, on a square ornamental slab, is an inscription to the memory of Elizabeth, the wife of the Marquis de Cugnac. As a proof of his unshaken love he erected this monument. She died in 1653, aged 20 years. The marquis was of a Protestant family, famous in the reigns of Henry IV., Lewis XIII. and XIV.

The Sedile.—In the south wall of the chancel, near the altar, was usually placed the “Sedile” a seat for the use of the priest at certain intervals during the celebration of the Mass, but when the church was almost rebuilt, in 1667, this ancient architectural ornament, and many others were removed, and not a vestige of them now remains.

Thomas Hungerford, Esq.—In the upper chancel is the monument of the above-named gentleman, having the effigies of himself and his two sons in armour kneeling on one side of an altar, and his wife and daughter on the other. The entablature is supported by three Corinthian pillars, resting on pedestals.

Rev. John Rush.—On the right of the one above are tablets to the memory of the Rev. John Rush and family. He was Curate of the Parish for a great many years, and when the new Parish Church was completed, Mr. Rush became Minister of the Old Church, and resigned the curacy. He was one of the Directors of the Waterloo Bridge Company, and took a great interest in everything connected with the construction of that bridge. He died in 1855, aged 85, and was buried in the Brompton Cemetery.

Two Daughters of Wilton, the Sculptor.—Against the east wall is a monument, composed of two urns of white marble, to the memory of Lucy Smith and Anne Wilton, two sisters, 1781. Wilton, their father, was the sculptor.

The Original Altar Piece was very plain, formed by an obtuse arch ornamented slightly with foliage, &c. In the centre was painted the Decalogue; while the north side displayed the Camp of Israel, and the south side Moses on the Mount, receiving the two tables of the Law.

Rev. Adam Littleton, D.D.—On a square marble tablet, against the north wall of the lower chancel, is an inscription to the memory of this eminent divine, who was rector of this parish for 24 years. He died in 1694, aged 66.

On the east wall, on plain marble slabs, are inscriptions to the memory of Martha Denyer, who died in 1795, John Denyer, in 1806, and Elizabeth Denyer, in 1824. This family was very benevolent. Amongst a few other inscriptions is one to the memory of Edward Holl, Esq., who was a regular attendant at the church, and much respected. He died in 1823.

Richard Gervoise, Esq.—Between the north aisle and lower chancel is a large monument raised in the form of an arch open at both sides, about 10 ft. in height, ornamented with roses, branches, and fluted carving, erected to the memory of Richard Gervoise, Sheriff of London, who died in 1557, and also in memory of his son.

Baldwin Hamey, M.D.—On a pillar, near the preceding, are inscriptions to the memory of Dr. Baldwin Hamey, Ralph Palmer, Esq., and Alice, his wife. Mr. Palmer was a kind benefactor to the church. He died in 1715.

On the west side of the same pillar is an inscription to the memory of Henry Powell, Esq., who was a great friend to the widow and fatherless.

Colours of the Old Volunteers.—Over the nave are suspended the colours of the two battalions of Queen Charlotte’s Royal Volunteers, which were placed there on the disbandment of the regiment. These banners were presented by her Majesty in 1804, at a time when the country was threatened with invasion. [7] One or two of them are almost in ribbons, but it is to be hoped they will remain untouched in their present position as long as possible. There are still living some few old people in the parish who remember, when boys, marching by the side of these colours with all the heroic consequence of supposed military triumph.

The Pulpit is composed of oak, divided into panels, and ornamented with carved foliage and fruit. There was formerly a massive sounding board to correspond with it, but which was necessarily taken away when the pulpit was judiciously placed in its present central position in the middle aisle.

Having noticed the chancel and nave, we will proceed to that part which is called the Lawrence Chapel, at the north side. This chapel is considered by many to be coeval with the first endowment of the church. It was built by the then Lord of the Manor, whose mansion stood near it, the site of which is now occupied by Lawrence Street, so called after the Lawrence family. The old manor house was pulled down by Henry VIII., who built another in Cheyne Walk, to which allusion will have to be frequently made. The Lawrence chapel was many years ago in the possession of Mr. Offley, who bequeathed it to Colonel Needham, of whom it was bought in the year 1789, with part of the east side of Lawrence Street, to which it is an appendage, by Mr. Lewer. It is still private property.

Thomas Lawrence, Esq.—Against the north wall of this chapel is the monument of the father of Sir John Lawrence, on which are represented himself, his three sons, Elizabeth his wife, and six daughters, all kneeling. On the cushion on which Mrs. Lawrence kneels are two babes, wrapped up close to the chin, with their faces only visible. The cornice is supported by three fluted Corinthian columns. Underneath are the following lines:—

“The yeares wherein I lived were fifty-fower, October twenty-eight did end my life; Children five of eleven God left in store, Sole comfort of they’re mother and my wife. The world can say what I have been before, What I am now examples still are rife; Thus Thomas Lawrence spekes to tymes ensving That Death is sure, and Tyme is past reneving.”

Sir John Lawrence, Bart.—On a large ornamented tablet of black marble, against the east wall, is an inscription to the memory of Sir John Lawrence, Bart., who died in 1638, aged 50. Attached to it are these quaint lines:—

“When bad men dye and turn to their last sleep, What stir the poets and engravers keep, By a feigned skill to pile them up a name, With terms of Good, and Just, out-lasting fame: Alas! poor men, such most have need of stone And epitaphs; the good, indeed, lack none, Their own true works enough do give of glory Unto their names, which will survive all story: Such was the man lies here, who doth partake Of verse and stone—but ’tis for fashions sake.”

On the same wall is the monument of Sarah Colvile, daughter of Thomas Lawrence, Esq., and wife of Richard Colvile, of Newton, in the Isle of Ely. From small trusses, ornamented with human heads, rise two Doric pillars, with a curved entablature which supports a pediment. The soffit of the cornice is decorated with clouds, stars, and a dove; and on the edge of the cornice is a passage of Scripture (1 Cor. xv. 52). Between the pillars is a half-length figure of a female, wrapped in a winding sheet, with her hands in a supplicating posture, and as rising from the tomb. The inscription states she was the happy mother of eight sons and two daughters. She died in 1631, in the 40th year of her age.

There is also an inscription on the floor of this chapel to the memory of Henry, youngest son of Sir John Lawrence, who died in 1661, aged 30.

Lady Jane Cheyne.—This stately monument is placed against the wall of the north aisle, but before we proceed to give a description of it, we will notice the inscription that was placed at the entrance to the vault of the Cheyne family, at the bottom of the chancel:—

“Charles Cheyne, Esq., Lord of this Manor of Chelsea, which was purchased by the rich dowry of his wife, erected this burial-place for his most excellent wife, the Lady Jane Cheyne, eldest daughter of William Duke of Newcastle, not long deceased, and for his own use, when he shall die. It was consecrated the 3rd day of November, 1669. I beseech thee, Almighty God, that she may quiety rest here till the resurrection of the flesh. Amen.”

The monument consists of a semi-circular temple, the façade supported by two Corinthian columns of Scagliola marble, rising from a plinth and pedestals, with a proper entablature, surmounted by an elliptical pediment, the tympanum of which is ornamented with scroll work and foliage, and the soffit of the upper cornice consists of panels, with rosettes and foliage, and dentals, with pendant guttæ placed alternately. To give the latter a resemblance of their original intention, the base of the pediment was justly decreased in width in the centre. From acrotini at the shoulders rise flaming urns, and in the centre is a richly ornamented cross. In the interior of this temple is a large black sarcophagus, resting on pedestals of Scagliola marble. On this sarcophagus is represented Lady Cheyne, in white marble, lying upon her left side, and reclining upon a tesselated cushion, holding a book; at her feet lies a coronet. This monument was executed by the celebrated Bernini, and cost £500. It is generally considered to be a chef d’œuvre of art. Lady Cheyne died in 1669, aged 48.

On the sarcophagus, under the figure of Lady Jane Cheyne, is an inscription to the memory of Charles Cheyne, Viscount Newhaven, and Lord of the Manor of Chelsea, who was buried in the same vault. He departed this life in 1698, aged 74, being 29 years after Lady Jane Cheyne, his first wife’s death.

Richard Guildford, Esq.—On a marble tablet, near the preceding, is this inscription:—“Richard Guildford, who died 16th Nov. 1680, and also his two wives, Abigail and Elizabeth. He gave to this parish for ever a yearly sum of £10, to be distributed on the 5th of December, the day of his wedding with his wife Elizabeth.”

Henry Raper, Esq.—Near this spot are deposited the remains of this gentleman, who died in 1789, and of his wife Katherine Raper, who died in 1823. This family was greatly respected.

At the west end of the north aisle formerly stood the old font, and in a book case close to it a large folio Bible, Fox’s Book of Martyrs, a folio Common Prayer Book, and the Homilies of the Church of England, each secured with a chain. The books are now placed at the south side of the church, and the present marble font stands at the entrance to the middle aisle.

