FOOTNOTES

Messrs. Pulford and Erlam, two surveyors, in their report to the vestry on the state of these cottages, in 1816, say, “we cannot refrain from thus recording our expression of regret, that the ground-landlords should be so inordinate in their demands. The effect of which is, the buildings are ill-calculated to afford shelter from the inclemency of the weather, and the want of drainage and consequent damp produce disease, filth, and wretchedness.” And so, these Paddingtoncottages, which were for so many years so prominent a feature in the parish, and which were so much sought after by the poor, as a sort of country-retreat, were in fact, the generators of “disease, filth, and wretchedness.”

During the long winter-evenings, the muddy roads which led to these cottages, were in total darkness, unless “the parish lantern” chanced to offer its acceptable light; and there is no doubt but that so long as these cottages remained they were the hot-beds of fevers and ague. A gentleman, who was for many years parish-surgeon, informs me that during the time these cottages existed, he was rarely without cases of these diseases; the latter disease was always endemic; and at times the former put on a fearfully epidemic character. Still these detached and semi-detached cottages on the Bishop’s Estate were better than the close streets of town, though these were more than sufficiently unhealthy; but what cared those who profited by this disease and misery, and their natural accompaniment, crime, so long as their rents were paid?

The poor and the ignorant did not know “the extent of their misfortune;” or if they did, the majority “did not seem to grumble at their lot, or to think it hard.” If a voice of complaint was occasionally heard, the generous landlord said, “it came from an ill-conditioned, discontented wretch, whom it was useless to attempt to satisfy; and the sooner he left the parish, the better.” Cries, indeed, from the feeble and the timid went up to heaven for redress, and heaven alone was left to answer them.

The ground-landlords, at length, seeing the cottages had served their turn, made an attempt to remove this evil, by clearing them away; and many a bitter curse was uttered by those who were evicted; for in the simplicity of their dealings they had made no legal provision for compensation for capital invested; and, although some compensation was granted by the Great Western Railway Company to the small tenants they displaced, yet the ground-landlords did not follow their example; and down to the present time, no dream of comfortable and healthful lodgings for the poor on their estate, has even entered their heads; no, not even the idea of a “Thanksgiving Building,” so far as we know by any sign that has been given.

Another source of disease and death was to be found on the banks of the Paddington canal, which was opened with so muchéclat, on the 10th of July, 1801. No less than 20,000 people came to Paddington, to hurrah themighty men who so altered the aspect of this quiet village; and who, in doing so, offered to the Londoner a new mode of transit for his goods. Unfortunately, for the people of Paddington, on the banks of this canal were stowed many other commodities than “dry goods.” Not only the dust and ashes, but the filth of half London were brought to “that stinking Paddington,” (as it was now called,) for convenience of removal. The time of removal was made to suit the convenience of those who traded in these contaminating materials; but the living sensitive nerves and active blood corpuscules of the people who dwelt near its banks, were not considered. And so, instead of having no doctor in the parish, as was the case within the memory of many now living in it, both doctor and sexton found full employ.

That this is no over-drawn picture of the condition of Paddington for the first quarter of the present century, there is plenty of evidence to prove.

The disbursements of churchwardens and overseers, in 1793, two years before the passing of the Bishop’s Building Act, amounted to £402 6s.11d.; but the overseer’s account alone, in 1815, amounted to £3,375 12s.4d.And although there were more to pay the rates, still, even at the later date, many of the cottages were not rated at all; and the greatest difficulty was experienced in squeezing out of the hard earnings of the poor men who occupied them, the small pittance (to them a great sum,) which was at length obtained, towards defraying these serious local charges.

In 1803, eight years after the Bishop’s first Building Act was obtained, the assessment of Paddington was £9,966 10s.and the first poor-rate, levied under this assessment, was one shilling and three-pence in the pound. This valuation, however, was only one-third of the rental of 272 tenements; the smaller tenements not having been rated at all. The overseers’ account, this year, amounted to £701 16s.7d.; and it increased annually till 1811, when it was reported to the ratepayers at large, at their annual meeting on Easter Tuesday, that the expenses of supporting the poor have increased fourfold, in the last sixteen years.

No wonder, then, that the sensible inhabitants of Paddington, who saw what the Bishop’s Building Acts were doing for the bishop and his lessees, and who felt, in a very tender point, what they were doing for themselves as ratepayers, should be anxious that those, who derived so much benefit from the parish, should bear some share in the increasedexpenses. But although all the expenses of the church and the poor had been so considerately transferred from the owners of the Paddington Estate, to the pockets of the rate-payers; and although the additional claim of the poor was excessive, yet it was not till the twenty-seventh of October, 1807, that the rate-payers in vestry assembled, “resolved that the Lord Bishop, in respect of the great tithes is rateable, and that he be rated accordingly.”

One would have thought that the bishop, and his lessees, knowing all this—knowing that the “expenses of supporting the poor, had increased fourfold in the last sixteen years (that is, since the Act of 1795, during which time their income from the land had increased, perhaps in a like proportion) and that the same has arisen, in a great measure, from the necessity of constant and casual relief to paupers residing in small tenements built upon the Bishop of London’s Estate;” knowing that they had received £2,263 7s.6d., for land to increase the burial ground,—a purchase made necessary principally on account of this great increase in the number of paupers, and the conditions under which they were placed: Knowing, I say, all these things; for to not one could they have pleaded ignorance, it is barely believeable that these legal protectors of the church and of the poor should have refused this legal demand. Yet most certainly they did so; and further, put the parishioners to the unpleasant necessity of applying to a barrister, learned in the law, for his opinion on this point. By the vestry minutes, dated November 3rd, 1810, we find that Mr. Const, “apprehendsthe Lord Bishopisliable to the poor-rate for the tithes both of the lands, belonging to the See, in occupation of other persons, and those for which a composition is received.” And accordingly in January, 1811, the Bishop of London is rated in the new assessment made that year, upon £462, the estimated annual value of the great tithes.

