Besides the chapel and the schools, which have sprung out of these

charitable institutions, there are now connected with them and the

chapel, the following societies, viz. The Westbourn Friendly Visiting

Society, the Westbourn Provident Bank, the Lock Sunday schools, the

Church Missionary Association, the Juvenile Missionary Association, the

Sunday School Children’s Missionary Association, the Church of England

Young Men’s Society; and the London City Mission.

The Public Establishments in Paddington, unconnected with particular

forms of religion, are soon recounted:

Here there are no places for rational amusement—unless indeed, we

consider such places as “the Flora tea-gardens,” and “Bott’s

Bowling-green,” to come under this designation. In that region of the

parish still devoted to bull-dogs, and pet spaniels; the bodies of

broken-down carriages, old wheels, rusty grates, and old copper boilers;

little gardens, and low miserable sheds; there is an establishment, which

boasts of having the truly attractive glass, in which “for the small

charge of two-pence, any young lady may behold her future husband.” But

although such attractions as these exist, the youths who live on the

celebrated Paddington Estate, have not to thank the lords of the soil for

setting apart any portion of it for their physical improvement; and yet

for the efficient development both of mind and body, it is necessary that

the physical condition of the young should be cared for. In Paddington,

however, there is no public gymnasium; there is now no village-green,

worthy of the name; {176} the young are not trained to use their motive

powers to the best advantage; there are no public baths. And when, on

the establishment of the baths and washhouses in Marylebone, the

governing Body in Paddington was solicited to join in that useful work,

that good office was rejected, and the people of Marylebone were

permitted to carry out that necessary and useful undertaking by

themselves. Perhaps the Paddington vestrymen thought there ought to be a

bath, and a bath-room, in every house in Paddington; if so they certainly

thought rightly. But how many of these necessary adjuncts to a healthful

home are to be found even on the Paddington Estate, and what steps have

our local governors taken to supply this want in the houses of the poor?

In particular religious communities, the education of those who can no

longer be called children, is beginning to be attended to, in some

degree; yet there is no public lecture room; no museum; no public reading

room; no place of general instruction in Paddington, where Jew and

Gentile, saint and sinner, alike may meet to receive lessons from that

fountain of truth which ought to be open to all mankind, irrespectively

of their private religious opinions.

And yet in Paddington we see some of the most miraculous signs of the

times. A city of palaces has sprung up on a bishop’s estate within

twenty years; a road of iron, with steeds of steam, brings into the

centre of this city, and takes from it in one year, a greater number of

living beings than could be found in all England a few years ago. The

electric telegraph is at work by the side of this iron road. And by

means of conveyances, open to all who have any small change, from

sixpence to a penny, the whole of London can be traversed in half the

time it took to reach Holborn-bar at the beginning of this century, when

the road was in the hands of Mr. Miles, his pair-horse coach, and his

redoubtable Boy. This coach and these celebrated characters were for a

long time the only appointed agents of communication between Paddington

and the City. The journey to the City was performed by them in something

more than three hours; the charge for each outside passenger being two

shillings, the “insides” being expected to pay three. The delivery of

parcels on the line of road added very materially to Mr. Miles’s

occupation and profit; and I am informed that Miles’s Boy not only told

tales, to the great amusement of his master’s customers, but gave them

some equally amusing variations on an old fiddle, which was his constant

travelling companion, and which he carefully removed from its green-baize

covering, to beguile the time at every resting-place on the road.

When the Paddington omnibuses first started, the aristocracy of “The

Green” were quite shocked at the disgrace thus brought on the parish; and

loud and long were their complaints to the vestry, and most earnest were

their petitions to that body, to rid them of “the nuisance.” Since that

time, however, greater folks than those of “The Green” have not objected

to be seated in these public vehicles; and so useful and necessary to the

public have they become, that one Company of Proprietors of Paddington

Omnibuses has had in use 700 horses at one time. And, if the Paddington

omnibuses were improved, as they easily might be, they would be much more

useful than they are at present.

The glory of the first public Company which shed its influence over

Paddington, has in a great measure departed; the shares of the Grand

Junction Canal Company are below par, though the traffic on this silent

highway to Paddington, is still considerable; and the cheap trips into

the country offered by its means, during the summer months, are beginning

to be highly appreciated by the people, who are pent in close lanes and

alleys; and I have no doubt the shareholders’ dividends would not be

diminished by a more liberal attention to this want.

If every one had their right, I am told there would be a wharf, adjoining

this canal, open free to the people of Paddington, for loading and

unloading goods. It is certain that the old road to Harrow was never

leased to the Grand Junction Canal Company; but a wharf, upwards of one

hundred feet wide, now exists on a portion of that road; and, as I am

informed, the rent of this wharf is not received by the parish. I was

promised, twelve months since, that the claims of the parish to this

wharf should he inquired into; but as yet no such inquiry has been made.

At the western extremity of the parish, there is an artesian well, to

which the name of “the Western Water Works” has been given; the water

from which supplies the houses, which have been built on that clayey

district. The west Middlesex, and the Grand Junction Water Works

Companies supply the other parts of the parish.

The Imperial Gas Company have supplied the parish with gas, since its

first introduction into Paddington, in 1824.

A new station and hotel, now nearly finished, will make a fine terminus

to the Great Western Railway; and add to the many showy buildings, which

have been erected in Paddington, within the last few years.

CHAPTER V.

A REVIEW OF THE CONDITION OF THE PARISH AND THE PEOPLE, AT VARIOUS

PERIODS OF THEIR HISTORY.

THOSE people who have been the most completely governed by ecclesiastics,

are proverbial for having made the slowest progress in all the elements

of knowledge which concern man; and the people of Paddington formed no

exception to that rule which has been found to hold good in other places.

Here, as elsewhere, the spiritual governors of the people made but poor

attempts to develope the mind; and those to whom they deputed this duty,

took care to follow the example set them by their superiors.

To keep the breath of life, the living soul, under subjection by the

agency of superstitious dogmas and by threats of everlasting punishment,

was attempted for ages, and is even now attempted; but the world is

freeing itself from the government of organised crafts; and it will soon

be useless—in spite of all the vain efforts which are now being made—to

attempt to teach the people that the greatest virtue is _to believe and

obey_, without the exercise of reason; and that the greatest vice

consists in doubting the power of symbols to save.

Although the people of Paddington lived at so short a distance from the

two rich cathedral marts of London and Westminster, they made no greater

advances in civilization for many centuries, than did those who lived in

the most remote village in England. The few people who did live here,

were wholly agricultural; and they owed every useful lesson of their

lives, much more to their own intelligence and observation, than to any

instruction given them by those who were well paid to be their teachers.

Paddington, however, is no longer what it was; the lay element,

independent of all craft, has thoroughly diffused itself through the

country; and its advent in this place, though attended with much cunning,

was the real cause of the wonderful transformation which has taken place

here within the last half-century.

The Reformation and the Revolution added to the numbers and importance of

the people; and the execrable act of that vain braggart, who wildly

called himself the State, not only increased the population of

Paddington, but brought out to useful purpose the christian virtues of

the residents of this village. Here, on the revocation of the edict of

Nantes, many of the exiled protestants of France found a home, which had

been denied them by their _great_ King; and here, too, the memory of

their sufferings and virtues will be kept green, so long as one of their

graves shall be permitted to remain in the Old Church-yard.

It is impossible to tell what number of persons lived in this parish, at

any one period previous to the present century. The oldest Parish

Register, now to be found in Paddington, is dated 1701; and all the

written proceedings of the rate-payers in vestry assembled, previous to

the second of April, 1793, are said to have been burnt, lost, stolen or

destroyed. The only sources from which I have been able to form any

conjecture respecting the ancient population of Paddington, are,

therefore, necessarily very imperfect, and open to many objections.

By the Subsidy Rolls, however, we discover the names of those who were

rated in particular places, at different periods, when the respective

subsidies were levied; and although their tombstones may have crumbled

into dust, or may have been removed by Act of Parliament, and sold “for

the best price that could be got,” yet in these tax-papers their names

may receive a notice which will, for centuries, preserve their memories.

From the Subsidy Roll of the sixteenth year of Henry the eighth, I find

that twenty persons, then living in Paddington, were taxed for the

subsidy levied that year, although the amount of tax collected in this

parish was but forty-eight shillings. All the heads of families might

not have been included in this levy; but, if we suppose that all were

included, and that each of these twenty persons represented a family, and

if we calculate further five individuals for each family, we shall make

the population of Paddington, in 1524, one hundred; which in all

probability, was not very much under, or over, the number at that date.

The value of land, goods, and wages, on which this sum was assessed,

amounted to £77 6_s._ 8_d._ But if these descriptions of property were

all charged in this Subsidy, they were not taxed in the same proportion,

on the capital sum assessed; for, although the wages of the labourer were

taxed, they were taxed at only one-and-a-quarter per cent.; while goods

were charged two-and-a-half per cent.; and land five per cent. So that,

three hundred years ago, a more equitable property-tax existed, than that

which is the result of present legislative wisdom.

In the thirty-fifth year of the same reign, the valuation for this parish

was raised to £272 13_s._ 4_d._ Fifteen families only, however, were

included in the subsidy for this year—land and goods alone being charged.

In a Subsidy Roll, of the thirty-ninth, of Elizabeth, Marylebone and

Paddington are united, to produce a small sum.

In a Subsidy made in the eighteenth year of James the first, the name of

Sir Rowland St. John occurs, as I have before observed; and, as this is

the first time I find the name of a lessee of the manor on these Rolls, I

am inclined to think Sir Rowland was the first lessee, who lived on the

Paddington Estate.

It was not the son of Sir Rowland, but another Oliver St John, a relative

of this Knight of the Bath, to whom the people owed so deep a debt of

gratitude. That man of noble birth and noble mind, opposed the Tyranny

of his time, not only in thought, but in word and deed; for he was one of

the brave soldiers of that army, which fought and bled for the liberties

we now enjoy; and the people of Paddington who preserved the sacred mound

of liberty, which they erected within sight of his relatives’ windows,

must have felt themselves ennobled, when the Lion settle echoed his

valorous deeds. The people of Paddington knew the value of liberty, if

their lords did not; and the public houses which were the only celebrated

institutions in this rural village, were their debating clubs. Two, at

least, were in existence, before “the house for two tenants” was occupied

by the lord or his lessees; for they claim to have been established

before the Reformation. There are three lions still in Paddington, each

contending for the most ancient origin. The “White lion,” in the

Edgeware-road, was established, according to the date on its present

facade, in 1524—the year in which hops were first permitted to be

imported, to preserve our beer. The “Red Lion,” in the Edgeware-road,

near the commencement of the Harrow-road, claims a more ancient date for

its establishment. In one of its old wooden chambers, taken down, some

few years ago to make room for the present house, tradition tells us

Shakspeare played; {182a} and many a story has been told of the haunted

chamber in this house, as well as of that in the Manor House. The other

ancient “Lion,” also “Red,” is situated in the Harrow-road, having taken

up its present position as near to its old quarters, as the alteration in

that road would permit. This house was formerly situated near the bridge

which carried the Harrow-road over the bourn; and was, as I conceive, the

property described in an Inquisition, held the second year of Edward the

sixth,—vide p. 51—as the “two tenements, called the Bridge-House.”

There is a younger Lion, “Black,” but still of some pretensions to

antiquity, standing in the Uxbridge-road; there is also an ancient “Pack

Horse,” in the Harrow-road; and at the corner of Old Church-street, in

the Edgeware-road, there is a “Wheat Sheaf,” which has the credit of

having frequently entertained honest and learned Ben Johnson; so that, if

learning and science were not allowed to flourish in the churches and

other public buildings of Paddington, the ale houses, in some degree,

attempted to supply the defect.

