THE POSSESSIONS OF THE CHURCH,
THE CROWN, & THE PEOPLE.
THE history of the lands which have been claimed by the Bishop of London,
and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, as their portion of the spoils
of the Convent can be completely written by those only who have free
access to all the records in the archives of St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s.
And as it would appear that the time is not yet come for placing at the
disposal of the public, for public uses, many of the important documents
held in charge by Deans and Chapters, we must be content with that
account which can be furnished by those which they have permitted us to
see, and those which more confiding holders have thrown open to our
inspection.
Most of the facts, which I have been able to discover, relative to the
acquisition of the Abbey lands in Paddington, have been already related.
One or two, however, having an important relation to the lands of the
existing church, and the possessions of the people, remain to be told.
Aubrey de Vere, “who came in with the Conqueror,” was grandfather to
Aubrey, first Earl of Oxford, and held, as we have already seen, a tract
of land called in Domesday, Chenesitun. {28} His eldest son, Geoffry
having been cured of a sickness by the Abbot of Abingdon, while grateful
for the skill and kindness shewn him, persuaded his father to bestow the
church of Kensington on that Monastery. The grant was made, and
confirmed by the next heir, Geoffry having died during his father’s
lifetime. This footing having been obtained, a subsequent Abbot claimed
the privileges of a manor for the lands given to that church. This
claim, which appears to have been set up previous to the issue of a
quo-warranto, seemed to the Earl then in possession, rather more than his
ancestors, in their liberality had given. He appears to have opposed the
claim: and it was ordered that the matter should be investigated. From
some cause or other, however, the suit did not proceed, and the _Abbot’s_
Kensington became a manor like its progenitor, the _Earl’s_ Kensington;
and so the Reformation found a goodly quantity of land firmly grasped in
the dead hands of the Abingdon monks. This good thing, however, had not
been kept wholly to themselves. They had allowed their brothers at
Westminster to have a finger in the pie. And that portion of this manor
which was set aside for charitable purposes, was intrusted to the
charitable care, of St. Peter. This portion of the Abbot’s manor was
valued, in the year 1371, at five marks; while the other portion, “the
church and vicarage,” was valued at thirty-six marks. {29}
In the patent roll which contains the grant of Henry the eighth to the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster—Pat. 34. Henry 8. P. 5. M. 32. (6)—“of
the site of the late monastery of Westminster, with all its ancient
privileges, free customs, &c., &c.,” we find, at the foot of the same
membrane, this continuation of the grant “all those messuages, lands,
tenements, meadows, pastures, feedings, rents, reversions, services, and
other our hereditaments whatsoever known by the name or names of Seynt
Mary Landes, lying and being in Westbourne, in the parish of Paddington,
in our said county of Middlesex, and now or late in the tenure or
occupation of John Genie, or his assigns, to the said late monastery of
St. Peter, Westminster, lately belonging and appertaining, and being
parcel of the possessions of the said late monastery.”
I have not been able to discover the exact extent of these lands at the
time of the reformation; or the amount of their growth during the last
three centuries; but I have many reasons for believing that these “Seynt
Mary lands lying and being in Westbourne in the parish of Paddington,”
were the self-same lands given by St. Mary of Abingdon to St. Peter of
Westminster for charitable purposes. That, in fact, this land was the
poor allotment of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington.
Out of this and another small grant the parvenu manor of “Knightsbridge
and Westbourne” was manufactured.
Besides these manors of Abbot’s Kensington, and Knightsbridge and
Westbourn, another manor, called West-town, was created out of lands
called “the Groves,” granted to “his dear and faithful chaplin, Simon
Downham,” by Robert the fifth, Earl of Oxford, in 1214.
By an inquisition, taken in 1481, we are informed that the Groves,
formerly only three fields, had extended themselves out of Kensington
into “Brompton, Chelsea, Tybourn, and Westbourne.”
“The Groves,” now a manor, passed from Richard Sturgion and William Hall
to William Essex. The Marquis of Winchester, Lord High Treasurer of
England, purchased it of Thomas Essex, for one thousand pounds, in May,
1570; and the next marquis sold it to William Dodington for seven hundred
pounds, who sold it to Christopher Baker for two thousand pounds, and it
was afterwards purchased by Walter Cope for one thousand three hundred
pounds, who attached the Groves to Abbots Kensington, which he had
purchased. {30a}
But besides the manors, which the Abbots of Abingdon, and Simon the
priest, and the Abbots and Monks of Westminster, had so nicely created
for themselves, another, called “the manor of Notingbarons, alias
Kensington,” then “Nutting Barns,” afterwards “Knotting-barns,” in
Stockdale’s new map of the country round London, 1790, “Knolton Barn,”
now Notting-barns, was carved out of the original manor of “Chenesitun.”
{30b} And from an inquisition holden in the fifteenth year of Edward the
fourth, we find that this manor remained in the hands of the De Vere’s
with Earls Kensington, when John the twelfth Earl of Oxford, and his
eldest son, Aubrey, were beheaded.
This inquisition states, that “John, late Earl of Oxon. was seized to his
own use, the fourteenth day of April, anno regni 12 Edw. IV., of the
manors of Kensington, and Knotting Barns, in the county of Middlesex, and
that afterwards, by a certain Act, made in the Parliament, which began at
Westminster, the sixth of October, in the twelfth year of the reign of
King Edward the fourth, and by several prorogations continued to the
twenty-third of January in the fourteenth year of the King, it was
decreed that the Earl should forfeit to the Lord the King all the manors,
lands, and tenements which he, or any one to his use had, and that the
manors of Kensington were accordingly forfeited. The jurors say the said
manor of Kensington is worth, in all issues, beyond outgoings,
twenty-five marks per annum; and that from the fourteenth day of April,
anno twelve, the issues and profits have been and are taken and received
by Richard, Duke of Gloucester, but by what right or title they know
not.” {31}
By this inquisition we perceive that these manors were no longer held by
the De Vere’s in virtue of their office of Lord Great Chamberlain; but
that this Earl died, possessing the manors “_seized to his own use_.”
And by an Act of the eleventh year of Henry the seventh, we find out what
the jurors did not know, viz.—That the widow of the beheaded Earl, “by
compulcion, cohercion, and emprisonement,” while her son was suffering
for his support of the Lancastrian cause, was obliged to release to
Richard “late in dede, and not of right, King Englond, while he was Duke
of Gloucetir,” divers manors, lands, &c. &c. This being in all
probability one of them.
When the said Richard had been dispatched in Bosworth field, and Henry
the seventh had ascended the throne, these acts of the usurpers
“inordynate covetyse, and ungodly disposicion” were quietly put aside by
regular Acts of Parliament. And by the first and eleventh of Henry the
seventh, not only this Earl of Oxford, but all his family, were
reinstated in their estates, honors and dignities. And by the latter act
the compulsory release which Richard had obtained from Elizabeth,
Countess of Oxenford, was rendered null and void. But during all these
troubles the Earl appears to have got into debt, to discharge which he
appears to have sold “a messuage, four hundred acres of land, five acres
of meadow, and one hundred and forty acres of wood in Kensington.”
In giving us this information, Mr. Faulkner also tells us that the estate
was recovered by “The Great Marshall of England,” and sold to Sir
Reginald Bray for four hundred marks. He also corrects a mistake into
which Lysons has fallen; and shews that it could not have been the
original portion of the manor, or the manor of Earl’s Court, that was
sold, and suggests that it may have been “one of the smaller manors of
West-town or Knotting Barns.” But Lysons and Faulkner throw no further
light on this subject.