On the left of the great western entrance is an inscription on a marble tablet to the memory of Mrs. Bayley, who died in 1828, aged 45. This tablet was placed by her uncle, Wilton, the sculptor.

The Ashburnham Bell.—This bell originally in the steeple that was taken down for security in 1815, is now placed in the porch, as a relic of former days. On a board near the bell are recorded the following particulars:—

“This bell was given to the Old Parish Church of Chelsea by the Hon. Wm. Ashburnham in the year 1679. It was a grateful offering on his part to commemorate his escape from drowning in the Thames, into which he had wandered during a dark night of the above year, and from which he was saved by hearing the clock of this church strike the hour of nine. Many changes in the church having taken place since then, and this bell having long remained unused and nearly forgotten, it is here preserved as an interesting Chelsea antiquity, having been removed from the Clock Tower and placed in its present position by order of the Church Trustees, and under the direction of

A. Gerald W. Blunt, M.A., Rector.

R. Henry Davies, B.A., Incumbent of the Church.

T. B. Diplock, M.D., G. W. Richards, } Churchwardens.

March 1862.”

There was another account given of this bell many years ago. It was that the Hon. W Ashburnham was returning home from Lambeth in a boat at night, when almost suddenly there came a dense fog over the river, which prevented him seeing any object whatever. He became alarmed, and allowed the boat to drift for some distance, expecting every moment it would run foul of some barge or craft, and that he would be plunged into the river, when to his great joy he heard Chelsea Church clock strike nine, and, judging from the sound that he was nearly opposite the church, he seized the oars and pulled away as direct as he could towards it, and at length landed safely on shore. It afterwards appeared that had the boat drifted much further it would have been upset, and in all probability Mr. Ashburnham would have met with a watery grave. The family, considering the striking of the clock to have been a most providential means of saving his life, gave the bell, and made certain conditions that it should be rung every evening during the winter months, in case of any future similar event. The sexton paid 5s. to the bell-ringer for attending at nine o’clock, as stated, for the season.

On the right of the western entrance, in the south aisle, is an inscription to the memory of Teak S. Edwards, Esq., F.L.S., who died in 1819, aged 50. “As a faithful delineator of nature few equalled, and none excelled.”

Near to where now the Homilies are placed was originally fixed the monument of Lt.-Col. the Hon. H. Cadogan, executed by Chantrey, a fine specimen of that celebrated sculptor’s chisel. It was removed to the New Parish Church, some years since, and consequently it must be noticed in the account of that beautiful architectural edifice.

Lord and Lady Dacre.—This is one of the most magnificent monuments that can be found in any parish church in London, and my only surprise is that so few of the inhabitants of the parish, comparatively, have inspected it. It stands against the wall of the south aisle, and was erected to the memory of Gregory, Lord Dacre, and Anne, his wife. They are represented in white marble, lying on a sarcophagus, under an arch supported by marble pillars of the Corinthian order. Lord Dacre is in armour, with a long beard and short hair; her ladyship is habited in a gown and long cloak with a ruff. A dog is at the feet of each. On either side is a lofty obelisk. Over the arch are the arms of the family; the whole is richly ornamented with flowers and several pieces of elaborate Mosaic work.

The parish of Chelsea, by Lady Dacre’s will, have some presentations to her Almshouses in Westminster, on condition of keeping the monument in repair. It has been lately painted and beautified. Lord Dacre died in 1594, and Lady Dacre in 1595. This monument was originally placed in Sir T. More’s chapel, it is so described in Lady Dacre’s will. When the church was almost rebuilt in 1667, it was placed in its present situation.

On a marble tablet, against the same wall, is an inscription to the memory of Catherine, wife of the Rev. T. Mahon, Rector of Newport, Co. of Mayo, Ireland, who died in 1822, aged 20.

Sir Arthur Gorges.—Bowack, in his “Antiquities of Middlesex,” mentions a monument raised about 4 ft. from the ground, with the effigies of Sir Arthur Gorges, his lady, three sons, and five daughters, in brass plates fixed thereon, no trace of it can now be discovered. There is, however, on a black slab, fixed against the north wall of Sir Thomas More’s chapel, an inscription to the memory of Arthur Gorges, Esq. (eldest son of Sir Arthur Gorges), who died in 1668. He married Mary, daughter of Lord Bayning. This was her third marriage. She is here buried with her husband.

Sir Thomas More’s Chapel, which was built by him, belonged to the proprietor of his house until it was sold by Arthur Gorges, Esq., to Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, when he reserved the chapel to himself, as he continued to reside at Chelsea in another house. In 1664, when he sold the last-mentioned house, he only renewed a right of burial for his family. The chapel passed therefore with the house, through various owners, to Sir William Milman, and ultimately it became the freehold property, for many years, of the late Mr. Mann, of Paradise Row, now called Queen’s Road West. It is still private property. A large Gothic arch opens into the chancel, and is supported by pillars, the capitals of which are ornamented with human heads, rudely but curiously carved, together with bundles of rods resembling the fasces or badges of the ancient Roman magistrates; on the entablature of the easternmost is the date 1527.

Duchess of Northumberland.—The venerable monument of Lady Jane Guildford, Duchess of Northumberland, is placed against the north wall of this chapel. This interesting memorial consists of an altar-tomb under an arched recess, crowned by four canopies and supported by five reticulated pillars, the bases of which rest on the altar-tomb as on a plinth. The faces of the tomb are divided into panels, containing quatrefoils enclosing shields, and one coat of arms remains. The back of the recess is divided into three compartments by small graduated buttresses; that on the west contained the arms, and sons, while that on the east displays the effigies of the Duchess and her daughters. The soffit of this recess is richly groined, the canopies are divided by graduated buttresses with pinnacles at their apices; they consist of a trefoiled arch with angular pediments crocketed, and terminating in rich finials, and the spandrils are panelled. The frieze, formed by two cavittoes, is ornamented, the lower with rosettes, and the upper with portcullis and rosettes arranged alternately. The whole is surmounted by a cornice of foliage. The Duchess appears in the front, kneeling, habited in a surcoat, with her arms richly emblazoned, originally in enamel. Behind her are her daughters, with their Christian names engraved over their heads in Gothic letters. On the left side were represented, on a brass plate, (now long torn off) the effigies of her sons. The inscription states that the Duchess had issue thirteen children, eight sons and five daughters. She died “at her maner of Chelsey, ye 22 daye of January, in ye second yere of ye reigne of our Sovereyne Lady Queene Mary the first, and in A.D MDLV., on whose soul Jesus have mercy.”

Sir W. Milman.—On the same wall as the preceding is the monument of this gentleman, who died in 1713. There is also another to the memory of several of the same family.

Sir Robert Stanley.—The monument of this distinguished resident is at the east end of the chapel. Two figures, representing Justice and Fortitude, support the arms of Stanley, and three large urns; on the centre one, on a medallion, is the bust of Sir Robert in alto relievo, who is represented with whiskers but no beard. On the urns, on each side, are medallions of two of his children, whose deaths are noticed on the monument. He died in 1632, and was the second son of the “Earle of Darbie.”

Near the principal window here is a small brass plate fixed into a marble tablet to the memory of Humphrey Peshall, Esq., who died in 1650.

There are a few other inscriptions in different parts of the church, but the principal and most ancient ones have been all noticed. We will now proceed, therefore, to describe some of the monuments in the old churchyard.

Dr. Chamberlayne.—On the south side, fronting the river, there are several monuments to the memory of this family, for the erection of which and for making a vault Dr. Chamberlayne obtained a grant from the parish, in consideration of a benefaction which will probably be mentioned hereafter. He was buried here in 1703. On the left side of the western window, on a large mural slab, is an inscription to his memory. The latter part of it is remarkable:—“He was so studious of doing good to all men, and especially to posterity, that he ordered some of his books, covered with wax, to be buried with him, which may be of use in times to come. God preserve thee, O traveller! go, and imitate him. This monument, not to be rashly violated, his friend, Walter Harris, Doctor of Physic, caused to be erected as a testimony both of his respect and grief.”

“Dr. Harris evinced some singularity of opinion,” says Mr. Faulkner, “in supposing that posterity would gain any information from works thus entombed with the body of their author; but whatever might have been the intention, his views in depositing the books in the tomb of his friend have been frustrated, as, some years since, Dr. Chamberlayne’s tomb yielded to the injuries of time, and, on examination, it was discovered that the damp and moisture admitted by the general decay, had totally obliterated almost every appearance of them; his seal, with his arms, was however still perfect.”

