Transcribed from the [1853] edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
[Picture: The Old Church at Paddington]
[Picture: The New Church, Paddington Green, 1791]
PADDINGTON:
PAST AND PRESENT.
BY
WILLIAM ROBINS.
* * * * *
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according
to conscience, above all liberties.”—_Milton_.
* * * * *
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY
ARTHUR AND WARREN HALL,
CAXTON STEAM PRINTING OFFICES,
10, CAMBRIDGE TERRACE, CAMDEN TOWN,
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
PREFACE AND DEDICATION.
HISTORY is valuable, not merely for the facts which it records, but in a
much higher degree for the lessons it teaches; for the Future will be
benefited by the Past and the Present, more in proportion to the amount
of truth developed and error eradicated by their teaching, than by the
number of circumstances preserved.
To judge of the facts of history, it is necessary to have the liberty to
know them; but it has often happened that historical facts have been so
discreditable to the actors of the history, that the facts have been
hidden, and fiction put in their place; and liberty to know has been
refused to all, except the few who were to become participators in the
actions.
There may be a few who know the history of Paddington well; but by far
the greater part of those who now live in this parish have no clear
notion of those circumstances which have influenced its past, and which
affect its present condition. That Paddington has been transformed into
a city of palaces, from a quiet rural village, is known to all; but by
what agency that change has been effected—how the profits of that change
have been dispensed, and who have the greatest moral, if not legal, right
to the chief share of those profits—is not so clearly understood.
In giving utterance to the facts contained in the following pages, I have
argued freely, according to my conscience, on the effects produced on my
own mind by the facts I have recounted; and I have not failed to shew how
the rights of the people have been invaded, at almost every step, in the
various changes which have occurred in Paddington. It is true that the
facts contained in this Work, have not been collected under the
superintendence of the lords of the soil; neither are they now published
under their patronage. My sketch might have been more attractive, had
the records in the possession of the Bishop of London and the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, been consulted; but I had no desire either to be
refused the favour of inspecting them, or to have my hands tied by
accepting it.
The Records in the various Public Record Offices are open to all; and to
those Officers of the Rolls’ Chapel, the Tower, and Carlton Ride, as well
as those at the British Museum, who kindly assisted me by directing my
search for facts relative to Paddington, my best thanks are due. I am
also indebted to several kind friends for advice and assistance, during
the progress of this Work through the Press. Mr. B. H. Smart, the
well-known English scholar, kindly suggested to me, some time since, the
possibility of the word _Paddington_ being derived from _Padre ing tun_,
_the Father’s town-meadow_; and Sir Harry Dent Goring, of Bayswater
House, was so good as to suggest another derivation, which I think it
right to acknowledge in this place. In a note Sir Harry writes to me on
this subject, he says, “A Pad is a Sussex word now in common use for
Pack-Horse * * * ings we have in that county by hundreds. Now, the
carriers to the great City may have lodged, and had meadows for their
Pack-Horses here. I humbly suggest, therefore, may not Paddington mean
_the Village at the Pack-Horse Meadows_?” It is to Dr. R. G. Latham I am
indebted for pointing out to me Mr. Kemble’s opinion as the most probable
origin of this word. With these additional remarks I must leave the
decision of this question, of the origin of the name, to those learned
linguists and antiquarians who desire to enter more deeply into the
subject.
I regret not having been able to spend more time, than I have done, in
researches for this Sketch; but I hope my efforts to discover facts,
relative to Paddington, have not been so fruitless as to render this
attempt entirely undeserving the attention of the inhabitants of this
parish. The only apology I can offer to my readers for the faults in the
Work, is, that the facts were sought out, and the ideas jotted down, in
moments snatched from the performance of more important and more
harassing duties. Should any one wish to know how it ever entered my
head to give my friends and myself so much trouble, the reason is readily
told:
Having lived in Paddington from 1838 to 1847, in perfect ignorance of its
history, I was aroused, like the rest of the rate-payers, who lived in
the parish, in the latter year, to a consciousness of the existence of
some moving Power in the parish, by a sudden, and to me unaccountable
increase in the demand on my purse. Having seen a considerable
diminution in the number of houses for the poor, and a considerable
increase in the dwellings of the rich, I was very anxious to ascertain
the cause of this call on me for an increase in my contribution to the
parochial burdens. I found that a re-assessment of the parish had been
made; that my rates, and many others, were increased as much as 6½_d._ in
the pound on the former rental; that the assessment was most unequal and
unjust; and that it was not at all required for the purpose for which it
was said to be made. The excuse given for re-assessing the parish, was,
that the county magistrates had raised the assessment; but I found, on
looking into that question, that one half-penny in the pound per annum,
taken on the old assessment, would have raised the extra sum required by
the county. I came to the conclusion, therefore, that the governing body
had not chosen to give out to the rate-payers the true motives for their
actions; and finding that they had carried out their resolution in a most
unjust manner, I thought I should not be doing my duty by discontinuing
the enquiry at this point: I proceeded, and the following pages are the
result of my subsequent investigations.
To shew how Paddington has increased, both in population and wealth, I
have subjoined an abstract of the Census Returns since their first
establishment, and some extracts from the Rate-books since 1838. For the
amount of Rental for 1847,-48,-49, I am indebted to calculations made by
Mr. Aveling, the Vestry-Clerk; but the amounts for those years do not
include the assessment for the empty houses; for which £10,000 per annum
may be added. The enormous increase in the Rental in the year 1847,
arose chiefly from the extra sum laid on by the re-assessment made that
year. The sums in the second column of that table represent the amounts
_levied_ by the two half-yearly rates.
CENSUS RETURNS FOR PADDINGTON.
HOUSES. POPULATION.
YEARS. Inhabit. Uninhab. Building. Males. Females Persons.
1801 324 33 — 870 1011 1881
1811 879 24 32 1994 2615 4609
1821 1139 13 28 2852 3624 6476
1831 1933 104 93 6278 8262 14,540
1841 3479 221 390 10,784 14,425 25,173
1851 6103 416 222 18,784 27,521 46,306
TABLE OF RATES AND RENTAL.
YEARS. RATES LEVIED. RENTAL.
