On the fourteenth of December, 1649, “The manner of Paddington wthye 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 rectoryof 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 parishcalled 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 thetitle 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 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 landsproceeded 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 ofcharity landremaining 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 vestedin 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 wastheirHome-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 thereare 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 receivedsomecompensation 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’ Executors
152
10
0 Consols.
,, 2.
Open Waste, adjoining Chelsea Reach
30
12
6
,, 3.
Open Waste in front of Williams’ Field
10
17
6
£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.
Thequestion “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 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:
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 thirteenperches, 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 annuallyfor 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.
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. Basil Wood
„
10
„
Ditto in the occupation of Benjamin Edward Hall, esq.
„
5
„
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.
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 “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
28
„
„
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 Seabrook, as tenant from year to year, at the rent of
16
,,
„
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 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
32
,,
„
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 Bucquet, as tenant from year to year, at the rent of
30
,,
,,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.