As the land became more valuable, this burdensome charge could not be endured. The agents of the bishop advise “merging,” and “commutation;” and, after the performance of these feats, on the twenty-third of July, 1844, the vestry receive a letter from Messrs. Budd and Hayes, informing them, “the Tithes of the Paddington Estate have beenmerged, and that the rent-charge for the tithes of the rest of the parish is £166 13s.8d.” And they considerately mention this, “in order that the future rates may be assessed with reference to that sum,after making proper deductions, and not on the amount they have been hitherto assessed upon.”

Whereupon thepoorbishop and his lessees are relieved from some of thegreatcharges laid on them, for the support of the poor; the vestry resolving to assess “the tithes of the Paddington Estate in future, at £166, instead of £340, as heretofore!”

At the end of 1810, it was found that out of a rental of £5,200 paid by the cottagers, only £535 of this was rated to the poor; and that the average of all the assessments in the parish, was but two-thirds of the real value; some being rated at one-third, others at one-half, and others at five-twelfths of the full value. The value of the property, as assessed in 1811, was £28,597, the assessment having been taken on 865 separate tenements.

From the census of this year, 1811, I find that 4,609 persons then living in the parish, constituted 1,083 families, occupying 879 houses. In 1812, out of 935 dwelling-houses, only 393 were rated to the poor; “the rest being miserable huts, occupied by paupers and very poor people.”

In 1821 there were 1,448 families in Paddington, four of whom are returned in the census of that year as being agricultural. In the same year there were 824 persons claiming relief as paupers; and the sum of £37 7s.3d.was paid weekly for out-door and casual relief.

In 1825 the assessment of this parish was £46,245 13s.4d.; and in 1831 it had increased to £71,528 18s.The rates levied in the former year, amounted to £6,025 10s.8½d.; in the latter, to £14,691 16s.5½d.The number of families, according to the census of 1831, was 3,493. In 1841 Paddington was in union with Kensington, Hammersmith, and Fulham, and I find the average of the establishment charges for three years for Paddington, set down at £2,712.

The transition-state from an agricultural village to the fashionable Tyburnia, was no very agreeable time for the majority of those who lived in Paddington. When the cottages were swept away, and the heavy poor-rates which they had entailed, were diminished, new burdens sprang up, scarcely less grievous. Rents became enormous; the Highway, Watching, and Lighting rates were excessive; and these were rendered more oppressive on account of those, who received the greatest benefit from the causes which necessitated the greater expenditure, not bearing their just share of this local taxation. And yet the local Act had made some sort of provision for an equitable adjustment of these expenses.

Unfortunately, however, for the majority of the rate-payers,the election of those, who had to carry into execution the provisions of that Act, viz., the election of vestrymen, was not in their hands. That clause of Sturges Bourne’s Act, which gave four votes to those who were rated at £100; five votes to those who were rated at £125; and six votes to all those rated at £150; placed the election in the hands of the minority; and, as that minority was much more interested in the success of the building-speculations which were in progress, than in that just and wise economy, which was advantageous to the majority of the rate-payers, one of the most important clauses in the local Act, was for years, and still is, disregarded. This, the 132nd clause of that Act, is as follows:

“And whereas it has happened and may happen that Houses and other Buildings within the said Parish have been or may be began to be built, but not finished nor let, and it is reasonable that such Houses and Buildings should be rated and assessed for the Purposes of paving, watching, and lighting; be it therefore further enacted, That until such Houses or other Buildings which now are or hereafter may be built or in building shall be finished and tenanted, (if the Street, Square, Lane, or other Place wherein such House or other Building is or shall be situated shall be paved, repaired, cleansed, and lighted by virtue and in pursuance of this Act,) it shall and may be lawful[196]to and for the said Vestry to rate and assess all such Houses and other Buildings situate within the said Parish as are or shall be erected and covered in, but not finished nor let, either by One or more distinct Assessment or Assessments, or by including them in any other Assessment or Assessments, at a Rate not exceeding Sixpence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved belonging to or lying before the Fronts or Sides of such Houses or other Buildings, and in like Manner and for the like Purposes to rate and assess all such Houses or other Buildings as last mentioned which are or shall be erected but not covered in, at a Rate not exceeding Four-pence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved by virtue of this Act, and belonging to or lying before the Fronts or Sides of such Houses or other Buildings, until the same shall be covered in, as aforesaid, and then at a Rate not exceeding Four-pence forevery Square Yard until the same shall be let or occupied; which last-mentioned Rates or Assessments shall be paid by and recoverable from the Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, Owner or Owners of such House or Houses, Building or Buildings respectively, and shall be charged and changeable on the said Premises; and if the said Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, shall refuse or neglect to pay the same, upon Demand, then and in every such Case such Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments, and all Arrears due thereon, shall and may be levied on the Goods and Chattels of the Person or Persons so required to pay the same in manner herein directed; and in case the Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees of such House or Houses, Building or Buildings, shall not be known or cannot be found, then the said Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments made thereon, shall be and remain charged and chargeable on the said Premises until the Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, can be found, and the same may at any Time be levied and recovered upon the said Premises in like Manner as other Rates made by virtue of this Act are made recoverable.”

Four years ago, thisforgottenclause of the local Act was introduced to the notice of the vestry. It was admitted that it had not been observed; and the Builders, who formed the most influential party in the vestry, thought it would beunfairto enforce it. A little ventilation of this subject, however, induced the majority of another vestry to believe, and to resolve, “that all the rateable property in the parish should be rated.” But so much power have the Builders and the Proprietors of the soil in the vestry, that this good resolution has been from time to time set aside; and down to the present moment, the rate-payers at large have received no benefit from it. So that, although the Vestry Minute-books are crammed with applications to the vestry, to take under their protection, streets, squares, &c., and although the taking thereto has increased the local taxation very considerably, and will do so, year by year; yet none but the old inhabitants and the in-coming tenants have been taxed for all the wear and tear of old roads, caused by drawing building materials over them, and for all the additional expenses in watching and lighting, which every new house entails on the parish.