From the _Index Villaris_ of 1690, I find there were “more than three

gentlemen’s seats” in Paddington, at that date. Probably there were

four—Westbourn Manor House; Paddington Manor House; Desborough House; and

Little Shaftsbury House; the two latter names pointing out their original

occupants.

Although I am not now able to offer any positive evidence in proof of

Desborough House having belonged to the celebrated Colonel, who was

related to Cromwell, and whose doings in the Commonwealth are so well

known, yet I have met with many circumstances which incline me to this

belief.

Lysons tells us that Little Shaftesbury House was built by “The Earl of

Shaftesbury, author of the Characteristics, or his father the

Chancellor.”

There can be no doubt but the population of Paddington was considerably

increased, when the manor and rectory fell into lay hands; and by making

the same computation as before—five members for each family, {182b} we

shall find that by 1685, it had increased to upwards of three-hundred;

for, in the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Charles the second, sixty-two

persons are charged for 267 fire-hearths in Paddington: John Ashley, the

gentleman who made the greatest smoke in the parish at that time, being

charged for sixteen.

John Hubbard is not included in this impost; for he did not live to see

all the good results produced by the Restoration, having died, according

to his tombstone, in 1665, “aged 111 years.” {183a}

Lysons has omitted to notice this patriarch in his list of cases of

longevity. “Whether he abstained from doing so, because John was _in

some way_ related to the venerable lady of that name, and because his

tomb was too well known to require mention, I cannot say. Seeing,

however, this tomb exists when others of more recent date are not to be

found, I am inclined to believe some such historical interest must have

attached to it, or it would have shared the fate of others. At all

events, from John’s Diary, if he kept one, many a story as good as Old

Mother Hubbard’s could have been made.

In another part of the church-yard, on the end of a plain, flat stone, we

may read these words:—

Sacred to the Memory of Sarah Siddons, who departed this life, June

8th, 1831, in her 76th year.

“Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.”

Mrs. Siddons lived at one time in Paddington; but Mr. Cunningham tells

us, in his Hand-book for London, that the pretty little house and grounds

which she occupied, were destroyed, to make room for the Great Western

Railway; Desborough Lodge, however, in which I am informed she lived,

still stands in the Harrow-road, a little south and east of the second

Canal bridge. {183b}

Poor Haydon, who devoted “forty-two years to the improvement of the taste

of the English people in high art,” lived in Paddington; and his

shattered corpse was placed near the spot, where Mrs. Siddons was buried.

At no great distance, Collins, the painter of English coast and cottage

scenery, lies. And Dr. Geddes, the “Translator of the Historical Books

of the Old Testament,” was buried in Paddington Church-yard. His

surviving friends could engrave on his tombstone the following sentence

from his works:—

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname; I grant that you are

a Christian as well as I, and embrace you as my fellow disciple of

Jesus; and if you were not a disciple of Jesus, still I would embrace

you as my fellow man.”

Yet, because he dared to express his honest conviction, as to the real

origin of the Books he had taken so much trouble to translate, he was

condemned and despised by many zealots, who thought their hatred a

Christian act; and “public censure was passed upon him by the Vicar

Apostolic, of the London district.” The Life of this great scholar, and

good man, was published by Dr. Mason Good, in 1803.

Banks the sculptor; the elder George Barret; Merlin the mechanist; the

careful sculptor Nollekins, and his father; the Marquis of Lansdowne,

without a word to mark his tomb, and many other notables; lie buried in

this church and churchyard. But, although thoughts are to be picked up,

by day as well as by night, in a ramble among the tombs, it is not my

intention to copy all the grave-stones, or to encroach on the province of

the biographer, or village barber, if there be one such useful gossip

still remaining among us.

For a sketch of a people, whether forming a parish or a nation, it is

better to go to their laws, and observe the effects those laws have

produced; than to rely on any description of individuals, dead or living.

With the exception of the ancient customs of the place, the common law of

the land was the light which guided the people of Paddington, down to the

middle of the last century. Then, as we have already seen, began the

enactment of special laws,—laws which altered the relations between those

who had duties to perform, and those who had rights and privileges to

protect.

Previous to 1753, the people of this parish managed their own affairs

without external aid, the influential inhabitants exercising their

influence here, as influential people in all quarters of the world have

done, either for their own, or the public good, according as their

selfish passions, or the Eternal Truth, prevailed within them. Riches

had their weight, as well as reason, even before Sturges Bourne and his

system of plural voting, came to regulate and measure the powers of

mammon in local elections. But in every system of government, the

selfish rely on ignorance, more than on any other agent, for the

preservation of their powers. When the ignorant, however, as well as the

wise, were free to speak on local affairs, many unwelcome truths, which

did not fall from the lips of the ordained teachers, must have reached

the ears of “the jobbers,” within the walls of St. Katherine’s, St.

James’s, and St. Mary’s. The meetings of the people, in these sainted

places, for the transaction of their parish business, were open to all

the inhabitants of the parish; and no local burden could be imposed

without the sanction of the majority. No wonder, then, that those who

did not reside in the parish, but who had determined to impose burdens on

all those who did, should call to their aid a power never before felt by

the people of Paddington: one, against which it was useless to rebel; and

from the _justice_ of which there was no appeal.

Private Act followed private Act, for the regulation of property, over

which the people saw and felt, _they_ had no control. And, when at

length their voices were raised in no measured cadence, some against this

grievance, others against that, the church was said to be desecrated, and

polite ears could no longer listen to such a babel of tongues. A gag was

provided. “A select vestry” was the instrument used. And among the many

unjust and unwise laws “passed, to keep down the people, from 1817 to

1820, the most disgraceful era in our legislation,” “An Act for the

regulation of parish vestries,” better known as “Sturges Bourne’s Act,”

is to be found. In this Act there are, without doubt, provisions which

were much required for the “regulation of parish vestries;” but I have

never yet heard any reason, worthy a moment’s consideration, for the

introduction of the third clause into that Act. This clause gives “one

vote and no more” to all persons rated for property “not amounting to

fifty pounds,” and adds one vote “for twenty-five pounds of annual rent,

&c.” But “so, nevertheless, that no inhabitant shall be entitled to give

more than six votes.” The principle, “that property should be properly

represented,” is thus absurdly carried out: all those rated at £50 per

annum, have double the amount of influence of those rated at £49; while

those rated at £500, have no more power in the local election, than those

rated at £150. But to such miserable shifts as these must legislation

condescend, as soon as it swerves from the eternal principles of justice.

Is it not of as much concern to the poor rate-payer, as to the rich, that

the parish funds shall be well expended? And who can shew that the

wisdom of a man can be measured by the size of his house; or by the

amount he contributes to the poor-rate?

On the fourth of April, 1820, the Rev. Dr. Crane, the Lord Bishop of

Exeter, and other influential inhabitants managed to establish “a select

vestry” in Paddington; in which they and their friends had all the talk

as well as all the work to themselves. But if this select body prevented

the people talking, they prevented their eating also. The glorious

parish dinners, at which the parish officers and their friends had

rejoiced at the people’s expense, were discontinued by the bishop and his

friends, in 1821; much to their credit be it spoken, seeing that at the

beginning of this year it was discovered that there were no less than 824

persons in the parish who claimed relief as paupers—more than one-eighth

of the whole population—and that out of these, thanks to the cottages,

there were 635 legally settled on the parish.

In May, 1821, a general meeting of the inhabitants was called to

consider, amongst various other things, the propriety of petitioning the

House of Commons for a general law, to regulate the formation and

maintenance of the highways on the north-west side of the metropolis; and

so much was such an Act required, that it was resolved unanimously to

petition. But when the petition was read, and considered, it was found

to be so objectionable that it was as unanimously rejected. And by the

thirtieth of March, 1822, the inhabitants had seen quite enough of the

select vestry system; for on that day, when called on to re-appoint it

for another year, they would not do so. But on the first of April, 1823,

power was given to a committee of rate-payers to procure a local Act. A

draft-bill was prepared by an experienced Parliamentary counsel, which

was left in the hands of the vestry-clerk, for the inspection of the

inhabitants; and it is said to have received “their cordial approbation.”

Whether that clause which has compelled the people of Paddington, to

elect their local governors, under the system of plural votes, received

their approbation, we are not told; neither is it brought down to us by

any authentic record, how many read and digested an Act, which contains

no less than one hundred and fifty-five clauses, and occupies eighty

printed Act-of-Parliament-pages. Whether its provisions were understood

or not, however, the fifth of George the IV., chapter 126, received the

sanction of the legislature on the seventeenth of June, 1824, and since

that date all the provisions which have met with the approval of those

who have been elected under it, have been carried into effect.

The cost of procuring this Act, is said to have been £1,088 14_s._ 6_d._

During these two years of select rule—from 1820 to 1822—the path had been

paved for the introduction of this local Act. A committee had been

appointed early in 1822, to inquire into its expediency; spacious vestry

premises and other offices had been built on a portion of the garden

belonging to the alms-houses; and other preparations had been made to

effectually take the management of the local affairs out of the hands of

_the people_.

To find laws so comprehensive and wise, as not to require the tinker at

every little exigency, which may arise in every little portion of the

community, must surely be a proof of the wisdom of a people. To find it

necessary, constantly to alter general laws; and constantly to be called

on to “stop gaps” by rotten bits of special legislation, which scarcely

wear a single session, must as surely betoken want of foresight in the

law-makers; or the approaching end of that system, which rests on so

sandy a foundation. Five and twenty Acts of Parliament, at the least,

have been passed specially to affect the property and people of

Paddington; and when we think of these, in connection with the laws which

apply to the people in general, we may not be surprised to find, now and

then, even a local governor, elected under the aristocratic provisions of

Sturges Bourne’s Act, lost amidst this heap of legislative wisdom.

Local self-government, and local taxation, are questions of the day; and

are slowly, but surely, forcing themselves on the consideration of those

who have to direct the affairs of “an Empire on which the sun never

sets.”

Centralization, too, is under consideration; and, although in the

objectionable sense in which this idea is generally understood, it has

received the condemnation of the most acute thinkers of the present and

past time, still it is supported by learned and powerful advocates, who

profess to understand what government really is or ought to be. In every

sense these subjects demand the attention of _the people_—not only on

account of the enormous revenue annually raised by local taxation; but

because all forms of government are in the crucible, and it is desirable

for the benefit of all, that the best elements should be eliminated.

For the inhabitants of a particular parish or district to be permitted to

carry out a general law which has been enacted by a whole people,

according to the peculiar circumstances of their local condition, is a

very different thing from giving to that district special privileges and

laws, which may, and most likely would, become inimical to the public

good. The circumstances of almost every place in England have so

changed—not to say since their ancient municipal laws were enacted, but

within the last few years—that radical alterations are absolutely

demanded; and tinkering must soon end. But the spirit of

self-government, and the desire for it, can never die, so long as the

people understand the true value of liberty. And no system of

centralization for the management of local affairs, can ever be rendered

so palatable to the people of England, as to induce them to endure it,

till mismanagement has attained a still higher point than it has yet

reached—a consummation many causes are now at work to secure;—or till the

people have greater power over the actions of those who regulate the

expenditure of the country—a principle of justice which must ultimately

prevail.