£ _s._ _d._ £
1838 14,418 12 8 118,540
1839 16,860 10 11½ 130,631
1840 16,780 11 11½ 141,145
1841 18,244 12 10½ 159,412
1842 19,469 11 3½ 178,060
1843 22,798 15 11½ 196,030
1844 25,272 5 0 214,357
1845 25,928 1 1 238,712
1846 28,261 2 5 260,001
1847 32,319 16 11½ 317,739
1848 35,878 9 10 332,557
1849 38,619 11 1½ 343,066
1850 41,855 2 6 374,036
1851 37,792 10 5 390,732
1852 34,554 0 34 410,617
These Tables clearly shew that the simile used by Canning—
“Pitt is to Addington,
As London is to Paddington—”
no longer retains the force it did, when uttered by that great statesman.
Few, indeed, can now tell where London ends, and Paddington begins, or
define the connecting links which now unite these once distant places.
Paddington, too, is becoming, year by year, of still greater importance;
and at the present time there are not many who would deny to it, any more
than to any other portion of that undefined place called _London_, its
just share of the privileges of “The City.”
When we reflect on the vast riches which in the process of time must
accrue to the Church from the insignificant gift of the Boy-King to
Nicholas Ridley; and when we contemplate what sums have been received,
and are likely to be received by the present occupant of the See of
London from that “little farm in Paddington,” which has been claimed by
that See; THE FUTURE of Paddington becomes worthy of a moment’s thought.
I have deemed it to be my duty to speak freely of the management of those
lands in Paddington, which were claimed for the performance of certain
specific purposes; and the nature and the amount of that income from
those lands, received by the present Bishop of London and his lay
lessees, have been spoken of with a freedom, which some may not admire.
But I need not fear condemnation, for a former occupant of the See of
London, thus addressed the over-paid bishops of his day; “Come off, ye
Bishops; away with your superfluities; yield up your thousands; be
content with hundreds.” Many changes have occurred since Dr. Aylmer
penned those words; and much improvement has taken place and is taking
place. Why then do we complain? A ready answer is furnished by one of
the most accomplished statesmen of our time. Mr. Macaulay truthfully
tells us that “there is constant improvement, precisely because there is
constant discontent.” Let not my readers think, then, I have complained
for the sake of complaining; or that because I speak of actions which are
past, this exposure will have no influence on the future. I can most
conscientiously say, that should a single good result from what I have
written, I shall be amply repaid for any trouble it may have cost me to
collect the materials for this historical sketch: and in dedicating the
following pages to the Inhabitants of Paddington, I can say with the
learned John Strype, “In what I have writ, I have endeavoured invariably
to follow the tract of truth; and have related things as I found them.”
And like him, too, “I may perhaps be censured for this plain and
impartial way of writing; and blamed, that I have not put some veil or
varnish upon some things, and been wholly silent of others.” But “we are
not writing a Panegyric, but a faithful account.”
WILLIAM ROBINS.
OXFORD TERRACE,
_May_ 20_th_, 1853.
CONTENTS.
PREFACE iii–ix.
PART I.—THE LAND.
CHAPTER I.—ABBEY LANDS.—Fabulous story of Edgar’s grant; 1–19
Forged Charters of Edgar and Dunstan; the Dom Boc or
Domesday Book; the Middlesex Forest and its Rivers—the
Fleete, the Tybourn, and the Brent; Tybourn and
Westbourn the same streams; Site of Paddington; Roman
Roads; Concord between the Abbot of Westminster and
Richard and William of Paddington; the Abbot Walter’s
Anniversary and its Modification; Probable origin of the
term “Bread and Cheese Lands;” Mode of dispensing the
proceeds of Abbey Lands in the 12th and 13th Centuries;
the Ecclesiastical Taxation of Pope Nicholas; the whole
of the Temporalities of Paddington given in Charity
CHAPTER II.—THE MANORS OF WESTBOURN AND 19–27
PADDINGTON.—Definition of the word Manor; neither
Westbourn nor Paddington mentioned in Domesday; Probably
included in the Manor of Tybourn; Quo Warranto
respecting them; Walter of Wenlock fined for acquiring
lands here without the licence of the King; three
Inquisitiones ad quod Damnum tempus Edward Second; Grant
of a head of water to the Mayor and Citizens of London
CHAPTER III.—THE POSSESSIONS OF THE CHURCH, THE CROWN 28–59
AND THE PEOPLE.—Division of the ancient Manor of
Kensington; Grant of St. Mary’s Lands to the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster; the Manor of Knightsbridge and
Westbourn; the Manor of Notting-Barns; Purchase and
Bequest of this Manor by the Countess of Richmond;
Property of Lord Sands and Thomas Hobson purchased by
the Crown; Elizabeth Massey; Inquisition, shewing that
the Manor of Notting Barns was a portion of the Parish
of Paddington; Westbourn purchased by Henry the VIII, of
Robert White; other Lands purchased by the Crown;
Westbourn and other Lands sold to Dr. Thomas Hues, and
left by him to Merton College, Oxford; Description of a
portion of this property, once in the possession of Lord
Sands, and belonging to Chelsea Manor—but forming no
part of Chelsea Parish; What has become of Dr. Hues’s
bequest? the Manor of Malurres; Ecclesiastical Valuation
of Henry the VIII; the Manor of Paddington valued at £19
per annum; Dissolution of Religious Houses; Lease of the
Manor and Rectory of Paddington to Sir Edward Baynton
and his wife; Grant of the Manor to the Bishop of
London, one-fifth being reserved for the uses of the
Crown; Descent of the Manor of Paddington as given by
Lysons; additions to his description; Sale of this Manor
by the Parliament; Dr. Sheldon’s Lease of it, and the
Rectory, to his nephews, after the Restoration; leased
to Sir John Frederick for three lives; Property of
private owners; Commons and Waste
CHAPTER IV.—CHARITY LANDS.—Abstract of Returns made to 60–71
the House of Commons, 1786–88; Report of the
Commissioners for Enquiry concerning Charities, 1826;
Bread and Cheese Lands; Johnson’s Charity; Dr. Compton’s
Charity; Margaret Robertson’s Charity; Alms’ Houses and
School House; Chirac’s Gift; Arbourne’s Charity; 1st and
2nd Vic. cap. 32, An Act to enable the Trustees of the
Freehold Charity Estates to grant Building Leases of the
said Lands; Entries in the Vestry Minute Books
CHAPTER V.—THE PADDINGTON ESTATE.—Its present value; 72–97
26th of Geo. II. an Act for enlarging the Church-yard;
Sir John Frederick’s Will; 3rd of Geo. III, an Act for
confirming Sale of Land to St. George’s Parish; 35th of
Geo. III, cap. 83, an Act for confirming Grant of New
Lease of the Manor, Rectory, and other Lands, by which
two-thirds of the proceeds were transferred to Lay
Lessees; Granting power to let 200 acres on Building
Leases, and for other purposes connected therewith; 35th
Geo. III, cap. 43, an Act for making a Navigable Cut to
Paddington; 38th Geo. III, cap. 33, another Act relative
to the Grand Junction Canal Company; 44th Geo. III, cap.