If this tax had been levied from the passing of the Act, in 1824, down to the present time, it would have saved the rate-payers some thousands of pounds; and it would havefallen on those who have received the most substantial benefits from the parish, although they have paid the least towards the local taxation, viz., the Bishop of London, and the lessees of the Paddington Estate. Had this clause been in force, those who took the land for building on, would have pointed out this charge, and insisted on its due consideration. For this additional burden, then, as well as for the enormous poor-rate entailed by the miserable cottages, the dwellers on the Paddington Estate are, in truth, indebted to their old friends, “the lords of the soil,” as much as to their local governors, and the builders.

And this is not the only burden, connected with the roads, which the owners of the Paddington Estate have attempted to throw on the people of Paddington.

In 1828, and 1829, when the Grand Junction-road, which had been recently made, was in a miserable condition; when it was ascertained that it would cost £400 a-year to keep it in repair; and when only £7 were the amount of rate received by the parish from the inhabitants of Oxford and Cambridge terraces; the owners of the soil tried, by force of law, to compel the vestry to appoint a surveyor to inspect this road, and take upon them the charge of its repair. The trial, however, went against them, and the learned Lord Tenderden delivered an elaborate judgment in favour of the parishioners.[198]

But what the law would not compel the vestry to do, the vestry could voluntarily do; and, as the election of vestrymen was virtually in the hands of a few builders and proprietors, these few took especial care to elect those, and those only, whose interests coincided with their own. Thus, those who were most deeply interestedin the Paddington Estate, became the governorsof the parish; and, as these personal interests were very frequently antagonistic to the interests of the ratepayers at large the public weal has had to suffer; and “parish squabbles” have not been unknown in Paddington, even since the introduction of Sturges Bourne’s Act. And discontent must continually arise, so long as the majority of the ratepayers know they are not fairly represented; that they have a minority of votes in the election of their local governors; and that the business of the parish is conducted with closed doors. Although this injustice was made legal, at the time when Grattan and old Sarum sent Members to Parliament; and whena single nobleman had more influence in law-making, than the whole of the inhabitants of the largest cities, yet “An Act for the better Regulation of Vestries, and for the appointment of Auditors of accounts, in certain parishes of England and Wales,”—the first and second William IVth, chapter 60,—better known as Hobhouse’s Act, was passed by the reformers, even before the Parliament itself was reformed.

This Actfor the better regulation of vestriesgives one vote, and one vote only, to each rate-payer; and it is scarcely believeable, that so just a principle could be refused to any parish, which had become too numerous to continue the “good old English constitutional custom” of personal attendance in Vestry; where and when each individual rate-payer might express his opinions on any subject within its jurisdiction, and record his vote thereon. Yet it has been most strenuously opposed, from its introduction into Parliament down to the present time, by the vestry of Paddington; and in consequence of its being necessary to obtain the sanction of two-thirds of the rate-payers who vote, and half those who are qualified to vote, before this Act can be adopted, the attempt to introduce it into this parish has twice failed. In 1849, there was a considerable majority for its adoption, but not the requisite proportion; and in 1853, it is said, the half of the qualified rate-payers have not voted. So that at the present time, Paddington enjoys the unenviable distinction of being behind its neighbours in the adoption of a liberal policy in the election of those to whom are entrusted its local affairs; and those who conduct them, have the unenviable honour of being the representatives of a section only of their fellow-parishioners.

Even the ancient rule of electing churchwardens, by single votes, has been set aside in Paddington; the Judges of the Exchequor Court sanctioning this proceeding, when the vestry appealed to that Court, by writ of error, from the decision of the learned Lord Chief Justice Denman, who had confirmed to the inhabitants of this place, their ancient right in this particular:[199]a right, which every inhabitant, who was not a lawyer, must have believed, as that learned Judge did, the tenth clause of the local Act confirmed to him. This clause declares that the election of vestrymen shall not take place, until after the usual election of churchwardens; “which election of churchwardens shall take place onEaster Tuesday,and be conducted from year to year in such manner, as hath been usual in the same parish.”

The rule of plural voting for vestrymen having been established by the adoption of Sturges Bourne’s Act, vestrymen so elected could not sanction the election of church-wardens in the manner which had been usual in the parish; viz.—by show of hands. Those gentlemen, who still govern Paddington, determined to take advantage of a legal quibble, to abrogate the ancient form of election; but their proceedings produced an amount of ill-feeling, which lasted for years, between those who now really had the election of parish officers in their hands, and those who, in consequence of the introduction of this new principle, had nothing to do with parochial affairs, except the payment of whatever sums of money were demanded. This feeling is indeed not yet allayed; neither can it be till this act of injustice to the majority, is for ever and entirely revoked. And justice must not long be delayed, if harmony is to be restored. Upwards of 2,000 rate-payers have this year voted in favour of that Act, which gives a single vote, and but one vote in local elections; and it behoves all who pay towards the local expenses, all who are interested in the welfare of this parish, to think of this, and to co-operate by every means in their power, for the establishment of good government on the solid basis of just principles. When this is done, all discord may cease; for it will then be the fault of the majority if Paddington is badly governed.

THE END.

A. & W.Hall, Caxton Steam Printing Office, 10, Cambridge Terrace, Camden Town.

[1a]Cunningham’s Hand Book of London, 1850, p. 369. The Marylebone Borough Almanack, 1853.

[1b]Environs of London, vol. iii. p. 329. This error is repeated in Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary and seems to have been copied by all subsequent authors. And although Lysons is generally accurate, we shall find this is not the only error he has made respecting this manor.

[1c]Archæologia, vol. 26, p. 231.

[2a]Dart’s History of Westminster Abbey, vol. 1. p. 11.—“Westmonasterium.”