The truth being that it was this manor of Notting Barns which was
purchased by Sir Reginald, or Sir Reynolde as it is frequently written;
and it was this manor which the generous Lady, in whose service he was
engaged for so many years, purchased of him to complete the establishment
of her munificent foundations.
Widmore tells us that this lady, Margaret Countess of Richmond, mother of
King Henry the seventh, obtained a licence of Mortmain for one hundred
and fifty pounds per annum, and that she proceeded so far as to convey
ninety pounds of it to the Convent of Westminster, for the purpose of an
anniversary for herself, for three monks to celebrate mass in the Abbey
Church, and for the payment of the salaries of the professors founded by
her in the two universities, and her Cambridge preacher. And we learn by
her will, and by the Valor Ecclesiasticus, that besides the establishment
of these professorships, ten pounds per annum was to be given to the poor
out of the estates she left for these purposes. We also learn by her
will, and by an entry in that Ecclesiastical valuation, which was taken
by order of her grandson, in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, that a
considerable portion of the land given by the Lady Margaret, for the
purposes named, then lay in Paddington.
In her will, we find, after the notice of the “licence given unto us by
the King our Soverain Lord and most dere son,” and the mention of lands
at Drayton, Woxbrig (Uxbridge), and other places, the following words,
“and also diverse londs and tenements in Willesden, Padington, Westbourn
and Kensyngton, in the county of Midd’x, which the said Abbot, Prior, and
Convent, at their owne desire, and by their entire assents and consents,
have accepted and taken of us” at such a “yerely valow,” and for such
purposes, as therein specified.
We also find in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of Henry the 8th, under the
heading—
“Fundacio Domine Margaret, Comitisse Richmond.
MIDD’.”
and after the mention of property at Drayton, Uxbridge, and Willesden, to
the amount of fifteen pounds, six shillings and eight-pence, these words—
“Et tenet’ in Padington . . £10.” {32}
And in the fifth folio of 441 Lansdowne Manuscripts, the indentures
entered into by the Abbot of Westminster and the Lady Margaret Countess
of Richmond respecting the disposal of her property, we find the same
fact thus stated:—“and also dyvers landes and tenements in Willesden,
Padyngton, Westburn, and Kensington in the countie of Midd. which maners,
landes and tenements the said Princes late purchased of Sr Reynolde Bray,
Knight.”
I think this evidence is sufficiently conclusive to prove that this manor
of Notting Barns, sold to Sir Reginald Bray, was purchased by the Lady
Margaret for the purposes of her bequests.
It is true that this notable Knight and most noble mason, {33a} sold
another estate “for 400 marc steryling,” which is described as “lying and
being in Tybourne, Lilliston, Westbourn, Charying, and Eye.” But this
was sold “to Thomas Hobson, gent.;” and called “the maner of Maribone,”
which is said to have consisted of “all the meses, lands, tenements, &c.
which were of Robert Styllington, late Bishop of Bath and Welles and of
Thomas Styllyngton cosyn and Heyre of the same Robert.” {33b}
It may also be true that Sir William, afterwards Lord Sands, or Sandys,
succeeded by the aid of William, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord
Chancellor of England, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, “and
divers other friends of both parties,” in dividing the great property
left by Sir Reginald Bray, between himself and the nephews to whom Sir
Reginald had left it in his will. And it is perfectly true that Sir
William, who “had married the daughter and heir of Sir Reginald’s elder
brother John,” came into the possession of property in Paddington by this
Star Chamber decision. But this was through his having had the manor of
Chelsea as a portion of his share of Sir Reginald’s lands assigned to
him.
Neither this “honest country lord,” this “merry gamester,” whom
Shakspeare has immortalized, nor the “Gent.” whose choice is still a
proverb, held land in Paddington long. Both Lord Sands, and Thomas
Hobson, exchanged their lands and manors of Chelsea, and Marylebone, with
Henry the eighth, for other manors and lands; and the manor of Chelsea
with those lands in Paddington which had belonged to Lord Sands were
settled on Katherine, the widowed queen of the many-wived murderous
monarch.
The beautiful, and perfectly preserved, illuminated indenture, in the
Lansdowne collection, B.M., to which I have just now refered, more fully
than the Countess’s will, which was printed in 1780, with other royal
wills of an anterior date, details the donor’s desires with respect to
the property she had disposed of. How far those desires and wishes have
been carried out, others can tell much better than I can. No expense or
pains appears to have been spared by the munificent donor to make her
bequest in accordance with the law, and so far as her knowledge went,
useful to posterity. Her Cambridge and Oxford professors are still
known. But where is her grant to the poor? Are her professors still
paid the stipends she fixed for them; or do the readers and the preachers
divide between them the large estates she left? Where is that large
estate in Paddington, which was valued in her grandson’s reign at the
exact amount she left to the poor?
Besides the charitable bequests made by the Countess of Richmond, she
left “divers other parcels of the same maners, londes, &c.” valued at six
pounds, thirteen shillings and four-pence per annum to her faithful
servant Elizabeth Massey; and we find an account of “part of the descent
of Massye, of Paddington,” down to 1626, in the Harlein collection of
MSS. No. 2012, p. 45.
The first authentic document I find relating to the Notting Barns manor
after it was disposed of by the Countess of Richmond is an inquisition,
taken at Westminster on the ninth of October, in the seventeenth year of
the reign of Henry the eighth, after the death of Robert Roper, or
Fenroper, citizen and alderman of London. {34}
From this inquisition we learn that “The manor called Notingbarons, alias
Kensington, _in the parish of Paddington_, was held of the Abbot of
Westminster as of his manor of Paddington by fealty and twenty-two
shillings rent;” that the manor at this time “consisted of forty acres of
land, one hundred and forty acres of meadow, two hundred acres of wood,
twenty acres of moor, twenty acres of furze and heath, and forty
shillings rent; and that it was valued by the jurors at _ten pounds per
annum_.” This manor, a lease of which had been, in all probability,
purchased of the Abbot by the aforesaid Robert, was left by the Alderman
to his wife for life, “Remainder to Henry White, gent., and Etheldreda
his wife, one of his three daughters and co-heirs.” {35a}
What “arrangement” was made at the time of the Reformation with respect
to this manor I cannot precisely tell; but its further history, so far as
I have been able to trace it, is not without interest.
Lysons tells us in his account of Paddington, that “a capital messuage
called Westbourne-place, with certain lands thereto belonging was granted
by Henry the eighth, in 1540, to Robert White;” and he refers to the
Augmentation Office, but to no special record there, for his authority.
This grant I have not been able to find. But in his account of
Kensington, Lysons says Henry White, the son-in-law of the alderman, “in
the year 1543 conveyed the manor of Knotting Barns to the King.”