63, an Act for altering and amending the Bishop’s first
Building Act, and for granting further powers the better
to carry into execution the purposes of the said Act;
45th Geo. III, cap. 113, another Act for enlarging the
powers of the previous Building Acts; 48th Geo. III,
cap. 142, another Act for the same purpose; 50th Geo.
III, cap. 44, an Act for further enlarging the
Church-yard; 51st Geo. III, cap. 169, an Act for
establishing the Grand Junction Water-Works Company, one
clause of which Act provides that the said Company shall
supply the tenants on the Bishop’s Estate with Water at
ten per cent. below the average rate; 52nd Geo. III,
cap. 192, an Act to confirm another Lease of other Lands
to the Grand Junction Canal Company, and an exchange of
other portions previously leased; 52nd Geo. III, cap.
193, an Act to enable the Mayor and Commonality of
London to sell, and the Bishop of London and his Lessees
to buy certain Waters, Springs, Conduits, &c. within the
several parishes of Marylebone and Paddington; 52nd Geo.
III, cap. 195, an Act for making and maintaining a
Navigable Canal from Paddington to Limehouse; 5th Geo.
IV, cap. 35, another Act relative to the Grand Junction
Canal Company; 6th Geo. IV, cap. 45, another Bishop’s
Building Act, by which the power of Letting Building
Leases was extended to 400 acres of this Estate; a
schedule annexed to this Act sets forth the particular
parcels of land claimed by the Bishop and his
Lessees—another, the Account of the Receipts and
Payments; 7th Geo. IV, cap. 150, an Act relating to the
Canal and Water Companies, and containing the former
provision for the supply of cheap Water to the tenants
of the Bishop’s Estate; 7th and 8th Vic. cap. 30,
another Act relative to the Land leased to the Grand
Junction Canal and the Grand Junction Water-Works
Companies, by which sites for a Church and an Hospital
are provided; Sale and Lease of Land to the Great
Western Railway Company; Sale of a portion of Paddington
Green; Sale of portions of the Upper Readings
PART II.—THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE.
CHAPTER I.—Definition of the word Parish; Situation of 101—116
Paddington; Boundaries and Extent; General and Medical
Topography; Drainage; Etymology of Names; Origin of the
Parish
CHAPTER II.—The Parson; Origin and Use of Tithe; 117—130
Parsonage, Rectory, or Vicarage; Paddington a Chapel of
Ease to St. Margaret’s, Westminster; Appropriation and
Impropriation; Survey of the Living; the Vicarage
converted into the Manor House; Curate’s Stipend;
Improvement produced by the Revolution; Modern Abuse of
the Rectorial and other Lands; a Curacy without the
means of a Cure; Bishop of London’s Receipts from the
Paddington Estate; Receipts of the Lay Lessees;
Anticipated Remedy to existing Evils
CHAPTER III.—Ancient Churches; Tybourn, the Mother 131–163
Church; St. Katherine’s and St. James’s; Hogarth’s
Marriage; Chaterlain’s Views; St. Mary’s, built by Act
of Parliament; the Church-yard; Parsonage Houses;
Bayswater Chapel; St. John’s; Painted Windows; the New
Parish Church; St. James’s; Trinity, and its middle-age
Monsters; All Saints; Cost of Churches and Chapels;
Contribution of the Ministers towards their support;
Lock Chapel; Dissenting Places of Worship
CHAPTER IV.—Schools; Paddington Green, Bayswater, 164–178
Titchbourn Street, and All Saints; Westbourn Schools;
Dissenting Schools; Paddington Wharfs Ragged Schools;
Charitable Institutions; Orphan Asylum; Bayswater
Episcopal Female Orphan School; the Paddington Visiting
Society; Provident Dispensary; Savings’ Bank; Alms’
Houses; St. Mary’s Hospital; Free Dispensary; Refuge for
the Destitute; Parish Poor-house; the Lock Hospital,
Asylum, &c.; Want of Public Institutions; Public
Companies
CHAPTER V.—Condition of the People; Circumstances which 179–200
added to their numbers; Population in 1524, and the
system of Taxation; Subsidy Rolls; Public Houses;
Gentlemen’s Seats; Population in 1685; Notice of the
Dead; Laws; Sturges Bourne’s Act; the Local Act;
Self-Government; the Parish in the last Century and the
beginning of this; the Cottages; Poor-rates, paltry
payment thereto by the Bishop and his Lessees; an
important clause in the Local Act burked, in order that
the Bishop and the Builders might escape payment to the
Watching, Lighting and Paving Rate; Single _versus_
Plural Voting in Local Elections; Injustice to the
Majority, to be remedied by the adoption of just
principles
PART I. THE LAND.
CHAPTER I.
ABBEY LANDS.
So many fabulous stories are told us relative to the christian church,
that we cannot be surprised to find the history of its territorial
possessions, in any particular spot, mixed up with legends which have no
foundation in fact.
Paddington has its story. We are told even to this day, {1a} that King
Edgar gave lands here to the Monks of Westminster. And considering what
Kings did give to Monks, and also the kind of services rendered by
Dunstan and his friends to this usurper of his brother’s crown, it would
not have been very surprising to have found this tale true. The same
account is given by other authorities. The Rev. Daniel Lysons—the
historian of “The Environs of London,”—says “King Edgar gave the Manor of
Paddington to Westminster Abbey.” {1b} And a more recent writer, Mr.
