▼

06 October 2026

Change Alley off Cornhill in
the City of London became
home to four generations
of the Comerford family

Change Alley off Cornhill in the heart of the City of London was home to at least four generations of the Comerford family in the 19th century (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Patrick Comerford

When I was in London last week, I visited Quemerford Street in Islington, wondering whether its name was linked with Quemerford in Wiltshire or the Quemerford origins of the Comerford family in Ireland, and I then went to the City, searching for the Jamaica and Jonathan’s, two of the oldest coffee houses in London, dating back to the mid-17th century.

The Jamaica Wine House is in Saint Michael’s Alley and Jonathan’s was in Change Alley, two of the many parallel narrow laneways running from Cornhill at the north end to Lombard Street at the south end, within three or four minutes of the Royal Exchange and the Bank of England in heart of the City.

Exchange Alley or Change Alley is a narrow alleyway that was once home to some of the best-known early coffeehouses in the City of London. Change Alley is not just one alley but a collection of at least five interconnected labyrinthine passages that have changed shape and direction down the centuries and with five access points: two off Cornhill, two off Lombard Street and one leading out of Birchin Lane.

Change Alley, with the site of Jonathan’s to the immediate left, is a collection of at least five interconnected labyrinthine passages (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

The 17th and 18th century coffeehouses of Exchange Alley, especially Jonathan’s and Garraway’s, were early venues for lively trading in shares and commodities, leading to the formation of both the London Stock Exchange and Lloyd’s of London.

Change Alley was one of the main stages of the South Sea Bubble of 1720, when feverish buying and selling of South Sea Company stock sent prices soaring to over £1,000 a share before a dramatic collapse ruined many investors.

A fire on 30 March 1748 that began in a wigmaker’s shop in Exchange Alley destroyed between 90 and 100 houses and premises in the alley and nearby streets, killing several people. The blaze consumed many coffeehouses and taverns, including Jonathan’s, Garraway’s, the Swan, the Fleece and the George and Vulture, and the area had to be extensively rebuilt.

The shops that once lined Exchange Alley included ship chandlers, makers of navigation instruments such as telescopes, and goldsmiths from Lombardy in Italy, and the King’s Arms Tavern, where the Marine Society was founded in 1756.

But Change Alley was also the home for at least four generations in an interesting branch of the Comerford family in London, which was involved in book collecting for three generations and in medicine for two generations.

James Comerford (1764-1833) lived and worked for much of his life in Change Alley (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

Although there are some traditions that this branch of the Comerford family originated in Coventry, family tradition insists that the family originated in Ireland and moved to London in the mid-18th century, and traces the family back to Thomas Comerford (1738-1812), who may have been born in Ireland and is the first-known ancestor of this family.

Despite family tradition that Thomas Comerford came from Ireland, Ashworth-Hill, in his paper on the Bosworth Crucifix, which was in the possession of James Comerford’s family from around 1810, wonders whether this Comerford family was related to the Comerford family who lived in Saint Michael’s Parish in Coventry in the first half of the 19th century.

Thomas Comerford was a tobacconist in London. He was twice married and married his first wife Alice Davenport (1735-1769) on 26 October 1759 in Saint Mary’s Church, Whitechapel. They lived in Leman Street, Whitechapel (1759-1768), and they were the parents of three sons:

1, William Davenport Comerford (1763-1763), died in infancy.
2, James Comerford (1764-1833), of whom next.
3, Thomas Comerford (1769-1810), draper, of Bond Street, who married Charlotte Watson (1772-1851), and has a large number of living descendants.

Alice died in childbirth in 1769, and Thomas Comerford married his second wife, Ann Underwood (1734-1807), in Saint Botolph’s Church, Aldgate, on 28 October 1770. Thomas and Anne Comerford were the parents of two more children, a daughter and a son:

4, Mary (1775-1839)
5, Charles Comerford (1784-1849), solicitor. He married Elizabeth Edings Morgan (1797-1867) in Saint Luke’s Church, Chelsea, on 1 May 1813. He lived at East Street, Lamb’s Conduit Street, off Great Ormond Street in Bloomsbury (1807), 16 Clement’s Inn, off the Strand in Saint Clement Danes parish(1838-1840), 72 Old Broad Street (1848), and 21 Oxford Square, Paddington (1849).

