| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Paddington: Past and Present
Author: Robins, William
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Paddington: Past and Present" ***
Transcribed from the [1853] edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
[Picture: The Old Church at Paddington]
[Picture: The New Church, Paddington Green, 1791]
PADDINGTON:
PAST AND PRESENT.
BY
WILLIAM ROBINS.
* * * * *
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according
to conscience, above all liberties.”—_Milton_.
* * * * *
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY
ARTHUR AND WARREN HALL,
CAXTON STEAM PRINTING OFFICES,
10, CAMBRIDGE TERRACE, CAMDEN TOWN,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
PREFACE AND DEDICATION.
HISTORY is valuable, not merely for the facts which it records, but in a
much higher degree for the lessons it teaches; for the Future will be
benefited by the Past and the Present, more in proportion to the amount
of truth developed and error eradicated by their teaching, than by the
number of circumstances preserved.
To judge of the facts of history, it is necessary to have the liberty to
know them; but it has often happened that historical facts have been so
discreditable to the actors of the history, that the facts have been
hidden, and fiction put in their place; and liberty to know has been
refused to all, except the few who were to become participators in the
actions.
There may be a few who know the history of Paddington well; but by far
the greater part of those who now live in this parish have no clear
notion of those circumstances which have influenced its past, and which
affect its present condition. That Paddington has been transformed into
a city of palaces, from a quiet rural village, is known to all; but by
what agency that change has been effected—how the profits of that change
have been dispensed, and who have the greatest moral, if not legal, right
to the chief share of those profits—is not so clearly understood.
In giving utterance to the facts contained in the following pages, I have
argued freely, according to my conscience, on the effects produced on my
own mind by the facts I have recounted; and I have not failed to shew how
the rights of the people have been invaded, at almost every step, in the
various changes which have occurred in Paddington. It is true that the
facts contained in this Work, have not been collected under the
superintendence of the lords of the soil; neither are they now published
under their patronage. My sketch might have been more attractive, had
the records in the possession of the Bishop of London and the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, been consulted; but I had no desire either to be
refused the favour of inspecting them, or to have my hands tied by
accepting it.
The Records in the various Public Record Offices are open to all; and to
those Officers of the Rolls’ Chapel, the Tower, and Carlton Ride, as well
as those at the British Museum, who kindly assisted me by directing my
search for facts relative to Paddington, my best thanks are due. I am
also indebted to several kind friends for advice and assistance, during
the progress of this Work through the Press. Mr. B. H. Smart, the
well-known English scholar, kindly suggested to me, some time since, the
possibility of the word _Paddington_ being derived from _Padre ing tun_,
_the Father’s town-meadow_; and Sir Harry Dent Goring, of Bayswater
House, was so good as to suggest another derivation, which I think it
right to acknowledge in this place. In a note Sir Harry writes to me on
this subject, he says, “A Pad is a Sussex word now in common use for
Pack-Horse * * * ings we have in that county by hundreds. Now, the
carriers to the great City may have lodged, and had meadows for their
Pack-Horses here. I humbly suggest, therefore, may not Paddington mean
_the Village at the Pack-Horse Meadows_?” It is to Dr. R. G. Latham I am
indebted for pointing out to me Mr. Kemble’s opinion as the most probable
origin of this word. With these additional remarks I must leave the
decision of this question, of the origin of the name, to those learned
linguists and antiquarians who desire to enter more deeply into the
subject.
I regret not having been able to spend more time, than I have done, in
researches for this Sketch; but I hope my efforts to discover facts,
relative to Paddington, have not been so fruitless as to render this
attempt entirely undeserving the attention of the inhabitants of this
parish. The only apology I can offer to my readers for the faults in the
Work, is, that the facts were sought out, and the ideas jotted down, in
moments snatched from the performance of more important and more
harassing duties. Should any one wish to know how it ever entered my
head to give my friends and myself so much trouble, the reason is readily
told:
Having lived in Paddington from 1838 to 1847, in perfect ignorance of its
history, I was aroused, like the rest of the rate-payers, who lived in
the parish, in the latter year, to a consciousness of the existence of
some moving Power in the parish, by a sudden, and to me unaccountable
increase in the demand on my purse. Having seen a considerable
diminution in the number of houses for the poor, and a considerable
increase in the dwellings of the rich, I was very anxious to ascertain
the cause of this call on me for an increase in my contribution to the
parochial burdens. I found that a re-assessment of the parish had been
made; that my rates, and many others, were increased as much as 6½_d._ in
the pound on the former rental; that the assessment was most unequal and
unjust; and that it was not at all required for the purpose for which it
was said to be made. The excuse given for re-assessing the parish, was,
that the county magistrates had raised the assessment; but I found, on
looking into that question, that one half-penny in the pound per annum,
taken on the old assessment, would have raised the extra sum required by
the county. I came to the conclusion, therefore, that the governing body
had not chosen to give out to the rate-payers the true motives for their
actions; and finding that they had carried out their resolution in a most
unjust manner, I thought I should not be doing my duty by discontinuing
the enquiry at this point: I proceeded, and the following pages are the
result of my subsequent investigations.
To shew how Paddington has increased, both in population and wealth, I
have subjoined an abstract of the Census Returns since their first
establishment, and some extracts from the Rate-books since 1838. For the
amount of Rental for 1847,-48,-49, I am indebted to calculations made by
Mr. Aveling, the Vestry-Clerk; but the amounts for those years do not
include the assessment for the empty houses; for which £10,000 per annum
may be added. The enormous increase in the Rental in the year 1847,
arose chiefly from the extra sum laid on by the re-assessment made that
year. The sums in the second column of that table represent the amounts
_levied_ by the two half-yearly rates.
CENSUS RETURNS FOR PADDINGTON.
HOUSES. POPULATION.
YEARS. Inhabit. Uninhab. Building. Males. Females Persons.
1801 324 33 — 870 1011 1881
1811 879 24 32 1994 2615 4609
1821 1139 13 28 2852 3624 6476
1831 1933 104 93 6278 8262 14,540
1841 3479 221 390 10,784 14,425 25,173
1851 6103 416 222 18,784 27,521 46,306
TABLE OF RATES AND RENTAL.
YEARS. RATES LEVIED. RENTAL.
£ _s._ _d._ £
1838 14,418 12 8 118,540
1839 16,860 10 11½ 130,631
1840 16,780 11 11½ 141,145
1841 18,244 12 10½ 159,412
1842 19,469 11 3½ 178,060
1843 22,798 15 11½ 196,030
1844 25,272 5 0 214,357
1845 25,928 1 1 238,712
1846 28,261 2 5 260,001
1847 32,319 16 11½ 317,739
1848 35,878 9 10 332,557
1849 38,619 11 1½ 343,066
1850 41,855 2 6 374,036
1851 37,792 10 5 390,732
1852 34,554 0 34 410,617
These Tables clearly shew that the simile used by Canning—
“Pitt is to Addington,
As London is to Paddington—”
no longer retains the force it did, when uttered by that great statesman.
Few, indeed, can now tell where London ends, and Paddington begins, or
define the connecting links which now unite these once distant places.
Paddington, too, is becoming, year by year, of still greater importance;
and at the present time there are not many who would deny to it, any more
than to any other portion of that undefined place called _London_, its
just share of the privileges of “The City.”
When we reflect on the vast riches which in the process of time must
accrue to the Church from the insignificant gift of the Boy-King to
Nicholas Ridley; and when we contemplate what sums have been received,
and are likely to be received by the present occupant of the See of
London from that “little farm in Paddington,” which has been claimed by
that See; THE FUTURE of Paddington becomes worthy of a moment’s thought.
I have deemed it to be my duty to speak freely of the management of those
lands in Paddington, which were claimed for the performance of certain
specific purposes; and the nature and the amount of that income from
those lands, received by the present Bishop of London and his lay
lessees, have been spoken of with a freedom, which some may not admire.
But I need not fear condemnation, for a former occupant of the See of
London, thus addressed the over-paid bishops of his day; “Come off, ye
Bishops; away with your superfluities; yield up your thousands; be
content with hundreds.” Many changes have occurred since Dr. Aylmer
penned those words; and much improvement has taken place and is taking
place. Why then do we complain? A ready answer is furnished by one of
the most accomplished statesmen of our time. Mr. Macaulay truthfully
tells us that “there is constant improvement, precisely because there is
constant discontent.” Let not my readers think, then, I have complained
for the sake of complaining; or that because I speak of actions which are
past, this exposure will have no influence on the future. I can most
conscientiously say, that should a single good result from what I have
written, I shall be amply repaid for any trouble it may have cost me to
collect the materials for this historical sketch: and in dedicating the
following pages to the Inhabitants of Paddington, I can say with the
learned John Strype, “In what I have writ, I have endeavoured invariably
to follow the tract of truth; and have related things as I found them.”
And like him, too, “I may perhaps be censured for this plain and
impartial way of writing; and blamed, that I have not put some veil or
varnish upon some things, and been wholly silent of others.” But “we are
not writing a Panegyric, but a faithful account.”
WILLIAM ROBINS.
OXFORD TERRACE,
_May_ 20_th_, 1853.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE iii–ix.
PART I.—THE LAND.
CHAPTER I.—ABBEY LANDS.—Fabulous story of Edgar’s grant; 1–19
Forged Charters of Edgar and Dunstan; the Dom Boc or
Domesday Book; the Middlesex Forest and its Rivers—the
Fleete, the Tybourn, and the Brent; Tybourn and
Westbourn the same streams; Site of Paddington; Roman
Roads; Concord between the Abbot of Westminster and
Richard and William of Paddington; the Abbot Walter’s
Anniversary and its Modification; Probable origin of the
term “Bread and Cheese Lands;” Mode of dispensing the
proceeds of Abbey Lands in the 12th and 13th Centuries;
the Ecclesiastical Taxation of Pope Nicholas; the whole
of the Temporalities of Paddington given in Charity
CHAPTER II.—THE MANORS OF WESTBOURN AND 19–27
PADDINGTON.—Definition of the word Manor; neither
Westbourn nor Paddington mentioned in Domesday; Probably
included in the Manor of Tybourn; Quo Warranto
respecting them; Walter of Wenlock fined for acquiring
lands here without the licence of the King; three
Inquisitiones ad quod Damnum tempus Edward Second; Grant
of a head of water to the Mayor and Citizens of London
CHAPTER III.—THE POSSESSIONS OF THE CHURCH, THE CROWN 28–59
AND THE PEOPLE.—Division of the ancient Manor of
Kensington; Grant of St. Mary’s Lands to the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster; the Manor of Knightsbridge and
Westbourn; the Manor of Notting-Barns; Purchase and
Bequest of this Manor by the Countess of Richmond;
Property of Lord Sands and Thomas Hobson purchased by
the Crown; Elizabeth Massey; Inquisition, shewing that
the Manor of Notting Barns was a portion of the Parish
of Paddington; Westbourn purchased by Henry the VIII, of
Robert White; other Lands purchased by the Crown;
Westbourn and other Lands sold to Dr. Thomas Hues, and
left by him to Merton College, Oxford; Description of a
portion of this property, once in the possession of Lord
Sands, and belonging to Chelsea Manor—but forming no
part of Chelsea Parish; What has become of Dr. Hues’s
bequest? the Manor of Malurres; Ecclesiastical Valuation
of Henry the VIII; the Manor of Paddington valued at £19
per annum; Dissolution of Religious Houses; Lease of the
Manor and Rectory of Paddington to Sir Edward Baynton
and his wife; Grant of the Manor to the Bishop of
London, one-fifth being reserved for the uses of the
Crown; Descent of the Manor of Paddington as given by
Lysons; additions to his description; Sale of this Manor
by the Parliament; Dr. Sheldon’s Lease of it, and the
Rectory, to his nephews, after the Restoration; leased
to Sir John Frederick for three lives; Property of
private owners; Commons and Waste
CHAPTER IV.—CHARITY LANDS.—Abstract of Returns made to 60–71
the House of Commons, 1786–88; Report of the
Commissioners for Enquiry concerning Charities, 1826;
Bread and Cheese Lands; Johnson’s Charity; Dr. Compton’s
Charity; Margaret Robertson’s Charity; Alms’ Houses and
School House; Chirac’s Gift; Arbourne’s Charity; 1st and
2nd Vic. cap. 32, An Act to enable the Trustees of the
Freehold Charity Estates to grant Building Leases of the
said Lands; Entries in the Vestry Minute Books
CHAPTER V.—THE PADDINGTON ESTATE.—Its present value; 72–97
26th of Geo. II. an Act for enlarging the Church-yard;
Sir John Frederick’s Will; 3rd of Geo. III, an Act for
confirming Sale of Land to St. George’s Parish; 35th of
Geo. III, cap. 83, an Act for confirming Grant of New
Lease of the Manor, Rectory, and other Lands, by which
two-thirds of the proceeds were transferred to Lay
Lessees; Granting power to let 200 acres on Building
Leases, and for other purposes connected therewith; 35th
Geo. III, cap. 43, an Act for making a Navigable Cut to
Paddington; 38th Geo. III, cap. 33, another Act relative
to the Grand Junction Canal Company; 44th Geo. III, cap.
63, an Act for altering and amending the Bishop’s first
Building Act, and for granting further powers the better
to carry into execution the purposes of the said Act;
45th Geo. III, cap. 113, another Act for enlarging the
powers of the previous Building Acts; 48th Geo. III,
cap. 142, another Act for the same purpose; 50th Geo.
III, cap. 44, an Act for further enlarging the
Church-yard; 51st Geo. III, cap. 169, an Act for
establishing the Grand Junction Water-Works Company, one
clause of which Act provides that the said Company shall
supply the tenants on the Bishop’s Estate with Water at
ten per cent. below the average rate; 52nd Geo. III,
cap. 192, an Act to confirm another Lease of other Lands
to the Grand Junction Canal Company, and an exchange of
other portions previously leased; 52nd Geo. III, cap.
193, an Act to enable the Mayor and Commonality of
London to sell, and the Bishop of London and his Lessees
to buy certain Waters, Springs, Conduits, &c. within the
several parishes of Marylebone and Paddington; 52nd Geo.
III, cap. 195, an Act for making and maintaining a
Navigable Canal from Paddington to Limehouse; 5th Geo.
IV, cap. 35, another Act relative to the Grand Junction
Canal Company; 6th Geo. IV, cap. 45, another Bishop’s
Building Act, by which the power of Letting Building
Leases was extended to 400 acres of this Estate; a
schedule annexed to this Act sets forth the particular
parcels of land claimed by the Bishop and his
Lessees—another, the Account of the Receipts and
Payments; 7th Geo. IV, cap. 150, an Act relating to the
Canal and Water Companies, and containing the former
provision for the supply of cheap Water to the tenants
of the Bishop’s Estate; 7th and 8th Vic. cap. 30,
another Act relative to the Land leased to the Grand
Junction Canal and the Grand Junction Water-Works
Companies, by which sites for a Church and an Hospital
are provided; Sale and Lease of Land to the Great
Western Railway Company; Sale of a portion of Paddington
Green; Sale of portions of the Upper Readings
PART II.—THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE.
CHAPTER I.—Definition of the word Parish; Situation of 101—116
Paddington; Boundaries and Extent; General and Medical
Topography; Drainage; Etymology of Names; Origin of the
Parish
CHAPTER II.—The Parson; Origin and Use of Tithe; 117—130
Parsonage, Rectory, or Vicarage; Paddington a Chapel of
Ease to St. Margaret’s, Westminster; Appropriation and
Impropriation; Survey of the Living; the Vicarage
converted into the Manor House; Curate’s Stipend;
Improvement produced by the Revolution; Modern Abuse of
the Rectorial and other Lands; a Curacy without the
means of a Cure; Bishop of London’s Receipts from the
Paddington Estate; Receipts of the Lay Lessees;
Anticipated Remedy to existing Evils
CHAPTER III.—Ancient Churches; Tybourn, the Mother 131–163
Church; St. Katherine’s and St. James’s; Hogarth’s
Marriage; Chaterlain’s Views; St. Mary’s, built by Act
of Parliament; the Church-yard; Parsonage Houses;
Bayswater Chapel; St. John’s; Painted Windows; the New
Parish Church; St. James’s; Trinity, and its middle-age
Monsters; All Saints; Cost of Churches and Chapels;
Contribution of the Ministers towards their support;
Lock Chapel; Dissenting Places of Worship
CHAPTER IV.—Schools; Paddington Green, Bayswater, 164–178
Titchbourn Street, and All Saints; Westbourn Schools;
Dissenting Schools; Paddington Wharfs Ragged Schools;
Charitable Institutions; Orphan Asylum; Bayswater
Episcopal Female Orphan School; the Paddington Visiting
Society; Provident Dispensary; Savings’ Bank; Alms’
Houses; St. Mary’s Hospital; Free Dispensary; Refuge for
the Destitute; Parish Poor-house; the Lock Hospital,
Asylum, &c.; Want of Public Institutions; Public
Companies
CHAPTER V.—Condition of the People; Circumstances which 179–200
added to their numbers; Population in 1524, and the
system of Taxation; Subsidy Rolls; Public Houses;
Gentlemen’s Seats; Population in 1685; Notice of the
Dead; Laws; Sturges Bourne’s Act; the Local Act;
Self-Government; the Parish in the last Century and the
beginning of this; the Cottages; Poor-rates, paltry
payment thereto by the Bishop and his Lessees; an
important clause in the Local Act burked, in order that
the Bishop and the Builders might escape payment to the
Watching, Lighting and Paving Rate; Single _versus_
Plural Voting in Local Elections; Injustice to the
Majority, to be remedied by the adoption of just
principles
PART I. THE LAND.
CHAPTER I.
ABBEY LANDS.
So many fabulous stories are told us relative to the christian church,
that we cannot be surprised to find the history of its territorial
possessions, in any particular spot, mixed up with legends which have no
foundation in fact.
Paddington has its story. We are told even to this day, {1a} that King
Edgar gave lands here to the Monks of Westminster. And considering what
Kings did give to Monks, and also the kind of services rendered by
Dunstan and his friends to this usurper of his brother’s crown, it would
not have been very surprising to have found this tale true. The same
account is given by other authorities. The Rev. Daniel Lysons—the
historian of “The Environs of London,”—says “King Edgar gave the Manor of
Paddington to Westminster Abbey.” {1b} And a more recent writer, Mr.
Saunders, in his “Results of an Inquiry concerning the situation and
extent of Westminster, at various periods,” has supported this assertion
in these words—“According to Dart, Paddington occurs, as an appendage to
the convent of Westminster, in a Charter of King Edgar.” {1c}
Unfortunately for the credit of this story, the work these authors have
referred to does not sanction it. Dart, indeed, in the very page
referred to both by Lysons and Saunders, states something very different
from that, which he is reported to have said; for he distinctly informs
us it was Dunstan who gave the land at Paddington to the monks of
Westminster. {2a}
After specifying the gifts of proceeding Kings, and those of Edgar in
particular, Dart says, “But to return to Dunstan. Having thus influenced
the King, he goes on with his own benefactions. And first by his
Charter, takes upon him to confirm some of the gifts of Edgar, then
grants many privileges to this church, exempts it from the jurisdiction
of the Bishop of London and curses all his successors in that see, and
all others who dare to infringe its rights; and lastly releases it from
the payment of the tax called Roomscot, {2b} as Offa, Kenulph, and Edgar
had done.”
The Bishop by another charter secures the privileges of the convent, and
settles certain lands for the maintenance of the monks, viz. “Lands at
Hendon and Hanwell to the amount of twenty-eight hides.” And at
“Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, which grant was confirmed by his
own Charter, and afterwards by King Henry the Eighth, and said to contain
two hides of land.” He also granted certain lands at Merton, Perham,
Cowell, Ewell, and Shepperton—thirty seven hides in these five places.
All these grants, _with the exception of Paddington_, Dart states were
confirmed by the Charter of Edward the Confessor.
But this statement of Dart’s relative to the grant of land in Paddington
is of no value, excepting that it probably names the utmost extent of
land which the church of Westminster _ever_ got in Paddington by honest
means, since it has been convincingly proved that “the Great Charters”
both of Edgar, and Dunstan, are the fabrication of monks who lived long
after the death of the King and Bishop.
The learned Dr. Hickes has shewn that the hand in which these charters
are written, is of a later period than the time when the grants are
supposed to have been made; that the phraseology is partly Norman; that
Edgar’s Charter has the mark of a pendent seal having been attached to
it; and that, to the so called Dunstan’s Charter the waxen impression was
remaining when it was examined by him. He tells us that the practice of
attaching pendent seals is Norman; {2c} and in this opinion he is
supported by Mr. Astle, in a paper printed in the tenth volume of the
Archæologia. Mr. Kemble, in his introduction to the first volume of the
Anglo Saxon charters, p. 101, also says, “The Norman Charters are for the
most part granted under seal; those of the Saxons, never.” And although
in the introduction to the second volume, Mr. Kemble states that as to
the authenticity of several charters he does not agree in the opinion
arrived at by Dr. Hickes, yet we perceive on turning to this charter the
fatal asterisk before it, which either denotes it to be “an ascertained
forgery, or liable to suspicion.”
The Rev. Richard Widmore, for many years librarian to the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, says, “What the privileges were that either he
(Dunstan) granted, or obtained from King Edgar, for it (the Abbey) is not
at this time to be known the Charters which now remain, both of the one
and the other, have been proved beyond all doubt to be forgeries.” {3}
This being the case, the mis-quotation of Lysons and Saunders is of very
little account, and is corrected here only for the sake of preserving
something like truth in this historical narrative.
Dart, who appears to have received Dunstan’s Charter without questioning
its authenticity, must have been struck by the omission of any mention of
Paddington in the Confessor’s Charter; and he seems to have been
persuaded of the necessity of producing some kingly authority for the
enjoyment of these lands from the time of Dunstan, as he states, to the
dissolution of the convent—a period of nearly six-hundred years; for he
adds to the sentence, already quoted, and as though it was an after
thought, “King Stephen afterwards confirmed this manor and liberties
granted with it, and after him King Henry the second.”
How these Kings “confirmed this manor” we are not told, neither do I know
what documents Dart could have seen, to induce him to make this
assertion. In the only Charter of Stephen’s to the Abbey, to be found in
the Monasticon, there is no confirmation of this manor or any mention of
it. Neither is there any Charter of Henry the Second’s to the Abbey to
be found in that great work. If Dart simply intended that these Kings
confirmed to the Abbey all the charters then existing, he is, in all
probability, right; but if he wished it to be understood that there was
any special grant of this manor I think we may fairly dismiss this
unsupported assertion without any further consideration. And we may do
this the more readily, because Widmore, the most trustworthy author who
has ever written on the Abbey, tells us, that Dart was much more of a
poet than an antiquarian, and that his “pompous work” contains errors in
almost every page.
In speaking of the fabricated documents which the Westminster monks left
behind them, Widmore has well said,—“Such forgery, tho’ it be an ugly
charge against any, whether single persons or bodies of men, yet the
thing, in this case, is too manifest to be denied or doubted of; and the
monks of Westminster were not alone in such practices; it was a general
Thing, and the Fault of the Times; and it is said, in mitigation of it,
that the Norman Conquerors made it as it were necessary, by disregarding
the Old Saxon Charters of Lands and Privileges, and reducing the Monks to
the hard condition of either losing what belonged to them, or defending
it by forged instruments in Latin. But when Persons give themselves
Leave to defend even a good Title by undue means, they seldom know where
to stop, and the success at first emboldens them to enlarge beyond all
Reason. And tho’ I do not think that in this Practice the whole was
Fiction and Invention, they only added what they imagined would more
especially serve their Purpose; yet by this means they have destroyed the
certainty of History and left those who come after them no better Help,
in separating the Truth from Fables, than conjecture and not altogether
improbable supposition.”
From what has been said, it is evident that it will not do to rely on the
authorities above referred to for an account of the acquisition of the
Abbey lands in Paddington.
Fortunately, however, there are documents of a very ancient date on which
some reliance can be placed; and thanks to the enlightened liberality of
the Commons of England, and the untiring industry of those gentlemen
engaged by the Record Commissioners, many of these documents have been
made readily available for the uses of the public. {4}
One of the Saxon Chroniclers is reported to have said, the survey, taken
by order of William the Conqueror, was so accurate “that not a hide or
yardland, not an ox, cow, or hog, was omitted in the census.” And
although we may not be able to believe that the Conqueror’s scrutiny was
thus minute, yet the Dom Boc, or Domesday Book, has been always looked
upon as a document worthy of much confidence. The inquisitors were
appointed to enquire “Upon the oath of the sheriffs, the lords of each
manor, the presbyters of every church, the reves of every hundred, the
bailiffs and six villains of every village, into the name of the place,
who held it in the time of King Edward, who was the present possessor,
how many hides in the manor, &c., &c.” {5a}
If these directions were carried out, and faithfully entered, we should
expect to find some account in this document of the Abbey possessions in
Paddington, if any such existed at the time this survey was taken. But
Mr. Saunders is perfectly correct in stating that no mention is made
either of this place, or of Westbourn, or Knightsbridge, in the Domesday
Book.
In the hundred of Osulvestane (Ossulston) the King held twelve acres and
a half of land, worth five shillings, claimed by no one. He had also in
this hundred “thirty cottagers who pay fourteen shillings and ten pence
and one half-penny a year;” and two other cottagers belonging to Holburne
paying “twenty-pence a year to the King’s Sheriff.” {5b}
“In the village where the Church of St. Peter is situated,” there were at
the time of this survey, forty-one cottagers who paid forty shillings to
the Convent for their gardens. And the land in and around the village of
Westminster which belonged to the Abbey amounted in all to thirteen hides
and a half; valued at eight pounds per annum. The whole in King Edward’s
time twelve pounds. {5c}
The manor of Kensington answered for ten hides; and was held by Aubrey de
Ver. Lilestone answered for five hides; Tybourn for five hides;
Willesden for fifteen, with pannage for five hundred hogs; and Chelsea
{5d} and Hampstead are duly accounted for. But Paddington in Middlesex
is not named. A manor of “Padendene” existed at this time, and is
mentioned in the survey, but it was situated in the county of Surrey; and
singularly enough was shortly after held by the same family—the De
Veres—who held Kensington, and who afterwards, also, held Tybourn.
Were there, then, no dwellings, no cultivated lands in Middlesex known by
the name of Paddington, in 1086—the date of the Conqueror’s survey? Was
Paddington at this period an uncultivated portion of the great Middlesex
Forest; or did a few of the King’s cottagers live here, unnoticed and
unknown, before this scrutiny discovered them? Were the broad acres,
subsequently claimed by the monks of Westminster, accounted for in the
territories of the neighbouring lords; or did they form but a portion of
the home domain of the Convent? Was the village, and the land, known by
any other name?
Of all these possible suppositions, which is the most probable?
To enter fully into a discussion of these questions would require a
greater amount of antiquarian knowledge than I possess; and would occupy
more space in this work than I can spare. To obtain an answer to the
last question satisfactory to my own mind, it is true I have made some
researches, and I will, as concisely as possible, convey to my readers
the opinions at which I have arrived; detailing in this place only so
many of the topographical facts as may be necessary to shew upon what
foundations those opinions have been formed.
We know, from Fitz Stephen, that an immense forest, “beautified with wood
and groves,” but “full of the lairs and coverts of beasts and game,
stags, bucks, boars, and wild bulls,” {6a} existed even in the twelfth
century at no great distance from what then constituted London. Small
portions only of this forest appear to have been, at any time, the
property of the crown. It formed a part of the public land which was
entrusted to the charge of the elected governors of the people. In it
the citizens had free right of chase, preserved by many royal charters:
it was disafforested by Henry the third in 1218. {6b} And during the
Saxon period it would have been no difficult matter to have obtained a
settlement even in the most desirable parts of it. To shew the extent of
this forest in Middlesex, and the paucity of fixed inhabitants in it,
when for the purposes of government, families arranged themselves into
tens, and hundreds, we have only to remember that the Hundred of
Ossulston occupied nearly half the county; although it included both
London and Westminster.
The Fleete, the Tybourn, and the Brent, were the three notable streams
which carried the waters from the hills north of the Thames through this
forest to the great recipient of them all. And it is probable that the
Saxons early settled on the elevated banks of these streams, finding
there a more healthful and safer retreat than could be found on the banks
of “the silent highway” which was so frequently traversed by the Danes.
Another powerful inducement existed in this locality to fix the wandering
footsteps of the emigrant. Two roads made through the forest by the
skill of the previous conquerors of the country, united in this spot; and
remained to show the uncultivated Saxon, what genius and perseverance
could effect. These having served the purpose of a military way to
conduct the Roman Legions from south to north, and from east to west,
were now ready to be used in aid of civilized life. And it is scarcely
conceivable that a spot so desirable could have remained long unoccupied
by the seekers of a home.
This locality is the present site of Paddington by whatever name it was
then called. And it was, in all probability, at a very early period of
our history occupied by the Saxon settler.
The question whether those who settled here were conveyed with the soil
to some spiritual, or temporal, lord, previous to, or immediately
subsequent to, the Norman conquest, cannot be so satisfactorily
determined. Traditions are at variance; documents are not trustworthy;
and names have been altered; so that two opinions may be entertained
about the things described even in the instruments which exist. There
is, however, one general rule which will assist us in coming to a correct
decision as to the boundaries we find laid down.
When the science of making and interpreting artificial signs had acquired
all the potency of a black art; when the acquisition of this art was
strictly guarded by all the rules of a craft; and when this art was used
to describe a title to lands, and to define the extent of those lands, it
still remained necessary, for the safety of those who held this
_book-land_, that the natural signs should be used, if any knowledge of
these things was to be preserved by the people, who were carefully
excluded from any dealings with so subtile an agency as the lawyer’s
quill. And I think we may safely conclude that the most prominent and
permanent objects, natural or artificial, would be invariably chosen to
point out the bounds of original settlement, when the time had come to
render land marks necessary.
We might expect, therefore, to find that the Westminster monks, in
carving out for themselves a comfortable and compact estate, would choose
for its boundaries the most prominent and permanent objects in the
neighbourhood. And in Edgar’s first Charter—_that dated six years before
Edgar was King_—we do find, with some additions, the Thames chosen for
the southern boundary; the Roman road for the northern; the Fleete for
the eastern; and the Tybourn for the western. And if we take the largest
stream between the Fleete and the Brent to have been the Tybourn, we can
readily explain how the convent claimed a manor in Chelsea; and we can
clearly understand, too, how the Norman monks read this Saxon Charter so
as to make it include the manor of Paddington—as that portion of land,
bounded by the Roman roads, and the bourn, was at one time called.
Mr. Saunders, in his “Inquiry, &c.” has come to the conclusion that the
_ancient_ Tybourn was the stream which has been _recently_ known by that
name. But I think those who will take the trouble to examine this
subject thoroughly will come to the conclusion that on this point that
inquirer has been deceived.
It is evident the facts which came under Mr. Saunders’s notice, in the
course of his inquiry, did not entirely square with the supposition which
he has adopted. And after all, he is obliged to admit that Westminster
extended, and extends, to the stream farther westward than the one he has
accepted as its western boundary. This West-bourn, or brook, I take to
be the ancient Tybourn—the western boundary of the district described in
the charter, dated 951; and the western boundary of St. Margaret’s
parish, as defined by the Ecclesiastical Decree of 1222. Lysons, writing
at the end of the last century, described the stream which crossed the
Tybourn road, now Oxford-street, as a “small bourn, or rivulet _formerly_
called Aye-brook or Eye-brook, and _now_ Tybourn-brook.”
In the maps of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries we
find but _one_ stream delineated as descending from the high ground about
Hampstead. In Christopher Saxton’s curious map of 1579; in Speede’s
beautiful little map of 1610; in John Seller’s, of 1733; in Morden’s; in
Seales’s; in Rocque’s accurate surveys; and in others of less note; we
see this stream takes the course of that brook which was at one time
called Westbourn, and which I believe was anciently called the Tybourn,
and discharges itself into the Thames at Chelsea. The Eye brook on the
other hand scarcely appeared before it came to the conduits built by the
citizens of London; it then crossed Oxford-street in the valley west of
Stratford-place, and emptied itself into a reservoir at the north-eastern
corner of “The Deer Park,” or as it is now called “The Green Park.” It
appears to have been originally very little larger than the Tychbourn
which ran down the Edgeware-road; the former carrying the waters from the
southern side of Primrose-hill, the latter from the south of Maida-hill.
The Eyebourn, however, was very much increased in size when the
superabundant supply from the conduits, which were fed by the water
brought from Tybourn, and from springs near the village of Eye, were
emptied into it. When the reservoir in the Green Park was enclosed with
brick and supplied by the Chelsea Water-works Company from the Thames,
this brook was covered in, carried beneath the old reservoir, and
converted into a sewer, and is now known by the name of the King’s
Scholars Pond Sewer; while the larger stream to the west, the Tybourn or
Westbourn, has degenerated into the Ranelagh Sewer.
There is another fact also worthy of note: Holinshed, when speaking of
the execution of the Earl of March, which took place in the reign of
Edward the third, says, that in those days the place of execution was
called “The Elmes,” but was known in his day by the name of “Tiborne.”
At the present time enough of “Elms-lane” {9} remains, at Bayswater, to
point out where the fatal Elm grew, and the gentle “Tiborne” ran.
Dr. Stukeley, and other learned antiquarians, are of opinion that the
Edgeware-road, and the Uxbridge-road, represent, very nearly, the sites
of the ancient Roman roads. Now if the Tybourn was, in truth, the same
stream as the Westbourn, the monks of Westminster had only to follow its
course from the Thames till they came to the _second_ “broad military
road” which crossed it, instead of stopping at the _first_ they met with,
(_and the charter says nothing about the first or second_), and in their
ascent up this stream, and descent by the road, they would have included
not only their Manor of Chelsea, but the Manor of Paddington also. {10a}
And if this reading of Edgar’s Charter was objected to by the Great
Chamberlain of England, or any other powerful neighbouring lord, there
was Edward’s Charter for Chelsea; {10b} and Dunstan’s for Paddington in
reserve.
But the exact time when the words “Et illud praediolum in Padingtune
aecclesiae pradictae addidi,” {10c} first formed a portion of that
“forged instrument in Latin” called Dunstan’s Charter; or when those who
cultivated the soil in this neighbourhood had to adopt their new lord,
and transfer their services from the palace to the convent, does not very
plainly appear. Undoubtedly, “a little farm in Padintun” became every
year, after the Conqueror’s survey, more and more desirable.
These forged charters, as we shall presently see, could not, of
themselves, secure the monks of Westminster their Paddington estate; and
another expedient had to be resorted to.
I have just now assumed that the inhabitants of Paddington were free
settlers, or King’s cottagers. And although this was undoubtedly the
case at first, yet by the time of the Conqueror’s survey they may have
been under the _protection_ of some mean lord. And I believe the manor
of Paddington subsequently created by the monks of Westminster, was at
this time a portion of the manor of Tybourn. For besides the evidence
already produced, to shew that Tybourn and Westbourn were synonymous
terms; we find in a legal document, even so late as 1734, that “two
messuages and six acres of land lying in the common field of Westboune,”
and three other acres, also in the same common field, are described as
being “parcel of the manor of Tyburn, and called Byard’s Watering Place.”
{11}
If, then, the districts now called Westbourn and Paddington, were
included in the manor of Tybourn in the Conqueror’s survey, it is very
evident that a rearrangement, both of these districts and the
neighbouring manors, must have taken place when the Westminster monks
established their claim to Paddington. And it is not improbable that the
lords of Chelsea, Kensington, and Tybourn, insisted upon maintaining, for
themselves and their tenants, commonable rights over the Westbourn
district.
How the monks of Westminster, in the course of time, became both
spiritual and temporal masters of the Westbourn district, can be readily
conceived by those who know anything of the power engendered by the
concentration of all knowledge into a few bodies, especially if those
bodies have a perpetual existence.
As I have before said, the monks found that their forged charters would
not sufficiently serve them legally to inherit Paddington. They were
obliged therefore to purchase the interest in the soil from at least one
of the families whose ancestors had made it valuable. This appears from
a document which I have translated below, and which is to be found in
Maddox’s Formulare Anglicanum, page 217, and which as appears by a note,
at the foot of it, this learned and indefatigable antiquary discovered in
the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. The document is as
follows:—
“A final Concord of Land between the Abbot of Westminster and Richard
and William de Padinton.”
“This is the final agreement made in the Court of the Lord King at
Westminster, on the Friday next after the ascension of our Lord, in
the thirty-first year of the reign of King Henry the second, before
J. Bishop of Norwich, Ralph de Granville the Lord King’s
Justiciaries, and Richard the Treasurer, and Godfrey de Lucie, and
Hubert Walter, and William Basset, and Nigel son of Alexander, and
other faithful lieges of the King being then and there present;
between Walter Abbot of Westminster, and Richard and William of
Padinton, brothers, touching the entire tenement which they held in
Padinton, of the Church of Westminster. Whereupon it was pleaded
between them in the Court of the Lord King, namely, that the
aforesaid Richard and William have quit-claimed (given up) for ever,
for themselves and all their successors and heirs, all and the
aforesaid tenement, and whatever right they had therein, without any
reserve, to the aforesaid Church of Westminster and the Abbot, and
have restored to him the land with all its appurtenances: and for
this resignation, the Abbot aforesaid hath given to them forty marks
of silver and four allowances or maintenances, “conrediæ,” in the
Church of Westminster, two of which are for the service of the
aforesaid Richard and William for the twelve following years, and the
other two are for the service of the wives of the aforesaid Richard
and William, together with gratuities, “caritatibus,” and pittances
so long as the same women shall live.”
Maddox adds that this document “has at the top, the letters, Chiographum,
very large ones, cut through indent-wise.”
We are not informed by this instrument what was “the extent of the entire
tenement,” thus sold to the Abbot of Westminster. But it will be
observed, that the land purchased of Richard and William is said to have
been held by them “of the Church of Westminster.” From which we might
imagine, that the lordship of the soil, had been already legally
appropriated to St. Peter, did we not know that it is equally probable,
that one of the tricks of the time had been played off, to lessen the
risk of the purchased land being forfeited to the Crown.
Blackstone tells us that when a tenant—and all were tenants now, either
of the King, or some other lord,—wished to alienate his lands to a
religious house, he first conveyed them to the house, and instantly took
them back again, “to hold as tenant to the monastery.” This
instantaneous seisin, he further informs us, did not occasion forfeiture:
and, this fact being accomplished, “by pretext of some other forfeiture,
surrender, or escheat, the society entered into those lands in right of
such their newly acquired signiory, as immediate lords of the fee.” {13}
Other documents, shewing the acquisition by the Convent of other lands in
this place and Westbourn, at a later period, will be produced in the next
chapter; but this is the only one dated before the end of the twelfth
century, having any appearance of authenticity, which I have been able to
discover relative to the Abbey lands in Paddington.
The Abbot who purchased the interest of the brothers of Paddington, in
the Paddington soil, is called Walter of Winchester, to distinguish him
from another Walter, called of Wenlock, who was also an Abbot of
Westminster, but a century after this time. Of him also we shall have to
speak in the next chapter in connexion with the further extension of the
Abbey lands in Paddington.
Walter, the first, directed that the anniversary of the day on which he
died should be kept as a feast day at the Convent: and we are told that
he gave the manor of Paddington for its proper celebration. And as this
story will well serve to illustrate the manner in which much of the
property of the church was spent in those days, and, perhaps, serve also
to shew how the neighbouring proprietors were quieted for the transfer of
the lordship to this Abbot, I shall reproduce it as it was given to the
Archæological Society, on the third of May, 1804, by Dr. Vincent, a
former Dean of Westminster.
The Dean states that the account he read was taken from an ancient MS.
preserved in the archives of the Dean and Chapter. The following is the
Dean’s own translation of the manuscript in question:—
“Walter, Abbot of Westminster, died the twenty-seventh of September,
in the second year of King Richard the first, and in the year of our
Lord, 1191.
The manor of Paddington was assigned for the celebration of his
anniversary, in a solemn manner, under this form.
On the fifth of the Kalends of October (that is on the twenty-seventh
of September), on the festival of Saint Cosmas and Saint Damian, the
anniversary of Walter, the Abbot, is to be celebrated; and for the
celebration, the manor of Paddington is put wholly in the hands of
the Almoner, for the time being, and entrusted to his discretion; and
this he is faithfully to observe, that whatsoever shall be the final
overplus is to be expended charitably in distribution to the poor.
On the day of the celebration, the Almoner is to find for the
Convent, fine manchets, cakes, crumpets, cracknells, and wafers, and
a gallon of wine for each friar, with three good pittances, or doles,
with good ale in abundance at every table, and in the presence of the
whole brotherhood; in the same manner as upon other occasions the
cellarer is bound to find beer at the usual feasts or anniversaries,
in the great tankard of twenty-five quarts. {14a}
He shall also provide most honourably, and in all abundance, for the
guests that dine in the refectory, bread, wine, beer, and two dishes
out of the kitchen, besides the usual allowance. And for the guests
of higher rank, who sit at the upper table under the bell, with the
president, ample provision shall be made as well as for the Convent;
_and cheese shall be served on that day to both_. {14b}
Agreement shall likewise be made with the cook, for vessels,
utensils, and other necessaries, and not less than two shillings
shall be given over above, for his own gratification and indulgence.
The Almoner is likewise to find for all comers in general, from the
hour when the memorial of the anniversary is read to the end of the
following day, meat, drink, hay, and provender of all sorts, in
abundance; and no one either on foot or on horseback during that time
shall be denied admittance at the gate.
He shall also make allowance to the Nuns at Kilburne, both bread and
wine, as well as provisions from the kitchen, supplied on other days
by the cellarer and the cook: neither shall the Nuns lose their
ordinary allowance, on account of the extraordinary.
But the servants of the court, who are at other times accustomed to
have wine and flagons, and all those who have billets upon the
cellarer for allowances, shall receive wine and bread only from the
Almoner on this day, and not from the cellarer; they shall likewise
have a pittance from him.
But those who have a pittance from Bemfleete at other times, and
three hundred poor besides, shall have a refection on this day, that
is to say, a loaf of the weight of the Convent loaf, made of mixed
corn, and each of them that pleases a pottle of ale; and those who
have not vessels for this purpose shall take a draught at pleasure,
and two dishes from the kitchen suitable to the hospitality of the
day.
The Almoner, moreover, besides these doles, pittances, and
allowances, _shall find bread at command_, but not wine, and
therefore those who have the command never allow wine, though they
admit military men with their swords on. {15}
He is likewise bound to find bread of mixed corn, by his office, to
each of the servants, but not beer; neither is he bound to find beer
for the Convent to drink after vespers, unless he chooses it as a
special favour; neither does he usually find the collations.
But without all doubt, the president with his guests in the
refectory, have a right to wine and beer in abundance after their
refection, and the Almoner shall likewise allow mead to the Convent
for the cup of charity, the loving cup.
The Almoner, also, who is not accustomed to brew in large quantities
more than four times a year, shall take especial care to provide five
casks of the best beer for this anniversary.
Afterwards, however, a modification was made of this anniversary in
this form: namely, that every year (on the festival of the Saints
aforesaid), the Prior and the convent shall sing _the placebo_ and
_dirige_ with three lessons, as is usual on other anniversaries, and
with the chiming (or a peal) of bells. That two wax candles shall be
kept burning at the tomb of Walter, from the vigil of the anniversary
to the end of the requiem mass the following day, which the prior or
any head of the order present shall sing; and on that day the
Almoner, for the time being, shall distribute two quarters of corn in
baked bread to the poor, according to the usuage of the Convent; but
there shall be no distribution of other things, or dispensation of
alms.”
Whether the song of the monks really pleased the people as much as the
cakes and ale we are not told, but considering the present use of the
word _placebo_, we may doubt it. We are not informed either, when this
_modification_ was made; but the Dean tells us that the retrenchment was
very necessary, for the convent stood in some danger of being ruined by
anniversaries; almost every Abbot having one.
Widmore, who mentions this anniversary, tells us Dr. Patrick, the editor
of Gunton’s History of Peterborough, got his account from John Flete, the
Monkish Historian of Westminster, who died in the Convent in 1464, having
completed its history, which he wrote at the request of the monks, down
to 1386.
Of John Flete, Widmore says, in his account of the writers of the History
of Westminster Abbey, “He sets down his authorities as he found them; but
as criticism was not a study in request in his time, he neither doth, nor
was, I suppose, able to distinguish what in antiquity was true and
genuine from forgeries.” {16}
Of Walter of Winchester, the same learned writer remarks “There is little
account left what this man did while Abbot here: he seems to have been
too easy in granting out the estates of the church in fee farm: the manor
of Denham in Bucks, the tithes of Boleby in Lincolnshire, the Church of
St. Alban in Wood-street, what the Abbey had in Staining-lane and
Friday-street, and the manor of Paglesham in Essex, were so granted by
him. He seems to have been solicitous to perpetuate his memory by an
anniversary, having ordered a very pompous one, much beyond those of any
of his predecessors, and got the profits of the manor of Paddington
assigned for that purpose: but this, sometime after, being thought too
great, was very much lowered, and only loaves made of two quarters of
wheat were on that day given to the poor, by the Almoner of the Abbey.”
Richard de Croksley, who died in 1258, was still more liberal with the
funds he could no longer use, for he assigned the whole produce of the
manors of Hamstead and Stoke for the celebration of his death-day. The
ringers were paid thirteen shillings and four-pence for ringing the bells
on the eve of the anniversary; one thousand poor were to receive a penny
each on the first day; and for six subsequent days, five hundred were to
receive daily one penny, for which sixteen pounds, thirteen shillings and
four-pence was assigned; while for the arduous duties enjoined on the
monks—“for the repose of the Abbot’s soul, four monks were to celebrate
mass at four different altars every day for ever,” only twenty-seven
pounds was given. But in less than ten years after this Abbot’s death
“_the burthen of commemorating him in the way he had ordained was found
too heavy to be borne_;” and after petitioning the Pope on this subject,
and receiving his mandate thereon, this anniversary was modified and ten
marks was assigned for keeping it. {17}
From the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, made under the authority of Pope Nicholas
the fourth, and published by the Record Commissioners, we learn that a
century after the death of Walter, the whole of the temporalities of
Paddington were devoted to the purposes of charity; that they arose from
the rent of land, and the young of animals, and were valued at eight
pounds, sixteen shillings and four-pence. And the same valuable work
informs us of a chapel built and endowed in this place, at the time this
survey was taken.
In the preface to this work the following account of this taxation is
given—
“In the year 1288, Pope Nicholas the fourth, granted the tenths of
all Ecclesiastical benefices to King Edward the first, for six years,
towards defraying the expense of an expedition to the Holy Land; and
that they might be collected to their full value, a taxation by the
King’s Precept was begun in that year (1288) and finished as to the
Province of Canterbury in 1291, and as to that of York in the
following year; the whole being under the direction of John, Bishop
of Winton, and Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln.
The taxation of Pope Nicholas is a most important Record, because all
the taxes, as well to our Kings as the Popes, were regulated by it
until the survey made in the twenty-sixth year of Henry the eighth.”
During the twelfth and early part of the thirteenth centuries, disputes
of a very unseemly nature frequently took place between the Abbots of
Westminster and the Bishops of London, relative to the jurisdiction of
the latter over the Abbey, and otherwise as to their respective
privileges and districts. Another pretty good proof, as Widmore justly
remarks, that the ancient charters, so much spoken of, were mere
forgeries. These disputes were at length referred to Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, and
the Priors of Merton and Dunstaple; and in their decree, which is
published at length in Wharton’s Historia de Espiscopis et Decanis
Londinensibus, after giving the Bishop a considerable slice of the
territory which the monks had claimed in the region of the Fleete, and
fixing the boundary westward, as in Edgar’s Charter, by the Tybourn, the
following passage occurs:—“Extra veró suprá scriptas metas villæ de
Knygtebrigge, Westburne, Padyngtoun cum Capellâ, et cum earum
pertinentiis, pertinent ad Parochiam S. Margaretæ memoratum.” {18a} So
that even the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Paddington had not been
legally given to the Abbey before the thirteenth century; for this
document is dated 1222.
If we can rely on the authenticity of the passage just quoted, a chapel
must have been built here previous to that date; and now this chapel, as
the author of the Ecclesiastical Topography correctly remarks became a
Chapel of Ease to St. Margaret’s, Westminster. This writer makes the
value of the church and chapel, in 1291, only thirty marks and a half;
{18b} but in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, printed by the Record Commission,
the following entries are to be found at page 17:—
“Ecclia Sce Margarete cu Capella de Padinton £20.
Vicaria Ejusdem 8.”
No inconsiderable difference in times when the land in Paddington paid
only four-pence per acre, per annum, rent.
Whatever doubts may arise in the mind as to the accuracy of John Flete’s
story, or as to the capability of the land in Paddington to furnish the
annual feast we have described as having been appointed in 1191; it
appears from this taxation, that in 1291, a chapel was built and endowed
here; and the sum we have already mentioned given in charity.
The temporal entry in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica is as follows:
“Bona Obedienc’ Westm’ in Westmon’ £1 12 3
Elemosinar’ be redd’
Item idem in Padinton de terr’ redd’ cons’ et 8 16 4”
fet’ animaliu’
This “rent of land” was derived from those lands which had been purchased
by Walter; those which the Walter, who makes this return, had himself
obtained; and all those over which the Convent had acquired manorial
rights. And I presume any other small tithe was included in this
elemosinary item with “the young of animals.” The great tithe and the
rent of the glebe land being accounted for in the spiritual part of the
valuation.
CHAPTER II.
THE MANORS
OF
WESTBOURN AND PADDINGTON.
IF we accept the definition of the word manor given by the learned Judge
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, {19} or look upon
a manor to be “the subinfeudation of a particular district made by A to
B,” I think we must come to the conclusion, that neither Westbourn nor
Paddington, in ancient times, were manors in either of these senses,
unless indeed we consider Westbourn and Tybourn synonymous terms, for we
find no account of any lordly residence in either of these places till
many centuries after the Conqueror’s survey; neither is there any
account, which can be relied on, to establish the fact of any King having
granted these districts to the Abbot and Monks of Westminster; or of the
Abbot’s subinfeudation of them. And if we do not consider these places a
portion of the Tybourn manor, it is pretty certain that the cottagers who
cultivated the land in this neighbourhood were not only freemen, but
freeholders, even at the time of the Conquest. They could have owned no
other lord but the King, and the suit and service they would have
rendered him differed but little from that exacted of the most powerful
lord in the land. Each paid his tax according to his circumstances. But
many new manors were created after the conquest, and an Act of
Parliament, the 18th of Edward I, 1290, was passed to put a stop to this
practice.
It was no uncommon thing, for Religious Houses, when they had obtained a
few acres of land in any place, to elevate them to the dignity of a
manor, and assume on their general licence, manorial rights over the
district in which their newly acquired property lay. {20a}
Moreover, to secure the assistance of the monks, the early Norman Kings
were frequently obliged to connive at practices of which they could not
approve, but which they dared not condemn. And when the monks of
Westminster, after casting a longing eye on the lands of Paddington,
produced the charters which they called Edgar’s and Dunstan’s, and
claimed the lordship over these outlying districts, the King, who then
happened to require their services, may have thought it mattered but
little, who reaped the benefits derivable from being the lord of the few
tenants in Paddington. And he may have sanctioned that which was in fact
an usurpation.
If, however, Edgar’s and Dunstan’s Charters were brought forward for the
purpose of shewing some sort of title to the manor of Paddington, when
the first claim to the lordship was set up, which I think was most likely
the case, it is very evident that the monks themselves had no great faith
that these charters would bear any sort of legal examination, even in
those days, when the wig was adopted to hide the shaven crown. {20b} For
when a writ of Quo Warranto was issued in the twenty-second year of
Edward the First to the then Abbot of Westminster—Walter of Wenlock—to
enquire “by what authority he claimed to hold the Pleas of the Crown, to
have free warren, a market, a fair, toll, a gallows, the chattels of
persons condemned, and of runaways, the right of imprisonment,” and
various other such like privileges, as well as “the appointment of the
coroner in Eye, Knythbrugg, Chelchehethe, Braynford, Padynton, Hamstede,
and Westburn,” besides in the town of Staines, and its dependencies; he
did not claim manorial rights over Paddington and Westbourn on account of
Edgar’s, or Dunstan’s grant of these manors; neither did he mention those
charters, as he might have done had they been genuine or had they
received the confirmation of Stephen, or Henry the Second, as Dart states
they did. On the contrary, the Abbot appeared to the writ, and said that
these places were parts of the town of Westminster—“sunt membra ville
Westm’—;” and for Westminster, Staines, and their membræ, he claimed all
their ancient privileges. {21a} Moreover, “he says, that the lord King
Henry, father of the King that now is, hath granted to God and the Church
of St. Peter of Westminster and the monks, serving God therein, and their
successors, all his tenements, {21b} and hath commanded that they hold
them with all their liberties and free customs, &c. * * * * And he
produces the charter of the King which witnesses the same * * * * And he
saith, that the Lord King hath inspected the Charter of the Lord King
Henry, his father, which witnesseth that the same Lord King Henry hath
granted to God and the blessed Edward, and to Richard, Abbot of
Westminster, and to the monks serving God there, that they and their
successors, should have for ever all the fines of their own people, from
whatever cause they may arise, and before whatever justices of the Lord
King they may have been ordained, and that they shall have all the
returns of the King’s briefs in all their lands in England. ****** ”
{21c}
But we must not receive this statement of Walter de Wenlock with implicit
confidence, or at all events without some further explanation; {21d} for
it was this Abbot who transgressed one of those salutary laws, which had
been recently enacted to stay the encroachments of the regular clergy.