By a deed of exchange recited in Pat 34. Henry 8th. P. 8., M. 13 (15), I
find that the King purchased _Robert_ White’s interest in this manor, and
that “the said Robert White, esquire, having bargained and sold the manor
of Nutting Barnes, with the appurtenances, in the county of Middlesex,
and the farm of Nutting Barnes, in the parish of Kensyngton, and the
capital messuage with the appurtenances called Westbourne in the parish
of Paddington, in the same county, and also the wood and lands called
Nutting Wood, Dorkyns-Hernes, and Bulfre Grove, in the parish of
Kensington, as also two messuages and tenements in Chelsaye, with all
other the possessions of the said Robert White, in the same places and
parishes; and in consideration of one hundred and six pounds, five
shillings and ten pence” had other lands conveyed to him, by the King, in
other places, as fully set forth in the patent above referred to. {35b}
It will be observed, that in this document, which is of a later date than
the dissolution of the monastery, a portion of this manor is now said to
be in the parish of Kensington. It appears that the manor was made up of
two farms (over and above the small tenements), one called Notting Barns,
and the other Westbourn; and we find from a manuscript document, dated
thirty-eighth Henry the eighth, {36a} that the “messuage called
Westbourne, with the lands purchased of Robert White,” were demised to
one Thomas Dolte, at a rent of one hundred shillings per annum; the same
sum on which this Thomas Dolte was charged in the subsidy levied in the
sixteenth year of this reign. {36b} This farm appears to have been but
half the manor purchased by the Countess of Richmond, and this half
remained in the parish of Paddington, while the Notting Barns farm seems
to have been considered a part of Kensington, after the Reformation.
From this M.S. in the land revenue office we also learn that Henry the
eighth purchased the then existing interest in other lands in this
parish, and in the parishes of St. Margaret, Westminster, and Kensyngton,
of one John Dunnington. The gross rental of which I find was put down at
nine pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence; “from which there was an
allowance, for lands inclosed within the king’s park of Hyde, of
twenty-eight shillings per annum; leaving the clear yearly value of eight
pounds five shillings and fourpence.” The same document shews, too, that
a separate rent of forty-one pounds six shillings and eightpence was
received for the manor and rectory of Paddington.
Faulkner states that “in 1549 king Edward the sixth, granted this manor
or farm of Notting Barns to Sir William Pawlet, earl of Wiltshire,” at a
rent of sixty shillings per annum. In 1562, and 1587, it appears to have
been in the hands of the lord treasurers of England, the marquis of
Winchester and lord Burghley. From lord Burghley it passed to Sir Thomas
Cecil who sold it to Sir Walter Cope of Kensington; and in 1601 the queen
“granted a pardon to the said Walter Cope, for the sum of six pounds, in
consideration that the above alienation had been made without her
majesty’s licence.” {36c}
Thus the Notting Barns manor was claimed by the crown and by private
individuals; and so this portion of the Lady Margaret’s gift was disposed
of.
But with “the messuage called Westbourne, and the lands purchased of
Robert White,” we have something more to do.
Thomas Hues, esquire, doctor of medicine, one of queen Mary’s “principal
physicians,” purchased of that queen and others, a considerable quantity
of land, in this and the adjoining parishes, fully described in Escact,
2. Eliz. part 2. No. 23, which he gave to his wife for her life, “And in
remainder to the Wardens and Fellows of Martyn (Merton) college in
Oxford, for the purpose of founding within the said college for evermore
two apt and meet persons to be Fellows of the Fellowship of the said
College. Or else three scholars, or four, as the land will extend unto,
at such times as the same shall come to the hands and possession of the
said Warden and Fellows of the said college or to their successors for
the time being; to have continuance and succession within the said
college as fellows or scholars thereof for evermore. There to be found,
governed, and used with the revenues of the said lands, and to be brought
up and educated in virtue and good learning according to the rules, good
order, and diet of the said College, whereby other the Fellows or
Scholars of the said House have in time past been well governed, ordered,
ruled and brought up.”
By Pat. 2. Mary, P. 1, we learn other particulars respecting the
messuages, tenements, &c., which were purchased by Dr. Hues. We find the
cost of the whole to have been three hundred and forty-six pounds, one
shilling and eight-pence halfpenny; that they were purchased of various
owners; and that “a message and tenement called Westbourne” was included
in the purchase, and that “four closes of land called by the names of
Darking Busshes, Holmefield, Balserfield, and Baudeland, and six acres of
arable land lying apart in the common fields; and six acres of arable
land lying apart in the fields called Dowries, all in the parish of
Paddington” were purchased of the crown.
As a description of these four closes of land is still preserved in the
Harleian M.SS. No. 606, f. 46 b., I have thought it right to translate
and print it in this place, it is as follows:—
“A parcel of the possessions of the late lord Sands.
County of Middlesex.”
“An account of four pasture closes in and near Paddington in the
county aforesaid, containing, by estimation, fifty acres, lately in
the tenure of John Kellet by indenture for a term of years.
“One.—A close called Darking Busshes {38} lying between the close
called Sunhawes on the southern side, and between the field called
Wrenfelde on the northern side, and extending in length over the
green called Kellsell Greene on the eastern side, and over the land
belonging to Notting-barns called Dorkinghernes on the western side.
“Another. A close called Homefelde and extending above the road
leading from Paddington to Harlestone on the eastern side, and above
the close called Reding-meade on the western side, and abutting upon
the close called Church-close on the southern and western sides, and
upon the angle of Reding-meade aforesaid on the northern side.
“Another close called Balserfeld, extending in length upon a piece of
land called Lytle Balserfeld on the northern side, and upon a close
called Horsecreste and Ponde-close on the southern side, and on one
head of the land abutting upon the west-lane on the western side, and
upon Reding-meade aforesaid on the eastern side.
“Another close called Bandelonds lying between the close called
Swanne lease and Three acres on the northern side, and a close called
Downes on the southern side, and one head abutting upon a close
called Abbot’s-lease, and upon the Green-lane or Kingefelde-green on
the eastern side, and upon the close of Notting-barnes on the western
side.
They are worth £4.”
The following memorandum is added to this description:—
“Mem.—_That the rent of the premises is paid to the bayliffe of
Chelsey albeit it lyith nother within Town nor parisshe of Chelsey
but within the parisshe of Paddington_, _ij myle from Chelsey_. What
mynes, leade, or other commodytes ar apon the premisses I know not.
The same are no parcel of th’ auncyent demeans of the Crown, or of
the Duches of Lanc. or Cornewall, the Quene hath no more lond in
Paddyngton but only these iiij closes.
Ex. per me Alexandrum Hewes superius.”
“xiii mo. of Maie 1557 Rated for Mr. Hues one of the Quenes mties
phicisions.
“The clere yerely value of the premesises iiii li whiche rated at
xxvi yeres purchace ammountethe to ciiij li.
“The money to be paid in hand viz before the xxvi of Maie 1557. The
King and Quenes ma.. do dischardge the purchacer of all thinges and
incumbraunces made or don by their majesties except leases. The
purchacer to have the ’ssues from the fest of Th’ annuncyation of our
Lady last past. The purchaser to discharge the King and Quenes
majesties of all fees and reprises goying out of the premisses. The
tenure in socage. The purchacer to be bound for the woodes. The
leade and belles to be excepted.
Ex. Willm Petre. Fraunceis Inglefield. Jo Bakere.”
These were the closes in Paddington then, which belonged to Lord Sands;
and it will be seen by this memorandum, and by the patent, that although
this land was considered a part of Chelsea manor, it was no part of
Chelsea parish at that time. {39}
In 1536, Lord Sands alienated the advowson of Chelsea and his manor of
Chelsea to the King, in exchange for other lands. By the words of this
transfer, which is printed from the original document in Faulkner’s
Chelsea, {40} we find, that the hereditaments conveyed to the King lay
“in the parish of Chelcheth aforesaid and Paddington.” And in “A
peticular booke of Chelsey manor 1554,” relative to the possessions of
Queen Katherine, we find these four closes “in Paddington,” mentioned as
having been then let at four pounds per annum, to Henry White.
