. iv. NOV. 18.1905.] NOTES AND QUERIES. 411 1658, it is depicted as a kind of five-barrec gate, with the exception that it has onli three bars ; and the same gate is shown in Porter's map, 1660. In Morden and Lea's fine map of 1682 it has disappeared, as Theobalds had then ceased to be a roya residence, and the road was thrown open to the public, though it was still used by royalty on its way to Newmarket. And, as we see from the same map, the road branching to the east was still called " The Kings Way,' and this royal appellation survived till recent times. In the 1732 edition of the same map the road is styled Theobalds Row or Kings Way," but subsequently a distinction was made, Theobalds Row extending as far as Bedford Row, and King's Way onwards as far as Gray's Inn Lane. The later changes of name have been given by MR. RUTTON. Mr. Wheatley, under ' Kingsgate Street' (' London Past and Present,' ii. 346), quotes from the MS. Accounts of the Surveyor of the Ways to the Crown, 1681-4, a couple of entries relating to " the King's Gate at Gray's Inn Lane end"; but as Gray's Inn Lane is considerably to the eastward of Kingsgate Street, these entries must refer to another gate, which I have not seen marked on any map. The historical associations of the district traversed by the new thoroughfare were lightly touched upon by me in a paper under the heading ' From Holborn to the Strand ' (9th S. ii. 81), which was written when the project in its present shape was finally de- cided on. There was a slight mistake* in this paper, which I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting. The concessionnaire of Clare Market was not John Holies, first Earl of Clare, who died in 1637, but his son John, second Earl (ob. 1665), who, under the " Act for the Preventing of the Multiplicity of Buildings in and about the Suburbs of London," 1656, received a licence to hold in Clement's Inn Fields a common, free, and open market. The new Aldwych only touches the fringe of the district of that name, which extended from the Strand to Holborn, and was divided into two nearly equal portions, the southern one being in the parish of St. Clement's Danes, and the northern in that of St. Giles's in the Fields. This northern half at the beginning of the seventeenth century was an open space, covering two acres, and known as Old wick, Oldwich, or Old Witch Close, which was bounded on the north by Great Queen Street, on the west by
- This mistake occurs in 'London Past and
Present' and other topographical works. Drury Lane, on the south by Princes and Duke Streets, and on the east by Lincoln's Inn Fields. In 1629 the inhabitants of these streets petitioned the king to the effect that certain people had attempted to build on the "little close called Old Witch, which had always lain open, free to all persons to walk therein, and sweet and wholesome for the King and his servants to pass towards Theobalds." The petitioners were quite pre- pared to lease the close, and plant trees on it, if only the meditated buildings might be stopped ; but notwithstanding that Inigo Jones and others, to whom the petition was referred, reported that the erection of build- ings would tend to defeat the king's intention declared in his proclamation and commission for buildings, a licence was granted to Sir Edward Stradling to build upon the ground, and within a very few years, as we can see from Faithorne's map, it was covered with houses.* The property afterwards came into the possession of the Weld family, and it would be a concession to historical truth if the County Council could see its way to alter the meaningless name of Great Wild Street, which was the principal thoroughfare run- ning through the estate, into its original designation of Weld Street. It may be noted for future reference that Kingsway was opened for public traffic on Thursday, 26 October, 1905, and that omni- buses and other vehicles began on that date to run through the whole length of the street. The breadth of the roadway has probably prevented the formation of any of the open ipaces for which, like the frontagers of Old Witch Close, I pleaded in my note of 1898. W. F. PRIDEAUX. [Further replies next week.] NELSON'S SIGNAL-(10th S. iv. 321,370).—! leed say nothing about positiveness, as P&OF. LIAUGHTON is vigorous in that line too. Thompson's letter, however, does not make ts evidence to date eighty years after the >attle, but carries us straight to the very deck of the Victory at the crucial moment. Thomp- son's father had more than once heard Browne veil the story. Of course he had. Browne was proud of the tale, and had often told it— always told it, in fact, whenever he got a chance. The ships' logs in some instances give the jode numbers, PEOF. LATTGHTON tells us. " In ome instances." Well, do they give it in this ? f they do not, there is no evidence at all. If
- 'Cal. State Papers, Dom. Ser., 1629-31,' pp. 47,
, 221.