It was this Walter of Wenlock, and of Westminster, who appropriated to
himself and his house in fee, lay fees in Knightsbridge, Paddington, Eye,
and Westbourn, without the license of the King; and for which his
successor was fined ten pounds. This appears from the following entry on
the Fine Roll, 12th Edw. II, and in the Rotulorum Originalium in curia
saccarü abbreviatis,—vol. i. p. 245—
“Abbas Westm’ finem fecit cum R. p decem libr ’p pdon’ hend’ de
tnsgr’ quam Walts quondam abbas loci illius pdecessor suus fecit
adquir’ sibi et domui sue in feodo laicum feodum in Knyhtebrugge,
Padyngton, Eye, et Westburn et illud ingred’ sine licene’.”
In the reign of the second Edward, we find that three inquisitions were
held, to enquire what injury that King would sustain if certain tenements
and lands in these places were granted to the Convent; and it was upon
one of these inquisitions that the discovery above referred to was made.
{22}
As these inquisitions refer to the only bona fide grants of land in
Paddington or Westbourn, down to the fourteenth century, which I have
been able to discover, with the exception of the purchase by Walter of
Winchester before referred to; and as they will serve to shew not only
the sort of suit and service rendered to the lord, but will also further
illustrate the mode in which the land in these places was actually
acquired by the Abbey, I shall give a translation of each.
These documents are kept in the Tower, and form a portion of the
“Inquisitiones ad quod damnum,” so called, and are thus described in the
calendar published by the Record Commission. “These inquisitions
commence with the first year of the reign of Edward the second, 1307, and
end with the thirty-eighth year of Henry the sixth: Thomas Astle,
esquire, thus speaks of them.—They were taken by virtue of writs directed
to the Escheator of each county; when any grant of a market, fair, or
other privilege, or licence of alienation of lands, was solicited, to
enquire by a jury whether such grant or alienation was prejudicial to the
King or to others, in case the same should be made.”
“Inquisition a. q. d. 9. Edw. II. No. 105.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King at the
church of St. Mary Atte Stronde, on Thursday next after the Feast of
the assumption of the Blessed Mary, in the ninth year of the reign of
King Edward, by the oath of Robert de Aldenham, Alexander de Rogate,
Nicholas de Curtlyng, John de la Hyde, Walter Fraunceis, William de
Padinton, Hugh de Arderne, William Est, Arnold le Frutier, Simon le
Brewere, Roger de Malthous, and Roger le Marshall, junior: who say,
upon their oath, that Walter de Wenlock, lately Abbot of Westminster,
had acquired to himself and his House one messuage with appurtenances
in Knyghtebregge, of William le Smyth of Knyghtebregge, and four
acres of land there of William Brisel and Asseline his wife, and nine
acres of land there of William Hond, and twelve acres of land in
Padinton of William de Padinton, and three acres and a half in Eye of
Hugh le Bakere of Eye, and thirteen acres of land in Westbourn of
John le Taillour, and eleven acres of land there of Matilda Arnold,
and two acres of land there of Juliana Baysebolle after the
publication of the statute edited concerning the nonplacing of lands
in Mortmain and not before. And they say that it is not to the
damage nor prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of others, if the King
grant to the Prior and Convent of Westminster, that the Abbots of
that place, for the time being, may recover and hold the aforesaid
messuages and land to them and their successors for ever. And they
say that the aforesaid messuage is held of the said Abbot and
Convent, by service of a yearly rent of six-pence, and of performing
suit at the court of the said Abbot and Convent, and of finding one
man for two half days to mow the Lord’s meadow, price threepence: and
it is worth over and above that service in all issues twelve-pence a
year. And the aforesaid fifty-four acres and a half of land, at the
time of the aforesaid acquisition, were in like manner held of the
said Abbot and Convent by service of a yearly rent of eighteen
shillings and two-pence: and of finding one man for ten half days to
mow the Lord’s meadow, price fifteen-pence: and one man for ten half
days to hoe the Lord’s corn, price ten pence: and of doing seven
ploughings, price three shillings and six-pence: and of finding one
man for ten half days to reap the Lord’s corn, price fifteen-pence:
and of making seven carriages to carry the Lord’s hay, price three
shillings and six-pence: and of performing suit at the court of the
said Abbot from three weeks to three weeks. And they say that the
aforesaid fifty-four acres and a half of land are worth by the year
in all issues over and above the aforesaid services nineteen
shillings and six-pence. In witness of which thing the aforesaid
jurors have set their seals to this inquisition.
Endorsed 20s. 6d.”
This sum of twenty shillings and sixpence was, as I conceive, due to and
paid to the King. So that although the Convent had managed to obtain a
lordship over this land, the King still retained _some right_ over it,
and the fee of this land could never have been given to the Abbot. But
the result of this inquisition does not appear to have been satisfactory
to all parties; for another was held in the twelfth year of the same
reign. It will be observed that the same land is the subject of enquiry,
but the significant words “with appurtenances,” are added this time to
each little plot.
“Inquisition a. q. d. 12 Edw. II. No. 37.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King at
Westminster, on Tuesday the morrow of St. George the Martyr, in the
twelfth year of the reign of King Edward, by Henry le Ken, Robert de
Aldenham, Thomas de Stragenho, Roger Marshall, junior, William de
Padyngton, Walter Franceys, {24} Ralph Fitz John, Richard Atte Doune,
John de Oxenford, Jocetus le Taillour, Henry le Glovere, and Walter
Peure, who say, upon their oath, that it is not to the damage nor
prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of any others, if the King grant
to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster that they may recover and
hold to them the said Abbot and Convent and their successors for ever
one messuage with appurtenances in Knyghtebrigge, which Walter
formerly Abbot, predecessor of the said Abbot, had acquired in fee to
himself and his House of William le Smythe of Knyghtebrigge; and four
acres of land with appurtenances in the same vill of William Brisel
and Asceline his wife; and nine acres of land with appurtenances in
the same vill of William Hond; and twelve acres of land with
appurtenances in Padinton of William de Padinton; and three acres and
a half of land with appurtenances in Eye, of Hugh le Bakere of Eye;
and thirteen acres of land with appurtenances in Westbourn of John le
Taillor; and eleven acres of land with appurtenances in the same vill
of Matilda Arnold; and two acres of land with appurtenances in the
same vill of Juliana Baiseboll, after the publication of the statute
edited, concerning the non-placing of lands and tenements in
Mortmain; and the license neither of the Lord Edward, formerly King
of England and father of the present King, nor of the present King
himself, having been in this matter obtained. And they say that the
aforesaid messuages and land are held of the same Abbot and Convent
by service of a yearly rent to the same Abbot and Convent of
four-pence for each acre of land and of performing suit at the court
of the said Abbot and Convent from three weeks to three weeks for all
service. And they are worth by the year in all issues according to
their true value, and over and above the above mentioned services,
five shillings. In witness of which thing the aforesaid jurors have
placed their seals to this Inquisition.
Endorsed, let it be done by fine of £10.”
This fine of ten pounds seems to have been made an excuse for obtaining
the fee of more land in Paddington and other places; or, at least, so I
understand the expression in the following inquisition, “in part
satisfaction of ten librates of land, &c.”
“Inquisition a. q. d. 20th Edward II. No. 14.
MIDDLESEX.
Inquisition made before the Escheator of the Lord the King, in the
county of Middlesex, on Saturday the fourth day of October, in the
twentieth year of the reign of King Edward, son of King Edward, on
the oath of Roger de Presthorpe, Richard Atte Watere, John de Winton,
Richard Goldsmith, John de Oxford, Richard Cook, Thomas Treuge,
Richard Atte Doune, John Colyn of Padynton, John de Bemflete, of the
county of Middlesex, Nicholas Atte Doune, and Robert Herebard, of the
county of Surrey, who say, upon their oath, that it is not to the
damage nor prejudice of the Lord the King, nor of others, if the Lord
the King grant to Richard de Sudburi, that he may give and assign one
toft, six shops, and one acre of land, with appurtenances in the vill
of Westminster; {25} to Henry de Bathe, that he may give and assign
one acre and a half of land with appurtenances in the same vill; to
John de Beburi, that he may give and assign one toft and seven acres
of land with appurtenances in Padyngton; and to Richard Prat, that he
may give and assign one toft with appurtenances in Wendlesworth; to
the Abbot and Convent of Westminster, to have and to hold to them and
their successors for ever in part satisfaction of the ten librates of
lands, tenements, and rents, which he lately granted for the
acquisition of the same Abbot and Convent by his letters patent. And
they say that the aforesaid messuages, toft, shops, and land, of
Richard de Sudburi are held of the aforesaid Abbot and Convent by
service of eight shillings a year, for all service, and are worth by
the year in all issues, over and above the said service, two
shillings, according to their true value. They also say that the
aforesaid acre and a half of land of Henry de Bathe is held of the
aforesaid Abbot and Convent by service of three shillings and
four-pence a year, and suit at the court of the said Abbot from three
weeks to three weeks. And they say that the aforesaid land is worth
nothing over and above the services aforesaid. They say also that
the aforesaid toft and seven acres of land of John de Beburi are held
of the aforesaid Abbot and Convent by service of twenty-pence a year,
and three hens, price nine-pence, and suit at the court of the said
Abbot, from three weeks to three weeks. And they say that the
aforesaid toft and land are worth nothing over and above the services
aforesaid. They also say that the aforesaid toft of Richard Prat is
held of the said Abbot and Convent by service of fourteen-pence a
year, and one cock and one hen, price three-pence half-penny, and
suit of court from three weeks to three weeks; and by rendering
thence to Joan de Todham nine shillings a year for all service; which
toft indeed does not suffice for the payment of such rent. They also
say that there is no mean lord between the Lord the King and the
aforesaid Richard, Henry, John, and Richard, of the messuages, shops,
tofts and land aforesaid, but the aforesaid Abbot and Convent. They
also say that there are no lands or tenements remaining to the
aforesaid Richard, Henry, John, and Richard over and above the gift
and assignment aforesaid. In witness of which thing the aforesaid
jurors have set their seals, or marks, to this inquisition.”
From such small beginnings as these the present so-called manors of
Westbourn and Paddington arose.
Maitland, in his History of London, tells us that foreign merchants were
not able to land their goods at the port of London previous to 1236, and
that in that year they agreed to pay for this privilege and “to give the
sum of one hundred pounds towards the bringing of the water to the city
from Tyburn; which the citizens were empowered to do by virtue of a grant
from Gilbert de Sandford.”
And he further informs us, {27} that in 1439, “the Abbot of Westminster
granted to Robert Large, the mayor, and citizens of London, and their
successors, one head of water, containing twenty-six perches in length
and one in breadth, together with all its springs in the manor of
Paddington; in consideration of which grant the city is for ever to pay
to the said Abbot and his successors at the feast of St. Peter, two
pepper corns. But if the intended work should happen to draw the water
from the ancient wells in the manor of Hida then the aforesaid grant to
cease and become entirely void.”
It is further added, “This grant Henry the sixth not only confirmed but
likewise by a writ of Privy seal granted them further advantages toward
the performing thereof.”
The following is from Tanner’s Notitia—“Pat, in Vaga Rageman temp Ric 2.
Buckingh Rot 12. quod Abbas debet mundare aquam vocat Bayard’s Watering
Place in paroch de Padyngton.”
Now if we except these grants, which, we shall presently see, were not so
unimportant as may at first sight appear, I think we may give the Abbots
and monks the credit of keeping, as long as they were allowed to keep,
all they ever acquired or ever possessed in Paddington.
But although the Abbots at length, and by slow degrees, acquired to
themselves and their House, either with or without the sanction of the
crown, both spiritual and temporal dominion over these places, we must
not imagine that all the tenements in Westbourn and Paddington had been
by this time transferred by the devout and the timid to their safe
keeping; for besides the few small holders, who obstinately preferred
their hereditary rights, to the prospect of a speedy post-mortem release
from purgatory, there is good reason to believe that the ancient family
of De Veres held a considerable tract of land in this parish down to
1461.
CHAPTER III.
THE POSSESSIONS OF THE CHURCH,
THE CROWN, & THE PEOPLE.
THE history of the lands which have been claimed by the Bishop of London,
and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, as their portion of the spoils
of the Convent can be completely written by those only who have free
access to all the records in the archives of St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s.
And as it would appear that the time is not yet come for placing at the
disposal of the public, for public uses, many of the important documents
held in charge by Deans and Chapters, we must be content with that
account which can be furnished by those which they have permitted us to
see, and those which more confiding holders have thrown open to our
inspection.
Most of the facts, which I have been able to discover, relative to the
acquisition of the Abbey lands in Paddington, have been already related.
One or two, however, having an important relation to the lands of the
existing church, and the possessions of the people, remain to be told.
Aubrey de Vere, “who came in with the Conqueror,” was grandfather to
Aubrey, first Earl of Oxford, and held, as we have already seen, a tract
of land called in Domesday, Chenesitun. {28} His eldest son, Geoffry
having been cured of a sickness by the Abbot of Abingdon, while grateful
for the skill and kindness shewn him, persuaded his father to bestow the
church of Kensington on that Monastery. The grant was made, and
confirmed by the next heir, Geoffry having died during his father’s
lifetime. This footing having been obtained, a subsequent Abbot claimed
the privileges of a manor for the lands given to that church. This
claim, which appears to have been set up previous to the issue of a
quo-warranto, seemed to the Earl then in possession, rather more than his
ancestors, in their liberality had given. He appears to have opposed the
claim: and it was ordered that the matter should be investigated. From
some cause or other, however, the suit did not proceed, and the _Abbot’s_
Kensington became a manor like its progenitor, the _Earl’s_ Kensington;
and so the Reformation found a goodly quantity of land firmly grasped in
the dead hands of the Abingdon monks. This good thing, however, had not
been kept wholly to themselves. They had allowed their brothers at
Westminster to have a finger in the pie. And that portion of this manor
which was set aside for charitable purposes, was intrusted to the
charitable care, of St. Peter. This portion of the Abbot’s manor was
valued, in the year 1371, at five marks; while the other portion, “the
church and vicarage,” was valued at thirty-six marks. {29}
In the patent roll which contains the grant of Henry the eighth to the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster—Pat. 34. Henry 8. P. 5. M. 32. (6)—“of
the site of the late monastery of Westminster, with all its ancient
privileges, free customs, &c., &c.,” we find, at the foot of the same
membrane, this continuation of the grant “all those messuages, lands,
tenements, meadows, pastures, feedings, rents, reversions, services, and
other our hereditaments whatsoever known by the name or names of Seynt
Mary Landes, lying and being in Westbourne, in the parish of Paddington,
in our said county of Middlesex, and now or late in the tenure or
occupation of John Genie, or his assigns, to the said late monastery of
St. Peter, Westminster, lately belonging and appertaining, and being
parcel of the possessions of the said late monastery.”
I have not been able to discover the exact extent of these lands at the
time of the reformation; or the amount of their growth during the last
three centuries; but I have many reasons for believing that these “Seynt
Mary lands lying and being in Westbourne in the parish of Paddington,”
were the self-same lands given by St. Mary of Abingdon to St. Peter of
Westminster for charitable purposes. That, in fact, this land was the
poor allotment of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington.
Out of this and another small grant the parvenu manor of “Knightsbridge
and Westbourne” was manufactured.
Besides these manors of Abbot’s Kensington, and Knightsbridge and
Westbourn, another manor, called West-town, was created out of lands
called “the Groves,” granted to “his dear and faithful chaplin, Simon
Downham,” by Robert the fifth, Earl of Oxford, in 1214.
By an inquisition, taken in 1481, we are informed that the Groves,
formerly only three fields, had extended themselves out of Kensington
into “Brompton, Chelsea, Tybourn, and Westbourne.”
“The Groves,” now a manor, passed from Richard Sturgion and William Hall
to William Essex. The Marquis of Winchester, Lord High Treasurer of
England, purchased it of Thomas Essex, for one thousand pounds, in May,
1570; and the next marquis sold it to William Dodington for seven hundred
pounds, who sold it to Christopher Baker for two thousand pounds, and it
was afterwards purchased by Walter Cope for one thousand three hundred
pounds, who attached the Groves to Abbots Kensington, which he had
purchased. {30a}
But besides the manors, which the Abbots of Abingdon, and Simon the
priest, and the Abbots and Monks of Westminster, had so nicely created
for themselves, another, called “the manor of Notingbarons, alias
Kensington,” then “Nutting Barns,” afterwards “Knotting-barns,” in
Stockdale’s new map of the country round London, 1790, “Knolton Barn,”
now Notting-barns, was carved out of the original manor of “Chenesitun.”
{30b} And from an inquisition holden in the fifteenth year of Edward the
fourth, we find that this manor remained in the hands of the De Vere’s
with Earls Kensington, when John the twelfth Earl of Oxford, and his
eldest son, Aubrey, were beheaded.
This inquisition states, that “John, late Earl of Oxon. was seized to his
own use, the fourteenth day of April, anno regni 12 Edw. IV., of the
manors of Kensington, and Knotting Barns, in the county of Middlesex, and
that afterwards, by a certain Act, made in the Parliament, which began at
Westminster, the sixth of October, in the twelfth year of the reign of
King Edward the fourth, and by several prorogations continued to the
twenty-third of January in the fourteenth year of the King, it was
decreed that the Earl should forfeit to the Lord the King all the manors,
lands, and tenements which he, or any one to his use had, and that the
manors of Kensington were accordingly forfeited. The jurors say the said
manor of Kensington is worth, in all issues, beyond outgoings,
twenty-five marks per annum; and that from the fourteenth day of April,
anno twelve, the issues and profits have been and are taken and received
by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, but by what right or title they know
not.” {31}
By this inquisition we perceive that these manors were no longer held by
the De Vere’s in virtue of their office of Lord Great Chamberlain; but
that this Earl died, possessing the manors “_seized to his own use_.”
And by an Act of the eleventh year of Henry the seventh, we find out what
the jurors did not know, viz.—That the widow of the beheaded Earl, “by
compulcion, cohercion, and emprisonement,” while her son was suffering
for his support of the Lancastrian cause, was obliged to release to
Richard “late in dede, and not of right, King Englond, while he was Duke
of Gloucetir,” divers manors, lands, &c. &c. This being in all
probability one of them.
When the said Richard had been dispatched in Bosworth field, and Henry
the seventh had ascended the throne, these acts of the usurpers
“inordynate covetyse, and ungodly disposicion” were quietly put aside by
regular Acts of Parliament. And by the first and eleventh of Henry the
seventh, not only this Earl of Oxford, but all his family, were
reinstated in their estates, honors and dignities. And by the latter act
the compulsory release which Richard had obtained from Elizabeth,
Countess of Oxenford, was rendered null and void. But during all these
troubles the Earl appears to have got into debt, to discharge which he
appears to have sold “a messuage, four hundred acres of land, five acres
of meadow, and one hundred and forty acres of wood in Kensington.”
In giving us this information, Mr. Faulkner also tells us that the estate
was recovered by “The Great Marshall of England,” and sold to Sir
Reginald Bray for four hundred marks. He also corrects a mistake into
which Lysons has fallen; and shews that it could not have been the
original portion of the manor, or the manor of Earl’s Court, that was
sold, and suggests that it may have been “one of the smaller manors of
West-town or Knotting Barns.” But Lysons and Faulkner throw no further
light on this subject.
The truth being that it was this manor of Notting Barns which was
purchased by Sir Reginald, or Sir Reynolde as it is frequently written;
and it was this manor which the generous Lady, in whose service he was
engaged for so many years, purchased of him to complete the establishment
of her munificent foundations.
Widmore tells us that this lady, Margaret Countess of Richmond, mother of
King Henry the seventh, obtained a licence of Mortmain for one hundred
and fifty pounds per annum, and that she proceeded so far as to convey
ninety pounds of it to the Convent of Westminster, for the purpose of an
anniversary for herself, for three monks to celebrate mass in the Abbey
Church, and for the payment of the salaries of the professors founded by
her in the two universities, and her Cambridge preacher. And we learn by
her will, and by the Valor Ecclesiasticus, that besides the establishment
of these professorships, ten pounds per annum was to be given to the poor
out of the estates she left for these purposes. We also learn by her
will, and by an entry in that Ecclesiastical valuation, which was taken
by order of her grandson, in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, that a
considerable portion of the land given by the Lady Margaret, for the
purposes named, then lay in Paddington.
In her will, we find, after the notice of the “licence given unto us by
the King our Soverain Lord and most dere son,” and the mention of lands
at Drayton, Woxbrig (Uxbridge), and other places, the following words,
“and also diverse londs and tenements in Willesden, Padington, Westbourn
and Kensyngton, in the county of Midd’x, which the said Abbot, Prior, and
Convent, at their owne desire, and by their entire assents and consents,
have accepted and taken of us” at such a “yerely valow,” and for such
purposes, as therein specified.
We also find in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of Henry the 8th, under the
heading—
“Fundacio Domine Margaret, Comitisse Richmond.
MIDD’.”
and after the mention of property at Drayton, Uxbridge, and Willesden, to
the amount of fifteen pounds, six shillings and eight-pence, these words—
“Et tenet’ in Padington . . £10.” {32}
And in the fifth folio of 441 Lansdowne Manuscripts, the indentures
entered into by the Abbot of Westminster and the Lady Margaret Countess
of Richmond respecting the disposal of her property, we find the same
fact thus stated:—“and also dyvers landes and tenements in Willesden,
Padyngton, Westburn, and Kensington in the countie of Midd. which maners,
landes and tenements the said Princes late purchased of Sr Reynolde Bray,
Knight.”
I think this evidence is sufficiently conclusive to prove that this manor
of Notting Barns, sold to Sir Reginald Bray, was purchased by the Lady
Margaret for the purposes of her bequests.
It is true that this notable Knight and most noble mason, {33a} sold
another estate “for 400 marc steryling,” which is described as “lying and
being in Tybourne, Lilliston, Westbourn, Charying, and Eye.” But this
was sold “to Thomas Hobson, gent.;” and called “the maner of Maribone,”
which is said to have consisted of “all the meses, lands, tenements, &c.
which were of Robert Styllington, late Bishop of Bath and Welles and of
Thomas Styllyngton cosyn and Heyre of the same Robert.” {33b}
It may also be true that Sir William, afterwards Lord Sands, or Sandys,
succeeded by the aid of William, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord
Chancellor of England, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, “and
divers other friends of both parties,” in dividing the great property
left by Sir Reginald Bray, between himself and the nephews to whom Sir
Reginald had left it in his will. And it is perfectly true that Sir
William, who “had married the daughter and heir of Sir Reginald’s elder
brother John,” came into the possession of property in Paddington by this
Star Chamber decision. But this was through his having had the manor of
Chelsea as a portion of his share of Sir Reginald’s lands assigned to
him.
Neither this “honest country lord,” this “merry gamester,” whom
Shakspeare has immortalized, nor the “Gent.” whose choice is still a
proverb, held land in Paddington long. Both Lord Sands, and Thomas
Hobson, exchanged their lands and manors of Chelsea, and Marylebone, with
Henry the eighth, for other manors and lands; and the manor of Chelsea
with those lands in Paddington which had belonged to Lord Sands were
settled on Katherine, the widowed queen of the many-wived murderous
monarch.
The beautiful, and perfectly preserved, illuminated indenture, in the
Lansdowne collection, B.M., to which I have just now refered, more fully
than the Countess’s will, which was printed in 1780, with other royal
wills of an anterior date, details the donor’s desires with respect to
the property she had disposed of. How far those desires and wishes have
been carried out, others can tell much better than I can. No expense or
pains appears to have been spared by the munificent donor to make her
bequest in accordance with the law, and so far as her knowledge went,
useful to posterity. Her Cambridge and Oxford professors are still
known. But where is her grant to the poor? Are her professors still
paid the stipends she fixed for them; or do the readers and the preachers
divide between them the large estates she left? Where is that large
estate in Paddington, which was valued in her grandson’s reign at the
exact amount she left to the poor?
Besides the charitable bequests made by the Countess of Richmond, she
left “divers other parcels of the same maners, londes, &c.” valued at six
pounds, thirteen shillings and four-pence per annum to her faithful
servant Elizabeth Massey; and we find an account of “part of the descent
of Massye, of Paddington,” down to 1626, in the Harlein collection of
MSS. No. 2012, p. 45.
The first authentic document I find relating to the Notting Barns manor
after it was disposed of by the Countess of Richmond is an inquisition,
taken at Westminster on the ninth of October, in the seventeenth year of
the reign of Henry the eighth, after the death of Robert Roper, or
Fenroper, citizen and alderman of London. {34}
From this inquisition we learn that “The manor called Notingbarons, alias
Kensington, _in the parish of Paddington_, was held of the Abbot of
Westminster as of his manor of Paddington by fealty and twenty-two
shillings rent;” that the manor at this time “consisted of forty acres of
land, one hundred and forty acres of meadow, two hundred acres of wood,
twenty acres of moor, twenty acres of furze and heath, and forty
shillings rent; and that it was valued by the jurors at _ten pounds per
annum_.” This manor, a lease of which had been, in all probability,
purchased of the Abbot by the aforesaid Robert, was left by the Alderman
to his wife for life, “Remainder to Henry White, gent., and Etheldreda
his wife, one of his three daughters and co-heirs.” {35a}
What “arrangement” was made at the time of the Reformation with respect
to this manor I cannot precisely tell; but its further history, so far as
I have been able to trace it, is not without interest.
Lysons tells us in his account of Paddington, that “a capital messuage
called Westbourne-place, with certain lands thereto belonging was granted
by Henry the eighth, in 1540, to Robert White;” and he refers to the
Augmentation Office, but to no special record there, for his authority.
This grant I have not been able to find. But in his account of
Kensington, Lysons says Henry White, the son-in-law of the alderman, “in
the year 1543 conveyed the manor of Knotting Barns to the King.”
By a deed of exchange recited in Pat 34. Henry 8th. P. 8., M. 13 (15), I
find that the King purchased _Robert_ White’s interest in this manor, and
that “the said Robert White, esquire, having bargained and sold the manor
of Nutting Barnes, with the appurtenances, in the county of Middlesex,
and the farm of Nutting Barnes, in the parish of Kensyngton, and the
capital messuage with the appurtenances called Westbourne in the parish
of Paddington, in the same county, and also the wood and lands called
Nutting Wood, Dorkyns-Hernes, and Bulfre Grove, in the parish of
Kensington, as also two messuages and tenements in Chelsaye, with all
other the possessions of the said Robert White, in the same places and
parishes; and in consideration of one hundred and six pounds, five
shillings and ten pence” had other lands conveyed to him, by the King, in
other places, as fully set forth in the patent above referred to. {35b}
It will be observed, that in this document, which is of a later date than
the dissolution of the monastery, a portion of this manor is now said to
be in the parish of Kensington. It appears that the manor was made up of
two farms (over and above the small tenements), one called Notting Barns,
and the other Westbourn; and we find from a manuscript document, dated
thirty-eighth Henry the eighth, {36a} that the “messuage called
Westbourne, with the lands purchased of Robert White,” were demised to
one Thomas Dolte, at a rent of one hundred shillings per annum; the same
sum on which this Thomas Dolte was charged in the subsidy levied in the
sixteenth year of this reign. {36b} This farm appears to have been but
half the manor purchased by the Countess of Richmond, and this half
remained in the parish of Paddington, while the Notting Barns farm seems
to have been considered a part of Kensington, after the Reformation.
From this M.S. in the land revenue office we also learn that Henry the
eighth purchased the then existing interest in other lands in this
parish, and in the parishes of St. Margaret, Westminster, and Kensyngton,
of one John Dunnington. The gross rental of which I find was put down at
nine pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence; “from which there was an
allowance, for lands inclosed within the king’s park of Hyde, of
twenty-eight shillings per annum; leaving the clear yearly value of eight
pounds five shillings and fourpence.” The same document shews, too, that
a separate rent of forty-one pounds six shillings and eightpence was
received for the manor and rectory of Paddington.
Faulkner states that “in 1549 king Edward the sixth, granted this manor
or farm of Notting Barns to Sir William Pawlet, earl of Wiltshire,” at a
rent of sixty shillings per annum. In 1562, and 1587, it appears to have
been in the hands of the lord treasurers of England, the marquis of
Winchester and lord Burghley. From lord Burghley it passed to Sir Thomas
Cecil who sold it to Sir Walter Cope of Kensington; and in 1601 the queen
“granted a pardon to the said Walter Cope, for the sum of six pounds, in
consideration that the above alienation had been made without her
majesty’s licence.” {36c}
Thus the Notting Barns manor was claimed by the crown and by private
individuals; and so this portion of the Lady Margaret’s gift was disposed
of.
But with “the messuage called Westbourne, and the lands purchased of
Robert White,” we have something more to do.
Thomas Hues, esquire, doctor of medicine, one of queen Mary’s “principal
physicians,” purchased of that queen and others, a considerable quantity
of land, in this and the adjoining parishes, fully described in Escact,
2. Eliz. part 2. No. 23, which he gave to his wife for her life, “And in
remainder to the Wardens and Fellows of Martyn (Merton) college in
Oxford, for the purpose of founding within the said college for evermore
two apt and meet persons to be Fellows of the Fellowship of the said
College. Or else three scholars, or four, as the land will extend unto,
at such times as the same shall come to the hands and possession of the
said Warden and Fellows of the said college or to their successors for
the time being; to have continuance and succession within the said
college as fellows or scholars thereof for evermore. There to be found,
governed, and used with the revenues of the said lands, and to be brought
up and educated in virtue and good learning according to the rules, good
order, and diet of the said College, whereby other the Fellows or
Scholars of the said House have in time past been well governed, ordered,
ruled and brought up.”
By Pat. 2. Mary, P. 1, we learn other particulars respecting the
messuages, tenements, &c., which were purchased by Dr. Hues. We find the
cost of the whole to have been three hundred and forty-six pounds, one
shilling and eight-pence halfpenny; that they were purchased of various
owners; and that “a message and tenement called Westbourne” was included
in the purchase, and that “four closes of land called by the names of
Darking Busshes, Holmefield, Balserfield, and Baudeland, and six acres of
arable land lying apart in the common fields; and six acres of arable
land lying apart in the fields called Dowries, all in the parish of
Paddington” were purchased of the crown.
As a description of these four closes of land is still preserved in the
Harleian M.SS. No. 606, f. 46 b., I have thought it right to translate
and print it in this place, it is as follows:—
“A parcel of the possessions of the late lord Sands.
County of Middlesex.”
“An account of four pasture closes in and near Paddington in the
county aforesaid, containing, by estimation, fifty acres, lately in
the tenure of John Kellet by indenture for a term of years.
“One.—A close called Darking Busshes {38} lying between the close
called Sunhawes on the southern side, and between the field called
Wrenfelde on the northern side, and extending in length over the
green called Kellsell Greene on the eastern side, and over the land
belonging to Notting-barns called Dorkinghernes on the western side.
“Another. A close called Homefelde and extending above the road
leading from Paddington to Harlestone on the eastern side, and above
the close called Reding-meade on the western side, and abutting upon
the close called Church-close on the southern and western sides, and
upon the angle of Reding-meade aforesaid on the northern side.
“Another close called Balserfeld, extending in length upon a piece of
land called Lytle Balserfeld on the northern side, and upon a close
called Horsecreste and Ponde-close on the southern side, and on one
head of the land abutting upon the west-lane on the western side, and
upon Reding-meade aforesaid on the eastern side.
“Another close called Bandelonds lying between the close called
Swanne lease and Three acres on the northern side, and a close called
Downes on the southern side, and one head abutting upon a close
called Abbot’s-lease, and upon the Green-lane or Kingefelde-green on
the eastern side, and upon the close of Notting-barnes on the western
side.
They are worth £4.”
The following memorandum is added to this description:—
“Mem.—_That the rent of the premises is paid to the bayliffe of
Chelsey albeit it lyith nother within Town nor parisshe of Chelsey
but within the parisshe of Paddington_, _ij myle from Chelsey_. What
mynes, leade, or other commodytes ar apon the premisses I know not.
The same are no parcel of th’ auncyent demeans of the Crown, or of
the Duches of Lanc. or Cornewall, the Quene hath no more lond in
Paddyngton but only these iiij closes.
Ex. per me Alexandrum Hewes superius.”
“xiii mo. of Maie 1557 Rated for Mr. Hues one of the Quenes mties
phicisions.
“The clere yerely value of the premesises iiii li whiche rated at
xxvi yeres purchace ammountethe to ciiij li.
“The money to be paid in hand viz before the xxvi of Maie 1557. The
King and Quenes ma.. do dischardge the purchacer of all thinges and
incumbraunces made or don by their majesties except leases. The
purchacer to have the ’ssues from the fest of Th’ annuncyation of our
Lady last past. The purchaser to discharge the King and Quenes
majesties of all fees and reprises goying out of the premisses. The
tenure in socage. The purchacer to be bound for the woodes. The
leade and belles to be excepted.
Ex. Willm Petre. Fraunceis Inglefield. Jo Bakere.”
These were the closes in Paddington then, which belonged to Lord Sands;
and it will be seen by this memorandum, and by the patent, that although
this land was considered a part of Chelsea manor, it was no part of
Chelsea parish at that time. {39}
In 1536, Lord Sands alienated the advowson of Chelsea and his manor of
Chelsea to the King, in exchange for other lands. By the words of this
transfer, which is printed from the original document in Faulkner’s
Chelsea, {40} we find, that the hereditaments conveyed to the King lay
“in the parish of Chelcheth aforesaid and Paddington.” And in “A
peticular booke of Chelsey manor 1554,” relative to the possessions of
Queen Katherine, we find these four closes “in Paddington,” mentioned as
having been then let at four pounds per annum, to Henry White.
Faulkner speaks of the transfer of the manor of Chelsea to Edward the
sixth by the Duke of Northumberland, and of other surrenders backwards
and forwards; but neither in his works nor in Lysons can I find anything
about Dr. Thomas Hues’ purchase; or one word about his gift to Merton.
Neither can I find any notice of this liberal bequest in any of the
Histories of the University of Oxford which I have examined.
What “arrangement,” then has been come to respecting this property? Are
any learned fellows or poor scholars benefitted by this physician’s
bequest? Or, is this estate like the other portion of the Lady
Margaret’s gift, safely lodged in private hands?
I must confess that I am not able to answer these questions.
But it would appear that the large and valuable estates bequeathed by the
Countess of Richmond and Dr. Hues do not include the whole of the
“College Land” in Paddington.
Lysons in his Environs, and Chalmers in his History of the University of
Oxford, tell us that the Manor of Malurees, “consisting of some houses
and about one hundred and twenty acres of land,” situated in the parishes
of Willesden, Paddington, Chelsea, and Fulham, was surrendered by Thomas
Chichele to King Henry the sixth, who granted it to the Warden and
Fellows of All Souls College in Oxford; and this grant has not been
wholly lost to this College, for I believe that down to the present day a
rent is paid to All Souls for some portion of this land.
One of the most important preliminaries to the great Reformation was the
institution of a new valuation of church property.
The King and people, saw how inefficiently Pope Nicholas’s taxation
represented the value of church property in the sixteenth century, for if
it had not progressed in value in the same proportion as other property,
still the difference between the values in Edward and Henry’s time, was
very considerable; and it required no conjuror to tell that the clergy
had ceased to pay their fair quota towards the national expenditure.
Yet the difference between the Pope’s valuation and the reforming King’s,
is far less than the actual value of church property in Queen Victoria’s
reign and that which is entered on “the King’s books.” It is true that
the clergy are now taxed differently from what they were before the
Reformation; and that “the first fruits and tenths” no longer go into the
national exchequer. But “the Queen’s bounty” would find the benefit of a
valuation taken in our Queen’s reign; and if this payment of first fruits
and tenths was anything like what it pretended to be, the whole of the
first year’s income, and the tenth of all future years, those who
dispense that bounty would not have to be so parsimonious in their
assistance to the poorer clergy.
To the Record Commission we owe the publication of that valuation which
was taken by King Henry the eighth, as well as that taken by Pope
Nicholas the fourth.
In addition to the quotation I have already given from the former
valuation, the following entries are to be found in it relative to
Paddington:—
Officium Saccristi Westm’
MIDD’.
_£_ _s._ _d._
Rector’ de Padington ,, 46 8
Officium Elemosinar’ Westm’
MIDD’.
Valet in bosc’ apud Padington coibus annis „ 20 „
Officium Custod’ Capelle Beate Marie
MIDD’.
Vendic’ bosc’ apud Padington coibs annis ,, 20 ,,
Novum Opus Westm’
Maneriu de Padington „ 19 „
The year after this survey was taken, all monasteries, priories, and
other religious houses, whose possessions did not amount to two hundred
pounds per annum, were given by the twenty-seventh of Henry the eighth,
chap. 28, with all their manors, lands, &c. to the King and his heirs for
ever.
By this Act, the lands belonging to Kilbourn Priory became the property
of the crown; and in the following year these lands were exchanged to Sir
William Weston, the prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, for
the manor of Paris Garden in Southwark. The twenty-eighth of Henry the
eighth, chap. 21, which recites the indenture relative to this exchange,
states that the demesne lands of the said priory were “in Kylbourne
aforesaid, Hamstedd, Padyngton and Westbourn.” And besides these demesne
lands, other lands and wood, with “one woode conteynying by estimation
twenty-nine acres,” are also said to be “set and beynge in Kylborne and
Padyngton aforsayde.” So that it would appear the nuns of Kilbourn as
well as the monks of Westminster had possessions in this parish.
By the thirty-first of Henry the eighth, chap. 13, the larger monasteries
shared the same fate as the smaller ones had done, and the Abbey lands of
this place, and those formerly belonging to the priory, reverted again to
the crown.
In the account which was rendered to the King by the ministers appointed
to receive the revenues which came to the crown on the dissolution of
Religious Houses, we find the value of the other church property in this
parish, set down thus:—
_£_ _s._ _d._
Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne Firm’ Terr’ 2 6 8
Knyghtebrydge, Kensyngton et Firm’ 5 14 11
Westbourne
Pquis Cur 0 6 4½
I have extracted this account from the Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i,
page 326, where these sums are repeated thus:—
_£_ _s._ _d._
Maniu de Knyghtebridge et Westbourne Firm’ 2 6 8
Terr’
Westborne, Knightsbridge et Kensington Man 5 14 11
Redd et Firm
Pquis Cur 6 8½
But the Crown had other possessions in Paddington besides those which
fell to it by the suppression of Religious Houses.
We have already seen that Henry the eighth obtained land here by exchange
and purchase, from Lord Sands, Thomas Hobson, John Dunnington, and Robert
White.
We have also seen that those lands which were purchased of Lord Sands and
Robert White by the crown were sold to Dr. Hues, and given by him with
other lands to Martyn College, Oxford.
Some part of those lands purchased of John Dunnington went to increase
the park made by Henry the eighth, viz. Hyde Park; but what became of the
remainder I have not been able to discover.
What Henry the eighth did with the manor and rectory of Paddington will
be seen by the following translation of a portion of a legal instrument
still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride. {43}
“Inrolments of Leases 35. 36. Henry VIII. P. 65.
“On the seventh of January, in the thirty-second year of his reign,
the King, by an indenture and release, bearing that date, did, by the
advice and counsel of the court, for augmenting the revenues of his
crown, demise, grant and farm let, to Edward Baynton, knight, _and
Isabella his wife_, all the site and capital messuage of the manor of
Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, and all houses, edifices,
barns, stables, dovecotes, orchards, gardens and curtilages adjacent
to the said site and capital messuage. And also all lands, meadows,
pastures, commons, and hereditaments, commonly called the demesne
lands of the manor aforesaid; and another messuage and tenement with
appurtenances in the tenure of Edward North, esquire, situate and
being in Padyngton, in the county aforesaid. And all lands, manors,
feedings, pastures, commons, and hereditaments whatsoever in
Padyngton in the county aforesaid to the said messuage and tenement
belonging and appertaining, or with the messuage and tenement
occupied and being. Also all the rectory of Padyngton in the said
county of Middlesex; and all and every tenth, oblation, profit,
commodity, and emolument whatsoever to the said rectory in any sort
belonging or appertaining; which said manor, rectory, messuage,
lands, tenements, etcetera, were part of the possessions of the late
dissolved monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and which were
formerly let to the aforesaid Edward North, for a term of years; but
excepting always and reserving for our Lord the King, his heirs and
successors, all large trees and wood of and upon the premises growing
and being, to have and to hold all and singular the premises above
specified with their appurtenances, except as before expressed, to
Edward and Isabella, and their assigns, from the feast of the
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, next following, until the
end of the term, and for a term of twenty one years next following
and fully completed; rendering thence annually to our Lord the King,
his heirs and successors, forty-one pounds, six-shillings and eight
pence, legal English money, at the feasts of St. Michael the
Archangel, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or within
one month after the said feasts, in equal portions, to the court
aforesaid, during the time aforesaid, &c., &c.”
This indenture and release, which, so far as I know, has not been noticed
before, and which certainly is not spoken of in any of the private Acts
of Parliament relating to the manor and rectory of Paddington, is recited
at length in another indenture and release, which _is_ generally referred
to, which was made and dated the twenty-first day of December, in the
thirty-fifth year of Henry’s reign. The manor and rectory of Paddington,
and that other “messuage and tenement with appurtenances in the tenure of
Edward North, esquire,” being by it demised to Richard Rede, of London,
Salter, for a new term of twenty-one years. The large trees and wood, as
was usual in such cases, being again reserved for the uses of the crown.
We have already seen by the entries in the Valor Ecclesiasticus, taken by
order of this King, that in the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign,
twenty shillings per annum, half the rental of the wood spoken of in this
indenture, which was then thirty acres in extent, was set apart for
charitable purposes; that the other half was appropriated to the Blessed
Mary’s Chapel; that the manor, bringing in nineteen pounds per annum, was
dedicated to “the New Work,” probably Henry the seventh’s chapel; that
the rectory was valued to the Abbey at two pounds, six shillings and
eight-pence; that the tenement formerly belonging to the Countess of
Richmond was valued at ten pounds; and that the lands at Knightsbridge
and Westbourne were valued at eight pounds, one shining and seven-pence.
We see, also, the possessions in Paddington formerly belonging to the
church produced the same rent within one shilling and seven-pence, as
these lands were valued at six years before. {44}
But the crown was not in receipt of these reserved rents more than three
or four years after Henry’s death; for his son, then about thirteen years
of age, by his letters patent, granted the manor of Paddington, with
several other manors and rectories, together, “of the clear annual value
of five hundred and twenty-six pounds, nineteen shillings, and nine-pence
farthing,” to Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and to his
successors in that see.
The following are the words in this patent which refer expressly to
Paddington—“Necnon totum illud Moneriu nrm de Paddington in dco com nro
Midd cum suis juribs membris et ptien univeis nup Monasteio Sci Petri
Westm modo dissolut dudam spectan et ptinen ac parell possessionu et
revencionu ejusdem nup Monastei dudam existen.”
Newcourt, in his Repertorium, page 703, says “The manor and rectory of
Paddington (which of old did belong to the Monastery of Westminster) were
by Edward the sixth, in the fourth year of his reign, upon his dissolving
the Bishoprick of Westminster then lately erected by King Henry the
eighth, given to Dr. Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and his
successors for ever.” From this one might imagine that Paddington had
formed part of the possessions of that short-lived see; which, indeed,
Lysons, in his Environs, and Mr. Brewer, in his “London and Middlesex,”
distinctly state, but of this I find no evidence whatever; and the words
of the patent itself, convey a different impression. There are in this
patent other places mentioned as having formed part of that see, but as
it will be observed, Paddington is stated to have formerly belonged to
the Monastery. It will be observed too, that the rectory is not
mentioned in the extract from the grant which I have given, neither do I
find it anywhere else alluded to, specially, as is the case with certain
other rectories given by this patent. But the spiritualities in all the
places named, appear to have been given in general terms to the Bishop.
When, with Newcourt, we use the word “given,” we must not do the advisers
of the young King the injustice to suppose that no reservation of the
rights of the crown was provided for in this open letter; that indeed
would be an injustice, for besides the payment of certain specified sums,
to certain specified persons and officers an annual rent equal to
one-fifth of the sum remaining to the Bishop was to be paid by him to the
King, at his Court of First Fruits and Tenths every Christmas day. Which
annual rent was in lieu of the first fruits and tenths paid by all
bishops and incumbents. {45}
In estimating the first fruits of the manors and rectories granted by the
crown to Ridley, at one-tenth of the income they brought in, no hard
bargain was struck with the bishop; indeed the calculation was evidently
favourable to the future occupants of the see. For not only did this
mode of receiving the first fruits do away with the inconvenience arising
from having to pay a whole year’s income at once, a system which
formerly, when these first fruits bore something like a resemblance to
the actual annual income, compelled many a poor man to mortgage his
living, and involve himself and family in endless difficulty, but it was
actually a bonus to the bishops; for those who made the calculation must
have known that the seven bishops who preceded Ridley held the See of
London but fifty-four years. {46a}
Intending, without doubt, to be liberal to the bishops, and at the same
time just to the crown, the calculation of the proper sum to be paid in
lieu of first fruits was made without any reference to the possible, or
probable, augmentation of the income from the lands then granted. The
advisers of the young King knew that with the assistance of parliament
fresh arrangements could be made with future occupants of the see; and
they fixed the sum to be paid to the crown at one hundred pounds per
annum, _as the then fair proportion for all the lands given by this
patent_.
This sum has been paid for these possessions ever since that time, as I
am informed, though the revenue they produce has increased upwards of
four thousand per cent.
Whatever was the intention of the advisers of the young king, however, in
this regard, one thing is pretty clear, viz. that Ridley, and several of
his successors, received from the manor and rectory of Paddington, not
forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence, the sum at which the
manor was then let, but that sum, minus one-fifth, deducted by the crown.
{46b}
Strype tells us {46c} that in exchange for the grants contained in this
patent the bishop gave up to the crown other lands to the annual value of
four hundred and eighty pounds, three shillings and ninepence, and Ridley
has been blamed for making this exchange; Strype, however, has well
defended him, and shewn that the see was in reality the gainer even at
the time the exchange was made; and if the present values of the
exchanged lands were compared I think it would be found that the
successors of Ridley had not lost by his bargain.
There is still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride, {47a} a
manuscript record which shews that Henry Rede held the manor of
Paddington in the ninth year of Elizabeth’s reign. The reserved rent
being as before, forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence. But the
wood was not included even in this second lease to Rede, supposing he had
one; for we are informed by this document that the rent was increased
twenty shillings, “for the farm of one wood called Paddington Wood, thus
demised this year.” {47b} And this omission does not appear to have been
accidental, for I found in another manuscript in the same office {47c} a
memorandum dated November 26th, 1561, to this effect: “To speak to Mr.
Barton touching a certain wood at Paddington.” So that the mode of
disposing of this wood had evidently been under consideration.
The following is the account of the descent of the manor of Paddington
given by Lysons:—
“The manor of Paddington was leased in the reign of Henry the eighth
to Richard Reade for a long term, which being expired, Bishop Abbot
demised it in the year 1626, (together with the capital mansion and
rectory) to Sir Rowland St. John, fifth son of Oliver Lord St. John,
of Bletsoe), for the lives of himself, his wife Sibyl, and their son
Oliver. Sir Rowland, died in 1645. The next year a survey of the
manor was taken by order of Parliament; which states the demesne
lands to have been six hundred and twenty-four acres, the reserved
rent forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight-pence. The great
house in which Sir Rowland St. John had lived was then in the
occupation of Alderman Bide. The manor was afterwards sold by the
Parliamentary Commissioners to Thomas Browne, esquire. After the
restoration (in the month of January, 1661), Oliver St. John, the
only survivor in the lease (then a baronet), died without having
renewed; upon which the estate fell in to Bishop Sheldon, who granted
it to his nephews Sir Joseph Sheldon, knight, and Daniel Sheldon,
esquire. The lease continued for several years in that family, being
renewed from time to time. In the year 1741, it was purchased by Sir
John Frederick, baronet, and is now vested in Sir John Morshead,
baronet, and Robert Thistlethwayte, esquire, in right of their wives,
Elizabeth and Selina, daughters and co-heirs of Sir Thomas Frederick,
baronet, deceased, and grand-daughters of Sir John Frederick.”
We have already seen that Alderman Rede’s lease was not the original one
granted by King Henry; and there are other additions, and corrections
required to make the statement above quoted strictly correct.
Both the manor, and rectory, of Paddington were held by the citizen’s
family “for a long term,” although their first lease was but for
twenty-one years; for I find no mention of any other lessees till the
reign of Charles the first. I think it probable, however, that Sir
Rowland St. John, to whom it was leased in that reign, held it in the
reign of James the first; for in the eighteenth year of this reign I find
him charged on the subsidy roll twenty pounds for Land in Paddington.
An ancestor of Sir Rowland St. John was related to the Countess of
Richmond, was appointed her chamberlain, and one of the executors of her
will.
The mother of Sir Rowland, lady Dorothy, was the only daughter and heir
of Sir John Rede of Oddington, in Gloucestershire; and it was through
her, as I suppose, that the Paddington lease came into this family of St.
John.
It was Bishop Mountayne who leased the manor of Paddington to Sir Rowland
St. John, in 1626, and not Bishop Abbot, as stated by Lysons; for George
Abbot was bishop of London only a few months, and was translated to
Canterbury in 1611. I learn from the survey to which Lysons has
referred, but which I think he could not have examined for himself, that
the lease granted by Bishop Mountayne was dated the twenty-fourth of
November, 1626, the second year of Charles the first, the reserved rent
for the manor only, being forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight
pence; the wood of thirty acres before referred to, being now separately
leased for forty shillings per annum; and besides the payment of this
increased rent, the lessee was bound by this lease to find the surveyor
and steward of the said Lord Bishop, “with provision for man and horse
during the holding of his court upon the premises.” At the time this
parliamentary survey was taken, the rectory, “excepting the parsonage
house or houses,” with the great tithe, was held by John Lisle, one of
the Commissioners of the Great Seal; and it was separately valued at
twenty-eight pounds per annum.
The ordinance which was issued on the sixteenth of November, 1646, for
the sale of Bishops’ lands and estates for the service of the
Commonwealth, was followed by a valuation of these estates in England and
Wales; and from that valuation we learn the following particulars
relative to Paddington:—{49a}
TEMPORALITIES. _£_ _s._ _d._
Present rents and profits, per annum 44 1 8
Improvements above, per annum 1119 11 8
Timber, wood, &c., valuation in gross 362 6 8
RECTORY AND PARSONAGE.
Present value _nil_.
Future, per annum 35 0 0
On the fourteenth of December, 1649, “The manner of Paddington wth ye
appurten’ces” was sold to Thomas Browne for the sum of three thousand
nine hundred and fifty-eight pounds, seventeen shillings and four pence.
{49b}
How long Mr. Browne enjoyed the revenues of this manor, or what
arrangement was come to with respect to this particular purchase on the
re-establishment of the episcopacy, I do not know. Lysons informs us
that “by the parish accounts, it appears Thomas Browne, esquire, was lord
of the manor in 1657,” and it is very probable he continued so after the
prelacy was restored; but unfortunately these parish accounts are not now
to be found; otherwise more information on this subject, as well as many
others, might be obtained.
When Dr. Gilbert Sheldon was appointed to the bishoprick of London, after
the restoration, he claimed the manor, _and rectory_ of Paddington. If
he made his claim good, which he appears to have done, it is quite
evident that Sir Oliver St. John stood in his former position with regard
to this estate; and although he might not have had the opportunity to
renew his lease between the restoration and his death, which took place
in 1662, (and not in 1661, as is asserted both by Lysons and Collins vide
Peerage, vol. vi.), it is very evident from the directions given in his
will, which is dated twenty-eighth December, 1661, that he was desirous
of doing so.
I found Sir Oliver’s will at Doctor’s Commons; it was proved on the
twenty-eighth of June, 1662. He therein directs the sale of certain
estates for the purpose of paying his debts, and for enabling his
trustees to take another lease of the manor, “which he held of the Bishop
of London in Paddington” at that time, and the lease was to be taken
either for three lives, or for twenty-one years. But the new bishop had
nephews, to whom, it appears he was more willing to grant a lease of this
manor than to those whose ancestors had purchased it, and in whose family
it had remained for upwards of a century.