That the whole of the people of Paddington, Marylebone, and Pancras, (at

the last census, upwards of 371,000 souls,) should have but two “places

and voices,” in the Commons’ House of Parliament, while a few hundred in

other districts, have the same direct power over the legislative and

executive administration of this country, is so monstrous a wrong, that

some may imagine the people, who quietly submit to such anomalies, have

reached a point at which power may be safely centred in a few hands.

These are they, however, who do not clearly discern the signs of the

times. Any thing resembling the tyranny of an absolute monarchy, or the

despotism of a well-paid and idle oligarchy, is as detestable now, as

ever it was to that people, who from their childhood are taught to adore

liberty for its own sake, as well as for the fruits it brings forth. The

Saxon people are patient, and endure much; but to educate their children

to look upon thraldom as liberty, will never be permitted in England; and

cannot much longer be tolerated in other countries.

Till private legislation interested itself in the affairs of the people

of Paddington, the local government must have been of the simplest kind.

They had, indeed, little to trouble themselves about on this score.

Their church was provided for, very badly, it is true, by those who took

care of the revenues which were given for its support; so that the

churchwardens were not troubled with the collection of church-rates; and

they had no archdeacon’s visitations to attend; so that no troublesome

questions could be put to them by this once useful and important officer

of the church. The overseer was equally unemployed; for at no time

previous to the latter part of the last century, could there have been

many poor. The culture of the land, and its attendant duties, found

occupation and a living for all. Alms-houses for the aged and infirm

were built, as we have seen, in 1714; but no other sort of poor-house was

required; for the only idle people in the parish were the few rich

families, who were privileged to live on the industry of others.

By the middle of the last century, nearly the whole of this parish had

become grazing-land. In 1795, according to Lysons, there were upwards of

eleven hundred acres of grassland in Paddington; eighty four and a half

acres only being arable, or garden-ground. And for a long period, the

people who occupied the bishop’s estate in Paddington, were as celebrated

for the quantity or quality of their milk, as they are now for the number

and size of their houses. One persevering and handsome guardsman, who

had contrived to gain the good graces of a grazier’s daughter,

congregated cows here to such an extent, that all London rang with the

number. “Nine hundred and ninety-nine” could he keep, but the black

boggies always killed or ran away with his thousandth. {189} Whether

these sprites were in league with, or in any way connected with, “Black

Meggie,” who always lay in the cow-shed at the corner of Tybourn Field,

when not on duty, I cannot pretend to say. I am informed by a gentleman

who was born in this parish, and who is no longer young in years, that he

has heard the Tripod, which is represented in Rocque’s maps, as standing

at the junction of the Edgeware with the Uxbridge-road, was only placed

there when the good old English oracle had to execute her judgments

thereon. And that this “three-legged mare,” Black Meggie by name, was

only a poor temporary substitute for the more ancient and formal “Tybourn

Tree” which had been cut down by some daring fellows the night before it

was to have been put in requisition for the benefit of a string of their

friends. “Tybourn tree” had been removed from its old quarters, as we

have already seen, and had been firmly erected, before Black Meggie’s

time, as one of the institutions of the country, on that which is now the

Marylebone side of the Edgeware-road.

At the beginning of the last century, next to the beautiful fields and

quiet village, the gallows and the gibbet were the principal attractions

in Paddington. At the beginning of this, “Tomlin’s New Town;” the

collection of cottages, west of St. George’s-row; a row of gardens, and a

large bowling-green, by the side of the Edgeware-road, between Tybourn

turnpike, and Paddington, were called into existence. These changes, in

conjunction with the grand canal of Paddington, {190} obliterated in a

few years the work of centuries; and succeeded not only in altering the

whole aspect of the place, but in infusing another element of social life

into the people. Lysons, writing in 1794, says “this parish being

chiefly church-land, there has been but little increase of buildings till

about four years ago; since which time a number of small wooden cottages,

to the amount of nearly one hundred, have been erected a little north of

Tybourn turnpike. These cottages are let at from £7 to £12 per annum,

and inhabited principally by journeymen artificers who work in London,

forming with their families a small colony of about 600 persons.”

In the second edition of Lysons’ Work, published in 1811, he tells us

these cottages were begun to be built in 1790. And he was informed by

Mr. Pickering, the curate at that time, that before the second census was

taken, they had increased to 600.

In Horwood’s large and beautiful plan of London, dated 1799, we find that

a part of this colony, that lot of cottages built nearly opposite

George-street, was called Tomlin’s New Town. We see, too, that St.

George’s row was built at this time; that to the west of it a large

building, called Trafalgar, existed; and that another plot of land had

been covered with cottages. So that some portion of this colony was

added to the people of Paddington, and these tenements to the Tybourn

Field, before the bishop’s first Building Act, was passed. Whether these

wooden houses were built in anticipation of that Act, by some one who had

heard the tale of the tinker, who lit his fire, and boiled his pot, and

erected his shed, all in one night, at the corner of old Church-street;

and who could not be dispossessed of that land which he had so magically

acquired; (a tradition which appears to have some reference to the

establishment of Paedings New Town,) or whether these miserable sheds

were built by the direction of the ground landlords, to give them a

telling argument in favour of their private Act,—I cannot say. Both

landlord and tenant, however, found the power of a modern private Act of

Parliament, and the “journeymen artificers” had to “move on,” in order

that Connaught-terrace, and better houses for the rich, might be built.

The greater part of the enormous increase in the population between 1801

and 1811, was caused by the erection of these cottages, so very

ill-suited for preserving health and life. They were soon filled,

however, by the poorer class from the crowded parts of London; for pure

air is more relished by the poor, than that which is fetid and foul,

whatever the rich may say to the contrary. Give them but an opportunity

of getting it, and see how greedily it is embraced; unless, indeed, the

demoralizing effect of generations of bad education is brought into

operation, to counteract this natural instinct. As fast as these

cottages in the open fields were built, they were occupied; although

those who were to reap the greater benefit of this more profitable

occupation of the land, had made no provision for effective drainage,

security from cold and wet, or for proper ventilation:—essentials,

without which all sanitary laws are put absolutely at defiance, however

well the situation of a town may be chosen, or however provident the

bountiful Giver of all good may have been in sending storms and winds, to

disperse the natural accumulation of unwholesome gases in certain

localities.

Messrs. Pulford and Erlam, two surveyors, in their report to the vestry

on the state of these cottages, in 1816, say, “we cannot refrain from

thus recording our expression of regret, that the ground-landlords should

be so inordinate in their demands. The effect of which is, the buildings

are ill-calculated to afford shelter from the inclemency of the weather,

and the want of drainage and consequent damp produce disease, filth, and

wretchedness.” And so, these Paddington cottages, which were for so many

years so prominent a feature in the parish, and which were so much sought

after by the poor, as a sort of country-retreat, were in fact, the

generators of “disease, filth, and wretchedness.”

During the long winter-evenings, the muddy roads which led to these

cottages, were in total darkness, unless “the parish lantern” chanced to

offer its acceptable light; and there is no doubt but that so long as

these cottages remained they were the hot-beds of fevers and ague. A

gentleman, who was for many years parish-surgeon, informs me that during

the time these cottages existed, he was rarely without cases of these

diseases; the latter disease was always endemic; and at times the former

put on a fearfully epidemic character. Still these detached and

semi-detached cottages on the Bishop’s Estate were better than the close

streets of town, though these were more than sufficiently unhealthy; but

what cared those who profited by this disease and misery, and their

natural accompaniment, crime, so long as their rents were paid?

The poor and the ignorant did not know “the extent of their misfortune;”

or if they did, the majority “did not seem to grumble at their lot, or to

think it hard.” If a voice of complaint was occasionally heard, the

generous landlord said, “it came from an ill-conditioned, discontented

wretch, whom it was useless to attempt to satisfy; and the sooner he left

the parish, the better.” Cries, indeed, from the feeble and the timid

went up to heaven for redress, and heaven alone was left to answer them.

The ground-landlords, at length, seeing the cottages had served their

turn, made an attempt to remove this evil, by clearing them away; and

many a bitter curse was uttered by those who were evicted; for in the

simplicity of their dealings they had made no legal provision for

compensation for capital invested; and, although some compensation was

granted by the Great Western Railway Company to the small tenants they

displaced, yet the ground-landlords did not follow their example; and

down to the present time, no dream of comfortable and healthful lodgings

for the poor on their estate, has even entered their heads; no, not even

the idea of a “Thanksgiving Building,” so far as we know by any sign that

has been given.

Another source of disease and death was to be found on the banks of the

Paddington canal, which was opened with so much _éclat_, on the 10th of

July, 1801. No less than 20,000 people came to Paddington, to hurrah the

mighty men who so altered the aspect of this quiet village; and who, in

doing so, offered to the Londoner a new mode of transit for his goods.

Unfortunately, for the people of Paddington, on the banks of this canal

were stowed many other commodities than “dry goods.” Not only the dust

and ashes, but the filth of half London were brought to “that stinking

Paddington,” (as it was now called,) for convenience of removal. The

time of removal was made to suit the convenience of those who traded in

these contaminating materials; but the living sensitive nerves and active

blood corpuscules of the people who dwelt near its banks, were not

considered. And so, instead of having no doctor in the parish, as was

the case within the memory of many now living in it, both doctor and

sexton found full employ.

That this is no over-drawn picture of the condition of Paddington for the

first quarter of the present century, there is plenty of evidence to

prove.

The disbursements of churchwardens and overseers, in 1793, two years

before the passing of the Bishop’s Building Act, amounted to £402 6_s._

11_d._; but the overseer’s account alone, in 1815, amounted to £3,375

12_s._ 4_d._ And although there were more to pay the rates, still, even

at the later date, many of the cottages were not rated at all; and the

greatest difficulty was experienced in squeezing out of the hard earnings

of the poor men who occupied them, the small pittance (to them a great

sum,) which was at length obtained, towards defraying these serious local

charges.

In 1803, eight years after the Bishop’s first Building Act was obtained,

the assessment of Paddington was £9,966 10_s._ and the first poor-rate,

levied under this assessment, was one shilling and three-pence in the

pound. This valuation, however, was only one-third of the rental of 272

tenements; the smaller tenements not having been rated at all. The

overseers’ account, this year, amounted to £701 16_s._ 7_d._; and it

increased annually till 1811, when it was reported to the ratepayers at

large, at their annual meeting on Easter Tuesday, that the expenses of

supporting the poor have increased fourfold, in the last sixteen years.

No wonder, then, that the sensible inhabitants of Paddington, who saw

what the Bishop’s Building Acts were doing for the bishop and his

lessees, and who felt, in a very tender point, what they were doing for

themselves as ratepayers, should be anxious that those, who derived so

much benefit from the parish, should bear some share in the increased

expenses. But although all the expenses of the church and the poor had

been so considerately transferred from the owners of the Paddington

Estate, to the pockets of the rate-payers; and although the additional

claim of the poor was excessive, yet it was not till the twenty-seventh

of October, 1807, that the rate-payers in vestry assembled, “resolved

that the Lord Bishop, in respect of the great tithes is rateable, and

that he be rated accordingly.”