Thomas Comerford died on 29 June 1812 in the Parish of Saint Botolph, London. Hissecond but eldest surviving son was:

James Comerford (1764-1833) was buried at Saint Mary Woolnoth and his son James William Comerford (1829-1917),who was born in Change Alley, was baptised in Saint Mary Woolnoth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)

James Comerford (1764-1833) lived and worked for much of his life in Change Alley, where he traded as a tobacconist and snuff maker. He was born in 1764 and was baptised on 22 November 1764 at Saint Mary’s, Whitechapel. He was living at Tower Hill, London, on 7 November 1780, when he was indentured to a seven-year apprenticeship as a cooper. By 1790 he was a tobacconist and snuff maker at 50 Holywell Street, subsumed into the Strand years later when the street was widened. He then lived at Bayley’s Place, Tower Hill (1791-1795), before moving his home and his business to Change Alley.

James Comerford and his wife Elizabeth (1773-1833) were the parents of at least two sons:

1, William Comerford (1785-1801)
2, James Comerford (1787- )

When James Comerford died in 1833 at the age of 68, he was a tobacconist, living at Change Alley. He was buried at Saint Mary Woolnoth Church, close to Change Alley. His remains and those of four other people were removed on 14 December 1892 and reburied at Ilford Cemetery.

His second named son:

James Comerford (1787- ) was born on 26 October 1787 and was baptised at Saint Botolph Without Aldersgate Church on 28 January 1788. He married in Saint Andrew’s Church, Holborn, on 6 March 1805 Sarah (or Anne) Suffolk, then living in Saint Andrew’s Parish.

A family tradition says Anne Suffolk may have had a Jewish mother, and there was a tradition in the family – later dismissed – that her father was one of the many illegitimate sons of King George III.

This James Comerford started the book collection that his son, also James Comerford continued.

His son:

The miniature portrait of James Comerford (ca 1829) by François Theodore Rochard, in the Lady Cohen Collection at Kenwood House … probably pained to mark his marriage to Sarah Anne Bissett

James Comerford (1807-1881) was a Victorian book collector, antiquarian and notary. He was born on 7 November 1807, in Castle Street, now Furnival Street, Holborn, and was baptised in Saint Andrew’s Church, Holborn, in March 1808.

James first practised as a notary public in partnership from December 1827 with TS Girdler as Comerford and Company at 27 Change Alley, which may have been his grandfather’s former tobacco shop. Later, he practised from premises at 7 Tokenhouse Yard, Lothbury, close to the Bank of London. He was also a magistrate or Justice of the Peace (JP). James Comerford was secretary to the Society of Public Notaries of London in 1833. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquarians (FSA) on 27 December 1840. His heraldic bookplates, with the motto So Ho Ho Dea Ne, are much sought-after collectors’ items.

James married Sarah Anne Bissett (1809- ), daughter of Captain James Bissett, in Wilmington, Sussex, on 16 July 1828. Her father was a sea captain who died in the American War in 1812. Her eldest sister, Anna Maria Bissett, married the Revd Robert Philip Blake (1801-1841), curate of Wilmington and of Stoke, near Guildford, who drowned at Niton, Isle of Wight, while swimming with his son; this son, the Revd Professor John Frederick Blake (1839-1906), was lecturer in Comparative Anatomy, Charing Cross Hospital, London (1878-1881) and Professor of Natural Science, University College Nottingham (1881-1888).

After their wedding, Sarah and James Comerford took a honeymoon during the Belgian/Dutch civil war. From 1829 and 1851, James and Sarah Comerford and their family were living at No 7 Saint Andrew’s Place, Regent’s Park, London. By 1872, the family had moved to Framfield, Sussex.

Family tradition says James was something of a rake, took fencing lessons from a well-known fencing master named Angelo, and fought a duel with a man named Atwood over his future wife.

James Comerford is best remembered as a book collector and antiquarian. He built on his father’s earlier book collection, and amassed a library that included a large collection of county histories, local topographies and books of Catholic religious piety.

James Comerford died on 8 March 1881 in the last cholera epidemic in London. After his death, Sotheby’s sold his library at auction on 16-20 November 1881, realising a sale total of £8,372 13 s. His books occasionally come back on the market, but more often they are valued for his heraldic bookplates than as antique books.

The Bosworth Crucifix … the most notable antiquarian item in James Comerford’s private collection, is now in the collection of the Society of Antiquarians

The most notable object of antiquarian interest in Comerford’s private collection was the ‘Bosworth Crucifix’, a 15th-century bronze processional crucifix, measuring 585 mm x 280 mm, now in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries of London. The Bosworth Crucifix is said to have been dug up on the Field of Bosworth in Leicestershire around 1778, and came into the possession of the Comerford family around 1810.

