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 thatwas 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 aboutthe half-acreis 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 thebread 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.”
“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.
Thepolicy 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 alegalisedbeginning 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 ofSir 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, intrust 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, orthe 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 forten 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 conveyedto 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 thefactscontained 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 Waysleading 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 isthought 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 thefourteenth 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 thesaid 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-threepounds, 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 toParliament 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 12s.6d.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 saidCompany 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 probablesomecompensation 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 0s.10d., by the sale of 4A. 1R. 36½P. which brought in £3,653 4s.5d., the expenses thereon being £64 11s.10d.[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 ofany 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 andtheir 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, onerood, 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 Bishopof 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.”
“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 Bishopof 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 thequid pro quoin 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 ofthe 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 3s.in 1812, and advancing year by year to 1818, when the annual rent was fixed at £570 3s.; 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 3s.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 15s., 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.”
“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 forme 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 theGrand 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 parishthe 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 15s.
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.