Cunningham’s Hand Book of London, 1850, p. 369. The Marylebone Borough Almanack, 1853. 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. ArchÆologia, vol. 26, p. 231. Dart’s History of Westminster Abbey, vol. 1. p. 11.—“Westmonasterium.” Peter-Pence, or Rome-fee. Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. i. p. 266. “An History of Westminster Abbey,” p. 6. London, 1751. 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. Vide Appendix to second General Report from the Commissioners on Public Records, p. 386. Bawdwen’s translation of the Record called Domesday. Middlesex, &c. Doncast. 1812. 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. Edward de Sarisberie held Cherchede or Chelched for two hides. This “Description of London” which Stowe printed as an appendix to his History, is translated and published with Annotations. Lond. 1772. Maitland’s History of London. See also Park’s Topography of Hampstead. 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. 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.” 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. 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. 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.” Commentaries B. II. c. 18. p. 269. 10th edition. 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. 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.” 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. An account of the Writers of the History of Westminster Abbey, p. 4. Vide Park’s History of Hampstead. “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.” 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. “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Placita de Quo Warranto, Edward first Rot. 39, p. 479 of the work published by the Record Commission. 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. 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? 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. 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. Maitland’s London, by Entick, vol. i. p. 190. Now called Kensington. Lysons, p. 514, vol. iv.—Second edition. Faulkner’s Kensington, p. 90. 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. 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. 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. Sir Reginald has the credit of having designed Henry the seventh’s chapel, in Westminster Abbey. 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. I find by a note to the printed copy of the Countess’s will, that John Roper was her first Cambridge reader. 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. 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. “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. Vide Subsidy Roll, of this year. 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. This field in “A Perticular Booke of Chelsey Manor,” is called “Darkingby Johes.”—Vide Faulkner’s Chelsea, vol. i. p. 318. 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. Vol. i. p. 310–11. 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. 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 6s. 8d. from the church lands in Paddington, and for the next year the same sum with the addition of 2s. rent charge, for the conducion of water; but in the 36th and 37th of Henry the VIII., I find the minister returns the Crown Rent of this manor and rectory, at £41 6s. 8d. 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. The seven Protestant Bishops who succeeded Ridley in this see held it but fifty years. 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. Ecclesiastical Memoirs.—Vol. ii. part 1, p. 339. An account of Collectors and other ministers of the possessions of the Bishop of London, 9th of Elizabeth, ending Michaelmas. This notice is at the foot of the account, and evidently written in another hand: it is Richard Brown’s account. Rough Notes, 3rd of Elizabeth. 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. Ibid, vol. i. p. 287; or additional M.SS. British Museum, 9049, p. 37. 26 Geo. 2. c. 43. 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. 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. 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. 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. Vide Faulkner’s History of Kensington, p. 596. 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. Penny CyclopÆdia; article—“Commons.” 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. Macaulay’s History of England, vol. i. page 421. Ferrers—a romance of the reign of George the second. 3 vols. 1842. “The woman I adore;” in which Mr. B. appeared as “Paddington Green.” 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. The Charity School and St. Margaret’s-terrace now occupy the site of this pond. 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. 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.” 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. 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. The account states that the will directs £9 per annum to be given to poor families every Lady-day and Michaelmas day. 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. 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. 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. The whole Act occupies forty-two pages. 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. 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.” 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. 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? Vide Second Schedule to the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45. 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. 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. 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. We learn by a subsequent Act, the sixth of Geo. IV. cap. 45, that the receipts by the sale of brick-earth, gravel, and sand, up to that time, 1825, amounted to £10,256 12s. 3d. 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. 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. 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. The exact yearly rent paid by the Great Western Railway Company to the Bishop and his lessees, is £2366 2s. 1d. Vide Parliamentary Paper, No. 664. 1850. 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. “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. Page cliii of this Report. 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. Vide Household Words, No. 142, for a most powerful picture of the present condition of the common sewers.
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. The English Language, 3rd edition, page 286. Saxons in England, vol. i. page 36. “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. 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. Speculum BritanniÆ. 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. 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. Commentaries, Book i. chap. 11. See Report on Church Rates, page 461. H. C. 1851. 541. Minster and Monastery, were names anciently applied to all parish-churches. Sed et universim ecclesiÆ omnes monasterÆ dictÆ. Du Cagne’s Glossary. Anglo-Saxon History, vol. ii. pages 422, 501, 546. 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. Commentaries, book 1. cap. 11, p. 387, tenth edition. 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.” 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. Strype’s Life of Aylmer, original edition, 1701, p. 212. Oxford edition of Strype’s Works, p. 140. 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 0s. 11d. the net income being £115,591 19s. 11d. Vide Blue Book, No. 400, 1851, p. 385; and Sir B. Hall’s Speech in the House of Commons, July 1st, 1851. Macaulay’s History of England, vol. i, p. 397. 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. “Returns—Ecclesiastical Commission; and Archbishoprics and Bishoprics. Ordered by the House of Commons, to be printed 16th June, 1851.” No. 400. 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. Vestry Minutes, August, 1796. 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. Vide Print of Paddington-Green, published by R. Sayer, and J. Bennett, in 1783. 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. 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! 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. 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. For an excellent description of the dilapidated condition of the old manor house see Mr. Ollier’s Novel of Ferrers. Adjoining this field was the “Church Field,” names well remembered by many now living. 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. 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. Vide cash accounts. 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. For some most excellent remarks on the London Churches in general, see “London exhibited in 1851,” by John Weale. 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. Household Words, November 6, 1852. 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. 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. Vide Cash Account, 1847—p. 49. Vide Morning Post, October, 5th, 1850. Report of the Lock Hospital Asylum, and Chapel, 1852. Macaulay’s History of England, Vol. I. page 88. For an excellent description of the method of teaching adopted at this school, see Household Words.—December 25, 1852. 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. These figures have been kindly furnished to me by Mr. Brown, the Clerk of the Board of Guardians, with their permission. 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. The account of this tradition is preserved in “Ferrers.” 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. 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. Madame Vestris and her husband, Mr. Charles Matthews, also occupied this house for some time. 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.” 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. 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.” 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. 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.