Saunders, in his “Results of an Inquiry concerning the situation and
extent of Westminster, at various periods,” has supported this assertion
in these words—“According to Dart, Paddington occurs, as an appendage to
the convent of Westminster, in a Charter of King Edgar.” {1c}
Unfortunately for the credit of this story, the work these authors have
referred to does not sanction it. Dart, indeed, in the very page
referred to both by Lysons and Saunders, states something very different
from that, which he is reported to have said; for he distinctly informs
us it was Dunstan who gave the land at Paddington to the monks of
Westminster. {2a}
After specifying the gifts of proceeding Kings, and those of Edgar in
particular, Dart says, “But to return to Dunstan. Having thus influenced
the King, he goes on with his own benefactions. And first by his
Charter, takes upon him to confirm some of the gifts of Edgar, then
grants many privileges to this church, exempts it from the jurisdiction
of the Bishop of London and curses all his successors in that see, and
all others who dare to infringe its rights; and lastly releases it from
the payment of the tax called Roomscot, {2b} as Offa, Kenulph, and Edgar
had done.”
The Bishop by another charter secures the privileges of the convent, and
settles certain lands for the maintenance of the monks, viz. “Lands at
Hendon and Hanwell to the amount of twenty-eight hides.” And at
“Paddington, in the county of Middlesex, which grant was confirmed by his
own Charter, and afterwards by King Henry the Eighth, and said to contain
two hides of land.” He also granted certain lands at Merton, Perham,
Cowell, Ewell, and Shepperton—thirty seven hides in these five places.
All these grants, _with the exception of Paddington_, Dart states were
confirmed by the Charter of Edward the Confessor.
But this statement of Dart’s relative to the grant of land in Paddington
is of no value, excepting that it probably names the utmost extent of
land which the church of Westminster _ever_ got in Paddington by honest
means, since it has been convincingly proved that “the Great Charters”
both of Edgar, and Dunstan, are the fabrication of monks who lived long
after the death of the King and Bishop.
The learned Dr. Hickes has shewn that the hand in which these charters
are written, is of a later period than the time when the grants are
supposed to have been made; that the phraseology is partly Norman; that
Edgar’s Charter has the mark of a pendent seal having been attached to
it; and that, to the so called Dunstan’s Charter the waxen impression was
remaining when it was examined by him. He tells us that the practice of
attaching pendent seals is Norman; {2c} and in this opinion he is
supported by Mr. Astle, in a paper printed in the tenth volume of the
Archæologia. Mr. Kemble, in his introduction to the first volume of the
Anglo Saxon charters, p. 101, also says, “The Norman Charters are for the
most part granted under seal; those of the Saxons, never.” And although
in the introduction to the second volume, Mr. Kemble states that as to
the authenticity of several charters he does not agree in the opinion
arrived at by Dr. Hickes, yet we perceive on turning to this charter the
fatal asterisk before it, which either denotes it to be “an ascertained
forgery, or liable to suspicion.”
The Rev. Richard Widmore, for many years librarian to the Dean and
Chapter of Westminster, says, “What the privileges were that either he
(Dunstan) granted, or obtained from King Edgar, for it (the Abbey) is not
at this time to be known the Charters which now remain, both of the one
and the other, have been proved beyond all doubt to be forgeries.” {3}
This being the case, the mis-quotation of Lysons and Saunders is of very
little account, and is corrected here only for the sake of preserving
something like truth in this historical narrative.
Dart, who appears to have received Dunstan’s Charter without questioning
its authenticity, must have been struck by the omission of any mention of
Paddington in the Confessor’s Charter; and he seems to have been
persuaded of the necessity of producing some kingly authority for the
enjoyment of these lands from the time of Dunstan, as he states, to the
dissolution of the convent—a period of nearly six-hundred years; for he
adds to the sentence, already quoted, and as though it was an after
thought, “King Stephen afterwards confirmed this manor and liberties
granted with it, and after him King Henry the second.”
How these Kings “confirmed this manor” we are not told, neither do I know
what documents Dart could have seen, to induce him to make this
assertion. In the only Charter of Stephen’s to the Abbey, to be found in
the Monasticon, there is no confirmation of this manor or any mention of
it. Neither is there any Charter of Henry the Second’s to the Abbey to
be found in that great work. If Dart simply intended that these Kings
confirmed to the Abbey all the charters then existing, he is, in all
probability, right; but if he wished it to be understood that there was
any special grant of this manor I think we may fairly dismiss this
unsupported assertion without any further consideration. And we may do
this the more readily, because Widmore, the most trustworthy author who
has ever written on the Abbey, tells us, that Dart was much more of a
poet than an antiquarian, and that his “pompous work” contains errors in
almost every page.
In speaking of the fabricated documents which the Westminster monks left
behind them, Widmore has well said,—“Such forgery, tho’ it be an ugly
charge against any, whether single persons or bodies of men, yet the
thing, in this case, is too manifest to be denied or doubted of; and the
monks of Westminster were not alone in such practices; it was a general
Thing, and the Fault of the Times; and it is said, in mitigation of it,
that the Norman Conquerors made it as it were necessary, by disregarding
the Old Saxon Charters of Lands and Privileges, and reducing the Monks to
the hard condition of either losing what belonged to them, or defending
it by forged instruments in Latin. But when Persons give themselves
Leave to defend even a good Title by undue means, they seldom know where
to stop, and the success at first emboldens them to enlarge beyond all
Reason. And tho’ I do not think that in this Practice the whole was
Fiction and Invention, they only added what they imagined would more
especially serve their Purpose; yet by this means they have destroyed the
certainty of History and left those who come after them no better Help,
in separating the Truth from Fables, than conjecture and not altogether
improbable supposition.”
From what has been said, it is evident that it will not do to rely on the
authorities above referred to for an account of the acquisition of the
Abbey lands in Paddington.
Fortunately, however, there are documents of a very ancient date on which
some reliance can be placed; and thanks to the enlightened liberality of
the Commons of England, and the untiring industry of those gentlemen
engaged by the Record Commissioners, many of these documents have been
made readily available for the uses of the public. {4}
One of the Saxon Chroniclers is reported to have said, the survey, taken
by order of William the Conqueror, was so accurate “that not a hide or
yardland, not an ox, cow, or hog, was omitted in the census.” And
although we may not be able to believe that the Conqueror’s scrutiny was
thus minute, yet the Dom Boc, or Domesday Book, has been always looked
upon as a document worthy of much confidence. The inquisitors were
appointed to enquire “Upon the oath of the sheriffs, the lords of each
manor, the presbyters of every church, the reves of every hundred, the
bailiffs and six villains of every village, into the name of the place,
who held it in the time of King Edward, who was the present possessor,
how many hides in the manor, &c., &c.” {5a}
If these directions were carried out, and faithfully entered, we should
expect to find some account in this document of the Abbey possessions in
Paddington, if any such existed at the time this survey was taken. But
Mr. Saunders is perfectly correct in stating that no mention is made
either of this place, or of Westbourn, or Knightsbridge, in the Domesday
Book.