Faulkner speaks of the transfer of the manor of Chelsea to Edward the
sixth by the Duke of Northumberland, and of other surrenders backwards
and forwards; but neither in his works nor in Lysons can I find anything
about Dr. Thomas Hues’ purchase; or one word about his gift to Merton.
Neither can I find any notice of this liberal bequest in any of the
Histories of the University of Oxford which I have examined.
What “arrangement,” then has been come to respecting this property? Are
any learned fellows or poor scholars benefitted by this physician’s
bequest? Or, is this estate like the other portion of the Lady
Margaret’s gift, safely lodged in private hands?
I must confess that I am not able to answer these questions.
But it would appear that the large and valuable estates bequeathed by the
Countess of Richmond and Dr. Hues do not include the whole of the
“College Land” in Paddington.
Lysons in his Environs, and Chalmers in his History of the University of
Oxford, tell us that the Manor of Malurees, “consisting of some houses
and about one hundred and twenty acres of land,” situated in the parishes
of Willesden, Paddington, Chelsea, and Fulham, was surrendered by Thomas
Chichele to King Henry the sixth, who granted it to the Warden and
Fellows of All Souls College in Oxford; and this grant has not been
wholly lost to this College, for I believe that down to the present day a
rent is paid to All Souls for some portion of this land.
One of the most important preliminaries to the great Reformation was the
institution of a new valuation of church property.
The King and people, saw how inefficiently Pope Nicholas’s taxation
represented the value of church property in the sixteenth century, for if
it had not progressed in value in the same proportion as other property,
still the difference between the values in Edward and Henry’s time, was
very considerable; and it required no conjuror to tell that the clergy
had ceased to pay their fair quota towards the national expenditure.
Yet the difference between the Pope’s valuation and the reforming King’s,
is far less than the actual value of church property in Queen Victoria’s
reign and that which is entered on “the King’s books.” It is true that
the clergy are now taxed differently from what they were before the
Reformation; and that “the first fruits and tenths” no longer go into the
national exchequer. But “the Queen’s bounty” would find the benefit of a
valuation taken in our Queen’s reign; and if this payment of first fruits
and tenths was anything like what it pretended to be, the whole of the
first year’s income, and the tenth of all future years, those who
dispense that bounty would not have to be so parsimonious in their
assistance to the poorer clergy.
To the Record Commission we owe the publication of that valuation which
was taken by King Henry the eighth, as well as that taken by Pope
Nicholas the fourth.
In addition to the quotation I have already given from the former
valuation, the following entries are to be found in it relative to
Paddington:—
Officium Saccristi Westm’
MIDD’.
_£_ _s._ _d._
Rector’ de Padington ,, 46 8
Officium Elemosinar’ Westm’
MIDD’.
Valet in bosc’ apud Padington coibus annis „ 20 „
Officium Custod’ Capelle Beate Marie
MIDD’.
Vendic’ bosc’ apud Padington coibs annis ,, 20 ,,
Novum Opus Westm’
Maneriu de Padington „ 19 „
The year after this survey was taken, all monasteries, priories, and
other religious houses, whose possessions did not amount to two hundred
pounds per annum, were given by the twenty-seventh of Henry the eighth,
chap. 28, with all their manors, lands, &c. to the King and his heirs for
ever.
By this Act, the lands belonging to Kilbourn Priory became the property
of the crown; and in the following year these lands were exchanged to Sir
William Weston, the prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, for
the manor of Paris Garden in Southwark. The twenty-eighth of Henry the
eighth, chap. 21, which recites the indenture relative to this exchange,
states that the demesne lands of the said priory were “in Kylbourne
aforesaid, Hamstedd, Padyngton and Westbourn.” And besides these demesne
lands, other lands and wood, with “one woode conteynying by estimation
twenty-nine acres,” are also said to be “set and beynge in Kylborne and
Padyngton aforsayde.” So that it would appear the nuns of Kilbourn as
well as the monks of Westminster had possessions in this parish.
By the thirty-first of Henry the eighth, chap. 13, the larger monasteries
shared the same fate as the smaller ones had done, and the Abbey lands of
this place, and those formerly belonging to the priory, reverted again to
the crown.
In the account which was rendered to the King by the ministers appointed
to receive the revenues which came to the crown on the dissolution of
Religious Houses, we find the value of the other church property in this
parish, set down thus:—
_£_ _s._ _d._
Knyghtsbrydge et Westborne Firm’ Terr’ 2 6 8
Knyghtebrydge, Kensyngton et Firm’ 5 14 11
Westbourne
Pquis Cur 0 6 4½
I have extracted this account from the Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i,
page 326, where these sums are repeated thus:—
_£_ _s._ _d._
Maniu de Knyghtebridge et Westbourne Firm’ 2 6 8
Terr’
Westborne, Knightsbridge et Kensington Man 5 14 11
Redd et Firm
Pquis Cur 6 8½
But the Crown had other possessions in Paddington besides those which
fell to it by the suppression of Religious Houses.
We have already seen that Henry the eighth obtained land here by exchange
and purchase, from Lord Sands, Thomas Hobson, John Dunnington, and Robert
White.
We have also seen that those lands which were purchased of Lord Sands and
Robert White by the crown were sold to Dr. Hues, and given by him with
other lands to Martyn College, Oxford.
Some part of those lands purchased of John Dunnington went to increase
the park made by Henry the eighth, viz. Hyde Park; but what became of the
remainder I have not been able to discover.
What Henry the eighth did with the manor and rectory of Paddington will
be seen by the following translation of a portion of a legal instrument
still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride. {43}
“Inrolments of Leases 35. 36. Henry VIII. P. 65.
“On the seventh of January, in the thirty-second year of his reign,
the King, by an indenture and release, bearing that date, did, by the
advice and counsel of the court, for augmenting the revenues of his
crown, demise, grant and farm let, to Edward Baynton, knight, _and
Isabella his wife_, all the site and capital messuage of the manor of
Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, and all houses, edifices,
barns, stables, dovecotes, orchards, gardens and curtilages adjacent
to the said site and capital messuage. And also all lands, meadows,
pastures, commons, and hereditaments, commonly called the demesne
lands of the manor aforesaid; and another messuage and tenement with
appurtenances in the tenure of Edward North, esquire, situate and
being in Padyngton, in the county aforesaid. And all lands, manors,
feedings, pastures, commons, and hereditaments whatsoever in
Padyngton in the county aforesaid to the said messuage and tenement
belonging and appertaining, or with the messuage and tenement
occupied and being. Also all the rectory of Padyngton in the said
county of Middlesex; and all and every tenth, oblation, profit,
commodity, and emolument whatsoever to the said rectory in any sort
belonging or appertaining; which said manor, rectory, messuage,
lands, tenements, etcetera, were part of the possessions of the late
dissolved monastery of St. Peter, Westminster, and which were
formerly let to the aforesaid Edward North, for a term of years; but
excepting always and reserving for our Lord the King, his heirs and
successors, all large trees and wood of and upon the premises growing
and being, to have and to hold all and singular the premises above
specified with their appurtenances, except as before expressed, to
Edward and Isabella, and their assigns, from the feast of the
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, next following, until the
end of the term, and for a term of twenty one years next following
and fully completed; rendering thence annually to our Lord the King,
his heirs and successors, forty-one pounds, six-shillings and eight
pence, legal English money, at the feasts of St. Michael the
Archangel, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or within
one month after the said feasts, in equal portions, to the court
aforesaid, during the time aforesaid, &c., &c.”