The crucifix was owned by the Carter family of Saint Michael’s Parish, Coventry, before it passed to the Comerford family – probably James Comerford’s father. However, it is still unclear how the crucifix passed from Joseph Carter, sexton of Saint Michael’s Church, Coventry, who died in June 1808, and whose will was granted administration in the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Lichfield on 7 October 1808. The cross may have been bought from Carter’s widow Mary between 1808 and 1810.

Sarah and James Comerford were the parents of two son and a daughter:

1, James William Comerford (1829-1917), who shared many of his father’s antiquarian interests, and of whom next.
2, Charles Frederick Comerford (1831- ), born on 2 July 1831, at Change Alley.
3, Emily Sarah (1842-1909). She was born in 1842, and was married twice: (1), Henry Burchett, and (2) the Revd Hamilton Brand in 1873and she was the parents of six children, with descendants living in Australia and South Africa.

James Comerford died on 8 March 1881. His elder son:

Colonel James William Comerford (1829-1917) was born in Change Alley on 6 November 1829 (Comerford family collection)

Colonel James William Comerford (1829-1917), was born in Change Alley on 6 November 1829, and was baptised on 19 January 1830 in Saint Mary Woolnoth. James and his siblings, who were born in Change Alley, were the last generation of the family to have an immediate connection with Change Alley, meaning four generations of the family members of four generations of Comerfords had a link with Crown Alley.

James W Comerford was a notary public, of 7 Tokenhouse Yard, London. By 1871 he was living at Coleshill Street, London, now Eaton Terrace. Following his father’s death, he sold his father’s and grandfather’s book collections in 1881. At the end of that year, in December 1881, James William Comerford exhibited and presented the Bosworth Crucifix to the Society of Antiquaries ‘in the name of his late father, James Comerford, Esq, FSA.’

James William Comerford lived at 38 Cambridge Street, London, and Saint George’s Road, London. He was a lieutenant-colonel and honorary colonel in the 13th Middlesex (Queen's Westminster) Volunteer Rifle Corps. He married Marianne Rouse (1829-1900) and their descendants included another generation of notaries public and athree or four generations of distinguished medical practitioners and surgeons.

James Comerford’s bookplates have become collectors’ items … they perpetuate the claims of the Comerford family in Ireland to descent from the Comberford family of Staffordshire

Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026:
151, Tuesday 6 October 2026

Christ in the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus … a panel in the Herkenrode glass windows in the Lady Chapel in Lichfield Cathedral (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Patrick Comerford

We are continuing in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar, and this week began with the Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity (Trinity XVIII, 4 October). The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship remembers William Tyndale (1494-1536), Translator of the Scriptures and Reformation Martyr. The exhibition ‘A Dangerous Calling: 500 years of William Tyndale’s New Testament’ is in Saint Paul’s Cathedral, London, until February 2027 stpauls.co.uk/tyndale

Before today begins, however, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, and for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:

1, today’s Gospel reading;

2, a reflection on the Gospel reading;

3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;

4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.

Christ in the home of Mary and Martha … the East Window in Saint Peter and Saint Paul Church, Watford, Northamptonshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Luke 10: 38-42 (NRSVA):

38 Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. 40 But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ 41 But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; 42 there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary by Diego Velázquez (1630)

Today’s Reflections:

Saint Luke’s story of the meal that Jesus has with his friends Mary and Martha is not found in the other synoptic gospels, and the only other parallel is in the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus visits Mary and Martha after the death of Lazarus.

So the meals Jesus has with Mary and Martha must be understood in the light of the Resurrection, which is prefigured by the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

For many women, and for many men too, the story of the meal with Martha and Mary raises many problems, often created by insights that may not have been possible to have at the time when Saint Luke’s Gospel was written.

Our approach to understanding and explaining this meal very often depends on the way in which I understand Martha and the busy round of activities that have her distracted, and that cause her to complain to Jesus about her sister’s apparent lack of zeal and activity.

These activities in the Greek are described as Martha’s service – she is the deacon at the table: where the NRSV says ‘But Martha was distracted by her many tasks,’ the Greek says: ἡ δὲ Μάρθα περιεσπᾶτο περὶ πολλὴν διακονίαν (‘But Martha was being distracted by much diaconal work, service at the table’).

Quite often, when this story is told, over and over, again and again, it is told as if Martha is getting stroppy about having to empty the dishwasher while Mary is lazing, sitting around, making small talk with Jesus.