One would have thought that the bishop, and his lessees, knowing all

this—knowing that the “expenses of supporting the poor, had increased

fourfold in the last sixteen years (that is, since the Act of 1795,

during which time their income from the land had increased, perhaps in a

like proportion) and that the same has arisen, in a great measure, from

the necessity of constant and casual relief to paupers residing in small

tenements built upon the Bishop of London’s Estate;” knowing that they

had received £2,263 7_s._ 6_d._, for land to increase the burial

ground,—a purchase made necessary principally on account of this great

increase in the number of paupers, and the conditions under which they

were placed: Knowing, I say, all these things; for to not one could they

have pleaded ignorance, it is barely believeable that these legal

protectors of the church and of the poor should have refused this legal

demand. Yet most certainly they did so; and further, put the

parishioners to the unpleasant necessity of applying to a barrister,

learned in the law, for his opinion on this point. By the vestry

minutes, dated November 3rd, 1810, we find that Mr. Const, “_apprehends_

the Lord Bishop _is_ liable to the poor-rate for the tithes both of the

lands, belonging to the See, in occupation of other persons, and those

for which a composition is received.” And accordingly in January, 1811,

the Bishop of London is rated in the new assessment made that year, upon

£462, the estimated annual value of the great tithes.

As the land became more valuable, this burdensome charge could not be

endured. The agents of the bishop advise “merging,” and “commutation;”

and, after the performance of these feats, on the twenty-third of July,

1844, the vestry receive a letter from Messrs. Budd and Hayes, informing

them, “the Tithes of the Paddington Estate have been _merged_, and that

the rent-charge for the tithes of the rest of the parish is £166 13_s._

8_d._” And they considerately mention this, “in order that the future

rates may be assessed with reference to that sum, _after making proper

deductions_, and not on the amount they have been hitherto assessed

upon.”

Whereupon the _poor_ bishop and his lessees are relieved from some of the

_great_ charges laid on them, for the support of the poor; the vestry

resolving to assess “the tithes of the Paddington Estate in future, at

£166, instead of £340, as heretofore!”

At the end of 1810, it was found that out of a rental of £5,200 paid by

the cottagers, only £535 of this was rated to the poor; and that the

average of all the assessments in the parish, was but two-thirds of the

real value; some being rated at one-third, others at one-half, and others

at five-twelfths of the full value. The value of the property, as

assessed in 1811, was £28,597, the assessment having been taken on 865

separate tenements.

From the census of this year, 1811, I find that 4,609 persons then living

in the parish, constituted 1,083 families, occupying 879 houses. In

1812, out of 935 dwelling-houses, only 393 were rated to the poor; “the

rest being miserable huts, occupied by paupers and very poor people.”

In 1821 there were 1,448 families in Paddington, four of whom are

returned in the census of that year as being agricultural. In the same

year there were 824 persons claiming relief as paupers; and the sum of

£37 7_s._ 3_d._ was paid weekly for out-door and casual relief.

In 1825 the assessment of this parish was £46,245 13_s._ 4_d._; and in

1831 it had increased to £71,528 18_s._ The rates levied in the former

year, amounted to £6,025 10_s._ 8½_d._; in the latter, to £14,691 16_s._

5½_d._ The number of families, according to the census of 1831, was

3,493. In 1841 Paddington was in union with Kensington, Hammersmith, and

Fulham, and I find the average of the establishment charges for three

years for Paddington, set down at £2,712.

The transition-state from an agricultural village to the fashionable

Tyburnia, was no very agreeable time for the majority of those who lived

in Paddington. When the cottages were swept away, and the heavy

poor-rates which they had entailed, were diminished, new burdens sprang

up, scarcely less grievous. Rents became enormous; the Highway,

Watching, and Lighting rates were excessive; and these were rendered more

oppressive on account of those, who received the greatest benefit from

the causes which necessitated the greater expenditure, not bearing their

just share of this local taxation. And yet the local Act had made some

sort of provision for an equitable adjustment of these expenses.

Unfortunately, however, for the majority of the rate-payers, the election

of those, who had to carry into execution the provisions of that Act,

viz., the election of vestrymen, was not in their hands. That clause of

Sturges Bourne’s Act, which gave four votes to those who were rated at

£100; five votes to those who were rated at £125; and six votes to all

those rated at £150; placed the election in the hands of the minority;

and, as that minority was much more interested in the success of the

building-speculations which were in progress, than in that just and wise

economy, which was advantageous to the majority of the rate-payers, one

of the most important clauses in the local Act, was for years, and still

is, disregarded. This, the 132nd clause of that Act, is as follows:

“And whereas it has happened and may happen that Houses and other

Buildings within the said Parish have been or may be began to be

built, but not finished nor let, and it is reasonable that such

Houses and Buildings should be rated and assessed for the Purposes of

paving, watching, and lighting; be it therefore further enacted, That

until such Houses or other Buildings which now are or hereafter may

be built or in building shall be finished and tenanted, (if the

Street, Square, Lane, or other Place wherein such House or other

Building is or shall be situated shall be paved, repaired, cleansed,

and lighted by virtue and in pursuance of this Act,) it shall and may

be lawful {196} to and for the said Vestry to rate and assess all

such Houses and other Buildings situate within the said Parish as are

or shall be erected and covered in, but not finished nor let, either

by One or more distinct Assessment or Assessments, or by including

them in any other Assessment or Assessments, at a Rate not exceeding

Sixpence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved

belonging to or lying before the Fronts or Sides of such Houses or

other Buildings, and in like Manner and for the like Purposes to rate

and assess all such Houses or other Buildings as last mentioned which

are or shall be erected but not covered in, at a Rate not exceeding

Four-pence for every Square Yard of Ground paved or to be paved by

virtue of this Act, and belonging to or lying before the Fronts or

Sides of such Houses or other Buildings, until the same shall be

covered in, as aforesaid, and then at a Rate not exceeding Four-pence

for every Square Yard until the same shall be let or occupied; which

last-mentioned Rates or Assessments shall be paid by and recoverable

from the Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, Owner or

Owners of such House or Houses, Building or Buildings respectively,

and shall be charged and changeable on the said Premises; and if the

said Owner or Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees,

shall refuse or neglect to pay the same, upon Demand, then and in

every such Case such Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments, and

all Arrears due thereon, shall and may be levied on the Goods and

Chattels of the Person or Persons so required to pay the same in

manner herein directed; and in case the Owner or Owners, Proprietor

or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees of such House or Houses, Building

or Buildings, shall not be known or cannot be found, then the said

Rate or Rates, Assessment or Assessments made thereon, shall be and

remain charged and chargeable on the said Premises until the Owner or

Owners, Proprietor or Proprietors, Lessee or Lessees, can be found,

and the same may at any Time be levied and recovered upon the said

Premises in like Manner as other Rates made by virtue of this Act are

made recoverable.”

Four years ago, this _forgotten_ clause of the local Act was introduced

to the notice of the vestry. It was admitted that it had not been

observed; and the Builders, who formed the most influential party in the

vestry, thought it would be _unfair_ to enforce it. A little ventilation

of this subject, however, induced the majority of another vestry to

believe, and to resolve, “that all the rateable property in the parish

should be rated.” But so much power have the Builders and the

Proprietors of the soil in the vestry, that this good resolution has been

from time to time set aside; and down to the present moment, the

rate-payers at large have received no benefit from it. So that, although

the Vestry Minute-books are crammed with applications to the vestry, to

take under their protection, streets, squares, &c., and although the

taking thereto has increased the local taxation very considerably, and

will do so, year by year; yet none but the old inhabitants and the

in-coming tenants have been taxed for all the wear and tear of old roads,

caused by drawing building materials over them, and for all the

additional expenses in watching and lighting, which every new house

entails on the parish.

If this tax had been levied from the passing of the Act, in 1824, down to

the present time, it would have saved the rate-payers some thousands of

pounds; and it would have fallen on those who have received the most

substantial benefits from the parish, although they have paid the least

towards the local taxation, viz., the Bishop of London, and the lessees

of the Paddington Estate. Had this clause been in force, those who took

the land for building on, would have pointed out this charge, and

insisted on its due consideration. For this additional burden, then, as

well as for the enormous poor-rate entailed by the miserable cottages,

the dwellers on the Paddington Estate are, in truth, indebted to their

old friends, “the lords of the soil,” as much as to their local

governors, and the builders.

And this is not the only burden, connected with the roads, which the

owners of the Paddington Estate have attempted to throw on the people of

Paddington.

In 1828, and 1829, when the Grand Junction-road, which had been recently

made, was in a miserable condition; when it was ascertained that it would

cost £400 a-year to keep it in repair; and when only £7 were the amount

of rate received by the parish from the inhabitants of Oxford and

Cambridge terraces; the owners of the soil tried, by force of law, to

compel the vestry to appoint a surveyor to inspect this road, and take

upon them the charge of its repair. The trial, however, went against

them, and the learned Lord Tenderden delivered an elaborate judgment in

favour of the parishioners. {198}

But what the law would not compel the vestry to do, the vestry could

voluntarily do; and, as the election of vestrymen was virtually in the

hands of a few builders and proprietors, these few took especial care to

elect those, and those only, whose interests coincided with their own.

Thus, those who were most deeply interested _in the Paddington Estate_,

became the governors _of the parish_; and, as these personal interests

were very frequently antagonistic to the interests of the ratepayers at

large the public weal has had to suffer; and “parish squabbles” have not

been unknown in Paddington, even since the introduction of Sturges

Bourne’s Act. And discontent must continually arise, so long as the

majority of the ratepayers know they are not fairly represented; that

they have a minority of votes in the election of their local governors;

and that the business of the parish is conducted with closed doors.

Although this injustice was made legal, at the time when Grattan and old

Sarum sent Members to Parliament; and when a single nobleman had more

influence in law-making, than the whole of the inhabitants of the largest

cities, yet “An Act for the better Regulation of Vestries, and for the

appointment of Auditors of accounts, in certain parishes of England and

Wales,”—the first and second William IVth, chapter 60,—better known as

Hobhouse’s Act, was passed by the reformers, even before the Parliament

itself was reformed.

This Act _for the better regulation of vestries_ gives one vote, and one

vote only, to each rate-payer; and it is scarcely believeable, that so

just a principle could be refused to any parish, which had become too

numerous to continue the “good old English constitutional custom” of

personal attendance in Vestry; where and when each individual rate-payer

might express his opinions on any subject within its jurisdiction, and

record his vote thereon. Yet it has been most strenuously opposed, from

its introduction into Parliament down to the present time, by the vestry

of Paddington; and in consequence of its being necessary to obtain the

sanction of two-thirds of the rate-payers who vote, and half those who

are qualified to vote, before this Act can be adopted, the attempt to

introduce it into this parish has twice failed. In 1849, there was a

considerable majority for its adoption, but not the requisite proportion;

and in 1853, it is said, the half of the qualified rate-payers have not

voted. So that at the present time, Paddington enjoys the unenviable

distinction of being behind its neighbours in the adoption of a liberal

policy in the election of those to whom are entrusted its local affairs;

and those who conduct them, have the unenviable honour of being the

representatives of a section only of their fellow-parishioners.

Even the ancient rule of electing churchwardens, by single votes, has

been set aside in Paddington; the Judges of the Exchequor Court

sanctioning this proceeding, when the vestry appealed to that Court, by

writ of error, from the decision of the learned Lord Chief Justice

Denman, who had confirmed to the inhabitants of this place, their ancient

right in this particular: {199} a right, which every inhabitant, who was

not a lawyer, must have believed, as that learned Judge did, the tenth

clause of the local Act confirmed to him. This clause declares that the

election of vestrymen shall not take place, until after the usual

election of churchwardens; “which election of churchwardens shall take

place on _Easter Tuesday_, and be conducted from year to year in such

manner, as hath been usual in the same parish.”