A Female Heroine.—One of the inscriptions to the memory of the Chamberlayne family is as follows:—In a vault hard by lieth Anne, sole daughter of Edward Chamberlayne, LL.D., who long declining wedlock, and aspiring above her sex and age, fought under her brother, with arms and manly attire, in a fire-ship, against the French, for six hours, on the 30th June, 1690. After returning home she married Sir John Spragg, with whom she lived very affectionately for eighteen months, but, giving birth to a child, she died a few days after in 1691!

On the north side of the churchyard, on a mural monument, is an inscription to the memory of John Pennant, Esq., who died in 1709.

Sir Hans Sloane, Bart.—In the south-east corner is a large and handsome monument to the memory of this distinguished resident in the parish, and of his lady. As frequent notices are taken of Sir Robert Stanley in this work, it is only necessary here to give a brief description of the tomb. It is composed of Portland stone, on the top of which, under a portico, supported by four pillars, is placed a vase of white marble, with four serpents entwined around it, executed out of one piece; on each side is an entablature, the arms on one, and the crest on the other. It was executed by Wilton, the statuary, and was caused to be erected there by his two daughters, Elizabeth Cadogan and Sarah Stanley. Sir Hans Sloane died in 1753, in his 92nd year. Lady Sloane died in 1724.

Henry S. Woodfall, Esq.—Near the north-east corner of the churchyard, on a flat stone, was some years since an inscription to the memory of Henry S. Woodfall, the celebrated printer of the Letters of Junius, who spent the latter part of his life in calm retirement amongst his Chelsea friends. He was an associate of many distinguished literary characters, and died in 1805.

Philip Miller, Esq.—Close to the preceding spot is an obelisk to the memory of Philip Miller, Curator of the Botanic Gardens, Chelsea, and Author of the Gardeners’ Dictionary, &c. He died in 1771, aged 80. This monument was erected by the Fellows of the Linnæan and Horticultural Societies in 1815.

Against the wall of the old Vestry Room (now School Room) are tablets to the memory of Thomas Bowes, M.D., F.R.S., William Moncrieff, Professor of Humanity at St. Andrew’s, and Mrs. Methuen. The dates of these are 1723 and 1732.

These are the principal raised cenataphs and mural tablets in this ancient churchyard.

ERECTION OF AN ORGAN.

On the 22nd of January, 1818, the following resolution was unanimously carried at a meeting in Vestry assembled:—“Resolved that this meeting sensibly feels the propriety as well as the necessity of an organ being placed in the parochial Church, and that the best means to effect this desirable object will be by voluntary subscription, and that it be immediately entered into.” A committee was appointed to carry this resolution into effect, and Luke Thomas Flood, Esq., was requested to become the treasurer, but, although a great many contributions were received, the aggregate sum was insufficient for the purpose, and the money was tendered back to the subscribers. This failure, and the offer made, occasioned considerable amusement amongst some of the parishioners, and many laughable squibs were printed and circulated. The most ludicrous of these was a poetic effusion, written by a gentleman of education and who was not altogether a stranger in literary circles. It was entitled “The Organ in the Suds,” and embodied much of that wit and humour which is so frequently displayed in “Punch.” Sometime afterwards, however, the effort was successfully renewed, and an organ was purchased. The two principal candidates for organist were Mr. Goss, then comparatively unknown in the musical world, but who has since risen to eminence as a composer, and is now organist at St. Paul’s Cathedral, and Mr. Ling, who had become a great favourite with many of the subscribers. The feeling amongst the friends of these gentlemen was very strongly manifested, and the proceedings on the day of election were characterized by much excitement. Mr. Ling obtained the greatest number of votes from the subscribers, and consequently was elected. Mr. Goss, however, was appointed organist of the New Church, when it was completed, by the Church Trustees, agreeably to the decision of Dr. Crotch, Mr. Attwood, and some others, who were requested to decide on the relative qualifications of the candidates. There were a great many parishioners present on this occasion.

From the Report of the Old Church Organ Committee, dated Feb. 16, 1819, a copy of which is now before me, it appears that the entire amount received was £325 4s. 6d.; that the organ cost £200, and that the expenses altogether were no less than 125 4s. 6d., including £24 4s. for a Faculty, and £25 to Mr. H. Bevington, for removing the organ and keeping it in repair for twelve months, as per agreement. The remaining expenditure was for necessary alterations in the gallery, and for fittings, &c. The organ had been previously erected in a private mansion, which will explain the charge for removal, and the sum paid for the organ was considered at that time to be a great bargain.

The singing, prior to the erection of the organ, was indeed very bad, being almost entirely confined to the school children, who were placed in galleries specially erected for them, at the extreme western part of the church, and so close to the ceiling that a grown person could scarcely stand upright in them.

SPRING TIDES.—TAKEN TO CHURCH IN A BOAT.

A circumstance occurred at the church, about the year 1809, of a singular character. There had been some very high tides during the week, and on the following Sunday morning the waters rose several feet against the southern boundary wall, which rendered the employment of a boat necessary to convey those of the congregation who resided in the neighbourhood near to Battersea Bridge to the western entrance of the church. Although there have been some very high spring tides since that time, I am happy to say, the congregation have always been enabled to walk to the Old Church without the least fear of being drowned on their way to it! The raising of the road, and other alterations, have no doubt checked such overflowings at this particular spot.

DOING PENANCE.

The next event is one of unusual interest. The statement may be relied upon as authentic, and the circumstance of its not having gained publicity has been owing to the few persons who witnessed it and the secrecy enjoined, but after nearly sixty years have elapsed, and the individuals concerned being long since deceased, the particulars may now be fairly disclosed without any breach of confidence.

A short time after the conclusion of Divine Service, on a Sunday morning, a gentleman alighted from a carriage and proceeded to the Vestry Room, where two others were waiting his arrival. As soon as the congregation had dispersed, the parties, with two or three parochial officers, &c., went to the entrance of the middle aisle, and the inner door being closed, the person especially referred to hurriedly knelt down. A paper was then placed in his hand, which was a recantation of certain opprobrious epithets that he had applied to a lady in one of the streets in the parish, stigmatizing her publicly by a term which the reader can easily supply. When he recited the offensive words he laid particular emphasis on them, evidently in a spirit of bravado and not of contrition. Penance and penitence were not in any way, apparently, considered by him as synonymous terms. There is scarcely an individual who would suppose that such an event occurred, at so comparatively recent a period as sixty years ago, in the old Parish Church of St. Luke, Chelsea.

SACRILEGE.

On Wednesday night, the 27th of December, 1827, this church was sacrilegiously broken into, and the following articles stolen, viz., two plated flagons, two plated chalices, two plated salvers, a blue cloth covering the Communion Table, and a table cloth and napkin for the same; a crimson cushion and hanging for the pulpit, the brass branches from the pulpit and those from the chandeliers in the middle aisle. On Thursday night, the 1st of February following, the church was again entered and robbed of the chandeliers, the brass curtain rods, and the cushions from the churchwardens’ and overseers’ pews.

A reward of £100 was offered by the Secretary of State, and £70 by the parish, for the discovery of the robbers, who were soon after taken, tried at Newgate, and condemned to be transported for life.

RECTORS AT THE OLD CHURCH.

The following is a list of the names of most of the rectors, commencing with the earliest one recorded, and terminating with the Hon. and Rev. G. V. Wellesley, D.D., who continued of course rector when the new St. Luke’s Church was completed. The list of subsequent rectors will be found placed in the notice of that church:—

Patrons. Name. Institution.

Edward II. Roger de Berners 1316

„ Nicholas Hosbound 1339

Edward III. Martyn de Moulish 1348

„ William Palmer 1368

Abbot & Conv. West. Thomas de Preston 1368

There were altogether 29 Rectors instituted by the Abbot and Convent of Westminster.

Sir Thomas More John Larke [19a] 1530

„ John Richardson [19b] 1543

Duchess of Somerset Richard Ward [19c] 1585

C. Cheyne, Esq. Adam Littleton, D.D. 1669

Viscount Cheyne John King, D.D. 1694

Sir Hans Sloane Sloane Elsmere, D.D. 1732

„ Reginald Heber, M.A. 1766

Earl Cadogan and Henry Stanley Thomas Drake, D.D. 1770

Lord Cadogan W. B. Cadogan, M.A. 1775

Lady Mendip and Mrs. D’Oyley Charles Sturgess, M.A. 1797

Earl Cadogan Hon. and Rev. Dr. Wellesley 1805

The Rev. Dr. Littleton was educated at Westminster School, under the celebrated Dr. Busby, and afterwards became Prebendary of Westminster. He was well skilled in the Oriental languages and in rabinnical learning. He died at Chelsea in 1694, in the 67th year of his age.