It would appear that Bishop Sheldon’s relatives received the profits of
the manor and rectory of Paddington for nearly eighty years; but Lysons
has made a mistake in stating the manor was purchased by Sir John
Frederick in 1741; for in the preamble of the first Act of Parliament
{50a} which I can find relative to these lands it is stated that a lease
bearing date the fifth of August, 1740, was granted by Edmund (Gibson),
then bishop of London, to Sir John Frederick, during the lives of Judith
Jodrell, widow; John Afflick; and John Crosier. {50b} This in all
probability was the date of Sir John Frederick’s first lease; and as this
may be considered the starting point in the modern history of the manor
and rectory of Paddington, now, _par excellence_, “The Paddington
Estate,” I shall reserve what more I have to say on this subject for a
future chapter.
On the ninth of November, in the thirty-eighth of Henry the eighth, an
inquisition was held on the property of Henry Horne, who was found to
have died, seized of “one capital messuage, three other messuages or
tenements, and one close of land containing by estimation six acres, with
appurtenances, in Paddington, which were holden of the lord king, as of
his manor of Paddington by fealty, and twelvepence rent for all services,
and not in chief; and they are worth by the year three pounds ten
shillings.” Escaet 38th Henry VIII.
In the second year of the sixth Edward, William Francis was found to have
died seised of “one messuage in Paddington, situated between the highway
called Watlyng-street, and beyond the eastern side of the pont called
Paddington pond; of two messuages called the Bridge-house, and of one
orchard to the said two messuages adjacent; of four tenements upon
Paddington-green; of one messuage called Blasers in Paddington aforesaid,
with a garden; of two acres of land; of one croft in Paddington
aforesaid; of half an acre lying between the tenements of Henry
Prowdfoot, late of London, mason, and the ponds there called Paddington
ponds on the south side, and the land late of John Colyns on the north
side, and abuts on the king’s highway called Watlyng-street on the east;
and the jurors find that the aforesaid messuages and other premises in
Paddington aforesaid are holden of Richard Rede of London, as of his
manor of Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, by fealty, and three
shillings rent for all issues and demands.” Escaet 2; Edw. 6. part 2.
No. 23.
Armigell Waad had licence to alien to Wm. Cecil, Knight, “A messuage and
one hundred and twenty acres of land in Kentish Town, Padintun, Hamstead,
and St. Pancras.” Pat. 5. Eliz. p. 7.
For these references I am indebted to Edlyne Tomlins, esq., and with the
exception of those already given, they are all I have been able to
procure relative to the estates of private holders of lands in olden
times; and of the more modern estates in Paddington I have not much to
say.
The names still retained by several plots of land point to their previous
owners. Desborough House; {51} Little Shaftsbury House, and Dudley
House, speak for themselves of their former occupants.
Denis Chirac, jeweller to Queen Anne, built a large house on
Paddington-green, which was called Paddington house. And by an entry in
the vestry minutes for May, 1821, I find he was admitted a tenant of the
manor on the twenty-fourth of April, 1753, and was permitted to inclose
the portion of the green in front of his house. This house was situated
at the east-side of the green, very near to the Harrow-Road, and the
piece of land enclosed was a narrow strip along the southern-side of the
old green.
Lysons tells us “Lord Craven has an estate in this parish called
Craven-hill, on which is a small hamlet very pleasantly situated;” and
that this nobleman “whose humane exertions during the dreadful
calamities, the great fire and plague of London, are so well known,
observing the difficulties which attended the burying of infected corpses
in 1665,” gave a piece of ground in the parish of St.
Martin’s-in-the-fields, east of Regent street, as a burial-place during
any future sickness. {52a} Carnaby market and other buildings, were
erected on this Craven estate, and Lysons adds, “when this ground was
covered with building, it was exchanged for a field upon the Paddington
estate, which, if London should ever be again visited by the plague, is
still subject to the said use.”
This land was not used, however, during the plague of 1848–49; and at the
present time a grand London-square, called Craven Gardens, alone
indicates the site of the Paddington pest-house field. This property
consisting of two messuages and nine acres of land was purchased by the
trustees of this charity-estate of one Jane Upton, widow, and her son,
with consent of the minor’s trustees, for fifteen hundred and seventy
pounds. {52b}
The poor inhabitants of the parishes of St. Clement’s Danes, St.
Martin’s-in-the-fields, St. James’s, Westminster, and St. Paul’s, Covent
Garden, were to be specially benefitted by these houses and this land.
But I must refer those who wish to know more of this charity to the
private acts concerning it.
Mr Orme, formerly a print-seller in Bond-street, purchased property west
of Craven-hill. Mr. Neild is the lessee of all the land claimed by the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster in this parish; and is said to have
purchased land in and near Paddington, of the descendants of Dr. Busby.
A Mr. White now owns land at Westbourn; the Grand Junction Canal Company;
the Grand Junction Water Works Company; and the Great Western Railway
Company, are large proprietors. Many pieces of land have been given, and
purchased for charitable uses; and in 1852 no less than fifty persons
claimed to be registered as county voters for freehold land held by them
in Paddington.
It is not, however, the object of this work to exhibit the title deeds of
private owners of land in this parish; or to record all the names of the
owners of the soil; neither would I have it thought that I wish to
constitute myself a judge of the value of those claims which have been
set up by corporations, aggregate, or sole. But the rights of a whole
people cannot be set aside by the single fact of possession; neither can
individuals be permitted much longer to enrich themselves, and their
immediate relatives, by applying to their own uses the proceeds of lands
consecrated to the people.
COMMONS AND WASTE.
Commons originally were those lands which had not been brought into
cultivation by the spade and the plough, over which, all who used the
spade and the plough had certain rights in common. When the rights of
the people over the soil were more limited by the law, there was attached
to every portion of arable land a certain portion of waste, over which
these common rights extended; and these lands were as much, in
proportion, the property of the poorest occupier as of the richest
holder. Commons have also been defined to be “wastes and pastures which
have never been exclusively appropriated by any individual, but used in
common by the inhabitants of a parish or district.”
In Paddington, the commons were in more senses than one, “commons without
stint,” for they were not only used by the inhabitants all the year
round, but the quantity assigned was, for centuries, amply sufficient for
all their wants; and these commons in Paddington were not confined to
that “_universal right_” called “commons appendant,” for the people here
had the right of taking the material from the neighbouring wood, for
their fire as well as for the repair of their houses, carts, and hedges.
To those who had obtained the lordship of the soil, the preservation of
these commonable rights was of much less importance than to the people,
for that which was gained by the labourers’ toil from the waste, and the
wood, went to increase the domains of the lord, or to enrich some private
owner. To the lords, the Roman law which “considered the individual
member of the state,” was much more inviting than the ancient law of
England, which “based itself upon the family bond.”
The better to secure individual rights, so acquired, the cultivated land
was enclosed. But this enclosure of lands proceeded so rapidly that the
rights of all the poor in England, those who could not find means to
enclose, were in danger of being annihilated. The state was at length
compelled to interfere, and the law provided that enough commonable land
should be left in each manor to provide for the fulfilment of the usual
commonable rights; and at the time of an enclosure it was, as it still
is, the custom when the poor had the right of gathering their fuel from
the waste and wood, and of turning their live stock on the common, to set
apart a portion of the land for their uses, as a compensation for the
loss of those rights.
Where the allotment for the poor of Paddington was situated; when it was
set apart; or what was its extent, I have not been able to discover from
any positive evidence now existing; but my impression is that the little
piece of _charity land_ remaining in Westbourn indicates the site of a
much more extensive portion of the common field which was set apart for
the uses of the poor.
It is a popular notion that the lord of the manor is entitled to the
waste, but this is by no means the case in every manor. In the
neighbouring manor of Abbot’s Kensington, we find that “the commons” were
“presented” with “Notting-hill, the waste by the highways, and the Gravel
Pits,” as lately as 1672; {54a} and in the ancient manors of Tybourn and
Lilestone, there was pasture for the cattle of the villagers, and the
fruits of the wood for their hogs. {54b}
The usual proportion given to the lord for his right in the soil is
one-sixteenth. {54c} Whether the lords of the Paddington soil were
content with this proportion we need not enquire. We know that their
demesne lands have extended far beyond their original dimensions; and
there is very little doubt that the land of the poor diminished as the
lord’s land increased. Other individual holders, too, have carved out
for themselves portions of that which was set aside for purely public
purposes, but the great delinquents have been the lords of the
manors—“those relics of feudal slavery and mediaeval barbarism;” and
these before long will be known only in history.
It is true that waste land, and a common field existed in Paddington down
to a recent date; and it is equally true, that some kind of right over
this land was acknowledged to be vested in the inhabitants of this
parish; for as we shall presently see, when this right was found to
interfere with the designs of the lords and their lessees, a portion of
it was bargained for and sold.
The common field appears to have existed on each side of the Westbourn,
extending, with the poor allotment, from that which is now called the
Uxbridge-road to a considerable distance north and east; the portion on
the western side the stream being called the Westbourn, or Bayswater,
field; the portion on the eastern side, the Town field, corrupted into
“Downes?”
On the Paddington side, all that remained of the common waste was the
Village-green; and for this the villagers must have had the greatest
affection. It was _their_ Home-field; on it their forefathers had made
merry, and here they had trodden by hereditary right. Yes by hereditary
right! And seeing that the title of the noble has descended by law to
his feeble son, and the estates of the frugal man to his spendthrift
heir; how highly must the people of Paddington appreciate that justice
which has preserved to them so magnificent a portion of their ancestors
possessions! {55a}
Unfortunately for the reputation of the past there are but few places to
be found where the rights of the weak have not been most shamefully
encroached upon by the strong; and the little village of Paddington
affords not the least remarkable example of these glaring defects in the
working of “our glorious constitution.”
Here, as elsewhere, might has usurped the place of right; cunning has
lent a helping hand, and documents which would the most plainly bear
witness to this fact have been destroyed. However, the one great fact
that “land has been lost” remains to speak for itself; and the “eternal
remedy” will assuredly come sooner or later, although the wronged be now
cast down, and the wrong doer walk so seemingly secure.
“The blessings which civilization and philosophy” have brought with them
have been undoubtedly a great benefit to the poor as well as to the rich;
and one of the most powerful writers of the present day has thought it
necessary to point out how those benefits offer a compensation for the
loss of many ancient rights and privileges. {55b} But civilization and
philosophy are not content with their past or present doings, for there
are many civilized people, and philosophers too, who believe the present
arrangements give the lion’s share of those benefits to the rich; and
there are those who believe that present enactments are so unwise as to
facilitate the accumulation of riches by the least deserving members of
the state. Further “_compensation_,” therefore, they believe to be
necessary, if the blessings which civilization and philosophy are
destined to work out in the beneficent decrees of universal lore and
justice are to be of present use to the people.
The tales told of the robberies of public property in Paddington are more
fitted for the pages of a romance or a novel, than a sober history. And
as to these robberies in Paddington, the dramatist, the novelist, and the
writers of romance, have done much more than the historian to expose and
correct the vices of the past.
One of Mr. Charles Ollier’s novels {56a} contains so many allusions to
this place, that the reader is obliged to believe the elucidation of its
history formed one of the chief objects of the writer.
And if the incidents connected with Paddington Green and its
neighbourhood had not been more melo-dramatic than farcical, one might
have imagined that the little farce {56b} in which Mr. Buckstone lately
delighted the Haymarket audiences had some reference to this place.
Let those who believe the villagers’ green to be the least altered place
in Paddington, turn to Chatelain’s beautiful little delineation of it, as
it appeared to him in 1750, or to a larger print published in 1783. {56c}
“Linney” would as soon find out his “eight acres,” if he could now pay us
a visit, as would the present inhabitants of this place discover any
likeness of that which was, to that which now is, Paddington Green.
In 1783, the enclosed green included all that land which extends from its
present eastern extremity to Dudley-house on the west; that is to say,
all the present Green, and all the land south of the pathway, from the
Green to St. Mary’s Terrace; and from the Harrow-road across this green
there was a public foot path to the church, the old church-yard and some
houses.
From Chatelain’s print we see that the Green, though not enclosed so far
westward in 1750, extended northward to the old Church-yard, including
the land on which the houses on the north side of Paddington-Green have
been built. A large pond existed on the Green at that date, which was
drained into another, south of the Harrow-road, and as many of the
present inhabitants know, it has not been filled up many years. {57a}
And between these ponds, to command the road from Harrow, the people
erected, during the Commonwealth, one of those detached ramparts which
they built up by the side of every entrance into the capital, as a sign
of their determination to protect the liberties of England from the
advance of that tyranny which they had driven out, and which they
determined never again to endure. {57b}
Although the Green has wasted to its present dimensions, and although the
“commons and waste,” in Paddington have vanished, the following notices,
which I have found on the minutes of the Vestry, will shew that the
parish has received _some_ compensation for the inclosure of certain
pieces of waste, besides those purchased by the bishop and his lessees:—
_Extracts from the Vestry Minutes_.—1794, September twenty-second: at a
meeting of the inhabitants, held this day, Mrs. L. le Brown, of
Black-lion lane, was permitted to fill up a ditch and enclose the space
of ___ feet by ___ feet, upon condition of paying ten shillings per annum
to the parish.
At the same meeting, Mr. Crompton presented the parish with two plans,
one of the entire parish, the other of the waste and charity lands; both
appear to have been taken in 1772, by Mr. Waddington, land surveyor.
{57c}
1795, March 11th: Resolved that the parish do accept the offer of the
lessees of fifteen pounds per annum, as a compensation for the waste
belonging to the parish included in the bill now pending in Parliament,
provided the public and private roads are left of the usual breadth
prescribed by law.
1801. July 15th: Mr. Cockerell applied to enclose part of the waste of
Westbourne green, north and east of the Harrow-road, and agreed to place
in the hands of the trustees enough money to produce a dividend of three
pounds per annum.
On the eleventh of November, in the same year, Mr. White proposed to
transfer one hundred pounds to the names of trustees, for the use of the
poor, for permission to enclose a piece of land near the Harrow-road and
by the side of the canal. The permission was granted.
Mr. Kelly also made an application for another piece, but it was resolved
that, “as it would have a tendency to establish a precedent for the
indiscriminate alienation of the waste, this application cannot
consistently with the interests of the parish be complied with.”
1802, October 20th: Mr. Harper is allowed to enclose a piece of waste,
the quantity not stated; but the rent to be three pounds per annum, per
acre. {58}
In this year four hundred pounds were paid by Mr. Cockerell, and one
hundred pounds by Mr. White, for the land they had enclosed.
1803, April 12th: the Parish apply to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster
for a piece of waste near Westbourn-green, on the south side of the
Harrow-road. The application refused. The minutes of the same month,
twentieth—notice that the Bishop of London and his lessees had refused to
allow the parish to enclose that portion of the Bayswater field belonging
to the parish.
1812, September 1st: Mr. Hicks is allowed to enclose a piece of waste,
440 feet long, by 25 feet in breadth, extending from the Uxbridge-road
along the south and west side of Black Lion lane; and this he is
permitted to do without payment, in consequence of the services he has
rendered to the parish for forty years.
In September, 1818, there is a letter from George Gutch, on behalf the
Grand Junction Canal Company, to ask leave to fill up part of the pond to
make a street from the north Wharf-road, which the Vestry agreed to,
provided a slip of land, 116 feet long, by 13 feet 6 inches north and 12
feet south, adjoining the Alms’ houses, be given to the Parish by the
Company.
In 1825, forty-eight pounds, six shillings and six-pence was paid by Mr.
Jenkins, for permission to enclose a piece of waste land near his
grounds.
When Mr. Jenkins’s land was sold, the parish attempted to establish their
claim to this waste, but the claim set up by the bishop of London and his
lessees, as lords of the manor superseded it.
There is a notice on the minutes this year for the first time respecting
the interference of the lords of the manor in the disposal of the waste
lands. But although these lords at this time claimed for themselves “its
entire control,” the vestry, nevertheless, gave their permission to Mr.
Orme to enclose a piece opposite his land, near the second milestone on
the Harrow road. No mention is made of money paid on this occasion.
As late as 1830 an application from Mr. Nield was laid before the vestry,
for pieces of waste adjoining property leased to and purchased by him;
and on the seventh of June in the following year, the Rev. chairman
reported “that Joseph Neild, Esq., M.P. had paid to the treasurer the
following sums for waste lands:”
No. 1. Braithwaites’ 152 10 0 Consols.
Executors
,, 2. Open Waste, adjoining 30 12 6
Chelsea Reach
,, 3. Open Waste in front 10 17 6
of Williams’ Field
£203 0 0
What took place with respect to the waste lands previous to 1794, there
is, unfortunately, now no means of telling, for no vestry minutes are to
be found previous to 1793.
CHAPTER IV.
CHARITY LANDS.
THE question “What has become of the Charity Lands?” which has been so
often asked in other parishes, has been occasionally put to those in
authority in this; but so far as I can discover, no satisfactory answer
has been returned—unless indeed we may deem it satisfactory to hear “that
charity has been so little needed here, that much of that land which was
given for this purpose, has been lost.”
In the “Abstract of the returns of charitable donations for the benefit
of poor persons, made to the House of Commons, by the ministers and
churchwardens of the several parishes and townships in England and Wales,
1786 to 1788,” we find the following answers returned by the minister and
churchwardens of Paddington:
Name of the person who gave the charity?
1—Unknown.
2—Margaret Robinson, and Thomas Johnson.
3—Dr. Henry Compton.
When given?
1—Unknown.
2—Unknown.
3—Uncertain.
Whether by will or deed?
1—Uncertain.
2—Unknown.
2—Deed.
Description of the charity, and for what purpose given?
1—For bread, cheese and beer to the inhabitants.
2—For apprenticing poor children.
3—To the poor.
Whether land or money?
1—Land.
2—Ditto.
3—Ditto.
In whom now vested?
All in the churchwardens.
The clear annual produce of that given in land, after deducting the rents
issuing thereout?
_£_ _s._ _d._
1 21 „ „
2 4 10 „
3 70 „ „
Almost all is “unknown” and “uncertain,” in this Return, and this is the
more to be lamented, as it was about the time at which this report was
made that the value of land in Paddington began to be known by those who
intended to secure the sanction of the legislature to a measure which
would enhance its value.
Since that time, the “Report of the Commissioners for enquiring
concerning Charities,” (1826), has been published, and some little light
has been thrown on this subject.
This report contains, in fact, almost all that I have been able to
discover relative to the Charity Lands; and I cannot do better than
reprint it in this place; adding what little information I have been able
to obtain.
“The parish officers of Paddington were unable to produce any deeds
or other original documents relative to the charitable funds of this
parish; but they laid before us the minutes of vestry, in which under
date the twelfth of April, 1803, is an entry stating that the vestry
clerk produced an account of the estates, &c. belonging to the
parish, written on vellum; and also several extracts from wills and
other documents relative to the titles of the said estates, which
were compared and examined with the said account by the vestry; and
it appearing that such account was correct, it was resolved that the
same be hung up in the vestry-room, and that a copy thereof be
entered upon and taken as part of the minutes of the vestry; and
which was so entered accordingly.”
The account referred to, was made out by the late vestry clerks, Messrs.
Robertson and Parton, both of whom are since dead.
From the account so entered on the vestry minutes the following statement
of the charities is chiefly taken:
Bread and Cheese Lands.
The lands thus denominated are said to have been given by two maiden
gentlewomen, for the purpose of supplying the poor with a donation of
bread and cheese, on the Sunday before Christmas. Neither the names of
the donors, nor the date of the gift is known, but it is a very ancient
one. The land consists of three parcels, viz.
1.—A piece of arable land lying in the common field, called Bayswater
field, in this parish, containing two and a half acres, in the occupation
(at the time of taking the account) of John Harper, Esq., at the rent of
five guineas per annum. This piece was formerly called Five Pieces, and
afterwards Three Pieces; it is now divided into two holdings; one, being
one and a half acres, is let to Samuel Cheese, as tenant from year to
year, at a rent of thirteen pounds; the remainder to Thomas Hopgood, as
tenant from year to year, at the rent of four pounds ten shillings.
This land lies intermixed with lands respectively belonging to the Dean
and Chapter of Westminster, and the Bishop of London; and there is a
dispute existing among these parties as to the boundaries of their
respective properties. The parish claim an acre as belonging to
Hopgood’s holding, but they take from the tenant rent for half an acre
only, till the dispute be settled. {62}
2.—Another piece of land (formerly two), containing one acre, two roods,
and twenty-four perches, lying on the southwest side of the Harrow road
at Westbourne Green, and forming part of the lawn and grounds belonging
to Westbourne-place, the property of Samuel Pepys Cockerell, Esq. This
land, at the time of taking the account, was held by Mr. Cockerell at the
annual rent of seven pounds. It has since been demised to him by the
churchwardens and overseers, in pursuance of an order of vestry, together
with a small piece of waste land lying between the above and the road,
containing one acre and seven perches, which he has enclosed and added to
his lawn; making together one acre, three roods, and thirteen perches,
for a term of sixty-three years from Christmas, 1805, at the annual rent
of fifteen pounds.
This lease is granted in consideration of the surrender of a former
lease, and of the charge which the lessee had been at in inclosing and
cultivating the said piece of waste land, and of the sum of money paid by
him to the parish on account of such inclosure; and it is provided that
the lessee shall keep up the nine stones, or land-marks, marked P. P. in
the places where they now stand, to ascertain the boundaries of the land;
and that if the land, or any part of it, or any part of the lawn or
grounds adjoining to it on the west and south, and within thirty yards of
the same, should, at any time during the term, be let for and used as
building ground, it shall be lawful for the churchwardens and overseers
for the time being, with the consent of the vestry, to determine the
lease at the expiration of any one year of the said term, upon giving six
months’ notice in writing.
3.—Another piece of meadow or pasture land, lying near Black Lion lane,
in this parish, containing one acre or thereabouts, in the occupation of
William Kinnard Jenkins, Esq., under a lease to Jacob Simmonds, for
sixty-three years, from Christmas, 1802, at the rent of eight pounds,
eight shillings per annum.
This lease appears from the vestry minutes to have been granted to Mr.
Simmonds, in consideration of his covenanting to lay out the sum of three
hundred pounds at least in building on the land, and to contain a
reservation of all timber, with power for the grantors, (who are the
churchwardens and overseers of the parish) and their successors, to fell
and carry away the same, and to restrain the lessees from digging
brick-earth, sand, or gravel for sale, or from carrying such earth, sand,
gravel or bricks off the land.
Simmonds built a good house upon the premises, which have been materially
improved by the present tenant. Much more than the stipulated sum has
been expended there.
It appears to us that all the foregoing rents are adequate to the present
value of the respective premises.
With the rents of this land it was formerly the custom to purchase bread
and cheese, which, on the Sunday before Christmas, were thrown down from
the church among the poor assembled in the church-yard. Latterly, a less
objectionable mode of distribution has been adopted: bread and coals are
now given by the minister and parish officers to poor families inhabiting
the parish, of whom a list is made out annually for the churchwardens,
stating their residence and occupation, and the number of children under
ten years of age: and we are assured that much care is taken in selecting
those to receive this gift who are most deserving. One or two four-pound
loaves, and one or two bushels of coals are given to each family,
according to the number it consists of. No distinction is made between
parishioners, and unsettled resident poor, nor between such as do not
receive parochial relief.
Johnson’s Charity.
The account above referred to mentions a rent-charge of one pound a-year,
given by Thomas Johnson, merchant-tailor, of London, issuing out of three
houses on the east side of Paddington Green, and payable on St.
Thomas’s-day in every year, in the following proportions:—
Out of a house in the occupation of the Rev. „ 10 „
Basil Wood
Ditto in the occupation of Benjamin Edward „ 5 „
Hall, esq.
Ditto in the occupation of Miss Morel „ 5 „
It is not stated when this benefaction was given, nor to what purposes it
was appropriated.
In the returns of 1786, it is said that this, and Mrs. Robertson’s
benefaction after mentioned were given for apprenticing poor children;
but they are not now so applied. It appears indeed that Johnson’s
rent-charge goes into the churchwarden’s general account, and it is not
the subject of any particular application. This seems to have arisen
from inadvertence, as it is understood to have been a charitable gift;
and we are assured that it shall in future be corrected.
Dr. Compton’s Charity.
There is a copyhold estate in the Harrow-road, held of the manor of
Paddington, and which is stated in the account to have been the gift of
Dr. Compton, bishop of London, lord of the said manor, by the description
of “one cottage and a piece of land.”
The estate now consists of six houses: one of these is at present
occupied as a poor house, the rest are let and occupied in the following
manner:—
_£_ _s._ _d._
1.—A public house, called the 28 „ „
“Running-horse,” held by Robert
Cuthbertson, under a lease granted to
Robert Hullah, for twenty-one years, from
lady-day, 1806, at the rent of
In 1802, the rent was £14. It is a very old house, but to be let as
a public-house its value would be considerably beyond the present
rent, if it were out of lease.
The value of public-houses is rather of a fluctuating nature; but
even for any other mode of occupation, it seems probable that a few
pounds more a year might be obtained.
2.—A house in the possession of Thomas 16 ,, „
Seabrook, as tenant from year to year, at
the rent of
The rent of this house also, in 1802, was £14. It is a very old
house, and the present rent seems a fair one.
3 and 4.—Two houses in the respective 32 ,, „
occupation, in 1802, of Joseph Mansell, and
John Dyke, one at the rent of £11, and the
other of £14; now on lease to Mr. William
Smith, for twenty-one years, from Lady-day,
1806, at the rent of
The lease is stated to have been granted in consideration of the
costs and expenses which the said William Smith had been put to in
enlarging and repairing the messuages.
5.—A house in the occupation of Mr. John 30 ,, ,,
Bucquet, as tenant from year to year, at
the rent of
The occupier has laid out money in repairing these premises. The
house is stated in the account to have been intended to be leased as
a school-house for the charity-children, and in fact a schoolroom was
built in the garden belonging to it; but the charity-school has now
been established in another part of the parish, and this room has
been annexed to the sixth messuage now used as a workhouse.
£106 „ ,,
It does not appear from “the account” what specific application was
directed to be made of this property by Dr. Compton. The rents are now
applied, under a recent resolution of the vestry, towards the maintenance
of the charity-school in this parish. Before this resolution, the rents
were carried to the overseers’ general account, and an annual sum of
fifty-pounds was paid by the parish towards the maintenance of the
charity-school. The school is large containing two hundred or three
hundred children. The expense of it far exceeds the amount of all the
rents now applied to its support.
Successive admissions are found on the court-rolls of the manor of
Paddington, of certain parishioners as tenants of this and the other
copyhold property mentioned below, to the use of them, their heirs and
assigns, in trust for the use and benefit of the poor of the parish of
Paddington. The last of these entries bears date the ___ 1822, when the
late Francis Maseres, esq., John Symmons, esq., the Rev. Charles Crane,
D.D., Samuel Pepys Cockerell, esq., Joseph Neild, the younger, esq., John
White, esq., and Benjamin Hall, esq., were admitted tenants in trust in
the form above stated.
Margaret Robertson’s Charity.
It appears from “the account” that Mrs. Margaret Robertson, by will,
dated sixteenth September, 1720, gave for the use of the poor of this
parish, a copyhold estate, on the west side of the Edgeware-road,
consisting of a messuage and garden.
This property now comprises five houses lately erected under an
agreement, dated first March, 1823, whereby in consideration of the
surrender of a former lease for sixty-two years, from Lady-day, 1763, at
the rent of three pounds ten shillings, the trustees agreed with Stephen
Haynes, that they would, as soon as the five messuages, therein agreed to
be built, should be covered in, grant to him a lease of the said
premises, for the term of twenty-one years, from Lady-day, 1824, at the
rent of fifteen pounds, clear of all taxes, with the usual covenants for
repairs; and the said Stephen Haynes covenanted to pull down the old
buildings, and erect thereon five substantial messuages, according to the
specification therein contained. These premises lie at the junction of
the Harrow and Edgeware roads, and adjoin two small houses newly erected,
which come up to the point of junction, belonging to another proprietor.
This rent is applied, under the orders of the vestry, to the support of
the charity-school.
Alms’ Houses and School-house.
There is in the parish a set of alms’ houses, copyhold of the manor of
Paddington, consisting of seventeen dwellings, containing one apartment
each. Thirteen of these, as appears by an inscription in front of the
building, were erected in 1714, at the expense of the inhabitants, for
the poor past their labour. The four additional dwellings were built by
Samuel Pepys Cockerell, esq.: two of them to be occupied as alms’ houses,
and two for the master and mistress of the charity-school.
The alms’ houses are inhabited by paupers placed there by the parish.
The charity-school has been built near these alms’ houses, upon copyhold
land, granted for the purpose by the present bishop. The expense of this
erection was defrayed from subscription in the parish, and by the
application of certain monies received by the parish as a consideration
for the enclosure of some waste land.
Chirac’s Gift.
Denis Chirac, esq., by his will, dated ninth August, 1775, gave to
Francis Maseres and Peter Paget, esqrs., one hundred pounds to be laid
out or applied as they should think proper for the use and benefit of the
charity children of Paddington.
This legacy was applied by Mr. Baron Maseres, together with one hundred
and twenty pounds, a year’s rent of his own estate in the parish, towards
the building of the school-room.
Abourne’s Charity.
George Abourne, esq., by will, dated fifth August, 1767, gave, after the
death of certain persons therein named, the dividends of three hundred
pounds in the four per cent. consolidated bank annuities, in meat and
bread to as many poor families as might have eight pounds of good beef
and a half-peck loaf a-piece, to be given twice a-year, every Michaelmas
and every Lady-day, for ever; and all the butchers and all the bakers of
the place where he should be buried, to take their turns in serving the
meat and bread.
This legacy is now three hundred pounds three per cent. reduced
annuities, standing in the name of the testator, George Abourne. The
dividends, nine pounds a year, are received by Benjamin Edward Hall,
esq., as executor of James Crompton, the surviving executor of Benjamin
Crompton, who was surviving executor of the testator, George Abourne.
Mr. Hall distributes the amount annually, on the twenty-fourth of
January, among poor persons of the parish of Paddington, where Mr.
Abourne was buried, by tickets, each entitling the bearer to four pounds
of meat and a loaf of the same weight. The number of persons receiving
them varies according to circumstances; they are selected either upon Mr.
Hall’s personal knowledge, or the recommendation of respectable
inhabitants; preference being generally given to the most aged and
infirm, or such as are encumbered with the largest families. {68}
Mr. Hall furnished us with a statement of the receipts and expenditure
from the time that the charity came into action in 1792, from which it
appears that, one year with another, more has been given than the amount
of the dividends.
* * * * *
The poor of this parish owe much to Messrs. Robertson and Parton for the
trouble they took to preserve the memory of those rights which remained
at the time they accepted the office of vestry-clerks. Had it not been
for their exertions, I very much question, judging from what had taken
place and from the state of affairs when they were appointed, whether
anything respecting these lands would have been known now; and there can
be no doubt but their “account” was a very imperfect one. All those who
were benefited by past peculation, would studiously avoid giving these
gentlemen the benefit of their knowledge; and even now it is exceedingly
difficult to obtain any traditional information on this subject. One of
the oldest tenants of the charity-lands plainly said to me, with a blunt
honesty I could not but admire, “You’ll excuse me, Sir, but if I could
tell you any thing, I wouldn’t.”
I have already mentioned my notions respecting the origin of the term
“Bread and Cheese Lands.” The tale which is told, and which has hitherto
been generally received, is to be found in the London Magazine, for
December, 1737:—“Sunday, 18th, this day, according to annual custom,
bread and cheese were thrown from Paddington Steeple to the populace,
agreeably to the will of two women who were relieved there with bread and
cheese when they were almost starved, and Providence afterwards favouring
them, they left an estate in that parish to continue the custom for ever
on that day.”
This custom was continued down to about 1838; a single slice of cheese
and a penny loaf, being, at last, all that was thrown; the old method of
dispensing alms having been found to be anything but charitable
alms’-giving. The Sunday before Christmas was, in fact, in the last
century and beginning of this, a sort of fair-day, for the sturdy
vagabonds of London, who came to Paddington to scramble over dead men’s
bones for bread and cheese.
The dispute about _the half-acre_ is settled, as I am informed, by the
bishop having established his right to it; and the whole of the second
portion of the bread and cheese lands, mentioned in this Report, was sold
to the Great Western Railway Company for £1,200. There remains,
therefore, of this charity-estate only a portion of the first, and the
third parcels, reported on by the Committee of the House of Commons.
On the twenty-seventh of July, 1838, the first and second Victoria, Chap.
32, “An Act for enabling the trustees of certain lands situate in the
Parish of Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, to grant building
leases of the said lands and for other purposes,” confirmed an order of
the Court of Chancery relative to the appointment of trustees, and the
disposal of the proceeds of this freehold estate. By this Act six
trustees are appointed, and future appointments are to be made by the
vestry, whenever the number is reduced to three; and to these, and their
successors, power is given to grant building leases. And after the
payment of all costs and charges relative to their trust, they are
directed to “pay and apply the rents and profits arising from the said
Charity Estates, in manner following, that is to say, the same to be
divided into five equal parts, three-fifths thereof to be applied towards
the support of the Paddington Parochial National and Infant Schools, for
the instruction of boys and girls, children of poor persons residing in
the said parish of Paddington; one other fifth-part towards apprenticing
or instructing in business, for their future support, boys and girls, the
children of parishioners of and not having received parochial relief from
the said parish; and the remaining one-fifth part in the distribution of
bread and cheese, coals, blankets, and other necessary articles, at the
discretion of the said trustees, for the benefit of and amongst poor
parishioners of the said parish not receiving parochial relief.”
By the ninth section of this Act, the money paid into the Court of
Exchequer for that portion of the estate sold to the Great Western
Railway Company, was assigned to the application for and expenses
incurred in obtaining this Act.
The schedule which is annexed to this Act describes the bread and cheese
lands, then claimed by the trustees, as follows:—
“All that piece of Garden Ground formerly lying in the common field,
called Bayswater field, containing three roods, six perches, and
three quarters, being in the occupation of Thomas Hopgood, as a
yearly tenant; and also all that piece or parcel of Garden Ground,
contiguous to the above-mentioned piece of Garden Ground, containing
one acre, two roods, and fifteen perches, now in the occupation of
Samuel Cheese as yearly tenant; and also all that piece or parcel of
meadow-land, with a dwelling-house thereon, lying near Black Lion
Lane, containing one acre or thereabouts, now in the occupation, of
Robert Nevins, for a term of sixty-three years, from Christmas, one
thousand, eight hundred and two.”
Messrs. Hopgood and Cheese are still the tenants of the land north of the
Uxbridge-road. The house and grounds, situated “near Black-lion lane,”
are now in the occupation of Mr. G. P. Shapcott.
With respect to what Bishop Compton gave to the poor of this parish,
little appears to be known. The deed of gift cannot be found; but from
many circumstances, I am inclined to believe it was the land on which the
Alms’-houses now stand, and not that estate which is situated at the
entrance of the Harrow-road, for which the poor are indebted to this
bishop.
The houses, described in the report under “Dr. Compton’s charity,” were
pulled down ten or eleven years ago, and the ground was let on building
leases; six large and handsome houses, including the public-house, were
built on the ground on which the old poor-house, &c. stood; and, as I
have been informed, these houses pay to the trustees of the
charity-estate a ground rent averaging forty pounds per house. By the
cash accounts, it will be seen that the “Enfranchised Copyholds” have for
many years past produced an annual income of upwards of five hundred
pounds. The “Freehold rents” appear from the same accounts, to be
seventy-one pounds and a few shillings per annum. {70}
Of the trustees mentioned in the report as having been admitted tenants
in trust for the copyhold estates, in 1822, only one, I believe, is now
living.
Mrs. Margaret Robertson’s will is still existing, and to be seen at
Doctors’ Commons: it is dated sixteenth of December, and not September.
The messuage and garden which she gave, appear to have joined the Red
Lion, which was also in her possession, and which she left to Mr. Gee.
The will does not express the donor’s desire respecting the disposal of
her charity, excepting that it was “for the use of the poor.”
New leases have been granted for “Margaret Robertson’s charity,” and also
“Dr. Compton’s charity,” by trustees appointed under an order of the
Court of Chancery. These charities are now called “The Enfranchised
Copyhold Estate.” I am informed by the Rev. Mr. Campbell that the
proceeds are applied in the same manner as the rents of “The Freehold
Estate,” but that a separate trust exists.
I was very desirous to have ascertained the exact dimensions of these
separate estates, now held for the benefit of the poor of this parish;
but, unfortunately, on my application to the trustees I found they had
held their half-yearly meeting. Lysons, writing in 1794 or 5, says, “A
benefaction of five pounds per annum, given by Mrs. Margaret Robinson,
for the purpose of apprenticing poor children has been lost.” This
charity must not be mistaken for a donation of five pounds, which is
recorded on the panels in front of the gallery of St. Mary’s Church.
On the vestry minutes, I find two entries relative to the copyhold
charity-estates; one in October, 1800, the other in May, 1821. From the
first entry, I learn that each of the said premises therein described was
held at a quit-rent of six-pence per annum. The piece of ground
belonging to the alms’ houses is described as “a piece of ground,
formerly waste, lying upon Paddington-green;” having 80-feet of frontage,
and 90-feet of depth, which was increased by two other pieces; one “in
front of the alms’ houses,” 13-feet 10-inches in breadth, by 70-feet
long. The other on the east of the alms’ houses, 24-feet broad, by
113-feet 9-inches from north to south. If to this latter piece we add
that which was to be given up by the Grand Junction Canal Company,
(13-feet by 116 feet) we shall get at all that has been known of the
alms’-house land during this century.
But these minutes shew there were other pieces of copyhold formerly held
in trust for the poor, which have “escheated” into the lord’s domain, or
“merged” into other private hands.
CHAPTER V.
THE PADDINGTON ESTATE.
THE policy which has raised the manor and rectory of Paddington to its
present value {72}—three-quarters of a million sterling; which has
effectually transferred, (so far as private Acts of Parliament can
transfer,) two-thirds of the interest of this “small estate” into private
hands; and which at the same time has kindly permitted the rate-payers of
Paddington to saddle themselves with almost the entire “costs and
charges” of those duties for which the whole of this estate was
originally designed, may be said to have had some show of a _legalised_
beginning exactly a century ago.
In 1753, Thomas (Sherlock), then bishop of London, and Sir John
Frederick, then lessee of the manor, were parties to an agreement with
the parishioners of Paddington; and procured for them, or assisted in
procuring, “An Act for enlarging the church-yard of the parish of
Paddington, in the county of Middlesex;” which ratified that agreement.
It had been agreed, and was now enacted, that “a certain piece or parcel
of ground, adjoining to the east side of the said church-yard, containing
from east to west, on the north side thereof, ninety-six feet of assize;
and from north to south, on the east side thereof, one hundred and eighty
four-feet of assize; and from east to west, on the south side thereof,
one hundred and twenty-one feet of assize; and from north to south, on
the west side thereof, one hundred and thirty-two feet of assize” should
“be annexed to the present cemetery or church-yard of the said parish of
Paddington,” for ever: The churchwardens, or one of them, paying, after
the twenty-fourth of June, 1753, during the continuance of Sir John
Frederick’s lease, “unto the said Thomas, Lord Bishop of London, and his
successors, or to his or their proper officer or agent for the time
being, the annual rent or yearly sum of forty shillings of lawful money
of Great Britain, at or on the feast-day of St. John the Baptist, in
every year, during the continuance of the said lease; and also to the
said Sir John Frederick, his heirs or assigns, the annual rent or yearly
sum of ten pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, at or on the
feast-day of Saint John the Baptist, in every year during the continuance
of the same lease; and from and after the expiration of the said lease,
to the said Thomas, Lord Bishop of London, and his successors, and his
and their grantees, the annual rent or yearly sum of twelve pounds of
lawful money of Great Britain, at or on the feast-day of Saint John the
Baptist in every year for ever:” the rent and all arrears being made
recoverable by action at law with full costs of suit. {73}
For defraying the expenses of this Act and enclosing the said ground, the
inhabitants were permitted to borrow a sum not exceeding two hundred and
fifty pounds at four per cent. interest.
Sir John Frederick died in 1755, having made a will, dated twenty-seventh
of February, 1734, in which he leaves his estate to his sons “in tail
male, remainder to the heirs male of the testator’s own body, remainder
to his own right heirs;” and added a codicil, dated April tenth, 1742, in
which he notices that, since the making his said will, he had purchased
the site and capital messuage of the manor of Paddington, held by lease
for three lives from the Bishop of London, and “he thereby gave and
demised the same to the trustees, in his said will, their heirs and
assigns, during the lives of Judith Jodrell, John Affleck, and John
Crozier the younger, in the said lease named, and for the life of the
longest liver of them, upon trust, out of the rents and profits, to pay
the rent reserved by the said lease, and perform the lessees’ covenants
therein, and to renew the said lease as occasion should require, and
raise the fines and charges for such renewals, and subject thereto,
should stand seized of the said leasehold premises, in trust for such and
the same person and persons as should, from time to time, be entitled to
his freehold land of inheritance, by virtue of his said will or codicils
so far as the nature of the said leasehold premises would admit, and by
the rules of law and equity they might.”
His eldest son, Sir John Frederick, held and enjoyed the same during his
life; and, as he died intestate and without issue, in the month of March,
1757, it came to his second son, Sir Thomas Frederick, who had two
daughters.
In 1763, the third year of George the third, Richard, (Osbaldeston), then
Bishop of London, and Sir Thomas Frederick, then lessee of the manor,
agreed to “An Act for vesting certain parcels of land in Paddington, in
the county of Middlesex, in the Rector and Churchwardens of the parish of
Saint George, Hanover-square, in the said county, and appropriating the
same for a burial-ground for the said parish;” by which “five acres or
thereabouts, lying at the west-end of the field called Tyburn Field,” and
a piece of waste, lying between the highway leading from London to
Uxbridge, and the said field, were settled upon and vested in the rectors
and churchwardens of the said parish, for ever. These lands being
“discharged from the uses in Sir John Frederick’s will, and annexed to
the parish of St. George, Hanover-square;” and the life estate or
interest in the said five acres of ground having been purchased of Sir
Thomas Frederick, the churchwardens agreed, and were bound, to pay, after
the decease of Sir Thomas, fifteen pounds per annum to the person or
persons who shall be entitled to the site of the manor of Paddington, and
the rest of the said leasehold premises under and by virtue of the will
and codicils of the said Sir John Frederick, “during the present or any
subsequent lease to be granted thereof;” and to “the Bishop of London,
and his successors, during the time that the said site of the said manor,
and the rest of the said leasehold premises, shall remain in the proper
hands and possession of the said bishop, or his successors, and not in
lease, to or for the benefit of any person or persons, claiming or to
claim under or by virtue of the will and codicils of the said Sir John
Frederick, the clear yearly sum of twenty-five pounds;” and to “the
churchwardens for the time being of the said Parish of Paddington, for
ever, the clear yearly sum of forty-shillings, in lieu of all parochial
rates, taxes, and assessments which may, or otherwise might, be due and
payable to the said parish of Paddington for or in respect of the said
intended burial-ground, or the lands therein to be contained.” Actions
are given to the several parties for non-payment of these sums; the
churchwardens are to be allowed such payments; and the rector to have the
burial-fees.
In 1795, a private Act of Parliament, the 35th Geo. III, cap. 83,
entitled “An Act for enabling the Lord Bishop of London to grant a lease
with powers of renewal of lands in the parish of Paddington, in the
county of Middlesex; for the purpose of building upon,” received the
sanction of the legislature.
We are informed by the preamble of this Act, which occupies thirty-two
Act of Parliament pages, and recites wholly or in part fifteen
indentures; {75a} that on the fourth of May, 1768, the manor and rectory
were leased to Gascoigne Frederick, his heirs and assigns, for three
lives, and that in consideration of the surrender of this lease, “as also
for divers other good causes and valuable considerations him thereunto
specially moving,” the “Right honourable and Reverend Father-in-God,
Richard, {75b} by Divine permission, then Lord Bishop of London,” granted
unto the aforesaid Gascoigne Frederick, of the Inner Temple, a new lease,
for three lives, bearing date the fourteenth of August, 1776.
We are further informed, that this Gascoigne Frederick died intestate,
leaving Mary Frederick, Elizabeth Snell, and Susannah Frederick, all of
Bampton, in the county of Oxford, his only surviving sisters and co-heirs
at law. We are also informed, that in this lease of the fourteenth of
August, 1776, Gascoigne Frederick’s “name was made use of therein only
for the use and benefit of Elizabeth Frederick and Selina Frederick,” and
that they, with their husbands, applied to the ladies of Bampton to sell
all the hereditaments and premises demised to the said Gascoigne
Frederick, in 1776; and which these ladies kindly did for _ten shillings
a-piece_, as is witnessed by indentures, dated fifth and sixth of
February, 1781, which re-convey the said lease and leasehold premises to
trustees for the purposes mentioned in the will and codicil of Sir John
Frederick, and in the marriage-settlements of the granddaughters of the
aforesaid baronet.
By a “fine sur concessit,” levied in Trinity Term, in the twenty-second
year of George the third, “in order to dock, bar, and extinguish all
estates, tail,” &c, this estate was conveyed to Thomas Lloyd and his
heirs for the uses of the trustees, in trust to be applied, one half
according to the marriage settlement of Elizabeth wife of John Morshead,
afterwards Sir John Morshead; the other half subject to the uses of the
marriage settlement of her sister Selina, wife of Robert Thistlethwayte.
These indentures are dated respectively the fifth of July, 1782, and
fourth of March, 1783. They are set forth, in part, in the Act now under
review; and as they were executed during the minority of these ladies,
there are also, as we may suppose, references to sundry opinions,
reports, orders, &c. of that very ancient Court of Equity, whose
interesting proceedings are so excellently depicted in “Bleak House,” by
the great teacher of our time.
By conveying these lay interests in this estate with other interests in
private property to trustees,—by charging the whole with large sums of
money,—by carrying the “remainder” over a thousand years in one case, and
in the other one thousand five hundred;—by changing “the said leasehold
premises from a freehold to a chattle interest;”—and then by making “the
tenure thereof as nearly equal to freehold as possible;”—and by certain
acts which we are about to examine, Gascoigne Frederick’s lease for three
lives has been converted into as snug and nice a little property, as any
lady or gentleman in the land need desire; provided always, it could be
secured from the anxious care of the ancient court before mentioned, and
that more modern tribunal, which will one day be instituted to examine
into the claims the public may have on such estates as this.
As the chief instruments in the formation of the Paddington estate are
those peculiar Acts of Parliament which have been denominated “facts,” to
distinguish them from “laws,” it is from these chiefly that I shall
gather the _facts_ contained in this chapter: and as this Act of 1795 is
somewhat scarce, and as the preamble affords some interesting
information, I shall quote several passages from it entire:—
_Purchase of Waste Lands_.—“And whereas there are certain Pieces or
Parcels or small narrow strips of Land, containing in the whole about
five acres, which lie as Waste or Commonable Lands in the Lanes and
Road-Ways dispersed in, about, and within the said Parish of Paddington,
and are contiguous to and in front of some of the said Lanes,
Hereditaments, and Premises comprised in the said lease, between the
Hedge Rows of the same Lands and the different Road and Carriage Ways
leading to, from and through the said parish, as the public highways
thereof, and which have been used by the tenants of the said lessees for
the purpose chiefly of laying Dung Heaps thereon, and the same are become
a great nuisance, not only to the said Parishioners, but to the Public at
large, and which nuisance would not only considerably increase if the
same Lands were to remain open and unenclosed in their present state, to
the great annoyance of the said Public and Parish at large, but would
greatly impede the good purposes of this Act; and therefore it is
proposed by the said Lord Bishop and his said Lessees, that the said
Waste Lands should be annexed to and become a Part of the said
Hereditaments and Premises so to be demised under the powers of this Act,
and that such Compensation shall be made to the said Parish at large for
any Interest they may claim therein for the benefit of the said Parish,
by way of a Rent Charge, to be paid to the Churchwardens of the said
Parish for the Time being for ever, for enclosing the same as is
hereinafter provided for, and annexing the same to the said Hereditaments
and Premises, discharged of and from any Common Right or Claim, if any
such did exist.”
_Contemplated Destruction of Parsonage and other Souses_.—“And whereas
some few Farm Houses and Messuages have many years since been erected,
and are now standing on Part of the said demised Premises, but the same
with the Out Buildings are now become very ancient and much out of
repair, and in some respects so very ruinous as to be incapable of being
repaired; and a variety of other small and temporary Buildings of Lath
and Plaster, and of a very inferior quality, have also been lately
erected and built, and now are erecting and building thereon, and which
by means of the Persons who inhabit therein may become a great Burthen to
the said Parish in the increase of their Poor Rates, but the principal
Part of the said Ground demised by the said Indenture of Lease of the
fourteenth day of August, 1776, still lies open and unbuilt upon, and on
account of its vicinity to London, the whole is capable of very great and
capital improvement, and if such Improvements were made would render a
very large Increase of Rent, as well to the said Lessees and their Heirs
and Assigns, as to the said Lord Bishop and his Successors for the Time
being, but by reason of the nature of the present Tenure such
Improvements cannot be effected, and therefore in order to induce
Builders and other Persons to take the same and build capital Houses and
Squares thereon, it is thought necessary that the Tenure thereof should
be made in value as nearly equal to Freehold as possible.”
_The Nature of the Lease to be Changed_.—“And whereas it would be greatly
for the Benefit and Advantage of the said Lord Bishop of London and of
his Successors, and of the said Sir John Morshead and Dame Elizabeth, his
wife, and their Issue, (instead of granting Leases for Lives as has been
usual and customary on Fines paid for the same) if a power was given to
the said Lord Bishop and his Successors to grant a new Lease of the said
Premisses comprised in the said Lease of the fourteenth day of August,
1776, together with the said Strips of Waste Land within the said Parish
of Paddington, for such Terms of Years, and with such Powers of Renewal
as are hereafter mentioned, and particularly with a power for the Lessees
therein to grant Under Leases thereof, at such Rents, and under such
restrictions, and in such manner as is hereinafter expressed with respect
to such Original and Under Leases respectively.”
_Division of Profits_.—“And whereas the value of the Interests of the
said Lord Bishop of London and his successors and of the said Lessees in
the said Premises, having been taken into consideration, it is conceived
that the Rents, Issues and Profits which at present are reserved or
payable, or which shall or may arise from and out of the Messuages,
Lands, Hereditaments, and Premises comprised in the said Lease, or which
shall hereafter be reserved or payable, or arise from and out of the said
Premises, and every part thereof, upon any reserved Lease or Leases to be
made under the authority of this Act, or any Under Leases in pursuance
thereof or otherwise, should be appropriated between the said Bishop of
London and his said Lessees in the shares hereinafter mentioned, (that is
to say), One Third thereof to the Bishop and his Successors for the Time
being, and Two Thirds thereof to his said Lessees, their Executors,
Administrators, or Assigns, subject to the said present Annual Rents and
Pension, and such other Deductions as are hereinafter mentioned.”
_Increase of Forty Pounds a year in the Stipend of a Single Curate_.—“And
whereas the said clear yearly pension or stipend of Eighty Pounds, so
payable to the Curate of the said Parish of Paddington for the time
being, who is appointed to serve the said Cure by the said Lord Bishop
and his Successors, and which now stands charged upon the whole of the
said Hereditaments and Premises so comprised in the said Lease of the
fourteenth day of August, 1776, and which it is proposed should be by the
said intended Lease or Leases so to be granted under the powers of this
Act, increased to £120 a-year, and be secured upon and made payable, not
only out of the Tythes arising and to arise and become payable to the
said Lessees, as hereinafter is mentioned, but also upon a Farm and Lands
called Kilburn Bridge Farm hereinafter mentioned, and now of the annual
value of £230, and now in the occupation of — Newport, as Tenant thereof
at such Rent, and not be charged or become chargeable upon any other part
of the said Lands, Hereditaments, and Premises to be leased by any such
Under Lease or Under Leases for the purposes intended by this Act, in
which case it would defeat the good purposes of this Act.
_Sole benefit of contemplated change_, _with the exceptions above
mentioned_, _to be for the Bishop and his Lessees_.—And whereas,
notwithstanding it would be for the mutual benefit of the said Lord
Bishop of London and his successors, and the said Sir John Morshead and
Dame Elizabeth his Wife and their infant issue, and the said Robert
Thistlethwayte and Selina his Wife and their Infant issue as aforesaid,
that the said herein-before mentioned Proposals should be carried into
complete Execution, yet the same cannot be effected without the aid of
Parliament.”