[2b]Peter-Pence, or Rome-fee.

[2c]Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i. p. 266.

[3]“An History of Westminster Abbey,” p. 6. London, 1751.

[4]This commission undoubtedly did a great deal for the public; but it must not be forgotten that it made use of a very considerable amount of public money, and left the work it had to do in a very imperfect state. At the present time vast stores of most valuable information are lying buried in language ineligible only to a few; and if any enquirer wishes to make out what particles of knowledge there may be in this store-house relative to the object of his search, he has not only the ancient English character, cramped, and contracted, law-latin to learn; but for the want of well-arranged indices—more especially good indices locorum—a life-time to spend in collecting his materials. All this was exceedingly well managed to keep out the inquisitive gaze of a curious public, who were to be kept in ignorance; but since knowledge is acknowledged to be power, and since the people have been admitted to know, it would, surely be good policy to offer facilities for making that knowledge as perfect as possible.

[5a]Vide Appendix to second General Report from the Commissioners on Public Records, p. 386.

[5b]Bawdwen’s translation of the Record called Domesday. Middlesex, &c. Doncast. 1812.

[5c]Some writers have been unable to account for this diminution in the value of land; but I think the writer of the article Domesday in the Penny Cyclopædia has satisfactorily accounted for this decrease in referring it to the revolution produced by the Conquest.

[5d]Edward de Sarisberie held Cherchede or Chelched for two hides.

[6a]This “Description of London” which Stowe printed as an appendix to his History, is translated and published with Annotations. Lond. 1772.

[6b]Maitland’s History of London. See also Park’s Topography of Hampstead.

[9]Elms-lane is the first opening on the right hand after getting into the Uxbridge road from the Grand Junction road, opposite the head of the Serpentine; the Serpentine itself being formed in the bed of the ancient stream which I take to have been first called Tybourn, then Westbourn, then Ranelagh Sewer. While the stream which crossed Oxford Street, west of Stratford-place, first bore the name of Eyebourn, then Tybourn, then King’s Scholars Pond Sewer.

[10a]That part of Edgar’s first charter, dated 951, relative to the boundaries of Westminster, as translated by Sir Henry Ellis, is printed in Mr. Saunders’ Inquiry, as follows:—

“First up from Thames, along Merfleet to Pollen-stock, so to Bulinga-fen: afterwards from the fen, along the old ditch, to Cowford. From Cowford up along Tyburne to the broad military road: following the military road to the old stock of St. Andrew’s church: then within London fen, proceeding south on Thames to midstream; and along the stream by land and strand to Merfleet.”

In the decree of 1222, the western boundary is described to be “The water of Tyburne running to the Thames.”

[10b]The charter of this king, besides securing to the Abbey the manor of Chelsea, which Thurstan is said to have given the monks—“granted them moreover, exemption from toll, and every third tree, with a third of the fruit growing in his wood at Kyngesbrig”—vide Lysons. This wood I take to have been that portion of Middlesex forest which belonged to the crown, called in other documents Kingsholt. I think the situation of this wood is sufficiently indicated in this charter, viz. at Kingsbridge—the bridge which carried the king’s road over the Tybourn. That portion of Kensington gardens which was considered part of the manor of Knightsbridge, and which is still in Paddington parish, I take to have been a portion of the king’s wood, and a district west of the Tybourn, and south of the Uxbridge road—the king’s highway—I consider was also styled Kingsbridge: Knightsbridge being a much more modern appellation, and not used till after the Wycombe road was made and a bridge built by some worthy knight over the Tybourn at this part of its course.

But it has been imagined that a considerable portion of the parish of Paddington formed part of the ancient manor of Chelsea. And it is a fact that a piece of land, one hundred and thirty-seven and three quarter acres in extent, is now claimed by Chelsea as part and parcel of their parish, although it is two miles from any other portion of that parish; and, although, as I shall hereafter produce evidence to prove, it has been considered a part of Paddington.

Further, we find that “Robert de Heyle, in 1368, leased the whole of his manor of Chelchith,except Westbourn and Kingsholt, to the Abbot and Convent of Westminster for the term of his own life,” upon condition that he was allowed to live in a certain house in the Convent; that he was provided with a robe of esquires’ silk, and twenty pounds yearly; and daily with two white loaves, and two flagons ofConventale.

In speaking of the ancient manor of Chelsea, I refer to the one spoken of in the Dom Boc; and not to that which “it is possible might have been included by the monks amongst their possessions in Westminster.”

Vide Lysons and Faulkner.

[10c]Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, Tom. vi. p. 17. chart 1223. T. M. Kemble. This charter is dated April 1st. (eight years later than the above); a favourite date in documents concerning Paddington; and in this instance especially useful as it led to understanding the characters of all those who were silly enough to believe this written document was what it professed to be.

[11]49 Geo. 3. chap. “An Act for discharging a certain piece of ground, called the Pesthouse-field from certain charitable trusts, and for settling another piece of ground, of equal extent, in a more convenient place, upon the same trusts.”

[13]Commentaries B. II. c. 18. p. 269. 10th edition.

[14a]The dean of Peterborough, in his supplement to Gunton, differs somewhat in the account he there gives of this festival. He has turned the wine into beer; but made the tankard hold twenty-five gallons. And the nuns to whom the allowance was made resided, according to this Doctor, in Holbourn, instead of Kilbourn; an error pointed out in Naysmith’s edition of Tannar’s Notitia. Vide p. 297, of Gunton’s History of Peterborough.

[14b]As bread was given ad libitum, and cheese was to be served on this day, I think we may find in this document the real origin of the term, “Bread and Cheese lands,” which is still applied to a small portion of that which was “the Paddington Charity Estate;” an estate not to be confounded at the present time with “the Paddington Estate.”