The rule of plural voting for vestrymen having been established by the

adoption of Sturges Bourne’s Act, vestrymen so elected could not sanction

the election of church-wardens in the manner which had been usual in the

parish; viz.—by show of hands. Those gentlemen, who still govern

Paddington, determined to take advantage of a legal quibble, to abrogate

the ancient form of election; but their proceedings produced an amount of

ill-feeling, which lasted for years, between those who now really had the

election of parish officers in their hands, and those who, in consequence

of the introduction of this new principle, had nothing to do with

parochial affairs, except the payment of whatever sums of money were

demanded. This feeling is indeed not yet allayed; neither can it be till

this act of injustice to the majority, is for ever and entirely revoked.

And justice must not long be delayed, if harmony is to be restored.

Upwards of 2,000 rate-payers have this year voted in favour of that Act,

which gives a single vote, and but one vote in local elections; and it

behoves all who pay towards the local expenses, all who are interested in

the welfare of this parish, to think of this, and to co-operate by every

means in their power, for the establishment of good government on the

solid basis of just principles. When this is done, all discord may

cease; for it will then be the fault of the majority if Paddington is

badly governed.

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

* * * * *

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

Town.

FOOTNOTES

{1a} Cunningham’s Hand Book of London, 1850, p. 369. The Marylebone

Borough Almanack, 1853.

{1b} Environs of London, vol. iii. p. 329. This error is repeated in

Lewis’s Topographical Dictionary and seems to have been copied by all

subsequent authors. And although Lysons is generally accurate, we shall

find this is not the only error he has made respecting this manor.

{1c} Archæologia, vol. 26, p. 231.

{2a} Dart’s History of Westminster Abbey, vol. 1. p.

11.—“Westmonasterium.”

{2b} Peter-Pence, or Rome-fee.

{2c} Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i. p. 266.

{3} “An History of Westminster Abbey,” p. 6. London, 1751.

{4} This commission undoubtedly did a great deal for the public; but it

must not be forgotten that it made use of a very considerable amount of

public money, and left the work it had to do in a very imperfect state.

At the present time vast stores of most valuable information are lying

buried in language ineligible only to a few; and if any enquirer wishes

to make out what particles of knowledge there may be in this store-house

relative to the object of his search, he has not only the ancient English

character, cramped, and contracted, law-latin to learn; but for the want

of well-arranged indices—more especially good indices locorum—a life-time

to spend in collecting his materials. All this was exceedingly well

managed to keep out the inquisitive gaze of a curious public, who were to

be kept in ignorance; but since knowledge is acknowledged to be power,

and since the people have been admitted to know, it would, surely be good

policy to offer facilities for making that knowledge as perfect as

possible.

{5a} Vide Appendix to second General Report from the Commissioners on

Public Records, p. 386.

{5b} Bawdwen’s translation of the Record called Domesday. Middlesex,

&c. Doncast. 1812.

{5c} Some writers have been unable to account for this diminution in the

value of land; but I think the writer of the article Domesday in the

Penny Cyclopædia has satisfactorily accounted for this decrease in

referring it to the revolution produced by the Conquest.

{5d} Edward de Sarisberie held Cherchede or Chelched for two hides.

{6a} This “Description of London” which Stowe printed as an appendix to

his History, is translated and published with Annotations. Lond. 1772.

{6b} Maitland’s History of London. See also Park’s Topography of

Hampstead.

{9} Elms-lane is the first opening on the right hand after getting into

the Uxbridge road from the Grand Junction road, opposite the head of the

Serpentine; the Serpentine itself being formed in the bed of the ancient

stream which I take to have been first called Tybourn, then Westbourn,

then Ranelagh Sewer. While the stream which crossed Oxford Street, west

of Stratford-place, first bore the name of Eyebourn, then Tybourn, then

King’s Scholars Pond Sewer.

{10a} That part of Edgar’s first charter, dated 951, relative to the

boundaries of Westminster, as translated by Sir Henry Ellis, is printed

in Mr. Saunders’ Inquiry, as follows:—

“First up from Thames, along Merfleet to Pollen-stock, so to

Bulinga-fen: afterwards from the fen, along the old ditch, to

Cowford. From Cowford up along Tyburne to the broad military road:

following the military road to the old stock of St. Andrew’s church:

then within London fen, proceeding south on Thames to midstream; and

along the stream by land and strand to Merfleet.”

In the decree of 1222, the western boundary is described to be “The water

of Tyburne running to the Thames.”

{10b} The charter of this king, besides securing to the Abbey the manor

of Chelsea, which Thurstan is said to have given the monks—“granted them

moreover, exemption from toll, and every third tree, with a third of the

fruit growing in his wood at Kyngesbrig”—vide Lysons. This wood I take

to have been that portion of Middlesex forest which belonged to the

crown, called in other documents Kingsholt. I think the situation of

this wood is sufficiently indicated in this charter, viz. at

Kingsbridge—the bridge which carried the king’s road over the Tybourn.

That portion of Kensington gardens which was considered part of the manor

of Knightsbridge, and which is still in Paddington parish, I take to have

been a portion of the king’s wood, and a district west of the Tybourn,

and south of the Uxbridge road—the king’s highway—I consider was also

styled Kingsbridge: Knightsbridge being a much more modern appellation,

and not used till after the Wycombe road was made and a bridge built by

some worthy knight over the Tybourn at this part of its course.

But it has been imagined that a considerable portion of the parish of

Paddington formed part of the ancient manor of Chelsea. And it is a fact

that a piece of land, one hundred and thirty-seven and three quarter

acres in extent, is now claimed by Chelsea as part and parcel of their

parish, although it is two miles from any other portion of that parish;

and, although, as I shall hereafter produce evidence to prove, it has

been considered a part of Paddington.

Further, we find that “Robert de Heyle, in 1368, leased the whole of his

manor of Chelchith, _except Westbourn and Kingsholt_, to the Abbot and

Convent of Westminster for the term of his own life,” upon condition that

he was allowed to live in a certain house in the Convent; that he was

provided with a robe of esquires’ silk, and twenty pounds yearly; and

daily with two white loaves, and two flagons of _Convent_ ale.

In speaking of the ancient manor of Chelsea, I refer to the one spoken of

in the Dom Boc; and not to that which “it is possible might have been

included by the monks amongst their possessions in Westminster.”

Vide Lysons and Faulkner.

{10c} Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, Tom. vi. p. 17. chart 1223. T.

M. Kemble. This charter is dated April 1st. (eight years later than the

above); a favourite date in documents concerning Paddington; and in this

instance especially useful as it led to understanding the characters of

all those who were silly enough to believe this written document was what

it professed to be.

{11} 49 Geo. 3. chap. “An Act for discharging a certain piece of

ground, called the Pesthouse-field from certain charitable trusts, and

for settling another piece of ground, of equal extent, in a more

convenient place, upon the same trusts.”

{13} Commentaries B. II. c. 18. p. 269. 10th edition.

{14a} The dean of Peterborough, in his supplement to Gunton, differs

somewhat in the account he there gives of this festival. He has turned

the wine into beer; but made the tankard hold twenty-five gallons. And

the nuns to whom the allowance was made resided, according to this

Doctor, in Holbourn, instead of Kilbourn; an error pointed out in

Naysmith’s edition of Tannar’s Notitia. Vide p. 297, of Gunton’s History

of Peterborough.

{14b} As bread was given ad libitum, and cheese was to be served on this

day, I think we may find in this document the real origin of the term,

“Bread and Cheese lands,” which is still applied to a small portion of

that which was “the Paddington Charity Estate;” an estate not to be

confounded at the present time with “the Paddington Estate.”

{15} The Dean states that the meaning of the original is not very clear.

But I think there is not much difficulty in discovering the meaning of

his very excellent translation. The writer was evidently enjoying the

joke of those in command, not allowing wine to their followers who did

not constantly wear arms; while the commanders themselves were admitted,

and allowed to get drunk, with their swords on.

{16} An account of the Writers of the History of Westminster Abbey, p.

4.

{17} Vide _Park’s History of Hampstead_.

{18a} “But beyond the above written limits the Vills of Knightsbridge,

Westbourn, Paddington with its Chapel, and their appurtenances, belong to

the parish of St. Margaret aforesaid.” To secure the privileges

contained in this decree the Abbot had to give the Bishop of London the

manor of Sunbury, and the Church to the Chapter of St. Paul’s, besides

those places surrendered by the arrangement in the decree. The monks of

Westminster did not at all relish this arrangement; and one more

outspoken than the rest openly declared that “Peter had been robbed to

pay Paul.”

{18b} This author gives, as his authority, a MS. in the King’s

Remembrancer’s Office Exchequer, f. 26b. Lysons says the church and

chapel were valued together at thirty marks; and gives the Harlean MS.,

No. 60, as his authority. In this calculation the “Vicaria” is not

mentioned.

{19} “A manor, manerium, a manendo, because the usual residence of the

owner.” This learned expounder of our laws further explains “that it

seems to have been a district of ground held by lords or great

personages.” Book ii, p. 90.

{20a} Mr. Park says that the Shuttup Hill Estate “affords one among many

instances of the freedom with which religious corporations were in the

habit of elevating their lands and farms into _manors_.”—_Topography of

Hampstead_. p. 194.

{20b} Priests, who formerly were permitted to practice in the Law

Courts, were, a little before this time, for very good reasons no doubt,

prevented from doing so. But they did not quietly submit to this loss of

their influence in the worldly concerns of the people; and they adopted

all kinds of contrivances to keep up their former power. Amongst others,

equally honorable, we find they adopted the wig to hide that which would

have otherwise betrayed their holy calling.—Vide _Sir H. Spelman’s

Conjectures on the Introduction of the Coif_; _Glossar_, p. 335, _and

Blackstone_, vol. I. p. 24.

{21a} The statute passed in the eighteenth year of Edward’s reign, which

put an end to the further increase of manors, must have been fresh in

this Abbot’s memory; and it was this law, perhaps, which induced him to

place Paddington and Westbourn under the maternal wing of Westminster.

{21b} Tenement is a word of still greater extent than land, for though

in its vulgar acceptation it only applied to houses and other buildings,

yet in its original, proper, and legal sense it signifies every thing

that may be _holden_, provided it be of a permanent nature; whether it be

of a substantial and sensible, or of an unsubstantial ideal

kind.”—_Blackstone_, vol. ii, p. 17.

{21c} Placita de Quo Warranto, Edward first Rot. 39, p. 479 of the work

published by the Record Commission.

{21d} At the present time there is preserved a Fine Roll in the Record

Office, Carlton Ride, containing an account of the Temporalities of the

Convent of Westminster, from the eighth to the tenth years of Edward the

second, taken after the death of Richard de Kedyngton (or de Sudbury),

the Abbot who succeeded Walter of Wenlock, and although this document was

examined with great care by two gentlemen accustomed to examine documents

of this kind no notice or account of Paddington could be found in it

amongst the numerous possessions therein described.

{22} Was the first of these inquisitions directed in consequence of the

omission of any mention of Paddington in the return of the Abbey

possessions just alluded to; or was it suggested by the legal advisers of

the Convent to secure a title to their lands in these places?

{24} This Walter Franceys is in all probability the Water Fraunceis of

the preceding inquisition, whose descendants we find to be possessed of

land in Paddington, after the reformation, like the descendants of John

Colyn, mentioned in the next inquisition.

{25} Before these names the sentence which precedes that of Richard de

Sudburie is to be understood. It will be noticed that Richard de Sudburi

was the name of an Abbot of Westminster, who died in the eighth year of

this reign. But whether these lands were acquired by him and inserted

here to render that grant a legal holding, or whether it was the grant of

some Richard de Sudbueri then living I cannot say.

{27} _Maitland’s London_, _by Entick_, vol. i. p. 190.

{28} Now called Kensington.