This indenture and release, which, so far as I know, has not been noticed
before, and which certainly is not spoken of in any of the private Acts
of Parliament relating to the manor and rectory of Paddington, is recited
at length in another indenture and release, which _is_ generally referred
to, which was made and dated the twenty-first day of December, in the
thirty-fifth year of Henry’s reign. The manor and rectory of Paddington,
and that other “messuage and tenement with appurtenances in the tenure of
Edward North, esquire,” being by it demised to Richard Rede, of London,
Salter, for a new term of twenty-one years. The large trees and wood, as
was usual in such cases, being again reserved for the uses of the crown.
We have already seen by the entries in the Valor Ecclesiasticus, taken by
order of this King, that in the twenty-sixth year of Henry’s reign,
twenty shillings per annum, half the rental of the wood spoken of in this
indenture, which was then thirty acres in extent, was set apart for
charitable purposes; that the other half was appropriated to the Blessed
Mary’s Chapel; that the manor, bringing in nineteen pounds per annum, was
dedicated to “the New Work,” probably Henry the seventh’s chapel; that
the rectory was valued to the Abbey at two pounds, six shillings and
eight-pence; that the tenement formerly belonging to the Countess of
Richmond was valued at ten pounds; and that the lands at Knightsbridge
and Westbourne were valued at eight pounds, one shining and seven-pence.
We see, also, the possessions in Paddington formerly belonging to the
church produced the same rent within one shilling and seven-pence, as
these lands were valued at six years before. {44}
But the crown was not in receipt of these reserved rents more than three
or four years after Henry’s death; for his son, then about thirteen years
of age, by his letters patent, granted the manor of Paddington, with
several other manors and rectories, together, “of the clear annual value
of five hundred and twenty-six pounds, nineteen shillings, and nine-pence
farthing,” to Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and to his
successors in that see.
The following are the words in this patent which refer expressly to
Paddington—“Necnon totum illud Moneriu nrm de Paddington in dco com nro
Midd cum suis juribs membris et ptien univeis nup Monasteio Sci Petri
Westm modo dissolut dudam spectan et ptinen ac parell possessionu et
revencionu ejusdem nup Monastei dudam existen.”
Newcourt, in his Repertorium, page 703, says “The manor and rectory of
Paddington (which of old did belong to the Monastery of Westminster) were
by Edward the sixth, in the fourth year of his reign, upon his dissolving
the Bishoprick of Westminster then lately erected by King Henry the
eighth, given to Dr. Nicholas Ridley, then Bishop of London, and his
successors for ever.” From this one might imagine that Paddington had
formed part of the possessions of that short-lived see; which, indeed,
Lysons, in his Environs, and Mr. Brewer, in his “London and Middlesex,”
distinctly state, but of this I find no evidence whatever; and the words
of the patent itself, convey a different impression. There are in this
patent other places mentioned as having formed part of that see, but as
it will be observed, Paddington is stated to have formerly belonged to
the Monastery. It will be observed too, that the rectory is not
mentioned in the extract from the grant which I have given, neither do I
find it anywhere else alluded to, specially, as is the case with certain
other rectories given by this patent. But the spiritualities in all the
places named, appear to have been given in general terms to the Bishop.
When, with Newcourt, we use the word “given,” we must not do the advisers
of the young King the injustice to suppose that no reservation of the
rights of the crown was provided for in this open letter; that indeed
would be an injustice, for besides the payment of certain specified sums,
to certain specified persons and officers an annual rent equal to
one-fifth of the sum remaining to the Bishop was to be paid by him to the
King, at his Court of First Fruits and Tenths every Christmas day. Which
annual rent was in lieu of the first fruits and tenths paid by all
bishops and incumbents. {45}
In estimating the first fruits of the manors and rectories granted by the
crown to Ridley, at one-tenth of the income they brought in, no hard
bargain was struck with the bishop; indeed the calculation was evidently
favourable to the future occupants of the see. For not only did this
mode of receiving the first fruits do away with the inconvenience arising
from having to pay a whole year’s income at once, a system which
formerly, when these first fruits bore something like a resemblance to
the actual annual income, compelled many a poor man to mortgage his
living, and involve himself and family in endless difficulty, but it was
actually a bonus to the bishops; for those who made the calculation must
have known that the seven bishops who preceded Ridley held the See of
London but fifty-four years. {46a}
Intending, without doubt, to be liberal to the bishops, and at the same
time just to the crown, the calculation of the proper sum to be paid in
lieu of first fruits was made without any reference to the possible, or
probable, augmentation of the income from the lands then granted. The
advisers of the young King knew that with the assistance of parliament
fresh arrangements could be made with future occupants of the see; and
they fixed the sum to be paid to the crown at one hundred pounds per
annum, _as the then fair proportion for all the lands given by this
patent_.
This sum has been paid for these possessions ever since that time, as I
am informed, though the revenue they produce has increased upwards of
four thousand per cent.
Whatever was the intention of the advisers of the young king, however, in
this regard, one thing is pretty clear, viz. that Ridley, and several of
his successors, received from the manor and rectory of Paddington, not
forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence, the sum at which the
manor was then let, but that sum, minus one-fifth, deducted by the crown.
{46b}
Strype tells us {46c} that in exchange for the grants contained in this
patent the bishop gave up to the crown other lands to the annual value of
four hundred and eighty pounds, three shillings and ninepence, and Ridley
has been blamed for making this exchange; Strype, however, has well
defended him, and shewn that the see was in reality the gainer even at
the time the exchange was made; and if the present values of the
exchanged lands were compared I think it would be found that the
successors of Ridley had not lost by his bargain.
There is still preserved in the Record Office, Carlton Ride, {47a} a
manuscript record which shews that Henry Rede held the manor of
Paddington in the ninth year of Elizabeth’s reign. The reserved rent
being as before, forty-one pounds, six shillings and eightpence. But the
wood was not included even in this second lease to Rede, supposing he had
one; for we are informed by this document that the rent was increased
twenty shillings, “for the farm of one wood called Paddington Wood, thus
demised this year.” {47b} And this omission does not appear to have been
accidental, for I found in another manuscript in the same office {47c} a
memorandum dated November 26th, 1561, to this effect: “To speak to Mr.
Barton touching a certain wood at Paddington.” So that the mode of
disposing of this wood had evidently been under consideration.