In the hundred of Osulvestane (Ossulston) the King held twelve acres and
a half of land, worth five shillings, claimed by no one. He had also in
this hundred “thirty cottagers who pay fourteen shillings and ten pence
and one half-penny a year;” and two other cottagers belonging to Holburne
paying “twenty-pence a year to the King’s Sheriff.” {5b}
“In the village where the Church of St. Peter is situated,” there were at
the time of this survey, forty-one cottagers who paid forty shillings to
the Convent for their gardens. And the land in and around the village of
Westminster which belonged to the Abbey amounted in all to thirteen hides
and a half; valued at eight pounds per annum. The whole in King Edward’s
time twelve pounds. {5c}
The manor of Kensington answered for ten hides; and was held by Aubrey de
Ver. Lilestone answered for five hides; Tybourn for five hides;
Willesden for fifteen, with pannage for five hundred hogs; and Chelsea
{5d} and Hampstead are duly accounted for. But Paddington in Middlesex
is not named. A manor of “Padendene” existed at this time, and is
mentioned in the survey, but it was situated in the county of Surrey; and
singularly enough was shortly after held by the same family—the De
Veres—who held Kensington, and who afterwards, also, held Tybourn.
Were there, then, no dwellings, no cultivated lands in Middlesex known by
the name of Paddington, in 1086—the date of the Conqueror’s survey? Was
Paddington at this period an uncultivated portion of the great Middlesex
Forest; or did a few of the King’s cottagers live here, unnoticed and
unknown, before this scrutiny discovered them? Were the broad acres,
subsequently claimed by the monks of Westminster, accounted for in the
territories of the neighbouring lords; or did they form but a portion of
the home domain of the Convent? Was the village, and the land, known by
any other name?
Of all these possible suppositions, which is the most probable?
To enter fully into a discussion of these questions would require a
greater amount of antiquarian knowledge than I possess; and would occupy
more space in this work than I can spare. To obtain an answer to the
last question satisfactory to my own mind, it is true I have made some
researches, and I will, as concisely as possible, convey to my readers
the opinions at which I have arrived; detailing in this place only so
many of the topographical facts as may be necessary to shew upon what
foundations those opinions have been formed.
We know, from Fitz Stephen, that an immense forest, “beautified with wood
and groves,” but “full of the lairs and coverts of beasts and game,
stags, bucks, boars, and wild bulls,” {6a} existed even in the twelfth
century at no great distance from what then constituted London. Small
portions only of this forest appear to have been, at any time, the
property of the crown. It formed a part of the public land which was
entrusted to the charge of the elected governors of the people. In it
the citizens had free right of chase, preserved by many royal charters:
it was disafforested by Henry the third in 1218. {6b} And during the
Saxon period it would have been no difficult matter to have obtained a
settlement even in the most desirable parts of it. To shew the extent of
this forest in Middlesex, and the paucity of fixed inhabitants in it,
when for the purposes of government, families arranged themselves into
tens, and hundreds, we have only to remember that the Hundred of
Ossulston occupied nearly half the county; although it included both
London and Westminster.
The Fleete, the Tybourn, and the Brent, were the three notable streams
which carried the waters from the hills north of the Thames through this
forest to the great recipient of them all. And it is probable that the
Saxons early settled on the elevated banks of these streams, finding
there a more healthful and safer retreat than could be found on the banks
of “the silent highway” which was so frequently traversed by the Danes.
Another powerful inducement existed in this locality to fix the wandering
footsteps of the emigrant. Two roads made through the forest by the
skill of the previous conquerors of the country, united in this spot; and
remained to show the uncultivated Saxon, what genius and perseverance
could effect. These having served the purpose of a military way to
conduct the Roman Legions from south to north, and from east to west,
were now ready to be used in aid of civilized life. And it is scarcely
conceivable that a spot so desirable could have remained long unoccupied
by the seekers of a home.
This locality is the present site of Paddington by whatever name it was
then called. And it was, in all probability, at a very early period of
our history occupied by the Saxon settler.
The question whether those who settled here were conveyed with the soil
to some spiritual, or temporal, lord, previous to, or immediately
subsequent to, the Norman conquest, cannot be so satisfactorily
determined. Traditions are at variance; documents are not trustworthy;
and names have been altered; so that two opinions may be entertained
about the things described even in the instruments which exist. There
is, however, one general rule which will assist us in coming to a correct
decision as to the boundaries we find laid down.
When the science of making and interpreting artificial signs had acquired
all the potency of a black art; when the acquisition of this art was
strictly guarded by all the rules of a craft; and when this art was used
to describe a title to lands, and to define the extent of those lands, it
still remained necessary, for the safety of those who held this
_book-land_, that the natural signs should be used, if any knowledge of
these things was to be preserved by the people, who were carefully
excluded from any dealings with so subtile an agency as the lawyer’s
quill. And I think we may safely conclude that the most prominent and
permanent objects, natural or artificial, would be invariably chosen to
point out the bounds of original settlement, when the time had come to
render land marks necessary.
We might expect, therefore, to find that the Westminster monks, in
carving out for themselves a comfortable and compact estate, would choose
for its boundaries the most prominent and permanent objects in the
neighbourhood. And in Edgar’s first Charter—_that dated six years before
Edgar was King_—we do find, with some additions, the Thames chosen for
the southern boundary; the Roman road for the northern; the Fleete for
the eastern; and the Tybourn for the western. And if we take the largest
stream between the Fleete and the Brent to have been the Tybourn, we can
readily explain how the convent claimed a manor in Chelsea; and we can
clearly understand, too, how the Norman monks read this Saxon Charter so
as to make it include the manor of Paddington—as that portion of land,
bounded by the Roman roads, and the bourn, was at one time called.
Mr. Saunders, in his “Inquiry, &c.” has come to the conclusion that the
_ancient_ Tybourn was the stream which has been _recently_ known by that
name. But I think those who will take the trouble to examine this
subject thoroughly will come to the conclusion that on this point that
inquirer has been deceived.