The Rev. Dr. John King was a divine of considerable literary eminence. Amongst a variety of works he published a sermon, entitled, “The Divine Favour the best Alliance; or, Repentance the Safest Sanctuary in Times of Danger; preached at the Parish Church of Chelsey,” in 1701. There is in the British Museum a small quarto volume, in manuscript, by Dr. King, containing “Remarks on the Life of Sir Thomas More,” and a letter, designed for Mr. Hearne, respecting Sir T. More’s house at Chelsea. He died in this parish in 1732, aged 80, much respected, and was buried at Pertenhall. The family of Dr. King bear the same arms with Robert King, the first Bishop of Oxford.

The Rev. Dr. Sloane Elsmere died in 1776, and left behind him a volume of sermons to be published for the benefit of the “Girls’ Charity School,” of which he was the original founder. He was a relation of Sir Hans Sloane.

The Rev. Reginald Heber received his school education at the Free School, Manchester, from whence he removed to Brasenose College, Oxford. Mr. Heber, in 1766, succeeded to a considerable estate (his elder brother dying unmarried) at Hodnet, in Shropshire; and in the same year he was inducted to the rectory of Chelsea, the presentation to which had several years before been purchased for him by his brother. He found the rectoral house in bad condition, and partly rebuilt and greatly improved the whole of it. In 1770 he exchanged the rectory of Chelsea with Dr. Drake, rector of Amersham, Bucks, for Malpas, in Cheshire. Mr. Heber married, in 1773, the daughter of the Rev. Martin Bayly, which lady died the following year, leaving an infant son, Richard Heber, who became Member for the University of Oxford. Eight years after he married, secondly, the daughter of Dr. Cuthbert Allanson, by whom he had two sons, Reginald, the late lamented Bishop of Calcutta—a prelate whose memory is revered by Christians of all denominations—the other son was Thomas Cuthbert Heber, and he had also one daughter. Mr. Heber died at Malpas in 1804, in his 76th year.

The Hon. and Rev. William Bromley Cadogan, second son of Lord Cadogan, was born in 1751, and had his education at Westminster School, from whence he was removed to Christ Church College, Oxford. He obtained several prizes at the University for classical knowledge. On the death of Dr. Drake he was presented to the rectory of Chelsea. He also became vicar of St. Giles’s, Reading. Mr. Faulkner gives a singular anecdote relating to the unsolicited offer of this vicarage to Mr. Cadogan. Lord Bathurst, who was then Chancellor, called at Lord Cadogan’s house, and desired to see him. His lordship was not at home; and the servants, seeing Lord Bathurst very plainly dressed, admitted him into the hall only, having no suspicion of his high rank. The Chancellor therefore wrote a note at the hall table, requesting Lord Cadogan to accept the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Reading, for his son. The offer of so valuable a preferment, and so near to the family seat at Caversham, was peculiarly acceptable to Lord Cadogan. It appeared, however, that the parishioners were deeply affected by the death of the Rev. Mr. Talbot, their late vicar, and equally grieved at the appointment of his successor; but they flattered themselves that the new vicar, being a young gentleman of noble family, would feel no disposition to do the duties himself, and that the Rev. Mr. Halward, who had been recently appointed, and towards whom they already were much attached, might be continued in the curacy. A petition for this purpose was presented to Mr. Cadogan, but it was rejected with strong marks of disapprobation. The old congregation therefore became dispersed. Some of them, under the patronage of the Countess of Huntingdon, opened a place for Divine worship for themselves, while others, who were unwilling to leave the church altogether, thought that they perceived marks of sincerity in his conduct and preaching, attempted, by frequent admonitory letters, to convince Mr. Cadogan of what they considered to be his “errors,” and to set him “right.” On this occasion several letters passed between him and Mrs. Talbot, the widow of the previous vicar, whose house was opened for religious exercises, and where prayer was occasionally offered up for his conversion. Mr. Cadogan is said to have been highly offended, but at length, humbled and subdued, he fell at the feet of accumulated kindness, and confessed to the last moment of his life, that “Mrs. Talbot’s letters and example were the principal means of leading him to the saving knowledge of Christ.” It produced, it appears, a great change in his manner of preaching, and led the way to his intimacy with the Rev. Mr. Hill, Mr. Romaine, and others, who were distinguished by the title of popular preachers. He likewise offered the curacy to Mr. Halward, who previously he had but “lightly esteemed,” but that gentleman had then accepted some preferment which prevented him from acceding to the offer. Mr. Cadogan divided his time between Chelsea and Reading; but finding his labours in both places too arduous, he let the rectory-house, and left Chelsea in charge of the Rev. Mr. Middleton, his curate, except at the season of Lent, and of the Sacrament, on which occasions the church was crowded. Mr. Cadogan was seized at Reading on a Thursday evening, after his lecture, with an inflammation of the bowels, and departed this life on the following Tuesday, expressing with his lips that which was his “glorious theme, the unbounded love of Christ.” He died in 1797, aged 46.

A monument, designed by Bacon, is erected in the church at Reading. Beneath the inscription are the crosier or pastoral staff; the rod of Aaron, which budded and yielded almonds; and the book mentioned in the Revelations, as sealed with seven seals.

The Rev. Charles Sturges was presented to this rectory in 1797. Respectful mention is made of him in Mrs. Trimmer’s publication on the Sunday Schools of Old Brentford. He has a copy of Latin verses in the Musæ Etonenses, and another in the Academiæ Cantabrigiensis Luctus, on the death of George II. The sudden death of Mr. Sturges was another verification of that passage in our Burial Service, “In the midst of life we are in death,” &c., which he had read many times at the graves of the parishioners. He expired on the 22nd of April, 1805, after only half an hour’s illness, from an apoplectic seizure, immediately before the hour of dinner, at the rectory of Loddington, Northamptonshire, and his remains were interred in the chancel of that church.

The Hon. and Rev. Gerald Valerian Wellesley, D.D., succeeded Mr. Sturgess. A notice of him will be found in the account of the New Parish Church.

The Rev. R. H. Davies, M.A., who had been previously senior curate of the new Parish Church, succeeded the Rev. John Rush when he died in 1855, as Incumbent of the Old Church. Through his exertions and instrumentality, a small vestry, or robing room, has been attached to the church. The great inconvenience and injury to the Minister’s health, arising from his having to walk across the churchyard in his robes, and also to change them, especially in the winter months, had been sadly experienced and justly complained of by almost every officiating clergyman in my recollection. Very considerable alterations and great improvements have likewise been made in the interior of the church, during the fourteen years that Mr. Davies has been the Incumbent, without interfering greatly with its ancient architecture. Perhaps the best way to convey an adequate idea of what has been accomplished will be to give an account of the expenses, taken from a Report recently published.

The New Gallery £395 11 0

Re-pewing 420 13 6

New Stoves, &c. 44 15 0

Iron Railing 65 0 0

Ventilators 32 18 9

East Window 83 18 7

Reading Desk 5 3 6

New Vestry, &c 94 14 3

Corona in Chancel 12 0 0

Alterations to Organ 60 0 0

A great part of the cost of these extensive and essential alterations was contributed by the Trustees for building the new St. Luke’s Church; a very large portion by the liberal contributions of the congregation, and a part also by the Rev. Mr. Davies’s own friends not connected with the church, and others to whom he applied. The schools, as will be seen, have been greatly benefitted, and various charitable societies established, by which means vast blessings have been conferred on the poor in the neighbourhood.

PETYT’S SCHOOL ROOM AND VESTRY.

In the year 1706, a Vestry Room and School Room, with apartments for a master, were erected at the expense of W. Petyt, Esq. [23] There is a descriptive inscription upon the west front of the school room, which records the donation, at the conclusion of which it is added, “To all which may God give a blessing. Soli Deo Gloria.” The original deed of gift is entered in the Vestry minutes. Mr. Petyt resided in Church (lane) Street, and died there in 1707, aged 71, but was buried in the Temple Church. He was a member of the Inner Temple, and Keeper of the Records in the Tower of London.

In 1819 there were 100 boys and girls educated and clothed free of any expense to their parents. The girls at that period were instructed in a house rented in Lordship’s Place, near Cheyne Row. These schools, with the master and mistress, were transferred to the new School Rooms, at the back of the present Parish Church.

The Rev. Mr. Davies recently appealed to the Vestry for a grant of £100 to make considerable repairs in this old building, it being in a most dilapidated condition (the ground floor, which was the Vestry Room, was for some time previously used as a fire-engine station), and the one school room altogether inadequate for the proper accommodation of the children of the district, promising himself to be answerable for the deficiency in the amount of the expenditure. The Vestry, in consideration of its having been bequeathed to the parish, complied with the request. Mr. Davies likewise obtained for the same laudable object a grant of £20 from the Ragged School Union, the congregation generously contributing the remaining sum required to put the building in thorough repair. The entire cost was rather more than £279. There are now three good school-rooms instead of one, as was formerly the case, and consequently the number of children attending the schools has been greatly augmented.

It may here be mentioned that the “watchhouse,” and the “stocks” for vagrants, formerly stood close to the river, opposite the church.