The following is the account of the descent of the manor of Paddington
given by Lysons:—
“The manor of Paddington was leased in the reign of Henry the eighth
to Richard Reade for a long term, which being expired, Bishop Abbot
demised it in the year 1626, (together with the capital mansion and
rectory) to Sir Rowland St. John, fifth son of Oliver Lord St. John,
of Bletsoe), for the lives of himself, his wife Sibyl, and their son
Oliver. Sir Rowland, died in 1645. The next year a survey of the
manor was taken by order of Parliament; which states the demesne
lands to have been six hundred and twenty-four acres, the reserved
rent forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight-pence. The great
house in which Sir Rowland St. John had lived was then in the
occupation of Alderman Bide. The manor was afterwards sold by the
Parliamentary Commissioners to Thomas Browne, esquire. After the
restoration (in the month of January, 1661), Oliver St. John, the
only survivor in the lease (then a baronet), died without having
renewed; upon which the estate fell in to Bishop Sheldon, who granted
it to his nephews Sir Joseph Sheldon, knight, and Daniel Sheldon,
esquire. The lease continued for several years in that family, being
renewed from time to time. In the year 1741, it was purchased by Sir
John Frederick, baronet, and is now vested in Sir John Morshead,
baronet, and Robert Thistlethwayte, esquire, in right of their wives,
Elizabeth and Selina, daughters and co-heirs of Sir Thomas Frederick,
baronet, deceased, and grand-daughters of Sir John Frederick.”
We have already seen that Alderman Rede’s lease was not the original one
granted by King Henry; and there are other additions, and corrections
required to make the statement above quoted strictly correct.
Both the manor, and rectory, of Paddington were held by the citizen’s
family “for a long term,” although their first lease was but for
twenty-one years; for I find no mention of any other lessees till the
reign of Charles the first. I think it probable, however, that Sir
Rowland St. John, to whom it was leased in that reign, held it in the
reign of James the first; for in the eighteenth year of this reign I find
him charged on the subsidy roll twenty pounds for Land in Paddington.
An ancestor of Sir Rowland St. John was related to the Countess of
Richmond, was appointed her chamberlain, and one of the executors of her
will.
The mother of Sir Rowland, lady Dorothy, was the only daughter and heir
of Sir John Rede of Oddington, in Gloucestershire; and it was through
her, as I suppose, that the Paddington lease came into this family of St.
John.
It was Bishop Mountayne who leased the manor of Paddington to Sir Rowland
St. John, in 1626, and not Bishop Abbot, as stated by Lysons; for George
Abbot was bishop of London only a few months, and was translated to
Canterbury in 1611. I learn from the survey to which Lysons has
referred, but which I think he could not have examined for himself, that
the lease granted by Bishop Mountayne was dated the twenty-fourth of
November, 1626, the second year of Charles the first, the reserved rent
for the manor only, being forty-one pounds, six shillings and eight
pence; the wood of thirty acres before referred to, being now separately
leased for forty shillings per annum; and besides the payment of this
increased rent, the lessee was bound by this lease to find the surveyor
and steward of the said Lord Bishop, “with provision for man and horse
during the holding of his court upon the premises.” At the time this
parliamentary survey was taken, the rectory, “excepting the parsonage
house or houses,” with the great tithe, was held by John Lisle, one of
the Commissioners of the Great Seal; and it was separately valued at
twenty-eight pounds per annum.
The ordinance which was issued on the sixteenth of November, 1646, for
the sale of Bishops’ lands and estates for the service of the
Commonwealth, was followed by a valuation of these estates in England and
Wales; and from that valuation we learn the following particulars
relative to Paddington:—{49a}
TEMPORALITIES. _£_ _s._ _d._
Present rents and profits, per annum 44 1 8
Improvements above, per annum 1119 11 8
Timber, wood, &c., valuation in gross 362 6 8
RECTORY AND PARSONAGE.
Present value _nil_.
Future, per annum 35 0 0
On the fourteenth of December, 1649, “The manner of Paddington wth ye
appurten’ces” was sold to Thomas Browne for the sum of three thousand
nine hundred and fifty-eight pounds, seventeen shillings and four pence.
{49b}
How long Mr. Browne enjoyed the revenues of this manor, or what
arrangement was come to with respect to this particular purchase on the
re-establishment of the episcopacy, I do not know. Lysons informs us
that “by the parish accounts, it appears Thomas Browne, esquire, was lord
of the manor in 1657,” and it is very probable he continued so after the
prelacy was restored; but unfortunately these parish accounts are not now
to be found; otherwise more information on this subject, as well as many
others, might be obtained.
When Dr. Gilbert Sheldon was appointed to the bishoprick of London, after
the restoration, he claimed the manor, _and rectory_ of Paddington. If
he made his claim good, which he appears to have done, it is quite
evident that Sir Oliver St. John stood in his former position with regard
to this estate; and although he might not have had the opportunity to
renew his lease between the restoration and his death, which took place
in 1662, (and not in 1661, as is asserted both by Lysons and Collins vide
Peerage, vol. vi.), it is very evident from the directions given in his
will, which is dated twenty-eighth December, 1661, that he was desirous
of doing so.
I found Sir Oliver’s will at Doctor’s Commons; it was proved on the
twenty-eighth of June, 1662. He therein directs the sale of certain
estates for the purpose of paying his debts, and for enabling his
trustees to take another lease of the manor, “which he held of the Bishop
of London in Paddington” at that time, and the lease was to be taken
either for three lives, or for twenty-one years. But the new bishop had
nephews, to whom, it appears he was more willing to grant a lease of this
manor than to those whose ancestors had purchased it, and in whose family
it had remained for upwards of a century.
It would appear that Bishop Sheldon’s relatives received the profits of
the manor and rectory of Paddington for nearly eighty years; but Lysons
has made a mistake in stating the manor was purchased by Sir John
Frederick in 1741; for in the preamble of the first Act of Parliament
{50a} which I can find relative to these lands it is stated that a lease
bearing date the fifth of August, 1740, was granted by Edmund (Gibson),
then bishop of London, to Sir John Frederick, during the lives of Judith
Jodrell, widow; John Afflick; and John Crosier. {50b} This in all
probability was the date of Sir John Frederick’s first lease; and as this
may be considered the starting point in the modern history of the manor
and rectory of Paddington, now, _par excellence_, “The Paddington
Estate,” I shall reserve what more I have to say on this subject for a
future chapter.
On the ninth of November, in the thirty-eighth of Henry the eighth, an
inquisition was held on the property of Henry Horne, who was found to
have died, seized of “one capital messuage, three other messuages or
tenements, and one close of land containing by estimation six acres, with
appurtenances, in Paddington, which were holden of the lord king, as of
his manor of Paddington by fealty, and twelvepence rent for all services,
and not in chief; and they are worth by the year three pounds ten
shillings.” Escaet 38th Henry VIII.
In the second year of the sixth Edward, William Francis was found to have
died seised of “one messuage in Paddington, situated between the highway
called Watlyng-street, and beyond the eastern side of the pont called
Paddington pond; of two messuages called the Bridge-house, and of one
orchard to the said two messuages adjacent; of four tenements upon
Paddington-green; of one messuage called Blasers in Paddington aforesaid,
with a garden; of two acres of land; of one croft in Paddington
aforesaid; of half an acre lying between the tenements of Henry
Prowdfoot, late of London, mason, and the ponds there called Paddington
ponds on the south side, and the land late of John Colyns on the north
side, and abuts on the king’s highway called Watlyng-street on the east;
and the jurors find that the aforesaid messuages and other premises in
Paddington aforesaid are holden of Richard Rede of London, as of his
manor of Padyngton, in the county of Middlesex, by fealty, and three
shillings rent for all issues and demands.” Escaet 2; Edw. 6. part 2.
No. 23.
Armigell Waad had licence to alien to Wm. Cecil, Knight, “A messuage and
one hundred and twenty acres of land in Kentish Town, Padintun, Hamstead,
and St. Pancras.” Pat. 5. Eliz. p. 7.