[15]The Dean states that the meaning of the original is not very clear. But I think there is not much difficulty in discovering the meaning of his very excellent translation. The writer was evidently enjoying the joke of those in command, not allowing wine to their followers who did not constantly wear arms; while the commanders themselves were admitted, and allowed to get drunk, with their swords on.

[16]An account of the Writers of the History of Westminster Abbey, p. 4.

[17]VidePark’s History of Hampstead.

[18a]“But beyond the above written limits the Vills of Knightsbridge, Westbourn, Paddington with its Chapel, and their appurtenances, belong to the parish of St. Margaret aforesaid.” To secure the privileges contained in this decree the Abbot had to give the Bishop of London the manor of Sunbury, and the Church to the Chapter of St. Paul’s, besides those places surrendered by the arrangement in the decree. The monks of Westminster did not at all relish this arrangement; and one more outspoken than the rest openly declared that “Peter had been robbed to pay Paul.”

[18b]This author gives, as his authority, a MS. in the King’s Remembrancer’s Office Exchequer, f. 26b. Lysons says the church and chapel were valued together at thirty marks; and gives the Harlean MS., No. 60, as his authority. In this calculation the “Vicaria” is not mentioned.

[19]“A manor, manerium, a manendo, because the usual residence of the owner.” This learned expounder of our laws further explains “that it seems to have been a district of ground held by lords or great personages.” Book ii, p. 90.

[20a]Mr. Park says that the Shuttup Hill Estate “affords one among many instances of the freedom with which religious corporations were in the habit of elevating their lands and farms intomanors.”—Topography of Hampstead. p. 194.

[20b]Priests, who formerly were permitted to practice in the Law Courts, were, a little before this time, for very good reasons no doubt, prevented from doing so. But they did not quietly submit to this loss of their influence in the worldly concerns of the people; and they adopted all kinds of contrivances to keep up their former power. Amongst others, equally honorable, we find they adopted the wig to hide that which would have otherwise betrayed their holy calling.—VideSir H. Spelman’s Conjectures on the Introduction of the Coif;Glossar, p. 335,and Blackstone, vol. I. p. 24.

[21a]The statute passed in the eighteenth year of Edward’s reign, which put an end to the further increase of manors, must have been fresh in this Abbot’s memory; and it was this law, perhaps, which induced him to place Paddington and Westbourn under the maternal wing of Westminster.

[21b]Tenement is a word of still greater extent than land, for though in its vulgar acceptation it only applied to houses and other buildings, yet in its original, proper, and legal sense it signifies every thing that may beholden, provided it be of a permanent nature; whether it be of a substantial and sensible, or of an unsubstantial ideal kind.”—Blackstone, vol. ii, p. 17.

[21c]Placita de Quo Warranto, Edward first Rot. 39, p. 479 of the work published by the Record Commission.

[21d]At the present time there is preserved a Fine Roll in the Record Office, Carlton Ride, containing an account of the Temporalities of the Convent of Westminster, from the eighth to the tenth years of Edward the second, taken after the death of Richard de Kedyngton (or de Sudbury), the Abbot who succeeded Walter of Wenlock, and although this document was examined with great care by two gentlemen accustomed to examine documents of this kind no notice or account of Paddington could be found in it amongst the numerous possessions therein described.

[22]Was the first of these inquisitions directed in consequence of the omission of any mention of Paddington in the return of the Abbey possessions just alluded to; or was it suggested by the legal advisers of the Convent to secure a title to their lands in these places?

[24]This Walter Franceys is in all probability the Water Fraunceis of the preceding inquisition, whose descendants we find to be possessed of land in Paddington, after the reformation, like the descendants of John Colyn, mentioned in the next inquisition.

[25]Before these names the sentence which precedes that of Richard de Sudburie is to be understood. It will be noticed that Richard de Sudburi was the name of an Abbot of Westminster, who died in the eighth year of this reign. But whether these lands were acquired by him and inserted here to render that grant a legal holding, or whether it was the grant of some Richard de Sudbueri then living I cannot say.

[27]Maitland’s London,by Entick, vol. i. p. 190.

[28]Now called Kensington.

[29]Lysons, p. 514, vol. iv.—Second edition.

[30a]Faulkner’s Kensington, p. 90.

[30b]From theDomboc, we learn that this land was held by Alberic, or Aubrey, de Vere of the Bishop Constance, the Chief Justiciary of England; and we are informed byLysonsandFaulknerthat the second Aubrey was in so much favour with the first Henry, that he was not only appointed to this office, Lord Chief Justice of England, but created Lord Great Chamberlain, “which office” says Faulkner, “was made hereditary in his family, with the tenure of several manors;” andLysonstells us this manor was so held.Mr. Faulkner’smore recent investigations have brought out several facts respecting this manor, and its subsequent division into separate manors, which did not appear very plain in the account given byLysons, although his account is exceedingly interesting and contains a great number of facts and references.

[31]Faulkner’s History and Antiquities of Kensington, p. 73–4. Each 15 Edw. IV. m. 12. See alsoLysons’ Kensington. BothLysonsandFaulknerstate that Richard had a grant of these manors; but the statements in the Inquisition and the Act of Parliament, point out a mode of acquisition not quite so creditable to a King.

[32]Valor Ecclesiasticus(published by the Record Commission) vol. i. p. 411. This Ecclesiastical valuation, taken in 1535, superseded the one ordered to be taken by the Pope in 1291.

[33a]Sir Reginald has the credit of having designed Henry the seventh’s chapel, in Westminster Abbey.

[33b]VideMadox’s Formulare Anglicanum, p. 287; and Pat 35, Henry VIII. p. 6. m. 18 (19).Lysons, andSmith(who appears to have copied what Lysons said), only “suppose” this sale to have taken place.

[34]I find by a note to the printed copy of the Countess’s will, thatJohnRoper was her first Cambridge reader.

[35a]As I make no pretention to be a black-letter lawyer, and as I thought my readers would prefer to read such documents as these in their own language, I have in almost every instance where I have found it necessary to quote ancient Latin documents, given the translation: referring to the original to be consulted by those who should think it necessary to do so.