History of the Manor. ROYAL AND DISTINGUISHED RESIDENTS.

Blackstone, in his “Commentaries,” says that manors are, in substance, as ancient as the Saxon Constitution. The manor of Chilchell, or Chelcheya (Chelsea), was given it appears, in the reign of Edward the Confessor to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster, by Thurstan, the governor of the king’s palace, who held it of him. This gift was confirmed by a charter, which transfers the manor, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully as it was held by Thurstan: “besides, together with this manor, as a free gift, every third tree, and every third horse load of fruits grown in the neighbouring wood at Kyngesbyrig” (now called Knightsbridge). This charter, which is in the Saxon language, is still preserved in the British Museum. It is sealed with a waxen seal, suspended by a silken string, after the Norman fashion, in the front of which are the effigies of the king, holding in his right hand a cross, and in his left a globe; on the reverse is the same image, holding in his right hand a spear surmounted by a dove, and bearing in his left a sword, with this inscription on both sides, “The seal of Edward King of England.”

King William, by a charter dated at Westminster, confirmed the land to the Monastery of Westminster.

The Record of Domesday Book, to which we are so greatly indebted, was begun in 1080, and completed in 1086. In it is mentioned the lands in Chelsea, then in possession of the Church of Westminster.

The general description given of menial persons, including those in the manor of Chelsea, at the period when the survey of the land belonging to the lords, or great landowners, was taken, shows the lamentable state of thousands of our fellow-creatures. Slaves were allowed nothing but subsistence and clothes, and were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress. Long hair was a mark of dignity and freedom; for that reason, slaves, (menial persons,) were obliged to shave their heads, by which they were reminded of their inferiority of condition. At length Henry VIII. granted manumission to two of his slaves and their families, for which he assigned this just reason: “God at first created all men equally free by nature, but many had been reduced to slavery by the laws of men. We believe it, therefore, to be a pious act, and meritorious in the sight of God, to set certain of our slaves at liberty from their bondage.” The granting of leases, which afterwards followed, almost completely emancipated the “villain-slave,” so that at the time of Elizabeth, scarcely any person existed to whom the former laws applied.

Gervace, abbot of Westminster, aliened the manor of Chelchithe, to his mother Dameta and her heirs. Afterwards it was held by the heirs of Bartholomew de Fontibus.

Several court rolls of this manor, during the reigns of King Edward III. and Richard II. are among the records of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

A brewer, of the name of North, was presented at one of these courts for not putting up a sign as was customary; and at another the wife of Philip Rose was fined 6d. for being a common babbler.

Simon Bayle appears to have been lessee of the manor house, 33 Hen. VI., and from that period there is a total deficiency of records till the reign of Henry VII.

Sir Reginald Bray was now in possession of the manor. He was Receiver General to Sir Henry Stafford, a younger son of the Duke of Buckingham, who married the widow of the Earl of Richmond, and mother of Henry VII. There are many interesting historical particulars respecting Sir Reginald Bray. He was buried in the chapel of St. George, Windsor.

From Sir Reginald Bray the manor descended to Margaret, only child of his next brother, John, who married Sir William Sandys, created afterwards Lord Sands. He was one of those peers who subscribed the articles exhibited to Henry VIII. against Cardinal Wolsey; and the next year was also one who signed the declaration to the Pope, intimating the danger of losing his supremacy, in case he did not comply with the king’s wishes in regard to his divorce from Queen Catherine. He died in 1542.

There have been various surmises as to the correct definition of “Sands End,” in Fulham parish, which immediately adjoins Chelsea, and is called such for a short distance. I venture to suggest the following explanation. Lord Sands, being Lord of the Manor of Chelsea, his rights terminated at the spot just mentioned, and to record this fact the people of Fulham called it Sands End, signifying thereby that Lord Sands’s jurisdiction and property ended there. Perhaps this idea is not original, but I have never heard it thus explained, and therefore I have given it.

This Lord Sands, a few years previous to his death, conveyed to Henry VIII. the manor of Chelsea, with certain closes or land situated at Kensal Green, near Wilsden, containing about 137¾ acres. [26] In 1861 there were in that part of Kensal which belongs to this parish 591 houses and 3223 inhabitants. The number of houses has since increased, and the present population may be estimated at 3500 persons. There are a great many highly respectable residents, and a large number of superior new houses are continually being erected in the adjoining wealthy parishes, which will ultimately increase the trade and value of property in the entire district. There are also several new Churches and Chapels built within the last few years in the neighbourhood. The Paddington Canal, which passes through the detached parts of Chelsea and Kensington, was opened with an aquatic procession on the 10th of July, 1801, in the presence of a vast concourse of spectators.

“Henry VIII. was probably induced to possess this manor,” says Mr. Faulkner, “from having observed, in his frequent visits to Sir Thomas More, the pleasantness of the situation on the banks of the Thames; and from the salubrity of the air, deeming it a fit residence for his infant daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, then between three and four years of age. But, on his obtaining it, finding that the manor house was ancient, and at that time in possession of the Lawrence family, [27] he erected a new manor house on the eastern side of Winchester House,” which stood on the site of the river-side entrance to Oakley Street, Cheyne Walk. It was “here the young Princess was nurtured, and it most probably was her chief residence during her father’s reign. In 1540, Sir Francis Bryan was made ‘Keeper of Chelsey’ for life, by patent, 31 Hen. VIII.”

On the marriage of Henry with Catharine Parr, this manor was assigned to that Queen as part of her jointure. Most unfortunately for her future welfare, Catharine, after the decease of the king, placed her affections upon the brother of Jane Seymour, Thomas Lord Seymour, to whom she was subsequently married. Whatever she might have dreaded from the temper of her previous royal husband, was realized in the accumulated injuries she received from Seymour, whose turbulent passions and uncontrolled ambition led him to aspire to the hand of the Princess Elizabeth, who then resided at Chelsea under the Queen’s care. She died at Sudeley Castle in 1548, not without suspicion of poison.

After the death of Catharine Parr, the manor was bestowed on the Duke of Northumberland by Edward VI. On the accession of Mary, the duke was impeached, attainted of high treason, and beheaded in 1553.

Jane, Duchess of Northumberland, was a most singular instance of the vicissitudes of fortune, having been the wife of one of the greatest men of that age, she lived to see her husband lose his head on a scaffold; to see one son share his father’s fate, another die in a prison, and the rest of her children live only by permission. Amidst this accumulated distress, which was heightened by the confiscation of her property, she displayed great firmness of mind, though left destitute of fortune and friends, till the arrival of some of the Spanish nobility, who interested themselves so warmly in her favour, that they prevailed on the Queen to reinstate her in some of her former possessions. She made a will, written with her own hand, unassisted by the advice of any learned in the laws. Amongst a variety of other bequests, she left to Sir Henry Sidney the gold and green hangings in the manor house, “water side, at Chelsey.” “My will,” she says, “is earnestly and effectually, that little solemnities be made for me, for I had even have a thousand foldes my debts to be paide, and the poore to be given unto, than anye pompe to be shewed upon my wretched carkes; therefore to the wormes will I goe, as I have afore wrytten in all poyntes, as you will answer yt afore God; and you breke any one jot of it, your wills hereafter may chaunce be as well broken.” Notwithstanding the strict injunctions contained in her will, she was buried with great funeral pomp, in February, 1535; two heralds attending, with many mourners, six dozen of torches, and two white branches, and “a canopy borne over her effigies in wax, in a goodly hearse to the church of Chelsey.”

Ann of Cleves, after her divorce from Henry VIII., appears to have resided in this manor house, where, it is said, she died in 1557, and was buried in Westminster.

Queen Elizabeth, in 1559, leased this manor to Ann, Duchess of Somerset, widow of the late Protector, for life. Her Majesty afterwards granted the manor to John Stanhope, Esq., vice-chamberlain of her household. On the accession of James I. he was created Lord Stanhope, of Harrington.

After several families had held the manor, we find it in possession of the Cheyne family.

Charles Cheyne, afterwards Viscount Newhaven, married Lady Jane, eldest daughter and co-heir of William Duke of Newcastle, with whom he obtained an immense fortune. This lady is celebrated for her excellent endowments, which she exhibited in a distinguished manner during the civil wars in the reign of Charles I., in her keeping the garrisoned house of her father, where she was left with one of her sisters, against the enemy, till, overpowered by their force, she was made prisoner, but, by the success of the royal arms, it was retaken. Her duty and piety to her exiled father, in making repeated remittances, which she effected by the sale of some rich jewels left her by her grandmother, the Lady Ogle, after the vain efforts she had made for his pardon, deserve to be remembered. Lord Cheyne, as we learn from the inscription on Lady Jane’s monument, purchased the manor of Chelsea with a part of the large dower she brought him on his marriage. His lordship very highly embellished the house and gardens, and they excited some curiosity at the time. Mr. Evelyn, in his Diary, thus notices them: “I made my Lord Cheyney a visit at Chelsea, and saw those ingenious water-works invented by Mr. Winstanley, in which were some things very surprising and extraordinary.” This Mr. Winstanley was the ingenious architect who built the Eddystone Lighthouse, and perished in it when blown down by the great storm in 1703. When Lord Cheyne died in 1698, he was succeeded by William, his son and successor.