For these references I am indebted to Edlyne Tomlins, esq., and with the
exception of those already given, they are all I have been able to
procure relative to the estates of private holders of lands in olden
times; and of the more modern estates in Paddington I have not much to
say.
The names still retained by several plots of land point to their previous
owners. Desborough House; {51} Little Shaftsbury House, and Dudley
House, speak for themselves of their former occupants.
Denis Chirac, jeweller to Queen Anne, built a large house on
Paddington-green, which was called Paddington house. And by an entry in
the vestry minutes for May, 1821, I find he was admitted a tenant of the
manor on the twenty-fourth of April, 1753, and was permitted to inclose
the portion of the green in front of his house. This house was situated
at the east-side of the green, very near to the Harrow-Road, and the
piece of land enclosed was a narrow strip along the southern-side of the
old green.
Lysons tells us “Lord Craven has an estate in this parish called
Craven-hill, on which is a small hamlet very pleasantly situated;” and
that this nobleman “whose humane exertions during the dreadful
calamities, the great fire and plague of London, are so well known,
observing the difficulties which attended the burying of infected corpses
in 1665,” gave a piece of ground in the parish of St.
Martin’s-in-the-fields, east of Regent street, as a burial-place during
any future sickness. {52a} Carnaby market and other buildings, were
erected on this Craven estate, and Lysons adds, “when this ground was
covered with building, it was exchanged for a field upon the Paddington
estate, which, if London should ever be again visited by the plague, is
still subject to the said use.”
This land was not used, however, during the plague of 1848–49; and at the
present time a grand London-square, called Craven Gardens, alone
indicates the site of the Paddington pest-house field. This property
consisting of two messuages and nine acres of land was purchased by the
trustees of this charity-estate of one Jane Upton, widow, and her son,
with consent of the minor’s trustees, for fifteen hundred and seventy
pounds. {52b}
The poor inhabitants of the parishes of St. Clement’s Danes, St.
Martin’s-in-the-fields, St. James’s, Westminster, and St. Paul’s, Covent
Garden, were to be specially benefitted by these houses and this land.
But I must refer those who wish to know more of this charity to the
private acts concerning it.
Mr Orme, formerly a print-seller in Bond-street, purchased property west
of Craven-hill. Mr. Neild is the lessee of all the land claimed by the
Dean and Chapter of Westminster in this parish; and is said to have
purchased land in and near Paddington, of the descendants of Dr. Busby.
A Mr. White now owns land at Westbourn; the Grand Junction Canal Company;
the Grand Junction Water Works Company; and the Great Western Railway
Company, are large proprietors. Many pieces of land have been given, and
purchased for charitable uses; and in 1852 no less than fifty persons
claimed to be registered as county voters for freehold land held by them
in Paddington.
It is not, however, the object of this work to exhibit the title deeds of
private owners of land in this parish; or to record all the names of the
owners of the soil; neither would I have it thought that I wish to
constitute myself a judge of the value of those claims which have been
set up by corporations, aggregate, or sole. But the rights of a whole
people cannot be set aside by the single fact of possession; neither can
individuals be permitted much longer to enrich themselves, and their
immediate relatives, by applying to their own uses the proceeds of lands
consecrated to the people.
COMMONS AND WASTE.
Commons originally were those lands which had not been brought into
cultivation by the spade and the plough, over which, all who used the
spade and the plough had certain rights in common. When the rights of
the people over the soil were more limited by the law, there was attached
to every portion of arable land a certain portion of waste, over which
these common rights extended; and these lands were as much, in
proportion, the property of the poorest occupier as of the richest
holder. Commons have also been defined to be “wastes and pastures which
have never been exclusively appropriated by any individual, but used in
common by the inhabitants of a parish or district.”
In Paddington, the commons were in more senses than one, “commons without
stint,” for they were not only used by the inhabitants all the year
round, but the quantity assigned was, for centuries, amply sufficient for
all their wants; and these commons in Paddington were not confined to
that “_universal right_” called “commons appendant,” for the people here
had the right of taking the material from the neighbouring wood, for
their fire as well as for the repair of their houses, carts, and hedges.
To those who had obtained the lordship of the soil, the preservation of
these commonable rights was of much less importance than to the people,
for that which was gained by the labourers’ toil from the waste, and the
wood, went to increase the domains of the lord, or to enrich some private
owner. To the lords, the Roman law which “considered the individual
member of the state,” was much more inviting than the ancient law of
England, which “based itself upon the family bond.”
The better to secure individual rights, so acquired, the cultivated land
was enclosed. But this enclosure of lands proceeded so rapidly that the
rights of all the poor in England, those who could not find means to
enclose, were in danger of being annihilated. The state was at length
compelled to interfere, and the law provided that enough commonable land
should be left in each manor to provide for the fulfilment of the usual
commonable rights; and at the time of an enclosure it was, as it still
is, the custom when the poor had the right of gathering their fuel from
the waste and wood, and of turning their live stock on the common, to set
apart a portion of the land for their uses, as a compensation for the
loss of those rights.
Where the allotment for the poor of Paddington was situated; when it was
set apart; or what was its extent, I have not been able to discover from
any positive evidence now existing; but my impression is that the little
piece of _charity land_ remaining in Westbourn indicates the site of a
much more extensive portion of the common field which was set apart for
the uses of the poor.
It is a popular notion that the lord of the manor is entitled to the
waste, but this is by no means the case in every manor. In the
neighbouring manor of Abbot’s Kensington, we find that “the commons” were
“presented” with “Notting-hill, the waste by the highways, and the Gravel
Pits,” as lately as 1672; {54a} and in the ancient manors of Tybourn and
Lilestone, there was pasture for the cattle of the villagers, and the
fruits of the wood for their hogs. {54b}
The usual proportion given to the lord for his right in the soil is
one-sixteenth. {54c} Whether the lords of the Paddington soil were
content with this proportion we need not enquire. We know that their
demesne lands have extended far beyond their original dimensions; and
there is very little doubt that the land of the poor diminished as the
lord’s land increased. Other individual holders, too, have carved out
for themselves portions of that which was set aside for purely public
purposes, but the great delinquents have been the lords of the
manors—“those relics of feudal slavery and mediaeval barbarism;” and
these before long will be known only in history.
It is true that waste land, and a common field existed in Paddington down
to a recent date; and it is equally true, that some kind of right over
this land was acknowledged to be vested in the inhabitants of this
parish; for as we shall presently see, when this right was found to
interfere with the designs of the lords and their lessees, a portion of
it was bargained for and sold.
The common field appears to have existed on each side of the Westbourn,
extending, with the poor allotment, from that which is now called the
Uxbridge-road to a considerable distance north and east; the portion on
the western side the stream being called the Westbourn, or Bayswater,
field; the portion on the eastern side, the Town field, corrupted into
“Downes?”
On the Paddington side, all that remained of the common waste was the
Village-green; and for this the villagers must have had the greatest
affection. It was _their_ Home-field; on it their forefathers had made
merry, and here they had trodden by hereditary right. Yes by hereditary
right! And seeing that the title of the noble has descended by law to
his feeble son, and the estates of the frugal man to his spendthrift
heir; how highly must the people of Paddington appreciate that justice
which has preserved to them so magnificent a portion of their ancestors
possessions! {55a}
Unfortunately for the reputation of the past there are but few places to
be found where the rights of the weak have not been most shamefully
encroached upon by the strong; and the little village of Paddington
affords not the least remarkable example of these glaring defects in the
working of “our glorious constitution.”