Wherefore His Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, Beilby (Porteus)
Lord Bishop of London, on behalf of himself and his successors, Thomas
Wood, (the surviving Trustee of the marriage settlements of the
under-mentioned ladies,) Sir John Morshead and Dame Elizabeth his Wife,
on behalf of themselves and their six children, Robert Thistlethwayte and
Selina his Wife, on behalf of themselves and their six children, and Sir
John Frederick and Arthur Stanhope (new trustees appointed under the
provisions of the aforesaid marriage settlements) joined in beseeching
his Majesty that it might be enacted, and it was enacted, in the usual
form: “That it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Beilby, Lord
Bishop of London, and his successors for the time being, and he and they
are hereby required and directed by Indenture under the Episcopal Seal of
the said Lord Bishop, and his successors, to demise, lease, and to farm
let” to the said trustees “their Executors, Administrators, or Assigns,
or the Trustees or Trustee for the time being, to be hereafter named or
appointed under the Powers” of Indentures of settlement of the 5th of
July, 1782, and 4th of March, 1783, partly recited in this Act, all the
“Hereditaments whatsoever of the said Reverend Father, and belonging to
the bishoprick of London, heretofore demised by the late King Henry the
eighth,” by an Indenture dated 21st of December, in the thirty-fifth year
of his reign, to Richard Rede; “and also all that Annual Rent or yearly
sum of Ten Pounds, charged upon the Parish of Paddington;” “and also all
that Wood and Wood Ground commonly called Paddington Wood, containing by
estimation Thirty Acres, be it more or less, and which was many years
since converted into and is now Pasture Land, together with all manner of
Trees, Hawts and Hedgerows of the said Reverend Father, and belonging to
the said Bishoprick of London, growing or being, or which hereafter shall
grow or be within the Parish of Paddington aforesaid, and also all the
Herbage and Pannage of the said Woods, &c. &c.,” “and all other the
Hereditaments and Premises” leased and comprised in an Indenture, dated
the fourteenth of August, 1776, also partly recited in this Act, “except
Easter Offerings, Mortuaries, and all surplice fees to be paid to and
received by the Curate of Paddington for the time being;” and also all
and singular the strips or pieces or parcels of waste ground
herein-before described “containing about five acres, be the same more or
less;” “To hold for a term of ninety-nine years, and to commence from
the day next before the day of the date of such lease,” and also to renew
the said lease at the end of the first fifty years of the said term of
ninety-nine years, on payment or tender of a fine of twenty shillings,
for a further term of ninety-nine years, to commence and be computed from
the end of the said first fifty years, and so to continue to renew the
lease for the time being so to be granted.” {80}
The Act provides “That before the Execution of the said first Indenture
of Lease, or of any Indenture of Renewal, and at the end of every year
afterwards there shall be delivered by the Lessees therein to be named to
the said Bishop and his successors, or his or their Agent or Steward, a
true and particular account, in writing, of the Rent or Rents, at which
the Premises thereby to be leased, are then let or demised, and to whom,
and for what term or number of years respectively.”
The Act also provides “that there be reserved in such Lease and renewed
Leases a chief rent chargeable on the said Lands, Tenements, &c.,” “for
the benefit of the said Lord Bishop of London and his successors for the
time being, of forty-three pounds, six shillings and eightpence, and also
one-third part of the rents, issues, ground-rents, and other profits
reserved or to be reserved, due and payable, or arising out or from, or
which the same Messuages or Tenements, Lands, Tythes, Hereditaments, and
Premises, and every part thereof shall be let for, immediately before the
passing of this Act, and which the same shall from time to time be let
for, under the leases to be granted as hereinafter is mentioned, or
otherwise, after deducting in the first place the above-mentioned
reserved rent of forty-three pounds, six shillings and eight-pence,” a
pension to the curate of £120 a-year, the fifteen pounds a year rent paid
to the Churchwardens for the waste lands, the land tax, “and such other
taxes as shall or may be hereafter imposed on the Lessor or Landlord in
respect of the said Premises by authority of Parliament.” Such reserved
rents to be paid quarterly “and the first payment thereon to commence, to
the said Lord Bishop and his successors, from the fifth day of April last
past.”
It was also provided that the aforesaid pension or annual stipend of
£120, payable to the curate, should be secured on and made payable from
the tithes of the Parish of Paddington, also on “a farm, called Kilburn
Bridge Farm, containing about forty acres or thereabouts, and of the
yearly value of £230.” It was also provided, that the lease now to be
granted or any renewed lease should contain such or the like covenants as
are mentioned and contained in the Indenture of the fourteenth of August,
1776, “touching the accommodation of the Surveyor or Steward of the said
Lord Bishop and his successors, their servants and horses, on any court
or courts, survey or surveys to be held of or for the said Premises.”
“Provided always, that there be a covenant inserted in such Lease and
Leases so to be granted as aforesaid, that the said Thomas Wood, Sir John
Frederick, and Arthur Stanhope, their Executors, Administrators, and
Assigns, or any succeeding Trustee or Trustees to be appointed as
aforesaid, their or his Executors, Administrators, or Assigns shall not
lease or demise any part of the said Hereditaments and Premises to be
comprised in the Leases so to be granted to them as aforesaid, except in
the manner hereinafter mentioned.”
A power was given to the said Trustees or their Assigns to demise any
part of the said premises comprised in the lease and leases to be granted
by the bishop and his successors, “not exceeding two hundred acres
thereof,” without application to Parliament for farther powers, “to any
person or persons who shall be willing to build upon, rebuild, or
substantially repair the same, in the manner by the Lease or respective
Leases to be granted thereof to be specified,” for any term not exceeding
ninety-eight years (“provided that the said Lord Bishop for the time
being be a party to all such Under Leases,”) “so as there be reserved in
and by such Leases, &c. the best and most improved yearly rent that can
be reasonably had or gotten for the same, to be made payable quarterly,
free from all deductions whatsoever, without any Pine, Premium, or
Foregift, or any Thing in the nature of a Fine being taken for the making
thereof.”
The leases were to contain covenants to build and keep in repair the
messuages, &c. agreed to be built, and to keep these buildings “insured
from damage by fire to the amount of four-fifths of the value thereof;”
and “to surrender and leave in repair the messuages, &c. to be erected
and built, or rebuilt and repaired” at the end of the term or terms in
such leases granted. And all “other usual and proper covenants,
provisos, and conditions” were to be inserted “usually contained in
building leases near the City of London.” These under-lettings were to
take place from time to time by public auction to the best bidder, (if
approved of by the bishop and his lessees), notice of the time and place
of such auction having been given to the bishop or his agent by the said
lessees. Separate lots were to be made for every house, “whose breadth
in front shall be twenty-eight feet and upwards;” and for houses of
smaller dimensions no more than one hundred feet frontage was to be let
in one lot. The under-lessees were to be bound to build on this land, so
taken, within a specified time, “and agreeably to such a plan as shall be
approved by the Lord Bishop of London and his successors, and the said
lessees for the time being.” Three counterparts of these under-leases
were to be provided, one to be delivered to the bishop or his agent, for
the registration of which a fee of six shillings and eight pence was to
be paid; the other two being for the trustees of the two families
interested in the Bishop’s lease. Any number of these sub-leases might
be taken by any one person, so that the quantity altogether did not
amount “to more than fifteen acres of the said land.” It was also
provided, that “Farm Leases at Rack-rent for twenty-one years may be
granted with the consent of the Bishop of London,” but to be determinable
on six months’ notice being given.
The patronage of the Church of Paddington was reserved to the Bishop.
The trustees were to stand possessed of the new lease on leases to be
granted by the Bishop, in trust, one half for the person and persons, &c.
to whom the same ought to go or belong by virtue of the Indenture of
Release of the fifth of July, 1782; the other half in trust for the
person and persons, &c. entitled by virtue of the Indenture, dated fourth
of March, 1783; certain new provisions having been necessary in
consequence of the change of interests.
The trustees were not to make any leases under the authority of this Act,
without the consent in writing of Sir John and Lady Morshead, and Mr. and
Mrs. Thistlethwayte.
And this Act was not to prevent the Bishop and his Lessees from treating
with the Grand Junction Canal Proprietors “for such part or parts of the
said premises, over and above the number of acres hereinbefore limited
for building on;” neither did it do so; for by “An Act for making a
Navigable Cut from the Grand Junction Canal, in the precinct of Norwood,
in the county of Middlesex, to Paddington, in the said county,” passed in
the same year as the preceding, the 35th Geo. III, cap. 43, we find that
although the cut was not to be made through the Paddington Estate without
the consent of owners yet that consent had already been given as to
certain lands at Westbourn-green; and in 1798, by an Act for confirming
and carrying into execution certain articles of Agreement made and
entered into between Beilby, Lord Bishop of London, the Lessees of the
Paddington Estate, and the Company of Proprietors of the Grand Junction
Canal, “and for other purposes therein mentioned”—the 38th Geo. III, cap.
33.—we find that the said Company had then entered into a covenant with
the said Lord Bishop, and his lessees, for certain other Pieces or
Parcels of Land lying in the Parish of Paddington, amounting in the whole
to “Forty Acres, Two Roods and Thirty-seven Perches,” at a yearly rent of
£814 12_s._ 6_d._ being at the rate of twenty pounds per annum per acre;
also certain other Pieces or Parcels, all in the aforesaid Act
particularly set forth, {83} amounting in the whole to “Seven Acres and
Two Roods,” at a yearly rent of thirty-nine pounds, seven shillings and
six-pence, being after the rate of five pounds per acre per annum: in
addition to which the Company agreed to pay a further rent of thirty
pounds per annum, in respect of Buildings standing on the ground agreed
to be demised: and this annual sum of £884 was agreed to be paid “by the
said Company of Proprietors, their successors and assigns, free and clear
of all manner of taxes, and from all other deductions and outgoings
whatsoever:” one-third part to be paid to the said Lord Bishop and his
successors, and the remaining two-thirds to the trustees, as lessees of
the said estate. What good and valuable consideration, over and above
the rent specified, was given to the Bishop and his lessees to induce
them to consent to lease this land for ninety-nine years, bating one day;
and to agree, for themselves and their successors, to renew the lease
every fifty years for the same term, on the tender of a fine of twenty
shillings, I cannot tell. These holders of the land, in all probability,
had a less exalted notion of its value than their successors have had,
but still it is very probable _some_ compensation was given to induce
them to part with it at such a rent.
Nine years after the passing of the Bishop’s first Building Act, it was
found that it required “altering and amending,” and the 44th Geo. III.
cap. 63, was passed for that purpose; “and for granting further powers,
the better to carry into execution the purposes of the said Act.”
By this Act, two new trustees, Frederick Treise Morshead, eldest son of
Sir John and Lady Morshead, and Henry Frederick Thistlethwayte, son of
Sir Robert and Selina Thistlethwayte, were appointed in the place of
Thomas Wood, deceased. And we are informed that those parts of the first
Act which limited the letting to public auction only, and required, in
the leases for twenty-one years, the insertion of a notice that the
occupancy might be terminated after any six months thereof, were “found
to be very prejudicial to the interests of the parties interested in the
said estate, and a great check to the future improvement thereof,” and it
was thought that it would “tend greatly to the advantage of the See of
London, and the other parties interested in the said estate,” if further
powers were given. These clauses of the aforesaid Act were, therefore,
repealed, and in lieu thereof, the lessees or lessee of the Bishop, with
his previous consent first had and obtained in writing, were allowed to
treat, by private contract, or otherwise, with any person or persons,
willing to build on this land, for the whole or any part of the two
hundred acres in the previous Act mentioned to be let for building upon,
for any term not exceeding ninety-nine years.
The previous Act limited the use of the brick-clay, gravel, &c. which
were dug out of this estate, to the improvement of the premises whereon
these were found, but to no other purpose; but it was now declared, that
“for as much as it will tend greatly to the Improvement of the said
Estate, to raise a Fund for the purpose of making main drains, forming
and paving streets, forming and gravelling roads, making bridges, and
erecting bridge ways for the improvement of the said estate,” it should
now be enacted, that these materials might be sold to form a fund for
carrying out these objects, “and for the general improvement of the said
estate.” {85a}
Provision was made by this Act for the redemption of the land tax, which
was charged at £132 per annum, the consideration for which is stated to
have been £4,840 capital stock in the three per cents. This was bought
for £3,075 0_s._ 10_d._, by the sale of 4A. 1R. 36½P. which brought in
£3,653 4_s._ 5_d._, the expenses thereon being £64 11_s._ 10_d._ {85b}
In 1805, another Act of Parliament relative to the Paddington estate, the
45th Geo. III. cap. 113, became the law of the land, and “all judges,
justices, and others” were directed to admit, as evidence, printed copies
thereof; but as this Act can be obtained in the usual way, my notice of
it will be very brief. It recites in part the two preceding Acts; states
that “considerable progress has been made for carrying into execution the
said Acts;” and attempts to remove “doubts which have arisen whether the
trustees of the original lease for the time being, though with the
consent of the said Lord Bishop, (Beilby, still bishop of London), or his
successors, have a power under the said Acts, or either of them, to enter
into contracts for granting building leases at a rent to be specified in
the contract, payable for the whole ground agreed to be demised; and
afterwards, as the houses or buildings shall be completed or covered in,
to grant separate leases of such houses or buildings, at separate rents,
amounting in the whole to the rent originally contracted for.” Which
mode of contracting, we are told, “is by experience found to be a
necessary preliminary to the granting of any such Lease.”
The Act therefore declares that the lessees or lessee of the Bishop for
the time being, with his consent, may contract and agree, to demise,
lease, or grant any part of the premises to be let, (but not exceeding
the two hundred acres agreed to be let by the first Act,) and afterwards
grant separate leases under certain conditions; one of which is that if
the ground-rent of any one house exceed “an equal proportion of the
original rent agreed to be reserved for the whole of the land or ground
comprised in the contract,” it shall “not exceed one-seventh part of the
clear yearly rack-rent or value of the land and buildings to be by such
lease demised, {86a} so that the yearly rent to be reserved by any Lease
to be granted in pursuance of this Act, be not in any case less than
Forty Shillings:” “the Bishop of London for the time being to be a party
to all such Leases.”
The second clause of this Act provides that a memorial of every lease,
and also of every contract, shall be registered at the public Office for
registering Deeds and Conveyances, as prescribed by the seventh of Anne;
and that every such memorial shall contain a full description of the
land, the term of years for which it was let, and the yearly rent or
rents reserved thereon. {86b}
Sir John Morshead being at this time absent from the kingdom, “and
restrained from returning to the same by His Majesty’s enemies,” certain
clauses are enacted respecting his consent being obtained, before leases
are granted.
In 1808, another Act “for altering and enlarging the powers” of the 35th.
44th. and 45th. of George III. appears to have become necessary; for in
that year we have the 48th Geo. III. cap. 142, passed for this purpose.
The preamble of this Act notices an Indenture of Assignment, bearing date
on or about the twenty-fourth of July, 1807, made between Eliza Mary
Thistlethwayte, widow of Alexander Thistlethwayte, on the one part, and
Thomas Thistlethwayte, her brother-in-law, the third, but eldest
surviving son of Robert Thistlethwayte, on the other, wherein it is
witnessed that, “for the consideration therein expressed,” the said lady
assigned her interest in the Paddington Estate to the said Thomas
Thistlethwayte, his executors, &c. “for his and their own use and benefit
absolutely;” subject to the life interest of his mother, then Selina
Thistlethwayte. {87a}
By this Act certain parts of previous Acts are repealed; power is given
to the lessees to pull down all buildings standing upon the premises
comprised in any under-lease; the Bishop’s chief rent of forty-three
pounds, six shillings and eightpence, is no longer to be charged on the
whole of the hereditaments and premises; all lands comprised in the
under-leases, to be exonerated and indemnified from the payment of the
same; and the signatures of Sir John Morshead, Robert Thistlethwayte, and
their wives, to the under-leases are to be no longer necessary. The sale
of brick-earth, sand, gravel, &c., having been found totally inadequate
for payment of costs of Acts, making drains, streets, &c. {87b} Beilby
Lord Bishop of London {87c} and the trustees of the estate agree to
execute a mortgage of “a competent part of the said premises,” charging
it with any sum not exceeding ten thousand pounds, with lawful interest,
for these purposes; or the money may be raised by annuities for lives
instead of mortgage.
The eighth section of this Act relates to the “conduit upon the said
estate belonging to the corporation of London, situate near Bayswater,
and the pipes or drain therefrom, and the tanks or wells connected
therewith.” And it is stated that as these pipes “run through the same
estate diagonally so as to intercept the carrying on of the building
improvements upon any eligible plan,” the Bishop and his lessees were
empowered to treat with the mayor and commonalty and citizens of the said
city of London, for the removal or varying the line of the said pipes,
&c., and to make satisfaction for all damages which may be sustained by
the city in consequence thereof: the estate to be charged with any sum
not exceeding two thousand pounds for effecting this object.
Provision is made in the tenth section—“That nothing herein contained
shall extend, or be constructed to extend, to authorize the making or
forming any new drain or drains, tunnel or tunnels, except for the
conveying and receiving the water from the conduit as aforesaid, which
shall or may run into the Park, called Hyde Park, or Kensington Gardens,
or into any drain, &c., running into or communicating with the same
places, or either of them.” But the rights, powers and authorities,
vested in the Commissioners of Sewers, were not to be affected by this
Act.
In a schedule to this Act annexed, signed S. P. Cockerell, we find the
“estimate of the expence of building a main drain or sewer for carrying
off the water from the estate being at least, five thousand three hundred
feet in length, four feet clear breadth,” was ten thousand and sixty-four
pounds. And the “estimate of the expence of moving the pipes and drains
from the conduit at Bayswater, and the tanks and wells connected
therewith,” was two thousand pounds. Yet this arrangement, with respect
to the Bayswater conduit and the pipes, &c., proceeding therefrom, was
not sufficient to satisfy the owners of the Paddington estate; for, in
four years after it was made, another Act was passed “to enable the mayor
and commonalty and citizens of the city of London to sell, and the Right
Reverend the Lord Bishop of London and his lessees of the estate at
Paddington belonging to the See of London to purchase, certain waters and
springs and the conduits and other appurtenances thereto within the
several parishes of Mary-le-bone and Paddington, in the county of
Middlesex.” 52nd Geo. III. cap. 193. And articles of agreement dated
the first of July, 1812, relative to the purchase of the said conduit,
springs, &c., for the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds, are
confirmed by this Act. It also empowers John (Randolph) Lord Bishop of
London, and his successors for the time being, with consent of the
lessees, to raise money “for the completion of the said purchase and
payment of the incidental expenses;” either by sale of all or any portion
of thirty-two acres of land particularly described in a schedule to this
Act annexed; or by a mortgage on any portion of the estate; or by
annuities; but the sum of money “which may be raised under or by virtue
of all, any, or either of the provisions contained in this Act, shall not
together and in the whole exceed the sum of four thousand five hundred
pounds.”
We are informed by a schedule attached to the 6th Geo. IV. cap 45. that
under the powers of this Act, eight acres, one rood, and nineteen perches
of land, were sold to purchase these waters; the amount received for
which, including “interest and auction duty,” was two thousand, nine
hundred and nineteen pounds, sixteen shillings and sixpence.
The lands, described in the schedule annexed to this Act, are said to be
“the most convenient for sale,” being “detached parts” of the estate.
How there came to be any “detached parts” in so snug an estate, the Act
does not inform us. But it does tell us that in these detached parts
there are two closes of land called “The Lower Readings,” and “The Upper
Readings,” names very significant in themselves, and which must, I think,
at some time, have had some connection with Readers.
Another Act—the Regent’s Canal Bill—was the same day added to the list of
those Acts which, together, have made the Paddington Estate a subject of
such notoriety. But there was an Act also for each of the intervening
years.
In 1810 “An Act for further enlarging the Church-yard of the parish of
Paddington, in the County of Middlesex,” the 50th Geo. III. cap. 44,
enabled the trustees appointed under previous Acts, relative to the
church and church-yard, to charge the burial-fees, pew-rents, and
church-rates, with a sum not exceeding two thousand five hundred pounds,
in order to complete a purchase of two acres, one rood and twenty-nine
perches of land belonging to the said John, Bishop of London, and his
lessees. For this piece of ground, with the trees standing thereon, and
the old manor-house, the parish paid two thousand, two hundred and
sixty-three pounds, seven shillings and sixpence. This sum I presume was
divided in the usual proportion between the Bishop and his lessees: for
this does not appear to have been any part of the land authorised to be
sold for the purposes mentioned in one of the preceding Acts.
In 1811, the fifty-first of Geo. III. cap. 169, established the Grand
Junction Water Works Company; the thirty-third section of which Act
confirms and ratifies a previous arrangement, made by the previous
Bishop, Beilby Porteus, with the Grand Junction Canal Company, for the
supply of the tenants on the Paddington estate, with water at ten pounds
per cent. less than they could be supplied by others. The clause is as
follows:—
“_Provided also_, _and be it farther enacted_, _that the said Company
of Proprietors shall_, _and they are hereby required from Time to
Time_, _and at all times hereafter_, _to supply the several Lessees
or Tenants of the Estate belonging to the See of the Bishop __of
London at Paddington aforesaid with Water_, _at the Rate of Ten
Pounds per Centum at the least below the average Rate which shall be
demanded and taken by the said Company_, _or any other Company or
Companies_, _for supplying with an equal quantity of Water the
Inhabitants of Souses of the like Magnitude and Description of any
other of the Districts or Streets within the Cities of London and
Westminster_.”
Whether or not the tenants of the Paddington estate have, up to this
time, received the full benefits of this important clause, I leave them
to decide for themselves. I, for one, can say that I have not; and after
a full investigation of this subject, I cannot undertake, (as I have been
requested to do, by a gentleman very much interested in the Company,) to
point out the injustice of this clause. I make no doubt this clause was
well considered, before it was allowed to form a portion of this Act; and
was taken by the bishop and his lessees as a part of the _quid pro quo_
in their arrangements with the Company.
Whether it was done as an act of kindness to the tenants, as a
compensation for the loss of the public watering places which existed on
several parts of this estate, or to increase the value of the estate
matters little to our purpose: but we cannot suppose that a public
Company would have consented to this clause without some adequate
consideration; and even if the value of this consideration is no longer
felt, which I believe is not the case, {90} that is no reason why their
obligation should not remain. To have had a tall chimney, with all its
consequences, as well as some acres of reservoirs filled with water,
standing for years in the centre of the parish, could have been no
improvement to the surrounding property, though the convenience to the
company must have been very great; and if any injustice is to be
discovered in this clause, I think it must be found in confirming the
benefit to a portion of the parish only. But if the Company at that time
had seen any injustice in this arrangement, it could and most probably
would soon have been altered, for “the aid and authority of Parliament,”
was required in 1812, the very year after the passing of this Water
Company’s Act, to make “valid, binding, and conclusive,” certain articles
of agreement, dated the twenty-fourth of March, which were entered into
between John, then Bishop of London, and his lessees, and the company of
proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal; which agreement, amongst other
things, was entered into, to enable the latter to lease to the Grand
Junction Water Works Company, the requisite quantity of land for the
completion of their works. {91}
After fifteen years, in the seventh of Geo. IV, cap. 140, the same clause
is again to be found; and in the seventh and eighth of Victoria, cap. 30,
this agreement for supplying cheap water to the tenants of the Paddington
estate is again ratified and confirmed; so that the subject has been well
considered and ought to be fully enforced by a co-operation of the
tenants.
By the fifty-second Geo. III, cap. 192, the Act just referred to, anno
1812, the said articles of agreement are “absolutely ratified, confirmed,
and established,” by which thirty-six acres, three and a-half perches of
land are demised to the end of the term for which the land previously
leased to this Company was let, renewable for a further term of
ninety-nine years, every fifty years, on the tender of a fine of twenty
shillings, at a rent commencing at £427 3_s._ in 1812, and advancing year
by year to 1818, when the annual rent was fixed at £570 3_s._; one-third
part of which was to be paid to the Bishop of London for the time being,
the other two-thirds to his lessees.
Besides this lease of fresh portions of the estate, certain small pieces
were exchanged, and the Company reconveyed to the bishop and his lessees
rather more than two acres of that which had been previously leased to
them, so that, altogether, rather more than eighty-two acres of the
Paddington Estate is leased to the Grand Junction Canal Company, at a
rent of £1,454 3_s._ per annum.
In the same year, 1812, the fifty-second of Geo. III. cap. 195,
incorporated the Regent’s Canal Company, and gave full power and
authority to that Company, “to make and maintain a Navigable Canal from
the Grand Junction Canal, in the parish of Paddington to the River Thames
in the parish of Limehouse;” to supply the same, as well as steam
engines, Reservoirs, &c. with water from the River, and to effect other
objects therein set down. The land required of the Paddington Estate for
making this Canal amounted to two acres, three roods, twenty-eight
perches; the purchase money for which was £2,000.
This canal was opened from Paddington to the Regent’s Park Basin two
years after this Act passed, but was not finished till August, 1820. The
other Canal and Water Company Acts which affect the Paddington Estate,
are the fifty-sixth of Geo. III. cap. 4 and 85; the fifty-ninth Geo. III.
cap. 3; and the seventh Geo. IV. cap. 140. But it appears that one Act
of Parliament was not sufficient to ratify and confirm the articles of
agreement of the twenty-fourth of March, 1812; for the fifth of Geo. IV.
cap. 35, passed in 1824, was called into operation “to carry into
complete effect” these articles of agreement; and the twenty-six pages of
which this Act is made up, shew pretty clearly that “some doubt” must
have been entertained whether the things therein agreed to be done, could
be “legally and effectually” done.
After setting forth the title of those claiming the Paddington Estate at
this time, (1824,) the Act renders it lawful for William (Howley) Bishop
of London, and his successors, and their lessees, and further requires
and directs him and them to ratify and confirm to the said Company all
the parcels of land mentioned in the said articles of agreement.
This Act informs us, too, of a field called “Lower Field,” containing ten
acres thirty-eight perches, which was purchased or agreed to be
purchased, by the Grand Junction Canal Company, of James Crompton, esq.,
in 1801, but which was forfeited to his Majesty in consequence of not
having been used for the purposes of the said Canal; which forfeiture,
however, his Majesty was graciously pleased to remit: and by the third
section of this Act, the said field is “discharged of all forfeiture to
his said Majesty, his heirs and successors, under any Statutes of
Mortmain.” These Statutes are also dispensed with by the tenth clause
for other lands conveyed; and the Company indemnify the bishop and his
lessees from the rent-charge of £349 15_s._, payable to the aforesaid
James Crompton, his heirs and assigns. The twentieth section confirms
the leases already granted to this Company; and the twenty-first, enacts
that all future leases shall be conformable to the one already granted.
A plan, but on a smaller scale, similar to the one attached to the
preceding Act, is also appended to this.
But the great Act relative to the Paddington estate—that which was
intended to give an epitome of preceding Acts, to bind and cement the
whole, and put the key-stone into this expansive legislative arch—is the
forty-fifth chapter in the sixth year of the reign of George the fourth,
anno 1825, entitled—
“An Act to enlarge the powers of several Acts passed in thirty-fifth,
forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-eighth years of the reign of his
Majesty King George the third, for enabling the Lord Bishop of London
to grant a lease, with powers of renewal, of lands in the parish of
Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, for the purpose of building
upon, and to appoint new trustees, and for other purposes relating
thereto.”
In 1824, the rate-payers of Paddington were seduced, in a manner
hereafter to be mentioned, to resign into the hands of the wealthy
proprietors, and a certain number of vestry-men, elected under the
detestable principles of Sturges Bourne’s Act, those inherent rights
which their predecessors had protected, with more or less determination,
for centuries; and the next year saw the official representatives of this
select body, and the curate of the parish, joining the Bishop of London
and his lessees, in beseeching his Majesty that the several objects
contained in the aforesaid Act, might be accomplished. One object was,
to increase the quantity of land to four hundred acres, for which
building leases might be granted; and another, to exclude the “Curates of
Paddington, the said Churchwardens and their successors” from “all
estates, right, title, interest, benefit, claim, or demand whatsoever of,
into, out of and upon the lands and hereditaments comprised in or which
are or may be subjected to” “the lease granted by Bishop Porteus, in
1795; excepting in so far as is expressed in this Act.” And in
consideration of this wholesale surrender of all the interest, benefit,
&c. which the inhabitants of Paddington ought at this time to receive out
of the Rectory and other lands, William (Howley) Bishop of London, and
his lessees were graciously pleased to consent, that it may be enacted,
“that the Curate’s former stipend of £120 a-year shall be increased to
£200 per annum;” that ground may be granted for the site of the said
Curate’s residence, “not exceeding one acre;” and “that any quantity of
the said estate not exceeding four acres may be conveyed by deed to
trustees or commissioners, appointed under Church Building Acts.”
Having already analysed preceding Acts, it only remains for me to notice
here, that this ponderous piece of private legislation, which occupies no
less than seventy-three pages of the statute book, is chiefly a resume of
that which had been before enacted. It provides, however, as we have
seen, for double the number of houses, and therefore for a vast increase
in the revenues of this estate; it provides for the increase of a
curate’s stipend, by eighty pounds per annum; and it grants sites for
churches—“if at any time hereafter it should on account of the increase
of the population, or on any other account, be found necessary or
convenient to erect and build the same.” It also provides for the
appointment of new trustees both at the present, and any future period;
for altering the conditions in the covenants in under-leases; and for
raising an additional twenty thousand pounds by mortgage.
It further informs us that the previous mortgage of ten thousand pounds
was settled on Dame Morshead; and it enacts that the former sum, as well
as this, shall be paid off by fines on the renewal of the present
building leases; the Bishop of London for the time being, to be
answerable for one-third of the interest on these sums, and the trustees
for the other two-thirds. The sum permitted to be borrowed by this Act
is to be used in improving the estate, as well as all monies received for
the sale of gravel, &c., and any sum that may arise from selling or
letting the waters, springs, &c, purchased of the corporation of London;
which by this Act the Bishop and his lessees are empowered to let or sell
for that purpose.
There are two schedules annexed to this Act, both bearing the signature,
J. H. Budd. The first is a description of the several pieces and parcels
of land composing “the Paddington Estate,” amounting in the whole, it is
here stated, to six hundred and eleven acres and a half. The second
contains an account of sums received and paid on account of the same
property. By this account we learn that twelve acres, three roods, and
fifteen perches and a half of land belonging to this estate had been sold
under the Land-tax Redemption Act, and the 52nd George III; for which, it
is stated, £6573 0s. 11d. was received. £2000 was also received for two
acres, three roods, and twenty-eight perches, “used by the Regent’s Canal
Company.” £10,256 12s. 3d. “by sale of brick earth, gravel and sand.”
And £1140 18s. 2d. by sale of old materials, water pipes, &c. Making
with the £10,000 borrowed, a sum of £29,970 11s. 4d. The payments being
£27,857 6s. 2d. including the small item of £4,530 17s. 11d. for law
expences.
In these Acts and Deeds will be found the true history of “the Paddington
Estate;” the few finishing touches which have been given to it, during
the possession of the See of London by the present Bishop, being
comparatively unimportant. But Dr. Blomfield has derived more personal
benefit from the policy of his predecessors than those who assisted in
establishing it could have contemplated would ever fall to the lot of any
one bishop. What have been the actual receipts from this estate for the
last twenty years, few men can tell; but if we were to calculate the
average for that period at £5,000 per annum, I think we should not
over-rate the bishop’s receipts from this “little farm;” and one hundred
thousand pounds in twenty years from one estate is not so bad.
With the exception of the Great Western Railway Bills there has been, so
far as I know, only one Act of Parliament passed since the great Act of
1825, having especial reference to the Paddington estate. This was “an
Act for confirming and carrying into execution certain articles of
agreement made and entered into between Charles James, Lord Bishop of
London, the Trustees of the Paddington estate, the Grand Junction Canal,
and the Grand Junction Water Works Companies, and for other purposes
therein mentioned.”
By this Act we learn that the Grand Junction Water Works Company, having
erected other works and reservoirs near Kew Bridge and at Camden Hill,
were desirous of using their land in Paddington for building-ground, as
it had become much more valuable for that purpose than for the purposes
for which it was originally leased. To enable them to do this the
Company had to apply to the Bishop of London, and the trustees for their
consent; and this consent was granted, upon condition “that the said
sites, as well the freehold as the leasehold parts thereof, shall be laid
out and built on by such class and description of buildings as approved
by the surveyor of the Paddington estate.” “And also upon condition that
the said Company shall give up and relinquish, for the site of an
intended hospital,” a plot of ground two hundred feet from north to
south, and one hundred and eighty feet from east to west; and also give
up and relinquish another plot, seventy feet by one hundred feet, “for
the site of an intended new church.”
By this Act the Grand Junction Canal Company are for ever released and
discharged from all covenants, agreements, and undertakings, relating to
the powers and privileges of supplying with water the inhabitants of this
parish; and the Grand Junction Water Works Company take upon themselves
their liabilities in this respect: the bishop, and trustees, agreeing to
lease the land, already occupied by this Company, with the exception of
the plots mentioned, “at the yearly rent of a peppercorn.” The expences
of this Act were to be wholly borne by the Company, and the Company are
bound by it to provide the inhabitants of Paddington, and parishes and
streets adjacent, with water as heretofore. The tenants of the
Paddington estate, “including the inhabitants of the houses proposed to
be built on the sites of the said present reservoirs and other works of
the said Company,” to be supplied with water at the reduced rate of ten
pounds per cent., as provided for by previous Acts.
We have already seen how preceding Acts direct that “no fine, premium, or
foregift, or any thing in the nature of a fine” should be taken on
letting any portion of the land which Parliament permitted to be let for
building; excepting at the end of the terms for which the first leases
were granted; but this arrangement extended only to four hundred acres,
and as the situation of these acres was nowhere defined in these Acts,
the Great Western Railway Company, when they wanted thirty-nine acres of
land belonging to this estate for the completion of their line and
terminus, obtained the same at a rent of sixty pounds, thirteen
shillings, and seven-pence three-farthings per annum, per acre, {96} upon
paying the present bishop and the lessees of the estate £30,000.
Since this bargain was struck the bishop and his lessees have sold other
parcels, though at a less famous figure.
On the nineteenth of February, 1841, a special meeting of the Vestry of
Paddington was called to receive and take into consideration a
communication from the Lord Bishop of London, respecting a piece of
ground west of the church-yard. It was feared this breathing spot was
about to be purchased by the insatiable builders. So, besides the
“cordial thanks of the vestry for his kind and timely communication,” an
offer of £3500 was made to the bishop and his lessees for this little
lot. Four thousand pounds, however, was the lowest sum they would take
for this portion of the old green; and the vestry were obliged to be
content with the southern portion; for which the parish paid £2000. The
northern portion was sold to one of the much-dreaded builders; and is now
covered with houses; while on that portion purchased by the parish the
new Vestry-hall is being built; to lay, if possible, the ghosts which are
said to have haunted it.
On the first of April, 1845, the Vestry received a letter from Messrs.
Budd and Hayes, stating that the portion of “The Upper Readings,” found
by the recent admeasurement of Mr. Gutch to be 5a. 2r. 27p., may be
secured by the Vestry for the purposes of building a workhouse thereon;
“provided that the powers of the local Act are sufficient to enable his
lordship and the trustees to effect such sale;” and that £5,700 be given
for the same.
Another portion of “The Upper Readings” was sold to the trustees of the
Lock Hospital. Subsequently to these purchases, some mutual exchanges
took place, which have reduced the workhouse plot to 5¼ acres, and the
cost of the land to £5,168 15_s._
Other facts relative to this estate, will be found in the next part of
this Work, and after perusing them, in conjunction with those I have
collected in this, I think my readers will conclude, with me, that the
inhabitants of Paddington—who have to pay the owners of the Paddington
Estate most exorbitant prices for the privilege of living on their
land—owe but little gratitude to these lords of the soil for the small
favours they have given, in return for the enormous wealth the industry
of others is placing in their hands.
PART II.
THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE.
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION—SITUATION—BOUNDARIES AND EXTENT—GENERAL AND MEDICAL
TOPOGRAPHY—ETYMOLOGY OF NAMES—ORIGIN.
BLACKSTONE defines a parish to be “that circuit of ground which is
committed to the charge of one parson, or vicar, or other minister having
cure of souls therein.” In ordinary language a parish is “that place, or
district, which manages its local affairs, and maintains its own poor.”
Newcourt says, “This parish of Paddington (which is a very small one) is
within the liberties of Finsbury and Wenlakesbarn, and lies about three
or four miles north-westward from London.”
Lysons tells us, that “The Village of Paddington is situated in the
hundred of Ossulston, scarcely a mile north of Tyburn turnpike, upon the
Harrow-road.”
All the other descriptions of the situation of the “pretty little rural
village of Paddington,” which I have seen, resemble these given by
Newcourt and Lysons; but these are now so inapplicable to its present
state, that it would be useless to quote from other authorities.
The hundred of Ossulston originally comprised, as I have already
observed, nearly, if not quite, half the county of Middlesex; but after a
time “the liberties of Westminster,” and “the liberties of London,” were
taken out of this hundred: that is to say, these places became of so much
importance as to claim and obtain separate jurisdictions. The hundred of
Ossulston was then reduced to a small portion of the county north and
east of London, while by far the greater part of the old hundred, still
waste and wood, was included under a separate jurisdiction, called in the
old maps “Fynnesberry and Wen Lax Barne.” Another re-arrangement however
has taken place; the ancient liberties of Finsbury and Wenlakesbarn are
now included in the hundred of Ossulston; the hundred itself is separated
into four divisions, and Paddington is included, with certain other
districts, in “the Holbourn division” of this re-arranged hundred.
It has been shown, too, in the previous part of this Work, that the
district, first known by the name of Paddington, was, very probably,
confined within the comparatively small space bounded by the two Roman
roads and the bourn; and that, antecedently to the establishment of this
separate district, it formed a portion of the Tybourn manor. It is also
very probable that Paddington was included in the Parish of Tybourn,
before the monks of Westminster established their claim to it, and
annexed it to St. Margaret’s. At a later period, when Paddington became
a separate parish, the whole of that district which is now known as
Westbourn; the manor of Notting Barns; and all that Chelsea now claims
north of the Great Western Road; as well as the manor of Paddington, and
a considerable portion of that which now belongs to Marylebone, were
included in it.
The post-office authorities, even to this day, include a considerable
portion of Marylebone in their map of Paddington; and if we take the “Via
Originaria” of the Romans, “The Watling Street” of former days, to have
been the eastern boundary of this parish at all periods, still even that
would give to Paddington a long strip of the south-west corner of the
present parish of Marylebone; for I think those who will examine this
subject, will come to the conclusion, that the old Roman road was that
road which is seen in Rocque’s maps, continuing in a straight line from
Tybourn-lane along the high ground to the top of Maida-hill.
In “Baker’s Chronicle of the Kings of England,” p. 313, we find a record
of many works of public utility, performed, in the reign of Edward the
sixth, by the Rowland Hill of that day. And in the third year of that
king’s reign, when Sir Rowland was Lord Mayor of London, we find it
chronicled “that he likewise made the highway to Kilburne near to
London;” previously to which time, I presume, the old military way was
the only road in use.
In Rocque’s maps we see three roads branching off in a northerly
direction from the Tybourn-road (now Oxford-street); one, opposite North
Audley-street, another, opposite Tybourn-lane (now Park-lane), and the
third, the present Edgeware-road. I believe it was the road nearest the
city which was made by Sir Rowland Hill; the central one, as above
indicated, being the ancient Roman road; and the present road being the
most modern; but both “Watling-street” and “Watery-lane” are now
obliterated from the map; and the land occupied by these roads, with the
triangular or gore-shaped piece which lay to the west, between the
ancient road and the present Edgeware-road, now forms a portion of the
adjoining parish.
It was on this piece of land, the highest point of ground on this part of
the Tybourn-road, that the gallows was erected when it was removed from
“The Elmes.”
Whether the Great Western-road took a more southerly course previously to
“the Hyde Farm” having been converted into Hyde, or “High,” Park, by
Henry the eighth, I do not know; but from the facts already advanced, it
appears certain that this triangular-shaped parish was at one time a much
larger triangle than it now is; the base of which, in all probability,
extended from Shepherd’s Rush to Kilbourn Bridge.
At the present time the eastern boundary of Paddington parish is formed
by the Edgeware-road from where Tybourn-gate stood in 1829, {103a} to
where Kilbourn-gate now stands; the southern boundary being marked out by
the Uxbridge-road from its junction with the Edgeware-road to the head of
the Serpentine, with the exception of that piece of Tybourn-field which
was sold for a burying-ground to St. George’s, and which now, with St.
George’s-terrace, forms a portion of that parish. Paddington claims a
considerable strip of Kensington-gardens, and is bounded west and
north-west by an imaginary and irregular line, known only to the
authorities and a few parish boys, which runs over and through houses,
greenhouses, &c., from the centre of the road opposite Palace-gardens, to
Kilbourn-gate. Or, to use the official words of the district surveyor,
“Paddington is bounded on the north by the parish of Willesden; on the
south by the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, and St. George,
Hanover-square; on the east by the parish of St. Mary-le-bone; and on the
west by the parishes of St. Mary Abbots, Kensington, and a detached part
of St. Luke, Chelsea.” {103b}
In the population-returns for 1831, this area was said to contain 1,220
acres of land. Whether this return was made for the sake of giving round
numbers, or whether the parish has extended during this century, I cannot
say; but Lysons says that “Paddington contains, according to an actual
survey in the possession of William Strong, esq. (a former bishop’s
agent), 1197a. 3r. 30p.” In the “Registrar-General’s Report on Cholera
in England, 1848–49,” I find the “area in acres” of Paddington put down
at 1277. This estimate was given to the Registrar-General by Captain
Dawson, R.E. of the Tithe Commission. {104a}
Lysons tells us, “the soil in the neighbourhood of the village is
principally factitious, having been much enriched by great quantities of
manure. On the east of a little brook which runs by Kilbourn and
Bayswater, the soil is a thin clay upon a dry bed of gravel; on the west
side of this brook a deep clay, the springs lying very far beneath the
surface.” In proof of which he states that a well sunk by Mr. Coulson,
of Westbourn house, had to be dug 300 feet deep before water was found;
the earth of the first 100 feet, he tells us, was a bluish clay, “then, a
thin stratum of stone, then, another bed of clay.” In another well, dug
in the same neighbourhood, water was found at the depth of 250 feet.
These statements respecting the water must be taken to refer to the
valley through which the Westbourn ran; for on the eastern side of the
brook, south of Maida-hill, and on the eastern side of Craven-hill which
lies to the west of the stream, many wells existed which were not more
than ten or fifteen feet deep. {104b} Indeed, Lysons tells us, that “the
springs at Bayswater lie near the surface, and that the water is very
fine.” In fact, the people of Paddington seem to have had no lack of
water, nor any reason to complain either of the quality or cost of this
essential element of life.
Previously to the present century, the most desirable spots in the
district had been selected for the dwellings of the inhabitants; and when
the bishop’s first building Act was granted only 200 acres were allowed
to be built on, because the other portions of the estate were not
considered “fit for building purposes.” But the modern builder’s art
despises any delicate notions about fitness or unfitness for the
situation of a house. A plot of ground shall be covered; a street shall
be built, says the money-making builder; and, when the street is
finished, who will know whether this or that particular house is built on
gravel, or clay, or mud? Who will take the trouble to ascertain whether
the elevated road to his entrance-hall, or the spot on which his house is
placed, was made by nature’s laws, or by the scavenger’s cart? As to the
drainage of the house, and the supply of water, these are hidden
mysteries, with which no dweller in a house, except a master-builder, is
expected to trouble himself. Respecting any of these matters, the owner
of the soil will be rarely found to interfere, excepting it is to take
part with the builder; for the value of his land has been enormously
increased by that industrious speculator.
Fortunately, however, those who live in houses, are beginning to find out
that not only the healthfulness of their own dwelling, but that of their
neighbours also, very much concerns them. Fortunately, too, especially
for the dwellers in large towns, men who have made hygeic science a study
cannot be sneered down, or “put down” by “practical builders.” But until
_the people_ thoroughly understand the nature of those requirements which
constitute healthful dwellings; and until they are determined to press
upon the legislature the enactment of those laws which are necessary to
constitute them such, and to restrain, by more stringent laws, the lust
after mammon of “the speculative builder,” both their health and life
will remain in very unsafe keeping.
The builder may say that the legislature of a country has no right to
interfere in an affair of so private a nature as the building of a house;
that every man is able to judge for himself in what house he will live;
and that it is his own fault if he take a bad one. So long as houses
were built to last _more_ than ninety-nine years, and were nearly a mile
apart, all this may have been true, but experience has taught us that
this does not hold good when applied to towns; it has taught us that
cities would be in a much worse state than they now are but for those
inefficient laws which exist at the present time; and it has taught us
that to choose an abode in ignorance of almost all the necessary
requirements which constitute a healthful dwelling is a species of
ignorance by no means of the blissful family. To distinguish good from
evil in every object which surrounds us is one of the necessities of our
nature; to have “a foe under foot,” {105} a foe overhead, and a foe on
every side, without a determination to subdue this legion, does not say
much for the wisdom either of the governors, or the governed; and to care
nothing about the expenditure of millions collected annually for local
purposes, is no proof of confidence in the governors, is no proof of the
happiness or wisdom of the governed; it may however prove, that the
people are “silly sheep” {106} who may be shorn by any tool, at the
bidding of any despot.
Experience has proved that no more healthful situation for a town can be
chosen, than elevated ground above the banks of a pure stream; and those
who fixed on the south portion of the Westbourn district, and on the site
of the old village of Paddington, as spots for their dwellings, could not
have been ignorant either of the material advantages such situations
afforded, or of the effects produced both on the mind and body by the
beauty and salubrity of these localities.
If we spoke of the beauties of Paddington to those whose acquaintance
with this place is of recent date, they would naturally think we were
about to describe the gorgeous mansions of the fashionable “Tyburnia.”
But the old village of Tybourn, or Westbourn, and the new town of
Pædings, were surrounded by a greater combination of natural beauty than
those who have not studied the ancient topography of this district can
well conceive.
Out of thirty-seven districts, into which, for certain special purposes,
the Registrar-General has arranged London and its vicinity, in a series
of excellent tables contained in his very valuable Report on Cholera, we
find that there are only four parishes of greater average elevation than
Paddington; the estimated elevation of this parish above Trinity high
watermark being seventy-six feet; Pancras eighty; Islington eighty-eight;
Marylebone one hundred; and Hampstead three hundred and fifty.
On referring to those accurate and beautiful surveys published by the
Ordnance Map-Office, I find that the highest point in Paddington, the
peak of Maida-hill, rises to 120 feet 9 inches, while the lowest,
Elms-lane, sinks to 57 feet. In fact, Paddington consists chiefly of two
hills, Maida-hill and Craven-hill; the north-eastern slope of
Notting-hill; and a valley, through which the Tybourn ran. In the south
part of the parish this valley is very narrow, but to the north it
spreads out into Maida Vale.
Woodfield road, and the neighbourhood, is another elevated spot in
Paddington, but in the whole of that part of the parish, as well as in
Maida Yale, the clay is immediately below the surface. In some places
the surface has been raised by the earth dug out of the Canal, and in
others, by deposits brought from other parts of London; indeed the
alterations which have taken place, inconsequence of the removal of the
natural soil, and the addition of “made ground,” make it difficult to
tell what is the natural elevation of any particular spot in the parish.
The tables from which I have just now quoted, and other authenticated
statistical accounts, tend to prove that the number of feet we live above
high water-mark is an appreciable quantity in the account of health and
disease, life and death. But elevation is only one item, though an
important one, in this important account. The _nature_ as well as the
_height_ of the soil on which we live, influences the health and life of
every living being.
A considerable portion of the ground, composing the south and
south-eastern parts of Paddington, consists of sand and gravel; the
northern and north-western parts being clay. Vast quantities of the
former have been removed; and although the Paddington soil was
sufficiently “factitious” at the time Lysons wrote, it has become much
more so since that time. Those only who have carefully watched the modes
which have been adopted to raise the ground for making new roads, and for
elevating the basement of houses in certain parts of this parish, can
form any idea of the immense quantity of “rubbish” which has been “shot
here.” As to the nature of a great deal of that rubbish, I will not
offend my readers by attempting any description. Suffice it to say, that
thousands of loads of sand and gravel have been taken away since the Act
passed which permitted the sale of this natural soil, and vegetable and
animal matters of all kinds, and in all stages of putrefaction, have been
emptied into hollow places. Besides the effect produced by the poisonous
gases which must arise from such factitious soil, other bad effects
frequently follow the removal of the natural earth and the substitution
of made ground. All the house-drains which are laid on the latter, sink,
and in a short time become either partially, or wholly, useless for the
purpose for which they were made; and new drains, constructed at great
expence and inconvenience, are necessary. When from this or any other
cause, the drain does not empty itself into the common sewer, it is
emphatically termed by the men who work in the sewers, “a dead’un.”
Having for several years lived in a house which owned one of these dead
drains, and having been very nearly “a dead’un” myself in consequence, I
was led to enquire into this subject somewhat minutely; and although the
drainage of an immense city is too important a subject to be treated of
by the topographer in a sketch of a single parish, yet I cannot refrain
from saying a word or two in this place on a point of such vital
consequence.
The Thames having been most mischievously used as the great common sewer
for London and its neighbourhood; and Paddington which is so much above
its level, having been drained into it, one would have imagined that the
system of drainage here would have completely removed all debris from so
elevated a spot. Such, however, has not been the case, as I have learned
from the Reports of the Sewer Commissioners, and from a personal
inspection of some of the sewers.
Nothing worthy the name of a system of drainage, can be secured, till the
great river, which was intended by its Creator to bring health and life
to the people, instead of being made by man the instrument of his own
disease and death, is freed from the sewerage of a whole metropolis: yet
much good may be done in the mean time, and at a comparatively small
outlay.
Thousands of drains, now existing, have been made of such porous bricks,
and these have been placed side by side with such an unadhesive layer of
dirt, that instead of acting as an impervious tube through which the soil
could pass to its destination, the common sewer, the bottom of the drain
acts as a mere filter for its contents. Glazed earthenware pipe-drains
have been introduced to obviate this and other great evils; and the
dwellers in towns have seldom had a greater blessing befall them, than
this discovery. These tubular drains are cemented together, so as to
form a hollow tube, and are laid at so much per foot under the regulation
of the Sewers Office, by workmen who understand what a _house-drain_
should be; and it must be understood that a _house_-drain and a
_field_-drain are two distinct things; though very many builders have
thought what would do for one, would do for the other.
Why there is not a good system of main drainage for London; why the
Thames is still made the generator of disease and death, I do not know,
except it be to shew the inefficiency of our governors; but if the New
Sewers Commission had done no other good, it deserves praise for the
facilities it has given for the use of this more perfect system of
house-drainage; and after all it is of more consequence that the drain to
the sewer should be perfect, than that the sewer itself should be so,
although the latter is undoubtedly essential.
All those who wish to live in a healthful house, will adopt this tubular
system of house-drainage; but those who cannot or will not have a perfect
drain, may adopt a small part of the modern tubular system with great
advantage and at a trifling cost. At present, the great majority of
drains open directly into the common sewer, and act as chimnies for the
conveyance of poisonous gases into the interior of the houses, the
water-traps only partially preventing this evil. Others enter the sewer
so low, that when they are not performing this office, they frequently
form a portion of the common sewer itself, and are invariably filled with
its contents, when “flushing” is performed.
A simple lid of glazed earth, hanging from the upper part of the mouth of
the drain, provides against these evils to a very great extent; and this
precaution should always be used, till a more effectual substitute is
found.
Some portions of Paddington which have been built on, are amongst the
most desirable spots, as places of residence, to be found in the
immediate vicinity of London; and these would be rendered unexceptionable
by a perfect system of water supply and drainage. But, as yet that good
time has not come even for the most healthful and most fashionable houses
in Tyburnia.
So much has been said and written on the subject of burying the dead in
the midst of the living, that it would appear useless to add another word
on this subject; and at length some of the effects produced on living
bodies by the poisonous gases which arise from church-yards are well
known.
We have already seen that Paddington is blessed with two burying grounds,
one of which was established for the benefit of the rector of St.
George’s, Hanover-square, and his rich parishioners; and although this
burial-ground was at one time extra-mural, the inhabitants of
Albion-street, Upper Berkeley-street, Connaught-square, and St.
George’s-row, have found out that it is no longer so. For some of the
particular evils attendant on having this large burial-ground surrounded
by houses, I must refer my readers to “_An account of the measures
__adopted by the Medical Practitioners residing in the Western District
of Paddington_, _to obtain the_ CLOSURE _of the_ BURIAL-GROUND _situated
in the_ UXBRIDGE ROAD,” and to a Return on the Metropolitan Burials, Act,
just printed by order of the House of Commons. For an exposition of the
general evils of intra-mural interment, and an account of some of the
disgraceful practices connected with it, I cannot do better than refer to
“GATHERINGS from GRAVE YARDS,” and Mr. Walker’s other works on these
subjects.
To secure a healthful dwelling, then, it is necessary to know something
of the elevation and the nature of the soil; the quality of the water;
the efficiency of the drainage; the size of the house relative to the
number of its intended inhabitants; and indeed, all those considerations
which influence the quality of the air we breathe, should be taken into
account. But it is not my intention to enter into an examination of all
the items which compose a healthful dwelling; much less to count up those
points which give an ideal value to a house on a “Bishop’s Estate,”
though, judging from the puffing advertisements, which for years crowded
the advertising columns of the _Times_, there must have been great and
healing virtues in these magic words. In those advertisements, however,
we saw no account of the contracted area; the deep narrow back yard; the
thin and crumbling walls; the gaping doors and windows; the damp and ill
ventilated basement; the absence of drainage; the want of bath-rooms, &c.