Sir Hans Sloane, Bart., purchased the manor of William Lord Cheyne, the second and last Viscount Newhaven, in the year 1712. Sir Hans was descended from a family originally of Scotland, but settled in the north of Ireland, where he received his first education. At that early age he evinced a very strong inclination to study the works of Nature, which he pursued with uncommon application through the rest of his life. Being desirous of improving himself in the several branches of physic, to the profession of which he was ardently devoted, he came to London, and resided in a house adjoining to the laboratory of Apothecaries’ Hall. Here Mr. Sloane acquired a perfect knowledge of the preparations and uses of most chemical medicines; and at the same time prosecuted his favourite science of botany in the Apothecaries’ Gardens at Chelsea. He ultimately became President of the Royal College of Physicians, London, and associated and corresponded with most of the eminent men of his day. He had been previously Secretary to the Royal Society, which he held for 20 years without any salary, and was the intimate friend of Sir Isaac Newton. In the last sickness of Queen Anne he was called in to her assistance, as one of her physicians, as he had been on some former occasions. He was created a baronet by George I., an honour which had never before been conferred upon any physician in England. Upon purchasing the manor of Chelsea, he gave a portion of the ground of his garden to the Apothecaries’ Company, in order to perpetuate it for the improvement of botanical knowledge, and to communicate to others that instruction which he had himself received there. Besides the donation of so large and valuable a piece of ground, in a delightful situation on the banks of the Thames, and near the metropolis, he contributed largely towards building the stairs at the water-side gate, and an additional sum towards the expenses of the garden. When Sir Isaac Newton died, Sir Hans Sloane was chosen as President of the Royal Society, and continued in that high office for fourteen successive years. His decay was very gradual, and foretold that he would one day “drop like a fruit fully ripe.” He died in 1753, and was interred in the churchyard of Chelsea, in the same vault with his lady. His funeral was attended by many persons of distinction, and several Fellows of the Royal Society. He has been styled “the father of natural history in these realms.”

Sir Hans Sloane’s invaluable Museum, sold to the nation at his decease for £20,000, being about a fourth of its value, was the nucleus, and so far the first foundation, of the British Museum. He bequeathed one moiety of the manor of Chelsea to his daughter Sarah, the wife of George Stanley, Esq., of Paultons, in Hampshire, and the remainder to his second daughter, the lady of Charles Lord Cadogan, in which family the property still remains. Hence the names of Cheyne Walk, Hans Place, Sloane Street, Cadogan Place, Oakley Street, and Paultons Square. The eldest son of Earl Cadogan takes his father’s second title, Viscount Chelsea.

Mrs. Stanley, daughter of Sir Hans Sloane, left one son and two daughters; Hans Stanley, Esq., the son, who died in 1780, and bequeathed to his sisters, Anne, the wife of W. Ellis, Esq., afterwards Lord Mendip, and Sarah, the wife of Christopher D’Oyley, Esq., his moiety of this manor, with the reversion to Lord Cadogan and his heirs.

Sir Thomas More’s House.

Sir Thomas More purchased an estate at Chelsea, about the year 1520, and built himself a house, as Erasmus describes it, “neither mean nor subject to envy, yet magnificent and commodious enough.” The site of this house has been long disputed. The Rev. Dr. King, (who is noticed amongst the rectors of the Old Church), in his “Letter designed for Mr. Hearne,” relative to Sir Thomas More’s house, and which is in the British Museum, says, “As seven cities in Greece contended for the birthplace of Homer, so there are no fewer than four houses in this parish which lay claim to Sir Thomas More’s residence, viz.: that which is now the Duke of Beaufort’s; that which was lately Sir Joseph Alstone’s; that which was once Sir Reginald Bray’s, and afterwards William Powell’s, which is now built into several tenements; and that which was lately Sir John Danvers’s, which is also now pulled down; and on part of the ground a small street is built, called Danvers Street, and some other houses. Now of all these, in my opinion, Beaufort House bids fairest to be the place where Sir Thomas More’s stood.” He then proceeds to give his reasons for arriving at this conclusion, which, when considered in connection with the statements of other writers on the subject, clearly establishes the correctness of Dr. King’s opinion. Sir Thomas More’s house, therefore, we will conclude stood almost on the site of what is now called Beaufort Street, facing Battersea Bridge. After his death, however, very considerable alterations and additions were made by succeeding occupants, both in regard to the house and grounds attached to it. The house, in its altered state, was pulled down about 140 years ago.

Erasmus gives a pleasing description of the manner of More’s living with his wife and family at Chelsea. “There he conversed with his wife,” says he, “his son, his daughter-in-law, his three daughters and their husbands, with eleven grand-children. There is not a man living so affectionate to his children as he; he loveth his old wife as well as if she was a young maid.” Fox, in his Martyrology, however, throws a sad blast over the character of More. He states that More used to bind heretics to a tree in his garden, called “The Tree of Troth,” but this was denied by More himself. Henry VIII., to whom he owed his rise and fall, frequently came to Chelsea to visit him. Sometimes the king would ascend to the house-top with him to observe the stars and converse on astronomy. Amongst the illustrious foreigners entertained and patronised by Sir Thomas More, may be mentioned Hans Holbein, a celebrated painter, who lived with him for nearly three years painting portraits of him, his relations, and friends. It is generally admitted that he had a house in Chelsea for aged people, whom he daily relieved.

More delighted in telling the following “merrie story,” as he termed it:—A friar while preaching “spyed a poore wyfe of the paryshe whysperyng to her pew-fellow, and he fallyng angry thereto, cryde out unto her aloude, ‘Hold thy babble, I byd thee, thou wyfe in the red hood!’” He regularly attended Chelsea Church, and very often assisted at the celebration of Mass, and at times he would put on a surplice and join the quire.

The pathetic story of More’s wit was never so touchingly illustrated as on the day after he resigned the Great Seal. He went to Chelsea Church as usual with his wife and family, none of whom he had yet informed of his resignation. During the service, as was his custom, he sat in the choir, in a surplice. After service it was the custom for one of his attendants to go to her ladyship’s pew, and say, “My Lord is gone before.” But this day the Ex-Chancellor came himself, and making a low bow, said, “Madam, my Lord is gone.” Then, on their way home, to her great mortification, he unriddled his mournful pleasantry by telling her his lordship was gone, in the loss of his official dignities.

Sir Thomas had four children, three daughters and one son; the latter was the youngest. His first wife wished very much for a boy; at last she brought this son, who proved to be of slender capacity; upon which he said to her, “You have prayed so long for a boy, that now you have got one that will be a boy as long as he lives.” The good lady walked away from him.

By indefatigable application, More cleared the Court of Chancery of all its causes. One day, having ended a cause, he called for the next, and was told there was “no other depending in the Court.” He was delighted to hear it, and ordered it to be inserted on the records of the Court. It gave rise to the following epigram, not the worst in the English language:—

“When More some time had Chancellor been No More suits did remain; The same shall never More be seen Till More be there again.”

The pitiful story of More’s daughter, Margaret, parting with her beloved father, on the morning of his cruel execution, is truly affecting. She followed him to the scaffold—embraced him, implored his blessing, wept upon his cheek, bidding him in anguish adieu. A second time she went forward to him, clung round his neck and kissed him, when at last, notwithstanding his apparent gravity, tears fell from his eyes * * * and soon afterwards she was severed from him for ever! It appears that his original intention to be interred in the Old Church, was unhappily not fulfilled. Dr. King states that “his body was buried in the chapel of St. Peter, in the Tower, and his head, after some months, was bought by his daughter, Margaret, and taken down from London Bridge, where it was fixed upon a pole, and was buried,” probably as stated, in St. Dunstan’s, near Canterbury. Aubery, however, asserts that “after he was beheaded, his trunke was interred in Chelsey Church, near the middle of the south wall, where was some slight monument erected, which being worne by time, Sir John Lawrence, of Chelsey, at his own proper costs and chardges, built to his memorie a handsome one, with inscription, of marble.” This statement, as regards the interment of Sir Thomas More’s body, does not accord with the opinion of most other writers on the subject.

After the death of More, his mansion was granted in the 28th of Henry VIII. to Sir William Paulet, afterwards Marquis of Winchester, to whom Edward VI. granted in fee both that and all other premises in Chelsea and Kensington, forfeited by his attainder.