[35b]For this and most of the references relative to this manor, I am indebted toLysons’sarticle,Kensington, andMr. Faulkner’s History and Antiquities of Kensington.—Vide p. 74 and 591. It will be perceived that the account I have given of this manor differs in some respects from that given by these learned antiquarians; but the facts I have produced have been obtained from the same sources and therefore may be equally relied on.

[36a]“Rental of premises in Westminster, Paddington, and Kensington,” referred to at p. 194 in the “First Report on Public Records.” This MS. is kept at the Land Revenue Office, Spring-gardens, where I had the opportunity of inspecting it through the kindness of Mr. Fernside; it appears to be the “Receiver’s account of the late Monastery of St. Peter, Westminster,” for two years. Whether this is one of those “Books of Yearly Rents, reserved by Henry VIII, and Edward VI, which were concealed from Queen Elizabeth,” referred to at p. 197 of the first report, I do not know.

[36b]VideSubsidy Roll, of this year.

[36c]VideFaulkner’saccount of the descent of this manor, p. 592.

Sir H. Anderson, an Alderman of London, gave £3,400 for this manor the same year in which “the Queen’s pardon” was obtained. In a presentment made of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington, 1675, we find Sir R. Anderson’s land set down at 400 acres, Free, but then said to be included in that manor.—Ibid598.

[38]This field in “A Perticular Booke of Chelsey Manor,” is called “Darkingby Johes.”—VideFaulkner’s Chelsea, vol. i. p. 318.

[39]Having by the production of these documents sadly damaged the numerous stories told about these fields, “Chelsea Reach,” as they are called, the least I can do will be to attempt to preserve two of those I have heard. Supposing the second to have any truth in it, the first will shew how the people may be kept in ignorance by the use of words which have a double meaning—how the ignorant may be kept in ignorance by telling them a story which they are to read one way, and that according to the common acceptation, while the knowing ones, the fraternity who have become philosophers, and have been admitted into the secret, may read, it in another.

“A Chelsea Pensioner having been to visit a poor lame grandchild who was being educated in good and sound learning at the Free School, established by John Lyon, at Harrow-on-the-hill, was so much delighted with his visit, that to celebrate the occasion in a proper manner he drank to the memory of the generous founder a little too often and a little too deep. The ale continued to affect his upper story till he passed the seventh mile stone, (and it must be known that the mile stones on this road were numbered from Harrow, and not as on every other road from London,) mistaking a white line of water, the Paddington Canal, for the road, at this point, he found, when it was too late, that a man was not destined by his Maker to walk on that element; hiscorpswas not found for some days. When it was discovered no one would own it; and what was worse no one would bury it, till at length it became necessary for the civil magistrate to interfere; he sent for the Chelsea clergyman, directed him to read the proper service, and bury the corps where it was lying. Before the clergyman consented to do this, however, he insisted that it should be carried round a certain number of fields which he pointed out. That magic circle constitutes this dry “Chelsea Reach;” and within it, and in consequence of this incident, the Chelsea Rector always claims tithe over it. Beneath the piece of ground not claimed by either parish the corps lies buried.”

This, as any story-maker will readily perceive, is a sad hodge-podge. But this is the story for the ignorant, perhaps made by them. The knowing ones have their simple story:—

“A certain prebend, of a certain Cathedral, seeing this land without an owner kindly took it under his care. It became hiscorps. He grew birches on it for the boys in his school; and when his occupation was gone, his relatives claimed the land as his freehold.”

Whether there is any, and if any, what amount of truth in either of these stories, I must leave the reader to discover. A key, perhaps, may be found to the latter in another story which is told of the purchase of this land of the descendants of Dr. Busby, and by the fact of a Dr. Busby having held the prebendal corps of Boxgrave, which was situated in Westbornein the County of Sussex.

It would appear that these closes, “containing by estimation fifty acres,” were all that remained in Paddington of the Old Chelsea Manor: but as we have already seen 137¾ acres are now claimed by Chelsea as belonging to that parish.

[40]Vol. i. p. 310–11.

[43]A New Record Office in being built at the back of the Roll’s Chapel so that it is to be hoped the valuable documents now kept in this stable will soon find a better lodging.

[44]At the time of the Reformation, as I have before observed, ministers were appointed by the Crown, to take and keep the accounts of all monies derived from the lands which had belonged to religious houses. Many of these ministers accounts are still preserved and contain much valuable information. According to these accounts (videMonsticion Anglicanum, vol. i. p. 326–27) it would appear that for the first year the Crown received only £31 6s.8d.from the church lands in Paddington, and for the next year the same sum with the addition of 2s.rent charge, for the conducion of water; but in the 36th and 37th of Henry the VIII., I find the minister returns the Crown Rent of this manor and rectory, at £41 6s.8d.

[45]Henry the VIII, finding that the clergy readily paid the first fruits of their livings to the Pope, and that £160,000 had been transmitted to Rome, on account of this claim, since the second year of Henry the seventh, thought, very naturally, as he had been proclaimed “The supreme head of the church and clergy of England, in so far as is permitted by the law of Christ,” that he ought to stand in the Popes’s shoes in this particular also; and that the annates, or first fruits, ought to be paid to the Crown of England, instead of going to enrich a Foreign Potentate. He first reduced the payment to five per cent. “the better to keep the Pope in awe,” but finding that remedy unsuccessful took the whole to himself.—VideHume’s History of England.

[46a]The seven Protestant Bishops who succeeded Ridley in this see held it but fifty years.

[46b]Whether Edmund Grindall, Ridley’s protestant successor in the see of London, renewed this lease and received a fine for the renewal I cannot say; I speak in the text of the income reserved by the Crown.

[46c]Ecclesiastical Memoirs.—Vol. ii. part 1, p. 339.