Here, as elsewhere, might has usurped the place of right; cunning has
lent a helping hand, and documents which would the most plainly bear
witness to this fact have been destroyed. However, the one great fact
that “land has been lost” remains to speak for itself; and the “eternal
remedy” will assuredly come sooner or later, although the wronged be now
cast down, and the wrong doer walk so seemingly secure.
“The blessings which civilization and philosophy” have brought with them
have been undoubtedly a great benefit to the poor as well as to the rich;
and one of the most powerful writers of the present day has thought it
necessary to point out how those benefits offer a compensation for the
loss of many ancient rights and privileges. {55b} But civilization and
philosophy are not content with their past or present doings, for there
are many civilized people, and philosophers too, who believe the present
arrangements give the lion’s share of those benefits to the rich; and
there are those who believe that present enactments are so unwise as to
facilitate the accumulation of riches by the least deserving members of
the state. Further “_compensation_,” therefore, they believe to be
necessary, if the blessings which civilization and philosophy are
destined to work out in the beneficent decrees of universal lore and
justice are to be of present use to the people.
The tales told of the robberies of public property in Paddington are more
fitted for the pages of a romance or a novel, than a sober history. And
as to these robberies in Paddington, the dramatist, the novelist, and the
writers of romance, have done much more than the historian to expose and
correct the vices of the past.
One of Mr. Charles Ollier’s novels {56a} contains so many allusions to
this place, that the reader is obliged to believe the elucidation of its
history formed one of the chief objects of the writer.
And if the incidents connected with Paddington Green and its
neighbourhood had not been more melo-dramatic than farcical, one might
have imagined that the little farce {56b} in which Mr. Buckstone lately
delighted the Haymarket audiences had some reference to this place.
Let those who believe the villagers’ green to be the least altered place
in Paddington, turn to Chatelain’s beautiful little delineation of it, as
it appeared to him in 1750, or to a larger print published in 1783. {56c}
“Linney” would as soon find out his “eight acres,” if he could now pay us
a visit, as would the present inhabitants of this place discover any
likeness of that which was, to that which now is, Paddington Green.
In 1783, the enclosed green included all that land which extends from its
present eastern extremity to Dudley-house on the west; that is to say,
all the present Green, and all the land south of the pathway, from the
Green to St. Mary’s Terrace; and from the Harrow-road across this green
there was a public foot path to the church, the old church-yard and some
houses.
From Chatelain’s print we see that the Green, though not enclosed so far
westward in 1750, extended northward to the old Church-yard, including
the land on which the houses on the north side of Paddington-Green have
been built. A large pond existed on the Green at that date, which was
drained into another, south of the Harrow-road, and as many of the
present inhabitants know, it has not been filled up many years. {57a}
And between these ponds, to command the road from Harrow, the people
erected, during the Commonwealth, one of those detached ramparts which
they built up by the side of every entrance into the capital, as a sign
of their determination to protect the liberties of England from the
advance of that tyranny which they had driven out, and which they
determined never again to endure. {57b}
Although the Green has wasted to its present dimensions, and although the
“commons and waste,” in Paddington have vanished, the following notices,
which I have found on the minutes of the Vestry, will shew that the
parish has received _some_ compensation for the inclosure of certain
pieces of waste, besides those purchased by the bishop and his lessees:—
_Extracts from the Vestry Minutes_.—1794, September twenty-second: at a
meeting of the inhabitants, held this day, Mrs. L. le Brown, of
Black-lion lane, was permitted to fill up a ditch and enclose the space
of ___ feet by ___ feet, upon condition of paying ten shillings per annum
to the parish.
At the same meeting, Mr. Crompton presented the parish with two plans,
one of the entire parish, the other of the waste and charity lands; both
appear to have been taken in 1772, by Mr. Waddington, land surveyor.
{57c}
1795, March 11th: Resolved that the parish do accept the offer of the
lessees of fifteen pounds per annum, as a compensation for the waste
belonging to the parish included in the bill now pending in Parliament,
provided the public and private roads are left of the usual breadth
prescribed by law.
1801. July 15th: Mr. Cockerell applied to enclose part of the waste of
Westbourne green, north and east of the Harrow-road, and agreed to place
in the hands of the trustees enough money to produce a dividend of three
pounds per annum.
On the eleventh of November, in the same year, Mr. White proposed to
transfer one hundred pounds to the names of trustees, for the use of the
poor, for permission to enclose a piece of land near the Harrow-road and
by the side of the canal. The permission was granted.
Mr. Kelly also made an application for another piece, but it was resolved
that, “as it would have a tendency to establish a precedent for the
indiscriminate alienation of the waste, this application cannot
consistently with the interests of the parish be complied with.”
1802, October 20th: Mr. Harper is allowed to enclose a piece of waste,
the quantity not stated; but the rent to be three pounds per annum, per
acre. {58}
In this year four hundred pounds were paid by Mr. Cockerell, and one
hundred pounds by Mr. White, for the land they had enclosed.
1803, April 12th: the Parish apply to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster
for a piece of waste near Westbourn-green, on the south side of the
Harrow-road. The application refused. The minutes of the same month,
twentieth—notice that the Bishop of London and his lessees had refused to
allow the parish to enclose that portion of the Bayswater field belonging
to the parish.
1812, September 1st: Mr. Hicks is allowed to enclose a piece of waste,
440 feet long, by 25 feet in breadth, extending from the Uxbridge-road
along the south and west side of Black Lion lane; and this he is
permitted to do without payment, in consequence of the services he has
rendered to the parish for forty years.
In September, 1818, there is a letter from George Gutch, on behalf the
Grand Junction Canal Company, to ask leave to fill up part of the pond to
make a street from the north Wharf-road, which the Vestry agreed to,
provided a slip of land, 116 feet long, by 13 feet 6 inches north and 12
feet south, adjoining the Alms’ houses, be given to the Parish by the
Company.
In 1825, forty-eight pounds, six shillings and six-pence was paid by Mr.
Jenkins, for permission to enclose a piece of waste land near his
grounds.
When Mr. Jenkins’s land was sold, the parish attempted to establish their
claim to this waste, but the claim set up by the bishop of London and his
lessees, as lords of the manor superseded it.
There is a notice on the minutes this year for the first time respecting
the interference of the lords of the manor in the disposal of the waste
lands. But although these lords at this time claimed for themselves “its
entire control,” the vestry, nevertheless, gave their permission to Mr.
Orme to enclose a piece opposite his land, near the second milestone on
the Harrow road. No mention is made of money paid on this occasion.
As late as 1830 an application from Mr. Nield was laid before the vestry,
for pieces of waste adjoining property leased to and purchased by him;
and on the seventh of June in the following year, the Rev. chairman
reported “that Joseph Neild, Esq., M.P. had paid to the treasurer the
following sums for waste lands:”
No. 1. Braithwaites’ 152 10 0 Consols.
Executors
,, 2. Open Waste, adjoining 30 12 6
Chelsea Reach
,, 3. Open Waste in front 10 17 6
of Williams’ Field
£203 0 0
What took place with respect to the waste lands previous to 1794, there
is, unfortunately, now no means of telling, for no vestry minutes are to
be found previous to 1793.