&c.;—all such things had to be found out by the in-coming tenant, and
remedied at his cost. But for the want of these essentials, the “pretty
paper,” or the “handsome cornice,” made but poor compensation, even in
houses advertised for sale at a few thousand pounds, “with a trifling
ground-rent of seventy-five pounds per annum.”
Many suggestions have been offered relative to the derivation of the word
_Paddington_; but that suggested by Mr. Kemble—one of the greatest living
authorities on antiquarian topography—seems to me to be the most
deserving consideration. Mr. Kemble observes, in his preface to the
third volume of the Codex Diplomaticus, that the Anglo-Saxon, like most
German names of places, are nearly always composite words; that is, they
consist of two or more parts; the second generally of wide and common
signification; the first a kind of definition limiting this general name
to one particular application.
The former portion of these compound names, he says, may be classed under
various heads, as the names of animals, birds, trees, fishes, &c.; others
refer to mythological or divine personages; and others contain the names
of individuals and families. To this latter division he refers
Paddington in the first volume of his “Saxons in England;” where he has
inferred a mark—“Pædingas”—for the name of this place—Tun, the enclosure
or town, Pædingas of the Pædings. It is true, this is one of three
names, of which Mr. Kemble appears to entertain some doubt; but all other
explanations I have met with appear to me open to more serious
objections. Dr. R. G. Latham, the father of the modern school of English
philology, tells us that “in the Greek language the notion of lineal
descent, in other words, the relation of the son to the father, is
expressed by a particular termination;” and that this Greek mode of
expression is very different from the English termination, _son_, and the
Gaelic prefix, _mac_; which in fact make the words to which they are
joined only compound words. But he asks is there anything in English
corresponding to the Greek patronymics, and answers, “In Anglo-Saxon the
termination _ing_ is as truly patronymic as IDES is in Greek. * * * In
the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following:—Ida was
Eopping, Eoppa Esing, &c.—Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esing, &c.”
The learned Doctor further informs us that “In the plural number these
forms denote the _race of_—as Scyldingas—to the Scyldings, or the race of
Scyld,” {111} or Pœdingas—to the Pædings, or the race of Pæd.
With other names in Paddington there is not much difficulty.
The burne, bourn, or brook, which ran through Paddington gave its name to
a district. Tybourn I believe to have been the original name; but the
houses erected on the west side of this stream, with the district
surrounding them, were eventually called by the name of Westbourn; the
name which was given to the stream. Respecting the origin of the word
Bayswater—a name given to a portion of the Westbourn district—many
suggestions have been offered; but the first of the three given by Mr.
Osborne in his letter to Mr. Urban, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, dated
March 25th, 1798, appears to me to be the correct one. He says “Perhaps
the name of Bays is derived from the original owner of the land;” and
from the Inquisitions taken in the early part of the fourteenth century,
to be found in the first part of this Work, it will be perceived that
there was then a Juliana Baysbolle holding land in Westbourn. At the end
of the fourteenth century, we find from Tanner’s note, before quoted,
that the head of water given by the Abbot was called Bayard’s Watering
Place; and although this may have been the name used in legal documents
for the district surrounding it, yet Bays Watering has been the name used
by the people. There may, indeed, have been two watering places for the
weary traveller; and mine host Bays, and mine host Bayard, may have been
rivals for public favour; the one living on one side of the King’s
highway, and the other on the opposite.
Knotting, or Notting, seems to have been but a corruption of Nutting; the
wood on and around the hill of that name, having for centuries being
appropriately so called.
Kensell, or Kensale, comes, as I take it, from King’s-field. In the
Harleian MS. (printed at page 38,) the green of this name is called
Kellsell, and Kingefelde. In Mary’s reign, we perceive by this document,
also, that “the Green-lane” and “Kingsefelde-green” were the same place.
And as “the Green-lanes” now exist—in name—we may ascertain with
something like accuracy the situation of this field, or green, which
formerly belonged to the King.
The names of Squares, Terraces, Streets, &c., have been for the most part
furnished by the names of the owners of property, past or present, their
native counties, or country residences.
Spring-street, Brook-street, Conduit-street, Market-street, &c., point
out the situations of objects formerly on, or near, those sites.
“Tichborne-street,” although not built in the time of Henry the eighth,
reminds us of one “Nicholas Tychborne, gent., husband of the second
daughter and co-heir of Alderman Fenroper;” of Alderman Tichbourn, one of
Cromwell’s peers and King Charles’s judges; and of a dirty ditch which
ran down the side of the Edgeware-road from Maida-hill; and Maida-hill,
itself, reminds us of the famous battle of Maida. Praed-street preserves
the memory of the banker of that name; one of the first Directors of the
Grand Junction Canal Company; and of the lands they secured, as well for
the purposes for which they professedly obtained them, as for the
purposes to which they have been applied.
The name of Frederick, once well known here, became so distasteful to the
people of Paddington, that it is preserved only in a mews; while the
memory of the capacious generosity of the Lady Margaret, Countess of
Richmond, to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, will be long
preserved in Paddington by the Squares and Terraces of those names.
There is now a Shelden-street, to remind us of a bishop’s gift to his
nephews; and a Porteus Road and Terrace, that we may not forget the good
and generous Beilby who gave away, or sold, two-thirds of the proceeds of
the Paddington estate. Pickering-place and Terrace preserve the memory
of a former curate, and of a friendly Chancery suit relating to the
property here; and while all sorts of changes are rung on the names of
the living, it has been thought expedient to place Blomfield and Cromwell
Terraces in a continuous line in the highway to a Public School.
The civil division of the land, recognised by the Anglo-Saxons, were the
Mark, or March; the Gâ, or Shire; and the Hid, or Hide. To understand
these divisions, as Mr. Kemble has described them, is to comprehend the
natural origin of every inhabited place in this country; and the origin
of all our constitutional law.
The Mark he describes to be the smallest and simplest division of the
land which was held by many men in common, or by several households under
settled conditions, the next in order to the private estates, the hids or
alods of the markmen. “As its name denotes, it is something marked out
or defined, having settled boundaries; something serving as a sign to
others, and distinguished by signs. It is the plot of land on which a
greater or lesser number of free men have settled for the purposes of
cultivation, and for the sake of mutual profit and protection; and it
comprises a portion both of arable and pasture land, in proportion to the
numbers that enjoy its produce.” {113} Other meanings were attached, to
this word, Mark, which are thoroughly examined by this learned historian,
and to his works I must refer those of my readers who wish to obtain a
complete insight into the ancient divisions of the land, and the manners
and customs of our Saxon ancestors.
The Gâ or Shire was but a number of these marks united under one general
government.
The Hid or Hide was “the estate of one household, the amount of land
sufficient for the support of one family.” By a series of learned
calculations and investigations Mr. Kemble has proved that the hide was a
stated quantity of _arable_ land, not much over thirty Saxon acres, equal
to forty Norman acres; he shews that the Saxons had a large and a small
acre, and explains, by this fact, how the hide came to have been
considered one hundred and twenty acres. He shews that the forest,
meadow, and pasture-land was common property; and that it was attached to
the hyde as of common-right. But, for a complete exposition of this
subject, I must also refer my readers to the fourth chapter of the first
book of Mr. Kemble’s history.
The fact of Paddington in Surrey, or “Padendene” as it was called, being
mentioned in the Conqueror’s survey, {114a} while Paddington in Middlesex
was not noticed, inclines me to believe the _dene_, or _den_, in Surrey,
was the original mark of the Pædings; and that the smaller enclosure in
Middlesex was at first peopled and cultivated by a migration of a portion
of that family from the _den_ when it had become inconveniently full.
I do not mean to say the Surrey valley was too crowded when this
migration took place; but the lord, or his man, one or both might have
pressed a little too hard on some of the young cubs in the Surrey den;
and as they had no Press through which to make their wrongs known, they
may have thought it best to move off before any other wrongs were
inflicted.
At what period this migration happened, it is impossible to say; but
there is very little doubt that the first settlement was made near the
bourn, or brook, which ran through the forest. And this brook, though
now a deep under-ground sewer {114b} which has been made, by the aid of
the mason, to give a few more ground-rents to the bishop and his lessees,
while it carries its hidden pollution to the capacious bosom of “Father
Thames,”—once gave life to a most beautiful valley, and was itself, at
times, no insignificant stream. At the beginning of this century it was
a favourite resort for the young fishermen; and, as depicted in Norden’s
Map of Middlesex, {115a} we see what it was in the time of Elizabeth,
when the waters, taking their natural courses from the hills of Hampstead
and Highgate, found their way into it.
What amount of disease and death has been caused by the impurities it has
been made to hold since that time is a mystery; but one into which those
have had a peep, who have taken the trouble to read the disclosures which
have been made respecting the Serpentine, {115b} into which it was for
years made to pour its many abominations.
By the side of a pure and then beautiful stream, at a later period named
the Westbourn, the first “clearing” was made; and in all probability on
the eminence above this brook, perhaps on the very spot where the first
Christian temple was raised, the inhabitants of this Mark first offered
up their adoration to that God which their intelligence had taught them
to worship; and let not those who occupy their places in well cushioned
pews near this spot, decry or despise that worship; for it was the
sincere and spontaneous act of the unenlightened mind, unmixed with the
sins of a cold formality, or the hypocrisy of a political sham. However
misguided our ancestors were, they were sincere, and they wanted not the
support of the State to bolster up their peculiar dogmas, but freely
consecrated a portion of the Mark to the services of religion. And the
present christian Bishop of London, and his lay lessees, may now have the
honour of receiving the proceeds of land once dedicated to Pagan worship.
{115c}
The Mark included a considerable extent of the forest around the portion
cleared; and this portion of the Mark, the forest or waste-land, was, as
we have seen, the common property of the inhabitants. To protect their
rights in this common property against powerful and ambitious
individuals, was for centuries the constant care of the people, as it was
the special object of many of our ancient laws. How these laws were
evaded; how by force or fraud “the lords of the soil” managed to transfer
those lands to their own keeping; and how cunning and designing men have
over-reached them in return; so that, at last, scarcely a scrap of all
their former rights remain to the public, for public uses, I have made
some attempt to tell, so far as the Paddington Mark is concerned. But a
complete history of these transactions remains to be written.
The formation of the Mark, and the reception of its occupants into the
family of the state, were not the work of a day: and these long preceded
the parochial arrangement; which latter, indeed, was an ecclesiastical
division of the land, said to have been introduced into England in the
seventh century by Honorius, Archbishop of Canterbury: but this is
evidently one of those errors so common in history, where one man is
often credited or debited with deeds which belong to, and should be
fairly divided among many individuals. It is this error, as Mr. Kemble
has most strikingly pointed out, which has frequently made a saint, or a
devil, when no heroic quality belonged to the person so set on high for
admiration or detestation.
Modern research has made it pretty certain that the ancient parishes,
“parochiæ,” of England were the districts adopted by the several teachers
of Christianity who first promulgated the truths of the gospel in this
country. These divisions, made for securing the spread of the “Good
News” through the whole of the country, must necessarily, at first, have
been very rudely defined—but then there was not, at that time, any fear
that these overseers, or bishops, would set people by the ears about
territorial titles. They were much better occupied, by the promulgation
of God’s tidings, than to trouble themselves about those things which
have lately become of so much more concern to christian bishops than the
conversion of the heathen; and when those earnest and good men were
assisted by others whom they had imbued with their religious spirit they
lived in one house, in common, on the free-will offerings of a grateful
people.—The overseer of the district being their overseer, and his
parish, their parish.
As the religious wants of the people increased, these centres were found
to be inconveniently remote from the circumference. The teachers, too,
considerably increased in numbers; they demanded as a right that which
had been conceded as a favour; and ambition creeping into their
community, as their riches increased, separate spheres of action because
additionally desirable. So at length, and by degrees, our present
parochial system arose; the sub-divisions bearing the same name, diocese,
or parish, as the original divisions had done.
CHAPTER II.
THE PARSON—ORIGIN AND USE OF TITHE—PARSONAGE, RECTORY, OR
VICARAGE—APPROPRIATION, AND IMPROPRIATION—A LIVING—A SINECURE—A CURACY
WITHOUT THE MEANS OF CURE.
“A PARSON, _persona ecclesiae_,” says Blackstone, “is one that hath full
possession of all the rights of a parochial church. He is called parson,
_persona_, because by his person the church, which is an invisible body,
is represented; and he is in himself a body corporate, in order to
protect and defend the rights of the church, (which he personates,) by a
perpetual succession. He is sometimes called the rector, or governor, of
the church: but the appellation _of parson_ (however it may be
depreciated by familiar, clownish, and indiscriminate use) is the most
legal, most beneficial, and most honourable title that a parish priest
can enjoy; because such-a-one (Sir Edward Coke observes) and he only, is
said _vicem seu personam ecclesiae genere_. A parson has, during his
life, the freehold in himself of the parsonage-house, the glebe, the
tithes, and other dues. But these are sometimes _appropriated_; that is
to say, the benefice is perpetually annexed to some spiritual
corporation, either sole or aggregate, being the patron of the living;
which the law esteems equally capable of providing for the service of the
church, as any single private clergyman. This contrivance seems to have
sprung from the policy of the monastic orders, who have never been
deficient in subtile inventions for the increase of their own power and
emoluments. At the first establishment of the parochial clergy, the
tithes of the parish were distributed in a four-fold division; one for
the use of the bishop, another for maintaining the fabrick of the church,
a third for the poor, and the fourth to provide for the incumbent. When
the sees of the bishops became otherwise amply endowed, they were
prohibited from demanding their usual share of these tithes, and the
division was into three parts only. And hence it was inferred by the
monasteries, that a small part was sufficient for the officiating priest;
and that the remainder might well be applied to the use of their own
fraternities, (the endowment of which was construed to be a work of the
most exalted piety,) subject to the burthen of repairing the church and
providing for its constant supply. And therefore they begged and bought,
for masses and obits, and sometimes even for money, all the advowsons
within their reach, and then appropriated the benefices to the use of
their own corporation. But, in order to complete such appropriation
effectually, the king’s licence, and consent of the bishop, must first be
obtained: because both the king and the bishop may sometime or other have
an interest, by lapse, in the presentation to the benefice; which can
never happen if it be appropriated to the use of a corporation, which
never dies: and also because the law reposes a confidence in them, that
they will not consent to any thing that shall be to the prejudice of the
church. The consent of the patron also is necessarily implied, because
(as was before observed) the appropriation can be originally made to
none, but to such spiritual corporation, as is also the patron of the
church; the whole being indeed nothing else, but an allowance for the
patrons to retain the tithes and glebe in their own hands, without
presenting any clerk, they themselves undertaking to provide for the
service of the church.” {118}
The great modern historian of our ancestors—Mr. Kemble—also informs us
that the tithe—that property which cunning and selfish individuals in the
course of time, and little by little, appropriated to their own uses—was
originally divided into three portions: one for the reparation of the
church; a second to the servants of God; “and a third to God’s poor and
needy men in thraldom.” And Mr. Kemble further states that when the
accidental oblations were replaced by settled payments, whether land or
not, they were directed to be applied in definite proportions to these
objects.
So that the maintenance of the place of religious worship was as much
provided for as the clergy who were to do duty therein; the poor, too,
were equally taken care of, at the same time and by the same means; for
to use the emphatic words of this great historian, “the state had a
poor-law and the clergy were the relieving officers.” Mr. Barnes, the
registrar of the diocese of Exeter, in his examination before the select
committee of the House of Commons, on the fourth of July, 1851, {119a}
says, that he believes Blackstone was mistaken in attributing the charge
of the repair of the church to the tithe; but I think Mr. Kemble has
fully established the truth of the position taken up by that learned
Judge.
And this was not all, the bishops, and clergy, were to feed the poor out
of their own incomes. A parson who possessed a superfluity and did not
distribute it to the poor was to be excommunicated. And the clergy were
to practice handicrafts, “not only to keep them out of mischief, but to
help to feed their poor brethren.” Many of them were masons; and Mr.
Kemble is of opinion that more churches existed in the tenth century than
at the present time.
Before that time there appears to have been “a tendency to speculate in
church-building;” for the sake of obtaining “the oblations of the
faithful;” the builders claiming for themselves that portion of the
church—_the altare_—on which the offerings were laid.
To ensure the support of the churches so built on speculation, the
bishops found it necessary “to insist that every church should be endowed
with a sufficient glebe or estate in land: the amount fixed was one hide,
equivalent to the estate of a single family. Which, properly managed,
would support the presbyter and his attendant clerks.” And this
glebe-land the bishop could not afterwards interfere with, or alienate
from the church to which it was given.
Mr. Kemble also tells us that by the time of Eàdgàr it had become quite a
settled thing to pay tithe; “the English prelates having laid a good
foundation for the custom long before they succeeded in obtaining any
legal right from the state.”
He also states that “cyricsceat,” (as the church-tax was called,) was
“originally a recognitory service due to the lord from the tenants of
church-lands. But that in process of time a new character was assumed
for it, and it was claimed of all men alike as a due to the clergy.” And
then those who refused to pay were visited by the king’s reeve, by the
bishop’s, and by the mass-priest of the minster, {119b} and they took “by
force a tenth part for the minster whereunto it was due.” A ninth part
only was left for the refractory subject. While the other eight parts
were divided into two. And of this, says the ordinance, “let the
landlord seize half, the bishop half, be it a king’s man or a thane’s.”
{120}
I think it not at all unlikely that those who cultivated the soil in
Paddington received no friendly visits from the tithing man till the time
of Edgar. Dunstan, at this time Abbot of the Monastery he had restored
at Westminster, looked, without doubt, pretty keenly after the loaves and
fishes which were to feed his little flock; and as the enclosure of the
Pædings was not too far north to escape his acute glance, he might have
been the first who took tithe here. When Bishop of London, which he was
at the time of his pretended gift of the little farm, he might, too, have
obtained property here, as elsewhere, by the means above indicated. For,
if any of the accounts we have of him be true, he was evidently not the
man to fail in carrying out any scheme of aggrandisement which he had
once planned, even when the law was not, as it was in this case, in his
favour. And even so late as the tenth century of the Christian era, some
inhabitant of this place might have been found, whose refractory and
pagan spirit prevented his seeing all the justice and good policy there
might be in giving up quietly the tenth portion of his produce to the
monks of Westminster. Those monks, in Dunstan’s time only ten in number,
though able to visit Paddington occasionally, were too much engaged at
Westminster to pay that attention to this little settlement which was
required to teach the inhabitants all their christian duties.
If this saint, who so honoured the old gentleman’s nose, did in truth
first tithe Paddington, he may, in one sense, be said to have bestowed on
his monks a small estate here; for this impost remained from his time to
the Conquest as a fixed charge on the land. And those who first received
tithe here (being, in all probability, sufficiently impressed with the
necessity of appropriating it according to law) may have built a chapel
in Paddington, with that portion which was legally assigned for the
support of a material structure in which the services of the church might
be _performed_.
There is yet another “probable supposition,” viz. that a speculating
builder existed among the Pædings, even in those days, who, for the sake
of what he could get for himself, built a chapel here; and the clever
Dunstan, or some other bishop, having caught him in thus defrauding God,
and God’s poor, made him give a hide of his land to endow the place he
had built for his own profit: and who knows, if this were so, but that
this churl (ceorl) was aping his betters in some other mark, by aspiring
to be greater than he really was; for by a law of Athelstan’s a freeman
“who had the possession and property of full five hides of land, and had
a church, a kitchen, a bell-house, and a hall, was henceforth entitled to
the rank of a Thane.” {121}
We have already seen that a chapel was built and endowed in Paddington
before the ecclesiastical decree of 1222 assigned this district, with
those of Westbourn and Knightsbridge, to St. Margaret’s, Westminster.
And one may well suppose, if no Tybourn rector interfered, that a parson
was appointed to the cure, and a district assigned to him, whenever this
building was erected; and to say that one of the monks who lived in the
Convent at Westminster, under the laws and regulations of St. Benedict,
was the person first appointed to this cure, does not, surely, invalidate
that supposition.
Paddington, therefore, may have existed as a rectory and a separate
parish, before the beginning of the thirteenth century—before the decree
of Stephen Langton, and his brother-priests, converted it into an
appendage to a vicarage. But this benefice having been thus appropriated
to the use of their own corporation by the company of Benedictin monks,
the rectory, if there had been one, became a sinecure; and the poor souls
in Paddington were transferred to the tender care of the vicar of St.
Margaret’s.
How long Paddington remained in this unenviable condition I cannot say;
but we are told by Blackstone, that the appropriating corporations served
the churches “in so scandalous a manner, and the parishes suffered so
much by the neglect of appropriators, that the legislature was forced to
interpose: and accordingly it is enacted by statute 15th Richard II, cap.
6, that in all appropriations of churches, the diocesan bishop, shall
ordain (in proportion to the value of the church) a competent sum to be
distributed among the poor parishioners, annually; and that the vicarage
shall be _sufficiently_ endowed.” And this great Judge adds, “It seems
the parish were frequently sufferers, not only by the want of divine
service, but also by witholding those alms, for which, among other
purposes, the payment of tithes was originally imposed: and therefore in
this Act a pension is directed to be distributed among the poor
parochians, as well as a sufficient stipend to the vicar.” And he goes
on to say, “but he being liable to be removed at the pleasure of the
appropriator, was not likely to insist too rigidly on the legal
sufficiency of the stipend: and therefore by statute 4, Henry IV, cap.
12, it is ordained, that the vicar shall be a secular person, not a
member of any religious house; that he shall be vicar perpetual, not
removable at the caprice of the monastery; and that he shall be
canonically instituted and inducted, and be sufficiently endowed, at the
discretion of the ordinary, for these three express purposes, to do
divine service, to inform the people, and to keep hospitality. The
endowments in consequence of these statutes have usually been a portion
of the glebe, or land, belonging to the parsonage, and a particular share
of the tithes, which the appropriates found it most troublesome to
collect, and which are therefore generally called privy or small tithes;
the greater, or predial, tithes being still reserved to their own use.”
{122a} And thus, the appropriates of those days were compelled by
statute to provide, in some sort, both for the souls and bodies of those,
from whom proceeded the revenues of the church.
But before these statutes could be obtained, the voice of Wickliffe had
been heard not only at Lutterworth, but in London and Westminster; and
the degenerate Church, which this worthy rector denounced, could no
longer resist some of those reforms, which the State had long seen to be
necessary. {122b}
We have seen by Tanner’s note that Paddington was spoken of as a parish
in the time of Richard the second, and by the Valor Ecclesiasticus of
Henry the eighth that the rectory, no longer an appendage to St.
Margaret’s, yielded, like the manor, a separate revenue to the Abbey.
Since, then, the ancient laws were totally disregarded, and tithe, and
other church property, was perverted to individual uses for so long a
period with perfect impunity, we cannot be surprised to find these more
recent appointments were gradually evaded, or abused; so that, step by
step, the doings of that church, which still boasts of its rule and guide
over millions of minds, was so utterly detested in this country that even
the genius of a Wolsey could not save it from perdition.
And what secures and sustains the present structure? How has the church
in Paddington been supported since the Reformation?
We have already seen that the rectory was disposed of, with the manor, by
Henry the eighth, to Sir Edward and Dame Baynton. It thus became
_impropriate_. {123}
But it was again appropriated; this time by a corporation sole. For,
when the bishops of London claimed the rectory of Paddington as a “member
and appurtenance” of the manor, did they not become the real rectors of
the parish? Certainly, from time to time, since Bishop Sheldon’s day, if
not before, they have leased the rectory with the manor, and exercised
the right of appointing the curate here. Are they not, then, accountable
for the proper application of the rectory revenues? And how have these
revenues been applied?
We are informed that the fourth protestant bishop of London thought
Paddington would make a comfortable retiring pension for his porter; and
the enemies of Bishop Aylmer brought this misdeed as one of their many
accusations against him. His faithful biographer, Strype, admitting the
fact, thus defends the bishop:—
“As for the charge, that the bishop made his porter a minister; all
things considered he thought it to be justifiable and lawfully done,
and not to lack example of many such that had been after that sort
admitted, both since the Queen’s coming to the crown, by many good
bishops, and by sound histories ecclesiastical. That where churches,
by reason of persecution, or multitudes of Hamlets and free chapels,
had commonly very small stipends for their ministers, honest godly
men, upon the discretion of the governors of the church, had been,
and might be, brought in to serve, in the want of learned men, in
prayer, administration of the sacraments, good example of life, and
in some sort of exhortation. And this man therefore when the bishop
found him by good and long experience to be one that pleased God, to
be conversant in the scriptures, and of very honest life and
conversation, he allowed of him to serve in a small congregation at
Paddington, where commonly for the meanness of the stipend no
preacher could be had; as in many places it came to pass, where the
parsonage was impropriate, and the provision for the vicar or curate
very small. And how that good man behaved himself there, time and
trial proved him; for he continued in that place with the good liking
of the people eight or more years till he grew dull of sight for age,
and thereby unable to serve any longer.” {124a}
What Fletcher, Bancroft, Vaughan, Ravis, Abbot, and King did for
Paddington, I cannot tell. But the truth is, that the protestant
bishops, no more than the popish abbots, have applied the revenues of the
church to their original purposes. It is true that much of the revenue
of the church vanished at the Reformation. The great Reformers of the
Church did not possess the princely fortunes of their predecessors; or of
the present bishops. {124b} But the reformed bishops did not relinquish
the old practice of receiving fines, for granting life-leases, when the
impropriate leases dropped in. Rectory lands, and tithes, were still
badly managed; and the fines raised by leasing them were appropriated, as
heretofore, to individual uses. To such an extent was this “waste of
church lands” carried that the people saw little good had been done, in
this respect, by that revolution which had been sanctioned by Henry the
eighth.
During the next reformation another survey of ecclesiastical property was
made. Commissioners were appointed in 1649, by the parliament, to
enquire into the nature of ecclesiastical benefices; and from their
report we learn the condition of the “living of Paddington” at that time.
The following survey is printed from the original still existing with the
Records in the Rolls’ Chapel. The portion in italics being so much
defaced in the original document as to be illegible, I have been enabled
to supply from the twelfth volume of the Lambeth Manuscripts, by the kind
permission of the Archbishop’s secretary.
Survey of Church livings.
MIDDX.
“PADDINGTON.—Item there is _a rectory and a_ mannor and Tythes _and_
other oblations and gleabe Lands with certeyne houses thereto
belonging of which _a house for two tennants called the_ vicarage
house all which is at the rate of fortie-three pounds per annu or
thereabouts _And_ Wee _are informed_ that the Tythes _houses and
lands before_ mencŏned was let by George Moun_taigne_ late Bishopp of
London to Sir Rowland St John, and Sybyll his Wife and to Oliver _St
John_ their sonne for their lives and that the said Bishop bound them
to noe certayne _stipends or took any nor for the cure of souls butt
left it_ unto his Tenants and that the said Sr. Rowland St. John had
heretofore _a reading minister or_ Reading ministers who served _for
ten_ pounds per annu in Paddington and Marybone at the like sallary
of Mr. Forsett and that of late years Sr. Rowland St. John paid _for_
a preaching minister twentie eight pounds per annu which is the Rent
of the Tythes of that _land in the parish that doeth_ not belonge to
the Bisshopp And that there is a minister that preacheth twice every
Lord’s Day one Mr. A_nthony Dodd_ and _that we humbly think_ that the
Parish of Marybone and Paddington is very fitt to be united in one
and that both the Churches may be pulled down and _both made_ one and
sett on Lisson Greene And that we verylie believe that the whole
Tythes of Paddynton is worth one hundred pounds per annu if it were
lett at the true value And we humbly desire that a godly able
preaching minister may bee _placed_ to serve for the Parish of
Paddington and Maribone and settled with mointeynance not lesse than
one hundred pounds per annu as you in your great wisdomes shall
thinke fitt And that we are informed that there is a right of
Presentation to the Rectory _or vicearidge in_ one Mr. Browne that
hath purchased _the manner_ by vertue of a grant to him _from the
trustees appointed_ by Parliament for the sale of the Bishopps Lands.
_Signed_
_William Roberts_ _John Browne_
_Richard Dowton_ _James Pascall_
_Edward Martin_ _John Thorowgood_”
This authentic record is something more than a mere curiosity. It
establishes several important facts; and enables the reader to form a
just estimate of the care taken of the cure of souls in Paddington, by
bishop Mountain.
I think it not at all improbable that the “Vicarage House” had been made
into “a house for _two_ tenants,” by Sir Rowland St. John; for, so far as
I can discover, he was the first lessee who resided on the Paddington
estate. The lords of the manor had preferred to live in the monastery,
and the episcopal palace; and their lessees were only middle-men, whose
object was—as the object of this class very frequently has been—to get as
much out of the land-workers as possible, and give as little as possible
in return.
It is my opinion, however, that Sir Rowland St. John added very
considerably to the parsonage-house; and adopted it as his own residence,
(no uncommon thing at this period), by which it arrived at the dignity of
a manor-house; and, as the bishop had “left it unto his tenants” to do
what they pleased for the cure of souls, Sir Rowland, also in compliance
with the fashion of the time, kindly gave house-room to some poor
half-starved curate, who had never taken upon himself the ministry as a
money-getting profession, or having done so had found his expectations
most woefully deceived. The pay of his “reading minister” may astonish
those who do not remember the account given by Mr. Macaulay, or some
equally trust-worthy author, of the condition of the great majority of
the clergy in the seventeenth century.
The learned historian just referred to, states, what one may readily
believe, seeing what the lords of Paddington and Marylebone paid the
minister of those places, that “for one who made the figure of a
gentleman, ten were menial servants;” and he adds, “a large proportion of
those divines who had no benefices, or whose benefices were too small to
afford a comfortable revenue, lived in the houses of laymen.”
“The Ordinary,” in his “discretion,” or in his hurry to secure a more
lucrative preferment for himself—the see of London in Dr. Mountain’s time
was not the richest in England, and therefore not worth sticking to—had
forgotten to make any provision for that cure of souls in Paddington,
which devolved on him, and for which he was paid. “The reading
minister;” and afterwards Mr. Anthony Dodd, “the preaching minister,”
were glad therefore to become tenants in the great man’s house; having no
rectory-house to themselves, and not being provided with a sufficiency of
the rectory profits “to do divine service, to inform the people, and keep
hospitality.”
At this time, indeed, “a young Levite, such was the phrase in use, might
be had for his board, a small garret, and ten pounds a year, and might
not only perform his own professional functions, might not only be the
most patient of butts and of listeners, might not only be always ready in
fine weather for the bowls, and in rainy weather for the shovel-board,
but might also save the expense of a gardener or a groom. Sometimes the
reverend man nailed up the apricots, and sometimes he curried the coach
horses; he cast up the farrier’s bills; he walked ten miles with a
message or parcel; he was permitted to dine with the family, but he was
expected to content himself with the plainest fare, he might fill himself
with the corned beef and the carrots, but as soon as the tarts and
cheese-cakes make their appearance he quitted his seat, and stood aloof
till he was summoned to return thanks for the repast, from a great part
of which he had been excluded.” {127a}
This certainly was not a very cheerful state of things for the working
clergy and the people; and, although the _high dignitaries of the church_
had few kind words to bestow on Cromwell, or the Commonwealth, it will be
observed that the clergy and the people of Paddington had no reason to
regret the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission. The
commissioners wished to see the tithes let at something like their real
value: a new church built out of the rectory funds; and “a godly able
preaching minister” appointed, whose pay was to be something more than
the paltry stipend allowed by the lessee, previous to the Revolution; or
than poor Mr. Anthony Dodd’s liberal salary of twenty-eight pounds per
annum, for his two full services and two sermons “every Lord’s day.”
But, if the suggestions of the commissioners were not completely carried
out, the report of 1649 was not entirely unheeded, even after the
restoration of the episcopacy; for the trustworthy public notary,
Newcourt, tells us that Bishop Sheldon bound his nephews “to pay the
curate here eighty pounds per year, at the four most usual feasts, viz.
twenty pounds per quarter;” and he also informs us that “The church was
but small and being very old and ruinious was about the year 1678 pulled
down and new built from the ground, at the cost and charges of Joseph
Sheldon, knight, sometime Lord Mayor of the City of London, and his
brother, Mr. Daniel Sheldon, then lessees of the manor of Paddington.”
And one would have thought that the memory of these events would have
been preserved in less crazy heads than Mr. Dick’s; that the good example
set to his successors by Bishop Sheldon would have been followed; and as
the population of this place increased, and the value of the
rectory-lands was thereby increased, the religious wants of the people
would have been provided for out of these increased funds.
Two hundred pounds per annum, and the quantity of waste land for which
Bishop Porteus and his lessees agreed to give the parish fifteen pounds
a-year, is, as we have already seen, all that the liberal bishops of
London, for the last century, have provided for the cure of fifty
thousand souls, {127b} out of an estate which now yearly brings in thirty
thousand pounds; and which, like the population, must increase for many
years to come. Such paltry provisions for the cure of souls in
Paddington will be a lasting monument of disgrace to all parties
concerned in these transactions.
To smooth down the unmitigated selfishness developed in the several
private Acts of Parliament, which we have examined in a previous part of
this Work, it has been said “the system was in fault.” But when it was
enacted, that two hundred acres of land which had been claimed by the
church might be occupied by human beings, instead of cows and cabbage;
“the system” could as easily have provided suitably for the religious
education of the contemplated dwellers on this soil, as it did for the
increase in the stipend of a single curate; or as it did for the transfer
of two-thirds of the estate into the hands of lay lessees; and, when
permission was given by another Act, to extend the power of granting
building leases to four hundred acres of this estate, we find the rector
of the parish, the lord of the manor, the bishop of London—three
important personages in one—content with providing out of that estate an
increased salary of eighty pounds a-year for a single curate; and with
obtaining permission to give, “in case of need or convenience,” land
which cost the owners of this estate fifteen pounds a year, I think the
most charitable must say, that the inhabitants of this parish are not
indebted to “the system” alone, for all the paternal care which their
governors have bestowed on them and the cure of their souls.
Newcourt tells us Paddington “is exempt from the Archdeacon, and wholly
subject to the Bishop of London and his Commissary;” and that the church
is a donative of curacy in the gift of the bishops of that see, and is
“supplied by a curate by virtue of the bishop’s license, wherein is
committed to him the _cura animarum_.”
Whether Paddington has lost much by not having been overlooked by the
archdeacon—“the bishop’s eye”—I cannot pretend to say; but we see that
the rectory of Paddington, like that of many other places, overlooked by
archdeacons, has been allowed to become a sinecure; and the curacy to
exist without the means of cure; that the parson is a triune body; and
that _the rights_ of the parochial church belong much more to the bishop,
and his lay lessees, than to the excellent minister, to whom the “cure of
souls,” with a stipend few gentlemen could live on, and none perform the
necessary duties with, is so considerately bestowed. And, with such
scandals as this daily staring us in the face, is it very surprising that
the law, which heretofore reposed confidence in bishops, and assumed,
“that they will not consent to anything that shall be to the prejudice of
the church,” should have at length begun to discover, that its confidence
has been somewhat misplaced, and that all bishops cannot be trusted?
It certainly has been discovered that Parliamentary enquiries are
necessary in our day; and it has been found out, even by ecclesiastics,
that the appointment of ecclesiastical commissioners could no longer be
delayed if the church was to be saved. But ecclesiastical commissioners
are but men; the people, therefore, in every parish in England should
themselves look into their own ecclesiastical affairs; and demand with
one united voice the fulfilment of those religious duties to God and
God’s poor, which devolve on those who claim the lands of the church.
Sooner or later a demand so just must be fully recognised; and governors
will assuredly arise, who will have both the power and the will to
execute justice.
Such malversations as those which have been recently exposed by the Rev.
Mr. Whiston, and others, cannot last for ever; and the sooner the whole
system is altered, if it be the system that is in fault, the better for
all parties.
By returns moved for by our honourable member, Sir B. Hall, (to whom the
whole country is deeply indebted for the information on ecclesiastical
affairs which he has brought to light,) we find that the portion of the
“REVENUES of the SEE of LONDON, for the seven years ending thirty-first
December, 1850,” arising from the “SHARE OF PADDINGTON RENTS, &c.”
amounted to £56,939 1_s._ 6_d._, while the “share of the various payments
in respect of share of Paddington estate,” for the same period, amounted
to £1742 10_s._ 3_d._ The correctness of that return is certified to,
and signed “C. J. London.” {129}
The lay lessees received double this sum, as per agreement, so that for
seven years £170,817 4_s._ 6_d._ has been paid, _chiefly in the shape of
increased house-rent be it observed_, by that portion of the people of
Paddington, who have had the felicity of living on “The Bishop’s Estate.”
A law, which already exists, will affect the income of the next occupant
of the See of London, and therefore his relations to the rectory of
Paddington; and it has been hinted that something may be done, in that
event, for this parish. But the people of Paddington do not desire such
patchwork arrangements. They want that which the whole country is asking
for, and which cannot be much longer delayed—a law to regulate the whole
of the estates of the church; and there is one pleasing anticipation for
the people of Paddington in the contemplation of such a measure; viz.
that, whatever may be the effect of that law, it cannot make _their_
position worse than it is at the present time.
CHAPTER III.
ANCIENT CHURCHES—ACT OF PARLIAMENT CHURCHES AND
CHAPELS—CHURCH-YARDS—CHURCH-RATES—PARSONAGE-HOUSES—ECCLESIASTICAL
DIVISIONS—PLACES OF WORSHIP BUILT AND SUPPORTED BY VOLUNTARY
CONTRIBUTIONS, UPHOLDING THE STATE RELIGION; AND THOSE DISSENTING
THEREFROM.
IT is not worth while to enter into an elaborate enquiry, to shew that
the parish of Paddington was at one time included in the parish of
Tybourn, and that the ancient Tybourn church was the mother-church of the
whole of those districts, now included in the parishes of St. Mary
Abbot’s Kensington, Paddington, and Marylebone; but the facts and
arguments which have been already adduced to prove that Westbourn and
Tybourn were but synonymous terms; and that the modern manor of
Paddington was but a portion of the ancient Tybourn manor, may serve to
sanction such a supposition.
Maitland, Lysons, and other authors, tell us that the ancient church of
Tybourn was situated near the present Marylebone Court-house—i.e. beside
_the modern_ Tybourn; but the only evidence these authorities condescend
to give in support of their opinion, is, that in 1729, “a great quantity
of bones were dug up at this place.” They offer no proof, however, that
these bones belonged to the inhabitants of the ancient village of
Tybourn; neither do they attempt to shew that they were not the remains
of some of those who had died in London of the plague, which raged there
in the previous century. A writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine, part 1,
p. 315, 1809, seems to me, to be quietly quizzing those antiquarians who
accepted this story of the bones, when he tells the public that “in all
ancient documents, Mary la bonne (Mary the Good) is called Sancta Maria
de Ossibus, (Saint Mary of Bones).” Lysons, however, does not see the
joke, for he gravely replied in his second edition, “I have never seen
any in which it is so described.”
It may be worthy of remark, that the ancient Tybourn church, wherever it
was situated, was taken down in the year 1400, by order of the Lord
Chancellor, Bishop Braybrook, when the honors and estates of the noble
family who built and endowed this church, were in the keeping of a youth
barely seventeen years of age; {132} and that the Westminster monks
never, either by hook or by crook, obtained possession of this ancient
advowson. A rival establishment, however, was built either for them, or
by them, on their newly acquired property at Paddington, and, as we have
already seen, the spiritual direction of the Paddington district was
assigned to them as early as 1222; previous to which time a place of
worship had been built here; and for upwards of six hundred years this
small house, erected both for public worship and public instruction, was
deemed sufficient for rich and poor, saint and sinner, and to it an
unbought spot of consecrated ground was annexed, the quiet resting-place
of all those who had lived in Paddington.
So pretty was the church, and so tranquil seemed this country
burial-place, not a century since, that many of those who witnessed the
abominations committed in the consecrated grounds of London and
Westminster, longed to secure for their corruptible bodies a nook in this
village church-yard; and so manifest was this desire, during the whole of
the last century that, though the population of Paddington was
increasing, the burials here far exceeded the baptisms.
In Lysons’ “Environs,” this fact stands exemplified thus—
Years. Years. Average Annual Avenge Annual
Baptisms. Burials.
1702 to 1711 10.6 38.1
1740 „ 1749 16.6 193.3
1780 „ 1789 16.5 192.3
1790 „ 1794 36.6 244.6
And this addition of motionless mortality to the soil, like the
development of its resources by the increase of active life, formed but
an additional inducement to its insatiable lords to increase their
demands upon the people; for I find _from records still preserved_, {133}
that after they had obtained the Act which bound the inhabitants of
Paddington to pay a rent-charge for their “pretty church-yard;” and after
the infamous Act of 1795, the lord and his lessees were urgent in their
demands for a share of those fees, which were obliged to be levied on the
relatives of the dead, to secure the performance of those duties which
these rectors were already well paid to perform.
Of the earliest Christian temple erected in Paddington, I have nothing
more to say than what I have already said, excepting this, that in all
probability it was built and endowed by the first possessors of “the
Paddington Estate,” whoever they were; and, whatever were their sins
respecting that estate, _they_ must be exonerated from that amount of
refined selfishness which has enabled others to take the property
dedicated to God, and God’s poor, and leave the people to their own
resources for providing themselves with places of worship, and “the cup
of charity” for the aged and infirm.
St. Katherine’s, and St. James’s.
The “old and ruinous” church, pulled down about 1678, was, in the opinion
of that accurate observer, Newcourt, dedicated to St. Katherine; for,
says he, “I observed the picture of St. Katherine to be set up in painted
glass, at the top of the middle panel of the east window in the chancel,
where oftentimes the Saint, to which any church is dedicated, is placed.”
Newcourt does not tell us to whom the church, “new-built from the
ground,” was dedicated; but he saw none of the causes at work which
ensured its destruction in rather more than a century; and it could not
have been imagined by him that a policy would be inaugurated, and
completed, within a century and a half of the time at which he wrote,
which would be sorely puzzled to account for the existence of a church
built by those who were in receipt of the rectorial revenues. Such a
puzzle was not allowed to exist. Doubtlessly, Newcourt thought _the
name_ would have existed more than one hundred and ten years—the time the
church was allowed to stand—and indeed it does now exist in the _new_
parish church; but Newcourt omits to give it.
We find, however, by Willis’s Thesaurus of 1763, and by Lysons, that the
Sheldon church was dedicated to St. James.
This country church served Hogarth and Jane Thornhill for a Gretna-Green;
for here they were married, much against Sir James’s will, it is said,
{134} on the twenty-third of March, 1729.
Chaterlain’s series of views, dated 1750, contains _two_ of this church;
a near north-west view, not mentioned in the King’s Catalogue, British
Museum; and a distant view from the green, a copy of which is to be found
in the King’s collection.
St. Mary’s.
On the twenty-sixth day of February, in the twenty-eighth year of his
reign, George the third, granted by his letters patent to the Rev. Thomas
Hayter, the curate of the parish; the Rev. John Shepherd, the assistant
curate; and certain others; the power to beg “from house to house
throughout England, our town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.” to enable them
to rebuild the parish church, which this Brief, and the preamble of the
twenty-eighth Geo. III, cap. 74—“An Act for rebuilding the parish church
of _Paddington_, in the county of _Middlesex_, and for enlarging the
church-yard of the said parish,”—tell us “is a very ancient structure,
and in such a decayed state, that it cannot be effectually repaired, but
must be taken down and rebuilt; besides which, the same is so small, that
one-fourth of the present inhabitants within the said parish cannot
assemble therein for Divine worship.”
Down to this time, the lords of the Paddington soil, or their lessees,
had furnished the tenants, who lived on this church-land, with some sort
of church accommodation; but another church was now required and was to
be built, although this _very ancient_ and _decayed structure_ was but
one hundred and ten years old; and the question naturally arose, who was
to build it? The then lessees; as the lessees had done in 1678? The
“Lord of the manor of Paddington;” as the then bishop is called? Or
these together? Neither the one, nor the other, nor the two combined.
It is no longer those who hold “the rectorial and other lands,” and whose
income from those lands has been increasing ever since the time of Bishop
Sheldon, who are to build churches in Paddington. The lord and his
lessees know their duty better than that. Begging boxes are to be sent
“from house to house throughout England;” and as that does not succeed,
those to whom a portion of the increased accommodation is to be offered,
are to be induced or compelled to furnish the necessary funds. Moreover,
at the expense of the people, (for the Act expressly declares the pews
shall be “rent-free,”) comfortable accommodation, “in or near the
chancel,” is to be provided for the lord of the manor of Paddington, “or
his or their lessee or lessees.” And although there is now no Dunstan’s
bailiff to dread, let those who doubt that the law had power in
Paddington at the end of the last century, as it has now, “to take by
force” this extra and new church-tax, look to the fourteenth,
thirty-fourth, and other sections of this _public_ Act; the _first_ of
the Paddington church building Acts.
Up to one shilling in the pound, on “the yearly rent of lands, houses,
shops, warehouses, vaults, mills, and other tenements,” forty-five
trustees—six of whom were clergymen—“or any _five_ or more of them,”
they, and their successors, had power to _assess_, and for the sum
assessed had power to _distress_, “in order to accomplish the good and
pious purposes of this Act.” Provided always, that the sum raised by
this and other means set forth in this Act, “shall not exceed in the
whole the sum of four thousand five hundred pounds, including the charges
in the enclosing the said waste ground and other incidental charges, and
of the procuring, obtaining, and passing this Act.”
“The said waste ground,” here spoken of, being _a portion of the enclosed
green_ {135} nicely measured and carved out—vide Act—which “The Right
Reverend Father-in-God, Beilby, Lord Bishop of London, is willing and
desirous” to give; and which he does give at a rent of six shillings a
year. First, having in this Act, and for the first time anywhere, so far
as I can discover, put in his claim to be “entitled to the waste ground
within the said parish (subject to commonage thereon).”
But the sum to which this Act limited the taxing, was found to be
insufficient; and another Act was required, “for enlarging the powers of,
and rendering more effectual, an Act, made in the twenty-eighth year of
the reign of his present Majesty, entituled, An Act for re-building the
Parish Church of Paddington, &c., &c.” This, the thirty-third Geo. III,
cap. 43, dated thirtieth April, 1793, contains all the whining for
further powers, which so commonly saluted the ears of his Majesty’s
faithful Lords and Commons when church-building Acts had to be separately
passed. {136}
And the prayer of those who asked, was answered; and a further sum was to
be raised by the means provided in the previous Act; but with this
additional screw—“That in every case where a justice or justices of the
peace shall grant a warrant or warrants of distress, for recovering of
any rate or assessment made under the said former or this Act, and a
sufficient distress cannot be found, it shall be lawful for such justice
or justices of the peace to commit the person or persons, against whom or
whose goods and chattels such warrant or warrants of distress may have
been issued, to the common gaol or house of correction for the said
county, there to remain without bail or mainprize, for any time not
exceeding one month, _or until payment of such rate or assessment_, _and
the costs and charges attending the recovery thereof_”—Section 2.
Further, desecration of the church-yard was permitted; and in spite of
all the thought which had been bestowed on the monuments and tombstones
in the previous Act, any decayed vault, tombstone, or grave, which
offended the sight of the officials, was now to be taken down, or
removed, after six months’ notice to repair had been given to “the owner
or owners of such vaults.” And the churchwarden or churchwardens, for
the time being, were empowered “to sell and dispose of such vaults for
the best price that can be got, and to apply the money arising therefrom
towards rebuilding or repairing the said parish church.”
And why were these extraordinary powers granted? Because the inhabitants
of Paddington were not “capable of raising without the further aid of
Parliament,” or were not willing to raise, “a further sum of one thousand
five hundred pounds,” to defray the expences required to _finish_ the
church-yard; and to pay “a considerable sum of money due on account;” and
because those who took the profits of “the rectorial and other lands,”
did not think it their duty to pay it for them.
How much more than these sums Saint Mary’s has cost, I cannot say; but I
presume they very nearly covered all the original expenses, as Lysons was
informed by a most excellent authority—a gentleman, who, in imitation of
the manifold offices held by the lord of the manor, was assistant curate,
parish-clerk, sexton, and vestry-clerk at the same time {137}—that the
total sum expended, amounted to £6000.
So much admired was this church at the time it was built; and so
picturesque an object it is said to have been, “particularly from the
Oxford, Edgeware, and Harrow roads;” that almost all the periodicals of
the day take some notice of it.
The Universal Magazine for January, 1793, gives an engraving of it, and
the village-stocks, by Eastgate, from a drawing by Earl; and in the same
Number there is an account of the building, in which the first stone is
said to have been laid “on the twelfth of August, 1788,” and the
consecration to have been “in Easter week, 1790.” Lysons, however, tells
us, Saint Mary’s was consecrated on the twenty-seventh of April, 1791;
the first stone having been laid, according to him, on the twentieth day
of October, 1788. As to the date of consecration, Lysons is certainly
right, as most likely he is in the other statement, having had so good an
authority as the curate, parish-clerk, &c., &c. to furnish him with these
and other facts which occurred in Paddington about the time at which he
wrote. On the day this church was consecrated, a sermon was preached in
it, and a collection made for the benefit of the Sunday School.
The following description of this church, given by the writer in the
Universal Magazine, was, in all probability, nearly correct, when
written: “It is seated on an eminence, finely embosomed in venerable
elms. Its figure is composed of a square of about fifty feet. The
centres, on each side of the square, are projecting parallelograms, which
give recesses for an altar, a vestry, and two stair-cases. The roof
terminates with a cupola and vane: on each of the sides is a door. That
facing the south is decorated with a portico composed of the Tuscan and
Doric orders, having niches on the sides. The west has an arched window,
under which is a circular portico of four columns, agreeable to the
former composition.”
Mr. John Plaw, of King Street, Westminster, is said to have been the
architect in this account; but Lysons, and Tennant, say Mr. Wapshot,
designed this mixed specimen of Tuscan, Doric, and non-descript
architecture.
The European Magazine, not to be behind its contemporaries in
delineations of the picturesque and beautiful, has an etching of the “New
Church at Paddington” by Malcolm; in which he has also shewn what one of
the Paddington ponds, already spoken of as existing in the time of Edward
VI, was “in the good King George’s reign.”
The old church and the new church are both engraved in the Gentleman’s
Magazine, supplement, 1795. The notice of the church there given, seems
to have been taken from Lysons, perhaps it was supplied by him; but there
is this additional statement, viz.—that the monuments which existed in
the former church were placed in a light vault underneath the present
structure.
And this church which has been built but sixty-one years and a few
months, has been for the last three or four years in jeopardy—not of
falling, but of sharing the fate of its predecessor; the same causes
having been at work to effect its dissolution, which led to the removal
of the Sheldon church:—viz., a population ill provided with
church-accommodation—a new parish church built—architects and builders,
anxious to shew their skill, still further—influential inhabitants
interested in the furtherance of their schemes, ready and willing to vote
the requisite supplies out of their neighbours’ pockets—a tempting piece
of ground in the immediate vicinity, “doing nothing”—a notion, in some
minds, that sundry reminiscences, connected therewith, might thus be
obliterated—and the prospect of an increase in burial-fees and pew-rents.
Fortunately, however, better counsels have prevailed; and this amount of
consecrated property is not yet doomed to be destroyed. St Mary’s,
though no longer the parish church, is to remain, a standing monument to
the erudition of those who once governed Paddington. These guardians of
the church and poor, not only knew which way the wind blew without the
assistance of a lettered vane; but understood Greek; as the unlettered
vane, and the inscription on the façade, testify. But as all _the
multitude_ who have attended St. Mary’s since it was built, have not been
able to sing, in the original, that song of the heavenly host which
contains the essence of Christianity; and as the English church does not
profess to teach people unknown tongues, or object to their worshiping
God in their own, it would have been as well to have given them some key
to those golden characters, which are so conspicuously placed on the
façade of this Pseudo-Greek temple. Those who desire, or require a
translation to that divine announcement, which has been so long hidden in
the original, will find it in the English edition of Luke’s epistle to
Theophilus, second chapter, and fourteenth verse.
The church-yard was enlarged, as already noticed, by virtue of the powers
of the fiftieth Geo. III., cap. 44. This Act, which was obtained on the
eighteenth of April, 1810, states, that whereas the population of the
parish of Paddington, hath lately much increased _and is likely still
further to increase_, it is expedient that THE CHURCH-YARD of the said
parish should be further enlarged.” But not a word about the enlargement
of the church, or increased church-accommodation, notwithstanding the
then present, and future state of the parish, is so clearly seen; and
although St. Mary’s could now no more hold one-fourth of the inhabitants,
than St. James’ had done. Seven hundred and forty pounds had been for
three years the average annual income from this grave-yard; the half of
which was received by the curate, to make up for the mean stipend allowed
by the rectors; the remaining half being paid to the rectors themselves,
for their land; so that to endanger this source of income, was a thing
not to be dreamed of. This appropriation of the burial fees, continued
till the whole of the church-yard was paid for; since which time the half
of the fees has been applied to the ordinary expenses of the church; the
other half going, as before, to the incumbent; and this may account for
the following entry in the Churchwardens’ account, for 1840.