{29} _Lysons_, p. 514, vol. iv.—Second edition.

{30a} _Faulkner’s Kensington_, p. 90.

{30b} From the _Domboc_, we learn that this land was held by Alberic, or

Aubrey, de Vere of the Bishop Constance, the Chief Justiciary of England;

and we are informed by _Lysons_ and _Faulkner_ that the second Aubrey was

in so much favour with the first Henry, that he was not only appointed to

this office, Lord Chief Justice of England, but created Lord Great

Chamberlain, “which office” says Faulkner, “was made hereditary in his

family, with the tenure of several manors;” and _Lysons_ tells us this

manor was so held. _Mr. Faulkner’s_ more recent investigations have

brought out several facts respecting this manor, and its subsequent

division into separate manors, which did not appear very plain in the

account given by _Lysons_, although his account is exceedingly

interesting and contains a great number of facts and references.

{31} _Faulkner’s History and Antiquities of Kensington_, p. 73–4. Each

15 Edw. IV. m. 12. See also _Lysons’ Kensington_. Both _Lysons_ and

_Faulkner_ state that Richard had a grant of these manors; but the

statements in the Inquisition and the Act of Parliament, point out a mode

of acquisition not quite so creditable to a King.

{32} _Valor Ecclesiasticus_ (published by the Record Commission) vol. i.

p. 411. This Ecclesiastical valuation, taken in 1535, superseded the one

ordered to be taken by the Pope in 1291.

{33a} Sir Reginald has the credit of having designed Henry the seventh’s

chapel, in Westminster Abbey.

{33b} Vide _Madox’s Formulare Anglicanum_, p. 287; and Pat 35, Henry

VIII. p. 6. m. 18 (19). _Lysons_, and _Smith_ (who appears to have

copied what Lysons said), only “_suppose_” this sale to have taken place.

{34} I find by a note to the printed copy of the Countess’s will, that

_John_ Roper was her first Cambridge reader.

{35a} As I make no pretention to be a black-letter lawyer, and as I

thought my readers would prefer to read such documents as these in their

own language, I have in almost every instance where I have found it

necessary to quote ancient Latin documents, given the translation:

referring to the original to be consulted by those who should think it

necessary to do so.

{35b} For this and most of the references relative to this manor, I am

indebted to _Lysons’s_ article, _Kensington_, and _Mr. Faulkner’s History

and Antiquities of Kensington_.—Vide p. 74 and 591. It will be perceived

that the account I have given of this manor differs in some respects from

that given by these learned antiquarians; but the facts I have produced

have been obtained from the same sources and therefore may be equally

relied on.

{36a} “Rental of premises in Westminster, Paddington, and Kensington,”

referred to at p. 194 in the “First Report on Public Records.” This MS.

is kept at the Land Revenue Office, Spring-gardens, where I had the

opportunity of inspecting it through the kindness of Mr. Fernside; it

appears to be the “Receiver’s account of the late Monastery of St. Peter,

Westminster,” for two years. Whether this is one of those “Books of

Yearly Rents, reserved by Henry VIII, and Edward VI, which were concealed

from Queen Elizabeth,” referred to at p. 197 of the first report, I do

not know.

{36b} Vide _Subsidy Roll_, of this year.

{36c} Vide _Faulkner’s_ account of the descent of this manor, p. 592.

Sir H. Anderson, an Alderman of London, gave £3,400 for this manor the

same year in which “the Queen’s pardon” was obtained. In a presentment

made of the manor of Abbot’s Kensington, 1675, we find Sir R. Anderson’s

land set down at 400 acres, Free, but then said to be included in that

manor.—_Ibid_ 598.

{38} This field in “A Perticular Booke of Chelsey Manor,” is called

“Darkingby Johes.”—Vide _Faulkner’s Chelsea_, vol. i. p. 318.

{39} Having by the production of these documents sadly damaged the

numerous stories told about these fields, “Chelsea Reach,” as they are

called, the least I can do will be to attempt to preserve two of those I

have heard. Supposing the second to have any truth in it, the first will

shew how the people may be kept in ignorance by the use of words which

have a double meaning—how the ignorant may be kept in ignorance by

telling them a story which they are to read one way, and that according

to the common acceptation, while the knowing ones, the fraternity who

have become philosophers, and have been admitted into the secret, may

read, it in another.

“A Chelsea Pensioner having been to visit a poor lame grandchild who

was being educated in good and sound learning at the Free School,

established by John Lyon, at Harrow-on-the-hill, was so much

delighted with his visit, that to celebrate the occasion in a proper

manner he drank to the memory of the generous founder a little too

often and a little too deep. The ale continued to affect his upper

story till he passed the seventh mile stone, (and it must be known

that the mile stones on this road were numbered from Harrow, and not

as on every other road from London,) mistaking a white line of water,

the Paddington Canal, for the road, at this point, he found, when it

was too late, that a man was not destined by his Maker to walk on

that element; his _corps_ was not found for some days. When it was

discovered no one would own it; and what was worse no one would bury

it, till at length it became necessary for the civil magistrate to

interfere; he sent for the Chelsea clergyman, directed him to read

the proper service, and bury the corps where it was lying. Before

the clergyman consented to do this, however, he insisted that it

should be carried round a certain number of fields which he pointed

out. That magic circle constitutes this dry “Chelsea Reach;” and

within it, and in consequence of this incident, the Chelsea Rector

always claims tithe over it. Beneath the piece of ground not claimed

by either parish the corps lies buried.”

This, as any story-maker will readily perceive, is a sad hodge-podge.

But this is the story for the ignorant, perhaps made by them. The

knowing ones have their simple story:—

“A certain prebend, of a certain Cathedral, seeing this land without

an owner kindly took it under his care. It became his _corps_. He

grew birches on it for the boys in his school; and when his

occupation was gone, his relatives claimed the land as his freehold.”

Whether there is any, and if any, what amount of truth in either of these

stories, I must leave the reader to discover. A key, perhaps, may be

found to the latter in another story which is told of the purchase of

this land of the descendants of Dr. Busby, and by the fact of a Dr. Busby

having held the prebendal corps of Boxgrave, which was situated in

Westborne _in the County of Sussex_.

It would appear that these closes, “containing by estimation fifty

acres,” were all that remained in Paddington of the Old Chelsea Manor:

but as we have already seen 137¾ acres are now claimed by Chelsea as

belonging to that parish.

{40} Vol. i. p. 310–11.

{43} A New Record Office in being built at the back of the Roll’s Chapel

so that it is to be hoped the valuable documents now kept in this stable

will soon find a better lodging.

{44} At the time of the Reformation, as I have before observed,

ministers were appointed by the Crown, to take and keep the accounts of

all monies derived from the lands which had belonged to religious houses.

Many of these ministers accounts are still preserved and contain much

valuable information. According to these accounts (vide _Monsticion

Anglicanum_, vol. i. p. 326–27) it would appear that for the first year

the Crown received only £31 6_s._ 8_d._ from the church lands in

Paddington, and for the next year the same sum with the addition of 2_s._

rent charge, for the conducion of water; but in the 36th and 37th of

Henry the VIII., I find the minister returns the Crown Rent of this manor

and rectory, at £41 6_s._ 8_d._

{45} Henry the VIII, finding that the clergy readily paid the first

fruits of their livings to the Pope, and that £160,000 had been

transmitted to Rome, on account of this claim, since the second year of

Henry the seventh, thought, very naturally, as he had been proclaimed

“The supreme head of the church and clergy of England, in so far as is

permitted by the law of Christ,” that he ought to stand in the Popes’s

shoes in this particular also; and that the annates, or first fruits,

ought to be paid to the Crown of England, instead of going to enrich a

Foreign Potentate. He first reduced the payment to five per cent. “the

better to keep the Pope in awe,” but finding that remedy unsuccessful

took the whole to himself.—Vide _Hume’s History of England_.

{46a} The seven Protestant Bishops who succeeded Ridley in this see held

it but fifty years.

{46b} Whether Edmund Grindall, Ridley’s protestant successor in the see

of London, renewed this lease and received a fine for the renewal I

cannot say; I speak in the text of the income reserved by the Crown.

{46c} _Ecclesiastical Memoirs_.—Vol. ii. part 1, p. 339.

{47a} An account of Collectors and other ministers of the possessions of

the Bishop of London, 9th of Elizabeth, ending Michaelmas.

{47b} This notice is at the foot of the account, and evidently written

in another hand: it is Richard Brown’s account.

{47c} Rough Notes, 3rd of Elizabeth.

{49a} Vide _Collectanea Topographica._ vol. iii. p. 31. The original

MS. from which this survey is printed is in the Rawlinson collection in

the Bodleian Library, Oxford, No. 240.

{49b} Ibid, vol. i. p. 287; or additional M.SS. British Museum, 9049, p.

37.

{50a} 26 _Geo._ 2. c. 43.

{50b} Judith Jodrell, wife of Sir Paul Jodrell, was a daughter of Mr.

Daniel Sheldon; and it appears her life was the last of that family in

the estate. I find by a private Act of Parliament, that the family of

the Sheldons were obliged to sell their estates at Ditchford, in

Worcestershire, to pay their debts, and it is probable that their life

interest in the manor and rectory of Paddington was disposed of for the

same purpose.

This practice of granting church lands for three lives appears to be very

ancient. It was the common practice of Oswald, Bishop of Worcester, at

the end of the tenth century; and for doing which he was accused of

wasting the revenues of the church.—_Mr. Kemble’s Introduction_, p. 34.

{51} The Desborough estate was leased by Bishop Porteus and his lessees

to the Grand Junction Canal Company; but how the Bishop and his lessees

became possessed of this estate I do not know.

{52a} _Mr. Macaulay_, in his _History of England_, when speaking of

London, as it existed in 1685, describes this Pest-house Field as being

the place used as a burial place for many of those who died of the plague

twenty years before; but from the account given by _Lysons_, and from the

Acts of Parliament relating to this charity estate, I am induced to

believe it was purchased after that calamity and for future use.

{52b} A plan of Upton Farm, taken by William Gardner, in 1729, was

presented to the parishioners of Paddington by Mr. Thomas, a surgeon, who

lived in Brown-street, and it is still preserved in the Vestry-room.

{54a} Vide _Faulkner’s History of Kensington_, p. 596.

{54b} The hog was one of the most important possessions of the cottager,

and as this animal obtained the chief part of its food in the wood, this

right of the wood was of more consequence than the right of pasture to

the poorer villagers.

{54c} _Penny Cyclopædia_; article—“Commons.”

{55a} It is said that even for the russet spot which is still, for auld

lang syne, called Paddington-green, the parishioners are indebted to the

generosity of a private gentleman.

{55b} _Macaulay’s History of England_, vol. i. page 421.

{56a} _Ferrers_—a romance of the reign of George the second. 3 vols.

1842.

{56b} “The woman I adore;” in which Mr. B. appeared as “Paddington

Green.”

{56c} It may be asked, why these prints have not been copied for this

work? My answer is, that if these had been inserted others could not

have been left out; and as my object was to keep down the price of this

edition, so as to bring it within reach of every rate-payer, I was very

reluctantly compelled to leave out all pictorial illustration.

{57a} The Charity School and St. Margaret’s-terrace now occupy the site

of this pond.

{57b} This was not one of the forts belonging to the entrenchment which

encircled London and Westminster, for as is shewn in _Maitland’s History

of London_, the continuous fortification was much nearer those cities;

but it was a small detached outwork, a portion of which remained in

Chatelain’s time, and is represented in his engraving.