It is evident the facts which came under Mr. Saunders’s notice, in the
course of his inquiry, did not entirely square with the supposition which
he has adopted. And after all, he is obliged to admit that Westminster
extended, and extends, to the stream farther westward than the one he has
accepted as its western boundary. This West-bourn, or brook, I take to
be the ancient Tybourn—the western boundary of the district described in
the charter, dated 951; and the western boundary of St. Margaret’s
parish, as defined by the Ecclesiastical Decree of 1222. Lysons, writing
at the end of the last century, described the stream which crossed the
Tybourn road, now Oxford-street, as a “small bourn, or rivulet _formerly_
called Aye-brook or Eye-brook, and _now_ Tybourn-brook.”
In the maps of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries we
find but _one_ stream delineated as descending from the high ground about
Hampstead. In Christopher Saxton’s curious map of 1579; in Speede’s
beautiful little map of 1610; in John Seller’s, of 1733; in Morden’s; in
Seales’s; in Rocque’s accurate surveys; and in others of less note; we
see this stream takes the course of that brook which was at one time
called Westbourn, and which I believe was anciently called the Tybourn,
and discharges itself into the Thames at Chelsea. The Eye brook on the
other hand scarcely appeared before it came to the conduits built by the
citizens of London; it then crossed Oxford-street in the valley west of
Stratford-place, and emptied itself into a reservoir at the north-eastern
corner of “The Deer Park,” or as it is now called “The Green Park.” It
appears to have been originally very little larger than the Tychbourn
which ran down the Edgeware-road; the former carrying the waters from the
southern side of Primrose-hill, the latter from the south of Maida-hill.
The Eyebourn, however, was very much increased in size when the
superabundant supply from the conduits, which were fed by the water
brought from Tybourn, and from springs near the village of Eye, were
emptied into it. When the reservoir in the Green Park was enclosed with
brick and supplied by the Chelsea Water-works Company from the Thames,
this brook was covered in, carried beneath the old reservoir, and
converted into a sewer, and is now known by the name of the King’s
Scholars Pond Sewer; while the larger stream to the west, the Tybourn or
Westbourn, has degenerated into the Ranelagh Sewer.
There is another fact also worthy of note: Holinshed, when speaking of
the execution of the Earl of March, which took place in the reign of
Edward the third, says, that in those days the place of execution was
called “The Elmes,” but was known in his day by the name of “Tiborne.”
At the present time enough of “Elms-lane” {9} remains, at Bayswater, to
point out where the fatal Elm grew, and the gentle “Tiborne” ran.
Dr. Stukeley, and other learned antiquarians, are of opinion that the
Edgeware-road, and the Uxbridge-road, represent, very nearly, the sites
of the ancient Roman roads. Now if the Tybourn was, in truth, the same
stream as the Westbourn, the monks of Westminster had only to follow its
course from the Thames till they came to the _second_ “broad military
road” which crossed it, instead of stopping at the _first_ they met with,
(_and the charter says nothing about the first or second_), and in their
ascent up this stream, and descent by the road, they would have included
not only their Manor of Chelsea, but the Manor of Paddington also. {10a}
And if this reading of Edgar’s Charter was objected to by the Great
Chamberlain of England, or any other powerful neighbouring lord, there
was Edward’s Charter for Chelsea; {10b} and Dunstan’s for Paddington in
reserve.
But the exact time when the words “Et illud praediolum in Padingtune
aecclesiae pradictae addidi,” {10c} first formed a portion of that
“forged instrument in Latin” called Dunstan’s Charter; or when those who
cultivated the soil in this neighbourhood had to adopt their new lord,
and transfer their services from the palace to the convent, does not very
plainly appear. Undoubtedly, “a little farm in Padintun” became every
year, after the Conqueror’s survey, more and more desirable.
These forged charters, as we shall presently see, could not, of
themselves, secure the monks of Westminster their Paddington estate; and
another expedient had to be resorted to.
I have just now assumed that the inhabitants of Paddington were free
settlers, or King’s cottagers. And although this was undoubtedly the
case at first, yet by the time of the Conqueror’s survey they may have
been under the _protection_ of some mean lord. And I believe the manor
of Paddington subsequently created by the monks of Westminster, was at
this time a portion of the manor of Tybourn. For besides the evidence
already produced, to shew that Tybourn and Westbourn were synonymous
terms; we find in a legal document, even so late as 1734, that “two
messuages and six acres of land lying in the common field of Westboune,”
and three other acres, also in the same common field, are described as
being “parcel of the manor of Tyburn, and called Byard’s Watering Place.”
{11}
If, then, the districts now called Westbourn and Paddington, were
included in the manor of Tybourn in the Conqueror’s survey, it is very
evident that a rearrangement, both of these districts and the
neighbouring manors, must have taken place when the Westminster monks
established their claim to Paddington. And it is not improbable that the
lords of Chelsea, Kensington, and Tybourn, insisted upon maintaining, for
themselves and their tenants, commonable rights over the Westbourn
district.
How the monks of Westminster, in the course of time, became both
spiritual and temporal masters of the Westbourn district, can be readily
conceived by those who know anything of the power engendered by the
concentration of all knowledge into a few bodies, especially if those
bodies have a perpetual existence.
As I have before said, the monks found that their forged charters would
not sufficiently serve them legally to inherit Paddington. They were
obliged therefore to purchase the interest in the soil from at least one
of the families whose ancestors had made it valuable. This appears from
a document which I have translated below, and which is to be found in
Maddox’s Formulare Anglicanum, page 217, and which as appears by a note,
at the foot of it, this learned and indefatigable antiquary discovered in
the archives of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. The document is as
follows:—
“A final Concord of Land between the Abbot of Westminster and Richard
and William de Padinton.”
“This is the final agreement made in the Court of the Lord King at
Westminster, on the Friday next after the ascension of our Lord, in
the thirty-first year of the reign of King Henry the second, before
J. Bishop of Norwich, Ralph de Granville the Lord King’s
Justiciaries, and Richard the Treasurer, and Godfrey de Lucie, and
Hubert Walter, and William Basset, and Nigel son of Alexander, and
other faithful lieges of the King being then and there present;
between Walter Abbot of Westminster, and Richard and William of
Padinton, brothers, touching the entire tenement which they held in
Padinton, of the Church of Westminster. Whereupon it was pleaded
between them in the Court of the Lord King, namely, that the
aforesaid Richard and William have quit-claimed (given up) for ever,
for themselves and all their successors and heirs, all and the
aforesaid tenement, and whatever right they had therein, without any
reserve, to the aforesaid Church of Westminster and the Abbot, and
have restored to him the land with all its appurtenances: and for
this resignation, the Abbot aforesaid hath given to them forty marks
of silver and four allowances or maintenances, “conrediæ,” in the
Church of Westminster, two of which are for the service of the
aforesaid Richard and William for the twelve following years, and the
other two are for the service of the wives of the aforesaid Richard
and William, together with gratuities, “caritatibus,” and pittances
so long as the same women shall live.”