“Paid to parish solicitor, his bill in respect of various
cemetery-bills in Parliament, £144 9_s._ 0_d._”
This yard, no longer the villagers’ unbought resting-place, in which the
almost sacred yew-tree {139} grew, had now become necessary for the
support of the church; it must be increased therefore, and every inch of
ground must be made the best of. Besides securing this income, another
object was attempted to be gained by this Act. The trustees were
empowered to contract for the purchase of any quantity of land, “not
exceeding three acres in the whole, _with_ or without _buildings
thereon_;” and “corporations, &c., were empowered to sell and convey.”
The “house for two tenants called the vicarage house;” had long since
been converted into the manor-house; and occupants, more profitable to
the Paddington Estate, than the curate, had been found for it; and the
house which I believe was afterwards built for a “Parsonage-house,”—a
house still standing close to the spot where the old church stood, and
which is depicted in John Carey’s map of 1797, as the “Parsonage,”—had
been, before this time, converted into the “manor farm-house.” {140a} In
fact, the curate had no residence provided for him in the parish. But at
the time of passing this Act, the old manor-house had been unoccupied for
some time, and was rapidly falling to decay for want of a tenant, whose
interest it was to keep it in repair; {140b} and the bishop and his
lessees having no further use for it, were anxious to sell; and so the
manor house, with a portion of its grounds, was purchased by the church
trustees.
The inhabitants, now, much to the chagrin of the schemers, began to find
out which way the wind blew; and seeing, (when it was too late,) how
their birthright had been sold, resolved to take this little bargain into
their special consideration—determining, if possible, to make the best of
it, as it had been bought, and to have some control over the receipts and
the mode of levying the income which was to be derived from the purchase.
This resolution had the effect of producing many parish squabbles, into
some of which even the venerable diocesan himself was dragged. In
attempting to regulate the fees to be paid for burials in “the new
ground,” certain resolutions were passed by the inhabitants in vestry
assembled, by which the bishop “feels himself affronted;” and he
declares, he “will not consecrate the new ground, till the offensive
resolution is rescinded.” The resolution is not, at once, rescinded. It
is resolved that it shall not be. But the bishop is to be informed no
offence was intended. All, indeed, that was intended by the people of
Paddington, at that time, seems to have been expressed by a resolution of
May, 1813; to the effect that “it would be a dereliction of their duty
not to leave to posterity the same _privileges_ they have enjoyed.”
But to speak of privileges now, was thought to be a joke by those who had
to deal with people, who, either in their innocence, or ignorance, had
permitted themselves to be cajoled out of far greater privileges than
this. Most assuredly, one could scarcely expect that such people, though
repentant, would be listened to; and the matter was ended by a peremptory
message from the bishop, in which he declares, “he knows of no privilege
belonging to the parish of Paddington, or any other parish respecting the
settlement of their own fees;” and that such fees will not be legal,
unless confirmed by his Court.
So, although the act for purchasing this ground passed on the eighteenth
of April, 1810, no portion of the new burial ground was consecrated till
the 9th of November, 1813; and the notion of inducing the parishioners to
give up the manor-house for a parsonage-house—which appears to have been
the scheme of the sellers, and some of the purchasers,—was not entirely
abandoned till 1825; but it was never consented to by the vestry.
The predecessor of the present minister was obliged to be non-resident,
for a considerable time, because he could find no house in the parish to
live in. He was anxious to be amongst those whose souls had been given
to his charge; and in September, 1820, we find he offers to give £200 out
of his own pocket, towards purchasing the manor-house, and promises to
endeavour to obtain a loan from Queen Anne’s Bounty Fund for the rest of
the sum, if the parish will but sell the house. Even a large
subscription-list was got up to purchase it. The inhabitants, however,
will not now give their consent even to a sale of the property. Having
witnessed what the bishop and his lessees got by purchasing the waste,
“in the Lanes and Road Ways dispersed in, about, and within the said
Parish of Paddington;” perhaps the inhabitants fancied that, by having
purchased the very kernel of this estate, they might have also become
possessed of some of those tegumentary portions of which their
predecessors had been so considerately relieved. But nothing daunted by
their refusal, either to give, or sell, and thoroughly knowing their own
powers, the managers of the parish bring this question again before a
meeting of vestry, held the following month, and the Chairman then
declares it to be carried; but on a poll being demanded, and taken, the
motion was found to have been lost.
This degree of independence did not at all satisfy the now losing party.
That the parishioners should begin to be awake to their own power, was a
thing not to be endured, and a local Act was devised for them, into which
trap they fell. In this Act, four rambling clauses are inserted as to
what may, and what may not, be done with the manor-house. And it may, if
a special meeting of the vestry shall think fit, “be thenceforth for ever
held and used as and for the parsonage-house and glebe-lands of the said
parish, or as a residence for the perpetual curate of the said parish and
his successors.” So impressed, however, were those vestrymen who had
been so recently elected under the detestable principles of Sturges
Bourne’s Act, with their duty to their fellow-parishioners; and with the
necessity there was not to outrage the general feeling thus publicly
expressed, that no sanction to part with their purchase could be obtained
even from them. But the old manor-house, which had been let by the
parish to a lady, who for some time kept a boarding-school there, was
doomed to destruction. Occupation did not lay the spectres who had
claimed this dwelling for their own. It was pulled down; the materials
were sold, and the ground on which it stood, with that portion of its
pleasure-ground which remained, was consecrated on the tenth of August,
1825, for the purpose of further increasing the size of the church-yard.
As all, rich and poor, young and old, were now crying shame on the
spiritual governors of the parish, for not finding their deputy with a
suitable residence, the bishops’ building Act of 1825,—acknowledging the
scandal, in these words, “and as the present curate of Paddington has not
any house attached to his curacy”—finds out “that it would be proper that
the said Lord Bishop of London, &c., should be at liberty to set apart,
appropriate, and to settle in free alms, part of the demised property, as
the site for a residence, &c.;” and by the seventeenth clause of the
sixth George IV., cap. 45, it is enacted, that the said William, Bishop
of London, &c., within five years from the passing of this Act, by
indenture, “enrolled in the High Court of Chancery,” should grant to
Charles Theomartyr Crane, or his successors, any quantity of the
Paddington estate, “not exceeding one acre,” to hold for himself and his
successors for ever in free alms, and that he, the said curate, shall be
“a body corporate for the purpose;” and that he may “receive, take and
hold such ground with any messuages and buildings thereon,
notwithstanding any of the laws against Mortmain, &c.”
Soon after this an acre of ground, _a small portion of_ “THE PARSONS
FIELD,” {142} was granted and settled on the curate for the purpose
named.
By a return granted by order of the House of Commons, twenty-first of
March, 1848, of all monies borrowed from the trustees of Queen Anne’s
Bounty, and not re-paid, I find that on the eleventh of October, 1830,
St. Mary’s Paddington curacy, borrowed £1,820. That £1,243 13_s._ 4_d._,
had been repaid, as principal, and £693 3_s._ 0_d._, as interest. This
sum, and upwards, I presume, was spent on this acre of freehold ground.
A comfortable looking residence, not six stories high, was built; and for
many years used as “the parsonage-house.” It is no longer, however, the
parsonage; having been sold with the land belonging to it, soon after St.
Mary’s ceased to be the parish church. This bargain was secured, as I am
informed, by the district surveyor for £3,525; I have also heard there
was some difficulty about effecting this sale; and that it was at last
managed through the agency of the church-commissioners, who out of the
purchase-money paid upwards of £80 towards the expenses of the sale. The
greater portion of the balance being applied, according to the benevolent
wish of the present minister of the parish, in the purchase of _two_
parsonage-houses; one for the new parish church, No. 13, Sussex-gardens,
on the north side of St. James’s; the other for the old church—No. 1, St.
Mary’s-terrace, the first of a row of eleven houses, built on a strip of
the former parsonage pleasure-grounds.
Bayswater Chapel.
Down to 1818, Saint Mary’s was the only place of worship, in connection
with the State-Religion, for the whole of the parish of Paddington.
So destitute of religious instruction and places of worship were the
suburbs of London, and many other populous places at this time, that the
State itself could no longer remain blind to the need. “A gracious
recommendation” came from the throne to the Parliament, and the people;
and the fifty-eighth Geo. III., cap. 45—“An Act for building and
promoting the building of additional churches in populous
parishes”—became a law on the thirtieth May, 1818. We are told by Mr.
Faulkner, in his History of Kensington, that Mr. Edward Orme, of
Bayswater, was the first private individual who built a chapel, after His
Majesty had pointed out this want of church accommodation; Bayswater
chapel, in St. Petersburg place, being built at his expense.
This chapel is, as Mr. Faulkner observes, a plain building; but
“possesses some advantages over many modern built places of worship.”
The stained glass window of which Mr. Faulkner speaks, has been removed
from this church; and the present pulpit would not, I imagine, be
considered of the fourteenth century, to which period Mr. Faulkner
attributed the one existing, when the History of Kensington was written.
This chapel, which is “capable of holding twelve hundred persons, was
opened on the fifteenth of November, 1818, by the Rev. Dr. Busfield,” the
first appointed minister. And from that day to the present, it has not
cost the parish of Paddington one shilling for its support: a fact so
impressive, that no comment or commendation is required. Badly enough
must those who wished to see a state-religion preserved, have thought
this chapel needed; for, from the returns made in compliance with
directions given to the commissioners appointed by the above-named Act,
we find that, at this time, in the parishes of Kensington and Paddington,
“there are no less than twelve thousand persons more, than could be
accommodated in the several places of worship.”
Connaught Chapel—now St. John’s.
For a single proprietor of the soil to have built one chapel which would
hold a tenth part of this unaccommodated population, was something; but
this could not satisfy the conscience of the good curate of Paddington,
who saw the population of his parish every day increasing.
From 1811, to 1821, the average rate of increase was two hundred souls,
per annum; from 1821, to 1831, eight hundred; and although, early in
March, 1826, Dr. Crane applied to the Church Commissioners for
assistance, it was not till July, 1839, that the plan for Connaught
Chapel was finally approved by them. There was no bishop, no lessees,
who could see their curate’s distress, and who would come forward with
the remedy. The want of the necessary funds to carry out the design; and
the death of Mr. Cockerill, the bishop’s surveyor, and the architect
originally employed; seem to have been the other chief causes of the
delay. For immediately after the first application to the commissioners,
we find that they “think a chapel capable of holding fifteen hundred
persons, _with seven hundred free sittings_ should be built;” and they
offer, from the funds entrusted to them by Parliament, £5,500 to
accomplish this object. Communication and correspondence take place
respecting this offer; and, within a week, the proposed grant is
increased to £6,000, _with the assurance that one __third of the number
the chapel will hold will suffice for the number of free sittings_.
This was in March, 1826. By July, 1829, the voluntary subscriptions,
amounted to £2,400; {145} which sum, with £59 18_s._ 6_d._, was placed in
the banker’s hands, in order that the building might be begun. Mr.
Cockerill’s first plan would have cost £11,020; this he was obliged to
modify from the circumstance of sufficient funds not being forthcoming.
£8,000 was the amount of his next estimate, but this plan he did not live
to carry out; and with its execution his son, the present Royal
Acadamician, was not entrusted. To Mr. Fowler, we owe the design for the
present building; his final estimate for which was £8,592 5_s._ 0_d._
Several ineffectual attempts have been made at different times, since
this church was finished, to induce the vestry to grant funds for its
enlargement. But in July, 1848, when the church-rate was in full play,
the demand could no longer be resisted; and on the fourth of that month,
it was resolved by the vestry, unanimously, that the west gallery of St.
John’s be enlarged, but at a cost not to exceed £700. The enlargement
was effected, and, so far as my knowledge goes, this is the only
resolution of the vestry, respecting the expenditure of money for
church-purposes, that has ever been observed.
This church, however, even in its brief existence, has been some expense
to others, besides those who have been accommodated by it. Down to 1839,
the minister received the stipend appointed him by the Church
Commissioners; the surplus pew-rents being paid to the churchwardens
towards the expenses of the church. Since that date no pew-rents have
been paid to the churchwardens of the parish, but they have had to pay
out of the parish funds upwards of £4,800, including the sum
above-mentioned.
St. John’s is not a copy of any particular period of middle-age art,
being built in the style designated pseudo-gothic. But it is not
necessary to give any particular description of this building; for I saw
by a model of it, which was honoured with an excellent place amidst the
multitudinous and never to be forgotten beauties of the Great Exhibition,
that Mr. Fowler’s original design was not completely carried out. Its
exterior, as finished, presents to us nothing offensive; and the interior
is well proportioned, well arranged, and, with the exception of the
painted window at the eastern end, contains nothing incompatible with a
religious feeling.
Although every one who wishes to receive instruction from the visible
remnants of the past, must admire the works of art as preserved to us in
the brilliant colours, and quaint symbolic designs, which modify “God’s
light” as it attempts to enter into the ancient temples dedicated to his
service; and although every one who can so feel, must detest the
barbarity of a Barebones—who is said to have thanked God every time his
zealous and mischievous weapon was raised from the demolition of the
Canterbury windows—yet I think it would be difficult to find any
satisfactory reason for the re-introduction of stained glass pictures,
and tinted glass, into the church windows of our day. Every reason I
have ever heard in favour of “the dim religious light,” or “the
scriptural story,” is equally powerful in favour of all other modes of
teaching by “stealing the senses.” If painted glass, why not painted
canvass? If one picture, why not a hundred? If candles on the altar,
why not lighted? If Puseyism, why not full-blown Romanism? But this is
only one of the many “first step to Rome.” And as in the case of St.
John’s window, which was the origin of this remark, these first steps are
not completed at once. How long it took to fill up the whole east window
of St. John’s I do not remember; but there were only a few Apostles there
at one time; and the “naughty boy”—who went to this church, more I fear
to look at this window than to say his prayers, or hear the very
excellent and learned ministers who preach there—asked his Ma, one day,
“why they did not write down the names of _those men_, so that he could
find out who they were?” When he was told they were the Twelve
Apostles—he said “Oh no, that can’t be, there are but ten, for I count
them every Sunday.”
The New Parish Church—St. James’s.
Twenty years ago, the bishop’s building Acts were beginning to tell in
real earnest; and from 1831 to 1841, the increase in the population of
the parish of Paddington, averaged _above __one thousand per annum_. Yet
the errors of the past were unnoticed by those who never wish to see
errors in high places; for it was not till the fifth of December, 1837,
that the local governors of Paddington saw the necessity, created by this
annual addition of a thousand souls to the parish, for increased means of
religious instruction, and public worship; and then their attention to
this necessity was aroused by their Reverend Chairman, who, on that day,
stated he was desired by the Bishop of London to call the attention of
the vestry to the great want of additional church room there was in the
parish—or more correctly speaking _on his estate_. The bishop sent word
“that he and the trustees had resolved upon a site for a new church; and
that he would submit the case, (of the destitution of this parish), to
the Metropolitan Church Committee; and would himself subscribe £300!”
{147}
The vestry, in obedience to this message, resolved “that an additional
church would be highly beneficial to the parish at large;” and a
committee, with full powers to carry out this resolution was at once
appointed. Expressions of praise escaped some lips; and the vestry did
not break up, as their minutes shew, without thanking the bishop for the
plot of ground on which the new church was to be built, and the liberal
subscription offered by him. Whether any one in the vestry remembered
the words of the polished nobleman, who said, “Praise, when it is not
deserved, is the severest satire and abuse,” I do not know; I am inclined
to believe that the majority of those who tendered their thanks to the
bishop, were sincere. But how oddly do those praises and thanks come
upon the reader, who has studied the history of the Paddington Estate!
This new Paddington church was to be built by subscription on a site
fixed by the owners of the Estate, at the western extremity of the Grand
Junction-road. And on the eighth of June, 1840, the committee report
“that a design adapted to the wants and means of the parish has been
selected by the vestry,” subject to the appropriation of the two great
subscribers; “the Metropolitan Churches Committee,” and “Her Majesty’s
Commissioners for building new churches.”
Plans were advertised for, and thirty-eight designs were received. “Five
of the most eligible” were selected; and the one with the motto, “Let
merit bear the Palm,” was especially recommended by the Committee to the
vestry. On this, as on many another occasion, however, _merit_ was
jostled out of the field by mediocrity, or something worse, and Mr.
Lindsey’s design was rejected on account of his having been induced to
increase the detailed cost of the building far beyond his original
estimate.
The structure, as it now stands, is said to be the result of the combined
genius of Messrs. Gutch and Goldicutt; and we are further told that this
precious specimen of “Brummagem Gothic,” was originally designed for a
Grecian building, but was altered to suit the “taste of the times.” Mr.
Vulliamy, one of the gentlemen who had responded to the advertisement,
felt his talent to be so scandalized by the acceptance of this clumsy
design, that he printed a letter, which he addressed to the vestry; in
which he points out that the successful candidate is very improperly, as
he thinks, an influential member of that board. This gentleman, was the
bishop’s surveyor, and the district-surveyor—two offices totally
incompatible. But who could be supposed to know better the tastes and
wants of the people of Paddington? So little did he know, however, that
his second, or amended design, was found to be so obtrusively ugly that
those who had adopted it could not see it carried out; and, although the
original estimate for this design was fixed at £8,600, another thousand
was readily added, in order that the deformity, which had been so
unanimously fixed on, might be again amended!
This church in all its present taste, the vestry agreed should become the
parish church; but it was not till March, 1845, that the Reverend
Chairman reported to the vestry that the Church Commissioners had
executed the deed to transfer the rights, &c., from St. Mary’s to St.
James’s.
A distinct understanding was come to at this time that the old church
should be enlarged. And “by these means,” says the report of 1840,
“accommodation will be provided for four thousand persons, or including
Bayswater chapel, which may hereafter be made a parochial chapel, for
more than five thousand persons, in a parish supposed to contain twenty
thousand souls.” The report goes on to state that each of the four
districts, into which the parish will be divided, “will be placed under
the immediate care of its respective minister or ministers; and these
important results will have been obtained _without any compulsory levy on
the parishioners_.”
Besides a miscalculation of at least four thousand in the then actual
population of Paddington, these reporters must have been very ignorant of
the previous history of the parish, or they must have had very bad
memories. We have seen how St. Mary’s was built, and how it was paid
for; and a church-rate enforced by warrants of distress, and these again
backed up by the certainty of imprisonment, till the rate and all
expenses were paid, I think one may call a compulsory levy. Even those
who lived in the parish the year before this report was written, had felt
the twitch of this clerical scourge,—not the last they were to feel by a
great number; for on the twenty-fourth of April, 1839, a church-rate was
made, and the Cash Accounts for the year ending, April, 1838–39, shew
that £850 5_s._ 9¾_d._ had been collected by “compulsory levy,” in these
years, “to pay off Mrs. Jenks’s last Church Bond Debt.” But how these
reporters could have forgotten the day ever memorable in the annals of
the present vestry of Paddington, I cannot imagine; nor how that on this
fifth day of May, 1829, when the church-rate was in danger, the Bishop of
London, the Viscount Bernard, the Honourable Mr. Mac’Donald, the Rev.
John Joseph Pike, and nine others,—having taken the oath of office, to
execute faithfully, impartially, and honestly, according to the best of
their skill and knowledge, the several powers and authorities reposed in
them—proceeded at once, with other vestrymen, to make a church-rate of
threepence in the pound; for so far as I can discover, this is the only
time the vestry of Paddington was ever honoured, at its sittings, by a
visit from the spiritual and temporal lord of the parish.
This congratulation of the Committee, respecting all the good that had
been done without any compulsory levy, was only the warming up, under
more favourable circumstances for the instant, of one that had been
tendered to the parish, when the first subscriptions for St. John’s were
announced. But for that half year, 1826, sixpence in the pound was the
amount of the church-rate levied, the full sum allowed by the law. And,
although there was no compulsory levy at the time this report was
written—none from 1839 to 1842,—yet there was one made in the latter
year, which continued to be made twice-a-year, down to 1851, continues to
be made annually now, and must be continued for years to come.
On the eighth of February, 1843, “the Committee for building the new
church in this parish, have the satisfaction of informing the
parishioners, that the church is nearly completed, and will be opened for
Divine service, on or before the first of May next, _provided sufficient
funds for that purpose are previously collected_.” So, “the immediate
aid of those persons who have not subscribed to this important
undertaking” is solicited, “to defray the whole expense, for which a
considerable sum is still required.”
But even St. James’s was not finished without a “compulsory levy;” for on
the thirtieth of June, 1843, the committee report that after paying
£10,000, other expenses had been incurred, and were about to be incurred,
which they hoped to raise by subscription. No further subscriptions were
forthcoming, however; and in August, 1844, the committee state to the
vestry that £950 is still due; that the clock and organ were not
subscribed for, as anticipated; and that there are other additional works
estimated at £300 more; all of which they beg to transfer to the especial
care of the ratepayers. These, as well as other sums, were paid out of
the church-rate by order of the vestry.
“The churchwardens’ account for the year 1843–44” shews the “total
expenditure for Saint James’s church, for the year ending April, 1844, to
have, been £2,190 12_s._ 5_d._, the whole of which, with the exception of
£200, “the first annual payment from the pew-rents,” was paid by the
Churchwardens out of the parish funds. This, however, was not all the
Churchwardens paid towards St. James’s; for in “the church-rate account”
for the ensuing year, the following item occurs, “January thirtieth,
1845, Paid Mr. Bishop, for organ at St. James’s Church, £497 12_s._
6_d._” There are other items, too,—balance of architect’s commission,
church plate, and printing—which bring the sum paid this year up to £753
8_s._ 4_d._, over and above the ordinary disbursements, which are this
year £100 more than the pew-rents paid to the churchwardens. Neither was
this church, which _was to have been built without_ “_compulsory levy_,”
paid for yet; for in the next year’s account, we find a “Cross Wall” in
the vaults paid for; roofing over the vestry room, at St. James’s church;
building new porches to the lobby entrances; and the “Turret clock.”
These four items amounted to £662 19_s._ 3_d._, the ordinary expenses
being increased by £246 14_s._ 11_d._, above the receipts, for other
church fittings. And on the twenty-fourth of December, 1847, there is
another £100 paid for re-glazing the windows with ground-glass; so that
before St. James’s was fairly done with, it had cost the rate-payers over
and above all subscriptions, £3,850 at the least—to say nothing of
interest of money borrowed, at a very high rate, to pay these sums.
{151a}
Trinity.
“The Holy Double Trinity,” as I once heard it called by the showman, who
pointed with his wand to the young lady with two triangles on her breast,
who is perched with that ornament, or symbol, in full view of all who
enter by the south door; her duplicate being in the same position over
the northern entrance. But for this notification, this church might be
taken to belong to saints of the masculine gender; the western door being
decorated by a gentleman on either side; one with the cross-keys, the
other with the cross-swords. But these Guardian Saints are not the only
images set up for our love or hatred; confidence or fear; instruction or
bamboozlement; on the walls of this church, or they would not be noticed
here. Trinity, “the pet church of Paddington,” the church on which
church-goers pride themselves as something that is worthy of this great
and important parish, is in fact, garnished all over with images, or
symbols, and may be considered a creditable mimick of antiquated masonry
on a small scale. On this building, both architect and mason appear to
have exhausted all the skill of their craft, to produce an edifice, which
shall transport the sense of sight, if not the mind it influences, to
those glorious middle ages, for the revival of which some few
enthusiastic ladies and gentlemen of the nineteenth century are working
so desperately. To be obliged to work with the materials of the
nineteenth, must be a sad drawback on their enthusiasm. These _artists_
devise all kind of means to give the charm of antiquity to their works,
it is true; but there is an air of newness about Trinity, and such like
buildings, which is any thing but pleasing, and which ill assorts with
any notion of veneration. Some centuries hence, if Trinity does not
share the fate of the Sheldon church, children may look on it with
something like awe; and grown-up persons with pity for that generation,
whose genius—able to make the lightning-force subservient to its will
{151b}—able to contrive machines to carry the material form to which that
genius is linked, sixty miles an hour with certainty and safety—able to
raise structures which surpass in size and beauty, anything the genius of
man ever before created, was yet unable to erect a house in which to
worship its God, except in mimickry of forms suitable to the intelligence
of past and darker ages. {152a}
At a distance, in Trinity, we see fair proportions and elegance of form,
pleasing to the eye of all who admire the architectural art; on closer
inspection, nuns and monks, and bishops, and kings, and monsters with
faces which disgrace humanity; and beasts so detestably ugly, or so
ridiculously grotesque, that young and old are arrested in their
progress, and compelled to ask the meaning of it all. I have asked many
persons, but none of them, being either masons or priests, could tell.
This, however, every sensible man is beginning to tell to his neighbour,
and pretty plainly too, that no priest or mason shall drag him back to
the decorations and deformities of the fourteenth century, of which
Trinity is a sufficient example. “The Holy Blessed Trinity” is not
understood when it is surrounded by an unintelligible mass of deformity;
and that which has no meaning for the people, must be as repulsive in a
material structure, as it is in a Divine Thought.
“Freemasons of the Church” do tell us, what those who are not freemasons,
can easily imagine, viz., that many of the grotesque and disgusting
gothic carvings, which still exist in and around the ancient churches,
were placed there by monks, or monkish masons, as caricatures of their
secular brethren, and others, who had offended them. Now, if the
monsters with heads as large as life, who grin and gape with horrible
contortions from the six pinnacles on each side of this church, are
intended to be the monumental effigies of twelve of the preceding owners
of the Paddington Estate, (those who have most grossly mismanaged and
abused it,) let us be told so; and then I have no doubt some of the
people of Paddington would enjoy the joke, as much as any Grand Master of
the masonic craft; but it is really too bad to stick up unintelligible
symbols, on and about that which is called a religious temple, and leave
all the uninitiated to guess at their meaning. The days for such
unenlightened and selfish craft are numbered; and the splitting of the
foundation walls of Trinity, may be looked upon as an emblem of their
fulfilment. {152b} _The people must be taught_; and that, too, without
any previous oath-taking. Colleges, and crafts, if they are worth
preserving, will endure without the pledges given to secrecy; if they are
not, no preliminary swearing will enable them to maintain their ancient
ascendancy. Priests and masons may fancy they still rule the world; and
it may be that they do; but however much they may wish it, their reign
will not be long, even if it is not now virtually ended. A third element
has been admitted to power. People are teaching themselves the
essentials of all government, and they must ultimately rule. Observers
have long since discovered, that unfettered genius has done more for the
world, than the most renowned systems; and they are no longer willing to
assist in upholding those educational establishments, whose very
foundations are laid in secrecy, cliquedom, and dogmata. To know what
kingcraft can do for us, we may consult the history of our own James’s
and Charles’s; to know what priestcraft has done for the world, we have
only to read William Hewitt’s Popular History of it; and to prove what
the masonic craft has not attempted to do, we have only to take a walk
into “Milton’s Golden Lane,” {153} or any other of the many wretched
lanes and alleys of this or any other large city. There is, however, an
Immaterial Essence in this world of ours which no craft or cunning _can_
“put down;” and, fortunately for the world, it is not _entirely_ in the
keeping of any craft.
The prelate who consecrated Trinity, is known to have been indulgent
towards practices in the church, which had long since ceased to be
observed. Reformation of some kind was found to be necessary, and
practices distasteful to reformers, were introduced. None of those
objectionable practices, however, were ever witnessed _within_ any of the
churches in Paddington; and this I look upon as an additional reason for
inducing the people to ask the bishop, their appointed governor, to
condescend to give them some satisfactory reason for the erection of
these “ornaments,” which he has consecrated, and for which they have to
pay. There is another course open to the bishop, which scarcely any one,
with the exception of the architect, would be grieved by his adopting.
But to erect this structure, fitted, to all external appearance, only for
the performance of the gorgeous histrionical ceremonies of the most
depraved period of the Roman or Anglican churches, the people of
Paddington have been, and still are, obliged to subscribe by “compulsory
levy;” and having been thus made instrumental, willing or unwilling, in
assisting to resuscitate the dry bones of a monster belonging to a former
period, they were then asked, (like other people similarly situated) by
their local governors, to assist them in laying the spectre that such
follies as these had again presented to the mind of the English public.
And how; and at what cost was Trinity built?
In 1843, on the fourth of July, the Rev. Chairman of the vestry, informed
that body, he had received a communication from the Rev. Mr. Miles,
expressing his readiness to contribute £4000 towards the erection of an
additional church in Paddington, upon a site already granted by the
bishop and his lessees.
This, the third site, provided out of the four acres to be granted,
according to the bishop’s last building Act, was a _deep hole_, which had
been left at the point of junction of the Bishop’s-road with the
Westbourn-terrace road; these roads having been raised by the Great
Western Railway Company, according to agreement with the owners of the
estate, when the railway bridges were built. So deep was this hole, and
so unfitted was it for the site of a church, that the parishioners would
have been money in pocket, if the vestry had politely thanked the bishop
and his lessees for their kindness in granting it, and bought the land
somewhere else. But then that would not have done for the bishop and his
lessees. They knew, and the builders who took their land knew, the
increased value a church would give to the neighbouring ground; and, as
it had been planned that the church would be better here than elsewhere,
here it must be, or no where; although the foundations did cost the
parishioners above £2,000; and although another thousand “would not have
been lavishly thrown away, _had the proper authorities been sufficiently
liberal in granting it_!”
On the tenth of July, at an adjourned meeting of the vestry, a committee
was appointed to take Mr. Miles’s letter into consideration, to confer
with the bishop, and to report to the vestry thereon. The only other
important business done at this meeting, was, to agree to borrow £2,000,
on the security of the church-rates, instead of £1,700, as had been
previously proposed. This was to be raised to pay the debts of St.
James’s, and the other churches. On the twelfth of June, the Vestry had
pledged themselves to raise £2,000 towards increased
church-accommodation, if the church commissioners would but pay the
£2,000 they had promised. On the eleventh of December, in the same year,
after receiving the report of their committee, the vestry agree to
increase this sum to £6,000; “which they presume will be sufficient for
the erection of a suitable church, with Mr. Miles’s donation, and such
other sums as may be raised by subscription, and obtained from the church
commissioners.” And on the second of January, 1844, a committee was
appointed, with full powers, to build the new church.
On the sixth of February, 1844, a letter was read from the church
commissioners, consenting to make a grant of £1,000 towards the proposed
new church; upon certain conditions therein mentioned.
On the fourth of March, the new church committee report “that they find
from the specification of the architect, that the expenses of
constructing the foundation, on the site allotted to the church, will be
so great as to prevent the possibility of erecting a suitable edifice
thereon for the sum at the disposal of the committee; and they therefore
recommend that £2,500 _more_ be borrowed.” On the ninth of March, it was
resolved, that this further sum should be raised; and on the fifteenth of
January, 1846, it was resolved, unanimously, by the Vestry, “That a sum
of £13,000 should be raised under the provisions of the church building
Acts, _on the credit of the church-rate_, _for the erection of Trinity
Church_!”
To make assurance doubly sure, this sum was again voted towards the cost
of building Trinity, on the twenty-sixth of March, 1846; and by the final
report and statement of the committee appointed to build this church,
dated twenty-ninth of March, 1847, we find the total cost of this
building to have been £18,458 11_s._ 3_d._; and says that report—
“The church accommodates 1,582 persons; 982 in pews; 600 in free
sittings.
The Lord Bishop of London presented the font.
The Rev. John Miles, the incumbent, presented the large stained glass
window, and the encaustic tiles in the chancel.
Henry Morris Kemshead, Esq. presented one of the stained glass
windows in the chancel; the other three were by subscriptions from
various persons.
George Gutch, Esq. presented the dial, fixed in the gallery under the
organ.
Thomas Cundy, Esq., the architect, presented the carved stone altar
piece.” {155}
A substantial parsonage-house, built at the north-west corner of the
piece of ground surrounding this church, is occupied by the minister, the
Rev. Mr. Miles, who is said to have given, in addition to his other
donations, £500 towards its erection.
The extreme liberality in the contributions of the present incumbent of
this church must be properly appreciated, even by those who do not admire
being charged with church-rates to make up a sufficient sum to build a
place of worship, into which they are never likely to enter; and the
greater part of the income from which has been previously secured on the
minister, as a good investment for the capital he may have advanced—a
plan of “getting up a church” now very much in fashion.
All Saints.
From 1841 to 1851, the population of Paddington increased on the average,
_above two thousand one hundred per annum_; and the bishop’s rents
increased in due proportion; but as the newcomers were almost all
strangers to the parish, they had never, perhaps, heard one word of the
History of the Paddington Estate. On this ignorance the owners of that
estate must have relied, when they determined to saddle the rate-payers
of Paddington with the expense of building and furnishing their churches,
and with every other charge incidental to that Estate. But to enable the
owners to carry out their project, the consent of the vestry of the
parish must be first had and obtained; and to give this consent the
vestry were not unwilling; for on the very day they voted away £13,000
for Trinity, they also bound themselves to raise, by rates and
subscription, _or by rates alone_, £6,000 more for another church. {156}
The site for this church—a portion of the old reservoir,—had already been
given up by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, to the bishop and his
lessees, as agreed upon, and enacted, by the 7th and 8th Vic. cap. 30.
On the fifteenth of January, 1846, the vestry resolved, “that it is
expedient to build a church in Cambridge-place; and that a committee be
appointed to consider the subject in all its bearings, and report thereon
to the vestry.” This committee recommended that £4,000 should be raised
by a loan on the church-rates towards the cost of this new building, the
furniture, and fittings; that it hold 1,500 persons; and that the cost of
the building should be limited to £6,000; £2,000 of which, they
recommend, should be raised by subscription; but they recommend the works
to be begun, when the subscriptions amount to £1,500; but not before.
Their report was adopted by the vestry; it was at once resolved that the
£4000 should be raised; that their old friends, the church commissioners,
should be applied to for assistance; and that the vestry-clerk should
write to the bishop of London, apprizing him of the day’s proceedings;
requesting, at the same time, that directions may be given to have the
site of the church conveyed in the usual manner.
All this was to be carried into effect by the Trinity Church Committee.
On the third of March, a letter was read from the Church Commissioners,
expressing regret that the state of their funds and urgent claims from
various other quarters, would not permit them to make any grant of money,
this time, towards the proposed new church; but as no more of these
public funds could be obtained, the bishop sends word he will give £500.
On the twenty-sixth of March, a special meeting of the vestry is held, to
pass unanimously, three resolutions, to enable the vestrymen to charge
the rates with £19,000, for building Trinity and this church; they appeal
again to the Church Commissioners for _a nominal grant_ “_to establish
the validity of their proceedings_;” and, considering the good and pious
object, for which the application is made, the commissioners relent, and
grant _one hundred pounds_. After much difficulty £19,000, is at length
borrowed. But one Assurance Office, of high respectability, refused to
have anything to do with this loan, even after the lawyers had put the
parish to the expense of £32 17_s._ 10_d._ on account of it; £103 3_s._
being the amount of two other bills “for negotiating” this loan. {157}
But this sum was not enough to carry on the church account; another £1000
had to be borrowed of the banker, on the fourteenth of December, 1847;
and above £100 interest was paid on that sum before the loan was
returned. Some time after this, the committee report that the
subscriptions for All Saint’s Church amount to £1,635 2_s._ 10_d._; and
that the cost of the building has been £7,434 18_s._ 2_d._
This church is built in the early pointed style, and its internal
fittings and decorations are exceedingly plain. It is capable of holding
1,500 persons; 600 free seats, and 900 appropriated, or pew sittings.
The amount of church-rate, _collected_ for nine years, ending April,
1852, was £20,574 3_s._ 8_d._ Of this there was “balance in hand of
£1,607 15_s._ 2_d._;” but a debt of £14,500 was owing for churches which
had been built. This debt is bearing interest at the rate of
four-and-a-half per cent; and £900 is paid off annually. So that these
four churches will have cost the rate-payers of Paddington upwards of
£40,000, over and above all the sums given by the Church Commissioners,
Metropolitan Committee, bishop and lessees, all Parliamentary provision
of the sites, and all private subscriptions; and this sum of money, with
upwards of £10,000 paid for St Mary’s, and the church-yard, will have
been raised by “_compulsory levy_,” from rate-payers of all
denominations; while the receipts of “the rectorial and other lands” are
quietly pocketed by the rector and his lessees!
But I have heard rate-payers told, as a great consolation, “that the
churches of Paddington cost nothing in comparison to the churches of
Marylebone.” This however, may not be very consoling to those who know
the cost of the following:—
Wesleyan Metropolitan Chapels, which have been recently built.
“Poplar chapel is of the decorative style, 105 feet long, by 60 feet
wide; is built of Kentish Rag Stone, with Caen Stone dressings; will
seat 1,500 persons; and cost about £4,000.
The New North-road Chapel, Hoxton, is Anglo-Norman, in style; is 35
feet long, including the vestries, by 52 feet wide; built of Brick
and Bath Stone; will accommodate 1,200 persons; and cost £3,700.
The Chapel of St. John’s-square, Clerkenwell, is built of Brick and
Bath Stone; 70 feet long by 60 feet wide; will accommodate 1,300
persons; has a school-room, &c., and cost £4,000.
Jewin-street Chapel, is built in the Early English style; is 68 feet
by 52 feet; seats 1,100 persons; is built of White Brick and Bath
Stone; and cost £2,700.
The Islington Chapel, in the Liverpool road, measures 90 feet long by
54 feet wide; and will accommodate 1,500 persons. It is built of
Kentish Rag and Bath Stone; is in the decorated style and cost about
£6,000.” {159}
But the actual cost of the churches of Paddington, is not the whole of
the evil, though, considering all the circumstances, this is sufficiently
oppressive. These churches, after all, are not free: pew-rents are
obliged to be taken for the support of the ministers; the poor
parishioners have less than one-third of the room allotted to them, and a
considerable portion of this space is reserved for the best singers, and
most showy scholars of the church schools.
And after all this; after all the money raised “by compulsory levy” to
build, furnish, ornament and decorate; and after all the pew-rents are
paid; these churches do not pay their own ordinary expenses. No; not
after there is added to this income the portion of the burial-fees
received by the churchwardens; but this source of income, which has
averaged for many years more than £350 per annum, must soon cease. So
that dissenters and others, who reside even on a bishop’s estate, have a
fair prospect of being called on to pay a church-rate, after all the
churches which the rate-payers have built, shall have been paid for.
Towards defraying these ordinary expenses of the churches, the ministers
of Trinity, and All Saints, contribute fifteen per cent. of the pew-rents
received by them; the minister of St. James’s £200 per annum, the stipend
set aside for the whole cure; the minister of St. John’s, _nil_. While
for the last three or four years the pew-rents of St. Mary’s have more
than met the ordinary expenses of that church; although there have been
two Services performed in it daily during that period. And “increased
church accommodation is loudly called for in Paddington!” How will the
bishop of London, and his lessees, _now_ answer to that call? Will the
rate-payers of Paddington be left to answer it? Or, will the vestry of
this parish, elected under the provisions of Sturges Bourne’s Act, be
allowed, of their own mere motion, (without any reference to the
rate-payer, or without any efficient representation of the case “in all
its bearings,” to the bishop and his lessees), to take upon themselves to
spend more of the rate-payers’ property? We shall see.
What _can_ be done by those who care one pin about preserving a
state-church; by those who have ground-rents to preserve, and lands and
houses to be benefitted by offering to in-coming tenants church
accommodation, we have already seen. But another example of voluntary
church-building and self-support exists in this parish.
Mr. B. Macaulay tell us, when speaking of the revenues of the State,
“experience has fully proved that the voluntary liberality of
individuals, even in times of the greatest excitement, is a poor
financial resource when compared with severe and methodical taxation,
which, presses on the willing and unwilling alike.” Those who govern the
state-church, have had experience on this head; and without stopping
“voluntary liberality” they deem it necessary, so long as a
state-religion is upheld, to use “severe and methodical taxation;” and
they employ all the powers the law allows them, to compel the unwilling,
as well as the willing, to pay their appointed share of the particular
tax raised for its requirements. But it is questioned by some most
sincere and learned churchmen, whether this is good policy; whether the
people love the church any better for being obliged to pay church-rates,
when they see how the property claimed by the church is apportioned; and
where they see, as in this parish, church property, much more than
sufficient to supply their religious requirements, used, not for their
benefit, as it was originally intended, but for individual advantage.
But to shew how thoroughly the religious forms of the state-church _can_
be upheld by the voluntary system alone, even in a parish from which that
church has derived vast sums of money, and to which it has returned so
little, it is only necessary to mention that
The Chapel of the Lock Hospital,
is not only self-supporting, but a portion of the income derived from the
pew-rents annually goes towards the support of the hospital and asylum.
The pew-rents of the Lock Chapel, for the year ending the thirty-first of
December, 1851, amounted to £948 3_s._ 2_d._, {160} and this department
of a charitable Institution, “after bearing all the expenses incident to
its services, yielded to the Institution, the sum of £348 19_s._ 2_d._”
during the same period.
Another such an example as this, a third, might have proved too much; and
it was not allowed to exist, although the foundations of the building
were laid, and the means were in hand to raise the superstructure. The
correspondence between the proprietor of the intended chapel, and the
Bishop of London, on the subject of this new church, proposed to be built
at Westbourn Green, must be fresh in the memory of most readers of the
daily journals; and it is only necessary to refer those, who wish to know
the history of an attempt to erect another church in this parish upon the
voluntary principle, to that correspondence.
At the present time, the parish of Paddington is divided into five
ecclesiastical districts; and the episcopal form of church-government and
the present forms of the state-religion, are supported by accomplished
clergymen, attached to the various places of public worship.
The people of Paddington see in their own parish an exemplification of
that state of church economy, which is more or less prominently exhibited
all over the country; they know the extent of the church-lands here; they
know how they were acquired; they know for the performance of what duties
these lands were granted; they see how the income from these lands has
been disposed of; they know that the duties of providing for religion,
and for the poor, have been transferred from the holders of this
church-land, to those who occupy the houses which have been built on it;
and they know that a second Reformation is inevitable. So that, if the
church ministers of this parish could report to their bishop, that no
dissenter lived in this very profitable part of his diocese, it would
convey to him no more accurate notion of the feeling of the people
respecting the management of the state-church than the bishops conveyed
to Laud “on the very eve of troubles, fatal to himself, and to his
order,” when they reported to him “that not a single dissenter was to be
found within their jurisdiction.” {161}
That those dignitaries of the church, who have taken upon themselves the
disposal of the church-lands in Paddington, should have made such sorry
provisions for the promulgation and protection of their own creed in this
place, is much more surprising, than that they should have looked with no
favourable eye on the diffusion of doctrines which differed, in any
respect, from their own. To prevent, so far as in them lay, the erection
of any places of worship, save those in which were taught the particular
dogmas they reverenced, is but what experience teaches us, might have
been expected, as it is well known to be the common practice of every
dominant sect to permit no rival near its throne; or, if a rival is to be
tolerated without a systematic opposition, it must be one that is not
seriously antagonistic to its principles.
The Bishop of London, in his last Charge to his clergy, while guarding
them against a too great leaning to Popish practices, told them there was
less danger to fear from Rome, than from Germany. And, so far as danger
to the peculiar dogmas, and the histrionic ceremonies we have seen spring
up within the last few years, is concerned, all who know anything of the
“Reformation of the nineteenth century,” as it is being developed in
Germany, will readily admit. To get a good insight into the “Humane
Reformation” now in progress not only in Germany, but in England and
America, I must refer my readers to the little Work which has been
published for the English reader by the great apostle of this
Reformation, Johannes Ronge, and to which I have before alluded.
The present Bishop of London and his predecessors, I am credibly
informed, have considered it to be their duty to prevent, so far as in
them lay, the erection of any Dissenting place of worship in Paddington.
But some part of the Paddington Estate was leased without any restrictive
provisions of this nature, therefore the whole of the land in Paddington
is not now in the hands of a dominant church.
In 1816, a chapel, capable of holding six hundred persons, with
school-rooms on the basement story, was built in Praed-street, on ground
leased by the Grand Junction Canal Company.
This chapel, “The Tabernacle,” is now in the hands of a congregation of
Baptists, who, to purchase and repair it, incurred a debt of £2,000.
This they have paid off within the last ten years, over and above their
contributions for the support of their minister. They also educate
upwards of two hundred scholars; and twenty-three teachers give their
leisure on the day of rest for this purpose.
There is a freehold chapel in the Harrow Road, at the entrance to
Paddington Green; the Wesleyans have a chapel in the Queen’s Road,
Bayswater; and the Roman Catholics are now building a large church at the
western extremity of this parish, on a portion of that land, which was
bequeathed by the Lady Margaret, to the poor. Another chapel, called
“the Boatman’s chapel,” also exists in Paddington, on the ground leased
to the Grand Junction Canal Company. This place of worship, which is
capable of holding two hundred persons, was constructed out of a stable
and coach-house, at the expense of a few pious individuals, who saw how
much the poor boatmen wanted the advantages which accrue from religious
instruction, and how little likely they were to get it in a parish-church
which could not hold one-fourth part of the settled inhabitants. This
little place of worship is in connection with “Paddington Chapel”—a place
of worship belonging to the Independents. To attend the latter, the
people of Paddington have to cross the Queen’s highway; as they have, to
go to the chapels in John Street, and New Church Street.
These very commodious places of worship in St. Marylebone, are served by
learned men, who believe that the religion of the poor carpenter’s son
needs neither rich bishops nor rich endowments, to preserve its existence
in this world; and they are supported in this belief by a very
considerable number of tenants on the Bishop of London’s Estate.
CHAPTER IV.
SCHOOLS—CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS—PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS
OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
A SUNDAY SCHOOL, in connection with the Church, was established in
Paddington, during the last century; but it was not till the beginning of
this, that any public means of instruction existed for the children of
the poor on week days. Lysons, in his second Edition, tells us that “A
charity school for thirty boys and thirty girls was established in this
parish in 1802;” and that it was “supported by voluntary contributions,
and the collections at an annual charity sermon.” This public day-school
for poor children was one of the first established in the outskirts of
London; and the school room was built on that land which is said to have
been given by Bishop Compton. But this building was but small; for it
held only one hundred children; and in 1816, it was discovered that there
were 1508 children under twelve years of age, living on the south side of
the canal only; and it was supposed that four hundred of these were
between seven and twelve years old.
The curate of the parish and other influential inhabitants, seeing this
great field open for profitable cultivation, got up a Committee, to
devise ways and means to effect so desirable an object. This Committee
reported to the vestry, in March, 1818, that “the Bishop of London, as
the most extensive proprietor as well as the patron of the church, &c.”
had been consulted on the propriety of establishing a school for three
hundred children; which they calculated might be supported for £175 per
annum, while the expense of building the school room, was estimated at
£650; and they further reported to the vestry, that the bishop expressed
“his hearty good wishes for its success.” But as “hearty good wishes”
did not build or endow the school, it was not built till some years after
this time; and then, not by the bishop, or his lay lessees.
As we have already seen, the proceeds of the sale of waste lands were
devoted to this purpose; Denis Chirac’s legacy, which, with interest, now
amounted to £170 3_s._ 10_d._, and a donation of £130 from Baron Maseres,
one of his executors, being added; and in 1828, the vestry resolved to
devote two-thirds of the proceeds of the copyhold estate to the support
of this school.
When the Act of 1838, relative to the freehold estates, was obtained, a
re-arrangement of these funds was made; and three-fifths of the whole
estates, freehold as well as leasehold, were appropriated “towards the
support of the _Paddington_ Parochial National and Infant Schools.” The
new school rooms were built in 1822 on Paddington Green, or rather on a
part of the site of the “town pool;” and in 1831, other school rooms, in
connection with that system which is called National, were built at
Bayswater.
In 1840 the parochial school-rooms of St. John’s district were erected in
Tichbourn Row; and the new schools, built at the back of Stanley Street,
and St. Mary’s Hospital, in the district of All Saints, were opened in
February, 1852.
The Rev. F. C. Cook’s “Report on Schools in the Eastern district,”
published in “Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education 1845,”
contains a full account of those schools then in operation; and the
following extracts are taken from it.
In 1845, the number of scholars was as follows, viz., in the schools on
Paddington Green, April fifth and sixth, “200 boys present, total 210;
115 girls present, total 131; 180 infants present, total 190.”
“Titchbourn Street, second of April, Boys present, 167; total, 190.
Girls present, 91; total, 109. Infants present, 151; total 200.”
“Bayswater, twenty-fifth April. Boys, 106; girls, 49; infants, 60.”
The masters and mistresses of these schools, and of the new school, have
kindly furnished me with the numbers now in attendance; they are as
follows:—
Boys. Girls. Infants.
Paddington Green 174 98 150
Bayswater 168 100 160
Tichbourn Street 184 113 217
All Saints 140 138 174
Total 666 449 701
Mr. Cook reported, that at the schools on Paddington Green, “the boys and
girls are instructed in two rooms, well-built, warmed and ventilated.
The building handsome, and well arranged.
“Boys: instructed by master, with pupil teacher, seventeen years old, who
was educated in the school. Arranged in six classes on the circulating
system. The rewards for medals are books, which cost about £5 per annum.
The attendance averages more than nine-tenths of the total number. Age
of boys between seven and twelve, excepting ten boys near thirteen years.
Many boys have been in school from infancy. There is an increase of
fifty since the last inspection. The fluctuation in the numbers not
considerable. Boys are very healthy and cleanly in appearance. The
discipline is nearly perfect.
“The general proportion of instruction in the several classes is somewhat
advanced since last year. In the first class of fifty boys, averaging
eleven years old, and three years in school, twenty-five work a sum in
practice, 9860874, at £35 10_s._ 6½_d._, with ease; the others compound
rules and proportion. Write exceedingly well from dictation, and some
good abstracts. Geography, grammar, and etymology well taught. Read
History of England fluently, and are acquainted with the facts. Learn
linear drawing, and music on Hullah’s method. The lower classes are
advancing in due proportion to age and time in school. The religious
instruction throughout is good.
“Generally speaking, methods of teaching are those of the National
Society.”
“Girls: instructed in two rooms, and four classes, by mistress, assistant
and monitors. From seven to thirteen years old; fifteen, between twelve
and thirteen.
“The manners of the girls are very pleasing, and the school is in good
order.
“All can read from easy narrative, to the third book and History of
England. Eighty read with ease in the third book. Good secular reading
books in all classes. Writing on paper, ninety in books, and from
memory, neat and accurate. Ciphering to compound rules, with practical
questioning. The first class learn geography and grammar very well; the
religious instruction in all classes is remarkably good. Needlework is
very well taught; thirty can fix a shirt.”
“Infants, one hundred and eighty. Conducted by a mistress; assistant
employed in managing, not in instructing the children. A handsome,
well-arranged school, with abundant apparatus. All infants between two
and six years. The infants are cheerful, orderly, clean, and fond of
their mistress. It is peculiar to the school that the mistress teaches
all the children to read, &c., without monitors. The result is that they
are more advanced than in good infant schools conducted on the usual
system; seventy read in books; twenty very well; and twenty write
sentences on slates, twenty, words; and thirty, letters; all elementary
subjects are well-taught. Children are well acquainted with scriptural
history, and give more intelligent answers on meaning of words and
sentences than is usual in good schools. The mistress is an able
teacher, and devoted to her duties.”
Mr. Cook adds, “I have recommended many clergymen to visit these schools,
as among the best and most complete in London.”
And he concludes this part of his report by saying, that “in addition to
these nine schools, it is intended to erect others in the neighbourhood
of the new church, which will make altogether provision for the
instruction of 2000 children, in a population of 25,000. The present
schools cost nearly £1,300 per annum.” The expenditure of these schools
varies, as a matter of course; and this sum must not be taken as the
present expenditure. The new schools will cost £400 per annum, in
addition to this sum; and I find that in 1847–48, the total expenditure
of St. John’s schools for the year, amounted to £591; the income being
made up of £336, subscriptions, donations, and collections; £140 paid by
scholars in the form of “school pence;” and £115 from other sources. By
another report I find that the sum paid by the children at Paddington
Green, amounted in the year to £130.
All these schools have received, and continue to receive, grants from the
Parliamentary Fund. For the year ending thirty-first of October, 1850, I
find the schools on Paddington Green, had an award of £135 10_s._;
Bayswater, of £67 10_s._; and St. John’s, of £65 10_s._, “to apprentices
and teachers, for their instruction;” with an additional grant of £9
7_s._ 2¾_d._, to St. John’s for “books and maps.” The Government grant
for the All Saints schools was £180; the cost of the site, £640, and the
building of these schools amounted, altogether, to £2,173 7_s._ 0_d._;
which sum was raised by donations and subscription from the inhabitants
of the parish, with the exception of the grant just mentioned, and one
hundred pounds given by the Bishop of London. But before these new
schools were erected, the population of Paddington numbered upwards of
46,000; and 1816, is the actual number of scholars on the books of the
twelve schools at the present time, (January, 1853).