Does Martha see that Mary should only engage in kitchen work too?

Does she think, perhaps, that only Lazarus should be out at the front of the house, keeping Jesus engaged in lads’ banter about the latest league match between Bethany United and Jerusalem City?

Is Jesus being too dismissive of Martha’s complaints?

Or is he defending Mary’s right to engage in a full discussion of the Word, to engage in an alive ministry of the Word?

Martha is presented in this story as the dominant, leading figure. It is she who takes the initiative and who welcomes Jesus into her home (verse 38); it is she who offers the hospitality, who is the host at the meal, who is the head of the household – in fact, Lazarus is not even on the stage for this scene, and Mary is merely ‘her sister’ – very much the junior partner in the household.

Yet it is Mary, the figure on the margins, who offers the sort of hospitality that Jesus commends and praises.

Mary simply listens to Jesus, sitting at his feet, like a student would sit at the feet of a great rabbi or teacher, waiting and willing to learn what is being taught.

Martha is upset about this, and comes out from the back and asks Jesus to pack off Mary to the kitchen where she can help Martha.

But perhaps Martha was being too busy with her household tasks.

I was once invited to dinner by people I knew as good friends. And for a long time I was left on my own with the other guest as the couple busied themselves with things in the kitchen – they had decided to do the washing up before bringing out the coffee … the wife knew that if she left the washing up until later, the husband would shirk his share of the task.

But being left on our own was a little embarrassing. Part of the joy of being invited to someone’s home for dinner is the conversation around the table.

When I have been on retreats, at times, in Greek Orthodox and Benedictine monasteries, conversation at the table has been discouraged by a monk reading, usually from the writings of the Early Fathers, from the Patristic writings.

A good meal, good table fellowship, good hospitality, are not just about the food that is served, but about the ideas and words shared, heard and listened to around the table too.

One commentator suggests that Martha has gone overboard in her duties of hospitality. She has spent too much time preparing the food, and has failed to pay real attention to her guest.

On the other hand, Mary has chosen her activity (verse 42). It does not just happen by accident. Mary has chosen to offer Jesus the real hospitality that a guest should receive. She talks to Jesus, and real conversation is about both talking and listening.

If she is sent back into the kitchen, then – in the absence of Lazarus, indeed, in the notable absence of the disciples – Jesus would be left without hospitality, without words of welcome, without conversation.

Perhaps Martha might have been better off if she had a more simple lifestyle, if she prepared just one dish for her guest and for her family – might I be bold enough to suggest, if she had been content for them to sup on bread and wine alone.

She could have joined Mary in her hospitality, in welcoming Jesus to their home and to their table; they could have been in full communion with one another.

In this way, Martha will experience what her sister is experiencing, but which she is too busy to notice – their visitor’s invitation into the hospitality of God.

One commentator, Brendan Byrne, points out the subtle point being made in this story:

‘Frenetic service, even service of the Lord, can be a deceptive distraction from what the Lord really wants. Luke has already warned that the grasp of the word can be choked by the cares and worries of life … Here the cares and worries seem well justified – are they not in the service of the Lord? But precisely therein lies the power of the temptation, the great deceit. True hospitality – even that given directly to the Lord – attends to what the guest really wants.’

‘Christ at the home of Martha and Mary,’ Georg Friedrich Stettner (1639)

Today’s Prayers (Tuesday 6 October 2026):

In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, 4-10 October 2026 (pp 44-45), is ‘The Gun, The Sword, and The Bible’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a reflection by the Revd Les Isaac OBE, founder and President of Ascension Trust and co-founder of Street Pastors.

The USPG Prayer Diary today (Tuesday 6 October 2026) invites us to pray:

We pray for healing where faith has been entangled with harm and injustice. Bring repentance where it is needed and restore hearts towards your righteousness.

The Collect of the Day:

Lord, give to your people grace to hear and keep your word
that, after the example of your servant William Tyndale,
we may not only profess your gospel
but also be ready to suffer and die for it,
to the honour of your name;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

The Post-Communion Prayer:

Eternal God,
who gave us this holy meal
in which we have celebrated the glory of the cross
and the victory of your martyr William Tyndale:
by our communion with Christ
in his saving death and resurrection,
give us with all your saints the courage to conquer evil
and so to share the fruit of the tree of life;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yesterday’s Reflections

Continued Tomorrow

The Risen Christ with Mary of Bethany (left) and Mary Magdalene (right) … a stained glass window in Saint Nicholas’s Church, Adare, Co Limerick (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)

Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org