Maddox adds that this document “has at the top, the letters, Chiographum,
very large ones, cut through indent-wise.”
We are not informed by this instrument what was “the extent of the entire
tenement,” thus sold to the Abbot of Westminster. But it will be
observed, that the land purchased of Richard and William is said to have
been held by them “of the Church of Westminster.” From which we might
imagine, that the lordship of the soil, had been already legally
appropriated to St. Peter, did we not know that it is equally probable,
that one of the tricks of the time had been played off, to lessen the
risk of the purchased land being forfeited to the Crown.
Blackstone tells us that when a tenant—and all were tenants now, either
of the King, or some other lord,—wished to alienate his lands to a
religious house, he first conveyed them to the house, and instantly took
them back again, “to hold as tenant to the monastery.” This
instantaneous seisin, he further informs us, did not occasion forfeiture:
and, this fact being accomplished, “by pretext of some other forfeiture,
surrender, or escheat, the society entered into those lands in right of
such their newly acquired signiory, as immediate lords of the fee.” {13}
Other documents, shewing the acquisition by the Convent of other lands in
this place and Westbourn, at a later period, will be produced in the next
chapter; but this is the only one dated before the end of the twelfth
century, having any appearance of authenticity, which I have been able to
discover relative to the Abbey lands in Paddington.
The Abbot who purchased the interest of the brothers of Paddington, in
the Paddington soil, is called Walter of Winchester, to distinguish him
from another Walter, called of Wenlock, who was also an Abbot of
Westminster, but a century after this time. Of him also we shall have to
speak in the next chapter in connexion with the further extension of the
Abbey lands in Paddington.
Walter, the first, directed that the anniversary of the day on which he
died should be kept as a feast day at the Convent: and we are told that
he gave the manor of Paddington for its proper celebration. And as this
story will well serve to illustrate the manner in which much of the
property of the church was spent in those days, and, perhaps, serve also
to shew how the neighbouring proprietors were quieted for the transfer of
the lordship to this Abbot, I shall reproduce it as it was given to the
Archæological Society, on the third of May, 1804, by Dr. Vincent, a
former Dean of Westminster.
The Dean states that the account he read was taken from an ancient MS.
preserved in the archives of the Dean and Chapter. The following is the
Dean’s own translation of the manuscript in question:—
“Walter, Abbot of Westminster, died the twenty-seventh of September,
in the second year of King Richard the first, and in the year of our
Lord, 1191.
The manor of Paddington was assigned for the celebration of his
anniversary, in a solemn manner, under this form.
On the fifth of the Kalends of October (that is on the twenty-seventh
of September), on the festival of Saint Cosmas and Saint Damian, the
anniversary of Walter, the Abbot, is to be celebrated; and for the
celebration, the manor of Paddington is put wholly in the hands of
the Almoner, for the time being, and entrusted to his discretion; and
this he is faithfully to observe, that whatsoever shall be the final
overplus is to be expended charitably in distribution to the poor.
On the day of the celebration, the Almoner is to find for the
Convent, fine manchets, cakes, crumpets, cracknells, and wafers, and
a gallon of wine for each friar, with three good pittances, or doles,
with good ale in abundance at every table, and in the presence of the
whole brotherhood; in the same manner as upon other occasions the
cellarer is bound to find beer at the usual feasts or anniversaries,
in the great tankard of twenty-five quarts. {14a}
He shall also provide most honourably, and in all abundance, for the
guests that dine in the refectory, bread, wine, beer, and two dishes
out of the kitchen, besides the usual allowance. And for the guests
of higher rank, who sit at the upper table under the bell, with the
president, ample provision shall be made as well as for the Convent;
_and cheese shall be served on that day to both_. {14b}
Agreement shall likewise be made with the cook, for vessels,
utensils, and other necessaries, and not less than two shillings
shall be given over above, for his own gratification and indulgence.
The Almoner is likewise to find for all comers in general, from the
hour when the memorial of the anniversary is read to the end of the
following day, meat, drink, hay, and provender of all sorts, in
abundance; and no one either on foot or on horseback during that time
shall be denied admittance at the gate.
He shall also make allowance to the Nuns at Kilburne, both bread and
wine, as well as provisions from the kitchen, supplied on other days
by the cellarer and the cook: neither shall the Nuns lose their
ordinary allowance, on account of the extraordinary.
But the servants of the court, who are at other times accustomed to
have wine and flagons, and all those who have billets upon the
cellarer for allowances, shall receive wine and bread only from the
Almoner on this day, and not from the cellarer; they shall likewise
have a pittance from him.
But those who have a pittance from Bemfleete at other times, and
three hundred poor besides, shall have a refection on this day, that
is to say, a loaf of the weight of the Convent loaf, made of mixed
corn, and each of them that pleases a pottle of ale; and those who
have not vessels for this purpose shall take a draught at pleasure,
and two dishes from the kitchen suitable to the hospitality of the
day.
The Almoner, moreover, besides these doles, pittances, and
allowances, _shall find bread at command_, but not wine, and
therefore those who have the command never allow wine, though they
admit military men with their swords on. {15}
He is likewise bound to find bread of mixed corn, by his office, to
each of the servants, but not beer; neither is he bound to find beer
for the Convent to drink after vespers, unless he chooses it as a
special favour; neither does he usually find the collations.
But without all doubt, the president with his guests in the
refectory, have a right to wine and beer in abundance after their
refection, and the Almoner shall likewise allow mead to the Convent
for the cup of charity, the loving cup.
The Almoner, also, who is not accustomed to brew in large quantities
more than four times a year, shall take especial care to provide five
casks of the best beer for this anniversary.
Afterwards, however, a modification was made of this anniversary in
this form: namely, that every year (on the festival of the Saints
aforesaid), the Prior and the convent shall sing _the placebo_ and
_dirige_ with three lessons, as is usual on other anniversaries, and
with the chiming (or a peal) of bells. That two wax candles shall be
kept burning at the tomb of Walter, from the vigil of the anniversary
to the end of the requiem mass the following day, which the prior or
any head of the order present shall sing; and on that day the
Almoner, for the time being, shall distribute two quarters of corn in
baked bread to the poor, according to the usuage of the Convent; but
there shall be no distribution of other things, or dispensation of
alms.”