{57c} In the “Report of the Committee appointed by the Paddington

Parochial Association, instituted for the Reform of the Parish abuses,”

printed 1834; it is stated, “at the present time, only one of these maps

is forthcoming, that which contained the plan of the whole parish, and

this when enquired for, was brought in a tin case from the house of the

Vestry Clerk, who said when it was handed over to the Committee, that he

could not tell whether the maps were or were not in it. On opening this

remaining map, it was found to be defaced, there having been evidently

erasures made on the face of it; the absence of the map of the waste and

charity was enough to excite the suspicion of the committee; that at some

period, dishonesty on the part of _some one_, if not _more_, had

occasioned this loss; but when they found that the alterations upon the

remaining map were connected with the waste and charity lands, they could

no longer doubt of wrong doing somewhere, especially as an entire leaf

had been torn out of the Vestry Minute Book, which related to the same

subject, viz. Charity and Waste Lands.”

{58} This Mr. Harper was a tenant of the bishop and his lessees; and the

fields he rented chiefly for grazing, were called for many years,

“Harper’s Fields.” On the expiration of his tenancy I do not find that

his landlords made any compensation to the parish for this waste land,

for which Mr. Harper had paid rent.

{62} This “dispute” speaks volumes. That the Bishop of London and the

Dean and Chapter of Westminster should “dispute” the right of the poor

parishioners of Paddington _to half an acre_, when the whole of the land

around, for many acres, was, in all probability, assigned to the poor,

could not be believed except on such authority as the above.

{68} The account states that the will directs £9 per annum to be given

to poor families every Lady-day and Michaelmas day.

{70} By the cash accounts, published annually, by order of the Vestry,

it will be seen that for many years past, only five shillings per annum

have been paid from _one_ of those houses which are spoken of under

“Johnson’s Charity.” I have made search for the merchant-tailor’s will

but it has been a fruitless one. Should any gentleman into whose hands

these pages may fall, discover this, or any other document relative to

Paddington, he would confer on the author of this work a very great

favour, if he would take the trouble to communicate with him.

{72} In a Report of the case of Thistlethwayte _v._ Gamier, heard before

Sir J. Parker, in the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, May 4th, 1852, reported in

the _Times_ on the following day, it is stated that the estimated value

of seven-eighths of the lessee’s interest, which is two-thirds of the

whole, is £430,000.

{73} At the end of 1835, the present valuable agents of the Bishop

discovered, that having followed in the steps of their predecessors, they

had committed a grave error in receiving only the £10 which had been

reserved by this Act, and subsequent Acts, for the Lessees; and on the

1st of December, they addressed a letter to the Vestry, calling on them

to pay his Lordship, the present Bishop of London, the sum of £12; the

rent which had not been before called for, but which was due to him for

the past six years. I believe an “action at law” was not commenced for

this sum, but a second lawyer’s letter was sent and the demand was paid,

and has been ever since.

{75a} The whole Act occupies forty-two pages.

{75b} It was Richard Terrick, the successor of Richard Osbaldeston in

the See of London, who granted both these leases. This Bishop died 31st

March, 1777.

{80} The separate Messuage or Tenement described in Rede’s lease as

“formerly in the tenure of Edward North, Esquire,” is here so described,

with the addition, “afterwards of Daniel Sheldon and after that of

Gilbert Sheldon, his under-tenant or under-tenants, Assignee or Assigns.”

{83} The whole of these lands, as well as others leased to this Company,

in 1812, are laid out in a plan attached to the Act of that year.

{85a} I wonder whether amongst the “general improvements,” the framers

of this Act, or those who assisted in passing it, thought for one moment

of the great improvement it would be to have a church to each parcel (say

every hundred acres) of land which should be built on?

{85b} Vide Second Schedule to the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45.

{86a} This in a subsequent Act, is explained to mean not houses “in the

shell or carcase,” but houses when fit for habitation, so that to get a

good ground-rent it is necessary to have a high-rented house; and the

high ground-rents, which I am informed are at least 25 per cent. higher

than the average in the neighbouring parishes, may be looked on as one of

the chief causes of the high rents of the houses on this estate.

{86b} In this clause the time for registration was limited to two

months, but by a subsequent Act it was extended to six months.

The sixth section of the seventh of Ann, chap. 20, (the Act referred to),

provides that the “Registrar or Master shall keep an Alphabetical

Kalendar of all the Parishes, Extra-parochial Places and Townships within

the said County, with reference to the number of every Memorial that

concerns the Donor’s Manors, Lands, Tenements, or Hereditaments in every

such Parish, &c.” But here, as at other Offices, where important

historical documents are kept, no _Index Locorum_ is known. To be able

to turn to any particular parish, and at once find the deeds belonging to

that parish, would be much too easy a process, whatever the framers of

this Act may have thought of its convenience.

{87a} We are told by this Act, that previous to the second marriage of

this lady to Joshua Smith Simmons Smith, two other sons had died; one

Henry Frederick, leaving a widow and child; the other Frederick,

unmarried; and to his sixth share of the half of the lessee’s interest

the mother became entitled. Mrs. Smith left her husband all her interest

in the Paddington Estate, and he assigned it to Elizabeth Hughes, widow.

Besides the purchase of the sixth share above referred to, we find by a

subsequent Act, fifth Geo. IV. cap. 35, that Lady Morshead and her son

assigned “all their moiety and beneficial estate and interest in the said

lease,” to Thomas Thistlethwayte; and we have already seen, in a previous

note, that this gentleman died possessed of seven-eighths of the lessees’

interest in the Paddington Estate.

{87b} We learn by a subsequent Act, the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45, that

the receipts by the sale of brick-earth, gravel, and sand, up to that

time, 1825, amounted to £10,256 12_s._ 3_d._

{87c} This was the last Act of Parliament relative to this estate with

which Bishop Porteus had anything to do, as he died on the thirteenth of

May, 1809, having occupied the See of London from November the fourth,

1787. Vide p. 94 and 255 of the Life of this Bishop—by _Mr. Hodgson_.

{90} I have been informed that this Water Company asked one thousand

pounds per annum for the site of one of their reservoirs for a lease of

ninety-nine years, to contain all the covenants of building leases, and

this after the site for All Saints Church had been taken out of it.

{91} These articles of agreement contained a clause to exempt the

buildings, houses, &c. on this land, from “the operations or regulations

contained or to be contained in any Act or Acts of Parliament respecting

buildings;” and they were not to be subject “to the control, management,

or interference” of any surveyor, or any other person, claiming to

exercise authority under such Acts. This was asking a little too much

even of a Parliament in which Grattan and Old Sarum were represented; and

the articles were saved from the disgrace of receiving Parliamentary

sanction, so far as this clause was concerned. Yet such influence did

this clause in the agreement, though unsanctioned by the Legislature,

have on the District Surveyor, that in his return to the House of

Commons, in 1843, he states that “eighty one acres in this district, the

property of the Grand Junction Canal Company, and eighty-eight and a-half

acres, the property of the Great Western Railway Company, are exempt from

the operation of the Building Act, except as to all houses erected on the

latter property.

By an entry on the Vestry Minute Book, I find the Grand Junction Canal

Company, leased eight acres of their land to the Water Works Company at a

pepper corn rent.

{96} The exact yearly rent paid by the Great Western Railway Company to

the Bishop and his lessees, is £2366 2_s._ 1_d._ Vide Parliamentary

Paper, No. 664. 1850.

{103a} I have stated 1829, for in 1729 the Turnpike-rate was standing at

the junction of the old Roman roads; that is, at the end of Park-lane.

{103b} “Return of the number of District Surveyors appointed under the

Metropolitan Building Act, and amount of their fees.” By this return I

find that the fees received by the District Surveyor of Paddington, for

five years, 1838 to 1842 inclusive, amounted to £4,261! _Parliamentary

Paper_, 1843.

{104a} Page cliii of this Report.

{104b} While the workmen were digging the gravel out of “Craven

Gardens,” I saw an old well which lay beside their excavation, the bottom

of which did not appear to have been ten feet from the surface. I also

remember that there was a pond close to this spot, at the corner of the

Pest-house Field, which was not so deep as this well, but which was not

dry even in the hottest summer.

{105} Vide _Household Words_, _No._ 142, for a most powerful picture of

the present condition of the common sewers.

{106} One of the great reformers of the sixteenth century—_Luther_—said

“The Christian must be obedient to the commands of the Government, even

though it wrongs him, skinning and fleecing him.” And again he says,

“Christians, whilst preparing for the eternal life, will remain in

political things always stupid sheep, (Schaafe und Schoepse), they will

never get beyond nonsense in the affairs of state.” German reformers of

the nineteenth century see the effect these opinions have had on the

world, and they reject these dogmas of their venerable reformer with the

contempt they so well merit. Vide “_The Reformation of the Nineteenth

Century_,” by Johannes Ronge, Part I. page 19. Deutsch and Co.,

Fleet-street, and Oswald and Covers, Cross-street, Manchester.

{111} The English Language, 3rd edition, page 286.

{113} Saxons in England, vol. i. page 36.

{114a} “William (son of Ansculfe) holds Abincebourne—Abinger. The same

William holds Padindene. Huscarle held it of King Edward. At that time

it was rated for four hides; now for three. Hugh, William’s man, holds

three hides.” In Abinger parish there were three manors—Abinger;

Paddington-Pembroke; and Paddington, otherwise Paddindean, sometimes

styled from a former owner, Paddington Bray. There was also another

manor of “Padinden” in Lingfield parish in this county. Vide _Manning

and Bray’s History of Surrey_, vol. ii. page 136 and 347.

{114b} Unfortunately this, the Ranelagh Sewer still remains open in some

parts of its course. In a letter from Dr. Aldis to the editor of the

_Times_, September 7th, 1852, we find that it is open in Chelsea; and

that “its present open state answers two purposes, one for the exhalation

of noxious effluvia, the other for the drowning of little children

happening to fall into it, an instance of which recently occurred.” And

though the greater part of this sewer has been covered in _and built

upon_, on “the bishop’s estate,” yet there is a considerable portion

which is not yet covered in in this parish. Building, however, is now

progressing close to this open sewer so that I presume it will not be

long before this portion of the ancient Tybourn is for ever hidden from

mortal ken.

{115a} _Speculum Britanniæ_.

{115b} _Lancet_, vol. 2, 1848. Reports of public meetings in the daily

papers. And Dr Tilt’s various researches on this subject, published in a

separate pamphlet and in the _Lancet_.

{115c} Mr. Kemble thinks every mark had its religious establishment, its

“fanum” or “hearth;” “that the priest or priests attached to these

heathen churches had lands, perhaps free-will offerings too, for their

support;” and further, “that the Christian Missionaries, acted on a well

grounded plan of turning the religio loci to account;” and that “whenever

a substantial building was found in existence, it was taken possession of

for the behoof of the new religion.”—_Saxons in England_, vol. ii. p.

424.

{118} _Commentaries_, Book i. chap. 11.

{119a} See _Report on Church Rates_, page 461. H. C. 1851. 541.

{119b} Minster and Monastery, were names anciently applied to all

parish-churches. Sed et universim ecclesiæ omnes monasteræ dictæ. Du

Cagne’s Glossary.

{120} _Anglo-Saxon History_, vol. ii. pages 422, 501, 546.

{121} _Dr. Cove’s Essay on the Revenues of the Church of England_, p.

72; and _Wilkins’s Anglo-Saxon Laws_, p. 71.

The extracts from Mr. Kemble’s work shew how this encouragement to church

buildings was abused; and how little the parvenu aristocracy, thus made,

knew of moral obligation.