[47a]An account of Collectors and other ministers of the possessions of the Bishop of London, 9th of Elizabeth, ending Michaelmas.

[47b]This notice is at the foot of the account, and evidently written in another hand: it is Richard Brown’s account.

[47c]Rough Notes, 3rd of Elizabeth.

[49a]VideCollectanea Topographica.vol. iii. p. 31. The original MS. from which this survey is printed is in the Rawlinson collection in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, No. 240.

[49b]Ibid, vol. i. p. 287; or additional M.SS. British Museum, 9049, p. 37.

[50a]26Geo.2. c. 43.

[50b]Judith Jodrell, wife of Sir Paul Jodrell, was a daughter of Mr. Daniel Sheldon; and it appears her life was the last of that family in the estate. I find by a private Act of Parliament, that the family of the Sheldons were obliged to sell their estates at Ditchford, in Worcestershire, to pay their debts, and it is probable that their life interest in the manor and rectory of Paddington was disposed of for the same purpose.

This practice of granting church lands for three lives appears to be very ancient. It was the common practice of Oswald, Bishop of Worcester, at the end of the tenth century; and for doing which he was accused of wasting the revenues of the church.—Mr. Kemble’s Introduction, p. 34.

[51]The Desborough estate was leased by Bishop Porteus and his lessees to the Grand Junction Canal Company; but how the Bishop and his lessees became possessed of this estate I do not know.

[52a]Mr. Macaulay, in hisHistory of England, when speaking of London, as it existed in 1685, describes this Pest-house Field as being the place used as a burial place for many of those who died of the plague twenty years before; but from the account given byLysons, and from the Acts of Parliament relating to this charity estate, I am induced to believe it was purchased after that calamity and for future use.

[52b]A plan of Upton Farm, taken by William Gardner, in 1729, was presented to the parishioners of Paddington by Mr. Thomas, a surgeon, who lived in Brown-street, and it is still preserved in the Vestry-room.

[54a]VideFaulkner’s History of Kensington, p. 596.

[54b]The hog was one of the most important possessions of the cottager, and as this animal obtained the chief part of its food in the wood, this right of the wood was of more consequence than the right of pasture to the poorer villagers.

[54c]Penny Cyclopædia; article—“Commons.”

[55a]It is said that even for the russet spot which is still, for auld lang syne, called Paddington-green, the parishioners are indebted to the generosity of a private gentleman.

[55b]Macaulay’s History of England, vol. i. page 421.

[56a]Ferrers—a romance of the reign of George the second. 3 vols. 1842.

[56b]“The woman I adore;” in which Mr. B. appeared as “Paddington Green.”

[56c]It may be asked, why these prints have not been copied for this work? My answer is, that if these had been inserted others could not have been left out; and as my object was to keep down the price of this edition, so as to bring it within reach of every rate-payer, I was very reluctantly compelled to leave out all pictorial illustration.

[57a]The Charity School and St. Margaret’s-terrace now occupy the site of this pond.

[57b]This was not one of the forts belonging to the entrenchment which encircled London and Westminster, for as is shewn inMaitland’s History of London, the continuous fortification was much nearer those cities; but it was a small detached outwork, a portion of which remained in Chatelain’s time, and is represented in his engraving.

[57c]In the “Report of the Committee appointed by the Paddington Parochial Association, instituted for the Reform of the Parish abuses,” printed 1834; it is stated, “at the present time, only one of these maps is forthcoming, that which contained the plan of the whole parish, and this when enquired for, was brought in a tin case from the house of the Vestry Clerk, who said when it was handed over to the Committee, that he could not tell whether the maps were or were not in it. On opening this remaining map, it was found to be defaced, there having been evidently erasures made on the face of it; the absence of the map of the waste and charity was enough to excite the suspicion of the committee; that at some period, dishonesty on the part ofsome one, if notmore, had occasioned this loss; but when they found that the alterations upon the remaining map were connected with the waste and charity lands, they could no longer doubt of wrong doing somewhere, especially as an entire leaf had been torn out of the Vestry Minute Book, which related to the same subject, viz. Charity and Waste Lands.”

[58]This Mr. Harper was a tenant of the bishop and his lessees; and the fields he rented chiefly for grazing, were called for many years, “Harper’s Fields.” On the expiration of his tenancy I do not find that his landlords made any compensation to the parish for this waste land, for which Mr. Harper had paid rent.

[62]This “dispute” speaks volumes. That the Bishop of London and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster should “dispute” the right of the poor parishioners of Paddingtonto half an acre, when the whole of the land around, for many acres, was, in all probability, assigned to the poor, could not be believed except on such authority as the above.

[68]The account states that the will directs £9 per annum to be given to poor families every Lady-day and Michaelmas day.

[70]By the cash accounts, published annually, by order of the Vestry, it will be seen that for many years past, only five shillings per annum have been paid fromoneof those houses which are spoken of under “Johnson’s Charity.” I have made search for the merchant-tailor’s will but it has been a fruitless one. Should any gentleman into whose hands these pages may fall, discover this, or any other document relative to Paddington, he would confer on the author of this work a very great favour, if he would take the trouble to communicate with him.

[72]In a Report of the case of Thistlethwaytev.Gamier, heard before Sir J. Parker, in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, May 4th, 1852, reported in theTimeson the following day, it is stated that the estimated value of seven-eighths of the lessee’s interest, which is two-thirds of the whole, is £430,000.

[73]At the end of 1835, the present valuable agents of the Bishop discovered, that having followed in the steps of their predecessors, they had committed a grave error in receiving only the £10 which had been reserved by this Act, and subsequent Acts, for the Lessees; and on the 1st of December, they addressed a letter to the Vestry, calling on them to pay his Lordship, the present Bishop of London, the sum of £12; the rent which had not been before called for, but which was due to him for the past six years. I believe an “action at law” was not commenced for this sum, but a second lawyer’s letter was sent and the demand was paid, and has been ever since.