The Marquis of Winchester, who was so much of a courtier as to accommodate himself to princes as well as to subjects of very different characters, was, from his natural and acquired abilities, perfectly qualified to act with propriety in the highest offices of the state. In the reign of Edward VI. he was made Lord High Treasurer of England. It is said that by his councils, in a great measure, the Duke of Northumberland’s design of setting the Lady Jane Grey on the throne was prevented; for which good office of loyalty to them, the Queens, Mary and Elizabeth, continued him in the Treasurer’s Office, which he enjoyed for thirty years; and on being asked how he preserved himself in that place through so many changes of government, he answered, “By being a willow, and not an oak.” He died in 1572, aged 97 years. The marquis greatly enlarged and improved the house, and, according to Norden, “adorned Chelsea with stately buildings.” His eldest son, John, second Marquis of Winchester, died at Chelsea in 1576. The widow of the first marquis died in 1586.

Gregory, Lord Dacre, soon afterwards had possession of Sir Thomas More’s house. He was the son of Thomas Fynes Lord Dacre, who succeeded his grandfather in the 26th of Henry VIII.; and who, in 1541, was engaged with some other persons in chasing the deer in Sir Nicholas Pelham’s park, when a fray arising between them and the keepers, in which one of the latter was killed, he was found guilty of being accessary to the murder, and suffered death accordingly; but his children were restored to their honours in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Gregory, Lord Dacre, died at Chelsea in 1594, without issue; and his sister Margaret, the wife of Samuel Lennard, Esq., claimed the barony, and was allowed it in the second of James I.

Lady Dacre survived her husband but a few months, and bequeathed her house at Chelsea, with all its appurtenances, to the great Lord Burleigh, with remainder to his son Robert, afterwards Earl of Salisbury, and Lord High Treasurer. “I have seen,” says Lysons, “among the records at the Rolls Chapel, a pardon of alienation to Sir Robert Cecil, dated June 21, 39th Elizabeth, for acquiring these premises of Thomas Lord Buckhurst.” This distinguished nobleman, afterwards Earl of Dorset, was brother to Lady Dacre, and resided frequently with his sister at Chelsea, but it is not known whether he had any interest in the estate.

The Earl of Salisbury is supposed to have rebuilt Sir Thomas More’s house, as the initials of his name were to be seen on the pipes and in several of the rooms.

Henry Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, bought the house of the Earl of Salisbury, and probably came immediately to reside in it, as there are some entries respecting his family in the Parish Register in the beginning of the year 1609. By his first wife, Lady C. Hastings, daughter of Francis, Earl of Huntingdon, he had two sons, Thomas, his successor in the title, and Edward; and by his second wife, widow of W. Norris, Esq., he had a daughter, Elizabeth, who married Sir Arthur Gorges, and also two sons, Henry and Robert. The latter died in 1609, and was buried at Chelsea.

Sir Arthur Gorges, on the death of Henry, Earl of Lincoln, became the possessor of the house, and he and Lady Elizabeth, his wife, in consideration of £4300, sold it to Sir Lionel Cranfield, afterwards created Earl of Middlesex. It was described as the “greatest house at Chelsea, with two fore great courts adjoining, environed with brick walls, also a wharf (landing-place for a pleasure boat, &c.) lying in front, having a high brick tower on the east and west ends, and a high water tower, standing upon the west corner of the wharf, and the watercourse belonging thereto. An orchard, a garden, having a peryment standing up in the middle, and a terrace on the north end thereof, with a banquetting house at the east end of the terrace, having a marble table in it. A great garden, dovecote close, containing five acres, the kitchen garden, brick-barne close, containing ten acres.” Lord Middlesex held the mansion till 1625, when he sold it to Charles I., who, in 1627, granted the said house, &c., to the Duke of Buckingham.

George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham, the son of Sir George Villiers, was born in 1592. By the elegance of his person, and the courtliness of his address, he gained as great an ascendance over King James as the favourite of any other prince is known to have done by a long course of assiduity and insinuation. The Earl of Clarendon says, that the duke “was of a most flowing courtesy and affability to all men who made any address to him, and so desirous to oblige them, that he did not enough consider the value of the obligation, or the merit of the person he chose to oblige; from which much of his misfortune resulted.” He married Lady Catherine Manners, the daughter of Francis, Earl of Rutland, by whom he had three sons and a daughter; he was assassinated at Portsmouth in 1628, by one Felton. The eldest son, George, who succeeded him in his title and estates, being very young at the time of his father’s murder, was sent to travel during the civil wars; and returning to England whilst Charles I. was under restraint, he and his brother, Lord Francis Villiers, thought themselves obliged to venture their lives and fortunes for the king at the first opportunity. Soon after, the Parliament voted that he should be proceeded against as a traitor, and that his estates should be sequestered.

Sir Thomas More’s house, for such it ought still to be considered, notwithstanding the great alterations made in it, was now known as Buckingham House, in consequence of its having been granted to the first Duke of Buckingham. It appears by the following extract from a periodical paper after that duke’s death, to have been in possession of his daughter Mary, who married James, Duke of Richmond and Lenox: “The Duchess of Lenox, daughter of the Duke of Buckingham, being then at Oxford, petitioned the Lords for leave to come to London, or to her house at Chelsey, to be under Dr. Mayerne’s hands for her health; a pass was ordered for her, and the concurrence of the Commons desired.”

Buckingham House, in 1649, having been seized by the Parliament, was committed to the custody of John Lisle, one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal. This gentleman’s own estates were afterwards confiscated, and he then retired to the continent. He was shot by some unknown person as he was going to church at Lausanne. A short time after the house was granted to Sir Bulstrode Whitlock, who resided with his family at Chelsea for some years.

Sir Bulstrode Whitlock was the son of a Judge of the Court of King’s Bench; he wrote a memorial of English affairs from the latter part of the reign of Charles I. to the Restoration.

George, the second Duke of Buckingham, soon after the Restoration, recovered his father’s estates, and was the possessor of this house for a few years, but was soon obliged to dispose of it for the benefit of his creditors.

Dryden, in his poem of Absalom and Achitophel, has drawn the following portrait of this nobleman in the character of Zimri:—

“A man so various, that he seemed to be Not one, but all mankind’s epitome: Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong, He’s every thing by starts, and nothing long; But in the course of one revolving moon, Was Chymist, Fidler, Statesman, and Buffoon. In squandering wealth, was his peculiar art, Nothing went unrewarded but desert. Beggar’d by fools, when still he found, too late He had his jest, and they had his estate.”

James Plummer, one of the Duke of Buckingham’s principal creditors, was the person in whose name this house was aliened in 1674, in trust, for George, Earl of Bristol, who is said to have died at Chelsea, and to have been buried in the church, but there is no memorial of him, or entry of his interment in the Parish Register.

George Digby, Earl of Bristol, was born in 1612, and was educated at Oxford; he soon became distinguished by his remarkable advancement in all kinds of elegant literature. In the beginning of the Long Parliament he was disaffected to the Court; shortly afterwards he appeared a declared enemy to the Parliament; and having testified his dislike of their proceedings against Lord Strafford, he was expelled the House of Commons in 1641. Upon the death of the king his lordship was exempted from pardon by the Parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II., when he recovered all he had lost; he grew very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in Parliament, and made himself conspicuous for his enmity to Lord Clarendon. Lord Bristol died in 1677, “neither loved nor regretted by any party.” The house at Chelsea he bequeathed to his Countess, Lady Ann Russell, daughter of Francis, Earl of Bedford, who sold it in 1682, to the Marquis of Worcester, created Duke of Beaufort, and who died in 1699.

The name of the house was now changed to Beaufort House. Mr. Evelyn, in his Diary, makes frequent mention of it:—“I went with my Lady Sunderland to Chelsey (1679), and dined with the Countess of Bristol (her mother) in the great house, formerly the Duke of Buckingham’s, a spacious and excellent place for the extent of ground and situation, in a good air. The house is large, but ill-contrived, though my Lord of Bristol expended much money upon it. There were divers pictures of Titian and Vandyke, and some of Bassans, very excellent, especially an Adonis and Venus, a Duke of Venice, a Butcher in his shambles selling meat to a Swiss, and of Van Dyck, my Lord of Bristol’s picture, with the Earl of Bedford’s at length. There was in the garden a rare collection of orange trees, of which she was pleased to bestow some upon me.” Again, in 1683, Mr. Evelyn says, “I went to see what had been done by the Duke of Beaufort on his house at Chelsey; he had made great alterations, but might have made a better house with the materials and the cost he had been at.”

Henry, second Duke of Beaufort, by his will, dated in 1712, left all his estates, in trust, to be sold, and the produce appropriated according to a settlement made at his marriage. The house, however, continued to be the residence of that noble family till about the year 1720. Mary, relict of the first duke, died here in 1714, at the good old age of 85 years.