From the “Blue Book,” which contains the answers to Questions on
education, printed by order of the House of Commons, twentieth March,
1835, we learn, that the first infant school in this parish was commenced
in 1833; that it then contained fifty children of both sexes, and was
supported principally at the cost of the individual who established it,
but partly by the payment of two-pence per week from the parent with each
child. We are also informed by this inquiry, that a school for fifty
females was established at Bayswater, and supported by Mrs. Sutcliffe, of
Orme-square. From this “Blue Book” we also learn, that to each of the
four “day and Sunday National Schools,” and to two of the Dissenters’
Sunday schools a lending library is attached, a most excellent provision
which has been extended since that period to the other schools; but the
books are obtainable only upon the scholars conforming to certain
regulations.
Although the reports of the Tichbourn-street, and Bayswater schools, were
not quite so favourable, in 1845, as the Paddington-green school; and
although from subsequent reports, we find the Paddington-green schools
suffered from change of teachers, while the others were more favourably
reported on, yet the published annual reports of the Inspector, to which
I must refer for further information, shew that, on the whole, the
schools of Paddington may be looked on as amongst the best of those which
follow the peculiar methods of teaching laid down by the “National
Society.”
The masters, and mistresses, and those who have the management of these
schools, evidently do their duty; and the instruction given is highly
valuable. But whether it was right to apply the proceeds of the sales of
waste lands, and three-fifths of all the charity estates of this parish,
exclusively to those schools which adopt the methods of teaching
instituted by the “National Society,” may, I think, be justly questioned;
seeing that the greater portion, if not the whole of that property, was
given to the poor _generally_, and not to those _only_, who were willing
to have their children taught a particular Catechism, and a particular
Belief.
Out of Paddington there are systems of teaching, which do not base
themselves on peculiar and sectarian tenets; and in which, learning
controversial portions of scripture, in “proof” of the truth of a
catechism, does not form an essential element. Many learned men, whose
religious principles cannot be called in question, do not approve of this
catechism, or of this teaching; and they believe the first Society
established, the British and Foreign School Society, advocate a system
more _national_ than that of the self styled National Society. “Rational
Schools,” too, are not unknown—even within “a stone’s throw of the High
Court of Chancery” {169}—but Dr. Birkbeck’s plan is _too rational_ for
the Parochial schools of Paddington.
The foundation stone of the “Westbourne Schools,” conducted on the
“Glasgow Training System,” was laid on the thirty-first July, 1850. This
excellent establishment, which is in connection with the Lock Chapel, is
built by the side of “the green lanes,” (the old road which led from the
Great Western-road to the Harrow-road,) and is now in full operation.
The different congregations of Dissenters, too, have schools attached to
their respective chapels; and the Roman Catholics have built a large
school room in connection with their new chapel.
There are, also, many excellent private schools in Paddington; but of
schools strictly private, I have nothing to say.
In July 1848, the “Paddington Wharfs Ragged Schools,” for infants, girls,
and boys, were opened in Kent’s place; but in December of the same year,
larger premises in Church-place were taken. These have been found too
small, and the Committee have incurred a considerable expense in making
them more convenient. The average attendance is set down in the third
annual report at one hundred and ten infants, thirty girls, and forty
boys. In the adult schools there were twenty pupils; and the scholars in
the evening and Sunday schools vary from forty-five to ninety. The
current expenses tor 1851, amounted to £206 7_s._ 5_d._
There are two small establishments at Bayswater for female orphans. The
one called the “Orphan Asylum,” was instituted in 1833, by Mrs. Sutcliffe
and other ladies connected with the private charity school, which was
supported for many years by that lady’s generosity. The other, called
the “Bayswater Episcopal Female Orphan School,” was established in 1839.
The former of these establishments contained fourteen female orphans in
1851, the current expenses for the year, being £251 4_s._ 2¾_d._ In the
latter, in the same year, there were sixteen orphans, and the expenditure
amounted to £335 17_s._ 6_d._ Both institutions are supported by
voluntary contributions.
Queen Charlotte’s Lying-in-Hospital, now situated in the New-road, was
originally established in Paddington; Lysons tells us the Naval Asylum
was removed to Greenwich from this place; and the “School of Industry for
Female Orphans,” which was “instituted in Church street, Paddington
Green, in 1786, for the maintenance and education of twenty-four
children” is about to be removed to their new premises in St. John’s
Wood-road.
“The Paddington Visiting Society,” was established in the year 1838; its
objects being “to promote the religious and moral improvement of the
poor, in co-operation with the parochial clergy, to relieve distress and
sickness, to encourage industry, frugality, and provident habits, and
generally, to cultivate a friendly intercourse between the poor and the
wealthier and more educated classes of society.” It was proposed to
effect these objects by means of district visiting, in connection with
provident institutions, and visiting societies or church associations.
The Provident Dispensary in Star-street; Provident Funds, and lending
libraries connected with the schools; and the Paddington Savings’ Bank,
have arisen out of this parent Institution. And, although some of the
district visitors may have been over ardent in pressing on the poor, the
necessity of observing certain forms, as one of the conditions of their
assistance, yet undoubtedly these associations have done much good. I
must refer to the annual reports of these charitable Institutions for the
detailed account of their operations; but I may mention here, that the
church association in connection with St. John’s District, collected
during the year 1851, £1,105 10_s._ 2_d._ besides £128 1_s._ 0_d._,
contributed to a fund, called the “additional curate’s fund,” “designed
for the increased visitation of the sick and poor at their own houses,
and the maintenance of a daily service in the church.”
The block of small alms-houses at present existing in the Harrow-road,
said to have been built in 1714, on a portion of what had been Paddington
Green, is the oldest charitable building in Paddington; but the
endowment, if there ever was one, has merged into other estates; for no
endowment now exists. Sixteen poor old women belonging to the parish,
are still supported there out of the poor rates; but the inmates think
themselves not so far degraded as they would be, if obliged to become
tenants of the great parish poor-house; although in the latter they might
have a less confined crib, and perhaps, a more generous diet; but _there_
they would not be free. Now they can ramble about at pleasure; and when
at home, for each little room is a home, they can dwell upon the
remembrance of those pretty little flower gardens, which formerly existed
in front of these almshouses, and which may have attracted them in their
younger days, when perhaps, they little thought of becoming the
recipients of alms. With the alteration of the Harrow-road, which added
“thirty feet in depth” to the church-yard, and I presume the same
quantity to that strip of the Green, which was so kindly offered to the
parish for four thousand pounds, and a portion of which was purchased for
£2,000, these little attractions vanished; and a considerable portion of
the “thirteen feet ten inches” of flower garden, which existed on the
north side of this charitable institution, now forms a part of the
altered road; while on the garden to the south, the vestry-room, the
police-station, the infant-school, and other buildings, have been
erected.
The great charitable Institution of modern Paddington, is St. Mary’s
Hospital, situated in Cambridge-place. “Its establishment was commenced
in 1843, and His Royal Highness Prince Albert was pleased to lay the
first stone on the twenty-eighth of June, 1845.” Thomas Hopper, Esq.
made the design gratuitously; and Mr. Winsland’s tender of £33,787 was
accepted for the building; which, when complete, was intended to hold 380
beds.
A portion of this building, “with all the requisite appurtenances,
capable of containing 150 beds,” was opened for the reception of fifty
patients on the thirteenth of June, 1851; 332 patients were admitted into
the wards of the Hospital, during the first six months; the average
duration of their stay being twenty two days.
Mr. Winsland’s original tender was for the whole building, included “in
five separate divisions;” and a certain portion was to have been
completed within a specified period, but the sudden death of the
contractor is said to have thrown some obstacles in the way of its
progress. There must have been some alteration, too, in the original
design, or some sad miscalculation in the contract; for instead of a
building capable of containing 380 beds having been erected for £33,787,
I find by a “statement and appeal” published by “the Bond of Governors”
in 1851, that there had been expended the end of that year £33,806 5_s._
3_d._ “on account site and building,” _as it then existed_: £1,776 6_s._
9_d._, in addition, had been expended in furnishing; and £1,223 3_s._
2_d._, for the maintenance of the fifty beds for six months. The
estimated sum “to maintain the establishment of 150 beds, and to defray
the expense of out-patients,” was calculated at £4,400 per annum; £300
additional being required to support the maternity department.
At the present time there are 150 beds for patients, the total number the
present building is capable of containing; and attendance on the practice
of this Hospital is now recognised by the medical examining boards—the
medical staff having been complete from the first opening of the
establishment. This staff consists of three Physicians, and three
Assistant Physicians; three Surgeons, and three Assistant Surgeons; a
Physician-Accoucheur; a Surgeon-Accoucheur; an Ophthalmic-Surgeon; and an
Aural-Surgeon; all of whom perform their respective duties gratuitously.
There are also two resident medical officers, and a Dispenser. There is
a paid Secretary; an Assistant Secretary; a Collector; a Matron; and a
Chaplain; and the establishment is managed by a certain number of
Governors elected on building, special, house, finance, and medical
committees; subject to a code of laws, and, in most instances, to the
will of the whole body of Governors.
“Every subscriber of three guineas or upwards annually, is eligible to be
elected an annual governor; and every individual, making a donation of
thirty guineas or upwards in one sum, is eligible to be elected a life
governor.”
“Every governor, in addition to the privilege of recommending in and
out-patients as a subscriber, has the right to attend at all, or any
weekly, quarterly or special boards, and to speak and vote on all
questions, and to vote on all elections which shall come before such
board; &c.,” but “no governor is entitled to vote on an election, until
he shall have been a governor for a period of three calendar months.”
“Annual subscribers of twenty-five guineas, or _donors_ of 500 guineas in
one sum, have an unlimited right of recommending in-patients.
“Annual subscribers of ten guineas, or _donors_ of 100 guineas in one
sum, may recommend an unlimited number of in-patients, one in-patient
only at a time in the Hospital.
“Annual subscribers of three guineas, or _donors_ of thirty guineas in
one sum, may recommend three in-patients annually, and eighteen
out-patients.
“Annual subscribers of two guineas, or _donors_ of twenty guineas in one
sum, may recommend two in-patients annually, and twelve out-patients.
“Annual subscribers of one guinea, or _donors_ of ten guineas in one sum
to the maternity fund, may recommend three patients annually _to that
department_; and three additional patients for each guinea annually
subscribed, or each donation of ten guineas in one sum.”
But, although great sums have been already subscribed, and although these
inducements to subscribe have been held out to the charitable, the
Hospital is already in debt; and the advertisements declare that “to
maintain the present number of in-patients, and to supply medicine for a
very large number of out-patients, the amount of annual subscriptions is
quite inadequate.”
From what has been seen in the previous part of this Work, it may have
been thought that the site of this Hospital, with the whole of its
enclosed ground, was the gift of the Bishop of London and the trustees of
the Paddington Estate; but from a printed statement, dated the tenth of
July, 1846, I find that this is not the case. The ground which was to be
given up, according to the provisions of the 7th and 8th Vic. chap. 30,
as a site for this Hospital, is said to consist “of upwards of three
quarters of an acre;” “its value was stated to have been estimated at
£3,885;” but “the trustees of the Hospital were required to pay £1,000,
as an indemnity to the Grand Junction Water Works Company, to whom the
ground had been leased.” Further, the Committee “deemed it expedient to
purchase, at an expense of £2,000 two adjoining pieces of ground, in
order that the future governors of the institution should not be
restricted in their operations for want of space.”
These pieces together, made “an acre and a quarter of land, being nearly
half an acre more than the present site of St. George’s Hospital.”
Within a few yards of this large building, there is another charitable
medical Institution, called the “Paddington Free Dispensary, for the
Diseases of women and children.” This Institution, also, is supported by
voluntary contributions; and a consulting physician; a consulting
surgeon; two physicians; a surgeon; a dentist; and a secretary; give
their gratuitous services to this charity. The report of 1851, states
that 5,280 patients had been “admitted during the last year;” the
expenditure of the whole establishment being but £218 18_s._ 0_d._
In the same street—Market-street,—there is a “Refuge for the Destitute”
supported by voluntary contributions. Here the houseless poor, to the
number of 100, may obtain a bed and breakfast during the winter months;
and here, winter and summer, the manager and his wife have been
maintained for some years in very easy circumstances. {174a}
For the regular poor of the parish, a very excellent house has been
built, at a cost of £11,431 9_s._ 11_d._, on a portion of five and a
quarter acres of “the Upper Readings,” purchased of the Bishop of London
and the trustees of the Paddington Estate for £5,168 15_s._ 0_d._
{174b}—By an “extract from the statistical and financial statements of
accounts of the Board of Guardians,” I find that for the half year ending
Michaelmas, 1851, the total number of paupers relieved was 1,054,
viz.—in-door, 88 males; 126 females; 117 children. Out-door, 122 males;
289 females; 312 children. The collective number of days being 37,171.
I also find, from the same official document, that there was an increase
of 36 in-door, and a decrease of 160 out-door paupers as compared with
the corresponding half of the previous year; that the total expenditure
for the relief of the poor, amounted to £2,995 16_s._ 0½_d._; that the
sum of £1,130 10_s._ 8_d._ was repaid for “workhouse loan and interest;”
and that the whole cost of the establishment for this half-year was
£4,237 16_s._ 8½_d._—£4,500 having been called for to meet the
expenditure. The financial account closed with a balance in hand of
£1,154 10_s._ 1_d._
From the same kind of printed document, for the half-year ending
lady-day, 1852, I find the total number of paupers relieved, was 1,070;
viz., in-door, 70 males; 139 females; 101 children; out-door, 135 males;
290 females; 335 children; being a decrease of 120 out, and 26 in-door
paupers, as compared with the corresponding half of the previous year;
the collective number of days, being 36,738. The in-maintenance and
clothing for this half-year, amounted to £892 16_s._ 9_d._; the
“establishment and common charges,” to £830 6_s._ 2½_d._; the out-relief
to 1,056 7_s._ 10¾_d._; the lunatic charges to £315 14_s._ 7_d._; and the
extra medical fees to £27 4_s._ 0_d._, making the total expenditure for
the relief of the poor this half-year £3,122 9_s._ 5_d._ Payment of
interest, registration fees, &c., increased this sum to £3,474 18_s._
11_d._ The amount called for this half-year was £2,700 0_s._ 0_d._, and
£410 2_s._ 1_d._, was the amount of balance in hand.
The Lock Hospital, which adjoins the Work-house, was removed from
Grosvenor-place to its present site, in 1842. This institution was
founded in 1737, and no less than 60,502 patients have been treated at
this Hospital since that date. The number of in-patients for 1851, was
388; of these 193 were females, and 195 males; during the same period 785
persons were attended to, as out-patients. Attached to this charity, and
indeed forming an important portion of it, is “the Asylum.”
“The Lock Asylum was founded in the year 1787, by the Rev. Thomas Scott,
the venerable commentator. It then occupied a building in connection
with the old Lock Hospital. In 1842, it was removed to its present site,
and in 1848–9, enlarged to its present dimensions. When first founded,
the Asylum received only sixteen inmates; in 1842, it was enlarged so as
to receive twenty; it is now capable of containing 100.
Since the foundation of the Asylum, 1,175 female patients of the Hospital
have been admitted, a majority of whom have been provided with
situations, restored to their friends, or otherwise comfortably settled
in life.
There are now forty-seven in the Asylum.
Needlework is taken in at the Asylum, and the payment for it constitutes
a valuable addition to the receipts of the Institution. A laundry is
open also for the washing of those families who may be willing, by
sending the work, thus further to benefit the Asylum.”
Besides the chapel and the schools, which have sprung out of these
charitable institutions, there are now connected with them and the
chapel, the following societies, viz. The Westbourn Friendly Visiting
Society, the Westbourn Provident Bank, the Lock Sunday schools, the
Church Missionary Association, the Juvenile Missionary Association, the
Sunday School Children’s Missionary Association, the Church of England
Young Men’s Society; and the London City Mission.
The Public Establishments in Paddington, unconnected with particular
forms of religion, are soon recounted:
Here there are no places for rational amusement—unless indeed, we
consider such places as “the Flora tea-gardens,” and “Bott’s
Bowling-green,” to come under this designation. In that region of the
parish still devoted to bull-dogs, and pet spaniels; the bodies of
broken-down carriages, old wheels, rusty grates, and old copper boilers;
little gardens, and low miserable sheds; there is an establishment, which
boasts of having the truly attractive glass, in which “for the small
charge of two-pence, any young lady may behold her future husband.” But
although such attractions as these exist, the youths who live on the
celebrated Paddington Estate, have not to thank the lords of the soil for
setting apart any portion of it for their physical improvement; and yet
for the efficient development both of mind and body, it is necessary that
the physical condition of the young should be cared for. In Paddington,
however, there is no public gymnasium; there is now no village-green,
worthy of the name; {176} the young are not trained to use their motive
powers to the best advantage; there are no public baths. And when, on
the establishment of the baths and washhouses in Marylebone, the
governing Body in Paddington was solicited to join in that useful work,
that good office was rejected, and the people of Marylebone were
permitted to carry out that necessary and useful undertaking by
themselves. Perhaps the Paddington vestrymen thought there ought to be a
bath, and a bath-room, in every house in Paddington; if so they certainly
thought rightly. But how many of these necessary adjuncts to a healthful
home are to be found even on the Paddington Estate, and what steps have
our local governors taken to supply this want in the houses of the poor?
In particular religious communities, the education of those who can no
longer be called children, is beginning to be attended to, in some
degree; yet there is no public lecture room; no museum; no public reading
room; no place of general instruction in Paddington, where Jew and
Gentile, saint and sinner, alike may meet to receive lessons from that
fountain of truth which ought to be open to all mankind, irrespectively
of their private religious opinions.
And yet in Paddington we see some of the most miraculous signs of the
times. A city of palaces has sprung up on a bishop’s estate within
twenty years; a road of iron, with steeds of steam, brings into the
centre of this city, and takes from it in one year, a greater number of
living beings than could be found in all England a few years ago. The
electric telegraph is at work by the side of this iron road. And by
means of conveyances, open to all who have any small change, from
sixpence to a penny, the whole of London can be traversed in half the
time it took to reach Holborn-bar at the beginning of this century, when
the road was in the hands of Mr. Miles, his pair-horse coach, and his
redoubtable Boy. This coach and these celebrated characters were for a
long time the only appointed agents of communication between Paddington
and the City. The journey to the City was performed by them in something
more than three hours; the charge for each outside passenger being two
shillings, the “insides” being expected to pay three. The delivery of
parcels on the line of road added very materially to Mr. Miles’s
occupation and profit; and I am informed that Miles’s Boy not only told
tales, to the great amusement of his master’s customers, but gave them
some equally amusing variations on an old fiddle, which was his constant
travelling companion, and which he carefully removed from its green-baize
covering, to beguile the time at every resting-place on the road.
When the Paddington omnibuses first started, the aristocracy of “The
Green” were quite shocked at the disgrace thus brought on the parish; and
loud and long were their complaints to the vestry, and most earnest were
their petitions to that body, to rid them of “the nuisance.” Since that
time, however, greater folks than those of “The Green” have not objected
to be seated in these public vehicles; and so useful and necessary to the
public have they become, that one Company of Proprietors of Paddington
Omnibuses has had in use 700 horses at one time. And, if the Paddington
omnibuses were improved, as they easily might be, they would be much more
useful than they are at present.
The glory of the first public Company which shed its influence over
Paddington, has in a great measure departed; the shares of the Grand
Junction Canal Company are below par, though the traffic on this silent
highway to Paddington, is still considerable; and the cheap trips into
the country offered by its means, during the summer months, are beginning
to be highly appreciated by the people, who are pent in close lanes and
alleys; and I have no doubt the shareholders’ dividends would not be
diminished by a more liberal attention to this want.
If every one had their right, I am told there would be a wharf, adjoining
this canal, open free to the people of Paddington, for loading and
unloading goods. It is certain that the old road to Harrow was never
leased to the Grand Junction Canal Company; but a wharf, upwards of one
hundred feet wide, now exists on a portion of that road; and, as I am
informed, the rent of this wharf is not received by the parish. I was
promised, twelve months since, that the claims of the parish to this
wharf should he inquired into; but as yet no such inquiry has been made.
At the western extremity of the parish, there is an artesian well, to
which the name of “the Western Water Works” has been given; the water
from which supplies the houses, which have been built on that clayey
district. The west Middlesex, and the Grand Junction Water Works
Companies supply the other parts of the parish.
The Imperial Gas Company have supplied the parish with gas, since its
first introduction into Paddington, in 1824.
A new station and hotel, now nearly finished, will make a fine terminus
to the Great Western Railway; and add to the many showy buildings, which
have been erected in Paddington, within the last few years.
CHAPTER V.
A REVIEW OF THE CONDITION OF THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE, AT VARIOUS
PERIODS OF THEIR HISTORY.
THOSE people who have been the most completely governed by ecclesiastics,
are proverbial for having made the slowest progress in all the elements
of knowledge which concern man; and the people of Paddington formed no
exception to that rule which has been found to hold good in other places.
Here, as elsewhere, the spiritual governors of the people made but poor
attempts to develope the mind; and those to whom they deputed this duty,
took care to follow the example set them by their superiors.
To keep the breath of life, the living soul, under subjection by the
agency of superstitious dogmas and by threats of everlasting punishment,
was attempted for ages, and is even now attempted; but the world is
freeing itself from the government of organised crafts; and it will soon
be useless—in spite of all the vain efforts which are now being made—to
attempt to teach the people that the greatest virtue is _to believe and
obey_, without the exercise of reason; and that the greatest vice
consists in doubting the power of symbols to save.
Although the people of Paddington lived at so short a distance from the
two rich cathedral marts of London and Westminster, they made no greater
advances in civilization for many centuries, than did those who lived in
the most remote village in England. The few people who did live here,
were wholly agricultural; and they owed every useful lesson of their
lives, much more to their own intelligence and observation, than to any
instruction given them by those who were well paid to be their teachers.
Paddington, however, is no longer what it was; the lay element,
independent of all craft, has thoroughly diffused itself through the
country; and its advent in this place, though attended with much cunning,
was the real cause of the wonderful transformation which has taken place
here within the last half-century.
The Reformation and the Revolution added to the numbers and importance of
the people; and the execrable act of that vain braggart, who wildly
called himself the State, not only increased the population of
Paddington, but brought out to useful purpose the christian virtues of
the residents of this village. Here, on the revocation of the edict of
Nantes, many of the exiled protestants of France found a home, which had
been denied them by their _great_ King; and here, too, the memory of
their sufferings and virtues will be kept green, so long as one of their
graves shall be permitted to remain in the Old Church-yard.
It is impossible to tell what number of persons lived in this parish, at
any one period previous to the present century. The oldest Parish
Register, now to be found in Paddington, is dated 1701; and all the
written proceedings of the rate-payers in vestry assembled, previous to
the second of April, 1793, are said to have been burnt, lost, stolen or
destroyed. The only sources from which I have been able to form any
conjecture respecting the ancient population of Paddington, are,
therefore, necessarily very imperfect, and open to many objections.
By the Subsidy Rolls, however, we discover the names of those who were
rated in particular places, at different periods, when the respective
subsidies were levied; and although their tombstones may have crumbled
into dust, or may have been removed by Act of Parliament, and sold “for
the best price that could be got,” yet in these tax-papers their names
may receive a notice which will, for centuries, preserve their memories.
From the Subsidy Roll of the sixteenth year of Henry the eighth, I find
that twenty persons, then living in Paddington, were taxed for the
subsidy levied that year, although the amount of tax collected in this
parish was but forty-eight shillings. All the heads of families might
not have been included in this levy; but, if we suppose that all were
included, and that each of these twenty persons represented a family, and
if we calculate further five individuals for each family, we shall make
the population of Paddington, in 1524, one hundred; which in all
probability, was not very much under, or over, the number at that date.
The value of land, goods, and wages, on which this sum was assessed,
amounted to £77 6_s._ 8_d._ But if these descriptions of property were
all charged in this Subsidy, they were not taxed in the same proportion,
on the capital sum assessed; for, although the wages of the labourer were
taxed, they were taxed at only one-and-a-quarter per cent.; while goods
were charged two-and-a-half per cent.; and land five per cent. So that,
three hundred years ago, a more equitable property-tax existed, than that
which is the result of present legislative wisdom.
In the thirty-fifth year of the same reign, the valuation for this parish
was raised to £272 13_s._ 4_d._ Fifteen families only, however, were
included in the subsidy for this year—land and goods alone being charged.
In a Subsidy Roll, of the thirty-ninth, of Elizabeth, Marylebone and
Paddington are united, to produce a small sum.
In a Subsidy made in the eighteenth year of James the first, the name of
Sir Rowland St. John occurs, as I have before observed; and, as this is
the first time I find the name of a lessee of the manor on these Rolls, I
am inclined to think Sir Rowland was the first lessee, who lived on the
Paddington Estate.
It was not the son of Sir Rowland, but another Oliver St John, a relative
of this Knight of the Bath, to whom the people owed so deep a debt of
gratitude. That man of noble birth and noble mind, opposed the Tyranny
of his time, not only in thought, but in word and deed; for he was one of
the brave soldiers of that army, which fought and bled for the liberties
we now enjoy; and the people of Paddington who preserved the sacred mound
of liberty, which they erected within sight of his relatives’ windows,
must have felt themselves ennobled, when the Lion settle echoed his
valorous deeds. The people of Paddington knew the value of liberty, if
their lords did not; and the public houses which were the only celebrated
institutions in this rural village, were their debating clubs. Two, at
least, were in existence, before “the house for two tenants” was occupied
by the lord or his lessees; for they claim to have been established
before the Reformation. There are three lions still in Paddington, each
contending for the most ancient origin. The “White lion,” in the
Edgeware-road, was established, according to the date on its present
facade, in 1524—the year in which hops were first permitted to be
imported, to preserve our beer. The “Red Lion,” in the Edgeware-road,
near the commencement of the Harrow-road, claims a more ancient date for
its establishment. In one of its old wooden chambers, taken down, some
few years ago to make room for the present house, tradition tells us
Shakspeare played; {182a} and many a story has been told of the haunted
chamber in this house, as well as of that in the Manor House. The other
ancient “Lion,” also “Red,” is situated in the Harrow-road, having taken
up its present position as near to its old quarters, as the alteration in
that road would permit. This house was formerly situated near the bridge
which carried the Harrow-road over the bourn; and was, as I conceive, the
property described in an Inquisition, held the second year of Edward the
sixth,—vide p. 51—as the “two tenements, called the Bridge-House.”
There is a younger Lion, “Black,” but still of some pretensions to
antiquity, standing in the Uxbridge-road; there is also an ancient “Pack
Horse,” in the Harrow-road; and at the corner of Old Church-street, in
the Edgeware-road, there is a “Wheat Sheaf,” which has the credit of
having frequently entertained honest and learned Ben Johnson; so that, if
learning and science were not allowed to flourish in the churches and
other public buildings of Paddington, the ale houses, in some degree,
attempted to supply the defect.
From the _Index Villaris_ of 1690, I find there were “more than three
gentlemen’s seats” in Paddington, at that date. Probably there were
four—Westbourn Manor House; Paddington Manor House; Desborough House; and
Little Shaftsbury House; the two latter names pointing out their original
occupants.
Although I am not now able to offer any positive evidence in proof of
Desborough House having belonged to the celebrated Colonel, who was
related to Cromwell, and whose doings in the Commonwealth are so well
known, yet I have met with many circumstances which incline me to this
belief.
Lysons tells us that Little Shaftesbury House was built by “The Earl of
Shaftesbury, author of the Characteristics, or his father the
Chancellor.”
There can be no doubt but the population of Paddington was considerably
increased, when the manor and rectory fell into lay hands; and by making
the same computation as before—five members for each family, {182b} we
shall find that by 1685, it had increased to upwards of three-hundred;
for, in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Charles the second, sixty-two
persons are charged for 267 fire-hearths in Paddington: John Ashley, the
gentleman who made the greatest smoke in the parish at that time, being
charged for sixteen.
John Hubbard is not included in this impost; for he did not live to see
all the good results produced by the Restoration, having died, according
to his tombstone, in 1665, “aged 111 years.” {183a}
Lysons has omitted to notice this patriarch in his list of cases of
longevity. “Whether he abstained from doing so, because John was _in
some way_ related to the venerable lady of that name, and because his
tomb was too well known to require mention, I cannot say. Seeing,
however, this tomb exists when others of more recent date are not to be
found, I am inclined to believe some such historical interest must have
attached to it, or it would have shared the fate of others. At all
events, from John’s Diary, if he kept one, many a story as good as Old
Mother Hubbard’s could have been made.
In another part of the church-yard, on the end of a plain, flat stone, we
may read these words:—
Sacred to the Memory of Sarah Siddons, who departed this life, June
8th, 1831, in her 76th year.
“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.”
Mrs. Siddons lived at one time in Paddington; but Mr. Cunningham tells
us, in his Hand-book for London, that the pretty little house and grounds
which she occupied, were destroyed, to make room for the Great Western
Railway; Desborough Lodge, however, in which I am informed she lived,
still stands in the Harrow-road, a little south and east of the second
Canal bridge. {183b}
Poor Haydon, who devoted “forty-two years to the improvement of the taste
of the English people in high art,” lived in Paddington; and his
shattered corpse was placed near the spot, where Mrs. Siddons was buried.
At no great distance, Collins, the painter of English coast and cottage
scenery, lies. And Dr. Geddes, the “Translator of the Historical Books
of the Old Testament,” was buried in Paddington Church-yard. His
surviving friends could engrave on his tombstone the following sentence
from his works:—
“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname; I grant that you are
a Christian as well as I, and embrace you as my fellow disciple of
Jesus; and if you were not a disciple of Jesus, still I would embrace
you as my fellow man.”
Yet, because he dared to express his honest conviction, as to the real
origin of the Books he had taken so much trouble to translate, he was
condemned and despised by many zealots, who thought their hatred a
Christian act; and “public censure was passed upon him by the Vicar
Apostolic, of the London district.” The Life of this great scholar, and
good man, was published by Dr. Mason Good, in 1803.
Banks the sculptor; the elder George Barret; Merlin the mechanist; the
careful sculptor Nollekins, and his father; the Marquis of Lansdowne,
without a word to mark his tomb, and many other notables; lie buried in
this church and churchyard. But, although thoughts are to be picked up,
by day as well as by night, in a ramble among the tombs, it is not my
intention to copy all the grave-stones, or to encroach on the province of
the biographer, or village barber, if there be one such useful gossip
still remaining among us.
For a sketch of a people, whether forming a parish or a nation, it is
better to go to their laws, and observe the effects those laws have
produced; than to rely on any description of individuals, dead or living.
With the exception of the ancient customs of the place, the common law of
the land was the light which guided the people of Paddington, down to the
middle of the last century. Then, as we have already seen, began the
enactment of special laws,—laws which altered the relations between those
who had duties to perform, and those who had rights and privileges to
protect.
Previous to 1753, the people of this parish managed their own affairs
without external aid, the influential inhabitants exercising their
influence here, as influential people in all quarters of the world have
done, either for their own, or the public good, according as their
selfish passions, or the Eternal Truth, prevailed within them. Riches
had their weight, as well as reason, even before Sturges Bourne and his
system of plural voting, came to regulate and measure the powers of
mammon in local elections. But in every system of government, the
selfish rely on ignorance, more than on any other agent, for the
preservation of their powers. When the ignorant, however, as well as the
wise, were free to speak on local affairs, many unwelcome truths, which
did not fall from the lips of the ordained teachers, must have reached
the ears of “the jobbers,” within the walls of St. Katherine’s, St.
James’s, and St. Mary’s. The meetings of the people, in these sainted
places, for the transaction of their parish business, were open to all
the inhabitants of the parish; and no local burden could be imposed
without the sanction of the majority. No wonder, then, that those who
did not reside in the parish, but who had determined to impose burdens on
all those who did, should call to their aid a power never before felt by
the people of Paddington: one, against which it was useless to rebel; and
from the _justice_ of which there was no appeal.
Private Act followed private Act, for the regulation of property, over
which the people saw and felt, _they_ had no control. And, when at
length their voices were raised in no measured cadence, some against this
grievance, others against that, the church was said to be desecrated, and
polite ears could no longer listen to such a babel of tongues. A gag was
provided. “A select vestry” was the instrument used. And among the many
unjust and unwise laws “passed, to keep down the people, from 1817 to
1820, the most disgraceful era in our legislation,” “An Act for the
regulation of parish vestries,” better known as “Sturges Bourne’s Act,”
is to be found. In this Act there are, without doubt, provisions which
were much required for the “regulation of parish vestries;” but I have
never yet heard any reason, worthy a moment’s consideration, for the
introduction of the third clause into that Act. This clause gives “one
vote and no more” to all persons rated for property “not amounting to
fifty pounds,” and adds one vote “for twenty-five pounds of annual rent,
&c.” But “so, nevertheless, that no inhabitant shall be entitled to give
more than six votes.” The principle, “that property should be properly
represented,” is thus absurdly carried out: all those rated at £50 per
annum, have double the amount of influence of those rated at £49; while
those rated at £500, have no more power in the local election, than those
rated at £150. But to such miserable shifts as these must legislation
condescend, as soon as it swerves from the eternal principles of justice.
Is it not of as much concern to the poor rate-payer, as to the rich, that
the parish funds shall be well expended? And who can shew that the
wisdom of a man can be measured by the size of his house; or by the
amount he contributes to the poor-rate?
On the fourth of April, 1820, the Rev. Dr. Crane, the Lord Bishop of
Exeter, and other influential inhabitants managed to establish “a select
vestry” in Paddington; in which they and their friends had all the talk
as well as all the work to themselves. But if this select body prevented
the people talking, they prevented their eating also. The glorious
parish dinners, at which the parish officers and their friends had
rejoiced at the people’s expense, were discontinued by the bishop and his
friends, in 1821; much to their credit be it spoken, seeing that at the
beginning of this year it was discovered that there were no less than 824
persons in the parish who claimed relief as paupers—more than one-eighth
of the whole population—and that out of these, thanks to the cottages,
there were 635 legally settled on the parish.
In May, 1821, a general meeting of the inhabitants was called to
consider, amongst various other things, the propriety of petitioning the
House of Commons for a general law, to regulate the formation and
maintenance of the highways on the north-west side of the metropolis; and
so much was such an Act required, that it was resolved unanimously to
petition. But when the petition was read, and considered, it was found
to be so objectionable that it was as unanimously rejected. And by the
thirtieth of March, 1822, the inhabitants had seen quite enough of the
select vestry system; for on that day, when called on to re-appoint it
for another year, they would not do so. But on the first of April, 1823,
power was given to a committee of rate-payers to procure a local Act. A
draft-bill was prepared by an experienced Parliamentary counsel, which
was left in the hands of the vestry-clerk, for the inspection of the
inhabitants; and it is said to have received “their cordial approbation.”
Whether that clause which has compelled the people of Paddington, to
elect their local governors, under the system of plural votes, received
their approbation, we are not told; neither is it brought down to us by
any authentic record, how many read and digested an Act, which contains
no less than one hundred and fifty-five clauses, and occupies eighty
printed Act-of-Parliament-pages. Whether its provisions were understood
or not, however, the fifth of George the IV., chapter 126, received the
sanction of the legislature on the seventeenth of June, 1824, and since
that date all the provisions which have met with the approval of those
who have been elected under it, have been carried into effect.
The cost of procuring this Act, is said to have been £1,088 14_s._ 6_d._
During these two years of select rule—from 1820 to 1822—the path had been
paved for the introduction of this local Act. A committee had been
appointed early in 1822, to inquire into its expediency; spacious vestry
premises and other offices had been built on a portion of the garden
belonging to the alms-houses; and other preparations had been made to
effectually take the management of the local affairs out of the hands of
_the people_.
To find laws so comprehensive and wise, as not to require the tinker at
every little exigency, which may arise in every little portion of the
community, must surely be a proof of the wisdom of a people. To find it
necessary, constantly to alter general laws; and constantly to be called
on to “stop gaps” by rotten bits of special legislation, which scarcely
wear a single session, must as surely betoken want of foresight in the
law-makers; or the approaching end of that system, which rests on so
sandy a foundation. Five and twenty Acts of Parliament, at the least,
have been passed specially to affect the property and people of
Paddington; and when we think of these, in connection with the laws which
apply to the people in general, we may not be surprised to find, now and
then, even a local governor, elected under the aristocratic provisions of
Sturges Bourne’s Act, lost amidst this heap of legislative wisdom.
Local self-government, and local taxation, are questions of the day; and
are slowly, but surely, forcing themselves on the consideration of those
who have to direct the affairs of “an Empire on which the sun never
sets.”
Centralization, too, is under consideration; and, although in the
objectionable sense in which this idea is generally understood, it has
received the condemnation of the most acute thinkers of the present and
past time, still it is supported by learned and powerful advocates, who
profess to understand what government really is or ought to be. In every
sense these subjects demand the attention of _the people_—not only on
account of the enormous revenue annually raised by local taxation; but
because all forms of government are in the crucible, and it is desirable
for the benefit of all, that the best elements should be eliminated.
For the inhabitants of a particular parish or district to be permitted to
carry out a general law which has been enacted by a whole people,
according to the peculiar circumstances of their local condition, is a
very different thing from giving to that district special privileges and
laws, which may, and most likely would, become inimical to the public
good. The circumstances of almost every place in England have so
changed—not to say since their ancient municipal laws were enacted, but
within the last few years—that radical alterations are absolutely
demanded; and tinkering must soon end. But the spirit of
self-government, and the desire for it, can never die, so long as the
people understand the true value of liberty. And no system of
centralization for the management of local affairs, can ever be rendered
so palatable to the people of England, as to induce them to endure it,
till mismanagement has attained a still higher point than it has yet
reached—a consummation many causes are now at work to secure;—or till the
people have greater power over the actions of those who regulate the
expenditure of the country—a principle of justice which must ultimately
prevail.
That the whole of the people of Paddington, Marylebone, and Pancras, (at
the last census, upwards of 371,000 souls,) should have but two “places
and voices,” in the Commons’ House of Parliament, while a few hundred in
other districts, have the same direct power over the legislative and
executive administration of this country, is so monstrous a wrong, that
some may imagine the people, who quietly submit to such anomalies, have
reached a point at which power may be safely centred in a few hands.
These are they, however, who do not clearly discern the signs of the
times. Any thing resembling the tyranny of an absolute monarchy, or the
despotism of a well-paid and idle oligarchy, is as detestable now, as
ever it was to that people, who from their childhood are taught to adore
liberty for its own sake, as well as for the fruits it brings forth. The
Saxon people are patient, and endure much; but to educate their children
to look upon thraldom as liberty, will never be permitted in England; and
cannot much longer be tolerated in other countries.
Till private legislation interested itself in the affairs of the people
of Paddington, the local government must have been of the simplest kind.
They had, indeed, little to trouble themselves about on this score.
Their church was provided for, very badly, it is true, by those who took
care of the revenues which were given for its support; so that the
churchwardens were not troubled with the collection of church-rates; and
they had no archdeacon’s visitations to attend; so that no troublesome
questions could be put to them by this once useful and important officer
of the church. The overseer was equally unemployed; for at no time
previous to the latter part of the last century, could there have been
many poor. The culture of the land, and its attendant duties, found
occupation and a living for all. Alms-houses for the aged and infirm
were built, as we have seen, in 1714; but no other sort of poor-house was
required; for the only idle people in the parish were the few rich
families, who were privileged to live on the industry of others.
By the middle of the last century, nearly the whole of this parish had
become grazing-land. In 1795, according to Lysons, there were upwards of
eleven hundred acres of grassland in Paddington; eighty four and a half
acres only being arable, or garden-ground. And for a long period, the
people who occupied the bishop’s estate in Paddington, were as celebrated
for the quantity or quality of their milk, as they are now for the number
and size of their houses. One persevering and handsome guardsman, who
had contrived to gain the good graces of a grazier’s daughter,
congregated cows here to such an extent, that all London rang with the
number. “Nine hundred and ninety-nine” could he keep, but the black
boggies always killed or ran away with his thousandth. {189} Whether
these sprites were in league with, or in any way connected with, “Black
Meggie,” who always lay in the cow-shed at the corner of Tybourn Field,
when not on duty, I cannot pretend to say. I am informed by a gentleman
who was born in this parish, and who is no longer young in years, that he
has heard the Tripod, which is represented in Rocque’s maps, as standing
at the junction of the Edgeware with the Uxbridge-road, was only placed
there when the good old English oracle had to execute her judgments
thereon. And that this “three-legged mare,” Black Meggie by name, was
only a poor temporary substitute for the more ancient and formal “Tybourn
Tree” which had been cut down by some daring fellows the night before it
was to have been put in requisition for the benefit of a string of their
friends. “Tybourn tree” had been removed from its old quarters, as we
have already seen, and had been firmly erected, before Black Meggie’s
time, as one of the institutions of the country, on that which is now the
Marylebone side of the Edgeware-road.
At the beginning of the last century, next to the beautiful fields and
quiet village, the gallows and the gibbet were the principal attractions
in Paddington. At the beginning of this, “Tomlin’s New Town;” the
collection of cottages, west of St. George’s-row; a row of gardens, and a
large bowling-green, by the side of the Edgeware-road, between Tybourn
turnpike, and Paddington, were called into existence. These changes, in
conjunction with the grand canal of Paddington, {190} obliterated in a
few years the work of centuries; and succeeded not only in altering the
whole aspect of the place, but in infusing another element of social life
into the people. Lysons, writing in 1794, says “this parish being
chiefly church-land, there has been but little increase of buildings till
about four years ago; since which time a number of small wooden cottages,
to the amount of nearly one hundred, have been erected a little north of
Tybourn turnpike. These cottages are let at from £7 to £12 per annum,
and inhabited principally by journeymen artificers who work in London,
forming with their families a small colony of about 600 persons.”
In the second edition of Lysons’ Work, published in 1811, he tells us
these cottages were begun to be built in 1790. And he was informed by
Mr. Pickering, the curate at that time, that before the second census was
taken, they had increased to 600.
In Horwood’s large and beautiful plan of London, dated 1799, we find that
a part of this colony, that lot of cottages built nearly opposite
George-street, was called Tomlin’s New Town. We see, too, that St.
George’s row was built at this time; that to the west of it a large
building, called Trafalgar, existed; and that another plot of land had
been covered with cottages. So that some portion of this colony was
added to the people of Paddington, and these tenements to the Tybourn
Field, before the bishop’s first Building Act, was passed. Whether these
wooden houses were built in anticipation of that Act, by some one who had
heard the tale of the tinker, who lit his fire, and boiled his pot, and
erected his shed, all in one night, at the corner of old Church-street;
and who could not be dispossessed of that land which he had so magically
acquired; (a tradition which appears to have some reference to the
establishment of Paedings New Town,) or whether these miserable sheds
were built by the direction of the ground landlords, to give them a
telling argument in favour of their private Act,—I cannot say. Both
landlord and tenant, however, found the power of a modern private Act of
Parliament, and the “journeymen artificers” had to “move on,” in order
that Connaught-terrace, and better houses for the rich, might be built.
The greater part of the enormous increase in the population between 1801
and 1811, was caused by the erection of these cottages, so very
ill-suited for preserving health and life. They were soon filled,
however, by the poorer class from the crowded parts of London; for pure
air is more relished by the poor, than that which is fetid and foul,
whatever the rich may say to the contrary. Give them but an opportunity
of getting it, and see how greedily it is embraced; unless, indeed, the
demoralizing effect of generations of bad education is brought into
operation, to counteract this natural instinct. As fast as these
cottages in the open fields were built, they were occupied; although
those who were to reap the greater benefit of this more profitable
occupation of the land, had made no provision for effective drainage,
security from cold and wet, or for proper ventilation:—essentials,
without which all sanitary laws are put absolutely at defiance, however
well the situation of a town may be chosen, or however provident the
bountiful Giver of all good may have been in sending storms and winds, to
disperse the natural accumulation of unwholesome gases in certain
localities.
Messrs. Pulford and Erlam, two surveyors, in their report to the vestry
on the state of these cottages, in 1816, say, “we cannot refrain from
thus recording our expression of regret, that the ground-landlords should
be so inordinate in their demands. The effect of which is, the buildings
are ill-calculated to afford shelter from the inclemency of the weather,
and the want of drainage and consequent damp produce disease, filth, and
wretchedness.” And so, these Paddington cottages, which were for so many
years so prominent a feature in the parish, and which were so much sought
after by the poor, as a sort of country-retreat, were in fact, the
generators of “disease, filth, and wretchedness.”
During the long winter-evenings, the muddy roads which led to these
cottages, were in total darkness, unless “the parish lantern” chanced to
offer its acceptable light; and there is no doubt but that so long as
these cottages remained they were the hot-beds of fevers and ague. A
gentleman, who was for many years parish-surgeon, informs me that during
the time these cottages existed, he was rarely without cases of these
diseases; the latter disease was always endemic; and at times the former
put on a fearfully epidemic character. Still these detached and
semi-detached cottages on the Bishop’s Estate were better than the close
streets of town, though these were more than sufficiently unhealthy; but
what cared those who profited by this disease and misery, and their
natural accompaniment, crime, so long as their rents were paid?
The poor and the ignorant did not know “the extent of their misfortune;”
or if they did, the majority “did not seem to grumble at their lot, or to
think it hard.” If a voice of complaint was occasionally heard, the
generous landlord said, “it came from an ill-conditioned, discontented
wretch, whom it was useless to attempt to satisfy; and the sooner he left
the parish, the better.” Cries, indeed, from the feeble and the timid
went up to heaven for redress, and heaven alone was left to answer them.
The ground-landlords, at length, seeing the cottages had served their
turn, made an attempt to remove this evil, by clearing them away; and
many a bitter curse was uttered by those who were evicted; for in the
simplicity of their dealings they had made no legal provision for
compensation for capital invested; and, although some compensation was
granted by the Great Western Railway Company to the small tenants they
displaced, yet the ground-landlords did not follow their example; and
down to the present time, no dream of comfortable and healthful lodgings
for the poor on their estate, has even entered their heads; no, not even
the idea of a “Thanksgiving Building,” so far as we know by any sign that
has been given.
Another source of disease and death was to be found on the banks of the
Paddington canal, which was opened with so much _éclat_, on the 10th of
July, 1801. No less than 20,000 people came to Paddington, to hurrah the
mighty men who so altered the aspect of this quiet village; and who, in
doing so, offered to the Londoner a new mode of transit for his goods.
Unfortunately, for the people of Paddington, on the banks of this canal
were stowed many other commodities than “dry goods.” Not only the dust
and ashes, but the filth of half London were brought to “that stinking
Paddington,” (as it was now called,) for convenience of removal. The
time of removal was made to suit the convenience of those who traded in
these contaminating materials; but the living sensitive nerves and active
blood corpuscules of the people who dwelt near its banks, were not
considered. And so, instead of having no doctor in the parish, as was
the case within the memory of many now living in it, both doctor and
sexton found full employ.
That this is no over-drawn picture of the condition of Paddington for the
first quarter of the present century, there is plenty of evidence to
prove.
The disbursements of churchwardens and overseers, in 1793, two years
before the passing of the Bishop’s Building Act, amounted to £402 6_s._
11_d._; but the overseer’s account alone, in 1815, amounted to £3,375
12_s._ 4_d._ And although there were more to pay the rates, still, even
at the later date, many of the cottages were not rated at all; and the
greatest difficulty was experienced in squeezing out of the hard earnings
of the poor men who occupied them, the small pittance (to them a great
sum,) which was at length obtained, towards defraying these serious local
charges.
In 1803, eight years after the Bishop’s first Building Act was obtained,
the assessment of Paddington was £9,966 10_s._ and the first poor-rate,
levied under this assessment, was one shilling and three-pence in the
pound. This valuation, however, was only one-third of the rental of 272
tenements; the smaller tenements not having been rated at all. The
overseers’ account, this year, amounted to £701 16_s._ 7_d._; and it
increased annually till 1811, when it was reported to the ratepayers at
large, at their annual meeting on Easter Tuesday, that the expenses of
supporting the poor have increased fourfold, in the last sixteen years.
No wonder, then, that the sensible inhabitants of Paddington, who saw
what the Bishop’s Building Acts were doing for the bishop and his
lessees, and who felt, in a very tender point, what they were doing for
themselves as ratepayers, should be anxious that those, who derived so
much benefit from the parish, should bear some share in the increased
expenses. But although all the expenses of the church and the poor had
been so considerately transferred from the owners of the Paddington
Estate, to the pockets of the rate-payers; and although the additional
claim of the poor was excessive, yet it was not till the twenty-seventh
of October, 1807, that the rate-payers in vestry assembled, “resolved
that the Lord Bishop, in respect of the great tithes is rateable, and
that he be rated accordingly.”
One would have thought that the bishop, and his lessees, knowing all
this—knowing that the “expenses of supporting the poor, had increased
fourfold in the last sixteen years (that is, since the Act of 1795,
during which time their income from the land had increased, perhaps in a
like proportion) and that the same has arisen, in a great measure, from
the necessity of constant and casual relief to paupers residing in small
tenements built upon the Bishop of London’s Estate;” knowing that they
had received £2,263 7_s._ 6_d._, for land to increase the burial
ground,—a purchase made necessary principally on account of this great
increase in the number of paupers, and the conditions under which they
were placed: Knowing, I say, all these things; for to not one could they
have pleaded ignorance, it is barely believeable that these legal
protectors of the church and of the poor should have refused this legal
demand. Yet most certainly they did so; and further, put the
parishioners to the unpleasant necessity of applying to a barrister,
learned in the law, for his opinion on this point. By the vestry
minutes, dated November 3rd, 1810, we find that Mr. Const, “_apprehends_
the Lord Bishop _is_ liable to the poor-rate for the tithes both of the
lands, belonging to the See, in occupation of other persons, and those
for which a composition is received.” And accordingly in January, 1811,
the Bishop of London is rated in the new assessment made that year, upon
£462, the estimated annual value of the great tithes.
As the land became more valuable, this burdensome charge could not be
endured. The agents of the bishop advise “merging,” and “commutation;”
and, after the performance of these feats, on the twenty-third of July,
1844, the vestry receive a letter from Messrs. Budd and Hayes, informing
them, “the Tithes of the Paddington Estate have been _merged_, and that
the rent-charge for the tithes of the rest of the parish is £166 13_s._
8_d._” And they considerately mention this, “in order that the future
rates may be assessed with reference to that sum, _after making proper
deductions_, and not on the amount they have been hitherto assessed
upon.”
Whereupon the _poor_ bishop and his lessees are relieved from some of the
_great_ charges laid on them, for the support of the poor; the vestry
resolving to assess “the tithes of the Paddington Estate in future, at
£166, instead of £340, as heretofore!”
At the end of 1810, it was found that out of a rental of £5,200 paid by
the cottagers, only £535 of this was rated to the poor; and that the
average of all the assessments in the parish, was but two-thirds of the
real value; some being rated at one-third, others at one-half, and others
at five-twelfths of the full value. The value of the property, as
assessed in 1811, was £28,597, the assessment having been taken on 865
separate tenements.
From the census of this year, 1811, I find that 4,609 persons then living
in the parish, constituted 1,083 families, occupying 879 houses. In
1812, out of 935 dwelling-houses, only 393 were rated to the poor; “the
rest being miserable huts, occupied by paupers and very poor people.”
In 1821 there were 1,448 families in Paddington, four of whom are
returned in the census of that year as being agricultural. In the same
year there were 824 persons claiming relief as paupers; and the sum of
£37 7_s._ 3_d._ was paid weekly for out-door and casual relief.
In 1825 the assessment of this parish was £46,245 13_s._ 4_d._; and in
1831 it had increased to £71,528 18_s._ The rates levied in the former
year, amounted to £6,025 10_s._ 8½_d._; in the latter, to £14,691 16_s._
5½_d._ The number of families, according to the census of 1831, was
3,493. In 1841 Paddington was in union with Kensington, Hammersmith, and
Fulham, and I find the average of the establishment charges for three
years for Paddington, set down at £2,712.
The transition-state from an agricultural village to the fashionable
Tyburnia, was no very agreeable time for the majority of those who lived
in Paddington. When the cottages were swept away, and the heavy
poor-rates which they had entailed, were diminished, new burdens sprang
up, scarcely less grievous. Rents became enormous; the Highway,
Watching, and Lighting rates were excessive; and these were rendered more
oppressive on account of those, who received the greatest benefit from
the causes which necessitated the greater expenditure, not bearing their
just share of this local taxation. And yet the local Act had made some
sort of provision for an equitable adjustment of these expenses.
