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.