It may here be observed that Chelsea, not only in former times, but at the present period, 1869, is admitted to be generally a very healthy parish. This assertion is proved by the weekly reports given to the Vestry by Dr. Barclay, the medical officer of health, and which is confirmed by other gentlemen of the medical profession. The reports read at the meetings of the Chelsea Board of Guardians, also, shew that a great many of the inmates of the workhouse live to a very advanced age; and from peculiar facilities I possessed, many years ago, I can positively assert that the number of aged persons, who had for a long period been residents, was greater than in most of the other suburban parishes.

Sir Hans Sloane, after the mansion had stood empty for several years, purchased it in 1736, for the sum of £2,500 at a public sale, and had it pulled down in 1740. The gate, which was built by Inigo Jones for the Lord Treasurer Middlesex, he gave to the Earl of Burlington, who removed it to his gardens at Chiswick, which occasioned the following lines by Pope:—

PASSENGER.

O Gate, how com’st thou here?

GATE.

I was brought from Chelsea last year, Batter’d with wind and weather; Inigo Jones put me together; Sir Hans Sloane, Let me alone, Burlington brought me hither.

This gate was placed in an avenue near the house at Chiswick, and consisted of a portico, supported by two columns of the Doric order on one side, and pilasters on the other. On two stone tablets were inscribed: “Builded by Inigo Jones, at Chelsea, MDCXXI.” “Given by Sir Hans Sloane, baronet, to the Earl of Burlington, MDCCXXXVII.”

Bowack thus describes Beaufort House in 1705: “This house is between two and three hundred feet in length, has a stately ancient front towards the Thames, also two spacious court yards, and behind it are very fine gardens. It is so pleasantly situated, that the late Queen Mary had a great desire to purchase it before King William built Kensington, but was prevented by some secret obstacles.”

Attached to the house was a chapel, which appears to have been attended by a few of the inhabitants. In various marriage licenses, granted in 1722, and in other years, persons were to be married in the Parish Church, in the chapel of Chelsea College, or the chapel of Beaufort House.

The above account of this celebrated mansion cannot fail to be highly interesting to the generality of readers. Mr. Faulkner has truly observed, “that few houses can boast of having been the residence of such a succession of noble and distinguished characters.”

Beaufort (row) Street, which was begun to be built about 1766, takes its name from the Duke of Beaufort. A portion of his vast estate was the property of Mr. Long, a very old and respected parishioner, partly leasehold, under Earl Cadogan, and some of it, if not all, is still held by that family.

Battersea Bridge, Sailing Matches, &c.

To meet the tastes of all classes of readers, I shall occasionally deviate from the prescribed order which it was my original intention to have pursued; by doing so it will remove the weariness that frequently arises, especially in works of this description, from dwelling too long on one particular subject. This motive, I trust, will be accepted as an apology for apparent digressions.

There was formerly a Ferry a little eastward of the spot where now stands Battersea Bridge, and consequently not far distant from the distinguished mansion just described. It belonged to Thomas, Earl of Lincoln, who sold it in 1618 to William Blake. After some time it became the property of Sir Walter St. John, and passed with the Bolingbroke estate to Earl Spencer, under whom it was held in 1766, when an Act of Parliament was obtained for building a bridge over the Thames, from Chelsea to Battersea, and empowering Lord Spencer to build the same. Fifteen proprietors having subscribed a sum of money each, it was accordingly begun in 1771, was opened for foot-passengers in the same year, and in the following year was ready for carriages. From 1772, when the bridge was finally erected, to the present time, 1869, is exactly 97 years, and this is the precise age of it. It is a most unsightly structure of wood, about one furlong in length, 28 ft. wide, and its cost rather more than £20,000. The proprietors have a vote for the counties of Middlesex and Surrey.

Lamps were first placed on the bridge in 1799, and in 1821 and 1822 an iron railing 4-ft. high, on the western side, was substituted for the original wooden railing, and in 1824, the eastern side was completed. So far apart were the original wooden railings, which were placed crossways, that the body of a child might have passed through them, and, if not observed, no person cognizant of the fatal accident. There were also, at the above period, eight projecting recesses, four on each side, constructed for the safety of foot-passengers, and a slightly raised pathway made.

The number of lives that have been sacrificed at this bridge, together with the barges sunken at it, even within the last few years, is really painful to contemplate. It is a sad contrast, in every respect, to the elegant structures that now span the river, and it is to be hoped there will soon be erected another one in its place—one that will be an ornament to Chelsea, Battersea, and the metropolis.

HYDE PARK ON THE THAMES.

That part of the river, known as Chelsea Reach, was so fashionable a rendezvous of pleasure boats and barges in the reign of Charles II. that some persons have described the scene as being a sort of Pall Mall Afloat, and it was called “Hyde Park on the Thames,” in that king’s reign. The reach is the widest of any part westward of London Bridge, which rendered it peculiarly suitable for such grand aquatic displays. There were dukes and duchesses, marquises, earls, and barons, with a similar fashionable throng to that which may still be witnessed in Hyde Park. The watermen were arrayed in dresses of all colours, and the whole presented a scene of grandeur which cannot be adequately described.

Fishing, at the above period, was carried on to a very considerable extent at Chelsea; but, owing to the fishermen using unlawful nets, and other causes, it fell into decay, and, finally, proved an unprofitable speculation. In my earlier days two or three fishermen earned a scanty living by selling the fish they caught, and a few lovers of angling also occasionally “pulled up” some very fine roach and dace, in the prime season, at Battersea Bridge.

SAILING MATCHES.

The river at Chelsea, some years since, presented in the summer season a very animating and pleasing scene. The sailing matches attracted numbers from London, and excited great interest amongst the inhabitants. As aged men, however, are said to see nothing now equal to “the days when they were young,”—and lest it should be thought I was magnifying the scene, making the sailing matches of former days something like, for excitement and enthusiasm, the present renowned Oxford and Cambridge Boat Races—I will endeavour to avoid the possibility of being charged with giving an exaggerated description of them. But, seriously speaking, it may be said, with truth, that Cheyne Walk and Battersea Bridge, on such occasions, were crowded with many of the nobility, and a vast number of ladies and gentlemen, either in carriages or on horseback. The fleet of sailing boats, with the little Spitfire generally ahead, and “Tom Bettsworth,” [41] the owner, on board, when seen at a short distance approaching Chelsea, with the sun shining on the white canvas sails, and other pleasure boats decorated with flags, in many of which were musicians playing various lively popular tunes, presented a sort of miniature resemblance to those delightful spectacles which are now only to be seen off Erith, &c. The steamboats have rendered such displays impracticable for some years past at Chelsea, and pleasures of this kind must give way to the transactions of business and public convenience. Commodore Capt. Harrison, a distinguished member of one of the first Yacht Clubs, took a great interest in the Chelsea Sailing Matches. He resided in the parish, and was highly esteemed for his conviviality and gentlemanly deportment. His remains were interred in the Brompton Cemetery.

I will now renew the notices of distinguished residents in this part of the parish, occasionally giving a short description of new public erections, and other interesting particulars.

Henry Sampson Woodfall, Esq., was born in Little Britain, in 1739, and when he retired from the active affairs of life, he took a house in Lombard Street, near the Old Church. At a very early age he had the honour of receiving from Mr. Pope half-a-crown for reading to him, with much fluency, a page of Homer. When twelve years old he was sent to St. Paul’s School, on leaving which he was apprenticed to his father, a printer in Paternoster Row; and at the age of nineteen he had committed to his charge the whole business of editing and printing the “Public Advertiser.” From this period till the beginning of 1793, he continued constantly in the exercise of this laborious function. During so long a time, when parties ran extremely high in politics, it is not surprising that a printer should have gotten into some difficulties. He used jocularly to say to his Chelsea friends that he had been fined and confined by the Court of King’s Bench; fined by the House of Lords and Commons, and indicted at the Old Bailey. He laid particular emphasis on the words “fined” and “confined.” His conduct respecting those celebrated letters, signed Junius, displayed great integrity and disinterestedness of character. He associated much with Garrick, Coleman, Bonnel, Thornton, Smollett, Goldsmith, and other wits of his day, and his own conversation overflowed with interesting anecdotes.

In this street resided for many years Mr. W. Lewis, bookbinder, the intimate friend of Dr. Smollett, and his fellow companion, on their journey from Edinburgh to London. It was by the advice of Smollett that he settled at Chelsea; he is pourtrayed in the novel of “Roderick Random,” under the character of Strap the Barber, and many facetious anecdotes are there related of his simplicity, vanity, and ignorance of the world. Mr. Lewis died about 1785.

Danvers Street was begun to be built in the latter end of the 17th century, on the site of Danvers Gardens, and from thence takes its name. Danvers House adjoined Sir Thomas More’s estate, if it was not actually a part of his property, or that of his son in-law, Roper; there existed anciently a thoroughfare or private way between the houses in Lombard Street, on the north side, towards the King’s Road, but to what extent cannot now be ascertained.