{122a} _Commentaries_, book 1. cap. 11, p. 387, tenth edition.

{122b} The statute against this “new heresy,” which “had been

surreptitiously obtained by the clergy;” the citation of Wickliffe before

Courtney, bishop of London, and rousing the populace against the Duke of

Lancaster and Lord Piercy who protected him, were all of no avail; the

truth which Wickliffe advocated advanced, and when he was cited before

the Lambeth Synod, even the people of London saw their previous error,

and protected him.—Vide _Hume_. “_Miscellaneous Transactions during

Richard the Second’s reign_.”

{123} Sir H. Spelman says impropriations are so called “as being

_improperly_ in the hands of laymen;” others say, impropriation is a

corruption of in-appropriation.

{124a} _Strype’s Life of Aylmer_, original edition, 1701, p. 212.

Oxford edition of _Strype’s Works_, p. 140.

{124b} The present Bishop of London has returned the gross income of his

see for the seven years, ending 31st December, 1850, at the comfortable

sum of £123,985 0_s._ 11_d._ the net income being £115,591 19_s._ 11_d._

Vide _Blue Book_, _No._ 400, 1851, p. 385; and Sir B. Hall’s Speech in

the House of Commons, July 1st, 1851.

{127a} _Macaulay’s History of England_, vol. i, p. 397.

{127b} At the time I am writing, this number must very nearly represent

the inhabitants of this parish; but the actual number, whatever it may

be, is daily increasing.

{129} “Returns—Ecclesiastical Commission; and Archbishoprics and

Bishoprics. Ordered by the House of Commons, to be printed 16th June,

1851.” No. 400.

{132} The Tybourn church was built by and belonged to, the De Veres; the

excuse given for taking it down was, that “it stood in a lonely place

near the highway, and that in consequence of its position it was subject

to the depredations of robbers, who frequently stole the images, bells,

and ornaments.” The _most_ lonely place “near the highway” was beside

_the ancient_ Tybourn, where the gallows and gibbet were formed out of

the adjacent elm, and near this spot, as I imagine, the ancient Tybourn

church stood.

{133} Vestry Minutes, August, 1796.

{134} The great Sir James’s notions of marriage and his stupidity in not

recognising in his son-in-law one of the greatest geniuses of his, or any

other age—notwithstanding all Sir Joshua has said—perhaps gave the hint

for the execution of those exquisite moral lessons which adorn our

National Gallery.

{135} Vide Print of Paddington-Green, published by R. Sayer, and J.

Bennett, in 1783.

{136} No less than 291 local and private Acts of Parliament, connected

with building, enlarging or repairing churches; and procuring, enclosing,

or enlarging parish, church-yards, were procured from 1750 to 1850. For

their titles, see report of select committee on church rates.—_Blue

Book_, 1850; No. 541. And one would think that by this time, enough

_general_ Church Building Acts existed, seeing that their manufacture

commenced on the 30th of May, 1818, and that up to the 7th of August,

1851, not less than nineteen have been turned out of hand.—See 14th and

15th Vic. cap. 97.

{137} From this gentleman the churchwardens could get no account of the

burial-fees received by him for several years; so that they complain in

vestry of not being able to pay the salaries of other persons engaged

about the church, or the bills sent into them. And in 1798, the vestry

resolved that he should no longer hold the situation of sexton and

vestry-clerk. In 1801, there is an entry in the minutes to the effect,

that the office of clerk is still held by this tenacious gentleman,

“_although he has left the parish_.” No wonder that with such rectors,

or governors as we have described, and with such a deputy-governor as

this, the vestry minutes were lost; the charity-lands were lost; and the

parish funds were misapplied!

{139} Beside a very ancient yew tree, which was carefully protected by a

raised mound of earth, there grew in the old church-yard, a double-leaved

elder tree which enjoyed a far-famed reputation.

{140a} There is an edition of this map dated 1827, now hanging up in the

Vestry-Clerk’s room, from which this fact has been effaced; and not

content with this erasure, half the parish has been rubbed out by the

despoilers.

{140b} For an excellent description of the dilapidated condition of the

old manor house see Mr. Ollier’s Novel of Ferrers.

{142} Adjoining this field was the “Church Field,” names well remembered

by many now living.

{145} However odious it may appear I cannot help contrasting here the

generosity of a private gentleman, unconnected with the parish by ties of

property, with the “meanness” of the lord and his lessee. Mr. Tillard,

of Canterbury, gave, through Dr. Crane, £500 towards the erection of this

chapel, while £300 sufficed for the lordly donation, and £200 for the

lessees—to which, in justice to a lady connected by birth with the

latter, I must mention a donation of £100 by Miss Thistlethwayte. The

Grand Junction Canal Company gave £200; and Dr. Crane, Mr. Orme, Earls

Ferrars, and Shannon, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, £100 each.

The architect, Mr. Fowler, gave £50, and the remainder was collected in

sums under a hundred from the parishioners, and some of the neighbours.

Mr. Tillard’s gift of £20,000 and interest, (at first it was only a loan)

towards the erection of the Marylebone churches, also deserves mention,

in order that it may not be imagined he shewed his favours to Paddington

only. His other generous deeds need no mention here.

{147} Finding the Commissioners did not come down so handsomely as on

the previous occasion, only £1000 this time, it was necessary to appeal

to the Metropolitan Committee. This Committee gave £3,000; and the

bishop afterwards increased his donation to £500. Mr. Thistlethwayte

gave £200. Upwards of a thousand pounds were subscribed by the builders.

The Rev. Minister gave £200; (a whole year’s stipend; if the bishop and

his lessees had but done this!) and the greater portion of the remainder

was raised by voluntary subscription from those who did not know the

history of the Paddington Estate.

{151a} Vide cash accounts.

{151b} While we admire the wonders being worked out by the electric

telegraph, the simple rod of steel must not be discarded, or despised;

for the want of this simple lightning conductor, the clumsy steeple of

St. James’s Church was struck by what would a short time ago have been

considered the vengeance of heaven.

{152a} For some most excellent remarks on the London Churches in

general, see “London exhibited in 1851,” by John Weale.

{152b} For a full description of the splitting of the walls of this

church, and the cause which produced it, see _The Builder_, for 1846,

pages 589–615.

There is an error in a previous notice of this church in the Builder,

Vol. IV., page 395, which may have led to the belief, that it did not

much concern the rate-payers of Paddington, how it was built; the printer

of this notice having made the church commissioners give ten thousand

pounds, instead of one thousand—the actual amount given.

{153} _Household Words_, November 6, 1852.

{155} Mr. Cundy’s generous gift did not save the parish the payment of

“£38 for a carved oak altar table and two chairs, supplied at Trinity;”

the question of stone or wood having become of great importance; the wood

having carried it in this instance.

{156} It must not be imagined that this vestry represented the majority

of rate-payers; for it did no such thing. At the annual public meeting

of rate-payers, which was held after these great outlays for the church

had been incurred, the names of the parish officers who sanctioned these

proceedings were received with the most unmistakeable marks of

disapprobation; and at an election, which virtually tried the management

of the whole body, a great majority of the rate-payers voted against the

vestry. Moreover, I am of opinion, after the most careful and impartial

investigation of this subject, that the _bona fide_ government of this

parish is, and has been for years, in the hands of the bishop and his

lessees, (through their agents in the parish,) and a few builders.

{157} Vide Cash Account, 1847—p. 49.

{159} Vide _Morning Post_, _October_, 5th, 1850.

{160} Report of the Lock Hospital Asylum, and Chapel, 1852.

{161} Macaulay’s History of England, Vol. I. page 88.

{169} For an excellent description of the method of teaching adopted at

this school, see Household Words.—December 25, 1852.

{174a} In consequence of the management of this Establishment not having

been satisfactory to the subscribers, another Institution of a similar

character has been established in the same street; and it is to be hoped

that this rivalry will ensure the future good management of both.

{174b} These figures have been kindly furnished to me by Mr. Brown, the

Clerk of the Board of Guardians, with their permission.

{176} Kensington-gardens, and Hyde-park, are within an easy distance of

Paddington, it is true; and the people see the necessity of maintaining

those true lungs of London; so that these open spaces are not likely to

be covered by the mason. But these Royal Parks are kept for the

promenades of those who can afford to ride on horses or in carriages, or

who, if walking, can afford to dress well; these therefore do not make up

for the loss of the old village-green.

{182a} The account of this tradition is preserved in “Ferrers.”

{182b} Mr. Macaulay tells us from the best authority, “that there were

in the City at this time fifty-five persons to ten houses.” But many

causes would combine to make the families in a village less numerous than

in a city; I have therefore taken five individuals, instead of five and a

half, in the computations I have made for the population of Paddington.

{183a} This is not only the oldest person buried in the church-yard, so

far as is known, but it is the oldest tomb now existing in it. Some time

ago, an engraved copper-plate, in memory of Henry Kenwricke, citizen and

mercer, was found several feet below the present surface: he died

December 23rd, 1639, aged 63.

{183b} Madame Vestris and her husband, Mr. Charles Matthews, also

occupied this house for some time.

{189} This story was told of several cowkeepers in the neighbourhood of

London; and an old, and oft repeated tale, is told of one of this

grazier’s workmen. The young man who married the heiress, turned out a

terrible old miser, and his penurious habits, as a matter of course, made

him no great favourite with those whom he employed; therefore his final

exit from this world was not much regretted by them. “Pretty Johnny,”

the Guardsman’s son, was not of the same turn of mind as his father, and

his failings and faults were looked on with a more lenient eye by the

people. What the father had saved with so much care, the son delighted

to spend; and after the old gentleman’s death, the magic number of live

stock soon vanished from the fields. A few cows were sold to supply any

immediate want; and after a greater demand on one occasion, than

ordinary, Pretty Johnny was not in the best of tempers. This lazy old

fellow, who had by some chance found out for what purpose the cows were

sold, happened to cross his path at this unlucky moment, and the grazier

who saw the wicked twinkle in the fellow’s eye, swore, if he did’nt get

out of the way and go on with his work, he would send him to the

devil.—The countryman nothing daunted, quietly rejoined, “You’d better

not, master; for if you do, I’ll tell daddy you’ve sold the cows.”

{190} Byron has said “there would be nothing to make the canal of

Venice, more poetical than that of Paddington, were it not for its

artificial adjuncts.” Vide Cunningham’s Hand-book. The artificial

adjuncts of the Paddington Canal, from its first formation to the present

time, have been any thing but poetical. It is true an imaginative

Cockney might, in snowy weather, have imbibed his notion of the Alps from

what he then saw on the banks of this canal; for immense heaps of dust

and ashes towered high above the house-tops; and these artificial

mountains are said to have been worth ten thousand pounds a-piece.

{196} In going through the Vestry Minute-Books, for the purposes of this

Work, I found an opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock’s entered in November

1841 (at which time the builders and owners of houses were attempting to

relieve themselves of the charge of _all Empty Rates_) to the effect that

these words, “it shall and may be lawful,” created a duty. But I was

astonished to find the opinion mutilated by a bungling attempt which had

been made to scratch out the words, “_and may_.”

{198} How different this conduct of the Bishop of London and his

lessees, from the liberality of John Lyon, who, after he had establishes

his Free School at Harrow, purchased forty-one acres of land in

Marylebone, for the purpose of keeping the road to London in repair for

ever! Vide 10 Geo. IV. cap. 59.

{199} For an account of these trials, Maund v. Campbell, and Campbell,

v. Maund, see Adolphus and Ellis’s Reports, Vol. v. p. 865, et seqq.