[75a]The whole Act occupies forty-two pages.

[75b]It was Richard Terrick, the successor of Richard Osbaldeston in the See of London, who granted both these leases. This Bishop died 31st March, 1777.

[80]The separate Messuage or Tenement described in Rede’s lease as “formerly in the tenure of Edward North, Esquire,” is here so described, with the addition, “afterwards of Daniel Sheldon and after that of Gilbert Sheldon, his under-tenant or under-tenants, Assignee or Assigns.”

[83]The whole of these lands, as well as others leased to this Company, in 1812, are laid out in a plan attached to the Act of that year.

[85a]I wonder whether amongst the “general improvements,” the framers of this Act, or those who assisted in passing it, thought for one moment of the great improvement it would be to have a church to each parcel (say every hundred acres) of land which should be built on?

[85b]Vide Second Schedule to the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45.

[86a]This in a subsequent Act, is explained to mean not houses “in the shell or carcase,” but houses when fit for habitation, so that to get a good ground-rent it is necessary to have a high-rented house; and the high ground-rents, which I am informed are at least 25 per cent. higher than the average in the neighbouring parishes, may be looked on as one of the chief causes of the high rents of the houses on this estate.

[86b]In this clause the time for registration was limited to two months, but by a subsequent Act it was extended to six months.

The sixth section of the seventh of Ann, chap. 20, (the Act referred to), provides that the “Registrar or Master shall keep an Alphabetical Kalendar of all the Parishes, Extra-parochial Places and Townships within the said County, with reference to the number of every Memorial that concerns the Donor’s Manors, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments in every such Parish, &c.” But here, as at other Offices, where important historical documents are kept, noIndex Locorumis known. To be able to turn to any particular parish, and at once find the deeds belonging to that parish, would be much too easy a process, whatever the framers of this Act may have thought of its convenience.

[87a]We are told by this Act, that previous to the second marriage of this lady to Joshua Smith Simmons Smith, two other sons had died; one Henry Frederick, leaving a widow and child; the other Frederick, unmarried; and to his sixth share of the half of the lessee’s interest the mother became entitled. Mrs. Smith left her husband all her interest in the Paddington Estate, and he assigned it to Elizabeth Hughes, widow. Besides the purchase of the sixth share above referred to, we find by a subsequent Act, fifth Geo. IV. cap. 35, that Lady Morshead and her son assigned “all their moiety and beneficial estate and interest in the said lease,” to Thomas Thistlethwayte; and we have already seen, in a previous note, that this gentleman died possessed of seven-eighths of the lessees’ interest in the Paddington Estate.

[87b]We learn by a subsequent Act, the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45, that the receipts by the sale of brick-earth, gravel, and sand, up to that time, 1825, amounted to £10,256 12s.3d.

[87c]This was the last Act of Parliament relative to this estate with which Bishop Porteus had anything to do, as he died on the thirteenth of May, 1809, having occupied the See of London from November the fourth, 1787. Vide p. 94 and 255 of the Life of this Bishop—byMr. Hodgson.

[90]I have been informed that this Water Company asked one thousand pounds per annum for the site of one of their reservoirs for a lease of ninety-nine years, to contain all the covenants of building leases, and this after the site for All Saints Church had been taken out of it.

[91]These articles of agreement contained a clause to exempt the buildings, houses, &c. on this land, from “the operations or regulations contained or to be contained in any Act or Acts of Parliament respecting buildings;” and they were not to be subject “to the control, management, or interference” of any surveyor, or any other person, claiming to exercise authority under such Acts. This was asking a little too much even of a Parliament in which Grattan and Old Sarum were represented; and the articles were saved from the disgrace of receiving Parliamentary sanction, so far as this clause was concerned. Yet such influence did this clause in the agreement, though unsanctioned by the Legislature, have on the District Surveyor, that in his return to the House of Commons, in 1843, he states that “eighty one acres in this district, the property of the Grand Junction Canal Company, and eighty-eight and a-half acres, the property of the Great Western Railway Company, are exempt from the operation of the Building Act, except as to all houses erected on the latter property.

By an entry on the Vestry Minute Book, I find the Grand Junction Canal Company, leased eight acres of their land to the Water Works Company at a pepper corn rent.

[96]The exact yearly rent paid by the Great Western Railway Company to the Bishop and his lessees, is £2366 2s.1d.Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 664. 1850.

[103a]I have stated 1829, for in 1729 the Turnpike-rate was standing at the junction of the old Roman roads; that is, at the end of Park-lane.

[103b]“Return of the number of District Surveyors appointed under the Metropolitan Building Act, and amount of their fees.” By this return I find that the fees received by the District Surveyor of Paddington, for five years, 1838 to 1842 inclusive, amounted to £4,261!Parliamentary Paper, 1843.

[104a]Page cliii of this Report.

[104b]While the workmen were digging the gravel out of “Craven Gardens,” I saw an old well which lay beside their excavation, the bottom of which did not appear to have been ten feet from the surface. I also remember that there was a pond close to this spot, at the corner of the Pest-house Field, which was not so deep as this well, but which was not dry even in the hottest summer.

[105]VideHousehold Words,No.142, for a most powerful picture of the present condition of the common sewers.

[106]One of the great reformers of the sixteenth century—Luther—said “The Christian must be obedient to the commands of the Government, even though it wrongs him, skinning and fleecing him.” And again he says, “Christians, whilst preparing for the eternal life, will remain in political things always stupid sheep, (Schaafe und Schoepse), they will never get beyond nonsense in the affairs of state.” German reformers of the nineteenth century see the effect these opinions have had on the world, and they reject these dogmas of their venerable reformer with the contempt they so well merit. Vide “The Reformation of the Nineteenth Century,” by Johannes Ronge, Part I. page 19. Deutsch and Co., Fleet-street, and Oswald and Covers, Cross-street, Manchester.

Back to Index Next