Whether the song of the monks really pleased the people as much as the
cakes and ale we are not told, but considering the present use of the
word _placebo_, we may doubt it. We are not informed either, when this
_modification_ was made; but the Dean tells us that the retrenchment was
very necessary, for the convent stood in some danger of being ruined by
anniversaries; almost every Abbot having one.
Widmore, who mentions this anniversary, tells us Dr. Patrick, the editor
of Gunton’s History of Peterborough, got his account from John Flete, the
Monkish Historian of Westminster, who died in the Convent in 1464, having
completed its history, which he wrote at the request of the monks, down
to 1386.
Of John Flete, Widmore says, in his account of the writers of the History
of Westminster Abbey, “He sets down his authorities as he found them; but
as criticism was not a study in request in his time, he neither doth, nor
was, I suppose, able to distinguish what in antiquity was true and
genuine from forgeries.” {16}
Of Walter of Winchester, the same learned writer remarks “There is little
account left what this man did while Abbot here: he seems to have been
too easy in granting out the estates of the church in fee farm: the manor
of Denham in Bucks, the tithes of Boleby in Lincolnshire, the Church of
St. Alban in Wood-street, what the Abbey had in Staining-lane and
Friday-street, and the manor of Paglesham in Essex, were so granted by
him. He seems to have been solicitous to perpetuate his memory by an
anniversary, having ordered a very pompous one, much beyond those of any
of his predecessors, and got the profits of the manor of Paddington
assigned for that purpose: but this, sometime after, being thought too
great, was very much lowered, and only loaves made of two quarters of
wheat were on that day given to the poor, by the Almoner of the Abbey.”
Richard de Croksley, who died in 1258, was still more liberal with the
funds he could no longer use, for he assigned the whole produce of the
manors of Hamstead and Stoke for the celebration of his death-day. The
ringers were paid thirteen shillings and four-pence for ringing the bells
on the eve of the anniversary; one thousand poor were to receive a penny
each on the first day; and for six subsequent days, five hundred were to
receive daily one penny, for which sixteen pounds, thirteen shillings and
four-pence was assigned; while for the arduous duties enjoined on the
monks—“for the repose of the Abbot’s soul, four monks were to celebrate
mass at four different altars every day for ever,” only twenty-seven
pounds was given. But in less than ten years after this Abbot’s death
“_the burthen of commemorating him in the way he had ordained was found
too heavy to be borne_;” and after petitioning the Pope on this subject,
and receiving his mandate thereon, this anniversary was modified and ten
marks was assigned for keeping it. {17}
From the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, made under the authority of Pope Nicholas
the fourth, and published by the Record Commissioners, we learn that a
century after the death of Walter, the whole of the temporalities of
Paddington were devoted to the purposes of charity; that they arose from
the rent of land, and the young of animals, and were valued at eight
pounds, sixteen shillings and four-pence. And the same valuable work
informs us of a chapel built and endowed in this place, at the time this
survey was taken.
In the preface to this work the following account of this taxation is
given—
“In the year 1288, Pope Nicholas the fourth, granted the tenths of
all Ecclesiastical benefices to King Edward the first, for six years,
towards defraying the expense of an expedition to the Holy Land; and
that they might be collected to their full value, a taxation by the
King’s Precept was begun in that year (1288) and finished as to the
Province of Canterbury in 1291, and as to that of York in the
following year; the whole being under the direction of John, Bishop
of Winton, and Oliver, Bishop of Lincoln.
The taxation of Pope Nicholas is a most important Record, because all
the taxes, as well to our Kings as the Popes, were regulated by it
until the survey made in the twenty-sixth year of Henry the eighth.”
During the twelfth and early part of the thirteenth centuries, disputes
of a very unseemly nature frequently took place between the Abbots of
Westminster and the Bishops of London, relative to the jurisdiction of
the latter over the Abbey, and otherwise as to their respective
privileges and districts. Another pretty good proof, as Widmore justly
remarks, that the ancient charters, so much spoken of, were mere
forgeries. These disputes were at length referred to Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, and
the Priors of Merton and Dunstaple; and in their decree, which is
published at length in Wharton’s Historia de Espiscopis et Decanis
Londinensibus, after giving the Bishop a considerable slice of the
territory which the monks had claimed in the region of the Fleete, and
fixing the boundary westward, as in Edgar’s Charter, by the Tybourn, the
following passage occurs:—“Extra veró suprá scriptas metas villæ de
Knygtebrigge, Westburne, Padyngtoun cum Capellâ, et cum earum
pertinentiis, pertinent ad Parochiam S. Margaretæ memoratum.” {18a} So
that even the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Paddington had not been
legally given to the Abbey before the thirteenth century; for this
document is dated 1222.
If we can rely on the authenticity of the passage just quoted, a chapel
must have been built here previous to that date; and now this chapel, as
the author of the Ecclesiastical Topography correctly remarks became a
Chapel of Ease to St. Margaret’s, Westminster. This writer makes the
value of the church and chapel, in 1291, only thirty marks and a half;
{18b} but in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, printed by the Record Commission,
the following entries are to be found at page 17:—
“Ecclia Sce Margarete cu Capella de Padinton £20.
Vicaria Ejusdem 8.”
No inconsiderable difference in times when the land in Paddington paid
only four-pence per acre, per annum, rent.
Whatever doubts may arise in the mind as to the accuracy of John Flete’s
story, or as to the capability of the land in Paddington to furnish the
annual feast we have described as having been appointed in 1191; it
appears from this taxation, that in 1291, a chapel was built and endowed
here; and the sum we have already mentioned given in charity.
The temporal entry in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica is as follows:
“Bona Obedienc’ Westm’ in Westmon’ £1 12 3
Elemosinar’ be redd’
Item idem in Padinton de terr’ redd’ cons’ et 8 16 4”
fet’ animaliu’
This “rent of land” was derived from those lands which had been purchased
by Walter; those which the Walter, who makes this return, had himself
obtained; and all those over which the Convent had acquired manorial
rights. And I presume any other small tithe was included in this
elemosinary item with “the young of animals.” The great tithe and the
rent of the glebe land being accounted for in the spiritual part of the
valuation.