Unfortunately, however, for the majority of the rate-payers, the election
of those, who had to carry into execution the provisions of that Act,
viz., the election of vestrymen, was not in their hands. That clause of
Sturges Bourne’s Act, which gave four votes to those who were rated at
£100; five votes to those who were rated at £125; and six votes to all
those rated at £150; placed the election in the hands of the minority;
and, as that minority was much more interested in the success of the
building-speculations which were in progress, than in that just and wise
economy, which was advantageous to the majority of the rate-payers, one
of the most important clauses in the local Act, was for years, and still
is, disregarded. This, the 132nd clause of that Act, is as follows:
“And whereas it has happened and may happen that Houses and other
Buildings within the said Parish have been or may be began to be
built, but not finished nor let, and it is reasonable that such
Houses and Buildings should be rated and assessed for the Purposes of
paving, watching, and lighting; be it therefore further enacted, That
until such Houses or other Buildings which now are or hereafter may
be built or in building shall be finished and tenanted, (if the
Street, Square, Lane, or other Place wherein such House or other
Building is or shall be situated shall be paved, repaired, cleansed,
and lighted by virtue and in pursuance of this Act,) it shall and may
be lawful {196} to and for the said Vestry to rate and assess all
such Houses and other Buildings situate within the said Parish as are
or shall be erected and covered in, but not finished nor let, either
by One or more distinct Assessment or Assessments, or by including
them in any other Assessment or Assessments, at a Rate not exceeding
Sixpence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved
belonging to or lying before the Fronts or Sides of such Houses or
other Buildings, and in like Manner and for the like Purposes to rate
and assess all such Houses or other Buildings as last mentioned which
are or shall be erected but not covered in, at a Rate not exceeding
Four-pence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved by
virtue of this Act, and belonging to or lying before the Fronts or
Sides of such Houses or other Buildings, until the same shall be
covered in, as aforesaid, and then at a Rate not exceeding Four-pence
for every Square Yard until the same shall be let or occupied; which
last-mentioned Rates or Assessments shall be paid by and recoverable
from the Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, Owner or
Owners of such House or Houses, Building or Buildings respectively,
and shall be charged and changeable on the said Premises; and if the
said Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees,
shall refuse or neglect to pay the same, upon Demand, then and in
every such Case such Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments, and
all Arrears due thereon, shall and may be levied on the Goods and
Chattels of the Person or Persons so required to pay the same in
manner herein directed; and in case the Owner or Owners, Proprietor
or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees of such House or Houses, Building
or Buildings, shall not be known or cannot be found, then the said
Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments made thereon, shall be and
remain charged and chargeable on the said Premises until the Owner or
Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, can be found,
and the same may at any Time be levied and recovered upon the said
Premises in like Manner as other Rates made by virtue of this Act are
made recoverable.”
Four years ago, this _forgotten_ clause of the local Act was introduced
to the notice of the vestry. It was admitted that it had not been
observed; and the Builders, who formed the most influential party in the
vestry, thought it would be _unfair_ to enforce it. A little ventilation
of this subject, however, induced the majority of another vestry to
believe, and to resolve, “that all the rateable property in the parish
should be rated.” But so much power have the Builders and the
Proprietors of the soil in the vestry, that this good resolution has been
from time to time set aside; and down to the present moment, the
rate-payers at large have received no benefit from it. So that, although
the Vestry Minute-books are crammed with applications to the vestry, to
take under their protection, streets, squares, &c., and although the
taking thereto has increased the local taxation very considerably, and
will do so, year by year; yet none but the old inhabitants and the
in-coming tenants have been taxed for all the wear and tear of old roads,
caused by drawing building materials over them, and for all the
additional expenses in watching and lighting, which every new house
entails on the parish.
If this tax had been levied from the passing of the Act, in 1824, down to
the present time, it would have saved the rate-payers some thousands of
pounds; and it would have fallen on those who have received the most
substantial benefits from the parish, although they have paid the least
towards the local taxation, viz., the Bishop of London, and the lessees
of the Paddington Estate. Had this clause been in force, those who took
the land for building on, would have pointed out this charge, and
insisted on its due consideration. For this additional burden, then, as
well as for the enormous poor-rate entailed by the miserable cottages,
the dwellers on the Paddington Estate are, in truth, indebted to their
old friends, “the lords of the soil,” as much as to their local
governors, and the builders.
And this is not the only burden, connected with the roads, which the
owners of the Paddington Estate have attempted to throw on the people of
Paddington.
In 1828, and 1829, when the Grand Junction-road, which had been recently
made, was in a miserable condition; when it was ascertained that it would
cost £400 a-year to keep it in repair; and when only £7 were the amount
of rate received by the parish from the inhabitants of Oxford and
Cambridge terraces; the owners of the soil tried, by force of law, to
compel the vestry to appoint a surveyor to inspect this road, and take
upon them the charge of its repair. The trial, however, went against
them, and the learned Lord Tenderden delivered an elaborate judgment in
favour of the parishioners. {198}
But what the law would not compel the vestry to do, the vestry could
voluntarily do; and, as the election of vestrymen was virtually in the
hands of a few builders and proprietors, these few took especial care to
elect those, and those only, whose interests coincided with their own.
Thus, those who were most deeply interested _in the Paddington Estate_,
became the governors _of the parish_; and, as these personal interests
were very frequently antagonistic to the interests of the ratepayers at
large the public weal has had to suffer; and “parish squabbles” have not
been unknown in Paddington, even since the introduction of Sturges
Bourne’s Act. And discontent must continually arise, so long as the
majority of the ratepayers know they are not fairly represented; that
they have a minority of votes in the election of their local governors;
and that the business of the parish is conducted with closed doors.
Although this injustice was made legal, at the time when Grattan and old
Sarum sent Members to Parliament; and when a single nobleman had more
influence in law-making, than the whole of the inhabitants of the largest
cities, yet “An Act for the better Regulation of Vestries, and for the
appointment of Auditors of accounts, in certain parishes of England and
Wales,”—the first and second William IVth, chapter 60,—better known as
Hobhouse’s Act, was passed by the reformers, even before the Parliament
itself was reformed.
This Act _for the better regulation of vestries_ gives one vote, and one
vote only, to each rate-payer; and it is scarcely believeable, that so
just a principle could be refused to any parish, which had become too
numerous to continue the “good old English constitutional custom” of
personal attendance in Vestry; where and when each individual rate-payer
might express his opinions on any subject within its jurisdiction, and
record his vote thereon. Yet it has been most strenuously opposed, from
its introduction into Parliament down to the present time, by the vestry
of Paddington; and in consequence of its being necessary to obtain the
sanction of two-thirds of the rate-payers who vote, and half those who
are qualified to vote, before this Act can be adopted, the attempt to
introduce it into this parish has twice failed. In 1849, there was a
considerable majority for its adoption, but not the requisite proportion;
and in 1853, it is said, the half of the qualified rate-payers have not
voted. So that at the present time, Paddington enjoys the unenviable
distinction of being behind its neighbours in the adoption of a liberal
policy in the election of those to whom are entrusted its local affairs;
and those who conduct them, have the unenviable honour of being the
representatives of a section only of their fellow-parishioners.
Even the ancient rule of electing churchwardens, by single votes, has
been set aside in Paddington; the Judges of the Exchequor Court
sanctioning this proceeding, when the vestry appealed to that Court, by
writ of error, from the decision of the learned Lord Chief Justice
Denman, who had confirmed to the inhabitants of this place, their ancient
right in this particular: {199} a right, which every inhabitant, who was
not a lawyer, must have believed, as that learned Judge did, the tenth
clause of the local Act confirmed to him. This clause declares that the
election of vestrymen shall not take place, until after the usual
election of churchwardens; “which election of churchwardens shall take
place on _Easter Tuesday_, and be conducted from year to year in such
manner, as hath been usual in the same parish.”
The rule of plural voting for vestrymen having been established by the
adoption of Sturges Bourne’s Act, vestrymen so elected could not sanction
the election of church-wardens in the manner which had been usual in the
parish; viz.—by show of hands. Those gentlemen, who still govern
Paddington, determined to take advantage of a legal quibble, to abrogate
the ancient form of election; but their proceedings produced an amount of
ill-feeling, which lasted for years, between those who now really had the
election of parish officers in their hands, and those who, in consequence
of the introduction of this new principle, had nothing to do with
parochial affairs, except the payment of whatever sums of money were
demanded. This feeling is indeed not yet allayed; neither can it be till
this act of injustice to the majority, is for ever and entirely revoked.
And justice must not long be delayed, if harmony is to be restored.
Upwards of 2,000 rate-payers have this year voted in favour of that Act,
which gives a single vote, and but one vote in local elections; and it
behoves all who pay towards the local expenses, all who are interested in
the welfare of this parish, to think of this, and to co-operate by every
means in their power, for the establishment of good government on the
solid basis of just principles. When this is done, all discord may
cease; for it will then be the fault of the majority if Paddington is
badly governed.
* * * * *
THE END.
* * * * *
* * * * *
A. & W. HALL, Caxton Steam Printing Office, 10, Cambridge Terrace, Camden
Town.
FOOTNOTES
{1a} Cunningham’s Hand Book of London, 1850, p. 369. The Marylebone
Borough Almanack, 1853.
{1b} Environs of London, vol. iii. p. 329. This error is repeated in
Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary and seems to have been copied by all
subsequent authors. And although Lysons is generally accurate, we shall
find this is not the only error he has made respecting this manor.
{1c} Archæologia, vol. 26, p. 231.
{2a} Dart’s History of Westminster Abbey, vol. 1. p.
11.—“Westmonasterium.”
{2b} Peter-Pence, or Rome-fee.
{2c} Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i. p. 266.
{3} “An History of Westminster Abbey,” p. 6. London, 1751.
{4} This commission undoubtedly did a great deal for the public; but it
must not be forgotten that it made use of a very considerable amount of
public money, and left the work it had to do in a very imperfect state.
At the present time vast stores of most valuable information are lying
buried in language ineligible only to a few; and if any enquirer wishes
to make out what particles of knowledge there may be in this store-house
relative to the object of his search, he has not only the ancient English
character, cramped, and contracted, law-latin to learn; but for the want
of well-arranged indices—more especially good indices locorum—a life-time
to spend in collecting his materials. All this was exceedingly well
managed to keep out the inquisitive gaze of a curious public, who were to
be kept in ignorance; but since knowledge is acknowledged to be power,
and since the people have been admitted to know, it would, surely be good
policy to offer facilities for making that knowledge as perfect as
possible.
{5a} Vide Appendix to second General Report from the Commissioners on
Public Records, p. 386.
{5b} Bawdwen’s translation of the Record called Domesday. Middlesex,
&c. Doncast. 1812.
{5c} Some writers have been unable to account for this diminution in the
value of land; but I think the writer of the article Domesday in the
Penny Cyclopædia has satisfactorily accounted for this decrease in
referring it to the revolution produced by the Conquest.
{5d} Edward de Sarisberie held Cherchede or Chelched for two hides.
{6a} This “Description of London” which Stowe printed as an appendix to
his History, is translated and published with Annotations. Lond. 1772.
{6b} Maitland’s History of London. See also Park’s Topography of
Hampstead.
{9} Elms-lane is the first opening on the right hand after getting into
the Uxbridge road from the Grand Junction road, opposite the head of the
Serpentine; the Serpentine itself being formed in the bed of the ancient
stream which I take to have been first called Tybourn, then Westbourn,
then Ranelagh Sewer. While the stream which crossed Oxford Street, west
of Stratford-place, first bore the name of Eyebourn, then Tybourn, then
King’s Scholars Pond Sewer.
{10a} That part of Edgar’s first charter, dated 951, relative to the
boundaries of Westminster, as translated by Sir Henry Ellis, is printed
in Mr. Saunders’ Inquiry, as follows:—
“First up from Thames, along Merfleet to Pollen-stock, so to
Bulinga-fen: afterwards from the fen, along the old ditch, to
Cowford. From Cowford up along Tyburne to the broad military road:
following the military road to the old stock of St. Andrew’s church:
then within London fen, proceeding south on Thames to midstream; and
along the stream by land and strand to Merfleet.”
In the decree of 1222, the western boundary is described to be “The water
of Tyburne running to the Thames.”
{10b} The charter of this king, besides securing to the Abbey the manor
of Chelsea, which Thurstan is said to have given the monks—“granted them
moreover, exemption from toll, and every third tree, with a third of the
fruit growing in his wood at Kyngesbrig”—vide Lysons. This wood I take
to have been that portion of Middlesex forest which belonged to the
crown, called in other documents Kingsholt. I think the situation of
this wood is sufficiently indicated in this charter, viz. at
Kingsbridge—the bridge which carried the king’s road over the Tybourn.
That portion of Kensington gardens which was considered part of the manor
of Knightsbridge, and which is still in Paddington parish, I take to have
been a portion of the king’s wood, and a district west of the Tybourn,
and south of the Uxbridge road—the king’s highway—I consider was also
styled Kingsbridge: Knightsbridge being a much more modern appellation,
and not used till after the Wycombe road was made and a bridge built by
some worthy knight over the Tybourn at this part of its course.
But it has been imagined that a considerable portion of the parish of
Paddington formed part of the ancient manor of Chelsea. And it is a fact
that a piece of land, one hundred and thirty-seven and three quarter
acres in extent, is now claimed by Chelsea as part and parcel of their
parish, although it is two miles from any other portion of that parish;
and, although, as I shall hereafter produce evidence to prove, it has
been considered a part of Paddington.
Further, we find that “Robert de Heyle, in 1368, leased the whole of his
manor of Chelchith, _except Westbourn and Kingsholt_, to the Abbot and
Convent of Westminster for the term of his own life,” upon condition that
he was allowed to live in a certain house in the Convent; that he was
provided with a robe of esquires’ silk, and twenty pounds yearly; and
daily with two white loaves, and two flagons of _Convent_ ale.
In speaking of the ancient manor of Chelsea, I refer to the one spoken of
in the Dom Boc; and not to that which “it is possible might have been
included by the monks amongst their possessions in Westminster.”
Vide Lysons and Faulkner.
{10c} Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, Tom. vi. p. 17. chart 1223. T.
M. Kemble. This charter is dated April 1st. (eight years later than the
above); a favourite date in documents concerning Paddington; and in this
instance especially useful as it led to understanding the characters of
all those who were silly enough to believe this written document was what
it professed to be.
{11} 49 Geo. 3. chap. “An Act for discharging a certain piece of
ground, called the Pesthouse-field from certain charitable trusts, and
for settling another piece of ground, of equal extent, in a more
convenient place, upon the same trusts.”
{13} Commentaries B. II. c. 18. p. 269. 10th edition.
{14a} The dean of Peterborough, in his supplement to Gunton, differs
somewhat in the account he there gives of this festival. He has turned
the wine into beer; but made the tankard hold twenty-five gallons. And
the nuns to whom the allowance was made resided, according to this
Doctor, in Holbourn, instead of Kilbourn; an error pointed out in
Naysmith’s edition of Tannar’s Notitia. Vide p. 297, of Gunton’s History
of Peterborough.
{14b} As bread was given ad libitum, and cheese was to be served on this
day, I think we may find in this document the real origin of the term,
“Bread and Cheese lands,” which is still applied to a small portion of
that which was “the Paddington Charity Estate;” an estate not to be
confounded at the present time with “the Paddington Estate.”
{15} The Dean states that the meaning of the original is not very clear.
But I think there is not much difficulty in discovering the meaning of
his very excellent translation. The writer was evidently enjoying the
joke of those in command, not allowing wine to their followers who did
not constantly wear arms; while the commanders themselves were admitted,
and allowed to get drunk, with their swords on.
{16} An account of the Writers of the History of Westminster Abbey, p.
4.
{17} Vide _Park’s History of Hampstead_.
{18a} “But beyond the above written limits the Vills of Knightsbridge,
Westbourn, Paddington with its Chapel, and their appurtenances, belong to
the parish of St. Margaret aforesaid.” To secure the privileges
contained in this decree the Abbot had to give the Bishop of London the
manor of Sunbury, and the Church to the Chapter of St. Paul’s, besides
those places surrendered by the arrangement in the decree. The monks of
Westminster did not at all relish this arrangement; and one more
outspoken than the rest openly declared that “Peter had been robbed to
pay Paul.”
{18b} This author gives, as his authority, a MS. in the King’s
Remembrancer’s Office Exchequer, f. 26b. Lysons says the church and
chapel were valued together at thirty marks; and gives the Harlean MS.,
No. 60, as his authority. In this calculation the “Vicaria” is not
mentioned.
{19} “A manor, manerium, a manendo, because the usual residence of the
owner.” This learned expounder of our laws further explains “that it
seems to have been a district of ground held by lords or great
personages.” Book ii, p. 90.
{20a} Mr. Park says that the Shuttup Hill Estate “affords one among many
instances of the freedom with which religious corporations were in the
habit of elevating their lands and farms into _manors_.”—_Topography of
Hampstead_. p. 194.
{20b} Priests, who formerly were permitted to practice in the Law
Courts, were, a little before this time, for very good reasons no doubt,
prevented from doing so. But they did not quietly submit to this loss of
their influence in the worldly concerns of the people; and they adopted
all kinds of contrivances to keep up their former power. Amongst others,
equally honorable, we find they adopted the wig to hide that which would
have otherwise betrayed their holy calling.—Vide _Sir H. Spelman’s
Conjectures on the Introduction of the Coif_; _Glossar_, p. 335, _and
Blackstone_, vol. I. p. 24.
{21a} The statute passed in the eighteenth year of Edward’s reign, which
put an end to the further increase of manors, must have been fresh in
this Abbot’s memory; and it was this law, perhaps, which induced him to
place Paddington and Westbourn under the maternal wing of Westminster.
{21b} Tenement is a word of still greater extent than land, for though
in its vulgar acceptation it only applied to houses and other buildings,
yet in its original, proper, and legal sense it signifies every thing
that may be _holden_, provided it be of a permanent nature; whether it be
of a substantial and sensible, or of an unsubstantial ideal
kind.”—_Blackstone_, vol. ii, p. 17.
{21c} Placita de Quo Warranto, Edward first Rot. 39, p. 479 of the work
published by the Record Commission.
{21d} At the present time there is preserved a Fine Roll in the Record
Office, Carlton Ride, containing an account of the Temporalities of the
Convent of Westminster, from the eighth to the tenth years of Edward the
second, taken after the death of Richard de Kedyngton (or de Sudbury),
the Abbot who succeeded Walter of Wenlock, and although this document was
examined with great care by two gentlemen accustomed to examine documents
of this kind no notice or account of Paddington could be found in it
amongst the numerous possessions therein described.
{22} Was the first of these inquisitions directed in consequence of the
omission of any mention of Paddington in the return of the Abbey
possessions just alluded to; or was it suggested by the legal advisers of
the Convent to secure a title to their lands in these places?
{24} This Walter Franceys is in all probability the Water Fraunceis of
the preceding inquisition, whose descendants we find to be possessed of
land in Paddington, after the reformation, like the descendants of John
Colyn, mentioned in the next inquisition.
{25} Before these names the sentence which precedes that of Richard de
Sudburie is to be understood. It will be noticed that Richard de Sudburi
was the name of an Abbot of Westminster, who died in the eighth year of
this reign. But whether these lands were acquired by him and inserted
here to render that grant a legal holding, or whether it was the grant of
some Richard de Sudbueri then living I cannot say.
{27} _Maitland’s London_, _by Entick_, vol. i. p. 190.
{28} Now called Kensington.
{29} _Lysons_, p. 514, vol. iv.—Second edition.
{30a} _Faulkner’s Kensington_, p. 90.
{30b} From the _Domboc_, we learn that this land was held by Alberic, or
Aubrey, de Vere of the Bishop Constance, the Chief Justiciary of England;
and we are informed by _Lysons_ and _Faulkner_ that the second Aubrey was
in so much favour with the first Henry, that he was not only appointed to
this office, Lord Chief Justice of England, but created Lord Great
Chamberlain, “which office” says Faulkner, “was made hereditary in his
family, with the tenure of several manors;” and _Lysons_ tells us this
manor was so held. _Mr. Faulkner’s_ more recent investigations have
brought out several facts respecting this manor, and its subsequent
division into separate manors, which did not appear very plain in the
account given by _Lysons_, although his account is exceedingly
interesting and contains a great number of facts and references.
{31} _Faulkner’s History and Antiquities of Kensington_, p. 73–4. Each
15 Edw. IV. m. 12. See also _Lysons’ Kensington_. Both _Lysons_ and
_Faulkner_ state that Richard had a grant of these manors; but the
statements in the Inquisition and the Act of Parliament, point out a mode
of acquisition not quite so creditable to a King.
{32} _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ (published by the Record Commission) vol. i.
p. 411. This Ecclesiastical valuation, taken in 1535, superseded the one
ordered to be taken by the Pope in 1291.
{33a} Sir Reginald has the credit of having designed Henry the seventh’s
chapel, in Westminster Abbey.
{33b} Vide _Madox’s Formulare Anglicanum_, p. 287; and Pat 35, Henry
VIII. p. 6. m. 18 (19). _Lysons_, and _Smith_ (who appears to have
copied what Lysons said), only “_suppose_” this sale to have taken place.
{34} I find by a note to the printed copy of the Countess’s will, that
_John_ Roper was her first Cambridge reader.
{35a} As I make no pretention to be a black-letter lawyer, and as I
thought my readers would prefer to read such documents as these in their
own language, I have in almost every instance where I have found it
necessary to quote ancient Latin documents, given the translation:
referring to the original to be consulted by those who should think it
necessary to do so.
{35b} For this and most of the references relative to this manor, I am
indebted to _Lysons’s_ article, _Kensington_, and _Mr. Faulkner’s History
and Antiquities of Kensington_.—Vide p. 74 and 591. It will be perceived
that the account I have given of this manor differs in some respects from
that given by these learned antiquarians; but the facts I have produced
have been obtained from the same sources and therefore may be equally
relied on.
{36a} “Rental of premises in Westminster, Paddington, and Kensington,”
referred to at p. 194 in the “First Report on Public Records.” This MS.
is kept at the Land Revenue Office, Spring-gardens, where I had the
opportunity of inspecting it through the kindness of Mr. Fernside; it
appears to be the “Receiver’s account of the late Monastery of St. Peter,
Westminster,” for two years. Whether this is one of those “Books of
Yearly Rents, reserved by Henry VIII, and Edward VI, which were concealed
from Queen Elizabeth,” referred to at p. 197 of the first report, I do
not know.
{36b} Vide _Subsidy Roll_, of this year.
{36c} Vide _Faulkner’s_ account of the descent of this manor, p. 592.
Sir H. Anderson, an Alderman of London, gave £3,400 for this manor the
same year in which “the Queen’s pardon” was obtained. In a presentment
made of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington, 1675, we find Sir R. Anderson’s
land set down at 400 acres, Free, but then said to be included in that
manor.—_Ibid_ 598.
{38} This field in “A Perticular Booke of Chelsey Manor,” is called
“Darkingby Johes.”—Vide _Faulkner’s Chelsea_, vol. i. p. 318.
{39} Having by the production of these documents sadly damaged the
numerous stories told about these fields, “Chelsea Reach,” as they are
called, the least I can do will be to attempt to preserve two of those I
have heard. Supposing the second to have any truth in it, the first will
shew how the people may be kept in ignorance by the use of words which
have a double meaning—how the ignorant may be kept in ignorance by
telling them a story which they are to read one way, and that according
to the common acceptation, while the knowing ones, the fraternity who
have become philosophers, and have been admitted into the secret, may
read, it in another.
“A Chelsea Pensioner having been to visit a poor lame grandchild who
was being educated in good and sound learning at the Free School,
established by John Lyon, at Harrow-on-the-hill, was so much
delighted with his visit, that to celebrate the occasion in a proper
manner he drank to the memory of the generous founder a little too
often and a little too deep. The ale continued to affect his upper
story till he passed the seventh mile stone, (and it must be known
that the mile stones on this road were numbered from Harrow, and not
as on every other road from London,) mistaking a white line of water,
the Paddington Canal, for the road, at this point, he found, when it
was too late, that a man was not destined by his Maker to walk on
that element; his _corps_ was not found for some days. When it was
discovered no one would own it; and what was worse no one would bury
it, till at length it became necessary for the civil magistrate to
interfere; he sent for the Chelsea clergyman, directed him to read
the proper service, and bury the corps where it was lying. Before
the clergyman consented to do this, however, he insisted that it
should be carried round a certain number of fields which he pointed
out. That magic circle constitutes this dry “Chelsea Reach;” and
within it, and in consequence of this incident, the Chelsea Rector
always claims tithe over it. Beneath the piece of ground not claimed
by either parish the corps lies buried.”
This, as any story-maker will readily perceive, is a sad hodge-podge.
But this is the story for the ignorant, perhaps made by them. The
knowing ones have their simple story:—
“A certain prebend, of a certain Cathedral, seeing this land without
an owner kindly took it under his care. It became his _corps_. He
grew birches on it for the boys in his school; and when his
occupation was gone, his relatives claimed the land as his freehold.”
Whether there is any, and if any, what amount of truth in either of these
stories, I must leave the reader to discover. A key, perhaps, may be
found to the latter in another story which is told of the purchase of
this land of the descendants of Dr. Busby, and by the fact of a Dr. Busby
having held the prebendal corps of Boxgrave, which was situated in
Westborne _in the County of Sussex_.
It would appear that these closes, “containing by estimation fifty
acres,” were all that remained in Paddington of the Old Chelsea Manor:
but as we have already seen 137¾ acres are now claimed by Chelsea as
belonging to that parish.
{40} Vol. i. p. 310–11.
{43} A New Record Office in being built at the back of the Roll’s Chapel
so that it is to be hoped the valuable documents now kept in this stable
will soon find a better lodging.
{44} At the time of the Reformation, as I have before observed,
ministers were appointed by the Crown, to take and keep the accounts of
all monies derived from the lands which had belonged to religious houses.
Many of these ministers accounts are still preserved and contain much
valuable information. According to these accounts (vide _Monsticion
Anglicanum_, vol. i. p. 326–27) it would appear that for the first year
the Crown received only £31 6_s._ 8_d._ from the church lands in
Paddington, and for the next year the same sum with the addition of 2_s._
rent charge, for the conducion of water; but in the 36th and 37th of
Henry the VIII., I find the minister returns the Crown Rent of this manor
and rectory, at £41 6_s._ 8_d._
{45} Henry the VIII, finding that the clergy readily paid the first
fruits of their livings to the Pope, and that £160,000 had been
transmitted to Rome, on account of this claim, since the second year of
Henry the seventh, thought, very naturally, as he had been proclaimed
“The supreme head of the church and clergy of England, in so far as is
permitted by the law of Christ,” that he ought to stand in the Popes’s
shoes in this particular also; and that the annates, or first fruits,
ought to be paid to the Crown of England, instead of going to enrich a
Foreign Potentate. He first reduced the payment to five per cent. “the
better to keep the Pope in awe,” but finding that remedy unsuccessful
took the whole to himself.—Vide _Hume’s History of England_.
{46a} The seven Protestant Bishops who succeeded Ridley in this see held
it but fifty years.
{46b} Whether Edmund Grindall, Ridley’s protestant successor in the see
of London, renewed this lease and received a fine for the renewal I
cannot say; I speak in the text of the income reserved by the Crown.
{46c} _Ecclesiastical Memoirs_.—Vol. ii. part 1, p. 339.
{47a} An account of Collectors and other ministers of the possessions of
the Bishop of London, 9th of Elizabeth, ending Michaelmas.
{47b} This notice is at the foot of the account, and evidently written
in another hand: it is Richard Brown’s account.
{47c} Rough Notes, 3rd of Elizabeth.
{49a} Vide _Collectanea Topographica._ vol. iii. p. 31. The original
MS. from which this survey is printed is in the Rawlinson collection in
the Bodleian Library, Oxford, No. 240.
{49b} Ibid, vol. i. p. 287; or additional M.SS. British Museum, 9049, p.
37.
{50a} 26 _Geo._ 2. c. 43.
{50b} Judith Jodrell, wife of Sir Paul Jodrell, was a daughter of Mr.
Daniel Sheldon; and it appears her life was the last of that family in
the estate. I find by a private Act of Parliament, that the family of
the Sheldons were obliged to sell their estates at Ditchford, in
Worcestershire, to pay their debts, and it is probable that their life
interest in the manor and rectory of Paddington was disposed of for the
same purpose.
This practice of granting church lands for three lives appears to be very
ancient. It was the common practice of Oswald, Bishop of Worcester, at
the end of the tenth century; and for doing which he was accused of
wasting the revenues of the church.—_Mr. Kemble’s Introduction_, p. 34.
{51} The Desborough estate was leased by Bishop Porteus and his lessees
to the Grand Junction Canal Company; but how the Bishop and his lessees
became possessed of this estate I do not know.
{52a} _Mr. Macaulay_, in his _History of England_, when speaking of
London, as it existed in 1685, describes this Pest-house Field as being
the place used as a burial place for many of those who died of the plague
twenty years before; but from the account given by _Lysons_, and from the
Acts of Parliament relating to this charity estate, I am induced to
believe it was purchased after that calamity and for future use.
{52b} A plan of Upton Farm, taken by William Gardner, in 1729, was
presented to the parishioners of Paddington by Mr. Thomas, a surgeon, who
lived in Brown-street, and it is still preserved in the Vestry-room.
{54a} Vide _Faulkner’s History of Kensington_, p. 596.
{54b} The hog was one of the most important possessions of the cottager,
and as this animal obtained the chief part of its food in the wood, this
right of the wood was of more consequence than the right of pasture to
the poorer villagers.
{54c} _Penny Cyclopædia_; article—“Commons.”
{55a} It is said that even for the russet spot which is still, for auld
lang syne, called Paddington-green, the parishioners are indebted to the
generosity of a private gentleman.
{55b} _Macaulay’s History of England_, vol. i. page 421.
{56a} _Ferrers_—a romance of the reign of George the second. 3 vols.
1842.
{56b} “The woman I adore;” in which Mr. B. appeared as “Paddington
Green.”
{56c} It may be asked, why these prints have not been copied for this
work? My answer is, that if these had been inserted others could not
have been left out; and as my object was to keep down the price of this
edition, so as to bring it within reach of every rate-payer, I was very
reluctantly compelled to leave out all pictorial illustration.
{57a} The Charity School and St. Margaret’s-terrace now occupy the site
of this pond.
{57b} This was not one of the forts belonging to the entrenchment which
encircled London and Westminster, for as is shewn in _Maitland’s History
of London_, the continuous fortification was much nearer those cities;
but it was a small detached outwork, a portion of which remained in
Chatelain’s time, and is represented in his engraving.
{57c} In the “Report of the Committee appointed by the Paddington
Parochial Association, instituted for the Reform of the Parish abuses,”
printed 1834; it is stated, “at the present time, only one of these maps
is forthcoming, that which contained the plan of the whole parish, and
this when enquired for, was brought in a tin case from the house of the
Vestry Clerk, who said when it was handed over to the Committee, that he
could not tell whether the maps were or were not in it. On opening this
remaining map, it was found to be defaced, there having been evidently
erasures made on the face of it; the absence of the map of the waste and
charity was enough to excite the suspicion of the committee; that at some
period, dishonesty on the part of _some one_, if not _more_, had
occasioned this loss; but when they found that the alterations upon the
remaining map were connected with the waste and charity lands, they could
no longer doubt of wrong doing somewhere, especially as an entire leaf
had been torn out of the Vestry Minute Book, which related to the same
subject, viz. Charity and Waste Lands.”
{58} This Mr. Harper was a tenant of the bishop and his lessees; and the
fields he rented chiefly for grazing, were called for many years,
“Harper’s Fields.” On the expiration of his tenancy I do not find that
his landlords made any compensation to the parish for this waste land,
for which Mr. Harper had paid rent.
{62} This “dispute” speaks volumes. That the Bishop of London and the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster should “dispute” the right of the poor
parishioners of Paddington _to half an acre_, when the whole of the land
around, for many acres, was, in all probability, assigned to the poor,
could not be believed except on such authority as the above.
{68} The account states that the will directs £9 per annum to be given
to poor families every Lady-day and Michaelmas day.
{70} By the cash accounts, published annually, by order of the Vestry,
it will be seen that for many years past, only five shillings per annum
have been paid from _one_ of those houses which are spoken of under
“Johnson’s Charity.” I have made search for the merchant-tailor’s will
but it has been a fruitless one. Should any gentleman into whose hands
these pages may fall, discover this, or any other document relative to
Paddington, he would confer on the author of this work a very great
favour, if he would take the trouble to communicate with him.
{72} In a Report of the case of Thistlethwayte _v._ Gamier, heard before
Sir J. Parker, in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, May 4th, 1852, reported in
the _Times_ on the following day, it is stated that the estimated value
of seven-eighths of the lessee’s interest, which is two-thirds of the
whole, is £430,000.
{73} At the end of 1835, the present valuable agents of the Bishop
discovered, that having followed in the steps of their predecessors, they
had committed a grave error in receiving only the £10 which had been
reserved by this Act, and subsequent Acts, for the Lessees; and on the
1st of December, they addressed a letter to the Vestry, calling on them
to pay his Lordship, the present Bishop of London, the sum of £12; the
rent which had not been before called for, but which was due to him for
the past six years. I believe an “action at law” was not commenced for
this sum, but a second lawyer’s letter was sent and the demand was paid,
and has been ever since.
{75a} The whole Act occupies forty-two pages.
{75b} It was Richard Terrick, the successor of Richard Osbaldeston in
the See of London, who granted both these leases. This Bishop died 31st
March, 1777.
{80} The separate Messuage or Tenement described in Rede’s lease as
“formerly in the tenure of Edward North, Esquire,” is here so described,
with the addition, “afterwards of Daniel Sheldon and after that of
Gilbert Sheldon, his under-tenant or under-tenants, Assignee or Assigns.”
{83} The whole of these lands, as well as others leased to this Company,
in 1812, are laid out in a plan attached to the Act of that year.
{85a} I wonder whether amongst the “general improvements,” the framers
of this Act, or those who assisted in passing it, thought for one moment
of the great improvement it would be to have a church to each parcel (say
every hundred acres) of land which should be built on?
{85b} Vide Second Schedule to the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45.
{86a} This in a subsequent Act, is explained to mean not houses “in the
shell or carcase,” but houses when fit for habitation, so that to get a
good ground-rent it is necessary to have a high-rented house; and the
high ground-rents, which I am informed are at least 25 per cent. higher
than the average in the neighbouring parishes, may be looked on as one of
the chief causes of the high rents of the houses on this estate.
{86b} In this clause the time for registration was limited to two
months, but by a subsequent Act it was extended to six months.
The sixth section of the seventh of Ann, chap. 20, (the Act referred to),
provides that the “Registrar or Master shall keep an Alphabetical
Kalendar of all the Parishes, Extra-parochial Places and Townships within
the said County, with reference to the number of every Memorial that
concerns the Donor’s Manors, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments in every
such Parish, &c.” But here, as at other Offices, where important
historical documents are kept, no _Index Locorum_ is known. To be able
to turn to any particular parish, and at once find the deeds belonging to
that parish, would be much too easy a process, whatever the framers of
this Act may have thought of its convenience.
{87a} We are told by this Act, that previous to the second marriage of
this lady to Joshua Smith Simmons Smith, two other sons had died; one
Henry Frederick, leaving a widow and child; the other Frederick,
unmarried; and to his sixth share of the half of the lessee’s interest
the mother became entitled. Mrs. Smith left her husband all her interest
in the Paddington Estate, and he assigned it to Elizabeth Hughes, widow.
Besides the purchase of the sixth share above referred to, we find by a
subsequent Act, fifth Geo. IV. cap. 35, that Lady Morshead and her son
assigned “all their moiety and beneficial estate and interest in the said
lease,” to Thomas Thistlethwayte; and we have already seen, in a previous
note, that this gentleman died possessed of seven-eighths of the lessees’
interest in the Paddington Estate.
{87b} We learn by a subsequent Act, the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45, that
the receipts by the sale of brick-earth, gravel, and sand, up to that
time, 1825, amounted to £10,256 12_s._ 3_d._
{87c} This was the last Act of Parliament relative to this estate with
which Bishop Porteus had anything to do, as he died on the thirteenth of
May, 1809, having occupied the See of London from November the fourth,
1787. Vide p. 94 and 255 of the Life of this Bishop—by _Mr. Hodgson_.
{90} I have been informed that this Water Company asked one thousand
pounds per annum for the site of one of their reservoirs for a lease of
ninety-nine years, to contain all the covenants of building leases, and
this after the site for All Saints Church had been taken out of it.
{91} These articles of agreement contained a clause to exempt the
buildings, houses, &c. on this land, from “the operations or regulations
contained or to be contained in any Act or Acts of Parliament respecting
buildings;” and they were not to be subject “to the control, management,
or interference” of any surveyor, or any other person, claiming to
exercise authority under such Acts. This was asking a little too much
even of a Parliament in which Grattan and Old Sarum were represented; and
the articles were saved from the disgrace of receiving Parliamentary
sanction, so far as this clause was concerned. Yet such influence did
this clause in the agreement, though unsanctioned by the Legislature,
have on the District Surveyor, that in his return to the House of
Commons, in 1843, he states that “eighty one acres in this district, the
property of the Grand Junction Canal Company, and eighty-eight and a-half
acres, the property of the Great Western Railway Company, are exempt from
the operation of the Building Act, except as to all houses erected on the
latter property.
By an entry on the Vestry Minute Book, I find the Grand Junction Canal
Company, leased eight acres of their land to the Water Works Company at a
pepper corn rent.
{96} The exact yearly rent paid by the Great Western Railway Company to
the Bishop and his lessees, is £2366 2_s._ 1_d._ Vide Parliamentary
Paper, No. 664. 1850.
{103a} I have stated 1829, for in 1729 the Turnpike-rate was standing at
the junction of the old Roman roads; that is, at the end of Park-lane.
{103b} “Return of the number of District Surveyors appointed under the
Metropolitan Building Act, and amount of their fees.” By this return I
find that the fees received by the District Surveyor of Paddington, for
five years, 1838 to 1842 inclusive, amounted to £4,261! _Parliamentary
Paper_, 1843.
{104a} Page cliii of this Report.
{104b} While the workmen were digging the gravel out of “Craven
Gardens,” I saw an old well which lay beside their excavation, the bottom
of which did not appear to have been ten feet from the surface. I also
remember that there was a pond close to this spot, at the corner of the
Pest-house Field, which was not so deep as this well, but which was not
dry even in the hottest summer.
{105} Vide _Household Words_, _No._ 142, for a most powerful picture of
the present condition of the common sewers.
{106} One of the great reformers of the sixteenth century—_Luther_—said
“The Christian must be obedient to the commands of the Government, even
though it wrongs him, skinning and fleecing him.” And again he says,
“Christians, whilst preparing for the eternal life, will remain in
political things always stupid sheep, (Schaafe und Schoepse), they will
never get beyond nonsense in the affairs of state.” German reformers of
the nineteenth century see the effect these opinions have had on the
world, and they reject these dogmas of their venerable reformer with the
contempt they so well merit. Vide “_The Reformation of the Nineteenth
Century_,” by Johannes Ronge, Part I. page 19. Deutsch and Co.,
Fleet-street, and Oswald and Covers, Cross-street, Manchester.
{111} The English Language, 3rd edition, page 286.
{113} Saxons in England, vol. i. page 36.
{114a} “William (son of Ansculfe) holds Abincebourne—Abinger. The same
William holds Padindene. Huscarle held it of King Edward. At that time
it was rated for four hides; now for three. Hugh, William’s man, holds
three hides.” In Abinger parish there were three manors—Abinger;
Paddington-Pembroke; and Paddington, otherwise Paddindean, sometimes
styled from a former owner, Paddington Bray. There was also another
manor of “Padinden” in Lingfield parish in this county. Vide _Manning
and Bray’s History of Surrey_, vol. ii. page 136 and 347.
{114b} Unfortunately this, the Ranelagh Sewer still remains open in some
parts of its course. In a letter from Dr. Aldis to the editor of the
_Times_, September 7th, 1852, we find that it is open in Chelsea; and
that “its present open state answers two purposes, one for the exhalation
of noxious effluvia, the other for the drowning of little children
happening to fall into it, an instance of which recently occurred.” And
though the greater part of this sewer has been covered in _and built
upon_, on “the bishop’s estate,” yet there is a considerable portion
which is not yet covered in in this parish. Building, however, is now
progressing close to this open sewer so that I presume it will not be
long before this portion of the ancient Tybourn is for ever hidden from
mortal ken.
{115a} _Speculum Britanniæ_.
{115b} _Lancet_, vol. 2, 1848. Reports of public meetings in the daily
papers. And Dr Tilt’s various researches on this subject, published in a
separate pamphlet and in the _Lancet_.
{115c} Mr. Kemble thinks every mark had its religious establishment, its
“fanum” or “hearth;” “that the priest or priests attached to these
heathen churches had lands, perhaps free-will offerings too, for their
support;” and further, “that the Christian Missionaries, acted on a well
grounded plan of turning the religio loci to account;” and that “whenever
a substantial building was found in existence, it was taken possession of
for the behoof of the new religion.”—_Saxons in England_, vol. ii. p.
424.
{118} _Commentaries_, Book i. chap. 11.
{119a} See _Report on Church Rates_, page 461. H. C. 1851. 541.
{119b} Minster and Monastery, were names anciently applied to all
parish-churches. Sed et universim ecclesiæ omnes monasteræ dictæ. Du
Cagne’s Glossary.
{120} _Anglo-Saxon History_, vol. ii. pages 422, 501, 546.
{121} _Dr. Cove’s Essay on the Revenues of the Church of England_, p.
72; and _Wilkins’s Anglo-Saxon Laws_, p. 71.
The extracts from Mr. Kemble’s work shew how this encouragement to church
buildings was abused; and how little the parvenu aristocracy, thus made,
knew of moral obligation.
{122a} _Commentaries_, book 1. cap. 11, p. 387, tenth edition.
{122b} The statute against this “new heresy,” which “had been
surreptitiously obtained by the clergy;” the citation of Wickliffe before
Courtney, bishop of London, and rousing the populace against the Duke of
Lancaster and Lord Piercy who protected him, were all of no avail; the
truth which Wickliffe advocated advanced, and when he was cited before
the Lambeth Synod, even the people of London saw their previous error,
and protected him.—Vide _Hume_. “_Miscellaneous Transactions during
Richard the Second’s reign_.”
{123} Sir H. Spelman says impropriations are so called “as being
_improperly_ in the hands of laymen;” others say, impropriation is a
corruption of in-appropriation.
{124a} _Strype’s Life of Aylmer_, original edition, 1701, p. 212.
Oxford edition of _Strype’s Works_, p. 140.
{124b} The present Bishop of London has returned the gross income of his
see for the seven years, ending 31st December, 1850, at the comfortable
sum of £123,985 0_s._ 11_d._ the net income being £115,591 19_s._ 11_d._
Vide _Blue Book_, _No._ 400, 1851, p. 385; and Sir B. Hall’s Speech in
the House of Commons, July 1st, 1851.
{127a} _Macaulay’s History of England_, vol. i, p. 397.
{127b} At the time I am writing, this number must very nearly represent
the inhabitants of this parish; but the actual number, whatever it may
be, is daily increasing.
{129} “Returns—Ecclesiastical Commission; and Archbishoprics and
Bishoprics. Ordered by the House of Commons, to be printed 16th June,
1851.” No. 400.
{132} The Tybourn church was built by and belonged to, the De Veres; the
excuse given for taking it down was, that “it stood in a lonely place
near the highway, and that in consequence of its position it was subject
to the depredations of robbers, who frequently stole the images, bells,
and ornaments.” The _most_ lonely place “near the highway” was beside
_the ancient_ Tybourn, where the gallows and gibbet were formed out of
the adjacent elm, and near this spot, as I imagine, the ancient Tybourn
church stood.
{133} Vestry Minutes, August, 1796.
{134} The great Sir James’s notions of marriage and his stupidity in not
recognising in his son-in-law one of the greatest geniuses of his, or any
other age—notwithstanding all Sir Joshua has said—perhaps gave the hint
for the execution of those exquisite moral lessons which adorn our
National Gallery.
{135} Vide Print of Paddington-Green, published by R. Sayer, and J.
Bennett, in 1783.
{136} No less than 291 local and private Acts of Parliament, connected
with building, enlarging or repairing churches; and procuring, enclosing,
or enlarging parish, church-yards, were procured from 1750 to 1850. For
their titles, see report of select committee on church rates.—_Blue
Book_, 1850; No. 541. And one would think that by this time, enough
_general_ Church Building Acts existed, seeing that their manufacture
commenced on the 30th of May, 1818, and that up to the 7th of August,
1851, not less than nineteen have been turned out of hand.—See 14th and
15th Vic. cap. 97.
{137} From this gentleman the churchwardens could get no account of the
burial-fees received by him for several years; so that they complain in
vestry of not being able to pay the salaries of other persons engaged
about the church, or the bills sent into them. And in 1798, the vestry
resolved that he should no longer hold the situation of sexton and
vestry-clerk. In 1801, there is an entry in the minutes to the effect,
that the office of clerk is still held by this tenacious gentleman,
“_although he has left the parish_.” No wonder that with such rectors,
or governors as we have described, and with such a deputy-governor as
this, the vestry minutes were lost; the charity-lands were lost; and the
parish funds were misapplied!
{139} Beside a very ancient yew tree, which was carefully protected by a
raised mound of earth, there grew in the old church-yard, a double-leaved
elder tree which enjoyed a far-famed reputation.
{140a} There is an edition of this map dated 1827, now hanging up in the
Vestry-Clerk’s room, from which this fact has been effaced; and not
content with this erasure, half the parish has been rubbed out by the
despoilers.
{140b} For an excellent description of the dilapidated condition of the
old manor house see Mr. Ollier’s Novel of Ferrers.
{142} Adjoining this field was the “Church Field,” names well remembered
by many now living.
{145} However odious it may appear I cannot help contrasting here the
generosity of a private gentleman, unconnected with the parish by ties of
property, with the “meanness” of the lord and his lessee. Mr. Tillard,
of Canterbury, gave, through Dr. Crane, £500 towards the erection of this
chapel, while £300 sufficed for the lordly donation, and £200 for the
lessees—to which, in justice to a lady connected by birth with the
latter, I must mention a donation of £100 by Miss Thistlethwayte. The
Grand Junction Canal Company gave £200; and Dr. Crane, Mr. Orme, Earls
Ferrars, and Shannon, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, £100 each.
The architect, Mr. Fowler, gave £50, and the remainder was collected in
sums under a hundred from the parishioners, and some of the neighbours.
Mr. Tillard’s gift of £20,000 and interest, (at first it was only a loan)
towards the erection of the Marylebone churches, also deserves mention,
in order that it may not be imagined he shewed his favours to Paddington
only. His other generous deeds need no mention here.
{147} Finding the Commissioners did not come down so handsomely as on
the previous occasion, only £1000 this time, it was necessary to appeal
to the Metropolitan Committee. This Committee gave £3,000; and the
bishop afterwards increased his donation to £500. Mr. Thistlethwayte
gave £200. Upwards of a thousand pounds were subscribed by the builders.
The Rev. Minister gave £200; (a whole year’s stipend; if the bishop and
his lessees had but done this!) and the greater portion of the remainder
was raised by voluntary subscription from those who did not know the
history of the Paddington Estate.
{151a} Vide cash accounts.
{151b} While we admire the wonders being worked out by the electric
telegraph, the simple rod of steel must not be discarded, or despised;
for the want of this simple lightning conductor, the clumsy steeple of
St. James’s Church was struck by what would a short time ago have been
considered the vengeance of heaven.
{152a} For some most excellent remarks on the London Churches in
general, see “London exhibited in 1851,” by John Weale.
{152b} For a full description of the splitting of the walls of this
church, and the cause which produced it, see _The Builder_, for 1846,
pages 589–615.
There is an error in a previous notice of this church in the Builder,
Vol. IV., page 395, which may have led to the belief, that it did not
much concern the rate-payers of Paddington, how it was built; the printer
of this notice having made the church commissioners give ten thousand
pounds, instead of one thousand—the actual amount given.
{153} _Household Words_, November 6, 1852.
{155} Mr. Cundy’s generous gift did not save the parish the payment of
“£38 for a carved oak altar table and two chairs, supplied at Trinity;”
the question of stone or wood having become of great importance; the wood
having carried it in this instance.
{156} It must not be imagined that this vestry represented the majority
of rate-payers; for it did no such thing. At the annual public meeting
of rate-payers, which was held after these great outlays for the church
had been incurred, the names of the parish officers who sanctioned these
proceedings were received with the most unmistakeable marks of
disapprobation; and at an election, which virtually tried the management
of the whole body, a great majority of the rate-payers voted against the
vestry. Moreover, I am of opinion, after the most careful and impartial
investigation of this subject, that the _bona fide_ government of this
parish is, and has been for years, in the hands of the bishop and his
lessees, (through their agents in the parish,) and a few builders.
{157} Vide Cash Account, 1847—p. 49.
{159} Vide _Morning Post_, _October_, 5th, 1850.
{160} Report of the Lock Hospital Asylum, and Chapel, 1852.
{161} Macaulay’s History of England, Vol. I. page 88.
{169} For an excellent description of the method of teaching adopted at
this school, see Household Words.—December 25, 1852.
{174a} In consequence of the management of this Establishment not having
been satisfactory to the subscribers, another Institution of a similar
character has been established in the same street; and it is to be hoped
that this rivalry will ensure the future good management of both.
{174b} These figures have been kindly furnished to me by Mr. Brown, the
Clerk of the Board of Guardians, with their permission.
{176} Kensington-gardens, and Hyde-park, are within an easy distance of
Paddington, it is true; and the people see the necessity of maintaining
those true lungs of London; so that these open spaces are not likely to
be covered by the mason. But these Royal Parks are kept for the
promenades of those who can afford to ride on horses or in carriages, or
who, if walking, can afford to dress well; these therefore do not make up
for the loss of the old village-green.
{182a} The account of this tradition is preserved in “Ferrers.”
{182b} Mr. Macaulay tells us from the best authority, “that there were
in the City at this time fifty-five persons to ten houses.” But many
causes would combine to make the families in a village less numerous than
in a city; I have therefore taken five individuals, instead of five and a
half, in the computations I have made for the population of Paddington.
{183a} This is not only the oldest person buried in the church-yard, so
far as is known, but it is the oldest tomb now existing in it. Some time
ago, an engraved copper-plate, in memory of Henry Kenwricke, citizen and
mercer, was found several feet below the present surface: he died
December 23rd, 1639, aged 63.
{183b} Madame Vestris and her husband, Mr. Charles Matthews, also
occupied this house for some time.
{189} This story was told of several cowkeepers in the neighbourhood of
London; and an old, and oft repeated tale, is told of one of this
grazier’s workmen. The young man who married the heiress, turned out a
terrible old miser, and his penurious habits, as a matter of course, made
him no great favourite with those whom he employed; therefore his final
exit from this world was not much regretted by them. “Pretty Johnny,”
the Guardsman’s son, was not of the same turn of mind as his father, and
his failings and faults were looked on with a more lenient eye by the
people. What the father had saved with so much care, the son delighted
to spend; and after the old gentleman’s death, the magic number of live
stock soon vanished from the fields. A few cows were sold to supply any
immediate want; and after a greater demand on one occasion, than
ordinary, Pretty Johnny was not in the best of tempers. This lazy old
fellow, who had by some chance found out for what purpose the cows were
sold, happened to cross his path at this unlucky moment, and the grazier
who saw the wicked twinkle in the fellow’s eye, swore, if he did’nt get
out of the way and go on with his work, he would send him to the
devil.—The countryman nothing daunted, quietly rejoined, “You’d better
not, master; for if you do, I’ll tell daddy you’ve sold the cows.”
{190} Byron has said “there would be nothing to make the canal of
Venice, more poetical than that of Paddington, were it not for its
artificial adjuncts.” Vide Cunningham’s Hand-book. The artificial
adjuncts of the Paddington Canal, from its first formation to the present
time, have been any thing but poetical. It is true an imaginative
Cockney might, in snowy weather, have imbibed his notion of the Alps from
what he then saw on the banks of this canal; for immense heaps of dust
and ashes towered high above the house-tops; and these artificial
mountains are said to have been worth ten thousand pounds a-piece.
{196} In going through the Vestry Minute-Books, for the purposes of this
Work, I found an opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock’s entered in November
1841 (at which time the builders and owners of houses were attempting to
relieve themselves of the charge of _all Empty Rates_) to the effect that
these words, “it shall and may be lawful,” created a duty. But I was
astonished to find the opinion mutilated by a bungling attempt which had
been made to scratch out the words, “_and may_.”
{198} How different this conduct of the Bishop of London and his
lessees, from the liberality of John Lyon, who, after he had establishes
his Free School at Harrow, purchased forty-one acres of land in
Marylebone, for the purpose of keeping the road to London in repair for
ever! Vide 10 Geo. IV. cap. 59.
{199} For an account of these trials, Maund v. Campbell, and Campbell,
v. Maund, see Adolphus and Ellis’s Reports, Vol. v. p. 865, et seqq.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Paddington: Past and Present" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.